Ārumbāka grant of Bādapa

Seal

Plates

⟨3⟩ -lāñccha¿ṇa?⟨ne⟩kṣaṇa- ⬦ -lāñccha¿ṇ?⟨n⟩ekṣaṇa- LR. — ⟨3⟩ °ā⟨4⟩vabhr̥¿t?⟨th⟩a- ⬦ °ā⟨4⟩vabhr̥tha- LR.

⟨5⟩ trayastri⟨6⟩ṁśataṁ ⬦ trayastriṁ⟨6⟩śataṁ LR.

⟨6⟩ paṁcaviṁśati(M) ⬦ paṁcaviṁśati⟨ṁ⟩ LR.

⟨11⟩ -bhūpa[teḥ sūnuś cālukya-bhīma]- ⬦ -bhūpa[tes tanayaś cāḷukya-bhīma]- LR • While the exact wording of the lost text cannot be reconstructed and its meaning is beyond doubt, the words I propose seem most likely on the basis of related grants. The words tad-anuja-yuvarāja-vikramāditya-bhūpateḥ occur in two grants of Amma II, in both cases followed by the words proposed here. In other versions of the genealogy, the phrasing deviates from the text preserved here, e.g. tad-anuja-yuvarāja-bhūbhr̥d-ātmajaś cālukya-bhīma-; tad-anuja-yuvarāja-vikramāditya-narapātmajaḥ cālukya-bhīma-; tad-anuja-vikramādityātmajaś cālukya-bhīmas; tad-anujasya labdhayauvarājyasya vikramāditasya sutaś cālukya-bhīmas.

⟨13⟩ -[bhīma-tanayo] (vi)kramāditya ⬦ -[bhīma-sūnu]r vvikramāditya LR • The loss is larger than the space required for LR’s restoration; the damaged character after the gap seems to be vi, not rvvi; and related plates use the word tanayo here. I wonder if LR also had my restoration in mind, but accidentally mixed up two restorations next to the name Bhīma (compare the note to line 11).

⟨17⟩ (karṇa)- LR • The reading kaṇha or kaṇṇa cannot be excluded; see the commentary. — ⟨17⟩ bādapādhipaḥ LR • This ruler’s name has been read as Bāḍapa in Venkoba Rao 1921, pp. 90–91 (for the present plates) and as Bāḍaba Venkayya 1909, p. 108 (for the Śrīpūṇḍi grant of Tāḻa II). Lakshmana Rao asserts that he has carefully compared instances of da and ḍa in these two inscriptions and come to the conclusion that the name is Bādapa. Although LR’s estampage is rather indiscernible, da is indeed clear in the photo, as well as in the estampage of the Śrīpūṇḍi grant (where the spelling is indeed with b). — ⟨17⟩ vini(r)ggamayya ⬦ vinig{g}amayya LR • The emendation proposed by Lakshmana Rao is probably a typo and his intent must have been vinirgamayya. In the scanned estampage it seems definitely possible that the repha is in fact there above gga, so I prefer the reading that does not require emendation.

⟨18⟩ [ji]tvā(je?)(yā)n ⬦ jitvā (dā)yān LR • Lakshmana Rao assumes that his reading dāyān means dāyādān, which I do not find convincing at all. The first character of this string, which he prints as a clearly legible ji, is mostly lost with a missing chunk of the plate; the vestiges outside the lost chunk are indiscernible in both the photo and the estampage. After that, tvā and the final nmr̥ are quite clear in the estampage, though less so in the photo. The third character is wholly indistinct in both. Lakshmana Rao’s editor (probably Hirananda Sastri) tentatively proposes in a footnote to read it as je, which I adopt provisionally, though the character appears a little narrow for je. If this reading/restoration is correct, it permits construing either jitvā+jeyān or jitvā+ajeyān, of which I slightly prefer the latter because the former is extremely bland. From the vestiges, I could also imagine datvā deyān, but in addition to being bland, this would be quite the same as the statement later in the same quarter.

⟨19⟩ bhū⟨20⟩miṁ • After bhū, there is a dot at head height. This may be the headmark of an aborted character or a space filler.

⟨21⟩ bha(v)ati ⬦ bha¿m?⟨v⟩ati LR • Although the second character does resemble ma (more in the photo, less in the estampage), what appears to be its right limb is placed too low, is next to a vertical crack in the plate, and is probably not attached to the body. I think the engraved text is correct, and the upper part of the apparent right limb is in fact the end of the following t, while its lower part is probably damage associated with the crack. — ⟨21⟩ aparu¡j!⟨ṅ⟩ ⬦ aparuṅ LR • The same spelling is found in the Paḷaṁkalūru grant of Amma II.

⟨25⟩ pra¿(kya)?⟨kr̥ṣṭa⟩- ⬦ pra¿rkyā?⟨kr̥ṣṭa⟩- LR • I adopt Lakshmana Rao’s emendation, but I am not sure of his reading. In the estampage, kya appears quite distinct and there may well be a repha there, but only the subscript y is certain from the photo. There is a slight chance that the engraved text is prasya, intended for praśasya; there may also be a scribal correction engraved in small size above the problematic character and no longer legible. — ⟨25⟩ -ma⟨26⟩hi(mā) LR ⬦ -ma⟨26⟩himo LR.

⟨26⟩ sa(ma)ḥ ⬦ sam{m}aḥ LR. — ⟨26⟩ (bāḷā?)(di)tya- ⬦ (bā)ḷāditya- LR • I provisionally accept LR’s reading of the first character, but I am far from certain about it. Subramanian 1940, p. 743 discusses this name as Bālāditya or Colāditya. The latter (rather with ḷ than l) also seems possible, as do others such as veḷāditya, vejāditya and Eḻāditya.

⟨27⟩ (prārtthiṣu?)[–⏑–](va-pati?)[–] vidvi(ṭsu?) ⬦ [–⏑⏑–⏑–⏑⏑⏑–] vidviṣṭa- LR • My tentative prārtthiṣu at the beginning of this line is based on very faint and ambiguous vestiges. I cannot interpret vapati, but perhaps the word pati is involved. I am also unsure about ṭsu, but LR’s ṣṭa seems unlikely for the last character of this stretch. — ⟨27⟩ -prati⟨28⟩(jño dha)nur • The first two characters in line 28 are completely indiscernible in both the photo and the estampage, but I accept LR’s reading as very plausible in the context.

⟨28⟩ (py a)(dh?)i[gacchati sma] [⏑⏑–] ⬦ a [5*] LR • I restore tentatively. If the vestiges are clearer in the original, then it may be possible to confirm or reject dhigaccha; the rest of this stretch is lost with a chunk of the plate.

⟨29⟩ (core?) [–⏑] • LR prints this word as clear, but as far as the facsimile and photo tell, it could also be veda or a number of other things. If LR is correct, then perhaps read/emend corai, then restore ḥ kiṁ or r nna. The last character before the missing chunk of plate may have had the vowel i.

⟨30⟩ ⟨⟨dhīma(nto) gu⟩⟩rum • According to LR, these characters are inscribed over an erasure. I see no definite indication of this, but he is probably correct anyway. — ⟨30⟩ vyā⟨Page 3r⟩⟨31⟩(saṁ sa?)hā(yaṁ nr̥pāḥ) LR • I accept LR’s reading here, which he prints as clear except for saṁ. The second charaqcter in line 31 is mostly lost to a hole where the plate has been eaten through, but it seems from LR’s rubbing that the hole may have been smaller at that time. In the vestiges of nr̥, the vowel marker is quite far below the consonant, so I wonder if the character is in fact nnr̥ (with the subscript n now indiscernible), without a preceding anusvāra.

⟨31⟩ (bhr̥tyā?) [–⏑⏑–⏑–] ⬦ (prītyā) [–⏑⏑–⏑–] LR • I suggest a restoration that is in my opinion more likely in the context than LR’s; compare stanza 4. The first two characters may also be something else, such as patyu. Another problem with this locus is that the size of the lacuna does not appear to be more than four characters, but the metre requires six here. Something may have been omitted by the scribe, or there may be a correction in which six characters were inscribed over a smaller number of earlier ones.

⟨32⟩ an(e)kaṁ (pā?)(rttha)m uddhanvinaḥ • Here, the condition of the plate has definitely deteriorated since LR’s rubbing was taken. — ⟨32⟩ ci¡t(t)!(raṁ) • I accept LR’s word that a superfluous subscript t is present here; it is not clear either in the estampage or the photograph.

⟨37⟩ inena ⬦ ¿i?⟨a⟩nena LR • I find that Lakshmana Rao’s emendation does not improve the text. A superfluous i would be an unusual sort of mistake, especially here where the last line on the plate is written more calligraphically than the rest (with extended descenders). The word anena does not fit the context, while ina is attested in several cognate inscriptions.

⟨38⟩ -pra⟨Page 3v⟩⟨38⟩(ka)(ṭita-prā?)vīṇya- LR • I accept LR’s reading since it is very plausible in the context. The second and third characters of line 38 are illegible in both facsimiles, and the vowel marker of the fourth is a hook attached to a stroke ascending from below on the right of the damaged body. It thus appears most likely to be pyā or or syā, and reading prā may require emendation. There is a slight possibility that the text is svāvīṇya, inviting the emendation svādhīnya; but the only specimen of svā in the text does not clearly have the stem of the subscript v ascending beside the body of s.

⟨43⟩ san-nr̥pakāma- • This is my preferred parsing of this string, because the composer uses su- and sat- repeatedly to fill out the metre. The letters could also be analysed as san nr̥pakāma-. — ⟨43⟩ pu⟨44⟩(na?)[ś ca] (dha)nuṣā ⬦ p¿u?⟨ū⟩⟨44⟩(rṇātta)-dhanuṣā LR • Nothing in line 44 before nu is discernible in either facsimile, and the plate is completely corroded through where the third character should be. In addition to reading and emending as shown above, LR notes that the first two characters of line 44 look like naḥ sa in the original plate. If this is so, then I do not see the need for reading something as different from that as rṇātta, which even requires an emendation. The reading punaḥ sa, as well as punaḥ su° and punaḥ sva°, are possible given the awkward style of the composer, but lacking a better facsimile, I consider punaś ca to be most likely.

⟨44⟩ śatr¿a?⟨ū⟩n • The vowel u or even ū may be present in the original, overlapping the subscript s of the next character.

⟨48⟩ -(vr̥ttava)tī LR • The characters marked as unclear are wholly indistinct in the scan. Lakshmana Rao’s reading makes perfect sense, but the space seems rather narrow for them. It is possible that one character was omitted in the original, or that these three characters were inscribed as a correction over only two earlier characters. — ⟨48⟩ āhvaya(M?) ⬦ āhvaya¿ḥ?⟨ṁ⟩ LR.

⟨53⟩ °ār¿u?⟨ū⟩ḍa- ⬦ °ārūḍha- LR • The ḍ in Lakshmana Rao’s text may be a typo. The original character permits either reading and ḍ makes no sense in the context. The second character is ru, not rū (compare āruṁbāketi in line 55). Lakshmana Rao’s editor (Hirananda Sastri?) proposes reading °āroha- in a footnote, but this does not seem possible from the estampage. While āroha may be smoother in the context, ārūḍha is in fact attested as a substantive (neuter) meaning "mounting, arising" (Monier-Williams s.v.). — ⟨53⟩ paṭus sūra¿s s?⟨ś ś⟩uci° • These words, and perhaps also the following character rdda, are narrow and crowded, indicating that they may be a correction written over an erased shorter text (perhaps paṭuś śuci, an eyeskip omission?). However, no traces of an earlier text are discernible. I agree with LR in emending śśū to ssū, though as s and ś are not confused elsewhere in the inscription, the composer may have intended sūra in the sense of sūri, "learned man."

⟨54⟩ -p¿ā?⟨a⟩dāṁbhoja- LR • I agree with Lakshmana Rao’s emendation but note that it may not be absolutely necessary. The line may have been intended as a ma-vipulā, though in that case the fourth syllable ought to be long.

⟨57⟩ °(nārā)yaṇ¡(asya?)!⟨āya⟩ ⬦ °(nārā)yaṇāya LR.

⟨58⟩ datta⟦datta⟧ṁ grāma⟨⟨ṁ⟩⟩ ⬦ datta⟦dattaṁ⟧ grāmaṁ LR • The anusvāra after the second iteration of datta was, I assume, not meant to be deleted. According to an editorial footnote in LR’s edition, the last word is grāmaḥ, but this is incorrect (what may seem like a higher dot in the estampage is not present in the photo). After grāma, there is a single dot at baseline level. I take this to be a subsequently added anusvāra, for which there was no room at head height between ma and the following svī, nor above the latter. Although there is plenty of free space above ma, the engraver seems still to have preferred this unusual position.

⟨59⟩ [sa] ⬦ [1*] LR • Or possibly restore sa ca; but given the size of the gap, one character is more likely than two. LR shows two dots here, by which he probably means a lacuna of one akṣara. — ⟨59⟩ sā⟨60⟩(ma)kāṁbā ⬦ sā⟨60⟩makāṁbā{ṁ} LR • The first character of line 60 is absolutely illegible in both the estampage and the photo. LR may have made out some vestiges here or may have been guessing. An editorial footnote next to LR’s emendation of sāmakāṁbāṁ to sāmakāṁbā says, “the anusvāra is placed on the syllable bā”. I am not sure what the point of this note was. The definite anusvāra is between kā and bā, just above headline, and closer to the latter, but surely describing this would not merit an editorial note. There is no second anusvāra on bā. What LR saw as a superfluous anusvāra was probably a dot, much the same size as an anusvāra, between bā and the following ta. However, this dot is far above the headline, in fact closer to the line above, and is in my opinion not a deliberate engraving.

⟨67⟩ ājñapti⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ ājñapti ⟨68⟩ (ḥ) LR • The dots at the beginning of line 68 are not quite positioned as a visarga would be, and there are several similar pits on the corroded surface here. I believe these dots were not engraved.