Maliyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II

Seal

Plates

⟨3⟩ kṣite⟨ḥ⟩ EH ⬦ kṣit¿i?⟨e⟩⟨ḥ⟩ BVC • The e is clear in the estampage, though not in the photo.

⟨9⟩ (jo) ja(ya)si⟨ṁ⟩has • Though shown as clear by both editors, the first and third character in this line are vague in both surrogates available to me and ya occupies fairly narrow space. Some correction may have taken place here, possibly from a haplographic jayasiha or joyasiha.

⟨10⟩ ta(t-putro) • Shown as clear by both editors, these characters are not really legible in the available facsimiles. In BVC’s photo they could with some imagination be tajjeṣṭo (for tajjyeṣṭho), but the photo was retouched by hand. The t of tro is quite clear in Hultzsch’s estampage, so the reading is probably correct.

⟨11⟩ (sa)ptatriṁśataM EH ⬦ saptatriṁśat¿āni?⟨aṁ⟩ BVC.

⟨13⟩ samāṣṭabhiḥ EH ⬦ samā¿ṣṭa?⟨s su⟩dhīḥ BVC.

⟨14⟩ -no(ḍ)aṁba-rāṣṭra- ⬦ nodam⟨ba⟩rāṣṭra- BVC; -no¿d?⟨ḍ⟩aṁba-rāṣṭra- EH • Hultzsch’s emendation may be based on the known form nolamba of this name. In the parallel stanza in the Vemalūrpāḍu plates, he likewise reads d and emends to ḍ. From what is visible in the visual aids available to me, the received spelling could be with either. As for BVC’s reading (shown in his edition as “नोदम्रा(म्ब)ष्ट्र”), I cannot fathom it. His photo, in all probability doctored by his hand, clearly shows all characters, so a typographic error must be involved somehow, but then why does he print an emendation? Possibly a correction added by him to the print proofs was misunderstood by the typesetter to be an emendation. Note that Hultzsch and I construe this name in compound with the preceding word, while BVC (as implied by their translation) do not. A previously unpublished parallel of the stanza in the Īnteṟu grant of Bādapa clearly spells the name with ḍ. — ⟨14⟩ -saṁga⟨15⟩r(e) ⬦ -saṁga⟨15⟩re BVC; -saṁga⟨15⟩r¿a?⟨e⟩ EH • BVC’s (retouched) photo shows a pr̥ṣṭhamātrā e marker in the form of a vertical in front of the r, attached to the consonant at the top left. Since this form of e does not occur in related inscriptions as far as I know, Hultzsch may well be correct in reading ra. The vertical line may belong to the plate’s rim, and its attachment to the consonant may be only fancy.

⟨15⟩ nirjjitya saḍ ḍ(ā)⟨ha⟩lā° ⬦ nirjjitya saḍ-ḍ(ā)⟨ha⟩lā° EH; nirjji¿tya?⟨taṁ⟩ saṭṭal¿a?⟨ā⟩° BVC • There may be a typo in BVC’s reading: they are aware of the metre, but neither reading nor their emendation is metrical. The doubled consonant is clearly not ṭṭ in Hultzsch’s estampage. Note that Hultzsch construes saḍ- in compound (indicated by his translation, though not in his Devanagari edition), while I take it as a separate word; see the note to the translation. — ⟨15⟩ bh(ā)⟨16⟩yayitvā EH ⬦ ¿cā?⟨yo⟩⟨16⟩¿y?⟨dh⟩ayitvā BVC.

⟨17⟩ °āgrajo • Possibly a scribal mistake for °ātmajo. See the note to the translation.

⟨19⟩ -nr̥po EH ⬦ -nr̥to BVC • Typo in BVC.

⟨20⟩ -sain¿o?⟨yai⟩r hatvā ⬦ seno hatvā BVC; -s¿ai?⟨e⟩n¿o?⟨ai⟩⟨r⟩ h¿ā?⟨a⟩tvā EH • I think the stroke atop ha that Hultzsch reads as ā is a repha; ā would normally be horizontal. Hultzsch’s emendation is also plausible, but I feel that my equivalent emendation reflects a more likely scribal error: the engraver mistook a subscript y the two strokes of o attached at bottom left and top right and omitted the strokes for ai.

⟨21⟩ dharitr¿i?⟨ī⟩ṁ EH ⬦ dharitrā BVC • Probably a typo in BVC.

⟨22⟩ °āsta⟨23⟩mane • Hultzsch emends to °āstamayane, but since astamana is a known alternative form, I prefer not to do so.

⟨24⟩ °mārttaṇḍa¡la!- ⬦ °mārttaṇḍa{la}- BVC EH • Hultzsch observes that la may have been added by the scribe under the influence of the common word maṇḍala, which is possible. The name ākhaṇḍala, used in some cognate inscriptions, also springs to mind. I choose not to consider the unexpected syllable a scribal mistake, since the same occurs in line 23 of the Vemalūrpāḍu plates. However, line 23-24 of the Īnteṟu grant of Bādapa has the expected mārttaṇḍa in the same sentence.

⟨27⟩ -pravr̥ttād dhatā¡ḥ! BVC ⬦ -pravr̥tt¿ā?⟨o⟩ddhatā¡ḥ! EH • See the commentary for my interpretation of this stanza on the basis of parallels. — ⟨27⟩ kālālaya⟨ṁ⟩ EH ⬦ kālālaya- BVC.

⟨28⟩ -s¿a?⟨ā⟩ṁgrām¿a?⟨i⟩kā vājñā ⬦ -saṁgrāmak¿āv?⟨asy⟩ājñā BVC EH • See the commentary for my interpretation of this stanza on the basis of parallels. — ⟨28⟩ bh¿r̥?⟨ū⟩ BVC EH • See the commentary for my interpretation of this stanza on the basis of parallels. — ⟨28⟩ -nr̥pai⟨⟨ś ca⟩⟩ • The character overstruck with śca had i as its vowel; it may perhaps have been śi or śśi. It is positioned higher and to the left of the post-correction character, very close to the preceding pai.

⟨29⟩ śiras¿o?⟨ā⟩ ⬦ śirasā BVC; śiraso EH • See the commentary for my interpretation of this stanza on the basis of parallels. — ⟨29⟩ nādagdh(v?)ā ⬦ nāda(gdhv?)ā BVC; nādag⟨dh⟩vā EH • The clear subscript component of the problematic conjunct is more likely to be dh than v; a faint shadow below this may be an additional v, or v may have been omitted.

⟨30⟩ -rāśir EH ⬦ -rā¿ś?⟨j⟩ir BVC • The reading is clear and does not require emendation, yet the emendation proposed by BVC indeed fits the context of clouds better.

⟨31⟩ jana-sa⟨t⟩- BVC ⬦ jana¿saṁ?⟨tā⟩- EH • BVC’s edition in fact shows “जनसेससस्ये” (with the vowel marker positioned above the junction of the first and second स), but this impossible reading must be a typo; his actual reading “जनससस्ये” is indicated in a footnote to his translation. The anusvāra read by Hultzsch seems to be present in his estampage, but is not discernible in BVC’s photo. The parallel locus in the Īnteṟu grant of Bādapa confirms BVC’s intuition.

⟨32⟩ dvādaś¡āvyāt! BVC ⬦ dvādaśāv¿yā?⟨a⟩t EH • Hultzsch prefers to emend the verb to āvat, the active imperfect third person of av. The parallel locus in line 32 of the Īnteṟu grant of Bādapa has the same reading, while line 31 of the Vemalūrpāḍu plates reads dvādaśādhyāt, which Hultzsch emends to aśāt (from śās), also noting that adhyāt may have been intended for the same imperfect form of adhyās. Although āvat and aśāt are both grammatically sound and metrically fitting, it is perhaps more likely that we are facing a solecism here. The composer may have intended the precative form avyāt for a past indicative, or may have meant adhyāt as a legitimate form of adhyās.

⟨33⟩ samabhavad EH ⬦ sam¿āṁ?⟨a⟩bhavad BVC • BVG’s pre-emendation reading is not confirmed either by their photo or by Hultzsch’s estampage.

⟨35⟩ girīndra-sān¿u?⟨ū⟩raskaḥ ⬦ girīndra-sān¿u?⟨v-aṁ⟩saḥ BVC; gir¿i?⟨ī⟩ndra-sān¿u?⟨ū⟩raskaḥ EH • The ī is clear in both visual representations, so i may be a typo in Hultzsch’s edition. I am not sure of BVG’s reading, represented in their edition as “°सान्वंसः नु”, with a note attached to न्वंस saying, “नु in the original.” The following ra is very clear in their photo (as well as in Hultzsch’s estampage), but may have been interpreted by BVG as an oversized anusvāra.

⟨36⟩ vi◯līnāri- BVC ⬦ vil¿i?⟨ī⟩nāri- EH.

⟨37⟩ -kalpataru⟨r⟩ ⬦ -kalpatarur BVC EH. — ⟨37⟩ -dīnāndha- BVC ⬦ -d¿i?⟨ī⟩nāndha- EH.

⟨38⟩ -mahasā • The characters maha are narrow and crowded, with ha distorted in shape. They are probably a correction engraved over a single original character.

⟨40⟩ -girīndro ravim • The corresponding text is -girīndre ravir in CalE52

⟨43⟩ Āryyā ⬦ Āryyā⟨ḥ⟩ BVC EH • See the note to the translation. — ⟨43⟩ °¿a?⟨ā⟩s¿t?⟨th⟩itaṁ yas BVC ⬦ ¿a?⟨ā⟩sthitaṁ yas EH • Hultzsch’s sth is probably a typo in his edition. The emendation endorsed by him and adopted here was proposed in a footnote to BVC’s translation (perhaps added by one of the authors to the edition prepared by the other); in the text of their edition two inferior suggestions, °as tadīyas and °as tr̥tīyas, are offered. — ⟨43⟩ (mu)⟨44⟩kha- • BVC show mu as clear and Hultzsch prints it as unclear. All I can see in either surrogate is a small circle like an anusvāra. I do not see how mu might have fit in the space between ha and the edge of the plate. If mu is present, it must be tiny and is probably a subsequent addition. The preceding characters diha are also quite crammed and may have been corrected from something else.

⟨44⟩ -saha¿ś?⟨s⟩r¿o?⟨ai⟩◯r EH ⬦ -saha¿ś?⟨s⟩rair BVC • The vowel mark on śr consists of a horizontal stroke at the top left and a stroke at the bottom left; though probably intended for e, it can only be read as o.

⟨45⟩ °dhavala⟨⟨ḥ⟩⟩ ⬦ °dhavala- BVC; °dhavala(ḥ) EH • The visarga is quite clear in both visual representations, and is a subsequent addition like the next one (which is indicated as such by Hultzsch and read normally by BVC). — ⟨45⟩ vijayāditya- EH ⬦ vijayāditya⟨ḥ⟩ BVC • Note that Hultzsch too interprets the text to mean that he was a kaṭakādhipati named Vijayāditya, not the kaṭakādhipati of a King Vijayāditya.

⟨46⟩ tyāgī BVC ⬦ tyāg¿i?⟨ī⟩ EH.

⟨47⟩ vijayī BVC ⬦ vijay¿i?⟨ī⟩ EH. — ⟨47⟩ vīra BVC ⬦ v¿i?⟨ī⟩ra EH. — ⟨47⟩ -lakṣmī- BVC ⬦ -lakṣm¿i?⟨ī⟩ra- EH. — ⟨47⟩ rakṣaṇā⟦ya⟧⟨48⟩y¿i?⟨ai⟩va ⬦ rakṣaṇā¿ya⟨48⟩yi?⟨yai⟩va BVC EH • Both previous editors read ya at the end of line 47, followed by yi in line 48. BVC correct to °ya I° in the text and emend the unmetrical reading to °yai° in a footnote, probably intending to show that they interpret °ya yi° as non-standard sandhi. Hultzsch explicitly mentions this in his introduction as an example of non-standard sandhi with an epenthetic y. While the use of yi may indeed have crept into the text under the influence of spoken pronunciation, I feel quite certain that the space was not sufficient for ya at the end of line 47, and the ya there was only commenced, but never finished (and possibly struck out), to be replaced (rather than continued) by yi in the next line.

⟨49⟩ va(sati)⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ vasati BVC EH • See the note to the translation for some thoughts about this reading.

⟨50⟩ yāp¡u!⟨a⟩nīya- ⬦ yāpunīya- BVC; yāp¡u!⟨a⟩n¿i?⟨ī⟩ya- EH. — ⟨50⟩ koṭimaḍuva- EH ⬦ koṭhimaduva- BVC • I accept Hultzsch’s reading but note that the name could as well be koḍimaḍuva. Instances where ṭi is expected do have the same form (l27 prakaṭitāḥ, l55 grāmaṭikā), but the consonant looks more like ḍ than ṭ, with a pronounced notch in the bottom and an upper curve that turns upward at the centre rather than only at the right-hand edge. — ⟨50⟩ ga¿n?⟨ṇ⟩e(śa)- • The character śa is quite blurred and seems to have some extra strokes. It may have been corrected from ṣa or ma.

⟨53⟩ prātihāryya◯-mahim¡ā!- BVC ⬦ pr¿ā?⟨a⟩tihāryya-mahimā- EH • Hultzsch’s emendation breaks the metre and is not necessary. As BVC observe, the proper form in compound would be -mahima-.

⟨54⟩ -vijñapt¿ai?⟨eḥ⟩ ⬦ -vijñapt¿e?⟨iḥ⟩ BVC; -vijñapt¿ai?⟨e⟩ EH • Though I know of no occurrence of vijñapti in this context in other Eastern Cālukya grants, the form vijñāpanāt does occur several times, so an ablative would be plausible here. It is also possible that vijñaptyā was intended. The emendations proposed by the previous editors seem inferior to both of these possibilities. — ⟨54⟩ -navakr̥ty¿o?⟨ai⟩ ⬦ -navakr̥tyai BVC; -navakr̥ty¿o?⟨ā⟩- EH.

⟨55⟩ maliyapūṇḍi EH ⬦ malliyapūṇḍi BVC. — ⟨55⟩ -parihāra{M}m udaka- • A comma-like stroke below the final M may be an editorial mark signifying deletion (or flagging the adjacent mu for changing into U), but it is quite faint and is more likely to be a scratch.

⟨56⟩ grāmāvadhayaḥ BVC ⬦ grām⟨asy⟩āvadhayaḥ EH • While Hultzsch’s emendation is of course grammatically correct, it is more pedantic than essential. I wonder, moreover, if the terms grāmāvadhi and kṣetrāvadhi mean, respectively, boundaries on a village-level (specifying in terms of human geography the surrounding villages) and boundaries on a field-level (specifying in terms of topography the features that demarcate the limits). Further occurrences of these terms and further study is needed here. — ⟨56⟩ muṁjuny(a/u)ru EH ⬦ muṁjunūru BVC.

⟨58⟩ nair¡i!⟨r̥⟩tya⟨taḥ⟩ ⬦ nairitya- BVC; nair¡i!⟨r̥⟩ty¿a?⟨āṁ⟩ EH.

⟨59⟩ sth¿a?⟨ā⟩pita- BVC ⬦ sthāpita- EH. — ⟨59⟩ -E⟨r⟩vvoka- ⬦ -Ervvoka- BVC; -Evvoka- EH.