Īnteṟu grant of Bādapa

Editor: Dániel Balogh.

Identifier: DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00070.

Languages: Sanskrit, Telugu.

Repository: Eastern Cālukya (tfb-vengicalukya-epigraphy).

Version: (7554ccb), last modified (e18436c).

Edition

Seal

⟨1⟩ śrī-tribhuvanā(ṁku)sa(s)ya

Plates

⟨Page 1r⟩

⟨Page 1v⟩ ⟨1⟩ ✤ ⟦sti⟧⟨⟨sva⟩⟩sti⟨.⟩ śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrāṇāṁ hārī⟨2⟩ti-putrāṇāṁ kauśikī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājyānāṁ mātr̥-gaṇa-paripālitānā(ṁ) ⟨3⟩ svāmi-mahāsena-pādānuddhyātānāṁ bhagavan-(n)ārāyaṇa-prasāda-samās¿a?⟨ā⟩di⟨4⟩ta-vara-varāha-lāṁcchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥tārāti-maṇḍalānāṁ Aśva⟨5⟩medhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavit¿r̥?⟨rī⟩kr̥ta-vapuṣāṁ cālukyānāṁ kulam alaṁkari⟨6⟩ṣṇoḥ satyāśraya-vallabhendrasya bhrātā kubja-viṣṇuvarddhano ⟨’⟩ṣṭādaśa varṣ(ā)ṇi{||} ve(ṁ)gī⟨7⟩-maṇḍalam anvarakṣaT| tad-anujo jayasiṁhas trayastriṁśataM| tad-anujendrarāja-nanda⟨8⟩no viṣṇuvarddhano nava| tat-sūnur mmaṁgi-yuvarājaḫ paṁcaviṁśati| tat-putro jaya(s)i⟨9⟩ṁhas trayodaśa| tad-avaraja⟨ḥ⟩ kok(k)il¡ī!ṣ ṣaṇ māsāN| tasya jyeṣṭho bhrātā viṣṇuva(rddha)⟨Page 2r⟩⟨10⟩nas tam uccāṭya saptatriṁśataM| tat-putro vijayāditya-bhaṭṭārako ⟨’⟩⟨ṣṭā⟩daśa| tat-suto ⟨11⟩ viṣṇuvarddhanaṣ ṣaṭtriṁśataM||

I. Anuṣṭubh

narendra-mr̥garājākhyo

a

mr̥garāja-parākramaḥ|

b

vijayādi⟨12⟩tya-bhūpāla{ḥ}ś

c

catvāriṁśat-samo ⟨’⟩ṣṭabhiḥ|

d

tat-putraḥ kali-viṣṇuvarddhano ⟨’⟩dhyarddha-varṣaṁ| tat-pu⟨13⟩traḥ paracakrarāmāpa¿rā?⟨ra-nā⟩madheyaḥ|

II. śārdūlavikrīdita

hatvā bhūri-noḍaṁba-rāṣṭra-nr̥patiṁ maṁgim mahā⟨14⟩saṁgare

a

gaṁgān āśrita-gaṁga-kūṭa-śikharān ni(r)jjitya saḍ ḍāhal¿a?⟨ā⟩-

b

dhīśaṁ sa⟨ṁ⟩kilam ugra-valla⟨15⟩bha-yutaṁ yo bhāyayitvā catuś-

c

catvāri⟨ṁ⟩śatam abdakāṁś ca vijayādityo ⟨16⟩ rarakṣa kṣitiṁ|

d

tad-anujasya labdha-y¿o?⟨au⟩varājyasya vikramādityasya sutaś cālukya-bhīma{ḥ}⟨17⟩s triṁśataṁ| tasyāgrajo vijayādityaḥ ṣaṇ māsāN| tad-agra-sūnur ammarājas sapta varṣ¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇi| ⟨18⟩ tat-sūnum ākramya bālaṁ cālukya-bhīma-pitr̥vya-yuddhamallasya nandanas tāla-n¿a?⟨r̥⟩⟨Page 2v⟩⟨19⟩po māsam ekaṁ|

III. Sragdharā

nānā-sāmanta-va⟨r⟩ggair adhika-bala-yutair mmatta-māta(ṁ)ga-sai¿⟦(ṇ?)⟧⟨⟨n⟩⟩o?⟨nyair⟩

a

hatvā ta⟨ṁ⟩ ⟨20⟩ tāla-rājaṁ viṣama-raṇa-mukhe sārddham at⟨⟨y⟩⟩¿a?⟨u⟩gra-tejā⟨⟨ḥ⟩⟩

b

Ekābdaṁ samyag aṁbhonidhi-valaya-vr̥⟨21⟩tām anvarakṣad dharitr¿i?⟨ī⟩ṁ|

c

śrīmā¡n! cālukya-bhīma-kṣitipati-tanayo vikramāditya-bhūpa⟨ḥ⟩

d

⟨22⟩ paścād ahamahamikayā vikramādityāstamane rākṣasā Iva prajā-bādhana⟨23⟩-parā dāyādā rājaputrā rājyābhilāṣiṇo yuddhamalla-rājamārtta⟨24⟩ṇḍa-kaṇ¿ḍ?⟨ṭh⟩ikā-vijayāditya-prabhr̥tayo vigrahī-bhūtā ĀsaN| vigra⟨25⟩heṇaiva paṁca va⟨r⟩ṣāṇi gatāni⟨.⟩ tataḥ

IV. Anuṣṭubh

yo ⟨’⟩vadhīd rājamārttaṇḍan

a

teṣāṁ yena raṇe ⟨26⟩ kr̥tau

b

kaṇṭhikā-vijayāditya-

c

-yuddhamall¿o?⟨au⟩ videśa-gau|

d
V. Śārdūlavikrīḍita

anye mānya-mahī⟨27⟩bhr̥to ⟨’⟩pi bahavo duṣṭa-pravr̥ttād dhatāḥ

a

deśopadrava-kāriṇaḥ prakaṭit(ā)⟨ḥ⟩ ⟨Page 3r⟩ ⟨28⟩ kālālayaṁ prāpitāḥ

b

dor-ddaṇḍerita-maṇḍalāgra-latayā yasyogra-sā(ṁ)grāmik¿a?⟨ā⟩

c

⟨29⟩¿n?⟨v⟩ājñā tatpara-bh¿r̥?⟨ū⟩-n{n}r̥paiś ca śirasā māleva sandhāryyate|

d
VI. Śārdūlavikrīḍita

nādagdhvā viniva(r)ttate ripu-kula(ṁ) ⟨30⟩ kopāgnir ā mūlataś

a

śubhraṁ yasya yaśo na lokam akhilaṁ santiṣṭhate na bhramaT|

b

dravy¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨ṁ⟩⟨31⟩bhodhara-rāśir apy anudinaṁ santapyamāne bhr̥śaṁ

c

dāridryogratarātapena jana-sat-sa⟨32⟩sye na no varṣati||

d
VII. Anuṣṭubh

cālukya-bhīma-naptā so

a

vijayāditya-nandanaḥ|

b

dvādaś¡(ā)⟨33⟩vyāt! samās samyag

c

rāja-bhīmo dharātalaṁ|

d
VIII. Āryā

tasya mahe¿s?⟨ś⟩vara-mū⟨r⟩tter umā⟨34⟩-⟨samānā⟩kr̥te⟨ḥ⟩ kumā¿k?⟨r⟩ābhaḥ

ab

lokamahādevyā⟨ḥ⟩ khalu yas samabhavad ammarjākhya⟨ḥ⟩

cd
IX. mixed

⟨35⟩ yaśo-vikāśāya vikāśitā diśo

a

daśāpi viśvasya pitāmahena|

b

śriyan nidhā(yo)⟨36⟩rasi yasya viṣṇu⟨ḥ⟩

c

sva-mū⟨r⟩ttitāṁ svaṁ ca tapāṁsi tepe||

d
X. Anuṣṭubh

yaṁ dr̥ṣṭvā leśam anye⟨Page 3v⟩⟨37⟩ṣāṁ

a

vismaranti guṇās satāṁ|

b

santaḥ kr̥ta-vidas tyāga¿ṁ?⟨ḥ⟩

c

saty¿ā?⟨a⟩ṁ śauryy¿ā?⟨a⟩m mahībhu⟨38⟩jāṁ|

d
XI. Anuṣṭubh

Ammaṁ bhīmātmajaṁ paṭṭa-

a

-baddhaṁ śrī-yuddhamalla-jaḥ

b

bālaṁ balāt tam u⟨39⟩ccāṭya

c

bādapo bhūpatir bbabhau||

d
XII. Kusumavicitrā

parihr̥ta-doṣaḥ pravara-guṇā¿ḍ?⟨ḍh⟩yo

a

ripu-bala-bhaṁ⟨40⟩ktā s⟦ū⟧⟨⟨u⟩⟩hr̥d-upakarttā|

b

śiva-caraṇābjālir amita-śaktiḥ

c

kṣitipati-ra⟨41⟩¿tan(e)d?⟨tno⟩ g⟦ū⟧⟨⟨u⟩⟩ṇa-naya-dhāma||

d
XIII. Anuṣṭubh

tāḻapena vinītena|

a

rāja-bhr¿a?⟨ā⟩trāvanīm avaN|

b

⟨42⟩ prādād amātya-pūjyāya

c

grāmam māveṇaśarmmaṇe|

d
XIV. Śārdūlavikrīḍita

śrīmat-kuṇḍina⟨43⟩-gotra-jena yajamānena ¡dvijāgry(ā)hiṇ(ā)!

a

jyeṣṭhāyāṇa-kula-striyāṁ pra⟨44⟩janitaś cānāṁbikāyāṁ vibhuḥ

b

yakṣo nāma kula-dhvaja⟨ḥ⟩ sva-mahilā⟨45⟩yāṁ kundamāyāṁ sutaṁ

c

sa prājījanad īj(i)tan nr̥pa-janair ¿jja?⟨jñā⟩ta-śr¿ī?⟨i⟩ya⟨ṁ⟩ māve(ṇa)(ṁ)

d
XV. Śārdūlavikrīḍita

⟨Page 4r⟩ ⟨46⟩ Asm¿e?⟨ai⟩ māveṇaśarmmaṇe kr̥ta-mahat-kleśāya sad-vr̥ttaye

a

bhaktāyāmita⟨47⟩-t(e)jas¿i?⟨e⟩ karuṇayā prādān (n)r̥po bādapaḥ

b

grāman tāra-nadīm atītarad ataś c(ā)⟨48⟩candra-tāraṁ kulaṁ

c

yan mātr̥-prabhavaṁ pitr̥-prabhavam apy ā-putra-p¿o?⟨au⟩troda⟨49⟩ya¿ḥ?⟨M⟩

d

māvaśarmma-priyāyās sabbāyā-vaṁśāvaliḥ|

XVI. ⏑⏑–⏑⏑–⏑–⏑–⏓/⏑⏑⏑⏑–⏑⏑–⏑–⏑⏓

Umayā tapasā⟨50⟩pratāpi⟨tā⟩s t(ā)

a

jaya-vijaye Ajitāparājite|

b

jagataḥ kṣaya⟨51⟩-vr̥ddhi-het¿ū?⟨u⟩-bhūtā

c

bhagavati tā⟨ṁ⟩ na siṣevire patau|

d
XVII. Anuṣṭubh

visr̥jyomām a⟨52⟩kanyān tā

a

durgg(ā)n devīṁ samāśritāḥ

b

durggā cālukya-rājasya

c

taptuḥ prāsīda⟨53⟩d om iti|

d
XVIII. Anuṣṭubh

tataś cālukya-vaṁśasya

a

d⟦ū⟧⟨⟨u⟩⟩(r)gg(ā)bhūt kula-devatā|

b

jayādyā Anuca⟨54⟩ryyas tu

c

catasraḥ paṭṭa-va⟨r⟩ddhikāḥ

d
XIX. Anuṣṭubh

catvāri catasr̥bhyo ⟨’⟩bha-

a

van dāsīnāṁ kulāni¿t(a|)?

b

⟨Page 4v⟩⟨55⟩tasmiṁ jayānvaye ⟨’⟩(ṁ?)bākhyā-

c

nu miṇḍ iti vicihnitā|

d
XX. Anuṣṭubh

cāv(v)ī tasyāś ca dauhitrī

a

ku(mā)⟨56⟩rī cavvikā-sutā|

b

kumārī-d⟦ū⟧⟨⟨u⟩⟩hitā samṟī

c

sabb(ā)kavveti viśrutā|

d
XXI. Anuṣṭubh

sā viṣṇo⟨ḥ⟩ śrīr iveṁdra⟨57⟩syo-

a

rvvaśīveśasya j¿a?⟨ā⟩hnavī|

b

tathācyuta-ratiḥ prītā

c

sabbakā māvaśarmmaṇaḥ

d
XXII. Anuṣṭubh

Ābhy¿a?⟨ā⟩ṁ{|} prasū⟨58⟩{sū}to malla⟨ḥ⟩ ś(r)ī-

a

-y¿ū?⟨u⟩ddhamallā⟦|⟧bhidhānavāN|

b

mall⟦a⟧⟨⟨ā⟩⟩yāsm¿e?⟨ai⟩ sva-putrāya

c

prādā¡d! tām⟨r⟩aṁ sa ⟨59⟩ śāsanaṁ|

d
XXIII. Anuṣṭubh

rā(jā)pi pit¡r̥!¿n?⟨ṇ⟩ā¿rmm?⟨m⟩ asm¿e?⟨ai⟩

a

sa śāsanam adīdapaT||

b

sabbākā-m{m}āvaśa⟨r⟩mmāṇaḥ

c

⟨60⟩ca saṁpreṣya nr̥pa⟨ḥ⟩ kr̥pī||

d

svasti⟨.⟩ samasta-bh⟦ū⟧⟨⟨u⟩⟩vanāśraya-śrī-vijayāditya-ma⟨61⟩hārājādhirāja-parameśvara-parama-bhaṭṭārakaḥ parama-brahmaṇya⟨ḥ⟩ śry-āyu⟨62⟩r-ārogyaiśvaryyābhivr̥ddh¿iḥ?⟨aye⟩ velānāṇḍu-viṣaya-nivāsino rāṣṭrakūṭa-pramukhāN ku⟨63⟩ṭuṁbinas samāh(ū)yettham ājñāpayati|| Asmad-amātyāya kr̥ta-kleś(ā)ya ⟨Page 5r⟩ ⟨64⟩ māvaśa⟨r⟩mmaṇ¿o?⟨e⟩ Īnt(e)ṟu nāma grāmo ⟨’⟩smābhis sarvva-kara-parihāro datta Iti vi¿(jana)?⟨ditam a⟩stu (bha?)⟨65⟩va¿nta?⟨tāM⟩ Iti|

Asya grāmasya prācyo ⟨’⟩vadhiḥ kavalaguṇṭha mahāpanthāś ca| Āg¿g?⟨n⟩eyyāṁ staṁbha-śilā ⟨66⟩ gūḍi-polamu(|) peṁjeṟuvu|| dakṣiṇataḥ Īreṟū| nairr̥tyāṁ Īreṟa| paścimataḥ Īreṟa⟨|⟩ vāyavya⟨67⟩taḥ samudra-¿p?⟨t⟩aḍāga| Udīcyāṁ{|} Avuṟu-koḍu| ¿Ī?⟨Ai⟩śānyāṁ trisaṁpātaḥ Avuṟu-kuṇṭha|

XXIV. Anuṣṭubh

⟨68⟩Ājñaptir asya dharmm⟦ā⟧⟨⟨a⟩⟩sy¿ā?⟨a⟩

a

pāṇḍarāṁgo y¿ā?⟨a⟩śo-nidhiḥ|

b

sūnuḥ kaṭaka-rājasya

c

mūla-va⟨r⟩ggaika-nāya⟨69⟩kaḥ|

d
XXV. Anuṣṭubh

bahu¿th?⟨bh⟩ir vvas¿ū?⟨u⟩dhā dattā

a

bahubhiś cān¿ū?⟨u⟩pālitā|

b

yasya yasya yadā bhūmi⟨s⟩

c

tasya ta⟨70⟩sya tadā ¿p?⟨ph⟩alaṁ

d
XXVI. Anuṣṭubh

sva-dattāṁ para-dattāṁ v(ā)

a

yo haret¿u?⟨a⟩ vasundharāṁ

b

ṣaṣṭi-varṣa-sahasrāṇi

c

viṣ¿ṭ?⟨ṭh⟩āyā(ṁ) j(ā)⟨71⟩yate k¡ri!⟨r̥⟩miḥ|

d
XXVII. Anuṣṭubh

bhūmi-dānāt paran dānan

a

na bhūt¿o?⟨aṁ⟩ na bhaviṣyati|

b

tasyaiva haraṇāt pāpan

c

na bhūt¿o?⟨aṁ⟩ na bha⟨vi⟩⟨72⟩(ṣ)yati|

d
XXVIII. Śālinī

s¿a?⟨ā⟩mā¿ṇye?⟨nyo⟩ ⟨’⟩yan dha⟨r⟩mma-setu⟨r⟩ nnr̥pāṇāṁ

a

kāle kāle pālanīyo bhavadbhiḥ|

b

sa(r)vvān etān bhāvi⟨73⟩naḥ pā(r)tthivendrān

c

bhūyo bhūyo yācate rāmabhadraḥ

d
XXIX. Anuṣṭubh

kāvyan divāka⟨ra⟩syeda(ṁ)

a

⟨74⟩ lekhya(ṁ) vīrasya śāsanaṁ|

b

māvaśarmma-suto malla⟨ḥ⟩-

c

svāmy asyācan(dr)a-tārakaṁ|

d
⟨Page 5v⟩

Apparatus

Seal

⟨1⟩ tribhuvanā(ṁku)¡s!a(s)ya • To the best of my knowledge, this is the sole tribhuvanāṁkuśa seal to use s instead of ś (compare mahesvara in line 33), and also unique in using the genitive instead of the stem or nominative.

Plates

⟨1⟩ ⟦sti⟧⟨⟨sva⟩⟩sti • The letter sva may have been engraved where the opening floret now stands (completed by the following sti, corrected to sva), but there is no clear indication of this, only some damage in the floret and the vowel marker of ti below.

⟨7⟩ °m anvarakṣaT| tad-anu° • These characters appear to be a correction written over a slightly shorter text that was carefully beaten out so that none of it can be made out. The reinscribed characters are narrow and crowded. The left-hand vowel stroke of the following jo was probably also re-engraved. Originally it would have been on the left of the body, which was presumably cancelled to make room for the correction on the left, and a new vowel stroke was engraved below the body. Since the corrected text is historically incorrect (ātmajo is expected), I wonder what the pre-correction text may have said.

⟨10⟩ ⟨’⟩⟨ṣṭā⟩daśa • All charters record the reign of Vijayāditya I as 18 years (exceptionally also 19), so this is clearly a scribal error.

⟨14⟩ °ḍ ḍāhal¿a?⟨ā⟩dhī° • These characters are probably a correction over carefully erased text. Part of the subscript r of ṣṭra in the previous line also appears to have been erased and re-engraved in a shape adjusted to accommodate the vowel of dhī.

⟨17⟩ tasyāgrajo • Initially, tasāgajā may have been engraved. The subscript y is almost certainly an addition (since the vowel marker is attached to the primary consonant’s head rather than the tail of y), and the subscript r and the left-hand stroke of the final vowel o may also be subsequent additions.

⟨19⟩ -sai¿⟦(ṇ?)⟧⟨⟨n⟩⟩o?⟨nyair⟩ • I am not sure what is going on here, but it seems that the consonant of an originally engraved ṇa or ṇo has been corrected to n by beating out the loop on the left. The cursive o marker on top may be a subsequent addition or part of the pre-correction text, but neither this marker nor the descending right limb of the original ṇa has been deleted, so the post-correction n appears to have both o and ā. The parallels available for this stanza show various corruption in the same locus (line 20 of the Maliyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II and line 19 of the Vemalūrpāḍu plates of Amma II), but r is present in both, indicating that a plural instrumental was probably intended rather than a singular nominative.

⟨28⟩ -sā(ṁ)grāmik¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨29⟩¿n?⟨v⟩ājñā • See the commentary for my interpretation of this stanza on the basis of parallels.

⟨31⟩ °py anu° • These two characters (or perhaps something else) seem to have been engraved in the confined space above the hole, then carefully beaten out and re-engraved to the right of the hole.

⟨32⟩ cālukya- • The subscript y was first engraved in the regular size and shape, but apparently when the scribe got to the word rāja-bhīmo in the next line, bhī did not fit underneath kya because of this descender. The scribe then did not simply shift bhī to the right, but also re-engraved the subscript y in a larger and deeper form extending right down to the baseline of l33. — ⟨32⟩ -naptā so • The writer of this grant seems to have changed the vipulā line sa cālukya-bhīma-naptā found in the other two records of this stanza into a pathyā one. — ⟨32⟩ dvādaś¡(ā)⟨33⟩vyāt! • The parallel locus in line 32 of the Maliyapūṇḍi grant has the same reading, while line 31 of the Vemalūrpāḍu plates reads dvādaśādhyāt. Hultzsch prefers to emend the verb in the former to āvat, the active imperfect third person of av; and in the latter, 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⟩ umā⟨34⟩_⟨samānā⟩kr̥te⟨ḥ⟩ • The space at the beginning of line 34 may be a carefully beaten-out character. It seems most likely to me that nā was first engraved here, as the engraver had erroneously written umānākr̥teḥ by eyeskip omission for the expected umā-samānākr̥teḥ. A proofreader then noticed the error and corrected it by deleting the nā, which resulted in correct Sanskrit text, but incorrect metre for the stanza.

⟨35⟩ daśāpi • The vowel marker of śā was probably engraved twice, the second being closer to the body than the struck-out first one. This was to make room for the next character, pi, which would have been difficult to fit below the descender of śva above. — ⟨35⟩ nidhā(yo)⟨36⟩rasi • The last character in line 35 is squeezed into a space that is barely sufficient for a normal-width character. It was quite certainly intended for yo, but is distorted and quite faint. A narrower character may have been erroneously engraved here and subsequently corrected to yo.

⟨37⟩ tyāga¿ṁ?⟨ḥ⟩ • I emend tentatively, being uncertain of my interpretation (for which see the translation). — ⟨37⟩ saty¿ā?⟨a⟩ṁ • The correction may have been made already in the plates, by hammering out the hook at the end of the subscript y.

⟨40⟩ kṣitipati-ra⟨41⟩¿tan(e)d?⟨tno⟩ • I emend tentatively. If this is a scribal mistake, it is a preposterous one. The composer’s intent could also have been kṣitipatir atanod (and the vowel of n may in fact be o), but this would be unmetrical (or involve a licence whereby two short syllables may be substituted for one long). Moreover, atanot, though it would add a verb to the otherwise nominal stanza, lacks a plausible object; dhāma, construed as an accusative, might pass for one, but not happily.

⟨42⟩ māveṇa • The name might conceivably be read as mārvaṇa, and the variant māvaśarmman occurring below perhaps also hints at this. However, the marker atop the consonant is definitely attached to the left edge of the headmark both here and in line 46 below, whereas a repha would be attached at the centre or right. Therefore I read māveṇa, in agreement with the ARIE. — ⟨42⟩ °śarmmaṇe • rmma is a correction from something with the vowel i.

⟨43⟩ ¡dvijāgry(ā)hiṇ(ā)! • The vowel marker in gryā is attached to the headmark of the principal consonant, not to the end of the subscript y. This y extends to the baseline of the next line, where it seems to overlap another stroke that has been hammered out, but may have been a circle such as that at the left-hand side of ya. It also seems that the shape of the subscript y was revised, from an original regular form to one that has a downward cusp. I cannot figure out what went on here; either or both of the ā and the y may have been added subsequently. The ā of ṇā may also be a subsequent addition; it is a full-length vertical stroke to the right of the likewise full-lenfth right wing of ṇ, rather than an upward turn of that right wing (as in line 37), but ṇā is similarly formed (though with a shorter vertical stroke for ā) in lines 1 and 2. It is perhaps most likely, however, that neither of these characters has been corrected except for retouching the shape of the subscript y to avoid empty space in the next line. See also the note to the translation. — ⟨43⟩ jyeṣṭhāyāṇa • I accept this reading as legitimate, but see the note to the translation for a possible scribal mistake here.

⟨45⟩ īj(i)tan • The vowel of ji is a flattened arch connecting the top of the body to the right arm instead of the expected circle, but e or o are impossible because of the metre, so it must be i, distorted because of the descending part of kṣo above. A deleted ta is clearly clearly recognisable, its bottom overlapping the top of the retained ta. The only reason for the deleted ta that I can conceive of is that the scribe first continued the line level with the top of ji, but then realised this mistake and re-engraved ta level with the rest of the line. As in line 43 above, the scribal quirks offer no help in understanding the word. The simplest solution is probably to emend to īḍitan, and the composer may have had something else in mind (īrṣitan? īhitan? īpsitan?). If my first suggestion for the next locus is correct (and thus nr̥pa-janair is not the agent of this participle), then ūrjjitan would be quite natural here, but presumes a major scribal mistake. — ⟨45⟩ ¿jja?⟨jñā⟩ta-śr¿ī?⟨i⟩ya⟨ṁ⟩ • I am rather at a loss here too, but the emendation I propose is quite plausible and fits the metre. Alternatively, jātaśriyaṁ may be possible but sounds rather awkward. There may be an anusvāra after ta, so it is also possible that the composer intended jātaṁ śriyaṁ, the first rather awkwardly describing the son, and the second being a desperate attempt to fit the honorific śrī into the metre. If a major scribal error is assumed, the intent may have been jñāty-āśrayaṁ.

⟨46⟩ Asm¿e?⟨ai⟩ • The left arm subscript m has been ornamentally elongated by the proofreader of the plates to fill up a space where the next line skips a character to accommodate this m. There is a stroke, probably beaten out, in that space that is now covered by this ornamental extension. That stroke may be the beginning of an aborted ja (the next character after the skipped space), but it does not really look like that. It could also be the second stroke for the ai required here, in which case the proofreader has changed a correct vowel to an incorrect one in his eagerness to fill up empty spaces.

⟨51⟩ -he◯t¿ū?⟨u⟩-bhūtā • Although hetū- is grammatically correct here, the metre (for which see the commentary) requires hetu. — ⟨51⟩ tā⟨ṁ⟩ • I emend tentatively, being somewhat uncertain of the stanza (see my translation). I think the emendation is warranted even if my interpretation is not wholly correct, since tā is already present in the first quarter.

⟨54⟩ ¿t(a|)? • There is a slight possibility that the punctuation mark at the end is in fact an ā marker, but I find this unlikely. I cannot reconstruct a meaningful reading for this ta, but if one existed in the composer’s mind, it was probably nothing more than a filler word (such as te or tu; or the last quarter could have been dāsīnāṁ ca kulāny atha).

⟨55⟩ ⟨’⟩(ṁ?)bākhyānu miṇḍ iti • This is a desperate attempt to wring meaning out of the received text bākhyānunumiṇḍiti. Before bā, there is a small dot at median height and another small dot above the vowel marker on the preceding ye. Neither dot is a convincing anusvāra, but I believe that one should be supplied if it was not engraved. The phrase may thus be a convoluted way of expressing a name as “‘miṇḍ’ having the name ‘aṁbā’ afterward,” i.e. Miṇḍaṁbā. I am not sure this is a plausible name, but Mindamma seems to exist as a present-day name, and a Meṇḍāmbā is mentioned in the Pedda-Gāḻidipaṟṟu grant of Amma II. — ⟨55⟩ cāv(v)ī • The subscript consonant looks somewhat like ṟ, but the subsequent cavvikā must be a variant of this name. On the other hand, the next name is samṟī. — ⟨55⟩ °hitrī ku(mā)° • These characters are not as distinct as the rest, and are a little narrow and crowded. mā is wedged into the inner corner of the raised rim, with its vowel mark on top of the rim. They may be a correction written over shorter text that has been completely beaten out.

⟨56⟩ samṟī • It seems that the subscript ṟ was initially slightly wider than at present, or was placed slightly to the right. The earlier version was then largely beaten out, and the same glyph was re-engraved to the left (or narrower), in order to make room for the vowel marker of prī in the next line. — ⟨56⟩ sabb(ā)kavveti • The right limb of bba bends down in a small hook. The name is sabbakā (without such a hook) in stanza 21, but sabbākā (with a more conspicuous hook that must have been intended for ā) in stanza 23. — ⟨56⟩ Ābhy¿a?⟨ā⟩ṁ{|} • The superfluous punctuation mark may, perhaps, in fact be a subsequently added ā marker, but it is positioned to the right of the anusvāra and not connected to the body of bhya.

⟨58⟩ tām⟨r⟩aṁ sa śāsanaṁ • This is a conjectural correction. It may be more straightforward to emend to tam aṁsa-śāsanaṁ (= aṁśa-), but this does not seem to make sense. — ⟨58⟩ pit¡r̥!¿n?⟨ṇ⟩ā¿rmm?⟨m⟩ • The grammatically correct form pitr̥̄ām would be unmetrical.

⟨59⟩ sabbākā-m{m}āvaśa⟨r⟩mmāṇaḥ • The superficial subscript m may be a subsequent addition. The corrector (or the original scribe) may have mistakenly assumed that the name should be sabbākāmmā here.

⟨67⟩ -¿p?⟨t⟩aḍāga • I am far from sure of this correction. The second character was probably meant for ḍā, but other instances of ḍ are more clearly distinct from d, so reading it as the latter is perfectly possible. There are two parallel lines below this character, extending to the edge of the binding hole, which may belong to an u marker, but since a clear ā is also present, I ignore these strokes as accidental. There is also a dot to the right of this character, slightly below midline. This would be an unusual but not impossible position for an anusvāra. The whole string may perhaps be padrāṁga with a malformed subscript r, but this is not readily interpetable in the context.

⟨70⟩ v(ā) • The ā may have been added subsequently.

⟨72⟩ sa(r)vvān • The superscript r may have been added subsequently, as it is separate form the ā.

⟨73⟩ divāka⟨ra⟩syeda(ṁ) • Although I cannot exclude divāka as a possible name, the metre requires one more syllable. — ⟨73⟩ malla⟨ḥ⟩ • It is also possible that the full name is Mallasvāmin, but I prefer to understand svāmin in apposition to the name; see my translation.

Translation by Dániel Balogh

Seal

Plates

(1–11) Greetings. Satyāśraya Vallabhendra (Pulakeśin II) was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Cālukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world, who are sons of Hārīti, who attained kingship by the grace of Kauśikī’s boon, who are protected by the band of Mothers, who were deliberately appointed (to kingship) by Lord Mahāsena, to whom enemy territories instantaneously submit at the [mere] sight of the superior Boar emblem they have acquired by the grace of the divine Nārāyaṇa, and whose bodies have been hallowed through washing in the purificatory ablutions (avabhr̥tha) of the Aśvamedha sacrifice. His brother Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana protected (pāl-) the country of Veṅgī for eighteen years. His younger brother1 Jayasiṁha (I), for thirty-three. His younger brother Indrarāja’s (Indra Bhaṭṭāraka’s) son Viṣṇuvardhana (II), for nine. His son Maṅgi Yuvarāja, for twenty-five. His son Jayasiṁha (II), for thirteen. His [brother] of inferior birth, Kokkili, for six months. After dethroning him, his eldest brother Viṣṇuvardhana (III), for thirty-seven [years]. His son Vijayāditya (I) Bhaṭṭāraka, for ten. His son Viṣṇuvardhana (IV), for thirty-six.

I
King (bhūpāla) Vijayāditya (II) who was called Narendramr̥garāja and who had the courage of a lion (mr̥garāja), had (i.e. ruled for) forty years with eight (more).

(12–13) His son Kali-Viṣṇuvardhana (V), for a year and a half. His son, also called Paracakrarāma,

II
Having killed in pitched battle Maṅgi, the king of the populous2 Nodamba country, having summarily defeated3 the Gaṅgas ensconced on the top of Gaṅgakūṭa, and having intimidated Saṁkila, the lord of Ḍāhala together with the vicious Vallabha, he protected (rakṣ-) the earth as Vijayāditya (III) for forty-four years.

(16–19) The son of his younger brother—Vikramāditya, who had attained the rank of heir-apparent (yauvarājya)—[this son] Cālukya-Bhīma [reigned] for thirty [years]. His elder-born [son]4 Vijayāditya (IV) for six months. His firstborn son Ammarāja (I), for seven years. After assaulting his underage son, King (nr̥pa) Tāla—the son of Yuddhamalla, the paternal uncle of Cālukya-Bhīma—for one month.

III
Thanks to his excessively fierce valour, His Majesty King (bhūpa) Vikramāditya (II)—the son of King (kṣitipati) Cālukya-Bhīma—slew at the front line of rugged battle that King (rājan) Tāla together with groups of diverse barons (sāmanta) who possessed a superior force and an army of raging elephants, and then soundly protected (rakṣ-) the earth—wrapped in her girdle of oceans—for one year.

(22–24) Then, upon the demise of the Sun of Valour (Vikramāditya), collateral (dāyāda) princes (rājaputra)—such as Yuddhamalla, Rājamārtaṇḍa and Vijayāditya of the Locket (kaṇṭhikā)—materialised like demons (rākṣasa) {upon the setting of the sun}, yearning for kingship out of egomania and bent on oppressing the subjects. Five years passed in nothing but strife. Then—

IV
he who slew Rājamārtaṇḍa among these (pretenders) and who through battle banished Vijayāditya of the Locket and Yuddhamalla to a foreign country—
V
the scimitar (graceful) like a frond, wielded by his arms like iron bars, has also dispatched to the abode of Death many other kings (who were otherwise) respectable (but), being struck by depravity, were blatantly wrecking the country; and his command, even when it relates to vicious battle, is borne on the head like a wreath even by kings of other lands—5
VI
the fire of [his] anger would never cease unless it has burned the enemy’s family to the root; whose bright reputation would never stand still unless it has ranged all over the world; the cloudbank of his wealth would never fail to rain on the good crop that is the populace, though it be seared day after day by the inexorable sunblaze of poverty —
VII
he, the grandson of Cālukya-Bhīma and son of Vijayāditya (IV), King (rājan) Bhīma (II), soundly ruled 6 the surface of the earth for twelve years.
VIII
To him (Bhīma II), who was [like] Maheśvara in form, a [son] named Ammarāja (II), who verily resembled Kumāra, was born from none other than (his queen) Lokamahādevī, who was like Umā in appearance.
IX
The Grandfather (Brahmā) expanded all ten directions of the universe for the expansion of (his, Amma II’s?) glory. Viṣṇu laid down Śrī, ¿manifest in his form?, as well as himself, in his (Amma II’s?) breast, ¿and performed austerities?.7
X
After the briefest glimpse of him (Amma II), the virtues Generosity, Truth and Valour, ¿being aware that they have accomplished (their function)?, forget about other noble kings.8
XI
When Amma (II) the son of Bhīma (II) had been bound with the turban (paṭṭa) (of royalty), Bādapa the son of His Majesty Yuddhamalla (II) dethroned him, a child, by force and shone as king.9
XII
Rid of faults, rich in outstanding virtues, crusher of enemy forces, benefactor to friends, bee to the lotus feet of Śiva: [he is] an immeasurably powerful ¿jewel of a?10 king, the abode of virtue and polity.
XIII
[While] protecting the earth [toghether] with his royal brother the prudent Tāḻapa, he gave a village to the honourable minister Māveṇaśarman.
XIV
¿The eminent Brahmin Ahi(śarman)?, born in the majestic Kuṇḍina gotra and engaged in sacrifice, fathered on Ānāṁbikā, a woman of the ¿venerable Āyāṇa? family, a splendid son named Yakṣa. That banner of his family begat on his own lady Kundamā a ¿glorious? son: Māveṇa, whose eminence has been recognised by kings.11
XV
To this Māveṇaśarman of honest nature, a loyal servant of immeasurable brilliance, who has undertaken great tribulations, King Bādapa has compassionately granted a village across the Tāra river; ¿and moreover (itarad), nobility (kula)? henceforth as long as the moon and stars (last), that—though it springs also from (Māveṇa’s) mother and father—¿shall be an elevation? extending to sons and grandsons.12

(49) [Here follows] the genealogy of Māvaśarman’s beloved13 Sabbā.

XVI
Those who were energised (pratāpita) by Umā through her ascetic power (tapas)—Jayā and Vijayā, Ajitā and Aparājitā, who are indeed the causes of the degeneration and generation (kṣaya-vr̥ddhi) of the world—did not serve her (Umā) [any longer] once the Lord (Śiva) [became] her husband.
XVII
Rejecting Umā because she was not [any more] a maiden, they took recourse to the goddess Durgā. Durgā (at another time) acceded, saying “om,” to [the prayers of] the Cālukya king who was performing penance.14
XVIII
Thereby Durgā became the family deity of the Cālukya dynasty, while her handmaidens Jayā and so on (became) four ¿couturières? (paṭṭa-vardhikā).15
XIX
Of the four there arose four families of attendants (dāsī). There, in the lineage of Jayā, [was born one] distinguished as “Miṇḍ with the name Ambā after.”16
XX
Her daughter’s daughter was Cāvvī, and Kumārī was the daughter of Cavvikā. Kumārī’s daughter is Samṟī, renowned as Sabbākavvā.
XXI
As Śrī to Viṣṇu, as Urvaśī to Indra, as Jāhnavī (Gaṅgā) to Īśa (Śiva), so unwaveringly beloved is Sabbakā to Māvaśarman.17
XXII
Of these two was born a champion (malla) named the majestic Yuddhamalla. He (Māveṇaśarman) gave a copper charter to this Malla, his own son.
XXIII
The king (Bādapa) in turn graciously caused (that) charter of his parents to be granted, dispatching Sabbākā and Māvaśarman.18

(60–65) Greetings. In order to augment his majesty, vitality, health and dominion, His Majesty the supremely pious Supreme Lord (parameśvara) of Emperors (mahārājādhirāja), the Sovereign (bhaṭṭāraka) Vijayāditya (Bādapa), shelter of the entire universe (samasta-bhuvanāśraya), convokes all householders (kuṭumbin)—including foremost the territorial overseers (rāṣṭrakūṭa)—who reside in Velānāṇḍu district (viṣaya) and commands them as follows. To our minister Māvaśarman, who has undertaken pains (for our sake), we have given the village named Īnteṟu, exempt from all taxes. Let this be known to you gentlemen.19

(65–67) The eastern boundary of this village is the Kavala pond (guṇṭha) and the high road. To the southeast [its boundary is] a columnar rock (staṁbha-śilā), the ¿temple’s fields? (gūḍi-polamu) and the ¿great reservoir? (peṁjeṟuvu). To the south, Īreṟū. To the southwest, Īreṟa.20 To the west, Īreṟa. To the northwest, the pond [called] Ocean. To the north, the Avuṟu stream (koḍu). To the northeast, the triple boundary juncture (trisaṁpāta) and the Avuṟu tank (kuṇṭha).

XXIV
The executor (ājñapti) of this provision (dharma) is Pāṇḍarāṁga, the storehouse of glory, son of the castellan (kaṭaka-rāja) and the sole principal of the ¿domestic staff? (mūla-varga).21
XXV
Many (kings) have granted land, and many have preserved it (as formerly granted). Whosoever at any time owns the land, the fruit {reward (accrued of granting it)} belongs to him at that time.
XXVI
He who would seize land, whether given by himself or by another, shall be born as a worm in faeces for sixty thousand years.
XXVII
There has never been and will never be a gift surpassing the gift of land, nor has there ever been or will ever be a sin [surpassing] the seizing of the same.
XXVIII
“Each in your own time, you shall respect this bulwark of legality that is universally applicable to kings!”—[thus] Rāmabhadra begs all these future rulers over and over again.
XXIX
This poetry is Divākara’s. The decree is the writing (lekhya) of Vīra. Its owner (svāmin), for as long as the moon and stars last, is Malla the son of Māvaśarman.

Commentary

The findspot of these plates is Arumbāka (written so in the ARIE discussion, Ārambāka in the ARIE appendix), the same village from where the Ārumbāka grant of Bādapa was recovered some 18 years earlier.

The text up to stanza 8 is almost to the letter identical to the Maliyapūṇḍi grant and the Vemalūrpāḍu plates of Amma II.

V
As of September 2021, I have come across three specimens of this verse, as stanza 6 of the Maliyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II (hereafter: M), stanza 5 of the Vemalūrpāḍu plates of Amma II (hereafter: V), and stanza 5 of the Īnteṟu grant of Bādapa (hereafter: Ī). The variation between these specimens is minor and none are fully intelligble. My reconstruction of the stanza as intended by the composer runs as follows: anye mānya-mahībhr̥to ’pi bahavo duṣṭa-pravr̥ttād dhatāḥ| deśopadrava-kāriṇaḥ prakaṭitāḥ kālālayaṁ prāpitāḥ| dor-ddaṇḍerita-maṇḍalāgra-latayā yasyogra-sāṁgrāmikā| vājñā tat-para-bhū-nr̥paiś ca śirasā māleva sandhāryyate||
  • pravr̥ttāddhatāḥ is the received reading identical in all three, including the lack of sandhi (complemented with a punctuation mark in V). Butterworth and Venugopaul Chetty, the first editors of M (hereafter: BVC), accept this reading, while Hultzsch (hereafter: H) emends it to pravr̥ttoddhatāḥ.
  • kālālayaṁ appears without a recognisable anusvāra in M and V, and the text is intelligible that way. However, the anusvāra is clearly present in Ī, yielding a better text, so I assume that it has been lost or accidentally omitted in the other two records.
  • sāṁgrāmikā vājñā is not attested as such; the variants are M saṁgrāmakāvājñā; V saṁgrāmakānājñā; Ī sāṁgrāmikanājñā. BVC emend to saṁgrāmakasyājñā in their edition of M, which H tentatively endorses in his re-edition of M and his edition of V. I find this too heavy-handed and believe that the composer may have used vā in the sense of eva (or, essentially, as a hiatus filler). However, the original intent may also have been the better attested sāṁgrāmikā nājñā, in which case n must be a hiatus filler (cf. BHSG §4.65).
  • para-bhū-nr̥paiś is also not attested; M and V read parabhr̥nr̥paiś, while Ī has parabhr̥nnr̥paiś. BVC and H both emend bhr̥ to bhū. While para-bhr̥t is a legitimate word for which Ī appears to supply confirmation, I cannot make sense of it in the context. Conversely, engraving bhr̥ instead of bhū is a very straightforward scribal mistake, and bhr̥n may be the result of the scribe’s attempt to make sense of the unintelligible bhr̥.
  • For śirasā, M and V read śiraso. The text is intelligible that way (and H does not emend it in his editions), but I agree with BVC that śirasā (to be construed with sandhāryyate) is more elegant, and this reading is confirmed by Ī.
I thus prefer to interpret the stanza as indicated in my translation. However, depending on the choice of readings, a number of slightly different alternative interpretations may be possible. If pravr̥ttoddhatāḥ is preferred in pāda a, then the other kings are “formidable and obdurate in their depravity, blatantly wrecking the country.” Reading saṁgrāma-kāv in pāda c, the text might mean that “his command (given) on the field of vicious battle is borne on the head,” but this relies on the rather laborious use of ku in the sense of bhūmi. The phrase tat-para-bhū-nr̥paiś could be construed as tatpara-bhū-nr̥paiś, “kings of the land (i.e. subordinates) intent (on obedience),” but the contrast with kings of other lands is poetically more effective.
XVI
This stanza is in an ardhasama metre to which I have not been able to put a name. Although its metre is marred by some scribal errors, its prosodic pattern is beyond reasonable doubt ⏑⏑–⏑⏑–⏑–⏑–⏓ (sa-sa-ja-ga-ga, 11 syllables) in the odd lines and ⏑⏑⏑⏑–⏑⏑–⏑–⏑⏓ (na-ja-ja-ra, 12 syllables) in the even lines. The odd lines are thus identical to the odd lines of the mālabhāriṇī metre, while the even lines are almost identical to the even lines of the viyoginī metre except that the long third syllable of the viyoginī is here replaced by two short syllables. The template of the even lines occurs in some metrical reference works as a samacatuṣpadī form by the names tati, mālatī, yamunā and varatanu, but the template of the odd lines, as far as I can ascertain, only occurs in the odd lines of mālabhāriṇī.
XIX
The reading, grammar and meaning of this stanza are perfectly clear, but the metre is beyond strange: rather than four quarters of 8 syllables each, the word ends suggest quarters in the pattern of 9-7-9-7 syllables.

Bibliography

Reported in Krishnamacharlu 1952, p. 8, appendices A/1938-39, № 6 with discussion at Krishnamacharlu 1952, pp. 72–73, § 6. Although the report says an edition was to be published in Epigraphia Indica, this does not appear to have happened. I know of no published edition of these plates. The present edition has been prepared for DHARMA by Dániel Balogh on the basis of photos published by the Indian Museum (Kolkata).22

Secondary

Krishnamacharlu, C. R. 1952. Annual report on South Indian epigraphy for the year ending 31st March 1939. Delhi: Government of India. Page 8, appendixes A/1938-39, item 6.

Krishnamacharlu, C. R. 1952. Annual report on South Indian epigraphy for the year ending 31st March 1939. Delhi: Government of India. Pages 72–73, section 6.

Notes

  1. 1. This is definitely a scribal error; Jayasiṁha I was the son of Viṣṇuvardhana I and deliberately presenting him as a brother would not have served any purpose. See also the apparatus to line 7.
  2. 2. I construe bhūri- in compound with nodaṁba-rāṣṭra, as Hultzsch does in the Maliyapūṇḍi grant, and understand it to mean “large/populous/plentiful/mighty.” It is also possible to construe bhūri as an adverb, as translated by Butterworth and Venugopaul Chetty for that inscription, in which case Vijayāditya III defeated Maṅgi summarily or repeatedly. With this latter interpretation, saḍ must be construed in compound to the following word; cf. the next note.
  3. 3. I construe saḍ as an adverb with nirjjitya. Hultzsch in the Maliyapūṇḍi grant construes it in compound with the following word, translating, “the excellent Ḍāhala”. Both interpretations are plausible grammatically, and the choice matters little ultimately, but I feel that while an enemy country may be described as bhūri (cf. the previous note) to emphasise the king’s prowess even more, the adjective sat would not be used for the country of a defeated enemy.
  4. 4. The word agraja, literally “fore-born,” is established in the sense of elder brother, yet Vijayāditya IV was the son of Cālukya-Bhīma. The word may have been used by the composer in an unconventional sense here (compare agra-sūnur in the next item and a possible use of agra-janman in line 32 of the Kalucuṁbaṟṟu grant of Amma II). More probably, °āgraja may be a mistake for °ātmaja.
  5. 5. See the commentary about the problems with the reading and interpretation of this stanza.
  6. 6. I translate the expected meaning, but the word avyāt is problematic; see the apparatus to line 31.
  7. 7. I do not understand this stanza. Either it presupposes knowledge of a Purāṇic story of which I am not aware, or it has a surreptitious scribal error. The word sva-mūrtitāṁ seems to qualify śriyaṁ and should thus mean “having his (i.e. Viṣṇu’s) form,” but mūrtita is not an otherwise attested word. Out of context, the stanza would straightforwardly mean that Brahmā created the world for the expansion of his (Brahmā’s) glory, and that Viṣṇu went off to perform austerities, first depositing his Śrī and his own self (whatever that may mean) in his (Brahmā’s) breast. But this does not seem to be a coherent story, nor one known from elsewhere, and it is moreover completely irrelevant to the context, which should be the laudation of Amma II. I therefore provisionally interpret the stanza to be an atiśayokti claiming first, that the sole reason why Brahmā created the world was to have a place that could be filled up with Amma’s glory; and second, unrelatedly to the first, that Viṣṇu deposited his own Śrī on Amma’s bosom and even his original self in Amma’s heart, and then went off to become an ascetic, i.e. retired from worldly affairs.
  8. 8. The word order is quite haphazard in this stanza, and scribal errors make the syntax uncertain. I am quite sure something much like my translation was in the composer’s mind, except possibly for the awkward phrase santaḥ kr̥ta-vidas The word kr̥ta-vid is not attested, while kr̥ta-jña and kr̥ti-vid mean “grateful”. Still, I see no way for this word to describe anything other than the virtues, and no way for them to be grateful in this context for anything other than that their work has already been done and they can now lie back.
  9. 9. Although there is no explicit indication of immediacy here, the mention of Amma’s coronation strongly implies that Bādapa’s coup happened shortly afterwards. As we know from other grants that Amma was crowned at the age of 12, the statement that he was a child when he was dethroned should also mean that his first reign lasted at most for a few years. However, the fact that Amma is praised in the text, and partly with the same stanzas that are also used in Amma’s own grants, makes it quite certain that Amma II did reign for some time, and issue grants of his own, before Bādapa took over.
  10. 10. The reading is problematic here; see the apparatus to line 40.
  11. 11. There are several difficulties with this stanza. See the apparatus for line 45 about the strings ījitan and jjataśrīyaṁ. I understand the text to mean that Māveṇa’s grandfather was called Ahi, i.e. presumably Ahiśarman. There are several Nāgaśarmans mentioned in Eastern Cālukya grants, though no other Ahiśarman that I know of. But dvijāgryāhiṇā is a very strange compound and it may be a scribal error for something else. The word dvijāgryarṣiṇā could have turned into this through quite simple scribal error, but would r̥ṣi be used for a person in recent history? Else, dvijāgryāyiṇā could have been intended, metri causa, for dvijāgrayāyinā; or dvijāgryārhiṇā, with arhin meaning "meritorious". The Āyāṇa (or Ayāṇa) family may be identical to the Ayyaṇa family mentioned in the Cendalūr Plates of Maṅgi Yuvarāja and/or may be connected to Ayyaṇa Mahādevī, the wife of Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana. But there is also a possibility that jyeṣṭhāyāṇa is a scribal error for jyeṣṭhāyāṁ ca, in which case Yakṣa’s mother is simply the „eldest wife, a well-born woman”.
  12. 12. The wording of the stanza is a little vague and hard to understand, but I am quite certain that in addition to land, Bādapa is conferring a noble title higher than Māveṇa’s inherited status.
  13. 13. The origin story seems to imply that women of this family did not marry. It is perhaps no accident that she is not referred to as his wife. See also the note to the translation of stanza 21.
  14. 14. This is a clear reference to the Purāṇic genealogy of the Eastern Cālukyas, which is to my knowledge first attested in the Raṇastipūṇḍi grant of Vimalāditya. In that story, the progenitor (or restorer of family glory) Viṣṇuvardhana worships Nandā = Gaurī in order to obtain the paraphernalia of royalty.
  15. 15. We thus have an origin story for the Paṭṭavardhika or Paṭṭavardhinī family here. The interpretation of that name is uncertain and may be connected to the royal turban (paṭṭa).
  16. 16. That is to say, her name was Miṇḍambā. See the apparatus to line 55 about this awkward expression, and to line 54 about other textual problems with the stanza.
  17. 17. It is perhaps no accident that two of the three similes involve women who were definitely not the wedded wives of the men named, and Lakṣmī is often depicted as becoming Viṣṇu’s wife out of her own choice. See also the note to the translation of line 49.
  18. 18. The text is again quite awkward, and it uses the plural twice where the dual would be expected. Nonetheless, I believe it means that the grant was initiated by Māveṇa and endorsed officially by Bādapa. This may in fact be an endorsement of inheritance by a son born out of wedlock. “Dispatching” (saṁpreṣya) may mean that Sabbākā and Māvaśarman were named as its executors, though the present charter names the executor explicitly at the end.
  19. 19. The closing phrase has been garbled by the scribe, but was certainly meant to convey this message.
  20. 20. The names Īreṟū and Īreṟa clearly denote the same place, probably a village, probably not identical to Īnteṟu, the object of the grant.
  21. 21. I am not aware of any other occurrence of the term mūla-varga, but varga can mean “a group or cadre of officers” (Sircar IEG s.v.), so I assume the term means the officers in charge of the administration of the capital or the royal palace. This is to my knowledge the only attestation of a Pāṇḍarāṅga in the 10th century. He must be, or at least claim to be, a descendant of the great Pāṇḍarāṅga, possibly a great-great-grandson. It is also possible that the grant is spurious and claims an anachronistic authority here, but I would expect a spurious grant not to include so many unusual details as the present one.
  22. 22. http://museumsofindia.gov.in/repository/record/im_kol-11852-30.