Kalidiṇḍi grant of the Eastern Cālukya Rājarāja I

Seal

Plates

⟨3⟩ s¿u?⟨ū⟩ter ⬦ sūter V.

⟨5⟩ tasm¿a?⟨ā⟩t ⬦ tasmāt V.

⟨6⟩ tasm¿a?⟨ā⟩d ⬦ tasmād V. — ⟨6⟩ r̥bhu⟨7⟩kaḥ ⬦ r̥¿bh?⟨c⟩u⟨7⟩kaḥ V • In the Raṇastipūṇḍi grant of Vimalāditya, its first editor V. Venkayya emends r̥cuka to r̥bhuka, while here V emends the other way round. I cannot yet form an opinion as to which variant is more correct or typical.

⟨11⟩ pāṇḍ(u)rājaḥ ⬦ pāṇḍ¿a?⟨u⟩rājaḥ V.

⟨12⟩ s(y)u(r) ⬦ sūr- V • V’s editor in EI suggests that the intent may have been svar-. This is a very plausible suggestion, but the character on the plate is definitely syu, and not sva or sū. Although the loop of the ostensible subscript y (as e.g. in line 15, nyu) is not visible here, compare vyā in the next line, where the subscript y is clear and hardly loops at all to the left. (And with that in turn, compare pyara for pura at the end of the present line: the engraver clearly had an issue with subscript y and dependent u.) The reading is confirmed by the parallel stanza IV of the Raṇastipūṇḍi grant of Vimalāditya and stanza IV of the Korumelli grant of Rājarāja I. Nonetheless, syur viṣaya-grāhiṇas is quite awkward and insipid, so the stanza as originally composed may well have had svar-viṣaya-grāhiṇas. — ⟨12⟩ p¿ya?⟨u⟩ra⟨13⟩ṁdaraṁ ⬦ pura⟨13⟩ṁdaraṁ V.

⟨14⟩ sura- • As also observed by V, the body of ra is bisected by a horizontal line. It does not look like ka, but may perhaps have been corrected from śa.

⟨15⟩ par¡i!⟨ī⟩kṣiT ⬦ parīkṣiT V.

⟨18⟩ gar¡bhbh!a- ⬦ garbha- V.

⟨19⟩ -(k)aṁc¿r̥?⟨u⟩ki{,}bhis ⬦ -kaṁcukibhis V.

⟨20⟩ ca nīyamānā ⬦ cānīyamānā V. — ⟨20⟩ naṁdanaṁ ⬦ nandanaṁ V. — ⟨20⟩ as(ū)ta • sū was probably corrected from sā.

⟨21⟩ -hārīti- ⬦ -hāriti- V. — ⟨21⟩ -putrādi-sva-kṣatra- • The reading is clear, but the same locus reads -putra-dvipakṣa- in line 21 of the Kolāṟu grant (Hultzsch 1890, pp. 49–62, № 39) and line 24 of the Korumelli grant. The Raṇastipūṇḍi grant of Vimalāditya has the same reading as the present text.

⟨22⟩ calukya- ⬦ cālukya- V. — ⟨22⟩ bhagavat¿i?⟨ī⟩ṁ gaur¿i?⟨ī⟩m ⬦ bhagavatīṁ gaurīm V.

⟨23⟩ °ātapatr¿e?⟨ai⟩ka- ⬦ °ātapatraika- V.

⟨24⟩ nikṣiptān¿i?⟨ī⟩⟨25⟩va ⬦ nikṣiptānī⟨25⟩va V.

⟨29⟩ -putr¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇāṁ kauś¿ī?⟨i⟩kī- ⬦ -putrāṇāṁ kauśikī- V. — ⟨29⟩ mātr̥ ⬦ mātr̥{ṁ} V.

⟨30⟩ -pādānudhyātānāṁ ⬦ -pādānuddhyātānāṁ V.

⟨32⟩ ve(ṁ)gī- ⬦ veṅgī- V. — ⟨32⟩ apālaya(T,) (tat-sūnuḥ?) ⬦ apālayat tat-sū(nuḥ) V • V prints nuḥ in round parentheses, which is used in EI for emendation (and is used appropriately in the name kujja-viṣṇavarddhano earlier in this line), while printing siṁ at the end of the line in square brackets. The plate is badly corroded after ya, but I feel quite certain that this is followed by a final T and a punctuation mark, not by the conjunct tta. After that, two characters are wholly indistinct. I find V’s tat-sūnuḥ doubtful and believe that tad-anu may be more likely, but accept his reading since he had the actual estampage in hand.

⟨33⟩ -anujeṁdrarāja⟦naṁdana⟧s ⬦ -anujendrarāja-naṁdana{ḥ}s V • V’s discussion explicitly notes that the text, like in the Korumelli grant, has indrarāja-nandana instead of the expected indrarāja. It seems to me that the sign V read here as a superfluous visarga must have indicated in some way, perhaps paired with another sign that is not visible in the estampage, that naṁdana is to be deleted. The sign, in the estampage, resembles a Latin capital G with a gap in the middle of the semicircle on the left, or perhaps a capital C with a gap in the middle and a dot inside it.

⟨35⟩ ¿s?⟨bh⟩rātā ⬦ bhrātā V • Throughout the plates, bh looks very similar to sa, but in this case the scribe definitely used the latter instead of the former.

⟨38⟩ triṁśataṁ ⬦ triṁśataM V.

⟨41⟩ rāja- ⬦ rāj¿a?⟨ā⟩ V • Since the name is often used in the form rāja-bhīma, I think the same was intended here, with enjambement into the next line and an anceps at the end of the first quarter. — ⟨41⟩ (dha)(rā?)[m aśāT] ⬦ dha[2+] V • The restoration dharām aśāT was suggested by V’s editor in a footnote. It is very plausible in the context, and rā is possible. However, there seem to be only two illegible characters after it. I also have some doubts about dh. Since V prints it as clear, I accept it, but the subscript attached to the previous word’s final n appears to be more complex (restore ksamā here?).

⟨42⟩ -bharatopamayoẖ ⬦ -bharatopamayoḥ V • The final glyph is a figure-8, definitely not a regular visarga. I interpret it to be a jihvāmūlīya that is written inline rather than in a conjunct with the following character. V may have had the same interpretation in mind. Theoretically, the glyph might represent ri, but that would be out of place here, and ri is normally narrower at the neck.

⟨44⟩ °ād¿i?⟨ī⟩n ⬦ °ādīn V. — ⟨44⟩ (adadhān nāma?) • The reading adadhān, which V too prints as unclear, is rather doubtful, but I cannot offer a better one.

⟨45⟩ -kāntāṁ ⬦ -kāntāM V.

⟨46⟩ dānārṇṇav¿a?⟨ā⟩j ⬦ dānārṇṇavāj V. — ⟨46⟩ rāja- ⬦ rāj¿a?⟨ā⟩ V • As in line 41 above, V’s emendation does not seem necessary; it may nonetheless correspond to the composer’s intent, compare stanza 10 of the Korumelli grant. — ⟨46⟩ (dha)r(i)¿śrīḥ?⟨trīṁ⟩ V • I accept V’s emendation, since the reading (which he prints as clear throughout) is quite secure.

⟨50⟩ -bha⟦[1×]⟧(r)tr̥{i}- • The deleted character probably had a subscript y or r̥. The following rtr̥ also has an i marker and mnay have been corrected from rtri.

⟨53⟩ -lub¿d?⟨dh⟩ayeva ⬦ -lubdhayeva V.

⟨54⟩ ¿bh?⟨c⟩ottara-bhadrayodyati ⬦ bhottara-bhadrayā¿d?⟨p⟩y ati- V.

⟨55⟩ ⟨sarvva⟩- V • V may have supplied this word on the basis of a parallel stanza of which I am not yet aware. Even without a parallel, the word omitted here must have been similarly generic.

⟨56⟩ ¿v?⟨p⟩aṭṭena ⬦ paṭṭena V. — ⟨56⟩ janai¿ś?⟨r⟩ ā(r?)o(pi?)(ta)(ṁ) V • V’s reading, which he prints as clear throughout, is rather awkward. Nothing is visible in the estampage of the characters shown here as tentatively read. Having no better suggestion, I assume that V could make this out better and accept his reading and emendation.

⟨57⟩ -¿r?⟨k⟩irīṭa- ⬦ -kirīṭa- V. — ⟨57⟩ -pa⟨⟨ṭala-pāṭala-pāda-pīṭhaḥ(,)⟩⟩ • In the facsimile, the first ṭa of this sequence does not appear to be a correction, but I accept V’s opinion that it is one. The remainder of the string has clearly been re-inscribed, and the pre-correction text must have been one or two characters shorter. None of the latter can be made out with any certainty, but the ṭa of pāṭala may have been struck over a ba or perhaps ja.

⟨58⟩ īśva(r)asyāpatadbhi(r) ⬦ īśva¿ś?⟨r⟩asyāpatadbhir V • V’s edition actually reads īśvasasyā°, but he must have meant śa, which the character in question does resemble.

⟨60⟩ ratnāloka-prakaṭita-jagat-prāṁgaṇ¿o?⟨e⟩bhyaś • See the note to the translation of stanza XIX for a possible further emendation of this phrase.

⟨61⟩ diś¿a?⟨i⟩ diśi ⬦ d¿i?⟨a⟩śa-diśi V • V’s emendation is also plausible, but mine is perhaps a little more likely in the context.

⟨62⟩ -nāmāṁ¿r?⟨k⟩itān ⬦ -nāmāṁkitān V. — ⟨62⟩ ba(ddhu)m a⟨ṁ⟩dha-ma(naso) • As far as I can tell from the facsimile, this sequence is probably a correction written over slightly shorter struck-out text; but V does not mention correction here, as he does in line 57 above. — ⟨62⟩ guṇā⟨⟨(N,,)⟩⟩ ⬦ guṇā(N), V • It seems to me that two very short punctuation bars have been added below the vowel marker of ṇā, and perhaps also a very small final N squeezed in above the bars, to the right of the vowel marker.

⟨66⟩ (prajā-caritaṁ) ⬦ (prajā-bharitaṁ) V • I adopt the reading suggested by V’s editor in a footnote, since it fits the context better and is just as possible from the unclear estampage.

⟨67⟩ (loleva lālāma?)kī ⬦ [––⏑](lālāmakī)- V • My reading of the characters not read by V is a rather desperate guess. The reading lālāmakī is quite plausible from the estampage but difficult to interpret. I do not know why V connects this word with a hyphen to the next one.

⟨68⟩ -(jā)la- ⬦ -j¿a?⟨ā⟩la- V.

⟨69⟩ -mast(a)ka- ⬦ -mast¿i?⟨a⟩ka- V • I see no discernible i marker; if one is present as read by V, then it may be accepted as a legitimate variant of the word. — ⟨69⟩ -puṭ¿a?⟨ā⟩n ⬦ -puṭān V. — ⟨69⟩ -(piṁcchā)- ⬦ -picchā- V. — ⟨69⟩ -śr¿ī?⟨i⟩yaṁ ⬦ -śriyaṁ V. — ⟨69⟩ vīr¿i?⟨a⟩- ⬦ vīra- V. — ⟨69⟩ -śr¿ī?⟨i⟩yas ⬦ -śriyas V.

⟨70⟩ (vāhā)(s saha?)(sran) ⬦ vāhā-sahasran V.

⟨71⟩ -(mukheṣv) ⬦ -(mukhāsv) V • V’s reading seems uninterpretable. His editor notes that “the sense requires” -mukhād. I see no e, but ṣ appears plausible from the estampage.

⟨73⟩ -mahārāj¿a?⟨ā⟩dhirāja- ⬦ -mahārājādhirāja- V.

⟨74⟩ māt⟦o⟧⟨⟨ā⟩⟩- ⬦ māt¿o?⟨ā⟩- V • An o and an ā marker are both present without apparent deletion, but the former must have been corrected to the latter. — ⟨74⟩ -siṁhāsan(āsī)naḥ ⬦ -siṁh¿a?⟨ā⟩sanāsīnaḥ V • An ā marker is definitely present here, but instead of bending downward on the right of the body, it bends down right next to the head, into the cavity of the body. This suggests it may be a subsequent addition. — ⟨74⟩ g(āḍevalu-nā?) • V prints only the last nā as unclear. In the estampage, the second character is indiscernible, the next two look rather like vula than valu to me, and the last is again indiscernible but could well be ga.

⟨75⟩ -sahit(a)- ⬦ -sahitāṁ V • There is no clear ā and I would not expect one. A large dot above ta is probably not an anusvāra, since that would be placed to the right of the character. — ⟨75⟩ (kuṭuṁbina)ḥ ⬦ kuṭuṁbinaḥ V • I accept V’s reading, which he prints as clear throughout. To my eye, the second character could well be ṭi, as is quite common in related inscriptions.

⟨76⟩ °āh¿u?⟨ū⟩ya ⬦ °āhūya V. — ⟨76⟩ sam¿e?⟨a⟩kṣa(m) ⬦ samakṣam V.

⟨77⟩ -mahārā(ja I)ti • The characters ja I are small and crowded together. They may be a correction.

⟨80⟩ vidvi¡(ncho?)!⟨ṭ-śo⟩ṇita- ⬦ vidvi(ṭ-cho)oṇita- V • The subscript component of the problematic conjunct is quite certainly a slightly damaged ch. Although ṭ would be expected for the upper component, the facsimile does not indicate this; compare ṭo in line 71.

⟨81⟩ ā⟨tu⟩lasyāde⟨⟨śa⟩⟩⟨ṁ⟩ • It seems likely that this entire sequence is a correction. At the beginning, la is awkwardly formed, small, and has a horizontal line below it. Next, the s of syā is also malformed. The following de is faint, while śa is very small and is lowered so that its headmark is at median height. Probably, ādeśaṁ was first engraved (eyeskip), then de was changed into la, utilising the head, shoulder and perhaps part of the vowel mark to create the new character (the horizontal stroke below la being the bottom of the original de). The shape of the original śa is perhaps discernible in the following malformed s, and the original anusvāra may be there after syā. I have no suggestion for the text previously engraved where we now see deśa, and do not see the still-missing tu added anywhere. — ⟨81⟩ pra(t)ipa(d)ya ta(T-kṣa)ṇa° • This segment too may be a correction over deleted earlier text; there appear to be several strokes not belonging to the intended characters.

⟨84⟩ ¿(t)ā?⟨da⟩gdhu- • The incorrect character may perhaps be (dhā) instead of (tā).

⟨85⟩ -daṇḍeśām ⬦ -daṇḍeś¿ām?⟨air⟩ V • I find V’s emendation unnecessary, assuming that īś, not īśa is used here. — ⟨85⟩ a¿c?⟨bh⟩avad ⬦ abhavad V.

⟨86⟩ -⟨⟨nirantara⟩⟩⟨ṁ⟩ ⟨⟨ja⟩⟩° • This string, perhaps including the preceding nti or kunti, appears to be a correction written over shorter text. I wonder if perhaps kuntākuntirantaraṁ was originally inscribed — ⟨86⟩ dhanvino _ • There may be a dot, used as a space filler, at the end of the line here.

⟨87⟩ -vivr̥(ttaiḥ?) • I accept V’s reading, which he prints as clear. To me, the estampage does not look like ttaiḥ; perhaps tyā (for ttyā) is more likely.

⟨88⟩ ¿su?⟨śa⟩labhā⟨ḥ⟩ V • V’s ingenious emendation is probably spot on. — ⟨88⟩ -bhr̥ta¿ḥ la⟨⟨ca⟩⟩?⟨ś cala⟩-c¿ī?⟨i⟩ttāḥ ⬦ bhr̥t¿aḥ?⟨āś⟩ cala-cittāḥ V • There is no ca before la, but a small ca is inserted above and to the right of la, probably with a corresponding insertion mark (though perhaps just a spot of damage) below and to the right of la. bhr̥taḥ needs no emendation to bhr̥tāḥ. — ⟨88⟩ -(ṣa?)⟨89⟩[⏑⏑⏑–⏑] • I accept V’s reading of the last character in line 88, which he prints as clear. Howeve, I’m inclined to think that what seems to be a vertical stroke on the right is rather the crease at the raised edge, and if so, then the character is probably not ṣa. Most likely, it might be ra, but dha and ka also seem possible, and an ā may be attached. In the next line, the plate is cracked from the hole to the edge. The lower parts of characters can to some extent be made out below the crack. The first character in line 89 seems to have a smaller tight curve and a large semicircle below it, the combination suggestive of kṣa, but far from decisive. (Something with a subscript r may also be possible, but I would expect a more angular stroke there.) I recognise nothing in the next two characters, but what remains of the fourth looks much like the body of sa, possibly na or ṇa. The remnants of the fifth character strongly imply a subscript t. Given the dual ending of padātyoḥ, I expect a word meaning "horseman" or "cavalry" before that. Thus, sapti is a feasible restoration; alternatively, the fifth character may perhaps be śva or śvi. If V is correct to read ṣa at the end of line 88, then pañcaṣaṣṭi is the most plausible restoration from that end, but the vestiges counterindicate this, and such a precise (and small) number would be strange in the context. The lost chunk may have included a unit (such as "regiments") which the numeral and the compound with -padātyoḥ would have qualified, but if sapti is correct, then no plural nominal ending would fit the metre. All in all, I cannot venture any restoration other than something meaning "cavalry" in the lacuna.

⟨89⟩ nr̥tya⟨⟨(nti ga?)(ja)⟩⟩- ⬦ nr̥tya¿m?⟨n⟩ti {va}gaja V • The two characters after nr̥tya are illegible in the estampage; the many strokes here are probably not all damage, so I assume that the text has been corrected here. The third is plausibly ja, damaged but perhaps not written over earlier text. The chaos after nr̥tya does have a plausible m at the beginning, but I do not think mti would have been inscribed; more likely is that something with m was corrected to nti. I certainly see nothing recognisable as a va, and the number of unclear characters is definitely three, not four. The va may be a typo in V’s edition, since the footnote that says it is superfluous is editorial.

⟨90⟩ vi¿y?⟨m⟩ukta(ṁ) • The emendation I adopt from V is not strictly necessary, but since r̥ṇa typically goes with vi-muc, this was probably the composer’s intent. — ⟨90⟩ vāj(i)no • There seems to be both o and i attached to j; perhaps the former has been corrected to the latter.

⟨91⟩ vinā¿kr̥?⟨śi⟩tāḥ ⬦ vinākr̥tāḥ V • I emend with some hesitation, not being able to produce a coherent interpretation of the stanza without emending here and at the next locus. The character kr̥ is unambiguous, but it is raised higher than the surrounding characters, and there is a slight chance that it has been corrected from śi, but correction the other way round certainly did not take place.

⟨92⟩ naśyat¿i?⟨oḥ⟩ ⬦ naśyati V • Here too I emend with some hesitation, not being able to produce a coherent interpretation of the stanza without emending here and at the previous locus. The vowel mark in the character ti is incomplete or damaged; just possibly, it might be a malformed o.

⟨94⟩ rājarāja{rāja}- • I agree with V that one iteration of rāja is superfluous here. Compare the name in line 77. — ⟨94⟩ me mātulasya ⬦ sva-mātulasya V • There seems to be some damage above me that looks vaguely like the strokes for s, so I am not certain sva- is a typo in V’s edition.

⟨95⟩ ādeśa(ṁ) ⬦ ādeśa¿ḥ?⟨ṁ⟩ V. — ⟨95⟩ (pādā)⟨ta⟩- ⬦ bā(hā)- V.

⟨98⟩ °uḍayān ⬦ °uḍaiyān V. — ⟨98⟩ (y?)[eṣā](ṁ?) ⬦ [3×] V • I restore conjecturally based on very uncertain vestiges.

⟨99⟩ °ottuṁgga- ⬦ °ottuṁga- V.

⟨102⟩ grām¿(e)?⟨aḥ⟩ ⬦ grāma(ḥ) V • The intent was probably grāmaḥ, which agrees well with the rest of the sentence. The inscribed text, however, certainly seems to be grāme. See also the next note.

⟨103⟩ -grāmaṭika◯(yā) • Given grāme earlier in the sentence (see the previous note), I wonder if the composer’s intent here was grāmaṭikā mayā or grāmaṭikeyaṁ. But if so, then dattaḥ needs emendation to dattā. — ⟨103⟩ konneki- ⬦ konnekī- V. — ⟨103⟩ [1×](li)do(ṟṟu-) • I accept V’s reading. In the estampage, the first character of the name (as well as the preceding taḥ) is only a blotch with nothing discernible whatsoever, and li is only the merest hint. According to V’s editor, the name may be Ālidoṟṟu or pulidoṟṟu. I do not know if this is based on anything positive that he could discern in the physical estampage, or merely conjecture based on the fact that the illegible character consists only of a compact body (nothing ascending or descending), and informed by a knowledge of what words may make sense in the name. — ⟨103⟩ (kaḍa?)[paṟṟu] ⬦ kaḍa[2×] V • V’s edition seems to imply that there are four illegible characters, but there are definitely two. Given that in line 107 below, Kaludiṇḍi (sic) is said to form the eastern border of Kaḍapaṟṟu, it seems likely that here, Kaḍapaṟṟu was said to form the western border of Kalidiṇḍi.

⟨106⟩ potuṁbaṟti s¿i?⟨ī⟩maiva ⬦ potūṁbaṟti sīmaiva V. — ⟨106⟩ (cet?)i(, gr?)(ā)(masyā?) ⬦ [3×](grāma) V • I do not see how the last two characters in this line could be grāma, but the third from the end may well be grā. My own reading is very uncertain. The text may be Iti instead of ceti, and something quite different cannot be excluded.

⟨107⟩ ¿ve?⟨E⟩ṣaiva, ⬦ Eṣaiva V • Compare the proper Eṣaiva in the next line. — ⟨107⟩ dakṣi¿n?⟨ṇ⟩a{,}ta(ḥ,) ⬦ dakṣi(ṇa)taḥ, V.

⟨108⟩ Āvakūri ⬦ Āvakūru- V. — ⟨108⟩ krovvi(ṇḍḍe)ṭaṁbāsi⟨109⟩na ⬦ krovviṇḍleṭaṁbāsi⟨109⟩na V • I cannot offer a certain reading of the problematic conjunct. There may be damage to the body, or correction may be involved. There is certainly no l in it. It looks most like ṇḍḍe, with some damage in the body of ṇ. The first ḍ is attached to the bottom of the body as well as to the descending right wing of ṇ, and the second is attached at the bottom left of the first. It is possible that V read the lowest component as ḷ (misprinted as l in his edition), but for this to be possible, we must read °nāṇṭa instead of °nāṇṭi in the next line, taking the curved stroke above that ṇṭ to be the distinctive end of ḷ here, rather than an i marker.

⟨109⟩ tā(ḍ)ināṇṭ(i) • V prints this word as clear, and he is in all probability correct. Still, ḍ looks much like bh, and what looks like a partly effaced i above ṇṭ may perhaps belong the the line above (see the previous note).

⟨110⟩ [pūrvva]⟨111⟩taḥ • Throughout this last, broken plate, V does not restore the words that are partially extant or implied by the context.

⟨119⟩[–––⏑]⟨120⟩p(a)m(o?) ⟨’⟩dhikatva- ⬦[…]⟨120⟩pāmādhikatva- V • Given the extant fragments, I am reasonably certain that we have a śārdūlavikrīḍita stanza here, but I cannot establish this beyond doubt. The required number of syllables is only a hair more than that required in the preceding lines for the known anuṣṭubh stanzas, and the last five lines of the plate do appear to be written in smaller and tighter script than the rest. The first character in line 120 does not seem to be pā. It may perhaps be pe or po, but if I am correct that the text is metrical, then these are inappropriate. The next one does look like mā marker, but there may be a second stroke to the left of the headmark, making the vowel o. The reading mā is feasible and plausible, but I believe mo is slightly more likely, because I cannot think of a relevant word with °pamādhikatva.

⟨121⟩ [Ājñaptiḥ kaṭake]⟨122⟩śo rāciya-pedderi-(bh?)ī[bhīmana-nāma-tanūjaḥ] ⬦[…]⟨122⟩śo rāciya-pedderi (bh?)ī[…] V • I restore conjecturally on the basis of the concluding stanza of the Korumelli grant. The present one may have been composed in a different moraic metre, but the meaning was quite certainly identical to that restored here. Compare also stanza XXXVII, also āryāgīti, of the Raṇastipūṇḍi grant of Vimalāditya, where the composer is the same person. See also the note to the translation.