svasti jayaty āviṣkritiaṁ viṣṇor vvārāhaṁ kṣobhitārṇavaM dakṣiṇonnata-daṁṣṭrāgra -viśrānta-bhuvanaṁ vapuḥ

śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrāṇāṁ hāriti-putrāṇāṁ sapta-loka-mātribhiḥ sapta-mātribhir abhivardhitānāṁ kārtikeya-parirakṣaṇa-prāpta-kalyāṇa-paraṁparāṇāṁ bhagavan-nārāyaṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-vārāha-lācchanlāñchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśiīkritāśeṣa-mahiībhritāṁ calukyānāṁ kulam alaṁkariṣṇor aśvamaedhāvabhritha-snāna-pavitrī-krita-gātrasya satyāśraya-śriī-prithiviī-vallabha-mahārājādhirāja-parameśvara-śriī-pulakeśi-vallabha-mahārājādhirāja-parameśvara-bhaṭṭāraka-samadhigata-pañca-mahāśarbda-Aāvāpta-parama-pauruṣāpara-nāmadheya-sakalortttarāpathādhipati-śriī-harṣavarddhana-parājayopa larbdha-parama-nāmadheyasya vijaya-rājya-saṁvatsare pa ñcame māgha-māsa-saptamyāṁ mākoṭāvagāhana-kr̥ta-śariīreṇa draviḍa-viṣaya-vāstavya-kāśyapa-sagotrāya somasvāmi-putrāya kumārasvāmi-pautrāya pomasvāmi-naptāya nārāyaṇasvāmine brāhmaṇasyabrāhmaṇāya sodaka-pūrvaṁ dattaḥ revatī-dviīpe mahānadyottara-kūḷle vindiri-purastāpurastāt khuddikā-dakṣiṇataḥ churāvaṇasya paścimena pirigipa nāma grāmao rbali-caru-vaiśvadevārtthaṁ mātā-pitror ātmanaś ca puṇyābhivr̥ddhaye Acāṭa-bhaṭa-praveśyaḥ sarva-parihāraḥ sarva-nirādeyaḥ sarva-siīmā-parichinnaḥ samastao yeo ’smad-vaṁśyair anyair vā Abhipratipālaniīyo mānaniīyaś ca. yas tasya vikritiṁ vujato sa pañcabhir mahā-pātakair upapātakaiś ca saṁyukto narake majjati. Uktañ ca bhagavatā veda-vyāsena vyāsena.

sva-dattāṁ para-dattāṁ vā yo hareta vasundharāṁ ṣaṣṭi-varṣa-sahasrāṇi viṣṭhāyāṁ jāyate krimiḥ rbahubhir vasudhā bhuktā rājabhiḥ sagarādibhiḥ yasya yasya yadā bhūmis tasya tasya tadā phalaṁ

Iti. likhitaṁ ca guṇadevena lekhakena.

°kariṣṇor aśvamaedhā° °kariṣṇāor aśvamedhā° °larbdha-parama-nāma° larbdhaāpara-nāma See also the commentary. pomasvāmi- Telang says pomasvāmi may be paumasvāmi. The reading is clearly po; he may be thinking of emending to pauma as a Prakritic form of padma. More likely in my opinion, poma may be a scribal mistake for soma, in which case his great-grandfather had the same name as his father. -naptāya Telang suggests emending to naptre, or perhaps praṇaptre. Indeed, the intent of the composer must clearly have been great-grandson, but I prefer not to interfere in the text. mahānadyottara Telang normalises to mahānady-uttara, which is perfectly plausible. Alternatively, this may be hypersandhi for mahānadyāḥ+uttara. vikritiṁ vujato Telang emends to vikr̥tiṁ bhuñjato. But vikritiṁ actually looks like vikrītiṁ, while vujato looks rather like vrajato. Estienne-Monod translates "Celui qui cause du tort à cette (donation)", but even with emendations, the text does not really mean that. Maybe sale, vikrīti, is actually meant? Normally, I would expect a clearer phrase meaning "prevents the donee from enjoying it".

Prospérité !

Victoire à la forme de Viṣṇu, manifestée en sanglier, dont la pointe des défenses, levées vers le Sud, soutient le monde aux flots agités !L’ordre des pāda n’a pu être restitué.

Par le frère de celui qui orne la lignée des Calukya, illustres, du même gotra que les descendants de Manu, honorés dans l’univers entier, fils de Hāriti, rendus prospères par les Sept mères, mères des sept mondes, qui perpétuent la prospérité obtenue grâce à la protection de Kārtikeya, auxquels tous les rois furent soumis en un instant à la vue du signe du sanglier, obtenu grâce à la faveur du bienheureux Nārāyaṇa, dont le corps fut lavé par les bains purificatoires de l’aśvamedha, l’illustre Satyāśraya Pr̥thivī Vallabha, souverain suprême des grands rois, illustre seigneur, l’illustre Satyāśraya Pulakeśin Vallabha, souverain suprême des grands rois, seigneur suprême,Cette répétition soulève une difficulté : si le premier Satyāśraya correspond à Pulakeśin I et le deuxième à Pulakeśin II, alors le scribe aurait omis Kīrtivarman. illustre seigneur, qui rassembla les cinq grands sons, obtint cet autre nom par son excellente force, seigneur de tout le Nord, ayant reçu cet autre nom en vainquant l’illustre Harṣavardhana, lors de la cinquième année de son règne victorieux, le septième jour du mois de Māgha, celui-ciIl faut ici suppléer tena bhrātrā, « par ce frère ». [DB: understand tasya bhrātrā. But I do not know what grounds she has for this, instead of simply supplying or understanding tena, with Telang.] dont le corps excellent fut baigné dans le MākoṭaLieu sacré de Dākṣāyāṇī. donne au brahmane Nārāyaṇasvāmi, habitant le viṣaya de Draviḍa, du gotra de Kaśyapa, fils de Somasvāmi, petit-fils de Kumārasvāmi, arrière petit-fils de Pomasvāmi, après avoir fait une libation d’eau, le village nommé Piri, sur une île de la Revatī, dans le kulaDivision territoriale. [DB: surely not?] de Mahānadyuttara, à l’est de Vindiri, au sud de Khuddikā, à l’ouest de Churāvaṇa, en vue de l’accomplissement du bali, caruOblations consistants en offrandes de nourriture. Sur le caru, cf. VS. xxix. 6 TS. i ŚBr. Ait. Br. i , 1 & 7 KātyŚr. &c. (pl. Yājñ. i , 298) ; sur le bali, cf. RTL. 411 , 421 ; Gr̥ŚrS. Mn. (esp. iii , 69 , 71) in Monier-Williams. Le bali et le caru sont aussi mentionnés in insc. nos 7 et 10. et du vaiśvadeva,Sur ce sacrifice, consistant en offrande de nourriture cuite, cf. Kane, 1974, II, part. II, p. 741-748. pour l’accroissement du mérite de sa mère, son père et le sien,Nous suppléons une formule telle que puṇyābhivarddhaye afin de préciser la fonction de ces génitifs. village dont l’entrée est interdite aux troupes régulières et irrégulières, exempté de toute taxe, libre de tout prélèvement, et dont toutes les frontières sont délimitées. Tout ceci doit être protégé et respecté dans son intégrité par le rois de notre lignée et par les autres. Celui qui cause du tort à cette donation est lié aux cinq grands crimes et aux crimes secondaires et plonge en enfer. Et ceci a été dit par le bienheureux, compilateur des Veda, Vyāsa.

Qu’elle soit donnée par lui ou par un autre, celui qui prend une terre renaît ver de terre dans les excréments pendant soixante mille ans.

Beaucoup de rois ont joui de la terre, Sagara le premier ; celui qui possède la terre en possède le fruit.

Ceci a été gravé par le scribe Guṇadeva.

Telang (330) reports Fleet’s opinion that the plates are spurious (because of poor language and irregular characters), but the seal is probably genuine.

All lines are spaced very closely, with practically no vertical distance between them. As a result, a line in many places twists to make room for characters above; occasionally there are spaces (not marked up) to accommodate descenders: l2 vi_śrānta. Lines also twist in other places, apparently with the purpose of fitting a certain number of characters into each line (perhaps to preserve the original specimen's number of characters per line, on a smaller support?). Thus, in sakala-bhu at the end of l2, ka and la are very small, and are engraved on a diagonal, with ka below and to the right of sa, and la to the left of the top of bhu.

This line consists only of two characters, at the left-hand edge. They were probably not inserted subsequently; rather, the engraver thought he could start another line, but after engraving these two, he realised that the line above dips and he can’t make it a full line, so he went on to the next page.

L12. Nearly all instances of b in the text are engraved as rb. Is this a result of a later copyist/forger trying to imitate the script of the original grant, but misinterpreting some strokes? Perhaps the original had v-s instead of (at least some) b-s, and somewhere along the copying/forging process, someone who knew these words ought to be spelt with b corrected that, but someone else interpreted the stems of v-s as rephas and added them back in? Or plain hyperSanskritisation? Positive examples are l12 śarbda; l14 larbdha; l20 grāmarbali; l27 rbahubhir. The only counterexample is l18 brāhmaṇasya, which is unclear in my scan, but probably indeed without a repha. It may be possible to explain grāmarbali and rbahubhir (following krimiḥ with a very unclear and possibly nonexistent visarga) as sandhi (though very non-standard in the first case), but given the other examples, this seems unlikely.

While Telang's emended reading °apara-nāmadheyasya can be said to make sense, -parama-nāmadheyasya is certain in the text and seems to make better sense, though it may perhaps be emended to -parameśvara-nāmadheyasya or -parameśvarāpara-nāmadheyasya. Compare -para-nr̥pati-parājayopalabdha-parameśvarāpara-nāmadheyaḥ in lines 9-10 of the Mākarappi grant.

Telang adds a daṇḍa after saptamyāṁ which I find unnecessary; it’s all one sentence with dattaḥ below as the main verb. Telang also says "tena" next to °śarīreṇa if we are to assume that Pulikeśin is the donor. This is probably correct, but it may perhaps be simply understood. At any rate, there seems to be more missing here; perhaps °āvagāhana-pavitrī-kr̥ta-?

The second to fourth characters (puyaku) are indistinct in my scan but seem to be correct and are probably legible in the actual facsimile.

First edited by K. T. Telang () with inked rubbings but no translation. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on a collation of Telang's text with his published facsimile.