svasti śrī magidogarajula muṭlu viṭṟajula pratama-rājyaṁbuna kaḍumallula Iccina reṇḍu vaṭi miriyampu bōḷajakkuṟēgari paḍaśina reṇḍu vaṭṭi padēnduṁbu Āḍlu paṭṭu druggādēvi nēlayu Uṟuvuṭuri bōḷa reṇḍūṭṭiyu tūṟpuN I reṇḍūṭi ḻacuvaru kaḷarēni bāranāsi vēgavilāḷu vēguḍlumu vēśeṟuvuḷu vēvuru paṟānu campinavanṟ agu

yaśsya yaśsya yatdā bhūmis taśsya śataśsya tathdā pphalaṁ svadatā paradatā va yō harēti ṣa vaśundara ṣṭhi

magidogarajula Prabhākaraśāstri states in note no. 1 that it should be maṁgi. muṭlu muḍlu Prabhākaraśāstri remarks in note no. 2 that also muṭlu could be read. As far as I can say from the picture published in Prabhākaraśāstri's edition the akṣara resembles ⟨ṭ⟩ in line 4. Other instances of the word in question show ⟨ṭ⟩. kaḍumallula kaḍuvaṁḍlula Prabhākaraśāstri notes that ⟨du⟩ could be read as well, and that the reading of ⟨ḍlu⟩ is uncertain and also could be ⟨jlu⟩ (notes nos. 3-4). The akṣara in question indeed looks like ⟨jlu⟩. As far as I can say from my bad scan the akṣara that was read as ⟨va⟩ by Prabhākara Śāstri could also be ⟨ma⟩. The following akṣara could be ⟨lla⟩ as spelled in the Zulakallu plates of Vijayāditya I (line 17) (), i. e. with the right upward line of the superscript ⟨l⟩ drawn downwards on the left side ending into subscript ⟨l⟩. The single ⟨la⟩ is written in its fuller form in line 4 of our Telugu inscription but also occurs in a slightly more advanced form in line 14. reṇḍu renḍu jakkuṟēgari jaku ṟeṁgari Prabhākaraśāstri says in note no. 5 that it could also be ⟨kku⟩ instead of ⟨ku⟩. Jakkuṟē- seems to me to be one word consisting of two elements in which the anusvāra would be superfluous (see commentary). However, a dot can be seen on top of the akṣara ⟨ga⟩ that may be a damage on the stone though. paḍaśina peḍaśina According to Prabhākaraśāstri the spelling should be ⟨pa⟩ (note no. 6); the respective verb would be paḍayu. The line that Prabhākaraśāstri read as the vowel sign ⟨°e⟩ starts on the left side from the middle of the akṣara ⟨pa⟩. That would be very unusual because this vowel is normally written on the upper left line of the akṣara. The alleged vowel sign may therefore be simply a damage on the stone. renḍu Āḍlu Prabhākaraśāstri notes (no. 7) that on the left upper side of the akṣara ⟨Ā⟩ a line like the vowel sign ⟨°e⟩ is visible. This seems to me to be a mere damage on the stone. reṇḍūṭṭiyu renḍuṭṭiyu In Prabhākaraśāstri's edition renṭuṭḍiyu is printed but that seems to be a mere misprint. The vowel sign is written to the left side and has a hook on top drooping towards the left. Therefore, the vowel seems to be long /uː/ seems to be written. The form appears to be a contraction of /uva/ to /uː/ of the already mentioned reṇḍuvaṭṭi (i. e. reṇḍuvaṭṭi > reṇḍūṭṭi) tūṟpuN tūṟpu There seems to be a very faint halanta ⟨N⟩ written at the end of the line. It is written very small and without a "head". This consonant forms a locative, hence "in the east". I reṇḍūṭi Ī renḍuṭṭi The akṣara ⟨I⟩ looks like ⟨I⟩ in line 4. The intended meaning, however, must be "this" (ī). Prabhākaraśāstri had a the original and the original estampage at his disposal wherefore his reading may be correct. However, I cannot see any vowel sign on ⟨ṇḍ⟩ and it seems that the vowel simply was forgotten. On the other hand, the lower part of ⟨ṭi⟩ seems to be damaged on the scan available to me so that it is also possible that the vowel sign of ⟨ṇḍ⟩ may have been lost due to damage. I supplied a long ⟨°ū⟩ due to the reading reṇḍūṭṭi- in line 11. ḻacuvaru Prabhākaraśāstri notes (note no. 8) that the form should be ḻaccu. vēguḍlumu Prabhākaraśāstri edits the text as it is written but states that it should be vēguḍlu (note 9). paṟānu Prabhākaraśāstri states in note no. 10 that it should be written pāṟanu. campinavanṟ agu campinacannaṁgu According to Prabhākaraśāstri (note no. 11) the reading is unclear and also canvaṁ and candhaṁ are possible according to him (his alternative readings are very blurred in the bad scan at my disposal).The akṣara ⟨va⟩ is written in a little bit more elongated form than in e. g. line 14. The scribe forgot to write the horizontal line inside the akṣara ⟨ṟa⟩ so that it is an empty oval and thus resembles a ⟨dha⟩ or ⟨va⟩. The reading vanṟ agu is what to be expected as can be seen from other inscriptions. According to Prabhākaraśāstri (note no. 12) this line is effaced. However, it seems to me that this line was intentionally left blank since the Telugu imprecation is now followed by a Sanskrit imprecation. The Telugu imprecation ends in its typical way so that no information is lacking that could have been given in line 18. yaśsya yaśsya yatdā bhūmis taśsya śataśsya tathdā pphalaṁ yaśya yaśy yatā bhūmi taśyaśyataśya tadhā palaṁ The scan of Prabhākaraśāstri's article at my disposal is of a bad quality. On the picture I can see a shade of what could be interpreted as a ⟨śa⟩ but I can not see traces of subscript ⟨°ya⟩ in line 20. However, Prabhākaraśāstri may be right that the akṣara ⟨śa⟩ or ⟨śya⟩ was written twice by mistake. These two pādas normally are pāda 3 and 4 of a standard imprecation śloka. See commentary. svadatā paradatā va yō harēti ṣa vaśundara ṣṭhi svadattā paradatā vā yōpavaśundarā Prabhākaraśāstri read the first akṣara of line 24 as ⟨pa⟩ but in my opinion it more resembles ⟨ṣa⟩. I think that this ⟨ṣa⟩ is the first akṣara of the third pāda of the respective śloka the first two pādas of which have been encarved on the stone. The last akṣara of line 24 normally is the second akṣara of the third pāda 3 (together ṣaṣṭhi). See commentary.

Svasti! In the inital reign of Viṭṟāju, officer of Śrī Maṅgiyuvarāja: two plots of land (paṭṭi) given by Kaḍumallu, two plots of land obtained by Bōḷa Jakkuṟēgāru of Mariyampu; twelve tūmu, "handfull"/produce of millet.The syntax is sort of technical. But there are other inscriptions that exhibit a similar style, e. g. INSTelugu00008. The land of the goddess Durgā and the two plots of the Bōḷa of Uṟuvuṭūru (are) in the east.

If someone interferes with these two plots of land, he will have killedThe semantic oddity of killing temples and tanks exists in Telugu as well. The verb refers to the last member which in the Telugu text are the brahmins. thousand cows, thousand temples, thousand tanks and thousand brahmins of Vārāṇasī.

Whosoever owns the land at any time will have the profit (of it). Who takes land away, whether given by himself or by another (person).The śloka does not make sense because two separate imprecation ślokas have been merged here; see the commentary.

Prabhākaraśāstri does not give a translation proper but rather a paraphrase in the form of an annotated translation. He later discusses each word separately and extensively. This annotated translation, however, is very valuable and briefly shows his interpretation of the inscription. తూర్పు చాళుక్యరాజగు మంగియువరాజు రాజ్యమేలుచుండఁగా నాతని క్రింది చిన్ని యేలికయో, మండలాధిపుఁడో, యుద్యోగియో అగు విట్రాజురాజ్యమున కడవండ్లులగ్రామమున మిరియంపు బోళజయనువానికొఱకయి ఱెంగఱియనువాఁడు పదునేదుము ఆళ్లవిత్తనాలు పట్టునట్టి రెండుపట్ల భూమిని పడసెననియు ఆభూమికిఁదూర్పు సీమాచిహ్నములు దుర్గాదేవి నేలయను, ఉఱువుటూరి బోలరెండుట్టి (రెండుపట్ల భూమిని)యు ననియు ఈ రెండుపట్ల భూమిని జెఱచువారు కలరేని వారు వారణాశిలో వేయి కపిలగోవులను, వేయిగుళ్లను, వేయిచెఱువులను, వేవురు బ్రాహ్మణులను జంపినపాపమును గుడుతురనియు, శాసనార్థముగా నాకుఁదోఁచివది. 'యస్య యస్య యదా భూమి' రిత్యాది సర్వశాసన సాధారణశ్లోకము కడపటి నున్నది.

['While Mangiyuvarāju, ruler of the eastern Calukyas, was exerting (his) rule, during the rule of Viṭrāju, being either a small ruler under him (i. e. Mangiyuvarāju), a head of a district (maṅgalādhipa-), or an official', a person called Ṟeṁgaṟi acquiredPrabhākaraśāstri does not paraphrase the verb paḍayu. As far as I know the semantics of paḍayu only cover "to take, obtain, possess" etc. but not the opposite. That means that, in the context of Prabhākaraśāstri's translation, Ṟeṁgaṟi "took" the land for the donée. for the sake of the person called Mariyaṁpu Bōḷaja in a village called Kaḍavaṁḍlula land of two paṭṭisPrabhākaraśāstri states that the meaning of reṁḍuvaṭi (being a dvigu) is unclear but that the following ideas could match: it could denote a landscape, a donation, a land size, or a specific type of land. Prabhākaraśāstri uses "land of two paṭṭis" without changing the term much or paraphrasing it (940-941). That is why I kept it untranslated in the translation of Prabhākaraśāstri's text. that contain (పట్టునట్టి) grains of millet of fifteen tūmu. To the east of that land the signs of the border (are) the land of the goddess Durgā and the (land) of Uṟuvuṭūri Bōla of two paṭṭis. If someone spoils this land of two paṭṭis he will experience (కుడుతురు) the sins of having killed thousand cowsThe Telugu text has two words here, the first being that of the inscription and the second an explanation (కపిలగోవులను) thousand temples, thousand tanks and thousand brahmins in Vārāṇasī. That seems to me to be the meaning of the inscription. The śloka 'yasya yasya yadā bhūmir' etc. that is common to all inscriptions is at the end. (translation by Jens Christian Thomas)]

Hail! In the first year of the reign of Viṭrajulu, officer of Magi Dogarajulu, Ṟengari having obtained two puṭṭis of land sowable with fifteen tūmus of paddy in the village of Kaḍavaṁḍlu, granted (it) to Miriyampu bōḷaja. The land belonging to Durgādēvi, and the two puṭṭis of land of Uṟuvuṭūri bōḷa (i.e. the bōḷa of Uṟuvuṭūru) are (the boundaries) on the east. If there are any who obstruct (the grant of) these two puṭṭis (paṭṭi ?) (they will suffer) in the manner (of those) who killed a thousand cows, destroyed a thousand temples, and a thousand tanks, and killed a thousand brahmins in Bāranāsi.K. M. Sastri left out the Sanskrit part in both his translation and re-edition of the text.

I have to stress that my own reading is based on the picture in Prabhākaraśāstri's edition. I only had access to a bad scan. That is why my reading might be faulty in one or the other place and I apologize if I mistakingly "corrected" Prabhākaraśāstri's edition for the bad.

Prabhākaraśāstri interprets kaḍuvaṁḍlula, as he reads it, in lines 3-4 as the name of a village in the locative (కడువండ్లులగ్రామమున [kaḍuvaṁḍlulagrāmamuna]937). He regards miriyampu bōḷaja (with the dative suffix -ku) as the donée and ṟeṁgari as the donor (937-937). The semantics of paḍayu ("to obtain, possess"), however, are problematic in my opinion. According to my reading kaḍumallu is a person's name which means something like "strong wrestler" (kaḍu + mallu). Prabhākaraśāstri interprets bōḷaja as consisting of bōḷa and an abbreviated Prakrit form of ajja (from ārya) (942). However, since double ⟨kku⟩ is written in line 6, which therefore can not be the dative suffix being written with a single ⟨k⟩, I would rather separate the usual designation bōḷa from the actual name that follows. The suffix -gari (i. e. -gāri) is the genitive of the honorific suffix -g/vāru. What remains is jakkuṟē- which consists of ṟē- "ruler" and jakku "yakṣa". Hence, jakkuṟē- means "ruler of the yakṣas" = Kubera.

The two words reṇḍuvaṭi and reṇḍuvaṭṭi seem to refer to the same thing. The spelling vaṭi seems to be a haplography of the fuller vaṭṭi which, in my opinion, corresponds to Sanskrit paṭṭī "a plot of land" (p > v / V(#)_ is a normal sandhi). The contracted form reṇḍūṭṭi is unusual. However, similar contractions sometimes occur, e. g. pandumbu from paḍudumbu.

The spelling druggādēvi seems to be a (spontaneous) metathesis of Durgādēvi "the goddess Durgā". The retainment of double ⟨gg⟩ rather serves to preserve the phonotactic structure of the word than simply being a remainder of the usual doubling of a consonant after repha because the preservation of the original phonotactic structure also seems to be the goal of vowel lengthening and consonant doubling after the usual metathesis in Telugu. Another example involving a loan word is uramu ~ rommu "chest, breast" (three morae each). Prabhākaraśāstri gives some more examples (943-944).

The place name Uṟuvuṭuri (obl.) is identified by Prabhākaraśāstri with the modern village Uruṭūru, near Guḍivāḍa to the north of the Kr̥ṣṇā river (945).

Ad lines 19-21: The śloka is not complete. The two pādas mentioned here normally form pādas c and d of a typical Sanskrit imprecation śloka one of several variants of which is: bahubhir vvasudhā dattā bahubhiś cānupālitā yasya yasya yadā bhūmiḥ tasya tasya tadā phalaṁ

The next śloka is incomplete as well. This time because the last two pādas are missing. From the picture as published in the edition it is not possible to say whether there was more room on top of the stone for the effaced rest of the second śloka (because the inscription is written from the bottom to the top), or whether the stone is broken on top. Regarding the overall bad writing of the Sanskrit lines it is also possible that the scribe wanted to write only one single śloka but mixed up two pādas of different ślokas each. The misspelling in line 24 may corroborate this idea since the superfluous first and last akṣaras of the line together seem to form the first word of what should be the third pāda of this śloka: ṣaṣṭhi (this spelling, albeit wrong, occurs sometimes in other inscriptions, conf. INSTelugu00018, INSTelugu00027). The standard śloka would be: svadattāṁ paradattāṁ vā yo hareta vasundharāṁ ṣaṣṭirvvarṣa-sahasrāṇi viṣṭhāyāṁ jāyate kr̥miḥ

I have edited these two śloka-parts as two different defective verses although they metrically form a single śloka because they do not form a coherent thought. The superfluous spellings of ⟨ṣa⟩ and ⟨ṣṭhi⟩ indicate that the scribe had the next lines of the second śloka at his disposal and seems to have intended to at least fill the line. That is why I think that the Sanskrit imprecation was mistakingly written as it is.

The inscription was edited by V. Prabhākaraśāstri together with a picture, a paraphrased translation and a detailed discussion. The inscription was re-edited by C. Nārāyaṇarāvu who added a short word explanation, by K. M. Sastri who added a translation, and by B. Radha Krishna. The latter three referred to the text as edited by Prabhākaraśāstri.

933-949 1309-1310 294-29520 15-1619