Kākamrāṇu grant of Bhīma I

Seal śrī-tribhuvanāṁkuśa

Plates

On namo nārāyaṇāya|

jayatu nija-khaḍga-sādhita-nikhila-dharā-maṇḍalaika-patir anavadyaś cālukya-bhīma-nr̥patir bhaya-nata-ripu-nr̥pati-makuṭa-lālita-caraṇaḥ|

svasti. śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrānāṁ hārīti-putrāṇāṁ kauśikī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājyānām mātr̥-gaṇa-paripālitānāṁ svāmi-mahāsena-pādānudhyātānāṁ bhagavan-nārāyaṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-vara-varāha-lāñchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥tārāti-maṇḍalānām aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavitrīkr̥ta-vapuṣāṁ

cālukyānām abhūd vaṁśe vijayāditya-vallabhaḥ satyāśraya Iti khyāta -nāmnāpi bhuvi viśrutaḥ| tasyānujaḥ prabhuḥ khyāto viṣṇuvarddhana-saṁjñitaḥ sa durjjayaṁ samuccāṭya veṅgī-maṇḍalam āptavāN Aṣṭau daśa ca varṣāṇi kr̥tvāsau rājyam uttamaM yayau nāka-vadhū-bhoga -vāṁchayā marutāṁ padaM| tat-putro jayasiṁhākhyo bhūri-siṁha-parākramaḥ trayastriṁśat samāḥ pr̥thvīṁm abhuṁktā-catur-aṁbudhi| viṣṇurājas tad-anujasy endrarājasya nandanaḥ sa dhātrīn nava varṣāṇi pālayām āsa līlayā| tasyāpi tanayo maṁgi -yuvarājākhya-bhūpatiḥ nyāyenāpālayad dhātrīṁ vatsarān paṁcaviṁśatiṁ| tasmāj jātaḥ sutaḥ śrīmāN jayasiṁho mahīpatiḥ sa trayodaśa varṣāṇi rājyaṁ cakre nr̥pottamaḥ| dvaimāturas tad-anujaḥ kokkilir nnāma viśrutaḥ ṣaṇ-māsa-mātram evāsau pālayitvāmucad dharāṁ| tad-agrajas tu vikhyāto viṣṇuvarddhana-nāmavāN| saptatriṁśat samāḥ prir̥thvīṁ rarakṣa sakalām imāṁ| sūnus tadīyo vijayā ditya-nāmā mahīpatiḥ so ’pi pālitavān urvvīm aṣtau daśa ca vatsarāN| viṣṇu-bhūpas tato jāto viṣṇuvad bali-marddanaḥ ṣaṭtriṁśad vatsarān dhātrīm āpālya prayayau divaṁ| tasya sūnur abhūd dhīmān vijayāditya-saṁjñitaḥ Aṣṭottara-śata-khyāta -yuddha-labdha-jayonnatiḥ| tāvaṁty eva punaḥ kr̥tvā śaṁbhor āyatanāny api catvāriṁśat samāḥ prir̥thvīṁ pralīnārim apālayaT| viṣṇuvarddhana-nāmābhūt tat-sūnur vvijitāhitaḥ so ’pi varṣaṁ sa-ṣaṇ-māsaṁ bubhuje dharaṇī-talaṁ| jātas tasyāpi sūnur nnirupama-vijayāditya-nāmā mahīśaḥ prakhyātaś śāradendūjjvala-dhavala-yaśo-vyāpta-dik-cakravālaḥ nānā-dvīpāntarābhyāgata-para-narapa-śrīmad-uttuṁga-mauli -sthānūnāṁghri-dvayābjaḥ prir̥thu-guṇa-nilayas satya-ratnāgkarāṁkaḥ sa catvāriṁśataṁ cābdān caturaś ca tataḥ paraṁ nyāyenāpālya dharaṇīṁ purandara-puraṁ gataḥ| tasyānujaḥ prabhuḥ khyāto vikramāditya-saṁjñitaḥ trāsa-namrāri-bhūpāla -mauli-mālārccita-kramaḥ| Atha nissanna-bhūpālād gāmakāṁbābhavat sutā lakṣmīr iva mahāṁbhodheḥ pārvvatīva himācalātT| tasyāṁ ca gāmakāṁbāyāṁ vikramāditya-bhūpateḥ pārvvatyām andhakārātes sūnur gguha IvābhavaT| cālukya-bhīma-nāmāṁkaḥ cālukya-kula-varddhanaḥ garbhbha-stha Eva bhū-rājya -paṭṭa-bandhārccito janaiḥ| yaj-janma-mātreṇaivātra dharmmo niścalatāṁ gataḥ vedā gauravam atyaṁtaṁ loke satyaṁ pratiṣṭhitaM| parjjanyaḥ kāma-varṣitvaṁ jagat sarvvaṁ nirītitāṁ durjjanā vilayaṁ sarvve sasyaṁ cākr̥ṣṭa-pacyatāṁ| yasya pratāpa-santāpa -khidyamānās sadā dviṣaḥ pāda-cchāyān na muṁcanti dvīpāntara-samāgatāḥ| yat-prasāda-taror aindraṁm apakva-phalavat padaṁ yasya krodhānalasyāpi vahnir aurvvaḥ kaṇāyate| kāliṁgān kosalāṁn apy aṭavija-nr̥patīn oḍra-nāthān udīcyān prācyān lāṭān avantīn malayaja-sahitān koṁkaṇān cola-pāṇḍyān sarvvānetān vijitya prakaṭita-mahimā cāru-kīrttiṁ digantaṁ prāpayyāsthāpayad yo nirupama-caritaḥ śrī-jaya-staṁbham etaM

tratra cālukya-bhīma-nr̥patau rājyaṁ kurvvati sati|

Āsīd divākaro nāma mahāsārtthākhya-vāṁśa-jaḥ Oṟeyūr-grāma-vāstavyo dharmma-śīlo dayā-paraḥ tasmāt tu kaḍeyaśreṣṭhi -nāmā jātas sutottamaḥ Āḍḍhyatvena mahatvttvena kuberañ cātyaśeta yaḥ| tasmād yaḥ ponnakāṁbāyāṁ jāto vaiśyādhipas sutaḥ khyātaḥ polayanākhyo yaḥ satya-vāg anaghaḥ śuciḥ| yasya śrī-bhavanājiraṁ dvija-pada-prakṣālanāṁbu sphuṭaṁ nityaṁ karddamatāṁn nayaty atitarāṁ yenoddhr̥taṁ svaṁ kulaṁ kr̥tvā yaś ca śivālayaṁ surasarit-tīre prayāge ’dadāt taṁ dharmmaṁ vara-bhīma-bhūmipataye cālukya-bhīmeśvaraM|

tasmai vaiśyeśvarāya poleyanākhyāyaiva guṇa-viśiṣṭāya sa rājā cālukya-bhīma-nr̥patiḥ kākamrāṇu nāma grāmaṁ brāhmaṇebhyo dātum agrahāram adāT| dattvā ca sa Eva rājā rāṣṭrakūṭa-pramukhān kuṭuṁbina Āhūyettham ājñāpayati

viditam astu vo ’smābhir oṁger-mmārgga-viṣaye kākamrāṇu-nāma-grāmaḥ sarvva-kara-parihāreṇa brāhmaṇebhyo dātuṁ poleyana-śreṣṭhine datta Iti| sa ca poleyana-śreṣṭhī tadānīm eva brāhmaṇebhyaḥs taṁ grāmam adāT|

tatra samastaṁ grāmaṁ sama-pravibhāgatvena dvau bhāgau kr̥tvā pūrvva-svāmibhyām āekam arddham anyān guṇavad-brāhmaṇāN ṣaṭ-karmma-niratān śruti-śāstra-pāragān anviṣya tebhyaaḥ Aparam arddhaṁ| te ca brāhamaṇāḥ sva nāma gotrābhyāṁ labdhāṁśa-pramāṇena ca prir̥thaK prir̥thak kathyante|

Seal

Plates -pādānudhyātānāṁ -pādānudhyānāṁ Typo in Sankaranarayanan's edition. kr̥tvāsau rājyam kr̥tvā saurājyam The spacing may simply be a typo in Sankaranarayanan's edition. jayasiṁho jayasiṁha- ṣaṭtriṁśad saṣa-triṁśad NV's reading appears to be a compound typo. tāvaṁty tāvaty śaṁbhor śaṁbhār cābdān cābdām tasyāṁ ca tasyāṁ I adopt Sankaranarayanan's emendation (which he prints as cā, clearly a typo) of the otherwise hypometrical line. This is a straightforward and plausible correction, though not necessarily the intent of the composer, which may have been e.g. tasyāṁ tu, tasyāṁ vai or etasyāṁ. -bhūpateḥ -bhūpāleḥ atyaṁtaṁ atyaṁtaṁ The only anusvāra is above ta; since it is above the centre of the character, it was probably intended to be pronounced before ta. There is also a fainter dot above the preceding ma, but if this is an anusvāra, then it is at an incorrect point. etaM āṁtaM The problematic part is unclear in the estampage, but slightly clearer in the photo. Both previous editors print their reading as clear. SS's reading is slightly more attractive in the context, but there certainly seems to be no ā attached to the preceding m, nor space for such a vowel mark. There does, on the other hand, appear to be a faint indication of an e marker in the photograph. I thus favour NV's reading. See also the commentary. kaḍeyaśreṣṭhi kadiyaśreṣṭhi kundeyaśreṣṭhī My conjectural reading is informed by a supposition that the first component of the name is identical to kaḍeya (found in this form e.g. in the Bezvāḍa plates of Bhīma I), equivalent to Sanskrit kaṭaka. I cannot exclude either of the previously suggested readings, but it seems to me that the vowel of the problematic character, especially in the estampage, is e rather than i. The consonant part of this character does not appear to be a conjunct, but rather a ḍ (or possibly d) that is lowered in order to make room for its vowel marker. The curved stroke next to the preceding k seems to be noise rather than an u marker. Āḍḍhyatvena Ādyatvena cātyaśeta yaḥ| cātyaśet yaT NV's yaT may be a typo like his omission of the final a. °ājiraṁ °ājira- tasmai viśiṣṭāya Sankaranarayanan identifies this stretch of text as an āryā hemistich and assigns it the stanza number 31. The segment is, however, not in āryā. It could, with some stretch, be identified as an āryāgīti hemistich, but that would require emending poleyanā° to polayanā° (as found in line 39 above, but not in the other occurrences) and would still leave the third and sixth feet with prosodic patterns not permitted in those positions. Moreover, the sentence clearly continues in prose after this stretch, so I am positive that this segment too is nothing but prose, and its resemblance to āryāgīti is merely chance. °aiva °aivaṁ- adāT apālayaT NV's reading is clearly impossible. samastaṁ grāmaṁ samasta-grāmam The m printed by Sankaranarayanan instead of the second anusvāra is probably a typo, but the absence of the first anusvāra in his reading is probably deliberate. -pravibhāgatvena dvau bhāgau -pravibhāgatvena dvau bhāgau -pravibhāgatvena cārddhan bhāgan This segment is all but illegible in the published photo and barely better in the estampage. I indicate unclear readings as printed by Sankaranarayanan. NV's reading may perhaps be a typo for cārddhau bhāgau, but the least legible area is unlikely to hide two characters. SS's reading makes good sense in the context and is plausible from the vestiges. It seems likewise possible that the correct reading is pravibhāgatvenārddhau bhāgau āekam ekam This segment is also barely legible in the available visual aids. NV's reading (which he prints as clear throughout) seems slightly more likely than SS's. Ervvokotsava- Eṟvvākotsava- Apparently not a typo in Sankaranarayanan, but the reading is clear in the published photo (with the left-hand stroke of the vowel bending down on the left of the body, rather than being a sinuous curve above it, probably because of the presence of the descender of trā above). See also the commentary. -janneya° -jannaya° The marker of e is clear in the form bending down on the left of the consonant, rather than a sinuous stroke above it, which would not have been possible here due to interference from lka above. meḻeya° mereya° meṟeya° The r in SS's reading is probably be a typo for ṟ. The rubbing definitely seems to have ḻ, not ṟ. -cīḻama° -vīṟama° -cīṟama° -nāma- According to NV's note, Traces of a Krāra under na and aitva under ma are clearly visible. I am not familiar with his terms, but I presume that he means a subscript r under na and a vowel marker for ai under ma. The former is indeed quite clear; the latter is somewhat dubious. The engraver may have initially inscribed dvideda or dvivedine, and then gone back to correct these characters to nāma dvi(ve), but this is far from the only possibility. -ḻuddapa- -ṟuddapa- doṇapoḍi- According to Sankaranarayanan's note, this name could also be read as Auṇapoḍi-. I find that very unlikely; I would expect an initial Au not to have the loop at the top left that is typical of many o markers in this script, and to have no notch at the bottom. -ḻuddapa- -ṟuddapa- Etebhyo Ebhyo Though obscured in the photo, te can be made out quite well in the rubbing. -siddhaśarmmaṇe -siddhamaśarmmaṇe ca~~tvāro|~~tu-bhāgacatur-bhāgāḥ| catur-bhāgaāḥ| catūur-bhāgaḥ I believe that catvāro| was originally inscribed, after which tvā was corrected into tu, ro into bhā, and the punctuation mark into a slightly crowded ga. The reason NV reads ū rather than u is the remnant of the original vowel marker in tvā. meṇḍeya- These characters may have been written over struck-out earlier text. meḻeya° meṟeya° -meḷeya° NV's ḷ must have been intended for ḻ. meḻeya° meṟeya° -meḷeya° NV's ḷ must have been intended for ḻ. ~~kauśika- bhāgaḥ|~~ According to Sankaranarayanan's note, the deleted text is in a different hand. The characters do seem more cursive, but since they are all very faint, they could very well be in the original hand. meḻeya° vāliya° caliya° I am very uncertain about the first two characters of this name, and though the two previous editors offer almost identical readings, I find those unlikely. The first character definitely has a conspicuous stroke below it, which I take to be an e attached underneath the body. It could, however, also be an ornamentally extended ā, in which case the consonant is indeed most likely to be v or c. Since there are several other Meḻeyaśarmans in the text, this reading seems plausible here. vājasaneyi- vājasaneyine There is no room for a normal ne here and I believe what NV reads as ne is just a rough spot at the rim. -beṇayaḍi° -beṇayadi° In the script of the plates, ḍ and d are usually indistinguishable (see e.g. ṣaḍaṁga-vedavide at the beginning of this line). I would normally expect the end of d not to curl upward as it does in the present character, so I prefer to read ḍ. kuṇḍi° kuṇḍa° I think an i marker is faintly visible in the photo, though not in the estampage. pārāśara- parāśara- cāmyaṇa° All other instances of this name are spelt with n, while here we have ṇ. Sankaranarayanan's edition, wrongly, prints ṇ in the occurrence earlier in line 79 (and n here). paṁcama paṁcamo harita-vennama- hartiannama- The exchanged rti in NV is surely a typo, but the absence of ve may not be. Only the vowel marker is visible in the photo, but some of the body can be seen in the estampage; ve is plausible. bhāradvāja- bhārāadvāja- The two extra strokes to the right of ra are probably not part of the writing, though it is possible that an ā was partially engraved and then cancelled.

Seal

Plates

Om! Obeisance to Nārāyaṇa.

Victory to the impeccable sovereign lord of the entire circle of the earth, which he has mastered with his own sword: King nr̥pati Cālukya-Bhīma, whose feet are caressed by the crowns of kings nr̥pati bowed down in fear.

Greetings. In the dynasty 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,Or, alternatively, by the grace of Kauśikī’s bridegroom, i.e. Śiva. In spite of its slight awkwardness, I prefer the former interpretation because the Bādāmi Cālukyas refer to themselves as nourished saṁvardhita by Kauśikī. who are protected by the band of Mothers, who were deliberately appointed to kingship by Lord Mahāsena, to whom the realms of adversaries 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—

In this dynasty of the Cālukyas was born Vijayāditya Vallabha Pulakeśin II, also known on this earth by the epithet Abode of Truth satyāśraya.

His renowned and mighty younger brother was named Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana. He obtained the country maṇḍala of Veṅgī after extirpating Durjaya.See 87-88 for some speculation on who this Durjaya may have been. The name, if a name it is, is said to occur only here and in the Kāṭlapaṟṟu grant of Vijayāditya III, but compare durjjayād balito hr̥tāṁ in line 7 of the Kalucuṁbaṟṟu grant of Amma II. There remains the possibility that durjaya is to be understood metonymically in the vague sense of “a tough enemy,” and it is also quite possible that veṅgī-maṇḍala was not actually conquered by Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana, this act being projected backward onto him.

Having ruled most excellently for eight and ten years, he passed on to heaven because he was eager to enjoy the divine ladies.

His son, named Jayasiṁha I and possessing the valour of many lions siṁha, possessed bhuj- for thirty-three years over the land up to the four oceans.

The son of his younger brother King Indra was King Viṣṇu Viṣṇuvardhana II. He effortlessly protected pāl- the earth for nine years.

His son in turn, the king bhūpati called Maṅgi Yuvarāja, protected pāl- the earth justly for twenty-five years.

From him was born a majestic son, King mahīpati Jayasiṁha II. That most excellent king reigned for thirteen years.

His younger brother by a different mother was widely known by the name Kokkili. Having ruled pāl- it for a mere six months, he relinquished the earth.

That one’s famous elder brother, Viṣṇuvardhana III by name, protected rakṣ- this entire earth for thirty-seven years.

His son was the king mahīpati named Vijayāditya I. He in turn protected pāl- the earth for eight and ten years.

From him was born King bhūpa Viṣṇuvardhana IV, a crusher of the mighty just as Viṣṇu is the crusher of Bali,Sankaranarayanan (88) is convinced that the name Bali signifies a victory of Viṣṇuvardhana over a king of the Bāṇa lineage, who traced themselves from the demon Bali. While the possibility of such an allusion cannot be ruled out, I find it more likely that Bali is to be understood as a name only in the context of Viṣṇu, and in the prima facie meaning it simply stands for “powerful enemies.” who went on to heaven after protecting pāl- the earth for thirty-six years.

His son was the clever one named Vijayāditya II, prominent because of his victories attained in a hundred and eight famous battles.

Afterward erecting just as many viz, 108 abodes of Śambhu, he ruled for forty years over an earth devoid of enemies.

His son was named Viṣṇuvardhana V who conquered his enemies. He possessed bhuj- the earth for a year and six months.

To him too was born a son: the famous king mahīśa named Vijayāditya III the Peerless nirupamaIn the word nirupama Sankaranarayanan (88-89) sees an implication that Vijayāditya’s maternal grandfather (known to be a Rāṣṭrakūṭa, but not identified precisely) was Nirupama Dhruva of Mānyakheṭa. Again, this is definitely possible, but must be taken with a pinch of salt, as nirupama may be simply another empty superlative. The occurrence of the same word in stanza 26, applied to Cālukya-Bhīma, appears even more likely to be innocuous, though Sankaranarayanan (83) does raise the possibility that it may mean he took after his grandfather. Cālukya-Bhīma is also called nirupama in line 15 of the Drujjūru grant of Amma I, where it may well be a fixed epithet. Bynamed “jewel-mine of truthfulness” satya-ratnākara, he was an abode of extensive virtues and his reputation, glowing brightly like an autumnal moon, pervaded the circle of the compass. The lotus of his two feet stood on, and was not lower than, the majestic and elevated crowns of foreign kings arriving from various other continents.

Having protected pāl- the earth justly for forty years and then four more, he went to the palace pura of Purandara Indra.

His mighty and famous younger brother was called Vikramāditya I, whose footsteps were adorned by a string of the crowns of enemy kings bowed down in fear.

Now from King bhūpāla NissannaThis name is not otherwise known and probably belongs to an underlord of the Cālukya kings. He may, perhaps, be a descendant of the executor of some of Maṅgi Yuvarāja’s grants, whose name was read as /nissaramiji/ by Fleet in the Nutulapaṟu grant and as /nissarabhninti/ by me in the London Plates of Maṅgi Yuvarāja. there arose a daughter Gāmakāmbā, as Lakṣmī from the great ocean, as Pārvatī from the Himalaya.

From that Gāmakāmbā was born the son of King bhūpati Vikramāditya, as Guha Kārttikeya the son of Śiva the Enemy of Andhaka was born from Pārvatī.

Distinguished by the name Cālukya-Bhīma I, this uplifter of the Cālukya lineage was honoured by the people with coronation to kingship over the earth even while unborn.

By his mere birth righteousness dharma came to stability in this world, the Vedas to utter dignity, and truthfulness became established among the people.

Rain came whenever desired, the entire world was rid of disasters īti, all criminals disappeared, and crops needed no ploughing to yield a harvest.

Enemies, even coming from other continents, are ever so enervated by the sunlight of his valour that they do not relinquish the shade of his feet.

The position of Indra is like only an unripe fruit of the tree of his favour, and Aurva’s fire is dwarfed by the blaze of his wrath.

Those of Kaliṅga and Kosala, the forest rulers nr̥pati, the lords of Oḍra, those of the north, of the west, of Lāṭa, of Avanti, those of Koṅkaṇa along with those of Malaya, the Colas and the Pāṇḍyas—having asserted his greatness by defeating all of these, peerless in conduct, he propagated his exquisite reputation to the horizons and erected this majestic victory pillar.The reading for “this” is dubious (see the apparatus to line 35), but seems probable. The most straightforward explanation for the presence of this word here would be that this stanza (perhaps along with others) is a verbatim copy of the inscription on an actual victory pillar.

During the reign of this King nr̥pati Cālukya-Bhīma,

There was a scion named Divākara of the family called Mahāsārtha “Great Caravan”, a resident of Oṟeyūr village, pious in conduct, bent on charity.

To him was born an excellent son named Kaḍiyaśreṣṭhin, who surpassed even Kubera in affluence and grandeur.

A son, an overlord of Vaiśyas, was born to him of his wife Ponnakāmbā. Honest, guiltless and pure, he was called Polayana.

The courtyard of his splendid mansion has been patently turned into a complete morass by his constant washing of Brahmins’ feet. He has uplifted his family. He has even commissioned a temple of Śiva on the bank of the Divine River Ganges in Prayāga, and has bestowed that pious establishment dharmaI understand dharma to refer to the temple itself as a manifestation of piety, much as the word is used in the phrase deya-dharma. on the excellent King bhūmipati Bhīma, naming it the Cālukya-Bhīmeśvara.According to Sankaranarayanan (89), the temple is more likely to have been built in the land of Veṅgī, since we know of several Bhīmeśvara temples there, but of none around Ilahabad. He adds that Prayāga was Gurjara-Pratīhāra territory at the time, and there is no evidence of a close relationship of the Eastern Cālukyas with that dynasty. He therefore suggests that the locative prayāge be construed with the act of giving, i.e. dedicating the temple to the king which the merchant would have performed while on pilgrimage, and not with that of commissioning the temple. This is not impossible, but I find it unlikely that the act of bestowing the temple and the merit accruing therefrom on the king, definitely a public relations affair, should have taken place in a distant land. The merchant may well have travelled to Prayāga for business as well as pilgrimage, and sponsored a shrine there. This need not have been large, prominent, or even long-lived and thus the fact that no Bhīmeśvara temple survives there has very little weight as evidence that one was not once established there. It is also possible that the Surasarit and the Prayāga of this stanza refer to a river and a place in South India, perhaps even in Veṅgī, where the sacred geography of the subcontinent was re-envisioned in local topography. Venkataramanayya believes the temple was built in Prayāga, but does not discuss this further.

To that lord among Vaiśyas, the very one called Poleyana of excellent virtue, that ruler rājan King nr̥pati Cālukya-Bhīma has granted the village named Kākamrāṇu as a rent-free holding agrahāra, to be donated to Brahmins. And having given it, that very king summons householders kuṭumbin—including foremost the territorial overseers rāṣṭrakūṭa—and commands them as follows:

Let it be known to you that we have granted the village named Kākamrāṇu in Oṁger-mārga district viṣaya to the magnate śreṣṭhin Poleyana, to be donated to Brahmins with a remission of all taxes. The magnate Poleyana in turn has immediately donated that village to Brahmins.

Having for this purpose divided the whole village into two equally apportioned parts, he has given one half to the village’s two previous landlords svāminThe two previous landlords are apparently not named here and probably held copperplate grants of their own for this village. and, having sought out other worthy Brahmins devoted to the six duties and versed in the Veda śruti and the treatises śāstra, he has given the other half to those. And those Brahmins are recounted singly, each with his name and gotra, along with the extent of the share received.

To Cāmyana Bhaṭṭa of the Kauśika gotra, ten shares of this village along with the duties śulka on the first plough run of the Ervvoka festival, and on the mūka baskets paṭalaka of the festival of Vināyaka.See the commentary for some speculation about this obscure passage. To Bhāskara Bhaṭṭa of the Kauṇḍinya gotra, two shares. To Janneya Bhaṭṭa of the Kāśyapa gotra, to Viṭṭeya Bhaṭṭa of the Harita gotra, to Vennama Bhaṭṭa the Bhāradvāja, to Mereya Bhaṭṭa of the same gotra, to Vennama Bhaṭṭa of the Harita gotra, to Govardhana Bhaṭṭa of the Kauṇḍinya gotra, to Kāmadeva-tredi Bhaṭṭa the Bhāradvāja, to Vennama Bhaṭṭa of the same gotra,. to Vennama Bhaṭṭa of the Harita gotra, to Dāmeya Bhaṭṭa of the Kapi gotra, to Komareya Bhaṭṭa of the Ātreya gotra, to Vennama Bhaṭṭa the Bhāradvāja, to Nandama Bhaṭṭa of the Kata gotra, to Cīḻama Bhaṭṭa of the Kapi gotra, —to each of these, one share per person. To Tūrkama Bhaṭṭa of the Gārgya gotra, two shares. To the Dvivedin named Revama the Bhāradvāja, to the Dvivedin Divākara of the same gotra, to the Dvivedin Ḻuddapa of the same gotra, to the Dvivedin Sarvvaya the Bhāradvāja, to the Dvivedin Mādhava of the same gotra, to the Caturvedin Doṇapoḍi, to the Dvivedin Revama of the Cikita gotra, to the Dvivedin Ḻuddapa the Bhāradvāja, to the Dvivedin Poteya the Kauṇḍinya, to the Dvivedin Cāmikuṟṟa the Harita, to the Dvivedin of the gotra, to the Dvivedin of the gotra, —to each of these Dvivedins, one share per person. To the KramavidI.e. a Brahmin learned in the recitation method called krama. Kannama of the Bhāradvāja gotra, one share. To Vennamaśarman of the Kāśyapa gotra, two shares. To his son Kuṇḍiśarman, one share. To Vāmana the Kāśyapa, three shares. To Viddamaśarman of the same gotra, four shares. To the kramavid Kandeya of the Harita gotra, half a share. To Bhīmaśarman of the Kāśyapagotra, two shares. To Potamaśarman of the Vatsa gotra, two shares. To Siddhaśarman the Kāśyapa, four shares. To Vikramaśarman of the Vatsagotra, two shares. To Nāgadeva of the Kauśika gotra, two shares. To Dāmaśarman of the Bhāradvāja gotra, two shares. To the Dvivedin Meṇḍeya, three khaṇḍikās. To Meḻeyaśarman, two shares. To Śubhākaraśarman of the main royal college mūlaghaṭika,For the word ghaṭikā, see IEG ghaṭikā, , and 236-238. According to Sankaranarayanan (851), mūlaghaṭikā means an institution of primary education, which seems anachronistic. to Mayindamaśarman the Kauṇḍinya, to Koṇḍamaśarman of the same gotra, to Divākaraśarman of the Kauśika gotra, to Mādhavaśarman of the same gotra, to Divākarapeddeyaśarman of the same gotra, to Vennamaśarman, to Meḻeyaśarman the Harita, to Nārāyaṇaśarman the Harita, to Vimalasamudra the Kauṇḍinya, to Droṇaśarman the Harita, to Nārāyaṇaśarman, to Sarvadevaśarman of the Vatsa gotra, —to each of these, one share per person. To Bhavasvāmi Bhaṭṭa of the Kāśyapa gotra, two shares. To Mahākāla Bhaṭṭa of the same gotra, one share.An item has been deleted here: “To Meḻeyaśarman of the Kauśika gotra, one share.” To Vikramayyaśarman of the Vājasaneyi-Kāśyapagotra, twelve shares. To Koṇḍyama of the Bhāradvājagotra, knower of the Veda complete with its six limbs, one share. To Beṇayaḍiśarman of the Vājasaneyi-Kauśika gotra, three shares. To Bejayitaśarman of the same gotra, three shares. To Bikyaṇaśarman of the same gotra, three shares. To Kuṇḍiśarman of the Vatsāra gotra, younger son of Nāgāmba, two shares. To Paṇḍaraṅgaśarman of the Parāśara gotra, one share. To Cāmyana Bhaṭṭa of the Kauśika gotra, five shares To Cāmyaṇaśarman of the Vājasaneyi-Kāśyapagotra, three shares. To Potamayyaśarman of the Vājasaneyi-Kauśika gotra, two shares. To Kāmaśarman of the Bhāradvāja gotra, one share. To Ailamaśarman of the same gotra, one share. To Bhīmaśarman of the Kauśika gotra, five shares. To Dāmaśarman of the Kāśyapa gotra, two shares. To the Kramavid Doṇeya of the Gautama gotra, one share. To the Kramavid Cāmyana of the same gotra, a share and a half. To the Kramavid Goleya the Kauṇḍinya, one share. To the Kramavid Vennama the Harita, one share. To the Kramavid Sarvadeva the Bhāradvāja, to the Dvivedin Keśava the Kāśyapa, to the Kramavid Keśava the Kauṇḍinya, to the Kramavid Śrīdhara of the Lohita, —a half share per person. To the Kramavid Śrīdhara the Kauśika, three khaṇḍikās. To Nandiśarman the Bhāradvāja, one share. To Bavvaṇaśarman of the Śrīvatsa gotra, one share. To Mācyaṇa Bhaṭṭa of the same gotra, two shares. To Tāḻamaśarman of the Bhāradvāja gotra, one share. To Kautama Bhaṭṭa of the Kauśika gotra, two shares. To the Kramavid Vennama of the Harita gotra, one share. To the goldsmith Bhīmana, land to the extent sufficient for sowing three khaṇḍikās of kodrava seed has been given, including a goldsmith’s workshop.While Sankaranarayanan (86-87) is correct in pointing out that the word akṣaśālā and its variants are usually interpreted to mean a mint, I find it unlikely that a donated village could have included a mint and that a humble goldsmith would have been given charge of it or, as Sankaranarayanan suggests, of the dues payable by the village to the mint. It seems far more likely that the word means, here at least, the workshop of a goldsmith.

Seal

Plates

Om ! Hommage à Nārāyaṇa !

Que soit victorieux le souverain unique, immaculé, qui subjuga le cercle de la terre entière par son épée, le souverain Cālukya Bhīma, aux pieds ornés par les diadèmes des souverains ennemis, ployant sous la crainte !

Prospérité ! Ils étaient illustres, du même gotra que les descendants de Manu, honorés dans l’univers entier, fils de Hāritī, qui obtinrent leur royaume grâce à l’excellente faveur de Kauśikī, protégés par la troupes des Mères, méditant aux pieds du seigneur Mahāsena, dont le cercle des ennemis fut soumis en un instant à la vue du signe illustre de l’excellent sanglier, faveur octroyée par le bienheureux Nārāyaṇa, dont les corps furent purifiés par le bain purificatoire de l’aśvamedha :Les composés de ce paragraphe sont au génitif pluriel et qualifient les Cālukya.

Dans la lignée des Cālukya naquit Vijayāditya Vallabha célébré sur terre également sous le nom de Satyaśraya,

Le frère cadet de celui-ci, célèbre roi, connu sous le nom de Viṣṇuvardhana, ayant détrôné Durjayaṁ,Seule mention de cet événement dans l’ensemble de notre corpus. acquit le royaume de Veṅgī.

Après qu’il eut régné avec une grande justice pendant dix-huit années, désireux de s’unir aux jeunes femmes célestes, il suivit le chemin des Marut.

Son fils, nommé Jayasiṁha, à la vaillance d’un puissant lion, gouverna la terre jusqu’aux quatre océans pendant trente-trois années.

Viṣṇurāja, fils d’Indrarāja, le frère cadet de ce dernier, gouverna la terre pendant neuf années avec facilité.

Puis le fils de ce dernier, le roi nommé Maṁgi Yuvarāja, gouverna la terre avec justice pendant vingt-cinq années.

Naquit de celui-ci un fils : l’illustre roi Jayasiṁha, le meilleur roi sur terre, qui régna pendant treize années.

Son demi-frère, connu sous le nom de Kokkili ayant protégé la terre pendant seulement six mois, renonça.

Puis, le frère aîné de ce dernier, célèbre, sous le nom de Viṣṇuvardhana, gouverna cette terre toute entière pendant trente-sept années.

Son fils, le roi nommé Vijayāditya, protégea aussi la terre pendant dix-huit années.

Ensuite naquit le roi Viṣṇu, qui, comme Viṣṇu fut le meurtrier de Bali, il fut le destructeur des puissants, comme celui des impôts,śleṣopama, l’un des comparé ayant lui-même deux sens : bali désigne à la fois l’ennemi de Viṣṇu, les « puissants » et les « impôts ». après qu’il eut protégé la terre pendant trente-six années, il gagna le ciel.

Son fils fut connu comme le sage Vijayāditya, grandit par les victoires remportées dans cent huit célèbres batailles.

Après qu’il eut fait ériger un aussi grand nombre de temples de Śambhu, il protégea la terre, débarrassée des ses ennemis, pendant quarante années.

Le fils de ce dernier fut le nommé Viṣṇuvardhana, qui terrassa les ennemis et régna sur l’étendue de la terre pendant un an et demi.

Puis, de celui-ci naquit un fils nommé Nirupama Vijayāditya, roi célèbre, dont l’étincelante et éclatante gloire se répandit sur le cercle des horizons comme une lune d’automne. Les deux lotus qu’étaient ses grands pieds reposaient sur les lumineux et hauts diadèmes des autres rois, venus de tous les autres continents, lui, séjour d’abondantes vertus, portant la marque véridique d’une masse de joyaux.

Ensuite ce roi régna pendant quarante-quatre années. après avoir protégé la terre avec justice, il gagna la ville de Purandara.Cité des dieux gouvernée par Indra.

Son frère cadet fut un roi célèbre, connu sous le nom de Vikramāditya, dont les diadèmes des rois ennemis, ployés par la terreur, formaient une guirlande qui ornait les pas.

Alors naquit du roi Nissanna une fille : Gāmakāṁbā, telle Lakṣmī qui naquit du grand océanLakṣmī est née de l’ocean de lait. (V. Mani, 2003, p. 449) et Pārvatī du Mont Himavant.

De cette Gāmakāṁbā et du roi Vikramāditya naquit un fils comme Guha né de Pārvvatī et Andhakārāti .

Marqué du nom de Cālukya Bhīma, celui qui fit prospérer la lignée des Cālukya, alors qu’il était encore dans le ventre de sa mère, fut honoré du bandeau de la royauté sur la terre par le peuple.

Sa seule naissance fit que le dharma devint constant en ce monde, les veda furent extrêment honorés et la vérité élut domicile dans le monde,

La pluie se déversait à souhait, le monde entier était affranchi des calamités, les méchants furent anéantis et partout les moissons fleurissaient sans l’intervention de la charrue.

Les ennemis, sans cesse éreintés par son ardente majesté, venus des autres continents, ne quittaient plus l’ombre de ses pieds.

En comparaison de l’arbre de ses faveurs, le royaume d’Indra offre des fruits immatures, et quand il est enflammé par la colère, le feu d’Aurva n’est plus qu’étincelle.

Ayant vaincu les Kāliṁga, Kosala, les rois Aṭavi, les souverains des Oḍra, les Udīcya, les Prācya, les Lāṭa, les Avanti, alliés aux Malaya, Koṁkaṇa, Cola et Pāṇḍya, ayant vaincu tous ceux-ci, lui dont la grandeur s’était manifestée, ayant fait atteindre la limite des horizons à sa gloire charmante, lui dont les exploits furent sans pareils, il érigea un illustre pilier de victoire, situé au bout du monde.

Puis tandis que le seigneur Cālukya Bhīma régnait dans ce monde, naquit le nommé Divākara dans la lignée appelée Mahāsārtha, habitant le village d’Oṟeyūr, dont le caractère était enclin au dharma, doué de compassion.

De celui-ci naquit un excellent fils nommé Kadiyaśreṣṭhin,Le terme śreṣṭhin indique que ce personnage appartient à une famille de chef de marchands. qui par sa prééminence et sa grandeur surpassa Kubera.

De ce dernier et de Ponnakāṁbā naquit un fils, chef des marchands,Nous fondons notre traduction sur les expressions comprenant le même terme relevées in D. C. Sircar, 1966, p. 360. connu sous le nom de Polayana, doué d’une parole sincère, sans reproche, pur.

L’eau avec laquelle on lavait les pieds des brahmanes rendait boueuse, aux yeux de tous, la vaste cour de sa demeure, lui qui éleva de façon exceptionnelle sa propre lignée, et qui, ayant fait ériger un temple de Śiva, sur les rivages de la Surasarit,Gaṁgā. à Prayāga donna comme donation pieuse le temple nommé Cālukya Bhīma pourL’emploi du datif bhūmi-pataye indique que le roi est le bénéficiaire, « yajamāna », en tant qu’ordonnateur de la donation, plus que le destinataire de celle-ci. l’excellent souverain Bhīma.

A ce chef des marchands, précisément nommé Poleyana, aux vertus éminentes, le roi, seigneur Cālukya Bhīma, donna le village nommé Kākamrānu pour que celui-ci le donnât aux brahmanes en qualité d’agrahāra.Poleyana est le vijnãpti de la donation. Et, après avoir fait cette donation, après avoir rassemblé les chefs de familles, rāṣṭrakūṭa en tête, ce même roi ordonne ceci :

qu’il soit connu de vous que nous donnons le village nommé Kākamrāṇu, exempté de toute taxe, dans le viṣaya de Omger-Mārga, à Poleyanaśreṣṭhin pour que celui-ci le donne aux brahmanes. Et c’est alors que ce Poleyanaśreṣṭhin a donné ce village aux brahmanes.

Alors, ayant fait de la totalité du village deux lots égaux, il accorda une moitié aux deux maîtres précédents,Ces deux brahmanes ne sont pas mentionnés nommément. L’éditeur suggère qu’il s’agit des deux propriétaires originaux du terrain. et chercha d’autres brahmanes vertueux, voués aux six devoirs, se consacrant à la Śruti et aux śāstra, pour leur accorder l’autre moitié. Et ces brahmanes sont énumérés au moyen de leur nom et de leur gotra, d’après l’importance de la part reçue, un par un :

à Cāmyanabhaṭṭa, du gotra de Kauśika, dix parts dans ce village avec le droit de percevoir les taxes pour la fête d’Eṟuvāka, marquant le premier coup de charrue, et les taxes mūkapaṭalaka pour la fête de Vināyaka;Le sens du composé eṟvvākotsava-prathamahala-dhāvana-vināyakotsava-mūkapaṭalaka-śulka-sahitā est obscur. Les termes mūkapaṭalaka-śulka semblent désigner un type de taxes, mais ils n’apparaissent dans aucun index qui permette une étude comparative. Nous reprenons dans la traduction les explications données par l’éditeur de l’inscription p. 86. deux parts à Bhāskarabhatta du gotra de Kauṇḍinya, à Jannayabhaṭṭa du gotra de Kāśyapa, à Viṭṭeyabhaṭṭa du gotra de Harita, à Vennamabhaṭṭa du gotra de Bhāradvāja, à Mereyabhaṭṭa du gotra du précédent, à Vennamabhaṭṭa du gotra de Harita, à Govarddhanabhaṭṭa du gotra de Kauṇḍinya, à Kāmadeva, qui maîtrise les trois Veda, du gotra de Bhāradvāja, à Vennamabhaṭṭa du gotra du précédent , à Komareyabhaṭṭa du gotra d’Ātreya, à Vennamabhaṭṭa du gotra de Bhāradvāja, à Nandamabhaṭṭa du gotra de Kata , à Vīṟamabhaṭṭa du gotra de Kapi, à ceux-ci une part chacun, deux parts à Tūrkamabhaṭṭa du gotra de Gārgya, à celui qui maîtrise les deux Veda, nommé Revama, du gotra de Bhāradvāja, à celui qui maîtrise les deux Veda, Divākara, du gotra du précédent, à celui qui maîtrise les deux Veda, Ṟuddapa, du gotra du précédent, à celui qui maîtrise les deux Veda, Sarvvaya, du gotra de Bhāradvāja, à celui qui maîtrise les deux Veda, Mādhava,du gotra du précédent, à celui qui maîtrise les quatre Veda, Doṇapoḍi, à celui qui maîtrise les deux Veda, Revama, du gotra de Cikita, à celui qui maîtrise les deux Veda, Ṟuddapa, du gotra de Bhāradvāja, à celui qui maîtrise les deux Veda, Poteya,du gotra de Kauṇḍinya, à celui qui maîtrise les deux Veda, Cāmikuṟṟa, du gotra de Harita, à ceux-ci, qui maîtrisent les deux Veda, une part chacun, une part au récitant kramavid,Technique de récitation des Veda. Kannama, du gotra de Bhāradvāja, deux parts à Vennamaśarman, du gotra de Kāśyapa, une part à Kuṇḍiśarman, frère cadet de ce dernier, trois parts à Vāmana du gotra de Kāśyapa, quatre parts à Viddamaśarman du gotra du précédent, une demi part au récitant kramavid Kandeya du gotra de Harita, deux parts à Bhīmaśarman du gotra de Kāśyapa, deux parts à Potamaśarman du gotra de Vatsa, quatre parts à Siddhamaśarman du gotra de Kāśyapa, deux parts à Vikramaśarman du gotra de Vatsa, deux parts à Nāgadeva du gotra de Kauśika, deux parts à Dāmaśarman du gotra de Bhāradvāja, trois khaṇḍika à celui qui maîtrise les deux Veda, Meṇḍeya, deux parts à Mereyaśarman, à Śubhākaraśarman du gotra de Mūlaghatika, à Mayindamaśarman du gotra de Kauṇḍinya, à Koṇḍamaśarman du gotra du précédent , à Divākaraśarman du gotra de Kauśika, à Mādhavaśarman du gotra du précédent, à Divākara Peddeyaśarman du gotra du précédent, à Vennamaśarman, à Meṟeyaśarman du gotra de Harita, à Nārāyaṇaśarman du gotra de Harita, à Vimalasamudra du gotra de Kauṇḍinya, à Droṇaśarman du gotra de Harita, à nārayaṇaśarman, à Sarvadevaśarman du gotra de Vatsa, à ceux-ci, une part chacun ; deux parts à Bhavasvāmibhaṭṭa du gotra de Kāśyapa, une part à Mahākālabhaṭṭa du gotra du précédent, douze parts à Vikramayyaśarman du gotra de Vājasaneyin Kāśyapa, une part à celui qui maîtrise les deux Veda et les six Aṅga, Koṇḍyama, du gotra de Bhāradvāja, trois parts à Beṇayaḍiśarman du gotra de Vājasaneyin Kauśika, trois parts à Bejayitaśarman du gotra du précédent, trois parts à Bikyaṇaśarman du gotra du précédent, deux parts à Kuṇḍiśarman, le plus jeune fils de Nāgāṁba, du gotra de Vatsāra, une part à Paṇḍaraṅgaśarman du gotra de Parāśara, cinq parts à Cāmyaṇabhaṭṭa du gotra de Kauśika, trois parts à Cāmyanaśarman du gotra de Vājasaneyin Kāśyapa, deux parts à Potamayyaśarman du gotra de Vājasaneyin Kāśyapa, une part à Ailamaśarman du gotra de Bhāradvāja, cinq parts à Bhīmaśarman du gotra de Kauśika, deux parts à Dāmaśarman du gotra de Kāśyapa, une part au récitant kramavid Doṇeya du gotra de Gautama, une part et demi au récitant kramavid Cāmyana du gotra du précédent, une part au récitant kramavid Goleya du gotra de Kauṇḍinya, une part au récitant kramavid Vennama du gotra de Harita, une part et demi à chacun des suivants : au récitant kramavid Sarvadeva du gotra de Bhāradvāja, à Keśava du gotra de Kāśyapa, qui maîtrise les deux Veda, au récitant kramavid Keśava du gotra de Kauṇḍinya, au récitant kramavid Śrīdhara du gotra de Lohita ; trois khaṇḍika au récitant kramavid Śrīdhara du gotra de Kauśika, une part à Nandiśarman du gotra de Bhāradvāja, une part à Bavvaṇaśarman du gotra de Śrīvatsa, deux parts à Mācyaṇabhaṭṭa du gotra du précédent , une part à Tāḻamaśarman du gotra de Bhāradvāja, deux part à Kautamabhaṭṭa du gotra de Kauśika, une part au récitant kramavid Vennama du gotra de Harita, il donne à Bhīmana, l’orfèvre, un terrain rapportant en semence trois khaṇḍika de kodrava auquel s’ajoute un atelier pour frapper monnaie.ou les revenus d’une taxe sur la frappe de la monnaie, D. C. Sircar, 1966, p. 14.

According to 16, there are two lines of writing on 1v, which the scribe seems to have engraved by mistake. No facsimile of that page has been published, so a look at the original is desirable.

The break between lines a and b of stanza 6 is fused in sandhi. V7a is one of the uncommon cases where the last syllable of an odd pāda is short by nature. V11ab are broken in the middle of a word. In v16 (sragdharā) the first caesura is fused in each of the first three pādas. In v26 (sragdharā) we have semivowel sandhi at the first caesura of pāda a.

Although according to Sankaranarayanan, the description of Bhīma's conquests in stanza 26 is nothing but a first rate hyperbole and serves nothing more than as an evidence to the knowledge of Indian geography of the Chālukyan praśasti-kāra, I believe the explicit mention of a jaya-stambha erected in commemoration means he must have achieved at least some martial success along these lines. If I am correct to read etam in line 35 (along with Venkataramanayya), then it in fact seems probable that stanza 26 (perhaps along with others) is a verbatim copy of the inscription on that actual victory pillar. Interestingly, a jaya-stambha erected by Bhīma's son Kollabigaṇḍa Vijayāditya after defeating the Kaliṅgas is also mentioned in line 22 of the Diggubaṟṟu grant of Bhīma II, which is corroborated by other sources as well. Could father and son have participated in the Kaliṅga campaign together?

For eṟvvākotsava in line 50, Sankaranarayanan notes that the term must be connected to the Telugu word ēruvāka, meaning the commencement of cultivation. Both in his edition and in his discussion, the spelling is ēṟvvāka (once also ēṟuvāk-ōtsava), yet the reading is clearly with rvvo in the plate. See also line 27 of the Cevuru plates of Amma I, which mention an ervvoka-cenu (where cenu means a field), likewise spelt with rvvo and likewise linked by its editor to the Telugu word ēruvāka. Venkataramanayya cites Brown's Telugu dictionary to record that in modern times, the ēruvāka festival is celebrated on Jyeṣṭha śukla 11. I add to this speculatively that the prathama-hala-dhāvana mentioned in the text may refer to the race now called kambala (ಕಂಬಳ) in Kannada. Concerning the vināyakotsava-mūka-paṭalaka-śulka, Sankaranarayanan notes that Vināyaka may have been a harvest deity originally, though this seems to add little of relevance except in tentatively identifying the time of this festival asat the time of the harvest or earlier. He further adds that mūka could be a mistake for mūṣika, in which case the expression would mean the dues (believed to serve as) a cover or veil (of the corns) against the rats, which is rather far-fetched even if we assume an omitted character in the otherwise carefully written inscription. I have no better explanation of the term to offer, except to add that Telugu mūka (మూక) also seems to mean a crowd or a host in addition to its Sanskrit meaning of “dumb,” and that paṭala(ka) can, in addition to “veil,” mean a basket, a thatch and a lid. According to Venkataramanayya, Mūkā is a name of Durgā perceived as a goddess of vegetation, and in some parts of Andhra Pradesh an image of hers is carried in a basket from house to house.

Reported in 38A/1960-611 with discussion at 13. Edited (from photos, impressions and the original) by S. Sankaranarayanan (81-951), with photographs of the plates and seal (no translation). Also edited by N. Venkataramanayya () with photo of the seal and inked rubbings of the plates (no translation). The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on a collation of the previous editions and the visual aids published with them. Both editions contain plenty of typographic mistakes; only significant ones are shown in the apparatus here and others are silently assumed to have been correctly read by the original editors.

81-951 38A/1960-611 13