|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
lines 68 to 70, and seventeen ordinary verses in the body of the record, with one more, in line
72 f., which refers to the âjñapti, the writer, and the composer of the record.─ In respect of
orthography, we need note only (1) the incorrect saṁdhi, made by the use of an epenthetic m,
in brahmaṇyam=Attili, for brahmaṇya Attili, or more correctly brahmaṇyô=Ttili, in line 49 ;[1]
(2) the omission to combine the t and ś in saṁdhi in sat-śaraṇam, line 39, and śrîmat śrî, line
59-60 ; (3) the omission of the visarga in châru-śrî, for châru-śrîḥ, line 55-56, in accordance with
an optional rule of Southern India,─ taught, Professor Kielhorn tells me, in the Vyâsiśikshâ,─
which permits the omission of a visarga before a sibilant that is followed by any consonant, hard
or soft ;[2] (4) the doubling of s before y, once, in tassya, line 65 ; and (5) the use of ś for s
three times, in aśau, lined 17, 41, and vitrâśa, line 18.
The inscription is a record of the Eastern Chalukya king Amma II., otherwise called
Vijayâditya VI. It is not dated. But we know, from other sources,[3] that he was anointed to
the sovereignty on Friday, 5th December, A.D. 945, and reigned for twenty-five years. It
registers the grant of a village named Kaluchuṁbarru, in the Attilinâṇḍu province
(vishaya),[4] to a Jain teacher named Arhanandin, belonging to the Valahâri gaṇa and the
Aḍḍakali gachchha, for the purpose of providing for repairs to the charitable dining-hall of a
Jain temple called Sarvaḷôkâśraya-Jinabhavana. The grant was evidently made by Amma II.
himself ; but it was “ caused to be given ” by a certain lady named Châmekâmbâ, who belonged
to the Paṭṭavardhika lineage and was a pupil of Arhanandin : on this point, see page 182 below
The Telugu passage at the end of the record mentions a present made by Arhanandin himself to
the writer of the record.
To the identification of the places referred to in this record, we are led by the mention of the Attilinâṇḍu vishaya in line 49. This province evidently took its appellation from a town named Attili, which still exists in the Taṇuku tâluka of the Gôdâvarî district, Madras Presidency ; in he Indian Atlas sheet No. 94 (1899), it is shew as ‘Uttellee,’ in lat. 16º 41’, long. 81º 39’,
seven miles south-west-half-west from Taṇuku. The name of the village that was granted, is
presented as Kaluchuṁbarru in line 61, and in line 73 at Pedda-Kaluchuvubarru ; this latter
appellation marks it as being then the larger or older of two villages bearing the same name. It is the ‘Kunsamurroo’ of the map, the village-site of which is about three miles south-by-west
from Attili ; the modern form of the name is to be explained by the not infrequent interchange
of l and n, and by a transition of ch into s. Of the other places, mentioned in specifying the
boundaries of Kaluchuṁbarru, Âruvilli, on the east, is the ‘ Arraveelee’ of the map, the
village-site of which is one mile towards the south-east from that of ‘ Kunsamurroo ;’ and
Korukolanu, on the south, is ‘Corecolloo,’ one mile and a half south-west from ‘ Kunsamurroo;’
and the Yiḍiyûru of line 64, on the west, mentioned again as Iḍiyûru in line 66, is ‘Eedooroo,’ one mile and a half west-north-west from âKunsamurroo.â The other names cannot be identified,
______________________
[1] With this instance, compare the similar use of m in Sûryyasutam=iva and Vṛikôdaram=iva, in Vol. III.
above, p. 4, lines 4, 5 ; and that passage presents also an epenthetic v, in niravadya-vudâra, for niravady-ôdâra. We
have a somewhat similar use of m in Kalpalu(dru)mam=iv=and Janârddanam=iv=in Ind. Ant. Vol. XVIII. p. 267,
lines 7, 8 ; line 7 of that record, however, presents also savitâram=iv=ôdayavantam for savit=êv=ôdayavân, which
indicates the use, in the other two instances, of the accusative for the nominative, rather than of an epenthetic m. Originally, not knowing of the existence of the modern Attili, I thought that the present reading ought to the
corrected into brahmaṇy[ô*] Mattili. And that was how I came to present the name of the district as Mattilinâṇḍu, in Ind. Ant. Vol. XX. p. 271.
[2] In this South-Ind. Palæo. p. 31, Dr. Burnell said :─ “ In S. India the alternative allowed by the grammarians
“ of assimilating visarga to a following sibilant is almost universally accept, and the reduplication of the sibilant
“ then omitted.” This remark covers the case in question, but also includes more ; it would justify the omission of
a visarga before a sibilant which is not followed by a consonant.
[3] See Ind. Ant. Vol. XX. p. 271.
[4] Regarding my having previously taken the name of this province as Mattilinâṇḍu (Ind. Ant. Vol. XX.
p. 271), see note 1 above.
|
