G. S. Gai (1917–1995) was one of the greatest Indian epigraphists, and this article presents his thoughts on the much-discussed “Halmiḍi Inscription.” The latter refers to the inscription found on a stone pillar discovered by M. H. Krishna in the village of Halmiḍi (Hassan district) in 1936. It records the donation of two villages, including Palmaḍi (modern Halmiḍi), to one Vija-Arasa. Its original editor, M. H. Krishna, dated it to 450 CE, and this date continues to be widely reproduced, although Gai and Sircar subsequently dated it to around 500 CE. In any case, the Halmiḍi inscription is the oldest inscription in Kannada yet discovered. This article was originally published as Halmiḍi Śāsana – Ondu Adhyayana in pp. 1–13 of Vajradīpti, a special publication for the 60th Kannaḍa Sāhitya Sammēlana (Bangalore: Kannaḍa Sāhitya Pariṣat, 1990), and republished in pp. 48–62 in a volume of G. S. Gai’s collected papers (Ji. Es. Gāyi avara Saṁśōdhana Lēkhanagaḷu), edited by T. V. Venkatachala Sastry (Mysore: Karnāṭaka Rājya Mukta Viśvavidyālaya, 2010).

Considered the oldest available in Kannada, the Halmiḍi inscription was discovered over half a century ago — that is, in 1936 CE — by the director of the Mysore Archaeological Department, Dr. M. H. Krishna, and published in the Report of the Department of the same year. His article in the report was in English, with Krishna himself putting the Kannada version out in 1939 CE in Prabuddha Karṇāṭaka (vol. 20-3). Dr. Krishna’s published text of the inscription, as in the report, is as follows:

1 jayati śrī pariṣvaṅgaśyārṅga vyānati1r acyutaḥ2 dānavākṣṇor3 yugāntāgniḥ śiṣṭānāntu sudarśanaḥ
2namaḥ śrīmat-kadaṁbapan tyāgasaṁpannan kalabhōranā ari ka-
3 kusthabhaṭṭōranāḷe naridāviḷe nāḍuḷ mr̥gēśa-nā-
4gēndrābhīḷarbbha4ṭaharappor5 śrī mr̥gēśa-nāgāhvaya-
5 r irvvarā baṭari6kulāmalavyōma tārādhināthann aḷapa7
6gaṇapaśupatimā8 dakṣiṇāpathabahuśatahavanā-
7havaduḷ paśu-pradāna-śauryōdyama bha9ritō[n dāna]-pa
8 śupatiy endu pogaḻepoṭṭaṇa paśupati-
9 nāmadhēyanāsarakkella-bhaṭariyā prēmāla10ya
10 sutange sēndrakabaṇōbhayadēśadā vīrāpuruṣa samakṣa
11 de kēkaya-pallavaraṁ kādeṟidu petta jayanā vija
12 °arasange11 bāḷgaḻcu palmaḍi°um mūḻivaḷḷi°um ko
13 ṭṭār baṭārikuladōn aḻukadamban kaḷdōn mahāpātakan
14 °irvvaruṁ saḻbaṅgadar12 vijārasaruṁ13 palmaḍige kuṟu
15 mbiḍi viṭṭār adān aḻi14vonge mahāpātakaṁ15 svasti
16 bhaṭṭarggī gaḻde16 oḍḍali ā pattondi viṭṭārakara

  • 1The Prabuddha Karṇāṭaka text has vyānati instead of myānati. [Krishna later (p. 78) identifies myānati as an orthographic mistake for vyānati in the Report. – ed.]

  • 2[Gai’s text reads accutaḥ, incorrectly. – ed.]

  • 3The Prabuddha Karṇāṭaka text has kṣṇo instead of kṣṇō.

  • 4The inscription has bbaṭaha; bbhaṭaha is grammatically correct.

  • 5The Prabuddha Karṇāṭaka text has rappōr instead of rappor.

  • 6The inscription says bhaṭari instead of baṭari.

  • 7The inscription may be read as tārādhipan °aḻupa. The letter pa is in the lower part between di and n.

  • 8The Prabuddha Karṇāṭaka text has yā instead of mā.

  • 9In the inscription this letter may be read as ca.

  • 10In the inscription, la is inscribed in the lower part between mā and ya.

  • 11The inscription has ṅge rather than nge.

  • 12r is inscribed in miniature below da.

  • 13The inscription has vijārasara instead of vijārasaruṁ.

  • 14The inscription uses ḻi rather than ḷi.

  • 15[Gai’s text reads mahāpātakam, incorrectly. – ed.]

  • 16The inscription says ḷde rather than ḻde.

Since the text of the inscription is is ambiguous in some places in sentence construction, word-meaning and syntax, it is natural that the opinions of scholars differ as to its meaning. According to Dr. Krishna, the meaning of the inscription is as follows:17

  • 17[We have given the English text of the report, rather than translate Gai’s Kannada translation. – ed.]

During the reign of king Kakustha, the ruler of the Kadambas, who is devoted to the bestowing of gifts and is the enemy of the Kalabhōra, the governors (?) in the Naridāviḷe province were Mr̥gēśa and Nāga, who were terrible as the lord of beasts (the lion or Śiva) and the lord of elephants (or serpents – Airāvata or Ananta). These two made a grant for military service of Palmaḍi and Mūḻivaḷḷi to the beloved son of Ella-Bhaṭari, Vija-Arasa, who in the presence of the heroic men of the two countries, Sēndraka and Bāṇa, fought the Kēkayas and Pallavas, pierced them and attained victory at the word of the moon to the spotless firmament called Bhaṭarikula, named for the great Paśupati who is a Paśupati (or Śiva) to the Gaṇas who are the Aḷapas and who is full of heroism and action in giving away (slaying) cows (sacrificial beasts) in many hundreds of sacrifices which are battles in the great Dakṣiṇāpatha (Southern India) and is praised as the Paśupati (or Śiva) in bestowing gifts. Aḷu Kadamba of the Bhaṭarikula. He who takes away this grant is guilty of the great sins.18 The two and Vija-Arasa of Saḻbanga granted Kuṟumbiḍi to Palmaḍi.

  • 18[Omitted in Gai’s translation. – ed.]

Dr. Krishna assumes that the kadaṁbapa-kakusthabhaṭṭōra mentioned in the inscription is the same as the well-known king Kākusthavarma of the Kadamba dynasty and therefore dates the inscription to circa 450 CE. Consequently, he suggests that the Mr̥gēśa in the inscription is Mr̥gēśavarma, grandson of Kākusthavarma and son of Kadamba king Śāntivarma.19 Practically all scholars who have evaluated and written about the Halmiḍi inscription seem to have accepted Dr. Krishna’s claim that Kākusthavarma was the creator of the inscription. The main aim of this article is to examine this claim.

Dr. Krishna explains Kakusthabhaṭṭōra (from the sentence kadaṁbapan tyāgasaṁpannan kalabhōranā ari kakusthabhaṭṭōran āḷe) to be the well-known king Kākusthavarma of the Banavāsi Kadambas. As scholars familiar with the copper plates and stone inscriptions (all in Sanskrit) of the Kadamba kings know, however, the kings of this dynasty are normally mentioned with the qualifiers mānavyasagōtra, hāritīputra and dharmamahārājādhirāja. The tags Kadambavamśa or Kadambakula are also found in many instances. For instance:

  • kadaṁbakulē śrīmān babhūva dvijōttamaḥ nāmatō mayūraśarmmēti20
  • kadaṁbānāṁ dharmmamahārājasya śrī vijayaśivamr̥gēśavarmmaṇaḥ21
  • kadaṁbavaṁśē kākusthavarmmēti nr̥pō babhūva22
  • vikhyātakadaṁbakulōdbhūtasya śrī mr̥gēśavarmma dharmma mahārāja23

and so on. But the Halmiḍi inscription uses no such qualifiers for Kakusthabhaṭṭōra. There is no evidence to say he was born in the Kadaṁbavaṁśa or Kadaṁbakula. Morever, no Kadamba inscription refers to Kākusthavarma as Kakusthabhaṭṭōra, Kakusthabhaṭṭāra or even just Kakustha. Therefore it must be said that Kakusthabhaṭṭōra is unlikely to be the Kadamba king Kākusthavarma.

This being the case, we are faced with the question of who he is and why he is called kadaṁbapan. In this connection we must examine the inscription found in the Praṇavēśvara temple of Tāḷagunda. The text of this inscription was published by the late R. Narasimhāchār in the 1911 annual report of the Mysore Archaeological Department. This Sanskrit inscription mentions Kākustha of the Bhaṭāri clan, a tax collector and the head of ten provincial rulers (māṇḍalika) (kākusthēna bhaṭārivaṁśatilakēna daśamaṁḍalikēṣu nāyakatvaṁ ... avāpya). It begins with the praise of Paśupati (that is, Śiva) who bears the crescent moon and the Gaṅgā on his head. It goes on to say that Kākustha of the Bhaṭāri lineage, who was born thanks to this Paśupati’s grace and became well known across the southern country as Paśupati for to his munificence as well as for the valor he showed in battle, was the son of Lakṣmi born in the Kadambakula. It also claims that he gave generously to Brāhmaṇas in many sacrifices. R. Narasimhāchār says that Paśupati and Kākustha of the Bhaṭāri lineage, both mentioned in this inscription, are the same person.24

The Halmiḍi inscription mentions Paśupati of the Baṭari (Bhaṭari) or Baṭāri lineage. He is praised as an ornament like the moon in the sky that is the Bhaṭari lineage, aḷapagaṇa paśupati (that is to say, the lord or chieftain of the group of Aḻapas or Āḻupas), and as dānapaśupati in the dakṣiṇāpatha or the southern region. Further, he is also famous for making gifts of cattle, that is to say cows, during sacrifices as well as for the bravery he displayed in many battles. It is therefore clear that the Paśupati of the Halmiḍi inscription and the Paśupati mentioned in the Praṇavēśvara temple inscription of Tāḷagunda described earlier are the same person. There is nothing to prevent us from saying that, just as Paśupati and Kākustha of the Bhaṭāri lineage mentioned in the Tāḷagunda inscription are the same, as shown above, so too Paśupati of the Bhaṭāri family and Kadambapa-Kakustha Kakusthabhaṭṭōra mentioned in the Halmiḍi inscription are the same.

This claim is substantiated by the 13th line of the Halmiḍi inscription where Paśupati is referred to as aḻukadaṁban. The Tāḷagunda inscription calls Kākustha of the Bhaṭāri family the son of Lakṣmi of the Kadamba lineage; whereas the Halmiḍi inscription refers to Kakustha or Kakusthabhaṭṭōra simply as kadaṁbapa or ‘Aḻukadaṁban of the Bhaṭāri family.’ For this reason it need not be said explicitly that Kakusthabhaṭṭōra was the son of Lakṣmi of the Kadamba lineage and was the same as Kākustha of the Bhaṭāri family. The Halmiḍi inscription calls him kadaṁbapan because he was related to the Kadamba family

Since the Praṇavēśvara temple inscription in Tāḷagunda says that Kākustha of the Bhaṭāri lineage was the son of Lakṣmi of the Kadamba lineage, scholars have thought that she might have been the daughter of the famous Kadamba king Kākusthavarma and that the Kākustha mentioned in the inscription might have been this king’s grandson. Accordingly, assuming that the Kakusthabhaṭṭōra of the Halmiḍi inscription is the same as this Kakusthavarma [i.e., the putative grandfather of the Kākustha mentioned in the Tāḷagunda inscription – ed.], they date the Halmiḍi inscription to the middle of the fifth century (450 CE). However, from a paleographic perspective, we cansay it belongs to a later period, roughly the end of the 5th- or beginning of the 6th-century CE,25 and the Praṇavēśvara temple inscription, in Tāḷagunda of Kākutstha of the Bhaṭāri lineage, son of Lakṣmi of the Kadamba lineage, would also have to be dated to the same period. In that case, we have to take the father of Lakṣmi of to have been not the Kadamba king Kākusthavarma but another Kadamba king who ruled after him, likely Harivarma, the last king of the main branch of the Kadambas. This king ruled at the beginning of the 6th century CE. Kakusthabhaṭṭōra may have been a provincial ruler under Harivarma and governed the Naridāviḻe province. Further, it appears that Mr̥gēśa and Nāgēndra were military commanders of Naridāviḷe province under Kakusthabhaṭṭōra.26

  • 25, Dr. D. C. Sircar places this inscription at the end of the 6th century CE (Sircar 1965: 48).

  • 26In the Halasi copper plate (Fleet 1877: 30–31) of the fourth year of Harivarma’s reign, it is said that Mr̥gēśa, son of Siṁhasēnāpati, offered a grant to the Jaina temple at Palāśikā. Dr. D. C. Sircar suggests this Mr̥gēśa might be the same as the one in the Halmiḍi inscription (1939: 276). But there is not enough evidence for this, nor for his suggestion that the Mr̥gēśa of the Halmiḍi inscription might also be of the Bhaṭāri clan.

Let us now evaluate the contents and meaning of the Halmiḍi inscription in light of the above discussion of its creator. The scholarly article of Dr. T. V. Venkatachala Sastry in this regard is noteworthy.27 Dr. Sastry understands the meaning of the inscription as follows:

When Kakusthabhaṭṭora (who was) illustrious, protector of the Kadamba realm, munificent, the enemy of Kalabhōra — when he was ruling, Mr̥gēśa and Nāga, who were the bhaṭahas (chiefs) in the Naridāviḷe region, who were ferocious as Mr̥garāja (lion) and Sarparāja (Vāsuki, i.e., a ferocious snake) respectively, gave to Vija-arasa, who had participated in a raid of the one who was well-known as Paśupati — a moon in the pure sky of the well-known Bhaṭari lineage, Śiva to the gaṇas of the Aḷapas (i.e., leader of the group of Aḷapas), famous in the well-known Southern Region for his heroic exertions in making offerings (of his enemies) in many hundreds of sacrifices that are battles — [to this Vija-Arasa], who was victorious after fighting against the Kēkayas and Pallavas, who was the favored son of all of the Bhaṭāris, [these two] gave as reward for military service (bāḷgaḻcu), in the presence of warriors of the Sēndraka and Bāṇa regions, Palmaḍi and Mūḻivaḷḷi. Aḻakadaṁba of the Baṭāri clan. He who takes away [this] is a great sinner. [These] two and Vija-arasa of Saḻbaṅga waived the kurumbiḍi tax for Palmaḍi. He who violates that [waiver] will incur great sin. May it be well.

Readers may notice some difference in the glosses provided by Dr. Sastry and Dr. Krishna. Dr. Sastry reads all the text from śrīmat kadaṁbapan (line 2) to koṭṭār on line 13 as one long sentence. But Krishna concludes this sentence at bhaṭahar appor on line 4. This seems correct. It would seem appropriate to accept bhaṭahar appōr as the right reading of the text and understand the meaning as ‘Mr̥gēśa and Nāga were terrifying, that is, heroic bhaṭahas, i.e., military commanders in Naridāviḷe province. [If appōr is used to indicate a subject, as we would expect, then Dr. Sastry’s interpretation must be correct. – ed.] Dr. Krishna, assuming that Mr̥gēśa and Nāgēndra are qualifiers describing Mr̥gēśa and Nāga and meaning “ferocious as Mr̥gēśa and Nāgendra, i.e., as a lion or Śiva, and as an elephant or serpent (respectively),” takes them to have a double meaning (i.e., as ślēṣas). Dr. Sastry similarly understands a double meaning (i.e., ślēṣa), although he takes the word mr̥gēśa to simply mean lion, i.e., lord of the animals, and the word nāgēndra to simply mean Vāsuki, i.e., a ferocious snake. This is unnecessary, and if we conclude the sentence at bhaṭahar appōr, it is clear enough without any double meaning. That is, the meaning is simply that that Mr̥gēśa and Nāgēndra were military commanders. Their names are repeated as Mr̥gēśa and Nāga in the next sentence.

In the qualifiers connected to Paśupati, Dr. Sastry suggests that, if we split aḷapagaṇa from tārādhināthannaḷapagaṇa, then nna must be a mistake for na. However, we have already suggested that the reading of the inscription should be tārādhipan °aḷapagaṇa (see footnote 6) . The °a in this reading is clear, and so there is nothing to stop us from reading it as aḷapagaṇa.

The qualifier for Paśupati beginning on line 6 of the inscription (ā dakṣiṇāpathabahuśatahavanāhavadu[ḷ] paśupradāna śauryōdyama bharitōn) also merits further discussion. Dr. Krishna translates this as “joined with heroic exertion in paśupradāna (giving or killing) in many battles that are sacrifices in the southern regions.” But Dr. Sastry does not accept this and insists that the mention of this qualifier serves only to extol Paśupati’s prowess in battle in the southern regions. Dr. Sastry also says that there is no evidence in the inscription to support Dr. Krishna’s statement “Paśupati and Kakustha are mentioned as taking great interest in the performance of Yagas and in bestowing gifts respectively.”28 We do not agree with the translations offered either by Dr. Krishna or Dr. Sastry. In understanding this adjective, it is necessary to take note of details about Paśupati provided in the Praṇavēśvara temple inscription of Tāḷagunda, which neither of these scholars has done. This inscription says that Paśupati was renowned in the southern region due to the gifts he bestowed and the valour he showed in battles, and that he gave generously to Brāhmaṇas in many sacrifices (paśupatir iti yasya nāma dānē diśi viditaṁ samarē ca dakṣinasyāṁ ... tēnānēkamahādhvarēṣu dadatā sammānitaif pāvitaṁ vipraiḥ).29 This same meaning is indicated in the qualifier of Paśupati in the Halmiḍi inscription (dakṣiṇāpathabahuśatahavanāhavaduḷ paśupradāna śauryōdyama bharitōn). Due to the paśupradāna, i.e., the donation of cows in many sacrifices (bahuśatahavana) as well as the prowess he displayed in many battles (bahuśata āhavaduḷ) in the southern regions (dakṣiṇāpatha), this Paśupati was renowned as dānapaśupati. It is not correct to understand this as “the battles that are sacrifices” or “the sacrifices that are battles.” Both sacrifices and battles have been mentioned here. śauryōdyama bharitōn can also be read as śauryōdyama caritōn.

In lines 8-9 of the Halmiḍi inscription, part of the phrase paśupatināmadhēyanāsarakkellabhaṭariyā has been parsed as both nāmadhēyanā + sarakke and nāmadhēyana + āsarakke. Dr. Krishna reads sara (from nāmadhēyanā + sarakke) as a call or summons. That is, responding to the command or call of Paśupati, Vija-arasa, the son of Ellabhaṭari, fought in the battle. Dr. Sastry reads āsara (from nāmadhēyana + āsarakke) as āsāraḥ and supplies the meaning raid / attack / invasion as defined in Sanskrit dictionaries. That is, he translates paśupatināmadhēyanāsarakke as ‘for (for participating in) the attack on the enemy undertaken by Paśupati.’ But this is not a very satisfactory translation.

In this connection another suggestion may be offered. This phrase may also be split as paśupatināmadhēyana + āsara + kkella bhaṭariyā. That is to say, it may be read as: for the assistance (āsare) or support of Paśupati. The syllable kke may also be read as ke, leading to the reading kellabhaṭariya rather than ellabhaṭariya. The name kella is familiar from other inscriptions too, and the names Citrasēna-kella, Citrasēna-mahākella, Ēla-kella, Are-kella etc. are attested.30 It might therefore not be wrong to read the name of Vija-arasa’s father in the Halmiḍi inscription as Kella-bhaṭari. Even if we keep it as Ella-bhaṭari, we may still read this phrase as ‘for the assistance (āsarakke) of Paśupati.’

Dr. Krishna construes samakṣade in the the phrase sēndrakabaṇōbhayadēśadā vīrāpuruṣa samakṣade in lines 10–11 of the Halmiḍi inscription as meaning that Vija-arasa having fought in the presence of warriors. Dr. Sastry takes it that Mr̥gēśa and Nāga gifted Palmaḍi amd Mūḻivaḷḷi to Vija-arasa in the presence of warriors. From the perspective of the meaning Dr. Sastry’s construal seems more appropriate.

The phrase baṭārikuladōn aḻukadaṁban in line 13 seems to be an incomplete sentence, and neither Dr. Krishna nor Dr. Sastry has clarified the context in which this person is mentioned. Dr. Krishna suggests that Aḻu-Kadaṁba may have been the brother of the Kadamba king Kākusthavarma, the father of Lakṣmi who is mentioned in the Tāḷagunda inscription, but this suggestion does not seem acceptable.31 We have shown above that this Aḻu-Kadaṁba was from the Baṭāri lineage and must necessarily have been Paśupati or Kakusthabhaṭṭōra. Why has he been mentioned out of context on line 13? This question should be answered as follows. We have to understand that the military commanders of Naridāviḷe province, Mr̥gēśa and Nāga, donated Palmaḍi and Mūḻivaḷḷi to Vija-arasa on the basis of Kakusthabhaṭṭōra or Aḻu-Kadaṁba, who was in charge of them. Other inscriptions offer similar examples. Whichever official or individual may be the donor, the name of the ruling king is mentioned at the end of the inscription without context. Such inscriptions formally document that the donation is offered in the name of the king, even if the actual donor is somebody else. Thus, also with the Halmiḍi inscription, we must understand that the donation of the two villages was, by convention, made in the name of Aḻu-Kadaṁba, even though the true donors were Mr̥gēśa and Nāga.

The words irvvarum saḻbaṅgadar and kurumbiḍi from lines 14–15 also require consideration. Dr. Krishna considers saḻbaṅga to be an adjective for Vija-arasa and makes him out to hail from a village of that name, and takes this village to be Salvanga / Saḷavanga in the north of present day Shivamogga district. As we have shown in correcting the text of the inscription, the form is a genitive we have indicated that (vijārasara, i.e., vija + arasara) rather than a nominative (vijārasarum; see footnote 13). Therefore, it is clear that saḻbaṅgadar does not construe with vijārasara but rather with irvvaruṁ, that is, Mr̥gēśa and Nāga. Scholars have provided different meanings for saḻbaṅga.32 Among them we can make note of the view of Dr. S. Nagaraju that it relates to the Sanskrit śarabhaṅga or sarabhaṅga. The Sanskrit word śarabhaṅga means ‘military governor’ or ‘leader of the forces’ and thus applies neatly to Mr̥gēśa and Nāga in the Halmiḍi inscription.33 As we know, these two were military officials, or bhaṭahas, in Naridāviḷe province. Therefore, saḻbaṅga and bhaṭaha may be considered synonymous. However, this is somewhat problematic. Scholars consider śarabhaṅga or sarabhaṅga to be derived from the Persian word sarhang, given that no Sanskrit dictionary contains the word. It seems to be a loanword from north-west India, similar to gañjavara (treasurer), divira or divirapati (accountant), pīlupati (official in charge of elephants) and others.34 It has also only been used in inscriptions in Kashmir, Bihar, Bengal and other regions of northern India. No southern inscription uses the word śarabhaṅga, and, apart from the Halmiḍi inscription, none uses the word saḻbaṅga either. Thus, Dr. Krishna’s suggestion that it is related to Salvaṅga / Saḻavaṅga seems to have found acceptance with other scholars like Dr. K. V. Ramesh and Dr. Sastry. However, as noted above, the opinion of these scholars that saḻbaṅgadar refers to Vija-arasa is incorrect. Additionally, their view that it is not related to śarabhaṅga because no other inscription in Karnataka contains this word is inappropriate because it is argumentum ex silentio. Therefore, we believe it correct to take saḻbaṅga to mean ‘military official.’

Now to consider the word kurumbiḍi. As per our correction above (see footnote 13), we have to read vijārasara palmaḍige kurumbiḍi viṭṭār. That is, the two military officials (Mr̥gēśa and Nāga) waived the kurumbiḍi tax on Palmaḍi (obtained as gift) by Vija-arasa. The meaning and derivation of kurumbiḍi are unclear, as Dr. Sastry notes. Even so, we may guess that it is a form of taxation, and that Vija-arasa was freed of the burden of remitting this tax levied on Palmaḍi. Another hypothesis would be to investigate whether kurumbiḍi relates to the Sanskrit kuṭumbavr̥tti or to the Kannada word kuttumbitti found in many Kannada inscriptions. Both of these words refer to ‘family fiefs’ or heritable grants given for the maintenance of families. This meaning fits the present situation, that is, the situation where Vija-arasa received Palmaḍi as a grant.

As a result of the above analysis, the meaning of the primary portion of the Halmiḍi inscription may be understood as follows:

When the munificent Kadaṁba king Kakusthabhaṭṭōra, the enemy of Kalabhōra, reigned, the fearsome i.e., brave warriors Mr̥gēśa and Nāga were military governors of Naridāviḷe province. For bravely fighting against the Kēkayas and Pallavas and winning, these two governors, in the presence of warriors of the Sēndraka and Bāṇa regions, gifted Palmaḍi and Mūḻivaḷḷi as bāḻgaḻcu (recompense for services rendered in battle35) to Vija-arasa, the beloved son of Kella Bhaṭāri who was a supporter of Paśupati, that is, the moon of the sky that is the Bhaṭari family, the lord of the Aḻapa or Āḻupagaṇa, renowned as Dānapaśupati in the southern region due to the donations of cows he made in hundreds of sacrifices and due to his brave character demonstrated in hundreds of battles. Aḻu Kadaṁba of the Baṭāri clan (that is to say, he is the person through whom this donation is made). These two military governors — that is, Mr̥gēśa and Nāga — waived the kurumbiḍi for Palmaḍi obtained as grant by Vīja-arasa – that is, they left Palmaḍi to him as kuttumbitti.

Notes

  1. ↑The Prabuddha Karṇāṭaka text has vyānati instead of myānati. [Krishna later (p. 78) identifies myānati as an orthographic mistake for vyānati in the Report. – ed.]

  2. ↑[Gai’s text reads accutaḥ, incorrectly. – ed.]

  3. ↑The Prabuddha Karṇāṭaka text has kṣṇo instead of kṣṇō.

  4. ↑The inscription has bbaṭaha; bbhaṭaha is grammatically correct.

  5. ↑The Prabuddha Karṇāṭaka text has rappōr instead of rappor.

  6. ↑The inscription says bhaṭari instead of baṭari.

  7. ↑The inscription may be read as tārādhipan °aḻupa. The letter pa is in the lower part between di and n.

  8. ↑The Prabuddha Karṇāṭaka text has yā instead of mā.

  9. ↑In the inscription this letter may be read as ca.

  10. ↑In the inscription, la is inscribed in the lower part between mā and ya.

  11. ↑The inscription has ṅge rather than nge.

  12. ↑r is inscribed in miniature below da.

  13. ↑The inscription has vijārasara instead of vijārasaruṁ.

  14. ↑The inscription uses ḻi rather than ḷi.

  15. ↑[Gai’s text reads mahāpātakam, incorrectly. – ed.]

  16. ↑The inscription says ḷde rather than ḻde.

  17. ↑[We have given the English text of the report, rather than translate Gai’s Kannada translation. – ed.]

  18. ↑[Omitted in Gai’s translation. – ed.]

  19. ↑Mysore Archaeological Department 1936: 80.

  20. ↑Kielhorn 1905–1906: p. 32, line 2 [actually line 3 – ed.].

  21. ↑Gai 1963–1964: 151, lines 3–4.

  22. ↑Gopal 1971: 61, line 2.

  23. ↑Mysore Archaeological Department 1911: 35, lines 1–2.

  24. ↑However, Dr. Krishna does not accept this and thinks they are different people (Mysore Archaeological Department 1936: 78). This is incorrect.

  25. ↑, Dr. D. C. Sircar places this inscription at the end of the 6th century CE (Sircar 1965: 48).

  26. ↑In the Halasi copper plate (Fleet 1877: 30–31) of the fourth year of Harivarma’s reign, it is said that Mr̥gēśa, son of Siṁhasēnāpati, offered a grant to the Jaina temple at Palāśikā. Dr. D. C. Sircar suggests this Mr̥gēśa might be the same as the one in the Halmiḍi inscription (1939: 276). But there is not enough evidence for this, nor for his suggestion that the Mr̥gēśa of the Halmiḍi inscription might also be of the Bhaṭāri clan.

  27. ↑Please see Venkatachala Sastry 1979. See also Sharma 1982, suggesting emendations to the text of the inscription.

  28. ↑Mysore Archaeological Department 1936: 81.

  29. ↑[In Gai’s article, the upadhmānīya of the original inscription is printed as an r. – ed.]

  30. ↑Dhavalikar 1967: 34.

  31. ↑Mysore Archaeological Department 1936: 79.

  32. ↑M. Chidananda Murthy 1966a; S. Nagaraju 1969; K. V. Ramesh 1969; M. Hanumanta Rao 1970.

  33. ↑Sircar 1966: 300.

  34. ↑Sircar 1963–1964: 95.

  35. ↑The meaning of bāḻgaḻcu as bāḻ + gaḻisu (gain a sword) provided by Dr. K. V. Ramesh (1969) does not seem quite appropriate. See also Chidananda Murthy 1966: 293.

Publication details

NESAR

© NESAR

DOI: DOI to come

Published by NESAR under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license on October 18, 2022.

Revision history

  • August 27, 2023 (Andrew Ollett): Initial generation of XML source.

References

  • Annual Report of the Mysore Archaeological Department for the Year 1936. 1938. Bangalore: Government Press.
  • Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of Mysore for the Year 1910–1911. 1912. Bangalore: Government Press.
  • Chidananda Murthy, M. 1966. Kannaḍa Śāsanagaḷa Sāṁskr̥tika Adhyayana. University of Mysore: University of Mysore.
  • Chidananda Murthy, M. 1966. “Saḻbaṅga endarēnu?” Prabuddha Karṇāṭaka 47.4: 125–127.
  • Dhavalikar, M. K. 1967. “Honavar Plates of Kaikeya Chitrasena.” Epigraphia Indica 37: 33–34.
  • Fleet, J. F. 1877. “Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions.” Indian Antiquary 6: 22–32.
  • Gai, G. S. 1963–1964. “Grant of Kadamba Mrigesavarman, Year 2.” Epigraphia Indica 35: 151–152.
  • Gopal, B. R. 1971. “A New Kadamba Inscription.” In Srinivas Ritti and B. R. Gopal (eds.), Studies in Indian History and Culture: Volume Presented to Dr. P. B. Desai: 57–62. Dharwar: Karnatak University.
  • Hanumanta Rao, M. 1970. “Saḻbhaṅga padada arthavēnu?” Prabuddha Karṇāṭaka 52.3: 139–144.
  • Kielhorn, Franz. 1905–1906. “Talagunda Pillar Inscription of Kakusthavarman.” Epigraphia Indica 8: 24–36.
  • Krishna, M. H. 1939. “Halmiḍi Śāsana.” Prabuddha Karṇāṭaka .: 20–23.
  • Sharma, Jayarama. 1982. “A Re-Examination of the Halmidi Inscription of Kadamba Kakustha.” Journal of the Epigraphical Society of India 9: 78–82.
  • Venkatachala Sastry, T. V. 1979. “Halmiḍi Śāsanada Artha.” In Śabdārtha Vihāra: 235–254. Mysore: Aparna Prakashana.
  • Sircar, D. C. 1939. The Successors of the Sātavāhanas in Lower Deccan. University of Calcutta: Calcutta.
  • Sircar, D. C. 1963–1964. “Śarabhaṅga = Sarabhaṅga = Sarōbhaṅga.” Epigraphia Indica 35: 95–97.
  • Sircar, D. C. 1965. Indian Epigraphy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
  • Sircar, D. C. 1966. Indian Epigraphical Glossary. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
  • Nagaraju, S. 1969. “Halmiḍi Śāsanada Saḻbaṅgadar.” Prabuddha Karṇāṭaka 51.1: 89–92.
  • Ramesh, K. V. 1969. “Halmiḍi Śāsanada Saḻbaṅgadar mattu Bāḷgaḻcu.” Prabuddha Karṇāṭaka 51.3: 23–25.