Current Version: draft, 2025-01-30Z
Editor: Dániel Balogh.
DHARMA Identifier: INSVengiCalukya00052
Hand Description:
Halantas. Final N (e.g. l8, l31) is a raised and reduced na-shape with a sinuous tail. Final M (e.g. l11, l25) is a raised circle with a sinuous tail. Final T looks like ta with sinuous tail instead of headmark (e.g. l6), or like a raised and reduced ta with a sinuous tail, almost identical in the unclear facsimile to final N and M (l44, l52).
Original punctuation marks are double verticals with a pronounced serif.
Other palaeographic observations. Anusvāra is normally at head height after the character to which it belongs. Initial Ī occurs in line 49. Some ā markers look identical to superscript rephas (e.g. in line 27, compare the vertically oriented but distinctly recognisable ā marker in l29 ekādaśa). There is also ambiguity in the shape of superscript rephas when combined with an ā marker, cases of which have been read with the benefit of doubt.
No metadata were provided in the table for this inscription
⎘ plate 1v 1[svasti. śrīmatāṁ sa](kala-bhuvana-saṁstūya)māna-mā(na)vya-sa(gotrā)[ṇāṁ hārīti-putrāṇāṁ]
2[kauśikī-vara-pra](sāda)-labdha-rājy(ā)(n)(āṁ) mā(tr̥-gaṇa-paripāl)it(ānāṁ) [svāmi-mahāsena-]
3[-pādānudhyātānāṁ bha](gavan-n)ārāya(ṇa)-prasāda-(samāsādita-vara-varāha-lāṁccha)[nekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-]
4-[vaśī](kr̥tā)◯rāti-maṇḍal(ānām aśvamedhāvabhr̥)¿(t)?⟨th⟩(a-snāna)-pavitrī(k)r̥ta-(vapu)[ṣāṁ calukyā-]
5[nāṁ kulam a]◯laṁkariṣṇoḥ satyāśraya vallabhendrasya bhrātā (ku)bja-viṣṇuvarddhano
[’](ṣṭ)[ādaśa] va-
6[rṣāṇ](i veṁgī)◯-deśam apālayaT| tad-ātmajo jayasiṁhas tra(yastriṁśataṁ| ta)[d-a-]
7[nujendrarāja]- (nandano viṣṇuva)rddhano nava| tat-sūnur mmaṁgi-yuvarājaḥ paṁcavi(ṁśatiṁ|
tat-pu)[tro jaya-]
8[siṁ](has trayodaśa|) tad-ava(ra)jaḥ ko{r}kkiliḥ ṣaṇ māsāN| tasya jyeṣṭho bhrātā vi(ṣ)ṇ(u)var(ddhana)[s
tam uccā-]
9[ṭya saptatriṁśa](taṁ| tat-putro v)ijayāditya-bhaṭṭārako [’]ṣṭādaśa| tat-suto viṣṇuva(r)ddha(naṣ
ṣaṭtriṁ)[śataṁ|]
tat-priya-(tana)ya(ḥ|)
⟨⟨śrī-rājanā(rā)ya(ṇa?)⟩⟩[?2+]
⟨Atrā⟩vasare|||
sa sarvvalokā¿t?⟨ś⟩raya-śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahā-
54rāj¿a?⟨ā⟩dhirāja-parameśvara-parama-bhaṭṭ¿a?⟨ā⟩raka-parama-brahmaṇya-parama-māhe⟨śva⟩raḥ vaṟanāṇḍu-viṣaya-ni-
55vāsino rāṣṭrak¿u?⟨ū⟩ṭa-pramukhā(N) kuṭ¡i!⟨u⟩ṁbinas sarvvān samāh¿a?⟨ū⟩ya mantri-purohita-senāpati-yu -
⎘ plate 4v 56(varāja-dauvārikādhyakṣam i)¿(th)?⟨t⟩(tham ājñāpayati)[.] (yathā|)
1-9Greetings. Satyāśraya Vallabhendra (Pulakeśin II) was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Calukyas—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, who are protected by the band of Mothers, who were deliberately appointed (to kingship) by Lord Mahāsena, to whom enemy territories 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. His brother Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana protected (pāl-) the country of Veṅgī for eighteen years. His son Jayasiṁha (I), for thirty-three. His younger brother Indrarāja’s (Indra Bhaṭṭāraka’s) son Viṣṇuvardhana (II), for nine. His son Maṅgi Yuvarāja, for twenty-five. His son Jayasiṁha (II), for thirteen. His younger brother, Kokkili, for six months. After dethroning him, his eldest brother Viṣṇuvardhana (III), for thirty-seven. His son Vijayāditya (I) Bhaṭṭāraka, for eighteen. His son Viṣṇuvardhana (IV), for thirty-six.
14His dear son—
38[Called] His Majesty Rājanārāyaṇa,
42On this occasion,
53-56That shelter of all the world (sarva-lokāśraya), His Majesty Viṣṇuvardhana, the supremely pious Supreme Lord (parameśvara) of Emperors (mahārājādhirāja), the Supreme Sovereign (parama-bhaṭṭāraka) and supreme devotee of Maheśvara, convokes all householders (kuṭumbin)—including foremost the territorial overseers (rāṣṭrakūṭa)—who reside in Vaṟanāṇḍu district (viṣaya), and, witnessed by the minister (mantrin), the chaplain (purohita), the general (senāpati), the crown prince (yuvarāja) and the gate guard (dauvārika), commands them as follows. To wit:
Sandhi-obscured caesura in v12 (śārdūlavikrīḍita) c. The break between pādas c and d is obscured by sandhi in v22 (also śārdūlavikrīḍita).
The outer side of the last extant plate is heavily corroded and in many places illegible or barely legible. With the photos of the original, I have been able to provide a reading for most of it. Text shown on this plate as unclear may be almost clear to almost completely indistinct so long as it is confidently readable in the context, but minor details such as scribal mistakes may in fact be different than shown here. Text shown as unclear with low certainty is poorly legible to all but lost and tentatively reconstructed from the vestiges. Text shown as supplied includes no interpretable vestiges and is tentatively reconstructed from context. My numbering of stanzas, which I believe to be correct, differs slightly from the numbering in KR’s edition as well as from that in an earlier version of this digital edition created without access to the original.
Reported in ARIE 1917-1918: page 13, appendix A/1917–18, № 15 with some further details at ARIE 1917-1918: pages 132–133, §5. Edited from inked impressions by B. V. Krishna Rao(1965), with facsimiles but no translation.↓17 The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on a collation of Krishna Rao’s edition with his facsimiles (offset printed in small size) and with photographs taken by myself in February 2023 at the Andhra Sahitya Parishad Museum, Kakinada.
↑1. See the apparatus to line 13 for the textual problem in this stanza.
↑2. KR in his commentary interprets the text to mean that Vijayāditya III’s reign lasted
44 and a half years, rather than 44 as usually recorded. I agree with his editor (Sircar)
that sārdham simply means “together with,” not “and a half.”
↑3. See the apparatus to line 23 for textual problems with this stanza. Vijayāditya IV’s
ascension of a balance scale is also mentioned in close proximity to his erection
of a victory pillar in Viraja in stanza 32 of the Diggubaṟṟu grant of Bhīma II. According to KR’s discussion, Vijayāditya ‘conquered king Vāsava’, but as his editor (Sircar?) bluntly points out, the text mentions no such king;
vāsavī qualifies āśā, meaning the eastern direction.
↑4. Or perhaps: with the brilliance of the heap of gold that had been weighed (in the
balance against him).
↑5. A word has been omitted in the second quarter of this stanza; see the apparatus to
line 31.
↑6. The reading and interpretation of part of this stanza is problematic; see also the
apparatus to line 33. KR interpreted the text to mean that Amma II was ‘born with an ornament-like tissue around his neck’, but I agree with his editor (Sircar?), whose footnote says, ‘In fact ... Amma II was declared heir-apparent even when he was in the womb of his mother’. I translate the text as emended by me, and believe that the composer intended a
contrast between the yuvarāja’s locket, which was bestowed on Amma when he had no say in the matter, and the royal
turban, which he took as an act of will.
↑7. I translate with the lost word restored as suggested in the apparatus to line 36.
Even so, the syntax of the second half is ambiguous and does not reveal whose fondness
for elephants and whose heroic victory is meant, nor how a lion enters the picture.
Lions are conventionally the arch-enemies of elephants, so my attempt at translation
is not impossible, but it is grammatically quite awkward, especially because “lion”
and “victory” are clearly in the singular.
↑8. Several parts of this stanza are lost or illegible. The second hemistich seems to
be about Dānārṇava, and the first about Amma II.
↑9. My translation involves stretching the boundaries of syntax and compound structure
to the extreme in order to accommodate the unexpected word sthagita in the original which, if deliberate, was probably meant to countered by sphuṭam. If sthagita is a mistake for a word meaning something like “revealed,” then a much easier translation
would be: “the string of pearls revealed by whose splitting of the surface of the
forehead globes of his enemies’ elephants shine clearly like a string of flowers on
the liana that is his sword—”. For a similar image, compare verse 15 of the Raṇastipūṇḍi grant of Vimalāditya.
↑10. According to KR, the same battle is referred to as dramiḷāhava in the Pabhupaṟṟu grant of Śaktivarman. Apparently (Krishna Rao 1965: 191), this grant has only been published in the Āndhra Sāhitya Parishad Patrikā, and neither the original nor any good facsimiles remain available. However, the
Guṇḍipoduṟu grant of Śaktivarman has now been edited and refers, probably, to the same episode as drāviḍa-saṁggare, so understanding caulika to refer to some Coḻa rulers is probably warranted even though Śaktivarman eventually
married a Coḻa princess and reclaimed the throne of Veṅgī with his father-in-law’s
support. KR’s interpretation that “a battle for the Coḻas/Tamils” is meant is not
impossible, but rather forced. KR further notes that bālya probably indicates an age up to 16 years, as defined in Dharmaśāstras.
↑11. See the apparatus to line 47 for a slight uncertainty in this passage.
↑12. Given the first hemistich, one would expect the stanza to say that Cālukya-Nārāyaṇa
laugs at the divine Nārāyaṇa because he does not need a false guise to defeat his
enemies. This is indeed how RK summarises the stanza, but I see no way to finding
that meaning in the text. The second hemistich is an awkward jumble of words. Most
jarringly, it lacks a verbal form to express the action. Moreover, it uses surprisingly
flattering terminology (īśa and śrī) for the enemy Coḍa-Bhīma, and while api ought to imply a contradiction (“even though he had first cast down his enemies”),
I see no such thing, nor any need for a reference to enemies in general here. Conversely,
there is nothing in the second hemistich about Cālukya-Nārāyaṇa doing so in his own
form, nor is there a counterpart here to prāk, “in olden days.” The only point where the second hemistich matches the first is
that this human Nārāyaṇa defeats an enemy likened to Rāvaṇa, who was defeated by the
divine Nārāyaṇa in the form of Rāma. The text on the plate is quite clearly legible
and includes only one evident scribal mistake (°āṣāsta), where the composer’s original intent is quite straightforward (°āpāsta). I wonder if perhaps the fourth quarter belongs originally to a different stanza.
Two stanzas may have been either cobbled together badly by a clumsy composer, or a
quarter of the first and three quarters of the second may have been omitted by an
inattentive scribe.
↑13. I am somewhat baffled by the juxtaposition of vāraṇa and ibha, both normally meaning “elephant.” It may be that two different kinds of elephants
were meant by the composer, but neither of these words has the connotation of a particular
sort of elephant. I therefore prefer to take vāraṇa in the less common sense of “invincible.”
↑14. Or perhaps “patron”? See the apparatus to line 63.
↑15. The end of this stanza is lost, and the reading of the extant part is not entirely
certain. The gist of the verse probably ran along lines similar to what is translated
here. The name Bhāradvāja may refer to the patriarch Bharadvāja himself (with the
first syllable lengthened for the sake of the metre), or it may indicate a famous
personage descended from him, possibly Droṇa, the son of Bharadvāja, who in spite
of being a Brahmin was famed for his skill with weapons.
↑16. The Kaṇḍyam plates of Dānārṇava reportedly also read durggamān. If this can be confirmed from a facsimile, then the same reading may also be acceptable
here, but it should still be construed as a plural accusative (durggamān scil. deśān), not a singular ablative.
↑17. This article was published posthumously. EI received its manuscript in 1956. The editor
of EI (Sircar, according to the title page) thoroughly revised the text before publication.