Current Version: draft, 2024-09-02Z
Editor: Dániel Balogh.
DHARMA Identifier: INSVengiCalukya00070
Hand Description:
Original punctuation marks are plain verticals, used singly and doubly. The opening symbol is either a floret with eight petals, or one with four petals and spikes in between each pair of petals.
Other palaeographic observations. Anusvāra is usually to the right of the character to which it belongs, at or below or above headline level. Occasionally, mainly (or only) when in combination with dependent I, it may be pushed over above the next character (e.g. l8, viṁśati), and a line break may intervene in such cases (l8-9, jayasiṁhas), though at most line breaks, the anusvāra is either at the end of the former line or omitted. The marker for dependent o in the cursive form may extend down to the footline (e.g. l1, go). It is clearly sistinguishable from au, which is prominently asymmetrical (e.g. l2, kau), but occasionally o is written where au is expected. Dependent o consisting of two strokes also occurs when the left-hand stroke is attached to the body (e.g. l7, jo) as well as when attached to the head (e.g. l8, no). Upadhmānīya (l8) looks like ṟa with the top open. The conjunct ṣṣ (l9, l11) looks like ṣv. Initial A is sometimes indistinguishable from la (or the latter is inscribed erroneously for the former); see e.g. l38 for a distinct A and @@@ for one that looks like la. Independent I (e.g. l22) is drawn cursively with a single line and has a looped bottom part. Initial Ī (e.g. l64) resembles ka. Dependent e, superscript r and the tail of final consonants look much the same (see l28 dor-ddaṇḍerita for the former two side by side).
A very neat and precise hand with a slight tendency for characters to lean to the right. In many cases, the tops of subscript y and dependent u are bent to the right (and often also down), so that the characters affected seem to have an ā attached in the case of subscript y, and seem to have long ū instead of u. In many instances, but not always, these hooks have been corrected by hammering them out. That the work of this primary hand was subjected to careful proofreading is indicated by a number of other features, most notably the way descenders have been subsequently enlarged in an ornamental way when a space was left blank in the next line because of a descender. Possibly the same person doing less careful work. I cannot point to any distinctive character details, but the work of this hand is definitely less neat. The details of the grant (starting in lin 65, to the end of line 67) was written in this hand, almost certainly at a later time than the preceding and following text, as indicated by the blank space at the end of line 67.No metadata were provided in the table for this inscription
⎘ plate 1v 1floretQuatrefoil ⟦sti⟧⟨⟨sva⟩⟩sti[.] śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrāṇāṁ hārī-
2ti-putrāṇāṁ kauśikī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājyānāṁ mātr̥-gaṇa-paripālitānā(ṁ)
3svāmi-mahāsena-pādānuddhyātānāṁ bhagavan-(n)ārāyaṇa-prasāda-samās¿a?⟨ā⟩di-
4ta-vara-varāha-lāṁcchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥tārāti-maṇḍalānāṁ Aśva-
5medhāvabhr̥◯tha-snāna-pavit¿r̥?⟨rī⟩kr̥ta-vapuṣāṁ cālukyānāṁ kulam alaṁkari-
6ṣṇoḥ satyāśra◯ya-vallabhendrasya bhrātā kubja-viṣṇuvarddhano [’]ṣṭādaśa varṣ(ā)ṇi{|}
ve(ṁ)gī-
7-maṇḍalam anvarakṣaT| tad-anujo jayasiṁhas trayastriṁśataM| tad-anujendrarāja-nanda-
8no viṣṇuvarddhano nava| tat-sūnur mmaṁgi-yuvarājaḫ paṁcaviṁśati| tat-putro jaya(s)i-
9ṁhas trayodaśa| tad-avaraja⟨ḥ⟩ kok(k)il¡ī!ṣ ṣaṇ māsāN| tasya jyeṣṭho bhrātā viṣṇuva(rddha)-
⎘ plate 2r 10nas tam uccāṭya saptatriṁśataM| tat-putro vijayāditya-bhaṭṭārako [’]⟨ṣṭā⟩daśa| tat-suto
11viṣṇuvarddhanaṣ ṣaṭtriṁśataM|
tat-putraḥ kali-viṣṇuvarddhano [’]dhyarddha-varṣaṁ| tat-pu-
13traḥ paracakra◯rāmāpa¿rā?⟨ra-nā⟩madheyaḥ|
tad-anujasya labdha-y¿o?⟨au⟩varājyasya vikramādityasya sutaś cālukya-bhīma{ḥ}-
17s triṁśataṁ| tasyāgrajo vijayādityaḥ ṣaṇ māsāN| tad-agra-sūnur ammarājas sapta varṣ¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇi|
18tat-sūnum ākramya bālaṁ cālukya-bhīma-pitr̥vya-yuddhamallasya nandanas tāla-n¿a?⟨r̥⟩-
⎘ plate 2v 19po māsam ekaṁ|
22paścād ahamahamikayā vikramādityāstamane rākṣasā Iva prajā-bādhana-
23-parā dāyā◯dā rājaputrā rājyābhilāṣiṇo yuddhamalla-rājamārtta-
24ṇḍa-kaṇ¿ḍ?⟨ṭh⟩ikā◯-vijayāditya-prabhr̥tayo vigrahī-bhūtā ĀsaN| vigra-
25heṇaiva paṁca va⟨r⟩ṣāṇi gatāni[.] tataḥ
māvaśarmma-priyāyās sabbāyā-vaṁśāvaliḥ|
svasti[.] samasta-bh⟦ū⟧⟨⟨u⟩⟩vanāśraya-śrī-vijayāditya-ma-
61hārājādhirāja-parameśvara-parama-bhaṭṭārakaḥ parama-brahmaṇya⟨ḥ⟩ śry-āyu-
62r-ārogyaiśvaryyābhivr̥ddh¿iḥ?⟨aye⟩ velānāṇḍu-viṣaya-nivāsino rāṣṭrakūṭa-pramukhāN ku-
63ṭuṁbinas samāh(ū)yettham ājñāpayati| Asmad-amātyāya kr̥ta-kleś(ā)ya
⎘ plate 5r 64māvaśa⟨r⟩mmaṇ¿o?⟨e⟩ Īnt(e)ṟu nāma grāmo [’]smābhis sarvva-kara-parihāro datta Iti vi¿(jana)?⟨ditam a⟩stu (bha?)-
65va¿nta?⟨tāM⟩ Iti|
Asya grāmasya prācyo [’]vadhiḥ kavalaguṇṭha mahāpanthāś ca| Āg¿g?⟨n⟩eyyāṁ staṁbha-śilā
66gūḍi-polamu(|) peṁjeṟuvu| dakṣiṇataḥ Īreṟū| nairr̥tyāṁ Īreṟa| paścimataḥ Īreṟa⟨|⟩ vāyavya-
67taḥ samudra-¿p?⟨t⟩aḍāga| Udīcyāṁ{|} Avuṟu-koḍu| ¿Ī?⟨Ai⟩śānyāṁ trisaṁpātaḥ Avuṟu-kuṇṭha| _3_
1-11Greetings. Satyāśraya Vallabhendra (Pulakeśin II) was eager to adorn the lineage 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, 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 younger brother↓1 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 [brother] of inferior birth, Kokkili, for six months. After dethroning him, his eldest brother Viṣṇuvardhana (III), for thirty-seven [years]. His son Vijayāditya (I) Bhaṭṭāraka, for ten. His son Viṣṇuvardhana (IV), for thirty-six.
12-13His son Kali-Viṣṇuvardhana (V), for a year and a half. His son, also called Paracakrarāma,
16-19The son of his younger brother—Vikramāditya, who had attained the rank of heir-apparent (yauvarājya)—[this son] Cālukya-Bhīma [reigned] for thirty [years]. His elder-born [son]↓4 Vijayāditya (IV) for six months. His firstborn son Ammarāja (I), for seven years. After assaulting his underage son, King (nr̥pa) Tāla—the son of Yuddhamalla, the paternal uncle of Cālukya-Bhīma—for one month.
22-24Then, upon the demise of the Sun of Valour (Vikramāditya), collateral (dāyāda) princes (rājaputra)—such as Yuddhamalla, Rājamārtaṇḍa and Vijayāditya of the Locket (kaṇṭhikā)—materialised like demons (rākṣasa) {upon the setting of the sun}, yearning for kingship out of egomania and bent on oppressing the subjects. Five years passed in nothing but strife. Then—
49[Here follows] the genealogy of Māvaśarman’s beloved↓13 Sabbā.
60-65Greetings. In order to augment his majesty, vitality, health and dominion, His Majesty the supremely pious Supreme Lord (parameśvara) of Emperors (mahārājādhirāja), the Sovereign (bhaṭṭāraka) Vijayāditya (Bādapa), shelter of the entire universe (samasta-bhuvanāśraya), convokes all householders (kuṭumbin)—including foremost the territorial overseers (rāṣṭrakūṭa)—who reside in Velānāṇḍu district (viṣaya) and commands them as follows. To our minister Māvaśarman, who has undertaken pains (for our sake), we have given the village named Īnteṟu, exempt from all taxes. Let this be known to you gentlemen.↓19
65-67The eastern boundary of this village is the Kavala pond (guṇṭha) and the high road. To the southeast [its boundary is] a columnar rock (staṁbha-śilā), the ¿temple’s fields? (gūḍi-polamu) and the ¿great reservoir? (peṁjeṟuvu). To the south, Īreṟū. To the southwest, Īreṟa.↓20 To the west, Īreṟa. To the northwest, the pond [called] Ocean. To the north, the Avuṟu stream (koḍu). To the northeast, the triple boundary juncture (trisaṁpāta) and the Avuṟu tank (kuṇṭha).
The findspot of these plates is Arumbāka (written so in the ARIE discussion, Ārambāka in the ARIE appendix), the same village from where the Ārumbāka grant of Bādapa was recovered some 18 years earlier.
The text up to stanza 8 is almost to the letter identical to the Maliyapūṇḍi grant and the Vemalūrpāḍu plates of Amma II.
Reported in ARIE 1938-1939: page 8, appendix A/1938–39, № 6 with discussion at ARIE 1938-1939: pages 72–73, §6. Although the report says an edition was to be published in Epigraphia Indica, this does not appear to have happened. I know of no published edition of these plates. The present edition has been prepared for DHARMA by Dániel Balogh on the basis of photos published by the Indian Museum (Kolkata).↓22
↑1. This is definitely a scribal error; Jayasiṁha I was the son of Viṣṇuvardhana I and
deliberately presenting him as a brother would not have served any purpose. See also
the apparatus to line 7.
↑2. I construe bhūri- in compound with nodaṁba-rāṣṭra, as Hultzsch does in the Maliyapūṇḍi grant, and understand it to mean “large/populous/plentiful/mighty.” It is also possible
to construe bhūri as an adverb, as translated by Butterworth and Venugopaul Chetty for that inscription,
in which case Vijayāditya III defeated Maṅgi summarily or repeatedly. With this latter
interpretation, saḍ must be construed in compound to the following word; cf. the next note.
↑3. I construe saḍ as an adverb with nirjjitya. Hultzsch in the Maliyapūṇḍi grant construes it in compound with the following word, translating, ‘the excellent Ḍāhala’. Both interpretations are plausible grammatically, and the choice matters little
ultimately, but I feel that while an enemy country may be described as bhūri (cf. the previous note) to emphasise the king’s prowess even more, the adjective sat would not be used for the country of a defeated enemy.
↑4. The word agraja, literally “fore-born,” is established in the sense of elder brother, yet Vijayāditya
IV was the son of Cālukya-Bhīma. The word may have been used by the composer in an
unconventional sense here (compare agra-sūnur in the next item and a possible use of agra-janman in line 32 of the Kalucuṁbaṟṟu grant of Amma II). More probably, °āgraja may be a mistake for °ātmaja.
↑5. See the commentary about the problems with the reading and interpretation of this
stanza.
↑6. I translate the expected meaning, but the word avyāt is problematic; see the apparatus to line 31.
↑7. I do not understand this stanza. Either it presupposes knowledge of a Purāṇic story
of which I am not aware, or it has a surreptitious scribal error. The word sva-mūrtitāṁ seems to qualify śriyaṁ and should thus mean “having his (i.e. Viṣṇu’s) form,” but mūrtita is not an otherwise attested word. Out of context, the stanza would straightforwardly
mean that Brahmā created the world for the expansion of his (Brahmā’s) glory, and that Viṣṇu went off to perform austerities, first depositing his Śrī and
his own self (whatever that may mean) in his (Brahmā’s) breast. But this does not seem to be a coherent story, nor one known from elsewhere,
and it is moreover completely irrelevant to the context, which should be the laudation
of Amma II. I therefore provisionally interpret the stanza to be an atiśayokti claiming first, that the sole reason why Brahmā created the world was to have a place
that could be filled up with Amma’s glory; and second, unrelatedly to the first, that
Viṣṇu deposited his own Śrī on Amma’s bosom and even his original self in Amma’s heart,
and then went off to become an ascetic, i.e. retired from worldly affairs.
↑8. The word order is quite haphazard in this stanza, and scribal errors make the syntax
uncertain. I am quite sure something much like my translation was in the composer’s
mind, except possibly for the awkward phrase santaḥ kr̥ta-vidas The word kr̥ta-vid is not attested, while kr̥ta-jña and kr̥ti-vid mean “grateful”. Still, I see no way for this word to describe anything other than
the virtues, and no way for them to be grateful in this context for anything other
than that their work has already been done and they can now lie back.
↑9. Although there is no explicit indication of immediacy here, the mention of Amma’s
coronation strongly implies that Bādapa’s coup happened shortly afterwards. As we
know from other grants that Amma was crowned at the age of 12, the statement that
he was a child when he was dethroned should also mean that his first reign lasted
at most for a few years. However, the fact that Amma is praised in the text, and partly
with the same stanzas that are also used in Amma’s own grants, makes it quite certain
that Amma II did reign for some time, and issue grants of his own, before Bādapa took
over.
↑10. The reading is problematic here; see the apparatus to line 40.
↑11. There are several difficulties with this stanza. See the apparatus for line 45 about
the strings ījitan and jjataśrīyaṁ. I understand the text to mean that Māveṇa’s grandfather was called Ahi, i.e. presumably
Ahiśarman. There are several Nāgaśarmans mentioned in Eastern Cālukya grants, though
no other Ahiśarman that I know of. But dvijāgryāhiṇā is a very strange compound and it may be a scribal error for something else. The
word dvijāgryarṣiṇā could have turned into this through quite simple scribal error, but would r̥ṣi be used for a person in recent history? Else, dvijāgryāyiṇā could have been intended, metri causa, for dvijāgrayāyinā; or dvijāgryārhiṇā, with arhin meaning “meritorious”. The Āyāṇa (or Ayāṇa) family may be identical to the Ayyaṇa
family mentioned in the Cendalūr Plates of Maṅgi Yuvarāja and/or may be connected to Ayyaṇa Mahādevī, the wife of Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana. But
there is also a possibility that jyeṣṭhāyāṇa is a scribal error for jyeṣṭhāyāṁ ca, in which case Yakṣa’s mother is simply the „eldest wife, a well-born woman”.
↑12. The wording of the stanza is a little vague and hard to understand, but I am quite
certain that in addition to land, Bādapa is conferring a noble title higher than Māveṇa’s
inherited status.
↑13. The origin story seems to imply that women of this family did not marry. It is perhaps
no accident that she is not referred to as his wife. See also the note to the translation
of stanza 21.
↑14. This is a clear reference to the Purāṇic genealogy of the Eastern Cālukyas, which
is to my knowledge first attested in the Raṇastipūṇḍi grant of Vimalāditya. In that story, the progenitor (or restorer of family glory) Viṣṇuvardhana worships Nandā = Gaurī in order to obtain the paraphernalia of royalty.
↑15. We thus have an origin story for the Paṭṭavardhika or Paṭṭavardhinī family here. The
interpretation of that name is uncertain and may be connected to the royal turban
(paṭṭa).
↑16. That is to say, her name was Miṇḍambā. See the apparatus to line 55 about this awkward
expression, and to line 54 about other textual problems with the stanza.
↑17. It is perhaps no accident that two of the three similes involve women who were definitely
not the wedded wives of the men named, and Lakṣmī is often depicted as becoming Viṣṇu’s
wife out of her own choice. See also the note to the translation of line 49.
↑18. The text is again quite awkward, and it uses the plural twice where the dual would
be expected. Nonetheless, I believe it means that the grant was initiated by Māveṇa
and endorsed officially by Bādapa. This may in fact be an endorsement of inheritance
by a son born out of wedlock. “Dispatching” (saṁpreṣya) may mean that Sabbākā and Māvaśarman were named as its executors, though the present
charter names the executor explicitly at the end.
↑19. The closing phrase has been garbled by the scribe, but was certainly meant to convey
this message.
↑20. The names Īreṟū and Īreṟa clearly denote the same place, probably a village, probably
not identical to Īnteṟu, the object of the grant.
↑21. I am not aware of any other occurrence of the term mūla-varga, but varga can mean “a group or cadre of officers” (Sircar IEG s.v.), so I assume the term means
the officers in charge of the administration of the capital or the royal palace. This
is to my knowledge the only attestation of a Pāṇḍarāṅga in the 10th century. He must
be, or at least claim to be, a descendant of the great Pāṇḍarāṅga, possibly a great-great-grandson. It
is also possible that the grant is spurious and claims an anachronistic authority
here, but I would expect a spurious grant not to include so many unusual details as
the present one.
↑22. http://museumsofindia.gov.in/repository/record/im_kol-11852-30.