Current Version: draft, 2024-09-02Z
Editor: Dániel Balogh.
DHARMA Identifier: INSVengiCalukya00073
Hand Description:
Halantas.
Original punctuation. The opening symbol is transliterated "om" by SR. It is presumably a floret, as in related grants.
Other palaeographic observations. Anusvāra is a dot at the right top of the consonant to which it belongs.
No metadata were provided in the table for this inscription
⎘ plate 1v 1unknown svasti[.] śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrāṇāṁ
2hārīti-putrāṇāṁ kauśikī-vara-prasāda-labdh¿ā?⟨a⟩-rājyānāṁ mātr̥-gaṇa-paripāli-
3tā¿ṁnā?⟨nāṁ⟩ svāmi-mahāsena-pādānu¿ye?⟨dhyātā⟩nāṁ ¿b?⟨bh⟩a⟨ga⟩van-nārāyaṇa-prasāda-samā-
4sādita-vara-varāha-lāñchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥tār¿a?⟨ā⟩ti-maṇḍalā-
5nām aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavitrīkr̥ta-vapuṣāṁ cālukyānāṁ ku-
6lam alaṁkariṣṇoḥ satyāśraya-vallabhendrasya bhrātā kubja viṣṇuvarddhano [’]ṣṭā-
7daśa varṣ¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇi veṁgī-deśam apālayaT[.] tat-putro jayasiṁhas trayastriṁ-
8śata¿ḥ?⟨ṁ⟩[.] tad-anujendrarāja-nandano viṣṇuvarddhano nava[.] tat-sūnur mmaṁgi-yu-
⎘ plate 2r 9varājaḥ paṁcaviṁśatiṁ[.] tat-putro jayasiṁhas trayodaśa[.] tad-avaraja⟨ḥ⟩
10kokkili⟨ḥ⟩ ṣaṇ māsāN[.] tasya jyeṣṭho bhrātā viṣṇuvarddhanas tam uccāṭya saptatriṁ-
11śataṁ[.] tat-putro vijayāditya-bhaṭṭārako [’]ṣṭādaśa[.] tat-suto viṣṇuvarddha-
12na⟨ḥ⟩ ṣaṭtriṁśataṁ[.] tat-suto vijayāditya-narendra-mr̥garāja-
13ś c¿o?⟨ā⟩ṣṭacatv¿a?⟨ā⟩riṁśataṁ[.] tat-sutaḥ kali-viṣṇuvarddhano ddhyarddha-varṣaṁ[.] ta-
14t-suto guṇagāṅka-vijayādityaś catuścatvāriṁśataṁ[.] tad-anuja-yuvarā⟨ja⟩-
15-vikramāditya-¿t?⟨bh⟩ūpateḥ sūnuś cālukya-bhīma-bhūpālas triṁśataṁ[.] tat-putraḥ ko-
16lla¡bh!igaṇḍa-vijayādityaḥ ṣaṇ māsāN[.] tat-sūnur ammarāja⟨ḥ⟩ sapta va⟨r⟩ṣ¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇi[.]
⎘ plate 2v 17tat-sutaṁ vijayāditya⟨ṁ⟩ bālam uccāṭya tālapo māsam ekaṁ[.] taṁ jitvā cālu-
18kya-bhīma-tanayo vikramāditya Ekādaśa māsāN[.] tatas tālapa-rājasya su-
19to yuddhamallaḥ sapta varṣāṇi[.] ¿tat-putraḥ?⟨taṁ jitvā⟩ kolla¡bh!igaṇḍa-vijayāditya-suto bhī-
20marājo dvādaśa varṣāṇi[.]
sa samasta-bhuvanāśraya-śrī-vija-
24yāditya-mahārāja-parameśvaraḥ parama-bhaṭṭārakaḥ parama-brahmaṇyaḥ Ela-
⎘ plate 3r 25maṁci-kaliṁga-bārupunāṇḍu-viṣaya-nivāsino rāṣṭrakūṭa-pramukhān kuṭu⟨ṁ⟩-
26binaḥ sa⟨r⟩vv¿a?⟨ā⟩n āh¿u?⟨ū⟩y¿u?⟨a⟩ Ājñāpayati
viditam astu vaḥ śrīmat-cāmenākhyāya tat-putr¿a?⟨ā⟩ya
27betonākhyāya tad-bhā⟨r⟩yy¿a?⟨ā⟩ya jarākavva-m aj¿e?⟨ī⟩janat tat-putro kuce⟨nā⟩khyāya
¿pranāni ca-
28tyābhāvena? tasmai kucenākhyāya bhavad-viṣaye bārupunāṇḍu-ḻeccādi-viṣaye
29deva-brāhmaṇa-va⟨r⟩jjitāya ś¿a?⟨ā⟩sanīkr̥tyāya[.] yasyāvadhayaḥ p¿u?⟨ū⟩⟨r⟩vvataḥ
2 rājyānāṁ ◇ rājyā¿n?⟨ṇ⟩āṁ SR • SR may have intended to show that the original spelling is with ṇ, emended to n.
6 viṣṇuvarddhano ◇ viṣṇuvardh{dh}ano SR • The spelling in the original may be with dhdh. However, SR uses dhdh in many other places (e.g. ll 8, 10, 13) without emending it in any way.
16 ko/lla¡bh!igaṇḍa- • I highlight an original bh here and in line 19 below, but both may be errors in SR’s edition.
19 ¿tat-putraḥ?⟨taṁ jitvā⟩ ◇ tat-putraḥ SR • The exact same mistake occurs in line 22 of the Elavaṟṟu grant of Amma II. The correct reading is found in the Ārumbāka grant of Bādapa and the Vandram plates of Amma II.
21 kumārābhaḥ lokama⟨hā⟩devyāḥ ◇ ¿kumārābhaḥ lokamadevyāḥ?⟨lokamadevyaḥ kumārābhaḥ⟩ SR • I do not understand SR’s emendation. If hā is absent in the original, then it needs to be supplied, but no other emendation
is needed.
23 -ava¿l?⟨n⟩i- • KR does not emend, so this may be a typo in his edition.
27 jarākavva-m aj¿e?⟨ī⟩janat ◇ jarākavva majejanat SR • The grammar is abysmal around here, but presumably original and the intended purport
is largely decipherable. — 27–28 pranāni ca/tyābhāvena ◇ pra¿n?⟨ṇ⟩āni ca/tyābhāvena SR • I cannot offer a plausible reading or interpretation for this string. SR may have
meant to emend pranāni to prāṇāni. If this word was intended, its continuation may have been meant to be tyaktvā. Another possibility is that catyā is to be read as or emended to bhaktyā. None of these suggestions result in coherent text. As a long shot, I conjecture
parama-nirbhr̥tya-bhāvena. The word nirbhr̥tya is used for describing underlings, apparently in the sense of naibhr̥tya, in the Śrīpūṇḍi grant of Tāḻa II (parama-nirbhr̥tyasya) and the Varaṇavendī grant of Bhīma III(? nirbhr̥tya-bhāva-nimittena).
28 bhavad-viṣaye ◇ cavadviṣaye SR • SR also mentions "Cavadviṣaya" in his discussion, so this is not a typo, but bh must have been inscribed, or at least intended here. — 28 -ḻeccādi- • SR’s spelling is literally ‘ṛecchādi’, where ṛ probably stands for ḻ. I adopt the spelling reported in ARIE.
1-20Greetings. 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 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 [brother] of inferior birth, 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. His son Vijayāditya (II) Narendramr̥garāja, for eight and forty. His son Kali-Viṣṇuvardhana (V), for a year and a half. His son Vijayāditya (III) with the byname Guṇaga, for forty-four. The son of his younger brother the heir-apparent (yuvarāja) Prince (bhūpati) Vikramāditya, King (bhūpāla) Cālukya-Bhīma, for thirty. His son Kollabhigaṇḍa Vijayāditya (IV), for six months. His son Ammarāja (I), for seven years. After dethroning his son the child Vijayāditya (V), Tālapa, for one month. After defeating him, Cālukya-Bhīma’s son Vikramāditya (II), for eleven months. Then, King (rājan) Tālapa’s son Yuddhamalla, for seven years. After defeating him,↓1 Kollabhigaṇḍa Vijayāditya’s son Bhīmarāja (II), for twelve years.
23-26That shelter of the entire universe (samasta-bhuvanāśraya), His Majesty Vijayāditya (Amma II) the supremely pious Supreme Lord (parameśvara) of kings (mahārāja) and Supreme Sovereign (parama-bhaṭṭāraka), convokes the householders (kuṭumbin)—including foremost the territorial overseers (rāṣṭrakūṭa)—who reside in Bārupunāṇḍu district (viṣaya) of Elamaṁci-Kaliṁga and commands:
26-28Let it be known to you [that there was a man] named the majestic Cāmena; his son named Betona; his [Betona’s] wife Jarākavvā bore his son named Kucena.↓2
28-29To that one named Kucena, ¿for his supreme staunchness?,↓3 [we have granted land] in your district, [namely] the Bārupunāṇḍu-Ḻeccādi district, with the exception of [areas previously granted to] gods and Brahmins, substantiated as a (copperplate) charter. Its boundaries [are as follows]. To the east↓4
The plates were discovered in Pāmulavāka village, Narasipatam Taluk of Vizag district. The cultivator who found them, along with another set of plates (the Pāmulavāka plates of Vijayāditya VII, not yet encoded), used the ring and seal of both sets to make bangles. The last plate is a palimpsest with hammered-out earlier writing on both faces.
Reported in ARIE 1937-1938: page 7, appendix A/1937–38, № 8 with description at ARIE 1937-1938: page 82, §41. Edited from the original (before the ARIE report) by R. Subba Rao (1927-1928), with a translation and estampages. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on Subba Rao’s edition, but silently corrects for inconsequential, presumably typographic mistakes.↓5 CHECK REVISION NEEDED: I did not have the estampages when encoding this, but have them now, need to collate.
↑1. I translate the text as emended; see the apparatus to line 19.
↑2. The person who drafted this passage was utterly ignorant of Sanskrit morphology and
syntax. The meaning he wished to express can largely be intuited.
↑3. The text as read by KR is unintelligible here. See the apparatus to line 27 for the
problem and for the conjecture I translate here. It is also possible that the problematic
words belong to the end of the previous passage; and they may have been meant to express
that Kucena was a devoted servant of Amma, or that he sacrificed his life in service
of Amma (in which case the grant would presumably go to an heir).
↑4. The text ends abruptly here.
↑5. Subba Rao explicitly emends some mistakes, which are thus certainly original. But
the number of spelling irregularities without emendation is far higher in his edition.
To avoid cluttering my apparatus with low-interest detail, I have silently emended
most of the latter, but some of these may well be in fact erroneous in the original.