Current Version: draft, 2024-09-02Z
Editor: Dániel Balogh.
DHARMA Identifier: INSVengiCalukya00077
Hand Description:
Halantas. Final M (e.g. l3 paripālitānāM) is quite complex, resembling a Latin S (a simplified ma), reduced and raised, plus the sinuous tail often used for halanta characters. Final N (e.g. l7 vatsarāN) is a simplified, but almost full-sized na with a curved (but not sinuous) tail instead of a headmark. Final T (e.g. 9l ābhūT) is an almost full-sized ta with both a diminutive headmark and a slightly sinuous tail.
Original punctuation marks are plain vertical bars. Half-daṇḍas are also occasionally used (e.g. l7).
Other palaeographic observations. Anusvāras are simple but deeply struck and clear dots at headline height after the character they belong to; occasionally, a circle is also used. The headmarks are quite peculiar for the corpus, consisting in most cases of a horizontal line, fairly long (half as long as a regular character body is tall), quite straight, with a deeply struck dot for a serif at both ends. Dependent au is sometimes (l2 kauśikī, l19 °aughaḥ) unusual, comprised of a stroke attached to the top right of the consonant body (in shape similar to the form of the ā marker that rises vertically on the top right), and a second stroke attached at the bottom left (identical to the bottom left stroke sometimes used as an e marker or the secondary stroke of an ai marker). In the glyphs for ya and gha, the left-hand part has an additional notch at the bottom, similar to but often less pronounced to the notch in other round-bottomed characters such as pa and dha. There are two forms of ga, which typically has a headmark and a short stem, but sometimes (perhaps only in a Telugu context) neither of these (e.g. l53 goraga, l55 niḍudapaḍuga).
No metadata were provided in the table for this inscription
⎘ plate 1v 1floretComplexsvasti[.] śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sago-
2trāṇāṁ hāritī-putrāṇāṁ kauśikī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājyānāṁ mātr̥-gaṇa-
3-paripālitānāM svāmi-mahāsena-pādānudhyātānāṁ bhagavan-nārāya-
4ṇa-prasā◯da-samāsādita-vara-varāh¿ā?⟨a⟩-lāṁchanekṣa(ṇa)-kṣaṇa-va-
5śīkr̥tārā◯ti-maṇḍalā{ṁ}nāṁ Aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavitrīkr̥ta-
6-vapuṣāṁ cā◯lukyānāṁ kulam alaṁkariṣṇoḥ|
tān utkhāya mahā-bala-parākramaḥ
yaś ca śiva Iva
36śakti-trayāśrayaḥ nārāyaṇa Iva lakṣmīpatiḥ| brahmeva sāma-yoni⟨ḥ⟩ (sa)
⎘ plate 3v 37sarvvalokāśraya-śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājādhirāja-parameśvara-parama-bha-
38ṭṭārakaḥ parama-brahmaṇyaḥ śakaṭamanthani-viṣaya-vāsino rāṣṭrakūṭa-pra-
39mukhān kuṭ¡i!⟨u⟩ṁbinas samāhūyettham ājñāpayati|
śrīmati payaḫ-payo-
40dhi-pratini◯¿bh?⟨dh⟩i-haihaya-vaṁśe satya-ś¿o?⟨au⟩cābhimāna-saṁpan⟨n⟩o ni-
41ja-bhuja-vi◯krama-śāl¿i?⟨ī⟩ poleyana-rājābhidhāno jātas[.] tasya-
42sūnur anu◯pama-guṇaḫ pitaram anukurvvan nannaka-rājas[.] tasya nr̥pa-
43ter atiratha-dhavala-priya-duhitur āytakaṁbāyāś ca priya-tanayo ya-
44s tasmai hastinapura-vāstavyāya gaṁgā-pāriyātra-māhiṣmatī-pura-para-
45meśvara-haihaya-vaṁśodbhava-nara-śiro-darppaṇa-dhvaja-mālpaṟe-ghoṣaṇa-
⎘ plate 4r 46-praśasti-virājamānāya candyana-rājāya mārttaṇḍa-pitāmaha-vikramādi-
47tya-yuddhamallādi-rājakaṁ vijitya tatra tan-nirbhr̥tya-bhāva-nimittena sarvva-ka-
48ra-parihāram udaka-pūrvvakam mānyaṁ kr̥tvā varaṇaveṇḍi nāma grāmo [’]smā-
49bhir ddatta I◯ti viditam astu vaḥ|
Asyāvadhayaḥ| pūrvataḥ pe-
50nuṁbaṟṟu| ◯ dakṣiṇataḥ penuṁballi| paścimataḥ velmaṭū-
51rū| Uttara◯taḥ dāramapalli|
kṣetra-sīm¿a?⟨ā⟩ pūrvvataḥ pedda-k(ṟ/ḻ)a-
52lla cinta| Āgneyataḥ p(ṟ/ḻ)emulapaḍugakaṟiti nallaṁ jinta| dakṣiṇataḥ
53goraga pannasa| nairr̥tyataḥ muyyal-kuṭṭuna nūjjūṁ jinta| paścimataḥ ṟo-
54livāyu| vāyavyataḥ muyyal-kuṭṭ(u)na pedda cinta| Uttarataḥ dārama-
⎘ plate 4v 55palli-sīmaiva sīm¿a?⟨ā⟩| ¡Ī!⟨Ai⟩¿g?⟨ś⟩ānataḥ niḍudapaḍuga| Asyopari na kenacid bā-
56dhā karttavyā[.] yaḥ karoti sa pañca-mahā-pātaka-saṁyukto nara-
57kaṁ gamiṣyati| tathā coktaṁ bhaga⟨va⟩tā vyāsena
yaś ca pālayati sa svargga-pha-
60lam anubha⟨va⟩ti[.] tathā coktaM|
iti|
1-6Greetings. The lineage of the majestic Cālukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world, who are sons of Hāritī, 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—of the one [who was] eager to adorn [that lineage],
30Eradicating them, the greatly powerful and valiant
35-39He who is moreover the resting place of the three (royal) powers (śakti-traya) like Śiva {is the abode of three Śaktis},↓9 who is the lord of Majesty like Nārāyaṇa (Viṣṇu) {is the husband of Lakṣmī}, who is a springhead of conciliation (sāman) like Brahmā {is the source of sāman hymns}—that shelter of all the world (sarva-lokāśraya), the supremely pious Supreme Lord (parameśvara) of Emperors (mahārājādhirāja) and Supreme Sovereign (parama-bhaṭṭāraka), His Majesty Viṣṇuvardhana (Bhīma II) convokes the householders (kuṭumbin)—including foremost the territorial overseers (rāṣṭrakūṭa)—who reside in Śakaṭamanthanī district (viṣaya) and commands them as follows:
39-49In the majestic Haihaya lineage, which is comparable to the Milk Ocean, was born one called Poleyana-rāja, endowed with honour, purity and respectability, with abundant valour in his own arm. His son of incomparable virtue, taking after his father, was Nannaka-rāja. The dear son of that king (nr̥pati) and of Āytakāmbā, the dear daughter of Atiratha Dhavala, is Candyana-rāja. To him, a resident of Hastinapura arising from the Haihaya lineage which is the supreme sovereign of the Gaṅgā (region), the Pāriyātra (mountains) and the city of Māhiṣmatī, ¿who is resplendent with the man’s head, the mirror, the banner, the proclamation (or sound) of māḻpare and eulogy?↓10 we (Bhīma II), having defeated the [totality of] petty kings such as Mārtaṇḍa, Pitāmaha, Vikramāditya and Yuddhamalla, on the occasion of [his, Candyana’s] staunchness in that [campaign], have given the village named Varaṇaveṇḍī, converted into a rent-free holding (mānya) by a remission of all taxes, [the donation being] sanctified by (a libation of) water. Let this be known to you.
49-51Its boundaries [are as follows]. To the east, Penuṁbaṟṟu. To the south, Penuṁballi. To the west, Velmaṭūrū. To the north, Dāramapalli.
51-57The boundaries of the field [are as follows].↓11 To the east, a great ¿dried-up? tamarind tree. To the southeast, pṟemulapaḍugakaṟiti nallaṁ jinta. To the south, goraga pannasa. To the southwest, a nūjjūṁ tamarind tree at the triple boundary juncture. To the west, Ṟolivāyu. To the northwest, a great tamarind tree at the triple boundary juncture. To the north, the boundary is none other than the boundary of Dāramapalli. To the northeast, niduva paduga. Let no-one pose an obstacle (to his enjoyment of his rights) over it. He who does so shall go to hell, conjoined with the five great sins. So too has the reverend Vyāsa said:
59-60Who, on the other hand, protects it, shall partake of the fruit of heaven. So too it is said:
The findspot is said to be Korukoṇḍa in the ARIE report, while according to SR’s edition, it was the village Muramanda (also spelt Muramunda).
Subba Rao claims that the grant was issued by Bhīma III, but publishes neither facsimiles nor even an edition of the text that would substantiate this, starting his edition on 3 verso, where all we learn is that the issuer is a Viṣṇuvardhana. For the preceding text, all the information he releases is that ‘The Chalukya Genealogy ... given in this Copper plate Grant up to the accession of the Donor King Bhima, known as Bhima, the third, tallies from second plate, first side to third plate, first side with that of this same King, Published by me’. The publication he refers to is the Single Bhimavaram plate of a late Eastern Cālukya king (Subba Rao 1945–1946), which he believes mentions Bhīma III at the end of its extant text. The mention of Bhīma III there has always seemed unlikely and a result of wishful thinking on Subba Rao’s part, and can now be rejected with fair confidence in light of the Kōḻūru grant of Bhīma II. Now that the parts of the present grant that Subba Rao withheld have been studied, it is beyond a shadow of doubt that the present grant was issued by Bhīma II.
Reported in ARIE 1961-1962: page 35, appendix A/1961–62, № 2 with description at ARIE 1961-1962: page 6, §2. Partially edited↓12 from the original (before the ARIE report) by R. Subba Rao (1956-1958), with a summary of the contents, without facsimiles. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on photos taken by myself at the Eluru Archaeological Museum in 2023, collated with Subba Rao’s edition where available. Inconsequential, presumably typographic mistakes in the latter have been ignored for the apparatus.
↑1. The text is incorrect here and the intended meaning not quite certain; see the apparatus
to line 12.
↑2. The Vatsa king intended here is probably Udayana.
↑3. We learn from the Uṟuvuṭūru grant of Vijayāditya III and the Pulgoṭlapaṁbuluru grant of Vijayāditya III that this is specifically about the sin ensuing from his battles.
↑4. That is, donating his own weight in gold.
↑5. The second hemistich is rather awkward and I am not sure that my interpretation matches
the intent of the composer. I construe hema-tulā to be the subject (logical object) of the passive participle ārūḍhā and to be qualified by -abhinandanī.
↑6. The stanza is awkwardly composed and difficult to parse. I feel certain that gr̥hīta-paṭṭe yuddhamalle is a locative absolute. The main verb is clearly vyālumpan, whose object must be bhuvam, but avadhūya has no explicit object, so “control,” “authority,” “fetters” or the like must be
understood. A further difficulty is presented by prabhava iva, which may involve the singular noun prabhava, but I think the plural of prabhu fits the context better. I then take the phrase with iva adjectivally rather than adverbially, because I do not think “ransacked like lords”
was the composer’s intent.
↑7. The identity of these enemies is uncertain. It seems from the present text that Dhaḻadim-munniṟiva
is a single person, which may or may not be the case in the only other testimony of
these words in stanza 3 of the Kolaveṇṇu plates of Bhīma II. Rājamārtaṇḍa is mentioned in several grants as one of the pretenders defeated by
Bhīma II, and the Kalucuṁbaṟṟu grant of Amma II records in the same context a Dhaḻaga, who may be identical to Dhaḻadi(m), and is
listed together with Rājamayya, who is probably Rājamārtaṇḍa.
↑8. The idea here is that Bhīma’s enemies dare not confront him, but the dust clouds beaten
up by his armies give them an expedient screen behind which they can scoot to safety.
↑9. The reference may be to Śiva’s icchā-śakti, jñāna-śakti and kriyā-śakti.
↑10. This is probably a list of insignia and/or privileges to which Candyana is entitled.
The word māḻpare may perhaps denote a musical instrument or be an epithet.
↑11. I can only translate the Telugu boundary description partially and tentatively.
↑12. The edition only gives the text from the beginning of 3v onward, even though the preceding
text would be essential in establishing Subba Rao’s claim that these plates were issued
by Bhīma III. See also the commentary.