Current Version: draft, 2025-01-14Z
Editor: Dániel Balogh.
DHARMA Identifier: INSVengiCalukya00102
Hand Description:
Halantas. Final M is a very small circle at headline height with a sinuous tail. Its circle part is barely or not at all larger than an anusvāra, but the latter is normally a solid circle (except e.g. l5 viṁśati), while final M is an outline. Padmanabha Sastry’s edition reads all final M-s as anusvāras; this is not indicated in my apparatus. Final N may be the same size as the regular na, but with no headmark and a slightly sinuous stem (e.g. l5 vatsarāN). Or it may be a reduced and raised form (e.g. l7 māsāN). Final T is a full-sized ta with a sinuous tail instead of a headmark.
Original punctuation marks are straight vertical bars with a nail head at the top. The opening symbol is a flower with a central circle and eight petals, each shaped like a letter S or a Devanagari numeral 9 (the two facing W and SW are mirror images of the other 6).
Other palaeographic observations. Long ī is written in two forms, one with curl inside the circle, e.g. l1 śrīmatāṁ, and one with a dot inside the circle, e.g. l1 hārītī. There is no clear distinction between dependent o and au, which have been read as applicable to the context. (However, dependent o may also be composed of two separate strokes at top right and bottom left, e.g. l9 ākhyo.)
No metadata were provided in the table for this inscription
⎘ plate 1v 1floretComplex svasti[.] śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrāṇāṁ hārītī-putrāṇāṁ
kauśikī-vara-
2-prasāda-labdha-rājyānāM {m}mātr̥-gaṇa-paripālitānāM svāmi-mahāsena-pādānudhyātānāM
bhagav¿ā?⟨a⟩n-nārāya-
3ṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-vara-varāha-lāṁcchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥tārāti-maṇḍalānāM ¿ma?⟨A⟩śvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-
4-pavitr¿i?⟨ī⟩kr̥ta◯-vapuṣāM cālukyānāṁ kulam alaṁkariṣṇoḥ satyāśraya-vallabhendrasya bhrātā kubja-
5-viṣṇuvarddhana⟨ḥ⟩ A◯ṣṭādaśa-varṣ¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇi| tat-putraḥ jayasiṁha-vallabhaḥ trayastriṁśata(M)| tad-bhrātā Indra-
6-bhaṭṭāraka⟨ḥ⟩ sapta dināni| tat-sūnu⟨r⟩ viṣṇuvarddhana⟨ḥ⟩ nava vatsarāN⟨|⟩ tat-tanayo
maṁgi-yuvarāj¿ā?⟨a⟩ḥ paṁcaviṁśati⟨|⟩
7tad-ātmajo jayasiṁhas trayodaśa¿s ta?⟨| ta⟩d-dvaimāturānujaḥ kok(k)ili⟨ḥ⟩ ṣaṇ māsāN| tasya jyeṣṭho bhrātā sv(ānu)-
8jam uccāṭya viṣṇuvarddhanas saptatriṁśataṁ| tad-auraso vijayāditya-bhaṭṭārako [’]ṣṭādaśa
vatsarāN| tat-to-
⎘ plate 2r 9kaṁ viṣṇuvarddhana¡ṣ ṣa!ṭtriṁśataM|
tat-putraḥ kali-viṣṇuvarddhano [’]dhyarddha-varṣaṁ| tat-putro guṇakke(na)lla-vijayādi-
11tyaḥ catuścatvāriṁśataṁ|
tat-toka{ṁ}m ammarājas sapta vatsarāN| tat-sūnur arbhaka-
16-(vija)yāditya⟨ḥ⟩ pakṣaṁ| tatas tāḻapa-rājo māsaṁ| tad-anu vikramāditya⟨ḥ⟩ saṁvatsaraṁ
veṁgī-ma(ṇḍa)la-
⎘ plate 2v 17m apālayaT|
sa sakala-ripu-
32-nr̥pati-makuṭa-taṭa-ghaṭita-maṇi-gaṇa-madhukara-(n)ikara-pari(cu)ṁbita-
⎘ plate 3v 33-caraṇa-sarasiruha-yugalo ⟨yugalo⟩cana-pada-kamala-vilasad-⟨d⟩vire¿p?⟨ph⟩āyamāno
34mānonnato natoddhata-sarvva-lokaḥ sarvva-lokāśraya-śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājā-
35dhirāja-parameśvara-parama-bhaṭṭ¿a?⟨ā⟩rakaḥ parama-vīrāgragaṇyaḥ paṁcūrikuṟṟu-viṣa-
36ya-nivā◯sino rāṣṭrakūṭa-pramukhān k¿ū?⟨u⟩ṭuṁbina⟨⟨ḥ⟩⟩ sarvvān samāhūye-
37ttham ājñāpa◯yati[.] viditam astu vaḥ|
yo
tasmād iṣṭa-bhr̥tya-vargga Iti tebhyaḥ tribhya⟨ḥ⟩ bhīmana-vijayāditya-daṇḍibhya⟨ḥ⟩
śā-
44sanīkr̥◯tya sarvva-kara-parihāreṇa mayā koḻūru nāma grām(o)
45dattaḥ
A◯sy¿a?⟨ā⟩vadhayaḥ pūrvvataḥ gūḻamu| dakṣiṇataḥ| deva-
46buddamu| paścimataḥ kontekuṟṟu| Uttarataḥ Impalli| Asyopari na kena-
47cid bādhā karttavyā[.] yaḥ karoti sa paṁca-mahāpātak¿o?⟨aiḥ⟩ saṁyukto bhavati|
48koḻūri pūrvva-sīmaṁbu tūrppuna kāliya polamera| dakṣiṇataḥ ko(ṟu)-
⎘ plate 4v 49ceṟu⟦ṣu⟧⟨⟨vu⟩⟩| paścimataḥ kāliya polamera| Uttarataḥ Eṟu|
Ājñapti⟨ḥ⟩ ka-
50ṭakarājaḥ| jont¿a?⟨ā⟩cāryyeṇa likhitaM|
ceṁbroli kayāmuna toḻu yenuṁ(gek)i
51paḍasinadi| dīniki vajje rāju kari| jamu-daṇḍamu yekinadi|
1-9Greetings. 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 Hārītī, 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 the country of Veṅgī] for eighteen years. His son Jayasiṁha Vallabha (I), for thirty-three. His brother Indra Bhaṭṭāraka, for seven days. His son Viṣṇuvardhana (II), for nine years. His son Maṅgi Yuvarāja, for twenty-five. His son Jayasiṁha (II), for thirteen. His younger brother by a different mother, Kokkili, for six months. His eldest brother Viṣṇuvardhana (III), having dethroned his own younger brother, for thirty-seven years. His son Vijayāditya (I) Bhaṭṭāraka, for eighteen years. His son Viṣṇuvardhana (IV), for thirty-six.
10-11His son Kali-Viṣṇuvardhana (V), for a year and a half. His son Guṇakkenalla Vijayāditya (III), for forty-four.
14-15His son Ammarāja (I), for seven years. His son Vijayāditya the Kid (arbhaka), for a fortnight. Then King (rājan) Tāḻapa, for a month. After him, Vikramāditya (II) protected (pāl-) the country of Veṅgī for a year.
31-37The pair of lotuses, which are his feet, are kissed all around by swarms of bees, which are the clusters of jewels fitted to the surfaces of the crowns of all enemy kings, [while] he himself plays the part of a bee flitting at the lotus that is the foot of the [god] with an odd number of eyes (Śiva). He rises high with pride [while] all the puffed-up world bows down. That shelter of all the world (sarvva-lokāśraya), His Majesty Viṣṇuvardhana (Bhīma II) the Supreme Lord (parameśvara) of Emperors (mahārājādhirāja), Supreme Sovereign (parama-bhaṭṭāraka) and supreme paragon of heroes,↓6 convokes and commands the householders (kuṭumbin)—including foremost the territorial overseers (rāṣṭrakūṭa)—who reside in Paṁcūrikuṟṟu district (viṣaya) as follows: let [the following] be known to you.
37[He] who [was]
43-45Therefore I have given the village named Koḻūru, with a remission of all taxes and substantiated as a (copperplate) charter, to these three, [namely] Bhīmana, Vijayāditya and Daṇḍin, [formally recognised as belonging to the] “class of favoured of retainers” (iṣṭa-bhr̥tya-varga).
45-47Its boundaries (are as follows). To the east, Gūḻamu. To the south, Devabuddamu. To the west, Kontekuṟṟu. To the north, Impalli. Let no-one pose an obstacle (to their enjoyment of rights) over it. He who does so shall be conjoined with the five great sins.
48-49¿On the eastern border of Koḻūru is the eastern Kāliya polamera?. To the south is the Koṟu tank (ceṟuvu). To the west is ¿the Kāliya polamera?. To the north is ¿the river?.↓8
49-50The executor (ājñapti) is the castellan (kaṭaka-rāja). Written (likhita) by Jontācārya.
50-51 ... ↓9
Many stanzas of the royal praśasti are attested several times in the grants of Amma II, but not before him. The same is true of some of the prose praśasti at the beginning of the executive section. The writer Jontācārya is also featured in several grants of Amma II as well as Dānārṇava. It is possible that Jontācārya first rose to prominence in the chancellery late in the reign of Bhīma II and composed these stanzas and phrases (or inserted them into the standard template) originally with reference to Bhīma, then repurposed them to describe Amma II. The phrase mānonnato natoddhata-sarvva-lokaḥ sarvva-lokāśraya seems to imply this, as Amma II’s āśraya epithet is samasta-bhuvanāśraya, which is rather awkwardly omitted or distorted from the parallel titulature in his grants (00035 Elavaṟṟu grant of Amma II: mānonnato natoddhata-samasta-lokaḥ samasta-bhuvanāśraya; 00045 Tāṇḍikoṇḍa grant of Amma II: mānonnato natoddhatas samasta-bhuvanāśraya; 00046 Vandram plates of Amma II: mānonnatoddhataḥ samasta-lokaḥ samasta-bhuvanāśraya). However, stanza VI of this charter describes the reign of Bhīma II, and also states its length in several later grants.↓10 Here, the part about his reign’s duration is omitted, which renders the verse grossly defective both in metre (lacking 11 syllables) and in syntax (lacking a verb and an object to that verb to parallel nākam). This does not seem to be accidental and may rather suggest that the charter was written during the reign of Amma II or Dānārṇava, and predated for some reason to the time of Bhīma II. (The Pulivaṟṟu (spurious?) grant of Amma I is a similar case, also hallmarked by Jontācārya.) The plates, however, have all appearance of proper royal charters, so if they are spurious, they were nonetheless in all likelihood engraved in the royal chancellery. Since several small details fit the notion that the grant does indeed belong to Bhīma II, the most likely explanation of the anomalies is that the grant had been made by Bhīma II, but the official copper plates were only issued during the reign of one of his successors, most likely Amma II.
The closely connected stanza V is unique in the corpus aside from a partial attestation in the incomplete Single Bhimavaram plate of a late Eastern Cālukya king. Due to inconsistent case endings, the syntax of this stanza is not clear. What one would expect at this point in the narrative is an introduction of Yuddhamalla as the next king after Vikramāditya II. However, reading V as such an introduction not only requires a minor emendation (yuddhamallādhipaṁ to yuddhamallādhipaḥ) but also faces a major difficulty: the word rakṣanta must then somehow be a verb in the third person singular. I see no way to emend it appropriately and preserve the metre. The only plausible way of dealing with rakṣanta that I can conceive of is to emend it to rakṣantaṁ, in which case it stands in apposition to yuddhamallādhipaṁ in the accusative. This, however, leaves stanza V bereft of a finite verb (and possibly of a subject too, see below). I think it is acceptable to find this in the following stanza. That, in turn, has only a pronoun for an object of the absolutives in the first quarter, whose signification must be supplied from the preceding prose in the other attestations of this stanza, and from V in the present context. Read in this way, we do have the expected narrative where Yuddhamalla (II) rules Veṅgī for seven years, and is ousted by Bhīma II. The only deviation from the standard king list is that Yuddhamalla is not presented as a proper member of that list, but rather as a parenthetical item who had to be disposed of—which would be understandable in a charter of Bhīma II even if other charters of the same ruler do recognise Yuddhamalla as a legitimate predecessor.
I am thus quite certain that I interpret V and VI correctly in this respect. The first hemistich of V, however, remains to be understood. It refers, beyond reasonable doubt, to a person named Tammu-Bhīma. The second glyph in this name has been read as mma by Padmanabha Sastry, as well as by Subba Rao in his edition of the Single Bhimavaram plate of a late Eastern Cālukya king, but the glyph (both here and in the other instance) clearly sports an extra “ear” attached to the subscript m on the right-hand side. This stroke looks like it could be the right wing of the subscript m, but it does not occur in any glyph for mma that I am aware of (cf. e.g. l15), while being identical to the form of dependent u associated with certain consonants with a rounded bottom (cf. in particular dyu in l26). The glyph was also read as mmu by the person who made corrections in red in the ASI transcript. The same glyph occurs (and is read as mmu) in line 34 of the Varaṇaveṇḍi grant of Bhīma II. Tammu-Bhīma is thus quite certain, but this name is not attested anywhere else that I know of. The name may be either in the accusative or the nominative in the present charter (see the apparatus to line 17), and both can be interpreted sensibly in the context. Given the parallel locus, I consider the nominative more likely and translate accordingly. If the word tammu is connected to Telugu tammuḍu “younger brother”, then this name (in the nominative) might well denote Bhīma II, the younger brother of Amma I. If, however, the accusative is correct, then Tammu-Bhīma may be an otherwise unknown epithet of Yuddhamalla II, or it may refer to a third person whom Yuddhamalla had killed in order to establish his own reign of seven years. The use of a name plus ākhya as a substantive (rather than adjective) has parallels elsewhere in the corpus (e.g. Kolaveṇṇu plates of Bhīma II, stanza III; Pedda-Gāḻidipaṟṟu grant of Amma II, stanza V). Subba Rao in his edition of the Single Bhimavaram plate of a late Eastern Cālukya king sees this as a reference to Bhīma III, a putative son of Amma I, and the same may have occurred to the person who wrote the ASI transcript of the present plates, who pencilled “Amba’s[?] son” here, with a reference to Fleet’s edition of the Diggubaṟṟu grant of Bhīma II where the existence of Bhīma III is proposed. While such a son might also plausibly bear an epithet meaning “younger brother Bhīma”, I see no evidence anywhere that Amma I had a child named Bhīma (to be discussed elsewhere; see also my edition of the Diggubaṟṟu grant of Bhīma II). Also, since Amma I’s certain child, Vijayāditya V, is consistently described as being of a tender age when he was displaced by Yuddhamalla (e.g. arbhaka in the present grant), it is very unlikely that a younger brother of that child would have been slain in battle at much the same time. If Tammu-Bhīma is someone whom Yuddhamalla killed, then it is most likely Vikramāditya II, who was also the younger brother of a previously reigning king.
For stanza XIV, both the ASI transcript and Padmanabha Sastry’s edition 1990: page 65 comment that Revakāmbā “married into Paṭṭavardhana family” or “married a person belonging to the Paṭṭavardhinī family” (respectively). The text, however, says unequivocally that Revakāmbā was herself the head of the Paṭṭavardhana family. Given the indications in other grants that there was a strong matrilineal tradition in this family, I am certain it is mistaken to posit that she gained membership in that family through marriage.
Reported in ARIE 1939-1943: page 20, appendix A/1939–40, № 3 with description at ARIE 1939-1943: pages 233–234, §17. Edited from inked impressions by C. A. Padmanabha Sastry (1990) with facsimiles but without translation. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on photographs of the estampages kept at ASI Mysore, collated with Padmanabha Sastry’s edition. Innumerable typos and transliteration errors have been ignored in Padmanabha Sastry’s edition; readings shown by him are indicated in the apparatus only when they imply a different interpretation or when a lemma merits a note for another reason. I have also consulted an unsigned Devanagari transcript (with some corrections, probably by a different hand, in red ink) included with the ASI estampage. This transcript is much more accurate than Padmanabha Sastry’s Romanised edition. No visual documentation of the seal is available.
↑1. The intended meaning may be that he defended the Yādava lord by burning Śaṁkila’s
town, but emendation would be needed for this to be explicit in the text. No Yādava
lord is mentioned in any related grant that I know of, but other accounts refer to
protecting or saving someone named Baddega, mentioning this in the same breath as
the defeat of Śaṁkila and Maṅgi.
↑2. That is, donating his own weight in gold.
↑3. The interpretation of stanza V is problematic. See the commentary.
↑4. ”Foremost son” (agra-sūnuḥ) may be figurative, or it may mean that he was in fact older than his deceased brother
Amma I. Since their mothers were different, Amma I may have succeeded their father
in spite of being a junior son. Bhīma II’s mother is called Meḻāmbā in other records;
this variant of her name may have been invented for the sake of the metre. PS, in
his discussion of this text, says she was a Kaliṅga Gaṅga princess, but this seems
unlikely to me. It is in principle possible to read the entire stanza as a compound
where the might of Meḻabāmbā would be revered by the Gaṅgas, but I find this implausible
(and it would still not explicitly mean that she was a princess of that family) and
think that the text up to -maho applies to Bhīma II.
↑5. In the text, I construe jalaja+ātapatra, not jalajāta+patra. Instead of a conch, jalaja may perhaps mean a fish or a lotus..
↑6. This epithet, parama-vīrāgragaṇya, seems to be used in lieu of a religious epithet such as parama-māheśvara.
↑7. See the commentary.
↑8. I do not fully understand this passage containing Telugu words and phrases. I believe
that while the previous passage described the location of the village Koḻūru in terms
of the neighbouring villages, the present sentence describes the exact borders where
the fields belonging to this village end and those beginning to the adjacent village
begin. The word polamera may mean a field.
↑9. I do not understand the Telugu passage. According to PS, ceṁbroli kayāmuna (in his discussion, cēmbroḷu kayyambuna means a war fought at Cembrolu. He identifies a village of this name near Veṅgī,
in Elurā taluk of West Godavari District and believes it was the site of a major battle
in Bhīma II’s struggle for the throne.)
↑10. Nāgiyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II, Paḷaṁkalūru grant of Amma II, Pāṁbaṟṟu grant of Amma II, Tāṇḍikoṇḍa grant of Amma II, Kaṇḍyam plates of Dānārṇava, Masulipatam plates of Amma II.