Pāmulavāka plates of Amma II

Editor: Dániel Balogh.

Identifier: DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00073.

Language: Sanskrit.

Repository: Eastern Cālukya (tfb-vengicalukya-epigraphy).

Version: (37404d2), last modified (787027d).

Edition

⟨Page 1r⟩

⟨Page 1v⟩ ⟨1⟩ <unknown> svasti⟨.⟩ śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrāṇāṁ ⟨2⟩ hārīti-putrāṇāṁ kauśikī-vara-prasāda-labdh¿ā?⟨a⟩-rājyānāṁ mātr̥-gaṇa-paripāli⟨3⟩tā¿ṁnā?⟨nāṁ⟩ svāmi-mahāsena-pādānu¿ye?⟨dhyātā⟩nāṁ ¿b?⟨bh⟩a⟨ga⟩van-nārāyaṇa-prasāda-samā⟨4⟩sādita-vara-varāha-lāñchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥tār¿a?⟨ā⟩ti-maṇḍalā⟨5⟩nām aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavitrīkr̥ta-vapuṣāṁ cālukyānāṁ ku⟨6⟩lam alaṁkariṣṇoḥ satyāśraya-vallabhendrasya bhrātā kubja viṣṇuvarddhano ⟨’⟩ṣṭā⟨7⟩daśa varṣ¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇi veṁgī-deśam apālayaT⟨.⟩ tat-putro jayasiṁhas trayastriṁ⟨8⟩śata¿ḥ?⟨ṁ⟩⟨.⟩ tad-anujendrarāja-nandano viṣṇuvarddhano nava⟨.⟩ tat-sūnur mmaṁgi-yu⟨Page 2r⟩⟨9⟩varājaḥ paṁcaviṁśatiṁ⟨.⟩ tat-putro jayasiṁhas trayodaśa⟨.⟩ tad-avaraja⟨ḥ⟩ ⟨10⟩ kokkili⟨ḥ⟩ ṣaṇ māsāN⟨.⟩ tasya jyeṣṭho bhrātā viṣṇuvarddhanas tam uccāṭya saptatriṁ⟨11⟩śataṁ⟨.⟩ tat-putro vijayāditya-bhaṭṭārako ⟨’⟩ṣṭādaśa⟨.⟩ tat-suto viṣṇuvarddha⟨12⟩na⟨ḥ⟩ ṣaṭtriṁśataṁ⟨.⟩ tat-suto vijayāditya-narendra-mr̥garāja⟨13⟩ś c¿o?⟨ā⟩ṣṭacatv¿a?⟨ā⟩riṁśataṁ⟨.⟩ tat-sutaḥ kali-viṣṇuvarddhano ddhyarddha-varṣaṁ⟨.⟩ ta⟨14⟩t-suto guṇagāṅka-vijayādityaś catuścatvāriṁśataṁ⟨.⟩ tad-anuja-yuvarā⟨ja⟩⟨15⟩-vikramāditya-¿t?⟨bh⟩ūpateḥ sūnuś cālukya-bhīma-bhūpālas triṁśataṁ⟨.⟩ tat-putraḥ ko⟨16⟩lla¡bh!igaṇḍa-vijayādityaḥ ṣaṇ māsāN⟨.⟩ tat-sūnur ammarāja⟨ḥ⟩ sapta va⟨r⟩ṣ¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇi⟨.⟩⟨Page 2v⟩ ⟨17⟩ tat-sutaṁ vijayāditya⟨ṁ⟩ bālam uccāṭya tālapo māsam ekaṁ⟨.⟩ taṁ jitvā cālu⟨18⟩kya-bhīma-tanayo vikramāditya Ekādaśa māsāN⟨.⟩ tatas tālapa-rājasya su⟨19⟩to yuddhamallaḥ sapta varṣāṇi⟨.⟩ ¿tat-putraḥ?⟨taṁ jitvā⟩ kolla¡bh!igaṇḍa-vijayāditya-suto bhī⟨20⟩marājo dvādaśa varṣāṇi⟨.⟩

I. Āryā

tasya maheśvara-m¿u?⟨ū⟩⟨r⟩tter umā-samānākr̥teḥ ⟨21⟩ kumārābhaḥ

ab

lokama⟨hā⟩devyāḥ khalu yas samabhavad ammarājākhyaḥ

cd
II. Āryā

⟨22⟩ yo rūpeṇa manoja⟨ṁ⟩ vibhavena mahendram ahimakara⟨ṁ⟩ mahasā

ab

haram ari-pura-da⟨23⟩hanena nyakkurvan bhāti vidita-dig-ava¿l?⟨n⟩i-k¿i?⟨ī⟩⟨r⟩ttiḥ

cd

sa samasta-bhuvanāśraya-śrī-vija⟨24⟩yāditya-mahārāja-parameśvaraḥ parama-bhaṭṭārakaḥ parama-brahmaṇyaḥ Ela⟨Page 3r⟩⟨25⟩maṁci-kaliṁga-bārupunāṇḍu-viṣaya-nivāsino rāṣṭrakūṭa-pramukhān kuṭu⟨ṁ⟩⟨26⟩binaḥ sa⟨r⟩vv¿a?⟨ā⟩n āh¿u?⟨ū⟩y¿u?⟨a⟩ Ājñāpayati

viditam astu vaḥ śrīmat-cāmenākhyāya tat-putr¿a?⟨ā⟩ya ⟨27⟩ betonākhyāya tad-bhā⟨r⟩yy¿a?⟨ā⟩ya jarākavva-m aj¿e?⟨ī⟩janat tat-putro kuce⟨nā⟩khyāya

¿pranāni ca⟨28⟩tyābhāvena? tasmai kucenākhyāya bhavad-viṣaye bārupunāṇḍu-ḻeccādi-viṣaye ⟨29⟩ deva-brāhmaṇa-va⟨r⟩jjitāya ś¿a?⟨ā⟩sanīkr̥tyāya⟨.⟩ yasyāvadhayaḥ p¿u?⟨ū⟩⟨r⟩vvataḥ

⟨Page 3v⟩

Apparatus

⟨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⟨16⟩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⟩ pranāni ca⟨28⟩tyābhāvena ⬦ pra¿n?⟨ṇ⟩āni ca⟨28⟩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.

Translation by Dániel Balogh

(1–20) Greetings. 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.

I
To him (Bhīma II), who was [like] Maheśvara in form, a [son] named Ammarāja (II), who verily resembled Kumāra, was born from none other than (his queen) Lokamahādevī, who was like Umā in appearance.
II
Surmounting the Mind-Born (Kāma) in physical beauty, the great Indra in opulence, the sun in splendour and Hara (Śiva) in the burning of enemy fortresses, he shines with a reputation that is known in [all] quarters of the earth.

(23–26) That 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:

(26–28) Let 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

(28–29) To 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 east4

Commentary

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.

Bibliography

Reported in Krishnamacharlu 1942, p. 7, appendices A/1937-38, № 8 with description at Krishnamacharlu 1942, p. 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.

Primary

[SR] Subba Rao, R. 1927–1928. “The Pamulavaka copper plate grant of Ammaraja II Vijayaditya.” JAHRS 2, pp. 242–249.

Secondary

Krishnamacharlu, C. R. 1942. Annual report on South Indian epigraphy for the year ending 31st March 1938. Delhi: Government of India. Page 7, appendixes A/1937-38, item 8.

Krishnamacharlu, C. R. 1942. Annual report on South Indian epigraphy for the year ending 31st March 1938. Delhi: Government of India. Page 82, section 41.

Notes

  1. 1. I translate the text as emended; see the apparatus to line 19.
  2. 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. 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. 4. The text ends abruptly here.
  5. 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.