Koḻūru grant of Bhīma II

Editor: Dániel Balogh.

Identifier: DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00102.

Languages: Sanskrit, Telugu.

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

Version: (195df1d), last modified (a0fc48c).

Edition

Seal

⟨1⟩ [śrī-tribhu]vanāṁkuśa

Plates

⟨Page 1r⟩

⟨Page 1v⟩ ⟨1⟩ ✤ 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⟨3⟩ṇa-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⟩ Aṣṭādaśa-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⟨|⟩ ⟨7⟩ tad-ātmajo jayasiṁhas trayodaśa¿s ta?⟨| ta⟩d-dvaimāturānujaḥ kok(k)ili⟨ḥ⟩ ṣaṇ māsāN| tasya jyeṣṭho bhrātā sv(ānu)⟨8⟩jam uccāṭya viṣṇuvarddhanas saptatriṁśataṁ| tad-auraso vijayāditya-bhaṭṭārako ⟨’⟩ṣṭādaśa vatsarāN| tat-to⟨Page 2r⟩⟨9⟩kaṁ viṣṇuvarddhana¡ṣ ṣa!ṭtriṁśataM|

I. Anuṣṭubh

nare(n)dra-mr̥garājākhyo

a

(m)r̥garāja-parākramaḥ

b

vijayā(d)itya-bhūpāla(ḥ)

c

(ca)⟨10⟩(tvā)riṁśat samā⟨s⟩ samaḥ

d

tat-putraḥ kali-viṣṇuvarddhano ⟨’⟩dhyarddha-varṣaṁ| tat-putro guṇakke(na)lla-vijayādi⟨11⟩tyaḥ catuścatvāriṁśataṁ|

II. Anuṣṭubh

śaṁkilasya pur¿i?⟨ī⟩ dagdhā

a

rakṣito yādaveśvaraḥ

b

sphoṭitaṁ gaṁgak¿u?⟨ū⟩ṭ(aṁ ca)

c

yena maṁgi-bhaṭ(o) ⟨12⟩ hataḥ|

d
III. Anuṣṭubh

tad-bhrātur yyuvarājasya

a

vikramāditya-bhūpate⟨ḥ⟩

b

cālukya-bhīma-bhūpālas

c

tana(ya)⟨13⟩⟨s⟩ triṁśataṁ sam¿a?⟨ā⟩ḥ|

d
IV. Śārdūlavikrīḍita

tat-putras tad-anantareṇa vijayādityo vijityāhave

a

svenaikena gajena (vā)⟨14⟩raṇa-ghaṭ¿a?⟨ā⟩r¿u?⟨ū⟩ḍhān k¿ā?⟨a⟩liṁgādhipāN|

b

Āruhyo¡jv!⟨jjv⟩ala-hema-kalpita-tul¿a?⟨ā⟩-koṭiṁ vadāny¿ā?⟨o⟩ jaya-

c

-staṁbha⟨ṁ⟩ kī⟨15⟩⟨r⟩ttimayan nidhāya v¿ī?⟨i⟩raje ṣaṇ-māsam ās¿i?⟨ī⟩n ⟨n⟩r̥paḥ|

d

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⟨Page 2v⟩⟨17⟩m apālayaT|

V. Anuṣṭubh

tatas tu tammu-bhīmākhya(ḥ/ṁ)

a

hatvā proddh¿(ā)?⟨a⟩(ta)m āhave

b

varṣāṇi sapta rakṣanta⟨ṁ⟩

c

yuddhama⟨18⟩llādhipaṁ kṣitiM|

d
VI. Śārdūlavikrīḍita

ni⟨r⟩jityārjjuna-sannibho janapadāt tan nirggamayyoddhatān

a

dāyādān ina-bhānu-līna-bha-ga⟨19⟩ṇākārān vidhāyetarā¿M?⟨N⟩

b

vajrīvo⟨r⟩jita-nākam amma-nr̥pate⟨r⟩ bhrātā kanīyān bhuvaṁ

c

bh¿i?⟨ī⟩mo bhīma⟨20⟩-parākrama(ḥ) [⏑⏑⏑–––⏑––⏑⏓]

d
VII. Sragdharā

śr¿i?⟨ī⟩mat-kāliṁga-gaṁgānvaya-mahita-maho meḻabāṁbo⟨21⟩ditodyal-

a

-lakṣmī-cālukya-vaṁśonnati-yuta-vijayāditya-vīrāgra⟨22⟩sūnuḥ

b
VIII. Āryāgīti

jalajātapatra-cāmara-kalaśāṁkuśa-lakṣaṇāṁka-kara-caraṇa-talaḥ

ab

lasad-ājā⟨23⟩(nv-a)valaṁbita-bhuja-yuga-parigho g¿ī?⟨i⟩rīndra-sānūraskaḥ||

cd
IX. Āryāgīti

vidita-dh¿ā?⟨a⟩rādhipa-vidyo vivi(dh)ā⟨24⟩yudh¿ā?⟨a⟩-kovido vilīnāri-kulaḥ

ab

kari-turagāgama-kuśalo hara-caraṇāṁbhoja-yuga[la]⟨Page 3r⟩⟨25⟩-madhupaś śrīmāN|

cd
X. Lalitā

kavi-gāyaka-kalpa-taru⟨r⟩ dvija-muni-d¿i?⟨ī⟩nāndha-bandhu-jana-surabhiḥ

ab

yā⟨26⟩caka-gaṇa-cintāmaṇir avanīśa-maṇir mmahogra-mahasā dyumaṇiḥ||

cd
XI. Āryāgīti

yasmin ⟨ś⟩āsati nr̥⟨27⟩patau paripakvāneka-sasya-sampac-chāl¿i?⟨ī⟩|

ab

satata-payo-dhenur abhīr nnir¿i?⟨ī⟩tir aparu⟨28⟩¡g! nirasta-coro deśaḥ||

cd
XII. Āryāgīti

yasmin vrajati dhareśe bahir udyānāvaloka⟨29⟩nārtthaṁ bhītā(ḥ|)

ab

ta(d-d)ig-deśādhīśā diśanti maṇi-kanaka-haya-gajendra-p(ra)⟨30⟩tatiM||

cd
XIII. Āryāgīti

yo rūpeṇa ma(no)jaṁ vibhavena mahendram ahimakaram uru-mahasā

ab

⟨31⟩ haram ari-pura-dahanena nyakkurvvan bhāti vitata-dig-avani-kī(r)ttiḥ||

cd

sa sakala-ripu⟨32⟩-nr̥pati-makuṭa-taṭa-ghaṭita-maṇi-gaṇa-madhukara-(n)ikara-pari(cu)ṁbita⟨Page 3v⟩⟨33⟩-caraṇa-sarasiruha-yugalo ⟨yugalo⟩cana-pada-kamala-vilasad-⟨d⟩vire¿p?⟨ph⟩āyamāno ⟨34⟩ mānonnato natoddhata-sarvva-lokaḥ sarvva-lokāśraya-śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājā⟨35⟩dhirāja-parameśvara-parama-bhaṭṭ¿a?⟨ā⟩rakaḥ parama-vīrāgragaṇyaḥ paṁcūrikuṟṟu-viṣa⟨36⟩ya-nivāsino rāṣṭrakūṭa-pramukhān k¿ū?⟨u⟩ṭuṁbina⟨⟨ḥ⟩⟩ sarvvān samāhūye⟨37⟩ttham ājñāpayati⟨.⟩ viditam astu vaḥ|

yo

XIV. Anuṣṭubh

narendra-mr̥garājasya

a

vallabhaḥ⟨38⟩kuppayāhvayas

b

tat-sutābhūd revakāṁbā

c

paṭṭavarddhana-vaṁśa-pā|

d
XV. Anuṣṭubh

tat-tokā (p/b)olla⟨39⟩kāṁbākhyā

a

jātā vaṁśa-vivarddhanā

b

tasyā⟨ḥ sū⟩nur abh¿u?⟨ū⟩d bh¿i?⟨ī⟩mo

c

dhanurvveda-vicakṣa¡ṇa|s!⟨naḥ|⟩

d
XVI. Anuṣṭubh

ta⟨40⟩to ⟨’⟩bhūtāṁ sut¿ā?⟨au⟩ kyhātau

a

vijayā(d)itya-daṇḍin¿o?⟨au⟩

b

dhanuṣmatāṁ ca v¿i?⟨ī⟩rāṇāṁ

c

sa(ṁyu)⟨Page 4r⟩⟨41⟩ge cāgra-gāminau|

d
XVII. Triṣṭubh

Ete trayaḥ ś¿u?⟨ū⟩ra-janāgragaṇyā

a

dhanur-ddharā (ghora-mahā)⟨42⟩haveṣu

b

gajaṁ samāruhya mayāgra-saṁsthitā

c

hy akhaṇḍaya⟨n⟩ krūra-ripū(n aja)⟨43⟩sraṁ|

d

tasmād iṣṭa-bhr̥tya-vargga Iti tebhyaḥ tribhya⟨ḥ⟩ bhīmana-vijayāditya-daṇḍibhya⟨ḥ⟩ śā⟨44⟩sanīkr̥tya sarvva-kara-parihāreṇa mayā koḻūru nāma grām(o) ⟨45⟩ dattaḥ

Asy¿a?⟨ā⟩vadhayaḥ pūrvvataḥ gūḻamu|| dakṣiṇataḥ|| deva⟨46⟩buddamu|| paścimataḥ kontekuṟṟu|| Uttarataḥ Impalli|| Asyopari na kena⟨47⟩cid bādhā karttavyā⟨.⟩ yaḥ karoti sa paṁca-mahāpātak¿o?⟨aiḥ⟩ saṁyukto bhavati||

⟨48⟩ koḻūri pūrvva-sīmaṁbu tūrppuna kāliya polamera|| dakṣiṇataḥ ko(ṟu)⟨Page 4v⟩⟨49⟩ceṟu⟦ṣu⟧⟨⟨vu⟩⟩|| paścimataḥ kāliya polamera|| Uttarataḥ Eṟu||

Ājñapti⟨ḥ⟩ ka⟨50⟩ṭakarājaḥ| jont¿a?⟨ā⟩cāryyeṇa likhitaM||

ceṁbroli kayāmuna toḻu yenuṁ(gek)i ⟨51⟩ paḍasinadi| dīniki vajje rāju kari|| jamu-daṇḍamu yekinadi||

⟨Page 5r⟩ ⟨Page 5v⟩

Apparatus

Seal

Plates

⟨1⟩ śrīmatāṁ ⬦ śrī mat¿a?⟨ā⟩ṁ PS.

⟨2⟩ bhagav¿ā?⟨a⟩n- ⬦ bhagavan- PS • The ASI transcript correctly has the incorrect ā here.

⟨3⟩ -lāṁcchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa- ⬦ -lāṁcchanekṣṇa- PS • The ASI transcript does not omit -kṣaṇa-.

⟨7⟩ kok(k)ili⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ kokili PS • The ASI transcript also reads kokili. I am quite certain that the extra horizontal stroke for kk is present. The first vowel may be au, as it is definitely asymmetrical.

⟨8⟩ bhrātā sv(ānu)⟨8⟩jam ⬦ bhrātasv ānu⟨8⟩jam PS • The ASI transcript shows bhrātā sva/jam in the original hand, corrected in red to bhrātā svānu/jam.

⟨9⟩ bhūpāla(ḥ ca)⟨10⟩(tvā)riṁśat ⬦ bhūpāla⟨kaś⟩ ca⟨10⟩tvāriṁśat PS • Instead of supplying kaś (unmetrical), PS may have intended to emend to laś. PS does not recognise this passage as verse. The ASI transcript shows bhūpāla(śca)/tvāriṁśat. The last character is barely visible, but almost certainly ca. The visarga before it is quite certain.

⟨10⟩ guṇakke(na)lla- ⬦ guṇakenalla- PS • The ASI transcript shows guṇakāṅga (sic), corrected to guṇakkenalla. The double k is certain.

⟨11⟩ śaṁkilasya ⬦ samlīlasya PS • The ASI transcript has the correct reading. PS recognises this passage as verse. — ⟨11⟩ yādaveśvaraḥ ⬦ yao-veśvaraḥ PS • The ASI transcript has the correct reading. — ⟨11⟩ sphoṭitaṁ ⬦ svoditaṁ PS • The ASI transcript has the correct reading. — ⟨11⟩ maṁgi-bhaṭ(o) ⟨12⟩ hataḥ ⬦ maṁgi-bhaṭopa⟨12⟩hataḥ PS • The ASI transcript has maṁgi-bhaṭṭā /hataḥ corrected to maṁgi-bhaṭo /hataḥ. The last character actually seems to be ṭe with a vowel marker attached to the bottom left of the body, but ṭo must surely have been meant, and there may be an effaced second marker attached to the rising stem of the ṭ.

⟨12⟩ tana(ya)⟨13⟩⟨s⟩ triṁśataṁ ⬦ tana(yo) ⟨13⟩ triṁśataṁ PS • The ASI transcript has the correct reading and suggests no emendation.

⟨13⟩ sa◯m¿a?⟨ā⟩ḥ ⬦ samaḥ PS.

⟨15⟩ ās¿i?⟨ī⟩n ⟨n⟩r̥paḥ ⬦ asi nr̥paḥ PS.

⟨17⟩ tammu-bhīmākhya(ḥ/ṁ) ⬦ tam{ma} bhīmākhyam PS • The ASI transcript tamma bhimākhyaṁ corrected to tammu bhīmākhya (or perhaps the corrector wished to emphasise, rather than delete, the final anusvāra?). PS’s emendation to tam is unmetrical and can be ruled out. The sign after ākhya definitely involves a second dot in addition to the one placed at head height. The lower dot is, however, smaller, does not appear to be as deeply incised, and takes up no horizontal space, being located to the left of the upper dot rather than straight below it. An originally engraved anusvāra may have been corrected to visarga. The parallel locus in the Single Bhimavaram plate of a late Eastern Cālukya king definitely has a visarga, but that too is probably a subsequent insertion. See also the commentary. — ⟨17⟩ proddh¿(ā)?⟨a⟩(ta)m ⬦ proddama PS • The ASI transcript has pro..māhave corrected to proddhātamāhave. Instead of dhā, it is possible that the upper component was first engraved as pa. — ⟨17⟩ rakṣanta⟨ṁ⟩ ⬦ rakṣanta PS • The ASI transcript also has rakṣanta, which is clear and certain. Emendation to rakṣantaṁ is the only way I can make sense of the reading; see also the commentary.

⟨18⟩ nirggamayyoddhatān ⬦ nirggamayy¿a?⟨o⟩ddhātan PS • PS probably read nirggamayyāddhatān and wished to emend correctly. The ASI transcript alsofirst has nirggamayyādvaton, corrected by the hand in red ink to nirggamayyoddhaton (the last vowel is not corrected). The second vowel stroke on yy is faint and largely horizontal, attached to the loop of the subscript y.

⟨20⟩ [⏑⏑⏑–––⏑––⏑⏓] • The end of the stanza has been omitted. Parallel instances of the stanza have samabhunak saṁvatsarān dvādaśa here, which PS restores to the text. See also the commentary. — ⟨20⟩ -mahita-maho ⬦ -mahitam aho PS.

⟨24⟩ -yuga[la] ⬦ -yugaḷa PS • The ASI transcript omits the last letter at first, then la was added in red. There are no discernible vestiges, but perhaps la is slightly more likely than ḷa.

⟨29⟩ -p(ra)⟨30⟩tatiM ⬦ -pra⟨30⟩tat¿ī?⟨i⟩M PS • The ASI transcript simply reads patatiṁ. I am not certain the subscript r is present at the end of the line but I think part of it can be made out below the p.

⟨32⟩ -maṇi-gaṇa- ⬦ -maṇi-⟨ki⟩raṇa- PS • The ASI transcript simply reads patatiṁ. I am not certain the subscript r is present at the end of the line but I think part of it can be made out below the p.

⟨38⟩ (p/b)olla⟨39⟩kāṁbākhyā ⬦ bolla⟨39⟩kāṁbākhyā PS • The ASI transcript has bollakāṁbā corrected in red to pollakāṁbā. I think p is more likely (there seems to be a second headmark on the right-hand side of the consonant component), but b cannot be excluced.

⟨39⟩ tasyā⟨ḥ sū⟩nur ⬦ tasyānur PS • The ASI transcript has tasyānur and suggests emending to tat-sūnur (unmetrical). — ⟨39⟩ -vicakṣa¡ṇa|s!⟨naḥ|⟩ ta⟨40⟩to ⬦ vicakṣaṇ¿āśi?⟨aḥ||⟩ ta⟨40⟩to PS • PS may have read just as I do. Note that there is no real problem with the text, except for the somewhat confusing practice of inserting a punctuation mark before a conjunct consonant, part of which belongs before the punctuation mark.

⟨40⟩ ⟨’⟩bhūtāṁ ⬦ bhūta- PS • The ASI transcript has bhūtau corrected to bhūtā. — ⟨40⟩ dhanuṣmatāṁ ⬦ dhanuṣṭha tam PS • The ASI transcript seems to have dhanuṣṭha . corrected to dhanuṣmatāṁ. — ⟨40⟩ sa(ṁyu)⟨Page 4r⟩⟨41⟩ge ⬦ sa(ṁyu)⟨Page 4r⟩⟨41⟩go PS.

⟨42⟩ akhaṇḍaya⟨n⟩ ⬦ akhaṇḍaya PS • The ASI transcript also reads akhaṇḍaya. — ⟨42⟩ -ripū(n aja)⟨43⟩sraṁ ⬦ -ripum ja⟨43⟩sram PS.

⟨43⟩ tebhyaḥ ⬦ tebhy¿āṁ?⟨aḥ⟩ PS.

⟨45⟩ gūḻamu ⬦ guḻnamu PS. — ⟨45⟩ deva⟨46⟩buddamu ⬦ deva⟨46⟩buddhamu PS • The ASI transcript has devapuddamu corrected to devabuddamu; there is also correction in the character dda, but the black and red seem to differ only in execution. The reading is clear.

⟨48⟩ tūrppuna ⬦ turppunaka PS. — ⟨48⟩ polamera ⬦ polameṟa PS.

⟨49⟩ polamera ⬦ polimeṟa PS.

⟨50⟩ kayāmuna ⬦ kayyamuna PS. — ⟨50⟩ yenuṁ(gek)i ⬦ yenuṁgu eki PS.

⟨51⟩ paḍasinadi ⬦ paḍasiṇadi PS • The ASI transcript has baḍasinadi. The initial pa is clear.

Translation by Dániel Balogh

Seal

Plates

(1–9) 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 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.

I
King (bhūpāla) Vijayāditya (II) who was called Narendramr̥garāja and who had the courage of a lion (mr̥garāja), [reigned] fairly for forty years.

(10–11) His son Kali-Viṣṇuvardhana (V), for a year and a half. His son Guṇakkenalla Vijayāditya (III), for forty-four.

II
He who burnt Śaṁkila’s town, defended the Yādava lord, rent asunder the Gaṅga hilltop, [and] slew the warlord (bhaṭa) Maṅgi.1
III
The son of his brother, the heir-apparent (yuvarāja) Prince (bhūpati) Vikramāditya, [named] King (bhūpāla) Cālukya-Bhīma, [reigned] for thirty years.
IV
After him his son Vijayāditya (IV) was king for six months, defeating in battle with [just] one elephant of his own the overlords of Kaliṅga mounted on hosts of elephants, generously ascending the beam of a balance scale furnished with bright gold,2 and commissioning a victory pillar representing his reputation in Viraja.

(14–15) His 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.

V
Then the one named Tammu-Bhīma, having defeated in battle the pretentious King Yuddhamalla, who had protected the earth for seven years—3
VI
having vanquished him and expelled him from the country, having made [other] haughty rivals (dāyāda) resemble clusters of stars vanishing in the rays of the sun, the younger brother of King (nr̥pati) Amma (I), [namely] Bhīma (II) of fearsome (bhīma) prowess, who takes after Arjuna, [rules now] as the Thunderbolt-wielder (Indra) [rules] the high heaven.
VII
His might is revered by the majestic Gaṅga dynasty of Kaliṅga. [He is] the valiant foremost son, borne by Meḻabāmbā, of Vijayāditya (IV), who was linked to the exaltation of the Cālukya dynasty whose fortune is [constantly] on the rise.4
VIII
The palms of his hands and the soles of his feet are marked with the omens of the conch,5 the parasol, the chowrie, the jar and the elephant goad. His two playfully moving arms are like iron bars and extend to his knees. His chest is like a cliff of a majestic mountain.
IX
[He is] majestic, familiar with the sciences (appropriate) for kings, expert with various weapons, skilled in the lore of elephants and horses and a bee to the lotus that is the foot of Hara (Śiva). The families of his enemies have melted away.
X
[He is] a wish-granting tree to poets and singers, a cow of plenty (surabhi) to Brahmins (dvija), ascetics (muni), the afflicted, the blind and his kinsfolk, a wish-fulfilling jewel to supplicants, a jewel among kings, and the jewel of the sky (the sun) by his great and fierce glory.
XI
While this king rules, the land is replete with the bounty of many a ripe harvest, exempt from fear, free from disasters (īti), devoid of pestilence and rid of bandits, and its cows never dry up.
XII
When this king goes out with the [only] purpose of admiring a park, the rulers of the countries in that direction fearfully offer up a train of gems, gold, horses and excellent elephants.
XIII
Surmounting the Mind-Born (Kāma) in physical beauty, the great Indra in opulence, the sun in widespread splendour and Hara (Śiva) in the burning of enemy fortresses, he shines with a reputation that encompasses [all] the quarters of the earth.

(31–37) The 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]

XIV
Narendra-Mr̥garāja’s (Vijayāditya II’s) favourite named Kuppaya, had a daughter Revakāmbā, the matron of the Paṭṭavardhana lineage.7
XV
To her was born a daughter named Pollakāmbā, the enricher of her lineage. Her son was Bhīma, skilled in the discipline of archery (dhanurveda).
XVI
From him arose two famous sons, Vijayāditya and Daṇḍin, foremost among archers and fighters, and {taking point} in battle.
XVII
These three, paragons of heroes that they are, have always stationed themselves in front of me (Bhīma II) in horrendous, great battles and, mounted on an elephant and wielding bows, destroyed (our) fierce enemies.

(43–45) Therefore 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).

(45–47) Its 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

(49–50) The executor (ājñapti) is the castellan (kaṭaka-rāja). Written (likhita) by Jontācārya.

(50–51) …9

Commentary

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, p. 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.

Bibliography

Reported in Krishnamacharlu and Laksminarayan Rao 1952, p. 20, appendices A/1939-40, № 3 with description at Krishnamacharlu and Laksminarayan Rao 1952, pp. 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.

Primary

[PS] Padmanabha Sastry, C. A. 1990. “Amalapuram plates of Eastern Chāḷukya Bhīma II.” In: Indian History and Epigraphy. Dr. G. S. Gai Felicitation Volume. Edited by K. V. Ramesh, S. P. Tewari and M. J. Sharma. Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan, pp. 64–69.

Secondary

Krishnamacharlu, C. R. and N. Laksminarayan Rao. 1952. Annual reports on South Indian epigraphy for the years 1939-40 to 1942-43. Delhi: Government of India. Page 20, appendixes A/1939-40, item 3.

Krishnamacharlu, C. R. and N. Laksminarayan Rao. 1952. Annual reports on South Indian epigraphy for the years 1939-40 to 1942-43. Delhi: Government of India. Pages 233–234, section 17.

Notes

  1. 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. 2. That is, donating his own weight in gold.
  3. 3. The interpretation of stanza V is problematic. See the commentary.
  4. 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. 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. 6. This epithet, parama-vīrāgragaṇya, seems to be used in lieu of a religious epithet such as parama-māheśvara.
  7. 7. See the commentary.
  8. 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. 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. 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.