Pāmulavāka plates of Vijayāditya VII

Author of digital edition: Dániel Balogh (daba).

Palaeographic description: Anusvāras are small dots usually at median height after the character to which they belong. Original punctuation marks are straight verticals with a small serif at the top. Rare initial Ai occurs in line 7 and would not be distinguishable from ṣo if deprived of context. When a superscript repha is combined with a dependent ā, this often differs only very slightly or not at all from the superscript repha without ā, and has been read with the benefit of doubt unless very clearly incorrect. When a superscript repha is combined with a dependent i, the repha is occasionally added on the right of the vowel marker, but more commonly integrated into it as a slight jaggedness to the lower right portion. In this latter form it is not always clearly perceptible and has, again, been read with benefit of the doubt where expected.

Language: Sanskrit (san) [Southern Brāhmī (other) (brāhmī_southern_other)].

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

Identifier: DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00107.

File path: xml-provisional/DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00107.xml.

Version: (07ebead), last modified (07ebead).

Edition

⟨Page 1r⟩

✤

⟨Page 1v⟩

⟨1⟩ śrī-dhāmnaḥ puruṣottamasya mahato nārāyaṇasya prabhor nnābhī-paṁkaruhād ba-

⟨2⟩ bhūva jagatas sraṣṭā svayaṁbhūs tataḥ| jajñe mānasa-sūnur atrir iti yas tasmān muner atri-

⟨3⟩ tas somo vaṁśa-karas sudhāṁ¿s?ur udita⟨ḥ⟩ śrīkaṁṭha-cūḍāmaṇiḥ| tasmād āsīt sudhā-sū⟨ter⟩ bbu-

⟨4⟩ dho budha-nutas tataḥ j¿a?taḥ purūravā nāma cakravarttī sa-vikramaḥ| tasmād āyur⟨.⟩ Āyuṣo

⟨5⟩ nahuṣaḥ| nahu◯ṣād yayātiś cakravartti-vaṁśa-karttā| tataḥ prācīśaḥ⟨.⟩ pr¿a?cī-

⟨6⟩ śāt (sai?)nyayā◯ti⟨ḥ⟩⟨.⟩ sai⟨⟨n⟨y⟩a⟩⟩yāter hayapatiḥ| hayapates sā⟨r⟩vvabhaumaḥ⟨.⟩ sārvvabhau-

⟨7⟩ māj jayasenaḥ⟨.⟩ ◯ jayas¿a?nān mahābhaumaḥ⟨.⟩ mahābhaumād aiśānakaḥ| Aiśāna-

⟨8⟩ kāt krodhānanaḥ⟨.⟩ krodhānanād devakiḥ|¡devake| ricukaḥ!⟨.⟩ ¡ricukād! r̥kṣakaḥ| ¿ri?kṣakān ma-

⟨9⟩ ti¿n?araḥ satra-yāga-yājī sarasvatī-nadī-nāthaḥ| tataḥ kā{r}tyāyanaḥ| kā{r}tyā-

⟨10⟩ yanān nīlaḥ⟨.⟩ nīlād duṣyantaḥ⟨.⟩ tat-sutaḥ| Āryyā| gaṁg¿o?-y¿u?munā-t¿i?re ya-

⟨Page 2r⟩

⟨11⟩ d avicchi{ṁ}nnaṁ nikhāya yūpān kramaśaḥ| kr̥tvā ta¿dh?āśvamedhān nāma mahā-karmma-bharata I-

⟨12⟩ ti yo ⟨’⟩labhata{ḥ} tato bharatād bhūmanyuḥ| bhūmanyos suhotraḥ⟨.⟩ suhotrād dhastī⟨.⟩ hasti-

⟨13⟩ no virocanaḥ| vi⟨ro⟩canād ajamīlaḥ⟨.⟩ Ajamīlā{|}t saṁvaraṇaḥ| saṁvaraṇasya tapana-su-

⟨14⟩ tāyās tapa{na}◯tyāś ca sudhanvā| sudhanvanaḥ{|} parikṣiT⟨.⟩ parikṣito bhīmasenaḥ⟨.⟩

⟨15⟩ bhīmasenāt pra◯dīpanaḥ⟨.⟩ pradīpanā¡ś c!aṁtanuḥ⟨.⟩ śaṁtano⟨r⟩ vvicitravīryyaḥ| vvicitra-

⟨16⟩ vīryyāt pāṇḍu◯-rājaḥ| Āryyā| putrās tasya ca dharmmaja-bhīmārjjuna-nakula-

⟨17⟩ -sahadevāḥ paṁcendriyavaT paṁca syu⟨r⟩ vviṣaya-grāhiṇas tatra| vr̥ttaṁ| yenād¿a?hi viji-

⟨18⟩ tya ¿k?āṇḍavam atho gāṇḍīvinā vajriṇa¿ḥ? yuddhe pāśupatāstram aṁdhaka-ripoś cālābhi dai-

⟨19⟩ tyān bahūn indrārddhāsanam adhyarohi jayinā| yat kālikeyādikān hatvā svairam akāri

⟨Page 2v⟩

⟨20⟩ vaṁśa-vipina-(c?)chedaḥ kurūṇāṁ vibhoḥ| tato ⟨’⟩rjjunād abhimanyuḥ| ⟨Abhima⟩nyoḥ parikṣiT| parikṣito

⟨21⟩ janamejayaḥ| janamejayāt kṣemukaḥ⟨.⟩ kṣemukān naravāhanaḥ| naravāhanā¡ś c!atānīkaḥ⟨.⟩

⟨22⟩ śatānīkād udaya¿ṇ?aḥ| tataḥ paraṁ tat-prabhr̥ti¿s?v avicchinna-santāneṣv ayodhyā-siṁhāsanāsī-

⟨23⟩ neṣv ekānna-ṣaṣṭi◯-cakrava(r)ttiṣu gateṣu tad-vaṁśyo vijayādityo ⟦bhī⟧⟨⟨nā⟩⟩ma rāj¿a? vi-

⟨24⟩ jigīṣayā da◯kṣiṇāpathaṁ gatvā trilocana-pallavam adhikṣipya daiva-durīh¿ā?-

⟨25⟩ yā lokāntara◯m a(ga)maT| tasmin saṁkule purohitena sārddham antarvvatnī tasya

⟨26⟩ mahādevī muḍivemu nāmāgrahāraṁ upagamya tad-vāstavyena viṣṇubhaṭṭa-somayājinā duhi-

⟨27⟩ t¿ta?-ni⟨r⟩vviśeṣam abhirakṣitā satī nandana⟨ṁ⟩ viṣṇuvarddhanan nāma prasūya| tasya ca kumārakasya m¿a?-

⟨28⟩ navya-sagotra-hārīti-putra-dvipakṣa-gotra-kramocitāni karmmāṇi kārayitvā tam avarddhaya-

⟨29⟩ T⟨.⟩ sa ca mātrā vidita-vr̥ttāntas san nirggatya calukya-girau nandāṁ bhagavatīṁ gaurīm ārādhya ku-

⟨Page 3r⟩

⟨30⟩ māra-nārāyaṇa-mātr̥-gaṇān saṁt{t}arppya śvetātapatraika-śaṁkha-paṁca-mahāśabda-pā-

⟨31⟩ li-k¿a?tana-prati¿ḍ?akkā-varāha-lāṁ¿c?ana-piṁ¿c?a-kunta-siṁhāsana-makara-toraṇa-kanaka-da-

⟨32⟩ ṇḍa-gaṁgā-yamunādīni sva-kula-kramāgatāni ⟨ni⟩kṣiptānīva tat-sā¡ṁb!rājya-cihnāni sa-

⟨33⟩ mādāya kaḍaṁba-gaṁgādi-bhūmipān ni⟨r⟩jitya setu-narmmadā-madhyaṁ sārddha-sapta-lakṣ¿ā?ṁ

⟨34⟩ dakṣiṇāpathaṁ ◯ pālayām āsa| ślokaṁ| tasyāsīd vijayādityo viṣṇuv¿i?-

⟨35⟩ rddhana-bhūpateḥ ◯ pallavānvaya-jātāyā mahādevyāś ca nandanaḥ| tat-sutaḥ po-

⟨36⟩ lakeśi-vallabhaḥ| tat-putraḥ kī(r)ttivarmmā⟨.⟩ tasya tanayaḥ| svasti⟨.⟩ śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuva-

⟨37⟩ na-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrāṇāṁ hārīti-putrāṇāṁ kauśikī-vara-prasāda-labdha-

⟨38⟩ -rājyānāṁ mātr̥-gaṇa-paripālitānā⟨ṁ⟩ sv¿a?mi-⟨⟨ma⟩⟩hāsena-pādānudhyātānāṁ bhagavan-nārā-

⟨39⟩ yaṇa-prasāda-samās¿a?dita-vara-v¿ā?rāha-lāṁ¿c?anekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥tārāti-maṇḍa-

⟨Page 3v⟩

⟨40⟩ lānām aśvamedhāvabhr̥¿t?a-snāna-pavitrī⟨⟨kr̥⟩⟩ta-vapuṣāṁ cālukyānāṁ kulam alaṁka-

⟨41⟩ ⟨ri⟩ṣṇos satyāśraya-vallabhendrasya bhrātā kubja-viṣṇuvarddhano ⟨’⟩ṣṭādaśa varṣāṇi veṁgi-deśam a-

⟨42⟩ pālayaT| tad-ātmajo jayasiṁ¡gh!a-vallabhaḥ trayastriṁśataṁ| tad-anujendrarājas sa-

⟨43⟩ pta dināni| tat-suto viṣṇuvarddhano ¿v?ava| tat-sū⟨nu⟩r mmaṁgi-yuvarājaḥ paṁcavi⟨ṁ⟩śatiṁ| tat-putro

⟨44⟩ jayasiṁ¡gh!a◯-vallabhas trayodaśa| tad-avarajaḥ kokkiliṣ ¿v?a¿n? māsāN| tasya jyeṣṭho

⟨45⟩ bhrātā viṣṇuva◯rddhanas tam uccāṭya saptatriṁśataṁ| tat-putro vijayāditya-bhaṭṭ¿a?-

⟨46⟩ rako ⟨’⟩ṣṭ¿a?daśa| ta¿d-a?nujo viṣṇuvarddhanaṣ (ṣ)a⟨ṭ⟩triṁśataṁ| tat-sūnur vvijayāditya-narendra-mr̥garāja-

⟨47⟩ ś cāṣṭacatvāriṁśataṁ| tat-sutaḥ kali-viṣṇuvarddhano ⟨’⟩{r}ddhya⟨r⟩ddha-varṣaṁ| tat-suto guṇaga-vijayādityaś catu-

⟨48⟩ ścatvāriṁśataṁ| tad-bhrātur vvikramāditya-bhūpates tanayaś cālukya-bhīmas triṁśataṁ| tat-sutaḥ

⟨49⟩ koll¡e!bigaṇḍa-vijayāditya⟨ḥ⟩ ṣaṇ māsāN⟨.⟩ tat-sūnur ammarājas sapta varṣāṇi| tat-sutaṁ vija-

⟨Page 4r⟩

⟨50⟩ yādityaṁ bālam uccāṭya tāḍapo māsam ekaṁ| taṁ jitvā yudhi cālukya-bhīma-tana-

⟨51⟩ yo vikramāditya Ekādaśa māsāN| tat-tāḍapa-rāja-suto yuddhamalla{ḥ}s sapta varṣāṇi

⟨52⟩ taṁ Yuddhamalla⟨ṁ⟩ pa{ṁ}rihr̥tya deśāt piṣṭvetareṣām api śātravā¿n?āṁ kṣmām ammarājānuja-rā-

⟨53⟩ ja-bhīmo bhīmas samā dvādaśa rakṣati sma| t¿i?t-sūnu⟨r⟩ vvinatārātir ammarājo nr̥pāgraṇīḥ

⟨54⟩ paṁcaviṁśati ◯ varṣāṇi veṁgī-bhuvam apālayaT| dvaimāturo ⟨’⟩mma-nr̥pater ddā-

⟨55⟩ na-nr̥po rāja◯-bhīma-nr̥pa-tanayaḥ vidyā-kalāpa-caturaḥ ca⟨tu⟩ranta-dharām a-

⟨56⟩ pāt samās tisraḥ| Anu dānārn¿n?ṇavād āsīd ⟨d⟩aiva-duśceṣṭayā tataḥ saptaviṁśati varṣā-

⟨57⟩ ṇi veṁg¡i!-mahir anāy¿i?kā| Atrāntare dāna-narendra-sūnu⟨ḥ⟩ śrī-śaktivarmmā sura-rāṭ-sadharmm¿a?

⟨58⟩ yaś śauryya-śaktyā vinihatya śatrūn sa dvādaśābdān samarakṣad urvvīM| tasyānujanmā ⟨ji⟩ta-śa-

⟨59⟩ trur urvvīṁ saṁvatsarān pālayati sma sapta nirasta-sapta-vyasanaḥ pratāpī bhūpā-

⟨Page 4v⟩

⟨60⟩ graṇ(īr) mmummadi-bhīma-bhūpa⟨ḥ⟩| tasya mummadi-bhīmasya sutaḥ kr̥ta-matir mmahā¿|?|

⟨61⟩ rājarājāhvayo rājā dv¿a?daśābdān dh¿ā?rām apāT| taṁ rājarāja{ṁ}-¿d?r̥patiṁ nirddhāṭya

⟨62⟩ bhuvaḥ prasahya vijayādityaḥ| vimalāditya-⟨ta⟩nūja⟨ḥ⟩ ⟨⟨ta⟩⟩sya dvaimāturo ⟨’⟩grahīd y¿a? rājyaṁ

⟨63⟩ śrīmān śāke samaughe dr̥g-iṣu-nidhi-mite karkk¿i?-ge karkkaśāṁśau śuddhātmā śuddha-paṁcamy-aditi-

⟨64⟩ -suta-dine sū◯ryya-bhe śauryya-śālī| kanyā-lagne ⟨’⟩ti-⟦(nya?)⟧⟨⟨dha⟩⟩nya⟨ḥ⟩ śaśi-kula-tilako rā-

⟨65⟩ ja-m¿a?rttaṇḍa-sū◯nur vveṁgī-sā¡ṁb!rājya-paṭṭaṁ sma vahati vijayāditya-bhūpaḥ pratā-

⟨66⟩ pī| putrīya◯nn api śaraṇā¿tti?naṁ jighāṁsuM jñā¿tir?y{y}an bhaṭa-vi¿bh?udhāṁś ca sat-k¿r̥?yā-

⟨67⟩ bhiḥ| mā¿tkr̥?yan para-yuvatīr ajihma-vr̥ttir yyo dhātrīm avati n{d}r̥po yathā sva-dharmmaM| vilaṁghaya-

⟨68⟩ ntī himavantam uccair ume⟨śva⟩rāṁga¡(M)! dviṣatī vicitraM| gaurīti siddhāpi vibhāti kīrttiś cālukya-⟦rā⟧⟨⟨bhī⟩⟩ma-

⟨69⟩ -kṣitipasya yasya| sa śrī-sarvva-lokāśraya-śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājo rājādhirājaḥ-

⟨70⟩ śrī-vijayāditya-devo rāṣṭrakūṭa-pramukhān kuṭ¡i!ṁbinas sarvvān sam⟦va⟧⟨⟨ā⟩⟩h¿u?ya samasta-pradhā-

⟨Page 5r⟩

⟨71⟩ na-samakṣam ittham ā⟨jñā⟩payati| nihatya vairi-kṣitipān a¿r?eṣāN ¿ś?vīkāray¿ā?n bhūpatinā dhar¿a?-

⟨72⟩ trīṁ kucamma-rājena nijeśvareṇa labdha-prasādo bhavati sma tasmā¿ta?| śrī-cāme-rājasya bhart(u)-

⟨73⟩ ś ca kāmāṁbikāyāś ca pati-vratāyāḥ yo bhīma-bhūp⟦o⟧⟨⟨a⟩⟩s tanayo ⟨’⟩janiṣṭa| tasmai dīnā(r)t¿t?i-dvija-

⟨74⟩ -bandhu-budha-surabhūruhāyamānāya| nā⟨⟨ga⟩⟩-kula-bhūṣa¿n?āya| meghagiri-nātha-melpa-kandarppa-

⟨75⟩ malaya-bhāska◯rāya| sam¿u?pārjjita-dharmma-ka⟨r⟩mmaṇe b¿ra?haspati-kalpāmātya-śrīya-

⟨76⟩ pa-cāmena-be◯nn¿a?ya bu¡dh!dhi-pau¿rṣa?-samupā(r)jjita-rājya-mahimne{ṁ}| kr̥ta-kleś¿ī?-ni-

⟨77⟩ mitte koṁpo◯loṁgu nāma grāmo dvādaśa-grāmaś ca śāsanīkr̥tya dhārā-pū-

⟨78⟩ rvvakaṁ mayā ◯ datta Iti viditam astu vaḥ| Asyopari na kenacid bādhā kartta-

⟨79⟩ vyā⟨.⟩ yaḥ karoti sa paṁca-mahāpātako bhavati⟨.⟩ bahubhir vvasudhā dattā bahubhiś cānupā-

⟨80⟩ litā yasya yasya yadā bhūmis tasya tasya tadā phalaṁ| sva-dattāṁ para-dattāṁ vā yo hare-

⟨81⟩ t¿u? vasundharāṁ ṣaṣṭi-varṣa-saharāṇi viṣṭhāyāṁ j¿a?yate k¡ri!miḥ| Asya dvitī⟨⟨ya⟩⟩-varṣa-varddha-

⟨82⟩ ne dattasy¿ā? ś¿a?sanasya Ājñapti⟨ḥ⟩ kaṭakādhīśaḥ⟨.⟩ ś(ā)sana-le¿k?akaś ca gokācāryyaḥ✤

⟨Page 5v⟩

Apparatus

⟨3⟩ sudhā-sū⟨ter⟩ bbu⟨4⟩dho ⬦ sudhāṁ¿sū?⟨śo⟩ ¿bh?⟨bb⟩u⟨4⟩dho SR • I assume that bhu in SR’s edition is a typo and that his intended emendation was sudhāṁśor, but this is unmetrical and does not correspond to other attestations of this stanza.

⟨4⟩ cakravartti-vaṁśa-karttā • Other attestations of this stanza read cakravarttī vaṁśa-karttā, which may have been intended here too, but the text is intelligible and appropriate as received. — ⟨4⟩ °t (sai?)nyayā◯ti⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ °t syinyayati SR • The problematic character read here as tsyai has been corrected rather awkwardly, and it is not evident which strokes are earlier and which later. SR’s reading was probably meant to be °t syainyayāti. In fact the character, as received, best matches the shape expected for tsyo, but I am willing to believe that the corrector’s intent had been tsai. The pre-correction character may have been tsya, tsyā, tsye, tsyo, tsu or tsū.

⟨11⟩ nikhāya ⬦ ni¿kh?⟨dh⟩āya SR. — ⟨11⟩ ta¿dh?⟨th⟩āśvamedhān ⬦ tadāśvamedhān SR.

⟨20⟩ -vipina-(c?)chedaḥ ⬦ -vipinaś cedaḥ SR • SR may be correct in reading ś for the damaged body (compare pradīpanāś caṁtanuḥ in line 15 and naravāhanāś catānīkaḥ in line 21), but the subscript component is quite certainly ch here. — ⟨20⟩ -⟨⟨ma⟩⟩hāsena- • The scribal addition is written at the expected spot below the line and also marked by a horizontal obelus sign (resembling ÷ or a dash crossed by a shorter vertical line) above the line.

⟨50⟩ tana⟨51⟩yo ⬦ tamna⟨51⟩yo SR • SR’s intent was probably taṁnayo, reading a dot (which I deem to be random) as an anusvāra.

⟨55⟩ -caturaḥ ⬦ -¿bh?⟨c⟩aturaḥ SR.

⟨58⟩ ⟨ji⟩ta-śa⟨59⟩trur ⬦ ¿taśa?⟨talasa⟩⟨59⟩tr̥rurvvīṁ SR • SR probably reads the received text correctly, with only a typo in line 59. I am, however, unable to interpret his emendation.

⟨62⟩ vimalāditya-⟨ta⟩nūja⟨ḥ⟩ ⟨⟨ta⟩⟩sya dvaimāturo ⟨’⟩grahīd y¿a?⟨o⟩ rājyaṁ ⬦ vimalāditya-⟨⟨ta⟩⟩nūjasya dvaimāturo grahīd{ya} rājyaṁ SR • The scribal addition is written below and to the left of sya and also marked by a horizontal obelus sign above this spot, as in line 20. In spite of this, SR’s footnote suggests reading the inserted ta after vimalāditya (instead of supplying another ta there), so his emended text is vimalāditya-tanūjasya dvaimāturo grahīd rājyaṁ, which is prosodically inappropriate. My emendation results in a metrically correct 32-mora hemistich, making the stanza an āryāgīti. Suppressing yo in combination with my first emendation would result in a prosodically correct 30-mora line (and thus the rare but attested vallarī metre), but I find that emendation too invasive, since it involves reading a single akṣara, drā, instead of two inscribed akṣaras, dyo rā. By retaining yo, the stanza as a whole becomes a subordinate clause to the next verse. I am thus confident that my emendations reflect the composer’s intent. In addition to that noted in the edition, there are two further indications of possible scribal correction here. First, the top of the subscript y in tya is extended to the right, which may be a subsequent correction to tyā. (Although the ā marker would be expected to bend downward, as for instance in l. 64 nyā, the absence of the downward component could be explained here by the proximity of the already engraved following character.) If this is indeed scribal correction and not just a slip of the chisel, then one redactor had probably wanted vimalādityānuja rather than vimalāditya-tanūja here. This, however, would be a correction to make things worse, since on the one hand no younger brother of Vimalāditya is known, and on the other hand it would render the text unmetrical. Second, there is a slightly sinuous horizontal line below the left-hand side of nū (this was apparently misinterpreted by SR as part of an ī marker on rkka in the next line). It is possible that this is a second kākapada signifying that the interlinear ta should be inserted here as well as at the point where it is engraved, although it is below the locus and is not crossed by a vertical stroke. Alternatively, it may be a mark of secondary correction intended to cancel the earlier correction of tya to tyā.

⟨63⟩ karkk¿i?⟨a⟩-ge karkkaśāṁśau ⬦ karkkige karkīśaṁ sau SR • See also the commentary about this date. — ⟨63⟩ -paṁcamy-aditi⟨64⟩-suta-dine sū◯ryya-bhe ⬦ -paṁcamyāditi⟨64⟩-suta-diner sūryyābhe SR.

⟨64⟩ -⟦(nya?)⟧⟨⟨dha⟩⟩nya⟨ḥ⟩ • Emending to -dhanye would be just as plausible as emending to -dhanyaḥ. However, two other words echoing the astronomical details (śuddhātmā, śauryya-śālī) qualify Vijayāditya while the third such assonance (karkka-ge karkkaśāṁśau) is an integral part of the astronomical information, so I feel that here too the composer probably intended to describe the king rather than the ascendant.

⟨66⟩ jighāṁsuM ⬦ jighāṁsur SR.

⟨67⟩ mā¿tkr̥?⟨trī⟩yan ⬦ mātkrayan SR. — ⟨67⟩ yyo dhātrīm avati n{d}r̥po ⬦ yyodhā trīmavatin drupo SR.

⟨68⟩ ume⟨śva⟩rāṁga¡(M)!⟨ṁ⟩ ⬦ °u meraṁgam SR • My emendation is not entirely confident, but it is my only metrically correct idea that results in meaningful and contextually passable text. Even so, the poetic image is awkward and difficult to interpret (see the translation), so the composer may have had something different in mind. The final M at the end of this word is quite different from other instances (compare the one in vicitraM shortly afterward in this line), with a larger and rounder body and a simple, short vertical stroke for a stem. It is even less like a final N (cf. l. 71) and is certainly nothing like an anusvāra, so I assume it was intended for M. — ⟨68⟩ ⟦rā⟧⟨⟨bhī⟩⟩ma • SR also sees a correction of rā to bhī here, but the reverse is not out of the question as none of the strokes have been visibly erased. I assume that the limb of bha was attached to the left side of an already inscribed ra, so that the left half of the original ra now forms the slightly misshapen stem of bha. With the reverse, the original bha would have had to be misshapen to begin with.

⟨70⟩ sam⟦va⟧⟨⟨ā⟩⟩h¿u?⟨ū⟩ya • I assume, with SR, that mva has been corrected to mā here. If so, then the body of the subscript v has been joined to the subsequently added ā marker to become its ornamental extension. Alternatively, the originally inscribed character may perhaps have been mya.

⟨72⟩ kucamma-rājena ⬦ ¿ku?⟨śrī⟩-camma-rājena SR • The text is somewhat opaque here (see the translation), but I do not feel SR’s emendation to be warranted. Engraving a completely different character in place of śrī would be a very unlikely scribal mistake. — ⟨72⟩ bhart(u)⟨73⟩ś ca ⬦ bharata⟨73⟩ś ca SR • The stroke below the body of t may be a subscript t as well as a squat and misshapen u. Given the immediate context, u was in all probability intended, although the stanza as a whole is seriously corrupt.

⟨73⟩ -bhūp⟦o⟧⟨⟨a⟩⟩s ⬦ -bhūpos SR • The o is much fainter than surrounding strokes and has probably been beaten out.

⟨76⟩ -be◯nn¿a?⟨ā⟩ya ⬦ bannaya SR • I emend tentatively, assuming that benna is part of the recipient’s name. Alternatively, perhaps some other correction is needed at the beginning of this locus, and naya- belongs with the following compound.

Translation

1.

From the lotus in the navel of the great Lord Nārāyaṇa, the supreme person and the abode of Śrī, there arose (Brahmā,) the self-born creator of the world. From him was born a son of the mind called Atri, and from that sage Atri [was born] the founder of a dynasty: the Moon (soma) whose rays are nectar and who is the turban jewel of Śrīkaṇṭha (Śiva).

2.

From that nectar-yielding one there came into being Mercury (budha), praised by the wise (budha), [and] from him was born the valiant universal sovereign (cakravartin) named Purūravas.

⟨4–10⟩ From him [was born] Āyus. From Āyus, Nahuṣa. From Nahuṣa, Yayāti, progenitor of a dynasty of universal sovereigns. From him, Prācīśa. From Prācīśa, Sainyayāti. From Sainyayāti, Hayapati. From Hayapati, Sārvabhauma. From Sārvabhauma, Jayasena. From Jayasena, Mahābhauma. From Mahābhauma, Aiśānaka. From Aiśānaka, Krodhānana. From Krodhānana, Devaki. From Devaki, R̥bhuka. From R̥bhuka, R̥kṣaka. From R̥kṣaka, Mativara, performer of a Sattra sacrifice and Lord of the River Sarasvatī. From him, Kātyāyana. From Kātyāyana, Nīla. From Nīla, Duṣyanta. His son [was the one]—

⟨10⟩ [What follows is] moraic verse.

3.

—who, because he unceasingly dug down one sacrificial post (yūpa) after another on the banks of the Gaṅgā and the Yamunā and also performed Aśvamedhas, obtained the name “Bharata of the Great Sacrifices.”

⟨12–16⟩ From that Bharata [was born] Bhūmanyu. From Bhūmanyu, Suhotra. From Suhotra, Hastin. From Hastin, Virocana. From Virocana, Ajamīla. From Ajamīla, Saṁvaraṇa. [The son] of Saṁvaraṇa and of Tapatī, the daughter of Tapana, [was] Sudhanvan. From Sudhanvan [was born] Parikṣit. From Parikṣit, Bhīmasena. From Bhīmasena, Pradīpana. From Pradīpana, Śantanu. From Śantanu, Vicitravīrya. From Vicitravīrya, King Pāṇḍu.

⟨16⟩ [What follows is] moraic verse.

4.

He in turn had five sons—(Yudhiṣṭhira) the son of Dharma, Bhīma, Arjuna, Nakula and Sahadeva—who were to obtain the kingdom (viṣaya) like the five senses {which grasp the sense-objects (viṣaya)}.

⟨17⟩ [What follows is] syllabic verse.

5.

The masterful wielder of the Gāṇḍīva (bow) who, after vanquishing (Indra) the thunderbolt-bearer, burned the Khāṇḍava (forest); who obtained the Pāśupata weapon in combat from (Śiva) the enemy of Andhaka; who, after slaying many Daityas such as Kālikeya, victoriously ascended to share a throne with Indra; who with abandon cut down the forest that was the dynasty of the Kurus—

⟨20–25⟩ —from that Arjuna [was born] Abhimanyu. From Abhimanyu, Parikṣit. From Parikṣit, Janamejaya. From Janamejaya, Kṣemuka. From Kṣemuka, Naravāhana. From Naravāhana, Śatānīka. From Śatānīka, Udayana. Thereafter, when sixty-less-one universal sovereigns beginning with him (Udayana) had passed in uninterrupted succession, [each] seated on the throne of Ayodhyā, a king of their dynasty named Vijayāditya marched to Dakṣiṇāpatha [driven] by a desire to conquer. He challenged Trilocana Pallava and, by an ill turn of fate, passed to the otherworld.

⟨25–34⟩ In the midst of that tribulation, his pregnant chief queen went with their chaplain (purohita) to a Brahmanical settlement (agrahāra) named Muḍivemu, and—under the protection of its resident the soma-sacrificer Viṣṇubhaṭṭa, [who cherished her] as if she were his own daughter—having given birth to a son named Viṣṇuvardhana, she raised that boychild, arranging for the performance of the ceremonies traditionally applicable to his bilateral gotra, [namely] being of the Mānavya gotra, a son of Hārita, and so on. He in turn, when her mother had told him the story, went forth to Mount Calukya and worshipped Nandā, [who is] the goddess Gaurī, and also appeased Kumāra, Nārāyaṇa and the band of Mothers. Having [thereby] recovered the hereditary paraphernalia of sovereignty belonging to his family, as though they had been deposited (with these deities for safekeeping)—[namely,] the white parasol, the one conch shell, the five great sounds1, the pennant garland (pāli-ketana), the ¿inverted drum? (pratiḍhakkā)2, the Boar emblem, the peacock fan (piṁcha), the lance (kunta), the lion throne, the makara archway, the golden sceptre, the Gaṅgā and Yamunā and so forth—and having conquered the kings of the Kaḍambas, Gaṅgas and so on, he reigned over Dakṣiṇāpatha (extending) from (Rāma’s) bridge to the Narmadā (and comprising) seven and a half lakhs (of villages?).

⟨34⟩ [What follows is] a śloka.

6.

The son of that King Viṣṇuvardhana and his chief queen born of the Pallava dynasty was Vijayāditya.

⟨35–36⟩ His son was Polakeśi Vallabha. His son was Kīrtivarman. His son—

⟨36–51⟩ Greetings. Satyāśraya Vallabhendra (Pulakeśin II) was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Calukyas—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 Vallabha (I), for thirty-three. His younger brother Indrarāja (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 [brother] of inferior birth, Kokkili, for six months. After dethroning him, his eldest brother Viṣṇuvardhana (III), for thirty-seven [years]. 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 Guṇaga Vijayāditya (III), for forty-four. The son of his younger brother King (bhūpati) Vikramāditya, Cālukya-Bhīma, for thirty. His son Kollebigaṇḍa Vijayāditya (IV), for six months. His son Ammarāja (I), for seven years. After dethroning his son the child Vijayāditya (V), Tāḷapa, for one month. After defeating him, Cālukya-Bhīma’s son Vikramāditya (II), for eleven months. [Then] that King (rājan) Tāḷapa’s son Yuddhamalla, for seven years.

7.

Having ousted that Yuddhamalla from the country and having also quashed other enemies, the fearsome King Bhīma (II), younger brother of Ammarāja, protected (rakṣ-) the earth for twelve years.

8.

His son Ammarāja (II), the foremost of kings who forced his enemies into submission, protected (pāl-) the land of Veṅgī for twenty-five years.

9.

King Dāna (Dānārṇava), the brother of King Amma (II) by a different mother and the son of King Bhīma (II), clever in a whole array of sciences, protected (pā-) the earth up to its four ends for three years.

10.

Then, after Dānārṇava, by an ill turn of fate the land of Veṅgī remained leaderless for twenty-seven years.

11.

At this juncture, the son of King Dāna, His Majesty Śaktivarman, who was of the same nature as (Indra) the king of the gods, struck down his enemies by the power of his valour and protected (rakṣ-) the earth for twelve years.

12.

His younger brother, having defeated his enemies and dispelled the seven [kinds of] calamities, protected (pāl-) the earth for seven years as the foremost of rulers: the valiant King (bhūpa) Mummadi Bhīma (Vimalāditya).

13.

The stalwart son of that Mummadi Bhīma, the great king (mahān … rājā) named Rājarāja, protected (pā-) the earth for twelve years.

14.

[Then] his brother by a different mother, Vimalāditya’s son Vijayāditya, obtained kingship after forcibly expelling that King (nr̥pati) Rājarāja from the land. He—

15.

—the forehead ornament of the Lunar dynasty, the son of Rājamārtaṇḍa (Vimalāditya), the valiant King (bhūpa) Vijayāditya, majestic, endowed with heroism and greatly auspicious—donned the turban (paṭṭa) of sovereignty over Veṅgī upon the multitude of Śaka years measured by eyes (2), arrows (5) and treasures (9) (i.e. Śaka 952 expired), when the harsh-rayed [sun] was staying in Cancer (karka), on the day of Aditi’s son (i.e. of Āditya, hence Sunday) that was the fifth ⟨tithi⟩ of a bright [fortnight], in the asterism (bha) of the Sun,3 with Virgo (kanya) as ascendant (lagna).

16.

Those who seek to harm him, he treats like [his own] sons [provided that they] seek his pardon. Retainers and learned men, he treats like [his own] kinsmen, with gifts of honour. Young women belonging to another, he treats like [his own] mother. Being [thus] free of crookedness in his conduct, he as king safeguards (av-) the earth as well as his own moral duty (dharma).

17.

The fame of this king (kṣitipa) Cālukya-Bhīma shines forth, being evidently [the goddess] Gaurī, [yet]—absurdly!—blatantly disobeying Himavat (her father) and shunning the body of Umā’s lord (her husband Śiva)… [but in fact] {being proven white, leaping high over the Himalaya, and rivalling the body of Śiva}.4

⟨69–71⟩ That majestic shelter of all the world (sarva-lokāśraya), His Majesty King (mahārāja) Viṣṇuvardhana, the Emperor (rājādhirāja), His Majesty the divine Vijayāditya (VII), convokes all householders (kuṭumbin)—including foremost the territorial overseers (rāṣṭrakūṭa)—and, witnessed by all dignitaries (pradhāna), commands them as follows.

18.

Having defeated all rival rulers (kṣitipa), the lord (rājan) Kucamma had made it possible for his suzerain the king (bhūpati) to take over the earth, and he obtained a reward from him.5

19.

The majestic lord (rājan) Cāme as husband, and [his] faithful [wife] Kāmāmbikā, had a son born [to them]: the lord (bhūpa) Bhīma.6

⟨73–79⟩ To him—the one who acts like a divine [wish-granting] tree to the destitute, to Brahmins, to his kinsmen and to the learned; the ornament of the Nāga family; the lord of the Cloudy Mountain, the Love-God of ¿gentleness? (melpa), the sun of Malaya; who has accumulated meritorious acts (dharma-karman)—[namely] to ¿Śrīyapa Cāmena Benna?, a minister (amātya) comparable to Br̥haspati, who has accumulated greatness for the kingdom through his intellect and fortitude, on account of the travails he has undertaken [on my behalf], I have given the village named Koṁpoloṁgu along with [its] twelve hamlets, substantiated as a [copperplate] charter and sanctified by the pouring [of water]. Let this be known to you. Let no-one pose an obstacle (to his enjoyment of his rights) over it. He who does so shall have the five great sins.

20.

Many (kings) have granted land, and many have preserved it (as formerly granted). Whosoever at any time owns the land, the fruit {reward (accrued of granting it)} belongs to him at that time.

21.

He who would seize land, whether given by himself or by another, shall be born as a worm in faeces for sixty millennia.

⟨81–82⟩ Of this charter (śāsana) presented in the course of the second year, the executor (ājñapti) is the Castellan (kaṭakādhīśa). The writer (lekhaka) of the charter is Gokācārya.

Commentary

The plates were discovered in Pāmulavāka village, Narasipatam Taluk of Vizag district. The cultivator who found them, along with the Pāmulavāka plates of Amma II, used the ring and seal of both sets to make bangles.

The editor Subba Rao did not provide a complete and correct reading of Vijayāditya IV’s coronation date in these plates. B. V. Krishna Rao (1930–1931, p. 84) provided an improved reading and equated it to Thursday, 9 July, 1030 CE. A more convincing calculation was made by K. G. Shankar at the request of N. Venkataramanayya (1951–1952, p. 61, n. 4). According to this, the equivalent date is Sunday, 27 June 1031 CE. This results in the correct weekday in addition to the Sun being in Cancer and the correct tithi at sunrise. According to Shankar as cited by Venkataramanayya, the kanyā lagna lasted from 10 to 12 AM on that day. At this time, the nakṣatra was Uttara-Phālgunī, while later on (with the same tithi still current) it was Pūrva-Phālgunī. The presiding deities of these nakṣatras are Bhaga and Aryaman respectively. Since both are Ādityas, sūryya-bhe (if not an inconsequential word meaning ‘sunlit’) might conceivably refer to either.

The parentage of the donee, as presented in stanzas 18-19, is not wholly clear. Read at face value, we learn of the following persons. 1: Kucamma-rāja (l. 70), who is also called Cāme-rāja (l. 87), defeated enemies for his overlord, presumably a onetime Cālukya king of Veṅgī. 2: Kucamma married a lady called Kāmāmbikā (l. 73). 3: Their son Bhīma-bhūpa (l. 73) is the recipient of the present grant, and is also called Śrīyapa Cāmena Bennaya (ll. 75-76) [though some of these may not be names].

Since at least one quarter of stanza 19 is corrupt and another quarter was probably omitted by the scribe, I believe that the donee may have been Bhīma-bhūpa’s son rather than Bhīma-bhūpa himself. I have no positive evidence for this, but in this scenario we would have the usual three generations represented instead of just two; the discrepancy of the donee’s names in ll. 75-76 from the name Bhīma would be explained by the fact that they were not the same person; and the similarity of the donee’s principal name to that of Kucamma or Cāme would also be explained by the fact that the latter was the former’s grandfather.

Interestingly, the Pāmulavāka plates of Amma II record a grant to a dignitary called Kucena, son of Betona and grandson of Cāmena. The similarity of the names (aside from Betona) together with the fact that the two charters were found together makes it reasonable to assume that we are dealing with two grants to members of the same lineage.7 Continuing the speculation further, if Kucamma/Cāme—rewarded for his service by his overlord according to our text—was the present donee’s grandfather, then he may in fact be none other than the Penuṁbulugu grant’s Kucena, rewarded by Amma II.

Bibliography

Not reported in ARIE. Edited with estampages and a summary of the contents by R. Subba Rao (1927–1928). The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on photographs taken by myself at the Rallabandi Subba Rao Archaeological Museum (Rajahmundry) in February 2023, collated with Subba Rao’s estampages and edition. The numerous typographic mistakes and confused diacritics in the printed edition are not shown in the apparatus here.

Primary

[SR] Subba Rao, R. 1927–1928. “The Pamulavaka copper plate grant of Vijayaditya VII.” JAHRS 2, pp. 277–289.

Secondary

Krishna Rao, Bhavaraju Venkata. 1930–1931. “Telugu Academy plates of Saktivarman II.” JAHRS 5, pp. 33–49. Page 84.

Venkataramanayya, N. 1951–1952. “Kalidindi grant of Eastern Chalukya Rajaraja I.” EI 29, pp. 57–71. Page 61, note 4.

Notes

  1. 1. The expression pañca-mahāśabda probably refers to being honoured by the sound of five musical instruments, but may also mean five titles beginning with “great”. See Fleet 1888, pp. 296–298, n. 9 for a discussion.

  2. 2. Some Cālukya grants use the words paḍa-ḍhakkā and daḍakkā in similar contexts. See the Ceruvu Mādhavaram plates of Kali Viṣṇuvardhana V and the commentary thereto.

  3. 3. See the commentary about the date.

  4. 4. The stanza is rather difficult to interpret, owing in part to a scribal error, for which the apparatus to line 68. The crucial poetic device is an apparent contradiction (virodhābhāsa) which hinges on the ambiguity of gaurī, a name of the goddess Pārvatī and an adjective meaning ‘pale, white,’ hence ‘bright’ or ‘spotless’. The double entendre is self-evident in the first quarter, but the alternative meaning (applicable to fame) of the second quarter is not so clear. Provided that I have emended the text correctly, the only interpretation I can offer is that in the translation above. The verb dviṣ- can, in poetic language, mean ‘vie with, rivalise’ in addition to the straightforward sense ‘be hostile,’ and Śiva’s body is often conceived of as white (being smeared with ashes), so the king’s fame may be understood to rival that whiteness.

  5. 5. I translate what I believe to have been the intended message, but for this translation to be syntactically possible, kucamma-rāja ought to be in the nominative rather than the instrumental. The name itself is problematic, see the apparatus to line 72 and the commentary.

  6. 6. The stanza is problematic on several counts. It consists only of three pādas instead of four, and the first of the three is grossly unmetrical. I see no straightforward way to restoring the correct metre. The phrasing of the received text is also awkward and, with two occurrences of ca, it would rather suggest that Bhīma had three parents: Cāme, Cāme’s lord (bhartr̥), and Kāmāmbikā. I wonder if, before being mangled by the scribe, the stanza might have actually said that Kāmāmbikā was the daughter of Cāme’s overlord. I also wonder if the missing fourth quarter might have introduced another generation between Bhīma and the donee. See also the commentary.

  7. 7. An even earlier charter, the Penuṁbulugu grant of Amma I, rewards a minister named Cāmyaṇa, who may be an ancestor of this lineage. There are, however, no further points of connection, and both the findspot of that charter and the land donated in it are spatially far from the two under discussion here.