śrī-dhāmnaḥ puruṣottamasya mahato nārāyaṇasya prabhor nnābhī-paṁkaruhād babhūva jagatas sraṣṭā svayaṁbhūs tataḥ| jajñe mānasa-sūnur atrir iti yas tasmān muner atritas somo vaṁśa-karas sudhāṁsśur uditaḥ śrīkaṁṭha-cūḍāmaṇiḥ| tasmād āsīt sudhā-sūter bbudho budha-nutas tataḥ jaātaḥ purūravā nāma cakravarttī sa-vikramaḥ|

tasmād āyur. Āyuṣo nahuṣaḥ| nahuṣād yayātiś cakravartti-vaṁśa-karttā| tataḥ prācīśaḥ. praācīśāt sainyayātiḥ. sainyayāter hayapatiḥ| hayapates sārvvabhaumaḥ. sārvvabhaumāj jayasenaḥ. jayasaenān mahābhaumaḥ. mahābhaumād aiśānakaḥ| Aiśānakāt krodhānanaḥ. krodhānanād devakiḥ|devake| ricukaḥdevaker r̥bhukaḥ. ricukādr̥bhukād r̥kṣakaḥ| riR̥kṣakān matinvaraḥ satra-yāga-yājī sarasvatī-nadī-nāthaḥ| tataḥ kārtyāyanaḥ| kārtyāyanān nīlaḥ. nīlād duṣyantaḥ. tat-sutaḥ|

Āryyā| gaṁgoā-yuamunā-tiīre yad avicchiṁnnaṁ nikhāya yūpān kramaśaḥ| kr̥tvā tadhthāśvamedhān nāma mahā-karmma-bharata Iti yo ’labhataḥ

tato bharatād bhūmanyuḥ| bhūmanyos suhotraḥ. suhotrād dhastī. hastino virocanaḥ| virocanād ajamīlaḥ. Ajamīlā|t saṁvaraṇaḥ| saṁvaraṇasya tapana-sutāyās tapanatyāś ca sudhanvā| sudhanvanaḥ| parikṣiT. parikṣito bhīmasenaḥ. bhīmasenāt pradīpanaḥ. pradīpanāś cc chaṁtanuḥ. śaṁtanor vvicitravīryyaḥ| vvicitravīryyāt pāṇḍu-rājaḥ|

Āryyā| putrās tasya ca dharmmaja-bhīmārjjuna-nakula-sahadevāḥ paṁcendriyavaT paṁca syur vviṣaya-grāhiṇas tatra| vr̥ttaṁ| yenādaāhi vijitya kkhāṇḍavam atho gāṇḍīvinā vajriṇaḥṁ yuddhe pāśupatāstram aṁdhaka-ripoś cālābhi daityān bahūn indrārddhāsanam adhyarohi jayinā| yat kālikeyādikān hatvā svairam akārivaṁśa-vipina-cchedaḥ kurūṇāṁ vibhoḥ|

tato ’rjjunād abhimanyuḥ| Abhimanyoḥ parikṣiT| parikṣito janamejayaḥ| janamejayāt kṣemukaḥ. kṣemukān naravāhanaḥ| naravāhanāś cc chatānīkaḥ. śatānīkād udayaṇnaḥ| tataḥ paraṁ tat-prabhr̥tisṣv avicchinna-santāneṣv ayodhyā-siṁhāsanāsīneṣv ekānna-ṣaṣṭi-cakravarttiṣu gateṣu tad-vaṁśyo vijayādityo bhīnāma rājaā vijigīṣayā dakṣiṇāpathaṁ gatvā trilocana-pallavam adhikṣipya daiva-durīhāayā lokāntaram agamaT|

tasmin saṁkule purohitena sārddham antarvvatnī tasya mahādevī muḍivemu nāmāgrahāraṁ upagamya tad-vāstavyena viṣṇubhaṭṭa-somayājinā duhittar̥-nirvviśeṣam abhirakṣitā satī nandanaṁ viṣṇuvarddhanan nāma prasūya| tasya ca kumārakasya maānavya-sagotra-hārīti-putra-dvipakṣa-gotra-kramocitāni karmmāṇi kārayitvā tam avarddhayaT. sa ca mātrā vidita-vr̥ttāntas san nirggatya calukya-girau nandāṁ bhagavatīṁ gaurīm ārādhya kumāra-nārāyaṇa-mātr̥-gaṇān saṁttarppya śvetātapatraika-śaṁkha-paṁca-mahāśabda-pāli-kaetana-pratiḍḍhakkā-varāha-lāṁcchana-piṁccha-kunta-siṁhāsana-makara-toraṇa-kanaka-daṇḍa-gaṁgā-yamunādīni sva-kula-kramāgatāni nikṣiptānīva tat-sāṁbmrājya-cihnāni samādāya kaḍaṁba-gaṁgādi-bhūmipān nirjitya setu-narmmadā-madhyaṁ sārddha-sapta-lakṣāaṁ dakṣiṇāpathaṁ pālayām āsa|

ślokaṁ| tasyāsīd vijayādityo viṣṇuviarddhana-bhūpateḥ pallavānvaya-jātāyā mahādevyāś ca nandanaḥ|

tat-sutaḥ polakeśi-vallabhaḥ| tat-putraḥ kīrttivarmmā. tasya tanayaḥ|

svasti. śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrāṇāṁ hārīti-putrāṇāṁ kauśikī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājyānāṁ mātr̥-gaṇa-paripālitānāṁ svaāmi-mahāsena-pādānudhyātānāṁ bhagavan-nārāyaṇa-prasāda-samāsaādita-vara-vāarāha-lāṁcchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥tārāti-maṇḍalānām aśvamedhāvabhr̥ttha-snāna-pavitrīkr̥ta-vapuṣāṁ cālukyānāṁ kulam alaṁkariṣṇos satyāśraya-vallabhendrasya bhrātā kubja-viṣṇuvarddhano ’ṣṭādaśa varṣāṇi veṁgi-deśam apālayaT| tad-ātmajo jayasiṁghha-vallabhaḥ trayastriṁśataṁ| tad-anujendrarājas sapta dināni| tat-suto viṣṇuvarddhano vnava| tat-sūnur mmaṁgi-yuvarājaḥ paṁcaviṁśatiṁ| tat-putro jayasiṁghha-vallabhas trayodaśa| tad-avarajaḥ kokkiliṣ vṣanṇ māsāN| tasya jyeṣṭho bhrātā viṣṇuvarddhanas tam uccāṭya saptatriṁśataṁ| tat-putro vijayāditya-bhaṭṭaārako ’ṣṭaādaśa| tad-at-tanujo viṣṇuvarddhanaṣ ṣaṭtriṁśataṁ| tat-sūnur vvijayāditya-narendra-mr̥garājaś cāṣṭacatvāriṁśataṁ| tat-sutaḥ kali-viṣṇuvarddhano ’rddhyarddha-varṣaṁ| tat-suto guṇaga-vijayādityaś catuścatvāriṁśataṁ| tad-bhrātur vvikramāditya-bhūpates tanayaś cālukya-bhīmas triṁśataṁ| tat-sutaḥ kollebigaṇḍa-vijayādityaḥ ṣaṇ māsāN. tat-sūnur ammarājas sapta varṣāṇi| tat-sutaṁ vijayādityaṁ bālam uccāṭya tāḍapo māsam ekaṁ| taṁ jitvā yudhi cālukya-bhīma-tanayo vikramāditya Ekādaśa māsāN| tat-tāḍapa-rāja-suto yuddhamallaḥs sapta varṣāṇi

taṁ Yuddhamallaṁ paṁrihr̥tya deśāt piṣṭvetareṣām api śātravānṇāṁ kṣmām ammarājānuja-rāja-bhīmo bhīmas samā dvādaśa rakṣati sma| tiat-sūnur vvinatārātir ammarājo nr̥pāgraṇīḥ paṁcaviṁśati varṣāṇi veṁgī-bhuvam apālayaT| dvaimāturo ’mma-nr̥pater ddāna-nr̥po rāja-bhīma-nr̥pa-tanayaḥ vidyā-kalāpa-caturaḥ caturanta-dharām apāt samās tisraḥ| Anu dānārnnṇṇavād āsīd daiva-duśceṣṭayā tataḥ saptaviṁśati varṣāṇi veṁgi-mahir anāyiakā| Atrāntare dāna-narendra-sūnuḥ śrī-śaktivarmmā sura-rāṭ-sadharmmaā yaś śauryya-śaktyā vinihatya śatrūn sa dvādaśābdān samarakṣad urvvīM| tasyānujanmā jita-śatrur urvvīṁ saṁvatsarān pālayati sma sapta nirasta-sapta-vyasanaḥ pratāpī bhūpāgraṇīr mmummadi-bhīma-bhūpaḥ| tasya mummadi-bhīmasya sutaḥ kr̥ta-matir mmahā|N| rājarājāhvayo rājā dvaādaśābdān dhāarām apāT| taṁ rājarājaṁ-dnr̥patiṁ nirddhāṭya bhuvaḥ prasahya vijayādityaḥ| vimalāditya-tanūjaḥ tasya dvaimāturo ’grahīd yao rājyaṁ śrīmān śāke samaughe dr̥g-iṣu-nidhi-mite karkkia-ge karkkaśāṁśau śuddhātmā śuddha-paṁcamy-aditi-suta-dine sūryya-bhe śauryya-śālī| kanyā-lagne ’ti-nyadhanyaḥ śaśi-kula-tilako rāja-maārttaṇḍa-sūnur vveṁgī-sāṁbmrājya-paṭṭaṁ sma vahati vijayāditya-bhūpaḥ pratāpī| putrīyann api śaraṇāttirtthinaṁ jighāṁsuM jñātirtrīyyan bhaṭa-vibhbudhāṁś ca sat-kr̥riyābhiḥ| mātkr̥trīyan para-yuvatīr ajihma-vr̥ttir yyo dhātrīm avati ndr̥po yathā sva-dharmmaM| vilaṁghayantī himavantam uccair umeśvarāṁgaMṁ dviṣatī vicitraM| gaurīti siddhāpi vibhāti kīrttiś cālukya-rābhīma-kṣitipasya yasya|

sa śrī-sarvva-lokāśraya-śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājo rājādhirājaḥ śrī-vijayāditya-devo rāṣṭrakūṭa-pramukhān kuṭiuṁbinas sarvvān samvaāhuūya samasta-pradhāna-samakṣam ittham ājñāpayati|

nihatya vairi-kṣitipān arśeṣāN śsvīkārayāan bhūpatinā dharaitrīṁ kucamma-rājena nijeśvareṇa labdha-prasādo bhavati sma tasmātaT| śrī-cāme-rājasya bhartuś ca kāmāṁbikāyāś ca pati-vratāyāḥ yo bhīma-bhūpoas tanayo ’janiṣṭa|

tasmai dīnārttthi-dvija-bandhu-budha-surabhūruhāyamānāya| nāga-kula-bhūṣanṇāya| meghagiri-nātha-melpa-kandarppamalaya-bhāskarāya| samuupārjjita-dharmma-karmmaṇe brar̥haspati-kalpāmātya-śrīyapa-cāmena-bennaāya budhddhi-paurṣaruṣa-samupārjjita-rājya-mahimneṁ| kr̥ta-kleśīa-nimitte koṁpoloṁgu nāma grāmo dvādaśa-grāmaś ca śāsanīkr̥tya dhārā-pūrvvakaṁ mayā datta Iti viditam astu vaḥ| Asyopari na kenacid bādhā karttavyā. yaḥ karoti sa paṁca-mahāpātako bhavati.

bahubhir vvasudhā dattā bahubhiś cānupālitā yasya yasya yadā bhūmis tasya tasya tadā phalaṁ| sva-dattāṁ para-dattāṁ vā yo haretua vasundharāṁ ṣaṣṭi-varṣa-saharāṇi viṣṭhāyāṁ jaāyate krir̥miḥ|

Asya dvitīya-varṣa-varddhane dattasyāa śaāsanasya Ājñaptiḥ kaṭakādhīśaḥ. śāsana-lekkhakaś ca gokācāryyaḥ

sudhā-sūter bbudho sudhāṁsūśo bhbbudho 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. 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. °t sainyayātiḥ °t syinyayati 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. nikhāya nikhdhāya tadhthāśvamedhān tadāśvamedhān -vipina-cchedaḥ -vipinaś cedaḥ 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. -mahāsena- 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. tanayo tamnayo SR's intent was probably taṁnayo, reading a dot (which I deem to be random) as an anusvāra. -caturaḥ -bhcaturaḥ jita-śatrur taśatalasatr̥rurvvīṁ SR probably reads the received text correctly, with only a typo in line 59. I am, however, unable to interpret his emendation. vimalāditya-tanūjaḥ tasya dvaimāturo ’grahīd yao rājyaṁ vimalāditya-tanūjasya dvaimāturo grahīdya rājyaṁ 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. karkkia-ge karkkaśāṁśau karkkige karkīśaṁ sau See also the commentary about this date. -paṁcamy-aditi-suta-dine sūryya-bhe -paṁcamyāditi-suta-diner sūryyābhe -nyadhanyaḥ 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. jighāṁsuM jighāṁsur mātkr̥trīyan mātkrayan yyo dhātrīm avati ndr̥po yyodhā trīmavatin drupo umeśvarāṁgaMṁ °u meraṁgam 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. rābhīma 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. samvaāhuūya 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. kucamma-rājena kuśrī-camma-rājena 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. bhartuś ca bharataś ca 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. -bhūpoas -bhūpos The o is much fainter than surrounding strokes and has probably been beaten out. -bennaāya bannaya 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.

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.

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.

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—

What follows is moraic verse.

—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.”

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.

What follows is moraic verse.

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.

What follows is syllabic verse.

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—

—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.

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 soundsThe 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 296-2989 for a discussion., the pennant garland pāli-ketana, the inverted drum pratiḍhakkāSome 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., 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.

What follows is a śloka.

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

His son was Polakeśi Vallabha. His son was Kīrtivarman. His son—

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

—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,See the commentary about the date. with Virgo kanya as ascendant lagna.

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.

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.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.

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.

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.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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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 (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 (614). 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.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. 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.

Not reported in ARIE. Edited with estampages and a summary of the contents by R. Subba Rao (). 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.

84 614