svasti. śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrāṇāṁ hārīti-putrāṇāṁ kauśikī-vara-prasāda-labdhāa-rājyānāṁ mātr̥-gaṇa-paripālitāṁnānāṁ svāmi-mahāsena-pādānuyedhyātānāṁ bbhagavan-nārāyaṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-vara-varāha-lāñchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥tāraāti-maṇḍalānām aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavitrīkr̥ta-vapuṣāṁ cālukyānāṁ kulam alaṁkariṣṇoḥ satyāśraya-vallabhendrasya bhrātā kubja viṣṇuvarddhano ’ṣṭādaśa varṣaāṇi veṁgī-deśam apālayaT. tat-putro jayasiṁhas trayastriṁśataḥṁ. tad-anujendrarāja-nandano viṣṇuvarddhano nava. tat-sūnur mmaṁgi-yuvarājaḥ paṁcaviṁśatiṁ. tat-putro jayasiṁhas trayodaśa. tad-avarajaḥkokkiliḥ ṣaṇ māsāN. tasya jyeṣṭho bhrātā viṣṇuvarddhanas tam uccāṭya saptatriṁśataṁ. tat-putro vijayāditya-bhaṭṭārako ’ṣṭādaśa. tat-suto viṣṇuvarddhanaḥ ṣaṭtriṁśataṁ. tat-suto vijayāditya-narendra-mr̥garājaś coāṣṭacatvaāriṁśataṁ. tat-sutaḥ kali-viṣṇuvarddhano ddhyarddha-varṣaṁ. tat-suto guṇagāṅka-vijayādityaś catuścatvāriṁśataṁ. tad-anuja-yuvarāja-vikramāditya-tbhūpateḥ sūnuś cālukya-bhīma-bhūpālas triṁśataṁ. tat-putraḥ kollabhigaṇḍa-vijayādityaḥ ṣaṇ māsāN. tat-sūnur ammarājaḥ sapta varṣaāṇi.tat-sutaṁ vijayādityaṁ bālam uccāṭya tālapo māsam ekaṁ. taṁ jitvā cālukya-bhīma-tanayo vikramāditya Ekādaśa māsāN. tatas tālapa-rājasya suto yuddhamallaḥ sapta varṣāṇi. tat-putraḥtaṁ jitvā kollabhigaṇḍa-vijayāditya-suto bhīmarājo dvādaśa varṣāṇi.

tasya maheśvara-muūrtter umā-samānākr̥teḥ kumārābhaḥ lokamahādevyāḥ khalu yas samabhavad ammarājākhyaḥ yo rūpeṇa manojaṁ vibhavena mahendram ahimakaraṁ mahasā haram ari-pura-dahanena nyakkurvan bhāti vidita-dig-avalni-kiīrttiḥ

sa samasta-bhuvanāśraya-śrī-vijayāditya-mahārāja-parameśvaraḥ parama-bhaṭṭārakaḥ parama-brahmaṇyaḥ Elamaṁci-kaliṁga-bārupunāṇḍu-viṣaya-nivāsino rāṣṭrakūṭa-pramukhān kuṭuṁbinaḥ sarvvaān āhuūyua Ājñāpayati

viditam astu vaḥ śrīmat-cāmenākhyāya tat-putraāya betonākhyāya tad-bhāryyaāya jarākavva-m ajeījanat tat-putro kucenākhyāya

pranāni catyābhāvena tasmai kucenākhyāya bhavad-viṣaye bārupunāṇḍu-ḻeccādi-viṣayedeva-brāhmaṇa-varjjitāya śaāsanīkr̥tyāya. yasyāvadhayaḥ puūrvvataḥ

rājyānāṁ rājyānṇāṁ SR may have intended to show that the original spelling is with ṇ, emended to n. viṣṇuvarddhano viṣṇuvardhdhano The spelling in the original may be with dhdh. However, SR uses dhdh in many other places (e.g. ll 8, 10, 13) without emending it in any way. kollabhigaṇḍa- I highlight an original bh here and in line 19 below, but both may be errors in SR's edition. tat-putraḥtaṁ jitvā tat-putraḥ The exact same mistake occurs in line 22 of the Elavaṟṟu grant of Amma II. The correct reading is found in the Ārumbāka grant of Bādapa and the Vandram plates of Amma II. kumārābhaḥ lokamahādevyāḥ kumārābhaḥ lokamadevyāḥlokamadevyaḥ kumārābhaḥ I do not understand SR's emendation. If hā is absent in the original, then it needs to be supplied, but no other emendation is needed. -avalni- KR does not emend, so this may be a typo in his edition. jarākavva-m ajeījanat jarākavva majejanat The grammar is abysmal around here, but presumably original and the intended purport is largely decipherable. pranāni catyābhāvena pranṇāni catyābhāvena I cannot offer a plausible reading or interpretation for this string. SR may have meant to emend pranāni to prāṇāni. If this word was intended, its continuation may have been meant to be tyaktvā. Another possibility is that catyā is to be read as or emended to bhaktyā. None of these suggestions result in coherent text. As a long shot, I conjecture parama-nirbhr̥tya-bhāvena. The word nirbhr̥tya is used for describing underlings, apparently in the sense of naibhr̥tya, in the Śrīpūṇḍi grant of Tāḻa II (parama-nirbhr̥tyasya) and the Varaṇavendī grant of Bhīma III(?) (nirbhr̥tya-bhāva-nimittena). bhavad-viṣaye cavadviṣaye SR also mentions "Cavadviṣaya" in his discussion, so this is not a typo, but bh must have been inscribed, or at least intended here. -ḻeccādi- SR's spelling is literally ṛecchādi, where ṛ probably stands for ḻ. I adopt the spelling reported in ARIE.

Greetings. Satyāśraya Vallabhendra Pulakeśin II was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Cālukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world, who are sons of Hārīti, who attained kingship by the grace of Kauśikī’s boon, who are protected by the band of Mothers, who were deliberately appointed to kingship by Lord Mahāsena, to whom enemy territories instantaneously submit at the mere sight of the superior Boar emblem they have acquired by the grace of the divine Nārāyaṇa, and whose bodies have been hallowed through washing in the purificatory ablutions avabhr̥tha of the Aśvamedha sacrifice. His brother Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana protected pāl- the country of Veṅgī for eighteen years. His son Jayasiṁha I, for thirty-three. His younger brother Indrarāja’s Indra Bhaṭṭāraka’s son Viṣṇuvardhana II, for nine. His son Maṅgi Yuvarāja, for twenty-five. His son Jayasiṁha II, for thirteen. His brother of inferior birth, Kokkili, for six months. After dethroning him, his eldest brother Viṣṇuvardhana III, for thirty-seven. His son Vijayāditya I Bhaṭṭāraka, for eighteen. His son Viṣṇuvardhana IV, for thirty-six. His son Vijayāditya II Narendramr̥garāja, for eight and forty. His son Kali-Viṣṇuvardhana V, for a year and a half. His son Vijayāditya III with the byname Guṇaga, for forty-four. The son of his younger brother the heir-apparent yuvarāja Prince bhūpati Vikramāditya, King bhūpāla Cālukya-Bhīma, for thirty. His son Kollabhigaṇḍa Vijayāditya IV, for six months. His son Ammarāja I, for seven years. After dethroning his son the child Vijayāditya V, Tālapa, for one month. After defeating him, Cālukya-Bhīma’s son Vikramāditya II, for eleven months. Then, King rājan Tālapa’s son Yuddhamalla, for seven years. After defeating him,I translate the text as emended; see the apparatus to line 19. Kollabhigaṇḍa Vijayāditya’s son Bhīmarāja II, for twelve years.

To him Bhīma II, who was like Maheśvara in form, a son named Ammarāja II, who verily resembled Kumāra, was born from none other than his queen Lokamahādevī, who was like Umā in appearance.

Surmounting the Mind-Born Kāma in physical beauty, the great Indra in opulence, the sun in splendour and Hara Śiva in the burning of enemy fortresses, he shines with a reputation that is known in all quarters of the earth.

That shelter of the entire universe samasta-bhuvanāśraya, His Majesty Vijayāditya Amma II the supremely pious Supreme Lord parameśvara of kings mahārāja and Supreme Sovereign parama-bhaṭṭāraka, convokes the householders kuṭumbin—including foremost the territorial overseers rāṣṭrakūṭa—who reside in Bārupunāṇḍu district viṣaya of Elamaṁci-Kaliṁga and commands:

Let it be known to you that there was a man named the majestic Cāmena; his son named Betona; his Betona’s wife Jarākavvā bore his son named Kucena.The person who drafted this passage was utterly ignorant of Sanskrit morphology and syntax. The meaning he wished to express can largely be intuited.

To that one named Kucena, for his supreme staunchness,The text as read by KR is unintelligible here. See the apparatus to line 27 for the problem and for the conjecture I translate here. It is also possible that the problematic words belong to the end of the previous passage; and they may have been meant to express that Kucena was a devoted servant of Amma, or that he sacrificed his life in service of Amma (in which case the grant would presumably go to an heir). we have granted land in your district, namely the Bārupunāṇḍu-Ḻeccādi district, with the exception of areas previously granted to gods and Brahmins, substantiated as a copperplate charter. Its boundaries are as follows. To the eastThe text ends abruptly here.

The plates were discovered in Pāmulavāka village, Narasipatam Taluk of Vizag district. The cultivator who found them, along with another set of plates (the Pāmulavāka plates of Vijayāditya VII, not yet encoded), used the ring and seal of both sets to make bangles. The last plate is a palimpsest with hammered-out earlier writing on both faces.

Reported in 7A/1937-388 with description at 8241. Edited from the original (before the ARIE report) by R. Subba Rao (), with a translation and estampages. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on Subba Rao's edition, but silently corrects for inconsequential, presumably typographic mistakes.Subba Rao explicitly emends some mistakes, which are thus certainly original. But the number of spelling irregularities without emendation is far higher in his edition. To avoid cluttering my apparatus with low-interest detail, I have silently emended most of the latter, but some of these may well be in fact erroneous in the original. CHECK REVISION NEEDED: I did not have the estampages when encoding this, but have them now, need to collate.

7A/1937-388 8241