Koḻūru grant of Bhīma II

Seal śrī-tribhuvanāṁkuśa

Plates

svasti. śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrāṇāṁ hārītī-putrāṇāṁ kauśikī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājyānāM mmātr̥-gaṇa-paripālitānāM svāmi-mahāsena-pādānudhyātānāM bhagavāan-nārāyaṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-vara-varāha-lāṁcchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥tārāti-maṇḍalānāM maAśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavitriīkr̥ta-vapuṣāM cālukyānāṁ kulam alaṁkariṣṇoḥ satyāśraya-vallabhendrasya bhrātā kubja-viṣṇuvarddhanaḥ Aṣṭādaśa-varṣaāṇi. tat-putraḥ jayasiṁha-vallabhaḥ trayastriṁśataM. tad-bhrātā Indra-bhaṭṭārakaḥ sapta dināni. tat-sūnur viṣṇuvarddhanaḥ nava vatsarāN. tat-tanayo maṁgi-yuvarājāaḥ paṁcaviṁśati.tad-ātmajo jayasiṁhas trayodaśas ta. tad-dvaimāturānujaḥ kokkiliḥ ṣaṇ māsāN. tasya jyeṣṭho bhrātā svānujam uccāṭya viṣṇuvarddhanas saptatriṁśataṁ. tad-auraso vijayāditya-bhaṭṭārako ’ṣṭādaśa vatsarāN. tat-tokaṁ viṣṇuvarddhanaṣ ṣaṭtriṁśataM.

narendra-mr̥garājākhyo mr̥garāja-parākramaḥ vijayāditya-bhūpālaḥ catvāriṁśat samās samaḥ

tat-putraḥ kali-viṣṇuvarddhano ’dhyarddha-varṣaṁ. tat-putro guṇakkenalla-vijayādityaḥ catuścatvāriṁśataṁ.

śaṁkilasya puriī dagdhā rakṣito yādaveśvaraḥ sphoṭitaṁ gaṁgakuūṭaṁ ca yena maṁgi-bhaṭo hataḥ. tad-bhrātur yyuvarājasya vikramāditya-bhūpateḥ cālukya-bhīma-bhūpālas tanayas triṁśataṁ samaāḥ. tat-putras tad-anantareṇa vijayādityo vijityāhave svenaikena gajena vāraṇa-ghaṭaāruūḍhān kāaliṁgādhipāN. Āruhyojvjjvala-hema-kalpita-tulaā-koṭiṁ vadānyāo jaya -staṁbhaṁ kīrttimayan nidhāya vīiraje ṣaṇ-māsam āsiīn nr̥paḥ.

tat-tokaṁm ammarājas sapta vatsarāN. tat-sūnur arbhaka-vijayādityaḥ pakṣaṁ. tatas tāḻapa-rājo māsaṁ. tad-anu vikramādityaḥ saṁvatsaraṁ veṁgī-maṇḍalam apālayaT.

tatas tu tammu-bhīmākhyaḥṁ hatvā proddhāatam āhave varṣāṇi sapta rakṣantaṁ yuddhamallādhipaṁ kṣitiM. nirjityārjjuna-sannibho janapadāt tan nirggamayyoddhatān dāyādān ina-bhānu-līna-bha-gaṇākārān vidhāyetarāMN vajrīvorjita-nākam amma-nr̥pater bhrātā kanīyān bhuvaṁ bhiīmo bhīma-parākramaḥ śriīmat-kāliṁga-gaṁgānvaya-mahita-maho meḻabāṁboditodyal -lakṣmī-cālukya-vaṁśonnati-yuta-vijayāditya-vīrāgrasūnuḥ jalajātapatra-cāmara-kalaśāṁkuśa-lakṣaṇāṁka-kara-caraṇa-talaḥ lasad-ājānv-avalaṁbita-bhuja-yuga-parigho gīirīndra-sānūraskaḥ. vidita-dhāarādhipa-vidyo vividhāyudhāa-kovido vilīnāri-kulaḥ kari-turagāgama-kuśalo hara-caraṇāṁbhoja-yugala-madhupaś śrīmāN. kavi-gāyaka-kalpa-tarur dvija-muni-diīnāndha-bandhu-jana-surabhiḥ yācaka-gaṇa-cintāmaṇir avanīśa-maṇir mmahogra-mahasā dyumaṇiḥ. yasmin śāsati nr̥patau paripakvāneka-sasya-sampac-chāliī. satata-payo-dhenur abhīr nniriītir aparug nirasta-coro deśaḥ. yasmin vrajati dhareśe bahir udyānāvalokanārtthaṁ bhītāḥ. tad-dig-deśādhīśā diśanti maṇi-kanaka-haya-gajendra-pratatiM. yo rūpeṇa manojaṁ vibhavena mahendram ahimakaram uru-mahasā haram ari-pura-dahanena nyakkurvvan bhāti vitata-dig-avani-kīrttiḥ.

sa sakala-ripu-nr̥pati-makuṭa-taṭa-ghaṭita-maṇi-gaṇa-madhukara-nikara-paricuṁbita-caraṇa-sarasiruha-yugalo yugalocana-pada-kamala-vilasad-dvirepphāyamāno mānonnato natoddhata-sarvva-lokaḥ sarvva-lokāśraya-śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājādhirāja-parameśvara-parama-bhaṭṭaārakaḥ parama-vīrāgragaṇyaḥ paṁcūrikuṟṟu-viṣaya-nivāsino rāṣṭrakūṭa-pramukhān kūuṭuṁbinaḥ sarvvān samāhūyettham ājñāpayati. viditam astu vaḥ.

yo narendra-mr̥garājasya vallabhaḥkuppayāhvayas tat-sutābhūd revakāṁbā paṭṭavarddhana-vaṁśa-pā. tat-tokā pbollakāṁbākhyā jātā vaṁśa-vivarddhanā tasyāḥ sūnur abhuūd bhiīmo dhanurvveda-vicakṣaṇa.snaḥ. tato ’bhūtāṁ sutāau kyhātau vijayāditya-daṇḍinoau dhanuṣmatāṁ ca viīrāṇāṁ saṁyuge cāgra-gāminau. Ete trayaḥ śuūra-janāgragaṇyā dhanur-ddharā ghora-mahāhaveṣu gajaṁ samāruhya mayāgra-saṁsthitā hy akhaṇḍayan krūra-ripūn ajasraṁ.

tasmād iṣṭa-bhr̥tya-vargga Iti tebhyaḥ tribhyaḥ bhīmana-vijayāditya-daṇḍibhyaḥ śāsanīkr̥tya sarvva-kara-parihāreṇa mayā koḻūru nāma grāmo dattaḥ

Asyaāvadhayaḥ pūrvvataḥ gūḻamu. dakṣiṇataḥ. devabuddamu. paścimataḥ kontekuṟṟu. Uttarataḥ Impalli. Asyopari na kenacid bādhā karttavyā. yaḥ karoti sa paṁca-mahāpātakoaiḥ saṁyukto bhavati.

koḻūri pūrvva-sīmaṁbu tūrppuna kāliya polamera. dakṣiṇataḥ koṟuceṟuṣuvu. paścimataḥ kāliya polamera. Uttarataḥ Eṟu.

Ājñaptiḥ kaṭakarājaḥ. jontaācāryyeṇa likhitaM.

ceṁbroli kayāmuna toḻu yenuṁgekipaḍasinadi. dīniki vajje rāju kari. jamu-daṇḍamu yekinadi.

Seal

Plates śrīmatāṁ śrī mataāṁ bhagavāan- bhagavan- The ASI transcript correctly has the incorrect ā here. -lāṁcchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa- -lāṁcchanekṣṇa- The ASI transcript does not omit -kṣaṇa-. kokkiliḥ kokili 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. bhrātā svānujam bhrātasv ānujam The ASI transcript shows bhrātā sva/jam in the original hand, corrected in red to bhrātā svānu/jam. bhūpālaḥ catvāriṁśat bhūpālakaś catvāriṁśat 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 bhūpālaśca/tvāriṁśat. The last character is barely visible, but almost certainly ca. The visarga before it is quite certain. guṇakkenalla- guṇakenalla- The ASI transcript shows guṇakāṅga (sic), corrected to guṇakkenalla. The double k is certain. śaṁkilasya samlīlasya The ASI transcript has the correct reading. PS recognises this passage as verse. yādaveśvaraḥ yao-veśvaraḥ The ASI transcript has the correct reading. sphoṭitaṁ svoditaṁ The ASI transcript has the correct reading. maṁgi-bhaṭo hataḥ maṁgi-bhaṭopahataḥ 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. tanayas triṁśataṁ tanayo triṁśataṁ The ASI transcript has the correct reading and suggests no emendation. samaāḥ samaḥ āsiīn nr̥paḥ asi nr̥paḥ tammu-bhīmākhyaḥṁ tamma bhīmākhyam 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. proddhāatam proddama The ASI transcript has pro..māhave corrected to proddhātamāhave. Instead of dhā, it is possible that the upper component was first engraved as pa. rakṣantaṁ rakṣanta 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. nirggamayyoddhatān nirggamayyaoddhātan 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. 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. -mahita-maho -mahitam aho -yugala -yugaḷa 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. -pratatiM -pratatīiM 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. -maṇi-gaṇa- -maṇi-kiraṇa- 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. pbollakāṁbākhyā bollakāṁbākhyā 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. tasyāḥ sūnur tasyānur The ASI transcript has tasyānur and suggests emending to tat-sūnur (unmetrical). -vicakṣaṇa.snaḥ. tato vicakṣaṇāśiaḥ. tato 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. ’bhūtāṁ bhūta- The ASI transcript has bhūtau corrected to bhūtā. dhanuṣmatāṁ dhanuṣṭha tam The ASI transcript seems to have dhanuṣṭha . corrected to dhanuṣmatāṁ. saṁyuge saṁyugo akhaṇḍayan akhaṇḍaya The ASI transcript also reads akhaṇḍaya. -ripūn ajasraṁ -ripum jasram tebhyaḥ tebhyāṁaḥ gūḻamu guḻnamu devabuddamu devabuddhamu 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. tūrppuna turppunaka polamera polameṟa polamera polimeṟa kayāmuna kayyamuna yenuṁgeki yenuṁgu eki paḍasinadi paḍasiṇadi The ASI transcript has baḍasinadi. The initial pa is clear.

Seal

Plates

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.

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

His son Kali-Viṣṇuvardhana V, for a year and a half. His son Guṇakkenalla Vijayāditya III, for forty-four.

He who burnt Śaṁkila’s town, defended the Yādava lord, rent asunder the Gaṅga hilltop, and slew the warlord bhaṭa Maṅgi.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.

The son of his brother, the heir-apparent yuvarāja Prince bhūpati Vikramāditya, named King bhūpāla Cālukya-Bhīma, reigned for thirty years.

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,That is, donating his own weight in gold. and commissioning a victory pillar representing his reputation in Viraja.

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.

Then the one named Tammu-Bhīma, having defeated in battle the pretentious King Yuddhamalla, who had protected the earth for seven years—The interpretation of stanza V is problematic. See the commentary.

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.

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.”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.

The palms of his hands and the soles of his feet are marked with the omens of the conch,In the text, I construe jalaja+ātapatra, not jalajāta+patra. Instead of a conch, jalaja may perhaps mean a fish or a lotus.. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,This epithet, parama-vīrāgragaṇya, seems to be used in lieu of a religious epithet such as parama-māheśvara. 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.

He who was

Narendra-Mr̥garāja’s Vijayāditya II’s favourite named Kuppaya, had a daughter Revakāmbā, the matron of the Paṭṭavardhana lineage.See the commentary.

To her was born a daughter named Pollakāmbā, the enricher of her lineage. Her son was Bhīma, skilled in the discipline of archery dhanurveda.

From him arose two famous sons, Vijayāditya and Daṇḍin, foremost among archers and fighters, and taking point in battle.

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.

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.

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.

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.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.

The executor ājñapti is the castellan kaṭaka-rāja. Written likhita by Jontācārya.

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.)

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.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. 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 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.

Reported in 20A/1939-403 with description at 233-23417. Edited from inked impressions by C. A. Padmanabha Sastry () 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.

20A/1939-403 233-23417