Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman Encoding Dániel Balogh intellectual authorship of edition Dániel Balogh DHARMA Berlin DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00052

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported Licence. To view a copy of the licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.

Copyright (c) 2019-2025 by Dániel Balogh.

2019-2025
DHARMAbase

Halantas. Final N (e.g. l8, l31) is a raised and reduced na-shape with a sinuous tail. Final M (e.g. l11, l25) is a raised circle with a sinuous tail. Final T looks like ta with sinuous tail instead of headmark (e.g. l6), or like a raised and reduced ta with a sinuous tail, almost identical in the unclear facsimile to final N and M (l44, l52).

Original punctuation marks are double verticals with a pronounced serif.

Other palaeographic observations. Anusvāra is normally at head height after the character to which it belongs. Initial Ī occurs in line 49. Some ā markers look identical to superscript rephas (e.g. in line 27, compare the vertically oriented but distinctly recognisable ā marker in l29 ekādaśa). There is also ambiguity in the shape of superscript rephas when combined with an ā marker, cases of which have been read with the benefit of doubt.

The project DHARMA has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no 809994).

Public URIs with the prefix bib to point to a Zotero Group Library named ERC-DHARMA whose data are open to the public.

Internal URIs using the part prefix to point to person elements in the DHARMA_IdListMembers_v01.xml file.

Photo collation Revised some restorations and interpretations on the basis of DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00041. Initial encoding of the file
Seal śrī-tribhuvanāṁkuśa
Plates

svasti. śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrāṇāṁ hārīti-putrāṇāṁkauśikī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājyānāṁtr̥-gaṇa-paripālitānāṁ svāmi-mahāsena-pādānudhyātānāṁ bhagavan-nārāyaṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-vara-varāha-lāṁcchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥tārāti-maṇḍalānām aśvamedhāvabhr̥ttha-snāna-pavitrīkr̥ta-vapuṣāṁ calukyānāṁ kulam alaṁkariṣṇoḥ satyāśraya vallabhendrasya bhrātā kubja-viṣṇuvarddhano ṣṭādaśa varṣāṇi veṁgī-deśam apālayaT. tad-ātmajo jayasiṁhas trayastriṁśataṁ. tad-anujendrarāja- nandano viṣṇuvarddhano nava. tat-sūnur mmaṁgi-yuvarājaḥ paṁcaviṁśatiṁ. tat-putro jayasiṁhas trayodaśa. tad-avarajaḥ korkkiliḥ ṣaṇ māsāN. tasya jyeṣṭho bhrātā viuvarddhanas tam uccāṭya saptatriṁśataṁ. tat-putro vijayāditya-bhaṭṭārako ṣṭādaśa. tat-suto viṣṇuvarddhanaṣ ṣaṭtriṁśataṁ.

tat-sūnur bhānu-bhāso raṇa-vigaṇaynayā nīlakaṇṭhālayānāM sa-grāmārāmakānāṁ sa-lalita-ramanī-saṁpppadā sat-padānāM. kr̥tvā prottuṁgggam aṣṭottara-śatam abhunag vīra-dhīro ṣṭa-yuktāś catvāriṁśat samā kṣmāṁ jana-nuta-vijayāditya-nāmā narendraḥ. tat-sūnus satatam anūna-dāna-cāivr̥ṣṭyā dīnānddha-dvija-gaṇikārttthi-sārtttha-sasyaM. santoṣaṁ sakalam avāpayann apād gām addhdhyarddhaṁ kila kali-viṣṇuvarddhano bda. tat-priya-tanaya. Aṁgggāt saṁgrāma-raṁggge nija-lasad-asinā magggi-rājottamāṁgaṁ tttugggādre śr̥ṁgam urvyām aśanir iva mudāpātayat kannarāka. niśśaṁkaṁ śaṁkilena prathita-janapadād ddurggāamān nirggamayya drāg dāvaṁ yat praveśya prabhur abhaya-manā pratyapād baddeṁkaṁ. saśrīmān vijayāditya -bhūpatir bhrātbhis saha catvāriṁśat samās sārdhaṁ caturbhir abhunag bhuvaṁ. tad-bhrātur vvikramāditya -bhūpates sac-camuūpateḥ. vilasat-kaṇṭhikā-daāma -kaṇṭhasya tanayo nayī. dīnānāthāturāṇāṁ dvija-vara-samiter yyācakānā yatīnāṁ nānā-deśāgatānāṁ paṭu-vaṭu-naṭa-sad-gāyakānāṁ kavīnāṁ bandhūnām andhakānām abhilaṣita-phala-śrāṇanād rakṣaṇād yo māteva triṁśad abdān bhuvam abhunag asau cāru-cālukya-bhīmaḥ. tat-putraḥ sva-bhujāsi-khaṇḍita-ripu-kṣmābhr̥d balād vāsavī jitvāsśāṁ viraje pratiṣṭhita-jaya-staṁbha patiddhṣṭho raṇe. svarṇṇāḍha-tulo tra bbhāḍham atulo dhātrī-tale kṣatriyair mmitrābhāaḥ parirakṣati sma vijaditya samārddhaṁ dharāM. tasyātmaja praṇata-vairi-śiro-vilagna -ratna-dvirepha-paricuṁbita-pāda-padmaḥ. meruṁ hasaṁs tulita-hāṭaka-rāśi-bhāsā varṣāṇi sapta ssamad bhuvam ammarājaḥ. tat-sutaṁ vijayādityaṁ bālam uccāṭya liīlayā. tāḻādhipatir ākramya sam ekam apād bhuvaṁ. taṁ jitvā yudhi cālukya -bhīma-bhūmipates sutaḥ. vikramāditya-bhūpo pān māsān ekādaśa kṣitiṁ. tatas tāḻapa-rājasya sūnus sūnr̥ta-vāk prabhuḥ. yuddhamalla-dharādhīśas sapta varṣāṇy apād bhuvaṁ. sannaddhaṁ yudhi yuddhamallam aveaner nnirddhāṭya dhāṭyāharāat kr̥tvā bhagna-rathān api parānñ śiṣṭāṁś ca śiṣṭetarāN. śrīmat-kollabigaṇḍa-nāma-vijayādityātmajas sādaraṁ bhīmo bhīma-parākramas samabhunag dhātrīṁ samā dvādaśa. tasyāmmarāja Iti sūnur athāpi garbbhe yaḥ kaṇṭhikā-racita-kaṇṭha-yutta-vr̥ttt baddhvā samasta-janapārccita-rājya-paṭṭaṁ bhūdeva-deva-hitam eva tatāna śaśvaT. sādhōāraṇādhika-virodhi-gajaāvasādāT madhye-raṇaṁ tribhuvanāṁkuśa-nāma yasya. Atāṁ suciram āpa gajasyapriyatvaṁ siṁhasya śauryya-vijayāc ca kr̥tārttha-bhāvaM. ta -janmā yaḥ paṁcaviṁśati-sas samarakṣad urvvīṁ. dvaimāturod-arāti-vargga śrī-rāja-bhīma-tanayo nayanābhirāmaḥ. śrī-rājanāyaṇa dānārnnṇṇavas samadhariīkr̥ta-karnnṇṇa-dānaḥ kṣoṇīśa-mauli-maṇi-raṁjita-pāda-pīṭhaḥ. vidyā-nidhir bbudha-nidhiḥ pradhana-pradhānas trissras samās samabhunak sakalāṁ dharitrīM. dānārnnṇṇava-bhūmipater anu daiva-kr̥tena saptaviṁśaty-abdāN. Āsīd arājikeyaṁ bahula-niśevāndhra-bhūmir atrātyandhā. Atrāvasare... Āryyā-devyās tasya ca dāna-narendrasya śaktivarmmeti. śakti-traya-saṁyuktas tananayo naya-vinaya-śauryya-sampannaḥ. yasyendu-dhavalabhāvāt kīrttir brahmāṇḍa-maṇṭhapasya sudheva. tan-madhyea-dīpa yiIva yat-tejaḥ-prasaro vibhāsate śaśvaMT. Ari-karaṭi-ghaṭī-kuṁbha-sthala-dalana-sthagita-mauktikāvalir ājau. puṣpāvalir iva rājati khaga-latāyā sphuṭaṁ yadīyāyāḥ. bālye kīrttir alābhi caulika-raṇe yena vraṇodbhāsinā yenātyuddhata-badyemādhipa-mahārājaādayāo vidrutāḥ. yas tīkṣṇān urasā parikṣata-caro hatvā ripu-preṣitāN loke dearśayad ātma-sāram asamaṁ śrī-śaktivarmmādhipaḥ. svaṁ rūpaṁ parihutya dyeaitya-nikarān matsyādy-alīkātmatāṁ prāpya prāg jitavān kileti hasatā nārāyaṇaṁ cetasā. Īśas saṁyati rāvaṇa-pratinidhiś cālūukya-nārāyaṇen āpāsta-dviṣatāpi yena nidhanaṁ śrī-coḍa-bhīmādhipaḥ. dyad-dāruṇa-vāraṇebha-makaraṁ vīrāvalī-nakrakaṁ kīlālāṁbu-vilolam aśva-laharī-mālā-sahasrākulaṁ. nirmmathyotkalikādhināthia-rathiniī-vārddhiṁ sva-bāhā-balāMT tatratyāṁ śrīiyam ādadāti yudhi yaś cālukya-nārāyaṇaḥ.

sa sarvvalokātśraya-śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājaādhirāja-parameśvara-parama-bhaṭṭaāraka-parama-brahmaṇya-parama-māheśvaraḥ vaṟanāṇḍu-viṣaya-nivāsino rāṣṭrakuūṭa-pramukhāN kuṭiuṁbinas sarvvān samāhaūya mantri-purohita-senāpati-yuvarāja-dauvārikādhyakṣam ithttham ājñāpayati. yathā.

brahmānvaye varīyāN bhāradvāja-rṣir apara yiIva dharmmeiṭha nvaya-varddhayitā puṇyo sakala-śāstro jaātaḥ. Āsīt tasya sutas satāṁ kr̥vennamayyāhvayaḥ. sādhus sādhujanīna-karmma-nirato yaś codanā-coditaḥ. ti-śālīinān nayavatā rvvam āśrīāvaṇa -pratyāśrāvaṇa-puṣṭa mayyo mahā-yajñiyaḥ. Atha vennamayya-nāmnas tasya vir vvirājadevaItyana Ity ajani dvija-kulottamas nuḥ| den tarppayitā pitr̥̄ṁś ca vithdhivad yo havya-kavyādibhir yyaḥ prāakṣālana-vāriṇātithi-padāṁ prakṣāligho-malaḥ yaś śaśvad budha-bandhu-dīna-vitater ṇṇetā hitārttha-prado yas sāhāyyam upeteavān nija-pateḥ kāryyasya khagasya ca. bhāradvādvāja-muner mmuni-stuta-mateḥ prāg nāma-mātreṇa hi svaṁ gotra parivarttamānam asamo nistāryya vistāāri-dhīḥ. tasmād abhyāadhiko bhavand guṇa-nidhir yyo vaśa-ka
Seal
Plates calukyānāṁ kulam calikyānāṁ kulam Nothing to the left of the hole can now be made out in the original, and I doubt both that KR was able to obtain a clear reading and that so much text could have fitted in the line before the hole. There is also no reason to restore the name as Calikya. korkkiliḥ kokkiliḥ viuvarddhanas tam viṣṇuvarddhanam Probably a typo/oversight in KR. -vigaṇaynayā -vigaṇana The received reading clearly has two cerebral ṇa-s, but the second of these, where dental na is expected, is a result of correction, probably from ya, the initial part of which has been redrawn as ṇa, while the final part was either never engraved or has been fully incorporated into the following ya. -ramanī- -ramaṇī- -dhīro ṣṭa- The reading dhīro is clear. Parallel attestations of this stanza read -dhīraṣṭa- in the Tāṇḍikoṇḍa grant of Amma II, and -dhīrāṣṭa- in the Kaṇḍyam plates of Dānārṇava and the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant. narendraḥ. The final visarga and punctuation mark may well be a correction from an initially inscribed ṇa. anūna-dāna- anūna- -cāivr̥ṣṭyā viṣṭiṁ The plate is quite clear here, but the engraving is difficult to make sense of. The second character certainly looks like c, not v, and it has vowel markers both for ā and i. I assume that the former has been corrected to the latter, but the inverse is also possible. My emendation is tentative; compare the differently corrupt vrissāM in the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant dīnānddha- dīnāṁdha- -gaṇikārttthi-sārtttha-sasyaM -gaṇikārtthī-sārtha-sasyaā. KR's emendation to sasyām does not seem necessary to me. avāpayann avāpayan Though KR prints only ya as unclear, most of this stretch is now illegible. The parallel in the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant is differently corrupt. KR may have had access to a better version of this stanza, but none are known to me, and he refers only to other well-known copper plate grants of the Eastern Cālukyas. At any rate, his restoration (reading?) is plausible. addhdhyarddhaṁ atyarddhaṁ -lasad- lasad- kannarāka kannarāṁkaM -janapadād ddurggāamān janapadād durggamān The parallels in the Nāgiyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II and the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant read durggaman and durggamaṁ respectively, so the former may have been intended here. The meaning is not affected, so I do not emend. dāvaṁ dhāvan The parallel in the Nāgiyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II and the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant both clearly read dāvaṁ, though it was misread as dhāvaṁ by the former's editor. yat yat The parallel in the Nāgiyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II and the clearly reads yaḥ, which I find better in context. The form yaḫ in the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant corroborates my emendation. vijayāditya-bhūpatir vijayāditya-ś caturbhir The parallels in the Nāgiyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II, the Kaṇḍyam plates of Dānārṇava and the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant all read vijayāditya-bhūpatir here. KR's discussion explicitly mentions four brothers, and he may have been familiar with another attestation of this stanza with that reading that I am not aware of. I prefer to restore on the basis of the parallels known to me. samās sārdhaṁ samās sārddhaṁ -kaṇṭhikā-daāma -kaṇṭhikoddāma- The received reading is quite lefible as it is, and parallels in the Nāgiyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II and the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant clearly read kaṇṭhikā-dāma. bhuvam samam Restoring bhuvam is supported by the Nāgiyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II, the Masulipatam plates of Amma II, the Single Bhimavaram plate of a late Eastern Cālukya king, and the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant. I am not aware of any parallel of this stanza with samam. -ripu-kṣmābhr̥d d The lost text is attested in the Pulivaṟṟu (spurious?) grant of Amma I the Kaṇḍyam plates of Dānārṇava, the Single Bhimavaram plate of a late Eastern Cālukya king and the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant. patiddhṣṭho pra-tsiddho I emend on the basis of the Pulivaṟṟu (spurious?) grant of Amma I, the Single Bhimavaram plate of a late Eastern Cālukya king and the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant. A differently corrupt variant is found in the Kaṇḍyam plates of Dānārṇava. kṣatriyair mmitrābhāaḥ kṣatriye mitrābhā samārddhaṁ samārddhāṁ -paricuṁbita- Both the end of line 25 and the beginning of line 26 have enough space for the lost character ta. I assume with KR that it was at the beginning of line 26, where there is a crack in the plate, and the following is quite narrow. It is also possible that the plate was already defective here and ta was at the end of the previous line, or that one or even two erroneous characters were inscribed there. °āharāat °āharat bhagna-rathān bhinna-rathān The text is metrically deficient by two syllables. The intended text may for instance have been bhagna-manorathān, but bhagna-rathān is in itself plausible and metrically correct where it is, so the missing syllables may need to be supplied after it (e.g. bhagna-rathān nr̥pān/arīn). The loosely parallel stanza XII of the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant reads Anyān apy ahitān samitsu sabalān nighnann. -kollabigaṇḍa- -kollabhigaṇḍa- garbbhe garbhe -kaṇṭha-yutta-vr̥ttt -kaṇṭha-yuj ātta-vr̥tttyaā KR's a at the end of this locus is probably a typo. In other respects, his reading is the most plausible that I can arrive at, although I cannot make sense of it as received. The last consonant in line 33 could conceivably be , p or b and its vowel could be just about anything, but none of these yield a more interpretable text. As a desperate conjecture, I assume that the composer had intended kaṇṭha-yuj ātma-vr̥ttyā. See also the note to the translation. -janapārccita- -janapārtthika- sādhōāraṇādhika- Ādhōraṇādhika- -gajaāvasādāT -gajāvasādātn Atāṁ suciram Ātāsu ciram The last extant character in line 35 is in my opinion more likely to be A, but I cannot rule out KR's Ā with absolute confidence. The lacuna may perhaps be restored as anvarthatāṁ, but options abound, and I am unable to make sense of the latter half of the stanza. See also the note to the translation. gajasyapriyatvaṁ gaja-prīiyatvaṁ Part of the originally inscribed subscript y was converted to a subscript r, and the end of y was incorporated into the following ya. I am, however, uncertain whether the post-correction text really reflects the composer's intention. Perhaps gajāpriyatvam or some third alternative was intended. ta -janmā -janmā In addition to heavy damage, scribal omission may well be present here. The broken-off end of line 36 could hardly have accommodated more than three characters, and the corroded beginning of line 37 is likely to have had 3, at most 4 before the passably preserved ta. The vestiges after ta suggest simi or siri, but both are metrically incorrect and uninterpretable. Given that Amma II was the younger son of Bhīma II, I wonder if this word may have been nimna-. See also the note to the translation. urvvīṁ urvvāī dvaimāturo dvauaimātura d-arāti- d-arāti- Here too I believe the characters were distributed differently across the line break from KR's edition. I accept his reading for the beginning of line 38, but am far from confident in it. The beginning of the lacuna may perhaps be restored as mma-nr̥pateḥ, but I cannot suggest an appropriate continuation for this. Compare dvaimāturo mma-nr̥pater ddānna-nr̥po rāja-bhīma-nr̥pa-tanayaḥ in the Raṇastipūṇḍi grant of Vimalāditya and amma-nr̥pater dvaimāturaḥ in the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant. -vargga -vargga- śrī-rājanāyaṇa I accept KR's reading of the epithet, but the last character is not recognisable. This segment, with the possible exception of the initial śrī, is engraved over partially deleted earlier text that I cannot restore. The character beneath ja was a conjunct with a superscript repha, possibly rgga. This was followed by ma (largely overlapping the PC ), a conjunct involving a subscript s, another ma (mostly in the space between PC and ya), and something with the vowel i at the end. One or two characters are probably lost at the end, so the text may have been śrī-rājanārāyaṇākhyaḥ, śrī-rājanārāyaṇo yaḥ or śrī-rājanārāyaṇa Iti. pradhana- pradhthana- I do not find prathana better suited to the context and prefer to retain the received reading with a better sound effect. Compare pradhana-pradhāna-puruṣān (in a different context) in the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant. trissras trisras The superfluous r has been hammered out in the original; the body of this character may also have been corrected. -bhūmir atrātyandhā. Atrāvasare. -bhūmir andhaM. Atrāvasare The restoration proposed by KR is both metrically and syntactically inappropriate. My own restoration is offered as a possible one. I assume that the omission was the result of eyeskip at a repetition of trā, and that the stanza was an āryāgīti. Both assumptions may be wrong (the metre may have been a vallarī like stanzas 19 and 20, with two fewer morae in the second hemistich), and some other words to a similar effect may have stood here. The situation is complicated by the presence of scribal correction, but none of the pre-correction text can be made out except for what looks like a subscript below the space between PC mi and ra; and a possible subscript r or the curved lower part of a different subscript consonant slightly to the right of PC trā. -maṇṭhapasya -maṇcapasya -madhyea- -madhye śaśvaMT śaśvaT -sthagita- This word does not seem to fit the context. I wonder if skhalita had been meant instead. Emending to °āsthagita (or even °otsthagita) would presuppose a simpler scribal error, but neither of these forms seem to be attested anywhere. See also the translation. khaga- khaḍga- tāyā tāyā It would perhaps be better to supply an anusvāra here and to likewise emend the visarga at the end of the stanza to an anusvāra. sphuṭaṁ KR's editor (Sircar?) proposes emending this to sphuṭataraṁ for the sake of the metre. That would result in an āryāgīti stanza, but there is now plenty of evidence that the rare vallarī metre was used by the Cālukya court poets, including the next stanza of the present inscription. -badyemādhipa- I provisionally endorse KR's emendation but since adhipa is rather redundant next to mahārāja, I wonder if Ādipa (or something similar) could instead be the name of another vanquished enemy. The closely parallel stanza 21 of the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant says, unmetrically: yenājāv ajitena badde-mahārājādayo nirjjitāḥ, where the name is probably to be emended to Baddema. -mahārājaādayāo -mahārājādayo urasā parikṣata- KR remarks in a footnote that The idea of this quarter of the stanza is not quite clear. With the parallel in the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant, it is now certain that the passage speaks about assassins. Given that information, I wonder if aparīkṣita-caraḥ (plural nominative masculine) had been intended here. However, that would leave me unable to fit urasā into the sentence, so I retain the received reading and interpret parikṣata-caraḥ as a singular nominative masculine. See also the translation. dearśayad darśayad Scribal correction may be more extensive here. The characters loke da are compressed and have more background noise than the surrounding surface of the plate, but no other remnants of deleted characters can be made out. asamaṁ asamaḥ -śaktivarmmādhipaḥ -śaktivarmmādhipaḥ parihutya dyeaitya- parihr̥tya daitya- Scribal correction may have been more extensive, possibly affecting each of the characters hr̥tya daitya. lūukya- cālukya- °ādhināthia °ādhināttha -bāhā- -bāhū- -balāMT -balāT -sarvvalokātśraya- sarvvalokāśraya The characters lokā are probably a correction from something else, and there also may be a corrected character beneath tra, but there is no sign of tra having been corrected to śra. -bhaṭṭaāraka- -bhaṭṭāraka- °varāja-dauvārikādhyakṣam ithttham ājñāpayati. yathā. rikāddhyakṣā The outer face of the last extant plate is badly corroded; see also the commentary. This passage, although barely legible, can be safely restored on the basis of the Raṇastipūṇḍi grant of Vimalāditya. brahmānvaye varīyāN bhāradvāja-rṣi° py a. ye varīyāḥ bhāradvājābdhi° r apara yiIva dharmmeiṭha °r apāra The reading up to dharmm is quite secure, but I have doubts about reading dharmmeṣṭa and emending to dharmmiṣṭha. Also, the first noted ancestor does not appear to be named. nvaya-varddhayitā puṇyo sakala-śāstro jaātaḥ. kala-śāstro jātaḥ °t tasya sutas satāṁ kr̥vennamayyāhvayaḥ. t tasya sutas satyakāma vā cāryyāhvayaḥ. satya karmma-nirato yo The second instance of satya in KR's reading is probably what I read as suta. I see nothing discernible where he reads cāryyāhvayaḥ.. sādhus sādhujanīna-karmma-nirato yaś codanā-coditaḥ. satya karmma-nirato yortthair dāna-coditaḥ. ti-śālīinān nayavatā rvvam āśrīāvaṇa- litan nayavatāṁ sārddham āśravaṇa -pratyāśrāvaṇa-puṣṭa mayyo mahā-yajñiyaḥ. -pratyāśravaṇayāṣṭa mahāyajñīyaḥ. tasya tasya sū vir vvirājadevaItyana Ity ajani dvija-kulottamas nuḥ| m-ādityo jani dvija-kulottamaḥ. jāta The reading shown as uncertain are extremely tentative and alternative possibilities abound, but I have found none that are more coherent. It seems quite certain that the characters Itya were first engraved, then deleted and re-engraved one position further to the right. The scope of the correction may have extended further to the left, but due to the amount of damage there, this cannot be ascertained. The character engraved over the PC I appears to be na with quite a bit of empty space to its left. The preceding character is very probably va, but the one before it may well be , or p, and the vowel e is very uncertain, although a long vowel is likely here on account of the metre. If the name is indeed Virājadevana, then the preceding text may for instance have been sukavir or, reading dvi instead of rvvi, nayavid. den tarppayitā pitr̥̄ṁś ca vithdhivad yo havya-kavyādibhir ma tatvaś ca va vyākaraṇa yyaḥ prāakṣālana-vāriṇātithi-padāṁ prakṣāligho-malaḥ prakṣālana-vāriṇātiśī prakṣālita-pāpa-malaḥ -vitater ṇṇe -vitater ṇṇatityā The character read as r ṇṇe is slightly awkward and the strokes comprising its top part are unclear, but there is little doubt that the scribe had meant it to be rṇṇe. The straightforward emendation would be r nne, but I am not happy with netā in the context and propose that the composer's intention was probably -vitater nnātho. sāhāyyam upeteavān nija- sāhāyyā pate n nija- khagasya khaḍgasya bhāradvādvāja- The scope of correction is probably larger. I believe that bhā, ra or (most likely) ja had been omitted at first, then bhāradvāja was re-inscribed in the space formerly occupied by three characters, the last of which was dvā. prāg nāma-mātreṇa ma mātr̥̄ṇāṁ svaṁ gotra parivarttamānam asamo nistāryya vistāāri-dhīḥ. sva-gotra-parivarttamāna-mamano yudhi sthira-dhīḥ bhavand guṇa-nidhir yyo vaśa-ka bhavan guṇa-vīryya-vasaka
Seal
Plates

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 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 younger brother, 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, brilliant as the sun, constructed—according to the count of his battles—a staggering one hundred and eight temples of the blue-necked Śiva, abodes of virtuous men complete with villages and parks and replete with graceful dancing ladies. Steadfast as a hero, he ruled bhuj- the earth for forty years and eight as king narendra, renowned among the populace by the name Vijayāditya II, Narendramr̥garāja.

Always causing the crops consisting of flocks of the destitute, the blind, Brahmins, courtesans and supplicants to attain complete satisfaction by a shower of outstanding gifts, his son Kali Viṣṇuvardhana V is said to have protected pā- the earth for a year and a half.See the apparatus to line 13 for the textual problem in this stanza.

His dear son—

The fearless-hearted lord who with his own flashing sword gleefully caused the uppermost member head of King rājan Maṅgi to topple from his body to the field of battle as lightning causes the summit to topple from a towering mountain to the earth; who by intrepidly driving the one named the Kannara along with Śaṁkila from the spacious inhabited land into the badlands durgama and pressing them swiftly into a forest fire dāva, protected the one named Baddega.

That majestic King Vijayāditya III, Guṇaga enjoyed bhuj- the earth for forty and four years together with his four brothers.KR in his commentary interprets the text to mean that Vijayāditya III’s reign lasted 44 and a half years, rather than 44 as usually recorded. I agree with his editor (Sircar) that sārdham simply means “together with,” not “and a half.”

His brother Prince bhūpati Vikramāditya, the good general of the army whose neck was garlanded with the flashing locket of the heir-apparent, had a judicious son:

He, the dear Cālukya-Bhīma—who was like a mother to the destitute, the helpless and the sick, to the congregation of excellent Brahmins, to supplicants, to ascetics, as well as to clever Brahmin pupils vaṭu, actors, good singers and poets arriving from various lands, because he presented them with the objects of their desires and protected them—ruled bhuj- the earth for thirty years.

His son—who with the sword held in his arm crushed enemy rulers; who, having forcibly conquered the eastern vāsavī region, established a victory pillar in Viraja; the craftiest one in battle who ascended a balance scale with gold; who is surely incomparable to any other kṣatriyas on the surface of this earth—protected rakṣ- the earth for half a year as Vijayāditya IV, Kollabigaṇḍa, brilliant as the sun mitra.See the apparatus to line 23 for textual problems with this stanza. Vijayāditya IV's ascension of a balance scale is also mentioned in close proximity to his erection of a victory pillar in Viraja in stanza 32 of the Diggubaṟṟu grant of Bhīma II. According to KR’s discussion, Vijayāditya conquered king Vāsava, but as his editor (Sircar?) bluntly points out, the text mentions no such king; vāsavī qualifies āśā, meaning the eastern direction.

His son—the lotus of whose feet was kissed all over by bees that were the jewels dangling from the heads of prostrate enemies, and who mocked Mount Meru with the brilliance of a heap of gold that was on a par with MeruOr perhaps: with the brilliance of the heap of gold that had been weighed (in the balance against him).—protected pā- the earth for seven years as Ammarāja I.

After assaulting and effortlessly dethroning his son the child Vijayāditya V, Lord adhipati Tāḻa protected pā- the earth for one month.

After defeating him in battle, King bhūmipati Cālukya-Bhīma’s son, King bhūpa Vikramāditya II, protected the earth for eleven months.

Then, King rājan Tāḻapa’s son King dharādhīśa Yuddhamalla, a lord of kindly speech, protected the land for seven years.

The son of the majestic Vijayāditya IV named Kollabigaṇḍa, Bhīma II of terrific bhīma prowess, ruled bhuj- the earth, viewed with respect, for twelve years. By a raid dislodging Yuddhamalla, who was girt for battle, he removed him from the land; and he also shattered the hopes (or chariots) of enemies, both civilised and uncivilised.A word has been omitted in the second quarter of this stanza; see the apparatus to line 31.

His son known as Ammarāja II, who already in the womb was possessed of a neck decorated with the locket of the heir-apparent, donned at his own initiative the turban of kingship honoured by all rulers, and always fostered the cause of the gods and gods-on-earth Brahmins.The reading and interpretation of part of this stanza is problematic; see also the apparatus to line 33. KR interpreted the text to mean that Amma II was born with an ornament-like tissue around his neck, but I agree with his editor (Sircar?), whose footnote says, In fact Amma II was declared heir-apparent even when he was in the womb of his mother. I translate the text as emended by me, and believe that the composer intended a contrast between the yuvarāja’s locket, which was bestowed on Amma when he had no say in the matter, and the royal turban, which he took as an act of will.

Because of his above-average skill at the suppression of enemy elephants in the midst of battle, his name Tribhuvanāṅkuśa the elephant-goad of the three worlds became permanently appropriate, even while his fondness for elephants gained successful expression in his heroic victories over lions.I translate with the lost word restored as suggested in the apparatus to line 36. Even so, the syntax of the second half is ambiguous and does not reveal whose fondness for elephants and whose heroic victory is meant, nor how a lion enters the picture. Lions are conventionally the arch-enemies of elephants, so my attempt at translation is not impossible, but it is grammatically quite awkward, especially because “lion” and “victory” are clearly in the singular.

Amma II, who was born , protected rakṣ- the earth for twenty-five years. His brother born of a different mother groups of enemies: Dānārṇava, the handsome son of His Majesty King Bhīma II.Several parts of this stanza are lost or illegible. The second hemistich seems to be about Dānārṇava, and the first about Amma II.

Called His Majesty Rājanārāyaṇa,

Dānārṇava, who completely surpassed the generosity of Karṇa and whose footstool was coloured by the gems in the diadems of kings—a treasury of knowledge and a treasury to learned men, distinguished in the fray—ruled bhuj- the entire earth for three years.

After King bhūmipati Dānārṇava, due to an act of fate this land of Āndhra was bereft of a king for twenty-seven years, completely dark like a moonless night.

On this occasion,

The son of Queen Āryā and that King Dāna, called Śaktivarman and equipped with the triad of powers śakti, endowed with political sense naya, discipline vinaya and valour—

who is as bright as the moon, so that his fame is like lime whitewash nectar for the palace that is the universe, and the effusion of his glory light shines permanently like a lamp in the middle of that palace

the concealed pearls of the forehead globes of whose enemies’ elephants shine open to view when he splits the surface of those globes, strung like a string of flowers on the liana that is his sword—My translation involves stretching the boundaries of syntax and compound structure to the extreme in order to accommodate the unexpected word sthagita in the original which, if deliberate, was probably meant to countered by sphuṭam. If sthagita is a mistake for a word meaning something like “revealed,” then a much easier translation would be: “the string of pearls revealed by whose splitting of the surface of the forehead globes of his enemies’ elephants shine clearly like a string of flowers on the liana that is his sword—”. For a similar image, compare verse 15 of the Raṇastipūṇḍi grant of Vimalāditya.

who, aglow with wounds, attained fame even in childhood bālya in the battle with the Colas;According to KR, the same battle is referred to as dramiḷāhava in the Pabhupaṟṟu grant of Śaktivarman. Apparently (191), this grant has only been published in the Āndhra Sāhitya Parishad Patrikā, and neither the original nor any good facsimiles remain available. However, the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant of Śaktivarman has now been edited and refers, probably, to the same episode as drāviḍa-saṁggare, so understanding caulika to refer to some Coḻa rulers is probably warranted even though Śaktivarman eventually married a Coḻa princess and reclaimed the throne of Veṅgī with his father-in-law’s support. KR’s interpretation that “a battle for the Coḻas/Tamils” is meant is not impossible, but rather forced. KR further notes that bālya probably indicates an age up to 16 years, as defined in Dharmaśāstras. who routed the overly conceited King mahārāja Badyema and others; who demonstrated his own fortitude, unrivalled in the world, by killing the assassins sent by his enemies (even) while he was wounded in the chestSee the apparatus to line 47 for a slight uncertainty in this passage.—the King adhipa His Majesty Śaktivarman.

Mentally laughing at the divine Nārāyaṇa, thinking, “he is said to have defeated the hosts of demons daitya in olden days by abandoning his own form and taking recourse to faked identities like the Fish,” this Cālukya-Nārāyaṇa Śaktivarman, in addition to having cast down his other enemies, put to death in battle His Majesty the masterful King adhipa Coḍa-Bhīma, who was a likeness of Rāvaṇa.Given the first hemistich, one would expect the stanza to say that Cālukya-Nārāyaṇa laugs at the divine Nārāyaṇa because he does not need a false guise to defeat his enemies. This is indeed how RK summarises the stanza, but I see no way to finding that meaning in the text. The second hemistich is an awkward jumble of words. Most jarringly, it lacks a verbal form to express the action. Moreover, it uses surprisingly flattering terminology īśa and śrī for the enemy Coḍa-Bhīma, and while api ought to imply a contradiction (“even though he had first cast down his enemies”), I see no such thing, nor any need for a reference to enemies in general here. Conversely, there is nothing in the second hemistich about Cālukya-Nārāyaṇa doing so in his own form, nor is there a counterpart here to prāk, “in olden days.” The only point where the second hemistich matches the first is that this human Nārāyaṇa defeats an enemy likened to Rāvaṇa, who was defeated by the divine Nārāyaṇa in the form of Rāma. The text on the plate is quite clearly legible and includes only one evident scribal mistake (°āṣāsta), where the composer’s original intent is quite straightforward (°āpāsta). I wonder if perhaps the fourth quarter belongs originally to a different stanza. Two stanzas may have been either cobbled together badly by a clumsy composer, or a quarter of the first and three quarters of the second may have been omitted by an inattentive scribe.

Churning with the power of his own arms the ocean of the army rathinī of the lord of Utkalikā—this ocean in which the sea monsters makara are fearsome, inexorable,I am somewhat baffled by the juxtaposition of vāraṇa and ibha, both normally meaning “elephant.” It may be that two different kinds of elephants were meant by the composer, but neither of these words has the connotation of a particular sort of elephant. I therefore prefer to take vāraṇa in the less common sense of “invincible.” raging elephants, in which the crocodiles nakra are processions of heroes, which swells with water that is blood and tumbles with thousands of strings of waves which are horses—this Cālukya-Nārāyaṇa seizes in battle the Royal Fortune śrī belonging to that lord of Utkalikā as the divine Nārāyaṇa churned the ocean and seized the goddess Śrī who had belonged to that ocean.

That shelter of all the world sarva-lokāśraya, His Majesty Viṣṇuvardhana, the supremely pious Supreme Lord parameśvara of Emperors mahārājādhirāja, the Supreme Sovereign parama-bhaṭṭāraka and supreme devotee of Maheśvara, convokes all householders kuṭumbin—including foremost the territorial overseers rāṣṭrakūṭa—who reside in Vaṟanāṇḍu district viṣaya, and, witnessed by the minister mantrin, the chaplain purohita, the general senāpati, the crown prince yuvarāja and the gate guard dauvārika, commands them as follows. To wit:

In a lineage of Brahmans, there was born the excellent and most righteous , like a new sage Bhāradvāja, the enricher of his lineage, holy puṇya, familiar with all the treatises.

He had a son named Vennamayya, of the truthful, honourable and engaged in acts befitting honourable men, driven by Vedic injunction, of those rich in and possessed of diplomacy naya, with boosted by the ritual calls āśravaṇa and the ritual responses pratyāśravaṇa a great practicioner of sacrifices.

Then that one named Vennamayya had a son born, named Virājadevana, the most excellent of his priestly family.

He duly gratifies the gods as well as the ancestors pitr̥ by sacrificial offerings havya and oblations kavya and suchlike. His stains of sin have been washed off by the water of the ablutions offered to the feet of his guests. He is eternally a leaderOr perhaps “patron”? See the apparatus to line 63. granting the beneficial objects of their desire to the flock of the learned, his relatives and the destitute. He has come to the aid of his own lord’s administrative affairs kārya as well as his sword.

This peerless repository of virtues, with extensive acumen, has surpassed even that sage Bhāradvāja whose intellect is praised by savants, as that sage rescued his lineage gotra, which was deteriorating, merely by granting it his name, while he did so by The end of this stanza is lost, and the reading of the extant part is not entirely certain. The gist of the verse probably ran along lines similar to what is translated here. The name Bhāradvāja may refer to the patriarch Bharadvāja himself (with the first syllable lengthened for the sake of the metre), or it may indicate a famous personage descended from him, possibly Droṇa, the son of Bharadvāja, who in spite of being a Brahmin was famed for his skill with weapons.

KR, in my opinion, misunderstands this stanza in his discussion, stating first that Vijayāditya III chased Kannara and Śaṅkila into the impregnable country, but then adding in a note that this impregnable country was evidently the kingdom of Baddega. He may have done so on the assumption that his restoration durggamān (with sandhi for durggamāt) was a singular ablative qualifying janapadāt, but the much better preserved parallel version clearly reads durggaman (with sandhi for durggamam), which I find to be better in context, establishing a contrast between janapada and durggama.The Kaṇḍyam plates of Dānārṇava reportedly also read durggamān. If this can be confirmed from a facsimile, then the same reading may also be acceptable here, but it should still be construed as a plural accusative (durggamān scil. deśān), not a singular ablative. KR’s editor (probably Sircar) also thinks that the badlands are not identical to Baddega’s homeland. KR’s interpretation also states that Guṇaga Vijayāditya protected Baddega from fear. However, it can only be Vijayāditya himself who is described here as fearless.

Sandhi-obscured caesura in v12 (śārdūlavikrīḍita) c. The break between pādas c and d is obscured by sandhi in v22 (also śārdūlavikrīḍita).

The outer side of the last extant plate is heavily corroded and in many places illegible or barely legible. With the photos of the original, I have been able to provide a reading for most of it. Text shown on this plate as unclear may be almost clear to almost completely indistinct so long as it is confidently readable in the context, but minor details such as scribal mistakes may in fact be different than shown here. Text shown as unclear with low certainty is poorly legible to all but lost and tentatively reconstructed from the vestiges. Text shown as supplied includes no interpretable vestiges and is tentatively reconstructed from context. My numbering of stanzas, which I believe to be correct, differs slightly from the numbering in KR's edition as well as from that in an earlier version of this digital edition created without access to the original.

Reported in 13A/1917-1815 with some further details at 132-1335. Edited from inked impressions by B. V. Krishna Rao(), with facsimiles but no translation.This article was published posthumously. EI received its manuscript in 1956. The editor of EI (Sircar, according to the title page) thoroughly revised the text before publication. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on a collation of Krishna Rao's edition with his facsimiles (offset printed in small size) and with photographs taken by myself in February 2023 at the Andhra Sahitya Parishad Museum, Kakinada.