Mangallu grant of Amma II

This grant is issued in the name of Amma II, the Eastern Chalukya king crowned in 945.¹² It was made while his half-brother Danarnava held the kingdom.¹²

It is one of the main sources for the troubles of Amma II’s reign, and for the earlier civil war of 925–934.³⁴ Historians of the Kakatiyas have also taken it as the first mention of that family.³⁴

Discovery and description

The epigraphy report for 1916–17 records that the plates were received from the Sub-Collector of Bezwada, who had treated them as treasure trove.¹ They “were dug up in the Nandigama taluk”.¹ They were registered as No. 1 of Appendix A of that year.¹ V. Rangacharya edited them in 1960 from ink impressions supplied by the Government Epigraphist.⁵

There are five plates with high rims, measuring 9⅓ by 4⅙ inches, on a ring that had not been cut.¹ The 1917 report describes the seal.¹ Its ring is set in an ornamental base, and its rim is shaped like a lotus creeper ending in a full-blown lotus.¹

Beside the lotus is an elephant-goad.¹ Above them is the legend Sri-Tribhuvanankusa in Chalukyan characters.¹ Above the legend is the running boar facing left, flanked by the sun and moon and two fly-whisks.¹

Rangacharya found the script to be of the usual Vengi type of the 10th century.⁵ The 67 lines are on the whole well preserved.⁵ But some passages are hard to read, because of defects in the plates, the engraver’s mistakes and erasures, and the corrupt language.⁵

Language and genealogy

The language is Sanskrit, in prose with a few verses, except for the boundaries, which are in Telugu.¹⁵ The 1917 report called the language “very corrupt”.¹⁵

After an opening verse to Vishnu and the usual praise of the family, the grant lists twenty-one kings from Kubja-Vishnuvardhana to Yuddhamalla II.⁵ Some of its lengths of reign differ from other records.⁵

The 1917 report noted that it gives Vijayaditya II Narendra 48 years.¹ It gives Vikramaditya II, son of Chalukya-Bhima I, one year instead of eleven months.¹ It also spells Gunaga as Gunakenalla, and Beta-Vijayaditya as “Beka-Vijayaditya”.¹

The civil war of 925–934

The grant adds to what other records tell of the wars between the senior line and the junior line of Yuddhamalla II.¹ The 1917 report summarised lines 19–21.¹ After Vikramaditya II, the report says, “the feudatory Sabara chiefs, the commanders of the Vallabha (i.e., the Rashtrakuta) forces and others” took over.¹ They “apportioned among themselves the (Chalukyan) territory for seven years”.¹

King Bhima, the son of Vijayaditya, then ousted the usurpers.¹ He did so “treating with insult Mallaparaja who had put on the crown at this juncture”, and reigned for twelve years.¹ The report took this as support for a suggestion by Hultzsch.¹ Hultzsch had suggested that Yuddhamalla II is left out of some grants because his conqueror, Chalukya-Bhima II, ignored him.¹

Rangacharya read the same passage as saying that Mallapa, Yuddhamalla II, set himself up as king in the midst of this chaos.⁶ He identified the Vallabha with the Rashtrakuta Govinda IV.⁶

He also tried to reconcile the accounts of Beta-Vijayaditya V, the son of Amma I.³⁶ Some records say that Beta was deposed as a child, and others that he was imprisoned.³⁶ Yet he founded a line of later chiefs.³⁶ Rangacharya suggested that he was made king as a child, deposed and kept a prisoner.³⁶ In Rangacharya’s view, Beta probably died in the first twelve years of Amma II’s reign.³⁶

Amma II and Danarnava

The next verses deal with Amma II.¹² In the 1917 report’s summary, Amma II reigned for eleven years.¹² He then went to the Kalinga country “in wrath against Krishna” (Krishna-kopat).¹² The kingdom was then ruled “to the great joy of the people” by Danarnava.¹² He was “the son of Bhima … and Ankidevi” and ruled “with the consent of his step-brother”.¹²

The report thought the grant was probably made in Danarnava’s reign.¹² But the order was issued in the name of Vijayaditya, that is, Amma II.¹²

Rangacharya disagreed on three points:

• He translated Krishna-kopat as because of Krishna’s anger, not in wrath against Krishna.⁶⁷ He thought that Amma was at that moment more the victim than the avenger of Krishna III’s anger, and might even have been taken prisoner.⁶⁷
• He read the passage on Danarnava’s rule as saying that Danarnava obtained the country from the Vallabha, that is, Krishna III.³⁷ In his view the 1917 report’s “with the consent of his step-brother” rested on a misreading.³⁷ The plates say that Danarnava ruled according to the precepts of Manu.³⁷
• He concluded that Danarnava was not a rival.⁷ In his view, Danarnava governed as regent for his brother and made the grant in his brother’s name.⁷ He did so perhaps because Krishna III held Amma captive and allowed this, for diplomacy or under pressure of arms.⁷

He also thought that Danarnava, though the elder, had been passed over for the boy Amma.⁶⁷ His reason was that Danarnava’s mother Ankidevi was of lower rank than Amma’s mother.⁶⁷ He noted that all the later records give Amma a reign of twenty-five years, ending in 970.⁶⁷

Other readings of the same events are set out on the Amma II and Danarnava pages. The 1921 epigraphy report used the newly found Arumbaka plates of Badapa.⁸ It concluded that Krishna III had invaded at the instance of Badapa.⁸ It held that Danarnava held the west in Amma’s name, while Badapa held the east.⁸

B. V. Krishna Rao, in 1936, thought that Amma II had marched against a coalition led by Krishna III and returned victorious.⁹ Rangacharya noted that the same writer had earlier claimed that Krishna III died during the invasion of Vengi in 956.⁷ He called this a misreading of the events.⁷ P. V. Parabrahma Sastry argued in 1978 that Krishna III had made Danarnava king after Amma fled.¹⁰

The grant and Kakatya Gundyana

The grant gives the village of Mangallu to a Brahmin named Dommana, at the request of a feudatory chief called Kakatya Gundyana.³ It is addressed to the householders headed by the Rashtrakutas of the Natavadi district.³ It is also addressed to the councillor, priest, general and the other members of the eighteen tirthas, the officers of state.³

According to the grant, Gundyana belonged to the family of Samanta Voddi.³² His grandfather, Gundiya-rashtrakuta, a descendant of Samanta Voddi, had done great service to a Chalukya king.³² Gundiya’s son Erija-rashtrakuta was a skilled horseman.³² Gundyana was Erija’s son by Vandyanamba.³²

Dommana, of the Kutsa gotra (clan), was the grandson of Chiddamayya of the village of Velaparru, and the son of Sridhara and Machemamba.³² He had kept the karpati vow, of early bathing, continence, truthfulness and other observances, for Gundyana’s merit and favour.³² In return he received the village as a tax-free agrahara (village granted to Brahmins).³²

The 1917 report gives the occasion as the summer solstice.² Rangacharya gives it as the uttarayana of an unspecified year.³ Hultzsch translated this term in the Vemalurpadu plates as the winter solstice.¹¹

The report names the executor (ajnapti) as Katakaraja and the composer as Potana-bhatta.² Parabrahma Sastry took Kakatya Gundyana to be the earliest member of the Kakatiya family to appear in the records.⁴ He dated the grant to about 956.⁴

The village

The 1917 report identified Mangallu with one of two villages in the Nandigama taluk of the Krishna (then Kistna) district, Mangollu or Magallu.² Rangacharya repeated this, and identified Konduru, the northern boundary, with the village of that name in the same taluk.⁷ He described the Nandigama area as the heart of the Natavadi country, through which the road from the coast to Hyderabad passed.⁷

The journal’s editor added a note.⁷ In his view, the river Munna, said to lie south-west of the village granted, must be the Munneru.⁷ So the village was Magallu, which lies close to the river on its east, and not Mangollu, about ten miles west of it.⁷ See Magallu.

Numbering of the kings

Rangacharya numbered some kings differently from J. F. Fleet and E. Hultzsch, whose numbering this site follows.⁵³ He calls Amma II also Vijayaditya VI.⁵³ The Bhima who reigned for eight months in 926–927 is Bhima III here, but Bhima II in his edition.⁵³ The Chalukya-Bhima who reigned 934–945 is Chalukya-Bhima II here, but Chalukya-Bhima III in his edition.⁵³

Footnotes

1. Annual Report on Epigraphy, Madras, for 1916–17 (G.O. No. 1035, Home (Education), 10 August 1917), Part II, para. 24, p. 117 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³ ↩¹⁴ ↩¹⁵ ↩¹⁶ ↩¹⁷ ↩¹⁸ ↩¹⁹ ↩²⁰ ↩²¹ ↩²² ↩²³ ↩²⁴ ↩²⁵ ↩²⁶ ↩²⁷ ↩²⁸ ↩²⁹ ↩³⁰ ↩³¹

2. Annual Report on Epigraphy, Madras, for 1916–17 (1917), Part II, para. 24, p. 118 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³ ↩¹⁴ ↩¹⁵ ↩¹⁶ ↩¹⁷ ↩¹⁸ ↩¹⁹

3. Rangacharya, “Mangallu Grant of Amma II” (1960), p. 38 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³ ↩¹⁴ ↩¹⁵ ↩¹⁶ ↩¹⁷ ↩¹⁸ ↩¹⁹ ↩²⁰ ↩²¹ ↩²² ↩²³ ↩²⁴ ↩²⁵

4. P. V. Parabrahma Sastry, The Kakatiyas of Warangal (1978), p. 14. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

5. V. Rangacharya, “Mangallu Grant of Amma II”, Epigraphia Indica XXXI (1955–56, publ. 1960), p. 37 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹²

6. Rangacharya, “Mangallu Grant of Amma II” (1960), p. 39 and note 6 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹²

7. Rangacharya, “Mangallu Grant of Amma II” (1960), p. 40 and notes 2–4 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³ ↩¹⁴ ↩¹⁵ ↩¹⁶ ↩¹⁷ ↩¹⁸

8. Annual Report on Epigraphy, Madras, for 1920–21 (1921), Part II, para. 14, p. 91 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

9. B. V. Krishna Rao, “Tandikonda Grant of Ammaraja II”, Epigraphia Indica XXIII (1935–36), p. 162 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩

10. Parabrahma Sastry, The Kakatiyas of Warangal (1978), p. 15. ↩

11. E. Hultzsch, “Vemalurpadu Plates of Ammaraja II”, Epigraphia Indica XVIII (1925–26), p. 234, translation (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩