Kañcūka (upper), Kanaganahalli stūpa

⟨A-B⟩ māhisekasa ⬦ mātisekasa N+vH • The shape of the h is peculiar, being more angular than the others in this inscription, but it is still comparable to that found in saduhu[takasa]. And its shape is markedly distinct from the ta in -sātavāhanasa. It is clear that a hi was mean.

⟨B⟩ gahapatinā • Understand gahapatino. The hand active on this slab is distinct from the one of part A. In fact, four different hands may have engraved the four parts of the record. The hand active in part B looks more cursive and less expert than the others, which perhaps explains the further irregularities in the ending of all following words. — ⟨B⟩ toḍesa canagahapatiputesa • The left horizontal stroke on top of the ḍa looks like the marker of a e, and a similar (and similarly unexpected) sign is found in the penultimate consonant of the three following words. I suggest the four e should be understood as superfluous. The previous editors, because they read māhisekasa as mātisekasa, which they understood as a proper name, struggled to make sense of these two names. For a discussion of the name Toḍa, see Tournier [2023] 2021–2022, p. 27, n. 75. As for the name Cana, it may be understood as Dravidian canna/cenna, meaning (according to Burrow and Emeneau 1984, s.v.) “a man of beauty, a handsome man.” — ⟨B⟩ sa[bhag]inikesa ⬦ sa[…] N+vH.

⟨D⟩ saduhu[takasa sanatukasa] ⬦ saduhu[takasa] N+vH • My reconstruction sanatukasa is speculative, but it fits the number of missing akṣaras. In several inscriptions from Amaravati, the mention of the donor’s daughter(s) is immediately followed by that of grandchildren. See EIAD 272, ll. 4–5; EIAD 286, ll. 2–3. Moreover, the presence of children (possibly grandchildren) in Toḍa’s family is confirmed by the portrait occurring on one of the dome slabs. See von Hinüber 2018, pp. 358–360, fig. 1, n. 75. I don’t think that the absence of the marks of old age necessarily excludes that three generations were represented. — ⟨D⟩ deyadhaṁma(ṁ) dānaṁ ⬦ deyadhamadāna N+vH • The previous editors remark that “the expression deyadhamadāna might occur once again in a damaged inscription at Amarāvatī (Tsukamoto Keishō 塚本啓祥 1996, № II Amar 15, l. 4): deyadhamad[āna]... .” The new reading of this inscription by Griffiths and I (EIAD 267, l. 3) reads instead ... (de)yadhaṁma _ (pa)tiṭhapita ... EIAD 305, l. 3, by contrast, does have the two expressions in combination: ... deyadhamaparicakā be suciya dānā. See also EIAD 266.