Māṁgallu grant of Dānārṇava

Plates

⟨3⟩ -vara-pras¿a?⟨ā⟩da-labdha-rājyānām mā° • These characters, have been scratched shallowly on the plate then re-engraved properly, with the final lines not fully overlapping the pre-scratched ones (except for rā and nā, where either the overlap is perfect or there was no pre-scratched text).

⟨4⟩ -sam¿ya?⟨ā⟩sādi⟨5⟩ta- PS ⬦ -sam{y}āsādi⟨5⟩ta- R • The originally inscribed subscript y is attached to the right arm, rather than the body, of ma. Part of the y seems to have been struck out, while much of it has been retained as an ornamental extension of the subsequently added ā marker.

⟨5⟩ -vaśīkr̥tārāti- ⬦ -vaś¿i?⟨ī⟩kr̥tārāti- R PS.

⟨7⟩ {-viṣṇaṣ(ṇu)vi-} ⬦ {-viṣṇuṣūvi-} R PS • At this locus, R marks the text from pratā to vallabhendrasya as superfluous, while PS discards the string from pratā to (the first) vallabhendrasya. There is no way to tell which iteration of the (imperfectly) repeated string was inscribed in error, but PS’s excision of a string stretching across both iterations can not, in my opinion, be reasonably derived from scribal error; and since the second instance of vallabhendrasya contains a scribal correction (see next apparatus entry), I assume that its presence in the text was approved by a contemporary editor. Thus, by my reasoning, the whole of the first iteration was rejected, and the text re-inscribed from satyaśrāya onward, ignoring the fact that, if the rejected string were explicitly deleted, this string ought to have started with ssa. — ⟨7⟩ -va⟨⟨lla⟩⟩bhendrasya • The addition is written below the line and to the right of bha, i.e. one character to the right of where one would expect it to be. — ⟨7⟩ kubja- R ⬦ kubba- PS.

⟨10⟩ paṁcaviṁśa¿⟦(kr)⟧⟨⟨r⟩⟩ima?⟨tiM⟩ ⬦ paṁcaviṁśa¿kr?⟨t⟩i¿ma?⟨M⟩ R; paṁcaviṁśat¿i?⟨ī⟩¿ma?⟨M⟩ PS • Although bizarre, it seems that kri was originally inscribed (probably as a scribal misinterpretation of a predrawn ti), and it has been wrongly corrected to ri.

⟨12⟩ u◯¿py?⟨cc⟩āṭya ⬦ u◯¿py?⟨tp⟩āṭya R PS • Related grants use uccāṭya; utpāṭya never occurs as far as I am aware.

⟨14⟩ viṣṇuvarddha¿ṇ(ā)?⟨no⟩ ⬦ viṣṇuvarddhano R PS. — ⟨14⟩ dhyarddha- ⬦ dhyardha- R PS. — ⟨14⟩ -⟨va⟩(rṣa)(ṁ|?) ⬦ -(varṣa)ṁ⟨|⟩ R PS. — ⟨14⟩ -ātmaj¿e?⟨o⟩ ⬦ c-ātmajo R PS.

⟨17⟩ ¿bhe?⟨rbha⟩ka ⬦ bheka R PS • The reading is clear, but unattested elsewhere (except in secondary literature), while the form arbhaka-vijayāditya is attested in the Koḻūru grant of Bhīma II.

⟨19⟩ cā¿ṇya?⟨nye⟩ ⬦ cānye R PS.

⟨20⟩ saptā{śa}ntare R ⬦ saptā{sa}ntare PS • PS’s sa is probably a typo. — ⟨20⟩ -rāja⟨ṁ⟩ kr̥ta- ⬦ -rāja-kr̥ta⟨ṁ⟩ R; -rājaṁ kr̥ta- PS • While there is no original anusvāra, nor space for one in its usual position, PS’s version is a better emendation in my opinion. R’s emendation is also metrically and semantically possible.

⟨23⟩ dharitrī⟨ṁ⟩ ⬦ dharitr¿(i)?⟨ī⟩⟨ṁ⟩ R PS. — ⟨23⟩ °ābdā¡ṁ!⟨ñ⟩ jita-ripur agama(t) R ⬦ °ābdā(n) agama(t) PS • Typographic omission in PS.

⟨24⟩ -mu⟦p⟧⟨⟨d⟩⟩e ⬦ -mude R PS. — ⟨24⟩ -rājy¿ā?⟨o⟩ ⬦ -rājyo R PS. — ⟨24⟩ bhaimi(r?) ddānārṇṇaveśo ⬦ bhaimo d{d}ānārṇṇaveśo R PS • The i of mi has a gap at the top right to accommodate the subscript k above, while the repha of rddā is damaged and attached separately to the top right rather than being combined with the ā marker. I am nevertheless confident of my interpretation; of there is only damage and no original repha, then one is to be supplied.

⟨25⟩ ¡vacadharasya! ⬦ vac¿a?⟨o⟩(dha)¿r?⟨v⟩asya R; {va}ca¿dha?⟨tu⟩rasya PS • In addition to an extra light syllable in this word (where the poet apparently availed of a licence to use three light syllables where two would be expected), the first pāda of this stanza also has a caesura between a prefix and a verb, which is also permissible only by licence. R’s emendation, while it improves this particular word, only aggravates the metrical anomaly. PS’s emendation is metrically and grammatically correct, but is too heavy-handed to accept, while with his alternative proposal ca varasya is awkward and bland (not to mention that this is one of the very few instances of dha that does not look like va, so it should probably not be emended to va). If I am correct in interpreting the composer’s intent (for which see the translation), then the meaning could have been expressed in correct prosody, e.g. as vacasaḥ pateḥ kamala-saṁbhūtasya (though the inferior caesura is not remedied by this suggestion).

⟨26⟩ -grām¿ū?⟨ya⟩tvā° PS ⬦ -grāmy¿ā?⟨a⟩tvā° R.

⟨27⟩ -n¿au?⟨ai⟩sa⟨r⟩ggika- ⬦ naisa⟨r⟩ggika R PS.

⟨28⟩ ¿u?⟨ya⟩d-vaida◯gdh¿u?⟨ya⟩m ⬦ ¿u?⟨ya⟩d-vaida◯gdhyam PS; udvaidagdhyam R • The d preceding this word may have been corrected from p.

⟨30⟩ vi⟨śi⟩ṣṭai⟨r⟩ ¿m?⟨v⟩vicāryyate ⬦ vi⟨śi⟩ṣṭai⟨r⟩ vvicāryate R PS • The character mvi is probably the engraver’s misinterpretation of a predrawn rvvi. — ⟨30⟩ kī⟨r⟩tti- ⬦ kīrtti- R PS.

⟨31⟩ -mahārāj¿a?⟨ā⟩dhirāja- ⬦ -mahārājādhirāja- PS; -mahārāja- R. — ⟨31⟩ -param¿a?⟨e⟩śvara- ⬦ -parameśvara- R PS. — ⟨31⟩ -param¿a?⟨e⟩śvara- ⬦ -parameśvara- R PS. — ⟨31⟩ -bhaṭṭ¿a?⟨ā⟩rakaḥ ⬦ -bhaṭṭārakaḥ R PS.

⟨32⟩ samāhūya • The formation of hū, with the vowel small in size and attached to the left of the body beyond the shorter-than-usual tail, shows that the text was pre-drawn for the engraver, and this character was shaped so as to leave room for mi below. — ⟨32⟩ ma⟨33⟩⟦tī⟧ntri- ⬦ ma⟨33⟩ntri- R PS • I cannot interpret the character tī (or possibly ti) written directly below vā in the line above and ignored by both previous editors. The character has not been deleted and is larger than other interlinear additions, nor can I see any locus where such an addition would be appropriate. I can only assume that it was engraved in error for the ntri required here, and the correct character was re-engraved to the right of it. The superfluous character was engraved before the rest of line 33 and slightly higher than the other characters of that line, so that its top touches the bottom of vā above. The correct ntri is to the right of and below this one, encroaching on the space of the next line and forcing the first few characters there to be reduced. The following pu is level with ntri, but from ro onward the line continues at the expected distance from the adjacent lines.

⟨33⟩ -yuvar¿o?⟨ā⟩j¿a?⟨ā⟩dy- ⬦ -yuva(rā)jādy- R; -yuvarājādy- PS. — ⟨33⟩ -tī{E}¿ttho?⟨rtthā⟩dhyakṣam ⬦ -tī{E}rthādhyakṣam R; -tī{E}rthādhyakṣ¡am!⟨ān⟩ PS.

⟨34⟩ -nimitt¿e?⟨aṁ⟩ R ⬦ -nimitte PS • There may in fact be an original anusvāra after this word. — ⟨34⟩ ¿vū?⟨mu⟩{||}ktāphala- ⬦ m¿ū?⟨u⟩{||}ktāphala- R PS.

⟨35⟩ sāma¿g?⟨n⟩ta- ⬦ sāma(nta)- R PS • The principal consonant of the problematic character is definitely g (compare n at the beginning of the next line and g in the second next), which must be the engraver’s misinterpretation of a predrawn n. The subscript t is attached with an additional notch as many other times in the inscription, compare e.g. line 9, sapta. — ⟨35⟩ -vo◯(ṭṭ)i- PS ⬦ -voḍḍi- R • In my opinion, R’s voḍḍi can be excluded, because throughout the inscription, ḍ has a tail that curls conspicuously upward (cf. e.g. l32 ḍi), which is definitely not present here. At face value, the most likely reading is voddi, for which compare l51 ddi, practically identical to what we have here. PS also mentions voddi as a possible reading in his discussion. A stem between the headmark and the body speaks against reading ṭṭi, which should not include such a stem (compare e.g. ṭṭa in ll 12, 20 and 31). However, l53 ṭi does have a neck and looks quite identical to the upper part of the present character. Given this and PS’s argument that we are dealing with a cognate or corruption of the name sāmanta viṣṭi (see the commentary), I accept ṭṭi as the most likely reading. — ⟨35⟩ ¿kaṁ?⟨ku⟩lam ⬦ (ku)lam R PS • Here again, the engraver must have misinterpreted the u attached to the consonant’s side.

⟨36⟩ -ka◯¿k?⟨r⟩aḥ R ⬦ -ka¿t?⟨r⟩aḥ PS • Possibly a typo in PS. — ⟨36⟩ ni⟨r⟩ddāri-caṭa-bala- PS ⬦ -ni⟨r⟩ddāri-cāṭa-bala- R • I am reasonably certain that the received reading is caṭa (unmetrical). Emending to cāṭa, as read by R, straightforwardly solves the metrical problem but leaves us with an uninterpretable compound. PVPR proposes emending to nirddāritāri-bala-, which makes sense but is difficult to explain as a scribal mistake. Similarly invasive alternative emendations include nirddārita-prabala-. Although cāṭa may be a scribal mistake for something else (perhaps elicited by the proximity of bhaṭa?), I think it is more likely that it was the composer who did a poor job here and used nirddāri either in the meaning nirddārita or in an incorrectly constructed compound where this word ought to have been the last member. — ⟨36⟩ -vī(ra?)- ⬦ -v¿i?⟨ī⟩(ra)- R PS • The vowel mark of the first character has a dot, so I prefer to read it as the expected ī. For the second character, R admits to uncertainty but PS does not. It can plausibly be read as ra, but several other readings may be possible, including ri. If the latter is correct, then the word may be emended to vairi, in which case ari is not needed in the previous locus. — ⟨36⟩ (bhaṭā?)ndhakāraḥ • The problematic first two characters (shown by PS as clear) are reasonably certain from my photographs. The first looks rather like ca, but if that is the correct reading, it is still likely to be a scribal mistake for bha.

⟨37⟩ -rāṣṭrak¿u?⟨ū⟩ṭas ⬦ -rāṣṭrakūṭas R PS. — ⟨37⟩ sa{ṁ}t-pūjya- ⬦ saṁ{t}pūjya- R; satpūjya- PS • While R’s emendation is also plausible, I prefer my emendation as being less invasive and slightly smoother. PS may have been of the same opinion, though he ignores the superfluous anusvāra. — ⟨37⟩ -pravaṇa-sva- ⬦ -pravaṇa⟨ḥ⟩ sva{(ḥ)}- R PS • The superfluous visarga shown by both previous editors is definitely not present on the plate. Emendation to pravaṇaḥ is unnecessary and results in inferior text. Compare paropakāra-pravaṇa-prabhāvaḥ in line 40 below. — ⟨37⟩ {śrīmac-ca}⟨38⟩{lukyaku}¿bha?⟨ca⟩lukya- ⬦ śrīmac-cā⟨38⟩lukya{kubhalukya}- R; {śrīmac-}ca⟨38⟩lukya{kubhalukya}- PS • The character at the end of line 37 is cca, though R reads it as ccā. To reduce the dittography, both previous editors suppress the string kubhalukya. While this yields meaningful text with a small and straightforward suppression, it seems unlikely that these characters could have been erroneously engraved while the others were correct and deliberate. Much more likely in my opinion is that the engraver first started with śrīmac-calukya-ku, probably beiginning to engrave kula out of habit. Realising the mistake, he would have started again from the beginning of the stanza, but this time round, he neglected to close the bottom of ca, so the character as engraved turned out as bha. My emendation is thus more complex than that of the previous editors, but presupposes much more feasible scribal mistakes. The final problem with this locus is that of śrīmac. Suppressing this word results in correct prosody for the line, but so does suppressing the subsequent vaṁśa (and altering a retained vowel, so we are left with śrīmac-calukyodita-). I believe it is much more likely that śrīmac was, again out of habit, engraved unnecessarily (or perhaps conceived of as a bit of prose tagged on before the stanza). Moreover, with my emendation of the dittography, śrīmac is a natural part of the erroneously engraved string, whereas PS has to resort to a separate emendation to suppress it (while R only notes that the stanza is metrically faulty, but does not attempt to correct it, though his editor does propose deleting śrīmac in a footnote.).

⟨38⟩ -śrīdvā(ram ad)yā¿g?⟨n⟩ugataṁ ⬦ -śrīdvāra-madhyānugataṁ R; -śrīdvāram ¿adhyā?⟨ājñā⟩nugataṁ PS • The reading is quite certain in spite of extensive damage to the characters rama. The following dyā is quite clear, but due to the ambiguity of the script, dhyā and vyā cannot be excluded, and ddhyā or dvyā are also conceivable, if barely. I find none of these alternatives interpretable in the context. Next, the character read as nu by both previous editors is in fact a perfect specimen of gu, though nu must indeed have been intended (compare sāmagta in l35). My interpretation is tentative; see the translation and the commentary. — ⟨38⟩ n¿a?⟨ā⟩n¿u?⟨yā⟩⟨39⟩dhipa-dvāram ⬦ nanu ⟨39⟩ vipad-⟨d⟩vāram R; ¿nanu?⟨nūnaṁ⟩ ⟨39⟩ vipad-⟨d⟩vāram PS • R’s editor in a footnote proposes emending the (unmetrical) nanu to nānyo. It is not clear to me how he sees this as an improvement to the text without additional alterations. I find that emending nu to nyā is a minor intervention, and there are two instances in the text where u must clearly be emended to ya (lines 26 and 28), so we know the scribe is prone to this kind of mistake. I thus emend the first two characters in a way similar to that suggested by R’s editor. But in the next line, I read dhipa-dvāram in preference to vipa-dvāram (which requires supplying an extra d). Most instances of dh in this text are indistinguishable from v, but in this case the large gap at the top of the body strongly implies that dh was intended. See the commentary and the translation about my interpretation.

⟨39⟩ a¿ma?⟨haṁ⟩ PS ⬦ ama R • R’s editor proposes the same emendation in a footnote. It probably reflects the intent of the composer, though given that the stanza as a whole is difficult to interpret, something else may have been intended, e.g. amuṁ, imaṁ or aho. — ⟨39⟩ viśām¿i?⟨ī⟩ty akṣ¿a?⟨e⟩ṣṭa ⬦ viśāmi tyakṣaṣṭa- R; viśāmīty akṣa⟨ṁ⟩¿ṣṭ?⟨st⟩a PS • I find PS’s interpretation unconvincing. R’s editor in his footnote proposes viśāmīty ācaṣṭa, which is not impossible. See the translation and the commentary for further discussion. — ⟨39⟩ vāṭa(ṁ) gata- • The anusvāra is in fact a short daṇḍa just like the one following the anusvāra at the end of this stanza. — ⟨39⟩ -vallabh(e?)śaṁ • The vowel e, shown as clear by both previous editors, is certainly expected, but it is either not present or overlaps with the bottom of the subscript y above and discernible only as a small stroke rising from the headmark of bh and possibly another small stroke descending toward the headmark of the following śa.

⟨40⟩ paropa¿r?⟨k⟩āra- ⬦ paropakāra- R PS.

⟨41⟩ -kauśalena ⬦ -k¿o?⟨au⟩śalena R PS. — ⟨41⟩ tiras¿(ḻ)a?⟨kr̥⟩tānindita- ⬦ tiras¿tha?⟨kr̥⟩tānindita- R PS.

⟨42⟩ °⟨rājaḥ| Abhūt su⟩to PS • PS’s restoration is perfectly plausible, though the intended wording may have been slightly different. R offers no emendation, while his editor in a footnote suggests °rājaḥ suto bhavad, which is inferior because it requires inserting text both before and after the inscribed to. — ⟨42⟩ n¿a?⟨ā⟩ma¿ṣa?⟨dhe⟩yas ⬦ nāma¿p?⟨dh⟩eyas R PS. — ⟨42⟩ -vandyanāṁbāy¿a?⟨ā⟩m ⬦ -va(ndya)nāṁbā(yā)m R PS.

⟨43⟩ -nilay¿e?⟨o⟩ ⬦ -nilayo R PS. — ⟨43⟩ guṇḍyanā{ra}khy⟦e⟧⟨⟨a⟩⟩ḥ ⬦ guṇḍyanā{(ta)}khyaḥ R PS • The superfluous character is clearly ra. A superfluous e attached to khya has probably been deleted in the original. PS suggests alternatively that the superfluous character and the next one together could be alternatively read as ryyaḥ. While khye does bear some resemblance to ryya, there is no reason to prefer this alternative. — ⟨43⟩ pratāpāya¿ṟi?⟨44⟩tām ⬦ pratāpāya(ti)⟨44⟩tām PS; pratāpāyya (ci)⟨44⟩tām R • The last character in line 33 has interference from the rim, but it is unequivocally ṟi, with a notch in the bottom and a cross-stroke. It is clearly a scribal mistake for something else, but no clear solution offers itself. It may have been intended for ti, as read by PS, but this still leaves us with a very awkward stanza. Any other corrections I can think of (e.g. pratāpāyodhitām) involve more emendation and are still awkward.

⟨44⟩ nity⟦ā⟧⟨⟨aṁ⟩⟩ ⬦ nityaṁ R PS • The down-curling end of tyā was probably the engraver’s misinterpretation of tyaṁ, which has been reversed by deleting part of the line at the top right. — ⟨44⟩ °ārā¡dhdh!y(o) ⬦ °ārādhyo R PS. — ⟨44⟩ -vi⟨45⟩ro(c)anaḥ ⬦ virocanaḥ R PS • The engraved character looks like va or a va-like dha. I agree with the previous editors that virocana was probably intended.

⟨45⟩ -nāmadheyena{(|)} ⬦ -nāmadheyen¿ā?⟨a⟩ R; -nāmadheyena PS. — ⟨45⟩ (v)el(a)⟨46⟩paṟṟu- • Outside context, he first consonant of this name would be a rather unambiguous c, and may have been intended as such. However, Velapaṟṟu is perhaps a more likely name (compare Velaṁbaṟṟu in an eponymous grant attributed to Amma I), and the same graphic shape is used in the name of Viddamayya (for which see the apparatus to line 46). The second character may have an ā marker. It ends in a slight bend to the right instead of a proper hook for ā or a vertical stem and a headmark for a. Since there are several instances of la of the same shape in lines 57-58, including one with the vocalisation u, I prefer to read la here. Both previous editors print velāpaṟṟu in their texts, but PS uses Celāpaṟṟu in his discussion.

⟨46⟩ °saṁbhū⟨to⟩ (v)iddamayyaḥ ⬦ °saṁbhū⟨to⟩ ciddamayyaḥ R PS • The first character of the name does indeed look like ci (see also the previous entry on velapaṟṟu). However, since the names Viddamayya, Viddamiya and Viddamaśarman are attested in several related inscriptions, while I know of no occurrence of Ciddamayya (although Cīḍamārya exists), I prefer to read this character as vi. Note that both previous editors may have vacillated on the reading, since both of them supply to for the preceding word rather than taś, as would be expected before c.

⟨47⟩ j¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨48⟩to ⬦ jā⟨48⟩tyā R PS.

⟨48⟩ bhūdeva- ⬦ bhūdeva⟨ḥ⟩ R PS. — ⟨48⟩ mācemāṁbāyā⟨ṁ⟩ ⬦ mācemāṁbāyāṁ R; macemāṁbāyāṁ PS • The short a in PS is probably a typo. I see no original anusvāra here. The composer’s intent may also have been mācemāṁbāyāḥ. It may also be possible to read the name as Māvemāṁbā (compare the notes to lines 45 and 46 above). The e must be short for the line to be metrical. — ⟨48⟩ sūnu⟨r⟩ ddommana- ⬦ sūnur ddommana- R PS.

⟨49⟩ -¿ś?⟨g⟩u¿no?⟨ṇa⟩- ⬦ -¿ś?⟨g⟩u(ṇa)- R PS. — ⟨49⟩ saṁpann¿e?⟨a⟩s R ⬦ saṁpa¿ṇ?⟨n⟩nas PS.

⟨50⟩ durāpe PS ⬦ durāp¿e?⟨o⟩ R. — ⟨50⟩ ācā{ci}raḥ ⬦ ācā{vi}raḥ R PS. — ⟨50⟩ kākartya- PS ⬦ kāka{rt}tya- R. — ⟨50⟩ -gu⟨51⟩ṇḍy(a)naṁ • The top of the subscript y bends to the right, so the character looks like ṇḍyā. The intent was clearly ṇḍya.

⟨51⟩ (vī)ram • I accept the reading of both previous editors, but the engraved character is definitely not vī. By the shape, I would read it as an initial Ai, but this is uninterpretable in the context (unless Aiṟam was intended, in the meaning "descendant of Eṟiya", but aside from the spelling, this is also problematic with respect to sandhi). It is thus most likely that the intent was vīram; dhīram may also be possible, but is less likely, as the top of the body is fully closed. — ⟨51⟩ āha¿ppā?⟨ḫpa⟩ti- ⬦ āha⟨ḥ⟩p{p}¿ā?⟨a⟩ti- R; āharppati- PS • I assume that the upper p with the vowel mark (which PS reads as a repha) is the engraver’s misinterpretation of a predrawn upadhmānīya. This presupposes a much smaller scribal error than R’s equivalent emendation and is preferable to PS’s non-standard reading. — ⟨51⟩ -¿ṣ?⟨p⟩rabhaṁ ⬦ -prabhaṁ R PS. — ⟨51⟩ karppaṭam PS ⬦ ka⟨r⟩ppaṭam R • The character is slightly damaged, but the r is definitely present, although it looks rather like an ā marker. — ⟨51⟩ āba¿p?⟨d⟩dhaṁ ⬦ āba(ddhaṁ) R; āra(bdhaṁ) PS • The received reading is unequivocal in spite of some damage. The body of the conjunct has a flat headmark clearly distinct from the curly top of the preceding ba. The intended word may have been either previous editor’s reading. I prefer ābaddhaṁ partly because it presupposes a simple scribal mistake (misinterpreting a predrawn d as p), and partly because of the attestation of baddha-karppaṭakaḥ in line 21 of the Cevuru plates of Amma I.

⟨52⟩ ¿ga?⟨I⟩ty- PS ⬦ gaty- R • Given that ga is repeatedly inscribed instead of initial I throughout the inscription (l37, l56), I fully endorse PS’s emendation.

⟨53⟩ ka◯rppaṭi- PS ⬦ ka¿ppā?⟨rppra⟩ṭī- R • R’s emendation to rppra seems to be a typo for rppa. His original reading is due to the horizontal formation of the superscript repha. — ⟨53⟩ anu¿p?⟨ṣ⟩ṭhānam ⬦ anuṣ¿ṭ?⟨ṭh⟩ānam R; anuṣ¿ta?⟨ṭhā⟩nam PS • PS’s t and a are probably typos; his actual reading would have been indentical to R’s. I disagree with both previous editors: the principal consonant is clearly p, while the subscript consonant looks like v but given that the intent must have been ṣṭhā, it can easily be accepted as ṭh (while ṭ is impossible).

⟨54⟩ i¿(h)?⟨d⟩(aṁ) ⬦ iha R; i(daṁ) PS • The locus is damaged, but the received reading is quite unequivocal. Since iha is unmetrical, the intent was probably idam. — ⟨54⟩ tasm¿e?⟨ai⟩ ⬦ tasmai PS; tasme R • R’s editor suggests emendation to tasmai. — ⟨54⟩ do¿t?⟨m⟩mana-nāmne PS ⬦ dotmāna-nāmne R • The expected emendation is also suggested by R’s editor. R’s reading of tmā cannot be excluded (but would still have to be emended to mma), and the apparent ā marker seems to me rather to be an ornamental extension of the headmark, which is also mirrored on the left side. PEM’s etext emends here to ātmano nāmnā. I do not know if this is her own emendation or if it comes from an unnamed source. It is in line with PS’s opinion (which I endorse) that Dānārṇava issued this charter in his own name rather than in lieu of Amma II, but I am confident that this was not the intent of the composer here.

⟨55⟩ gr¿a?⟨ā⟩mas ⬦ grāmas R PS. — ⟨55⟩ sarvva- ⬦ sa⟨r⟩vva- R; sarvva- PS • The superscript r is horizontal, resembling ā. — ⟨55⟩ -ni⟨56⟩mit(t)¡a! ⬦ -ni⟨56⟩mittaṁ R PS • There is definitely no anusvāra here. Since practically all related grants that mention an occasion use nimitte (with a few occurrences of nimittena and none, that I know of, of nimittam), I think an omitted e marker or non-standard sandhi is more likely than an omitted anusvāra.

⟨56⟩ Agrahārīkr̥tyā{ttacha}smābhi(r) PS ⬦ Agrahārīkr̥tyā{ttaca}smābhir R. — ⟨56⟩ ddatta ⬦ datta R PS.

⟨57⟩ pū¿m?⟨rv⟩vataḥ ⬦ pūrvvataḥ R PS. — ⟨57⟩ koḍupulū¿v?⟨r⟩i R PS • I adopt the emendation of the Telugu faith in the previous editors.

⟨58⟩ laṁjiya⟦ma⟧⟨⟨vā⟩⟩ḍa- ⬦ laṁjayamāḍa- R; laṁjiyavāḍa- PS. — ⟨58⟩ ¿ṇe?⟨nai⟩rr̥t¡i!⟨ya⟩taḥ ⬦ nairr̥t¡i!⟨ya⟩taḥ R; nairr̥titaḥ PS.

⟨59⟩ pallikaṇḍi- ⬦ pallikaṇṭi- PS; pallikaṇṭī- R. — ⟨59⟩ muyyalu- • The u of lu seems to have been engraved twice, once fully below the body (which may have been deleted), and a second time starting from the bottom right of the body and rising up on the right.

⟨61⟩ pulu◯guḍla-guṇṭha ⬦ pūlagudla-guṇṭa R; puluguḍla-guṇṭa PS.

⟨62⟩ -sa⟨ṁ⟩yukto ⬦ -saṁyukto R PS. — ⟨62⟩ ba⟨63⟩hubhi¿m?⟨r v⟩vasudhā ⬦ ba⟨63⟩hubhir vvasudhā R PS.

⟨63⟩ dat⟨t⟩ā ⬦ dattā R PS. — ⟨63⟩ ¿l?⟨b⟩ahubhiś ⬦ bahubhiś R PS.

⟨64⟩ ṣaṣṭi⟨65⟩(ṁ) ⬦ ṣaṣṭi⟨65⟩- R PS • A probable anusvāra is visible in the groove where the rim begins.

⟨65⟩ -¿(l)?⟨v⟩arṣa- ⬦ -varṣa- R PS. — ⟨65⟩ vi(ṣṭhā)yāṁ ⬦ viṣ¿ṭ?⟨ṭh⟩āyāṁ R; viṣ¿ṭa?⟨ṭhā⟩yāṁ PS • Aside from the body, this character is largely obliterated. I see no reason to doubt that correct ṣṭhā was engraved. — ⟨65⟩ j¿a?⟨ā⟩yate ⬦ jāyate R PS. — ⟨65⟩ k¿u?⟨r̥⟩miḥ ⬦ kr̥miḥ R; k¿r̥?⟨ri⟩miḥ PS • There is definitely a typo in PS’s edition. His intended reading and emendation may have been the same as mine. — ⟨65⟩ sarvv¿aṁ?⟨ā⟩n ⬦ sarvvān R PS • The engraver apparently mistook the downward bend of the repha (i.e. the ā marker) for an anusvāra. — ⟨65⟩ pā⟨r⟩tthivendrān ⬦ pārthivendrān R; pārtthivendrān PS.

⟨66⟩ bha⟨67⟩v¿i?⟨a⟩dbhiḥ ⬦ bha⟨67⟩vadbhiḥ R PS.