Ramesam incorrectly reports that the set consists of four plates strung on a ring. His facsimiles labelled from 1 recto to 4 verso are in fact from 1 verso to 5 recto.

To the best of my knowledge, all previous scholars who have written about this grant regarded the string svādita in line 11 to be a chronogram expressed in the kaṭapayādi notation. While the word does precede the specification of a day of the year (with month, pakṣa and tithi), and may thus be expected to identify a year, identifying it as a chronogram is problematic on several levels.

First, this interpretation (read right to left) yields the number 684, which, if taken as a Śaka year, would be equivalent to ca. 761 CE, later than the end of Viṣṇuvardhana III’s reign. To eliminate this difficulty, B. V. Krishna Rao (22, 35) suggested emending the text to svāḍhita, yielding 644 Śaka or 721 CE, which falls within Viṣṇuvardhana III’s reign. However, the reading is clear, and Krishna Rao did not address the issue that such a chronogram is expected to be an intelligible word that is in some way relevant to the context. This could be argued for the received reading svādita, but is absolutely not the case with his propsed svāḍhita. Ramesam (45-47) argued for a date in the Vikrama era, yielding 627 CE, a date that falls in the reign of Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana. This is consistent with his claim that the grant is a re-issue of a grant from Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana’s time, but as I shall show, this is not very likely. Moreover, his arguments for the plausibility of a Vikrama date at this time and place are unconvincing.

Second, even if the discrepancy of the date could somehow be eliminated, it is not likely that a chronogram of this kind would have been used without making it explicit that it refers to the year (e.g. by adding saṁvatsare or śakābde). According to Burnell (79), the kaṭapayādi system is used almost exclusively in Malabar, Travancore and the southern Tamil country, and moreover, it was commonly in use in the fifteenth century, but, apparently, not long before then. Burnell may not be entirely correct in the light of evidence recovered since his time, but recent scholarship (41, 47-48) still shows that the first positive and dateable attestation of the system is from late 7th-century Kerala. Moreover, epigraphic instances of its use are very scarce and no earlier than the 14th century; the only one known from the Telugu area was inscribed in the 16th century and is accompanied by a Telugu gloss explaining the numerical meaning. Had such a chronogram been employed in 8th-century Veṅgī, which is unlikely in itself, it would surely have been accompanied at the very least by some sort of hint to the prospective audience.

It may be added that not only kaṭapayādi chronograms, but, as acknowledged by Ramesam, dates in any established era, are altogether absent from all known early Eastern Cālukya grants. Charters that record a month, pakṣa and tithi (or the month and a new or full moon) either refer to a regnal year (the Reyūru and Koṇeki grants and the Peddāpurappāḍu plates (set 2) Viṣṇuvardhana II, and the Cendalūr Plates of Maṅgi Yuvarāja), or refrain from stating the year at all (the Sātārā plates of Viṣṇuvardhana I, the Niḍupaṟu grant of Jayasiṁha I, and the Peṇukapaṟu grant of Jayasiṁha II).

In the light of these considerations, the chronogram theory should in my opinion be discarded as nothing but fancy. What then could this string mean? The word svādita, though meaningful, does not seem to fit the context. Given the abundance of scribal mistakes throughout the charter, emendation is warranted. Emending to sthāpita would assume a minimum of scribal error, but this word also does not fit the context. Entering the realm of conjecture, I believe the word we want here is most likely to be smābhiḥ. Although phonetically very different from svādita, the graphemes involved still have an overall similarity, so it is not implausible that a scribe could have engraved one instead of the other. This reconstruction would also explain the preceding vo which should by normal sandhi rules be vaḥ before a word beginning with s. While absence of sandhi and the dropping of a visarga are common in Eastern Cālukya grants, the use of the sandhi-form -o in place of the default -aḥ is not. The proposed vo ’smābhiḥ is, however, standard sandhi for vaḥ + asmābhiḥ.

The phrase viditam astu vo ’smābhiḥ (or viditam astu vo yathāsmābhiḥ) is the stock beginning of the executive part of many related grants and is especially common in this earlier period of the Eastern Cālukya dynasty. In my opinion the original function of asmābhiḥ in this phrase must have been to identify the agent of the act of donation at the end of the executive section. Thus, the framework of the executive part is viditam astu vaḥ, “let it be known to you” that asmābhiḥ, “by us” (the king speaking in the first person and the majestic plural) something dattaḥ, “has been given”. However, in the legalese of copper plate charters, the syntax of the executive section does not always conform to the above pattern and may, for example, use an active rather than passive participle or even an active finite verb to express the action (which in turn would require the first person pronoun in the nominative case, not the instrumental asmābhiḥ). It also happens in some grants (the Ciṁbuluru plates of Vijayāditya III and the Śrīpūṇḍi grant of Tāḻa II) that the agent is expressed by a second pronoun in the instrumental case, near the verbal form expressing the action. In such cases, it seems that the drafter misconstrued viditam astu vo ’smābhiḥ, perhaps as “let you be informed by us,” or simply did not understand or care about the function of the first asmābhiḥ and used it merely because he knew it was conventional to put that word in that place.

In the present case too, we have a second asmābhiḥ at the very end of the executive section, just after the predicate dattam (line 25). Since the person who composed the charter was clearly not a proficient Sanskrit writer, he too may well have used the first asmābhiḥ just for convention’s sake or in a mistaken sense. However, if I am correct in reconstructing and interpreting the executive section, there may be another solution to the issue, discussed below.

Ramesam (p47) simply announces that in this executive section, expressed as a single sentence, the agent is Queen Ayyaṇa. While the composer did have something of a swashbuckler approach to syntax and Sanskrit declension, I find it hard to believe that the agent of a passive participle (line 25, dattam) should be expressed by an apparent nominative (line 22, ayyana-mahādevi),In my discussion I use the spelling of the name with a retroflex ṇ as found in line 51. when the above-mentioned second asmābhiḥ stands right next to that participle. It is in my opinion much more likely that asmābhiḥ (either the second instance of this word or both) expresses the agent, meaning the reigning king Viṣṇuvardhana III who is making this address. The name of Ayyaṇa mahādevī is then to be construed not as a nominative but as in compound, joined to the following compound describing the Naḍuṁbi vasati (with a dative ending), signifying the recipient of the grant. The “vasati of the queen” is probably to be understood as an establishment commissioned by that queen.

Thus, contrary to the prevailing opinion that the present grant is a re-issue or confirmation of the original endowment of the vasati made in the time of Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana, I adduce that this is a later and additional grant made in the time of Viṣṇuvardhana III, to a temple established by Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana’s queen. I may be mistaken in this interpretation, since the colophon (lines 51-52) names Ayyaṇa mahādevī as ājñapti and (probably) says that the charter is authorised with Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana’s seal. Nonetheless, in my opinion the executive section does not at all imply the existence of an earlier grant. The discrepancy of the colophon may be explained by assuming that the less than gifted composer of this text used the founding charter as a model for the present one (compare the colophon of the 00010, which is apparently modelled on that of a Viṣṇukuṇḍin grant at the same locality). Moreover, the name Ayyaṇa is masculine. It is thus probably not the personal name of the queen concerned, but a family name.The executor of the Cendalūr Plates of Maṅgi Yuvarāja belongs to the ayyaṇānvaya and bears royal titles. In the Īnteṟu grant of Bādapa, the mother of a royal favourite comes from the jyeṣṭhāyāṇa-kula, which may be the same family. Less certainly, the āryāhū (understand āryāhva?) lineage of a subordinate ruler (mahārāja) mentioned in the Koṇḍaṇagūru grant of Indra Bhaṭṭāraka may also be the same family. If so, then both Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana and Viṣṇuvardhana III may have had wives of this lineage. The intended meaning of the garbled phrase śāsanāṁkitaṁ kubja-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājasya may also be something other than that the present grant is sealed with Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana’s seal.

Proceeding to the details of the grant, Ramesam altogether ignores most of lines 12-13. Indeed, much of this text is gibberish as received. However, copious but plausible emendation (for which see the apparatus to these lines) can render it meaningful and appropriate to the context. If my conjectural restoration is correct, then we have a compound in the plural instrumental agreeing with asmābhiḥ, telling us that the donor was pleased by an instruction (ādeśa), presumably of one or both of the ācāryas named below. We also have a phrase ending in iti, revealing the essence of this instruction, which seems to be a prediction to the effect that the position of supreme ruler will be attained. Since Jains had a reputation for divination, it is likely that the ācārya in question had foretold Viṣṇuvardhana III’s rise to kingship and is now being rewarded. This king was preceded on the throne by two of his brothers, his senior Jayasiṁha II and his junior Kokkili. He must have been quite concerned over whether he would ever become king, especially during the brief reign of Kokkili. If this interpretation involving a foretelling is accepted, then the charter is unlikely to be a reissue of a grant made in Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana’s time.

The passage introducing the recipients is also difficult to understand. The principal donee seems to be Kālibhadrācārya, whose name is mentioned twice. I believe that his second mention means that he was the person to receive the king’s ritual libation representing this donation. Devanandi seems to be a second donee, and he is associated with a teacher lineage in which I interpret praśiṣya to mean simply “disciple”. Kālibhadra is not syntactically connected to this lineage, but it may be implied that he belongs to the same line of teachers; or he may have had only miraculous knowledge and no great teachers to speak of. I believe that the ending of these two names was meant to be in the dative. Further on, the name of the monastery is actually in the dative case, so I understand the text to mean that the grant was de facto made to the monastery. My translation reflects this understanding. Speculating further, it seems likely that Devanandi was the head of the monastery, while Kālibhadra was the person who made the prediction that pleased the king, and possibly an itinerant who was only temporarily associated with the monastery. Be that as it may, the passage’s syntax is garbled and the declensional endings non-standard, so different scenarios cannot be excluded.

The phrase expressing the date comes directly at the beginning of the executive section and may thus be part of the iti quotation summarising the prediction, in which case the ācārya has foretold not only Viṣṇuvardhana III’s accession to kingship, but also the day on which it would happen. Moreover, if the date is included in the quoted text, then going a step further would also include the first instance of asmābhiḥ. This results in a complete sentence expressing a prediction complete in itself, so I prefer this version in my translation. In this reading of the text, the minor syntactic problem of the iteration of asmābhiḥ is eliminated, since the first instance is in the quoted sentence. Simultaneously, the introductory phrase is reduced to viditam astu vo, which does occur in cognate grants without asmābhiḥ. As a corollary of this interpretation, our charter lacks not only a year, but also a day on which it was issued. This is uncommon among early Eastern Cālukya charters, but not unique and thus not a cause for concern. Read in this way, the text implies that the grant was made at, or shortly after, Viṣṇuvardhana III’s coronation, and this implicit date may be why it was not deemed necessary to record an explicit date, or the occasion on which the grant was made. That said, lacking clearer hints either way, I cannot establish whether the syntactical position of the date is as given in my translation, or whether it should be understood that the donation took place on the specified day and the prediction was simply that Viṣṇuvardhana III would become king in due course (anvayād).

Reported in 7A/1916-179 with discussion at 11421. Edited from estampages by Vepa Ramesam (C), with facsimiles, with a rather desultory summary of the contents. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on photographs of the original taken by myself in February 2023 at the Government Museum, Chennai, collated with Ramesam's edition and estampages. The published edition is replete with typographic errors and inconsistent and idiosyncratic transliteration and spelling. As a rule, this is silently ignored here, and only substantial differences from my reading are registered in the apparatus.