Two Copper-Plate Grants and a Shifted River
A student is comparing two copper-plate land grants for a study of medieval Kamarupa. Grant A, issued in Saka 1240, records 12 puras of land in a village on the east bank of the Kalang to a Brahmin named Vishnu Sharma. Grant B, issued in Saka 1241, records 8 puras in the same village to the same family and adds that it is a re-issue 'after the great flood'. The plates differ in the spelling of the donor's title and in the boundary clause: A says 'up to the fig tree', B says 'up to the old fig tree'. A temple register copied in the 18th century notes that the Kalang changed course in the year of Grant A. The student must decide which grant to use as the primary evidence for a study of land rights and village boundaries.
1. Identify two interpretative problems in the two grants and explain how each problem affects their use as evidence for land rights.
Read the worked answer
Problem 1: date and re-issue. The one-year gap and the phrase 'after the great flood' suggest that B may not be an independent grant but a correction. If so, B cannot be counted as a second donation; it is evidence of a redefinition of an existing right. Problem 2: boundary language. 'Fig tree' and 'old fig tree' may refer to the same landmark after the river shifted, or to two different trees. Without a survey, the boundary clause cannot prove the plot's extent. A third problem is the scribal variation in the donor's title, which may indicate a later copy. These problems do not make the grants useless. They shift the question from 'how much land was granted?' to 'how was a claim to land remembered and renewed?' The historian should treat each plate as a record of a transaction and a claim, not as a modern deed.
2. Propose a procedure for deciding whether the two grants describe the same plot.
Read the worked answer
First, separate two questions: the identity of the plot and the identity of the right. For plot identity, compare the boundary sequence, not single words. List every landmark in order and see whether the sequence is consistent with a known channel shift. Second, look for corroboration: temple registers, later revenue records, and local place names can show whether the 'old fig tree' was a surviving landmark. Third, check diplomatic and palaeographic features to see whether B is a reissue by the same chancery. Fourth, map the puras against the village area only as a plausibility check, not as proof, because the measure varied. The procedure should state in advance what would count as disconfirming evidence.
3. Write a cautious conclusion about the continuity of the family's land rights.
Read the worked answer
The safest conclusion is that the two grants show a family holding a remembered right in the same village across at least one generation, not that it held a fixed 12 or 8 puras continuously. Grant A records an original endowment; Grant B records a redefinition after a flood. Continuity of right is plausible; continuity of boundary and area is not established. The historian should write 'the grants indicate a persistent claim' rather than 'the family owned 12 puras'. This distinction matters for a study of land rights because it separates legal memory from actual cultivation.