Bengaluru pre-1550 inscription locality source routes

Epistemic status

Inferred L3 evidence-packet article.

This article describes an entity that is not directly attested. It is an inference from the evidence listed below.

Summary

Source-backed inferon for Bengaluru-area inscription and hero-stone locality routes.

What is being inferred

Bengaluru pre-1550 inscription locality source routes is treated here only as the inferred lacuna described by the candidate record and the evidence packet below.

What is attested

• Evidence 1325 records: The page describes a 1506 Kannada donatory inscription, partly effaced, probably involving Tipparasayya and Virapratapa Bhujabala or Vira Narasimha.
• Evidence 1327 records: The page reports a tenth-century Western Ganga hero stone for Erayenga Vadaraga, linking Kannili or Kanneli, Ereyamma Gavunda, Marasingha, and Nagattara.
• Evidence 1329 records: The report gives Adappa Pasodi's reading of the Kaikondrahalli stone as evidence for Kanneli's long continuity and Nagattara's local authority.
• Evidence 1330 records: The report frames Bengaluru inscription stones as a threatened corpus and lists Kaikondrahalli as a hero-stone site.
• Evidence 1331 records: The page uses local inscriptions and Epigraphia Carnatica control to show Bengaluru-area microtoponymy, older villages, and Jalahalli context.
• Evidence 4328 records: Offline judge treated existing inferon 222 (source_dependence) as support for Bengaluru pre-1550 inscription locality source routes. Evidence strength: bounded but below-publication structural/source inferon; sufficient for L2 review, not for article promotion. The accountable path is EvidencePath 1289.

Why infer this entity

The Bengaluru inscription route warrants an inferon about epigraphic locality source routes.

Evidence ledger

• Evidence 1325: Wikipedia, Jalahalli inscriptions and hero stones, article. The page describes a 1506 Kannada donatory inscription, partly effaced, probably involving Tipparasayya and Virapratapa Bhujabala or Vira Narasimha. Role: Lead context.
• Evidence 1326: Wikipedia, Jalahalli inscriptions and hero stones, article. The incomplete text leaves the grant, beneficiary, and official function uncertain. Role: Counterevidence.
• Evidence 1327: Wikipedia, Kaikondrahalli inscriptions and hero stones, article. The page reports a tenth-century Western Ganga hero stone for Erayenga Vadaraga, linking Kannili or Kanneli, Ereyamma Gavunda, Marasingha, and Nagattara. Role: Lead context.
• Evidence 1328: Wikipedia, Kaikondrahalli inscriptions and hero stones, article. The page carries verification or orphan warnings, so it should not carry draft-level warrant alone. Role: Counterevidence.
• Evidence 1329: Bangalore Mirror, History of Kanneli goes back 1,100 years, news report. The report gives Adappa Pasodi's reading of the Kaikondrahalli stone as evidence for Kanneli's long continuity and Nagattara's local authority. Role: Supporting evidence.
• Evidence 1330: New Indian Express, City losing memories etched in stone, news report. The report frames Bengaluru inscription stones as a threatened corpus and lists Kaikondrahalli as a hero-stone site. Role: Supporting evidence.
• Evidence 1331: IISc Connect, The Land on Which We Stand, context page. The page uses local inscriptions and Epigraphia Carnatica control to show Bengaluru-area microtoponymy, older villages, and Jalahalli context. Role: Supporting evidence.
• Evidence 4328: Offline existing-inferon judge ledger control source, existing_inferon_judge_promote:inferon:222. Offline judge treated existing inferon 222 (source_dependence) as support for Bengaluru pre-1550 inscription locality source routes. Evidence strength: bounded but below-publication structural/source inferon; sufficient for L2 review, not for article promotion. The accountable path is EvidencePath 1289. Role: Noetic interpretation.

Counterarguments

• Evidence 1326 weakens or qualifies the inference: The incomplete text leaves the grant, beneficiary, and official function uncertain.
• Evidence 1328 weakens or qualifies the inference: The page carries verification or orphan warnings, so it should not carry draft-level warrant alone.

Confidence scores

• Direct attestation: 46
• Existence warrant: 66
• Specificity confidence: 48
• Reconstruction dependence: 78
• Counterevidence pressure: 58

What would change the score

• A direct attestation would move this out of the inferred catalogue.
• Stronger independent evidence would raise the warrant or specificity.
• Better counterevidence would lower the warrant or force retirement.