|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
INCRIPTIONS OF THE DYNASTY OF THE HARISCHANDRA tioned. The object of the present charter, which was made over to Ēla śrêshthin, Karaputa śrêshthin, and others of the afore-mentioned town, was to record the rights, privileges and exemptions granted to the merchants and other residents of the resettled town Samagiri, as well as to lay down fines in the case of certain offences committed by the residents and young merchants evidently of the same town. The merchants were, for instance, exempted from octroi duty in the whole kingdom; the property of those who died sonless was not to escheat to the crown;1 the residents were not required to provide lodging and boarding for royal officers.2 As for fines imposed for offences, we are told in ll. 34-38 that a violent offences against unmarried girls3 would be punished with a fine of 108 rūpakas, and that of adultery with 32 rūpakas. For an assault consisting of the boxing of the ears, a fine of sixteen rūpakaś, and for that which resulted in an injury to the head, one of four rūpakas was laid down. If a young merchant had illicit intercourse with a labour woman, he was fined 108 rūpakas or whatever was fixed by eight or sixteen Mahallakas (respectable men) of the town. The charter was executed by the illustrious Tējavarmarāja.
The inscription is not dated, but the mention of Tējavarmarāja, who is clearly identical with the homonymous person mentioned in the other Anjanēri inscription, shows that it must have been incised within a few years on either side of the Kalachuri year 461 (710-11 A. C.). As for the localities mentioned in the present plates, Samagiripattana cannot be
traced, but it was probably situated near Chandrapurī, with which it is coupled in the
present grant and which is probably represented by Chandrāchī Mēt, 12 m. south-west
of Anjanēri. Savāņēyapallikā may be Sāmuņdi and Kamsāripallikā Karholi, five and
six miles respectively, north by east of Chandrāchī Mēt. Maurēyapallikā may be
Mōrwādī, 3 m. south-west of Nasik, but it is somewhat distant from Chandrāchī Mēt if
the latter correctly represents Chandrapuri. From11. 29-31 of the present grant we learn that the king Bhōgaśakti resettled the
town Samagiripattana together with (its suburb) Chandrapurī as well as the villages—
Ambayapallikā, Savānēyapallikā, Maurēyapallikā and Kamsāripallikā, which had previously
been devastated. The name of the enemy, who had laid them waste, is not men- 1 The royal claim to the property of a person who dies sonless is mentioned in some charters as transferred
to the grantee together with the donated village. See, e.g., the expression kumārī-sāhas-āputrādi
dhana…….. samanvitah qualifying the name of the donated village in the Bhādāna grant of Aparājitadēva,
Ep. Ind., Vol. III, p. 274. The aputtrikā-dhana mentioned in line 12 of the Rajor inscription of Mathanadēva
(ibid., Vol. III, p. 266) is obviously a mistake for aputra-dhana. Readers of Sanskrit literature will
recall a passage in Kālidāsa’s Śākuntala, Act VI, where Dushyanta is informed by his minister that
the property of a merchant, who died sonless, is to escheat to the crown
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
