|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
INCRIPTIONS OF THE KALACHURIS OF TRIPURI He is called parama-vaishnava, a devoted worshipper of Vishnu. Two other villages, Chhallipātaka in the āhāra of Dhavala and Antarapāta, were donated to the god at a solar eclipse (v. 34). The next verse mentions donations of a small field and another yielding twelve khandis (of corn) to the Boar. A potentate who was named Vallē[śvara] gave the village Vatagartikā in the Mālā group of twelve in his own territory, while another, who had come to the place, donated a field requiring a khārī of seed-corn.1 Besides these, several taxes and tolls are mentioned in the last five verses, the income from which was assigned to the deity. The inscription is not dated, but it was probably put up towards the end of Lakshmanarāja’s reign (circa 940-965 A.C). As for the geographical names mentioned in the present inscription, Dr. Kielhorn suggested the identification of Dīrghaśākhika with Dighī, about six miles south-east of Kārītalāi, and Rai Bahadur Hiralal that of Chakrahradī with Chakadahī, seven miles south of Kārītalāi. I could not, however, trace the latter village either in the list of villages in the Murwārā tahsil or on the Degree Map. I identify Dhavala, the headquarters of an āhāra, with Dhawaia, 4 miles south of Dighī. The pura, where eight Brāhmanas were made to settle, is still known by the name Bamhōri (Brāhmanapurī) and lies about two miles east of Kārītalāi. Chhallipātaka is probably Chilhāri, about 11 miles east of Dhavala, in the adjoining territory of Vindhya Pradesh. Vatagartikā may be identical with the modern Barhati, 10 m. west by south of Kārītalāi, and Antarapāta with Amaturrā, 7 miles east of Karitalai. The Mala group of twelve cannot be located.
1 Kielhorn remarked:—‘The mutilated state of verse 37 makes it impossible to say whether the word
khārīvāpa, which occurs in it, should be explained to mean a field sown with a khārī of corn, or taken as a
proper name. If it were a proper name, we should probably have here the older name of Kārītalāi’. The
latter supposition is unlikely; for the verse clearly means that some person, whose name is lost, donated to
the god a field in his own territory when he came here (iha), i.e., to Kārītalāi. Khārīvāpa, therefore, cannot
be identical with Kārītalāi.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
