North Indian Inscriptions

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS

for the purpose of his agnihōtra rites. The Brāhmaṇa first made an application to the government of the Kōṭivarsha town. The land was, therefore, selected by the local record-keepers, three in number, and given to him after his payment of three dīnāras as its price.

        From the inscription it appears that as early as the Gupta period Puṇḍravardhana was the name of a bhukti or province and that Kōṭivarsha was one vishaya or district comprised in it. Puṇḍravardhana has been known ever since the time of the Maurya rulers, as is clear from the Mahāsthān inscription.¹ Though there is no epigraphic evidence of an early epoch in favour of the antiquity of Kōṭivarsha, scriptural and Pauraṇic evidence is, by no means, wanting. Thus, the Jaina Kalpasūtra² mentions three śakhās of the Gōdāsa-gaṇa or Division of Jaina monks, one named after Puṇḍravardhana, another after Kōṭivarsha and a third after Tāmralipti, all situated in Bengal. The first of these was identified by Cunningham more than half a century ago with Mahāsthān in the Bogra District, West Bengal. In his account of Bhāsu Bihār, four miles to the west of Mahāsthān, he remarks that the Buddhist remains at this place corresponded both in description and position with those noted by Yuan Chwang at the Po-ship-p’o monastery, which was situated just 20 li or 4 miles to the west of the capital of the country of Pun-na-fa-tan-na³ which transcribes itself into Puṇṇavardhana but is obviously intended for Puṇḍravardhana. “This city,” says Cunningham, “the pilgrim places at 600 li, or 100 miles to the east of the Ganges, near Rājmahal. Now this description corresponds exactly with the relative positions of Rājmahal and Mahāsthān, the latter being just 100 miles to the east of the forms.”⁴ The suggestion of Cunningham was, before long, confirmed by the Karatōyāmāhātmya which was first published about half a century ago.⁵ This work mentions many holy spots which are all found at present in Mahāsthān; and, further, though it calls itself Karatōyāmāhātmya, it purports to describe the sacred sites of Puṇḍra or Pauṇḍravardhana-kshētra. It is thus evident from it that the present Mahāsthān is identical with the old Puṇḍravardhana. There are good reasons to suppose that the Māhātmya could not have been composed later than 1100 A.D. We may thus, take it that the identity of Mahāsthān with Puṇḍravardhana was known before the twelfth century A.D. But this identity is now placed beyond all doubt by the Mahāsthān inscription. It is, no doubt, a fragment of an inscription, but speaks of a Kōshṭhāgāra or royal granary in existence at Puṇḍranagara. And as this fragmentary inscription was picked up from the ruins of Mahāsthān, it is obvious that they represents the vestiges of the old Puṇḍravardhana. Kōṭivarsha also was an equally ancient place. It has been mentioned above that one śākhā of the Jaina Gōdāsa-gaṇa was

>

___________________________________________________

eight drōṇas according to lexicons. That there was the practice in ancient India of dividing land into fields according to the measures of seed that could be sown into them may be seen, e.g., from a Talēśvar grant of Vishṇuvarman, which speaks of Vajrashala-kshētra as kulyavāpa,Mālavaka-kshētra as khārivāpa and so forth (Ep. Ind., Vol. XIII, p. 119, lines 13-14). Further, Nalinikanta Bhattasali seems to be right in saying “the term Kudavā, equivalent to Bigha, the most current land-measure in Bengal, appears to be a corruption of the term kulyavāpa. The name survives in the form of Kulavāya, the name of the standard land-measure in the Sylhet District” (Ep. Ind., Vol. XVIII, p. 79, note 2.). Lastly, it is worthy of note that the terms vāpa and kulyavāpa occur also in kauṭalaya’s Arthaśāstra, II. 24.6. That vāpa means there ‘a field’ cannot possibly be doubted. But it is doubtful whether kulyavāpa of that text is equivalent to kulyavāpa , though according to Apte’s Dictionary, kulya means ‘a measures of grain equal to 8 drōṇas.
¹ Ep. Ind., Vol. XXI, pp. 83 ff.
² SBE., Vol. XXII, pp. 84-86.
³ Watter’s On yuan Chwang, Vol. II, pp. 184-85.
⁴ ASIR.,Vol. XV, p. 110.
⁵ This Māhātmya was edited for the second time and for the Varendra Research Society, Rajshahi, now Bangladesh, by Prabhas Chandra Sen, who rightly points out that one verse from it is cited by Sarvānanda (1159 A.D.) in his Ṭikāsarvasva on the Amarakōsha and two in the Smṛitichandrikā by Dēvanabhaṭṭa who is himself quoted by Hēmādri (12th century) (Bomb. Gaȥ., Vol. I, Part II, pp. 248-49). This shows that the Karatōyāmāhātmya is a composition which cannot be later than 1100 A.D.