|
Contents |
|
Index
|
|
Introduction
|
|
Contents
|
|
List of Plates
|
|
Additions and Corrections
|
|
Images
|
|
Contents |
|
Altekar, A. S
|
Bhattasali, N. K
|
|
Barua, B. M And Chakravarti, Pulin Behari
|
|
Chakravarti, S. N
|
|
Chhabra, B. CH
|
|
Das Gupta
|
|
Desai, P. B
|
|
Gai, G. S
|
|
Garde, M. B
|
|
Ghoshal, R. K
|
|
Gupte, Y. R
|
|
Kedar Nath Sastri
|
|
Khare, G. H
|
|
Krishnamacharlu, C. R
|
|
Konow, Sten
|
|
Lakshminarayan Rao, N
|
|
Majumdar, R. C
|
|
Master, Alfred
|
|
Mirashi, V. V
|
|
Mirashi, V. V., And Gupte, Y. R
|
|
Narasimhaswami, H. K
|
|
Nilakanta Sastri And Venkataramayya, M
|
|
Panchamukhi, R. S
|
|
Pandeya, L. P
|
|
Raghavan, V
|
|
Ramadas, G
|
|
Sircar, Dines Chandra
|
|
Somasekhara Sarma
|
|
Subrahmanya Aiyar
|
|
Vats, Madho Sarup
|
|
Venkataramayya, M
|
|
Venkatasubba Ayyar
|
|
Vaidyanathan, K. S
|
|
Vogel, J. Ph
|
|
Index.- By M. Venkataramayya
|
|
Other
South-Indian Inscriptions
|
|
Volume
1
|
Volume
2
|
|
Volume
3
|
Vol.
4 - 8
|
|
Volume 9
|
Volume 10
|
|
Volume 11
|
Volume 12
|
|
Volume 13
|
Volume
14
|
|
Volume 15
|
Volume 16
|
|
Volume 17
|
Volume 18
|
|
Volume
19
|
Volume
20
|
|
Volume 22 Part 1
|
Volume
22 Part 2
|
|
Volume
23
|
Volume
24 |
|
Volume
26
|
Volume 27 |
|
Tiruvarur
|
Darasuram
|
|
Konerirajapuram
|
Tanjavur |
|
Annual Reports 1935-1944
|
Annual Reports 1945- 1947
|
|
Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 2, Part 2
|
Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 7, Part 3
|
|
Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 1
|
Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 2
|
|
Epigraphica Indica
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 3
|
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 4
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 6
|
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 7
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 8
|
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 27
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 29
|
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 30
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 31
|
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 32
|
Paramaras Volume 7, Part 2
|
|
Śilāhāras Volume 6, Part 2
|
Vākāṭakas Volume 5
|
|
Early Gupta Inscriptions
|
|
Archaeological
Links
|
|
Archaeological-Survey
of India
|
|
Pudukkottai
|
|
|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
NANDSA YUPA INSCRIPTIONS
Malloi before they could effect a junction with the Oxydrakai. At this time the Kshudrakas
were occupyingthe territory roughly corresponding to the Bahawalpur State and the Mālavas
were their northern neighbours in the occupation of the Ravi-Sutlej Doab, from Multan to Kasur.
These were probably the Mālavas of the West referred to in the Mahābhārata,
But apart from the south-eastern and the south-western Punjab, portions of Rājputāna were
also occupied by the Mālavas fairly early. At Nāgar, 25 miles south-east of Tonk, a very large
number of Mālava coins were discovered, some bearing the names of individual rulers and some
having the legend, Mālavānāṁjayaḥ or its equivalent. The former coins are no doubt of the
3rd or the 4th century A. D., but the latter ones are much earlier. Cunningham thought that
the earliest of these go back to c. 250 B. C., but Rapson and Smith felt their antiquity could
be taken back to only c. 150 B. C. [1] The latest writer on the subject, Mr. Allan, thinks that
they are not earlier than the second century A. D.[2] Unfortunately the coins are too small to enable
us to form any decisive opinion about the time suggested by their palæography ; but I think that the
earliest of the Mālava-gaṇa coins are not later than c. 150 B. C. If such is the case, we shall have to
postulate the Mālava occupation of this tract in central Rājputāna in about 150 B. C. ; it may
have been necessitated by the pressure of the Greek invasions under Demetrios, Apollodotus
and Menander. From the 2nd century A. D. we get ampler proofs of the occupation of this tract
by the Mālavas.
The Nasik inscription No. 10 shows that the Mālavas were a strong power in the
territory round Ajmer, and were in a position to harass the Uttamabhadras, who were the allies
of the Śakas (Ante, Vol. VIII, p. 78). This inscription does not give the precise location of the
Uttamabhadras and the Mālavas, but it says that after relieving the former, Ushavadāta, the
son-in-law of Nahapāṇa, bathed in the lake of Pushkara near Ajmer. The Mālavas therefore
must have been occupying the tract near Ajmer.[3] The Mālava-gaṇa-vishaya, mentioned in inscription B, included the territory round about Nāndsā, which is about 75 miles south-south-west
of Ajmer and 110 miles east of Nāgar. In 1940 a seal bearing the legend [Mā]lava-janapadasa
was found at Rairh in Jaipur State about 56 miles from its capital, which from its characters
appears to be as old as the 2nd century B. C. [4]
It would thus appear that Mālava-gaṇa-vishaya, referred to in our record, extended over a
considerable portion of south-eastern Rājputāna, comprising parts of the States of Udaipur,
Jaipur and Tonk and the district of Ajmer. Whether the Mālavas continued to occupy their old
homeland in the Southern Punjab at this time is not known. But there is nothing improbable
in such being the case, when we remember how the tract is still known as Mālwā.
The expression Mālava-gaṇa-vishaya occurring in our record thus signifies the territory of
the Mālava gaṇa or republic. It would therefore appear that the term gaṇa in expressions like
Mālava-gaṇa-sthiti-vaśāt cannot mean gaṇanā or counting as Kielhorn had thought. Expressions like Śrī-Mālava-gaṇ-āmnātē and Mālava-gaṇa-sthiti-vaśāl ought therefore to be translated
as ‘ according to the era current in the Mālava Republic ’ and ‘ according to the usage of the
Mālava Republic.’ There is no justification for the view that these expressions refer to an era
founded to commemorate the constitution of the Mālava Republic, that was established in 57
B. C. [5] The Mālava republic existed several centuries earlier, as shown above.
_______________________________________________
[1] Smith, Catalogue of Coins in the Indian Museum, Vol. I, p. 162.
[2] Allan, Catalogue of the Coins of Ancient India, p. cvi.
[3] It is interesting to note that the Mahābhārata, while narrating the conquests of Nakula, states that the
Pāṇḍava hero first defeated the Mālavas and their neighbours, and then on return defeated the Utsavasaṁkētas
near Pushkara (II 35, 7-8). If we assume that the Utsavasaṁkētas were the same as Uttamabhadras, it would
follow that the relative geographical situation of the Uttamabhadras and Mālavas was the same in the 2nd
century A. D., as it was in the 3rd century B. C., when probably the Mahābhārata account was written.
[4] J. N. S. I., Vol. III, p. 48, pl. IV A, No. 6.
[5] See J. R. A. S., 1913, p. 913 and p. 995 ; and 1914, p. 413 and p. 745.
|