|
ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS
Page 131, last para.─Add note─‘Varāhamihira, who is supposed to have died in 583 A. D., mentions an Āvantika-nṛipa (king of the Avanti country, i.e. West Malwa) named
Mahārājādhirāja Dravyavardhana (Bṛihatsaṁhitā, 86, 2 ; cf. V. V. Mirashi in
Nava Bhārata [Marathi], August 1957, pp. 1 ff.). The vardhana-ending names of
Dravyavardhana, Ādityavardhana (king of Daśapura according to the Mandasor
inscription of about the close of the fifth century) and Vishṇuvardhana (i.e.
Yaśōdharman of Daśapura, 532 A.D.) appear to suggest that they belonged to a
later branch of the Aulikara family of Daśapura (Mandasor). It seems therefore that
Aulikara rule was not extirpated from Daśapura by the Hūṇas, but that the
Aulikaras transferred their allegiance for the time being from the Guptas to the
Hūṇas. In such a case, Gauri of the Mānavāyani clan, ruling over the Chhoti Sadri
area, would appear to have been a feudatory of Aulikara Ādityavardhana.
,, 152, text, line 6.─Read ||1 [4*]
,, 152. foot-note 1, lines 2-3.─Read mah-āmbu-vāhaṁ
,, 170, lines 6 ff.─Add note─‘Some of the āchāras are mentioned in the Anjaneri plates of
Bhōgaśakti and Tējōvarman. Cf. lines 32 ff.─Samagiri-vāstavyānāṁ vaṇijāṁ
chandr-ārkka-kālikaṁ śulkam-ādī(dē)yaṁ samasta-rājyē n=āsti [|*] aparaṁ cha aputradhanaṁ nnā(n=ā)sti [|*] umbara-bhēda[ḥ] rāja-purushāṇām=āvāsakō jēmakaś=cha
ētannāsti(n=āsti) [|*] kumārī-sāhasē rūpakāṇām=ashṭ-ōttara-śataṁ(tam) | saṁgrahaṇē
dvātriṁśati(śad)-rūpakāḥ karṇṇa-trōḍanikāyāṁ shōḍaśa rūpakāḥ śira-sphōṭanē
chatvāri rūpakāḥ bhārikāyāṁ vaṇik-putrasy=āshṭ-ōttara-śataṁ rūpakāṇāṁ naṅgē
gṛihītasya yach=ch=āshṭau shōḍaśa vā nagara-mahallakā vichārya vadaṁtē tadētadēva (tād=ēva) pramāṇaṁ(ṇam | ) (above, Vol. XXV, p. 237). A record of Śaka 973
(1050 A. D.) from Sūḍi, Dharwar District, registers the śāsana-maryyāde granted
to the eight Seṭṭis (merchants) and eighty households of the village. According
to it, the shops and households were granted immunity from all imposts,
including fixed land-rent for two śrāhes (years) ; thereafter they were to be charged
with usual dues (sarv-āya). The rules regarding the eight Seṭṭis were not to apply
to the country, nor those of the country to the eight Seṭṭis. The guilt of a father
should not affect the son, nor the guilt of a son his father. If a shop-keeper
would strike a thief, robber, burglar, enemy or an evil-minded person in the verandah
near the screen of the shop, there should be neither guilt nor fine ; but, if he would
strike them elsewhere, he would be fined 6 gold gadyāṇas (ibid., Vol. XV,
pp. 77 ff.).’
,, 170. foot-note 2.─Add note─‘Prof. D. D. Kosambi suggests to me, “ If the document is
believed to define the merchants’ privileges and taxes, it is obvious that the āchāras
fall into consecutive groups ; e.g., Nos. 53-59 which refer to the customs duty on
trade goods. In that case, vahitra in No. 53 need not be a boat, but any large carrier.
Nos. 54-56 do not refer to boat loads of buffaloes, etc., but loads carried by these animals. In this connection, Dhārmika can only be a supertax charged by the king in
the name of religion. It would follow that the varsha-paryushitā vaṇijaḥ exempted
from the prāvēśya (immigration tax) would be those who had taken up residence in
the area in question for the rainy season only and not for a whole year. The implication is that trade was stopped during the rains. In Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 31, chhala seems
to mean, as in Marathi, harassment or persecution or, in the present context, also
prosecution.’
|
