|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA 605 A.D. or to 676 A.D. This no doubt precludes the possibility of referring the year 649 to the Śaka era and taking it to correspond to 727 A.D. which would be later than 605 or 676 A.D. That the use of the Vikrama era was not unknown in the Gujarat-Kathiawar region, to which our record seems to belong, is suggested by the Dhiniki plates of Jāikadēva, dated V.S. 794 (737 A.D.),[1] found in the Okhamandal District of Saurashtra. The Vikrama Saṁvat seems to have penetrated into that region from Rajputana where we notice its use in records dating from the third century A.D.[2] The use of the Vikrama era in the present inscription may possibly be explained by the suggestion that the merchants, in whose favour the document was issued were accustomed to its use. It seems reasonable to think that the Jains, mostly a mercantile community, were greatly responsible for the development of the Vikrama and Śālivāhana-Śaka sagas as well as for the spread of both the Vikrama and Śaka eras.[3] The document records an order, issued from vāsaka (residence) at Lōhāṭā, by a ruler named Vishṇushēṇa (called Vishṇubhaṭa in the endorsement) who is endowed with the subordinate titles Mahākārttākṛitika, Mahādaṇḍanāyaka, Mahāpratīhāra, Mahāsāmanta and Mahārāja. The real meaning of kārttākṛitika is unknown ; but it may have indicated a royal agent[4] or a judge of a superior court or an officer, like the present day Legal Remembrancer, inviting the king’s attention to what was done or left undone. Daṇḍanāyaka was either a leader of the army or the chief of the police with power of judging criminal offences.[5] Mahāpratīhāra, literally ‘ the great door-keeper ’, was probably the chief of the palace-guards and the royal bodyguards.[6] It is interesting to note that precisely the same five feudatory titles, the pañcha-mahāsabda,[7] are also known to have been used by Dhruvasēna I (Gupta-Valabhī years 206-26=525-45 A.D.) of the Maitraka dynasty of Valabhī,[8] although to whom exactly he owed allegiance is difficult to determine in the absence of further light on the subject.
The order of Mahāsāmanta-Mahārāja Vishṇushēṇa was addressed to his subordinates and officials such as the Rājan, Rājaputra, Rājasthānīya, Āyuktaka, Viniyuktaka, Śaulkika, Chōrōddharaṇika, Vailabdhika, Drāṅgika, Chāṭa and Bhaṭa, to other officials executing the ruler’s orders as well as to the Dhruvādhikaraṇa. Rājan and Rājaputra apparently refer to subordinate rulers and their sons put in charge of administrative units. Rājasthānīya means a feudatory or viceroy.[9] Āyuktaka possibly means a magistrate (or treasury-officer) appointed by the king and Viniyuktaka (the same as tad-āyuktaka, tan-niyutaka or tad-viniyuktaka) an officer of a similar category appointed by the viceroy.[10] Śaulkika is of course a customs officer and Chōrōddharaṇika a prefect of the police. Vailabdhika may have been the custodian of recovered stolen property as the Yukta of the Manu Smṛiti (VIII, 34) although the Rājataraṅgiṇī (VII, 161-63) uses the word vilabdhi probably in the sense of an assignment. The Drāṅgika must have been the officer in charge of a draṅga which is explained as ‘ a town ’ in the lexicons and used in the sense of ‘ a town or village ’ in Jain literature, but is known to have the sense of ‘ a watch-station ’ in the Rājataraṅgiṇī (VIII, 2010).[11] Chāṭa and Bhaṭa are often taken to mean regular and irregular soldiers respectively, although ________________________________________________
[1] Bhandarkar, op. cit., No. 17.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|
