The Indian Analyst
 

South Indian Inscriptions

 

 

Contents

Index

Introduction

Contents

List of Plates

Additions and Corrections

Images

Contents

A. S. Altekar

P. Banerjee

Late Dr. N. K. Bhattasali

Late Dr. N. P. Chakravarti

B. CH. Chhabra

A. H. Dani

P. B. Desai

M. G. Dikshit

R. N. Gurav

S. L. Katare

V. V., Mirashi

K. V. Subrahmanya Aiyar

R. Subrahmanyam

T. N. Subramaniam and K. A. Nilakanta Sastri

M. Venkataramayya

Akshaya Keerty Vyas

D. C. Sircar

H. K. Narasimhaswami

Sant Lal Katare

Index

Appendix

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

mōktavyā.[1] The passage quoted above seems to record the grant of a quarter Ādivarāha-dramma (a coin apparently named after Pratihāra Bhōja I Ādivarāha, circa 836-85 A.D.) per month and, for this purpose, it appears to have been so arranged that a Pañchiyaka-dramma (another coin possibly equal to a quarter Ādivarāha-dramma)[2] would be paid monthly out of the rent of a vīthī belonging to Nāga but made bhōg-ādhīnā (probably under a lease) by the donor who agreed that the said vīthī could be taken away only after substituting another of its kind for it. In the inscription under study, in what we have read as pa (followed by a number) in lines 4, 6, 7 and 11, p has a sign above it resembling an old medial ō mark, although medial ō is written differently in other cases occurring in the record. The mark as well as the fact that the akshara in question is followed by a number suggests that this pa in our record is a contraction. Possibly it stands for the coin called Pañchiyaka-dramma which, as known from its mention in the Siyadoni inscription quoted above, was current in the Malwa region in the early medieval period. Thus our inscription seems to say that the vīthī in question, which belonged to Vuvāka and fetched a monthly or annual rent of 13 or 130 Pañchiyaka-drammas, was purchases by Haṭiāka and was granted by him as an agrahāra in favour of the god Nārāyaṇa (Vishṇu) worshipped in the Bhāillasvāmin temple apparently as a subordinated deity. The custom of installing the images of various gods and goddesses in the temple (or in shrines built in the temple precincts) of a well-known deity is not only prevalent even today but is also evidenced by numerous epigraphs including the Siyadoni inscription referred to above. The word agrahāra usually means an area of land granted in favour of Brāhmaṇas as a rent-free holding. But in inscriptions we have sometimes reference to other kinds of agrahāras such as the Vaiśy-āgrahāra (i.e. land given as a rent-free holding in favour of certain Vaiśyas).[3] In the record under study, the vīthī in question was made what may be called a dēv-āgrahāra. In connection with this grant, the inscription used the word mayā (i.e. ‘ by me ’) instead of tēna (i.e. ‘ by him ’) required by the context. This coupled with the fact that the other two vīthīs, as will be shown below, were granted for the merit of the donor’s parents probably suggests that the first of the three vīthīs was granted for his own merit.

>

The second of the three vīthīs belonged to a merchant whose name cannot be fully read. It was situated at Khahanāsithī which seems to have been the name of a market place. Its rent was pa 50 (i.e. 50 Pañchiyaka-drammas). The third vīthī belonged to a person named Gōvinda. Its rent was pa 40 (i.e. 40 Pañchiyaka-drammas). These two vīthīs were purchased by Haṭiāka who granted them in favour of the Mothers (i.e. the Mother-goddesses worshipped in the Bhāillasvāmin temple of in shrines in its precincts) for the merit of his parents. The rent of the three vīthīs was expected to meet the expenses of the regular offerings (niyata-bhōga) to the god and goddesses in question. The intention of the donor seems to have been that the vīthīs themselves could be utilised (samālabhyāḥ), probably implying their sale or mortgage, at critical junctures (sandhi-pātē) or emergencies. The concluding part of the inscription is very much damaged and the purport of this section is not clear.

The importance of the inscription lies in the fact that it refers to the existence of the temple of Bhāillasvāmin at Bhīlsā as early as 878 A.D. So long we had no definite evidence regarding the worship of the said god at Bhīlsā before the tenth century. In regard to the name of the god Bhāillasvāmin, it is possible to suggest that the deity was originally installed by and named after a person called Bhāilla. Such a personal name is not unknown in the records

___________________________________________________

[1] Above, Vol. I, p. 178, text lines 37-38.
[2] The word dramma was derived from the Greek drachma weighing originally 67·5 grains, although the Indo-Greeks adopted the Persian Siglos standard of 86·45 grains (Rapson, Indian Coins, pp. 3, 6). The silver coins of the Ādivarāha type appear to have followed the 67·5 grains standard (cf. Smith, Cat. C. Ind. Mus. pp. (241 f.). The Pañchiyaka-dramma seems to have been a much heavier copper coin like the Yaudhēya drammas (cf. ibid., p. 182, coin No. 18 b).
[3] Cf. JRAS, 1952, p. 5.

Home Page

>
>