South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

bhūmi, i.e., vyāvṛitta-vāstu-bhūmi, ‘ demarcated homestead land or residential site ’. In it vyā-bhū is aptly distinguished from nāla-bhū precisely as in our plate ”. This interpretation of the contraction vyā-bhū is, however, clearly wrong. In the first place, if vyā means merely ‘ demarcated,’ how can it go only with ‘ homestead land ’ and never with ‘ arable land ’? It is impossible to believe that the boundaries of a plot of nāla-bhūmi were never demarcated. The editors themselves have quoted the passage chatuḥ-sīm-āvachchhinna-vāstu-nāla-bhūmi from an epigraphic record. Secondly, although vyā-bhū and nā-bhū have been clearly distinguished, there is definite evidence to prove that the category of land styled vyā-bhū often included some land of the class called nā-bhū or nāla-bhūmi, ‘ cultivated land ’. This is shown by the fact that, though our inscription specifically mentions only three plots of nā-bhū respectively measuring ½ Drōṇa (line 24), ¼ Drōṇa (line 27) and 5/16 Drōṇa (line 28), i.e., in all only 11/16 Drōṇas, the total area of the gift land of this category as quoted in line 32 is 2 Drōṇas. There is thus no doubt that 15/16 Drōṇa of nā-bhū was included in the vyā-bhū plots specified in the record. As we have elsewhere^[1] suggested, vyā-bhū probably stands for vyāmiśra-bhūmi, ‘ mixed land ’, consisting of land of various types such as vāstu (homestead land), nāla (arable land), khila (fallow land), etc.

The editors have suggested that the contraction ṭī stands for vāṭī or chaṭī, while gṛī-ṭī or gṛiha-ṭī and mu-ṭī have been supposed to stand respectively for gṛiha-vāṭī and mukhya-vāṭī or mukhya-chaṭī. But what they understood by chaṭī is not clear. In Sanskrit, the word vāṭī or vāṭikā means ‘ a house-site ’, ‘ a garden ’, etc. ; but there is no such word as chaṭī. It has to be noticed that the abbreviations of words like vāṭī and chaṭī are expected to be vā and cha respectively and not ṭī for both of them. The contraction mu-ṭī, moreover, cannot stand for mukhya-vāṭī meaning ‘ a prominent or principal house-site or garden ’, not only because the word mukhya would in that case be quite meaningless but also because an analysis of the specified revenue income of the different plots of land as quoted in the inscription shows that the rent of a Drōṇa of gṛi-ṭī and cha-ṭī was very considerably higher than that of a Drōṇa of mu-ṭī. In line 29, the editors have read bi (sic, chi)-khi-mu-ṭī 3 (sic. 1) byā (sic. vyā)-bhū ¼ and translated the passage as “ one main house with low and fallow land ─demarcated homestead land 4/16 (drōṇa)”. It has been suggested that bi-khi-mu-ṭī stands for bila-khila-mukhya-vāṭī. Unfortunately, the interesting point that this particular plot of land had no rent allotted to it has been overlooked. This fact undoubtedly suggests that chi-khi stands for chira-khila referring to a piece of land that was never brought under cultivation or any other profitable use and therefore fetched no revenue income at all. Similarly, that ṭī does not stand for vāṭī is quite clear from the passage gṛiha-vāṭik-ādi-ṭī 3 vyā-bhū ½ sāṁ-hi 25 occurring in line 18 of the inscription. The passage apparently means “ ṭī of house-site, garden, etc.─3 in number ; mixed land─½ Drōṇa in area ; annual revenue income in cash─25 Purāṇas ”. It is also interesting to note that ṭī occurs only in connection with vyā-bhū and never with nā-bhū. We have elsewhere^[2] suggested that ṭī may stand for the word ṭīkkara or ṭīkar recognised in Hindi, Bengali and Oriya lexicons in the sense of ‘ a mound ’.

The real meaning of cha in cha-ṭī and mu in mu-ṭī is very difficult to determine. An analysis of the specified revenue income allotted to the various plots of land would suggest the following averages : (1) 37⅔ Purāṇas for a Drōṇa of gṛi-ṭī or gṛiha-ṭī land ; (2) 302/17 Purāṇas for a Drōṇa of cha-ṭī land ; (3) 4 Purāṇas for a Drōṇa of mu-ṭī land ; and (4) 44/17 Purāṇas for a Drōṇa of nāla or arable land. This shows that gṛi-ṭī was the most profitable king of homestead land while cha-ṭī was a slightly less profitable type of the same king of land. That these two kinds were almost equal in value is further suggested by the following indications. In line 31, a plot of land is characterised as gṛi-cha-ṭī, i.e., as mixed gṛi-ṭī and cha-ṭī. It will be seen that our record specifies 21 ṭī’s of the three classes, viz., gṛi-ṭī, cha-ṭī and mu-ṭī, in the body of the charter, but that, in the total quoted

_______________________________________________

^[1] Loc. cit.
^[2] Loc. cit.