South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

is the same, and in both he is stated to be ruling the Ḍabhâlâ-râjya, which had come to him by inheritance together with all the country included in the eighteen forest kingdoms. The present inscription goes to show that Tripurî was a province of the Ḍabhâlâ kingdom. We know Tripurî well.^[1] It was the name of the capital of the Haihayas or Kalachuri kings─ the present Tewar, six miles from Jabalpur,─ and it apparently also gave its name to the surrounding province. If this be correct, as is very probable, the Kalachuri domination in the country about Jabalpur disappears at least between A.D. 475 and 528, when the Parivrâjaka Mahârâjas ruled the country, as proved by their inscriptions actually found. The Kalachuris of Ratanpur may have been dominant at that time in Mahâkôsala, but not in the northern country about Tripurî. Dr. Fleet says that “ in Ḍabhâlâ we have undoubtedly the older form of Ḍâhala, Ḍâhâla, Ḍahâla or Ḍahalâ, which was in later times a province of the Haihayas or Kalachuris of Tripura near Jabalpur, whose original capital was Kâliñjar.”^[2] This gives a clue to the identification of Prastaravâṭaka and Dvâravatikâ, which I take to be the present Patparâ and Dwârâ near Bilahrî, 9 miles from Murwârâ, town and about 60 miles from Tewar─ the old Tripurî. Prastaravâṭaka probably was corrupted into Pattharvâṭak or Pattharwârâ, which finally became Patparâ, conveying the same meaning in the local patois as its Sanskṛit equivalent, viz. ‘ a stony tableland,’ and Patparâ is a stony tableland up to this day. On the site of this Patparâ, which had the palace of Kâmkandalâ, there appears to have been formerly a village, as foundations of numerous buildings are still found. Patparâ is only a mile off from Bilahrî, and the ruins of temples and buildings commence at a distance of a quarter of a mile from the present Bilahrî village. That names of villages ending in vâṭaka or pâṭaka, which may have been corrupted into vârâ or wârâ, were common on the Bilahrî side, may be inferred from the Bilahrî inscription,^[3] which mentions Khailapâṭaka, Dhaṅgaṭapâṭaka, Ambipâṭaka, etc. One of these, Khailapâṭaka, General Cunningham identified with the present Khailwârâ or Kaiwârâ, 6 miles from Bilahrî, and I think Dhaṅgaṭapâṭaka is perhaps represented by the present village Thanaurâ, about 4 miles from Bilahrî, the name having been corrupted into Dhanwârâ. Thanwârâ, and finally Thanaurâ.

>

Within a radius of 20 miles from Bilahrî, one may find such villages as Gulwârâ, Murwârâ, Kailwârâ, Nanhwârâ, Kanhwârâ, Bharwârâ, etc., the wârâ of which is apparently a corruption of the old vâṭaka. The village Dwârâ stands on the same tableland as Patparâ being 5 miles east from the Kâmkandalâ building and between 3 and 4 miles from the Bilahrî village. The Malguzar of this village is still a Brâhmaṇ and has held it for several generations. He does not however belong to the Bhâradvâja gôtra. He is a Garga and may have been engrafted when the male line of Bhânusvâmin became extinct, the village going to a female heir and consequently by her marriage to a different gôtra, or it may have changed hands since. Dvâravatikâ may therefore be confidently identified with this Dwârâ. The six inscriptions of the Parivrâjaka Mahârâjas were found either at Khôh, Majhgawâṁ or Bhumarâ, which places are all quite close to Uchchakalpa or the present Uchahrâ, the capital of the Nagode State, where another family, that of the Mahârâjas of Uchchakalpa, closely connected with the Parivrâjaka Mahârâjas both chronologically and territorially, ruled. Uchahrâ is about 60 miles from Bilahrî, and we know from the Bhumarâ pillar inscription, edited by Dr. Fleet^[4], that that village formed the boundary between the two territories. This would show that the Ḍabhâlâ country was almost co-extensive with boundaries of the present Jabalpur district to the north and extended to about 120 miles from Tripurî town, the villages granted in the present inscription being situated midway between Tripurî town and the boundary of the Ḍabhâlâ kingdom in the north. This will clearly show that the present inscription does not really belong to Betul. As Dr. Fleet remarks (loc cit), “ copper-plates, being small and portable, are
_______________________________________________________________________

^[1] See General Cunningham’s Reports, Vol. IX. p. 54.
^[2]Gupta Inscr. p. 113 f. In the Vikramâṅkadêvacharita (XVIII. 93 and 95) Ḍâhâla and Ḍâhala occur almost side by side, indicating that the two forms were indifferently used.
^[3] Ep. Ind. Vol. I. p. 251 ff.
^[4] Gupta Inscr. p. 111.