|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PARAMARAS OF CHANDRAVATI on the pasture grounds, free of charge, in the village of Sāhilavāḍā (11. 10-11). Before this, some other grant is mentioned in 1. 11, but its nature is not known as the letters mentioning it are lost. In addition to these two grants, a piece of land in the village of Kumbhāranuli, up to the boundary of surabhi, (?), and also a piece of land which can be tilled with two ploughs in a day [1] (11. 10-14) were donated. The names of the dūtakas are mentioned as Kōvida (or Kāvida) [2] and śrēshṭhi Jālhana (11. 14-15). ...The date of the inscription, as mentioned in figures in 1. 1 and repeated in 1. 8, is Thursday, the eleventh of the bright half of Kārttika of the (Vikrama) year 1237. The date regularly corresponds to 30th October, 1180 A.C. ... Beginning with the auspicious symbol for Ōm, the inscription gives the date and the genealogy of Dhārāvarsha with his titles, as sen above, and this account is followed by the grant portion. Thereafter the record has three imprecatory stanzas, in 11. 15-20, and then the expression śubhaṁ bhavatu, denoting blessings, followed by the sign resembling the Nāgarī akshara chha. And with a repetition of the names of the villages of Māgavāḍī and Hāthaḍalī, where pastures were made free, as already stated, the record comes to a close.
...The known dates of Dhārāvarsha range from V.S. 1220 (1163 A.C.) to V.S. 1276 (1219 A.C.). respectively from the inscriptions found at Kāyadrā and Mākāval; [3] and thus the present inscription offers only an intermediate date. It is also known that this king, like his father, Yaśōdhavala, was a zealous feudatory of the Chaulukya throne of Gujarāt; but the feudatory epithet attached to his name in the present record which bears the date V.S. 1237 has some significance, being issued about a time when there was a change in the government in Gujarāt and also in some of the adjacent regions. Mūlarāja II died in 1178 A.C. and was succeeded by hi younger brother Bhīma II, who was obviously a minor; and with this succession the kingdom of Gujarāt was troubled by internal disorders and foreign invasions. Pṛithvīrāja III, who succeeded his father Sōmēśvara on the Chāhamāna throne of Ajmer almost about the same time (in 1178 A.C.), led an expedition against Bhīma; [4] the Paramāra Subhaṭavarman, whose father Vindhya varman had relieved Mālwā from the clutches of Gujarāt, overran a part of the country; and almost about the same time the Yādava Bhillama V from the south [5] and the Muslims from the north under Muhammand of Ghōr, also invaded Gujarāt. [6] All these troubles arose almost about the time when the present inscription was issued; and it is significant to note that the feudatory title attach to the name of Dhārāvarsha in it shows that he was all the while faithful to the throne of Gujarāt.
...Of the geographical names mentioned in the inscription, Hāthaḍalī-grāma (1. 21) is
evidently the modern village of Hāthar, or Hathāl, or Hāthal (30),
[7] where the plates are said to have been found. It is, as stated above, about 10 kms. north-east of Reodhar, the principal town of a tehsīl forming the south-western part of the Sirōhī District adjoining to Gujarāt on its southwest. Sāhilavāḍa-grāma seems to be identical with the modern Sēlwāḍā (32), about 5 km. north
by east of Reodhar and almost equidistant south-west of Hāthal; and Māgavāḍī-grāma may have
been the village Māgiwāḍā (72), situated about 10 kms. south-west of Reodhar and almost double this distance due south by west of Hāthal. I am unable to trace any village in the Sirōhī District exactly corresponding to Kumbhāranulī mentioned in 1. 12; it may perhaps be represented by Cooma (52) lying about 20 kms. west-southwest of Sirōhī and almost 15 kms. north-east of Hāthal, and thus situated in the same locality. It will thus be seen that all these villages lie in the vicinity of the find-spot of the plates.
[1] Whether this land is different or the same in the village of Kumbhārnuli, which is mentioned immediately before, is not clear from the construction.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|