|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PARAMARAS OF MALWA MĀNDHĀTĀ COPPER-PLATE INSCRIPTION OF DEVAPĀLA ... It may be noted with interest that all the three names, i.e., those of the dūtaka, the composer and the Mahāsāndhi-vigrahika Bilhaṇa with whose approbation the inscription was composed, are the same as those of the preceding grants of Arjunavarman. In line 79 the present charter has the aksharas dū°, śrī, mu, followed by the numeral 3 and a mark which appears to be not a name but an impression of a seal. As seen above, while editing Arjunavarman’s grants, dū is an abbreviated from of dūtaka, and the following śrī is the same as to be prefixed to a name represented in the charter by the seal ; but the significance of mu, which too likewise appears to be an abbreviated from of a word which is not known, and of the numeral 3 cannot be ascertained. Bilhaṇa is evidently the same as the Mahā-sāndhi-vigrahika of Arjuna- varman’s grandfather Vindhyavarman, as we know from Āśādhara’s Dharmāmṛita [1] Āśādhara is known to have migrated to Mālwā from the Sapādalaksha country, which was conquered by Mahmūd Ghorī in 1192 A.C. ; and Vindhyavarman must be taken on the throne of Dhārā almost during the same time in view of his contest with the Yādava Bhillama who ascended the throne of Dēvagiri in c. 1187 A.C. and was for a few initial years of his reign fully occupied in the south. [2]
...Studying the geographical names mentioned in the record, we find that most of them are
connected with the donees. Out of these, Tripurī (modern Tēwar near Jabalpur), Akōlā
(in Berar), Mathurā (in U.P.), Ḍiṇḍvānaka (modern Dindvana in Jodhpur) and Madhyadēśa are well known. Hastināpura, according to Kielhorn, appears to be the village of Hathnāwar
on the northern bank of the Narmadā and mentioned in Arjunavarman’s grant, No. 49, above,
but viewing the places mentioned above, it can as well be taken to be the famous place in the
Punjab. Mahāvanasthāna may be the town in the Mathurā District, U.P., as suggested by
Kielhorn ; but it may also be some other place, in view of the name being very common.
Sarasvatī-sthāna suggests its identification with the ancient Sarasvatī-pattana, the same as the
modern Surwāyā in the Shivpurī District of Madhya Pradesh. As regards Ṭakārī, which is
mentioned as the original place of three of the donees and which appears also in some other grants
of the Paramāras, nothing can definitely be stated in view of the fact that in the adjacent areas
a number of places still retain this name, e.g., one Ṭakāryā in the Mandsaur District and one
Takali in the Dewās District, and still another, Ṭhīkrī, in the Dhār District itself.
[3]
I am also
unable to say anything definite about Āśrama-sthāna and Mutāvasu. Except the mere mention
of all these names, we have nothing more in the record ; and this makes it difficult to be certain
about the identification of any of these places. Of the other names appearing in the record,
Mālava, Dhārā and Rēvā (Narmadā) are too well known, and Māhishmatī is the modern
Mahēshwar in the West Nēmāḍ District. As Kielhorn has observed, the village Satājuṇā appears
to be the modern village of the same name, situated about 20 kms. south-west of Māndhātā in
Long. 76° 3’ and Lat. 22° 8’ ; and Mahuäḍa, after which the pratijāgaraṇaka was called, may
probably be the village Mohōḍ, about 40 kms. south of Satājuṇā, in Long. 76° and Lat. 21° 48’
About 3 kms. to the west of Dharampurī in the Dhār District there is a village of the name of
[1] R. G. Bhandarkar’s Rep. on the Search for Sans. Mans., 1883-84. The expression used in the work is
“Vindhya-bhūpatiḥ”. Which, as Kielhorn has rightly observed, can only denote Vindhyavarman, and not the king of the Vindhyas of Mālwā, in view of the fact that Arjuna-bhūpati used there denotes Arjunavarman. Also see below, No. 185, v. 19.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|