North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE SILAHARAS OF NORTH KONKAN

of this village, flows the river Ulhāsa (Ūlasa of the grant) in the direction indicated in the copper-plate charter. About a mile to the south of Ēkasālalies the village Vaḍavalī, without any change in its name. A small stream flows in between Ēkasāla and Vaḍavalī crossing the railway track near the milestone SE 57. The stream is evidently the same as the river Pavahā mentioned in the grant. To the south of the village Vaḍavalī there is a small hillock. . . . and behind it lies the village Bhūtavali, which is about a mile to the south-west of Vaḍavalī . . . . . . About a furlong to north of Bhūtavali we come across a small hamlet called Āsala, which is indicated by the same name in the charter. About two furlongs still north of Āsala there lies another vāḍī specified by the name Bekare, which is evidently the same as Vikarā mentioned in the copper-plates. In this way nearly all the villages mentioned in the first section of the charter can be identified satisfactorily in the vicinity of the railway station Bhivapurī Road within a radius of 5 to 6 miles. The copper-plate grant mentions a village (whose name is effaced in the original) as having a temple of Ghaṇṭēśvara. In view of the identification ofĒkasāla as above proposed, it seems certain that it is the modern village Āmbivalī which lies about a mile to the west of Ēkasāla. The village Umbaravalī, whose boundaries are not specified in the grant, is probably represented by Umrolī, a small situated about a mile to the south of the Bhivapurī Road railway station.” As for Varēṭikā, after which the Varēṭikā-vishaya[1] was named, Dr. Dikshit would identify it with Variti ‘which is situated on Bhivaṇḍi-Wāḍē road and lies about 12½ miles to the north of Bhiwaṇḍī in the Bhiwaṇḍī tālukā of the Ṭhāṇā District.[2]’ But it lies far to the north of these places. It is more likely to be identical with Varhēḍī situated near Bhivapurī as suggested by Mr. Atre.

..As sated before, the villages in the second part of the present grant were situated in two vishayas, viz. Abhyantara-shaṭshashṭi and Śūrpāraka-shaṭshashṭi. The former of these is evidently identical with the Sthānkābhyantarashaṭshashṭi vishaya mentioned in the Bhāṇḍup plates of Chhittarāja. It was so called because it included the Śilāhāra capital Sthānaka (modern Ṭhāṇā) and was different from the Śūrpāraka-shaṭahashṭi vishaya, which comprised the territory round Śurpāraka, modern Sōpārā in the Bassein tālukā. The former comprised the territory between the Ṭhāṇā and Bassein creeks. As for the places mentioned as situated in it, Mūlanda still retains its ancient name almost unchanged and is a railway station near Ṭhāṇā on the Central Railway. Vōriyalā is evidently modern Borivalī, a station on the Western Railway, which is the chief town of a tālukā of the same name in the Ṭhāṇā District. Kāḍhēvalīpallikā is probably Kāndivalī, 6 miles west of Ṭhāṇā. Mānēgrāma is identical with Mānōrī near Borivalī, and Khānuvaḍā is Khānivaḍē, east of the same place. As for the places included in the Śūrpāraka-shaṭshashṭi, Dr. Dikshit has shown that the two villages Bṛihad-Aḍaṇikā and Laughu-Aḍaṇikā are identical with the village Adaṇē, situated 8½ miles to the east of Virār, which lies about 5 miles north of Sōparā (ancient Śūrpāraka). A small stream separates the two parts of the village, which seem to have been known by the names of the Larger and Smaller Aḍaṇikās in ancient times. Khaṇḍivalī lies to the west of Aḍaṇikā, and Khānuvaḍā to the north of it. Vīrāra still retains its ancient name and is a station on the Western Railway. Pēḍhāla is identical with Pēlhār, about 8 miles N.N.E. of Bassein. Uppalapallikā, a hamlet of Vīrāra, seems to have merged itself in Vīrāra. Some other places mentioned in the present grant are well known. Thus, Purī was the ancient capital of Kōṅkaṇ. Its identification has been discussed above.
______________

[1] Varēṭikā-vishaya is mentioned also in the Vaḍavalī plates of Aparāditya (No. 20) and probably also in the Ṭhāṇā plates of Arikēsarin (No.8). They were, however, different territorial divisions. See p. 46, above,
[2] J.O.I., Vol. XII, p. 271.