Epigraphia Indica Vol 33

SR No.: 032587
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: D C Sircar
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India
Publication Year: 1959
Total Pages: 514
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 29 MB

Page 340

241
No. 45]
STRAY PLATE FROM NANANA Påņdās of today. The last sentence of this subsection seems to say that the king and the Vārikas should have to look after the permanent one-fourth share belonging to Tripurusha.
(c) The next transaction in lines 6-8 records that an araghafta or a machine for drawing water from a well, called Nārāvaţtaka and situated in the village of Dēvanandita which was under the possession of the chief priest of the temple (matha-pati) of Tripurusha, was granted for the maintenance of the worship of Chandalēśvara. It appears that two persons named Silapati and Sripāla, who were probably engaged in working the araghatta at Dēvanandita-grāma, were allotted to the said god along with a number of persons living probably at the locality where the temple stood (i.e. Nādāl). These were the songstresses Vingadā, Sitadi, Prēmali, Ratani, Sriyādēvi and Asādēvi; the Suravāla (a person responsible for setting songs or musical instruments to tune) Jasarā ; the drum-player (Pānavika) Śripäla ; the Doyaraka (a singer who had to repeat parts of a song after they had been once sung) Vadiyaka (i.e. Vadiya); the Mridanga-player Mahipatiyaka (i.e. Mabipatiya); and the flute-player Risiyaka (i.e. Risiyā), the son of Govinda.
(d) The last sentence of the subsection states that a mëhari, whose name is not mentioned, was allotted five Dronas (of wheat) out of Kumara's Drönas (of wheat) at the araghafta at Bhintalavādā-grāma. It appears that Kumara was the lessee of the araghatta, who used to pay the annual rent for it to the temple in wheat. This transaction is also referred to in Section IV (6) in lines 15-16 below, where the name of the mehari is given as Sobhikā.
From the grant of the village of Bhintalavādā, it appears that most of the transactions recorded above were made by the contemporary Chabamāna ruler of Nädöl. The name of this ruler seems to be lost with the first plate of the set. But he may have been Asārāja mentioned below. The god Chandalēsvara was apparently installed by the queen Chandaladēvi mentioned below in line 10 which also mentions Āsārāja. It is not improbable that Chandaladēvi was a queen of Āsārāja.
It should, however, be noted that the Nānāņi copper-plate inscription of 1164 A.D., referred to above, speaks of the grant of Bhintalavätaka by king Alhana to the Chandalēgvara temple. It is not impossible that Bhiņķalavādā or Bhiņķalavățaka was originally granted to the temple by Asarāja but the grant was later renewed by his son Alhana.
Section III (lines 9-10). There are two transactions recorded in this section.
(a) The first sentence states that one Yasodhavala made a gift of one load of lotuses and one hundred bunches (of flowers) at a place called Ahumala. It is difficult to determine whether the transaction refers to a daily supply of the flowers and whether Åhumala is a modification of Ahavamalla, & well-known personal name which occurs in Section VI, 6. The identity of the donor is uncertain, though he may have been a member of the Chähamāna royal family of Nädöl. The deity who received the grant is not mentioned, but may probably be Chandalēsvara.
(6) The second sentence of this section states that, in V.8. 1173, Kärttika-vadi 3, Mahārajadhirāja Abārāja made certain gifts (the names of which cannot be fully deciphered but may be those of a few localities) in favour of the matha. This matha may refer to the shrine of Chandalēgvara, which is mentioned in line 10 below (Section IV, a).
The date may correspond to the 11th September 1116 A.D. The only other date for Asarāja's reign so far known is V.8.1167, Chaitra-sudi 1, corresponding to the 12th March 1111 A.D.' Another date for Aśārāja's reign is found in Section IV (6) below.
Section IV (lines 10-16). This section also speaks of two transactions.
(a) The sentence constituting this sub-section is difficult to understand owing to certain errors of the scribe and the engraver. The first part refers to the 100 leaves allowed out of each load of
See above, Vol. XXXI, p. 164, note 1. : Bhandarkar's List, No. 182.