Indian Antiquary Vol 32

SR No.: 032524
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1984
Total Pages: 550
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 20 MB

Page 56

50
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[FEBRUARY, 1903.
shidas-otlara-gráma-sata-madhyavarti, in the Bagamrii plates, of doubtful authenticity, parporting to have been issued in A. D. 888.6 It was probably the passage in the Bagumora plates of A. D. 867 that led Dr. Bühler to substitute. one hundred and sixteen' for sixteen hundred' as the meaning of sodaśatam in these records; for, he proposed to identify the Karmântapura of that record, to which one hundred an 1 sixteen villages were attached, with the same place, Kamrêj, which is undoubtedly meant by the Kamaņiya of th: Umêta record. And that proposal is, no doubt, quite sound; since Paribanaka is, as he shewed, the Parona' of the Indian Atlas sheet No. 23, S. E. (1888), about twelve miles south-east from Kamrêj, and there does not appear to be any place in that neighbourhood, except Kimrêj, to which the name Karmantapura could well be applied. And it seems, therefore, very likely that the person who fabricated the present record did use sõdasata for shadasa-sata in the sense of one hundred and sixteen,' and that the same was intended to be its meaning in the case of the Umêtâ record. However, the two records are spurioas records, and we do not know absolutely for certain what the composer or composers of them had in view. And, partly for these reasons, and also in order not to lose sight of one marked peculiarity of both the records, I think it better, now, in referring to the territorial appellations presented by them, to use the expression given in the original records, instead of offering any translation of it either way.
The name of the village claimed by these plates was given by Dr. Bühler as Namljaraka in his text, and as Nandiaraka in his translation. In his introductory remarks, howerer, be intimated that it might be taken either as Nandiaraka or as Nandisaraka. And, to this, he attached a note indicating that the akshara forming the third syllable is "very indistinct."7 As presented in the lithograph, however, that akshara is not in any way doubtful, which is probably what Dr. Bühler 'really meant; it is, there, distinctly an initial short a. But I find, from my own transcription of the text, that, when the original plates were in my hands, in 1878,- before the time when the editing of the resort was made over to Dr. Bilir, -- I read the akshara, without any feeling of doubt, as ea. And Nandisaraka is a more probable name than Nandiaraka, for the following reasons. In the first place, we have the place-name Nadisar,' in the case of & village in the Panch-Mahals, which may be found in the In.lian A-las sheat No. 36, S. W. (1897), in lat. 28° 53', lung. 73° 27', about fifteen miles west-north-west-half-north from Gôdhra. And, in the second place, we bave seen that the modern name Nadia or Nadila, - the .Nadira' and . Nádira' of maps, -represents an ancient Nândita aka; 10 like tafáka, saraka means & pond, pool, tank, or lake;' thus, Nandisaraka is essentially the same name as Nanditaţaka, with only the short a for the long d in the first syllable, and it might be a Sanskritisation of any name derived from Nanditațâka; and we have another such name in the 'Nadirda' an 1 Nádinia' of maps, which may be found in the Indian Atlas sheet No. 23, N. E. (1894), in the Wagrâ tâluka of the Broash district. 11 I am inclined to think that the syllable is doubtful in the original plate, and has been wrongly developed into an initial short a in the course of preparing the lithograph, which is not a facsimile. But, whether the syllable is a or sa, cannot be finally decided without another inspection of the original plate, which is not accessible to
6 Vol XIII. above, p. 67, plate ii.b, line 6; and see the corrected transcript on p. 69.
Seo Vol. XVI. above, p. 100. I Vol. X above, p. 277 b, and note 2.
$ I do not know, for certain, whether he edited it from the original plates, or from the lithograph. But I infer that he had the original plates before him.
That, however, is not the village claimed by the record : partly, because, instead of being on the const, it is on the east bank of the Mahl, and there are no names in the vicinity of it answering to the other names given in the record; and partly because it is far away from what was evidently the Kanteragrima country.
10 Seo Vol. XXXI. above, p. 397.
11 But this place, also, is not the village olnimed by the record : partly, because it is eleven miles from the coast, und there is nothing in its vioinity to reprasent Ghirivili and Dêyathali and the river Mad&vi; and partly, because it is separated by the rivors Narbad, Kim, and Tapti, from what was ovidently the KantAragrama country. -Nor is the modern Nadidà or Nadiqa, the Nanditaţåka of the Bagamra record of A. D. 915, the village olaimed by the present record: it is, indeed, on the vorth bank of the river Madávi; but it is bounded on the east by Berou (instead of Girivili), and on the north by 'Ten' instead of Déyathali), and it is some twenty-four miles from the coast.