Epigraphia Indica Vol 22

SR No.: 032576
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Hirananda Shastri
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India
Publication Year: 1933
Total Pages: 408
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 21 MB

Page 287

232
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. XXII.
piriyanen. Since the Secretary is called the madhyastha of the village, it may be even said that he was the accountant of the village and had a function in the assembly. In List B (p. 237, below), the official Kunavan Nandi alias Alankarapriyan occurs thrice (Nos. 4, 15 and 16), firstly as the madhyastha of the sabha of Mungirkudi secondly as the karanattan-madhyastha of the sabha of Pirambil and lastly as the karnattan-madhyastha of the urar of Kadambanguḍi. If all these refer to a single individual, it would show that one could hold the position of a karana or madhyastha of several villages. Perhaps the three villages Müngirkuḍi, Pirambil and Kadambanguḍi were close to one another.
From a number of inscriptions, we see clearly that the sabha and the ur were transacting their business independently. Though this was the case, they appear to have been completely subject to the orders of the king which they implicitly carried out. In this connection we may draw attention to the fact that the grant of the village of Anaimangalam, registered in the Leiden plates, was first made by the king without any reference to these bodies and was even entered in the State accounts, and the bodies were only required to give effect to it. Another point to note is, that as occasion required, the State deputed one or more persons to co-operate with the local bodies in the conduct of their business. Thus, in the matter of marking the boundaries of the village and drawing up the deed of gift, no less than six persons-all State officials, one being a naduvirukkum, one puravuvari and four Bhattas-were nominated. In fact it was one of these officials that actually drew up the deed of gift: it is worthy of note that he was not even a resident of any of the villages of the division of Paṭṭana-kürram.
From List B it will be seen that the assemblies of no less than 26 villages took part in going round the boundaries of Apaimangalam whose revenues were assigned by the Chōla king Rājarāja I. to the Bauddha shrine at Nagapaṭṭanam. Like Anaimangalam, these villages were also situated in the sub-division Paṭṭana-kurram of Kshatriyasikhamani-valanādu. Many of them bear the names given in the inscription even at the present day. Ten of these villages, viz., (1) Kadambaṇur, (2) Naranamangalam, (3) Mungirkuḍi, (4) Sannamangalam, (5) Koṭṭārakkuḍi, (6) Nannimangalam, (7) Poruvanur, (8) Pirambil, (9) Uvarkkudi, and (10) Tiruk. kannangudi were administered by sabhās; except (4) and (10), the rest are expressly called brahmadeyas. Of the remaining places, fourteen, viz., (1) Narimanram, (2) Sattamangalam, (3) Kövür, (4) Uttür, (5) Alangudi, (6) Turaiyur, (7) Kadambanguḍi, (8) Sendamangalam, (9) Kurralam, (10) Tirunavür, (11) Muñjikkuḍi, (12) Kadambavalavaṭkai, (13) Palan-Korrangudi and (14) Venkiḍangil were under the control of the administrative bodies of the ürär: it is worthy of note that none of these fourteen villages is called a brahmadeya. In the case of two other villages, viz., Vēlangudi and Siru-Sendamangalam, neither the sabhā nor the urar is mentioned. But as regards the latter, there is the possibility of its having been subject to the authority of the urar of Sendamangalam of which it must have formed part. It is not known why the assemblies of Sivalaiykuḍi (1. 103) and Nallurchcheri (1. 163) which, according to the boundaries given, were in the outskirts of Apaimangalam do not figure among the signatories.
The ceremony of circumambulating the granted village, fixing its limits and marking the latter with stones and milk-bush, was performed by the members of the assemblies of the sabha or the urar of the abovenamed twenty-six villages, at whose bidding and on whose behalf an official or two invariably signed the document. Besides these, on behalf of the other two villages two persons signed the deed. Anaimangalam itself contributed two individuals for the purpose. Of these, one, a Vellala by caste, rode on the back of an elephant, pointed out the boundaries and signed the document, while the other a Brahman also attested it. The four Bhattas who were nominated by the Government to co-operate with the representatives of the several divisions of the district in this matter, did so and affixed their signatures to the deed which they helped to be drawn up and given to the donee.