Abstract
This paper will focus on Sanskrit references to maṭhas and maṭhikās in the early medieval epigraphical corpora of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, Śilāhāras and Yādavas, ruling in the Deccan from the eighth to the thirteenth centuries. The most prominent evidence is provided by the five famous Chinchani copper-plate charters covering a period from 926 to 1053 ce, when the Rāṣṭrakūṭas and later the Śilāhāras and their subordinates ruled over the region north of Mumbai. A few late-twelfth-century Śilāhāra stone inscriptions from Kolhapur in south Maharashtra shed light on the multi-functional character of maṭhas. Finally, a Yādava-period stone epigraph from northwestern Maharashtra testifies to the existence of and the endowment for a very special maṭha in 1207 ce.
Introduction
In Sanskrit inscriptions, Hindu maṭhas are well attested as beneficiaries of endowments. Due to the functional complexity of this type of institution, it is rather difficult to find a translation for the term maṭha that is appropriate in all relevant contexts, and thus this expression is often left untranslated. Was it a hermitage, a monastery, a temple, or rather a kind of college? The project proposal of our dharma erc Synergy Grant describes maṭhas as “cenobitic institutions that also received pilgrims, dispensed learning, and sometimes served as hospices”.1 As there is evidence for cultic as well as educational functions of maṭhas, a suitable rendering could be “temple college”.2
Five Chinchani Copper-Plate Charters
In Chinchani (Dahanu taluk, Thane district; see Map 1), five copper-plate charters dating from Śaka 848 to 975 (926–1053 ce) were found in 1955 by a farmer while ploughing his field. The altogether nine plates belonging to the period of Rāṣṭrakūṭa and Śilāhāra rule in the Deccan are all related to one maṭhikā (i.e., a small maṭha), dedicated to a goddess named Bhagavatī. They shed light on the history of that institution for over one hundred years and its continued support by local elites.3
Map of find-spots and places mentioned in the inscriptions with their present equivalents; drawn with Datawrapper
Citation: Endowment Studies 8, 1-2 (2024) ; 10.1163/24685968-08120003
(1) The oldest charter records that a brāhmaṇa had founded the maṭhikā in the town of Saṁyāna (present-day Sanjan, Valsad district; see Map 1), and that in the Śaka year 848 (926 ce), the Tājika king (nr̥pati) Madhumati Sugatipa,4 a Muslim subordinate of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Indra iii, bestowed the village of Kāṇāḍuka and land in the village of Devīhara on the maṭhikā. This endowment was meant to provide the means for repairs of the maṭhikā, for the sustenance of a group of brāhmaṇas, as well as for [the worship of] the goddess Bhagavatī, which was probably a local form of Pārvatī or Durgā. It is also explicitly stated that the grant should serve the continuance of dharma.5
This charter is remarkable in more than one respect: Endowments in favour of what could be called “Hindu” institutions (temples, maṭhas, etc.) were still not very common in tenth-century Gujarat and Maharashtra. Therefore, it is striking that it was a Muslim donor who acted as patron of such an institution in this region.6 The Tājika ruler called Madhumati obviously imitated Hindu-Brahmanical traditions in form and content. The charter is composed in Sanskrit and engraved on copper plates. The first introductory stanza is dedicated to the Hindu deities Pārvatī and Śiva, and the second one to the goddess Durgā. A traditional kāvya-style eulogy (praśasti) of Madhumati’s overlord, the Rāṣṭrakūṭa king Indra iii, is followed by a description of the Tājika subordinate, who ruled over the area north of present-day Mumbai and issued the Chinchani plates of Śaka 848.
Tājika Madhumati gave the “order” (ājñā) for the endowment at the emphatic request7 of the brāhmaṇa who had founded the maṭhikā (an “incomparable gem”8), and who is described as a friend of a Madhumati’s Brahmanical minister Śrī-Puvaiyya.9 The Tājika ruler, who had been installed in office by Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kr̥ṣṇa ii, acted “with the consent” (anumatena) of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Indra iii, his suzerain. “With the approval” (anumatena) of the highest tax collector of Saṁyāna, a clerk composed the text of the copper-plate charter “by order” (ājñayā) of the Tājika, who, for his part, is said to have been “instructed” (anujñāta) by Indra iii.10
But he who, because his eyes are blind due to the veil of ignorance, does not understand that life, which is [determined] by destiny, is transient, short-lived and instable, breakable like a wave in a river lashed by the force of the wind, perishable like the dew clinging to a blade of grass, fluttering like the tip of the ear of an elephant calf, quivering like the neck of a tired bird, [and] appearing [only] for a moment, like the tongue of a furious snake [or] like lightning; who does not take into account that the accumulation of [religious] merit through generosity causes fame and happiness in this world and in the hereafter; and who, as a fool not recognising the invisible results, should take away [the grant] or approve [its] seizure, shall be afflicted with the five major and the minor offences.11
May the great assembly (mahāparṣad) from Āryadeśa be victorious through [its] blameless and reconciliation-producing virtues such as decency, morality, goodness and ethics.15
… Through this monument (kīrtana) which conquers the three worlds due to the grace of the goddess, Annaiya, Revaṇa and Kautuka, all three together, may reside on the excellent mountain of the gods.16
Since this institution is referred to as Kautukamaṭhikā in all the four younger Chinchani copper-plate charters, Kautuka may well have been its actual main founder. This fact perhaps got sidelined in the title-deed of Śaka 848, because the endowment recorded by the Tājika king appears to have been initiated by a request of Annaiya alone, the other two having no stake in it.
May Bhagavatī, the destroyer of [the demons] Śumbha and Niśumbha, who is praised by the best gods, by Asuras, Kinnaras, Nārada, etc. as the wish-fulfilling demolisher, suffice for you to destroy your fear of existence.20
Here is a noble, faultless maṭhikā, the work of Kautuka, which [is] provided with ramparts difficult to cross,21 free from [the clutches of] the Kali [age], full of countless [people] reciting [scripture], who – since [their] intelligence has been honed by [their] realisation of the substance of all texts – [are] astute, skilled in all fields [and] adept at the essence of the meaning of the Veda. Moreover, [the maṭhikā is] delightful with flawless people who have studied the arts; [it is] heaped with stocks of very precious local commodities; [and] it shines through very wise men, as if [it were] an abode of the gods.
In the [maṭhikā], the goddess Bhagavatī [is] being worshipped by gods and demons, also granting boons to the humans, like a wish-yielding tree.22
At the gates, the [maṭhikā is] ornamented by thousands of people busily entering and leaving through the restricted entryway [and] with gate towers at the tip of whose lofty pinnacles shreds of white cloud become momentary banners.
The [maṭhikā is] inhabited by billions of gems acquainted with the Veda – also [called] the faultless congregation – who have overcome illusion, are devoid of pride, honourable [and] unblameable gods on earth (i.e., brāhmaṇas) focussing on the Vedas.23
Both, the maṭhikā as well as the congregation (parṣad) residing therein are labelled as “faultless” (anagha). The anagha-parṣad of this vyavasthā can most probably be identified with the pañca-gauḍīya-mahāparṣad mentioned in the Chinchani plates of Śaka 848 (see above).
And the above-mentioned Śrī-Bhillamāladeva, who is attended by [his] managers (vārika), offers the [following] agreement, provided with a charter, to this maṭhikā accompanied by [its Vedic] scholars: In connection with our small plot of land, located in the northern part of the maṭhikā, within [its] existing walls, there are to be given to us by the maṭhikā, at the end of each of the [annual] festivals of lights, forty drammas of the excellent merchant and trader Gaṁbhuvaka as śrotaka – in figures: dra 40.24
This proposal is remarkable for its use of the technical term śrotaka25 to denote the remuneration and for the fact that only coins of a particular trader seem to have been accepted for the payment.26 Whereas the maṭhikā of the goddess is referred to in this inscription several times, the institution behind Bhillamāladeva is not explicitly mentioned. The location of the two counterparties is also not revealed. It is only said that Bhillamāladeva had been installed by traders from Śrī-Bhillamāla, which has been identified as Bhinmal (Jalore district, Rajasthan). On the basis of the Chinchani plates of Śaka 848, we can conclude that the maṭhikā was situated on the territory of present-day Sanjan (in south Gujarat), some 40 km north of the find-spot of the five Chinchani charters (in northwest Maharashtra). It is highly probable that Bhillamāladeva’s sanctuary was also located in the ancient city of Saṁyāna, which served as district headquarters in the tenth century.
More detailed than the text of the actual agreement are the stipulations for its protection. Violations by both parties should be punished. “Fraud through increasing the compensation fee” (śrotaka-saṁvardhana-vyāja) as well as “the tearing down of the walls” (prākāra-bhañjana) were declared offences on Bhillamāladeva’s side; on the maṭhikā’s side, “fraud through non-payment of the compensation fee” (śrotakollaṅghana-vyāja) is equated with “land grab” (bhūmy-apahāra).27 For both parties, the main penalty consisted of social ostracism: Someone who committed suicide in order to change the agreement was “even if dead, to be regarded as dog, donkey or Cāṇḍāla”.28 It is explicitly stated that through seizing Bhillamāladeva’s plot, the party of Bhagavatī would have taken on the guilt of the five major and the minor offences29 – as is usual in cases of land grabs. Since on Bhillamāladeva’s side not only temple brāhmaṇas (devakīya-vipra) and temple managers (deva-vārika), but also merchants are seen as potential actors, a worldly punishment is added for them, namely, the confiscation of their entire property (sarva-svāpaharaṇa) by the royal family (rāja-kula).30 Among the members of the [Brahmanical] congregation (parṣan-madhya-vartin) belonging to the maṭhikā, two groups are explicitly mentioned: those who granted access to the complex and those who were responsible for the worship of the goddess Bhagavatī.31
All these stipulations are summarised with the sentence: “According to that regulation, this agreement is to be adhered to by both parties for as long as the moon and the sun exist.”32 It is also said that the content of the charter expressed the opinion of the initiator of the agreement,33 who was Bhillamāladeva.34 In the final stanza, however, the scribe (kāyastha) provides the information that he drew up the charter (śāsana) “with the approval” (anumatena) of both sides.35
(3) According to the testimony of the third Chinchani charter, which, again, consists of one single copper plate, a certain Cāmuṇḍarāja, a subordinate of the Śilāhāras of North Konkan, ruled over Saṁyāna after having fought against the Lāṭa kings and been installed by Śilāhāra Cintarāja. Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara Cāmuṇḍarāja bestowed an oil-mill (ghāṇaka) on the Kautukamaṭhikā in the Śaka year 956 (1034 ce), along with the oil and the oil cake produced in the oil-mill there.36
This endowment was to be used for the specific purpose of the (constant) burning of a lamp in front of the goddess Śrī-Bhagavatī37 as well as of putting ointment on the feet of the (resident) Vedic scholars (svādhyāyika) and the brāhmaṇas coming as guests and visitors (āgatābhyāgata).38 The oil-mill was handed over with a libation of water to the person henceforth in charge of this object, namely, a svādhyāyika named Cīhaḍa.39 As the Chinchani plate of the time of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kr̥ṣṇa iii shows, the brāhmaṇa scholars (svādhyāyika) belonged to the congregation (mahāparṣad) permanently affiliated to the maṭhikā. This body is not explicitly mentioned in the stipulations related to the endowment of the Chinchani plate of Śaka 956, but some of the addressees of the princely order are labelled as mahāpārṣika (for mahāpārṣadaka).40
The siriḍirkā of the village of Kaṇāḍḍa, being enjoyed by the Kavatikamaṭhikā, was given with a libation of water to those who are: Bahudhara, the householder (gr̥hastha) of the Kavatikamaṭhikā, and Kāṅkua, as well as the Vedic scholar (svādhyāyika) Mahādeva and Lakṣmīdhara, for as long as the moon and the sun exist.42
The key term for the understanding of this passage is the expression siriḍirkā, which is related here to a village already being in the possession of the maṭhikā. Kaṇāḍḍa might have been identical with the village of Kāṇāḍuka, which was bestowed upon the maṭhikā in the Śaka year 848 (see above). This term also occurs in the Chinchani plates of Śaka 975, namely, in the form śiridikā in the faulty description of the endowment,43 in which this expression is related to the village Keṇasā that is also described as “[already] being enjoyed” (prabhujyamāna) by the Kautukamaṭhikā. Sircar (1957–58b: 69) has interpreted siriḍirkā as “apparently a sort of tax or cess”. In Śaka 975, three drammas of śiriḍikā are mentioned, which were to be given annually to certain svādhyāyikas and gr̥hasthas, very much in the same way as in Śaka 969. Whereas the presence of svādhyāyikas in the context of the Kautukamaṭhikā is already attested since the middle of the tenth century, the group of gr̥hasthas affiliated to it is only referred to a century later. Although not explicitly mentioned in the relevant charters, these householders may have belonged to a kind of maṭhikā committee in a broader sense. It is obvious that they had a stake in the administration of the temple college, or at least in the management of its assets. The Chinchani plates of Śaka 969 and 975 seem to exempt the maṭhikā from certain payments to the crown, which apparently would have been due from the tax revenue of the villages bestowed upon them earlier. In Śaka 975, the amount of three drammas per year was dedicated for a specific purpose, namely, for the regular feeding of 25 brāhmaṇas.44
Although only the first one records a typical royal land grant, the evidence from all the five Chinchani copper-plate charters when taken together documents a remarkable continuity in the maṭhikā’s presence in Saṁyāna and in the patronage to support it. For more than 130 years, regional rulers and local elites fostered this establishment dedicated to the goddess Bhagavatī, which had been founded at the beginning of the tenth century and which functioned, inter alia, as a Vedic-Brahmanical educational institution. The addressees of the four royal decrees from Śaka 848, 956, 969 and 975 indicate that different autonomous agents also played an important role in this coastal region north of present-day Mumbai. Not only were certain groups of officials notified of the different endowments, but also specific consortia of traders in Saṁyāna45 and the so-called Moḍha brāhmaṇas of Śrī-Sthāna (present-day Thane, some 100 km southeast of Chinchani and 130 km south of Sanjan; see Map 1) were informed about it.46
Two Kolhapur Stone Inscriptions
At Kolhapur in southern Maharashtra, the ancient Kollāpura (see Map 1), a maṭha is mentioned in two stone inscriptions dating from the Śaka years 1104 (1182 ce) and 1112–1115 (1190–1193 ce), i.e., from the rule of king Bhojadeva ii of the Śilāhāra branch of Kolhapur. Both the inscribed stones were originally found in close vicinity of the famous Kolhapur temple of the goddess Mahālakṣmī, which is also called “Ambābāī” by the local people.47 The Mahālakṣmī temple is already referred to as śrīmat-kollāpura-mahālakṣmī-devī-devālaya in the inscription of Śaka 1104; and the grant of Śaka 1112 was made, inter alia, to provide the means for regular daily food offerings (naivedya) to the goddess Śrī-Mahālakṣmī, which was apparently to be carried out three times per day.48 A special connection between the Śilāhāra ruler Bhoja ii and the goddess Mahālakṣmī can be deduced from his epithet śrī-mahālakṣmī-devī-labdha-vara-prasāda.49 This religious sobriquet characterised Bhoja ii – and also some of his predecessors – in a way which has been described by Alexis Sanderson as “a common epigraphical formula in which the king is described as having obtained his sovereignty as the boon of this or that goddess.”50
The two Kolhapur stone inscriptions record collective donations made in favour of a maṭha which was apparently situated on the premises of the Mahālakṣmī temple complex, to the north of its western gate. Both the epigraphs congruently state that a certain Sahavāsi Lokaṇanāyaka had established the maṭha. Grants in favour of the maṭha were made by the Śilāhāra ruler Bhoja ii, by the maṭha’s founder Lokaṇanāyaka, and, after some years, also by the latter’s son Kāliyaṇanāyaka.
Almost all the individual endowments seem to have been administered by four brāhmaṇas who resided at the maṭha (tan-maṭha-niviṣṭa) and whose names are mentioned in the epigraphs.51 Two of these administrators were apparently Sahavāsi brāhmaṇas like the founder of that maṭha. Moreshwar G. Dikshit elaborated on this Brahmanical group in the following way: “The Sahavāsi Brāhmaṇas … claim to have arrived in the south from Ahichchhatra and Kāshmīr. They seem to have been a fairly well settled community in the Deccan and Karṇāṭak as can be gathered from the reference to them in several mediaeval inscriptions of this period. Even now, Kolhapur retains a large population of this class of Brāhmaṇas who are engaged … in trading and banking activities.”52 The two Sahavāsi administrators were Ādityabhaṭṭa and Janārdanabhaṭṭa in Śaka 1104, and Ādityabhaṭṭa and Lakṣmīdharabhaṭṭa (who was perhaps Janārdanabhaṭṭa’s son) from Śaka 1112 onwards. The other two Brahmanical administrators of the maṭha originated from Karahāṭaka, present-day Karhad (see Map 1), a famous medieval stronghold of learned brāhmaṇas, some 70 km north of Kolhapur. Their names are given as Prabhākaraghaisāsa and Vāsiyaṇaghaisāsa.53
Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara Śrī-Bhojadeva [ii] … [bestowed], for the prosperity of his own rule (nija-rājyābhivr̥ddhaye), [a] as storage (koṣṭhāgāra) for the maṭha which had been erected by Sahavāsi Lokaṇanāyaka on the premises of the Mahālakṣmīdevī devālaya in Kollāpura, to the north of the western gate, for Umāmaheśvara in the form of Amr̥teśvara and for the feeding (bhojana) of brāhmaṇas, one house (gr̥ha) of 12 hasta size on the premises of the maṭha (maṭhasyābhyantare) of this god …, in the southwestern part;
[b] four white houses (dhavala-gr̥ha) in the south of the residential area of the Sahavāsis for the brāhmaṇas whose heads (pramukha) are: Sahavāsi Ādityabhaṭṭa and Janārdanabhaṭṭa as well as Prabhākaraghaisāsa and Vāsiyaṇaghaisāsa from Karahāṭaka, etc., [all] residing at that maṭha;
[c] one flower garden (puṣpa-vāṭaka) to the east of Varuṇa for the worship (pūjā) of …;
[d] 450 [vapyaka]54 arable land (kṣetra) within the boundaries of the village of Seleyavāḍa, belonging to the golla of Paṇaturage, in the northern part, and, connected with that (tat-pratibaddha), one house of 12 hasta size in the village of Paṇḍarana, [both] for the fivefold worship (pañcopacāra-pūjā) of the same god and for the feeding of brāhmaṇas – all on the aforementioned [brāhmaṇas], with a charter …
The very same Lokaṇanāyaka granted, for as long as moon, sun and stars exist, [e] arable land of 225 vapyaka and a house site (niveśana) of 12 hasta size as well as … [in] … [belonging to] Eḍenāḍa, according to the measure of that province [Eḍenāḍa] for the fivefold worship of the same god, for repairs at this maṭha and for the feeding of brāhmaṇas there, and connected with it … nivartana arable land and a house site of 12 hasta size with aruvaṇa55 [and] with the right of eightfold usage to the two sons of Mahattara Mādhavārya [and] grandsons of Uddhavārya of the Kāśyapagotra … with a charter, after acquiring [the object] from Nemaṇa and Lakṣmaṇa by purchase for a grant.56
Hence, different kinds of land – agricultural estates, a flower garden, houses and house sites – were granted for the worship of Umāmaheśvara,57 the feeding of brāhmaṇas and repairs of the maṭha.
[Śaka 1112, a] Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara Vīra-Bhojadeva gave, for as long as moon and stars exist, … for the prosperity of his own rule, for the fivefold worship of the god Umāmaheśvara in the form of Amr̥teśvara in the maṭha founded by Sahavāsi Lokaṇanāyaka, for the feeding of Sahavāsi brāhmaṇas, for the food offering (naivedya) to the goddess Śrī-Mahālakṣmī thrice [a day] [and] for repairs of that maṭha, a rice field58 of 550 vapyaka size according to the measure of Eḍenāḍa, within the boundaries of the village of Kopparavāḍa belonging to Eḍenāḍa, in the eastern part …, connected with a house site of 12 hasta size in this village and connected with a farmyard (khaḍavalaka),59 all that into the hands of four brāhmaṇas residing in that maṭha who were: Sahavāsi Ādityabhaṭṭa and Lakṣmīdharabhaṭṭa as well as Prabhākaraghaisāsa and Vāsiyaṇaghaisāsa from Karahāṭaka, with a charter …60
[Śaka 1114, b] Furthermore, … Kāliyaṇanāyaka, son of this Sahavāsi Lokaṇanāyaka, gave for the feeding of brāhmaṇas in the sa[t]tra founded by his mother Pomākauvā the khaddiya61 within the village boundaries of the agrahāra Pauva belonging to the kholla of Tālurage, in the eastern part, which [first] had been acquired by the mahājanas62 of that village through purchase for a [pious] grant – from the share of Lakhumaṇaghaisāsa an ample nivartana [and] a scarce nivartana,63 i.e., altogether half of the share –, connected with half of the large house (uttama-gr̥ha) [and] one medium-size house (madhyama-gr̥ha) and connected with a farmyard (khaḍavalaka), after having acquired all that himself from the mahājana(s) of that village through purchase for a [pious] grant, into the hands of the four brāhmaṇas mentioned before and residing [there] …64
[Śaka 1115, c]65 And furthermore, the very same Kāliyaṇanāyaka gave, for as long as moon and sun exist, for the feeding of Veda students,66 after having acquired from the share of Māyiṁkauvā, granddaughter (dauhitrī = “daughter’s daughter”) of the Sāmavedin Someśvarabhaṭṭa, within the village limits of the same agrahāra Pauva, in the eastern part, the northern half of 1 nivartana of the best agricultural land by purchase for a [pious] grant, [this land] into the hands of the aforementioned brāhmaṇas residing [there] …67
In both Kolhapur stone inscriptions, the specific selection of the donative objects was apparently directly related to the purposes of these endowments. The garden probably provided the flowers for the pūjā. The yields from the allocated fields were meant for the acquisition of the substances required for the god Umāmaheśvara in the form of Amr̥teśvara. Food offerings (naivedya) for the goddess Mahālakṣmī are also explicitly mentioned. The subsistence of brāhmaṇas, partly labelled as sahavāsi, was a recurrent purpose in these collective endowments. Kāliyaṇanāyaka had bought some land to provide food, which was to be distributed among brāhmaṇas in a sa[t]tra hall once founded by his mother. Another donation of Kāliyaṇa was meant for the feeding of Veda students. Both inscriptions stipulate that the endowments by Bhoja ii were also to be used for required repairs at the maṭha; thus, it is likely that crops were to finance building material and the workforce.
Striking is the frequent mention of houses (gr̥ha) and house sites (niveśana) – which seem to have had a standard size of 12 hasta – connected to the agricultural land. Their purpose is only explicitly defined once, when a building on the premise of the maṭha was earmarked as storage for the god Umāmāheśvara and for the feeding of brāhmaṇas. The harvest from the scattered plots of land may have been brought to the storage of the maṭha. The intention does not seem to have been to settle brāhmaṇas in the villages mentioned in the two inscriptions. The village houses might have been used as estate buildings or to accommodate the workforce. The differentiation between uttama-gr̥ha and madhyama-gr̥ha may reflect a distinction between residential and farm buildings. The four “white houses” allocated to the brāhmaṇa administrators of the grant might have been residences, all the more as they were located within the Brahmanical settlement.
Part of the estates which were later transferred for religious purposes had first to be purchased. This applies to the altogether three endowments by the founder of the maṭha and his son. Whereas Śilāhāra Bhoja ii could probably use crown property, private donors had to buy the land plots from third parties. According to the epigraphical record, this was not at all uncommon in twelfth/thirteenth-century southern Maharashtra. However, the specific circumstances are still remarkable. Kāliyaṇanāyaka acquired land twice in one and the same village, which is described as an agrahāra or Brahmanical settlement. Both plots are called vr̥tti in Śaka 1114 and 1115, a term which was used in endowments for Brahmanical groups to denote the individual shares of the donees. According to the inscriptional stipulations, such religious grants were supposed to be handed down from one generation to the next, to sons, grandsons, etc. But they were usually not meant to be sold or otherwise alienated.
According to the testimony of the second Kolhapur inscription, however, a brāhmaṇa in one case, and the granddaughter of a Sāmavedin in the other case, sold (parts of) their shares from previous religious endowments, shares which they had probably inherited and which once must have been granted to provide the means of subsistence for their ancestors. The phrase dāna-krayeṇa might have been chosen to describe the fact that a vr̥tti could only be legally sold if this was done for a new religious endowment, thus not fundamentally violating the original intention of the vr̥tti donor. However, the transaction might also be an indication for the fact that the property rights over the donated assets got stronger over the course of time, after some generations, and developed from “possession” to “ownership”. It is also worth mentioning, that the Brahmanical authorities – the mahājanas of the agrahāra – had to be consulted or engaged.
A Patne (Chalisgaon) Stone Inscription of Śaka 1128/29
Victorious is Śrī-Bhāskarācārya, whose feet are worshipped by the sages, who was extremely well-versed in the teachings of [the Mīmāṁsā scholar Kumārila] Bhaṭṭa, who was unique in Sāṁkhya [and] an independent thinker in Tantra, who possessed impeccable knowledge in the Veda [and] was great in crafts and other arts, a virtuoso in metrics, knowledgeable in Vaiśeṣika, an enlightening (prabhākara) teacher in the teaching system of [the Mīmāṁsā scholar] Prabhākara, a poet in poetry, and like a Trinetra (Śiva) in the three branches [of astrology], [namely,] the multifarious mathematics and the others.72
The next verses contain the praśastis of the Yādavas of Devagiri and their Nikumbha subordinates. Stanzas 17 to 24 praise a father-son-line of nine members of Bhāskara’s family up to his grandson:
- –Trivikrama, kavicakravartin
- –Bhāskarabhaṭṭa, vidyāpati
- –Govinda, sarvajña
- –Prabhākara
- –Manoratha
- –Maheśvarācārya, kavīśvara
- –Bhāskara, sadvedavidyālatākanda
- –Lakṣmīdhara, vibudhāgraṇī
- –Caṅgadeva, daivajñavarya.
Lakṣmīdhara, head of all sages, who knew the content of the Veda, a king among logicians, acquainted with the essence of the discussions in texts on ritual acts, was Bhāskara’s son.
Jaitrapāla, regarding him as conversant with the content of all the śāstras, brought him away from this town and made him the chief of the learned [at his court].78
To him was born the son Caṅgadeva, the excellent astrologer of king Siṅghaṇa. He founded a college for the dissemination of the expert wisdom compiled by Śrī-Bhāskarācārya:
“The texts composed by Bhāskara, such as the Siddhāntaśiromaṇi, and other works of his descendants are to be studied (vyākhyeyā) extensively in my maṭha.”79
Whatever has been given here to the maṭha by [the Nikumbha kings] Śrī-Soideva, Hemāḍi and others – land, etc. – all that is to be protected by future rulers for the great increase of [religious] merit.80
Well-being. In Śaka 1128, in the year Prabhava, in the month of Śrāvaṇa, on the full-moon day, at the time of a lunar eclipse, Śrī-Soideva, in the presence of all people [concerned], bestowed upon the maṭha founded by his own teacher, a revenue collection point (āya-sthāna) with a libation of water.81
The praśasti of the Nikumbha dynasty at the beginning of the inscription reports that Soideva had already passed away and had been succeeded by his younger brother Hemāḍideva.82 Therefore, the epigraph must be a posthumous record of a grant of Soideva, issued by Hemāḍideva. Nikumbha Soideva, who apparently had regarded Caṅgadeva as his spiritual teacher, endowed the maṭha with the revenue from a village and with the right to collect certain customs duties.83
Unfortunately, nothing is known about the location of this maṭha, which was dedicated to the study of Bhāskara’s teachings. The find-spot of the stone inscription of Śaka 1128/29, the temple of Pāṭaṇādevī, some 18 km to the south of Chalisgaon in the Jalgaon district and some 75 km to the northwest of present-day Daulatabad, ancient Devagiri, the Yādava capital (see Map 1), may have been the site of this temple college. It seems as if the maṭha had been situated on the territory of the Nikumbha dynasty, which is described as “country of 1,600 villages” (ṣoḍaśa-[śa]ta-grāma-deśa).84 In the same village, at the Mahādeva temple, another stone epigraph of the Nikumbhas, the Patne (Chalisgaon) inscription of Śaka 1075 (1153/54 ce) has been found, which records the construction of a Śiva temple (harmya) by Indrarāja and the bestowal of a village on that temple by his son Govana iii (the later father of Soideva and Hemāḍideva), without referring to the Yādavas.85
Still another stone epigraph from the same region, the Bahal inscription of Śaka 1144 (1222/23 ce), which was found some 20 km to the north of Chalisgaon, at the Sārajādevī temple,86 provides interesting additional information, although only the Yādava rulers, not the Nikumbhas, have been referred to in the text. Six members of the family of the astrologer Bhāskara are listed, but he himself is not mentioned. Bhāskara’s grandfather Manoratha and his father Maheśvara have been enumerated, and then the lineage is continued with the member of a collateral branch called Śrīpati, another son of Bhāskara’s father. The grandson of this Śrīpati was a certain Anantadeva, who is described as the court astrologer of Yādava Siṅghaṇa ii and as the founder of a temple (prāsāda) for a goddess which is called “mother of the three worlds” (tri-jagaj-jananī).87 This deity, which can probably be identified with Pārvatī, is addressed as “Bhavānī” alias “Dvārajādevī” in the invocation and the invocatory stanza88 and named “Ambikā” at the end of the inscription, in the stanza containing the date.89
Concluding Remarks
As has been demonstrated on the basis of the epigraphic material for three important maṭhas (one of them being called maṭhikā instead) founded and promoted in the early medieval Deccan, i.e., (1) in the coastal stretch between present-day Maharashtra and Gujarat, (2) in northwest Maharashtra and (3) in south Maharashtra (see Map 1), such institutions were frequently dedicated to a particular local deity (for instance, the goddess Bhagavatī or Umāmaheśvara alias Amr̥teśvara). A maṭha could also be established for an explicitly mentioned educational purpose, namely, the teaching of the astrological theories of a famous early medieval scholar. All three maṭhas discussed here had been founded by brāhmaṇas, and at least two of them more specifically by what might be called “political” brāhmaṇas, i.e., such representatives of this group who were in one way or another involved in court politics and administration, as friends of ministers or court astrologers. Grants for the maintenance of the maṭhas were made by subordinate rulers as well as by the founders of these institutions and their families. Donations comprised of villages, land, taxes, oil-mills, flower gardens, houses, etc., the income or produce of which were meant to be used for repairs of the maṭha buildings, the sustenance of certain groups of brāhmaṇas and the worship of specific deities.
What distinguished the foundation of and the endowment for a maṭha or maṭhikā from the establishment of and the support for a temple or shrine? There were obviously many similarities, especially regarding their function as places of worship. But, also in contrast to Bengal (see Furui above), brāhmaṇas as founders seem to have been more instrumental for maṭhas than for temples in the early medieval (western) Deccan. In fact, it is the clear involvement of brāhmaṇas that distinguishes the description of a maṭha or maṭhikā from contemporary epigraphic depictions of temples in the Deccan. Endowments in favour of maṭhas could be administered by brāhmaṇas, often specifically mentioned, and a maṭha was home to brāhmaṇas. Besides residential areas for them, a maṭha could also comprise of a sattra or charitable feeding hall and storage facilities. In the Kolhapur inscriptions, the donative purpose most frequently mentioned is the relatively unspecific feeding of brāhmaṇas. Nothing is said about the location of the sattra, but it was probably situated in ancient Kollāpura, near the maṭha, as it seems rather improbable to assume that the feeding of the brāhmaṇas was organised in a decentralised manner in individual villages.
The three maṭhas in the early medieval (western) Deccan seem to have been – as their contemporary counterparts in Bengal (see Furui above) – highly complex centres of worship (for a particular god or goddess) and learning. They were apparently supposed to be inhabited by scholars proficient in the Vedas or in other Vedic sciences, as, for instance, astrology. Maṭhas could be attached to a greater pre-existing temple compound or be located on the premises of a larger devālaya with a main deity different from the maṭha’s own shrine. Maṭhas could also get involved in land disputes with neighbouring religious institutions and solve these through agreement.
Two of the three maṭhas were clearly situated in an urban environment, in the ancient cities of Saṁyāna and Kollāpura. But in contrast to Central India, where the ruins of Śaiva maṭhas still exist, and corresponding to the situation in Bengal, we are left without any excavated remains assignable to early medieval maṭhas from the Deccan. The charters pertaining to the maṭhikā at Saṁyāna have been discovered out of any archaeological context at Chinchani, some 40 km away. The maṭha at Kollāpura is recorded to have been located to the north of the western gate of the śrīmat-kollāpura-mahālakṣmī-devī-devālaya, which can be identified with the find-spot of the inscriptions at the still existing Mahālakṣmī temple of Kolhapur, but with no traces of the maṭha being detected so far. Nothing is known about the location of the maṭha founded for disseminating Bhāskara’s astrological knowledge. The find-spot of the inscription, the temple of Pāṭaṇādevī in the Chalisgaon taluk, may have been the site of this maṭha, but again without any traces of the college.
Primary Sources
Bahal inscription of Śaka 1144. Kielhorn 1894–95a.
Chinchani plates of Śaka 848. Sircar 1957–58a: 45–55.
Chinchani plate of the time of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kr̥ṣṇa iii. Sircar 1957–58a: 55–60.
Chinchani plate of Śaka 956. Sircar 1957–58b: 63–68; Mirashi 1977: 71–75.
Chinchani plates of Śaka 969. Sircar 1957–58b: 68–71.
Chinchani plates of Śaka 975. Sircar 1957–58b: 71–76.
Kolhapur inscription of Śaka 1104. Dikshit 1951–52; Mirashi 1977: 258–263.
Kolhapur inscription of Śaka 1112–1115. Kielhorn 1894–95b; Mirashi 1977: 264–267.
Lekhapaddhati. Strauch 2002.
Patne (Chalisgaon) inscription of Śaka 1075. Bühler 1879.
Patne (Chalisgaon) inscription of Śaka 1128/29. Kielhorn 1892.
Secondary Literature
Bühler 1879 = Georg Bühler. “An Inscription of Govana iii. of the Nikumbhavaṁśa.” The Indian Antiquary 8: 39–42.
Chakravarti 2001 = Ranabir Chakravarti. “Monarchs, Merchants and a Maṭha in Northern Konkan (c.ad 900–1053).” Ed. Ranabir Chakravarti. Trade in Early India. New Delhi: 257–281.
Deshpande 2002 = Madhav M. Deshpande. “Pañca-Gauḍa und Pañca-Drāviḍa: Umstrittene Grenzen einer traditionellen Klassifikation.” Ed. Michael Bergunder and Rahul Peter Das. Arier und Draviden: Konstruktionen der Vergangenheit als Grundlage für Selbst- und Fremdwahrnehmungen Südasiens. Halle: 57–78.
Dikshit 1951–52 = Moreshwar G. Dikshit. “Kolhapur Inscription of Silahara Bhoja ii: Saka 1104.” Epigraphia Indica 29: 13–18.
Fleet 1878 = John Faithfull Fleet. Pāli, Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions. London.
Gai 1946 = Govind Swamirao Gai. Historical Grammar of Old Kannada (Based Entirely on the Kannada Inscriptions of the 8th, 9th and 10th Centuries A. D.). Pune.
Kielhorn 1892 = Franz Kielhorn. “Patna Inscription of the Time of the Yadava Simghana.” Epigraphia Indica 1: 338–346.
Kielhorn 1894–95a = Franz Kielhorn. “Bahal Inscription of the Yadava King Singhana. Saka Samvat 1144.” Epigraphia Indica 3: 110–113.
Kielhorn 1894–95b = Franz Kielhorn. “Kolhapur Inscription of the Silahara Bhoja ii.; Saka Samvat 1112–1115.” Epigraphia Indica 3: 213–216.
Kielhorn 1905–06 = Franz Kielhorn. “Talagunda Pillar Inscription of Kakusthavarman.” Epigraphia Indica 8: 24–36.
Mirashi 1977 = Vasudev Vishnu Mirashi. Inscriptions of the Śilāhāras (Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum 6). Delhi.
Pingree 1981 = David Pingree. Jyotiḥśāstra. Astral and Mathematical Literature (A History of Indian Literature 6.4). Wiesbaden.
Pingree 1981–82 = David Pingree. “Sanskrit Evidence for the Presence of Arabs, Jews and Persians in Western India: ca. 700–1300.” Journal of the Oriental Institute of Baroda 31.2: 172–182.
Sanderson 2004 = Alexis Sanderson. “Religion and the State: Śaiva Officiants in the Territory of the King’s Brahmanical Chaplain.” Indo-Iranian Journal 47: 229–300.
Sanderson 2007 = Alexis Sanderson. “Atharvavedins in Tantric Territory: The Āṅgirasakalpa Texts of the Oriya Paippalādins and their Connection with the Trika and the Kālīkula. With critical editions of the Parājapavidhi, the Parāmantravidhi and the *Bhadrakālīmantravidhiprakaraṇa.” Ed. Arlo Griffiths and Annette Schmiedchen. The Atharvaveda and its Paippalādaśākhā. Historical and Philological Papers on a Vedic Tradition, Aachen: 195–311.
Schmiedchen 2014 = Annette Schmiedchen. Herrschergenealogie und religiöses Patronat. Die Inschriftenkultur der Rāṣṭrakūṭas, Śilāhāras und Yādavas (8. bis 13. Jahrhundert). Leiden.
Schmiedchen 2019 = Annette Schmiedchen. “Medieval Endowment Cultures in Western India: Buddhist and Muslim Encounters – Some Preliminary Observations.” Ed. Blain Auer and Ingo Strauch. Encountering Buddhism and Islam in Premodern Central and South Asia. Berlin: 203–218.
Sears 2014 = Tamara I. Sears. Worldly Gurus and Spiritual Kings: Architecture and Asceticism in Medieval India. New Haven and London.
Sircar 1957–58a = Dines Chandra Sircar. “Rashtrakuta Charters from Chinchani.” Epigraphia Indica 32: 45–60.
Sircar 1957–58b = Dines Chandra Sircar. “Three Grants from Chinchani.” Epigraphia Indica 32: 61–76.
Sircar 1966 = Dines Chandra Sircar. Indian Epigraphical Glossary. New Delhi.
Sircar 1967–68 = Dines Chandra Sircar. “Note on Chinchani Plate of Krishna iii.” Epigraphia Indica 37: 277–278.
Slaje 2019 = Walter Slaje. Harṣa von Kaschmir: Ein politisches Sittengemälde aus dem indischen Mittelalter. Kalhaṇa’s Rājataraṅginī (Buch 7) mit annotierter Übersetzung kritisch neu herausgegeben. Wiesbaden.
Sontheimer 1965 = Günther-Dietz Sontheimer. “The Juristic Personality of Hindu Deities.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 67: 45–100.
Strauch 2002 = Die Lekhapaddhati-Lekhapañcāśikā. Briefe und Urkunden im mittelalterlichen Gujarat. Berlin.
Subbarayalu 1997 = Y. Subbarayalu. “Presidential Address.” Journal of the Epigraphical Society of India 23: 1–15.
Tulpule and Feldhaus 2000 = S. G. Tulpule and Anne Feldhaus. A Dictionary of Old Marathi. Oxford.
The present contribution is a result of the project dharma “The Domestication of ‘Hindu’ Asceticism and the Religious Making of South and Southeast Asia”. This project has received funding from the European Research Council (erc) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 809994). I am indebted to Dániel Balogh and Sathyanarayanan Sarma for improving my translations of the Chinchani charters. I would also like to thank Dániel Balogh, Zachary Chitwood, Ryosuke Furui and Samana Gururaja for their comments on this paper.
Sears (2014: 4 and 7), discussing early medieval material from Central India, uses the expressions “Hindu monastery” or “monumental monastery”. Slaje (2019: 365), translating the Kashmiri chronicler Kalhaṇa into German, renders maṭha, with reference to Bühler, as “Burse bzw. Religionskollegium für Hindus”.
These are the Chinchani plates of Śaka 848; the Chinchani plate of the time of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kr̥ṣṇa iii, the Chinchani plate of Śaka 956, the Chinchani plates of Śaka 969 and the Chinchani plates of Śaka 975. Sircar (1957–58a and 1957–58b) has published the editions of these charters with facsimiles, but without translations. The three Chinchani plates of Śaka 848 were issued during the reign of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Indra iii. The Chinchani plate of the time of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kr̥ṣṇa iii refers to this ruler’s reign and, thus, must have been issued in the mid-tenth century, but is not dated. The Chinchani plate of Śaka 956 refers to the reign of Śilāhāra Chinturāja (Chittarāja). The two Chinchani plates of Śaka 969 and the two Chinchani plates of Śaka 975 were issued by two subordinate rulers from the Moḍha family, who perhaps also had to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Śilāhāra dynasty. See also Chakravarti 2001; Schmiedchen 2014: 51–52, 196–198.
For tājika as derived from middle Persian tāzik, “Arab”, see Pingree 1981–82. “Madhumati” must be “Muḥammad”.
Chinchani plates of Śaka 848, lines 29–31: -maṭhikā-saṁskārārthaṁ tathātra-nivāsi-paṁca-gau(30)ḍīya-mahāparṣado nava-janānāṁ daśamyāś ca bhagavatyā varākāra-nyāyena sarvvopakaraṇopabhogārthaṁ tathā dharmma-ci(31)ra-sthitaye. Sircar (1957–58a: 47–48) interpreted the word daśamī as another name of the goddess Bhagavatī. But Dániel Balogh has convincingly pointed out to me that it is more plausible to understand the phrase daśamyāś ca bhagavatyā as referring to Bhagavatī as the tenth recipient after the nine men (nava-janānāṁ) mentioned right before in the text.
For a discussion of this charter, see also Schmiedchen 2019: 211–213.
Chinchani plates of Śaka 848, line 29: -śrīmad-annammaiyoparodhād eta[t]-kr̥ta-maṭhikā-saṁskārārthaṁ.
Chinchani plates of Śaka 848, line 26, verse 22d: saṁyāne maṭhikābhidhānam atulaṁ yo ’cīkaran maṇḍanam||.
Chinchani plates of Śaka 848, lines 24–25, stanza 21.
Chinchani plates of Śaka 848, lines 31 and 58–63.
Chinchani plates of Śaka 848, lines 45–50: yas tv ajñāna-paṭalāndhita-dr̥ṣṭir anila-balāhata-sa(46)rit-taraṁga-bhaṁguraṁ tr̥ṇāgra-lagnāvaśyāyānavasthi[t]aṁ kari-kalabha-karṇṇāgra-lolaṁ śrānta-vihaga-gala-capalaṁ (47) prakupita-bhujaga-jihvā-taḍit-kṣaṇa-diṣṭaṁ naṣṭaṁ pratikṣaṇam anavasthitaṁ gati-jī(vi)tam anālocya ihā(48)mutra ca ya(ś)aḥ-saukhya-nidānaṁ dānāt puṇya-saṁcayam anādr̥tyādr̥ṣṭa-phalānabhijño durmmatir ācchi(49)ndyād ācchidyamānaṁ vānumodeta sa paṁcabhir mmahāpātakais sopapātakaiś ca saṁyu(50)kta[ḥ] syād.
Chinchani plates of Śaka 848, lines 27–29. This reference is interesting, because so far Maitrāyaṇī brāhmaṇas are not among the attested recipients of Rāṣṭrakūṭa endowments. Brāhmaṇas affiliated to this Vedic school had, however, received grants from the Maitrakas and the Bādāmi Calukyas.
Chinchani plates of Śaka 848, lines 29–30: tathātra-nivāsi-paṁca-gau(30)ḍīya-mahāparṣado nava-janānāṁ.
For this classification as of North Indian origin in contrast to pañca-drāviḍa, see Deshpande 2002.
Chinchani plates of Śaka 848, lines 4–5, stanza 4: jayatām ārya-deśīyā mahā-parṣad aninditaiḥ| vinayācāra-saujanya-dharmmopaśamibhir guṇai(5)ḥ||. For a related reference to Agastya, see lines 3–4, stanza 3 and Sircar 1957–58a: 46.
Chinchani plates of Śaka 848, lines 64–65, stanza 35cd: …| annaiyaḥ kīrttanena (65) tribhuvana-jayinā revaṇaḥ kautukaś ca sārddhaṁ devyāḥ prasādād amaragiri-vara-sthāyukāḥ sa{ṁ}nt(u) sarvve||.
It has to be noted though that a temple or shrine of this god is not explicitly mentioned in the charter. See below.
At least this is the most plausible way to explain why this copper plate made its way into the series of maṭhikā-related charters from Chinchani.
Chinchani plate of the time of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kr̥ṣṇa iii, stanzas 2–11 and 12–14.
Chinchani plate of the time of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kr̥ṣṇa iii, lines 1–2, stanza 1: bhagavatī bhavatāṁ bhava-bhī-bhide bhavatu śuṁbha-niśuṁbha-vināśanī| (2) sura-varāsura-kinnara-nārada-prabhr̥tibhir vvinutā varadābhavā||. It is remarkable that this deed, which was apparently set up by the representatives of Bhillamāladeva Madhusūdana, does not contain an introductory stanza for Viṣṇu or Madhusūdana, but merely one for Bhagavatī.
The compound durlaṅghya-śāla-kalita cannot only be understood figuratively, but also in its literal sense, alluding to the bone of contention, a plot of land owned by Bhillamāladeva, but located within the walls of the maṭhikā; see below.
The phrase used here is redundant, as āṅghri-pa as well as taru mean “tree”.
Chinchani plate of the time of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kr̥ṣṇa iii, lines 27–35, stanzas 15–19: astīha kautuka-kr̥tir (m)maṭhikānaghāryyā durllaṁ(28)ghya-śāla{ṁ}-kalitā kalinā vimuktā| svādhyāyikair akhila-vāṅmaya-tatva-bodhād udbhūta-buddhi-(29)paṭubhiḥ sakalārtha-dakṣaiḥ|| vedārtha-sāra-nipuṇair amitaiḥ parītā {||} lokair vvilokita-ka(30)(l)air amalaiś ca ramyā| deśyaiś ca bhāṇḍa-nicayair nnicitātisārair yā deva-bhūmir iva sad-vibu(31)dhair vvibhāti|| yasyāṁ bhagavatī devī deva-dānava-pūjitā| varadā mānavānāṁ tu kalpāṁghri(32)pa-tarūpamā|| virājitā dvāri ghana-praveśa-vinirga(m)āyāsita-loka-lakṣair[|] yā gopurai(33)r ucchrita-kūṭa-koṭi-kṣaṇa-dhvajī-bhūta-sitā{ṁ}bhra-bhaṁgaiḥ|| adhiṣṭhitā koṭi-sahasra-ratnaiḥ śrutā(34)nvitai{ḥ}ś cānagha-parṣadā vā| vimukta-māyair amadair udārair yā bhū-surair vveda-parair anindyai(35)ḥ||.
Chinchani plate of the time of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kr̥ṣṇa iii, lines 35–39: sa ca pūrvvoktaḥ śrī-bhillamāladevo vārika-purassaras tasyāś ca śrī-mahāparṣat-svā(36)dhyāyika-sameta-śrī-maṭhikāyāḥ śāsana-pū(rvvā)ṁ vyavasthāṁ prayacchati|| yathā maṭhiko(37)ttara-dig-bhāge sthita-prākārābhyantare ’smadīyā kiyan-mātrā bhūmir yā praviṣṭā ta(38)t-saṁbandhe maṭhikayā ’smākaṁ prati-dīpotsava-bhaṅga[ṁ] vyāvahār(i)ka-śreṣṭha-gaṁbhuvaka-drammāḥ śrota(39)ke deyā[ḥ] catvāriṁśad aṅkato ’pi dra 40|. I take vyāvahārika and śreṣṭha (for śreṣṭhin) as quasi synonyms.
Sircar’s (1966: 321) entry for śrotaka has “a kind of rent”, and refers to śrotra on the same page, which he renders as “probably a tax in kind collected from the farmers by a lessee of State lands; same as Marāṭhī śilotara, śilotarī or śilotrī”. Tulpule and Feldhaus (2000: 785) give the meaning of Old Marāṭhī śrotra, with reference to Sanskrit srota[s] and Old Marāṭhī srota or svotrā, as “a continuous flow (of income)”. For attestations of śrotra, see Schmiedchen 2014: 380, 409.
I am following here the interpretation of Sircar (1957–58a: 57; 1967–68). See also Lekhapaddhati 2.32.1; 2.33.1; 2.35.1.
Chinchani plate of the time of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kr̥ṣṇa iii, lines 39–40 and 45.
Chinchani plate of the time of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kr̥ṣṇa iii, line 41: sa mr̥to ’pi śva-garddabha-cāṇḍāla-vad draṣṭavyaḥ; see also line 44. For this punishment, see the phrase gardabha-cāṇḍāla-nyāyena in the Lekhapaddhati (2.39.1, 3; 2.41.1, 2).
Chinchani plate of the time of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kr̥ṣṇa iii, lines 45–46: sa (46) paṁcabhir mmahāpātakair upapātakaiś ca saṁpr̥kto bhave(t·).
Chinchani plate of the time of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kr̥ṣṇa iii, lines 39–42.
Chinchani plate of the time of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kr̥ṣṇa iii, lines 42–43: maṭhikā-dvāraṁ (43) dadatāṁ bhagavat(yai) vā pūj{y}āṁ vida(dh)atāṁ parṣan-madhya-vartty anyo vā.
Chinchani plate of the time of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kr̥ṣṇa iii, lines 44–45: anayā sthityā vyavastheyam ācandrārkka-kālaṁ yāvad ubhaya-va(45)rgeṇāpi pālanīyā.
Chinchani plate of the time of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kr̥ṣṇa iii, lines 46–47: yathā caitat tathā vyavasthā-(47)dātā sva-mataṁ āropayati|.
Chinchani plate of the time of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kr̥ṣṇa iii, line 47: mataṁ mama śrī-bhillamāladevasya vārika-purassarasya. For the concept of deities as juristic personalities, see Sontheimer 1965.
Chinchani plate of the time of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kr̥ṣṇa iii, line 50, verse 20d: …|… dha[r]-mmajñaḥ śāsanaṁ drāg alikhad anumatenobhayo[ḥ] spaṣṭam etat·||.
Chinchani plate of Śaka 956, lines 19–20: ghāṇake samutpanna-tail{y}a-samutpanna-ghaṭika-samaṁ mahāmaṇḍale(ś)vara-śrī-cāmuṇḍarājena (20) ghāṇakaḥ pradattaḥ. For ghāṇaka, see ghāṇā in Tulpule and Feldhaus 2000: 219; for ghaṭika, see Sircar 1957–58b: 65.
Chinchani plate of Śaka 956, lines 17–18: śrī-bhagavatyā ’gre dīpa-prajvalanā(18)rthaṁ.
Chinchani plate of Śaka 956, line 18: svādhyāyika-āgatābhyāgata-brā(hm)aṇa-pādābhyaṁ(j)anārthaṁ.
Chinchani plate of Śaka 956, line 18. Sircar (1957–58b: 67) read the name as “Cīhaḍa”. Mirashi (1977: 73), however, has “Vīhaḍa”. After checking the published facsimiles, I am following the reading of Sircar.
Chinchani plate of Śaka 956, line 13. Listed are the mahāpārṣikas Agasti, Gavī, Sīluva, Bhāskara, Arjuna, Dinakara, De[de]ti, Ā[r]ya, Si[ṁ]dūra und Ā[d]ityavarṇa. After consultation of the published facsimiles, I follow the reading of Sircar (1957–58b: 67) in most cases, except for “De[de]ti”, where Sircar gives “Dede”, omitting the last syllable, while Mirashi (1977: 73) reads this name as “Deveti”.
The fact that the Śilāhāras are not mentioned in these two charters must be the reason why Mirashi (1977) did not include them in volume 6 of the Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, which is dedicated to the Śilāhāra dynasty.
Chinchani plate of Śaka 969, lines 13–16: śrīmat-kavatika-maṭhikā-prabhujyamāna-kaṇāḍḍa-grāma-(14)siriḍirkā śrīmat-kavatika-maṭhikā-gr̥hastha-bahudharaḥ tathā (15) kāṅkuaḥ| tathā s(v)ādhy(ā)y(i)ka(ḥ) mahādevaḥ tathā lakṣmīdharaḥ| ete(16)bhyo hastodakena pradattā ācaṁdrārkakālaṁ yāva(t·).
Chinchani plates of Śaka 975, lines 30–31.
Chinchani plates of Śaka 975, line 31. The term here is (bho)janākṣayaṇī, which also occurs in one benedictory stanza for this grant (lines 43–44). Other protective verses use the words bhojana and grāsa (lines 42 and 46). The expression akṣayaṇī must be an abbreviated form of the well-known technical term akṣayanīvī.
Chinchani plates of Śaka 848, line 32; Chinchani plate of Śaka 956, line 10; Chinchani plates of Śaka 975, line 14. For the relevant terms including the expression haṁyamana/haṁjamana, see Subbarayalu 1997: 8–9; Schmiedchen 2014: 141, n. 490; 237–238; 280.
Chinchani plates of Śaka 975, line 15. It is significant in connection with the otherwise not specified Moḍha brāhmaṇas that the dynasty of subordinate rulers making this endowment also bore the name “Moḍha”.
Both stones were in a moderate state of preservation when the estampages were taken. Franz Kielhorn (1894–95: 213), the editor of the Kolhapur inscription of Śaka 1112–1115 reported: “The stone which contains this inscription, was built into the wall of the house of Aṇṇācārya Paṇḍit, in the enclosure of the temple of Ambābāī, and is now deposited in the town-hall, of the city of Kolhāpur.” Moreswar G. Dikshit (1951–52: 13), in his English edition of the Kolhapur inscription of Śaka 1104, recorded: “This inscription, now preserved in the wall of the Hari-Hareśvara shrine in the compound of the famous Mahālakshmī temple at Kolhāpur, was first noticed by me in December 1945, when I visited the place for the excavations on the Brahmapuri mound, near Kolhāpur. The stone bearing this inscription is reported to have been found while digging the foundation wall of Mr. Panditrao’s house in close vicinity of the temple several years ago and later built into the outer wall of the above-named shrine for the sake of preserving it.” Mirashi (1977: 264 and 258), in his corpus edition of the Śilāhāra inscriptions in Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum 6, gives this information for the Kolhapur inscription of Śaka 1112–1115: “The stone bearing this inscription was found built into the house of Annacharya Panditrao in the enclosure of the temple of Mahālakshmī at Kolhāpur, and is now deposited in the town-hall of that city;” and for the Kolhapur inscription of Śaka 1104: “The stone bearing this inscription is said to have been found while digging the foundation wall of Mr. Panditrao’s house in the enclosure of the temple of Mahālakshmī at Kolhāpur some years ago, and was then built into the outer wall of the Hari-Hareśvara shrine in the courtyard of the temple for safe preservation. It is now preserved in the Town Hall at Kolhāpur.”
For the details, see below.
Kolhapur inscription of Śaka 1104, line 18.
Sanderson 2007: 289, n. 185. For this type of religious epithets, which was particularly popular among subordinate rulers, see also Schmiedchen 2014: 258–259; 313; 391; 406; 448.
Only the additional endowment of Lokaṇanāyaka from Śaka 1104 (see in the text below) was handed over to two other brāhmaṇas, whose names are not mentioned, but who are described as sons of a mahattara.
Dikshit 1951–52: 14. The two Kolhapur inscriptions mention a quarter of and the feeding of Sahavāsi brāhmaṇas.
For different interpretations of the epithet ghaisāsa, see Kielhorn 1905–06: 26, n. 1; Schmiedchen 2014: 263, n. 214.
The term is missing here, but attested in line 30. For vapyaka as a measurement for sowing, see Sircar 1966: 362.
According to Gai (1946: 166), the term aruvaṇa denoted a minor tax of 6 paṇa; see also Schmiedchen 2014: 258, n. 191.
Kolhapur inscription of Śaka 1104, lines 19–33: śrīman-mahāmaṁḍaleśvaro śrī-bhojadevo … nija-(rājyā)bhivr̥ddhaye śrīmat-kollāpura-mahālakṣm(ī)-devī-de(22)vālayābhyantare paścima-dvārottara+++ (saha)vāsi-lokaṇa-nāyakena amr̥teśvara-mūrty-umāmaheśvarārthaṁ brāhmaṇa-bhojanārthaṁ ca kārita(sya) (23) maṭhasya koṣṭhāgārārthaṁ tad-deva++++++ maṭhasyābhyaṁtare nai¿yiri?⟨rr̥⟩tya-diśo bhāge dvādaśa-hasta-pramāṇaṁ gr̥ham ekaṁ tan-maṭha-niviṣṭa-saha(24)vāsy-āditya-bhaṭṭa-janārdana-bhaṭṭa-[karahāṭaka-prabhā]kara-ghaisāsa-vāsiyaṇa-ghaisāsety evaṁ-(pramukha)-brāhmaṇebhyo [saha]vās(i)-da[t]ta-puravargga-dakṣiṇa-(di)(25)śi ++ dhavala-gr̥ha-catuṣṭayaṁ ++++++ pūjārthaṁ (varuṇā)t pūrva-diśi puṣpavāṭakam ekaṁ (tasyaiva devasya paṁcopacāra-)pūjārtham brāhmaṇa-bhojanā(26)rthaṁ ca paṇaturage-gollāṁtargata-seleyavāḍa-grāma-sīmābhyantaram uttara-dig-bhāge ++++ paṁcā(ś)ad-adhikaṁ catuḥ-śata-(27)kṣetraṁ tat-pratibaddhaṁ paṁḍarana{(n)}-(t)ad-grāmābhyantare dvādaśa-hasta-pramāṇa-gr̥ham ekaṁ etat sarvvaṁ purvvokta++++++ śāsana-sahitaṁ … [|] tasyaiva devasya (paṁcopa)(29)cāra-pūjārthaṁ tan-maṭha-khaṁḍa-sphuṭita-jīrṇṇoddhārārthaṁ (ta)dīya-brāhmana-bhojanārthaṁ ca eḍenāḍa+++ (30) tad-deśa-daṁḍena paṁca-viṁśaty-adhika-dvi(ś)ata-vap(y)akaṁ kṣetraṁ dvādaśa-hasta-vistīrṇṇaṁ niveśanaṁ ca tathā +++pratibaddhaṁ ++ (31) nivarttanaṁ kṣetraṁ dvādaśa-hasta-vistīrṇṇaṁ niveśanaṁ ca aruvaṇa-sahitaṁ aṣṭa-bhoga-teja-sāmya-(sahitaṁ kāśyapa-)sagotrasya uddhavā(32)ryasya pautrābhyāṁ mahattara-mādhavāryasya putrābhyāṁ nemaṇa-lakṣmaṇayor ddatt(a)ṁ tenaiva lokaṇa-nāyakena … (śāsana-)sahitaṁ dāna-kraye(ṇ)a gr̥hītaṁ ācaṁdrārkka-tārāsthiraṁ dattaṁ||.
For Amr̥teśvara, see Sanderson 2004: 229; 239–242; 245; 247–249; 251–256; 260–264; 267; 272–273.
The meaning of khalla in śāli-khalla-kṣetra is unclear. Perhaps this term is related to khala, “threshing floor”?
For khaḍavalaka, see Mirashi 1977: 264, n. 2.
Kolhapur inscription of Śaka 1112–1115, lines 1–13: śrīman-mahāmaṇḍaleśvaro vīra-bhojadevaḥ … nija-rājyā(4)bhivr̥ddhaye sahavāsi-lokaṇa-nāyakena kāritasya maṭhasya amr̥teśvara-mūrty-umāmaheśvara-devasya paṁcopacā(5)ra-pūjārthaṁ sahavāsi-brāhmaṇa-bhojanārthaṁ śrī-mahālakṣm(ī)-devyās tri-kāla-naivedya-pari(c)āl[an]ārthaṁ tan-maṭha-khaṁḍa-sphuṭi(6)ta-jīrṇṇoddhārārthaṁ eḍenāḍā{ṁ}ntarggata-kopparavāḍa-grāma-sīmābhya{ṁ}ntare pūrvva-digbhāge … e(9)(ḍe)nāḍa-daṁḍa-mānena vapyakānām paṁcāśad-adhikam paṁca-śataṁ śāli-khalla-kṣetraṁ tat-pratibaddhaṁ tad-grāmābhyantare dvādaśa-(10)(ha)sta-pramāṇaṁ niveśanaṁ tat-pratibaddhaṁ khaḍavalakaṁ ca|| etat sarvvaṁ tan-maṭha-niviṣṭa-sahavāsy-āditya-bha(11)ṭṭa-lakṣmīdhara-bhaṭṭa-karahāṭaka-prabhākara-ghaisāsa-vāsiyaṇa-ghaisāsety evaṁ-niviṣṭa-brāhmaṇa-catuṣṭaya-haste śā(12)sana-sahitaṁ … ācaṁdrārkkasthiraṁ dattavān·||.
The meaning of the term khaddiya used here to denote half the vr̥tti is not clear.
This is one of the rare attestations of a clear plural form of the term mahājana; see also Schmiedchen 2014: 176–184.
Kielhorn (1894–95: 215) and Mirashi (1977: 267) translated the expressions uttama-nivartana and kaniṣṭha-nivartana as “largest nivartana” and “smallest nivartana”, respectively.
Kolhapur inscription of Śaka 1112–1115, lines 13–19: anyac ca|| … tasyaiva sahavāsi-lokaṇa-nāya(15)kasya putraḥ kāliyaṇa-nāyakaḥ sva(-mātuḥ pomākauvāyāḥ) sa(tre brahma)ṇa-bhojanārthaṁ tālurage-khollā{ṁ}ntarggata-a(16)grahāra-pauva-grāma-sīmābhya{ṁ}-ntare pūrva-dig-bhāge tad-grāma-(ma)hājanair ddāna-krayeṇa gr̥hīta(ṁ) kha(ddi)ya(ṁ) lakhumaṇa-ghaisā(17)sasya vr̥tti-madhye uttama-nivartta(nam ekam kaniṣṭha-ni)varttanam ekaṁ evam arddhā vr̥ttiḥ tat-pratibaddhaṁ u(ttama)-gr̥hasyārddhaṁ madhyama-gr̥(18)ham ekaṁ tat-pratibaddhaṁ khaḍavalakaṁ e(tat sarvvaṁ tad-grāma-mahā)jana-hastā(t dā)na-krayeṇa gr̥hītvā pūrvvokta-niviṣṭa-brāhmaṇa-catuṣṭaya-haste … dattavān·||.
The date here is not given in the Śaka era but in the cyclic year Pramādin which corresponds to Śaka 1115; see Kielhorn 1894–95b: 215.
The meaning of khoḍakā (<kṣudra?) in vedādhyayana-(kho?)ḍakācchātra is not clear.
Kolhapur inscription of Śaka 1112–1115, lines 19–23: anyac ca|| … (20) … (tasminn eva agrahāra-pauva)-grāma-sīmābhya{ṁ}ntare pūrvva-digbhage chaṁdoga-someśvara-bhaṭṭasya (21) dauhitryā māyiṁkauvāyāḥ vr̥tte(r uttama-bhūmeḥ nivarttanasyottarārddhaṁ sa e)va kāliyaṇa-nāyakaḥ vedādhyayana-(kho?)ḍakā-(22)cchātra-bhojanārthaṁ tasyās sakā(śād dāna-krayeṇa) gr̥hītvā (pūrvvokta-ni)viṣṭa-brāhmaṇa-catuṣṭaya-haste … ācaṁdrārkkasthiraṁ dattavān·||.
For the date, which is more likely to have fallen into Śaka 1129, see Kielhorn 1892: 341.
Kielhorn 1892: 338; see also Fleet 1878: 30, no. 284. The temple, which is situated ca. 3 km to the south of the village, is now called Pāṭaṇādevī (after the locality) or Candrikādevī.
Patne (Chalisgaon) inscription of Śaka 1128/29, line 1, stanza 1.
Bhāskara is believed to have been born in Śaka 1036 (1114/15 ce); see Kielhorn 1892: 340.
Patne (Chalisgaon) inscription of Śaka 1128/29, lines 1–3, stanzas 2–4: udbha(2)ṭa-(bu)ddhir bhāṭṭe sāṁkhye saṁkhyaḥ sva-taṁ(tra)-dhīs taṁtre| vede nava(dya)-vidyo ’nalpaḥ śilpādiṣu kalāsu|| svacchaṁdo yaś chaṁdasi śāstre vaiśeṣike viśeṣa-jñaḥ| yaḥ śrī-prabhākara-guruḥ prabhākara-da(3)rśane kaviḥ kāvye|| (ba)huguṇa-gaṇita-prabhṛti-skaṁd{dh}a-tritaye tri-netra-samaḥ| vibudhābhivaṁdita-pado jayati śrī-bhāskarācāryaḥ||.
Kielhorn (1892: 340) opined that “there can hardly be any doubt that the kavicakravartin Trivikrama … is … the author of the Damayantī-kathā, who, in the introduction of his work, describes himself as the son of Nemāditya (or Devāditya) and grandson of Śrīdhara, of the Śāṇḍilya vaṁśa.”
For another reference to the Paramāra king Bhoja, see Furui’s discussion of the Bangarh stone slab inscription above.
Patne (Chalisgaon) inscription of Śaka 1128/29, lines 14–15, stanza 17.
Patne (Chalisgaon) inscription of Śaka 1128/29, lines 15–16, stanza 19.
Patne (Chalisgaon) inscription of Śaka 1128/29, lines 16–17, verse 20c: ya(c)-chiṣyaiḥ saha ko ’pi no vivadituṁ (17) dakṣo vivādī kvacic.
Patne (Chalisgaon) inscription of Śaka 1128/29, lines 17–18, stanzas 21–22: lakṣmīdharākhyo ’khila-sūri-mukhyo vedārtha-vit tārkika-cakravarttī| kratu-k(ri)yā-kāṁḍa-vicāra-(18)sāra-viśārado bhāskara-naṁdano ’bhūt·|| sarva-śāstrārtha-dakṣo ’yam iti matvā purād ataḥ| jaitrapālena yo nītaḥ kṛtaś ca vibudhāgraṇīḥ||.
Patne (Chalisgaon) inscription of Śaka 1128/29, lines 18–20, stanzas 23–24: tasmāt sutaḥ siṁghaṇa-cakravartti-(19)daivajña-varyo ’jani caṁgadevaḥ| śrī-bhāskarācārya-niba(d)dha-śāstra-vistāra-hetoḥ kurute maṭhaṁ yaḥ|| bhāskara-racita-graṁthāḥ siddhāṁtaśiromaṇi-pramukhāḥ| tad-vaṁśya-kṛtāś cānye vyā(20)khyeyā man-maṭhe niyamāt·||. In fact, the text uses a present-tense form (kurute) when referring to Caṅgadeva’s foundation of the maṭha. The Siddhāntaśiromaṇi is regarded to date from 1150 ce, and Bhāskara is also considered as the author of the Karaṇakutūhala of Śaka 1105 (1183 ce); see Pingree 1981: 25–26; 35–36.
Patne (Chalisgaon) inscription of Śaka 1128/29, line 20, stanza 25: śrī-soidevena maṭhāya dattaṁ hemāḍinā kiṁ{c}cid ihāparaiś ca| bhūmy-ādi sarvaṁ pratipālanīyaṁ bhaviṣya-bhūpair bahu-puṇya-vṛddhyai||.
Patne (Chalisgaon) inscription of Śaka 1128/29, lines 21–22: svasti śrīśāke 1128 prabhava-saṁvatsare śrāvaṇa-māse paurṇṇamāsyāṁ caṁdra-grahaṇa-samaye śrī-soidevena sarva-jana-saṁni{d}dhau hastodaka-pūrvvakaṁ nija-guru-racita-maṭhāyāya-sthānaṁ (22) dattaṁ||. Kielhorn (1892: 346) has translated āya-sthāna as “sources of income”.
Patne (Chalisgaon) inscription of Śaka 1128/29, line 12, stanza 15. See also Schmiedchen 2014: 370; 384.
Patne (Chalisgaon) inscription of Śaka 1128/29, lines 25–26. The term sūṁka must be derived from Sanskrit śulka.
Patne (Chalisgaon) inscription of Śaka 1128/29, line 12, stanza 15.
Patne (Chalisgaon) inscription of Śaka 1075: lines 21–24, stanzas 17 and 19. See also Fleet 1878: 30, no. 283.
Bahal inscription of Śaka 1144: lines 15–16, stanza 17.
Bahal inscription of Śaka 1144: lines 1–2, prose invocation and stanza 1.
Bahal inscription of Śaka 1144: line 18, stanza 20.
