Two Harsōlā Copper-plate Grants of Sīyaka (Trivedi nos. 1-2). Metadata.
Creators: name: Trivedi, H. V.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 1978
Subjects: IN060015
IN060016
Paramaras Inscriptions, Sanskrit -- India.
Parmāra
India -- History -- 1000-1526 -- Sources.
Sīyaka

description: Harsol (હરસોળ, Tā. Talod, Dist. Sabarkantha, Gujarat). Two Harsōlā Copper-plate Grants of Sīyaka (Trivedi nos. 1-2). Metadata.

Coordinates:   23°21'44"N   73°1'3"E
description: Selected bibliography:



Trivedi (1978) 1-5, nos. 1-2
description: TWO HARSŌLĀ COPPER-PLATE GRANTS OF SĪYAKA

[Vikrama] Year 1005 

The plates on which these grants are incised were noticed by D. B. Diskalkar in the Annual Report of the Watson Museum, Rajkot for 1922-23, p. 13, and also in the Proceedings of the Madras Oriental Conference, pp. 303 ff. The same scholar also published their contents, with his own transcripts thereof, in a Gujarātī Journal called Purātattva, Vol. II, pp. 44 ff. Subsequently, the inscriptions were edited by him, with abridged translation and facsimiles, jointly with the late Rao Bahadur K. N. Dikshit, in the Epigraphia Indica, Vol. XIX (for 1927), pp. 236 ff. As the original plates are not accessible to me, the grants are edited here from inked estampages kindly provided by the Chief Epigraphist and also from the photographs accompanying the article in the Epi. Ind.

They are two grants, each consisting of two plates which are engraved only on the inner side and which were, at the time when Dikshit wrote on them, in the possession of a Visnagarā Brāhmaṇa named Bhaṭṭa Magan Motīrām, a resident of the village Harsōlā in the Prāntija tālukā of the Ahmedabad District in Gujarāt. Unfortunately, no information is available as to where and under what circumstances the plates were discovered. The editors of the grants were informed by the late Rao Bahadur Keshavlal H. Dhruva, as we are also told, that the first two of them were found joined together by a ring and the remaining two were found loose. But from the presence of the Garuḍa symbol on only one of the sets, it was conjectured that all the four plates were originally joined together, all the more so when both the grants were issued by the same king on the same day to two Brāhmaṇas who were related to each other as father and son.[1] For the sake of convenience, I follow Dikshit and Diskalkar in calling the father's grant as grant A and the son's grant as B; both are edited here as Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, but so far as the preliminary portion of this article is concerned, both the grants are treated separately, since each has its own peculiarities with reference to palaeography, orthography and some other aspects of them. With reference to their common features, it may, however, be stated here that their edges are raised into rims to protect the writing. which is rather bold and more carefully done in grant A. It is in a fair state of preservation.

GRANT A (No. 1) 

This set consists of two rectangular plates of copper, each of which is inscribed on the inner side only, as stated above. When found, they were held together by a ring passing through a hole, showing a diameter of about .5 cms. and cut in the centre of the lower side of the first and the upper side of the second, disturbing the writing in two lines at the edge. Nothing about the ring is now known. The inscribed portion on the first of the plates covers a space measuring about 2 l.5 cms. broad by 13 cms. high and contains 16 lines, whereas that on the second it is 21 cms. broad by 8.5 cms. high and contains only 11 lines (17 to 27), the last of which shows only one letter followed by a symbol somewhat resembling the Nāgarī akshara da (for chha, as we find at the end of some of the inscriptions). In the lower field of the left side and below the last line of the second plate is incised the representation of flying Garuḍa, the symbol of the Paramāra house of Mālava, holding a snake in his right arm and with the left hand raised above as if to strike it. The height of the letters varies from ·3 to ·5 cms., excepting that of those employed in the sign-manual of the king, which are slightly bigger.

The characters are Nāgarī of the 10th century A.C. An interesting feature to be noted about the head-strokes of the letters is that most of them show curvatures or zigzags in the middle and some of them resemble a small crescent. To note the forms of some of the letters, we find that the left limb of the initial a is a curve with a slanting stroke below, as in anēka, 1. 10 and atula-, 1. 11; but occasionally it also represents a form in which the curve is surmounted by a small vertical stroke so as to make the letter show its modern form as in adṛishṭa, 1. 19. The initial i is represented by two loops placed horizontally and subscribed by the sign for medial u ending in a sharp curve below; cf., e.g., iti, 11. 17 and 20. The initial ē resembles a triangle with its appex below, cf. ēvaṃ, 1. 8. Of the consonants, kh consists of two triangles joined by a horizontal line above, see -nakha-, 1. 3; the forelimb of g is also formed as a triangle with its appex above; see yōga-, 1. 15; and the nasal ṅ is devoid of its dot, as in śārṅgi-, 1. 2. Ch exhibits two forms- one in which the loop is triangular and the other in which it is as in modem Nāgarī; both these forms are to be noticed in vidyuch-chakra-, 1. 1. The nasal ñ occurs once in ājñā, 1. 21, where it is used as a subscript of j. The lingual ṇ almost resembles the modern l, as in śōṇa-, 1. 1 The letters t, n, i and bh have retained their antique shape; see e.g., nēttra-, l. 1, and -bhujyamāna-, 1. 12. Attention may also be drawn to the two transitional forms of dh, one in vidha, 1. 8, which is rare and in which the left limb of the letter is endowed with a horn above; but generally we find this letter without the horn, as in vasudh-ādhipatya-, l. 15 and sādhu- and vudhē, both in 1. 25. In vudhē, again, the forms of both the consonants are alike but in vudhvā, 1.22, the consonant of the first of the letters differs in form from those of the rest two. Little distinction is observed between the shape of pand y; see Vappaiya-, 1. 5, and ripu, 1. 10. The form of ph in phalaṁ, 1. 24, differs entirely from that which is used throughout the rest of the record. The letter r presents at least three different varieties, one formed by a vertical stroke with a horizontal bar attached to its middle on the left, cf. -ari, 1. 5; another when the bar originates from the top-stroke itself, as in ḍaṁvara, 1. 1; and the third when the horizontal stroke has a wedge attached to it in the middle, as in kaḍāra, in the same line. With reference to the medial vowels, we find the sign for ā, sometimes replaced by a crescent attached to the right extremity of the top stroke of a letter, e.g. in kaḍāra and saṭā, both in 1. 1, and chūḍā in 1. 12. The vertical of the medial short i is often slightly bent to the right at the bottom, as in tasmin, l. 5, and likhitaṁ, 1. 26.

The language is Sanskrit and the inscription is composed in prose and poetry. Altogether there are seven verses which are not numbered. With reference to orthography, the following peculiarities are to be noted: (1) the letters b and v have the same sign throughout; see ḍamvara l. 1; (2) a class-consonant following r and also t preceeding it are doubled, as in garjji-tarjjita, 1. 2 and nēttra, 1. 1, respectively, but there are exceptions like darpa, 1. 2; (3) the signs for the medial ē and ō are denoted either by the ūrdhva-mātrā, as in kulē, but also by the pṛishṭha-mātrā, as in -dēva, 1. 3, and mosha, 1. 5. In the case of the medial ai and au, one mātrā appears at the top and the other, before the letter, as in Vairisiṅgha, 1. 6, and dhautā, 1. 7. The pṛishṭha-mātrā, is not fully developed; it is often only a short curve attached to the left of the top-stroke; in all these examples; (4) siṁha is twice spelt as siṁgha in II. 1 and 6, puṇya as puṇṇa in I. 19, kshuṇṇ as kshunna, 1. 3, and tṛiṇa as triṇa in 1. 16 but not in the line that follows it; (5) sandhis are occasionally not observed as noted in the text; (6) the visargais changed to s in 11. 2 and 23; and finally, (7) there is a general tendency to represent class-nasals by anusvāras, even wrongly at the end of a stich sometimes, though very rarely we find the n used, e.g., in narēndra, 1. 24 and in some other cases.

GRANT B (No. 2)

 Like the previous one, this grant too is incised on two rectangular copper-plates, each measuring about 20 cms. in breadth and 13 cms. in height. Both the plates are incised on the inner side only. As shown by a hole of the diameter of about ·5 cms. and cut through the lower and upper side of the first and the second plates respectively, both of them were originally held together by a ring, probably along with the same of the plates of grant A, about which we have already remarked above. The edges of the plates are fashioned thicker and raised into rims. The writing consists of 13 and 16 lines respectively, covering a space 19. 2 cms. broad by 12 cms. high on each, but the mechanical work betrays slovenliness both on the part of the writer and the engraver. Some of the lines of the writing are not straight and on the second plate the letters, which are slightly longer occasionally and more sparsely written than on the first, not only gradually decrease in size but are also compressed in the last 5 or 6 lines, and, in spite of it, a portion which could not be accommodated till the end of the last line had to be engraved in the margin on the right side thereof.

 The palaeography of the alphabet which was written by a different hand and naturally shows some variation in form, is also interesting in that some of the letters have assumed an advanced form. The letters kh and g, for example, have totally discontinued their triangular limbs, cf. khara-nakha, 1. 3, and pratāp-āgni-, 1. 6, respectively. The latter of these two examples also shows that p is distinguished from y. a feature not to be seen in the writing of grant A. Dh almost resembles v as in dhvani-vadhirita, 11. 10-11; and t in suta-, 1. 6, has assumed the advanced form, but the archaic form of this letter is also occasionally to be seen, as in atula-, 1. 12. The letter s too is mostly used in its advanced form, e.g. in sāmaṁta, 1. 9 and samaya, 1. 15. Ph exhibits its rare form in phala-, 1. 26, which is somewhat similar to that of the same letter in Grant A, as already seen above. Unlike the writing of the preceding grant, we find the pṛishṭha-mātrās fully developed here and the use of the mātrā above the top is also more often resorted to as in kulē and -mōsha-, both in 1. 5; and vairi, in 1. 6.

 About the language and composition, the same remarks as about Grant A are to be made here too; and orthographical peculiarities also are almost the same. It may be remarked, however, that the slovenliness on the part of the writer and the engraver is responsible for omitting limbs of some of the aksharas and also distorting those of some others, e.g. śva in paramēśvara, 1. 4, and śa in śaṅkha, 1. 10 have their tail separated from the loop; m in mōsha, 1. 5, appears as shōsha; sakala- in 1. 18 is engraved as makala; y in nāgarāya, 1. 20 appears as sha, and finally, shṭa in adṛishṭa, 1. 21, as sṭa.

As stated above, the plates constitute two grants which were issued on the bank of the Māhī by the Mahārājādhirājā and the crest-jewel among the feudatories (sāmanta-chūḍā-maṇi), the illustrious Sīyaka, who, as we shall see below, belonged to the royal house of the Paramāras. The grant B is an exact copy of A, with the exception of the formal portion. The object is to record the  gift of the villages Kumbhārōṭaka and Sīhakā in the Mōhaḍavāsaka vishava, respectively to Upādhyāya Lalla,[2] son of Gōvardhana, and to Nīnā Dīkshita, son of Upādhyāya Lalla, a Nāgara Brāhmaṇa of Ānandapura and belonging to Gōpāli gōtra. The dāpaka or the person  who caused these grants to be made and who was probably the officer-in-charge of registering the grants was the Ṭhakkura, the illustrious Vishṇu. The grants were written by the Kāyastha Guṇadhara. The date borne by both the grants, in the last line of each, in decimal figures only, is Māgha vadi 30, Wednesday, 1005, which, as calculated by Dikshit, regularly corresponds to 31st January, 949 A.C., showing that the year was Kārttikādi and the month was amānta.

Each of the inscriptions opens with the customary symbol for Siddham and a verse invoking the blessings of thegod Vishṇu in his boar incarnation. This is followed by the mention of the illustrious Amōghavarshadēva with the birudas Paramabhaṭṭāraka. Mahārājādhirājāand Paramēśvara, and his successor, the P.M.P., the illustrious Akālavarshadēva, who had the additional epithets of Pṛithvi-vallabha and Śrīvallabha. These two kings are the well-known sovereigns of the royal Rāshṭrakūṭa house of Mālkhēḍ, either Amōghavarsha I (c. 814-878 A.C.) and his son Kṛishṇa II (c. 878-914 A.C.), or Amōghavarsha III (c. 934-939 A.C.) and his son Kṛishṇa III (c. 939-966 A.C ).[3 

Following this, we have an expression, viz. “in that family” (tasmin kulē); but as the family is not mentioned here, I agree with the editors of the grants in holding that since the expression narēndra­ pādānāṁ cannot be construed with tasmin kulē, a portion mentioning the name of the family is obviously omitted here through oversight by the writer.[4] Then we have a metrical portion (vv. 2- 4) introducing three kings, viz., Bappaiparāja, Vairisiṁha and Sīyaka, the latter in each case being the son and successor of the former. The description of all these princes is quite conventional. The prose-portion that follows in 11. 8-22 tells us that the illustrious Sīyaka assembled all the officials and residents of these two and the neighbouring villages and in their presence announced the perpetual endowments, which were made at the instance of the ruler of the Khēṭaka-maṇḍala, modern Kairā in Gujarāt, for the enhancement of the religious merit and fame of his parents and his own self.

 Then follow the usual instructions to the inhabitants of the village (in each case) to offer to the donee and to his sons and son's son, etc., in due succession, all the income as paid then, such as the shares (of the produce), royalties, taxes, and gold and so on. With two imprecatory verses followed by the date, the name of the dāpaka and of the writer, as already seen above, both the grants are concluded, with the sign-manual of the king Sīyaka in the last line.

 Sīyaka of both the present inscriptions is evidently identical with his namesake, the father of Vākpati-Muñja, as we know from the latter's Dharampurī, Ujjain and Gaōnri grants, issued respectively in V. 1031 (975 A.C.), 1036 (980 A.C.) and 1038 and 1043 (981 and 986 A.C.).[5] The first of these grants was issued 25 years later than the present records, which is just the period of one generation, as pointed out by the editors of these grants in the Ep Ind.; and that Sīyaka is also the same ruler for whom we have another date, viz. V. l 026, or 969 A.C. This shows that he held the throne at least from 949 to 969 A.C., which too is roughly a period of one generation. His father is stated to be Vairisiṁha, as also in the grants referred to above; but whereas his grandfather's name is mentioned as Vappaiparāja in the present inscription, it figures as Kṛishṇa-rāja in all the inscriptions of his son. The discrepancy in the names of the grandfather may be explained away by considering that both the names were borne by one and the same prince, as we know from a number of     instances; and there is no room for doubt that Bappairāja was the same as Vākpatirāja, the former being a Prākṛit equivalent form of the latter.[6]

The grants were issued by Sīyaka from his encampment on the bank of the Māhī, on his return from a successful expedition against Yōgarāja (1. 15), at the request of the ruler of Khēṭaka­maṇḍala. This evidently shows that the place was in the possession of Sīyaka or adjoining to his dominions, and we may also hold that Yōgarāja was an enemy of the Paramāra prince. The identification of this adversary of Sīyaka is a vexed problem, but it is no doubt evident that his principality was situated on the west of the river and his possession was in the territorial division Khētaka where he was subdued. The history of this region of Gujarāt for this period is shrouded in mystery, and until it is so, we have to agree with Dikshit who held that the Yōgarāja of the present grants was either a chief of the Chāvḍā (Chāpōtkaṭa) dynasty of Anhilwāḍ-Pāṭan or of the Chālukya dynasty of the southern part of Saurashṭra. Both these houses had then acknowledged the overlordship of the Imperial Pratīhāra house of Kanauj, and the view that Sīyaka, who was the feudatory of the Rāshṭrakūṭa house, may have led an expedition against either of them seems to be quite justifiable.[7] 

As to the king of Khēṭaka, at whose instance the grants are stated to have been made, we have to observe that neither his name nor the family to which he belonged is mentioned in the records. It appears possible, however, as already suggested by Dikshit and Diskalkar while editing the grants, that this chief may have been a successor of Prachaṇḍa of the Brahmavāk family, on whom, according to the Kāpaḍvanj grant of Śaka 832 (910 A.C.), Khēṭaka-maṇḍala was bestowed by the Rashṭrakūṭa sovereign Akālavarsha who was ruling at Harshapura or the modern Harsōlā, where the present grants were obtained.[8]

Counting back from 974 A.C., the earliest known date of Vākpati-Muñja (his Dharampurī grant), and allowing 25 years to each of the three rulers mentioned in the present inscriptions, Bappaiparāja may be taken to have begun his career some time about 900 A.C., as a participient in the warfare of the Rāshṭrakūṭa Kṛishṇa II (878-914 A.C.) in the latter's invasion of Gujarat and the surrounding regions; [9] and he may have gained for himself the region of Khēṭaka. His son and successor Vairisiṁha appears to have pressed further in the east and entered Mālava, probably during the Rāshṭrakūṭa campaign is the north; and his son and successor Sīyaka, who may be presumed to have taken a further bold step, established himself in this region, capturing Ujjain, probably from Mādhava, a governor under the Pratīhāra king Mahēndrapāla II.[10] But it appears that almost at the same time he had to lose his hold over the portion of Gujarāt, since we know that Mūlarāja, the founder of the Chaulukya dynasty of Anhilwāḍ, was then busy struggling against Bārappā, a general of the Chālukya king Tailapa, who led an expedition in that region, from Lāṭa, i.e. southern Gujarat; and from the north, Mūlarāja could not have come in a hostile contact with Bārappā, without capturing that part of Gujarāt which was then under Sīyaka, who was then engaged in a war in the east. 

All the localities mentioned in the inscriptions have been identified by the editors of the grants. Khēṭaka- maṇḍala is stated to have been roughly equivalent to the modern Kairā, including some parts of the Ahmedabad District in Gujarat; the district (vishaya) of Mōhaḍavāsaka with Mōhḍāsā or Mōḍāsā in Prāntija tālukā of the Ahmedabad District; and the gift villages Kumbhārōṭaka and Sīhakāwith the present Kāmrōḍ and Sikā, lying about 20 kms. east and 13 kms. south of Mōḍāṣā, respectively. It is noteworthy here that a copper-plate grant of Bhōja-dēva of the dynasty has been recently found at Mōḍāsā.[11] Māhī is the well-known river which rises in the Jhābuā District of Madhya Pradesh, and flowing in the north so as to separate this state and Rājasthān on its east from Gujarāt on its west, takes a sudden turn to the south and enters the gulf of Cambay. Śivanātha, the shrine on this river and the place of encampment of the king, has been suggested to be identical with Sarnāl, lying near the place where the Māhī is now crossed by the Ānand-Gōdhrā section of the Western Railway. “It is still looked upon with sanctity in the neighbourhood and has an ancient Śiva temple named Gaḷtēśvara which is now a protected monument”. And lastly, Ānandapura, the original home of the donees, is the modern Vaḍnagar in Barōdā, which is also the original home of the Nāgar Brahmaṇas. It is often mentioned in the Valabhi inscriptions, and is about 80 kms. due south-southwest of Mōḍāsā, on metalled road to Gōdhrā.

 

[1] This view is plausible but not conclusive, since it is equally possible to hold that the figure could not be incised on the second plate on the son's grant for want of space.

[2] That the father is here called Upādhyāya and the son Dīkshita go to show that surnames had not then become stereotyped as in the modern days.

[3] Suggesting both these alternatives andalso drawing our attention to the fact that the date of the present inscriptions, i.e. V. 1005. which is equivalent to Śaka 870, is just intermediate between those of the Dēolī inscription (E.I., V, p. 188 ff.) and the Karhāḍ inscription (E.I., IV, p. 278ff.) of Kṛishṇa III, dated respectively in Saka 862 and 880, the editors of the present inscriptions are inclined to favour the second of these alternatives. Dr. D. C. Sircar also holds the same view, for which, see E. I., XXXII, p. 144; and it also appears to be in consonance with the well-known fact that Kṛishṇa III, or his successor Khotṭiga, according to a different view, led an expedition into Mālwā against the Paramāra ruler Sīyaka, probably necessitated by the latter's assumption of the title of Mahārājādhirājāpati (II. 12-13) in the present grants and thus proclaiming his independence. That Kṛishṇa III was the overlord of Sīyaka is known from the title Mahāmānḍalika-chūḍāmaṇi, also attached to his name in the present records; and it is possible that the overlord was given the honour.

[4] We do not know if the titles of Amōghavarsha and Akālavarsha were also borne by some of the predecessors of Bappaiparāja, but from what is stated in the present grants, it appears to be possible that he had some family     tie with the Rāshtrakūṭa house, probably on his mother's side. See Ep. Ind., op. cit., pp.143-44.

[5] See below, Nos. 4-7.

[6] In the royal genealogy recorded in the Udaipur praśasti (No. 24) we have two more members, viz., Vairisimha (I) and Sīyaka (I) as the predecessors of Vākpati (I), but as no historical fact is given there in connection with either of these princes, it has been assumed that either they had not established their power or there is merely a repetition of these two names, by mistake. See H.M.H.I., Vol. II, p. 118; also see P.O.C., Madras, pp. 308 ff.

[7] Op. cit., pp. 238-39. D. C. Ganguly takes this enemy to be identical with the Chālukya Avantivarman Yōgarāja II. See A.I.K., pp. 303 ff. It has also been pointed out that this ruler may have been the same as Rāḍupāṭi of the Navasāhasāṅkacharita, mentioned there as vanquished by Sīyaka (Ep. Ind., XIX, p. 240). But it may be observed here that besides similarity in the two names we have nothing else to establish this identity. On the other hand, attention may however be drawn to a fragmentary stone inscription found by Hall at Vidishā in Mālwā. This inscnption states that Vāchaspati of the Kauṇḍinya gōtra, a minister of the Chandēlla king Kṛishṇapa who was placed in charge of the region around Dudāhī by his brother Dhaṅga, firmly established the ruler of Rālā-maṇdala, Rōḍapa and some other places (J.A.S.B., XXXI. p. 111, n. 2). Now, in view of the fact that the Chandēlla territory then extended up to Vidishā in the south-west, the principality of the ruler who is stated to have been placed on the throne by Vāchaspati should be looked for still further in the south or south-west of Vidishā. From the Partābgaḍh inscription of Mahēndrapāla II (946 A.C.) we know that the Pratīhāra king had posted imperial officers at Ujjain and Maṇḍapikā, i.e., Mānḍū (Ep. Ind., XIV, p.176). In view of all these considerations, it is not unlikely that the ruler crowned by the Chandēlla minister may have been in the region comprising the Ujjain-Mānḍū area or somewhere in its vicinity; and from the maps I could trace a place of the name of Rālāmaṇḍala, situated about 24 kms. south­west of Māṇḍū, and another, now known as Rōḍadā, lying at almost the same distance north-west of Rālāmaṇḍala. Both these places are on the west of Māṇḍū, and their close proximity from each other and also nearness to the headquarters of the Pratīhāra governor goes very strongly to suggest that the ruler crowned by the Chandēlla minister was one in charge of this region, who appears to have been troubled by Sīyaka whose principality lay in the further south-west in Kairā and who was a feudatory of the Rāshtrakūṭas. the deadly enemies of the Pratīhāra. Also see C.I.I., Vol. IV, p. xxii (topmost note).

[8] B.G., Vol. I, pt. i, p. 129; also see Ep. Ind., I, p. 52.

[9] Vide Wardhā and Navasārī plates, J.B.B.R.A.S., Vol. XVIII, pp. 239 ff.

[10] See the Partābgaḍh inscription of Mahēndrapāla II (946 A.C.), Ep. Ind., XIV, p. 176.

[11] See below, No. 8.