Sonderdrucke aus der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
OSKAR VON HINÜBER
Njammasch, Marlene „Bauern, Buddhisten und Brahmanen: das frühe Mittelalter in Gujarat“
[Book review]
Originalbeitrag erschienen in: Indo-Iranian Journal 47 (2004), S. 308-320 308 Boot( E IEWS
Njammasch, Marlene, Bauern, Buddhisten und Brahmanen. Das früh Mittelalter in Gujarat lAsien- und Afrika-Studien der Humboldt- Universität zu Berlin Band 2). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag 2001, pp. XXI, 423. ISBN 3-447-04137-4. DM 116,
This study is based on the epigraphical material of the Maitraka kings, which consists of about 140 inscriptions, among them 37 fragments and three forgeries (nos. 26, 44, 72), 1 dated between A.D. 502 and A.D. 767.2 All inscriptions are grants of land to brahmins or to Buddhists. This rich material thus forms a solid and fairly coherent basis for the study of a regional medieval dynasty of special interest, because it promoted brahtnins and Buddhists alike by gifts. The investigation into this material is presented in six chapters: on structure and administration of the Maitraka kingdom, on villages in Gujarat between the 6th and 8th centuries, on irrigation in the Maitraka kingdom, on Buddhist monasteries in early medieval Gujarat, on the role of brahmins in Gujarat, and finally, on early temples in Gujarat. Three appendices contain a most useful list of the Maitraka inscriptions 3 and their editions often in journals or collections not easily accessible, schematical drawings of the village land as described in the inscriptions, and finally a map showing the distribution of Buddhist monasteries. There is, most regrettably, no index. The list of Maitraka inscriptions 4 is introduced very briefly only (p. 361). It is arranged chronologically, inscriptions by feudatories of the Maitrakas being subsumed under the name of the king ruling at the time, when their grants were issued, e.g., nos. 1, 22 and 36. As the date of the grant by the Saindhava King Ahivarman seems to be uncertain, this
On th f r r : M. j h: E n äl h r r t tt fr h tt l lt rl h n G j r t. trä d S ld n In t t t ( b ldt Un v r tät z rl n ft . , pp. 20. 2 On M tr hr n l f.: A. S h d h n . r : Ar n d r G pt nd hr r hf l r: l t h K lt r, n l h ht nd tr hn n früh tt l lt rl h n Ind n, n: . l Md. : rr h r z r n t . W n nt n rl h r tr hn n n Ant nd G n rt. r n 2002, pp. 06 . h f ll n 26 n r pt n f th l t r r f r n t ddh t : 0, , 8, 22, 2 . 24, 2 , 8, , 40, 46, 4 , 4 , , 4, , 6 , 6 , 6 , 0, . . 8. 80, 86. 8 . h r n r f r n t n , n t d b K. . rj ( n xt n t . p. . 4 h n nl r d, b t n t n r l l pr v d, nd r p t d t v r n f th l t n th t ll v r f l th b Kr hn r . rj : An nt t r f S r htr (b n t d f th M tr f l bh t III nt r A . b 2, pp. 2 26 , h h pr 0 n r pt n nd , n t rn, n nl r d v r n f th l t b . . S n l : h Ar h l f G j r t ( n l d n K th r . b 4 , App nd x A, pp. 6 2 l t n 8 n r pt n .
4 Ind Ir n n rn l 4 : 08 20, 2004. , Spr n r 200 ..... 0 : 0 00 % 0 8 MS 682 . BOOK REVIEWS 309 inscription does not figure in the list, although it is used (p. 257 note 271). Occasionally, there are minor errors as in no. 73 and 74: No. 73 has only a translation, unfortunately no facsimile, but the facsimile is in no. 74 IA 1. 1872. The strange mistake in no. 19 "of King Dharasena II." among the grants of King Dhruvasena I., however, is due to a wrong title given to the article by its authors in JO1B 22. 1972 (!). Lastly, to reassure the reader, the author might have stated whether or not she really saw all inscriptions, even those published in most unaccessible journals or collections. The material presented in the book under review is very difficult to handle, because philological problems abound. For, epigraphical Sanskrit is still very badly understood, and real discussions of technical terms are rare. 5 Many inscriptions were edited at a rather early date during the second half of the 19th century, when an interpretation was still more difficult than it is today. Still, the very first guesses by pioneers in Indian epigraphy seem to be taken as the established meaning of words more often than one would wish. Obviously because of the many uncertainties in detail, quite a few editors of inscriptions hesitated to add translations. Consequently, the present study is particularly wellcome as it raises high hopes to offer some help to overcome at least part of these intricate prob- lems and thus paving the way for a better understanding of the Maitraka land grants. The centre of the problems, as is well known, are the technical terms, administrative or agricultural, which must be understood exclusively from the inscriptions themselves, because the Dharmagästras are astonishingly silent. 6 For the religious terms in the Buddhist inscriptions, on the other hand, the literary tradition, particularly the Vinaya, is most helpful. Although this is not visible from the table of contents, the author pays much attention to individual terms, in spite of a certain predelection for intrepretation before comprehension. This is particularly obvious in the first chapter on administration, which is based more or less on the meanings of words for different officials as
5 Exceptions are, e.g., H. M. Bhadkamkar, El 11. 1911/1912, pp. 175-177 or A. S. Altekar: Räshtrakiitas and their Times. Poona 2 1967, pp. 213ff., U. N. Ghoshal: Contribu- tions to the History of the Hindu Revenue System (1929) ed. with an important "Glossary" by S. K. Mitra. Calcutta 1972 and, first of all the recently published thesis by 1. Strauch: Die Lekhapaddhati-Lekhapaficägikä. Briefe und Urkunden im mittelalterlichen Gujarat. Berlin 2002, which adduces a wealth of important material for the study of the vocabulary of land grants and other. 6 This, however, does not justify to pass over the evidence collected in P. V. Kane's well known "History of Dharmag5stra", a work completely ignored by the author(!). —
Copper-plate grants are mentioned in the Yäjfiavalkya-smr. .ti I .519f. with Madlqarä. For the formular of later grants cf. now Strauch, as note 5, chapter 2.2. 0 OOK E IEWS
v n n . C. S r r ll n n l r , h , h v r, th h j t f t n, r th r v b t t r f d btf l n n . h th r, n th th r h nd, l v t b ld l b r t th r n nt nd n l r v d n , h n h tr t d v l p th d n tr t v tr t r f th M tr n d th d ff r nt l v l f p bl th r t . C n ntl , h t v r d n pr v l , n p l , r n th d n tr t n f l , fr ntl b d nl n th d n n f nd v d l rd nd r r r th n n . h r f r , th r d r pr f t l ttl , f t ll, fr th f r t h pt r b n r l d n tr t v tr t r n p bl r fr pl l t f b dl nd r t d t r . h nd h pt r n ntr t n th nv t t n f th d n tr t n nd l tr t r t th v ll l v l. f th l f l d v d n n M tr n r pt n l n , th th r r rt t dd n p r ll l fr d ff r nt r n nd d ff r nt p r d f Ind n h t r h n l n th nd nt r t n d r n n C l v ll (pp. 4 . M r p rt nt, th d n n th h pt r t rt fr th n r pt n th lv , h n th v d n Ibr l ndl rd nd p nt n th M tr n d pr nt d nd th rd r b n nv t t d. A n rp f M tr n r pt n v l b f r r f r n , th th r r f r t h r n v r h lpf l l t nd v xtr l h rt xtr t fr n r pt n pr t r l, h h r ll br f th t th r d r f r d t b t th r n l p bl t n t nd nd r t nd th nt xt. h pr d r b n n . r, th th r r f r n h r f tn t t h r n l t f n r pt n nl , nf rt n tl v r ft n th t nd t n p r l n f th r n l p bl t n. h , f r , f r th r d r t thr h l n th n r pt n t f nd th nt xt h l n f r. h f th br f t t n fr th n r pt n f rth r pl t d b n rr t t tr n r b S n r t rd n xt r f th td t d Ep r ph Ind tr n r pt n nd th n n n t d h h (p. f r r p t h ° f r p tp ° (p. , n . 8 nd t . Wh l n h r d n n l th , h r n b d th b n l d f S n r t bl t f nd th rr t r d n t n , tr n r b d n f p r n nd pl r tr . h r r nd pr bl t rd pr rh , . ., n t nl nd d n r l r tt n th p r t h pr hrh n th p rt n nt d n (pp. 2 4 , n r l f l n n tt pt t f nd n t l . , S rpp hrd (p. 2 n t 2 2 n th r tr n pl n " rt f th Sn , n r, th r v r th ht f r t, n th r x pl f th n l rth r ph BOOK REVIEWS 311
replacement of -ra- by r-,7 but a simple mistranscription of the Devanägari text of the edition, which very clearly has an easily understood name 'brade: "snake pool", confirmed by the still clearer accompanying plate (JOIB 19. 1969/70, p. 284, line 4). The evidence presented on kupimbin usually understood as "farmer" or "cultivator" or as "freie wohlhabende Bauern (free and prosperous farniers)" g begins with a difficult, but interesting paragraph from a gift to the Abhyantarikä monastery, which is quoted as kuminbi-iyiitnavera- gopaka-Chewjavaka-deisak-A-str-iiyas (p. 58, no. 3 = LMI no. 25)9 from the edition published by G. Bühler as early as 1876. The text in Indian Antiquary 5, July 1876, p. 207, line 5 is translated following Biihler's tentative interpretation as "das Einkommen des kumnibi S yflmatiera, des Hirten Chendavaka [Ch- in Chendava is correct here, while -nd- for -rici- is notl und des Sklaven Astra". This raises some questions at once, though not asked by the author, who only, and doubtless correctly, states in a note that the text is unclear: The "name" .fyiinuqiera in a Buddhist context certainly raises suspicions, although the first akara dyä- is very clear on the accompanying plate. Anybody a little versed in Buddhism will certainly conjecture driitnavera, a miswriting of the fairly similar akpras dyii- and .frii-, although Bühler, obviosuly, took no offence. He, however, edited this inscription at the latest in summer 1876 — the monthly publication of Indian Antiquary was astonishingly quick and regular, it seems — when he could hardly have much, if any knowledge of the word griimariera. The respective volume of the Petersburg Dictionary appeared in late 1875 (fore- word dated August 1875). Here, very meager evidence for driimapera is quoted only from Burnout's "Introduction" and from the early translations of the Chinese pilgrims. Baler, who worked in India at that time (1863— 1881), almost certainly did not yet have access to the relevant volume of the Petersburg Dictionary, when editing the inscription. Consequently, he
7 h d r t n th M tr n r pt n , . ., dr lp l, IA . 8 8, p. l n 6, r h drr t d df n ° p rt f th t tl f K n Kh r r h II., IA 6. 8 , p. 20 l n ( r d , f. *mahodrahglididfina ° , IA . 8 8, p. 84 l n , f. l bhragikii f r bhr°, p. 4 n t 0 . h r f r th v ll Il t hrd r , EI 2 . , p. 84, l n 4 ( ,MI t l l r th r n "El ph nt p l" (hr d . 8 A th r kautumbak,setra ( M n . 84 . El 4. 8 6 , p. 80 l n th t n n b n v n, th bhortclakabadhiralaatunbr Naha väpyii ( MI n . 6 , at sanna- kraumbika° " n d kupanbika f ld" ( MI n . 88, p. 6 n . , t th t th nn t n f t b n ht b l htl d ff r nt: "r h f r r [ nd b n b r f n t n(? ". h n t b v tr n " f ld b l n n t n t n". h nt d b th th r. h td d v n f n tr n , . .: pr t r
t p dt f r '3 %yard v pf ca;°vapi-k,vetra° f r viipt 4°, h t padavarta parisarant f r ° rta- par°, ll p. 2, t .
312 ROOK REVIEWS almost inevitably had to take .fyiimarjent as it stands and understand it as a name.") Therefore, this is a warning against taking over very early interpretations in an uncritical way. Now, if we read drämapera, the interpretation changes considerably: The first person mentioned would be the p ttb drC t rt r Gopaka, 11 which at once recalls the samartakutimbika mentioned in Theraviida sources. 12 Although this inscription is discussed again on p. 208, 13 the context is not given in full in either place thus making it impossible to see all, let alone solve some of the problems involved: cbahronfilagriime kutumbidyiimarteragopakacheNlavakadiisakiis Ira vas dr r p r rt bh lt v t pr t f rvr dh n l r ■ d l tp d ln v n lt r j tl nf r pr t d rt bh r v l r pr t l nn t pl d r t lbl nt r v h r n n d bh r tä tä d n l t bl nt r bh . r h l r tl h ld n nd n l n bh , j d r t rpp rth d ndr ° l n rp bh h dr n
l n pr t p d t ... , A 5. 1876, pp. 207, 5-9. The segmentation of the names and the meaning as understood by Bilhler and by the author present the difficulties as indicated above. These are solved, if the text is segmented and understood as kupanbi-dviimariera-
0 In dd t n, th rd f r t n f ` ä n r ": dr t. t r d n t p nt t n : A Gr 2 § 4 b, p. 2. If n nt d r v d fr n , t ld h r n lt rd n t än n 4. . : " h v n l nd n G höpf n bl h n G hl ht " (0. öhtl n . Cf. A. l : lt nd h n r n nn n. r l 0, p. 6 . "h rd n ( n " ll p l . 12 A d r nt d n b t h v ll t th r th f ll n nd t rt t lt v t th l nd h n nd t l v n " t , h t th t l ndl rd" ( rt t b , Sp , . f.: Old A nd Old M n n d dh , n: A n . A n C n pt nd Exp r n t nd r nt. Ö t rr h h A d d r W n h ft n. h l ph h h t r h Kl . S tz n b r ht , 64 . nd W n , 6 8, f. l II. 4 . 2002, p. 82. 13 h th r d r h t f nd t f r h lf, th r h rdl v r n r r f r n n , h h d n t f l t t th t th nt nt f th b . h h rt n pr b bl d t th f t, n t nd t d n th b , th t nd v d l h pt r f j r p rt pp r d r n ll p r t rt l n trä d St d n In t t t ( b ldt Un v r tät, rl n : h pt r 2. = . 2 2.2 = . 2.4 nd pp nd x = 0. 8 (h r , t xt nd dr n r f nd d b d , h l th r n nd t n n pp nd x . h t r l t t th t xt nd 8. , 2. = . 4 . =4. , 6. = . 4.2 = 2. S nd rh ft. . — It b nt n d n p n th t th n h n v r r n th th h d r f nd v d l p : 2.2. " r rn . . ." h th h d r " l rv rt l n • .. (pp. ff. , 2.4 " ldfl r n . .." h th h d r "Kön l nd . .." (pp. 0 ff. , h l th t h pt r t rt nl n p. . ROOK REVIEWS 313
Gopaka-Chew. lavaka-Delsakiis trayas "the kuptinbi-drcimat,tera Gopaka, Chenclavaka and D5saka, these three". However, if this assumption is correct, it seems, at a first glance, that the gift is missing again, because no word like kvetra or veipr occurs. This seems to have been the motive behind Baler's attempt to find a gift, and he managed to detect the word ay(' Income" at the cost of having to accept Astra and other strange names, lastly a slave with an income that could be used as a gift." On top of all this, the interpretation is based on a wrong transcript. For the facsimile shows very clearly trayas, not trayas read by Baler. So, part of Biihler's problem disappears, but resurfaces as the missing gift. Now, as many more Maitraka grants are known than at the time of 13iihler's edition, it is easy to see that there would not have been any parallel to granting the "income" of certain persons to monasteries or other, I5 nor, it seems, in inscriptions of other dynasties. Moreover, the technical terms, uncertain as their meanings are in detail, usually refer to land such as "income together with forced labour as it occurs (sopadyanuinavinika)" or different taxes(?). Thus, even the corrected reading and improved trans- lation do not immediately 'seem to yield a satisfactory sense with all these attributes now taken as refering to persons. For, the fact that these three persons were given to the monastery "together with the taxes and secondary taxes (?? udratiga, uparikara) 16 [they collect], [their] financial means (pratyiiya) [derived from] plants and wind (7 bliata, viita, p. 229f.), with all [their] income [in form of] grain and money, with the forced labour as it occurs [they are obliged tor sounds slightly strange. However, all this simply follows the usual pattern of the Maitraka grants, perhaps even mechanically, because persons were
14 h l ll pr bl t : blianyi p«tr (lava ea Ira pa v h n =r d?, v t l nn dh h nt t l p t ddh n rp, M nn III 4 6 "A f , n, nd l v , th thr r d l r d t h v n pr p rt th lth h h th rn ( r d f r h t h th b l n " (( hl r : M ld r tr n l t d M nn 4 r ft r d t n th n r pt n. . t ll M tr n r pt n r bl t . — A r r ft f f n nt n d b A. S h d h n: E n nd rh t n d r b ddh t h n S h n n n hr ft n nt r d n M tr , n: tr d S d n In t t t (I I b ldt Un v r t t, rl n . S nd rh ft : M tr St d n. rl n , p. 88 th n t n r nt t nd d t . 6 h t r h v b n fr ntl d d, . .. Gh h l, b v n t , pp. 2 6. 42 , Alt r, b v n t , pp. 2 ff., r . . M r h , CII I ( , p. 2 n t 6 nd , h t t nt t ll v l d " h n n f dr h t ll n rt n" M. j h, A 2. . 8 , 28 ff r l ttl h lp. It t h v p d th tt n
t n f r th t th M tr K n Kb r r h ll d d dv j rt n pr t th rh n v r t pr v rtt t h dr t d d n v t n p j t t ° n r nt f h r . 314 BOOK REVIEWS not normally given. If this tentative interpretation should be correct, it could be seen as an important confirmation from epigraphy of what has been demostrated from the texts in a different context by G. Schopen. I7 For, this inscription turns out to be an interesting testimony for the gift of "tirtirnikas" or "servants" to a monastery. Furthermore, the immediately subsequent part of the inscription is of considerable interest: rajastliiiniyaiiirciya prasiidikrtabhatiirkka-vihdra°. For, this is a monastery, which "has been graciously presented to the Räjasthänifya iira", 18 that is, the monastery has changed its owner, I9 as already observed by Baler. The grant is received by the "noble order of monks within the 18 Nikäyas arriving from the various directions". This gift to the Sarpgha is described as: grasaccheidanadayanasanaglana- bhaisajytidikriyotsarppaniirtharp, an unusual formulation repeated by the same King Guhasena in a second grant with a slight variation: neinticligabityclgatfiniklaifartikiiyabliyantara.fiikydryyabhiksyusatighaya °I)haisajytidyupayogtirtthani in contrast to the more usual formula known from Buddhist texts: crvarapitufaptitaiayandsanagliinapratya- yabhaisajyaparisktiropayogifya, JUB 3. 1934, p. 84, line 22 "for the use for robes, alms food, bed and seat, medicine for the sick, and equipment"" or again in a slightly different wording in a more elaborate context: [.fa]yaneifsanakaivarikaglanabhaisajyarnalyapariskiirfirthain (p. 258 = JOIB 19. 1969-1970, p. 284, lines 13 ff.) translated as "zum Zwecke der Ausschmückung (!) und der Bezahlung für Medizin gegen Erschöpfung, Kleidung, Sitz und Bett" ("for the purpose of embellishing and payment for medicine ..."). This is preceded in the same grant by bhiksuprvihdrasya clifidyalepyllekhyapratisaniskiidirthani bhagavata ca sarnyaksatribuddhiiya buddluiya (read °asp twice) gandhadinipapuvadtpatailopayogärthaqi ... translated as "zum Zwecke des Gebrauchs von Duftstoffen ... für den Buddha und die rechte Erkenntnis (!) des Verehrungswürdigen und zum Zwecke der Verzierung der Malereien (oder Gemälde) des Nonnenklosters mit schützenden
17 h M n t O n r h p f S rv nt r Sl v : l nd l t r n th d t n l t r f n . IA S . . 4, pp. 4 . 18 On th n n f pravildt-kr f. Sifinahlidija-nhawasena-prasfidaria- h ll p dr r , p. 2 2 (= U . 4, S. , l n . On th n r h p f n t r : G. S h p n: h O n r h p f M n t r nd th l f th M n n M l rvä t väd n M n t . IA S . 6, pp. 8 26, p. p. 8 f. 20 Q t d fr l r l d tr d p r ll l p. 2 nd t b t v r l l tr n l t d b th th r l v n t p r At r lt th r f r th t r f. n 4 . 2002, p. 8 f. BOOK REVIEWS 315
Farben orzi ,___.kp 259), which is rather far Of the mark "for repairing by roofing, 22 plastering and painting of the nunnery and to be used for incense ... for the completely enlightened Lord Buddha". The wording of these an other parallels in the Maitraka inscrip- tions shows that King Guhasena uses an unusual formula when he replaces crvara-pitylaplita° by griiscicchlidand, and has at the end of this compound °Icriyotsarpparyirtham "for the pupose of advancing23 ritual acts", which does not make any sense here, while is quite common and appropriate in grants to brahmins: *agnihotriitithipaiicamahliyajriakeincirn r nt n samutsarppariiirthani, EI 37, 1967/8, p. 174 line 2, cf. IA 7. 1878, p. 72 line 9. Similarly, graslicchädana is adopted from brahmanical contexts. In Buddhist texts it is used as early as in the Theraväda canon refering to food and clothing of non-Buddhists, e.g. gh t 1 saccheido , A 1107; 25, or in a Mahäsärpghikalokottaraväda text: vayarn ca te grtisc7cchiidan dcisy(imal. i, Bhi-Vin 92,8 (§ 131) "we will provide food and clothing (for our daughter) to you" is promissed by the parents for their inauspicious daughter, whom they give to a nun to educate her as a future anteväsint. In a note to this expression in the BhiNin G. Roth draws the attention to Manu IX 202, where this compound is found. Similarly, it is used in the Jätaka prose, when brahmins or other non-Budhists reveive food: Ja 1 337,17, V 477,15 etc. Consequently, it is evident that some of the divirapatis of King Guhasena were brahmins who composed grants to Buddhists in brahmanical style, and did not mind or even notice that their formula does not at all fit the meaning required in a Buddhist context and that it is quite inappropriate, once persons are donated. 24 The gift of workmen to a Buddhist monastery, if the above interpreta- tion is correct, seems to be singular so far in the Maitraka inscriptions as far as they are accessible to me. Normally, gifts were of course fields and
21 Generally the author struggles helplessly with Buddhist contexts, e.g., namataka (p. 262) is not "razor case", but a "garment of felt". Mistakes such as this one could however have been avoided easily simply by using F. Edgerton: Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary, New Haven 1953, which does not figure in the bibliography and seems to have escaped the notice of the author, as have the Critical Päli Dictionary, and, strangely enough, R. L. Turner: Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages. London 1966. 22 On roofing cf. viltfiram chiidetvä otarati, Vin Ill 82,10. 23 For this meaning of utsarpana cf. Päiasaddamahannavo s.v. ussappanci "unnati". 24 This might have some consequences for interpreting these documents, cf. the warning formulated by I. Strauch, as note 5 above, p. 262 "Es kann daher vermutet werden, dass sie [die Urkundenl einen konventionellen Formelbestand reprasentieren, der nicht immer die aktuelle ... Terminologie wiedergibt". 316 BOOK REVIEWS wells, such as the rather voluminous gift of the Saindhava king Ahivarma in AD 723 (p. 257) refered to earlier: sarppahrade catuifatapädävarttantätträ bhäntir bbhikstInfsbneti vijiiiiyanultiikii sahlitnriiriintenodbhedatak ca paticas'antniittrapädävarttii bhikvanisrmeti vijiiiivanuinikii
.yatra kvetrandmiini bhadrapayfpäyänapariv aritakam- bhiksaniktipayfrinirtikvetrani ditiviikap saptaptidiivarttakain baradf (read: badari?, Ed.)dramapalli fibunärapaliti- 25 / paicinff katakagt / kadalyärdmakasya eärdhikaiärakakryandinakasya bhfigadvayaqi jämbiidare ea väpf punnämaräpfti rtjiiiiyamänikä paticligannsfittrapädävarttaparisarä kuberanagare ea niilikerypiräinah iravaniklipotaketi vijii(iyandinakah etwn etäni sarvviini siirinfpeyrtni mahipikhalinagrämag codbhedasannitipakabhikptniriharasya priigavyacchinnabhogabhuhwnlinakah svayambhujyabholywn aciim ° 'pratie.s"vith sodratigatalo mayetpyadhand(?) ntätäpitroh ... bhikyanf-vihiirasya chiidya ° .. anuffidtam 001B 19. 1969/70, p. 284, line 4-1 U. The formulation of this grant does not follow the usual Maitraka pattern. Fields are described by their respective names, and no borders being indic- ated. The different parts of the grant are linked by ea, not by tatiiii as common in Maitraka grants. All this clearly indicates that a different office has been responsible for drawing up this grant. A tentative translations is: "in Sarppahrada (Snakepool) a compound measuring 400 pädtivartta known as BhikunTsTmä together with a park and in the region of (tale) Udbheda [a compound?] measuring 50 pärkivanta known as Bhikunisimii, 26 where the names of the fields are: the plot (pall° [named] Bhadra, enclosed by stones, the field and the park of the BhiksuriTkä plot, the Cilliväla (?) measuring 7 piidavartta, the plot [named] BaradT-park, the Siumãra plot, t western the slope t, and two parts of the banana park ploughed by Ardhika4iiraka and in Järnbüdara a well known as Punnäma-well with a surrounding territory of 501)cl-di/yawn and in Kuberanagara a cocoa nut park known as Sravarikäpotakã — so all these are watered by a canals(?) 27 — and the village MahipIkhalIna ... has. been allowed to the nunnery in the vicinity of Udbheda". Besides the vocabulary, such as payr "plot",28 siiripr "canal", peya "watered, irrigated" and the place names, the well viipT is of special interest, and the author has not failed to devote a lengthy investigation (chapter 3 pp. 151-197, cf. also p. 89) into Maitraka grants referring to
25 This mark of insertion, a small cross above the line, has been overlooked by the editor of the inscription. It shows that the words pakinit kamkaly, which has been added above yaminakatz, line 10, must be inserted here, not as iravanikiipota-paicimfkatakant keti (!!) as reconstructed by the author p. 258 note 275, where the word division and consequently the text has been as little understood as in the previous note 274 on the same inscription. 26 Most likely there is either bliiimi missing, or a dittography conceals an unknown text. 27 On the possible meaning of peya cf. Turner no. 8382. /8 - On this term see Hira Lal, El 9. 1907/08, p. 169 note 4 "plot of land", E. Hultzsch, El 8. 1905/06, p. 236 note 2 "equivalent of nivartana". BOOK REVIEWS 317 viipts and other systems of irigation. The problem here, again, is the exact meaning of this and other connected terms. The first problem concerns vtipt itself, usually understood either as "step well" or as "pond", although there is no certain evidence for either in the Maitraka period. 29 The author quotes J. Jain-Neugebauer (p. 165 etc.), who refers to Amarakoga 1. 10. 28 rapt tu dfrghikä with the commentary by Mahegvara, who is a modern commentator, perhaps as late as the 18th century (??), and often quotes vernacular words from Maräthi: veipt . . . arghikii dye "dr(r)ghT" ti khydtc7yälj avarohanavtipiktiy0 "viipT and dfrghikii are two [words] for a tank called (in vernacular language) `di(r)ghr (cf. Hindi AM', diggf 'oblong tank') having steps (leading down to the water)". The recently edited Jätarapa" says on the same verse: iiviisinylidisv abhyantarasthitii drrghikii viipt na bahitzsthitii "inside a settlement etc. is a longish (step) well, not outside", which confirms the observations by J. Jain-Neugebauer (p. 3) quoted p. 160. This explanation of Amara is taken over by some later dictionaries: Trikanclagesa: dirghikä viipT, 1. 10, 21; Hemacandra: Abhidhänacintämani: arghika- viipt sylit, 4 158. - Astonishingly, no further evidence is adduced from literature, although vcipt does occur, e.g., in the Manusmrti and is explained by its commen- tators: 31 t n d p n n v p lj pr r v rt n l ndh pt r n d v l t n n , Manu VIII 248 (250) "Tanks, wells, cisterns, and fountains should be built where boundaries meet, as well as temples". (G. Bühler) Bhäruci is unfortunately silent on this verse. Medhätithi (ca. 850, South India[?]): mandtpbhärnsi taclakcini viipyalj puskarinyata, udapäntini kiipaprabhrtini prasravtini udakasyändii ijsatsravadudakii bhapradeRitt. — Kullaka (Benares ca. 1250): tacliika-kiipa-dfrghikli-jalanirgamanamiirga- devagrhäni — Sarvajfianäräyana (before 1400): tackiglini putskarinyalj, udapiiniini kiipclh, vtipyah ktsudrapu.skarivyalj — Räghavänanda (after 1350): tatra deiastmni tacifigalr kiiryal.z, griimasttnni viipt, ksetrasimni
29 The oldest archaeological evidence dates from about the 7th century, while there is rich evidence form mediaeval times in Gujarat as decribed in the excellent book by J. Jain Neugebauer: The Stepwells of Gujarat in art-historical perspective. Delhi 1983, p. XIV. This material has been studied now in the comprehensive and detailed survey by J. A. 13. I legewald: Water Architecture in South Asia. A Study of Types, Developments and Meanings. Leiden 2002. 30 Mahes Raj Pant [Ed.): Jätarripa's Commentary on the Amarakoga, Delhi 2000. Part II, p. 159. Kitarapa is earlier than the 12th century, Pant: Part 1, p. 283. 31 P. K. Acharya: An Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture. Mänasdra Series Vol. VII. London 1946, s.v. vapt gives some useful references to inscriptions. 318 BOOK REVIEWS ktipall, grhasimilyilip prasravapaqi .. . dpalialiadbhir bhavet ktipaIr gatahasta tu viipikii, pu.skarirjyas tadardhe tu yiivad dhatud. igatadvayatri tackigo '.5..thasfatats proktat; saras tit caturasraktup' ity adhikastupkhylivacchedärthani — Nandana: kulmaguhruln (inquffintit tu) viipyak prasravarläni (kepikala).
This shows that according to Medhiitithi tarkika was a larger and ram - a smaller tank. Moreover the tanks and wells are accompanied by a prasrava "canal". Finally, the Manu-verse is quoted in the Mit5ksara (ca. 1120) on Yäjfiyavalkya-smrti 2. 151 and consequently commented upon in the
Milambhatti ( 18th century) quoting Amara: payit. radibaddhii dirghikali
'vt-ipt tu dtrghikii'. Although the terminology is unclear in detai1,32 there are large and small tanks, wells and canals, all that is needed as a matter of course for irrigation. Moreover, in vöpt and its modern derivatives are used to designate step- wells such as the Räni Vav (11th century), which is close to a river and the Sahasralifiga Täläo. 33 Moreover, an inscription attached to a stepwell in "Jodhpur State" states: 'Opi ... keiriipitei, IA 41. 1912, p. 87, line 6. 34 When viipts are donated, they are described as c'plidtrvarttaparisarci, and once as pratisarli (LMI 4a = JESI 23. 1997, p. 143, line 14), trans- lated by the author with strange hesitation as "Umkreis" "surroundings" or "Umfang" "circumference", which makes quite a difference: The first would be a well with a surrounding field, the second lake. As plidlivartta occurs as a measure for fields, it can hardly he anything but an area, as correctly asumed by the author (p. 159). Consequently, the translation "Umfang" is plainly wrong and the alternative seems to be to take c'pädiivarttaparisarti as "(a riipt), whose surrounding area is x piidavartta (i.e. the surface of the water)" or "(a viipi), which is surrounded by x pad/Worm: (of arable land)". However, only the second alternative can be correct. The area of a kytra is differently expressed, e.g., parvvadalqiriturnitifii kavillitakii-k.setm-khaqmp sap- tatibhapildavarttaparinurritup. The term parinuirta is never used with viipr. Moreover, as the author correctly points out, in at least one case there is a
32 Hegewald, as note 29 above, p. 9. 33 This configuration is similar to the inscription no. 83 (LMI), p. 186, no. 6: Madhumatidväre "mouth of the river Madhumati", Väpi, Malla-tatäkä, Grämanipäta-kiipa, El 4. 1896/97, p. 80, lines 54-56. . 34 lt is, however, not clear whether the Maitraka-inscription mentioned p. 370, no. 17, which is attached to a stepwell, but, strangely enough. neither used nor mentioned by the author in her discussion on the term viipr, originally belonged to that building. OOK E IEWS 319 peasant ploughing the land surrounding a 'api (p. 162, which refers to p. 156, nos. 5, 6), and one of the peasants (kuprnibin), who ploughs the land and, interestingly, seems to have built the well: kutumbika-Kaparddiya- kartrka-kryä *parisarei viipr "an irrigation well with an area ... , dug by the Kutumki Kapardiya" (D. B. Diskalkar, EI 21. 1931/32, P. 182). In spite of this evidence the siddhiinta of the author is not really clear. For, it is stated that viipts are "Reservoire zu Bewässerungszwecken" (p. 171), while it is pointed out earlier that the wipt is sourrounded by arable land, which rather points to a well with or without steps. At any rate, some sort of araghalla was needed to transport the water from the well to the surface, and moreover, there must have been irrigation canals (p. 165f.). And at first these canals seem to be the praccihiis discussed without final result by the author (p. 173), cf. e.g., ndr l v pr pr hd meinwiitieivei daksirratal. i, El 21. 1931/32, p. 183, line 35 (LM1 no. 59) "to the south of the limit of the field irrigated by (prachchthei) the well called S." (D. B. Diskalkar), which does not seem to he correct: No field is mentioned: "... by the limit which is the irrigation canal of the S. well". The meaning irrigation canal (from a 'opt) could be supported by the fact that praccfluis are never donated separately (p. 173), and that they can be the border (iigliiitana) of a veipt: daksirbatah °[Kaimpilikka- klutriclaka sarpjiiita-praccfhli, EI 22. 1933/34, p. 119, line 48 (LMI no. 88). Consequently, a pracciliii always seems to form a unit with v rpf, whereas a viipT can occur by itself. If so, three wells might have had a common canal: riijakiyavdpitraya- praccrhii, El 21. 1931/32, p. 210 line 51 (LMI no. 83), cf., line 53 and h r tpf l t v pt pn h , line 54, and dakvivatah SirCukTclakasmpjiiita-viipinii praccrhei aparatalj Pippalaviipt-praccibil uttaratafi griimaikhara twain idam iighdtattatifitahrup viipasetram, line 55f. "in the South the canal belonging to the well called S., in the west the canal of the P. well, in the north the edge of the village. Thus well and fields have clearly defined borders". 36 llowever, it is also not impossible that pracciliii rather was a reservoire
surrounding a well or cistern (viipr) as in Mahildevitaftikabh .vantara- Garigeikhva-vapr "the well called Gangii within the MahädevT tank"
35 For araghaya not attested in the Maitraka-inscriptions (p. 1651.) cf. C11 Vol. 111 (revised ed.), S. 290,10, and J. Jain-Neugebauer, as note 29 above, plate 1, where the
araglta .t .ta can be seen attached to a stepwell. 6 Strangely the compound kytra-viipr is translated as "viipt-Feld", p. 155 no. 4. Normally greimaiikhara is taken to mean "village hill", a meaning not otherwise attested for Yikhara, it seems. 320 OOK E IEWS in an inscription from Orissa (IA 18. 1889, P. 175 line 39), 37 which corresponds to evidence from Ceylon: deve vuyhe ... udakamaggehi d tp p v tv nt v p t v piireyya, Spk II 79,21f. "when it rains, water enters through canals and would fill the cisterns within a reservoire". In this case, viipt in the Maitraka inscriptions would be a large well or cistern, possibly inside a praccaul corresponding to the puskarini as explained in R5ghavänanda's commentary on Manu quoted above. If so, the riljakiyaviipTtrayapraccau7 was a tank with three cisterns. The meaning "cistern" could be confirmed by vrtamadhye väpf sorladapridavarttaparisarii, WZKM 7. 1893, P. 299, line 20 (LMI no. 20, cf. p. 153, no. 9), if the term vita should be the same as virtu, "pasture" (padubhyo vivitirni prayarchet, Kautalya 2.2.1 = Kangle 1, p. 34), because "a velpi in the middle of a pasture" could hardly be anything but a "cistern" or "well", certainly not a "reservoire", note also ,vocladaplidavarttaparisarothunbaraktipa, El 15. 1919/20, p. 257 line 15 (LMI no 14) "the Udumbara well with 16 piidiivarttas (of surrounding land)". At present it seems impossible to reach at any definite result. Perhaps these admittedly very electic remarks on the rich but difficult vocabulary of the inscriptions help to demonstrate the value of this material and its enormous potential, which has hardly been tapped so far. It is doubtless the merit of this book, to draw once again the attention to these inscriptions, and thus to encourage further studies.
Orientalisches Seminar 0. . I Ü E Indologie Humboldtstr. 5 D-79085 Freiburg i. Brsg. Deutschland
M t r l fr Or h b n ll t d n th x ll nt th b Sh h r K nd : rr h ft nd r lt n ö tl h n Ind n nt r d n pät n G n . trä l z r Süd nf r h n 0. W b d n 86, p. 8f.
Ind Ir n n rn l 4 : 20 2 , 2004. 0 Spr np r 200 Q...._ IvI • t nnl , If ., 1111C l “ , ,