[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Architecture and art](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art) › [Defence Architecture in Early North Karnataka](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981) › c8 # Defence Architecture in Early North Karnataka c8: Introduction Defence Architecture in Early North Karnataka c8 - **Language:** English ## Contents - [c8.s1 Literary References:](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1) — 1 part ### Introduction ### [c8.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.1) In the universe, biologically all the creatures, excepting human being, it is too wellknown, have developed some kind of organic devices for self protection from external dangers. For instance, the tortise has a thick strong almost unbreakable shell covering the whole body, snails and other invertelrate creatures also have shell covers, Mollusc has hard shell enclosing its body, one of the species of pigs has sharp thorny needles in the body lest other animals should attack. Number of examples can be multiplied this way. In this regard, what is important to be noted here is that every creature has instinctive fear of danger from outside and therefore gradually developed in its body some kind of self protective device. ### [c8.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.2) But, the human being has no such bodily protective device ever since his emergence on this planet. He had therefore to think of some artificial means to protect himself from attacks on him by either his fellow beings or animals, some of which were immensely mighty, ferocious like rhinoceros, elephants, tigers etc.. He, therefore, not only for collection of food but also for protection from external dangers devised various kinds of weapons. The prehistory of man contains a thrilling account about the methods of making such tools and weapons known from stone and metal tools and weapons and from the rock paintings.¹ (Powell,T.G.E., 1966, e.g. illustration pp. 57-59 and Clark,J.G.D. 1961, p.29). ### [c8.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.3) ¹ Besides there are many standard works on these subjects. The works referred to herein are each one such standard works. ### [c8.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.4) In the first place, therefore, he had to contrive weapons etc. for self protection, also which was one of the fundamental requirements, but in the course of prehistory of man, when the community living started, characterised by regular settlements at one place, domestication of animals, primitive agriculture etc., he had to think of protecting not only himself but in course of time collectively the whole community, from external attacks by either communities from elsewhere, or animals. It is in this stage of the development of human culture, we find the roots of primitive and simple defensive devices of protection to the community. ### [c8.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.5) In many of the early protohistoric (Chalcolithic) sites a sort of enclosures of perishable nature round the habitational area have been traced in some sites. ### [c8.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.6) Archaeological investigations: ### [c8.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.7) In the excavations at Amri (Khan,F.A. 1965, p.29), Koṭ-Dījī (1965, p.45) at the pre-harappan level, the habitations found to have been enclosed by thick high walls, similarly in the proto-historic Harappan sites, it is too well known, such as Harappā (Mate,M.S. 1970, pp.75-84), Mohenjō-Dārō, Kālībangan, the habitational sites (Lal,B.B. and Thapar,B.K., 1967, p.20) are divided into two areas: citadel and lower city, each is within a fortification wall built with mud bricks and being about 3 to 7 metres wide in thickness and on the exterior at regular intervals are rectangular salients. ### [c8.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.8) Referring to the city wall in ruins, at Mohenjō-Dārō Excavations, Sir John Marshall (1931, pp.98-110) the Excavator observes that, "the ancient city therefore must have been,once, extended well beyond their existing limits. This being so,it follows that, if the city walls ever stood on grounds higher than the present level of plains, they must inevitably have perished". Mr.Mackay E.J.H. (1976; p.3) has suggested that "the city may not have been provided with walls, at all, but personally I see no sufficient reason at present for this supposition, nor on the other hand do I think that the walls of the later cities have necessarily been destroyed. But however, this may be, it is clear that any fortifications it may have been possessed would have stood not on the rising ground in the heart of the city, but on the then level of the plain, which appears to have been some 25 to 30 feet below its presont level, and this being so, it is by no means improbable the remains of them may be found beneath the deep alluvium." ### [c8.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.9) He further says (pp.3-4), "In search of possible fortifications, gates, and a city wall, early in 1931 we cut a deep trench through an irregular mound (Pl.VIII, H,4), situated about 100 yards beyond and slightly to the east of the point where northern end of First street debouches into the plain.... This building has several features of unusual interest, including curious triangular-shaped projections, a 14' outer thick wall, stairways leading upto rooms on a platform (Guard rooms) reared high upon a solid mud brick care, and a staircase outside, whose descent we followed right down to the water level in the soil. It was intended to examine this fortress like structure and the curious Ghat like staircase outside it for decisive evidence in support of the suggestion of the late Mr.R.D.Banerji that the river, or a branch of it, washed the city wall at this point". ### [c8.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.10) In the Deccan there are in two sites atleast, namely Daimābād (I.A.R. 1958-59, p.18) and Ināmgāon (Misra, V.N. 1977 (Ed.) pp. 47-48) remains of mud fortifications are reported to have been found. These are dated between 1500 B.C. to 1200 B.C. What is relevant to our study is the earliest attempts of the construction of the walls round the habitational area, evidently for defence from the possible attack of the outside enemies on the people of these towns and villages. ### [c8.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.11) At this stage, it should be noted that chalcolithic culture had wide spread in the Deccan indicated by hundreds of sites in the Narmadā, the Tāpī, the Gōdāvarī, the Krishnā valleys, but enclosure walls noticed in Daimābād and Ināmagāon (Sankalia,H.D.,1973, pp.139-146 and Dhavalikar,M.K.,1977, pp. 47-48) on the one hand and apparent absence of such walls in extensive sites at Nevāsa (Sankalia,H.D., 1960, p.67) etc., Navadātōli (Sankalia,H.D.,1971, pp.40-60), which are excavated on large scale on the other, indicate no standardizations in their material equipments and erection of defence walls. This appears to be exceptional rather than a common practice. ### [c8.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.12) In the case of the Harappan Civilization, it is distinctly characterised by high standardization, presumably owing to the exercise of highly centralised authority and constructions of defensive fortification in the sites. ### [c8.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.13) However, in the lower Kṛiṣhṇa valley, numerous neolithic sites are located in the terraces of granited hills, the locations overwhelmingly indicate that the neolithic people selected such naturally protected areas surrounded by ranges of boulders and hills. Therefore, it appears that though the neolithic/Chalcolithic people did entertain the idea of having some kind of defence enclosure for their habitation artificial or natural, it was not, put into common practice and made it an important part of their settlements. ### Literary References: ### The Vēdas : ### [c8.s1.t1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.1) While these are the material evidences we have of the chalcolithic period regarding defence walls, we have clear references to the existance of forts even in the earliest literature of India, namely the Vēdas. The Ṛigvēda the powerful mighty God Indra with his Vajrāyudha i.e. Thunderbolt is described as "Purandhara", and destroyer of a hundred forts. ### [c8.s1.t1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.2) In \*Rigvēda Samhita\* (Bhattacharya Sripada Sharma, Damodarabhatta, 1940, p.461), in the Mandala 8, hymn 1, it is mentioned thus: ### [c8.s1.t1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.3) 'Kvavathe Kvadasi Purutra Chiddhi Te Manah Alarshi Yudhma khajakrit Purandara pra Gayatra Agashishuh' ### [c8.s1.t1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.4) (Tr: Where art thou? Whither art thou gone? For many a place attracts this mind, haste, warrior, fort destroyer, lord of battles, din, haste holy songs have sounded forth. (English translation by Ralph T.H. and Griffith, Sec. Ed.1973, pp. 291). ### [c8.s1.t1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.5) Another Mantra from the same samhīta (Bhattacharya Sripadasharma Damodorabhatta, p.461), Mandala: 8, hymn: 1 Sloka 8: is worth quoting in the context. ### [c8.s1.t1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.6) 'Prasmai Gayatramarchata Dāvaturyah Purandarah Yabhihi Kanvashyōpa Varhi rasadam yasad Vajri Bhinat purah.' ### [c8.s1.t1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.7) Tr: "Sing out the psalm to him, who breaks down castles for his faithful friend, verses to bring the thunder to destroy the forts and sit on Kanvas sacred grass." (SC.Ed, 1973,p.291 by Rasph, T.H. and Griffith.) ### [c8.s1.t1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.8) Pur: ### [c8.s1.t1.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.9) Regarding the word "pur", Macdonell, (1958, p.538) observes that, "The individual dwellings, when collected into community dwellings, the idea of pur was materialised.\[Pur is a word of frequent occurrence in the Rigvēda and later meaning 'rampart', 'fort' or 'stonghold' (Macdonel,A.A.,1958, p.538). Such fortifications must have been occasionally of considerable size as one is called 'broad' (Prithvī) and 'wide' (Urvī) else where (Rv. IV, 30.20) perhaps sun dried bricks are alluded to by Ama (Lit. raw, unbaked) in Rv.11,35.6\_7. A fort made of stone (Asamamayi) is mentioned. Some times strong-holds of iron (ayasi) are referred to, but these are only metaphorical." ### [c8.s1.t1.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.10) "\[A fort 'full of kine' (gōmati) is mentioned,showing that strongholds were used to hold cattles apparently as belonging to Dàsas. Autumnal (Śaradi) forts are named appare-ntly as belonging to Dāsas. This may refer to the forst in the season being occupied again the (âryan A^a^ttacks or against inundations called by overflowing floods of rivers. Forts with hundred walls (Śatabhuji) are spoken of." ### [c8.s1.t1.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.11) "It would probably a mistake to regard these forts as permanently occupied fortified places like the fortresses of medieval times. They were probably merely places of refuge against attack, ramparts of hardened earth with palisades and ditch (Dehi). ### [c8.s1.t1.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.12) Pisches and Geldner however, think that there were towns with wooden walls and ditches and like the Indian town of Pātaliputra known to Magesthenes and the Pali texts. This is possible, but hardly susceptible of proof and it is not without significance that the word 'Nagar' is of late occurrence. On the whole, it is hardly likely that in the early Vedic times city life was much developed. In the Epic, accordingly to Hopkins, there are found the 'Nagara', city', Grām 'village, Ghoṣa. Vedic literature hardly seems to go beyond the village, no doubt with modifications in its later period. ### [c8.s1.t1.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.13) The seige of forts is mentioned in the samhita and Brāhmenas." ### [c8.s1.t1.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.14) Now coming to "Dur", again Macdonell, adds , ### [c8.s1.t1.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.15) "Dur : is used in the Rigvēda (1958 (Reprint) P.369) to denote 'door', both literally and metaphorically (I. 68, 10, 113, 4, 121, 4.188, ii.2, 7 etc.). ### [c8.s1.t1.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.16) Durga: Durga meaning : Hard to approach, occurs in Rigvēda as a neuter substantive only, some times in the sence of 'fort', stronghold OF. Pur. 34.7. VII, 25, 2.' ### [c8.s1.t1.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.17) Regarding villages, fortresses etc. (Macdonell,(1930, p.539)further observes : ### [c8.s1.t1.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.18) "Zimmer, who compares the fact that neither the Germans nor the slaves lived in the towns but like the Ancient Indians, were scattered in villages, each consisting of the houses and steadings of the several families living in the villages. The evidence seems pretty convincing. It is true that the Greeks, when we find them, evidently knew castles and fortresses of medieval type, but the Greeks were clearly an invading race, superimposed on an older and in civilization more advanced people. But, the 'pur' as Zimmer allows, may have some times been built within the limits of the village. Whether, as he urges, 'saradipur' was a protection against the forts of autumn is uncertain. In particular it is not legitimate to connect the mention of these forts with the fact that the purus lived on either side of the Sindhu (India) and to assure that Purukutsa's attack on the aborigines was directed against the ### [c8.s1.t1.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.19) forts in which they normally protected themselves on rising of the river." ### [c8.s1.t1.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.20) "No argument for the large size of the cities can be drawn from the mention in the Kathak Upanishad of 'Ekādasha dwāra' as an epithet of pura (Svētāsvāra Upanishad; Nava dwāra, the citadels of nine doors), because it is used metaphorically of the body and the number of doors, depends on the nature of the body. The evidence of Satapatha Brāhmana seems rather to point to only one gate in a city." ### [c8.s1.t1.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.21) These references imply therefore unanimously the existance of cities surrounded by defence walls, in the Vedic period. ### [c8.s1.t1.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.22) Unfortunately material evidences are lacking to know about the political aspect of the civilization, but in Vedic period we have clearly abundant evidences about the institutionalization of the political system and the king was required to protect the people, as a matter of duty and one such measure was the construction of forts. ### [c8.s1.t1.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.23) Thus, here we find the development of community defensive enclosures into a regular political defensive walls namely forts during the period covering from the chalcolithic period to the beginning of the historical period. The Excavations at Kumrahara (Mishra, V.K. and Altekar, A.S., 1959, pp. 6–8), (A.S.I., A.R., 1926–27, pp. 135–36) and Sishupalghar (AI 1949, Fig.1, pp. 64, 72–77), Kausambi (Sharma, G.R., 1960, pp. 12–13) and Ujjaini (IAR, 1956–58, p. 24, Fig. 9) have revealed the features of the plans of the forts. ### [c8.s1.t1.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.24) Sharma (1960, pp–12–13) thinks that, "Vedic literature offers convincing evidence of the existence of a number of towns in the Gangetic valley, towns like Asandivant the royal city of Janamejaya and Parikshita, Kampila, Ayodhya, and Kausambi are prominently mentioned Panini and Jatakas present a picture of the central Gangetic valley dominated by numerous towns and cities, many of which were evidently fortified. The word pura, denoting rampart, fort or stronghold, is of frequent occurrence in Vedic literature. Deities like Indra and Agni are invoked to destroy enemy's forts, many of which were wide and broad, and had ramparts of mud or Sunbaked bricks, probably also with stone facing. The word Dehi, referring to defensive enclosures or ramparts of hardened earth with palisades and a ditch, occurs in the R.V. (RV. VI. 47.2 A passage in the Satapatha Brahmana shows that moat or ditch was also known in the period. Panini mentions towns, town planning, fort, rampart, moat, gates and watch towers (Agrawal V.S. p. 137). Kautilya (Samasastry, Arthasastra of Kautilya II, 3.51) has given elaborate account of types of the forts, the site for fortification, of rampart, towers, staircases and moats etc. He refers to prākāra or Vapra. According to Pāṇini prākāra was made of bricks and in the light of Pāṇini's prākāra in Kauṭilya may denote revetment of baked bricks against rampart or vapra. The description of Pāṇini and Kauṭilya accords well with the references in Kauśāmbī with the rampart, reverment of bricks, guard rooms and towers flanking a passage through them." ### [c8.s1.t1.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.25) "The literary evidence, thus, shows clearly that in the period of Brāhmaṇas, Pāṇini and Kauṭilya (C.1000 to 3rd century B.C.), urban life was fully developed in the Gangetic valley and cities with elaborate arrangements for defence had come into existence. The excavations substantiate the literary evidence described above." ### [c8.s1.t1.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.26) "Again in the historical period there are numerous references to forts in the early Buddhist Jātakas (400 B.C. to 200 B.C.), in the original parts of the two Mahākāvyas: Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata. However, the dates of the verses of Mahākāvyas, referring to the forts are difficult to decide but anyway they do embody the traditions, including the construction of forts that were prevalent from a remote part." ### [c8.s1.t1.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.27) Sastry, K.A.N. (1967, PP. 66-67) observes in historical period that "Another very clear reference in the historical period can be cited from the Alexander's invasion in the North-Western India and his fight with Yaudhēyas and Abiras etc. around 326 B.C. It is also referred to that Alexander crossed the river Ravi after capturing 37 cities and entered the land of the Kathainas (Kathas) who were among the best fighters in the Punjab, and had gathered their allies for the defence of their fortified capital Sangala .... Military engines then began to batter the city walls, but before a breach was effected, Macedonians carried the walls by escalade. Thus the city was taken". ### [c8.s1.t1.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.28) From the Mauryan period onwards almost every capital, small or big, had fortification, walls. In fact, in Kauṭilya's Arthashāstra one chapter deals with essentially the necessity, methods, plan of different kinds of forts such as Sthaladurga, Jaladurga, Vanadurga and Giridurga etc. The progress made in the development of architecture of the forts was so much in response to the existing political and social conditions, that the author of Arthashāstra felt necessary to prepare a manual of the fort architecture. Of course, the date of Kauṭilya's Arthashāstra is still disputed, however, literary references recording the earlier traditions are in favour of Kautilya being the most powerful guide and teacher to Chandragupta Maurya. The section devoted, therefore, on the fort architecture is the earliest manual on the literature of fort architecture. ### [c8.s1.t1.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.29) There are inscriptional evidences too regarding the construction of forts in early times. The earliest is the Hāthigumphā inscription.¹ The Hāthigumphā inscription (Sircar, D.C., 1965 pp.213-221) and (Mitra Debala, 1961, pp.6-7) of Khāravēla (of 2nd or 1st century B.C.), of Mahāchēdi dynasty, refers to the king as carrying out repairs to the fort of the city in the first year. In the region, now called Āndhra Pradesh, the ancient Andhras are described as having many walled cities. In support of this description, a remarkable fort wall is recently exposed at Dhulikatta, by the Department of Archaeology and Museums, Andhra Pradesh and it is identified (Krishna Sastri, V.V. 1978, p.18) as one of the earliest walled cities of Ancient Andhra. ### [c8.s1.t1.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.30) ¹ The Inscription was referred to earlier by Princep.J. (A.S.B. Vol.VI, pp. 1075-95) and several other scholars together with EP Ind. XX, pp.72ff. ### [c8.s1.t1.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.31) \[Figure: FIG. 1 India NORTH KARNATAKA THE AREA OF FORTS UNDER THE STUDY SCALE 0 200 500 km. NOTE! BASED ON SURVEY OF INDIA, PUB-BANGA- ### [c8.s1.t1.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.32) Karnātaka — LOCATIONS OF THE FORTS OF: 1: BANAVĀSI, 2: HĀNGAL, 3: SANNATI, 4: BĀDĀMI, 5: MAḶKHĒD, 6: KAḶYĀṆA, 7: VIJA AN : BI R. K ### [c8.s1.t1.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.34) POND SNAIL ### [c8.s1.t1.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.36) FRESH WATER MUSSEL ### [c8.s1.t1.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.37) \[Figure: 200 100 km. RUPAR HARAPPĀ MOHENJŌ-DARO KĀLĪ BANGAN LOTHAL SURKŌTDA BHAGATRĀO INDUS EMPIRE (2700-1750 BC), SHOWING EXCAVATION SITES, WHERE DEFENCE WALL INVARIABLY WAS NOTICED.\] ### [c8.s1.t1.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.38) Indus Empire ### [c8.s1.t1.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8.s1.t1.39) \[Figure: OLD RIVER BED GRANARIES WORKMEN'S QRTS N.W. CORNER TOWER WESTERN GATEWAYS & TERRACES HARAPPĀ, (1946), THE CITADEL & CEMETERIES CEMETERIES Ref. M WHEELER. INDUS CIVILIZATION, P 26\] ## Linked texts (25) - [Ṛgvedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.rg.8.1.8) — Sanskrit - [Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.artha.kautilya.2.3) — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit - [Kaṭhopaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad.mukhya.katha) — Sanskrit - [Epigraphia Indica](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.corpora.ei) - [Harappā](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.harappa) - [Mahābhārata](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.mahabharata.vyasa) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Mohenjo-daro](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.mohenjo-daro) - [Lothal](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.lothal) - [Kālībangan](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.kalibangan) - [Vālmīkirāmāyaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.ramayana.valmiki) — Vālmīki, Sanskrit - [Kot Diji](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.kot-diji) - [Amri](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.amri) - [Śvetāśvataropaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad.mukhya.svetasvatara) — Śvetāśvatara, Sanskrit - [Śatapathabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.satapatha) — Yājñavalkya & Śāṇḍilya (Vedic teacher), Sanskrit - [Daimabad](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.daimabad) - [Kauśāmbī](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.kausambi) - [Sisupalgarh](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.sisupalgarh) - [Nevasa](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.nevasa) - [Inamgaon](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.inamgaon) - [Rupar](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.rupar) - [Kumrahar](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.kumrahar) - [Ayodhyā (Sāketa)](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.ayodhya) - [Dhulikatta](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.dhulikatta) - [Surkotda](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.surkotda) - [Sangala](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.sangala) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.joshi-1981.c8) · Pramāṇa