Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Rashtrakutas and their Times c14: Chapter VII. Political Divisions

The Rāṣṭrakūṭas and their Times c14

Language
English

Chapter VII. Political Divisions

c14.2

In order to understand properly the administrative machinery of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa empire, it would be necessary to recall to memory its wide extent. The empire usually extended over southern Gujarat, Marathi districts of the Central Provinces, Konkan, the whole of Maharashtra, practically the whole of the state of Hyderabad, Karnatak, and portions of the state of Mysore. Its northern boundary extended from Cambay to Houshangabad; the eastern boundary, which is rather difficult to determine precisely, probably ran through Houshangabad, Nagpur, Chanda, Warrangal and Cudappah. The southern boundary was formed partly by the Northern Pennar, beyond which extended the Bāṇa and the Noḷamba principalities, and partly by an imaginary line starting from the sources of the Northern Pennar and passing through Chitaldurg to the Arabian sea. The western boundary was, of course, the Arabian sea. Sometimes, as under Govinda III and Kṛṣṇa III, the empire embraced wider areas, but the annexation of territories beyond the boundaries above indicated was temporary, for the Rāṣṭrakūṭas did not succeed in permanently amalgamating them with their empire. It should not be supposed that all these areas were directly governed and administered by the imperial government from Malkhed; for there were numerous feudatories enjoying various powers of internal autonomy. How these were controlled by the imperial government will be indicated in a later chapter of this part.

c14.3

This wide empire must obviously have been divided into several provinces for administrative purposes. The Rāṣṭrakūṭa land-grants usually refer to Rāṣṭrapatis, Viṣayapatis and Grāmakūṭas in the stated order. The almost invariable precedence given to Rāṣṭrapatis makes is quite clear that Rāṣṭra was the largest administrative unit and Viṣaya was its subdivision. Under the Kalachuris and the early Chālukyas, who preceded the Rāṣṭrakūṭas in northern Maharashtra, Viṣaya was the larger and Rāṣṭra the smaller administrative unit; (1) but the Rāṣṭrakūṭas seem to have reversed this nomenclature, giving the name Rāṣṭra to the larger and Viṣaya to the smaller unit. The term Maṇḍala was used at this time in the neighbouring provinces to denote the territorial unit corresponding to Rāṣṭra; thus southern Gujarat was known as Lāṭa-Maṇḍala (2) and the Vengi kingdom as Āndhra maṇḍala. (3) The Rāṣṭrakūṭa documents, however, do not mention any Maṇḍala divisions in the home provinces.

c14.4

It is rather strange that our records, which invariably refer to Rāṣṭrapati officers, should nowhere mention any specific Rāṣṭra. Specific Viṣayas like Puṇaka viṣaya or Karahāṭaka viṣaya are mentioned, but no specific rāṣṭra is ever referred to. It is, therefore, difficult to determine its extent precisely; but since viṣayas roughly corresponded, as will be presently shown, to modern districts, it is very probable that the rāṣṭra or maṇḍala was about the size of a modern division in charge of a Commissioner.

c14.5

The dimensions of the next territorial unit viṣaya can be determined fairly accurately. Our records refer to Puṇaka 1,000, Karahāṭaka 4,000, as viṣayas. Nasik, Karṇapurī (corresponding to Bijapur district) and Mahisha are also described by the same term. It is, therefore, fairly clear that a *vishaya* roughly corresponded to a modern district, usually consisting of about 2,000 villages and hamlets.

c14.6

¹ Vadner inscription of Budharāja, E. I., XII, p. 130.

c14.7

² Baroda plates of Karkka, I. A., XII, p. 160.

c14.8

The next territorial division was a *bhukti*. The officer in charge of its administration was called a *bhogapati* or *bhogika*. Our records do not refer to him along with *Rāṣṭrapatis* and *Vishayapatis*, probably because he did neither come into direct contact with the grantees of the land grants like the *grāmakūṭa*, nor possessed considerable revenue powers like the *rāṣṭrapatis* and *vishayapatis*. The Samangad plates of Dantidurga refer to Koppārakapañcaśatabhukti, and the Konnur inscription of Amoghavarsha I mentions Majjantiya-saptati-grāma-bhukti. The Paithan plates of Govinda III show that Pratiṣṭhāna-*bhukti* contained several groups of 12 villages. It is, therefore, clear that the *bhukti* division contained about 100 to 500 villages and hamlets. It thus corresponded sometimes to the modern Taluka or Tahsil, and sometimes to the subdivision of a district under the present British administration.

c14.9

It is not to be supposed that the above conclusions about the dimensions of the units referred to, hold good universally. The use of the terms used to denote territorial divisions differed from province to province and age to age. Thus *bhukti*, which was a sub-division of a *vishaya* in the Deccan and Kathiawar, was used to denote a territorial unit larger even than a *maṇḍala* in the contemporary Gurjara-Pratīhāra empire of the north, as is clear from the Dighva-Duboli grant of Mahendrapāla.⁴ The term denoting a territorial division corresponding to a modern district, current in Kathiawar, was *āhāra* or *āharaṇi* and not *vishaya*, as was the case in the Rāṣṭrakūṭa empire. The fact that the Wani-Dindori plates should refer to Nasik as a *deśa* and the Dhulia plates of Karkka Pratāpaśila, issued 29 years earlier, should describe it as a *vishaya* shows that these terms were sometimes used even in official documents with a certain amount of looseness. The fact that Karhāṭaka is called a *vishaya* both in 768 A.D. when it comprised 10,000 villages and hamlets and in 1054 A.D. when it consisted of only 4,000, shows that the old nomenclature continued even when the units in question had changed in extent. The conclusions above mentioned are, therefore, only of a general nature.

c14.10

⁴ I. A., XV, p, 105.

c14.11

The villages in each *bhukti* were divided into smaller groups, each group being named after its principal village, coupled with the number of villages contained in it. Thus, Sārākachchha-dvādaśa-grāma, Vavulalla-dvādaśa-grāma, Ruridha-daśaka, Sihari-dvādaśa and Sebli 30 were the subdivisions of Pratiṣṭhāna, Uppalikā, Karpaṭavāṇijya, Vaṭapadraka, and Purigeri talukas or sub-divisions respectively. This peculiar way of nomenclature was not confined to small divisions only; terms like Harshpura-ardhāṣṭa-śataka, Padadore-dvisahasra, Alaṭage-sapta-śata, Aṅkoṭṭaka-chaturaśīti, show that in many localities this kind of nomenclature was used in preference to terms like *vishaya* and *bhukti*. This would show that the dicta in the Mahābhārata, (5) Manu (6) and Viṣṇu (7) Smritis that government should group together 10, 20, 100 and 1,000 villages for administrative purposes was based on actual practice, and not on imaginary calculations.

c14.12

The next territorial unit was the village. Sometimes small hamlets contiguous to a big village were amalgamated with it for administrative purposes, though they otherwise retained their individual corporate character. Villages were, however, very jealous of their distinctive existence; when king Nandi-varman wanted to amalgamate Kumāramangala and Vennatturakotta villages into one and name the new group as Udayachandramangala, the change had to be ratified by the villages concerned (8).

c14.13

⁵ Śāntiparvan, 87, 3-5.

c14.14

⁶ VII, 115.

c14.15

⁷ III, 4-6.

c14.16

Important towns and cities formed administrative units by themselves and were under the charge of special officers known as Purapatis or Nagarapatis. Since early time this custom prevailed; Arthaśāstra of Kauṭalya, II 36, and Manusmriti, VII 121, both lay down that towns and cities were to be under the jurisdiction of separate officers. Jaugada special edict No. 1 of Asoka mentions nagaravoharakas who were in charge of town government in his administration. Under the Gupta administration cities like Koṭivarsha⁹ and Girinagara¹⁰ were under the charge of officers specially entrusted with their control, supervision and government.

c14.17

⁹ E. I., XV, pp. 130 ff.

c14.18

¹⁰ C. I. I., III, No. 14.

c14.19

The numerical figures attached to some of our territorial divisions mentioned above require further discussion. It has been stated that these represent the number of villages and hamlets included in the divisions concerned; but there are several other interpretations in the field. Rice had proposed to regard these figures as indicating the revenue in gold coins of the divisions concerned.¹¹ The use of these figures in such a sense is not unknown; the fertile Ashte group of villages in Satara district is still popularly designated as "Ashte-lakh-and-a-quarter," because it used to yield a revenue of that amount when the other groups were paying much less. There are, however, several difficulties in accepting the theory that these figures in the vast majority of cases denote the revenue of the units concerned. It is difficult to imagine how the revenues of Banavasi 12,000, Gangawadi 96,000, Nolambawadi 32,000 etc. continued to be the same throughout, since these figures are almost invariably associated with them in different centuries. The figures, if interpreted as the revenue amounts, are besides too small even if we proposed to regard them as referring to Kalanju, the usual gold coin current in the locality. It was not an unknown practice in our period to indicate the revenues of a division by giving its figure after it, but the method followed was different. A concrete case of such a use is supplied by the Mudiyanur Bau inscription, (12) which describes Āndhramaṇḍala as ‘dvādaśa-sahasra-grāma-sampādita-saptārdhalaksha-vishaya’, a country with a revenue of seven and half lakhs accruing from 12,000 villages included in it. None of the numerous expressions occurring in our records is similarly worded. Another difficulty in accepting this theory is the fact that the larger part of government revenue in our period was collected in kind and not in cash. If the government revenues were entirely collected in cash, then nomenclature of divisions after the amount of the revenues collected in them was likely to be current. There is also a further difficulty. Sri-Budhavarsha was a feudatory of Sikharikā-dvādaśa in southern Gujrat in 813 A.D. (13); Bankeya, the viceroy of Banavāsi, had appointed his son Kundate as the officer over Nidgundige 12. (14) If we accept the theory of Rice as universally applicable, we shall have to suppose that Mahāsāmanata Budhavarsha was the ruler over a state he revenues of which were 12 golden coins, and that the mighty governor of Banavāsi, a favourite of the reigning emperor Amoghavarsha, had appointed his son as an officer over a division the revenue of which was the same amount 12 golden coins. Could a person have acquired the feudatory status if his income were so small? Could the mighty Banavāsi governor have appointed his son to a post less important than that of a village patel or accountant?

c14.20

¹¹ *Bhandarkar Commemoration Volume*, pp. 238-9.

c14.21

Nor does it appear very likely that the figures could have stood for the population of the divisions concerned. We have a solitary expression referring to Gangawadi as Shaṇṇavati-sahasravishayaprakṛtayaḥ, (15) but this expression is used while mentioning the witnesses to the document in which it occurs and, therefore, means that the transaction is known to or attested by the whole population of the province of Gangawadi 96,000. The population theory further presupposes that census was regularly taken during our period. No evidence can, however, be adduced to prove that such was the case. The view that was once advanced that the Khandagiri inscription of king Kāravela mentions the population of Kalinga was based upon a wrong interpretation of the expression 'Paṇati-sāhi satasahasehi pakatayo rañjayati' occurring in that record. 35,00,000, however, represents not the number of the subjects of Khāravela but the sum he spent in promoting their welfare. This interpretation will be further absolutely inapplicable and absurd with reference to small units like Śikharikā 12 mentioned above. The view that these figures do not represent the entire population of the divisions, but the fighting force that could be mustered from them or the number of house-holds that were comprised in them is open to a similar objection. It may be further pointed out that the inapplicability of these views in not confined merely to the cases where the figures are small; for it is extremely unlikely that Banavasi 12,000, Gangawadi 96,000 and Nolambavadi 32000, which together comprised an area greater that the modern state of Mysore, had a population of only 1,40,000.

c14.22

¹² I. A., XV, p. 172.

c14.23

¹³ E. I., III, p. 54.

c14.24

¹⁴ E. I., VII, p. 214.

c14.25

As against the interpretation here advocated that these figures refer to the villages and hamlets comprised in the divisions concerned Rice contends that the figures in many cases are too large to admit of that interpretation. He points out that Gangawadi 96,000 could never have comprised 96,000 villages, even supposing that its area was entirely covered by villages only and by nothing else. The same is the case with Nolambavadi 32,000 and Banavasi 12,000. Dr. Pran Nath, in a recent work of great interest, seeks to get over this difficulty by proposing a new interpretation for the term grāma. He contends that in the time of the Guptas and even much earlier it appears that the word grāma was used in official records for an estate and in poetical and literary works for a village or settlement. (16) He interprets the figures after the names of the divisions as referring to estates contained in them; thus Konkana 14,000, Banavasi 12,000 etc. meant that these units comprised of so many estates.

c14.26

With reference to the theory that grāma in our inscriptions means an estate and not a village, it has to be confessed that the arguments adduced to support it do not bear close examination. The passage quoted from Abhidhānarājendra does not mean that in the remotest period of Indian history the word grāma was used in ten different meanings, viz. (1) cows (gāvaḥ); (2) grass (triṇāni); (3) boundaries (sīmā); (4) pleasure-gardens (ārāma); (5) well (udapāna); (6) servants (cheṭa); (7) fences (bahiḥ); (8) temple (devakula); (9) an estate (avagraha); (10) owner (adhipati). (17) A glance at the commentary, relevant passages from which are quoted below, (18) will show that the word never conveyed such

c14.27

16. Pran Nath: A Study in the Economic Conditions of Ancient India, p. 26.
17. Ibid, p. 28.

c14.28

18. गावो तणाइ सीमा आरासुदपाण चेटरूपाणि वाही य वाणमन्तर सुग्गह ततो य आहिपती अथ भावार्थ उच्यते । प्रथमो नैगमः प्राह । यावन्तं भूभागं गावश्चरितुं व्रजन्ति तावान् सर्वोऽपि ग्राम इति व्यपदेशं लभते । ततो विशुद्धनैगमः प्रतिभणति । गावो वयंन्ति दूरं पि जं तु तनकठहारगादीयां । सुरूढिते गता एन्ति अत्य सन्ते ततो गामो ॥ परिस्थूरमपि परमात्मपि चरितुं गावो व्रजन्ति ततः किमेवं सोप्येक एव ग्रामो भवतु ? अपि च एवं श्रुवतो भूयसामपि परस्परमतिद्रीयसां ग्रामाणामपि एकग्रामतैव प्रसज्जति । न चैतावदुपपन्नम् । तस्मात्तैतावान् ग्रामः । किन्तु यावन्मात्रं क्षेत्रं तृणहारककाष्ठ हरकादयो सूर्य उत्थिते तृणयार्थं गताः सन्तः सूर्यऽस्तं यति...पुनरायान्ति एतावत्क्षेत्रं-ग्रामः । शुद्धतरो निगमो भणति । यद्यपि गवां गोचरक्षेत्रात् आसन्नतरं भूभागं तृणकाष्ठहारका व्रजन्ति तथापि ते कदाचित् परसीमानमपि व्रजन्ति तस्मात्तैतावान् ग्राम उपपद्यते । अहं ब्रवीमि यावत् स्वात्मीया सीमा एतावान् ग्रामः । ततोपि विशुद्धतरः diverse meanings. The verse in question refers to ten different theories about the extent of area that was denoted by the term grāma. The first theory maintained that it could comprise not only the area of settlement, but also the territory upto the limits of which the cows go out while grazing. The second theory contended that grāma could not denote so extensive an area, since cows often go out for grazing in the fields of contiguous villages. It maintained that only that much area which is traversed by the grass and fuel gatherers in the course of the day can be comprised in the meaning of the term in question. The third view maintained that even this interpretation is open to a similar objection and, therefore, grāma denotes only the area included in the boundaries of the village in question. The fourth view reduced even this extent and prefered to regard grāma as comprising only the area upto the village well. The subsequent views go on curtailing the extent of grāma still further till the climax is reached when it is contended that grāma means that temple or village-hall which was first built in the village, and around which the settlement subsequently grew. The commentator further observes that grāma, in the opinion of some, meant the individual houses of the speakers; the last view cited by him is that the term can be used to denote the headman of the village as well. It may be pointed out that the sense of the landed estate is nowhere advanced by any of the schools referred to in the Kosha.

c14.29

प्राह । यावत्तस्यैव ग्रामस्य सम्बन्धी कूपस्तावद् ग्रामः । ततोपि विशुद्धतरः प्राह । यावत् क्षेत्रमव्यक्तानि चटरूपाणि रममाणानि गच्छन्ति तावद् ग्रामः । ततोपि विशुद्धतरः प्रतिवाक्ति । यावन्तं भूभागं अतिलघीयांसो बालका उत्क्रीडन्तो प्रयान्ति तावान् ग्रामः ।... सर्वविशुद्धनयस्य यावान् वृतिपरिक्षेपपरिवृतो भूभागस्तावद् ग्रामः ।
जं वा पधम काउं सेसगामो निवसही स गामो ।
तं देउलं सभा वा महिमगोठ्ठि पवा वा वि ॥
यंतं प्रत्येकमात्मीयकमात्मीयानुग्रह रूपमेकैकं गृहं तद् ग्रामः ।

c14.30

The second passage relied upon to prove that *grāma* can mean an estate is a sentence in Nasik cave inscription No. 5. The passage in question runs as under:—

c14.31

*Ahmehi pavajitānaṁ bhikhūnaṁ gāme Kakhaḍisu puva khetaṁ dattam; ta cha khetaṁ (na) kasate ta cha gāmo na vasati.*

c14.32

Senart, who has edited the inscription, translates the passage as follows: ‘We have here on mount Tiraṇhu formerly given to mendicant ascetics dwelling in the cave, which is a pious gift of ours, a field in the village of Kakhadi; but this field is not tilled nor is the village inhabited.’ It will be seen from the original passage and its translation by Senart that it can hardly support Dr. Pran Nath’s conclusion that ‘a *kshetra* could be described as a *grāma* and that the word *vasati* was used in the sense of cultivation as well as that of habitation.’ As a matter of fact the passage differentiates a *kshetra* or field from a *grāma* or village in the clearest possible way.

c14.33

Further, it can hardly be advanced that in chapters 171 and 173 of the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭalya, the word *grāma* has been used in the sense of an estate. The passage clearly refers to the devastation of ordinary villages. But there is no room for doubt as to the sense in which the term *grāma* has been used in the *Arthaśāstra*; for while describing the colonisation of new areas the book says, ‘Villages, consisting each of not less than a hundred families and not more than five hundred families of agricultural people of Sudra caste, with boundaries extending as far as a *krosha* or two, and capable of protecting each other shall be formed.’¹⁹ This passage can hardly be consistent with the view that Kauṭalya uses the word *grāma* in the sense of an estate.

c14.34

¹⁹ *Arthaśāstra*, Dr. Shamasastri’s translation, p. 49.

c14.35

With reference to the objection raised by Rice against the view that these figures cannot be possibly interpreted as the number of the villages comprised in the divisions concerned, it may be pointed out that it may be a valid objection only with reference to large numbers like those associated with Banavasi or Gangawadi and not with reference to smaller figures associated with *vishayas* and *bhuktis* in the inscriptions hailing from Gujarat, Maharashtra and northern Karnatak. India is a fairly vast country and the usage may have quite conceivably differed province by province and century by century. Whatever may be the difficulties that may be presented by the figures associated with the divisions in other provinces, there can be no doubt that the theory, that they represent the number of villages, not only does not encounter any difficulties in the provinces just mentioned, but is actually supported by the wording of several documents. Compare, for example, the following expressions :—

c14.36

(१) साराकच्छद्वादशग्रामाभ्यन्तरे लिंबारिकाग्रामः (20)
(२) मजन्तियसप्तति-ग्राम-मुख्यन्तर्गततालेयुरग्रामः (21)
(३) पुरीप्रभृतिचतुर्दशशत-ग्राम-समन्वितां समस्त कोंकणभुवम्... (22)
(४) कर्मान्तरपुरप्रतिबद्धषोडशोत्तर-ग्रामशत-विषयान्तःपाति (23)
(५) मत्प्रसादेन संलब्धान् वनवासिपुरस्सरान् ।
ग्रामांस्त्रिंशत्सहस्राणि भुवनत्रयविरतोद्यतः ॥ (24)

c14.37

The express mention of *grāma* in association with the numbers mentioned in the above passages makes it fairly obvious that we have to interpret these numbers, even when the term *grāma* is not immediately used after them, as indicating the numbers of villages and hamlets included in the divisions concerned. Nor can it be argued that the *grāmas* mentioned in this connection are mere estates or fields and not ordinary villages consisting of village-settlements, the cultivable land, pasture and waste land, if any, that lay round the settlement. For, in a large number of cases the *grāmas* mentioned in our records can be actually identified and they are found to be ordinary villages of the above description. Thus Kantāragrāma, above referred to, mentioned in the Surat plates, is the village of Kattargam near Surat. (25) Villages of Vilavade, Paragava, and Aitavade mentioned in the Samangad plates of Dantidurga still exist, occupying the same relative positions, and bearing names which are hardly different from those given in the plates in question. All these are villages of the ordinary type and none of them is an estate. The village of Vaṭapadraka given in the Baroda plates of Karka is modern Baroda, the villages of Jambuvavikā, Aṅkoṭṭaka, and Vaghachha which are stated to be to the east, west and north of Vaṭapadraka are the same as modern villages of Jambuvāda, Akoṭa and Vaghodia which are to the east, west and north of Baroda. None of them is an estate, all of them are villages of the ordinary type. Talegaon plates of Kṛṣṇa (26) record a grant of Kumārigrāma along with the adjoining hamlets of Bhama-ropara, Arulava, Sindigrama and Taravade which was situated to the west of Khambagrāma and Vorigrāma and to the east of Alandiyagrāma and Thirugrāma. Most of these villages still exist and have been identified by Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar. Kumārigrāma is Karehgaon, Bhamaropura is Bhowrapur, Arulava is Uruli, Sindigrāma is Seedoneh, Taravade is Turudi, Khambagrāma is Khanegaon, Vorimagrāma is Boree, Alandiya is Chorachi Āḷandī, and Thirugrāma is Theur. The Konur inscription of Amoghavarsha grants a grāma or village called Taleyur situated in Majjantiya bhukti. The inscription adds that the king also granted 12 nivartanas of land in each of the 30 villages of that division, the names of which are given. Out of these 30 villages, 13 can be identified and they are within a radius of 7 or 8 miles from Kolanura where the Jain temple, which was the assignee of these lands, was situated. They are all villages of the ordinary type and cannot answer the description of an estate. Now one and the same document cannot be using the term grāma in two different senses. If the term grāma used in the expression ‘*adbhuktivartishu triṃśatsvapi grāmeshu*’ means a village of the ordinary type, it must mean the same thing in the expression *Majjantiyasaptatigrāmabhukti*.

c14.38

²⁰ E. I., III, p. 109.

c14.39

²¹ Konnur inscription, E. I., VI, p. 31.

c14.40

²² I. A., IX, p. 35.

c14.41

²³ I. A., X, p. 284.

c14.42

²⁴ E. I., VI, p. 31

c14.43

Another difficulty in accepting the view, that the figures we have been discussing indicate the numbers of estates comprised in the divisions concerned, is the fact that sometimes the *grāma* included in a division is situated miles away from the headquarters. Thus the village of Kannaḍige granted in the Honwad inscription of Someśvara I is in Bijapur Taluka, about a hundred miles from Karhāṭaka or Karad, the capital of Karhāṭaka 4,000 in which it was situated. It must be confessed that if Karhāṭaka 4,000 meant a division of 4,000 estates situated round about Karhad, it is almost impossible to explain the existence of one of these estates nearly a hundred miles from Karhad, unless we assume that big Zemindaris existed in the Deccan of our period, about which, however, there is no evidence yet forthcoming. A *grāma* in the Karhāṭaka 4,000 can be found in Bijapur district, only if we assume that the term indicated a village and not an estate.

c14.44

The figures associated with the territorial divisions of the Deccan in our period are small, and we have seen that they can be interpreted as referring to ordinary villages comprised in the divisions concerned. But how are these figures to be interpreted with reference to Gaṅgawāḍi, Noḷambawāḍi and Banavāsi, where, as pointed out by Rice, they are too large to admit of that interpretation? It may also be confessed that we do not usually come across the inclusion of the term *grāma* after these figures, as is the case with a number of records from the Deccan, as pointed out before.

c14.45

It may be pointed out that in our period the average village was much smaller and the number of hamlets included under it was much greater than is the case now. We get concrete evidence on the point from Inscriptions Nos. 4 and 5 at the Rājarājeśvara temple (27) inscribed towards the beginning of the 11th century. These two records mention the grant of about 35 villages made to the temple by king Rājarāja. Out of these, only one has an area of more than about a thousand acres, four have an area of 500 to 1,000 acres, three, an area of 300 to 400 acres, seven, an area of 200 to 300 acres, six, an area of 100 to 200 acres, three, an area of 50 to 100 acres, six, an area of 25 to 50 acres and, two, an area of even less than 25 acres. The village (*grāma*) of Gonturu, granted by Amma I, had 12 hamlets (*grāmaṭikās*) attached to it. (28) In 887 A.D. the village of Beli-ur had also 12 hamlets under it, and the revenue of all these put together was only 80 coins, presumably Kaḷanjus, and 800 measures of paddy. (29) It is quite clear from the amount of revenue, that the village in question, as well as the hamlets included under it, must both have been very small. It may be further observed that these small villages cannot satisfy the description of estates or fields. Inscriptions Nos. 4 and 5 from the Rājarājeśvara temple make it clear that even villages with an area of 50 to 100 acres are described as having their village sites, threshing floors, temples, tanks, burning grounds for high caste men, the same for the pariahs, etc. Only two of these villages, Kanjaranagar and Nagarakarkurichchi, whose areas were about 42 and 20 acres respectively, can be called estates; for, they included only cultivable land and no village sites. Another inscription from north Arcot district mentions the grant of a certain piece of land by the citizens of Melpāḍi, the eastern boundary of which is stated to be Pulikkuran, which is described as one among the villages that were acquired and belonged to the grantor city as hamlets (*Piḍāgai*), and which was not divided into house sites. These three hamlets can certainly be described as estates or fields rather than villages, and they would support the theory of Dr. Pran Nath that *grāma* meant an estate and not a village. It must, however, be pointed out that these are the only instances where we have a clear case of the term grāma being used in that unusual sense. In all other cases which are almost innumerable, we have the word used in the ordinary sense. To conclude, in the extreme south of India the average village in our period was very much smaller than the present typical village. It is, therefore, not impossible that the numbers associated with Gangawadi, Noḷambawadi etc. may represent the villages and hamlets included in them, if we assume that the numbers were exaggerated to a certain degree.

c14.46

²⁷ S. I. I., Vol. II.

c14.47

²⁸ S. I. I., I, p. 40.

c14.48

²⁹ I. A., VI, p. 103.

c14.49

The theory of exaggeration of numbers is, however, based on an unproved assumption, and it is quite likely that the figures occurring after these divisions may mean something else. It may be pointed out that the figures associated with the divisions in southern Karnatak and Tamila country are all in thousands. In this respect they pointedly differ from those associated with small territorial divisions in the Deccan, where they are usually small and precise. Rice has observed that Nāḍs were often called ‘thousands’ in Karnatak.¹ It is, therefore, not unlikely that Banavasi 12,000, Gangawadi 96,000, Noḷambawadi 32,000, Toṇḍai 48,000 etc. were so designated, not because they contained so many villages, but because they consisted of 12, 96, 32, and 48 divisions or nāḍs. This seems to be the most likely explanation of these figures that can be thought of at present. Why a nāḍ should have been popularly called a ‘thousand’ is a question that remains to be answered. Perhaps in theory a nāḍ was popularly supposed to consist of a thousand villages, though in actuality it may have had many less. It is also not unlikely that the term nāḍ was first applicable only to bigger divisions actually containing about a thousand villages, but that later on it came to denote much smaller divisions. The precise interpretation of these thousands associated with nāḍs is at present not possible.

Linked texts (13)