The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s18.56

Language: English

c8.s18.56.1

And their capital was a town named Purî, which is doubtless identical first sight, rather conflicting, but may be fairly well reconciled by the fact that Ptolemy's map shews Paithan also in an easterly or north-easterly direction from Broach; the result being (taking Paithan as the nearest starting-point) that we should look for Tagara, according to both authorities, in approximately an easterly direction from Paithan, and, according to the *Periplus*, at a distance of about one hundred miles.—Still, no acceptable identification of Tagara, on any such bases, has been practicable. There seems to have grown up a general consensus of opinion that there is something radically wrong in the details, and that the latter may, accordingly, be neglected altogether. And proposals have been made, by other writers (see, generally, *Ind. Ant.* Vol. XIII. p. 366), to identify the town (1) with Dêvagiri or Daulatâbâd in the Nizâm's Dominions, about thirty-four miles north of Paithan; (2) with a supposed ancient place, the ruins of which, it is said, may be traced over a wide area on the plateau south of Rôzah, about four miles from Daulatâbâd; (3) with a place near 'Bhîr' or 'Bhîr,' in the same territory, about forty-five miles to the south-east of Paithan; (4) with 'Dharûr' or 'Dhârûr,' in the same territory, about twenty-five miles to the south-east of Bir or Bhîr; (5) with Kulbarga, Kulburagi, or Gulbarga, in the same territory;

c8.s18.56.2

about a hundred and seventy-five miles to the south-east of Paithan; and (6) with Junnar in the Poona District, Bombay Presidency, about a hundred and five miles to the west by south of Paithan.—In my original account, I suggested that it may be Kôlhâpur, or, rather, Karavîra, which, now only a small village on the north side of Kôlhâpur, has furnished the foundation for both the customary vernacular name for the State, viz. the Karavîra-Ilâkhâ, and the title of the local Purâna, viz. the *Karavîra-Mâhâtmya*, and must, therefore, have been the original settlement.—To this opinion I still adhere. And my reasons are as follows. (1) The copper-plate charter of A.D. 612 distinctly mentions Tagara as the actual residence of the grantee, the expression being, not (like analagous expressions in various other records) *Tagara-vinirgata*, "emigrated from Tagara," but *Tagara-âdhivâsin*, "inhabiting, or settled in, Tagara." (2) The charter has come to light from the possession of Jains at Haidarâbâd in the Nizâm's Dominions: but it did not belong to them originally; for, it was granted to a Brâhman of the Vâsishtha gôtra and the Taittirîya sâkhâ: it has, therefore, changed hands: in doing so, it may have travelled to any distance from the residence of its original owner: and there is, therefore, nothing to connect it with the neighbourhood of Haidarâbâd.

c8.s18.56.3

(3) On the other hand, though the village which was granted, and the two villages which are named in defining its position, have not been identified, the charter records that it was issued by Pulikêśin II: when he was in residence at Vâtâpi, which is the modern Bâdâmi in the Bîjâpur District; and the places are, probably, to be located somewhere in the neighbourhood of Bâdâmi. (4) To make a grant in one locality of any practical use to a resident of another place, the two places must be sufficiently near each other for reasonable facilities of access; and, consequently, Tagara must be located within some measurable distance from Bâdâmi. (5) Karavîra, or Kôlhâpur, about one hundred and five miles to the north-west from Bâdâmi, is sufficiently near to answer this requirement. (6) The antiquity of Karavîra, or of Kôlhâpur, is undeniable; for, numerous Buddhist remains have been found in the immediate neighbourhood, including a large *stûpa*, at Kôlhâpur itself, containing a crystal relic casket the lid of which bears an inscription in pure Aśôka characters of the third century B. C. (see *Cave-Temple Inscriptions*, p. 39, No. 6). (7) In spite of this, no really ancient epigraphic mention of the place under either name has been obtained: of Karavîra, indeed, I can quote no such mention at all; and of Kôlhâpur, the earliest mention that has been obtained is of A.D. 1024 (in the Miraj grant of the Western Châlukya king Jayasimha II; *Ind. Ant.* Vol. VIII. p. 18).

c8.s18.56.4

(8) The next mention of Kôlhâpur, in an unpublished inscription of A.D. 1049 at Sirûr in the Bâgalkôt tâluka, Bîjâpur District, speaks of the place as the *Âdi-pîtha* or "original, i.e. primeval, throne" of the goddess Mahâlakshmi, of whom there is, in fact, a shrine of repute, and plainly a fairly ancient one, at Kôlhâpur; and the goddess Mahâlakshmi was the family-deity of the members of at any rate the Karâd branch of the Silâhâra family (see, *e.g.*, *Jour. Bo. Br. As. Soc.* Vol. XIII. p. 6). (9) There is a connection in meaning between the names of Tagara and Karavîra: the word *tagara* denotes the shrub *Tabernæmontana Coronaria*, which belongs to the same family with the oleander and grows freely in this part of the country, and the flowers of which are used in the worship of idols; and *karavîra* denotes the Nerium Odorum, the fragrant oleander, also growing freely in this part of the country, of which, similarly, the flowers are used in the worship of idols. (10) The legends about Karavîra and Kôlhâpur, embodied in the *Karavîra-Mâhâtmya* (see Graham's *Statistical Report on the Principality of Kolhapur*, p. 341) indicate more than one change of appellation. (11) There are local features (*id.*, p. 314 ff.) indicative of some convulsion of nature, which would explain why there are now no traces with the Purî of the Mauryas of the Koṅkaṇ that is mentioned in the Aihole inscription of A.D. 634-35.¹