Term koòòa in early Nepal epigraphy.
Deal with a problem of
significance and complexity
in detailed
examinations of Indian Epigraphy
for reconstruction of a history
of classic Inda,
american
indologist
R.
Salomon 1,
the author of
recently published monography " Indian
epigraphy",
as one of major methods for examination of epigraphical
sources names a method of
comparative analysis, however, only, as a method of reconstruction of damaged
inscriptions. But, employment of the named method, alongside with the context
analysis of the texts can, apparently to facilitate, also, for more accurate
definition of a lot of important terms (for understanding features of
development of social and political structure of Indian society, for example),
on which inexact interpretation, quite often, a lot of historical surveys are
based. As an example of necessity of employment for the such method, in this
article will be presented
the analysis of the term
koòòa use in
early Nepal Sanskrit
inscriptions, important,
in my opinion, for understanding features of structure of
early Society of Indian subcontinent.
A. Bhattacharya,
fairly evolving this term in her monograph
2,
in its interpretation, however, follows traditional way.
It is possible to translate this term, in her judgement, as "a fort,
fortification", and, as an example, she refers to its similar interpretation of
this term in V.V. Mirashi publication
of a damaged
inscription from
the time
of Pratiharas
from X
century
(i.e., later, than all inscriptions, mentioned in her
monograph 3).
In the interpretation of mentioned
term, also, she is based
on judgement
of known
epigraphist D.R.
Regmi,
interpreting this term as the
designation of
fortified area on a high altitude
or a ridge 4.
In her judgement, the use of the indicated term, which synonym was the term
durga, testifies that separate villages
(!) already
in an early history of Nepal were transformed to
fortifications
- "well protected areas", "into a cantonment areas" with housing
for soldiers, stores for arms etc. (!)
5
The reason for our analysis of the indicated term, certainly, is
not based on mentioned so free and incorrect,
in my opinion, its interpretation. This important term is interesting
because it meets
in epigraphy of different periods of Indian history, in
different parts of Indian subcontinent.
For the first time it
is mentioned in First Minor
pillar edict of Ashoka,
where it is offered to dispatch "decree" of king in
everything, as is usually translated, "mountain areas"
6 (or
forts and regions
7,
koòa-viøavesu).
There is no reliance, that such translation of the term is
correct, however
of its other mentions in Ashokan
inscriptions we
have not.
According the "Indian
Epigraphical Glossary", the
term frequently meets in Indian
epigraphy,
down to the
time of
Vijayanagara. It is
mentioned here
in various combinations, in two major types of meaning:
koòòa-pàla, koòa-pàla, koòòa-pati, koò-àdhikaraíika,
koòòa-nigraha or koòòa-nigrahin (in all - "the fort"),
or koòaka, koòòaka, koòòam, koòòa-viøaya
(interpreted by D.Ch.Sircar, as "district", including " around the fort"). In its
interpretation he is based widely on habitual significance of this term in translations of
Tamil inscriptions, in which
correctness,
also, there is an occasion to doubt.
The term
koòòa
fairly often meets
in early Nepal epigraphy
8. For the first time
it meets
in one of the
early
inscription of Vasantadeva
(20.9-10 = V.20) 9
from 428 year in the formula concerning to
conditions of the
grant "according
to the stable rules of
koòòa
10".
Its such
use in similar contexts most often meets
in Nepal
inscriptions 11
and requires special consideration. The analysis of the contents and place of
the noted formula 12
in inscriptions, allows to
state some judgments. Here, unconditionally, is spoken not
about the fort, fortified area or place, but
about certain "traditional rules" or
"customs" 13
of koòòa,
their complex (therefore is spoken about "all"
or
"basic",
ùarèra, rules),
accordingly
to which the grants
were made out. Apparently, taking into
account a usual conciseness of inscriptions and
"conditions" of
the grants in charters, this
permanently repeating instruction was rather important for
Nepal kings.
These rules, which
the kings followed, were hardly determined
by them - in special cases (for example, in the case
at decrease of traditional
norms of duties)
the inscriptions mention "rules
established by king" (narapatikðta-maryyàda,
see, for example Amshuvarman charter from year 31).
In
the other inscription
(54.17 = V.58), quite probably,
details about koòòa
norms is stated.
In the inscription of Shivadeva I,
which date was not saved (54.17 = V.58), in a damaged line, is spoken: " and
that of you, who is born in [appropriate] gotra,
outside of koòòa,
can live at the other places;
for
necessary in activity those [lives outside of?] his own
koòòa...
" 14.
Even the damaged
phrase allows to repute, that not the fort, but the
local, non-state organization is
referred to. In other Shivadeva
I grant the same
term is used twice in
connection with boundary definition (54.18-24 = V.58 -
koòòasèman,
tatsèmàparikøipte ¸smin koòòe),
probably,
as a synonym for granted village.
In other charter of Shivadeva I
(60.11-12 = V.65) the term is used in connection with the
prohibition
from the king
for "inhabitants Pheraê-koòòa
and others " to harm to the inhabitants of granted
village, and the term koòòa
is represented itself as designation of territorial
organization compared with village, rural community.
In the charter of Dhruvadeva
and Jishnugupta
(100.9-10 = V.108), on the basis of the saved text it is possible to judge that
here is
spoken about transfer to a temple the
Talaãju-gràma,
becoming (or, literally, "made as")
koòòa (...... Koòòaê-kðtvà pratipàditam).
In the charter from
100 year (140.7. = V.146) are spoken
about certain "place"
(or "centre") of koòòa
(Koòòa-sthànam).
In the charters of Shivadeva
II (136 = V.143) the term meets in the name of granted
village -
Avàkoòòà
(136.7), in most often meeting context mentioned above, and in connection with
boundary definition, where is spoken about
dàvà-koòòa (136.17, probably,
here it is possible to
read the hole word as the name of village).
Based on
examined cases, it is possible to approve, that the organizations named
koòòa
had concrete territories, names
(Pheraê-koòòa, Avàkoòòà),
rules,
inhabitants, borders,
which
does not allow to consider this term as designation of "fort",
but the local organisation. And
even in a unique
case in Licchavi's inscriptions,
when, in the damaged
text,
probably, there is a organization named koòòa
"created"
by the
king mentioned,
without delay, it can be interprete only as
the change of the status
of mentioned
in the same place village (obtained the status of
koòòa, as a result of king
grant), in complete correspondence to usual mentioned traditional norms.
It is possible to judge about
significance of such changes of the village's
status (which, taking into account
permanently repeating the references
on the
rules of koòòa,
in many grants)
only presumably. That the mention of the rules
koòòa
more often attached
with the prohibition
of access into the
territory of grants
for the inter-rural
organizations - " adhikaraías
", which
major functions, apparently, were the tax and fines
collection (i.e.
fiscal and
judicial functions),
both these instructions can be linked. And therefore we
can judge, that the limitation of "adhikaraías"
authority in the rural communities
15 took place not
only by the prohibition
for them of access into the
territory of grants,
but also by
the
changes
of village's
status. And
then, it is possible to read formula with the considered term
most often mentioned in inscriptions as
"according to the rules FOR
koòòa
", territorial organization, under the status independent
from inter-rural "committees- adhikaraías
". Thus, the institute of "grants"
completely relevant to tradition, had, probably, at the same time, rather
pragmatical social and political idea - change of a social
and political structure of society, removing local territorial organizations
from under the authority of inter-communal "committees-adhikaraías".
The mentions
of the various
rules for
grants
are not rare in the early epigraphy in
various places of
Inda
(for example, càturvedya-gràma-maryyàdà,"rules"
or
"customs" for
[grants]
of villages
for the
brahmanas, well versed
in 4-th
Vedas in Vakataka inscriptions,
rules for
"brahmadeya"
or "agrahara"
in
inscriptions of Bagh kings).
And these grants obviously lead
to changes in a social and political structure of society,
to appearance of new social
organizations -
brahmadeyas,
agraharas become
latter as the
designations
of quite concrete local organizations. And also
it was
possible to admit, that the
practice of land-grants
widely widespread
in V-VI
AD, alongside with others, had
definite social
and political
idea, reflecting dynamics of mutul relations
of a state
authority with local
organizations, important changes during formation of
an Indian
state.
Prepared with the funding of RUSSIAN FOND OF HUMANITIES (http://www.rfhu.ru/), Pr. No. 04-01-00111a by D.N. Lielukhine, Oriental Institute.
1 Salomon, R.Indian Epigraphy. Austin, 1998. It is
necessary to mark, that there are not so many publications in a historiography,
where discussed the general problems of systematisation of epigraphy, general
principles of examination of inscriptions etc. It is possible only to mark only
known books of D.Ch. Sircar (Sircar D.Ch. Indian Epigraphy. Delhi, 1965; Sircar
D.Ch. Indian epigraphical glossary. Delhi, 1966), which importance R. Salomon
fairly marks. The reason of such situation are obvious - complexity and
multistage work with epigraphy (decophering, translation, analysis, each of such
stages requires the high specialization), necessity of knowledge of numerous
types of scripts, languages (including their dialects) etc. Some researchs are
known, where the attempt is made to decide general problems of examination of
epigraphical texts on the basis of the analysis of the group of these sources,
first of all so-called. "Land-grants" (see, for example, Chhabra B.Ch.
Diplomatic of Sanskrit Copper-Plate Grants.
- in: Indian Archives, 1951, ¹ 5; Prakash, Om, Early Indian Land-Grants and
State Economy). The deficit of such common researchs, in my opinion, is one of
the important reasons for tolerance of a lot of stereotypes, existing in a
historiography from a beginning XX centuries, for example,
in research of a history of forming and evolution of social and political
structure of Indian Society and State, numerous examples of a familiarity in the
interpretation of epigraphy in concrete regional historical researches
(especially, indian) on which materials, quite often, the researces of other
scholars are based. One of such stereotypes, for example, which often discussed
in our papers - "centralized bureaucratic state” in Ancient India. back
2 A. Bhattacharya, Nepalese Inscriptions in
pre-Nevari eras: An annotated bibliography, Calcutta, 1994. back
3 The similar references to translations of
the later texts and the interpretation of the special terminology, often meet in
an Indian Historiography. back
4 Regmi D.R. Ancient Nepal. Calcutta, 1960,
p.191. back
5 A. Bhattacharya, Nepalese Inscriptions in
pre-Nevari eras., p. 74. back
6 It is impossible to understand why this
"edict" is offered to dispatch only in "mountain areas".
back
7 This interpretation looks better. It is
possible to suppose, that here we have the intersting uncommon instance of
duality, usual mentioned as pura-janapada, pura-rashtra etc. On the other hand
it is better, from my mind, to interprete both these terms as having the similar
meanings - different "regions". back
8 The question on a possibility of the
uniform interpretation it (as, however any other terms) in sources of different
time, from different locations - special and should be decided separately in
each concrete case (this question, even in relation to the interpretation
of the term koòòa in the present examination is not put).
back
9 At the number of an inscription we use a
serial number of an inscription in our database (up to 164 numbers it is the
same as the numbers in the list of A. Bhattacharya), in brackets we marks the
numbers in publications (V = D.V are given. Vajracharya, Lichchhavi
Kàl Ka Abhilekha (in Nepali), Kathmandu, 2003 Vir Era).
back
10
susthita-koòòa-[ma]ryyàdaõ
back
11
sarvva-koòòa-maryyàd-opapannatvàd - 54.8=V.58;
Koòòamaryà(d-opapanno) - 55.9=V. 59;
Sarvakoòòamaryyàdopapanna - 62.7 (=V.67);
sarvakoòòamaryyàdà - 116.13(=V.124);
ùarèra-koòò-obhay-ànekamaryàd-opapannaõ - 122.7(=V.129);
ùarèrakoòòamaryàdopapannaõ - 127.6 (=V.133);
ùarèrakoòòamaryàd-opapannaõ 128.6-7 (=V.134);
ùarèrakoòòamaryàdo[papanna]õ - 132.5.(=V.139);
koòòamaryàdopapannaõ - 136.7.(=V.143).
Koòòamaryàdàsmàbhiõ prasàdèkðtà, 138.24 = V.145; 70.11-12 (= V.73), 71.14-15 (=
V.74). back
12
To the mentioned cases is possible to join
one more - in the charter of Jayadeva II from 137 year is spoken that the
village is made as "the grant" accordingly to "the rules"of
koòòaback
13 maryàdà, about
correspondence of grants to other rules, not mentioned directly, the
inscriptions speak similarly often.
back
14
smad-gottrajà ye koòòàd bahir nyattra nivaseyus-teøàê-kàryya-prayojane
svakoòòà......
back
15 About what is spoken directly and often
in inscriptions.
back