Lielukhin D.N.
Socio-political structure of early society and state as it reflected in Sanskrit inscriptions from Nepal (period of Licchavis).
The historian, analysing the details of rise and evolution of the concrete states runs
into a paradoxical situation. In modern historiography there is a set of the concepts,
interpreting the principal cause of the origin of the state 1. Ones consider this cause, as
result of development socio-economic, others, as the result of development socio-political
and even of the socio-cultural relations (which, basically, on my sight, also look quite
valid). And each of the indicated aspects of the human relations, quite often, is put
forward as the basic, principal cause of the origin of the state 2 and, accordingly, basic criterion
of such early states are defined in different ways. At the same time, most of the theories
in discussions about the state (directly or indirectly) are based on its other uniform
criteria, which more likely become simpler, than develop, despite of huge quantity of the
information, put into use by historians, abundance of new researches indicative to more
composite structure of the public relations, including, at an early stage of development
of a statehood.
The present paper is continuation of our research of a history of forming and evolution of
a socio-political structure of society in ancient and early medieval India. One of the
most important aspects of this research, in our opinion, is the raising a problem of a
place and role of traditional social collectives and their organisations within the
various states, analysis the evolution of supra- and inter-communal administration,
composite and contradictory process of its isolation from original collectives 3. The essence
of raising of such problem was defined by similar estimates of the authors about the
complexity and step-by-step forming of " the state, as historically stabled system of
self-organising of society”, and “state, as superstructure, institutionalised part of
social and political system"
4, process which is carried out under direct and mediate effect of previous (or "lowest") forms
of society's organisation, which, being included in structure of the state, in turn,
underwent by definite changes
5. Or else, we considered the process of forming of the concrete states,
as the process of evolution of a socio-political structure of society, its integration or
self-organising. Thus the special attention we attached to the forms of socialisation,
precedent to the state (family, clan, tribe, community), which not only influenced on
forming of a new system of a society's organisation (state), but also kept to function
within such new system, undergoing definite changes. The analysis and discussion of
results of this research (for what I especially given thanks to the colleagues) has
allowed us to formulate more legibly some other conclusions, offered below our
clarification, of two basic "criteria" of a statehood.
It is possible to evaluate separation of the population on the territorial instead of by a
patrimonial principle, on territorial divisions – as the process extremely composite and
ambiguous, which finality can be evaluate differently. Anyway, being based on our
materials it is impossible to contrast patrimonial and territorial relations, to speak
only about replacement of kinship relations by territorial. To the contrary, the
territorial relations being formed within the patrimonial society and were not contrasted,
but associated to a representation of clan and tribe, gradually settled on definite
territory 6.
Family, clan and, even tribe (in separate societies), the kinship relations, by undergoing
definite changes to some extent integrated in structure of state and other relations,
persisted in modern society, quite often rendering definite effect on the relations of any
level, including, on politics of the different states 7. Speaking about new (territorial
relations is really new to a definite level of public development), on my sight, it is
important to take into account, that this new is developed within the evolution and under
defining effect of previous, which, being recasted, here is included and integrated. Thus,
apparently, raised the territorial or neighbour's commune, major form for organisation of
population for the most ancient and medieval societies, becoming a basis of their social
and political structure. How such integration is proceeded, as the relations varied within
the organisations based on kinship relations, as well as how long the process of forming
of territorial relations and adaptations in their frameworks of family relations 8 proceeded and
so on - detailed answers to these questions can give the future special researches.
At such approach, our analysis of the sources has formed the basis for a conclusion that a
most ancient and early medieval states in India represented as associations of territories
controlled by different dependent kings, various rulers, aristocrats, territories of
communities and communal type organisations, within these states executing the function of
its territorial subdivisions (not being originally and in fact only state subdivisions).
The logic of forming of such socio-political structure in ancient and early medieval
Indian society was defined, on my mind, simultaneously, by two major tendencies - to
forming polycentric (with preservation of a set various centres of power having a definite
autonomy and a natural peculiar authority, including in frameworks of more larger state's
organisations) and mono-centric (uniform centre of power - government, uniform sovereignty
and so on) its organisations, which parity was displayed in various periods of a history
of country and within the various territories differently. Indian sources, on my mind,
despite of existence of bull unilateral historiography tradition (coming from that the
state - mono-centric organisation with one ruler, government, state borders, sovereignty
and so on), allow to speak about original prevailing of the tendency to polycentric
society's organisation.
The analysis of sources, on my mind, allows to judge about the existence of the
integrative tendencies as within the communal organisations shown in creation of
inter-communal territorial associations of a various level, and within the various
territories, as a result of struggle for predominance, formation of the relations of
domination - subordination. The long-lived, ambiguous and contradictory process of
integration, probably, occurred in India collaterally to process of struggle for power
within such organisations and, as a consequence, with gradual slackening of the collective
forms of government at the lowest levels of public hierarchy expressed in attaching the
most important public positions for the concrete families and clans, transition to
personalised authority. On a middle level of public hierarchy, probably, the evolution in
such direction went much faster, that was defined by objects of such common bodies (in
India were reduced, mainly, to mediative function and protection against aggression) and,
on the other hand by their specialisation. The sources allow us to repute, that the
indicated tendencies lead to replacement (but not everywhere) of the collective authority
by personalised, to transformation of the chiefs of such organisations in the rulers of a
various types. But, our statement of such common direction of evolution of social and
political structure in ancient and early medieval India has not at all by purpose making
of idea about uniformity of Indian society, its synthetic unitarisation, that rather often
it is possible to meet in researches of the Ancient Indian state history 9. Already in the famous Maurya
empire were included the territories apparently on a various level of development - as
rather more highly developed western regions governed by their rulers (Taksila,
Surashtra), as the regions of different tribes from the central India. In a line of
inscriptions of later kings are fixed the facts of including in their states of
"forest tribes" territories (form of such integration, certainly, is the special
question).
All of India consists from "collectives of a miscellaneous sort, large and small,
closely bound among them, entering one in other or is mutual crossed" 10. And, as
such collectives it is possible to understand Buddhist "samgha", monastic temple
communities and organisations, states - "rajya" (single kingdom) and
"mandala" ("empire"), territories ruled by various
"dignitaries", rulers not having of king's titles and so on. The most of such
collectives associated itself with definite territories, each - had the special
government, possessed a definite autonomy, administration, jurisdiction. The forming of
such extremely diverse polycentric socio-political structure was defined by the special
significance of the patrimonial and communal relations creating the greatest obstructions
for the mono-centric tendency already on this stage of the public development. The
relations within the various territories were mainly formed on a basis by type of
kinship relations 11,
as the result of its adaptation, shown differently in various situations. Therefore, any
territory (including state, empire
12) can be considered in Indian sources as the family, clan or tribe,
inhabitants living on such territory, king's subjects - as his children, part of such
territory - as the ground of separate family, rulers of different parts of state - as
"brothers and sisters" of dominated king. Rather legibly fixed on the high and
middle level of public hierarchy, such features of the territorial relations, probably,
even brightly expressed on low level (rural community - association of communities and so
on). And it is wrong to reduce them only to ideology, to underestimate their significance.
About an exclusive role of kinship relations, patrimonial norms and institutes in forming
of new territorial, and, also, caste and professional organisations, it is possible to
judge, being based on facts, that with these organisations interconnected the important
functions of family and clan - care of the aged, children, ill, and needy, care of
children education, care of preservation and support of family norms and family as such,
organisation of production, identification of mediative function with the aged and so on. Interrelation
and interconnection of the territorial and patrimonial relations, relevant organisations
and their institutes, long-lived time remained the important factor in a history India.
Forming of the territorial relations unconditionally extremely important factor of
social and political development of society permitted to leave for limits of patrimonial
society, due to making of territorial organisations and their institutes, which promoted
the development of new integrative tendencies. But the analysis of the territorial
relations can not be complete, on my sight, disregarding that they were as a matter of
fact, first of all, as result of adaptation, assimilation of kinship relations in new
frameworks. Being recasted, they kept to play (and play down to the present time) a
important role in the public relations, being developed differently and defining conduct
and interests, both concrete people, and whole collectives of any type. And, at last, just
the exceptional value of kinship relations in an antiquity defines that the social and
political structure of society in Ancient and Early Medieval India originally had
polycentric character. And though the tendency to monocentrism also was present in these
times within any organisation, gradually, with development of the relations of domination
- subordination and inequality acquiring the increasing significance - polycentric
structure, expressed not only in existence of a set of various collectives and
organisations, first of all of communities and communal type organisations, governed by
their own administration within the framework of their jurisdiction, but also in a
non-interference in affairs of such collectives, if they did not contradict to interests
of authority from more high level, remained a major feature of socio-political structure
of Ancient and Early Medieval India. Thus, commune (taking into account all contradictory
tendencies in its development), communal institutes remain for a long time as a major part
of ancient and early medieval Indian State.
The analysis of process of forming (or establishing, that looks less precise) of public
authority now acquires extremely important for the understanding of a problem of state 13. As the
reason of it, first of all, it is necessary to mention consolidated in a historiography
(domestic, western, Indian and so on) simplified understanding of "public
authority", as "administration", "state machinery", and also
identification the last with the state, which is, unconditionally, important
methodological mistake 14.
The critical analysis of the interpretation by the historians of the evidences of sources
about "state machinery", "administration" of "empires" in
Ancient and Early Medieval India, has given us to a conclusion, that the functions of such
apparatus executed, in most cases, by non-specialists and, alongside with the members of a
king's clan, his servants, most likely, by representatives of central and local political
elite - local governors, aristocrats, communal leaders, rulers of organisations of a
communal type. It is represented quite logical, taking into account noted above features
of territorial structure of the most of the states in Ancient and Early Medieval India
(the process of forming of administrative-territorial structure starts in India much later 15). It is
represented also optimal, taking into account an exceptional value and variety of
communal, communal type and intercommunal organisations, exclusive role of communal
ideology 16.
The joining tendencies within the Ancient and Early Medieval Indian states were developed
"from below", when for fulfilment of restricted quantity of problems necessary
for society (maintenance of the legal order, co-ordination of interests of various
collectives, protection against external aggression etc.) - the various territorial unions
or associations were formed, each of which had its own administration. Simultaneously, as
a result of interaction of various collectives and their organisations in the various
forms, including the struggle for leadership and dominance there was a process of forming
of composite hierarchy of government bodies in various territorial or other organisations
proceeded, one of the major base for which there were formed relations of domination -
subordination.
Association of social organisations called, for example, necessity of co-operation for
development of natural resources and opposition to external threats, already at a rather
early stage of development quite natural adjoined with inequality and coercion within such
associations. The latter stipulated by a biosphere, level of access to resources and by
other factors, not dependent on the person, developed simultaneously with the evolution of
social relations, when there was appeared the robbery, patriarchal servitude, war and
tributes. Thus, paradigm for association of the most ancient and early medieval Indian
states, was, apparently, find long before their appearance. So, for example, still tribe,
by conquering the adjacent tribe, interfered ran into a problem of appropriation of the
subordinate collective. And though different solutions of this problem was present 17,
apparently, the path of assignment of such collective bodily, with preservation for
defeated of traditional organisation, traditional government and collection with the help
of the last cumulative contribution was optimal (it was marked still by K. Marx) 18. Among
dignities of such path not creating, as against a line of other, insoluble contravention's
between the winners and defeated, it is possible to call considerably smaller costs of
material and human resources, the preservation of a traditional life style and traditional
government bodies for defeated (that in turn defined weakness and fragility of such
associations), possibility of regular appropriation the tributes from defeated by the
winners and so on. Such "weak" method of integration promoted further evolution
of mutual relation and actively was used in an initial stage of forming of the states,
promoted for becoming of political society, transformation of traditional government in
political, rendering essential effect on all course of social evolution. And the
significance of such method of integration, on my sight, is not become exhausted by that
it creates a possibility for collective exploitation.
In the special degree, the creation of unequal associations on the basis of the relations
of domination - subordination between various collectives (both territorial and
patrimonial) promoted increase of a role of public authority. At such associations,
originally very unsafe, there were relations of a new type formed between collectives and
their government (collective of the winners - their government - government of defeated
collective - collective defeated), in which the key position was occupied by the persons
realising public authority. Just from the moment of making such associations it is
possible to speak about the tendencies of isolation of public authority from patrimonial
society and transformation it in administration, about formation of the state relations.
The creation of such associations has delivered before collectives a line of new problems,
permanent care of which solution (contacts with subordinate, solution of disputed
problems, preservation of inequality, receiving the "tributes" from subordinates
and so on) could undertake only the members of collectives, specially delegated for this
purpose, most probable - representatives of a government of the incorporated
organisations, "important people". These people, though executed generally valid
function (for their own collective), in this case already in the much greater degree
ranging from the basic population, receiving simultaneously other status and significant
more rights, especially under the tax and redistribution of a received additional product.
The fulfilment of functions of the tax and redistribution, as it is represented to me, for
a long time has become one of the basic functions of the state representing at this stage,
first of all as hierarchical complex of organisations with a common government intended
for regulation of the social relations in the society.
The increase of a role of public authority in connection with appearance of unequal
associations, alongside with contradictory process of social stratification with
preservation of a defining role of communal structures and communal ideology, as it is
represented for me, has rendered decisive effect on development of the state in India. The
pattern of integration, considered by us (preservation of traditional organisation and its
administration, appropriation of collective bodily), showed quite often in Indian sources
in the ideologised form of " free-will" subordination, has become the major
algorithm for forming any empire in Ancient and Early Medieval India, one of the major
norm in tradition. Such form of integration, apparently, was favourable to rulers not only
from dominant, but also from subordinate organisation. The latter's saved in many respects
their status, amplified, including at the expense of the dominant party, in its opposition
to collective government bodies.
Administrative functions represent, in definite sense, manifestation of universal
characteristic of human collectives 19. One of primary goals of administration within the
framework of any organisation, collective, is the maintenance of the order and
co-ordination of interests (i.e. performance of mediator function) 20. The forming of administration,
as special sort of activity (in its various forms) on my sight, has taken place rather
early, for stage of patrimonial society. And already at the earliest stages of existence
of such activity it is possible to speak about its institutionalisation, i.e. about
forming of definite public institutes, about appearance of the public posts (leader,
member of the elders council, member of the tribe's council and so on). A basis for the
co-ordination of interests within any collective, more often, was the complex of the
traditional rules, savers and explorers of which within the framework of collectives were
the elders (heads of families, clans, aged, respected members of any collective) or
realised of a control function appearing rather early council of the elders. So early it
is possible to speak about appearance of special interests of the persons, in charge of
administration, which were displayed that they took into account in the activity as
personal interests (self-preservation, reproduction and so on), interests of their family,
clan, tribe - collectives, by which members they is simultaneous itself counted. The
parity of such interests, including with common (all organisation) interests, apparently,
was changed with the course of time, reflecting changes of public structure, being
displayed in the various forms and on miscellaneous in concrete situations. But just this
parity (instead of extremely personal and corporate interests of the administrators) was
substance of special interests of the persons in charge of administration. Naturally,
though not being brightly expressed on early stages of society development, these special
interests were gradually changed. The increasing role in them was played by personal and
group interests of the persons realising control functions. However, such isolation,
anyway, in Indian conditions, never had character of denial. The most of the persons
possessing an authority and a realising control functions, not only kept to associate
itself with definite family, clan, territorial organisation, but also were the leaders
(and even, quite often, chiefs) of such organisations. And down to the present time it is
necessary to consider conduct of any officer (as well as any person) in a concrete
situation, not only through a prism of the corporate relations, but also, simultaneously,
taking into account a parity of them with his personal interests, interests of his family
and clan, territorial organisation, other collectives (for example, caste) with which he
himself associates. A problem of forming and evolution of public authority, long-lived and
contradictory process of its transformation in administration, state machinery (for the
lack of other more legible terms, I use traditional) should be considered with allowance
for a features noted above. The fulfilment of functions of a state machinery by the local
leaders, chiefs or representatives of various institutions, including communal and
communal type is represented, from my point of view, important feature of socio-political
structure and states in Ancient and Early Medieval India 21. Alongside with the members of a
king's clan, his nearest encirclement (including, servants in wide significance of this
word - "bearing a service to king"), local elite, local nobility, as well as the
administration of the communes, organisations of a communal type - representatives of the
lower level in administration, centres of power, performing, simultaneously a line of the
general state functions (first of all, in collection of taxes) the long-lived time is a
most important element of the state in Ancient and Early Medieval India, basis of a state
machinery.
In Indology the quantity of researches is dedicated to the analysis of the evidences from
different sources about the taxes and taxation, including special monographs, in which,
quite often, the only formal analysis of the sources coming based on conception about
unitarisation of territorial and administrative structure of the state, about
unitarisation of the forms and rates of the taxes predominates. The experts with complete
gravity argue their ideas, using the relevant professional terminology characteristic for
the newest time states and considerably modernising the contents of sources (so appear
implying a rather definite context the "land tax" and " cadastre ",
"poll-tax", "direct and indirect taxes" and so on). Thus, process of
forming of the taxation, as far as I know, understanding of transition from the
non-systematic tax of a contribution (present on pre-state stage of development) to the
organised taxation, their differences practically is not examining. This is one of the
important lacunas in the theories of forming of the state.
Marked above by us two important features of Ancient and Early Medieval India states allow
to correct the contents of considered criterion. The social and political structure of
Indian society in that time unconditionally, does not allow speaking about even relative
unitisation of the taxation. A line of express indications in epigraphy allows to approve
that the mentioned function, probably, was realised by local bodies, even by a rural
community bodies. In the interpretation of the taxes and privileges terms, listed in
inscriptions, it is necessary to take into account, on my sight, what even the using of
similar terms, formulas not always can testify to a likeness of the forms and tax rates.
Sometimes such likeness in the use of a nomenclature looks and as result of an
understanding of individual local cases in uniform textual epigraphical tradition 22 (basic
source of information about the taxes and taxation - just epigraphy).
* * *
Noted above features of forming and evolution of a state formulated by us on the basis
of the analysis of Kautilya's "Arthashastra" and the Indian epigraphy II - VI AD
find confirmation and development in offered below examination of early Nepal Sanskrit
epigraphy from a Licchavi's period (IV- VIII AD) 23. As it looks for me, the evidences from early Nepal
inscriptions can be compared to the similar information from the Indian epigraphy. It is
possible to judge, proceeding from such comparison the paths of development of
social-political structure and state in India. As the basis for this comparison it is
represented for us the common language (Sanskrit) and cultural community of early sources
of Nepal and India, their structural similarity (in this case, we mean so-called
"donative" inscriptions
24), use of similar concepts, terms. Unconditionally, we have the right
to search the common in an early history of both countries, but, certainly, we not
consider of Nepal only as one of Indian areas, taking into consideration only effect of
Indian literary tradition and culture. In Nepal, and, first of all, in a Kathmandu valley,
there were own state 25
and other territorial units, having, quite probably, special tendencies in development
since the antiquity. This was promoted by the special ethnic structure of Nepal and, in
the same degree, special conditions of life.
The basic attention here we shall devote to the analysis of the use in inscriptions of the
several important "administrative" terms widely used in various Sanskrit texts,
both in literary, and in epigraphy - in the texts of grants. It will allow to improve, on
my sight the meaning of terms, and to describe a place and significance of organisations,
which by them were designated in a structure of society of early Nepal. We mean, first of
all, term "adhikaraía", usually interpreted, as
"office, department"
26 and some others, with which are referred to, both rural, and higher
organisation. The evidences of epigraphical texts we shall state in the chronological
order. It will enable to judge about the changes in the status of separate organisations.
The term "adhikaraía" does not meet at all in
inscriptions from the time of the Manadeva, which have reached for us. It is explained by
a specific structure of inscriptions - except for a known poetic panegyric from a temple Chàêgu Nàràyaía, they, mainly, very brief and contain, mainly,
information on liêgaserection and creation of the godhoods. The
mentions of land grants are rare and brief. Among inscriptions from the time of the
Manadeva does not meet the texts of "king's grants" both characteristic by
structure and phraseology, as for subsequent Nepal, as for all India epigraphy.
First of such "grants" is referred to time of subsequent sovereign, Vasantadeva
and is dated by 428 year. The formula of "grant" here is traditional 27, the
essence of it consists, in an interdiction of access on the village territory for the
persons named càòa and bhaòa (about
the meanings of these terms see below). Here, also, mentioned organisation, not having the
concrete title, (20.19-20 = V.22)
28, named "consisting from 18 members", probably, rural or
inter-rural. Other grant from 435 year firstly mentions the terms, interesting for us. In
the formula of the notification is spoken about the judges in four "adhikaraías" 29, further, in the defective text the titles of two of
them - Liêgvala and Kótherà (23.8,9
= V.25) are read. Though from the subsequent donation (25 = V.27) of Vasantadeva
up to us has reached only its final part, here are, apparently, two "adhikaraías" also mentioned 30. The considerable interest is
represented with two subsequent donations of Vasantadeva from
454 year (29,168 = V.31, 32). In the first - Vasantadeva
notifies the rural householders and Brahmans about the joint donation Sarvadaíäanàyaka
Mahàpratihàra Ravigupta and the king Ùrè-Kramalèla,
performed at the request of the first. About the contents of this grant, in spite of the
fact that the text is damaged, it is possible to judge, that it was reduced, most likely,
to exemption the village from "visitation" of its territory by the
representatives of "Ùollà and Kótherà
adhikaraías ."
31 And, probably, in exchange for such concession, and, also, that "
there was no reduction in king's treasury " 32, for indicated "adhikaraías"
two plots of land were given
33. The following grant of Vasantadeva (168 =
V.32), which initial part is damaged, has the similar contents (separate discrepancies in
the formulas are insignificant). The considered grants represent first, special, in our
judgement, type of Licchavi king's grants, describing practice of mutual relation with
organisations named "adhikaraía" - exemption of
access on the territory of village for "adhikaraías"
with donation of land to the latter as reimbursement of "average general costs".
The first donation of king Ganadeva from 476 year is considerably damaged and only
proceeding from comparisons of separate phrases we can presumably judge its looking alike
by the subsequent donations of mentioned king. Six his other charters (38-43 = V.44-49),
all dated 482 year, are read quite confidently. On the basis of their analysis, it is
possible to judge about new type of Licchavi's grants, new practice of mutual relation
with organisations named "adhikaraía". So, in the
first (38 = V.44), king notifies all "big" people and Brahmans in the village Tegval (38.2-3) that, in addition to donations of "former"
kings, which essence was reduced to the prohibition of access in the village for "adhikaraías" Kóther 34 and Ùully (38.4-5), at the request of Sarvadaíäanàyaka
Mahàpratihàra Ùrè Bhaumagupta he will grant as the favour for inhabitants -
prohibition of access in the village for two others "adhikaraías"
- Liêgval and Màpcoka. Even in case of committing "5
great sins" (paãcàparàdha), as is spoken in the grant,
(now, the village territory) is unavailable to four "adhikaraías"
(38.6-10). The contents of five other grants of Ganadeva (39 = V.45, 40 = V.46, 41 = V.47,
42 = V.48, 43 = V.49) is similar.
In six donations of following king, Shivadeva I from 516 and 517 years (53, 56-59, 64 =
V.60, 62-64, 69) we meet a new, special type of grant. According to the text 53 (= V.60),
"major" people and Brahmans from the village (the name of which was not saved)
are notified about the king's grant at the request of Ùrèmahàsàmanta
Aìùuvarmman. The latter is reduced to the sanction for the "adhikaraía" Kóther to enter on the
territory of grant only for the definite tax collection (tri-kara-màtra-sàdhana),
and prohibition for "adhikaraías" Liêgvval
and Ùullè to enter on the territory of donation even in
case of " 5 great sins and other". Follow-up in this grant the inhabitants are
released from the tax (part of?) collected by them (crop) of garlic and onion 35. The
subsequent charters have a little different formulas - so, for example, in the grant for
the inhabitants of village Khðpuê (56 = V.62), is spoken about
a prohibition of access for "adhikaraías" (formula
does not include their titles) on the village territory even in the cases " 5 great
sins, (for accomplishment?) written donations and other" 36. Similar contents have the
grants 57-59 (V.63, 64,69). Any unessential different formulas has the text of the grant
64 (V = 69) - here are mentioned "adhikaraías" Kóther and Liêgval, to which was
prohibited of access to the territory of donation. Only Shivadeva's grant from 520 year,
from Dharampur (62 = V.67) use other formula of donation - well known for us from other
North-Indian grants, which prohibited for the persons, marked as Càòa
and Bhaòa to visit the territory of grants, given "
by former kings " (62.6). Here, king grants also exemption from concrete taxes. The
similar prohibition is used in the last grant of Shivadeva I (55 = V.59) to a Chàêgu Nàràyaía temple. In donation from Khopàsè
(63 = V.68) the prohibition for access in village for "all adhikaraías"
(63.8) is mentioned, and, also, it is offered to the inhabitants at all jobs to deal
certain Svatalasvàmin.
First grant of one of the most famous Licchavi's king, Aìùuvarman
(67 = V.81), contains the prohibition for access in a territory of grant for "adhikaraía" earlier in Nepal inscriptions not met, and having
already Sanskrit, instead of local title - paùcima (i.e.
western). In the Aìùuvarman's grant from 29 year (Gn.-34),
contains the prohibition for access in a territory of grant for other, Bhaòò-àdhikaraía
(68.6 = V.71). In the grant from 32 year (75 = V.78), which contains the donation to the
inhabitants of village Ùaêgà of a line of privileges in the
tax collection ("the calling torments" - 75.12), are contained two important
theses. Exempting the inhabitants from the tax of oil, king specifies - " this tax-
vastu should be surrendered by oil of somebody other". 37 And in the conclusion of the
text of grant, after designation of date and name of "messenger"(dutaka), there
is an apparent addition: " Here - (accordingly) decision of adhikaraía. 38 In the
grant from 39 year (80 = V.85) for the first time, instead of usual formula
("notifies the major people, Brahmans and householders-kutumbinas"), king
addresses to " (anybody), in present and future held by the deals of Paùcim-àdhikaraía". For the time of Aìùuvarman
this fact is unusual and also can be explained by the contents of the grant contains the
prohibition just for this, mentioned above "adhikaraía" 39 for access
in a territory of adhaõùàlà panchayat, governing in village,
to which the grant was given. The incomes of this grant, as follows from the text, should
be used for protection and repair erected lingams. This is here too spoken, that if the
responsibility (on protection, service, repair defective and so on) of the mentioned
panchayat to be realised will not be or they abandon it "properly", the question
should be decided by kings with the person "living here" 40. In the grant of Aìùuvarman, which date was not saved (79 = V.84), again, after
almost centenary absence the local title Liêgval in the formula
of the prohibition for access in a territory of grant for this organisation and usage (by
them) horses for carriage of heaviness and bulls carrying vehicles is mentioned 41.
The grant of Dhruvadeva, which date was not saved, alongside with fixation of king's
donation, was mentioned "confirmation" (anumatiùàsanam)
of his predecessors grants fixed in three charters. In the last part it mentions granting
by former kings as donation - the prohibition for access in a territory of grant for
"adhikaraías" Liêgval Ùollà
and other (101.17-18 = V.109), this mention we have the complete right to connect to a
period, when such "privileges" were usual. The contents of the Bhèmàrjunadeva's grant (109 = V.118), where the "property of Màpcok"(màpcokavastu), probably is
mentioned, also contains the prohibition for "adhikaraías"
for access in a territory of village Bhðêgàra (109.11), also
concerns just "adhikaraía" with such title. Similar
looks the mention in the next grant of "adhikaraía" Bhaòòa. The grant of Narendradeva from 67 year (116 = V.124)
contains already the prohibition for access in a territory of grant for the persons named Càòa and Bhaòa, and the following his
donation from 67 year (117 = V.123) consists in an prohibition for access in a territory
of Yópagràmadraêga, "free from an authority of services Bhaòòa and Màpcok" 42 to the representatives indicated
"adhikaraías" even at "improper" conduct of
the inhabitants and "crucifying of the people".
In the Narendradeva grant from 80 year (122 = V.129) we meet the fresh formula of the
notification - king informs about the donation not so "major" people, Brahmans
and householders-kutumbinas, but "the rulers in borders of Nepal heading a various
services" 43
about various grants for Haìsagriha draêga and village.... Paùcimaka, free from the access on their territory by the persons
named Càòa and Bhaòa. The exemption
from the access on the territory of grant by the persons named by these terms is
mentioned, also, in the subsequent Licchavi's charters (126.12, 127.6, 128.6, 132.5, 136.7
= V.132-134, 139, 140). The Narendradeva grant from 82 year, probably, was dedicated
"to exemption from access from all adhikaraías". 44 And, at
last, in the Ùivadeva II grant, which date was not saved, is
twice mentioned pórvàdhikaraía, earlier in the grants not
met.
Among early Nepal charters the special place occupy the texts which were made out with
usage of the formulas and phraseology, traditional for grants, but not being the donations
under their contents. It is the known two charters of Aìùuvarman
from 30 and 32 years (69, 74 = V.72, 77), fixing the "rules" (maryàdà)
about the taxes or payment at committing the grants - huge lists of the persons, temples,
viharas etc., with the indication of the sums, to whom and how much should be transferred.
It is difficult to present, that all indicated payments were made at each king's or,
especially, private donation - without delay here we have attempt to rank, to codify
traditional norms (fact in itself very unusual). Similar is the place and significance of
the Bhèmàrjunadeva's grant (107 = V.116) from 57 year, where,
probably, is attempted to systematise 45 (naturally, it should be understood very much
conditionally) the responsibilities and rights of Màpcok (màpcokàdhikàra) "service", known from other grants, which
functions were realised by the similar "adhikaraía".
The contents of the saved part of grant enables to judge that under management of the
mentioned "service" (and, probably, having the similar title "adhikaraía") there were affairs connected with the family law 46. One of
the late Licchavi's charter, which date was not saved (143 = V.149) - is even more
interesting. Though here also is fixed donation (or some donations), the considerable
portion of it is dedicated to codify "of the responsibilities and rights" of the
doorkeeper (dauvàrika). Here are mentioned any other "adhikaraías" (Ùrèpórvva -, Ùrèpaùcim -, Dakøiíagata -, Bhaòòa -), by the contents - in the definition of the prohibition
for access in a territory under the control of "door-keeper" 47, among which responsibilities is
mentioned the overseeing, how "panchalikas", i.e. people and rural authority
follow the rules (or laws, king's decrees).
Collected by us the information allows to make any conclusions relating to the contents of
the term "adhikaraía", to characterise a place of
organisations named by the indicated term in the structure of Early Nepal society, their
mutual relations with Licchavi kings. As well as in inscriptions from the Gupta times 48 - the term
"adhikaraía" in Nepal inscriptions can not be
interpreted as "office", "state department". It is represented
apparently, that so were referred to local inter-rural (or inter-communal) collective
organisations. By analogy to later inscriptions from Tamilnadu and Karnataka, fixing the
similar pattern, it is possible to designate them as "committees" 49. At
absolute majority of case "adhikaraías" are present
at the formulas of the prohibition for them for access on the territory of donations. It
is not difficult to guess about significance and sense of such "access" -
organisation these had, along with particular, inherent for each separately (we have not
enough information about this
50), simultaneously, common for all - fiscal and the judicial functions
(this was testified by line of quoted above formulas 51). Just they were, most likely,
basic tax collectors, part of these taxes transmitting in king's treasury (see contents of
the mentioned above inscriptions 29 and 168). Their titles (often in the charters such
organisations are present as pairs - Kóther and Ùully, Liêgval and Màpcoka),
apparently, local, also confirm, that they had not any relation to Licchavi's state
"administration". Most likely, in Kathmandu valley such four organisations
existed originally (therefore, for example, in 23.5 is spoken about "four adhikaraías"). Only in the time of rule of Aìùuvarman
are mentioned for the first time new "adhikaraías",
having already Sanskrit titles: paùcima (i.e. western) and bhaòò-àdhikaraía ("master's",
i.e. imperial?). Even later (the time of Ùivadeva II and later)
mentioned third, pórvàdhikaraía (i.e. eastern). Because
"new adhikaraías" are mentioned with "old",
other local organisations in one contexts (it is even new "pair" come in - Bhaòòa and Màpcok, see, 117), and they
are meeting in the charters, mainly, in the formulas of the prohibition for them an access
in a territory of donation, it is possible to find their functions and the status similar
with mentioned above "adhikaraías" 52.
In the formula of the prohibition for them an access in a territory of donation, alongside
with "adhikaraías" we find, also, (generally, in the
charters of late Licchavis - Narendradeva and Ùivadeva II)
mentioning of the persons called Càòa and Bhaòa,
which are fine known from North Indian inscriptions. As the contents of the indicated
terms is represented, it is possible to understand them similarly to North Indian
inscriptions - so the local leaders were referred to, not having of the king's status, but
possessing sufficient resources for fulfilment fiscal and judicial functions. The
frequency of the use of these terms in the time of last Licchavi kings testifies to
definite changes in the structure of the local authority, gradual replacement of
collective organisations ("adhikaraías") by nobility,
local aristocracy.
Being based on the contents of Licchavi's inscriptions, it is possible, on my sight, to
judge with confidence about the structure of their state. In the Licchavi's kingdom
usually were included the territories governed by various local rulers. About this detail
are allow to repute numerous donations "at the request", where king from
Managriha only authorised donations, which genuine initiators were not only other
"kings" (for example, Mahàràja-Mahàsàmanta-Ùrè-Kramalèla
from the grant of Vasantadeva from 454 year, Mahàràja
Vipravarmman from the grant dated by 31 year), crown princes (for example, Yuvaràja Udayadeva in the grant dated by 36 year), but also persons,
who used known from others Sanskrit inscriptions nobility titles ("mahàpratihàra",
"daíäanàyaka"). It is possible to note, that a lot of Ùivadeva I grants (516-535 years) is issued
"at the request" of Aìùuvarman, becoming later
supreme ruler of Nepal and releasing, subsequently, his own grants, prolonging to name
himself only as " Mahàsàmanta ", not accepting,
probably, the "king's" title.
The structure of Licchavi's kingdom was plotted, simultaneously, by the integration of a
lot of local inter-rural organisations, possessions of local nobility, local rulers. Thus,
most likely, just "adhikaraías" were the main
executors of the basic mediative functions, collecting the duties paid by the villages (or
"the taxes" on common needs), only part of which, probably, transmitted to the
local governors or Lichavi's kings. The inscriptions allow fixing even details of
evolution of such structure, development of mutual relation of kings with local
organisations. The indicated organisations not only executed the function of
tax-collection on the greater part of territory subordinated to Licchavis, but also
enjoyed by the acknowledged authority between inhabitants 53 and, accordingly, should be
conceived by king, as the basic objects to subordination and integration in the frameworks
of kingdom. And we can fix some types of activities of kings, their politics in relation
to the indicated organisations in the texts of donations, which, is simultaneous with the
directly declared problem, realised the function of easing the "adhikaraías"
(mentioned extremely as organisations, to which was prohibited access into the territory
of grants).
The first stage of mutual relations of "adhikaraías"
and king's authority is possible to characterise, as a period of relative concessions.
Essence of grants to the inhabitants of villages in the charters of Vasantadeva -
prohibition of access into their territories for four "adhikaraías",
naturally, leading to losses in their share of duties, fines from fulfilment of judicial
functions. These losses are indemnified here by granting for them different plots of land,
found outside the village's lands. And the latter was accomplished, as was spoken in the
charters, that " there was no reduction in king's treasury" (i.e. "adhikaraías" remained basic "collectors" of duties).
As the inscriptions of Ganadeva testified, the practice of prohibition to access for
"adhikaraías" in the village territory was widespread
among his predecessors. In all his grants, king mentioned the charters "of former
kings", according to which the access into the territory of granted villages for two
"adhikaraías" - Kóther and
Ùully was prohibited. And in his inscriptions the new type of
politics in relation to "adhikaraías" used -
prohibition to access in the territory of granted villages now is fixed for two others
"adhikaraías", Liêgval and
Màpcoka. Even in case of committing of "5 great sins
", as is spoken in the charters, the territory of the village is unavailable for four
"adhikaraías".
The ÙivadevaI inscriptions fixed a new stage of mutual relation
of the king authority and local collective organisations. For this period some weakening
in positions of king is characteristic. After his rule starts period of Kailasakuta
domination, just this king was changed by Ùrè-Mahàsàmanta
Aìùuvarman. In his charters, alongside with prohibition for "adhikaraías" to access on the territory of grant, even in case
of committing "5 great sins and other" 54 , is spoken about the sanction for separate "adhikaraías" to access on the same territory for the sake of the
definite tax collecting 55
. In the charter from Khopàsè from 520 year " exemptions
from adhikaraías " is supplemented by the curious
recommendation for the village inhabitants - in all cases "in present and
future" to deal certain Svatalasvàmin, who in a general
context of the charter acts as the person taken on himself fulfilment of all functions
related with "adhikaraías". It is possible to
interpret the indicated fact, as the important detail of politics of king in mutual
relation with the local authority, when the effect of collective inter-rural organisation
not only was deadened, but also was superseded by a privately-owned authority of one of
the leaders of a local, rural elite. Though such interpretation is presumable, of a
similar sort of activity look found in a general course of politics of king in relation
with "adhikaraías". The information, which can be
interpreted similarly, meets also in other charters - see, for example, 80.17-18.
The charters from the time of Aìùuvarman give a line of the
new evidences about mutual relation of the king's authority and "adhikaraías".
Here, first of all, it is necessary to mention the addition to the charter from 32 year
(75 = V.78). Addition to the king's instruction that the tax should be paid " by
somebody others" - "(according to) the solution of adhikaraía"
testifies that king, granting exemption did not repute at all decrease of general receipts
from this territory. This grant look likes, in essence, as redistribution of taxes from
the inhabitants of one village on the inhabitants of other. And adoption of a decision -
"who must pay" - was shifted by king on organisation named "adhikaraía". This certificate allows to fix already quite
distinctly formed " executive vertical", which major constituent was collective,
by the matter and origin "non-state" organisation.
To time of Aìùuvarman are referred also the important changes
in a structural part of the text of grants (unusual fact, even for the early grants, with
already usual, unified structure). Instead of usual formula for the earlier grants ("
notifies the major people, Brahmans and rural householders-kutumbinas"), in his
charters notification is addressed to " (anybody), in present and future held by the
deals of Paùcim-adhikaraía". For his (its) successors it
is possible more often to meet the notification addressed " the rulers in borders of
Nepal heading a various services ", " to the heads of all adhikaraías
acting within the borders of Nepal", " to all king's people ruling in their adhikaraías in bhókti Nepal " etc.
And, though in inscriptions prolong occasionally to be mentioned, both old and new "adhikaraías", for these charters more characteristic the mention
of the prohibition of access into the territory of grants for the persons named by the
terms Caòa and Bhaòa, in earlier
inscriptions met much less often
56. So were referred to, as in Nepal, and Indian inscriptions of that
time, most likely, local leaders, not having of the king's status, but possessing
sufficient resources for fulfilment of fiscal and judicial functions. This fact, as it is
represented, is entered in a general course of evolution of mutual relation of king and
local authority and can be explained both by strengthening of autocracy, and by delivering
of power in inter-rural bodies to local nobility, gradual decomposition and elimination of
such collective organisations. This, quite probably, was promoted also by politics of king
in relation to "adhikaraías". It is necessary to mark
also, as entered in a general course of evolution of mutual relation of king and local
authority, considered above fact of existence of an inscription, where, the attempt of
ranking (or to codify) the rights and responsibilities of one of such organisation (Mapcok) undertaken.
The analysis of early Licchavi's Nepal inscriptions testifies that this period was the
important stage in "state" construction of Nepal. Processes, similar on
character, we marked, being based on materials of the analysis of Kautilya's
"Arthashastra" and inscriptions from the I part of I millennium AD 57 . By
moving in a Kathmandu valley not earlier than IV AD, Licchavi, the famous Indian military
clan, has found in this region a line of local inter-rural organisations becoming a basis
of their state. Just they, as it is represented, executed initially basic administrative
functions, were the intermediaries between a king's authority and villages population (in
transfer of a part of products and traditional duties collected from the rural inhabitants
- on "common" needs, to king - for "protection" and so on). This is
corresponded as Indian and, as it is possible to repute, Nepal tradition. The further
development of "state" structure of Nepal went on a path of easing of effect of
the mentioned organisations in villages, their decomposition at the expense of limitation
of their presence in villages, delivering of power within such organisations to nobility
and their partial replacement, probably, by local elite or by the "king's
servants".
Such politics has a number of analogies in Indian sources, argued in the political
literature (it is easier to substitute disloyal "head" than to annex new
territory) and corresponded to the common character of evolution of a socio-political
structure of a society in Gupta times. And, what is extremely interesting, the definite
important "political" role in this process was played by the "king's"
grants, which, alongside with the basic declared purposes executed function of
"exemption" the villages from "access" on their territory from the
mentioned inter-rural organisations, that unconditionally conducted to easing the last,
their authority among the people.
1 Thus, on my sight, in researches dedicated to the origin of
state and early stages of its development we can see prevailing of T. Hobbs’s ideas,
first of all, his theory of the sovereignty. According to his theory, the state dominates
over society (which members - only objects of government). The authority should be
indivisible and is presented by the uniform sovereign, i.e., should be unitary and
uniform, though the forms of this sovereign can be various – it can be expressed by one
person (monarchy), social gathering (democracy) or part of society (aristocracy). (For
more details, see, T. Hobbes, Sobr. soch. v.2, ñ. 132-133, 134-135, 142, 144). Is
significant less often authors give attention to J. Locke’s ideas about the separation
of powers and Ch. Montesquieu about confederation. back
2 Thus, many authors agree that socio-economic, socio-political,
socio-cultural and so on relations, especially in early society exist in the unshared
form. back
3 The contents of the first part of the present paper represent our
understanding of results of the research collective project published under the title
" The State in a history of society. To a problem of criteria of a statehood ",
Moscow, 1998, based not only on my paper, but on the ideas from papers, directly to India
state not touched. In the second part it is prolonged in research of early Sanskrit
inscriptions from Nepal. back
4 Lyubimov Y.V. Problems of political integration (Russian
colonisation. XVII-XVIII ages), in: The State in a history of society. To a problem of
criteria of a statehood. Moscow, 1998, p. 144. back
5 See, in detail, Lyubimov Y.V., Problems of… p.146-147. back
6 It is easy for demonstrating on semantics of one of the known
Indian terms - janapada (territory, country, and state) - this term could designate both
territory, and population living on this territory. back
7 For example, family and clan relations in administrations of any
level, political crises in separate countries, based on patrimonial and even inter-tribes
opposition. back
8 It seems for me here pertinent such usage of Y. Lyubimov ideas
about the logic of evolution and interaction of cultures (Y.V. Lyubimov Op.cit. p. 148).
It is a correct estimation, on my mind, about the evolution as such. back
9 The essence of such unitisation - is result of natural (but
unhistorical) desire of researchers to systematise the evidences of sources on the basis
of modern representation of state. It is expressed in unsuccessful attempts to find
"districts" and "provinces", "departments" and
"ministers" in Ancient states and so on. back
10 Vigasin A.A., Samozvanzev A.M. Arthashastra. Problems of social
structure and law. Moscow, 1984, p. 145. back
11 Therefore at political treatises there is a concept of
"mula" original territory of a king's clan presented. Such territories are
fixed, for example, for Cholas, Pallavas, Gangas, and some other dynasties - here they
ruled even in those periods, when the representatives of other dynasties occupied the
leading position in the same regions. back
12 Probably, therefore, different Indian states in epigraphy in the
most of cases are referred to as the possession of definite families, clans - Satavahanas,
Pallavas, and Guptas, sometimes simply not having other title. back
13 In modern conceptions was changed, in my mind, the logic of
understanding of the state forming. If for F. Engels the forming of the territorial
relations lead to establishing of public authority (other, not patrimonial, acknowledged
by public, people and consequently authority), now, the significance of the forming of
territorial relations is reduced quite often only to separation of the people on
territorial subdivisions (i.e. to forming the base for realisation of functions of middle
level of a state machinery). back
14 Y.V. Lyubimov Op.cit. p. 144. Here it is extremely important, on
my mind, to overcome, also, absolutisation of the methodology of separation and opposition
(which is only one from the means of scientific research) to the detriment of to
understanding that the subject of the analysis (society and form of its organisation -
state) in each of the moments of the existence, simultaneously remains as the uniform
system. back
15 This problem is represented to me extremely important and,
unconditionally, requires the special research. The administrative-territorial division of
the states is hardly reasonable to consider now extremely as the imposed from above
separation of territory, disregarding of borders of organisations and collectives, living
on such territories, their features, interests and so on. The history gives us the
extremely restricted quantity of examples, when the forming of new territories and their
borders negates precedent separation of the population (as, for example, departments in
France) and each of such cases in a general context of historical development, by more
detailed research does not look so one-valued. More often, as it is represented for me,
the forming of new territorial subdivisions of the state means potentially less conflict
path - association of existing territorial organisations within the new, larger, as
sub-subdivisions. The borders of such new territory are formed with allowance for the
borders of small-sized territorial organisations included, and the interests of new
collective, very gradually, are formed with the co-ordination of interests of the
collectives existing in such territory. back
16 See: Samozvanzev A.M. The Socio-legal organisation of Indian
society in the last half of I millennium BC - first half of I mill. AD In the: The State
in a history of society. To a problem of criteria of a statehood. Moscow, 1998, p.
250-281. back
17 Many historical examples of other solutions of this problem, for
example assassination of the adult members of defeated tribe both including of children
and women in structure of winner tribe etc. are known. back
18 It is necessary to mark, that such variant could be accepted for
a rather high stage of public development, and also that this variant, unconditionally,
was retrieved during social evolution. The detailed consideration of the given problem
falls outside the limits of our research. back
19 Y.V. Lyubimov Op.cit. p. 146. back
20 And, speaking about appearance of the opposition, we is not lead
them extremely to the forms economic (irregularity in access to means of production) or
socio-political (irregularity in access to an authority) opposition. back
21 Without consideration it, the researcher, gets in "a trap
of the theory of the sovereignty" (as it names by V.Ostrom) which proceeds extremely
from mono-centric conception of the authority and administration. As an example it is
possible to give the thesis of H. Claesen and P. Skalnik about an extreme scarcity of
examples, when the local heads, the leaders or other administrators of pre-state society
accepted supra-local administrative functions generated by ruling hierarchy (it intended
the collection of taxes). Next thesis look like as confuted the former - actually it is
impossible to create effective central administration without 'new' groups of the people
free from the responsibilities concerning to their own rural community and completely
loyal to central authority. But this thesis in turn confuted by the next, when the authors
spoken that mostly the members of ruling strata, i.e. representatives of a class of local
rulers, in essence, just the local leaders involved in the apparatus of the early state
(H. Claesen, P. Skalnik The Early State. Hague. 1978, p.599). back
22 Uniform textual (and epigraphical, as a part of common)
tradition, as it is represented for me, played a huge role in public life in an antiquity
and middle ages, being by a major consolidating basis for an Indian civilisation, source
of moral, law and so on, not only as reflection of the tendency to integration, but also
as its means. We marked its effect at the analysis of a epigraphy, when one term could
designated the representatives of the whole stratum of public hierarchy. (See, for
example, use of the term "samanta", neighbour, "mahamatra" in Ashokan
edicts, "kumaramatya" in inscriptions of the Gupta time, compare Russian and
Sanskrit terms, similar to on an abstractness, - dignitary, major, "important"
people. As it is represented for me, in sphere of the taxation we have a lot of such
generalised terms, as "kara", "shadbhaga", any others. Essentially it
is important that epigraphical, as well as other forms of text tradition, can use a
general meaning of term and even the whole blocks of the same terms - formula, meaning,
sometimes, rather various contents, phenomenon and people. back
23 Rather full complex of Sanskrit inscriptions from Nepal is
issued triply, twice on nepali, and once in English - D.R. Regmi, Inscriptions of Ancient
Nepal, 3 vols. New-Delhi, 1983-85; D.V. Vajracharya, Lichchhavi Kàl Ka
Abhilekha (in Nepali), Kathmandu, 2003 Vir Era; H. R. Joshi, Nepàl Ko Pràchèn
Abhilekha, (in Nepali), Kathmandu, 2003 Vir Era. See, also, A. Bhattacharya,
Nepalese Inscriptions in pre-Nevari eras: An annotated bibliography, Calcutta, 1994. Are
present, also, earlier and less complete publications: R. Gnoli, Nepalese Inscriptions in
Gupta Characters, Roma, 1956; Bhagavanlal Indraji, Twenty-three Inscriptions from Nepal.
Bombay, 1885; S. Leúvi — "Anciennes Inscriptions do Nepal",
J.A, 1907, Vol., IX, pp, 49-114. On the basis of the indicated publications, by us is
performed and is published on a server of Oriental Institute (www.orient.ru) Databank of
inscriptions of a Licchavi's period, taking into account all variant readings. back
24 All inscriptions, known for us, (except for two) are, how they
themselves named "ùilàpaòòakaùàsanam "
(stone-charters). Here is used phraseology, terms, formulas and, even, verses -
characteristic for many others Indian "grants", issued on copper-plates. And,
though the practice of using of copper plates for "grants" publication was known
in Nepal (see, for example, 119.27), the tradition of cutting the texts on a stone was for
Licchavi's time, probably, basic. back
25 Already to the end of a Licchavi's period, the kings rather
legibly associate of their possession just with territory of Nepal. back
26 In the interpretation of this term, naturally, authors of the
publications and translations of Nepal inscriptions follow to Indian tradition. See about
our understanding of this term, important for the analysis of a socio-political structure
of Indian society, in "Artrhashastra" and Gupta epigraphy - Lielukhine D. N. The
concept of the theoretical state in Kautilya's "Artrhashastra" and the problem
of Ancient Indian State structure. - in: the "State in a history of society".
Ì., 1998, p.115-121 etc. back
27 Village was given, "atisðøòa".
The use of this term instead of usual for grants derivants from a verb dà
(to give), testifies that here estimate, most likely, the use of incomes from village. The
similar formula can be met, for example, in inscriptions of Vakatakas. Even more often
employee a term prasàda, the having particular shade (it is
possible to translated it, as donation - gift, a victim) in Nepal inscriptions basic for
designation of "grant". Most often met formula "those donations
accomplished for you" (iti prasàdo vaõ kðto), allows to
judge that in the most of the texts estimated the donation of the definite rights for
village inhabitants or members of local organisations. back
28 The grant is addressed for Brahmans, "major" people
together with their [council]? consisting from 18 members (bràhmaía-pradhànàõ
s-àøòàdaùa prakðtayas=teøàm). The similar formula we can see above, in a
line 8, where is placed the king's notification about donation. At the reference to number
of an inscription we use a serial number of an inscription in our database (up to 164
numbers he coincides with numbering in the A. Bhattacharya list), in brackets. And the
reference to other publication, if needed (used reductions V = Dh. Vajracharya; Gn =
Gnoli; Bh. - Bhattacharya) are given. back
29 [catu]røv=adhikaraíeøu dharmmasthà - - -
- - - - 23.5-6(=V.25). Though further inscription is damaged, it is represented
essential for the characteristic of these organisations the mention of the judges (dharmasthà) in "adhikaraías". 4
"adhikaraías" is, apparently, often meeting in
further inscriptions Kótherà-Ùollà(Ùulli) and Liêgvala-Mapchoka, two of which are mentioned in this donation. back
30 . . . . . .dhikaraíena pèäàlpà
karaíèyà kóther . . . .karaíamàtraì tadubhayam . . . (25.1-2=V.27) back
31 In the text - (kuthaì)
ràdhikaraíàbhilekhyakaiù-ca paãcàparàdha - - - - -(29.4-5), what it is
possible to translate, as the prohibition for visitation to the territory of donation for
scribes - representatives of "adhikaraía" Kótherà (and, probably, Ùulli). Such
conclusion is possible to make both of the subsequent contents and from comparison with
other grants. In this text is further spoken that king will not forgive the one who,
infringing this instruction, will visit fixed [this donation] (imàm-àjãàm-utkramy-àbhilekhyaì
praveùayed, 29.8-9) also there should not, also be "reduction" for
king's treasury, for what to both "adhikaraías" (here
is already directly spoken about ùollàdhikaraía and
kótheràdhikaraía) two plots of ground are given (as though in an exchange, for
reimbursement of losses - because the prohibition for "visitation", most likely,
were reduced the tax and fines collection). The "prohibition for visitation" of
grant territory by the representatives of various " adhikaraías
" - common feature of many subsequent Licchavi's grants. back
32 The phrase can be interpreted, as the indication, that the taxes
paid in treasury just by "adhikaraías", collecting
them from the village inhabitants. As it looks, the income from the granted land should
indemnify their losses from the prohibition of visitation the village (which purpose, most
likely, was a tax collecting). back
33 Just in an exchange, because the information about donation of
land is given only at the end of an inscription, supplementing the grant (sve sve gràme dhikaraíayor=ubhayoõ køettraì dattam, 29.12, the
fields in village as the property for both " adhikaraías
") are given. This information, also, is extremely interesting, though its various
expounding are possible back
34 Kóthervðttyadhikðtànàì, the
heads of Kóther (adhikaraía), 53.7. back
35 laùuna-palàíäu-kar-àbhyàì ca
pratimuktaõ (53.9) - in other grants it is not been found. back
36 lekhyadànapaãcàparàdhàdyartthan
tvapraveùa (56.10-11). back
37 etad-vastu tailaê-kasyacid deyaì,
here "vastu" used as tax-designation. back
38 iha - adhikaraíavivaìjitàni,
75.18-19 back
39 The similar notification, probably, is contained in the hardly
damaged text of the Dhruvadeva's charter, 98.6 (= V.106). back
40 ràjabhir-antaràsanena, 80.17-18. So,
the management of granted property (definite taxes collection) is reduced to a vertical -
king - representative of king in village - village, passing " adhikaraía
". back
41 liêgvaløaíäh-aùvika-vàhik-àgantrè-balèvardànàm-apraveùena,
79.7. back
42 bhaòòa-màpcok-àdhikàrayoõ
prà[ba]lyàd-avaùyaì 117. 10. There is no final certitude, that new pair of
" adhikaraías " is identical with mentioned earlier
(though it seems to be most probable). First - it is obvious later, has Sanskrit title,
second - is obvious local, more early. back
43 nepàla-sèmàntaõ pàtinaõ
sarvà-dhikàr-àdhikðtàn. From this time, appearance of the similar formulas of
the notification are more often. In the charter from 121 year (134 = V.140) is spoken
about the heads of all adhikaraías functioned within the
borders of Nepal (nepàlàntarvarttinaõ sarvàdhikaraíànàm
134.3), in the Ùivadeva II grant - about "all king's
people" ruled, accordingly, in their "adhikaraías"
in "bhókti" Nepal, nepàlabhóktau
yathàsvam-adhikàrànadhitiøòhataõ sarvaràjapuruøàìs tadvðttibhujaõ
(136.4). Similar is, probably, the contents of the damaged charter 144 (= V.150), which
date was not saved (stk. 3.. nepàlamaíäal-àntar-nivàsino
yathàsvam=adhakaraía . . .). back
44 sarvàdhikaraíànàm apraveùenà -
121.9 back
45 The charter even names itself vyavasthà,
"establishment" (107.21). back
46 Compare 107.18-19. back
47 The text of this charter, as well as contents of the
responsibilities and rights of "door-keeper" (dauvàrika)
require special examination. back
48 See, Lielukhine D.N. The concept of state in Kautiliya's
"Arthashastra" and the problem of structure of Ancient Indian State. - in: The
State in a history of society. Ì., 1998, ñ.115-121 etc. back
49 The inscriptions of Gupta times used the term "adhikaraía" in similar meaning - here are mentioned a lot of
such organisations - viøay-àdhikaraía ("regional
committee"), adhiøòhàn-adhikaraía ("central
regional committee"), aøòakul-adhikaraía
("eight-families committee"). (See Lielukhine D.N., Op.cit. p. 121 etc.) back
50 The special examination with usage more broad audience of other
Nepal sources here is required. Here we can only assume, being based on semantics of the
terms, that, for example, "adhikaraía" Màpcoka was linked somehow to the markets, trade (Màp
- measurement, sizes, the system of measures in Nepali, Assamese, Gujrati, Bengali, màpaka - " the employee by a measure " in Sanskrit, cok -
in Nepali - " courtyard, market-place "), "adhikaraía"
Ùully - could be linked to criminal offences (ùul, ùuli - in Nepali, sól, sólè - in
Kumaoni, sulà, suli - in Assamese, ùóla
in Sanskrit - rod for punishment of the criminals, staff, pain, travail). back
51 In one cases separate "adhikaraías"
were authorised to access in granted village only for collection of definite taxes, in
other - was prohibited, even in cases of committing "of five great sins" etc.
See higher. back
52 It is possible even to repute the change of the titles of
traditional "adhikaraías". Though it is impossible to
exclude and possibility of forming new "inter-rural committees" under effect of
the king's authority, where entered (as well as, for example, in "adhiøòhàn-adhikaraía"
mentioned in Damodarpur copper-plates from the Gupta times, representatives of king,
king's "servants". Their Sanskrit titles, besides is possible to estimate and as
result of process sanscritisation of a Kathmandu valley. back
53 In mentioned above charter from 435 year is spoken about
"judges" (dharmmasthà) in such organisations, which
were informed in the charter about the grant. back
54 To this formula the term lekhyadàna,
" (for accomplishment) written donations " is added in any charters. back
55 Tri-kara-màtra-sàdhana. back
56 Once - in the charter of Vasantadeva and twice - in the charter
of Ùivadeva I. back
57 See, in detail, Lielukhine D.N. The concept of state in
Kautiliya's "Arthashastra" and the problem of structure of Ancient Indian State.
- in: The State in a history of society. Ì. 1998. back