Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T12:42:40.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ancient Territorial Divisions of India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Miscellaneous Communications
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1912

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 707 note 1 Vol. 10, p. 291, note; vol. 12, p. 131, note.

page 708 note 1 See some figures given in my Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts, Bombay Gazetteer, vol. I, part 2 (1896), p. 298Google Scholar, note 2.

page 708 note 2 I explained in 1873, in Ind. Ant., 2. 297, that the term “Belvola 300” means “the Belvola district consisting of 300 villages.” I had met in 1870 with the expression Huvvalli-dvādaśa-grāma, “the Hubḷi 12 villages” (JBBRAS, 9. 247, line 9); and that had given the clue.

page 709 note 1 Lōkaṭeyarasa, whose name is found in also the Sanskṛit form Lōkāditya, was a prince of the Mukula or Chellakētana family, regarding which see my note in Ind. Ant., 1903. 221–7. The name of the ancestor Kaḷudēvayya is a new item, now brought to notice by Mr. Narasimhachar.

page 709 note 2 These details add up to 30,102: but the record gives the total as 31,102. Either the writer made a wrong addition, or else he carelessly omitted to mention a one-thousand district; perhaps the Tardavāḍi 1000. The text, as given to me by Mr. Narasimhachar in answer to a reference on this point, runs: —

Banavāsi-pannirchchhāsiramuṁ Palasige-pannirchchhāsiramuṁ Mānya khēḍam-aṛusāsiramuṁ Koḷanu-mūvatturṁ Lōkāpurarṁ-panneraḍuṁ Toṛegarey-aṛuvāttuṁ intu mūvatt-or-chchhāsirada nūṛ = eraḍu bāḍamaṁLōkaṭeyarasar āḷe.

page 709 note 3 See Ind. Ant., vol. 29 (1900), p. 280Google Scholar, and note 38.