« السابقةمتابعة »
is shown by the fact that Samkaravarman (A.D. 883-902) carried away from it materials for the construction of his new town and temples at Puttana (Patan).1
Some of the shrines of Parihasapura, however, survived to a later period. Thus we find the colossal copper statue of Buddha at the Rajavihāra mentioned as one of the few sacred images which escaped being melted down in the reign of King Harga (A.D. 1089-1101). Also a great religious festival established at Parihasapura by Lalitaditya seems to have been held still in Kalhana's time. In the rising which led to the downfall of Harsa, Parihasapura was occupied by the pretender Uccala. The steep slopes of the plateau and the marshes around made it a position of military value. When Uccala had suffered a defeat some of the routed rebels threw themselves into the Rājavihāra, which was subsequently burned down. After this, Harga carried away and broke up the famous silver statue of Viṣṇu which had been placed by Lalitäditya in the temple of Parihāsakesava.
The final destruction of the temples is attributed by Abu-l-Fazl and the Muhammadan chroniclers to Sikandar Būtshikast. The former records the tradition that after the destruction of the lofty temple of Paraspür' a copper tablet with a Sanskrit inscription was discovered which predicted its destruction after the lapse of eleven hundred years' by one Sikandar. This prophecy post factum shows that its author, whoever he may have been, was rather weak in historical chronology. Parihasapura had been founded only about six and a half centuries before Sikandar Butshikast's time. At the beginning of the eighteenth century the ruins seem still to have been in a somewhat better condition than now. Both Muḥammad 'Azim and Nārāyaṇ Kaul mention them and speak particularly of fragments of a large monolithic column. Tradition seems to have connected these fragments with the pillar of Garuda which Kalhana mentions as having been set up by Lalitaditya. The huge square block of stone still visible on the top of the northernmost mound is perhaps one of them.
1 See Rajat. v. 161.
2 See Rājat. iv. 242 sq. For the temple of Ramasvāmin which was seen empty in Kalhana's time, compare iv. 275, 334 sq.
3 Rajat. vii. 1326 sqq.
See Ain-i-Akb., i. p. 364.
5 Exactly the same tradition is now current among the Purohitas of Vijabrōr about the destruction of the Vijayeśvara image. This alleged inscription is said to have run: Ekādaśuṣatuṁ varşaṁ Sikendaramahābala | bismilla iti mantreņa naśyante Vijayesvarāḥ The curious Sanskrit of this doggrel is an indication that its author may probably have belonged himself to the noble guild of the Bachbaṭṭas.
• Compare WILSON, Essay, p. 50; also footnote 16 to Note F, on Parihāsapura.
The ruins of Parihāsapura have served ever since Samkaravarman's time as quarries for stone-material. Their position near to navig able water-channels made them particularly convenient for this purpose. Since 1892 when I first saw the ruins, till 1896 many large stone-blocks have found their way as road metal into the new Tonga Road which passes the plateau on the south. On my report steps were subsequently taken by the Darbar to stop this vandalism and prevent its recurrence.
122. We have already above when describing the old bed of the
Vitastā near Paribasapura, had occasion to refer to the village of Trigam, the ancient TRIGRAMI. It lies about one and a half miles to
the north-east of the Par spor ruins. The place is mentioned already in Lalitaditya's time in connection with an affray which took place at Parihāsapura. The Bōnsar (*Bbavanasaras ?) lake to the west of Trigām is visited as a subsidiary Tirtha on the Kapalamocana pilgrimage. The ruined temple south of Trigām which I believe may be identified with the VAINYASVAMIN temple, has already been mentioned in our remarks on the site of the old confluence.
A ruined site which lies opposite to Vainyasvamin on the western side of the Trigām swamp, may for reasons set forth elsewhere be taken for the old Visnusvāmin temple. This is named by Kalhana as having been situated opposite to the Vainyasvāmin shrine on the other side of the old confluence. The passage of the Chronicle describes the temple of Viṣṇusvamin as belonging already to Phalapura, while Vainyasvāmin was counted with Parihasapura.
From this and some other indications I conclude that PHALAPURA was the designation of a small territorial subdivision which probably extended along the present left bank of the Vitasta near Shadipur.3 The site at which I locate the Visņusvamin temple, was included in recent times in the riveraine Pargana of Sairu-l-mawazi' Payin (map 'Salimozapaieen'). This, we know from Abu-l-Fazl, was created already before Akbar's time and probably absorbed Phalapura as well as other minor tracts. Phalapura had received its designation from a locality of that name which Lalitāditya had founded apparently before Parihasapura, just as the latter gave its name to the Par spōr Pargana.
1 See Rajat. iv. 323 sqq.
Compare Rajat. Note I, v. 97-100, § 12.
8 See Rajat. Note I, § 13.
4 See Ain-i-Akb., ii. p. 367.
5 Compare Rajat. iv. 184, 673.
Descending by the left bank of the Vitasta for about five miles. below Shadipur, we approach the site of king Jayapiḍa's capital, the ancient JAYAPURA. It is marked by the present village of Andarkōth. This consists of two distinct parts. One lies on an island in the marshes opposite Sambal and the other facing the former on the strip of land which separates these marshes from the Vitastā. On the island there are conspicuous remains of ancient temples which have been first examined and described by Prof. Bühler. They are attributed by the local tradition to King Jayapiḍ.' The identity of Anderkōth. with King Jayapiḍa's town is also well-known to the Srinagar Pandits. As Srivara still uses the term Jayapura or Jayāpīḍapura for the designation of the present And rkōṭh, we can easily understand the survival of the tradition.
Kalhana's description of the town indicates clearly the situation of the latter and also accounts for its modern name. Jayapiḍa according to this notice had the castle (kotta) of Jayapura built in the middle of a lake, after having the ground required for it filled up, as the legend asserts, by the help of Raksasas. There he constructed a large Vihāra with Buddha images, a temple of Kesava (Visņu), and several other shrines; other sacred structures were erected by his ministers. Besides Jayapura the king built on ground recovered from the lake another place, called DVĀRAVATI, in imitation of Kṛṣṇa's famous town by the sea-shore. Kalhaņa notes that in his own time Jayapura was popularly designated as the Inner Castle' (abhyantara koṭṭa) while Dvāravati was known as the 'Outer Castle' (bāhya koṭṭa).
The present name ANDARKŌTH (from Skr. *Antarakoṭṭa) is the direct derivative of this popular designation of Jayapura. It has in the course of time been extended also to the site on which originally Dvāravati stood. In my note on the passage I have shown that Jayapura must be identified with the island portion of Anderkōth, while the remains in that part of the village which lies on the lake shore opposite, belong to Dvaravati. These remains are far less extensive than those on the island. This is in full agreement with the fact that Kalhaṇa men
1 For a detailed note on the position of the twin towns Jayapura-Dvāravati, see Rājat. iv. 501-511. For a map showing the site on a larger scale refer to Note I, v. 97-100.
• See Report, pp. 13 sqq. where the topography and ruins of Anderkōṭh are described in detail. General Cunningham had already heard of the identity of Anderkōth with Jayapida's town but he does not seem to have visited the place; Anc. Geogr., p. 101. Owing to the erroneous location of Parihasapura on the right bank of the Vitastā opposite Sambal, there is a good deal of confusion in his notes on the two capitals.
tions great religious buildings only in Jayapura and not in Dvāravati. The latter is, indeed, referred to only in connection with the foundation of Jayapura and does not appear ever to have been a place of importance. We can thus understand why its original name Dvaravati and its subsequent designation 'Outer Castle' have both completely disappeared. The distance between the island and the opposite lake shore being only about four hundred yards at the narrowest point, the name of the far more important 'Inner Castle' was naturally extended also to this outlying suburb.
The term kotta which Kalhana repeatedly applies to Jayapura, and which is contained also in its popular designation, is justified by its position surrounded on all sides by water. The limited extent of the island precludes the belief of Jayapura ever having been a populous place. But it retained a certain importance far longer than Parihāsapura and served occasionally as a royal residence even in late times. Queen Kota, the last of the Hindu rulers of Kaśmir, retired to Jayapura, and there she was murdered by her husband, the adventurer Shāhmir (A.D. 1339). Zainu-l-'ābidin restored the town which had fallen into decay and built there a new palace on the lake-shore.
We have no distinct information as to the old course which the Vitasta followed in the neighbourhood of Jayapura previous to Avantivarman's regulation. If our views on the subject as above indicated are right, the main channel of the river must then have passed through the marshes west of Jayapura. Notwithstanding the change subsequently effected, Jayapiḍa's town did not lose its convenient access to river communication. The great canal known as Nōr which, as saw, is in reality nothing but an old river-bed, runs but a short distance to the south-west of Andarkōṭh. A branch of it which is much used by boats even at the present day though not shown on the map, passes still actually along the old Ghats on the south side of the Andarkōṭh island. It seems probable that Jayapura owed its preservation from the fate of Parihāsapura in part at least to the retention of a convenient waterway. In Abu-l-Fazl's time Anderkōth gave its name to a separate small Pargana. 123. From the marshy tracts south of the Volur which we have approached at And3rkōṭh, we may return once more to Paraspor. Crossing the swamps formed west of the Par spōr plateau by the
District of Bhāǹgila;
1 Rājat. iv. 506, 512; vii. 1625. Srivara, iv. 540, 545, applies to Jayapura the expression durga, 'fort.'
2 See Jonar. 300.
8 See Sriv. i. 250 sqq.
Sukhnag and other hill streams, we come to the considerable district of Bangil. It is often referred in the Rajatarangiņi and the other Chronicles by its ancient name of BHANGILA. No old localities belong
ing to it are mentioned in our texts, unless we may count with Bangil the closely adjacent Pațan situated on the shore of the Pambasar marsh, circ. 74° 37′ long. 34° 10′ lat.
This large village occupies the site chosen by King Samkaravarman (A.D. 883-902) for the town which was to bear his name. Kalhaṇa, however, informs us that Samkarapura "subsequently lost its proper appellation and became known only by the name PATTANA, 'the town.' This somewhat general designation still survives in the present Patan. Kalhaṇa sees in this disappearance of the original appellation the just retribution of fate for the king's cruelty and other bad qualities. Yet the old name must have long lingered on by the side of the popular 'Pattana.' For Kṣemendra mentions Samkarapura, and Kalhana himself speaks of the town of Samkaravarman' when subsequently referring to events of his own time. Pandit tradition too has retained a
recollection of the founder of Pattana and its original name.
Samkaravarman is said to have carried off "whatever was of value at Parihāsapura," in order to raise the fame of his own town. At the same time Kalhaṇa plainly tells us that "what gave fame to that town was only what is still to be found at Pattana,-manufacture of woollen cloths, trade in cattle, and the like."
The only ancient remains of any pretension which can now be found at Patan, are, in fact, the ruins of the two temples which were erected there by Samkaravarman and his queen Sugandha.6 These shrines which bore the names of Samkaragaurisa and Sugandheśa are structures of no great dimensions and are without the fine quadrangular courts which enclose all more important Kaśmirian temples. They have been fully described by General Cunningham and others. Kalhana when mentioning these buildings ironically alludes to kings who like bad poets take the materials for their works from others' property. This combined with the immediately following mention of Samkaravarman's exploitation of Parihāsapura, makes it probable that the building materials for these very temples were taken from the ruins of Parihāsapura. This could have easily been done, owing to the convenient water
1 See Rajat. vii. 498 note.
2 See Rajat. v. 156 note.
8 Compare v. 213.
4 Compare Samay. ii. 13; Rājat. viii. 2488, 3130.
5 Rajat. v. 161 sq.
Compare Rajat. v. 158 note.