Impact of Vedic Culture on Society

by Kaushik Acharya | 2020 | 120,081 words

This page relates ‘The Donee Brahmanas’ of the study on the Impact of Vedic Culture on Society as Reflected in Select Sanskrit Inscriptions found in Northern India (4th Century CE to 12th Century CE). These pages discuss the ancient Indian tradition of Dana (making gifts, donation). They further study the migration, rituals and religious activities of Brahmanas and reveal how kings of northern India granted lands for the purpose of austerities and Vedic education.

3. The Donee Brāhmaṇas

There in the Anuśāsanaparvan of the Mahābhārata, it is said that purification from sin is possible by awarding only as much land as equal to gocarma (equivalent to cow skin).[1] Viṣṇupurāṇa defines it as in the amount of grain being produced from it, one such land will sustain one person for a year.[2] The interrelationship between land grants and livelihoods is undeniable.

Although the brāhmaṇas had no connection with the production, the necessary resources would come from donations only. These were accepted in the society and were also praised in the scriptures, which were composed of the brāhmaṇas. A statement in the Kalikāpurāṇa advises the giver to choose eleven brāhmaṇas from the vedic family. It is suggested further to build a house for them, to decorate the house with cattle, grain, maids, utensils and clothes, and finally to give each one of them a hundred nivartanas of land or half a village or a full village if possible.[3] But this does not mean that all brāhmaṇas were eligible for charity. Or it is not right to think that only a brāhmaṇas gets a gift.

How the brāhmaṇas made their living need not be discussed anew. However, the texts written at different times in early India expressed different views about it. In northern India, the idea of āpaddharma temporarily allows them to make a living through arts and crafts, work for wages, serve others, raise livestock, trade, agriculture, etc. According to Manusaṃhitā those who keep and tending cattle, do farming, the templepriests, paid servants of a village or a king, and the brāhmaṇa who subsist by astrology should not be invited to any srāddha. [4]

The Matsyapurāṇa states from the northern perspective, the brāhmaṇas living in the mlecchha countries[5] commonly not invited to srāddhas. [6] Probably, the brāhmaṇas did not follow theserules strictly. Kāśyapa advised the brāhmaṇas not to take part in agriculture personally. He strictly restricted the physical manual labor of the brāhmaṇas under the śūdras, who were basically the peasant class under the peasantry.[7] Seeing all this, it is clear that the brāhmaṇas were interested a lot about land properties. Inscriptional sources from the early and medieval periods mention that as a result of the practice of giving land to the brāhmaṇas; they emerged as a prominent land-owning class.

Typically, two types of land grants are seen from the copper-plate charters, agrahāra and brahmadeya. [8] Theoretically, agrahāra could be given to any person even though the brāhmaṇas had the right over it. This privileged class was allowed to enjoy more than one agrahāra. In special cases, it is seen that a particular brāhmaṇa was given land in two separate areas. Perhaps the agrahārikas (the owner of the agrahāra lands) of the village in northern India were given the power to sell some of their agrahāra lands which were excess of necessity. On the other hand, brahmadeya was never as flexible as agrahāras. Practically, this type of grant was strictly unchangeable and non-transferrable. These lands were exclusively reserved for the brāhmaṇas and according to some scholars, brahmadeya lands were inhabited by the brāhmaṇas. In many cases, these land grant charters did not refer the grants as either agrahāra or brahmadeya as sometimes, only single pieces of land or a vāpī (a step-well) or a plot and in some cases fields were donated by the kings and others.

Many times lands were given to the brāhmaṇas under certain conditions and if that condition was not met, the land could have been confiscated. It is interesting to note, in the description part of Nālanda plates of Samudragupta, it is said that all the customary dues such as gold, etc., should be made over the donee. The donee should not allow the tax-paying cultivators and artisans, etc., of other villages to enter these villages. Otherwise, the agrahāra will be resumed.[9] However, the authenticity of the Nālanda plates of Samudragupta is questionable.[10]

If we take a closer look at the charters that confirming the grants to the vedic brāhmaṇas, we see that most of them have commonly mentioned the benefits and rights with simplest terms, but have done so specifically. Since the date of donation, the householders/ tenants were instructed to pay bhāga (which was once the king’s share at that place) and bhoga (which at one time the tenants of that place used to supply various grains, crops, etc. to the king from time to time) to the donee.

The mentioned right of this bhāga and bhoga was applicable only where the whole village was donated to the vedic brāhmaṇas. Where only fields or a piece of land and a single plot were gifted to the brāhmaṇas, the donees could not claim the bhāgabhoga though in the cases they were generally exempted from certain taxes. In other words, the brāhmaṇa recipient of land or plot was only free from the burden of bhāga and bhoga while the donee of an entire village, free from the bhāga and bhoga, along with the entitlement to collect these taxes from the peasants and tenants. So, it was a great pleasure for the brāhmaṇas to own a small village rather than owning a large plot as usual as in both cases, the brāhmaṇas did not have to pay anything to the king, but if they owned the village, the tenants were obliged to pay taxes to the brāhmaṇas.

Besides, authority in a village means control over the householders (kuṭumbikas) or the tenants. It is very difficult to understand whether the village recipients, the vedic brāhmaṇas had the right to increase the amount of these taxes. The term apraveśyam has been used in land grants which means that the gifted villages, fields, or landswere not to be entered by the Cāṭas and the Bhaṭas (temporary and permanent soldiers). It may have a twofold significance. Either the king relinquished the responsibility of maintaining the law and order of the donated village (which now belonged to the donee) by withdrawing the state supportor the king wanted to withdraw the Cāṭas and Bhaṭas from the village because they used to create disturbances there using their power as royal employees.

Several inscriptions issued during the period under study, contain evidence of land transfers and grant renewals. It seems that the donee brāhmaṇas were interested in renewing previous grants for those transferable agrahāra lands.These copper-plates served as proof of donation as we said earlier and they were carefully stored to avoid any problems in the future. We discussed a while ago that brāhmaṇas usually do not have to pay any taxes. But in some special cases, we see that the king has imposed taxes on them. So the purpose of the renewal of the earlier grant was maybe revenue-re-evaluation or maybe the previous recipient was unable to produce or pay revenues as fixed by the ruler.

Apart from the brāhmaṇas who were referred to as beneficiaries of the land grants, there were also other brāhmaṇas whose social status and conditions are not described clearly.

There are a few examples that indicate land grants by brahmins which is known from the research of various scholars. The duty of a brāhmaṇa includes among others dāna. But unfortunately, the inscriptions we are mainly dealing with do not record any instance where brāhmaṇasd onated land.

The land grant charters indicate that the brāhmaṇas either moved from one place to another or permanently left their ancestral place and moved to a new place. There are some grants where the names of these places are properly identified and there are other places too where the identification has been done based on conjecture and many other places are unknown still now. The land grant charter contains the names of a few villages which have come up more than once in different grants and different contexts. They indicate repeated migrations or the locations testify to the dynamism of the vedic brāhmaṇas. The mobility of the brāhmaṇas took place both inside and outside the region and these will be discussed in detail in a later chapter.

The land-grant charters issued during the period of 4th to 12th century CE often mention the identity of the donee brāhmaṇas in terms of gotra, caraṇa, pravara, śākhā, genealogy, educational qualifications, and others. In Brahmanic society, at some stage in remote past, gotra, caraṇa, and pravaras were used to identify an individual. But it had a social import too. Gotra and pravara were taken into consideration at the time of fixing marriage which was not advisable between two families having the same gotra and pravara. But the complete identities of the brāhmaṇas are not found in all the inscriptions, especially in earlier records. In the early period only gotra would be considered for fixing a marriage. But later it was found that different gotras may have the same pravaras. In some cases, it may have been lost. Whatever, on the basis of available sources we may figure the subject.

A chronological list is given below to further examine the matter well.

Land Grant Charters  
Copper Plates Donor King and Dynasty Brief information about the Donee Brāhmaṇas Brief Information of the Grant
Pāndhurnā Plates of pravarasena II, c. 449 CE[11] pravarasena II, Vākāṭaka Many brāhmaṇas, prominent among them Yajñārya and Bhojārya of Vājasaneya Branch (white Yajurveda) were of Kauṇḍinya gotra. 2000 nivartanas of land in the village of Dhuvavāṭaka to a number of brāhmaṇas and twenty-six nivartanas of lands in two villages Lekhapallikā and Saṅgamikā situated in the territorial division of Ārammi-rājya to Somārya. Note: The grant portion (third plate among the five copper plates) recorded here are only for one person Somārya among many brāhmaṇas referred to the main grant. That's why scholars think the third plate is actually a forgery, inserted into the charter at a later date to benefit Somārya.
Palitānā Plates of Dhruvasena, c. 525 CE[12] Dhruvasena, Maitrakas of Valabhī Brāhmaṇa Kumāraśarman and Jarabhajyi of Chāndogya branch of Sāmaveda andof Śāndilya gotra 140 padavartas in Kuṭumbi-Īśvara, 16 padavartas with a well in Madkānā village in the division of Hastavapra, 140 padavartas, in the village of Tāpasiya and 100 pādavartas in the north-east in the village of Tinishaka.
Navalakhi Plate of Śilāditya, c. 605-606 CE[13] Śilāditya I, Maitrakas of Valabhī A group of forty four vedic brāhmaṇas[14] belonging to different vedic branches. The village Bhoṇḍānaka included in Vaṭanagara-sthalī Free from certain taxes and other privillages.
Vāla Plates of Śilāditya I, c. 606 CE[15] Śīlāditya I, Maitrakas of Valabhī Brāhmaṇa Bhaṭṭi, who was the son of Brāhmaṇa Bhaṭṭa-Guha and belonging to Bharadvāja-sagotra, of Kauthuma school (śākhā) of the Chāndogya branch of Sāmaveda. 120 pādāvarttas of land and a väpī in the village Kālāsāmaka. Note: Queen Jañjikā had lordship rights over the village Kālāsāmaka. But it was the king who granted away land in that village. It is likely that the queen had already intimated to him, her desire to grant land in that village as brahmadeya and as it was the king who was the ultimate lord of all land in the village including that which was under the queen's lordship, it was he who issued this charter. However the king made the grant for the increase in the merit of both his parents.
Virdi Plates of Kharagraha I, c. 616-17 CE[16] Kharagraha I, Maitrakas of Valabhī Brāhmaṇa Bhava, who was son of Bhadra and belonging to Bhāgurisagotra, sabrahmacārī of Maitrāyanīya school (Yajurveda). A vāpī (water reservoir) and fifty padāvarttas of land in Maṇḍalīdrāng. Note: The donee enjoys the land with the rights accruing to it on being granted as a brahmadeya and as such, cultivates the land himself, (under his own management) or has it cultivated or gives it away, none should obstruct him.
Amreli Plates of Kharagraha I, c. 616-17 CE[17] Kharagraha I, Maitrakas of Valabhī Brāhmaṇa Gupta , sabrahmacārī of Vājasaneya Branch (white Yajurveda). Son of Brāhmaṇa Āpta and belonging to Kundinya-sagotra. Grant of two vāpis in Ānumañji-sthalī. It seems that the grant was not only the two vāpīs but was also the land irrigated with the help of the two vāpis.
L.D. Institute Copper Plate of Dhruvasena II, c. 630-31 CE[18] Dhruvasena II-Bālāditya, Maitrakas of Valabhī Brāhmaṇa Mātṛdatta, who was a student adherent of Chachhāgaleya branch and well versed in four Vedas. son of Shashti-datta, and belongs to Aśvalāyaṇa-sagotra. 100 padāvārttas of land of the village Māndakkasaraka, in Saurāṣṭra. The grant was governed by the rule of bhūmicchidra and exception of brahmadeya, free from certain taxes and other privileges.
Goras Plates of Dhruvasena II, c. 632 CE[19] Dhruvasena II, Maitrakas of Valabhī Two brāhmaṇa cousins Devakula and Bhāda , Sabrahmacāri of Chāndogya branch of Sāmaveda. Son of Brāhmaṇa Śarma, belonging to Kapiṣṭhala-sagotra and son of Brāhmaṇa Dattila respectively. 100 padāvarttas in the village Bahumūla, included in the Vaṭapallikāsthalī in Saurāṣṭra.
Nogawa Plates of Dhruvasena II–A, c. 639 -640 CE[20] Dhruvasena II, Maitrakas of Valabhī Brāhmaṇa Agnisvāmin , son of Brāhmaṇa Kumārasvāmi, a brahmacārī of Vājasaneya-(śākhā–white Yajurveda) belonging to Parāśara-gotra and who is of Uccamānacāturvidyāsāmānya and Brāhmaṇa Saṅgaravi , son of Brāhmaṇa Maheśvara, a brahmacārī of Vājasaneya–(śākhā) belonging to Kauśikasagotra and who is of Uccamāna-cāturvidyāsāmānya. Both of the donees learned Vājasaneyaśākhā (white Yajurveda). 100 bhaktīs of land in the eastern boundary of the village Navagrāmaka in Uccamāna–bhukti in Mālavaka which area of land is bounded on the east by the Kaṅkaṭa of the village Varāhoṭaka, the river on the south, the Lakshmaṇa-paṭṭikā on the west and the Kaṅkaṭa of the village Pulindānaka on the north.
Nogawa Plates of Dhruvasena II–B, c. 640 -641 CE[21] Dhruvasena II, Maitrakas of Valabhī Traividyāsāmānyabrāhmaṇa Datta-svāmi, son of Brāhmaṇa Budhasvāmi, a brahmacārī (the adherent-follower) of Mādhyandina-Vājasaneya (school of Yajurveda) belonging to Parāśara-sagotra and Kukārasvāmi son of Budhasvāmi, a brahmacārī of Vājasaneya (school) belonging to Parāśarasagotra, and to Uccamāna-cāturvidyāsāmānya associated to the Yajurveda,Vājasaneya Branch (white Yajurveda). 100 bhaktis in the southern quarter of the village Candraputraka in Uccamāna–viṣaya in Mālavaka.
Bhāvnagar Plates of Dhārāsena (IV)–A, c. 645–646 CE[22] Dhārāsena IV, Maitrakas of Valabhī Two brāhmaṇa brothers Arjuna and Mankasvāmin, the son of Brāhmaṇa Guhāḍhya who is a sa-brahmacārī (adherent -follower) of Chāndogya is a Sa-brahmacārī (adherent -follower) of Chāndogya (school–Sāmaveda branch), belonging to Bhāradvājasagotra, who is a product of the institution imparting education in all the four Vedas at Siṃhapurā-sabrahmacārī of Chāndogya Branch of Sāmaveda. A plot of a land consisted of 56 padāvarttas and the well (reservoir-laka) occupying an area of 16 padāvarttas on the western boundary of the village Kikkaṭaputra, a plot of field (kṣetra-khaṇḍam) measuring 28 padāvarttas on the western boundary of the village Sarkkarāpadraka a plot in a field (kṣetra-khaṇḍam) measuring 14 padāvarttas as bounded on the east by the same field of Bavyasthaviraka, six pattakas. The above-stated fields including the stepwell (vāpī-kṣetram) amounting to 120 padāvarttas in total.
Alinā Plates of Dhārāsena IV, c. 649–650 CE[23] Dhārāsena IV, Maitrakas of Valabhī Brāhmaṇa Nārāyanamitra , was the son of Brāhmaṇa Keśava-mitra, belonging to Śarkkarākshi-sagotra, a sabrahmacārī of Bahvṛca Branch of Ṛgveda. The village Desurakshitijja in siṃhapallikā-pathaka in Kheṭakaāhāra.
Kheda (Kaira) Plates of Dhruvasena IV, c. 649–650 CE[24] Dharasena IV, Maitrakas of Valabhī Brāhmaṇa Aditiśarman, Vājasaneya Branch (white Yajurveda). Granted property consisted of two fields, one in Kolamba in the Viṣaya of Kheṭaka and the other in the village of Duhuduhu of Nagaraka-paihaka.
Kāpaḍvaṇaj Plates of Dhrūvasena III, c. 653 -654 CE[25] Dhruvasena III, Maitrakas of Valabhī Brāhmaṇa Bhaṭṭibhaṭa , son of Brāhmaṇa Bappa, a sabrahmacārī of Vājasaneya (white Yajurveda) belonging to Kauśika-sagotra, who was a cāturvvidya-sāmānya. He received the village of Pattapadraka in the dakṣiṇapatta of Śivabhāgapura-vıṣaya.
Alina Plates of Kharagraha II, c. 656–657 CE)[26] Kharagraha II, Maitrakas of Valabhī Brāhmaṇa Nārāyaṇa, A sabrahmacārī of Bahvṛca branch belonging to Śārkkarākshi-sagotra, a sāmānya of all four Vedas. Kharagraha II granted the village Paṅgulapallikā in Ghṛtālaya-bhūmi in Śivabhāgapura-Viṣaya with the usual rights and privileges.
Grant of Śilāditya III, c. 666 CE[27] Śiladitya III, Maitraka of Valabhī Brāhmaṇa Yajñadatta, son of Śridharadatta. He was given two fields, a hundred padāvartas each; one of them was in Padmavaṭikagrāma in Kalākṣyetaka.
Grant of Śilāditya III, c. 666 CE[28] Śiladitya III, Maitraka of Valabhī Three brāhmaṇas. Two of them were the son of Brāhmaṇa Bhaṭṭihari, Pittaleśvara Brāhmaṇa and Pittaleśvara's son Brāhmaṇa Nāga And another donee was Brāhmaṇa Soma. They were given two fields, each of them measuring fifty padāvartas situated in Vāṭanumakagrāma and Dāccānakāgrāma.
Jesar Plates of Siladitya-III, Set. I, c. 666–667 CE[29] Śilāditya III, Maitrakas of Valabhī Brahmaṇa Dikṣita , A chāturvidya-sāmānya Vājasaneya-Branch (white Yajurveda) (as mentioned in next set of Jesar plates). He was given a hundred pādāvaṭṭas of land in a village named Kukkapadra in the Kālāpakapathaka of Saurāṣtra.
Lunsadi Plates of Sīlāditya II–A, c. 669-670 CE[30] Śilāditya II, Maitraka of Valabhī Two brāhmaṇa brothers. This grant consisted of some lands and a pond in the village Desenaka.
Lunsadi Plates of Sīlāditya II– B, c. 671–672 CE[31] Śilāditya II, Maitrakas of Valabhī Brāhmaṇa Magopadatta, son of Brāhmaṇa Kikkaka, an Adhvaryyu, yajurvedīya brāhmaṇa belonging to Gārggya-sagotra, familiar to three Vedas. A grant of a field in Dhūṣā village was given to him.
Jesar Plates of Śilāditya-III Set. II, c. 676–677 CE[32] Śīlāditya III, Maitrakas of Valabhī Brahmaṇa Dikṣita, A cāturvidyā-sāmānya Vājasaneya-Branch (white Yajurveda). Son of Brāhmaṇa Sāmbadatta. This Vājasaneyasabrahmachārī, belonging to Kauśika-sagotra. In this grant he received 104 padavarttas of land again from Śilāditya III on the northern boundary of the village of Madasara.
Anastu Plates of Śilāditya– III, c. 677 CE[33] Śīlāditya III, Maitrakas of Valabhī Brāhmaṇa Bāla-śarman, An Adhvaryu sabrahmacārī or was yajurvedīya brāhmaṇa belonged to Upasmanyusagotra. He was given two plots of paddy-fields, sowable with a piṭaka of paddy in the village Antikā in Bharukachchha-viṣaya.
Bhāvnagar Plates of Śilāditya III, c. 691 CE[34] Śilāditya III, Maitrakas of Valabhī Brāhmaṇa Bhūta-kumāra, son of brāhmaṇa Droṇa, a sabrahmachārī (adherentfollower) of Maitrāyaṇīya school of Yajurveda belonging to Bhāradvāja-sagotra. He received the village Loṇāpadraka along with Uparipaṭaka of Khoḍasthalaka in Loṇāpadraka-sthālī in Saurāṣṭra.
A Grant of Śilāditya, c. 722-723 CE[35] Śilāditya Maitraka of Valabhī Brāhmaṇa Bhaṭṭa Vāsudevabhūti. son of Damodarabhūti. He was given the Āntarapallikā village near Dinnaputra in Sauraṣtra.
Dungarpur Plates of Bhavihitra, c. 655 CE[36] Bhāvihita, Guhilas of Kiṣkindhāpurā Brāhmaṇa Āsangaśarman, A sabrahmacārī of Mādhyandina branch of śuklayajurveda. He was given a village in the Purapaṭṭa-viṣaya.
Abhona Plates of Saṃkaragaṇa , c. 596-597 CE[37] Śamkaragaṇa , Kaṭaccuri/ Early Kalācuri Brāhmaṇa Svāmin. 100 padavarttas in thé village of Vallisika, in Bhogavardhana-viṣaya.
Sarsavani Plates of Buddharāja, c. 610 CE[38] Buddharāja, Kaṭaccuri Brāhmaṇa Bappa–svāmin, son of the Bhaṭṭu, a Brahmin adherent of the school, Vājasaneya-Kaṇva branch of Śukla-yajurveda and belonging to Parāśara–sagotra. The villagegranted was Kumārivaḏaȯ adjacent to Bṛhannārikā in Gorajjābhoga included in Bharukachchha–viṣaya.
Bonda Plates of Mahāśiva Tīvara, c. 600 CE[39] MahāśivaTīv ara, Pānḍuvamśis Twenty-five brāhmaṇas belonged to Yajurveda, and Sāmaveda. One of them Bhaṭṭa, six upāddhȳaya and rest of their name ends with svāmi. [40] Bondaka and Avaḍika in Piharāja-bhukti that the village has been granted through a libation of water to increase religious merit of his parents and self.
Kaira Plates of Dadda (Praśāntarāga) -A c. 629 -630 CE100 Dadda II, Praśāntarāga, Early Gūrjara Forty brāhmaṇas. Thirty-five of themwere adherents of ṛgvedīya, yajurvedīya and chāndogya (Sāmavedīya) śākhās and other brāhmaṇas were Athavavedins. [41] The grant of a village named Śirīshapadraka situated in the Akrureśvaraviṣaya.
Kaira Plates of Dadda II (Praśāntarāga) –B, c. 633-634 CE102 Dadda II, Praśāntarāga, Early Gūrjara From the earlier charter the five brāhmaṇas of Atharvaṇa-veda (Kauṇḍinya-sagotra and of Bhāradvāja-sagotra) were omitted mention here and five more new names are seen added here. Identical with the first set of the charter.
Sankhed Plates of Dadda II–A and B, c. 642 CE[42] Dadda II, Early Gūrjara Brāhmaṇa Sūryya A student of Vājasaneya Mādhyandina branch of Yajurveda belonging to Bhāradvāja-sagotra. He received a grant of the eastern quarter of Suvaṛṇṇārapalli village.
Umeta Plates Of Dadda II, c. 648-49 CE104 Dadda (III) Early Gūrjara Bhaṭṭa-Mādhava, son of Bhaṭṭa-Mahīdhara a scholar adherent of the Bahvṛca branch of Ṛgveda belonging to cāturvidyāsāmānya of Vaśiṣṭhasagotra. He was given the village Niguḍa, bounded on the east by the village Baghauri, on the south by the village Phalahavadra, on the west by the village Viṇhāṇa and on the north by the village Dahithali, in the bhukti (territorial division) Kamaṇīya.
Bagumra Plates of Dadda c. 663 CE[43] Dadda (III), Early Gūrjara Bhaṭṭa-Govinda, son of Bhaṭṭa Mahīdhara, Chāndogya-śākhā of Sāmaveda belonging to Kauśika-sagotra The donee received a grant of the village Tatha-Umbarā as bounded on the east by the village Ushilathaṇa, on the south by the village Ishi, on the west by the village Saṃkiya, on the north by the village Jaravadra, included in the Tatha-Umbar-āhārād-Valiśa
Ilao Plates of Dadda (II) Praśāntarāga, c. 665 CE[44] Dadda (II) Praśāntarāga, Early Gūrjara Bhaṭṭa-Nārāyaṇa, son of Bhaṭṭa-Govinda, a scholar–adherent of Bahvṛca school of Ṛgveda who belonged to Kāśyapa-gotra. It records the grant of the village Rāidhaṃ falling within Ankuleśvara-viṣaya as bounded by the village Vāraṇera in the east, Varaṇḍa river on the south, the village Suṃṭhavaḍaka on the west, the village Araluaṃ and the north, included in Akuleśvaraviṣaya.
Prince of Wales Museum Plates of Gurjara Dadda III, c. 676-677 CE107 Dadda III, Early Gūrjara The donee was an unnamed brāhmaṇa here. The donee received a grant of a village Uvarivadra in Korillā.
Parlakimedi Plates of Anantavarma n, c. 700 CE[45] Anantavarma n, Early Gūrjara Brāhmaṇa Viṣṇusomācārya . He was given the village Talatthere in Kroṣtukavarttani.
Navasari plates of Jayabhaṭa III, c. 705-706 CE109 Jayabhaṭa III, Early Gūrjara Brāhmaṇa Devasvāmin , son of Brāhmaṇa Datta. He was granted the Samipadraka village in Korillāpathaka.
The Prince of Wales Museum Plates, c. 735-736 CE110 Jayabhaṭa IV, Early Gūrjara Brāhmaṇa Bhaṭṭa-achchada, son of Adityanāga. He received the village of Mannātha, located in the Bharukachchhaviṣaya.
Lohaner Plates of Pulakeśin II, c. 630 CE[46] Pulakeśin II, Early Cālukya Brāhmaṇa Dāmadikṣita. A village named Goviyaṇaka which was near the village of Asikhetaka and was included in Moṣiṇipathaka was granted to him.
Mudgapadra Grant of Yuvarāja Śreyāśraya Śilāditya, c. 668-669 CE112 Vikramādity a (I); Śreyāśraya Śilāditya Cālukyas of Bādāmi Brāhmaṇa Revāditya and Varasyaka of Āśvalāyana-sagotra (Ṛgveda). Thet were given the village Mudgapadra included in Vichihāra.
Navasari Plates of Śreyāśraya Śilāditya, c. 671 CE[47] Śreyāśraya Śilāditya -Yuvarāja, Cālukyas of Gujarat Brāhmaṇa Mātṟiśvara, son of Sāmanta-svāmin, who was himself the son of Āgomasvāmin who hails from Navasārikā and to his younger brothers Kikka-svāmin and Bhogikkasvāmin, all of whom were Addhvaryubrahmacārīs. They were granted the village Āsaṭṭi in Kaṇhavalāhāra-viṣaya included in Bāhirikā-viṣaya.
Navasari Plates of Avanijanāśra ya Pulakeśirāja, c. 739-740 CE114 Avanijanāśra ya Pulakeśirāja, Early Cālukya Brāhmaṇa Kāñcala, son of Govindali. Pulakeśirāja granted him the village Padraka, situated in the Ahāra and Karmaṇeyaviṣaya.
Mumdaka grant ofBhīmadeva I, c. 1030 CE[48] Bhimadeva I, Cālukyas of Gujarat Brāhmaṇa Vāsudeva, son of Balabhadra, an udīcya brāhmaṇa. Bhimadeva I was donated him merely a hāla of land in Murndakagrāma situated in Varddhiviṣaya.
Bagunra Plates of Allasakti, c. 656 CE[49] Allaśakti, Sendraka Bappa-svāmin, A student of Vājasaneyamāddhyandina branch of Yajurveda belonging to Bhāradvāja-sagotra. He was given the village Balisa included in the Viṣaya in the Treyaṇṇāhára.
Hansot Plates of the Cāhamāna Vigraharāja, c. 973 C.E.[50] Bhartṛvaḍḍha II, Cāhamāna Brāhmaṇa Bhaṭṭa-Būṭa, the son of Tāvi, Adhvaryu of the Mādhyandina branch and of the Kāunḍinya-gotra, a student of the Vājasaneya (saṃhitā). The 4th part of the Arjunadevi village situated within Akruresvara district.
Ellora Plates of Rāṣtrakūṭa Dantidurga, c. 741 CE[51] Dantidurga, Rāṣṭrakūṭa Three brāhmaṇas. They were Ādityabhatta, Maula, and Govisara. - They were granted the village of Pippalāla in the district of Candrapuri.
Hilol Plates of Year 470, c. 788 CE[52] Kakka, Rāṣṭrakūṭa Bhaṭṭa Mātṛgaṇa, son of Mātrīśvara, who belonged to the Kāśyapa gotra and a well versed in the Vedas and its six aṇgas of Mādhyandina-śākhā of Śukla-Yajurveda and he kept the sacred fire since his childhood. The grant consisted of two pieces of land, each a quarter (catur-bhāga), one of them situated in Pādāṭaka-grāma and the other in Hilohila grāma. The gift land thus consisted of one fourth share of each of the two villages.
The Prince of Wales Museum Plates, c. 810 CE[53] Govindarāja, Rāṣṭrakūṭa Brāhmaṇa Bhobika , son of Bhaṭṭajaya. He was granted the village Usauṇaka in the Vāhāulacaturāśīti.
Baroda grant of Karkka Suvarṇavarṣa, c. 812 CE[54] Karkka Suvarṇavarṣa, Rāṣṭrakūṭa Brāhmaṇa Bhānubhaṭṭa, the son of Bhaṭṭa Somāditya, who belonged to the society of the Caturvedīs who was of the Vātsyāyana-gotra and who was a student of the Mādhyandinaśākhā (of the Śukla Yajurveda). The king granted him the village Vaḍapadraka included 84 villages in the Aṅkoṭṭaka.
Jambgaon grant, c. 914-915 CE122 Indra III, Rāṣṭrakūṭa Brāhmaṇa Siddhapabhaṭṭa. son of Vennapabhaṭṭa. He was given the villages of Kurundaka, Tenna and others in the vicinity of Kammanija situated in Lāṭadeśa.
Chinchani grant of Indra III, c. 926-927 CE123 Indra III, Rāṣṭrakūṭa Pañca-Gaudiya-northern brāhmaṇas Samyāna. They were granted a village Kanaduka and some land in Devihara village.
Cambay Plates of Govinda IV; Sakasamvat 852, c. 930 CE[55] Govinda IV, Rāṣṭrakūṭa Brāhmaṇa Nāgamayya, son of Mahādevayya, belonging to the Māṭhara-gotra and a student of the student of Vājasaneya-Kāṇva-śākhā. Govinda IV granted him the village of Kevañja, lying near the holy place Kāvikā and situated in the Kheṭaka district of the Lāta country.
Sāngli grant of Govinda IV, c. 933 CE[56] Govinda IV, Rāṣṭrakūṭa Brāhmaṇa Keśava Dikṣita, son of Dāmodarabhaṭṭa. The king gifted the donee Lohāgrāma included in the Ramapuri-700.
Deoli Plates of Kṛṣṇa III, c. 940 CE[57] Kṛṣṇa III, Rāṣṭrakūṭa Brāhmaṇa Rishiappa or Rishiyapayya. A village called Tālapuruṃṣaka was given to him.
Dharmapuri grant of ParamāraVāk pati II, c. 974 CE[58] Vākpati II (VākpatiMuñ ja), Paramāra. Brahmaṇa Vasantācārya, son of Pandita Dhanika. He was given a tadāra (plot of a field) on the bank of the river Narmadā named Pipparika.
Three Copper-Plate Inscription from GaonriB, c. 981 CE[59] Vākpatirāja, Paramāra 26 brāhmaṇas, where the firstmentioned donee was a brāhmaṇa named Sarvānanda. All belonging to the different branches of the Vedas. However, the brāhmaṇas belonging to the Ṛgveda seemed to have received special preference. This grant consisted of 78 parts of a village Vaṇikā in the Āvarakabhoga and Hūṇamaṇḍala.
Second set of Gaonri Plates of Vākpati II, c. 986 CE[60] Vākpati II, Paramāra Brāhmaṇa Sarvānanda, the son of Dīkṣita Lokānanda of the Saṃkṛti-gotra and Āsvalāyana-śākhā with three pravaras. He was given the village of Kadahichchhaka in Maddhukabhukti.
The Betma grant of ParamāraBho jadeva, c. 1019 CE[61] Bhojadeva, Paramāra Brāhmaṇa Panḍita Delha, son of Thatthaśika. A village called Nalatadāga was granted in favor of Panḍita Delha.
Depalpur grant of Bhojarāja, c. 1022 CE[62] Paramāra Bhoja, Paramāra Brāhmaṇa Vacchala, son of Bhaṭṭa-Sośvara Bhojarāja handed over a property at Kirikaikā in the western pāthaka of Ujjayinī to the donee.
Nānyaurā Copper-Plate Inscription of Dhaṅgadeva c. 998 CE[63] Dhaṅgadeva, Candella Brāhmaṇa Yaśodhara-bhaṭṭa, son of the Bhaṭṭa Jayakumāra of the Bhāradvāja-gotra, with three pravaras viz., Bhāradvāja, Āṅgirasa and Bārhaspatya, of the Vājasaneya-śākhā. He was granted the village Cullī (or Yullī) bounded by a barron spot (ūsharavāhapratibaddha).
Santiragama grant of Danḍimahād evi c. 10th Century[64] Danḍimahād evi, BhaumaKaras Brāhmaṇa Bhaṭṭa-Mākyadeva, son of Jālladeva. A village Santira-grāma and another locality called Komyosanga, situated within Tamura-viṣaya in Dakṣina Toṣala was handed over to the donee.
Grant of Vakulamahā devī, c. 10th Century[65] Vakulamahādevī, BhaumaKara Brāhmaṇa Mihadhichāya, the son of Bhaṭṭaputra Nīlakaṇṭha belonged to the Vatsa-gotra and to the pravaras of Bhārgava, Cyavana, Āpnava, Aurva and Jāmadagnya and was a student of the Āśvalāyana śākhā. The Bhauma-Kara queen granted the village named Choḍātavutsā attached to the Uregoḍḍā-khaṇḍa, situated in the Śravaṇakatikā-viṣaya in the Uttara-Tosalā country.


The term gotra is considered equivalent to lineage. In a broader sense it indicates a common male ancestorfrom whom an unbroken line of male progeny continues. Caraṇa is the preceptor-pupil lineage, a succession, a school (śākhā/ branch), devoted to the learning and teaching of a branch of the Vedas. Both the terms gotra and caraṇa are connected with the growth of vedic ritual. A member of a gotra may start a caraṇa which maybe known by his gotra name. It does not make them (gotra and caraṇa) identical in purpose or intent.

Besides a gotra and its pravara, all vedic brāhmaṇas were supposed to belong to a caraṇa. [66] All of them were indeed the items of a brāhmaṇa’s specification of his identity . The first mention of the term caraṇa occurs in an Odishan inscription in c. 635 CE.[67] The pravara identity is descended from a specific brāhmaṇa from the vedic sage who belonged to their gotra. Three of themhave been used to identify someone's predecessor. However, as we see, with the exception of a few examples, caraṇa and pravara are rarely mentioned in early inscriptions and gotra has been widely used to identify the brāhmaṇas specifically.

According to Ghurye, they did not originate in ṛgvedic times. They took shape as a socio-religious product after the gotras came in.[68] The Śatapathabrāhmaṇa (c. 800 BCE) was the first to use the term pravara. The next stage was in Baudhāyana-śrautasūtra (c. 600 BCE), which listed 800 gotras, (however doubtful)[69] and 91 ṛṣis (sages) supposed to be connected with them. They were called pravaras-ṛṣis. [70] According to P.V. Kane, though the term gotra was not used in ṛgvedic times, gotra as an idea existed at that era so did pravaras a little latter.[71]

The use of pravaras in gotra came in ritual practice in śrauta ceremonies in the 5th century BCE.[72] At the non-ritual level, pravaras as a source of identity along with gotra were used first by Odishan monarchs during the 6th-7th century CE.[73] Yājñavalkya (3rd century CE) insisted on both gotra and caraṇa. In fact from Yājñavalkya till the modern period, most of the law-givers insisted that pravara be given due weight while considering one's gotra. [74]

In many cases, we find the term sa-gotra which means ‘of the same gotra-group’. However, in the inscriptions, it is mostly associated with educational lineage for example Āśvalāyaṇa (Ṛgveda), Kāpiṣṭhala (Yajurveda) and others.

A woman, on marriage, loses her father’s gotra name and acquires her husband’s gotra which is continued through her male children and unmarried daughters. Surprisingly, the gotrai dentity is quite popular in India still in this 21st century. It has survived more or less 2500 years, and still continues surviving. According to Ghurye, this is among the supreme examples of how certain ideas survive without seriously questioned. Whatever, as far as the gotra-identity is concerned, some common gotras are seen to have been mentioned along with some uncommon ones.Sometimes, however, it is found that transfer of gotra of a married female does not take place. Famous examples are Kuberanāgā, queen of Candragupta II and Prabhāvatīguptā, daughter of Candragupta II.

Of approximately a hundred and twenty-five gotras (familiar and loner), only twelve gotras cover more or less 65% of the total sample of the donees in northern India. Bhāradvāja, Kāśyapa, Kauśika, Parāsara, Kauṇḍinya, Gārgya, Vaśiṣṭha Vatsa, Ātreya, Gautama, Kāṇva, Maudgalya, were the most common gotras found in the inscriptions in northern India. Among these twelve gotras as mentioned above, Bhāradvāja, Kauśika, Kauṇḍinya, Parāsara and Kāśyapa gotra claim the maximum number of recipients while Bhāradvāja brāhmaṇas were bestowed in a highest number of grants. This indicates the dominance of the vedic brāhmaṇas of these gotras in northern India or indicates that they were higher in number at the period under study.

Apart from these common gotras, there are others that deserve some discussion.Some other strange unfamiliar gotras can be seen here too. For example, two Harsolā Copper-plate Grants of Siyaka (c. 949 CE)[75] issued by the King Sīyaka (II) of Paramāra Dynasty records a grant of the village of Kumbhāroṭaka and Sīhakā in the Mohaḍavāsaka-viṣaya respectively to Lallopādhyāya, son of Govardhana and Nīnā Dīkshita, son of Lallopādhyāya, Nāgarabrāhmaṇas of Ānandapura, belonging to the Go pali-gotra. Similarly, sometimes Māṭhara, Saṃkṛti, Śārkkarākshi, Bhāguri, Upasmanyu and other unfamiliar gotras can be seen as well.

As we see, the donee brāhmaṇas and their fathers as described in the land grant charters, had the name-endings with śarmā/ śarmaṇ, bhaṭṭa, svāmī/ svāmin and some of them used other name-endings. There are instances where the father's surname and the son's surname did not match. Again, the name-endings of the brāhmaṇas were not fixed always, and thus, the brāhmaṇas were not always identifiable only by their names or their fathers. It seems that the brāhmaṇa name-endings were subjected to change from generation to generation. However, most of the brāhmaṇa families not preferred to any changes in name-endings. This is more than those who accepted little change. Gradually, the educational qualifications began to be included in the name.

The brāhmaṇas of northern India studied and taught theVedas. But not all of them studied all the four Vedas. Noticeably, the tendency to learn more Vedas proficiently was handed down from generation to generation. If we notice carefully, we will see that those brāhmaṇas were in high demand for donations who had mastered at least one Veda along with the other three. There is not a single instance in which only Atharvaveda has been mastered by the donee brāhmaṇas. Atharvaveda is mentioned only in the context of the examples where these brāhmaṇas have read four Vedas brāhmaṇas who acquired knowledge in Caturveda (all four Vedas).

As the importance of yajurvedic brāhmaṇas increased, the practice of donating land to brāhmaṇas specialized in Ṛgveda and Sāmaveda decreased gradually after the 7th century CE. The Śukla-Yajurveda refers the mantras to be uttered by the main priest during vedic sacrifices while the Kṛṣṇa-Yajurveda narrates and explains the sacrifices along with certain sutras.And both of the branches of Yajurveda found much preference among the donee brāhmaṇas of northern India. The donee brāhmaṇas were not averse to the study of philosophical texts. Again, we do not find any of them who were mentioned as well-versed in philosophy. However, the mention of Itihāsa-Purāṇa in inscriptions is found in a few cases. Some of brāhmaṇas was famous for their knowledge in Smṛtiśāstras. Sanskrit inscriptions reveal that Yajurveda had more followers than anything and the vedic brāhmaṇas constituted the largest number in the society. All of them were proficient scholars and certainly well versed and mastered the Vedas . Besides, the inscriptions found in northern India, reveals the abode of the learned brāhmaṇas.

Most of the brāhmaṇas accepting land grants were proficient in vedic literature; however, at the same time, some of them have mastered in the Itihāsa-Purāṇa traditions. And, some of them practiced Āgamas and Tantras also. Despite that, almost all of the vedic brāhmaṇas engaged themselves in various vedic sacrifices. Perhaps vedic brāhmaṇas did not generally worship purāṇic gods and goddesses. Few of them, worshipped purāṇic deities while following the six duties of the brāhmaṇas. We have already seen many examples where the names of brāhmaṇas started with the names of purāṇic deities. Besides, there are also some examples that start with the names of vedic deities. Their names, surnames, titles, the functions they performed, the terms have been used to describe them and their designations, varṇa, gotra, status wherever available in the context of land-transactions reflect the identity of their social status and religious inclination.

Besides, the brāhmaṇas were engaged into higher administrative authority. Most of the composers of the charters of northern India were learned brāhmaṇas and mostly had bhaṭṭa attached to their names. Inscriptions contained both prose and verse. Based on that, there were two types of composers-lekhaka (writer of the prose-portion of the charters) and kavi (who used to write the poetical part of the charters in a poetic way). The charters bear information about the names, titles, qualifications, and others related to the composer of the charter. However, these composers were not all brāhmaṇas. The existence of professional artisan groups can be seen by the names of the engravers of these charters. They have enjoyed different status in different regions as evidenced by the charters.

It is evident from the study of epigraphic materials during the 4th -12th century CE that the brāhmaṇas in the northern region of India were the most privileged class of contemporary society and they preferred to be proficient in vedic education.

It is sometimes observed that the lands were granted with certain terms and conditions. In northern India, we have seen various sections of brāhmaṇas, who are depicted as recipients of grants and sometimes figured as the authors of those inscriptions. We may categorize them as, vedic brāhmaṇas who were well versed and so proficient in the Vedas, Śāstras, Smṛtis, and other Indian traditional sciences; some brāhmaṇas belonging to the autochthonous groups; the brāhmaṇas who have occupied important military and administrative responsibilities under the state; brāhmaṇas who belonged to the priestly class and worshiped in temples and shrines and the brāhmaṇas who composed praśasti for their patrons. However, the brāhmaṇas were important because they would construct legendry genealogies drawing from the Ithihāsa-Purāṇa traditions. These were incorporated in praśasti sections to prove the superiority of the king over his subjects and other contemporary kings.[76]

Those brāhmaṇas were the intellectual group of the time and the custodians of vedic knowledge. The dignity of these brāhmaṇas comes from their studies and practice of vedic tradition. The donees were described as well versed in Veda, Vedāṇgas, Itihāsa, Purāṇa, yajña, and all Sāśtras in land grant charters in northern India. Those records say that the gifts were made for the prosperity of dharma and longevity, that is, for the welfare of the king. At the request of their queens, the kingsometimes would grant land to the brāhmaṇas. In some cases, kings granted lands to their Kula-brāhmaṇas (family priests). Adhering to the tradition of Dharmaśāstras many other brāhmaṇa householders who were devoted to their six-fold duties of yajana (performing a sacrifice for one's own good), yājana (officiating vedic sacrifices for the good of others), adhyayanam (study), adhyāpanam (teaching), dāna (donate) and pratigraha (accepting gifts). In some cases during the medieval period, the temples occupied a lot of vast agricultural land.

Sometimes mahājanas (moneylenders) would gift fallow land (wastelands) for the temple; sometimes gardeners of the temple garden were given a gift by the chiefs.[77] Some inscriptions state that the kings together with the merchants donated lands to the temples.[78] Sometimes the land was donated to feed the brāhmaṇas, [79] while gardens yielding of coconuts, mangoes, nuts, etc. were given to the temple to provide some of these for many years. There are also examples of land purchasesin the period under discussion.[80] An inscription at Draksharama (c. 1121 CE) records the chiefs gifted lands to the farmers, who cultivated the land of devdaya. In addition to the land grants given to the royal staffs, grants were also given to other workers; who were either employed at the court or were persons of the king's choice. Sometimes village chiefs gifted land to landless village workers.[81] Inscriptions in South India sometimes show that not the king but chiefs or royal officials gifted land to temples in different viṣayas (districts),[82] although this example is not very commonly noticeable in the inscriptions of North India. Again, maintaining previous grants was a common scenario in north Indian Sanskrit Inscriptions.[83] Besides, lands were given to Buddhist or Jain institutions. However, in most cases, the vedic brāhmaṇas were far ahead in the line of recipients.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Sima Yadav, The Myth of Indian Feudalism, p. 237.

[2]:

Loc. cit.

[3]:

Ibid., p. 236.

[4]:

Upinder Singh, Kings, Brāhmaṇas and Temples in Orissa An Epigraphic Study Ad 300- 1147, p. 19.

[5]:

Odra, Andhra, Dravida, Kohkana were considered as Mleccha Country.

[6]:

Upinder Singh, op. cit., p. 20.

[7]:

Kāśyapa, Kashyapiyakrishisukti (A Treatise on Agriculture by Kashyapa), ed. & trans. S.M. Ayachit, p. 22.

[8]:

There was another type of donation for the temple which was called as Devadaya.

[9]:

USVAE , vol. III, p. 19.

[10]:

D.C. Sircar, Indian Epigraphy, p.434.

[11]:

USVAE, vol. III, pp. 184-186.

[12]:

Ibid., pp. 370-373.

[13]:

Ibid., vol. IV, part I, pp. 159-166

[14]:

Forty four brāhmaṇas, Drona, Indravasu, Vatsa, Shashṭhi, Guhila-bhaṭṭi Sūryya, Dinna bhaṭṭi, Ludraka, Ādityavasu, Dvi-Droṇa, Trī-Droṇa, Kumāra–śarmmā -Bhaṭṭi, Āditya, Ravi, Uñjhaka, Bappaṭaka, Mātrī–śarmmā, Iśvara, Boppasvāmi, Dvi-Bappaṭaka, Gopa, Dāma, Dvī–bhadra, Khokkhaka, Keśava, Govaśarmmā, Agniśarmmā, Dvi-Gopa, Nāvuvaka, Kumāra-nbhadra, Sīha-Naṭṭaka, Giṅjaka, Goggaka, Saṅgama, Dvi-bhaṭṭi, Bhānu.

[15]:

USVAE, vol. IV, part I, pp. 172-176.

[16]:

Ibid., pp. 681-687.

[17]:

Ibid., pp. 688-691.

[18]:

Ibid., pp. 418-425.

[19]:

Ibid., pp. 447-452.

[20]:

Ibid., pp. 501-507.

[21]:

Ibid., pp. 516-520.

[22]:

Ibid., pp. 560-568.

[23]:

Ibid., pp. 587-593.

[24]:

Ibid., pp. 593-600.

[25]:

Ibid., part II, pp. 29-36.

[26]:

Ibid., pp. 79-84.

[27]:

JBBRAS, vol. XX, p. 72.

[28]:

Ibid., p. 74.

[29]:

USVAE, vol. IV, part II, pp. 209-212.

[30]:

EI, vol. IV, p. 80.

[31]:

USVAE, vol. IV, part II, pp. 275-281.

[32]:

Ibid., pp. 349-354.

[33]:

Ibid., pp. 354-362.

[34]:

Ibid., pp. 524-529.

[35]:

JBBRAS, XI, p. 335.

[36]:

USVAE, vol. IV, part II, pp. 44-52.

[37]:

CII, vol. IV, p. 38.

[38]:

USVAE, vol. IV, part I, pp. 191-194.

[39]:

Ibid., pp. 47-54.

[40]:

Charak-āddhvaryyu Maitrayanīya-bhaṭṭa
1. Madhusūdan-opāddhyāya
2. Avanti-vikram-opāddhyāya
3. Devasom-opāddhyāya
4. Svāmidatt-opāddhyāya
5. Vishṇu-ghosh-opāddhyāya
6. Sthāvar-opāddhȳaya
7. Bhatta-Kamalapakshasvāmi
8. Bhaṭṭa-Ravināgasvāmi
9. Śambhubhavasvāmi
10. BaṃdhudῩva-yoraṅga-Vishṇubhavasvāmi
11. Lāta-phaliha-svāmi
12. Aśoka-svāmi
13. Śrīdhara-bhūti-svāmi
14. Śīlapaksha-svāmi,
15. Sāppūpaksha-svāmi
16. Vāmana-svāmi,
17. Nāgaśarmma-svāmi,
18. Gola-chandra-svāmi,
19. Bhadra-svāmi,
20. -22. Gopendra-svāmi and Vāmana–svāmi of Chāndogya caraṇa
23. Soma-svāmi,
24. Yajñ-svāmi and
25. unnatamāgha-svāmi

[41]:

1. Bhaṭṭi-ādhyāpaka (teacher) the brāhmaṇas adherent of Āśvalāyana (school of Ṛgveda). Belonging to vatsa-sagotra and to Baḥvṛcha i.e. Ṛgveda who had migrated from Jambūsara and is resident in Śirīshapadraka included in Akrūreśvara-viṣaya (the village granted).
2. Gopāditya,
3. Bhaṭṭi-gaṇa,
4. Visākha,
5. Agniśarmmā
6. Droṇa (all the above six of Vatsa-sagotra)
7. Bhaṭṭi-dāma and
8. Vatra of Kāśyapa-sagotra (all the above eight belonged to Baḥvṛcha-caraṇa (i.e) Ṛgveda branch)
9. Tāpiśarmmā(i)
10. Tāpiśarmmā (ii)
11. Dattasvāmin
12. Bhāgi-svāmin,
13. Pitri-śarman
14. Bhaṭṭi
15. Droṇa, (all these Nos, 9-15 were of Dauṇḍakīya-sagotra)
16. Kakka-adhyāpaka
17. And Ābuka of Dhūmrāyaṇa–sagotra,
18. Vāṭa-śarman
19. Śaila
20. Ghosha
21. Mahādeva and
22. Bāva of Kauṇḍinya-sagotra
23. Dhara
24. Viśākha
25. Nandi
26. Rāmila of māṭhara-sagotra
27. Dharmmadhara of hārita-sagotra (all these Nos 9-27 were adhvarjus and adherents of Vājasaneya-śākhā) (white Yajurveda), and Kāṇva school
28. Indra–śarman
29. Āditya-Ravi
30. Tāp[iśūra
31. Indraśūra
32. Iśvara I
33. Dhara
34. Dāmadhara
35. Iśvara II, All of whom–(Nos,28-35) were adherent of Chāndogya (Sāma) branch belonging to bhāradvāja-sagotra and Kauthuma school (all the above-listed thirty five brāhmaṇas seem to have migrated from Jambūsarā and settle in Śirīsha-padraka)
36. Bhandra
37. Vāyu-śarman 38. Droṇasvāmin,
39. Rudrāditya and
40. Pūrṇṇasvāmin of the Pippalāda school belonging to C hauli-sagotra and adherents of Atharvaṇa branch (of the Vedas), residents of Bherajjikā, having migrated from Bharukachcha.

[42]:

Ibid., pp. 523-529.

[43]:

Ibid., part II, pp. 153-157.

[44]:

Ibid., pp. 165-169.

[45]:

Ibid., vol. XXVI, p. 67.

[46]:

EI, vol. XXVII, p. 40.

[47]:

Ibid., pp. 270-274.

[48]:

EI, vol. XXXVII, p. 36.

[49]:

USVAE, vol. IV, part II, pp. 66-74.

[50]:

Ibid., vol. VII, pp. 322-333.

[51]:

EI, vol. XXV, p. 30.

[52]:

USVAE, vol. V, pp. 443-446.

[53]:

EI, vol. XXVI, p. 253.

[54]:

USVAE, vol. VI, pp. 110-121.

[55]:

USVAE, vol. VII, pp. 156-166.

[56]:

IA, vol. XII. p. 251.

[57]:

EI, vol. V, p. 196.

[58]:

IA, vol. VI, p. 52.

[59]:

USVAE, vol. VII, pp. 344-352.

[60]:

Ibid., pp. 365-369.

[61]:

EI, vol. XVIII, p. 323.

[62]:

IHQ, vol. VIII, p. 312.

[63]:

USVAE, vol. VII, pp. 466-469.

[64]:

EI, vol. XXIX, p. 89.

[65]:

USVAE, vol. VIII, pp. 78-84.

[66]:

S. Devadas Pillai, Indian Sociology Through Ghurye, a Dictionary, p. 48.

[67]:

Ibid., p. 131.

[68]:

Ibid., p. 132.

[69]:

Loc. cit.

[70]:

Ibid., p. 246.

[71]:

Ibid., p. 129.

[72]:

Ibid., p. 131.

[73]:

Ibid., p. 132.

[74]:

Ibid., p. 32.

[75]:

USVAE, vol. VII, pp. 250-255.

[76]:

B. Rajendra Prasad, Patterns of Community Settlements and Political Formation (A.D. 6241000), eds. I. Lakshmi and Santisri Banerjea, p. 124.

[77]:

An inscription from the temple of Srikalahasti (c. 1209 CE), in Indian epigraphy, p. 29.

[78]:

“Cheruvu-Madhavaram plates of Kali Vishnuvardhana”, in EI, vol. XXXVII, pp. 141-142.

[79]:

Baloda Plates of Tivaradeva (c. 600 CE) issued by the King Mahāśiva-Tīvara of Pāṇḍuvaṃśa of South Kōsala, USVAE, vol. IV, part I, pp. 54-57.

[80]:

L.D. Institute of Copper Plate of Dhruvasēna II (c. 616-17CE), issued by the King Dhruvasēna II of Maitrakas of Valabhī dynasty, USVAE, vol. IV, part I, pp. 688-691.

[81]:

Vipparla stone inscription dated c. 649 CE.

[82]:

An inscription from Saumyanatha temple at Nandalur (C. 1208 CE), The temple inscription from Visvesvara temple (c. 1172 CE).

[83]:

USVAE, vol. III, pp. 238-240 (c. 466 CE), ibid., vol. V, pp. 79-82 (c. 709 CE), ibid., vol. VII, pp. 156-166 (c. 930 CE).

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: