365bet娱乐

[Classification of forts (2) Forest-forts (vana-durga)]

The forest-forts (vana-durga) according to Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika weight more than most of the forts. 14 Arthasastra on the otherhand, 14. yadetat sarvadurganamadhikam ...(33.1)

508 favours water and the hill-forts which are considered best suited to defend popular centres (Arthasastra 2.3.2). Manu ous A does not mention forest-forts but his category of 15 16 Varksya may resemble the vanadurgas of Mahabharata (santi,5.5), Manasa (2.6.542), Sivatattvaratnakara (5.6.48) and Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika (33.2). In this context special mention may be made of the Yajnavalkya smrti which clearly elucidates the characteristics of a forest fort in the verse as referred under. It runs ramyam pasavyama Ivvam jangalam desamavaset, tatra durgani kurvita janako satmaguptave, the commentator explains this verse in the following manner "ramyan, remaniyam, asokacampakadibhih avyam, pasubhyo hitam, pasuvrddhikaram, pasav sajala taruparvato deso jangala sa denabhidhivate ". The site must be beautiful with shaddy and fragrant trees like Asoka and Campaka, (it) must be dense and as such conducive for the growth of wild inhabitants and must have provision for roots, fruits and flowers. Such a site with water-courses, trees and mounts are meant by the term jangaladesa. 7 15. 16. S Also, cf. .C.Banerjee, Aspects of ancient Indian life Calcutta, 1972, p.146. Mitaksara on Yajnavalkya-Smrti (5.321),

509 In a sense, the reference just mentioned, sums up the pre-requisites of the class of forest-forts in a nut-shell. Other authors and works also take care to include all the characteristics of Yajnavalkya-Smrti but the description of Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika appears to be more vivid. According of this class A to such description, te cimes of forts are constructed amidst a host of thorny trees, creepers and shrubs so that the approach-road is almost hidden from the outside view and thickets make it even difficult for rays of the sun to penetrate, the surroundings of which are habitated by wild animals like lions, tigers and wild boars; the locale, rendered further awe-inspiring by the protruding stones, projecting themselves from the banks of mountain streams, lakes and other reservoirs of immeasurable waters which are again indwelled by aborigines like Mlecchas and Sabaras. 17 Compared to this account, the description given by Manasa. or Sivatattvaratnakara fades into insignificance, which 17. Kantaka nanavrksaughalata gulmadisankule,, gudhamarge dusprave se survamsunamapi prive / simhavyaghravarahadi dustajan tunisevite, pulindapul ka samlechha sa baradibhayamkare / agadhajala sambadha ta takandhu-samanvite prakalpitam puram yadvai vanadurgam taducyate (33.2-4)

C. 510 however, records a new thing that water sources should not be visible to the outsider and these should be kept a secret. In this respect, both these works give similar description. 18 Another point becomes quite clear here that the author of Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika does not feel comfortable in simply describing a locale, fit for the construction of a fort, but from his description, it becomes quite evident that the environs of a forest-fort, constitute in themselves a fort with its inaccessibility and awe-inspiring qualities. Thus, the utility of a forest-fort appears to be two-fold, the environment serving as a fort in the first place and the fort proper coming next. The use of choice-phrases in the definition like samkula (thronged), dusprave sa (of difficul taccess), dusta-jantu (wild animal) and bhayamkara (fearful) etc. amply illustrates the point. This is possibly the reason of attributing more weight in favour of this class of forts on the part of our author who considers forest-forts as the best among the lot.

18. Vanadurgam samakhyatam ghanakan taka sakhibhih antastaih samcitam toyam tahisthanam ca durlabham // Manasa (Sivatattvaratnakara 26.546-47), 5