365bet娱乐

A comparative study of the various texts which broach on the subject of fortification, brings to fore 26. tadeva nrpavarvanam prasastam balamIritam (34.4)

520 many discrepancies regarding details about the classification of forts, their construction proper and some other factors. The discrepancies observed with regard to classification, concerns us at present. Some varieties like the 'hill / 'forest' and water are almost common to all of them. The Mahabharata, Arthasastra and Manusmrti include the dhanva type such as a wild desert track, devoid of water and overgrown with thickets growing in barren soil into their fold which, it seems, has been followed by other works like, Ag. Purana, Sukraniti, Minasa, and Sivatattvaratnakara In some cases, it is taken as such, i.e. Sukraniti, while, others have preferred to call it maru as in the case of Manasa, and Sivatattvaratnakara The airina class mentioned by Sukraniti has possibly a reference to the forts, constructed under hollowed grounds (Irina). To translate airina as 'pertaining to desert' might not be appropriate here, specially 27 when, N (4.6-1-3) mentions dhanva and airina as two distinct classes of forts. Thus, it appears that maru and dhanva are tagged together to point at a fort, surrounded by deserts or long-stretched-sandy banks of rivers or constructed on a sea-beach. The airina 27. Manusmrti (6.70-74) Mitaksara describes dhanva as follows caturdisam pancayojanaman udakamasamvestitam caturdisam dhanvadurgam.

521 is class of forts are the ones, constructed on hollowed lands. Thus most likely, a distant rhyme of underground construction ( a construction in netherlands) is heard here. In our modest opinion, the cavern forts referred to by Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika and the airina class of Sukraniti compare too well. But in the absence of any concrete evidence, the comparison might be too preposterous at this stage. However, clearly vindicated in find that this idea is more Silpasastra texts like Visvakarma-vastusastra which we categories the forest forts under urdhvastha, bhumibhagastha and antastha categories; bhumibhagastha is further defined as bhutalasritam meaning 'constructed below the land's surface' and antastha is also described as surangastita 'sheltered in a tunnel'. The author here That's why, seems to be more particular in conveying the exact import of the aforesaid varieties of forest-forts. after he has given the definitions, he leaves an instruction for the architects that the meaning should be understood in its correct perspective. 28. 28 "Urdhvastham tungabhumistham, bhumistham bhutalasritam surangasritaman tastham, bodhyam silpaparaynaih "// Visvakarmavastusastra (10.7)

522 Thus, our presumption of the airina variety in netherlands, as one, constructed much below the ground finds further corroboration here. Other classes of forts referred to are the parikha and parigha (Sukraniti 6.3-4), ratha (chariot) and daiva (divine) (Manasara 10.45) and istika and pasana (brick-built and stone-built) Manasa (2.6.541-2) and Sivatattvaratnakara (5.6.47). 29 The parikha fort is one, which is protected by moats and the parigha forts are encircled by walls of bricks, stone and mortar. 'The chariot type of fort is that which is used as a place for detention of thieves, isolated from a village and has all the defects of vast expanse of wilderness around owing to absence of any tree and water' (Manasara) Thus, such forts were utilised as 'detention camps' for unsocial elements. And a daiva fort is described to be one from which it is possible to throw, when enemies are seen attacking, stones etc. towards its exit and entrance, with as much 29. Besides, we have Kurma or pamsu to entice the enemy, the paravata, for self-protection in field of war, the prabhu which shelters the palace and the yuddha variety of forts. (Visvakarmavastusastra 10.31-46). Primarily for the kinness some of these exude to to other varieties dealt herein and also for fear of prolixity, we restrain from providing an elaborate treat for these fopts.

523 effect with the death-like (deadly) influence of incantation (mantra) and magic (tantra) and horrors as that of Brahmaraksasa, Vetala, Bhuta, Preta and other evil spirits, Manasara (10. 50-51). Some General Observations : It will be seen from the foregoing discussion that Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika does not mention the following types of forts, namely, dhanva, maru, airina, parikha, parigha, sahaya, ratha and daiva. There could be various reasons for it judging from the vast gulf of time that separates all these works which mention the variety of forts. A poet, more so, an author, generally reflects his time and the society he lives in with its customs and traditions. Not only he proceeds by the dictates of ancient authorities, his precursors, on every matter, though he might consult them for his reference at times. Thus, the absence of dhanva, airina, ratha and daiva types from Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika may be explained by alluding to the fact that possibly, our author was familiar with a landscape which was devoid of deserts and hollowed lands and his society did not nourish forts of the ratha or daiva description. Under the stress of

524 such visual circumstances, our author might not have liked to follow the ancient texts or the subject too closely, forgoing the impact of tradition. Thus, effecting a change here and there, adding some new types to his treatise and abetting others, seem quite natural. The logic behind not mentioning the parikha and parigha types appears to be quite clear. The general characteristics of a fort, most commonly, include a rampart and a moat. Thus to typify it again, would be redundant. In respect of the ratha type of forts referred to by Manasara (Ch.10) it may be postulated that being an ancient work, it contains the living tradition of the time when goals did goals did not exist separately to house the criminals and ratha type of forts, constructed amidst an arid and hostile landscape, devoid of trees and water sources used to serve the purpose of containing the condemn characters like thieves and dacoits. The daiva type seems to contain some unique references of ancient characters in which one observes the recorded practices of driving away the attacking enemy soldiers with stones, thrown at them from convenient

525 niches of a daiva fort. Such stones, thrown at the enemy are considered to be death-like missiles (Manasara 10.50-51). Such practices undoubtedly reveal before us a tradition which may seemingly be branded as antiquirian. Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika being a work of comparatively recent times, neither had a tradition in which forts were constructed to house the thieves nor were these used as convenient citadels to hound away the attacking troops with stones etc. Thus, we can account for the absence of the aforementioned types of forts from our text. And, the addition of the gahvara, misra and kostha types not referred to in other works leaves us with little doubt about the twin purposes, the author of Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika had before him as that of originality and contemporaneity. One more thing may be pointed out here regarding the magical nature of some of the forts mentioned in Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika Good and bad results are found to be automatically associated with different type forts in a certain 30 magical manner. For example, a stay in a bhadra (auspicious) fort ensures the master sovereignty over the whole earth and a king who makes his abode a needle-faced-castle (sucImukha) is destined to be 30. Cf. G.U.Thite SamrajyalaksmipIthika ... magico religion" 'Sambodhi' VII, Ahmedabad, 1978-79,p.45

526 defeated in war. As described earlier, the eight types of hill-forts like bhadra, atibhadra etc. are examples of the forts giving good results and the eight inauspicious types (32 patala), harbour bad results. The author, while attributing 'good' and 'bad' elements to different forts, quite interestingly does not take in-to consideration any other factors like archaeological, geographical or locational etc. Which might have been said to contribute good and bad result to a fort in particular. But he goes on enumerating the forts associated with auspicious and ominous characters in a surreptitiously magical manner. And, such a leaning to magic, on the part of our author, seems to characterise the Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika tradition.