¹ In Marathi māvaḷaṃ, plural māvalem. Except in direct quotations from Marathi texts the word will be anglicized as maval, pl. mavals.

² Marathi khoreṃ, pl. khorīṃ will similarly become khor, khors.

³ Hiroshi Fukazawa, drawing on published Persian and Marathi sources, has described in some detail the organization of the Adilshahi territories, but there is no mention of mavals here. Fukazawa, Hiroshi, ‘A Study of the Local Administration of Adilshahi Sultanate (A.D. 1489–1686)’, The Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, III, 2 (1963), pp. 37–67.Google Scholar

⁴ Rājavāḍe, V. K., Marāṭhyāncyā itihāsācīṃ sādhaneṃ (hereafter referred to as MIS), IV, 2nd edn (Poona, Śaka 1845 (1923)), p. 74.Google Scholar The first edition of this volume of MIS (Poona, 1900) is much rarer than the second and is not available to me.Google Scholar

⁵ ‘bārā māvaḷeṃ kābīja kelīṃ’. Vākasakara, V. S. (ed.), Śrī Śivaprabhūceṃ caritra, 2nd edn (Poona, 1960), p. 5.Google ScholarThis chronicle, usually referred to by Marathi historians as sabhāsadācī bakhara, was translated by Sen, S. N., Extracts and Documents Relating to Mārāṭhā History: I. Śiva Chhatrapati (Calcutta, 1920), pp. 1–154.Google Scholar

⁶ There is some doubt about this and the poem as we now have it may be eighteenth century. Cf. Potadāra, D. V., ‘Siṃhagaḍa povāḍī samakālīna nasāvā’, Bhārata Itihāsa Saṃśodhaka Mandala Quarterly (hereafter BISMQ), XIX, 1 (1938), pp. 13–16.Google Scholar

⁷ Acworth, H. A. and Śāligrāma, S. T., Itihāsaprasiddha puruṣānce va strīyānce povāḍe, 2nd edn (Poona, 1911), p. 24.Google Scholar The ballad of Tanaji is translated, very freely, in Acworth, H. A., Ballads of the Marathas (London, 1894), pp. 14–55. The twelve mavals under Junnar are outside the scope of this note.Google Scholar

⁸ Rājavāḍe, , MIS, IV, p. 75.Google Scholar

⁹ Saradesāī, G. S. (ed.), Selections from the Peshwa Daftar (hereafter PD), Vol. 45 (Bombay, 1934), No. 1, p. 2.Google Scholar References to PD will be by volume and document number, and by page number only when the document is a long one.

¹⁰ MIS VIII. 78, p. 103.Google Scholar

¹¹ PD 31, 1933, 24, p. 20.Google Scholar The figure 5 put against Tāmhaṇa khore is meaningless except as a later alteration to bring the number up to the traditional twelve.

¹² Sen, S. N., Śiva Chhatrapati, p. 3.Google Scholar The identical list appears in Saradesāī, G. S., Marāṭhī riyāsata, 2. Śakakartā Śivājī (Bombay, 1935), p. 26.Google Scholar In fact, I suspect that Sen has followed Saradesāi but have not been able to check this in the first edition of the Riyāsata.

¹³ Vākasakara, , Śri Śivaprabhūceṃ caritra, p. 5.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Siva caritra sāhitya (SCS), Aitihāsika phārasī sāhitya (APS) and Aitihāsika saṇkīrṇa sāhitya (ASS) are all three series of primary sources which were published partly in the Quarterly (Traimāsika) of the Bhārata Itihāsa Saṃśodhaka Manḍaḷa of Poona, and partly in the Svīya Granthamālā or the Puraskṛta Granthamālā of the same institution. The vicissitudes of all the BISM series are extremely complicated and they are normally referred to by volume and document number only, as if they were all separate publications. Here, where any section referred to is embedded in the Quarterly, a reference to the volume and part number of the Quarterly is added in square brackets to aid identification.

¹⁵ Gazetteer of Bombay State (later Maharashtra State Gazetteers), Revised Edition, District Series Volume XX, Poona District (Bombay, 1954).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Spelt Āndrā in the Poona Gazetteer and in almost every conceivable way in the Marathi documents. In the spelling of the names of natural features I follow that of the Indian Survey 1:63360 maps where possible. Village names are normally cited in the romanized form of the Poona Gazetteer lists, except that to avoid unnecessary diacritical marks the tilde is not used and anusvara is recorded only when it is pronounced as a nasal consonant. Village names as shown on the I.S. maps are very approximate: e.g. Malaodi for Mālavaḍi.

¹⁷ These old names do not seem to have been in use in the earlier British period when ‘Mawul Talooka’ covered not only the present Maval Taluka, called ‘the mamlutdar's division’, but also ‘Moolsee petta’ (see Paud Khor) which was ‘the mahalkurry's division’. ‘Papers Relative to the Introduction of Revised Rates of Assessment into the Mawul Talooka of the Poona Collectorate, Selections from the Records of the Bombay Government (hereafter Selections), n.s. lxx (Bombay, 1863), pp. 7–9.Google ScholarIn the later settlement reports (Selections, n.s. CCXI, 1887; dlxv, 1919) the names ‘Andar Maval’ and ‘Nane Maval’ reappear, presumably in response to persistent popular usage.Google Scholar

¹⁸ BISMQ VIII. ₃, p. 124.Google ScholarAn unpublished eighteenth century document in the archives of the B.I.S.M. (S. G. Jośi daptar, rumal I) leaves the name símilarly unadorned: pauḍakhore, karyāta māvala, mosekhore, nāṇe māvala, ādara, yekuṇa pāca māhāla. A tarpha is a subdivision of a paraganā (district); cf. Fukazawa, ‘Local Administration of Adilshahi Sultanate’, pp. 41–2.Google Scholar A mahāla is normally synonymous with a tarpha, but is a more general term, not used in the formation of proper names before the nineteenth century. For instance, one might say that tarpha Patas was one of the mahālas (revenue districts) of paragaṇā Poona; cf. Kulkarni, A. R., Maharashtra in the Time of Sivaji (Poona, 1969), pp. 148–9.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Nane Maval.

²⁰ PD 45.1, pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

²¹ SCS VIII. I, p. 2 [in BISMQ XXIII.2].Google Scholar

²² MIS XIV. 16–1764.Google Scholar

²³ MIS XVIII.21, p. 41—1675.Google Scholar

²⁴ PD 45.1, p. 4.Google Scholar In this part of the Maratha country, tarpha and tape are often used indiscriminately, while paragaṇā is rare. Tarpha is the more general and vague term, rather like ‘section’, so that one could say ‘the Dalavi Deshmukh's tarpha of tarpha (or tape) Nane Maval’, whereas a tape could never be part of a tarpha. On the other hand, it is dangerous to put too much faith in any of the Marathi documents on such niceties. Both editing and printing of the published texts are often suspect and in the cursive moḍi script in which nearly all the original documents were written both tarpha and tape are abbreviated commonly to the character ‘ta’ plus various combinations of vowel signs. Similarly with the abbreviations for prānta, paragaṇā and peṭā, there are endless possibilities for confusion between the moḍi original and the printed page.

²⁵ mauje jābhola ta. (tarpha) nāne māvala pra. (prānta) māvala, BISMQ XXXI.2–3, 61, p. 49–1720.Google Scholar

²⁶ Pavna in the Poona Gazetteer and pavana, pona or pauna or pauna in the documents.

²⁷ Tung is confusingly described in the Gazetteer (p. 686) as being in Bhor Taluka, whereas it is actually in Maval Taluka. This mistake is the result of inadequate revision, since at the time of the original Poona Gazetteer Tung was part of Bhor State.

²⁸ BISMQ VIII.3, p. 124;Google ScholarBISMQ XXXI.2–3, 21, p. 19.Google ScholarBISMQ XXXI.2–3 is entirely devoted to the first part of the Senāpati Dābhāḍe Daphtara. No subsequent part has been published. Mr Frank Perlin has pointed out to me that a ‘overlordship’ is a very inadequate translation since saramokadamī meant little more than the right to take a small percentage of the revenue.

²⁹ E.g. Āḍhale Budrukh, Bhaḍavalī, Kothurṇe, Thugāv, Urse. See esp. BISMQ XXXI.2–3, 49, 51, 56. The most easterly named villages are Parandavaḍi and Cāndakheḍ (mouje cāndakheḍa ta. pauna-māvala prānta māvala—Ibid., 35–1719), suggesting that the east limit of both Nane Maval and Pavan Maval corresponded roughly with the present border between Maval and Haveli Talukas.

³⁰ E.g. Rihe (ASS.I. 5, p. 30 in BISM IX.3), Sāvaragāv (SCS V. 937, p. 190 [in BISM XXI. I]) daksne, probably Dākhane (BISMQ XXXI.2–3, 48). The unpublished document mentioned in Note 18 also names Kāsing and Khāmḅolī as being under the control of the Ghāre Deshmukhs of Pavan Maval.Google Scholar

³¹ PD 45.1, p. 5.Google Scholar There is no mention in this document of the Dābhāḍes, which may indicate that it is in fact late seventeenth century rather than eighteenth.

³² Ranade, V. G. and Joshi, V. N., A Short History of Bhor State (Poona, 1930), p. 20 and Map.Google Scholar

³³ There seems to be no record of when Bhor State was formally divided into talukas on the model of British India, but it probably took place under the rule of the reforming Chimnaji Raghunath in the mid-nineteenth century. Muthe Khor was transferred to the Paunmaval Taluka of Bhor quite late on. Col. Godfrey in 1896 refers to 17 villages having been transferred ‘since the survey’ (Papers Relating to the Original Survey Settlement of the Prachandgad Taluka of the Bhor State, Selections, n.s. ccclxxxviii, 1899, p. 1). These must be the villages of Muthe Khor.Google Scholar

³⁴ MIS XVII. 2, p. 4.Google Scholar

³⁵ Āpate, N. G. (ed.), Mahārāṭra grāmakośa (Poona, Tilak Mahārāṣṭra Vidyāpiṭh, 2 vols, 1967).Google Scholar This publication is less useful than at first appears. The lettering on the maps is frequently unreadable, each taluka map is drawn to a different scale and there is no attempt at gridding. Furthermore, as D. V. Potadāra complains in his introduction, many of the village names have been haphazardly transcribed back into Devanagari from Roman approximations, thus bearing little relation to their original form.

³⁶ Dākhali, (SCS V.939, p. 190 [in BISMQ XXI.1]);Google Scholarlāgapauḍa and nāndeḍā—both unidentified (MIS XV.324, p. 349). In 1707 the Dābhāḍes acquired from the Dhamāle Deshmukhs in ta. pauḍakhore pra. māvale the villages of ka. (kasabā) pauḍa, modaḍe, yelabelī, nīvakheḍa and vaḍavāthara (BISMQ XXXI.23, 16, p. 15). The last two are now drowned in the lake, at the east end of its northern arm, yelabelī may perhaps be Telabailā and modaḍe is undiscoverable unless it is a misreading for Mandeḍ.Google Scholar

³⁷ dābhāḍe desāī ta. gire tāmhanakhore (Ibid., 39, p. 33); girhe tāmhanakhore yethīla desāipanā (Ibid., 47, p. 39).

³⁸ PD 45.1, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar Cf. PD 31.81–2. Phrases like ‘controlled by’ or ‘under’ such and such a Deshmukh should not be taken to imply any judgement on the powers of the maval Deshmukhs. These no doubt varied widely in time, with the relative strength of the central government, and in place, according to the distance of their inām villages from a well-garrisoned fort. From some of the tales in the family histories one has the impression that powerful families like the Jedhes or the Bāndalas were at times as little subject to outside control as mediaeval barons.

³⁹ Papers relating to … Mulshi Petha of the Haveli Taluka of the Poona Collectorate, Selections, n.s. cclxxiv, 1893, p. 2. The ‘mahalkurry's division’ of Maval Taluka (see note 17) was transferred to Haveli Taluka in 1866—1867.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ PD 45.1, p. 7—ta. muthekhore … gambhīrarāū māraṇe desamukha …deha 18.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Āmbavali, (mouje āmbavalī ta. muthem khorem pra. māvala—MIS XIII.147—1719), Bahulī (PD 31.10, p. 6 and MIS XVIII.48, taking bhāvalī, otherwise unidentifiable, as a variant spelling), Ābeg¯v and muravale (Uravaḍe?) (MIS XVI.56, p. 64). Āmbegāv is also mentioned as one of the villages acquired by Nana Phadnis (ASS III.184, p. 26 [in BISMQXXI. 3]).Google Scholar

⁴² The term Mose Maval is never found.

⁴³ The text of the Poona Gazetteer anglicizes the name as Musā, but on the map it is Moshi.

⁴⁴ Bālājī Pāsalakara in Śaka 1561 (1639) was the member of a court or majālasa (MIS XVIII.7, p. 18).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ ‘In the Mawuls were three persons with whom Sivajee constantly associated; their names were Yessjee Kunk, Tannajee Maloosray and Bajee Phasalkar. The last was Deshmookh of Moosay Khora’ (Duff, Grant, History of the Marathas, rev. edn (London, 1921), Vol. I, p. 103).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ bājīrāū pāsalakara va tānājī nāīka kaḍu desamukha ta. mosekhore … (MIS XVI.36—1707).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ PD 45.1, pp. 7–8.Google Scholar It is more than odd that in spite of all this detail Mose Khor is missing from List 2 which supposedly comes from the same document.

⁴⁸ Jośi, S. N., ‘pāsalakara gharāṇeṃ’, BISMQ VII.30, pp. 105–20,Google Scholarlekha I, pp. 107–10.Google ScholarThere is a brief history of the Pāsalakaras in SCS V.773, pp. 16–17 [in BISMQ XVI.I’].Google Scholar

⁴⁹ However, Jāmbali, Sāngarūn, Sonāpūr and the completely detached outlier of Āmbī are now part of Haveli Taluka, while Kātavaḍi is in a protuberance of Mulshi Taluka east of the Mutha. The rulers of Bhor State hoped at one time to recover Jāmbalī and Sonāpūr as part compensation for land lost beneath the reservoirs of Bhatghar and Khadakvasla. Cf. Ranade, and Joshi, , History of Bhor State, p. 83.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ MIS XV.270, 306, 308; XVI.33, 36, 37, 40, 56; XVII.2, p. 5; 7, p. 12; XVIII.7, p. 18; ASS IX.47–8 [in BISMQ XXV.1–2].

⁵¹ tape musekhore paragane … puṇeṃ (APS II.34, pp. 73–4 [in BISMQXVI.3]).Google Scholar

⁵² MIS XVIII.21 and 38.Google Scholar See also SCS II.281, pp. 275–9Google Scholar; ASS.I.139, p. 137Google Scholar [in BISMQ X.4] PD 31.62, 187.

⁵³ jamidāra bāra māvale va karyāti māvala (PD 31.185, p. 171–1689).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Fukazawa, , ‘Local Administration of Adilshahi Sultanate’, p. 42.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ pra.puṇepaikī deha 56; 36 ta. karyāta māvala (PD 45.1, p. 2).Google Scholar Also MIS XVIII.22, p. 43;Google ScholarPD 31.185, p. 172.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ ASS I.139–1695. Elsewhere one finds ka. māvala ta. khaḍakavāsale pa. puṇā (PD 31.21, p. 17—1654)Google Scholar as if Khadakavāsale, which always seems to have been the chief village of the district, had given its name to a sub-district. In Peshwa times there are signs of the modern name for the region taking over: mouje khaḍakavāsale ta. havelī karyāta māvala (ASS I.17, pp. 17–1734 [in BISMQ IX.2]).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Spelt also Gunjavani, Gunjvani etc.

⁵⁸ As Karyat Maval similarly covered the north approach to Simhagad, the two districts came under the same Havaldar in 1717 at least (PD 31.187, p. 176).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Devadi, and Ketakāvaḷe, (SCS I.26—1638),Google Scholar Hariścandri and Kāpuravahāḷa (BISMQ XXX.3–4.72, p. 52—1784).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ BISMQXXX.3–4, Ibid. Sāroḷe is actually an outlier. Other references to Khedebare villages are at ASS V.74, pp. 78–80 [in BISMQ XXIV.3];Google ScholarASS VII.32, pp. 32–8 [in BISMQXXVII.3–4]Google Scholar; SCS III.624–629, pp. 207–212; 633–5, pp. 214–17; SCS VII.31; BISMQXXX.3–4.134, p. 97; 191, p. 140.

⁶¹ Umbare is in Khedebare (PD 45.7, p. 57).Google Scholar Nidhān and Sāngavi Khurd, immediately west of the river, are Gunjan Maval villages (MIS XVII.7, p. 15).Google Scholar

⁶² MIS XVII.7, p. 13;Google ScholarASS V.70, pp. 75–6 [in BISMQ XXIV.3]Google ScholarPD 31.126; PD 45.1, p. 9.Google Scholar

⁶³ E.g. Kāmathaḍi and Umbare—villages of Purandhar Taluka that were completely surrounded by Bhor State lands before 1949 and are still anomalies within Bhor Taluka unless there has been a recent rationalization of boundaries. Bhor hoped in vain to recover them in 1909 (see note 49).

⁶⁴ Śivāpur was a new quarter of Kheḍ on the opposite side of the river, said to have been founded by Sivaji's, , mentor Kondadev, Dadaji: kasabā kheḍebāre tyā sthalī sivāpura peṭha vasavilī (Śivachatrapatīcī 91 kalamī bakhara, ed. Vakasakara, V. S. (Bombay, 1930), kalam 21, pp. 40–3).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Jośi, M. G., Konḍe deśamukha, BISMQ XXIV.2, pp. 11–12.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ MIS XVI.2; XVIII.4, 7; PD 31.69.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ MIS XVII.7, p. 12.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ MIS XVI.5, XVIII. 42.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ A grant of land in kasabe kheḍebāre and mouje āravī ta. kheḍebāre is officially notified to all the officials of subhā prānta māvale (ASS VII.31, p. 31 [in BISMQ XXVII.3–4]).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ PD 45.1, p. 8; MIS XV.306.Google Scholar

⁷¹ See also: SCS IV.747–56, pp. 108–14 [in BISMQ XIV.1 & 3];Google ScholarSCS V.946–50, 954, pp. 198–205, 209–10 [in BISMQ XXI.2].Google Scholar

⁷² MIS XVI.55, p. 60—1734.Google Scholar To be distinguished from Khāmagāv Māvaḷ (i.e. Karyat Maval) in the same valley but further downstream.

⁷³ MIS XVI.22, p. 38—1666.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ MIS XVI.27—1690.Google Scholar Torna was first taken by Sivaji in 1646 but seems to have been lost and regained an indeterminate number of times between then and the departure of Aurangzeb's armies in 1706.

⁷⁵ Hill forts normally were commanded by havaldars or killedars from outside the district. They fed their garrison from the land immediately surrounding the fort (the gherā killā) and were frequently in dispute with the neighbouring villages over boundaries and encroachments (cf. MIS XVI.40; XVII.1 18—both relating to Torna).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See Pavan Maval.

⁷⁷ MIS XVI.55 XX.266, p. 379—toranyākhāle śeṇavaḍī gāva kānadakhorācā āhe.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ It is hard to believe that both rivers were ever actually called Kanand. Probably both were referred to as ‘the Kanad Khor rivers’ by whoever supplied the cartographers with place-names. The nomenclature of these valleys seems to have defeated even the survey officers. In Papers relating to… Prachandgad Taluka, Selections, n.s. ccclxxxviii, the description (p. 2) and the map are both wrong in different ways.

⁷⁹ MIS XVI.5, 7, 22, 55.Google Scholar Vinjhar was somehow lost by Bhor State, perhaps going along with Simhagad, and still forms a prong of Haveli Taluka that reaches down to the river.

⁸⁰ MIS XVI.55, p. 61.Google Scholar

⁸¹ MIS XVI.6, 7, 51, 78.Google ScholarMāmale rāira was the Nizamshahi district (muāmala) of Rāirī, called Raygad after Sivaji had taken it and made it his capital in 1662 (Kolaba District Gazetteer, rev. edn (Bombay, 1964), p. 932). In relation to the mavals the name is used only in the Kanad Khor documents and once about Gunjan Maval (SCS III.624, p. 207–1627), but it is strange that it does not appear in Fukazawa's list of Muāmalas (‘Local Administration of Adilshahi Sultanate’, p. 43).Google Scholar

⁸² MIS XVI.38—1710.Google Scholar

⁸³ MIS XVI.21, 60.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ SCS V.947—1626 [in BISMQ, XXI.2].Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Although MIS XVII has the sub-title Murumakhoreṃ—Silimakara deśamukha, the name Murum Khor appears in only one late document (MIS XVII.2, p. 2—1796).Google Scholar

⁸⁶ ta. gunjana māvalmacr;a pra. (?) murūmadeva (MIS XVI.2, p. II);Google Scholarpa. murarhādeū (!) (MIS XVI.5—1616);Google Scholarpetā murumadeū tape gunjanamāvala (MIS XVII.4, p. 7).Google ScholarCf. also SCS III.624, p. 207—1627;Google ScholarSCS V.950, p. 203—1632 [in BISMQ XXI.2].Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Śivājīrājeṃ … murumadevācā ḍongara śake 1562… ghetalā (ASS 1. 120 [in BISMQ X.3]). In fact, it was not just a hill but already a fort—kilah murubadeva (APS I.39—1634). Elsewhere we hear that Rajgad was built on the sāhāmḍga parvata (SCS X.41, p. 54 [in BISMQ XXXIV.3–4]) but this name seems implausibly Sanskritic.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ MIS XVII.10, p. 22.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ See esp. MIS XVII.2.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ MIS XVII.7—1637.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Except Pāsali and Senavaḍi (see Kanad Khor).

⁹² Karnavaḍi and Singāpur actually lie on the seaward slope of the Ghats.

⁹³ But not Kātavadi and Kolavadi (see Kanad Khor).

⁹⁴ All the villages mentioned and many more can be found in the huge lists of MIS XVII.7 and 10, also 12, 39, 40. It is not worth giving a reference for each one.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ PD 45.1, p. 8.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Vāngaṇi, like Vinjhar, was also lost by Bhor and is now a southern prong of Haveli Taluka.

⁹⁷ Unless it refers to the area close to the Sivaganga bordering Khedebare.

⁹⁸ MIS XVII.21—1690.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ MIS XVII.22, 28, 29, 39. See also, on Gunjan Maval generally, SCS II.250–8, pp. 251–7; SCS IV.705, p. 57 [in BISMQ XIII.I].Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ So named on the I.S. survey maps, but see below.

¹⁰¹ ASS III.304, p. 59 [in BISMQ XVIII.3].Google Scholar In 1672 Harnas was important enough to be the site of a majālasa that met to settle a dispute about some villages downstream in Śiraval (MIS XX.54).

¹⁰² ASS III.304; MIS XV.277; XVII.I.Google Scholar This last source, which Rājavāḍe suggests is probably a late forgery anyway, also names kāmareṃ, but elsewhere (MIS XVII.7, p. 15; 10, pp. 27–9)Google Scholar the two villages of Kāmbare Budrukh and Khurd are clearly included in Gunjan Maval.

¹⁰³ See Kanad Khor and note 78. Col. Godfrey (Papers relating to … Prachandgad, p. 2—see note 78) calls these respectively Keḷad Khor and Pāsali Khor. No doubt these are the local names but I have not found them in the documents.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ MIS XV. 306; XVI.61. PD 45.1, p. 9, spells the name ḍohara and gives Velavand Khor 32 Villages.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ MIS XV.277.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ MIS XVI.62.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ yasavantarāū aṭagāvakara khota ta. sivatarakhore (MIS XVI.2, p. 11);Google Scholaryasauantarāu āṭhagāṭhe… (MIS XVI.5).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Kolaba Gazetteer, p. 963.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ According to Rājavāḍe (MIS IV, p. 75)Google Scholar the Citragupta bakhara says that śivatara khoreṃ was controlled by Babaji Kondadev. I have not been able to pursue this reference.

¹¹⁰ mouje bholāuaṃe ta. hiraḍasa māvala najīka kasabe bhora (BISMQ VII.30, ‘pāsalakara gharāṃeṃ’, lekha 5, p. 116).Google Scholar

¹¹¹ This and other villages in Hiradas Maval not separately referenced can be found in Khare, G. H. and Jośi, N. K., ‘bāndala gharāncyācīeka takarīra’, BISMQ XLIX, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar This long document, part of which consists of a distribution of villages made to members of the Bāndala family in 1678, is the only major source of information published on Hiradash Maval. An unpublished document in the B.I.S.M. (S. G. Jośi daptar, rumal 9/6) gives a few extra village names. Copies of this and of all other unpublished B.I.S.M. documents mentioned in this paper have been made available to me by MrSmith, G. J.. whose Ph.D. thesis, provisionally entitled ‘Law and Justice in Maharashtra: 1750–1850’, is nearing completion.Google Scholar

¹¹² Unfortunately there are two Sāngavis in Hiradas Maval. The Gazetteer lists five villages called Sāngavi in Bhor Taluka and fails to locate them adequately. Sāngavi Budrukh and Sāngavi Khurd are both in Gunjan Maval, respectively five miles west and one mile south of Nasarāpur. Sāngavi Velvandakhore cannot possibly be 5–6 miles S.W. of Bhor and 24 miles by road at the same time, as described in the Gazetteer. This must be the Sāngavi shown on maps three miles S.E. of Bhutonde and twelve W. by N. of Bhor, which would be about 24 by road. There remain, on the map, one Sangavi six miles S.W. of Bhor and another two miles N.E. These must be the ones attributed to Hirdas Maval in the Gazetteer.

¹¹³ MIS XVI.2, p. II;Google ScholarSCS V.946 [in BISMQ XXI.2].Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Rāyari was Hiradas Maval's most easterly village south of the Nira, on the stream that flows due north from Rairesvar and not to be confused with Rāirī (see note 81).

¹¹⁵ SCS V.774, p. 18—1741 [in BISMQ XVI.3].Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ MIS XV.306. For some reason PD 45.I has no further mention of Hiradas Maval.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ APS I.34, 36, 40, 44 [in BISMQ XII.4 & XIII.2].Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ MIS XVI.I, p. 3.Google Scholar The text has ubhavalibuī but this must be a misreading. Elsewhere the spelling variants utrauli, utravalī, utarolī, utrolī can all be found.

¹¹⁹ Rohid Khor is exceptionally well documented. See esp. Jośi, S. G., ‘khopaḍe deśamukha’, BISMQ VIII.1–2, pp. 94–7;Google ScholarAPS I.vii, ‘kārī jedhe’, 34–47, pp. 38–55 [in BISMQ XII.4 & XIII.2]; APS II.v, ‘ambāḍe khopaḍe’, 20–28, pp. 23–34 [in BISMQ XV.3–4]; SCS II.xi, ‘kāri jedhe deśamukha’, 198–239, pp. 204–40; SCS II.xiv, ‘pānavahāla kondhālakara’, 249, pp. 250–1; SCS II.xxii, ‘kārī muḷave’, 336–8, pp. 324–33 SCS V.iii, ‘ambāḍe khopaḍe’, 760–2, pp. 4–5 [in BISMQ XV.4];Google ScholarSCS XI.64–9, pp. 36–40 [in BISMQ XXXVIII]; MIS XV.266–324, 325–65; XVII.43–4 XX.264–5. There are major village lists at SCS II.218 and MIS XV.271, 279, 307.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ MIS XV.295, 308, 343, 356 etc.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Exceptionally APS II.22, p. 27Google Scholar has tape utravalī kite rohiḍā. Cf. APS I.44—tapah bhor kilah rohirah.

¹²² MIS XX.264.Google Scholar

¹²³ MIS XV.307, p. 325.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Fukazawa, ‘Local Administration of Adilshahi Sultanate’, p. 43, lists Bhor and Utrauli as parganas under Adilshahi rule, but I have found this word used only once and of the larger unit: paragaṇe kile rohiḍā (APS II.27–1665). However, since both Bhor and Utrauli are occasionally called tape (see note 121) I imagine that Fukazawa was generalizing from his conclusion that Tappa was normally synonymous with Pargana (Ibid., p. 41).

¹²⁵ MIS XV.340–1678; XX.264–1717.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ MIS XV.306.Google Scholar But see note 145 for a discrepancy.

¹²⁷ PD45.1, p. 3.Google Scholar Documents relating to Śiraval can be found in SCS I.9, 10, 21, 49, 55;Google ScholarSCS II.x, ‘śiravaḷa deśapānḍe’, 186–97, pp. 198–204;Google ScholarMIS XX.53–62.

¹²⁸ Ranade, and Joshi, , History of Bhor State, p. 20.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ The rest of Khandala Mahal had previously been the Mahalkari's division of Wai (Papers relating to the revision survey settlement of 92 government villages of the Wai Taluka of the Satara Collectorale, Selections, n.s. cclxx, 1893, p. I).Google Scholar

¹³⁰ The Satara Gazetteer spells it Valki. On the Grāmakośa map it appears as varḍakīnadī.

¹³¹ MIS XV.335.Google Scholar

¹³² A document of 1784 in the B.I.S.M. (Ghadani, rumal 461/5) was witnessed by: ānandarāva sajyāśiva jedhe mokadama mouje velanga ta. jora khore pra. vāī. Velang is 1½ miles west of Dhom.

¹³³ MIS XX.175, p. 230.Google ScholarFor samata see Fukazawa, ‘Local Administration of Adilshahi Sultanate’, p. 42.Google ScholarMurhe is a Marathi word meaning ‘mist’ and by extension ‘the misty part’, the top of the Ghats where the clouds hang for weeks during the monsoon. It is the third item of Grant Duff's ‘Mawuls, Khoras and Mooras’.

¹³⁴ MIS XX.176, pp. 246–50.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ ASS IX.78, p. 57—1763Google Scholar [in BISMQ XLVI]. Subhā Jāvali was Sivaji's creation (PD 45.1, p. 2), centred on the land that he seized from the Mores of Jāvali, but to talk of subhā prānta jāvalī in 1763 is probably a piece of grandiloquence on the part of the now much diminished kingdom of Satara. Javial or Jaoli remains the name of a taluka of Satara District, although the village from which it takes its name is now in Mahabaleshvar Mahal.

¹³⁶ ASS III.184, p. 266 [in BISMQ XXI.3].Google Scholar

¹³⁷ See above p. 396.

¹³⁸ MIS XVIII.3—1608; 6, p. 17–1638; 44, p. 64–1706.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ MIS XVIII.47—1710.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ MIS XVI.51.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ SCS V.950, p. 201—1632 [in BISMQ XXI.2].Google Scholar

¹⁴² Ibid; MIS XVIII.3, p. 2—1608.

¹⁴³ Assuming PD 31.24 to be authentic.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ MIS XVIII.8, p. 21―1642.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ ASS I.139, p. 137—1695 [in BISMQ X.4]; MIS XVIII.37–1696.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ SCS II.191, p. 200—1704.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ SCS V.996, p. 285–1699 [in BISMQ XXII.3–4]; BISMQ XXVII.1–2, 37, p. 237—1762; MIS XVIII.53–1732.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ BISMQ VIII.3, p. 124.Google Scholar