The Indian Analyst
 

North Indian Inscriptions

 

 

Contents

Introduction

Contents

Preface

List of Plates

Abbreviations

Additions and Corrections

Images

Introduction

Political History

Administration

Social History

Religious History

Literary History

Gupta Era

Krita Era

Texts and Translations

The Gupta Inscriptions

Index

Other South-Indian Inscriptions 

Volume 1

Volume 2

Volume 3

Vol. 4 - 8

Volume 9

Volume 10

Volume 11

Volume 12

Volume 13

Volume 14

Volume 15

Volume 16

Volume 17

Volume 18

Volume 19

Volume 20

Volume 22
Part 1

Volume 22
Part 2

Volume 23

Volume 24

Volume 26

Volume 27

Tiruvarur

Darasuram

Konerirajapuram

Tanjavur

Annual Reports 1935-1944

Annual Reports 1945- 1947

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 2, Part 2

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 7, Part 3

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 1

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 2

Epigraphica Indica

Epigraphia Indica Volume 3

Epigraphia
Indica Volume 4

Epigraphia Indica Volume 6

Epigraphia Indica Volume 7

Epigraphia Indica Volume 8

Epigraphia Indica Volume 27

Epigraphia Indica Volume 29

Epigraphia Indica Volume 30

Epigraphia Indica Volume 31

Epigraphia Indica Volume 32

Paramaras Volume 7, Part 2

Śilāhāras Volume 6, Part 2

Vākāṭakas Volume 5

Early Gupta Inscriptions

Archaeological Links

Archaeological-Survey of India

Pudukkottai

THE KṚITA ERA

gata-vatsara-śataiḥ dvādaśaiś=cha shaṭviṁśa-pūrvakaiḥ,1 that is, “with 1226 years elapsed from the Mālava lord (or lords)”. This corresponds to a Gwalior inscription dated ēkādaśasv=atītēshu saṁvatsara-śatēshu cha ēkōnapañchāśati cha gatēshv=advē(bdē)shu Vikramāt // Pañchāśē ch=Āśvinē māsē kṛishṇa-pakshē. . . .aṁkatō=pi 1150 // Āśvina-bahula-paṁchamyāṁ,2 “When eleven hundred years had elapsed, and when (also) forty-nine years had gone by, since Vikrama, . . . . again in figures, in 1150 etc. etc.” This shows that the years were counted since the passing away of Vikrama. Similarly, Mālavēśa-gata-vatsara-śataiḥ of the Mēnālgaḍh record must be interpreted to mean “with 1226 years gone by since the Mālava lord.” On the other hand, the Kaṇaswā inscription has the following: saṁvatsara-śatair=yātaiḥ sa-paṁchanavaty-arggalaiḥ saptabhir= mMālavēśānāṁ, “when seven hundred and ninety-five years of the Mālava lords had gone by.”3 This indicates that the years belonged to the era started and used by the Mālava lords and not commencing with the demise of the Mālava lord as the Mēnālgaḍh inscription clearly implies. The tradition referred to in the Kaṇaswā record is supported by the Mandasōr stone inscription4 of Prabhākara, which, in verse 13 has: “When, in course (of time), there had elapsed a number of years, viȥ. five centuries increased by eight multiplied by three (i.e., 524), indicative of the fame of Mālava lineage, . . . .” This clearly shows that the year 524 pertained to the era originated by some Mālava dynasty. This was also the case with the Vikrama era.
We have pointed out that according to one tradition this era was founded to commemorate the passing away of Vikrama. But there was also another tradition according to which the era was founded by Vikrama or Vikramāditya himself. Thus, we have the copper-plate grants of the Chaulukya kings, Bhīmadēva and Tribhuvanapāladēva, containing various dates described as Śrīmad--Vikramādityōtpādita-saṁvatsara.5 As these two traditions are in conflict with each other and are found current both in connection with Mālava-kāla and Vikrama-kāla, the conclusion is irresistible that the real origin of the Saṁvat era has to be sought for elsewhere. Nay, there is a third tradition in regard to the Mālava era which gives a clue to its genuine origin. Two of the inscriptions bearing on this point were included in the first edition of this volume and have already been noticed by Kielhorn. They both come from Mandasōr.6 Of these, the earlier one contains two dates, the first of which is expressed in the words: Mālavānām gaṇa-sthityā yātē śata-chatushṭayē tri-navaty-adhikē=bdānām . . . . Though the credit of discovering the inscriptions certainly goes to Fleet, the late P. Peterson was the first to publish this date and demonstrate that it was a years of the Saṁvat era. The latter translates it as follows: “when four hundred and ninety-three years from the establishment (in the country?) of the tribes of Mālavas had passed away.”7 Fleet’s rendering of the verse is as follows: “when, by (the reckoning from) the tribal constitution of the Mālavas, four centuries of years, increased by ninetythree had elapsed . . . .”8 Soon thereafter, another inscription from Mandasōr was discovered by Fleet and published, giving the date in the words:

       Pañchasu śatēshu śaradāṁ yātēshv=ēkānna-navati-sahitēshu / Mālava-gaṇa-sthiti-vaśāt. . . . The last phrase Fleet translated as “from (the establishment of ) the supremacy of the tribal constitution of the Mālavas”9, adding in a footnote: “but it is very difficult to find a really satisfactory meaning” for the word vaśāt in the passage. Fleet, no doubt, recognised the difficulty, but was
_______________________________________________________________

1 D. R. Bhandarkar: A List of the Inscriptions of Northern India, No. 346.
2 Ind. Ant., Vol. XV, p. 41, verses 107-08.
3 Ibid., Vol. XIX, p. 59.
4 D. R. Bhandarkar, A List of the Inscriptions of Northern India, No. 7.
5 Ibid., Nos. 438, 451, 481, 486, 490, 526, 527 and 534.
6 CII., Vol. III, 1888, Nos. 18 and 35.
7 JBBRAS., Vol. XVI, p. 381.
8 Ind. Ant., Vol. XV, p. 201; CII., Vol. III, 1888, p. 87.
9 Ind. Ant., Vol. XV, p. 228; CII., Vol. III, p. 158.