|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
THE KṚITA ERA seven miles north of Chittōrgaḍh in the former Udaipur State, Rājasthān. We will consider this record in detail later on. For the present, we shall only note that it is dated Kṛita 481.1 Others were discovered at Baḍvā in the former Kōṭāh State, Rājasthān.2 They are engraved on three separate Yūpa pillars and bear one and the same date, namely, Kṛitēhi 200 90 5 Phālguna-śuklasya pañchē di.3 This has been translated as follows by Altekar: “On the fifth day of the bright half of Phālguna (of the year) 295 by Kṛita (years).” The meaning of the phraseology “(the year) 295 by Kṛita (years)” is not at all clear to us and, we are afraid, it may not be clear to anybody. It had better be rendered as follows: “On the fifth day of the bright half of Phālguna when 295 Kṛita years (had passed away).” On this day the Yūpa pillars were set up by the three brothers Balavarddhana, Sōmadēva and Bālasiṁha. They were the three sons, no doubt, of Bala, but are themselves styled Maukharis and Mahāsēnāpatis as correctly pointed out by N. P. Chakravarti.4 The Maukharis thus pertained to a class of nobility or feudal lords called Sēnāpati such as those mentioned in the Nāgārjunikoṇḍa inscriptions of the southern Ikshvāku rulers5 and flourishing in the south-eastern part of Rājputānā. To say, therefore, that “Sēnāpati, the title by which Pushyamitra, the founder of the Śuṅga dynasty, was known even to posterity, is a humbler title than the one given to Bala in our records”, and that “Bala, therefore, may well have been more than a general”6 is an assumption, pure and simple, without any foundation in fact, and it is not clear how the statement was allowed to stand as it is, by the Editor, though he corrected the translation which altered the sense completely. Two more inscriptions have been found at Barṇālā in the former Jaipur State, where Kṛita has been mentioned as the name of an era. They were discovered by the late Rai Bahadur Daya Ram Sahni, but were edited by Altekar in the Epigraphia Indica, Volume XXVI, pp. 118 and ff, They are also Yūpa pillar inscriptions. The earlier is dated Kṛitēhi 200 80 4 Chaitra- śukla-pakshasya paṁchadaśī and is translated thus by him: “The full-moon day of (the month of) Chaitra of the year 284 by the Kṛita (reckoning).” The latter is dated Kṛitēhi 300 30 5 Jyēshṭha-śuddhasya paṁchadaśī and is translated by Altekar thus: “The fifteenth day of the bright fort-night of (the month of ) Jyēshṭha of the year 335 by the Kṛita (reckoning).”7 “The year 284 or 335 of the Kṛita (reckoning)” conveys no sense especially in consequence of the use of the term Kṛitēhi, which is in the plural and in the instrumental. Here also was expected some constructive criticism from the Editor of the Epigraphia Indica. But this has somehow escaped his attention, important though it is. It is best to translate the expression by “when 284 or 335 Kṛita years (had passed by).” But the earliest of these epigraphs was the one found at Nāndsā8 in the former Udaipur State and is dated Kṛita 282.
All the inscriptions ranging between 282 and 480, referred to above, record years
which are called simply Kṛita and do not make the slightest mention of Mālava or Mālavas. These two points are of great importance. The first is that these years are in no way connected with Mālava, whatever that may mean. The second point is that the years are by themselves called Kṛita and are nowhere spoken of as belonging to any era. It is true that we have
such expressions as Kṛitayōr=dvayōr=vvarsha-śatayōr=dvyaśītayōḥ 200 80 2, Kṛitēshu chaturshu
varsha-śatēshv=ashṭāviṁśēshu 400 20 8, Yātēshu chaturshu Kṛitēshu śatēshu saumyēshv=ashṭāśīta-
sōttara-padēshv=iha vatsarēshu, and so on and so forth. In such expressions, the suspicion is 1 D. R. Bhandarkar, A List of the Inscriptions of Northern India, etc., No. 5.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|