North Indian Inscriptions

THE KṚITA ERA

likely to arise that as Kṛita is here in opposition to varsha or vatsara, the former may, after all, be an adjective of the latter. And, as a matter of fact, there was a time when we took the word Kṛita as an adjective of varsha or vatsara and propounded the theory that kṛita here meant ‘made’ or ‘artificial’ and referred to an era invented by the people or astronomers for the purpose of calculating dates.¹ There was, however, no evidence in support of it, and there was nothing in this suggestion which could inherently command acceptance. But this theory which we once propounded is now controverted by the Yūpa pillar inscriptions found at Baḍvā² and Barṇālā.³ There, the word Kṛitēhi occurs alone and by itself without being preceded or followed by varsha or vatsara. This shows without even the least shadow of a doubt that Kṛitēhi stands for Kṛitaiḥ and means Kṛitaiḥ (gataiḥ) “When the Kṛita years (had elapsed).” In other words, Kṛita by itself denotes the Kṛita year, and the Mandasōr inscription of Naravarman (No. 14 below) was correct in calling the years 461 (passed) of its date as Kṛita, which was, in fact, the designation (saṁjñā) of these years. Things were, however, changing soon after Kṛita 480, the date of the Gaṅgdhār inscription. With the Kṛita year, the name Mālava came to be associated in one form or another. At first, both the names were in juxtaposition with each other. Thus, in the Mandasōr inscription of 461, we find Mālava-gaṇ-āmnāta and Kṛita-saṁjñita associated with this year. This point we have already dilated upon and need not, therefore, engage our attention here. The Nagarī inscription which was first brought to light in December 1915 sets forth the date as follows: Kṛitēshu chaturshu varsha-śatēshv=ēkāśīty=uttarēshv=asyāṁ Mālava-pūrvvāyāṁ [400] 80 1 Kārttika-śukla-pañchamyāṁ.⁴ The first portion of the date speaks of four hundred and eighty-one Kṛita years having passed. There can, thus, be no doubt that this 481 is a year of the Vikrama era. The second portion of the date may be rendered as follows: “when the detailed specification (Of the date) according to the Mālavas was this, namely, 481, on the 5th day of the bright half of Kārttika.” We have elsewhere pointed out⁵ that the word pūrvvā has a specific sense of ‘detailed description or specification’ and is used in connection with the setting forth of dates.

>

The Bijayagaḍh inscription of Vishṇuvardhana, e.g., has Kṛitēshu chaturshu varsha-śatēshv=ashṭāviṁśēshu 400 20 8 Phālguna-bahulasya pañchadaśyām=ētasyām=pūrvvāyāṁ, “when four centuries of Kṛita years increased by twenty eight, i.e. 428 (had passed), on the 15th of the dark half of Phālguna, when this was the specification (of the date),” If we compare ētasyām=pūrvvāyāṁ of this epigraph with the corresponding Mālava-pūrvvāyām of the Nagarī record we cannot help thinking that the Mālavas had a different mode of reckoning, possessed of one or two peculiarities of its own. As pointed out above, on the authority of Kielhorn, while some years of the Vikrama era pertain to the Kārttikādi, some others pertain to the Chaittrādi, mode of reckoning; and in the earlier times, the pūrṇimānta scheme of lunar months was more commonly followed than the amānta. And, strange to say, the phrase Mālava-pūrvvā or Mālavānāṁ gaṇa-sthiti we find mentioned only in connection with the months of Āśvina, Kārttika and Pausha to the beginning of Vasanta season, that is, the month of Chaitra, when somehow a new year has to commence or an old one to end. No reasonable doubt can, therefore, be entertained as to the Mālavas having a specific mode of their own for the computation of the years. What characteristics it exactly combined it is difficult to determine on the scanty evidence at our disposal at present. This much may be taken as certain, that not only the tithis but also the years were affected thereby. We can, therefore, safely reiterate that Mālavānāṁ gaṇa-sthityā or Mālava-gaṇa-sthiti-vasat must
_________________________________________________________________

¹ Ind. Ant., Vol. XLII, p. 163.
² Ep. Ind., Vol. XXIII, pp. 42 ff.
³ Ibid., Vol. XXVI, pp. 118 ff.
⁴ D. R. Bhandarkar, A List of the Inscriptions of Northern India, etc., No. 5.
⁵ NIA., Vol. I, pp. 142-43.