North Indian Inscriptions

VERAWAL IMAGE INSCRIPTION.

Jasadêva and Jasapâla, and other (members of the family),¹ at Dêvapattana (i.e. Śômanâthadêvapattana), caused to be made for purposes of worship an image of the holy Gôvardhana─ the image below which the inscription is engraved— for their and their ancestors’ spiritual welfare ; and that this image was carved by the artizan Râghava, the son of the artizan Vîṁjhadêva.

......The only point of interest in this inscription is the date in line 1,— śrîmad- Valabhî-sa[ṁ]vat 927 varshê Phâlguna-śudi 2 Sômê─ i.e. ‘on Monday, the 2nd of the bright half of Phâlguna, in the year 927 of the era of the famous Valabhî.’ This date has been already fully discussed by Dr. Fleet, in his Gupta Inscriptions, Introduction, pp. 90-93. The reading of it, which was adopted by Dr. Fleet, is now by the paper estampage proved to be the true reading, and, with this reading, the European equivalent of the date undoubtedly is, as Dr. Fleet gave it, Monday, the19th February, A. D. 1246. The only difficulty presented by this equivalent is, that Monday, the 19th February, A. D. 1246, falls in Śaka-Saṁvat 1167 expired (= Vikrama-Saṁvat 1302 expired), and that thus there is here a difference of only 240 years between the Valabhî year (927) and the corresponding expired Śaka year (1167), while in the case of some other Gupta[-Valabhî] dates this difference amounts to 241 years. To explain this discrepancy, it might be said that the years of those other Gupta[-Valabhî] dates are expired years, and that the writer of this date, exceptionally, quoted a current year ; and such an explanation would no doubt accord well with the practice of other eras. Yet, in the present instance, I would rather suggest a different explanation. I find it somewhat difficult to believe that in the 13th century A.D. the people of Kâṭhiâwâḍ should have possessed a true knowledge of the exact of the original Gupta era. The era then in common use among them was the Vikrama era, and what men knew or believed was, that Valabhî had been destroyed 375 years after the commencement of the Vikrama era, and that an era had once been in use which dated from that event. Now the meaning of the traditional verse² about the destruction of Valabhî having taken place 375 years after Vikrama can in my opinion only have been this, that, to convert a Vikrama year into the corresponding Valabhî year, it was necessary to deduct 375 from the Vikrama year. This I believe to have actually been done in the date of the Vêrâwal stone inscription of Arjunadêva,³ where the Valabhî year 945 is quoted by the side of the Vikrama year 1320 ; and this I believe to have been done also in the present date. In other words, I believe that the year of this date is really Vikrama-Saṁvat 1302 expired (and must be treated as such for the purpose of calculation), and that the writer, desirous of quoting the obsolete era, attained his purpose by putting down in the date the year Valabhî-Saṁvat 1302-375=927.⁴

TEXT.⁵

1 Ôṁ⁶ ll Śrîmad-Valabhî-sa[ṁ]vat 927 varshê Phâlguna-śudi 2 Sômê⁷ || Ady=êha śrî-Dêvapattanê
__________________________________________________________________________________________

......¹ Or the meaning may be, that the image was caused to be made by the śrêṭhinî Môḍhî, the wife of Mûlajôga ; by Shêvaḍa, the wife of Jôjâ, a son of the former ; and by the sons of Jôjâ and Shêvaḍa, and other (members of the family).
......² See Professor Peterson’s Third Report, p. 4, and App. p. 285, v. 102 ; also Mêrutuṅga’s Prabandha- chintâmaṇi, p. 279 :—
Paṇasayarî vâsâiṁ tinni sayâiṁ aïkkamêûṇa |
Vikkama-kâlâu taô Valahî-bhaṅgô samuppannô ||
......³ See Ind. Ant. Vol. XIX. p. 180, No. 129.
......⁴ I should perhaps state here that the above remarks, which I see no reason to modify, were written and sent to Bombay to be printed in June 1890, before the publication of Dr. Fleet’s valuable paper on the Gupta- Valabhî era in Ind. Ant. Vol. XX. p. 376 ff. For all practical purposes my views entirely agree with those of Dr. Fleet.
......⁵ From a paper estampage, supplied to me by Dr. Fleet.
......⁶ Expressed by a symbol.
......⁷ Originally Saumê was engraved, the vowel au being written by one line before, one line after, and one line above the sign for s ; but the superscript line, which turns ô into au, has clearly been struct out.