|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA merit of Mahārāja Bappadatti, who may have been the king’s father.[1] The order is communicated to the king’s Āyuktakas, Viniyuktakas, Chāṭas, Bhaṭas, Kuṭumbins, Mahattaras and Drāṅgikas. The records is dated in the Āśvayuja saṁvatsara and in the 73rd year (expressed in words) since the foundation of the kingdom (rājya-pratipatti). The Dūtaka was Yajñadēva and the scribe, Sāmbabhaṭa. After the mention of these, the record contains the sign-manuals of Mahārāja Bhētti and Bhaṭṭivaḍa, without specification of the latter’s rank. Ordinarily a record close with sign-manual of the reigning king, but here we have the additional statement that at the camp of Tumbatālī, the Dūtaka Karkabhaṭa was appointed by the Sāmanta Bhartṛivaḍḍa. Again, the last line which seems to have been added at a later date records the consent of the Sāmanta Bhartṛipadra and mentions another Dūtaka, viz., Sāmanta Bhavvihita. The inscription thus records the consent of two princes Mahārāja Bhētti and Sāmanta Bhartṛipadra and mentions three Dūtakas, Yajñadēva, Karkabhaṭa and Bhavvihita. The first of these was appointed by Mahārāja Bhētti, the second by Sāmanta Bhartṛivaḍḍa, and the third by Sāmanta Bhartṛipadra. The need for appointing three Dūtakas is not clear. Perhaps Bhaṭṭivaḍa, Bhartṛivaḍḍa and Bhartṛipadra are identical, the first two being Prakritised forms of the third name which is in Sanskrit. If this conjecture is correct, it would seem that Mahārāja Bhētti first appointed his Dūtaka Yajñadatta as the Executor of the grant. As the donated village lay in the territory of his Sāmanta, the latter’s sign-manual also was added at the end. The Sāmanta appointed his own Dūtaka while camping at Tumbatālī. The grant seems to have remained unexecuted for some time. Therefore, the consent of the Sāmanta was again recorded and the name of another Dūtaka was mentioned at the end. This seems to be the only plausible explanation of the intriguing mention of two Sāmantas and three Dūtakas in the present inscription.
Let us next turn to the date of the record. M. M. Ojha referred the date 73 of the present inscription to the Harsha era and took it as equivalent to 679 A. C.[2] Very few dates of the Harsha era contain such particulars as the month, fortnight, tithi and week-day or nakshatra. The present inscription also does not contain such details as would have enabled us to calculate its date. There is, however, one important datum which affords some basis for verification. The seventy-third year when the grant was made is named Āśvayuja-saṁvatsara. This is evidently a year of the twelve-year cycle of Jupiter. If the year 73 was of the Harsha era, it would correspond to 679-80 A. C. But the year of Jupiter’s twelve-year cycle corresponding to 679-80 A. C. was Jyēshṭha, not Āśvayuja as required. So the date does not appear to be of the Harsha era. There is one other statement in the present grant which also indicates that the year was not of the Harsha era. The 73rd year when the grant was made is said to have been reckoned from ‘ the acquisition of the kingdom (rājya-pratipatti) ’. This is not likely to be a regnal year of Mahārāja Bhētti himself ; for a reign of such length is improbable, though not altogether impossible. The date is evidently of some era which marked the foundation of the kingdom by an ancestor of Bhētti whose name unfortunately has not been recorded. His descendants seem to have continued the reckoning started by him and dated their records according to it. Judging by the palæography of the present record, the era to which the year 73 refers must have originated some time in the seventh century A. C. The question, therefore, arises, ‘ Have we any evidence of such an era having been current in Rajputana in that age ?’ In this connection we may notice the following two inscriptions of the Bhāṭika era, to which Dr. R. C. Majumdar has recently drawn our attention :─ 1 Jaisalmer Vishṇu temple inscription[3]─Vikrama Saṁvat 1494 =Bhāṭika Saṁvat 812, Māgha śu. di. 6, Śukravāra, Aśvinī nakshatra. _____________________________________________________
[1] [See p. 7 below.─ Ed.]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|
