|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA This date regularly corresponds to Friday, the 31st January 1438 A. C., when the tithi Māgha śū. di. 6 ended 15 h. 50 m. and the nakshatra Aśvinī, 7 h. 30 m. after mean sunrise. This date shows that the epoch of the Bhāṭika era is 624-25 A. C. 2 Jaisalmer Śiva temple inscription[1]─Vikrama Saṁvat 1673 =Śaka Saṁvat 1538 =Bhāṭika Saṁvat 993, with the Uttarāyaṇa occurring in Mārgaśīrsha. This date also is perfectly regular ; for in 1616 A.C., corresponding to V.S. 1673, the Uttarāyaṇa occurred on the amāvāsyā of the amānta Mārgaśīrsha, the corresponding Christian date being the 28th December 1616 A.C. This date shows that the epoch of the Bhāṭika era is 623-24 A.C. There is thus the difference of one year between the two epochs. The discrepancy can be reconciled by supposing that the latter date is recorded in a current year, and the former, in an expired year. There two dates show that the Bhāṭika era was started in 624-25 A.C., and that it continued in use in Rajputana till the 17th century A.C. Let us next see whether the year 73 of the Dhulēv plate refers to this Bhāṭika era. If the year was of this era, the Āśvayuja saṁvatsara must have been current in the neighbourhood of (623+73=) 696 A.C. And it is noteworthy that the year Āśvayuja was actually current in 695 A.C. according to the mean-sign system. There is still a difference of one year to be accounted for ; but it may be due to some confusion regarding current and expired years such as is noticed occasionally in the dates of other eras also.[2]
It seems probable, therefore, that the Dhulēv copper-plate grant is dated in the Bhāṭika era. Its name Bhāṭika can also be easily accounted for. If it was started by an ancestor of Bhētti, as seems probable, he may have borne a similar name[3] which, in the course of seven or eight centuries, may have been changed to Bhāṭika. It is not surprising that the name was not mentioned in connection with its early dates, for the same is noticed in the case of several other eras also.[4] The dates of some other inscriptions found in Rajputana and the adjoining country such as the Kot (former Bharatpur State) inscription (year 48), the Tasa-i (former Alwar State) inscription (year 182) and the Udaipur Museum inscription (year 207), which are usually referred to the Harsha era,[5] may also be of the Bhāṭika era. These inscriptions have been only briefly noticed, and their facsimiles have not been published. It is not, therefore, known whether any of them contain any date useful for verification. Besides, there is no definite evidence that the Harsha era spread to Rajputana.[6] An era generally spreads with the extension of political power, but we have no literary, epigraphic or other evidence indicating that Harsha’s suzerainty or political influence extended to Rajputana and the neighbouring countries.[7] On the other hand, we have the definite statements in the two inscriptions at Jaisalmer as well as some verifiable date in the present inscription which clearly show that the Bhāṭika era was started on Mēwāḍ in the first quarter of the seventh century A.C. If the aforementioned records from the former Bharatpur ___________________________________________________
[1] Ibid., No. 962.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|
