The Indian Analyst

South Indian Inscriptions







List of Plates

Additions and Corrections



A. S. Altekar

P. Banerjee

Late Dr. N. K. Bhattasali

Late Dr. N. P. Chakravarti

B. CH. Chhabra

A. H. Dani

P. B. Desai

M. G. Dikshit

R. N. Gurav

S. L. Katare

V. V., Mirashi

K. V. Subrahmanya Aiyar

R. Subrahmanyam

T. N. Subramaniam and K. A. Nilakanta Sastri

M. Venkataramayya

Akshaya Keerty Vyas

D. C. Sircar

H. K. Narasimhaswami

Sant Lal Katare



Other South-Indian Inscriptions 

Volume 1

Volume 2

Volume 3

Vol. 4 - 8

Volume 9

Volume 10

Volume 11

Volume 12

Volume 13

Volume 14

Volume 15

Volume 16

Volume 17

Volume 18

Volume 19

Volume 20

Volume 22
Part 1

Volume 22
Part 2

Volume 23

Volume 24

Volume 26

Volume 27





Annual Reports 1935-1944

Annual Reports 1945- 1947

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 2, Part 2

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 7, Part 3

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 1

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 2

Epigraphica Indica

Epigraphia Indica Volume 3

Indica Volume 4

Epigraphia Indica Volume 6

Epigraphia Indica Volume 7

Epigraphia Indica Volume 8

Epigraphia Indica Volume 27

Epigraphia Indica Volume 29

Epigraphia Indica Volume 30

Epigraphia Indica Volume 31

Epigraphia Indica Volume 32

Paramaras Volume 7, Part 2

Śilāhāras Volume 6, Part 2

Vākāṭakas Volume 5

Early Gupta Inscriptions

Archaeological Links

Archaeological-Survey of India






Professor V. V. Mirashi has edited the above inscription in the foregoing pages. We find it difficult to agree with many of the Professor’s suggestions based on the evidence of the record as interpreted by him. In the present note we are inclined to examine primarily a group of five suggestions offered by Prof. Mirashi in this connection.

The first of these suggestions is that the era to which the date of the Dhulēv plate, viz., year 73, has to be referred “ marked the foundation of the kingdom by an ancestor of Bhētti ” who issued the charter. According to the second suggestion, which is based on the first, the said ancestor of the issuer of the plate was the latter’s grandfather who also bore the name Bhētti. The third suggestions, based on the second is that Bhāṭika, the name of an era, the epoch of which falls in 623-24 or 624-25 A. C. and to which the Professor is inclined to refer the year 73 of the inscription under review, is a later modification of the name of Bhētti who was the grandfather of the issuer of the Dhulēv plate and founded the era in question. According to the fourth suggestion, which seeks to justify the foundation of an era as laid down in the third, the dynasty, to which the founder of the Bhāṭika era and his grandson who issued the Dhulēv plate belonged, ruled over “ a great empire flourishing in Rajputana and the neighboring territory in the seventh century A. C.” The fifth suggestion, apparently meant to defend the fourth, is that Rājasthān was outside the sphere of influence of the great Harshavardhana (606-47 A.C.), and therefore the era used in the Dhulēv plate cannot be the Harsha era of 606 A. D.

In our opinion, the first of the above group of five suggestions, which is really the basis of the remaining four, rests on a misunderstanding of the evidence of the Dhulēv plate. Consequently the other suggestions, based as they are on a shaky foundation, are even more unjustified. The date portion of the Dhulēv plate in line 5 of the inscription reads ; rājya-pratimattā-vashaiḥ tṛisaptatibhiḥ Aśvayuja-saṁvvatsarēḥ which has been amended by Prof. Mirashi as rājya-pratipattivarshē trisaptatitamē Āśvayuja-saṁvatsarē. According to the Professor, “ the 73rd year when the grant was made is said to have been reckoned from ‘ the acquisition of the kingdom ’ (rājyapratipatti) ”. He thinks, as noted above, that the era, to which the year has to be referred, “ marked the foundation of the kingdom by an ancestor of Bhētti ”. Thus the “ acquisition of the kingdom ” is referred to the founder of the royal family to which Mahārāja Bhētti, issuer of the charter, belonged. In our opinion, the passage speaks of Mahārāja Bhētti’s accession to the throne and has nothing to do with any of his ancestors.

As to the foundation of an era in ancient India, we have elsewhere[1] shown how an early era appears to have been nothing more than the regnal reckoning of an independent king (who was not bound to use the regnal date of a suzerain) continued by his successors and how the years of an era were often referred to exactly as regnal years. The Gupta era was founded by an ancestor of Chandragupta II (376-414 A.C.). This is clear from the Mathura inscription[2] of that monarch, the date portion of which reads : Śrī-Chandraguptasya vijaya-rājya-saṁvatsarē paṁchamē 5 kāl-ānuvarttamāna-saṁvatsarē ēkashashṭhē shashṭitamē) 61, “ in the year five ─5─ of the victorious reign of the illustrious Chandragupta, in the year sixtyone ─61─ according to the era ”. Here both the regnal year of the king and the year of the Gupta era are used side by side. But generally the year of the regnal reckoning was omitted while the year of the era was used as if it were a regnal year. Thus the Gadhwa inscription[3] of the time of the same Gupta emperor has the date : śrī-


[1] Vikrama Volume, edited by R. K. Mookerjee, Gwalior, 1948, pp. 564-65.
[2] Cf. Select Inscriptions, p. 270 ; IHQ, Vol. XVIII, pp. 271-55.
[3] Bhandarkar’s List, No. 1261. See also śrī-Kumāraguptasy=ābhivarddhamāna-vijaya-rājya-saṁvatsarē shaṇṇavatē (vatitamē) (ibid., No. 1263), śrī-Kumāragupta-rājya-saṁvatsarē 98 (ibid., No. 1264), etc., etc. Note further śrī-Śāntikaradēva-rājya-saṁvat 93 (ibid., No. 2042), etc.

Home Page