|
The Indian Analyst
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS VOLUME XXVIII Title Page.─ For 1949-50 read 1949-1950
VOLUME XXIX Title Page.─ For 1951-52 read 1951-1952
VOLUME XXX Page 3, line 11.─ Add editorial note─ The discrepancy of one year in the epochs of the Bhāṭika era suggested by the two inscriptions respectively in the Vishṇu and Śiva temples at Jaisalmer, viz. 624-25 A. D. and 623-24 A. D., cannot be reconciled, as suggested by Prof. Mirashi, by supposing that the second date is recorded in a current year and the first in an expired year. The language of the inscriptions in question (cf. Bhandarkar’s List, Nos. 775 and 962) shows clearly that the Bhāṭika years mentioned in both the epigraphs were current only. The year of the first inscription is Bhāṭikē Saṁvat 812 pravartamānē and that of the second record Pravarttamāna-Bhāṭika 993. Besides the two inscriptions dated in the Bhāṭika era, referred to by Prof. Mirashi, nearly a dozen other inscriptions bearing dates in the same era, all found at Jaisalmer and its immediate neighbourhood, have been noticed in the Annual Report of the Rajputana Museum, Ajmer, for the year ending 31st March 1936 ; cf. An. Rep. Arch. Surv. Ind., 1935-36, p. 111 ; IHQ, Vol. XXXV, pp. 65 ff. It is interesting to note the that 624-25 A. D. as the beginning of the Bhāṭika era suits some of these inscriptions while others suggest 623-24 A. D. The earliest date supplied by these inscriptions is Bhāṭika Saṁvat 539, Bhādrapada sudi 10, Sunday (corresponding to the 11th August 1163 A. D.) found in an inscription on a Govardhana about 10 miles from Jaisalmer. The era seems to have been a solarised modification of the Hijrī, the first year of which corresponds to 622-23 A. D.= V. S. 679-80. It appears that the Bhāṭī kings of Jaisalmer fabricated this reckoning about the 12th century by subtracting about 680 from the V. S. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|