South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

Verses 7 ff. describe another family belonging to the Kāśyapa gōtra, to which the hero of the eulogy belonged. Verse 7 mentions Saḍhadēva of this family and his son Udaya. The damaged last foot of the stanza no doubt mentioned Udaya’s son and apparently also the son’s wife. Verse 8 states that, from the husband and wife whose names are lost with the concluding part of the previous stanza, was born Ṭhakkura Pālhūka. The next stanza (verse 9) describes Pālhūka’s good character and qualities while verse 10, most of the syllables in the second foot of which are lost, states that he constructed a step-well by what he had earned by means of trade. This shows that Ṭhakkura Pālhūka was a trader by profession, although it is uncertain whether he actually belonged to the mercantile caste as well. Verse 12 states that some money belonging to Rāhaḍa, a brother of Pālhūka’s father, was also spent in the construction of the well and that the Ṭhakkura (i.e. Pālhūka) become free from his debt to his uncle thereby. The concluding syllables of the stanza are lost ; but it seems that Pālhūka had previously borrowed some money from his uncle Rāhaḍa and that Rāhaḍa or his heirs agreed to forego the realisation of the amount if it was spent in a good cause like the construction of a step-well. Verse 13 mentions the four wives of Rāhaḍa, viz. Dēvamā, Salakhū, Lakshmī and Uttamā. The introduction of these ladies in the narration is difficult to explain ; but it seems that it was they who permitted Pālhūka to spend the amount borrowed from their husband in the construction of the well. Possibly this was done for the merit of Rāhaḍa who might have been dead at the time.

The eulogy is stated to have been composed by Padmanābha, son of Āchārya Nē …. The name of the poet’s father consisted of about two aksharas only and seems to have been something like Nēma. A partially preserved epithet of Padmanābha appears to suggest that he claimed to be a kavi or poet. The inscription was engraved by Jayatasiṁha, son of Paṇḍita Yaśōdhara. Since this person does not look like an ordinary engraver, it is not unlikely that he only painted the letters on the stone to facilitate the work of the real engraver of the record. If such was the case, the name of the person who actually engraved the praśasti on the stone is not mentioned in the record.

The most puzzling information supplied by the inscription under study is its date : V. S. 1234, Chaitra-sudi 4. This is the earliest date if Chāhamāna Pṛithvīrāja III so far known. Unfortunately, the date is not satisfactorily verifiable since the name of the week-day has not been mentioned in the epigraph. If, however, the beginning of the Vikrama year in the age and area in question can be determined, the date of our inscription may be calculated, although, unfortunately, the result of such an attempt scarcely solves the mystery of the date if our record. As will be seen below, the latest known date of the father and predecessor of Pṛithvīrāja III is V.S. 1234, Bhādra-sudi 4. This would suggest that the year commenced some time between the months of Chaitra and Bhādra, so that the month of Bhādra was earlier than that of Chaitra. But, even though the Āshāḍhādi and Śrāvaṇādi Vikrama year are not unknown in Rajasthan, the dates in the inscriptions of the Chāhamānas do not support such an explanation.

Let us clear the position by an examination of the following regular and verifiable dates in the records of Pṛithvīrāja III and his immediate predecessors.

1. Ajmer inscription^[1] of Vigraharāja or Vīsala IV, dated V.S. 1210(1153-54 A.D.), Mārgaśīrsha-sudi 5, Sunday=November 22, 1153 A.D. The year began before the month of Mārgaśīrsha.

2. Hansi inscription^[2] of Pṛithvībhaṭa or Pṛithvīrāja II, dated V.S. 1224(1167-68 A.D.), Māgha-sudi 7, Thursday=January 18, 1168 A.D. The year began before the month of Māgha.

____________________________________________________

^[1] Bhandarkar’s List, No. 289.
^[2]Ibid., No., 329.