Epigraphia Indica Vol 30

SR No.: 032584
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Hirananda Shastri
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India
Publication Year: 1953
Total Pages: 490
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 27 MB

Page 19

2
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXX
merit Mahārāja Bappadatti, who may have been the king's father.1 The order is communicated to the king's Ayuktakas, Viniyuktakas, Chatas, Bhatas, Kutumbins, Mahattaras and Drangikas. The record is dated in the Advayuja sarhvatsara and in the 73rd year (expressed in words) since the foundation of the kingdom (rajya-pratipatti). The Dutaka was Yajñadova and the scribe, Sambabhata. After the mention of these, the record contains the sign-manuals of Maharaja Bhetti and Bhattivada, without specification of the latter's rank. Ordinarily a record closes with the sign-manual of the reigning king, but here we have the additional statement that at the camp of Tumbatall, the Dutaka Karkabhata was appointed by the Samanta Bhartrivaḍda. Again, the last line which seems to have been added at a later date records the consent of the Samanta Bhartripadra and mentions another Dutaka, viz., Samanta Bhavvihita.
The inscription thus records the consent of two princes Mahārāja Bhetti and Samanta Bhartripadra and mentions three Dütakas, Yajñadeva, Karkabhata and Bhavvihits. The first of these was appointed by Mahārāja Bhetti, the second by Samanta Bhartrivaḍḍa, and the third by Samanta Bhartripadra. The need for appointing three Dutakas is not clear. Perhaps Bhattivada, Bhartrivaḍda and Bhartripadra 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 Bhetti first appointed his Dutaka Yajñadatta as the Executor of the grant. As the donated village lay in the territory of his Samanta, the latter's sign-manual also was added at the end. The Samanta appointed his own Dutaka while camping at Tumbatāli. The grant seems to have remained unexecuted for some time. Therefore, the consent of the Samanta was again recorded and the name of another Dutaka was mentioned at the end. This seems to be the only plausible explanation of the intriguing mention of two Samantas and three Dutakas 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. 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 Asvayuja-samvatsara. 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 Jyeshtha, not Asvayuja 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 (räjya-pratipatti)'. This is not likely to be a regnal year of Mahārāja Bhetti 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 Bhetti 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 paleography 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 Bhātika era, to which Dr. R. C. Majumdar has recently drawn our attention:
1 Jaisalmer Vishnu temple inscription-Vikrama Samvat 1494 -Bhātika Samvat 812, Magha šu. di. 6, Sukravāra, Aévini nakshatra.
[See p. 7 below.-Ed.]
2 Annual Report of the Rajputana Museum for 1932-33, p. 2. Bhandarkar's List of Northern Inscriptions, No. 775.