Epigraphia Indica Vol 34

SR No.: 032588
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: D C Sircar
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India
Publication Year: 1961
Total Pages: 384
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 20 MB

Page 230

No. 26] TWO GRANTS OF EARLY GUHILAS
169 which can only be referred to the Harsha era. These facts and the dates of a number of inscriptions referred to below show that an era was counted from Harsha's accession in 606 A.D. The use of this era in Rajasthan during its first century is indicated not only by the two inscriptions under study but by the Kot (old Bharatpur State) inscription of the year 48 (653 A.D.) and the Dhulev (old Udaipur State) plate of a chief named Bhētti, which is dated in the year 73 of the same era corresponding to 678 A.D. The ruling families of the eastern areas of Rajasthan must have owed allegiance to Harsha till Harsha's death in 647 A.D. although, as will be seen below, it is difficult to determine as to whom they offered allegiance after the middle of the seventh century. Later use of the same era in different parts of North India is indicated by the Hund or Und (on the Indus) inscription of the year 158 (763 A.D.), Punjab inscription of the year 184 (789 A.D.), Khandela (old Jaipur State, Rajasthan) inscription of the year 201 (806 A.D.), Khajuraho (old Chhatarpur State, Bundelkhand) inscription of the year 218 (823 A.D.), the Ahar (Bulandshahr District, U.P.) inscription containing dates between the years 258 and 298, Pehoa (Karnal District, East Punjab) inscription of the year 276 (881 A.D.) and Panjaur inscription of the year 563 (1168 A.D.).
The inscriptions are very important inasmuch as they are amongst the earliest epigraphic records of the Guhilas and reveal the existence of three hitherto unknown rulers of an unknown branch of the Guhila family ruling from a city called Kishkindhipura. Tho early Guhilas were associated with the country of Mewar, i.e. the present Udaipur Division of Rajasthan, while the copper plates under study were apparently discovered in the old Dungarpur State lying to the south of that area. Kishkindhipura of our inscriptions is not therefore the same as Kekind in the old Jodhpur State (lying to the north-west of the Udaipur Division), which is called Kishkindhā in the inscriptions found at the place.11 Our Kishkindhipura must have been a locality in the Udaipur-Dungarpur region. It may be noted that Mahārāja Bhētti's plate referred to above, which was discovered at Dhulēv (Rishabhdēv), near Kalyanpur in the Bhomat District of the Udaipur Division bordering on the Dungarpur region, was issued from Kishkindhā located at the site of a ruined city in the vicinity of Kalyanpur. There is no doubt that Kishkindhipura of our record is identical with Kishkindhā of the Dhulēv plate. This city was apparently the capital of the branch of the Guhila family in question and Bhetti was very probably a member of the same house.
1 For the Harsha era, see IHQ, Vol. XXVII, pp. 321 ff.; Vol. XXIX, pp. 72 ff.
Bhandarkar's List, No. 1391.
Above, Vol. Xxx, pp. 5 ff. The date of this record was assigned by Mirashi to the Bhatika era (ibid., pp. 2 ff.). But this era is known to have been used only in the Jaisalmer region several centuries later. The epoch of the Bhatika era falls very near to that of the Hijri era. The Bhâţt kings of Jaisalmer appear to have fabricated the Bhātika era, named after their family, by solarising the Hijri reckoning in their own way. The calculation of the years of the Bhātika era seems to have been based on the fact that V. S. 679-80=622-23 A.D. (i.e. Hijrt 1) was regarded as its first year, which was solar unlike that of the Hijrl year which was lunar. In the present state of our knowledge, it is impossible to explain the use of the Bhātika era of Jaisalmer in other parts of Rajasthan and in such distant areas as Bihar, U.P., Bundelkhand and the Punjab region, though the use of the Harsha ora in those parts is explainable.
. Above, Vol. XXII, pp. 97-98. D. R. Sahni read the data as 168.
Bhandarkar's List, No. 1406; Ind. Ant., Vol. XXVI, p. 29. • Above, pp. 159 ff. * Bhandarkar's List, No. 1408 ; Ind. Ant., Vol. XXVI, p. 31. • Bhandarkar's List, Nos, 1410, etc.; above, Vol. XIX, pp. 58 ff.
Bhandarkar's List, No. 1412 ; above, Vol. I, pp. 186 ff. 10 Bhandarkar's List, No. 1421 ; Ind. Ant., Vol. XXVI, p. 32.
u Bhandarkar's Liat, Nos. 199, 208. Cf. the Kishkindhikå distriot mentioned in a few inscriptions from the old Chamba State, Punjab (ibid., Nos. 1819-20; Vogel, Antiquities of Chamba State, Part I, pp. 152, 156 f.).