________________
332
THE CHRONOLOGICAL SYSTEMS OF GUJARAT
identical with those mentioned in the Radhanpur edict 15 and the Prince of Wales Museum edict 16 of the Caulukya King Bhimadeva 1, both dated V.S. 1086. Similarly the Donee and the Lekhaka of this edict are the same as those mentioned in the Bhadreshwar edict of Bhimadeva I, dated V.S. 111717. The year mentioned in this edict, therefore, cannot be referred to the Simha era which commenced in about V.S. 1170. The year obviously falls during the reign of Bhimadeva 1, V.S. 1080 to 112218. The numerical figures given in the edict should, therefore, be referred to the Vikrama era by taking the figures of the hundreds left understood?'. The complete number of the year is accordingly 1093; and the year belongs to the Vikrama era which was commonly used in the Caulukyan edicts.
In this context it may also be noted that the era used in all the other Caulukyan records pertaining to Kutch is the Vikrama era, the Simha era occurring not even in a single one of them.
(ii) Another date, recorded in the Atru inscription of the time of King Jayasimhadeva, was possibly 14. A. K. Majmudar, Chaulukyas of Gujar it, P. 138 15. Bhandrkar's List, No. 117; G. V. Acharya, HIG., No. 139 16. JBBRAS Vol. XV, supplementary issue, 'Origin of Bombay', p. 49 17. A. V. Pandya, 'Some newly discovered inscriptions from Gujara',
Vallabh Vidyanagar Research Bulletin. Vol. I, Issue 2, pp. 4 ff. 18. A. K. Majumdar, op. cit., p. 43 19. G. H. Ojha, BPL.. p. 182, f.n. 6
This observation was made by Hultzsch (IA, Vol. XIX, p. 253) and Pandit G. H. Ozha on the basis of the comparison of this edict with the Radhanpur <dict. It is fully corroborated by the supplementary evidence supplied by the other two edicts of the same king as mentiones above.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
