Epigraphia Indica Vol 02

Author(s): Jas Burgess
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Page 26

BHERA-GHAT INSCRIPTION OF ALHANADEVI. By way of introduction the inscription, after the words “om om, adoration to Siva !", and six verses invoking the blessings of Siva, Gaņeśa, and Sarasvati, furnishes the following meagre account of the royal family into which Alhanadevi bad married, and of her own descent:
From a prince of the lunar family, named Arjuna (or Sahasrarjena, v. 7), was descended the king Kokalladeva (v. 8). From him sprang Gangeyadeva (vv. 9-10); and his son was king Karna who is represented as having held in check the Pandyas, Muralas, Kungas, Vangas, Kalingas, Kiras, and Häņas (vv. 11-13). Karna's son was Yafahkarņa, said to have become famous by devastating Champaranya (v. 14); and his son again was Gayakarņa (vv. 15-16). Gayakarņa married Alhañadevi, a daughter of the king Vijayasimha (a son of Vairisimha who was a son of the prince Hamsapala, a descendant of the son of Gobhila or Gobhilaputra,) and his wife Syamaladevi, a daughter of the king Udayaditya of Malava (vv. 17-23). And Alhaņadevi bore to Gayakarna two sons, Narasimhadeva, who in the inscription is represented as the reigning king, and his younger brother Jayasim hadeva (vv. 2426). Nearly all this is stated also in the Karanbel stone inscription of Jayasimhadeva, and I may therefore, for the present, refer the reader to my remarks on that inscription, in the Indian Antiquary, vol. XVIII, p. 215.
Our inscription is dated, at the end of the last line, in the year 907, on Sunday, the 11th of the bright half of Margasirsha,-a date which must of course be referred to the Kalachuri or Chedi era. When writing on the epoch of that era, in the Indian 4..tiqu. ary, vol. XVII, p. 216, I felt inclined to accept Mr. Fleet's suggestion, based on an examination of the photozincograph of this inscription in No. 10 of the Archaol. Survey of Western India which alone was then available, that the figures for the day of this date were intended to be 10 (and not 11). But now my excellent impressions have shown me that the figures after all are 11, and that they are quite distinct and cannot be read in any other way. And accordingly the probabilities regarding the corresponding European date are as follows. With my epoch of the Kalachuri era, as to the general correctness of which there can now be hardly any doubt, and according to the way in which the other Kalachuri dates yield satisfactory results, our date should fall in A.D. 1155. But in A.D. 1155 the 11th tithi of the bright half of Margasirsha commenced 2 h. 12 m. after mean sunrise of Sunday, the 6th November, and ended 0 h. 43 m. after mean sunrise of Monday, the 7th November, apparently causing sudi 11 to correspond, civilly, to the Monday. In the following year, A.D. 1156, on the other hand, the same 11th tithi of the bright half of Mårgasirsha ended 1 h. 46 m. after mean sunrise of Sunday, the 25th November, and consequently, in that year, sudi 11 was, civilly, really a Sunday. Now, that the day intended by the original date is either Sunday, the 6th November A.D. 1155, or Sunday, the 25th November A.D. 1156, appears to me certain; but I am not at present prepared to say confidently which of these two Bundays is the true date. Supposing all the other Kalachuri dates to cite current years, the present date might be taken to quote, exceptionally, an expired year, and in that case its equivalent would be Sunday, the 25th November A.D. 1156. But a nuore careful examination of the practice of other eras has shown that it is rather the current years which are quoted exceptionally. And assuming that, what is true of other eras, must hold good also of the Kalachuri era, one would rather be inclined to look upon Sunday, the 6th November A.D. 1155, as the proper equivalent of the date, and to assume that the tithi, in this instance,