________________
410
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA. Neither the date in verse 74 nor the one at the end of the inscription works out satisfactorily. According to verse 74 the temple built by Mokala was inaugurated on the day of the preceptor of the gods, i.e. on a Thursday, the third lunar day of the dark half of the month Tapasya, i.e. Phålguna, of the Vikrama year made up of the arrows (5), eight (8), the Vedas (4) and the earth (1), i.e. 1485, under the nakshatra of Aryaman, i.e. Pärva-phalgunl, while the sun was in the sign Makara and Jupiter in the sign Ghata, i.e. Kumbha. Here the statements that the sun (on Phálguna-vadi 3) was in the sign Makara, and that Jupiter was in the sign Kumbha, show that the scheme of the lunar month was the púrnimánta scheme, and that the date must fall between the 25th February A.D. 1428 and the 20th February A.D. 1429 (i.e. in the Jovian year Rakshasa, as determined by the northern mean-sign system); and accordingly the true equivalent for Phålguna-vadi 3 of Vikrama 1485 can only be the 23rd January A.D. 1429. On that day the third tithi of the dark half ended 18h. 29m. after mean sunrise, the nakshatra at sunrise was Purvå-phalguni, and the sun was in Makara and Jupiter in Kumbha, all as required; but the day was a Sunday, not a Thursday, as stated erroneously by the inscription. The date at the end of the inscription is Thursday, the 3rd of. the bright half of Magha of the year 1485. In the impression the figures for the day is not as clear as one could wish it to be. But, under any circumstances, this date, on which the inscription is said to have been engraved, would precede the date recorded in the body of the inscription; and assuming my reading to be right, the possible cquivalents of the date would be Monday, the 19th January A.D. 1428, and Saturday, the 8th January A.D. 1429, which shows that this date too cannot be correct.
Notwithstanding these errors, there appears to be no reason to doubt that the temple which was built by Mokala, was finished by him in A.D. 1428-1429, and that this inscription furnishes a true date for the reign of that prince. Mokala, therefore, could not have been succeeded by his son Kumbhakarņa (Koombho) as early as Vikrama 1475 = A.D. 1419, as was stated by Tod in his Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan vol. I, p. 286. And if there be any truth in the statement of our inscription that Mokala defeated the Yavana King Peroja, who could only have been the Sultan Firuz Shah (A.D. 1351-1388), the commencement of his reign, too, must be placed at least ten. years before the time assigned to it by Tod. As regards Mokala's predecessors, I can only say that the list furnished of them by this inscription agrees with the one given in the Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan and in Prinsep's Useful Tables, p. 257.
Text." L. 1.
î" THfara सिद्धार्थामरसुंदरीकरवलसिंदूरधारारुण
श्रीगंडस्थलमंडलीयुगलसद्दानांबुपूरोज्व(ज्ज्व)ल: ॥() संध्यानच्छुरिताग्रसानुनिपतवाकापगौघहयः
स्वर्णोर्वीभृदिव प्रयच्छतु शिवं देवो गजास्योव्ययं ।।"
वेदा वागिति शिष्टतामुपगतो यः कर्मणामीक्षिThe earliest certain date of Kumbhakarna's reign Lakha Rana, and Mokul. Annals, vol. I, pp. 267-277. known to me is of the Vikrama year 1492 ; see Peterson's "From an impression, prepared by Dr. Führer. Third Report, Appendix, p. 203.
12 Expressed by a symbol. • The names given by Tod are Ursi, Hamir, Khaitsi, "Metre of verses 1-4: Sård úlavikridita,
