________________
No. 41.]
VERAWAL IMAGE INSCRIPTION.
303
Jasadeva and Jasapala, and other members of the family), at Dévapattana (i.e. Somanåthadêvapattana), caused to be made for purposes of worship an image of the holy Gôvardhanathe image below which the inscription is engraved for their and their ancestors' spiritnal wel. fare; and that this image was carved by the artizan Raghava, the son of the artizan Vimjhadeva.
The only point of general interest in this inscription is the date in line 1,-- grimadValabhi-sa[m]vat 927 varshồ Phalguna-sudi 3 Some-se. on Monday, the end of the bright half of Phålguna, in the year 927 of the era of the famous Valabhi.' This date has been already fully discussed by Dr. Fleet, in his Gupta Inscriptions, Introduction, pp. 90-93. The reading of it, which was adopted by Dr. Fleet, is now by the paper estampage proved to be the true reading, and, with this reading, the European equivalent of the date undoubtedly is, as Dr. Fleet gave it, Monday, the 19th February, A.D. 1246. The only difficulty presented by this equivalent is, that Monday the 19th February, A.D. 1246, falls in Saka-Samvat 1167 expired (=Vikrama-Samvat 1302 expired), and that thus there is here a difference of only 240 years between the Valabhî year (927) and the corresponding expired Saka year (1167), while in the case of some other Gupta - Valabhi] dates this difference amounts to 241 years. To explain this discrepancy, it might be said that the years of those other Gupta [-Valabhi] dates are expired years, and that the writer of this date, exceptionally, quoted a current year; and such an explanation would no doubt accord well with the practice of other eras. Yet, in the present instance, I would rather suggest a different explanation. I find it somewhat difficult to believe that in the 13th century A.D. the people of Kathiâwâd should have possessed a true knowledge of the exact epoch of the original Gupta era. The era then in common ase among them was the Vikrama era, and what men knew or believed was, that Valabhi had been destroyed 375 years after the commencement of the Vikrama era, and that an era had once been in use which dated from that event. Now the meaning of the traditional verse about the destruction of Valabhi having taken place 375 years after Vikrama can in my opinion only have been this, that, to convert a Vikrama year into the corresponding Valabhi year, it was necessary to deduct 375 from the Vikrama year. This I believe to have actually been done in the date of the Véråwal stone inscription of Arjunadêva, where the Valabhi year 945 is quoted by the side of the Vikrama year 1320 ; and this I believe to have been done also in the present date. In other words, I believe that the year of this date is really Vikrama-Samyat 1302 expired (and must be treated as such for the purpose of calculation), and that the writer, desirous of quoting the obsolete era, attained his purpose by putting down in the date the year Valabhi-Samvat 1302-375=927.
TEXT.5 1 Om | Srimad-Valabhi-sa[m]vat 927
Ady-êha sri-Dêvapattanê
varshe
Phalguna-sudi
8
Sôme7 11
Or the meaning may be, that the image was caused to be made by the brishthing Modhi, the wife of Malajóga; by Sbêvada, the wife of Joja, a son of the former; and by the sons of Jojâ and Shevada, and other (members of the family).
Seo Professor Peterson's Third Report, p. 4, and App. p. 285, v. 102; also Mörutunga's Prabandhachintamani, p. 279:
Panasayari udadinh tinni saydin aikkamdana!
Vikkama-keldu ta6 Valahf-bhangé aamuppans 11 * See Ind. Ant. Vol. XIX. p. 180, No. 129.
• I should perhaps state here that the above remarks, which I 800 Do reason to modify, were written and sent to Bombay to be printed in June 1890, before the publication of Dr. Fleet's valuable paper on the Gupta-Valabhf ens in Ind. Ant. Vol. XX. p. 376 ff. For all practical purposes my views entirely agree with those of Dr. Fleet. From a paper estampage, supplied to me by Dr. Fleet.
Expressed by a symbol. 7 Originally Saund was engraved, the vowel as being written by one line before, one line after, and one line above the sign for ; but the superscript line, which turns 6 into aw, has clearly been struck out.
