________________
No. 27.]
KOPPARAM PLATES OF PULAKESIN II.
261
Calculation for a date of that period must be made either by the mean-system computation of the First Arya-Siddhanta, or of the Brahma Siddhanta, which latter was compiled in A.D. 628.
By either of these the 9th sukla tithi of Karttika fell in A.D. 628 on a Wednesday. In A.D. 629 it fell on Sunday by the First Arya-Siddhanta and on Monday by the Brahma-Siddhanta. In A.D. 630 it fell on Saturday by both authorities. But in A.D. 631 it fell on Thursday, by both these Siddhantas, and that Thursday corresponded to October 10 A.D. 631. This last satisfies the requirements of the case if, in the practice of those days, the 9th sukla tithi of Karttika marked a mahānavami day. I regret that I am unable to give an opinion on this point. The modern mahānavami day is, I understand, the day corresponding to the 9th sukla tithi in the month Aśvina.
If the day in question was actually Thursday October 10 A.D. 631, it makes the king's accession to have taken place on or after October 11 A.D. 610, seeing that it belongs to his 21st regnal year.
As regards this date it must be noted that Fleet (Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts, p. 23) stated that Pulakesin II's accession must have taken place "early in Saka 532 (A.D. 610-1)"; that R. G. Bhandarkar fixed it as in Saka 533, i.e. A.D. 610 or 611, according as the Saka year was treated as current or expired (Early History of the Dekkan, p. 38); and that Professor Jouveau-Dubreuil (Ancient History of the Deccan, p. 111) gives it as in A.D. 609. Fleet's fixture slightly conflicts with the date October 11 A.D. 610, since the year Saka 532 began on March 19 in that year.
R. SEWELL.
No. 28. THE SO-CALLED TAKHT-I-BAHI INSCRIPTION OF THE YEAR 103.
BY STEN KONOW.
The stone on which this inscription is incised measures 17" by 144", and it is now in the Lahore Museum. There is some uncertainty about its provenance. Cunningham originally stated that it had been discovered by Dr. Bellew at Shahbazgarhi. Similarly Mr. Hargreaves writes in a letter dated Simla 4th December 1913: "In connection with the Gandhara
10th
sculptures I had occasion to look up references to the very well-known and frequently quoted Takht-i-Bahi inscription, and to my surprise find that there is no absolute certainty it emanates from Takht-i-Bahl at all, it may very well come from Shahbazgaṛhi."
Later on Cunningham speaks about the record as hailing from Takht-i-Bahl, without mentioning his previous note on the subject, and since that time the epigraph has always been spoken of as the 'Takht-i-Bahi' inscription.
Both places are situated in the same neighbourhood, Shahbazgarhi 6 miles east and Takht-i-Bahi about 8 miles north-west of Mardan in Yusufzai.
According to the Editor of Trübner's Record, June 1873, Dr. Bellew had left the stone at Hoti Mardan "in Dr. Johnson's compound. Several years afterwards, in 1870, he authorised
1 Readers will learn with sincere regret that this veteran scholar, to whom Indian History and Chronology are so heavily indebted, died in London on the 30th December 1925 in the eighty-first year of his age.--E. H. 2 Trübner's Record, June 1878, reprinted Ind. Ant., Vol. II, 1873, p. 242,
