________________
No. 1) DHULEV PLATE OF MAHARAJA BHUTTI; YEAR 19
This date regularly corresponds to Friday, the 31st January 1438 A. C., when the tithi Magha bu. di. 6 ended 15 h. 50 m. and the nakshatra Asvini, 7 h. 30 m. after mean sunrise. This date shows that the epoch of the Bhäţika era is 624-25 A. C.
2 Jaisalmer Siva temple inscription_Vikrama Samvat 1673 -Saka Samvat 1538 =Bhatika Samvat 993, with the Uttarāyaṇa occurring in Märgasirsha.
This date also is perfectly regular; for in 1616 A.C., corresponding to V.8. 1673, the Uttarāyana occurred on the amavasya of the amanta Märgasirsha, the corresponding Christian date being the 28th December 1616 A.C. This date shows that the epoch of the Bhäţika era is 623-24 A.C.
There is thus the difference of one year between the two epochs. The discrepancy can be reconciled by supposing that the latter date is recorded in a current year, and the former, in an expired year.
These two dates show that the Bhātika era was started in 624-25 A.C., and that it continued in use in Rajputana till the 17th century A.C.
Let us next see whether the year 73 of the Dhulēv plate refers to this Bhātika era. If the year was of this era, the Asvayuja samvatsara must have been current in the neighbourhood of (623+73=) 696 A.C. And it is noteworthy that the year Asvayuja was actually current in 695 A.C. according to the mean-sign system. There is still a difference of one year to be accounted for; but it may be due to some confusion regarding current and expired years such as is noticed occasionally in the dates of other eras also."
It seems probable, therefore, that the Dhulēv copper-plate grant is dated in the Bhatika era. Its name Bhātika can also be easily accounted for. If it was started by an ancestor of Bhētti, as 'seems probable, he may have borne a similar name' which, in the course of seven or eight centuries, may have been changed to Bhāçika. It is not surprising that the name was not mentioned in connection with its early dates, for the same is noticed in the case of several other eras also.
The dates of some other inscriptions found in Rajputana and the adjoining country such as the Kot (former Bharatpur State) inscription (year 48), the Tasa-i (former Alwar State) inscription (year 182) and the Udaipur Museum inscription (year 207), which are usually referred to the Harsha era,' may also be of the Bhātika era. These inscriptions have been only briefly noticed, and their facsimiles have not been published. It is not, therefore, known whether any of them contain any data useful for verification. Besides, there is no definite evidence that the Harsha era spread to Rajputana. An era generally spreads with the extension of political power, but we have no literary, epigraphic or other evidence indicating that Harsha's suzerainty or political influence extended to Rajputana and the neighbouring countries. On the other hand, we have the definite statements in the two inscriptions at Jaisalmer as well as some verifiable data in the present inscription which clearly show that the Bhātika era was started in M6wād in the first quarter of the seventh century A.C. If the aforementioned records from the former Bharatpur
1 Ibid., No. 962.
* See, e.g., similar dates of the Kalachuri and Saka eras. A BORI., Vol. XXVII, p. 35 and Ind. Ant., Vol. XXV, p. 266. .
If he was the grandfather of Bhētti he may have borno the same name as the latter. In India grandsons are often named after their grandfather.
The name of the Kalachuri era is, for instance, noticed for the first time in a record of the 12th century A.O. The current names of the Vikrama and Salivahana eras are first noticed in the rocords of the 10th and the 13th century respectively.
G. H. Ojha, History of Rajputana (Hindi), Vol. I, p. 161.
• The Hund inscription also seems to be dated in the Bhâţika era. For the correct readings and verification of the two dates mentioned in it, see my article entitled : The Harsha and Bhatika Eras' in Ind. Hisl. Quari., Vol. XXIX, pp. 191 ff.
Soo R. 8. Tripathi's History of Kanang, pp. 118 ff.
