________________
94
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[MARCH, 1873.
511 for 411 ; and if the facts are as stated in the inscription, and Pulakes'i I. was the grandfather of Pulakes'i II., which I see no reason for doubting, some such correction as this seems indispensable, but not to a greater extent than 100 years.
If this were the only inscription in which an error had been detected, it would be of little consequence; but on reading. Dr. Bhau Daji's very unsatisfactory analysis of the inscriptions published by the Committee of Architectural Antiquities in Western India, a second occurs, in which the falsification is even more evident. At page 315, J.B.B. R. A.S., vol. IX., an inscription of Pulakes'i II. is quoted, dated S'aka 506, or A. D. 584. This inscription, of which a second abstract is quoted (page 199) in the same volume, tells us how he fought with Harsha Vardhana, the Siladitya of Hiwen Thsang, and speaks of their wars in the past tense. Now we happen to know, not only by inference from Hiwen Thsang, but from the more precise testimony of Ma-twan-lin (J.A. S. B., vol. VI. p. 68), that these events took place between the years 618 and 627; and consequently, as this inscription could not have been written till after the last-named year, its date is certainly 43 years too early, or more probably 50 years at least. Besides this, another inscription was quoted by Mr. Eggeling at the last meeting of the Asiatic Society,o dated in the third year of the second Pulakes'i's reign, Saka 534 or A. D. 612, which I have no doubt is the correct date (J. R. A. S. N. S., vol. IV. p. 94). Here then we have two important inscriptions, one of which requires a correction of about 100 years, the other of about 50, to bring
ring them into accordance with known historical events : and what I want to ask your learned readers is, whether they can offer any solution of this difficulty, or whether, on the contrary, we must be prepared to meet with such falsifications again in other places ?
Unfortunately the long dates in this inscription do not help us in this matter. At page 315, Bhâu DÂji states them as follows:-Kaliyuga 3855, and from the war of the Mahabharata 3730, and consequently shewing an interval of 125 years between these events. Now, applying our usual Kaliyuga equation, 3101 B. C., to these, we have 754 A. D. for the first, which is much too late, and 629 for the second, which certainly is so near the correct date that it might be adopted as final, if we felt sure it is in the inscription. But at page 199,
Dr. Bhâu Daji, with a glaring want of correctness, gives a very different version of matters, and, that there may be no mistake this time, gives his dates in words, not in figures. According to this last version, the beginning of the Kaliyuga is placed 3506 before the date of this inscription, and the Bharata 3855 years before the same time. In other words, the Mahabharata was fought out in the Treta Yuga, and the interval between these two events was 349 years instead of 125, as we were told in a previous paragraph. Fortunately we know too well the cause of these modern discrepancies, and can apply the correction. With the more ancient ones, it is not so easy.t
In conclusion, allow me to express an earnest hope that, before long, some competent antiquary will visit Iwalli and Badami. The inscription above discussed shews the building on which it is found to be the oldest structural temple known to exist in Western India, and, if Stirling is to be depended upon, cotemporary with the great temple at Bhuvanes'war in Katak, which is the oldest known temple in Eastern India. If, too, the inscription No. 12 in the Badami cave should turn out to belong to the sixth century, as Dr. Bhâu Daji conjectures from the form of the characters, it will throw a new light on the history of cave-temple architecture in the West. From such imperfect data as I have at my command, I would guess these caves to be considerably more modern ; but we sadly want plans and architectural details of this most interesting group of monuments; while, except from the sequence of architectural details, I know of no mode by which dates can in India be ascertained with even proximate certainty.
JAS. FERGUSSON. Langham Place, 30th Jan. 1873.
ON THE INTERPRETATION OF PATANJALI.
SIR.-In' the extract from Prof. Weber's critique on Dr. Goldstücker, given in the Indian Antiquary, vol. II. p. 61, there are several points, besides the main one I took up (at page 59), which require notice. From the passage about the Mauryas quoted by Dr. Goldstücker, Prof. Weber infers that
Pånini, in making his rule V. 3, 99, had in his eye .such images as those that had come down from the Mauryas. How the passage supports such an inference, I am at a loss to see. Pauini in that
- A siatic Society. Jan. 20.--Mr. J. Eggeling, the Secretary, submitted translations of, and notes on, & number of Sou h Indian inscriptions, with a view to Bhew what materials are available in England for improving our knuwlenge of the history of the Dekhan. These material: were stated to consist partly of original copper-plates in the possession of the Society, the India Office, British Museum, and private individuale, especially Sir W. Elliot.
Tbe dynasty which receives most light from these documents is that of the Châluk yas. Of the Eastern or Rajamahendri branch especially, there are in Sir.W. Elliot's volume of impressions] several highly important franta, containing complete chronological records of that line from
the first king, Vishnuvardhana, the Hunchback (about A. D. 604 to 622), to Amma Rajá, who reigned in A. D. 945, being hen ten years old. Regarding the Kalyani line also, these materials contribute some valuable information (one grant of Satyasraya being dated in the third year of his reign, S'aka 534, A. D. 612), as they do regarding nearly every dynasty of the Dekban. One inscription, containing in the introductory a'lokas a list of the solar race, supplies thirteen name of princes of a branch of the Chola dynasty. Athenam, Jan. 25, 1873, p. 118.
t To prevent its misleading. I may as well point out that in inscription 8, p. 316, the date is misprinted as 789 A. D. : it ought to be 889.
