________________
SEPTEMBER, 1882.]
GRANT OF ARJUNADÊVA OF GUJARAT.
241
A GRANT OF ARJUNADEVA OF GUJARAT, DATED 1264 A.D.
BY E. HULTZSCH, PH.D., VIENNA. THE subjoined stone-inscription of Soma- destroyed in Vikrama Sam. 375 = 318-19 A.D., I nåtha Pathan, the original of which is and that Al-bîrûni' gives Saka S. 241 and now in the temple of Harsata at Verával, was Vikrama Sam. 376 = 319-20 A. D. as the startfirst mentioned by Colonel Tod.' On Tod's so- ing-point of the era of Balab' ( 70). called translation, which is in fact nothing but The date of the inscription corroborates the the result of the author's fancy, the account of tradition of the native historians as it leads to Arjunadêva's reign in Mr. Forbes' Rás Máld Vikrama Saṁ. 375 and 319 A. D. The difference is based. The inscription deserves a trust- of one year in Al-birûni's statement may be worthy edition for several reasons; especially, owing to the fact that the New Year of the because it is dated in four eras, and because Valabhi S. fell later than the New Year of the it contains a curious mixture of Hindû and Vikrama S., as the New Year of the Saka S. Musalmân languages, religions, and customs. begins with Chaitra. The Simha' era would An excellent photozincograph-prepared from begin in Vikrama S. 1169 and 1113. A. D. a rubbing by Pandit Bhagvânlal Indraji, and Tod calls it the Siva-Singa era, and remarks made over to me by Professor Bühler, who has that it was established by the Gohils in the also most kindly assisted me during the pre- island of Deo (Div). paration of this paper-settles most of the dif- The inscription contains very little about king ficulties. However, the preservation of the stone Arjuna d & va, in whose reign it falls. From is not very good, and a few of the local termini Professor Bühler's introduction to his edition technici do not admit of certain explanation. of eleven Chaulukya inscriptions, I repeat here
A few palæographical peculiarities must that Arjunadeva, the second independent king be noticed. The jihvámúliya occurs once of the V y âghrapalli or Vågheld branch line (xarsta, line 41). ais rarely distinguished of the old Chaulukya or Solanki dynasty of from 7: if so, a dot is placed in the centre of Anhilvåd, ruled, according to Merutunga's the loop. At the end of lines, the division of Vichárasrer, from Vik. S. 1318 to 1331, 1261-62 words is marked by a vertical stroke, which to 1274-75 A. D., and that besides the Somalooks in some cases exactly like the sign for nåtha Pathan grant of S. 1320, there exists a ,* or by two such strokes.
Kachh inscription of Arjunadôva dated Vik. S. The inscription is dated in the Hijra year 662, 1328. From the situation of the localities Vikrama S. 1320, Valabhi S. 945, and Simha where Arjunadeva's two inscriptions are found, S. 151, Åshadha badi 13. As Vikrama S. 1320 it appears that this last Hindú ruler of Anhilbegins in the month of Kärttika of 1263 A. D., vad but two, was a worthy successor of the the end of AshAdha of Vikrama S. 1320 falls valiant Visalad ê va, as his kingdom extended about the middle of 1264 A. D. According to also over the provinces of Kathiàvåd and Kachh. Wüstenfeld's Tables, the middle of 1264 A. D. The northern boundary of his realm must have falls in the Hijra year 662, which begins on the been Mount Abû whence an inscription of his 4th November of 1263 A.D. Thus the Vikrama guccessor Sarangadêva is dated. In the followand Hijra dates are in perfect harmony. This ing inscription Arjunadêva receives the same is not the place to discuss the rather doubtful titles as had been borne by his predecessors historical value of the Valabhi era. I shall (samastardjavalisamalaksita, paramešvara, paonly remind the reader that, according to the ramabhattáraka, mahárdjádhirdja); like these native authorities, the city of Valabhi was he was a devotee of Siva (ériumápativara
Annals of Rojasthan, vol. I, p. 705; Travele in Western India, p. 506. . . P. 212 of the 2nd edition.
Such are dront, mahiyana, stkottari mahayanapat, cheheka, danapala.
This circumstance renders the two readings fest (1.21f.) and. 1 (1. 388.) uncertain.
• Professor Oldenberg (Zeitschrift für Numismatik, VIII, p. 303 f.) doubts the correctness of the Vikrame
date beoause he seems to have mistaken the line in Wüstenfeld's Tables (Hijra year 663 instead of 662). Conf. Ind. Ant. vol. X, p. 218, note 32, where the mistake is corrected.
• Forbee, Ras Mara, p. 16. "Reinaud, Fragments Arabes et Persans, p. 142f8.
Ind. Ant., vol. VI, p. 1808. I abbreviate it by Chaul. Inacr.
