________________
232
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[AUGUST, 1883.
era is alluded to. Of course, nothing short of a does it follow therefore that it is Vikrama 864, contemporaneous document dated less than 600i.e. 430 A.D.P Is it likely that the father would of the Vikrama era would really upset Mr. Fer- use one era, and the son another P Besides, the gusson's theory, and such a date has, as yet, not date in the inscription is injured, and even if the been met with.
date were right, there would be considerable My learned friend, Professor Bühler, who still doubt whether the Ashadha Sudi could have holds to the belief that the Vikrama era, which fallen on a Sunday in 430 A.D.10 Heartily as I begins 56 B.C., was really established by a king of should welcome any evidence that would settle that name who lived before the beginning of the this interesting point either way, I cannot think Christian era, has for years been engaged in the that this one date of Jayabhata will settle it. study of Indian inscriptions, and has of course What has to be proved is that an era, invented by been most anxious to produce at least one inscrip- a great king in 56 B.C., remained dormant for tion dated contemporaneously in any year before 600 years at least. This will require very plausible 600 of Vikrama, or 544 A.D. He could easily prove arguments, and the strongest monumental evithat Bhao Daji's limit was much too late, as there dence. is the Samangadh plate, the date of which in the Let us now see how, according to Dr. Bhao Vikrama era comes to 754 A.D. He also pointed Daji and Mr. Fergusson, the real date of Vikraout the Pathan inscriptions of Samvat 802 (746 maditya, the inventor of the Vikrama era, can be A.D.), recording the accession of Vanaraja, though determined. During the whole of Hiouen-thsang's here Mr. Burgess expressed some doubts as to its travels in India, Siladitya (Harshavardhana Ku. genuineness. Anyhow the fact remained that a måraraja) was on the throne of Kanyakubja, as scholar who had probably seen more inscriptions supreme ruler in the north of India. The date than any other, could not produce a single case of these travels, according to Chinese chronology, where the Vikrama era was used before 754 A.D., is from 629-645. In about 640, or during his that is, 810 years after its supposed introduction." second stay at Nalanda, Hiouen-thsang had a I should have expected therefore that Professor vision that king Silê ditya would die in ten years. Bühler would have hesitated, when he suddenly This, apart from all visions, would place the king's came on the Kivi inscription which gives the death in 650 A.D. When Hiouen-thoang took date 430 A.D. for its grantor Jayabhata, before leave of king Siladitya, he had reigned thirty accepting it as a Vikrama date. Under other yoars, and was holding his sixth quinquennial circumstances his arguments might have carried assembly called Mokshamahaparishad, or Panchaconviction, but when this is the only case of a Vikra- parishad). The beginning of his reign must there. ma date before 600, the circumstantial evidence fore be fixed at 610, its end about 650. He was on which he relies requires, surely, careful reconsi. by caste a Vaisya.20 deration. If Jayabhata is the father of Dada II,
The Chinese historian Ma Tuan-lin gives and if Dada's dates range from Saka 380 to 417 slightly different dates, for he speaks of an (A.D. 459-498),1% no doubt the date assigned to his embassy sent to Magadha in 648 which found father-viz. 486, cannot be Saka (A.D. 564). Butking Siladitya dead, and his minister O-lo-na-shan
Tribhuvana malla (1182 A.D.) rubbed out the Saka, and instituted the Vikrama era in its stead.' Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. IV. (1837), p. 14; vol. XII. (1850) p. 278. Jour, of the Bombay Br. R. Asiatic Society, vol. IX. p. 316. [This is quite a different Vikra. ma era : vis, that instituted by the Western Chalukys king Vikramaditya VI., dating from his coronation on Monday 5th Phálguna sudi of $. 997. See Ind. Ant. vol. VIII, pp. 187-193.-ED.)
10 Jour of the Bombay Br. R. Asiat. Soe, vol. II, p. 371 Beq. (This plate is not dated in the Vikrama-Samvat era at all: see Ind. Ant. vol. VIII, p. 188; vol. XI, p. 110.-Ed.].
1 Professor Bühler informs me that he now possesses an inscripsion, dated Sarhvat 794 = A.D. 737-8(Ind. Ant., vol. XII, pp. 151f.)
1 Ind. Ant. vol. V, p. 110.-ED. 1. 4. 15 Ind. Ant. vol. V, p. 111 ; vol. VII, p. 61.-ED.
* Mr. D. B. Hutcheon calculates that AshAdha Sudi 10th, in Sam. 486, fell on Wednesday, 29th May, 429 A.D. and in Sam. 487 (486 elapsed) it fell on Tuesday, 17th June, 130 A.D., and in this latter year the karkasam kranti fell on 30th June or 13th AshAdha gudi. This confirma Prof. Keru L. Chhatre's computation (Ind. Ant. vol, V, p. 112, note).-J. B.
15 This should be 429 A.D.-ED. I. A.
26 Professor Bühler's remark (Indian Antiquary, vol. V, 1876, p. 152) has not escaped me; but here again the reading of the figures is very doubtful, see Fleet, Indian Antiquary, vol. V (1876) p. 68, and Professor Bühler himself admits now that there is no Samvat date on that plate (conf. vol. VIII, p. 241).
11 Journal of the Dombay Br. R. Ariat. Soc. vol. VI, (1860), p. 225; vol. IX, p. 149.
- Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. IV. (1870), p. 85.
19 Dr. Edkins (Atheneum, 1880, July 3, p. 8) informs us that the same emperor who received Hiouen-thsang, received with equal favour the Syrian Christians, Alopen and his companions, in A.D. 639.
20 Hiouen-thsang, tome I, p. 111. Vaiya is sometimes changed into Vaidya (conf. Ind. Ant. vol. VI, pp. 189ff).
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. IV, (1870), p. 85; Journal of the Bombay Br. Royal Asiatic Society, vol. VI, p. 69. Julien, Mélanges de Géographie Asiatique, p. 164, gives 646 as the date of the departure of the embassy, Na-fo-ti-a-la-na-shun as the name of the minister, and Srikumara as king of Eastern India, probably Bhd karavarman Kumara.
