________________
292
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[NOVEMBER, 1883.
computations of the details of this grant, made for Dr. Bühler by Professor Kèru Lakshman Chhatrê of Poona and a Joshi of Surat, give even a less satisfactory result for Saka-Samvat 486 than for Vikrama-Samvat 486,' I would remark on these points-(a), The fact that the father and the son should use two separate eras, is not at all more strange than that, assuming the Kåvi grant to be dated in the Śaka era ; in which case the Jayabhata of this grant must be a descendant, in the third or fourth generation, of Dadda II., -Jayabhata should in this grant revert to the simple ex- pression of Sarivatsara for the era, in disregard of the more specific, technical name of Sakanripa-kála which, on the same assumption, had been established at least eighty-six years before the date of his grant, and had been used in the two later grants of Dadda II. And, as an instance in which at any rate grandfather and grandson have undoubtedly used different eras, I would quote the inscriptions of the Western Chalukya king Palikesi II., which are dated in Saka 534 and 556, while a Nausâri grant of his grandson Siladitya-Śryasraya, the son of Jayasimhavarma-Dharaśraya, -recently laid before the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society by Pandit Bhagwânlal Indraji, --is dated in "the year 421," the expression in the original, in both words and numerical symbols, being (11. 20-1) Makha(gha)-suddhatrayodaśyáin * * * * * * Samvatsara-satachatushtayé éka-vinsaty-adhike 400 20 1 ||*; this plainly cannot be referred to the Saka era.' And further,--as an instance in which even two brothers have used different eras,-in his paper on this Nausârigrant the Pandit mentionsa Balsar grant of Vinayaditya-Jayasraya, also called Mangalaraja and Yuddhamalla, another son of the same Jayasimhavarma, in which the Saka era is specifically adopted again, the date being Saka 653.10-(6), The first of the three numerical
symbols in this grant has certainly been a good deal injured by the breaking away of the plate. But, enough of it remains to show beyond any possibility of doubt that it is the symbol for 400. And, in addition to this, there is in line 24 the verbal expression sata-chatushtayê, which is distinctly legible, and which explains this symbol quite sufficiently even if the whole of it had been broken away. As regards the others, it is not quite easy to say from the photograph whether the second symbol is entire and is to be read 80, as was done by Dr. Bühler, or whether it also has been injured and is to be read 90, as suggested by General Cunningham in the remarks quoted by me below. The third symbol is an unquestionable 6; and it is corroborated by the remnant sha of shat in the verbal expression.-(c), Professor Båpudêva Sastri, of Benares, computed that the 10th of Ashâdha Sudi of Vikrama-Samvat 486 did fall on a Sunday, and that on that day the sun did enter the sign Karka, Karkata, or Karkataka; and that the grant was issued on the 10th July, A.D. 429. On the other hand, Professor Kéru Lakshman Chhatre of Poona, and a Joshi of Surat, computed that, in Vikrama-Samvat 486, the Karka-sankranti fell on the 13th of Ashadha Sudi, and the 10th of Ashåd ha Sudi was a Tuesday." General Cunningham has favoured me with the following remarks on this date:-"The Vikrama-Samvat year 486 began in Gujarat, according to the present reckoning, on the 1st of Kârttika Sudi, or the 28th September, A.D. 429; so that the 10th of Ashadha Sudi would have fallen in the following year, A.D. 430. As there was no intercalary month in that year, the 10th of Ashadha Sudi was the 99th day calculated from the 1st of Chaitra Sudi or Tuesday the 11th March, A.D. 430, which brings the date to Tuesday the 17th June, thus agreeing with the Tuesday already calculated by two Bombay
Ind. Ant. Vol. V. p. 112, note 1: No. 83, p. 210 above, and No. 4, p. 211.
Nor will the Vikrama era suit; nor the Gupta Valabht era, as commencing in either A.D. 167 or A.D. 190. But the Valabhl-Samvat which commenced in Saka 241 seems to suit fairly well.
10 l'hese two grants, and some others of this Chalukya dynasty of Gujarat which the Pandit will shortly publish, place in an entirely new light the Kaira grants of Vijayarája or Vijayavarma (Ind. Ant. Vol. VII. pp. 241 ff), the date of which, in both words and numerical symbols, in expressed by Sarhuatsira-sata-trayd chatur-ravityadhikl Vaidkh 1-paumnimasyarh ...... Sarhvataira 300 90 4 Vaisakha fu 10 5 11. When I pablished these two
grante, I took the era to be the Saka era, and identifiod the Jayasimha of these grants, the grandfather of Vijayaraja, with the Jayasitha I. who according to the southern in scriptions was the grandfather of the grandfather of Pulikal II. But it now seems that these grants must be referred, not to the Saka era, but to the era that is used in the Nau Ari grant, and that the Jayasinha of these grants must be identified, not with Jayasinha I., but either with the Jayasir havarm-Dharisrays of the Nirpan grant (Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. pp. 123 ff.), who was & younger brother of Palikai II., or with the other Jaye simhavarma-Dharåáraya of the Nausäri and Balear grants who was one of the song of Pulikel II.
"Soe ante p. 232, note 14.
