Indian Antiquary Vol 19

Author(s): John Faithfull Fleet, Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 17

JANUARY, 1890.]
MAHAKUTA INSCRIPTION OF MANGALESA
year, coupled with Suka-Sanivat 500 expired, Manglesa inade a great cave-temple of Vislinu, and gave a great gift to Brilumans on the full-inoon day of Karttika, and performed certain other acts. Both Prof. Egseling wul myself, following the apparently nataral meaning of the text, took the ruigil, of which the twelfth year is mentioned in this record, to be the reign of Maryales limself. And according to that timerstanding of the date, as the full-moon of Karttika, Sakil-Sainvat 500 expired, fell in the twelfth year of liis reign, the full-moon of Krttika, Saki-Suvat 489 expired or +90 current, fell in his first year; and consequently his reign commenced either in Saka-Sauvat 189 curront, on any ny from the purnimanta Mars vairsha I up to the end of the year, or in Saka-Sauvat 400 current, on any day from the beginning of the year up to Karttika sukla 15. The other is the Goa grant, published by Mr. K. T. Tolang (Jour. Do. Pr. R. As. Soc. Vol. X. p. 348 ff., with a lithograph), which records a grant made, with the permission of an unnamed paramount sovereign, by Satyasraya Dhruvaraja-Indravarman, the governor of four vishayas and mandalas, stationed at Rêvatdvipa; the grant was made on the full-moon day of Magha; and in a separate passage, at the end of the charter, there are given the further details of the twentieth year of some unspecified reign or governorship, coupled with Saka-Samvat 532, which is not distinctly described either as current or as expired. On the strength of this grant, Prof. R. G. Bhandarkar (Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. XIV. p. 24 f., and Early History of the Dekkan, p. 38) took a totally different view of the meaning of the Bidami inscription, and held that the twelfth regnal year mentioned in it belongs to the reign of Kirtivarman I., the elder brother and predecessor of Mangalêsa ; that Maugaléśa was not at that time reigning as paramount sovereign, but " was probably his brother's general or lieutenant;" and that the commencement of the reign of Mangalêśa himself took place in Saka-Samvat 514 carrent. It is unnecessary to recapitulate either the arguments pat forward by Prof. R. G. Bhandarkar, or my answer to them (ante, Vol. X. p. 57 ff.); for the sequel has shewn that each of us was partially right and partially wrong. But I shall refer further on to the only substantial argument advanced by him. And, on the other hand, while I can find no further arguments in support of his side of the question, I may as well note here two additional points in support of my own views, so far as they are limited to the point that the date in the Goa grant has nothing whatever to do with the accession of Mangalêśn. The first is, that I cannot give any certain instance in which the current year of the reign of a paramount sovereign is mentioned, at any rate in the period with which we are dealing, in a detached and separate sentence at the end of a record, in the manner in which the date is given in the Goa grant; whereas this is precisely the manner in which it was customary to quote the years of fendatory officials (see, for instance, my Gupta Inscriptions, No. 40, line 24, p. 194, No. 41, line 27, p. 199, and No. 81, line 35 f., p. 296). And the other is, that the Haidarâbâd grant tells us that the new-moon day of Bhadrapada, 'SakaSamvat 534 expired, was in the third year of the reign of Pulikesin II. ; on this date I have made some remarks, ante, Vol. XVI. p. 109 ff., and Vol. XVII. p. 141 ; and I have here only to point out that, if we accept it as it stands, then it follows that the new-moon of Bhadrapada, Saka-Samvat 532 expired, was in the first year of Pulikesin II., and much more so was the whole of the subsequent month Magha of the same expired Saka year; and consequently, if the
. I quote here Prof. R. d. Bhandarkar's opinion as given in the later of the two passages referred to. In the first of them, he arrived at "512 Baka, or 590 A.D.," i. e. Baka-Sańvat 512 expired or 513 current, for the death of Kirtivarman I. and the accession of Margaléia ; while, in the second of them he has placed these events in " 513 Saks, or A.D. 591," i, e. Baka-Sauvat 513 expired or 514 current. Either year can be arrived at, according as the given yenr 533 of the Go grunt in applied as current or as expired for, if the full moon of Magha, Saka-amvat 532 expired, fell in the twentieth year mentioned in the grant, then the full-moon of Magha, Saka-Samvat 513 expired or 514 current, fell in the first year, and the initial point of the twenty years fell either in Baka-Sarivat 513 current, on any day from the purniminta Phálguna krishna 1 ap to the end of the year, or in Baks-Samvat 514 current, on any day from the beginning of the year up to Mágha sukla 15; and precisely the same perioi, one year earlier, 18 to be obtained by applying the year 532 as a current year. It is plain, therefore, that, in arriving at the later date, Prof. R. G. Bhandarkar applied the given year 532 as an expired year. And it will be seen that, in now quoting the later date, I give the better chance to his general views connected with it.