Indian Antiquary Vol 19

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

Page 18

12
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[JANUARY, 1890.
unspecified year, Saka-Samvat 532, of the Goa grant, coupled with the full-moon of Magha, is to be applied as an expired year, then the grant can only belong to the reign of Pulikêsin II., and not to that of Mangalêsa at all.7 Dismissing the previous controversy with these words, I have here only to shew how both the earlier theories are disproved by the present date. With my own original date for Mangalêsa's accession, the full-moon of Vaisakha in his first year might fall either in Saka-Samvat 490 current or in 491 current, according to the exact day of his accession; and the full-moon of Vaisakha in his fifth year could not fall later than in Saka-Samvat 495 current, nearly twenty years before the commencement of the Siddhartha samvatsara by the mean-sign system. And with Prof. R. G. Bhandarkar's initial date, the full-moon of Vaisakha in his first year might fall either in Saka-Samvat 514 current or in 515 current, according to the exact date of his accession; but the full-moon of Vaisâkha in his fifth year could not, by any possibility, fall later than in Saka-Samvat 519 current, leaving still an interval of close upon three years before the earliest possible commencement of the Siddhartha samvatsara, by the inadmissible southern luni-solar system. And thus, with neither of the previous theories can the Siddhartha samvatsara be made to meet with the fifth year of his reign, even for the full-moon day of Vaisakha.8
The only substantial argument put forward by Prof. R. G. Bhandarkar against my original views, was in connection with the age of Pulikesin II. at certain points in his career, and was of the following nature. Both the present record and the Aihole Mêguți inscription (ante, Vol. VIII. p. 237 ff.) tell us plainly that Mangalêsa became king, or was king, on the death of Kirtivarman I. As Palikêsin II. had at any rate two younger brothers, he must have been not
I think, indeed, that this is the case, even if the unspecified year 532 is applied as a current year. But this depends on the results for some Eastern Chalukya dates which I have not yet completed. And, if we attend to extreme nicety of language, the fact is perhaps indicated in the Goa grant itself. For, Saty śraya-DhruvarkjaIndravarman made the grant with the permission of a Mahardja who had the biruda of sriprithivtvallabha. This biruda belonged to Pulikêsin II. and his successors, and is also given in the present Mahikata inscription to Pulikesin I. While, in this same inscription, Mangalésa's name is coupled with the higher biruda of triprithivívallabhendra.
s I had also referred this date to Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit, on the chance of obtaining any other method of making it fit in with either of the previous theories. And, in endorsing Prof. Kielhorn's opinion that the word siddharthé in this passage can mean nothing but the samvatsara of that name, he has put forward the suggestion that the syllables ponchama-éri, immediately before varsh, may be a mistake for pañchatrimse, "in the thirty-fifth year of the constantly augmenting reign of Mangalêéa." The words pañchama-sri-varshe had struck me as a peculiar and exceptional expression, for which I cannot call to mind any analogous instance; but they are quite distinct and unmistakable; and no emendation of them had suggested itself to me. If it were necessary and desirable to amend the text at all, there would be no difficulty about accepting Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit's proposal; for, the number of syllables in his suggested reading would be the same as in the original; the first two syllables, and the consonant of the last, would remain unchanged; and the only radical alterations would be in the entire third syllable, and in the vowel of the fourth, in points in which the paleography of the period might very possibly lead to such mistakes as would then have occurred. Two other emendations are, of course, possible; viz. pañchadasé, "in the fifteenth year," and pañchavimse, "in the twenty-fifth year;' with Prof. R. G. Bhandarkar's theory. Whereas, a correction of the text in accordance with Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit's " but by neither of them can the samvatsara be made to fit in suggestion, would fit in admirably with my own previous views. For, as we have seen, the full-moon of Vaisakha in Mangalêéa's first year was then that of Saka-Sathvat 401 current; and so, the full-moon of Vaisakha in his thirtyfifth year would be that of Saka-Samvat 525 current; and this, as we have already found, was the full-moon of Vaisakha in the Siddhartha samvatsara by the mean-sign system, and was the actual date on which the pillar was set up. It would be a curious coincidence if ever we should obtain another record of Maigalés, unquestionable in its purport, and including the connection of a regnal year with a year of the Saka era, which will compel us to adopt this emendation of the present text. But I do not at all anticipate any such discovery. And, as it is undesirable to alter an original text in so essential a point, except for very cogent reasons, I am not prepared to accept the proposed emendation simply because of the coincidence, and on the grounds that the expression pañ chama-srl-varshe is peculiar and exceptional, and that the difficulty still remains that, according to all analogous instances, the apparently obvious meaning of the Badami inscription is that Maigalesa was then, in Saka-Samvat 501 current, reigning as paramount sovereign in his own right. We may, I consider, safely hold it to be certainly proved by this Mahikata record, that the accession of Mangalia took place in A.D. 497 or 498 (Saka-Samvat 520 or 52 eurrent), within the limits indicated by me in a previous paragraph; and the interpretation of the Bâdâmi inscription, in which there is, at any rate, no distinct statement that Kirtiyarman I. was then dead, must be suited to this fact.