________________
NOVEMBER, 1891.)
THE GUPTA-VALABHI ERA.
383
would be the Karttika of Saka-Samvat 242 current; and it would thus fall five months before the initial day that has boon established in the case of B. and c. above. This brings the present date into the same catagory with E.; and that is all that it is necessary to say at present.
G. - The Verdwal inscription of Valabhi-Samvat 927. The next date is contained in an inscription on the pedestal of an image built into a wall of the temple of the goddess Harsatadêvi at Verawal in Kathiawad.
G. Here the details (loc. cit. p. 90) are: - The Valabhî year 927; the month Phálguna; the bright fortnight; the (civil) day 2; and (as I took it originally, and take it now) on Monday.
When I first dealt with this date, there was some doubt about the word that gives the name of the week-day. In the cloth rubbing placed at my disposal by the late Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji, the vowel au was discernible in the first syllable, and the consonant seemed to be bh. This would give bhaume," on Tuesday." Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji, however, stated, from personal inspection of the original, that the consonant was certainly s. This gave saumé, which is no real word. And Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji considered that what was really intended was bhaumé, " on Tuesday." While my own opinion, based on the fact that the top stroke which changes the ô of that period into au was partially filled up in the rubbing, was that the intended reading was simé," on Monday."
All doubt as to the actual reading of the original has now been removed, by un-inked paper estampages, for which I am indebted to the kindness of Mr. Haridas Viharidas, Diwan of Junagadh. The estampages establish, beyond the possibility of argument, the fact that the consonant is distinctly s, and the vowel, au. The reading, therefore, is saume. But, as stated above, this is no real word. And the question is, out of three possible corrections, bhaumé, " on Tuesday;" sôme, "on Monday ;" and saumye, "on Wednesday," - which may be most wisely adopted ? I decide, now as before, in favour of somé," on Monday.”
If we adopt the correction bhaumé," on Tuesday," then the equivalent English date must be Tuesday, 31st January, A.D. 1245, on which day there ended the tithi Pbâlguna śukla 2 of Saka-Samvat 1167 current, at about 24 ghalis. There is, indeed, the possibility of connecting the given tithi with a Tuesday, three years later; for Phålguna sukla 2 of Saka Samvat 1170 current began at about 30 gh. 35 p. on Tuesday, 28th January, A. D. 1248. But the tithi thus began 14 minutes after mean sunset, and some three quarters of an hour after actual sunset; and I think that even for this reason this result must be rejected. Moreover, this result is incompatible with that obtained under E. above; for if Mârgaśirsha (and consequently also Phâlguna) of Valabhi-Samvat 1, which, to give the best chance, we will take as the current year, fell in 'Sa ka-Samvat 242 current, then Phâlgana of Va.-S. 927 current fell in S.-S. 1168 current, and, here taking the expired year in order to give the best chance, Phalguna of Va.-S. 927 expired fell in 'S.-S. 1168 expired or 1169 current, which is still one year short of the year arrived at above.
If we adopt the correction saumye, "on Wednesday," the tithi is coupled quite naturally with Wednesday, 29th January, A. D. 1248, on which day it ended at about 32 gh. 5p.; commencing, as has been stated just above, at about 30 gh. 35 p. on the Tuesday. But here again, aa shewn in the preceding paragraph, the result cannot be reconciled with that obtained under E.
And finally, if we adopt the correction sômé,“ on Monday," the tithi is coupled quite naturally with Monday, 19th February, A. D. 1246, on which day it ended at about 30 gh. 5 p.
It is unsatisfactory, especially when so free & selection is available, that, in order to interpret this date intelligibly at all, a correction must be made in a point of leading importance.
4 This result was overlooked, when I first wrote on this subject. I owe it now to Prof. Kielhorn.
