Indian Antiquary Vol 42

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 171

JUNE, 1913.]
ON SOME NEW DATES OF PANDYA KINGS
163
Now, what can be the meaning of Krita-samjhite, which expression also is met with in our inscription? Obviously, the years 461, are here meant to be called Krita. But it may be asked, "Are there any inscriptions which contain instances of this word applied to years?" I answer in the affirmative, for there are at least two inscriptions which speak of Krita years. They are the Bijaygaḍh stone pillar inscription of Vishnuvardhana and the Gangdhâr stone inscription of Viśvavarman referred to above. In the first, the date is mentioned in the words, Kriteshu chaturshu varaha-satesho ashtavin(m)seshu 400 20 8, etc. The second sets forth the date in the following verse: Yateshu shatuḥ(r)shu kri(kri)teshu sateshu sau[m]yeshv = dita-sollarapadeshv-iha vatsa[reshu]. Dr. Fleet translates the word kriteshu by "fully complete," but admits that it involves a straining. Besides, even with this meaning, the word is made redundant by yateshu, which is used along with it. But the sense of kriteshu, and consequently of the two passages in which it occurs, is rendered clear and intelligible, if we take it to be a name by which the years of what is now called the Vikrana era were known, as no doubt the phrase Krita-samjnite of our inscription tells us. But here a question arises: "Was Krita the name of an era?" It is difficult to answer the question definitely at the present stage of our research. But the manner in which the word Krita is employed leads us to surmise that it was at any rate not the name of a king or royal dynasty that was associated with these years. We have e. g., eras originated by Saka or Gupta kings. But we never hear of expressions such as Sakeshu vatsareshu or Gupteshu vatsareahu. The Bijaygaḍh and Gangdhâr inscriptions, on the other hand, as we have seen, speak of Kriteshu varsheshu or vatsareshu. It is for this reason that I am inclined to think that Krita was not the name of a king or dynasty that was given to these years. It is not safe just at present to make an assertion on this point, but it appears to me that what is now known as the Vikrama era was invented by the people or astronomers for the purpose of reckoning years and was consequently originally known as Krita, which means "made." If this supposition is correct, it is clear why Krita can be used in apposition to years as is no doubt intended in the passages cited above. I do not, however, believe that the Mâlavas had anything to do with the actual foundation of the era. This is evident from the word amnata, which never means "originated". The word can here signify only handed down traditionally," and shows that the Mâlavas were only in possession of a traditional usage regarding, i. e., of a mode of reckoning, the Krita years. We know that there are two systems of reckoning, which are peculiar to the Vikrama era, viz. the northern (Chaitrddi) and the southern (Kartikadi). Whether the Mâlavas were supposed in the fifth century A. D. to have handed down one of these or not is a question which we must await further discoveries to answer. ON SOME NEW DATES OF PANDYA KINGS IN THE 13TH CENTURY A. D. BY DIWAN BAHADUR L. D. SWAMIKANNU PILLAI, M. A., B. L. (MADRAS); LL.B. (LOND.). I.
IN December 1911, I obtained the permission of the Epigraphist to the Government of Madras, M.R.Ry. Rao Sahib H. Krishna Sastriar Avargal, to search the files of his transcripts of Pandya inscriptions for unverified dates to be used as illustrations to my Indian Chronology as well as to the method of verification of dates advocated in my little brochure, Hints to Workers in South Indian Chronology. The search resulted in the discovery of many unverified Pandya dates, equal in importance, and more than equal in number, to those upon which the late Prof. Kielhorn had been engaged from 1901 up to the time of his death in 1908, and which had been published by him from time to time in the Epigraphia Indica. I had reason to believe that a considerable proportion of these unverified dates had also been submitted to Prof. Kielhorn, but that he had not succeeded in discovering a clue to them. From a note in German by Prof. Kielhorn, which I found in one of the transcripts in the Epigraphist's office, it was apparent that, in order to be able to deal more effectively with Pandya dates, which no doubt present features of unusual difficulty (as pointed out in my Hints to Workers in South Indian Ibid., p. 75 11. 19-20.
Fleet's Gupta Insors., p. 258.