South Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY GURJARAS

The plates were issued from Bharukachchha by the illustrious Jayabhata, the devout worshipper of Mahēśvara, who had attained the Pañchamahāśabda. His genealogy is given here exactly as in the Navsāri plates, commencing form Dadda II. He is, therefore, Jayabhata III of the Early Gurjara Dynasty. The object of the present inscription is to record the grant, by Jayabhata III, of three pieces of land, measuring sixty nivartanas in all, in the village Tōranaka situated in the vishaya of Nāndīpura. In connection with their boundaries are mentioned the villages Jayapura, Viddhēraka, and Bhūtishōhī as well as the river Karillinī. The donee was the Brāhmana Nārāyana, the son of Chashtasvāmin, of the Śāndiya gōtra and the Kauthuma śākhā of the Chhandōga (Śāmavēda), who was then residing at Brahmapurī. The purpose of the gift was, as usual, to provide for the maintenance of the five great sacrifices, bali, charu, vaiśvadēva and others. The grant was made on the occasion of the Tulā-sankrānti on the 11th tithi of the dark fortnight of Āśvayuja. It was recorded on the same tithi of the dark fortnight of Āśvayuja in the year 460 of an unspecified era. The charter was written by the Balādhikrita Sahabhata, the son of the Balādhikrita Durgabhata. The Dūtaka was the same as in the earlier Navsāri plates, viz. the Balādhikrita Bāvulla

The tithi on which the grant was made is mentioned in words in 1.30, and that on which it was recorded is expressed by numerical symbols in the last line. The year is mentioned only once, in the last line, and is expressed in numerical symbols only. This makes it doubtful if the dot following the symbol for 60 indicates the number one, or is a redundant punctuation mark. I am inclined to take the latter view, because a similar mark is used throughout in this record to mark punctuation.¹

According to Kielhorn’s final view, the Kalachuri-Chēdi era commenced on Āśvina śu. di. 1 (the 5th September) in 248 A.C. and its months were pūrnimānta. Of the early dates of this era, only two² admitted of verification and both of them appeared irregular according to this epoch. It would, therefore, be interesting to see how far Kielhorn’s conclusion about the epoch of the Chēdi era is proved or disproved by the date of the present grant. The statement in the present plates that the Tulā-sankrānti, on which the grant was made, occurred in the dark half of Āśvayuja shows that the month was amānta.³ According to Kielhorn’s final view, the date of the present grant would be expected to fall in 707 A.C. if the Kalachuri year 460 was current, and in 708 A.C. if it was expired. But in neither of these years, did the Tulā-sankrānti fall on the 11th tithi of the dark fortnight of the amānta Āśvina.⁴ Again, even if we suppose that the Kalachuri year began on Āśvina śu. di. 1 in 249 A.C. (not in 248 A.C.) as was first held by Kielhorn, the date of the present grant would fall in 708 or 709 A.C. according as the year 460 was current or expired. We have seen above that 708 A.C. does not suit. In 709 A. C. also, the Tulā=sankrānti did not⁵ fall on Āśvina va. di. II. If, on the other hand, the Kalachuri year commenced on Kārttika śu. di. 1 as I have shown elsewhere ⁶ , the date of the
_____________________

¹A similar redundant mark of punctuation occurs after the symbols indicative of the tithi in the same line. Again, if thus read, the year would be an expired one like those of the Navsāri and Kāvī plates of the same dynasty. If the symbols are interpreted to mean 461, the year would have to be taken as current; but current years are cited only exceptionally.
²Viz., the date of the Navsāri plates of Jayabhata III (No. 21) and the Kāvī plate of Jayabhata IV (No. 23).
³The month, if pūrnimānta, would have been kārttika.
⁴In 707 A.C. the Tulā-sankrānti fell on the amānta Āśvina va. di. 8 and in 708 A.C on Āśvina śu. di. 5.
⁵In 709 A. C. the Tulā-sankrānti fell on Āśvina paurnimā.
⁶See Introduction, above.