Page:The Indian Antiquary Vol 2.djvu/108

 94 THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY. [March, 1873. 511 for 411 ; and if the facts are as stated in the inscription, and Pulakes'i I. was the grandfather of Pulakes'i II., which I see no reason for doubting, some such correction as this seems indispensable, but not to a greater extent than 100 years. If this were the only inscription in which an error had been detected, it would be of little conse¬ quence ; but on reading Dr. Bh&u D&ji’s very unsatisfactory analysis of the inscriptions publish¬ ed by the Committee of Architectural Antiquities in Western India, a second occurs, in which the falsification is even more evident. At page 315, J. B. B.R.A. S., vol. IX., an inscription of Pulakes'i II. is quoted, dated S'aka 506, or A. D. 584. This inscription, of which a second abstract is quoted (page 199) in the same volume, tells us how he fought with Harsha Vardhana, the Silfiditya of Hiwen Thsang, and speaks of their wars in tho past tense. Now we happen to know, not only by inference from Hiwen Thsang, but from the more precise testimony of Ma-twan-lin (J. A. S. B.} vol. VI. p. 68), that these events took place between the years 618 and 627 ; and consequently, as this inscription could not have been written till after the last-named year, its date is certainly 43 years too early, or more probably 50 years at least. Besides this, another inscription was quoted by Mr. Eggeling at the last meeting of the Asiatic Society,0 dated in the third year of the second Pulakes'i’s reign, S'aka 534 or A. D. 612, which I have no doubt is the correct date (J’. R. A. S. N. S.} vol. IV. p. 94). Here then we have two important in¬ scriptions, one of which requires a correction of about 100 years, the other of about 50, to bring them into accordance with known historical events ; and what I want to ask your learned readers is, whe¬ ther they can offer any solution of this difficulty, or whether, on the contrary, we must be prepared to meet with such falsifications again in other places ? Unfortunately the long dates in this inscription do not help us in this matter. At page 315, Bhfiu D&ji states them as follows:—Kaliyuga 3855, and from the war of the Mah£bh&rata 3730, and consequently shewing an interval of 125 years between these events. Now, applying our usual Kaliyuga equation, 3101 B. C., to these, we have 754 A. D. for the first, which is much too late, and 629 for the second, which certainly is so near the correct date that it might be adopted as final, if we felt sure it is in the inscription. But at page 199, • Asiatic Society,—Jan. 20.—Mr. J. Kggcling, the Se¬ en tary, submitted translations of, and notes on, a number of Sou'h Indian inscriptions, with a view to shew what materials are available in England for improving our knowledge of the hbtorv of the Dekhan. These materials were stilted to consist partly of original copper-plates in the possession of the Society, the India Office,^ .British Museum, and private individuals, especially Sir W. Elliot. . . . The dynasty which receives most light from these documents is that ofohe Chalukvas. Of the Eastern or Rajamnhcndri branch especially, there are in Sir W. Elliot’s volume [of impressions J several highly important grants, containing complete chronological records of that line from Dr. Bh&u Daji, with a glaring want of correctness, gives a very different version of matters, and, that there may be no mistake this time, gives his dates in words, not in figures. According to this last version, the beginning of the Kaliyuga is placed 3506 before the date of this inscription, and the Bh&rata 3855 years before the same time. In other words, the Mah&bhftrata was fought out in the Treta Yuga, and the interval between these two events was 349 years instead of 125, as we were told in a previous paragraph. Fortunately we know too well the cause of these modern discrepancies, and can apply the correction. With the more ancient ones, it is not so easy.f In conclusion, allow me to express an earnest hope that, before long, some competent antiquary will visit Iwalli and Badami. The inscription above discussed shews the building on which it is found to be the oldest structural temple known to exist in Western India, and, if Stirling is to be depended upon, cotemporary with the great temple at Bhuvanes'war in Katak, which is the oldest known temple in Eastern India. If, too, the inscription No. 12 in the Badami cave should turn out to belong to the sixth century, as Dr. Bhfiu D&ji conjec¬ tures from the form of the characters, it will throw a new light on the history of cave-temple archi¬ tecture in the West. From such imperfect data as I have at my command, I would guess these caves to be considerably more modern ; but we sadly want plans and architectural details of this most interest¬ ing group of monuments; while, except from the sequence of architectural details, I know of no mode by which dates can in India be ascertained with even proximate certainty. Jas. Fergusson. Langham Place, 30/A Jan. 1873. ON TIIE INTERPRETATION OF PATANJALI. Sir,—In the extract from Prof. Weber’s critique on Dr. Goidstucker, given^ in the Indian Anti¬ quary, vol. II. p. 61, there are several points, besides the main one I took up (at page 59), which require notice. From the passage about the Mauryas quoted by Dr. Goldstiicker, Prof. Weber infers that P&nini, in making his rule V. 3, 99, had in his eye such images as those that had come down from the Mauryas. How the passage supports such an inference, I am at a loss to see. Panini in that the first king, Vishnu vardhana, the Hunchback (about A. I). 604 to 622), to Airnna Raja, who reigned iu A. D. 945, being ihen ten years old. Regarding the Kalvaui line also, tkc*e materials contribute some valuable information (one graut of Sntyasraya being dated in the third year of his reign, S'aka 534, 'A. D.’ 612), as they do regarding nearly every dynasty of the Dekhan. One inscription, containing in the introductory s'lokasa list of the solar race, supplies thirteen name* of princes of a branch of the Chola dynasty.— Athencenm, Jan. 25, 1873, p. 118. f To prevent its misleading. I may as well point out that in inscription 8, p. 316, the date is misprinted as 789 A. D. ; it ought to be 889.