Indian Epigraphy c6.s3.12

c6.s3.12

The author of the Rājatarangiṇī¹ had before him no less than twelve works of earlier authors; but he justifies his attempt to write a new chronicle by pointing out that the earlier works were defective, apparently because their authors did not strictly follow the principles postulated and followed by him. The sources consulted by Kalhaṇa to free his own composition from mistakes are referred to in a stanza saying, "By a scrutiny of the ordinances of former kings regarding religious foundations and grants, laudatory inscriptions as well as written records, all wearisome errors have been set at rest." Similarly, the author of the Kumbhalgadh inscription² of 1450 A.D. had before him both written and oral traditions of the Rajput bards, although he claims to quote the genealogy of the kings of Mewar after having examined numerous old inscriptions of the praśasti type. These authors therefore utilised epigraphic evidence for checking the details of the chronicles, as historians have to do in other countries for which written history is available. Unfortunately, modern writers on the early history of most parts of India are not as fortunate as the authors of the Rājatarangiṇī and the Kumbhalgadh inscription were. No early work even of the type of bardic chronicles is available for most of the other areas of India. Historians therefore have to depend often almost entirely on informations supplied by inscriptions, including legends on coins and seals.