Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Indian Epigraphy c6.s4: 4. Merits of Epigraphical Evidence

Indian Epigraphy c6.s4

Language
English

4. Merits of Epigraphical Evidence

c6.s4.1

The great importance of inscriptions lies in the fact that they generally offer information about personages and events of Indian history, about which nothing is known from any other source. Only in some cases, we have recorded traditions about such subjects, the details of which can be compared with epigraphic information. Such a comparison very often shows that the details of the traditions are mostly wrong. There are cases of a personage or an event or a subject being merely referred to vaguely in some source and inscriptions clothing them with interesting details.

c6.s4.2

Among the merits of epigraphic records as a source of Indian history, the foremost is the fact that their authors in most cases described contemporary events. In describing the ancestors of his royal patron, the court poet had sometimes to deal with past events and personages. But the material for the description of events of the near past was easily available to him. As regards the distant past, sometimes he depended on recorded or unrecorded tradition. There are also instances (e. g. in the Kumbhalgadh inscription) to show that the author of an epigraphic record tried to ascertain the correct facts with the help of old documents either in his patron’s archives or elsewhere. The author of the Junagadh inscription of 150 A. D., while recounting the early history of the Sudarśana lake, says that it was created by Rāṣṭriya Puṣyagupta during the reign of Candragupta Maurya (c. 322-298 B. C.), and that Yavanarāja Tuṣāspha endowed it with irrigation canals on behalf of Aśoka Maurya (c. 272-232 B.C.). It appears that some genuine records about the lake, belonging to the 4th and 3rd centuries B.C., were available for consultation to the author of the Junagadh inscription in 150 A.D.

c6.s4.3

As already indicated above, from the early medieval period, inscriptions of the imperial families generally incorporated a historical account of the particular dynasties from their foundation down to the date of the records. The Aihole inscription of 634 A.D. gives a fairly clear and trustworthy, if not satisfactorily elaborate, account of the rise and early history of the Cālukyas of Bādāmi covering a period of about one century. The story begins with Jayasiṃha-vallabha, founder of the Cālukya dynasty, and his son Raṇarāga. Raṇarāga’s son Pulakeśin I, who made Vātāpipurī his capital, established the greatness of the family by performing an Aśvamedha sacrifice. His son and successor Kirtivarman I subdued neighbouring powers like the Nalas, Mauryas and Kadambas. He was succeeded by his younger brother Maṅgaleśa who extended his power in the north by conquering Revatidvīpa and defeating the Kalacuri king Buddharāja. His attempt to appoint his own son as his successor led to a civil war between the king and his nephew Pulakeśin II, son of Kīrtivarman I. The whole kingdom fell into a chaotic condition; but ultimately Pulakeśin II succeeded in killing his uncle and gaining the throne. Soon after his accession, Pulakeśin II had to face the invading forces of Appāyika and Govinda who had reached as far as the northern bank of the Bhīmarathī. He succeeded in winning over Govinda and driving out Appāyika. Next, in the south, he subdued the Kadambas of Vanavāsī on the Varadā and their neighbours like the Gaṅgas and Āḷupas and, in the north, the Lāṭas, Mālavas and Gurjaras. Then he defeated Harṣa in the region of the Revā (Narmadā) and became the undisputed lord of the three Mahārāṣṭras. Later, in the course of a digvijaya in the east, he subdued [South] Kosala and Kaliṅga, conquered Piṣṭapura and Lake Kuṇāla and defeated the Pallava king of Kāñcī. He next crossed the Kāverī, made friends with the Coḷas, Pāṇḍyas and Keralas, and defeated the Pallavas once again before his return to Vātāpi.

c6.s4.4

This account of early Cālukya history by the author of the Aihole inscription may be compared with many similar accounts of various imperial families (e.g. the Pālas, Rāṣṭrakūṭas and others) found in their epigraphic records. It has to be noticed that the treatment of the subject in the inscriptions is not as elaborate as in works like the Rājatarangiṇī. This is mainly because their space was considerably limited. Often the authors of inscriptions had to recount the history of several centuries for being engraved only on a few copper plates. Another defective feature of the account is that, although the Aihole inscription quotes the date of its incision on the occasion of the construction of a Jain temple as the Kali year 3735 corresponding to Śaka 556, it gives no date for any of the past events described nor does it quote the duration of the reign of any of the past rulers. Such defects are, however, less prominent in the official charters of some other families. Thus the grants of the Eastern Cālukyas quote the reign-period of each of the past rulers in some cases in years, months and days,¹ while those of the Eastern Gaṅgas quote, in addition to the reign-periods of most of the rulers in years only, the exact date of the coronation of a few of the issuer's predecessors.²

c6.s4.5

¹ Cf. SII, Vol. I, pp. 39 ff., 44 ff., 47 ff., 53 ff.

c6.s4.6

² See, e.g., Ep. Ind., Vol. XXVIII, pp. 235 ff.

c6.s4.7

Another important characteristic of inscriptions is that their texts are generally free from variant readings as they were not usually liable to modification like those of literary works which were copied and recopied by people in later times. Casual references to historical events or personages found in epigraphic records are generally more useful than similar mention in literary works. This is because such works are usually known from late copies and the date of their composition is very often uncertain while an inscription can be assigned to a definite period on palaeographic grounds even when it does not bear a date in any era.

c6.s4.8

Although Kalhaṇa's extraordinary impartiality in describing the events of the reign of the contemporary king Jayasiṁha and of the latter's father and uncle cannot be expected in the official praśastis composed by court poets, some inscriptions are known to describe facts which could not have been quite palatable to the patrons of the authors. Attention in this connection may be drawn to the later charters of the Cālukyas of Bādāmi (such as the Kendur plates)³ describing Cālukya Vijayāditya having been captured by the enemies as well as to the Dubi plates⁴ of the Bhauma king Bhāskaravarman of Prāgjyotiṣa giving a vivid description of the discomfiture and capture of the brothers Supratiṣṭhitavarman and Bhāskaravarman, soon after the death of their father, by the Gauḍa invaders who carried off the princes to their own country and released them afterwards apparently on their acceptance of Gauḍa supremacy.

c6.s4.9

³ Ibid., Vol. IX. p. 200.

c6.s4.10

⁴ Ibid., Vol. XXX, pp. 287 ff.

c6.s4.11

An important feature of epigraphic evidence is that many of the knotty problems of early Indian chronology have been solved by inscriptions dated in eras. Of course the use of popular eras in the dating of documents was originally unknown in India and even royal charters used to be dated in the regnal reckoning of the kings who issued them. But the Vikrama Saṃvat of 58 B. C. was introduced by the Scytho-Parthians and the Śaka era of 78 A. D. by the Kuṣāṇas and there are numerous inscriptions dated in these eras as well as others introduced later (e.g. the Traikūṭaka-Kalacuri era of 248 A.D., the Gupta-Valabhī era of 319 A.D., the Eastern Gaṅga era of about 497 A.D., the Harṣa era of 606 A.D., the Bhauma-Kara era of about 831 A.D., the Cālukya-Vikrama era of 1076 A.D., etc.).

c6.s4.12

There are some inscriptions mentioning past events with reference to particular dates. Thus an inscription¹ from Mandasor tells us how a temple of the Sun-god was built in the said locality in [Vikrama] Saṃvat 493 (436 A.D.), Pauṣa-sudi 13, when Bandhuvarman was ruling over the area as a feudatory of the Gupta emperor Kumāragupta I and how the same temple was repaired in [Vikrama] Saṃvat 529 (473 A.D.), Phālguna-sudi 2. Of course, in areas where the use of an era was not popular, a past event was usually associated with the regnal reckoning of bygone monarchs. Thus the Madras Museum plates² of the 16th regnal year of Uttama-coḻa refer to two earlier events respectively of the 22nd regnal year of Parakesarin (Parāntaka I) and the 9th regnal year of Kampavarman.

c6.s4.13

¹ CII, Vol. III, p. 81.

c6.s4.14

² SII, Vol. III, p. 264 ff.

c6.s4.15

We have also inscriptions containing a record of events happening at different dates arranged in a chronological order. The Siron Khurd (Siyādoṇī) inscription³ in 46 lines records twentyseven donations made at different dates between Vikrama Saṃvat 960 and 1025 by some subordinates and subjects of the Gurjara Pratihāra emperors of Kanauj in favour of the Brahmanical deities worshipped at the locality. Some of the records of these donations are undated while a few of the dated records refer to the reigns of the Gurjara Pratihāra monarchs. But there is little doubt that the records were arranged in strict chronological order. The dates, Vikrama Saṃvat 960 (903 A.D.) and 964 (907 A.D.), are associated with the reign of Mahendrapāla, successor of Bhoja, and Vikrama Saṃvat 1005 (948 A.D.) with that of Devapāla, successor of Kṣitipāla. The inscription was drawn up by people who were apparently endowed with a sense of chronological order. Similarly, in the Nagari plates¹ of Eastern Gaṅga Anaṅabhīma III (c. 1211-38 A.D.), we have not only an account of the predecessors of the donor for many generations together with the duration of their rules and the date of the coronation of one of them in the Śaka era, but also the description of seven grants made by the king within a period of about one year quoting the exact date of each one of them.

c6.s4.16

³ Ep. Ind., Vol. I, p. 162.

c6.s4.17

¹ Ibid., Vol. XXVIII, p. 235.

c6.s4.18

Chronological representation of the events of a particular reign is also noticed in inscriptions. Thus the Hathigumpha inscription of the thirteenth regnal year of Khāravela first tells us how he was made a Yuvarāja in his sixteenth year and was installed as Mahārāja in his twentyfifth year and then recounts his achievements in each one of the thirteen years of the reign beginning from the first regnal year. The inscriptions of the Imperial Coḷas similarly quote the achievements of the kings in a strict chronological order although the events are not specifically assigned to particular years. It has been noticed, e.g., that a record of the 6th regnal year of Rājendra-coḷa copies the account of his exploits found in a record of the 5th year of his reign and adds to it his activities during the current year, while a record of his 7th year quotes what is given in the previous year's record with the addition of that year's success.²

c6.s4.19

² See SII, Vol. IV, No. 327; Vol. V, No. 578; A. R. Ep., 1908. No. 587; SII, Vol. II, No. 82. Cf. Nilakanta Sastri, The Colas, 2nd ed., p, 195; The Pandyan Kingdom, p. 144.

c6.s4.20

With reference to the introduction of popular eras in ancient India, it may be noticed that even in earlier times there appears to have been a tendency to regard the dates of the death of the Buddha and of Mahāvīra and that of the battle of Kurukṣetra as some sort of epochs of eras. But the Buddhist and Jain Nirvāṇa reckonings were nothing like popular eras and often particular events were placed in a century of such a reckoning.

c6.s4.21

Thus the *Milindapañha* places Milinda, the Yavana or Greek king of Śākala, 500 years (i.e. in the 6th century) after the Buddha’s *parinirvāṇa*. As regards the date of the battle of Kurukṣetra, there were several different traditions: (1) about the beginning of the Kali-yuga in 3102 B.C., (2) 653 years after the beginning of the Kali-yuga, i.e. 2449 B.C., and (3) 1015 or 1050 years before the accession of Mahāpadma Nanda (4th century B.C.), i.e. about the middle of the second millennium B.C. The third of these dates was arrived at by the Puranic chroniclers by adding together the durations of the reigns of a succession of kings from Parikṣit down to the predecessor of Mahāpadma Nanda. The above reckonings are certainly not of much use for purposes of chronology; but they appear to show that the Indians of old were not absolutely devoid of a chronological sense.

Linked texts (8)