No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Every one who has turned his attention to the study of Indian antiquities will probably be inclined to admit that one of the most important desiderata at the present time is a scheme of Chronology which shall fix, within reasonable limits of error, the dates of the Tarious kings or dynasties who ruled between the Christian Era and the Hegira. It is not at present indispensable that any particular king's reign should be ascertained within ten or twenty years of deviation either way; but it is hopeless to attempt to understand the subject while we cannot make up our minds whether the Balabhi kings dated their inscriptions from their own Era or from that of Vikramâditya—a difference of 376 years—or whether the Guptas dated theirs before or after the Era bearing their name (318–19 A.D.). While such discrepancies as these exist, it is idle to suppose we can either understand the history of the Hindus, or appreciate the forms of their arts, or the development of their religions.
page 82 note 1 In the whole 5000 pages to which his Indische Alterthumskunde extends, less than 50 are devoted to this subject, and they are the mere jottings of his note-book, printed without system or arrangement, as things that must be alluded to in an encyclopædic work like his, but as of very little value for any purpose.
page 83 note 1 In the text I purpose to distinguish these works as the Hoeï-li, the other as the Si-yu-ki; but in the notes it will suffice, as is done in the French, to call the first, vol. i.; and the second, vols. ii. and iii. of H.T., as short for Hiouen-Thsang.
page 83 note 2 H.-T. i. 14.
page 83 note 3 H.-T. i. 90.
page 83 note 4 96.
page 83 note 5 147.
page 83 note 6 171.
page 84 note 1 H.-T. i. 215.
page 84 note 2 252.
page 84 note 3 292.
page 85 note 1 J.A.S.B. vol. vi. p. 69.
page 86 note 1 H.-T. ii. 251.
page 86 note 2 H.-T. i. p. 251.
page 86 note 3 H.-T. i. 203.
page 86 note 4 J.B.B.R.A.S. iii. 203 et seqq.
page 86 note 5 Madras Journal, xx. p. 81; J.R.A.S. xx. 253.
page 86 note 6 J.A.S.B. vi. 68; H.T. ii. 251. “Il accepta alors le héritage de la Royauté, se designa lui même par le nom de Prince Royal (Koumârarâdja) et prit le titre de Sîlâditya.” His real name we were just told was Harshayarddhana.
page 86 note 7 H.-T. i. 111.
page 86 note 8 H.-T. ii. 247.
page 87 note 1 H.-T. i. 204.
page 87 note 2 H.-T. i. 205.
page 87 note 3 H.-T. i. 112; ii. 247.
page 87 note 4 H.-T. ii. 248. M. Reinaud must have read his Hiouen-Thsang very carelessly when he wrote the paragraph quoted by MrThomas, , J.R.A.S. vol. xii. p. 44Google Scholar, in which he invents another Harsha between Prabhâkara and Râjararddhana, and makes the destruction of the dynasty 607. No such person existed except as our Ṣîlâditya, and the catastrophe took place 648–50—not in 607 at all.
page 87 note 5 H.-T. ii. 115.
page 88 note 1 H.-T. ii. 118.
page 88 note 2 Throughout I propose in the lists to distinguish those kings who were Mahârâjas Adhirâjas, with the capitals M.A.
page 88 note 3 Asiatic Researches, xv. p. 87.
page 89 note 1 Thomas' Prinsep, vol. i. p. 257 et seqq. where all the evidence is collected together. See also a paper by ProfessorDowson, , J.R.A.S., vol. xx. 1, 47et seqq.Google Scholar
page 89 note 2 Vol. i. p. 216, et seqq.
page 90 note 1 H.-T. i. 206; iii. 162, H.T. loc.
page 90 note 2 J.B.B.R.A.S., vol. viii. 245.
page 90 note 3 Tod's Annals, vol. i., p. 801.
page 90 note 4 Thomas' Prinsep, i. p. 269, etc.
page 90 note 5 Thomas loc.
page 90 note 6 J.B.B. R. A. S., viii., 245.
page 90 note 7 This so near Tod's date fan the destruction of the dynasty, that I cannot help fancying the Jaina Annalist mistook the overthrow of the dynasty they superseded for that of their own dynasty.
page 91 note 1 J. R, A. S., vol. iv. p. 1, et seq., Madras Journal, xx., 78 et seq,
page 92 note 1 J.B.B.R.A.S., iii, p. 206, et seqq.
page 92 note 2 J.R.S., vol. iv. p. 8.
page 93 note 1 In the genealogy above quoted, General Jacob, by some oversight, omits Mangalîṣa, though his third inscription is by him, and fully confirms all we learn from the others. In it mention is made “Shankaraga's son Budha Râjâ.” The first probably being the Ṣaṣanka, who, according to Hoei-li (112) killed Râjavardhana, of Canouge. This inscription unfortunately is not dated.
page 94 note 1 Madras Journal xx., p. 81.
page 94 note 2 J.B.B.R.A.S. viii., 245.
page 95 note 1 Jour. R.A.S., N.S. i. 250.
page 95 note 2 Madras Journal xx, 81.
page 96 note 1 H.-T. ii. 190.
page 96 note 2 In the following pages I have generally used Professor Wilson's abstract of the Râja-T. in the fifteenth volume of the Asiatic Researches. M. Troyer's translation is extremely useful in filling up details, but as the MS. he seems to have used was much less full and complete than that of the Professor, the latter contains many particulars most useful for our purposes, which the translator omits.
page 96 note 3 Numismatic Chr. viii., 175. J. A. S. B. vii., 704.
page 96 note 4 Ind. Alterthums., vol. ii., p. xxiv.
page 97 note 1 A. R., xv., p. 41.
page 97 note 2 Elphinstone's History of India, i., p. 496, et seq. Sir H. Elliot's Mahomedan Histories, passim.
page 97 note 3 Report to Government, 1861–2, p. 12. The General assures me he has materials quite sufficient to establish the correctness of this date. When they are published I shall he happy to give them my most earnest attention, and to modify the above if I find them conclusive. In the meanwhile, however, the difference between us is only twenty years, and that is not important for our present purposes.
page 99 note 1 Troyer, vol. ii., p. 94. A. R. xv., 39.
page 100 note 1 A. R. xv., 39.
page 101 note 1 Mahawanso, p. 264.
page 101 note 2 J.R.A.S., N.S., vol. iii., p. 152.
page 101 note 3 J.A.S.B., vol. vi., p. 865. A. R. xv., p. 32.
page 102 note 1 A. R., ix., 175, and xv., 85.
page 102 note 2 H.-T., ii., 190.
page 104 note 1 As I only refer to Albîrûnî in consequence of the value Mr. Thomas attaches to his evidence, I take the passages as found in his essays, to which alone I refer. They will be found in the twelfth volume of this Journal, p. 1, et seqq., and in his edition of Prinsep, vol. i., 268 to 276. As they are comprised in so short a space, it will not be necessary to refer specially to each page.
page 104 note 2 They are collected by Thomas in his edition of Prinsep, vol. i., p. 246 to 249.
page 105 note 1 In the above I have argued as if the translations of Albîrûnî given by Messrs. Reinaud and Thomas were final; both are competent Arabic scholars, and, as I am not, I have taken the meaning as they understand it. On page 271, vol. i. of Mr. Thomas' Prinsep, he gives another translation in the following words: “The Kúbat Kál (Gupta era) that was, as is said, a wicked and powerful family; when it ceased it was dated from, and as it were (it would seem that) Balab was the last of them, for the first of their era also is 241 years after the Shaka Kál.” If that word also has any right to be where it is put, there is an end of the question, and we are fighting with shadows, in so far as Albîrûnî is concerned. All I contend for is, that both dated from 318 A.D.
page 106 note 1 J.A.S.B., vi., p. 12.
page 106 note 2 Vishṇu Purâṇa, 478; Ariana Antiqua, 407.
page 106 note 3 V. P. 474.
page 108 note 1 J.A.S.B. vi. p. 974; Thomas' Prinsep, i. 233, et seq.
page 108 note 2 Loc. c.
page 108 note 3 We probably must refer again to the Lâṭ for the true reading.
page 109 note 1 A probable explanation of the matter is, that the Kashmir King may have assisted his Suzerain in his expedition to Ceylon, and when he returned home, boasted that, “He had done it.” The Châlukya Adhirâjas boast so continuously of their conquests of Ceylon, (J. B. B. R.A.S. III., p. 205,) that it is probable that from the time of the Guptas, or at least from 434, the island remained more or less a dependency of the Emperors of India, for a considerable time at least.
page 109 note 2 J.A.S.B. v. 726.
page 109 note 3 J.A.S.B.; Thomas' Prinsep, i. 245.
page 109 note 4 J. B. B. R. A. S. vi. pt. 2nd, p. 56.
page 110 note 1 Vishṇu Purâṇna, p. 477.
page 110 note 2 J.R.A.S. viii. 48.
page 110 note 3 J.A.S.A. viii. 633; Thomas, i. 249.
page 110 note 4 J.A.S.B. xxx. 277.
page 110 note 5 Prinsep, i. 340.
page 110 note 6 J.B.B.R.A.S. viii. 249.
page 111 note 1 J.A.S.B. xix. 271.
page 111 note 2 Indische Alt. iii. 659.
page 112 note 1 J.A.S.B. vii. 634.
page 112 note 2 Thomas, i. 250.
page 113 note 1 Prinsep pointed this out as early as 1835, and it has not since been disputed. J.A.S.B., iv. p. 621, et seq.
page 113 note 2 J.R.A.S., xii., pl. v., fig. 25, 27, 28, pl. vii., fig. 1, 2, 8.
page 114 note 1 Ayeen Akbaree II., 54. Ferishtah p. lxxvi.
page 115 note 1 My impression is, that Vikramâditya was the great grandson of Bahram Gour. Thus his son bore that name (447 ?). His son was Harsha, and then came the second king of that name, the great Vikramâditya in 490. According to this view, the so-called Gadhia Paisa fall naturally and easily into the position to which they have hitherto been tentatively assigned.
page 115 note 2 Thomas, J. R. A. S. xii., pl. v., fig. 31, 32. Ariana Antiqua, pl. xviii. fig. 2, etc.
page 116 note 1 H.-T., i. 150; iii. 42.
page 116 note 2 Vassilief, Le Bouddisme, etc., p. 200.
page 116 note 3 H.-T. ii. 191.
page 117 note 1 J.A.S.B. vi. p. 856, et seqq.
page 118 note 1 J.R.A.S. xii., p. 48; Prinsep ii. 91.
page 118 note 2 Mr. Newton's paper has not yet been printed in the Journal of his Society, but appeared in the “Overland Times of India” in July last.
page 118 note 3 J.B.B.R.A.S. vol. viii. 223.
page 118 note 4 I do not think the difference of spelling here indicated of any importance. Hiouen-Thsang's name was translated first from Sanskrit into Chinese, and from Chinese into French, and might easily hare been more changed in the process.
page 118 note 5 J.R.A.S. xii. 68.
page 119 note 1 Thomas' Prinsep, i. 340
page 119 note 2 Loc cit. ii. 95.
page 119 note 3 The existence of these two families may, perhaps, be the cause of Albîrûnî's mistake. There certainly were Guptas before 318 as well as after. He may have confounded the one with the other.
page 120 note 1 J.B.B.R.A.S. vol. vi. p. lxxii.
page 120 note 2 Loc. c. pi. 2, pl. 1, and p. xiii.
page 121 note 1 J. R. A. S. xii., pl. ii., No. 44 to 51.
page 124 note 1 Wilson, V. P., p. 484.
page 124 note 2 After the destruction of the Ândhra kings, the Vishṇu Purâṇa goes on to say (Wilson, p. 474.)—“After these will reign 7 A′bhíras, 10 Garddhabas, 16 Ṣakas, 8 Yavanas, 14 Tusharas, 13 Mundas, 11 Maundas, together 79 princes, who will be sovereigns for 1399 years.” We now know that many, if not all of these dynasties were contemporary; but the average of their reigns, which is all we are here concerned with, gives only 17 years and a half, and the other Purâṇas with the same number of years, enumerate 85 and 89 kings, so the average duration of their reigns at all events looks like truth.
page 124 note 3 Quarterly Review, Sep., 1860, referring to Justin, Historiæ, xxvi. 2.
page 124 note 4 The Mahawanso (Turnour's translation, xlvii.) gives him 34, but this I fancy includes the period of confusion during which the Brahmin Kauṭilya ruled after the death of Nanda.
page 125 note 1 De Guigne's Histoire des Huns, vol. i. p. 45.
page 125 note 2 Wilson's V. P. p. 473.
page 125 note 3 J. A. S. B. vi. 963; Thomas' Prinsep, i. 237.
page 125 note 4 Ayeen Akbaree; Stirling's Cuttack, A. R. xv. 255.
page 125 note 5 Prinsep's Useful Tables, xl., Thomas' edition, 275.
page 126 note 1 J. B. B. R. A. S. vi. pt. ii. p. 66.
page 126 note 2 In Prinsep's Useful Tables, as published in Calcutta, in 1834, p. 100, Chandra Ṣrî is dated 428 A.D., which is exactly the date I would assign to him. I do not know, however, what the authority for this is.
page 126 note 3 Thomas' Prinsep i., 251.
page 126 note 4 Wilson's V.P., 479.
page 126 note 5 A. R. ix., 115.
page 127 note 1 J.B.B.R.A.S. v. 42.
page 127 note 2 J.B.B.R.A.S. vi. p. ii. p. 120.
page 127 note 3 Wilson, V.P., p. 473.
page 127 note 4 There are two dates in the Nassick inscriptions I. and II. J.B.B.R.A.S., v. 42 and 47, which, as they at present stand translated, seem to conflict with each other. The first is 19 from an unspecified era, but seems to be in the reign of Padma or Pulomâvi, the successor of Gotamiputra, and if this is so, and as Dr. Stevenson conjectures it is the Balabhi era, it would make that era commence with the death of the great king. The second is in the 24th year of the “Modern era,” and the act recorded is apparently by order of Gotamiputra. This would make the foundation of the era coincident with the accession and the inscription date three years after his death, as he reigned only 21 years. These discrepancies can only be settled by a careful re-examination of the texts. My impression meanwhile is, that the Balabhi era dates from his accession, and consequently six years after the date which from Purâṇic calculations I have assigned to that event.
page 128 note 1 J. A. S. B. vi. p.
page 128 note 2 J.B.B.R.A.S. vol. v. 33. See alṣo J.R.A.S., N.S., vol. iii. p. 130.
page 128 note 3 Tree and Serpent Worship, pp. 84 and 168.
page 129 note 1 In the above I hare avoided all allusion to each identification of Indian names with those recorded by Greek or Latin authors. The difficulties are sufficiently great when a name is repeated in two places in some nearly similar Indian languages, but when the difference is so great as between Greek or Chinese with Sanskrit or Pali, the similarities of sound are so untruṣtworthy as to be of little or no value, and had better be put on one side till, at least, the investigation is further advanced.
page 130 note 1 J.B.B.R.A.S. v. 163.
page 130 note 2 J.B.B.R.A.S. vol. vi. pt. ii. p. 18.
page 131 note 1 J. B. B. R. A. S. vi., p. 117.
page 131 note 2 J. A. S. B. vol. vi., p. 63.
page 132 note 1 The Vikramâditya, mentioned in Gotamiputra's inscription (J. B. B. R. A. S. vol. v. p. 43), is evidently, from the company in which he is named, of prehistoric antiquity.
page 132 note 2 Thomas' Prinsep, vol. i. p. 268.
page 132 note 3 I am very much inclined to agree with Bhau Daji when he says, that nothing is dated from this era before the 11th century, (J. B. B. R. A. S. viii. p. 242). There is certainly more truth in the assertion than appears at first sight. My impression is, that the era was invented in the age of Bhoja (A.D. 993), or rather Dy the revived Châlukyas, A.D. 973, 1003 (J. R. A. S. vol. iv. p. 4).
page 133 note 1 In the Ayeen Akbaree (vol. ii. p. 54), it is stated that Bhoja, the son of Munja, succeeded in 541 of the era of Vikramâditya. As no one now believes that this Bhoja lived before the very end of the tenth century, it looks very like as if he dated from the son of Bahram Gour, not from the Ṣakâri; but wherever you find this era, there is nothing but confusion.
page 133 note 2 Turnour's Mahawanso, p. 48; J.A.S.B. vol. vi. p. 714, &c.
page 134 note 1 V. P. p. 468; Mahawanso, p. xlvii. et seq.
page 134 note 2 Bigandet, Life and Legend of Buddha, p. 371. Crawfurd's Embassy to Ava, Appendix viii.
page 134 note 3 Bigandet and Crawford, Loc. s.c.
page 135 note 1 So little importance do I attach to the family of Ṣâkya Muni in a chronological point of view, that I would not allude to them even in a note, if it were not that the Purâṇas have been blamed for making Ṣâkya the father of Ṣuddhodana instead of the son (Wilson, V. P., p. 463). They are quite correct, however. It is only one of the 1001 instances in which we find a king or prince adopting his grandfather's name.
page 135 note 2 V. P. 466.
page 135 note 3 Indica, cix.
page 135 note 4 Nat. Hist. vi. c. 17.
page 137 note 1 Since the above paper was in type, a curious instance of the prevalence of the Balabhi era has been brought to my notice. An inscription has been found in the Temple of Ambernath, near Kalyan, opposite Bombay. It is dated Samvat 782. As the Temple is certainly not earlier than the end of the 11th century, this must be from the foundation of the city of Balabhi. The character of the alphabet in which it is written fully confirms this ascription.