« السابقةمتابعة »
96 G. A. Grierson-Grant of Civa-simha to Vidyāpati-thakkura. [No. 1,
On the genuineness of the Grant of Çiva-sinha to Vidyāpali-thakkura.
By G. A. GRIERSON, C.I.E., Ph.D., I.C.S.
[Read May, 1899.] Regarding this grant, which is dated La-saṁ 292 (?), Sana 807, Samvata 1455, Çākā 1321, see the Indian Antiquary, Vol. XIV, p. 190, and the Proceedings of this Society for 1895, Plate iii. The genuineness of this plate has been doubted, but no positive proof for or against the theory has hitherto been put forward.
Dr. Kielhorn’s Inscriptions of Northern India, No. 578, shows that the last two dates mentioned in it both correspond to Thursday, 10th July A.D., 1399; but that this day would fall in the Bengali San 806, and in the Hijra San 801 (not 807). Unless therefore there has been an error in the calculations of the writer of the deed, neither of these two latter eras can be meant by the word sana. There is however another era, also entitled san, and which is moreover the era which in these modern days, is generally current in the part of Bihār from which the inscription comes. It is the Faşlī San, an era introduced by the Emperor Akbar. For information regarding it, see Prinsep's Useful Tables, ed. Thomas, p. 170. The year runs exactly parallel with the Vikrama Samvat, the only difference being that, to obtain the Faşlı year, we must subtract 648 from the Samvat date. There are no dark and light fortnights in the Faşlī month, the days running through each month from 1 to 30, but with this exception the Faşlī day of the month and weekday are always the same as the Samvat ones. It is thus a very easy calculation to convert a Samv
to a Faşlī date, and it will be seen that Faşli San 807 does as a matter of fact correspond to V. S. 1455.
This at once stamps the grant as a very clumsy forgery, for F. S. 807 never existed. The first year of the era, as founded by Akbar, was, not 1, but was 963. No date purporting to be earlier than F. S. 963 is possible. It is therefore evident that the dates in this grant must have been forged by some modern jyautiņa, of whom there are hundreds of half educated ones in Tirhut, who knew the simple equation for converting Samvat dates to Faşlī ones, but did not know the history of the Fasli era. In his anxiety to make the grant look as genuine as possible, he put in all the synchronous dates he knew about, and exposed his forgery in so doing.
teration will be adopted for the future in all publications of the Society. Authors of papers for the Journal, Pt. I, are particularly requested to adhere to it in their contributions.
A. FOR THE DEVANĀGARI ALPHABET, AND FOR ALL
ALPHABETS RELATED TO IT. a, Grā, Ti, $i, Eu, 5ū, 21,
स्ट !, De, Tē, सो ०, चो, ऐ ai, चौ
? ūk, kh,
7th, d. adh, णn
(ਡੇ ) MG,
In Modern Vernaculars only; ş may be represented by ?, and ? by rh.
Avagraha is to be represented by an apostrophe, thus i sfa sõ 'pi. Visarga is represented by ḥ, Jihvāmūlīya by h, and Upalhmāniya by h. Anusvāra is represented by m, thus til samsarga, and anunāsika by the sign over the letter nasalized, thus ojā, grã, and so on. The uditta accent is represented by the sign' and the svarita by. Thus, afo: agniḥ, afa ar janitá, at kvå, at kanya. The anudātta accent may be represented by: Thus, à gaua té àvardhanta. B. FOR PERSIAN (INCLUDING ARABIC WORDS IN
PERSIAN) AND HINDUSTĀNI. (The system is not applicable to Arabic when pronounced as in Arabicspeaking countries) :Vowels. Consonants. Sounds only found in
conch GG. 6.roo oooq. & Ça Ç Lobo
f ü q
w when representing anunāsika in Dēva
Nāgarī, by on the preceding vowel w (or rarely v)
Hamzah | (where necessary) The J of the article w in Arabic words should be assimilated before the solar letters ; and the vowel u which often precedes the article and absorbs its vowel should remain attached to the word to which it belongs. Thus-> JW Iqbālu-d-daulah.
Tanwin may be rendered by n-e.g., ittijāqan. Alif-i maqsūrah should be rendered by a.
Final 8 need not be written in Persian and Hindūstani words, but should be written in Arabic words.
ASIATIC SOCIETY OF BENGAL
Part I-HISTORY, LITERATURE, &c.,
A Collection of Antiquities from Central Asia. Part I. - By A. R. RUDOLF
HOERNLE, C.I.E., Ph.D. (TÜBINGEN).
(With 19 Plates and a Map.)
On two portions of this collection I have already reported in this Journal, Vol. LXVI, for 1897, Part I, pp. 213 ff., and in the Proceedings, for April 1898, pp. 124 ff. In the following pages I propose to give an account of the entire collection; and it will, therefore, be necessary to briefly include the substance of those two previous papers. For the leisure, without which I should not have been able to write it, I am under great obligation to the Government of India who, with the concurrence of the Government of Bengal, placed me on special duty for the purpose of examining and reporting on the collection.
1 This is my Report to the Government of India, published, by permission of that Government, as an Extra-Number of the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [Part II. of this Report will be issued sabsequently. - T. B.)
J. 1. 1
To begin with, I may briefly explain the circumstances which led
to the formation of the collection. It was the Origin of the discovery of the Bower and Weber Manuscripts Collection. which first drew my attention to Eastern Turk.
estan as a promising field for epigraphical exploration. My hopes regarding the archæological possibilities of that country were confirmed by what I heard about the success of the Russians, whose Political Agents were said to actively collect manuscripts and other antiquities for St. Petersburg. Accordingly on the 1st June, 1893, I wrote to Mr. (now Sir) Charles J. Lyall, who was then the Home Secretary of the Government of India, suggesting that the Government might send instructions to their Political Agents in different parts of Central Asia, to make enquiries and to secure such specimens as they may be able to obtain. My suggestion was heartily seconded by Sir Charles Lyall, and at his instance, (in his demi-official letter, dated the 14th June, 1893), the Foreign Secretary, Sir M. Durand, who also fully approved of the proposal, caused the necessary instructions to issue, on the 22nd August, 1893, to Lt.-Colonel D. W. R. Barr, Officiating Resident in Kashmir, and through him to the Political Officers in Gilghit, Chitral, Kashghar and Leh. Similar instructions were issued to the British Political Agents in Khorassan, and, I believe, in Meshed. In
response to these instructions a large number of Central Asian antiquities has already been secured, forming a very respectable British Collection, to which additions are still being made. To me personally it is source of much satisfaction to have thus been the means of initiating the movement. It is in acknowledgment of this initiative, that all acquisitions are transmitted to me, under the orders of the Government of India, for examination and report, and their ultimate place of deposit, as recommended by me, is to be the British Museum in London. The full determination of the antiquities, especially of the manuscript portion of them, will require more time than I have at present at my disposal.
The present report, therefore, is only of a preScope of the
liminary character, and must be limited to a present Report. detailed classification and description of the
antiquities, illustrated by selected specimens and accompanied with such observations and conclusions as are obviously suggested by them. Much of the epigraphical portion of the collection, however, is clearly of the highest interest, whether from the palæographic and linguistic points of view, or as bearing upon the history of culture in Central Asia, and well deserves more elaborate treatment and more extended publication. For this purpose my approaching retirement from India, I hope, will afford me the needful leisure, as well as