ViCRAifADITYA AND SALIVAHAXAT '?0/ 



Mac'ha, for Mahd; and instead of jNIuhammed, 

 they say, Mac'homat and Mac'hobhat, as we 

 used to do formerly in the west *. The AIacxvaTi>as 

 are noticed in the Gujarat' hst, and also in the 

 lists from the Purcnia.s, in the cliapters on futurity. 

 In the Facsimile of the grant of Monghir, in the 

 first volume of the Asiatick Researches, the date is 

 plainly 132, instead of 3'J ; but, had it been as ob- 

 vious in the original, Mk, W ilk ins, and the Pan- 

 dits, who read it with him could not have I>€eii 

 mistaken. To decide this, recourse must be had 

 to the original, which is, I believe, deposited with 

 the Royal Society. The two Musulman travellers 

 of Rexaudot, in the ninth century, remark, that 

 the H'mdns did not, like the Arabs, use a general 

 era, but reckoned the years from the accession of 

 the reigning prince. This is acknowledged by the- 

 learned in India, and that it was the constant prac- 

 tice, till a period comparatively modern, and the 

 limits of which it is not easy to ascertain. Several 

 princes have attempted to set up eras of their o^n, 

 and these piinces, instead of ^Saca-handhis, or "Sac" 

 wantaSy were styled simply Samvaticas or Santicas, 

 Thus, Vicrama'ditya's tra was considered as Sacit 

 for the space 6f 135 years, and himself was then a 

 'Sac-want a: but his era is now Samrat^ira, or 

 Samvatf and himself only a *S'«//ztY/^/6'<z;and the present 

 ^Sacxvanta, or Saca, is Saliva hana. The Pandits, 

 who assisted Acul-Fazil, took particular notice of 

 that circumstance, and carefully pointerl it out to 

 himt- As the date in the Monghir grant is within 

 the 135 years, during which the e/v^ of Vicra'ma- 

 ditya was Saca, it should have been styled thus, 

 and not Samvat : and hence it may be concluded, 

 that the date has no connexion with that era. 



* See Tamuli dictionary. f Ayin-Acberi Vol. i. p. 331. 



