Dating the Dausa Stepwell: Inscription, Style and Tradition
A district heritage board must date and label a stepwell near Dausa. Inside the well, on the fourth course below the coping, is a badly weathered inscription whose date reads '…samvat 1?83'; the patron's name is legible but the title is not. The architecture - a straight staircase with three landings, plain pilasters and a corbelled well-shaft - resembles buildings assigned by the state archaeology department to the eleventh to thirteenth centuries, though the department's own chronology rests on only four dated comparanda. A colonial gazetteer of 1878 mentions the well as 'ancient' and attributes it to a fourteenth-century ruler. Local oral tradition credits a Rajput thakur who is said to have built it after a battle, and a 1990 temple pamphlet repeats this account and gives the date 1354 CE. The board has a small conservation budget, a tourism signboard to print, and a public meeting next month at which the thakur's descendants will be present.
1. Rank the four categories of evidence and explain the weight you give each.
Read the worked answer
The inscription is primary evidence, and it is in situ, which is its great strength. Its weakness is that the date is damaged, so it furnishes a bracket rather than a year. It also records a patron, not necessarily the original founder.
Architectural comparison is independent of the inscription and useful for a broad bracket, but it rests on four dated comparanda and on the assumption that style changed at a known pace. It can support a century, not a decade.
The gazetteer of 1878 proves only that the well existed before 1878, and its word 'ancient' is a literary judgement, probably derived from local informants. It is a terminus ante quem, not a date.
Oral tradition and the 1990 pamphlet are the weakest for dating, because the pamphlet fixes a suspiciously precise year, 1354 CE, which may be a literary borrowing rather than an independent memory. Oral tradition is still valuable for the identity of the patron and for what the well means to the community.
The ranking follows the rule: contemporary, in situ and independent evidence outranks retrospective and derivative evidence.
2. Propose a date range and explain how you constrain the damaged numeral.
Read the worked answer
Read the numeral first, then constrain it with the other evidence.
If the era is Vikram Samvat, the possible readings are 1083, 1183, 1283, 1383 and so on. The architecture brackets the building to the eleventh to thirteenth centuries, which eliminates 1383 and later and makes 1183 or 1283 the strongest candidates. 1083 is possible but sits at the edge of the architectural range.
If the era were Saka, the reading would shift by about 135 years and 1?83 Saka would fall in the late thirteenth or fourteenth century, which would partly rescue the gazetteer's attribution. The inscription's script and the titles used should decide the era, and that needs an epigraphist's reading of the surviving letters.
A defensible statement is therefore: late twelfth to thirteenth century on present evidence, with a fourteenth-century refoundation or repair possible. The board should not print 1354 CE, because that date comes from the pamphlet and has no independent support.
3. Advise the board on the signboard text and on handling the public meeting and conservation.
Read the worked answer
Signboard: present the evidence and the range, not a single year. A workable text: 'A stepwell with a straight staircase and corbelled shaft, stylistically datable to the eleventh to thirteenth centuries. An inscription in the well records a date read as …samvat 1?83 and names the patron; the era and digit are damaged. Local tradition associates the well with a Rajput thakur, and a fourteenth-century attribution appears in colonial and later accounts.'
Public meeting: explain why a range is more honest than a fixed date, and invite the family to contribute documents or genealogies that could test the tradition. Do not treat oral tradition as an error; label it as tradition.
Conservation: do not clean, chisel or re-point the inscription, and do not install fixtures into the well wall. Photograph and scan it, keep the published reading with the site file, and spend the small budget on drainage and on stabilising the staircase before printing any signboard.