________________
174
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[Vol. V.
the Jain religion, the other two being Gangaraja and Halla, ministers of the Hoyanla princes Vishnuvardhana and Narasimba I. in the twelfth century A.D.
POSTSCRIPT While the first proofs of the above article were passing through the Press, I began to make faller examination, than hns As yet been attempted, of the dates of the spurious records of Western India, for all of which there should be some explanation forthcoming, if we can only find the clue to the solution of them.
I have referred to two of these dates in note 2 on page 157 above. One of them is from the spurious Tanjore grant (Ind. Ant. Vol. VIII. p. 212), wbich pu: ports to give a date in A.D. 248 for an imaginary Western Ganga whose name is given in this record as Arivarman, by & mistake-(due to the carelessness of the writer in writing, in line 10, frímadarirarmma instead of frímaddharivarmma, i.e. in omitting a subscript dh)-for the Harivarman of the other spurions records of the same series. The details of the date are the Prabhava samvatsara, coupled with Saka-Samvat 169 expired, the new-moon titki of Phålguna, Friday, the Rêvati nakshatra, the Vriddhi yôga, and the Vrishabha lagna. And, in the period to which the concoction of this record is to be referred on palmographic grounds, I find that in the Prabhava samratsara, S.-S. 1009 expired, the new-moon tithi of Phålguna ended on Friday, 25th February, A.D. 1088. The moon, indeed, was not then in Rêvati, and did not come to Rêvati till about 4 hrs. 28 min. after mean sunrise on the Saturday : but the moon often is in Rêvati on the new-moon day of Phálguna, and may possibly have been actually so shewn for that day in S.-S. 1009 expired by an erroneous almanac or by a calculation worked out wrongly for the person who fabricated the record; or the forger may have added that detail on chance, simply to give a greater air of plausibility to the record, as he certainly did in respect of the Vriddhi yôga, which cannot ever occur on the new-moon day of Phalguna. The result of the 26th February, A.D. 1088, fully meets the palæographic requirements of the case, and, I believe, fixes the actual time at which this record was concocted : viz., the forger was working on, or had in view, Friday, the new-moon day of Phâlguna of the Prabhaya sainvatsara, S.-S. 1009 expired; and he produced the necessary appearance of antiquity by striking off from the Saka year, in order to suit, more or less, a fictitious pedigree and chronology that had already become established and well-known,' and at the same time to obtain a samvatsara which would be correct according to the southern luni-solar system, exactly fourteon of the sixty-- year cycles, and thus obtained the year S.-S. 169 expired which he actually quoted in the record.
The second of the two dates to which I have referred in note 2 on page 137 above, is from the spurious Morkara grant (Ind. Ant. Vol. I. p. 363, and Ooorg Insors. p. 1), which has been supposed to give a date in A.D. 466 for an imaginary Western Ganga named Avinita-Konguni. This date has to be explained in a different way. The details of the date are the year 388, not specified either as carrent or as expired, the fifth tithi of the bright fortnight of Mágha, Monday, and the Svati nakshatra. The samvatsara is not specified; and so we have not the particular help that we have in the case of the Tanjore grant. Also, the era is not specified. As regards this detail, it bas always been assumed that the Saks era was intended, with the
The verse, which mentions Chamundarya " Beys the minister of king Rachamalls," is to be found about half-way through Inscrs. at Srar. Bel. No. 187. .
1 At sunrise on the Friday in question, the yoga wan Sabha and the Vriddhi yoga had occurred abont eleven days earlier. The remaining detail, the Vpishabha lagna, means only the rising of the sign Taurus. I cannot calculate it with the Tables available to me, but it would naturally occur at some tiine or other during the twenty-four hours of the Friday.
The Tanjore grant was certaiuly not the earliest of the spurious records in order of fabrication.
