________________
No. 48.]
EPOCH OF THE GANGA ERA,
327
suit all cases. Besides, Mr. Subba Rao has not given any further details about the Gănga era, viz., whether the years of the era cited in epigraphic records were current or expired and the months pürnimānta or amānta and what were the initial month and tithi of the Gānga year.' These questions are indeed difficult to settle ; for Gänga records do not generally give sufficient details for the verification of their dates. They mention, for instance, that certain grants were made on the occasion of lunar or solar eclipse, or ayanas, but they do not generally state in what particular months and years these eclipses: and ayanas' occurred. Nor do they mention any week-day, nakshatra, etc., in connection with the dates on which the grants were recorded. The absence of such details has led to a great divergence of opinion. Mr. G. Ramdas, for instance, rejects the Saka year 419 as the initial year of the Gânga era, because a certain solar eclipse did not occur in a particular year calculated according to that epoch, while Mr. J. C. Ghosh justifies his epoch of the era on the ground that though in certain cases the solar eclipses did not occur in the particular years, they occurred in the preceding years.'
1 See, for instance, the dates of the Santa-Bommáli plates of Nandavarman, the Pondūru plates of Vajrahasta II and the Indian Museum plates of Devendravarman, discussed below. All these would appear irregular according to this epoch
* In his article on the Ganga era in Ind. Oul., Vol. II, pp. 508 ff., Mr. J. C. Ghosh has attempted to prove that the era commenced on the purnimanta Sravana v&. di. 1 in A. D. 496. But the only definite evidence which he oitoo in favour of his view is the date of the Siddantam plates (above, Vol. XIII, pp. 213 ff.). Other dates can well be explained according to the epoch fixed in the present article, and one date definitely goes against Mr. Ghosh's opooh as admitted by him. As regards the date of the Siddāntam plates, the grant recorded in them was made on the occasion of the Dakshiņayana and the plates were issued on Srāvana va. di. 5. Mr. Ghosh says that the date of the grant and that of the issue of the plates were identical, viz., the 21st June, A. D. 691, which, according to him, proves his epoch. According to my calculations, however, the dates were not identiqal. In A. D. 691-92, which, according to Mr. Ghosh, corresponds to the Gänga year 195, the tithi purnimanta Srävaņa va. di. 5 no doubt fell on the 21st June A. D. 691 as it ended 20 h. 25 m. after mean sunrise that day, but the Karkataka sankrants occurred next day (the 22nd June, A. D. 691) 16 h. 45 m. after mean sunrise. As the plates could not have been issued before the sankranti, Mr. Ghosh's epoch is impossible. As regards the date of the Urlām plates, (above, Vol. XVII, pp. 332 ff.) on which he relies for proving that the months of the Gânga era were purnimanta, it may be pointed out that it conflicts with the date of the Pondūru plates (discussed below, p. 329) which mentions a week-day and is therefore quito definite. Wo must therefore suppose that in 1.23 of the Urläm plates the mention of the fortnight was inadvertently omitted.
The only exceptions so far known are the dates of the Chicacole plates of Indravarman III (Ind. And, Vol. XIII, pp. 120 ff.) and the Indian Museum plates of Dévēndravarman (above, Vol. XXIII, pp. 73 ff.). For the reading of the latter, see below p. 329.
The Chicacole plates of Dövöndravarman mention the lunar month and tithi in connection with Udagayana, but if Udagayana means Uttarayara-aanueranti, the date is impossible, see above, Vol. IV, p. 131, n. 2.
• The only exception so far known is the Pondūru grant of Vajrahasta II (J. A. H, R. 8., Vol. XI, pp. 7 d.) • J. B. O. R. 8., Vol. XVIII, p. 280.
Ind. Anf., Vol. LXI, p. 238.
