________________
No. 48.)
EPOCH OF THE GANGA ERA.
329
his equivalents of the Santa-Bommāli plates of Indravarman II' and the Chicacole plates of Indravarman III do not appear to be correct even according to his epoch. The question of the commencement of the Gănga era must therefore be examined afresh and an epoch proposed which would satisfactorily explain all the published verifiable dates of the era.
Among the dates of the Gänga era published so far, that of the Pondūru platesø is most important as it contains the mention of a week-day. The date, Gn. 500 Ashādha-māsa dina 5, Adityavāra, regularly corresponds to Saka 919, Sunday, the 13th June, A. D. 997. On that day the fifth tithi of the bright fortnight of Ashādha ended 3 h. 10 m. after mean sunrise. This date shows Gn. 500=Ś. 919 and therefore Gn. 0-$. 419. It also shows that the month Ashādha had begun only four days before, on the first tithi of its bright fortnight. This proves that the months of the Gänga year were amānta.
Let us next take the date of the Indian Museum plates of Dēvēndravarman. These plates are dated in the Gănga year 308. No further details of the date are given, but we learn from line 20 that the plates were intended to record a grant made on the occasion of a solar eclipse in the month of Māgha. Supposing that the solar eclipse occurred in the same Gānga year in which the grant was recorded, we find that the only year which would correspond to Gn. 308 is Saka 728. In this year there was a solar eclipse in amānta Māgha on the 11th February, A. D. 807. It is noteworthy that this is the only solar eclipse in amānta Māgha in the period Saka 711728. This proves the untenability of the epochs proposed by Messrs. Subba Rao and Krishna Rao. It further corroborates the conclusion we have already drawn, namely, that the months of the Gänga year were amānta. Now according to this date Gn. 308=$. 728 and therefore Gn. 0-$. 420.
For the calculation of this date, Mr. Krishna Rao has relied on the reading (Gänga) Year 87, Jyčshtha divass 10, given by Raja Bahadur L. H. Jagadeva in J. A. H. R. S., Vol. IV, p. 23. Mr. Krishna Rao has supposed that the grant was made on the very day on which it was recorded and that the tithi fell on a Wednesday coupled with the nakshatra Hasta and the yoga Vyatipāta (of which there is no mention at all in the grant). By an elaborate calculation he has shown that this combination of the tithi, week-day, nakshatra and yoga took place on the 24th May, A. D. 584. But according to his epoch mentioned above, this tithi in Jyēshtha should fall in A. D. 585, not 584. It is noteworthy that the combination of the tithi, etc., does not occur in A. D. 585. Again, the correct reading of the date is Jyështha divasa 30 as recently given by Mr. R. K. Ghoshal (above, Vol. XXV, pp. 194 ff.). The akshara 16, which together with O here denotes the lithi, signifies 3 in other records also. See, a... the Chicacole plates of Dövöndravarman II (ibid., Vol. III, p. 133).
If the Ganga year began in Bhadrapada, there is no reason why the lunar eclipse in Märgadirsha, men. tioned in the Chicacole plates dated [Gn.) 128, Chaitra di. 15, should be referred to Gn. 127, for Gn. 128 was current at the time of the eclipse.
The date of this grant was read as 100 by Mr. M. Narasimham (J. A. H. R. S., Vol. IX, part iii, pp. 23 ff.) and as 700 by Mr. G. Ramdas (ibid., Vol. XI, p. 12). The correct date given above was first pointed out by Mr. B. V. Krishna Rao (ibid., Vol. XI, p. 147).
For the verification of the dates, etc., I have used throughout Diwan Bahadur Swamikannu Pillai's Indian Ephemeris.
• Above, Vol. XXIII, pp. 73 ff.
• The editor of these plates has not read the aksharas after Mägha-mase in l. 20. There appear clenr traces of five akaharas after that word, the first two of which are certainly pürya and the last, [4). The omittod exprension seerus therefore to be sürya-grahani.
60 DGA
