________________
No. 19-NOTE ON ANDHAVARAM PLATES OF INDRAVARMAN II
V. V. MIRASHI, NAGPUR
(Received on 19.7.1957) Some time ago I examined the dates of the Ganga era, which contain details necessary for calculation, and showed that the epoch which suits them all is Saka 419 (497-98 A.D.) for & current year and Saka 420 (498-99 A.D.) for an expired year. Later I examined two more dates of the era, which were discovered subsequently. I have shown that both of them corroborate the epoch which I had fixed and that none of the other epochs suggested by other scholars is applicable in their case. Recently we have another date of this era, viz., Gn. 133, furnished by the Andhavaram plates of the Ganga king Indravarman III. It provides me with another opportunity of testing the epoch fixed by me.
The plates record a grant made by the king on the occasion of a solar eclipse which occurred on the amāvāsyā of the month of Srāvana. Further, in lines 19-20, the plates record the date in the following words: gri-pravarddhamana-Tumvu(bu)ru-vanda(vansa)-rajya-samva(mva)tsarānām satë trintaty(trimsad)-adhikë samva(sarva)tsarāḥ 100 30 3 Srāvana-māsa-amāvāsya-dināni cha, i.e., in the augmenting dominion of the Tumburu family, in the year hundred increased by thirty--133- on the new-moon day of the month of Sråvana. It will taus be seen that the date given in words does not agree with that expressed in numerical symbols. In the indifferent facsimile of the inscription published previously in JAHRS, Vol. XX, the unit symbol appeared to denote 2, as it consisted of two curved horizontal strokes with a dot between them which appeared accidental. Taking the date as expressed in numerical symbols to be correct, I showed, in an article published in the Indian Historical Quarterly, Vol. XXX, pp. 271 f., that according to my epoch, the date Gn. 132 (as I read it then) was quite regular. The new-moon day in amanta Srāvana in the expired Ganga year 132 corresponds to the 13th August 630 A.D., on which day there was a solar eclipse as stated in the Andhavaram plates. The excellent facsimile published in this journal, however, shows that the unit symbol of the date denotes 3 and not 2. The date as expressed in numerical symbols must, therefore, be read as 133 and not 132. It does not agree with that expressed in words ; but it has been suggested that the engraver seems to have omitted trayas before trimsat through carelessnes.
Dr. Subrahmanyam appears to accept the epoch of the Ganga era fixed by me. Says he, The grant is said to have been made on the occasion of a solar eclipse on the new-moon day of Lrāvana. Calculating from the starting point fixed by Prof. Mirashi, i.e., Saka 420 plus 132 expired years of the era, we get Saka 552 (630 A.D.) as the date of the grant. According to Swamikannu Pillai's Indian Ephemeris, on the 13th August of that year there was a solar eclipse ; but this was in the month Bhadrapada! Dr. Subrahmanyam's words appear to imply either that the date is irregular according to my epoch, or that the epoch does not suit it exactly. I propose to show that neither of these suppositions is correct.
In the detailed ephemeris given by Pillai in Vol. I, Part II, and the subsequent Volumes of his great work, the lunar months are shown according to the amānta scheme; but while giving the
* Above, Vol. XXVI, pp. 236 ff. * Ibid., Vol. XXVII, p. 192; Vol. XXVIII, pp. 171 f.
• Ibid., Vol. XXX, pp. 87 ff. In his article on the Andhavaram plates, Dr. R. Subrahmanyam has not numbered this Indravarman though there were several kings of this name. Indravarman I was ruling in Gn. 39 and Indrevarman II ruled at least from Gn. 87 to Gn. 97. So this king must be named Indravarman III, for whom we have dates ranging from Gn. 128 to Gn. 154. Ibid., p. 40.
( 101 )
