________________
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[MARCH, 1889.
find, of the use of the Saka era in Gujarat, in a justified, for either year, on that score at any date that affords details for calculation.
rate: unless by some backward calculation, such In doing so, I excluded intentionally the as I shall suggest further on. Bagumrå grant of Dadda-Prasantaraga, which (2) As regards the date, again Jyêshtba purports to be dated in Saka-Samvat 415 (ante, ksishna 15, and again with an eclipse of the sun, Vol. XVII. p. 183 ff.), and the Ildo grant of the mentioned in the Iled grant of Saka-Samvat same person, which purports to be dated in 417Saka-Samvat 417 (ante, Vol. XIII. p. 115 ff). For, 1 In the year 417 current, the given tithi even after full consideration of the arguments put corresponds in the same way, either to Thursday, forward by Dr. Bühler in his article on the the 21st April, or to Friday, the 20th May, A.D. Bagumra grant, I cannot see my way clear to 494. On neither of these days was there an eclipse admitting the genuineness of these records; and of the sun, visible or invisible. The nearest solar of the Umeta grant of the same person (ante, eclipse was that of the 19th June;' which date Vol. VII. p. 61 ff.), which purports to be dated corresponds to the purnimdnta and amanta in Sakı-Samvat 400, but with no details that can interoalated Ashadha krishna 15. be tested.
1 If the intercalary month could be placed before I have, however, no leisure to consider this matter Ashadha, this date would then correspond, in the from all the points of view that are concerned. same way, either to the purnimanta natural AsbAnd therefore, Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji being now dha, or to the amdnta natural Jyêshtha, Krishna deceased, I hope that someone else will take up 15. But, as a matter of fact, Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit the general question. Meanwhile, I would draw finds, by actual calculation of the places of the attention to the following points :
sun and the moon according to the Súrya(1) There was no solar eclipse at all, visible or Siddhanta, and also by the rule for mean interinvisible, on the date, Jyéshţha krishna 15, men- calations, that the intercalary month was tioned in the Bagumr& grant of Saka-Samvat Åshidha, and no other; and that the intercalated 415, whether the year is applied as current, or as fortnights must have been named AshAdha, as expired.
according to the present practice. Only by the In the year 415 current, the given tithi verse Mdah-ddi-sthé savitari &c., could they corresponds, either to Tuesday, the 12th May, receive the name of Jyêshtha; and then the 19th or to Wednesday, the 10th June, A.D. 492, June would be the new-moon day of Jydahtha by according as the pirnimánta or the amanta the amanta arrangement, and by that only. By arrangement of the lunar fortnights is applied. no means whatever can the date in question be The nearest solar eclipse was that of the 10th made to correspond to the new-moon day of the July; which date corresponds to the porni- purnimanta Jyêshtha mánta Sravana, or the amanta Åshadha, krishna In the year 418 current (417 expired), the 15.
given tithi corresponds, in the same way, either In the year 416 current (415 expired), the to the 10th May, or to the 8th June, A.D. 495. given tithi corresponds in the same way, either On each of these days there was an eclipse of the to Saturday, the 1st May, or to Monday, the sun. And, subject to the question as to whether 31st May, A.D. 49. The nearest solar eclipse an eclipse should be visible or need not be so, was that of the 29th June;" which date corres- either of these eclipses might be accepted as the ponds again to the purnimanta Sravana, or the one intended, according as we apply the párni. amanta Ashadha, kfishna 15. And this eclipse manta or the amanta arrangement of the lunar was taken by Dr. Bühler as the one that is fortnights. probably intended; with the suggestion that (3) But, a uniform process must be followed " the discrepancy in the name of the month in respect of the two grants; considering "may have been caused by a mistake of the that the charters purport to be issued by the same " writer, or by an erroneous intercalation." person, and that there is only an interval of two This suggestion would apply equally well to years between them. And we must also see how the eclipse of the 10th July, A.D. 492. But they can be made to harmonise, without any there was no intercalary month either in Saka- change in the name of the given month, which Sarhvat 415 current, or in 416. And therefore is the point in respect of which there is the least it is difficult to see how the mistake can be likelihood of a mistake.
1 See von Oppolzer's Canon der Finsternisse, pp. 162, 163.-It was not visible in India. But this point need not, for the present, be taken into consideration.
* This eclipse, also, was not visible in India; see von
Oppolzer's Canon, pp. 162, 163, and Plate 81.
This eclipse was visible in Gujarat, and in other parts of India.
. Neither of these eclipses was visible in India.
