________________
292
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[NOVEMBER, 1896.
altogether incorrect; and seven others mention eclipses which did not take place on the days of the dates. Three of these seven dates, No. 170 of S. 415 (ibid. p. 11), No. 15 of S. 532 (?) of the chronological list, and No. 144 of S. 87250 (ibid. p. 5), are from undoubtedly spurious records; the other dates are No. 176 of S. 922,51 No. 193 of S. 1174, No. 199 of S. 1478 (ibid. pp. 12, 16 and 17), and the date No. 198 of S. 1106 of the chronological list.52
Of the remaining 26 dates, 20 mention eclipses which were visible in India, 4 apparently quote eclipses which were not visible there, and the eclipses of two dates (Nos. 107 and 108 of S. 716 and 730, Vol. XXIII. p. 131) were visible in India if the years of the dates are expired years, but not visible if those years are carrent years. But one at least of the four dates with eclipses that were not visible in Indir, No. 165 of S. 417 (Vol. XXIV. p. 10), is from a spurious inscription; and in two others (Nos. 123 and 187 of S. 988 and 1095 of the chronological list) the weekdays of the dates are wrong. On the other hand, the weekdays are incorrect also in two of the dates that quote visible eclipses, viz., in the dates No. 150 of 9. 976 expired and No. 155 of S. 1096 expired 63 (Vol. XXIV. pp. 7 and 8).
Setting aside, then, all spurious and suspicious cases, we find that of 21 solar eclipses, mentioned in correct and apparently genuine dates, 18 were visible in India, 54 wbile only one eclipse (the eclipse of the date No. 106 of S. 534,56 Vol. XXIII. p. 130) could not have boon visible there. And this result, in my opinion, makes it highly probable that the eclipses quoted in the two dates Nos. 107 and 108 of S. 716 and 730 also were visible ones, and that the years of those two dates, therefore, must be taken to be expired years, a conclu. sion which has already been arrived at above, on different grounds.
Lunar eolipses. - Of the 35 dates with lunar eclipses, one (No. 100 of S. 930, for 931, of the chronological list) contains no details for accurate verification; and nine others (the dates Nos. 171, 172, 173, 187, 197 and 198 of S. 684, 730, 872, 1084 for 1085, 1276 and 1377 in Vol. XXIV. pp. 11-17, and the dates Nos. 177, 193 and 256 of S. 1080, 1103 and 1185 of the chronological list) quote lunar eclipses that did not take place on the days of the dates. Of these nine dates, two at least (those of S. 684 and S. 872) are from spurious inscriptions, and
* On this date see now Dr. Fleet's Dynasties, 2nd ed., p. 575, note 3. * This date gives no weekday; in the two following dates the given weekdays are incorrect.
51 This date, Monday, the new-moon day of AshAdhs of $. 1103 expired, sdryyagrahana-sarakristi-vyatfpátad. awadu,' corresponds to Monday, the 9th July A. D. 1184, & day on which there was neither ar eclipse nor a samkrinti. The date is similar to the date No. 177 of the chronological list, Monday, the full-moon day of Pausha of 8. 1080 expired, 'starayana-sankranti-ryatipata-83magrahanad-ashdu.' which corresponds to Monday, the 5th January A. D. 1159, a day on which also there was neither & sankranti nor an eclipse.-I shall have occasion to mention nine other Saka dates, and I possess six more dates with years of the Chilukya-Vikrams ers or regnal years, which contain the word uyatipats, used as in the above dates. With the single exception of the date No. 101 of S.1110 current (Vol. XXIII. p. 180), all these dates are eithor entirely or partly incorrect. They are all found in inscriptions the language of which is Kanarese, and fall all in the two hundred years between 8. 944 expired and 8. 1145 current. In nine of them the weekday is Sunday, and in six Monday, but in 12 out of these 15 dates the given weekday is incorroot. Eight dates have uttarayanasariskrants-vyatfpdta or a synonymous expression, one has dakshindyanasanlıkranti-vyatfpdta, one sakramana-vyatípáta, one saryagrahara-vyatfpáta, ono smagrahanavyatipáta, one uttardyanasamkramana-vyatípáta-suryagrahana, one uttarayanasankranti vyatfpáta a magrahana, oue suryagrahana-sarikrinti-vyatfpata, one magraha 1a-uyatépata-ahramana, and one grahuna-vyatfpatasarhakramana. Of the sathkrantis so mentioned, only five took place on the given datos ; of the eclipses, only two.
This date has Adityavára stiryyagrahana-vyatípatadandu, but the eclipse took place on a Saturday.
4 The earliest of these in the polipse of the 16th June A. D. 866, date No. 89 of 8. 788 expired, Vol. XXIII. p. 123. - I have ascertained that, with a single exception, the eclipses which above are spoken of as visible in India, were visible also at the particular places where the inscriptions which mention them may be supposed to come from. The exception is formed by the eclipse of the date No. 72 of 8. 1118 expired (Vol. XXIII. p. 125) which was visible south of, and not very far from, Chaudadkmpur, but not at that place itself.
16 This eclipse which, for 8. 584 expired, was the total eclipse of the 2nd August A, D. 612, is the earliest eclipse mentioned in a date of a genuine inscription that admits of verification. The only other solar eclipses that were not visible in India, which hitherto have been found quoted in genuine inscriptions, are those of the 17th February A. D. 638 and the 2nd January A. D. 987 (ante, Vol. XX. p. 9, and Vol. XIX. p. 166).
