South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

the calculations of the astrologers who were often certainly not quite competent astronomers and to the erroneous method followed in the calculation.’ Dr. Sircar apparently attributers the irregularity in the date of the Dhulēv plate (if taken as recorded in the Harsha era) to the wrong calculation of the astrologer at the court of Mahārāja Bhētti. This indeed is a veritable cutting of the Gordian knot. He considers the recent attempts to fix the epochs of the Kalachuri and Gaṅga eras as futile ; for ‘ in a large number of cases the dates are irregular ’. I think that Dr. Sircar is here overshooting the mark. The number of irregular dates is not so large as he thinks if the proper epoch of the particular era has been fixed. For instance, out of the forty dates of the Kalachuri era containing details useful for computation which I have examined, only three or four have been found slightly irregular.^[1] Almost all the dates of the Gaṅga era appear quite regular according to the epoch fixed by me.^[2] Dr. Kielhorn examined numerous dates of the Vikrama, Śaka and other eras. He also found that the number of irregular dates was very small.^[3] Again, the irregularity in many cases is of a single day, not of four years as it would be if the date of the Dhulēv plate is referred to the Harsha era.^[4]

I do not think it would be correct to say that the astrologers attached to royal courts were often not quite competent astronomers. Had that been the case, the number of irregular dates would have been much larger. Realising the importance of ascertaining the correct position of heavenly bodies for religious and astrological purposes, astronomers verified their calculations by actual observation (dṛik-pratyaya) and composed new karaṇa works from time to time to eliminate all mistakes. Some kings like Bhōja and Jayasiṁha took personal interest in such work. The works of astronomers must have been utilised by the authors of pañchāṅgas and astrologers attached to royal courts. It would not therefore be wise to reject the valuable evidence afforded by the calculation of dates, which makes our knowledge precise. It would be like refusing to study and publish inscriptions because some of them are found to be spurious.^[5]

_____________________________________

^[1] ABORI, Vol. XXVII, p. 47.
^[2] Above, Vol. XXVI, pp. 326 ff. ; Vol. XXVII, p. 192 ; Vol. XXVIII, pp. 171 ff. ; Ind. Hist. Quart., Vol. XXX, pp. 271 f.
^[3] In the case of the Vikrama era, for instance, he found that out of the 200 dates that he calculated, only twenty appeared a wholly or partly faulty (Ind. Ant., Vol. XX, p. 410).
^[4] [It is wrong to think that the number of irregular dates is small, although attempts are often made to represent as regular what is actually an irregular date. Out of 265 inscriptions examined by us in 1951-52 and noticed in the Report for the year, 62 only contain verifiable dates. Out of these 62 dates, 35 are found to be strictly regular and 27 irregular. This shows the very high percentage of irregular dates noticed in Indian inscriptions.─E. d.]
^[5] [See note 4 above─Ed.]