गुप्त अभिलेख संग्रह (जे. एफ. फ्लीट - गुप्त सम्राटों एवं परवर्ती नरेशों के ऐतिहासिक पाषाण व ताम्रलेख)

94 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
in the text to two months of that name; the bright fortnight of the second Mârgaśirsha;
and the second tithi or lunar day. And, on the analogy of the Verâwal inscription
of Valabhî-Saṁvat 945, the given intercalated month should belong to Gupta-Saṁvat
330 + 242 = Śaka-Saṁvat 572 current (A.D. 649-50); and the calculation should be
made with the basis of Śaka-Saṁvat 571 expired.
General Cunningham, however,¹ shews no intercalation in that year; but, in the pre-
ceding year, Śaka-Saṁvat 571, an intercalation of the month Kârttika, which would fall in
A.D. 648; and this appears to be quite correct, in accordance with the regulation of inter-
calations by the actual place of the sun. Looking further into the matter, Dr. Schram, as
reported by Dr. Bühler,² found that in A.D. 648 there certainly was an intercalated month,
which, according to the present method would be Kârttika, but according to the rule
for mean intercalations, would be Mârgaśîrsha. So, also, Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit finds, by
actual calculation from the Sûrya-Siddhânta, that, by mean intercalation, in A.D. 648
there was an intercalated month between the natural Mârgaśirsha and the natural
Pausha, which would be named Mârgaśîrsha according to the verse Mêsh-Adi-sthê
savitari &c., that is quoted as belonging to the Brahma-Siddhânta;³ though it would
be named Pausha according to the present practice. In either case, the two intercalated
fortnights are, of course, the same lunar period; the only difference is in respect of
the name by which that period should be called. And, in finding that period coupled
with the name of Mârgaśîrsha, there is the fact, which must be admitted, that, in contra-
vention of the usual rule, the grant recorded in this inscription was made in the intercala-
ted month; a deviation for which I cannot find any reason in the record itself. Having
regard to this and other points, I asked Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit to also make the necessary
calculations on the possibility of the abbreviation dvi for dvitîya, ‘the second,’ qualifying,
not only the word Mârgaśira, but the whole expression Mârgaśira śu 2; i.e. on the possi-
bility of the intercalation or repetition referring to the tithi or lunar day, not to the month;
in which case the date might have been referred, quite regularly, to Śaka-Saṁvat 572. He
finds, however, that the second tithi of the bright fortnight of Mârgaśîrsha of Śaka-Saṁvat
572, falling in A.D. 649, was not a repeated tithi, either by Prof. K. L. Chhatre’s Table, or
by the Sûrya-Siddhânta; and that, on the contrary, by the Sûrya-Siddhânta, there is the
possibility of this tithi having been expunged, in the far eastern parts of India. It is certain,
therefore, that the intercalation refers to the month; not to the tithi. And it is equally
certain that in Śaka-Saṁvat 571 there was an intercalated month, falling in A.D. 648,
which might be named Mârgaśira or Mârgaśîrsha, and which evidently was actually so
named in the almanac that was consulted by the drafter of this record. This being the
case, there cannot have been an intercalation of the same month, or in fact of any month
at all, in the following year, Śaka-Saṁvat 572. Therefore, the Mârgaśîrsha of this record
¹ Indian Eras, p. 158.
² Ind. Ant. Vol. XV. p. 338.
³ See page 88 above, note 5.