Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c10.s2.5

c10.s2.5

It should be stressed, however, that no one of these defects necessarily proves in and of itself that an inscription is spurious. A date which cannot be verified by calculation is not necessarily unauthentic, as the many varieties and complexities of Indian calendrical reckoning frequently cause unaccountable irregularities; or the irregularity may be simply due to innocent errors in calculation by the original framers of the document (see SIE 226–8, and section 5.4.3.2).¹⁹ It is only when a combination of these suspicious characteristics is present, or when one or more of them are found in blatant form, that an editor can confidently dismiss an inscription as spurious. Thus, while many cases of spurious inscriptions are definite or at least can be established beyond reasonable doubt, there are quite a few records whose authenticity remains a matter of controversy. This tends to be the case particularly among inscriptions of those dynasties for which several definite cases of forgery have been established, thus casting suspicion on other records of the same dynasty. The copper plates of the Western Gaṅgas provide a striking example. They were in years past the subject of a heated controversy between Fleet, who considered many of them forgeries, and Lewis Rice, who maintained their authenticity; and while it is now beyond question that Fleet was correct that at least some of them were spurious, K. V. Ramesh warns in his recent edition of the Western Gaṅga inscriptions that Fleet "was too drastic in condemning outright most of them as forgeries or spurious," and opines that the final decision in some cases may have to be a matter of "intuitive feeling."²⁰