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

that, with the same heliacal-rising system that is applied to prove the epoch of
A.D. 319-20, the results, as a whole, emphatically fail. In calculating the details with
these two epochs, as with the epoch that I am proving, the Gupta year has been treated
as a Śaka year, commencing with Chaitra śukla 1, and with the Pūrṇimānta northern
arrangement of the lunar fortnights. In some of the cases in which, by this treatment,
and with these two epochs, the results fail, more favourable results might be obtained by
adopting a year commencing with, either the preceding, or the following, Kārttika śukla 1 ;
and by slightly varying the proposed epochs accordingly. But a full consideration of the
details will shew that, with neither of these two epochs, as they stand, and probably with
no epochs in any way approximating to them, is there any method of bringing out perfectly
uniform results throughout.
It might, however, be claimed that General Cunningham's epoch, or Sir E. Clive
Bayley's, or even both of them, could be proved, for the present records, by the other sys-
tem of the Twelve-Year Cycle ; according to which the saṁvatsaras are determined by the
passage of Jupiter among the signs of the zodiac ; and which is, in fact, the system that
they have sought to apply in support of their theories. The results, therefore, according
to this system also, will be given. It will be seen that it is not the system which applies
to the epoch that I am proving ; inasmuch as it gives correct results in only two cases
out of the four by which any absolute proof can be established ;¹ viz. in the case of the
grant B. dated in Gupta-Saṁvat 163, and in the case of the grant C. dated in Gupta-
Saṁvat 191. As regards General Cunningham's and Sir E. Clive Bayley's epochs, it has
always been recognised that this system fails in the case of the grant B. dated in Gupta-
Saṁvat 163, unless the given year is deliberately altered from 163 to 173. As there is
really no justification for this alteration of the original text,² the failure of the system
even in this instance alone, is enough to shew that the proposed epochs are not sustain-
able by means of it. But further, though the fact has not hitherto been recognised, the
system fails also in respect of another of the records. Thus, in the case of the grant C.
dated in Gupta-Saṁvat 191, the given saṁvatsara really was current at the commence-
ment of the given year, in accordance with the rules applied by General Cunningham, and
accepted by Sir E. Clive Bayley, from which, however, it was not properly to be inferred
that it was current through the whole of the same year ; but it came to an end, and was
followed by the next saṁvatsara, with General Cunningham's epoch, nearly three and
a half months, and with Sir E. Clive Bayley's epoch, nearly seven months, before the sub-

---

¹ The date in the Bhumarā pillar inscription, E. below, furnishes no definite proof in itself ;
because the current Gupta year is not mentioned in it; and consequently the given saṁvatsara
could be proved equally well for epochs differing by a year or more, on either side, from the exact
epochs that are being considered. We can only test it, in so far as to see whether, under any
particular circumstances, the system fails through an omission of the given saṁvatsara.
² See Texts and Translations, page 102, note 1.