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

128 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
original scheme of the Gupta year; made in such a way that each subsequent year com-
menced with the Kârttika śukla 1 immediately preceding the true commencement of the
year with Chaitra śukla 1. And for these two dates, and any that may be found
hereafter to belong to the same class, we have to apply the equations of Gupta-Valabhî-
Saṁvat 0 = A D. 318-319 current, or more precisely, by the southern Vikrama year, the
period¹ from the 12th October, A.D. 318, to the 30th September, A.D. 319; and Gupta-
Valabhî-Saṁvat 1 current = A.D. 319-20 current, or more precisely, by the southern
Vikrama year, the period from the 1st October, A.D. 319, to the 18th October, A.D. 320.
These two instances, however, are purely exceptional ones. And, in the case of all
dates in the era referable to the true and original scheme of its years, we have to apply the
epoch of A.D. 319-20; and to treat the years of the era as northern years, commencing
with Chaitra śukla 1.
The equation between the epoch of the Gupta-Valabhî era and the Christian era, is
not intrinsically dependent on any reference to the Śaka era; and it could be established
directly by European Tables. In this inquiry, however, it has been established through
results that have been worked out from Hindu Tables which are arranged for the Śaka
era according to expired years: and, in order to use those Tables, the given Gupta-Valabhî
years had to be converted into expired Śaka years. The process, however, has not converted
the given Gupta-Valabhî years themselves into expired years But what has been done
has simply been, first, by the addition of a uniform running difference, to obtain the current
Śaka year corresponding to each given current Gupta-Valabhî year; and then, in the usual
way, to take the immediately preceding Śaka year as the expired year that is required as
the basis of the calculation. Thus, the details of the date in the Êraṇ pillar inscription of
Budhagupta, which really belong to Gupta-Saṁvat 165 + 242 = Śaka-Saṁvat 407 cur-
rent, have been calculated with the basis of Śaka-Saṁvat 406 expired; and the details of
the other dates in the same way.
Now, in the case of an era used specially by astronomers for their technical pro-
cesses, as the Śaka era was, since we have to work with expired years, it is natural
enough that the Tables should be arranged accordingly. And possibly, after a certain
period, and in certain parts of India, we may have to interpret any given year of such an
era as an expired year, whether it is expressly denoted as such or not.² But the same
rule does not hold good in the case of eras that are not actually used for astronomical
processes, though they are quoted in connection with details fixed by such processes.
¹ Here, again, I owe the exact dates to Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit.
² A clear instance of this is furnished by the date in the Dêôgaḍh inscription of Bhôjadêva (see
page 107 above, note 1). By the literal rules of translation, the given Śaka year, 784, has to be
interpreted as a current year; but, for the calculation, it has to be applied as an expired year.