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

[Header] THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 125

adding, according to his most explicit statement, two hundred and forty-one years to
the Gupta-Valabhî dates. This fixes the starting-point of the era, approximately, as
having occurred when Śaka-Saṁvat 241 had expired, and, by the epoch of the well-known
Śaka era, when A.D. 319-20 was current; leaving only the determination of the exact
epoch by the calculation of recorded dates. And, as regards a special point in his state-
ments, of extreme importance, with the help of Prof. Wright, we have now obtained a
translation which,—if it does not actually mean only that the Early Gupta kings had
exercised so powerful a sway that, even when their dynasty came to an end, the era that
had been used by them still continued in use,—is yet fully capable of that interpretation.
At any rate, this translation frees us from the obligation under which we lay, by reason
of M. Reinaud's rendering of the same passage, of connecting the establishment of an era
with the extermination of the dynasty, and of placing the period of the Early Gupta
supremacy anterior to A.D. 319, and the termination of it in that year. And the most that
can be said against it, is, that it is the literal rendering of an ambiguous original, the real
meaning of which must be determined by extraneous considerations.
The Mandasôr inscription of Mâlava-Saṁvat 529 expired shews that we must look
to somewhere about A.D. 319 for the starting-point of the era in which are recorded the
dynastic dates of Kumâragupta and the other kings of the Early Gupta dynasty, and
any others that are to be referred to the same uniform series with them.
The dates in the records of the Early Guptas themselves, as far as the time of
Skandagupta, do not afford details for computation. But, clearly belonging to the same
uniform series of years, is the date contained in the Êraṇ pillar inscription of Budha-
gupta. And converting this date into a Śaka date, in the manner indicated by Albêrûnî,
we have found that, the resulting Śaka year being taken as an expired year, the details
work out quite correctly.
Such dates, also, are those contained in the records of the Parivrâjaka Mahâ-
râjas; which, moreover, include a specific declaration that the Gupta sovereignty was then
still continuing. And, calculating them in precisely the manner that is indicated by the
results for the date in the Êraṇ pillar inscription, we have obtained equally correct and
uniform results. Also, the latest of these records, the Khôh grant of the Mahârâja
Saṁkshôbha, No. 25, page 112, shews that the Gupta sovereignty continued for at least
two hundred and nine years. And this fact is amply sufficient to explain why,—whatever
may have been its historical origin,—the era used in all these records should eventually
come to be popularly known as the Gupta era.
Such dates, again, are those contained in the inscriptions of Śivadêva I. and
Mânadêva of Nêpâl. And, that the first of them is recorded in the era in question, is
shewn by the dates, in the Harsha era, for Aṁśuvarman, the contemporary of Śivadêva I.;
while, with the same treatment, the details of the second of them work out quite correctly.