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

126 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
Such another date is that contained in the Môrbî grant of Jâïnka. And the details
of this, again, work out correctly with the same treatment.
Such a series of dates, too, is that contained in the records of the Valabhî family.
And, with a slight modification, due to a change in the scheme of the year, easily explain-
able, the same treatment gives correct results for the date in the Kaira grant of Dharasêna
IV. of this family, of the year 330; the only one, at present, that affords exact details for
calculation. Also, these records give us a succession of twelve generations, commencing
with the Sênâpati Bhaṭârka, and ending with king Śîlâditya VII., with dates ranging from
the year 207 to the year 447. For the first six or seven generations, the members of this
family were only feudatory Nṛipatis and Mahârâjas, without the authority to establish an
era of their own. And as a matter of fact, the date of the year 207 for the Mahârâja
Dhruvasêna I., in the second generation, proves that the era did not run from the rise to
power of his father Bhaṭârka, the founder of the family, but must have been adopted from
some outside source. While, on the other hand, the long duration of this family, coupled
with the fact that several of their charters were issued from the city of Valabhî itself,¹ and
all of them belong either to that vicinity or to the neighbouring parts of Gujarât, is amply
sufficient to explain why the era used by them should eventually come to be popularly known,
in those parts, as the Valabhî era.
And, finally, undoubted instances of the actual use of an era known as the Valabhî era,
as late as the thirteenth century A.D., are furnished by the Verâwal inscriptions dated
in Valabhî-Saṁvat 927 and 945. For the details of the earlier of these two dates, correct
results can be obtained by applying the same slightly anomalous treatment that applies to
the date in the Kaira grant of Dharasêna IV. of the year 330. The latter of them, however,
goes far beyond this. Not only does it fix the epoch of the era approximately, and in accord-
ance with Albêrûnî's statement, through the concomitant mention of the equivalent
Vikrama and Hijra years; but also the details of it are such as to prove that the epoch of
the era was exactly when Śaka-Saṁvat 241 had expired, and A.D. 319-20 was current.
And it has furnished, in fact, the exact analogy, in accordance with which all dates in the
Gupta-Valabhî era, that follow the true and original northern scheme of its years, have to
be tested.
All this uniform agreement of results cannot be attributed to mere coincidence. But
we must take it now, as a settled matter, that all the dates in question belong to one and
the same era, running from the epoch of A.D. 319-20. And, irrespective of the question
¹ e.g. the grants of Dhruvasêna I., of the year 207 (Ind. Ant. Vol. V. p. 204); of Guhasêna, of
the year 248 (id. Vol. V. p. 206, and Archæol. Surv. West. Ind. Vol. III. p. 93); of Dharasêna II., of
the year 252 (Ind. Ant. Vol. VII. p. 68: Vol. VIII. p. 301; Vol. XV. p. 187; and No. 30 below,
p. 164); of Śîlâditya I., of the year 286 (Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. XI. p. 359, and Ind. Ant.
Vol. XIV. p. 327), and of the year 290 (Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 237); of Dhruvasêna II., of the year 310
(id. Vol. VI. p. 12); and of Dharasêna IV., of the year 326 (id. Vol. I. p. 14, and Jour. Bo. Br. R.
As. Soc. Vol. X. p. 66).