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

1809, Kaliyuga-Saṁvat 4988, and Vikrama-Saṁvat 1944, which are not specified as either
current or expired, but can only be intended as current. And, in the same way, the
Tamil Siriya-Pañchâṅgam, for the following year, published at Madras, gives the solar
period from the 12th April, A.D. 1887, to the 11th April, A.D. 1888, as being the Sarvajit
saṁvatsara, and as corresponding to Śaka-Saṁvat 1810, Kaliyuga-Saṁvat 4989, and
Vikrama-Saṁvat ¹ 1935, which, similarly, are not specified as either current or expired, but
can only be intended as current.² And, from other indications, there seems to be no
doubt that, of these two practices of Southern India, thus illustrated, the popular and
generally current one is the latter one, by which the period A.D. 1886-87 is quoted as
Śaka-Saṁvat 1809; the reckoning, in this and the other eras, being thus, at first sight,
one year in advance of the customary reckoning of Northern and Western India.
The difference, however, is only an apparent one ; and is due to the evident fact that
the Madras reckoning has preserved the system of current years, while the other
is regulated by expired years. But it is almost always the reckoning of Northern and
Western India that is now quoted. And the years of it, though really expired years, are not
distinctly and habitually quoted as such. And hence there is a general understanding that,
as between the Śaka and the Christian eras, the additive quantity, to be applied to the
former, is 78-79;³ and that the epoch or year 0 of the Śaka era, is the period from the
3rd March, A.D. 78, to the 20th February, A.D. 79, both included ; and its commence-
ment, or first current year, the period from the 21st February, A.D. 79, to the 10th
March. A.D. 80, both included.⁴ This, however, really gives current Christian years,
¹ Here the 3 in the tens place must be a mistake for 4.
² It would appear that the Tamil Vâkya-Pañchâṅgam, published at Madras, gives the solar
period from the 12th April A.D. 1887, to the 10th April, A.D. 1888, as being the Sarvajit saṁvat-
sara, and as corresponding to Śaka-Saṁvat 1809, Kaliyuga-Saṁvat 4988, and Vikrama-Saṁvat 1945];
all of which are distinctly specified as current. But this cannot possibly be correct, in respect of the
Śaka and Kaliyuga years.
³ Thus, even Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar, — through whose "Note on the Śaka Dates and the
Years of the Bârhaspatya Cycle, occurring in the Inscriptions" (Early History of the Dekkan,
p. 105 ff.) my attention was first drawn to the desirability of examining the details of the alma-
nacs, — has written (id. p. 99; the italics are his) "191 Gupta past + 242 = 433 Śaka current

• 78 = 511 A.D. current ......... 209 Gupta past + 242 = 451 Śaka current + 78 = 529
  A.D. current." I myself had the same view, till not very long ago. Other writers could easily be
  shewn to have lain under the same misconception. And Dr. Burnell even went so far as to say
  (South-Indian Palæography, p. 72, note) "the rough equation for converting this era into the Chris-
  tian date, is + 78¼. The beginning of the year being at the March equinox ; if the Śaka atîta (i.e.
  expired) "year be mentioned, the equation is + 79¼.'"
  ⁴ I owe these four dates to Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit. Gen. Cunningham (Indian Eras, p. 139) gives
  from the 14th March, A.D. 78, to the 17th February, A.D. 79; and from the 18th February, A.D. 79,
  to the 8th March, A.D. 80. But a comparison of his initial days for the epoch and the first year,
  shews at once that there is some mistake. The 18th February is twenty-four days earlier than the
  14th March; whereas the difference should be only eleven days. Mr. C. Patell (Chronology, p. 96)
  does not give the initial day of the epoch; but gives, in the same way, the period from the 18th Feb-
  ruary, A.D. 79, to the 8th March, A.D. 80, for the first year.