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

of Gupta-Saṁvat 156 and 191; and for Śarvanâtha, the extreme dates of the years 193 and
214, with the year 177 as the latest known date for his father Jayanâtha. And, as it is un-
likely that Hastin continued alive and in power for any length of time after Gupta-Saṁvat
191, it seemed, on the supposition that both the series of dates were to be referred to
the Gupta era, that the Mahâ-Mâgha saṁvatsara in question was the one commencing in
Gupta-Saṁvat 189, rather than that commencing in Gupta-Saṁvat 201; since, the former
was easily obtained by adding only four years at the commencement of the period
for Śarvanâtha; whereas, to obtain the latter, we should have to add on ten years at
the end of Hastin's already long enough period of thirty-six years. On the other
hand, the Mahâ-Mâgha saṁvatsara occurred previously, in Hastin's period, in Gupta-Saṁ-
vat 165 and 177. If the Uchchakalpa dates were referred to the Kalachuri era, with
General Cunningham's epoch of A.D. 249-50, Śarvanâtha's latest date the year 214, would be
equivalent to A.D. 463-64, or Gupta-Saṁvat 144; and we should have to add on twenty-
one years at the end of his known period, in order to make him the contemporary of Hastin
in Gupta-Saṁvat 165. Whereas, if an epoch could be found for the Kalachuri era about
twenty-five years later than that proposed by General Cunningham, the two Mahârâjas
would be naturally contemporaneous in Gupta-Saṁvat 165 or A.D. 484-85. By calculation,
however, Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit found that, though General Cunningham's proposed
epoch might be very close to the real truth, yet it was certainly not the absolutely correct
one. Also, though he found that nearly all of the ten Kalachuri or Chêdi dates, given by
General Cunningham,¹ would work out correctly with an epoch of A.D. 248-49, or just
one year earlier than that proposed by General Cunningham, yet both he and I felt that the
available data, in the shape of the published readings and lithographs of the dates,
were not sufficiently reliable for any definite theory to be built up on the results obtained by
him. Again, if the Kalachuri era really existed in that early time,²—in which case,
of course, there were then actually kings of the Kalachuri dynasty,—it seemed strange that
no distinct reference should be made to the dynasty in the Allahâbâd pillar inscription,
which, with much minuteness of detail, claims for Samudragupta the conquest of the whole
earth;³ especially since the Mahâkûṭ pillar inscription of the Early Chalukya king

---

¹ Indian Eras, p. 61.
² I do not overlook the 'Pardi' grant of the Traikûṭaka Mahârâja Dahrasêna (Jour. Bo. Br. R.
As. Soc. Vol. XVI. p. 346 ff.), which is dated in the year 207 of an unspecified era; or the Kaṇheri plate
(see No. 10 of the separate publications of the Archæological Survey of Western India, p. 57 ff.),
which is dated "in two centuries of years, increased by forty-five, of the augmenting sovereignty of
the Traikûṭakas." But it still has to be proved, either, on general grounds, that the era of these two
records, is the Kalachuri era; or that the Trikûṭa whence these Traikûṭakas derived their name,
is identical with Tripura or Tripurî, the capital of the Kalachuris of Central India.
³ Prinsep, indeed (see, for instance, Prinsep's Essays, Vol. I. p. 237), found the possible mention
of a Tripura in the Kartṛipura which is spoken of in line 22 of this inscription. But he would have
identified it with the modern 'Tipperah.' And the immediate connection of Kartṛipura, in the
inscription, with Samataṭa or, Lower Bengal, Ḍavâka (? 'Dacca,' if the correct spelling really is
Ḍâkâ), Kâmarûpa or Assam, and Nêpâl, shews that the place was indeed very far away from Central
India.