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

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 25
“years later than the Śakakâla. On this era is based the canon Khaṇḍakhâdyaka by
“Brahmagupta, which among Muhammadans is known as Al-arkand. Now, the year 400
“of Yazdajird, which we have chosen as a gauge, corresponds to the following years of
“the Indian eras:—(1) to the year 1488 of the era of Śrî Harsha; (2) to the year 1088
“of the era of Vikramâditya; (3) to the year 953 of the Śakakâla; (4) to the year 712
“of the Balaba era, which is identical with the Guptakâla.”
The Results of the above Renderings.
The passages given above mention an era, connected with the names both of the
Guptas and of the Valabhî family, in respect of which we have to notice the following
leading points.
In the first place, Albêrûnî calls this era, both “the Gupta era,” and “the
Valabhî era.” As regards its connection with the Guptas, he tells us, according to
the above renderings, that it commenced at the time of the cessation of the Gupta sway,
and seems to imply that, as a matter of fact, it was that event which led to the establishment
of it; and, of course, the result of this would be, that the dates recorded in the inscriptions
of the Guptas themselves, could not be referred to this Gupta era, but must belong to
some era with a considerably earlier starting-point. And, as regards its connection with
the Valabhî family, from the fact that their era had the same starting-point with this
Gupta era, he infers that the members of this family came after the Guptas in chrono-
logical sequence; but he does not indicate any connection between them and the estab-
lishment of the era.
And secondly, in respect of the initial point, he seems first to state, very clearly,
that the epoch of the era, under either name, was when Śaka-Saṁvat 216+25=241 had
expired; which, taking the expired Śaka year in the way in which it has to be used for the
purposes of the present Tables,¹ gives us A.D. 319-20 current² for the epoch or year 0 of
the era, and A.D. 320-21 current for its commencement or first current year. This is
shewn, first by the rule for subtracting 241 complete Śaka years; and secondly by Gupta-
Valabhî-Saṁvat 712 being quoted as equivalent to Śaka-Saṁvat 953, which is known to be
intended as an expired year, since Albêrûnî gives it as the equivalent of the year 400 of
Yazdajird, which is A.D. 1031-32 current. In his next mention, however, as rendered by
M. Reinaud, he apparently speaks of the era as commencing with, i.e. as having for its first
current year, Śaka-Saṁvat 241, which must be understood as an expired year; according
¹ e.g. those in Gen. Cunningham's Book of Indian Eras, and Prof. K. L. Chhatre's Graha-
sâdhanâchîṁ Kôshṭakêṁ, or “Tables for calculating the Places of the Planets.”
² Or, more accurately, the period from the 9th March, A.D. 319, to the 25th February, A.D. 320.
—It is, perhaps, desirable to point out, for general readers, that the quotation of two years of the
Christian era in this way, “A.D. 319-20,” does not denote the whole period of the two years, but only
the period from the commencement of the Śaka year in the first of them, to the end of it in the second.
d,