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

26 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.

to which its epoch would be when 240 years had expired. While, in a third passage, a
little further on in the book,¹ in mentioning the "roundabout way" in which the Hindus
computed the date (in January, A.D. 1026) of the destruction of Sômnâthpâṭan by Mah-
mûd of Ghaznî, which event took place "in the year of the Hijra 416, or 947 Śakakâla,"
he tells us that they first wrote down 242, then 606 under it, and then, again, 99; with
the result, by addition of the figures, of Śaka-Saṁvat 947, which, as an expired year, brings
us to the period A.D. 1025-26 current, inclusive of the month of January, A.D. 1026.
And here the first figures would seem, at first sight, to indicate that, in this calculation,
the epoch of the era was treated as being when Śaka-Saṁvat 242 had expired.²

¹ Albêrûnî's India, Translation, Vol. II. p. 9.
² This last passage is introduced by Albêrûnî in connection with his remarks on the Lôkakâla
or popular reckoning by cycles of a hundred years. And he expresses himself as being inclined to
think that the number 242 indicates the years which preceded the time when the Hindus commenced
to use the cycle of a hundred years, and that they adopted this cycle together with the Gupta era;
also that the number 606 represents the completed cycles, viz. six, "each of which they must reckon
as 101 years;" and that the number 99 gives the expired years of the current cycle. He goes on to
say that the rule, as found by him in the writings of Durlabha of Multân, was, to write down 848, and
add the Lôkakâla; the sum of which would give the Śaka year. But, in proceeding to apply this
rule to Śaka-Saṁvat 953 (expired), as corresponding to the year of Yazdajird which he had already used
as a "gauge-year," he points out that, subtracting 848, there remained 105 for the Lôkakâla, while the
destruction of Sômnâthpâṭan would fall in the 98th year of the cycle.—There are subsidiary difficulties
here, which cannot at present be fully cleared up. One of them is, the reference of the destruction of
Sômnâthpâṭan to both the ninety-eighth and the ninety-ninth years of a Lôkakâla cycle; with the
addition, moreover, that the ninety-eighth year is indicated as current, and the ninety-ninth is
inferred to be expired.—Another is, that, according to the only Lôkakâla reckoning the nature of
which has been fully explained (Indian Eras, p. 6 ff.), viz. that used in Kaśmîr,—which, Albêrûnî tells
us, had been adopted by the people of Multân a few years before his own time,—the event in question
would fall in the first current year of a cycle. Thus, Kalhaṇa, in the Râjataraṁgiṇî, i. 52
(Calcutta edition, p. 3), makes a very explicit statement regarding the equation between the Śaka era
and the Lôkakâla of Kaśmîr. His words are — laukikê-bdê chatur-viṁśê Śaka-kâlasya saṁprataṁ
saptaty-âtyadhikaṁ yâtaṁ sahasraṁ parivatsarâḥ,—"at this present moment, in the twenty-fourth
laukika (or popular) year, there have gone by one thousand years, increased by seventy, of the
Śaka era." In this passage, he quotes the Śaka year as expired, in accordance with the practice of
astronomers; but the Lôkakâla year as current, as would naturally be the case in using a popular reckon-
ing of that kind. He was writing, therefore, in Lôkakâla 24 current, and when Śaka-Saṁvat
1070 had expired; which is equivalent to A.D. 1148-49 current. And this gives Lôkakâla 1 current
of the same cycle, as corresponding to Śaka-Saṁvat 1047 expired; which is equivalent to A.D. 1025-26
current. Now, that the scheme of each year of the Kaśmîrî Lôkakâla cycle was identical with the
scheme of the Śaka years of Northern India, commencing with the first day of the month Chaitra
(March-April), is shewn by Albêrûnî's statements, and by the notes put together by Gen. Cunningham
in his exposition of this reckoning. And it follows that the first year, current, of each Kaśmîrî Lôkakâla
cycle coincides exactly with the forty-seventh year expired, and the forty-eighth current, of each century
of the Śaka era, and with part of the twenty-fifth and part of the twenty-sixth years, current, of each
century of the Christian era. The month of January, A.D. 1026, therefore, fell in Lôkakâla 1
current, of Kaśmîr, which coincided with Śaka-Saṁvat 947 expired, and extended (see Indian Eras,
p. 171) from the 3rd March, A.D. 1025, to the 21st March, A.D. 1026. And it is difficult to see how, in the