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

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 27
Albêrûnî's Statements, as rendered by Prof. Wright.
The leading historical item of Albêrûnî's information, as rendered by M. Reinaud,—
vis. that the Gupta era commemorated the epoch of the extermination of the Gupta
dynasty,—naturally at once attracted special attention; because of the primâ-facie impro-
bability of such a fact. And, as will be seen further on, various attempts were made, to
find an explanation for it; and with very conflicting results.
application of a Lôkakâla reckoning introduced from Kaśmîr, an event occurring in that month can be
correctly referred even to Lôkakâla 99 expired; and, much more so, to Lôkakâla 98 current. To suit
the former case, we require a cycle commencing one year later than the Kaśmîrî cycle; and to suit
the latter case, a cycle commencing three years later than the same. And, that there were varying
starting-points of this kind, as well as a want of uniformity in respect of the scheme of the years, is
indicated by Albêrûnî's remark that the totally different accounts of the Lôkakâla reckonings, given
to him, rendered him unable to make out the truth about it.—One point, however, seems clear. As
to the number 606, given by Albêrûnî in his first illustration, it is impossible that a centenary cycle
can consist of a hundred and one years. And Albêrûnî himself had previously said distinctly
(Albêrûnî's India, Translation, Vol. II. p. 8) "if a centennium is finished, they drop it, and
simply begin to date by a new one." It is plain, in fact, that the odd six years do not belong to the
cycles of the Lôkakâla. To that reckoning, only the six even centuries belong. I shall shew hereafter
that the epoch of the Gupta-Valabhî era really was A.D. 319-20 current; which might be quoted
either as Śaka-Saṁvat 241 expired or 242 current. If we add the odd six years to Śaka-Saṁvat
241 expired, we obtain Śaka-Saṁvat 247 expired, or 248 current, equivalent to A.D. 325-26 current ;
and this, as we have just seen, would coincide with the first current year of a Lôkakâla cycle, as
reckoned in Kaśmîr. But it is one year too early for the first current year of any cycle of a
reckoning, in a subsequent cycle of which the event in question belonged to the ninety-ninth year
expired and the hundredth year current. Now, I suppose that we must assume that Albêrûnî has
quoted Durlabha correctly. And, if so, then the first current year of each cycle in the Multân
reckoning really was one year later than in the Kaśmîrî reckoning; and coincided with the forty-
eighth year expired, and the forty-ninth current, of each century of the Śaka era, and with part of
the twenty-sixth and part of the twenty-seventh years, current, of each century of the Christian
era. And, if the introduction of the reckoning, at Multân, could be carried back so far, it commenced
with Śaka-Saṁvat 248 expired, and 249 current. This year might have been obtained by adding
seven to Śaka-Saṁvat 241 expired. But, as will be seen hereafter, the real use of Śaka-Saṁvat 241
expired is only for obtaining the basis with which Gupta-Valabhî dates have to be calculated; and it
only brings us to the beginning of the Gupta epoch. The difference between Gupta-Valabhî and Śaka
years, both treated as current for purposes of comparison, is 242. And Śaka-Saṁvat 242 expired
brings us to the beginning of the first current Gupta year. This is the starting-point that was really
wanted for a process of the kind shewn to Albêrûnî. And this is why that year was selected as the
apparent basis of the computation; the true basis being Śaka-Saṁvat 848 expired.—It is evident,
therefore, that the process illustrated by the figures given to Albêrûnî does involve a method of adapting
the Lôkakâla reckoning to the Gupta era; or, more properly, of converting Lôkakâla dates into Śaka
dates through the Gupta reckoning. So far, however, from the figures tending to support any inference
that the Lôkakâla reckoning was introduced by, or in the time of, the Early Guptas, the fact that
Durlabha of Multân would deduct 848, with a remainder, in the particular instance, of 105, or one
complete Lôkakâla cycle and five years over, seems to indicate very clearly that the use of this
reckoning in that part of the country commenced with Śaka-Saṁvat 848 expired, equivalent to A.D.
926-27 current; had it been otherwise, Durlabha's rule would surely have been worded in such a way
d 2