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

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS INTRODUCTION. 39
Hindu eras, had mentioned the Valabhî era (id. Vol. II. Useful Tables, p. 158), to which,
on the authority of the Sômnâthpâṭan or Verâwal inscription of Valabhî-Samvat 945, he
allotted the epoch of A.D. 318. But he had made no mention of a Gupta era. Mr.
Thomas, however (id. Vol. I. p. 270 ff.), introduced his own previously expressed opinion
that the Gupta dates had to be referred to the Śaka era; and supplied some further facts
which seemed to give additional corroboration to this view. And, on this occasion, he
wound up with the general conclusions (id. Vol. I. p. 276) that the dates in the Valabhî
grants, if applied to the Valabhî era of A D. 318-19, would give far too modern a period;
that these dates did not appear to belong to the same consecutive series with the numbers
employed by the Guptas themselves; and that, while still applying the Śaka era to the
Gupta dates, the Vikrama era was probably the one which, "in spite of any apparent
inconsistency involved," should apply preferentially to the Valabhî grants. Curiously
enough he quoted (id. Vol. I. p. 271, note 1) a modification of meaning which one portion
of Albêrûnî's original words would bear; viz. "again, the Kûbat-Kâl (Gupta era),
"that was, as is said, a wicked and powerful family; when it ceased, it was dated from;
"and, as it were (it would seem that), Balab was the last of them, for the first of their era
"also is 241 years after the Śaka-Kâl." But, he still had not arrived at the absolutely
literal translation of the words which he rendered by "when it ceased, it was dated from;"
and, partly through this, partly through having his attention directed principally to
the connection between the Kings of Valabhî and the Guptas, as described in the words
italicised by him, he still failed to see the real bearing of this passage on the epoch of
both the Gupta and the Valabhî eras. In this treatment of the question, he quoted Prof.
Lassen's views (Indische Alterthumskunde, Vol. II.), to the effect that the rise of the
Guptas took place between A.D. 150 to 160; but I have not had the opportunity of
examining that theory.
Meanwhile, in 1853, 1857, and 1858, there had been published M. Stanislas Julien's
French translation of the Life and Travels of the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen T'siang, in which
there is contained the important statement that, when the pilgrim visited Valabhî,—which
was in or about A.D. 640,—the reigning king there, a nephew of Śîlâditya of Mâlava, a
son-in-law of Śîlâditya of Kanauj, and a member of the Kshatriya caste, was named Tou-
lou-p'o-po-t'o (id. Vol. I. p. 206), Tou-lou-po-pa-tch'a (id. Vol. I. p. 254), or T'ou-lou-p'o-po-
tou (id. Vol. III. p. 163). Such were M. Julien's renderings of the Chinese transliter-
ation of the original Sanskṛit name; which latter he restored as 'Dhrouvapaṭou,' i.e. Dhru-
vapaṭu. And it had already been suggested that this name represented that of one of the
Dhruvasênas of the Valabhî family. Mr. Thomas himself (Prinsep's Essays, Vol. I.
p. 267, note 4) had attached no value to this supposed identification. But Hîuen Tsiang's
statement had begun to be looked on, and very properly, as an important factor in the