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

arrived at; but, of course, they were established only as matters of argument, and not by
means of any definite proof. On the grounds that (id. p. 90) it was inconceivable that the
Valabhî era should not have been used by the Kings of Valabhî themselves; that (id. p.
89 f.), by applying the Valabhî dates to A.D. 318, we obtained a Dhruvasêna, who would
answer to the Dhruvapaṭu who was on the throne at the time of Hiuen Tsiang's
visit to India; that (id. p. 104), in addition to the inherent improbability in Albêrûnî's
statement about the Gupta era dating from the extermination of the dynasty, there was no
battle, massacre, or other important event that could be placed in A.D. 318; that
(id. p. 104), the latest date of the Guptas themselves being that of Budhagupta in the year
165, this, if referred to the Śaka era, with the result of A.D. 243, still left a gap of seventy-
five years, with no names to fill it, before we arrived at the last of the Guptas in A.D. 318,
and (id. p. 107) a still longer interval if referred to the Vikrama era; on the general admis-
sion that (id. p. 121) the order of succession was, first the so-called Sâhs, then the Guptas,
and then the Kings of Valabhî; and on architectural grounds, and general historical and
numismatic arguments which are not within the scope of my present remarks, Mr. Fergusson
arrived at the conclusions that (id. p. 128 ff.) the Vikrama era of B.C. 57 was founded by
the so-called Sâh dynasty; that this dynasty continued down to A.D. 235: that there
then rose the Andhra dynasty, in which Gôtamiputra was the king of Western India in
A.D. 318-19; that the Valabhî era was established then, probably on the building of the
city of Valabhî; that the Mahârâja Gupta, the founder of the Gupta family, must have
been the viceroy of one of the Andhra kings, but not necessarily at the time of the build-
ing of Valabhî; and that the Early Guptas and the Kings of Valabhî thus derived the era
which afterwards came to be known by the names of both of them. And, in the course of
this paper, Mr. Fergusson first broached the theory (id. p. 131 ff.) that no such person
as Vikramâditya, the traditional enemy of the Śakas and founder of the Vikrama era,
existed anterior to the Christian era, or within some centuries of that time; but that, "some
"time after Vikramâditya of Mâlwa," whom he placed (id. p. 90) about A.D. 490 to 530,
"had rendered the name so celebrated, the Hindus, on the revival of Brâhmaṇism, wished to
"possess an era which should, at least, be older than the Buddhist era of Śâlivâhana," i.e.
he Śaka era. "At that time, the Sâh era, established by Nahapâṇa, was vacant, having
"fallen into disuse on the destruction of that dynasty and its supersession by the era of
"Valabhî; and that the Hindus then appropriated it, by attaching to it th name that it
"now bears, and inventing the history requisite to render its adoption feasible." This
adaptation of the era was then allotted by him either to the time of Bhôja of Dhârâ, about
A.D. 993, or to the restoration of the Western Châlukya dynasty, in A.D. 973.

---

mistaken. Whereas, in respect of the king mentioned in the Eraṇ inscription, the metre, as well as
the perfect clearness of the reading, shews as conclusively that the first component of that name is
Budha, the planet Mercury. Sanskrit scholars will recognise at once the thorough difference between
the two names.—For my own remarks on the date of Buddhagupta of Magadha, see the Ind. Ant.
Vol. XV. p. 251 f.