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

52 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
not grammatically, were substantially correct, in shewing that it indicated that the Gupta
sovereignty was still continuing when the grants in question were issued. To his notice
of these inscriptions he annexed some remarks (id. p. 16 ff.) on the "Date of the Guptas,"
in which he arrived at the conclusion that the probable epoch of the Gupta era was A.D.
194-95, and its commencement A.D. 195-96. Starting with accepting it to be almost
certain that Śîlâditya VII. was the king of Valabhî who was reigning at the time of Hiuen
Tsiang's visit in A.D. 640, he pointed out (id. p. 17) that, as the year 447 of the grant
might fall twenty-five or thirty years either earlier or later than the pilgrim's visit, the initial
point of the Gupta era might lie anywhere between A.D. 163 and 223. Within this period,
he found, the only year which would suit the conditions of the record in the Êraṇ pillar
inscription of Budhagupta and the Môrbî grant of Jâiṅkadêva, was A.D. 194-95 as the
epoch of the era. Applying this epoch to the Êraṇ date, the result (id. p. 18) was A.D.
359; in which year the twelfth lunar day of the bright fortnight of Âshâḍha, according to
his calculation, was, as required, a Thursday; viz. the 24th June. And applying it to the
solar eclipse mentioned in the Môrbî grant, which he assumed to have occurred on the
new-moon day of the month Mâgha, five days before the writing of the grant, the result
was the 10th February, A.D. 780, "on which very day there was an eclipse of the sun,
"visible in Eastern Asia."¹ The fourth test, which, he indicated, should be applied, was the
mention of some of the saṁvatsaras of Jupiter's Twelve-Year Cycle in the grants of the
Mahârâjas Hastin and Saṁkshôbha. Exact information about this cycle, however, was
not then forthcoming; and, in making the Mahâ-Vaiśâkha saṁvatsara correspond
(id. p. 19) with A.D. 350, which, with the epoch of A.D. 194-95, would be the equi-
valent of Gupta-Saṁvat 156, recorded in the Mahârâja Hastin's grant, No. 21, page 93,
he seems to have acted on pure assumption; while, in order to make the Mahâ-Âśvayuja
saṁvatsara, recorded in the same Mahârâja's grant of Gupta-Saṁvat 163, No. 22, page
100, fit in with his view of the cycle, he had to alter² the original date from 163 to 173, with
the result of A.D. 367. On this occasion, General Cunningham (id. p. 21) again referred
the establishment of the Gupta era to Chandragupta I.; and he placed the foundation of the
Valabhî era of A.D. 319 in the twentieth year of the reign of Kumâragupta. And, in
connection with this Valabhî era, he expressed the opinion (id. p. 20) that it could have no
connection whatever with the downfall of the Gupta dynasty; for the reason that, applied
to the epoch of A.D. 194-95, the dates of 138 and 139 in the Junâgaḍh rock inscription of
Skandagupta, No. 14, page 56, shewed that the Gupta dominion was still intact, in Saurâsh-
ṭra or Kâṭhiâwâḍ, up to³ A.D. 333. And he expressed the opinion that the apparent incon-
¹ For the full details of this eclipse, see Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 308.
² See page 102, note 1, below my introductory remarks to this inscription, where I have shewn
that a very material obstacle exists in the way of this alteration of the text. Also, as will be seen
further on, from the correct point of view as regards the Gupta era, any alteration is quite un-
necessary.
³ This is with the supposed date of 139. But the real dates in the record are 136, 137, and 138:
they do not include 139.