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

sistencies in Albêrûnî's statements arose from his finding that the Guptas and the Kings of
Valabhî had actually used one and the same era, and from his taking it for granted that
that era must have been the era which he found to be called the Valabhî era, and to have
commenced in A.D. 319. He placed the Sênâpati Bhaṭârka of Valabhî in A.D. 339
(id. p. 21), twenty years after the establishment of the Valabhî era of 319. And, inter-
preting the coin-dates of Tôramâṇa as 52 and 53 (id. p. 27), he referred them (id. p. 21)
to the Valabhî era of A.D. 319.
The subject was taken up again by General Cunningham in 1880, in the Archæol.
Surv. Ind. Vol. X. p. 111 ff., in his Appendix on "The Gupta Era;" and on this occa-
sion he arrived at the final conclusion, that (id. p. 126) the commencement of the
era was probably in A.D. 167 and, therefore, its epoch was A.D. 166-67. Of the
leading general facts on which he relied (id. p. 116), the first was that Samudragupta's
date seemed to be fixed approximately, within rather narrow limits, by two facts; viz.—
(1) "his own mention" (in the Allahâbâd pillar inscription) "of the tribute received from
"the Daivaputra, Shâhi, Shâhânushâhi, which we now know to be the titles of the Yue-chi
"Indo-Scythians, Kanishka, Huvishka, and Vâsudeva, and their successors, shews him to
"have been a contemporary of some prince of this race;" and (2) "according to
"Chinese authority, the Yue-chi, during the period between A.D. 220-80, put their kings
"to death, and established military chiefs." From a comparison of these two statements,
General Cunningham inferred that Samudragupta must have reigned before the time when
the Yue-chi put their kings to death, or not later than some time between A.D. 200 and
250; and that his father, Chandragupta I., must be placed towards the end of the second
century A.D. But, with regard to this, I have only to repeat a remark which I have
already had occasion to make; viz. that what we really have, is, not the means of fixing the
period of Samudragupta through the Chinese accounts, but the means of correcting the
Chinese accounts through the Early Gupta chronology. The second leading point was that,
as already indicated by him, the Alinâ grant of Śîlâditya VII. shewed that the initial point
of the Gupta era must fall between A.D. 164 and 224. Putting these two approximate
results together, he inferred that the beginning of the Gupta era must have been
not very far from A.D. 180 to 200. Meanwhile, he had obtained certain information
regarding the Twelve-Year Cycle of Jupiter, from Bapu Deva Shastri, Professor of
Mathematics in the Benares College, which enabled him now to take this test also into
consideration; with the result that, subject to the approximate limits which he had
already arrived at on general grounds, and having regard also to the week-day recorded
in the Êraṇ pillar inscription of Budhagupta, the only years that would meet all the re-
quirements of the case were A.D. 166-67 as the epoch, and A D. 167-68 as the com-
mencement, of the Gupta era. In order, however, to make all the saṁvatsaras of the
Twelve-Year Cycle of Jupiter, mentioned in the grants of the Mahârâjas Hastin and
Saṁkshôbha, tally with this epoch, he had still to maintain the alteration of the date of