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

56 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
supersede the Buddhist Saka era of Kanishka; that, the Guptas and the Kings of Valabhî
having then passed away, and having also been insignificant and of doubtful orthodoxy, in
looking back for some name and event of sufficient importance to mark the commence-
ment of a new era, they hit on the name of Vikramâditya, as the most illustrious known to
them, and his victory at Karûr as the most important event of his reign; and that then,
since the date of that victory, A.D. 544, was too recent to be adopted, they antedated
the epoch by ten cycles of sixty years, thus arriving at B.C. 56 for their Vikrama era,
and also, not content with this, devised another era, which they called the Harsha era, from
the other part of his name, and the epoch of which was fixed in B.C. 456, by placing it
ten even centuries before the date of the battle of Karûr. It is an actual fact, that the
name of Vikrama does not occur in connection with the era of B.C. 57 until a comparatively
late date.¹ But Mr. Fergusson's arguments are vitiated throughout by the undue reliance
which he placed on the quasi-historical records of the Râjataraṁgiṇî. The early chrono-
logy of Kaśmîr has still to be fixed; and the means of adjusting it are to be found in A.D.
533 as the date of Mihirakula, who, according to the book itself, reigned in the eighth
century B.C. And, if the date of Harsha-Vikramâditya of Ujjain is really dependent on the
date of Hiraṇya of Kaśmîr, it certainly cannot be placed as early as the sixth century A.D.
In 1881, in the Ind. Ant. Vol. X. p. 213 ff., Dr. Oldenberg published his paper
"On the Dates of ancient Indian Inscriptions and Coins," the whole of which well deserves
careful study. Holding (id. p. 214) as the result of Herr von Sallet's numismatic resear-
ches, that Kanishka, Huvishka, and Vâsudêva, cannot be placed earlier than the first
century A.D., and must be placed before A.D. 200; quoting the Bâdâmi cave inscription
of the Western Chalukya king Maṅgalîsa,² dated Śaka-Saṁvat 500 expired, as proving
conclusively that the Śaka era ran from the coronation, not the defeat or death, of
a Śaka king (or kings); finding (id. p. 214 f.), from the coins, that Kanishka belonged
undoubtedly to the Śaka tribe; and finding also (id. p. 215) that, at the time to which
Kanishka must be referred, there was no Indian king who at all equalled him in power and
fame, he arrived at the primary conclusion that the era used in the inscriptions of
Kanishka, Huvishka, and Vâsudêva, is the Śaka era, and that the event from which
it dates, is the accession of Kanishka. Working from this starting-point, after indicating
very correctly (id. p. 217) that the fundamental mistake which vitiates the researches
of Mr. Thomas and others "consists in their touching only incidentally upon the direct
"and very clear ancient tradition," preserved by Albêrûnî, "which we possess regarding
"the Gupta era, instead of placing distinctly this tradition in the foreground, and of
"systematically discussing the question whether any serious objections can be opposed
¹ I am not prepared at present to specify the exact date. But the 'Gyâraspur' or 'Gyârispur'
inscription (Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. X. p. 33, and Plate xi.) shews that the era was still known as
the Mâlava era, in Central India, down to about A.D. 880.
² Ind. Ant. Vol. VI. p. 363 f. and Vol. X. p. 57 ff.