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

58 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM VOL. III.
date of 617, if added to A.D. 319, gave A.D. 936,—within one year of his date for
Sâmantadêva,—he quoted these coins (id. p. 544) as proof of "the practical survival of
"the method of dating from the extinction of the Gupta rule."
Closely connected with the preceding, is Sir E. Clive Bayley's paper "On certain
Dates occurring on the Coins of the Hindu kings of Kâbul, expressed in the Gupta Era
and in Arabic (or quasi-Arabic) numerals," published in 1882, in the Numismatic
Chronicle, Third Series, Vol. II. p. 128 ff. This paper was issued in support of his
theory of A.D. 189-(90) or 190-(91) for the epoch of the Gupta era; which was based to
a great extent on the apparent deduction from the Alînâ grant of Sîlâditya VII., noted
at page 51 above, that the era cannot have commenced later than A.D. 200; coupled
with his reading of "698 Gupta" on the earliest of the coins of 'Syalapati,' which, as he
placed 'Syalapati' between A.D. 887 and 916, would shew that the Gupta era commenc-
ed after A.D. 180. As regards the era of A.D. 319, his suggestion, based on the
weakness attributed to Skandagupta in the supposed tradition of the Kâṭhiâvâḍ bards,
was (id. p. 155 f.) that it might date from the death of Kumâragupta, and might memori-
alise a rebellion against Skandagupta by the members of the Valabhî family. The
latter dynasty, he held, still continued, in spite of any such circumstances, to use the
Gupta era. The key-note to the whole theory is to be found in Sir E. Clive Bayley's
agreement with Mr. Thomas, that the specified abbreviations of a full legend, which
must be taken as 'Guptasya Kâl,' were really to be found in the dates on the Kâbul
coins. But in details he differed widely from Mr. Thomas. Thus (id. p. 145) he
read the signs in the opposite way to that in which Mr. Thomas would read them; and,
instead of accepting the conventional date of 617, he found in the figures various values,
to suit the period, A.D. 887 to 916, which he assigned to 'Syalapati.' The question of
the true interpretation of the dates on the coins in question, depends chiefly on the real
period, still to be proved, that is to be assigned to 'Syalapati'¹ and the other kings in ques-

---

¹ In connection with this, I would draw special attention to the coin of 'Syalapati' figured in Prin-
sep's Essays, Vol. I. p. 304, Pl. xxv. No. 2, which, as now explained by Sir E. Clive Bayley's Table,
gives the unmistakable date of 814, traces of which are also discernible in No. 1 on the same Plate.
This No. 2 has behind the horseman the same monogram, u u, (not t t,) as Sir E. Clive Bayley's Nos.
25, 26, and 27 have; also, as explained by No. 1. it has in the upper corner, in front of the horseman,
the same symbol (interpreted by Sir E. Clive Bayley on his No. 20 as a rude imitation of adal, 'just
[weight or value]') that appears in the same position on others of these coins, and resembles a crescent
moon on the top of a short staff with a cross-handle. These points of similarity suggest that possibly
Sir E. Clive Bayley's Nos. 25, 26, and 27 (and others) belong really to 'Syalapati,' though his name is
not on the obverse. And the unmistakable date of 814 on at any rate Prinsep's Essays, Pl. xxv. No.
2, further suggests that the figures on Sir E. Clive Bayley's Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 10, should not be read as
707 and 727.—Sir E. Clive Bayley placed 'Syalapati' in A.D. 887 to 916; which would agree very
satisfactorily with the date of 814 on Prinsep's coin, if we might refer it to the Saka era, with the re-
sult of A.D. 891-92. Mr. Thomas (Jour. R. As. Soc. N. S. Vol. IX. p. 179) placed him about the
same time; viz. "early in the tenth century." On the other hand, General Cunningham (Archæol.
Surv. Ind. Vol. XIV. p. 45) has placed him rather earlier, about A.D. 800; but he quoted no authority
for this. I have not been able to find any other information as to the probable date of 'Syalapati.'