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

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 61
paper and its Postscript, will shew that, for the proposed epoch of A.D. 190, there are
absolutely no grounds whatever; and that the theory has no importance at all, except in
introducing one of the side-issues which, endorsed by a name that carries authority,
have to be disposed of, before any settlement of the main question will be accepted as
final by general readers.
In 1883, General Cunningham published his Book of Indian Eras, in which he
recast, with some additions, his treatise on the Gupta era and the Twelve-year Cycle of
Jupiter, that had appeared in the Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. X. p. 111 ff.; and with the same
results as on the former occasion. He admitted (id p. x.) that the question of the Gupta
era had still not been quite finally settled. But, of the two dates, A.D. 167-68 and
262-63, to which his investigations seemed to limit him for the commencement of the
era, he still (id. p. 57) much preferred the earlier date, both as contrasted specially with
A.D. 262, and also as having (id. p. 58) "a better claim for acceptance than any other
that has yet been proposed." And, accordingly, in the column for the Gupta era in his
Table XVII., we find (id p. 142) the epoch entered as A.D. 166-67, and the commencement
as A.D. 167-68. The saṁvatsaras of the Twelve-year Cycle of Jupiter are shewn in another
column of the same Table; and, from his detailed remarks on this cycle (id. p. 26 ff.), we find
that his method of determining the saṁvatsaras was the same as that applied on the previous
occasion. In respect of the Valabhî era, he still held (id. pp. 53, 63) that the Verâwal
inscription of Valabhî-Saṁvat 945 proves that A.D. 319 was its commencement; not its
epoch. And he also (id. p. 50) seems to indicate very clearly that, in his opinion, the
scheme of the years of this era was identical with that of the years of the southern
Vikrama era, commencing with the first day of the bright fortnight of the month Kârttika
(October-November). He also held (id. p. 57) "that the era used by the Valabhî kings
"was that of the Guptas, seems to be almost certain; as the Sênâpati Bhaṭârka, the founder
"of the Valabhî dynasty, is said," in the supposed tradition of the bards of Kâṭhiâwâḍ,
"to have been the governor of Surâshṭra during the last two years of Skandagupta's
reign." And he suggested (id. p. 53) that it is to this use by the Valabhî family, of the
Gupta era of A.D. 166-67, instead of the Valabhî era itself, that we must attribute all the
existing confusion. Of the new points brought forward on this occasion, the most
important is (id. pp. x f., 47 ff., 58) the reference to the Dhiniki copper-plate grant of king
Jâikadêva of Saurâshṭra, published by Dr. Bühler in the Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 151. This
grant is dated in Vikrama-Saṁvat 794, equivalent to A.D. 736-37; and, on the assumption
that it is genuine, and that this Jâikadêva is identical with the Jâiṅka of the Môrbî grant,
the date of which, (Gupta)-Saṁvat 585 expired, by General Cunningham's view would
represent A.D. 751-52, the synchronism established by the two grants would, of course, lend
strong support to his theory. Upon a full examination, however, of the details of the
date, which from the first evidently contained elements of doubt, I think that this Dhiniki