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

62 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.

grant must certainly be rejected as spurious.¹ If not so, then it can only be held that Jâiṅka
and Jâikadêva were distinct and separate persons. Under any circumstances, this grant
is of no use in connection with the question of the Gupta era.

---

¹ In this grant, the date (from the published lithograph; Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 155, and Plate,
line 1 ff.) runs—Vikrama-saṁvatsara-śatêshu saptasu chatur-navaty-adhikêshv=aṁkataḥ 974 Kârt-
tikamâs-âpara-pakshê amâvâsyâyâṁ Âdityavârê Jyêshṭhâ-nakshatrê ravigrahaṇa-parvaṇi asyâṁ saṁ-
vatsara-mâsa-paksha-divasa-pûrvâyâṁ tithâv=ady=êha Bhûmilikâyâṁ &c.,—"in seven centuries,
increased by ninety-four, of the years of Vikrama, (or) in figures, 974 [the interpretation of the figures,
however, with the exception of the 4, depends purely on the preceding expression in words; the first
two of them present anything but the appearance of 7 and 9]; in the latter fortnight of the month
Kârttika; on the new-moon tithi; on Sunday; under the Jyêshṭhâ nakshatra; on the occasion of an
eclipse of the sun; on this lunar day, (specified) as above by the year, and month, and fortnight, and
(solar) day; to-day; here, at Bhûmilikâ," &c.—This gives us for calculation, Vikrama-Saṁvat 794,
current according to the literal meaning of the text; the month Kârttika (October-November); the
second, and as shewn by the following mention of the new-moon day and a solar eclipse, the dark
fortnight; the new-moon tithi; Sunday; an eclipse of the sun; and the Jyêshṭhâ nakshatra or
lunar mansion. And, as the details of the inscription connect it specifically with Saurâshṭra or
Kâṭhiâwâḍ, we have to understand that the Vikrama year quoted is the southern Vikrama year, com-
mencing with Kârttika śukla 1, and having the Amânta southern arrangement of the months (see
Table III., page 71 below), in which the second fortnight of each month is the dark fortnight.
This is, in fact, proved by the record itself, in allotting to the second fortnight of the month the new-
moon tithi, which of course belongs to the dark fortnight. And, Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit tells me, it is also
shewn by the mention of the Jyêshṭhâ nakshatra, which can never occur on the new-moon tithi of the
Pûrṇimânta northern Kârttika.—As belonging to southern Vikrama-Saṁvat 794, the given tithi be-
onged, according to the Tables, to Śaka-Saṁvat 659, expired; and, if it belonged to southern Vi-
krama-Saṁvat 795, it would belong to Śaka-Saṁvat 660, expired. With the basis of these two Śaka
years, taken as expired, Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit gives me the following English equivalents of the recorded
date;—for Vikrama-Saṁvat 794, Monday, the 28th October, A.D. 737, when there was the Anu-
râdhâ nakshatra, and most probably no eclipse of the sun (none, at least, is recorded in Indian Eras,
p. 211);—and for Vikrama-Saṁvat 795, Sunday, the 16th November, A.D. 738, when there was the
Jyêshṭhâ nakshatra; but there cannot have been an eclipse of the sun, since there was one on the
preceding new-moon tithi, on Friday, the 17th October, A.D. 738, or, by the English Tables (Indian
Eras, p. 211) Saturday, the 18th October (the difference in the day is because the conjunction of the
sun and the moon occurred late towards sunrise; and, for the same reason, the eclipse was not visible
in India). This, of course, was the new-moon tithi of the Pûrṇimânta northern Kârttika that fell
in A.D 738; but the supposition that this is the day intended, is barred by the facts that I
have mentioned above, which prevent our understanding that the month recorded is the Pûrṇimân-
ta northern month at all; and also by the fact, ascertained by Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit, that on the 17th
October, A.D. 738, the nakshatras were Svâti and Viśâkhâ. To complete the details, I would add
that he finds that the English equivalent of the new-moon tithi of the Pûrṇimânta northern Kârttika,
which fell in A.D. 737, was Saturday, the 28th September, A.D. 737, when the nakshatras were Chitrâ
and Svâti, and there was no solar eclipse.—The only English date, therefore, which at all answers
to the record, is Sunday, the 16th November, A.D. 738; and this is the date that was accepted by
Dr. Bühler, in publishing the inscription, on calculations made by Prof. Jacobi. In order to arrive at
it, however, he translated the record as meaning Vikrama-Saṁvat 794 expired and 795 current. And
in dealing with the eclipec, which, according to the same Amânta reckoning, occurred one lunation
earlier, on the new-moon tithi of the preceding month Âśvina, he arrived at the conclusions, that the