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

64 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
318-19 for the epoch of the Gupta era.¹ He held (id. p. 97) that Albêrûnî's statement
regarding the era dating from the extermination of the Guptas, was to be attributed to
nothing but the fact that, as in the case also of the Śaka era, the Hindus had repeated to
him a mistaken tradition; and that the only reasonable course was, while accepting his
initial date for the era, to reject his explanation of the circumstances under which it was
established; and he held (id. p. 98) that the fact that this era came to be known in later
times by the name of the Valabhî era, was due only to its having been introduced
into Saurâshṭra by the Valabhî family, who were originally dependents of the Guptas, and
the dates in whose grants could, at any rate, plainly not be referred to the rise of the family
under the Sênâpati Bhaṭârka. The principal tests applied by him were, the record of the
week-day in the Êraṇ pillar inscription of Budhagupta; and the names of the saṁvatsaras
of the Twelve-year Cycle of Jupiter, as recorded in the grants of the Mahârâjas Hastin
and Saṁkshôbha. In respect of the Êraṇ record, he announced (id. p. 99) that Prof. K. L.
Chhatre had found that it was correct for Śaka-Saṁvat 406, as an expired year,² and
equivalent to A.D. 484-85, i.e. for the Saka year for which it should be correct according to
the initial date given by Albêrûnî; and his grounds so far were correct. In respect, how-
ever, of the Twelve-year Cycle of Jupiter (id. p. 99) he went quite astray; partly through
accepting the view that the saṁvatsaras of the cycle begin and end with the luni-solar
years; partly through assuming, evidently in order to apply General Cunningham's Tables
of the saṁvatsaras, that the Gupta dates denoted expired years, with current saṁvatsaras,
which led to the result that Gupta-Saṁvat 156 should be the Mahâ-Chaitra saṁvatsara,
instead of Mahâ-Vaiśâkha as recorded; and partly through his acceptance of General
Cunningham's alteration of the date of No. 22, page 100, from Gupta-Saṁvat 163 to
173. In the course of the arguments which occupy the rest of his paper, he suggested
that the T'u-lu-p'o-po-tu of Hiuen Tsiang was Dhruvasêna II. of Valabhî. But on this
point it is hardly possible to endorse any part of his statement (id. p. 100) that "nothing
"important is involved in the suffix bhaṭa. It was a mere title or honorific termination,
"as pant and râv are among us, the Marâṭhâs. Sêna, siṁha, and bhaṭa were the Vala-
"bhî honorific endings; and they could be used promiscuously. The king spoken of in
"the plates as Dhruvasimha, may have been called Dhruvabhaṭa by ordinary people, from
"whom Hiuen Tsiang must have got the name." But the name of Dhruvasiṁha does not
¹ He seems to quote A.D. 319-20 as the epoch (e.g. p. 99, line 15). But, since he treated
the Gupta years as expired years, the epoch that he apparently proved is A.D. 318-19.
² It was from this that he inferred that the Gupta-Saṁvat 165 of the record, was itself an expired
year. But this does not follow at all. The equation between the Gupta date and the corresponding
English date, is not intrinsically dependent on the Śaka date at all; only, in using Hindu Tables, we
have to arrive at it through a Śaka year, and to use as the basis of the calculation, the last Śaka year
expired before the current Śaka year corresponding to Gupta-Saṁvat 165 current.—A most curious
confusion between current and expired years of the Śaka era runs through his remarks. Thus
though quite rightly taking Śaka Saṁvat 406 expired to be equivalent to A.D. 484-85, with a differ-
ence of 78-79, he also, with the same difference, took, e.g., A.D. 511-12 as the equivalent of Śaka-
Saṁvat 433 current.