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

66 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.

lowing anomalous position, which had occasionally been noticed more or less directly, but
had never been disposed of. It was held by all that the Valabhî family came immediately
after the Guptas. It was also held that in A.D. 318 or 319, some member of this family
founded the city of Valabhî; and, in commemoration partly of that event, and partly of
the Gupta rule having then ceased and the power having passed into his own hands,
established the Valabhî era dating from then. And yet,—as is proved by, amongst
other things, the fact that Bhaṭârka, the founder of the family, came only one generation
before the year 207, the earliest date that we have in the era used in their own charters,
—the founder of this era, and his successors, did not allow this era of their own, esta-
blished under such memorable circumstances, to supersede the Gupta era; but continued
the use of the Gupta era for, in accordance with the three earlier starting-points given on
page 32 f. above, respectively 205, 294, and 318 years at least, (as is shewn by the
Alînâ grant of Śîlâditya VII., dated in the year 447), after the establishment of their own
era! This surely involves an improbability far greater than any other, of whatever kind,
that can be imagined in connection with the whole subject.
In order to arrive at any prospect of a final settlement of the question, what was
wanted was a date for one of the Early Gupta kings, recorded in some era, capable of
identification, other than that which was specially used by them in their own inscriptions.
This has now, at length, been found in my new Mandasôr inscription, which composed
and engraved when the year 529 had expired from the tribal constitution of the Mâlavas
gives us, through his feudatory Bandhuvarman, the date of the year 493, expired, of the
same era, for Kumâragupta.
This was not the first instance that had been obtained of the use of this era, which
may for convenience be called the Mâlava era. For, it is obviously identical with the era
which is alluded to in the Kanaswa inscription¹ dated when the 795th year of the Mâlava
lords had expired; and is also mentioned, under the specific name of the Mâlava-kâla,
i.e. 'the Mâlava era,' or 'the time of the Mâlavas,' in a fragmentary inscription at 'Gyâ-
raspur' or 'Gyârispur' in Central India, dated when the 936th year had expired.² But

---

¹ Edited by Dr. Kielhorn, in Ind. Ant. Vol. XIII. p. 162 ff. The date (from the published text;
p. 164 f.; line 14 f.) runs—saṁvatsara-śatair=yâtaiḥ sa-pañcha-navaty-argalaiḥ saptabhir=Mâlav-
êśânâm mandiraṁ Dhurjaṭêḥ kṛitam,—" (in the year that is denoted) by seven expired centuries of
" years, coupled with ninety-five, of the Mâlava lords, (this) temple of (the god) Dhurjaṭi has been
" made."
² Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. X. p. 33 f., and Plate xi. The date, part of which is broken away,
(from the Plate) runs — Mâlava-kâlâch=chharadâṁ shaṭ-triṁśat-saṁyutêshv=atîtêshu navasu
śatêshu,—" when nine centuries of autumns, joined with thirty-six, have gone by, from (the com-
"mencement of) the Mâlava era (or, from the time of the Mâlavas)."—The counting of the era by
autumns is followed also in line 21 of the Mandasôr inscription of Yaśôdharman and Vishṇuvardhana,
of Mâlava-Saṁvat 589 expired, No. 35, page 150. And it is worth noting, as being one of the
points which identify the Mâlava era with the Vikrama era. It can hardly be doubted, that the