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

86 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
Kârttika (October-November). This, however, apart from the natural presumption, is
rendered absolutely certain by the concomitant mention of the Hijra year; from which,
since the month Âshâḍha answers ordinarily to June-July, it is plain,—as was pointed out
by Dr. Hultzsch in editing the inscription,¹ and by General Cunningham in commenting
on the date,²—that the English date which we have to look for lies in or about June
or July, A.D. 1264. This at once removes the possibility of any reference to the northern
Vikrama year; since the month Âshâḍha of the northern Vikrama-Saṁvat 1321 current,³
is represented by June-July of the preceding English year, A.D. 1263. Also, since the
period June-July, A.D. 1264, fell in Śaka-Saṁvat 1187 current, it removes any real neces-
sity of making calculations for Śaka-Saṁvat 1186 current and 1188 current; the results,
however, for these two years will be given, in order to help in setting the general question
entirely at rest.
So much, as regards the English equivalent of the given date lying in A.D. 1264, had
been clearly pointed out by Dr. Hultzsch and General Cunningham. But nothing fur-
ther, that I can find, was said about the details of the English equivalent, until just before
the time when I first had occasion to consider this date;⁴ when, in a letter dated the 3rd
December, 1885, General Cunningham announced to me that the equivalent English date
is Sunday, the 25th May,⁵ A.D. 1264.
This result, Sunday, the 25th May, A.D. 1264, is, as will be seen below, the cor-
rect one. But, in order to explain its full bearing, more is requisite, than simply to state
it; especially because it is necessary to shew clearly, in the face of what has elsewhere been
written about this date, that this result is not obtained from the mention of Vikrama-Saṁvat
1320, though it does answer the requirements of that mention; i.e. that it is not the
result for a year commencing on the first day of the bright fortnight of the month Kârttika
which fell in A.D. 1263; and, consequently, that, even apart from what I have already
established, this record proves that Valabhî-Saṁvat 945 commenced at any rate not with
that day.⁶ And here I would remark incidentally, that no argument, of identity between
¹ Ind. Ant. Vol. XI. p. 241. ² Indian Eras, pp. 50, 53, 63.
³ According to the present Tables, the given Vikrama year 1320 must be interpreted as an
expired year; and the indicated current year is, therefore, 1321. This, however, does not make the
given Valabhî year an expired year; just as it does not, and can not, convert the given Hijra year
into an expired year.
⁴ Ind. Ant. Vol. XVI. p. 147 ff.
⁵ The ordinary equivalent of Âshâḍha is June-July. But the dark fortnight of the northern
Âshâḍha corresponds to the dark fortnight of the southern Jyeshṭha, which month is ordinarily May-
June. And this, with the fact that Śaka-Saṁvat 1187, current, commenced rather early, on Saturday,
the 1st March, or Friday, the 29th February, A.D. 1264, is the reason why this dark fortnight of
Âshâḍha fell entirely in May.
⁶ As opposed to these results Gen. Cunningham (Indian Eras, p. 53) has quoted this record as
proving absolutely that Valabhî-Saṁvat 1=A.D. 319 (.20); which could only be by taking the epoch as