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

92 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.

Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit’s calculations, however, made, as before, for a year before and a
year after the resulting year, as well as for that year itself, give the following results, in
each case for both the second solar day and the second tithi, both by Prof. K. L. Chhatre’s
Tables and by the Sûrya-Siddhânta; viz. with Śaka-Saṁvat 1167 expired, **Monday,**¹
the 19th February, A D. 1246; with Śaka-Saṁvat 1168 expired, **Saturday,**² the 9th
February, A.D. 1247; and with Śaka-Saṁvat 1169 expired, **Wednesday,**³ the 29th Janu-
ary, A.D. 1248.
The result for Śaka-Saṁvat 1169, which is the year in which the week-day should
presumably prove correct, does not answer at all. If we could understand that the reading
intended was Saumyê, "on Wednesday," then the result for Śaka-Saṁvat 1170 might be
accepted; subject only to the considerations that Saumyavâra, though perfectly allowable,
is not often used as a synonym for Budhavâra, 'Wednesday;' and that the result is later
by a year than what it ought to be, and can be arrived at only through accepting an altera-
tion in the reckoning of the Gupta-Valabhî era, precisely the opposite of the alteration
which, as shewn at page 72 f. above, was certainly made, in Gujarât, before the date of the
Kaira grant of Dharasêna IV. of the year · 30. If, on the other hand, we take Sômê, "on
Monday," as the intended reading, then the result for Śaka-Saṁvat 1168 may be accepted,
subject only to the consideration that it is earlier by a year than what it ought to be.
This result would be quite intelligible, if we could refer the given date to a year com-
mencing with Mârgaśîrsha; for then, belonging to Valabhî Saṁvat 927, it would belong
quite regularly to Śaka-Saṁvat 1168, and its English equivalent would fall quite regularly
in A.D. 1246. This, however, as I have stated at page 78 above, is distinctly prevented
by a perfectly conclusive obstacle. The only resource that remains, is to hold that, for
some reason or other, the date given in this record, like the date in the Kaira grant of
Dharasêna IV. of the year 330, was taken from a Gujarât almanac, and belongs to a year
the initial day of which was the Kârttika śukla 1 preceding the true commencement of
Gupta-Valabhî-Saṁvat 927. This, again, would be perfectly intelligible, if we could only
assume that the image, which is probably portable enough, was fashioned, together with
the engraving of the inscription, at some place in Gujarât; and was then transported by
a pilgrim to Verâwal. But the objection to this is, that the inscription seems to record
distinctly that the image was made at Dêvapattana; and Dêvapattana is well known as
another name of Sômnâthpâṭan, i.e. the modern Verâwal itself; and it is difficult to
understand how the corrupt Gujarât reckoning of the Gupta-Valabhî era can have been
introduced at Verâwal in A.D. 1246, when, as we have already seen from the other Verâwal
inscription, of Valabhî-Saṁvat 945, the true original reckoning was used there up to at

---

¹ The tithi ended, by Prof. K. L. Chhatre’s Tables, 29 ghaṭîs, 59 palas, and by the Sûrya-Siddhânta, 30 ghaṭîs, 2 palas, after mean sunrise at Bombay.
² Here the times are respectively 8 ghaṭîs, 33 palas, and 9 ghaṭîs, 25 palas.
³ Here the times are respectively 31 ghaṭîs, 57 palas, and 34 ghaṭîs, 43 palas.