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

4 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
This part of the work was finished in December, 1885. I then returned to India, to
complete the volume; and the Texts and Translations were ready for the Press at the end of
May, 1886; though not quite in the same form throughout, in which they now appear. It
was, however, then found that a number of accented types had to be prepared specially for
this volume; and, owing to this and other causes, the first proofs were not fairly in hand
till the following November. That they were so far started then, and that the work has
progressed so quickly since then, is due to the friendly and earnest personal co-operation
of Messrs. E. J. Dean and A. Sanderson, the Superintendent and Deputy-Superintendent
of Government Printing, India, in whose office the volume has been printed; and I think I
may fairly say that the volume gives a most excellent specimen of the style in which, under
intelligent direction, the printing of large and important books can be done in India. I would
also acknowledge here much assistance given by my friend, Mr. W. Rees Philipps, in read-
ing the final proofs; as, since the commencement of the printing, I have never been less than
five days distant from the Press by post, and have been part of the time in England, the
assistance given by him on the spot, in Calcutta, has been most valuable in saving time.
The printing of the Texts and Translations was completed in July, 1887. And the delay
since then is due to the large amount of important matter, which, while they were being
taken through the Press, I found myself in a position to include in the Introduction.
It will doubtless be remarked that, in the notes to my Texts, I have but seldom re-
ferred to the readings given in previously published versions of the same inscriptions. It
soon became apparent to me that, to make any such references throughout, would increase
the bulk of the book to at least twice what it now is, and encumber the pages of it with
hundreds of footnotes of not the slightest practical value. I therefore abandoned, almost
at starting, any idea of such a course; considering that the point was one which could
interest only a very limited class of readers, and that, by giving in the introduction to
each Text every reference that I could find to previous versions of it by other hands, I
should afford those few special readers every facility for making any comparisons that
might be necessary; and I have confined myself to noting previous mislections, only when
they have had a bearing upon some historical name or other point of special importance.
I offer my present versions of the Texts, not as absolutely final ones throughout, but as
the most reliable ones that have as yet been produced; and as rendering possible now, for
the first time, a thoroughly critical start in all the lines of research connected with the
epigraphical materials of the period with which I have dealt. To take one special line
as an instance,—it is only now that we are beginning to know properly the correct pro-
cesses by which Hindu dates may be converted into their English equivalents. Much, in
connection with this, still remains to be made known. And, as our knowledge advances,
many improvements will undoubtedly be made in the interpretation, for instance, of
numerical symbols, and of the other particular details of recorded dates. As an apposite
instance, I would refer to note 2 on page 274. In this line, as in any other, I shall be only

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS: PREFACE. 5
too thankful for any suggestions that may be made to me, with a view to improvements in
any future edition.
A serious obstacle, hitherto, in the prosecution of epigraphical researches, has been
the want of full and systematic indexes. To the Index of the present volume, special
attention has been given; in order that it shall include an easy reference to anything
in this series of inscriptions that can bear on any of the lines of research connected with
epigraphy. And, to this point, I trust that full attention will be paid, in future volumes of
this series by other hands.
The original sanction for this volume, limited by the heavy cost of the Plates, was for
two hundred and fifty copies. Towards the end of my work, however, many gratifying
intimations came from England, the Continent, and India, that the book was likely to be
far more popular, and a far more general subject of study, than even I myself had ever
anticipated. Under these circumstances, there has now been printed an additional issue
of two hundred and fifty copies, without Plates, and thus procurable at a moderate price.
The copies of this issue, of course, contain everything that is essential for general readers.
And the complete copy, with Plates, in the nearest Public Library, Society's Rooms, or
College, will always furnish special students with the means of prosecuting inquiries on
particular points of interpretation of the original texts.
As I have indicated above, the volume does not appear in quite the form in which it
was originally prepared for the Press. It will not be thoroughly complete, without the
Historical Chapters that should form the second part of it. These however could not
be even drafted to any considerable extent, until the Texts and Translations were
all in print, in order to facilitate constant reference and quotation. And the writing
of the Historical Chapters will entail so enormous an amount of miscellaneous reading and
annotation, for the purpose of tracing to their origin, in order to explain and completely
refute, all the erroneous theories, in every connected line of inquiry, which have been
started during the last fifty years in order to support any epoch rather than the correct
one, that, having now again to give all my principal attention and energy to the ordinary
duties of official life in the Revenue Department, I doubt much whether those chapters
will ever be written by me. It has, in fact, been difficult enough for me to finish, to my
satisfaction, even the present part of the volume. I have, therefore, taken advantage of
the delay in printing, to incorporate in this part of the volume a variety of notes and
remarks which I should have preferred keeping back for the Historical Chapters. They
will, however, I think, be found to be not altogether misplaced; even if I may subsequently
have to modify the views expressed in some of them.
Another point in which the delay in publication has been turned to even greater
dvantage, is in respect of the valuable matter which I have been able to include in
the Introduction through the kind co-operation of Mr. Shankar Balkrishna Dikshit, of

6 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
the Bombay Educational Department. It was only at the end of December, 1886, that I
made his acquaintance. But, since then, he has been most assiduous in making all the
astronomical calculations, which were suggested by me to him as each new point deve-
loped itself in the special inquiries that, through his assistance, became possible. Two
of his papers will be given in full in Appendices II. and III.; and the first of them will be
found to explain thoroughly the process by which, with the late Professor Kero Lakshman
Chhatre's Tables, anyone may now be able to calculate correctly the week-day, and the
corresponding English date, for any given Hindu tithi or lunar day. The second point to
which he has given his attention, is the elucidation of the system of the Twelve-Year
Cycle of Jupiter, the years of which form so important a part in some of the records of the
Early Gupta period. I find it impossible to over-estimate the work which he has done
for me during the short period of our acquaintance. His assistance has been simply
invaluable. Without it, I must have left all these subsidiary points for future deter-
mination; and must, of course, have left the all-important subject of the epoch of the
Gupta era still open, within the limits of one year before and after the true date, to doubt
and argument. With it, I am now able to prove everything that I have sought to establish,
from the time when I first became aware of the full purport of the Mandasôr inscription
that gives the date of Kumâragupta and Bandhuvarman; and to present my case, as will
be seen, in a thoroughly complete and satisfactory form.
J. F. FLEET.

INTRODUCTION.
BEFORE entering on the leading subject of this Introduction,—the determination of
the epoch of the so-called Gupta era,—I would give a brief account of the scope
of the book, and the arrangement of its contents.
The leading records are, of course, those of the Early Guptas themselves;¹ from
No. 1, the Allâhâbâd posthumous stone pillar inscription of Samudragupta, down to
No. 16, page 68, the Indôr copper-plate grant of Skandagupta, who, as far as we know
at present, was the last of the direct line of the Early Gupta dynasty. The actual dates
of these records extend from A.D. 401 to A.D. 466.
To the same period belong the two inscriptions of the Rulers of Mâlava; No. 17,
page 72, the Gaṅgdhâr inscription of Viśvavarman, dated² in A.D. 424; and No. 18, page
79, the Mandasôr inscription, dated in A.D. 474, which gives us the date of A.D. 437
for Kumâragupta and his feudatory, Bandhuvarman; and, in doing so, has supplied what
was always felt to be the most urgent desideratum, viz. a date, for any one of the Early
Gupta kings, recorded in a standard era, capable of identification, other than the era which
was habitually used by the Early Guptas themselves. With the exception of a few among
the Miscellaneous Inscriptions, to be noticed hereafter, No. 17 is the last record that
belongs specifically to the Early Gupta dynasty.
But, shortly after the time of Skandagupta, we meet with the two names of Budha-
gupta and Bhânugupta, with the dates of respectively A.D. 484, in No. 19, page 88,
and A.D. 510, in No. 20, page 91. And, coupled with the fact that, in the inscriptions
of the Parivrâjaka Mahârâjas, the Gupta sovereignty is distinctly stated to have continued
down to A.D. 528, the termination of these names raises at least a presumption that
these two kings were of the Early Gupta lineage, though possibly not connected by direct
descent with Skandagupta. Budhagupta comes, chronologically, immediately after
Skandagupta. Bhânugupta comes somewhat later; after Tôramâṇa, whose power mean-
while succeeded that of Budhagupta in Eastern Mâlwa. But, under all the circumstances,
¹I call the members of this family the "Early Guptas," by way of easily distinguishing them from
the later Guptas of Magadha, whose genealogy is given in the Aphsaḍ inscription, No. 42, page 200,
and in the Dêô-Baraṇârk inscription, No. 46, page 213.
²In respect of these three dates, I follow here the equivalents that I have given in my introduc-
tory remarks to the two inscriptions. But, when the proper value of expired years of the Mâlava or
Vikrama era can be determined, perhaps it may be found that these three dates, and any others of the
same series, are each one year earlier than as at present given by me.

8 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
the most convenient arrangement has been, to place the record which mentions him, next
after that of Budhagupta.
In No. 21, page 93, down to No. 25, page 112, we have some inscriptions, ranging
from A.D. 475 to A.D. 528, which overlap, on one side, the time of Budhagupta, and
on the other, the periods of Tôramâṇa, Bhânugupta, and Mihirakula. They are the re-
cords of a feudatory family, to the members of which it is convenient to give the name of
the **Parivrâjaka Mahârâjas.**¹ And the extreme importance of them lies in the fact
that they expressly shew that, though the direct line of the Early Gupta dynasty itself
may have become extinct, the Gupta dominion still continued, and the name of the
Gupta kings was still recognised as a power, down to A.D. 528. Another very special
feature in them, as will be seen, is the use of the Twelve-Year Cycle of Jupiter, in the
records of the dates. As will now be shewn for the first time, this point really furnishes
most valuable corroboration, if not actually independent and conclusive proof, of my
general results as to the exact year from which the dates of the Early Guptas and their
successors run.
Closely connected with the preceding, both chronologically and territoriahy, was
another family, that of the Mahârâjas of Uchchakalpa, whose records we have in
No. 26, page 117, to No. 31, page 135; with also a mention of one member of this family,
the Mahârâja Śarvanâtha, in No. 24, page 110, which proves that, at the date therein
referred to, he was the contemporary of the Parivrâjaka Mahârâja Hastin. And the
recorded dates of this family, if referred to the Gupta era, range from A.D. 493 to 533-34.
That this is the proper interpretation of the dates, was assumed by General Cunningham
who first brought all the Uchchakalpa grants, save one, to notice.² And my own view has
been the same. But a later consideration of the question shewed that there are a few
points in the inscriptions, which, if the existence of the Kalachuri or Chêdi era, as a
separate era, could be satisfactorily established, render it possible that these dates are
recorded, not in the Gupta era, but in the Kalachuri era; which, even with General
Cunningham's proposed epoch³ of A.D. 249-50, would suit all the requirements almost
as well as the Gupta era, and, with an epoch about twenty-five or thirty years later, would
suit them much better. Thus, in particular, the understanding that, while the Parivrâjaka
Mahârâjas were feudatories of later members of the Early Gupta dynasty, the Mahârâjas of
Uchchakalpa, whose territories evidently lay more to the east and south-east, were feuda-
tories of Kalachuri kings, would explain at once why no era is quoted in the Bhumarâ
pillar inscription, No. 24, page 110; the reason being that the feudatories of the two rival
dynasties could not agree as to which of the two rival eras should be used. Again, this
same record shews that the Mahârâjas Hastin and Śarvanâtha were contemporaneous in the
Mahâ-Mâgha saṁvatsara that is mentioned in it. Now, for Hastin we have the extreme dates
¹ See page 95, note 1. ² Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. IX. p. 9 ff. ³ See Indian Eras, p. 60 ff.

of Gupta-Saṁvat 156 and 191; and for Śarvanâtha, the extreme dates of the years 193 and
214, with the year 177 as the latest known date for his father Jayanâtha. And, as it is un-
likely that Hastin continued alive and in power for any length of time after Gupta-Saṁvat
191, it seemed, on the supposition that both the series of dates were to be referred to
the Gupta era, that the Mahâ-Mâgha saṁvatsara in question was the one commencing in
Gupta-Saṁvat 189, rather than that commencing in Gupta-Saṁvat 201; since, the former
was easily obtained by adding only four years at the commencement of the period
for Śarvanâtha; whereas, to obtain the latter, we should have to add on ten years at
the end of Hastin's already long enough period of thirty-six years. On the other
hand, the Mahâ-Mâgha saṁvatsara occurred previously, in Hastin's period, in Gupta-Saṁ-
vat 165 and 177. If the Uchchakalpa dates were referred to the Kalachuri era, with
General Cunningham's epoch of A.D. 249-50, Śarvanâtha's latest date the year 214, would be
equivalent to A.D. 463-64, or Gupta-Saṁvat 144; and we should have to add on twenty-
one years at the end of his known period, in order to make him the contemporary of Hastin
in Gupta-Saṁvat 165. Whereas, if an epoch could be found for the Kalachuri era about
twenty-five years later than that proposed by General Cunningham, the two Mahârâjas
would be naturally contemporaneous in Gupta-Saṁvat 165 or A.D. 484-85. By calculation,
however, Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit found that, though General Cunningham's proposed
epoch might be very close to the real truth, yet it was certainly not the absolutely correct
one. Also, though he found that nearly all of the ten Kalachuri or Chêdi dates, given by
General Cunningham,¹ would work out correctly with an epoch of A.D. 248-49, or just
one year earlier than that proposed by General Cunningham, yet both he and I felt that the
available data, in the shape of the published readings and lithographs of the dates,
were not sufficiently reliable for any definite theory to be built up on the results obtained by
him. Again, if the Kalachuri era really existed in that early time,²—in which case,
of course, there were then actually kings of the Kalachuri dynasty,—it seemed strange that
no distinct reference should be made to the dynasty in the Allahâbâd pillar inscription,
which, with much minuteness of detail, claims for Samudragupta the conquest of the whole
earth;³ especially since the Mahâkûṭ pillar inscription of the Early Chalukya king

¹ Indian Eras, p. 61.
² I do not overlook the 'Pardi' grant of the Traikûṭaka Mahârâja Dahrasêna (Jour. Bo. Br. R.
As. Soc. Vol. XVI. p. 346 ff.), which is dated in the year 207 of an unspecified era; or the Kaṇheri plate
(see No. 10 of the separate publications of the Archæological Survey of Western India, p. 57 ff.),
which is dated "in two centuries of years, increased by forty-five, of the augmenting sovereignty of
the Traikûṭakas." But it still has to be proved, either, on general grounds, that the era of these two
records, is the Kalachuri era; or that the Trikûṭa whence these Traikûṭakas derived their name,
is identical with Tripura or Tripurî, the capital of the Kalachuris of Central India.
³ Prinsep, indeed (see, for instance, Prinsep's Essays, Vol. I. p. 237), found the possible mention
of a Tripura in the Kartṛipura which is spoken of in line 22 of this inscription. But he would have
identified it with the modern 'Tipperah.' And the immediate connection of Kartṛipura, in the
inscription, with Samataṭa or, Lower Bengal, Ḍavâka (? 'Dacca,' if the correct spelling really is
Ḍâkâ), Kâmarûpa or Assam, and Nêpâl, shews that the place was indeed very far away from Central
India.

10 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
Mangalîśa¹ shews that the dynastic name was very well established in at least the sixth
century A.D., and mentions it under the Sanskritised form of Kalatsûri. As, however, the
Kalachuris, in their later records, represent themselves as descendants of Sahasra-Arjuna
or Sahasrabâhu-Arjuna,² the required reference to them in the Allahâbâd inscription might
be found in the Ârjunâyanas, who are mentioned in line 22; and no special objection need
be taken on that ground. The real difficulty was to prove that the Kalachuri era, and, with
it, sovereigns of the Kalachuri dynasty, really existed in early times; and that the era
was not merely one of somewhat later invention, fitted to an early epoch. But, since the
time when I first drafted the preceding remarks, Prof. Kielhorn has determined, quite
recently,⁴ that, if we only take three of the ten dates in question as denoting expired years,
all the dates will work out correctly with the epoch of A.D. 248-49. It is, therefore, really
a question for consideration whether the Mahârâjas of Uchchakalpa were not indeed
feudatories of early kings of the Kalachuri dynasty; and whether the dates of their records
do not furnish the earliest instances of the use of the Kalachuri era. Unfortunately, these
Uchchakalpa dates do not contain details for computation; and the question, accordingly,
cannot at present be decided in that way.
The inscriptions contain various hints as to the causes which led to the downfall of
the Early Gupta sovereignty. But, looking round on all these intimations, with the
help of extraneous information, the person who accomplished their final extinction seems
ndoubtedly to have been the great king Mihirakula, of Śâkala in the Pañjâb, and subse-
quently of Kaśmîr, whose career in India is so graphically described by the Chinese pilgrim
Hiuen Tsiang. Among epigraphical records, his name had long been extant, though it
had not been recognised, in an inscription at Gwâlior, No. 37, page 161, where it occurs as
the name of a son of Tôramâṇa. I myself, when I first recognised the word as a proper
name, took it to be the appellation of a second Mihirakula, given in memory of his father
Tôramâṇa's former lord and master. The first discovery that militated against this view,
was, my finding that the great Mihirakula himself is mentioned in the Mandasôr duplicate
pillar inscriptions, No. 33, page 142, and No. 34, page 149, as having been overthrown by
a powerful king of Northern India named Yaśôdharman; shortly after which I obtained for
Yaśôdharman the date of A.D. 533-34, in the Mandasôr inscription, No. 35, page 150.
From certain details in their Êraṇ inscriptions, it was evident that Tôramâṇa came, in
Eastern Mâlwa, very shortly after Budhagupta; the proof of this is that Budhagupta's
inscription mentions a certain Mahârâja named Mâtṛivishṇu, and his younger brother
Dhanyavishṇu, as being both then alive; whereas Tôramâṇa's inscription mentions
Dhanyavishṇu as still alive, but Mâtṛivishṇu as deceased; and these statements shew that
Tôramâṇa followed Budhagupta, in Eastern Mâlwa, within the remnant of the generation
¹ See my Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts, pp. 22, 58
² Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 250, line 16. ³ Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. IX. p. 92, verse 7.
⁴ See the Academy of the 10th December, 1887, p. 394 f.

to which the brothers Mâtṛivishṇu and Dhanyavishṇu belonged. Putting everything
together, in writing my paper on "The History and Date of Mihirakula,"¹ it soon became
perfectly clear that the king who is mentioned in the Gwâlior inscription, is the great
Mihirakula himself; that he was the son of Tôramâṇa; and that his downfall was accom-
plished by Yaśôdharman within a very few years on either side of A.D. 533-34. In proper
chronological order, therefore, Tôramâṇa and Mihirakula come next after Budha-
gupta; and Tôramâṇa certainly, and probably Mihirakula also, so far as Eastern Mâlwa
is concerned before Bhânugupta. Plate xxiii A. and B. should, therefore, properly have
been placed next after Plate xx. To my present brief notice of these two kings,—who
belonged to a foreign race, which, whether best and most properly known as Indo-Scythians,
Sakas, Hûṇas, Turushkas, Shâhis, Shâhanushâhis, or Daivaputras, had established itself
in the Pañjâb at an early date, and continued in power down to at least the time of
Samudragupta,—I will only add that, the first year of Tôramâṇa, which is recorded in his
inscription. and which fell for certain after A.D. 484, which is Budhagupta's inscrip-
tional date, and before A.D. 510, which is Bhânugupta's inscriptional date, is evidently
only the first year of his possession of Eastern Mâlwa. Coming down, as he did, from
the extreme north-west corner of India, it is impossible that we should suddenly find him,
fully established as the first of a new dynasty, in the very heart of the Gupta country, in
absolutely the first year of his reign. His own dynastic date, which must correspond to
just about the same year, is given in his silver coins, which follow the Early Gupta silver
coins in general style, but differ from them in certain marked peculiarities that were evi-
dently introduced for the express purpose of shewing that his power was hostile to theirs,
and had superseded it. There are two excellent specimens of his coins, which I have
examined, in the British Museum; and the date on them is the year 52 or 82, in numerical
symbols. General Cunningham² has read the dates as 52 and 53; but the second symbol
in each case is certainly 2; as regards the first symbol, I will not at present give a final
opinion as to whether it is 50 or 80; since, though probably a 50, it is possibly an 80,
turned half round on the die, so as to lie vertically, instead of horizontally, in order that it
might not fall chiefly beyond the edge of the coin. Without doubt, it would make the
case very simple indeed, if we could read the date as 182, as Mr. Thomas did,³— or
even read it as 82, and, on the theory of "omitted hundreds," interpret it as 182,— and
refer it to the Gupta era, with the result, now, of A.D. 501-502. But the date is either
52 or 82, and nothing else; without the slightest grounds for supposing that the symbol
for 100 was stamped, but has now become obliterated, or was engraved on the die, but, in
the stamping, fell beyond the edge of the coin; and, if it has to be interpreted as 152,
on the theory of "omitted hundreds," then at any rate it cannot possibly be referred

¹ Ind. Ant. Vol. XV. p. 245 ff.
² Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. IX. p. 26 f.; and see id. Plate v. Nos. 18, 19.
³ Prinsep's Essays, Vol. I. p. 340, and Archæol. Surv. West. Ind. Vol. II. p. 66; see also id.
p. 36, Plate vii. Nos. 27, 28.

12 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
to the Gupta era. I have shewn elsewhere¹ that Mihirakula's fifteenth year, which is
recorded in his Gwâlior inscription, must fall somewhere very close to A.D. 533-34, which
is the recorded date of Yaśôdharman ; and in all probability a year or two before it ; so
that we shall be very near the mark, if we select A.D. 515 for the commencement of his
career. If, then, the date on Tôramâṇa's coins is 52, and if we apply it as his regnal date,
about which there need be felt no special difficulty, Tôramâṇa's reign must have com-
menced, roughly, about A.D. 460. This falls very near the latest date, A.D. 466, that
we have for Skandagupta, who, up to A.D. 457-58, held the whole of Northern India, below
the Pañjâb, from Kâṭhiâwâḍ to the frontier of Nêpâl. And it was doubtless the death of
Skandagupta, that enabled the Hûṇas, who had been repulsed by him, to assume the
aggressive again, under the leadership of Tôramâṇa ; and, on this occasion, with such
success as to hold even Central India for a short time. This view is also in perfect
accordance with the statement of the Valabhî inscriptions,² that it was the founder of their
family, the Sênâpati Bhaṭârka ; with the date of about A.D. 500, who successfully
fought, in Kâṭhiâwâḍ, against the Maitrakas, i.e. the Mihiras, i.e. the particular family or
clan, among the Hûṇas, to which Tôramâṇa and Mihirakula belonged. If, on the other
hand, the date on Tôramâṇa's coins is 82, then it cannot be applied as a regnal date ; and,
though it must then run from the period at which his own branch of the Hûṇas rose to
power, it cannot be used to fix the commencement of his own accession. The general
outline of the history of the period, which I have briefly indicated above, would, however,
remain much the same.
To some time or other in this early period belongs the mysterious emperor Chandra,
of whom we have a posthumous record in the iron pillar inscription at Mêharaulî, No. 32,
page 139. I call him mysterious, because, though the inscription speaks of him as a
powerful supreme monarch, who conquered the whole of Northern India, from beyond
the river Indus down to the plains of Bengal, yet it makes no mention of his lineage, and
gives no clue by which we can determine exactly his period and surroundings. All that
we know for certain, is, that his inscription belongs, on palæographical grounds, to a
fairly early date. In the palæography of it, there is, in fact, no real obstacle to our
allotting it to Chandragupta I., the first paramount sovereign in the Early Gupta family ;
and the only objection that I can see, is, that it contains no reference to the Indo-Scythi-
an kings, unless they are here called Vâhlikas, by overthrowing whom Chandragupta I.
must have established the power of his own family. But there is an interesting point in
the fact that the name of the village at which this inscription stands, viz. Mêharaulî or
Mêṁharaulî, is an evident corruption of Mihirapurî, 'the city of the Sun, or of the Mihiras.'
Mihira, as a proper name, is a Saṁskṛitised form of the name of the family, clan, or tribe
among the Hûṇas, to which belonged Mihirakula and his father Tôramâṇa. And it is not

¹ Ind. Ant. Vol. XV. p. 252.
² See page 167, and note 11.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 13
impossible that this inscription may be shewn hereafter to be a record of the younger
brother of Mihirakula, who, when Mihirakula was defeated by Bâlâditya of Magadha,
usurped his throne in the Pañjâb, and whose own name is not mentioned by Hiuen
Tsiang.
As has been indicated above, the Mandasôr duplicate pillar inscriptions, No. 33,
page 142, and No. 34, page 149, which are brand-new discoveries, introduce us to a
powerful king of Northern India, named Yasôdharman, who is of extreme interest from
being mentioned in them as the conqueror of Mihirakula. And the remaining Mandasôr
inscription, No. 35, page 150,—again a brand-new discovery,—is another record of this
same Yasôdharman, coupled in this case with a king named Vishṇuvardhana ; and it
is of extreme value from the fact that, by supplying for Yasôdharman a specific date, A.D.
533-34, it has completed the clue to the whole history of the period. Who Vishṇuvar-
dhana was, cannot at present be determined ; but he is at any rate not the feudatory
Vishṇuvardhana, the Varika, who is mentioned in No. 59, page 252.
Next in chronological sequence, but slightly overlapping some of the preceding
records, come the inscriptions of the Kings of Valabhî, ranging, so far as absolutely
definite dates are concerned, from A.D. 426 to A.D. 766. Of the numerous copper-plate
inscriptions of this family that have been discovered, I have given two, as specimens ;
No. 38, page 164, and No. 39, page 171. Apart from the full genealogical tree which
they give, including twelve generations, they are of interest chiefly because they make
known the historical fact that the Sênâpati Bhaṭârka, the founder of the family, success-
fully waged war against, and overthrew, a dynasty, tribe, or clan, called Maitrakas,
which has already been the subject of comment ; and because they shew that the Gupta
era continued in use, in Kâthiâwâḍ and some neighbouring parts of Gujarât, at least as
late as A.D. 766, and thus explain, through its special connection with their own family,
how it came to have, in later times, the name, in the same part of the country, of the
Valabhî era. Otherwise, the inscriptions of this family contain but little of historical
importance ; though a full examination of them would throw much light on the ancient
geography of the localities from which they come. It is a curious fact that no stone-
inscriptions of this family,—at least, none that can be definitely attributed to them,—have
as yet been discovered. Last year, it is true, Colonel J. W. Watson obtained at Walâ,
which is the modern representative of the ancient Valabhî, part of a stone-inscription, now
in the Library of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, the characters of
which shewed me that it belonged to the earlier part of the Valabhî period. But it is the
merest fragment ; with no historical clue in it. It is, however, of interest, in shewing that
the excavations at Walâ are now reaching the level of stone-remains. When that level
can be properly explored, discoveries of importance ought to follow ; since, for some
reason or other, inscriptions on stone nearly always contain much more historical informa-
tion than copper-plate grants do.

14 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL III.
In the Êraṇ posthumous pillar inscription of Gôparâja, No. 20, page 91, mention is
made of the family of the Śarabha kings. Two inscriptions of the Râjas of Śarabhapura
are given in No. 40, page 191, and No. 41, page 196. There is nothing to shew the exact
period to which they belong ; much less to identify either of the Râjas mentioned in them
with Gôparâja’s maternal grandfather. But the characters indicate that they may perhaps
be attributed to a period not far distant from that of Gôparâja ; and the present place has
been found a convenient one for introducing them. At the same time, they may possibly
be found hereafter to belong to a period later by a couple of centuries than the time of
Gôparâja. Another inscription of the Râja Mahâ-Sudêvarâja has been published by Dr
Rajendralala Mitra, in the Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. XXXV. page 195 ff. ; but the ori-
ginal plates have disappeared, with several other valuable copper-plate grants that were
presented to the Bengal Asiatic Society ; and the published version is not sufficiently
reliable to be reproduced. I have, therefor not been able to include that inscription in
this collection.
In No. 42, page 200, to No. 46, page 213, we have some inscriptions of the Guptas
of Magadha, a family of which one member at least, the great Âdityasêna, played an
important part in the history of the seventh century A.D., when the Kanauj kingdom was
broken up on the death of Harshavardhana. From the way in which, through the eleven
generations of this family that are recorded, every name, except that of Âdityasêna, has
the termination gupta, there can be little doubt that the family is an offshoot of the ori-
ginal Gupta stock. And, reckoning back from the time of Âdityasêna, for whom the date
of A.D. 672-73 is supplied by the Shâhpur inscription, No. 43, page 208 Krishṇagupta,
from whom the descent is traced, has to be placed between A.D. 475 and 500. He was,
therefore, a contemporary of Budhagupta or Bhânugupta, or of both of them, and came
very shortly after Skandagupta. His exact connection, however, with any of these three
kings, still remains to be determined.
The Aphsaḍ inscription of Âdityasêna, No. 42, page 200, introduces us to two
important contemporaneous families. The first of these is that of the Maukharis, or
Mukharas, of whom we have inscriptions in No. 47, page 219, to No. 51, page 228. The
great antiquity of this family is shewn by a clay seal in General Cunningham’s possession,
obtained at Gayâ, which has on it, in Aśôka characters, the Pâli legend Môkhalinam,
“of the Môkhalis, Maukhalis, or Maukharis.” No. 47, page 219, gives us the names of
three feudatory Mahârâjas, followed by two paramount sovereigns, of one branch of this
family ; and it is probably the Mahârâja Îśvaravarman, of this branch, of whom we have
a record in No. 51, page 228. A connecting link between these aukharis and the Guptas
of Magadha seems to be established in Âdityavarman’s wife, Harshaguptâ, who was probably
the sister of Harshagupta of Magadha. Subsequently, the relations between the two families
were less friendly. Thus, it can hardly be doubted that the king Îśânavarman of this family is
the one who, as recorded in line 6 f. of the Aphsaḍ inscription, was conquered in battle by

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 15
Harshagupta's grandson, Kumâragupta. Dâmôdaragupta, again, in the same inscription,
is mentioned as breaking-up the forces of the Maukhari king, which had previously over-
come the army of the Hûṇas. And the Susthitavarman who was conquered in battle by
Mahâsênagupta, doubtless belonged to the same lineage. Other references to the
Maukharis are to be found in the Harshacharita of Bâṇa, and in the Nêpâl inscriptions.¹
Nos. 48, 49, and 50, give us another minor branch of the Maukhari lineage, of evidently
much less importance, belonging to the neighbourhood of Gayâ.
The second of the contemporaneous families introduced by the Aphsaḍ inscription,
is that of the Kings of Kanauj, to which belonged the great Harshadêva or
Harshavardhana. Of this king I am able to give a brand-new inscription, in the Sônpat
seal, No. 52, page 231. This is the first epigraphical record of this family that has ever
been obtained; and it is of extreme interest in carrying back the genealogy to two genera-
tions before Harshavardhana's well-known father, Prabhâkaravardhana; and in shewing
that the latter was the first paramount sovereign in the family. The verse in the Aphsaḍ
inscription which mentions Harshavardhana, under the name of Harshadêva, is partly
obliterated; but it refers to Mâdhavagupta either as a feudatory of the Kanauj king, or as
seeking an alliance with him. A connection between the two families appears to be
established in Mahâsênaguptâ,² the wife of the Mahârâja Âdityavardhana, who was the
grandfather of Harshavardhana; it can hardly be doubted that she was a sister of
Mahâsênagupta of Magadha, the father of Mâdhavagupta. Another point of importance
in this Sônpat seal, is, that it shews that the father of Prabhâkaravardhana was neither
Pushpabhûti or Pushyabhûti, who is mentioned by Bâṇa, in his Harshacharita, in connec-
tion with this family; nor king Sîlâditya of Mâlava, who is spoken of by Hiuen Tsiang,
but the feudatory Mahârâja Âdityavardhana. That Sîlâditya of Mâlava was the father
of Prabhâkaravardhana, was assumed by Mr. Fergusson.³ And Prof. Max Müller has
asserted the same relationship in respect of Pushpabhûti;⁴ but Dr. F. E. Hall⁵ only speaks
of Pushpabhûti as an ancestor, more or less remote, of Harshavardhana; and Dr. Bhag-
wanlal Indrajî,⁶ who writes the name Pushyabhûti, only speaks of Harshavardhana as
belonging to the Pushyabhûti dynasty.
No. 53, page 233, to No. 56, page 243, are inscriptions of the Vâkâṭaka Mahâ-
râjas. Their date is determined by the marriage of Rudrasêna II. with Prabhâvatiguptâ,
the daughter of the paramount sovereign Dêvagupta, who, it can hardly be doubted, was
Dêvagupta of Magadha,⁷ the son of Âdityasêna, mentioned in the Dêô-Baraṇârk inscrip-
tion, No. 46, page 213, and belonging to the period of about A.D. 680 to 700. This brings
¹ Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 163 ff.
² See page 232, note 3. ³ Jour. R. As. Soc. N. S. Vol. IV. p. 87.
⁴ India; What can it teach us?, p. 288.
⁵ Vâsavadattâ, Preface, p. 51; in his analysis of the Harshacharita.
⁶ Ind. Ant. Vol. XIII. p. 74. ⁷ See page 215, note 7.

16 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL III.
the Vâkâṭaka Mahârâjas to a period later by fully two centuries than has hitherto been
allotted to them ; but there is nothing in the palæography of their grants to oppose this
result, even if it does not actually prove it. A clear instance of the comparatively long
preservation of antique characters for official purposes, is furnished by the Râjim grant of
the Râja Tîvaradêva, No. 81, page 291, which is undoubtedly almost, if not quite, the
latest record in this volume, though at first sight its characters would seem to refer it to a
much earlier period.
In No. 57, page 249, to No. 81, page 291, I have given a variety of Miscellaneous
Inscriptions, which, either from their not mentioning the name of any particular king,
or for other reasons, it was not convenient to introduce in other places in accordance
with the chronological order that has been the chief basis of the arrangement of the
volume. Of these, the most interesting are No. 60, page 254, which is a spurious grant
purporting to have been issued by the Early Gupta king Samudragupta ; No. 61, page 258,
which, apart from its recorded date, expressly refers itself to the Early Gupta period, and
which also, like No. 15, page 65, furnishes interesting proof of the existence of the Jain
sect in the fourth century, A.D. ; and No. 71, page 274, the Bôdh-Gayâ inscription of
Mahânâman, dated in A.D. 588. This is another brand-new discovery, made by General
Cunningham. And its extreme interest lies in the fact that, as the Mahânâman, whose
record it is, can hardly be any other than the well-known person of that name who wrote
the more ancient part of the Pâli Mahâvaṁsa or History of Ceylon, its date shews either
that the details of the Ceylonese chronology, as hitherto accepted, are not as reliable as
they have been supposed to be, or else that a wrong starting-point has been selected in
working out those details ; and it furnishes a definite point from which the chronology
may now be adjusted backwards.
THE GUPTA ERA.
We come now to the question which, for the last forty years, has been at issue among
all scholars who have been interested in the ancient history of India, and which, from the
impossibility, until the discovery of the Mandasôr inscription of Kumâragupta and
Bandhuvarman, of arriving at any sound and final settlement of it, has created the almost
inextricable confusion that now prevails in every line of research connected with the Early
Gupta period : viz. the determination of the exact chronological point to which we must
refer the commencement of the era that was used, for the purpose of dating their records
and coins, by the Early Gupta kings and some of their successors.
For reference in the following discussion, I give, in Table I. page 17 below, a genea-
logy of the dynasty, with the official titles and recorded dates of the members of it.
And, below the unbroken succession, I insert the names of Budhagupta and Bhânugupta ;

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 17
TABLE I.
Genealogy of the Early Gupta Kings.
Gupta,
Mahârâja.
Ghaṭôtkacha,
Mahârâja.
Chandragupta I.,
(Vikrama I., or Vikramâditya I.),
Mahârâjâdhirâja.
Married to Kumâradêvî, of the Lichchhavi family.
Samudragupta,
(Kâcha),
Mahârâjâdhirâja.
Married to Dattadêvî.
Chandragupta II.,
Vikrama (II.), Vikramâditya (II.), or Vikramâṅka,
Paramabhaṭṭâraka, and Mahârâjâdhirâja.
Married to Dhruvadêvî.
[Gupta-Saṁvat 82, 88, 93, and 94 or 95.]
Kumâragupta,
Mahêndra, or Mahêndrâditya,
Mahârâjâdhirâja.
[G. S. 96, 98, 129, and 130 odd.]
Skandagupta,
Kramâditya,
Paramabhaṭṭâraka, and Mahârâjâdhirâja.
[G. S. 136, 137, 138, 141, 144, 145, 146, 148, and 147 or 149.]
Budhagupta.
[G. S. 165, 175, and (?) 180 odd.]
Bhânugupta.
[G. S. 191.]

18 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
because there is at least a strong possibility that they were descended from the same stock,
though their connection with each other, and with Skandagupta, has not as yet been
made clear; and because the date of Budhagupta, at least, has always been accepted as
bearing on the chronological question. The dates are taken partly from the inscriptions,
and partly from the silver coins, on which I have published a note in the Ind. Ant. Vol.
XIV. p. 65 ff. Thus, the coins supply the dates of Gupta-Saṁvat 94 or 95, for Chandra-
gupta II.; 130 odd, for Kumâragupta;¹ 144, 145, 148, and 147 or 149, for Skandagupta:
and 175, and possibly also 180 odd, for Budhagupta. The secondary names of the kings
are taken partly from the silver coins, and partly from the gold coins, on which a very
exhaustive and valuable treatise has been published by Mr. V. A. Smith, in the Jour.
Beng. As. Soc. Vol. LIII. Part I. p. 119 ff., noticed by me in the Ind. Ant. Vol. XIV. p.
92 ff. The names of Vikramâditya, Mahêndrâditya, and Kramâditya, for respectively
Chandragupta II., Kumâragupta, and Skandagupta, are supplied by the silver coins; and
the first two, in the abbreviated forms of Vikrama and Mahêndra, occur also on some of
the gold coins; as also, perhaps does the full name Kramâditya, for Skandagupta. And
Vikramâṅka, which is of constant occurrence as a synonym for Vikrama and Vikramâ-
ditya, occurs on a silver coin which seems undoubtedly to belong to Chandragupta II. As
regards Chandragupta I., it is still a moot point whether certain gold coins, which bear the
name of Vikrama and Vikramâditya, are to be allotted to him, or to his grandson; but I
myself do not see any difficulty about allotting them to him, and in understanding, there-
fore, that he also had these same secondary names; I have, however, inserted them in
brackets, as being open to the possibility of doubt. Kâcha, as a possible second name
of Samudragupta, is taken from some gold coins on which I have commented at page 27,
note 4; this, however, is also bracketed, as being not yet quite certain. The coins, both
gold and silver, present many other points of considerable interest, some of which I have
briefly alluded to in my notes to the Texts and Translations; but the full consideration of
them belongs to the Historical Chapters.
The genealogy, as given by Mr. Thomas in his edition of Prinsep's Essays, Vol. I.
p. 245, includes the name of Dêvî, a daughter of Mahâdaitya, as one of the queens of
Samudragupta; and, as a son of Skandagupta, a young prince, whose name is suggested
to be Mahêndragupta. The entry of Dêvî and Mahâdaitya, appears also in the same list
as republished by Mr. Thomas in the Archæol. Surv. West. Ind. Vol. II. p. 19, and again in
the Jour. R. As. Soc. N. S. Vol. XIII. p. 533; in each of which places we also find, as an-
other wife of Samudragupta, a queen, name unknown, the daughter of an independent
princess ‘Sanhârikâ.’ The second list repeats the name of Mahêndragupta; but, in the
third, there are substituted the words “royal issue expected at the date of this inscrip-
tion,” i.e. of the Bhitarî pillar inscription of Skandagupta. The existence of the supposed

¹ Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. IX. p. 24, and Plate v. No. 7.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 19
Mahêndragupta, however, as pointed out by me on page 56, note 2, is due to nothing but
Dr. Mill's original mislection of the Bhitarî inscription, coupled with the real name of
Mahêndrâditya on Kumâragupta's coins. And the existence of the independent princess
‘Sanhârikâ,’ with her unnamed daughter, and of Mahâdaitya, and his daughter Dêvî, is
equally imaginary; being due, as indicated on page 1, only to early mislections of the
Allahâbâd pillar inscription. In his first list, Mr. Thomas entered the Mahârâja Gupta,
and his descendants, as belonging to the Solar lineage; and this mistake, though not
repeated in his second and third lists, has not even yet been completely eradicated; but,
as shewn on page 1, the statement rests on nothing but Dr. Mill's mislection of a passage
in the Allahâbâd inscription.
The Nomenclature of the Era.
Before proceeding further, however, it is desirable now to draw attention pointedly to
the fact that, though it is convenient to speak of the era in question as the Gupta era,
yet we have no ancient authority whatever for connecting the name of the
Guptas with it, as the establishers of it, and much less for accepting the early
existence of any such technical appellation for it, as Gupta-kâla.
It is true that this term is used by Albêrûnî, who speaks of the Gûbt-kâl or Gûbita-
kâl, i.e. Gupta-kâla. But, in just the same manner, he uses also the expression Śaka-
kâla for the Śaka era. In each instance, his use of the word kâla is in perfect consonance
with its meaning, ‘time, or a space of time,’ and with the application of it in the sense of
‘an era.’ And the Hindus who furnished him with the information that he recorded, but
who can have known nothing certain about the origin of the era, save only that it had
come down to them through the Gupta kings, would naturally speak of it as the Gupta-
kâla. But Albêrûnî's statements belong to the eleventh century A.D.; and furnish no
real authority, on such a point as this, for early times.
It is true, also, that the words Guptasya kâlâd, "from the era of Gupta," were supposed
by Dr. Bhau Daji¹ to exist in line 15 of the Junâgaḍh rock inscription of Skandagupta.
But the real reading there, as is quite clear even in the lithograph from which Dr. Bhau
Daji worked, is not Guptasya kâlâ[d]-gaṇanâṁ vidhâya, "counting from the era of Gupta,"
but Gupta-prakâlê gaṇanâṁ vidhâya, "making the calculation in the reckoning of the
Guptas." And there can be little doubt that Dr. Bhau Daji's reading, and his translation,
which was more or less unavoidable after the adoption of the reading, were suggested by
M. Reinaud's previously published translation of the extract from Albêrûnî, in which,
though translating Śaka-kâla by "the era of Śaka," he transliterated the original Arabic
by Gupta-kâla, with the words "era of the Guptas" added in brackets.² Dr. Bhau Daji's
¹ Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. VI. p. 207; Vol. VII. pp. 114, 123.
² Fragments Arabes et Persans, p. 143.

20 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
reading was unfortunately accepted without further investigation; and has stood up to the
present time. And, in particular, it was most emphatically endorsed by Mr. Thomas, who,
in 1876, and again in 1881, stated that he had previously had doubts as to the correctness
of the reading and translation, but had then become quite satisfied concerning it, from a
personal comparison of Dr. Bhau Daji's materials with others.¹ It is undoubtedly only to
this erroneous opinion, that we must attribute Mr. Thomas' later belief ² that on certain
coins of 'Syalapati,' he could read the syllables Gu and Gupta, with possible indications of
even Guptasya, shewing, it was supposed, that the dates on these coins referred to an era
of Gupta, or the era of the Guptas. These, however, are purely imaginary readings. And
the fact remains that, in the Junâgaḍh inscription, the expression Guptasya kâla does not
occur. And,—apart from the obvious meaning of the words; and from the fact, which
will be insisted on more strongly further on, that the Mahârâja Gupta, the founder of the
family, being only a feudatory Mahârâja, had not the power of establishing an era at all,—
that, in the real reading Gupta-prakâle, we are to interpret the first member of the com-
pound as representing the genitive plural, not singular, is expressly indicated by the use of
the full genitive plural, Guptânâm, governed by kâla, in another date in line 27 of the same
inscription. Of course, both these passages connect the era with the Guptas, as belong-
ing to them, and as being used by them; which had then been the case, so far as their epi-
graphical records go, for at least three generations. But not either of them suffices to
shew that it had been established by them; or even that it had, at that time, acquired the
technical name of the "Gupta era." And what the first expression really shews, is, simply
that the date was being recorded in an era which was new to Kâthiâwâḍ, and was not
the customary era of that part of the country.
In dated records, the genitive plural, Guptânâm, occurs again in line 2 of the
Kahâum pillar inscription of Skandagupta, No. 15, page 65. But there it is gov-
erned by vaṁśa, in vaṁśa-jasya · "of Skandagupta, who is born in the lineage of the
Guptas." So, also, we have Gupt-ânvayânâm in line 1 of the Udayagiri cave inscrip-
tion of the year 106, No. 61, page 258. But it is governed by kulasya; "in the augment-
ing sovereignty of the family of those who belong to the lineage of the Guptas." These
two passages, therefore, do not bear on the question at all.
Again, in the grants of the Parivrâjaka Mahârâjas Hastin and Saṁkshôbha,
No. 21, page 93, to No. 23, page 106, and No. 25, page 112, we have the expression Gupta-
nṛipa-râjya-bhuktau, "in the enjoyment of sovereignty by the Gupta kings." And this
¹ Archaeol. Surv. West. Ind. Vol. II. p. 22; and Jour. R. As. Soc. N. S. Vol. XIII. p. 538.
² See Sir E. Clive Bayley's "Remarks on certain Dates occurring on the Coins of the Hind
Kings of Kâbul," in the Numismatic Chronicle, Third Series, Vol. II. p. 128 ff.

expression is of importance, in shewing clearly that the Gupta dynasty and sway were
still continuing, and that the dates of these records are to be referred to the same era
with the dates of the Early Guptas themselves. But there is nothing at all in the expres-
sion, tending to give the era the name of the "Gupta era."
In the Môrbî grant of Jâïnka, again, as read by Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar,¹ we are sup-
posed to have a very clear intimation indeed, that the era was then known as the Gupta
era; his reading and translation being,—paṁch-âśîtyâ yutê=tîtê samânâṁ śata-paṁchakê ।
Gauptê dadâv=adô nṛipaḥ s-ôparâgê=rka-maṇḍalê,—of which a more literal translation than
that given by him, would be "the Gupta fifth century of years, together with eighty-five
(years), having elapsed, the king gave this, when the disc of the sun was eclipsed."
There is a difficulty in disposing finally of the whole bearing of this inscription; for the
reason that the first plate had been lost sight of, before the grant was obtained for
examination at all; as the result of which, the genealogy of Jâïnka is not known; and the
second plate contains no name of a place, unless we are to find it in the verse that I have
quoted. And now, even the second plate also, the published one, has been mislaid,
and is not forthcoming. That the date refers in all probability to the Gupta era, I do not
dispute. But the above reading of it, takes no notice of the fact that the real word, in
line 17, is not gauptê at all, but gôptê; the au being arrived at only by applying again,
as a component of the vowel, a perfectly distinct and separate sign, which is in reality
nothing but the single mark of punctuation after paṁchakê, at the end of the half-verse,
and which had already been properly interpreted as such. It is only by the deliberate
correction of ô into au,² that the name of the Guptas can be introduced into this passage;
but even then the adjective occupies a very inconveniently detached position as regards
the noun, pañchaka, which it qualifies. We might, with just as much reason, correct gôptê
into gôptrê, 'to the protector, i.e. the local governor;' and this would be even more sustain-
able; for the word stands immediately before dadau, 'he gave,' in connection with which
we have every reason to look for a dative, or some other case. Or, again, without any
correction at all, we might translate "the king gave this (charter) at (the village of)
Gôpta." And this, I expect, will be found to be the real meaning, if ever the first plate,
which is said to be now at Gaṅgâsâgar in Bengal, can be obtained for examination. As
matters stand, there is at least nothing in this passage that compels us to connect the
name of the Guptas with the date. And, at the best, even if a future discovery of the
first plate should force us to adopt the reading of Gauptê in the date, the grant belongs
to rather a late period, when, in Kâṭhiâwâḍ and Gujarât, any knowledge of the real origin
of the era must have been lost, and all that remained was that it was the Gupta kings
who had introduced the era into those parts.

¹ Ind. Ant. Vol. II. p. 258, line 16 f.
² The mistake of ô for au does occur in the word svavbhânô, for svarbbhânau, in line 3 of the
grant. But in line 9, in the word paurvva, the au is formed quite correctly and completely.

22 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
And, finally, in a curious passage from the Achâraṭîkâ, which I give in full at page
32 below, note 3, we have the date "when there have gone by seven centuries of years of
the Guptas, increased by seventy-two ;" in which there is used again the genitive plural,
Guptânâm. But the passage contains, as will be seen, a remarkable confusion, which
cannot at present be cleared up, between the Gupta and the Śaka eras. And, like
the Môrbi grant, this record belongs to a late period, and furnishes no authority for
early times.
In the records of the Early Guptas themselves, the date is always expressed simply
by the word saṁvatsara, 'a year,' as in the Udayagiri cave inscription of Chandragupta
II., of the year 82, No. 3, page 25, line 2; or by the abbreviation saṁ as in the Sâñchi
inscription of the same king, of the year 93, No. 5, page 32, line 11; or by the fuller
abbreviation saṁvat, as in the Mankuwâr image inscription of Kumâragupta, No. 11, page
47, line 2. And such of their coins as are dated at all, give simply the numerical symbols,
without the accompaniment of any word meaning 'year,' and much less of any dynastic
qualification of it. For a reason which I indicate in Appendix I. below, these methods
of expression, which are exactly analogous to the usages of other dynasties also, do not
necessarily prove that the era was not established by the Guptas. At the same time, they
contain no proof that it was established by them; and nothing to connect their name
with it.
The fact remains, therefore, that in no early record can we find any indication
that the era was founded by the Guptas; and much less that there ever existed any
technical expressions analogous to Śaka-nṛipa-kâla, "the time or era of the Śaka king or
kings ;" Śaka-nṛipa-saṁvatsara, "the years of the Śaka king;" Śaka-kâla, "the Śaka era;"
Vikrama-kâla, "the Vikrama era;" Vikramâditya-ôtpâdita-saṁvatsara, "the years estab-
lished by Vikramâditya," &c. ;¹ or even analogous to the terms Valabhî-saṁ and Valabhî-
saṁvat, which are of actual occurrence in later times. This fact will become of more
importance, when we come to deal with the question of the probable origin of the
era. Meanwhile, I have drawn attention to it, because it is a point that must be borne in
mind throughout the whole discussion. It is necessary, however, in order to avoid
periphrasis, to have some convenient name for the era; and therefore, as a simple matter
¹ See my notes "On the Nomenclature of the principal Hindu Eras, and the use of the word
Saṁvatsara and its Abbreviations," in the Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. pp. 207 ff., 291 ff.; where, of course,
owing to our advance in knowledge, my remarks on the Kaira grants (p. 208), and on the Kâvî grant,
(p. 291 ff.) now require to be entirely recast.—I have shewn there that, as is now generally recognised,
the use of the abbreviation saṁvat is in no way restricted, as was formerly held to be the case, to the
Vikrama era; see also a pointed instance supplied by Dr. Bühler in the Ind. Ant. Vol. XIV. p. 63.
It is simply an abbreviation of the base saṁvatsara, 'a year,' or of any declensional case of it that
can be used in expressing a date (see No. 5, page 30, note 3). And, bearing this in mind, such
expressions as Gupta-Saṁvat, Śaka-Saṁvat, Vikrama-Saṁvat, &c., of which the two latter actually
occur in original records (see Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. pp. 213, 293), give a uniform, convenient, and
unobjectionable method of quoting the years of the different (

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 23
of convenience, I follow the custom of the last forty years, and speak of it as "the Gupta
era." Also, as the era did certainly in later times, in Kâṭhiâwâḍ, acquire the name of
"the Valabhî era," I shall, according to the convenience of the moment, speak of it
indifferently as "the Gupta era," "the Valabhî era," and "the Gupta-Valabhî era."
Subject to the remarks that I have made above, this nomenclature needs no further
apology, if I point out that, even by those who maintain that the Early Guptas were
themselves anterior to A.D. 319, it is admitted that the Gupta era which has come down
to us in the writings of Albêrûnî, had the same epoch with the Valabhî era; they only
maintain that the Early Guptas used a Gupta era which was not this Gupta era.

Albêrûnî's Statements, as rendered by M. Reinaud.

Until the discovery of the Mandasôr inscription, No. 18, page 79, the only direct
information available as to the epoch of the Gupta era, was the statement of Albêrûnî,
who, writing in the period¹ between the 30th April and the 30th September, A.D. 1030,
left on record the following notes, as taken from M. Reinaud's French translation in his
Fragments Arabes et Persans, page 138 ff:—
"People employ ordinarily the eras of Śrî-Harsha,² of Vikramâditya, of Śaka, of
"Ballaba,³ and of the Guptas. ............ Ballaba, who also has given his name
"to an era, was the prince of the town of Ballabha, to the south of Aṇhilwâra, at a
"distance of about thirty yôjanas.⁴ The era of Ballaba is subsequent to that of Śaka
"by 241 years. In order to make use of it, we set down the era of Śaka, and deduct at

¹ See Sachau's Albêrûnî's India, Preface, p. x.
² As is shewn by Albêrûnî's statement further on, this is not the era of Harshavardhana of Kanauj,
commencing A.D. 606 or 607, of which we have an instance in this volume, in No. 43, page 208; but
an earlier era, commencing B.C. 457, of which we have no epigraphical record, and, in fact, no inform-
ation of its existence beyond Albêrûnî's statement, which is accompanied by the remark that, in a
Kaśmîrî almanac, he had read that Śrî-Harsha was 664 years later than Vikramâditya, and that he
could obtain no explanation of the discrepancy (Sachau's Albêrûnî's India, Translation Vol. II. p. 5).
³ Reinaud's Arabic text contains no authority for his use of the double l throughout, and of the
aspirated bh in the name of the town. So, also, Sachau's text contains no authority for his use, once
of the form Ballabha, and once of Balabha. These forms can only be attributed to some fancied
connection between the name of the city of Valabhî and the Sanskrit word vallabha, 'lover, husband,
friend, favourite,' which was very often used as a proper name, but not in the case of any of the rulers
of Valabhî. The word valabhî itself means 'the wooden frame of a thatch, a roof; a turret or
temporary building on the roof of a house.' It occurs in No. 18, line 6, page 81; and, in the form
vaḍabhî, in No. 66, line 2, page 268.—Albêrûnî himself, in treating the name as that of a person, as
well as of a town, possibly wrote under some similar misconception. But, setting aside any such
mistake as this, which is rather like that of his treating Śaka as the name of an individual, instead of
a tribe, he is of course speaking of the era that was used by the well-known Kings of Valabhî.
⁴ The yôjana, a measure of distance, seems to have varied from 2½ to 9, or even 18, English
miles; but with an average length of between 4 and 5 miles.—Walâ, the modern representative of
the ancient Valabhî, is about one hundred and thirty-five miles almost due south of Aṇhilwâḍ.