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

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.

24 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
" the same time the cube of 6 (216) and the square of 5 (25). The remainder is the era
" of Ballaba. This era will be discussed in its place. As to the Gupta-kâla (the era
" of the Guptas), we understand by the word gupta certain people who, it is said, were
" wicked and powerful ; and the era which bears their name, is the epoch of their exter-
" mination. Apparently Ballaba followed the Guptas immediately ; for, the era of the
" Guptas also commences the year 241 of the era of Śaka. The era of the astronomers
" commences the year 587 of the era of Śaka. It is to this era that the Kandakhâtaka
" Tables of Brahmagupta are referred. This work has among us the title of Arkand.
" Accordingly, placing ourselves in the year 400 of the era of Yazdajird,¹ we find ourselves
" in the year 1488 of the era of Śrî-Harsha ; the year 1088 of the era of Vikramâditya ; the
" year 953 of the era of Śaka ; the year 712 of the era of Ballaba and of that of the
" Guptas."
Albêrûnî's Statements, as rendered by Prof. Sachau.
And to this we have now to add Prof. Sachau's English rendering of the same
passages, in his Albêrûnî's India, Translation,² Vol. II. page 5 ff. :—
" For this reason, people have given up using them,³ and have adopted instead the
" eras of— (1) Śrî Harsha ; (2) Vikramâditya ; (3) Śaka ; (4) Ballabha ;⁴ and (5)
" Gupta. . . . . . . The era of Balaba is called so from Balaba,
" the ruler of the town Balabha,⁵ nearly 30 yôjanas south of Anhilvâra. The epoch
" of this era falls 241 years later than the epoch of the Śaka era. People use it in
" this way. They first put down the year of the Śakakâla, and then subtract from it
" the cube of 6 and the square of 5 (216+25=241). The remainder is the year of the
" Balaba era. The history of Balaba is given in its proper place.⁶ As regards the
" Guptakâla, people say that the Guptas were wicked powerful people, and that, when
" they ceased to exist, this date was used as the epoch of an era. It seems that Balaba
" was the last of them, because the epoch of the era of the Guptas falls, like that of the
" Balaba era, 241 years later than the Śakakâla. The era of the astronomers begins 587
¹ This era dates from the accession of Yazdajird III., a Sassanian king of Persia, in A.D. 632 (see
Prinsep's Essays, Vol. II. Useful Tables, p. 302 and note). The "gauge-year," 400, selected
by Albêrûnî for the comparison of dates, is one year ahead of that in which he was writing.
² It is not certain whether Prof. Sachau's Translation will have been actually published before
the issue of this volume. But, as it will be the standard translation, he has kindly allowed me to
make the necessary references to it, from advanced proofs.
³ i.e. the eras of the Bhârata war and of the Kaliyuga, and certain other methods of reckoning
time, just previously detailed by Albêrûnî, who states that they had been abandoned because of the
very large numbers involved in the use of them.
⁴ and ⁵ See page 23 above, note 3.
⁶ The reference appears to be to the story of the fruit-seller Raṅka and the king Vallabha ;
Translation, Vol. I. p. 192 f., in Chapter XVII., "on Hindu Sciences which prey on the Ignorance of
People."

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 25
“years later than the Śakakâla. On this era is based the canon Khaṇḍakhâdyaka by
“Brahmagupta, which among Muhammadans is known as Al-arkand. Now, the year 400
“of Yazdajird, which we have chosen as a gauge, corresponds to the following years of
“the Indian eras:—(1) to the year 1488 of the era of Śrî Harsha; (2) to the year 1088
“of the era of Vikramâditya; (3) to the year 953 of the Śakakâla; (4) to the year 712
“of the Balaba era, which is identical with the Guptakâla.”
The Results of the above Renderings.
The passages given above mention an era, connected with the names both of the
Guptas and of the Valabhî family, in respect of which we have to notice the following
leading points.
In the first place, Albêrûnî calls this era, both “the Gupta era,” and “the
Valabhî era.” As regards its connection with the Guptas, he tells us, according to
the above renderings, that it commenced at the time of the cessation of the Gupta sway,
and seems to imply that, as a matter of fact, it was that event which led to the establishment
of it; and, of course, the result of this would be, that the dates recorded in the inscriptions
of the Guptas themselves, could not be referred to this Gupta era, but must belong to
some era with a considerably earlier starting-point. And, as regards its connection with
the Valabhî family, from the fact that their era had the same starting-point with this
Gupta era, he infers that the members of this family came after the Guptas in chrono-
logical sequence; but he does not indicate any connection between them and the estab-
lishment of the era.
And secondly, in respect of the initial point, he seems first to state, very clearly,
that the epoch of the era, under either name, was when Śaka-Saṁvat 216+25=241 had
expired; which, taking the expired Śaka year in the way in which it has to be used for the
purposes of the present Tables,¹ gives us A.D. 319-20 current² for the epoch or year 0 of
the era, and A.D. 320-21 current for its commencement or first current year. This is
shewn, first by the rule for subtracting 241 complete Śaka years; and secondly by Gupta-
Valabhî-Saṁvat 712 being quoted as equivalent to Śaka-Saṁvat 953, which is known to be
intended as an expired year, since Albêrûnî gives it as the equivalent of the year 400 of
Yazdajird, which is A.D. 1031-32 current. In his next mention, however, as rendered by
M. Reinaud, he apparently speaks of the era as commencing with, i.e. as having for its first
current year, Śaka-Saṁvat 241, which must be understood as an expired year; according
¹ e.g. those in Gen. Cunningham's Book of Indian Eras, and Prof. K. L. Chhatre's Graha-
sâdhanâchîṁ Kôshṭakêṁ, or “Tables for calculating the Places of the Planets.”
² Or, more accurately, the period from the 9th March, A.D. 319, to the 25th February, A.D. 320.
—It is, perhaps, desirable to point out, for general readers, that the quotation of two years of the
Christian era in this way, “A.D. 319-20,” does not denote the whole period of the two years, but only
the period from the commencement of the Śaka year in the first of them, to the end of it in the second.
d,

26 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.

to which its epoch would be when 240 years had expired. While, in a third passage, a
little further on in the book,¹ in mentioning the "roundabout way" in which the Hindus
computed the date (in January, A.D. 1026) of the destruction of Sômnâthpâṭan by Mah-
mûd of Ghaznî, which event took place "in the year of the Hijra 416, or 947 Śakakâla,"
he tells us that they first wrote down 242, then 606 under it, and then, again, 99; with
the result, by addition of the figures, of Śaka-Saṁvat 947, which, as an expired year, brings
us to the period A.D. 1025-26 current, inclusive of the month of January, A.D. 1026.
And here the first figures would seem, at first sight, to indicate that, in this calculation,
the epoch of the era was treated as being when Śaka-Saṁvat 242 had expired.²

¹ Albêrûnî's India, Translation, Vol. II. p. 9.
² This last passage is introduced by Albêrûnî in connection with his remarks on the Lôkakâla
or popular reckoning by cycles of a hundred years. And he expresses himself as being inclined to
think that the number 242 indicates the years which preceded the time when the Hindus commenced
to use the cycle of a hundred years, and that they adopted this cycle together with the Gupta era;
also that the number 606 represents the completed cycles, viz. six, "each of which they must reckon
as 101 years;" and that the number 99 gives the expired years of the current cycle. He goes on to
say that the rule, as found by him in the writings of Durlabha of Multân, was, to write down 848, and
add the Lôkakâla; the sum of which would give the Śaka year. But, in proceeding to apply this
rule to Śaka-Saṁvat 953 (expired), as corresponding to the year of Yazdajird which he had already used
as a "gauge-year," he points out that, subtracting 848, there remained 105 for the Lôkakâla, while the
destruction of Sômnâthpâṭan would fall in the 98th year of the cycle.—There are subsidiary difficulties
here, which cannot at present be fully cleared up. One of them is, the reference of the destruction of
Sômnâthpâṭan to both the ninety-eighth and the ninety-ninth years of a Lôkakâla cycle; with the
addition, moreover, that the ninety-eighth year is indicated as current, and the ninety-ninth is
inferred to be expired.—Another is, that, according to the only Lôkakâla reckoning the nature of
which has been fully explained (Indian Eras, p. 6 ff.), viz. that used in Kaśmîr,—which, Albêrûnî tells
us, had been adopted by the people of Multân a few years before his own time,—the event in question
would fall in the first current year of a cycle. Thus, Kalhaṇa, in the Râjataraṁgiṇî, i. 52
(Calcutta edition, p. 3), makes a very explicit statement regarding the equation between the Śaka era
and the Lôkakâla of Kaśmîr. His words are — laukikê-bdê chatur-viṁśê Śaka-kâlasya saṁprataṁ
saptaty-âtyadhikaṁ yâtaṁ sahasraṁ parivatsarâḥ,—"at this present moment, in the twenty-fourth
laukika (or popular) year, there have gone by one thousand years, increased by seventy, of the
Śaka era." In this passage, he quotes the Śaka year as expired, in accordance with the practice of
astronomers; but the Lôkakâla year as current, as would naturally be the case in using a popular reckon-
ing of that kind. He was writing, therefore, in Lôkakâla 24 current, and when Śaka-Saṁvat
1070 had expired; which is equivalent to A.D. 1148-49 current. And this gives Lôkakâla 1 current
of the same cycle, as corresponding to Śaka-Saṁvat 1047 expired; which is equivalent to A.D. 1025-26
current. Now, that the scheme of each year of the Kaśmîrî Lôkakâla cycle was identical with the
scheme of the Śaka years of Northern India, commencing with the first day of the month Chaitra
(March-April), is shewn by Albêrûnî's statements, and by the notes put together by Gen. Cunningham
in his exposition of this reckoning. And it follows that the first year, current, of each Kaśmîrî Lôkakâla
cycle coincides exactly with the forty-seventh year expired, and the forty-eighth current, of each century
of the Śaka era, and with part of the twenty-fifth and part of the twenty-sixth years, current, of each
century of the Christian era. The month of January, A.D. 1026, therefore, fell in Lôkakâla 1
current, of Kaśmîr, which coincided with Śaka-Saṁvat 947 expired, and extended (see Indian Eras,
p. 171) from the 3rd March, A.D. 1025, to the 21st March, A.D. 1026. And it is difficult to see how, in the

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 27
Albêrûnî's Statements, as rendered by Prof. Wright.
The leading historical item of Albêrûnî's information, as rendered by M. Reinaud,—
vis. that the Gupta era commemorated the epoch of the extermination of the Gupta
dynasty,—naturally at once attracted special attention; because of the primâ-facie impro-
bability of such a fact. And, as will be seen further on, various attempts were made, to
find an explanation for it; and with very conflicting results.
application of a Lôkakâla reckoning introduced from Kaśmîr, an event occurring in that month can be
correctly referred even to Lôkakâla 99 expired; and, much more so, to Lôkakâla 98 current. To suit
the former case, we require a cycle commencing one year later than the Kaśmîrî cycle; and to suit
the latter case, a cycle commencing three years later than the same. And, that there were varying
starting-points of this kind, as well as a want of uniformity in respect of the scheme of the years, is
indicated by Albêrûnî's remark that the totally different accounts of the Lôkakâla reckonings, given
to him, rendered him unable to make out the truth about it.—One point, however, seems clear. As
to the number 606, given by Albêrûnî in his first illustration, it is impossible that a centenary cycle
can consist of a hundred and one years. And Albêrûnî himself had previously said distinctly
(Albêrûnî's India, Translation, Vol. II. p. 8) "if a centennium is finished, they drop it, and
simply begin to date by a new one." It is plain, in fact, that the odd six years do not belong to the
cycles of the Lôkakâla. To that reckoning, only the six even centuries belong. I shall shew hereafter
that the epoch of the Gupta-Valabhî era really was A.D. 319-20 current; which might be quoted
either as Śaka-Saṁvat 241 expired or 242 current. If we add the odd six years to Śaka-Saṁvat
241 expired, we obtain Śaka-Saṁvat 247 expired, or 248 current, equivalent to A.D. 325-26 current ;
and this, as we have just seen, would coincide with the first current year of a Lôkakâla cycle, as
reckoned in Kaśmîr. But it is one year too early for the first current year of any cycle of a
reckoning, in a subsequent cycle of which the event in question belonged to the ninety-ninth year
expired and the hundredth year current. Now, I suppose that we must assume that Albêrûnî has
quoted Durlabha correctly. And, if so, then the first current year of each cycle in the Multân
reckoning really was one year later than in the Kaśmîrî reckoning; and coincided with the forty-
eighth year expired, and the forty-ninth current, of each century of the Śaka era, and with part of
the twenty-sixth and part of the twenty-seventh years, current, of each century of the Christian
era. And, if the introduction of the reckoning, at Multân, could be carried back so far, it commenced
with Śaka-Saṁvat 248 expired, and 249 current. This year might have been obtained by adding
seven to Śaka-Saṁvat 241 expired. But, as will be seen hereafter, the real use of Śaka-Saṁvat 241
expired is only for obtaining the basis with which Gupta-Valabhî dates have to be calculated; and it
only brings us to the beginning of the Gupta epoch. The difference between Gupta-Valabhî and Śaka
years, both treated as current for purposes of comparison, is 242. And Śaka-Saṁvat 242 expired
brings us to the beginning of the first current Gupta year. This is the starting-point that was really
wanted for a process of the kind shewn to Albêrûnî. And this is why that year was selected as the
apparent basis of the computation; the true basis being Śaka-Saṁvat 848 expired.—It is evident,
therefore, that the process illustrated by the figures given to Albêrûnî does involve a method of adapting
the Lôkakâla reckoning to the Gupta era; or, more properly, of converting Lôkakâla dates into Śaka
dates through the Gupta reckoning. So far, however, from the figures tending to support any inference
that the Lôkakâla reckoning was introduced by, or in the time of, the Early Guptas, the fact that
Durlabha of Multân would deduct 848, with a remainder, in the particular instance, of 105, or one
complete Lôkakâla cycle and five years over, seems to indicate very clearly that the use of this
reckoning in that part of the country commenced with Śaka-Saṁvat 848 expired, equivalent to A.D.
926-27 current; had it been otherwise, Durlabha's rule would surely have been worded in such a way
d 2

28 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
That the true solution was to be found, not in wrong information given to Albêrûnî
or in a mistake made by him in reporting correct information, but in an erroneous inter-
pretation of his meaning, was first indicated to me by Mr. Rehatsek, who, in December,
1886, gave me, from M. Reinaud's published text, the following literal rendering of the crucial
passage,—"and (as regards) the Gupta era, it was, as is said, a nation wicked (and)
strong; and when they perished, dating was made according to them."¹ Such a rendering
as this would enable us to give to Albêrûnî's words a meaning perfectly clear and consis-
tent with the usual order of things; vis. that the Guptas, though wicked and inferentially
unpopular, yet had exercised so powerful a sway that, even when their dynasty came to
an end, the era, that had been used by them, still continued to be used.
So also, somewhat later, Mr. H. C. Kay, translating the words by "dating was made
by (or, according to) them," added the following remarks on the interpretation of them .—
"The author's meaning is not clear. But, taking the words as they stand, I think they
"can most consistently be understood as signifying an adoption or continuation of the
"method of dating that had been used by the Guptas. The preceding words 'when they
"came to an end' suggest the possible meaning that the dating ran from that event. But
"it seems to me that this construction can be properly preferred, only if there be something
"else in the context, or in the known facts of the case, that would make it obligatory; or,
"at least, that clearly points to it."
I had the hope that, before it came to my own turn to write finally on the subject,
Prof. Sachau's translation of the Arabic text would have removed all doubt as to Albêrûnî's
real meaning on this point. This, however, has not been the case; because of the intro-
duction in his translation as in M. Reinaud's, of the word 'epoch,' which does not exist in
the original text, and the use of which gives the translation a fixed obligatory meaning
that, at any rate, a literal rendering of the original does not compel us to adopt.
that, in the particular instance, 948 must be deducted, with a remainder of only 5 years over.—Gen.
Cunningham, in giving a somewhat similar explanation of the figures 606 (Indian Eras, p. 16), has
assumed that in this process Śaka-Saṁvat 242 is a mistake for 241. But this, as I have now shewn, is
not the case. And I do not agree with the manner in which he deals with the figures as a whole.
Śaka-Saṁvat 241 expired or completed brings us to the end of A.D. 318-19 and the beginning of A.D.
319-20. If to this we add 6 and 600 and 99 complete years, it only brings us to Śaka-Saṁvat 946
expired, or to the end of A.D. 1023-24 and the beginning of A.D. 1024-25; and leaves us still one
year short of that in which the event in question occurred.
¹ Similarly, some thirteen years ago, Mr. Blochmann (see the Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. XLIII.
Part I. p. 368) proposed to translate—"as regards the Guptakâl, they were, as is related, a people
wicked and powerful; and when they were cut off, it was dated in them (the era commenced?)."—
This translatior, however, is spoilt by the bracketed words "(the era commenced?) ;' the use of which
shews why Mr. Blochmann, though giving a translation capable of a totally different meaning,
expressed himself as not able to see any fault in Reinaud's translation.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 29
I am, therefore, glad to be able now to publish the following transliteration, with in-
terlinear word-for-word rendering, and translation, which Prof. William Wright, of
Cambridge, has recently been kind enough to give me, from Prof. Sachau's published
text, of the original of the whole passages of which M. Reinaud's and Prof. Sachau's
renderings have been printed above:—
Text and Literal Rendering.
{ Wa-li-dhâlika 'a'radû 'an-hâ wa-jâ'û 'ilâ
{ And for this they have turned away from them and have come to
tawârîkh Shrî-Hrish wa-Bigarmâdita wa-Shaka wa-Bilaba
the eras of [Śrî-Harsha] and [Vikramâditya] and [Śaka] and [Valabhî]
{ wa-Kûbita. ........... Wa-'ammâ ta'rîkh Balba
{ and [Gupta]. ........... And as regards the era of [Valabhî]
{ wa-huwa ṣâhib madînat Balbah wa-hiya janûbîyah 'an
{ and he lord of the city of [Valabhî] and it south from
{ madînat 'Anhlwârah bi-ḳarîb min thalâthîn jozhan fa-'inna
{ the city of [Aṇhilvâḍa] by near to thirty [yôjana] behold
'auwalu-hu muta'akhkhir 'an ta'rîkh Shk bi-mi'atain
the first of it posterior to the era of [Śaka] by two hundred
{ wa-ihdâ wa-'arba'în sanah. Wa-musta'milû-hu yada'ûn Shg-kâl
{ and one and forty years. And the users of it put down [Śaka]-era
{ wa-yankuṣûn min-hu majmû' muka"ab 'as-sittah wa-murabba'
{ and lessen from it the sum of the cube of six and the square of
{ 'al-khamsah fa-yabkâ ta'rîkh Balba. Wa-khabaru-hu 'âtin
{ five and remains the era of [Valabhî]. And his history is coming
fî mauḍi'i-hi. Wa-'ammâ Gûbt-kâl fa-kânû kamâ kîla
in its place. And as regards [Gupta]-era they were as is said
{ ḳauman 'ashrâran 'aḳwiyâ'a fa-lammâ 'inḳaraḍû 'urrikha
{ a people wicked strong and so after they perished it was dated
bi-him. Wa-ka-'anna Blb kân 'akhîru-hum. Fa'inna
by them. And as if that [Valabhî] was the last of them. And behold
'auwala ta'rîkhi-him 'aîdan muta'akhkhir 'an Shg-kâl
the first of their era also posterior to [Śaka]-era