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

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

80 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
{ 241. Wa-ta'rîkh al-munajjimîn yata'akhkhar 'an Shg-kâl
{ 241. And the era of the astronomers is posterior to [Śaka]-era
{ 587 wa-'alai-hi buniya zîj Kndkâtk li-Brhmgûpt
{ 587 and on it is built the canon [Khaṇḍakâṭaka] by [Brahmagupta]
{ wa-huwa 'al-ma'rûf 'inda-nâ bi'l-Arknd.
{ and it the known with us (chez nous) by (the name of) Al-Arkand.
{ Fa-'idhan sinû ta'rîkh Shrî-Harish li-sanati-nâ
{ And so then the years of the era of [Śrî-Harsha] to our year
{ 'al-mumaththal bi-hâ 1488 wa-ta'-rîkh Bkrmâdt 1088
{ that is used as an example 1488 and the era of [Vikramâditya] 1088
{ wa-Shg-kâl 953 wa-ta'rîkh Balba 'alladhî huwa 'aidan
{ and [Śaka]-era 953 and the era of [Valabhî] which it also
{ Gûbita-kâl 712.
{ [Gupta]-era 712.
Translation.
“And for this reason they have given them up, and have adopted the eras of Śrî-
Harsha, Vikramâditya, Śaka, Valabhî, and the Guptas. ............ And as regards
the era of Valabhî,—who was the ruler of the city of Valabhî, which was south of
the city of Aṇhilvâḍa by nearly thirty yôjanas,—its beginning was later than the Śaka
era by two hundred and forty-one years. Those who use it put down (the year of)
the Śaka era, and subtract from it the sum of the cube of six and the square of five;
and there remains (the year of) the era of Valabhî. His history is coming in its
proper place.¹ And as regards the Gupta era,—(the members of this dynasty) were, it is
said, a race wicked (and) strong; and so, after they became extinct, people dated by
them. And it seems as if Valabhî was the last of them. And so the beginning of their
era also is later than the Śaka era (by) 241 (years). And the era of the astronomers is
later than the Śaka era (by) 587 (years); and on it is based the astronomical canon
(named) Khaṇḍakhâṭaka, by Brahmagupta, which among us is known by (the name of)
Al-Arkand. So, then, 1488 years of the era of Śrî-Harsha are in correspondence with the
year (of Yasdajird) that we have taken as a gauge; and 1088 of the era of Vikramâditya;
and 953 of the Śaka era; and 712 of the era of Valabhî, which is also the Gupta era.”
The essence of the whole matter, of course, lies in the precise meaning that is to be
given to the words which follow the statement that the Guptas were wicked and powerful.
¹ See, however, page 24 above, note 6.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 31
Prof. Wright states that, in the original, we have a vague impersonal passive, meaning
"it was dated by them," "there was a dating by them," or "people dated by them;" but
that this certainly does not expressly imply that this dating took place from the year of
the extinction of the Gupta power, and in consequence of that event. That such an
interpretation might, if found on other grounds to be justifiable, be given to this expression
may be admitted. But it is at the least equally open to us to interpret the expression as
meaning that the Guptas had been so powerful that, even when they were dead and gone,
people still used their era to date by. And we shall have to determine hereafter, from an
examination of the details of the recorded Gupta and Valabhî dates, which of these two
possible interpretations is the one that must be adopted.
There is also one other point in the revised translations, to which special attention
should be paid. Prof. Wright's rendering, "(the year) 712 of the era of Valabhî, which
is also the Gupta era,"—and Prof. Sachau's, "the year 712 of the Balaba era, which is
identical with the Guptakâla,"—are essentially different, in their ultimate bearing, from
M. Reinaud's, "the year 712 of the era of Ballaba and of that of the Guptas." They
shew very clearly that Albêrûnî was speaking of absolutely one and the same era, under
two names; not of two different eras, with the same, or almost the same, epoch.
The Theories based on M. Reinaud's rendering of Albêrûnî's Statements.
Up to the present time, however, the only rendering of Albêrûnî's statements that has
been available, is that given by M. Reinaud. His translation has been taken as the
basis of argument by all writers on the subject. And, for a full comprehension of the
whole question, it will be necessary now to consider the matter from the light that was
given by him.
According to his rendering, we had three years to choose between, for the epoch of
the era,—Śaka-Saṁvat 240, 241, or 242, expired; involving a question, especially in res-
pect of the exact determination of the corresponding date in the Christian era, that could
only be settled by accurate calculations of the data available from the inscriptions, ex-
plained in detail, so that general readers might see that the processes were satisfactory.
But, whatever might be the final settlement of this point, the fact remained that
Albêrûnî had information given to him of the existence of an era, coupled with the name
of the Guptas and of the city of Valabhî, which began at some point in A.D. 319, or within
a year on either side of that date, and which it is convenient to speak of as the Gupta,
the Valabhî, or the Gupta-Valabhî era. And, that this era was actually used in connec-
tion with the name of Valabhî, at any rate, was proved by the Verâwal inscription of the
Chaulukya king Arjunadêva of Aṇhilwâḍ,¹ in which the leading record of the year is

¹ Originally brought to notice, many years ago, by Tod, in his Annals of Râjasthân; but
critically edited, for the first time, by Hultzsch, in 1882, in the Ind. Ant. Vol. XI, p. 241 ff.

32 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
Valabhî-Saṁvat 945, together with Vikrama-Saṁvat 1320, which is equivalent to A.D.
1263-64, and with the Hijra year 662, which ran¹ from the 4th November, A.D. 1263, to
the 23rd October, A.D. 1264.
So much was certain. But it was felt to be highly improbable that the Gupta era
should date from the extermination of the Guptas. And students of the subject divided
themselves, almost at once, into two schools.
The first, represented most publicly and with undeviating tenacity up to the last by
the late Mr. J. Fergusson, accepted Albêrûnî's statement as to the period of the com-
mencement of the era, but,—on the analogy of the statement which, on the authority of
Hindu tradition, he also makes, that the Śaka era, too, dated from the overthrow of the
Śakas; a statement which is certainly wrong,²—rejected the addition that it dated from the
downfall of the Guptas; and took A.D. 318 for the date of the rise of the dynasty, as well
as the establishment of the era; selecting this particular year on the theory that the era
did not date from the accession of a king, or from any particular historical event, but, for
convenience of comparison, was simply regulated by the completion of four of the Sixty-
Year Cycles of Jupiter from the commencement of the Śaka era.
The other school accepted A.D. 318, or thereabouts, for the downfall of the Guptas,
and took the Valabhî era of Arjunadêva's inscription, which indisputably began at that
period, as being separate altogether from the real Gupta era, and as having been established
in commemoration of the overthrow of the Gupta power; and began then to look about for
an earlier date for the rise of the Gupta dynasty, and for the starting-point of the era used
by the Gupta kings, and also,—as was maintained, with some inconsistency, by the
majority,—by the Kings of Valabhî, in preference to their own Valabhî era. The chief
exponents of this school have been—the late Mr. E. Thomas, who held that the era was
identical with that of the Śakas,³ with the epoch of A.D. 77-78;—General Sir Alexander
¹ See Indian Eras, p. 126. ² See Appendix I. below.
³ A curious instance of confusion between the Gupta and the Śaka eras, on the part of a Hindu
writer, is furnished by the following two passages from the commentary named Âchâraṭîkâ, by Śîlâ-
chârya, on the Jain work called Âchârâṅgasûtra; I have taken them from a manuscript, supposed to
be about three hundred years old, shewn to me in the early part of 1883 by Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji.—
This first passage, on pp. 207b and 208a, is in metre, and runs—dvâsaptaty-adhikêshu hi śatêshu saptasu
gatêshu Guptânâṁ | saṁvatsarêshu mâsi cha Bh[â]drapadê śuklâ(kla)-paṁchamyâṁ || Śîlâchâryêṇa*
kṛitâ Gambhûtâyâṁ sthitêna ṭîk=aishâ | samyag-upayujya śôdhyâ mâtsarya-vimukritair=âryê (ryai)ḥ ||.
This passage gives Gupta-Saṁvat 772, expired, the fifth day of the bright fortnight of the month
Bhâdrapada, as the date on which this portion of the Commentary was completed by Śîlâchârya, at
Gambhûtâ (? Cambay).—The second passage, on p. 256b, at the end of the whole book, is in prose,
and runs — Śaka-nṛipa-kâl-âtîta-saṁvatsara-śatêsashu(read śatêshu) saptasu | ashṭânavaty-adhikêshu
Vaiśâkha-śuddha-paṁchamyâṁ Âchâraṭîkâ kṛit=êti || Ba || Saṁvat (page 256b ends here; and the
next page, containing the repetition of the date in figures, and the last final words of the author, is
lost). This passage gives Śaka-Saṁvat 798, expired, the fifth day of the bright fortnight of the month
Vaiśâkha, as the date of the completion of the whole Commentary.—The two passages, indicating, as

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 33
Cunningham, who finally fixed on A.D. 166-67 as the epoch ;—and the late Sir E.
Clive Bayley, who selected A.D. 190-91.
Examination of the previous Theories.
Mr. Fergusson’s theory of A.D. 318-19 for the epoch of the era, and A.D. 319-20
for its commencement, is easily disposed of. It was wrong ; but by one year only. The
reason is, that, as has been said, his assumption,—based apparently on a sugges-
tion thrown out by Dr. Bhau Daji in 1864,—was, that the commencement of it was regu-
lated only by the completion of four of Jupiter’s Sixty-Year Cycles from the commence-
ment of the Śaka era, in order that there might be always an even and convenient
difference of two hundred and forty years between the Śaka and Gupta dates. This how-
ever, could be arranged only by applying the Sixty-Year Cycle as used now in Southern
India, where it is not in reality an astronomical cycle at all ; since there the cyclic years run
on in regular succession, without any adjustment of them to the motion of the planet, with
reference to his sign-passing or his heliacal rising, by the omission of a year on certain
occasions, and are taken as commencing and ending with the luni-solar years. According
to the present southern system, Śaka-Saṁvat 1 current (A.D. 78-79) was the Bahudhânya
saṁvatsara ; and Śaka-Saṁvat 241 current (A.D. 318-19) was again the same cyclic year,
Bahudhânya ; and, by this means, some justification might be found for Mr. Fergusson’s view.
But I shall shew hereafter that the real epoch of the Gupta era was A.D. 319-20, which
does not correspond to Saka-Saṁvat 241 current ; so that there was, in reality, a com-
pletion of four cycles and one year, even by the southern system ; and this, alone, is fatal to
they stand, that Śîlâchârya treated the Gupta and Śaka eras as identical, contain a mistake
of some kind or another, which must be attributed to a pedantic desire on his part to introduce a
mention of an era,—whether the Gupta or the Śaka, as the case may be,—with which he was only
imperfectly acquainted. And the mistake cannot be cleared away, unless we can obtain some inde-
pendent record of the real date of Śîlâchârya, sufficient to shew whether the Âchârâṅka was written
during Gupta-Saṁvat 772 to 798 expired (A.D. 1092 to 1118), or during Śaka-Saṁvat 772 to 798 expired
(A.D. 850 to 876). As to this, I can only say that the Śaka era was used so rarely, if at all, in Gujarât
and Kâṭhiâwâḍ, except by the Gujarât branch of the Râshṭrakûṭa family, that probably the Gupta era
gives the real date for Śîlâchârya. And I would throw out a suggestion that possibly some mistake of
the same kind may account for the dates, Śaka-Saṁvat 400 and 417, of the apparently spurious Umêtâ
and Ilâô grants of Dadda II. (Ind. Ant. Vol. VII. p. 61 ff. ; and Vol. XIII. p. 115 ff.).—The passages,
however, are of some interest, in shewing that, in Śîlâchârya's time, there was still a recollection of the
fact that the era,—which must have been known best from its use by the rulers of Valabhî, and which
came eventually, in Kâṭhiâwâḍ, to be called the Valabhî era,—was connected originally and specially
with the Gupta kings, by whom it was introduced into Kâṭhiâwâḍ a. d the neighbouring parts.—After
writing this note, which appeared originally in the Ind. Ant. Vol. XV. p. 188, I found an allusion by
Dr. Bhau Daji, in 1864, to what is evidently the same manuscript, though he quoted only the Gupta
date. He wrote (Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. VIII. p. 246) “I have a Jaina manuscript which is
dated in the 772nd year of the Guptakâla ; but unfortunately the corresponding Vikrama or Śâli-
vāhana’s year is not given ; nor is it possible at present to ascertain the exact date of the author
from other sources.”
2

36 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.

death of Skandagupta. All else, serviceable for our present inquiry, that I can find in
Mr. Prinsep's writings, is his statement in the same volume (p. 354), that the dates record-
ed in the Valabhî charters must be referred to the Vikrama era.
In 1845, M. Reinaud republished collectively, under the title of Fragments Arabes
et Persans, certain extracts, with French translations, from works relating to India, which
he had previously published separately in the Journal Asiatique, in September and
October, 1844, and February-March, 1845. In this book, as we have already seen, he
renders Albêrûnî (id. p. 143) as stating that the Gupta era dated from the extermination
of the Guptas. I do not find that he makes any reference to Prinsep on this specific
point. But he shews, throughout, so good an acquaintance with Prinsep's writings, as also
with those of other English scholars, that he must certainly have read Prinsep's transla-
tion of, and comments on, the Kahâum inscription. And, though he may not have inten-
tionally allowed himself to be guided by Prinsep's views, it can hardly be doubted that he
had a reminiscence of the purport of them, when he was translating Albêrûnî's remarks.
In fact, in the face of Mr. Blochmann's, Mr. Rehatsek's, and Prof. Wright's versions, it is
difficult to see how M. Reinaud can have arrived at the exact words used in his trans-
lation, except under some such predisposing influence.
After this, in a paper read on the 15th April, 1848, and published in 1850 in the
Jour. R. As. Soc. F. S. Vol. XII. p. 1 ff., Mr. Thomas entered into an extensive
disquisition on the history connected with the dynasty of the so-called 'Sâh' kings¹
of Saurâshṭra or Kâṭhiâwâḍ; in the course of which, it became incumbent on him to
consider the Early Gupta dates. Accepting it as proved by M. Reinaud's rendering

¹ As I have had occasion to remark elsewhere (Ind. Ant. Vol. XIV. pp. 65, 325), this name of
'Sâh,'—and, with it, also an idea that these princes were Śakas or Indo-Scythians,—owes its origin to
nothing but the fact that, on the silver coins of this series, as also on the silver coins, and even some
of the gold coins, of the Early Guptas, it was the custom, as a rule, not to cut on the dies such vowels
as, if engraved, would fall on or above the top line of the writing of the marginal legend. The
reason, of course, was, want of sufficient space. This custom was observed uniformly in the Gupta
silver coins; and hence such legends as (id. p. 65 f.) paramabhagavata-maharajadharaja-śra-
Chandragupta-Vakramadatya, which represents paramabhâgavata-mahârâjâdhirâja-śrî-Chandra-
gupta-Vikramâditya; "the most devout worshipper of the Divine One, the Mahârâjâdhirâja, the
glorious Chandragupta-Vikramâditya." On the Saurâshṭra coins, the custom was observed almost
uniformly, but not quite so; and hence, to select an instance of its partial observance, such legends
as (id. p. 325) rajñá mahakshatrapasa Rudradamna putrasa rajñá mahakshatrapasa Rudrasîhasa,
in which the superscript vowel î is exceptionally introduced in the last word, and which represents
râjñô mahâkshatrapasya Rudradâmnah putrasya râjñô mahâkshatrapasya Rudrasîhasya; "of the
Râja, the Mahâkshatrapa Rudrasîha, the son of the Râja, the Mahâkshatrapa Rudradâman." The
word sîha, i.e. simha, 'a lion,' is the termination of the names of several of the Kshatrapas or
Mahâkshatrapas. And, because the long vowel î, or the short vowel i with a following anusvâra, is
usually omitted in the coins, thus giving the readings of saha and sahasya, these princes came to be
invested with the imaginary family or dynastic name of 'Sah' or 'Sâh.' Owing to the same fact,
also, the termination of some of the names in the list has occasionally been read as sêna.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 37
of Albêrûnî's statements, and by the Verâwal inscription of Valabhî-Saṁvat 945, that
the Valabhî era commenced A.D. 319 (id. p. 4) or A.D. 318-19 (id. p. 4, note 1),
and, by Albêrûnî's statements, that a family of Guptas reigned as paramount sovereigns
in Gujarât shortly before that date, and were then exterminated, he arrived at the con-
clusions—(1) that this Valabhî era, commencing A.D. 319, may have been established
by the Mahârâja Guhasêna of Valabhî, and may have dated from his accession, or
from some striking event of his reign ; (2) that there could scarcely be a doubt that these
Guptas, who had reigned shortly before A.D. 319, were identical with the Guptas of the
Allâhâbâd, Junâgaḍh, and Bhitarî inscriptions; (3) that the Guptas were the immediate
successors of the Indo-Scythians in Saurâshtra, though traces of the latter might be found,
west of the Indus, down to the end of the fourth century A.D.; and (4) that the so-called
Sâh kings preceded the Indo-Scythians. His chronological results are tabulated on
p. 48 of the same volume. Anterior to B.C. 157 he placed “one or more Sâh kings,”
who are represented on p. 49 by “Îśvaradatta, son of Varsha.”¹ He is followed by thir-
teen Sâh kings, whose coin-dates are interpreted as being all dated in the fourth century
of an era which was assumed to be Albêrûnî's era of Harsha commencing B.C. 457; and
the result for the thirteen kings was from B.C. 157 to B.C. 57. Then comes the Indo-
Scythic conquest; to which is allotted the date of B.C. 26. Then the Guptas. And
then the Valabhî era, commencing A.D. 319. In this Table, curiously enough, no date is
entered opposite the Guptas. But this was probably a printer's omission. For, referring
to the note commencing on p. 4, we find it distinctly stated (id. p. 5) that the dates in the
Gupta inscriptions, and in the Valabhî charters, are to be referred to the Śaka era.
These results contained the first intimation that the rulers of Valabhî acted with such in-
consistency as to invent an era of their own, dating from the extermination of the Guptas,
and yet to continue to use the Gupta era in preference to their own; and also the first
intimation of the exact epoch, anterior to A.D. 319, to which the Gupta dates were to be
referred. One point on which Mr. Thomas was evidently inclined to lay some stress (id.
p. 13 ff.), is Albêrûnî's statement,—based on, but in its application different from, Hindu
tradition,—that the Śaka era commemorated the defeat and slaughter of a Śaka or
Scythian king by a king named Vikramâditya, who, as Albêrûnî points out, is evidently
not identical with the supposed founder of the Vikrama era ; coupled with the occurrence
of this last name, Vikramâditya, as a secondary title, on some of the Early Gupta coins.²
¹ i.e., literally, “Îśvaradatta, son of a year”!! The legend on his coin is given, on id. p. 50, as end-
ing with Varsha putha, in which putha is taken (id. p. 51) as a Zend substitute for the Sanskrit putra,
'a son'!! The two aksharas are in reality the first two syllables of the Sanskrit word prathame,—
varshe prathame, “in the first year ;” see Newton, in Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. VII. p. 8, and
Plate, No. 8 ; see also Plate i. No. 1, accompanying Thomas' paper, where the legend is almost equally
clear.
² I myself think it not at all improbable that, hereafter, it may be shewn that the name of
Vikrama, or Vikramâditya, came to be connected with the Mâlava era of B C. 57, in consequence of
some confused reminiscence of a conquest of the Indo-Scythians by Chandragupta I. or II. But the
establishment of the Śaka era is not concerned in this question at all.

38 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
And, in general corroboration of his views, he (id. p. 12, note 4) quoted, some remarks by
Major Kittoe to Colonel Sykes, that the grant of the Mahârâja Hastin of the year 163,
No. 22, page 100, shewed,—on the supposed identity of this Mahârâja with the Hastivar-
man, king of Vengî in the south, who is mentioned in line 20 of the Allahâbâd pillar
inscription,—that one hundred and sixty-three years of the Gupta dynasty had passed in
the time of Samudragupta, and thus proved that the Guptas reigned from the second to the
fifth century A.D. This, however, hardly fits in with Mr. Thomas' reference to A.D.
172 (id. p. 5, note) of a Chandragupta whose date in the Gupta era is the year 93, and
who could only be the father or the son of Samudragupta.
In 1854, General Cunningham published his Bhilsa Topes, in which, on p. 138 ff.,
he drew particular attention to the fact that Albêrûnî three times mentions the Gupta and
Valabhî eras, and identifies them with each other; and on each occasion specifies them
as starting from the same date, A.D. 319. He proceeded to remark—" but it appears to
" me that the most important of these passages must be either corrupt or obscure; for
" the translation given by M. Reinaud makes the epoch of the Guptas commence from
" the date of their extermination! If this is a correct translation, there can be little
" doubt that the text of Abu Rihân must be erroneous; for we know positively that the
" Guptas were reigning during the fifth and sixth centuries of our era. ............
" The statement made in M. Reinaud's version is so extraordinary, that, even without
" any direct proofs of its inaccuracy, I would have set it aside as erroneous. The era of
" the Seleukidæ began with the foundation of the Syrian empire by Seleukos; the Chris-
" tian era is dated from the establishment of Christianity; and the era of the Guptas
" without doubt commenced with the settlement of their own dynasty. For the Guptas,
" as I have mentioned before, date their inscriptions in an era of their own; which, though
" not so named by them, was actually a Gupta-Kâl, and must, therefore, have been called
" such by the people." And he suggested a different translation of Albêrûnî's statement;
to the effect that the Gupta era became extinct with the Gupta dynasty, instead of
dating from the extermination of it; and throughout the rest of his book, he applied the
epoch of A.D. 319 to the Gupta dates. If General Cunningham, our leader in Indian
archæology since the death of Prinsep, had continued to hold these views, and had
worked out his other researches in accordance with them, we should probably have heard
but little more of any theory assigning to the Guptas an earlier period. But, as we
shall see, he soon adopted other opinions
In 1855, in his paper "On the Epoch of the Gupta Dynasty," published in the
Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. XXIV. p. 371 ff., Mr. Thomas made a special reply to
General Cunningham's views and arguments as set forth in Bhilsa Topes. This paper,
however, contains nothing at all worth quoting. And we pass on to 1858, when, under
his own editing, he published a collection of the works of Mr. James Prinsep, then
deceased, under the title of Essays on Indian Antiquities. Prinsep, in his account of

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS INTRODUCTION. 39
Hindu eras, had mentioned the Valabhî era (id. Vol. II. Useful Tables, p. 158), to which,
on the authority of the Sômnâthpâṭan or Verâwal inscription of Valabhî-Samvat 945, he
allotted the epoch of A.D. 318. But he had made no mention of a Gupta era. Mr.
Thomas, however (id. Vol. I. p. 270 ff.), introduced his own previously expressed opinion
that the Gupta dates had to be referred to the Śaka era; and supplied some further facts
which seemed to give additional corroboration to this view. And, on this occasion, he
wound up with the general conclusions (id. Vol. I. p. 276) that the dates in the Valabhî
grants, if applied to the Valabhî era of A D. 318-19, would give far too modern a period;
that these dates did not appear to belong to the same consecutive series with the numbers
employed by the Guptas themselves; and that, while still applying the Śaka era to the
Gupta dates, the Vikrama era was probably the one which, "in spite of any apparent
inconsistency involved," should apply preferentially to the Valabhî grants. Curiously
enough he quoted (id. Vol. I. p. 271, note 1) a modification of meaning which one portion
of Albêrûnî's original words would bear; viz. "again, the Kûbat-Kâl (Gupta era),
"that was, as is said, a wicked and powerful family; when it ceased, it was dated from;
"and, as it were (it would seem that), Balab was the last of them, for the first of their era
"also is 241 years after the Śaka-Kâl." But, he still had not arrived at the absolutely
literal translation of the words which he rendered by "when it ceased, it was dated from;"
and, partly through this, partly through having his attention directed principally to
the connection between the Kings of Valabhî and the Guptas, as described in the words
italicised by him, he still failed to see the real bearing of this passage on the epoch of
both the Gupta and the Valabhî eras. In this treatment of the question, he quoted Prof.
Lassen's views (Indische Alterthumskunde, Vol. II.), to the effect that the rise of the
Guptas took place between A.D. 150 to 160; but I have not had the opportunity of
examining that theory.
Meanwhile, in 1853, 1857, and 1858, there had been published M. Stanislas Julien's
French translation of the Life and Travels of the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen T'siang, in which
there is contained the important statement that, when the pilgrim visited Valabhî,—which
was in or about A.D. 640,—the reigning king there, a nephew of Śîlâditya of Mâlava, a
son-in-law of Śîlâditya of Kanauj, and a member of the Kshatriya caste, was named Tou-
lou-p'o-po-t'o (id. Vol. I. p. 206), Tou-lou-po-pa-tch'a (id. Vol. I. p. 254), or T'ou-lou-p'o-po-
tou (id. Vol. III. p. 163). Such were M. Julien's renderings of the Chinese transliter-
ation of the original Sanskṛit name; which latter he restored as 'Dhrouvapaṭou,' i.e. Dhru-
vapaṭu. And it had already been suggested that this name represented that of one of the
Dhruvasênas of the Valabhî family. Mr. Thomas himself (Prinsep's Essays, Vol. I.
p. 267, note 4) had attached no value to this supposed identification. But Hîuen Tsiang's
statement had begun to be looked on, and very properly, as an important factor in the

40 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
general inquiry. And I, therefore, now give, for ready reference, in Table II. on
page 41 below, a complete genealogy of the Valabhî family, with the official titles of the
members of it, and their dates as far as I have been able to verify them. Here, however,
in connection with Hiuen Tsiang's statements, I have to draw attention to one or two points
which still remain to be cleared up. In his general account of the Life and Travels of the
Chinese pilgrim, M. Julien (id. Vol. I. p. 206) represents him as telling us, in respect of
the kingdom of Valabhî, that "the present king is of the race of the Kshatriyas (Tsa-
"ti-li); he is the son-in-law of Śîlâditya (Chi-lo-'o-tie-to), king of Kanyâkubja (Kie-jo-
"kio-che); his name is Dhruvapaṭu (Tou-lou-p'o-po-t'o)." Whereas, in the more detailed
account of the Travels, M. Julien renders the pilgrim as speaking, in the same connection,
of not one king only, but more than one, and as saying (id. Vol. III. p. 163) "the kings of
"the present period are of the race of the Kshatriyas (T'sa-ti-li); they all are nephews of
"king Śîlâditya (Chi-lo-'o-t'ie-to), of the kingdom of Mâlava (Mo-la-p'o). Now the son of
"king Śîlâditya (Chi-lo-'o-t'ie-to), of the kingdom of Kanyâkubja (Kie-jo-ko-che), has
"a son-in-law named Dhruvapaṭu (T'ou-lou-p'o-po-tou)." While, in Mr. Beal's Buddhist
Records of the Western World, published in 1884, Vol. II. p. 267, this latter passage
appears in the singular again,—"the present king is of the Kshatriya caste, as they all
"are. He is the nephew of Śîlâdityarâja of Mâlava, and son-in-law of the son of Śîlâditya,
"the present king of Kanyâkubja. His name is Dhruvapaṭa (T'u-lu-h'o-po-tu),"—without
any comment explaining the important difference between his rendering and that given
by M. Julien. And again, according to M. Julien (id. Vol. I. pp. 254 f., 260), the pil-
grim speaks of a Dhruvapaṭu (Tou-lou-po-pa-tch'a, and also simply Pa-tch'a), king of
Southern India; but the kingdom of Valabhî can hardly be included in, and much less can
it include, Southern India; and the statement is inconsistent with the fact that, at that time,
the king of the greater part, if not of the whole, of Southern India, was Pulikêśin II., of the
Western Chalukya dynasty, for whom we have on record no title that at all resembles the
Chinese transliteration, unless it can be found in the second component of the name of
Satyâśraya-Dhruvarâja-Indravarman, the supreme lord or governor of four vishayas and
maṇḍalas, stationed or resident at Rêvatîdvîpa, who is mentioned in line 4 f. of the Goa
grant of Maṅgalîśa,¹ the uncle of Pulikêśin II., and the wielder of sovereignty during the
minority of the latter. These passages present points which must be carefully consider-
ed, before any final opinion is arrived at in respect of the identity of the person, or persons,
intended by Hiuen Tsiang : the more especially because the dates render it impossible
that he should be Sîlâditya VII. of Valabhî, the only one in the family for whom as yet
we have obtained the second name of Dhruvabhaṭa; and because M. Julien tells us (id.
Vol. III. p. 163, note) that the Chinese translation of the name of Dhruvapaṭu of Valabhî
was Tch'ang-jouï, 'constantly intelligent,' which of course supports the supposition that
¹ Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. X. p. 365.—This person, however, may be a son of Maṅgalîśa;
see my Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts, p. 22.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 41
TABLE II.
Genealogy of the Kings of Valabhî.
Bhaṭârka,
Sênâpati.

Dharasêna I., | Drôṇasiṁha, | Dhruvasêna I., | Dharapaṭṭa,
Sênâpati. | Mahârâja. | Mahârâja, | Mahârâja.
| | Mahâsâmanta, | |
| | Mahâpratîhâra, | Guhasêna,
| | Mahâdaṇḍanâyaka, | Mahârâja.
| | and Mahâkârtâkṛitika. | [G. S. 240 (?237), 246,
| | [Gupta-Saṁvat 207.] | 248.]
| | | |
| | | Dharasêna II.,
| | | Sâmanta, Mahâsâmanta,
| | | Mahârâja, and
| | | Mahâdhirâja.
| | | [G. S. 252, 269, 270.]
| | | -------------------------------------
| | Śîlâditya I., | Kharagraha I.
| | or Dharmâditya I. |
| | [G. S. 286, 290.] |
| | | |
| | Dêrabhaṭa. |
| | | |
| ---------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------
Śîlâditya II. | Kharagraha II. | Dhruvasêna III. | Dharasêna III. | Dhruvasêna II.,
| | or Dharmâditya II. | | | or Bâlâditya.
Śîlâditya III., | [G. S. 337.] | | | [G. S. 310.]
Paramabhaṭṭâraka, | | | | |
Mahârâjâdhirâja, | | | | Dharasêna IV.,
and Paramêśvara. | | | | Paramabhaṭṭâraka,
[G. S. 352.] | | | | Mahârâjâdhirâja,
| | | | Paramêśvara and
Śîlâditya IV., | | | | Chakravartin.
Paramabhaṭṭâraka, | | | | [G. S. 326, 330.]
Mahârâjâdhirâja,
and Paramêśvara.
[G. S. 372.]
|
Śîlâditya V.,
Paramabhaṭṭâraka,
Mahârâjâdhirâja,
and Paramêśvara.
[G. S. 403.]
|
Śîlâditya VI.,
Paramabhaṭṭâraka,
Mahârâjâdhirâja,
and Paramêśvara.
[G. S. 441.]
|
Śîlâditya VII.,
or Dhrûbhaṭa
(Dhruvabhaṭa.)
Paramabhaṭṭâraka,
Mahârâjâdhirâja,
and Paramêśvara.
[G. S. 447.]

42 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
the termination of the Sanskrit name, the first part of which, dhruva, means 'constant,'
really was paṭu, 'smart, dexterous, intellectual,' rather than bhaṭa, 'a warrior.' It is to
be hoped that some light will be thrown on these points by Mr. Beal's forthcoming transla-
tion of the Life of Hiuen Tsiang, corresponding to the first of M. Julien's three volumes.
In 1861 the question was taken up by the late Dr. Bhau Daji, in connection with
his paper "On the Saṁskṛit poet Kâlidâsa," published in the Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc.
Vol. VIII. pp. 19 ff., 207 ff. As regards the Gupta era, he here only expressed his opinion
that it commenced, with the Valabhî era, in A.D. 319. But he brought to notice an
important point (id. p. 207, note), in the fact that the Kahâum pillar inscription, of which
he seems to have then had the opportunity of examining a more reliable version prepared
for him by Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji, was dated in the 141st year of the Gupta dynasty, and
in the reign of Skandagupta; not after his death, as rendered by Prinsep. And he also
announced his opinion (id. p. 208, note) that the Tou-lou-p'o-po-t'o or T'u-lu-h'o-po-tu of
Hiuen Tsiang was to be identified with the Mahârâja Dharapaṭṭa, the fourth and young-
est son of the Sênâpati Bhaṭârka who founded the Valabhî family.
Also in 1861, in the Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. XXX. p. 1 ff., Dr. FitzEdward Hall
edited the two grants of the Parivrâjaka Mahârâja Hastin, dated in the years 156 and
163, No. 21, page 93, and No. 22, page 100, which, now that the saṁvatsaras of the
Twelve-Year Cycle of Jupiter that are quoted in them can be calculated with certainty, are
of such extreme importance, because the records also state that they are dated "in the
enjoyment of sovereignty by the Gupta kings." They had been previously brought to
notice, in 1858, in Mr. Thomas' edition of Prinsep's Essays, Vol. I. p. 251 f., by Prof. H.
H. Wilson's combined translation of the two inscriptions from Mr. Thomas' reading of the
texts; but they were first published in full by Dr. Hall. The crucial expression in them
is Gupta-nṛipa-râjya-bhuktau, "in the enjoyment of sovereignty by the Gupta kings,"
which had been read correctly by Mr. Thomas, and had been suitably rendered by Prof.
Wilson in the words "(in the 163rd year) of the occupation of the kingdom by the Gupta
kings." The same reading was adopted by Dr. Hall. But, without quoting any author-
ity in support, he laid down the dictum (Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. XXX. p. 3 ff., note)
that bhukti, which means literally 'the act of enjoying or eating; enjoyment, eating; fruition,
possession, usufruct,' "if unqualified by a temporal particle, denotes 'possession' or
"'fruition' only as a thing of the past;" and he translated the phrase (id. p. 7) by "(in the
"year one hundred and fifty-six) of the extinction of the sovereignty of the Gupta kings;"
and, again (id. p. 12), "(one hundred and sixty-three years) after the domination of the
"Guptas had been laid to rest;" thus producing apparently conclusive evidence of an era
that dated from the extermination of the Gupta kings; in support of which he quoted
(id. p. 5, note) the Hindu tradition referred to by Albêrûnî, now completely refuted, that
the Śaka era dates from the discomfiture of the Śakas. In the course of his remarks, he
introduced his reading and revised translation of the first verse of the Kahâum pillar

inscription, in which, though he adopted the correct reading, śântê, at the end of line 2, he
followed the general tenor of Prinsep's translation, and rendered the date (id. p. 3, note)
by "the empire of Skandagupta being extinct for the hundred and forty-first year." To
this he appended the remark, "in supersession of a proposal formerly put forth, and from
"which my present state of information would have withheld me, I now accede to the
"view that the Kahâuṁ inscription is dated from the overthrow of the Guptas, of whom
"Skanda must have been virtually the last." These words referred to his previous
treatment of the verse in 1859, in the Jour. Amer. Or. Soc. Vol. VI. p. 530, when he
had rendered the date by "in the one hundred and forty-first year; the empire of Skanda-
"gupta being quiescent;" with the remark "there is, then, nothing here recorded con-
"cerning the death of Skandagupta, as Mr. Prinsep supposes. Being neither the first
"ruler of the Gupta dynasty, nor the last, nor of special note, it would be extraordinary
"indeed, if time had been computed from his decease." As regards the expression in the
grants of the Mahârâja Hastin, it seems almost needless to comment further on its mean-
ing; because any unbiassed Sanskṛit scholar will see at once what the real purport of it is.
But it is curious what vitality some mistakes possess. The suggestion has been made to
me, quite recently, that possibly even Albêrûnî's own apparent statement, as to the Gupta
era dating from the extermination of the Gupta kings, may have originated in a misunder-
standing, by the Hindus who supplied him with information, of this same expression Gupta-
nṛipa-râjya-bhuktau. I can only say that it is absolutely and utterly impossible that any
Hindu, acquainted with Sanskṛit, could interpret this expression as meaning anything
except that, at the date connected with it, the sovereignty of the Guptas was still con-
tinuing. And it is equally impossible for any European Sanskṛitist to give it any other
meaning; unless, as I have said elsewhere, under the influence of a preconceived bias, so
strong as to preclude entirely the critical consideration which would at once shew the
error.—In the same volume, page 14 ff., Dr. Hall published his own versions of the Êraṇ
inscriptions of Budhagupta and Tôramâṇa, No. 19, page 88, and No. 20, page 91; and,
in the course of his remarks, announced (id. p. 15, note) that the details of the date of
Budhagupta's record were correct if referred to the Vikrama era, the English equivalent
being Thursday, the 7th June, A.D. 108, New Style.—And the general question was taken
up by him again in his "Note on Budhagupta," published in the same volume (p. 139 ff.);
with the conclusion (id. p. 148 ff.) that Budhagupta was probably the first sovereign
of a more ancient branch of the Gupta family which ended with himself; and that the
dates in the records of Skandagupta and his ancestors possibly ran from an epoch in A.D.
278, which Pandit Bapu Deva Shastri of Benares had found, by actual calculation, to suit
the details of the Bhêra Ghaut inscription of the Kalachuri king Narasiṁhadêva, dated
in the year 907 (of the era used by his dynasty), and the Têwar inscription of the same
king, dated in the year 928.
In 1862, in the Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. VII. p. 1 ff., Mr. Newton published
a lengthy disquisition "On the Sâh, Gupta, and other Ancient Dynasties of Kaṭhiâwâd
f 2b

44 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM. VOL. III.
and Gujarât," based on their coins, which, in respect at any rate of the so-called Sâh
coins, were then properly examined for the first time. And his conclusions were (id. p. 30)
that the dates on the Sâh coins were to be referred to the Vikrama era, with the result
that the kings of this dynasty extended from A.D. 30 or 40 to A.D. 240 or 250; (id. p. 36)
that they were immediately succeeded, in Gujarât, by Kumâragupta and Skandagupta,
without any intervention of the Indo-Scythians there; and that these two were followed
by the Valabhî dynasty, in A.D. 319. His conclusions, however, were chiefly founded on
the basis (id. p. 31) that "Mr. Prinsep, Mr. Thomas, and Prof. Wilson, agree that the
"Sâhs preceded the Guptas; and it seems clear that the Guptas preceded the Valabhî
"dynasty;" coupled with his acceptance of the fact that the Valabhî era,—and with it I
[

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION 45
ous nature of the grant. But, treating the date as being in the fourth century of the
Śaka era,—not in specifically the Śaka year 400,—and expressing his belief that the grant
though a forgery, was an ancient one, and was forged within fifty years of the latest of the
Valabhî grants discovered up to that time, he recorded his opinion (id. p. 244) that
"whether the grant be genuine or not, the evidence in regard to the name of the era does
"not materially lose its value; as the forger has been careful not to give the exact year,
"but simply to state the century of the era, which we must accept as correct, as this
"forger may naturally be expected to avoid an error in date, which would vitiate the
"document more than any other single error." His general conclusions were much the
same as those arrived at on the previous occasion; viz. (id. p. 247) that the dates in the
Valabhî grants refer to the Śaka era, which, he held (id. p. 238), was the era "of Naha-
pâṇa, in all likelihood a Parthian monarch, and a descendant of Phrahates;" (id. p. 246)
that the Gupta era commenced A.D. 318, and Kumâragupta and Skandagupta succeeded
the last of the kings of Valabhî; and consequently (id. p. 247 f.) that the Valabhî era of
Albêrûnî, if identical with the Gupta era, was certainly not the era used by the Kings of
Valabhî themselves, but was the Gupta era, introduced into Kâṭhiâwâḍ by Kumâragupta
and Skandagupta. His results led him also to the conclusion (id. p. 249 ff.) that Hiuen
Tsiang's visit to India, must really be placed about sixty years earlier than the accepted
and well-established period, about A.D. 630 to 643; a proposition which in itself almost
ought to have shewn him that there was some radical error in his deductions. And on this
occasion (id. p. 246) he put forward the suggestion, afterwards accepted and endorsed by
Mr. Fergusson,—or at least he drew pointed attention to the apparent fact,—that the
Gupta era commenced on the completion of four of the Sixty-Year Cycles of Jupiter after
the commencement of the Śaka era; to suit this suggestion, however, he had to distinctly
put aside Albêrûnî's statement that the difference between the two eras is two-hundred and
forty-one years, which, of course, by any arrangement, is one year over and above four
cycles of sixty years each. These conclusions are, of course, about as good a sample
as could well be sought, of the general state of confusion into which the question had
then fallen.
Meanwhile, in 1863, in the Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. XXXII. pp. ii. to cxix., Gene-
ral Cunningham had published his Archæological Report for 1861-62, which was sub-
sequently reprinted in 1871 in the Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. I. pp. 1 to 130, and which I shall
notice again further on. In this, he laid aside his original opinion of A.D. 319 for the
commencement of the Gupta era; and adopted, instead of it, the view that this year was
really the date of the extermination of the dynasty, and that their recorded dates should be
referred, as proposed by Mr. Thomas, to the Śaka era. Again, in 1865, in his paper on
the "Coins of the nine Nâgas," in the Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. XXXIV. p. 115 ff., he
stated that, from a comparison of the Gupta gold coins with their Indo-Scythian prototypes,
and of the Gupta silver coins with the Sâh coins of Saurâshṭra, he had seen (id. p. 118)
"that the first Guptas must certainly have been contemporary with the earlier princes of the

46 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM VOL. III.
“ Kushân Scythians, and consequently that their date could not possibly be later than the
“ first century of the Christian era.” And, on the grounds that the only scheme, as far
as he could see, that would suit all the known dates and other conditions of the dynasty,
was to make Chandragupta I. the founder of the era ; that Albêrûnî’s information was that
the Śaka era was established by a king named Vikramâditya, after a victory over the
Śakas ; that the name of Vikramâditya was found on coins which were properly assigned
to Chandragupta I. ; and that the Allahâbâd pillar inscription mentions Samudragupta,
the son of Chandragupta I., as receiving tribute from the Śakas,—he expressed
himself (id. p. 119) as “ inclined to adopt the Śaka era, which began in A.D. 79,
“ as the actual era of the Gupta dynasty and to attribute its establishment to Chandra-
“ gupta I.”
In 1870, in the Jour. R. As. Soc. N. S. Vol. IV. p. 81 ff., Mr. Fergusson published
his paper “ On Indian Chronology,” which had been read before the Society two years
earlier, in February, 1869. In this paper, the facts were dealt with in considerable detail,
and with a good deal of soundness, except for one serious and radical error, viz. that
the Early and Western Chalukyas and the Kings of Valabhî belonged to one and the same
family, of which the Chalukyas were the southern branch (id. pp. 89, 91) ; the grounds for
this assumption seem to be nothing except the supposition that (id. p. 94) it was
Dharasêna IV., the first paramount sovereign in the Valabhî family,¹ who overthrew the
Western Chalukya king Vikramâditya II., the son of Pulikêśin II. ; but this, again, is
a purely mistaken supposition, in support of which there is not the slightest evidence
whatever, and against which there is plenty, of the most conclusive kind. Setting aside
this, and other important mistakes,—such as his endorsement of Dr. Bhau Daji’s reading
of Guptasya kâlât in the Junâgaḍh inscription of Skandagupta, but his variation of the
translation, so as to make it mean, not “ from the era of Gupta,” but (id. p. 112) “ from
the era of the Guptas ;” such as his assumption (id. pp. 108, 126) that the Udayagiri cave
inscription of the year 82, and the Sâñchi inscription of the year 93, belong to the time
of Chandragupta I., with the result that his son Samudragupta could not have ascended
the throne before A.D. 411 ; and such as (id. p. 118) his identification of the Budhagupta
of the Êraṇ pillar inscription with the Buddhagupta of Magadha, mentioned by Hiuen
Tsiang,² -there is a good deal that is sound in the arguments employed and the results
¹ Mr. Fergusson says Dharasêna III. ; but this is an evident mistake.
² On this point, Mr. Fergusson wrote—“I do not think the difference of spelling here indicated, of any
importance. Hiuen Tsiang's name was translated first from Sanskrit into Chinese, and from Chinese
into French ; and might easily have been more changed in the process.”—The same mistake has been
made in more recent times. And I will, therefore, now point out that the two names are utterly dis-
tinct, and belong to totally different persons. In respect of the king mentioned by Hiuen Tsiang (Beal's
Buddh. Rec. West. World, Vol. II. p. 168 ff. ; Julien's Hiouen Thsang, Vol. I. p. 149 f., Vol. III. p. 41 ff.),
we are not dependent on the correctness of the restoration in the French or English translation. Hiuen
Tsiang gives, as the first component of this name, the well-known Fo-t'o, which he uses so habitually
for Buddha, the teacher, the holy Śâkya-Tathâgata, and in respect of which he could not possibly be

arrived at; but, of course, they were established only as matters of argument, and not by
means of any definite proof. On the grounds that (id. p. 90) it was inconceivable that the
Valabhî era should not have been used by the Kings of Valabhî themselves; that (id. p.
89 f.), by applying the Valabhî dates to A.D. 318, we obtained a Dhruvasêna, who would
answer to the Dhruvapaṭu who was on the throne at the time of Hiuen Tsiang's
visit to India; that (id. p. 104), in addition to the inherent improbability in Albêrûnî's
statement about the Gupta era dating from the extermination of the dynasty, there was no
battle, massacre, or other important event that could be placed in A.D. 318; that
(id. p. 104), the latest date of the Guptas themselves being that of Budhagupta in the year
165, this, if referred to the Śaka era, with the result of A.D. 243, still left a gap of seventy-
five years, with no names to fill it, before we arrived at the last of the Guptas in A.D. 318,
and (id. p. 107) a still longer interval if referred to the Vikrama era; on the general admis-
sion that (id. p. 121) the order of succession was, first the so-called Sâhs, then the Guptas,
and then the Kings of Valabhî; and on architectural grounds, and general historical and
numismatic arguments which are not within the scope of my present remarks, Mr. Fergusson
arrived at the conclusions that (id. p. 128 ff.) the Vikrama era of B.C. 57 was founded by
the so-called Sâh dynasty; that this dynasty continued down to A.D. 235: that there
then rose the Andhra dynasty, in which Gôtamiputra was the king of Western India in
A.D. 318-19; that the Valabhî era was established then, probably on the building of the
city of Valabhî; that the Mahârâja Gupta, the founder of the Gupta family, must have
been the viceroy of one of the Andhra kings, but not necessarily at the time of the build-
ing of Valabhî; and that the Early Guptas and the Kings of Valabhî thus derived the era
which afterwards came to be known by the names of both of them. And, in the course of
this paper, Mr. Fergusson first broached the theory (id. p. 131 ff.) that no such person
as Vikramâditya, the traditional enemy of the Śakas and founder of the Vikrama era,
existed anterior to the Christian era, or within some centuries of that time; but that, "some
"time after Vikramâditya of Mâlwa," whom he placed (id. p. 90) about A.D. 490 to 530,
"had rendered the name so celebrated, the Hindus, on the revival of Brâhmaṇism, wished to
"possess an era which should, at least, be older than the Buddhist era of Śâlivâhana," i.e.
he Śaka era. "At that time, the Sâh era, established by Nahapâṇa, was vacant, having
"fallen into disuse on the destruction of that dynasty and its supersession by the era of
"Valabhî; and that the Hindus then appropriated it, by attaching to it th name that it
"now bears, and inventing the history requisite to render its adoption feasible." This
adaptation of the era was then allotted by him either to the time of Bhôja of Dhârâ, about
A.D. 993, or to the restoration of the Western Châlukya dynasty, in A.D. 973.

mistaken. Whereas, in respect of the king mentioned in the Eraṇ inscription, the metre, as well as
the perfect clearness of the reading, shews as conclusively that the first component of that name is
Budha, the planet Mercury. Sanskrit scholars will recognise at once the thorough difference between
the two names.—For my own remarks on the date of Buddhagupta of Magadha, see the Ind. Ant.
Vol. XV. p. 251 f.

48 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
In 1871, in the Jour. R. As. Soc. N. S. Vol. V. p. 193 ff., General Cunningham
attached a note to Professor Dowson's paper on "Ancient Inscriptions from Mathurâ;"
in which (id. p. 196), on the grounds that both Kanishka and Huvishka must have preceded
the establishment of the Śaka era, he referred the dates of their inscriptions to the
Vikrama era; and he quoted the reference, in the Allâhâbâd pillar inscription, to the Daiva-
putras and Shâhânushâhis, "who must have been the Turushka kings of the Pañjâb,"
as shewing that Samudragupta was "a contemporary of the Turushka kings, whose domi-
"nion, according to the Chinese authorities, had already passed away in the beginning of
"the third century after Christ." As to this last point, I will only say that what we
have in reality, in the Allâhâbâd inscription, is, not the means of fixing the date of
Samudragupta through the Chinese accounts, but the means of correcting the Chinese
accounts by the date of Samudragupta.
In the same year, 1871, General Cunningham published his Archæol. Surv. Ind.
Vol. I., containing, in the first part of it, his Archæological Report for the season 1861-62,
which, as already noted, had appeared originally in the Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. XXXII.
pp. iii to cix. In this (id. p. 94), he expressed the opinion that the Śaka era, for the
Early Gupta dates, would accord best with the then general acceptance of the fact that
the Gupta dynasty was overthrown in A.D. 319; and he consequently now interpreted the
date of the year 141, in the Kahâum pillar inscription of Skandagupta, as equivalent to
A.D. 219. And, incidentally, (id. p. 139 f.) in connection with the question of the Vikra-
ma and Śaka eras, he identified the Vikramâditya, mentioned by Albêrûnî,—in com-
memoration of whose victory over the Śakas at Karûr, between Multân and Lônî, one
hundred and thirty-five years after the establishment of the Vikrama era of B.C. 57, the
Śaka era was supposed to have been founded,¹—with the Śâlivâhana, whose name came
subsequently to be connected by the Hindus with the Śaka era, as the founder of it. The
same opinion, as to the dominion of the Guptas having probably commenced about A.D.
78, was also expressed by him in 1873, in the Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. III. p. 4; in which
volume he also (id. p. 41 ff.) referred the dates of Kanishka and Huvishka to the Vikrama
era; proposed to take the three kings Hushka, Jushka, and Kanishka, of the Râjataram-
giṇî, i. 168-73, as being represented by the Vikramâditya who, according to Mêrutuṅga,
reigned for sixty years; and fixed the Indo-Scythian rule, in India, as commencing B.C.
57 and ending A.D. 79, "at which latter date, according to Hindu belief, the dynasty of
"Vikramâditya was finally overthrown by Śâlivâhana."
In 1872, in the Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. X. p. 72 ff., Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar
threw in his adherence to the opinion held by Mr. Thomas and Dr. Bhau Daji, that the
era to which the dates in the Valabhî grants refer, is the Śaka era, as affording "an in-
"telligible starting-point for the Valabhî era, ascertained by Colonel Tod to have com-
"menced in A.D. 319;" his own opinion as to the establishment of this Valabhî era
¹ Albêrûnî's India; Sachau's Translation; Vol. II. p. 6.

[Header]
THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 49

being that it commemorated the coronation, as Mahârâja, of Drôṇasiṁha, the second son of
the Sênâpati Bhaṭârka, by a sovereign who, in the Valabhî grants, e.g. No. 38, line 5, page
168, is described as "the paramount master, the sole lord of the circumference of the
"territory of the whole earth;" from the date of this event, he held, the members of the
Valabhî family were independent kings. In 1874, however, in the Ind. Ant. Vol. III. p.
303 f., on the grounds that the alphabet used in the Valabhî grants resembles very much
that used in the Western Chalukya grants belonging to the early part of the eighth cen-
tury, and for other reasons not fully specified, he modified this opinion, so far as "to think
"that the Valabhî dates must be referred to an era other than the Śaka;" and he proceeded
to join Mr. Fergusson in referring them to an era commencing A D. 318. But he still
maintained a verbal difference with Mr. Fergusson, to the effect that, since in the Valabhî
family there was no individual named 'Bâllaba,' or Valabhî, "it is doubtful whether the
"era was really of Bhaṭârka's family. If the era was not the era of the dynasty, but was
"in use in Surâshṭra before the foundation of the dynasty, the Valabhî dates may be referred
"to it. Or, more likely, since the Guptas, who preceded that dynasty, introduced their
"era into the country, the grants must have been dated in that era. But there is no differ-
"ence in effect; since the initial dates of both are the same."
In 1873, in the Ind. Ant. Vol. II. p. 313, Col. J. W. Watson published the follow-
ing tradition, attributed to the bards of Kâṭhiâwâḍ:—"The bards relate that Vâlâ Râma
"Râjâ, son of Vâlâ Warsingjî, reigned at Junâgaḍh and Vanthalî. He was famed for his
"munificence; and it is told of him that, when his beard was shaved for the first time, he
"gave in charity twenty-one villages, and distributed fifty lakhs of rupees¹ as alms to the
"poor. Râma Râjâ was of the Vâlâ race. It is said in Saurâshṭra that, previous to the
"rise of the kingdom of Junâgaḍh-Vanthalî, Valabhînagara was the capital of Gujarât.
"The rise of Valabhî is thus told by the bards. The Gupta kings reigned between the
"Ganges and Jamnâ rivers. One of these kings sent his son, Kumârapâlagupta, to
"conquer Saurâshṭra; and placed his viceroy Chakrapâṇi, son of Prâṇadatta, one of his
"Amîrs, to reign as a provincial Governor in the city of Wâmanasthalî (the modern Van-
"thalî). Kumârapâla now returned to his father's kingdom. His father reigned twenty-
"three years after the conquest of Saurâshṭra, and then died; and Kumârapâla ascended
"the throne. Kumârapâlagupta reigned twenty years, and then died, and was succeeded
"by Skandagupta; but this king was of weak intellect. His Sênâpati Bhaṭṭâraka, who
"was of the Gehlot race, taking a strong army, came into Saurâshṭra, and made his rule
"firm there. Two years after this, Skandagupta died. The Sênâpati now assumed the
"title of King of Saurâshṭra; and, having placed a Governor at Wâmanasthalî, founded
"the city of Valabhînagara. At this time, the Gupta race were dethroned by foreign in-
"vaders. The Sênâpati was a Gehlot, and his forefathers reigned at Ayôdhyânagarî,
"until displaced by the Gupta dynasty. After founding Valabhî, he established his rule

[Footnote]
¹ Nominally, half a million pounds sterling.

50 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
"in Saurâshṭra, Kachchh, Lâṭadêśa, and Mâlava. The Vâḷâs were a branch of the Geh-
"lots. After the fall of Valabhî, the Vâḷâ governor of Wâmanasthalî became indepen-
"dent. Râma Râjâ had no son; but his sister was married to the Râjâ of Nagar Ṭhâṭha,"
&c. This story was criticised by Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar in the Ind. Ant. Vol. III. p. 303;
his opinion being that "the tradition itself, though interesting, as giving the truth gene-
"rally, cannot be considered to be true in the particulars; . . . . . . . . . . it simply gives
"us what was known before, that the Valabhîs succeeded the Guptas." In reply to this,
and in defence of the supposed tradition, Mr. Thomas¹ said that it "may be imperfect, as
"such old-world tales are liable to become; but there is an instructive confirmation of
"one obscure portion of the earlier history given by the Muhammadan inquirer,² and a
"clear explanation of the causes of the local transfer of power, combined with an impor-
"tant reference to the conventional imperial delegation of authority to a son, as well as an
"indication of the length of the reigns of two kings, to be found nowhere else; and, to
"complete the tale, we trace in its details, a fully reasonable accord with the more precise
"data furnished by inscriptions and coins." Of course, this supposed tradition is of that
half-perfect kind which carries its own confirmation with it; if we could but accept it.
Nothing is more natural, for instance, than the introduction of the termination pâla into
the middle of the name of Kumâragupta; and than the substitution of Prâṇadatta and
Chakrapâṇi for the Parṇadatta, and his son Chakrapâlita, of the Junâgaḍh rock inscription
of Skandagupta, and of Bhaṭṭâraka for Bhaṭârka, as the name of the upstart Sênâpati.
But no further attention need be paid to the matter; since I have it on the best possible
authority,—that of Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji himself,—that the supposed tradition has only
sprung into existence within the last fifteen or twenty years, and owes its origin only to
certain speculations of his, which found their way to the bards through an educational
treatise! It simply furnishes an instance of the extreme suspicion with which we must
view every Hindu historical legend.
In 1874, in the Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. XLIII. Part I. p. 363 ff., the question was
considered by Dr. Rajendralala Mitra, in then bringing to notice the Indôr grant of
Skandagupta, No. 16, page 68. He introduced (id. p. 369 ff.) a new, and perfectly gra-
tuitous, point in the Kahâum pillar inscription, by connecting the word śântê, in line 3,
with varshê, in line 4; and, hankering after the meanings given by Mr. Prinsep and
Dr. Hall, to the word śânta in particular, though he aimed also at giving to the whole verse
a purport which should be more correct than that made out by them, and should be an im-
provement even on Dr. Bhau Daji's translation, he translated (id. p. 371) "in the empire
"of Skandagupta; the year one hundred and forty-one having passed away." The paper
adds nothing of any value to the general discussion; beyond (id. p. 371) following, in con-
tradiction to Dr. F. E. Hall, Prof. H. H. Wilson's rendering of the expression in the Mahâ-
¹ Archæol. Surv. West. Ind. Vol. II. p. 30. ² i.e. Albêrûnî.