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

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.

râja Hastin's grants as shewing that the supremacy of the Gupta kings was still continuing
in his time; and beyond introducing (id. p. 368) Mr. Blochmann's proposed emendation
of the translation of Albêrûnî's statement, which I have quoted at page 28 above, note 1.
But Dr. R. Mitra failed to see the interpretation that might be put upon the emended
rendering; and he expressed his own conviction (id. p. 372) that the Early Gupta dates,
and those of Budhagupta and of the Mahârâja Hastin, are recorded in the Śaka era; and
that Albêrûnî's Gupta era commemorates the expulsion of the Guptas from Gujarât by the
Kings of Valabhî.
In 1876, in the Archæol. Surv. West. Ind. Vol. II. p. 18 ff.; Mr. Thomas published
a chapter on the "Sâh and Gupta Coins, &c.," in which, as already noted, he included
some strong remarks in support of the authenticity of the supposed bardic tradition from
Kâṭhiâwâḍ, that had been brought to notice by Col. Watson. In his tabular statement
of the Early Gupta dynasty (id. p. 70), he referred the Gupta dates, as before, to the
Saka era, and, with them, the date on Tôramâṇa's coin, which he interpreted (id. p. 66) as
182; on the authority of the supposed tradition, he placed the Sênâpati Bhaṭârka,
the founder of the Valabhî family, specifically two years before the death of Skandagupta;
and he added a remark indicating apparently that his opinion was, that the Valabhî
era, commencing A.D. 319, was established by the Mahârâja Dharasêna II., "who seems
"to have been the earliest monarch of any real pretensions."
In 1878, in the Ind. Ant. Vol. VII. p. 79 ff., Dr. Bühler brought to notice the newly
discovered Alînâ grant of Śîlâditya VII. of Valabhî, No. 39, page 171, which gives for him
the date of Gupta-Saṁvat 447 (A.D. 766-67), and the biruda, or title or second name, of
Dhrûbhaṭa or Dhruvabhaṭa. Drawing attention (id. p. 80) to the pointed similarity of
this name with the T'u-lu-p'o-po-tu of Hiuen Tsiang's account, and suggesting that Hiuen
Tsiang's translation of the name by 'constantly intelligent' might be due to incorrect
information, or to some confusion between bhaṭa, 'a warrior,' and bhaṭṭa, 'a learned man,'
Dr. Bühler expressed himself as inclined to believe that Śîlâditya VII. was Hiuen Tsiang's
contemporary; the result of which would be that the era used in the Valabhî grants must
have commenced either shortly before or shortly after A.D. 200. He pointed out, however,
(id. p. 81) that the occurrence of the title of Dhrûbhaṭa or Dhruvabhaṭa in this grant, was
in reality only one point among many, requiring careful consideration, in connection with
a question that was by no means a simple one.
In 1879, in the Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. IX. p. 9 ff., General Cunningham brought
to notice the grant of the Mahârâja Hastin, of the year 191, No. 23, page 106; the Bhumarâ
pillar inscription, No. 24, page 110; the Mahârâja Saṁkshôbha's grant, of the year 209,
No. 25, page 112; and, with the exception of No. 28, page 125, the grants of the Mahâ-
râjas of Uchchakalpa, No. 26, page 117, to No. 31, page 135, ranging from the year 174
to the year 214. And, in the grants of Hastin and Saṁkshôbha, he followed Prof. Wilson
in giving to the expression Gupta-nṛipa-râjya-bhuktau interpretations which, though
g 2

52 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
not grammatically, were substantially correct, in shewing that it indicated that the Gupta
sovereignty was still continuing when the grants in question were issued. To his notice
of these inscriptions he annexed some remarks (id. p. 16 ff.) on the "Date of the Guptas,"
in which he arrived at the conclusion that the probable epoch of the Gupta era was A.D.
194-95, and its commencement A.D. 195-96. Starting with accepting it to be almost
certain that Śîlâditya VII. was the king of Valabhî who was reigning at the time of Hiuen
Tsiang's visit in A.D. 640, he pointed out (id. p. 17) that, as the year 447 of the grant
might fall twenty-five or thirty years either earlier or later than the pilgrim's visit, the initial
point of the Gupta era might lie anywhere between A.D. 163 and 223. Within this period,
he found, the only year which would suit the conditions of the record in the Êraṇ pillar
inscription of Budhagupta and the Môrbî grant of Jâiṅkadêva, was A.D. 194-95 as the
epoch of the era. Applying this epoch to the Êraṇ date, the result (id. p. 18) was A.D.
359; in which year the twelfth lunar day of the bright fortnight of Âshâḍha, according to
his calculation, was, as required, a Thursday; viz. the 24th June. And applying it to the
solar eclipse mentioned in the Môrbî grant, which he assumed to have occurred on the
new-moon day of the month Mâgha, five days before the writing of the grant, the result
was the 10th February, A.D. 780, "on which very day there was an eclipse of the sun,
"visible in Eastern Asia."¹ The fourth test, which, he indicated, should be applied, was the
mention of some of the saṁvatsaras of Jupiter's Twelve-Year Cycle in the grants of the
Mahârâjas Hastin and Saṁkshôbha. Exact information about this cycle, however, was
not then forthcoming; and, in making the Mahâ-Vaiśâkha saṁvatsara correspond
(id. p. 19) with A.D. 350, which, with the epoch of A.D. 194-95, would be the equi-
valent of Gupta-Saṁvat 156, recorded in the Mahârâja Hastin's grant, No. 21, page 93,
he seems to have acted on pure assumption; while, in order to make the Mahâ-Âśvayuja
saṁvatsara, recorded in the same Mahârâja's grant of Gupta-Saṁvat 163, No. 22, page
100, fit in with his view of the cycle, he had to alter² the original date from 163 to 173, with
the result of A.D. 367. On this occasion, General Cunningham (id. p. 21) again referred
the establishment of the Gupta era to Chandragupta I.; and he placed the foundation of the
Valabhî era of A.D. 319 in the twentieth year of the reign of Kumâragupta. And, in
connection with this Valabhî era, he expressed the opinion (id. p. 20) that it could have no
connection whatever with the downfall of the Gupta dynasty; for the reason that, applied
to the epoch of A.D. 194-95, the dates of 138 and 139 in the Junâgaḍh rock inscription of
Skandagupta, No. 14, page 56, shewed that the Gupta dominion was still intact, in Saurâsh-
ṭra or Kâṭhiâwâḍ, up to³ A.D. 333. And he expressed the opinion that the apparent incon-
¹ For the full details of this eclipse, see Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 308.
² See page 102, note 1, below my introductory remarks to this inscription, where I have shewn
that a very material obstacle exists in the way of this alteration of the text. Also, as will be seen
further on, from the correct point of view as regards the Gupta era, any alteration is quite un-
necessary.
³ This is with the supposed date of 139. But the real dates in the record are 136, 137, and 138:
they do not include 139.

sistencies in Albêrûnî's statements arose from his finding that the Guptas and the Kings of
Valabhî had actually used one and the same era, and from his taking it for granted that
that era must have been the era which he found to be called the Valabhî era, and to have
commenced in A.D. 319. He placed the Sênâpati Bhaṭârka of Valabhî in A.D. 339
(id. p. 21), twenty years after the establishment of the Valabhî era of 319. And, inter-
preting the coin-dates of Tôramâṇa as 52 and 53 (id. p. 27), he referred them (id. p. 21)
to the Valabhî era of A.D. 319.
The subject was taken up again by General Cunningham in 1880, in the Archæol.
Surv. Ind. Vol. X. p. 111 ff., in his Appendix on "The Gupta Era;" and on this occa-
sion he arrived at the final conclusion, that (id. p. 126) the commencement of the
era was probably in A.D. 167 and, therefore, its epoch was A.D. 166-67. Of the
leading general facts on which he relied (id. p. 116), the first was that Samudragupta's
date seemed to be fixed approximately, within rather narrow limits, by two facts; viz.—
(1) "his own mention" (in the Allahâbâd pillar inscription) "of the tribute received from
"the Daivaputra, Shâhi, Shâhânushâhi, which we now know to be the titles of the Yue-chi
"Indo-Scythians, Kanishka, Huvishka, and Vâsudeva, and their successors, shews him to
"have been a contemporary of some prince of this race;" and (2) "according to
"Chinese authority, the Yue-chi, during the period between A.D. 220-80, put their kings
"to death, and established military chiefs." From a comparison of these two statements,
General Cunningham inferred that Samudragupta must have reigned before the time when
the Yue-chi put their kings to death, or not later than some time between A.D. 200 and
250; and that his father, Chandragupta I., must be placed towards the end of the second
century A.D. But, with regard to this, I have only to repeat a remark which I have
already had occasion to make; viz. that what we really have, is, not the means of fixing the
period of Samudragupta through the Chinese accounts, but the means of correcting the
Chinese accounts through the Early Gupta chronology. The second leading point was that,
as already indicated by him, the Alinâ grant of Śîlâditya VII. shewed that the initial point
of the Gupta era must fall between A.D. 164 and 224. Putting these two approximate
results together, he inferred that the beginning of the Gupta era must have been
not very far from A.D. 180 to 200. Meanwhile, he had obtained certain information
regarding the Twelve-Year Cycle of Jupiter, from Bapu Deva Shastri, Professor of
Mathematics in the Benares College, which enabled him now to take this test also into
consideration; with the result that, subject to the approximate limits which he had
already arrived at on general grounds, and having regard also to the week-day recorded
in the Êraṇ pillar inscription of Budhagupta, the only years that would meet all the re-
quirements of the case were A.D. 166-67 as the epoch, and A D. 167-68 as the com-
mencement, of the Gupta era. In order, however, to make all the saṁvatsaras of the
Twelve-Year Cycle of Jupiter, mentioned in the grants of the Mahârâjas Hastin and
Saṁkshôbha, tally with this epoch, he had still to maintain the alteration of the date of

54 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
Gupta-Saṁvat 163 into 173. Accepting this alteration, his theory and arrangement of
the saṁvatsaras of the Twelve-Year Cycle, and his general results, have seemed sound,
consistent, and reliable. But it is now known that his process for determining the
saṁvatsaras is wrong, and cannot give satisfactory results. This part of the subject will
be explained fully further on. Meanwhile I will only state here that General Cunning-
ham's theory of the Twelve-Year Cycle is based on the assumption, the incorrectness of
which can now be proved, that the saṁvatsaras of it begin and end with the luni-solar years;
and that his process for determining the saṁvatsaras (id. pp. vi. 114 f., and Indian Eras,
p. 27 f.) only gives the saṁvatsara that is current, according to the sign-passing system,
at the commencement of any given luni-solar year; it does not provide for the really
essential point, even of this system, which is the determination of the saṁvatsara that is
current on any given date in a given year after the commencement of it. On this
occasion (id. p. 112) General Cunningham fully accepted Albêrûnî's apparent state-
ment regarding the extinction of the Gupta sovereignty, in the Valabhî country, in A.D.
319, in which year he now placed the Sênâpati Bhaṭârka of Valabhî. And he recorded
the opinion (id. p.126) that the foundation of the Valabhî era of A.D. 319 might very
probably have been brought about by the opportunity afforded by the death of Skandagupta,
for whom the latest recorded date, supplied by a coin of the year 149, would be, according
to his new theory, A.D. 315. In general support of his results, he also quoted certain
numismatic facts, such as (id. p. 112) that a comparison of the gold coins of the Guptas
with those of the Indo-Scythian king Vâsudêva, shewed that they must have followed
him very closely; while a comparison of their silver coins with those of the Satraps
of Saurâshṭra,—formerly called the Sâh kings,—and those of the Valabhî family, proved
distinctly that the Guptas must have followed the Satraps of Saurâshṭra and preceded
the Valabhî family; but this is a line of study with which we are not concerned in the
present inquiry.
In the same year, in the Jour. R. As. Soc. N. S. Vol. XII. p. 259 ff., Mr. Fergusson
issued his paper "On the Śaka, Saṁvat, and Gupta Eras," as a supplement to his original
paper "On Indian Chronology," which has been noticed at page 46 f. above. In his
previous paper, he had adopted General Cunningham's view that Kanishka died A.D. 24.
Now, however, on arguments based (id. p. 264) on the comparative state of decay exhi-
bited by coins of Kanishka and by some belonging to the Roman Consular period, found
in Kanishka's Stûpa at 'Manikyala;' on the understanding (id. p. 265) that the legend of
St. Thomas having visited the East in the reign of a certain king Gondophares,—which
visit, if it really occurred, must have been after A.D. 33 and probably before A.D. 50,—is
at any rate admissible so far as to shew that the inventors of the legend must have
known that the king of 'Taxila' at that time was Gondophares, whose name occurs, on
coins, among a series of kings "who reigned in the north-west of India, certainly subse-
"quent to the fall of the Greek dynasties, and as certainly anterior to Kanishka;" and

on similar grounds, he arrived at the conclusion (id. p. 261) that the Śaka era was estab-
lished by Kanishka, and took the name of the Śâlivâhana era from having been intro-
duced into India in the reign of Śâtakarṇi II. of the Andhra dynasty, the "chief of the
"Śâtavâhana or Śâlivâhana race." As regards the Gupta era, Mr. Fergusson took this
opportunity of recording his impression (id. p. 285) that his view of it "would
"never have been considered doubtful, had it not been that the chronology of that period
"had hitherto been based almost exclusively on numismatic researches." And, in re-
peating his conviction (id. p. 281) that the commencement of the era was in A.D. 319,
and (id. p. 270) that it was established in the reign of the Andhra king Gôtamiputra,
he also now maintained (id. p. 271) that the era did not necessarily date from the acces-
sion of the king, or from his death, or from any specific event in his reign, but
that, in order that dates in the new era might be easily convertible into the old era,
the commencement of the new era was simply fixed by the expiration of four of Jupiter's
Sixty-Year Cycles from the commencement of the Śaka era. In respect of his theory that
the Śaka era was established by Kanishka, and of some others of his general results, I see
no reason, at present, to dispute them, apart from the arguments on which they were
based. But a few words seem necessary in connection with the key-note to his whole
paper, which is plainly to be recognised in his desire to find for the Vikrama era some
origin other than its actual establishment in B.C. 57, and, according to tradition, by a king
Vikrama or Vikramâditya, actually reigning at that time. He had already thrown out this
suggestion in his previous paper. And now he claimed that, granting the correctness of
his other conclusions, there could be found (id. p. 271) no direct evidence for the existence
of a Vikrama era in the first century B.C., nor for a very long time afterwards; for so
long, in fact, that it was impossible to establish any connection between a king Vikrama
and the original establishment of the era. Referring to two passages in the Râjataraṁ-
giṇî, one of which¹ speaks of Pratâpâditya, who was brought from another country to be
crowned king of Kaśmîr, as a kinsman of a king Vikramâditya who, the book states, was
wrongly thought by some to be the Śakâri or 'enemy of the Śakas,' and the other of which ²
states that, at the time of the death of Hiraṇya of Kaśmîr, there reigned at Ujjain a powerful
king Vikramâditya, who had the second name of Harsha, and who also had destroyed the
Śakas; and quoting also Albêrûnî's explanation that the Vikramâditya who, according to
the tradition given to him, conquered the Śakas a hundred and thirty-five years after the
establishment of the Vikrama era, could not be identical with the founder of that era,—the
conclusions at which he arrived were (id. p. 274) that the Vikramâditya who conquered the
Śakas at the battle of Karûr, was Harsha-Vikramâditya of Ujjain; that his death took
place about A.D. 550, and the battle of Karûr, in A.D. 544; that, about or before A.D.
1000, when "the struggle with the Buddhists was over, and a new era was opening for the
"Hindu religion," the Hindus sought to establish some new method of marking time, to

¹ Calcutta edition, ii. line 6; page 15.          ² Calcutta edition, iii. lines 125, 128; page 26.

56 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
supersede the Buddhist Saka era of Kanishka; that, the Guptas and the Kings of Valabhî
having then passed away, and having also been insignificant and of doubtful orthodoxy, in
looking back for some name and event of sufficient importance to mark the commence-
ment of a new era, they hit on the name of Vikramâditya, as the most illustrious known to
them, and his victory at Karûr as the most important event of his reign; and that then,
since the date of that victory, A.D. 544, was too recent to be adopted, they antedated
the epoch by ten cycles of sixty years, thus arriving at B.C. 56 for their Vikrama era,
and also, not content with this, devised another era, which they called the Harsha era, from
the other part of his name, and the epoch of which was fixed in B.C. 456, by placing it
ten even centuries before the date of the battle of Karûr. It is an actual fact, that the
name of Vikrama does not occur in connection with the era of B.C. 57 until a comparatively
late date.¹ But Mr. Fergusson's arguments are vitiated throughout by the undue reliance
which he placed on the quasi-historical records of the Râjataraṁgiṇî. The early chrono-
logy of Kaśmîr has still to be fixed; and the means of adjusting it are to be found in A.D.
533 as the date of Mihirakula, who, according to the book itself, reigned in the eighth
century B.C. And, if the date of Harsha-Vikramâditya of Ujjain is really dependent on the
date of Hiraṇya of Kaśmîr, it certainly cannot be placed as early as the sixth century A.D.
In 1881, in the Ind. Ant. Vol. X. p. 213 ff., Dr. Oldenberg published his paper
"On the Dates of ancient Indian Inscriptions and Coins," the whole of which well deserves
careful study. Holding (id. p. 214) as the result of Herr von Sallet's numismatic resear-
ches, that Kanishka, Huvishka, and Vâsudêva, cannot be placed earlier than the first
century A.D., and must be placed before A.D. 200; quoting the Bâdâmi cave inscription
of the Western Chalukya king Maṅgalîsa,² dated Śaka-Saṁvat 500 expired, as proving
conclusively that the Śaka era ran from the coronation, not the defeat or death, of
a Śaka king (or kings); finding (id. p. 214 f.), from the coins, that Kanishka belonged
undoubtedly to the Śaka tribe; and finding also (id. p. 215) that, at the time to which
Kanishka must be referred, there was no Indian king who at all equalled him in power and
fame, he arrived at the primary conclusion that the era used in the inscriptions of
Kanishka, Huvishka, and Vâsudêva, is the Śaka era, and that the event from which
it dates, is the accession of Kanishka. Working from this starting-point, after indicating
very correctly (id. p. 217) that the fundamental mistake which vitiates the researches
of Mr. Thomas and others "consists in their touching only incidentally upon the direct
"and very clear ancient tradition," preserved by Albêrûnî, "which we possess regarding
"the Gupta era, instead of placing distinctly this tradition in the foreground, and of
"systematically discussing the question whether any serious objections can be opposed
¹ I am not prepared at present to specify the exact date. But the 'Gyâraspur' or 'Gyârispur'
inscription (Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. X. p. 33, and Plate xi.) shews that the era was still known as
the Mâlava era, in Central India, down to about A.D. 880.
² Ind. Ant. Vol. VI. p. 363 f. and Vol. X. p. 57 ff.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 57

" to it," he arrived, by a series of historical, numismatic, and palæographical arguments, at
the conclusion that the rise of the Early Guptas must be placed in A.D. 319, and their
downfall about A.D. 480. In the course of the paper, he suggested (id. p. 219) that
the T'u-lu-p'o-po-tu of Hiuen Tsiang may be Dêrabhaṭa of Valabhî, or may indicate one
of the Dharasênas or one of the earlier Śîlâdityas of that family; and that, at any
rate, the occurrence of the title Dhrûbhaṭa in the Alînâ grant, as only a secondary title,
furnishes no conclusive evidence against the commencement of the era in A.D. 319. He
announced (id. p. 220) that, with the epoch of A.D. 319, the record of the Êraṇ pillar
inscription of Budhagupta, that the twelfth lunar day of the bright fortnight of the month
Âshâḍha of Gupta-Saṁvat¹ 165 was a Thursday, was quite correct by the Tables and
formulæ in Warren's Kala-Sankalita. And (id. p. 222), referring to the supposed tradition
of the bards of Kâṭhiâwâḍ, he gave perfectly good reasons for holding, even without further
proof, that it was nothing but "a very poor compilation, pieced up of what those
' ' ' bards' knew by hearsay of the results of modern epigraphical and numismatical inves-
tigation."
In the same year, the general question was taken up again by Mr. Thomas, in his
paper on " The Epoch of the Guptas," published in the Jour. R. As. Soc. N. S. Vol.
XIII. p. 524 ff. On this occasion (id. p. 524) he abandoned the opinion that the dates
on the Sâh coins were to be referred to the supposed Harsha era commencing B.C.
456; and expressed himself as inclined to accept Mr. Newton's theory that they are recorded
in the Vikrama era of B.C. 57. But, as regards the Gupta era, he still (id. p. 549)
adhered to the view that it was identical with the Śaka era, or, at any rate, that the
Gupta dates were to be referred to the Śaka epoch. In this paper (id. p. 529 f.) he in-
troduced some other passages from Albêrûnî, shewing that eras had been established from
the death of 'Alexander the Founder' and of 'Yazdajird ben Shahryâr,' which were
used by him as indicating that Albêrûnî must have exercised due deliberation before
making the (supposed) statement that the Gupta era dated from the extermination
of the Guptas; and he brought forward a discovery (id. p. 545) that certain signs in
front of the horse's head on the reverse of some coins of 'Syalapati,' Sâmantadêva,
'Khadavayaka,' and Bhîmadêva, of Kâbul, represented, in various degrees of legibility,
the syllables Gu, Gup, and Gupta, which were consequently held to refer to the Gupta era
the conventional date, 617, which these signs introduced. He had previously suggested
A.D. 935 for the accession of Sâmantadêva.² And, pointing out that the conventional

¹ Or, rather, of Gupta-Saṁvat 166; since he treated the record as meaning the year 165 expired
and 166 current. But the epoch would then be A.D. 318, not 319. It was probably through an
oversight that Dr. Oldenberg spoke in this connection of A.D. 319 as the epoch. Elsewhere
(id. pp. 215, 227) he distinctly specifies A.D. 319 as the beginning of the Gupta era; according to
which, A.D. 318 would be the epoch selected by him.
² Jour. R. As. Soc. F. S. Vol. IX. p. 179.
h

58 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM VOL. III.
date of 617, if added to A.D. 319, gave A.D. 936,—within one year of his date for
Sâmantadêva,—he quoted these coins (id. p. 544) as proof of "the practical survival of
"the method of dating from the extinction of the Gupta rule."
Closely connected with the preceding, is Sir E. Clive Bayley's paper "On certain
Dates occurring on the Coins of the Hindu kings of Kâbul, expressed in the Gupta Era
and in Arabic (or quasi-Arabic) numerals," published in 1882, in the Numismatic
Chronicle, Third Series, Vol. II. p. 128 ff. This paper was issued in support of his
theory of A.D. 189-(90) or 190-(91) for the epoch of the Gupta era; which was based to
a great extent on the apparent deduction from the Alînâ grant of Sîlâditya VII., noted
at page 51 above, that the era cannot have commenced later than A.D. 200; coupled
with his reading of "698 Gupta" on the earliest of the coins of 'Syalapati,' which, as he
placed 'Syalapati' between A.D. 887 and 916, would shew that the Gupta era commenc-
ed after A.D. 180. As regards the era of A.D. 319, his suggestion, based on the
weakness attributed to Skandagupta in the supposed tradition of the Kâṭhiâvâḍ bards,
was (id. p. 155 f.) that it might date from the death of Kumâragupta, and might memori-
alise a rebellion against Skandagupta by the members of the Valabhî family. The
latter dynasty, he held, still continued, in spite of any such circumstances, to use the
Gupta era. The key-note to the whole theory is to be found in Sir E. Clive Bayley's
agreement with Mr. Thomas, that the specified abbreviations of a full legend, which
must be taken as 'Guptasya Kâl,' were really to be found in the dates on the Kâbul
coins. But in details he differed widely from Mr. Thomas. Thus (id. p. 145) he
read the signs in the opposite way to that in which Mr. Thomas would read them; and,
instead of accepting the conventional date of 617, he found in the figures various values,
to suit the period, A.D. 887 to 916, which he assigned to 'Syalapati.' The question of
the true interpretation of the dates on the coins in question, depends chiefly on the real
period, still to be proved, that is to be assigned to 'Syalapati'¹ and the other kings in ques-

¹ In connection with this, I would draw special attention to the coin of 'Syalapati' figured in Prin-
sep's Essays, Vol. I. p. 304, Pl. xxv. No. 2, which, as now explained by Sir E. Clive Bayley's Table,
gives the unmistakable date of 814, traces of which are also discernible in No. 1 on the same Plate.
This No. 2 has behind the horseman the same monogram, u u, (not t t,) as Sir E. Clive Bayley's Nos.
25, 26, and 27 have; also, as explained by No. 1. it has in the upper corner, in front of the horseman,
the same symbol (interpreted by Sir E. Clive Bayley on his No. 20 as a rude imitation of adal, 'just
[weight or value]') that appears in the same position on others of these coins, and resembles a crescent
moon on the top of a short staff with a cross-handle. These points of similarity suggest that possibly
Sir E. Clive Bayley's Nos. 25, 26, and 27 (and others) belong really to 'Syalapati,' though his name is
not on the obverse. And the unmistakable date of 814 on at any rate Prinsep's Essays, Pl. xxv. No.
2, further suggests that the figures on Sir E. Clive Bayley's Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 10, should not be read as
707 and 727.—Sir E. Clive Bayley placed 'Syalapati' in A.D. 887 to 916; which would agree very
satisfactorily with the date of 814 on Prinsep's coin, if we might refer it to the Saka era, with the re-
sult of A.D. 891-92. Mr. Thomas (Jour. R. As. Soc. N. S. Vol. IX. p. 179) placed him about the
same time; viz. "early in the tenth century." On the other hand, General Cunningham (Archæol.
Surv. Ind. Vol. XIV. p. 45) has placed him rather earlier, about A.D. 800; but he quoted no authority
for this. I have not been able to find any other information as to the probable date of 'Syalapati.'

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 59

tion. And, without attempting any full discussion of the matter here, where it would be out of
place, I will only bring forward a few points to shew that, at any rate, Sir E. Clive Bayley's
interpretation of the dates is quite untenable. Of the coins in question, those that have the
clearest dates on them (id. Plate vii. Nos. 24 to 27), belong to some unnamed king. They
are not attributed to 'Syalapati;' but are considered to be rather more recent. It is admit-
ted, however, that they belong to the same series; and I take them first, because they are
so very clear. If we examine them with the help of Sir E. Clive Bayley's Table of
Numerals (id. Plate vii.), it is evident at once that No. 24 reads, not "802 Gu," but sim-
ply "804," with nothing after it; and that Nos. 25, 26, and 27 read, not "812 Gu," but
simply "814," again with nothing after it; the figures being, in fact, absolutely identical
with those which Sir E. Clive Bayley himself read as simply "814" on Nos. 19 to 23, 29
to 31, and 34. In these instances, the supposed Gu is nothing but the sign that makes
the difference in these numerals between a 2 and a 4. And Sir E. Clive Bayley's reading
further involves the peculiar anomaly that the figures have to be read in one direction,
from the rim of the coin, and the supposed Gu in the opposite direction, from the inside of
the coin; which results in the curious arrangement of "802 n⅁" and "812 n⅁." We have
here to note that Sir E. Clive Bayley reported (id. p. 145 f.) that Mr. Thomas, reading the
signs that were supposed to mean Gu, Gup, and Gupta, in the opposite way to that in which
he himself read them, read the whole date in one direction, from the inside of the coins,
and interpreted all the figures as giving only one uniform and conventional date, viz. "Gu
617," denoting the initial date of Sâmanta's dynasty according to the Gupta era. Allowing
for the possibility of the first sign being capable of meaning Gu, this way of interpreting the
figures seems to be equally well borne out by Sir E. Clive Bayley's Table. But the first sign
cannot mean Gu, and does not mean Gu. And a reference to the Table will shew imme-
diately that the figures have to be read, as Sir E. Clive Bayley read them, from the rims
of the coins; and that the dates are in reality nothing but 804 and 814, as I have pointed
out above. Of the coins of 'Syalapati' himself (Plate i. Nos. 3 to 5, and 7 to 10), No. 7
is read as "707," and Nos. 8, 9, and 10 as "727," without any supposed reference at all
to the Gupta era; and these readings are in accordance with the Table of Numerals, if the
dates are read from the rim of the coins, like the dates of Nos. 19 to 27, 29 to 31, and 34,
referred to above. On the other hand, if we might read the figures on these seven coins
from the inside, there appears no particular objection to interpreting them as respectively
"808" and "868." There remain Nos. 3, 4, and 5, which are read respectively as
"Gupta" with two doubtful figures, "98 Gu," and "99 Gu;" meaning (6)98 and (6)99
on the principle of "omitted hundreds." And these, unfortunately, are not so easy
to deal with; since,—though the signs that are supposed to mean Gupta must be in reality
numerals of some kind or another,—there is nothing in Sir E. Clive Bayley's Table, and
I can obtain nothing elsewhere, to explain their value as numerals. But, in attempting to
find a proper reading of them, we must in the first place notice that the sign which,

60 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
on Nos. 4 and 5, Sir E. Clive Bayley interpreted as the figure 9, and entered as such in his
Table, occupies exactly the position which is filled in Prinsep's coin No. 1, referred to on
page 58 above, note 1, by a symbol resembling a crescent moon on the top of a short
staff with a cross-handle ; and this suggests that the sign in question is not a figure at
all. I give here a reproduction of Sir E. Clive Bayley's representation (id.
Plate vi. No. 6) of the signs in question, which were supposed by him, and [Glyph]
by Mr. Thomas, to represent the word Gupta, and were claimed by him (id. p. Gu-pta.
127) to be "a fair rendering of the usual form of the word." What they really
mean, I will not attempt to decide ; beyond pointing out that, as I have said above, they
must be numerals of some kind or another. But it will be admitted at once, by any quali-
fied palæographist, that they answer in no way whatever to the usual form of the word Gupta,
and cannot be so interpreted in accordance with any known alphabet ; even though we
should follow Mr. Thomas (id. p. 128) in looking upon them as "a degraded and contracted
form of the word," or Sir E. Clive Bayley (id. p. 145) in holding them to be "a gross corrup-
tion of it." And to these remarks I will only add that, as I have shewn at page 19 ff. above, the
very expression Guptasya kâla or Gupta-kâla is a purely imaginary one, without any real
epigraphical existence ; and, therefore, abbreviations of it cannot possibly exist on
the Kâbul coins, or on any others. As a Postscript to his paper, Sir E. Clive Bayley
shortly afterwards issued some remarks on the Twelve-Year Cycle of Jupiter, as used
in the grants of the Mahârâjas Hastin and Saṁkshôbha. His views on this point, how-
ever, were radically vitiated, in the first place, by his following General Cunningham’s
mistaken assumption that the saṁvatsaras of this cycle always begin and end with the luni-
solar years ; and, further, by a series of mistakes which it is really difficult to know how to
criticise properly. He took the saṁvatsara that is mentioned in the Bhumarâ pillar
inscription, No. 24, page 110, to be Mahâ-Mârgaśira, instead of Mahâ-Mâgha ; a mistake
which threw this record out by two saṁvatsaras. He proved General Cunningham's results
to be right only in one instance out of the five, viz. in the case of this supposed Mahâ-Mârga-
śira saṁvatsara of the Bhumarâ record, by himself making them gratuitously wrong, in assum-
ing that General Cunningham's epoch for the era was A.D. 167-68, instead of A.D. 166-67.
And he entirely overlooked the fact that, as there are ordinarily twelve years in each cycle,
and as his own proposed epoch was exactly twenty-four years later than that proposed
by General Cunningham, his own results could be neither any more nor any less correct
than General Cunningham's under ordinary circumstances ; but would, in the particular
case, be less correct than General Cunningham’s, because, by General Cunningham's
Table, which he accepted as correct, there was an expunction of a saṁvatsara between
A.D. 394 and 395, which, while it did not affect General Cunningham's results, did affect
his own, in making Gupta-Saṁvat 209 coincide with the Mahâ-Kârttika saṁvatsara, instead
of Mahâ-Âśvayuja (for which, by the way, Sir E. Clive Bayley again wrote Mahâ-Mârgaśira)
as recorded in the grant itself, No. 25, page 112. In fact, a full examination of the original

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 61
paper and its Postscript, will shew that, for the proposed epoch of A.D. 190, there are
absolutely no grounds whatever; and that the theory has no importance at all, except in
introducing one of the side-issues which, endorsed by a name that carries authority,
have to be disposed of, before any settlement of the main question will be accepted as
final by general readers.
In 1883, General Cunningham published his Book of Indian Eras, in which he
recast, with some additions, his treatise on the Gupta era and the Twelve-year Cycle of
Jupiter, that had appeared in the Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. X. p. 111 ff.; and with the same
results as on the former occasion. He admitted (id p. x.) that the question of the Gupta
era had still not been quite finally settled. But, of the two dates, A.D. 167-68 and
262-63, to which his investigations seemed to limit him for the commencement of the
era, he still (id. p. 57) much preferred the earlier date, both as contrasted specially with
A.D. 262, and also as having (id. p. 58) "a better claim for acceptance than any other
that has yet been proposed." And, accordingly, in the column for the Gupta era in his
Table XVII., we find (id p. 142) the epoch entered as A.D. 166-67, and the commencement
as A.D. 167-68. The saṁvatsaras of the Twelve-year Cycle of Jupiter are shewn in another
column of the same Table; and, from his detailed remarks on this cycle (id. p. 26 ff.), we find
that his method of determining the saṁvatsaras was the same as that applied on the previous
occasion. In respect of the Valabhî era, he still held (id. pp. 53, 63) that the Verâwal
inscription of Valabhî-Saṁvat 945 proves that A.D. 319 was its commencement; not its
epoch. And he also (id. p. 50) seems to indicate very clearly that, in his opinion, the
scheme of the years of this era was identical with that of the years of the southern
Vikrama era, commencing with the first day of the bright fortnight of the month Kârttika
(October-November). He also held (id. p. 57) "that the era used by the Valabhî kings
"was that of the Guptas, seems to be almost certain; as the Sênâpati Bhaṭârka, the founder
"of the Valabhî dynasty, is said," in the supposed tradition of the bards of Kâṭhiâwâḍ,
"to have been the governor of Surâshṭra during the last two years of Skandagupta's
reign." And he suggested (id. p. 53) that it is to this use by the Valabhî family, of the
Gupta era of A.D. 166-67, instead of the Valabhî era itself, that we must attribute all the
existing confusion. Of the new points brought forward on this occasion, the most
important is (id. pp. x f., 47 ff., 58) the reference to the Dhiniki copper-plate grant of king
Jâikadêva of Saurâshṭra, published by Dr. Bühler in the Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 151. This
grant is dated in Vikrama-Saṁvat 794, equivalent to A.D. 736-37; and, on the assumption
that it is genuine, and that this Jâikadêva is identical with the Jâiṅka of the Môrbî grant,
the date of which, (Gupta)-Saṁvat 585 expired, by General Cunningham's view would
represent A.D. 751-52, the synchronism established by the two grants would, of course, lend
strong support to his theory. Upon a full examination, however, of the details of the
date, which from the first evidently contained elements of doubt, I think that this Dhiniki

62 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.

grant must certainly be rejected as spurious.¹ If not so, then it can only be held that Jâiṅka
and Jâikadêva were distinct and separate persons. Under any circumstances, this grant
is of no use in connection with the question of the Gupta era.

¹ In this grant, the date (from the published lithograph; Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 155, and Plate,
line 1 ff.) runs—Vikrama-saṁvatsara-śatêshu saptasu chatur-navaty-adhikêshv=aṁkataḥ 974 Kârt-
tikamâs-âpara-pakshê amâvâsyâyâṁ Âdityavârê Jyêshṭhâ-nakshatrê ravigrahaṇa-parvaṇi asyâṁ saṁ-
vatsara-mâsa-paksha-divasa-pûrvâyâṁ tithâv=ady=êha Bhûmilikâyâṁ &c.,—"in seven centuries,
increased by ninety-four, of the years of Vikrama, (or) in figures, 974 [the interpretation of the figures,
however, with the exception of the 4, depends purely on the preceding expression in words; the first
two of them present anything but the appearance of 7 and 9]; in the latter fortnight of the month
Kârttika; on the new-moon tithi; on Sunday; under the Jyêshṭhâ nakshatra; on the occasion of an
eclipse of the sun; on this lunar day, (specified) as above by the year, and month, and fortnight, and
(solar) day; to-day; here, at Bhûmilikâ," &c.—This gives us for calculation, Vikrama-Saṁvat 794,
current according to the literal meaning of the text; the month Kârttika (October-November); the
second, and as shewn by the following mention of the new-moon day and a solar eclipse, the dark
fortnight; the new-moon tithi; Sunday; an eclipse of the sun; and the Jyêshṭhâ nakshatra or
lunar mansion. And, as the details of the inscription connect it specifically with Saurâshṭra or
Kâṭhiâwâḍ, we have to understand that the Vikrama year quoted is the southern Vikrama year, com-
mencing with Kârttika śukla 1, and having the Amânta southern arrangement of the months (see
Table III., page 71 below), in which the second fortnight of each month is the dark fortnight.
This is, in fact, proved by the record itself, in allotting to the second fortnight of the month the new-
moon tithi, which of course belongs to the dark fortnight. And, Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit tells me, it is also
shewn by the mention of the Jyêshṭhâ nakshatra, which can never occur on the new-moon tithi of the
Pûrṇimânta northern Kârttika.—As belonging to southern Vikrama-Saṁvat 794, the given tithi be-
onged, according to the Tables, to Śaka-Saṁvat 659, expired; and, if it belonged to southern Vi-
krama-Saṁvat 795, it would belong to Śaka-Saṁvat 660, expired. With the basis of these two Śaka
years, taken as expired, Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit gives me the following English equivalents of the recorded
date;—for Vikrama-Saṁvat 794, Monday, the 28th October, A.D. 737, when there was the Anu-
râdhâ nakshatra, and most probably no eclipse of the sun (none, at least, is recorded in Indian Eras,
p. 211);—and for Vikrama-Saṁvat 795, Sunday, the 16th November, A.D. 738, when there was the
Jyêshṭhâ nakshatra; but there cannot have been an eclipse of the sun, since there was one on the
preceding new-moon tithi, on Friday, the 17th October, A.D. 738, or, by the English Tables (Indian
Eras, p. 211) Saturday, the 18th October (the difference in the day is because the conjunction of the
sun and the moon occurred late towards sunrise; and, for the same reason, the eclipse was not visible
in India). This, of course, was the new-moon tithi of the Pûrṇimânta northern Kârttika that fell
in A.D 738; but the supposition that this is the day intended, is barred by the facts that I
have mentioned above, which prevent our understanding that the month recorded is the Pûrṇimân-
ta northern month at all; and also by the fact, ascertained by Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit, that on the 17th
October, A.D. 738, the nakshatras were Svâti and Viśâkhâ. To complete the details, I would add
that he finds that the English equivalent of the new-moon tithi of the Pûrṇimânta northern Kârttika,
which fell in A.D. 737, was Saturday, the 28th September, A.D. 737, when the nakshatras were Chitrâ
and Svâti, and there was no solar eclipse.—The only English date, therefore, which at all answers
to the record, is Sunday, the 16th November, A.D. 738; and this is the date that was accepted by
Dr. Bühler, in publishing the inscription, on calculations made by Prof. Jacobi. In order to arrive at
it, however, he translated the record as meaning Vikrama-Saṁvat 794 expired and 795 current. And
in dealing with the eclipec, which, according to the same Amânta reckoning, occurred one lunation
earlier, on the new-moon tithi of the preceding month Âśvina, he arrived at the conclusions, that the