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

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

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 68
In 1884, Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar issued a note on the question in his Early History
of the Dekkan, Appendix A. p. 97 ff.; and announced his acceptance of the theory of A.D.
grant was actually made on the new-moon tithi of Âśvina, because, though the eclipse was not visi-
ble, yet the occurrence of it was known, and therefore the occasion was one of special merit; but
that the actual drafting of the charter was done a month later, on the new-moon tithi of Kârttika,
and the person who drafted it was careless, and omitted to draw a distinction between the two
occasions.—This date has also been discussed by Gen. Cunningham, in his Indian Eras, p. 48 f.
His conclusions were, that the date belongs to Vikrama-Saṁvat 794, not 795; but that the eclipse in-
tended really is that of the (17th or) 18th October, A.D. 738. In order, however, to arrive at these
conflicting results, he assumed that the year commenced, not with the month Kârttika, but with the
month Mârgaśîrsha (November-December), in accordance with a custom which Albêrûnî tells us, was
current among the people of Sindh and Kanauj and other localities, and had been followed at Multân
up to a few years before his own time. By this arrangement, of course, the month Kârttika of Vi-
krama-Saṁvat 794 would belong to the end of the year, and would therefore fall in A.D. 738, not 737.
But, by the southern reckoning, the new-moon day of Kârttika in A.D. 738 would be the 16th Novem-
ber, which was not the day of the eclipse. Accordingly, there remained something still to be ex-
plained; and Gen. Cunningham proposed to complete the arrangement by reading Âśvina, instead of
Kârttika; which would agree with the real eclipse-day, viz. the (17th or) 18th October, A.D. 738.
"But, as that day was a Saturday, a very inauspicious day, the writing of the grant was probably
"made on the following day, or Sunday, which was the first day of Kârttika; and this might have led
"to the substitution of the name of Kârttika, for that of Âśvina, as the actual day of the eclipse."
There was, really, no reason at all for proposing this alteration of the text; for, from the localities
mentioned by Albêrûnî, a year commencing with Mârgaśîrsha could only be coupled with the Pûrṇi-
mânta northern arrangement of the months; and, by that arrangement, the 17th October, A.D. 738,
on which day, as we have seen, the eclipse occurred for India, actually was the new-moon day of
Kârttika. The Pûrṇimânta northern arrangement, however, is barred in the present case by the points
to which I have drawn attention above.—Gen. Cunningham's proposals, therefore, will not do,
Nor will Dr. Bühler's interpretation of the date. For, though it remains to be finally decided whether
the given date in the southern Vikrama-Saṁvat 794, current, or expired, belongs to Śaka-Saṁvat 659
expired, or to 660 expired, yet the eclipse selected by him, as by General Cunningham, was not visible
in India; and the assumption that it is the one referred to, also entails a greater variation between
the facts and the recorded statements than could possibly occur in a genuine charter.—I confess that
from the first, I have thought that the Dhiniki grant is not genuine; partly from the type of the Dê-
vanâgarî characters used in it, which, though they present some apparently antique characteristic,
are much inferior to those used in certain early palm-leaf MSS., and are also rude, even as compared
with the characters of the Sâmângaḍ grant of the Râshṭrakûṭa king Dantidurga, of Śaka-Saṁvat
675 expired (Ind. Ant. Vol. XI. p. 108 ff. and Plate), which belongs to just about the alleged period;
and partly from its giving so much earlier an instance than can be found anywhere else, of the use
of the name of Vikrama in connection with the era. My impression has been that the grant was made
spurious by substituting the word Vikrama for Valabhî. This view, I find, cannot be upheld; as the
recorded details are not correct for Valabhî-Saṁvat 794 (A.D. 1113-14), or a year before or after. But,
that the grant really is spurious, is, I think, now certain, from all the results that I have recited above.
And judging by the characters, I should be inclined to refer the fabrication of it to about the eleventh or
twelfth century A.D. As the Jyêshṭhâ nakshatra appears to occur always on, or within two days after, the
new-moon tithi of Kârttika, this detail was probably selected as a fairly safe one; the others being
purely fictitious.

64 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
318-19 for the epoch of the Gupta era.¹ He held (id. p. 97) that Albêrûnî's statement
regarding the era dating from the extermination of the Guptas, was to be attributed to
nothing but the fact that, as in the case also of the Śaka era, the Hindus had repeated to
him a mistaken tradition; and that the only reasonable course was, while accepting his
initial date for the era, to reject his explanation of the circumstances under which it was
established; and he held (id. p. 98) that the fact that this era came to be known in later
times by the name of the Valabhî era, was due only to its having been introduced
into Saurâshṭra by the Valabhî family, who were originally dependents of the Guptas, and
the dates in whose grants could, at any rate, plainly not be referred to the rise of the family
under the Sênâpati Bhaṭârka. The principal tests applied by him were, the record of the
week-day in the Êraṇ pillar inscription of Budhagupta; and the names of the saṁvatsaras
of the Twelve-year Cycle of Jupiter, as recorded in the grants of the Mahârâjas Hastin
and Saṁkshôbha. In respect of the Êraṇ record, he announced (id. p. 99) that Prof. K. L.
Chhatre had found that it was correct for Śaka-Saṁvat 406, as an expired year,² and
equivalent to A.D. 484-85, i.e. for the Saka year for which it should be correct according to
the initial date given by Albêrûnî; and his grounds so far were correct. In respect, how-
ever, of the Twelve-year Cycle of Jupiter (id. p. 99) he went quite astray; partly through
accepting the view that the saṁvatsaras of the cycle begin and end with the luni-solar
years; partly through assuming, evidently in order to apply General Cunningham's Tables
of the saṁvatsaras, that the Gupta dates denoted expired years, with current saṁvatsaras,
which led to the result that Gupta-Saṁvat 156 should be the Mahâ-Chaitra saṁvatsara,
instead of Mahâ-Vaiśâkha as recorded; and partly through his acceptance of General
Cunningham's alteration of the date of No. 22, page 100, from Gupta-Saṁvat 163 to
173. In the course of the arguments which occupy the rest of his paper, he suggested
that the T'u-lu-p'o-po-tu of Hiuen Tsiang was Dhruvasêna II. of Valabhî. But on this
point it is hardly possible to endorse any part of his statement (id. p. 100) that "nothing
"important is involved in the suffix bhaṭa. It was a mere title or honorific termination,
"as pant and râv are among us, the Marâṭhâs. Sêna, siṁha, and bhaṭa were the Vala-
"bhî honorific endings; and they could be used promiscuously. The king spoken of in
"the plates as Dhruvasimha, may have been called Dhruvabhaṭa by ordinary people, from
"whom Hiuen Tsiang must have got the name." But the name of Dhruvasiṁha does not
¹ He seems to quote A.D. 319-20 as the epoch (e.g. p. 99, line 15). But, since he treated
the Gupta years as expired years, the epoch that he apparently proved is A.D. 318-19.
² It was from this that he inferred that the Gupta-Saṁvat 165 of the record, was itself an expired
year. But this does not follow at all. The equation between the Gupta date and the corresponding
English date, is not intrinsically dependent on the Śaka date at all; only, in using Hindu Tables, we
have to arrive at it through a Śaka year, and to use as the basis of the calculation, the last Śaka year
expired before the current Śaka year corresponding to Gupta-Saṁvat 165 current.—A most curious
confusion between current and expired years of the Śaka era runs through his remarks. Thus
though quite rightly taking Śaka Saṁvat 406 expired to be equivalent to A.D. 484-85, with a differ-
ence of 78-79, he also, with the same difference, took, e.g., A.D. 511-12 as the equivalent of Śaka-
Saṁvat 433 current.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 65
occur at all in any of the numerous Valabhî grants that have come to light; nor does
any one of them furnish the slightest grounds for the assertion that there was ever any con-
fusion between the terminations sêna, siṁha, and bhaṭa. And, though Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar
pointed out that Hiuen Tsiang seems to be referring to more than one king of Valabhî,
whom he held to be the two brothers Dharasêna III. and Dhruvasêna II., yet I cannot find
any authority, either in M. Stanislas Julien's translation, or in Mr. Beal's, for his asser-
tion that Hiuen Tsiang was speaking of only two kings, and that it was the younger of
them whom he denoted by the name of T'u-lu-p'o-po-tu. This, however, as I have indi-
cated at page 40 f. above, is a point which cannot be finally cleared up, until we
have some more explicit and reliable exposition of the words actually used by Hiuen
Tsiang.
And finally, in 1885, in the Centenary Review of the Asiatic Society of Bengal from
1784 to 1883, Dr. A. F. R. Hoernle, after a brief résumé of the results of the work of
preceding investigators, arrived at the opinion (id. Part II. p. 111) that "the terminal
"date," A.D. 319, "of the Gupta empire, as determined by Mr. Thomas, may now be con-
"sidered as one of those great historical landmarks, the truth of which is admittedly no
"more open to question;" and (id. 113) that General Cunningham's theory of A.D. 166-67
for the epoch¹ of the Gupta era, "has every prospect of ultimately meeting with univer-
"sal assent, and being the final verdict of the historic researches regarding the Gupta
"dynasty."
The Mandasôr Inscription of Mâlava-Saṁvat 529.
The summary that I have given above will shew sufficiently well the curious ingenuity
that was displayed from time to time, in aiming at any settlement of the question rather
than the correct one; and also the insufficiency of the arguments used in support of the
true solution, even by those who perceived it.
But of course it may be claimed that, as long as M. Reinaud's translation of the
statement regarding the circumstances under which the era of A.D. 319-20 or there-
abouts was established, remained without correction, there was something to be said from
the point of view that we had to deal with a mistake made by Albêrûnî, lying in a confu-
sion between a true Gupta era, anterior to A.D. 319, used by the Early Gupta kings them-
selves, and another Gupta era, or more properly a Valabhî era, with an epoch of A.D.
319-20 or thereabouts, established, whether used or not, by some member of the Valabhî
family: and that he was right in respect of the historical event, from which, as he appeared
to assert, this latter era took its origin. And, in default of definite evidence, settling the
question one way or the other, perhaps the strongest argument against the views held by
Mr. Thomas, General Cunningham, and Sir E. Clive Bayley, was to be found in the fol-

¹ Dr. Hoernle called A.D. 166 the initial year of the era; but this is not an exact representa-
tion of Gen. Cunningham's results.

66 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.

lowing anomalous position, which had occasionally been noticed more or less directly, but
had never been disposed of. It was held by all that the Valabhî family came immediately
after the Guptas. It was also held that in A.D. 318 or 319, some member of this family
founded the city of Valabhî; and, in commemoration partly of that event, and partly of
the Gupta rule having then ceased and the power having passed into his own hands,
established the Valabhî era dating from then. And yet,—as is proved by, amongst
other things, the fact that Bhaṭârka, the founder of the family, came only one generation
before the year 207, the earliest date that we have in the era used in their own charters,
—the founder of this era, and his successors, did not allow this era of their own, esta-
blished under such memorable circumstances, to supersede the Gupta era; but continued
the use of the Gupta era for, in accordance with the three earlier starting-points given on
page 32 f. above, respectively 205, 294, and 318 years at least, (as is shewn by the
Alînâ grant of Śîlâditya VII., dated in the year 447), after the establishment of their own
era! This surely involves an improbability far greater than any other, of whatever kind,
that can be imagined in connection with the whole subject.
In order to arrive at any prospect of a final settlement of the question, what was
wanted was a date for one of the Early Gupta kings, recorded in some era, capable of
identification, other than that which was specially used by them in their own inscriptions.
This has now, at length, been found in my new Mandasôr inscription, which composed
and engraved when the year 529 had expired from the tribal constitution of the Mâlavas
gives us, through his feudatory Bandhuvarman, the date of the year 493, expired, of the
same era, for Kumâragupta.
This was not the first instance that had been obtained of the use of this era, which
may for convenience be called the Mâlava era. For, it is obviously identical with the era
which is alluded to in the Kanaswa inscription¹ dated when the 795th year of the Mâlava
lords had expired; and is also mentioned, under the specific name of the Mâlava-kâla,
i.e. 'the Mâlava era,' or 'the time of the Mâlavas,' in a fragmentary inscription at 'Gyâ-
raspur' or 'Gyârispur' in Central India, dated when the 936th year had expired.² But

¹ Edited by Dr. Kielhorn, in Ind. Ant. Vol. XIII. p. 162 ff. The date (from the published text;
p. 164 f.; line 14 f.) runs—saṁvatsara-śatair=yâtaiḥ sa-pañcha-navaty-argalaiḥ saptabhir=Mâlav-
êśânâm mandiraṁ Dhurjaṭêḥ kṛitam,—" (in the year that is denoted) by seven expired centuries of
" years, coupled with ninety-five, of the Mâlava lords, (this) temple of (the god) Dhurjaṭi has been
" made."
² Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. X. p. 33 f., and Plate xi. The date, part of which is broken away,
(from the Plate) runs — Mâlava-kâlâch=chharadâṁ shaṭ-triṁśat-saṁyutêshv=atîtêshu navasu
śatêshu,—" when nine centuries of autumns, joined with thirty-six, have gone by, from (the com-
"mencement of) the Mâlava era (or, from the time of the Mâlavas)."—The counting of the era by
autumns is followed also in line 21 of the Mandasôr inscription of Yaśôdharman and Vishṇuvardhana,
of Mâlava-Saṁvat 589 expired, No. 35, page 150. And it is worth noting, as being one of the
points which identify the Mâlava era with the Vikrama era. It can hardly be doubted, that the

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS INTRODUCTION. 67

though, in commenting on this latter inscription, General Cunningham expressed the
opinion¹ that this Mâlava era must be the same as the era of Vikramâditya of Ujjain,
commencing in B.C. 57, this point has not hitherto been capable of proof ; for the reason
that neither of these two dates gave sufficient details for actual computation, or any other
available grounds for historical identification. Nor does the Mandasôr inscription, now
brought to notice, furnish any details for calculation. But, in its mention of Kumâra-
gupta, it answers the purpose equally well.
Turning to the Gupta inscriptions and coins, the earliest and latest dates that we have
for Kumâragupta, are, respectively, Gupta-Saṁvat 96 and 130 odd. The first is estab-
lished by his well-known Bilsaḍ pillar inscription, No. 10, page 42 ; and the latter, by one
of General Cunningham's coins.² Lest, however, the coin-date should be looked upon as
at all doubtful, we must note also his Mankuwâr inscription, No. 11, page 45, dated Gupta-
Saṁvat 129. And, of these extreme dates, we may take Gupta-Samvat 113 as the
mean.
Applying this mean year to the various theories regarding the epoch of the Gupta era,
it represents — (1) according to Mr. Thomas, A.D. 190-91 ; (2) according to General
Cunningham, A.D. 279-80 ; (3) according to Sir E. Clive Bayley, A.D. 303-304 ; and
(4) according to my own view, A.D. 432-33.
Next, applying to these figures the date of Mâlava-Saṁvat 493 expired, recorded for
Kumâragupta in the inscription under notice, we find that the initial point of the Mâlava
era must lie within a few years on either side of — (1) B.C. 301 ; (2) B.C. 214 ; (3) B.C.
190 ; and (4) B.C. 61-60.
The first three results, however, each entail the supposition of a brand-new era, hither-
to unheard-of, and entirely unexpected. At the same time, as regards the second possible
result of about B.C. 214, we must not overlook the existence of certain coins, found in
large numbers at Nâgar in the north of Mâlwa, about forty-five miles north of Kôṭâ, and
originally brought to notice by Mr. Carlleyle,³ which have on them the legend Mâlavânâṁ
jayaḥ, "the victory of the Mâlavas," in characters ranging, in General Cunningham's
opinion, "from perhaps B.C. 250 to A.D. 250." These coins shew that the Mâlavas existed,
as a recognised and important clan, long before the time when, as I consider, their "tribal

original scheme of the Vikrama years is the one commencing with the first day of the bright fortnight
of Kârttika (October-November). And Kârttika is still the second month in the Hindu autumn,
according to the usual division of the six seasons. It seems, however, to be more properly the first
autumn month, according to the true southern division of the seasons. And it appears also to have
been the first month of a season, when the year was divided, in ancient times, into only three
seasons.
¹ Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. X. p. 34. ² id. Vol. IX. p. 24, and Plate v. No. 7.
³ id. Vol. VI. pp. 165 f., and 174 ff. see also id. Vol. XIV. p. 149 ff., and Pl. xxxi. Nos. 19 to 25
³ 2b

68 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
constitution," which led to the establishment of their era, took place; and so also, in the
other direction, does the mention of them in the Allahâbâd pillar inscription, among the tribes
subjugated by Samudragupta, shew that, down to his time at least, they maintained their
tribal constitution and importance. And, if we were compelled to have recourse to a new
era, these coins might justifiably induce us to select, as its epoch, B.C. 223, the date fixed
by General Cunningham for the death of Asôka;¹ which would make the date of Mâlava-
Samvat 493 correspond with A.D. 270, or well on into the first decade of Kumâragupta's
reign according to General Cunningham's theory. But this entails, as I have said, the
supposition of the existence of an era, of which not the slightest indication has ever yet
been afforded by the very numerous inscriptions that have now been examined from all
parts of the country; and this is an expedient that must by all possible means be avoided.
And, further, it forces the Kaṇaswa inscription of Mâlava-Samvat 795, and the ' Gyâras-
pur' inscription of Mâlava-Samvat 936, back to respectively A.D. 572 and 713; periods to
which, from their alphabets, they cannot possibly belong. And thus,—since, within certain
limits, palæographical evidence must be followed,—it creates a palæographical difficulty
that is insuperable. So also does the third result, to practically the same extent; and the
first, to a still more marked degree.
The fourth result, on the contrary, satisfies all the palæographical requirements of the
case. And it brings us so very close to B.C. 57, the commencement of the well-known
Vikrama era,—which, by the tradition of later times, is closely connected with the
country of the Mâlavas, through the name of its supposed founder, king Vikramâditya,
whose capital, Ujjain, was the principal city in Mâlwa,—that we are compelled to find in
it the solution of the question, and to adjust the equation of the dates thus,—Gupta-Sam-
vat 113 (the mean date for Kumâragupta) + A.D. 319-20 = A.D. 432-33; and Mâlava-
Samvat 493 — B.C. 57-56 = A.D. 436-37; which, of course, falls well within the seventeen
years of Kumâragupta's reign, remaining after his mean date.
My new Mandasôr inscription, therefore, proves — (1) that any statement by
Albêrûnî that the Early Gupta power came to an end in or about A.D. 319, must certain-
ly be wrong;—(2) that, on the contrary, Kumâragupta's dynastic dates,—and, with them,
those of his father Chandragupta II., and his son Skandagupta, which belong undeniably to
the same series; and also any others which can be shewn to run uniformly with them,—
must be referred to the epoch of A.D. 319-20, or thereabouts, brought to notice by Albêrûnî
and substantiated by the Verâwal inscription of Valabhî-Samvat 945:—and (3) incidentally,
that, under another name, connecting it with the Mâlava tribe, the Vikrama era did un-
doubtedly exist anterior to A.D. 544, which, as we have seen, at page 55 above, was held by
Mr. Fergusson to be the year in which it was invented. These results are, of course, inde-
pendent of the question whether the Early Guptas established an era of their own, with the
above-mentioned epoch, or whether they only adopted the era of some other dynasty.

¹ Corp. Inscr. Indic. Vol. I. Preface, p. vii.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 69
The Determination of the Exact Epoch of the Era.
I have shewn, so far, that the Early Gupta dates, and, with them, any others that
can be proved to belong to the same uniform series, are to be referred to the epoch of
A.D. 319-20, or thereabouts, brought to notice by Albêrûnî and substantiated by the
Verâwal inscription of Valabhî-Saṁvat 945.
It now remains to be shewn why, out of the three possible epochs of A.D. 318-19,
319-20, and 320-21, current, which appear, at first sight, to be deducible from Albêrûnî's
statements, we have to select, as the true and exact epoch, that of A.D. 319-20,
equivalent to Śaka-Saṁvat 241 expired.
This point is one that can be settled only by accurate calculations of the recorded
dates, explained in detail, so that it may be seen that the process applied is satisfactory,
and that the inferences drawn are correct. And, as a preliminary matter, we must deter-
mine what was the nature of the years of the Gupta-Valabhî era.
The Scheme of the Gupta-Valabhî Year.
Bearing in mind that, in all cases in which the notation and computation of tithis
or lunar days are concerned, as also of solar days connected with lunar months, the years
of the Kaliyuga era¹ and of the northern Vikrama era have to be treated as commencing,
like the years of the Śaka era, with the first day of the bright fortnight of the month
Chaitra (March-April); and also that the decision as to the order of the dark and bright
lunar fortnights of the months must of necessity go with the decision as to the general
northern or southern nature of the era and its years, since we cannot have a northern year
coupled with the southern arrangement of the fortnights, or a southern year coupled with
the northern arrangement,—the question now before us is, whether the years of the Gupta-
Valabhî era had a distinct scheme and initial day of their own, or whether they followed
the scheme and initial day of the years of the Śaka era, according to either the northern
or the southern arrangement, or the scheme and initial day of the years of the southern
Vikrama era.
¹ This era is also of extremely exceptional use in epigraphical records. The only instances that I
can quote are (1) the Aihole inscription of the Western Chalukya king Pulikêśin II. (Ind. Ant. Vol. VIII.
p. 237 ff.), which is dated when three thousand seven hundred and thirty-five years had elapsed from
the Bhârata war, supplemented by the statement that, at the same time, five hundred and fifty-six
years of the Śaka kings also had gone by, in (their own era as a sub-division of) the Kali age, the
figures of which are marked by those of the Bhârata war; and (2) some of the inscriptions of the
Kâdambas of Goa, ranging from A.D. 1167 to 1247 (Jour. Bo. Br. As. Soc. Vol. IX. pp. 241 f.,
262 ff., and Ind. Ant. Vol. XIV. p. 288 ff.), which, for some capricious reason, are dated in the Kaliyuga,
without any reference to the Śaka era at all, though other records of the same family (see my
Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts, p. 90 ff.) are dated in the Śaka era, and in that alone.