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

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.

70 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
A reference to Table III. on page 71 below, will explain at once the difference in the
schemes of these years, and the necessity for determining the question that we have under
consideration.¹
The Śaka years of both Northern and Southern India commence with the first day
of the bright fortnight of Chaitra, immediately after the new-moon conjunction. But, in
the scheme of the year, there is the important difference that, in the northern arrangement,
the dark fortnight of each month precedes the bright;² whereas in the southern year, it is
the bright fortnight that stands first. Popularly, and in Pañchâṅgs or Hindu almanacs,
the northern arrangement is called Pûrṇimânta, or 'ending with the full-moon,' and the
southern arrangement is called Amânta, or 'ending with the conjunction (of the sun and the
moon), i.e. with the new-moon;' and these terms will be found very convenient for practi-
cal use. The result of this difference of arrangement, is, that, in the northern year, the
dark fortnight of Chaitra stands at the end of the year, instead of in the place of the
second fortnight, which it occupies in the southern year; and that the dark half of the
southern Chaitra is the same lunar period as the dark half of the northern Vaiśâkha; and
so on all through the year. For dates in the bright fortnights of Śaka years, it obviously
is immaterial whether we follow the northern or the southern scheme. But, for dates in the
dark fortnights, it is as obviously essential, in order to compute them correctly, that we
should know exactly which scheme they conform to; since, for instance, the thirteenth
lunar or solar day of the dark fortnight of the lunar month Âshâḍha represents, if treated
as a southern date, an English day later by one complete lunation, or practically a month,
than the English equivalent of it as a northern date.
In the southern Vikrama year, the arrangement of the fortnights is the regular Amân-
ta southern arrangement. But the year commences seven lunations later than the equi-
valent Śaka year, and corresponding northern Vikrama year;³ viz. with the first day of the
bright fortnight of the month Kârttika (October-November). Here, again, for purposes
of computation, any date in a southern Vikrama year has to be treated as the same date
in the equivalent Śaka year. And a reference to the right-hand columns in Table III. on
page 71, will shew at once the way in which the years overlap; and will explain fully the
¹ Contrary to the hitherto prevalent custom, I enter the current Hindu years in the Table. It is,
under any circumstances, quite illogical to speak of, for instance, "Chaitra śukla 1 of, in, or belonging
to, Śaka-Saṁvat 500," when the Śaka year is intended as an expired year. And it is particularly
necessary to use the current Hindu years, when the object is to compare them with years of the
Christian era, of which the current years are always quoted; leaving it to any one who has to calculate
a date by Hindu Tables, to take the preceding expired year as the basis of the calculation.
² See Beal's Buddh. Rec. West. World, Vol. I. p. 71, where Hiuen Tsiang's account shews that
the arrangement was just the same twelve centuries ago.
³ This is the customary way of putting it. But the more correct statement would be, that the
Vikrama year of Northern India now commences, with the equivalent Śaka year, seven lunations
earlier than the corresponding southern Vikrama year (see page 66 above, note 2.)

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 71
TABLE III.
Comparative Table of the Vikrama, Śaka, and Gupta-Valabhî Years.

Northern India. | Months and Fortnights. | Southern India.
Pûrṇimânta. | | Amânta.

| Chaitra bright } Chaitra |
| Vaiśâkha { dark | } Vaiśâkha |
| { bright | |
| Jyêshṭha { dark | } Jyêshṭha |
| { bright | | Vikrama-Saṁvat 1320
| Âshâḍha { dark | } Âshâḍha | A.D. 1262-63.
| { bright | |
| Śrâvaṇa { dark | } Śrâvaṇa |
| { bright | |
| Bhâdrapada { dark | } Bhâdrapada |
Śaka-Saṁvat 1186. | { bright | |
Vikrama-Saṁvat 1321. | Âśvina { dark | } Âśvina | Śaka-Saṁvat 1186.
Gupta-Valabhî-Saṁvat 944. | { bright | | A.D. 1263-64.
A.D. 1263-64. | Kârttika { dark | } Kârttika |
| { bright | |
| Mârgaśîrsha { dark | } Mârgaśîrsha |
| { bright | |
| Pausha { dark | } Pausha |
| { bright | |
| Mâgha { dark | } Mâgha |
| { bright | |
| Phâlguna { dark | } Phâlguna |
| { bright | |
| Chaitra { dark | } Chaitra |
| { bright | | Vikrama-Saṁvat 1321.
| Vaiśâkha { dark | } Vaiśâkha | A.D. 1263-64.
| { bright | |
| Jyêshṭha { dark | } Jyêshṭha |
(Vêrâwal Inscription. | { bright | |
Âshâḍha; the dark fortnight; | Âshâḍha { dark | } Âshâḍha |
the 13th solar day; Sunday.) | { bright | |
| Śrâvaṇa { dark | } Śrâvaṇa |
| { bright | |
| Bhâdrapada { dark | } Bhâdrapada |
Śaka-Saṁvat 1187. | { bright | |
Vikrama-Saṁvat 1322. | Âśvina { dark | } Âśvina | Śaka-Saṁvat 1187.
Gupta-Valabhî-Saṁvat 945. | { bright | | A.D. 1264-65.
A.D. 1264-65. | Kârttika { dark | } Kârttika |
| { bright | |
| Mârgaśîrsha { dark | } Mârgaśîrsha |
| { bright | |
| Pausha { dark | } Pausha | Vikrama-Saṁvat 1322.
| { bright | | A.D. 1264-65.
| Mâgha { dark | } Mâgha |
| { bright | |
| Phâlguna { dark | } Phâlguna |
| { bright | |
| Chaitra dark | |

necessity of determining the question with which we are concerned. By the epochs of the
two eras, the nearest equivalent of, for instance, southern Vikrama-Saṁvat 1321 current is
Śaka-Saṁvat 1186 current; and this is also its actual equivalent for any date from Kârttika
śukla 1 up to Phâlguna kṛishṇa 15, both included; but, for any date from the following
Chaitra śukla 1 up to Âśvina kṛishṇa 15, both included, the actual equivalent of Vikrama-
Saṁvat 1321 current is the following Śaka-Saṁvat 1187 current. Consequently, if the
Gupta-Valabhî year is to be treated as a southern Vikrama year, any such date as Gupta-
Valabhî-Saṁvat 944, Chaitra śukla 1, up to Âśvina kṛishṇa 15, will give an English equi-
valent later by twelve complete lunations, or practically a year,¹ or else any such date
as Gupta-Valabhî-Saṁvat 944, Kârttika śukla 1, up to Phâlguna kṛishṇa 15, will give
an English equivalent earlier by twelve complete lunations, than the English equivalents if
the year is to be treated as a Śaka year.
The question, whether by any chance we can be concerned, in the Gupta-Valabhî era,
at any period, with the scheme of the southern Vikrama year, is, if possible, still more an
essential point, because the dates that we have in the era, under its later name of the
Valabhî era, come from Kâṭhiâwâḍ, where, as in the neighbouring provinces of Gujarât and
the Northern Koṅkaṇ, the national era is the Vikrama era, in the southern arrangement.
In those parts there would of course be a tendency, sooner or later, to adapt the original
scheme of the Gupta-Valabhî year to the scheme of the years of the local national era.
And a distinct instance of this adaptation having been actually made in Gujarât, is fur-
nished by the Kaira (Khêḍâ) grant of Dharasêna IV. of Valabhî, published by Dr. Bühler
in the Ind. Ant. Vol. XV. p. 335 ff. Its date is the year 330; the “second” month Mâr-
gaśira (November-December); the bright fortnight; and the second tithi or lunar day. And
the interest and importance of it result from its shewing that, in that year, there was an
intercalation of a month, which, according to this record, was Mârgaśira or Mârgaśîrsha.
Now, allowing for the moment, what I shall shortly prove, as closely as absolute certainty can
be obtained, viz. that the true original scheme of the Gupta-Valabhî year is the scheme of
the northern Śaka year, the month Mârgaśîrsha of this record should belong to Śaka-
Saṁvat 572 current, and should fall in A.D. 649. The detailed consideration of this date,
however, at page 93 ff. below, shews that the intercalation in question can only have
occurred in A.D. 648, and belonged to Śaka-Saṁvat 571 current, or, according to the
popular usage of Gujarât, to the southern Vikrama-Saṁvat 706 current. And, since
the localities mentioned in the charter connect it absolutely with a district in Guja-
rât, the year 330 of this record must have commenced, like the southern Vikrama-Saṁvat
706, with the month Kârttika that preceded the true commencement of Gupta-Saṁvat 330,
with Chaitra śukla 1 of Śaka-Saṁvat 572 current, according to the original scheme of the
years of the era. Bearing in mind, however, that this record belongs to Gujarât, we have
¹ Or, in the case of certain intercalations, later here, and in the other case earlier, by thirteen
lunations, or practically a year and a month.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 73
not to seek far for the explanation of this discrepancy. When once the Gupta-Valabhî era
had been fairly introduced in Gujarât, the natural tendency, as I have said, would soon be
to disregard the original scheme of its years, and to substitute for it the scheme of the
southern Vikrama years. Let us assume that this substitution took place in Gupta-Vala-
bhî-Saṁvat¹ 303, which commenced, approximately, on the 19th March, A.D. 622, about
half-way through southern Vikrama-Saṁvat 679 current. Then, if the change of scheme
was effected in the first seven lunations of the Gupta-Valabhî year, the Gujarâtis
would make the new year, Gupta-Valabhî-Saṁvat 304, commence with their own new year,
southern Vikrama-Saṁvat 680, on the next Kârttika śukla 1, or approximately the 12th
October, A.D. 622; and Gupta-Valabhî-Saṁvat 303, as thus adapted and shortened by
them, would contain only seven lunations, from Chaitra śukla 1 up to Âśvina krishṇa 15.
If, on the other hand, the change was effected in the last five lunations of the Gupta-
Valabhî year, when southern Vikrama-Saṁvat 680 current had already commenced, then
the Gujarâtis would defer the commencement of the new year, Gupta-Valabhî-Saṁvat 304,
until the commencement of their own new year, southern Vikrama-Saṁvat 681, on again
the next Kârttika śukla 1, or approximately the 1st October, A.D. 623; and Gupta-Valabhî-
Saṁvat 303, as thus adapted and prolonged, would contain nineteen lunations. The years
of the era would, for the future, always commence, in Gujarât, with the years of the south-
ern Vikrama era, on the first day of the bright fortnight of Kârttika. Under the second
condition, every subsequent year in Gujarât would commence seven lunations later than
it would in Kâṭhiâwâḍ, as long as the true original reckoning was preserved in the latter
country; which was the case up to at least Gupta-Valabhî-Saṁvat 945. Under the first
condition, every subsequent year in Gujarât would commence five lunations earlier than in
Kâṭhiâwâḍ. And the grant of Dharasêna IV., now under notice, shews that this latter
was the manner in which the change of scheme, which had already been accomplished,
was effected; since this is the only method by which the intercalary Mârgaśîrsha of this
record can be made to belong to Gupta-Saṁvat 330, instead of to 329.
The Verâwal inscription, however, of the Chaulukya king Arjunadêva, dated Valabhî-
Saṁvat 945, which I have mentioned at page 31 f. above, and the surroundings and
full bearings of which will be explained in detail further on, contains sueh particulars,
in the record of its date, as shew that, in it at all events, there is no reference to the
scheme of the southern Vikrama year, or even of the southern Śaka year.
But, apart from any particular instances which supply proof by means of the cir-
cumstances under which the recorded week-days are found to be correct, there is, as I
have said, the general fact that we cannot have either a southern year coupled with
¹ I do not mean to assert that the change took place in this particular year; or even within a few
years on either side of it. All that is certain, is, that it took place before Gupta-Valabhî-Saṁvat 330.
And I have used the year 303, instead of 300 in round numbers, for purposes of illustration, only in
order to avoid a year with an intercalary month.

74 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
the Pûrṇimânta northern arrangement of the fortnights of the months, or a northern year
coupled with the Amânta southern arrangement. And, in proof of this position, I will
here adduce some very instructive information gathered from the Nêpâl inscriptions, which
were published by Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji in the Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 163 ff.
The earliest eras used in these inscriptions, are the Gupta era, and the era of Harsha-
vardhana of Kanauj. And the recorded dates in them range, respectively, from A.D.
035 to 854, and from A.D. 639 to 758. Soon after that time, these eras were supplanted,
in Nêpâl, by the Nêwâr¹ era, the epoch of which, according to Mr. Prinsep's statement²
that the year 951 ended in A.D. 1831, is A.D. 879-80; and the commencement, A.D.
880-81. Mr. Prinsep also recorded that each year of the era began in October; which
is in accordance, broadly, with the information obtained by Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji, when
travelling in Nêpâl, that the initial day of each year is the first day of the bright fortnight
of the month Kârttika (October-November).
As regards the origin of the era, the Nêpâl Vaṁśâvali, or List of Kings, states³ that it
was established by Jayadêvamalla, of the second Ṭhâkurî dynasty of Aṁśuvarman. But
a more important indication of the truth is given by its immediately following statement,
that, on the seventh day of the bright fortnight of the month Śrâvaṇa, in the ninth year of the
era, coupled with Śaka-Saṁvat 811 which as an expired year is equivalent to A.D. 889-90,
during the joint reign of Jayadêvamalla and his younger brother Ânandamalla, there came
from the south a certain Nânyadêva, who conquered the whole of Nêpâl, and established
the Karṇâṭaka Dynasty. The truth probably is that Nânyadêva was a minister of
Jayadêvamalla, and eventually usurped the sovereignty, which, according to the Vaṁśâvali,
remained with his descendants for five generations after him. Whether Nânyadêva really
came from the south, it is of course difficult to say. That statement, and the name of
his dynasty, may perhaps be only inventions, to account for the nature of the year that
was coupled with the new era, which was evidently introduced by him, and not by
Jayadêvamalla. But it is plain that, in addition to the establishment of a new era, there
was made an important change in the calendar, consisting of the substitution of a foreign
Karṇâtaka year for the year that had hitherto been used in Nêpâl. The available dates do
not furnish absolute proof that the initial day of the new year was Kârttika śukla 1. But
the Vaṁśâvali gives the following two equations,—under Nânyadêva, as already noted,
Nêpâla-Saṁvat 9 = Śaka-Saṁvat 811 (expired), with the date of Śrâvaṇa śukla 7; and
under Harisiṁhadêva, No. 1 in the Sûryavaṁśi Dynasty of Bhâtgâm, Nêpâla-Saṁvat 444
¹ Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji tells me that this word, Nêwâr, is a local corruption of 'Nêpâl.'—In the
inscriptions, this era, when it is not simply referred to in the usual way by the word saṁvat, is spoken
of by the terms Nêpâla-varsha (e.g. Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 185, line 13 from the bottom), Nêpâla-
samvata (id. p. 191, line 4 from the top), and Nêpâla-abda (id. p. 192, line 2 from the top).
² Prinsep's Essays, Vol. II. Useful Tables, p. 269; also Indian Eras, p. 74.
³ Ind. Ant. Vol. XIII. p. 414.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 75
=Śaka-Saṁvat 1245 (expired),—which, as the difference in the first case is 802 years,
and in the second, 801, shew that the scheme of the year differed from that of the Śaka
years. And, taking this in connection with the information obtained by Mr. Prinsep and
Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji, and with the fact that all such dates as have been examined tend
to support the result, it seems certain that the initial day of each year was Kârttika śukla
1 ; and it is evident that the year was borrowed from the southern Vikrama year. The
question remains as regards the arrangement of the fortnights of the months; and here,
though we might most reasonably expect that, so far north as Nêpâl, even a year borrowed
from the southern Vikrama year, would be coupled with the Pûrṇimânta northern arrange-
ment of the lunar fortnights, yet we find that this distinctly was not the case, but the Amânta
southern arrangement was preserved. This is proved, in the first instance, by the mention
in the inscription of Siddhinṛisiṁha, dated Nêpâla-Saṁvat 757, of Śrâvaṇa kṛishṇa 8 after
Śrâvaṇa śukla 12 ; and still more explicitly by the provision, in the same passage,¹ for per-
forming the janmâshṭamî-pûjâ, or ‘worship on the eighth lunar day which is (the anni-
versary of) the birth (of Kṛishṇa),’ on the eighth tithi of the dark fortnight of Śrâvaṇa ; for,
a comparison of any Pañchâṅgs will shew that the festival in question occurs in the dark
fortnight of Śrâvaṇa only according to the Amânta southern reckoning, but, according
to the Pûrṇimânta northern reckoning, on the same tithi in the dark fortnight of Bhâdra-
pada. Further, the inscription of Ṛiddhilakshmî gives a date in a dark fortnight, avail-
able for calculation. The details² are Nêpâla-Saṁvat 810 current; the month Kârttika;
the dark fortnight ; the second lunar day ; and Sunday. With the epoch of A.D. 879-80,
the given tithi should fall in A.D. 1689; and, by Prof. K. L. Chhatre’s Tables,
Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit finds that, by the Amânta southern arrangement, it did end on a Sun-
day, viz. the 20th October, A.D. 1689; while, by the Pûrṇimânta northern arrangement,
it ended on a Friday, viz. the 20th September. Also, in connection with the question of
the epoch itself being A.D. 879-80, he finds that the given tithi did not end on a Sunday
in either A.D. 1688 or 1690, by either the Amânta or the Pûrṇimânta arrangement.³ It
is absolutely certain, therefore, that the year which was used in connection with the
Nêwâr era of Nêpâl, and which had Kârttika śukla 1 for its initial day, was a southern
¹ See Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 186, last two lines.
² Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 192,—Nêpâl-âbdê gagana-dhariṇî-nâga-yuktê kil=Ôrjê mâsê pakshê
vidhu-virahitê su-dvitîyâ-tithau sâ kṛitvâ dêvâlayam=api Ravau Ṛiddhilakshmî prasannâ chakrê
dêvî su-vidhi-viditâṁ Śaṅkarasya pratishṭhâm,—"in the Nêpâl year possessed of the sky (=0), the
earth (=1), and the (8) Nâgas; in (the month) Ûrja (i.e. Kârttika) ; in the fortnight which is deprived
of the moon; on the excellent second lunar day; on Sunday; having made (this) temple, she, the
gracious (and) majestic Ṛiddhilakshmî, made an installation, according to all the proper rites, of (the
god) Śaṁkara."—The name of the week-day is overlooked in the published version.
³ The English equivalents for those years, are, by the Amânta arrangement, Tuesday, the 30th
October, A.D. 1688, and Saturday, the 8th November, A.D. 1690; and, by the Pûrṇimânta arrange-
ment, Monday, the 1st October, A.D. 1688, and Thursday, the 9th October, A.D. 1690.
K 2.

76 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
year. On the other hand, when the Nêpâlese abandoned this offshoot of the southern
Vikrama era, and introduced the Vikrama era itself from the neighbouring parts of
Northern India, they adopted it in its northern variety, with Chaitra sukla 1 as its initial
day, and with the Pûrṇimânta northern arrangement of the fortnights; as is proved by
Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit's calculations of the dates in dark fortnights, recorded in the inscrip-
tion of queen Lalitatripurasundarî.¹ The dates are, Vikrama-Saṁvat 1874, Bhâdrapada
krishṇa 9, Śukravâra² or Friday; Vikrama-Saṁvat 1875, Mârgaśîrsha krishṇa 5, Budha-
vâra or Wednesday; and Vikrama-Saṁvat 1877, Jyêshṭha krishṇa 10, Ravivâra or Sun-
day. By the Amânta southern arrangement, the week-days do not come out right at all.
While by the Pûrṇimânta northern arrangement, the English equivalents are, as required,
Friday, the 5th September, A.D. 1817; Wednesday, the 18th November, A.D. 1818; and
Sunday, the 7th May, A.D. 1820.
These facts amply establish my position that we cannot have either the Pûrṇimânta
northern arrangement of the fortnights coupled with a southern year and era, or the Amânta
southern arrangement of the fortnights coupled with a northern year and era. And now
I shall bring forward some perfectly conclusive evidence, to prove that the scheme of
the months of the Gupta-Valabhî year proper was the regular Pûrṇimânta northern scheme;
and that, therefore, in this era, in its original constitution, we cannot be concerned with
any southern reckoning at all.
The Khôh copper-plate grant of the Parivrâjaka Mahârâja Saṁkshôbha, of the
year 209 (A.D. 528-29), No. 25, page 112, is dated "in the enjoyment of sovereignty
by the Gupta kings; in the Mahâ-Âśvayuja saṁvatsara;” and, as regards other details,
in fortunately a double manner. In line 2 f. we have—Chaitra-mâsa-śukla-paksha-trayô-
daśyâm (where, in apposition with trayôdaśyâm, we have to supply tithau),—“on the
thirteenth tithi, or lunar day, of the bright fortnight of the month Chaitra.” And at the
end, in line 24, in numerical symbols, this date is repeated as—Chaitra di³ 20 7 (where
the abbreviation di stands for dina, dinê, divasa, or divasê),—“(the month) Chaitra; the
(solar) day 20 (and) 7.” This double record is explicable only on the understanding that,
in the scheme of the months of the Gupta year, the dark fortnights stood first, according

¹ Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 193 f.
² The published text has śuklê, which is obviously a mistake for śukrê.
³ In my printed version of this inscription, the second numerical symbol is given as 9, with a
reference (page 112, note 4) to a note that it might possibly be 7, 8, or 9. Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit having
found by calculation that this tithi was the twenty-seventh solar day in the month, I now substitute 7
for 9 (see page 274, note 2).—The point that is proved by this double record had been missed, until
I brought it to notice in the Ind. Ant. Vol. XVI. p. 145; because Gen. Cunningham, who first brought
the inscription to notice, read the first symbol in line 24 as 10, instead of 20, and overlooked the
second symbol altogether. He thus obtained "Chaitra, day 10;" and added the remark "this figure
should be 13, to agree with the written date given above" [in line 2 f.] (Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol.
p. 15). There are, however, distinctly two symbols, meaning 20 and 7; or, together, 27.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 77
to the regular Pûrṇimânta northern scheme. By this means only can the thirteenth
tithi, or lunar day, of the bright fortnight answer to the twenty-seventh solar day of the
whole month. A double record of precisely the same kind is given in the Majhgawâṁ
grant of the Parivrâjaka Mahârâja Hastin, of the year 191, No. 23, page 106, in
which we have, in line 2,—Mâgha-mâsa-bahula-paksha-tritîyâyâm,—“on the third tithi,
or lunar day, of the dark fortnight of the month Mâgha;” and, in line 21,—Mâgha di 3,
—“Mâgha, the (solar) day 3.” But, the number of the solar day in this instance being
under sixteen, this record is not in itself sufficient to prove the case, one way or the other.¹
What we require is a double date, in which the tithi of the fortnight, the number of which
cannot exceed fifteen is connected with a solar day, the number of which, exceeding
sixteen, shews itself to be referred to the whole month, and not to the fortnight. This
we have in the grant of the Mahârâja Saṁkshôbha. And the record proves absolutely
that, in the arrangement of the fortnights of the months of the Gupta year,
it is the Pûrṇimânta northern system that is concerned; and, consequently,
the general scheme of the years of the era was not that of any southern
year at all.
At present, the Verâwal inscription of Arjunadêva, dated Valabhî-Saṁvat 945, is the
only instance in which the equation of the Gupta-Valabhî era and another era is accom-
panied by the full details of a month, fortnight, and day.² And the thirteenth solar day
in the dark fortnight of Âshâḍha, which is mentioned in it, might be the last or the first
day of the Gupta-Valabhî year. As a single instance, therefore, it does not help us in any
way to fix the initial day of the year.
Consequently, the remaining point,—whether the years of the Gupta-Valabhî era
followed in all respects the scheme of the northern Śaka year, or whether they had some
distinct initial day of their own,—is one which cannot be absolutely settled, until we
obtain, either some more double records like that of the Verâwal inscription, which will
¹ There seemed to be also a double record of the same kind in the Êraṇ pillar inscription of
Gôparâja, of the year 191, No. 20, page 91, in which we have, in line 2, Śrâvaṇa ba di 7, “(the
month) Śrâvaṇa; the dark fortnight; the (solar) day 7;” and, in line 1, apparently Śrâvaṇa-
bahula-paksha-sap[t]amy[âm] (or sap[t]am[yâm]), “on the seventh tithi, or lunar day, of the dark
fortnight of (the month) Śrâvaṇa.” Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit, however, finds that, in Gupta-Saṁvat
191, the seventh tithi or lunar day of the dark fortnight of Śrâvaṇa, ended on Monday, the 14th
June, A.D. 510; and that this was the sixth solar day in the fortnight or month; since, the preceding
new-moon tithi ended on Tuesday, the 8th June. Accordingly, at the end of line 1, we should perhaps
read sap[t]am[î], sap[t]am[î=hni], or sap[t]am[ê dinê.]
² The only other instance in which the Gupta-Valabhî era is mentioned in direct connection with
another era, is Albêrûnî’s statement (page 30 above), in which Gupta-Valabhî-Saṁvat 712 is given
as equivalent to Vikrama-Saṁvat 1088, and Śaka-Saṁvat 953. It cannot be turned to any practical
use, in determining the scheme of the year, because he does not give any details of a month, &c.; and
because we do not know for certain whether he is referring to the northern or to the southern Vikrama
year.

78 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
enable us to gradually decrease the limits within which the commencement of the Gupta-
Valabhî year is to be placed on the sliding scale of the twelve months ; or the entry of an
early date, approximating closely to Chaitra śukla 1, followed, in the same record, by
a late date, approximating closely to the new-moon of Chaitra, both of them referred to
one and the same Gupta-Valabhî year, and the latter of them distinctly connected with
an event or ceremony which is specifically said to follow after the event or ceremony with
which the former is connected ; or the entry of a late date, approximating closely to the
new-moon of Chaitra, followed, in the same record, by an early date approximating closely
to Chaitra śukla 1, the two of them referred to two consecutive Gupta-Valabhî years, and,
in the same way, the latter of them distinctly connected with an event or ceremony which
is specifically said to follow the event or ceremony with which the former is connected.
And these conditions, of course, are rather difficult of fulfilment.
Meanwhile, I have now made it clear that the original Gupta year was a northern
year with the Pûrṇimânta northern arrangement of the lunar fortnights ; as was, in
fact, to be expected in the case of a year used by so essentially a Northern India dynasty
as the Early Guptas were. And, further on, I shall shew that the saṁvatsaras of the
Twelve-year Cycle of Jupiter, which are quoted in the grants of the Mahârâjas Hastin and
Saṁkshôbha, not only confirm the above results by proving that the details of them cannot
be referred to a year commencing with the month Kârttika, but also prove that we cannot
be concerned even with a year commencing with the new-moon of the month Mârgaśîrsha
(November-December), which is mentioned by Albêrûnî¹ as having been in use, at any
rate in connection with the Lôkakâla reckoning, by the people of Sindh, Multân, Kanauj,
and other parts, and as having been abandoned at Multân only shortly before his own
time. As a matter of fact, a year commencing with Mârgaśîrsha, and having the Pûr-
ṇimânta northern arrangement of the fortnights, would suit the details of every Gupta-
Valabhî date,—including even the Kaira grant of Dharasêna IV. of the year 330 men-
tioned above, and a Verâwal inscription of Valabhî-Saṁvat 927 which will be fully exhi-
bited further on,—except one, viz. the Majhgawâṁ grant of the Mahârâja Hastin of the
year 191, which has been referred to above. This being the sole exception, the calculations
which determine the commencement and end of the saṁvatsara that is quoted in it, were
gone through again and tested with very great care. But the result is that they distinctly
bar the use of a year commencing with Mârgaśîrsha. And thus,—having no other
¹ Albêrûnî's India, Translation, Vol. II. p. 8 f.—He also, in the same place, mentions a year
commencing with the month Bhâdrapada (August-September). But, from his statement, it seems to
have been confined to the vicinity of Kaśmîr. And, under any circumstances, as Bhâdrapada is
earlier than Kârttika in the Śaka year, the circumstances which bar a year commencing with Kârttika,
still more emphatically bar one commencing with Bhâdrapada.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 79
known year of general use to fall back on, except the Śaka year;¹ and giving due con-
sideration to the explicit manner in which Albêrûnî connects the years of the Gupta-Valabhî
era with those of the Śaka era by an even number, without any fractions; and having
regard also to the fact that any Hindu date has to be converted, for purposes of cal-
culation, into its equivalent Śaka date,—we may accept it as almost certain that,
whatever may have been the real historical initial point of the Gupta-Valabhî era, after no
great lapse of time the scheme of its years became in all respects identical with
the scheme of the Śaka year, with the first day of the bright fortnight of Chaitra as
the initial day of each year, and with the Pûrṇimânta northern arrangement of the lunar
fortnights, in accordance, in both respects, with what seems to have been always the
custom of Northern India.²

¹ I have heard from Mr. Vajeshankar Gaurishankar that, in the west of Kâṭhiâwâḍ, there is current
a year commencing with the Âshâḍha śukla 1 that precedes the Kârttika śukla 1 with which the
Vikrama year of the rest of the Province commences. This year is called the Hâlârî year, as belong-
ing to the Hâlâr Prânt or Sub-Division of Kâṭhiâwâḍ. I do not know whether it is coupled with the
Amânta or with the Pûrṇimânta arrangement of the lunar fortnights. But it appears to be of pure-
ly local usage; it does not help to reconcile the discrepancy in the results for the dates of the Kaira
grant of Dharasêna IV. of the year 330 and the Verâwal inscription of Valabhî-Saṁvat 927, as
compared with the results for all the other dates; and, in order to suit the dates in the Êraṇ pillar
inscription of Budhagupta and other records, it ought to commence with the Âshâḍha śukla 1 follow-
ing, not preceding, the Kârttika śukla 1 with which the Vikrama year of the rest of the Province
commences. There appear, therefore, no grounds for supposing that this Hâlârî year is any remnant
of the Gupta reckoning.
² Evidence is, in fact accumulating that, even in Southern India, or at least in some parts of it,
the Amânta southern arrangement of the lunar fortnights was not coupled with the Śaka years until
a comparatively late period.—One point in favour of this is the Haidarâbâd (Dekkan) grant of the
Western Chalukya king Pulikêśin II., in which the details for computation (Ind. Ant. Vol. VI. p. 73,
line 11 ff.) are Śaka-Saṁvat 534 expired, the month Bhâdrapada (August-September), the new-moon
tithi, and an eclipse of the sun. I have noticed this date in the Ind. Ant. Vol. XVI. p. 109 ff.; and
I arrived then at the conclusion that the solar eclipse in question is that of the 23rd July, A.D. 613.
This, however, was in consequence of a mistake as to the English equivalent of the indicated current
Śaka year, due to the manner in which the Tables are arranged for expired years without any distinct
intimation to that effect, and (see Appendix I. below) by no means confined to myself. Śaka-Saṁvat
534 expired, and 535 current, is really equivalent to A.D. 612-13. In this period there was an eclipse
of the sun (see Indian Eras, p. 210) on the 2nd August, A.D. 612; which was the new-moon tithi of
Bhâdrapada according to the Pûrṇimânta northern arrangement. Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit finds, however,
by the Sûrya-Siddhânta, that the tithi ended at 35 ghaṭîs, 46 palas; and consequently that the
eclipse, occurring in the night, was not visible in India. Accordingly, there being no eclipse of the
sun on the given tithi in the preceding year, it is doubtful whether the record really refers to the
eclipse of the 2nd August, A.D. 612; or whether we have here a genuine instance of a mistake
in the year that is quoted, and the eclipse that is really intended is that which occurred, fully visible
under very impressive circumstances at the locality, Bâdâmi, to which the record refers itself, on the
23rd July, A.D. 613, which date again answers to the new-moon tithi of Bhâdrapada according to the
Pûrṇimânta northern arrangement. But the point to which I have to draw attention here, is, that,
whichever of these two eclipses we select, the Pûrṇimânta northern arrangement of the lunar fort-

80 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.

The Calculation of Recorded Dates.

Our next step, therefore, will be, to see how far the available Gupta-Valabhî dates,
converted into Śaka dates by the addition of two hundred and forty-one years in
accordance with Albêrûnî's most specific statement regarding the equation of the two
eras, and treated as northern dates, with the Pûrṇimânta arrangement of the lunar
fortnights, and with Chaitra śukla 1 as the initial day of the year, give satisfactory results ;
and what uniform equations can be established between, on the one hand, the years of
the Gupta-Valabhî era, and, on the other, those of the Śaka and the Christian eras.

The Êraṇ Inscription of the year 165.

The earliest record that furnishes the easy test which is provided by the mention of
the name of a week-day, combined with the other necessary details, and the first that
was tested for me by Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit, is that given in the Êraṇ pillar inscription
nights has to be applied.—Again, in a grant of the Râshṭrakûṭa king Gôvinda III., from the Kanarese
country, we have for calculation (Ind. Ant. Vol. XI. p. 126, line 1 ff.) Śaka-Saṁvat 726, the
Subhânu saṁvatsara of the Sixty-Year Cycle of Jupiter, the month Vaiśâkha (April-May), the dark
fortnight, the fifth tithi, and Bṛihaspativâra or Thursday. Whether a literal translation of the text
indicates the given Śaka year as current, or as expired, is not quite certain. But correct results can
be obtained only by taking it as an expired year. With the basis of Śaka-Saṁvat 726 expired,
the given tithi, belonging to Śaka-Saṁvat 727 current, ended, by the Amânta arrangement, on
Friday, the 3rd May, A.D. 804; but, by the Pûrṇimânta arrangement, on Thursday, the 4th April, as
required. And this is in accordance with the Northern System of the Sixty-Year Cycle, by which the
Subhânu saṁvatsara commenced in Śaka-Saṁvat 726 current, on the 17th June, A.D. 803, and was
followed by the Târaṇa saṁvatsara in Śaka-Saṁvat 727 current, on the 12th June, A.D. 804 ; so that
it was current, as recorded, on the given date. By the Southern System of the cycle, the Subhânu
saṁvatsara coincided with Śaka-Saṁvat 726 current (A.D. 803-804). And for this year, with the
basis of Śaka-Saṁvat 725 expired, the equivalents of the given tithi are, by the Amânta arrangement,
Saturday, the 15th April, A.D. 803, and, by the Pûrṇimânta arrangement, Friday, the 17th March.—
On the other hand, the Śirûr (Dhârwâḍ District) inscription of the Râshṭrakûṭa king Amôghavarsha I.
gives us for calculation (Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 219, line 15 ff.) Śaka-Saṁvat 788, the Vyaya
saṁvatsara, the month Jyêshṭha (May-June), the new-moon tithi Âdityavâra or Sunday, and an
eclipse of the sun. Here, again, it is not quite certain whether a literal translation of the text indi-
cates the given Śaka year as current, or as expired. But correct results can be obtained only by
taking it as an expired year. In Śaka-Saṁvat 788 current (A.D. 865-66), there was no eclipse of the
sun on the given tithi. Also, by the Southern System of the Sixty-Year Cycle the Vyaya saṁvatsara
coincided with Śaka-Saṁvat 789 current (A.D. 866-67) ; and by the Northern System it commenced in
Śaka-Saṁvat 788 current, on the 23rd September, A.D. 865, and was followed by the Sarvajit saṁvat-
sara in Śaka-Saṁvat 789 current, on the 20th September, A.D. 866. With the basis of Śaka-Saṁ-
vat 788 expired, the given tithi ended, by the Pûrṇimânta arrangement, on Saturday, the 18th May,
A.D. 866, when there was no solar eclipse ; but, by the Amânta arrangement, on Sunday, the 16th
June, as required, when there was an eclipse of the sun (see Indian Eras, p. 212), which, as the
tithi ended about 2.0 P.M. (for Bombay), would, cæteris paribus, be visible in India.—It would
appear, therefore, that the Amânta southern arrangement of the lunar fortnights was applied to the
Śaka years, in Southern India, at some point between A.D. 804 and 866.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 81
of Budhagupta, from the Sâgar District in the Central Provinces, No. 19, page 88; in
which the date (line 2 f.) runs — śatê pañcha-shashty-adhikê varshâṇâṁ bhûpatau cha
Budhaguptê | Âshâḍha-mâsa-śukla-dvâdaśyâṁ Suragurôr=divasê || Saṁ 100 60 5,—" in
a century of years, increased by sixty-five; and while Budhagupta (is) king; on the
twelfth tithi, or lunar day, of the bright fortnight of the month Âshâḍha; on the day of
Suraguru; (or in figures) the year 100 (and) 60 (and) 5."
As the palæography of this record shews that the year quoted in it belongs to the same
uniform series with the years quoted in the Early Gupta records,—a point, in fact, that
has never been disputed,—this gives us, for calculation, Gupta-Saṁvat 165, current; the
month Âshâḍha (June-July); the bright fortnight; the twelfth tithi; and the day of Sura-
guru, which, — Suraguru, 'the preceptor of the gods,' being another name of Bṛihaspati,
the regent of the planet Jupiter, — is Bṛihaspativâra or Guruvâra, i.e. Thursday.
This date has been constantly the subject of calculation and controversy. Thus, in
1861, in the Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. XXX. p. 15, note, Dr. F. E. Hall announced, on the
authority of Bapu Deva Shastri of Benares, that, as applied to the epoch of the Vikrama
era, it represented Thursday, the 7th June, A.D. 108, New Style.
Again, in 1879, in the Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. IX. p. 17 f., General Cunningham,—
whose theory then was that the epoch should be A.D. 194-(95),—announced as the
result, Thursday, the 24th June, A.D. 359, Old Style.¹ The basis of this calculation was
Tuesday, the 16th March, corresponding to Chaitra śukla 1, as the initial day of Gupta-
Saṁvat 165 + A.D. 194-95 = A.D. 359-60 = Śaka-Saṁvat 281 expired; and the result
was derived from the assumption that the given tithi fell on its theoretical normal place
on the 101st solar day of the year.² And, in the same place, he intimated that, with the
epoch of A.D. 318-(19), the result would be Friday, the 3rd June, A.D. 483. The basis

¹ It will be understood that the English equivalents of all Hindu dates anterior to the adoption
of the Gregorian Calendar or New Style, given by me and I believe by Gen. Cunningham, are given
according to the Julian Calendar or Old Style. It is not necessary to complicate matters by using
the New Style for a period anterior to its introduction in England.
² This is on the assumption that the lunar months of the Hindu luni-solar years contain thirty
and twenty-nine solar days alternately, in regular succession; see, for instance, Cowasjee Patell's
Chronology, p. 66 ff., Tables III. to XIII., and Cunningham's Indian Eras, p. 66, Table X. The
arrangement given in those Tables, is convenient enough for obtaining approximate results. But, apart
from the principles involved, an examination of any Pañchâṅgs, for any series of years, will shew that
the assumption is not in accordance with facts; and that no definite rule of this kind can be laid down,
to determine, more closely than within one and occasionally two days, the exact running solar day,
from the commencement of the year, on which a given tithi will fall. As a matter of fact, in the ten
years Śaka-Saṁvat 1809 to 1818 inclusive, the position of the end of the twelfth tithi of the bright
fortnight of Âshâḍha, varied from the 100th to the 102nd solar day of the year; and there is a chance
of the tithi in question ending on a Thursday, in any year of which the initial day is a Monday, a
Tuesday, or a Wednesday.—The theoretical arrangement in question also involves a peculiar anomaly.
The first month of the year is supposed to consist of thirty days; and the result is that, in a Śaka year,
L