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

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

82 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
of this latter calculation was Wednesday, the 23rd February, corresponding to Chaitra
śukla 1, as the initial day of Gupta-Saṁvat 165 + A.D. 318-19 = A.D. 483-84 = Śaka-
Saṁvat 405 expired ; and the result was derived from the same assumption as regards the
position of the tithi.
In 1880, in the Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. X. p. 115 ff., General Cunningham,—who
had then modified his theory, so as to select A.D. 166-(67) as the epoch,—announced
that the result obtained by Bapu Deva Shastri from the reckoning of the Sûrya-Sid-
dhânta, was a Friday in A.D. 331; but that his own result, obtained from the Ârya-
Siddhânta, was a Thursday in the same year. He did not then give any further
details. But, from the fuller particulars given in his recapitulation of these statements in
1883, in his Book of Indian Eras, p. 55 f., we learn that the dates intended were respec-
tively Friday, the 4th June, and Thursday, the 3rd June, A.D. 331; and that his own
result was arrived at, in the same way, with the basis of Tuesday, the 23rd February, cor-
responding to Chaitra śukla 1, as the initial day of Gupta-Saṁvat 165 + A.D. 166-67 =
A.D. 331-32 = Śaka-Saṁvat 253 expired, and with the same assumption as regards the
position of the tithi. In the former reference, he repeated the same result of Friday
(the 3rd June), A.D. 483, for the epoch of A.D. 318-(19).
In 1882, in the Postscript to his paper on the "Dates on Coins of the Hindu Kings
of Kâbul" which was published in the Numismatic Chronicle, Third Series, Vol. II. p.
128 ff., Sir E. Clive Bayley,—whose theory was that the epoch should be A.D. 190-
(91),—announced that the result was a Thursday in A.D. 355, and that it seemed to
be Thursday, the 17th May, in that year. But he gave no indication of the way in which
this result was obtained; beyond a general reference to Prinsep's Tables in Thomas'
Edition of his Essays, Vol. II. Useful Tables, pp. 180, 181. And, as a matter of fact, this
result was altogether wrong. The 17th May, A.D. 355, was a Wednesday, not a Thurs-
day; and, as closely as can be ascertained by General Cunningham's Tables, it repre-
sents Âshâḍha kṛishṇa 5 of the northern year. Sir E. Clive Bayley seems to have very
soon become aware of the mistake; since, at the end of the copy of the Postscript which,
with a copy of the principal article, reached me from him in May, 1883, there is added, in
manuscript, the remark—"this date is erroneous; but the real date, as calculated by Profes-
sor Jacobi, comes out a Thursday." The real date of Âshâḍha śukla 12 of Gupta-Saṁvat
165 + A.D. 190-91 = A.D. 355-56 = Śaka-Saṁvat 277 expired, is Thursday, the 8th June,
A.D. 355; as obtained by Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit, from Prof. Kero Lakshman Chhatre's
Tables.

when there is no intervening intercalation of a month, the month Kârttika, as the eighth month, is to
contain twenty-nine solar days (see Chronology, Tables IV. and XIII., and Indian Eras, Table X.)
But, as standing first in the southern Vikrama year, the same month Kârttika is to contain thirty
solar days (see Chronology, Table III.) This is an obvious impossibility.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 83
And in 1881, in the Ind. Ant. Vol. X. p. 220, Dr. Oldenberg announced, from the
Tables in Warren's Kala-Sankalita, the correct result; viz. Thursday, the 21st June,
A.D. 484.
Now, the results given by Dr. Hall, General Cunningham, and Sir E. Clive Bayley,
whether right or wrong, and any similar coincidences, may be accepted without hesitation.
And I would only point out, as regards General Cunningham's results for the epoch of
A.D. 166-67, that Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit, by actual calculation from all the authorities, in-
cluding the Ârya-Siddhânta on which General Cunningham specially relied, finds that, in
A.D. 331, the given tithi, belonging to Śaka-Saṁvat 254 current, and calculated with
the basis of Śaka-Saṁvat 253 expired, ended on Friday, the 4th June, and at such an
hour that there is no possibility whatever of Thursday, the 3rd June;¹ and, incidentally, that
the initial day of the same Śaka year was Wednesday, the 24th February, A.D. 331, not
Tuesday, the 23rd February.
The essential point with which we are concerned, is, whether the week-day of
Âshâḍha śukla 12 was a Thursday, if, following Albêrûnî's most specific statement regard-
ing an even difference of two hundred and forty-one years between the Gupta-Valabhî
and the Śaka eras. we make the calculation for Gupta-Saṁvat 165 + 241 = Śaka-Saṁvat
406; or, if the result fails for that year, for the immediately preceding or following
Śaka year.
Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit has made the necessary calculations, by Prof. K. L. Chhatre's
Tables, with these three Śaka years as expired years. And his results are—with Śaka-
Saṁvat 405 expired, Friday, the 3rd June, A.D. 483; with Śaka-Saṁvat 406 expired,
**Thursday, the 21st June, A.D. 484;**² and with Śaka-Saṁvat 407 expired, Tuesday,
the 11th June, A.D. 485. The process by which these results are obtained, is exhibited
in detail, for the second result, in Appendix II. below.
¹ It will be sufficient to quote the four principal authorities. The times for the ending of the given
tithi on Friday, the 4th June, A.D. 331, reckoned (1) from mean sunrise at Bombay, (2) from mean
sunrise at Ujjain, (3) from mean sunrise at Êraṇ, and (4) from apparent sunrise at Êraṇ, are—by Prof.
K. L. Chhatre's Tables, (1) 5 ghaṭîs, 46 palas; (2) 6 gh. 15 p.; (3) 6 gh. 40 p.; (4) 8 gh. 40 p.;—by the
Sûrya-Siddhânta, (1) 7 gh. 0 p.; (2) 7 gh. 29 p.; (3) 7 gh. 54 p.; (4) 9 gh. 54 p.;—by the Ârya-Sid-
dhânta, (1) 8 gh. 14 p.; (2) 8 gh. 43 p.; (3) 9 gh. 8 p.; (4) 11 gh. 8 p.;—and by the Brahma-Siddhânta,
(1) 9 gh. 16 p.; (2) 9 gh. 45 p.; (3) 10 gh. 10 p.; (4) 12 gh. 10 p. The times are not absolutely
accurate; but the results obtained by absolute accuracy would differ by only a few palas.
² The results are put in this way for the sake of brevity. The more absolutely accurate method
of expressing them, would be to say, in this instance, that the given tithi, as belonging to Śaka-
Saṁvat 407 current, and as calculated with the basis of Śaka-Saṁvat 406 expired, ended on a Hindu
Thursday, and at such a time that it ended also during the English Thursday, which was the 21st June,
A.D. 484, Old Style.—The hours at which the tithi ended, according to the different authorities, and
as reckoned from mean or from apparent sunrise at Bombay, Ujjain, and Êraṇ, are given in
Appendix II. Table VI.
12.

84 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
The second result, Thursday, the 21st June, A.D. 484, is the only one that
answers to the week-day mentioned in the record. And a reference to Appendix II.
Table VI. will shew that it so answers, not only by Prof. K. L. Chhatre's Tables, but
also by the Ârya-Siddhânta, and by all the other leading authorities. It answers, as is
required, to the treatment of the Gupta year as a northern Śaka year; though it does
not, in itself, prove conclusively either the exact epoch of the era, or the scheme of the
year; for the reason that, being a date in a bright fortnight, this Âshâḍha śukla 12 was
the same tithi, and fell on the same solar day, represented by the 21st June, all over
India, in the southern as well as the northern Śaka-Saṁvat 407 current, and in southern
Vikrama-Saṁvat 541 current, as well as in northern Vikrama-Saṁvat 542 current. It
gives Śaka-Saṁvat 407 current (A.D. 484-85), as the equivalent of the given current
Gupta year. And finally, as it is obtained by applying the resulting year, Śaka-Saṁvat
406, as an expired year, so that the given tithi really belongs to Śaka-Saṁvat 407 current,
it shews that, in following Albêrûnî's statement and adding two hundred. and forty-one,
what is really accomplished is the conversion of a given current Gupta-Valabhî year into
an expired Saka year, by which we obtain precisely the basis that is wanted for working
out results by Hindu Tables, viz. the last Śaka year expired before the commence-
ment of the current Śaka year corresponding to a given current Gupta-
Valabhî year; and that the running difference between current Gupta-Valabhî and
current Śaka years, is two hundred and forty-two.¹
The Verâwal Inscription of Valabhî-Saṁvat 945.
In this connection, I will notice next the Verâwal inscription of the Chaulukya
king Arjunadêva, on a stone at the temple of Harsaṭadêvî at Verâwal, the modern
representative of the ancient Sômnâthpâṭan, in Kâṭhiâwâḍ. This date furnishes a specially
crucial test; partly because it is a date in a dark fortnight; and partly because, coming
from Kâṭhiâwâḍ, and belonging to a comparatively late period, and being mentioned in the
same record with a Vikrama year, there was a special chance of finding that its details had
been confused with, or rather had been subordinated to, the reckoning of the southern
Vikrama era, which was, and is, the original national era in Kâṭhiâwâḍ and the neighbour-
ing country of Gujarât. It will be seen, however, that this has not happened.
The details of this date (from Dr. Hultzsch's published text; Ind. Ant. Vol. XI. p. 242,
line 2 ff.) are — śrī-Viśvanâtha-pratibaddha-naujananâṁ bôdhaka-rasûla-Mahammada-
saṁvat 662 tathâ śrī-nṛipa-Vikrama-saṁvat 1320 tathâ śrīmad-Valabhî-saṁ 945 tathâ
¹ Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar arrived at the conclusion (Early History of the Dekkan, p. 99) that the
addition of 241 would turn a past Gupta year into a past Śaka year; and the addition of 242, a past
Gupta year into a current Śaka year. This result is due to the general mistake as regards the epoch
of the Śaka era (see page 64 above, note 2).—For an instance of the actual use by Hindus of the
additive quantity 242, see page 26 above, note 2.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION 85
śrî-Siṁha-saṁ 151 varshê Ashâḍha va di 13 Ravâv=ady=êha ............ iha śrî-Sôma-
nâthadêva-pattanê,—"the year 662 of the prophet Mahammada, who is the teacher of the
sailors connected with (the temple of) the holy (god) Viśvanâtha; so also the year
1320 of the glorious king Vikrama; so also the year 945 of the famous (city of)
Valabhî; so also the year 151 of the glorious Siṁha; in (this) year; the month Âshâḍha;
the dark fortnight;¹ the (solar) day 13; on Sunday; to-day (and) here; ............
here, in the city of the holy god Sômanâtha."
This gives us, for calculation, Valabhî-Saṁvat 945, current; the month Âshâḍha
(June-July); the dark fortnight; the thirteenth solar day of the fortnight, with whatever
tithi, presumably the thirteenth, fell on it; and Ravivâra, or Sunday. And,—as the
mention of the year 1320 of the Vikrama era, and of the year 662 of the prophet Muḥam-
mad, which is the year 662 of the well-known Hijra era, and commenced² on Sunday,
the 4th November, A.D. 1263, and ended on Saturday, the 23rd October, A.D. 1264,
shews that the Valabhî era quoted in this record must have had its starting-point in or
about A.D. 319, and must of necessity be the Valabhî era that is mentioned by Albêrûnî,
—in accordance with the results obtained for the date in the Êraṇ inscription, the given
tithi should belong to Valabhî-Saṁvat 945 + 242 = Śaka-Saṁvat 1187 current (A.D.
1264-65): and, in using Hindu Tables, the calculation should be made with the basis of
Śaka-Saṁvat 1186 expired.
Before proceeding to the results, however, there are some preliminary points to be
noted. The first is, that, as the inscription is specifically connected with a locality in
Kâṭhiâwâḍ, the presumption is that the Vikrama year quoted in it, is a southern
Vikrama year, commencing with the first day of the bright fortnight of the month
¹ The syllable va, in the original, either is an abbreviation of vadya, whether alone or in compo-
sition with paksha or pakshê, or stands for ba, the abbreviation of bahula, similarly either alone or in
composition with paksha or pakshê.—As regards the point that ba di, or va di, and śu di, are
separate technical abbreviations, not words in themselves, see page 92 (Text and Translations),
note 1.—Just as di is sometimes used with ba or va and śu, and sometimes is omitted, so in the
Nêpâl inscriptions (see Appendix IV. below) the indeclinable divâ, 'by day,' is sometimes used, and
sometimes not, in connection with the number of the tithi. So also sometimes di, or one of its full
forms, dina, dinê, divasa, or divasê, is used without any specification of the fortnight. The exact
meaning of the differences of practice in this respect, is not quite certain; and could only be settled
by a large number of calculations. But it seems evident that, when di is used, or any of its full
forms, the reference is to the solar day, in conformity with what would naturally be the most ancient
reckoning; not to the lunar tithi. If, at a subsequent period, the solar days became subject to ex-
punction and repetition, with the lunar tithis, then the running number in the fortnight will always
be the same for both the lunar tithi and the solar day. If not, then the thirteenth tithi, for instance,
might fall at any time on the twelfth or the fourteenth solar day, as counted without repetition or ex-
punction from the commencement of the fortnight. And, in the differences of expression, there may
perhaps be a reference to some such difference in the notation
² See Indian Eras, p. 126.

86 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
Kârttika (October-November). This, however, apart from the natural presumption, is
rendered absolutely certain by the concomitant mention of the Hijra year; from which,
since the month Âshâḍha answers ordinarily to June-July, it is plain,—as was pointed out
by Dr. Hultzsch in editing the inscription,¹ and by General Cunningham in commenting
on the date,²—that the English date which we have to look for lies in or about June
or July, A.D. 1264. This at once removes the possibility of any reference to the northern
Vikrama year; since the month Âshâḍha of the northern Vikrama-Saṁvat 1321 current,³
is represented by June-July of the preceding English year, A.D. 1263. Also, since the
period June-July, A.D. 1264, fell in Śaka-Saṁvat 1187 current, it removes any real neces-
sity of making calculations for Śaka-Saṁvat 1186 current and 1188 current; the results,
however, for these two years will be given, in order to help in setting the general question
entirely at rest.
So much, as regards the English equivalent of the given date lying in A.D. 1264, had
been clearly pointed out by Dr. Hultzsch and General Cunningham. But nothing fur-
ther, that I can find, was said about the details of the English equivalent, until just before
the time when I first had occasion to consider this date;⁴ when, in a letter dated the 3rd
December, 1885, General Cunningham announced to me that the equivalent English date
is Sunday, the 25th May,⁵ A.D. 1264.
This result, Sunday, the 25th May, A.D. 1264, is, as will be seen below, the cor-
rect one. But, in order to explain its full bearing, more is requisite, than simply to state
it; especially because it is necessary to shew clearly, in the face of what has elsewhere been
written about this date, that this result is not obtained from the mention of Vikrama-Saṁvat
1320, though it does answer the requirements of that mention; i.e. that it is not the
result for a year commencing on the first day of the bright fortnight of the month Kârttika
which fell in A.D. 1263; and, consequently, that, even apart from what I have already
established, this record proves that Valabhî-Saṁvat 945 commenced at any rate not with
that day.⁶ And here I would remark incidentally, that no argument, of identity between
¹ Ind. Ant. Vol. XI. p. 241. ² Indian Eras, pp. 50, 53, 63.
³ According to the present Tables, the given Vikrama year 1320 must be interpreted as an
expired year; and the indicated current year is, therefore, 1321. This, however, does not make the
given Valabhî year an expired year; just as it does not, and can not, convert the given Hijra year
into an expired year.
⁴ Ind. Ant. Vol. XVI. p. 147 ff.
⁵ The ordinary equivalent of Âshâḍha is June-July. But the dark fortnight of the northern
Âshâḍha corresponds to the dark fortnight of the southern Jyeshṭha, which month is ordinarily May-
June. And this, with the fact that Śaka-Saṁvat 1187, current, commenced rather early, on Saturday,
the 1st March, or Friday, the 29th February, A.D. 1264, is the reason why this dark fortnight of
Âshâḍha fell entirely in May.
⁶ As opposed to these results Gen. Cunningham (Indian Eras, p. 53) has quoted this record as
proving absolutely that Valabhî-Saṁvat 1=A.D. 319 (.20); which could only be by taking the epoch as

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 87

the two years, can be based on the mere fact that the record mentions both a Valabhî
year and a southern Vikrama year. It might just as well be asserted that the mention also
of the Hijra year 662, shews that the scheme of the years of that era, too, is identical with
the scheme of the southern Vikrama year; whereas,—even apart from the fact that the
Hijra year 662 commenced, as stated above, on Sunday, the 4th November, A.D. 1263,
while the southern Vikrama-Saṁvat 1320, as an expired year, i.e., more properly, southern
Vikrama-Saṁvat 1321 current, commenced on Friday, the 5th October of that same
year,¹— everyone knows that these two eras have absolutely nothing in common at all ;
the Hijra era being a purely Musalmân era. The Verâwal record is simply analogous
exactly to scores of documents that are still being turned out in India, in which the date
is expressed according to the English and also one or other of the Indian systems ; and in
which the principal record depends entirely upon the person by whom, and the circum-
stances under which, it is drawn up. Sometimes it will be the English date; sometimes
the Indian. We shall see immediately that, in this Verâwal inscription, the principal
record is the Valabhî date; and that the Vikrama date accidentally, as well as the Hijra date
naturally, was entirely subordinated to it. Possibly, we may hereafter obtain instances, in
which the reverse of this will be found to have been the case. But they will not avail to
disprove any of the pointed and unavoidable conclusions, regarding the epoch of the
Gupta-Valabhî era and the scheme of its years, which are absolutely forced on us by the
circumstances of the present Verâwal date.
The second point to be noted· is, that the month Âshâḍha which fell in A.D. 1264,—
i.e. both the Âshâḍha of northern Śaka-Saṁvat 1187 and northern Vikrama-Saṁvat 1322,
and the slightly different Âshâḍha of southern Śaka-Saṁvat 1187 and southern Vikrama-
Saṁvat 1321,—was an intercalary month.² The effect of the intercalation was as fol-
lows :—The initial day of Śaka-Saṁvat 1187, both northern and southern, and of the
A.D. 318-19, and by treating the years as commencing, from the beginning, on Kârttika śukla 1.—Also
(id. pp. 50, 63) he treats Vikrama-Saṁvat 1320 as the leading record of the date; and very clearly
implies throughout, though he does not actually state, the identity of the scheme of the Valabhî and
southern Vikrama years.
¹ Cowasjee Patell’s Chronology, p. 150.
² See Indian Eras, p. 179.—The fact is also proved by K. L. Chhatre’s Tables. In C. Patell’s
Chronology, p. 150, the intercalation is entered opposite Śaka-Saṁvat 1186 (expired) and southern
Vikrama-Saṁvat 1321 (expired). This is in accordance with a mistake that runs all through his
Table I. pp. 94 to 183. The intercalations are placed by him correctly for the Śaka years. But he has
omitted to point out that, in applying them to the Vikrama years, which, throughout his Table, are
the southern Vikrama years, they must, in consequence of the way in which the years of the two eras
overlap, be read off as far as the months Chaitra to Âśvina, both inclusive, are concerned, for the
Vikrama year preceding that opposite to which they are entered; at least, I can find no note in his
book to that effect.—A reference to Table III. at page 71 above, will shew at once that an intercalation
of any month from Chaitra to Âśvina inclusive, for Śaka-Saṁvat 1186 expired, northern or southern,
did occur for northern Vikrama-Saṁvat 1321 expired, but southern Vikrama-Saṁvat 1320 expired.

90 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
nesday, the 4th July, or Thursday, the 5th July, A.D. 1263, for the thirteenth tithi, but,
in either case, Friday, the 6th July, for the thirteenth solar day; with northern Śaka-
Saṁvat 1187 expired, Saturday, the 13th June, A.D. 1265, for both the thirteenth tithi and
the thirteenth solar day; and with southern Śaka-Saṁvat 1187 expired, Sunday, the 12th
July, A.D. 1265, for the thirteenth tithi, but Monday, the 13th July, for the thirteenth
solar day. The last is the only other case in which the result includes a Sunday at all.
But it is of no practical value; because it is obtained by the treatment of the Śaka year as
a southern year, whereas I have already shewn that this is not the treatment which is to
be applied; and, still more conclusively, because it would have to be allotted to the
southern Vikrama-Saṁvat 1321 expired, whereas the record specifically refers to the
preceding year, 1320 (expired).
The true English equivalent of the given date, therefore, really is Sunday, the 25th
May, A.D. 1264. This result, and this alone, answers all the requirements of the record.
It is the equivalent of a date which falls, as recorded, within the limits of southern
Vikrama-Saṁvat 1320 (expired); though it is not the equivalent of any day in the month
Âshâḍha as referred to that year; for, if it is treated as the equivalent of a date referred
to that year (and to southern Śaka-Saṁvat 1186 expired), then, of course, it represents
the thirteenth tithi and solar day of the dark fortnight of the month Jyêshtha, preceding
Âshâḍha. It answers to the specified day of the natural, not the intercalated, month;
as is expressly required, partly by the absence, in the record, of any specification of the
intercalated month, and partly by the general prohibition regarding intercalated months.
Also, as is seen from the particulars given above, it is obtainable only by treating the
expired Śaka year, which is the basis of the calculation, as a northern year. According-
ly, it not only bears out in all respects the results obtained from the date in the Êraṇ
pillar inscription of Budhagupta, but also goes beyond them. It definitely proves the
running difference of two hundred and forty-two years between current Gupta-Valabhî and
current Śaka years. It also proves that the true original scheme of the years of the
Gupta-Valabhî era,—viz. the regular Pûrṇimânta northern scheme, as established at
page 76 f. above,—was preserved, in Kâṭhiâwâḍ, up to at any rate A.D. 1264. It
gives Śaka-Saṁvat 1187 current (A.D. 1264-65), as the equivalent of the given current
Gupta-Valabhî year. And it definitely proves that the exact epoch of the era was Śaka-
Saṁvat 241 expired, or 242 current, corresponding to A.D. 319-20.
This result, therefore, will now be taken, in the place of the result obtained from the
date of the Êraṇ pillar inscription of Budhagupta of Gupta-Saṁvat 165, as furnishing the
definite standard, on the analogy of which we must calculate all the remaining dates in the
Gupta-Valabhî era that supply details for computation.
The Verâwal Inscription of Valabhî-Saṁvat 927.
The third and last date, with the mention of a week-day, that I have to comment on,
is contained in an inscription which has not as yet been published, but has been placed at

my disposal, for present purposes, by Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji, the discoverer of it. The
inscription is on the pedestal of an old image, which is now built into the wall of the
modern temple of the goddess Harsaṭadêvî at Verâwal. The date, with some important
words in the context, (from Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji’s cloth-rubbing) runs — (l. 1) śrîmad-
Valabhî-sa[ṁ*]vat 927 varshê Phâlguṇa śu di 2 Saumê || Ady=êha śrî-Dêvapattanê
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (l. 4) śrî-Gôvarddhana-mûrtti[ḥ*] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(l. 5) kârâpitâ ;—in which, unfortunately, there is some doubt as to the proper rendering
of the first syllable of the word that gives the name of the week-day. The vowel au was
undoubtedly formed ; though, in the rubbing, the top-stroke is partially filled up, in con-
sequence either of want of depth in the engraving, or of want of care in making the
rubbing. And, the consonant presenting the appearance in the rubbing of being bh,
the natural inclination is to read Bhaumê, “on Tuesday.” Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji, how-
ever, tells me that, in the original, the consonant is certainly s; and the appearance of bh,
therefore, is due to an imperfection in the rubbing. The reading of the original, accord-
ingly, is to be taken as Saumê. But this is not a real word ; and it requires to be corrected
into either Sômê, “on Monday ;” Bhaumê, “on Tuesday ;” or Saumyê, “on Wednesday.”
It is unfortunate that we should have to make any correction at all, in a point of such
importance ; especially when so very free a choice is open. But it has to be done. And
the calculated results favour the supposition that the reading intended was Sômê,
“on Monday.” Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji was of opinion that the intended reading
was Bhaumê, “on Tuesday ;” which, of course, might be supported by assuming
carelessness on the part of the engraver, in letting his tool slip in such a way as
to give the bh a more or less complete appearance of s. But, from the appearance of the
rubbing, the reading Sômê is equally justifiable, on the assumption that the partial appear-
ance of bh in the rubbing, instead of s, is due only to a fault in the rubbing, and that the
mistake in forming au instead of ô was discovered before the stroke which turns ô into au was
completed ; this would account for this stroke being so shallow as to cause the blur which
almost entirely conceals it in the rubbing. Adopting the reading or correction of Sômê, the
translation will be — “the year 927 of the famous (city of) Valabhî ; in (this) year ; (the
month) Phâlguna ; the bright fortnight ; the (solar) day 2 ; on Monday ; to-day ; here
in the famous (city of) Dêvapattana . . . . . . . . . . (this) image of the holy Gôvardhana
. . . . . . . . . . has been caused to be made.”
This gives us, for calculation, Valabhî-Saṁvat 927, current ; the month Phâlguna
(February-March) ; the bright fortnight ; the second solar day of the fortnight, and pre-
sumably the second tithi ; and Sômavâra, or Monday. And, on the analogy of the
Verâwal inscription of Valabhî-Saṁvat 945, the given tithi should belong to Valabhî-
Saṁvat 927 + 242 = Śaka-Saṁvat 1169 current (A.D. 1246-47) ; and the calculation
should be made with the basis of Śaka-Saṁvat 1168 expired.
m 24

92 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.

Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit’s calculations, however, made, as before, for a year before and a
year after the resulting year, as well as for that year itself, give the following results, in
each case for both the second solar day and the second tithi, both by Prof. K. L. Chhatre’s
Tables and by the Sûrya-Siddhânta; viz. with Śaka-Saṁvat 1167 expired, **Monday,**¹
the 19th February, A D. 1246; with Śaka-Saṁvat 1168 expired, **Saturday,**² the 9th
February, A.D. 1247; and with Śaka-Saṁvat 1169 expired, **Wednesday,**³ the 29th Janu-
ary, A.D. 1248.
The result for Śaka-Saṁvat 1169, which is the year in which the week-day should
presumably prove correct, does not answer at all. If we could understand that the reading
intended was Saumyê, "on Wednesday," then the result for Śaka-Saṁvat 1170 might be
accepted; subject only to the considerations that Saumyavâra, though perfectly allowable,
is not often used as a synonym for Budhavâra, 'Wednesday;' and that the result is later
by a year than what it ought to be, and can be arrived at only through accepting an altera-
tion in the reckoning of the Gupta-Valabhî era, precisely the opposite of the alteration
which, as shewn at page 72 f. above, was certainly made, in Gujarât, before the date of the
Kaira grant of Dharasêna IV. of the year · 30. If, on the other hand, we take Sômê, "on
Monday," as the intended reading, then the result for Śaka-Saṁvat 1168 may be accepted,
subject only to the consideration that it is earlier by a year than what it ought to be.
This result would be quite intelligible, if we could refer the given date to a year com-
mencing with Mârgaśîrsha; for then, belonging to Valabhî Saṁvat 927, it would belong
quite regularly to Śaka-Saṁvat 1168, and its English equivalent would fall quite regularly
in A.D. 1246. This, however, as I have stated at page 78 above, is distinctly prevented
by a perfectly conclusive obstacle. The only resource that remains, is to hold that, for
some reason or other, the date given in this record, like the date in the Kaira grant of
Dharasêna IV. of the year 330, was taken from a Gujarât almanac, and belongs to a year
the initial day of which was the Kârttika śukla 1 preceding the true commencement of
Gupta-Valabhî-Saṁvat 927. This, again, would be perfectly intelligible, if we could only
assume that the image, which is probably portable enough, was fashioned, together with
the engraving of the inscription, at some place in Gujarât; and was then transported by
a pilgrim to Verâwal. But the objection to this is, that the inscription seems to record
distinctly that the image was made at Dêvapattana; and Dêvapattana is well known as
another name of Sômnâthpâṭan, i.e. the modern Verâwal itself; and it is difficult to
understand how the corrupt Gujarât reckoning of the Gupta-Valabhî era can have been
introduced at Verâwal in A.D. 1246, when, as we have already seen from the other Verâwal
inscription, of Valabhî-Saṁvat 945, the true original reckoning was used there up to at

¹ The tithi ended, by Prof. K. L. Chhatre’s Tables, 29 ghaṭîs, 59 palas, and by the Sûrya-Siddhânta, 30 ghaṭîs, 2 palas, after mean sunrise at Bombay.
² Here the times are respectively 8 ghaṭîs, 33 palas, and 9 ghaṭîs, 25 palas.
³ Here the times are respectively 31 ghaṭîs, 57 palas, and 34 ghaṭîs, 43 palas.

least eighteen years later. The explanation, however, is perhaps to be found in the sup-
position that the inscription was prepared under the personal direction of a pilgrim from
Gujarât, who had brought a Gujarât almanac with him.
On the whole, be the explanation what it may, there seems no doubt that the proper
result is Monday, the 19th February, A.D. 1246. This, however, does not support
the running difference of exactly two hundred and forty-two years between current
Gupta-Valabhî and current Śaka years; nor, as the given date belongs to a bright fort-
night, does it prove anything as to the northern or southern nature of the Gupta-Valabhî
year. If it is taken as the result for a date belonging to a year the scheme of which was
identical with the scheme of the Śaka year, northern or southern,—i.e. as the result for
a date in a year which commenced with the Chaitra śukla 1 belonging to Śaka-Saṁvat
1168 current,—it requires a running difference of two hundred and forty-one years only.
While, if it is taken as the result for a date belonging to a year the scheme of which
was identical with the scheme of the southern Vikrama years,—i.e. as the result, obtained
through Śaka-Saṁvat 1167 expired, for a date in a year which, with the southern
Vikrama-Saṁvat 1303 current, commenced with the following Kârttika śukla 1, still
belonging to Śaka-Saṁvat 1168 current, and falling five months before the true com-
mencement of Gupta-Valabhî-Saṁvat 927,—then it requires a running difference lying
between two hundred and forty-one and two hundred and forty-two. As in the case of the
Kaira grant of Dharasêna IV. of the year 330, which has been referred to at page 72 above
and is now to be explained in detail, the latter is the way in which I apply the result.
And it gives, therefore, the southern Vikrama-Saṁvat 1303 current (A.D. 1245-46), as the
nominal equivalent of the given current Valabhî year. But I have to point out distinctly
that the date is not a satisfactory one, since an important correction of some kind or
another has to be made, in order to interpret it intelligibly at all; and that in no way
does it give a conclusive result, like that of the other Verâwal inscription, of Valabhî-
Saṁvat 945.
The Kaira Grant of the year 330.
The preceding is the last instance, as yet obtained, of the mention of a week-day in a
record dated in the Gupta-Valabhî era. There are, however, three inscriptions, containing
other interesting details for computation, which will now be noticed, before dealing with the
question of the Twelve-year Cycle of Jupiter.
The first of them is a Kaira grant of Dharasêna IV. of Valabhî; in which
the date (from Dr. Bühler's published text; Ind. Ant. Vol. XV. p. 339, line 57) runs —
saṁ 300 30 dvi-Mârggaśira śu 2,— "the year 300 (and) 30; the second (month) Mârgaśira;
the bright fortnight; (the lunar day) 2.
This gives us, for calculation, Gupta-Saṁvat 330, current; an intercalation of the
month Mârgaśira or Mârgaśîrsha (November-December), as shewn by the reference

94 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
in the text to two months of that name; the bright fortnight of the second Mârgaśirsha;
and the second tithi or lunar day. And, on the analogy of the Verâwal inscription
of Valabhî-Saṁvat 945, the given intercalated month should belong to Gupta-Saṁvat
330 + 242 = Śaka-Saṁvat 572 current (A.D. 649-50); and the calculation should be
made with the basis of Śaka-Saṁvat 571 expired.
General Cunningham, however,¹ shews no intercalation in that year; but, in the pre-
ceding year, Śaka-Saṁvat 571, an intercalation of the month Kârttika, which would fall in
A.D. 648; and this appears to be quite correct, in accordance with the regulation of inter-
calations by the actual place of the sun. Looking further into the matter, Dr. Schram, as
reported by Dr. Bühler,² found that in A.D. 648 there certainly was an intercalated month,
which, according to the present method would be Kârttika, but according to the rule
for mean intercalations, would be Mârgaśîrsha. So, also, Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit finds, by
actual calculation from the Sûrya-Siddhânta, that, by mean intercalation, in A.D. 648
there was an intercalated month between the natural Mârgaśirsha and the natural
Pausha, which would be named Mârgaśîrsha according to the verse Mêsh-Adi-sthê
savitari &c., that is quoted as belonging to the Brahma-Siddhânta;³ though it would
be named Pausha according to the present practice. In either case, the two intercalated
fortnights are, of course, the same lunar period; the only difference is in respect of
the name by which that period should be called. And, in finding that period coupled
with the name of Mârgaśîrsha, there is the fact, which must be admitted, that, in contra-
vention of the usual rule, the grant recorded in this inscription was made in the intercala-
ted month; a deviation for which I cannot find any reason in the record itself. Having
regard to this and other points, I asked Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit to also make the necessary
calculations on the possibility of the abbreviation dvi for dvitîya, ‘the second,’ qualifying,
not only the word Mârgaśira, but the whole expression Mârgaśira śu 2; i.e. on the possi-
bility of the intercalation or repetition referring to the tithi or lunar day, not to the month;
in which case the date might have been referred, quite regularly, to Śaka-Saṁvat 572. He
finds, however, that the second tithi of the bright fortnight of Mârgaśîrsha of Śaka-Saṁvat
572, falling in A.D. 649, was not a repeated tithi, either by Prof. K. L. Chhatre’s Table, or
by the Sûrya-Siddhânta; and that, on the contrary, by the Sûrya-Siddhânta, there is the
possibility of this tithi having been expunged, in the far eastern parts of India. It is certain,
therefore, that the intercalation refers to the month; not to the tithi. And it is equally
certain that in Śaka-Saṁvat 571 there was an intercalated month, falling in A.D. 648,
which might be named Mârgaśira or Mârgaśîrsha, and which evidently was actually so
named in the almanac that was consulted by the drafter of this record. This being the
case, there cannot have been an intercalation of the same month, or in fact of any month
at all, in the following year, Śaka-Saṁvat 572. Therefore, the Mârgaśîrsha of this record
¹ Indian Eras, p. 158.
² Ind. Ant. Vol. XV. p. 338.
³ See page 88 above, note 5.