________________
218
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[AUGUST, 1881.
we possess a very numerous series of dated grants." These inscriptions mention as the founder of this dynasty the Senapati Bhatar ka, who is followed successively by four of his sons. The second of them is the first prince of this series who adopts the title of mahárdia. Of the third of Bhatarka's sons we possess several inscriptions, which bear the dates 207, 210, 216.
The coins, consequently, confirm Albiruni's statement representing the Valabhî dynasty as coming after the Guptas. And the in- scriptions support the belief that the Valabhi kings did not introduce a new era but continued to count the years from an earlier epoch. The distance between the last Gupta dates and the first Valabhi ones which the inscriptions contain, is exactly sufficient to make it highly probable that this early era used by the Valabhis was no other than the Gupta era.
Wherever we possess means of controlling Albiruni's statements, therefore, they prove correct. There is only one of his statements which we cannot adopt. He says that it is the fall of the Guptas, the rising of the Valabhi dynasty, from which the Gupta-Valabhi era begins. This would be most difficult to believe even if we had no inscriptions showing that the Guptakála is the system of chronology used by the Guptas themselves and commencing from the establishment of the Gupta rule. We are reminded of the similar error of Albirûnî or rather of the Indian authorities on which he diepends, stating that the sa ka era which really originated with the abhisheka of the Saka king, began from the ruin of the Saka power. It is evident, however, that an error concerning the historical circumstances connected with the introduction of the Gupta era-an error which is accounted for by the corrupted Indian tradition, cannot by any means discredit the statement of the careful Arabic scholar regarding the initial epoch of this era.
We must now consider another weighty testimony bearing upon the Gupta era.
* See Dr. Bühler's masterly edition of these grants in the different volumes of the Indian Antiquary. The most recent synopsis of the kings mentioned in these inscriptions and of their dates is given by Dr. Burgess, Arch. Survey of l'estern Twia, vol. III, p. 96.
30 Annals of Rajasthan, vol. I, p. 801. Comp. the same author's Travels in Western India, p. 506. A photozincograph of this inscription, which Dr. Burgess has kindly transmitted to me, removes every doulat both as to the autbenticity of the inscription and the correctness of its dates as given by Tod.
Todo mentions an inscription of Arjanadeva found at Pattana Somana tha, the date of which is expressed in four different ways: the year of Muhammad 662, of Vikrams 1320, of Balabbi 945, and of Sivasinga" 151.
Now the Muhammadan year mentioned in this inscription" indicates 319 A. D. as the initial date of the Gupta-Valabhi era, quite in accordance with the above statement of Albiruni.
The difference between the Valabhi and Vikrama epochs amounts, in this inscription, to 375 years, whereas we should expect, according to Albirûnî, 376 years. This inaccuracy may easily be accounted for by what we have said above (p. 214) regarding the fluctuation of chronological epochs that is observed in ancient Indian inscriptions. For the rest, the Muhammadan date given in the inscription shows that it must be the Vikrama date and not the Valabhi date which is affected by the slight inaccuracy spoken of.
Here we have, therefore, a confirmation of Albiruni's statement, which is, in our opinion, as conclusive as possible. Though the power of the Guptas as well as of the Valabhis had long been annihilated in Albiruni's time, and so much longer in Arjunadeva's, their era was still in use. We have a continual series of dates expressed in the Gupta or Valabhi era, which extends from the first century of this era down till far beyond the time of Albirûni," so that it is difficult to understand how the continuity of the tradition regarding the commencement of this era can be reasonably called in question.
Have the scholars who have tried to displace the Gupta era by centuries from the point assigned to it by Albiruni, succeeded in invalidating the tradition which is apparently 80 well founded ? It seems to me that no counterproof has been produced which will in any way stand the test.
Those scholars who refer the Gapta dates to the Saka era, come into conflict not only with the statements of Albirûnî and of Arjunadeva's
31 An era belonging to the Gobil family.
» The year 662 of the Hejra began 1264 October 24, of the Julian calendar.
53 After the Gupta inscriptions and coins the Valabht granta furnish a long continued series of dates from 207 till 447 of the Valabhi era. Then follows the Morbi inscription, Gupta 555 (Ind. Ant., vol. II, p. 258) , afterwards we bave Albiruni 712; & Jain MS. mentioned by the late Dr. Bhad. Deji (Journ. Bombay Br. R. A. 8., vol. VIII, p. 246) dated Gupta 772, and two inscriptions given by Tod, in Valabbi 650 and 945.
