________________
DECEMBER, 1888.]
month Phalguna, in February, A.D. 319. And, by the heliacal-rising system, at the commencement of Saka-Samvat 1 current (A.D. 78-79), the samvatsara was Mahâ-Bhadrapada, the eleventh in the cycle; which was followed by Mahâ-Âśvayuja, the twelfth, on the twelfth lunar day of the bright fortnight of the month Vaisakha, in April, A.D. 78, soon after the commencement of the year. While, at the commencement of Saka-Samvat 241 current (A.D. 318-19), the samvatsara was Mahâ-Pausha, the third in the cycle; which was followed by Maha-Mâgha, the fourth, on the sixth lunar day of the bright fortnight of the month Sravana, in July, A.D. 318. Thus, between Saka-Samvat 1 and Saka-Samvat 241, there had expired twenty complete cycles and three samvatsaras over by the mean-sign system, and twenty cycles and four samvatsaras over by the heliacal-rising system; and the epoch of the Gupta era could not be determined by any consideration connected with this cycle, unless it should be placed in A.D. 315-16 or A.D. 314-15.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR THE GUPTA ERA.
It is thus evident that the so-called Gupta era is not one which, due originally to some event occurring only in approximation to A.D. 318, 319, or 320, had its exact epoch determined, for convenience of comparison with the Saka era, by adopting the expiration of an even number of cycles of the planet Jupiter, either of the Twelve-Year or of the SixtyYear system. And no other chronological or astronomical considerations suggest themselves, for the selection of the exact epoch that has been proved. Its origin, therefore, must be found in some historical event, which occurred actually in A.D. 320, or so closely to that time that, when the scheme of the northern Saka year was applied, the reckoning of the era was not affected to any appreciable extent. And here, though the point is not conclusive either way, we must bear in mind that, as I have shewn fully in Corp. Inser. Indic. Vol. III. page 19 ff., in the epigraphical references to the era there is nothing at all, at any early period, to connect the name of the Early Guptas with it, especially as the founders of it; and nothing to connect the name of Valabhi with it, until at least nine centuries after its establishment.
37 See ante, Vol. VIII. p. 187 ff.
365
We must also bear in mind that it is certain that the era cannot have been established by any member of the Valabhi family; the reasons for this being (1) that, for the first six or seven generations, the members of this family were mere feudatory Sénápatis and Mahárájas, without the authority to establish an era of their own; and (2) that the date of the year 207 for the Maharaja Dhruvasêna I., in the second generation, proves that the reckoning runs from long before the first rise to power of his father, the Senapati Bhațârka, by whom the family was founded.
In the same way, the first two members of the Early Gupta family, Gupta and Ghatôtkacha, held only the fendatory rank of Maharája, and had not the authority to establish an era. The first paramount sovereign in the family was Ghatotkacha's son, Chandragupta I. And, if a Gupta era, truly and properly so called, was devised in his time, then as its startingpoint there would have been selected the commencement of his reign, not the date of the rise to power of his first recorded ancestor, the Mahárúja Gupta; as was done in the case of the Harsha era, which disregards, not only three generations of Mahúrájas at the commencement of the genealogy, but even the reigns of two kings, Prabhakaravardhana and Râjyavardhana II., and runs from the commencement of the reign of the third paramount sovereign, Harshavardhana himself. So, also, when the Western Châlukya king Vikramâditya VI. established a new era under the name of the Chalukya-Vikrama-Kala,37 he disregarded the reigns of all his ancestors, and made the era date from his own accession to the throne. The dates in the Early Gupta records shew clearly that the Gupta era cannot, under any circumstances, ran from the accession of any member of the dynasty later than Chandragupta I. And there are essential difficulties, under any normal conditions, in the way of making the era date from the commencement of his reign; i.e. of taking A.D. 520-21 as his first current year. For his greatgrandson, Kumâragupta, we have dates in the era, ranging from the year 96 to the year 130 odd;38 of which we may take, as the latest
38 See ante, Vol. XV. p. 191.
