________________
NOVEMBER, 1891.]
THE GUPTA-VALABHI ERA.
385
It follows therefore that, as previously announced, the correct English equivalent is Sunday, 25th May, A. D. 1264, for the first půrnimánta Äshadha kļishna 13 as the ended tithi of ordinary use. As far as the given Vikramaa year is concerned, this day fell in VikramaSamvat 1320 only as the expired southern year (see ante, Vol. XIX. p. 180, No. 129). And as regards the "Saka era, it fell in 'Saka-Samvat 1187 current. Thus, then, the purnimúnta AshAdha krishna 13 of Valabhi-Samvat 945, was the purnimánta Ashidha kşishwa 13 of SakaSamvat 1187 corrent. And the piirnimánta Ashadha krishna 13 of Valabhi-Samvat 1 would be the purnimanta Äshidha krishņa 13 of 'Saka-Samvat 243 current. This agrees exactly, either with the results established under B. and C., or with the result established under E. This date, however, because of the period and locality to which it belongs, is to be classified with E., and not with A., B., C., and D.
I have here only one other point to mention. From the circumstances of this date, I held it to be proved (Gupta Inscriptions, Introd. p. 90) that the original use of the purnimanta arrangement of the lunar fortnights with the years of the Gupta era was preserved in Kathiếwad, - irregularly, it is true; but still occasionally, - up to at any rate A. D. 1264, In reality, however, this record farnishes no such absolute proof; for, Prof. Kielhorn has been able to adduce eight other instances, ranging from A. D. 1136 to 1482 (ante, Vol. XIX. pp. 178-81, 354), in which, for certain, the púrpimanta arrangement of the fortnights is used with southern expired Vikrama years. On this point, therefore, I now withdraw the conclusion at which I arrived in my original treatment of the Gupta era. This, and the result for the Môrbi date, are the only matters in which I have to modify my views, - in the first case, in respect of the arrangement of the fortnights in Kathiawad, and in the second case, in respect of the English equivalent: in other respects my original views are simply re-stated, in, I hope, a more correct and lacid form.
IV. - CURRENT AND EXPIRED YEARS; THE EXACT EPOCH OF THE ERA IN EACH VARIETY ; AND THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE DATES.
So far we have simply taken the evident results for the dates, whether Gupta of Central India, Nepalese, or Valabhi of Kathiâwâd, without any attempt to decide whether the unqualifled years quoted in the original passages are to be applied as current or as expired. This point has now to be considered ; since on it depends the exact commencement of the era, with the other points that are now in view.
The Môrbi grant (F.) is the only one in which the year is not left unqualified. In it we have distinctly " the year 585, expired." But, unfortunately, no information is given as to the month and week-day of the eclipse, or as to the week-day on which the charter was written; and there is a very wide choice available in the selection of the eclipse. Consequently, the quotation of the expired year here helps us in no way at all in respect of the other dates. All that can be done is to select for this date such a result as will place it on terms exactly analogous to the others; and this is done by the result chosen by me above.
Now, the result deduced under B. and C. is that the initial day of Gupta-Samvat 1 still to be determined as current or as expired, was Chaitra sukla 1 of Saka-Samvat 243 current.
And, on the other hand, we have found under E. that the month Margasirsha of Valabhi-Samvat 1, still to be determined as current or as expired, must have fallen in Saka-Samvat 242 current, four months before the initial day of Gupta-Samvat 1.
If we assume that the Gupta year and the Valabhi year both had Chaitra sukla 1 as the initial day, the inference suggests itself, at first sight, that Valabhi-Samvat 1 was equivalent as a current year to Saka-Samvat 242 current; and that it is as an expired year that Gupta-Samvat 1 was equivalent to Saka-Samvat 243 current.
