________________
386
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[NOVEMBER, 1891.
This assumption, however, would be rendered impossible if we were to accept, under G., the correction of bhaumé, with the result of Tuesday, 31st January, A. D. 1245. For, this date corresponds to Phalguna sukla 2 of 'Saka-Samvat 1167 current. And so, Phalguna sukla 2 of Valabhi-Samvat 1 would be Phâlguna śukla 2 of 'Saka-Samvat 241 current; in the Saka year before that obtained just above for Valabhi-Samvat 1 current.
To reconcile this discrepancy, we must of necessity then assume that Valabhi-Samvat 1 current began before Gupta-Samvat 1 current; and we must find a suitable initial day for it, other than the preceding Chaitra śukla 1, which goes back too far. Kârttika sukla 1 naturally suggests itself, and is found to answer. And then we might say :
(1) The year in G. is a current year, answering to the equation Kârttikâdi-ValabhiSamvat 1 current (Saka-Samvat 241-42 current =) Karttikâdi-Vikrama-Samvat 376
current.8
(2) The years in E. and H. are expired years, answering to precisely the same equation. (3) The years in A., B., and C., are expired years, answering to the equation ChaitrâdiGupta-Samvat 1 current Saka-Samvat 242 current.
(4) The year in D. is an expired year, which may answer to either of the above equations.
To this, however, there is the objection, that unqualified years may consequently be capriciously interpreted as current or as expired, on no uniform rule, but just as seems to suit best the requirements of individual cases. And we are in no way bound to adopt in G. the correction of bhaumé, "on Tuesday :" the stroke that distinguishes & from hh is far too regular, distinct, and perfect, to be the mere result of a slip of the engraver's tool; and though it may be said that the writer would not have formed the vowel au, unless he intended to write bhaumé, still it may be urged, with equal force, that he would not have formed the consonant s, unless he intended to write some.
My object is to deal with all the dates on uniform principles; taking either all the unqualified years as current, or else all of them as expired. The only assumption that is necessary, if, indeed, it is an assumption, and not an obvious fact, is that which has to be made above also; viz. that the Valabhî years were Kârttikâdi, each beginning with the Kârttika sukla 1 before the initial Chaitra sakla 1 of the Gupta year bearing the same number. To this no objection need be taken; if we note that the Kârttikadi variety of the Vikrama era was the standard one in the part of the country from which the Valabhi dates come; and that, when the Vikrama era was introduced into Northern India where the Chaitrâdi 'Saka years were in use, the standard variety there was established by turning the Kârttikâdi years into Chaitradi years, each beginning with the Chaitra śukla 1 before the initial Karttika śukla 1 of
6 I disregard the assumption that in G. there is a mistake in the year (927 instead of 928). My object is to deal with the dates as they stand, without any alterations, except in the reading of saume in G.
Here, and further on in what I submit are the real results, a year commencing with Margasirsha would auswer just as well for the Valabhl variety of the era; we should only have then to select, for the Morbi eclipse, that of the 30th October, A. D. 905. But the year commencing with Margasirsha is apparently connected by Albêrûni only with a variety of the Lokakâla reckoning; and therefor it does not commend itself for present purposes, as the well-known, and undoubtedly original, Karttika li Vikrama year does.
In corroboration of this, we might possibly quote a point to which Prof. Kielhorn has drawn my attention; ris. that the real historical fact embodiel in the tradition that Valabhi was destroyed 375 years after the commencement of the Vikrama era, is that 375 should be added to a Valabhi year to convert it into a (Karttikadi) Vikram year. I apparently fix the difference, below, at 376 years. But it comes in reality to just the same thing; because the end of what is technically called "Vikrama-Saivat 375 expired" is the end of VikramaSamvat 376 current. It may be noted here that Alberûut gives, as will be seen, Valabhi-Samvat 712 Vikrama Samvat 1088, with a difference of 376, and with the assertion, which I accept, that they are both expired years. Whereas, H. gives Valbhi-Saivat 945 (unqualified) Vikrama-Saihvat 1320 (unqualified, but known from the result to be expired), with a difference of 375. The discrepancy is easily reconciled if the Valabhi year in H. is taken, as I take it to be, as the current year: because then, substituting the expired year 944, we have the same difference, 376, that is given by Alb rùni's statement.
