________________
NOVEMBER, 1891.)
THE GUPTA-VALABHI ERA.
387
the southern Vikrama year bearing the same number. And all that now remains, is, to determine whether the unqualified years quoted in the records are to be applied as current, or as expired.
Our first impulse is to try to discover what may have been the contemporaneous practice in neighbouring parts of the country. Nothing definite, however, can be established in this way. On the one hand, with the Kalachuri or Chedi era, which belongs to that part of India from which have come all the dates of the Early Gupta period that include details that can be tested by calculation, the preference appears to have been for the use of current years; thus, out of the fourteen dates examined by Prof. Kielhorn in each of which the year is not distinctly qualified either as current or as expired (see bis “Epoch of the Kalachuri or Chedi Era," ante, Vol. XVII. p. 215 ff.), eleven have been found to be recorded in current years; two, in expired years; and one, in a year which is to be understood as expired if the first day of each year was Bhadrapada sukla 1, but as current if the first day of each year is taken as Asvina sukla 1, which may be done without in any way affecting the results for the other dates. But, on the other hand, with the Newâr era, which superseded the Gupta era (and the Harsba era) in Népal, the preference appears to have been for the use of expired years; thus, out of twentyone instances of unqualified years, in nineteen the years must be applied as expired, and in only two as current (see Prof. Kielhorn's "Epoch of the Newâr Era," ante, Vol. XVII. p. 246 ff.).
This process failing us, we turn next to the only other available source of information, the writings of Albêrani. Here two things are to be noted; (1) the "gauge-year” selected by him, which (Sachau's Translation, Vol. II. pp. 2,7) is the year 400 of the era of Yazdajird. as corresponding to Vikraina-Samvat 1088, 'Saka-Samvat 953, and Gupta-Sainvat and ValabhiSamvat 712 ; and (2) his statement (id. p. 3) that “in all chronological dates which we have "mentioned already and shall still mention, we only reckon with complete years, for the "Hindus are in the habit of disregarding fractions of a year."
The era of Yazdajird dates from the accession of Yazdajird III., a Sassanian king of Persia, in A. D. 632 (see Prinsep's Essays, Vol. II., Useful Tables, p. 302 and note). Consequently, the “gauge-year," the year 400 of this era, was A. D. 1031-32; and according to Mr. Cowasjee Patell's Chronology, pp. 139, 141, it began on the 9th March, A. D. 1031, and ended on the 7th March, A. D. 1032. Thus, we know that the year Saka-Samvat 953 quoted by Albêrůni is the expired year, which began on the 25th February, A. D. 1031, and ended on the 15th March, A. D. 1032. And the question is, whether, as would appear at first sight from his explicit statement (2), we really have to interpret also the Gupta and Valabhî year 712 as the expired year, and as coinciding with Saka-Samvat 953 expired.
It is to be noted that Albêrûnî gives Vikrama-Samvat 1088 as one of the equivalents of the gange-year; and that elsewhere he makes another statement in support of this, in telling us (id. p. 6) that “the epoch of the era of 'Saka or 'Sakakila falls 135 years later than that of "Vikramiditya." Tbese statements are both quite correct for the northern Chaitrådi-VikramaSamvat 1088 as an expired year; as which it extended, with Saka-Samvat 953 expired, from the 25th February, A. D. 1031, to the 15th March, A. D. 1032. But they are not correct for the Karttikadi variety of the Vikrama era, in which each year begins seven months later than the Chaitradi year that bears the same number ;'so that the Kârttikadi-Vikrama-Samvat 1088 expired coincided, not with Saka-Samvat 953 expired, but with part of that year and with part of the following, - extending from the 19th October, A. D. 1031, to the 7th October, A. D. 1032. And, even if Albêrûni's statement (id. p. 5), that "those who ase the era of Vikramaditya live in the southern and western parts of India," is not sufficient to shew that he knew the Kârttikadi variety of the era, still the existence of it is established for his time and before it. Hence, in fact, Albêrûnî has given an equation for converting Vikrama years into 'Saka years, wbich is applicable strictly to only one class of the Vikrama years; and his gauge-year is not specifically correct for the Karttikadi variety of the Vikrama era. In respect then,
