________________
888
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[NOVEMBER, 1891.
of another era coming from just the same part of the country, it is at least possible that he gives only a rough equation, when he tells as (id. p. 7) that the epoch of the Valabhi era and of the Gupta era) falls 241 years later than the epoch of the 'Saka era; and that his gauge-year may be similarly incorrect for the expired Valabhi year which he quotes in connection with it. I myself entertain no doubt that this is the case
Now, I think that this much, at any rate, is plain; that the Valabhî years were Kirttikadi, each beginning before the Chaitrâdi Gupta year bearing the same number. And the question now is, how Albêrûni's statements may be best alapted to these two differing years. The adjustment may be made in two ways. Valabhî-Survat 712, taken according to Albêrûni's statement as an expired year, may be treated as beginning either with the Kürttika sukla 1 before the Chaitra sukla 1 with which commenced 'Saka-Samvat 953 expired, or with the Kârttika śukla 1 after that same Chaitra sukla 1. By the first means, Gupta-Samvat 712, beginning with the Chaitra sukla 1 after the initial Kirttika sukla 1 of Valabhî-Samvat 712, would coincide as an expired year with Saka-Samvat 953 expired; but then Valabhi-Samvat 712 expired, which, from Albêrûnî's statements and the other considerations put forward by myself, is evidently to coincide with the Karttikadi-Vikrama-Samvat 1088 expired, would fall one year too early, and would coincide with Karttikadi Vikrama-Samvat 1087 expired. By the latter means, Valabhi-Samvat 712 expired would coincide with Kärttikadi-Vikrama-Samvat 1088 expired; but then it would be as a current year that Gupta-Samvat 712 coincided with 'Saka-Samvat 953 expired.
In short, there is an incompleteness or an inaccuracy somewhere in Alborani's statements. In my opinion, it is more likely to have occurred in connection with the original Gupta era, than with the secondary Valabhi era which was in use even until after Albêrûni's time. In remedying it, I follow what appears to be the true probability in the case; vis. that the statement regarding the Valabhî year is wrong in precisely the same manner with the statement regarding the Vikrama year as a Kárttikadi year : and I make exactly the same adjustment that is unavoidable in the case of the Vikrama year given by him. And I consider, in brief, that it is plainly deducible from Albêrûnî's own statements that he made a mistake in giving Gupta-Samvat 712 expired, instead of current, as the equivalent of Saka-Sam vat 953 expired; that Valabhi-Samvat 712 expired was correctly indicated by him as the equivalent of (the southern Karttikadi) - Vikrama-Samvat 1088 expired; that consequently the month Kârttika of Valabhi-Samvat 713 current was the Kirttika of Vikrama-Samvat 1089 current, falling in Saka-Sainvat 954 current in A. D. 1031 ; and that therefore the month Karttika of Valabhi. Samvat l carrent was the Karttika of Vikrama-Samvat 377 current, falling in Saka-Samvat 242 current, in A. D. 319.
If any definite proof is obtained hereafter, leading to any different conclusion, I shall be glad enough to accept it, and to modify my views accordingly. Or if, such proof being unattainable, there should come to be a general consensus of opinion, among those who are entitled to speak with authority, that the unqualified years of all Hindu eras must be à priori treated as expired years, I shall be glad enough to concur in so disposing of a point which is not one of any particularly vital importance. Meanwhile, on the above grounds, I stamp the unqualified years, determine the initial years and the epochs, and classify the dates, as follows:
I.-The Original Gupta Era in Central India. A., B., and C.- The years are current years, answering to the equations,
(1) for the first current year, Chaitradi-Gupta-Samvat l current = Sakn-Samvat 243 current, = the period from the 26th February, A. D. 320, to the 15th March, A. D. 321;
(2) for the epoch or year 0, Chaitradi-Gupta-Samvat 0 = Saka-Samvat 242 current, a the period from the 9th March, A. D. 319, tel. 25th February, A. D. 320.
