North Indian Inscriptions

THE GUPTA ERA

can possibly be entertained as to the Guptas having started an era of their own. And the natural conclusion is that the era must have originated with Chandragupta I, the first Mahārājādhirāja and, therefore, the first independent ruler of the dynasty. Nevertheless, it is curious, very curious, that Fleet foists the origin of the Gupta era on the Lichchhavis of Nepal. We are, therefore, compelled to consider the arguments he has urged in support of this view. On pages 33 and 130 of his Introduction, he no doubt rightly says that era is not the result of chronological or astronomical calculations, but owes its origin to some historical event, which occurred actually in 320 A.D. or closely to that time. He also rightly remarks that the era cannot have been established by any members of the Valabhī family, who were mere Sēnāpatis and Mahārājas, that is, feudatories, till about Gupta year 320. Nor can it have been, he rightly remarks, the accession of the first known Gupta prince, Śrī-Gupta or his son Ghaṭōtkachagupta, who were simple Mahārājas or feudatories, probably of the Indo-Scythic kings.

>

The era might have been established, he rightly surmises, by Chandragupta I, who, at some time or the other during his reign became an independent king. But there are difficulties, says he, in the way of making the era date from the commencement of his reign i.e., from 320-21 A.D. One difficulty is the period to be assigned to the normal Hindu generation and the other is the period to be assigned to the normal Hindu reign. Let us take the first difficulty into consideration. The great-grandson of Chandragupta I is Kumāragupta I for whom the last certain date is Gupta year 129. Let us suppose that the latter was dead immediately thereafter. Let us also suppose that Chandragupta I was at least twenty years old when his reign commenced. We have thus to add 20 to 129. This gives 149 years to four generations, that is, thirty-seven years and a quarter to a generation, that is, nearly twelve years in excess of the accepted average maximum rate for a Hindu generation. But, on the question of generations Fleet will not base any particularly special objection, because an abnormal average rate of thirty-seven years and a half for each generation is unfortunately for him furnished by the Western Chāḷukya genealogy. We have, for example, Śaka-Saṁvat 930, as he himself admits, for the commencement of the reign of Vikramāditya V, and Śaka-Saṁvat 1060 for the end of the reign, and it may be safely assumed, the death, of Sōmēṡvara III in the third generation after him. Let us also suppose that Vikramāditya was twenty years old when he began his reign. We have thus one hundred and fifty years for the four generations. This comes to an average of thirty-seven years and a half for each generation, as mentioned above. This is, no doubt, abnormal. But the abnormal, Fleet forgets, is sometimes not impossible. But this will not suit the theory with which he is obsessed, namely, that the era used by the Guptas is that of the Lichchhavis of Nepal. He is, therefore, forced to take his stand upon the average duration of eighteen or nineteen years for a Hindu reign. For we have then to suppose that no less than a period of 129 years intervened between the commencement of the reign of Chandragupta I and the end of that of Kumāragupta I, giving an average of thirty-two years. This cannot suit Fleet’s theory of the origin of the Gupta era. He is, therefore, compelled to remark: “An average of thirty-two years for four successive reigns of Hindu fathers and sons, seems, from every point of view, an impossibility. And this prevents our making the Gupta era run from the commencement of the reign of Chandragupta I. And we must look for its origin to some extraneous source.”

        We shall soon consider how far this extraneous source referred to by Fleet is reliable. But here we shall first see whether an abnormal duration of reign is not possible like the abnormal average rate of generation. Fleet wrote his Introduction to the Gupta Inscriptions in 1888. But in 1891 he published his Tables of the Eastern Chāḷukyas in the Ind. Ant., Vol. XX, pp. 12 ff., to which our attention was first drawn by G. Bühler. In these Tables we find the following reigns: