North Indian Inscriptions

THE GUPTA ERA

kāla, and subtract from it the cube of 6 and the square of 5 (216+25=241). The remainder is the year of the Valabha era. The history of Valabha is given in its proper place.

        As regards the Gupta-kāla, people say that the Guptas were wicked powerful people, and that when they ceased to exist this date was used as the epoch of an era. It seems that Valabha was the last of them, because the epoch of the era of the Guptas falls, like that of the Valabha era, 241 years than the Śaka-kāla.

        The era of the astronomers begins 587 years later than the Śaka-kāla. On this era is based the canon Khaṇḍa-khādyaka by Brahmagupta, which among Muhammadans is known as Al-arkand.

       Now, the year 400 of Yazdajird, which we have chosen as a gauge, corresponds to the following years of the Indian eras:

..........(1) To the year 1488 of the era of Śrī Harsha,
..........(2) To the year 1088 of the era of Vikramāditya,
..........(3) To the year 953 of the Śaka-kāla,
..........(4) To the year 712 of the Valabha era, which is identical with the Guptakāla.”¹

       It is a pity that scholars could not differentiate the truth from the fiction which is mixed up in the passage quoted above from Al Bērūni’s India. The truth is represented by the statement he has made in regard to the initial dates of the eras, and the fiction by the traditions current in his time which he has mentioned about the origination of these eras.² It was H. Oldenberg who first clearly differentiated the one from the other. Thereafter it was R. G. Bhandarkar who laid stress upon this same point. But their view was completely set at nought. What was most tragic is that most of the antiquarians rejected both these statements and accepted what merely hung on the part of a fiction, namely, the statement of Al Bērūni that it is the fall of the Guptas and the rising of the Valabhī dynasty, from which the Gupta-Valabhī era began. They thus accepted Śaka 242 as the year of the extermination of the Guptas and made elaborate endeavours to find out an initial date for their era which was prior to this year. But such traditions are erroneous, as has been proved in many a case. Nay, Al Bērūni had similarly been misinformed that Śaka of the Śaka era which falls 135 years after that of Vikramāditya tyrannised over the country between the river Sindhu and the ocean till Vikramāditya marched against him, and killed him in the region of Karūr, between Multan and the castle of Lōnī. The date became famous and was used as the epoch of Śaka-kāla. But Al Bērūni had common sense; and he rightly remarks: “Since there is a long interval between the era which is called the era of Vikramāditya and the killing of Śaka, we think that the Vikramāditya from whom the era has got its name is not identical with that one who killed Śaka, but only a namesake of his.”³ Even in regard to the era of Vikramāditya, there were more traditions than the one mentioned in epigraphic records about its origin. According to one, the era was originated by Vikramāditya; and, according to another, it commemorated the passing away of that king. In such cases the name of Vikramāditya is actually associated with some such word as kāla or saṁvatsara; but in others it is associated simply with Mālavēṡa. But the earlier we go, the term more frequently used is Kṛita, not to denote the era, but rather the years of that era. This whole question has been treated at length in a separate section entitled ‘Kṛita era’. The thing, however, was entirely different in regard to the epochs he has specified of the different ears. His statement in this connection represents the truth contained in the passage cited above, because it can be put to the test and found correct. Thus, the year 400
_______________________________________________________________

1 Alberuni’s India, Vol. II, pp. 5-7.
2 Ind. Ant., Vol. X, pp. 218 and ff.
3 Alberuni’s India, Vol. II, p.6.