|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
THE GUPTA ERA Yazdajird corresponds to “the year 1088 of the era of Vikramāditya” and “to the year 953 of the Śaka-kāla.” The interval between the two epochs is 135 years, which has been correctly indicated by the Arab historian and continues exactly to the present day. Why not then believe the other equation given by him? Because the same year 400 of Yazdajird corresponds not only “to the year 1088 of the Vikramāditya” but also “to the year 712 of the Valabha era, which is identical with the Gupta-kāla.” Now, the Vērāval inscription of the time of Chaulukya (Vāghēlā) Arjunadēva of Aṇahillapāṭaka has the following: “Bōdhaka-Rasūla-Mahaṁmada-saṁvat 662 tathā ṡrī-nṛipa Vikrama-saṁ 1320 tathā ṡrīmad-Valabhī-saṁ 945 etc. etc.1 Kielhorn has calculated this date and has found that it is equivalent to Sunday, 25th May, 1264 A.D. It will thus be seen that here, Vikrama-saṁvat 1320 is a southern expired year.2 If we now deduct from it the figure 135, we obtain 1186 as the corresponding Śaka year. Similarly, if we deduct from it 241, we obtain, according to Al Bērūni, 945 as the corresponding year of the Valabha era. And, as a matter of fact, the Vērāval inscription specifies 945 as the Valabhī-saṁvat corresponding to the years of the other eras mentioned therein. Thus, in the case of the epochs of the three eras, namely, Vikrama, Śaka and Valabhī, we find that the statements of the Arab historian prove correct. It is, thus, evident that any account connected with the origin of an era which is generally a hotbed of conflicting traditions cannot, by any means, be taken to discredit the statement of the Arab scholar regarding the initial year of that era, which was a matter of astronomical calculation and of long-standing practice among the people.
Now we have to consider the statement of Al Bērūni that the Balaba (Valabhī) era is
identical with the Gupta-kāla. It is well-known that Kāṭhiāwāḍ formed part of the Gupta
empire. This is demonstrated by the fact that silver coins of Chandragupta II, Kumāragupta I,
and Skandagupta, with the Gupta dates, have been found in this province. An inscription
of Skandagupta has also been discovered in Junāgaḍh (No. 28 below) which, in two places,
speaks of their era, once actually in the words Guptānāṁ kāla (-gaṇanāthaḥ) (line 27). Their
feudatories in that region were the Maitrakas, with dates ranging from 183 to 4473 and taken
as belonging to the Gupta era. It is true that from 326, that is, from the time of Dharasēna IV
onwards, the titles of Paramabhaṭṭāraka Mahārājādhirāja Paramēṡvara are coupled with their
names. But all the previous rulers of Valabhī are called simply Mahārāja. Their inscriptions
mention as the founder of this dynasty the Sēnāpati Bhaṭakka (=Bhaṭārka). He is followed
successively by four of his sons. The first of them is Dharasēna I, who is also called Sēnāpati. But his younger brother is the Mahārāja Drōṇasiṁha and his younger brother is the Mahāsāmaṁta Mahārāja Dhruvasēna I, with 206 as the earliest date for him.4 Whether there was
any meaning in the additional title Mahāsāmaṁta attached to his name it is somewhat difficult
to say. Most probably there was none, because in some of his plates he is styled simplyi. So, we may take it that it was his elder brother Mahārāja Drōṇasiṁha, who was
first raised to the dignity of the feudatory. And, as a matter of fact, we have a plate dated 183
issued from Valabhī by the Mahārāja Drōṇasiṁha who is described as Paramabhaṭṭāraka-pādānudhyāta.5 It is true that in this record he is not mentioned as a son of Bhaṭārka, nor as a
Maitraka. Nevertheless, the name Drōṇasiṁha and the mention of Valabhī and of the title
Mahārāja are enough to convince us that he is the first Valabhī ruler who was raised to the
rank of a feudatory by some Paramabhaṭṭāraka who must be a Gupta overlord, especially as
1 Bhandarkar’s List of the Inscriptions of Northern India, No. 565.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|