THE GUPTA ERA
the Gupta sovereignty lasted till Gupta year 224. It is, therefore, no wonder if the Maitrakas
dated their inscriptions according to the Gupta era and continued it till 447, the last date so
far known of that dynasty. The first date where Valabhī-Saṁvat is mentioned is furnished by
the Ūnā plate of the time of the Imperial Pratihāra Mahēndrāyudha.1 It records a grant of
his feudatory Balavarman of the Chālukya lineage and is dated Śrī-Valabhī-saṁvat 574.It is
worthy of note that though the era is here called Valabhī-saṁvat, it was not forgotten in
Kāṭhiāwāḍ that it was Gupta era also. Just eleven years thereafter was issued the Mōrbī plate
of Jāiṅka, specifying 585 as the Gaupta year, that is, the year of the Gupta era.2 The Valabhī
era continued to be used, as we have seen above, till Valabhī-saṁvat 945=1264 A.D., more
than two centuries after Al Bērūni lived and wrote. And the last Gupta year, as we have just
seen, is 585=904-05 A.D., nearly a century before the Arab historian came to India. It is,
therefore, no wonder if the Balaba (Valabhī) era was remembered as identical with the Guptakala, up till his time.
Wherever we possess means of controlling Al Bērūni’s statement about the epoch of the
era, it proves to be correct. Let us now turn to the astronomical calculations, and put the
Gupta dates to the test, where they admit of such a verification. Let us, in the first place, take
up the Ēraṇ inscription (No. 39 below) of Budhagupta which, in lines 2-3, gives the following
date: Śatē pañcha-shashty-adhikē varshāṇāṁ bhūpatau cha Budhaguptē Āshāḍha-māsa-ṡukla-dvādaṡyāṁ
Suragurōr=divasē, “when a century of years, increased by sixty-five (had elapsed) and while
Budhagupta (is) the lord of the earth; on the twelfth lunar day of the bright fortnight of the
month of Āshāḍha; on the day of Suraguru; . . .” Here, Fleet wrongly translates the initial
part of it by “in a century of years, increased by sixty-five.” I say ‘wrongly’, because that
means “in the hundred and sixty-fifth year”; but the actual word used is śata and not śata-tama.
It is Oldenberg who has first rightly calculated the date to be Thursday, June 21, 484 A.D.
R. G. Bhandarkar and Fleet have arrived at the same result by independent calculation. We
thus see that to Gupta 165 of the Ēraṇ inscription, we have to add 241 as was the practice up
till Al Bērūni’s time and we get 406 Śaka, to which, if we further add 78, we obtain 484 A.D.
This proves the correctness of his statement. Let us now consider the dates contained in the
grants of Hastin and Saṁkshōbha who belonged to the Nṛipati-Parivrājaka family. The first
of these is: Shaṭpañchās-ō(ṡad-u) ttarē=bda-ṡatē Gupta-nṛipa-rājya-bhuktau Mahā-Vaiṡākha-saṁvatsarē Kārttika-māsa-ṡukla-paksha-tṛitīyāyāṁ,3 “when a century of years increased by fifty-six
(had elapsed), the enjoyment of sovereignty by the Gupta kings continuing, in the
Mahā-Vaiṡākha saṁvatsara; on the third lunar day of the bright fortnight of the month of
Kārttika.” Now, if we add to the year 156, 241+78 (=319), we obtain 475 A.D. as its English
equivalent. In fact, the date has been calculated by P. C. Sengupta who makes the following
remarks: “Jupiter was heliacally visible about October 20, 475 A.D.â The actual date of the
inscription was October 18, 475 A.D.
Here on the day of the heliacal visibility, the sun was in the nakshatra Viṡākhā but Jupiter
was 3°40' behind the first point of the nakshatra-division, the vernal equinox of the year being
taken as the first point of the Hindu sphere. According to the rule of naming Jupiter’s years
as given in the modern Sūrya-siddhānta, xiv, 16-17, it was sun’s nakshatra, on new-moon prior to
October 18, 475 A.D., the date of the inscription, which took place on October 15-16 of the
year, that gave the name of the year. The sun was in the nakshatra viṡākhā and the year begun was
consequently the Mahāvaiṡākha year of Jupiter.”4 The third date we have now to consider is:
_________________________________________________________________
1 D. R. Bhandarkar, A List of the Inscriptions of Northern India, No. 1379.
2 Ibid., No. 1378.
3 CII., Vol. III, 1888, No. 21.
4 JRASB. (Letters), Vol. VIII, p. 49.
|