Art. XXII.—The Epoch of the Guptas

^{page 524 note 1} J.R.A.S. Vol. XII. O.S. p. 1.

^{page 524 note 2} Archæological Survey of Western India, by Burgess, James, 1874–1875, pp. 18–70. Mr. Trübner afterwards issued a small edition of this essay, under the title of “The Dynasty of the Guptas in India,” folio, London, 1876, pp. 64, with an Autotype Plate of thirty-three coins.

^{page 524 note 3} J.R.A.S. Vol. I. N.S. p. 458.

^{page 524 note 4} “It is an interesting result of this inquiry, that it places Nahapana very near the commencement of the era of Vikramaditya, which on entirely distinct reasoning I inferred in 1862 to be that in which the Sah coins are dated (Journ. Bom. Br. B. As. Soc. vol. ix. p. 30).

Did the Samvat era originate with Nahapana? it may be asked. I see no sufficient reason for supposing this, though his influence and renown must manifestly have been great throughout the western portion of the continent. Rather it seems to me that as in other matters so here, his successors consulted and deferred to the sentiments of their Hindoo subjects in adopting the era which dated from the defeat by Vikramáditya of their enemy and his—the Scythian.

I must close with a few very brief remarks on the extent to which our previous knowledge of the Sah dynasty has been affected by the issue of this inquiry.

The dates of the nineteen kings enumerated in my paper of 1862 remain the same, extending as then stated from A.D. 30 or 40 to 240 or 250. We have now however to add six kings to the list, which will therefore stand as under:

1. Nahapana, B.C. 60 or 70.

2. The unknown king whose coin is given as figure 10 of the plate.

3. Chastana, son of Syamotika, B.C. 10 or 20.

4. Jaya Dámá, son of Chastana.

5. Jiva Dámá, son of (Dámá ?) Shri, A.D. 38.

6. Rudra Dámá, son of Jaya Dámá.

7. Rudra Sinha, son of Rudra Dámá, A.D. 45–47.

8. Rudra Sáh, son of Rudra Sinha.

9. Shri Sah, son of Rudra Sáh.

10. Sangha Dámá, son of Rudra Sáh.

11. Dámá Sáh, son of Rudra Sinha.

12. Yasa Dámá, son of Dámá Sáh.

13. Damajata Sri, son of Rudra Sáh, A.D. 97.

14. Vira Dámá, son of Dámá Sáh.

15. Isvara Datta.

16. Vijaya Sah, son of Dama Sah, A.D. 115.

17. Damajata Sri, son of Dama Sah.

18. Rudra Sah, son of Rudra Dama, A.D. 131, 141.

19. Visva Sinha, son of Rudra Sah, A.D. 143.

20. Atri Dama, son of Rudra Sah, A.D. 153, 157.

21. Visva Sah, son of Atri Dama, A.D. 160, 168.

22. Rudra Sinha, son of Svami Jiva Dama, A.D. 173 or 213.

23. Asa Dama, son of Rudra Sah.

24. Svámi Rudra sah, son of Svámi Rudra Dama, A.D. 223, 235.

25. Svámi Rudra Sah, son of Svámi Satya Sah.

Where specific dates are given in this list for the kings subsequent to Chastana, they are taken from the coins on the supposition that the era was that of Vikramáditya.

I see no reason to modify in any respect the results arrived at in my paper of 1862 as to the succession of the Guptas to the Sahs, the Valabhi kings to the Guptas, and the Indo-Sassanians to the Valabhi line.

The limits of the Gujarat sovereignty in Nahapana's time must now be extended beyond the territories which I was enabled in the paper above referred to to assign to the dominion of the Sahs.”

^{page 527 note 1} In Isyá in the Dehli column, J.A.S.B. vi. 577, 584, the letters are otherwise placed, but = vy is frequent; Girnár, , viii. 1, ix. 8. The Báhmaṇa, Girnár, , viii. 3, ought to dispose of any doubt on the subject.

^{page 527 note 2} Abú Ríhán Muhammad bin Ahmad al Bírúní al Khwárizmí was born about A.H. 360, A.D. 970–1. He was an astronomer, geometrician, historian, and logician, under which latter claim he obtained the sobriquet of “Muhakkik” or “the exact,” on account of the rigorous precision of his deductions. Abú-1 Fazl Baihakí, who lived about half a century after Al Bírúní, says, “Bú Ríhán was beyond comparison superior to every man of his time in the art of composition, in scholar-like accomplishments, and iu knowledge of geometry and philosophy. He had, moreover, a most rigid regard for truth.” And Rashídu-d dín, in referring to the great writer from whom he has borrowed so much, says, “The Master Abú Ríhán al Bírúní excelled all his contemporaries in the sciences of philosophy, mathematics, and geometry. He entered the service of Mahmúd bin Subuktigín, and in the course of his service he spent a long time in Hindustan, and learned the language of the country. Several of the provinces of India were visited by him. He was on friendly terms with many of the great and noble of that country, and so acquired an intimate knowledge of their books of philosophy, religion, and belief. The best and most excellent of all their books upon the arts and sciences is one resembling the work of Shaikh Raís Abú 'Alí ibn Siná [Avicenna). It is called Bátakal, or in Arabic Bátajal; this book he translated into Arabic. From this work also he extracted a great deal which he made use of in his Kánún-i Mas'údi, a work upon mathematics and geometry, named after the Sultán Mas'úd. All that the sages of India have said about numbers, ages, and eras (táwárikh), has been exactly given by Abú Ríhán in his translation of the Bátakal. He was indebted to the Sultan of Khwárizm for the opportunity of visiting India, for he was appointed by him to accompany the embassies which he sent to Mahmúd of Ghazni. Al Farábí and Abú-1 Khair joined one of these embassies, but the famous Avicenna, who was invited to accompany them, refused to go, being, as it is hinted, averse to enter into controversy with Abú Ríhán, with whom he differed on many points of science, and whose logical powers he feared to encounter. On the invitation of Mahmúd, Abú Ríhán entered into his service, an invitation which Avicenna declined. It was in the suite of Mahmúd and of his son Mas'úd that Abú Ríhán travelled into India, and he is reported to have stayed forty years there. He died in A.H. 430, A.D. 1038–9. (Sir H. Elliot's Historians of India.)

^{page 529 note 1} Albírúní, in another part of his work, attributes many of the complications and obscurities imported into Indian texts, to the prevailing system of reducing everything into verse, for the sake of the obvious facility of learning by heart, so often to the entire detriment of the sense of the original; he adds, “J'ai reconnu, à mes dépens, l'inconvénient de cet usage.”—Reinaud, , Mem. sur l'Inde, p. 334. Perhaps one of the most instructive expositions of the gradations of the process, under which the Indian art of memory was forced and matured, is to be found in ProfessorHaug, 's paper, presented to the Oriental Congress of London in 1874, p. 213. See also Caldwell, , Dravidian Grammar, p. x: who concludes his observations, “If they would cease to content themselves with learning by rote versified enigmas and harmonious platitudes,” etc.

^{page 529 note 2} M. Reinaud's translation here quoted was based upon a confessedly imperfect transcript of the then unique but faulty Constantinople MS. of the Táríkh-i-Hind. It has frequently been called in question by those Indian commentators to whom its data came as a revelation from within their own citadels. As I had to a great extent accepted the value and importance of the information it conveyed, I sought the earliest opportunity of confirming or correcting its terms by the text of the new and more perfect manuscript of M. Schefer, which has been entrusted to Professor Sachau to aid his undertaking of a revised English translation of the work for the Oriental Translation Fund, which desirable object has been further encouraged by the grant of a sum of £300, for the publication of the original Arabic Text, on the part of H.M.'s Secretary of State for India. A full list of the variants obtained from this new MS. will be found in Mr. Burgess's Report, p. 29.

^{page 530 note 1} As Professor Bháṇḍarkar has criticised certain items of this tradition, I desire to let him speak in his own words:

“But the tradition itself, though interesting as giving the truth generally, cannot he considered to he true in the particulars. For, in the first place, it makes Chakrapáṇi the son of Prándat, who is certainly the Chakrapáḷita son of Parṇadatta of the Junágaḍh inscription (Journ. Bom. Br. B. As. Soc. vol. vii. pp 122, 123, supra p. 4), viceroy of the father of Kumára Gupta, and grandfather of Skanda Gupta, while the inscription represents Parṇadatta as Skanda Gupta's viceroy, and Chakrapálita as governor of a certain town, appointed to that place by his own father. Again, Skanda Gupta is represented as a weak king in the tradition; while his inscriptions, magniloquent though they are, do show that he must have been a powerful monarch. Lastly, Bhaṭárka is mentioned as having assumed the title of King, while the Valabhí copper plates speak of him as Senápati, and represent Droṇa Sinha, his second son, to have first assumed that title (Journ. As. Soc. Bengal, vol. iv., Mr. Wathen and an unpublished grant of Guhasena). The tradition, therefore, is not entitled to any reliance as regards the particulars. It simply gives us what was known before, that the Valabhís succeeded the Guptas.”—Indian Antiquary, 1874, p. 303.

^{page 532 note 1} Prinsep incidentally remarks, “The Balabhi era … from its locality and connection with the Samvat [Vikramáditya], must have been of the same construction, merely dating from a newly assumed epoch.”—Useful Tables, p. 158.

^{page 532 note 2} “Le silence des Bráhmans l'est encore moins. Ç'a été leur manière de se venger d'un souverain et d'une dynastie qui en somme leur furent hostiles, que de n'en pas parler du tout.”—Barth, M. A., Révue Critique, 1874, p. 311.

^{page 532 note 3} Journ. As. Soc. Beng. vol. iii. p. 105; vol. vi. p. 978; Journ. Bom. Br. R. As. Soc. (revision by Bhau Daji), vol. ix. p. cxcvii; Piinsep's Essays, vol. i. p. 233.

^{page 532 note 4} “The Early Faith of Asoka,” J.R.A.S. Vol. IX. p. 191; Ancient Indian Weights, International Numismata Orientalia, London, 1874, p. 27.

^{page 532 note 6} General Cunningham's Archæological Report, vol. iii. plate xvi. No. 24, p. 37.

^{page 533 note 1} Cunningham's Archæological Report, vol. i. pl. xvii. p. 38, and pl. xxx. p. 94; Journ. Bom. Br. R. As. Soc. 1871–1872, p. 59; Bhau Daji's revised reading; also Rajendralála's remarks, J.A.S.B. 1866, p. 271.

^{page 533 note 2} Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 1836, p. 661; Prinsep's Essays, vol. i. p. 240.

^{page 533 note 3} The family tree, originally reconstructed by Dr. Mill (J.A.S.B. vol. iii. p. 344), may prove of importance in the present inquiry, as showing the moderately advanced position of the early members of the so-called regal line:—

“

See also my extracts from the Vishnu Puráṇa, etc., p. 25, Burgess's Archæological Report on Western India for 1874–5, together with the foot-notes, pp. 25 and 36. See further Vishnu Puráṇa, MrHall, 's edition, vol. iv. notes, pp. 222, 224. “Rulers fallen from their castes or Súdras will be princes of Sauráshtra, Avanti,” etc. This information accords with Major Watson's tradition above quoted.

^{page 534 note 1} Cunningham, , Bhilsa Topes, p. 151, plate xxi.; Archæological Report, vol. x. plate xix. p. 50; Prinsep's Essays, vol. i. p. 247; and MrHall, 's note, J.A.S.B. vol. xxvii. (1858) p. 226.

^{page 534 note 2} Journ. As. Soc. Beng. vol. vi. p. 455, plate xxv.; Prinsep's Essays, vol. i. p. 246; Bhilsa Topes, p. 152, plate xxi.

^{page 534 note 3} Journ. As. Soc. Beng. vol. vii. p. 37; Prinsep's Essays, vol. i. p. 250; Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 1861, p. 3; 1863, p. 429; 1874, p. 364; Dáji, Bháu, in the Journ. Bom. Br. R. As. Soc. article “Kalidasa,” p. 31, and his revised translation of the inscription itself, Journ. Bom. Br. R. As. Soc. 1871, p. 59; Cunningham, General A. in his Archæological Report for 1861–2, p. 92, gives a carefully corrected transcript of the original record, pl. xxx.

^{page 535 note 1} Journal Asiatic Society of Bengal, vol. vii. p. 37, James Prinsep, for whom this translation was made, adverts to the enigmatical way in which the total of 133 is expressed, and admits his doubts about the correctness of the resulting figures. He adds, “It does not appear who succeeded him [Skanda Gupta], or whether the Gupta dynasty there terminated.” This version of the inscription was reproduced, with a portion of his commentary, in my edition of Prinsep's Essays, vol. i. p. 250.

^{page 535 note 2} Journal of the American Oriental Soc. vol. vi. p. 530.

^{page 535 note 3} Journ. As. Soc. Beng. vol. xxx. 1861, p. 3. In his comments on this inscription (p. 4) Mr. Hall remarks, “On collation of the wording of Hastina's grants with that of the Kuhaon pillar, we thus discover no trifling corroboration of the statement derived from the Arabian traveller [Albiruni]; and his language, in passing, will endure no alternative construction.”

^{page 535 note 4} J.A.S.B. vol. xxxii. 1863, p. 430.

^{page 536 note 1} P. 31n.

^{page 536 note 2} J.A.S.B. 1874, pp. 363–374.

^{page 536 note 3} J.R.A.S. Vol. XII. (1848) p. 5, note; Burgess, Archæological Report, W. India, 1874–1875, p. 70.

^{page 537 note 1} Indian Antiquary, 05, 1881, pp. 125–6. An independent facsimile of the inscription is given with the Pandit's paper. He adds, inter alia, “The pillar we know from the sculptures on it to have been Jaina.” On the western side of the base of this pillar is also a naked figure of Pánṣanátha, the snake being coiled up behind him in the fashion usually represented in Jaina sculptures, and the text confirms its dedication by one Madra “to the five principal originators” or specially favoured Tirthankaras of that sect.

^{page 537 note 2} Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 1874, p. 363. This translation, with an extended commentary attached, is from the pen of Bábu Rajendra Lála. His position has not, as far as I am aware, been as yet subjected to any criticisms.

^{page 537 note 3} Originally translated for Dr. Bhau Daji, by Indraji, Bhagwanlál, Journ. Bom. Br. R. As. Soc. vol. vii. p. 121. This translation has been revised by Prof. Eggeling, and reproduced with a facsimile of the inscription itself, in MrBurgess, 's Arch. Report for Western India, 1874–1875, p. 136.

^{page 540 note 1} Prinsep's Essays, vol. i. p. 251.

^{page 540 note 2} J.A.S.B. vol. xxx. pp. 1–12. It is necessary, in producing evidence for or against the ultimate import of these figures, to say that Professor Hall submitted the context of the passage embodying this date to Bápú Deva Ṣástrin, a Benáres mathematician, with a view to an opinion as to its concurrence with the Vikramáditya era or that of Ṣaka. The gist of the reply was, “it conforms to the era of Vikramáditya, and does not conform to that of Ṣáliváhana.”—Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 1861, pp. 15–139. But with all respect for our Benáres calculator, we require to be told whether he has seen and met Colebrooke's objections to the effect that “the eclipses mentioned in the [later] grants do not appear reconcileable with their dates,” and that “it seems difficult to account for this disagreement of the dates and eclipses in any other way than by impeaching the inscription, the authenticity of which there is not otherwise any reason to question.”—(Essays, vol. ii p. 245.) See also p. 357 for a possible explanation of the faulty results, in the introduction of “Ráku as an eighth planet, and as the immediate cause of eclipses.” ProfWhitney, , in his latest essay on “the Lunar Zodiac” (New York, 1874), ruthlessly exposes the imperfection of Indian astronomical knowledge and local methods of observation, which he climaxes by quoting one of their tests, in the prediction of a total instead of a partial eclipse for February 6, 1860 (p. 368). Perhaps the most natural solution of the difficulty is that suggested by Prinsep, who observed, “The Muhammadans are generally very particular in their dates, and so are the Hindus when they inscribe a deed on brass; in this case they frequently allude to some eclipse or full moon, the act of donation being more pious for its occurrence on a religious festival.”—U.T., J.A.S.B. (1836), p. 84.

^{page 540 note 3} The 12 year cycle.

^{page 540 note 4} 1863, p. 427.

^{page 541 note 1} General Cunningham, Arch. Report, vol. ix. p. 21. This was General Cunningham's latest date, as it was mine. He now claims to have discovered a coin date of 149.

^{page 542 note 1} Carnatic Chronology, London, 1863, p. 26. So also the Súrya-Siddhánta itself says, “The mána of Jupiter is (used here) for knowing the 60 samvatsaras, and the other mánas are not always (used).” Calcutta edit. 1861, p. 91.

^{page 543 note 1} J.R.A.S. Vol. I. N.S. p. 316.

^{page 543 note 2} 1874, pp. 341–421. See also Colebrooke's Essays, ProfCowell, 's ed. 1873, pp. 125et seq, and Prinsep's Essays, U.T. p. 154.

^{page 543 note 3} J.R.A.S. Vol. I. N.S. p. 331.

^{page 544 note 1} Indian Antiquary, 09, 1873, p. 258, translated by Prof. R. G. Bhándárkar.

^{page 545 note 1} See also the examples, Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, in pl. xix. Ariana Antiqua; and Prinsep's Essays, pl. xxv. figs. 2, 4, 6, 7; Journ. As. S. B. vol. iv. pl. xxxvii. figs. 2, 4, 6, 7.

^{page 545 note 2} “A.D. 935.”—J.R.A.S. Vol. IX. p. 179.

^{page 545 note 3} “Le dernier roi de cette dynastie fut Laktouzeman. [Katurán Sháh Kutour, etc.] Ce prince avait pour vizir un brahmane nommé Kalhar des (Syala ?). Ce vizir était favorisé par la fortune, et il trouva dans la terre trésors qui lui donnèrent de la force et accrurent sa puissance. … Ensuite le vizir se laissa aller à la tentation d'être maître unique … Il s'empara done du trône et eut pour successeur le Brahme Sámanda.”—Albiruni, Reinaud, p. 153.

^{page 546 note 1} J.R.A.S. Vol. XII. O.S. Plate VI. Fig. 12, and IX. N.S. pp. 11 and 212; Ariana Antiqua, plate xiv. figs. 19, 20, pp. 416, 425; J. A. S. Beng. 1836, pl. 12; Arch. Rept. W. India, pp. 35, 36.

^{page 546 note 2} Ariana Antiqua 350. “The figure in many instances appears by the breasts and protuberant hips to be female; but it is not invariably so, and is sometimes, what it probably always should be, an androgynous outline.”

^{page 547 note 1} Gen. Cunningham's Arch. Rept. vol. i. 1871, pl. xxx.

^{page 547 note 2} J.A.S.B. vol. v. p. 645.

^{page 547 note 3} J.R.A.S. XII. O.S. Plate V. Figs. 18, 25, 27, 30a, p. 75; Plate VI. Fig. 13; Plate VII. Figs. 1, 6, 7, 9; Prinsep's Essays, Plates xxiii. xxix. xxx. the same figs.; vol. i. p. 383; Journal As. Soc. Bengal, vol. iv. pl. xxxix.; vol. v. plates xxxvi. and xxxviii. the same figs, pages 360, etc.

^{page 548 note 1} Wilford, , As. Res. ix. (1807). “In these different lists, the principal Eras are, the accession of Mahá Bali to the imperial throne, 355 years B.C., his death in 327, the massacre of the Imperial family in 315, and finally the expiation of Cháṇakya, 312 years B.C., and of these remarkable events I took particular notice, in my essay on the Gangetic provinces” [ix. pp. 100–101].

“The next remarkable era is that of Ṣálivahana and the eldest Vikramáditya …

“The third epoch is that of king Ṣuraka, called also Áditya, and Rája Vikrama, who began his reign in the year 191.

“The fourth era is that of Vikramáditya the son of Gandharupa, whose reign began in the year 441” (pp. 138–9).

“The third epoch in my list, and most of the lists in the eastern parts of India, is that of Ṣuraka who was succeeded by his brother Kṛishna, according to the Puráṇas, He began his reign in the year 191, and was also considered as a Vikramáditya, or rather a Samvatika, or author of a civil period” (ix. 142). “The second Vikramáditya is the same with Ṣri Karṇa Deva, called also Ṣudraka and Ṣuraka … It seems that he attempted to establish an era of his own, which however did not last long… These new eras were soon doomed to oblivion” (147).

^{page 548 note 2} Burgess, , Arch. Report, Western India, p. 70.

^{page 548 note 3} It is curious that Jacobi, Buhler (Ind. Ant. vii. 80, and ix. 253), and Cunningham (ix. 19) should each, in their turn, have advocated an approximation to the year A.D. 194 for the commencement of the Gupta era. So that now we have a third alternative to debate upon. General Cunningham has, however, deserted this position in vol. x. p. 126, where Chandra Gupta II. is placed in A.D. 230 to 260.

^{page 549 note 1} The New Inscriptions Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8, are quoted from General Cunningham's reports.

^{page 550 note 1} General Cunningham speaks of a coin of Skanda Gupta with the later date of 149. Arch. Report, x. p. 112.

^{page 550 note 2} The qualifying word is omitted in M. Shefer's MS.

^{page 550 note 3} MrFleet, J. F., C.S., “Valahhi grant of Dharasena II.,” I.A. 11 1879, p. 305.

^{page 550 note 4} ProfBhandarkar, , Ind. Ant. 1872, p. 45. In this instance the writer has, seemingly, no more douht ahout the universality of the use of the Saka era, than the native authority in Calcutta already referred to, p. 540 ante. See also his remarks on the genealogy of the early members of the family at p. 17, Jan. 5, 1872. Dr. Buhler adds the date of 310 for Druvasena Il. as well as 286 and 290 for Síladitya I. Ind. Ant. 1880, p. 238. See further Burgess, Rept. W. India, p. 80.

^{page 550 note 5} Dr. Buhler, who has paid great attention to the history of the Valahhís, after translating a grant of King Dhruvasena I., illustrates this point in a more direct manner, in his commentary on the text. An abstract of the tenour of the grant under its genealogical aspect, is to the following effect: “Hail … (there lived formerly) the illustrious Senápati Bhaṭárka, who obtained an empire through the matchless power of his friends, etc. … His son (was) the illustrious Senápati Dharasena. … His younger brother (was) the illustrious Mahárája Droṇa Siṃha … His younger brother (was) the great feudatory prince, the great chamberlain, the great general, the great Kártákṛitika, the Mahárája, the illustrious Dhruvasena …

“My own sign manual. On the 3rd lunar day of the dark half of Mágha, Samvat 216.”

Dr. Buhler continues: “The value of the grant lies in its great age. None among the published plates go further back than to Dharasena II., the greatgrandson of Bhatarka, while here we have a document proceeding from his third son. Its date, I think, disposes of the theory that the plates, being dated according to the Ṣaka era (I. A. i. 45, 60, and iii. 235, 303), the beginning of the Valabhí era, 318–19 A.D., coincides with the coronation of Droṇasimha. For, as the first two signs of this grant 21(0), are perfectly certain, if dated in the Ṣaka era (even allowing the last figure to be a 9), it could not be older than 297 A.D. Hence it would be dated twenty-one years before the Valabhí era. I refrain, therefore, for the present from any positive suggestion on the quœstio vexata to what era the dates of the grants really refer. Another interesting fact which this grant reveals is that up to Dhruvasena's time the Valabhí kings were not entirely independent, but that they continued to acknowledge some other sovereign as lord paramount. No independent ruler would assume the titles of Sámanta, Pratihára, and Daṇḍanayaka. It woidd seem that Dhroṇasimha's coronation had not cut off the connexion of his house with the supreme power, but only altered its name.”—I. Antiquary, 1875, p. 107.

^{page 551 note 1} p. 528, note on p. 542, and MrFergusson, 's article, J.R.A.S. Vol. XII. N.S. pp. 271–276.