[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Archaeology, epigraphy and coins](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy) › [Book of Indian Eras, with Tables for Calculating Indian Dates](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883) › c18 # Book of Indian Eras, with Tables for Calculating Indian Dates c18: XIII.—Gupta Era Book of Indian Eras, with Tables for Calculating Indian Dates c18 - **Language:** English ### XIII.—Gupta Era ### [c18.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.1) The \*Gupta-kâl\*, or Gupta era, is not mentioned by any native writer, although it is found in several ancient inscriptions, as well as on the coins of the Gupta kings. It is however noticed by Abu Rihân, who makes the singular mistake of dating it from the epoch of their extermination, and of confounding it with the era of Balabhi. Now the initial point of the Balabhi era is known absolutely from Colonel Tod’s inscription, which makes the year 1 = 319 A.D., which is precisely the same date that is assigned to it by Abu Rihân, who says, that it is posterior to Sâka by 241 years, or 241 + 78 = 319 A.D. But as he goes on to say “Apparemment Ballaba suivit immediatement les Guptas,” it is clear that the Guptas must have reigned before A.D. 319. ### [c18.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.2) The confusion about the two eras has probably arisen from the fact that the Balabhi kings, in all their copper-plate grants, continued to use the Gupta era instead of making use of the Balabhi era itself. The following dates of the \*Gupta-kâl\* are found on the coins and inscriptions of the Gupta kings and in the records of their contemporaries: ### [c18.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.3) | 1. | SAMUDRA-GUPTA | ... | Copper-plate, S. 40. | | 2. | CHANDRA-GUPTA | ... | Inscriptions, S. 82-93. | | 3. | KUMARA-GUPTA | ... | Inscription, S. 96-98-126. | | 4. | SKANDA-GUPTA | ... | { Inscriptions, S. 137-138-141-146. { Coins, S. 144-145-149. | | 5. | BUDHA-GUPTA | ... | { Inscriptions, S. 165. { Coins, 174-180 odd. | | 6. | RAJA HASTIN | ... | { S. 156-and year Mahâ Vaisâkha. { S. 163 (read 173) year Mahâ Aswayuja. { S. 191 Mahâ Chaitra. | | 7. | RAJA SANKSHOBA | ... | S. 209 Mahâ Aswayuja. | ### [c18.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.4) The last four dates, which are recorded in two different reckonings, I have already made use of in my attempt to fix the initial point of the \*Gupta-kâl\*.∗ The title of mahâ, prefixed to the names of the four years, shows that the reckoning belongs to the Lesser Bârhaspatya Chakra, or 12-year Cycle of Jupiter. This cycle I have already described; and as the General Table gives all the names of the years in due order, marking each period of the omission of a name by a black circle, it will be easy to follow the arrangement by a reference to the Tables. ### [c18.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.5) ∗ Archæological Survey of India, Vol. X, Appendix. ### [c18.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.6) ∗ Budha Gupta's inscription on the Pillar at Eran bears the date of Samvat 165, Thursday, 12th Ashâdha-Sudi. ### [c18.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.7) As the 12th part of one revolution of Jupiter is considerably more than four days less than one solar year, a difference which amounts to one whole year in a little more than 85 solar years, the rule is to omit every 86th name. Now the double dates which I have given above show that, from the year 156 to 209 of the Gupta era, there was no name of the Jovian Cycle omitted. As this fact seemed to me to offer a ready means of obtaining an approximate date for the beginning of the Gupta-kâl, I drew up a Table showing the names of all the years of the 12-year cycle from the beginning of the Christian era down to the present day. Now as there was no omitted name between the years 156 and 209 of the Gupta era, or for a period of 54 years, the first date of Mahâ Vaisâkha, or Gupta-kâl 156, must lie within the period of 32 years (86 - 54) succeeding one of the omitted names. On referring to the General Table, where the names of the years of the 12-year cycle are all given, it will be seen that the date of 156 Gupta-kâl must, therefore, lie within some one of the following periods: ### [c18.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.8) 1.—A.D. 225 to 257, or 225 + 32. 2.—A.D. 310 to 342, or 310 + 32. 3.—A.D. 395 to 427, or 395 + 32. ### [c18.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.9) In the first period the only dates on which Mahâ Vaisâkha falls are three, namely, A.D. 227, 239, 251. But as these dates would place the beginning of the Gupta era in A.D. 73, 81, or 95, they may be given up as too early. ### [c18.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.10) In the second period the dates of Mahâ Vaisâkha are A.D. 310, 322, 334. If 310 be taken as 156 of the Gupta-kâl, then the year 1 will fall in 310 - 155 = 155 A.D. This would place the date of Budha Gupta's Pillar in 154 + 165 = 319 A.D., but as the week day of 12th Ashâdha-Sudi in Budha Gupta's inscription fell on a Tuesday in that year, and not on a Thursday as required, that date must be given up.\* ### [c18.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.11) If the middle number 322 be taken as 156 of the Gupta-kâl, then the year 1 will fall in 322 - 155 = 167 A.D., and the date of Budha Gupta's Pillar in 166 + 165 = 331 A.D., in which year the 12th of Ashâdha-Sudi did fall on a Thursday. ### [c18.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.12) If the third number 334 be taken as 156 of the Gupta-kâl, then the year 1 will fall in 334 - 155 = 179 A.D., and the year 165 of Budha Gupta's Pillar in A.D. 178 + 165 = 343, in which year the 12th Ashâdha-Sudi fell on a Monday. ### [c18.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.13) In the group of 85 years from A.D. 310 to 395, there is therefore only one year, A.D. 322, that will satisfy the two requirements of being a Mahâ Vaisâkha year itself, and of having a \*Thursday\* as the week day answering to 12th Ashâdha-Sudi of the year 165 of the Gupta era. ### [c18.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.14) In the second group of 85 years from A.D. 395 to 480, the only dates on which Mahâ Vaisâkha falls within the limit of 54 years preceding 480, are the two years 405 and 417 A.D., from which, deducting 155, we get the years 250 and 262 as two new starting points for the Gupta era. ### [c18.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.15) First, taking 250 as the year 1 of the Gupta-kâl, the year 165 will be A.D. 414, in which year the 12th of Ashâdha-Sudi fell on a Tuesday, and not on a Thursday. ### [c18.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.16) Next, taking 262 as the year 1 of the Gupta era, the year 165 will fall in A.D. 414, in which year the 12th of Ashâdha-Sudi fell on a Thursday, as required. ### [c18.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.17) We have thus in the two groups of years, extending from A.D. 310 to 395, only two dates which fulfil the two conditions of the Mahâ Vaisâkha year, and the 12th of Ashâdha-Sudi being a Thursday. These two dates place the 1st year of the Gupta-kâl either in A.D. 167, or in A.D. 262. ### [c18.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.18) It is needless to try a third group of years, as the only possible Mahâ Vaisâkha dates would fall in A.D. 488 and 500, which would place the 1st year of the Gupta era in A.D. 333 or 345, both of which are certainly too late. ### [c18.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.19) When I submitted these results to my learned friend Pandit Bâpu Deva, he pointed out that the 12th of Ashâdha-Sudi in A.D. 331 was a Friday, and not a Thursday. But it is so only by the reckoning of the Surya Siddhânta, which I have purposely rejected in dealing with these Gupta dates, as Varâha Mihira, the author of the Surya Siddhânta, lived at least two centuries later than Budha Gupta; so that it is quite impossible that his corrected tables could have been used in computing the calendar of the Gupta period. My calculations have been made from the tables of Aryabhatta, according to which the 12th of Ashâdha-Sudi in A.D. 331 was actually a Thursday. I am of course aware that Aryabhatta is also later than Budha Gupta; but as his length of year differs from that of his predecessor Parâsara by little more than half a second, the adoption of Aryabhatta’s table will not affect the week day. The case is different with Varâha Mihira, as his year is considerably longer than that of Parâsara and Aryabhatta. This difference was duly noticed by James Prinsep, who remarks that “Warren’s Kâla Sankâlita gives the beginning of the Hindu solar year invariably one day earlier than the reckoning followed in the tables of the Sudder Dewânee. This arises from his using the Tamil year of the Arya Siddhânta, while the Surya Siddhânta is used in Bengal.” ### [c18.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.20) In A.D. 331, the Hindu luni-solar year began on the 23rd February, according to Cowasjee Patell, who, throughout his chronology, has used the tables of Aryabhatta. In this year the month of Bhâdrapada was intercalary; but as this month is later than Ashâdha, the date will not be affected by the intercalation. Now the 12th of Ashâdha-Sudi is the 101st day of the Hindu luni-solar year; and as the 23rd of February was a Tuesday, the 101st day was a Thursday in A.D. 331, according to Aryabhatta’s tables. But according to Varâha Mihira, the Hindu luni-solar year began one day later, on the 24th February, and consequently the 101st day would be Friday, 4th June. ### [c18.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.21) The result of this examination is that there are only two possible dates for the commencement of the Gupta era, which fulfill the conditions of the two tests which I have applied,—namely, A.D. 167 and A.D. 262. We have accordingly to choose between these two dates that which agrees best with some of the other conditions. ### [c18.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.22) By the first date, the period of Samudra Gupta, the son of Chandra Gupta I, the presumed founder of the era, would fall between the year 200 and 230 A.D., which agrees with the fact that he was a contemporary of the Devaputra Shâhi, Shahân Shâhi, or the king of the Great Yue-chi Indo-Scythians. ### [c18.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.23) By this earlier period also the date of Dhrûva-bhatta would fall in 166+447=613 A.D., or just 28 years before Hwen Thsang’s visit to Balabhi in 641, during his reign. ### [c18.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.24) Taking the later date of A.D. 262, the period of Samudra Gupta would fall about A.D. 290 to 330, which would place him some considerable time after the Great Yue-chi had already got rid of their kings and had established military chiefs (? Satraps). ### [c18.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.25) This later period also would fix the date of Dhrûva-bhatta in 261+ 447=708 A.D., or just 68 years after Hwen Thsang’s visit, which is much too long a period for the reign of a single king. ### [c18.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.26) For these reasons I much prefer the earlier date of A.D. 167 as the first year of the Gupta era. This earlier date also is attended by a curious coincidence, which seems to me to offer a very strong confirmation of its accuracy. This is the correspondence in time of the death of Skanda Gupta with the foundation of the Balabhi era. His latest inscription is dated in S. 146, or A.D. 312, according to the earlier initial point which I have adopted. But one of his silver coins in my cabinet is dated three years later, or in S. 149, or A.D. 315, which is within four years of the establishment of the Balabhi era. I think it very probable, therefore, that the foundation of this era may have been brought about by the opportunity of Skanda Gupta’s death. This would agree very well with the statement of Abu Rihân, “that the fall of the Guptas corresponded with the establishment of the Balabhi era.”\* ### [c18.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.27) In my attempt to fix the date of the Gupta era I overlooked a very important inscription of Silâditya V., the father of Dhrûva-bhatta of Balabhi. This inscription is dated in S. 441, while the son’s inscription is only six years later. Supposing its dates to be recorded in the Gupta era, then Silâditya V. would have been reigning in 166+441=607 A. D., and his death may be placed about A.D. 610, or three years before the date of his son’s inscription in S. 447, or A.D. 613. Now Silâditya V. was the tenth generation of the Balabhi kings, and if we place the foundation of the Balabhi monarchy in A.D. 319, the ten generations will have reigned from A.D. 318 to 610, or for 292 years, which gives an average of 29 1/4 years to each generation. During this period there were 18 reigns, which give an average of nearly 16 1/4 years to each reign. ### [c18.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.28) That the era used by the Balabhi kings was that of the Guptas seems to be almost certain, as the Senapati Bhatâraka, the founder of the Balabhi dynasty, is said to have been the governor of Surâshtra during the last two years of Skanda Gupta’s reign. If then we accept the year A.D. 319 as the date of the foundation of the Balabhi monarchy, as well as of Balabhi itself, the Gupta era must be placed at least 146 years earlier, or in A.D. 173, according to the date of Skanda Gupta’s latest inscription; or 149 years earlier, or in A.D. 170, according to the date of his latest coin. This direct succession of the Guptas by the Balabhis, already noted by Abu Rihân, is confirmed by the traditions of the people, which state that, on Skanda Gupta’s death, the Senapati “assumed the title of king of Surâshtra,” and “founded the city of Valabhinagar.”\* From these statements I gather that the Valabhi era must almost certainly be dated from the foundation of the city of Valabhi, which followed immediately after the death of Skanda Gupta. For this reason, therefore, I think that the date of A.D. 166, which I have already deduced for the beginning of the Gupta era, from the copper-plate inscriptions of Raja Hastin and his son Sankshoba, compared with the week day date of Budha Gupta’s Pillar at Eran, has a better claim for acceptance than any other that has yet been proposed. ### [c18.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.29) ∗ See Archæological Survey of India, Vol. X, p. 125. ### [c18.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.30) The new inscription of Jaika (which has not yet been published) has induced Dr. Bühler to fix the beginning of the Gupta era about A.D. 206-209. But even the earlier date of 206 would place Silâditya V. in 206+441=647 A.D., just six years later than the visit of Hwen Thsang, who found his son Dhrûva-bhatta on the throne. ### [c18.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.31) This inscription of Dhrûva-bhatta I had previously overlooked until my attention was drawn to it by Dr. Burgess. ### [c18.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.32) It tells altogether in favour of any earlier date, for the inscription of Dhrûva-bhatta himself is dated in 447, or only six years later than that of his father. ### [c18.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.33) As the latest possible date for Silâditya V. is 640 A.D. (the year before Hwen Thsang’s visit), the latest possible starting point for the Gupta era is 640-446=194 A.D. ### [c18.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.34) According to my present calculation of the initial point of the Gupta era in A.D. 166=0, and 167=1, the date of Silâditya V. will fall in 441+166=607 A.D., and that of his son Dhrûva-bhatta in 447+166=613, A.D. ### [c18.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.35) The published inscription of Jaika, from Morbi, is dated in the year 585 of the Gupta-kâl, or era of the Guptas. It records a grant made on the occasion of a solar eclipse; but the inscription itself is dated on the 5th of Phâlguna-Sudi, which was not therefore the date of the grant, as a solar eclipse can only happen on badi 14th or the last day of the waning moon. According to my calculation of the initial point of the Gupta era, the year 585 will correspond with 585+166 = 751 A.D., in which year there was an eclipse of the sun on the 25th of August. ### [c18.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.36) ∗ \*Indian Antiquary\*, 1873, p. 312. Notes by Major Watson. ### [c18.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18.37) It is true that this date is about five months earlier than the actual date of the record. But this is not a difficulty of any consequence, as we have a similar interval between the actual date of a grant and the date of its record on copper in the Râjim inscription of Tivara Deva, king of Kosala. His grant was made on the 12th of the solar month of Jyeshta, but was not recorded until the 8th of Kârtika, or just four days less than five months later. The day of the month I have read myself, as it is not given by Wilson in his Translation, see Asiatic Researches, Vol. XV. The eighth day of Kârtik is recorded both in words and in figures. ## Linked texts (5) - [Sūryasiddhānta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.astro.siddhanta.early.suryasiddhanta) — Maya, Sanskrit - [تحقيق ما للهند من مقولة مقبولة في العقل أو مرذولة](https://indike.org/pramana/inf.isl.ar.biruni.tahqiq-ma-lil-hind) — Arabic - [Āryabhaṭīya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.astro.siddhanta.early.aryabhatiya) — Āryabhaṭa, Sanskrit - [Parāśaratantra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.astro.early.parasaratantra) — Parāśara, Sanskrit - [Mahāsiddhānta (Āryasiddhānta)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.astro.siddhanta.early.aryasiddhanta2) — Āryabhaṭa II, Sanskrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c18) · Pramāṇa