Indian Epigraphy c15.t15: 3. Gupta or Valabhī Era

Indian Epigraphy c15.t15

Language: English

3. Gupta or Valabhī Era

c15.t15.1

⁴ *CII*, Vol. III, Intr., pp. 16 ff.; Ojha, *Bhāratīya Prācīn Lipimālā*, pp. 174 ff.

The era used by the Imperial Guptas of Magadha and their feudatories as well as some of the successors of both was called the year or reckoning of the Guptas from about the middle of the 5th century, i.e. more than a century after its start.⁵ In the earlier records dated in the era, it is treated exactly as the regnal reckoning of particular kings, without giving it any specific name. This is indeed the nature of all eras developed from the regnal reckoning of a ruler continued by his successors.

c15.t15.3

⁵ *CII*, Vol. III, Intr., pp. 29-30, Text, pp. 60-61, 107; R. G. Bhandarkar Com. Vol., p. 203; *Ind. Ant.*, Vol. II, p. 258; etc.

c15.t15.4

The Mathura inscription⁶ of Candragupta II is dated both in his 5th regnal year and in the *kāl-ānuvartamāna* year 61 (i.e. the year 61 counted according to the era); but it does not specifically associate the reckoning with the Guptas as in the later cases referred to above. Other records of the Imperial Guptas mention particular years of the era either without any specification⁷ or as belonging to a particular monarch or to his reign.¹ It was of course later specifically attributed to the Guptas.²

c15.t15.5

⁶ *Select Inscriptions*, pp. 269 ff.

c15.t15.6

⁷ Cf. *Select Inscriptions*, p. 271 (Udaygiri inscription of Candragupta II—*samvatsare* 82); p. 274 (Sanchi inscription of Candragupta II—*sam* 93); etc.

c15.t15.7

¹ Cf. ibid., p. 279 (Bilsad inscription—śrī-Kumāraguptasy=abhivardhamāna-vijaya-rājya-saṃvatsare ṣaṇṇavate (vatitame).

c15.t15.8

² Cf. varṣa-śate Guptānāṃ sa-catuḥpañcāśad-uttare (Bhandarkar's List, No. 1281); see also ibid., Nos. 1283, 1285, 1329, 1339, 1376, 1378, etc.

c15.t15.9

It is as yet unknown which early member of the Imperial Gupta dynasty founded the Gupta era, i.e. the regnal reckoning of which amongst them was continued by his sucessors. Since Candragupta I, father of Samudragupta and grandfather of Candragupta II, was the first imperial ruler of the family, the first year of the era is generally believed by scholars to be equivalent to the year of that king's accession. This is quite probable in view of the fact that his grandson ascended the throne in the year 57 of the era, but is by no means certain. It is not at all impossible that the era started from the first regnal year of Gupta, Ghaṭotkaca or Samudragupta who were respectively the grandfather, father and son of Candragupta I. If the spurious Nalanda³ and Gaya⁴ inscriptions of respectively the 5th and 9th regnal years of Samudragupta are believed to be forged copies of two genuine records of that king bearing the said dates, the era may have started from Samudragupta's accession. But the records appear to have been copied from those of his successors.

c15.t15.10

³ Select Inscriptions, pp. 263 ff.

c15.t15.11

⁴ Ibid., pp. 264 ff.

c15.t15.12

On the decline of the power of the Imperial Guptas, especially in Western India, their erstwhile feudatories,⁵ the Maitrakas of Valabhī in Kathiawar, continued the use of the era, the earliest record of that family being the Bhamodra Mohota plates⁵ of Droṇasiṃha, dated in the year 183.⁶

c15.t15.13

⁵ Ibid., pp. 403 ff.

c15.t15.14

⁶ The identity of the Gupta and Valabhi reckonings is indicated by the fact that, of two records of the same age and also the area in question, one associated the era with the Guptas and the other with Valabhī. These are the Unā (Kathiawad) plate of Valabhi-saṃvat 574 and the Morbi (Kathiawar) plate of Gupta-saṃvat 585. See Bhandarkar's List, Nos. 1379 and 1378 (these numbers should have been 1378 and 1379). To get the equivalent Christian year, 318-19 requires to be added to the current Kārttikādi Valabhi year and 319-20 to the current Caitrādi Gupta year, according to some (S. Pillai, Indian Ephemeris, Vol. I, Part i, p. 54).

c15.t15.15

The continuous use of the era by Droṇasiṃha’s successors for a few centuries led to the era being designated the Valabhī-saṃvat¹ in that region. This fact is also at the root of the confused tradition about the era, recorded by Al-Bīrūnī in the 11th century A.D. Thus Al-Bīrūnī says, “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 Guptas fall, like that of the Valabha era, 241 years later than the Śaka-kāla.”² Al-Bīrūnī is certainly right when he says that the Gupta and Valabhī eras are identical and that the said era started 241 years after the commencement of the Śaka era, i.e. in 319 A.D. But his conjecture that the era started from the end of the Guptas is obviously wrong since we know for certain that the Maitrakas of Valabhī did not start any new era but only continued the use of the era of their former masters, the Imperial Guptas. This is quite clear from the dates of the Girnar (near Junagadh in Kathiawar) rock inscription of Skandagupta, viz., the Gupta years 136 and 138, and the date of the Bhamodra Mohota plates of Droṇasiṃha, viz. 183, which are respectively the latest Gupta dates in Kathiawar and the earliest date of the Maitrakas. The confusion is apparently due to the fact that the Maitrakas of Valabhī ruled independently sometime after the end of Gupta rule in Kathiawar.

c15.t15.16

¹ See *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. IX. p. 6.

c15.t15.17

² Sachau, *Alberuni's India*, Part II, p. 7; *CII*, Vol. III, Intro., pp. 30-31.

c15.t15.18

The Veraval inscription³ of the time of Caulukya-Vāghelā Arjuna is dated on Sunday, Āṣāḍha-badi 13 of a year given as Hijrī (Rasūla-Mahammada-saṃvat) 662, Vikrama 1320, Valabhī-saṃvat 945 and Siṃha-saṃvat 151. The difference between the Vikrama and the Valabhī or Gupta eras is thus given here as 375 years while Al-Bīrūnī quotes it as 376 years.

c15.t15.19

³ *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXXIV, pp. 143 ff.

c15.t15.20

The Veraval inscription probably speaks of the month of Āṣāḍha in the Kārttikādi Vikrama year 1320 which would be the same as the Caitrādi Vikrama year 1321 with reference to the month in question.

c15.t15.21

The years of the Gupta era are believed to have started on Caitra-sudi 1, and the months are regarded as Pūrṇimānta. During the age of the Imperial Guptas, the use of the era spread over wide areas of North India, including Assam, Bengal and Orissa. As we have seen, the Maitrakas used it for a long time after the decline of the Guptas. The latest use of the Valabhī (i.e. Gupta) era in Kathiawar is found in the inscription¹ of the year 945 (1264 A.D.) referred to above.

c15.t15.22

¹ Bhandarkar's List, No. 1384.

c15.t15.23

The era used in the inscription of the Licchavis of Nepal has been identified by Fleet with the Gupta era and he assigns the Changunarayan inscription of Mānadeva (dated in the year 386, Jyaiṣṭha-sudi 1, Rohiṇī-nakṣatra, Abhijit) to the 28th April 705 A.D.² But Bhagavanlal Indraji identified the Licchavi era with the Vikrama-saṃvat and assigned the Changunarayan inscription to 329 A.D.² while Sylvain Lévi suggested that the Licchavi era started in 110 A.D.⁴ Without taking the astronomical calculations into consideration since they do not appear to be completely satisfactory, the theory of Fleet does not appear to suit the palaeography of the Licchavi inscriptions. The Changunarayan inscription, as for instance, should be palaeographically assigned to a date about the 5th century A.D. and not in the 8th as suggested by Fleet. As regards Bhagwanlal Indraji's views, it has to be remembered that there was hardly any possibility of the spread of the use of the Vikrama-saṃvat in Nepal in the early centuries of the Christian era. It is equally difficult to accept Lévi's theory. The existence of a new era can be entertained only on definite evidence when the identification of an era with any other era prevalent in the neighbourhood of the area and age in question is found to be impossible. We are inclined to identify the era used by the Licchavis of Nepal with the Kaniṣka or Śaka era of 78 A.D. which is known to have been continued in the Bihar-U.P. region by ruling families like the Mitras of Magadha and the Maghas of Kauśāmbī.¹ The Changunarayan inscription of the year 386 may thus be assigned to 468 A.D.²