Early History of the Dekkan down to the Mahomedan Conquest c23: Appendix A

Early History of the Dekkan down to the Mahomedan Conquest c23

Language: English

Appendix A

In order to render the chronologies of the different dynasties that ruled over western and northern India in the early centuries of the Christian era mutually consistent, it is necessary to discuss the initial date of the Gupta era Albîrunî, who accompanied Mahmud of Ghizni in his invasion of Gujarât in the early part of the eleventh century, states that that era was posterior to the Śaka by 241 years, and that it was the epoch of the extermination of the Guptas He mentions another era named after Balaba, the initial date of which was the same as that of the Guptas

c23.3

Now in some of the inscriptions of the Gupta kings and their dependent chiefs the dates are referred to *Guptakâla* or the Gupta era, wherefore Albîrunî's statement that it was the epoch of their extermination cannot be true This error is regarded as throwing discredit on his other statement, *viz*, that the era was posterior to the Śaka by 241 years But it has nothing whatever to do with it Albîrunî must have derived his knowledge of the initial date from contemporary evidence, since the era of the Guptas was, as stated by him, one of those ordinarily used in the country in his time, and as his statements regarding the initial dates of the Vikrama and the Śaka eras are true, so must that with reference to the Gupta era be true On the other hand, his information as regards the event which the Gupta era memorialized must have been based upon the tradition current among the Hindu astronomers of the day, who were his informants Such traditions are often erroneous, as has been proved in many a case Albîrûnî was also informed that the Śaka era was the epoch of the defeat of the Śaka king by Vikramâditya This was the tradition as to its origin among Indian astronomers, though it has now given place to another For Soḍhala in his commentary on Bhâskarâchârya's Karaṇakutûhala, a manuscript of which more than four hundred years old exists in the collection made by me for Government during 1882-83, tells us that "the epoch when Vikramâditya killed Mlechchhas of the name of Śakas is ordinarily known as the Śaka era " But we know that in Mangalîśa's inscription at Bâdâmî it is spoken of as the era of the "coronation of the Śaka king", that Ravikîrtı in the inscription at Aihole describes it as the era of the Śaka kings and that it is similarly represented in many other places Albîrunî's error therefore as regards the origin of the Gupta era no more invalidates his statement as to its initial date than his error about the origin of the Śaka era does his statement about the initial date of that era The only reasonable course for us under the circumstances is to reject the statement as to the era being an epoch of the extermination of the Guptas and accept that about the initial date of the era But some antiquarians reject both these statements and accept what simply hangs on them and what must fall with them, *viz*, that the Guptas were exterminated in Śaka 242, and make elaborate endeavours to find an earlier initial date for the era If the inscriptions show that the era was not posthumous but contemporaneous, we should rather believe that the Guptas rose to power in Śaka 242, assigning its due value to the statement of Albîrunî, which must have been based on contemporary evidence, that the era began in that year But if instead of that we declare that they cease to reign in Śaka 242, we in effect reject contemporary evidence and accept a mere tradition which in so far as it represents the era to be posthumous has been proved to be erroneous

c23.4

Again, Albîrunî's statement that the initial date of the Gupta era and of the Valabhî era was the same seems to some not "at all probable" To [127] my mind the improbability is not so great as to render valueless what clearly is contemporary evidence We all know that the date occuring in a grant of one of the sons of the founder of the dynasty is 207, and we have a large number of grants of subsequent kings with dates posterior to this and in harmony with it So that it is clear that these dates cannot refer to an era dating from the foundation of the dynasty Such a long time as 207 years cannot be considered to have elapsed between the father who founded the dynasty and his son, even supposing him to have been a posthumous son The dates, therefore, are understood to refer to the Gupta era What, then, could have been the Valabhî era, if it was never used by the Valabhî princes during the 275 years or thereabouts of the existence of their dynasty? An era cannot receive the name of a certain line of princes unless used by those princes, at least on a few occasions, and enforced The era used by the Valabhî princes must be the Valabhî era One certainly would expect that it should be so The only supposition, therefore, on which the whole becomes intelligible is that the era introduced by the Valabhîs in Surâshṭra and used by them was called the Valabhî era by their subjects, and not one dating from the foundation of the dynasty, for such a one, we see, was not used by the Valabhî princes themselves The era introduced and used by the Valabhîs was that of the Guptas, whose dependents they were in the beginning, and hence Albîrûnî's statement that the initial date of the Gupta and Valabhî eras was the same is true From an inscription at Somanâth discovered by Colonel Tod, we gather that Śaka 242 was the first year of the Valabhî era Hence, therefore, the initial date of the Gupta era was 242 Śaka, as stated by Albîrûnî

c23.5

The question in this way is, I think, plain enough Still since astronomical calculations have been resorted to to prove the incorrectness of the date given by Albîrûnî and to arrive at an earlier one so as to place the extinction of the Gupta dynasty in Śaka 242, it is necessary to go into the question further The following tests may be used and have been used to determine the correctness of a proposed initial date:—

c23.6

1 The date of Budha Gupta's pillar inscription at Eran, which is Thursday, the 12th of Âshâḍha, in the Gupta year 165
2 Râjâ Hastin's inscription dated 156 Gupta, the year of the 12-year cycle of Jupiter being Mahâvaiśâka
3 Râjâ Hastin's inscription dated 173 Gupta, the year of the 12-year cycle being Mahâśvayuja
4 Râjâ Hastin's inscription dated 191 Gupta, the year of the 12-year cycle being Mahâchaitra
5 Râjâ Samkshobha's inscription dated 209 Gupta, the year of the 12-year cycle being Mahâśvayuja
6 An eclipse of the sun mentioned in the Morvî copper-plate grant dated 5th Phâlguna Sudi 585 of the Gupta era

c23.7

Before applying these tests to the initial date given by Albîrûnî, it must be premised that according to the Arabic author the Gupta era was 241 years posterior to the Śaka To convert a Śaka date into a Valabhî date, or which is the same thing, into a Gupta date, he tells us to deduct from it the cube of 6 and the square of 5, that is, 241 And proceeding to give actual instances, he says 953 Śaka corresponds to 712 Valabhî or Gupta We have thus to add 241 to a Gupta date to arrive at the corresponding Śaka date Again, as I shall show in Appendix B, in inscriptions the numerical date indicates, in a large number of instances, the number of years of an era that have elapsed, that is, the *past* year and in about a third of the instances, the *current* year The year of the cycle, however, whenever it occurs, is as a rule the current year, though in rare cases that also is the past year If, therefore, a past Gupta year is to be converted into [128] the current Śaka year, we shall have to add 242 to the former, while if both are current or both past, the difference between them is only 241

c23.8

Now, as to the first of the above tests, Gupta 165 + 241 = 406 Śaka If Albîrunî is correct, the 12th Âshâḍha Sudi of this year should be a Thursday I asked my friend Professor Keru Lakshman Chhatre to make the calculation for me, and he tells me that it was a Thursday Since our astronomical methods are based on the past Śaka year, and even our present Śaka year 1805 really represents, as I shall show in the next Appendix, the years that have elapsed, the current year being really 1806, Gupta 165 was a past year, as well as Śaka 406 Hence only 241 has to be added Śaka 406 corresponds to 484 A D General Cunningham takes the Gupta 165 to correspond to 483 A D, adding 240 + 78 = 318 to it, and of course arrives at the result that "the 12th day of Âshâḍha Sudi was a Friday instead of a Thursday " If, however, he had added This image appears to be a blank or entirely white scanned page containing no readable text or page furniture, with only a small stray mark near the bottom right margin.

c23.9

current year led sometimes the *past* year to be mistaken for the *current* year, just as we now mistake the year 1805 Śaka for the current year, though it really is the completed or past year. Thus the completed year 157 must, in the case before us, have come to be mistaken by the writer of the inscription for the *current* year, and he thought 156 to be the past year and thus gave that instead of 157. Now 157 Gupta + 242 + 78 = 477 A D., which is *Mahâ-vaiśâkha*, according to the tables.∗

c23.10

∗ Though by using General Cunningham's table, I arrive at the desired result in three cases, still I now find that his current Christian year is derived by adding 78 to the past Śaka, while I have added 79, *i. e.*, the cyclic year given in the dates is true not of the Gupta year in the date as a past year but of the Gupta year + 1 as a past year. And the third date 173 Gupta is a correction of General Cunningham's, the actual date in the inscription being 163. I have, however, allowed the paragraphs to remain, as I am by no means quite satisfied that the question of these cyclic dates is settled beyond dispute. (1894)

c23.11

[129] The eclipse mentioned in the Morvî plate occurred, according to my friend Professor Keru Lakshmaṇ, on the 30th of Vaiśâkha, Śaka 827. The Gupta year given in the plate is 585. If 827 is in the astronomical calculation the *current* year, it must correspond to 585 Gupta *past*, for 585 + 242 = 827. It is by no means necessary to suppose that the eclipse occured on the new-moon day immediately previous to the 5th of Phâlguna Sudi mentioned in the grant. For it is perfectly possible that the actual religious ceremoney with reference to the grant was made in Vaiśâkha and the deed executed in Phâlguna.†

c23.12

† There was an eclipse also in Śaka 826 the new-moon day of Kârttika, so that Gupta 585 *past* + 241 = 826 Śaka. This is evidently the eclipse mentioned in the grant and not that mentioned in the text. On the whole question

c23.13

I have thus shown that Albîrûnî's initial date for the Gupta era stands all these tests. It may even be said that it stands them better than 167 A.D. and 190 A.D. proposed by General Cunningham and Sir E. Clive Bayley respectively. But I am loath to decide such questions simply on astronomical grounds, for there are several very confusing elements involved, and a modern astronomer cannot know them all and make allowance for them.

c23.14

It now remains to notice the last point relied on by the opponents of Albîrûnî. The date on a copper-plate grant by the last Śîlâditya of Valabhî hitherto known is 447. This Śîlâditya is also styled Dhruvabhaṭa in the grant and has been identified with the Tu-lu-h'o-po-tou or Dhruvabhaṭa of Hwan Thsang who visited Valabhî in 640 A.D. The date 447 is understood as referring to the Gupta era, and, 319 being added it, corresponds to 766 A.D. It has therefore been argued that an earlier initial date must be assigned to the Gupta era so as to bring this Śîlâditya or Dhruvabhaṭa nearer to the date of Hwan Thsang's visit. But the identification of the last Śîlâditya with Hwan Thsang's Dhruvabhaṭa cannot stand. In the Si-yu-ki the Chinese writer does not speak of a king but of kings, and says they were nephews of Śîlâditya of Mâlvâ and the younger of them named Dhruvabhaṭa was son-in-law to the son of Harshavardhana. If they were nephews of the king of Mâlvâ they were brothers and both of them kings. Now, the predecessor of the last Śîlâditya of Valabhî was his father, and among the kings of Valabhî we do not find brothers reigning in succession at this period. There were two brothers who occupied the throne before this period, one of them

c23.15

--- see my paper on the epoch of the Gupta era, Jour. B. B. R. A. S., Vol. XVII, p. 80.

c23.16

being named Dharasena and the other Dhruvasena They were the sons of Kharagraha, and the younger of them was the father and predecessor of Dharasena IV This younger brother or Dhruvasena must have been Hwan Thsang's Dhruvabhaṭa Nothing important is involved in the suffix *Bhaṭa* It was a mere title or honorific termination as Pant and Râv are among us the Marâṭhâs Sena, Simha, and Bhaṭa were the Valabhî honorific endings and they could be used promiscuously The king spoken of in the plates as Dhruvasena may have been called Dhruvabhaṭa by ordinary people, from whom Hwan Thsang must have got the name Now, a copper-plate grant of Dhruvasena bears the date 310, and the earliest date of his successor Dharasena IV is 326 The first corresponds to 629 A D (310+241+78=629), and the second to 645 (326+241+78=645) It is quite possible, therefore, that Dhruvasena was on the throne in 640 A D at the time when Hwan Thsang visited Valabhî

c23.17

[130] The initial date mentioned by Albîrunî is thus consistent with everything with which it has been thought to be not consistent I have shown that the statement of the Arabic writer is in itself entitled to our confidence, being based, as it must have been, on contemporary evidence, as his statements about the Śaka and Vikrama eras were I will now show that the date mentioned by him is alone consistent with the information we possess as regards the relations of the several dynasties that ruled over Gujarât and Kâṭhiâwâḍ in the early centuries of the Christian era, and the dates proposed by General Cunningham and Sir E Clive Bayley are not We know that the Guptas succeeded the Satraps, and the Valabhîs were at first dependents of the Guptas and afterwards attained independence Chandragupta II must have been the Gupta prince who overthrew the Satraps, since he is the first prince of that dynasty whose silver coins are a close imitation of those of the Satraps The latest date of that monarch is 93 This corresponds to 260 A D and 283 A D on the supposition that the Gupta era took its start in 167 A D and 190 A D respectively Now, the latest date of the Satrap dynasty is 304 If the era to which it refers is the Saka, it corresponds to 382 A D, that is, we shall have to suppose one of the princes of the dynasty to have reigned about a hundred years after the dynasty had been put an end to by Chandragupta II The Saka era will therefore not do Supposing the Satrap dates refer to the Vikrama era, 304 corresponds to 48 A D, which of course is consistent with Chandragupta's date 260 A D or 283 A D If then the Satrap dates refer to the era of Vikrama, Rudradāman's 72 must correspond to 16 A D Rudradāman's grandfather Chashṭana will have to be placed about B C 4 But Ptolemy, writing after 150 A D, tells us that Ujjayinî was ruled over about the time when he wrote by Tiastenes, who has been very reasonably identified with Chashṭana Ptolemy's information cannot certainly be 150 years old It has, however, been argued that Ptolemy does not state that Tiastenes reigned about the time when he lived, and that he and Siropolemios were contemporaries For, he gives the information in the form of two short notes, "Ozone, the royal residence of Tiastenes," and "Baithana, the royal residence of Siropolemios" Such notes it is possible that one should write even if the princes reigned several hundred years before him, as a modern geographer may mention Berlin as "the capital of Frederick the Great," or Ghizni as "the capital of Mahmud" As to this I have to observe that the analogy does not hold good A modern geographer and his readers are very well acquainted with past history, while neither Ptolemy nor those for whom he wrote could have known the past history of India A modern geographer knows which of the princes that ruled over a certain country in past times was the ablest or most powerful, and selects him out of a number and mentions his name in connection with a certain place It is extremely improbable or almost impossible that Ptolemy should have known many Indian princes who reigned before he lived, along with their achievements, and should have chosen the ablest of them for being mentioned And, as a matter of fact, we know that one at least of the rulers mentioned by him could be a person of no importance For Baleocuros who according to him held power in Hippocura was, as we have seen, but a Viceroy or dependent of Pulumâyi and Gotamîputra Yajña Śrî, since as Vilivâyakura his name occurs along with those of the two princes on the Kolhâpur coins Again, Ptolemy must have derived his information from merchants carrying on trade with India and these from the natives of the country And we know that natives of India care very little for past history and [131] soon forget their kings Hence the information derived by the merchants cannot have reference to princes who reigned long before the time of Ptolemy It is possible that Indians may remember a celebrated prince for a century or two But, as stated above, one of the rulers mentioned by Ptolemy was but a dependent sovereign and could not have been a man of note The only other supposition that our opponents may resort to, is that Ptolemy's statements were based on those of previous geographers whose contemporaries the princes mentioned by him were No ground whatever has however been adduced in support of such a supposition In the Periplus which was written before Ptolemy, Paithana and Ozene are mentioned, but Polemios and Tiastenes are not On the contrary, the author of that work says that Ozene was "formerly the capital wherein the king resided" If Tiastenes lived before him, and Ptolemy's mention of the former was due to his having been a prince of note like Frederick the Great and Mahmud of Ghizni in modern times, we should expect the author of the Periplus to have noticed him especially when he does allude to the kings of Ozene Tiastenes, Polemios and Baleocuros must thus have reigned about the time of Ptolemy The last two were, we know, contemporaries, and so also must the third have been

c23.18

In this manner the Vikrama era will not do for the Satrap dates Besides, no trace whatever has hitherto been discovered of the use of that era in the early centuries of Christ Since, then, the use of no other era at the time has been well authenticated, the Satraps must be supposed to have employed the Saka era The circumstances of the country at that period render, as I have shown, the establishment of this era by the Sakas who ruled over the country in every way probable The latest Satrap date will thus correspond to 382 A D , and Chandragupta, the conqueror of the Satraps, can be rendered posterior to this only by taking 242 Saka *current* or 319 320 A D as the first *current* year of the Gupta era, for his 93 *past* will then correspond to 412-413 A D And in this way Rudradâman's 72 will correspond to 150 A D, and Chashtana's date will be about 130 A D, *i e* anterior to the date of Ptolemy's geography by about 25 years Thus, then, the evidence in favour of Albīrūnī’s initial date for the Gupta era appears to me to be simply overwhelming

Linked texts (1)

Somanātha (Semenat)