The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s8.3

c8.s8.3

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 Albiruni'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 S'aka by 241 years. But it has nothing whatever to do with it. Albiruni 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 S'aka 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. Albiruni was also informed that the S'aka era was the epoch of the defeat of the S'aka king by Vikramâditya. This was the tradition as to its origin among Indian astronomers, though it has now given place to another. For Sodhala in his commentary on Bhâskarâchârya's *Karana-kutûhala*, 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 S'akas is ordinarily known as the S'aka era." But we know that in Mangalîs'a's inscription at Bâdâmî it is spoken of as the era of the "coronation of the S'aka king"; that Ravikirti in the inscription at Aihole describes it as the era of the S'aka kings and that it is similarly represented in many other places. Albiruni'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 S'aka 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 S'aka 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 S'aka 242, assigning its due value to the statement of Albiruni, which must have been based on contemporary evidence, that the era began in that year. But if instead of that we declare that they ceased to reign in S'aka 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.