DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9541#0749
APPENDIX.
7-2r,
Gupta died, and, as we are informed, "at tin's time the Gupta race
were dethroned by foreign invaders."1
The era from which these dates are taken never appeared to me
doubtful; and this confirms more and more the conviction that it
was from the era that bears their name, a.d. 319. It could not be
from the Saka era, as has generally been assumed, from the fact that
Albiruni asserts that the era that bears their name, was " apparently "
that of their destruction,- because in that case Skanda Gupta must
have lived and reigned for ninety-four years in addition to the sixteen
we already know, from inscriptions, he occupied the throne. A reign
of 110 years seems impossible : and, if it is not so, it seems certain,
for the reasons stated in my previous paper, that the Gupta era, 319,
is that from which their coins and inscriptions are dated.
Besides this, there is an inscription on the rock at Junaghar, en-
graved by the same Skanda, the last of the great Guptas. This was
not translated by Prinsep, though a copy of it was in his hands before
his last illness.3 Had he lived to translate it, my impression is that
the controversy as to the age of the Guptas never would have arisen
—its evidence seems so absolute. Be this as it may, it never appeared,
so far as I know, ill a complete form and translated, till this was
accomplished by the late Bhau Daji in the sixth volume of the Bombay
Journal of 1862. In it we have threa dates—the Sadarsana lake is
said to have burst its banks in 130, to have been repaired in 137, and
a temple to Vishnu built in 138, and twice it is repeated "counting
from the era of tlie Guptas" (Guptasya Kala). The stone is worn
where the middle date occurs, but there is just space enough for these
words. The same king, on the Kuhaon pillar, dates his inscription in
141,4 but without mentioning the era, which seems to have been so
usual in Bengal as not to require being specified.
Besides this, the 146 5 years from 319, which we know from their
dated inscriptions that they reigned, is just the interval that is
required to fill up the gap between the Ballabhis and their era which
they adopted on usurping the inheritance of the Guptas, two years
before Skanda Gupta's death.0
One other point of considerable importance to Indian history which
arises from the fixation of this date (a.d. 465-70) for the destruction
of the Guptas is, that it was almost certainly the White Huns who
were the "foreign invaders" that struck the blow that stopped their
1 'Indian Antiquary,' vol. ii. p. 312.
- ' Journal Asiatique,' series iv. vol. iv.
p. 285.
:l 'Journal of the Asiatic Society of
Bengal,' vol. vii. p. 634.
* Thomas's 'Prinsep,' i. p. 250.
* This date is from an unpublished
copper-plate grant, in the possession of
<!en. Cunningham, and is in addition to
the three others of the same reign quoted
in in}- previous paper, p. 112.
■ ' Indian Antiquary,' vol. ii. p. 312;
see also vol. iii. p. 344.
7-2r,
Gupta died, and, as we are informed, "at tin's time the Gupta race
were dethroned by foreign invaders."1
The era from which these dates are taken never appeared to me
doubtful; and this confirms more and more the conviction that it
was from the era that bears their name, a.d. 319. It could not be
from the Saka era, as has generally been assumed, from the fact that
Albiruni asserts that the era that bears their name, was " apparently "
that of their destruction,- because in that case Skanda Gupta must
have lived and reigned for ninety-four years in addition to the sixteen
we already know, from inscriptions, he occupied the throne. A reign
of 110 years seems impossible : and, if it is not so, it seems certain,
for the reasons stated in my previous paper, that the Gupta era, 319,
is that from which their coins and inscriptions are dated.
Besides this, there is an inscription on the rock at Junaghar, en-
graved by the same Skanda, the last of the great Guptas. This was
not translated by Prinsep, though a copy of it was in his hands before
his last illness.3 Had he lived to translate it, my impression is that
the controversy as to the age of the Guptas never would have arisen
—its evidence seems so absolute. Be this as it may, it never appeared,
so far as I know, ill a complete form and translated, till this was
accomplished by the late Bhau Daji in the sixth volume of the Bombay
Journal of 1862. In it we have threa dates—the Sadarsana lake is
said to have burst its banks in 130, to have been repaired in 137, and
a temple to Vishnu built in 138, and twice it is repeated "counting
from the era of tlie Guptas" (Guptasya Kala). The stone is worn
where the middle date occurs, but there is just space enough for these
words. The same king, on the Kuhaon pillar, dates his inscription in
141,4 but without mentioning the era, which seems to have been so
usual in Bengal as not to require being specified.
Besides this, the 146 5 years from 319, which we know from their
dated inscriptions that they reigned, is just the interval that is
required to fill up the gap between the Ballabhis and their era which
they adopted on usurping the inheritance of the Guptas, two years
before Skanda Gupta's death.0
One other point of considerable importance to Indian history which
arises from the fixation of this date (a.d. 465-70) for the destruction
of the Guptas is, that it was almost certainly the White Huns who
were the "foreign invaders" that struck the blow that stopped their
1 'Indian Antiquary,' vol. ii. p. 312.
- ' Journal Asiatique,' series iv. vol. iv.
p. 285.
:l 'Journal of the Asiatic Society of
Bengal,' vol. vii. p. 634.
* Thomas's 'Prinsep,' i. p. 250.
* This date is from an unpublished
copper-plate grant, in the possession of
<!en. Cunningham, and is in addition to
the three others of the same reign quoted
in in}- previous paper, p. 112.
■ ' Indian Antiquary,' vol. ii. p. 312;
see also vol. iii. p. 344.