^{page 259 note 1} Published in Vol. IV. N.S. of the Society's Journal, pp. 81–137. As that article contains all the references required, it will not be necessary to repeat them all here, but only such as have special reference to the new matter now brought forward.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 1} J.B.B.R.A.S. vol. ix. pp. 239, 240.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 1} Tod's Rajasthan, vol. i. p. 801,Google Scholar and in all those copperplate grants in J.R.A.S. Vol. I. N.S. p. 250, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 2} J.B.B.R.A.S. vol. viii. p. 124.Google ScholarJournal Asiatique, 4th series, vol. iv. pp. 282, 285, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 3} Archæological Reports, vol. iii. p. 45.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 1} Indische Alterthuraskunde, vol. ii. p. 411 et seqq.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 2} Cunningham's most recent discussion of this question is in a series of papers in the recent volumes of the Numismatic Chronicle; but its details are frequently referred to and enforced in his Geography of Ancient India and Archæological Reports.

^{page 263 note 3} Wilson's, Ariana Antiqua, p. 300.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 4} Ariana Antiqua, p. 300 et seqq.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 1} Thomas's list, published in his edition of Prinsep, vol. ii. p. 178 et seqq., contains 38 names, of which probably 24 may be ascribed to the Græco-Baktrian Kingdom, the remaining 14 are Barbaric Kings; but how many more there may be we do not yet know.

^{page 264 note 2} J.A.S B. vol. iii. p. 559, pl. xxxiv.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 3} Journal des Savans, 1836, p. 74;Google ScholarThomas's Prinsep, vol. i. p. 148.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 1} Wilson's, Ariana Antiqua, p. 340;Google ScholarThomas's Prinsep, vol. ii. p. 214.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 2} Hist. Eccles. i. 13, iii.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 3} Hist. Eccles. i. 19.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 1} These particulars are taken from a paper by Dr. Hoernle, supplemented by one by General Cunningham, reported in the proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for March to August, 1879, p. 205, et seqq.

^{page 268 note 1} Archæological Beport on the Districts of Belgam and Kuladji, London, 1875, p. 24.Google Scholar

^{page 269 note 1} J.B.B.R.A.S. vol. v. p. 53.Google Scholar

^{page 269 note 2} J.B.B.R.A S. vol. viii. p. 119.Google Scholar

^{page 269 note 3} J.B.B.R.A.S. vol. ix. p. 238. See also Bhandarkar, MS. translation.Google Scholar

^{page 270 note 1} J.B.B.R.A.S. vol. viii. p. 28.Google Scholar

^{page 270 note 2} Essay on the Sah Kings of Saurastra, J.R.A.S. Vol. XII. p. 16;Google Scholar and J.A.S.B. vol. xxiv. p. 503;Google Scholar see also Thomas's Prinsep, vol. ii. p. 95.Google Scholar

^{page 271 note 1} “Le mot samvatsara signifie année; c'est oomme, si on disait révolutions annuelles. Ce samvatsara est fondé sur la marche de Jupiter et du Soleil. … Sa révolution est de soixante ans, voilà pourquoi on le nomme Schadabda (it should be Shashtyabda, from Shashli ‘sixty,’ and Abda ‘year’), d'un mot qui signifie soixante ans.” To this M. Eeinaud adds in a note:“Il me semble résulter de l'ensemble du passage que le cycle sexagesimal non seulement etoit propre à une certaine partie de l'lnde, mais qu'il étoit d'une institution récente. Le calcul présenté par Albyrouny me fait croire qu'il commenca seulement l'an 959 de notre ére. C'est en Chine que ce cycle a pris naissance; il y est d'un usage immemorial.”—Journal Asialique, series iv. vol. iv. pp. 281–2.Google Scholar In this conjecture M. Eeinaud seems certainly to be mistaken. 959 may be the year of its application to the Samvat of Vikramâditya, as we hope to showpresently; but it was applied to the Gupta Samvat in 319 A.D.

^{page 271 note 2} J.B.B.R.A.S. vol. ix. p. 242.Google Scholar

^{page 271 note 3} Archæological Reports, vol. ii. p. 266.Google Scholar

^{page 272 note 1} Arch. Reports, vol. ii. p. 68.Google Scholar

^{page 272 note 2} Troyer's translation of the Raja Tarangini, vol. ii. p. 43.Google Scholar In Wilson's translation it is said, “A different monarch from the Saccâri Vicramâditya, though sometimes erroneously identified with that prince.”—Asiatic Researches, vol. xv. p. 32.Google Scholar

^{page 273 note 1} Loc. cit. p. 76.Google Scholar

^{page 273 note 2} Reinaud. Extraits d'Albiruni, Journal Asiatique, 4th série, tom. iv. p. 282.Google Scholar The principal passages bearing on the subject have already been printed in this Journal by MrThomas, , Vol. XII. pp. 14 and 44;Google Scholar so that it will not be necessary to repeat them here; but the whole chapter ought to be read by every one who wishes to understand how confused and artificial the whole system of eras was among the Hindus in Albiruni's time.

^{page 274 note 1} Wilson's, translation of Vishnu Purana, p. 477.Google Scholar

^{page 274 note 2} See Elliot, Walter, J.R.A.S. Vol. IV. p. 10 et seqq.Google Scholar

^{page 274 note 3} Journal Asiatique, loc. cit. p. 280.Google Scholar

^{page 275 note 1} In order to illustrate what is meant by this, I may mention that when investigating chronological questions, before writing my work on the “True Principles of Beauty in Art,” I found the inconvenience so great, that I was induced to propose the introduction of a Decimal Era, 10,000 years B.C The first year of Christ was consequently 10,001. The present year 11,880. In other words, by adding one digit to the left, the whole was reduced to a consecutive series from before the oldest date known to the present date. A simplification, the advantage of which it is not easy to overestimate.

^{page 277 note 1} Tod's, Annals of Rajasthan, vol. i. p. 800.Google Scholar

^{page 277 note 3} Asiatic Researches, vol. ix. p. 177;Google ScholarJourn. Asiatique, 1844, p. 250.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 1} Vie de Hiouen-Thsang, vol. i. pp. 204–5.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 2} He is called Boja by Ferishtah and other Persian historians, who assign to him the same length of reign, 50 years.—Dow's translation, vol. i. p. 13.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 3} Asiatic Researches, vol. ix. p. 175.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 1} The Ayeen Akbary, vol. ii. p. 49,Google Scholar places Bhowj's accession 485 A.D. or 541–56. Bhoja is the name the Persians give to Vikramâditya's son, and often, confound the acts of the one with those of the other.—Ferishtah, , Dow's translation, vol. i. p. 13.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 2} A.D. 627, instead of 64S, as stated in my former paper. For this correction I am indebted to Gen. Cunningham's, Geography of Ancient India, p. 91.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 3} In order to illustrate how this might happen, let us suppose the non-Christian inhabitants of this island, in the time of King Arthur, had wished to establish an Era of their own, independently of the Christian Era. If the Pagan Danes had conquered and been unconverted, they certainly would have made the attempt. Supposing they had selected the Departure of the Romans, the Battle of Badon Hill, or any great national event, at about that distance of time, to start from,—could they have fixed it certainly within 20 years ? I fancy not; and having the Christian Era to guide them, they ought to have done it much more easily than the Indians, who were always careless and uncritical as to dates or eras.

^{page 280 note 1} Journal Asiatique, series iv. vol. iv. Pp. 287–289.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 1} Indian Antiquary, vol. ii. p. 312.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 1} Journal Asiatique, series iv. vol. iv. p. 285.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 2} This date is from an unpublished copper-plate grant, in the possession of Gen. Cunningham, and is in addition to the three others of the same reign quoted in my previous paper, p. 112.

^{page 282 note 3} Indian Antiquary, vol. ii. p. 312; see also vol. iii. p. 344.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 4} Topographia Christiana, lib. xi. p. 338, edit. Paris, 1707.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 5} J.B.B.R.A.S. vol. x. p. 60.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 1} Vol. i. part ii. lib. iv. pp. 325 et seqq.

^{page 283 note 2} Malcolm's Persia, vol. i. p. 118;Google Scholar Briggs's translation of Ferishtah, intro. lxxvii. et seqq.; Dow's translation, p. 13.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 3} Journal Asiatic Soc. Bengal, vol. vi. 1837, p. 963;Google Scholar also Thomas's Prinsep, vol. i. p. 234.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 4} Journal Asiatic Soc. Bengal, vol. v.Google Scholar plates xxxvi. and xxxvii.; also Thomas's Prinsep, vol. i. p. 277, plate xxiii.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 5} Thomas's Prinsep, vol. i. p. 407, et passim.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 6} Journal Asiatic Soc. Bengal, 1866, p. 273.Google Scholar See also Cunningham's Archæological Reports, vol. iii. p. 136.Google Scholar