1. That Kumaragupta dynastic dates and with them those •of his father Chandragupta II and his son Skandagupta, which belong \indeniably to the same series and also any other which •can be shown to run uniformly with them, must be referred to the epoch 319-320 A. D., brought to notice by Albeiuni and substantiated by the Veyavala inscription of Vallabhi Samvat 945.
2. That under another name co|necting with the Malava tribe, the Vikrama era did undoubtedly exist anterior to A. D. 544, which, as we have seen, was held by Fergusson to be the year in which it was invented. These results are of -course independent of the question whether the early Guptas established an era of their own with the above-mentioned •epoch or they only adopted the era of some other dynasty.
Thus Fergusson's theory collapses and the tradition on which our belief in the Vikrama of the ist century B. C, really -exists is in this instance corroboratedby a fact.
Did the celebrated nine gems flourish at the court of a Vikramaditya of B.C. 56 ? The only authority in support of the affirmation is the Jyotirvidabharana, the authenticity of •which is highly questionable. The tradition moreover does «ot speak as to the identity of this Vikrama with the founder of the Samvat era. Besides the evidence of language is against the tradition. Houen Thsang places Harsha Siladitya about 580 A. D. and makes Vikramaditya his immediate predecessor. Again Varahamihira, who is included among the nine gems, gives the date of the composition of his Brihat Samhita and this is the sixth century A. D. Against this negative evidence, the tradition that the nine gems were contemporaries makes no stand.Valabhi having