forms the starting point
of the Samvat era, is in reality unknown to them. With some,
Vikramaditya flourished "B.C." 56; with others, 86; with others again,
in the 6th century of the Christian era; while Mr. Fergusson will not
allow the Samvat era any beginning before the "10th century A.D." In
short, and in the words of Dr. Weber,* they "have absolutely no
authentic evidence to show whether the era of Vikramaditya dates from
the year of his birth, from some achievement, or from the year of his
death, or whether, in fine, it may not have been simply introduced by
him for astronomical reasons." There were several Vikramadityas and
Vikramas in Indian history, for it is not a name, but an honorary title,
as the Orientalists have now come to learn. How then can any
chronological deduction from such a shifting premise be anything but
untrustworthy, especially when, as in the instance of the Samvat, the
basic date is made to travel along, at the personal fancy of
Orientalists, between the 1st and the 10th century?

-----------
* "The History of Indian Literature," Trubner's Series, 1882, p. 202.
-----------

Thus it appears to be pretty well proved that in ascribing chronological
dates to Indian antiquities, Anglo-Indian as well as European
archeologists are often guilty of the most ridiculous anachronisms.
That, in fine, they have been hitherto furnishing History with an
arithmetical mean, while ignorant, in nearly every case, of its first
term! Nevertheless, the Asiatic student is invited to verify and
correct his dates by the flickering light of this chronological
will-o-the-wisp. Nay, nay. Surely "An English F.T.S." would never
expect us in matters demanding the minutest exactness to trust to such
Western beacons! And he will, perhaps, permit us to hold to our own
views, since we know that our dates are neither conjectural nor liable
to modifications. Where even such veteran archeologists as General
Cunningham do not seem above suspicion, and are openly denounced by
their colleagues, palaeography seems to hardly deserve the name of exact
science. This busy antiquarian has been repeatedly denounced by Prof.
Weber and others for his indiscriminate acceptance of that Samvat era.
Nor have the other Orientalists been more lenient; especially those
who, perchance under the inspiration of early sympathies for biblical
chronology, prefer in matters connected with Indian dates to give head
to their own emotional b