________________
No. 26.]
A NOTE ON THE DATES OF UCHCHAKALPA KINGS.
171
No. 26.-A NOTE ON THE DATES OF UCHCHAKALPA KINGS.
By PROF. V. V. MIRASHT, M.A., NAGPUR. There have been in all seven copper-plate inscriptions of the kings of the Uchchakalpa family discovered so tar in Central India, from which we can make out the following genealogy :
Oghadēva -m. Kumāradēvi Kumāradēva -m. Jayasvāmini. Jayasvāmin m. Rāmadēvi. Vyāghra -m. Ajjhitaděvi. Jayanātha -m. Murundadēvi.
(known dates : 174, 177) Sarvanatha. (known dates : 191, 198, 197 and 214) The last two kings, whose copper-plates have been discovered, use the Twelve Year Cycle of Jupiter in dating their records, but do not specify any era to which their dates are to be referred. Nor do they, except in one case, which will be discussed below, contain any astronomical details that can be tested by calculation. The Bhumara pillar inscription states, however, that Sarvanátha was a contemporary of Maharaja Hastin, who must be identified with the Hastin of the Parivrajaka family, many of whose records have also been found in Central India and who was, therefore, ruling over the contiguous territory. From the copper-plates of the latter and his son Bashkshobha we get the following genealogy -
Dēvādhya. Prabhañjana. Damodara.
Hastin. (known dates : 156, 163, 191 and 198)
Samkshobha.
(known dates: 199 and 209) In these plates also the Twelve Year Cycle of Jupiter is used for dating. The expression Guptanpipa-rājya-bhuktau which occurs in all of them clearly indicates that their dates must be referred to the Gupta era, the epoch of which has been determined to be A.D. 319-320. As the kings of the Uchchakalpa family were the neighbours of those of the Parivrājaka family who use the Gupta cra in dating their records, the presumption is that the dates of the former also are in the Gupta era. It is, however, urged on the other hand, that the fact that the Uchchakalpa kings, unlike then contemporaries and neighbours, the kings of the Parivrājaka family, do not specify any era ia dating their records, goes to show that they used some other era. Again, the circum. stance that the Bhumarā pillar inscription, which is as much a record of the Parivräjaka king Hastin as of the Uchchakalpa Sarvanátha, does not, contrary to the practice observed in other records of the Parivrājaka kings, specify any era, points to the same conclusion ; for the Mahārājas Hastin and Sarvanātha, being feudatories of two rival dynasties, could not agree as to which of the two rival eras should be used in a joint record ; and compromised the matter by quoting only the year of the Twelve Year Cycle of Jupiter, as a method of reckoning which could hurt the dignity of neither of them. Now the only era, to which the dates of the
1 Ind. Ant., Vol. XIX, p. 228.
