________________
No. 22] TWO INSCRIPTIONS OF GAURI
131 the Gupta kings styled Vikramaditya led to the growth of the Sakäri Vikramaditya saga and to the tradition ascribing the foundation of the Mālava era to the Vikramaditya of Indian folklore. The inscriptions of the Aulikara king Naravarman (described as a follower or subordinate of Simhavikrānta identified with Chandragupta II, styled Simhavikrama), son of Jayavarman and grandson of Simhavarman, are dated in the Mālava years 461 (404 A. D.) and 474 (417 A.D.). His son Viśvevarman is known from ar inscription of the Mālava year 480 (423 A. D.), while both Visvavarman and his son and successor Bandhuvarman are mentioned as feudatories of the Gupta emperor Kumāragupta I (414-55 A. D.) in an inscription recording the construction of and repairs to & temple at Dasapura respectively in the Mālava years 493 (436 A. D.) and 529 (473 A. D.). King Prabhākara, mentioned in another record of the Mālava year 524 (467 A.D.), seems to have belonged to the same family and to have been a successor of Bandhuvarman. While all these rulers appear to have owed allegiance to the Imperial Guptas, the only known Aulikara king of & later date, viz. Yaśõdharman Vishnuvardhana, one of whose records is dated in the Mālava year 589 (532 A. D.) was an independent ruler. This monarch claims to have ruled over territories that even the Hūņas and the Guptas failed to conquer. This shows that Western Mālwa passed from the Guptas to the Hūnas and from the Hūņas to Yasõdharman. King Yasõdharman also claims to have subdued the famous Hūna king Mihirakula. That the whole of Mālwa passed from the Guptas to the Hūņas about the close of the fifth century seems to be suggested also by the fact that a ruler of Airikiņa (Eran in the Saugor District, Madhya Pradesh) acknowledged the supremacy of Budhagupta (477-95 A. D.) in the Gupta year 165 (484 A. D.) while his younger brother and successor acknowledged the suzerainty of the Hūņa king Tõramāņa, an inscription of whose son Mihirakula was found at Gwalior.? .
The question is: what happened to the Aulikaras of Dasapura, who were the feudatories of the Guptas, when Gupta suzerainty was extirpated from Malwa by the Hūnas? As the Eran inscription of the time of Tõramāņa is dated in his first regnal year and Mihirakula's Gwalior inscription is dated in his fifteenth regnal year, Hūņa occupation of Malwe must have lasted at least for more than a decade and a half. This period has to be placed between 484 and 532 A. D. It is interesting to note that the Mānavāyani king Gauri was ruling over the district around Chhoti Sādri in 491: A. D. falling exactly in this period of the Hūņa occupation of Mālwa. He therefore may have been a feudatory of the Hūņas and not of a king of Dasapura, although the use of the Mālava era in the Chhoti Sadri inscription may point to his Mālava origin or association. As Adityavardhana does not appear to be a secondary name of the Hūņa monarchs Tõramāņa and Mihirakula who moreover may not have their residence at Dasapura, it is possible to think that it was a second name of Gauri himself and that the Aulikaras were ousted from Dasapura and the Mänavāyanis established there as a result of the extirpation of Gupta suzerainty and the establishment of Hūņa supremacy in West Mälwa. Another possibility is that Adityavardhana was a hitherto unknown Aulikara king of Daśapura, of whom Gauri was a relation or feudatory. In this connection, the secondary name of Yasõdharman, viz. Vishnuvardhana, which is rather peculiar for the Aulikara family, is interesting to note. Did he get it from his association with the Mänavāyanis ? Since, however, his principal name, viz. Yasodharman, is also equally peculiar for the earlier Aulikaras with names ending in varman, it is not possible to be definite on this point.
1 Cf. The Age of Imperial Unity, p. 165. * Select Inscriptions, p. 377; above, Vol. XXVI, p. 131. • Sel. Ing., p. 379.
Ibid., pp. 288 ff. 6 Bhandarkar's List, No. 7; above, Vol. XXVII, pp. 12 ff. • Select Inscriptions, pp. 386 ff. Some scholars suggest that Yasodharman and Vishnuvardhana were different
che tormer. But of. op. cit., p. 386, note. See ibid., pp. 326 f., 296 f., 400 f.
