________________
168
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXXIII
(510 A.D.) while the known dates of his son and successor Samkshobha are the Gupta years 199 (518 A.D.) and 209 (528 A.D.). Similarly, the known dates of the 'Uchchakalpa king Sarvanatha are the Gupta years 191 (510 A.D.), 193 (512 A.D.), 197 (516 A.D.) and 214 (533 A.D.) and those of his father and predecessor Jayanatha are the Gupta years 174 (493 A.D.) and 177 (496 A.D.). Roughly speaking therefore Hastin was the contemporary of the father of Sarvanatha who was the contemporary of Hastin's son. Some scholars wrongly refer the dates in the Uchchakalpa records to the Kalachuri era of 248 A.D. instead of the Gupta era of 319 A.D. This is improbable in view of the fact that there is hardly any possibility of the spread of the Kalachuri era in the Uchchakalpa area in the age in question. On the other hand, the prevalence of the. Gupta era in the same area during the age of the Uchchakalpa kings is indicated by the Parivrajaks inscriptions,
The suggestion that the Bhumara pillar bearing the inscription under study was set up for demarcating the boundary between the kingdoms of the two kings Hastin and Sarvanaths is highly improbable in view of the following facts. In the first place, as will be seen below, the expression bala-yashți is found in a similar context in another inscription of the same age and area and this clearly shows that there is no justification for correcting vala-yashti to valaya-yashti. It is clear from the record referred to that the intended reading for vala-yashti in the Bhumară inscription in bala-yashți. We know that the records of the Parivrajaka king Hastin as well as others of the age and area in question often use v for b even though they employ b correctly or wrongly in some cases. Secondly, even if the emendation is regarded as justifiable, valaya-yashti would scarcely mean a boundary-pillar' since the word valaya does not really mean 'a boundary. Thirdly, it is difficult to believe that an ordinary villager without any authority would think of taking upon himself the responsibility of fixing the boundary between the dominions of two neighbouring kings. Fourthly, the language of the record shows that the locality where the pillar was set up lay in both Hastin's dominions and Sarvanatha's bhoga and this hardly suits a line of demarcation between the kingdoms of the two rulers. Fifthly, Fleet's interpretations of the passages Mahārāja-Hasti-räjyē and Mahārāja-Sarvanatha-bhöge respectively as in the boundary of the kingdom of Mahārāja Hastin' and 'in the boundary of the bhoga of Mahārāja Sarvanatha' are no doubt arbitrary, while the suggestion that they refer to the boundary between two kingdoms is quite unconvincing since it is unintelligible why Hastin's kingdom should be called a rajya and Sarvanatha's dominions a bhoga. Sixthly, the word bhoga does not really mean 'a kingdom'. Seventhly, the language of the epigraph suggests that Mahārāja-Sarvanathabhōga lay within the dominions of Hastin.
The expression Mahārāja-Hasti-räjyè in such a context would normally mean 'during the reign of Mahārāja Hastin', even though the meaning in the kingdom of Mahārāja Hastin' may not be altogether impossible in a particular case. But whether the word rajya in our record is taken to mean sovereignty' or 'kingdom', the sentence in question makes it clear, as already suggested above, that what has been called Maharaja-Sarvanatha-bhöga lay within the dominions of Hastin whose reign (less probably, kingdom) is specifically mentioned in relation to the setting up of the pillar bearing the inscription. What can be the meaning of the word bhoga in such a
context?
1 Bhandarkar's List, p. 399; above, Vol. XXVIII, pp, 264 ff.
Cf. Bhandarkar's List, p. 404.
Ibids, loc. cit.; also Nos. 1194-98, 1200, 1702.
For an inscription of the Imperial Guptas in the same area, of. p. 172, note 1, below.
See, e.g., Vrahmana in line 5 and Brahmasiga in line 9 of the Majhgawam plates of Hastin (Corp. Ins. Ind., Vol. III, pp. 108 ff.). Cf. also sombatsara (for samvatsara) in line 2 of this epigraph as well as in line 8 of the Bhumară pillar inscription.
