________________
242
had been lost. He further conjectured that the Vindhyasakti mentioned in this inscription, was identical with the chief of the Kailakila Yavanas, mentioned in the Puranas "10 and that Pravira (according to him Pravara) whom the Vayupurána makes Vindhyasakti's son, was the same as Pravarasena I. He finally ventured to propose the derivation of the name Kailakila from that of Ghalghaleh near Bâmian, and to assume that the Vakatakas had immigrated thence into Southern India, bringing with them the art of excavating
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
caves.
The remarks prefixed to Pandit Bhagvanlâl Indraji's improved transcript and translation, (Notes, pp. 64-65) are much more correct and free from the extravagant views which disfigure Mr. Bhâû Dâji's speculations. It is stated there that the list of kings supplied by the inscription is as follows:
1. Vindhyalakti,
2. Pravarasena,
3. (Ru)drasena (?).
4.
5. Devasena,
6. Harisheṇa,
and that the connexion between Nos. 1 and 2 is not clear. It is further correctly pointed out that the inscription does not proceed from a Vakataka king, but from Varahadeva, the minister of Harishena.
According to my restoration and interpretation of the Ajanta inscription" the Vakatakas named therein are:
1. Vindhyasakti,
2. Pravarasena I,
3. Rudrasena I,
4. Prithivisheņa,
5. Pravarasena II,
6. a son, (name lost),
7. Devasena,
8. Harisheņa.
The mutilation of the document makes it
[SEPTEMBER, 1883.
impossible to determine if Pravarasena I was Vindhyasakti's son or a remoter descendant. But I think the former opinion, which Mr. Bhâû Daji first expressed, the more likely one. The only real discrepancy between the historical contents of the plates and those of my version of the Ajantâ inscription is that in the latter Rudrasena II has been left out. This omission may be owing to pure carelessness on the part of Varâhadeva who served under Rudrasena's fourth descendant, or to the idea that Rudrasena II, whose reign was a short one, was not worth mentioning. However that may be, as the Ajanta inscription, according to my interpretation, gives one earlier and three later generations than the land grants, I arrange the Vaméávali of the Vakatakas as follows:Kings. Accession.
1. Vindhyainkti,
10 Vishnupurana, (ed. Hall). vol. IV, pp. 209-211.
about 275 A.D.
2.
Pravarasena I, son of No. 1 (?) about 300. 3. Rudrasena I, grandson of No. 2, about 335. 4. Prithivishena, son of No. 3, about 350.
5. Rudrasena II, son of No. 4, about 400.
6. Pravarasena II, son of No. 5, about 410.
(Ru)drasena III, son of No. 6, about 440. .... son of No. 7, about 465.
Devasena, son of No. 8, about 490.
Harisheņa, son of No. 9, about 515 A.D. In conclusion I warn once more against the identification of Vindhyasakti Vakataka with the Kailakila Yavana Vindhyasakti. For firstly the Ajanta inscription, vs. 2, states distinctly that the former was a 'distinguished Arya,' (dvijaḥ prakáso) while the latter, according to the Puranas, was a foreigner (not necessarily a Greek). Secondly, not a single other name of the Kailakila dynasty agrees with those of the Vakatakas. Mr. Bhân Dâjî never furnished the proof that any copy of the Vayu or of any other Purána has the name Pravara. All those MSS. which Professor H. H. Wilson, Dr. Hall, and myself have consulted give Pravira.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Transcript.
Plate I.
(1) ओ यो सस्ति प्रवरपुरादमिष्टोमा तोयमोकष्पषोडश्याविराज
ओं
(*) बाजपेयबृहस्पतिसरसाद्यस्क चतुरश्वमेधयाजिनः
See Dr. Burgess Archaological Reports, vol. IV,
p. 128.
