________________
348
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
may have been. But the whole structure of the passage leaves no doubt whatever that the original contained nothing but an epithet, or perhaps two, of Narêndradêva, and that,-so far from thirteen rulers having intervened between him and Udayadeva,-he was the son of Udayadeva.
Narendradeva's son was Šivadèva II. (1. 12), who married Vatsadêvî, of the family of the Maukharis, who abounded in strength of arm," the daughter of the illustrious Bhôgavarman, and the daughter of the daughter of "the great" Adityasêna, the lord of Magadha (1. 13). And their son was the Rája, the illustrious. Ja y a dê va II. (1. 14), also called Parachakrakama (1. 18), whose wife was Rajyamati, of the family of king Bhagadatta or of the Bhagadatta kings (1. 16), the daughter of Harsha, king of Gauda, Ôdra, &c., and Kalinga, and Kôsala (1. 15). The rest of the inscription details the beauty of the silver waterlily which Jayadeva II. caused to be made, and how it was worshipped and installed by his mother Vatsadêvi, and then concludes with the date.
Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji's acceptance of Udayadeva as the successor of Vasantadeva, and insertion of thirteen rulers between him and Narendradêva, led of necessity to the reference of the dates for Mânadêva of (I.) 386 and (K.) 413, and for Vasant. dêra of (N.) 435, to the Vikrama era. It is unnecessary to repeat his calculations in full. But, starting with fifteen names between Vasantadêva and Šivadêva II., or nineteen from Mânadêva toŚivadêva II. (both included), all of which denote "generations of kings, not reigns of collaterals," and taking twenty-one years as the smallest possible average for these generation-reigns, he found that no era later than the Vikrama era would meet the requirements of the case, and that that era would meet them. For, on the Vikrama-Samvat theory, Mânadêva's first date represented A.D. 329;the interval from this to A.D. 759, the date of Jayadeva II., was 430 years; and this, divided by 19, gave about twenty-two and three-quarters years as the average for each generation-reign. This was all right enough from his point of view.
The original has devt vi(ba)hu-va(ba)l-Adhya-Maukhari-kula érivarmma &c.; not kula-érivarmma, in composition, as in the published text.
[DECEMBER, 1885.
But let us now take the matter from the correct point of view; viz. that Udayadeva did not come after Vasantadêva. This frees us at once from the necessity, under which Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji laboured, of forcing Vasantadêva and his ancestors back to such early times; and leaves us at liberty to follow the analogy of inscription A., and to refer his date and Mânadêva's to the Gupta era. The result is that we have for Vasantasena the date of (N.) A.D. 754-55, just synchronous with the dates of perhaps (M.) A.D. 751, and certainly (O.) A.D. 759-60 for Jayadeva II., exactly what inscription O. seeks to convey;and we have for Mânadêva, the grandfather of Vasantasena, the dates of (I.) A.D. 705-6 and (K.) A.D. 732-33, just about one generation before Jayadeva II.'s father Siva dê va II., for whom we have the dates of (J.) A.D. 725-26 and probably (L.) A.D. 749-50 (?).
Here the question naturally suggests itself,as Udayadêva and his descendants were not successors and descendants of Vasantasena, who were they? I think the answer is perfectly plain, that they were successors of Am suvar m'an, and, though not his direct lineal descendants, belonged, like him, to the family which in the Vamśávali is called the Thakurl family.
Inscription O., in fact, furnishes another instance of the double government of Nêpâl, to which Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji has drawn attention in the case of Sivadêva I. and Aménvarman, and which is illustrated in the most pointed way throughout the inscriptions. We have two separate families, ruling contemporaneously and mostly on equal terms, but each preserving certain distinctive characteristics of its own. On the one side, we have the Liohchhavikula of the inscriptions, the Suryavamsi family of the Vasavali,issuing its charters from the house or palace called Mânagriha,-and using the Gupta era. And on the other side, we have a family the name of which is not given in the inscriptions hitherto brought to notice, but which in the Vanhsávali is called the Thâkuri family,-issuing its charters from the house or palace called Kailasa kuta
31 mahatah.
ante, Vol. XIII. p. 425.
