________________
126
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(JONE, 1917
of king Kumâragupta,10 the great-grandfather of Mâdhavagupta, as the Aphsad inscription represents him to have fought with the former. So it stands to reason that the date of fśânavarman must be placed earlier than the first half of the seventh century. Now, in order to get a date that would be earlier than the first half of the seventh century, we are constrained to refer the year 611 to the Vikrama era. No other era can give us a date slightly earlier than the time of Harshavardhana. Our conclusion is also not opposed to the palæographical considerations.
In the Annual Report of the Lucknow Museum, 11 it was suggested that, "Taking atirikta (se the verse quoted above) in the sense of superfluous, the other possible meaning will be 589." Now, according to Mr. Burn, some coins of Sarvavarman, son and successor of Isâna varman, bear the date A. D. 553 12. If we accept this, we have to reject the year 611 ( A. D. 554 ), which our inscription gives for Ibanavarman; for unless we do so, the dates of the son and father overlap each other, which is contrary to the natural course of things. If we reject the year 611, we have got to acrept the only other possible' date, which is 589 Vikrama era, i. e. A. D. 532. But before we do so, it is in portant for us to know for certain, whether the coins of Sarvavarman actually give us a date and whether that date is equal to the Christian .year 553. Through the kindness of Mr. R. D. Banerji, I had occasion to examine the hoard of Maukhari coins (discovered in the Fyzabad district)13 now deposited in the Indian Museum, Calcutta. I am sorry to say that the date-marks on the coins of Sarvavarman (as well as of other Maukhari kings) have totally disappeared and as such it is impossible to say at which particular date those coins were issued. So it is better not to infer anything from them and hazard a doubtful reading that may or may not be correct. I may also add that Mr. Banerji is also of the same opinion, and I am sure that will be the opinion of all who examine the coins with any care. I therefore feel inclined to reject the date given by Mr. Burn for Sarvavarman's coins, and accept the year 611 as the only possible date at which the inscription belonging to the reign of fśânavarman might have been incised, 14
The Asirgadh seal gives a genealogy of the Maukhari princes down to Sarvavarman.15 The present inscription adds one more name to the Maukhari list. This is Saryavarman, another son of Islinavarman. But it omits the name of Sarvavarman. The inscription opens with two laudatory verses in honour of the god Siva. Then follows the usual genealogy beginning with Harivarman, the first king of the dynasty (v.4). From him was born Adityavarman. He was a pious man, and frequently performed sacrifices (vs. 6-7). Távaravarman was his son (vs. 8-10). From him was born Isans varman, who was, as it were, the beaming moon in the firmament of subordinato kings (rajanrajakamandalamvaraíasiv. 11). The 13th bloka, which gives a description of the conquests of Isa navarman, is very important. It runs as follows
Jitvandhradhipatin sahasraga nita-tredhaksharatvárpanam Vyavalganniyutatieamkhyaturagan bhandva rane Súlikám Kritud chayatimochitasthalabhuvo Gaudán samudrdirayaNadhydsish!a natakshitisachara ah sha sanam yo jiti
10 Ibid. p. 203.
11 For the year ending 31st March, 1915, p. 3, foot-note. 12 J. R. A. S. 1906, pp. 848-49. 13 Ibid.
"Be ore examining the colos I was of opinion that the chronogram yields the year 589—VangiyaSahitya Parishat-Patrikd, 1323 B. &., p. 289. But now I give it up.
15 F. G.I., p220.
