________________
JUNE, 1918 ]
REVISED CHRONOLOGY OF THE LAST GUPTA EMPERORS
163
Lot us now examine the grounds on which Dr. Hoernle based his chronological theory. He accepted as true the statement recorded by Yuan Chwang that Mihirakula was defeated by king Baladitya of Magadba, and identified this Baláditya with Narasimhagupta of the Bhitari Seal on the ground that the latter "calls himself Bâlâditya on his coins." He then pointed out that as Mihirakula's final overthrow in India took place in about A.D. 530 "it follows, that. Baladitya in whose reign Mihirakula's overthrow took place must have reigned down to about A.D. 530"; and accordingly adjusted the dates of Puragupta, Narasimhagupta and Kumâragupta II.
This argument is considerably weakened by two considerations. In the first place, we need not lay too much stress on a tradition recorded by Yuan Chwang, specially when we remember that his information about Mihirakula was anything but satisfactory and that the credit of defeating Mihirakula is given to Yasodharman in the Mandasor Inscription."
In the second place, the identity of the Balâditya of Yuan Chwang and Narasimhagapta Baladitya is anything but certain, for we know from a Sárnáth stone inscription 10 that there were at least three kings of the same name. Under these circumstances the evidence on which Dr. Hoernle based his chronological scheme must be pronounced to be very weak. It might have been provisionally accepted in his days in the absence of any other evidence, but we must be prepared to give it up as soon as more definite information is forthcoming. Such informations are furnished by the inscriptions noticed above and it is therefore high time to reconstruct the whole chronological scheme on this new basis.
It will follow from what has been said above that the total period of the reign of Purucupta and Narasimhagupta cannot possibly be more than 18 years, from A.D. 455-6 the last recorded date of Kumâragupta I. to AD. 473-4 the earliest date of Kumâragupta II. This in iteelf is not inadmissible but the difficulty is caused by the fact that we have to place during the same period, the great emperor Skandagapta whose known dates range from A.D. 456-7 to A.D. 467-68. This raises once more the question of relationship of Skandagupta to Puragupta, a question which has never been satisfactorily answered. As Skandagupta had. certainly ascended the throne in less than a year's time within his father's death, Paragupta could not possibly have preceded him. Pungupta could therefore be either (1) the successor, (2) the contemporary or (3) identical with Skandagupta. Let us now consider the probability of each of these points of view.
(1) Dr. Hoernle 11 looked upon Puragupta as successor of Skandagupta and this viow has been generally accepted. As he held that Narasimhagupta ruled in A.D. 530, he naturally argued that the interval of 75 years between this date and the earliest recorded date of Skandagupta "can be more easily filled up by two gonorations including three reigns than by two generations including only two reigns, i.e., by assuming that Skandagupta and Puragupta
5 Dr. Hoernle has now considerably modified his theory. See JRAS., 1909, pp. 128-9. He would now identify Puragapta with Skandagupta and place the latter's death at about A.D. 485, the other portions of the chronological schome remanining intact. The other scholars, however, have accepted the original chronological schome laid down by Dr. Hoernle apparently on the same grounds as were put forward by him. It is therefore necessary to examine the grounds. • Op. cit., p. 97.
Op. cit., p. 96. This is clearly proved by the fact that he places Mihirakula "some centurior ago " althongte the latter must have flourished hardly more than a century before him. .. .Floot's Nos. 33, .
0 Fleet's Gupta Inscription, No. 79. 1. Soe footnotes above.
