________________
224
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
( DECEMBER, 1926
The region over which the Ucchakalpas ruled is the part of Central India through which runs the river Tons more to the westward than to the east. Hastin ruled probably to the west of this roughly. The succession of the two families can be arranged in the following tables for ready reference : Pariurdjakas.
Ucchakalpas. Dévadhya or Dêvahya.
Oghadeva. Prabhanjana
Kumaradeva. Damodara.
Jayasvamin. Hastin
Vyâghra. dates G.E. 156, 163, 191, 189 (or 201) (c. A.D. 475-511).
Jayanatha.
date G E.? 174, 177, (c. A.D. 493-497) Samkshobha G.E. 209 (A.D. 528-529).
Sarvanatha
date G.E. 193, 197, 214 (c. A.D. 512-534). From these tables it is clear that Hastin could have been contemporary with Sarva. natha, his father Jayanatha, and even his grandfather Vyâghra. If Professor Dubrouil's identification of the Uochakalpa Vyaghra with the Vyâghra of the Nachna and Ganj inscription should be correct, Vakataka authority must have been acknowledged in Bundelkhand and Baghalkhand. In the immediate neighbourhood, however, Hastin specifically acknowledges the authority of the Guptas, dating his grants in the Gupta Era. There is perhaps nothing impossible in this position, as two friendly powers may have exercised authority in territories contiguous to each other. But the difficulty arises when it is admitted, as the Professor admite, that Jayanatha's and SarvanAtha's dates are in the Gupta era. If they dated their documents in the Gupta era, the presumption would be that they were Gupta feudatories ordinarily. There is the further point that none of the later Uochakalpas acknowledges the authority of the V&katakas, while the Nachna and Ganj inscriptions actually acknowledge the authority of Prithivibêna Vâkâtaka. Could we imagine that Vyaghra about the year A.D. 475 acknowledged the authority of Prithivisena, while his son and successor and his grandson do not make any acknowledgment of Vakataka authority and date their inscriptions in the Gupta cra? In fact, the professor's indentification of the two Vyâghras rests upon the dates of the Ucchakalpa feudatory, and Prithivssêna II, Vakataka being near A.D. 475. There is the further fact, which the professor does not note, that the commands of Prithivisena II's father Narendrasena, according to the Balaghat plates, 'were honoured by the lords of Kosala, Mékhala, and MAJava,' and he is said to have held 'in check enemies bowed down by his prowess. It may be possible to presume that the son inherited the territory and extensive authority of the father, and therefore Prithivisena II exercised authority in the same region as well. Prithivibêna II's date may be about A.D. 476, perhaps without much margin for error. Having granted so much, have we enough for the identification of the Vyâghra of the Nachna and Ganj inscriptions with Vyaghra the Vochakalpa ?
It would be difficult to sustain the identification. The first point to notice is that while the shorter inscriptions acknowledge the authority of the Vakataka, the more detailed later inscriptions of Jayanatha and Sarvanatha do not do 60. Next, the later inscriptions date the documents in the Gupta era as it must be conceded, which is incompatible with the acknowledg. ment of authority of the VAkatakas who do not use the Gupta era or any other in their dooumenta. Again, the identification might be accepted at least tentatively, if there had been no Vyaghra in that region, and no other Prithivisena among the V&katakas, whose authority may have extended to that region. On the contrary we have reference to a Vyaghra in the Allahabad Pillar inscription of Samudragupta ruling over Mahakantara. We have material,
