________________
226
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
DECEMBER, 1926
other reasons for holding that this was actually the course of events. In the Balaghat Plates of Prithivisena II, Kosala, Mêkhala and Måļava are mentioned in order, proceeding east to west and lying across the Vindhya mountains along the northern frontier of the VAkataka dominions proper. In the Samudraguptal4 inscription we begin with Kosala and pass on to Mahakántara, answering more or less roughly to the region extending north to south across Bundelkhand down to the Maikal range (Sanskrit : Mêkhala) and beyond. If we can imagine something like a design in the order of conquests of Samudragupta, we ought to suppose that he defeated the rulers of Aryavarta and then proceeded on his southern conquests as a mere matter of ordinary caution, although the inscription for epic purposer puts the southern first. However that be, the consequence of his suppression of the northern rulers is described to be the reduction to his service of the various forest chieftains (dtavika Rajas). That means the region of these forest chieftains begins immediately from the borderland of Aryavarta. We find inscriptions of Hastin describing him as ruler over the eighteen forest kingdoms' 16. These eighteen forest kingdoms must have lain in and about the neighbourhood of Bundel. khand and Baghalkhand, and would answer almost exactly to the Mahâkântâra of Samudragupta, and the region extending southwards from the kingdom proper, if there was such a one. For our present purpose it is just enough if the territory indicated happens to be about the region extending southwards from Bundelkhand and Baghalkhand. If the chiefs had been reduced to servitude by the conquests of the northern kings, Samudragupta could safely march forward on his southern invasion. The Nachna and Ganj inscriptions may possibly refer to this Vyâghra, the powerful ruler of Mahâkântara, to whose authority the various forest kingdoms may have been subordinate. If Samudragupta felt it necessary to conquer the kingdom, it must have been under another sphere of influence, to use a modern expres. sion. What is the other authority to which these kingdoms could have been subject ?
It must be the authority of the rival kingdom of the Vakatakas under one of their most important and powerful rulers, Prithivisena. The question may well be asked why the Samudragupta Pillar inscription does not mention the Vâkâtakas as such, or Prithivigêna as such. The only possible answer to that question seems to us to be that either as a result of a cam. paign of Samudragupta or before, the two must have come to an understanding and been in some kind of alliance, the relative spheres of their overlordships being more or less indefinite on the extreme frontier. That is the only satisfactory explanation for Samudragupta marching southwards almost as far south as Kanchi and returning along the coast road, without attempting an invasion of the Dekhan and the Southern Mahratta country, specifically stated to be under the authority of the Vakatakas. This position is, to some extent, supported by the fact that the stone inscriptions of Nachna and Ganj frankly acknowledge the overlordship of the V&kataka, although in the form accessible to us the inscriptions are not quite full. As they are, they do not show any elaborate genealogical details, with which the later inscriptions of the Gupta period are usually prefaced, whether they be Gupta inscriptions or V&kataka. The inscriptions, as far as their form goes, are in keeping with early Gupta inscriptions even of Chandragupta II, Vikramaditya. The inscriptions merely state the actual ruler and proceed to detail the grant. This ought to be decisive that the Prithivisena referred to in these inscriptions should be regarded as Prithivišêna I, the earlier of the two kings of the name.
As against this there stand the palæographical objections, the dates assigned to these on palæography alone being apart by almost three centuries. These palæographical objections should not be regarded as insuperable, as in the present state of palæographical studies we do find an error of two-and-a-half centuries possible. Such an experienced palæographist as the late professor Kielhorn referred the Balaghat inscription on palæographical grounds to the latter half of the eighth century. It was already pointed out that the inscription was intended to be 16 P.G.I.. pp. 7 to 13.
16 F.G.1., p. 113. and reforegone thereundor.
