________________
DECEMBER, 1026 ) VYAGHRA, THE FEUDATORY OF VAKATAKA PRITHIVISENA
227
issued by the Vâkâtaka Prithivisena II, only two generations removed from Pravarasêna II, the son of Queen Prabhâvatî; Prabhâvati Gupta being the daughter of Chandragupta II, her son Pravarašena must have been a contemporary of Kumâragupta, and his son Narendrasena and grandson Prithivîsêna II could not have gone very much beyond the forward limit of Kumâragupta's long reign. We may, therefore, ascribe to Prithivisena II a date about the end of the fifth century. Prof. Kielhorn's estimate is the end of the eighth century, the margin of error being as wide as about three centuries. Similarly in the case of the Ganj inscription Dr. Sukthankar's estimate is the sixth or seventh century, whereas on the basis of the Prabhâvati Gupta's dating, it should be dated about the middle of the fourth century A.D., if it be accepted that the inscription was issued by a feudatory of Prithivisena I. With this possibility of error in palæographical estimates, it would be hardly possible to attach to palæography a decisive importance in fixing narrow periods, admitting to the fullest extent the possibility of comparative estimates of age on paleographical grounds : but palæographical arguments should not be pressed to the extent of being decisive, where other evidence of value or even of mere validity should indicate another dating.
If it is open to a comparative layman to offer an opinion on matters palæographical against such well-known experts, it strikes me that the Ganj inscription is of about the same character as the Udayagiri16 cave inscription of Chandragupta, and it is not altogether with. out similarity of character to his Sanchi inscription.17 If sufficient allowance be made for the difference of material, it is not without similarity of character to the copper-plate inscriptions issued from Sarabhapura18. It would be difficult to institute comparisons with inscriptions at great distances. Admitting the possibility, therefore, of differences due to material, and differences due to the skill of the individual who cut these out, I am not inclined to believe there is sufficient difference of character to warrant a difference of two or three cen. turies in point of age between the one and the other set.
There is a further point to which due weight ought to be given. Ucchakalpa Vyâghra's date is somewhere between A.D. 475 and 493. Almost in the middle of this period, the region concerned was under the authority of Budhagupta and his subordinates. In the year G.E. 165, corresponding to A.D. 484-485, Budhagupta was the overlord, and he had a viceroy in that region, Sura michandra, who was governing the country between the rivers Jumna and Narbada. There were sub-governors in the region of Eran, of whom we know of two bro. thers, Mâtsivishnu and Dhanyavishnu. Matsivishņu was contemporary with Budhagupta, and Dhanyavishņu was contemporary with Maharajadhiraja Toramana, who seems to have succeeded to the government in that region. We have still another record dated G.E. 191, corresponding to A.D. 510-511, from which an inference seems possible that even Banugupta ruled in that region and fought a battle against some enemy, losing his faithful general in the person of Goparaja, who fell fighting. The presumption, therefore, that the rule of the Guptas lasted through the whole of the fifth century in that region, and possibly during the earlier years of the sixth century, seems to be well-founded on fact. In the face of 80 much evidence to the contrary, it would be necessary to have much- stronger evidence than has so far been produced for postulating the rule of the V&katakas in that region in the last quarter of the fifth century. Having regard to the different lines of evidence set forth, and the more or less well-established synchronism between the V&katakas and the Guptas on the relationship of the two families through Prabhåvatigupta, it would seem much more justifiable to identify the Vyâghradêva of Nachna and Ganj inscriptions with the Vyaghraraja of Mahâkântâra of the Samudragupta Pillar Inscription rather than the Ucokakalpa Vyāghra, regarding whom we do not even know the fact that he actually ruled. Fresh evidence may upeat this conclusion, but till then this seems the more justifiable position to tako.
1. F.G.1., p. 28, plate opposite. 11 F.G.I., p. 38, plate opposite. 10 F.G.I., Nov. 40, 41.
