Book Title: Indian Antiquary Vol 55
Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Stephen Meredyth Edwardes, Krishnaswami Aiyangar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Previous | Next

Page 241
________________ 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.

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370