गुप्त अभिलेख संग्रह (जे. एफ. फ्लीट - गुप्त सम्राटों एवं परवर्ती नरेशों के ऐतिहासिक पाषाण व ताम्रलेख)

to which the brothers Mâtṛivishṇu and Dhanyavishṇu belonged. Putting everything
together, in writing my paper on "The History and Date of Mihirakula,"¹ it soon became
perfectly clear that the king who is mentioned in the Gwâlior inscription, is the great
Mihirakula himself; that he was the son of Tôramâṇa; and that his downfall was accom-
plished by Yaśôdharman within a very few years on either side of A.D. 533-34. In proper
chronological order, therefore, Tôramâṇa and Mihirakula come next after Budha-
gupta; and Tôramâṇa certainly, and probably Mihirakula also, so far as Eastern Mâlwa
is concerned before Bhânugupta. Plate xxiii A. and B. should, therefore, properly have
been placed next after Plate xx. To my present brief notice of these two kings,—who
belonged to a foreign race, which, whether best and most properly known as Indo-Scythians,
Sakas, Hûṇas, Turushkas, Shâhis, Shâhanushâhis, or Daivaputras, had established itself
in the Pañjâb at an early date, and continued in power down to at least the time of
Samudragupta,—I will only add that, the first year of Tôramâṇa, which is recorded in his
inscription. and which fell for certain after A.D. 484, which is Budhagupta's inscrip-
tional date, and before A.D. 510, which is Bhânugupta's inscriptional date, is evidently
only the first year of his possession of Eastern Mâlwa. Coming down, as he did, from
the extreme north-west corner of India, it is impossible that we should suddenly find him,
fully established as the first of a new dynasty, in the very heart of the Gupta country, in
absolutely the first year of his reign. His own dynastic date, which must correspond to
just about the same year, is given in his silver coins, which follow the Early Gupta silver
coins in general style, but differ from them in certain marked peculiarities that were evi-
dently introduced for the express purpose of shewing that his power was hostile to theirs,
and had superseded it. There are two excellent specimens of his coins, which I have
examined, in the British Museum; and the date on them is the year 52 or 82, in numerical
symbols. General Cunningham² has read the dates as 52 and 53; but the second symbol
in each case is certainly 2; as regards the first symbol, I will not at present give a final
opinion as to whether it is 50 or 80; since, though probably a 50, it is possibly an 80,
turned half round on the die, so as to lie vertically, instead of horizontally, in order that it
might not fall chiefly beyond the edge of the coin. Without doubt, it would make the
case very simple indeed, if we could read the date as 182, as Mr. Thomas did,³— or
even read it as 82, and, on the theory of "omitted hundreds," interpret it as 182,— and
refer it to the Gupta era, with the result, now, of A.D. 501-502. But the date is either
52 or 82, and nothing else; without the slightest grounds for supposing that the symbol
for 100 was stamped, but has now become obliterated, or was engraved on the die, but, in
the stamping, fell beyond the edge of the coin; and, if it has to be interpreted as 152,
on the theory of "omitted hundreds," then at any rate it cannot possibly be referred

---

¹ Ind. Ant. Vol. XV. p. 245 ff.
² Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. IX. p. 26 f.; and see id. Plate v. Nos. 18, 19.
³ Prinsep's Essays, Vol. I. p. 340, and Archæol. Surv. West. Ind. Vol. II. p. 66; see also id.
p. 36, Plate vii. Nos. 27, 28.