North Indian Inscriptions

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS

the world. Verse 23 mentions Kumāragupta (I) as the suzerain, and, verses 24-29, Bandhu- varman, son of Viśvavarman, as the ruler of Daśapura, during whose reigns the religious benefaction was carried out, namely, the building of a temple of the Sun, which according to verse 30, looked like the crest-jewel of the western ward (paśchima-pura) of Daśapura. This is followed by a poetic description of the Winter Season (verses 31-33) during which the temple was constructed. The actual date of the construction is, however, given in verses 34-35 as follows: “when four centuries, increased by ninety-three had elapsed, according to the reckoning of the Mālavas . . . . . . . on the blessed thirteenth day of the bright half of the month of Sahasya . . . . . . .” Thereafter we are told that when a considerable time had elapsed and some kings had passed away, “one part of the temple was shattered” (verse 36) apparently by lightning and the same Guild rebuilt it (verse 37), “when five centuries of years, increased by twenty-nine years, had elapsed, and on the second lunar day of the bright fortnight of Tapasya” (verse 39), when the Spring had commenced, a description of which season is comprised in verses 40-41. This is followed by a wish that the temple may endure for ever (verse 43). And verse 44 which is the concluding verse tells us that Vatsabhaṭṭi not only composed the pūrvvā or the above ‘descriptive statement’ with care but was also in charge of the building and re-building of the temple first because he was ordered by the Guild to see the work through and secondly because he was a devotee of the Sun.

       It will be seen from the above summary of the contents of the inscription that there are two dates specified here. One of these is 493 and the other 529. They are, of course, Kṛita years, which are identical with those of the Vikrama era. They are consequently equivalent to 437-38 A.D. and 473-74 A.D. respectively. The first is that of the original construction of the temple which thing occurred, we are told, when Kumāragupta (I) was the supreme ruler and Bandhuvarman the local ruler of Daśapura. This seems to be the natural sense of the stanzas referring to these princes. The other interpretations proposed by scholars have been considered below on p. 329, note 2. The second date is that of the re-building of the temple when part of it had been damaged, apparently, through lightning. But we have not been informed as to who the rulers were at that time. We are simply told that some other kings had passed away by that time. Of course, Kumāragupta I was then dead. His son, Ghaṭōtkachagupta, who apparently was his immediate successor, had also passed away. And so Skandagupta also. This last was doubtless succeeded by Kumāragupta II. Whether he was actually living in Vikrama Year 529 is doubtful. Similar changes must have taken place in the succession also of the ruling family of Daśapura. Vatsabhaṭṭi is thus fully justified in saying that, from Vikrama year 493 to 529, kings other than Kumāragupta I and Bandhuvarman had passed away. He does not, however, mention who were actually ruling in 529, probably because it was a troublesome period of the Gupta sovereignty.

       As regards the localities mentioned in this inscription, Lāṭa represents the greater portion of modern Gujarāt. According to Bühler¹ and Bhagwanlal Indraji,² it corresponds to the country between the Mahī and the Koṅkaṇ or the Tāptī. But Hultzsch³ maintained that it was that portion of Gujarāt which intervened between the Tāptī and the Shērī. The latter view is supported by the Cambay Plates of Gōvinda IV.⁴ The second locality mentioned in this record is Daśapura which is obviously identical with Mandasōr. As stated elsewhere, the best explanation of the formation of the name Mandasōr is that it is a composite name con-
___________________________________

¹ Ind. Ant., Vol. V, p. 145.
² B. G., Vol. I, pt. I, p. 7.
³ Ind. Ant., Vol. XIV, p. 198.
⁴ Ep. Ind., Vol. VII, p. 36.