1921.] The Successors of Kumaragupta I. 253 
Gupta coinage are not disposed to accept the above tpse dixit 
of Mr. Banerji. Thus, so far as numismatic considerations are 
concerned, there is no ground for dismissing off-hand the 
theory that Puragupta and Skandagupta were identical, and 
Mr. Banerji correctly (though hardly in keeping with is 
statement just quoted) observes, ‘‘ that there is nothing in the 
coinage of Puragupta or in the coinage of the Gupta dynasty 
which can prove anything for or against the division of the 
other princes. These verses seem to indicate that Skandagupta 
firmed by the genealogy of the Gupta emperors as given in 
Bihar and Bhitart stone pillar inscriptions of Skandagupta. It 
mentions Chandragupta I, and his Mahadevi or chief queen, 
adevi, their son Chandra- 
pta I. 
e Bhitari seal, on the other hand, expressly mentions 
that Puragupta was the son of Kumaragupta and Mahadevi 
An i 
natural heir to the throne. These circuinstances eas 
the inference that when the old emperor Kumarag 
after a reign of more than forty vears, there ensued a struggle 
for succession among his sons. It was a forerunner to the 
Op. cit., p. 7?- 
| Gupta Coins, p. xxxii. “ 
8 C.LT.. ITI, p. 56. 
