A. F. R. Hoernle— Inscribed Seal of Kumdra Gupta II. [No. 2, 



The special occasion or reason for this elevation by the paramount 

 power we are not told. But putting together the scattered historical 

 indications of that period, it would seem that the distinction was due 

 to a striking recovery in the fortunes of the Imperial Gupta dynasty 

 "which was mainly brought about by the exertions of the Valabhi 

 feudatories. The circumstances are these. There are three inscrip- 

 tions at Eran in Eastern Malava,* referring themselves respectively 

 to the times of Bndhagupta, Toramana and Bhanugupta. Budha- 

 gupta and Bhanugupta were mere second rate rulers of Eastern 

 Malava ; hut Toramana possessed Eastern Malava as a portion of his 

 imperial dominions ; and his inscription is dated in the first year of 

 his imperial power.t It may be concluded, that in that year neither 

 Budhagupta nor Bhanugupta possessed Eastern Malava. The dates of 

 the inscriptions of these two Maharajas are 484 A. D. and 510 A. D. 

 The first year of Toramana cannot well fall after 510 A. D. ; for it can be 

 shownj that Toramana was already succeeded by his son Mihirakula 

 c. A. D. 515, and possibly even a little earlier. Again it cannot fall 

 before 484 A. D., because in that year there were living two princes 

 Matrivishnu and his younger brother Dhanyavishnu, the former of 

 whom was dead in the first year of Toramana. Nor can it fall before 

 494 A. D., because that is the last recorded date (on his coins) of 

 Budhagupta, It, follows fliat not only the first year of Toramana's 

 imperial power, but also Ids loss of that power (so far, at least, as 

 Eastern Malava was concerned) must fall within the period A. D. 

 494-510. Now this is just about the period of the Senapati Bhatarka, the 

 first of the Valabhi dynasty, who must have ruled from c. 495-515 

 A. D. With regard to him it is expressly stated, in the Valabhi genealo- 

 gical records,§ that he fought with and defeated the "Maitralcas," that 

 is, the Mihirns (a tribal designation of the Hiinas) to whom Toramana 

 belonged. It may be concluded, therefore, that it was mainly owing to 

 the Valabhi victories that Toramana was beaten back and lost his im- 

 perial power. The immediate consccpience of this success of the Valabhis 

 ■would naturally have been the revival of the imperial power of the Guptas, 

 that, is, of Narasimhngupta who was on the throne of the Guptas at that 

 time. The first year of Toramana, say A. D. 495, would be the date of 

 * Seo Fleet, Corp. Insar. Ind., Vol. Ill, pp. 88, 91, 158. 



t Seo Fleet, Mil., Vol. HI, p. 158. The first year, named in tho inscription, 

 is not the first year of Toramana's accession to rule over the Huria tribe, but of his 

 assumption of the imperial dignity (mahdrdjadhirdja) after his Indian conquests. 

 Seo Fleet, ibid., Introd., pp. 10-12. 



J See Fleet, ibid., Vol. Ill, Introd., p. 12 ; also Indian Antiquary, Vol. XV, 

 p. 252. 



§ See Fleet, ibid., Vol. Ill, p. 167. 



