1889.] A. F. R. Koevnlo— Inscribed Seal of Kumdra Gupta II. 103 



dynasties of the Later Guptas and the ValabMs, apparently, till their 

 respective extinction. Perhaps the coincidence of Jivita Gupta II., the 

 last of the Later Imperial Guptas, with the Nepalese king S'iva Deva II., 

 who assumed the imperial titles, may have a deeper significance. For it 

 may be noted, that about A. D. 618, at the time of the disruption of 

 Harsha's empire, the Nepalese king, Amsuvarmau, also laid claim to the 

 imperial dignity in the North. 



The Dcvagiipta, placed in the third column of the synchronistic 

 table, under the Later Guptas of Malaya, is mentioned in the copper- 

 plate grant of Harshavardhana,* as having been conquered by that 

 king's brother and predecessor, Rajyavardhana II. Ho cannot be the 

 Devagupta of the Later Gnpta dynasty of Magadha (2nd column), as 

 Harshavardhana himself was a contemporary of Madhavagupta, the 

 grandfather of that Devagupta. Moreover it is distinctly stated in the 

 lLirslta-cliarita of l!;'nia, that the prince whom Rajyavardhana conquer- 

 ed, was a king of M&lava.f 



In the seventh column of the Dehohakalpa Maharajas it will be seen, 

 that S'arvanatha reigned up to A. I). 533. His line, including himself, 

 consists of six members ; and the founder of the line, Oghadeva, was 

 married to a queen Kumaradevi. Six reigns at an average of 18 years, 

 would make Oghadeva (c. A. D. 425-445) a contemporary of Kunuira- 

 gupta 1. of the Early Gupta dynasty. It appears, probable, therefore, 

 that Oghadeva's queen, Kumaradovi, was a sister or daughter of Kumara- 

 gupta I.J 



* See. SpigmpMa Indiea, Part II, p, 74. 



t Sec Sh, P, Pandit's edition of the GnBdtvahn, Jntrod., p. exxx. 



t Mr. Fleet in the Corpus Inscr. Ind., Introd. pp. 9, 10, suggests that the Ucheha- 

 kalpa dates may have to be referred to the Kalachuri era. I do not understand how 

 this could well he. Mr. Fleet says : " if tho Uchchakalpa dates wore referred to the 

 Kalachuri era, with Goneral Cunningham's epoch of A. D. 219-50, S'arvanatha'a 

 latest date, the year 214, would bo equivalent to A. D. 403-01, or Gnpta Samvat 144; 

 and we should havo to add on twenty-one years at the end of his known period, in 

 order to make him tho contemporary of Hastin in Gnpta Samvat 105." But the cru- 

 cial year appears to me to be not Gupta Samvat 1G5, but Gnpta Samvat 189 (see ibid., 

 p. 110). For the joint-grant of Hastin and S'arvanatha was issued iu the bitter year. It 

 follows, therefore, that wo should have to add on, not twenty-one, but forty-five 

 years ; or if the epoch of the Kalachuri era bo A. D. 248-49, oven forty-six years. 

 On tbe other hand, if the Kalachuri epoch bo placed, as Mr. Fleet suggests, about 

 25 years later, let us say at A. D. 273-74 (i. c, 248-49 + 25), then S'arvanatha'a latest 

 dato 214 Kalachuri Samvat will be equivalent to 163 Gupta Saujvat ; and in that 

 case we should havo to add on tweuty-ono years, in order to mako S'arvanatha con- 

 temporary with Hastin in the year 189 Gupta Samvat. I assume, that when Mr. 

 Fleet (ibid., p. Ill) says: "the choice lies only between Gupta Samvat 189 and 

 201," he means, that tho only two years within the known period of Hastin's rule 



