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



The question may arise whether the Kumaragupta referred to in 

 the Mandasor stone inscription of Bandhuvarman,* may not be the 

 Kumaragupta II. of the Bhitari seal, rather than the Kumaragupta I., 

 the only Gupta emperor of that name hitherto known. If it be Kumara- 

 guptall., the three Varmans, Nara, Visva and Bandhu, would have to 

 be brought down nearly a century, so that Bandhuvarman would be the 

 immediate predecessor of Yasodharman (or Yasovarrnan). I am dis- 

 posed to think, however, that it is really Kumaragupta I. who is referred 

 to in that inscription. 



The metal of the seal has been tested by Dr. Scully of the Calcutta 

 Mint. His analysis shows that it consists of 



Copper ... 62.970 per cent. 



Silver ... 36.225 



Gold ... 0.405 



Iron ... trace. 



In spite of its whitish grey colour, therefore, it is rather a copper than a 

 silver seal. 



The weight and dimensions of the seal have been determined by the 



(i. e., between G. S. 156 and 191 or A. D. 475 and 510), with which the data of the 

 joint-grant (£. e., the 19th day of the month Karttika, in the Mahii-Magha Samvatsara) 

 can be made to harmonise, are G. S. 189 and 201 or A. D. 508 and 520. If this is 

 so, the date of the joint-grant is practically certain : it is either A. D. 508-9 or A. D. 

 520-21, whether theso years bo stated in terms of the Gupta Sauivat (189 or 201) or 

 in terms of the Kalachuri Samvat (260 and 272). Upon these promises, there are 

 these two alternatives : firstly, if we accept the year A. D. 248-49 (or 249-50) as the 

 Kalachm-i epoch, the known period of S'arvan&ha begins with Kalachuri Samvat 

 193, ecpvivalent to A. D. 441-42, and he must have reigned not less than 67 yoars, 

 to bring him down to A. D. 508 (= K. S. 2G0 or G. S. 189) to join Hastin in the 

 issne of the grant ; and he must have roigned even 79 years, to bring him down to 

 A. D. 520 (= K. S. 272 or G. S. 201), if the latter be tie year of the joint-grant. 

 Neither of these two cases will be considered admissible. Secondly, if, as Mr. Fleet 

 Buggests, the Kalachuri epoch be placed about 25 years later, say A. D. 473-74, the 

 beginning of S'arvanatha's known period will bo A. D. 406-67, and he must have 

 reigned either 42 or 54 years, according as we place the joint-grant in A. I). 508 or 

 in A. D. 520. Either of those two latter cases is possible, especially the former, requir- 

 ing a rule of (at least) 42 years. But there is no real evidence whatever for tho assign- 

 ment of the Kalachuri epoch to tho year A. D. 473-74 or thereabouts. The result 

 is, that the probability of the Uchchakalpa grants being dated in years of the 

 Kalachuri era appears to bo nil. My premises may bo founded on a misunderstand- 

 ing ; if so, Mr Fleet will be able to explain the real facts of the case. But I thought 

 it well to state my doubts, which may havo occurred to others beside myself. 

 * See Fleet, in Corpus Insor. Ind., Vol. Ill, p. 79. 



