ask Peter-Daniel Szanto (All Souls College in Oxford). He wrote an excellent thesis on the Catuṣpīṭha. He discusses the problem of these four pīṭhas in the introductory section of his theses and shows how Sircar misunderstood the matter. If I remember well, Peter says that it's not clear why four chapters of the CP are so called (ātma, para, yoga, guhya) and that these names do not correspond to the content of particular chapters.
Regarding the chronology, according to Peter CP is older than Hevajratantra, but to date HT to "between seventh and middle of eighth centuries" seems to be to early.
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 14:38:54 +0100
Paolo Eugenio Rosati <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Dear indologists,
> I am struggling with the "chronology" regarding the *catushpitha*s concept
> and its first appearance in the Vajrayana cosmos.
> Particularly, the *Catushpitha Tantra *described a list of four *pitha*s
> linked to philosophical concepts---*atman pitha*, *para pitha*, *yoga pitha
> *and *guhya pitha *(cit.
> in D.C. Sircar [*The Shakta Pithas*] 1948, 11).
> Regarding this text, the only clue that I found is that one of its
> commentaries was copied in 1145 CE (ibid.).
> While I found no discussion about the original text, and particularly if it
> was previous or coeval with the *Hevajra Tantra* (that could be date
> between seventh and middle of eighth centuries)---althoug from Sircar study
> I argued he considered the two tantras to be more or less coeval.
> I wish someone can help me with some reference to the *Catushpitha Tantra.*
> Best wishes,
> Paolo E. Rosati
> Oriental Archaeologist
> PhD candidate in "Civilizations of Asia and Africa"
> South Asia Section
> Dep. Italian Institute of Oriental Studies/ISO
> 'Sapienza' University of Rome