Page images
PDF
EPUB

MISCELLANEOUS CONTRIBUTIONS.

I.-Dates of Skanda-Gupta and His
Successors.

By H. Panday, B.A.

The January (1918) number of the Hindustan Review contains a very interesting and learned discussion on the dates of Skanda-Gupta and his successors by Mr. Panna Lall, M. A., B. Sc., L.L B., I.C.S.

2

The chronology of the Imperial Gupta dynasty which was the accepted one as late as 19141 assigned a reign of some twenty-five years to Skanda-Gupta (455-480 A.C.) and placed his successors, Pura-Gupta, Narasimha-Gupta and Kumāra-Gupta II between 480 and 550 A.C. Since then, however, fresh discoveries have been made and a fresh adjustment of dates became necessary. In his Catalogue of Gupta coins in the British Museum Mr. Allan has proved that three more names must be added to the list of the known successors of Skanda-Gupta, namely, Prakāśāditya, Dvādaśāditya, and Ghatotkacha-Gupta ; but no change in the accepted date of Skanda-Gupta's death (180 A.C.) was proposed, So strong was the belief in the correctness of this chronology among scholars generally that when in the excavations at Sarnath during 1914-15, a fresh discovery was made in the shape of an inscription of a Buddhist monk Abhayamitra mentioning the name of Kumāra-Gupta as the reigning sovereign and dated in the 154th year of the Gupta era, together with another of the same monk mentioning Buddha-Gupta as Ruler of the Land and dated in 157 G.E., it was explained away by expressing a belief or conjecture as to the existence of a third Kumara-Gupta ! The

1 See V. Smith Early History of India (3rd Ed.) pp. 208–311.

2 Ibid; also Allan, Catalogue of Gupta Coins, p. cxxvii.

importance of Mr. Panna Lall's paper lies in its independent and satisfactory solution of the problem raised by the last-mentioned discovery. It is a contribution to history of which any scholar may well be proud, inasmuch as the author has not had the monopoly of a chance 'find' but bases his conclusion on an examination of materials already available.

Mr. Panna Lall has tried in this paper to prove :—

(1) That the reign of Skanda-Gupta ended in 467 A.C. and that he was followed by Pura-Gupta (467-169), NarasimhaGupta (469-473), Kumara-Gupta II (473-477) and BuddhaGupta (477-494); Prakāśāditya, Dvādaśāditya and GhaṭothkachaGupta being also relegated to the period between 469 and 477 A.C.

(2) That the Kumāra-Gupta of the Sarnath inscription is identical with (a) the Kumāra-Gupta, son of Narasimha-Gupta Bālāditya of the Bhitri Seal and (b) the Kumāra-Gupta mentioned in the Mandasor inscription of 529 M.E. (473 A.C.).

With regard to the first Mr. Panna Lall rests his arguments mainly on the following facts :

(a) the absence of any recorded date for Skanda-Gupta after 467 A.C.;

(b) the discovery of inscriptions dated in 474 and 477 A.C. at Sarnath, in the very heart of Gupta dominions, mentioning the names of other kings,

(c) the untrustworthiness of the legend recorded by Hiuen Tsang ascribing the defeat of Mihirgula to Bālāditya of Magadha.

It was due to a mistaken reading of the date on a silver coin of Skanda-Gupta (160 for 145 G.E) that this emperor was assigned a long reign extending to 480 A. C. The error was corrected by Allan but its effect on the chronology of this period was not then recognized. The credibility of the legend recorded by Hiuen Tsang according to which the credit for the discomfiture of the Hūņɩ tyrant was given to Bālāditya, a Buddhist king

J.R.A S., 1889, page 133.

Allan, Gupta, Coins, page 133.

of Magadha, was also doubted as far back as 1909, and by the very scholar who first advocated it. But historians like Mr. Vincent Smith persevered in their faith as to the legend being authentic and had to go to the length of conjuring up a confederacy of Indian kings to combat the Hūņa. It was due to to the mistaken identification (on the basis of this legend) of the Magadhan Bālāditya with Bālāditya NarasimhaGupta and the confusing of both these with the destroyer of Mihirgula that the date 530A.C. for Narasimha-Gupta was arrived at. Mr. Panna Lall has brought together in his paper sufficient evidence to settle this point. As so ably proved by Mr. K. P. Jayaswal in the Indian Antiquary (July 1917, p. 153) the hero who annihilated Mihiragula was no other than Yasodharman of the Mandasor pillar inscriptions whom this scholar has identified with Kalki of the Puranas. In this matter, therefore, Mr. Panna Lall's thesis is supported by Mr. Jayaswal's examination of Puranic and Jaina datang to the subject. So this question has now been settled. The dates for Skanda-Gupta and his successors now suggested by Mr. Panna Lall will, therefore, be accepted and future discoveries-unless these be such as to weaken the literary, epigraphic and numismatic evidence collated by Mr. Panna Lall-may be expected to confirm his conclusion.

With regard to the second point, however, Mr. Panna Lall's proposition is not equally sound. So far as the identity of the Kumāra-Gupta of the Sarnath inscription and the KumāraGupta of the Bhitri seal is concerned the learned author has established his case. The chronology as now revised will not allow two Kumara-Guptas in this period. The evidence of palæography and numismatics and of literature also leads to the same conclusion.

But when we come to the identification of the Kumāra-Gupta of the Sarnath inscription with the Kumāra-Gupta of the Mandasor inscription of M.E. 529, the case is entirely different. Mr. Panna Lall would interpret the Mand asor inscription to refer to the J.R.A.S., 1909, pp. 92-95.

Early History of India, page 318.

reign of Kumāra-Gupta II. For this he has to put upon the text a construction which, though not opposed to Sanskrit syntax is obviously not the natural one. In this he has repeated the mistal e unfortunately made by the late Dr. Fleet, though differently. Both Dr. Fleet and Mr. Panna Lall would have us believe that the Mandasor inscription is a "eulogy". There is no word in the original inscription itself for this "eulogy". The composer of the text himself calls it "history".

श्र ण्यादेशेन भक्त्या च कारितं भवनं रवेः ।

yaf qa'suða efvar gcaufen 11

The most natural meaning of this verse would be :--

"This temple of the Sun was caused to be built by the command of the Śrepi (corporation) and this history' (purvā stands for pūrvā kathā) was composed, out of devotion, by Vatsa Bhaṭṭi." Fleet's translation, "this (eulogy) that preceeds" is opposed to Sanskrit idiom and Mr. Panna Lall should have avoided this obvious error which is indirectly responsible for his identification of the Sarnath Kumara-Gupta with Kumara-Gupta (I) overlord of Viśvavarma of Western Malwa.

The Mandasor inscription is unique among the epigraphic records of India in that it gives the history of a temple commencing with its founders. The main facts of history preserved in this inscription may be briefly stated as follows :

The famous silk-weavers of Lata left their beautiful country and migrated to Dasapura with their families, where they settled; and as the city grew into importance in course of time, it became the "fore-head ornament of the Earth". Here they were admitted to all the privileges of citizenship and betook themselves to various honourable professions. Among them were archers, story-tellers, religiously-minded men, lecturers, astronomers and soldiers, while some of them retained their hereditary occupation of silk-weaving. Silk was a favourite article of clothing among Compare for instance the different expressions found in the Gupta inscriptions, शासन, सङ्घर्म्मख्यापन, प्रशस्ति, शिलालेख, काव्य and श्लोक |

It would be absurd to adopt a universal term "eulogy" for all these.

the beau monde in those days "no lady was considered charming however much she may be adorned otherwise, until she put On a pair of silk pieces". These Dasapura weavers manufactured cloths of variegated patterns and designs, pleasing to the eye, and soft to the touch, and their articles were in great demand (lit. went for the adornment of the world ). Their material prosperity, however, did not stand in the way of their realizing the transitory nature of this world, life and prosperity and adhering to this virtuous idea. Now, while Kumāra-Gupta was Emperor of India (lit. ruling over the earth between the four seas) their ruler was a king named Viśvavarma, renowned for his learning, his prowess and sympathy towards the poor, etc. His son was Bandhuvarma, possessed of firmness, statesmanship, etc. It was in the reign of this very noble Bandhuvarman that a majestic temple of the Sun was "caused to be built "at Dasapura by the guild of silk-weavers from funds raised among themselves (lit. with the stores of wealth acquired by the exercise of their craft). It had "broad and lofty spires" was "white as the mass of the rays of the risen moon" resembled a mountain and appeared like a "lovely crest-jewel" in the Western City. This temple was constructed (faaf) on the 13th day of the bright fortnight of the month Sahasya (Pausha) in the Hemanta season in the 493rd expired year of the Malava reckoning. When a long time and other kings had gone by, a portion of this edifice 'fell into disrepair'. Now, therefore, the whole of this majestic temple of the Sun was "repaired" by the "munificient corporation". It was "lofty and pure" touching the sky, as

it were, with its charming spires, and caught the first rays of the sun and the moon as they rose. When 529 years (of the Mālava era) had elapsed, on the 2nd day of the bright half of Tapasya (Phalguna) in the Śiśira season, the whole city was gracefully adorned by this superior edifice as the cloudless sky is adorned by the moon and the breast of Vishnu by the Kaustubha gem. "So long as the god Isa (Śiva) wears his matted locks and the god Śärngin (Vishnu) the lotus garland on his shoulder so long may this noble edifice endure !"

« PreviousContinue »