Page images
PDF
EPUB

no indication that the script of the seal is later than that of the Sarnath inscription. How is this to be explained ?

These difficulties are not easy to solve if we adhere to the dates given at the head of this paper. A fresh study of the authorities on which they are based has led me to the conclusion that they need considerable modification. The chronology which I have suggested elsewhere 11 solves these difficulties and does not seem open to any other objection. I give here briefly the history of the establishment of these dates to enable the reader to judge for himself what value to attach to them.

Our first genealogy of any length was furnished by the Bhitri pillar. It is as below:

:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

It gives no dates. Skandagupta's latest certain date was 148 Gupta Era (=467 A.D.) on a coin. The next landmark was the Eran inscription of Budhagupta of the year 481.

It was therefore supposed that Budhagupta followed Skanda as a real Gupta Emperor though his exact relationship with Skanda was not known. Indeed Fleet in his Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. III, suggested 12 as much, and in his genealogical table on page 17 showed Budhagupta just below Skanda.

11 Hindustan Review, Allahabad, January, 1918. A number of Indian and European Scholars have since written to me expressing their agreement with my conclusions. Mr. Vincent Smith thinks it very likely that I am right. [See J.B.O.R.8. ante, p. 344—K. P. J.]

19 P. 1.

Then came, in 1889, the discovery of the Bhitri seal. It gave the following genealogy

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Skandagupt was not mentioned. The first question was to explain this omission. It was suggested that Pura was a brother of Skanda, and therefore the later emperors in tracing their descent from the early emperors did not feel it necessary to mention collateral relations. This is a simple and natural explananation, though authority is still wanting in support of the suggestion. [Another explanation was that Pura was another name of Skanda.]

This seal thus gave us three new emperors Pura, Narasimha and Kumāra, but no dates for them. There was no other data available to fix them. Coins of Nara Bālāditya had been known. It was suggested that he was the same as the Narasimha of the seal, and further that they were identical with Bālāditya, raja of Magadha, who was mentioned by Hiuen Tsang as having defeated the Hun Mihirakula. The defeat of the Huns was estimated to have taken place about 535 A.D. Narasimha of the seal was therefore at once tied down to this date (535 A.D.) and the period between it and the last known date of Skanda (467 A.D.)

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

This is how it happened; and the dates have remained unchallenged since. But there is, as a fact, no authority for any of these dates. Now that we have an inscription, the reliability of which is beyond doubt and which as shown above does not fit in with the dates bis'd upon Hiuen Tsang, well might one ask if we have not been wrong all these years. In my paper in the Hindustan Review mentioned above I have given reasons at length for disbelieving Hiuen Tsang and have shown that there are political, epigraphic and numismatic considerations against bringing the lower limit of Narasimha's reign to 535 A. D.16 It was Yashodharman, not Narasimha, who really defeated Mihirakula. This is clear from his inscriptions, and has been proved independently by Mr. K. P. Jayaswal.17

It is submitted therefore that the chronology adopted in 1889 when nɔ inscriptional data was available be now modified in the light of recent discoveries; or if the existence of a thirl Kumāra is mooted the difficulties pointed out above be considered and solved.

Leaving the Kumārguptas aside, let us turn to Budhagupta. There can be no doubt that he ruled from 477 to 13 Hornle, J. A. S. B., 1889, p. 95. No reason given. Q. Was 470 selected sclely as being more of a round number than 467 ?

14 V. Smith, E. H. I., p. 311. This date was based upon a wrong reading of the date on a coin. J. R. A. S., 1889, p. 133, Pl. IV, fig. 4. The correct reading is Coin No. 548.

464 A.D., vide Allan's Gupta Coins, p. 133. 15 V. Smith, E. H. I., p. 311. No reason given. 10 The dates suggested by me are :-Skanda 455-467; Purá 467-469; Nıza. simh1 469-473; Kumāra I, 473-477. The Sarnath inscription would thus relate to this the second Kumara, and Budhagupta would follow him as a real Gupta Emperor. 1 Ind. Antiq., 1917, p. 153.

494 A.D. over the whole of the country then under the Gupta Empire, from Malwa to Bengal. Why then has he left so few coins? The British Museum Catalogue has only three silver coins; and there are not very many more elsewhere. We know how eager Indian rulers and usurpers, even those whose reigns did not last more than a few days, were to mint coins. This paucity of Budhagupta coins is inexplicable. It may be that a systematic search has not been made for his coins, he being considered so far to be a minor chieftain of Malwa. Now that he is being rehabilitated, I hope an attempt will be made by members of the Bihar Research Society to search systematically in the bazars of Bihar and Bengal to find more coins of the later Gupta Emperors, and all "finds" 10, orted to that Society or to the Numismatic Society of India.

V.-Shivaji and the English in Western

India.*

By Jadunath Sarkar, M.A.

I.

After slaying Afzal Khan (September 1659) and routing his army, Shivaji pursued the Bijapuris to Panhala, captured that fort, and then entered the Ratnagiri district in South Konkan and began to "take possession of all the port and inland towns." The Bijapuri governors of these places fled to Rajapur, which was at first spared, "because it belonged to Rustam-i-zaman, who is a friend of Shivaji." (Rajapur to Surat, 10 October 1659, F. R. Rajapur).

On the fall of Dabhol, its defeated governor made his escape to Rajapur with three junks of Afzal Khan, of 450, 350 and 300 tons burden respectively. The Magistrate of Rajapur, by order of his master Rustam-i-zaman, received the junks and landed their cargoes. In the meantime Shivaji had encountered and routed near Panhala the combined armies of Rustam and Fazal Khan (the son of Afzal). The latter, who bore the brunt of the battle, lost many of his followers, while Rustam, who hal been lukewarm in the contest, retreated to Hukri with slight loss. (Rajapur to Bassein, 4 February 1660, F. R. Rajapur.) The news of this battle greatly alarmed Rustam's agent at Rajapur, who tried to escape to the open sea in one of the junks arrived from Dabhol. From this incident sprang the first collision between the English and the Marathas, but its real cause was not any hindrance offered by Shivaji to the legitimate trade of the East India Company or its servants. It was solely

The references are to two sets of MS. letters, consultations, etc., preserved in the India Office, London, entitled Factory Records and Original Correspondence. These have been copied for my use. Some of the old factory records have been preserved only in the copies made by Orme, in Orme MSS., India Office.

« PreviousContinue »