Mix up of Gupta dates

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

The dating of the Gupta kings is normally accepted as below:

Sri

Gupta 240- 280 ADGhatotkacha

280 -319Chandra

Gupta I 319 – 335 Samudra

Gupta(Parakramanka) 335 – 380Chandra

Gupta II (Vikramaditya) 375- 414Kumara

Gupta I (Mahendraditya) 414 -455Skanda

gupta (Vikramaditya) 455-467 Puru

Gupta ( Vikrama Prakasaditya) 467- 469Kumara

Gupta II 473- 476Budha

Gupta 476-495

 

Historically, CG II mentioned above was a great king and a

great warrior , whose ruler ship has seen a Golden age of commerce on one side

and of classic arts on the other. It was an age of flourish of Sanskrit and Hindu traditions CG

II ruled from Ujjain

after driving away the sakans from there. He adopted the title of Vikramaditya

 

Further, the celebrated writer A L Basham correctly attributes the Vikram era (58 bce)

to Chandragupta II,(320 AD as per Basham)

since the fabled Vikramaditya of Vikram era also has ended the rule of sakas at Ujjain and adorned the title

" Vikramaditya " . The era itself was started from the date of

Vikramaditya had taken over the seat of Ujjain.

However, ALB feels that the tradition has made a mistake of 400 years and

hence, the discrepancy in the traditional dating and the mainstream dating of

Vikramaditya.

 

There are other evidences also to show that the fabled

Vikramaditya mentioned by Mahendra suri, a jain monk, in his famous work " Kalakacharya

Kathanaka "could be CG II.

 

For eg the name of the father of CG II is not established. Mahendra suri mentions that Vikramaditya is

the son of Gardabha bhilla. The word "Gardabha Bhilla " in itself is not a

proper name (though later it is sanskritized to Gandharva sen) indicating only

the totem and the forest tribal origin of the dynasty. In fact, there are 7

Gardabhilla kings. That he could be the father of CG II may be true since that

Guptas primarily had a forest tribal origin is not in controversy for the

following reasons:

 

The

second king in the dynasty bears the name ghatotkacha (he did not have a

surname), which is tribal in nature. The gotra of the Guptas ( Dharanas) is

mentioned only in the late inscriptions, making it clear that it is an

adopted gotra and the original guptas had had no gotra, again indicating

their 'low" origin. In fact, they have acquired prominence as well as

acceptance only after Ghatotkacha married his son CG I to a princess from

Liccchavi , a highly respected Iranian tribe of the time. More

over, the name of the first king in the dynasty is Gupta , which in itself

is totally rare- the word gupta (one who is protected) always goes with a

pre fix such as siva gupta, visnu gupta, devi gupta etc meaning one who is

protected by siva, vnsu or devi accordingly. That he is named as protected

in itself shows that he belonged to the lower strata of the society which required protectionGatha

Sapta sathi describes the fabled Vikramaditya as being a donor of lakhs of

rupees in charity, which is exactly the way CG II is described by his

daughter prabhavati in the pune and Riddhapur inscriptions ( Anaekaga sata sahasra hiranya

kotipradasya)

 

The dating of Guptas is dependent on the Mauryans' dating,

which is a spin off of the Sandrocottus being (wrongly) identified with CG

Maurya.

In fact, the late dating of Guptas could not accommodate

many Gupta kings in the chronology including Kacha ,

Rama gupta/Sarma gupta ( as per the Kavya mimamsa of Raja sekhara) and Govinda gupta whose identity

and sovereignty had been established by inscriptions. Some of the other

names include:

Deva

Gupta Deva

Raja Hari

gupta

The above three names are mentioned by Kuvalayamala of

Udyotana Suri (779 AD)

Chandra

Prakasha quoted as son of Chandra gupta

by Vamana in his kavyalankara sutra vritti from an unnamed and unknown earlier Sanskrit work. Bala(successor

of Deva raja not to be confused with Baladitya) as per Arya Manju sri Mula

kalpa There is also possibly a Samudra Gupta II.

More over, all the evidences come to loggerheads with each

other because of the adoption of such late dating. Let us take a look at some

of such contradictions:

 

I

Tsing, a Chinese pilgrim to India refers to the statement

of a Korean pilgrim, Hwui-lun , who said that a king Che li ki to (sri

gupta ) was ruling 500 years prior to his time. (175 AD) As this will

place the guptas too early, the statement is rather subjectively taken to

mean that the king was ruling 400 years ago, which corresponds to a time

during the reign of the Gupta (240- 280 AD). However, another main issue

being controversial is the name of the first king of Gupta dynasty is

simply Gupta, whereas ITsing refers to Sri Gupta. Thus, it is argued that

it is possible that I Tsing is not referring to the first king of Guptas

at all. More over, the subjective correction

of 100 years has no basis at all and

accepted at best grudgingly, since there are no other explanations

available.

 

 

These problems can be resolved only

if we accept the traditional dating of Guptas, which places them since the 4th century before common era.

 

The jain works Hari Vamsa purana by

Jina sena (705 AD) and Tiloyapannatti by

Yati Vrishabha mention that Guptas ruled Ujjain

for 231 years. If we accept that reign of CG II began in 58 bce rather than

in 473 AD, the period of 231 years end in 173 AD. Thus, the time mentioned by I

Tsing falls (175 AD) around the time of Gupta period ( 58 bce – 173 AD)

and as correctly argued, he is not mentioning to the first king of Guptas but rather the last one.

 

 

The

Tiloyapannatti also mentions that the Guptas ruled 727 years after the

death of Mahavira. As per some calculations of the mainstream chronology,

Mahavira died in 527 bce. This will place the beginning of Gupta king dom

in 200 AD which again is too early for the mainstream thinkers There is no

such problem in traditional dating

 

If you are thinking these are too

early datings of Guptas, you would be too surprised with the following:

Al

beruni places Gupta era exactly after 241 years of Vikram era.

As per the accepted thinking, Gupta era starts with CG I, who onstensibly married and took over Ghatotkacha on the death of his father Ghatotkacha on the same

day, which marks the beginning of GS.

 

241 years after Vikram era makes it

183 AD placing CG I much before his predecessors.

The fact is Gupta saka pertains to later Guptas (whose

lineage is not accepted as that of the Guptas of Ujjain) who ruled over Magadha. These

Guptas are , by mainstream thinkers, placed just before Harsha and are one of

the four important dynasties that ruled after the Gupta (of CGII etc) were

totally destroyed.Thus, the historical facts are better explained by placing

Guptas in 4th C. bce, rather than in much later times.i invite comments from the members. regards,kishore patnaik 98492 70729