Guest guest Posted April 13, 2009 Report Share Posted April 13, 2009 I am giving below the inscriptions and clay seals of the Guptan rulers. I invite the group to add to this list. regards, Kishore patnaikList (typed out by me) Allahabad stone pillar inscription of Samudra gupta Mehrauli iron pillar of Chandra Bhitari pillar inscription Junagadh rock inscriptions of Skandagupta Rishtal stone slab inscription of PrakashadhamraMandsor stone pillar inscription of YasodharmanMandasor inscription of MS 524Vaisali seal of Dhruvaswamini Mandasor inscription of MS 529Stone boar inscription at Eran Mathura pillar inscription of year 61 (worship of Lakulisa- earliest known year of cG II) Udayagiri cave inscription of Sanakanika kings Udayagiri cave inscription undated of Virasena sabaBilsad stone inscription dated 96 – Kartikeyan temple Tumain stone inscription of year 116 Kahaum stone pillar inscription dt 141 Rajghat (Varanasi) stone pillar inscription dated 159 – this is the second record proving the inclusion of Varanasi in Budhagupta’s empire Eran stone pillar inscription of Budhagupta dated 165 – week day is mentioned Khewra or Kura inscription of Toramana records the construction of a monasteryGwalior stone inscription of Mihirakula Mandasor stone slab inscription dated 589 of the reign of Yasodharman records the construction of a well Saranath Buddha image dt 154Saranath Buddha image dt 157Vidisa Jain image inscriptions of RAmagupta Buddha image Mankuwar supplies a very late date for the rule of Kumaragupta I Udayagiri cave inscription of GS 106Mathura Jain image inscription dated 107 Mathura pedestal inscriptionof the reign of Kumaragupta I dt 125. Mathura inscription of the reign of Budha gupta dated 161Gunaighar copper plate of Vainyagupta year 188Poona copper plates of regnal year 13 and Riddhapur copper plates of regnal year 19 give info that the vakataka queen Prabhavati gupta, the wife of Rudrasena II, was the daughter of CG IIChammak copper platesFive copper plate grants of Damodarpur Copper plate inscription from Kulaikuri - year 120 Nalanda copper plate of Samudragupta Gaya copper plate of Samudragupta Dhanaidah copper plate inscription dated 113 Baigram copper plate grant of year 128 Khoh copper plate of Maharaja Hastin dated 156Paharpur copper plate grant of year 159 Khoh copper plate of Hastin dated 163 Shankarpur copper plate of Budha gupta and Harivarman dated 168Nandpur copper plate inscription of the year 169 Bhamodarmohtta copper plate inscription of Maitraka king Dronasimha of Valabhi dated 183Majhagwan copper plate inscription of Maharaja Hastin dated 191 (in the year 510 AD) Three copper plate inscriptions from Sanjeli Issued by Maharaja Bhuta , the governor of Vishaya of Sivabhogpura during the reign of Toramana in the year 3Same in the year 6Issued by Maharaja Matridasa son of Maharaja Bhuta in the year 19 Jagdishpur (Rajshahi) copper plate inscription Indoor copper plate AD 465-66 of reign of Skandhagupta, a late dateGadhwa stone inscription dated 88Sanchi railing inscription dated 93 (of the times of CG II) Gadhwa stone inscription dated 98 Gadhwa undated stone inscription of Kumaragupta I Karmadanda lingam inscription dated 117 the four memorial stones set up in Andhau near Bhuj in Kutch in the year 52 of the reign of western ksatrapa ruler Rudradaman I (i.e. 130) Supia stone pillar inscription dated 141 Eran stone pillar inscription dated 191 . It gives two details : Saka sridharavarman puts this up to commemorate the death of some warriorsMaharaja Gopa raja, a feudatory of the Gupta sovereign Bhanugupta was killed in a battle and his wife immolated herself 51. Red sand stone from Mathura 52. Bhitari seal of Kumaragupta III 53. Clay sealings at Basarh – Vaisali 54. Clay sealings at Bhita 55. Clay sealings at Nalanda 56. Clay sealings at Rajghat , Varanasi 57. Clay sealings at Sunet, Punjab 58. Clay sealings at Sanghol , Punjab 59. Clay sealing of Dhruvaswamin from Basarh – it talks of Govinda gupta who is talked in Mandasor inscription of MS 524 60. another seal from Basarh supplies the name of one Sri Ghatotkachagupta 61. Nalanda sealing of Vainya gupta -- Should you find yourself the victim of other people’s bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities, remember things could have been worse – you could be one of them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2009 Report Share Posted April 13, 2009 The literature sources for Guptas : Literature : 1 Kalidasa 2 Chaturabhani a. Padmaprabhritaka of Sudraka b. Dhurtavitsamvada of Isvaradatta c. Ubhayabhisarika of Vararuchi d. Padataditaka of Syamilaka 3. Harshacharita of Bana (reference to Devichandraguptam) 4. Devichandraguptam of Visakhadatta (as preserved in Natyadarpana of Ramachandraa and Guanchanrdra), as also in Sringara prakasa of Bhoja 5. Harivamsa purana by Jinasena (that Guptas have ruled for 231 years) 6. Kuvalayamala of Udyotana suri makes mention of kings Devagupta, Devaraja and Harigupta 7. Kavyalankarasutravritti of Vamana talks of Chandraprakasa 8. Tiloyapnnatti by Jadivasula or Yatrivrishabha gives the following info: Palaka was anointed in the year of demise of Mahavira (60 years) Vijaya family ruled after that for 155 years Murundas ruled for 40 years Pushyamitras for 30 years Vasumitra and Agnimitra for 60 years Gandharvas for 100 years Naravahana for 40 years Andhrabhrityus for 242 years Guptas for 231 years 9. Chadragarbhaparipichchha, a Sanskrit Buddhist work , talks of a king named Mahendrasena of Kausambi whose enemies were defeated by his 12 year old kid. 10. Auchityavicharacharcha of Kshemendra talks of Kuntalesvaradautyam 11. Kavyamimansa of Rajasekhara talks of Ramagupta 12. Kathasaritasagara of Somadeva (ref XVIII lambaka) 13. Rajatarangini of Kalhana mentions that Vikramaditya of Ujjain appointed Matrigupta as the king of Kashmir. 14. Aryamanjusrimulakalpa, a Sanskrit work belonging to Mahayana tradition 15. GAthasaptasati of Hala 16. Kumudimahotsava 17. Krishnacharitam 18. Kaliyugarajavrittanta I request the group to discuss and add more regards, Kishore patnaik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Dear Kishoreji, Quite some time ago I read about a Jaina source which says that Chandragupta became king 215 years after the Nirvana of Lord Mahavira. Are you aware of that? That may mean Chandragupta became king in (527 - 215 =) 312 BCE. If we trust this the Gupta rule lasted from 312 BCE to (312 - 231 =) 81 BCE. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Mon, 4/13/09, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 Re: Resources of Guptas"" , "indiaarchaeology" <IndiaArchaeology >, bharatiyaexpertsforum Date: Monday, April 13, 2009, 9:38 AM The literature sources for Guptas : Literature : 1 Kalidasa 2 Chaturabhani a. Padmaprabhritaka of Sudraka b. Dhurtavitsamvada of Isvaradatta c. Ubhayabhisarika of Vararuchi d. Padataditaka of Syamilaka 3. Harshacharita of Bana (reference to Devichandraguptam) 4. Devichandraguptam of Visakhadatta (as preserved in Natyadarpana of Ramachandraa and Guanchanrdra) , as also in Sringara prakasa of Bhoja 5. Harivamsa purana by Jinasena (that Guptas have ruled for 231 years) 6. Kuvalayamala of Udyotana suri makes mention of kings Devagupta, Devaraja and Harigupta 7. Kavyalankarasutravr itti of Vamana talks of Chandraprakasa 8. Tiloyapnnatti by Jadivasula or Yatrivrishabha gives the following info: Palaka was anointed in the year of demise of Mahavira (60 years) Vijaya family ruled after that for 155 years Murundas ruled for 40 years Pushyamitras for 30 years Vasumitra and Agnimitra for 60 years Gandharvas for 100 years Naravahana for 40 years Andhrabhrityus for 242 years Guptas for 231 years 9. Chadragarbhaparipic hchha, a Sanskrit Buddhist work , talks of a king named Mahendrasena of Kausambi whose enemies were defeated by his 12 year old kid. 10. Auchityavicharachar cha of Kshemendra talks of Kuntalesvaradautyam 11. Kavyamimansa of Rajasekhara talks of Ramagupta 12. Kathasaritasagara of Somadeva (ref XVIII lambaka) 13. Rajatarangini of Kalhana mentions that Vikramaditya of Ujjain appointed Matrigupta as the king of Kashmir. 14. Aryamanjusrimulakal pa, a Sanskrit work belonging to Mahayana tradition 15. GAthasaptasati of Hala 16. Kumudimahotsava 17. Krishnacharitam 18. Kaliyugarajavrittan ta I request the group to discuss and add more regards, Kishore patnaik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Dear Sunilji, There are many references which give the time gap between Buddha and historical kings - for eg it is 155 years between Buddha and Chandragupta Maurya , 218 years or so between Buddha and Asoka and so on. It is a pity that the mainstream authors are yet to reconcile these datings,inspite of their best efforts. However, I am not sure if I came across such a connection between Mauryan kings and Mahavira. If that be so, it will be interesting. Kindly send me the references, if any. best regards, Kishore patnaik On 4/14/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > Dear Kishoreji, > > Quite some time ago I read about a Jaina source which says that Chandragupta > became king 215 years after the Nirvana of Lord Mahavira. Are you aware of > that? That may mean Chandragupta became king in (527 - 215 =) 312 BCE. If we > trust this the Gupta rule lasted from 312 BCE to (312 - 231 =) 81 BCE. > > Regards, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Mon, 4/13/09, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: > > > kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 > Re: Resources of Guptas > " " , " indiaarchaeology " > <IndiaArchaeology >, bharatiyaexpertsforum > Monday, April 13, 2009, 9:38 AM > > The literature sources for Guptas : > > > Literature : > > 1 Kalidasa > 2 Chaturabhani > a. Padmaprabhritaka of Sudraka > b. Dhurtavitsamvada of Isvaradatta > c. Ubhayabhisarika of Vararuchi > d. Padataditaka of Syamilaka > > 3. Harshacharita of Bana (reference to Devichandraguptam) > 4. Devichandraguptam of Visakhadatta (as preserved in Natyadarpana of > Ramachandraa and Guanchanrdra) , as also in Sringara prakasa of Bhoja > 5. Harivamsa purana by Jinasena (that Guptas have ruled for 231 years) > 6. Kuvalayamala of Udyotana suri makes mention of kings Devagupta, > Devaraja and Harigupta > 7. Kavyalankarasutravr itti of Vamana talks of Chandraprakasa > 8. Tiloyapnnatti by Jadivasula or Yatrivrishabha gives the following > info: > Palaka was anointed in the year of demise of Mahavira (60 years) > Vijaya family ruled after that for 155 years > Murundas ruled for 40 years > Pushyamitras for 30 years > Vasumitra and Agnimitra for 60 years > Gandharvas for 100 years > Naravahana for 40 years > Andhrabhrityus for 242 years > Guptas for 231 years > > 9. Chadragarbhaparipic hchha, a Sanskrit Buddhist work , talks of a > king named Mahendrasena of Kausambi whose enemies were defeated by his 12 > year old kid. > 10. Auchityavicharachar cha of Kshemendra talks of Kuntalesvaradautyam > 11. Kavyamimansa of Rajasekhara talks of Ramagupta > 12. Kathasaritasagara of Somadeva (ref XVIII lambaka) > 13. Rajatarangini of Kalhana mentions that Vikramaditya of Ujjain appointed > Matrigupta as the king of Kashmir. > 14. Aryamanjusrimulakal pa, a Sanskrit work belonging to Mahayana tradition > 15. GAthasaptasati of Hala > 16. Kumudimahotsava > 17. Krishnacharitam > 18. Kaliyugarajavrittan ta > > > > I request the group to discuss and add more > > > regards, > > Kishore patnaik > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Should you find yourself the victim of other people’s bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities, remember things could have been worse – you could be one of them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Dear Kishoreji, I am so sorry if my mail had created such an impression. I was in fact referring to Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty to have become king 215 years after the Nirvana of Lord Mahavira. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Tue, 4/14/09, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09Re: Re: Resources of Guptas Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 8:58 AM Dear Sunilji,There are many references which give the time gap between Buddha andhistorical kings - for eg it is 155 years between Buddha andChandragupta Maurya , 218 years or so between Buddha and Asoka and soon. It is a pity that the mainstream authors are yet to reconcilethese datings,inspite of their best efforts.However, I am not sure if I came across such a connection betweenMauryan kings and Mahavira. If that be so, it will be interesting.Kindly send me the references, if any.best regards,Kishore patnaikOn 4/14/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:> Dear Kishoreji,>> Quite some time ago I read about a Jaina source which says that Chandragupta> became king 215 years after the Nirvana of Lord Mahavira. Are you aware of> that? That may mean Chandragupta became king in (527 - 215 =) 312 BCE. If we> trust this the Gupta rule lasted from 312 BCE to (312 - 231 =) 81 BCE.>> Regards,>> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya>> --- On Mon, 4/13/09, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote:>>> kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09> Re: Resources of Guptas> "" , "indiaarchaeology"> <IndiaArchaeology >, bharatiyaexpertsforum > Monday, April 13, 2009, 9:38 AM>>>>>>>>> The literature sources for Guptas :>>> Literature :>> 1 Kalidasa> 2 Chaturabhani> a. Padmaprabhritaka of Sudraka> b. Dhurtavitsamvada of Isvaradatta> c. Ubhayabhisarika of Vararuchi> d. Padataditaka of Syamilaka>> 3. Harshacharita of Bana (reference to Devichandraguptam)> 4. Devichandraguptam of Visakhadatta (as preserved in Natyadarpana of> Ramachandraa and Guanchanrdra) , as also in Sringara prakasa of Bhoja> 5. Harivamsa purana by Jinasena (that Guptas have ruled for 231 years)> 6. Kuvalayamala of Udyotana suri makes mention of kings Devagupta,> Devaraja and Harigupta> 7. Kavyalankarasutravr itti of Vamana talks of Chandraprakasa> 8. Tiloyapnnatti by Jadivasula or Yatrivrishabha gives the following> info:> Palaka was anointed in the year of demise of Mahavira (60 years)> Vijaya family ruled after that for 155 years> Murundas ruled for 40 years> Pushyamitras for 30 years> Vasumitra and Agnimitra for 60 years> Gandharvas for 100 years> Naravahana for 40 years> Andhrabhrityus for 242 years> Guptas for 231 years>> 9. Chadragarbhaparipic hchha, a Sanskrit Buddhist work , talks of a> king named Mahendrasena of Kausambi whose enemies were defeated by his 12> year old kid.> 10. Auchityavicharachar cha of Kshemendra talks of Kuntalesvaradautyam> 11. Kavyamimansa of Rajasekhara talks of Ramagupta> 12. Kathasaritasagara of Somadeva (ref XVIII lambaka)> 13. Rajatarangini of Kalhana mentions that Vikramaditya of Ujjain appointed> Matrigupta as the king of Kashmir.> 14. Aryamanjusrimulakal pa, a Sanskrit work belonging to Mahayana tradition> 15. GAthasaptasati of Hala> 16. Kumudimahotsava> 17. Krishnacharitam> 18. Kaliyugarajavrittan ta>>>> I request the group to discuss and add more>>> regards,>> Kishore patnaik>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-- Should you find yourself the victim of other people’s bitterness,ignorance, smallness or insecurities, remember things could have beenworse – you could be one of them!--- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Dear all, There are many more inscriptions than what I have listed in my earlier mails.For e.g., one of the article on Gupta inscriptions in Nepal note that there are as many as 91 inscriptions of Guptas found there. I am sure a lot many more must have been found meanwhile. I request the Group to kindly supplement. best regards, Kishore patnaik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Dear All,there are many canards and there is much misinformation on this list.  Not to speak of absolute fantasy with regard to dates that are in fact  interconnecting worldwide (Near East/Greece, China), but that are artificially made older by nationalists here. I would be busy every day, if I were to point them out.But, as a long term resident of Nepal, I cannot abstain from the following factual comments:There once were  91 old inscriptions (464-750 CE) of the Kathmandu Valley and surroundings, published by R. Gnoli many decades ago. However already by 1974, in Dhanabajra Bajracharya's book, we had some 190 and a handful has been found since.None of them are "Gupta." Instead, all of them were inscribed by the *local Licchavi* dynasty (c. 300-750 CE, with a remarkable older Licchavi inscription of c. 185 CE found in a ditch a few years ago  (which, incidentally,  confirms the information of the traditional Vamsavali of 1385 CE).  Plus, a few inscriptions by private individuals, many Buddhists included.The only thing Gupta about them is that the script is the same as the North Indian Gupta script. But, though in good Sanskrit,  even the Goverment offices have non-Sanskritic, Kirata names ... No sign of Gupta reign here. Indian historians mostly are blissfully unaware of the evidence and go back to the publications of the *late 19th* century...See this (Unicode) :Gnoli, Raniero. Nepalese inscriptions in Gupta characters.  Roma, Is. M.E.O., 1956(Serie orientale Roma ; v. 10, pt.2 ) (Materials for the study of Nepalese history and culture ; 2 )VajrÄcÄrya, Dhanavajra. Lichavi kÄl ko abhilekh. Kathmandu : NepÄl RÄá¹£á¹á¹›. Adhyayan SaṃsthÄn,Tribhuvan ViÅ›vavidyÄlaya. VS 2030  (1974). Sanskrit Texts, Nepali translation and extensive commentary; there are a few rip-offs of this book, in part also in English]  --- and K. P. Malla. GopÄlarÄjavaṃśÄvali. Kathmandu/Wiesbaden: Steiner 1983 [sanskrit, Old Newari, Engl. translation and comm.] Witzel, M. On Indian historical writing: The case of the Vamsavalis. Journal of the Japanese Association for South Asian Studies, No. 2, 1990, p.1-57  [mostly: on  Kashmir & Nepal and the way "history" was written in the Middle Ages]Kashinath Tamod and Ian Alsop, A Kushan-period Sculpture from the reign of Jaya Varma-, A.D. 184/185,Kathmandu, Nepal<http://www.asianart.com/articles/jaya/index01_12.html>Cheers!MWOn Apr 15, 2009, at 1:56 AM, kishore patnaik wrote:Dear all,There are many more inscriptions than what I have listed in my earliermails.For e.g., one of the article on Gupta inscriptions in Nepal notethat there are as many as 91 inscriptions of Guptas found there. I amsure a lot many more must have been found meanwhile. I request the Group to kindly supplement.best regards,Kishore patnaik--- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 {My fervent request to all the members is to keep the tempers in check and restrict their discussions to academics- moderator} It is this annoying habit of Prof Witzel of dismissing any inconvenient statement with a wave of his hand, that makes his participation in such discussion devoid of any redeeming value For instance I am aghast that a putative scholar would make the broad stereotyping inherent in a statement of the type there are many canards and there is much misinformation on this list.  Not to speak of absolute fantasy with regard to dates that are in fact  interconnecting worldwide (Near East/Greece, China), but that are artificially made older by nationalists here. His use of the word canard implies malice , but where does malice come in when we are talking about our own history. His standard riposte is that these statements are made by nationalists. I ask this for the umpteenth time what is wrong with being a nationalist. Winston Churchill was a staunch British nationalist throughout his long career and certainly would not have objected to such an appellation when he wrote the history of the English speaking peoples , but few would ignore what he says because he is a nationalist. The same remarks can be made with respect to Charles de Gaulle or Bismarck or Matternich or Talleyrond . So the real crime here is not that the people making these statements are nationalists, but the real crime according to Herr Prof Witzel is that they are Hindu nationalists, which he often subsumes under the term Hindutva. A few years ago I daresay he would not have known the difference between a Hottentot and a  Hindutva even if his life depended on it. But he has latched on to the domestic discourse on this topic and that a section of the Indian public considers the use of the word Hindutva as pejorative and has used the word  in a very derisive comment on the conference that i organized in Delhi during January 2009 , and in many other instances. He doesnt seem to understand that this an issue of domestic politics and that it really does not concern him and that this broad stereotyping of people into narrow political boxes is an insult to a Hindu who values his individuality . A human being is a multifaceted entity and any attempt to reduce the dimensionality of a human being can truly be termed as a highly bigoted and racist endeavor , that usually results in categorizing humanity into simplistic but erroneous categories, as a prelude to demonizing them. So I request Prof Witzel to refrain from ad hominem remarks and restrict himself to what is wrong with the arguments. If he does not have the time to do that , he seems to be implying that such arguments are complex and cannot be dismissed in a jiffy with a wave of one’s hand. The issue is not one of being a Hindutva but whether one is competent in the field. Prof Witzel rarely make the attempt to establish the lack of competency of those who challenge him, while his own competency to make such statements remain severely under duress. In order to assert that a particular statement is false, one must show that it violates certain universal assumptions . the fact of the matter is that the colonial paradigm of history concocted by the Colonial overlord is one that has been picked out of thin air with entirely arbitrary assumptions regarding regnal periods based on a sheet anchor that has little relevance to Indian history, See my annotated remarks on Max Mueller ‘s original work on which the current chronology is based.  It is this paper that remains the basis of the Chronology of the Colonial paradigm of Indian History. And unless one shows that these basic assumptions that Max Muller and William Jones made are correct, the rest of the chronology is completely wrong. Simply asserting that there is no reference to the Guptas, just will not do. In any event absence of evidence hardly qualifies as evidence of absence. Surely the statement he makes does not seem to discriminate  adequately between 400 CE or 326 BCE, if that is what he is implying. It is not the existence of the Guptas that is in question but their chronology.On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Michael Witzel <witzel wrote: Dear All,there are many canards and there is much misinformation on this list.  Not to speak of absolute fantasy with regard to dates that are in fact  interconnecting worldwide (Near East/Greece, China), but that are artificially made older by nationalists here. I would be busy every day, if I were to point them out. But, as a long term resident of Nepal, I cannot abstain from the following factual comments:There once were  91 old inscriptions (464-750 CE) of the Kathmandu Valley and surroundings, published by R. Gnoli many decades ago. However already by 1974, in Dhanabajra Bajracharya's book, we had some 190 and a handful has been found since. None of them are " Gupta. " Instead, all of them were inscribed by the *local Licchavi* dynasty (c. 300-750 CE, with a remarkable older Licchavi inscription of c. 185 CE found in a ditch a few years ago  (which, incidentally,  confirms the information of the traditional Vamsavali of 1385 CE).  Plus, a few inscriptions by private individuals, many Buddhists included. The only thing Gupta about them is that the script is the same as the North Indian Gupta script. But, though in good Sanskrit,  even the Goverment offices have non-Sanskritic, Kirata names ... No sign of Gupta reign here. Indian historians mostly are blissfully unaware of the evidence and go back to the publications of the *late 19th* century...See this (Unicode) : Gnoli, Raniero. Nepalese inscriptions in Gupta characters.  Roma, Is. M.E.O., 1956 (Serie orientale Roma ; v. 10, pt.2 ) (Materials for the study of Nepalese history and culture ; 2 ) VajrÄcÄrya, Dhanavajra. Lichavi kÄl ko abhilekh. Kathmandu : NepÄl RÄá¹£á¹á¹›. Adhyayan SaṃsthÄn,Tribhuvan ViÅ›vavidyÄlaya. VS 2030  (1974). Sanskrit Texts, Nepali translation and extensive commentary; there are a few rip-offs of this book, in part also in English]  --- and K. P. Malla. GopÄlarÄjavaṃśÄvali. Kathmandu/Wiesbaden: Steiner 1983 [sanskrit, Old Newari, Engl. translation and comm.] Witzel, M. On Indian historical writing: The case of the Vamsavalis. Journal of the Japanese Association for South Asian Studies, No. 2, 1990, p.1-57  [mostly: on  Kashmir & Nepal and the way " history " was written in the Middle Ages] Kashinath Tamod and Ian Alsop, A Kushan-period Sculpture from the reign of Jaya Varma-, A.D. 184/185,Kathmandu, Nepal <http://www.asianart.com/articles/jaya/index01_12.html>Cheers! MWOn Apr 15, 2009, at 1:56 AM, kishore patnaik wrote:Dear all,There are many more inscriptions than what I have listed in my earlier mails.For e.g., one of the article on Gupta inscriptions in Nepal notethat there are as many as 91 inscriptions of Guptas found there. I amsure a lot many more must have been found meanwhile.  I request the Group to kindly supplement.best regards,Kishore patnaik--- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Hi Dr Witzel, I am happy that You are taking interest in this group at last actively. You are right in saying that the Nepali inscriptions have nothing Guptan about them except the script. But very curiously this is exactly the reason that proves Guptas may not be belonging to the same age as these inscriptions (4th c to 6th c and beyond). It is beyond doubt that these inscriptions belong to Lichchavis and it is again beyond doubt that Guptas had a marital relationship, at least once, with them and guptas have taken it as a matter of pride though literary works such as Kaumudi mahotsav describe this as a unholy nexus. Lichchavis were too important a tribe, most probably still a republic, just as another important tribe of their times, Yaudheyas. However, the gupta script inscription prove none of this - they have well established royalty, there is no proof to show that they are playing any role, leave alone an important one, in Gangetic plain. Their connection with Guptas, which must have become quite prestigeous at least during Samudragupta's times, was never ever mentioned. One further point which is more circumstantial to show that Guptas and Licchavis of these inscriptions don't seem to be connected: all the documents of Lichchavis are well dated, which was never a strong point of Guptas at least till much later times. If Lichchavis were close associates of Guptas, it is rather strange that why Guptas have not adopted this point, given their purported " penchant for copying " Given all this, I feel these inscriptions and Guptas do not belong to the same time, the only point of connection being the script which does not prove anything. In fact, if I have my way, it is very probable that Lichchavis of Guptan times might be belonging to western or at best, Central India and certainly not to Nepal. But this is besides the point. My two cents, thanks once again for your active interest in the group and I hope to hear from you much more, best regards, Kishore patnaik , Michael Witzel <witzel wrote: > > Dear All, > > there are many canards and there is much misinformation on this > list. Not to speak of absolute fantasy with regard to dates that are > in fact interconnecting worldwide (Near East/Greece, China), but > that are artificially made older by nationalists here. I would be > busy every day, if I were to point them out. > > But, as a long term resident of Nepal, I cannot abstain from the > following factual comments: > > There once were 91 old inscriptions (464-750 CE) of the Kathmandu > Valley and surroundings, published by R. Gnoli many decades ago. > However already by 1974, in Dhanabajra Bajracharya's book, we had > some 190 and a handful has been found since. > > None of them are " Gupta. " Instead, all of them were inscribed by the > *local Licchavi* dynasty (c. 300-750 CE, with a remarkable older > Licchavi inscription of c. 185 CE found in a ditch a few years ago > (which, incidentally, confirms the information of the traditional > Vamsavali of 1385 CE). Plus, a few inscriptions by private > individuals, many Buddhists included. > > The only thing Gupta about them is that the script is the same as the > North Indian Gupta script. But, though in good Sanskrit, even the > Goverment offices have non-Sanskritic, Kirata names ... No sign of > Gupta reign here. > > Indian historians mostly are blissfully unaware of the evidence and > go back to the publications of the *late 19th* century... > > See this (Unicode) : > > Gnoli, Raniero. Nepalese inscriptions in Gupta characters. Roma, Is. > M.E.O., 1956 > (Serie orientale Roma ; v. 10, pt.2 ) (Materials for the study of > Nepalese history and culture ; 2 ) > > VajrÄcÄrya, Dhanavajra. Lichavi kÄl ko abhilekh. Kathmandu : NepÄl > RÄá¹£á¹á¹›. Adhyayan SaṃsthÄn,Tribhuvan ViÅ›vavidyÄlaya. VS > 2030 (1974). Sanskrit Texts, Nepali translation and extensive > commentary; there are a few rip-offs of this book, in part also in > English] > > --- and K. P. Malla. GopÄlarÄjavaṃśÄvali. Kathmandu/Wiesbaden: > Steiner 1983 [sanskrit, Old Newari, Engl. translation and comm.] > > Witzel, M. On Indian historical writing: The case of the Vamsavalis. > Journal of the Japanese Association for South Asian Studies, No. 2, > 1990, p.1-57 [mostly: on Kashmir & Nepal and the way " history " was > written in the Middle Ages] > > Kashinath Tamod and Ian Alsop, A Kushan-period Sculpture from the > reign of Jaya Varma-, A.D. 184/185,Kathmandu, Nepal > <http://www.asianart.com/articles/jaya/index01_12.html> > > > Cheers! > > MW > > On Apr 15, 2009, at 1:56 AM, kishore patnaik wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > There are many more inscriptions than what I have listed in my earlier > > mails.For e.g., one of the article on Gupta inscriptions in Nepal note > > that there are as many as 91 inscriptions of Guptas found there. I am > > sure a lot many more must have been found meanwhile. > > > > I request the Group to kindly supplement. > > > > best regards, > > > > Kishore patnaik > > > > > > --- > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Dear Kishoreji, You mentioned that the Guptas had at least one marital relationship and it is accepted by the scholars that Chandraguta-I, of the Gupta dynasty, had received the Magadha kingdom by virtue of marrying a Lichchavi princess. This shows that his father Xandrames or Ghatotkacha as well as Chandragupta-I, of the Gupta dynasty, himself did not have capital in Pataliputra. This shows that Palimbothra was different from Pataliputra and this also demolishes the misinterpretations of William Jones, where he claimed Sandracottus to be the Chandragupta Maurya. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Thu, 4/16/09, Kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: Kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 Re: Resources of Guptas Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 2:27 AM Hi Dr Witzel, I am happy that You are taking interest in this group at last actively. You are right in saying that the Nepali inscriptions have nothing Guptan about them except the script. But very curiously this is exactly the reason that proves Guptas may not be belonging to the same age as these inscriptions (4th c to 6th c and beyond). It is beyond doubt that these inscriptions belong to Lichchavis and it is again beyond doubt that Guptas had a marital relationship, at least once, with them and guptas have taken it as a matter of pride though literary works such as Kaumudi mahotsav describe this as a unholy nexus. Lichchavis were too important a tribe, most probably still a republic, just as another important tribe of their times, Yaudheyas. However, the gupta script inscription prove none of this - they have well established royalty, there is no proof to show that they are playing any role, leave alone an important one, in Gangetic plain. Their connection with Guptas, which must have become quite prestigeous at least during Samudragupta' s times, was never ever mentioned. One further point which is more circumstantial to show that Guptas and Licchavis of these inscriptions don't seem to be connected: all the documents of Lichchavis are well dated, which was never a strong point of Guptas at least till much later times. If Lichchavis were close associates of Guptas, it is rather strange that why Guptas have not adopted this point, given their purported "penchant for copying" Given all this, I feel these inscriptions and Guptas do not belong to the same time, the only point of connection being the script which does not prove anything. In fact, if I have my way, it is very probable that Lichchavis of Guptan times might be belonging to western or at best, Central India and certainly not to Nepal. But this is besides the point. My two cents, thanks once again for your active interest in the group and I hope to hear from you much more, best regards, Kishore patnaik , Michael Witzel <witzel wrote:>> Dear All,> > there are many canards and there is much misinformation on this > list. Not to speak of absolute fantasy with regard to dates that are > in fact interconnecting worldwide (Near East/Greece, China), but > that are artificially made older by nationalists here. I would be > busy every day, if I were to point them out.> > But, as a long term resident of Nepal, I cannot abstain from the > following factual comments:> > There once were 91 old inscriptions (464-750 CE) of the Kathmandu > Valley and surroundings, published by R. Gnoli many decades ago. > However already by 1974, in Dhanabajra Bajracharya' s book, we had > some 190 and a handful has been found since.> > None of them are "Gupta." Instead, all of them were inscribed by the > *local Licchavi* dynasty (c. 300-750 CE, with a remarkable older > Licchavi inscription of c. 185 CE found in a ditch a few years ago > (which, incidentally, confirms the information of the traditional > Vamsavali of 1385 CE). Plus, a few inscriptions by private > individuals, many Buddhists included.> > The only thing Gupta about them is that the script is the same as the > North Indian Gupta script. But, though in good Sanskrit, even the > Goverment offices have non-Sanskritic, Kirata names ... No sign of > Gupta reign here.> > Indian historians mostly are blissfully unaware of the evidence and > go back to the publications of the *late 19th* century...> > See this (Unicode) :> > Gnoli, Raniero. Nepalese inscriptions in Gupta characters. Roma, Is. > M.E.O., 1956> (Serie orientale Roma ; v. 10, pt.2 ) (Materials for the study of > Nepalese history and culture ; 2 )> > VajrÄcÄrya, Dhanavajra. Lichavi kÄl ko abhilekh. Kathmandu : NepÄl > RÄá¹£á¹á¹›. Adhyayan SaṃsthÄn,Tribhuvan ViÅ›vavidyÄlaya. VS > 2030 (1974). Sanskrit Texts, Nepali translation and extensive > commentary; there are a few rip-offs of this book, in part also in > English]> > --- and K. P. Malla. GopÄlarÄjavaṃśÄvali. Kathmandu/Wiesbaden : > Steiner 1983 [sanskrit, Old Newari, Engl. translation and comm.]> > Witzel, M. On Indian historical writing: The case of the Vamsavalis. > Journal of the Japanese Association for South Asian Studies, No. 2, > 1990, p.1-57 [mostly: on Kashmir & Nepal and the way "history" was > written in the Middle Ages]> > Kashinath Tamod and Ian Alsop, A Kushan-period Sculpture from the > reign of Jaya Varma-, A.D. 184/185,Kathmandu, Nepal> <http://www.asianart .com/articles/ jaya/index01_ 12.html>> > > Cheers!> > MW> > On Apr 15, 2009, at 1:56 AM, kishore patnaik wrote:> > > Dear all,> >> > There are many more inscriptions than what I have listed in my earlier> > mails.For e.g., one of the article on Gupta inscriptions in Nepal note> > that there are as many as 91 inscriptions of Guptas found there. I am> > sure a lot many more must have been found meanwhile.> >> > I request the Group to kindly supplement.> >> > best regards,> >> > Kishore patnaik> >> >> > ------------ --------- --------- ------> >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Dear Sunilji, That Guptas had atleast one marital relationship with Lichchavis is beyond any doubt and it has been mentioned in several inscriptions, across generations. However, that Guptas has received Magadha kingdom from Licchavsis is purely hypothetical and has no inscriptional or other (traditional or literary) basis for such hypothesis. I don;t believe in this hypothesis. The basis of hypothesis follows from Pasupati inscription which says that one Supushpa of Lichchavi clan was born in Pataliputra. God knows how one can surmise this to mean Supushpa ruled over Pataliputra. RK Mookerji s to this view without any discussion in the book "  Gupta Empire " The mainstream thinkers could not adduce any information who was ruling Pataliputra before Chandragupta I. For a general discussion on this, please see http://www.indianetzone.com/25/rulers_magadha_before_guptas.htm Also, for an academic discussion on the issue, you can refer Rise and fall of the imperial Guptas By Ashvini AgrawalPublished by Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1989ISBN 8120805925, 9788120805927322 pages which is one of the best authorities on Gupta rule. Hope this helps, regards, Kishore patnaik  On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: Dear Kishoreji,  You mentioned that the Guptas had at least one marital relationship and it is accepted by the scholars that Chandraguta-I, of the Gupta dynasty, had received the Magadha kingdom by virtue of marrying a Lichchavi princess. This shows that his father Xandrames or Ghatotkacha as well as Chandragupta-I, of the Gupta dynasty, himself did not have capital in Pataliputra. This shows that Palimbothra was different from Pataliputra and this also demolishes the misinterpretations of William Jones, where he  claimed Sandracottus to be the Chandragupta Maurya.  Regards,  Sunil K. Bhattacharjya  --- On Thu, 4/16/09, Kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: Kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 Re: Resources of Guptas Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 2:27 AM Hi Dr Witzel, I am happy that You are taking interest in this group at last actively. You are right in saying that the Nepali inscriptions have nothing Guptan about them except the script. But very curiously this is exactly the reason that proves Guptas may not be belonging to the same age as these inscriptions (4th c to 6th c and beyond). It is beyond doubt that these inscriptions belong to Lichchavis and it is again beyond doubt that Guptas had a marital relationship, at least once, with them and guptas have taken it as a matter of pride though literary works such as Kaumudi mahotsav describe this as a unholy nexus. Lichchavis were too important a tribe, most probably still a republic, just as another important tribe of their times, Yaudheyas. However, the gupta script inscription prove none of this - they have well established royalty, there is no proof to show that they are playing any role, leave alone an important one, in Gangetic plain. Their connection with Guptas, which must have become quite prestigeous at least during Samudragupta' s times, was never ever mentioned. One further point which is more circumstantial to show that Guptas and Licchavis of these inscriptions don't seem to be connected: all the documents of Lichchavis are well dated, which was never a strong point of Guptas at least till much later times. If Lichchavis were close associates of Guptas, it is rather strange that why Guptas have not adopted this point, given their purported " penchant for copying " Given all this, I feel these inscriptions and Guptas do not belong to the same time, the only point of connection being the script which does not prove anything. In fact, if I have my way, it is very probable that Lichchavis of Guptan times might be belonging to western or at best, Central India and certainly not to Nepal. But this is besides the point. My two cents, thanks once again for your active interest in the group and I hope to hear from you much more, best regards, Kishore patnaik , Michael Witzel <witzel wrote: >> Dear All,> > there are many canards and there is much misinformation on this > list. Not to speak of absolute fantasy with regard to dates that are > in fact interconnecting worldwide (Near East/Greece, China), but > that are artificially made older by nationalists here. I would be > busy every day, if I were to point them out.> > But, as a long term resident of Nepal, I cannot abstain from the > following factual comments: > > There once were 91 old inscriptions (464-750 CE) of the Kathmandu > Valley and surroundings, published by R. Gnoli many decades ago. > However already by 1974, in Dhanabajra Bajracharya' s book, we had > some 190 and a handful has been found since. > > None of them are " Gupta. " Instead, all of them were inscribed by the > *local Licchavi* dynasty (c. 300-750 CE, with a remarkable older > Licchavi inscription of c. 185 CE found in a ditch a few years ago > (which, incidentally, confirms the information of the traditional > Vamsavali of 1385 CE). Plus, a few inscriptions by private > individuals, many Buddhists included.> > The only thing Gupta about them is that the script is the same as the > North Indian Gupta script. But, though in good Sanskrit, even the > Goverment offices have non-Sanskritic, Kirata names ... No sign of > Gupta reign here.> > Indian historians mostly are blissfully unaware of the evidence and > go back to the publications of the *late 19th* century...> > See this (Unicode) :> > Gnoli, Raniero. Nepalese inscriptions in Gupta characters. Roma, Is. > M.E.O., 1956> (Serie orientale Roma ; v. 10, pt.2 ) (Materials for the study of > Nepalese history and culture ; 2 )> > VajrÄcÄrya, Dhanavajra. Lichavi kÄl ko abhilekh. Kathmandu : NepÄl > RÄá¹£á¹á¹›. Adhyayan SaṃsthÄn,Tribhuvan ViÅ›vavidyÄlaya. VS > 2030 (1974). Sanskrit Texts, Nepali translation and extensive > commentary; there are a few rip-offs of this book, in part also in > English]> > --- and K. P. Malla. GopÄlarÄjavaṃśÄvali. Kathmandu/Wiesbaden : > Steiner 1983 [sanskrit, Old Newari, Engl. translation and comm.]> > Witzel, M. On Indian historical writing: The case of the Vamsavalis. > Journal of the Japanese Association for South Asian Studies, No. 2, > 1990, p.1-57 [mostly: on Kashmir & Nepal and the way " history " was > written in the Middle Ages]> > Kashinath Tamod and Ian Alsop, A Kushan-period Sculpture from the > reign of Jaya Varma-, A.D. 184/185,Kathmandu, Nepal> <http://www.asianart .com/articles/ jaya/index01_ 12.html> > > > Cheers!> > MW> > On Apr 15, 2009, at 1:56 AM, kishore patnaik wrote:> > > Dear all,> >> > There are many more inscriptions than what I have listed in my earlier > > mails.For e.g., one of the article on Gupta inscriptions in Nepal note> > that there are as many as 91 inscriptions of Guptas found there. I am> > sure a lot many more must have been found meanwhile.> >> > I request the Group to kindly supplement.> >> > best regards,> >> > Kishore patnaik> >> >> > ------------ --------- --------- ------ > >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.