Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d.410–470. After the Kshatrapas (a.d.120–410) the powerful dynasty of the Guptas established themselves in GujarÁt. So far as the dynasty is connected with GujarÁt the Gupta tree is:

According to the PurÁ?as1 the original seat of the Guptas was between the Ganges and the Jamna. Their first capital is not determined. English writers usually style them the Guptas of Kanauj. And though this title is simply due to the chance that Gupta coins were first found at Kanauj, further discoveries show that the chief remains of Gupta records and coins are in the territory to the east and south-east of Kanauj. Of the race of the Guptas nothing is known. According to the ordinances of the Sm?itis or Sacred Books,2 the terminal gupta belongs only to Vaisyas a class including shepherds
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d.410–470. cultivators and traders. Of the first three kings, Gupta Gha?otkacha and Chandragupta I., beyond the fact that Chandragupta I. bore the title of MahÁrÁjÁdhirÁja, neither descriptive titles nor details are recorded. As the fourth king Samudragupta performed the long-neglected horse-sacrifice he must have been BrÁhmanical in religion. And as inscriptions style Samudragupta’s three successors, Chandragupta II. KumÁragupta and Skandagupta, Parama BhÁgavata, they must have been SmÁrta Vaishnavas, that is devotees of Vish?u and observers of Vedic ceremonies.

The Founder Gupta, a.d.319–322(?).The founder of the dynasty is styled Gupta. In inscriptions this name always appears as SrÍ-gupta which is taken to mean protected by SrÍ or LakshmÍ. Against this explanation it is to be noted that in their inscriptions all Gupta’s successors, have a SrÍ before their names. The question therefore arises; If SrÍ forms part of the name why should the name SrÍgupta have had no second SrÍ prefixed in the usual way. Further in the inscriptions the lineage appears as Guptavam?sa that is the lineage of the Guptas never SrÍguptavam?sa3; and whenever dates in the era of this dynasty are given they are conjoined with the name Gupta never with SrÍgupta.4 It may therefore be taken that Gupta not SrÍgupta is the correct form of the founder’s name.5

Gha?otkacha, a.d.322–349(?).Gupta the founder seems never to have risen to be more than a petty chief. No known inscription gives him the title MahÁrÁjÁdhirÁja Supreme Ruler of Great Kings, which all Gupta rulers after the founder’s grandson Chandragupta assume. Again that no coins of the founder and many coins of his successors have been discovered makes it probable that Gupta was not a ruler of enough importance to have a currency of his own. According to the inscriptions Gupta was succeeded by his son Gha?otkacha a petty chief like his father with the title of MahÁrÁja and without coins.

Chandragupta I. a.d.349–369(?).Chandragupta I. (a.d.349–369 [?]), the son and successor of Gha?otkacha, is styled MahÁrÁjÁdhirÁja either because he himself became powerful, or, more probably, because he was the father of his very powerful successor Samudragupta. Though he may not have gained the dignity of “supreme ruler of great kings” by his own successes Chandragupta I. rose to a higher position than his predecessors. He was connected by marriage with the Lichchhavi dynasty of TirhÚt an alliance which must have been considered of importance since his son Samudragupta puts the name of his mother KumÁradevÍ on his coins, and always styles himself daughter’s son of Lichchhavi.6

Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d.410–470.
Samudragupta, a.d.370–395. Samudragupta, a.d.370–395.Samudragupta was the first of his family to strike coins. His numerous gold coins are, with a certain additional Indian element, adopted from those of his Indo-Skythian predecessors. The details of the royal figure on the obverse are Indian in the neck ornaments, large earrings, and headdress; they are Indo-Skythian in the tailed coat, long boots, and straddle. The goddess on the reverse of some coins with a fillet and cornucopia is an adaptation of an Indo-Skythian figure, while the lotus-holding Ganges on an alligator and the standing Glory holding a flyflapper on the reverse of other coins are purely Indian.7

His Coins.A noteworthy feature of Samudragupta’s coins is that one or other of almost all his epithets appears on each of his coins with a figure of the king illustrating the epithet. Coins with the epithet SarvarÁjochchhettÁ Destroyer-of-all-kings have on the obverse a standing king stretching out a banner topped by the wheel or disc of universal supremacy.8

Coins9 with the epithet Apratiratha Peerless have on the obverse a standing king whose left hand rests on a bow and whose right hand holds a loose-lying unaimed arrow and in front an Eagle or Garu?a standard symbolizing the unrivalled supremacy of the king, his arrow no longer wanted, his standard waving unchallenged. On the obverse is the legend:
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d.410–470.
Samudragupta, a.d.370–395.

Coins with the attribute KritÁnta parasu the Death-like-battle-axe have on the obverse a royal figure grasping a battle-axe.11 In front of the royal figure a boy, perhaps Samudragupta’s son Chandragupta, holds a standard. Coins with the attribute AsvamedhaparÁkramah? Able-to-hold-a-horse-sacrifice have on the obverse a horse standing near a sacrificial post yÚpa and on the reverse a female figure with a flyflap.12 The legend on the obverse is imperfect and hard to read. The late Mr. Thomas restores it:

Coins with the legend Lichchhaveyah?, a coin abbreviation for Lichchhavidauhitra Daughter’s son of Lichchhavi (?), have on the obverse a standing king grasping a javelin.13 Under the javelin hand are the letters Chandraguptah?. Facing the king a female figure with trace of the letters KumÁradevÍ seems to speak to him. These figures of his mother and father are given to explain the attribute Lichchhaveya or scion of Lichchhavi. This coin has been supposed to belong to Chandragupta I. but the attribute Lichchhaveyah? can apply only to Samudragupta.

His AllahÁbÁd Inscription.A fuller source of information regarding Samudragupta remains in his inscription on the AllahÁbÁd Pillar.14 Nearly eight verses of the first part are lost. The first three verses probably described his learning as what remains of the third verse mentions his poetic accomplishments, and line 27 says he was skilled in poetry and music, a trait further illustrated by what are known as his Lyrist coins where he is shown playing a lute.15 The fourth verse says that during his lifetime his father chose Samudragupta to rule the earth from among others of equal birth. His father is mentioned as pleased with him and this is followed by the description of a victory during which several opponents are said to have submitted. The seventh verse records the sudden destruction of the army of Achyuta NÁgasena and the punishment inflicted on a descendant of the Kota family.

Lines 19 and 20 record the conquest, or submission, of the following South Indian monarchs, Mahendra of Kosala, VyÁghrarÁja of MahÁ KÁntÁra,16 MundarÁja of KaurÁttÁ,17 SvÁmidatta of Paish?apura Mahendra-Giri and Au??ura18, Damana of Aira??apallaka, Vish?u of KÁÑchÍ, NÍlarÁja SÁpÁvamukta,19 Hastivarman of Ven?gÍ, Ugrasena of PÁlaka,20
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d.410–470.
Samudragupta, a.d.370–395. Kubera of DaivarÁsh?ra, and Dhanam?jaya of Kausthalapura. Line 21 gives a further list of nine kings of ÁryÁvarta exterminated by Samudragupta:

As no reference is made to the territories of these kings they may be supposed to be well known neighbouring rulers. General Cunningham’s coins and others obtained at MathurÁ, show that the fifth ruler Ga?apatinÁga was one of the NÁga kings of GwÁlior and NarwÁr.21 The inscription next mentions that Samudragupta took into his employ the chiefs of the forest countries. Then in lines 22 and 23 follows a list of countries whose kings gave him tribute, who obeyed his orders, and who came to pay homage. The list includes the names of many frontier countries and the territories of powerful contemporary kings. The frontier kingdoms are:22

The Indian kingdoms are:23

Mention is next made of kings who submitted, gave their daughters in marriage, paid tribute, and requested the issue of the Garu?a or Eagle charter to secure them in the enjoyment of their territory.24 The tribal names of these kings are:25

Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d.410–470.
Samudragupta, a.d.370–395. The inscribed pillar is said to have been set up by the great Captain or DandanÁyaka named Tilabha??anÁyaka.

This important inscription shows that Samudragupta’s dominions included MathurÁ, Oudh, Gorakhpur, AllahÁbÁd, Benares, BehÁr, TirhÚt, Bengal, and part of East RÁjputÁna. The list of Dakhan and South Indian kingdoms does not necessarily imply that they formed part of Samudragupta’s territory. Samudragupta may have made a victorious campaign to the far south and had the countries recorded in the order of his line of march. The order suggests that he went from BehÁr, by way of GayÁ, to Kosala the country about the modern RÁipur in the Central Provinces, and from Kosala, by Ganjam and other places in the Northern Circars, as far as KÁÑchÍ or Conjeveram forty-six miles south-west of Madras. MÁlwa is shown in the second list as a powerful allied kingdom. It does not appear to have formed part of Samudragupta’s territory nor, unless the Sakas are the Kshatrapas, does any mention of GujarÁt occur even as an allied state.

Chandragupta II. a.d.396–415.Samudragupta was succeeded by his son Chandragupta II. whose mother was the queen DattÁdevÍ. He was the greatest and most powerful king of the Gupta dynasty and added largely to the territory left by Samudragupta. His second name VikramÁditya or the Sun of Prowess appears on his coins. Like his father Chandragupta II. struck gold coins of various types. He was the first Gupta ruler who spread his power over MÁlwa and GujarÁt which he apparently took from the Kshatrapas as he was the first Gupta to strike silver coins and as his silver coins of both varieties the eastern and the western are modifications of the Kshatrapa type. The expedition which conquered MÁlwa seems to have passed from AllahÁbÁd by Bundelkhand to BhilsÁ and thence to MÁlwa. An undated inscription in the Udayagiri caves at VidisÁ (the modern Besnagar) near Bhilsa records the making of a cave of MahÁdeva by one SÁba of the Kautsa gotra and the family name of VÍrasena, a poet and native of PÁ?aliputra who held the hereditary office of minister of peace and war sandhivigrahika, and who is recorded to have arrived with the king who was intent upon conquering the whole earth.26 A neighbouring cave bears an inscription of a feudatory of Chandragupta who was chief of SanakÁnÍka.27 The chief’s name is lost, but the names of his father Vish?udÁsa and of his grandfather Chhagalaga remain. The date is the eleventh of the bright half of
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d.410–470.
Chandragupta II, a.d.396–415. ÁshÁ?ha Sam?vatsara 82 (a.d.401). From this Chandragupta’s conquest of VidisÁ may be dated about Sam?vatsara 80 (a.d.399) or a little earlier.

A third inscription is on the railing of the great SÁÑchi stÚpa.28 It is dated the 4th day of BhÁdrapada Sam?vat 93 (a.d.412) and records the gift of 25 dÍnÁras and something called ÍsvaravÁsaka (perhaps a village or a field) to the monks of the great monastery of KÁkanÁdabo?asrÍ for the daily maintenance of five bhikshus and the burning of a lamp in the ratnag?iha or shrine of the Buddhist triratna, for the merit of the supreme king of great kings Chandragupta who bears the popular name of DevarÁja or god-like.29 The donor a feudatory of Chandragupta named ÁmrakÁrdava is described as having the object of his life gratified by the favour of the feet of the supreme ruler of great kings the illustrious Chandragupta, and as showing to the world the hearty loyalty of a good feudatory. ÁmrakÁrdava seems to have been a chief of consequence as he is described as winning the flag of glory in numerous battles. The name of his kingdom is also recorded. Though it cannot now be made out the mention of his kingdom makes it probable that he was a stranger come to pay homage to Chandragupta. The reference to Chandragupta seems to imply he was the ruler of the land while the two other inscriptions show that his rule lasted from about 80 (a.d.399) to at least 93 (a.d.412). During these years Chandragupta seems to have spread his sway to Ujjain the capital of west MÁlwa, of which he is traditionally called the ruler. From Ujjain by way of BÁgh and TÁnda in the province of RÁth he seems to have entered South GujarÁt and to have passed from the Broach coast to KÁthiÁvÁ?a. He seems to have wrested KÁthiÁvÁ?a from its Kshatrapa rulers as he is the first Gupta who struck silver coins and as his silver coins are of the then current Kshatrapa type. On the obverse is the royal bust with features copied from the Kshatrapa face and on the reverse is the figure of a peacock, probably chosen as the bearer of KÁrtikasvÁmi the god of war. Round the peacock is a Sanskrit legend. This legend is of two varieties. In Central Indian coins it runs:

In the very rare KÁthiÁvÁ?a coins, though they are similar to the above in style, the legend runs:

Several gold coins of Chandragupta show a young male figure behind the king with his right hand laid on the king’s shoulder. This youthful figure is apparently Chandragupta’s son KumÁragupta who may have acted as YuvarÁja during the conquest of MÁlwa.
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d.410–470.
Chandragupta II, a.d.396–415. The rareness of Chandragupta’s and the commonness of KumÁragupta’s coins in KÁthiÁvÁ?a, together with the date 90 (a.d.409) on some of KumÁragupta’s coins make it probable that on their conquest his father appointed KumÁragupta viceroy of GujarÁt and KÁthiÁvÁ?a.

As the first Gupta was a chief of no great power or influence it is probable that though it is calculated from him the Gupta era was established not by him but by his grandson the great Chandragupta II.32 This view is confirmed by the absence of dates on all existing coins of Chandragupta’s father Samudragupta. It further seems probable that like the MÁlavas in b.c.57 and the Kshatrapas in a.d.78 the occasion on which Chandragupta established the Gupta era was his conquest of MÁlwa. The Gupta era did not remain long in use. After the fall of Gupta power (a.d.470) the old MÁlava era of b.c.57 was revived. The conjecture may be offered that, in spite of the passing away of Gupta power, under his title of VikramÁditya, the fame of the great Gupta conqueror Chandragupta II. lived on in MÁlwa and that, drawing to itself tales of earlier local champions, the name VikramÁditya came to be considered the name of the founder of the MÁlava era.33

Working back from Gupta Sam?vat 80 (a.d.400) the date of Chandragupta’s conquest of MÁlwa we may allot 1 to 12 (a.d.319–332) to the founder Gupta: 12 to 29 (a.d.332–349) to Gupta’s son Gha?otkacha: 29 to 49 (a.d.349–369) to Gha?otkacha’s son Chandragupta I.: and 50 to 75 (a.d.370–395) to Chandragupta’s powerful son Samudragupta who probably had a long reign. As the latest known date of Chandragupta II. is 93 (a.d.413) and as a Bilsa? inscription34 of his successor KumÁragupta is dated 96 (a.d.416) the reign of Chandragupta II. may be calculated to have lasted during the twenty years ending 95 (a.d.415).

Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d.410–470.
KumÁragupta, a.d.416–453. KumÁragupta, a.d.416–453.Chandragupta II. was succeeded by his son KumÁragupta whose mother was the queen Dhruva-DevÍ. On KumÁragupta’s coins three titles occur: Mahendra, Mahendra-Vikrama, and MahendrÁditya. As already noticed the circulation of KumÁragupta’s coins in KÁthiÁvÁ?a during his father’s reign makes it probable that on their conquest his father appointed him viceroy of KÁthiÁvÁ?a and GujarÁt. KumÁragupta appears to have succeeded his father about 96 (a.d.416). An inscription at MankuwÁr near PrayÁga shows he was ruling as late as 129 (a.d.449) and a coin of his dated 130 (a.d.450) adds at least one year to his reign. On the other hand the inscription on the GirnÁr rock shows that in 137 (a.d.457) his son Skandagupta was king. It follows that KumÁragupta’s reign ended between 130 and 137 (a.d.450–457) or about 133 (a.d.453).

None of KumÁragupta’s four inscriptions gives any historical or other details regarding him.35 But the number and the wide distribution of his coins make it probable that during his long reign he maintained his father’s dominions intact.

Large numbers of KumÁragupta’s coins of gold silver and copper have been found. The gold which are of various types are inferior in workmanship to his father’s coins. The silver and copper coins are of two varieties, eastern and western. Both varieties have on the obverse the royal bust in the Kshatrapa style of dress. In the western pieces the bust is a copy of the moustached Kshatrapa face with a corrupted version of the corrupt Greek legend used by the Kshatrapas. The only difference between the obverses of the Western Gupta and the Kshatrapa coins is that the date is in the Gupta instead of in the Kshatrapa era. On the reverse is an ill formed peacock facing front as in Chandragupta II.’s coins. The legend runs:

In KumÁragupta’s eastern silver and copper coins the bust on the obverse has no moustache nor is there any trace of the corrupt Greek legend. The date is in front of the face in perpendicular numerals one below the other instead of behind the head as in the Kshatrapa and Western KumÁragupta coins. On the reverse is a well-carved peacock facing front with tail feathers at full stretch. Round the peacock runs the clear cut legend:

This legend is hard to translate. It seems to mean:

Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d.410–470.
KumÁragupta, a.d.416–453. Probably the Deva whose name suggested the antithesis between the kings of the earth and the gods was one of the Devaputra family of Indo-Skythian rulers.37

Skandagupta, a.d.454–470.KumÁragupta was succeeded by his son Skandagupta. An inscription of his on a pillar at BhitarÍ near Saidpur in GhÁzipur bearing no date shows that on his father’s death Skandagupta had a hard struggle to establish his power.38 The text runs: “By whom when he rose to fix fast again the shaken fortune of his house, three months39 were spent on the earth as on a bed,” an apparent reference to flight and wanderings. A doubtful passage in the same inscription seems to show that he was opposed by a powerful king named Pushyamitra on whose back he is said to have set his left foot.40 The inscription makes a further reference to the troubles of the family stating that on re-establishing the shaken fortune of his house Skandagupta felt satisfied and went to see his weeping afflicted mother. Among the enemies with whom Skandagupta had to contend the inscription mentions a close conflict with the HÚ?as that is the Ephthalites, Thetals, or White Huns.41 Verse 3 of Skandagupta’s GirnÁr inscription confirms the reference to struggles stating that on the death of his father by his own might he humbled his enemies to the earth and established himself. As the GirnÁr inscription is dated 136 (a.d.456) and as KumÁragupta’s reign ended about 134, these troubles and difficulties did not last for more than two years. The GirnÁr inscription further states that on establishing his power he conquered the earth, destroyed the arrogance of his enemies, and appointed governors in all provinces. For SurÁsh?ra he selected a governor named Par?adatta and to Par?adatta’s son ChakrapÁlita he gave a share of the management placing him in charge of JunÁga?h city. During the governorship of Par?adatta the Sudarsana lake close to JunÁga?h, which had been strongly rebuilt in the time of the Kshatrapa RudradÁman (a.d.150), again gave way during the dark sixth of BhÁdrapada of the year 136 (a.d.456). The streams PalÁsinÍ SikatÁ, and VilÁsinÍ42 burst through the dam and flowed unchecked. Repairs were begun on the first of bright GrÍshma 137 (a.d.457) and finished in two months. The new dam is said to have been 100 cubits
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d.410–470.
Skandagupta, a.d.454–470. long by 68 cubits broad and 7 men or about 38 feet high. The probable site of the lake is in the west valley of the GirnÁr hill near what is called BhavanÁtha’s pass.43 The inscription also records the making of a temple of Vish?u in the neighbourhood by ChakrapÁlita, which was probably on the site of the modern DÁmodar’s Mandir in the BhavanÁtha pass, whose image is of granite and is probably as old as the Guptas. A new temple was built in the fifteenth century during the rule of Mandalika the last ChÚ?ÁsamÁ ruler of JunÁga?h. At the time of the MusalmÁn conquest (a.d.1484) as violence was feared the images were removed and buried. Mandalika’s temple was repaired by Amarji DivÁn of JunÁga?h (1759–1784). It was proposed to make and consecrate new images. But certain old images of Vish?u were found in digging foundations for the enclosure wall and were consecrated. Two of these images were taken by GirnÁra BrÁhmans and consecrated in the names of Baladevji and RevatÍ in a neighbouring temple specially built for them. Of the original temple the only trace is a pilaster built into the wall to the right as one enters. The style and carving are of the Gupta period.

As almost all the Gupta coins found in Cutch are Skandagupta’s and very few are KumÁragupta’s, Skandagupta seems to have added Cutch to the provinces of GujarÁt and KÁthiÁvÁ?a inherited from his father. In KÁthiÁvÁ?a Skandagupta’s coins are rare, apparently because of the abundant currency left by his father which was so popular in KÁthiÁvÁ?a that fresh KumÁragupta coins of a degraded type were issued as late as Valabhi times.

Like his father, Skandagupta issued a gold coinage in his eastern dominions but no trace of a gold currency appears in the west. Like KumÁragupta’s his silver coins were of two varieties, eastern and western. The eastern coins have on the obverse a bust as in KumÁragupta’s coins and the date near the face. On the reverse is a peacock similar to KumÁragupta’s and round the peacock the legend:

Skandagupta’s western coins are of three varieties, one the same as the western coins of KumÁragupta, a second with a bull instead of a peacock on the reverse, and a third with on the reverse an altar with one upright and two side jets of water. Coins of the first two varieties are found both in GujarÁt and in KÁthiÁvÁ?a. The third water-jet variety is peculiar to Cutch and is an entirely new feature in the western Gupta coinage. On the reverse of all is the legend:

Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d.410–470.
Skandagupta, a.d.454–470. The beginning of Skandagupta’s reign has been placed about Gupta 133 or a.d.453: his latest known date on a coin in General Cunningham’s collection is Gupta 149 or a.d.469.46

Budhagupta, a.d.485.With Skandagupta the regular Gupta succession ceases.47 The next Gupta is Budhagupta who has a pillar inscription48 in a temple at Era? in the Saugor district dated 165 (a.d.485) and silver coins dated Sam?vat 174 and 180 odd (a.d.494–500 odd). Of Budhagupta’s relation or connection with Skandagupta nothing is known. That he belonged to the Gupta dynasty appears from his name as well as from his silver coins which are dated in the Gupta era and are the same in style as the eastern coins of Skandagupta. On the obverse is the usual bust as in Skandagupta’s coins with the date (174, 180 odd) near the face. On the reverse is the usual peacock and the legend is the same as Skandagupta’s:

Since the coins are dated Sam?vat 174 and 180 odd (a.d.494 and 500 odd) and the inscription’s date is 165 (a.d.485) the inscription may be taken to belong to the early part of Budhagupta’s reign the beginning of which may be allotted to about 160–162 (a.d.480–482). As this is more than ten years later than the latest known date of Skandagupta (G. 149 a.d.469) either a Gupta of whom no trace remains must have intervened or the twelve blank years must have been a time of political change and disturbance. The absence of any trace of a gold currency suggests that Budhagupta had less power than his predecessors. The correctness of this argument is placed beyond doubt by the pillar inscription opposite the shrine in the Era? temple where instead of his predecessor’s title of monarch of the whole earth Budhagupta is styled protector of the land between the Jamna (KÁlindÍ) and the NarbadÁ implying the loss of the whole territory to the east of the Jamna.50 In the west the failure of Gupta power seems still more complete. Neither in GujarÁt nor in KÁthiÁvÁ?a has an inscription or even a coin been found with a reference to Budhagupta or to any other Gupta ruler later than Skandagupta (G. 149 a.d.469). The pillar inscription noted above which is of the year 165 (a.d.485) and under the rule of Budhagupta states that the pillar was a gift to the temple by Dhanya Vish?u and his brother MÁt?i Vish?u who at the time of the gift seem to have been local BrÁhman governors. A second inscription on the lower part of the neck of a huge Boar or VarÁha image in a corner shrine of the same temple records that the image was completed on the tenth day of PhÁlguna in the first year of the reign of
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d.410–470.
Budhagupta, a.d.485. ToramÁ?a the supreme ruler of great kings and was the gift of the same Dhanya Vish?u whose brother MÁt?i Vish?u is described as gone to heaven.51 Since MÁt?i was alive in the Budhagupta and was dead in the ToramÁ?a inscription it follows that ToramÁ?a was later than Budhagupta. His name and his new era show that ToramÁ?a was not a Gupta. A further proof that ToramÁ?a wrested the kingdom from Budhagupta is that except the change of era and that the bust turns to the left instead of to the right, ToramÁ?a’s silver coins are directly adapted from Gupta coins of the eastern type. Certain coin dates seem at variance with the view that ToramÁ?a flourished after Budhagupta. On several coins the date 52 is clear. As ToramÁ?a’s coins are copies of the coins of KumÁragupta and Skandagupta and as most of these coins have a numeral for one hundred the suggestion may be offered that a one dropped out in striking ToramÁ?a’s die and that this date should read 152 not 52. Accepting this view ToramÁ?a’s date would be 152 (a.d.472) that is immediately after the death of Skandagupta.

The GwÁlior inscription52 mentions prince Mihirakula as the son of ToramÁ?a and a second inscription from a well in Mandasor53 dated MÁlava Sam?vat 589 (a.d.533) mentions a king named Yasodharman who was ruler of MÁlwa when the well was built and who in a second Mandasor inscription54 is mentioned as having conquered Mihirakula. This would separate Mihirakula from his father ToramÁ?a (a.d.471) by more than sixty years. In explanation of this gap it may be suggested that the [1]52 (a.d.472) coins were struck early in ToramÁ?a’s reign in honour of his conquest of the eastern Gupta territory. A reign of twenty years would bring ToramÁ?a to 177 (a.d.497). The GwÁlior inscription of Mihirakula is in the fifteenth year of his reign that is on the basis of a succession date of 177 (a.d.497) in Gupta 192 (a.d.512). An interval of five years would bring Yasodharman’s conquest of Mihirakula to 197 (a.d.517). This would place the making of the well in the twenty-first year of Mihirakula’s reign.

BhÁnugupta, a.d.511.After Budhagupta neither inscription nor coin shows any trace of Gupta supremacy in MÁlwa. An Era? inscription55 found in 1869 on a lin?ga-shaped stone, with the representation of a woman performing satÍ, records the death in battle of a king GoparÁjÁ who is mentioned as the daughter’s son of SarabharÁja and appears to have been the son of king MÁdhava. Much of the inscription is lost. What remains records the passing to heaven of the deceased king in the very destructive fight with the great warrior (pravÍra) BhÁnugupta brave as PÁrtha. The inscription is dated the seventh of dark BhÁdrapada Gupta 191 in words as well as in numerals that is in a.d.511. This BhÁnugupta would be the successor of Budhagupta ruling over a petty MÁlwa principality which lasted till nearly the time of the great Harshavardhana the beginning of the seventh century (a.d.607–650), as a Devagupta of MÁlwa is one of RÁjyavardhana’s rivals in the SrÍharshacharita. While Gupta power failed in MÁlwa
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d.410–470.
BhÁnugupta, a.d.511. and disappeared from Western India a fresh branch of the Guptas rose in Magadha or BehÁr and under Naragupta BÁlÁditya, perhaps the founder of the eastern branch of the later Gupta dynasty, attained the dignity of a gold coinage.56

The Pushyamitras, a.d.455.[Though the history of their last years is known only in fragments, chiefly from inscriptions and coins, little doubt remains regarding the power which first seriously weakened the early Guptas. The Bhitari stone pillar of Skandagupta57 speaks of his restoring the fortunes of his family and conquering the Pushyamitras and also of his joining in close conflict with the HÚ?as.58 Unfortunately the Bhitari inscription is not dated. The JunÁga?h inscription, which bears three dates covering the period between a.d.455 and 458,59 mentions pride-broken enemies in the country of the Mlechchhas admitting Skandagupta’s victory. That the Mlechchhas of this passage refers to the Huns is made probable by the fact that it does not appear that the Pushyamitras were Mlechchhas while they and the Huns are the only enemies whom Skandagupta boasts either of defeating or of meeting in close conflict. It may therefore be assumed that the Huns became known to Skandagupta before a.d.455. As according to the Chinese historians60 the White Huns did not cross the Oxus into Baktria before a.d.452, the founding of the Hun capital of Badeghis61 may be fixed between a.d.452 and 455. As the above quoted inscriptions indicate that the Huns were repulsed in their first attempt to take part in Indian politics the disturbances during the last years of KumÁragupta’s reign were probably due to some tribe other than the Huns. This tribe seems to have been the Pushyamitras whose head-quarters would seem to have been in Northern India. Some other enemy must have arisen in MÁlwa
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d.410–470.
The Pushyamitras, a.d.455. since the terms of Par?adatta’s appointment to SurÁsh?ra in a.d.455–6 suggest that country had been lost to the Gupta empire and re-conquered by Skandagupta which would naturally be the case if a rival state had arisen in MÁlwa and been overthrown by that king. So far as is known the Huns made no successful attack on the Gupta empire during the lifetime of Skandagupta whose latest date is a.d.468–9. It is not certain who succeeded Skandagupta. His brother Pura(or Sthira-)gupta ruled in or near Magadha. But it is not certain whether he was the successor or the rival of Skandagupta.62 That Skandagupta’s inscriptions are found in the Patna district in the east63 and in KÁthiÁvÁ?a in the west64 suggests that during his life the empire was not divided nor does any one of his inscriptions hint at a partition. The probability is that Skandagupta was succeeded by his brother Puragupta, who again was followed by his son Narasim?hagupta and his grandson KumÁragupta II.65

White Huns, a.d.450–520.Among the northerners who with or shortly after the Pushyamitras shared in the overthrow of Gupta power two names, a father and a son, ToramÁ?a and Mihirakula are prominent. It is not certain that these kings were HÚ?as by race. Their tribe were almost certainly his rivals’ allies whom Skandagupta’s Bhitari and JunÁga?h inscriptions style the one HÚ?as the other Mlechchhas.66 On one of ToramÁ?a’s coins Mr. Fleet reads67 the date 52 which he interprets as a regnal date. This though not impossible is somewhat unlikely. The date of Mihirakula’s succession to his father is fixed somewhere about a.d.515.68 In the neighbourhood of GwÁlior he reigned at least fifteen years.69 The story of Mihirakula’s interview with BÁlÁditya’s mother and his long subsequent history70 indicate that when he came to the throne he was a young man probably not more than 25. If his father reigned fifty-two years he must have been at least 70 when he died and not less than 45 when Mihirakula was born. As Mihirakula is known to have had at least one younger brother,71 it seems probable that ToramÁ?a came to the throne a good deal later than a.d.460 the date suggested by Mr. Fleet.72 The date 52 on ToramÁ?a’s coins must therefore refer to some event other than his own accession. The suggestion may be offered that that event was the establishment of the White Huns in Baktria and the founding of their capital Badeghis,73 which, as fixed above between a.d.452 and 455, gives the very suitable date of a.d.504 to 507 for the 52 of ToramÁ?a’s coin. If this suggestion is correct a further identification follows. The Chinese ambassador Sungyun (a.d.520)74
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d.410–470.
White Huns, a.d.450–520. describes an interview with the king of GandhÁra whose family Sungyun notices was established in power by the Ye-tha, that is the Ephthalites or White Huns, two generations before his time.75 Mihirakula is known to have ruled in GandhÁra76 and Sungyun’s description of the king’s pride and activity agrees well with other records of Mihirakula’s character. It seems therefore reasonable to suppose that the warlike sovereign who treated Sungyun and the name of his Imperial mistress with such scant courtesy was no other than the meteor Mihirakula. If Sungyun is correct in stating that Mihirakula was the third of his line the dynasty must have been established about a.d.460. Beal is in doubt whether the name Lae-lih given by Sungyun77 is the family name or the name of the founder. As a recently deciphered inscription shows ToramÁ?a’s family name to have been JaÚvla78 it seems to follow that Lae-lih, or whatever is the correct transliteration of the Chinese characters, is the name of the father of ToramÁ?a. Sungyun’s reference to the establishment of this dynasty suggests they were not White Huns but leaders of some subject tribe.79 That this tribe was settled in Baktria perhaps as far south as KÁbul before the arrival of the White Huns seems probable. The Hindu or Persian influence notable in the tribal name Maitraka and in the personal name Mihirakula seems unsuited to HÚ?as newly come from the northern frontiers of China and proud of their recent successes.80 Chinese records show81 that the tribe who preceded the White Huns in Baktria and north-east Persia, and who about a.d.350–400 destroyed the power of Kitolo the last of the KushÁns, were the Yuan-Yuan or Jouen-Jouen whom Sir H. Howorth identifies with the Avars.82 To this tribe it seems on the whole probable that
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d.410–470.
White Huns, a.d.450–520. Lae-lih the father of ToramÁ?a belonged.83 At the same time, though perhaps not themselves White Huns, the details regarding ToramÁ?a and Mihirakula so nearly cover the fifty years (a.d.470–530) of HÚ?a ascendancy in North India that, as was in keeping with their position in charge of his Indian outpost, the White Hun emperor KhushnÁwaz, while himself engaged in Central Asia and in Persia (a.d.460–500),84 seems to have entrusted the conquest of India to ToramÁ?a and his son Mihirakula. Of the progress of the mixed Yuan-Yuan and White Hun invaders in India few details are available. Their ascendancy in the north seems to have been too complete to allow of opposition, and HÚ?as were probably closely associated with the Maitraka or Mehara conquest of KÁthiÁvÁ?a (a.d.480–520). The southern fringe of the White Hun dominions, the present Saugor district of the Central Provinces, seems to have been the chief theatre of war, a debateable ground between the Guptas, ToramÁ?a, and the MÁlwa chiefs. To the east of Saugor the Guptas succeeded in maintaining their power until at least a.d.528–9.85 To the west of Saugor the Guptas held Era? in a.d.484–5.86 About twenty years later (a.d.505)87 Era? was in the hands of ToramÁ?a, and in a.d.510–11 BhÁnugupta88 fought and apparently won a battle at Era?.

Mihirakula, a.d.512.Mihirakula’s accession to the throne may perhaps be fixed at a.d.512. An inscription of Yasodharman, the date of which cannot be many years on either side of a.d.532–3, claims to have enforced the submission of the famous Mihirakula whose power had established itself on the tiaras of kings and who had hitherto bowed his neck to no one but Siva.89 In spite of this defeat Mihirakula held GwÁlior and the inaccessible fortress of the HimÁlayas.90 These dates give about a.d.520 as the time of Mihirakula’s greatest power, a result which suggests that the Gollas, whom, about a.d.520, the Greek merchant Cosmas Indikopleustes heard of in the ports of Western India as the supreme ruler of Northern India was Kulla or Mihirakula.91

Yasodharman of MÁlwa, a.d.533–4.Regarding the history of the third destroyers of Gupta power in MÁlwa, inscriptions show that in a.d.437–8, under KumÁragupta, Bandhuvarman son of Vish?uvarman ruled as a local king.92
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d.410–470.
Yasodharman of MÁlwa, a.d.533–4. Possibly Bandhuvarman afterwards threw off his allegiance to the Guptas and thereby caused the temporary loss of SurÁsh?ra towards the end of KumÁragupta’s reign. Nothing further is recorded of the rulers of MÁlwa until the reign of Yasodharman in a.d.533–4.93 It has been supposed that one of Yasodharman’s inscriptions mentioned a king Vish?uvardhana but there can be little doubt that both names refer to the same person.94 The name of Yasodharman’s tribe is unknown and his crest the aulikara has not been satisfactorily explained.95 Mandasor96 in Western MÁlwa, where all his inscriptions have been found, must have been a centre of Yasodharman’s power. Yasodharman boasts97 of conquering from the Brahmaputra to mount Mahendra and from the HimÁlayas to the Western Ocean. In the sixth century only one dynasty could claim such widespread power. That dynasty is the famous family of Ujjain to which belonged the well known VikramÁditya of the Nine Gems. It may be conjectured not only that Yasodharman belonged to this family but that Yasodharman was the great VikramÁditya himself.98

The difficult question remains by whom was the power of Mihirakula overthrown. Yasodharman claims to have subdued Mihirakula, who, he distinctly says, had never before been defeated.99 On the other hand, Hiuen Tsiang ascribes Mihirakula’s overthrow to a BÁlÁditya of Magadha.100 Coins prove that BÁlÁditya101 was one of the titles of Narasim?hagupta grandson of KumÁragupta I. (a.d.417–453) who probably ruled Magadha as his son’s seal was found in the GhÁzipur district.102 If Hiuen Tsiang’s story is accepted a slight chronological difficulty arises in the way of this identification. It is clear that Mihirakula’s first defeat was at the hands of Yasodharman about a.d.530. His defeat and capture by BÁlÁditya must have been later. As Skandagupta’s reign ended about a.d.470 a blank of sixty years has to be filled by the two reigns of his brother and his nephew.103 This, though not impossible, suggests caution in identifying BÁlÁditya. According to Hiuen Tsiang BÁlÁditya was a feudatory of Mihirakula who rebelled against him when he began to persecute the Buddhists. Hiuen Tsiang notices that, at the intercession of his own mother, BÁlÁditya spared Mihirakula’s life and allowed him to retire to Kashmir. He further notices that Mihirakula and his brother were rivals and his statement suggests that from Kashmir Mihirakula defeated his brother and recovered GandhÁra. The ascendancy of the White Huns cannot have lasted long after Mihirakula. About a.d.560 the power of the White Huns was crushed between the combined attacks of the Persians and Turks.104—(A.M.T.J.)]