Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of India, c. 150 A.D. to 350 A.D.: Naga–Vakataka Imperial Period c16.s2: XII. Political India at 350 A.D. and Samudra Gupta's Empire

History of India, c. 150 A.D. to 350 A.D.: Nāga–Vākāṭaka Imperial Period c16.s2

Language
English

XII. Political India at 350 A.D. and Samudra Gupta's Empire

c16.s2.1

120. We have no doubt that the Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudra Gupta which is his imperial biography written and published in his life-time,² gives details of the kingdoms and rulers which existed at the time of the foundation of the Gupta Empire. Yet we have probably a richer description of political India at the period in the Purāṇas. They, in fact, give us a complete picture of Samudra Gupta's India with which they close their chronicles. As their details have not been studied and the significance of this part of the Purāṇic history has been entirely missed, it is necessary to have an analysis of the Purāṇic materials which, as we shall see, are very valuable.

c16.s2.2

² It is not posthumous as Fleet wrongly supposed. See Bühler, J.R.A.S., 1898, p. 386. It was published before his *aśvamedha* or *aśvamedhas*. [Fleet's mistake misled many including myself.]

c16.s2.3

121. The Vāyu and the Brahmāṇḍa continue the threads of Indian history where the Matsya stops, i.e. at the fall of the Andhras, which, according to their calculation, happened in or about 238 A.D. (J.B.O.R.S., XVI, p. 280).¹ The Vāyu and the Brahmāṇḍa take up the imperial history again and begin it with Vindhyaśakti of the Vindhyaka dynasty. They, parenthetically under Vindhyaśakti—to explain the rise of the dynasty of Vindhyaśakti and particularly his son Pravira—give the history of the Vidiśā Nāgas and their successors, the Nava Nāgas,² i.e. the Bhāraśivas. Then they give a full account of the Vākāṭaka (‘Vindhyaka’) empire, with its component parts, giving the number of the rulers and their totals. In other words, they treat the history up to the reign of Vindhyaśakti's son Pravira along with the Nava Nāgas, whose period they give as past history. And then they begin contemporary history: from the Guptas onwards they neither give the number of rulers nor their rule-periods. From the Guptas onwards, the families were still ruling and those families were therefore contemporaries with the Guptas. As we shall presently see, the Purāṇas undoubtedly imply that they were subordinates and component parts of the Gupta Empire. To this they make a few exceptions, i.e. they note also those contemporaries who were not integral parts of the Gupta Empire. Their details are accurate and territorially specific. They are, therefore, invaluable to the history of the period. And they stop at that, they are to be treated as a Contemporary record, contemporary with the empire of Samudra Gupta. The Purāṇas have taken up the Gupta line as an imperial dynasty as coming after Pravīra the son of Vindhyaśakti. Up to and including the Vākāṭakas, they have dealt with only imperial lines. The Viṣṇu and the Bhāgavata here give some data which are exclusive to them. Here they seem to have preferred some independent materials.

c16.s2.4

¹ Their contemporaries the Tukhāra-Muruṇḍas, etc. close about 243 or 247 A.D.—J.B.O.R.S., XVI, 289.

c16.s2.5

² Alternative spelling: Nava Nāka. Does Kālidāsa intend a double meaning by his ā-Nāka° in the verse cited at p. 112? If ā-Samudra° refers to the Guptas, ā-Nāka° will refer to the Nākas, i.e. Nāgas.

c16.s2.6

122. The Vāyu and the Brahmāṇḍa place the beginning of the Guptas after closing the Nāgas who were rulers in Bihar up to Champāvatī or Bhagalpur, but the Viṣṇu places their beginning in the period of the Nāgas whereby it implies the rise of Gupta and Ghaṭotkacha:

c16.s2.7

नवनागाः पद्मावत्यां कान्तिपुर्यां मथुरायामनुगङ्गाप्रयागं मागधा गुप्ताश्च भोक्ष्यन्ति ।

c16.s2.8

which means, that while the Nava Nāgas ruled at Padmāvatī, Kāntipurī and Mathurā, the Māgadha Guptas ruled at Prayāga-on-the-Ganges. This shows that their first fief was in the district of Allahabad and that at that time they were considered to have been natives of Magadha. The plain meaning of this datum is that the Early Guptas were rulers at Allahabad, not on the Jumna side but on the Ganges side, i.e. on the side of Oudh and Benares. The Viṣṇu reads anu-Gaṅgā-Prayāga as one word, which it gives as the name of a capital like Padmāvatī, Kāntipurī and Mathurā. It is not anu-Gaṅgā by itself, an indefinite regional term. Neither the Bhāgavata nor the Viṣṇu mentions here Sāketa. The Viṣṇu by putting the plural form ‘the Guptas’ and qualifying them with the adjective the ‘Magadhan’, refers to a period when the Guptas had been dispossessed from Magadha, the pre-imperial years of Samudra Gupta.

c16.s2.9

123. The other Purāṇas, on the other hand, give another set of facts about the Gupta dynasty. The Vāyu and the Brahmāṇḍa say that the descendants of the Gupta dynast (Gupta-vaṁśajāḥ), i.e. the Guptas later than the founder of the family, will rule (bhokṣyante):

c16.s2.10

(a) the provinces of Anu-Gaṅgā-Prayāga,¹ Sāketa and the Magadhas;²

c16.s2.11

¹ Or, ‘Anu-Gaṅgā and Prayāga’ [अनुगङ्गं प्रयागं च, P.T., 53, n. 5.]

c16.s2.12

² अनुगङ्गं प्रयागं च साकेतं मगधांस्तथा। एतान् जनपदान् सर्वान् भोक्ष्यन्ते गुप्तवंशजाः॥

c16.s2.13

(b) [will rule, bhokhyante, or ‘will rule over’, bhokhyanti] the Maṇidhānya provinces of the Naishadhas, Yadukas, Śaiśitas and Kālatoyakas;³

c16.s2.14

³ नैषधान् यदुकांश्चैव शैशितान् कालतोयकान्। एतान् जनपदान् सर्वान् भोक्ष्यन्ते [’न्ति, Vāyu] मणिधान्यजान्॥ [Brahmāṇḍa.]

c16.s2.15

(c) [will rule bhokhyante, or ‘will rule over’, ‘nti] the Kosalas, Āndhras, (‘Oḍras’, per Viṣṇu) Pauṇḍras, the Tāmraliptas with the sea-coast people and the beautiful capital of Champā protected by Deva (Deva-rakṣitām);⁴

c16.s2.16

⁴ कोसलांश्चान्ध्र-पौण्ड्रांश्च ताम्रलिप्तान् स-सागरान्। चम्पां चैव पुरीं रम्यां भोक्ष्यन्ते [’न्ति] देवरक्षिताम्॥ [Vāyu.]

c16.s2.17

(d) [will rule] the Guha provinces (Guhān, Viṣṇu), the provinces of Kaliṅga, Māhishika and Mahendra,⁵ [or, ‘Guha will be governor (pālayiṣyati, as against bhokhyati) of Kaliṅga, Mahisha and Mahendra.’⁶]

c16.s2.18

⁵ कलिङ्गान् द्राविडान्-माहेन्द्रभोमान् गुहान् भोक्ष्यन्ति। [Viṣṇu.]

c16.s2.19

⁶ कलिङ्गा अधिपाश्चैव महेन्द्रनिलयाश्च ये। एतान् जनपदान् सर्वान् पालयिष्यन्ति वै गुहाः॥ [Br., Vā.]

c16.s2.20

That the last three Imperial Provinces were under the governorships respectively of a Maṇidhānyaka (Viṣṇu) or a Maṇidhānyāja [a descendant of Maṇidhānya (Brahmāṇḍa)], Deva, and Guha is proved by the Viṣṇu’s treatment which makes them rulers respectively of these Provincial Governments. In the Vāyu and Brahmāṇḍa text which was here one and the same, they are all put in the accusative, the nominative being the Gupta-vamśajāḥ; the name of the sub-rulers are taken to be qualifying the provinces, viz. Maṇidhānyajān (Br.), Devarakṣitām [qualifying Champā], and Guhān [which survives in the Viṣṇu].

c16.s2.21

Independent States. 124. Then the following contemporaries are given who are not under the Gupta dynasty:

c16.s2.22

(A) The dynast called K a n a k a ruling S t r i r ā s h t r a, B h o j a k a (Br.), T r a i r ā j y a (V i s h ṇ u) and M ū s h i k a (V i s h ṇ u).

c16.s2.23

(B) The A b h i r a s of S u r ā s h t r a and A v a n t i.

c16.s2.24

(C) The Ś u r a s.

c16.s2.25

(D) The M ā l a v a s of the A r b u d a.

c16.s2.26

B, C, and D, according to the Bhāgavata, were non-sacramental, though twice-born, Hindus (vrātyā dvijāḥ), and their national rulers (janādhipāḥ) were ‘almost Śūdras’ (śūdra-prāyāḥ).

c16.s2.27

(E) Sindhu [the Indus valley] and the C h a n d r a-b h ā g ā, K a u n t ī (Cutch), and K a s h m i r were under the M l e c h c h h a s who were non-Brahmanical Śūdras [or according to some manuscripts, antyāḥ or the lowest, untouchables]. They were M l e c h c h h a Ś ū d r a s, i.e. those Mlechchhas [e.g. Śakas] who according to Hindu Law had acquired the status of Śūdras but were Mlechchhas all the same, i.e. foreigners (§ 146 B). The Purāṇas are here distinguishing these Mlechchha Śūdras from the Hindu Śūdras. The Viṣṇu Purāṇa actually calls them ‘the Mlechchha-Śūdras’.¹ The Viṣṇu Purāṇa adds after S i n d h u-t a t a ‘the D ā r v ī k a country’, i.e. Eastern Afghanistan which is now inhabited by the Darveshkhel and the Dauras, from the Khyber Pass westwards. Instead of Dārvīka, we have the form Dārvīcha in the Mahā-Bhārata.²

c16.s2.28

¹ P.T., 55, n. 30.

c16.s2.29

² Hall, Wilson's Viṣṇu Purāṇa, II, 175, n.

c16.s2.30

125. There were, thus, apart from the provinces in Āryāvarta, three imperial provinces, according to the Purāṇas, constituted by the Guptas which they caused to be ruled by their governors. The last two (c, d, p. 124) were in ‘Southern’ India. And the second (b) was also below the Vindhyas, just at its gate in the West. From the Hindu point of view this was also situated in Dakṣiṇāpatha, to the south of the Vindhyas, but following the modern Terminology we shall call it here (1) the Deccan Province. The Vishnu Purāṇa mentions it as the third province amongst the provinces ruled through governors, while the Vāyu and the Brahmāṇḍa place it as the first amongst the three provinces. The Vishnu Purāṇa begins with (2) the Province of Kosala-Orissa-Bengal-and-Champā, while the other two Purāṇas place the Province of Kosala, etc. as the second. And the next, according to all the authorities, is (3) the Province of Kalinga-Māhishika-Mahendra. The Bhāgavata stands by itself. It does not give the three provinces, and originally it seems to have included the whole empire in the words medinî: ‘Goptā bhokshyanti medinîm,’ ‘the descendants of Gupta (Goptāḥ, Pkt. for Gauptāḥ) will rule the Earth.’ The Purāṇas in general employ the word medinî, mahî, prithivî, vasundharā or any other synonymous word for the Earth, when they mean an empire.¹ If we follow the order given in the Vishnu we almost follow the Allahabad inscription. Kosala-Odra-Paundra, Tāmralipti, and Samudraṭaṭa would correspond to the inscriptional Kosala and Mahā-Kāntāra on the one hand² (line 19) and Samataṭa on the other [in line 22]. It seems that a province was constituted by Samudra Gupta, the capital of which was at Champā and which extended from the south-east of Magadha, through Chota-Nagpur, the tributary states of Orissa and Chhattisgarh, right down to Bastar and the Chanda District. Both the Vāyu and the Brahmāṇḍa place Andhra next to Kosala. To the old Vākāṭaka province of Kosalā and Mekalā was added by Samudra Gupta Orissa and Bengal and the government thereof was controlled from Champā, from which the routes to Bengal and Kosala emanated and also the river-highway was available to go right down to Tāmralipti. Champā is qualified as ‘Devarakshitā’ which probably signifies that it was under Prince Deva (Deva was the pre-coronation name of Chandra Gupta II, J.B.O.R.S., XVIII, p. 37). Chandra Gupta II on the Mehrauli pillar is credited to have conquered the Vangas, which may mean that as the Viceroy of the East-South he had to wage a war. Samatata seems to have been annexed by Samudra Gupta soon after his expedition.

c16.s2.31

¹ This use is confirmed and made clear by Samudra Gupta's use of prithivî and dharaṇî for ‘All-India’ in his Allahabad inscription (line 24). It means ‘the Country’, ‘the whole Country’. In the present text of the Bhāgavata, however, [अनुगङ्गाप्रयागं गोप्ता भोक्ष्यन्ति मेदिनीम् ।] anu-Gaṅgā stands as if qualified by medinî. Probably the intention was to signify that the Guptas who were rulers originally of anu-Gaṅgā Prayāga, enjoyed the whole empire or enjoyed anu-Gaṅgā-Prayāga and the Empire.

c16.s2.32

² The Mahā-Bhārata locates the State of the Kāntārakas in the direction from Bhojakaṭa-pura [Berar]-to-E. Kosala, beyond the kingdom of the Veṇā valley [Waingaṅgā] and before ‘Eastern Kosala’ [Southern text: Prākoṭaka]—Sabhā, 31,13. Kāntāraka corresponds with Kanker and Bastar. The other Kosala [Southern Kosala] covered Chanda District.

c16.s2.33

126. The Province of Kalinga-Māhishika¹. Mahendra (or, -Mahendrabhūmi) was made into one unit, according to the Purāṇas. This corresponds with the inscriptional divisions in line 19. After Mahā Kāntāra, Kaurāla, which is ‘the Kaunāla water’ of Pulakeśin II, is the Kolleru lake to the south of Pithāpuram between the rivers Godāvarī and Krishnā². Pishtapura, Mahendragiri and Koṭṭūra are the hill-fortresses in Ganjam³. This corresponds roughly with what we now call the Eastern Ghats or the Northern Circars of the E. I. Company, i.e. the territory between the river Krishnā and the Mahānadī. Pishtapura was the capital of Kalinga, as noted in almost a contemporary inscription of ‘the Magadha dynasty’ ruling at Pishtapura and Simhapura⁴.

c16.s2.34

¹ One copy of the Vishnu, in place of Māhishika, gives ‘the banks of (the river) Mahā’ (Māheya-kachchha). This was probably ‘the valley of the Mahānadī.’

c16.s2.35

² E.I., Vol. VI, p. 3. ‘Kolanu’ in Telugu means a ‘lake’.

c16.s2.36

³ V. Smith, E.H.I., p. 300 [4th ed.].

c16.s2.37

⁴ E.I., Vol. IV, 142; Vol. XII, p. 4; Vol. IX, p. 56 and I.A., Vol. V, p. 176.

c16.s2.38

The ‘Magadha Dynasty’ of Kalinga. One of the earliest rulers of this Magadha dynasty was Śaktivarman and probably the next ones were Chandravarman and his son Vijayanandivarman. Vijayanandi-varman changed the dynastic name from ‘the Magadha family’ into ‘the Śālaṅkāyana dynasty’. This must have happened in or after Skanda Gupta’s time. We find a successor of Vijayanandi-varman Vijayadeva-varman) even performing a horse-sacrifice, i.e. declaring his full independence. It is almost certain that the later Vākāṭakas, when they conquered Kaliṅga, were asserting their rights as relations or successors of the Guptas, as well as their old right of overlordship over this part of the country, and their assertion must have been against the Śālaṅkāyanas. This ‘Magadha kula’ was evidently the ruling feudatory family set up by Samudra Gupta or his successor. They were Brahmins taken from Magadha. Their early kings issue their charters in Sanskrit. The name of the first ruler must have been Guha which the Vāyu and the Brahmāṇḍa give. Its form as Guhān or Guham, [given in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa] is a remnant of the original accusative which is here lost in the Vāyu and the Brahmāṇḍa. That a ruler over Kaliṅga with the name Guha (‘Guha Śiva’) was a feudatory under the Emperor of All-India and beyond (Jambudvīpa) ruling from Pāṭaliputra, who was Brahmanical in faith, is described in the legendary History of the Tooth Relic of Ceylon¹, which is believed to belong to the fourth century A.D. It seems to have its foundation in the fact of Guha’s governorship under Samudra Gupta.

c16.s2.39

¹ Dāṭhā-vaṃso, J.P.T.S., 1884, p. 109, verses 72-94 ff. “Guha-Śivāhvayo rājā” (72); “taththa rājā mahātejo Jambu-dīpasya issaro” (91); “tuhyaṃ sāmanta-bhūpālo Guha-Śīvo panādhunā, nindato tādise chhavatthiṃ vandate iti”. The complaint was made to the Emperor at Pāṭaliputra that his feudatory of Kaliṅga was worshipping a piece of ‘dead bone’, and reviling Brahmanical gods!

c16.s2.40

§ 126 A. The third unit of the Gupta Empire was the tract to the south of the Vindhyas, consisting of the Naiṣadha, Yaduka, Śaiśika and Kālatoyaka provinces. Śaiśika was next-door to Māhishmatī.² Taking Naiṣadha to be Berar, and Yaduka to be Devagiri (Daulatabad), we may fix this imperial province as being between the Bālāghāṭ range and the Sātpura, the valley of the Tāptī river. Kālatoyā is placed in the Mahā-Bhārata between the Ābhīras (Gujarat) and Aparānta.³ The ruler of this province, which was created at the cost of the Vākāṭaka Empire, was a Maṇidhānyaka, a son or a descendant of Maṇidhānya.¹ The province thus created was probably handed over to Pṛithivīsheṇa on conclusion of better relations, for Pṛithivīsheṇa must be ruling over this portion to be in direct contact with the king of Kuntala, whom he conquered.² We find in the reign of Chandra Gupta II the Vākāṭakas ruling in and from Berar.

c16.s2.41

² Wilson, Viṣṇu Purāṇa, Vol. II, pp. 166, 167.

c16.s2.42

³ Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 167, 168.

c16.s2.43

¹ Vāṭadhānya and Maṇidhānya were neighbours according to the Mahā-Bhārata—Wilson, V.P., Vol. II, p. 167. [Vāṭadhāna=Pāṭahāna=Pāṭhān.] ² E.I., Vol. IX, p. 269; A.S.W.R., Vol. IV, p. 125. ³ According to the Vishnu, bhokṣyati ‘will make others rule’ or ‘rule over’. ⁴ See Fleet, J.R.A.S., 1905, p. 293—‘Chola-Pāṇḍya-Kerala-dharaṇī-dhara-traya’. ⁵ Strīrājya and Kuntala are probably translations of Tamil words.

c16.s2.44

127. Then follows a unit in the South, the ruler of which is a man named K a n a k a, which like G u h a is a personal name and not that of a dynasty:

c16.s2.45

“Strīrāṣṭraṁ Bhojakāṁś chaiva bhokṣyate K a n a k ā h-vayaḥ” (V. and Br.).

c16.s2.46

‘The ruler of the name of K a n a k a will rule³ S t r i-r ā ṣ ṭ r a and the B h o j a k a s.’ The provinces here are more fully set out by the Vishnu:

c16.s2.47

“Strīrājya-Trairājya-Mūshika-janapadān Kanakāhvayaḥ bhokṣyati.”

c16.s2.48

M ū s h i k a is the country of the M ū s ī river which flows by Hyderabad to the south. Bhojaka seems to be a part of the Southern Maratha country. T r a i r ā j y a is the well-known group of the three traditional countries of the South.⁴ S t r ī r ā j y a which is always placed in the Purāṇas next to the Mūshika country and in association with Vanavāsa, I take to be identical with Karṇāṭa or Kuntala.⁵

c16.s2.49

128. Now, who could this great ruler be, who is the overlord of the three Tamil kingdoms at the time and who is causing his rule from the Mūshika country up to the Southern Konkan? Who is this man called Kanaka? The Pallavas are evidently superseded at this moment by this new dynast. This Kanaka, according to the Purāṇic description, is nearly the emperor of the South. The only ruling family to whom the description can refer was the newly founded Kadamba dynasty. Mayūraśarman, the Brahmin general of the Pallavas, had got a feudatory state from the Pallava Emperor [Pallavendra]. On the defeat of the Pallavas of Kāñchī, who were the leading power of the South, at the hand of Samudra Gupta, Mayūraśarman probably declared his independence. His son Kaṅga-varman seems to defied Samudra Gupta to be the Emperor of both the North and the South. The date of Kaṅga-varman is about 350 A.D.¹

c16.s2.50

¹ In the Kadamba Kula [pp. 13–18] dates are given on the assumption that Mayūraśarman began his rule as a result of Samudra Gupta’s southern conquests. But this is not correct. Mayūra, according to the Talagunda record, started his career as a political bandit and was given a fief by the ‘Pallava Emperor’ whose service he entered as a general and who anointed him as his Senāpati [paṭṭa-bandha-sampūjām, E.I., VIII. 32. Senāpatis received paṭṭabandha (‘pagree’-binding ceremony), according to the Rājā-Niti-mayūkha]. No aśvamedha by him is recorded in the Talagunda inscription of his great-grandson. It was probably in his last years that he assumed kingship. Cf. A.R.S.M., 1929, p. 50. His son Kaṅga was the first to assume the royal designation °varman. Mayūraśarman’s time should be regarded as 325-345 A.D. and that of his son Kaṅga, 345-360 A.D. This is confirmed by the date of Kākusthavarman on his plate which he issued as yuvarāja. It is dated in the 80th year. The Kadambas never founded any era of their own. We do not find there the era in which the 80th year is given, before or after any more. Prithiviṣeṇa conquered the king of Kuntala, i.e. the Kadamba king who could be no other than Kaṅga. Prithiviṣeṇa himself at the time was under Samudra Gupta, and Kākustha gave a daughter in marriage to the Guptas. The era used by the Yuvarāja Kākustha must be the Gupta era. In 400 A.D. [80 G.E.] Kākustha was the Yuvarāja to his elder brother Raghu. The time of his great-grandfather would thus be about 320-340 A.D. or 325-345 A.D.; that of Kaṅga who abdicated, about 340-355 or 345 to 360 A.D.; and of Kākustha, about 410-430 A.D. The dates proposed by Mr. Moraes in his Kadamba Kula for the Early Kadambas should go higher up by some 20 years.

c16.s2.51

See on Mayūraśarman’s newly discovered Chandravalli (Chitaldrug) lake inscription where he is registered merely as ‘Kadambāṇam’ (without any title) [A.S.R. Mysore, 1929, 50], and a corrected reading of the inscription, App. B (below). There is no ‘Mokari’, ‘Pāriyātrika’ or ‘Saka’ in the insc.

c16.s2.52

to the Talagunda inscription [E.I., 8, 35] Kaṅga performed ‘lofty great exploits in terrible wars and his diadem was shaken by the Chauris of his provincial feudatories’. Kaṅga was defeated by the Vākāṭaka king Pṛithivīsheṇa I and he abdicated.¹ Kanaka here seems to be a Sanskritisation of the Tamil Kaṅga. Another reading of the Purāṇic name, in the Viṣṇu, is Kāṇa.² It seems that on assumption of imperial power he was by Pṛithivīsheṇa, who was at that time a feudatory of Samudra Gupta, brought to book, and his abdication was evidently a consequence of his imperial ambition and failure.

c16.s2.53

¹ Kadamba Kula, p. 17.

c16.s2.54

² Wilson's Viṣṇu, Vol. IV, p. 221, note by Hall.

c16.s2.55

§ 129. The Purāṇas help us to fix the period of the rise of Kāṇa or Kanaka, i.e. Kaṅga. Let us see what is the exact point of time at which the Purāṇas are describing here the Guptas and their contemporaries. This is the last section of their chronicles. The Mālavas, the Ābhīras, the Āvantyas and the Śūras [=Yaudheyas]³ had not yet come under the imperial sway. They are mentioned as independent states by the Bhāgavata; the Vāyu and the Brahmāṇḍa do not give them in their list of Samudra Gupta's provinces. Nor do they include the Punjab. They assign, in Āryāvarta, only the valley of the Ganges, Oudh, and Bihar to the Guptas. With their definite date—100 years from Vindhyaśakti—the Purāṇas take 348-349 A. D. as the landmark for the close of their chronicles, that is, the date of the death of Rudradeva or Rudrasena Vākāṭaka as their exact point of time. The way the Purāṇas show fullness about the Nāga history, the Vākāṭaka Empire, and its successor, the Empire of Samudra Gupta [covering the same area of Kosalā, Mekalā, Andhra, Naishadha, etc.], indicates that this part of the chronicles closing with the death of King Rudrasena was composed in the Vākāṭaka kingdom and with the help of the Vākāṭaka royal records. The death of Rudrasena—348-349 A.D., being the date of the Purāṇic history of Gupta India, it naturally does not give a full picture of Samudra Gupta's empire, and it records the Śakas or Yaunas still ruling in Sindh the Western Punjab and Afghanistan. The date of the rise of Kaṅga therefore will also be c. 348-349 A.D.

c16.s2.56

³ See § 146 below.

c16.s2.57

130. Samudra Gupta after his first war in Āryāvarta was really going over the empire of the Vākāṭakas, commencing his campaign from Bihar via Chota Nagpur to Kosala, etc., the South-Eastern parts of the Vākāṭaka Empire and then back into Āryāvarta. At this moment it would be convenient to trace and follow the course of Samudra Gupta's conquests. We would, therefore, put off the discussion on the Republics and the Mlechchha State of Sindh, Kashmir and Afghanistan, and take up in the next chapter the wars of Samudra Gupta.

Linked texts (15)