Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c22.s6: Section VI. The Line of Krishna Gupta

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c22.s6

Language
English

Contents

Section VI. The Line of Krishna Gupta

c22.s6.1

The name of the Gupta emperor in the Dāmodarpur plate of A.D. 543-44 is unfortunately lost. The Aphsaḍ inscription, however, discloses the names of a number of "Gupta" kings,¹ the fourth of whom, Kumāra Gupta(III), was a contemporary of Īśānavarman Maukhari who is known from the Harāhā inscription to have been ruling in A.D. 554.² Kumāra Gupta III, and his three predecessors, *viz.*, Kṛishṇa, Harsha and Jīvita, should probably be placed in the period between A.D. 510, the date of Bhānu Gupta, and 554, the date of Īśānavarman. It is possible, but by no means certain, that one of these kings is identical with the Gupta emperor mentioned in the Dāmodarpur plate of A.D. 543-44.¹ The absence of high-sounding titles like *Mahārājādhirāja* or *Parama-bhaṭṭāraka* in the *Ślokas* or verses of the Aphsaḍ inscription does not necessarily prove that the kings mentioned there were petty chiefs. No such titles are attached to the name of Kumāra I in the Mandaśor inscription, or to the name of Budha in the Eraṇ inscription. On the other hand the queen of Mādhava Gupta, one of the least powerful kings mentioned in the Aphsaḍ inscription, is called *Parama-bhaṭṭārikā* and *Mahādevī* in the Dēo Baraṇārk epigraph.

c22.s6.2

¹ Although the rulers, the names of most of whom ended in-*gupta*, mentioned in the Aphsaḍ and connected contemporary epigraphs, who ruled over the provinces in the heart of the early Gupta empire, are called "Guptas" for the sake of convenience, their relationship with the early *Gupta-kula* or *Gupta-vaṁśa* is not known. It is, however, to be noted that some of them (*e.g.*, Kumāra Gupta and Deva Gupta), bore names that are found in the earlier family, and Kṛishṇa Gupta, the founder of the line, has been identified by some with Govinda Gupta, son of Chandra Gupta II. But the last suggestion is hardly acceptable, because Govinda must have flourished more than half a century before Kṛishṇa Gupta. And it is surprising that the panegyrists of Kṛishṇa Gupta's descendants should have omitted all references to the early Guptas if their patrons could really lay claim to such an illustrious ancestry. In the Aphsaḍ inscription the dynasty is described simply as *Sad-vaṁśa* 'of good lineage'. The designation *Gupta*, albeit not "Early Imperial Gupta," is possibly justified by the evidence of Bāṇa. The Guptas and the Gupta *Kulaputra* mentioned in Bāṇa's *Kādambarī* and *Harsha-charita* may refer to the family of Kṛishṇa, if not to some hitherto unknown descendants of the early imperial line. One of the princes of the early Gupta line, Ghaṭotkacha Gupta of the Tumain inscription is known to have ruled over Eastern Mālwa and it is not impossible that Kṛishṇa Gupta was, in some way, connected with him. We must, however, await future discoveries to clear up the point.

c22.s6.3

² H. Sāstrī., *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, pp. 110 ff.

c22.s6.4

¹ Mr. Y. R. Gupte (*Ind. Hist. Journal*) reads the name of Kumāra in the inscription of A. D. 543-44, but he identifies him with the son of Narasiṁha Gupta. The ruler whose name is missing may represent one or other of the "Gupta" lines already known to scholars or some new line. *Cf.* the cases of Vainya Gupta and the princes mentioned on pp. 214-15 of *Ep. Ind.*, xx, Appendix.

c22.s6.5

Regarding **Kṛishṇa Gupta** we know very little. The Aphsaḍ inscription describes him as a hero whose arm played the part of a lion, in bruising the foreheads of the array of the rutting elephants of (his) haughty enemy (*dṛiptārāti*), (and) in being victorious by (its) prowess over countless foes. The *dṛiptārāti* against whom he had to fight may have been Yaśodharman. The next king **Deva Śrī Harsha Gupta** had to engage in terrible contests with those who were "averse to the abode of the goddess of fortune being with (him, her) own lord." There were wounds from many weapons on his chest. The name of the enemies, who tried to deprive him of his rightful possessions, are not given. Harsha's son **Jīvita Gupta I** probably succeeded in re-establishing the power of his family in the territory lying between the Himālayas and the sea, apparently in Eastern India. "The very terrible scorching fever (of fear) left not (his) haughty foes, even though they stood on seaside shores that were cool with the flowing and ebbing currents of water, (and) were covered with the branches of plantain trees severed by the trunks of elephants roaming through the lofty groves of palmyra palms; (or) even though they stood on (that) mountain (Himālaya) which is cold with the water of the rushing and waving torrents full of snow." The "haughty foes" on seaside shores were probably the Gauḍas who had already launched into a career of conquest about this time and who are described as living on the sea shore (*samudr-āśraya*) in the Harāhā inscription of A. D. 554.¹ The other enemies may have included ambitious *Kumārāmātyas* like Nandana of the Amauna plate.

c22.s6.6

¹ Ep. Ind., XIV, p. 110 *et seq.*

c22.s6.7

The next king, **Kumāra Gupta III**, had to encounter a sea of troubles. The Gauḍas were issuing from their "proper realm" which was in Western Bengal as it bordered on the sea and included Karṇasuvarṇa² and Rāḍhāpuri.³ The lord of the Andhras who had thousands of three-fold rutting elephants, and the Sūlikas who had an army of countless galloping horses, were powers to be reckoned with. The Andhra king was probably Mādhava-varman (I, Janāśraya) of the Polamuru plates belonging to the Vishṇukuṇḍin family who "crossed the river Godāvari with the desire to conquer the eastern region"⁴ and performed eleven horse-sacrifices. The Sūlikas were probably the Chalukyas.⁵ In the Mahākūṭa pillar inscription the name appears as Chalikya. In the Gujarāt records we find the forms Solaki and Solaṅki. Sūlika may have been another dialectic variant. The Mahākūṭa pillar inscription tells us that in the sixth century A.D., Kīrtivarman I of the "Chalikya" dynasty gained victories over the kings of Vaṅga, Aṅga, Magadha, etc. His father is known to have performed the *Aśvamedha* sacrifice, "the super-eminent touch-stone to test the might of warriors conquering the world and an indication of the conquest of all the warriors." Prince Kīrtivarman may have been entrusted with the guardianship of the sacrificial steed that had to roam about for a year in the territories of the rulers to whom a challenge was thrown by the performer of the sacrifice.

c22.s6.8

² M. Chakravarti, JASB, 1908, p. 274.

c22.s6.9

³ *Prabodha-chandrodaya*, Act II.

c22.s6.10

⁴ Dubreuil, AHD, p. 92 and D. C. Sircar, IHQ, 1933, 276 ff.

c22.s6.11

⁵ In the *Bṛihat-Saṁhitā*, IX. 15; XIV. 8, the Sūlikas and Saulikas are associated with Aparānta (N. Koṅkaṇ), Vanavāsi (Kanara) and Vidarbha (Berar). In *Bṛih. Saṁ.*, IX. 21, X. 7, XVI. 35, however, they are associated with Gandhāra and Vokkāṇa (Wakhan). A branch of the people may have dwelt in the north-west. In *JRAS*, 1912, 128, we have a reference to Kulastambha of the Sulki family. Tāranātha (*Ind. Ant.*, IV, 364) places the kingdom of "Sulik" beyond "Togara" (Ter in the Deccan?).

c22.s6.12

A new power was rising in the Upper Ganges Valley which was destined to engage in a death grapple with the Guptas for the mastery of Northern India. This was the Mukhara or **Maukhari**¹ power. The Maukharis claimed descent from the hundred sons whom king Aśvapati got from Vaivasvata, *i.e.*, Yama² (not Manu). The family consisted of several distinct groups. The stone inscriptions of one group have been discovered in the Jaunpur and Bārā Bankī districts of the Uttara Pradeśa, while lithic records of another group have been discovered in the Gayā district of Bihār. A third family has left inscription at Baḍvā in the Kotah state in Rājputāna. The Maukharis of Gayā, namely, Yajñavarman, Sārdūlavarman and Anantavarman were a feudatory family. Śārdūla is expressly called *sāmanta chūḍāmaṇi*, ‘crest-jewel of vassal chiefs’ in the Barābar Hill Cave Inscription of his son.¹ The Baḍvā Maukharis held the office of general or military governor under some Prince of Western India in the third century A. D. The Maukharis of the Uttara Pradeśa² probably also held a subordinate rank at first. The earliest princes of this family, viz., Harivarman. Ādityavarman, and Īśvaravarman, were simply *Mahārājas*, Ādityavarman’s wife was Harsha Guptā, probably a sister of king Harsha Gupta. The wife of his son and successor Īśvaravarman was also probably a Gupta princess named Upa-Guptā. In the Harāhā inscription **Īśānavarman**, son of Īśvaravarman and Upa-Guptā,³ claims victories over the **Andhras**,⁴ the **Śūlikas** and the **Gauḍas** and is the first to assume the Imperial title of *Mahārājādhirāja*. It was this which probably brought him into conflict with king Kumāra Gupta III.¹ Thus began a duel between the Maukharis and the Guptas which ended only when the latter with the help of the Gauḍas wiped out the Maukhari power in the time of Grahavarman, brother-in-law of Harshavardhana.²

c22.s6.13

¹ The family was called both Mukhara and Maukhari. "*Soma-Sūrya vaṁśā-viva Pushpabhūti* (sic) *Mukhara Vaṁśau*", "*sakalabhuvana namaskṛito Maukhari vaṁśaḥ*." (*Harsha-charita*, Parab's ed., pp. 141, 146). *Cf.* also CII, p. 229.

c22.s6.14

² Mbh., III. 296. 38 ff. The reference is undoubtedly to the hundred sons that Aśvapati obtained as a boon from Yama on the intercession of his daughter Sāvitrī. It is surprising that some writers still identify the Vaivasvata of the Maukhari record with Manu.

c22.s6.15

¹ CII, p. 223. The connection of the Maukharis with Gayā is very old. This is proved by the clay seal with the inscription *Mokhalisa*, or *Mokhalinam* (Fleet, CII, 14), to which attention has already been drawn above. A reference to the *Mokaris* seems also to occur in the Chandravalli Stone Inscription of the Kadamba king Mayūraśarman (*Arch. Survey of Mysore*, A. R. 1929, pp. 50 ff). Dr. Tripathi finds a possible reference in the *Mahābhāshya* (JBORS, 1934, March). For the Baḍvā ins., see *Ep. Ind.*, XXIII, 42 ff. (Altekar).

c22.s6.16

² In literature the Maukhari line of U. P. is associated with the city of Kanauj which may have been the capital at one time. *Cf.* C. V. Vaidya, *Mediaeval Hindu India*, I, pp. 9, 33; Aravamuthan, *the Kaveri, the Maukharis and the Samgam Age*, p. 101. Hiuen Tsang, however, declares Kanauj to have been included within the realm of the House of Pushyabhūti even before Harsha. A Gupta noble was in possession of Kuśasthala (Kanauj) for some time after the death of Rājyavardhana and before the rise of Harsha. (*Harsha-Charita*, Parab's ed., pp. 226, 249).

c22.s6.17

³ Fleet, CII. 220.

c22.s6.18

⁴ The victory over the Andhras is also alluded to in the Jaunpur stone inscription (CII, p. 230) which, according to Fleet, also seems to refer to a conflict with Dhārā, the capital of Western Mālava (?). Dr. Basāk thinks that *Dhārā* in this passage refers to the edge of the sword (*Hist. N. E. Ind.*, 109).

c22.s6.19

¹ Any one acquainted with the history of Europe knows that enumeration as I, II, III etc. need not imply that the kings in question belonged to the same dynasty.

c22.s6.20

² The successors of Grahavarman may have survived as petty nobles. With them a "Later Gupta" king contracted a matrimonial alliance in the seventh century A. D.

c22.s6.21

We have seen that Īśānavarman's mother and grand-mother were probably Gupta princesses. The mother of Prabhākaravardhana, the other empire-builder of the second half of the sixth century, appears also to have been a Gupta princess. It seems that the Gupta marriages in this period were as efficacious in stimulating imperial ambition³ as the Lichchhavi marriages of more ancient times.

c22.s6.22

³ *Cf.* Hoernle, JRAS, 1903, p. 557.

c22.s6.23

Kumāra Gupta III claims to have "churned that formidable milk-ocean, the cause of the attainment of fortune, which was the army of the glorious Īśānavarman, a very moon among kings."⁴ This is not an empty boast, for the Maukhari records do not claim any victory over the Guptas. Kumār Gupta III's funeral rites took place at Prayāga which probably formed a part of his dominions.

c22.s6.24

⁴ Aphsaḍ Ins.

c22.s6.25

The son and successor of this king was **Dāmodara Gupta**. He continued the struggle with the Maukharis⁵ and fell fighting against them. "Breaking up the proudly stepping array of mighty elephants, belonging to the Maukhari, which had thrown aloft in battle the troops of the Hūṇas (in order to trample them to death), he became unconscious (and expired¹ in the fight)."

c22.s6.26

⁵ The Maukhari opponent of Dāmodara Gupta was either Sūryavarman or Sarvavarman (both being sons of Iśānavarman), if not Iśānavarman himself. A Sūryavarman is described in the Sirpur stone inscription of Mahāśiva Gupta as "born *in the unblemished family of the Varmans*, great on account of their ādhipatya (supremacy) over Magadha." If this Sūryavarman be identical with, or a descendant of, Sūryavarman, the son of Īśānavarman, then it is certain that for a time the supremacy of Magadha passed from the hands of the Guptas to that of the Maukharis. The Deo-Baraṇārk Inscription (Shāhābad District) of Jīvita Gupta II also suggests (CII, pp. 216-218) that the Maukharis Śarvavarman and Avantivarman held a considerable part of Magadha some time after Bālāditya-deva. After the loss of Magadha the later Guptas were apparently confined to "Mālava," till Mahāsena Gupta once more pushed his conquests as far as the Lauhitya.

c22.s6.27

¹ Reference to *Mahābhārata* XII. 98. 46-47; *Raghuvaṁśa*, VII. 53; *Kāvyādarśa*, II, 119; *Rājātaraṅgiṇī*, I. 68, shows that the objections raised against the interpretation of Fleet are invalid. The significance of the touch of Surabadhūs as distinct from a human being, is entirely missed by a writer in Bhand. Com. Vol. 181, and a reviewer of Dr. Tripathi's *History of Ancient India*.

c22.s6.28

Dāmodara Gupta was succeeded by his son **Mahāsena Gupta**. He is probably the king of Mālava, possibly Eastern Mālwa, mentioned in the *Harsha-charita*, whose sons Kumāra Gupta and Mādhava Gupta were appointed to wait upon Rājya-vardhana and Harsha-vardhana by their father, king Prabhākara-vardhana of the Pushyabhūti family of Śrīkaṇṭha (Thānesar). The intimate relation between the family of Mahāsena Gupta and that of Prabhākara-vardhana is proved by the Madhuban grant and the Sonpat copper seal inscription of Harsha which represent Mahāsena Guptā Devī as the mother of Prabhākara, and the Aphsaḍ inscription of Ādityasena which alludes to the association of Mādhava Gupta, son of Mahāsena Gupta, with Harsha.

c22.s6.29

The Pushyabhūti alliance of Mahāsena Gupta was probably due to his fear of the rising power of the Maukharis.² The policy was eminently successful, and during his reign we do not hear of any struggle with that family. But a new danger threatened from the east. A strong monarchy was at this time established in Kāmarūpa by a line of princes who claimed descent from Bhagadatta. King Susthitavarman¹ of this family came into conflict with Mahāsena Gupta and was defeated. "The mighty fame of Mahāsena Gupta," says the Aphsaḍ inscription, "marked with honour of victory in war over the illustrious Susthitavarman......is still constantly sung on the banks of the river Lohitya."

c22.s6.30

² And perhaps of other aggressive states mentioned in the beginning of the fourth *Uchchhvāsa* of the *Harsha-charita*. The Lāṭas of that passage may have reference to the Kaṭachchuris who finally ousted the Guptas from Vidiśā in or about A. D. 608. The Kaṭachchuri (Kalachuri) dominions included the Lāṭa country in the latter part of the sixth and the first decade of the seventh century A.D. (Dubreuil, A.H.D., 82).

c22.s6.31

¹ See the Nidhanapur plates. A writer in the JRAS (1928) revives the theory that Susthitavarman was a Maukhari and not a king of Kāmarūpa. But no Maukhari king of that name is known. The association of Susthitavarman with the river Lohitya or Brahmaputra clearly shows that the king of that name mentioned in the Nidhanapur plates is meant.

c22.s6.32

Between Mahāsena Gupta, the contemporary of Prabhākara-vardhana, and his younger or youngest son Mādhava Gupta, the contemporary of Harsha, we have to place a king named **Deva Gupta II**² who is mentioned by name in the Madhuban and Banskhera inscriptions of Harsha as the most prominent among the kings "who resembled wicked horses," who were all punished and restrained in their evil career by Rājya-vardhana. As the Gupta princes are uniformly connected with Mālava in the *Harsha-charita* there can be no doubt that the wicked Deva Gupta is identical with the wicked lord of Mālava who cut off Grahavarman Maukhari, and who was himself defeated "with ridiculous ease" by Rājya-vardhana.³ It is difficult to determine the position of Deva Gupta in the dynastic list of the Guptas. He may have been the eldest son of Mahāsena Gupta, and an elder brother of Kumāra Gupta and Mādhava Gupta.¹ His name is omitted in the Aphsaḍ list of kings, just as the name of Skanda Gupta is omitted in the Bhitarī list.

c22.s6.33

² The Emperor Chandra Gupta II was Deva Gupta I.

c22.s6.34

³ It is difficult to believe, as does one writer, that the Mālava antagonist of Grahavarman and Rājya-vardhana was Buddharāja of the Kalachuri (Kaṭachchuri) family. Had that been the case then it is rather surprising that a shadowy figure like Devagupta, and not Buddha-rāja, would be specially selected in the epigraphic records of the time of Harsha, for prominent notice among "the kings who resembled wicked horses," who received punishment at the hands of Rājyavardhana. It is the 'Guptas' who are associated with Mālava in the *Harsha-* *charita* which deals mainly with events till the rescue of Rājyaśrī. The rulers mentioned in connection with the tragic fate of the last of the Maukharis, the vicissitudes through which Rājyaśrī passed, and the struggles in which Rājya vardhana engaged, include Guptas and Gauḍas but no Kaṭachchuri king.

c22.s6.35

¹ Hoernle, JRAS, 1903, p. 562. The suggestion, however, cannot be regarded as a well-established fact. Devagupta may have represented a collateral line of the Mālava family who continued to pursue a policy hostile to the Pushyabhūtis and the Maukharis, while Kumāra, Mādhava, the Gupta Kulaputra who connived at the escape of Rājyaśrī from Kuśasthala (Kanauj), and Ādityasena, son of Mādhava, who gave his daughter in marriage to a Maukhari, may have belonged to a friendly branch.

c22.s6.36

Shortly before his death, king Prabhākara-vardhana had given his daughter Rājyaśrī in marrige to Grahavarman, the eldest son of the Maukhari king Avantivarman. The alliance of the Pushyabhūtis with the sworn enemies of his family must have alienated Deva Gupta, who formed a counter-alliance with the Gauḍas whose hostility towards the Maukharis dated from the reign of Īśānavarman. As soon as Prabhākara died the Gupta king and the Gauḍa king, Śaśāṅka,² seem to have made a joint attack on the Maukhari kingdom. "Graha-varman was by the wicked *rājā* of Mālava cut off from the living along with his noble deeds. Rājyaśrī also, the princess, was confined like a brigand's wife with a pair of iron fetters kissing her feet and cast into prison at Kanyākubja.” “The villain, deeming the army leaderless purposes to invade and seize this country (Thanesar) as well.” Rājya-vardhana, though he routed the Mālava army “with ridiculous ease,” was “allured to confidence by false civilities on the part of the overlord of Gauḍa, and then weaponless, confiding and alone despatched in his own quarters.”

c22.s6.37

² There is no reason to believe that Śaśāṅka belonged to the Gupta family (*pace* Allan, *Gupta Coins*, *lxiv*). Even if it be proved that he had a secondary name, Narendra Gupta, that by itself cannot establish a connection with the Gupta line in view of (*a*) the absence of any reference to his supposed Gupta ancestry in his own seal matrix ins. or in the record of his feudatories, (*b*) the use of the Nandidhvaja to the exclusion of the Garuḍadhvaja, (*c*) his Gauḍa connection. The epithet '*Samudrāśraya*' applied to the Gauḍas of the sixth century A. D., can hardly be regarded as an apposite characterisation of the Guptas of Magadha, Prayāga or Mālwa.

c22.s6.38

To meet the formidable league between the Guptas and the Gauḍas, Harsha, the successor of Rājya-vardhana, concluded an alliance with Bhāskara-varman, king of Kāmarūpa, whose father Susthita-varman Mṛigāṅka had fought against Mahāsena Gupta. This alliance was disastrous for the Gauḍas as we know from the Nidhanapur plates of Bhāskara. At the time of the issuing of the plates Bhāskara-varman was in possession of the city of Karṇasuvarṇa that had once been the capital of the Gauḍa king, Śaśāṅka, whose death took place some time between A.D 619 and 637. The king overthrown by Bhāskara-varman may have been Jayanāga (*nāgarāja-samāhvayo Gauḍarāja*, the king of Gauḍa named Nāga, successor of *Somākhya* or Śaśāṅka), whose name is disclosed by the Vappaghoshavāṭa inscription.² The Gauḍa people, however, did not tamely acquiesce in the loss of their independence. They became a thorn in the side of Kanauj and Kāmarūpa, and their hostility towards those two powers was inherited by the Pāla and Sēna successors of Śaśāṅka.

c22.s6.39

² *Ep. Ind.*, XVIII, pp. 60 ff; *Ārya-Mañjuśrī-mūla-kalpa*, ed. G. Śāstrī, p. 636. The name Jaya is also given in the Buddhist work.

c22.s6.40

In or about A.D. 608 the Guptas seem to have lost Vidiśā to the Kaṭachchuris. Magadha was held a little before A.D. 637 by Pūrṇavarman. **Mādhava Gupta**, the younger or youngest son of Mahāsena Gupta, remained a subordinate ally of Harsha of Thanesar and Kanauj and apparently resided at his court. In the period 618-27, Harsha "punished the kings of four parts of India" and in 641 assumed the title of King of Magadha.¹ After his death the Gupta sovereignty in Magadha was revived by **Ādityasena**, a prince of remarkable vigour and ability, who found his opportunity in the commotion which followed the usurpation of Harsha's throne by Arjuna (?). For this "Later Gupta" king we have a number of inscriptions which prove that he ruled over a wide territory extending to the shores of the oceans. The Aphsaḍ, Shāhpur and Mandāra inscriptions recognise his undisputed possession of south and part of east Bihār. A Deoghar inscription, noticed by Fleet,² describes him as the ruler of the whole earth up to the shores of the seas, and the performer of the *Aśvamedha* and the other great sacrifices. He renewed contact with the Gauḍas as well as the Maukharis and received a Gauḍa named Sūkshamśiva in his service. A Maukhari chief, Bhogavarman, accepted the hands of his daughter³ and presumably became his subordinate ally. The Dēo-Baraṇārk inscription refers to the *Jayaskandhāvāra* of his great-grandson Jīvita Gupta II at *Gomatīkoṭṭaka*. This clearly suggests that the so-called Later Guptas, and not the Maukharis, dominated about this time the Gomatī valley in the *Madhya-deśa*. The Mandāra inscription applies to Ādityasena the imperial titles of *Parama-bhaṭṭāraka* and *Mahārājādhirāja*. We learn from the Shāhpur stone image inscription that he was ruling in the year A.D. 672-73. It is not improbable that he or his son Deva Gupta (III) is the *Sakalottarā-patha-nātha*, lord of the whole of North India, who was defeated by the Chalukya kings Vinayāditya (A.D. 680-96) and Vijayāditya.¹

c22.s6.41

¹ *Harsha-charita*, Uchchhvāsa 6, p. 183.

c22.s6.42

¹ *Ind. Ant.*, IX. 19.

c22.s6.43

² *CII*, p. 213 n. Āditya is said to have performed three *Aśvamedha* sacrifices.

c22.s6.44

³ Kielhorn, INI, 541.

c22.s6.45

¹ *Bomb. Gaz.* Vol. I, Part II, pp. 189, 368, 371; and Kendor plates.

c22.s6.46

We learn from the Dēo-Baraṇārk inscription that Ādityasena was succeeded by his son **Deva Gupta (III)**, who in his turn was succeeded by his son **Vishṇu Gupta (II)**.² The last king was **Jīvita Gupta II**, son of Vishṇu. All these kings continued to assume imperial titles. That these were not empty forms appears from the records of the Western Chalukyas of Vātāpi which testify to the existence of a Pan-North Indian empire in the last quarter of the seventh century A. D. The only North Indian sovereigns, *Uttarāpatha-nātha*, who laid claim to the imperial dignity during this period, and actually dominated Magadha and the *Madhya deśa* as is proved by the Aphsaḍ and Dēo-Baraṇārk inscriptions, were Ādityasena and his successors.³

c22.s6.47

² This king seems also to be mentioned in an inscription discovered at Mangraon in the Buxar subdivision.

c22.s6.48

³ For a curious reference to the Chalukyas and king Jih-kwan ('Sun army' *i e.* Ādityasena), see IA, X, p. 110.

c22.s6.49

The Gupta empire was probably finally destroyed by the Gauḍas who could never forgive Mādhava Gupta's desertion of their cause and who may have grown powerful in the service of Ādityasena. In the time of Yaśovarman of Kanauj, *i.e.*, in the first half of the eighth century A. D., a Gauḍa king occupied the throne of Magadha.⁴

c22.s6.50

⁴ *Cf.* the *Gauḍavaho* by Vākpatirāja. Banerji confounds the Gauḍas with the later Guptas. In the Harāhā Inscription the Gauḍas are associated with the sea-coast, *Samudrāśraya*, while the later Guptas, as is well-known, had their centres in the hinterland including Magadha and Mālwa. The people on the seashore were, according to the evidence of the Aphsaḍ Inscription, hostile to Jīvita Gupta I. The *Praśastikāra* of the Aphsaḍ record is expressly mentioned as a Gauḍa, a designation that is never applied to his patrons. The family of Kṛishṇa Gupta is simply characterised as *Sadvamśa* and there is not the slightest hint that the kings of the line and their panegyrist belonged to the same nationality. The fact that Gauḍa is the designation of the lord of Magadha in the days of Yaśovarman early in the eighth century cannot be taken to prove that Gauḍa and later Gupta are interchangeable terms. In this period lordship of Magadha is not inseparably connected only with later Gupta lineage. *Cf.* the passage *Magadhādhipatyamahatām jāta kule varmaṇām*, which proves the xistence of non-Gupta lines among rulers of Magadha in this age.

c22.s6.51

Petty Gupta Princes, apparently connected with the imperial line, ruled in the Kanarese districts during the twelfth and the thirteenth centuries A.D. and are frequently mentioned in inscriptions. Evidence of an earlier connection of the Guptas with the Kanarese country is furnished by the Tālagund inscription which says that Kākustha-varman of the Kadamba dynasty gave his daughters in marriage to the Gupta and other kings. In the fifth or sixth century A. D. the Vākāṭaka king Narendrasena, a descendant of Chandra Gupta II Vikramāditya through his daughter Prabhāvatī Guptā, is said to have married a princess of Kuntala, *i.e.*, of the Kanarese region.¹ Curiously enough, the Gutta or Gupta chiefs of the Kanarese country claimed descent from Chandra Gupta Vikramāditya,² lord of Ujjayinī.³

c22.s6.52

¹ Jouveau-Dubreuil, AHD, p. 76.

c22.s6.53

² *Bomb. Gaz.*, Vol. I, Part II, pp. 578-80. Sir R. G. Bhandarkar, "*A Peep into the Early History of India*," p. 60 I owe this reference to Dr. Bhandarkar.

c22.s6.54

³ The account of the Later Guptas was first published in the JASB, 1920, No. 7.

c22.s6.55

¹ A. Ghosh, *Two Maukhari seals from Nalanda*, Ep. xxiv, 285. We have reference to another son of Avantivarman named Suva or Such . . . . . who seems to have succeeded his father. Grahavarman too, has royal epithets in the *Harsha-charita* (pp. 149, 183). The order of succession is not, however, clear from available evidence.

The Latest Guptas

Linked texts (13)