The Indian Analyst

North Indian Inscriptions







List of Plates


Additions and Corrections



Political History


Social History

Religious History

Literary History

Gupta Era

Krita Era

Texts and Translations

The Gupta Inscriptions


Other South-Indian Inscriptions 

Volume 1

Volume 2

Volume 3

Vol. 4 - 8

Volume 9

Volume 10

Volume 11

Volume 12

Volume 13

Volume 14

Volume 15

Volume 16

Volume 17

Volume 18

Volume 19

Volume 20

Volume 22
Part 1

Volume 22
Part 2

Volume 23

Volume 24

Volume 26

Volume 27





Annual Reports 1935-1944

Annual Reports 1945- 1947

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 2, Part 2

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 7, Part 3

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 1

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 2

Epigraphica Indica

Epigraphia Indica Volume 3

Indica Volume 4

Epigraphia Indica Volume 6

Epigraphia Indica Volume 7

Epigraphia Indica Volume 8

Epigraphia Indica Volume 27

Epigraphia Indica Volume 29

Epigraphia Indica Volume 30

Epigraphia Indica Volume 31

Epigraphia Indica Volume 32

Paramaras Volume 7, Part 2

Śilāhāras Volume 6, Part 2

Vākāṭakas Volume 5

Early Gupta Inscriptions

Archaeological Links

Archaeological-Survey of India



father (No. 20 below). Another was Skandagupta known to us from many inscriptions and coins. Perhaps a third was Purugupta, known from the Bhitarī and Nālandā seals (Nos. 46 and 45 below). We, however, know the name of only one queen of his, namely, Anantadēvī, mother of Purugupta. Whether Skandagupta is identical with Purugupta is a point which we will discuss when we treat of the former. Among the officers of his reign we have to take note, in the first place, of Pṛithivīshēṇa, son of Śikharasvāmin who was Mantri-kumārāmātya to Chandragupta II. Pṛithivīshēṇa like his father was at first Mantri-Kumārāmātya but afterwards became Mahā-balādhikṛita and was so in Gupta year 117 when inscription No. 21 below was engraved. The Dāmōdarpur plates (Nos. 22 and 24 below) also speak of two or more of his officers. One was Chirātadatta who was the Uparika or Governor of the Puṇḍravardhana Province (bhukti) and the other was the Kumārāmātya Vētravarman who was put by the former in charge of the City Court of Kōṭivarsha.

Ghaṭōtkachagupta and Skandagupta-Purugupta

        Many scholars are of opinion that Kumāragupta began his reign peacefully and gloriously but that it ended in disaster. There is, however, no evidence in support of this conclusion, which is based on a wrong interpretation of certain passages in Skandagupta’s inscriptions. This point we will discuss shortly, but, in the meanwhile, let us see who actually succeeded Kumāragupta. The Tumain inscription of Kumāragupta (No, 20 below) speaks not only of this Gupta sovereign but also of one Ghoṭōtkachagupta who apparently was his son and governor of Airikiṇa (Ēraṇ) and gives Gupta year 116 as a date for both. In this connection we have also to take note of the fact that a clay seal of Ghaṭōtkachagupta (No. 27 below) was found at Basāḍh along with that of Gōvindagupata (No. 13 below). We have already seen that Gōvindagupta was the name of Kumāragupta before he became irresistible and invulnerable in his battles and was, for that reason, identified with god Kumāra and came thenceforth to be styled Kumāragupta after that divinity. We have also seen that Vaiśālī, the old capital of the Lichchhavis, was the seat of the Yuvarāja or Crown-Prince in the early Gupta period. That was the reason why the seal of Gōvindagupta (=Kumāragupta) was discovered at Basāḍh (=Vaiśālī). We can proceed one step further and say that as a seal of Ghaṭōtkachagupta also was found at Basāḍh, Ghaṭōtkachagupta seems similarly to have been raised to the dignity of the Yuvarāja soon after Gupta year 116 when he was Governor of Airikiṇa and was, for that reason, posted at Vaiśālī, the traditional seat of the Gupta Crown-Prince. The question that now arises is whether he ever became a king. Unfortunately, no inscription referring itself to his reign has yet come to light. Nevertheless, a coin of Ghaṭōtkachagupta from the St. Petersberg collection is well-known. It is true that on the ground of the style and weight Allan places it about the end of the fifth century A.D.1 Unfortunately, however, although he makes this remark in the Introduction of his classical work, the actual Catalogue of Coins does not specify the weight of the coin in question.2 And so far as we can see, the style does not differ essentially from that of Skandagupta’s coins, as may be seen from a comparison of Plate XXIV, 3 with Plate XIX. Besides, as the last date of Kumāragupta is Gupta year 136=454-55 A.D., which is not far removed from ‘about the end of the fifth century A.D.’, we cannot say that on numismatic grounds a difference of even fifteen years is discernible between coins of two almost contiguous members of the same royal family. That would be like an epigraphist detecting with a palaeographic microscope a similar tiny little space of time between two inscriptions. We may thus safely take it that Ghaṭōtkachagupta of the Tumain inscription, of the Basāḍh

1 Catalogue of the Coins of the Gupta Dynasty, Intro., p. liv.
2 Ibid., p. 149.