|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
THE GUPTA SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION sense of ‘an individual’ is found in several Pāli texts.1 This sense is not at all unsuitable. But it is worthy of note that Sanskrit lexicons attach the meaning of “the head of a guild or corporation” also to the word kula.2 This is perhaps the best and most correct explanation of Pañchakula or Ashṭakula. These bodies thus comprise the chiefs of five or eight corporations or classes of a town or village. The Ashṭakula thus consists of headmen of the village guilds of artisanship who later on degenerated into the principal castes of the village community. SOCIAL HISTORY We have pointed out above that Gupta as a family name was known long before 318-19 A.D. when the Imperial Gupta dynasty began to rise to power. Among the instances quoted from inscriptions was one found at Bhārhut of the Śuṅga regime which records the erection of a tōraṇa or gateway by Dhanabhūti, son of Aṅgāradyut and grandson of Viśvadēva. Viśvadēva is here styled a rājan ‘king.’ It is thus evident that Dhanabhūti who erected the tōraṇa belonged to a ruling family. What we have further to notice is that the names of the three princes are coupled with metronymics and that whereas Viśvadēva and Dhanabhūti have been styled Gārgīputra and Vātsīputra respectively, Aṅgāradyut is called Gōtīputra (=Gauptīputra). What this means is that the mothers of the two former belonged to Brāhmaṇa gōtras but the mother of the latter pertained to the Kshatriya clan, Gupta. That Gupta was a clan of nobility even after the Śuṅga period may be seen from a Kārle cave inscription of the second century A.D. which speaks of a Mahāraṭhi, Agni-mitraṇaka, as being Gōtīputra (=Gauptīputra).3 That Mahāraṭhi denoted the rank of a feaudatory chieftain is too well-known to require substantiation. It is thus strange that up till the second century A.D. the Guptas did not adopt any Brāhmaṇa gōtra. Things, however, appear to have changed soon, because when the Guptas became an Imperial power, they did adopt a Brāhmaṇa gōtra. This is clear from the copper-plate charters of Prabhāvatiguptā, daughter of Chandragupta II. There she styles herself Dhāraṇa-sagōtrā, “belonging to the Dhāraṇa gōtra.” She was married to Rudradēna of the family of the Vākāṭakas, whose gōtra, as we know from their grants, was Vishṇuvṛiddha. According to Kātyāyana-Laugākshi and Āśvalāyana,4 Vishṇuvṛiddha pertained to the Bharadvāja gōtra. But instead of Dhāraṇa we find Dhāriṇi mentioned by Laugākshi-Kātyāyana5 and as belonging to the Agasti gōtra. Dhāriṇi must be a mislection fro Dhāraṇa, which reading is clearly established by the grants of Prabhāvatiguptā, and, as a matter of fact, the gōtra lists enumerated in the Śrautasūtras are full of such misreadings. We may thus take it that as the Guptas and the Vākāṭakas are thus called Dhāraṇa and Vishṇuvṛiddha, they were considered as having belonged to the Agasti and Bharadvāja gōtras respectively. Though the Guptas and the Vākāṭakas had adopted the Brāhmaṇa gōtras, the female
members of the ruling families seem to have retained their Kshatriya clan names. It is true
that the two charters issued by Prabhāvatiguptā call her Dhāraṇa—sagōtrā. Nevertheless, she
has not ceased calling herself Guptā, as the ending affix of her name clearly shows. That this
Guptā is not a component of her proper name is clear from the name of her mother, Kubēra-Nāgā, which is also mentioned in both her grants. Here, too, the ending Nāgā must be taken
as the feminine form of the clan name Nāga just as Guptā is of Gupta. And, as if to leave no
1 See Mahābodhivaṁsa, ed. Strong, p. 154, Kambodian Mahāvaṁsa, chapter 19, verses 1-3; Mahāvaṁsa, ed.
Geiger, pp. 148 and 155; especially Mahāvaṁsa Translation by Gieger, p. 128, note 1. Our attention to these texts
was kindly drawn by C. D. Chatterji.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|