North Indian Inscriptions

SOCIAL HISTORY

       It is thus clear that from the second century A.D. onwards the ruling princes somehow began to affiliate themselves to the gōtras of their Purōhitas with the result that their descendants generally continued the same gōtra though they by no means discarded their original clan names. This is quite clear from the charters issued by the daughter of Chandragupta. As mentioned above more than once, though she is styled Dhāraṇa-sagōtrā, she calls herself (Pra- bhāvati-) Guptā. Which Gupta prince adopted apparently the Dhāraṇa gōtra of his Purōhita, it is now difficult to say. Similarly, it is equally difficult to determine which Vākāṭaka prince originally had or assumed the Brāhmaṇa gōtra of Vishṇuvṛiddha. Certainly it was there in the time of Rudrasēna II, husband of Prabhāvatiguptā. And it is not impossible that it was the gōtra of Vindhyaśakti who, according to an Ajaṇṭā cave inscription, was the founder of the Vākāṭaka dynasty and was himself a dvija, which, from the second century A.D. onwards, always denoted a Brāhmaṇa. This agrees with the fact that his son Pravarasēna I is described in the Vākāṭaka plates as having celebrated many sacrifices among which is mentioned not only Vājapēya but also Bṛihaspatisava. “Bṛihaspatisava is the name of a sacrifice by which, according to the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, the priest who desired to become a Purōhita obtained that office. According to the Āśvalāyana Śrautasūtra, it was the sacrifice to b performed by a priest after the Vājapēya, while the king performed the Rājasūya.”¹ It is true that “in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, the Bṛihaspatisava is identified with the Vājapēya; but such identify is clearly not primitive.” And, as a matter of fact, in the Vākāṭaka records Pravarasēna is represented as having performed not only Vājapēya but also Bṛihaspatisava. The two were of course considered as separate sacrifices when he actually celebrated them. It is thus evident that Pravarasēna must have been looked upon as a Brāhmaṇa when he performed them. Whether his descendants continued to be of Brāhmaṇa caste right up to the end or only up to the time of Rudrasēna II we do not know. But this much may be taken as certain that the family was of Brāhmaṇa origin and pertained to the Vishṇuvṛiddha gōtra. And further, it seems that when the marriage alliance took place, doubtless of anulōma character, between the Vākāṭakas and the Guptas, the latter, to raise themselves to a higher social dignity, assumed a Brāhmaṇa gōtra, Dhāraṇa, probably of their Purōhita.

>

Thus originated the practice of Kshatriya rulers adopting the Brāhmaṇa gōtra of their gurus which continued right down to the fourteenth century, as is clear from epigraphic records. Thus a Chāndpur inscription² dated Vikrama year 1207 speaks of one Udayapāla who belonged to the Mahā-Pratihāra family and the Vatsa-gōtra. The Mahaḍā plates of Sōmēśvaradēvavarman,³ Lord of Vaūdha (Baudh) describe him as pertaining not only to the solar race and the Kalikāla lineage but also to the Kāśyapa gōtra. Similarly, a satī stone inscription⁴ found at Pushkar records the death of a Ṭhākur of the Guhila lineage and the Gautama gōtra. Many more instances might be adduced, but they are unnecessary. What we have to note here is that the Guptas who had been known as Kshatriyas of a high status were by the time of Chandragupta II so much Brahmanised that they had to adopt a Brāhmaṇa gōtra, before probably they entered into a matrimonial alliance with a Brāhmaṇa family, namely, the Vākāṭakas whose gōtra was Vishṇuvṛiddha which pertained to the Bhāradvāja stock. As the custom was and is to avoid marriage in the same gōtra, the Guptas had to adopt Dhāraṇa gōtra which belonged to the Agasti stock.

       Now arises the fourth question, namely, how pratilōma marriages took place between the Ikshvākus and Śātavāhanas on the one hand and certain Brāhmaṇa families on the other, as detailed above ? There is one passage in a Nāgārjunikoṇḍa inscription which is worth consider-
_____________________

¹ Macdonell and Keith’s Vedic Index, Vol. II, p. 72.
² D. R. Bhandarkar, A List of the Inscriptions of Northern India, No. 277.
³ Ibid., No. 1758 ; Ep. Ind., Vol. XXVIII, pp. 283 ff.
⁴ D. R. Bhandarkar, A List of the Inscriptions of Northern India, No. 407.