The Indian Analyst
 

North Indian Inscriptions

 

 

Contents

Introduction

Contents

Preface

List of Plates

Abbreviations

Additions and Corrections

Images

Introduction

Political History

Administration

Social History

Religious History

Literary History

Gupta Era

Krita Era

Texts and Translations

The Gupta Inscriptions

Index

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

Tiruvarur

Darasuram

Konerirajapuram

Tanjavur

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

Epigraphia
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

Pudukkottai

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS

ment he quotes the authority of Hiuen Tsiang. But the Chinese traveller does not say that Kusumapura was another name of Kanyākubja in his time but rather in some pre-historic period.1 Many instances of old towns bearing many names in pre-historic times are known, especially from the Pāli Buddhist Jātakas. Thus Bārāṇasī, we are told, was called Surundhana in the Udaya Birth, Sudassana in the Chullasutasōma, Brahmavaddhana in the Soṇandana, Pupphavatī in the Khaṇḍahala, and Ramma City in the Yuvañjaya Birth.2 This does not mean at all that Bārāṇasī was known by all these names in historic times. We may, therefore, take it that Kanyākubja was never known as Kusumapura in any historic period and that Kusumapura or its synonym Pushpapura was another name of Pāṭaliputra alone, so far as we know. The mention of Pushpa in the Allahābād pillar inscription thus points to the natural inference that Pāṭaliputra was the capital of Imperial Guptas. Up till 1888 when Fleet brought out his volume of Gupta Inscriptions, it was no doubt true that all the records of this dynasty, not excluding those of the time of Skandagupta, were found far of the west of Pāṭaliputra, giving rise to the presumption that their capital was somewhere in the neighbourhood of Allahābād or Kauśāmbī where the inscription-pillar originally stood. But, since then many copper-plate inscriptions of the time of Kumāragupta I and Budhagupta have been found which have been discovered equally far to the east of Pāṭaliputra in such distant districts of Bengal as Rajshahi and Dinajpur. So, the argument based on the find-spots of the Gupta epigraphs and urged against Pāṭaliputra being the capital of the Gupta empire has no grounds to stand upon. And, as a matter of fact, there are two inscriptions of Chandragupta II where Pāṭaliputra is mentioned, as pointed out by Fleet himself. One of these is the Gaḍhwā inscription of Gupta Year 88 (No. 8 below). It is true that this is a highly fragmentary record, and, consequently, although line 12 contains the name Pāṭaliputra, nothing has been preserved there which could have thrown light on this point. Such is not, however, the case with the other record, namely, the Udayagiri cave inscription (No. 11 below), which introduces to us Vīrasēna Śāba, Minister for Peace and War. He had come thither, we are told, along with his lord and master, Chandragupta II, in the course of the latter’s dig-vijaya; and while they were temporarily encamped there, he caused a cave to be made and dedicated to the god Śambhu. This is no doubt the Udayagiri cave where the record has been engraved. And it is while specifying details about this Vīrasēna that the inscription tells us that he was ‘an inhabitant of Pāṭaliputra.’ “The natural inference is”, says Bühler correctly, “that the town was the capital of the empire.”3

>

        We have also to take note of two geographical divisions mentioned in this inscription, namely, Āryāvarta and Dakshiṇāpatha, which correspond roughly to Northern and Southern India. The name Pratyanta also occurs, but it is doubtful whether the Pratyanta States were then excluded from Āryāvarta. It is possible that geographically they were considered integral parts of this division though politically they were on the frontier of Samudragupta’s empire. As regards Āryāvarta, Manu distinguishes it from Madhyadēśa. The latter denotes the land bounded by the Himālayas in the north, the Vindhyas in the south, Prayāga or Allahābād in the east, and Vinaśana, or the place where the Sarasavtī disappears, in the west.4 And Āryāvarta is defined as the land between the Himālaya and the Vindhya on the one hand, and between the eastern sea and the western sea, on the other. Āryāvarta is generally understood to mean “the abode of the noble or excellent ones,” and with this agrees one dictionary
___________________________________

1 S. Beal, Buddhist Records of the Western World, Vol. I, p. 207; Thomas Watters, On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in India, Vol. I, p. 341.
2 D. R. Bhandarkar, Carmichael Lectures, 1918, pp. 50-51.
3 VOJ., Vol. V, p. 227.
4 Manusmṛiti, Chapter II, Verses 21-22.

>
>