The problem of the origin of the Guptas has not yet been resolved. Archaeological sources reveal that many Gupta dynasties had emerged even before the emperor Gupta dynasty. An ancient Brahmi inscription mentions a princess of a Gupta dynasty. In the Shunga period Bharhut pillar-inscription, Angardyut, son of Rajan Vishwadev was named 'Gotiputas' (Guptiputrasya) Having said. From this it seems that Mahishi of Vishwadev was a woman of some Gupta clan. According to the article he was Shunga period (Suganam raje rao gogi-putas visdevas) , He was probably a Mandalika of a later Sunga emperor of Vidisha.
The mention of a Gupta dynasty is also found in a copper inscription obtained from a place called Panchobh in Darbhanga district of Bihar. In the Nasik inscription of the Satavahana king Gautamiputra, there is a mention of a secret titular office bearer named Shivagupta. It is clear from these evidences that in the second century BC. From the 3rd century AD, several Gupta dynasties existed from time to time in different parts of India, which were also associated with the state power in some form or the other. But in the absence of evidence, it is difficult to determine whether these Guptas had any connection with the emperor Gupta dynasty.
Origin of the Guptas
Though many inscriptions and coins of Gupta emperors have been found, they do not throw any light on the origin (caste and varna) of the Guptas. Therefore, the question of the origin of the Guptas remains a matter of dispute among scholars. Historians have tried to keep the Guptas in almost all four Varnas. According to Kashi Prasad Jaiswal, the rulers of this dynasty belonged to the following clan. Historians like Allen, Krishnaswami Iyengar, Anantasadashiv Altekar attest to the Guptas as Vaishyas. Historians like Gaurishankar Hirachandra Ojha, Sudhakar Chattopadhyay etc. consider the Guptas to be Kshatriyas. Hemchandra Raychaudhuri and Ksheteshchandra Chattopadhyay consider them as Brahmins. Not only this, some historians call the Guptas outside the Aryan-Varna system. Not only this, a historian called the Guptas 'Andhrabhartya ' Tried to prove it.
excluded from the alphabet
BG Gokhale is of the view that the Guptas were initially outside the Aryan-varna system and that their marriage-relationship with the Lichchhavis assigned them to the same caste. Manu called him 'Vratya' Being kept out of the social structure. The adoption of heavy titles by the Guptas, the observance of many yajnas and the development of the Puranas, Smritis, etc. Brahmanical texts probably allude to the fact that they were trying to occupy a place in the Indian social order. This must have been the main reason for not mentioning gotra or varna in the inscriptions.
But the Guptas cannot be considered to be of the Lichchhavis caste because of their marital relations with the Lichchhavis, as inter-caste marriages also took place at that time. If there is no mention of their caste in the Gupta inscriptions, then it should not be assumed that they were low caste. The attempt by the Guptas to upgrade to Brahmanical religion should not be taken as an attempt to rank among the higher varnas as Pushyamitra also attempted to upgrade to Brahmanical religion, which was clearly Brahmin.
inflection
B. Bhattacharya 'Kaliyugarajavritant' On the basis of this, the Guptas are considered as Andhrabhrtya. According to this composition, Chandragupta I was the commander of the Andhra-king Chandrashree who married Chandrashree's younger sister of Bharya, a Lichchavi princess, and together with Chandrashree's wife killed Chandrasree and became the ruler himself. Kach, Samudragupta, Chandragupta Vikramaditya etc. kings come in the succession tradition of this king. Thus Chandragupta of Kaliyugarajvritanta appears to be Chandragupta I of the Gupta dynasty. He was earlier an employee of Andhras, so he was called 'Andhrabhrtya ' Having said. The Andhra dynasty can be identified with the Satavahanas and several 'Gupta' nominal office bearers are found in the Satavahana inscriptions.
But Kaliyugarajavritanta is an ancient text which according to most historians is historically unusable. Although the Satavahana writings refer to several Gupta nominal office bearers, they may also be accidental and on this basis the Guptas cannot be considered 'Andhrabhrtya'.
Shudra Origins
Kashiprasad Jaiswal considers the Guptas to be 'low-born'. Considering the play Kaumudimahotsava as a historical text, Jaiswal has equated Chandsen of the play with Chandragupta. The word 'Chand' is a Prakrit form of Sanskrit 'Chandra'. On becoming the king, Chandsen took the name 'Gupta' by removing the last word 'Sen' in his name, which was the name of his grandfather. The Chandsen of Kaumudimahotsava was related to the Lichchhavis and Chandragupta was also married to the Lichchavi princess Kumaradevi, from whom the son Samudragupta was born. 'Licchavi-Dauhitra' to Samudragupta in Prayag's praise Having said. This Gupta-Licchavi relationship proves that Chandsen and Chandragupta are one person.
Chandsen to 'Karaskar at Kaumudi Mahotsav ’ and in the Baudhayana Dharmasutra the meaning of the word Karaskar is described as low. In the Mahabharata also, the Karskars have been called 'Acharabhrashta' and 'Forbidden'. Jaiswal believes that in the grammar of Chandragomin 'Ajayat Jarto Hunan ’ A sutra is found which indicates the Huna-conquest of the Guptas. On this basis the Gupta rulers prove to be Jat or Jat. If the evidence of the grammar of Kaumudimahotsava and Chandragomin is included, then the secret 'Karaskar Jart ' are proved. Possibly the modern Kakkar species represents the ancient Karskar Jat.
Prabhavatigupta's Poona copperplate finds her gotra 'Dharana' which was definitely not her husband's gotra as her husband Rudrasen was a Brahmin of Vishnuvriddhi gotra. The Dharan gotra must have belonged to her father Chandragupta II as she was ruling under the protection of her father due to the death of her husband and the minors of her sons. The Jats of Amritsar call themselves 'Dhari' or 'Dharni Jats'. Jaiswal, sir equates the Dharanagotri Guptas with these Dharani Jats or Dhari Jats. It is also said in the Matsya Purana that 'after Mahanandi, the rulers of the Shudra dynasty will rule' (Tatprabhriti Rajano Bhavishyanti Shudrayonayah , On this basis also the Guptas are proved to be Shudras.
But it is not proper to consider the Guptas as a lower caste. Chandragupta and Chandasena cannot be considered the same person. Chandasena of Kaumudimahotsava was the adopted son of Sundarvarma, while Chandragupta was the son of Ghatotkacha. According to the play, Chandsen along with his brothers and sisters was killed on the battlefield, but Chandragupta's lineage continued for many generations after that. It is not clear whether Chandasen had a matrimonial relationship with the Lichchhavis. It could also be a political faction. Anyway, most historians do not consider Kaumudi Mahotsava to be a Gupta text.
In some manuscripts of Chandragomin 'Jarto ' in place of 'Capto The word is also found. Probably in the original manuscript 'Ajayat Gupta Hunan' Words must have been there, not Ajayat Jarto Hunan , Similarly to compare the Dharanagotri Guptas with the Dhari or Dharani Jats. The Puranas' saying that 'after Mahanandi all kings will be Shudras' is unreliable to historians because many dynasties of the post-Nandot period were Kshatriyas and Brahmins. Thus the Guptas cannot be proved to be of low caste.
Kshatriya Origins
Scholars like Sudhakar Chattopadhyay, Rameshchandra Majumdar, Gaurishankar Ojha speculate that the Gupta dynasty was a Kshatriya dynasty. In the Panchobh article, there is a description of a Gupta dynasty (Vansh Gupta) whose kings were of Shaivism and considered themselves descendants of Pandava Arjuna. Probably this Gupta dynasty was related to Emperor Gupta dynasty. Support for this possibility is received from Java 'nervous There is also a composition named ', according to which Ikshvakuvanshi Maharaja Aishwaryapal considered himself a descendant of Samudragupta. If 'nervous' If it is considered to be an authentic creation, then the Gupta Kshatriyas are certified.
According to a medieval tradition, some princes of Kanadi district consider themselves descendants of Somvanshi Kshatriya Chandragupta Vikramaditya. Kanadi district represents the ancient Kuntal region where the Kadambas, relatives of the Guptas, ruled. According to tradition this Vikramaditya was the overlord of Ujjayini and Pataliputra. This Vikramaditya can be identified with Chandragupta II. Guttala of Dharwad district in Mysore province in South India called himself 'Ujjayinipurvaradheeshwar ’ and ‘Patliputrapurvaradheeshwar Chandravanshi considers the representative of Vikramaditya. According to Kathasaritsagara, Vikramaditya was the ruler of Pataliputra and Ujjayini. The Guttas may have been the descendants of a Gupta dynasty prince who had been the governor of Ujjayini. Chandragupta II probably established his second capital at Ujjayini after the Shaka-conquest.
Some historians like Gaurishankar Hirachandra Ojha consider the Guptas to be Kshatriyas on the basis of the Sirpur-prashasti of Mahashivgupta. In this inscription, an emperor named Chandragupta has been described as endowed with many wonderful qualities, who was the head of Chandravanshi Raj Mandal. This Chandragupta can be identified with Chandragupta II. Apart from this, Sundarvarma, the ruler of Kaumudimahotsava, has been called a Kshatriya. Even if his adopted son Chandasena is considered as Chandragupta I, then the Gupta Kshatriya is proved because Sundarvarma must have adopted his own consort.
It is known from many sources that the Lichchhavis were Kshatriyas and the Guptas had marital relations with the Lichchhavis. According to Ramayana, Lichchhavis were Suryavanshi Kshatriyas. The Lichchhavis are also described as Kshatriyas in Nepali inscriptions and Tibetan texts. Lichchhavis had matrimonial relations with Kshatriyas, so the Gupta rulers must have been Kshatriyas as well.
But if the Gupta dynasty king of Panchobha inscription had been related to Emperor Gupta dynasty, he would have mentioned this fact in his inscriptions. This dynasty seems to have been related to some other Gupta dynasty which existed in different parts of India before the Guptas. Java's text 'nervous ' is a medieval work whose historicity and authenticity are questionable. Being ancient, the Kanadi and Guttal traditions also cannot be considered authentic. The family tree of Chandragupta of Sirpur-Prasasti is different from the genealogy of the Gupta emperors, so it is not appropriate to link them with the Guptas. Kaumudimahotsav is not a historical book but a fictional book and equating its Chandsen with Chandragupta is based only on pronunciation-similarity.
Gupta cannot be proved Kshatriya even on the basis of relation to Licchavis as texts like Manusmriti show that Licchavis did not belong to any higher varna. They were self-appointed Kshatriyas because of their political sovereignty. Again in Indian culture sometimes Anulom type There were also marriages, according to which the girl was married in a higher class than herself. Thus it is difficult to prove the Guptas to be Kshatriyas on the basis of their marital relationship with the Lichchhavis.
Vaisya Origins
Allen, SK. According to historians like Iyengar, Anant Sadashiv Altekar, Romila Thapar, Ramsharan Sharma, the Guptas were Vaishyas. It is also said in the Gupta text Vishnu Purana that the Brahmins would add the words 'Gupta' and 'Das' respectively to the end of their names like Sharma, Kshatriya Varma, Vaishya and Shudra.
Sharmeti brahmansyoktam varmeti kshatrasanshrayam.
Guptadasakam nama prashatam vaishyashudrayoh.
On the basis of this verse, scholars believe that the word 'Gupta' at the end of the name of the Gupta rulers is a proof of their being a Vaishya. Due to the relaxation of the varna system, the selection of occupation was not done according to the varna during the Gupta period. Many Brahmins started doing the work of Vaishyas and Kshatriyas. The people of Kadamba and Vakataka clans were Brahmins and did the work of Kshatriyas. The feudatories of the Guptas were Matrivishnu Brahmins. Skandagupta's Kshatriya Achalvarma and Bhrikuntha Singh in the copper plate of Indore to 'Indrapur ka Bania ’ It has been said (Indrapuraka Vanigbhayam , Work of Brahmin Charudatta Vanik according to Gupta period composition Mrichhakatik used to (satisfaction , At this time many Vaishyas had started doing the work of Kshatriya and it should not be surprising if Guptas did the work of Kshatriya as Vaishyas.
इसके अलावा पूना ताम्रलेख में प्रभावती गुप्ता को ‘धारणसगोत्र ' Having said. धारण गोत्र अग्रवाल वैश्यों का एक गोत्र है। संभवतः वैश्य वर्ग से संबंधित होने के कारण ही गुप्तों ने अपने लेखों में अपने गोत्र या वर्ण की चर्चा नहीं की है।
किंतु गुप्तों को वैश्य नहीं माना जा सकता है। गुप्त राजाओं के नाम का अंतिम ‘गुप्त’ शब्द जाति-सूचक न होकर इस वंश के संस्थापक का नाम था क्योंकि इस वंश के दूसरे शासक घटोत्कच के नाम के अंत में ‘गुप्त’ शब्द नहीं मिलता है। चंद्रगुप्त ने पहली बार अपने कुल के संस्थापक का नाम अपने नाम के अंत में जोड़ा, जिसे बाद के सभी गुप्त नरेश अपने नाम के अंत में धारण करने लगे और यह वंश गुप्तवंश के नाम से प्रसिद्ध हो गया। वस्तुतः ‘गुप्त’ इस वंश के संस्थापक का नाम था और पुराणों में इस वंश को ‘गुप्तवंशजाः ’ कहकर इसी तथ्य का ओर इंगित किया गया है।
प्राचीन भारतीय साहित्य और अभिलेखों में कई ‘गुप्त’ नामांत मिलते हैं, जो वैश्य नहीं थे। कल्हण की राजतरंगिणी के अनुसार कश्मीर का एक नरेश मातृगुप्त था जिसने अपने पुत्र का राज्याभिषेक कर प्रव्रज्या ग्रहण कर लिया था। अफसढ़ और देवबर्णार्क के लेखों में वर्णित राजवंश के शासकों के नाम के अंत में भी ‘गुप्त’ शब्द आता है जिन्हें वैश्य न कहकर ‘सदवंशः ' Having said. विष्णुगुप्त (कौटिल्य) भी वैश्य नहीं था। इस प्रकार ‘गुप्त’ नामांत के आधार पर गुप्तों को वैश्य प्रमाणित करना कठिन है।
ब्राह्मण उत्पत्ति का मत
अनेक इतिहासकारों ने गुप्तों को ब्राह्मण सिद्ध करने का प्रयास किया है। प्रभावतीगुप्ता के पूना एवं रिद्धपुर के ताम्रलेखों से स्पष्ट है कि उसका गोत्र धारण था जो उसके पिता का था क्योंकि उसका पति रुद्रसेन स्पष्टतया विष्णुवृद्धि गोत्र का ब्राह्मण था। इस प्रकार स्पष्ट है कि धारण गोत्र उसके पिता चंद्रगुप्त द्वितीय का ही गोत्रा था। हेमचंद्र रायचौधरी ने गुप्तों के धारण गोत्र को कालीदास के नाटक मालविकाग्निमित्रम् में उल्लखित देवी धारिणी से समीकृत किया है, जो शुंग राजकुमार अग्निमित्र की प्रधान महिषी थी। किंतु धारण और धारणी के उच्चारण साम्य के आधार पर गुप्तवंश को शुंगदेवी की वंश-परंपरा से जोड़ना इतिहासकारों को स्वीकार्य नहीं है। देवी धारिणी नाटक के अनुसार नागकुल की कन्या थी, जबकि समुद्रगुप्त ने नागवंश का उन्मूलन कर गरुड़ को अपनी मुद्राओं पर अंकित करवाया था। नाग और गरुड़ की शत्रुता लोकविदित है।
कुछ इतिहासकारों के अनुसार प्रभावतीगुप्ता का धारण गोत्र उसके पुरोहित का गोत्र हो सकता है। प्राचीन काल में लोग कभी-कभी अपने पुरोहित का भी गोत्र धारण कर लेते थे। मनुस्मृति के भाष्यकार मेधातिथि के अनुसार राजन्य और वैश्य ही पुरोहित गोत्र धारण करते थे, ब्राह्मण नहीं। ब्राह्मणों का अपना व्यक्तिगत गोत्र होता था। यदि प्रभावतीगुप्ता ब्राह्मणी थी, तो वह पुरोहित का गोत्र क्यों धारण करती? यद्यपि भारतीय परंपरा के अनुसार विवाह के उपरांत स्त्रियों का गोत्र उसके पति के गोत्र द्वारा निर्धारित होता था (विवाहांतर नारी पतिगोत्रेण गोत्रिणी ), किंतु कभी-कभी स्त्री अपने पिता का गोत्र भी धारण कर सकती थी। इसलिए बहुत संभव है कि प्रभावतीगुप्ता ने अपने पिता के गोत्र को धारण कर लिया हो। वस्तुतः धारण ब्राह्मणों का ही एक गोत्र है। स्कंदपुराण में ब्राह्मणों के जो चौबीस गोत्र गिनाये गये हैं, उनमें बारहवाँ गोत्र धारण है।
शांतिवर्मा की तालगुंड (मैसूर) प्रशस्ति से पता चलता है कि कदंब नरेश काकुत्स्थवर्मा की पुत्री गुप्तकुल में ब्याही गई थी। इस राजवंश के संस्थापक मयूरशर्मा को अभिलेख में ‘द्विजोत्तम’ कहा गया है (एवमागते कदंबकुले श्रीमान्वभूव द्विजोत्तम ), जो कौटिल्य की प्रकृति का ब्राह्मण था। इस वंश की कन्याओं का विवाह वाकाटक और गंग जैसे ब्राह्मण कुलों में ही हुआ था। यदि गुप्त लोग ब्राह्मण न होते तो यह विवाह प्रतिलोम विवाह की कोटि में आता, जो स्मृतियों के अनुसार निंदनीय था। इस प्रकार वैवाहिक संबंधों के आधार पर भी गुप्तों को ब्राह्मण माना जा सकता है।
किंतु गुप्तों को ब्राह्मण मानने में भी कठिनाई है। वाकाटक लेख में प्रभावतीगुप्ता को ‘धारणगोत्रा’ के स्थान पर ‘धारणसगोत्रा’ Having said. इससे लगता है कि धारण गोत्र उसके पिता का नहीं, उसके पुरोहित का ही था। यद्यपि गुप्तों के वैवाहिक संबंध अनेक ब्राह्मण राजवंशों में थे, किंतु उस समय अंतर्जातीय विवाह करने की भी परंपरा थी। यह सही है कि स्मृतियों में प्रतिकूल विवाह की निंदा की गई है, किंतु इससे यह निष्कर्ष निकालना कि गुप्त ब्राह्मण वंश के थे और ब्राह्मण राजवंशों में ही विवाह किये रहे होंगे, उचित नहीं लगता। प्राचीनकाल में अनेक विवाह राजनीतिक आवश्यकता को ध्यान में रखकर भी किये जाते थे, जैसे गुप्त-लिच्छवि संबंध, वर्धन-मौखरि संबंध आदि।
इस प्रकार विभिन्न मत-मतांतरों के बाद भी गुप्तों की उत्पत्ति को असंदिग्ध रूप से निर्धारित करना संभव नहीं है। इतना स्पष्ट है कि गुप्त किसी निम्न वर्ण से संबंधित न होकर ब्राह्मण या वैश्य वर्ण से संबंधित थे। संभव है कि वे ब्राह्मण ही रहे हों।