Origins Of The Guptas

source: wikipedia

The Gupta Empire and it's legacy bear upon popular imagination to this day. It is no surprise, that this illustrious Empire which secured during the early and middle centuries of the 1st millennium CE, holds a strong place among popular narratives of Indian history. Its military, economic, and administrative apparatus allowed this empire to sustain it's vast acquisitions across North India for roughly 300 years. During this time, the peace and security that it afforded for it's denizens, allowed for a period cultural products were elaborated at an unprecedented scale, epics were compiled, classics were written and military prestige was secured. However, the eminent bloodline which graced the Imperial Majesty of the Gupta Throne left behind scarce traces for historians to understand who and what they were, and where they came from.

This creates a problem for historians, and leaves the question open for the often undesirable conjectures of popular history. The political history of c. 300-600 CE has been largely reconstructed on the basis of inscriptions and coins. Various groups today claim to be of the same social/regional group as the Guptas. Claims and counter claims create room for friction among groups both online and otherwise. Such appropriation of historical figures and dynasties and the friction between communities as a result of these claims, has been a concerning recurrence. We aim here, to provide a commentary on the work that historians have provided over the last century on this subject. We hope to present these arguments with both brevity and the due attention they deserve. We ultimately do not aim to provide a verdict on the identity of the Guptas, but rather, a reasonable conclusion based on the available sources and our own rationalization of these evidences.

We first start with providing an overview of the available evidence. This evidence is both primary translations of the available inscriptions, commentaries on these translations and secondary sources which provide further commentary and interpretation and historiography on the existing primary sources. We then provide some arguments against these evidences or agree with them, depending on the veracity of the claims made and our own understanding of the corpus of evidence available and the logical through line of the arguments presented.

The Original Homeland Of The Guptas:

 Source: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mahajanapadas_(c._500_BCE).png#mw-jump-to-license

The history of the early Guptas has been a difficult one to piece together, this is owing to the incredible paucity of surviving sources referencing the founders of the Gupta dynasty and their place of origin. Inscriptions are either incomplete or vague, leaving room for conjectures and multiple theories. The Puranas are one piece of evidence that might provide more information in this direction. However, the nature of these scriptural evidences makes piecing history together using their clues, a difficult process as well, since these must be rationalized and wedded with available archaeological, numismatic and epigraphical data. Apart from these, we also have foreign accounts, which might shed some light on this obscure period of the Gupta's history and allow historians to trace their original homeland.

Due to dearth of information regarding the native place of the Guptas, we do not seem to find concurrence among the various scholars on this matter. So this creates an arena of debate and discussions . Many scholars have put forth their opinions, for some they originally belonged to present day Eastern Uttar Pradesh, yet some posed the theory that they were from Bihar (Magadha), while others argued that they originally belonged to North West region of Bengal or Mathura.

R.C Majumdar(1888-1980)

According to RC Majumdar, in History and Culture of the Indian People Vol 3, Classical Age, 1954, p. 2-3. " As regards the locality of this kingdom some light is thrown by a passing observation of the Chinese pilgrim I-tsing. I-tsing, who travelled in India during the period A.D. 671-695, refers to a king Srigupta as having built a temple for the Chinese pilgrims and endowed it with twenty-four villages. Some scholars have identified this king with the founder of the Gupta dynasty and located the temple in Magadha. Consequently they place the kingdom of the early Guptas in Magadha. But there are certain difficulties in accepting this view. In the first place, I-tsing places Srigupta about five hundred years before his time, whereas the founder of the Gupta dynasty cannot be placed more than four hundred, or at the most, four hundred and fifty years before he wrote. The identity can, therefore, be maintained only if we regard the five hundred years as only a round approximate figure. This is not an unreasonable view, especially when we remember that the “Chinese pilgrim gives the statement on the authority of a tradition handed down from ancient times by old men.” The identification of the king mentioned by I-tsing with Srigupta, the founder of the Gupta family, may, therefore, at least a provisional hypothesis.

I Tsing(635-713 AD)

There is, however, no justification for the view that the temple which this king built for the Chinese was situated in Magadha. The bearing and the distance given by the Chinese pilgrim place it in the western borders of northern or central Bengal and this is corroborated by some other details mentioned by him. We may, therefore, hold that Srigupta’s kingdom comprised a portion of Bengal ".

The above mentioned theory is largely relying upon the account of Chinese pilgrim I Tsing, who places Sri Gupta five hundred years before his time. No other sources supplement this view of I Tsing, hence it would be right to say that the date and place related to Sri Gupta could be a mere surmise. To bolster his theory RC Majumdar lacks other relevant sources. There are no written records which mention the region of Guptas was Bengal. It is also observed that, no Gupta coins have been found in Bengal during the early Gupta age. Bindershwari Prasad Sinha is one of the critics who rejects this view of RC Majumdar. J F Fleet who is considered as an authority on Guptas also rejects this view of Sri Gupta as the founder of the Gupta Dynasty due to issues relating to the dates and inconclusive evidence.

Further, Bindeshwari Prasad Sinha in his Comprehensive History of Bihar Vol I, Part II,p.g 2 -3 says that the Purana's verse mentions Gupta Dynasty with the first king being Chandragupta I and not Srigupta. This annuls the controversy around the China temple and Srigupta being the founder of the empire. We also notice that Srigupta was given the title of Maharaja, but B D Chattopadhya states that according to Gupta tradition Maharaja was the title which was subordinate and the superior title was Maharajadhiraja. This further disfigures the core of the argument. He also says that nothing definite could be said regarding the extent of the Gupta empire but he proposed that the territory eastward including Prayag and Sarnath might have been under the Guptas. 

H C Raychaudhauri(1892-1957)

According to Hemchandra Raychaudhuri, in Political History Of Ancient India Ed. 4, 1938, p. 445

" The first independent sovereign (Maharajadhiraja) of the line was Chandra Gupta I, son of Ghatotkacha, who may have ascended the throne in 320 A.D, the initial date of the Gupta Era. Like his great forerunner Bimbisara he strengthened his position by a matrimonial alliance with the Lichchhavis of Vaisali or of Nepal, and laid the foundations of the Second Magadhan Empire..... But Allan suggests that Pataliputra was in the possession of the Guptas even in Sri Gupta’s time."

"In the opinion of Allan the Puranic verses defining the Gupta dominions refer to his reign:

-Kings born of the Gupta family will enjoy all these territories along the Ganges viz. Prayag (Allahabad), Saketa (Oudh) and Magadha (South Bihar)".

Raychaudhuri provides a convincing argument with regards to the original homeland of the Guptas being Magadha, a theory propounded by J. Allan as well, however, the Puranic verse which refers to the territories controlled by the early Guptas, does not establish that the Guptas ruled from Magadha to begin with. Indeed it asserts that south Bihar would be one of the territories controlled by the early Gupta scions. Therefore, to use this verse as the basis of establishing the original homeland cannot be seen as justified. It is just as likely that the Puranic verse may be used to establish Prayag or Saketa as the original homeland of the Guptas. Therefore, we must reject Pataliputra as the capital or Magadha as the definitive original homeland of the Guptas.

Fifth Damodarpur Plate

Furthermore, we learn in Dynastic History Of Northern India Volume I, 1931, p. 272-273, by L.D Barnett, that in the 6th century (543 AD) , the governors of Northern Bengal omitted the word "Gupta" in the fifth Damodarpur plate, recognizing nominal suzerainty of the Guptas. This stands in opposition of Majumdar's claim that the Guptas were hereditary rulers of Northern Bengal since were they the same, why would such an illustrious house abandon its ancestral seat of power which must have occupied incredible importance in their dynastic history, given that we find minimal inscriptions and coin hoards in the region compared to Saketa and Prayag. The Guptas seem to be a dynasty originating out of the middle Gangetic valley, from Saketa or Prayag and seem to have acquired the eastern acquisition of the Imperial city of Pataliputra later on. 

K P Jaysawal(1881-1937)

According to KP Jayaswal in his History of India,150 AD- 350 AD (1933) P.123.

The Vayu and the Brahmand Purana place the beginning of the Gupta after closing the Nagas who are rulers in Bihar up to Champawati aur Bhagalpur but the Vishnu places there beginning in the period of the Nagas whereby it implies the rise of Gupta  and Ghatotkach which means that while the Nav Nagas ruled at Padmavati, Kantipuri and Mathura, Magadha Gupta ruled at Prayag on the Ganges. This shows that their first fief was in the district of Allahabad and that at the time they were considered to have been the natives of Magadha. The plain meaning of this information is that the early Guptas were the rulers at Allahabad and not on the Jamuna side but on the Ganga side that is on the side of our and Banaras.

According to KP Jayaswal, the Guptas were originally the inhabitants of Prayag (Allahabad). He states that the early Guptas were the feudatories of Nagas or Bharsivas. This theory was framed on the basis of Puranic literature, inscriptions and especially numismatics evidences since several coins belonging to the Gupta Dynasty have been found in Allahabad region. So this theory can be accepted with ease. In addition to KP Jayaswal, the theory that the Guptas were originally the inhabitants of Prayag (Allahabad) has been supported by several other historians such as SR Goyal.

From the above arguments, we have seen how claims about the Gupta homeland being Magadha are almost entirely based on the evidence cited by historians on the subject repeatedly, with regards to the Chinese pilgrim I-Tsing. There are many issues with such a suggestion. The fact that the pilgrim visited the subcontinent in the late 7th century is chief among them. The other problem arises in the nature of sources used by the pilgrim to ascribe a temple in Mi-li-kia-si-kia-pao-oo, endowed with 24 villages was commissioned or sanctioned by the Chi-li-ki-to, whom Allan interprets to be Sri Gupta and Majumdar the region in question to be Western parts of Northern Bengal. We have seen how the "Bengal Homeland" theory, propounded by RC Majumdar, DC Ganguly, BD Chattopadhyaya (Malda district in Bengal), is based on extremely thin evidence, we further note that similarly the Magadha Homeland, forwarded by A.S Altekar and others, argument does not have many legs to stand on. BP Sinha on the other hand, suggests the Mathura-Ayodhya region for the original homeland. As historian S.R Goyal states in his History Of The Imperial Guptas, 1967, p. 43, where he talks about the Chinese pilgrim's account.

"based on it's translation by Beal it is to be identified with Sarnath, whereas another interpretation based on the translation given by Chavannes would favour it's location in Murshidabad district of West Bengal"

Now as Prof. Goyal goes on to say on p. 43-44 himself, that the evidences for the assertion of the Magadha, Sarnath or Bengal Homeland theories are slim. There is first the issue that the identification of Chi-li-ki-to, which hinges on the argument that "it is unlikely that we should have two different rulers in the same territory of the same name within so brief a period".

In the words of Goyal :

"instances could be cited from Gupta History itself of two Chandraguptas and three Kumaraguptas"

Kumaragupta (415-455 AD)

Furthermore, states Goyal, the assumption that Maharaja Gupta and Chi-li-ki-to ruled over the same territory is as well, unproven, given the inability to conclusively provide the location of Mi-li-kia-si-kia-pao-oo. The identity of the king Chi-li-ki-to depends on the assumption that the territory of Mi-li-kia-si-kia-pao-oo lay within the early Gupta territories. This as well, is unproven.

Goyal best summarizes his argument which we find agreeable in the following paragraph on p. 44 :

"Thus, the evidence of I-tsing can hardly have any bearing on the problem unless we could independently prove that Mi-li-kia-si-kia-po-no was situated within the territory ruled over by the first Gupta Maharaja. More important is the fact that even it's acceptance does not prove that the king Gupta ruled over Magadha. It has been maintained that as Chi-li-ki-to met the Chinese priests at Bodh-Gaya, Magadha must have been a part of his kingdom. But decidedly it is a very weak basis to build a theory upon. It is a well-known fact that Bodh-Gaya was a great religious centre. It is more reasonable, therefore, to assume that Chi-li-ki-to himself went to that place as a pilgrim".

Middle Gangetic Region

Prof. Goyal argues in favour of a Middle Gangetic valley homeland. One located in Prayag-Saketa. This he bases on the arguments of available archaeological evidence with reference to the quantum of inscriptions and coins found in proximity, or rather in, the Gupta homeland, this being the modern day region of Central and Eastern UP. As Goyal rightfully argues on, p. 45-46, that of the 24 coin boards so far discovered belonging to the Guptas, 14 have been found in UP, in districts such as Banaras, Faizabad, Gorakhpur (2), Prayagraj (2), Jaunpur (2), Ballia (2), Unnao etc. With only 2 in Bihar and 2 in Bengal.

It may be argued that coin hoards travel in many direction and the quantum or surplus of coins in a region may be a product of consumption practices and circulation, however it's likewise true that circulation of metallic currency in the period was contained. And circulation would be higher in velocity and volume close to the capital and the mints, rather than the peripheries. Lastly, the coin hoards available belong to the reigns of Chandragupta I, and Samudragupta, the earliest available coins and in the most remarkable numbers. This argument presents a strong candidate in Eastern UP for the original homeland of the Guptas.

An analysis of the Gupta Era inscriptions, according to Goyal present a similar story. As he points out on, p. 47-48, of the 15 inscriptions of the Gupta period, 8 belong to UP, 2 to Magadha and 5 to Bengal. Interestingly, the Gaya grant inscription was issued from Ayodhya, not a region in Magadha or indeed Pataliputra. This is again indication of the relationship between Saketa (UP) and the Guptas. Meanwhile, all inscriptions in Bengal are from the later Gupta period, belonging to the reign of Kumaragupta I, at the earliest and are all copper plate grants. As Goyal rightfully notes on p. 48.

"it merely proves the sway of the  Guptas over this province during the reign of this Emperor, and in no way indicates that this was their home province. The case of the inscriptions found in Magadha.... is similar "

Allahabad Pillar Inscription

Goyal opines that the inscriptions found in UP are certainly worthy of special mention. Of the 8 found, 3 are pillar inscriptions, 3 on stone slabs and 2 on stone images. The Allahabad inscription is one of the oldest, from the reign of Samudragupta I himself. Meanwhile the Bhitari pillar inscription records the installment of an image of the God Sarngin, in the village in memory of his father, by Skandagupta. In the words of Goyal on p. 49 .

"one would hardly expect that Skandagupta chose a region other than his home province for such a pious act the aim of which was "to increase the religious merit of his father"

In Goyal's estimation, a Prashasti type of document has not been recorded in the Gupta Era in a region outside of the centre/origin of the hedgemon's power, pointing to the Mandasore inscription of Yashodharman. Furthermore, the dating and numbers of the inscriptions speak for themselves as to the veracity of Prayag and Saketa being close contenders for early Gupta rule and origin. Specifically, Allahabad itself, is a strong candidate, corroborated by the Vayu Purana evidence, says Goyal on p. 50 :

"Kings born of the Gupta family will enjoy all these territories along the Ganges viz. Prayag (Allahabad), Saketa (Oudh) and Magadha (South Bihar)"

As Prof. Goyal points out on p. 51;
"The corresponding passage in the Vishnu Purana is slightly, though significantly , different :

Anu-Ganga Prayag am Magadha Guptas-cha bhokshyanti

It has been translated by Majumdar as follows : "the territory along the Ganges up to Prayag will be enjoyed by the people of Magadha and the Guptas"

Goyal points out that this passage not only distinguished the Magadhas from the Guptas but implies that the later Magadhas and the Guptas ruled over the territories along the Ganges upto Prayag. He goes on to show that Magadha in this time belonged to the Lichahhavis, and given this fact, the Prayag territory can be the only logical homeland of the Guptas, hence as Goyal says on p. 53 :

"The Pashupati temple inscription of Jayadeva II of the Lichchhavi dynasty dated in the year 153 states 23 generations before Jayadeva I, his ancestor Supushpa Lichchhavi was born at Pushpapura which probably refers to the city of Pataliputra. Now, if Fleet’s dating of the Nepal epigraphs is correct, Supushpa flourished in the first century A. D. Though it does not prove that Lichchhavis occupied Pataliputra in that period (as some scholars believe ), it does suggest that they were living and taking an active interest in the city. The evidence of the Vishnu Parana cited above proves that ultimately they succeeded in occupying it some time before their chief contracted a matrimonial alliance with the Guptas in the beginning of the fourth century A. D."

Who Were The Guptas?

For historians, students of history, academics and pedestrian observers of history alike, the establishment of the communal or social identity of eminent figures and bloodlines of note that have, created a legacy which captures the imaginations of people even today, is, at times, and specifically in the Indian context, an arduos, challenging, significant and consequential venture. Since the determination of social identities for such peoples and groups, plays a crucial role in the self perceptions and projections of social groups today. It is this politically loaded aspect of this subject of history which leaves novel research in the subject, slow and stagnant.

We shall attempt here, to review some theories and arguments forwarded by prominent historians of the last century, whose works have allowed us to chart a course to the original homeland of the Guptas earlier. Once again, we do not attempt to make conclusive claims with regards to the questions raised here, we shall however try to analyse the theories proposed by past scholars in the earnest and provide a conclusion that we find agreeable.

Guptas as Vaishyas :

The theory that the Guptas were Vaishyas, may seem to be a strong and obvious foregone conclusion for many readers of popular history. This seemingly faultless speculation rests on popular ideas about caste and society, namely that the suffix "Gupta", was historically used by members of the Vaishya caste, as it is today. And such observations and perceptions can not be considered to have emerged in vacuum. Historians such as AS Altekar, VV Mirashi, SK Aiyangar, also drew similar conclusions based on their understanding and interpretation of primary sources. However, the problems with the theory of Vaishya origin of the Guptas are manifold and we shall try to present them with brevity, but sufficient exploration into their nuances.

We begin first by looking at the basis for this theory, in it's entirety. A principal argument for this assumption is the fact that the Vishnu Purana and the Manusmriti recommend this suffix for the Vaishya caste. For example we quote here, the Vishnu Purana, (transl.) by Manmatha Nath Dutt, 1896, p. 197 :

"Upon the tenth day after birth the father should give a name to the child, the first term of which shall be the name of a god and the second of a man as Sharman or Varman. The former is the proper designatain of a Bráhmin, and the second of a Kshatriya. And the Vaisyas and Sudras should have the designation of Gupta and Dasa. A name should not be devoid of any meaning, should not be indecent, absurd, inauspicious nor dreadful. It shouid contain an even uumber of syllables; it should not be too long nor too short, nor too full of long vowels, but contain a due proportion of short vowels and be easily articulated".

Similar views are shared by Manusmriti II, 31-32;

We do accept that indeed these scriptures assert such rigid rules for the naming of progeny born in respective caste groups, yet we also maintain the postion, in the words of John Allan, in his work Catalogue of the Coins of the Gupta Dynasties and of Sasanka King of Gauda, 1914, p. xiv :

"these rules, however, were by no means inflexible, and exceptions may be quoted"

However, Allan further says, the following on the same page :

"Chandragupta Maurya was certainly of low caste origin, as his name would imply, and it is very possible that the history of the rise of the founder of the Gupta dynasty closely resembles that of the great Maurya"

Therefore, we have as the basis of this theory, the suffix "Gupta" and the idea that the Mauryans provide ample precedence for the rise of Shudras and Vaishyas to kingship. However, this theory is difficult to sustain in the face of the following counter evidence :

While the suffix "Gupta" has been taken as evidence by Altekar, Mirashi, Aiyangar and Allan to suggest mon-Kshatriya and non-Brahmana, Vaishya origin, it's quite perplexing as to why this is, given the fact that during this period, despite the conjunctions of the Manusmriti and the Vishnu Purana, both Brahamans and Kshatriyas utilised the "Gupta" suffix. For example, the astrologer Brahamagupta was a Brahmin, the minister of Chandragupta Maurya, Vishnugupta was a Brahmin as well. Meanwhile, there is little to no indication with regards to the socio-political structure and realities of the period to suggest that the conditions had remained the same and stagnant since the Mauryan era. If anything, the period between the fall of the Mauryans and the rise of the Guptas, had seen the march of triumphant Brahminism take foothold in the Middle Ganga valley. The Shungas, the Kanvas, the Mitras, were successive Brahmin dynasties. This suggests the rise of a martial Brahmin population in this region, which sustained the rise and rule of multiple Brahmin dynasties. In contemporary epics and literature, we further find the glorification of Brahmins and Kshatriyas, with the former being described in the epics as destroyers of Kshatriya rule, all-powerful and revered, for ex - Parshuram, Dronacharya, Ashvathhama in the Mahabharat, feature as unassailable warriors. Similar descriptions do not appear for the Vaishyas or Shudras, during whose political ascension, apparently, according to Allan, these epics were compiled. We also have the case of the Vakatakas and Gautamiputra Satakarni, the Satavahana emperor. In his Nasik prashasti he is called 'Eka-brahmana' i.e The Unique Brahmana and further as Khatiya-dapa-mana-madana, meaning the destroyer of the pride and conceit of Kshatriyas. Once again, such similar examples of Vaishya Emperors are lacking. 

Sunga Dynasty(184 BC-75 BC)

It is also important to state, that the early Guptas such as Maharaja Ghatotkacha do not make use of this suffix. Hence suggesting, that this suffix was added to commemorate their ancestor, Maharaja Sri Gupta by Chandra Gupta I and his successors. 

It is against this socio-political background and the unsustainable theory of the suffix "Gupta" being confirmation of Vaishya origin that we find this theory based on unsustainable principles and evidences.

Guptas As Jats:

The theory that the Gupta kings were Jats was proposed by KP Jayaswal. His argument revolves around the gotra of Gupta princess Prabhavatigupta who was the  daughter of Chandragupta II. He argues that her gotra according to Poona and Riddhapur copper plate grants is mentioned as "Dharana". Since the gotta of her husband Rudrasena II Vakataka was Vishnuvriddha, he claims that the Dharana gotra must be the gotra of her paternal house. To bolster his theory, he further takes the aid of Kaumudimohotsav, in which he identifies Chandasena as Chandragupta I. He says that Chandasena dropped Sena and adopted Gupta instead. His whole argument rests on the fact that in Kaumudimohotsav, Chandasena is described as "Karaskara". KP Jayaswal referred to "Karaskara" as modern day "Kakkar" which is a Jat gotra of Punjab. However,in Baudhayana Dharmasastra "karaskara" has been mentioned as low community.(OP Singh Bhatia, The Imperial Guptas.p137).

This opinion of KP Jayaswal was favoured by Dashrath Sharma who said that Jats of a dharana gotra are still found in the parts of Rajasthan. BP Sinha also states that the Gupta kings belonged to the Jat clan of Mathura. 

KP Jayaswal’s theory sounds inconclusive and vague on several grounds. Talking about his argument based on Dharana gotra, we find several evidences challenging this idea. For example in Kurud Plates of king Narendra, we have reference of Dharana gotra as the gotra of Brahmanas. According to some sources, Dharana was not the gotra of Prabhavatigupta, in fact it was the gotra of her mother Kubernaga. According to Ashwini Agrawal in his book "Rise and Fall of the Imperial Guptas.p74", the identification of Chandasena as Chandragupta I is not accurate. He says that in the play Kaumudimohotsav, Chandrasena was killed along with his progeny and his family was uprooted. This is contrary to the fact that Chandragupta I lived until the old age and after his death his son Samudraguptra assumed the throne. Infact in Allahabad inscription, its clearly mentioned that Chandragupta I was the son of Ghatotkach,( OP Singh Bhatia, The Imperial Guptas.p 17) which again goes again the details provided in the play that Sundarvarma as he had no son had adopted Chandasena as his son. Hence the statement made by KP Jayaswal seems shaky and undigestable. Many scholars like OP Singh, DK Ganguly, RK Mookerji, DR Bhandarkar etc do not concur with KP Jayaswal as well as rejected the historicity of Kaumudimohotsav as the story relevant to the history of the Guptas.

However, the theory of KP Jayaswal, BP Sinha, and Dashrath Sharma can be refuted with a single argument that the Jats themselves migrated from the Indus Valley in the lower Sind to the north east into the Punjab and Multan by the eleventh century. (Against History, Against State: Counterperspective from the Margins. Shail Mayaram.pg 21). After closely looking at the evidences and facts, we have reached to the conclusion that the Gupta kings were not Jats and the arguments provided by KP Jayaswal and others seems untenable. 

Guptas as Kshatriya:

In the popular consensus Gupta kings are generally perceived as Kshatriya. Some scholars have argued that the Gupta kings were Kshatriyas on the basis of their matrimonial alliances with the Licchavis who were Kshatriyas and Nagas who were presumably Kshatriyas. According to this account Chandragupta II got married to Kumaradevi (a Licchavi princess), it is this theory which adds strength to the argument that Gupta kings were Kshatriyas as they preferred marrying to a Kshatriya princess. Dr S Chattopadhya in his "History of Northern India" says Panchobh Copper plate mentions the name of a Kshatriya king Samramagupta, who was a local ruler. He asserts that it is highly probable that he descended from the Imperial Gupta dynasty. Thus, Dr S Chattopadhya claims that the Gupta kings were Kshatriyas. In addition to this, the Guttal king of Dharvad reffered to Vikramaditya (Chandragupta II) as Somvansi Kshatriya. Sirapur prashasti describes Mahasiva Gupta as Kshatriya. "Arya Manushri Mula kalpa" too describes Guptas as Kshatriyas.

In comparison to other theories, Kshatriya being the caste of Guptas has gain relative more traction. But this theory also lacks logical explanation and seems rather vague and hypothetical due to several factors. First of all, the matrimonial alliance of Kumaradevi and Chandragupta II which is basically stated as the foremost evidence to conclude that the Guptas were Kshatriyas could be rejected as the marriage of a High caste male to a lower caste female was prevalent during that period. We have several instances in which a high caste male gets married to a low caste female. So it is not surprising that, the Guptas who were Brahmins (according to this analysis) married to Licchavis who were Kshatriyas. Secondly the argument posed by Sirapur, Panchobh inscription and Manushri Mula Kalpa could be easily ignored considering the fact that having a modicum of similarity in the nomenclature and the suffix Gupta couldn't be considered as the conclusive evidence to say that the Guptas were Kshatriyas. Moreover many historians have already rejected such claims. Therefore, with such strong counter arguments it would be prudent to discard the theory that the Guptas were Kshatriyas.

Source : Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Vol.5 (inscriptions Of The Vakatakas) by Mirashi, Vasudev Vishnu 

Guptas as Brahmanas:

We shall now assess the theory which states that the Guptas were Brahmins. This theory itself comes off as a novel idea in the sphere of popular history, since it has none of the obvious preconception affirming simplicity of the Vaishya theory, based on the suffix of the Guptas, or the added generality of the Kshatriya theory. The Brahmana theory of the Gupta's origin has been propounded by Ashvini Agarwal, SR Goyal, Hemchandra Raychaudhuri and others. This section shall first begin with a refutal of those arguments as may be presented to deny this proposal, followed by and naturally leading to, an argument for the said proposal.

We have already seen that the "Brahmana" theory is as valid as the Kshatriya or Vaishya theory, if based solely on the suffix basis of origin, since in this time period, this suffix, "Gupta", was used by the plethora of the twice-born castes.

Next, we find that the Brahmana theory is strengthened by the fact that the evidence obtained from the Poona plate inscription of Prabhavatigupta, issued during her time as Regent of the Vakataka Empire of which her son was the heir apparent, points towards a Dharana gotra of the Queen. The fact that the Vakatakas belonged to the Vishnuvridhha gotra, [ acc. to VS Pathak, Ancient Historians of India, p. 25 ] illustrates that this Dharana gotra was the same gotra as that of her patrilineal bloodline. Meaning that this gotra was shared by all male members of the Gupta dynasty from the founder to her father. According to Dasharatha Sharma, the Skanda Purana, Brahma Khanda p. 35-37, refers to Brahmans of the Dharana gotra living in Dharmaranya i.e Mirzapur. Having already illustrated that the Jat theory of KP Jayaswal is untenable, we propose that the Dharana gotra refers to the Brahman caste, not the Jats.

    Vakataka Empire(250-500 AD)

Meanwhile, Hemchandra Raychaudhuri, in his work "The Political History of Ancient India", 1953, p. 528 asserts the following argument in favour of the Brahmana origin :

"The origin of the Imperial Gupta family is wrapped up in obscurity. We only know that they probably belonged to the Dharana gotra (IHQ, 1930, 565). They may have been related to Queen Dharini, the chief consort of Agnimitra".

This theory however, has been questioned by RC Majumdar. 

There is one other argument that we need to discuss before concluding on this section of the Brahman theory. This being the argument of matrimonial alliances maintained by the Guptas being presented as evidence against the Vaishya and Jat theories and as evidence of the Kshatriya origin, therefore, a theory which dismisses the Brahmin theory. As has been discussed earlier, the Guptas maintained matrimonial relations with Brahmin and Kshatriya dynasties. The Kshatriya hypothesis asserts that the Kshatriya marriages must be seen as evidence of the Guptas being of equal status as their counterparts. This however, as says SR Goyal, A History Of The Imperial Guptas, 1967, p. 78 :

"The argument is quite forceful. But it is strange to note that so far nobody has bothered to point out that the analysis of the marriage relations of the Guptas makes it equally possible that they belonged to the Brahmana order. For, if we assume that they were Brahmana by caste, these marriage alliances remain in the anuloma category".

"the Talagunda inscription of the Kadamba king Shantivarman we learn that Kakutsthavarman, the great grandson of Mayurasarman, the founder of the dynasty, gave one of his daughters in marriage to a Gupta king. As we have seen, the Kadambas belonged to a Brahmana family who derived their descent from Hariti and belonged to the Manavya gotra.'- Thus, the indication provided by the rule of anuloma and pratiloma marriages is in consonance with the fact that the Guptas were a branch of the Dharana Brahmanas."

This argument, only serves to strengthen the case for the Guptas being Brahmins and strengthens the case further against the Guptas not being Vaishyas or Jats. Goyal further states on p. 80, elaborating how "if the Guptas were Brahmins" they would not give their daughter's hands in marriage to a non-Brahmin groom. From the available evidence, as he illustrates, this again is true. Ashvini Agarwal, agrees and puts forward similar arguments in his works as well.

Thus, based on the evidences available, the rebuttal of possible counter arguments and the arguments presented by historians such as Goyal, Raychaudhuri and Agarwal, we accept this theory as one which presents the most if any merit, that the Guptas were Brahmins.

Conclusion:

S R Goyal(1921-2003)

The empire which lasted for approximately 300 years ended without leaving substantial traces of its establishments. Several questions such as  how it was established, how it was managed, how it grew and eventually weaved a sound monarchical system of governance, but apart from such questions which more or less are explained, one of the  problems that still persists is the doubt regarding the original homeland of the Guptas. Considering the dearth of information we have,it is a very prominent question. For decades many historians have proposed several arguments regarding the place of the origins of the Guptas. However SR Goyal as well KP Jaysawal's argument holds enough logical as well as rational arguments backed up by the evidence such puranic literature, coins, inscriptions which points to Prayag (Allahabad) being the original homeland of the Guptas. 

Several historians for example RC Majumdar and DC Ganguly proposed that they were originally the inhabitants of North Western Bengal and Murshidabad respectively. BD Chattopadhya's Malda (Bengal) being the original land of the Guptas doesn't stand scrutiny based on the available evidence. On the other hand some of the historians such as Hemchandra Raichowdhury and J Allan say that they were the natives of Magadha (Bihar) while BP Sinha is in favour of the Ayodhya-Mathura region being the origin of the Guptas. In the above statements we have tried to analyze the relevant arguments by different historians regarding the original homeland of the Guptas. After analyzing these statements thoroughly, we have arrived at the conclusion that the Guptas are the original inhabitants of Prayag (Allahabad). This theory was bolstered by SR Goyal and KP Jaiswal who have proposed the Prayag (Allahabad) theory supported by available evidences which has been discussed above. It is important to note that we have reached this conclusion after a thorough inspection of the available sources and evidences, and we are open to the possibilities, if something novel springs up in the near future .

A conclusive remark on the origin of the Guptas may yet not be forthcoming from academia, while at the same time the presence of multiple claims and counter claims in popular history mean that novel research and theories, remains bogged down under the weight of political narratives that require the compliance of academic voices and the broadcasting of narratives that suit interest groups. We ultimately don't aim to say here that our conclusions are indeed the final word on the origins of the Gupta Dynasty, however, we do say this, that, we have interrogated the available evidence, we have provided a fair voice to differing theories and have accepted them or rejected them on the basis of their merits. Ultimately, the arguments of Vaishya origin, fail when confronted with the wider context of the time period and thw prevalence of the suffix Gupta among other caste groups. The Jat origin theory was formulated in a time with limited knowledge about the ethnic group, and current research renders the theory untenable. The Kshatriya theory has practically no legs to stand on, save for the argument with regards to the matrimonial relations of the Guptas, which as we have demonstrated, work in favour rather than against the Brahmin theory. Therefore, based on the wider socio-political background as discussed above during the Vaishya theory discussion, the Dharana gotra evidence pointing towards Brahmin populations in UP, coinciding with the homeland theory of the Guptas and the evidence of anuloma marriages which indicate Brahmin status, we conclude that in all possible likelihood, the Guptas were Brahmins.

the end.