A fresh investigation on Colonial British History on Guptas

British Indian history has been written by equating Alexander with Chandragupta Maurya. Basis for this equation is Megasthanese Indica, where in he mentions Sandrocottus. Britishers have taken Sandrocottus=Chandragupta and whole Indian history is based on this sheet anchor. But Indian historians are arguing since 100 years that, this equation is wrong. So, this is a century old proble, still not resolved amicably.

I have a detailed peer reviewed researched paper to address this problem. The summary of the paper, I am publishing here.

My Hypothesis, Sandrocottus = Samudragupta and Greeks clearly documents their transactions with Imperial Guptas. British colonial equation is wrong. The sheet anchor 326BCE is correct, but it should be treated as Gupta Shaka epoch for working out Indian chronology.

Proof:

1) Greek account says Sandrocouptos.  SandroCouptos = Samdrogupto. (Only 1 letter error. Greek ‘nu’ used instead of Greek ‘mu’). Reading Chandragupta from Sandrocottus is primary error (be it Mauryan Chandragupta or Gupta Chandragupta). If it is not Chandragupta, Mauryans do not even come in the context.

2) Chandragupta1 (CG1) coins and inscriptions mentions him as “Chandra”. He is identified as Chandragupta1 only after Samudragupta (SG) publishes his Allahabad Prashasti, where Gupta genealogy was written. We have no king CG1 record, identifying himself as Chandragupta. That is why Delhi iron pillar Gupta Brahmi inscription has king named as Chandra only. Megasthanese naturally calls the king Xandramese = chandrama.  

3) Megasthanese ends his embassy with Sandrocottus. His accounts ends there. He do not document next king. So we do not hear anything about Chandragupta2(CG2) from Megasthanese or Arrian.   

4) Daimachus becomes next ambassador. His work is lost. Only Strabo quotes him and says Megasthanese was sent as ambassador to Androcottus, and Daimachus was sent as ambassador to next king AmitraGhatta. Amitraghata is son of Sandrocottus. we already know Androcottus is wrong and correct name is Sandrocottus. “Ghatta can be read as Gupta”. The greeks originally have used some twisted names, so CG1 and CG2 are not confused. This is further corrupted by follow on references, who does not know the context. AmitraGhata is no way reads Bindusara of Mauryans. So, it is Chandragupta2 (CG2) of Gupta for whom Daimachus was sent as ambassador.

5) CG1, SG,CG2 is a signature of Guptas. Hence Greek accounts are naming Gupta and not Mauryans.

6) Gadahara coins of peroysa found in Punjab are immediately replaced by Gadahara coins of Samudragupta. This clearly shows, Peroysa is Porus, as Greeks murder Porus and samudragupta fights Selucus Nicator for this. Samudragupta takes over Porus kingdom also. Greeks original accounts reads PHEROS, very close to Peroysa. So, correct name of Porus is Peroysa.

7) Silver coins of CG2 distributed in western kshatrap style and in that region are dated in 320-329 range. While skandagupta silver coins in that style and region are dated in the range 145. Skandagupta is grandson of CG2.  This means epoch used in the coins are different. CG2 coins are dated in Cyrus Saka era(550BCE). 550-329=221 BCE. Skandagupta coins are in Gupta Saka(326 BC, alexanders defeat by CG1), 326-145=181BCE. Gupta Coins in kshatrap region & in their style indicates continuation of kshatrapa rule, but under Gupta overlordship. As Vikrama Saka 57BCE or Shalivahana Saka 78CE celebrates Saka kings defeat. Hence, it cannot be used to print coins while western kshatrapa continue their rule as subordinates to guptas. It offends the rulers. so, epoch can only be older cyrus Saka or Gupta saka. Modern historians use Shalivahan Saka to date these silver coins, which beats practice and logic. Use of word, “varshe”, instead of samvatsara, clearly indicates it is continuation of older Cyrus Saka (550 BCE, as described by Varahamihira) and not Shalivahana Saka.

Chandragupta2 coin

Skandagupta coin

8) Alexander after crossing River Sindh and at Jhelam, enquires about forces he has to face deeper in India, If he crosses, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. He was told about kingdom of Prachi and its ruler Chandragupta1. So, CG1 was ruling. Samudragupta might have been a declared crown prince. As per Allahabad Prashasti, CG1 was an imperial king (Maharajadhiraja). So, defeat of Alexander get ascribed to him. Since, Alexander had killed Darius3 and appropriated his kingdom, he was king of king of Persia too. Alexanders defeat and battle injury was not a small Win. Death of Darius3 and closure of Achaemenid (called as Saka emperor) rule ends Cyrus Saka. So, new Saka has to be started. Hence Gupta Shaka starts at this point, in 326BCE coinciding with Darius3’s death and Alexander’s defeat. CG1 was ruling. GS starts under CG1. This implies, Gupta Shaka did not start to commemorate CG1 ascending the throne. Samudragupta does not claim starting a new era in Allahabad Prashasti. Samudragupta copperplates dated in Gupta Shaka 5 and 9 have been found. This Indicates, Samudragupta ascending the throne after 5 years from Gupta Shaka beginning. CG1 did not wage a war with Darius. So, Gupta Shaka was started to celebrate Alexander’s Defeat (only possibility, when CG1 was old & SG not a king yet). There is no other reasons for Imperial Gupta's to start a Shaka under CG1 rule. Hence, 326BCE becomes Gupta Shaka epoch date. Samudragupta ascends the throne in 321BCE. 326BCE should be the sheet anchor to define Indian chronology.

Samudragupta Gupta copper plate reference with Gupta Shaka 5&9

9) Gupta Garuda vs Greek and Iranian motifs.

The Greek “Garuda” on the inscription closely matches with Gupta logo. We have Heliodorus pillar, where the Greek ambassador inscribes his message on Garuda pillar in 110BC. Heliodorus pillar proves existence of Garuda pillar with Garuda as capital. This 1st BCE Garuda of Greeks points to existence of Gupta symbol before 1st BCE. The original motif should exist for Greeks to copy Garuda from aIndia than the Iranian eagle. So, Gupta must be ruling in BCE and not in CE.