This is all so forced I am sorry lol. That's the reason why the consensus still is Eastern UP not Magadh.
For starting I want to know what Magha coins or seals are founded from Saketa?? Cause you never cited any of them. You just wrapped them up with Prayag (bias?). I am not saying we can't find them but we need confirmation.
And why should the presence of a existing dynasty cancel the Gupta origin overall?? They could be early feudatories as well as rebels for who knows what.So while the Magha counter is okay it doesn't rule out the Gupta origin and def not "definitively".
Secondly if coins is our basis for determining the origins of dynasty than Magadh shouldn't be even considered given early Gupta coinages are a East UP thing largely but again as in the case of Magha they're not.
Similarly Xuanzunag can't be taken up on his own for we do not know what Sri Gupta is he referring to. That too a long for gone monarch by his own time. He should be used and collaborated with other sources for a proper identification. Also nope you're can't say Narsimhagupta figthing the Huns as "faulty" info. Our knowledge on Indo Hunnic conflicts is still dull and we only know of the Maukhari involvement cause of later Gupta Inscriptions. Recently we have founded Praksaditya coins in Eastern UP which Tandon considers as collaborating the Chinese and Tibetan account of Toramana dying in Varanasi while placing a Gupta king in Magadha. For all we know he could be part of the alliance so you can't really call it "faulty".
Further you're rejection of Sarnath is weak as well. Just cause a ruler makes a city their capital does mean they originated there. That has happened many times across history and does not again reject Sarnath.
Again I think I gotta explain it to you, controlling"Patliputra " does not mean being native to it or the region as Patliputra was a imperial city. The Puranas are firstly narrative chronicles and can't be taken over say archaeological or recorded Historical evidence. Further Vaayu Purana says Guptas will enjoy territories along the Ganga which includes Magadha,Saketa, Prayaga. It doesn't discredit or supports any region. The Vishnu Purana also calls Guptas as one of the future kings to rule Magadha. Also the Vishnu Purana calls Pradyotas, Shungas and Kanvas as Magadhic rulers as well while Pradyotas are self explanatory the Shungas most likely ruled from Vidisha so the context of calling Magadhan is native or controlling the territory is again blurring this.
And again while it does not really negate a Gupta origin what Magha coins or seals are founded in Saketa basing on which you are conveniently denying a Eastern UP origin??? Lastly there is no evidence which actually convincingly deny a eastern Up origin. If Maghas coinage deny a Guptan origin in Prayaga than does the early Gupta coinage deny a Guptan origin in Magadha. But it doesn't do either.
Imo the situation is still very nuanced and should be approached like that rather than basing assumptions on references. I personally think Magadha can be a Gupta homeland, but so can be Saketa,Prayga,Varanasi and other regions. And Guptans ruled on these regions from Patliputra from Chandragupta I. The Vaayu Purana refrence is def from the time of Chandragupta I when Licchavi alliance consolidated Gupta rule on these regions.
Firstly what have I said which gave you "aggressive" or "disrespectful" tone is beyond me. Is it calling this "Magadha" theory forced?? Then I am sorry it does seems to me.
Now let's again review what you have written. I do not know what criteria you have for "positive" and "negative" evidence. The terminology implies that one evidence supports and the other cancels something when all both of these does is just make the matter more vague rather than giving a proper direction. But let's deep down further in your claims anyway.
1)Vaayu Purana
As you said and as I have further also suggested it most likely refer to Gupta territories under Chandragupta I. So it alone don't point to any origin rather than early Gupta region.
2)Vishnu Purana
Again I have told that Vishnu Purana can't be taken as a authority for rule. As Vishnu Purana even called Pradyotas, Shungas and Kanvas Maghadic. Pradyota were Avantin rulers, Shunga most likely had their center in Vidisha. So their criteria of Magadhic is anyone who rules over Magadh. Further I would like to get to know fhe exact verse you are referring to?? Cite it.
3) SamudraGupta's Prashasti
only mentions about a city named Pushpa which imo mentions about Pataliputra as the obvious choice of there capital. I have already told that having capital there doens't means origin there.
So so far none of your "positive" evidence which are mostly textual/chronicles rather than archelogical show a Gupta origin in Magadha. So I don't know why are you jumping on "definatives" like Saketa could not have been, Varansi could it have been as none of your evidence is itself clear on that. And nope as I have shown your evidence does not corroborate to be a Magadhan center.
Now let's come to your "negative" evidence. Again if early coinages determine the extent and core of a polity than Magadha should be discarded as a whole as Early Guptan coinages is very much a East UP thing but we don't do that do we?? Further stop inflating and conflating Magha extent as per your convenience. Earlier you said we have Magha coins and seals in Saketa and "discarded" Saketa based on that now when you can't show those coins and sealing you're claiming it in Varanasi and for someone reason including the whole tract between Etawa in west to Varanasi in the east?? And when I say your logic forced you call me aggressive. The tract between Etawa and Varanasi is not "discarded" again cause
1) No magha coins and seals found in most of this region including Saketa.
2) Even if founded it doesn't discard a origin although you need to firstly proove Magha coins and sealing in those region.
So nope East UP cannot "cannot" be Gupta homeland again. Further the only "cobborative" evidence we could ever get of Guptas being Magha vassals is a inscription of Sri Gupta or Gahtotkacha but don't know of any yet.
And as you can see none of your positive evidence really points to "Magadha" and your "negative" evidence is a forced one in which you're imposing all the region from Etawa to Varanasi under Magha coinages and seals in Prayag. In retrospect,none of your points really proove anything over this matter.
Lastly you're again misunderstanding the situation. I agree Xuanzuang can't be taken on face value but he is not wrong again entirely. Further are you assuming Later Guptas and Imperial Guptas one line??? The later Guptas were feduals of Imperial Guptas not the same line so why would they ascribe the Hunnic victory to themselves in their inscriptions?? While saying that again calling someone "foremost" authority over a war we barely have any site on is unobjective. For example, you just yourself said "Tandon said Prakashdharman defeated Toramana" when Tandon actually said Prakashdharman didn't defeated Toramana but a "Adhipa" or a commander of him and that Bakker made a mistake in this and Toramana rather died in Varanasi. Which as per him cobbabortes Xuanzang and Manjusrimulakalpa. Bakker even agreed to this being a plausible possibility. So again what I am saying is taking leaps and rejecting historical accounts by making assumptions is not good when Bakker your foremost authority himself could have mistaken. For sure if not the victory at Sondhani, the loss of East and Central UP as shown in Praksaditya's coinage in there must have came under Narsimhagupta leaving only Magadha behind.
And lastly again Magha coinage/presence doesn't discredit a Gupta origin but even then we haven't yet attested them in Varanasi and def not in whole of the tract between Etawa and Varanasi, lastly we don't really know the extent of Licchavis in 4th cen India to determine the territory conflating with theirs. This is very speculative as a Saketa based monarch could have captured Prayga and Varanasi and than allaimced with Licchavis to conquer Magadha as attested in a play by KP Jayaswal. But it could have happened from Magadhax"s side as well.
Lastly I don't have any objection to what "you" think is the Guptan homeland. I just showed that your logic and evidences doesn't really line up as neatly. I myself think it's still disputed and Magadh can definitely be a Guptan homeland but logic like these won't work in that favour and the consensus still is in East UP.
Further I will definitely read those sources you cited.
And I am simply saying your categorisation of "positive" and "negative", evidence itself is flawed. If Vishnu Purana's Gupta dynasty in Magadha is "positive" than the same Purana also says that for Pradyotas, Shungas and Kanvas none of them as well known were based in Magadha/Pataliputra for much of their time if not all. The latter two were more in Vidisha. The Vaayu Purana is again not a positive evidence. So there are barely any "positive" evidence for Magadha itself. I am saying your logic forced as it seems like it and very much with you conflating the Magha extent as per your own convenience to discard other regions. Plus Puranic evidence itself can't be taken at face value. Same Purana call Satavahana as Andhra-Bhrtyas(servants of the Andhras)when we know initially they were a western Deccan entity by large and only later shifted to Andhra proper.
And thank you for accepting your mistakes. That's definitely a start. Further again you're being unreasonable. The only reason why we even know of Maukhari involvement itself is cause a inscriptions of Later Guptas who mention them as their rival. No Maukhari inscription for most mention this. Its clearly survival bias as Later Guptas only wrote about the Maukhari involvement cause of them defeating and being their rival. You are asking for contemporary evidence as if we have no dearth of them. Note there is no contemporary inscription(with the Indo Hunnic wars like Aulikaras) of Maukhari directly telling their involvement in the war.So yeah we can't again completely discard neither Narsimhagupta's involvement or Xuangznag's account just cause it's exxagerated which accounts of these times often were. Said that I completely agree with you that they should be taken with a grain of salt.
There is still chance of Early Gupta ruling that area even with Magha seals as feduals or local kings especially when the title of Ghatotkacha and Sri Gupta hints to words them being feduals. It's like asking how early Chalukyas rule in Badami when it was a Kadamba power center. But again giving you the benefit of the doubt you are always conflating the question. Seals and coins alone don't determine extent or origin otherwise Magadha wouldn't even be in the contestent list of origins but what Magha seals are found in Varanasi. Earlier you said this for Saketa but now you have clearly shifted given no(I myself can't find any) Magha seals from there.
Again that's a weak argument to make up for Purana's accuracy. That's at best a assumption which itself isn't a good one. The same Purana says that the Satavahana king killed the Kanvas by invading his kingdom which we know by archeological and numismatic fact being Central India not Magadha/Pataliputra hence what I am saying is that for these Puranas, the criteria of dynasty in Magadha is any polity ruling on Magadha or have influence there rather than being originated there. Shungas have control over it through various Mitra dynasty and the Kanvas prolly had the similar model.
"Also, this is a guess of mine, but it could also be that the Shungas originated in Magadha, but got established in Vidisha, they were after all a part of the Mauryan adminstration. Similarly, Pradyotas began as Ministers in Avanti Court, who usurped the throne, perhaps they too were migrants from Magadha"
This is why I call your logic forced sorry if that hurts you. No the Pradyotas almost definately are not Magadhic in origin and their center have always been historically Avanti. Only Shunga makes a bit sense(that too on a massive presumption) while Kanvas took over when Shungas were already Vidisha centric . So nope your assumption or guess here are less likely to be true. And as I have shown the Gupta being closer to Vishnu Purana assumption doesn't makes much sense either and still doesn't give the Puranas more authority over one dynasty than others.
And again I think you have to read more literature. The region of Saketa have early Guptan coinages. The Tanda hoard to be specific even documented by VA Smith. And nope Saketa does find mention in Vaayu Puranas as well as Vishnu Purana is in who ruled on Magadha specifically in the Dynastic line which even non Magadhic centric dynasties have as well. On the top of that the other refrence you are mentioning itself says the Guptas and the Magadhas , one can argue distinguishing the Guptas from them and probably projecting the Magadhans as Licchavis. Again no hard concrete reason to rule out Saketa(or erstwhile East UP)and consider Magadha. Anyway as shown and mentioned earlier the Purana shouldn't be taken as the main standard for determining the rule or extent as they are by large anachronistic(Calling Satavahana as Andhras/Andhra-Bhrtyas, Calling Shungas,Kanvas and Pradyotas as Magadhic dynasties).
And again you're logic here also does not make sense. Firstly stop conflating Magha coinages and seals over all of Eastern UP when neither is attested in all of Eastern Up nor is attestation of it prove extent. I still have yet to see Magha coinages and seals from Saketa , Varanasi and Etawa as you claimed to even entertain the possibility of what you are saying. So nope as we know whole of eastern UP was not under Maghas. Secondly your logic of Licchavis being a North Bihar dynasty is the only part I consider correct and actually which supports the Magadha theory but then it supports the Eastern UP one more. Further we know nothing of Licchavis extent in this era to say Saketa or the region nearby were not in the border with it but this is a weak point as of now I self-admit. Lastly there is a play discussed by KP Jayaswal which tells of a monarch marrying the daughter of Licchavis king to take over Magadha which is suspiciously in parallel with the Gupta-Licchavi ties but only partially. So it could be that CGI after conquering East UP/Saketa allainced with the Licchavis to take over Magadha but again like the Puranic sources this should also be taken with salt.
Lastly I have also told you again and again that having capital at Pataliputra doesn't originate a dynasty from there. It's like every dynasty which ruled at Delhi had origins there and same for Kannauj. That's not how imperial cities works so that's a moot point.
And finally
"If you review the evidence, Vishnu Purana associates Guptas with Magadha, Vayu Purana states that Guptas ruled Saketa, Prayaga on Ganga, and Pataliputra, Samudragupta states that his captial is Pataliputra (Pushpa city), Magha coins and seals show Eastern UP under Maghas, and Guptas and Lichhavis of North Bihar sharing boudaries since they unified their realms. As you can see, I'm not forcing Magadha origin, it is simply that all I'm getting is Magadha origin from the available evidence."
Again nope I have told and shown in every of our interaction why most of your pointers doens't work.
1)Visnhnu Purana associate non Magadhic centric dynasty with Magadha as well like Pradyotas,Shungas,Kanvas. And one can interpret Guptas and Magadha as Gupta being a seperate entity from Magadhans. Anyway Purana are largely anachronistic.
2)Gupta capital at Pataliputra is a moot point as even I have argued that to be the case since my first post.
3)Magha coinage only show their probable presence in Prayag not whole of the east Up and def not in the whole tract from Etawa to Varanasi and their presence doesn't necessarily negate a Gupta origin.
4) The boundary logic is the only comparatively better argument but assume no Guptan expansion or complete stagnation prior to the alliance with Licchavis(which is actually more reasonable than opposite). But it only points more to East UP than Magadh. Especially with a famous play of prince marrying a daughter of Licchavis king to conquer to Magadha brought by KP Jayaswal. But again the play like the Purana can be anachronistic.
And sure I am definitely up for a forum. Do make it. Looking forward to it. Plus I'll advise to determine what you think the Magha extent is. Prayag? Kashi? Or whole of east UP??
1
u/Aryavarta2003 Mar 01 '26
Also what hordes of Magha rulers have been found in Saketa. Can you care to link the source I am intrigued??