Jump to content

Talk:Gupta Empire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Undue origin?

[edit]

I've wanted to raise this question for a long time: Is the inclusion of the Bengal origin of the Guptas in the article fair, or is it undue? The below phrase is full of inconsistencies.[a] One might feel uncertain after reading this paragraph:

Another prominent[by how much?] theory locates the Gupta homeland in the present-day Bengal region in Ganges basin,[undue weight? – discuss] based on the account of the 7th-century Chinese Buddhist monk Yijing. According to Yijing, king Che-li-ki-to (identified with the dynasty's founder Shri Gupta) built a temple for Chinese pilgrims near Mi-li-kia-si-kia-po-no (apparently a transcription of Mriga-shikha-vana). Yijing states that this temple was located more than 40 yojanas east of Nalanda, which would mean it was situated somewhere in the modern Bengal region.[inconsistent] Another proposal is that the early Gupta kingdom extended from Prayaga in the west to northern Bengal in the east.

Almost all[b] modern academic studies conclude that the Guptas originated somewhere in eastern Uttar Pradesh. Do we really need to rely on older sources? Majumdar, a key proponent of the Bengal origin, was more aligned with nationalistic views. Ganguly, on the other hand (who doesn't goes beyond criticising all of the factors attesting UP origin), wasn't vocal[c] about the discovery of Sri Gupta's coin in the east UP and isn't considered an authoritative voice on the matter. The Bengal origin theory and its proponents mostly come from studies between the 1930s and 1970s --- works that are now considered outdated. We'll rarely find any recent academic research tracing Gupta origins to Bengal. So the question remains: should the minority view still be included on this page, or should it be confined to Origin of the Gupta dynasty if it's necessary? Given that newer studies have surpassed and conflicted the older ones, it makes sense to follow the latest research. For more evaluation of the sources, I'd be presenting almost all of the authoritative and putative studies in the origin of Gupta dynasty. Pinging @Koshuri Sultan, NXcrypto, Fylindfotberserk, पाटलिपुत्र, and Ratnahastin: for further inputs. – Garuda Talk! 12:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem mentioning alternate/older origin theories for the sake of WP:NPOV, albeit keeping it truncated. The whole section needs to be trimmed for that matter since we already have this article. I'd like to ping some of the other active users @Utcursch, Doug Weller, Gotitbro, PadFoot2008, and Worldbruce: for inputs. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fylindfotberserk, to some extent, I agree with you. However, the issue of WP:UNDUE remains. We have only one modern source, i.e., Ganguly, who doesn't present a strong argument for the Bengal origin but rather argues against the consensus-driven conclusion. Apparently, he was unaware of the newly discovered Sri Gupta coin in UP. We should give due attention to this matter. – Garuda Talk! 13:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should lean towards WP:NPOV, as suggested by Flyingfotberserk. That said I'd like to hear more opinions around this topic. NXcrypto Message 13:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:YESPOV, as it goes:

The neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.

In this case. If you ask me, there's not sufficient due weight from the proponents of Bengal origin. – Garuda Talk! 13:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gupta's origin is disputed[d]. NXcrypto Message 13:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say not anymore. Please go through the sources added yourself --- almost all of those putative academics tend to follow the conclusion that the Guptas originated in UP. – Garuda Talk! 13:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is reasonable for the article text to say something like "The origin of the Gupta dynasty is disputed. Most scholars place Shri Gupta's homeland in the eastern part of modern day Uttar Pradesh, but other regions have been suggested." I don't think it would be undue to list the other locations that have been suggested, but going into the details of the arguments is clearly what Origin of the Gupta dynasty is for. At the same time, the existence of that article shows that a statement which did not acknowledge the existence of controversy would be inappropriate. Furius (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. It'd be more appropriate to keep the controversial or undue views confined at Origin of the Gupta dynasty, as it goes so far, we don't actually have any modern reliable academias attesting to any other concluding origins except the Lower Doab/East UP/Central Ganga valley regions. – Garuda Talk! 14:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (responding to ping) I don't know why I'm pinged. I don't have any opinion on the matter, but I do note that many of the sources (Atlantic, Concept , Marg, Motilal Banarsidas publishers/publishing, etc.) cited for the Uttarpradesh origin are not from academic publishers. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You were pinged because I'm not familiar with Majumdar's reliability, so I thought you might have more insight. Regarding the publishers, though, I think the fact that the works are authored by subject experts might matter more than whether they're published by academic publishers. – Garuda Talk! 08:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see why alternate origins shouldn't be included. They should be shortened according to their due weight but you can't say that they have no weight at all, since they are in fact supported by a few scholars. PadFoot (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the alternate origins comes from minority views, for that purpose we have Origin of the Gupta dynasty. No one is arguing about "no weight" or 0 weight, the fact that alternatives are supported by "few scholars" simply makes more convincing argument for WP:UNDUE. – Garuda Talk! 15:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I said "a few scholars" not just "few scholars", there's a difference between the two. If something has weightage and support among a section of scholars then there's no reason why it should not be listed. PadFoot (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case, then you can cite more sources below supporting the Bengal origin (please avoid old ones), because, as far as I know, there are few to no proponents of it in modern academic sources. – Garuda Talk! 15:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is Ganguly[2] here who seems to be the only proponent of Bengal origin, the same as Dilip Kumar Ganguly? If yes, then he doesn't seem to be a scholar well-suited to history topics, please don't cite him. Tons of sources have been presented, but I just took a quick glance at two of them. The UNESCO[3] source actually concludes that the consensus among historians has settled on their homeland being in eastern Uttar Pradesh. Britannica[4] says the same and even further negates Magadha as part of their earlier territories, instead placing it as a later addition to the Gupta Empire. With that in mind, I think it's best to stick with what these sources say. I'd even suggest removing all other origin theories that aren't prevalent nowadays and only including the eastern UP origin. There's no need to give space to other POVs, at least not on this page. Koshuri (グ) 19:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I don't know about D. K. Ganguly, but it certainly seems like he's different from Dilip Kumar Ganguly. One might argue whether "Abhinav Publications" is an academic publishing house. As for your suggestion to omit the other origin theories from the article, that seems like a radical approach. However, if someone puts more of his words here, it might be worth considering, but for now the suggestion from furius seems to me a balanced opinion. – Garuda Talk! 01:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my bad. Although I'll point out that Abhinav Publications is a reliable publisher. My approach is not "radical", it's just based on the sources below. You should opt for RfC if you want this discussion to progress. Koshuri (グ) 11:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we may need RfC for this, a local consensus of 6-7 editors would do. It's not like the discussion has become a wall of texts to consider for RfC. Let more editors join in the discussion. – Garuda Talk! 23:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the discussion has pretty much progressed, so should we. I may start RfC by myself, no reason for being too bureaucratic. Koshuri (グ) 10:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Garudam: Could you provide the page number in which this particular quote is present? Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources, notes & references.

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ I-tsing account and its interpretations:
    • Sharma (1989, pp. 38–39): "B.P. Sinha points out that there is some error in mentioning the direction by Hwui-lun. He should have mentioned the location of the Mrigaśikhāvana temple forty stages west of the Adityasena's temple rather than the east of this temple. Majumdar objected to this view stating that it was based on the faulty and incomplete translations of Beal and seems to have ignored the authentic translation of I-tsing's Memoir by E. Chavannes. In reply to this criticism Sinha has rightly drawn our attention to the identification of Mrigaśikhāvana temple with the temple of the Deer Park in a footnote. Further he states that the Deer Park (Sarnath) was a famous and usual centre of pilgrimage for the Buddhists from China and so 'Śri Gupta' of the 3rd century A.D., would have thought of building a China temple for the Chinese priests near the Deer Park, rather than somewhere in Bengal."
    • Agrawal (1989, p. 91): "We are not inclined to accept in toto this opinion of Allan. As we have discussed above, I-tsing's account only points to the jurisdiction of the Guptas over eastern U.P. up to and including Sarnath. There is no evidence that Mahārāja Gupta had control over Pataliputra."
    • Agrawal (1989, pp. 89–91): "Majumdar writes that, 'Foucher has pointed out that Mrigasthāpanā is the Indian original represented by I-tsing's Mi-li-kia-si-kia-po-no, although Chavannes doubtfully restored it as Mrigaśikhāvana. It would therefore follow that the temple of China was near the Mrigasthāpanā stūpa in Varendra.' However, the only conclusion which Majumdar has drawn from this piece of evidence is that Varendra was included in the possessions of Śri Gupta. He has clearly stated that it does not prove that the original home of the Guptas was situated in Varendra. Jagannath Agrawal and B.P. Sinha identify Mrigaśikhāvana with the famous Buddhist place of pilgrimage Mrigadaya or the Deer Park near Sarnath, and locate the China Temple in its proximity. Therefore, it is quite irrelevant to suggest that Mrigaśikhāvana was forty yojanas to the east of Nalanda. [...] The grant of as many as 24 villages could have been made only by a ruler who had jurisdiction over this region. Hence we may infer that Sarnath lay within the realm of Śrī Gupta."
    • Goyal (1967, pp. 43–44): "Both these alternatives appear fallacious. They depend upon the identification of Chi-li-ki-to with the king (Sri) Gupta, which in its turn depends upon the argument that 'it is unlikely that we should have had two different rulers in the same territory of the same name within so brief a period'. But it is not a very sound argument [...] To argue that Chi-li-ki-to and the king Gupta are identical because they ruled over the same territory and then to suggest that the Maharaja Gupta must have ruled over Sarnath or Murshidabad because Chi-li-ki-to is said to have got a temple built there is, to say the least, extremely illogical. Apparently, the identification of the king Gupta and Chi-li-ki-to itself depends upon the question whether Mi-li-kia-si-kia-po-no was situated within the original Gupta kingdom or not."
  2. ^ Gupta's origin:
    • Uttar Pradesh :
      • Agrawal (2016, pp. 1–11): "The origin has been variously traced to Magadha in Bihar, Murshidabad in West Bengal, and eastern Uttar Pradesh. [....] There is no evidence of Gupta rule in Bengal before the beginning of the 5th century. On the basis of the same account of the Chinese traveler, Mi-li-kia-si-kia-po-no has been identified with Mrigashikhavana (Sarnath), where the Buddha delivered his first sermon, setting the Wheel of Law in motion. It must have been included in the possessions of Gupta as the latter is said to have not only built a temple for the Chinese pilgrims, but also donated 24 villages for its maintenance. This is vouched for by the recent discovery of an inscribed image of the Buddhist goddess Hariti from Sarnath, installed by King Gupta."
      • Agrawal (1989, p. 82): "From the very beginning the Guptas controlled the eastern region of U.P., which we may regard as their original home."
      • Bemmann (2015, p. 659): "The royal dynasty of the Gupta had its origin in the central Ganges plain."
      • Ferrier (2018, p. 252): "At that early stage, according to the Purāṇas, the Gupta territory was limited to a triangle formed three major cities, Prayāga, Pāṭaliputra and Ayodhyā. The historic heart of the Gupta Empire was then located roughly on the middle course of the Ganges river."
      • Goyal (1967, pp. 44–52): "We ourselves have tackled the problem of the original home of the Guptas from an entirely different angle, and out approach has led us to conclude that they originally belonged to the eastern part of the U. P. [...] This conclusion is consonant with the facts that at least two hoards of the Gupta gold coins and five out of the eight inscriptions of the early Gupta period including the famous prasasti of Samudragupta, have been found crowded at or in the vicinity of Prayaga alone."
      • Goyala & Goyal (2000, p. 1–2): "The original kingdom of the Guptas was situated, according to the belief of most earlier scholars, in Magadha with Pataliputra as their capital, but now the suggestions of the present writer that the original Gupta kingdom was located in the eastern part of the present Uttar Pradesh, Prayaga (mod. Allahabad) was most likely their capital are gradually finding general acceptance."
      • Khandalavala (1991, p. 1): "The progenitor of this dynasty was one named Gupta whose territory probably existed in the districts of Varanasi and Ghazipur."
      • Kulke & Rothermund (2016, p. 81): "They were probably local princelings somewhere around Allahabad or Varanasi. The Puranas report that the early Guptas controlled the area along the Ganges from Prayag (Allahabad) to Magadha. But Pataliputra and the centre of Magadha were certainly not within their reach."
      • Kumar (2024, p. 1): "The original home of the Guptas was the Kāśī–Kannauj region, Uttar Pradesh."
      • Pletcher (2010, p. 91): "The Guptas, a comparatively unknown family, came from either Magadha or eastern Uttar Pradesh. The third king, Chandra Gupta I (reigned c. 320–c. 330), took the title of maharajadhiraja. He married a Licchavi princess–an event celebrated in a series of gold coins. It has been suggested that, if the Guptas ruled in Prayaga (present-day Allahabad in eastern Uttar Pradesh), the marriage alliance may have added Magadha to their domain."
      • Sharma (1989, pp. 39–40): "The cumulative evidence so far available supports the theory that some region in Uttar Pradesh, most probably Eastern Uttar Pradesh, was the original home of the Guptas."
      • Sharma (2007, p. 242): "UP therefore seems to have been the place from where the Guptas operated and fanned out in different directions. Probably with their centre of power at Prayag."
      • Zhang, Litvinsky & Shabani (1996, p. 26): "Many authorities on Gupta history believe that they came from Magadha or northern Bengal [...] historians have now come to accept the lower Doab region as the original home of the Guptas."
    • Uttar Pradesh & Bihar :
      • Benjamin (2017, p. 502–532): "Gupta rule was founded in 319/20 CE by Chandragupta I in the middle and lower Ganga valley (Magadha and Ayodhya). [....] We know this from a reference in the Vishnu Purana’s dynastic lists to the Guptas ‘enjoying’ all the territories along the Ganga including Saketa (Ayodhya), Prayag (Allahabad), and Magadha. Historians believe this would refer to the early Gupta kingdom under the first important king of the dynasty, Chandragupta I (319–335 CE)."
      • Chaurasia (2002, p. 160): "The original kingdom of the Guptas comprised Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The early Gupta coins and inscriptions have been mainly found in Uttar Pradesh. The centre of their power was Prayag."
      • Roy (2021, p. 11): "the Guptas established their own autonomous principality in Eastern Uttar Pradesh and Magadha."
    • Bengal :
      • Ganguly (1987, p. 19): "The Guptas, as is evident from the aforesaid discussion, laid the foundation of their kingdom in what was called the Magadha-Varendra region in ancient times."
  3. ^ "The numerical superiority of the Gupta hoards of coin in Eastern Uttar Pradesh is not a conclusive proof of the location of the original territory of the Guptas within the area. None of the hoards, discovered as yet, does appear to be contemporaneous with the reign of the first two Gupta kings."[1]
  4. ^ See note on Gupta origin


Sources

[edit]
  • Ferrier, Cédric (2018-04-01). "Sri Lanka and North India during the Gupta Period: Facts and fancy". The Indian Economic and Social History Review. 55 (2): 249–281. doi:10.1177/0019464618760450. ISSN 0019-4646.

References

  1. ^ Ganguly 1987, p. 15.
  2. ^ Ganguly 1987, p. 19.
  3. ^ Zhang, Litvinsky & Shabani 1996, p. 26.
  4. ^ Pletcher 2010, p. 91.

Eh!

[edit]

Now, please revert yourself [1]. PadFoot2008, you don't seem to understand. R. S. Sharma and T. R. Sharma are clearly distinguishable. Regarding Ashwini's works, I don't see an issue with using both. One provides brief insights into the topic, while the other adds more context. Both are justified in this case. – Garuda Talk! 15:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the two Sharmas. The older Agrawal however is not required since, the newer one provides a much more detailed insight as you said above. PadFoot (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now we discuss your rationale -- that both works of Ashwini shouldn't be used. This is vague and not backed by any guidelines. One is from the Wiley Online Library which doesn't dive much into the context, and the other delves deeper into the topic. You should completely revert yourself; a partial revert won't do. Please don't be so quick to revert others' additions. – Garuda Talk! 16:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that both works shouldn't be used — just that the same author shouldn't be sourced twice in the same reference. If you still fail to understand what I mean to say here, then I don't know how else explain it. PadFoot (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I follow your same author reasoning. We can't just prefer a brief paper over an comprehensive study, it's not like you're starting any policy based argument. This is actually the first time I have ever encountered this "same author" problem. – Garuda Talk! 17:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on homeland

[edit]

Per the above sources & discussion. If any changes (or not) has to be made regarding their origins, then what it should be?:

  • A) East Uttar Pradesh (UP) with no alternative pipe link: Modern academia(s) have moved on and shifted to the UP origin, so should our project.
  • B) No change: Status quo.
  • C) East UP with alternative pipe link: Per the suggestion of Furius ~ that slightly/indirectly including other minority theories wouldn't hurt.

Koshuri (グ) 09:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (RfC on homeland)

[edit]
  • A) East UP with no alternative pipe link: As a proposer, no need to be inconsistent when almost all of the newer sources give the same conclusion by countering others. Koshuri (グ) 09:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given policy (including WP:DUE and WP:NPOV more broadly, and WP:AEIS in WP:NOR – WP siding solely with UP would at least be analysis, evaluation, and interpretation all at once), I don't think we have any choice but to indicate that the curretly most-favored origin is eastern UP, but also link to Origin of the Gupta dynasty for a summary of the debates about this. (I don't much care about the specific wording used to do these things.) We perhaps need not dwell on what the alternative proposals are in this particular article (especially not in its lead, which might say "probably originating in eastern Uttar Pradesh"), but WP is not in a position here to hide the fact that there are alternatives and continued academic debate about them. A growing preponderance of RS converging on UP doesn't make UP a cold hard fact, like that gravity exists.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gupta_Empire&oldid=1281002066"