THE north-western frontier of the Indian sub-continent has been throughout it’s history, an entry point for the invading armies. The first major historical invasion which resulted in the loss of territory to India was the Achaemenid invasion during the great expansion by it’s king Cyrus around 535 BCE. It made inroads into our territory and annexed the area west of the Indus to the first Persian empire. In 518 BCE, Darius made a second successful attempt and the Indus valley, divided into satrapies formed an integral and lucrative part of the Achaemenid imperium. And this was just the start.
From here came Alexander the Macedonian and an imprint of that invasion resulted in the establishment of a very strong Graeco-Bactrian influence in the Indian north-west. Protection from this was provided by the first Indian empire – the Mauryas. After the Mauryas, the responsibility came on the Śuṅga-sThe vast steppes to the far north also started acting up and gave us our next set of invaders – the Scythians (Śaka), the Parthians (Pahlava) and the Yueh Zhi (Kuśāṇa). The decline of Kuśāṇas gave us our next indigenous empire – the formidable Gupta-s. This time again in the Indian history, a Māgadhan empire had the responsibility to defend the Indian frontiers. And this involved defending the ever porous north-western frontiers. The next invasion was by the people collectively called the Hūṇa in the traditional sources. This article is going to explore and analyse the relations between Hūṇa-s and the Gupta Empire till the time of the end of the reign of valorous Skanda Gupta. It’s a humble attempt to understand the various entangled facts and to freshen up on our knowledge of these new people that threatened our frontiers.
A scenic view from Swat, ancient Gandhara.a
As this is going to be a rather long study, for the benefit of the readers, I am going to give a cursory look as to how this article is going to proceed. After explaining background to the rise of Hūṇa-s i.e. the rise of a ruling family called Kushanshahs, the article will proceed in two main parts. Firstly, non-Indian information and evidence with regard to the various factions of the Hūṇa-s is going to be considered in the following main parts: The Chionites, The Kidarites, The Perso-Kidarite Conflicts, The Hephthalites and The Alkhans. Secondly, Indian information and evidence with regard to each Gupta monarch and their conflicts with the Hūṇa-s starting from the period of Emperor Samudra Gupta till the end of the period of Emperor Skanda Gupta (the purview of this article) will be considered in the following heads: Samudra Gupta, Chandra Gupta II, Kumāra Gupta, Skanda Gupta and, lastly Evidence of Pādatāḍitaka.
Background: The Kushanshahs
Around the middle of the third century CE, Kuśāṇa-s after ruling for centuries in the upper part of the sub-continent were on the decline. The obvious result of their declining power was the establishment of the hegemony in the susceptible north-west by the new rising power in Persia – the Sassanians. Ruler Ardashir I in c. 230 took over Bactria from Kuśāṇa-s and a branch of these Sassanian Persians who helped in this victory and were made the governing nobles of this area. These governors called themselves the Kushanshahs i.e. the King of the Kushanas (Bactrian Koshano Shao).
They were sub-ordinate to the Sassanians, somewhat like a cadet branch of the Sassanian imperial family1 but mostly acted as semi-independent rulers and even minted their own coins (see image below). Their territory included Sogdiana and even the province of Gandhāra where their coins have been found. The first ruler of the Kushanshahs was a certain Ardshir I Kushanshah who was appointed by Sassanian king Ardashir I. The next main king of the line was Peroz I Kushanshah who was able to seriously challenge the hegemony of the Kuśāṇa Empire and confine them to the region around Mathura2 as their western frontier limit. Once, an attempt for independence was made by Kushanshah Hormizd I (275-300 CE) and he rebelled during the Sassanian rule of Bahram II but the attempt failed.
Hormizd I Kushanshah Coin – “The Mazda worshipper, the divine Hormizd, the great Kushana, King of Kings” in Pahlavi.b
On the other hand, a new set of people called the Chionites had started exerting influence in the northern territories of the Kushanshahs. According to Ammianus Marcellinus (Roman soldier and historian), Shapur II (reigned 309-379 CE) at the time starting around c. 354, was busy fighting the Euseni, and the Chionite /Xionites who are now generally identified by the scholars with Cuseni i.e. the northern Kushanas and the earliest batch of the Hunnic people respectively.3 The Chionites (probably the tribe of the Kidarites) under their king Grumbates/Krumbates attacked the eastern frontier of the Persian Empire but after struggling for years, finally concluded peace with Shapur II. He and his son even took part in the Seige of Amida (today’s Diyarbakir, Turkey) in 359 CE under Shapur in which Grumbates lost his son.4 The Xionite history will be discussed shortly.
Due to his wars with these Kushans (shahs) and the Chionites, Shapur II was able to extend his direct control towards the southern territories formerly under the Kushanshahs and he reached the Indus. Therefore, around this period the Sassanian coinage starts to appear in Taxila. The Sassanian control on these territories was maintained even under Shapur III (reigned 383-388 CE) but the control was far from absolute because the Chionite-Kidarites were seriously challenging them.
"The control of Gandhara by Shapur II, known through the issue of his copper denomination there, appears to be a side effect of the increased Sasanian interest in the east. Al-Tabari reports that Shapur made many cities in Sajistan (Sakistan) and Sind (Sindh) and brought to his capital a doctor from India whose knowledge was later spread throughout the Sasanian realm (al-Tabari 845)."
- K. Rezakhani, “From Kushan to the Western Turks”, King of the Seven Climes.
These Chinoites or Xionites (one of the earliest Hunnic people) and among them, the first appearance of the tribe of Kidarites is suggested in the middle of the fourth century CE. They were to play a major role in the Indian sub-continent. The first reason for trying to understand the sequence of these events in the non-Indian world is that a lot of new research has been done by scholars pertaining to the Hunnic world in Asia of this period which involves physical evidence like artifacts and numismatics that shed new light on the subject. The second reason is that we can thus use this evidence with which we are less familiar with to corroborate and compare the evidence and information which is available pertaining to the Indian sequence of events of the time.
NON INDIAN EVIDENCE
The Chionites
The Chionites identified, albeit inconclusively with the Xiognu of the Chinese were nomadic people in the Transoxiana-Bactria region. Sometimes the geographical-physical and sometimes the political events in history result in change of sociological conditions as well. The same has always happened in Central Asia. One of the suggested theory is that the Xiognu/Xiongnu were defeated by the Chinese in 89 CE at the Battle of Ilkh Bayan and due to the subsequent actions of the Chinese under Ban Chao against the Xiognu resulted in their migrations into Central Asia.
What is interesting is that this Xiongnu tribal confederacy had earlier in around 209-177 BCE under the leadership of Maodung, the founder of Xiongnu Empire, defeated the Yueh Chi-s (the confederacy had Kushanas as one of its tribe). Yueh Chi-s or Yueh Zhi-s in this war were the allies of the Hans and their defeat by Xiongnu had resulted in their migration.3
Apparently the Xionites divided themselves into four kinds of hordes and the division of these hordes was supposedly on the basis of colours that are identified with cardinal directions in the Central Asian culture. The Black-Northern horde beyond the Jaxartes (Syr Darya), the Blue-Eastern horde around the Tian Shan (Tengri Tagh Mountains), the White-Western identified with the Hephthalites around Khiva and lastly the Red-Southern identified with the Kidarites-Alchons south of the Oxus.
But this is only one of the several theories regarding the migration of these tribes and consensus is lacking. Some scholars suggest climate change could have been a reason for the migrations. Some place these migration much later in first half of the fourth century CE. Scholars agree that the Chionites had both the Iranian and Turkic elements. They most probably were the Hunnic people who after their migration into the Transoxiana-Bactria region adopted the Kushan-Bactrian language and assimilated themselves in the Kushano-Bactrian culture in general while retaining some of the habits of their (possibly) Altain origins.
The Kidarites
The first Kidarite ‘ruler’ that we know of is Kirada (c. 335-345). His coins, found from the north west, western Punjab are inscribed with vertical Ga-ḍa-ha-ra (Gandhāra). Some coins of these Kidarite ‘Kushanas’ have Samudra inscribed on them and this suggest that he accepted the suzerainty of the Gupta monarch – the great Samudra Gupta. This seems logical because Samudra Gupta had in his control the remnants of the Kuśāṇa empire. The last known Kuśāṇa ruler – Kipunada (c. 335-350) barely controlled some areas around Taxila and Western Punjab and accepted the overlordship of the Gupta monarch. It seems likely that Kirada who was now reaching these areas, accepted the overlordship of Samudra Gupta as supported by the numismatic evidence. Also, Kirada was in virtual control over the last Kushanshah ruler Varaharan I Kushanshah (340-345 CE) and restruck some of his coins. After him came the Kidarite ruler Peroz (c. 350-360) who struck many of his coins with the title – King of the Kushans. The Kidarite rulers evidently, despite their Xiognu/Chionite/Hunnic ethnicity took the title King of the Kushans. This practise was in continuation of their predecessors the Kushano-Sassanians who despite being of Indo-Sassanian ethnicity took the same title. And this is the reason why the earlier sources called the Kidarite as Kidarite Kushans.
The effect of the Kushana imperium was obvious. But the Kidarites were also the last dynasty to do so.
Historian Khudadad Rezakhani suggests that Peroz was involved in the seige of Amida in 359 CE from the Sassanian side. After Peroz, the most known and influential Kidarite ruler was Kidar I (reigned upto 390 CE) whose gold coin found near Tepe Maranjan near Kabul establishes the fact that his territory now included considerable area south of the Hindu Kush before 388 CE.5 It is after this ruler that these Chionite people are specifically called the Kidarites. Around this time the coins of the Kidarites are struck with their specific tamga and the end of Kushano-Sassanians seems official. The capital of their territory was Samarkand. The peace that has been achieved between the Persians and the Kidarites was reportedly broken during the rule of Kidara, not long after the Amida campaign in 359 CE and their relations had became hostile which resulted in numerous battles between them. Due to this, the Sassanians had lost much territory to the Kidarites. As per Rezakhani , “We can date the Kidarite period, based on different evidence, to the period AD 370-457 for the rule of the Kidarites in Bactria, Kabul, and Gandhara, and possibly AD 468 for their ultimate defeat by the Sasanian King of Kings, Peroz (Errington and Curtis 2010: 82)."
Kidarite King Kidar I (r. 350-385/90 CE)c
The Chinese chronicle Beishi/Weishu also refer to this King Kidara as Da Yuezhi or the Great Yuezhi6 (we have to remember that various sources confuse the Kidarite kings with the Kushans/Kushanshahs due to their close, conflicted proximity and the continuing use of the title King of the Kushans). King Jiduoluo mentioned in these sources has been identified with Kidara. The chronicle describes the said king in the following words:
“Their King Jiduoluo, who was brave and martial, there upon raised an army, crossed the great mountains [i.e. the Hindu Kush] and, moving south, invaded northern India. Qiantuoluo (Gandhāra) and the four states to its north fell under his control.”7
The Perso-Kidarite Conflicts
It has been suggested from the authority of Armenian historian Faustus of Byzantium (second half of 5th century CE) that Shapur II during c. 369-375 was defeated by a certain Kushan King of Balkh.8 As mentioned earlier this period is ripe with the conflicts of Shapur II with the Kidarites in which he sometimes could hold the positions. But the Persian empire was seriously affected by these battles with actual loss of territory especially around Bactria. In the period after Shapur II Persia was more engaged in the internal affairs during the reigns of King Shapur III, Bahram IV and Yazdigird I.9 The concentration on the internal problems was either a cause of the Kidarite-Persian problems or an effect is uncertain but the Kidara tribe’s power was increasing in the eastern Iranian region and they consolidated their rule in Bactria, Kabul and Gandhāra.
It is in the reign of Bahram V (r. 420-438) that serious Perso-Kidarite hostilities again commence. Bahram was able to gain the first victory. He defeated them near Merv/Marv , personally killed their king10 and even erected a boundary tower.11 In earlier scholarly works, these conflicts were considered to have taken place between the Hephthalites (the White Huns) and the Persians but the modern scholarly consensus confirms that these were conflicts between Persians ans the Kidarites Huns who took the title of Kushans.
But the Persian fortunes seems to have given away from now on. During the reign of Yazdigird II (r. 438-457) there were numerous struggles with the Huns. As Bakker mentions on the authority of the Armenian historian Elishē, Yazdigird attacked the Kidarite ‘Kushans’ in 449/50 CE and emerged victorious but in the next conflict when the Persian monarch attacked the Kidarites c. 453-54 CE, the result was the opposite – the Sassanians ended up being tributary to the Kidara king.12 The response of the Kidarite ruler to this Persian attack was this:
"…For although he was unable to face him in a pitched battle, nonetheless, falling on his rear he inflicted many losses falling on the king’s army. And he pressed, assailed them so hard that, overcoming them with a small number of troops, he turned them back. In hot pursuit, he plundered many royal provinces, and he he himself [the king of the Kushans] returned safely to his own country."
- Hans T. Bakker, The Alkhan: A Hunnic People in South Asia.
We also learn that in the aforementioned struggle, the Hunnic Kidarites, rather than fighting the Persians in opposing battle lines, unexpectedly fell upon each wing and put many Persians to sword and dissappeared unharmed. They continued these tactics for many days and “exhausted the Persian army.” The next Persian king Hormazd III was defeated by his own brother Peroz who with the help of Hephthalites was able to secure the Sassanian throne. Motivated by the Hephthalite help, Peroz (r. 459-484) now decided to secure the eastern frontier of his empire and hostilities commenced with the Kidarites in 464-65 CE. As per Priscus (eastern Roman diplomat and Greek historian), the Kidarite king at this point was Kunkhas (κουνχας).13 Peroz saw some serious setbacks in these early conflicts but conclusively defeated the Kidarite King (possibly Kunkhas) in 467 CE and Kunkhas fled from his capital Balaam (possibly Balkh) and possibly took refuge in Gandhāra.14 Peroz also issued some gold coins from Balkh. The hegemony of Kidarites in this region was substantially reduced with the loss of Bactria and they had only Gandhāra (Swat) under their control.15 The later development in Persian fortunes in the eastern regions will be dealt in the section below concerning Hephthalites.
The Hephthalites
Another Hunnic power that affects the political situation in this region are the Hephthalites who called themselves ηβοδαλο in Bactrian (Ebodalo) and they seem to become important from about middle of the fifth century CE. As mentioned earlier, they came to prominence when we learn that the Persian Peroz took their help in securing his throne to the empire. Peroz’s victory over Kidara and his conquest of Balkh has been described as a Pyrrhic victory16 for Persians couldn’t hold on to their gains in Balkh and soon lost these domains to Hephthalites who now ruled Sogdiana and also Bactriana. The rest of their dealings with the Persians after the period of Skand Gupta i.e. 467 CE are not in the scope of this article. Though in short, they defeated the Sassanian Peroz conclusively in which Peroz lost his life in 484 CE. This period after Peroz’s death results in a period of their ascendance in the region.
The Alkhans
This nomenclature, which can also be written as Alkhon or Alchon is a rather new entry into the Hunnic world. The reason is that the name is only found on the coins in the Bactrian αλχονο or αλχανο. The fact that the Alchan eveidence is numismatic and lacking in textual has until now resulted in their conflation with the Hephthalites.16 The coins are usually anonymous or if they do carry another writing, it is usually an ethnic name Khiṅgila.17 It is now generally accepted that the Hūṇa kings Toramāṇa and his son Mihirkula belonged to this faction, though neither of these kings used this specific name Alkhan to describe themselves on their coins.
The Hunnic rulers in general do not identify themselves by the word Hūṇa. It is usualy done by their adversaries. Only three identical seals from a certain Kidarite Ruler (afshiyan) of Samarkand named Uglarg/Ularg use these words on the sealings to describe himself – “…lord Uglarg/Ularg, King of /over the Huns, the great Kushāna-[shāh], afshiyan of [Samar] kand”.18 Other than this a Weishu documentation that describes a Sogdian king as Xiongnu and a clay sealing from Kauśāmbi that apparently says hūṇarāja.19 There is not much evidence according to Bakker that lends support to the theory that these rulers ever used the word Hūṇa to identify themselves. The clay sealing from Kauśāmbi is very unclear to read and cannot be taken seriously at this point. Some scholars have hinted at the possibility that Huna or Hūṇa was a pejorative name derived from the Chinese phrase xiōngnu̍ 20 which meant ‘savage slaves’.
The coins bearing Alchon start to emerge from the reign of Shapur II in c. 370 in the Transoxiana region. By the c. 380-388 when the Kidarites as mentioned above have formed a solid base south of the Hindu Kush in Gandhāra, the Alchon Huns seem to be trying to form a base in the Kabulistan region. It seems that they took over the Sassanian mints in the Kabulistan and restruck the Persian coins by adding the name Alchono. They were to slowly replace the Kidarites and to form the main adversaries to the Indian kings in the future. They differentiated their coins with the Kidarites by a special tamga. There is another distinguishing physical feature in some of these tribes. It is considered that Kidarites used to follow the practise of artificial cranial deformation but the Alkhans seemed to taken special pride in their elongated skulls.
But the major horde of coins bearing the title Alkhan are found south of the Hindu Kush. The first proper ruler whose name emerges is Khiṅgila (ruled 430-490 CE) when they take control of the routes of the Hindu Kush and another Alchon King named Mehama (r. 461-493) is also known who was even made governor by Sassanian king Peroz I. The rule of Khiṅgila and Mehama seems to overlap. Mehama also allied with Peroz when the Persian monarch defeated the Kidarites. The Alchon-Kidarite suffered defeat in the hands of Emperor Skanda Gupta in around 455 CE. Despite their defeat which stopped them from trying their luck any farther in Indic mainland, they later seem to have expanded their by the year 470 CE, for we know due to their coins that the Alchons were in possession of Gandhāra and western Punjab. There is more evidence in the form of the Schøyen or the Talagan Copper Scroll but that is out of the scope of this article that concerns itself to the end of the reign of Skand Gupta. However, there is another artifact which is of our interest – the Swat Bowl.
Khiṅgila and the word Alchono in Bactrian script (αλχονο) , a tamga and the special elongated skull.d
The Swat Bowl
The bowl that is now in housed in the the British Museum was found from Swat region (now in Pakistan) in Gandhāra. The art of the bowl represents four hunters. Earlier the dating of the bowl was considered in the first half of fifth century but now the generally accepted date is around the middle of the fifth century. It has also been suggested after reading the inscribed words that it could also be alternatively dated to 428-29 CE 21 that brings the bowl in our purview. The inscription possibly, though inconclusively suggests the name of ruler of the Alchons – Khiṅgila. The iconography suggests four huntsmen in total, two of different ethnicity each. It is now considered that two of them are Kidarite and the other two are Alchons based on their classic elongated skulls. This suggest a period of peace between these Hunnic tribes before Alchons finally displaced the Kidarites.
The Swat Bowl.e
This whole study of the behaviour and the situation of these Hunnic tribes tells us that there was quite a bit of overlapping in the domains of these tribes. When Kidarites were ruling the Bactria, Kabul and Gandhara, the presence and even increasing power of the Alkhans can be seen in the Kabulistan region. The period of peaceful co existences as suggested by the Swat Bowl also tells us that these tribes went back and forth in co-operating and nibbling at each other’s territories.
THE INDIAN EVIDENCE
Samudra Gupta (r. 335-375 CE)
The first evidence regarding the Guptas and their dealings with the north western frontier comes from the Prayāga Praśasti or the Allahabad Pillar Inscription of Samudra Gupta which is dated c. 370 CE, though Hūṇa-s have not been mentioned by name in the inscription. The inscription mentions the people from the north-western frontiers in these words:
The unimpeded flow (prasāra) of the prowess of (whose) arm (was arrested) by an earth embankment (dhāraṇi-bandha) put up by means of service through such measures as self-surrender, offering (their own) daughters in marriage and a request for the administration of their own districts and provinces through the Garuḍa badge, by the DevaputraŚāhi – Śāhānuśāhi and the Śaka lords and by (rulers) occupying all Island countries, such as Siṁhala and others.
The text here mentions the devaputra who are generally identified with the remnants of the Kushan power in India. The candidate for this can be the the Kushana king Vasudeva II or the last known Kushana king Kipunada. The Śaka princes also seem to have accepted his suzerainty and Śāhānuśāhi seem to suggest the Persian monarch Shapur II though this reading could be disputed. An alternate reading of the passage suggest to read Devaputra Śāhi Śāhānuśāhi as one and referring to the last Kushanas and another reading that sounds very convincing makes the Devaputra Śāhi Śāhānuśāhi to mean the Kidarite Kushans. We now know that the Hunnic tribe of Kidarites accepted and adopted the title of Kushan Shahs like their predecessors in the region – the Kushano-Sassanian rulers. So, it seems likely that it was the early ruling Kidarite Hunas that accepted Samudra Gupta as their sovereign.
As mentioned above, the earlier Kidarite rulers like Kirada, Peroz and Kidar I have on their coins the word Ga-ḍa-ha-ra inscribed signifying Gandhāra. And we know that this area accepted the overlordship of Samudra Gupta as many coins with Ga-ḍa-ha-ra have been found which are inscribed with the name Samudra. K. D. Bajpayee suggests the similarity of Gadahara coins and that of Kidara Kushanas. Here also, the coins which were earlier considered of Kidara Kushanas are know known to be of Kidarite Hunas. Therefore, it becomes more likely that at least early Kidarite Hunas accepted the suzerainty of Samuda Gupta.
Chandra Gupta II (r. 375-415 CE)
The extent of the Gupta empire at the end of the reign of Samudra Gupta in c. 375 was huge. It included within it’s direct rule the entire Ganga Valley, parts of central India with Mathura as one of its outpost , and seemingly eastern Punjab as well. But we know that the indirect rule of Samudra Gupta in the north covered even more area with most of the Indian north-west. The overlordship on the southern Indian kingdoms had also been established. The responsibility of converting this indirect rule i in the western frontier into a direct control was taken up by Chandra Gupta II Vikramāditya. He extended the western boundaries of direct Gupta rule to include Rājputāna, Mālwā, Saurāśṭra and Gujarāta. The Śaka or the Scythians were conclusively annihilated. The approximate date of the western victories is somewhere between 387 or 397 – 409 CE since the coins of the last known ruler of the Western Kshatraps – Rudrasimha III21 are dated 310 or 319 of the Śaka era (the reading is unclear) that makes 387 or 397 CE. The Kshatrapa coins that Chandra Gupta’s re-struck after his victory are dated c. 409 CE.
If we consider the possibility (very strong and convincing one) that very early Kidarite rulers accepted the suzerainty of Samudra Gupta, then the lack of any inscriptions on the coins of later Kidarite rulers that in any way suggest suzerainty of Chandra Gupta II, lends support to the fact that the Kidarites were no longer considering the Gupta monarch as their overlord. This was the time when the Kidarite rule south of the Hindu Kush in Gandhāra in around 388 CE was consolidated. At the expense of the Persians, as we learnt above, the Kidarite rulers had been extending their dominions. It’ll be foolish to assume that the neighbouring empire was struggling to deal with people entrenched in the Indian north-west and the Gupta monarch had no knowledge about it.
After securing the western frontier and finishing the Śaka rule, it seems very natural that further in the north, Chandra Gupta would have wanted to keep this volatile frontier secure. Otherwise, there could be danger that these rulers would try their luck in mainland India. The fact that Persia during Chandra Gupta’s time was ruled by rather weak rulers could not have been a welcome sign for the Gupta monarch. The Gupta army had been on a victory march in Samudra Gupta’s time. His son had taken additional task and the army had marched to defeat the Śaka-s.
Coin of the Gupta Emperor Chandra Gupta II.f
There was a real possibility of an impending danger in the north west but it also seems plausible that there was no immediate danger of the Kidarites in this period who were busy troubling the Persians. But what if the Kidarite had decided to try their luck against India and the Gupta emperor had gotten a hint of it. Was the Gupta army ready to do a preemptive strike. Thus, there are enough logical reasons as to why the Gupta monarch would have gone much further north. But did he? And if he did, how far did he actually go? Was the expedition a swift one? What was the result of the campaign? What was the route taken? We’ll attempt to understand these questions.
The Mehrauli Pillar Inscription
The evidence for Chandra Gupta’s possible campaign in the north comes from two kinds of sources – the inscriptions and the literary works. The first main inscription that we’ll talk about is the Mehrauli Pillar Inscription. Scholars are as of now divided regarding it’s interpretation. As it has been generally accepted that the king Candra which the inscription mentions was Chandra Gupta Vikramāditya, we can proceed to know about the relevant lines. These are:
tirtvā sapta mukhāni yena samare sindhorjitā bālhīkāḥ23
There is a difference of opinion with regard to two words – sapta mukhāni and bālhīkāḥ. Some scholars consider sapta mukhāni to mean the seven mouths of the Indus and some take it to mean the seven tributaries including the Indus. These interpretations result in suggestion of two alternative routes and therefore, a change in understanding the identity of the bālhīkāḥ with regard to the route taken.
The opinion of scholars supporting the Seven Mouths of Indus theory suggest that Punjab couldn’t have been the region through which Chandra Gupta went because the Gupta presence in any tangible way in the Western Punjab is insufficient. Only one Shorkut inscription uses the Gupta era and some coins bearing the name Candra. And the continuous finding of independent Kidarite coinage from the region suggest that Chandra Gupta never annexed the Western Punjab region which continued to be dominated by the Kidarites. It’s pointed out in support of this theory that “…both Ptolemy and the Periplus actually refer to the seven mouths of Indus in their time, and Ptolemy even names them separately. Therefore, the Vahlikas, whoever they were-were encountered across the mouths of the Indus and not in Bactria. It seems more legitimate to suppose that Chandragupta extended his empire upto Sindh.”24
The argument is made that if the Vāhalika meant people north of the Hindu Kush then the term would have been applied to the Bactrian Greeks and the Great Kushans as well. Also the term has not been used even in the Allahabad Pillar Inscription to signify the rulers/vassals in the farther north. Dwivedi suggests that the Vāhalika mean not the Kidarite Kushans but the Huns who might have tried to enter India via Bolan Pass and Seistan, much the same way as the Śaka did earlier.25 Therefore, Chandra Gupta would have naturally wanted to extend the Gupta boundaries by including Sindh after the Śaka conquest. As of now, argument can be made in both for and against the Sindh route theory.
We have already learnt that Alkhan Huns had not yet registered their presence in India and these Huns that Dwivedi suggest could only be Kidarites but we know they were confined to region around Taxila and Western Punjab at best and no substantial Kidarite coinage from Sindh have been found. Also there is evidence that Sindh was in Sassanian control, testified by ample Sassanian coinage from Sindh and Seistan. But scholars agree that the Sassanian extent in Sindh is unclear and their rule might have been more nominal than real. Lack of any inscription or Gupta coinage in Sindh proper suggests that if Chandra Gupta had actually went there, it most probably was only a quick expedition or more like a raid and if there was some capture, it couldn’t have reached beyond eastern Sindh. Dwivedi rules out any conquest of Bactria by citing the fact that at this time Bactria was under strong hold of the Chionites (Kidarites).26 He supports the theory that the Gupta monarch might have fought the first onslaught of the Hephthalites – Vāhalika (probably Alchon Huns) across the lower Indus. But we already learnt that Alchon presence in this area so early seems unlikely. Hence, if Chandra Gupta went through this route, he most probably fought the Kidarites. As we can see, due to the inconclusive evidence, it remains a theory.
Scholars who support the trans-Indus theory and thus the northern identification of the Vāhalika say that the author of the Mehrauli inscription gives an impression of wanting to describe the geographical limits of the empire.27 The Vaṅga or Bengal as the eastern limit, the Dakśiṇa Jalanidhi in the south, the region watered by seven mouths of Indus in the west and the Vāhalika. This looks like a clockwise description and Vāhalika was therefore situated in the north. The literary evidence is brought forth in support of this theory and that forms the basis of the suggestion that Chandra Gupta went far north.
Kālidāsa’s Raghuvaṁśa forms the most solid basis of this argument. Raghuvaṁśa IV. 67 describes that Raghu’s “chargers had obtained colour, with saffron flowers clinging to their manes, when they had rolled on the cultivated saffron fields on the banks of the Vankshu.”28 Vankshu has been conclusively identified with the Oxus. Raghu of this piece is generally considered to be Chandra Gupa II. Raghuvaṁśa even gives us an idea to the possible route taken by the king. “Kālidāsa informs us that before launching his Uttardigvijaya, Raghu was already present in the Aparant (western India). There he had compelled the rulers of that region to accept his overlordship. After….he had adopted the land route to invade the Parasika. In a well contested battle he had defeated them. And, after some respite in the vine country, he changed his course and adopted the northern route (Kauberi diśā) and descended on the banks of the river Vankshu.”
The authority of medieval commentators like Kśīrasvāmi (11th century) and Vallabha (12 century) is also cited which is consistent with identifying Vāhalika as a country situated on the banks of river Vankshu.29 Kālidāsa also informs us that the Hūṇa ladies followed the custom of turning their cheeks red to mourn their dead husbands. We know that there was a custom of Hunnic tribes which had people cutting the cheeks to mourn the dead relatives. This supports argument in favour that the Vāhalika that is being talked about are the people around Oxus. It is further opined that the monarch followed dharmavijaya and came back after making them accept the Gupta suzerainty suggesting that it was more of a raid. The most likely candidate for the Hūṇa king that Chandra Gupta II humbled is either Kidar I or his some unknown successor depending on the fact that we consider the campaign to have happened after 387-397 CE or 409 CE.
Poona Copperplate Inscription
Another evidence that points to the northern expedition is the Poona Copperplate Inscription of Prabhavatigupta in which she claims that her father Chandragupta’s fame had tasted the waters of the four seas. Kumāra Gupta and also Skanda Gupta maintained these claims in their inscriptions suggesting that Chandra Gupta was responsible was extending the frontiers to the north because Samudra Gupta had made no such claims.
The possibility thus increases that Chandra Gupta had actually gone to the north and defeated the Hunnic tribes at Oxus which as explained could have been the Kidarites. However, there is also another possibility that the people Chandra Gupta defeated could even have been the Alkhan Huns who as mentioned earlier, had by this time started to make their presence strong in Bactria. The fact that the tribes sometimes overlapped in certain periods makes this confusion happen. The raid was most probably a swift affair and the monarch came back with as speed as he had went. This might explain why there are no physical evidence like coins or inscriptions either of the Guptas or the Hunnic Kidarite-Alchon tribes that suggest any lasting Gupta outpost in Transoxiana-Bactria region.
Kumāra Gupta (r. 415-455 CE)
As mentioned above, Kumāra Gupta in his inscriptions maintains that the empire was touching the four seas. But how far was this claim true? The Kidarites had by this time in their control the area south of the Hindu Kush and they had made strong inroads into the Punjab. It is certain that the empire particularly towards the end Kumāra Gupta’s rule was in trouble. The Pushyamitras that are mentioned in inscriptions were troubling the stability of the empire and some scholars suggest that they might have been emboldened to raise revolt on account of the weakening of the empire under constant Hunnic aggressions. As in this period, the Kidarites and their conflicts with Persians are certain, they might have been slowly gaining grounds in the Indian north-west with their main energies concentrated with the Sassanians and their might have been various skirmishes with the Lord of the Warden of the Marches of the Gupta-s. But a more immediate and grave danger appeared when the Hunnic tribes decided to to finally put all their might towards India proper. Skanda Gupta was to save the day.
Skanda Gupta (r. 455-467 CE)
The most obvious evidence for the mighty Gupta response to the Hūṇa-s comes from the Bhitari Pillar Inscription. Its lines that concerns us are : By whose two arms the earth was shaken, when he, the creator (of a disturbance like that) of a terrible whirlpool, joined in close conflict with the Hunas;.. among enemies…arrows…proclaimed…just as if it were the roaring of (the river) Ganga, making itself noticed in (their) ears.
Bhitari Pillar Inscription of Skanda Gupta.g
Other convincing information comes from the text Chandragarbha paripṛichchhā that states how Skandagupta defeated the Hūṇa-s.30 It states how the kingdom of Mahendra [Kumar Gupta] was under attack from Yavana, Palhika, Sakunas – who first fought among themselves. They took possession of Gandhāra and countries to the north of the Ganges. It tells us how the young son of Mahendra, of weighty hands faced the adversaries. The enemy numbered three hundred thousand and they were under various foreign kings, the chief of whom was a Yavana. The strength of the Gupta army according to this text was less than that of the enemy numbering around two lakhs but Skanda Gupta with his leadership and prowess emerged victorious. He came back and was awarded the crown of the empire. But the troubles seems to have been only subsided and not finished for the text tells us that Skanda Gupta fought these enemies for another twelve years when he finally captured and killed the three enemy kings.
Now the place of the battle is a contested opinion in Indian historiography. Altekar supported the theory that the battle was fought on the banks of the Yamuna. Upendra Thakur suggested the place to be somewhere on the banks of the Sutlej or plains in the western India. Atreyi Biswas holds the opinion that the north-west of the Indian frontier was the location. Some scholars suggest that the battle raged in the Ganga plains as well.31 Jagannath Agrawal has tried to explain that Surāṣṭra could have been the first province of Skandagupta’s Empire to be exposed to the Hūṇa aggression and that is the reason why Skandagupta was so anxious to the administrative arrangements in Surāṣṭra. And that these Hūṇa could have posed a threat to this region only if they had been pouring through the Bolan Pass.32
The Chandragarbha paripṛichchhā mentions combined attack of three – Yavan (Hyōn/Hūṇa), Palhika (Palhavik or Sassanians) and Sakun (Śaka i.e. Kuśāṇa). As we earlier understood, this is the period when Yazdigird II (r. 438-457 CE) was in a state of constant fight with the Kidarite Kushans/Huns particularly after 450 CE. We also learnt earlier that Yazdigird was convincingly defeated in 453-54 CE by the Kidarites. This confirms the statement from the text that these kings had fought among themselves. The Persian scene particularly of this period was closely monitored by myriad of commentators and historians. Had a Sassanian monarch taken part in a battle against an Indian monarch, it is highly unlikely that it would have gone unnoticed. It is a possibility that the combined attack could have some Persians in the army due to hold of the Kidarite-Alkhans on eastern Iranian territories. We also know that there was a period of peaceful co-existence, a confederacy of the Kidarites and the Alkhans.
Two thoughts emerge from this scenario. Was there a proper invasion of the mainland India by this Hunnic confederacy or was it a proper attack by Skanda Gupta on the Hunnic people for they have been troubling the empire and slowly gaining territories for long. The death of the famous Attila the Hun in 453 CE, the commencement of the hostilities between Persia and Kidarites and the battle of Skanda Gupta in which he defeats the Hunnic powers seems too much to be a coincidence to happen in such close periods. A theory is suggested by Hans T. Bakker in his The Alkhan: A Hunnic People in South Asia that the attacks by the Persian monarch and the Indian prince could have been planned – “Did Yazdigird and Skandagupta got wind of Attila’s failure and death and did they coordinated their attacks on the Kidara on both the sides of the Hindu Kush in 453-455.” Lack of any other evidence makes this theory only a theory albeit certainly a tempting one.
There is another possibility however. Defeating Yazdigird in battle in 453-54 CE would have been not only financial boost to the Kidarites (possibly from the war captives and also the booty) but also a major morale boost. This might have led them free from their western borders and made them concentrate on their eastern borderland which they now decided to extend. This could also suggest why their army was told to be of larger number than the Indian one in Chandragarbha paripṛichchhā, as it included the combined power of the confederacy of Alchon-Kidarites along with the Persian captives. The practise of using war captives and making them take part in campaigns by the victors was a long established tradition in these areas. A battle royale then raged where Skanda Gupta humbled them and then the Bhitari Pillar was inscribed around c. 455 CE to commemorate the victory. The king that Skanda possibly fought might also have included the Alchon Khiṅgila or possibly Mehama though under the leadership of a Kidarite king. The possibilities are many. Other than the obvious defeat of the Kidarites by the Persian monarch Peroz in 467 CE, the weakening of the Kidarite power by Skanda Gupta could also be one of the reasons why Alchons eventually emerged victorious over the Kidarites in a few decades.
Skanda Gupta’s coin with his portrait on obverse and Goddess Lakshmi on reverse.h
Skanda Gupta though definitely defeated the confederacy and an immediate danger of them reaching mainland India subsided, the problems seem not to have ended for we have evidence of not only literary works like Chandragarbha paripṛichchhā but also numismatic evidence that these Hunnic groups continued their presence in the Gandhara and Western Punjab. But it is certain that the enemies were kept at bay by the Gupta monarch and it is to his credit that no other invasion seems to have troubled the empire in his time.
Evidence of Pādatāḍitaka
There is another literary source called Pādatāḍitaka that gives us information regarding Guptas and the Hūṇa-s. A collection of bhāṇa plays called Caturbhāṇī was published in 1922 from South Indian manuscripts. And Pādatāḍitaka of Śyāmilaka was one of them. This particular play drew obvious attention as it’s portrayal hints at many contemporary people, places and political movements. “This type of play has only one actor who appears as a rake (viṭa)..he is usually the only character on the stage..”.33
An interesting character is mentioned in the play named Mahāpratihāra Bhadrāyudha. He is introduced as the Lord of Bāhalīka, and Kārūśa-Malada in the north. He seems to imitate the speech of Lāṭa for he pronounces j for y and ś for s. This habit of his is told to be due to long residence in foreign countries. The author of the play doesn’t approve of such habits but he makes an exception for Bhadrāyudha for his military exploits and fame. Scholarly work of earlier time (Burrow, 1946) suggested the date of the work to be somewhere in c. 410 CE but now it is now considered (due to scholarly work of Dasharath Sharma) that the work has many hints which make the terminus ante quem 455-510 CE and thus the Māgadhan monarch who is the overlord of the Mahāpratihāra is not Chandra Gupta (as was earlier considered) but Skanda Gupta. Amongst many indications, one is that some lines in the play bear a strong resemblance to Skanda Gupta’s Bhitari Pillar Inscription.34 Another corroboration is from the Kathāsaritasāgara CXX, 53 ff., “where Bhadrāyudha occurs as a pratihāra of king Vikramāditya of Ujjain, who is son of Mahendrāditya.” The reference to Skanda Gupta here is evident.
It is certainly an interesting evidence that points to the fact that Skanda Gupta seems to have given special responsibility of securing the frontiers of the empire in the north west. The Junagarh Rock Inscription of Skanda Gupta corroborates this. The Hūṇa-s had been defeated but the boundaries required constant vigilance. Persian monarch Peroz (r. 459-84) was to finish off the Kidarite power from the north west in around c. 466 and the constant wars during this period between Persia and Hunnic people might have kept the frontier volatile. Therefore, a character that might be a historic person with the responsibility of Mahāpratihāra seems very logical. The play definitely has many historical undertones. What we know of Transoxiana at this period is that the Kidarite power was ebbing and Peroz was able to capture Balkh. Until some new and more conclusive evidence emerges, the probability of Balkh as being the post of Bhadrāyudha then slims but it is very likely that he was handling the security of the frontier in the Indian north-west, possibly bordering the areas of Punjab.
Conclusion
The Indian north west thus, had been a hotbed for further invasions into mainland India for a long time and mostly the question regarding their invasions was not of if rather when. The dance of power between two giants like Persia and India at one hand, and nestled between them the ever menacing tribes, descending from the Central Asia has resulted in changing fortunes of these two ancient civilizations. The Gupta response to the Hunnic troubles, the possible expedition of Chandra Gupta, the indomitable and valorous deeds of Skanda Gupta are one of the most glorious chapters of Indian history. But as can be seen, there still are a lot of unanswered questions and many loose ends that a history enthusiast can only hope to see resolved.
References
Khodadad Rezakhani, “From the Kushanas to the Western Turks”. King of the Seven Climes. p. 203
ibid. p. 204
Richard N. Frye, The History of Ancient Iran. p. 311
ibid.
Hans T. Bakker, The Alkhan: A Hunnic People in South Asia. p. 10
ibid. p. 11
ibid.
ibid.
Huart Clement, Ancient Persia and Iranian Civilization. pp. 128-129
ibid.
Rezakhani, King of the Seven Climes. p. 206
Bakker, The Alkhan…. p. 12
Rezakhani, King of the Seven Climes. p. 206
ibid.
ibid.
ibid. p. 207
Bakker, The Alkhan…. p. 4
ibid. p.13
ibid.
ibid.
H. C. Raychaudhuri, Political History of Ancient India from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of Gupta Dynasty. p. 269
Dwivedi, Gautam N. “THE WESTERN LIMITS OF THE GUPTA EMPIRE.” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 34 (1973): 76-79. Accessed May 23, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44138595.
Buddha Prakash, Evolution of Heroic Tradition in Ancient Punjab. p.129
Dwivedi, Gautam N. “THE WESTERN LIMITS OF THE GUPTA EMPIRE.” p.77
ibid.
ibid. p.78
Vajpeyi, Raghavendra. “THE VAHLIKAS OF THE MEHARAULI IRON PILLAR INSCRIPTION.” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 38 (1977): 783-90. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44139148.
ibid.
ibid. p. 784
K. P. Jayaswal, An Imperial History of India. p. 64
Tripathi, R. P. “BHITARI PILLAR INSCRIPTION OF SKANDAGUPTA—A NOTE ON GANGA-DHVANIH.” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 39 (1978): 1010-014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44139451.
Agrawal, J., & Agrawala, J. (1958). THE ROUTE OF THE FIRST HŪNA INVASION. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 21, 160-161. Retrieved May 24, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44145184
Burrow, T. “The Date of Śyāmilaka’s “Pādatāḍitaka”.” The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, no. 1 (1946): 46-53. Accessed May 25, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25222064.
Godard Hendrik Schokker, The Pādatāḍitaka of Śyāmilaka. p. 22
Photo Credits:
a, b, c, d, f, g, h: WikiMedia Commons.
e: Hans T. Bakker, The Alkhan: A Hunnic People in South Asia. p. 21