Кіріспе
Рамагупта (IAST; шамамен 4-ші ғасырдың соңы), «Девичандрагуптама» санскрит пьесасына сәйкес, Солтүстік Үндістанның Гупта әулетінің императоры болған. Пьесаның сақталған үзінділері және басқа әдеби мәліметтер ол әйелі Дхрувадевиді шака жауына беруге келіскенін көрсетеді. Бірақ, оның інісі Чандрагупта II шака жауын өлтіріп, кейін оны тақтан түсіріп, Дхрувадевиге үйленген. Гупта әулетінің ресми шежіресінде Рамагупта есім аталмайды, сондықтан «Девичандрагуптама» оқиғасының тарихилығы күмәнді. Тағы бірнеше дереккөздер пьесадағы оқиғаларға сілтеме жасайды, бірақ оларда Рамагупта есімді адам туралы айтылмаған, және олардың негізінде пьесаның өзі болуы мүмкін. Орталық Үндістанда табылған, Гупта жазуының бір түрімен жазылған, мерзімі көрсетілмеген үш жазуда Рамагупта есімді патша туралы мәлімет бар: бұл Рамагупта есімді Гупта императорының болғанын көрсетеді, бірақ «Девичандрагуптама» оқиғасының тарихилығын толыққанды дәлелдемейді. Сондай-ақ, Орталық Үндістанда Рамагуптаға тиесілі деген монеталар табылған, бірақ қазіргі тарихшылар бұл тұжырымды бірауыздан қабылдаған жоқ.
Ramagupta (IAST: Rāma gupta; r. c. late 4th century CE), according to the Sanskrit play Devichandraguptam, was an emperor of the Gupta dynasty of northern India. The surviving fragments of the play, combined with other literary evidence, suggest that he agreed to surrender his wife Dhruvadevi to a Shaka enemy: However, his brother Chandragupta II killed the Shaka enemy, and later dethroned him, marrying Dhruvadevi. The official Gupta genealogy does not mention Ramagupta, and therefore, the historicity of the Devichandraguptam narrative is debated. Several other sources refer to the events mentioned in the play, but these sources do not mention Ramagupta by name, and may be based on the play itself. Three undated inscriptions, written in a variety of the Gupta script and discovered in central India, mention a king called Ramagupta: this seems to attest the existence of a Gupta emperor named Ramagupta, although it does not conclusively prove the historicity of the Devichandraguptam story. Some coins discovered in central India have also been attributed to Ramagupta, but this attribution has not been unanimously accepted by modern historians.
Билік
Девичандрагуптаманың сақталған үзінділері мен басқа да қолдаушы дәлелдерге сүйене отырып, қазіргі ғалымдар Рамагуптаның Гупта императоры Самудрагуптаның үлкен ұлы және мұрагері болғандығы туралы теория ұсынады. Пьесаға сәйкес, Рамагупта әйелі Дхрува-девиді (немесе Дхрува-сваминиді) Шака жауына тапсыруға шешім қабылдаса, оның кіші інісі Чандрагупта патшайым кейпінде жау лагеріне барып, жауды өлтіреді. Боджаның «Шрингара Пракаша» кітабында келтірілген Девичандрагуптама үзіндісінде жау лагері Алипурада орналасқандығы айтылады. Бананың «Харша харита» еңбегінде бұл жер «Арипура» (сөзбе-сөз «душпан қаласы») деп аталады; ал «Харша харита»ның бір қолжазбасында «Налинпура» деп көрсетілген. Рамагуптаның «Шака» (IAST: Śaka) жауының кім екені әлі анықталған жоқ. Тарихшы В. В. Мираши оны Пәнджабта билік еткен Кушан патшасымен теңестірді, ол Самудрагуптаның Аллахабад жотасының жазуында «Девапутра Шахи Шанушахи» деп аталған. Тарихшы А. С. Алтекар оны Батыс және Орталық Пәнджабты бақылаған Кидара I-нің ұлы Пиромен сәйкестендірді. Алтекар Пироның Шығыс Пәнджабқа шабуыл жасағанын, ал Рамагупта оның ілгерілеуін тоқтатуға тырысқанын, нәтижесінде соғысқа ұласқанын болжады. Джайнистік мүсіндердегі жазуларға сүйене отырып, тарихшы Теж Рам Шарма Рамагуптаның Шака жауынан ұят көргеннен кейін «бейбіт өмір салтын» қабылдаған болуы мүмкін екенін айтады, бұл оның джайнизмге бейімділігін түсіндіруге болады. Кейін Чандрагупта Рамагуптаны өлтіріп, Гупта жазбаларында Чандрагуптаның патшайымы ретінде есімдері тіркелген Дхрувадевиге үйленген көрінеді.
Based on the surviving passages of Devichandraguptam and other supporting evidence, modern scholars theorize that Ramagupta was the elder son and successor of the Gupta emperor Samudragupta. According to the play, Ramagupta decided to surrender his wife Dhruva devi (or Dhruva svamini) to a Shaka enemy, but his younger brother Chandragupta went to the enemy camp disguised as the queen, and killed the enemy. According to the Devichandraguptam passage quoted in Bhoja's Shringara Prakasha, the enemy camp was located at Alipura. Bana's Harsha charita calls the place "Aripura" (literally "enemy's city"); one manuscript of Harsha charita calls the place "Nalinapura". The identity of Ramagupta's "Shaka" (IAST: Śaka) enemy is not certain. Proposed identifications include:
Historian V. V. Mirashi identified him with the Kushan king who ruled in Punjab, and who is referred to as "Devaputra Shahi Shanushahi" in Samudragupta's Allahabad Pillar inscription. Historian A. S. Altekar identified him with Piro, a son of Kidara I, who controlled western and central Punjab. Altekar theorized that Piro invaded eastern Punjab, and Ramagupta attempted to check his advance, leading to a war. Based on the Jain statue inscriptions (see #Inscriptions below), historian Tej Ram Sharma speculates that Ramagupta may have adopted "a peaceful style of life" after his humiliation by the Shaka enemy, which may explain his inclination towards Jainism. Later, Chandragputa appears to have killed Ramagupta and married Dhruvadevi, who is mentioned as Chandragupta's queen in the Gupta records.
Historian V. V. Mirashi identified him with the Kushan king who ruled in Punjab, and who is referred to as "Devaputra Shahi Shanushahi" in Samudragupta's Allahabad Pillar inscription. Historian A. S. Altekar identified him with Piro, a son of Kidara I, who controlled western and central Punjab. Altekar theorized that Piro invaded eastern Punjab, and Ramagupta attempted to check his advance, leading to a war. Based on the Jain statue inscriptions (see #Inscriptions below), historian Tej Ram Sharma speculates that Ramagupta may have adopted "a peaceful style of life" after his humiliation by the Shaka enemy, which may explain his inclination towards Jainism. Later, Chandragputa appears to have killed Ramagupta and married Dhruvadevi, who is mentioned as Chandragupta's queen in the Gupta records.
Жазулар
Видиша қаласына жақын Дуржанпурдан (немесе Дуржанпурадан) табылған джайнистердің екі тас мүсіні Махараджахираджа Рамагуптаның есімі жазылған жазуларды қамтиды; басқа бір ұқсас мүсініне салынған ішінара зақымдалған жазуда да оның есімі кездеседі. Мүсіндер даланы бульдозермен тазарту кезінде табылды және бульдозердің әсерінен ішінара зақымдалды.
Two stone statues of Jain tirthankaras, discovered at Durjanpur (or Durjanpura) near Vidisha, bear inscriptions that mention Maharajadhiraja Ramagupta; the partially damaged inscription on another similar statue also appears to mention his name. The statues were discovered while clearing a field with a bulldozer, and were partially damaged by the bulldozer. Statue State of preservation Inscription on the pedestal (IAST transliteration, reconstructed portions in square bracket) A: Statue of Chandraprabha Face of the tirthankara completely damaged, Face of the left hand attendant figure damaged, Inscription well preserved and complete. Bhagavatorhataḥ Candraprabhasya pratime yaṃ kāritā ma harājadhirāja śri Rāmaguptena upadeśāt Pāṇipā trika Candrakṣamacā ryya kṣamaṇa śramana praśiṣya acāryya Sarppasena kṣamaṇa śiṣyasya Golakyāntyā satputraasya Celūkṣamaṇasyeti B: Statue of Pushpadanta Face of the tirthankara completely damaged, Attendant and prabhavali portions well preserved, Last two lines of the inscription damaged. Bhagavatorhataḥ Puṣpadantasya pratime yaṃ kāritā ma harājadhirāja śri Rāmaguptena upadeśāt Pāṇipātrika Candrakṣama[nācā]ryya [kṣamaṇa] śramana praśi[ṣya] [ damaged portion ] ti C: Statue of Chandraprabha Face of the tirthankara partially preserved, Attendant and prabhavali portions completely lost, Inscription erased (though some words and letters can be reconstructed based on the other two inscriptions). Bhagava[to]rha[taḥ] [Candra]prabhasya pratime yaṃ [kā]ritā maha[rāja]dhirā[ja] śri [Rāmagupte]na u[padeśāt Pā]ṇi[pātri] [ damaged portion ]
Based on the reconstructed text, all three inscriptions appear to contain same text except the name of the tirthankara. They state that emperor Ramagupta caused the statues to be built at the behest of a mendicant. The mendicant was named Chella Kshamana or Chelu kshamana (IAST: Celū kṣamaṇa), who was a son Golakyanti and a pupil of Acharya Sarppasena kshamana, who in turn, was a pupil's pupil of Chandra kshamana. These inscriptions do not mention that Ramagupta belonged to the Gupta dynasty, and do not mention any date. However, following arguments can be made to date them to the 4th century, and to support the identification of the Ramagupta mentioned in these inscriptions as a Gupta emperor:
According to epigraphist G. S. Gai, who edited the inscriptions, the inscriptions feature the so called southern or western variety of the Gupta script: the alphabet clearly resembles the alphabet of the Eran inscription of Samudragupta (who must have been Ramagupta's predecessor) and the Sanchi inscription of Chandragupta II (who must have been Ramagupta's successor). The medial 'i' character is different from the one featured in the Sanchi inscriptions, but such a character can also be found in earlier inscriptions, such as the Nandsa Yupa inscriptions of the 3rd century. Thus, on palaeographic basis, the Ramagupta inscriptions can be assigned to the 4th century CE. According to Gai, the sculptural features and styles of the statues also suggest that they belong to the 4th century CE. The prabhavali (halo) is not as developed and stylized as in the 5th century Buddha images from Sanchi. The pedestals of the statues feature a chakra at the centre, instead of the characteristic lanchanas (traditional symbols) associated with the tirthankaras, which suggests that the images belong to an "early stage in the development of the Jaina iconography". Maharajadhiraja is an imperial title, which indicates that Ramagupta was a historical Gupta emperor. However, according to another theory, the Ramagupta of the Durjanpur inscriptions is a later Gupta king, not the brother of Chandragupta II. Historian D. C. Sircar has dated these records to a later period, based on a comparison of letters and signs that occur in these inscriptions and the Sanchi inscriptions of Chandragupta II.
Based on the reconstructed text, all three inscriptions appear to contain same text except the name of the tirthankara. They state that emperor Ramagupta caused the statues to be built at the behest of a mendicant. The mendicant was named Chella Kshamana or Chelu kshamana (IAST: Celū kṣamaṇa), who was a son Golakyanti and a pupil of Acharya Sarppasena kshamana, who in turn, was a pupil's pupil of Chandra kshamana. These inscriptions do not mention that Ramagupta belonged to the Gupta dynasty, and do not mention any date. However, following arguments can be made to date them to the 4th century, and to support the identification of the Ramagupta mentioned in these inscriptions as a Gupta emperor:
According to epigraphist G. S. Gai, who edited the inscriptions, the inscriptions feature the so called southern or western variety of the Gupta script: the alphabet clearly resembles the alphabet of the Eran inscription of Samudragupta (who must have been Ramagupta's predecessor) and the Sanchi inscription of Chandragupta II (who must have been Ramagupta's successor). The medial 'i' character is different from the one featured in the Sanchi inscriptions, but such a character can also be found in earlier inscriptions, such as the Nandsa Yupa inscriptions of the 3rd century. Thus, on palaeographic basis, the Ramagupta inscriptions can be assigned to the 4th century CE. According to Gai, the sculptural features and styles of the statues also suggest that they belong to the 4th century CE. The prabhavali (halo) is not as developed and stylized as in the 5th century Buddha images from Sanchi. The pedestals of the statues feature a chakra at the centre, instead of the characteristic lanchanas (traditional symbols) associated with the tirthankaras, which suggests that the images belong to an "early stage in the development of the Jaina iconography". Maharajadhiraja is an imperial title, which indicates that Ramagupta was a historical Gupta emperor. However, according to another theory, the Ramagupta of the Durjanpur inscriptions is a later Gupta king, not the brother of Chandragupta II. Historian D. C. Sircar has dated these records to a later period, based on a comparison of letters and signs that occur in these inscriptions and the Sanchi inscriptions of Chandragupta II.
**Мүсіндердің жағдайы мен жазулары:**
Two stone statues of Jain tirthankaras, discovered at Durjanpur (or Durjanpura) near Vidisha, bear inscriptions that mention Maharajadhiraja Ramagupta; the partially damaged inscription on another similar statue also appears to mention his name. The statues were discovered while clearing a field with a bulldozer, and were partially damaged by the bulldozer. Statue State of preservation Inscription on the pedestal (IAST transliteration, reconstructed portions in square bracket) A: Statue of Chandraprabha Face of the tirthankara completely damaged, Face of the left hand attendant figure damaged, Inscription well preserved and complete. Bhagavatorhataḥ Candraprabhasya pratime yaṃ kāritā ma harājadhirāja śri Rāmaguptena upadeśāt Pāṇipā trika Candrakṣamacā ryya kṣamaṇa śramana praśiṣya acāryya Sarppasena kṣamaṇa śiṣyasya Golakyāntyā satputraasya Celūkṣamaṇasyeti B: Statue of Pushpadanta Face of the tirthankara completely damaged, Attendant and prabhavali portions well preserved, Last two lines of the inscription damaged. Bhagavatorhataḥ Puṣpadantasya pratime yaṃ kāritā ma harājadhirāja śri Rāmaguptena upadeśāt Pāṇipātrika Candrakṣama[nācā]ryya [kṣamaṇa] śramana praśi[ṣya] [ damaged portion ] ti C: Statue of Chandraprabha Face of the tirthankara partially preserved, Attendant and prabhavali portions completely lost, Inscription erased (though some words and letters can be reconstructed based on the other two inscriptions). Bhagava[to]rha[taḥ] [Candra]prabhasya pratime yaṃ [kā]ritā maha[rāja]dhirā[ja] śri [Rāmagupte]na u[padeśāt Pā]ṇi[pātri] [ damaged portion ]
Based on the reconstructed text, all three inscriptions appear to contain same text except the name of the tirthankara. They state that emperor Ramagupta caused the statues to be built at the behest of a mendicant. The mendicant was named Chella Kshamana or Chelu kshamana (IAST: Celū kṣamaṇa), who was a son Golakyanti and a pupil of Acharya Sarppasena kshamana, who in turn, was a pupil's pupil of Chandra kshamana. These inscriptions do not mention that Ramagupta belonged to the Gupta dynasty, and do not mention any date. However, following arguments can be made to date them to the 4th century, and to support the identification of the Ramagupta mentioned in these inscriptions as a Gupta emperor:
According to epigraphist G. S. Gai, who edited the inscriptions, the inscriptions feature the so called southern or western variety of the Gupta script: the alphabet clearly resembles the alphabet of the Eran inscription of Samudragupta (who must have been Ramagupta's predecessor) and the Sanchi inscription of Chandragupta II (who must have been Ramagupta's successor). The medial 'i' character is different from the one featured in the Sanchi inscriptions, but such a character can also be found in earlier inscriptions, such as the Nandsa Yupa inscriptions of the 3rd century. Thus, on palaeographic basis, the Ramagupta inscriptions can be assigned to the 4th century CE. According to Gai, the sculptural features and styles of the statues also suggest that they belong to the 4th century CE. The prabhavali (halo) is not as developed and stylized as in the 5th century Buddha images from Sanchi. The pedestals of the statues feature a chakra at the centre, instead of the characteristic lanchanas (traditional symbols) associated with the tirthankaras, which suggests that the images belong to an "early stage in the development of the Jaina iconography". Maharajadhiraja is an imperial title, which indicates that Ramagupta was a historical Gupta emperor. However, according to another theory, the Ramagupta of the Durjanpur inscriptions is a later Gupta king, not the brother of Chandragupta II. Historian D. C. Sircar has dated these records to a later period, based on a comparison of letters and signs that occur in these inscriptions and the Sanchi inscriptions of Chandragupta II.
Based on the reconstructed text, all three inscriptions appear to contain same text except the name of the tirthankara. They state that emperor Ramagupta caused the statues to be built at the behest of a mendicant. The mendicant was named Chella Kshamana or Chelu kshamana (IAST: Celū kṣamaṇa), who was a son Golakyanti and a pupil of Acharya Sarppasena kshamana, who in turn, was a pupil's pupil of Chandra kshamana. These inscriptions do not mention that Ramagupta belonged to the Gupta dynasty, and do not mention any date. However, following arguments can be made to date them to the 4th century, and to support the identification of the Ramagupta mentioned in these inscriptions as a Gupta emperor:
According to epigraphist G. S. Gai, who edited the inscriptions, the inscriptions feature the so called southern or western variety of the Gupta script: the alphabet clearly resembles the alphabet of the Eran inscription of Samudragupta (who must have been Ramagupta's predecessor) and the Sanchi inscription of Chandragupta II (who must have been Ramagupta's successor). The medial 'i' character is different from the one featured in the Sanchi inscriptions, but such a character can also be found in earlier inscriptions, such as the Nandsa Yupa inscriptions of the 3rd century. Thus, on palaeographic basis, the Ramagupta inscriptions can be assigned to the 4th century CE. According to Gai, the sculptural features and styles of the statues also suggest that they belong to the 4th century CE. The prabhavali (halo) is not as developed and stylized as in the 5th century Buddha images from Sanchi. The pedestals of the statues feature a chakra at the centre, instead of the characteristic lanchanas (traditional symbols) associated with the tirthankaras, which suggests that the images belong to an "early stage in the development of the Jaina iconography". Maharajadhiraja is an imperial title, which indicates that Ramagupta was a historical Gupta emperor. However, according to another theory, the Ramagupta of the Durjanpur inscriptions is a later Gupta king, not the brother of Chandragupta II. Historian D. C. Sircar has dated these records to a later period, based on a comparison of letters and signs that occur in these inscriptions and the Sanchi inscriptions of Chandragupta II.
**А: Чандрапрабханың мүсіні.** Тиртанкараның беті толығымен зақымдалған, сол жақ қолдағы қызметшінің беті зақымдалған. Жазу жақсы сақталған және толық.
*Бхагаваторахтах Чандрапрабхасия пратиме ям карита ма хараджадхиража сри Рамагуптана упадессат Панипа трика Candrakṣamacā ryya kṣamaṇa śramana praśiṣya acāryya Sarppasena kṣamaṇa śiṣyasya Голакиантия саппутрасия Celūkṣamaṇasyeti*
Two stone statues of Jain tirthankaras, discovered at Durjanpur (or Durjanpura) near Vidisha, bear inscriptions that mention Maharajadhiraja Ramagupta; the partially damaged inscription on another similar statue also appears to mention his name. The statues were discovered while clearing a field with a bulldozer, and were partially damaged by the bulldozer. Statue State of preservation Inscription on the pedestal (IAST transliteration, reconstructed portions in square bracket) A: Statue of Chandraprabha Face of the tirthankara completely damaged, Face of the left hand attendant figure damaged, Inscription well preserved and complete. Bhagavatorhataḥ Candraprabhasya pratime yaṃ kāritā ma harājadhirāja śri Rāmaguptena upadeśāt Pāṇipā trika Candrakṣamacā ryya kṣamaṇa śramana praśiṣya acāryya Sarppasena kṣamaṇa śiṣyasya Golakyāntyā satputraasya Celūkṣamaṇasyeti B: Statue of Pushpadanta Face of the tirthankara completely damaged, Attendant and prabhavali portions well preserved, Last two lines of the inscription damaged. Bhagavatorhataḥ Puṣpadantasya pratime yaṃ kāritā ma harājadhirāja śri Rāmaguptena upadeśāt Pāṇipātrika Candrakṣama[nācā]ryya [kṣamaṇa] śramana praśi[ṣya] [ damaged portion ] ti C: Statue of Chandraprabha Face of the tirthankara partially preserved, Attendant and prabhavali portions completely lost, Inscription erased (though some words and letters can be reconstructed based on the other two inscriptions). Bhagava[to]rha[taḥ] [Candra]prabhasya pratime yaṃ [kā]ritā maha[rāja]dhirā[ja] śri [Rāmagupte]na u[padeśāt Pā]ṇi[pātri] [ damaged portion ]
Based on the reconstructed text, all three inscriptions appear to contain same text except the name of the tirthankara. They state that emperor Ramagupta caused the statues to be built at the behest of a mendicant. The mendicant was named Chella Kshamana or Chelu kshamana (IAST: Celū kṣamaṇa), who was a son Golakyanti and a pupil of Acharya Sarppasena kshamana, who in turn, was a pupil's pupil of Chandra kshamana. These inscriptions do not mention that Ramagupta belonged to the Gupta dynasty, and do not mention any date. However, following arguments can be made to date them to the 4th century, and to support the identification of the Ramagupta mentioned in these inscriptions as a Gupta emperor:
According to epigraphist G. S. Gai, who edited the inscriptions, the inscriptions feature the so called southern or western variety of the Gupta script: the alphabet clearly resembles the alphabet of the Eran inscription of Samudragupta (who must have been Ramagupta's predecessor) and the Sanchi inscription of Chandragupta II (who must have been Ramagupta's successor). The medial 'i' character is different from the one featured in the Sanchi inscriptions, but such a character can also be found in earlier inscriptions, such as the Nandsa Yupa inscriptions of the 3rd century. Thus, on palaeographic basis, the Ramagupta inscriptions can be assigned to the 4th century CE. According to Gai, the sculptural features and styles of the statues also suggest that they belong to the 4th century CE. The prabhavali (halo) is not as developed and stylized as in the 5th century Buddha images from Sanchi. The pedestals of the statues feature a chakra at the centre, instead of the characteristic lanchanas (traditional symbols) associated with the tirthankaras, which suggests that the images belong to an "early stage in the development of the Jaina iconography". Maharajadhiraja is an imperial title, which indicates that Ramagupta was a historical Gupta emperor. However, according to another theory, the Ramagupta of the Durjanpur inscriptions is a later Gupta king, not the brother of Chandragupta II. Historian D. C. Sircar has dated these records to a later period, based on a comparison of letters and signs that occur in these inscriptions and the Sanchi inscriptions of Chandragupta II.
Based on the reconstructed text, all three inscriptions appear to contain same text except the name of the tirthankara. They state that emperor Ramagupta caused the statues to be built at the behest of a mendicant. The mendicant was named Chella Kshamana or Chelu kshamana (IAST: Celū kṣamaṇa), who was a son Golakyanti and a pupil of Acharya Sarppasena kshamana, who in turn, was a pupil's pupil of Chandra kshamana. These inscriptions do not mention that Ramagupta belonged to the Gupta dynasty, and do not mention any date. However, following arguments can be made to date them to the 4th century, and to support the identification of the Ramagupta mentioned in these inscriptions as a Gupta emperor:
According to epigraphist G. S. Gai, who edited the inscriptions, the inscriptions feature the so called southern or western variety of the Gupta script: the alphabet clearly resembles the alphabet of the Eran inscription of Samudragupta (who must have been Ramagupta's predecessor) and the Sanchi inscription of Chandragupta II (who must have been Ramagupta's successor). The medial 'i' character is different from the one featured in the Sanchi inscriptions, but such a character can also be found in earlier inscriptions, such as the Nandsa Yupa inscriptions of the 3rd century. Thus, on palaeographic basis, the Ramagupta inscriptions can be assigned to the 4th century CE. According to Gai, the sculptural features and styles of the statues also suggest that they belong to the 4th century CE. The prabhavali (halo) is not as developed and stylized as in the 5th century Buddha images from Sanchi. The pedestals of the statues feature a chakra at the centre, instead of the characteristic lanchanas (traditional symbols) associated with the tirthankaras, which suggests that the images belong to an "early stage in the development of the Jaina iconography". Maharajadhiraja is an imperial title, which indicates that Ramagupta was a historical Gupta emperor. However, according to another theory, the Ramagupta of the Durjanpur inscriptions is a later Gupta king, not the brother of Chandragupta II. Historian D. C. Sircar has dated these records to a later period, based on a comparison of letters and signs that occur in these inscriptions and the Sanchi inscriptions of Chandragupta II.
**B: Пұшпадантаның мүсіні.** Тиртанкараның беті толығымен зақымдалған, аттестатор мен прабхавали бөліктері жақсы сақталған, жазбаның соңғы екі жолы зақымдалған.
*Bhagavatorhataḥ Puṣpadantasya pratime yaṃ kāritā ma harājadhirāja śri Rāmaguptena upadeśāt Pāṇipātrika Candrakṣama[nācā]ryya [kṣamaṇa] śramana praśi[ṣya] [зақымдалған бөлігі]*
Two stone statues of Jain tirthankaras, discovered at Durjanpur (or Durjanpura) near Vidisha, bear inscriptions that mention Maharajadhiraja Ramagupta; the partially damaged inscription on another similar statue also appears to mention his name. The statues were discovered while clearing a field with a bulldozer, and were partially damaged by the bulldozer. Statue State of preservation Inscription on the pedestal (IAST transliteration, reconstructed portions in square bracket) A: Statue of Chandraprabha Face of the tirthankara completely damaged, Face of the left hand attendant figure damaged, Inscription well preserved and complete. Bhagavatorhataḥ Candraprabhasya pratime yaṃ kāritā ma harājadhirāja śri Rāmaguptena upadeśāt Pāṇipā trika Candrakṣamacā ryya kṣamaṇa śramana praśiṣya acāryya Sarppasena kṣamaṇa śiṣyasya Golakyāntyā satputraasya Celūkṣamaṇasyeti B: Statue of Pushpadanta Face of the tirthankara completely damaged, Attendant and prabhavali portions well preserved, Last two lines of the inscription damaged. Bhagavatorhataḥ Puṣpadantasya pratime yaṃ kāritā ma harājadhirāja śri Rāmaguptena upadeśāt Pāṇipātrika Candrakṣama[nācā]ryya [kṣamaṇa] śramana praśi[ṣya] [ damaged portion ] ti C: Statue of Chandraprabha Face of the tirthankara partially preserved, Attendant and prabhavali portions completely lost, Inscription erased (though some words and letters can be reconstructed based on the other two inscriptions). Bhagava[to]rha[taḥ] [Candra]prabhasya pratime yaṃ [kā]ritā maha[rāja]dhirā[ja] śri [Rāmagupte]na u[padeśāt Pā]ṇi[pātri] [ damaged portion ]
Based on the reconstructed text, all three inscriptions appear to contain same text except the name of the tirthankara. They state that emperor Ramagupta caused the statues to be built at the behest of a mendicant. The mendicant was named Chella Kshamana or Chelu kshamana (IAST: Celū kṣamaṇa), who was a son Golakyanti and a pupil of Acharya Sarppasena kshamana, who in turn, was a pupil's pupil of Chandra kshamana. These inscriptions do not mention that Ramagupta belonged to the Gupta dynasty, and do not mention any date. However, following arguments can be made to date them to the 4th century, and to support the identification of the Ramagupta mentioned in these inscriptions as a Gupta emperor:
According to epigraphist G. S. Gai, who edited the inscriptions, the inscriptions feature the so called southern or western variety of the Gupta script: the alphabet clearly resembles the alphabet of the Eran inscription of Samudragupta (who must have been Ramagupta's predecessor) and the Sanchi inscription of Chandragupta II (who must have been Ramagupta's successor). The medial 'i' character is different from the one featured in the Sanchi inscriptions, but such a character can also be found in earlier inscriptions, such as the Nandsa Yupa inscriptions of the 3rd century. Thus, on palaeographic basis, the Ramagupta inscriptions can be assigned to the 4th century CE. According to Gai, the sculptural features and styles of the statues also suggest that they belong to the 4th century CE. The prabhavali (halo) is not as developed and stylized as in the 5th century Buddha images from Sanchi. The pedestals of the statues feature a chakra at the centre, instead of the characteristic lanchanas (traditional symbols) associated with the tirthankaras, which suggests that the images belong to an "early stage in the development of the Jaina iconography". Maharajadhiraja is an imperial title, which indicates that Ramagupta was a historical Gupta emperor. However, according to another theory, the Ramagupta of the Durjanpur inscriptions is a later Gupta king, not the brother of Chandragupta II. Historian D. C. Sircar has dated these records to a later period, based on a comparison of letters and signs that occur in these inscriptions and the Sanchi inscriptions of Chandragupta II.
Based on the reconstructed text, all three inscriptions appear to contain same text except the name of the tirthankara. They state that emperor Ramagupta caused the statues to be built at the behest of a mendicant. The mendicant was named Chella Kshamana or Chelu kshamana (IAST: Celū kṣamaṇa), who was a son Golakyanti and a pupil of Acharya Sarppasena kshamana, who in turn, was a pupil's pupil of Chandra kshamana. These inscriptions do not mention that Ramagupta belonged to the Gupta dynasty, and do not mention any date. However, following arguments can be made to date them to the 4th century, and to support the identification of the Ramagupta mentioned in these inscriptions as a Gupta emperor:
According to epigraphist G. S. Gai, who edited the inscriptions, the inscriptions feature the so called southern or western variety of the Gupta script: the alphabet clearly resembles the alphabet of the Eran inscription of Samudragupta (who must have been Ramagupta's predecessor) and the Sanchi inscription of Chandragupta II (who must have been Ramagupta's successor). The medial 'i' character is different from the one featured in the Sanchi inscriptions, but such a character can also be found in earlier inscriptions, such as the Nandsa Yupa inscriptions of the 3rd century. Thus, on palaeographic basis, the Ramagupta inscriptions can be assigned to the 4th century CE. According to Gai, the sculptural features and styles of the statues also suggest that they belong to the 4th century CE. The prabhavali (halo) is not as developed and stylized as in the 5th century Buddha images from Sanchi. The pedestals of the statues feature a chakra at the centre, instead of the characteristic lanchanas (traditional symbols) associated with the tirthankaras, which suggests that the images belong to an "early stage in the development of the Jaina iconography". Maharajadhiraja is an imperial title, which indicates that Ramagupta was a historical Gupta emperor. However, according to another theory, the Ramagupta of the Durjanpur inscriptions is a later Gupta king, not the brother of Chandragupta II. Historian D. C. Sircar has dated these records to a later period, based on a comparison of letters and signs that occur in these inscriptions and the Sanchi inscriptions of Chandragupta II.
**C: Чандрапрабха мүсіні.** Тиртанкараның бет-әлпеті ішінара сақталған, аттестатор мен прабхавали бөліктері толығымен жоғалған, жазулар өшірілген (кейбір сөздер мен әріптерді басқа екі жазулардың негізінде қайта құруға болады).
*Бхагава[то]ра[та] [Кандра]прабхасия pratime yaṃ [kā]ritā maha[rāja]dhirā[ja] śri [Rāmagupte]na u[padeśāt Pā]ṇi[pātri] [зақымдалған бөлік]*
Two stone statues of Jain tirthankaras, discovered at Durjanpur (or Durjanpura) near Vidisha, bear inscriptions that mention Maharajadhiraja Ramagupta; the partially damaged inscription on another similar statue also appears to mention his name. The statues were discovered while clearing a field with a bulldozer, and were partially damaged by the bulldozer. Statue State of preservation Inscription on the pedestal (IAST transliteration, reconstructed portions in square bracket) A: Statue of Chandraprabha Face of the tirthankara completely damaged, Face of the left hand attendant figure damaged, Inscription well preserved and complete. Bhagavatorhataḥ Candraprabhasya pratime yaṃ kāritā ma harājadhirāja śri Rāmaguptena upadeśāt Pāṇipā trika Candrakṣamacā ryya kṣamaṇa śramana praśiṣya acāryya Sarppasena kṣamaṇa śiṣyasya Golakyāntyā satputraasya Celūkṣamaṇasyeti B: Statue of Pushpadanta Face of the tirthankara completely damaged, Attendant and prabhavali portions well preserved, Last two lines of the inscription damaged. Bhagavatorhataḥ Puṣpadantasya pratime yaṃ kāritā ma harājadhirāja śri Rāmaguptena upadeśāt Pāṇipātrika Candrakṣama[nācā]ryya [kṣamaṇa] śramana praśi[ṣya] [ damaged portion ] ti C: Statue of Chandraprabha Face of the tirthankara partially preserved, Attendant and prabhavali portions completely lost, Inscription erased (though some words and letters can be reconstructed based on the other two inscriptions). Bhagava[to]rha[taḥ] [Candra]prabhasya pratime yaṃ [kā]ritā maha[rāja]dhirā[ja] śri [Rāmagupte]na u[padeśāt Pā]ṇi[pātri] [ damaged portion ]
Based on the reconstructed text, all three inscriptions appear to contain same text except the name of the tirthankara. They state that emperor Ramagupta caused the statues to be built at the behest of a mendicant. The mendicant was named Chella Kshamana or Chelu kshamana (IAST: Celū kṣamaṇa), who was a son Golakyanti and a pupil of Acharya Sarppasena kshamana, who in turn, was a pupil's pupil of Chandra kshamana. These inscriptions do not mention that Ramagupta belonged to the Gupta dynasty, and do not mention any date. However, following arguments can be made to date them to the 4th century, and to support the identification of the Ramagupta mentioned in these inscriptions as a Gupta emperor:
According to epigraphist G. S. Gai, who edited the inscriptions, the inscriptions feature the so called southern or western variety of the Gupta script: the alphabet clearly resembles the alphabet of the Eran inscription of Samudragupta (who must have been Ramagupta's predecessor) and the Sanchi inscription of Chandragupta II (who must have been Ramagupta's successor). The medial 'i' character is different from the one featured in the Sanchi inscriptions, but such a character can also be found in earlier inscriptions, such as the Nandsa Yupa inscriptions of the 3rd century. Thus, on palaeographic basis, the Ramagupta inscriptions can be assigned to the 4th century CE. According to Gai, the sculptural features and styles of the statues also suggest that they belong to the 4th century CE. The prabhavali (halo) is not as developed and stylized as in the 5th century Buddha images from Sanchi. The pedestals of the statues feature a chakra at the centre, instead of the characteristic lanchanas (traditional symbols) associated with the tirthankaras, which suggests that the images belong to an "early stage in the development of the Jaina iconography". Maharajadhiraja is an imperial title, which indicates that Ramagupta was a historical Gupta emperor. However, according to another theory, the Ramagupta of the Durjanpur inscriptions is a later Gupta king, not the brother of Chandragupta II. Historian D. C. Sircar has dated these records to a later period, based on a comparison of letters and signs that occur in these inscriptions and the Sanchi inscriptions of Chandragupta II.
Based on the reconstructed text, all three inscriptions appear to contain same text except the name of the tirthankara. They state that emperor Ramagupta caused the statues to be built at the behest of a mendicant. The mendicant was named Chella Kshamana or Chelu kshamana (IAST: Celū kṣamaṇa), who was a son Golakyanti and a pupil of Acharya Sarppasena kshamana, who in turn, was a pupil's pupil of Chandra kshamana. These inscriptions do not mention that Ramagupta belonged to the Gupta dynasty, and do not mention any date. However, following arguments can be made to date them to the 4th century, and to support the identification of the Ramagupta mentioned in these inscriptions as a Gupta emperor:
According to epigraphist G. S. Gai, who edited the inscriptions, the inscriptions feature the so called southern or western variety of the Gupta script: the alphabet clearly resembles the alphabet of the Eran inscription of Samudragupta (who must have been Ramagupta's predecessor) and the Sanchi inscription of Chandragupta II (who must have been Ramagupta's successor). The medial 'i' character is different from the one featured in the Sanchi inscriptions, but such a character can also be found in earlier inscriptions, such as the Nandsa Yupa inscriptions of the 3rd century. Thus, on palaeographic basis, the Ramagupta inscriptions can be assigned to the 4th century CE. According to Gai, the sculptural features and styles of the statues also suggest that they belong to the 4th century CE. The prabhavali (halo) is not as developed and stylized as in the 5th century Buddha images from Sanchi. The pedestals of the statues feature a chakra at the centre, instead of the characteristic lanchanas (traditional symbols) associated with the tirthankaras, which suggests that the images belong to an "early stage in the development of the Jaina iconography". Maharajadhiraja is an imperial title, which indicates that Ramagupta was a historical Gupta emperor. However, according to another theory, the Ramagupta of the Durjanpur inscriptions is a later Gupta king, not the brother of Chandragupta II. Historian D. C. Sircar has dated these records to a later period, based on a comparison of letters and signs that occur in these inscriptions and the Sanchi inscriptions of Chandragupta II.
Қайта құрылған мәтінге сүйенсек, үш жазуда да тиртханкараның атынан басқа бірдей мәтін бар сияқты. Олардың айтуынша, император Рамагупта мүсіндерді бір қайыршының тапсырысы бойынша тұрғызып қойған. Қайыршы Челла Кшамана немесе Челлу Кшамана (IAST: Celū kṣamaṇa) деп аталды, ол Голакянтидің ұлы және Ачарья Сарппасена Кшамананың шәкірті болды, ол өз кезегінде Чандра Кшамананың шәкірті болды. Бұл жазуларда Рамагуптаның Гупта әулетіне тиесілі екендігі туралы айтылмаған және ешқандай дата да көрсетілмеген. Алайда, оларды IV ғасырға жатқызуға және осы жазуларда аталған Рамагуптаның Гупта императоры ретінде анықталуын қолдау үшін келесі аргументтерді келтіруге болады:
Two stone statues of Jain tirthankaras, discovered at Durjanpur (or Durjanpura) near Vidisha, bear inscriptions that mention Maharajadhiraja Ramagupta; the partially damaged inscription on another similar statue also appears to mention his name. The statues were discovered while clearing a field with a bulldozer, and were partially damaged by the bulldozer. Statue State of preservation Inscription on the pedestal (IAST transliteration, reconstructed portions in square bracket) A: Statue of Chandraprabha Face of the tirthankara completely damaged, Face of the left hand attendant figure damaged, Inscription well preserved and complete. Bhagavatorhataḥ Candraprabhasya pratime yaṃ kāritā ma harājadhirāja śri Rāmaguptena upadeśāt Pāṇipā trika Candrakṣamacā ryya kṣamaṇa śramana praśiṣya acāryya Sarppasena kṣamaṇa śiṣyasya Golakyāntyā satputraasya Celūkṣamaṇasyeti B: Statue of Pushpadanta Face of the tirthankara completely damaged, Attendant and prabhavali portions well preserved, Last two lines of the inscription damaged. Bhagavatorhataḥ Puṣpadantasya pratime yaṃ kāritā ma harājadhirāja śri Rāmaguptena upadeśāt Pāṇipātrika Candrakṣama[nācā]ryya [kṣamaṇa] śramana praśi[ṣya] [ damaged portion ] ti C: Statue of Chandraprabha Face of the tirthankara partially preserved, Attendant and prabhavali portions completely lost, Inscription erased (though some words and letters can be reconstructed based on the other two inscriptions). Bhagava[to]rha[taḥ] [Candra]prabhasya pratime yaṃ [kā]ritā maha[rāja]dhirā[ja] śri [Rāmagupte]na u[padeśāt Pā]ṇi[pātri] [ damaged portion ]
Based on the reconstructed text, all three inscriptions appear to contain same text except the name of the tirthankara. They state that emperor Ramagupta caused the statues to be built at the behest of a mendicant. The mendicant was named Chella Kshamana or Chelu kshamana (IAST: Celū kṣamaṇa), who was a son Golakyanti and a pupil of Acharya Sarppasena kshamana, who in turn, was a pupil's pupil of Chandra kshamana. These inscriptions do not mention that Ramagupta belonged to the Gupta dynasty, and do not mention any date. However, following arguments can be made to date them to the 4th century, and to support the identification of the Ramagupta mentioned in these inscriptions as a Gupta emperor:
According to epigraphist G. S. Gai, who edited the inscriptions, the inscriptions feature the so called southern or western variety of the Gupta script: the alphabet clearly resembles the alphabet of the Eran inscription of Samudragupta (who must have been Ramagupta's predecessor) and the Sanchi inscription of Chandragupta II (who must have been Ramagupta's successor). The medial 'i' character is different from the one featured in the Sanchi inscriptions, but such a character can also be found in earlier inscriptions, such as the Nandsa Yupa inscriptions of the 3rd century. Thus, on palaeographic basis, the Ramagupta inscriptions can be assigned to the 4th century CE. According to Gai, the sculptural features and styles of the statues also suggest that they belong to the 4th century CE. The prabhavali (halo) is not as developed and stylized as in the 5th century Buddha images from Sanchi. The pedestals of the statues feature a chakra at the centre, instead of the characteristic lanchanas (traditional symbols) associated with the tirthankaras, which suggests that the images belong to an "early stage in the development of the Jaina iconography". Maharajadhiraja is an imperial title, which indicates that Ramagupta was a historical Gupta emperor. However, according to another theory, the Ramagupta of the Durjanpur inscriptions is a later Gupta king, not the brother of Chandragupta II. Historian D. C. Sircar has dated these records to a later period, based on a comparison of letters and signs that occur in these inscriptions and the Sanchi inscriptions of Chandragupta II.
Based on the reconstructed text, all three inscriptions appear to contain same text except the name of the tirthankara. They state that emperor Ramagupta caused the statues to be built at the behest of a mendicant. The mendicant was named Chella Kshamana or Chelu kshamana (IAST: Celū kṣamaṇa), who was a son Golakyanti and a pupil of Acharya Sarppasena kshamana, who in turn, was a pupil's pupil of Chandra kshamana. These inscriptions do not mention that Ramagupta belonged to the Gupta dynasty, and do not mention any date. However, following arguments can be made to date them to the 4th century, and to support the identification of the Ramagupta mentioned in these inscriptions as a Gupta emperor:
According to epigraphist G. S. Gai, who edited the inscriptions, the inscriptions feature the so called southern or western variety of the Gupta script: the alphabet clearly resembles the alphabet of the Eran inscription of Samudragupta (who must have been Ramagupta's predecessor) and the Sanchi inscription of Chandragupta II (who must have been Ramagupta's successor). The medial 'i' character is different from the one featured in the Sanchi inscriptions, but such a character can also be found in earlier inscriptions, such as the Nandsa Yupa inscriptions of the 3rd century. Thus, on palaeographic basis, the Ramagupta inscriptions can be assigned to the 4th century CE. According to Gai, the sculptural features and styles of the statues also suggest that they belong to the 4th century CE. The prabhavali (halo) is not as developed and stylized as in the 5th century Buddha images from Sanchi. The pedestals of the statues feature a chakra at the centre, instead of the characteristic lanchanas (traditional symbols) associated with the tirthankaras, which suggests that the images belong to an "early stage in the development of the Jaina iconography". Maharajadhiraja is an imperial title, which indicates that Ramagupta was a historical Gupta emperor. However, according to another theory, the Ramagupta of the Durjanpur inscriptions is a later Gupta king, not the brother of Chandragupta II. Historian D. C. Sircar has dated these records to a later period, based on a comparison of letters and signs that occur in these inscriptions and the Sanchi inscriptions of Chandragupta II.
Эпиграф Г. С. Гайдың айтуынша, жазуларды редакциялаған, жазуларда Гупта жазуының оңтүстік немесе батыс түрі бар: әліпбиі Самудрагуптаның Эран жазуының (Рамагуптаның алдыңғысы болуы керек) және Чандрагупта II-нің Санчи жазуының (Рамагуптаның мұрагері болуы керек) әліпбиіне ұқсайды. Ортаңғы "i" таңбасы Санчи жазбаларында кездесетін таңбадан өзгеше, бірақ мұндай таңбаны III ғасырдағы Нандса Юпа жазулары сияқты бұрынғы жазбаларда да кездестіруге болады. Осылайша, палеографиялық негізде Рамагупта жазуларын біздің заманымыздың 4-ші ғасырына жатқызуға болады. Гайдың айтуынша, мүсіндердің мүсіндік ерекшеліктері мен стилі де оларды біздің заманымыздың 4-ші ғасырына жатқызады. Прабхавали (гало) Санчидегі Будданың 5-ғасырдағы бейнелері сияқты дамыған және стильді емес. Мүсіндердің тұғырында ортасында тиртханкаралармен байланысты тәнті ланчаналар (дәстүрлі символдар) орнына чакра бар, бұл бейнелер "Джайна иконографиясының дамуының ерте кезеңіне" тиесілі екенін көрсетеді. Махараджахираджа - императорлық титул, бұл Рамагуптаның тарихи Гупта императоры болғанын көрсетеді. Алайда, басқа бір теорияға сәйкес, Дуржанпур жазуларындағы Рамагупта - Чандрагупта II-нің ағасы емес, кейінгі Гупта патшасы. Тарихшы Д. С. Сыркар бұл жазбаларды осы жазбаларда кездесетін әріптер мен белгілерді Санчи жазбалары мен Чандрагупта II-нің жазбаларымен салыстырғаннан кейін, кейінгі кезеңге жатқызады.
Two stone statues of Jain tirthankaras, discovered at Durjanpur (or Durjanpura) near Vidisha, bear inscriptions that mention Maharajadhiraja Ramagupta; the partially damaged inscription on another similar statue also appears to mention his name. The statues were discovered while clearing a field with a bulldozer, and were partially damaged by the bulldozer. Statue State of preservation Inscription on the pedestal (IAST transliteration, reconstructed portions in square bracket) A: Statue of Chandraprabha Face of the tirthankara completely damaged, Face of the left hand attendant figure damaged, Inscription well preserved and complete. Bhagavatorhataḥ Candraprabhasya pratime yaṃ kāritā ma harājadhirāja śri Rāmaguptena upadeśāt Pāṇipā trika Candrakṣamacā ryya kṣamaṇa śramana praśiṣya acāryya Sarppasena kṣamaṇa śiṣyasya Golakyāntyā satputraasya Celūkṣamaṇasyeti B: Statue of Pushpadanta Face of the tirthankara completely damaged, Attendant and prabhavali portions well preserved, Last two lines of the inscription damaged. Bhagavatorhataḥ Puṣpadantasya pratime yaṃ kāritā ma harājadhirāja śri Rāmaguptena upadeśāt Pāṇipātrika Candrakṣama[nācā]ryya [kṣamaṇa] śramana praśi[ṣya] [ damaged portion ] ti C: Statue of Chandraprabha Face of the tirthankara partially preserved, Attendant and prabhavali portions completely lost, Inscription erased (though some words and letters can be reconstructed based on the other two inscriptions). Bhagava[to]rha[taḥ] [Candra]prabhasya pratime yaṃ [kā]ritā maha[rāja]dhirā[ja] śri [Rāmagupte]na u[padeśāt Pā]ṇi[pātri] [ damaged portion ]
Based on the reconstructed text, all three inscriptions appear to contain same text except the name of the tirthankara. They state that emperor Ramagupta caused the statues to be built at the behest of a mendicant. The mendicant was named Chella Kshamana or Chelu kshamana (IAST: Celū kṣamaṇa), who was a son Golakyanti and a pupil of Acharya Sarppasena kshamana, who in turn, was a pupil's pupil of Chandra kshamana. These inscriptions do not mention that Ramagupta belonged to the Gupta dynasty, and do not mention any date. However, following arguments can be made to date them to the 4th century, and to support the identification of the Ramagupta mentioned in these inscriptions as a Gupta emperor:
According to epigraphist G. S. Gai, who edited the inscriptions, the inscriptions feature the so called southern or western variety of the Gupta script: the alphabet clearly resembles the alphabet of the Eran inscription of Samudragupta (who must have been Ramagupta's predecessor) and the Sanchi inscription of Chandragupta II (who must have been Ramagupta's successor). The medial 'i' character is different from the one featured in the Sanchi inscriptions, but such a character can also be found in earlier inscriptions, such as the Nandsa Yupa inscriptions of the 3rd century. Thus, on palaeographic basis, the Ramagupta inscriptions can be assigned to the 4th century CE. According to Gai, the sculptural features and styles of the statues also suggest that they belong to the 4th century CE. The prabhavali (halo) is not as developed and stylized as in the 5th century Buddha images from Sanchi. The pedestals of the statues feature a chakra at the centre, instead of the characteristic lanchanas (traditional symbols) associated with the tirthankaras, which suggests that the images belong to an "early stage in the development of the Jaina iconography". Maharajadhiraja is an imperial title, which indicates that Ramagupta was a historical Gupta emperor. However, according to another theory, the Ramagupta of the Durjanpur inscriptions is a later Gupta king, not the brother of Chandragupta II. Historian D. C. Sircar has dated these records to a later period, based on a comparison of letters and signs that occur in these inscriptions and the Sanchi inscriptions of Chandragupta II.
Based on the reconstructed text, all three inscriptions appear to contain same text except the name of the tirthankara. They state that emperor Ramagupta caused the statues to be built at the behest of a mendicant. The mendicant was named Chella Kshamana or Chelu kshamana (IAST: Celū kṣamaṇa), who was a son Golakyanti and a pupil of Acharya Sarppasena kshamana, who in turn, was a pupil's pupil of Chandra kshamana. These inscriptions do not mention that Ramagupta belonged to the Gupta dynasty, and do not mention any date. However, following arguments can be made to date them to the 4th century, and to support the identification of the Ramagupta mentioned in these inscriptions as a Gupta emperor:
According to epigraphist G. S. Gai, who edited the inscriptions, the inscriptions feature the so called southern or western variety of the Gupta script: the alphabet clearly resembles the alphabet of the Eran inscription of Samudragupta (who must have been Ramagupta's predecessor) and the Sanchi inscription of Chandragupta II (who must have been Ramagupta's successor). The medial 'i' character is different from the one featured in the Sanchi inscriptions, but such a character can also be found in earlier inscriptions, such as the Nandsa Yupa inscriptions of the 3rd century. Thus, on palaeographic basis, the Ramagupta inscriptions can be assigned to the 4th century CE. According to Gai, the sculptural features and styles of the statues also suggest that they belong to the 4th century CE. The prabhavali (halo) is not as developed and stylized as in the 5th century Buddha images from Sanchi. The pedestals of the statues feature a chakra at the centre, instead of the characteristic lanchanas (traditional symbols) associated with the tirthankaras, which suggests that the images belong to an "early stage in the development of the Jaina iconography". Maharajadhiraja is an imperial title, which indicates that Ramagupta was a historical Gupta emperor. However, according to another theory, the Ramagupta of the Durjanpur inscriptions is a later Gupta king, not the brother of Chandragupta II. Historian D. C. Sircar has dated these records to a later period, based on a comparison of letters and signs that occur in these inscriptions and the Sanchi inscriptions of Chandragupta II.
Ақша шығару
Мадхья-Прадеш штатының Эран және Видиша қалаларынан аверсінде "Рамагута" ("Рамагуптаның" пракрит түрі) деген жазуы бар, ал реверсінде арыстан немесе гаруда бейнесі салынған бірнеше мыс монеталар табылды. Кейбір ғалымдар бұл монеталарды Гупта әулетінің билеушісі Рамагуптаға жатқызады, ал басқалары оны дербес, жергілікті билеуші деп санайды. Гаруда Гупта империясының символы болғандықтан, нумизмат К. Д. Баджпай осы монеталардың Гупта императоры Рамагупта тарапынан шығарылғанын айтты. Баджпай Самудрагуптаның ұлы Рамагуптаны Орталық Үндістанның шығыс Мальва аймағының губернаторы етіп тағайындағанын болжады; Рамагупта әкесі қайтыс болғаннан кейін де шакалармен болған соғыс салдарынан сол аймақта қалуға мәжбүр болды және "Девичандрагуптам" шығармасындағы оқиғалар осы жерде болды. Алайда, тарихшы Д. С. Сыркар Баджпайдың теориясын көндіре алмайды және бұл монеталарды шығарған адамның біздің заманымыздың 5 ғасырының соңында Гупта әулетінің құлдырауынан кейін Гупта монеталарын еліктеген жергілікті басшы болуы мүмкін екенін мәлімдейді. Сыркар Гарригупта есімді Гупта емес билеушінің гаруда бейнесі салынған мыс монеталар шығарғаны және Чандрагупта II-нің алтын монеталарын үлгі алғаны белгілі екенін айтады. Индрагуптаның монеталары Кумхрардан табылған. Сыркар сондай-ақ басқа Гупта императорларының алтын монеталар шығарғаны белгілі, бірақ Рамагупта шығарған алтын монеталарға дейін табылмаған.
A few copper coins, bearing the legend "Ramaguta" (Prakrit form of "Ramagupta") on the obverse, and the figure of a lion or a garuda on the reverse, have been found at Eran and Vidisha in Madhya Pradesh. Some scholars have attributed these coins to the Gupta ruler Ramagupta, but others believe him to be a distinct, local ruler. Since Garuda was the emblem of the imperial Gupta dynasty, numismatist K. D. Bajpai asserted that these coins were indeed issued by the Gupta emperor Ramagupta. Bajpai speculated that Samudragupta appointed his son Ramagupta as a governor of the eastern Malwa region in central India; Ramagupta was forced to stay there even after his father's death because of the war with the Shakas, and the events depicted in Devichandraguptam happened there. However, historian D. C. Sircar doesn't find Bajpai's theory convincing, and states that the issuer of these coins may have been a local chief of imitated Gupta coinage after the decline of the Gupta dynast in the late 5th century CE. Sircar points out that a non Gupta ruler named Harigupta is known to have issued copper coins that feature a garuda, and imitate the gold coins of Chandragupta II. Coins of another such imitator, named Indragupta, have been discovered at Kumhrar. Sircar also notes that other Gupta emperors are known to have issued gold coins, but no gold coins issued by Ramagupta have been discovered.