|
|
Post by Ashok Harsana on Apr 3, 2014 10:39:25 GMT 5.5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ashok Harsana on Apr 3, 2014 10:41:11 GMT 5.5
About the Link between Kushand and Hepthals, we can look at the name of last Kushana Ruler. The very few available sources claim that his name was "Chhu". The powerful hepthal Commander who invaded the Gupta kingdom in 455 AD was Chhu-han (or Chh-man or chhu-khan).
|
|
aps
Regular Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by aps on Apr 3, 2014 14:46:55 GMT 5.5
Hello AP Bhaisaab, The topic which you have started has been the core of my research on Gurjars since last 14 years. Duttabhatta was an army commander of the Aulikaras (the second branch which ruled in Malwa and Yasodharman belonged to its third branch). These Aulikars were ally to the Later Guptas of I have covered this topic in detail with references at the following thread: *** DuttaBhatta who served in the army of Prabhakkar Vardhana (The last known Gupta ruler of the Gupta Royal House and ancestor of Harshavardhana of Kannauj), was also called Datta or Dadda-1, who is known to have been the first of Gurjar-Pratihars at Bhinmal. **** Senapati was the title of all Maitrika Rulers of Vallabhi (475-767 AD). The First Maitrika Ruler was known to be Bhattaraka. Seeing the similar period he may be the brother or son of Duttabhatta. He assumed the title of Senapati (his father's title) and founded the Matrikas Dynasty by establishing them at Vallabhi. The Rulers of Vallabhi and Rulers of Bhinmal continued to be allies until Dadda-3, due to some reason, wrestled baroch from Vallabhi kingdom in 7th century AD. Thanks and Regards Dear Ashok, The original Dadda inscriptions were recorded in Saka era and not in Gupta era or Kalchuri era as mentioned in the manipulated and distorted history of India. Please note that the seal of Dadda, "Srimanta" is recorded and not Samanta as mentioned by you. Dadda was not Samanta to anybody and was an independent ruler. To arrive at the right period of the great Dadda you have to deduct 241 years from the date you are reading in your sources of information which is nothing but cut and paste. None of the sources mentioned by you are the original sources. The first inscription of Dadda=II is dated in 392AD. Hence the time of Dadda-I must about 320AD to 330 AD which was the time of extermination of so called Gupta empire. Prabhakrvardhan was a petty ruler who became independent when the Gurjjars ( written as Hepthelites in western records), were facing the combined forces of Turks and Sassanians in Central Asia. Dattabhatta is not Dadda-I and please don't spread such falsehood based on secondary informations which have been propagated based on manipulated history written in slavery period of the country.Harsavardan was not contemporary of Dadda-I as is written by Prof. Mirasi in his works in Epigraphia Indica. Dadda-I was contemporary of Sri Harsa also called Vikramaditya, the founder of Gupta and Vallabhi era which were found after extermination of Gupta dynasty of North and vallabhi dynasty of Sakas of present day Gujarat. That was also the time of the beginning of direct rule of Gurjjars in present day India which was earlier executed through feudatories like Nagas, Sakas and Guptas.This information is based on my own research and you would not find it anywhere in secondary sources. |
|
|
|
Post by Ashok Harsana on Apr 3, 2014 17:06:01 GMT 5.5
I never wrote that Dadda-1 was Contemporary to Harsha. If you read carefully Dadda-2, who was the Grandson of Dadda-1 was contemporary to Harsha. These Pratihars were feudal lords of Chapas (Aulikar family). And I am NOT spreading any misinformation, I have researched for more than 14 years on this topic and none of my assertion can be rejected without Providing concrete evidence. Duttabhatta or Dudda (who ruled in 6th century AD) was the real progenitor of Royal-Pratihars. Please see below: The Kaira plates of the Early Gurjara ruler Dadda II Pra´s¯antar¯aga (Mirashi, CII IV/1, 57–66), [Kalacuri] Sam. vat 380 = CE 629, found “in the town of K¯ed. ¯a or Kair¯a, the headquarters of a district of the same name in Gujarat”, record the grant of a village to 40 brahmins among whom 5 were Atharvavedins of the Cauli gotra, adherents of the P ippal¯ada ´S¯akh¯a, immigrated from Bharukaccha, resident in Bherajjik¯a.
Their names were: Bhadra, V¯ayu´sarman, Dron. asv¯amin, Rudr¯aditya, and
P¯urn. asv¯amin.31 The plates of ´ Sil¯aditya V (Bühler, IA 6 [1877], pp. 16–
21),
Regards
|
|
aps
Regular Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by aps on Apr 3, 2014 18:26:15 GMT 5.5
I never wrote that Dadda-1 was Contemporary to Harsha. If you read carefully Dadda-2, who was the Grandson of Dadda-1 was contemporary to Harsha. These Pratihars were feudal lords of Chapas (Aulikar family). And I am NOT spreading any misinformation, I have researched for more than 14 years on this topic and none of my assertion can be rejected without Providing concrete evidence. Duttabhatta or Dudda (who ruled in 6th century AD) was the real progenitor of Royal-Pratihars. Please see below: The Kaira plates of the Early Gurjara ruler Dadda II Pra´s¯antar¯aga (Mirashi, CII IV/1, 57–66), [Kalacuri] Sam. vat 380 = CE 629, found “in the town of K¯ed. ¯a or Kair¯a, the headquarters of a district of the same name in Gujarat”, record the grant of a village to 40 brahmins among whom 5 were Atharvavedins of the Cauli gotra, adherents of the P ippal¯ada ´S¯akh¯a, immigrated from Bharukaccha, resident in Bherajjik¯a.
Their names were: Bhadra, V¯ayu´sarman, Dron. asv¯amin, Rudr¯aditya, and
P¯urn. asv¯amin.31 The plates of ´ Sil¯aditya V (Bühler, IA 6 [1877], pp. 16–
21),
Regards
I did not believe Prof. Mirasi who has edited only the inscriptions where no specific Era is mentioned and left out others.
How Mirasi was sure that the inscription belonged to Kalchuri Era?
By adding 241 ( difference between Gupta Era and Saka Era) to 380 one would arrive at 621 AD and by adding 249 (Difference between Kalchuri era and Saka era) Prof. Mirasi arrived on a date of 629AD. In fact the date of Kaira inscription is onlt Samvat 380 is mentioned which from other sources I have verified that it belong to Saka era and the actual date of inscription is 380+78= 458 AD.
Hence this inscription belong to 458AD
|
|
aps
Regular Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by aps on Apr 3, 2014 18:54:51 GMT 5.5
Al-Biruni clearly informs that both the eras of Saka and Guptas were established in celebration of the end of Saka king and the Gupta kings respectively.
And he also goes on to give us the difference between the Vikram Era and the Saka Era which is 135 years. Hence Al-biruni's Saka Era is none other than that of 78 CE.
He also informs that the Gupta Era, established at the end of Guptas, is 241 years posterior to Saka Era of 78 CE. Not only that but he gives the current year of Gupta Era as 712 CE which leaves us with no doubt that the Gupta Era referred by Al-Biruni starts at 319 CE.
All the Dadda inscriptions have the records of Eras which were published by Mirasi whereas others where Saka era is genuinely mentioned are deliberately left out and as a result one has to search for the true information elsewhere which was distorted and manipulated.
|
|
aps
Regular Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by aps on Apr 4, 2014 10:40:39 GMT 5.5
Gupta period is written as the Golden period of Indian history which was in fact established by exterminating the Gupta rulers by Kedar Kushans..
This Golden period of history belonged to the great Kushans a sub clan of Gurjjars, the descendants of Kush son of Lord Rama. Sri- Harsa also known as Vikramditya-III and also known as Kedar Kushan in Chinese annals established this golden rule in India again by decisively defeating the Hunas, Parsikas and exterminating Guptas.
Dadda Gurjjar and Sri Karna ( his residence was Karnawas on the bank of Ganga in present day Bulandshar) were companion of Sri Harsa mentioned in the inscription of Dadda Gurjjar. The descendent of Sri-Karna are Gurjjar Solankis and Pulkesin was one of his descendent who defeated Harshvardan of Kannauj. Harshvardan asserted his independence and took control of Kannauj by taking the advantage of the combined attack of Turks and Persians of Gurjjars in Central Asia. It was during this fight and also during the Arab attackes later, the leadership of Gurajjars was transferred from the hand of the Descendents of Kusa to the descendents of Laxmana, also known in western world as hepthelites and Pratihars and Chandellas in India. They are also referred White Hun by Cosmas or Hun in Indian history which is absolutely wrong.
The Hun Gotra among the Gurjjars is misnomer today since they were the rulers of Hun province which is called as Hunza today similar to Khatana as Khatnas were rulers of Khotan ( present day Hetian province in China).
This information is part of my investigation and analysis and can not be found any one particular resource of historical informations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ashok Harsana on Apr 4, 2014 17:32:44 GMT 5.5
Hello AP Bhaisaab, Your point seems valid but that again gets into the controversy which is still a riddle for many historians researching on that particular era. The contradiction is whether there were Later Guptas? or the inscriptions of Guptas were mistakenly considered to be from a later date as you stated above. But that's not a big point in view of the Gurjar History because either they were feudal lords to Earlier Guptas or later Guptas. About Kushans: Please don't connect our pedigree to Ram and Laxman. This takes all our efforts to a point of irrelevance and fun. Almost 100 % of ruling clans has tried to connect their pedigree to ancient kshatriyas but we all know that they are just making fun of themselves as no one can be born out of a fire pit. All the prime Surnames (or Families) were a mere corruption of the word Gurjara. As stated by Heun Tsang, Pilomalo (bhinmal) was ruled by Kuchelo tribe. Gurjars were called kuchi at more than 100 instances in history (specially by the Chinese sources). Yuchi, chechi, Kusan, Khotan (kusans of khotan), Gorsi etc. all are but different pronunciation of the word Gurjara. Just try searching by the name Kucha en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KuchaYou have to widen your research so that you can understand that Gurjars were not restricted to only India when it comes to their origin, migration and Strongholds. Regards. |
|
aps
Regular Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by aps on Apr 4, 2014 19:59:19 GMT 5.5
Hello AP Bhaisaab, Your point seems valid but that again gets into the controversy which is still a riddle for many historians researching on that particular era. The contradiction is whether there were Later Guptas? or the inscriptions of Guptas were mistakenly considered to be from a later date as you stated above. But that's not a big point in view of the Gurjar History because either they were feudal lords to Earlier Guptas or later Guptas. About Kushans: Please don't connect our pedigree to Ram and Laxman. This takes all our efforts to a point of irrelevance and fun. Almost 100 % of ruling clans has tried to connect their pedigree to ancient kshatriyas but we all know that they are just making fun of themselves as no one can be born out of a fire pit. Regards. Dear Ashok, There is no controversy. I am not here to write novel but a great history of India and that based on historical facts. There is lot manipulation and distortion of history which happened during slavery period of the our great country. As per your query please not that later Guptas were not emperors but were allowed to rule on their old possessions by Kedar Kushans. Gujjars are called Yuechi, Yuezhi and Kuchelo in Chinese annals and not Chechi which is sub-clan of Gurjjars. Transliteration is possible in old Chinese language as some people ignorant of this fact are trying to interpret Chechi to Yuechi. Connection with lord Ram and Laxman is part of History. In Sanskrit Kushan is made of two words Kush+Anvay (Read Sten Know for details) and that means the descendent of Kusha. The great epic Raghu-Vamsa mention the words Huns and Parsikas defeated by Raghu and no other than the Gujjars (Yuechis) defeated these both tribes or rulers together. The Gwalior inscription of Mihir Bhoja calls his dynasty as the descendants of Laxmana. In todays world, history is not an isolated subject and the scholars are conducting research in inter-disciplinary and trans-platforms subjects and the scholars having knowledge of management subjects like Critical Analysis and SWOT analysis would not believe the history written based on manipulations and distortions where no other than the Gurjjars have the Strength and the reasons to defeat the Huns and Parsikas. Moreover Yog-Vashitha also mention the fight of Gurjjars with the Hunas. Do you this all the facts mentioned as above are not historical. |
|
aps
Regular Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by aps on Apr 4, 2014 19:59:34 GMT 5.5
Hello AP Bhaisaab, Your point seems valid but that again gets into the controversy which is still a riddle for many historians researching on that particular era. The contradiction is whether there were Later Guptas? or the inscriptions of Guptas were mistakenly considered to be from a later date as you stated above. But that's not a big point in view of the Gurjar History because either they were feudal lords to Earlier Guptas or later Guptas. About Kushans: Please don't connect our pedigree to Ram and Laxman. This takes all our efforts to a point of irrelevance and fun. Almost 100 % of ruling clans has tried to connect their pedigree to ancient kshatriyas but we all know that they are just making fun of themselves as no one can be born out of a fire pit. Regards.
Dear Ashok,
There is no controversy at all. This was one of the biggest fraud in Indian History when all the inscriptions of Dadda having mentioned Saka era were ignored/discarded and Kalchuri/Gupta era was taken based on inscription where no specific era is mentioned. Further the word Srimant Dadda was translated to Samanta to make a Sovereign ruler to look like a vassal king. Please be assured that I am not burning my midnight oil here just to write a novel based on fictions/imaginations and/or conjunctures arrived at half truths but attempting to find the real great history of our country based on historical facts.
There is a lot of manipulation and distortion in Indian history which happened during the slavery period of our great country.
As per your query please note that later Guptas were not emperors but were allowed to rule on their old possessions by Kedar Kushans.
Gujjars are called Yuechi, Yuezhi and Kuchelo in Chinese annals and not Chechi which is sub-clan of Gurjjars. Transliteration is not possible in old Chinese language as some people ignorant of this fact are trying to interpret Yuechi to Chechi.
Relations of Gurjjars with lord Ram and Laxman is Historical. In Sanskrit language Kushan is made of two words Kush+Anvay and that means the descendent of Kusha (Read Sten Konow for details).
The great epic Raghu-Vamsa mention the words Huns and Parsikas defeated by Raghu and no other than the Gujjars (Yuechis) defeated these both tribes or rulers together and ruled over Central Asia.
The Gwalior inscription of Mihir Bhoja calls his dynasty as the descendants of Laxmana.
In todays world, history is not an isolated subject and the scholars are conducting research in inter-disciplinary and trans-platforms subjects and the scholars having knowledge of management subjects like Critical Analysis and SWOT analysis would not believe the history written based on manipulations and distortions whereas in reality no one other than the Gurjjars had the Strength and the reasons to defeat the Huns and Parsikas.
Moreover Yog-Vashitha also mention the fight of Gurjjars with the Hunas.
Do you think that all the facts mentioned as above are not historical? |
|
