''The Gupta family'', was Gupta empire related to mauryan empire?

Mar 2019
1,535
KL
#1
the following links states that some south indian dynasties of karnataka traced their lineage to the gupta family which included both the chandragupta the second of the gupta empire and the chandragupta maurya of the mauryan empire according to chalukyan inscriptions the the 6th to the 12th century AD . A mauryan dynasty of Konkan was also probably related to the maurya ruler. The indian chronicles also claim lineage of the gupta maurya from the nandas, and since the nandas, mauryas and the guptas and then chalukyas are mentioned, it can be considered that a family and its lineage ruled for over a one and a half thousand years in the indian history, this would surpass the cholas who are thought to have been the longest existing kingdom. The gupta kula family were reduced to feudatories of the chalukya and the kallachuri dynasty in the 12th and 13th century which shows that the gupta family had a presence in southern india from 5-6th century BC to the 13th century AD.

https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=EMUUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA13&dq=gupta+empire+inscription+mysore&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVn7WB-c3jAhU3UBUIHWzmB7oQ6AEIQDAF#v=onepage&q=gupta empire inscription mysore&f=false

1563986406750.png
1563986436980.png
1563986463077.png

Kashmiri semi mythical chronicle Kalhana's Rajatarangini is claimed as the first chronology of india despite the lack of evidences, it would be pertinent to mention that the southern indian chronicles provide more authentic chronology of the southern indian dynasties which have multiple independent sources confirming that of karnataka which are not taken seriously because of mentioning of important empire which are marked with conservative estimate of their realms.

If this notion is proven, what would be the implication on of the eurocentric notion of aryan dravidian, north vs south indian history?

regards
 
Last edited:
Likes: Bharata
Jun 2013
179
ca
#2
without any genealogical evidence, these claims cannot be reasonably examined let alone proven, even as mythology

as for your last question, how is it relevant?