Gupta–Hunnic Wars
Gupta–Hunnic Wars was a series of the wars between the Hunas (Hunnics) and the Gupta Empire.
Gupta–Hunnic Wars | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of Indo–Hunnic Wars | |||||||||
Approximate extent of the Alchon Huns, and find spots of inscriptions related to their local control (map of the Indian subcontinent)[1] | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Belligerents | |||||||||
![]() ![]() Maukhari dynasty Aulikara dynasty |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Sakas | ||||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Yashodharman Prakashadharman Ishanavarman Mātṛviṣṇu † Kidara I |
3 unknown Hepthalite kings (POW) & ![]() Khingila I Piro Bhūta Bharatbala Toramana Mihirakula (POW) Prakasaditya Harigupta Dhanyavishnu |
Background
Samudragupta's Āryāvarta campaigns
According to the Allahabad Pillar inscription, Samudragupta "forcibly uprooted" the following kings of Aryavarta, the northern region:[10]
- Rudradeva
- Matila
- Nagadatta
- Chandravarman
- Ganapatinaga
- Nagasena
- Achyuta-nandin
- Balavarman
Unlike the southern kings, the inscription does not mention the territories ruled by these kings, which suggests that their kingdoms were annexed to the Gupta empire.[11] The inscription also mentions that Samudragupta defeated some other kings, but does not mention their names, presumably because the poet saw them as unimportant.[10]
Rise of Kidara Kushans
The emergence of the Great Kushans in Bactria and Northwestern India during the first century A.D. transformed these regions into significant players in international politics. The Kushan empire posed a dual threat to the Parthians of Iran. Economically, the Kushans, like the Parthians, acted as intermediaries in trade. They controlled three crucial sections of the renowned Silk Road: firstly, the route connecting the Caspian and Euxine Seas; secondly, the path passing through Merv, Hecatompylos, and Ecbatana, crossing the Euphrates and reaching Mediterranean ports; and thirdly, the maritime route between India and the Red Sea, which gained immense importance after the discovery of monsoons. Consequently, they had the ability to redirect trade between China, India, and the eastern countries away from Parthian territory, posing a significant economic challenge to Parthian rulers.[12]
The political implications of the Kushans' rise as a major power were also profound for Iran. Instead of facing a single enemy in the West, Iran found itself sandwiched between the Roman Empire and the Kushans. The Romans, who were constantly engaged in rivalry and conflict with the Parthians, recognized the strategic importance of this empire and sought direct relations with its rulers to safeguard trade routes between Rome, China, and India. Caught between these two powers, the early Sasanians, who succeeded the Parthians as the imperial rulers of Iran in 224 A.D., made the conquest of the Kushan empire their primary objective in Eastern policy, and they achieved remarkable success in this endeavor. The first Sasanian emperor, Ardashir I (224-241 A.D.), conquered Kushan principalities to the north of the Hindukush. Although Kushan chiefs continued to govern these territories, they had to accept the overlordship of the Sasanian emperor.[12]
Submission of Kidarites (Little Kushans)
The Kushan Empire continued as a remnant known as the "Little Kushans", based in the Punjab. Around 270 their territories on the Gangetic plain became independent under local dynasties such as the Yaudheyas. Then in the mid-4th century they were subjugated by the Gupta Empire under Samudragupta.[13] In his inscription on the Allahabad pillar Samudragupta proclaims that the Dēvaputra-Shāhi-Shāhānushāhi (referring to the last Kushan rulers, being a deformation of the Kushan regnal titles Devaputra, Shao and Shaonanoshao: "Son of God, King, King of Kings") are now under his dominion, and that they were forced to "self-surrender, offering (their own) daughters in marriage and a request for the administration of their own districts and provinces".[14][13][15] This suggests that by the time of the Allahabad inscription the Kushans still ruled in Punjab, but under the suzerainty of the Gupta Emperor.[13]
North-western policy of Samudragupta








The reconstruction of Samudragupta's northwest policy mentioned earlier aligns with other intriguing facts. In 361 AD, an Indian delegation reportedly visited Rome, as stated by Roman historians. Despite having been dispatched from India earlier, the embassy did not reach Rome until 351 AD. Taking into account the political circumstances in India during the mid-4th century AD, this fact holds significant value. Before the year 361 AD, it was noted that the Roman emperors were engaged in a conflict with the Sassanids. Hence, it was not unexpected for Samudragupta to try to stop future conflicts with the Persian army on the Western Front by allying with Kidara I against Shahpur II. Hence, it is possible that he dispatched an embassy to Rome prior to 361 AD.[18]
Additionally, considering the political background of Bactria and north-west India described earlier, it is more probable that Kalidasa authored the Digvijaya story of Raghu using the real events resulting from Samudragupta's conquest, assuming great force. Kalidasa stated that Raghu conquered the Deccan's Trikutas before heading overland to conquer the Parasikas. Having emerged victorious over them, he went on to conquer the Hunas before launching an assault on the Kambojas. The Parasikas mentioned by Kalidasa are evidently related to the Sasanians. He mentioned that the Hunas resided by the Vankshu or Oxus river. During the third quarter of the fourth century AD, this was exactly the area where they resided. Ultimately, it may be concluded that the Kambojas of Raghuvamsa are likely to be the same as Kidara Kushans, as historical evidence shows that Kidara Inot only conquered Gandhara but also the five neighboring kingdoms, of course which were in Kambojas.[18]
Gupta-Kidara alliance
The Kushan contemporary of Samudragupta, was Kidāra. He was initially a part of the Great Kushan family. It was after him that his individuals got to be celebrated as the small Kushans. Hence, it can be promptly conceded that he was known to his counterparts as a ruler of the Devaputra family. But he was not effective enough to utilize the title Shahanushahi. He was simply a Shahi. His coins bearing the legend 'Kidāra Kushāṇa Shāhi' proved it. Subsequently, he can be effectively recognized with Daivaputrashāhi of the Allahabad pillar inscription. Here it is curiously to note that opposite to the for the most part acknowledged see, within the Prayaga Prasasti the word Devaputra has not been utilized as a title, for the reality that it has been utilized in its taddhita shape not simply appears that it must be taken in conjunction with the another word 'Shāhi', it moreover demonstrates that the compound Daivaputrashahi would connote 'Shāhi, who had a place to (the family of) the Devaputras'. As respects Kidāra's contemporary Shahanushahi, he might have been no other than Shapur II, the Sassanian Shahanshah. On the premise of this proposal the course of history of Bactria and North-Western India may be reproduced as takes after:
Kidara, after having set up himself in Gandhara, apparently at the cost of the Saka rulers, drew closer to Samudragupta a few times after 359 A. D., sent him presents and callings of steadfastness and inquired for his offer of assistance against the Sasanians. Samudragupta, on his part, was exceptionally much on edge to amplify his circle of impact past the central Punjab where his subordinate partners, the Gadaharas, were administering. He saw with uneasiness the tribal developments which were taking place in that heading and were posturing a risk to his recently established domain. But he was not a vanquisher, he was a statesman as well. He knew he possessed impediments and had the intelligence of restoring the prevailed rulers of the South.[21]
He needed to be included in a North-Western experience, indeed less. But, in any case, he was anxious to make the wildernesses of the domain and the western trade-routes secure and secure. He subsequently, did what was the most excellent; beneath the circumstances he concluded an alliance with Kidara and as the more grounded part of the association gave him an offer of assistance against Shapur II. His arrangement was prominently effective and Kidara vanquished the Sasanians twice in 367-68 A. D. It may not suggest that Shapur II got to be a vassal of Kidara or Samudragupta. But it does indicate that the articulation of Harishena about the connection of his master with the Sasanian ruler ought to not be suggested as through and through altogether without foundation.[21]
First Hephthalite invasion

Kidara, thereafter the year 367-68 A. D., likely in c. 370 A. D. had to bargain with the attack of the Jouan-Jouan or Hiung-nu or the White Huns from Bactria or Valhika. He put his son within the charge of his capital and went towards west to meet the intruders. This time too, Samudragupta shows up to have given considerable assistance to his Kushan ally. As a matter of truth, the victory of Kidara against the Hunas, whom he seem not check prior when he was in Bactria, demonstrates that this time he had an effective partner on his side. In this way, a fruitful endeavor by the Gupta sovereign in c. 370 A. D. against the Valhikas 'across the seven mouths of the river Indus' gets to be a really solid plausibility. It is one of the reasons which have driven us to hypothesize the identicality of the lord 'Chandra' with Samudragupta. It may, in any case, be recollected that the history of Bactria and the North-Western India as laid out over does not depend upon the recognizable proof of Samudragupta with the ruler of the Meharauli inscription. For example, in case we are to incline toward the hypothesis of the distinguishing proof of Chandragupta II with the ruler of this record, we can assume that it was Chandragupta, the offspring of Samudragupta, was the one sent as the pioneer of this expedition.[22]
Geographical factors in North-western policy
The general station of the ancient conglomerate-builders of the Ganga Valley towards the North-West was conditioned by the interplay of several factors. Geographically, the Indus valley is the western of cornucopia of what may be called the Fertile Crescent of India, and gives the print that it's nearly connected with the Ganga Valley. But there's another side of this picture also. It may be noted and needs to be emphasized that the Indus river-system is not only unconnected with any other river of North India, but it's indeed separated from the rest of the country by the vast desert of Thar. The stretch of the home which connects it with the Ganga Valley viz.[25]
The Thanesar-Delhi-Kurukshetra division–roughly the ancient realm of the Kuru Kingdom-is veritably narrow and communication through it was rendered delicate in the ancient times by the great timbers, similar as the Khandava, Kāmākhyā, Kurujāngala and Dvaitavana and also by a large number of small gutters. These walls, it seems, rendered the subjection of the Indus receptacle by the powers of the Ganga Valley relatively delicate and made these two regions to appear more distant and remote from each other than they actually were. It's a literal fact that with the exception of the Mauryas, nearly all the conglomerate-builders of the Ganga Valley the Nandas, the Sungas, the Nagas, the Guptas and indeed the Vardhanas noway seriously tried to conquer the region to the west of the Divide.[25]
It doesn't mean that they noway took any interest in the political fortunes of the Indus receptacle; they couldn't go to neglect it altogether. piecemeal from the fact that this region also belonged to the larger Indian world and, thus, the achievement of universal sovereignty (chakravartitra) was regarded as deficient without establishing some kind of suzerainty over it, they could hardly forget that utmost of the routes of the Indian trade with the Western countries were controlled by the North-Western powers. Above all, the nearly constant affluence via the Indus receptacle of Central and Western Asiatic peoples who relatively constantly hovered the security of the antarvedi itself, impelled them to take note of the political developments in the Indus receptacle. But these lodestones weren't sufficient enough to bait them to take over wars of subjection in that region.[25]
The Vardhanas, though a power of Thanesar, were interested in it only to the extent of transferring occasional peregrinations against the Hunas; the Sungas communicated some interest only when they were hovered by the Bactrian Greeks; indeed the Mauryan subjection of this region was maybe the result of the fact that Chandragupta Maurya started his political career there and the irruptions of Alexander and Seleucus had rendered its objectification in the conglomerate necessary. In the early mediaeval period also, the Rajput autocrats of the Ganga receptacle generally communicated interest in the politics of the Indus Valley states only when they were themselves hovered by the raiders coming from that direction. Prithviraja III, the Chahamanas of Shakambhari king of Delhi, for illustration, took no notice of the expansion of the Ghurid area in the Punjab till his own security was hovered and indeed after achieving palm in the first battle of Tarain he took no suitable way to oust the Muslims from the Punjab; he was putatively more interested in the politics of the antarvedi.[26]
In the light of the below discussion, the station of the Guptas towards the Indus Valley becomes comprehensible,
Chandragupta II's Expeditions
Battle of Begram
References to Kāpiši wine persist in literary works like Dhanapala's Tilakamanjari, describing it as a favored royal beverage with a reddish hue akin to a woman's eyes filled with resentment or the petals of a red lotus. Archaeological findings at Begram reveal ceramic motifs illustrating wine production, featuring jars, vines, grape bunches, and birds, reminiscent of Pompeii's artistry. Additionally, plaster medallions depict symmetrical arches formed by grape leaves and bunches, indicating Begram's historical significance as a grape-growing hub and wine production center.[27]
Recent archaeological endeavors uncovered a sizable wine cellar in Nisa, the former Parthian capital near modern-day Ashkabad, containing nearly 200,000 liters of wine stored in clay pitchers. Inscriptions on broken pieces of pitchers suggest wine distribution to significant establishments like Nisa's prominent slave-owning palace and temple. The mention of grape wine in the Raghuvamsa underscores the poet's geographical awareness of Kapisi's significance along land routes during Raghu's Persian campaign. After having crossed swords with the Yavanas. Raghu (Chandragupta II) fought a battle against the Parasikas (Persians) somewhere at the valley of Kāpiśi.[27]
Battle of Sistan and the Submission of Varahran

After the (Persian) Sasanians suffered defeat in the battle of Sistan, which demorilzed the Persian contingents in present day Afghanistan. As the Gupta Army marched northwards to Kapisa Province, Varahran was quick to grasp the political realities and offered his submission to the Gupta Emperor Chandragupta II.[28]
Gupta cavalry's arrival by the Oxus river

Bactria was under the Huna occupation in the last quarter of the fourth century AD.[lower-alpha 4] The sudden attack into the Oxus valley caught the Transoxiana alliance off-guard. The Pamir Mountains Tocharians were unable to combine with the Hunas (Hephtalites). On hearing the news of the Gupta Empire advanced, the Hephtalites resorted to a tactical retreat to the north of the Oxus River into the plains of southern Uzbekistan. When the Gupta cavalry arrived by the Oxus river on the southern banks, they camped there. Kalidasa poetically described how the cavalry camped on the banks of the river Vankshu in the midst of saffron fields in a verse of his Raghuvamsa:
"...His horses, that had lessened their fatigues of the road by turning from side to side on the banks of the river Vankshu (Oxus), shook their shoulders to which were clung the filaments of saffron..."
Historians studied this as a description of the Gupta cavalry camping on the banks of the Oxus during Chandragupta II's expedition.[31][32]
Kidara's conquest of Gandhara 356 CE and the Battle of the Oxus 399 CE



Kidara I (Late Brahmi script:
Ki-da-ra; fl. 350-390 CE) was the first major ruler of the Kidarite Kingdom, which replaced the Indo-Sasanians in northwestern India, in the areas of Kushanshahr, Gandhara, Kashmir and Punjab.[34]
However, Altekar suggests that Candragupta II attacked the Kidara Kushans. But in the situation also prevailing it isn't insolvable that Chandragupta really raided Balkh or Bactria appertained to as Bahlikas in the inscription. We already saw that Bactria was enthralled by the Hepthalites in about 350 A.D. (Kalidasa refers to the Hunas on the Oxus) and therefore had led to the eventual subjection of Gandhara by Kidara by 356 A.D., the contemporary (Daivaputrashātā of Samudragupta). After Kidara, his successors were known as little Yue-chi. As we have seen Samudragupta was satisfied with the offer of submission of Kidara, and he also claims to have entered the submission of Shāhānushāhī (the Sasanian emperor), substantially to consolidate his vanquishing in the country, and to have some share and control over the renowned Silk-route.[lower-alpha 5]







The Hunas in Bactria were not a peaceful community and because they posed peril to both Iran and India, and they might have tried to pursue Kidara or his successors in Gandhara, and Fa-hsien refers to Hepthalite king trying to remove Buddha's coliseum from Purushapur. This may indicate Huna invasion in Gandhara some time before Fa-hsien concluded his peregrination in India. It is said that Kidara towards the end of the 4th century had to go northwestwards against the Hunas, leaving his son Piro at Peshawar. It's possible that Kidara might have gained some help from the Gupta emperor. It is thus possible that Chandragupta II led an adventure to Bactria through Gandhara against the Hunas, and this may be appertained to as his crossing of the seven rivers of Sindhu and conquering Bahlika in the Mehrauli Pillar Inscription. This event may be placed towards the end of the 4th century A.D. Chandragupta II's Bactrian expedition also led to the battle of the Oxus with his Gupta cavalry against the Hunas, who were defeated and the Gupta emperor having planted the Gupta flag on the banks of the river of Oxus.[lower-alpha 6][38]

Notes
- ↑ " The Mehrauli Pillar Inscription (No.20) describes the digvijaya of a king named Candra (i.e. Candragupta II) in the first verse as stated below :
"He, on whose arm fame was inscribed by the sword, when, in battle in the Vanga countries, he kneaded (and turned) back with (his) breast the enemies who, uniting together, came against him;—he, by whom, having crossed in warfare the seven mouths of the (river) Sindhu, the Vāhlikas;—he by the breezes of whose prowess the Southern ocean is even still perfumed".
We find various readings of the name Vāhlika in literature which are : Vāhlika, Bāhlika, Vāhlīka and Bāhlīka. In our inscription (No. 20) 'Vāhilikāḥ', i.e. Bactria (modern Balkh) region on the Oxus in the northern part of Afghanistan."[6]
- ↑ J. F. Fleet's 1888 translation is as follows:[7]
(Verse 1) He, on whose arm fame was inscribed by the sword, when, in battle in the Vanga countries (Bengal), he kneaded (and turned) back with (his) breast the enemies who, uniting together, came against (him); – he, by whom, having crossed in warfare the seven mouths of the (river) Sindhu, the Vahlikas were conquered; – he, by the breezes of whose prowess the southern ocean is even still perfumed; –
- ↑ "THE SECOND HUNA INVASION
The attitude of the imperial Guptas towards the North-West presents a very interesting problem for the students of their history. It is quite apparent that they had the power and resources to incorporate the Indus basin in their empire ; but they did nothing more than imposing a vague sort of suzerainty over it which did not last very long."[8] - ↑ "Taking Kālidāsa to be a contemporary of Chandragupta II, we can conclude that the Hūṇas had occupied Bactria in the last quarter of the fourth century AD." [30]
- ↑ "However, Altekar suggests that Candra Gupta attacked the Kidara Kushāṇas. But in the situation then prevailing it is not impossible that Candra Gupta really invaded Balkh or Bactria referred to as Bāhlika in the inscription. We have seen that Bactria was occupied by the Epthalites in about 350 A.D. (Kalidasa refers to the Hūņas on the Oxus) and thus had led to the eventual conquest of Gandhara by Kidāra by 356 A. D., the contemporary (Daivaputrashātā of Samudra Gupta). After Kidāra, his successors were known as little Yue-chi. As we have seen Samudra Gupta was satisfied with the offer of submission of Kidāra, and he also claims to have received the submission of Shāhānushāhī, (the Sassanian emperor), mainly to consolidate his conquests in the country, and to have some share and control over the famous Silk-route. The Hūṇas in Bactria were not a peaceful community and because a danger to both Iran and India, and they might have tried to pursue Kidāra or his successors in Gandhara, and Fa-hsien refers to Epthalite king trying to remove Buddha's bowl from Purushapur. This may indicate Hūṇa inroad in Gandhāra some time before Fa-hsien concluded his travels in India. It is held that Kidāra towards the end of the 4th century had to proceed N. W. against the Hūṇas leaving his son Piro at Peshwar. It is possible that Kidāra might have received some help from the Gupta emperor. It is therefore possible that Candra Gupta II led an expedition to Bactria through Gandhāra against the Hūṇas, and this may be referred to as his crossing of the seven rivers of Sindhu and conquering Bāhlika in the Mehrauli Pillar Inscription. This event may be placed towards the end of the 4th century A. D."[35]
- ↑ "However, Altekar suggests that Candra Gupta attacked the Kidara Kushāṇas. But in the situation then prevailing it is not impossible that Candra Gupta really invaded Balkh or Bactria referred to as Bāhlika in the inscription. We have seen that Bactria was occupied by the Epthalites in about 350 A.D. (Kalidasa refers to the Hūņas on the Oxus) and thus had led to the eventual conquest of Gandhara by Kidāra by 356 A. D., the contemporary (Daivaputrashātā of Samudra Gupta). After Kidāra, his successors were known as little Yue-chi. As we have seen Samudra Gupta was satisfied with the offer of submission of Kidāra, and he also claims to have received the submission of Shāhānushāhī, (the Sassanian emperor), mainly to consolidate his conquests in the country, and to have some share and control over the famous Silk-route. The Hūṇas in Bactria were not a peaceful community and because a danger to both Iran and India, and they might have tried to pursue Kidāra or his successors in Gandhara, and Fa-hsien refers to Epthalite king trying to remove Buddha's bowl from Purushapur. This may indicate Hūṇa inroad in Gandhāra some time before Fa-hsien concluded his travels in India. It is held that Kidāra towards the end of the 4th century had to proceed N. W. against the Hūṇas leaving his son Piro at Peshwar. It is possible that Kidāra might have received some help from the Gupta emperor. It is therefore possible that Candra Gupta II led an expedition to Bactria through Gandhāra against the Hūṇas, and this may be referred to as his crossing of the seven rivers of Sindhu and conquering Bāhlika in the Mehrauli Pillar Inscription. This event may be placed towards the end of the 4th century A. D."[35]
Reference
- ↑ Hans Bakker 24th Gonda lecture
- ↑ Bakker 2020, pp. 31–34.
- ↑ Bakker 2020, p. 34.
- ↑ Majumdar, R. C., ed. (1970). History and Culture of the Indian People, Volume 03, The Classical Age. Public Resource. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. p. 38.
- ↑ History Of The Imperial Guptas. p. 350.
- ↑ Tej Ram Sharma 1978, p. 167.
- ↑ Balasubramaniam 2005, pp. 7–8.
- ↑ Goyal 1967, p. 277.
- ↑ "The young son of Mahendrasena led his father's army of two hundred thousand men against the enemy whose soldiers numbered three hundred thousand. The prince however, broke the enemy army and won the battle. On his return his father crown him saying "henceforth rule the kingdom," and himself retired to religious life. For twelve years after this, the new king fought these foreign enemies, and ultimately captured and executed the three kings.' It has been suggested that this story gives an account of the fight between Skandagupta and the Hūṇas (IHIJ. 36)." The History and Culture of the Indian People: The classical age. G. Allen & Unwin. 1951. p. 27.
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 Agrawal 1989, p. 114.
- ↑ R. C. Majumdar 1981, p. 22.
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 Goyal 1967, p. 169.
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 Dani, Litvinsky & Zamir Safi 1996, pp. 165–166
- ↑ Lines 23-24 of the Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudragupta: "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 Dēvaputra-Shāhi-Shāhānushāhi and the Śaka lords and by (rulers) occupying all Island countries, such as Siṁhala and others."
- ↑ Cribb, Joe; Singh, Karan (Winter 2017). "Two Curious Kidarite Coin Types From 3rd Century Kashmir". JONS. 230: 3.
- ↑ A similar coin with reading of the legend
- ↑ Lerner, Judith A. (210). Observations on the Typology and Style of Seals and Sealings from Bactria and the Indo-Iranian Borderlands, in Coins, Art and Chronology II. The First Millennium CE in the Indo-Iranian Borderlands. Vienna: ÖAW. p. 246, note 7.
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 Goyal 1967, pp. 179-180.
- ↑ The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Attila, Michael Maas, Cambridge University Press, 2014 p.284sq
- ↑ Encyclopaedia Iranica, article Kidarites: "On Gandhāran coins bearing their name the ruler is always clean-shaven, a fashion more typical of Altaic people than of Iranians" in "KIDARITES – Encyclopaedia Iranica". www.iranicaonline.org.
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 Goyal 1967, pp. 177-178.
- ↑ Goyal 1967, pp. 178-179.
- ↑ KURBANOV, AYDOGDY (2010). THE HEPHTHALITES: ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL ANALYSIS (PDF). Berlin: Department of History and Cultural Studies of the Free University. p. 39.
- ↑ Potts, Daniel T. (2014). Nomadism in Iran: From Antiquity to the Modern Era. Oxford University Press. p. 137. ISBN 978-0-19-933079-9.
- ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 Goyal 1967, pp. 280-281.
- ↑ Goyal 1967, pp. 278-280.
- ↑ 27.0 27.1 Prakash 1962, p. [1]337-338.
- ↑ Prakash 1962, p. [2]Chapter XIII and Chapter XIV.
- ↑ *Template:British-Museum-db
- ↑ "The Raghuvamsa Of Kalidasa. With The Commentary Of Mallinatha by Nandargikar, Gopal Raghunath: used/Good rebound full cloth (1982) | Prabhu Book Exports". www.abebooks.co.uk. p. verse 66, Chapter XIII. Retrieved 22 March 2024.
- ↑ Agrawal 1989, p. [4]166.
- ↑ Tandon, Pankaj (2009). "An Important New Copper Coin of Gadahara". Journal of the Oriental Numismatic Society (200): 19.
- ↑ History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Ahmad Hasan Dani, B. A. Litvinsky, Unesco p.38 sq
- ↑ 35.0 35.1 Sinha 1974, p. 50–51.
- ↑ Bandela, Prasanna Rao (2003). Coin Splendour: A Journey into the Past. Abhinav Publications. p. 11. ISBN 9788170174271.
- ↑ Allen 1914, p. 24.