Caste of the S'un'gas
Summary
The caste identity of the Sunga rulers, who succeeded the Mauryas in the mid‑second century B.C., has been the subject of scholarly debate. This article questions the prevailing belief that the Sungas were Brahmanas of the Bharadvaja gotra. The author begins by pointing out that none of the main historical sources explicitly state that the Sunga kings were Brahmanas; rather, this assumption arises from their descent from Bharadvaja. Panini’s grammar (IV.1.117) notes that the suffix ‘an’ attaches to names like Vikarna, Sunga and Chagala to form patronymics indicating descent from Vatsa, Bharadvaja and Atri. However, the grammatical rules for plural forms do not support the interpretation that these forms imply Brahmana status; the derived forms would differ if the Sungas were Brahmanas. The article analyses various readings of the gotra name in texts like the Gotrapravarapravandhaka, showing that the variations (Swnga, Saungi, Saungaya) complicate attempts to align the dynasty with a specific Brahmana lineage. It then considers Purana evidence: while the Kanva dynasty, which overthrew the Sungas, is explicitly called Brahmana, the Sungas are not. The article also examines a passage from the Harivamsa that predicts the revival of the Asvamedha sacrifice by a dvija (twice‑born) commander who will emerge during the Kali‑yuga. Some scholars identify this figure with Pusyamitra Sunga, the founder of the dynasty, but the article notes that the term dvija includes Ksatriyas and Vaisyas as well as Brahmanas, and argues that the passage does not conclusively identify Pusyamitra as a Brahmana. Furthermore, the author assesses claims based on the revival of Vedic sacrifices, pointing out that such rituals could be performed by non‑Brahmana rulers as well. Drawing on linguistic analysis and textual interpretation, the article concludes that the assumption that the Sungas were Brahmanas lacks firm evidence. It suggests that the Sungas were likely Ksatriyas who traced their lineage to Bharadvaja but were not ritual specialists. Recognising this helps refine our understanding of social dynamics in post‑Mauryan India.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
Through linguistic analysis and textual evidence, the article challenges the common belief that the Sunga kings were Brahmanas. Panini’s rules show that their gotra name does not automatically imply Brahmana status. The author argues that the Sungas were more likely ksatriyas and that identifying them as Brahmanas overlooks nuances in grammatical and historical sources.