Reference question (Was: Filliozat)

[Kishore Krshna]

At 08:09 PM 05/15/1996 BST, you wrote:
>Well, we do know some things clearly, but that there was a Ramagupta of the
>Gupta dynasty, much less that he was killed by his successor, we do NOT know. 
>If I ever get around to finishing it I have written a piece on the
>historiography of the ramagupta legend, which shows well the influences of
>ideology on the study of history.  What is history and what is legend is, in
>this case especially, very hard to distingish.

Until you publish this piece, can we take it that Ramagupta was not a
figment of the imagination, but a historical figure (i.e., no one else has
established/argued that he was a legend)? 

I was not aware that we knew any details about the kings and queens
before c.1000 (and c. 1500 for tamil nadu), beyond their names, 
victories, defeats, and literary accounts of their prowess.

Kishore
Kishore Krshna
kishore at mail.utexas.edu
______________________________________________________________