The Coinage of the Gupta Empire and its Imitations c10: Chapter V: Coinage of Kācha
The Coinage of the Gupta Empire and its Imitations c10
- Language
- English
Chapter V: Coinage of Kācha
c10.2
The coins of Kācha were issued in one type only and their size varies from .75" to .85" and weight from 111 to 118 grains. His coins were issued apparently to two weight-standards, one of 115 grains and the other of 118 grains. The coins of this ruler are not quite rare. There are seven coins of his in the British Museum, three in the Indian Museum and five in the Lucknow Museum; the Bayana hoard contained sixteen. Jaunpur, Tanda and Bayana are among the known findspots of the coins of this ruler.
c10.3
The type of Kācha closely resembles the Standard type of Samudragupta. On the obverse of both we find the king standing to left and offering oblations on altar. But while Samudragupta has an ordinary standard in his left hand, Kācha has a *Chakradhvaja* or wheel-topped banner. The reverse, however, shows a remarkable variation; for on the coins of Kācha, we find the goddess standing to left and holding a flower in her right hand; she is not shown as seated on the throne as on the coins of the Standard type of Samudragupta.
c10.4
The attribution of the coins of Kācha is still uncertain. The name of this ruler does not occur anywhere in the official Gupta genealogies. It is, however, generally agreed that he has to be assigned to the early Gupta period, for his coins are found only in the hoards of Gupta coins and are usually associated with those of Chandragupta I, Samudragupta and Chandragupta II. Thus the Tanda hoard consisted of the coins of Chandragupta I, Samudragupta and Kācha. In the small hoard found at Ballia, only the coins of Samudragupta and Kācha were present. The big Bayana hoard of 1821 coins contained not a single coin of a non-Gupta ruler, and still it had 16 coins of Kācha. It therefore appears probable that Kācha was a Gupta ruler, though we cannot exclude the possibility of his being an upstart, who usurped power either at the death of Chandragupta I or during the temporary absence of Samudragupta in the south.
c10.5
It is generally agreed that Kācha was an early Gupta ruler, but his identity is a matter of great dispute. The early view advocated by Prinsep and Thomas was that Kācha should be identified with Ghaṭotkacha, the father of Chandragupta I. This view, however, is now no longer advocated. Ghaṭotkacha was a mere feudatory and he could hardly have issued any coins. On most of the coins, the King's name is also spelt distinctly as Kācha and not as Kacha, and it is hardly possible that the name Ghaṭotkacha could have been contracted into Kācha.
c10.6
At present there are two main views about the attribution of the Kācha coins. According to one school Kācha was identical with Samudragupta; according to the other he was different from him and may have been either his brother or his son. The evidence is unfortunately not sufficiently conclusive to prove any of these views. How evenly balanced are the arguments in this controversy can be understood when we note how a scholar like V.A. Smith veered from one view to another more than once.¹
c10.7
¹ In *J. R. A. S.*, 1889, pp. 75-76, Smith advocated the identity of Kācha and Samudragupta; in *J. R. A. S.*, 1893 p. 95 he accepted Rapson's view that the two were different; in *I. A.* 1902 pp. 259-60 we find him veering to his earlier view that the two were identical. Fleet and Allan accept the identity of the two persons. *C. I. I.* ,III, p. 27; *B. M. C.*, *G. D.*, Introduction, p. xxxii.
c10.8
In favour of the identity of Kācha with Samudragupta it can be pointed out that:—
c10.9
(a) The average weight of his coins is the same as that of the other types of Samudragupta, *viz.*, about 116 grains;
c10.10
(b) His obverse legend *Kācho gāmavajitya Karmabhir-uttamair-divaṃ jayati* is merely a paraphrase of the obverse legend *Apratiratho vijitya kṣitiṃ sucharitair divaṃ jayati*, occurring on the Archer type of Samudragupta;
c10.11
(c) The reverse of his coins is closely similar to that of the reverse of the Tiger-slayer and Aśvamedha types of Samudragupta;
c10.12
(d) The reverse legend on the Kācha coins, *sarvarājochchhettā* is an epithet invariably given to Samudragupta alone in the Gupta records;¹
c10.13
¹ In the Poona and Rithpur plates of Prabhāvatīguptā, *sarvarājochchhettā* is given as an epithet of Chandragupta II. These plates betray gross carelessness; for instance, they describe Chandragupta I and even Samudragupta as mere Mahārājas; we need not therefore conclude that the title *sarvarājochchhettā* was really used of any ruler other than Samudragupta merely on the strength of these Vākāṭaka records.
c10.14
(e) And the difference in name need not be an insuperable obstacle in the identity of the two rulers. Both Devagupta and Chandragupta are known to have been the names of Chandragupta II Vikramāditya; in the same way Kācha may have been the original and familiar name of Samudragupta, the latter title being adopted by him when the Gupta empire eventually extended to the bay of Bengal.
c10.15
The above arguments are not however conclusive. Thus argument (a) can only show that Kācha cannot be later than the time of Chandragupta II, when the average weight of the Gupta gold coins went up to 124 grains. Argument (b) is also inconclusive; for mere paraphrasing of a legend need not prove identity. The legend in question occurs in almost the same form on the swordsman type of Kumāragupta I, where it reads as *Gāmavajitya sucharitaiḥ Kumāragupto divaṃ jayati*. Surely we cannot argue that Kumāragupta I is identical with Kācha or Samudragupta because of the above striking resemblance in the wording of the legends. Argument (c) can only show that Kācha coins were issued soon after the Tiger-slayer and the Aśvamedha types of Samudragupta; they may have been struck by him or by his successor or rival.
c10.16
Arguments (d) and (e) are weighty; they render it probable that Samudragupta may have had like Chandragupta II, two names, and both may have been used on his coinage; the epithet of Kācha, *sarvarājochchhettā* would show that he is to be identified with Samudragupta to whom alone it is given in the official Gupta inscriptions. Samudragupta may have had an additional name Kāchagupta, just as his son Chandragupta had a second familiar name, Devagupta.
c10.17
These arguments, however, are not conclusive, and we are inclined to think it more probable that Kācha was different from Samudragupta. Chandragupta had no doubt another familiar name, *viz.* Devagupta. But he never allowed it to appear on his coinage. One may wonder whether Samudragupta would have permitted his familiar name to appear on his coins, supposing he had one such. *Sarvarājochchhettā* was no doubt made a special title of Samudragupta, but only by later Gupta records. Samudragupta himself did not adopt that title, and there is nothing impossible in its being adopted by an immediate successor of the great emperor, prior to its being assigned to him by his later successors.
c10.18
The following arguments tend to show that Kācha was different from Samudragupta—
c10.19
(1) Gupta emperors have used different *biruḍas* on the obverse and reverse of their coins; but as far as the personal proper name is concerned, it is one and the same for each ruler, and it occurs under his arm. This circumstance would render it very probable, but not certain that Kācha, which occurs under the arm of the issuer, is his personal name and that he is, therefore, different from Samudragupta, who generally puts his own name Samudra or Samudragupta at the same place.
c10.20
(2) Chakradhvaja of Kācha is quite peculiar to him and occurs on nobody else's coins. This gives a particular individuality to Kācha and suggests,—but does not prove,—that Kācha is quite distinct from other known Gupta emperors, who do not put this banner on their coins.
c10.21
(3) If Kācha were identical with Samudragupta, his Chakradhvaja should have occured on some other types of Samudragupta. It is, however, inexplicably confined only to this type.
c10.22
(4) Similarly it is difficult to explain why Kācha, the familiar name of Samudragupta, should be confined to the Chakradhvaja type, and why it should occur on none of his other numerous types like the Standard or the Archer type, where the name is engraved under the arm.
c10.23
The assumption that Kācha was different from Samudragupta does not however solve the problem; it only renders it more complicated, as no such Gupta ruler is known either to epigraphy or to literature. Several official Gupta genealogies have been handed down to us; they are, however, unaware of any such ruler.
c10.24
R. D. Banerji was of opinion that Kācha coins are commemorative medals issued by Samudragupta in memory of a brother, who had died in the war of liberation.¹ This is quite an ingenious theory; *sarvarājochchhettā* on the reverse may suggest the name of the issuer and Kācha on the obverse the name of the person commemorated. The artistic excellence and the numismatic originality displayed by the type may be explained by the assumption that Samudragupta issued the commemorative pieces late in his reign.
c10.25
¹ The Age of the Imperial Guptas, pp. 9-10.
c10.26
Commemorative coins or medals are not, however, known to Hindu tradition and there is no evidence to show that Samudragupta had really a brother named Kācha, who was killed in the war with the later Kushāṇas.
c10.27
The available evidence does not enable us to solve the problem of the identity of Kācha. It is possible to argue that (i) Kācha was not a Gupta ruler at all, but an interloper, who had temporarily eclipsed the power of the Guptas sometime after the death of Chandragupta I; (ii) that he was an elder brother of Samudragupta, who had disputed his succession; (iii) and that he was identical with Rāmagupta, who according to the literary tradition, was the elder brother of Chandragupta II, and had ruled before him for a short time.
c10.28
If we accept the first view that Kācha was not a Gupta ruler at all, but a king of a different dynasty who had temporarily eclipsed the Gupta power after the death of Chandragupta I, we can well understand why his coins should be found in close association with those of Chandragupta I and Samudragupta in Gupta hoards and why they should bear a close resemblance to the Standard type of the latter. The non-occurrance of his name in the Gupta genealogies need cause us no surprise for he did not belong to that dynasty at all. This theory is quite a plausible one, for the Allahabad inscription of Samudrgupta (v. 5) does refer to a sanguinary war that had occurred soon after his accession. One, however, finds it difficult to believe that the Gupta power was so completely eclipsed after the death of Chandragupta I as to render the gold coinage of the interloper possible.
c10.29
The next alternative is to assume that Kācha was not an outside ruler, but a brother of Samudragupta, preferably an elder one, who had challenged his succession in spite of his nomination as the crown prince by Chandragupta. The anouncement of the selection of Samudragupta as the crown prince is known to have rendered the faces of the rival candidates pale and downcast. Verse 5 of the Allahabad inscription further refers to a war at the beginning of the reign of Samudragupta, and it may have been a war of succession. The Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa, v. 710, also refers to a younger brother of Samudragupta, who had disputed his succession. It is no doubt true that the name of this rebel brother is given as Bhasma, but this work is deliberately vague and enigmatical at several places in giving the names of kings, and Bhasma may have been another name of Kācha. As Kācha was soon supplanted by Samudragupta, his coins are not numerous and as he came in between him and Chandragupta I, his coins are found associated with these two rulers.
c10.30
The numismatic evidence, however, suggests that the coins of Kācha are later than the Standard and Archer types of Samudragupta. The remarkably original and striking motif on the coins of Kācha was not possible at the death of Chandragupta I. We should therefore place Kācha later than Samudragupta, the motifs of whose Tiger-slayer and Aśvamedha type obviously served as the prototype for the reverse of the coins of Kācha. But did a ruler named Kācha intervene between Samudragupta and Chandragupta II ?
c10.31
Literary tradition knows of Rāmagupta as being the elder son and the immediate successor of Samudragupta; he is however unknown to both coins and inscriptions. Numismatic evidence shows that Kācha was most probably different from Samudragupta and came soon after the end of his reign; he is however, not known to inscriptions and literature. It is possible to argue that Kācha of the coins may be identical with Rāmagupta of the literary tradition and the following grounds can be advanced in favour of this view point.
c10.32
Chandragupta had an additional name Devagupta; Rāmagupta too may have had an additional name, Kāchagupta. Or Kāchagupta may have been the name of the miscreant elder brother of Chandragupta, and later clerical error may have transformed it into Rāma, as has been suggested by Dr. D.R. Bhandarkar.¹ A little carelessness resulting in the dropping of horizontal stroke of *Ka*, which is just like crossing a *t* in the English script, will convert *ka* into *ra*; *cha* can become *ma* if the pen slips to the left just beyond the loop; of *cha*. Kācha need not be rejected as an unknown name; in contemporary times two rulers of a family ruling at Ajanta as the feudatories of the Vākāṭakas are known to have borne it.¹ If we assume that Rāmagupta of the literary tradition is identical with Kācha of coins, we can very well explain the numismatic peculiarities of the Kācha coins in the following manner.
c10.33
¹ Malaviya Commemoration Volume, p. 189.
c10.34
¹ A. S. W. I., IV., p. 129.
c10.35
(*a*) Kācha succeeded Samudragupta; his coin-type also presupposes the Tiger-slayer and the Aśvamedha types of that great emperor, which were issued probably towards the end of his long reign.
c10.36
(*b*) It is but natural that at the beginning of his reign Kācha should have decided to paraphrase one of the popular legends of his father by making some suitable modifications in it.
c10.37
(*c*) The *biruda* on the reverse *sarvarājochchhettā* has not been used by Samudragupta in his Allahabad pillar inscription. Kācha may have adopted it as an earnest of his desire to conquer more kings and excel his father. To us, who know the the subsequent history and fate of Kācha or Rāmagupta, this title may appear presumptuous; but he may well have scored some victories at the beginning of his regin which may have justified this title before he was trapped in a distant Punjab fort. It is only later Gupta records which ascribe this epithet exclusively to Samudragupta.
c10.38
(*d*) Kācha *alias* Rāmagupta had a short reign; this is quite in keeping with the relative rarity of his coins and can also explain why they are confined to one type only.
c10.39
(*e*) Their metrology shows that they were issued before 121 grains standard was popularized by Chandragupta II, probably in the later half of his reign. And this condition is completely satisfied by identifying Kācha of the coins with Rāmagupta of the literary tradition.
c10.40
(f) One can also understand how in the Tanda Hoard¹ of 25 Gupta coins only two belonged to the reign of Chandragupta I, and the remainders were equally divided between Aśvamedha and Tiger-slayer types of Samudragupta and those of Kācha. Kācha coins came soon after the Aśvamedha coins of Samudragupta, which were issued towards the end of of his reign.
c10.41
¹ *J. A. S. B.*, 1884, i, p. 152; *I. A.*, 1902, p. 259.
c10.42
(g) Kācha alias Rāmagupta may have been a Vaishṇava like his younger brother, Chandragupta; hence his *Chakradhvaja*.
c10.43
(h) The name of Kācha may have been deliberately eliminated from later Gupta records; similar considerations may be responsible for his coin-type not being imitated by later rulers.
c10.44
(i) The non-occurrence of his name in official Gupta genealogies may be due to the desire to leave out a collateral, who was a disgrace to the family. Collaterals are frequently left out in Gupta genealogies as preserved in official seals; Skandagupta is, for instance, left out in the genealogy of the Bhitari seal.
c10.45
The above view, which once appeared to be very probable, is now rendered somewhat doubtful by the recent discovery and publication of the copper coins of Rāmagupta in Malwa.² We had assumed above that the original name of the elder brother of Chandragupta II was Kācha, and that it became Rāma through later clerical carelessness. But now it appears from the new copper coins that the form of the name current in the fourth century also was Rāma and not Kācha. So the theory of later clerical mistake is ruled out of order. It is possible to argue that the elder brother of Chandragupta had like him two names, Rāmagupta and Kāchagupta, and that he selected the former for his copper coinage and the latter for his gold one. This appears rather improbable, when we remember how Chandragupta II allowed only one of his two names to appear on his coinage. It is possible to hold that Rāmagupta of the copper coinage was a local ruler in Mālwā different from Kācha of gold coins, and so we need not assume that one and the same king issued copper coins in one name and gold coins in another. There is, however, no conclusive evidence to prove this proposition. It is also possible that Rāmagupta of the copper coins is the elder brother of Chandragupta II, whose gold coins have yet to be discovered and that Kācha of gold coins is an interloper, who had temporarily eclipsed the Gupta power and issued his coins during his ascendancy. As already pointed out above, this theory also is not free from difficulties.
c10.46
² *J. N. S. I.*, XII, 103 and Pl. IX.
c10.47
It has to be admitted that we are not yet able to solve the problem of the identity of Kācha of gold coins and Rāmagupta of the copper ones. We have tentatively assumed that Kācha was a Gupta king and came after Samudragupta.
c10.48
Till the discovery of the Bayana hoard, the coins of Kācha were known only in one type and one variety. The Bayana hoard has disclosed a solitary coin of a second variety, where Garuḍadhvaja figures on the obverse and the deity on the reverse carries a noose instead of a flower.
c10.49
We now proceed to give the full description of the type.
c10.50
*Obv:* King dressed as in the Standard type of Samudragupta, standing to l. holding *chakradhvaja* (standard surmounted by wheel) in l. hand and offering incense on altar with r. hand. Garuḍadhvaja in front of the king in variety B only. Under the king's l. arm, *Kācha*.
c10.51
Circular legend; commencing at I, *Kācho gāmavajitya divam karmabhir-uttamair-jayati*; (Pl. XX. 11); ‘Having conquered the earth, Kācha wins the heaven by excellent deeds.’
c10.52
Metre, Upagīti.
c10.53
*Rev:* Goddess (Lakshmī?) nimbate, standing to l. on a circular carpet wearing *sārī*, bodice, upper garment, earrings, necklace and armlets, holding a flower in r. hand in variety A and a noose in variety B, and cornucopiæ in l. hand. Symbol on l. at the centre in var. A and at the top in variety B. On r. *Sarvarājochchhettā* (Pl. XXIII. 50), ‘Exterminatior of all kings.’
c10.54
Variety A
c10.55
(Without Garuḍadhvaja)¹
c10.56
¹ B. M. C., G. D., Pl. II. 6-13; *J.A.S.B.*, 1884, i, Pl. II. I; *J. R. A. S.*, 1889, Pl. I. 3.
c10.57
(1) Gold; .75"; 114. 2 grains; *B. H.* Pl. IV. 1.
c10.58
*Obv:* The letter *Kā* is distinct, the medial vowel is denoted by a short horizontal line above the letter. Legend beginning at I, *Kācha gamavajatya dava* on l., *mabharuttamajja*.
c10.59
*Rev:* Flower is rather indistinct. Symbol at the centre. Legend, *Sarvarajachchhetta*. (Pl. IV. 1.)
c10.60
(2) Gold; .85"; 116 grains; *B.M.C., G.D.*, II, 9.
c10.61
*Obv:* The king wears a pearl-bordered cap and his features are distinct, so also the horizontal medial *ā* sign of *Kā*. Legend, on l., *Kācho gamavajatya dava*, on l., *karmabharuttama ja*.
c10.62
*Rev:* The long stalk of the flower is noticeable. Symbol at the centre. Legend, *Sarvarājochchhettā*. (Pl. IV. 2.)
c10.63
(3) Gold; .8"; 117. 3 grains; *B.M.C., G.D.*, II, 13.
c10.64
*Obv:* The medial vowel of *Kā* is distinct and it is denoted by a slanting line, inclined to r. Legend, on l. *karmabhiruttamarjaya*.
c10.65
*Rev:* As above, legend, *Sarvarājochchhettā*.
c10.66
(4) Gold; .8"; 116 grains of Obv. and 114 grains of Rev; *B. H.* Pl. VII. 5 (Obv), Pl. VII. 6. (Rev).
c10.67
*Obv:* The king's name under the arm is clearly *Kacha* and not *Kācha*. Legend, on l., *Kacha gāmavajatya da*; on r., *bharutta*.
c10.68
*Rev:* The figure of the goddess is graceful, and so is her *sāri* and head-dress. Symbol very complex; legend, *Sarvarājochchhettā*.
c10.69
(Pl. IV. 4.)
c10.70
Variety B
c10.71
(With *Garudadhvaja*)
c10.72
(5) Gold; .75"; 119.4 grains; *B. H.*, Pl. VII. 11.
c10.73
*Obv:* *Kācha* under l. arm blurred; the top of the staff in the l. hand is not distinct, but there are traces of a chakra near the king's halo. *Garudadhvaja* is quite distinct in front of the king. Legend, on the l. only, *ruttamajayata*; the last letter is distinct on this specimen.
c10.74
*Rev:* Goddess holds a noose in the r. hand instead of the usual flower. The symbol is transferred to the upper left quadrant. Legend is blurred and truncated.
Linked texts (2)
- Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa — Sanskrit
- Ajanta