The Coinage of the Gupta Empire and its Imitations c16.s2: (2) Ghaṭotkachagupta
The Coinage of the Gupta Empire and its Imitations c16.s2
- Language
- English
(2) Ghaṭotkachagupta
c16.s2.1
The Tumain fragmentary inscription, dated 116 G. E. (435 A. D.), refers to a prince named Ghaṭotkacha,¹ who appears to have been a son, or perhaps a brother of Kumāragupta I, ruling at Mālwā as its imperial viceroy. It is possible to attribute to him the solitary Archer type coin in the St. Petersburg (Leningrad) Museum, which bears the legend Ghaṭo under the king's left arm. We shall first describe this unique coin.
c16.s2.2
¹ E.I., XXVI. p. 115
c16.s2.3
Gold; .8"; weight not known; St. Petersburg (Leningrad) Museum; *B.M.C., G.D.*, Pl. XXIV. 3. *Obv:* King, nimbate, standing l. bow with string inwards in l. hand and arrow in r.; *Garuḍadhvaja* behind the r. hand. Legend under the l. arm, *Ghaṭo*. Only illegible traces of circular legend. *Rev:* Lakshmī, nimbate, seated facing on lotus with lotus of long stalk in l. hand and noose in r. Symbol on l. Legend on r., *Kramādityaḥ*. (Pl. XIV. 16)
c16.s2.4
There is only one coin of this ruler and its attribution is not free from difficulty. The view of Dr. Bloch that it may have been an issue of Ghaṭotkacha, the father of Chandragupta I, is untenable. The Archer type was not introduced in the Gupta series till the time of his grandson. Further, it is not at all probable that the coinage could have been started by Ghaṭotkcha, who was a petty ruler. The coin will have to be attributed either to Ghaṭotkachagupta of the Tumain record, mentioned above, or to Ghaṭotkachagupta of Vaiśālī seal, or to a hither-to unknown later scion of Gupta family of that name ruling towards the end of the fifth century.
c16.s2.5
Mr. Allan is inclined to support the last mentioned view,² primarily on account of the treatment of the legs of the goddess on the reverse which, according to him, indicates that Ghaṭotkacha of the coin was a contemporary of Kumāragupta II;¹ (cf. Pl. XIV. 16 and XV. 4-5). Fresh discoveries have now shown that Kumāragupta II was not ruling between *c.* 530 and 540 A.D., as Mr. Allan had thought,² but about 60 years earlier, from *c.* 472 to 475 A.D. The treatment of the legs of the goddess need not therefore stand in the way of placing this coin in *c.* 470 A.D. It is quite possible that Ghaṭotkachagupta, the governor of Mālwa, might well have survived Kumāragupta I by ten or fifteen years. During the troubled period following the death of Skandagupta, his brother Ghaṭotkachagupta might have assumed independence and started issuing gold coinage. Being a very old man at *c.* 470 A. D. he could not have ruled long and his coinage therefore is scanty. Being issued at about 470 A.D., it naturally shows some stylistic affinity in the treatment of the legs of the goddess with the coinage of Kumāragupta II, who ascended the imperial throne in *c.* 472. A.D.
c16.s2.6
² B.M.C., G.D., liv, civ.
c16.s2.7
¹ The point of similarly is the slight raising of the legs of the goddess. But it may be pointed out that this is not a uniform characteristic of the coinage of Kumāragupta II (cf. Pl. XV. 6).
c16.s2.8
² B.M.C., G.D., p. 140.
c16.s2.9
It is therefore possible to propose the identification of Ghaṭotkachagupta of the St. Petersberg coin with Ghaṭotkachagupta of the Tumain inscription. This theory is, however, not free from difficulties, for it presupposes that the two rival brothers had the same *biruda* Kramāditya; such a thing is so far unknown. It has further to be admitted that the Tumain inscription does not enable us to find out the precise relationship between Kumāragupta I, the ruling emperor, and Ghaṭotkachagupta, the Mālwa governor; the latter may as well have been a brother of Kumāragupta and not his son. In that case he may be identical with Ghaṭotkachagupta of the seal found at Vaiśālī. If we assume this to be the case, then we shall have to admit that it is not very likely that a brother of Kumāragupta could have survived him by 15 years and issued coins during the troubled period between 468 A.D. and 472 A.D. It is, however, possible to suggest that he might have contested the accession of his nephew Skandagupta in 455 A.D. and issued coins at that time. As Skandagupta reasserted himself in a short time, the coinage of his rebellious uncle could not be numerous.¹
c16.s2.10
¹ See also Addenda at the end of the book.
c16.s2.11
The evidence, so far available, is so meagre and inconclusive that it is not possible to be certain about the identification of the issuer of the coin under discussion. Its weight also is not recorded; had it been known, we may have been in a better position to tackle the question of its attribution. We have to await fresh discoveries for the proper solution of the mystery surrounding this solitary coin.