The Coinage of the Gupta Empire and its Imitations c9.s1.4

c9.s1.4

The designation of this type is not free from difficulty. Smith thought that the object in the king's 1. hand was a javelin and so he described the type as Javelin type. Mr. Allan thought that the object was a standard and so he described the type as the Standard type. Mr. P. L. Gupta¹ and Dr. B. C. Chhabra² have described the type as *rājadaṇḍa* (sceptre) type. No definite preference can be shown to any of the above names, because the object is not uniformly represented. On some coins (*e.g.*, Pl. I. 14; II. 2) the object has a pointed end and distinctly resembles a javelin, but on others (*e. g.*, Pl. II. 1, 2, 5) it is clearly a sceptre or *rājadaṇḍa* with a thick and flattened end. In favour of the Javelin theory, it may be pointed out that on other types of Samudragupta, we find him wielding weapons like the bow and the battle-axe in his left hand; we should therefore conclude that he has a javelin in this type, especially since it clearly resembles that weapon in the majority of cases. As against this view, it may be pointed out that the object has a flag-like ribbon or a fillet attached to it in its upper half (Pl. I. 14; II. 1, 5, 6 etc.), which we do not see in the case of a spear. As against Mr. Allan's view that the object is a standard, it may be pointed out that the obverse shows the official Gupta standard, *Garuḍadhvaja* in front of the king; would not then a second standard in the king's left hand have been superfluous? The king as his own standard-bearer is also not in consonance with Indian tradition of propriety and dignity. The third view suggests that the object is a sceptre or rājadaṇḍa and it undoubtedly looks like one in Pl. II, 1, 2, 5, 8. But rājadaṇḍa also has not a ribbon or a fillet or a flag attached to its upper half, and in majority of cases the object has a pointed end like a javelin. If the object was really looked upon as a rājadaṇḍa, one cannot understand why the majestic motif of the king appearing with his rājadaṇḍa should not only have become unpopular but should have altogether disappeared in later times. Since each view is beset with difficulties, we propose to continue the designation of Standard type, simply because it is well-established.