History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c9.s1.t3: Antiquity of the Maukharis

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c9.s1.t3

Language: English

Antiquity of the Maukharis

c9.s1.t3.1

It appears from these records that the Maukharis came into prominence during the sixth century A. D., but there are certain indications which enable us to trace their existence to much earlier times. First, Kaiyaṭa’s commentary on the *Mahābhāṣya* “which may belong to the 12th century A. D., but which tradition places earlier,”⁴ gives us only three illustrations:

c9.s1.t3.2

⁴ Keith’s History of Sanskrit Literature (1928), p. 429.

c9.s1.t3.3

Paunikyā, Bhaunikyā, and Maukharyā, under the aphorism (Pāṇini, IV. I. 79) explaining the formation of the words with the *syan* suffix. The *Kāśikāvṛtti* of Jayāditya and Vāmana, “written before I-tsing visited India,”¹ again cites the term, under the same rule of Pāṇini, as an instance of *Gotrāvayava*, i.e. non-famous *gotras* or names, *kulas* or families. From these references it has been conjectured that the term Maukhari was “possibly known to Pāṇini and also Patañjali”² who have been assigned to about the sixth century B. C. and *circa* 150 B. C. respectively.

c9.s1.t3.4

¹ *Ibid.* The itinerary of I-tsing falls between the years 671-695 A. D.

c9.s1.t3.5

² *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, p. 112. The term Mukhara actually occurs in Patañjali’s *Mahābhāṣya*, *Adh*. V. II., *Sūtra* 107, Kielhorn’s ed., p. 397.

c9.s1.t3.6

Fleet further pointed out the antiquity of the Maukharis by the Pāli legend “*Mokhalīnam*,” written in Mauryan Brāhmī characters on a clay-seal, which was secured by Cunningham at Gaya.³ This is evidently an equivalent of the Sanskrit word “*Maukharīṇām*,” which is a derivative of Mukhara and signifies “of the Maukharis.” The use of the Mauryan characters unmistakably shows that they were well-known in the 3rd and 4th centuries B. C., and Sir Alexander Cunningham even tried to prove some connection between the Maukharis and the Mauryas.⁴ In his opinion the term Maukhari is only a variant form of Maurya, and that “in fact Maurīya would be a legitimate contraction of Maukhariya.” But there does not seem to be any substantial ground for this view except the mere similarity in sound.

c9.s1.t3.7

³ *C. I. I.*, III, *Introd.*, p. 14. Recently Dr. A. S. Altekar of the Benares Hindu University has discovered three short inscriptions of a Maukhari family with the title Mahāsenāpati in the Kotah State. They yield us the date 294 of the *Krita* era, and if it stands for the Mālava *Saṃvat*, we have got definite epigraphic reference to the political importance of the Maukharis in the middle of the third century A.D.

c9.s1.t3.8

⁴ *Arch. Surv. Ind.*, *Rep.*, XV, p. 166.

c9.s1.t3.9

*Who were the Maukharis?*

c9.s1.t3.10

Both Vāmana and Kaiyaṭa—the famous expositors of the Pāṇinian system of grammar—take the term Mukharyā as “a patronymic, signifying the descendants of Mukhara, who must have been the Ādipuruṣa or the first to bring his family into prominence and thereby caused it to be known after his name.”¹ It is not possible to determine whether Mukhara was a proper or an attributive name. Dr. Hīrānanda Śāstri, however, definitely assumes that it was a surname, and that the man was “so called for his being a ‘leader,’ or for his fighting in the forefront of the armies, which he led into action, as it is such characteristics only which would go to make a man the founder of a line.”²

c9.s1.t3.11

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, p. 111.

c9.s1.t3.12

² *Ibid.*

c9.s1.t3.13

It is interesting to note that Bāṇa also considers Mukhara to be the progenitor of Grahavarman’s line, as Puṣyabhūti was of the Thānesvar dynasty.³

c9.s1.t3.14

³ *Hc. C. T.*, p. 128.

c9.s1.t3.15

But the Haraha inscription appears to trace their origin to another remarkable personage, since it informs us that “the Mukhara princes, who have vanquished their foes and checked the course of evil, are the descendants of the hundred sons, whom king Aśvapati got from Vaivasvata (Manu), and who were conspicuous on account of their excellences.”⁴ Ancient Indian literature doubtless knows of many individuals with the name Aśvapati,¹ but it is difficult to ascertain whom the author of the *praśasti* had in view. The learned editor of the Haraha inscription further connects this dynasty with the Solar race. He thinks that Vaivasvata, from whom Aśvapati obtained the hundred sons, is the seventh Manu, “supposed to be born of the Sun and to preside over the present age.”²

c9.s1.t3.16

⁴ *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, p. 119, verse 3. Cf. “Sutaśatam lebhe nṛpaḥ Aśvapatiḥ Vaivasvatādyaguṇoditaṃ, Tat prasūtā durita-vṛttirudho Mukharāḥ Kṣitīśāḥ Kṣatārayaḥ” (*Ibid*, p. 115).

c9.s1.t3.17

¹ See Monier-Williams’ *Sans-Eng. Dictionary*, p. 101.

c9.s1.t3.18

² *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, p. 111. Dr. H. C. Raychaudhuri is of opinion that Vaivasvata is Yama, and not Manu (*Pol. Hist. of India*, 3rd ed., p. 406).

c9.s1.t3.19

On the other hand, Mr. N. Ray tries to prove in the *Calcutta Review* that the Maukharis belonged to the *Somavaṃśa* or Lunar race.³ He draws this conclusion from the following passage in the *Harṣacarita*: “Rājyaśrī has at length united the two brilliant lines of Puṣpabhūti and Mukhara, whose worth, like that of the Sun and Moon houses, is sung by all the world to the gratification of wise men’s ears.”⁴ The learned writer argues that the Puṣpabhūtis were of the Solar race, as they were mostly Sun-worshippers (*paramā-dityabhakta*), and they had such names as Ādityavardhana and Prabhākaravardhana. Granting this—it is contended—Bāṇa’s manner of description would necessarily imply that the Maukharis belonged to the *Somavaṃśa*. But the hypothesis is gratuitous, since there are grounds to hold that the Vardhanas were not of the Solar line. Besides the suffix *bhūti*, indicating that Puṣpabhūti, the founder, was a Vaiśya, we have the explicit testimony of Yuan Chwang that Harṣa was a Vaiśya (Fei-she caste). Curiously, this obtains confirmation from the *Mañjuśrī-* Mūlakalpa, which describes the Thanesvar ruling family as Vaiśya.¹ It appears, therefore, that in the above passage Bāṇa was not actually connecting the two dynasties with the Sun and Moon respectively, but he was merely comparing them with the two well-known Kṣatriya houses, that are famous in history and legend alike. Thus though we cannot be certain as to who was the progenitor of the Maukharis, at least this much seems probable from the evidence of the Haraha inscription, as also from the termination varman, that they were Kṣatriyas. But in after times they appear to have gone down in the social scale, for in an interesting letter, quoted by Mr. Aravamuthan, Mr. K. P. Jayaswal observes, "I think that the modern Mauhari caste, almost solely located in the Gaya district, are their representatives. They are Baniyas, i.e. Vaiśyas now."² Was this degradation due to loss of sovereignty and subsequent change of occupation?

Linked texts (3)

Aṣṭādhyāyī — Pāṇini, Sanskrit
Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa — Sanskrit
Harṣacarita — Bāṇabhaṭṭa, Sanskrit