History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c9.s2: Section C. Extent of the Kingdom under the Maukharis
History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c9.s2
- Language
- English
Contents
- c9.s2.t1 Some Maukhari Dates — 24 parts
Section C. Extent of the Kingdom under the Maukharis
c9.s2.1
Although it is difficult to fix the limits of the Maukhari jurisdiction during the zenith of their power with any considerable degree of certainty, a consideration of the provenance of coins and inscriptions of the dynasty, along with their internal evidence, will help us to some extent to lift the obscurity that hangs over this problem.
c9.s2.2
To begin with the coins, some of them were found in Ahicchatra, a few miles to the north-west of Kanauj,¹ and others were procured at Ayodhyā. Sir Richard Burn has further discussed a large hoard of Maukhari coins that was discovered in Bhitaura in the Fyzabad district of the United Provinces.²
c9.s2.3
¹ Arch. Surv. Ind. Rep., IX, p. 27; J. R. A. S., 1889, p. 136.
c9.s2.4
² J. R. A. S., 1906, pp. 843-50.
c9.s2.5
Two seals were discovered in Nalanda;³ but as the "lower right quadrant with about half the writing is lost," we cannot say definitely to which reign they belong. Recently some more Maukhari seals came to light from the same site, and fortunately one of them, issued by Sarvavarman, is almost entire.⁴
c9.s2.6
³ Arch. Surv. Ind. Rep., Eastern circle, 1917-18, p. 44.
c9.s2.7
⁴ Ep. Ind., XXI (April, 1931), pp. 73-74.
c9.s2.8
The Jaunpur (U. P.) inscription⁵ records some achievements of Iśvaravarman, and we have made the surmise that they do not refer to any of his actual conquests; but merely to his bold stand against the enemies' aggressions.
c9.s2.9
⁵ C. I. I., Vol. III, No. 51, pp. 228-30.
c9.s2.10
Next, the Haraha inscription, found in the Bara-Banki district (near Lucknow) of the United Provinces,⁶ mentions Iśānavarman’s victories over the Andhras, the Sulikas, and the Gauḍas, who, according to Mr. N. G. Majumdar “were all compelled to accept his sovereignty.”¹ But a close perusal of the inscription hardly justifies our drawing this conclusion. It describes the Gauḍas as being forced “in future to remain within their proper realm,” which shows that they were only checked in the course of their aggrandizement. Besides, Iśānavarman could not extend his suzerainty as far as Gauḍadeśa, when he had to bow to the steel of a king of an intermediate territory, viz. Kumāragupta, the later Gupta monarch of Magadha. Probably the Andhras and the Sūlikas were likewise the aggressors, and Iśānavarman’s engagements with them were more or less of the nature of a successful trial of arms, no annexation of their territories or imposition of Iśānavarman’s authority being implied.
c9.s2.11
⁶ Ep. Ind., XIV, pp. 110-20. These findspots have already been indicated elsewhere. I have been compelled to repeat them
c9.s2.12
¹ *Ind. Ant.*, 1917, p. 127.
c9.s2.13
Here we must also consider a seal that was found in Asirgaḍh in the Nimad District of the Central Provinces². Its discovery at a place situated so far south should not, however, be taken as proof that Asirgaḍh was a sort of a “Maukhari outpost” in the Deccan, as observed by Mr. Aravamuthan³. Fleet rightly points out that the mere finding of the inscription at Asirgaḍh of course does not suffice in any way to connect the members of this family of Maukharis with that locality. Their territory probably lay some hundreds of miles more to the east.⁴ Coins and seals, being small and portable, can easily be carried far away from the actual place of their origin. As an instance, we
c9.s2.14
² *C. I. I.*, III, No. 47, pp. 219-221.
c9.s2.15
³ *The Kaveri, the Maukhari, and the Sangam Age*, p. 97.
c9.s2.16
⁴ *C. I. I.*, III, No. 47, p. 220.
c9.s2.17
here for the sake of convenience, and to make my point more explicit.
c9.s2.18
may observe that a seal of Bhāskaravarman of Kāmarūpa or Assam was found in Nalanda, although it is known beyond doubt that this region was never included within his realm.
c9.s2.19
The Aphsad inscription further informs us that Dāmodaragupta suffered a fatal defeat at the hands of a “Maukhari”,¹ whom we have identified with Sarvavarman. We have also suggested that probably the death of this Later Gupta king was followed by the annexation of Magadha—or at least its western parts—to the Maukhari dominions. The Deo-Baranark inscription² appears to lend welcome support to this theory, since it records the confirmation of a grant by two Maukhari rulers—Sarvavarman and Avantivarman—in the region of Arrah (Shahabad District).
c9.s2.20
¹ *Ibid*, pp. 203, 206.
c9.s2.21
² *Ibid*., pp. 216, 218.
c9.s2.22
Lastly, we may notice the testimony of the Nirmand inscription, found at a place almost on the bank of the Sutlej in the Kangra District of the Punjab³. It mentions the grant of a Mahārāja Sarvavarman; and “as we know of no other Sarvavarman of about this period,” says Mr. Aravamuthan, “we may tentatively assume that the Maukhari Sarvavarman had been able to extend his dominions so far west in the course of his wars with the Hūṇas.”⁴ The assumption, however, does not seem cogent. The Maukhari Sarvavarman is uniformly given the paramount titles of Mahārājādhirāja and Parameśvara in the dynastic records, whereas the Sarvavarman of the Nirmand inscription is a mere Mahārāja. Moreover, it would involve the supposition that the Maukharis exercised suzerainty over the intervening Vardhana dominions, and Prabhākara, who certainly was an independent king, had to fight against the Maukharis to wrest independence. Of this there is not a shred of evidence, but on the contrary the manner of description in the Harṣacarita shows that both the powers were on very amicable and cordial terms.
c9.s2.23
³ *Ibid*., No. 80, pp. 286-91.
c9.s2.24
⁴ *The Kaveri, the Maukhari, and the Sangam Age*, p. 93.
c9.s2.25
Excluding Asirgaḍh and Nirmand, we may therefore summarily say that during its fullest expansion the Maukhari kingdom of Kanauj extended up to Ahicchatra and the frontier of the Thanesvar kingdom on the West; to Nalanda on the East; on the North it may have touched the Tarai districts; and on the South it probably did not go beyond the southern boundaries of the present United Provinces¹. These territories were undoubtedly of sufficient dimensions to justify the assumption of imperial titles by the later Maukhari rulers after Īśānavarman.
c9.s2.26
¹ See for a different view, *Ibid.*, pp. 96-101; C. V. Vaidya’s *H. M. II. I.*, Vol. 1, pp. 1, 39.
Some Maukhari Dates
c9.s2.t1.1
One of the chief items of information furnished by the Haraha inscription is a date for Īśānavarman, which we may profitably utilise here to determine the chronological setting of these Maukhari rulers. It is expressed in the following verse: “When six hundred had increased by eleven, while the illustrious Īśānavarman, who had crushed his enemies, was the lord of the earth.”² The record thus yields us the year 611; but, as according to the dictionary one of the alternative senses of the word “atirikta” is “superfluous or redundant”,³ it has been suggested that “the other possible meaning will be 589⁴.” We may, however, throw doubt on this interpretation on the ground that there is no instance known where the term is used in this sense. Unfortunately, the inscription does not specify the era, but from the use of the word *śaradām* it has rightly been pointed out that it indicates the Mālava or Vikrama era, which in the opinion of Dr. Kielhorn began in *śarad* or autumn.¹ This reference to the Vikrama era is, as affirmed by Mr. Mazumdar, “also not opposed to palæographical considerations.”² Converting, therefore, the Vikrama year 611 into the corresponding date of the Christian era, we find that Īśānavarman was ruling in the year 554 A. D.
c9.s2.t1.2
² Ekādaśātirikteṣu ṣaḍu* sātitavidviṣi Śateṣu śaradāṁ patyau bhuvaḥ Śrīśānavarmaṇi (Ep. Ind., XIV, pp. 118, 120, verse 21).
c9.s2.t1.3
³ Monier-Williams’ *Sans-Eng. Dictionary*, p. 15.
c9.s2.t1.4
⁴ *Ann. Rep., Lucknow Museum*, 1915, p. 3, footnote. (Read ṣaṭsu)
c9.s2.t1.5
¹ *Ind. Ant.*, XX, p. 407.
c9.s2.t1.6
² *Ibid.*, XLVI, p. 126.
c9.s2.t1.7
Sir Richard Burn, on the other hand, has shown that some coins of Sarvavarman, the son and successor of Īśāna, bear the date 553 A. D.³ If we accept this, we must reject the date mentioned in the Haraha inscription, for unless we do so the dates of the father and son overlap each other, which is obviously contrary to the natural course of events.
c9.s2.t1.8
³ *J. R. A. S.*, 1906, p. 849.
c9.s2.t1.9
Another way of reconciling this chronological impossibility is to accept the other “possible” date for the Haraha inscription, viz., 589 Vikrama year or 532 A. D., but before we adopt any such view let us first carefully consider the dates on the coins. Mr. N. G. Mazumdar, who had the opportunity of examining these coins deposited in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, says: “I am sorry to say that the date marks on the coins of Sarvavarman (as well as of other Maukhari kings) have totally disappeared and as such it is impossible to say at which particular date these coins were issued. So it is better not to infer anything from them, and hazard a doubtful reading that may or may not be correct. I may also add that Mr. R. D. Banerji is also of the same opinion, and I am sure that will be the opinion of all who examine the coins with any care.”[¹] Our difficulty in relying on these coins is further augmented by the widely divergent readings proposed by scholars, which we now proceed to analyse in the following table :
c9.s2.t1.10
¹ *Ind. Ant.*, XLVI, p. 126.
c9.s2.t1.11
| NAME OF KING | RAP-SON : (1) | CUNNING-HAM : (2) | SMITH : (3) | FLEET : | BURN : (5) | BROWN : (6) | DIK-SHIT (7) |
| (a) Iśānavarman | 54,55 | 55 or 155 or 257 | 54 | 40,60 70,or5 | 4 X | X X 5 | 245 257 54 55 57 |
| (b) Sarvavarman | | 58 | | | 234 23- | 234 23- | 258 259 25 X 58 |
| (c) Avantivarman | | | | | 250 57 71 | 250 57 70(?) | 260 26 X 57 17 |
c9.s2.t1.12
(1) “There is some doubt as to the reading of these dates; and the era to which they should be referred is altogether doubtful” (*Indian Coins*, p. 27).
c9.s2.t1.13
(2) “Imperfect date in front of face. Legend in old Gupta characters : “*Devajanita Vijitāvaniravanipati Śrī Śānti Varma*”……The date appears to be the same on all the three specimens in the plates. I read it as 55, and would complete it to 155, if I could be certain that this Śāntivarma is the same king who is mentioned in the Aphsad inscription (*Ann. Surv. Ind. Rep.*, ix, p. 27). In a subsequent report, while admitting that the name is “clearly and unmistakably Iśānavarma,” Cunningham remarked: “I possess two of these coins, one of which has a date in front of the face. which may be read as 257” (*Ibid.*, xvi, p. 81).
c9.s2.t1.14
(3) “Date, apparently in the same era as Tora-māṇa’s, 54. This coin is probably one of Īśānavarman. A specimen of his coinage with the same date as Dr. Hoey’s coin is figured in *Coins of Med. India*, pl. II, 12. ... Although the date is quite plain Cunningham notes it as “not read” (*J. A. S. B.*, 1894, p. 193). Again, Dr. Hoey’s coins now published add the dates 54 and 58. The legend on the coin dated 58 is damaged, and every letter of the king’s name cannot be read with certainty. But the name begins with *Sa*, and I have no doubt that the reading above given is correct” (*Ibid.*, p. 194).
c9.s2.t1.15
(4) The marginal legend commencing above the peacock’s head is: “*Vijit-āvan(i)r-avan(i)-pati-śṛ-ī-śānavarmadeva jayati.*” “On the obverse of the coin figured by Cunningham as no. 22, ... in front of the king’s face there are two marks, which may perhaps be the numerical symbols for 40, 60, or 70 and 5. But they are very imperfect and doubtful” (*Ind. Ant.*, xiv, p. 68).
c9.s2.t1.16
(5) (*a*)...*Coins of Īśānavarman*: “As usual the name is written Śrīśānavarma, the initial ī being merged in the title Śrī. One coin bears a date which I read as 4x, but even the tens figure is doubtful” (*J. R. A. S.*, 1906, p. 844).
c9.s2.t1.17
(*b*) *Sarvavarman*: “Name written Śrīśarvavarma. Two coins bear dates which I read as 234 and 23—. The face is to right, and the reading of 200 is thus not quite certain, as the mark denoting the number of hundreds which stands at the right of the symbol is not on the coin” (*Ibid.*).
c9.s2.t1.18
(*c*) *Avantivarman*: “Name written Śrīvantivarma. Three distinct dates are found, viz., 250 (one coin); 57 (five coins); 71 (one coin). There are also six coins on which the dates are very doubtful, and four from which they have disappeared (*Ibid.*, p. 845). Later on, Sir Richard Burn adds: “It will be noticed that Sarvavarman’s and Avantivarman’s dates overlap, and it is possible that what I have read as 57, for the latter should be 67” (Ibid., p. 849).
c9.s2.t1.19
(6) Mr. Brown evidently concurs with Sir Richard Burn in most of his readings, (See *Catal. of Coins of the Guptas, Maukharis etc. in the Luck. Mus.*, 1920, p. 29).
c9.s2.t1.20
(7) I owe the readings, as given by Mr. Dikshit in his unpublished paper to Mr. Aravamuthan’s *Sangam Age*. I have read Mr. Aravamuthan’s scholarly discussion (pp. 102-07) with profit.¹
c9.s2.t1.21
¹ Further references to Maukhari coins occur in the *Supplementary Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta* (Non-Muhammadan Series), Vol. I, pp. 36-37; C. J. Brown, *Coins of India*, p. 49; *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, pp. 113-14; *Ind. Ant.*, XLVI, pp. 125-26; Dr. R. K. Mookerji, *Harṣa*, pp. 57-58.
c9.s2.t1.22
It is thus evident how very uncertain and various the readings on these coins are. The only dates on which there is some degree of agreement are 54 and 257 for Īśānavarman; 58 and 234 for Sarvavarman; and 57, 71 and 250 for Avantivarman. These must evidently refer to two distinct eras, as some of the numbers are expressed in two digits only, and others in three. Sir Richard Burn is of opinion that the numbers in three digits are in the Gupta era, and those in two point to years in the Maukhari era beginning from about 500 or 499 A. D., when Ārya Bhaṭa composed his great astronomical work and exactly 3,600 years of the Kaliyuga had elapsed.² But the Haraha inscription shows that the Maukharis used a third era, whether we take its date to be the year 589 or 611 Vikrama. It therefore baffles explanation why, if the Maukharis had started an era of their own, an inscription of the dynasty does not use it. Besides, the years 257 for Īśāna, and 234 or 250 for the later kings; 58 for Sarvavarman and 57 for his successor, are gross absurdities; and there is no known case of the prevalence of several eras in such a circumscribed territory as that of the Maukharis. Thus, any reliance on the dates supplied by the coins only makes confusion worse confounded; and we must, therefore, choose the alternative of accepting the date given in the Haraha inscription, which, as discussed above, is the Vikrama year 611=554 A. D. This is one of the starting points in the Maukhari chronology, and the other is 606 A. D., when Grahavarman was killed. Hence assigning an average of twenty years to each of the six rulers, the seventh reign being extremely short, we feel justified in assuming that the Maukharis began their rule over Kanauj sometime about the close of the fifth century A. D.
c9.s2.t1.23
² J. R. A. S., 1906, p. 848.
c9.s2.t1.24
PART II