History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c9.s2.t1: Some Maukhari Dates

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c9.s2.t1

Language: English

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.