Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c7.s4: 3.—Sir Vincent Smith on the Maukharis and the Guptas.

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c7.s4

Language
English

Contents

3.—Sir Vincent Smith on the Maukharis and the Guptas.

v1.c7.s4.1

At page 312 (3rd edn.) of his Early History of India Sir Vincent Smith observes: "These ‘later Guptas of Magadha,’ as they are called by Archæologists shared the rule of that province with another dynasty of rajas who had names ending in ‘Varman’ and belonged to a clan called Maukhari. The territorial division between the two dynasties cannot be defined precisely. Their relations with one another were sometimes friendly and sometimes hostile, but the few details known are of little importance." Now it is clear from the above that Sir V. Smith refers to the Maukharis and the Guptas discussed in the above two notes. It seems, however, clear to me that the Maukharis originally belonged to Kanauj. That their kingdom was Kanauj is certain from the statements of Bāṇa. Grahavarmā was attacked and killed there. His father was Avantivarmā from Bāṇa's statement. This Avantivarmā was a grandson of Śarvavarmā as seems very probable from the Deo Barnak inscription. The seal of Śarvavarmā found at Ashirgad gives the genealogy of this line of kings which has been given above. These Maukhari kings thus ruled at Kanauj and held extensive sway. The description of Bāṇa धरणीधराणां भन्मात्न स्थितोपि सकलभुवननमस्कृतो मौखरो वंशः ! as also तिमिरैस्तिरस्कारो रवैर्यो मौखराणां मालवैः परिभवः (H. C. pp. 200 and 252) seems to indicate that the Maukharis of Kanauj were a powerful family and the seal found at Ashirgad and the inscriptions found at Jaunpur and Deo Barnak show that they held sway over a large extent of territory southwards upto the Vindhya, northwards upto Jaunpur, and eastwards upto the Brahmaputra. In fact I would give the political history of India in the latter half of the sixth century as follows:--When the Imperial Gupta line ended in 538 A. D. with Kumāra Gupta II (V. Smith page 152 3rd edition), many of their provinces came under the sway of the Maukharis of Kanauj. With the overthrow of the Huns by a confederacy led by Yaśodharma and Bālāditya several new kingdoms came into importance in different parts of the Gupta empire and among them the Vardhanas of Thanesar and the Maukharis of Kanauj who had also their share of the fights with the Huns were the two prominent. The latter extended their sway north, south and east and for a time the eastern provinces were under their direct sway. We can only thus explain the confirmation of the grant at Deo Barnak made originally by Bālāditya, by Śarvavarmā and again by Avantivarmā. It was after Harsha's death that this sway of the Maukharis of Kanauj in Bengal was substituted by that of the later Guptas of Magadha as they are called by Archæologists. This part of my theory about the Maukharis seems to me to be well founded and strong. As to my surmise that the later Gupta line originally came from Malwa, I cannot speak with the same certainty. If Mādhava of the Aphsad inscription is a brother of Devagupta, then he came undoubtedly from Malwa. But if not we may treat his line as ruling from before in some portion of Magadha. All the same Devagupta who killed Grahavarmā and who was killed by Rājya certainly belongs to Malwa. We may well imagine that a Gupta line set itself up in Malwa after the disruption of the Gupta empire and always fought with the Maukharis of Kanauj for supremacy. Devagupta may also be, with fitness, assigned to the line of Gupta princes of whom Bhavagupta of 580 A. D. was one. Mādhava and Kumāra the companions of Harsha and Rājya must in that case be taken to be belong to this line of Malwa kings, that is the Mādhava of Harsha-Charita must be taken to be different from the Mādhava of the Aphsad inscription. These Guptas of the Aphsad inscription even if assigned to Magadha may also have had fights with the Maukharis of Kanauj who were as we have said above the overlords of the eastern portion of the Gupta empire.

v1.c7.s4.2.1

We must lastly take into consideration the fact noted in the account given by Mr. Burn of "some coins of the Maukharis" in J. R. A. S. 1906 at page 843 referred to by Sir V. A. Smith in a foot-note here. These coins were found in a village named Bhitaura in the Zilla of Fyzabad in Oudh. They are coins of Iśānavarmā, Śarvavarmā and Avantivarmā and of Harsha, Pratāpaśila and Śilāditya as deciphered from the legends. They also contain dates which with dates on coins previously found are for Iśānavarmā 54, 55 for Śarva 58 (formerly found) 234, 23 (now found) and 57 which may be read as 67 and 71 (formerly found) and 250 (now found) for Avantivarmā. On the coins of Harsha, Pratāpaśila and Śilāditya the figures in the opinion of Mr. Burn "stand for regnal years." The three digit figures on the Varmâ coins now found are clearly Gupta years. The previous figures are not well explained and Mr. Burn seeks to explain them by reference to a supposed era started by Brahmagupta in 499 A. D. when exactly 3600 years had expired from the begnining of the Kali age. Whatever that era may be, the dates extending over three digits, now found, are clearly Gupta era figures and in the opinion of Mr. Burn this use of the Gupta era may indicate a temporary subjection to, or alliance with Guptas. But it seems to me that no such inference is necessary. Indeed independent kings use the era of an empire which has just passed away, simply because the people are accustomed to use that era.

v1.c7.s4.2.2

The Valabhis used the Gupta era not because they were subject to the Guptas, but because they established their kingdom in a part of the country whence the Gupta empire had just passed away and where the people were accustomed to use the Gupta era. As they were not powerful enough to found an era of their own, they used the Gupta era in use among the people. We may cite an instance quite near our own times. The Marathas used the Fasli era and even the Fasli and Mahomedan months, though they were independent and even after the Mogul power at Delhi was reduced to a phantom, because the people were accustomed to that era and those months. Even the British used that era for some time. These remarks apply also to the form of the coins. A succeeding rule generally copies the form, the weight and even the legends or appearance of the coins of a preceding rule because the people are accustomed to the sight of such coins. The rupee of the British is formed after the fashion of the Mogul coin rather than of their own coins in Britain. I offer these remarks, of course, with diffidence but I may contend that the use of the Gupta era does not necessarily indicate subjection to the Guptas. In fact, in the time of the Maukharis, the Gupta empire and rule had passed away. To my mind, these coins support the theory already propounded, namely, that the Maukharis succeeded to the rule of the Guptas in the Gangetic provinces.

v1.c7.s4.2.3

The finding of the coin in the Fyzabad District, like the Jaunpur inscription of Īśānavarmā shows the extent of their sway. The genealogy disclosed in the seal of Śarvavarmā found at Ashirgad is also well supported by the coins, and Īśānavarmā, Śarvavarmā and Avantivarmā seem to be the three powerful kings of this family. And the dates of the coins now fouud are not inconsistent with our theory, as the coin of Avantivarmā can well make him a contemporary of Prabhākaravardhana of Thanesar, and his son Grahavarmā a son-in-law of the latter. For if we take 250, certainly a Gupta era figure, we have 250 + 319 = 569 for Avantivarmā. Supposing it to be a date of Avantivarmā's rule we have Grahavarmā seated on the throne of Kanuaj in 606 A. D., i. e. about 37 years after this, which is not at all improbable. 234 G. E. for Śarvavarmā again means 234 + 319 = 553 A. D., a date consistent with the Varma family tree and also with the general history of India as sketched above. Whatever era the two digit dates may be in, we think, considering the other dates, that these coins support practically the theory propounded here about the Varmas and there is nothing inconsistent with their having ruled in Kanauj, as Bāṇa makes them do.

Linked texts (1)