History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c7.s4.2

Language: English

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.