The Ancient Maukharis: An Analysis

Posted on by Priya Chaturvedi

The word ancient carries a different weightage when it is used with regard to the great civilizations. The people, their customs, their rulers, and their dynasties – stretching back millennia or even more, they were the ancients. The ancient rulers loved to boast of their old aristocratic pedigree, originating from the great old families, from archaic heroes or even from gods themselves. And it so happens sometimes that the dynasties could have been more ancient than what historians considered them to be – probably even older than what those dynasties remembered about themselves.

There had been many examples in Indian history where cadet lines emerged far away from their original home. We all know about the Maurya-s of Koṅkaṇa where a scion of the imperial Maurya-s who had been a regional governor, made himself independent after the decline of the main line and founded a Maurya dynasty, far away from their original seat in Magadha. Or even the case of the illustrious Sena-s of Bengal, whose founder hailed originally from Karnāṭaka – the members of his clan had been sāmanta-s under the great Pāla-s of Bengal. Analyzing another such possibility is the topic of the current post and the dynasty of our interest is the Maukhari(s) of ancient India.

Emblem of a seal of Maukhari monarch Śarvavarman (Bakker, 2014).

One can never really know which piece of information learnt on social media can inspire you to dig a little more until you find yourself with a heap of various facts – some connected and some unconnected. In one such instance, I first learnt of an interesting theory regarding the Maukhari dynasty according to which, prior to its rise to the scene in post-Gupta period, they most likely had much older roots. I was also informed about the Chandravalli Inscription of Mayūraśarman and the famous Saṃskṛta play called the Kaumudīmohotsava (the Festival of Moonlight) – both seemed to suggest that the Maukhari dynasty that reigned c. 510 CE – c. 606 CE in the vast plains of northern India possibly had more ancient roots and an exalted status even before their rise. In this article, I will be analyzing these points and some more to find whether the Maukhari-s were more ancient, even aristocratic than what we had hitherto known them to be, and will also be studying the possibility of their connexion to the ancient tribal oligarchy of the Mālava-s.  

Abbreviations:

  • CII– Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum 
  • EI– Epigraphia Indica 
  • ARMAD- Annual Report of the Mysore Archaeological Department

Table of Contents & Links

Background

When the Gupta power was on decline, there arose numerous dynasties in late fifth-early sixth centuries CE, almost in structural continuation of the great Gupta Empire. The first major houses on the scene were the Aulikara-s in western India and the Maukhari-s in the north. It is understood that both these houses started either as governors or vassals under the Gupta suzerainty and both saw their rise by proving their mettle against the Hunnic invasions in northern India, something that has been previously discussed on this blog (read more – The Second Indo-Hunnic War). The Maukhari-s ruled the vast northern plains of the Gaṅgā-Yamunā for a century with their capital at Kannauj (Kānyakubja). And their history is intertwined with that of another very significant post-Gupta dynasty – the Puṣyabhūti-s of Thānesar (Sthāṇavīśvara), immortalized by the poet Bāṇabhaṭṭa in his Harṣacarita. What readers might not be aware of is that there were two main branches of the Maukhari-s that we know of – one was the famous Maukhari-s of Kannauj but there was another one called the Maukhari-s of Gayā. Of these two – scholars are of the opinion that the Kannauj dynasty was the senior branch but the latter dynasty probably flourished before the former. However, there is no concensus as of now. The purpose of mentioning both these branches is to show that the Maukhari-s of Kannauj were not the only Maukhari-s in the region – there was another branch and as the post will progress, there will be discussion on the possibility of other older branches in ancient India. So let us start with these two and post that we will discuss more of the possibilities of the ancient roots of this family.

§ The Maukhari-s of Gayā

The inscriptions discovered in the Barābar Hill Caves (the ancient Pravaragiri – Lomas Rishi Cave) and Nāgārjunī Hill Caves, north of Gayā in Bihār have the names of rulers of one family of Maukhari-s. There are three petty rulers mentioned – chronologically, they are – Yajñavarman, Śārdūlavarman and Anantavarman. Based on these inscriptions, scholars usually date the flourishing of this branch of the Maukhari family to the first half of the sixth century (Bakker, 2014; 47) suggesting that even though the timeline of the existence of branches of Kannauj and Gayā is more or less contemporaneous, yet Gayā branch probably flourished before rise of the Maukhari-s of Kannauj. They are specifically mentioned as belonging to the family of the Maukhari kings (CII, 1960: 223). One of these is a Vaiṣṇava inscription; recording the installation in the cave, by Anantavarman, of an image of Viṣṇu, in his incarnation as Kṛṣṇa (CII, 1960: 222). Anantavarman is said to be ‘adorned by his own (high) birth’1 suggesting that this family had aristocratic kṣatriya lineage2 and we are also told that he waged many battles.

Another inscription of Anantavarman, this time a Śaiva inscription mentions a chief named Yajñavarman, an earlier ancestor of the family (CII, 1960: 224). The father of Anantavarman, Śārdūlavarman is mentioned as sāmantacūḍāmaṇi i.e. crest jewel of the vassal chiefs (ornament amongst the chieftains) suggesting they were not independent rulers at the time but petty vassals. Though, the names of their overlords and their enemies against whom they had waged battles – both are conspicuous by their absence. Are we to assume that they were in conflict with their overlords, whoever they might be. According to Bakker, we could be dealing with either of these three scenarios – one, the overlord might be the Gupta ruler (probably Viṣṇugupta); two, these overlords or enemies could be the early kings of the Later Gupta-s before these were driven out of Magadha by Maukhari ruler Īśānavarman of Kannauj3 (Bakker, 2014; 47). And three – which Bakker favours the most i.e. the Maukhari-s of Kannauj –

“…their overlords could have been their own (distant) relatives, who traced their pedigree back to Harivarman. This last possibility, which seems most likely to me, would conform with our tentative suggestion…that, after the breaking up of the Gupta Empire, the Maukhari family worked hard to establish an independent homeland in the northern Vindhyas, covering a stretch of hilly land on both sides of the River Son… of altogether 400 km, from Rewā in the west to Gayā in the east, from where they encroached upon the territories still held by the Imperial Guptas (Bakker, 2014; 47).”

Important to note that these three inscriptions – the one in the Barābar Hill Caves (the ancient Pravaragiri – Lomas Rishi Cave) and the other two-s in the Nāgārjunī Hill Caves differ in some significant points. In the Barābar inscription, Anantavarman calls his father sāmanta and himself as a good son (suputra) “who executes his father’s wrath (Bakker, 2014; 47). While in the Nāgārjunī Hill inscription, his father, who is no more, is now called a nṛpa (king) but interestingly, Anantavarman here refrains from calling himself king. In a more intriguing turn Bakker mentions that the last two inscriptions no longer mention even the (Maukhari) kula (clan-family) (Bakker, 2014; 47). Now why would that be? Something untoward in this family’s circumstances seems to have happened.

“Did Anantavarman lose his status after the death of his father? (Bakker, 2014; 47).”

It seems that the reason could be the very infighting in the Maukhari clan – between the Maukhari-s of Gayā and the Maukhari-s of Kannauj as alluded to above in order to be the successors of the Gupta-s in the region. If that be the case, it would align nicely with the larger picture we see in this period – these multiple clans were trying to take the mantle of the empire from the Gupta-s within their hands. The example of Maukhari Īśānavarman of Kannauj pushing the Later Gupta-s outside Magadha and into Gauḍa (Bengal) has already been mentioned.

Also significant to note that clans like the Maukhari-s and the Later-Gupta-s were not just petty vassals of the Gupta-s but were also related to the great family as we have examples of the Maukhari-s of Kannauj having their prince marry the Gupta princess. And, in case of the Later-Gupta-s, it is also not unlikely that the earlier kings of this dynasty like Jīvitagupta and Kumāragupta were related to the Imperial Gupta line even though, they shied away from explicitly stating this (Bakker, 2014; 61). These clans were therefore eligible to claim the Gupta throne on account of being related to the main line Gupta-s as well. And, if to these facts could be added the antiquity of the Maukhari clan which will be discussed then, it is easier to understand why the Maukhari-s claimed the throne of northern India.

§ The Maukhari-s of Kannauj

It would be prudent to inform the readers that even though this branch of the Maukhari-s is usually referred to as belonging to Kannauj, based on the presumption that this city was the capital of their kingdom, but there is in fact no direct evidence linking the Maukhari-s to Kannauj (Bakker, 2014; 48). The evidence is mostly circumstantial – the strongest being Harṣacarita of Bāṇa (Bakker, 2014; 48).4 Nevertheless, inscriptions of the Maukhari-s of Kannauj (Harāhā Inscription) refer to their ancestor as one Mahārāja Harivarman. A connection with this name can be found in the Shankarpur Copperplate Inscription of Harivarman dated to the time of Emperor Budhagupta in year 168 of the Gupta era (c. CE 487- 88). The plate was found in Shankarpur, Sidhi District in Madhya Pradesh. The similarity in the name made scholars to quickly proclaim it as belonging to the Maukhari ancestor (Bakker, 2014; 29); though, this theory has also met with some reservations5 but the provenance of this inscription coupled with the fact that it mentions Harivarman with the exact title of Mahārāja just like the Harāhā Inscription etc. is still enough to presume it connected to the Maukhari dynasty.

Mahārāja Harivarman is proclaimed as a great military leader in the Asīragaḍh Copper Seal Inscription of Śarvavarman Maukhari (CII Vol. III; 221) – “whose fame stretched out beyond the four oceans; who had other kings brought into subjection by (his) prowess and by affection.”

He is also called Jvālāmukha (the flame faced) in the inscriptions and it was he who brought this branch of the Maukhari family into prominence. If we are to trust the Shankarpur Copperplate as related to the Maukhari Harivarman, then he was already a man of prominence styled as Mahārāja in the inscription. The title of Mahārāja used in the inscription suggests that he was a prominent governor or vassal to the Gupta Emperor Budhagupa. What is also important to note is again the hint that the matrimonial relations of Maukhari-s allude to. Harivarman’s son and sucecssor – Ādityavarman married a Later Gupta princess Harṣaguptā and Ādityavarman’s son and successor Īśvaravarman marries a Gupta princess – Upaguptā. We have to remember that Īśvaravarman was the one who was part of the alliance with the Later-Aulikar Yaśodharman that defeated the Hūṇa ruler Mihirakula.

Such prestigious marriages in the initial stages of this dynasty could hardly have taken place if the Maukhari-s had been some upstart family without a prestigious lineage backing them.

I. Claiming Descent from the Mālava-s

At this point, it is important to learn what the Maukhari-s of Kannauj themselves claim regarding their family.  “According to the Harāhā Inscription, the Mukhara kings descended from the hundred sons whom King Aśvapati obtained thanks to a boon given by Vaivasvata (i.e. Yama). This clearly refers to the Sāvitrī legend as told in Mahābhārata (3.277-283). According to this legend, Aśvapati is a king of the Mādras and, after his daughter Sāvitrī had obtained this boon from Yama, his wife Mālavī bore him a hundred sons, who, according to Mahābhārata 3.281.58, are known as the Mālavas, kṣatriyas who equalled the gods (Bakker, 2014; 41-42).”6

Thus, it is very much clear that at least as per their admission – the Maukhari-s traced their descent from the Mālava-s. In some earlier analyses the connection with the King Aśvapati suggested a connection with the Mādra-s, as he was their ruler.7 But as mentioned above, the Mahābhārata states the names of these – the Mālava-s. In fact, another interesting Mālava connexion in this inscription is its date. The inscription is dated to 611 expired autumns. Even though, the era to which this year belongs has not been specified, the use of the term śarada (autumn) indicates that it is identical with the Mālava, or Vikrama era which is understood to have began in autumn (śarada). And the inscription is thus understood to belong to 554 CE (EI XIV; 114). When the Maukhari-s themselves are stating their pedigree from the Mālava-s, it is unsurprising that they would have preferred using the Kṛta-Mālava-Vikrama Saṃvata. And if we are to consider this interpretation, then it is probably one of the earliest instances of this era being used outside its original geographical confines of eastern Rājasthān and Mālwā in western India (EI XIV; 114). This Mālava connection vis-à-vis the Maukhari-s is an important one and I will delve on this some more in a short while. As for the word Mukhara itself, it is unsure whether the word signifies a proper name or an attributive one but according to Pires, it would be quite reasonable to assume that –

“Mukhara was a surname given to the man for his being the ‘leader’ of the family, or because he had distinguished himself by fighting in the forefront of the armies which he led into battle. Such a view seems to be very probable, for it is usually such characteristics that go to make a man the founder of a dynasty (Pires, 1934: 11).”

Bāṇa in his Harṣacarita also states that Mukhara was a distinguished personage, and compares his eminent position to the eponymous Puṣpabhūti of the Thānesar dynasty (Pires, 1934: 10-11). There is another mention of one Maukhari king in Harṣacarita – in one of the examples given as a caveat against carelessness, Bāṇa has mentioned one Maukhari Kṣatravarman who in his foolish fondness of maṅkha-s (troubadours) welcomed some who were his enemy’s emissaries and who successfully availed themselves of the king’s folly to treacherously assassinate him (Pires, 1934: 20). Pires also notes that immediately after this, in another caveat for kings against carelessness, the example is given regarding the murder of a Śaka king, an adulterer punished by Chandra Gupta who presented himself in his mistress’ dress. According to Pires, it is thus likely, that Kṣatravarman flourished some time before Chandra Gupta II (Pires, 1934: 21). This would mean that there were Maukhari rulers present around the time of the Gupta rise.

As mentioned above, Mahārāja Harivarman, proclaimed as a great military leader in the Asīragaḍh Copper Seal Inscription of Śarvavarman Maukhari, and called Jvālāmukha (the flame faced) could have been a good contender for being the eponymous Mukhara but for the fact that we find this word as a clan name much before than the possible timeline of Mahārāja Harivarman, the ancestor of the Maukhari-s of Kannauj.8 As per scholiasts Vāmana (7th century) and Kaiyaṭa (11th century), the term Maukhari was apparently known as a patronymic clan name (gotrāvayava-s i.e. small gotra-s or clans)  to the great grammarian Pāṇini and even Patañjali (Pires, 1934: 13). The scholiasts give only three illustrations – Pauṇikyā, Bhauṇikyā and Maukharyā, under the aphorism (Pāṇ. IV. I. 79) which explain the formation of the words in the shyaṅ suffix (EI XIV; 112). It is thus probable that the historicity of this clan could even be stretched to ~ 4th century BCE!

§ The Gayā Clay Seal

Adding to this information is an interesting piece of physical evidence which suggests the existence of the clan of Maukhari-s in ancient Magadha. General Cunningham secured a clay seal at Gayā which was inscribed with a Pāli legend ‘Mokhalinam’ in Mauryan Brahmi characters (Pires, 1934: 14). Mokhalinam is evidently a Prakrit equivalent of the Saṃskṛta Maukhariṇām, which is the derivative of Mukhara, and means ‘of the Maukharis’ (EI XIV, 113; Pires, 1934: 14), but this seal supposedly bore no personal names.9 Agreeing with Jayaswal, Pires was also of the opinion that the Maukhari-s could have been a political (republican) community originally; but they must have been bereft of their power in the third century B. C., as there is no room for a second rate political community in the neighbourhood of Gayā at the time of the Maurya-s (Pires, 1934: 14). Nevertheless, the point that they could have been republican or rather oligarphical gaṇa-rājya is important. It is even probable that the Maukhari-s of Gayā had some connection with the Maukharis of the Mauryan period.

§ Kaumudīmahotsava

Another very fascinating hint can be found in the Saṃskṛta play Kaumudīmahotsava (Festival of Moonlight). Based on this play, Pires has gone as far as to say that the Maukhari-s actually dominated Magadha before Chandra Gupta I, and that the Gupta ruler usurped the throne from them. The play’s protagonist is Kalyāṇavarman, son of Sundaravarman, who had been ousted from his Magadha kingdom by his (Sundaravarman’s) adopted son, Caṇḍasena. Caṇḍasena had married a Licchavi princess and had wrested Pāṭaliputra from his foster father with the help of his in-laws (Bakker, 2014; 71). Pires, based on the evidence of the Chandravalli inscription (discussed below) takes Sundaravarman and Kalyāṇavarman as two historical, fourth-century Maukhari rulers of Magadha (Bakker, 2014; 71). Bakker, though finding this theory interesting rejects it nonetheless on the ground of lack of independent historical corroboration (Bakker, 2014; 71).  

“The word ‘Maukhari’ does not feature in the play and Maukhari rulers, let alone ones who carry these names, are unknown from other sources pertaining to the history of Magadha in the third and fourth centuries (Bakker, 2014; 71).”

If we add to this the fact that the drama is only tentatively dated and that the genealogy of the Gupta-s, consistent over all the inscriptions state that the ancestor of the Gupta-s was Śrigupta and his son Ghaṭotakaccha, the historicity of the play does become questionable. However, it is still nonetheless useful in considering the presence of Maukhari-s in Magadha in pre-Gupta period, even if not as such strong rulers.

§ The Chandravalli Inscription

The Chandravalli Inscription of Kadamba ruler Mayūraśarman, mentioned above is another very important piece of evidence that suggests presence of Maukhari-s much before than the period of the Kannauj branch. A Prākṛit inscription – it was primarily meant to record the construction of a water reservoir by Mayuraśarman of the Kadamba-s (ARMAD, 1931: 54). It also records his victories over his neighbours – the Traikūṭa, Abhīra, Pallava, Pāriyātrika, Śakasthāna, Sendraka, Puṇāṭa and Maukhari kingdoms (ARMAD, 1931: 54).

kadaṃbāṇam mayūraśammaṇā viṇimmiam taṭākam dūbha

trēkūṭa abhīra pallava pariyātrika sakasthā[ṇa] sayindaka puṇāṭa mōkari[ṇā]

When the inscription was first discovered – it was dated to ~ c. 268 CE (ARMAD, 1931: 56). And this prompted scholars like Pires to connect the presence of Maukhari-s in the inscription whom Mayuraśarman claimed to have defeated with the same kings of Magadhakula in Kaumudīmahotsava who had –varman ending names, thus suggesting the presence of Maukhari-s in Magadha in pre-Gupta times (Pires, 1934: 21-22). It is certainly not an unlikely scenario – the two powers from opposite ends of each other fighting for power. For example, Maukhari ruler Īśānavarman in the Jaunpur and Harāhā inscriptions claimed to have gained a victory over the king of Āndhra-s, who must have been the Viṣṇukuṇḍin ruler Indravarman, alias Indrabhaṭṭārakavarman (r. ~ 526 – 555 CE) (Bakker, 2014; 55). The Chandravalli inscription thus suggests the presence of Maukhari-s prior to the rise of both the Kannauj and the Gayā branch.

However, this view is not without its problems. First of all, the date of this inscription is not certain – even though Pires dated it to 283 CE (Pires, 1934; 34), many scholars now date this and king Mayuraśarman to mid-fourth century CE (Bakker, 2014; 41). So if we consider the latter date as true, then it means that by this time, the reign of Chandragupta I had ceased and that of Samudragupta had commenced, providing no room for an independent power like Maukhari-s in the region of Magadha with whom Mayuraśarman could have fought. This would also make Pires’ arguments regarding Kaumudīmahotsava difficult to reconcile with the events of rise of the Gupta dynasty. In that case, an argument in favour of the former date of last quarter of the third century could be more likely (ARMAD, 1931: 57),10 even though most scholars prefer the mid-fourth century date for Mayuraśarman.

§ The Maukhari-Mālava Connexion: A Possibility

I. Three Maukhari Yūpa Inscriptions of Barwā

However, there is another possibility and that relates to the Maukhari inscriptions from Barwā (Bāḍwā), Koṭā in Rājasthān. These three Maukhari Inscriptions on Yūpa-s, Kṛta Year 295 were published by Prof. A. S. Altekar (EI XXIII, 1935; 42). Remnants of the fourth pillar could be found at a distance of about two furlongs, but portion of it was discovered converted into a sail stone (EI XXIII, 1935; 42-43). The language of these records is described by scholars as rather incorrect Sanskrit (EI XXIII, 1935; 46) and they commemorate the performance of a Trirātra sacrifice by three brothers – Balavardhana, Somadeva and Balasimha, sons of Mōkhari Mahāsenāpati Bala (EI XXIII, 1935; 46-47). The term Mōkhari here is a mere variant for Maukhari11 and thus our record, which is dated in the Kṛta Year 295 (Vikrama Saṃvata) i.e. ~ c. 237 CE is the earliest dated Maukhari record to be so far published barring the Maukhari seal dated to the ~ third century BCE, Mauryan period and mentioned by General Cunningham (CII III; 14).  

Whether Bala himself was a Mahāsenāpati or the title was for his sons is not sure but either way, it is possible that it could depict a position of more than a mere general because in contemporary Āndhra and Ikṣavāku records, this title seems to denote a feudal chief of considerable importance, ruling over a fairly big district (EI XXIII, 1935; 47). Therefore, it is quite likely that Bala had a similar status. The title of Mukhara, meaning ‘loudmouth’ or rather more accurately in this case – ‘leader’ seems quite suitable for any chief in ancient Indian political structure. However, it seems very unlikely that Bala or his sons were independent (EI XXIII, 1935; 47). Under whom these Maukhari chiefs ruled, we do not know for the inscriptions do not mention any overlords. The Kuśāṇa-s were too weak at this point to exercise any paramount control over this region (EI XXIII, 1935; 47-48). The obvious guess would be the Western Śaka Kṣatrapa-s who ruled here before finally being vanquished by the great Gupta Emperor Chandragupta II ‘Vikramāditya’.

But, it is also important to note that in immediate period prior to the date of these Maukhari records, the Western Kṣatrapa-s had seen two reversals in their situation due to defeats under the great Sātavāhana ruler Gautamīputra Śātakarṇī (~ r. 103-127 CE?) and later under Yajña Śrī Śātakarṇī (r. ~170-199 CE) before rising again under Rudrasena II (r. ~ 256–278). The Western Kṣatrapa-s had thus seen considerable loss, especially of their southern territories in western and central India, when the Sātavāhana-s had reconquered their southern regions. It is then possible that the Western Kṣatrapa-s’ rule had weakened at the period even in the area of Rājasthān where these Maukharī yūpa inscriptions have been found and we do have a name for the contenders who could have benefited from this weakening – the Mālava tribe. Afterall, it has to be noted that the era in which the above mentioned inscriptions had been found is the Kṛta era, which is associated with the Mālava-s.

II. The Nandsā Yūpa Inscription

Interestingly, another very important inscription – the Nandsā Yūpa Inscription was found in Rājasthān – also dated to Kṛita Era, Year 282 (~ 226 CE). It commemorates the performance of Ekaṣaṣṭīrātra sacrifice (sacrifice that lasted 61 days) and is probably the earliest record of the Kṛita- Mālava-Vikrama Era so far known (EI XXVII; 255).

Altekar in his analysis of the inscription understood the name of the king as one Śrī Soma, his father Jayasoma, and his grandfather as Jayanartana whose epithet given can be read as Prabhāgravarddhana (EI XXVII; 257). In case of the name of the grandfather, even if the name might be read differently due to lack of clarity, Altekar is very sure in reading the ending of the title as – varddhana which is clear enough. Importantly, the sacrificer claims that he was a scion of the royal Mālava family (mālava-rājarṣi-vaṃśaprasūta), which was as famous as the Ikṣavāku family (EI XXVII; 257). In an alternate reading of the phrase, it can even be said to mean – one born in the Mālava family, which was a royal family of the famous Ikṣavāku-s. Though Altekar considers this version as unlikely and prefers the former one (EI XXVII; 257). Both the Nandsā and Bāḍwā inscription together confirms strong influence of the Mālava clan in this period in Rājpūtānā.  

III. The Mālava Migration

Before proceeding any further, to understand the influence of the Mālava tribe/clan in this region of Rājasthān, a short background as to how they came to be situated here is pertinent. In Mahābhārata, the Mālava-s were allied to the Mādra-s, who were known to have been in the occupation of the central undivided Punjāb ; and the Mālava-s were most probably their southern neighbours (EI XXVII; 258). The tradition regarding their origin from King Aśvapati and his queen Mālavī has already been mentioned. It is not exactly sure when their migration out of Punjāb took place12 but scholars usually date it to the period of post-Greek invasions under Demetrios, Apollodotus and Menander. The possibility of migrations of some families of this tribe in the aftermath of Alexander’s invasion cannot be ruled out either. By 2nd century CE., Mālava-s had ample presence in southern and eastern Rājasthān (EI XXVII; 259) because we see the physical evidence of the Mālava-s in here by ~ 2nd century BCE. The evidence for it is the copious copper currency issued by the Mālava-s in this region during the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE (EI XXVII; 258).

“At Nagar, 25 miles south-east of Ṭonk, a very large number of Mālava coins were discovered, some bearing the names of individual rulers and some having the legend, mālavāṇāṁ jayaḥ or its equivalent (EI XXVII; 259).”

These coins are dated variously – from 3rd-4th century CE to the older ones going back to mid-2nd century BCE (EI XXVII; 259). The inscription like the Nandsā refers to the region as the mālava-gaṇa-viṣaya or the country of the Mālava tribe and they were certainly strong enough in area around Ajmer to be involved in conflict with and harass other powers like the Uttamabhadra-s, the Śaka allies as shown by the Nāsik inscription No. 10 dated c. 120 CE (EI XXVII; 259).  Altekar goes into details regarding the possibility of the Nandsā Mālava potentes to have taken advantage of the opportunity presented by the infighting between the Śaka-s around c. 181 to 196 CE to assert themselves.13 It is then possible that the Ekaṣaṣṭīrātra sacrifice could have been done to celebrate this signal victory over the Śaka-s (EI XXVII; 260). However, as Altekar points out –  it would be wrong to exaggerate the importance of these possible victories. They are important as far as they helped the Mālava to secure relative independence, and to that extent circumscribed the boundaries of the Śaka Empire (EI XXVII; 261).

The fact that there is no break in the dates of the Śaka coins at this period, nor do we find the title Mahākṣatrapa in abeyance, as it subsequently became, during the first half of the 4th century A. D, – all seems to suggest that they did not give any serious setback to the Śaka power.

(EI XXVII; 261)

Interestingly, Altekar noticed the absence of any royal, feudatory or military title, like mahārāja, rājan or senāpati for Śrī Soma or his father or his grand-father (EI XXVII; 260) in the Nandsā inscription which in his opinion suggests the republican traditions which were still strong enough that no regal title were permitted to their rulers even when they had established hereditary dynasties ruling at least for three generations (EI XXVII; 260). In contrast to these – thirteen years later – the Maukhari Yūpa Inscriptions use titles like mahāsenāpati. Could we interpret this as a sign – though a rather subtle one – of the Mālava turn towards more monarchical traditions?

When put side by side, the Nandsā and Bāḍvā inscriptions do suggest some interesting interpretations – the use of the Kṛta era in the Bāḍvā Maukharī inscriptions, their own names like Bala, Balavardhana, Somadeva and Balasimha, the title of Mahāsenāpati, the epithet of Mukhar (loudmouth or more precisely leader) and even more importantly, the fact of proximity between Nandsā and Baḍvā (near 162 km) – all seem to suggest that these Maukhari-s were an allied tribe of the Mālava-s. Or in all likelihood, considering the lineage claims of Maukhari-s of Kannauj, they were members of the Kṣatriya Mālava tribe established at the time in southern and southern-eastern Rājasthān that seemed to be growing in importance and power; though certainly not enough to be considered a serious threat to the Śaka power.

§ The Chandravalli-Barwā Connexion?

In another intriguing theory, Altekar suggests that the Maukhari-s of Baḍvā, Rājasthān were the ones meant in the Chandravalli Inscription of Kadamba ruler Mayūraśarman and not the ones in Magadha. Pires and other scholars had suggested based on the Mauryan period Maukhari clay seal and the play Kaumudīmahotsava that it were the Maukhari-s of Magadha that Mayūraśarman had boasted of defeating. But, what if it were the Maukhari-s of Rājasthān? Important to note that in the list of Mayūraśarman – the Traikūṭa, Abhīra, Pallava, Pāriyātrika, Śakasthāna, Sendraka, Puṇāṭa and Maukhari kingdoms (ARM, 1931: 54) – all except two powers in the above list, belong to Central or Western India. And even though, it is possible that he had extended his sphere of activity much beyond Western India but with the evidence at hand, it seems unlikely (EI XXIII, 1935; 47).

From the middle of the third century CE, western India saw some political upheavals when the Ābhīra king Īśvarasena alias Īśvaradatta conquered Western Mahārashṭra, Gujarāt, Koṅkaṇa and the Anūpa country in around ~ 236 or 250 CE. According to Altekar, it is probable that Mahāsenāpati Bala may have been compelled to temporarily transfer his allegiance to Īśvaradatta from Western Śaka Kṣatrapa, provided Īśvaradatta had made his power felt up to Koṭā (EI XXIII, 1935; 47-48). Thus, as mentioned above, it is then possible that it were the Maukharis of Baḍvā, Rājasthān i.e. some of the descendants of Bala who probably were the feudatories of the Śaka-s (and for some time, Ābhīra-s) whom Mayūraśarman defeated.

“After defeating (or encountering) the Traikūṭakas and Abhīras, Mayuraśarman attacked Central Gujarāt. He was there opposed by the Śakas, a portion of whose forces were under the command of their Maukhari feudatories of Central India. This circumstance is very probably responsible for the victory over the Maukharis claimed by Mayuraśarman. It does not seem that he had ever invaded Bihār (EI XXIII, 1935; 47-48).”

§ Remarks

From all of the discussions above, some points can be taken to be certain – the major one being that the clan name Maukhari is indeed an ancient one. The mentions in Pāṇini’an’S and Patañjalī’s commentatories like those of Kaiyaṭa and Vāmana, the Mauryan period Mokhali clay seal from Gayā, the Chandravalli inscription, the mentions of –varman ending names in the drama Kaumudīmahotsava, Kṣatravarman in Harṣacarita  – all seem to suggest that Maukhari-s were an ancient clan. Now the question rises that which of these were ancestors of the Maukhari-s of Kannauj and Gayā. Though, it has to be said that there is no definite proof that even the families of Kannauj and Gayā were actually related. Did they descend from those Maukhari-s who left behind that Mauryan period Gayā clay seal? Or were they somehow related to the Maukhari-s of Rājasthān? The answer or at least the probability of it can be gleamed from the inscriptions themselves.

The Maukhari-s of Kannauj specifically mention their ancestry from the hundred sons of Mādra King Aśvapati and his Queen Mālavī called the Mālava-s – “kṣatriyas who equalled the gods (Bakker, 2014; 41-42).” Some are of the view that this could be merely use of the Purāṇic lore to establish antiquity of the dynasty. It is possible yes, as has been done by many dynasties in India but what if it is not just a boast but a fact.

The Maukhari-s of Kannauj not merely stated their ancestry from the Mālava-s but as mentioned above, they seemingly used the Mālava Era to date their inscriptions as well. And interestingly, they were not the only ones to do so at that period – another major power of the post-Gupta period did that as well. The Manḍasor Inscription of Yaśodharman-Viṣṇuvardhan is dated to the Mālava Year 589 (Mālava Saṁvat 589 expired) i.e. 532-533 CE (CII, 1960; 150).

Important to note that there is indeed a theory which suggests that the Aulikara-s could have been descendants of Mālava-s as well and it was their migration to the region that eventually gave it the name of Mālwā. It is rather important in my opinion that the Maukhari-s of Rājasathān used the Kṛta i.e. Mālava-Vikrama Era as well. And it is also possible that after one particular strongman of the clan, there might have been more than one family of the Mālava-s that used the epithet of Mukhara for their heads. Being a tribal confederacy with roots established in both their origin region of Punjāb, and their latter home of Rājasathān, it is very much possible that the Mālava-s later expanded to other parts of the country.

An earlier branching could have been towards the east, possibly in response to the turmoil of Alexander’s invasion in the north-west India – and this might explain the presence of the Maukhari clay seal of Gayā dated to the Mauryan times. Though lack of any strong evidence for the later period suggests that either they were made rather insignificant in post-Maurya period –  making any hopes for another expansion weak due to the Gupta rise or even if they were in a position to be a challenge to the Gupta-s, they certainly were not strong enough to be mentioned in any Gupta inscriptions which jubilantly mention their foes and the Gupta victory over them. In my opinion, even though we have multiple end-points where the Mālava-s reached, Rājasathān was significant in this history because of the fact that a number of coins of the Mālava republic have been found in this area only – neither in Punjāb, their oldest home, nor in present Mālwa (Dwivedi, 1974; 87).

We have to remember that in case of both – the Maukhari clay seal, and the inscriptions in Rājasathān, they almost always seem to have been of republican-oligarchic nature. And, at least by the time of the Gupta rise, most tribal republican clans were concentrated in western India. This can also be seen in the Prayāga Praśasti of Samudragupta (Allāhābād Pillar Inscription) which mentions the gaṇa rājya-s (tribal oligarchies) that the great king conquered and all of them are placed on the western frontier of the Gupta Empire, the Mālava-s being one of them (Dwivedi, 1974; 86-87).

It is another possibility that from Rājasathān could have sprung the Kannauj branch where the memory of being connected to the Mālava-s was probably relatively fresh. It is also possible that some members of the allied or cadet clan of the Mālava-s i.e. the Maukhari-s served in various positions or may be even as mercenaries under the Gupta-s across their vast empire and eventually established their own dynasties. There are many examples in the ancient Indian history when the ancient northern or north-western tribes were used as mercenaries in the great Indian Empires. And if we are to entertain the possibility that Aulikara-s were also connected to the Mālava-s, a shared lineage could have been one of the reasons that prompted the Aulikara-s of Daśapura and the Maukhari-s of Kannauj to present a united front against the Hūṇa menace.  

§ Conclusion

It is true that these theories at this point are mere conjectures with many ifs and buts. However, it does not seem to be a mere coincidence that on one hand, we have inscriptions with the title of Mukhara within the Mālava dominated region of Rājasthān and on the other hand is the claim of being descendants of the Mālava-s in the inscriptions of Maukhari-s of Kannauj. Thus, with this in-depth analysis of the physical and literary evidence – it would be safe to conclude that the Maukhari-s were indeed a very ancient branch with roots probably going centuries back before their eventual rise as one of the successor dynasties of the great Gupta-s. And if we consider their connexion to the Mālava-s, it is so very fascinating to see the important role these northern Indian tribes went on to play on the great stage of Indian history.

Notes

1–“…Om ! He, Anantavarman, who was the excellent son, captivating the hearts of mankind, of the illustrious Śārdūla , (and) who, possessed of very great virtues, adorned by his own (high) birth the family of the Maukhari kings, — he, of unsullied fame, with joy caused to be made, as if it were his own fame represented in bodily form in the world, this beautiful image, placed in (this) cave of the mountain Pravaragiri, of (the god) Kṛṣṇa.” (CII, 1960: 223).

2–“…who (Śārdūla) was the torch of the family of the warrior caste, that is glorious through waging many battles; (and) who, charming the thoughts of lovely women, resembled (the god) Smara.” (CII, 1960: 223).

3–To read more about the conflict between the Later Gupta-s and the Maukhari king Īśānavarman of Kannuj – see Bakker, 2014; 59-61.

4–Harṣacarita mentions Kannauj as the Maukhari capital, under Grahavarman, the Maukhari. And, a clay seal-matrix or sealing, probably ascribed to Avantivarman was found in Kannauj (Bakker, 2014; 48).

5–The problem is that the ancestors that Shankarpur plates Harivarman mentions are unknown from any other inscriptions or seals (Bakker, 2014; 29). And even if that can be overlooked, there is no clear reading on the kula (clan-lineage) of this ruler, even the restorations seem to not indicate Maukhari kula (Bakker, 2014; 29-30). Though, in the absence of any clear reading, there is no consensus strong enough to either approve or disapprove of the identifications of Harivarman mentioned in the Shankarpur Copperplate Inscription.

6–Harāhā Inscription verse 3 (EI 14, 115) – sutaśataṃ lebhe nṛpo ’śvapatir vaivasvatād yad guṇoditam | tatprasūtā duritavṛttirudho mukharāḥ kṣitīśāḥ kṣatāryaḥ || ‘The Mukhara kings, who destroyed their enemies and stopped evil-doing, descended from that eminent century of sons which King Aśvapati obtained from Vaivasvata (Bakker, 2014; 42).

7–see  Aravamuthan, 1925; 79 and EI XIV; 111. Bakker, 2014 is of the opinion that the Maukhari-s, as per the Harāhā Inscription are to be considered descending from those hundred sons of Queen Mālavī, wife of King Aśvapati, and not from Vaivasvata (Yama), son of Vivasvata (Sūrya) – “Although Bāṇa in HC refers to the lineage of the Maukharis as the Sūryavaṃśa, the following iva means that this should not be taken literally.” (Bakker, 2014; 42).

8– Many scholars are in favour of the opinion that considers Maukhari as a clan name rather than a family name due to the fact that it has appeared in several evidences across the geography and time in ancient India. see Pires, 1934; 13.

9–It is important to note that the facsimile of this important seal has never been published and that its present whereabouts are unknown (EI XXIII, 1935; 47).

10–For an argument and explanation in favour of the the date of ~ 275 – 285 CE see  (ARMAD, 1931: 57)  – “…the Maukharis could not have been an independent power after 319 A.D. and possibly they lost their freedom much earlier; if the view is accepted that Chandragupta I inherited a considerable part of Behar from his ancestors, it is possible that the Maukharis were subjugated either by Mahārāja Gupta (c. 275-300 A.D.) or at least by his son Maharajadhiraja Ghaṭotkaccha (300-320 A.D.) In any case Mayuraśarman came into contact with them in the third century A.D. (c. 275) when they were yet great enough to have a boundary coterminous with the Kadamba Empire.”

11–Bakker reads these inscriptions in different manner – the title mahāsenāpati i.e. High Commanders or may be Governors is given to all the three brothers and they are collectively qualified by the term mokhari (= maukhari). And, alternatively, mokhari is a variant of mukhara and only a qualification of the three sons, as mahāsenāpati is. Though, Bakker is of the opinion that the readings are far from certain (Bakker, 2014; 41)

12–It is important to note that this was not an all out migration and most probably, some Mālava presence was very much there in southern Punjāb as can be seen from its modern regional nomenclature – still called the Mālavā after the name of this tribe (EI XXVII; 258)]

13–The extremely short reign of Western Śaka Kṣatrapa Sanghadaman (222-223 CE) could be interesting in this regard (EI XXVII; 260).

Bibliography

  • Altekar, A.S. (1935). No. 7 – Three Maukhari Inscriptions on the Yupas : Krita Year 295. EI – Epigraphia Indica – And Record of the Archaeological Survey of India, Volume XXIII. pp. 42-52. Government of India Press. Calcutta (Kolkata), India.
  • Altekar, A.S. (1947). No. 43 – Nandsa Yupa Inscriptions. EI – Epigraphia Indica. Volume XXVII. pp. 252-267. Government of India Press. Calcutta (Kolkata), India.
  • Aravamuthan, T. G. (1925). The Kaveri, The Maukharis, And The Sangam Age. The University of Madras, Madras (Chennai), India.
  • ARMAD (1931). Annual Report of the Mysore Archaeological Department for the year 1929. Part V Epigraphy.  Chandravalli Inscription of Mayūraśarman, pp. 50-59. University of Mysore. Government Press. Bangalore, India.
  • Bakker, Hans. T. (2014). The World of the Skandapurāṇa – Northern India in the Sixth and Seventh Centuries. Brill Publications. Leiden, Netherlands.
  • CII (1960) Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Volume III,  Ed. Third. Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings and their Successors. The Maukharis, pp. 219-230. Indological Book House. Antiquarian Booksellers & Publishers. Varanasi, India
  • Dwivedi, Gautam  N. (1974). Tribal Communities in the Gupta Age. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. Volume XXXV. pp. 86–88. Indian History Congress.
  • Pires, Edward A. (1934). The Maukharis. B. G. Paul & Co. Publishers. Madras (Chennai), India  
  • Shastri, Pt. Hiranand. (1917). No. 5 – Harāhā Inscription of the Reign of Īśānavarman [Vikrama Samvat] 611. EI – Epigraphia Indica – And Record of the Archaeological Survey of India, Volume XIV. pp. 110-120. Superintendent Government Printing, Calcutta (Kolkata), India

Published by Priya Chaturvedi

I am Priya Chaturvedi, a History and Politics enthusiast, trying to learn something new everyday.

Leave a comment