OBVERSE: This coin shows the king standing to left, wearing a coat and beaded trousers, with large loop earrings and necklace, holding royal sceptre in left hand, offering oblations with right hand on altar. Chandra under kings left arm.
Legend - Vasudha vijitya jayata tradava prithavasvarah - "Having conquered the globe, the lord of the earth now wins heaven by meritorius deed".
REVERSE:Goddess seated on throne, facing, holding round flower garland in right hand, cornucopiae in left hand with hand on thigh.
Legend on right Paramabhagavata
7.8 gms
A.S. Altekar lists one known specimen of this coin in the Bharat Kala Bhavan, Banaras Hindu University.
Ellen M. Raven, has illustrated this BKB,BHU coin in her excellent study of the Gupta Gold coins. (Volume I & II, Gupta Gold Coins with a Garuda Banner, Ellen M Raven, 1994 Egbert Forsten Groningen, The Netherlands. Image # 51.) One additional coin of this type from the Lucknow museum has been illustrated in Image # 50. The speciman shown above is one of possibly 3 coins known to exist.
Was this coin struck by Chandragupta I ? or by Chandragupta II
At this stage, it is important to understand that there really is not too much of a record available on Chandragupta I either from inscriptions or from numismatic sources.
Most of the gold coins found so far in the 7.8gms range with "Chandra" on the obverse have been attributed to Chandragupta II.
A study of the fabric, design and style of this Standard (Sceptre) Type Coin, very easily points to an earlier mint style of the design which could only have been prevelant during the early stages at the start of the coin mints of the rise in the power of the imperial Gupta Kings.
The Imperial Title (biruda) shown on the reverse of this coin is Paramabhagavata.
There has been a lot of debate as to whether the Standard (Sceptre) Type coins should be attributed to Chandragupta I or Chandragupta II. Some scholars have used the biruda on this coin as a basis of their argument and some have used the design/icongraphy of this coin as their basis.
While reviewing these two arguments above, one must not overlook the actual legend on the obverse of these Standard (Sceptre) Type coins. Keep in mind that Gold coins minted 2000 years back were very efficient means of proclaiming messages to the masses in the Kingdom. These were very valuable propaganda tools in the Kings arsenal.
The message on this coin is not proclaiming the Kings current status, but rather points to a message dealing with the Kings future status.
A review of the biruda's found on other coins from the Gupta mints shows a pattern:
Archer coins, Battle Axe Coins proclaim a message of the Kings current prowess in Archery, in the Battlefield etc.
Lyrist type coins proclaim on how gifted and talented the current King is in the arts.
Lion Slayer coins, Tiger Slayer coins proclaim a message of how strong the King is currently.
The legend on this coin Vasudha vijitya jayata tradava prithavasvarah refers to the King as having 'conquered the earth and now wins the heavens by his good deeds'.
In terms of the message of the biruda, the closest match to this Standard (Sceptre) Type coin are the Samduragupta's Standard Type coins and the Samudragupta Archer Type coins.
Apratiratho vijitya kshitim sucharitair divam jayati 'Having conquered the earth, the invincible one wins heaven by meritorios deeds'
Apratiratho vajitya kshtamavaniso divam jayati 'Having conquered the earth, the lord of the earth wins heaven by meritorious deeds'
The message on Samudragupta's Archer coins is identical to the message on this coin: Apratiratho vijitya kshitim sucharitair divam jayati 'Having conquered the earth, the invincible one wins heaven by meritorios deed
It is quite possible that this is possibly a posthumous issue of Chandragupta I - possibly issued by his son Samudragupta to celebrate this father's acheivements in starting the Gupta empire, somewhat similar to the theory based around the King and Queen type coins of Samudragupta showing the King (Chandragupta I) and Queen (Kumaradevi) on the Obverse and the reverse proclaiming the marriage of the Gupta King marrying into the royal Lichchhavi clan.
Many scholars have floated the theory that since no inscriptions have been found so far referring to Chandragupta I as a Paramabhagavata then surely these coins could not be attributed as a Chandaragupta I issue:
Yes, it is true that so far we have not discovered any contemporary inscriptions of Chandragupta I that refer to the King as a Paramabhagavata and the earliest epigraphic evidence available of the Gupta Kings so far is from the inscriptions of Samudragupta onwards.
However it is very important to keep in mind that based on the epigrahpic evidence, it was very common for Gupta Kings to refer to themselves as a Paramabhagvata in inscriptions.
From the Nalanda and Gaya Copper plates we see that the inscriptions refer to Samudragupta as a Paramabhagavata... all the way to the Bhitari Copper Silver seal of Kumaragupta III.
Why is it that we can see that each of the Gupta Kings and the entire Gupta Empire assigned a royal status to the religion of choice, created the Garuda Eagle, a Vaishnav symbol, as their Imperial seal, and yet when it comes to the patriarch who started the Gupta empire, Chandragupta I, there are arguments whether he could have or have not used this title?
Another argument put forth regarding the use of this biruda by Chandragupta I, is that in all the posthumous inscriptions discovered so far (made by future Gupta Kings - his son, grandsons etc) all of them refer to him as maharajadhiraja (King of Kings) and not as paramabhagvata. Examining the differentiation between the use of the titles, one would see that:
Maharajadhiraja is a term used to refer to the King's standing in the Imperial ladder - whether he was a King, a King of Kings, an Emperor etc.
Paramabhagvata is a term used to signify a Kings religious aspirations in terms of religious events, charitable actions etc.
If and when inscriptions of Chandragupta I are found, like those of Samudargupta, Chandragupta II etc, which refer to the King donating gold or lands or villages to set up Vaishnav temples, then it is no doubt that similar to other Gupta inscriptions, we will surely find references to him as a Paramabhagavata.
The Standard Type coin whether issued by Chandragupta I - with ambitions of conquering the heavens - or by his son Samudargupta - as a commemorative coin on his father's demise, or is to be considered as an issue of Chandragupta II, one thing is clear - this speciman is an exteremely valuable source of information and the finest example of one of rarest coins from the Gupta Dynasty.
Reproduced below is a paper written by Mr. Prashant P. Kulkarni on the coin shown above:
The Standard Type Coin of Chandragupta II or I
By Prashant P. Kulkarni
Two very rare coins of the standard type of Chandragupta are known so far. Dr P.L Gupta published the first in 1947 in JNSI,vol. IX ,part II, p.146-150. It was illustrated on pl VII, no.3. which is reproduced here.
R.G. Chandra brought the second stater to our notice several years later in 1968. He published it in JNSI, vol. XXX, p.202,pl X, No. 5. See the plate attached showing # 5 for comparison purposes.
A third specimen has now come to light and is being published here. A private collector who got it very long ago from Mathura area has showed this to me. It is described below: Stater, 7.8g
Obverse:King standing, wearing coat, trousers, headdress, ear rings and necklace. He is holding a scepter or standard in his left hand with the right hand outstretched for dropping incense into the altar. Beneath the hand is the garudadhvaja or eagle headed standard.
Below the left arm is legend: ‘Chandra’.
Around traces of circular legend, perhaps parts of“Vasudham vijitya jayati tridivam prithivisvarah punyaih”.
Reverse: Lakshmi seated on throne facing front, Holds a noose or pasha in the right hand and cornucopiae in the left. A four-pronged symbol is seen to the left with legend to the right, “Parambhagavata”.
P.L. Gupta attributed his coin to Chandragupta II whereas R.G. Chandra ascribed it to the early part of Chandragupta II’s career.
One Dr Chhabra gave long arguments about why this should belong to Chandragupta I, the grandfather of Chandragupta II. (JNSI XI, pp.15 ff.)Alterkar has given his definitive opinion on this attributing it to CII, rather than CI. (Coinage of the Gupta Empire, pp142ff).With the discovery of this new coin we need to examine the following things.
1.Comparing the existing coin with the other two specimens. 2.Considering its attribution to C I rather than C II
Let us first compare the three coins. PL Gupta’s and RG Chandra’s coins have suffered beating, cutting and other damages. Chandra’s coin was looped and perhaps repaired. The comparison is as follows:
This coinPLG coinRGC coin
Legend:Chandra ChandraguChandra and Gupta
Rev. Legend: SemicircularSemicircularVertical
Symbol:Only upper partNo symbolOnly upper part clear of four prongs
Trousers:Decorated with beadsDecorated with beadsPlain
Lakshmi’s halo:Dotted circleDotted circleNormal circle
Noose or pasha: Dotted circular objectDotted circularNormal circular
Throne legsMade of dots Made of dotsMade of lines
R.G. Chandra’s coin looks like that of very late period while the first two coins look almost similar and of early period. The similarity between the noose and the dotted semi circular halo around the head and the workmanship of use of dots to create the throne legs matches perfectly. I have not seen all these items engraved in such matching style on any other Gupta coin in all the published sources. This itself means the first two coins are genuine. While RG Chandra’s coin is weird and has suffered too much damage that nothing could be made out of it with great certainty.
One has to admit that these two coins are different in style than all other Gupta coins. They have a special crudeness just like the King and Queen on couch type of Chandragupta II. This only indicates that they belong to such early periods when the art of die engraving was not much developed in the Gupta Empire. The legend Chandragupta is mysterious. One has only chandra and the other has chandragu in spite of the fact that there is enough room for pta of Gupta on the flan. The symbol is also very strange as the new coin clearly shows the upper portion only. While PL Gupta’s coin shows no symbol at all, RGC doesn’t talk about the symbol and his illustration too poor to figure out what exactly is there. . PLG says that the coin was beaten but doesn’t say whether he could see the underlying traces of the symbol. I got another better illustration of PLG’s coin in JNSI XI pl III, # 12. This shows no damage of beating and there is enough space to accommodate the symbol as well as the letter pta on the obverse if the die engraver wanted to. There is no case where I have seen only upper part of symbol or the whole thing missing except for # 422 from Baldwin Sale # 30 illustrated here. But even this illustration is not clear.
PLG’ s coin and the coin published here have great similarities in legend. See the Cha of Chandra curved like a hook to the left on both coins. The way of writing ndra is also different on both coins. See pl 12 to observe an anuswara above the cha to pronounce Chan. While this coin has no anuswara but has n connected to ndra.
PLG also mentions that the reverse legend is unusual. Especially the letter bha (of parambhagavata) is“rather unusual but it is probably due to the instrument having slipped while engraving the top of the left limb”. Now I find that the Bha on our coin is also rather unusual.
Thus the one published here is one of the best specimens of this type. This must be studied carefully to find the answer of the question why this standard types and the king and queen on couch type look cruder than any other coins of Chandra gupta II. The only plausible explanation that I can offer is that this standard type belongs to Chandra gupta I.
The reasons are as follows: 1.Altekar has attributed this type to Chandragupta II, but he has ascribed the King and Queen type to Chandragupta I which is now well accepted to have been struck by Samudragupta in the memory of his parents. Thus even Altekar’s view needs to be re-examined.
2.The coin is question has two interesting things. One is the upper half part of the symbol: This shows an evolutionary stage. And second is the crudeness of the legend. This also shows that the coin belongs to a very early period of the empire.
3.It has the legend Parambhagavata in place of Shri Vikrama. The absence of Vikramaditya, Ajitavikrama or Simhavikrama itself shows that it does not belong to Chandragupta II. Dr Chhabra has advocated many points in favor of attribution to Chandragupta I. Altekar has refuted most of them but admits that nothing could be said with certainty. At times Altekar says that there is one more coin which does not have Vikrama and it can be attributed to CII. One needs to read the scores of pages written by these scholars. When we go thorough them we find that most of the scholars are somehow glued to the idea that it was only Samudragupta who started the Gupta coinage. If we have Vikrama on the reverse of a coin then it belongs to C II, as Vikramaditya was his biruda. But if we don’t have Vikrama the scholars argue that even then why should it belong to Chandragupta II.If we have parambhagavata, Altekar still argues that why should it be C I and not C II. If we reverse the argument and start debating why should it not be C I then the whole paleography and style of coin fits very well and also answers the question of origin of Gupta coinage before Samudra.
4.Samudragupta had profuse types of gold coinage. It will be wrong to conclude that any Gupta ruler before him did not strike coins at all. No empire is seen to have grown so large during the rule of an Emperor without the contribution of his predecessors. It is usual to find coins of the earlier rulers in little quantity and encounter profuse quantities of the later rulers. Samudragupta’s mint masters wouldn’t strike the fabulous coins just from the blue. If there were a few standard type coins before Samudra , his mint masters would obviously improve upon them in due proportion to the prosperity of the kingdom. Just as the emperor Akbar had great variety of coinage, but there was no vacuum during that of Babur and humayun. Gold coins of both the earlier rulers are known but in very little quantity. Same theory will hold true for Muhammad bin Sam followed by enormous coinage of Iltutmish. 5.It may therefore be appropriate to think that the coin in question was copied from the coinage of the Kushanas that had Ardokso reverse and the standard type was struck by Chandragupta the first during AD 300-330.The successor ruler Samudragupta made finer varieties of the same, and the standard was replaced by the bow during the time of Chandragupta II. 6.The biruda parambhagavata only means follower of bhagavat dharma of Vishnu. Any Gupta ruler could inscribe this on his coin, as they were ardent followers of Vaishnava sect. The biruda of various rulerswritten on the reverse of their gold coins are therefore:
Chandragupta I: Parambhagavata Samudragupta: Parakramah Chandragupta II: Sri Vikramah Kumaragupta: Sri Mahendrah Skandagupta:Kramadityah Bhanugupta:Prakashaditya Narasimhagupta:Baladitya Kumaragupta II:Sri Kramaditya ** Chandragupta III:Dvadashaditya Budhagupta:Sri Vikrama Vainyagupta: Dvadashaditya Vishnugupta: Chandraditya More debates are necessary on this subject and more evidence will only confirm the attribution. The King and queen on couch types must also be re examined. There has been a tendency to attribute every coin to Chandragupta II in the past. And it is also believed that anything to do with Vikrama is of C II only. While in the later period, Skandagupta assumed the titles of Vikramaditya on his silver coins, and Budhagupta on gold, but there is no evidence to suggest or refute the possibility ofChandragupta I using the same epithet. It is to be hoped that this controversy will be stirred again with this paper.
** The biruda on Kumaragupta II is now known to be KaramaJita
