See full images - free registration
Continue with Google - no registration! or register with email

Why register? Just to keep bots out of our catalog. Your email stays private - we will never share it or send you anything uninvited. We guarantee you that!

1 Stater - Kairvatas of Varendra Debased Samatata Type

Issuer Varendra Kingdom (Indian states)
Year 640-730
Type Log in to see details
Value Log in to see details
Currency Log in to see details
Composition Log in to see details
Weight Log in to see details
Diameter Log in to see details
Thickness Log in to see details
Shape Log in to see details
Technique Hammered
Orientation Log in to see details
Engraver(s) Log in to see details
In circulation to Log in to see details
Reference(s) Log in to see details
Obverse description Log in to see details
Obverse script Log in to see details
Obverse lettering Log in to see details
Reverse description Stylized female deity, likely a goddess figure, depicted in frontal stance wearing a flowing cloak or garment, rendered in the highly degenerate iconographic tradition of the late Samatata series. The figure's form is reduced to schematic linear elements, consistent with the progressive artistic degradation observed in this coin series. Partially legible Brahmi legends are distributed around the field, though heavily corrupted and largely illegible due to the advanced debasement of the type. Subsidiary symbols occupy the remaining field spaces.
Reverse script Brahmi
Reverse lettering Log in to see details
Edge Log in to see details
Mint Log in to see details
Mintage Log in to see details
Additional information

The Samatata type staters issued from the Bengal delta region during this period reflect a monetary system under sustained pressure — successive dynasties debasing their gold issues as political control fragmented across the Ganges-Brahmaputra plain. Kairvatas of Varendra likely represents a local ruling line asserting independence in the aftermath of Harsha's empire collapsing after 647 AD, with coinage serving as the most visible declaration of that autonomy.

The Mitchell reference as a "cf." rather than a direct attribution signals how poorly documented this specific ruler remains — attribution rests on typological comparison rather than firm epigraphic or textual corroboration.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE