Catalog
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!
| 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.