A note on the Pancobh Copper‑plate of Saṃgrāmagupta

Summary

Upendra Thakur’s paper re‑examines a copper‑plate charter discovered at Pancobh near Darbhanga. The inscription, now in the Patna Museum, was previously edited in the Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society but is revisited here with attention to its palaeography and historical implications. Thakur notes that the characters resemble the Proto‑Bengali Nagari script used in grants of the Sena kings and the Deopara Praśasti, suggesting a date in the latter half of the twelfth century. The document records that Paramabhattaraka Mahārājādhirāja Parameśvara Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara Saṃgrāmagupta, lord of Jayapura and a devotee of Śiva, granted the village of Vaṇigāmi in the district of Jambivani to Kumāra Svāmin, a Yajurvedī Brahman of Śāṇḍilya gotra, whose family hailed from Kolavāri. The text provides a genealogical list: Yajñeśa, Dīmodara, Mādhava, Rājāditya, Kṛṣṇagupta and finally Saṃgrāmagupta. The earlier kings are given imperial titles, whereas Kṛṣṇagupta is styled only rājaputra, possibly indicating premature death. The grant calls their line the “Gupta‑vaṃśa”, implying a connection with either the Imperial or Later Guptas. Thakur challenges earlier scholars who suggested that Saṃgrāmagupta was a minor Gupta monarch who assumed independence after the decline of the Palas or Senas. He argues that there was no Pala or Sena rule in Mithilā in the twelfth century; rather, the region was under the Karnāṭa dynasty. Saṃgrāmagupta therefore was a powerful Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara of the Karnāṭa kings, ruling Jayapura and issuing grants to Brahmans. The presence of common honorific titles does not make him an independent sovereign; such titles were routinely used by feudatory chiefs to preserve imperial prestige. The article concludes that Saṃgrāmagupta did not represent a distinct “minor Gupta” dynasty but a branch of the Karnāṭa feudatories who assumed high titles and enjoyed considerable autonomy within the Karnāṭa polity. Through careful reading of the charter’s genealogy and political context, Thakur corrects earlier misidentifications and underscores the importance of regional powers in twelfth‑century Mithilā.