Which one of the following pairs is NOT correctly matched ?
- (a)Sarvaverman – Gaya Copper Plate
- (b)Ishwarverman – Jaunpur stone inscription
- (c)Ishanverman – Harha stone inscription
- (d)Jivit Gupta – Second – Deva Barnark inscription
Correct — A, Sarvaverman – Gaya Copper Plate. The Maukhari king Sarvavarman, who ruled around 574 to 586 CE, is known from the Asirgarh copper seal inscription — together with clay seals recovered at Nalanda — and not from any 'Gaya Copper Plate'. That is the mismatch. The other three pairs are the standard attributions of the epigraphic literature. Ishvaravarman goes with the Jaunpur stone inscription. Ishanavarman goes with the Haraha stone inscription, dated Vikrama Samvat 610, that is 554 CE, and found near the village of Haraha in Barabanki district of Uttar Pradesh; it records the genealogy of the Maukharis and is the single most important document for the dynasty. Jivitagupta II, of the Later Gupta line of Magadha rather than of the Maukharis, goes with the Deo-Barnark inscription. Note that the paper's spellings are non-standard — Sarvaverman for Sarvavarman, Ishwarverman for Ishvaravarman, Ishanverman for Ishanavarman, Harha for Haraha, Jivit Gupta – Second for Jivitagupta II — which is normal in UPPSC's ancient-history questions and should not be mistaken for a different set of names.
- (b)Ishwarverman – Jaunpur stone inscription — Correctly matched, so it cannot be the answer. The Jaunpur stone inscription is the record conventionally assigned to Ishvaravarman, and its provenance — Jaunpur in eastern Uttar Pradesh — is part of why the Maukharis are a UP-syllabus dynasty: their epigraphs cluster in the Ganga-Gomti country they ruled from Kanyakubja.
- (c)Ishanverman – Harha stone inscription — Correctly matched. The Haraha inscription is dated Vikrama Samvat 610, equivalent to 554 CE, and was found near Haraha village in Barabanki district of Uttar Pradesh. It sets out the Maukhari genealogy and is the best-dated document the dynasty has left, which makes it the last pair a candidate should suspect.
- (d)Jivit Gupta – Second – Deva Barnark inscription — Correctly matched, though it is the pair most likely to make a candidate hesitate, because Jivitagupta II is not a Maukhari at all — he belongs to the Later Guptas of Magadha, the dynasty the Maukharis were linked to by marriage and rivalry. The Deo-Barnark inscription is his, and a question can legitimately mix the two houses in one list precisely because their history is entangled.
The Maukharis rose in the sixth century as the Gupta empire dissolved, ruling from Kanyakubja — modern Kannauj in Uttar Pradesh — over a territory covering much of the Ganga valley. Almost everything known about them comes from inscriptions and seals, which is why a question of this kind is possible at all: Harivarman left a record dated 487 CE in Sidhi district of Madhya Pradesh, Ishanavarman is fixed by the Haraha stone inscription of 554 CE from Barabanki, and Sarvavarman by the Asirgarh copper seal and the Nalanda clay seals. They shared the eastern Ganga plain with the Later Guptas of Magadha, a separate dynasty despite the shared name, and the two houses alternated between marriage alliance and war. The Maukhari story closes with Grahavarman, who married Rajyashri, sister of Harshavardhana of Thanesar; his murder brought Harsha into the Ganga valley, and Kanyakubja passed to Harsha and became the capital of his empire — the hinge on which seventh-century north Indian history turns.
Match-the-pair questions in ancient history are almost always won on inscriptions, because the ruler-to-inscription link is the one fact that is both fixed and checkable. The efficient way to hold this material is by findspot: Haraha in Barabanki for Ishanavarman, Jaunpur for Ishvaravarman, Deo-Barnark in Bihar for Jivitagupta II, Asirgarh for Sarvavarman. Once the map is in place the odd pair stands out, because 'Gaya Copper Plate' attaches to no Maukhari at all. Two habits help beyond this question. First, do not be thrown by transliteration: UPPSC's Sanskrit names are rendered inconsistently from paper to paper, and the same king appears as Ishanverman, Ishanavarman or Isanavarman. Second, do not assume that every name in a list belongs to the same dynasty — this list quietly includes a Later Gupta among three Maukharis, and a candidate who reasons 'Jivitagupta is not a Maukhari, therefore the pair is wrong' will mark the wrong option. The pairing is about the ruler and his inscription, not about the dynasty.
- Sarvavarman, the Maukhari king who ruled about 574-586 CE, is known from the Asirgarh copper seal inscription and from clay seals found at Nalanda — not from a 'Gaya Copper Plate', which is why option (a) is the mismatch.
- The Haraha stone inscription of Ishanavarman is dated Vikrama Samvat 610, that is 554 CE, and was found near Haraha village in Barabanki district of Uttar Pradesh; it records the genealogy of the Maukharis.
- Ishvaravarman is conventionally associated with the Jaunpur stone inscription, and Jivitagupta II — a Later Gupta of Magadha, not a Maukhari — with the Deo-Barnark inscription.
- The Maukharis ruled from Kanyakubja (Kannauj) in the sixth century as Gupta power collapsed; an earlier record of Harivarman, dated 487 CE, comes from Sidhi district in Madhya Pradesh.
- The dynasty ended with Grahavarman, husband of Rajyashri, sister of Harshavardhana; his murder brought Harsha to Kanyakubja, which became the capital of Harsha's empire.
- Assuming all four names in the list belong to one dynasty; Jivitagupta II is a Later Gupta of Magadha, but his pairing with the Deo-Barnark inscription is nonetheless correct
- Being unsettled by non-standard transliteration — Sarvaverman, Ishwarverman, Ishanverman, Harha and 'Jivit Gupta – Second' are the paper's spellings of familiar names
- Confusing the Haraha stone inscription of Ishanavarman with the Asirgarh copper seal of Sarvavarman, the two records most often set against each other in questions on this dynasty
UPPSC asks ancient history overwhelmingly as pair matching — ruler to inscription, ruler to title, text to author — and builds the wrong pair by attaching a real record to the wrong king or by inventing a plausible-sounding one, as with the 'Gaya Copper Plate' here. UPSC prefers to name a single inscription and ask whose it is, or to ask what a described record contains, so the same knowledge is needed in a slightly different shape.
The Allahabad Pillar inscription is associated with which one of the following?
- (a) Mahapadma Nanda
- (b) Chandragupta Maurya
- (c) Ashoka
- (d) Samudragupta
Answer(d) Samudragupta
The same ruler-to-inscription link, tested singly instead of as a set. The Prayaga Prashasti composed by Harishena on the Allahabad pillar belongs to Samudragupta, not to the Mauryas whose pillar it was reused from — and, like the Maukhari records, it stands in Uttar Pradesh. Learn each major inscription with its ruler and its findspot and both question shapes are covered.
Which one of the following ancient Indian records is the earliest royal order to preserve food grains to be utilised during the crises in the country?
- (a) Sohagaura Copper-plate
- (b) Rumminidei pillar-edict of Asoka
- (c) Prayaga-Prasasti
- (d) Mehrauli Pillar inscription of Chandra
Answer(a) Sohagaura Copper-plate
Copper plates again, and again with a Uttar Pradesh findspot — Sohgaura lies in Gorakhpur district. The question tests what a record says rather than whose it is, which is the natural next step once the ruler-to-inscription pairing is secure, and it shows why 'copper plate' in an option is never enough by itself to identify anything.
Given below are two statements, one is labelled as Assertion (A) and the other as Reason (R) : Assertion (A) : We have much more information about Cholas than their predecessors. Reason (R) : The Chola rulers adopted the practice of having inscriptions written on the walls of temples giving a historical narrative of their victories. Select the correct answer from the codes given below.
- (a) Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)
- (b) Both (A) and (R) are true but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)
- (c) (A) is true but (R) is false
- (d) (A) is false but (R) is true
Answer(a) Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)
Why inscriptions dominate these questions in the first place. What is known about a dynasty is a function of what it wrote down and where — abundantly for the Cholas on temple walls, sparsely for the Maukharis on a handful of stones and seals. That is exactly why Maukhari history is taught as a list of four or five inscriptions.
With reference to the Puranas, which one of the following statements is correct? (1) Information about the Mauryan dynasty is found in the Vishnu Puran. (2) Vayu Puran throws light on the Gupta's governance system.
- (a) Both 1 and 2
- (b) Only 1
- (c) Only 2
- (d) Neither 1 nor 2
Answer(a) Both 1 and 2
The other half of the sources question — literary rather than epigraphic. UPPSC regularly asks which text or which inscription tells us about which dynasty, so the two categories are best revised together: the Puranas for dynastic lists, the inscriptions for dates, genealogies and claims of victory.
- practice — not a real PYQ
The Haraha stone inscription, dated Vikrama Samvat 610 (554 CE), belongs to which ruler?
- (a)Sarvavarman
- (b)Ishanavarman
- (c)Grahavarman
- (d)Jivitagupta II
Answer(b) Ishanavarman — the Haraha inscription, found near Haraha village in Barabanki district of Uttar Pradesh, is dated 554 CE and records the genealogy of the Maukharis.
- practice — not a real PYQ
The murder of which Maukhari ruler brought Harshavardhana into the Ganga valley and led to Kanyakubja becoming his capital?
- (a)Ishvaravarman
- (b)Ishanavarman
- (c)Grahavarman
- (d)Sarvavarman
Answer(c) Grahavarman — he was married to Rajyashri, Harsha's sister, and his killing drew Harsha east from Thanesar; Kanyakubja then became the seat of Harsha's empire.