VII. THE GUPTAS
(G. 90-149; A.D. 410-470.)
After the Kshatrapas (A.D. 120-410) the powerful dynasty of the Guptas established themselves in Gujarát. So far as the dynasty is connected with Gujarát the Gupta tree is:
Gupta. G.1-12(?)--A.D.319-322(?) Petty N. W. P. Chief. | Ghatotkacha. G.12-29(?)--A.D.332-349(?) Petty N. W. P. Chief. | Chandragupta I. G.29-49(?)--A.D.349-369(?) Powerful N. W. P. Chief. | Samudragupta. G.50-75(?)--A.D.370-395. Great N. W. P. Sovereign. | Chandragupta II. G.70-96--A.D.396-415. Great Monarch conquers Málwa. G.80 A.D.400 and Gujarát G.90 A.D.410. | Kumáragupta. G.97-133--A.D.416-453. Rules Gujarát and Káthiáváda. | Skandagupta. G.133-149--A.D.454-470. Rules Gujarát Káthiáváda and Kachch.
According to the Puránas [167] the original seat of the Guptas was between the Ganges and the Jamna. Their first capital is not determined. English writers usually style them the Guptas of Kanauj. And though this title is simply due to the chance that Gupta coins were first found at Kanauj, further discoveries show that the chief remains of Gupta records and coins are in the territory to the east and south-east of Kanauj. Of the race of the Guptas nothing is known. According to the ordinances of the Smritis or Sacred Books, [168] the terminal gupta belongs only to Vaisyas a class including shepherds cultivators and traders. Of the first three kings, Gupta Ghatotkacha and Chandragupta I., beyond the fact that Chandragupta I. bore the title of Mahárájádhirája, neither descriptive titles nor details are recorded. As the fourth king Samudragupta performed the long-neglected horse-sacrifice he must have been Bráhmanical in religion. And as inscriptions style Samudragupta's three successors, Chandragupta II. Kumáragupta and Skandagupta, Parama Bhágavata, they must have been Smárta Vaishnavas, that is devotees of Vishnu and observers of Vedic ceremonies.
[The Founder Gupta, A.D. 319-322(?).] The founder of the dynasty is styled Gupta. In inscriptions this name always appears as Srí-gupta which is taken to mean protected by Srí or Lakshmí. Against this explanation it is to be noted that in their inscriptions all Gupta's successors, have a Srí before their names. The question therefore arises; If Srí forms part of the name why should the name Srígupta have had no second Srí prefixed in the usual way. Further in the inscriptions the lineage appears as Guptavamsa that is the lineage of the Guptas never Sríguptavamsa [169]; and whenever dates in the era of this dynasty are given they are conjoined with the name Gupta never with Srígupta. [170] It may therefore be taken that Gupta not Srígupta is the correct form of the founder's name. [171]
[Ghatotkacha, A.D. 322-349(?).] Gupta the founder seems never to have risen to be more than a petty chief. No known inscription gives him the title Mahárájádhirája Supreme Ruler of Great Kings, which all Gupta rulers after the founder's grandson Chandragupta assume. Again that no coins of the founder and many coins of his successors have been discovered makes it probable that Gupta was not a ruler of enough importance to have a currency of his own. According to the inscriptions Gupta was succeeded by his son Ghatotkacha a petty chief like his father with the title of Mahárája and without coins.
[Chandragupta I. A.D. 349-369(?).] Chandragupta I. (A.D. 349-369 [?]), the son and successor of Ghatotkacha, is styled Mahárájádhirája either because he himself became powerful, or, more probably, because he was the father of his very powerful successor Samudragupta. Though he may not have gained the dignity of "supreme ruler of great kings" by his own successes Chandragupta I. rose to a higher position than his predecessors. He was connected by marriage with the Lichchhavi dynasty of Tirhút an alliance which must have been considered of importance since his son Samudragupta puts the name of his mother Kumáradeví on his coins, and always styles himself daughter's son of Lichchhavi. [172]
[Samudragupta, A.D. 370-395.] Samudragupta was the first of his family to strike coins. His numerous gold coins are, with a certain additional Indian element, adopted from those of his Indo-Skythian predecessors. The details of the royal figure on the obverse are Indian in the neck ornaments, large earrings, and headdress; they are Indo-Skythian in the tailed coat, long boots, and straddle. The goddess on the reverse of some coins with a fillet and cornucopia is an adaptation of an Indo-Skythian figure, while the lotus-holding Ganges on an alligator and the standing Glory holding a flyflapper on the reverse of other coins are purely Indian. [173]
[His Coins.] A noteworthy feature of Samudragupta's coins is that one or other of almost all his epithets appears on each of his coins with a figure of the king illustrating the epithet. Coins with the epithet Sarvarájochchhettá Destroyer-of-all-kings have on the obverse a standing king stretching out a banner topped by the wheel or disc of universal supremacy. [174]
Coins [175] with the epithet Apratiratha Peerless have on the obverse a standing king whose left hand rests on a bow and whose right hand holds a loose-lying unaimed arrow and in front an Eagle or Garuda standard symbolizing the unrivalled supremacy of the king, his arrow no longer wanted, his standard waving unchallenged. On the obverse is the legend:
Apratiratharájanyakírti(r)mama vijáyate. [176]
Triumphant is the glory of me the unrivalled sovereign.
Coins with the attribute Kritánta parasu the Death-like-battle-axe have on the obverse a royal figure grasping a battle-axe. [177] In front of the royal figure a boy, perhaps Samudragupta's son Chandragupta, holds a standard. Coins with the attribute Asvamedhaparákramah Able-to-hold-a-horse-sacrifice have on the obverse a horse standing near a sacrificial post yúpa and on the reverse a female figure with a flyflap. [178] The legend on the obverse is imperfect and hard to read. The late Mr. Thomas restores it:
Navajamadhah rájádhirája prithivím jiyatya.
Horse sacrifice, after conquering the earth, the great king (performs).
Coins with the legend Lichchhaveyah, a coin abbreviation for Lichchhavidauhitra Daughter's son of Lichchhavi (?), have on the obverse a standing king grasping a javelin. [179] Under the javelin hand are the letters Chandraguptah. Facing the king a female figure with trace of the letters Kumáradeví seems to speak to him. These figures of his mother and father are given to explain the attribute Lichchhaveya or scion of Lichchhavi. This coin has been supposed to belong to Chandragupta I. but the attribute Lichchhaveyah can apply only to Samudragupta.
[His Allahábád Inscription.] A fuller source of information regarding Samudragupta remains in his inscription on the Allahábád Pillar. [180] Nearly eight verses of the first part are lost. The first three verses probably described his learning as what remains of the third verse mentions his poetic accomplishments, and line 27 says he was skilled in poetry and music, a trait further illustrated by what are known as his Lyrist coins where he is shown playing a lute. [181] The fourth verse says that during his lifetime his father chose Samudragupta to rule the earth from among others of equal birth. His father is mentioned as pleased with him and this is followed by the description of a victory during which several opponents are said to have submitted. The seventh verse records the sudden destruction of the army of Achyuta Nágasena and the punishment inflicted on a descendant of the Kota family.
Lines 19 and 20 record the conquest, or submission, of the following South Indian monarchs, Mahendra of Kosala, Vyághrarája of Mahá Kántára, [182] Mundarája of Kauráttá, [183] Svámidatta of Paishtapura Mahendra-Giri and Auttura [184], Damana of Airandapallaka, Vishnu of Káñchí, Nílarája Sápávamukta, [185] Hastivarman of Vengí, Ugrasena of Pálaka, [186] Kubera of Daivaráshtra, and Dhanamjaya of Kausthalapura. Line 21 gives a further list of nine kings of Áryávarta exterminated by Samudragupta:
Rudradeva. Nágasena. Matila. Achyuta. Nágadatta. Nandin. Chandravarman. Balavarmman. Ganapatinága.
As no reference is made to the territories of these kings they may be supposed to be well known neighbouring rulers. General Cunningham's coins and others obtained at Mathurá, show that the fifth ruler Ganapatinága was one of the Nága kings of Gwálior and Narwár. [187] The inscription next mentions that Samudragupta took into his employ the chiefs of the forest countries. Then in lines 22 and 23 follows a list of countries whose kings gave him tribute, who obeyed his orders, and who came to pay homage. The list includes the names of many frontier countries and the territories of powerful contemporary kings. The frontier kingdoms are: [188]
Samatata. Nepála. Daváka. Karttrika. Kámarúpa.
The Indian kingdoms are: [189]
Málava. Prárjuna. Arjunáyana. Sanakáníka. Yaudheya. Káka. Mádraka. Kharaparika. Ábhíra.
Mention is next made of kings who submitted, gave their daughters in marriage, paid tribute, and requested the issue of the Garuda or Eagle charter to secure them in the enjoyment of their territory. [190] The tribal names of these kings are: [191]
Devaputra. Murunda. Sháhi. Saimhalaka. Sháhánusháhi. Island Kings. Saka.
The inscribed pillar is said to have been set up by the great Captain or Dandanáyaka named Tilabhattanáyaka.
This important inscription shows that Samudragupta's dominions included Mathurá, Oudh, Gorakhpur, Allahábád, Benares, Behár, Tirhút, Bengal, and part of East Rájputána. The list of Dakhan and South Indian kingdoms does not necessarily imply that they formed part of Samudragupta's territory. Samudragupta may have made a victorious campaign to the far south and had the countries recorded in the order of his line of march. The order suggests that he went from Behár, by way of Gayá, to Kosala the country about the modern Ráipur in the Central Provinces, and from Kosala, by Ganjam and other places in the Northern Circars, as far as Káñchí or Conjeveram forty-six miles south-west of Madras. Málwa is shown in the second list as a powerful allied kingdom. It does not appear to have formed part of Samudragupta's territory nor, unless the Sakas are the Kshatrapas, does any mention of Gujarát occur even as an allied state.
[Chandragupta II. A.D. 396-415.] Samudragupta was succeeded by his son Chandragupta II. whose mother was the queen Dattádeví. He was the greatest and most powerful king of the Gupta dynasty and added largely to the territory left by Samudragupta. His second name Vikramáditya or the Sun of Prowess appears on his coins. Like his father Chandragupta II. struck gold coins of various types. He was the first Gupta ruler who spread his power over Málwa and Gujarát which he apparently took from the Kshatrapas as he was the first Gupta to strike silver coins and as his silver coins of both varieties the eastern and the western are modifications of the Kshatrapa type. The expedition which conquered Málwa seems to have passed from Allahábád by Bundelkhand to Bhilsá and thence to Málwa. An undated inscription in the Udayagiri caves at Vidisá (the modern Besnagar) near Bhilsa records the making of a cave of Mahádeva by one Sába of the Kautsa gotra and the family name of Vírasena, a poet and native of Pátaliputra who held the hereditary office of minister of peace and war sandhivigrahika, and who is recorded to have arrived with the king who was intent upon conquering the whole earth. [192] A neighbouring cave bears an inscription of a feudatory of Chandragupta who was chief of Sanakáníka. [193] The chief's name is lost, but the names of his father Vishnudása and of his grandfather Chhagalaga remain. The date is the eleventh of the bright half of Áshádha Samvatsara 82 (A.D. 401). From this Chandragupta's conquest of Vidisá may be dated about Samvatsara 80 (A.D. 399) or a little earlier.
A third inscription is on the railing of the great Sáñchi stúpa. [194] It is dated the 4th day of Bhádrapada Samvat 93 (A.D. 412) and records the gift of 25 dínáras and something called Ísvaravásaka (perhaps a village or a field) to the monks of the great monastery of Kákanádabotasrí for the daily maintenance of five bhikshus and the burning of a lamp in the ratnagriha or shrine of the Buddhist triratna, for the merit of the supreme king of great kings Chandragupta who bears the popular name of Devarája or god-like. [195] The donor a feudatory of Chandragupta named Ámrakárdava is described as having the object of his life gratified by the favour of the feet of the supreme ruler of great kings the illustrious Chandragupta, and as showing to the world the hearty loyalty of a good feudatory. Ámrakárdava seems to have been a chief of consequence as he is described as winning the flag of glory in numerous battles. The name of his kingdom is also recorded. Though it cannot now be made out the mention of his kingdom makes it probable that he was a stranger come to pay homage to Chandragupta. The reference to Chandragupta seems to imply he was the ruler of the land while the two other inscriptions show that his rule lasted from about 80 (A.D. 399) to at least 93 (A.D. 412). During these years Chandragupta seems to have spread his sway to Ujjain the capital of west Málwa, of which he is traditionally called the ruler. From Ujjain by way of Bágh and Tánda in the province of Ráth he seems to have entered South Gujarát and to have passed from the Broach coast to Káthiáváda. He seems to have wrested Káthiáváda from its Kshatrapa rulers as he is the first Gupta who struck silver coins and as his silver coins are of the then current Kshatrapa type. On the obverse is the royal bust with features copied from the Kshatrapa face and on the reverse is the figure of a peacock, probably chosen as the bearer of Kártikasvámi the god of war. Round the peacock is a Sanskrit legend. This legend is of two varieties. In Central Indian coins it runs:
Srí Guptakulasya Mahárájadhirája Srí Chandraguptavikramánkasya.
(Coin) of the king of kings the illustrious Chandragupta Vikramánka, of the family of the illustrious Gupta. [196]
In the very rare Káthiáváda coins, though they are similar to the above in style, the legend runs:
Paramabhágavata Mahárájádhirája Srí Chandragupta Vikramáditya.
The great devotee of Vishnu the supreme ruler of great kings, the illustrious Chandragupta Vikramáditya. [197]
Several gold coins of Chandragupta show a young male figure behind the king with his right hand laid on the king's shoulder. This youthful figure is apparently Chandragupta's son Kumáragupta who may have acted as Yuvarája during the conquest of Málwa. The rareness of Chandragupta's and the commonness of Kumáragupta's coins in Káthiáváda, together with the date 90 (A.D. 409) on some of Kumáragupta's coins make it probable that on their conquest his father appointed Kumáragupta viceroy of Gujarát and Káthiáváda.
As the first Gupta was a chief of no great power or influence it is probable that though it is calculated from him the Gupta era was established not by him but by his grandson the great Chandragupta II. [198] This view is confirmed by the absence of dates on all existing coins of Chandragupta's father Samudragupta. It further seems probable that like the Málavas in B.C. 57 and the Kshatrapas in A.D. 78 the occasion on which Chandragupta established the Gupta era was his conquest of Málwa. The Gupta era did not remain long in use. After the fall of Gupta power (A.D. 470) the old Málava era of B.C. 57 was revived. The conjecture may be offered that, in spite of the passing away of Gupta power, under his title of Vikramáditya, the fame of the great Gupta conqueror Chandragupta II. lived on in Málwa and that, drawing to itself tales of earlier local champions, the name Vikramáditya came to be considered the name of the founder of the Málava era. [199]
Working back from Gupta Samvat 80 (A.D. 400) the date of Chandragupta's conquest of Málwa we may allot 1 to 12 (A.D. 319-332) to the founder Gupta: 12 to 29 (A.D. 332-349) to Gupta's son Ghatotkacha: 29 to 49 (A.D. 349-369) to Ghatotkacha's son Chandragupta I.: and 50 to 75 (A.D. 370-395) to Chandragupta's powerful son Samudragupta who probably had a long reign. As the latest known date of Chandragupta II. is 93 (A.D. 413) and as a Bilsad inscription [200] of his successor Kumáragupta is dated 96 (A.D. 416) the reign of Chandragupta II. may be calculated to have lasted during the twenty years ending 95 (A.D. 415).
[Kumáragupta, A.D. 416-453.] Chandragupta II. was succeeded by his son Kumáragupta whose mother was the queen Dhruva-Deví. On Kumáragupta's coins three titles occur: Mahendra, Mahendra-Vikrama, and Mahendráditya. As already noticed the circulation of Kumáragupta's coins in Káthiáváda during his father's reign makes it probable that on their conquest his father appointed him viceroy of Káthiáváda and Gujarát. Kumáragupta appears to have succeeded his father about 96 (A.D. 416). An inscription at Mankuwár near Prayága shows he was ruling as late as 129 (A.D. 449) and a coin of his dated 130 (A.D. 450) adds at least one year to his reign. On the other hand the inscription on the Girnár rock shows that in 137 (A.D. 457) his son Skandagupta was king. It follows that Kumáragupta's reign ended between 130 and 137 (A.D. 450-457) or about 133 (A.D. 453).
None of Kumáragupta's four inscriptions gives any historical or other details regarding him. [201] But the number and the wide distribution of his coins make it probable that during his long reign he maintained his father's dominions intact.
Large numbers of Kumáragupta's coins of gold silver and copper have been found. The gold which are of various types are inferior in workmanship to his father's coins. The silver and copper coins are of two varieties, eastern and western. Both varieties have on the obverse the royal bust in the Kshatrapa style of dress. In the western pieces the bust is a copy of the moustached Kshatrapa face with a corrupted version of the corrupt Greek legend used by the Kshatrapas. The only difference between the obverses of the Western Gupta and the Kshatrapa coins is that the date is in the Gupta instead of in the Kshatrapa era. On the reverse is an ill formed peacock facing front as in Chandragupta II.'s coins. The legend runs:
Paramabhágavata Maharájádhirája Srí Kumáragupta Mahendráditya.
The great Vaishnava the supreme ruler of great kings, the illustrious Kumáragupta Mahendráditya. [202]
In Kumáragupta's eastern silver and copper coins the bust on the obverse has no moustache nor is there any trace of the corrupt Greek legend. The date is in front of the face in perpendicular numerals one below the other instead of behind the head as in the Kshatrapa and Western Kumáragupta coins. On the reverse is a well-carved peacock facing front with tail feathers at full stretch. Round the peacock runs the clear cut legend:
Vijitávaniravanipati Kumáragupto devam jayati.
This legend is hard to translate. It seems to mean:
Kumáragupta, lord of the earth, who had conquered the kings of the earth, conquers the Deva.
Probably the Deva whose name suggested the antithesis between the kings of the earth and the gods was one of the Devaputra family of Indo-Skythian rulers. [203]
[Skandagupta, A.D. 454-470.] Kumáragupta was succeeded by his son Skandagupta. An inscription of his on a pillar at Bhitarí near Saidpur in Gházipur bearing no date shows that on his father's death Skandagupta had a hard struggle to establish his power. [204] The text runs: "By whom when he rose to fix fast again the shaken fortune of his house, three months [205] were spent on the earth as on a bed," an apparent reference to flight and wanderings. A doubtful passage in the same inscription seems to show that he was opposed by a powerful king named Pushyamitra on whose back he is said to have set his left foot. [206] The inscription makes a further reference to the troubles of the family stating that on re-establishing the shaken fortune of his house Skandagupta felt satisfied and went to see his weeping afflicted mother. Among the enemies with whom Skandagupta had to contend the inscription mentions a close conflict with the Húnas that is the Ephthalites, Thetals, or White Huns. [207] Verse 3 of Skandagupta's Girnár inscription confirms the reference to struggles stating that on the death of his father by his own might he humbled his enemies to the earth and established himself. As the Girnár inscription is dated 136 (A.D. 456) and as Kumáragupta's reign ended about 134, these troubles and difficulties did not last for more than two years. The Girnár inscription further states that on establishing his power he conquered the earth, destroyed the arrogance of his enemies, and appointed governors in all provinces. For Suráshtra he selected a governor named Parnadatta and to Parnadatta's son Chakrapálita he gave a share of the management placing him in charge of Junágadh city. During the governorship of Parnadatta the Sudarsana lake close to Junágadh, which had been strongly rebuilt in the time of the Kshatrapa Rudradáman (A.D. 150), again gave way during the dark sixth of Bhádrapada of the year 136 (A.D. 456). The streams Palásiní Sikatá, and Vilásiní [208] burst through the dam and flowed unchecked. Repairs were begun on the first of bright Gríshma 137 (A.D. 457) and finished in two months. The new dam is said to have been 100 cubits long by 68 cubits broad and 7 men or about 38 feet high. The probable site of the lake is in the west valley of the Girnár hill near what is called Bhavanátha's pass. [209] The inscription also records the making of a temple of Vishnu in the neighbourhood by Chakrapálita, which was probably on the site of the modern Dámodar's Mandir in the Bhavanátha pass, whose image is of granite and is probably as old as the Guptas. A new temple was built in the fifteenth century during the rule of Mandalika the last Chúdásamá ruler of Junágadh. At the time of the Musalmán conquest (A.D. 1484) as violence was feared the images were removed and buried. Mandalika's temple was repaired by Amarji Diván of Junágadh (1759-1784). It was proposed to make and consecrate new images. But certain old images of Vishnu were found in digging foundations for the enclosure wall and were consecrated. Two of these images were taken by Girnára Bráhmans and consecrated in the names of Baladevji and Revatí in a neighbouring temple specially built for them. Of the original temple the only trace is a pilaster built into the wall to the right as one enters. The style and carving are of the Gupta period.
As almost all the Gupta coins found in Cutch are Skandagupta's and very few are Kumáragupta's, Skandagupta seems to have added Cutch to the provinces of Gujarát and Káthiáváda inherited from his father. In Káthiáváda Skandagupta's coins are rare, apparently because of the abundant currency left by his father which was so popular in Káthiáváda that fresh Kumáragupta coins of a degraded type were issued as late as Valabhi times.
Like his father, Skandagupta issued a gold coinage in his eastern dominions but no trace of a gold currency appears in the west. Like Kumáragupta's his silver coins were of two varieties, eastern and western. The eastern coins have on the obverse a bust as in Kumáragupta's coins and the date near the face. On the reverse is a peacock similar to Kumáragupta's and round the peacock the legend:
Vijitávaniravanipati jayati devam Skandagupto'yam.
This king Skandagupta who having conquered the earth conquers the Deva. [210]
Skandagupta's western coins are of three varieties, one the same as the western coins of Kumáragupta, a second with a bull instead of a peacock on the reverse, and a third with on the reverse an altar with one upright and two side jets of water. Coins of the first two varieties are found both in Gujarát and in Káthiáváda. The third water-jet variety is peculiar to Cutch and is an entirely new feature in the western Gupta coinage. On the reverse of all is the legend:
Paramabhágavata Mahárájadhirája Skandagupta Kramáditya.
The great Vaishnava the supreme ruler of great kings, Skandagupta the Sun of Prowess. [211]
The beginning of Skandagupta's reign has been placed about Gupta 133 or A.D. 453: his latest known date on a coin in General Cunningham's collection is Gupta 149 or A.D. 469. [212]
[Budhagupta, A.D. 485.] With Skandagupta the regular Gupta succession ceases. [213] The next Gupta is Budhagupta who has a pillar inscription [214] in a temple at Eran in the Saugor district dated 165 (A.D. 485) and silver coins dated Samvat 174 and 180 odd (A.D. 494-500 odd). Of Budhagupta's relation or connection with Skandagupta nothing is known. That he belonged to the Gupta dynasty appears from his name as well as from his silver coins which are dated in the Gupta era and are the same in style as the eastern coins of Skandagupta. On the obverse is the usual bust as in Skandagupta's coins with the date (174, 180 odd) near the face. On the reverse is the usual peacock and the legend is the same as Skandagupta's:
Devam jayati vijitávaniravanipati Srí Budhagupto.
The king the illustrious Budhagupta who has conquered the earth conquers the Deva. [215]
Since the coins are dated Samvat 174 and 180 odd (A.D. 494 and 500 odd) and the inscription's date is 165 (A.D. 485) the inscription may be taken to belong to the early part of Budhagupta's reign the beginning of which may be allotted to about 160-162 (A.D. 480-482). As this is more than ten years later than the latest known date of Skandagupta (G. 149 A.D. 469) either a Gupta of whom no trace remains must have intervened or the twelve blank years must have been a time of political change and disturbance. The absence of any trace of a gold currency suggests that Budhagupta had less power than his predecessors. The correctness of this argument is placed beyond doubt by the pillar inscription opposite the shrine in the Eran temple where instead of his predecessor's title of monarch of the whole earth Budhagupta is styled protector of the land between the Jamna (Kálindí) and the Narbadá implying the loss of the whole territory to the east of the Jamna. [216] In the west the failure of Gupta power seems still more complete. Neither in Gujarát nor in Káthiáváda has an inscription or even a coin been found with a reference to Budhagupta or to any other Gupta ruler later than Skandagupta (G. 149 A.D. 469). The pillar inscription noted above which is of the year 165 (A.D. 485) and under the rule of Budhagupta states that the pillar was a gift to the temple by Dhanya Vishnu and his brother Mátri Vishnu who at the time of the gift seem to have been local Bráhman governors. A second inscription on the lower part of the neck of a huge Boar or Varáha image in a corner shrine of the same temple records that the image was completed on the tenth day of Phálguna in the first year of the reign of Toramána the supreme ruler of great kings and was the gift of the same Dhanya Vishnu whose brother Mátri Vishnu is described as gone to heaven. [217] Since Mátri was alive in the Budhagupta and was dead in the Toramána inscription it follows that Toramána was later than Budhagupta. His name and his new era show that Toramána was not a Gupta. A further proof that Toramána wrested the kingdom from Budhagupta is that except the change of era and that the bust turns to the left instead of to the right, Toramána's silver coins are directly adapted from Gupta coins of the eastern type. Certain coin dates seem at variance with the view that Toramána flourished after Budhagupta. On several coins the date 52 is clear. As Toramána's coins are copies of the coins of Kumáragupta and Skandagupta and as most of these coins have a numeral for one hundred the suggestion may be offered that a one dropped out in striking Toramána's die and that this date should read 152 not 52. Accepting this view Toramána's date would be 152 (A.D. 472) that is immediately after the death of Skandagupta.
The Gwálior inscription [218] mentions prince Mihirakula as the son of Toramána and a second inscription from a well in Mandasor [219] dated Málava Samvat 589 (A.D. 533) mentions a king named Yasodharman who was ruler of Málwa when the well was built and who in a second Mandasor inscription [220] is mentioned as having conquered Mihirakula. This would separate Mihirakula from his father Toramána (A.D. 471) by more than sixty years. In explanation of this gap it may be suggested that the [1]52 (A.D. 472) coins were struck early in Toramána's reign in honour of his conquest of the eastern Gupta territory. A reign of twenty years would bring Toramána to 177 (A.D. 497). The Gwálior inscription of Mihirakula is in the fifteenth year of his reign that is on the basis of a succession date of 177 (A.D. 497) in Gupta 192 (A.D. 512). An interval of five years would bring Yasodharman's conquest of Mihirakula to 197 (A.D. 517). This would place the making of the well in the twenty-first year of Mihirakula's reign.
[Bhánugupta, A.D. 511.] After Budhagupta neither inscription nor coin shows any trace of Gupta supremacy in Málwa. An Eran inscription [221] found in 1869 on a linga-shaped stone, with the representation of a woman performing satí, records the death in battle of a king Goparájá who is mentioned as the daughter's son of Sarabharája and appears to have been the son of king Mádhava. Much of the inscription is lost. What remains records the passing to heaven of the deceased king in the very destructive fight with the great warrior (pravíra) Bhánugupta brave as Pártha. The inscription is dated the seventh of dark Bhádrapada Gupta 191 in words as well as in numerals that is in A.D. 511. This Bhánugupta would be the successor of Budhagupta ruling over a petty Málwa principality which lasted till nearly the time of the great Harshavardhana the beginning of the seventh century (A.D. 607-650), as a Devagupta of Málwa is one of Rájyavardhana's rivals in the Sríharshacharita. While Gupta power failed in Málwa and disappeared from Western India a fresh branch of the Guptas rose in Magadha or Behár and under Naragupta Báláditya, perhaps the founder of the eastern branch of the later Gupta dynasty, attained the dignity of a gold coinage. [222]
[The Pushyamitras, A.D. 455.] [Though the history of their last years is known only in fragments, chiefly from inscriptions and coins, little doubt remains regarding the power which first seriously weakened the early Guptas. The Bhitari stone pillar of Skandagupta [223] speaks of his restoring the fortunes of his family and conquering the Pushyamitras and also of his joining in close conflict with the Húnas. [224] Unfortunately the Bhitari inscription is not dated. The Junágadh inscription, which bears three dates covering the period between A.D. 455 and 458, [225] mentions pride-broken enemies in the country of the Mlechchhas admitting Skandagupta's victory. That the Mlechchhas of this passage refers to the Huns is made probable by the fact that it does not appear that the Pushyamitras were Mlechchhas while they and the Huns are the only enemies whom Skandagupta boasts either of defeating or of meeting in close conflict. It may therefore be assumed that the Huns became known to Skandagupta before A.D. 455. As according to the Chinese historians [226] the White Huns did not cross the Oxus into Baktria before A.D. 452, the founding of the Hun capital of Badeghis [227] may be fixed between A.D. 452 and 455. As the above quoted inscriptions indicate that the Huns were repulsed in their first attempt to take part in Indian politics the disturbances during the last years of Kumáragupta's reign were probably due to some tribe other than the Huns. This tribe seems to have been the Pushyamitras whose head-quarters would seem to have been in Northern India. Some other enemy must have arisen in Málwa since the terms of Parnadatta's appointment to Suráshtra in A.D. 455-6 suggest that country had been lost to the Gupta empire and re-conquered by Skandagupta which would naturally be the case if a rival state had arisen in Málwa and been overthrown by that king. So far as is known the Huns made no successful attack on the Gupta empire during the lifetime of Skandagupta whose latest date is A.D. 468-9. It is not certain who succeeded Skandagupta. His brother Pura(or Sthira-)gupta ruled in or near Magadha. But it is not certain whether he was the successor or the rival of Skandagupta. [228] That Skandagupta's inscriptions are found in the Patna district in the east [229] and in Káthiáváda in the west [230] suggests that during his life the empire was not divided nor does any one of his inscriptions hint at a partition. The probability is that Skandagupta was succeeded by his brother Puragupta, who again was followed by his son Narasimhagupta and his grandson Kumáragupta II. [231]
[White Huns, A.D. 450-520.] Among the northerners who with or shortly after the Pushyamitras shared in the overthrow of Gupta power two names, a father and a son, Toramána and Mihirakula are prominent. It is not certain that these kings were Húnas by race. Their tribe were almost certainly his rivals' allies whom Skandagupta's Bhitari and Junágadh inscriptions style the one Húnas the other Mlechchhas. [232] On one of Toramána's coins Mr. Fleet reads [233] the date 52 which he interprets as a regnal date. This though not impossible is somewhat unlikely. The date of Mihirakula's succession to his father is fixed somewhere about A.D. 515. [234] In the neighbourhood of Gwálior he reigned at least fifteen years. [235] The story of Mihirakula's interview with Báláditya's mother and his long subsequent history [236] indicate that when he came to the throne he was a young man probably not more than 25. If his father reigned fifty-two years he must have been at least 70 when he died and not less than 45 when Mihirakula was born. As Mihirakula is known to have had at least one younger brother, [237] it seems probable that Toramána came to the throne a good deal later than A.D. 460 the date suggested by Mr. Fleet. [238] The date 52 on Toramána's coins must therefore refer to some event other than his own accession. The suggestion may be offered that that event was the establishment of the White Huns in Baktria and the founding of their capital Badeghis, [239] which, as fixed above between A.D. 452 and 455, gives the very suitable date of A.D. 504 to 507 for the 52 of Toramána's coin. If this suggestion is correct a further identification follows. The Chinese ambassador Sungyun (A.D. 520) [240] describes an interview with the king of Gandhára whose family Sungyun notices was established in power by the Ye-tha, that is the Ephthalites or White Huns, two generations before his time. [241] Mihirakula is known to have ruled in Gandhára [242] and Sungyun's description of the king's pride and activity agrees well with other records of Mihirakula's character. It seems therefore reasonable to suppose that the warlike sovereign who treated Sungyun and the name of his Imperial mistress with such scant courtesy was no other than the meteor Mihirakula. If Sungyun is correct in stating that Mihirakula was the third of his line the dynasty must have been established about A.D. 460. Beal is in doubt whether the name Lae-lih given by Sungyun [243] is the family name or the name of the founder. As a recently deciphered inscription shows Toramána's family name to have been Jaúvla [244] it seems to follow that Lae-lih, or whatever is the correct transliteration of the Chinese characters, is the name of the father of Toramána. Sungyun's reference to the establishment of this dynasty suggests they were not White Huns but leaders of some subject tribe. [245] That this tribe was settled in Baktria perhaps as far south as Kábul before the arrival of the White Huns seems probable. The Hindu or Persian influence notable in the tribal name Maitraka and in the personal name Mihirakula seems unsuited to Húnas newly come from the northern frontiers of China and proud of their recent successes. [246] Chinese records show [247] that the tribe who preceded the White Huns in Baktria and north-east Persia, and who about A.D. 350-400 destroyed the power of Kitolo the last of the Kusháns, were the Yuan-Yuan or Jouen-Jouen whom Sir H. Howorth identifies with the Avars. [248] To this tribe it seems on the whole probable that Lae-lih the father of Toramána belonged. [249] At the same time, though perhaps not themselves White Huns, the details regarding Toramána and Mihirakula so nearly cover the fifty years (A.D. 470-530) of Húna ascendancy in North India that, as was in keeping with their position in charge of his Indian outpost, the White Hun emperor Khushnáwaz, while himself engaged in Central Asia and in Persia (A.D. 460-500), [250] seems to have entrusted the conquest of India to Toramána and his son Mihirakula. Of the progress of the mixed Yuan-Yuan and White Hun invaders in India few details are available. Their ascendancy in the north seems to have been too complete to allow of opposition, and Húnas were probably closely associated with the Maitraka or Mehara conquest of Káthiáváda (A.D. 480-520). The southern fringe of the White Hun dominions, the present Saugor district of the Central Provinces, seems to have been the chief theatre of war, a debateable ground between the Guptas, Toramána, and the Málwa chiefs. To the east of Saugor the Guptas succeeded in maintaining their power until at least A.D. 528-9. [251] To the west of Saugor the Guptas held Eran in A.D. 484-5. [252] About twenty years later (A.D. 505) [253] Eran was in the hands of Toramána, and in A.D. 510-11 Bhánugupta [254] fought and apparently won a battle at Eran.
[Mihirakula, A.D. 512.] Mihirakula's accession to the throne may perhaps be fixed at A.D. 512. An inscription of Yasodharman, the date of which cannot be many years on either side of A.D. 532-3, claims to have enforced the submission of the famous Mihirakula whose power had established itself on the tiaras of kings and who had hitherto bowed his neck to no one but Siva. [255] In spite of this defeat Mihirakula held Gwálior and the inaccessible fortress of the Himálayas. [256] These dates give about A.D. 520 as the time of Mihirakula's greatest power, a result which suggests that the Gollas, whom, about A.D. 520, the Greek merchant Cosmas Indikopleustes heard of in the ports of Western India as the supreme ruler of Northern India was Kulla or Mihirakula. [257]
[Yasodharman of Málwa, A.D. 533-4.] Regarding the history of the third destroyers of Gupta power in Málwa, inscriptions show that in A.D. 437-8, under Kumáragupta, Bandhuvarman son of Vishnuvarman ruled as a local king. [258] Possibly Bandhuvarman afterwards threw off his allegiance to the Guptas and thereby caused the temporary loss of Suráshtra towards the end of Kumáragupta's reign. Nothing further is recorded of the rulers of Málwa until the reign of Yasodharman in A.D. 533-4. [259] It has been supposed that one of Yasodharman's inscriptions mentioned a king Vishnuvardhana but there can be little doubt that both names refer to the same person. [260] The name of Yasodharman's tribe is unknown and his crest the aulikara has not been satisfactorily explained. [261] Mandasor [262] in Western Málwa, where all his inscriptions have been found, must have been a centre of Yasodharman's power. Yasodharman boasts [263] of conquering from the Brahmaputra to mount Mahendra and from the Himálayas to the Western Ocean. In the sixth century only one dynasty could claim such widespread power. That dynasty is the famous family of Ujjain to which belonged the well known Vikramáditya of the Nine Gems. It may be conjectured not only that Yasodharman belonged to this family but that Yasodharman was the great Vikramáditya himself. [264]
The difficult question remains by whom was the power of Mihirakula overthrown. Yasodharman claims to have subdued Mihirakula, who, he distinctly says, had never before been defeated. [265] On the other hand, Hiuen Tsiang ascribes Mihirakula's overthrow to a Báláditya of Magadha. [266] Coins prove that Báláditya [267] was one of the titles of Narasimhagupta grandson of Kumáragupta I. (A.D. 417-453) who probably ruled Magadha as his son's seal was found in the Gházipur district. [268] If Hiuen Tsiang's story is accepted a slight chronological difficulty arises in the way of this identification. It is clear that Mihirakula's first defeat was at the hands of Yasodharman about A.D. 530. His defeat and capture by Báláditya must have been later. As Skandagupta's reign ended about A.D. 470 a blank of sixty years has to be filled by the two reigns of his brother and his nephew. [269] This, though not impossible, suggests caution in identifying Báláditya. According to Hiuen Tsiang Báláditya was a feudatory of Mihirakula who rebelled against him when he began to persecute the Buddhists. Hiuen Tsiang notices that, at the intercession of his own mother, Báláditya spared Mihirakula's life and allowed him to retire to Kashmir. He further notices that Mihirakula and his brother were rivals and his statement suggests that from Kashmir Mihirakula defeated his brother and recovered Gandhára. The ascendancy of the White Huns cannot have lasted long after Mihirakula. About A.D. 560 the power of the White Huns was crushed between the combined attacks of the Persians and Turks. [270]--(A.M.T.J.)]
VIII. THE VALABHIS
(A.D. 509-766.)
[Valeh Town, 1893.] The Valabhi dynasty, which succeeded the Guptas in Gujarát and Káthiáváda, take their name from their capital in the east of Káthiáváda about twenty miles west of Bhávnagar and about twenty-five miles north of the holy Jain hill of Satruñjaya. The modern name of Valabhi is Valeh. It is impossible to say whether the modern Valeh is a corruption of Valahi the Prakrit form of the Sanskrit Valabhi or whether Valabhi is Sanskritised from a local original Valeh. The form Valahi occurs in the writings of Jinaprabhasuri a learned Jain of the thirteenth century who describes Satruñjaya as in the Valáhaka province. A town in the chiefship of Valeh now occupies the site of old Valabhi, [271] whose ruins lie buried below thick layers of black earth and silt under the modern town and its neighbourhood. The only remains of old buildings are the large foundation bricks of which, except a few new houses, the whole of Valeh is built. The absence of stone supports the theory that the buildings of old Valabhi were of brick and wood. In 1872 when the site was examined the only stone remains were a few scattered Lingas and a well-polished life-size granite Nandi or bull lying near a modern Mahádeva temple. Diggers for old bricks have found copper pots and copperplates and small Buddhist relic shrines with earthen pots and clay seals of the seventh century.
The ruins of Valabhi show few signs of representing a large or important city. The want of sweet water apparently unfits the site for the capital of so large a kingdom as Valabhi. Its choice as capital was probably due to its being a harbour on the Bhávnagar creek. Since the days of Valabhi's prime the silt which thickly covers the ruins has also filled and choked the channel which once united it with the Bhávnagar creek when the small Ghelo was probably a fair sized river.
[Valabhi in A.D. 630] In spite of the disappearance of every sign of greatness Hiuen Tsiang's (A.D. 640) details show how rich and populous Valabhi was in the early part of the seventh century. The country was about 1000 miles (6000 li) and the capital about five miles (30 li) in circumference. The soil the climate and the manners of the people were like those of Málava. The population was dense; the religious establishments rich. Over a hundred merchants owned a hundred lákhs. The rare and valuable products of distant regions were stored in great quantities. In the country were several hundred monasteries or sanghárámas with about 6000 monks. Most of them studied the Little Vehicle according to the Sammatiya school. There were several hundred temples of Devas and sectaries of many sorts. When Tathágata or Gautama Buddha (B.C. 560-480) lived he often travelled through this country. King Asoka (B.C. 240) had raised monuments or stúpas in all places where Buddha had rested. Among these were spots where the three past Buddhas sat or walked or preached. At the time of Hiuen Tsiang's account (A.D. 640) the king was of the Kshatriya caste, as all Indian rulers were. He was the nephew of Síláditya of Málava and the son-in-law of the son of Síláditya the reigning king of Kanyákubja. His name was Dhruvapatu (Tu-lu-h'o-po-tu). He was of a lively and hasty disposition, shallow in wisdom and statecraft. He had only recently attached himself sincerely to the faith in the three precious ones. He yearly summoned a great assembly and during seven days gave away valuable gems and choice meats. On the monks he bestowed in charity the three garments and medicaments, or their equivalents in value, and precious articles made of the seven rare and costly gems. These he gave in charity and redeemed at twice their price. He esteemed the virtuous, honoured the good, and revered the wise. Learned priests from distant regions were specially honoured. Not far from the city was a great monastery built by the Arhat Áchára ('O-che-lo), where, during their travels, the Bodhisattvas Gunamati and Sthiramati (Kien-hwni) settled and composed renowned treatises. [272]
[Valabhi Copperplates.] The only historical materials regarding the Valabhi dynasty are their copperplates of which a large number have been found. That such powerful rulers as the Valabhis should leave no records on stones and no remains of religious or other buildings is probably because, with one possible exception at Gopnáth, [273] up to the ninth century all temples and religious buildings in Káthiáváda and Gujarát were of brick and wood. [274]
The Valabhi copperplates chiefly record grants to Bráhmanical temples and Buddhist monasteries and sometimes to individuals. All are in one style two plates inscribed breadthwise on the inner side, the earliest plates being the smallest. The plates are held together by two rings passed through two holes in their horizontal upper margin. One of the rings bears on one side a seal with, as a badge of the religion of the dynasty, a well-proportioned seated Nandi or bull. Under the bull is the word Bhatárka the name of the founder of the dynasty. Except such differences as may be traced to the lapse of time, the characters are the same in all, and at the same time differ from the character then in use in the Valabhi territory which must have been that from which Devanágarí is derived. The Valabhi plate character is adopted from that previously in use in South Gujarát plates which was taken from the South Indian character. The use of this character suggests that either Bhatárka or the clerks and writers of the plates came from South Gujarát. [275] The language of all the grants is Sanskrit prose. Each records the year of the grant, the name of the king making the grant, the name of the grantee, the name of the village or field granted, the name of the writer of the charter either the minister of peace and war sandhivigrahádhikrita or the military head baládhikrita, and sometimes the name of the dútaka or gift-causer generally some officer of influence or a prince and in one case a princess. The grants begin by recording they were made either 'from Valabhi' the capital, or 'from the royal camp' 'Vijayaskandhávára.' Then follows the genealogy of the dynasty from Bhatárka the founder to the grantor king. Each king has in every grant a series of attributes which appear to have been fixed for him once for all. Except in rare instances the grants contain nothing historical. They are filled with verbose description and figures of speech in high flown Sanskrit. As enjoined in law-books or dharmasástras after the genealogy of the grantor comes the name of the composer usually the minister of peace and war and after him the boundaries of the land granted. The plates conclude with the date of the grant, expressed in numerals following the letter sam or the letters samva for samvatsara that is year. After the numerals are given the lunar month and day and the day of the week, with, at the extreme end, the sign manual svahasto mama followed by the name of the king in the genitive case that is Own hand of me so and so. The name of the era in which the date is reckoned is nowhere given.
[Period Covered.] So far as is known the dates extend for 240 years from 207 to 447. That the earliest known date is so late as 207 makes it probable that the Valabhis adopted an era already in use in Káthiáváda. No other era seems to have been in use in Valabhi. Three inscriptions have their years dated expressly in the Valabhi Samvat. The earliest of these in Bhadrakáli's temple in Somnáth Pátan is of the time of Kumárapála (A.D. 1143-1174) the Solanki ruler of Anahilaváda. It bears date Valabhi Samvat 850. The second and third are in the temple of Harsata Devi at Verával. The second which was first mentioned by Colonel Tod, is dated Hijra 662, Vikrama Samvat 1320, Valabhi Samvat 945, and Simha Samvat 151. The third inscription, in the same temple on the face of the pedestal of an image of Krishna represented as upholding the Govardhana hill, bears date Valabhi S. 927. These facts prove that an era known as the Valabhi era, which the inscriptions show began in A.D. 319, was in use for about a hundred years in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. This may be accepted as the era of the Valabhi plates which extended over two centuries. Further the great authority (A.D. 1030) Alberuni gives Saka 241 that is A.D. 319 as the starting point both of the 'era of Balah' and of what he calls the Guptakála or the Gupta era. Beruni's accuracy is established by a comparison of the Mandasor inscription and the Nepál inscription of Amsuvarman which together prove the Gupta era started from A.D. 319. Though its use by the powerful Valabhi dynasty caused the era to be generally known by their name in Gujarát in certain localities the Gupta era continued in use under its original name as in the Morbí copperplate of Jáikadeva which bears date 588 "of the era of the Guptas." [276]
[Valabhi Administration, A.D. 500-700.] The Valabhi grants supply information regarding the leading office bearers and the revenue police and village administrators whose names generally occur in the following order:
(1) Áyuktaka, } meaning appointed, apparently any superior } official. (2) Viniyuktaka }
(3) Drángika, apparently an officer in charge of a town, as dranga means a town.
(4) Mahattara or Senior has the derivative meaning of high in rank. Mhátára the Maráthi for an old man is the same word. In the Valabhi plates mahattara seems to be generally used to mean the accredited headman of a village, recognised as headman both by the people of the village and by the Government.
(5) Chátabhata that is bhatas or sepoys for chitas or rogues, police mounted and on foot, represent the modern police jamádárs haváldárs and constables. The Kumárapála Charita mentions that Chátabhatas were sent by Siddharája to apprehend the fugitive Kumárapála. One plate records the grant of a village 'unenterable by chátabhatas.' [277]
(6) Dhruva fixed or permanent is the hereditary officer in charge of the records and accounts of a village, the Taláti and Kulkarni of modern times. One of the chief duties of the Dhruva was to see that revenue farmers did not take more than the royal share. [278] The name is still in use in Cutch where village accountants are called Dhru and Dhruva. Dhru is also a common surname among Nágar Bráhmans and Modh and other Vániás in Cutch Gujarát and Káthiáváda.
(7) Adhikaranika means the chief judicial magistrate or judge of a place.
(8) Dandapásika literally 'holding the fetters or noose of punishment,' is used both of the head police officer and of the hangman or executioner.
(9) Chauroddharanika the thief-catcher. Of the two Indian ways of catching thieves, one of setting a thief to catch a thief the other the Pagi or tracking system, the second answers well in sandy Gujarát and Káthiáváda where the Tracker or Pagi is one of the Bárábalute or regular village servants.
(10) Rájastháníya, the foreign secretary, the officer who had to do with other states and kingdoms rájasthánas. Some authorities take rájastháníya to mean viceroy.
(11) Amátya minister and sometimes councillor is generally coupled with kumára or prince.
(12) Anutpannádánasamudgráhaka the arrear-gatherer.
(13) Saulkika the superintendent of tolls or customs.
(14) Bhogika or Bhogoddharanika the collector of the Bhoga that is the state share of the land produce taken in kind, as a rule one-sixth. The term bhoga is still in use in Káthiáváda for the share, usually one-sixth, which landholders receive from their cultivating tenants.
(15) Vartmapála the roadwatch were often mounted and stationed in thánás or small roadside sheds. [279]
(16) Pratisaraka patrols night-guards or watchmen of fields and villages. [280]
(17) Vishayapati division-lord probably corresponded to the present subáh.
(18) Ráshtrapati the head of a district.
(19) Grámakúta the village headman.
[Territorial Divisions.] The plates show traces of four territorial divisions: (1) Vishaya the largest corresponding to the modern administrative Division: (2) Áhára or Áharaní that is collectorate (from áhára a collection) corresponding to the modern district or zillah: (3) Pathaka, of the road, a sub-division, the place named and its surroundings: (4) Sthalí a petty division the place without surroundings. [281]
[Land Assessment.] The district of Kaira and the province of Káthiáváda to which the Valabhi grants chiefly refer appear to have had separate systems of land assessment Kaira by yield Káthiáváda by area. Under the Káthiáváda system the measurement was by pádávarta literally the space between one foot and the other that is the modern kadam or pace. The pace used in measuring land seems to have differed from the ordinary pace as most of the Káthiáváda grants mention the bhúpádávarta or land pace. The Kaira system of assessment was by yield the unit being the pitaka or basketful, the grants describing fields as capable of growing so many baskets of rice or barley (or as requiring so many baskets of seed). As the grants always specify the Kaira basket a similar system with a different sized basket seems to have been in use in other parts of the country. Another detail which the plates preserve is that each field had its name called after a guardian or from some tree or plant. Among field names are Kotilaka, Atimana-kedára, Khanda-kedára, Gargara-kshetra, Bhíma-kshetra, Khagali-kedára, Sami-kedára.
[Religion.] The state religion of the Valabhi kings was Saivism. Every Valabhi copperplate hitherto found bears on its seal the figure of a bull with under it the name of Bhatárka the founder of the dynasty who was a Saiva. Except Dhruvasena I. (A.D. 526) who is called Paramabhágavata or the great Vaishnava and his brother and successor Dharapatta who is styled Paramádityabhakta or the great devotee of the sun, and Guhasena, who in his grant of Sam. 248 calls himself Paramopásaka or the great devotee of Buddha, all the Valabhi kings are called Parama-máhesvara the great Saiva.
The grants to Buddhist viháras or monasteries of which there are several seem special gifts to institutions founded by female relatives of the granting kings. Most of the grants are to Bráhmans who though performing Vaidik ceremonies probably as at present honoured Saivism. This Saivism seems to have been of the old Pásupata school of Nakulísa or Lakulísa as the chief shrine of Lakulísa was at Kárávana the modern Kárván in the Gáikwár's territory fifteen miles south of Baroda and eight miles north-east of Miyágám railway station a most holy place till the time of the Vághelá king Arjunadeva in the thirteenth century. [282] The special holiness attached to the Narbadá in Saivism and to its pebbles as lingas is probably due to the neighbourhood of this shrine of Kárván. The followers of the Nakulísa-Pásupata school were strict devotees of Saivism, Nakulísa the founder being regarded as an incarnation of Siva. The date of the foundation of this school is not yet determined. It appears to have been between the second and the fifth century A.D. Nakulísa had four disciples Kusika, Gárgya, Kárusha, and Maitreya founders of four branches which spread through the length and breadth of India. Though no special representatives of this school remain, in spite of their nominal allegiance to Sankaráchárya the Dasanámis or Atíts are in fact Nakulísas in their discipline doctrines and habits--applying ashes over the whole body, planting a linga over the grave of a buried Atít, and possessing proprietary rights over Saiva temples. The Pásupatas were ever ready to fight for their school and often helped and served in the armies of kings who became their disciples. Till a century ago these unpaid followers recruited the armies of India with celibates firm and strong in fighting. It was apparently to gain these recruits that so many of the old rulers of India became followers of the Pásupata school. To secure their services the rulers had to pay them special respect. The leaders of these fighting monks were regarded as pontiffs like the Bappa-páda or Pontiff of the later Valabhi and other kings. Thus among the later Valabhis Síláditya IV. is called Bávapádánudhyáta and all subsequent Síládityas Bappapádánudhyáta both titles meaning Worshipping at the feet of Báva or Bappa.
This Báva is the popular Prakrit form of the older Prakrit or desí Bappa meaning Father or worshipful. Bappa is the original of the Hindustáni and Gujaráti Bává father or elder; it is also a special term for a head Gosávi or Atít or indeed for any recluse. The epithet Bappa-pádánudhyáta, Bowing at the feet of Bappa, occurs in the attributes of several Nepál kings, and in the case of king Vasantasena appears the full phrase:
Parama-daivata-bappa-bhattáraka-mahárája-Srí-pádánudhyáta.
Falling at the illustrious feet of the great Mahárája Lord Bappa.
These Nepál kings were Saivas as they are called parama-máhesvara in the text of the inscription and like the Valabhi seals their seals bear a bull. It follows that the term Bappa was applied both by the Valabhis and the Nepál kings to some one, who can hardly be the same individual, unless he was their common overlord, which the distance between the two countries and still more the fact that his titles are the same as the titles of the Valabhi kings make almost impossible. In these circumstances the most probable explanation of the Bappa or Báva of these inscriptions is that it was applied to Shaivite pontiffs or ecclesiastical dignitaries. The attribute Parama-daivata The Great Divine prefixed to Bappa in the inscription of Vasantasena confirms this view. That such royal titles as Mahárájádhirája, Paramabhattáraka, and Paramesvara are ascribed to Bappa is in agreement with the present use of Mahárája for all priestly Bráhmans and recluses and of Bhattáraka for Digambara Jain priests. Though specially associated with Saivas the title bappa is applied also to Vaishnava dignitaries. That the term bappa was in similar use among the Buddhists appears from the title of a Valabhi vihára Bappapádíyavihára The monastery of the worshipful Bappa that is Of the great teacher Sthiramati by whom it was built. [283]
[Origin of the Valabhis.] The tribe or race of Bhatárka the founder of the Valabhi dynasty is doubtful. None of the numerous Valabhi copperplates mentions the race of the founder. The Chalukya and Ráshtrakúta copperplates are silent regarding the Valabhi dynasty. And it is worthy of note that the Gehlots and Gohils, who are descended from the Valabhis, take their name not from their race but from king Guha or Guhasena (A.D. 559-567) the fourth ruler and apparently the first great sovereign among the Valabhis. These considerations make it probable that Bhatárka belonged to some low or stranger tribe. Though the evidence falls short of proof the probability seems strong that Bhatárka belonged to the Gurjara tribe, and that it was the supremacy of him and his descendants which gave rise to the name Gurjjara-rátra the country of the Gurjjaras, a name used at first by outsiders and afterwards adopted by the people of Gujarát. Except Bhatárka and his powerful dynasty no kings occur of sufficient importance to have given their name to the great province of Gujarát. Against their Gurjara origin it may be urged that the Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 640) calls the king of Valabhi a Kshatriya. Still Hiuen Tsiang's remark was made more than a century after the establishment of the dynasty when their rise to power and influence had made it possible for them to ennoble themselves by calling themselves Kshatriyas and tracing their lineage to Puránic heroes. That such ennobling was not only possible but common is beyond question. Many so-called Rájput families in Gujarát and Káthiáváda can be traced to low or stranger tribes. The early kings of Nándipurí or Nándod (A.D. 450) call themselves Gurjjaras and the later members of the same dynasty trace their lineage to the Mahábhárata hero Karna. Again two of the Nándod Gurjjaras Dadda II. and Jayabhata II. helped the Valabhis under circumstances which suggest that the bond of sympathy may have been their common origin. The present chiefs of Nándod derive their lineage from Karna and call themselves Gohils of the same stock as the Bhávnagar Gohils who admittedly belong to the Valabhi stock. This supports the theory that the Gurjjaras and the Valabhis had a common origin, and that the Gurjjaras were a branch of and tributary to the Valabhis. This would explain how the Valabhis came to make grants in Broach at the time when the Gurjjaras ruled there. It would further explain that the Gurjjaras were called sámantas or feudatories because they were under the overlordship of the Valabhis. [284]
[History.] The preceding chapter shows that except Chandragupta (A.D. 410) Kumáragupta (A.D. 416) and Skandagupta (A.D. 456) none of the Guptas have left any trace of supremacy in Gujarát and Káthiáváda. Of what happened in Gujarát during the forty years after Gupta 150 (A.D. 469), when the reign of Skandagupta came to an end nothing is known or is likely to be discovered from Indian sources. The blank of forty years to the founder Bhatárka (A.D. 509) or more correctly of sixty years to Dhruvasena (A.D. 526) the first Valabhi king probably corresponds with the ascendancy of some foreign dynasty or tribe. All trace of this tribe has according to custom been blotted out of the Sanskrit and other Hindu records. At the same time it is remarkable that the fifty years ending about A.D. 525 correspond closely with the ascendancy in north and north-west India of the great tribe of Ephthalites or White Huns. As has been shown in the Gupta Chapter, by A.D. 470 or 480, the White Huns seem to have been powerful if not supreme in Upper India. In the beginning of the sixth century, perhaps about A.D. 520, Cosmas Indikopleustes describes the north of India and the west coast as far south as Kalliena that is Kalyán near Bombay as under the Huns whose king was Gollas. [285] Not many years later (A.D. 530) the Hun power in Central India suffered defeat and about the same time a new dynasty arose in south-east Káthiáváda.
[First Valabhi Grant, A.D. 526.] The first trace of the new power, the earliest Valabhi grant, is that of Dhruvasena in the Valabhi or Gupta year 207 (A.D. 526). In this grant Dhruvasena is described as the third son of the Senápati or general Bhatárka. Of Senápati Bhatárka neither copperplate nor inscription has been found. Certain coins which General Cunningham Arch. Surv. Rept. IX. Pl. V. has ascribed to Bhatárka have on the obverse a bust, as on the western coins of Kumáragupta, and on the reverse the Saiva trident, and round the trident the somewhat doubtful legend in Gupta characters:
Rájño Mahákshatri Paramádityabhakta Srí Sarvva-bhattárakasa.
Of the king the great Kshatri, great devotee of the sun, the illustrious Sarvva-bhattáraka.
This Sarvva seems to have been a Ráshtrakúta or Gurjjara king. His coins were continued so long in use and were so often copied that in the end upright strokes took the place of letters. That these coins did not belong to the founder of the Valabhi dynasty appears not only from the difference of name between Bhattáraka and Bhatárka but because the coiner was a king and the founder of the Valabhis a general.
[Senápati Bhatárka, A.D. 509-520 ?] Of the kingdom which Senápati Bhatárka overthrew the following details are given in one of his epithets in Valabhi copperplates: 'Who obtained glory by dealing hundreds of blows on the large and very mighty armies of the Maitrakas, who by [The Maitrakas, A.D. 470-509.] force had subdued their enemies.' As regards these Maitrakas it is to be noted that the name Maitraka means Solar. The sound of the compound epithet Maitraka-amitra that is Maitraka-enemy used in the inscription makes it probable that the usual form Mihira or solar was rejected in favour of Maitraka which also means solar to secure the necessary assonance with amitra or enemy. The form Mihira solar seems a Hinduizing or meaning-making of the northern tribal name Medh or Mehr, the Mehrs being a tribe which at one time seem to have held sway over the whole of Káthiáváda and which are still found in strength near the Barda hills in the south-west of Káthiáváda. [286] The Jethvá chiefs of Porbandar who were formerly powerful rulers are almost certainly of the Mehr tribe. They are still called Mehr kings and the Mehrs of Káthiáváda regard them as their leaders and at the call of their Head are ready to fight for him. The chief of Mehr traditions describes the fights of their founder Makaradhvaja with one Mayúradhvaja. This tradition seems to embody the memory of an historical struggle. The makara or fish is the tribal badge of the Mehrs and is marked on a Morbí copperplate dated A.D. 904 (G. 585) and on the forged Dhíníki grant of the Mehr king Jáíkádeva. On the other hand Mayúradhvaja or peacock-bannered would be the name of the Guptas beginning with Chandragupta who ruled in Gujarát (A.D. 396-416) and whose coins have a peacock on the reverse. The tradition would thus be a recollection of the struggle between the Mehrs and Guptas in which about A.D. 470 the Guptas were defeated. The Mehrs seem to have been a northern tribe, who, the evidence of place names seems to show, passed south through Western Rájputána, Jaslo, Ajo, Bad, and Koml leaders of this tribe giving their names to the settlements of Jesalmir, Ajmir, Badmer, and Komalmer. The resemblance of name and the nearness of dates suggest a connection between the Mehrs and the great Panjáb conqueror of the Guptas Mihirakula (A.D. 512-540 ?). If not themselves Húnas the Mehrs may have joined the conquering armies of the Húnas and passing south with the Húnas may have won a settlement in Káthiáváda as the Káthis and Jhádejás settled about 300 years later. After Senápati Bhatárka's conquests in the south of the Peninsula the Mehrs seem to have retired to the north of Káthiáváda.
The above account of the founder of the Valabhis accepts the received opinion that he was the Senápati or General of the Guptas. The two chief points in support of this view are that the Valabhis adopted both the Gupta era and the Gupta currency. Still it is to be noted that this adoption of a previous era and currency by no means implies any connection with the former rulers. [287] Both the Gurjjaras (A.D. 580) and the Chálukyas (A.D. 642) adopted the existing era of the Traikútakas (A.D. 248-9) while as regards currency the practice of continuing the existing type is by no means uncommon. [288] In these circumstances, and seeing that certain of the earlier Valabhi inscriptions refer to an overlord who can hardly have been a Gupta, the identification of the king to whom the original Senápati owed allegiance must be admitted to be doubtful.
All known copperplates down to those of Dharasena (A.D. 579 the great grandson of Bhatárka) give a complete genealogy from Bhatárka to Dharasena. Later copperplates omit all mention of any descendants but those in the main line.
[Senápati's Sons.] Senápati Bhatárka had four sons, (1) Dharasena (2) Dronasimha (3) Dhruvasena and (4) Dharapatta. Of Dharasena the first son no record has been traced. His name first appears in the copperplates of his brother Dhruvasena where like his father he is called Senápati. Similarly of the second son Dronasimha no record exists except in the copperplates of his brother Dhruvasena. In these copperplates unlike his father and elder brother Dhruvasena is called Mahárája and is mentioned as 'invested with royal authority in person by the great lord, the lord of the wide extent of the whole world.' This great lord or paramasvámi could not have been his father Bhatárka. Probably he was the king to whom Bhatárka owed allegiance. It is not clear where Dronasimha was installed king probably it was in Káthiáváda from the south-east of which his father and elder brother had driven back the Mehrs or Maitrakas. [289]
[Dhruvasena I. A.D. 526-535.] The third son Dhruvasena is the first of several Valabhis of that name. Three copperplates of his remain: The Kukad grant dated Gupta 207 (A.D. 526), [290] an unpublished grant found in Junágadh dated Gupta 210 (A.D. 529), and the Valeh grant dated Gupta 216 (A.D. 535). [291] One of Dhruvasena's attributes Parama-bhattáraka-pádánudhyáta, Bowing at the feet of the great lord, apparently applies to the same paramount sovereign who installed his brother Dronasimha. The paramount lord can hardly be Dhruvasena's father as his father is either called Bhatárka without the parama or more commonly Senápati that is general. Dhruvasena's other political attributes are Mahárája Great King or Mahásúmanta Great Chief, the usual titles of a petty feudatory king. In the A.D. 535 plates he has the further attributes of Mahápratíhára the great doorkeeper or chamberlain, Mahádandanáyaka [292] the great magistrate, and Máhákártakritika (?) or great general, titles which seem to show he still served some overlord. It is not clear whether Dhruvasena succeeded his brother Dronasimha or was a separate contemporary ruler. The absence of 'falling at the feet of' or other successional phrase and the use of the epithet 'serving at the feet of' the great lord seem to show that his power was distinct from his brothers. In any case Dhruvasena is the first of the family who has a clear connection with Valabhi from which the grants of A.D. 526 and 529 are dated.
In these grants Dhruvasena's father Bhatárka and his elder brothers are described as 'great Máhesvaras' that is followers of Siva, while Dhruvasena himself is called Paramabhágavata the great Vaishnava. It is worthy of note, as stated in the A.D. 535 grant, that his niece Duddá (or Lulá?) was a Buddhist and had dedicated a Buddhist monastery at Valabhi. The latest known date of Dhruvasena is A.D. 535 (G. 216). Whether Dharapatta or Dharapatta's son Guhasena succeeded is doubtful. That Dharapatta is styled Mahárája and that a twenty-four years' gap occurs between the latest grant of Dhruvasena and A.D. 559 the earliest grant of Guhasena favour the succession of Dharapatta. On the other hand in the A.D. 559 grant all Guhasena's sins are said to be cleansed by falling at the feet of, that is, by succeeding, Dhruvasena. It is possible that Dharapatta may have ruled for some years and Dhruvasena again risen to power.
[Guhasena, A.D. 539-569.] Of Guhasena (A.D. 539?-569) three plates and a fragment of an inscription remain. Two of the grants are from Valeh dated A.D. 559 and 565 (G. 240 and 246) [293]: the third is from Bhávnagar dated A.D. 567 (G. 248). [294] The inscription is on an earthen pot found at Valeh and dated A.D. 566 (G. 247). [295] In all the later Valabhi plates the genealogy begins with Guhasena who seems to have been the first great ruler of his dynasty. Guhasena is a Sanskrit name meaning Whose army is like that of Kárttika-svámi: his popular name was probably Guhila. It appears probable that the Gohil and Gehlot Rájput chiefs of Káthiáváda and Rájputána, who are believed to be descendants of the Valabhis, take their name from Guhasena or Guha, the form Gehloti or Gehlot, Guhila-utta, being a corruption of Guhilaputra or descendants of Guhila, a name which occurs in old Rájput records. [296] This lends support to the view that Guhasena was believed to be the first king of the dynasty. Like his predecessors he is called Mahárája or great king. In one grant he is called the great Saiva and in another the great Buddhist devotee (paramopásaka), while he grants villages to the Buddhist monastery of his paternal aunt's daughter Duddá. Though a Saivite Guhasena, like most of his predecessors, tolerated and even encouraged Buddhism. His minister of peace and war is named Skandabhata.
The beginning of Guhasena's reign is uncertain. Probably it was not earlier than A.D. 539 (G. 220). His latest known date is A.D. 567 (G. 248) but he may have reigned two years longer.
[Dharasena II. A.D. 569-589.] About A.D. 569 (G. 250) Guhasena was succeeded by his son Dharasena II. Five of his grants remain, three dated A.D. 571 (G. 252), [297] the fourth dated A.D. 588 (G. 269), [298] and the fifth dated A.D. 589 (G. 270). [299] In the first three grants Dharasena is called Mahárája or great king; in the two later grants is added the title Mahásámanta Great Feudatory, seeming to show that in the latter part of his reign Dharasena had to acknowledge as overlord some one whose power had greatly increased. [300] All his copperplates style Dharasena II. Parama-máhesvara Great Saiva. A gap of eighteen years occurs between A.D. 589 Dharasena's latest grant and A.D. 607 the earliest grant of his son Síláditya.
[Síláditya I. A.D. 594-609.] Dharasena II. was succeeded by his son Síláditya I. who is also called Dharmáditya or the sun of religion.
The Satruñjaya Máhátmya has a prophetic account of one Síláditya who will be a propagator of religion in Vikrama Samvat 477 (A.D. 420). This Máhátmya is comparatively modern and is not worthy of much trust. Vikrama Samvat 477 would be A.D. 420 when no Valabhi kingdom was established and no Síláditya can have flourished. If the date 477 has been rightly preserved, and it be taken in the Saka era it would correspond with Gupta 237 or A.D. 556, that is thirty to forty years before Síláditya's reign. Although no reliance can be placed on the date still his second name Dharmáditya gives support to his identification with the Síláditya of the Máhátmya.
His grants like many of his predecessors style Síláditya a great devotee of Siva. Still that two of his three known grants were made to Buddhist monks shows that he tolerated and respected Buddhism. The writer of one of the grants is mentioned as the minister of peace and war Chandrabhatti; the Dútaka or causer of the gift in two of the Buddhist grants is Bhatta Ádityayasas apparently some military officer. The third grant, to a temple of Siva, has for its Dútaka the illustrious Kharagraha apparently the brother and successor of the king.
Síláditya's reign probably began about A.D. 594 (G. 275). His latest grant is dated A.D. 609 (G. 290). [301]
[Kharagraha, A.D. 610-615.] Síláditya was succeeded by his brother Kharagraha, of whom no record has been traced. Kharagraha seems to have been invested with sovereignty by his brother Síláditya who probably retired from the world. Kharagraha is mentioned as a great devotee of Siva.
[Dharasena III. A.D. 615-620.] Kharagraha was succeeded by his son Dharasena III. of whom no record remains.
[Dhruvasena II. (Báláditya) A.D. 620-640.] Dharasena III. was succeeded by his younger brother Dhruvasena II. also called Báláditya or the rising sun. A grant of his is dated A.D. 629 (G. 310). [302] As observed before, Dhruvasena is probably a Sanskritised form of the popular but meaningless Dhruvapatta which is probably the original of Hiuen Tsiang's T'u-lu-h'o-po-tu, as A.D. 629 the date of his grant is about eleven years before the time when (640) Hiuen Tsiang is calculated to have been in Málwa if not actually at Valabhi. If one of Dhruvasena's poetic attributes is not mere hyperbole, he made conquests and spread the power of Valabhi. On the other hand the Navsári grant of Jayabhata III. (A.D. 706-734) the Gurjjara king of Broach states that Dadda II. of Broach (A.D. 620-650) protected the king of Valabhi who had been defeated by the great Srí Harshadeva (A.D. 607-648) of Kanauj.
[Dharasena IV. A.D. 640-649.] Dhruvasena II. was succeeded by his son Dharasena IV. perhaps the most powerful and independent of the Valabhis. A copperplate dated A.D. 649 (G. 330) styles him Parama-bhattáraka, Mahárájádhirája, Paramesvara, Chakravartin Great Lord, King of Kings, Great Ruler, Universal Sovereign. Dharasena IV.'s successors continue the title of Mahárájádhirája or great ruler, but none is called Chakravartin or universal sovereign a title which implies numerous conquests and widespread power.
Two of Dharasena IV.'s grants remain, one dated A.D. 645 (G. 326) the other A.D. 649 (G. 330). A grant of his father Dhruvasena dated A.D. 634 (G. 315) and an unpublished copperplate in the possession of the chief of Morbí belonging to his successor Dhruvasena III. dated A.D. 651 (G. 332) prove that Dharasena's reign did not last more than seventeen years. The well known Sanskrit poem Bhattikávya seems to have been composed in the reign of this king as at the end of his work the author says it was written at Valabhi protected (governed) by the king the illustrious Dharasena. [303] The author's application to Dharasena of the title Narendra Lord of Men is a further proof of his great power.
[Dhruvasena III. A.D. 650-656.] Dharasena IV. was not succeeded by his son but by Dhruvasena the son of Derabhata the son of Dharasena IV.'s paternal grand-uncle. Derabhata appears not to have been ruler of Valabhi itself but of some district in the south of the Valabhi territory. His epithets describe him as like the royal sage Agastya spreading to the south, and as the lord of the earth which has for its two breasts the Sahya and Vindhya hills. This description may apply to part of the province south of Kaira where the Sahyádri and Vindhya mountains may be said to unite. In the absence of a male heir in the direct line, Derabhata's son Dhruvasena appears to have succeeded to the throne of Valabhi. The only known copperplate of Dhruvasena III.'s, dated A.D. 651 (G. 332), records the grant of the village of Pedhapadra in Vanthali, the modern Vanthali in the Navánagar State of North Káthiáváda. A copperplate of his elder brother and successor Kharagraha dated A.D. 656 (G. 337) shows that Dhruvasena's reign cannot have lasted over six years.
[Kharagraha, A.D. 656-665.] The less than usually complimentary and respectful reference to Dhruvasena III. in the attributes of Kharagraha suggests that Kharagraha took the kingdom by force from his younger brother as the rightful successor of his father. At all events the succession of Kharagraha to Dhruvasena was not in the usual peaceful manner. Kharagraha's grant dated A.D. 656 (G. 337) is written by the Divirapati or Chief Secretary and minister of peace and war Anahilla son of Skandabhata. [304] The Dútaka or causer of the gift was the Pramátri or survey officer Sríná.
[Síláditya III. A.D. 666-675.] Kharagraha was succeeded by Síláditya III. son of Kharagraha's elder brother Síláditya II. Síláditya II. seems not to have ruled at Valabhi but like Derabhata to have been governor of Southern Valabhi, as he is mentioned out of the order of succession and with the title Lord of the Earth containing the Vindhya mountain. Three grants of Síláditya III. remain, two dated A.D. 666 (G. 346) [305] and the third dated A.D. 671 (G. 352). [306] He is called Parama-bhattáraka Great Lord, Mahárájádhirája Chief King among Great Kings, and Paramesvara Great Ruler. These titles continue to be applied to all subsequent Valabhi kings. Even the name Síláditya is repeated though each king must have had some personal name.
[Síláditya IV. A.D. 691.] Síláditya III. was succeeded by his son Síláditya IV. of whom one grant dated A.D. 691 (G. 372) remains. The officer who prepared the grant is mentioned as the general Divirapati Srí Haragana the son of Bappa Bhogika. The Dútaka or gift-causer is the prince Kharagraha, which may perhaps be the personal name of the next king Síláditya V.
[Síláditya V. A.D. 722.] Of Síláditya V. the son and successor of Síláditya IV. two grants dated A.D. 722 (G. 403) both from Gondal remain. Both record grants to the same person. The writer of both was general Gillaka son of Buddhabhatta, and the gift-causer of both prince Síláditya.
[Síláditya VI. A.D. 760.] Of Síláditya VI. the son and successor of the last, one grant dated A.D. 760 (G. 441) remains. The grantee is an Atharvavedi Bráhman. The writer is Sasyagupta son of Emapatha and the gift-causer is Gánjasáti Srí Jajjar (or Jajjir).
[Síláditya VII. A.D. 766.] Of Síláditya VII. the son and successor of the last, who is also called Dhrúbhata (Sk. Dhruvabhata), one grant dated A.D. 766 (G. 447) remains.
[Valabhi Family Tree.] The following is the genealogy of the Valabhi Dynasty:
VALABHI FAMILY TREE, A.D. 509-766.
A.D. 509. (Gupta 190?). | ------------------------------------------ | | | | Dharasena I. Dronasimha. Dhruvasena I. Dharapatta. A.D. 526. | (Gupta 207). | Guhasena A.D. 559, 565, 567, (Gupta 240, 246, 248). | Dharasena II. A.D. 571, 588, 589 (Gupta 252, 269, 270). | ----------------+----------------- | | Síláditya I. Kharagraha I. or Dharmáditya I. | A.D. 605, 609 (Gupta 286, 290). | | ----------+----- | | | | Dharasena III. Dhruvasena II. Derabhata. or Báláditya, | A.D. 629 (Gupta 310). ------------------------------- | | | | | Síláditya II. Kharagraha II. Dhruvasena III. Dharasena IV. | or Dharmáditya II. A.D. 651 (Gupta 332). A.D. 645, 649, | A.D. 656 (Gupta 337). (Gupta 326, 330). | Síláditya III. A.D. 671 (Gupta 352). | Síláditya IV. A.D. 691, 698 (Gupta 372 & 379). | Síláditya V. A.D. 722 (Gupta 403). | Síláditya VI. A.D. 760 (Gupta 441). | Síláditya VII. or Dhrúbhata, A.D. 766 (Gupta 447).
[The Fall of Valabhi, A.D. 750-770.] Of the overthrow of Valabhi many explanations have been offered. [307] The only explanation in agreement with the copperplate evidence that a Síláditya was ruling at Valabhi as late as A.D. 766 (Val. Sam. 447) [308] is the Hindu account preserved by Alberuni (A.D. 1030) [309] that soon after the Sindh capital Mansúra was founded, say A.D. 750-770, Ranka a disaffected subject of the era-making Valabhi, with presents of money persuaded the Arab lord of Mansúra to send a naval expedition against the king of Valabhi. In a night attack king Valabha was killed and his people and town were destroyed. Alberuni adds: Men say that still in our time such traces are left in that country as are found in places wasted by an unexpected attack. [310] For this expedition against Valabhi Alberuni gives no date. But as Mansúra was not founded till A.D. 750 [311] and as the latest Valabhi copperplate is A.D. 766 the expedition must have taken place between A.D. 750 and 770. In support of the Hindu tradition of an expedition from Mansúra against Valabhi between A.D. 750 and 770 it is to be noted that the Arab historians of Sindh record that in A.D. 758 (H. 140) the Khalif Mansúr sent Amru bin Jamal with a fleet of barks to the coast of Barada. [312] Twenty years later A.D. 776 (H. 160) a second expedition succeeded in taking the town, but, as sickness broke out, they had to return. The question remains should the word, which in these extracts Elliot reads Barada, be read Balaba. The lax rules of Arab cursive writing would cause little difficulty in adopting the reading Balaba. [313] Further it is hard to believe that Valabhi, though to some extent sheltered by its distance from the coast and probably a place of less importance than its chroniclers describe, should be unknown to the Arab raiders of the seventh and eighth centuries and after its fall be known to Alberuni in the eleventh century. At the same time, as during the eighth century there was, or at least as there may have been, [314] a town Barada on the south-west coast of Káthiáváda the identification of the raids against Barada with the traditional expedition against Balaba though perhaps probable cannot be considered certain. Further the statement of the Sindh historians [315] that at this time the Sindh Arabs also made a naval expedition against Kandahár seems in agreement with the traditional account in Tod that after the destruction of Valabhi the rulers retired to a fort near Cambay from which after a few years they were driven. [316] If this fort is the Kandahár of the Sindh writers and Gandhár on the Broach coast about twenty miles south of Cambay, identifications which are in agreement with other passages, the Arab and Rájput accounts would fairly agree. [317]
[The Importance of Valabhi.] The discovery of its lost site; the natural but mistaken identification of its rulers with the famous eighth and ninth century (A.D. 753-972) Balharas of Málkhet in the East Dakhan; [318] the tracing to Valabhi of the Rána of Udepur in Mewád the head of the Sesodias or Gohils the most exalted of Hindu families [319]; and in later times the wealth of Valabhi copperplates have combined to make the Valabhis one of the best known of Gujarát dynasties. Except the complete genealogy, covering the 250 years from the beginning of the sixth to the middle of the eighth century, little is known of Valabhi or its chiefs. The origin of the city and of its rulers, the extent of their sway, and the cause and date of their overthrow are all uncertain. The unfitness of the site, the want of reservoirs or other stone remains, the uncertainty when its rulers gained an independent position, the fact that only one of them claimed the title Chakravarti or All Ruler are hardly consistent with any far-reaching authority. Add to this the continuance of Maitraka or Mer power in North Káthiáváda, the separateness though perhaps dependence of Sauráshtra even in the time of Valabhi's greatest power, [320] the rare mention of Valabhi in contemporary Gujarát grants, [321] and the absence of trustworthy reference in the accounts of the Arab raids of the seventh or eighth centuries tend to raise a doubt whether, except perhaps during the ten years ending 650, Valabhi was ever of more than local importance.
[Valabhi and the Gehlots.] In connection with the pride of the Sesodias or Gohils of Mewád in their Valabhi origin [322] the question who were the Valabhis has a special interest. The text shows that Pandit Bhagvánlál was of opinion the Valabhis were Gurjjaras. The text also notes that the Pandit believed they reached south-east Káthiáváda by sea from near Broach and that if they did not come to Broach from Málwa at least the early rulers obtained (A.D. 520 and 526) investiture from the Málwa kings. Apart from the doubtful evidence of an early second to fifth century Bála or Valabhi three considerations weigh against the theory that the Valabhis entered Gujarát from Málwa in the sixth century. First their acceptance of the Gupta era and of the Gupta currency raises the presumption that the Valabhis were in Káthiáváda during Gupta ascendancy (A.D. 440-480): Second that the Sesodias trace their pedigree through Valabhi to an earlier settlement at Dhánk in south-west Káthiáváda and that the Válas of Dhánk still hold the place of heads of the Válas of Káthiáváda: And Third that both Sesodias and Válas trace their origin to Kanaksen a second century North Indian immigrant into Káthiáváda combine to raise the presumption that the Válas were in Káthiáváda before the historical founding of Valabhi in A.D. 526 [323] and that the city took its name from its founders the Válas or Bálas.
Whether or not the ancestors of the Gohils and Válas were settled in Káthiáváda before the establishment of Valabhi about A.D. 526 several considerations bear out the correctness of the Rájput traditions and the Jain records that the Gohils or Sesodias of Mewád came from Bála or Valabhi in Káthiáváda. Such a withdrawal from the coast, the result of the terror of Arab raids, is in agreement with the fact that from about the middle of the eighth century the rulers of Gujarát established an inland capital at Anahilaváda (A.D. 746). [324] It is further in agreement with the establishment by the Gohil refugees of a town Balli in Mewád; with the continuance as late as A.D. 968 (S. 1024) by the Sesodia chief of the Valabhi title Síláditya or Sail [325]; and with the peculiar Valabhi blend of Sun and Siva worship still to be found in Udepur. [326] The question remains how far can the half-poetic accounts of the Sesodias be reconciled with a date for the fall of Valabhi so late as A.D. 766. The mythical wanderings, the caveborn Guha, and his rule at Idar can be easily spared. The name Gehlot which the Sesodias trace to the caveborn Guha may as the Bhávnagar Gehlots hold have its origin in Guhasena (A.D. 559-567) perhaps the first Valabhi chief of more than local distinction. [327] Tod [328] fixes the first historical date in the Sesodia family history at A.D. 720 or 728 the ousting of the Mori or Maurya of Chitor by Bappa or Sail. An inscription near Chitor shows the Mori in power in Chitor as late as A.D. 714 (S. 770). [329] By counting back nine generations from Sakti Kumára the tenth from Bappa whose date is A.D. 1038 Tod fixes A.D. 720-728 as the date when the Gohils succeeded the Moris. But the sufficient average allowance of twenty years for each reign would bring Bappa to A.D. 770 or 780 a date in agreement with a fall of Valabhi between A.D. 760 and 770, as well as with the statement of Abul Fazl, who, writing in A.D. 1590, says the Rána's family had been in Mewád for about 800 years. [330]
[The Válas of Káthiáváda.] The Arab accounts of the surprise-attack and of the failure of the invaders to make a settlement agree with the local and Rájputána traditions that a branch of the Valabhi family continued to rule at Valeh until its conquest by Múla Rája Solankhi in A.D. 950. [331] Though their bards favour the explanation of Vála from the Gujaráti valvu return or the Persian válah [332] noble the family claim to be of the old Valabhi stock. They still have the tradition they were driven out by the Musalmáns, they still keep up the family name of Selait or Síláditya. [333]
The local tradition regarding the settlement of the Válas in the Balakshetra south of Valabhi is that it took place after the capture of Valabhi by Múla Rája Solankhi (A.D. 950). [334] If, as may perhaps be accepted, the present Válas represent the rulers of Valabhi it seems to follow the Válas were the overlords of Balakshetra at least from the time of the historical prosperity of Valabhi (A.D. 526-680). The traditions of the Bábriás who held the east of Sorath show that when they arrived (A.D. 1200-1250) the Vála Rájputs were in possession and suggest that the lands of the Válas originally stretched as far west as Diu. [335] That the Válas held central Káthiáváda is shown by their possession of the old capital Vanthali nine miles south-west of Junágadh and by (about A.D. 850) their transfer of that town to the Chúdásamás. [336] Dhánk, about twenty-five miles north-west of Junágadh, was apparently held by the Válas under the Jetwas when (A.D. 800-1200?) Ghumli or Bhumli was the capital of south-west Káthiáváda. According to Jetwa accounts the Válas were newcomers whom the Jetwas allowed to settle at Dhánk. [337] But as the Jetwas are not among the earliest settlers in Káthiáváda it seems more probable that, like the Chúdásamás at Vanthali, the Jetwas found the Válas in possession. The close connection of the Válas with the earlier waves of Káthis is admitted. [338] Considering that the present (1881) total of Káthiáváda Vála Rájputs is about 900 against about 9000 Vála Káthis, the Válas, [339] since their loss of power, seem either to have passed into unnoticeable subdivisions of other Rájput tribes or to have fallen to the position of Káthis.
[The Válas and Káthis.] If from the first and not solely since the fall of Valabhi the Válas have been associated with the Káthis it seems best to suppose they held to the Káthis a position like that of the Jetwas to their followers the Mers. According to Tod [340] both Válas and Káthis claim the title Tata Multánka Rai Lords of Tata and Multán. The accounts of the different sackings of Valabhi are too confused and the traces of an earlier settlement too scanty and doubtful to justify any attempt to carry back Valabhi and the Válas beyond the Maitraka overthrow of Gupta power in Káthiáváda (A.D. 470-480). The boast that Bhatárka, the reputed founder of the house of Valabhi (A.D. 509), had obtained glory by dealing hundreds of blows on the large and very mighty armies of the Maitrakas who by force had subdued their enemies, together with the fact that the Valabhis did and the Maitrakas did not adopt the Gupta era and currency seem to show the Válas were settled in Káthiáváda at an earlier date than the Mers and Jetwas. That is, if the identification is correct, the Válas and Káthis were in Káthiáváda before the first wave of the White Huns approached. It has been noticed above under Skandagupta that the enemies, or some of the enemies, with whom, in the early years of his reign A.D. 452-454, Skandagupta had so fierce a struggle were still in A.D. 456 a source of anxiety and required the control of a specially able viceroy at Junágadh. Since no trace of the Káthis appears in Káthiáváda legends or traditions before the fifth century the suggestion may be offered that under Vála or Bála leadership the Káthis were among the enemies who on the death of Kumáragupta (A.D. 454) seized the Gupta possessions in Káthiáváda. Both Válas and Káthis would then be northerners driven south from Multán and South Sindh by the movements of tribes displaced by the advance of the Ephthalites or White Huns (A.D. 440-450) upon the earlier North Indian and border settlements of the Yuan-Yuan or Avars. [341]
[Descent from Kanaksen, A.D. 150.] The Sesodia or Gohil tradition is that the founder of the Válas was Kanaksen, who, in the second century after Christ, from North India established his power at Virát or Dholka in North Gujarát and at Dhánk in Káthiáváda. [342] This tradition, which according to Tod [343] is supported by at least ten genealogical lists derived from distinct sources, seems a reminiscence of some connection between the early Válas and the Kshatrapas of Junágadh with the family of the great Kushán emperor Kanishka (A.D. 78-98). Whether this high ancestry belongs of right to the Válas and Gohils or whether it has been won for them by their bards nothing in the records of Káthiáváda is likely to be able to prove. Besides by the Válas Kanaksen is claimed as an ancestor by the Chávadás of Okhámandal as the founder of Kanakapurí and as reigning in Krishna's throne in Dwárká. [344]. In support of the form Kanaka for Kanishka is the doubtful Kanaka-Sakas or Kanishka-Sakas of Varáhamihira (A.D. 580). [345] The form Kanik is also used by Alberuni [346] for the famous Vihára or monastery at Pesháwar of whose founder Kanak Alberuni retails many widespread legends. Tod [347] says; 'If the traditional date (A.D. 144) of Kanaksen's arrival in Káthiáváda had been only a little earlier it would have fitted well with Wilson's Kanishka of the Rája Tarangini.' Information brought to light since Tod's time shows that hardly any date could fit better than A.D. 144 for some member of the Kushán family, possibly a grandson of the great Kanishka, to make a settlement in Gujarát and Káthiáváda. The date agrees closely with the revolt against Vasudeva (A.D. 123-150), the second in succession from Kanishka, raised by the Panjáb Yaudheyas, whom the great Gujarát Kshatrapa Rudradáman (A.D. 143-158), the introducer of Kanishka's (A.D. 78) era into Gujarát, humbled. The tradition calls Kanaksen Kosalaputra and brings him from Lohkot in North India. [348] Kosala has been explained as Oudh and Lohkot as Lahore, but as Kanak came from the north not from the north-east an original Kushána-putra or Son of the Kushán may be the true form. Similarly Lohkot cannot be Lahore. It may be Alberuni's Lauhavar or Lahur in the Káshmir uplands one of the main centres of Kushán power. [349]
[Mewád and the Persians.] One further point requires notice, the traditional connection between Valabhi and the Ránás of Mewád with the Sassanian kings of Persia (A.D. 250-650). In support of the tradition Abul Fazl (A.D. 1590) says the Ránás of Mewád consider themselves descendants of the Sassanian Naushirván (A.D. 531-579) and Tod quotes fuller details from the Persian history Maaser-al-Umra. [350] No evidence seems to support a direct connection with Naushirván. [351] At the same time marriage between the Valabhi chief and Maha Banu the fugitive daughter of Yezdigerd the last Sassanian (A.D. 651) is not impossible. [352] And the remaining suggestion that the link may be Naushirván's son Naushizád who fled from his father in A.D. 570 receives support in the statement of Procopius [353] that Naushizád found shelter at Belapatan in Khuzistán perhaps Balapatan in Gurjaristán. As these suggestions are unsupported by direct evidence, it seems best to look for the source of the legend in the fire symbols in use on Káthiáváda and Mewád coins. These fire symbols, though in the main Indo-Skythian, betray from about the sixth century a more direct Sassanian influence. The use of similar coins coupled with their common sun worship seems sufficient to explain how the Agnikulas and other Káthiáváda and Mewád Rájputs came to believe in some family connection between their chiefs and the fireworshipping kings of Persia. [354]
[Válas.] Can the Vála traditions of previous northern settlements be supported either by early Hindu inscriptions or from living traces in the present population of Northern India? The convenient and elaborate tribe and surname lists in the Census Report of the Panjáb, and vaguer information from Rájputána, show traces of Bálas and Válas among the Musalmán as well as among the Hindu population of Northern India. [355] Among the tribes mentioned in Varáha-Mihira's sixth century (A.D. 580) [356] lists the Váhlikas appear along with the dwellers on Sindhu's banks. An inscription of a king Chandra, probably Chandragupta and if so about A.D. 380-400, [357] boasts of crossing the seven mouths of the Indus to attack the Váhlikas. These references suggest that the Bálas or Válas are the Válhikas and that the Bálhikas of the Harivamsa (A.D. 350-500 ?) are not as Langlois supposed people then ruling in Balkh but people then established in India. [358] Does it follow that the Válhikas of the inscriptions and the Bálhikas of the Harivamsa are the Panjáb tribe referred to in the Mahábhárata as the Báhikas or Bálhikas, a people held to scorn as keeping no Bráhman rites, their Bráhmans degraded, their women abandoned? [359] Of the two Mahábhárata forms Báhika and Bálhika recent scholars have preferred Bálhika with the sense of people of Balkh or Baktria. [360] The name Bálhika might belong to more than one of the Central Asian invaders of Northern India during the centuries before and after Christ, whose manner of life might be expected to strike an Áryávarta Bráhman with horror. The date of the settlement of these northern tribes (B.C. 180-A.D. 300) does not conflict with the comparatively modern date (A.D. 150-250) now generally received for the final revision of the Mahábhárata. [361] This explanation does not remove the difficulty caused by references to Báhikas and Bálhikas [362] in Pánini and other writers earlier than the first of the after-Alexander Skythian invasions. At the same time as shown in the footnote there seems reason to hold that the change from the Bákhtri of Darius (B.C. 510) and Alexander the Great (B.C. 330) to the modern Balkh did not take place before the first century after Christ. If this view is correct it follows that if the form Bahlika occurs in Pánini or other earlier writers it is a mistaken form due to some copyist's confusion with the later name Bahlika. As used by Pánini the name Báhika applied to certain Panjáb tribes seems a general term meaning Outsider a view which is supported by Brian Hodgson's identification of the Mahábhárata Báhikas with the Bahings one of the outcaste or broken tribes of Nepál. [363] The use of Báhika in the Mahábhárata would then be due either to the wish to identify new tribes with old or to the temptation to use a word which had a suitable meaning in Sanskrit. If then there is fair ground for holding that the correct form of the name in the Mahábhárata is Bálhika and that Bálhika means men of Balkh the question remains which of the different waves of Central Asian invaders in the centuries before and after Christ are most likely to have adopted or to have received the title of Baktrians. Between the second century before and the third century after Christ two sets of northerners might justly have claimed or have received the title of Baktrians. These northerners are the Baktrian Greeks about B.C. 180 and the Yuechi between B.C. 20 and A.D. 300. Yavana is so favourite a name among Indian writers that it may be accepted that whatever other northern tribes the name Yavana includes no name but Yavana passed into use for the Baktrian Greeks. Their long peaceful and civilised rule (B.C. 130-A.D. 300 ?) from their capital at Balkh entitles the Yuechi to the name Baktrians or Báhlikas. That the Yuechi were known in India as Baktrians is proved by the writer of the Periplus (A.D. 247), who, when Baktria was still under Yuechi rule, speaks of the Baktrianoi as a most warlike race governed by their own sovereign. [364] It is known that in certain cases the Yuechi tribal names were of local origin. Kushán the name of the leading tribe is according to some authorities a place-name. [365] And it is established that the names of more than one of the tribes who about B.C. 50 joined under the head of the Kusháns were taken from the lands where they had settled. It is therefore in agreement both with the movements and with the practice of the Yuechi, that, on reaching India, a portion of them should be known as Báhlikas or Bálhikas. Though the evidence falls short of proof there seems fair reason to suggest that the present Rájput and Káthi Válas or Bálas of Gujarát and Rájputána, through a Sanskritised Váhlika, may be traced to some section of the Yuechi, who, as they passed south from Baktria, between the first century before and the fourth century after Christ, assumed or received the title of men of Balkh.
One collateral point seems to deserve notice. St. Martin [366] says: 'The Greek historians do not show the least trace of the name Báhlika.' Accepting Báhika, with the general sense of Outsider, as the form used by Indian writers before the Christian era and remembering [367] Pánini's description of the Málavas and Kshudrakas as two Báhika tribes of the North-West the fact that Pánini lived very shortly before or after the time of Alexander and was specially acquainted with the Panjáb leaves little doubt that when (A.D. 326) Alexander conquered their country the Malloi and Oxydrakai, that is the Málavas and Kshudrakas, were known as Báhikas. Seeing that Alexander's writers were specially interested in and acquainted with the Malloi and Oxydrakai it is strange if St. Martin is correct in stating that Greek writings show no trace of the name Báhika. In explanation of this difficulty the following suggestion may be offered. [368] As the Greeks sounded their kh (ch) as a spirant, the Indian Báhika would strike them as almost the exact equivalent of their own word bakchikos. More than one of Alexander's writers has curious references to a Bacchic element in the Panjáb tribes. Arrian [369] notices that, as Alexander's fleet passed down the Jhelum, the people lined the banks chanting songs taught them by Dionysus and the Bacchantes. According to Quintus Curtius [370] the name of Father Bacchus was famous among the people to the south of the Malloi. These references are vague. But Strabo is definite. [371] The Malloi and Oxydrakai are reported to be the descendants of Bacchus. This passage is the more important since Strabo's use of the writings of Aristobulus Alexander's historian and of Onesikritos Alexander's pilot and Bráhman-interviewer gives his details a special value. [372] It may be said Strabo explains why the Malloi and Oxydrakai were called Bacchic and Strabo's explanation is not in agreement with the proposed Báhika origin. The answer is that Strabo's explanation can be proved to be in part, if not altogether, fictitious. Strabo [373] gives two reasons why the Oxydrakai were called Bacchic. First because the vine grew among them and second because their kings marched forth Bakkhikôs that is after the Bacchic manner. It is difficult to prove that in the time of Alexander the vine did not grow in the Panjáb. Still the fact that the vines of Nysa near Jalálábád and of the hill Meros are mentioned by several writers and that no vines are referred to in the Greek accounts of the Panjáb suggests that the vine theory is an after-thought. [374] Strabo's second explanation, the Bacchic pomp of their kings, can be more completely disproved. The evidence that neither the Malloi nor the Oxydrakai had a king is abundant. [375] That the Greeks knew the Malloi and Oxydrakai were called Bakkhikoi and that they did not know why they had received that name favours the view that the explanation lies in the Indian name Báhika. One point remains. Does any trace of the original Báhikas or Outsiders survive? In Cutch Káthiáváda and North Gujarát are two tribes of half settled cattle-breeders and shepherds whose names Rahbáris as if Rahábaher and Bharváds as if Baherváda seem like Báhika to mean Outsider. Though in other respects both classes appear to have adopted ordinary Hindu practices the conduct of the Bharvád women of Káthiáváda during their special marriage seasons bears a curiously close resemblance to certain of the details in the Mahábhárata account of the Báhika women. Colonel Barton writes: [376] 'The great marriage festival of the Káthiáváda Bharváds which is held once in ten or twelve years is called the Milkdrinking, Dudhpíno, from the lavish use of milk or clarified butter. Under the exciting influence of the butter the women become frantic singing obscene songs breaking down hedges and spoiling the surrounding crops.' Though the Bharváds are so long settled in Káthiáváda as to be considered aboriginals their own tradition preserves the memory of a former settlement in Márwár. [377] This tradition is supported by the fact that the shrine of the family goddess of the Cutch Rabáris is in Jodhpur, [378] and by the claim of the Cutch Bharváds that their home is in the North-West Provinces. [379]
IX. THE CHÁLUKYAS
(A.D. 634-740.)
The Chálukyas conquered their Gujarát provinces from the south after subduing the Konkan Mauryas of Purí either Rájápurí that is Janjira or Elephanta in Bombay harbour. The fifth century Váda inscription of king Suketuvarmman proves that this Maurya dynasty [380] ruled in the Konkan for at least a century before they came into collision with the Chálukyas under Kírtivarmman. [381] They were finally defeated and their capital Purí taken by Chandadanda an officer of Pulakesi II. (A.D. 610-640). [382] The Chálukyas then pressed northwards, and an inscription at Aihole in South Bijápur records that as early as A.D. 634 the kings of Láta, Málava, and Gurjjara submitted to the prowess of Pulakesi II. (A.D. 610-640).
[Jayasimhavarmman, A.D. 666-693.] The regular establishment of Chálukya power in South Gujarát seems to have been the work of Dhárásraya Jayasimhavarmman son of Pulakesi II. and younger brother of Vikramáditya Satyásraya (A.D. 670-680). A grant of Jayasimhavarmman's son Síláditya found in Navsárí describes Jayasimhavarmman as receiving the kingdom from his brother Vikramáditya. As Jayasimhavarmman is called Paramabhattáraka Great Lord, he probably was practically independent. He had five sons and enjoyed a long life, ruling apparently from Navsárí. Of the five Gujarát Chálukya copperplates noted below, three are in an era marked Sam. which is clearly different from the Saka era (A.D. 78) used in the grants of the main Chálukyas. From the nature of the case the new era of the Gujarát Chálukyas may be accepted as of Gujarát origin. Grants remain of Jayasimhavarmman's sons dated S. 421, 443, and 490. [383] This checked by Vikramáditya's known date (A.D. 670-680) gives an initial between A.D. 249 and 259. Of the two Gujarát eras, the Gupta-Valabhi (A.D. 319) and the Traikútaka (A.D. 248-9), the Gupta-Valabhi is clearly unsuitable. On the other hand the result is so closely in accord with A.D. 248-9, the Traikútaka epoch, as to place the correctness of the identification almost beyond question.
Jayasimhavarmman must have established his power in South Gujarát before A.D. 669-70 (T. 421), as in that year his son Sryásraya made a grant as heir apparent. Another plate of Sryásraya found in Surat shows that in A.D. 691-2 (T. 443) Jayasimhavarmman was still ruling with Sryásraya as heir apparent. In view of these facts the establishment of Jayasimhavarmman's power in Gujarát must be taken at about A.D. 666. The copperplates of his sons and grandson do not say whom Jayasimhavarmman overthrew. Probably the defeated rulers were Gurjjaras, as about this time a Gurjjara dynasty held the Broach district with its capital at Nándípurí the modern Nándod in the Rájpipla State about thirty-five miles east of Broach. So far as is known the earliest of the Nándod Gurjjaras was Dadda who is estimated to have flourished about A.D. 580 (T. 331). [384] The latest is Jayabhata whose Navsárí copperplate bears date A.D. 734-5 (T. 486) [385] so that the Gurjjara and Chálukya kingdoms flourished almost at the same time. It is possible that the power of the earlier Gurjjara kings spread as far south as Balsár and even up to Konkan limits. It was apparently from them that, during the reign of his brother Vikramáditya, Jayasimhavarmman took South Gujarát, driving the Gurjjaras north of the Tápti and eventually confining them to the Broach district, the Gurjjaras either acknowledging Chálukya sovereignty or withstanding the Chálukyas and retaining their small territory in the Broach district by the help of the Valabhis with whom they were in alliance. [386] In either case the Chálukya power seems to have hemmed in the Broach Gurjjaras, as Jayasimhavarmman had a son Buddhavarmman ruling in Kaira. A copperplate of Buddhavarmman's son Vijayarája found in Kaira is granted from Vijayapura identified with Bijápur near Parántij, but probably some place further south, as the grant is made to Bráhmans of Jambusar. Five copperplates remain of this branch of the Chálukyas, the Navsárí grant of Sryásraya Síláditya Yuvarája dated A.D. 669-70 (T. 421); the Surat grant of the same Síláditya dated A.D. 691-2 (T. 443); the Balsár grant of Vinayáditya Mangalarája dated A.D. 731 (Saka 653); the Navsárí grant of Pulakesi Janásraya dated A.D. 738-9 (T. 490); the Kaira grant of Vijayarája dated Samvatsara 394; and the undated Nirpan grant of Nágavarddhana Tribhuvanásraya.
[Sryásraya Síláditya (Heir Apparent), A.D. 669-691.] The first four grants mention Jayasimhavarmman as the younger brother of Vikramáditya Satyásraya the son of Pulakesi Satyásraya the conqueror of Harshavarddhana the lord of the North. Jayasimhavarmman's eldest son was Sryásraya Síláditya who made his Navsárí grant in A.D. 669-70 (T. 421); the village granted being said to be in the Navasáriká Vishaya. Sryásraya's other plate dated A.D. 691-2 (T. 443) grants a field in the village of Osumbhalá in the Kármaneya Áhára that is the district of Kámlej on the Tápti fifteen miles north-east of Surat. In both grants Síláditya is called Yuvarája, which shows that his father ruled with him from A.D. 669 to A.D. 691. Both copperplates show that these kings treated as their overlords the main dynasty of the southern Chálukyas as respectful mention is made in the first plate of Vikramáditya Satyásraya and in the second of his son Vinayáditya Satyásraya. Apparently Sryásraya died before his father as the two late grants of Balsár and Khedá give him no place in the list of rulers.
[Mangalarája, A.D. 698-731.] Jayasimhavarmman was succeeded by his second son Mangalarája. A plate of his found at Balsár dated A.D. 731 (Saka 653) records a grant made from Mangalapurí, probably the same as Purí the doubtful Konkan capital of the Siláháras. [387] As his elder brother was heir-apparent in A.D. 691-2 (T. 443), Mangalarája must have succeeded some years later, say about A.D. 698-9 (T. 450). From this it may be inferred that the copperplate of A.D. 731 was issued towards the end of his reign.
[Pulakesi Janásraya, A.D. 738.] Mangalarája was succeeded by his younger brother Pulakesi Janásraya. This is the time of Khalif Hashám (H. 105-125, A.D. 724-743) whose Sindh governor Junaid is recorded to have sent expeditions against Marmád, Mandal, Dalmaj (Kámlej?), Bárus, Uzain, Máliba, Baharimad (Mevad?), Al Bailáimán (Bhinmál?), and Juzr. Though several of these names seem to have been misread and perhaps misspelt on account of the confusion in the original Arabic, still Marmád, Mandal, Barus, Uzain, Máliba, and Juzr can easily be identified with Márvád, Mandal near Viramgám, Bharuch, Ujjain, Málwa, and Gurjjara. The defeat of one of these raids is described at length in Pulakesi's grant of A.D. 738-9 (T. 490) which states that the Arab army had afflicted the kingdoms of Sindhu, Kacchella, Sauráshtra, Chávotaka, Maurya, and Gurjjara that is Sindh, Kacch, the Chávadás, the Mauryas of Chitor, [388] and the Gurjjaras of Bhínmál. [389] Pulakesi was at this time ruling at Navsárí. It is uncertain how much longer this Chálukya kingdom of Navsárí continued. It was probably overthrown about A.D. 750 by the Gujarát branch of the Ráshtrakútas who were in possession in A.D. 757-8. [390]
[Buddhavarmman, A.D. 713 (?).] The Kaira grant dated 394 gives in hereditary succession the names Jayasimha, Buddhavarmman, and Vijayarája. [391] The grant is made from Vijayapura, which, as the late Colonel West suggested, may be Bijápur near Parántij though this is far to the north of the otherwise known Chálukya limits. The village granted is Pariyaya in the Kásákula division. If taken as Traikútaka the date 394 corresponds to A.D. 642-3. This is out of the question, since Vijayarája's grand-uncle Vikramáditya flourished between A.D. 670 and 680. Professor Bhandarkar considers the plate a forgery, but there seems no sufficient reason for doubting its genuineness. No fault can be found with the character. It is written in the usual style of Western Chálukya grants, and contains the names of a number of Bráhman grantees with minute details of the fields granted a feature most unusual in a forged grant. In the Gupta era, which equally with the Traikútaka era may be denoted by the word Sam. and which is more likely to be in use in North Gujarát the 394 would represent the fairly probable A.D. 713. Jayasimha may have conquered part of North Gujarát and sent his son Buddhavarmman to rule over it.
[Nágavarddhana.] Jayasimha appears to have had a third son Nágavarddhana ruling in West Násik which was connected with South Gujarát through Balsár, Párdi, and Penth. The Nirpan grant of Nágavarddhana is undated, [392] and, though it gives a wrong genealogy, its seal, the form of composition, the biruda or title of the king, and the alphabet all so closely agree with the style of the Gujarát Chálukya plates that it cannot be considered a forgery.
Not long after A.D. 740 the Chálukyas seem to have been supplanted in South Gujarát by the Ráshtrakútas.
[Chálukya Tree.] CHÁLUKYA FAMILY TREE.
Pulakesivallabha Satyásraya, Conqueror of Harshavarddhana, Lord of the North. A.D. 610-640. | ----------------+----------------- | | (Main Chálukyas). (Gujarát Branch). | | Vikramáditya Satyásraya, Jayasimhavarmman Dhárásraya, A.D. 669-680. A.D. 669-691. | | Vinayáditya. | | --------------------------------------------------+----------------- | | | | | (Navsárí.) (Navsárí.) (Kaira.) (Násik.) (Navsárí.) | | | | | Síláditya Sryásraya Mangalarája Buddhavarmman. Nágavarddhana. Pulakesi Yuvarája, or Vijayarája Janásraya, T. 421 (A.D. 669-70) and Mangalarasaráya, T. 490 T. 443 (A.D. 691-2). Saka 653 G. 394 (A.D. 731-2). (A.D. 713). (A.D. 738-9).
Vijayarája's grant of the year 394 (A.D. 642-3) is the earliest trace of Chálukya rule in Gujarát. Dr. Bhagvánlál, who believed in its genuineness, supposes it to be dated in the Gupta era (G. 394 = A.D. 714) and infers from it the existence of Chálukya rule far to the north of Broach. But the most cursory comparison of it with the Khedá grants of Dadda II. (see Ind. Ant. XIII. 81ff) which are dated (admittedly in the [so-called] Traikútaka era) 380 and 385 respectively, shows that a large number of Dadda's grantees reappear in the Chálukya grant. The date of the Chálukya plate must therefore be interpreted as a Traikútaka or Chedi date.
[A.D. 610-640.] This being so, it is clearly impossible to suppose that Vijayarája's grandfather Jayasimha is that younger son of Pulakesi II. (A.D. 610-640) who founded the Gujarát branch family. It has been usually supposed that the Jayasimha of our grant was a younger brother of Pulakesi II.: but this also is chronologically impossible: for Jayasimha can hardly have been more than ten years of age in A.D. 597-98, when his elder brother was set aside as too young to rule. His son Buddhavarmman could hardly have been born before A.D. 610, so that Buddhavarmman's son Vijayarája must have made his grant at the age of twelve at latest. The true solution of the question seems to be that given by Dr. Bhandárkar in his Early History of the Deccan (page 42 note 7), namely that the grant is a forgery. To the reasons advanced by him may be added the fact pointed out by Mr. Fleet (Ind. Ant. VII. 251) that the grant is a palimpsest, the engraver having originally commenced it "Svasti Vijayavikshepán Na." It can hardly be doubted that Na is the first syllable of Nándípurí the palace of the Gurjjara kings. Many of the grantees were Bráhmans of Jambusar and subjects of Dadda II. of Broach, whose grants to them are extant. It seems obvious that Vijayarája's grant was forged in the interest of these persons by some one who had Gurjjara grants before him as models, but knew very little of the forms used in the chancery of the Chálukyas.
Setting aside this grant, the first genuine trace of Chálukya rule in Gujarát is to be found in the grant of the Sendraka chief Nikumbhallasakti, which bears date Sam. 406 (A.D. 654-5) and relates to the gift to a Bráhman of the village of Balisa (Wanesa) in the Treyanna (Ten) district. Dr. Bühler has shown (Ind. Ant. XVIII. page 265ff) that the Sendrakas were a Kánarese family, and that Nikumbhallasakti must have come to Gujarát as a Chálukya feudatory, though he names no overlord. He was doubtless subordinate to the Chálukya governor of Násik.
The next grant that requires notice is that of Nágavarddhana, who describes himself distinctly as the son of Pulakesi's brother Jayasimha, though Dr. Bhagvánlál believed this Jayasimha to be Pulakesi's son. Mr. Fleet points out other difficulties connected with this grant, but on the whole decides in favour of its genuineness (see Ind. Ant. IX. 123). The description of Pulakesi II. in this grant refers to his victory over Harshavarddhana, but also describes him as having conquered the three kingdoms of Chera, Chola, and Pándya by means of his horse of the Chitrakantha breed, and as meditating on the feet of Sri Nágavarddhana. Now all of these epithets, except the reference to Harshavarddhana, belong properly, not to Pulakesi II. but to his son Vikramáditya I. The conquest of the confederacy of Cholas, Cheras (or Keralas), and Pándyas is ascribed to Vikramáditya in the inscriptions of his son Vinayáditya (Fleet in Ind. Ant. X. 134): the Chitrakantha horse is named in Vikramáditya's own grants (Ind. Ant. VI. 75 &c.) while his meditation upon the feet of Nágavarddhana recurs in the T. 421 grant of Sryásraya Síláditya (B. B. R. A. S. XVI. 1ff). This confusion of epithets between Pulakesi II. and Vikramáditya makes it difficult to doubt that Nágavarddhana's grant was composed either during or after Vikramáditya's reign, and under the influence of that king's grants. It may be argued that even in that case the grant may be genuine, its inconsistencies being due merely to carelessness. This supposition the following considerations seem too negative. Pulakesi II. was alive at the time of Hiuen Tsiang's visit (A.D. 640), but is not likely to have reigned very much longer. And, as Vikramáditya's reign is supposed to have begun about A.D. 669-70, a gap remains of nearly thirty years. That part of this period was occupied by the war with the three kings of the south we know from Vikramáditya's own grants: but the grant of Sryásraya Síláditya referred to above seems to show that Vikramáditya was the successor, not of his father, but of Nágavarddhana upon whose feet he is described as meditating. It follows that Nágavarddhana succeeded Pulakesi and preceded Vikramáditya on the imperial throne of the Chálukyas whereas his grant could not have been composed until the reign of Vikramáditya.
Although the grant is not genuine, we have no reason to doubt that it gives a correct genealogy, and that Nágavarddhana was the son of Pulakesi's brother Jayasimha and therefore the first cousin of Vikramáditya. The grant is in the regular Chálukya style, and the writer, living near the Northern Chálukya capital, Násik, had better models than the composer of Vijayarája's grant. Both grants may have been composed about the time when the Chálukya power succumbed to the attacks of the Ráshtrakútas (A.D. 743).--(A. M. T. J.)
X. THE GURJJARAS
(A.D. 580-808.)
During Valabhi and Chálukya ascendancy a small Gurjjara kingdom flourished in and about Broach. As has been noticed in the Valabhi chapter the Gurjjaras were a foreign tribe who came to Gujarát from Northern India. All the available information regarding the Broach Gurjjaras comes from nine copperplates, [393] three of them forged, all obtained from South Gujarát. These plates limit the regular Gurjjara territory to the Broach district between the Mahí and the Narbadá, though at times their power extended north to Khedá and south to the Tápti. Like the grants of the contemporary Gujarát Chálukyas all the genuine copperplates are dated in the Traikútaka era which begins in A.D. 249-50. [394] The Gurjjara capital seems to have been Nándípurí or Nándor, [395] the modern Nándod the capital of Rájpipla in Rewa Kántha about thirty-four miles east of Broach. Two of their grants issue Nándípurítah [396] that is 'from Nándípurí' like the Valabhítah or 'from Valabhi' of the Valabhi copperplates, a phrase which in both cases seems to show the place named was the capital since in other Gurjjara grants the word vásaka or camp occurs. [397]
[Copperplates.] Though the Gurjjaras held a considerable territory in South Gujarát their plates seem to show they were not independent rulers. The general titles are either Samadhigata-panchamahásabada 'He who has attained the five great titles,' or Sámanta Feudatory. In one instance Jayabhata III. who was probably a powerful ruler is called Sámantádhipati [398] Lord of Feudatories. It is hard to say to what suzerain these Broach Gurjjaras acknowledged fealty. Latterly they seem to have accepted the Chálukyas on the south as their overlords. But during the greater part of their existence they may have been feudatories of the Valabhi dynasty, who, as mentioned above were probably Gurjjaras who passed from Málwa to South Gujarát and thence by sea to Valabhi leaving a branch in South Gujarát.
The facts that in A.D. 649 (Valabhi 330) a Valabhi king had a 'camp of victory' at Broach where Ranagraha's plate [399] shows the Gurjjaras were then ruling and that the Gurjjara king Dadda II. gave shelter to a Valabhi king establish a close connection between Valabhi and the Nándod Gurjjaras.
Their copperplates and seals closely resemble the plates and seals of the Gujarát Chálukyas. The characters of all but the forged grants are like those of Gujarát Chálukya grants and belong to the Gujarát variety of the Southern India style. At the same time it is to be noted that the royal signature at the end of the plates is of the northern type, proving that the Gurjjaras were originally northerners. The language of most of the grants is Sanskrit prose as in Valabhi plates in a style curiously like the style of the contemporary author Bána in his great works the Kádambarí and Harshacharita. From this it may be inferred that Bána's style was not peculiar to himself but was the style in general use in India at that time.
[Gurjjara Tree.] The following is the Gurjjara family tree:
Dadda I. A.D. 580. | Jayabhata I. A.D. 605. | Dadda II. A.D. 633. | Jayabhata II. A.D. 655. | Dadda III. A.D. 680. | Jayabhata III. A.D. 706-734.
A recently published grant [400] made by Nirihullaka, the chieftain of a jungle tribe in the lower valley of the Narbadá, shows that towards the end of the sixth century A.D. that region was occupied by wild tribes who acknowledged the supremacy of the Chedi or Kalachuri kings: a fact which accounts for the use of the Chedi or Traikútaka era in South Gujarát. Nirihullaka names with respect a king Sankarana, whom Dr. Bühler would identify with Sankaragana the father of the Kalachuri Buddhavarmman who was defeated by Mangalísa the Chálukya about A.D. 600. [401] Sankaragana himself must have flourished about A.D. 580, and the Gurjjara conquest must be subsequent to this date. Another new grant, [402] which is only a fragment and contains no king's name, but which on the ground of date (Sam. 346 = A.D. 594-5) and style may be safely attributed to the Gurjjara dynasty, shows that the Gurjjaras were established in the country within a few years of Sankaragana's probable date.
A still nearer approximation to the date of the Gurjjara conquest is suggested by the change in the titles of Dharasena I. of Valabhi, who in his grants of Samvat 252 [403] (A.D. 571) calls himself Mahárája, while in his grants of 269 and 270 [404] (A.D. 588 and 589), he adds the title of Mahásámanta, which points to subjection by some foreign power between A.D. 571 and A.D. 588. It seems highly probable that this power was that of the Gurjjaras of Bhínmál; and that their successes therefore took place between A.D. 580 and 588 or about A.D. 585.
[Dadda I. C. 585-605 A.D.] The above mentioned anonymous grant of the year 346 (A.D. 594-95) is ascribed with great probability to Dadda I. who is known from the two Khedá grants of his grandson Dadda II. (C. 620-650 A.D.) [405] to have "uprooted the Nága" who must be the same as the jungle tribes ruled by Nirihullaka and are now represented by the Náikdás of the Panch Maháls and the Talabdas or Locals of Broach. The northern limit of Dadda's kingdom seems to have been the Vindhya, as the grant of 380 (A.D. 628-29) says that the lands lying around the feet of the Vindhya were for his pleasure. At the same time it appears that part at least of Northern Gujarát was ruled by the Mahásámanta Dharasena of Valabhi, who in Val. 270 (A.D. 589-90) granted a village in the áhára of Khetaka (Khedá). [406] Dadda is always spoken of as the Sámanta, which shows that while he lived his territory remained a part of the Gurjjara kingdom of Bhínmál. Subsequently North Gujarát fell into the hands of the Málava kings, to whom it belonged in Hiuen Tsiang's time (C. 640 A.D.). [407] Dadda I. is mentioned in the two Khedá grants of his grandson as a worshipper of the sun: the fragmentary grant of 346 (A.D. 594-95) which is attributed to him gives no historical details.
[Jayabhata I. Vítarága, C. 605-620 A.D.] Dadda I. was succeeded by his son Jayabhata I. who is mentioned in the Khedá grants as a victorious and virtuous ruler, and appears from his title of Vítarága the Passionless to have been a religious prince.
[Dadda II. Prasántarága, C. 620-650 A.D.] Jayabhata I. was succeeded by his son Dadda II. who bore the title of Prasántarága the Passion-calmed. Dadda was the donor of the two Khedá grants of 380 (A.D. 628-29) and 385 (A.D. 633-34), and a part of a grant made by his brother Ranagraha in the year 391 (A.D. 639-40) has lately been published. [408] Three forged grants purporting to have been issued by him are dated respectively Saka 400 (A.D. 478), Saka 415 (A.D. 493), and Saka 417 (A.D. 495). [409] Both of the Khedá grants relate to the gift of the village of Siríshapadraka (Sisodra) in the Akrúresvara (Anklesvar) vishaya to certain Bráhmans of Jambusar and Broach. In Ranagraha's grant the name of the village is lost.
Dadda II.'s own grants describe him as having attained the five great titles, and praise him in general terms: and both he and his brother Ranagraha sign their grants as devout worshippers of the sun. Dadda II. heads the genealogy in the later grant of 456 (A.D. 704-5), [410] which states that he protected "the lord of Valabhi who had been defeated by the great lord the illustrious Harshadeva." The event referred to must have been some expedition of the great Harshavardhana of Kanauj (A.D. 607-648), perhaps the campaign in which Harsha was defeated on the Narbadá by Pulakesi II. (which took place before A.D. 634). The protection given to the Valabhi king is perhaps referred to in the Khedá grants in the mention of "strangers and suppliants and people in distress." If this is the case the defeat of Valabhi took place before A.D. 628-29, the date of the earlier of the Khedá grants. On the other hand, the phrase quoted is by no means decisive, and the fact that in Hiuen Tsiang's time Dhruvasena of Valabhi was son-in-law of Harsha's son, makes it unlikely that Harsha should have been at war with him. It follows that the expedition referred to may have taken place in the reign of Dharasena IV. who may have been the son of Dhruvasena by another wife than Harsha's granddaughter.
To Dadda II.'s reign belongs Hiuen Tsiang's notice of the kingdom of Broach (C. 640 A.D.). [411] He says "all their profit is from the sea" and describes the country as salt and barren, which is still true of large tracts in the west and twelve hundred years ago was probably the condition of a much larger area than at present. Hiuen Tsiang does not say that Broach was subject to any other kingdom, but it is clear from the fact that Dadda bore the five great titles that he was a mere feudatory. At this period the valuable port of Broach, from which all their profit was made, was a prize fought for by all the neighbouring powers. With the surrounding country of Láta, Broach submitted to Pulakesi II. (A.D. 610-640): [412] it may afterwards have fallen to the Málava kings, to whom in Hiuen Tsiang's time (A.D. 640) both Khedá (K'ie-ch'a) and Ánandapura (Vadnagar) belonged; later it was subject to Valabhi, as Dharasena IV. made a grant at Broach in V.S. 330 (A.D. 649-50). [413]
Knowledge of the later Gurjjaras is derived exclusively from two grants of Jayabhata III. dated respectively 456 (A.D. 704-5) and 486 (A.D. 734-5). [414] The later of these two grants is imperfect, only the last plate having been preserved. The earlier grant of 456 (A.D. 704-5) shows that during the half century following the reign of Dadda II. the dynasty had ceased to call themselves Gurjjaras, and had adopted a Puránic pedigree traced from king Karna, a hero of the Bhárata war. It also shows that from Dadda III. onward the family were Saivas instead of sun-worshippers.
[Jayabhata II. C. 650-675 A.D.] The successor of Dadda II. was his son Jayabhata II. who is described as a warlike prince, but of whom no historical details are recorded.
[Dadda III. Báhusaháya, C. 675-700.] Jayabhata's son, Dadda III. Báhusaháya, is described as waging wars with the great kings of the east and of the west (probably Málava and Valabhi). He was the first Saiva of the family, studied Manu's works, and strictly enforced "the duties of the varnas or castes and of the ásramas or Bráhman stages." It was probably to him that the Gurjjaras owed their Puránic pedigree and their recognition as true Kshatriyas. Like his predecessors, Dadda III. was not an independent ruler. He could claim only the five great titles, though no hint is given who was his suzerain. His immediate superior may have been Jayasimha the Chálukya, who received the province of Láta from his brother Vikramáditya (c. 669-680 A.D.) [415]
[Jayabhata III. c. 704-734 A.D.] The son and successor of Dadda III. was Jayabhata III. whose two grants of 456 (A.D. 704-5) and 486 (A.D. 734-5) [416] must belong respectively to the beginning and the end of his reign. He attained the five great titles, and was therefore a feudatory, probably of the Chálukyas: but his title of Mahásámantádhipati implies that he was a chief of importance. He is praised in vague terms, but the only historical event mentioned in his grants is a defeat of a lord of Valabhi, noted in the grant of 486 (A.D. 734-5). The Valabhi king referred to must be either Síláditya IV. (A.D. 691) or Síláditya V. (A.D. 722). During the reign of Jayabhata III. took place the great Arab invasion which was repulsed by Pulakesi Janásraya at Navsárí. [417] Like the kingdoms named in the grant of Pulakesi, Broach must have suffered from this raid. It is not specially mentioned probably because it formed part of Pulakesi's territory.
After A.D. 734-5 no further mention occurs of the Gurjjaras of Broach. Whether the dynasty was destroyed by the Arabs or by the Gujarát Ráshtrakútas (A.D. 750) is not known. Later references to Gurjjaras in Ráshtrakúta times refer to the Gurjjaras of Bhínmál not to the Gurjjaras of Broach, who, about the time of Dadda III. (C. 675-700 A.D.), ceased to call themselves Gurjjaras.
A few words must be said regarding the three grants from Iláo, Umetá, and Bagumrá (Ind. Ant. XIII. 116, VII. 61, and XVII. 183) as their genuineness has been assumed by Dr. Bühler in his recent paper on the Mahábhárata, in spite of Mr. Fleet's proof (Ind. Ant. XVIII. 19) that their dates do not work out correctly.
Dr. Bhagvánlál's (Ind. Ant. XIII. 70) chief grounds for holding that the Umetá and Iláo grants (the Bagumrá grant was unknown to him) were forgeries were:
(1) Their close resemblance in palæography to one another and to the forged grant of Dharasena II. of Valabhi dated Saka 400; (2) That though they purport to belong to the fifth century they bear the same writer's name as the Khedá grants of the seventh century.
Further Mr. Fleet (Ind. Ant. XIII. 116) pointed out:
(3) That the description of Dadda I. in the Iláo and Umetá grants agrees almost literally with that of Dadda II. in the Khedá grants, and that where it differs the Khedá grants have the better readings.
To these arguments Dr. Bühler has replied (Ind. Ant. XVII. 183):
(1) That though there is a resemblance between these grants and that of Dharasena II., still it does not prove more than that the forger of Dharasena's grant had one of the other grants before him; (2) That, as the father's name of the writer is not given in the Khedá grants, it cannot be assumed that he was the same person as the writer of the Iláo and Umetá grants; and (3) That genuine grants sometimes show that a description written for one king is afterwards applied to another, and that good or bad readings are no test of the age of a grant.
It may be admitted that Dr. Bühler has made it probable that the suspected grants and the grant of Dharasena were not all written by the same hand, and also that the coincidence in the writer's name is not of much importance in itself. But the palæographical resemblance between Dharasena's grant on the one hand and the doubtful Gurjjara grants on the other is so close that they must have been written at about the same time. As to the third point, the verbal agreement between the doubtful grants on the one hand and the Khedá grants on the other implies the existence of a continuous tradition in the record office of the dynasty from the end of the fifth till near the middle of the seventh century. But the Sankhedá grant of Nirihullaka (Ep. Ind. II. 21) shows that towards the end of the sixth century the lower Narbadá valley was occupied by jungle tribes who acknowledged the supremacy of the Kalachuris. Is it reasonable to suppose that after the first Gurjjara line was thus displaced, the restorers of the dynasty should have had any memory of the forms in which the first line drew up their grants? At any rate, if they had, they would also have retained their original seal, which, as the analogy of the Valabhi plates teaches us, would bear the founder's name. But we find that the seal of the Khedá plates bears the name "Sámanta Dadda," who can be no other than the "Sámanta Dadda" who ruled from C. 585-605 A.D. It follows that the Gurjjaras of the seventh century themselves traced back their history in Broach no further than A.D. 585. Again, it has been pointed out in the text that a passage in the description of Dadda II. (A.D. 620-650) in the Khedá grants seems to refer to his protection of the Valabhi king, so that the description must have been written for him and not for the fifth century Dadda as Dr. Bühler's theory requires.
These points coupled with Mr. Fleet's proof (Ind. Ant. XVIII. 91) that the Saka dates do not work out correctly, may perhaps be enough to show that none of these three grants can be relied upon as genuine.--(A. M. T. J.)
XI. THE RÁSHTRAKÚTAS
(A.D. 743-974.)
The Ráshtrakúta connection with Gujarát lasted from Saka 665 to 894 (A.D. 743-974) that is for 231 years. The connection includes three periods: A first of sixty-five years from Saka 665 to 730 (A.D. 743-808) when the Gujarát ruler was dependent on the main Dakhan Ráshtrakúta: a second of eighty years between Saka 730 and 810 (A.D. 808-888) when the Gujarát family was on the whole independent: and a third of eighty-six years Saka 810 to 896 (A.D. 888-974) when the Dakhan Ráshtrakútas again exercised direct sway over Gujarát.
[Their Origin.] Information regarding the origin of the Ráshtrakútas is imperfect. That the Gujarát Ráshtrakútas came from the Dakhan in Saka 665 (A.D. 743) is known. It is not known who the Dakhan Ráshtrakútas originally were or where or when they rose to prominence. Ráthod the dynastic name of certain Kanauj and Márwár Rájputs represents a later form of the word Ráshtrakúta. Again certain of the later inscriptions call the Ráshtrakútas Rattas a word which, so far as form goes, is hardly a correct Prakrit contraction of Ráshtrakúta. The Sanskritisation of tribal names is not exact. If the name Ratta was strange it might be pronounced Ratta, Ratha, or Raddi. This last form almost coincides with the modern Kánarese caste name Reddi, which, so far as information goes, would place the Ráshtrakútas among the tribes of pre-Sanskrit southern origin.
[Their Name.] If Ratta is the name of the dynasty kúta or kúda may be an attribute meaning prominent. The combination Ráshtrakúta would then mean the chiefs or leaders as opposed to the rank and file of the Rattas. The bardic accounts of the origin of the Ráthods of Kanauj and Márwár vary greatly. According to a Jain account the Ráthods, whose name is fancifully derived from the raht or spine of Indra, are connected with the Yavans through an ancestor Yavanasva prince of Párlipur. The Ráthod genealogies trace their origin to Kusa son of Ráma of the Solar Race. The bards of the Solar Race hold them to be descendants of Hiranya Kasipu by a demon or daitya mother. Like the other great Rájput families the Ráthods' accounts contain no date earlier than the fifth century A.D. when (A.D. 470, S. 526) Náin Pál is said to have conquered Kanauj slaying its monarch Ajipál. [418] The Dakhan Ráshtrakútas (whose earliest known date is also about A.D. 450) call themselves of the Lunar Race and of the Yadu dynasty. Such contradictions leave only one of two origins to the tribe. They were either foreigners or southerners Bráhmanised and included under the all-embracing term Rájput.
[Early Dynasty, A.D. 450-500.] Of the rise of the Ráshtrakútas no trace remains. The earliest known Ráshtrakúta copperplate is of a king Abhimanyu. This plate is not dated. Still its letters, its style of writing, and its lion seal, older than the Garuda mark which the Ráshtrakútas assumed along with the claim of Yádava descent, leave no doubt that this is the earliest of known Ráshtrakúta plates. Its probable date is about A.D. 450. The plate traces the descent of Abhimanyu through two generations from Mánánka. The details are:
Mánánka. | Devarája. | Bhavishya. | Abhimanyu.
The grant is dated from Mánapura, perhaps Mánánka's city, probably an older form of Mányakheta the modern Málkhed the capital of the later Ráshtrakútas about sixty miles south-east of Sholápur. These details give fair ground for holding the Mánánkas to be a family of Ráshtrakúta rulers earlier than that which appears in the usual genealogy of the later Ráshtrakúta dynasty (A.D. 500-972).
[The Main Dynasty, A.D. 630-972.] The earliest information regarding the later Ráshtrakútas is from a comparatively modern, and therefore not quite trustworthy, Chálukya copperplate of the eleventh century found by Mr. Wathen. This plate states that Jayasimha I. the earliest Chálukya defeated the Ráshtrakúta Indra son of Krishna the lord of 800 elephants. The date of this battle would be about A.D. 500. If historic the reference implies that the Ráshtrakútas were then a well established dynasty. In most of their own plates the genealogy of the Ráshtrakútas begins with Govinda about A.D. 680. But that Govinda was not the founder of the family is shown by Dantidurga's Elura Dasávatára inscription (about A.D. 750) which gives two earlier names Dantivarmman and Indra. The founding of Ráshtrakúta power is therefore of doubtful date. Of the date of its overthrow there is no question. The overthrow came from the hand of the Western Chálukya Tailappa in Saka 894 (A.D. 972) during the reign of the last Ráshtrakúta Kakka III. or Kakkala.
[Ráshtrakúta Family Tree, A.D. 630-972.] The following is the Ráshtrakúta family tree:
1 Dantivarmman | (about A.D. 630). | 2 Indra I. | (about A.D. 655). | 3 Govinda I. | (about A.D. 680). | 4 Kakka I. or Karka I. | (about A.D. 705). | ---------------------------------- | | | 5 Indra II. Dhruva. 7 Krishna (about A.D. 730). | (about A.D. 765). | Govinda. | 6 Dantidurga, | | Dantivarmman Kakka II. | (Saka 675, A.D. 753). Saka 669 | (A.D. 747). | | ------------------------- | | 8 Govinda II. 9 Dhruva, Dhárávarsha, (about A.D. 780). Nirupama, Dhora, (about A.D. 795). | -------------------------------------- | | 10 Govinda III. Prabhútavarsha I. Indra (founder of Vallabhanarendra, Jagattunga Gujarát Branch). Prithivívallabha, | (Saka 725, 728, 729, --------------------- A.D. 803, 806, 807). | | | II. Karka III. Govinda 11 Amoghavarsha (Saka 734, 738, 743, Prabhútavarsha, Sarvva, Durlabha Srívallabha; A.D. 812, 816, 821). (Saka 749, Lakshmívallabha, | A.D. 827). Vallabha Skanda, -------------------- (Saka 773, 799, A.D. 851, 877). | | | Dantivarmman IV. Dhruva I. 12 Akálavarsha (?) Dhárávarsha, Krishna II. Kannara | Nirupama, (about A.D. 880-911). VII. Akálavarsha-Krishna (Saka 757, | (Saka 810, A.D. 835). Jagattunga A.D. 888). | (did not reign.) V. Akálavarsha | Subhatunga, | (A.D. 867). | | | VI. Dhruva II. | (Saka 789, 793, ---------------------------------- A.D. 867, 871). | | 13 Indra III. Prithivívallabha 16 Baddiga Rattakandarpa, Kirttináráyana | Nityamvarsha (Saka 836, A.D. 914). ------------------------ | | | | ----------------- 17 Krishna 19 Kottiga. Nirupama. | | (S. 867, 878 | 14 Amoghavarsha 15 Govindarája A.D. 945, 956). Kakkala Sáhasánka or Karkarája Suvarnavarsha. (Saka 894, A.D. 972).
[Copperplates.] The earliest Gujarát Ráshtrakúta grant, Kakka's of Saka 669 (A.D. 747), comes from Ántroli-Chároli in Surat. It is written on two plates in the Valabhi style of composition and form of letters, and, as in Valabhi grants, the date is at the end. Unlike Valabhi grants the era is the Saka era. The grant gives the following genealogy somewhat different from that of other known Ráshtrakúta grants:
Kakka. | Dhruva. | Govinda. | Kakka II. (Saka 669, A.D. 747).
[Kakka II. A.D. 747.] The plate notices that Kakka the grantor was the son of Govinda by his wife the daughter of the illustrious Nágavarmman. Kakka is further described by the feudatory title 'Samadhigatapanchmahásabdah' Holder of the five great names. At the same time he is also called Paramabhattáraka-Mahárája Great Lord Great King, attributes which seem to imply a claim to independent power. The grant is dated the bright seventh of Ásvayuja, Saka 669 (A.D. 747). The date is almost contemporary with the year of Dantidurga in the Sámangad plate (A.D. 753). As Dantidurga was a very powerful monarch we may identify the first Kakka of this plate with Kakka I. the grandfather of Dantidurga and thus trace from Dhruva Kakka's son a branch of feudatory Ráshtrakútas ruling in Málwa or Gujarát, whose leaders were Dhruva, his son Govinda, and Govinda's son Kakka II. Further Dantidurga's grant shows that he conquered Central Gujarát between the Mahí and the Narbadá [419] while his Elura Dasávatára inscription (A.D. 750) shows that he held Láta and Málava. [420] Dantidurga's conquest of Central Gujarát seems to have been signalised by grants of land made by his mother in every village of the Mátri division which is apparently the Mátar táluka of the Kaira district. [421] It is possible that Dantidurga gave conquered Gujarát to his paternal cousin's son and contemporary Kakka, the grantor of the Ántroli plate (A.D. 747), as the representative of a family ruling somewhere under the overlordship of the main Dakhan Ráshtrakútas. Karka's Baroda grant [422] (A.D. 812) supports this theory. Dantidurga died childless and was succeeded by his uncle Krishna. Of this Krishna the Baroda grant says that he assumed the government for the good of the family after having rooted out a member of the family who had taken to mischief-making. It seems probable that Kakka II. the grantor of the Ántroli plate is the mischief-maker and that his mischief was, on the death of Dantidurga, the attempt to secure the succession to himself. Krishna frustrated Kakka's attempt and rooted him out so effectively that no trace of Kakka's family again appears.
[Krishna and Govinda II. A.D. 765-795.] From this it follows that, so far as is known, the Ráshtrakúta conquest of Gujarát begins with Dantidurga's conquest of Láta, that is South Gujarát between the Mahí and the Narbadá, from the Gurjjara king Jayabhata whose latest known date is A.D. 736 or seventeen years before the known date of Dantidurga. The Gurjjaras probably retired to the Rájpipla hills and further east on the confines of Málwa where they may have held a lingering sway. [423] No Gujarát event of importance is recorded during the reign of Krishna (A.D. 765) or of his son Govinda II. (A.D. 780) who about A.D. 795 was superseded by his powerful younger brother Dhruva. [424]
[Dhruva I. A.D. 795.] Dhruva was a mighty monarch whose conquests spread from South India as far north as Allahábád. During Dhruva's lifetime his son Govinda probably ruled at Mayúrakhandi or Morkhanda in the Násik district and held the Ghát country and the Gujarát coast from Balsár northwards. Though according to a Kapadvanj grant Govinda had several brothers the Rádhanpur (A.D. 808) and Van-Dindori (A.D. 808) grants of his son Govinda III. state that his father, seeing Govinda's supernatural Krishna-like powers, offered him the sovereignty of the whole world. Govinda declined, saying, The Kanthiká or coast tract already given to me is enough. Seeing that Mayúrakhandi or Morkhanda in Násik was Govinda's capital, this Kanthiká appears to be the coast from Balsár northwards.
[Govinda III. A.D. 800-808.] According to Gujarát Govinda's (A.D. 827-833) Káví grant (A.D. 827), finding his power threatened by Stambha and other kings, Dhruva made the great Govinda independent during his own lifetime. This suggests that while Dhruva continued to hold the main Ráshtrakúta sovereignty in the Dakhan, he probably invested Govinda with the sovereignty of Gujarát. This fact the Káví grant (A.D. 827) being a Gujarát grant would rightly mention while it would not find a place in the Rádhanpur (A.D. 808) and Van-Dindori (A.D. 808) grants of the main Ráshtrakútas. Of the kings who opposed Govinda the chief was Stambha who may have some connection with Cambay, as, during the time of the Anahilaváda kings, Cambay came to be called Stambha-tírtha instead of by its old name of Gambhútá. According to the grants the allied chiefs were no match for Govinda. The Gurjjara fled through fear, not returning even in dreams, and the Málava king submitted. Who the Gurjjara was it is hard to say. He may have belonged to some Gurjjara dynasty that rose to importance after Dantidurga's conquest or the name may mean a ruler of the Gurjjara country. In either case some North Gujarát ruler is meant whose conquest opened the route from Broach to Málwa. From Málwa Govinda marched to the Vindhyas where the king apparently of East Málwa named Márá Sarva submitted to Govinda paying tribute. From the Vindhyas Govinda returned to Gujarát passing the rains at Sríbhavana, [425] apparently Sarbhon in the Ámod táluka of Broach, a favourite locality which he had ruled during his father's lifetime. After the rains Govinda went south as far as the Tungabhadra. On starting for the south Govinda handed Gujarát to his brother Indra with whom begins the Gujarát branch of the Ráshtrakútas. Several plates distinctly mention that Indra was given the kingdom of the lord of Láta by (his brother) Govinda. Other Gujarát grants, apparently with intent to show that Indra won Gujarát and did not receive it in gift, after mentioning Sarvva Amoghavarsha as the successor of Govinda (A.D. 818), state that the king (apparently of Gujarát) was Sarvva's uncle Indra.
[Indra, A.D. 808-812.] As Govinda III. handed Gujarát to his brother Indra about Saka 730 (A.D. 808) and as the grant of Indra's son Karka is dated Saka 734 (A.D. 812) Indra's reign must have been short. Indra is styled the ruler of the entire kingdom of Látesvara, [426] the protector of the mandala of Láta given to him by his lord. An important verse in an unpublished Baroda grant states that Indra chased the lord of Gurjjara who had prepared to fight, and that he honourably protected the multitude of Dakhan (Dakshinápatha) feudatories (mahásámantas) whose glory was shattered by Srívallabha (that is Sarvva or Amoghavarsha) [427] then heir-apparent of Govinda. That is, in attempting to establish himself in independent power, Indra aided certain of the Ráshtrakúta feudatories in an effort to shake off the overlordship of Amoghavarsha.
[Karka I. A.D. 812-821.] Indra was succeeded by his son Karka I. who is also called Suvarnavarsha and Pátálamalla. Karka reversed his father's policy and loyally accepted the overlordship of the main Ráshtrakútas. Three grants of Karka's remain, the Baroda grant dated Saka 734 (A.D. 812), and two unpublished grants from Navsárí and Surat dated respectively Saka 738 (A.D. 816) and Saka 743 (A.D. 821). Among Doctor Bhagvánlál's collection of inscriptions bequeathed to the British Museum the Baroda grant says that Karka's svámi or lord, apparently Govinda III., made use of Karka's arm to protect the king of Málava against invasion by the king of Gurjjara who had become puffed up by conquering the lords of Gauda and Vanga that is modern Bengal. This powerful Gurjjara king who conquered countries so distant as Bengal has not been identified. He must have been ruling north of the Mahí and threatened an invasion of Málwa by way of Dohad. He may have been either a Valabhi king or one of the Bhinmál Gurjjaras, who, during the decline of the Valabhis, and with the help of their allies the Chávadás of Anahilaváda whose leader at this time was Yog Rája (A.D. 806-841), may have extended their dominion as far south as the Mahí. As the Baroda plate (A.D. 812) makes no mention of Amoghavarsha-Sarvva while the Navsárí plate (A.D. 816) mentions him as the next king after Govinda III. it follows that Govinda III. died and Amoghavarsha succeeded between A.D. 812 and 816 (S. 734 and 738). This supports Mr. Fleet's conclusion, on the authority of Amoghavarsha's Sirur inscription, that he came to the throne in Saka 736 (A.D. 814). At first Amoghavarsha was unable to make head against the opposition of some of his relations and feudatories, supported, as noted above, by Karka's father Indra. He seems to have owed his subsequent success to his cousin Karka whom an unpublished Surat grant and two later grants (S. 757 and S. 789, A.D. 835 and 867) describe as establishing Amoghavarsha in his own place after conquering by the strength of his arm arrogant tributary Ráshtrakútas who becoming firmly allied to each other had occupied provinces according to their own will.
Karka's Baroda plates (S. 734, A.D. 812) record the grant of Baroda itself called Vadapadraka in the text. Baroda is easily identified by the mention of the surrounding villages of Jambuváviká the modern Jámbuváda on the east, of Ankottaka the modern Ákotá on the west, and of Vaggháchchha perhaps the modern Vághodia on the north. The writer of the grant is mentioned as the great minister of peace and war Nemáditya son of Durgabhatta, and the Dútaka or grantor is said to be Rájaputra that is prince Dantivarmman apparently a son of Karka. The grantee is a Bráhman originally of Valabhi.
Karka's Navsárí grant (S. 738, A.D. 816) is made from Khedá and records the gift of the village of Samípadraka in the country lying between the Mahí and the Narbadá. The grantee is a South Indian Bráhman from Bádámi in Bijápur, a man of learning popularly known as Pandita Vallabharája because he was proficient in the fourteen Vidyás. The Dútaka of this grant is a South Indian bhata or military officer named the illustrious Dronamma.
Karka's Surat grant (S. 743, A.D. 821) is made from the royal camp on the bank of the Vankiká apparently the Vánki creek near Balsár. It records the grant of a field in Ambápátaka village near Nágasárika (Navsárí) to a Jain temple at Nágariká, (Navsárí). The writer of the grant is the minister of war and peace Náráyana son of Durgabhatta. As this is the first grant by a Gujarát Ráshtrakúta of lands south of the Tápti it may be inferred that in return for his support Amoghavarsha added to Karka's territory the portion of the North Konkan which now forms Gujarát south of the Tápti.
[Dantivarmman, Heir Apparent.] According to Karka's Baroda plate (S. 734, A.D. 812) Karka had a son named Dantivarmman who is mentioned as the princely Dútaka of the plate. The fact of being a Dútaka implies that Dantivarmman was then of age. That Dantivarmman was a son of Karka is supported by Akálavarsha's Bagumrá plate (S. 810, A.D. 888), where, though the plate is badly composed and the grammar is faulty, certain useful details are given regarding Dantivarmman who is clearly mentioned as the son of Karka. Karka had another son named Dhruva, who, according to three copperplates, succeeded to the throne. But as Dantivarmman's son's grant is dated Saka 810 or seventy-six years later than the Baroda plate some error seems to have crept into the genealogy of the plate. Neither Dantivarmman nor Dhruva seems to have succeeded their father as according to Govinda's Káví grant (A.D. 827) their uncle Govinda succeeded his brother Karka. The explanation may be that Dantivarmman died during his father's lifetime, and that some years later, after a great yearning for a son, [428] probably in Karka's old age, a second son Dhruva was born, during whose minority, after Karka's death, Govinda appears to have temporarily occupied the throne.
[Govinda, A.D. 827-833.] This Govinda, the brother and successor of Karka, was also called Prabhútavarsha. One plate of Govinda's Káví grant is dated Saka 749 (A.D. 827). It gives no details regarding Govinda. The grant is made from Broach and records the gift of a village [429] to a temple of the Sun called Jayáditya in Kotipur near Kápiká that is Káví thirty miles north of Broach. The writer of the grant is Yogesvara son of Avalokita and the Dútaka or grantor was one Bhatta Kumuda. As it contains no reference to Govinda's succession the plate favours the view that Govinda remained in power only during the minority of his nephew Dhruva.
[Dhruva I. A.D. 835-867.] This Dhruva, who is also called Nirupama and Dhárávarsha, is mentioned as ruler in a Baroda grant dated Saka 757 (A.D. 835). [430] He therefore probably came to the throne either on attaining his majority in the lifetime of his uncle and predecessor Govinda or after Govinda's death. Dhruva's Baroda grant (S. 757, A.D. 835) is made from a place called Sarvvamangalá near Khedá and records the gift of a village to a Bráhman named Yoga [431] of Badarasidhi apparently Borsad. The writer of the grant is mentioned as the minister of peace and war, Náráyana son of Durgabhatta, and the Dútaka or grantor is the illustrious Devarája. Dhruva seems to have abandoned his father's position of loyal feudatory to the main Ráshtrakútas. According to a copperplate dated Saka 832 (A.D. 910) Vallabha that is Amoghavarsha, also called the illustrious great Skanda, sent an army and besieged and burned the Kanthiká that is the coast tract between Bombay and Cambay. In the course of this campaign, according to Dhruva II.'s Bagumrá grant (S. 789, A.D. 867), [432] Dhruva died on the field of battle covered with wounds while routing the army of Vallabha or Amoghavarsha. This statement is supported by a Kanheri cave inscription which shows that Amoghavarsha was still alive in Saka 799 (A.D. 877).
[Akálavarsha, A.D. 867.] Dhruva was succeeded by his son Akálavarsha also called Subhatunga. A verse in Dhruva II.'s Bagumrá grant (S 789, A.D. 867) says that Akálavarsha established himself in the territory of his father, which, after Dhruva's death in battle, had been overrun by the army of Vallabha and had been distracted by evil-minded followers and dependants. [433]
[Dhruva II. A.D. 867.] Akálavarsha was succeeded by his son Dhruva II. also called Dhárávarsha and Nirupama. Of Dhruva II. two copperplates remain the published Bagumrá grant dated Saka 789 [434] (A.D. 867) and an unpublished Baroda grant dated Saka 793 (A.D. 871). [435] Both plates record that Dhruva crushed certain intrigues among his relatives or bandhuvarga, and established himself firmly on the throne. Regarding the troubles at the beginning of his reign the Bagumrá plate states that on one side Vallabha the head of the Dakhan Ráshtrakútas was still against him; on another side Dhruva had to face an army of Gurjjaras instigated by a member of his own family [436]; thirdly he was opposed by certain of his relatives or bándhaváh; and lastly he had to contend against the intrigues of a younger brother or anuja. It further appears from Dhruva II.'s Bagumrá plate that he checked an inroad by a Mihira king with a powerful army. This Mihira king was probably a chief of the Káthiáváda Mehrs who on the downfall of the Valabhis spread their power across Gujarát. In all these troubles the Bagumrá grant notes that Dhruva was aided by a younger brother named Govindarája. This Govindarája is mentioned as appointed by Dhruva the Dútaka of the grant.
Dhruva II.'s Bagumrá (A.D. 867) grant was made at Bhrigu-Kachchha or Broach after bathing in the Narbadá. It records the gift to a Bráhman of the village of Páráhanaka, probably the village of Palsána [437] twelve miles south-east of Bagumrá in the Balesar subdivision of the Gáikwár's territory of Surat and Navsárí. Dhruva's Baroda grant (A.D. 871) was also made at Broach. It is a grant to the god Kapálesvara Mahádeva of the villages Konvalli and Nakkabhajja both mentioned as close to the south bank of the Mahí. The facts that the Bagumrá grant (A.D. 867) transfers a village so far south as Balesar near Navsárí and that four years later the Baroda grant (A.D. 871) mentions that Dhruva's territory lay between Broach and the Mahí seem to prove that between A.D. 867 and 871 the portion of Dhruva's kingdom south of Broach passed back into the hands of the main Ráshtrakútas.
[Akálavarsha-Krishna, A.D. 888.] The next and last known Gujarát Ráshtrakúta king is Akálavarsha-Krishna son of Dantivarmman. A grant of this king has been found in Bagumrá dated Saka 810 (A.D. 888). [438] The composition of the grant is so bad and the genealogical verses after Karka are so confused that it seems unsafe to accept any of its details except its date which is clearly Saka 810 (A.D. 888). It seems also improbable that the son of Dantivarmman who flourished in Saka 734 (A.D. 812) could be reigning in Saka 810 (A.D. 888) seventy-six years later. Still the sixty-three years' reign of the contemporary Mányakheta Ráshtrakúta Amoghavarsha (S. 736-799, A.D. 814-877) shows that this is not impossible.
The grant which is made from Anklesvar near Broach records the gift to two Bráhmans of the village of Kavithasádhi the modern Kosád four miles north-east of Surat, described as situated in the Variávi (the modern Variáv two miles north of Surat) sub-division of 116 villages in the province of Konkan. The grant is said to have been written by the peace and war minister the illustrious Jajjaka son of Kaluka, the Dútaka being the head officer (mahattamasarvádhikári) the Bráhman Ollaiyaka. [439] This grant seems to imply the recovery by the local dynasty of some portion of the disputed area to the south of the Tápti. This recovery must have been a passing success. After Saka 810 (A.D. 888) nothing is known of the Gujarát Ráshtrakútas. [Main Line Restored, A.D. 888-974.] And the re-establishment of the power of the Ráshtrakútas of Mányakheta of the main line in south Gujarát in Saka 836 (A.D. 914) is proved by two copperplates found in Navsárí which record the grant of villages near Navsárí, in what the text calls the Láta country, by king Indra Nityamvarsha son of Jagattunga and grandson of Krishna Akálavarsha. [440]
That Amoghavarsha's long reign lasted till Saka 799 (A.D. 877) is clear from the Kanheri cave inscription already referred to. His reign can hardly have lasted much longer; about Saka 800 (A.D. 878) may be taken to be its end.
[Krishna Akálavarsha, A.D. 888-914.] Amoghavarsha was succeeded by his son Krishna also called Akálavarsha, both his names being the same as those of the Gujarát Ráshtrakúta king of the same time (A.D. 888). [441] It has been noted above that, in consequence of the attempt of Karka's son Dhruva I. (A.D. 835-867) to establish his independence, Amoghavarsha's relations with the Gujarát Ráshtrakútas became extremely hostile and probably continued hostile till his death (A.D. 877). That Amoghavarsha's son Krishna kept up the hostilities is shown by Indra's two Navsárí plates of Saka 836 (A.D. 914) which mention his grandfather Krishna fighting with the roaring Gurjjara. [442] Regarding this fight the late Ráshtrakúta Kardá plate (S. 891, A.D. 973) further says that Krishna's enemies frightened by his exploits abandoned Khetaka, that is Khedá, with its Mandala and its forepart that is the surrounding country. Probably this roaring Gurjjara or king of Gujarát, was a northern ally called in by some Ráshtrakúta of the Gujarát branch, perhaps by Krishna's namesake the donor of the A.D. 888 Bagumrá grant. The Dakhan Krishna seems to have triumphed over his Gujarát namesake as henceforward South Gujarát or Láta was permanently included in the territory of the Dakhan Ráshtrakútas. [443]
At this time (A.D. 910) a grant from Kapadvanj dated S. 832 (A.D. 910) and published in Ep. Ind. I. 52ff. states that a mahásámanta or noble of Krishna Akálavarsha's named Prachanda, with his dandanáyaka Chandragupta, was in charge of a sub-division of 750 villages in the Khedá district at Harshapura apparently Harsol near Parántij. The grant gives the name of Prachanda's family as Bráhma-vaka (?) and states that the family gained its fortune or Lakshmí by the prowess of the feet of Akálavarsha, showing that the members of the family drew their authority from Akálavarsha. The grant mentions four of Prachanda's ancestors, all of whom have non-Gujarát Kánarese-looking names. Though not independent rulers Prachanda's ancestors seem to have been high Ráshtrakúta officers. The first is called Suddha-kkumbadi, the second his son Degadi, the third Degadi's son Rájahamsa, the fourth Rájahamsa's son Dhavalappa the father of Prachanda and Akkuka. The plate describes Rájahamsa as bringing back to his house its flying fortune as if he had regained lost authority. The plate describes Dhavalappa as killing the enemy in a moment and then giving to his lord the Mandala or kingdom which the combined enemy, desirous of glory, had taken. This apparently refers to Akálavarsha's enemies abandoning Khetaka with its Mandala as mentioned in the late Ráshtrakúta Kardá plate (A.D. 973). Dhavalappa is probably Akálavarsha's general who fought and defeated the roaring Gurjjara, a success which may have led to Dhavalappa being placed in military charge of Gujarát. [444] The Kapadvanj (A.D. 910) grant describes Dhavalappa's son Prachanda with the feudatory title 'Who has obtained the five great words.' Dr. Bhagvánlál believed Prachanda to be a mere epithet of Akkuka, and took Chandragupta to be another name of the same person, but the published text gives the facts as above stated. The grantee is a Bráhman and the grant is of the village of Vyághrása, perhaps Vágrá in Broach. [445] The plate describes Akkuka as gaining glory fighting in the battle field. A rather unintelligible verse follows implying that at this time the Sella-Vidyádharas, apparently the North Konkan Siláháras (who traced their lineage from the Vidyádharas) also helped Akálavarsha against his enemies, [446] probably by driving them from South Gujarát. The Siláhára king at this time would be Jhanjha (A.D. 916).
[Indra Nityamvarsha, A.D. 914.] Krishna or Akálavarsha had a son named Jagattunga who does not appear to have come to the throne. Other plates show that he went to Chedi the modern Bundelkhand and remained there during his father's lifetime. By Lakshmí the daughter of the king of Chedi, Jagattunga had a son named Indra also called Nityamvarsha Rattakandarpa. In both of Indra's Navsárí copperplates (A.D. 914) Indra is mentioned as Pádánudhyáta, Falling at the feet of, that is successor of, not his father but his grandfather Akálavarsha. [447] One historical attribute of Indra in both the plates is that "he uprooted in a moment the Mehr," [448] apparently referring to some contemporary Mehr king of North Káthiáváda. Both the Navsárí plates of Saka 836 (A.D. 914) note that the grants were made under peculiar conditions. The plates say that the donor Indra Nityamvarsha, with his capital at Mányakheta, had come to a place named Kurundaka for the pattabandha or investiture festival. It is curious that though Mányakheta is mentioned as the capital the king is described as having come to Kurundaka for the investiture. Kurundaka was apparently not a large town as the plates mention that it was given in grant. [449] At his investiture Indra made great gifts. He weighed himself against gold or silver, and before leaving the scales he gave away Kurundaka and other places, twenty and a half lákhs of dramma coins, and 400 villages previously granted but taken back by intervening kings. These details have an air of exaggeration. At the same time gifts of coins by lákhs are not improbable by so mighty a king as Indra and as to the villages the bulk of them had already been alienated. The fact of lavish grants is supported by the finding of these two plates of the same date recording grants of two different villages made on the same occasion, the language being the same, and also by a verse in the late Ráshtrakúta Kardá plate (S. 894, A.D. 972) where Indra is described as making numerous grants on copperplates and building many temples of Siva. [450] The date of Indra's grants (S. 836, A.D. 914) is the date of his investiture and accession. This is probable as the latest known date of his grandfather Krishna is Saka 833 [451] (A.D. 911) and we know that Indra's father Jagattunga did not reign. [452] Umvará and Tenna, the villages granted in the two investiture plates, are described as situated near Kammanijja the modern Kámlej in the Láta province. They are probably the modern villages of Umra near Sáyan four miles west of Kámlej, and of Tenna immediately to the west of Bárdoli, which last is mentioned under the form Váradapallikâ as the eastern boundary village. Dhruva II.'s Bagumrá plate (S. 789, A.D. 867) mentions Tenna as granted by Dhruva I. to a Bráhman named Dhoddi the father of the Nennapa who is the grantee of Dhruva II.'s A.D. 867 Bagumrá grant, whose son Siddhabhatta is the grantee of Indra's A.D. 914 grant. [453] The re-granting of so many villages points to the re-establishment of the main Ráshtrakúta power and the disappearance of the Gujarát branch of the Ráshtrakútas. [454]
Though no materials remain for fixing how long after A.D. 914 Gujarát belonged to the Mányakheta Ráshtrakútas, they probably continued to hold it till their destruction in Saka 894 (A.D. 972) by the Western Chálukya king Tailappa. This is the more likely as inscriptions show that till then the neighbours of Gujarát, the North Konkan Siláháras, acknowledged Ráshtrakúta supremacy.
It is therefore probable that Gujarát passed to the conquering Tailappa as part of the Ráshtrakúta kingdom. Further, as noted below in Part II. Chapter II., it seems reasonable to suppose that about Saka 900 (A.D. 978) Tailappa entrusted Gujarát to his general Bárappa or Dvárappa, who fought with the Solanki Múlarája of Anahilaváda (A.D. 961-997).
[The text does not carry the question of the origin of the Ráshtrakútas beyond the point that, about the middle of the fifth century A.D., two tribes bearing the closely associated names Ráthod and Ratta, the leaders of both of which are known in Sanskrit as Ráshtrakútas, appeared the first in Upper India the second in the Bombay Karnátak, and that the traditions of both tribes seem to show they were either southerners or foreigners Bráhmanised and included under the all-embracing term Rájput. The Sanskrit form Ráshtrakúta may mean either leaders of the Ráshtra tribe or heads of the territorial division named ráshtra. The closely related forms Ráshtrapati and Grámakúta occur (above page 82) in Valabhi inscriptions. And Mr. Fleet (Kánarese Dynasties, 32) notices that Ráshtrakúta is used in the inscriptions of many dynasties as a title equivalent to Ráshtrapati. Such a title might readily become a family name like that of the Sáhi Játs of the Panjáb or the Maráthi surnames Patel, Nadkarni, and Desái. It may be noted that one of the Márwár traditions (Rájputána Gazetteer, III. 246) connects the word Ráthod with Ráshtra country making the original form Ráshtravara or World-blessing and referring to an early tribal guardian Ráshtrasyena or the World-Falcon. It is therefore possible that the origin of both forms of the name, of Ráthod as well as of Ráshtrakúta, is the title ruler of a district. At the same time in the case of the southern Ráshtrakútas the balance of evidence is in support of a tribal origin of the name. The Rattas of Saundatti in Belgaum, apparently with justice, claim descent from the former Ráshtrakúta rulers (Belgaum Gazetteer, 355). Further that the Ráshtrakútas considered themselves to belong to the Ratta tribe is shown by Indra Nityamvarsha (A.D. 914) calling himself Rattakandarpa the Love of the Rattas. The result is thus in agreement with the view accepted in the text that Ráshtrakúta means leaders of the Ratta tribe, the form Ráshtra being perhaps chosen because the leaders held the position of Ráshtrakútas or District Headmen. According to Dr. Bhandárkar (Deccan History, 9) the tribal name Ratta or Ráshtra enters into the still more famous Dakhan tribal name Maharátha or Mahrátta. So far as present information goes both the Rattas and the Great Rattas are to be traced to the Rástikas mentioned in number five of Asoka's (B.C. 245) Girnár edicts among the Aparántas or westerners along with the Petenikas or people of Paithan about forty miles north-east of Ahmadnagar (Kolhápur Gazetteer, 82). Whether the Rástika of the edicts is like Petenika a purely local name and if so why a portion of the north Dakhan should be specially known as the country or Ráshtra are points that must remain open. [455]
The explanation that Kúta the second half of Ráshtrakúta, means chief, has been accepted in the text. This is probably correct. At the same time the rival theory deserves notice that the name Ráshtrakúta is formed from two tribal names Kúta representing the early widespread tribe allied to the Gonds known as Kottas and Kods in the Central Provinces North Konkan and Delhi (Thána Gazetteer, XII. Part II. 414). In support of this view it may be noticed that Abhimanyu's fifth century Ráshtrakúta inscription (J. Bo. Br. R. As. XVI. 92) refers to the Kottas though as enemies not allies of the Ráshtrakútas. At the same time certain details in Abhimanyu's grant favour an early Ráshtrakúta settlement in the Central Provinces, the probable head-quarters of the Kottas. The grant is dated from Mánapura and is made to Dakshina Siva of Pethapangaraka which may be the Great Siva shrine in the Mahádev hills in Hoshangábád, as this shrine is under the management of a petty chief of a place called Pagára, and as Mánpur in the Vindhya hills is not far off. Against the tribal origin of the word Kúta is to be set the fact that the northern Rattas are also called Ráshtrakútas though any connection between them and the Kotta tribe seems unlikely.
The question remains were the southern Rattas or Ráshtrakútas connected with the northern Ráthods or Ráshtrakútas. If so what was the nature of the connection and to what date does it belong. The fact that, while the later southern Ráshtrakútas call themselves Yádavas of the Lunar race, the northerners claim descent either from Kusa the son of Ráma or from Hiranyakasipu would seem to prove no connection did not Abhimanyu's fifth century grant show that in his time the southern Ráshtrakútas had not begun to claim Yádava descent. That the Márwár Ráthods trace their name to the ráht or spine of Indra (Tod's Annals, II. 2), and in a closely similar fashion the Ráth or Rattu Játs of the Sutlej (Ibbetson's 1881 Census, page 236) explain their name as stronghanded, and the Rattas of Bijápur (Bijápur Stat. Account, 145) trace their name to the Kánarese ratta right arm, may imply no closer connection than the common attempt to find a meaning for the name Ratta in a suitable word of similar sound. A legend preserved in the Rájputána Gazetteer (III. 246), but not noted by Tod, tells how Sevji, after (A.D. 1139) the Musalmáns drove his father Jaichand out of Kanauj (Tod's Annals, I. 88) took Khergad from the Gehlots and went to the Karnátak. where the Ráthods had ruled before they came to Kanauj. From the Karnátak Sevji brought the image of the Ráhtod Ráshtrasyena which is now in the temple of Nágána in Mevád. The account quoted in the text from Tod (Annals, I. 88) that the Ráthods who rose to power in Márwár in the thirteenth century belonged to a royal family who had held Kanauj since the fifth century has not stood the test of recent inquiry. It is now known that about A.D. 470 Kanauj was in the hands of the Guptás. That about A.D. 600, according to the contemporary Sríharshacharita it was ruled by the Maukhari Grahavarmán who was put to death by a Málwa chief and was succeeded by Harsha. About A.D. 750, according to the Rájátaranginí, Kanauj was held by Yasovarmán, and, in the next century, as inscriptions prove by the family of Bhoja. It was not till about A.D. 1050 that Kanauj was occupied by the Gáhadavála or Gáharwála family from whom the Ráthods of Márwár claim descent. [456] If the legendary connection of the Márwár Ráthods with Kanauj must be dismissed can the Márwár Ráthods be a branch of the southern Ráshtrakútas who like the Maráthás some 800 years later spread conquering northwards? Such a northern settlement of the southern Ráshtrakútas might be a consequence of the victories of the great Ráshtrakúta Dhruva who according to received opinions about A.D. 790 conquered as far north as Allahábád. It is beyond question that southerners or Karnátas were settled in North India between the seventh and the eleventh centuries. Still the latest information makes it improbable that Dhruva's conquests extended further north than Gujarát. Nor has any special connection been traced between the southern Ráshtrakútas and the middle-age settlements of southerners or Karnátas in North India. [457] Must therefore the North Indian tribe of Ráthods be admitted to have its origin as late as the twelfth century, and further is the North Indian name Ráthod not tribal but derived from the title head of a district. Several considerations make both of these solutions unlikely if not impossible. First there is the remarkably widespread existence of the name Ráhtor, Ratha, or Ratti, and endless variations of these names, in almost all parts of the Panjáb, among all castes from the Bráhman to the Baluch, among all religions Musalmán, Sikh, Jain, and Bráhmanic. [458] No doubt the practice of a waning tribe adopting the name of a waxing tribe has always been common. No doubt also the fame of the name during the last 600 years must have tempted other classes to style themselves Ráthod. Still it is to be noted: first that (Ibbetson, page 240) the Ráthods of the Panjáb though widespread are not numerous: and second that the list of sub-caste-names has this merit that with a few exceptions the holders of the sub-name are not known by it but by some general or craft name. The evidence of these sub-caste or tribal names seems therefore to support the view that some very large section of the Panjáb population represent an important tribe or nation of whom the least mixed remnant are perhaps the Ráthis or lower class Rájputs of Kángra and Chamba (Ibbetson, pages 219 and 251) and from some connection with whom the Márwár Ráthods of the thirteenth century may have taken their name. Among other traces of northern Ráshtras in the middle ages may be mentioned the twelfth and thirteenth century Ráshtrakútas of Badaun in the North-West Provinces (Kielhorn in Epigraphia Indica, I. 61 and 63) and (A.D. 1150) in the Kumárapála-Charitra (Tod's Western India, 182) the mention of Ráshtra-desa near the Sawálak hills. Among earlier and more doubtful references are the Aratrioi whom probably correctly (since at that time A.D. 247 one main Roman trade route to Central Asia passed up the Indus) the author of the Periplus (McCrindle, 120) places between Abhiria or lower Sindh and Arachosia or south-east Afghanistán that is in north Sindh or south Panjáb. Another earlier and still more doubtful reference is Pliny's (A.D. 77) Oraturæ (Hist. Nat. VI. 23) whom Vivien de St. Martin (Geog. Greque et Latine de l'Inde, 203) identifies with the Ráthods. The fact that while claiming descent from Ráma the Márwár Ráthods (Tod's Annals, II. 2 and 5) preserved the legend that their founder was Yavanaswa from the northern city of Paralipur supports the view that the tribe to which they belonged was of non-Indian or Central Asian origin, and that this is the tribe of whom traces remain in the Ráthi Rájputs of the Kángra hill country and less purely in the widely spread Ráts, Rattas, and Rátis of the Panjáb plains. The examples among Panjáb caste names Rora for Arora (Ibbetson's 1881 Census, page 297), Her for Ahir (Ditto, 230-275), and Heri for Aheri (Ditto, 310) suggest that the Panjáb Ráthors or Rattas may be the ancient Arattas whom the Mahábhárata (Chap. VII. Verse 44. J. Bl. Soc. VI. Pt. I. 387 and Vivien de St. Martin Geog. Greque et Latine de l'Inde, 149) ranks with Prasthalas, Madras, and Gandháras, Panjáb and frontier tribes, whose identification with the Báhikas (Karnaparvan, 2063ff.) raises the probability of a common Central Asian origin. Remembering that the evidence (Kshatrapa Chapter, pages 22 and 33) favours the view that the Kshatrapa family who ruled the Panjáb between B.C. 70 and A.D. 78 were of the same tribe as Nahápana, and also that Sháhi is so favourite a prefix in Samudra Gupta's (A.D. 380) list of Kushán tribes, the suggestion may be offered that Kshaharáta is the earlier form of Sháharatta and is the tribe of foreigners afterwards known in the Panjáb as Arattas and of which traces survive in the present widespread tribal names Ráta, Ratta, Ratha, and Ráthor.]
XII. THE MIHIRAS OR MERS
A.D. 470-900.
That the Guptas held sway in Káthiáváda till the time of Skandagupta (A.D. 454-470) is proved by the fact that his Sorath Viceroy is mentioned in Skandagupta's inscription on the Girnár rock. After Skandagupta under the next known Gupta king Budhagupta (Gupta 165-180, A.D. 484-499) no trace remains of Gupta sovereignty in Sorath. It is known that Budhagupta was a weak king and that the Gupta kingdom had already entered on its decline and lost its outlying provinces. Who held Suráshtra and Gujarát during the period of Gupta decline until the arrival and settlement of Bhatkárka in A.D. 514 (Gupta 195) is not determined. Still there is reason to believe that during or shortly after the time of Budhagupta some other race or dynasty overthrew the Gupta Viceroy of these provinces and took them from the Guptas. These powerful conquerors seem to be the tribe of Maitrakas mentioned in Valabhi copperplates as people who had settled in Káthiáváda and established a mandala or kingdom. Though these Maitrakas are mentioned in no other records from Suráshtra there seems reason to identify the Maitrakas with the Mihiras the well-known tribe of Mhers or Mers. In Sanskrit both mitra and mihira are names of the sun, and it would be quite in agreement with the practise of Sanskrit writers to use derivatives of the one for those of the other. These Mhers or Mers are still found in Káthiáváda settled round the Barda hills while the Porbandar chiefs who are known as Jethvás are recognized as the head of the tribe. The name Jethvá is not a tribal but a family name, being taken from the proper or personal name of the ancestor of the modern chiefs. As the Porbandar chiefs are called the kings of the Mhers they probably belong to the same tribe, though, being chiefs, they try, like other ruling families, to rank higher than their tribe tracing their origin from Hanúmán. Though the Jethvás appear to have been long ashamed to acknowledge themselves to belong to the Mher tribe the founders of minor Mher kingdoms called themselves Mher kings. The Porbandar chiefs have a tradition tracing their dynasty to Makaradhvaja son of Hanúmán, and there are some Puránic legends attached to the tradition. The historical kernel of the tradition appears to be that the Mhers or Jethvás had a makara or fish as their flag or symbol. One of the mythical stories of Makaradhvaja is that he fought with Mayúradhvaja. Whatever coating of fable may have overlaid the story, it contains a grain of history. Mayúradhvaja stands for the Guptas whose chief symbol was a peacock mayúra, and with them Makaradhvaja that is the people with the fish-symbol that is the Mhers had a fight. This fight is probably the historical contest in which the Mhers fought with and overthrew the Gupta Viceroy of Káthiáváda.
The Káthiáváda Mhers are a peculiar tribe whose language dress and appearance mark them as foreign settlers from Upper India. Like the Málavas, Játs, Gurjjaras, and Pahlavas, the Mhers seem to have passed through the Punjáb Sindh and North Gujarát into Káthiáváda leaving settlements at Ajmír, Bádner, Jesalmír, Kokalmír, and Mherváda. How and when the Mhers made these settlements and entered Káthiáváda is not known. It may be surmised that they came with Toramána (A.D. 470-512) who overthrew the Guptas, and advanced far to the south and west in the train of some general of Toramána's who may perhaps have entered Suráshtra. This is probable as the date of Toramána who overthrew Budhagupta is almost the same as that of the Maitrakas mentioned as the opponents and enemies of Bhatárka. In the time of Bhatárka (A.D. 509-520?) the Mhers were firmly established in the peninsula, otherwise they would not be mentioned in the Valabhi grants as enemies of Bhatárka, a tribe or mandala wielding incomparable power. As stated above in Chapter VIII. some time after the Mher settlement and consolidation of power, Bhatárka seems to have come as general of the fallen Guptas through Málwa and Broach by sea to East Káthiáváda. He established himself at Valabhi and then gradually dislodged the Mhers from Sorath until they retired slightly to the north settling eventually at Morbi, which the Jethvás still recognize as the earliest seat of their ancestors. At Morbi they appear to have ruled contemporarily with the Valabhis. In support of this it is to be noted that no known Valabhi plate records any grant of lands or villages in Hálár, Machhukántha, or Okhámandal in North Káthiáváda. As the northmost place mentioned in Valabhi plates is Venuthali known as Wania's Vanthali in Hálár it may be inferred that not the Valabhis but the Mhers ruled the north coast of Káthiáváda, probably as feudatories or subordinates of the Valabhis. On the overthrow of Valabhi about A.D. 770 the Mhers appear to have seized the kingdom and ruled the whole of Káthiáváda dividing it into separate chiefships grouped under the two main divisions of Bardái and Gohelvádia. About A.D. 860 the Mhers made incursions into Central Gujarát. A copperplate dated Saka 789 (A.D. 847) of the Gujarát Ráshtrakúta king Dhruva describes him as attacked by a powerful Mihira king whom he defeated. [459] At the height of their power the Mhers seem to have established their capital at the fort of Bhumli or Ghumli in the Bardá hills in the centre of Káthiáváda. The traditions about Ghumli rest mainly on modern Jethvá legends of no historical interest. The only known epigraphical record is a copperplate of a king named Jâchikadeva found in the Morbi district. [460] Unfortunately only the second plate remains. Still the fish mark on the plate, the locality where it was found, and its date leave little doubt that the plate belongs to the Makaradhvaja or Jethvá kings. The date of the grant is 585 Gupta era the 5th Phálguna Sudi that is A.D. 904, about 130 years after the destruction of Valabhi, a date with which the form of the letters agrees.
A similar copperplate in which the king's name appears in the slightly different form Jáikadeva has been found at Dhiniki in the same neighbourhood as the first and like it bearing the fish mark. [461] This copperplate describes the king as ruling at Bhúmiliká or Bhúmli in Sorath and gives him the high titles of Parama-bhattáraka-Mahárájádhirája-Paramesvara, that is Great Lord Great King of Kings Great King, titles which imply wide extent and independence of rule. This grant purports to be made on the occasion of a solar eclipse on Sunday Vikrama Samvat 794 Jyeshtha constellation, the no-moon of the second half of Kárttika. This would be A.D. 738 or 166 years before the Jáchika of the Morbí plate. Against this it is to be noted that the letters of this plate, instead of appearing as old as eighth century letters, look later than the letters of the tenth century Morbí plate. As neither the day of the week, the constellation, nor the eclipse work out correctly Dr. Bhagvánlál believed the plate to be a forgery of the eleventh century, executed by some one who had seen a fish-marked copperplate of Jáchika dated in the Saka era. It should however be noted that the names of ministers and officers which the plate contains give it an air of genuineness. Whether the plate is or is not genuine, it is probably true that Jáikadeva was a great independent sovereign ruling at Bhúmli. Though the names of the other kings of the dynasty, the duration of the Bhúmli kingdom, and the details of its history are unknown it may be noted that the dynasty is still represented by the Porbandar chiefs. Though at present Bhúmli is deserted several ruined temples of about the eleventh century stand on its site. It is true no old inscriptions have been found; it is not less true that no careful search has been made about Bhúmli.
Early in the tenth century a wave of invasion from Sindh seems to have spread over Kacch and Káthiáváda. Among the invading tribes were the Jádejás of Kacch and the Chúdásamás of Sorath, who like the Bhattis of Jesalmír call themselves of the Yaduvamsa stock. Doctor Bhagvánlál held that the Chúdásamás were originally of the Ábhíra tribe, as their traditions attest connection with the Ábhíras and as the description of Graharipu one of their kings by Hemachandra in his Dvyásraya points to his being of some local tribe and not of any ancient Rájput lineage. Further in their bardic traditions as well as in popular stories the Chúdásamás are still commonly called Áhera-ránás. The position of Aberia in Ptolemy (A.D. 150) seems to show that in the second century the Ahirs were settled between Sindh and the Panjáb. Similarly it may be suggested that Jádejá is a corruption of Jaudhejá which in turn comes from Yaudheya (the change of y to j being very common) who in Kshatrapa Inscriptions appear as close neighbours of the Ahirs. After the fall of the Valabhis (A.D. 775) the Yaudheyas seem to have established themselves in Kacch and the Ahirs settled and made conquests in Káthiáváda. On the decline of local rule brought about by these incursions and by the establishment of an Ahir or Chúdásamá kingdom at Junágadh, the Jethvás seem to have abandoned Bhúmli which is close to Junágadh and gone to Srínagar or Kántelun near Porbandar which is considered to have been the seat of Jethvá power before Porbandar.
A copperplate found at Haddálá on the road from Dholka to Dhandhuka dated A.D. 917 (Saka 839) shows that there reigned at Vadhwán a king named Dharanívaráha of the Chápa dynasty, [462] who granted a village to one Mahesvaráchárya, an apostle of the Ámardáka Sákhá of Saivism. Dharanívaráha and his ancestors are described as feudatory kings, ruling by the grace of the feet of the great king of kings the great lord the illustrious Mahípáladeva. This Mahípála would seem to be some great king of Káthiáváda reigning in A.D. 917 over the greater part of the province. Dr. Bhagvánlál had two coins of this king of about that time, one a copper coin the other a silver coin. The coins were found near Junágadh. The copper coin, about ten grains in weight, has one side obliterated but the other side shows clearly the words Ráná Srí Mahípála Deva. The silver coin, about fourteen grains in weight, has on the obverse a well-executed elephant and on the reverse the legend Ráná Srí Mahípála Deva. From the locality where the name Mahípála appears both in coins and inscriptions, and from the fact that the more reliable Chúdásamá lists contain similar names, it may be assumed as probable that Mahípála was a powerful Chúdásamá ruler of Káthiáváda in the early part of the tenth century.
After the fall of Valabhi no other reliable record remains of any dynasty ruling over the greater part of Gujarát. The most trustworthy and historical information is in connection with the Chávadás of Anahilapura. Even for the Chávadás nothing is available but scant references recorded by Jain authors in their histories of the Solankis and Vághelás.
[The Chúdásamás, A.D. 900-940.] [The modern traditions of the Chúdásamá clan trace their origin to the Yádava race and more immediately to the Samma tribe of Nagar Thatha in Sindh. [463] The name of the family is said to have been derived from Chúdáchandra the first ruler of Vanthalí (Káthiáwár Gazetteer, 489). Traces of a different tradition are to be found in the Tuhfat-ul-Kirám (Elliot, I. 337) which gives a list of Chúdásamá's ancestors from Nuh (Noah), including not only Krishna the Yádava but also Ráma of the solar line. In this pedigree the Musalmán element is later than the others: but the attempt to combine the solar and lunar lines is a sure sign that the Samma clan was not of Hindu origin, and that it came under Hindu influence fairly late though before Sindh became a Musalmán province. This being admitted it follows that the Sammas were one of the numerous tribes that entered India during the existence of the Turkish empire in Transoxiana (A.D. 560-c. 750). In this connection it is noteworthy that some of the Jáms bore such Turkish names as Tamáchi, Tughlik, and Sanjár.
The migration of the Sammas to Kacch is ascribed by the Taríkh-i-Tahiri (A.D. 1621) to the tyranny of the Súmra chiefs. The Sammas found Kacch in the possession of the Cháwaras, who treated them kindly, and whom they requited by seizing the fort of Gúntrí by a stratagem similar to that which brought about the fall of Girnár.
The date of the Chúdásamá settlement at Vanthalí is usually fixed on traditional evidence, at about A.D. 875, but there is reason to think that this date is rather too early. In the first place it is worthy of notice that Chúdáchandra, the traditional eponym of the family, is in the Tuhfat-ul-Kirám made a son of Jádam (Yádava) and only a great-grandson of Krishna himself, a fact which suggests that, if not entirely mythical, he was at all events a very distant ancestor of Múlarája's opponent Grahári, and was not an actual ruler of Vanthalí. As regards Grahári's father Visvavaráha and his grandfather Múlarája, there is no reason to doubt that they were real persons, although it is very questionable whether the Chúdásamás were settled in Káthiáváda in their time. In the first place, the Morbí grant of Jáikadeva shows that the Jethvás had not been driven southwards before A.D. 907. Secondly Dharanívaráha's Vadhván grant proves that the Chápa family of Bhínmál were still supreme in Káthiáváda in A.D. 914: whereas the Taríkh-i-Tahiri's account of the Chúdásamá conquest of Kacch implies that the Cháwaras, who must be identified with the Chápas of Bhínmál, were losing their power when the Chúdásamás captured Gúntrí, an event which must have preceded the settlement at Vanthalí in Káthiáváda. Beyond the fact that Múlarája Solanki transferred the capital to Anahilaváda in A.D. 942, we know nothing of the events which led to the break-up of the Bhínmál empire. But it is reasonable to suppose that between A.D. 920 and 940 the Chápas gradually lost ground and the Chúdásamás were able first to conquer Sindh and then to settle in Káthiáváda.--A. M. T. J.]
[Káthiáváda contains three peculiar and associated classes of Hindus, the Mers, the Jethvás, and the Jhálás. The Mers and the Jethvás stand to each other in the relation of vassal and lord. The Jhálás are connected with the Jethvás by origin history and alliance. The bond of union between the three classes is not only that they seem to be of foreign that is of non-Hindu origin, but whether or not they belong to the same swarm of northern invaders, that they all apparently entered Káthiáváda either by land or sea through Sindh and Kacch. So far as record or tradition remains the Mers and [The Jethvás.] Jethvás reached Káthiáváda in the latter half of the fifth century after Christ, and the Jhálás, and perhaps a second detachment of Mers and Jethvás, some three hundred years later. [464] The three tribes differ widely in numbers and in distribution. The ruling Jethvás are a small group found solely in south-west Káthiáváda. [465] The Jhálás, who are also known as Makvánas, are a much larger clan. They not only fill north-east Káthiáváda, but from Káthiáváda, about A.D. 1500, spread to Rájputána and have there established a second Jháláváda, [466] where, in reward for their devotion to the Sesodia Rája of Mewád in his struggles with the Emperor Akbar (A.D. 1580-1600), the chief was given a daughter of the Udepur family and raised to a high position among Rájputs. [467] The Mers are a numerous and widespread race. They seem to be the sixth to tenth century Medhs, Meds, Mands, or Mins of Baluchistán, South-Sindh, Kacch, and Káthiáváda. [468] Further they seem to be the Mers of Meváda or Medapatha in Rájputána [469] and of Mairváda in Málava, [470] and also to be the Musalmán Meos and Minas of Northern India. [471] In Gujarát their strength is much greater than the 30,000 or 40,000 returned as [The Mers.] Mers. One branch of the tribe is hidden under the name Koli; another has disappeared below the covering of Islám. [472]
Formerly except the vague contention that the Medhás, Jhetvás, and Jhála-Makvánás were northerners of somewhat recent arrival little evidence was available either to fix the date of their appearance in Káthiáváda or to determine to which of the many swarms of non-Hindu Northerners they belonged. [473] This point Dr. Bhagvánlál's remarks in the text go far to clear. The chief step is the identification of the Mers with the Maitrakas, the ruling power in Káthiáváda between the decline of the Guptas about A.D. 470 and the establishment of Valabhi rule about sixty years later. And further that they fought at the same time against the same Hindu rulers and that both are described as foreigners and northerners favours the identification of the [White Húnas.] power of the Maitrakas with the North Indian empire of the Epthalites, Yethas, or White Húnas. [474]
Though the sameness in name between the Mihiras and Mihirakula (A.D. 508-530), the great Indian champion of the White Húnas, may not imply sameness of tribe it points to a common sun-worship. [475]
That the Multán sun-worship was introduced under Sassanian influence is supported by the fact (Wilson's Ariana Antiqua, 357) that the figure of the sun on the fifth century Hindu sun coins is in the dress of a Persian king; that the priests who performed the Multán sun-worship were called Magas; and by the details of the dress and ritual in the account of the introduction of sun-worship given in the Bhavishya Purána. [476] That the Meyds or Mands had some share in its introduction is supported by the fact that the Purána names the third or Sudra class of the sun-worshippers Mandagas. [477] That the Meyds were associated with the Magas is shown by the mention of the Magas as Mihiragas. [478] The third class whom the Bhavishya Purána associates with the introduction of sun-worship are the Mânas who are given a place between the Magas and the Mands. The association of the Mânas with the Mihiras or Maitrakas suggests that Mâna is Mauna a Puránic name for the White Húnas. [479] That the Multán sun idol of the sixth and seventh centuries was a Húna idol and Multán the capital of a Húna dynasty seems in agreement with the paramount position of the Rais of Alor or Rori in the sixth century. Though their defeat by Yesodharmman of Málwa about A.D. 540 at the battle of Karur, sixty miles east of Multán, may have ended Húna supremacy in north and north-west India it does not follow that authority at once forsook the Húnas. Their widespread and unchallenged dominion in North India, the absence of record of any reverse later than the Karur defeat, the hopelessness of any attempt to pass out of India in the face of the combined Turk and Sassanian forces make it probable that the Húnas and their associated tribes, adopting Hinduism and abandoning their claim to supremacy, settled in west and north-west India. This view finds support in the leading place which the Húnas and Hára-Húnas, the Maitrakas or Mers, and the Gurjjaras hold in the centuries that follow the overthrow of the White Húna empire. According to one rendering of Cosmas [480] (A.D. 525) the chief of Orrhotha or Sorath in common with several other coast rulers owed allegiance to Gollas, apparently, as is suggested at page 75 of the text, to Gulla or Mihirgulla the Indian Emperor of the White Húnas. These details support the view that the Maitrakas, Mihiras, or Mers who in Cosmas' time were in power in Káthiáváda, and to whose ascendancy during the seventh and eighth centuries both the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 612-640) and the Arab historians of Sindh bear witness, were a portion of the great White Húna invasion (A.D. 480-530). [481] In the many recorded swarmings south from Central Asia into Persia and India no feature is commoner than the leading of the conquered by certain families of the conquering tribe. Chinese authorities place it beyond doubt that when, towards the middle of the fifth century A.D., the White Húnas crossed the Oxus they found in power a cognate tribe of northerners whose date of settlement on the Indian frontier was less than a century old. This preceding swarm was the Yuán-Yuán, Var-Var, or Avár, who, about the close of the fourth century (A.D. 380), had driven from Balkh southwards into the Kábul valley Kitolo the last ruler of the long established Yuetchi (B.C. 50-A.D. 380). [482] It is known that in retreating before the Yuán-Yuán a division of the Baktrian Yuetchi, under the leadership of Kitolo's son, under the name of the Kidáras or Little Yuetchi, established their power in Gandhára and Pesháwar. [483] This Kidára invasion must have driven a certain share of the people of the Kábul valley to the east of the Indus. The invasion of the White Húnas a century later, who were welcomed as allies by some of the Panjáb chiefs, [484] would cause fresh movements among the frontier tribes. The welcome given to the Húnas, and the show and dash which marked their century of ascendancy in India and Persia, make it probable that as leaders they conducted south as far as Káthiáváda and Málava large bodies of the earlier northern settlers. To which of the waves of earlier northerners the Medhs belonged is doubtful. [485] The view held by Pandit Bhagvánlál that one branch of the Medhs entered India in the first century before Christ among the tribes of which the great Yuechi were the chief is on the whole in agreement with General Cunningham's argument that Medus Hydaspes, Virgil's phrase for the Jhelum, proves that the Medhs were then (B.C. 40) already settled on its banks. [486]
Dr. Bhagvánlál's view that the Jethvás are Medhs ennobled by long overlordship is somewhat doubtfully shared by Colonel Watson [487] and is not inconsistent with Tod's opinions. [488] Still though the Hindu ruler-worship, which, as in the case of the Marátha Siváji, explains the raising to the twice-born of leaders of successful early and foreign tribes makes it possible that the Jethvás were originally Mers, it seems on the whole probable that the Jethvás' claim to an origin distinct from the Mers is well founded. The evidence recorded by Colonel Tod and the name Jethva led the late Dr. John Wilson to trace the Jethvás to the Játs or Jits. [489] According to the bards the name of the Káthiáváda tribe Jethva is derived from Jetha No. 85 or No. 95 of the Porbandar list, who was probably so called because he was born under the Jyeshtha constellation. [490] The common practice of explaining a tribal name by inventing some name-giving chief deprives this derivation of most of its probability. [491] In the present case it may further be noticed that the name Jethi is borne by two of the chiefs earlier than the Jetha referred to. [492] In the absence of any satisfactory explanation the name Jethva suggests an origin in Yetha the shortened Chinese form of Ye-ta-i-li-to or Ephthalite the name of the ruling class of the White Húnas. [493] It is true that so good an authority as Specht [494] holds that the shortened form Yetha is peculiar to the Chinese and was never in use. But the form Tetal or Haital, adopted by Armenian Musalmán and Byzantine historians, [495] makes probable an Indian Yethál or Jethál if not a Yetha or Jetha. Nor does there seem any reason why Yetha the Chinese form of the word should not be more likely to be adopted in India than the western and otherwise less correct form Tetal or Haithal. In any case the irregular change from a correct Yethál to an incorrect Yetha cannot be considered of much importance, if, as seems likely, the change was made in order to give the word an Indian meaning. [496] The v in Jethva would come to be added when the origin from a chief named Jetha was accepted.
[Jhálás.] Another name for the White Húnas, or for a section of the White Húna swarm, is preserved by Cosmas [497] in the form Juvia. This form, if it is not a misreading for Ounia or Húna, suggests Jáuvla the recently identified name of the tribe ennobled in India by the great Toramána (A.D. 450-500) and his son Mihirakula (A.D. 500-540), and of which a trace seems to remain in the Jáwla and Jháwla divisions of Panjáb Gujjars. [498] This Jáuvla, under such a fire baptism as would admit the holders of the name among Hindus, might be turned into Jvála flaming and Jvála be shortened to Jhála. That Jhála was formerly punningly connected with flame is shewn by a line from the bard Chand, 'The lord of the Ránás the powerful Jhála like a flaming fire.' [499] That the Káthiáváda bards were either puzzled by the name Jhála or were unwilling to admit its foreign origin is shewn by the story preserved in the Rás Málá, [500] that the tribe got the name because the children of Hirpál Makvána, about to be crushed by an elephant, were snatched away jhála by their witch-mother. It has been noticed in the text that the break in Gujarát History between A.D. 480 and 520, agreeing with the term of Húna supremacy in North India, seems to imply a similar supremacy in Gujarát. The facts that up to the twelfth century Húnas held a leading place in Gujarát chronicles, [501] and that while in Rájputána and other parts of Northern India the traces of Huns are fairly widespread in Gujarát they have almost if not altogether disappeared, support the view that the Húna strain in Káthiáváda is hid under the names Mera, Jethva, and Jhála. [502]
II. THE KINGDOM OF ANAHILAVÁDA
A.D. 720-1300.
I. THE CHÁVADÁS
(A.D. 720-956.)
The history embodied in the preceding chapters is more or less fragmentary, pieced together from coins, stone and copperplate inscriptions, local traditions, and other similar sources. A history based on such materials alone must of necessity be imperfect, leaving blanks which it may be hoped fresh details will gradually fill.
The rise of the Anahilaváda kingdom (A.D. 720) marks a new period of Gujarát history regarding which materials are available from formal historical writings. [503] Though this section of Gujarát history begins with the establishment of Anahilaváda by the Chávadás (A.D. 720-956) the details for the earlier portions are very imperfect being written during the time of the Chálukya or Solanki (A.D. 957-1242) successors of the Chávadás. The chief sources of information regarding the earlier period of Chávadá rule are the opening chapters of the Prabandhachintámani, Vichárasreni, Sukritasankírtana, and Ratnamálá. [504]
[Pañchásar, A.D. 788.] Before the establishment of Anahilaváda a small Chávadá chiefship centred at Pañchásar, now a fair-sized village in Vadhiár between Gujarát and Kacch. [505] The existence of a Chávadá chiefship at Pañchásar is proved by the Navsárí grant dated Samvat 490 (A.D. 788-89) of the Gujarát Chálukya king Pulikesí Janásraya. This grant in recording the triumphant progress of an army of Tájikas or Arabs from Sindh to Navsárí and mentioning the kingdoms "afflicted" by the Arabs, names the Chávotakas next after the kings of Kacch and Sauráshtra. These Chávotakas can be no other than the Chávadás of Pañchásar on the borders of Kacch. The Chávadás of Pañchásar do not appear to have been important rulers. At the most they seem to have held Vadhiár and part of the north coast of Káthiáváda. Whatever be the origin of the name Chávadá, which was afterwards Sanskritised into the highsounding Chápotkata or Strongbow, it does not seem to be the name of any great dynasty. The name very closely resembles the Gujaráti Chor (Prakrit Chautá or Choratá) meaning thieves or robbers; and Jávadá, which is a further corruption of Chávadá, is the word now in use in those parts for a thief or robber. Except the mention of the Chávotakas in the Navsárí copperplate we do not find the Chávadás noticed in any known cotemporary Gujarát copperplates. For this reason it seems fair to regard them as unimportant rulers over a territory extending from Pañchásar to Anahilaváda.
[Jayasekhara, A.D. 696.] The author of the Ratnamálá (C. 1230 A.D.) says that in A.D. 696 (S. 752) Jayasekhara the Chávadá king of Pañchásar was attacked by the Chaulukya king Bhuvada of Kalyánakataka in Kanyákubja or Kanoj and slain by Bhuvada in battle. Before his death Jayasekhara, finding his affairs hopeless, sent his pregnant wife Rupasundarí to the forest in charge of her brother Surapála, one of his chief warriors. After Jayasekhara's death Rupasundarí gave birth to a son named Vanarája who became the illustrious founder of Anahilaváda. It is hard to say how much truth underlies this tradition. In the seventh century not Chaulukya but Pála kings flourished in Kanoj. No place of importance called Kalyánakataka is recorded in the Kanoj territory. And though there was a southern Chálukya kingdom with its capital at Kalyán, its establishment at Kalyán was about the middle of the eleventh not in the seventh century. Further the known Dakhan Chálukya lists contain no king named Bhuvada, unless he be the great Chálukya king Vijayáditya (A.D. 696-733) also called Bhuvanásraya, who warred in the north and was there imprisoned but made his escape. The inference is that the author of the Ratnamálá, knowing the Solankis originally belonged to a city called Kalyán, and knowing that a Chálukya king named Bhuvada had defeated the Chávadás may have called Bhuvada king of Kalyánkataka and identified Kalyánkataka with a country so well known to Puránic fame as Kanyákubja. This view is supported by the absence in the Prabandhachintámani and other old records of any mention of an invasion from Kanoj. It is possible that in A.D. 696 some king Bhuvada of the Gujarát Chálukyas, of whom at this time branches were ruling as far north as Kaira, [506] invaded the Chávadás under Jayasekhara. Since traces of a Chávotaka kingdom remain, at least as late as A.D. 720, it seems probable that the destruction of Pañchásar was caused not by Bhuvada in A.D. 696, but in the Arab raid mentioned above whose date falls about A.D. 720. [507] About A.D. 720 may therefore be taken as the date of the birth of Vanarája. Merutunga the author of the Prabandhachintámani tells how Rupasundarí was living in the forest swinging her son in a hammock, when a Jain priest named Sílagunasúri noticing as he passed royal marks on the boy bought him from his mother. The story adds that a nun named Víramatí brought up the boy whom the sádhu called Vanarája or the forest king. When eight years old, the priest employed Vanarája to protect his place of worship from rats. The boy's skill in shooting rats convinced the priest he was not fit to be a sádhu but was worthy of a kingdom. He therefore returned the boy to his mother. These details seem invented by the Jains in their own honour. No mention of any such story occurs in the Ratnamálá. [508]
[Vanarája, A.D. 720-780 (?).] In the forests where Vanarája passed his youth lived his maternal uncle Surapála, one of Jayasekhara's generals, who, after his sovereign's defeat and death, had become an outlaw. Vanarája grew up under Surapála's charge. The Prabandhachintámani records the following story of the origin of Vanarája's wealth. A Kanyákubja king married Mahánaká the daughter of a Gujarát king. To receive the proceeds of the marriage cess which the Gujarát king had levied from his subjects, a deputation or panchkúla came from Kanyákubja to Gujarát. The deputation made Vanarája their leader or sellabhrit to realize the proceeds of the cess. In six months Vanarája collected 24 lákhs of Páruttha drammas [509] and 4000 horse, which the deputation took and started for Kanyákubja. Vanarája waylaid and killed them, secured the money and horses, and remained in hiding for a year. With the wealth thus acquired Vanarája enrolled an army and established his power assuming the title of king. [Founding of Anahilaváda, A.D. 746-765.] He fixed the site of a capital which afterwards rose to be the great city of Anahilapura. The story of the choice of the site is the usual story of a hunted hare turning on the hounds showing the place to be the special nurse of strength and courage. Vanarája is said to have asked a Bharvád or Shepherd named Anahila son of Sákhadá to show him the best site. Anahila agreed on condition that the city should be called by his name. Anahila accordingly showed Vanarája the place where a hare had attacked and chased a dog. Though much in this tradition is fabulous the city may have been called after some local chief since it was popularly known as Anahilaváda (Sk. Anahilaváta) that is the place of Anahila. In the Prabandhachintámani Merutunga gives A.D. 746 (S. 802) as the date of the installation of Vanarája, while in his Vichárasreni the same author gives A.D. 765 (S. 821 Vaisakha Sukla 2) as the date of the foundation of the city. The discrepancy may be explained by taking A.D. 746 (S. 802) to refer to the date of Vanarája's getting money enough to fix the site of his capital, and A.D. 765 (S. 821) to refer to the date of his installation in the completed Anahilaváda. Local tradition connects the date A.D. 746 (S. 802) with an image of Ganpati which is said to be as old as the establishment of the city and to bear the date 802. But as the letters of the inscription on the image can be made out by ordinary readers they cannot have been inscribed at nearly so early a date as 802. A.D. 765 (S. 821), the year given in the Vichárasreni, seems the more probable date for the installation as the Prabandhachintámani says that Vanarája got himself installed at Anahilapura when he was about fifty. [510] This accords with the date fixed on other grounds. Placing Vanarája's birth at about A.D. 720 would make him 44 in A.D. 765 (S. 821) the date at which according to the Vichárasreni he was formally installed as sovereign of Anahilaváda. Merutunga in both his works gives the length of Vanarája's life at 109 and of his reign at sixty years. The figure 60 seems to mark the length of his life and not of his reign. So long a reign as sixty years is barely possible for a sovereign who succeeded late in life, and the 109 years of his life can hardly be correct. Taking Vanarája's age at 45 when he was installed in A.D. 765 (S. 821) and allowing fifteen years more to complete the sixty years A.D. 780 (S. 836) would be the closing year of his reign.
[Vanarája's Installation.] The Prabandhachintámani narrates how generously Vanarája rewarded those who had helped him in his adversity. His installation was performed by a woman named Srí Deví of Kákara village whom in fulfilment of an early promise Vanarája had taken to be his sister. [511] The story regarding the promise is that once when Vanarája had gone with his uncle on a thieving expedition to Kákara village and had broken into the house of a merchant he by mistake dipped his hand into a pot of curds. As to touch curds is the same as to dine at a house as a guest, Vanarája left the house without taking anything from it. [512] Hearing what had happened the merchant's sister invited Vanarája as a brother to dinner and gave him clothes. In return Vanarája promised if he ever regained his father's kingdom he should receive his installation as king at her hands. [513] Vanarája chose as minister a Bania named Jámba. The story is that while Vanarája was looting with two others he came across a merchant Jámba who had five arrows. Seeing only three enemies, Jámba broke and threw away two of the arrows, shouting 'One for each of you.' Vanarája admiring his coolness persuaded Jámba to join his band and found him so useful that he promised to make him minister. From the absence of any reference to him in these and similar tales it is probable that his uncle Surapála died before the installing of Vanarája. Vanarája is said to have built at Anahilváda a Jain temple of Pañchásará Párasnáth so called because the image was brought from the old settlement of Pañchásar. Mention of this temple continues during the Solanki and Vághelá times.
[His Image.] Vanarája is said to have placed a bowing image of himself facing the image of Párasnáth. The figure of Vanarája is still shown at Sidhpur and a woodcut of it is given by the late Mr. Forbes in his Rás Málá. It is clearly the figure of a king with the umbrella of state and a nimbus round the head and in the ears the long ornaments called kundalas noticed by Arab travellers as characteristic of the Balhara or Ráshtrakúta kings who were cotemporary with Vanarája. [514] The king wears a long beard, a short waistcloth or dhoti, a waistband or kammarband, and a shoulder garment or uparna whose ends hang down the back. Besides the earrings he is adorned with bracelets armlets and anklets and a large ornament hangs across the chest from the left shoulder to the right hip. The right hand is held near the chest in the act of granting protection: and the left hand holds something which cannot be made out. By his side is the umbrella-bearer and five other attendants. The statue closely resembles the lifesize figure of a king of the Solanki period lying in the yard of a temple at Máliá about twenty-four miles north of Somanátha Patan. At Somanátha Patan are similar but less rich cotemporary figures of local officers of the Solankis. Another similar figure of which only the torso remains is the statue of Anrája the father of Vastupála in a niche in Vastupála's temple at Girnár. The details of this figure belong to the Solanki period.
[Vanarája's Successors, A.D. 780-961.] The lists of Vanarája's successors vary so greatly in the names, in the order of succession, and in the lengths of reigns, that little trust can be placed in them. The first three agree in giving a duration of 196 years to the Chávadá dynasty after the accession of Vanarája. The accession of the Solanki founder Múlarája is given in the Vichárasreni at Samvat 1017 and in the Prabandhachintámani at Samvat 998 corresponding with the original difference of nineteen years (S. 802 and 821) in the founding of the city. This shows that though the total duration of the dynasty was traditionally known to be 196 years the order of succession was not known and guesses were made as to the duration of the different reigns. Certain dates fixed by inscriptions or otherwise known to some compilers and not known to others caused many discrepancies in the various accounts.
[Yogarája, A.D. 806-841.] According to the calculations given above Vanarája's reign lasted to about A.D. 780. Authorities agree that Vanarája was succeeded by his son Yogarája. The length of Yogarája's reign is given as thirty-five years by the Prabandhachintámani and the Ratnamálá, and as twenty-nine by the Vichárasreni. That is according to the Prabandhachintámani and Ratnamálá his reign closes in A.D. 841 (S. 897) and according to the Vichárasreni in A.D. 836 (S. 891). On the whole the Prabandhachintámani date A.D. 841 (S. 897) seems the more probable. The author of the Vichárasreni may have mistaken the 7 of the manuscripts for a 1, the two figures in the manuscripts of that date being closely alike. If A.D. 780 is taken as the close of Vanarája's reign and A.D. 806 as the beginning of Yogarája's reign an interval of twenty-six years is left. This blank, which perhaps accounts for the improbably long reign and life assigned to Vanarája, may have been filled by the forgotten reign of a childless elder brother of Yogarája.
Of Yogarája the Prabandhachintámani tells the following tale. Kshemarája one of Yogarája's three sons reported that several ships were storm-stayed at Prabhása or Somanátha. The ships had 10,000 horses, many elephants, and millions of money and treasure. Kshemarája prayed that he might seize the treasure. Yogarája forbad him. In spite of their father's orders the sons seized the treasure and brought it to the king. Yogarája said nothing. And when the people asked him why he was silent he answered: To say I approve would be a sin; to say I do not approve would annoy you. Hitherto on account of an ancestor's misdeeds we have been laughed at as a nation of thieves. Our name was improving and we were rising to the rank of true kings. This act of my sons has renewed the old stain. Yogarája would not be comforted and mounted the funeral pyre.
[Kshemarája, A.D. 841-880.] According to the Prabandhachintámani in A.D. 841 (S. 898) Yogarája was succeeded by his son Kshemarája. The Vichárasreni says that Yogarája was succeeded by Ratnáditya who reigned three years, and he by Vairisimha who reigned eleven years. Then came Kshemarája who is mentioned as the son of Yogarája and as coming to the throne in A.D. 849 (S. 905). The relationship of Yogarája to Ratnáditya and Vairisimha is not given. Probably both were sons of Yogarája as the Prabandhachintámani mentions that Yogarája had three sons. The duration of Kshemarája's reign is given as thirty-nine years. It is probable that the reigns of the three brothers lasted altogether for thirty-nine years, fourteen years for the two elder brothers and twenty-five years for Kshemarája the period mentioned by the Prabandhachintámani. Accepting this chronology A.D. 880 (S. 936) will be the date of the close of Kshemarája's reign.
[Chámunda, A.D. 880-908.] According to the Vichárasreni and the Sukritasankírtana Kshemarája was succeeded by his son Chámunda. Instead of Chámunda the Prabandhachintámani mentions Bhúyada perhaps another name of Chámunda, as in the Prabandhachintámani the name Chámunda does not occur. The Prabandhachintámani notes that Bhúyada reigned twenty-nine years and built in Anahilaváda Patan the temple of Bhúyadeshvar. The Vichárasreni gives twenty-seven years as the length of Chámunda's reign an insignificant difference of two years. This gives A.D. 908 (S. 964) as the close of Chámunda's reign according to the Vichárasreni.
[Ghaghada, A.D. 908-937.] After Bhúyada the Prabandhachintámani places Vairisimha and Ratnáditya assigning twenty-five and fifteen years as the reigns of each. The Vichárasreni mentions as the successor of Chámunda his son Ghaghada who is called Ráhada in the Sukritasankírtana. Instead of Ghaghada the Prabandhachintámani gives Sámantasimha or Lion Chieftain perhaps a title of Ghághada's. The Vichárasreni gives Ghaghada a reign of twenty-seven years and mentions as his successor an unnamed son who reigned nineteen years. The Sukritasankírtana gives the name of this son as Bhúbhata. According to these calculations the close of Ghághada's reign would be A.D. 936 (Samvat 965 + 27 = 992). Adding nineteen years for Bhúbhata's reign brings the date of the end of the dynasty to A.D. 956 (Samvat 993 + 19 = 1012) that is five years earlier than S. 1017 the date given by the Vichárasreni. Until some evidence to the contrary is shown Merutunga's date A.D. 961 (S. 821 + 196 = 1017) may be taken as correct.
According to the above the Chávadá genealogy stands as follows:
Vanarája, born A.D. 720; succeeded A.D. 765; died A.D. 780. | Interval of twenty-six years. | Yogarája, A.D. 806-841. | -----------------------+-------------------- | | | Ratnáditya, Vairisimha, Kshemarája, A.D. 842. A.D. 845. A.D. 856. | Chámunda or Bhúyada (?), A.D. 881. | Ghághada or Ráhada, A.D. 908. | Name Unknown, A.D. 937-961.
[The period of Chávadá rule at Anahilaváda is likely to remain obscure until the discovery of cotemporary inscriptions throws more light upon it than can be gathered from the confused and contradictory legends collected by the Solanki historians, none of whom are older than the twelfth century. For the present a few points only can be regarded as established:
(i) The Chávadás, Chávotakas, or Chápotkatas, are connected with the Chápas of Bhínmál and of Vadhván and are therefore of Gurjjara race. (Compare Ind. Ant. XVII. 192.)
(ii) They probably were never more than feudatories of the Bhínmál kings.
(iii) Though the legend places the fall of Pañchásar in A.D. 696 and the foundation of Anahilaváda in A.D. 746, the grant of Pulakesi Janásraya shows that a Chávadá (Chávotaka) kingdom existed in A.D. 728.
As regards the chronology of the dynasty, the explanation of the long life of 110 years ascribed to Vanarája may be that a grandson of the same name succeeded the founder of the family. The name of Chámunda has, as Dr. Bühler long ago pointed out, crept in through some error from the Solanki list. But when the same author in two different works gives such contradictory lists and dates as Merutunga does in his Prabandhachintámani and his Vichárasreni, it is clearly useless to attempt to extract a consistent story from the chroniclers.--A. M. T. J.]