The Project Gutenberg eBook of History of Gujarát

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: History of Gujarát

Author: James M. Campbell

Release date: May 2, 2017 [eBook #54652]
Most recently updated: February 3, 2023

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Jeroen Hellingman and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at (Prepared from
scans made by the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin. The digitized
holdings of the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin are all
interested parties worldwide free of charge for
non-commercial use available.)



Newly Designed Front Cover.

Original Title Page.

In further recognition of the distinguished labours of Sir James McNabb Campbell, K.C.I.E., and of the services rendered by those who have assisted him in his work, His Excellency the Governor in Council is pleased to order that the following extract from Government Resolution No. 2885, dated the 11th August 1884, be republished and printed immediately after the title page of Volume I, Part I, of the Gazetteer, and published in every issue:

“His Excellency the Governor in Council has from time to time expressed his entire approval of the Volumes of the Gazetteer already published, and now learns with much satisfaction that the remaining Statistical Accounts have been completed in the same elaborate manner. The task now brought to a close by Mr. Campbell has been very arduous. It has been the subject of his untiring industry for more than ten years, in the earlier part of which period, however, he was occasionally employed on additional duties, including the preparation of a large number of articles for the Imperial Gazetteer. When the work was begun, it was not anticipated that so much time would be required for its completion, because it was not contemplated that it would be carried out on so extensive a scale. Its magnitude may be estimated by the fact that the Statistical Accounts, exclusive of the general chapters yet to be reprinted, embrace twenty-seven Volumes containing on an average 500 pages each. Mr. Campbell could not have sustained the unflagging zeal displayed by him for so long a period without an intense interest in the subjects dealt with. The result is well worthy of the labour expended, and is a proof of the rare fitness of Mr. Campbell on the ground both of literary ability and of power of steady application for the important duty assigned to him. The work is a record of historical and statistical facts and of information regarding the country and the people as complete perhaps as ever was produced on behalf of any Government, and cannot fail to be of the utmost utility in the future administration of the Presidency.

“2. The thanks of Government have already been conveyed to the various contributors, and it is only necessary now to add that they share, according to the importance of their contributions, in the credit which attaches to the general excellence of the work.”

The whole series of Volumes is now complete, and His Excellency in Council congratulates Sir James Campbell and all associated with him in this successful and memorable achievement.

Secretary to Government,
General Department. [iii]


The earliest record of an attempt to arrange for the preparation of Statistical Accounts of the different districts of the Bombay Presidency is in 1843. In 1843 Government called on the Revenue Commissioner to obtain from all the Collectors as part of their next Annual Report the fullest available information regarding their districts.1 The information was specially to include their own and their Assistants’ observations on the state of the cross and other roads not under the superintendence of a separate department, on the passes and ferries throughout the country, on the streets in the principal towns, and on the extension and improvement of internal communications. As from Collectors alone could any knowledge of the state of the district be obtained, the Collectors were desired to include in their Annual Reports observations on every point from which a knowledge of the actual condition of the country could be gathered with the exception of matters purely judicial which were to be supplied by the Judicial Branch of the Administration. Government remarked that, as Collectors and their Assistants during a large portion of the year moved about the district in constant and intimate communication with all classes they possessed advantages which no other public officers enjoyed of acquiring a full knowledge of the condition of the country, the causes of progress or retrogradation, the good measures which require to be fostered and extended, the evil measures which call for abandonment, the defects in existing institutions which require to be remedied, and the nature of the remedies to be applied. Collectors also, it was observed, have an opportunity of judging of the effect of British rule on the condition and character of the people, on their caste prejudices, and on their superstitious observances. They can trace any alteration for the better or worse in dwellings, clothing and diet, and can observe the use of improved implements of husbandry or other crafts, the habits of locomotion, the state of education particularly among the higher classes whose decaying means and energy under our most levelling system compared with that of preceding governments will attract their attention. Finally they can learn how far existing village institutions are effectual to [iv]their end, and may be made available for self-government and in the management of local taxation for local purposes.

In obedience to these orders reports were received from the Collectors of Ahmedábád Broach Kaira Thána and Khándesh. Some of the reports, especially that of Mr. J. D. Inverarity, contained much interesting information. These five northern reports were practically the only result of the Circular Letter of 1843.

The question of preparing District Statistical Manuals was not again raised till 1870. In October 1867 the Secretary of State desired the Bombay Government to take steps for the compilation of a Gazetteer of the Presidency on the model of the Gazetteer prepared during that year for the Central Provinces. The Bombay Government requested the two Revenue Commissioners and the Director of Public Instruction to submit a scheme for carrying into effect the orders of the Secretary of State. In reply the officers consulted remarked that the work to be done for the Bombay Presidency would be of a multifarious character; that the article on the commerce of Bombay would require special qualifications in the writer; that again special qualifications would be required for writing accounts of the sacred cities of Násik and Pálitána, of the caves of Ajanta and Ellora, of the histories of Sindh Gujarát and Ahmednagar, and of the Portuguese connection with Western India. The Committee observed that a third form of special knowledge would be required to write accounts of Pársis Khojás and other castes and tribes; that in short the undertaking would be one of much wider scope and greater difficulty than the preparation of the Gazetteer of the Central Provinces. Much thought would be required before the general plan could be laid down, and after the plan was fixed all sorts of questions as to arrangement and treatment of particular parts would be sure to arise. In the Committee’s opinion local revenue officers could not as a rule find time to devote to work of this description without neglecting their ordinary duties; but they could correct and amplify such information as a special officer could compile from the published and unpublished records of Government.

In January 1868 the Bombay Government decided that the general supervision and direction of the work should be placed in the hands of a Committee consisting of the Revenue Commissioners, the Director of Public Instruction, and the Commissioner of Customs, and that an Editor should be appointed with a small copying establishment to act under the directions of the Committee. The Editor was to give his entire time to the work and was expected to [v]finish it in about a year. He was to collect and arrange in alphabetical order all recorded information regarding the towns and other places of interest in each Collectorate, and to send printed on half margin each draft when completed to the local officers for verification, additions, and alterations. When the drafts were returned and corrected by the Editor, they were to be laid before the Committee. To enable the Editor to meet such expenses as a fair remuneration for articles contributed by qualified persons, and also to pay for the printing of the work with small accompanying maps, an amount not exceeding Rs. 12,000 was sanctioned for the total expense of the Gazetteer including the payment of the Editor. At the outset it was decided to place a portion of the sum sanctioned not exceeding Rs. 2000, at the disposal of the Commissioner in Sindh to secure the preparation of articles referring to Sindh. The Committee were requested to meet at Poona in June 1868 and to report to Government on the best mode of preparing and editing the Gazetteer and supervising its publication. The Collectors and Political Officers were in the meanwhile requested to ascertain what records in their possession were likely to be useful for the preparation of a Gazetteer and what papers in the possession of others and likely to be useful for the purpose were obtainable within their charge. Collectors and Political Officers were requested to send their replies direct to the Director of Public Instruction who would collect them on behalf of the Committee.

In August 1868 the Bombay Gazetteer Committee, composed of Messrs. A. F. Bellasis Revenue Commissioner N. D. Chairman, Mr. W. H. Havelock Revenue Commissioner S. D. and Sir Alexander Grant, Director of Public Instruction, submitted a report recommending the following arrangements:

  • (1) That Mr. W. H. Crowe, C.S., then Acting Professor in the Dakhan College, be appointed Editor of the Gazetteer with a monthly remuneration of Rs. 200 out of the Rs. 12,000 sanctioned for the expense of the Gazetteer and that he should at the same time be attached as an Assistant to the Collector of Poona;
  • (2) That Mr. Crowe be allowed an establishment not exceeding Rs. 50 a month chargeable to the grant of Rs. 12,000, and such contingent charges as may be passed by the Committee;
  • (3) That Professor Kero Luxman Chhatre be requested to assist Mr. Crowe on various questions both local and mathematical, and that on the completion of the work a suitable honorarium be granted to Professor Kero;
  • (4) That agreeably to the suggestions of Major Prescott and Colonel Francis, Mr. Light should be directed to compile for the different districts all information in the possession of the Survey Department in communication [vi]with the Editor of the Gazetteer who was to work under the Committee’s orders;
  • (5) That the above appointments be made at present for one year only, at the end of which from the Committee’s progress report, it would be possible to state with approximate definiteness the further time required for the completion of the Gazetteer.

These proposals were sanctioned on the 11th September 1868. Towards the close of 1868 Mr. (now Sir) J. B. Peile took the place of Sir A. Grant on the Committee and Colonel Francis was added to the list of the members. Adhering as far as possible to the arrangement followed in the Gazetteer of the Central Provinces, which had met with the approval of the Secretary of State, Mr. Crowe drew out the following list of subjects which was forwarded to all Collectors Sub-Collectors and Survey Superintendents:

  • I.—General Description.
    • (a) Latitude and Longitude.
    • (b) Locality.
    • (c) Boundaries.
    • (d) Aspect.
    • (e) Water-supply.
    • (f) Rivers.
    • (g) Mountains.
    • (h) Area.
    • (i) Altitude.
  • II.—Climate, Seasons.
    • (a) Rainfall.
    • (b) Health.
    • (c) Prevailing Diseases.
  • III.—Geology.
    • (a) Soils.
    • (b) Minerals.
    • (c) Scientific Details.
  • IV.—History.
  • V.—Administration.
    • (a) Judicial.
    • (b) Revenue.
    • (c) Miscellaneous.
  • VI.—Revenue.
    • (a) Imperial.
    • (b) Local.
  • VII.—Population.
    • (a) Census.
    • (b) Description of Inhabitants.
    • (c) Castes.
  • VIII.—Sub-Divisions.
    • (a) Names of Tálukás.
    • (b) Names of Towns.
  • IX.—Production.
    • (a) Agriculture.
    • (b) Forest.
    • (c) Animals.
    • (d) Minerals.
    • (e) Manufactures.
  • X.—Trade and Commerce.
  • XI.—Communications.
    • (a) Roads.
    • (b) Railways.
    • (c) Telegraphs.
    • (d) Post.
  • XII.—Revenue System and Land Tenures.
  • XVI.—Education.
    • (a) Schools.
    • (b) Instruction.
  • XIV.—Language.
  • XV.—Architectural Remains and Antiquities.
  • XVI.—Principal Towns and Villages.


In 1869 the draft articles prepared by Mr. Crowe were submitted to Mr. (now Sir) W. W. Hunter of the Bengal Civil Service who expressed his satisfaction at the progress made. The Committee adopted certain suggestions made by Sir W. Hunter for the arrangement of the work and for obtaining fuller district figures from the Marine, Irrigation, Cotton, and Survey Offices. In March 1870 a further extension of one year was accorded. The Bombay Government directed that each Collector should choose one of his Assistants to correspond with the Editor and obtain for him all possible information from local records. All Heads of Offices were also desired to exert themselves zealously in aiding the prosecution of the work. In 1871 Mr. Crowe’s draft article on the Dhárwár District was sent to Mr. Hunter for opinion who in addition to detailed criticism on various points made the following general remarks:

“My own conception of the work is that, in return for a couple of days’ reading, the Account should give a new Collector a comprehensive, and, at the same time, a distinct idea of the district which he has been sent to administer. Mere reading can never supersede practical experience in the district administration. But a succinct and well conceived district account is capable of antedating the acquisition of such personal experience by many months and of both facilitating and systematising a Collector’s personal enquiries. The Compiler does not seem to have caught the points on which a Collector would naturally consult the Account. In order that the Editor should understand these points it is necessary that he should have had practical acquaintance with district administration and that he should himself have experienced the difficulties which beset an officer on his taking charge of a district or sub-division. The individual points will differ according to the character of the country. For example in deltaic districts the important question is the control of rivers; in dry districts it is the subject of water-supply. But in all cases a District Account besides dealing with the local specialties should furnish an historical narration of its revenue and expenditure since it passed under the British rule, of the sums which we have taken from it in taxes, and of the amount which we have returned to it in the protection of property and person and the other charges of civil government.”

Sir William Hunter laid much stress on the necessity of stating the authority on the strength of which any statement is made and of the propriety of avoiding anything like libels on persons or classes. In 1871 Sir W. Hunter was appointed Director General of Statistics to the Government of India. In this capacity he was to be a central guiding authority whose duty it was to see that each of the Provincial Gazetteers contained the materials requisite for the comparative statistics of the Empire. As some of the Bombay District Accounts were incomplete and as it was thought advisable to embody in the District Accounts the results of the general Census of 1872, it was decided, in October 1871, that pending the completion of the census [viii]the Gazetteer work should be suspended and that when the results of the census were compiled and classified a special officer should be appointed for a period of six months to revise and complete the drafts. In October 1871, pending the compilation of the census returns, Mr. Crowe was appointed Assistant Collector at Sholápur and the Gazetteer records were left in a room in the Poona Collector’s Office. In September 1872 the whole of the Gazetteer records, including thirty-one articles on British Districts and Native States, were stolen by two youths who had been serving in the Collector’s Office as peons. These youths finding the Gazetteer office room unoccupied stole the papers piece by piece for the sake of the trifling amount they fetched as waste paper. Search resulted in the recovery in an imperfect state of seven of the thirty-one drafts. The youths were convicted and sentenced to a year’s imprisonment in the Poona Reformatory.

In 1873 Mr. Francis Chapman then Chief Secretary to Government took the preparation of the Gazetteer under his personal control. And in June 1873 Mr. James M. Campbell, C.S., was appointed Compiler. An important change introduced by Mr. Chapman was to separate from the preparation of the series of District Manuals certain general subjects and to arrange for the preparation of accounts of those general subjects by specially qualified contributors. The subjects so set apart and allotted were:

No. General Contributors, 1873.
Subject. Contributor.
1 Ethnology Dr. J. Wilson.
2 Meteorology Mr. C. Chambers, F.R.S.
3 Geology Mr. W. Blandford.
4 Botany Dr. W. Gray.
5 Archæology Dr. J. Burgess.
6 Manufactures and Industry Mr. G. W. Terry.
7 Trade and Commerce Mr. J. Gordon.

These arrangements resulted in the preparation of the following papers each of which on receipt was printed in pamphlet form:

I. Ethnology; II. Meteorology; III. Geology; and IV. Botany.

Of these papers it has not been deemed advisable to reprint Dr. J. Wilson’s Paper on Castes as it was incomplete owing to Dr. Wilson’s death in 1875. Reprinting was also unnecessary in the case of Mr. Blandford’s Geology and of the late Mr. Chambers’ Meteorology, as the contents of these pamphlets have been embodied in works [ix]specially devoted to the subject of those contributions. Dr. Burgess never prepared his article on the Archæology of the Presidency, but the materials supplied by the late Pandit Bhagvánlál Indraji prevented the evil effect which this failure would otherwise have caused. Dr. Bhagvánlál also ably supplied the deficiency caused by Dr. G. Bühler’s failure to contribute an article on the Early History of Gujarát. The notices of the manufactures in the more important industrial centres to some extent supply the blank caused by the absence of Mr. Terry’s contribution. Nothing came of the late Mr. Gordon’s Account of the Trade of the Presidency.

On the important subject of Botany besides Dr. W. Gray’s original contribution, a valuable paper On Useful Trees and Plants was prepared by Dr. J. C. Lisboa, and a detailed account of Kaira field trees by the late Mr. G. H. D. Wilson of the Bombay Civil Service. These three papers together form a separate Botany Volume No. XXV.

The general contributions on History contained in Vol. I. Parts I. and II. are among the most valuable portions of the Gazetteer. Besides the shorter papers by Mr. L. R. Ashburner, C.S.I., on the Gujarát Mutinies of 1857, by Mr. J. A. Baines, C.S.I., on the Maráthás in Gujarát, by Mr. W. W. Loch, I.C.S., on the Musalmán and Marátha histories of Khándesh and the Bombay Dakhan, and by the late Colonel E. W. West, I.S.C., on the modern history of the Southern Marátha districts, there are the Reverend A. K. Nairne’s History of the Konkan which is specially rich in the Portuguese period (a.d. 1500–1750), the late Colonel J. W. Watson’s Musalmáns of Gujarát with additions by Khán Sáheb Fazl Lutfullah Farídi of Surat, and the important original histories of the Early Dakhan by Professor Rámkrishna Gopál Bhandárkar, C.I.E., Ph.D., and of the Southern Marátha districts by Mr. J. F. Fleet, I.C.S., C.I.E., Ph.D. With these the early history of Gujarát from materials supplied by the late Pandit Bhagvánlál Indraji, Ph.D., is perhaps not unworthy to rank. The work of completing Dr. Bhagvánlál’s history was one of special difficulty. No satisfactory result would have been obtained had it not been for the valuable assistance received from Mr. A. M. T. Jackson, M.A., of the Indian Civil Service.

The importance and the interest of the great subject of Population have added several contributions to the Reverend Doctor J. Wilson’s original pamphlet of twenty-three pages. Most of these contributions appear in different District Statistical Accounts especially Dr. John Pollen’s, I.C.S., accounts in Khándesh, Mr. Cumine’s, I.C.S. in Bijápur, Mr. K. Raghunáthji’s in Thána and Poona, Assistant Surgeon Shántárám [x]Vináyak’s in Sholápur, Mr. P. F. DeSouza’s in Kánara, and the late Ráo Bahádur Trimalrao’s in Dhárwár. Except the valuable articles contributed in the Statistical Account of Kachh by Major J. W. Wray, Mr. Vináyakráo Náráyanand Ráo Sáheb Dalpatrám Pránjivan Khakhar, in the Account of Káthiáwár by the late Colonel L. C. Barton, and in the Account of Rewa Kántha by Ráo Bahádur Nandshankar Tuljáshankar the early date at which the Gujarát Statistical Accounts were published prevented the preparation of detailed articles on population. This omission has now been supplied in a separate volume No. IX. The chief contributions to this volume are Ráo Bahádur Bhimbhái Kirpárám’s Hindus, Khán Sáheb Fazl Lutfullah Farídi’s Musalmáns, and Messrs. Kharsetji N. Servai and Bamanji B. Patel’s Pársis.

Besides to these general contributors the series of Statistical Accounts owes much of their fullness and practical usefulness to District Officers especially to the labours of the District Compilers who in most cases were either Collectors or Assistant Collectors. The most important contributors of this class were for Ahmedábád Mr. F. S. P. Lely, C.S.; for Kaira Mr. G. F. Sheppard, C.S.; for the Panch Maháls Mr. H. A. Acworth, C.S.; for Thána Messrs. W. B. Mulock, C.S., E. J. Ebden, C.S., W. W. Loch, C.S., and A. Cumine, C.S.; for Kolába Mr. E. H. Moscardi, C.S.; for Ratnágiri Mr. G. W. Vidal, C.S.; for Khándesh Mr. W. Ramsay, C.S., Dr. John Pollen, C.S., and Mr. A. Crawley-Boevey, C.S.; for Násik Messrs. W. Ramsay, C.S., J. A. Baines, C.S., and H. R. Cooke, C.S.; for Ahmednagar Mr. T. S. Hamilton, C.S.; for Poona Messrs. J. G. Moore, C.S., John MacLeod Campbell, C.S., G. H. Johns, C.S., and A. Keyser, C.S.; for Sátára Mr. J. W. P. Muir-Mackenzie, C.S.; for Sholápur Mr. C. E. G. Crawford, C.S.; for Belgaum Mr. G. McCorkell, C.S.; for Dhárwár Messrs. F. L. Charles, C.S., and J. F. Muir, C.S.; for Bijápur Messrs. H. F. Silcock, C.S., A. Cumine, C.S., and M. H. Scott, C.S.; and for Kánara Mr. J. Monteath, C.S., and Colonel W. Peyton. Of the accounts of Native States, the interesting and complete Gazetteer of Baroda is the work of Mr. F. A. H. Elliott, C.S. The chief contributors to the other Statistical Accounts of Native States were for Kachh Colonel L. C. Barton; for Káthiáwár Colonel J. W. Watson and Colonel L. C. Barton; for Pálanpur Colonel J. W. Watson; for Mahi Kántha Colonels E. W. West and P. H. LeGeyt; for Rewa Kántha Colonel L. C. Barton and Ráo Báhádur Nandshankar Tuljáshankar; for Sávantvádi Colonel J. F. Lester; for Jánjira Mr. G. Larcom; for Kolhápur Colonels E. W. West and W. F. F. Waller and [xi]Ráo Bahádur Yeshvant M. Kelkar. The names of numerous other contributors both in and out of Government service who gave help in compiling information connected with their districts have been shewn in the body of each District Statistical Account. Of these the learned and most ungrudging assistance received from Dr. J. Gerson DaCunha of Bombay requires special recognition.

The third main source of preparation was the Compiler’s head-quarters office. Through the interest which Mr. Francis Chapman took in the Gazetteer the Compiler was able to secure the services as Assistant of Ráo Báhádur Bhimbhái Kirpárám who was Head Accountant in the Kaira Treasury when the Statistical Account of Kaira was under preparation in 1874. Mr. Bhimbhái’s minute knowledge of administrative detail, his power of asking for information in the form least troublesome to district establishments, and of checking the information received, together with his talent for directing the work at head-quarters formed one of the most important elements in the success of the Gazetteer arrangements. Besides to the interest taken by Mr. Francis Chapman the Gazetteer owed much to the advice and to the support of Sir W. W. Hunter, who, in spite of the delay and expense which it involved, secured the full record of the survey and other details in which the Bombay revenue system is specially rich.

In addition to Ráo Bahádur Bhimbhái, the members of the Compiler’s office whose work entitles them almost to a place among contributors are: Ráo Sáheb Krishnaráo Narsinh, who drafted many of the Land Revenue and Survey Histories; the late Mr. Ganesh Bhikáji Gunjikar, B.A., who drafted many of the Political Histories; the late Mr. Vaikunthrám Manmathrám Mehta, B.A., and Ráo Bahádur Itchárám Bhagvándás, B.A., who drafted many articles on Description, Production, Agriculture, Capital, and Trade; Mr. K. Raghunáthji who prepared many of the fullest caste accounts; Mr. Ratirám Durgárám, B.A., who drafted many papers on places of interest; and Messrs. Yeshvant Nilkanth and Mahádev G. Nádkarni who drafted many of the sections on Population, Agriculture, Capital, and Trade.

Other officers of Government who have had an important share in the satisfactory completion of the Gazetteer are: Mr. J. Kingsmill the former and Mr. Frámroz Rustamji the present Superintendent of the Government Central Press and Mr. T. E. Coleman the Head Examiner, whose unfailing watchfulness has detected many a mistake. Mr. Waite the late Superintendent of the Photozincographic Press and Mr. T. LeMesurier the present Superintendent have supplied a set of most handy, clear, and accurate maps. [xii]

A further means adopted for collecting information was the preparation of papers on the different social, economic, and religious subjects which had proved of interest in preparing the earliest District Statistical Accounts. Between 1874 and 1880 forty-nine question papers which are given as an Appendix to the General Index Volume were from time to time printed and circulated. The answers received to these papers added greatly to the fullness and to the local interest of all the later Statistical Accounts.

The Statistical Accounts of the eighteen British districts and eighty-two Native States of the Bombay Presidency, together with the Materials towards a Statistical Account of the Town and Island of Bombay extend over thirty-three Volumes and 17,800 pages. In addition to these Statistical Accounts 475 articles were prepared in 1877–78 for the Imperial Gazetteer.


Bombay Customs House,
29th May 1896.


1 Secretary’s Letter 4223 to the Revenue Commissioner dated 30th December 1843. Revenue Volume 1854 of 1843. 




This Volume contains the Articles named below:

  • I.—Early History of Gujarát (b.c. 319–a.d. 1304).—From materials prepared by the late Pandit Bhagvánlál Indraji, Ph.D., completed with the help of A. M. T. Jackson, Esquire, M.A., of the Indian Civil Service.
  • II.—History of Gujarát, Musalmán Period (a.d. 1297–1760).—Prepared by the late Colonel J. W. Watson, Indian Staff Corps, former Political Agent of Káthiáváḍa, with additions by Khán Sáheb Fazlullah Lutfulláh Farídi of Surat.
  • III.—History of Gujarát, Marátha Period (a.d. 1760–1819).—By J. A. Baines, Esquire, C.S.I., Late of Her Majesty’s Bombay Civil Service.
  • IV.—Disturbances in Gujarát (a.d. 1857–1859).—By L. R. Ashburner, Esquire, C.S.I., Late of Her Majesty’s Bombay Civil Service.



29th May 1896. [xvii]





Boundaries and Name        1–5

Ancient Divisions:

Ánartta; Suráshṭra; Láṭa        6–7


Ánartta the first Puráṇic king of Gujarát, and the Yádavas in Dwárika        8–12

Mauryan and Greek Rule (b.c. 319–100):

The Mauryas (b.c. 319–197); The Greeks (b.c. 180–100)        13–19

The Kshatrapas (b.c. 70–a.d. 398):

The Name; Northern Kshatrapas; Western Kshatrapas; Nahapána (a.d. 78–120); Ushavadáta (a.d. 100–120); Nahapána’s Era; Málava Era; Chashṭana (a.d. 130); The Mevas or Meḍas; Jayadáman (a.d. 140–143)        20–34

Rudradáman (a.d. 143–158); Sudarśana Lake; The Yaudheyas; Dámázaḍa or Dámájaḍaśrí (a.d. 158–168); Jivadáman (a.d. 178); Rudrasiṃha I. (a.d. 181–196); Rudrasena (a.d. 203–220); Pṛithivísena (a.d. 222); Saṅghadáman (a.d. 222–226); Dámasena (a.d. 226–236); Dámájaḍaśrí II. (a.d. 236)        35–45

Víradáman (a.d. 236–238); Yaśadáman (a.d. 239); Vijayasena (a.d. 238–249); Dámájaḍaśrí (a.d. 250–255); Rudrasena II. (a.d. 256–272); Viśvasiṃha (a.d. 272–278); Bharttṛidáman (a.d. 278–294); Viśvasena (a.d. 294–300); Rudrasiṃha (a.d. 308–311); Yaśadáman (a.d. 320); Dámasiri (a.d. 320); Rudrasena (a.d. 348–376); Siṃhasena; Skanda; Íśvaradatta (a.d. 230–250); Kshatrapa Family Tree        46–54

The Traikúṭakas (a.d. 250–450):

Initial Date; Their Race        55–59

The Guptas (G. 90–149; a.d. 410–470):

Dynasty; The founder Gupta (a.d. 319–322 [?]); Ghaṭotkacha (a.d. 322–349 [?]); Chandragupta I. (a.d. 349–369 [?]; Samudragupta (a.d. 370–395); Chandragupta II. (a.d. 396–415); Kumáragupta (a.d. 416–453); Skandagupta (a.d. 454–470)        60–70

Budhagupta (a.d. 485); Bhánugupta (a.d. 511); The Pushyamitras (a.d. 455); White Huns (a.d. 450–520); Mihirakula (a.d. 512); Yaśodharman of Málwa (a.d. 533–34)        71–77 [xviii]

The Valabhis (a.d. 509–766):

Vaḷeh Town (1893); Valabhi in a.d. 630; Valabhi Copperplates; Valabhi Administration (a.d. 500–700); Territorial Divisions; Land Assessment; Religion; Origin of the Valabhis; History        78–86

First Valabhi Grant (a.d. 526); Senápati Bhaṭárka (a.d. 509–520?); the Maitrakas (a.d. 470–509); Senápati’s Sons; Dhruvasena I. (a.d. 526–535); Guhasena (a.d. 539–569); Dharasena II. (a.d. 569–589); Śíláditya I. (a.d. 594–609); Kharagraha (a.d. 610–615); Dharasena III. (a.d. 615–620); Dhruvasena II. (Báláditya) (a.d. 620–640); Dharasena IV. (a.d. 640–649); Dhruvasena III. (a.d. 650–656); Kharagraha (a.d. 656–665); Śíláditya III. (a.d. 666–675); Śíláditya IV. (a.d. 691); Śíláditya V. (a.d. 722); Śíláditya VI. (a.d. 760); Śíláditya VII. (a.d. 766); Valabhi Family Tree; The fall of Valabhi (a.d. 750–770); The importance of Valabhi        87–96

Valabhi and the Gehlots; The Válas of Káthiáváḍa; The Válas and Káthis; Descent from Kanaksen (a.d. 150); Mewáḍ and the Persians; Válas        97–106

The Chálukyas (a.d. 634–740):

Jayasiṃhavarmman (a.d. 666–693); Śryáśraya Śíláditya (heir apparent) (a.d. 669–691); Mangalarája (a.d. 698–731); Pulakeśi Janáśraya (a.d. 738); Buddhavarmman (a.d. 713?); Nágavarddhana; Chálukya Tree        107–112

The Gurjjaras (a.d. 580–808):

Copperplates; Gurjjara Tree; Dadda I. (c. 585–605 a.d.); Jayabhaṭa I. Vítarága (c. 605–620 a.d.); Dadda II. Praśántarága (c. 620–650 a.d.); Jayabhaṭa II. (c. 650–675 a.d.); Dadda III. Báhusaháya (c. 675–700 a.d.); Jayabhaṭa III. (c. 704–734 a.d.)        113–118

The Ráshṭrakúṭas (a.d. 743–974):

Origin; Name; Early Dynasty (a.d. 450–500); The main Dynasty (a.d. 630–972); Ráshṭrakúṭa Family Tree (a.d. 630–972); Copperplates; Kakka II. (a.d. 747); Kṛishṇa and Govinda II. (a.d. 765–795); Dhruva I. (a.d. 795); Govinda III. (a.d. 800–808); Indra (a.d. 808–812); Karka I. (a.d. 812–821); Dantivarmman (Heir Apparent); Govinda (a.d. 827–833); Dhruva I. (a.d. 835–867); Akálavarsha (a.d. 867); Dhruva II. (a.d. 867); Akálavarsha Kṛishṇa (a.d. 888); Main Line restored (a.d. 888–974); Kṛishṇa Akálavarsha (a.d. 888–914); Indra Nityaṃvarsha (a.d. 914)        119–134

The Mihiras or Mers (a.d. 470–900):

History; The Chúḍásamás (a.d. 900–940); The Jethvás; The Mers; White Húṇas; Jhálás        135–147 [xix]


The Chávaḍás (a.d. 720–956):

Pañchásar (a.d. 788); Jayaśekhara (a.d. 696); Vanarája (a.d. 720–780?); Founding of Aṇahilaváḍa (a.d. 746–765); Vanarája’s Installation; His Image; Vanarája’s Successors (a.d. 780–961); Yogarája (a.d. 806–841); Kshemarája (a.d. 841–880); Chámuṇḍa (a.d. 880–908); Ghághaḍa (a.d. 908–937); Chávaḍá Genealogy        149–155

The Chaulukyas or Solaṅkis (a.d. 961–1242):

Authorities; The name Chaulukya; Múlarája (a.d. 961–996); Chámuṇḍa (a.d. 997–1010); Durlabha (a.d. 1010–1022); Bhíma I. (a.d. 1022–1064); Mahmúd’s Invasion (a.d. 1024); Somanátha (a.d. 1024)        156–169

Karṇa (a.d. 1064–1094); Siddharája Jayasingha (a.d. 1094–1143)        170–181

Kumárapála (a.d. 1143–1174); Ajayapála (a.d. 1174–1177); Múlarája II. (a.d. 1177–1179); Bhíma II. (a.d. 1179–1242)        182–197

The Vághelás (a.d. 1219–1304):

Arṇorája (a.d. 1170–1200); Lavaṇaprasáda (a.d. 1200–1233); Víradhavala (a.d. 1233–1238); Vísaladeva (a.d. 1243–1261); Arjuṇadeva (a.d. 1262–1274); Sáraṅgadeva (a.d. 1275–1296); Karṇadeva (a.d. 1296–1304); Vághela Genealogy        198–206

MUSALMÁN PERIOD (a.d. 1297–1760).


Territorial Limits; Sorath; Káthiáváḍa; Under the Kings (a.d. 1403–1573); Under the Mughals (a.d. 1573–1760); Condition of Gujarát (a.d. 1297–1802)        207–228

Early Musalmán Governors (a.d. 1297–1403):

Alá-ud-dín Khilji Emperor (a.d. 1295–1315); Ulugh Khán (a.d. 1297–1317); Ain-ul-Mulk Governor (a.d. 1318); Order established (a.d. 1318); Muhammad Tughlak Emperor (a.d. 1325–1351); Táj-ul-Mulk Governor (a.d. 1320); Suppression of insurrection (a.d. 1347); Surrender of Girnár and Kachh (a.d. 1350); Fírúz Tughlak Emperor (a.d. 1351–1388); Zafar Khán Governor (a.d. 1371); Farhat-ul-Mulk Governor (a.d. 1376–1391); Muhammad Tughlak II. Emperor (a.d. 1391–1393); Zafar Khán Governor (a.d. 1391–1403)        229–233

Ahmedábád Kings (a.d. 1403–1573):

Muhammad I. (a.d. 1403–1404); Muzaffar (a.d. 1407–1419); Ahmed I. (a.d. 1411–1441); Ahmedábád built (a.d. 1413); Defeat of the Ídar Chief (a.d. 1414); Spread of Islám (a.d. 1414); Expedition against Málwa (a.d. 1417); Chámpáner attacked (a.d. 1418); War with Málwa (a.d. 1422); Defeat of [xx]the Ídar Chief (a.d. 1425); Recovery of Máhim (a.d. 1429) and Báglán (a.d. 1431); Muhammad II. (a.d. 1441–1452); Kutb-ud-dín (a.d. 1451–1459); War with Málwa (a.d. 1451) Battle of Kapadvanj (a.d. 1454); War with Nágor (a.d. 1454–1459); War with Chitor (a.d. 1455–1459)        234–242

Mahmúd I. Begada (a.d. 1459–1513); Defeat of a conspiracy (a.d. 1459); Improvement of the soldiery (a.d. 1459–1461); Help given to the king of the Dakhan (a.d. 1461); Expedition against Junágaḍh (a.d. 1467); Capture of Girnár (a.d. 1472); Disturbances in Chámpáner (a.d. 1472); Conquest of Kachh; Jagat destroyed; Conspiracy (a.d. 1480); War against Chámpáner (a.d. 1482–1484); Capture of Pávágaḍ (a.d. 1484); The Khándesh succession (a.d. 1508); Muzaffar II. (a.d. 1513–1526); Expedition against Ídar (a.d. 1514); Disturbances in Málwa (a.d. 1517); Capture of Mándu (a.d. 1518); War with Chitor (a.d. 1519); Submission of the Rána of Chitor (a.d. 1521); Death of Muzaffar II. (a.d. 1526)        243–252

Sikandar (a.d. 1526); Máhmúd II. (a.d. 1526); Bahádur (a.d. 1527–1536); Portuguese intrigues (a.d. 1526); Khándesh affairs (a.d. 1528); Turks at Diu (a.d. 1526–1530); Capture of Mándu (a.d. 1530); Quarrel with Humáyún (a.d. 1532); Fall of Chitor (a.d. 1535); Mughal conquest of Gujarát (a.d. 1535); The Mughals driven out (a.d. 1536); The Portuguese at Diu (a.d. 1536); Death of Bahádur (a.d. 1536); Muhammad II. Ásíri (a.d. 1536–1554); His escape from control; Choosing of evil favourites; Quarrels among the nobles; Disturbances (a.d. 1545); Death of Mahmúd (a.d. 1554); Ahmed II. (a.d. 1554–1561); Ítimád Khán Regent; Partition of the province; Dissensions; Sultánpur and Nandurbár handed to Khándesh (a.d. 1560); Defeat and death of Sayad Mubárak; Death of Imád-ul-Mulk Rúmi; Daman district ceded to the Portuguese (a.d. 1550); Assassination of Ahmed II. (a.d. 1560); Muzaffar III. (a.d. 1561–1572), a minor; Ítimád Khán and the Fauládis; The Mírzás (a.d. 1571); Defeat of Ítimád Khán; Death of Changíz Khán; Ítimád Khán and the Emperor Akbar (a.d. 1572)        252–264

Mughal Viceroys (a.d. 1573–1758).

Emperor Akbar (a.d. 1573–1605):

Capture of Broach and Surat and advance to Ahmedábád (a.d. 1573); Mirza Ázíz first Viceroy (a.d. 1573–1575); Insurrection quelled by Akbar (a.d. 1573); Mírza Khán second Viceroy (a.d. 1575–1577); Survey by Rája Todar Mal; Shaháb-ud-din third Viceroy (a.d. 1577–1583); Expedition against Junágaḍh; Ítimád Khán Gujaráti fourth Viceroy (a.d. 1583–1584); Ahmedábád captured by Muzaffar (a.d. 1583); Mírza Abdur Rahím Khán (Khán Khánán) fifth Viceroy (a.d. 1583–1587); Defeat of Muzaffar (a.d. 1584); Ismáíl Kuli Khán sixth Viceroy (a.d. 1587); Mírza Ázíz Kokaltásh seventh Viceroy (a.d. 1588–1592); Refuge sought by Muzaffar in Káthiáváḍa; Muzaffar attacked by the imperial army; Muzaffar’s flight to Kachh and suicide (a.d. 1591–92); Sultán Murád Baksh eighth Viceroy (a.d. 1592–1600); Mirza Ázíz Kokaltásh ninth Viceroy (a.d. 1600–1606)        265–273 [xxi]

Jahángir Emperor (a.d. 1605–1627):

Kalíj Khán tenth Viceroy (a.d. 1606); Sayad Murtaza eleventh Viceroy (a.d. 1606–1609); Mírza Ázíz Kokaltásh twelfth Viceroy (a.d. 1609–1611); Sack of Surat by Malik Âmbar (a.d. 1609); Abdulláh Khán Fírúz Jang thirteenth Viceroy (a.d. 1611–1616); Mukarrab Khán fourteenth Viceroy (a.d. 1616); Elephant-hunting in the Panch Maháls (a.d. 1616); Prince Sháh Jehán fifteenth Viceroy (a.d. 1618–1622); Rebellion of Sháh Jehán (a.d. 1622–23); Sháhi Bágh built at Ahmedábád; Sultán Dáwar Baksh sixteenth Viceroy (a.d. 1622–1624); Saif Khán seventeenth Viceroy (a.d. 1624–1627)        273–277

Sháh Jehán Emperor (a.d. 1627–1658):

Sher Khán Túar eighteenth Viceroy (a.d. 1627–1632); Famine (a.d. 1631–1632); Islám Khán nineteenth Viceroy (a.d. 1632); Disorder (a.d. 1632); Bákar Khán twentieth Viceroy (a.d. 1632); Sipáhdár Khán twenty-first Viceroy (a.d. 1633); Saif Khán twenty-second Viceroy (a.d. 1633–1635); Ázam Khán twenty-third Viceroy (a.d. 1635–1642); The Kolis punished; The Káthis subdued; Revolt of the Jám of Navánagar (a.d. 1640); Ísa Tarkhán twenty-fourth Viceroy (a.d. 1642–1644); Prince Muhammad Aurangzíb twenty-fifth Viceroy (a.d. 1644–1646); Sháistah Khán twenty-sixth Viceroy (a.d. 1646–1648); Prince Muhammad Dárá Shikoh twenty-seventh Viceroy (a.d. 1648–1652); Sháistah Khán twenty-eighth Viceroy (a.d. 1652–1654); Prince Murád Bakhsh twenty-ninth Viceroy (a.d. 1654–1657); Murád Baksh proclaimed emperor (a.d. 1657) Kásam Khán thirtieth Viceroy (a.d. 1657–1659); Victory of Murád and Aurangzíb; Murád confined by Aurangzíb (a.d. 1658)        277–282

Aurangzib Emperor (a.d. 1658–1707):

Sháh Nawáz Khán Safávi thirty-first Viceroy (a.d. 1659); Rebellion of Prince Dárá (a.d. 1659); Prince Dárá defeated (a.d. 1659); Jasavantsingh thirty-second Viceroy (a.d. 1659–1662); Jasavantsingh sent against Shiváji (a.d. 1662); Mahábat Khán thirty-third Viceroy (a.d. 1662–1668); Capture of Navánagar-Islámnagar (a.d. 1664); Surat plundered by Shiváji (a.d. 1664); Copper coinage introduced (a.d. 1668); Khán Jehán thirty-fourth Viceroy (a.d. 1668–1671); Sidi Yákút the Mughal Admiral (a.d. 1670); Mahárája Jasavantsingh thirty-fifth Viceroy (a.d. 1671–1674); Muhammad Amín Khán Umdat-ul-Mulk thirty-sixth Viceroy (a.d. 1674–1683); Increased power of the Bábi family; Revolt of Ídar (a.d. 1679); Mukhtár Khán thirty-seventh Viceroy (a.d. 1683–1684); Famine (a.d. 1684); Shujáât Khán (Kártalab Khán) thirty-eighth Viceroy (a.d. 1684–1703); Mutiny quelled by Shujáât Khán (a.d. 1689); Revolt of Matiás and Momnás (a.d. 1691); Disturbances in Káthiáváḍa (a.d. 1692) and Márwár; Durgádás Ráthoḍ reconciled to the Emperor (a.d. 1697); Scarcity (a.d. 1698); Prince Muhammad Aâzam thirty-ninth Viceroy (a.d. 1703–1705); Intrigue against and escape of Durgádás Ráthoḍ; Surat (a.d. 1700–1703); Ibráhím Khán fortieth Viceroy (a.d. 1705); Maráthás enter Gujarát; Battle [xxii]of Ratanpúr and defeat of the Musalmáns (a.d. 1705); Battle of the Bába Piárah Ford and second defeat of the Musalmáns (a.d. 1705); Koli disturbances; Prince Muhammad Bídár Bakht forty-first Viceroy (a.d. 1705–1706); Durgádás Ráthoḍ again in rebellion; Ibráhím Khán forty-second Viceroy (a.d. 1706)        283–295

Fifty Years of Disorder (a.d. 1707–1757):

The Marátha advance to Ahmedábád and levy of tribute (a.d. 1707); Bahádur Sháh I. Emperor (a.d. 1707–1712); Gházi-ud-dín forty-third Viceroy (a.d. 1708–1710); Jahándár Sháh Emperor (a.d. 1712–13); Ásif-ud-daulah forty-fourth Viceroy (a.d. 1712–13); Farrukhsiyar Emperor (a.d. 1713–1719); Shahámat Khán forty-fifth Viceroy (a.d. 1713); Dáud Khán Panni forty-sixth Viceroy (a.d. 1714–15); Religious riots in Ahmedábád (a.d. 1714); Further riots in Ahmedábád (a.d. 1715); Mahárája Ajítsingh forty-seventh Viceroy (a.d. 1715–1716); Disagreement between the Viceroy and Haidar Kúli Khán (a.d. 1715); Khán Daurán Nasrat Jang Bahádur forty-eighth Viceroy (a.d. 1716–1719); Famine (a.d. 1719); Muhammad Sháh Emperor (a.d. 1721–1748); Mahárája Ajítsingh forty-ninth Viceroy (a.d. 1719–1721); Piláji Gáikwár at Songaḍ (a.d. 1719); Decay of imperial power (a.d. 1720); Nizám-ul-Mulk Prime Minister of the Empire (a.d. 1721); Haidar Kúli Khán fiftieth Viceroy (a.d. 1721–1722); Disorder in Ahmedábád (a.d. 1721); His arrival in Gujarát (a.d. 1722); Signs of independence shown by him and his recall (a.d. 1722); Nizám-ul-Mulk fifty-first Viceroy (a.d. 1722); Hámid Khán Deputy Viceroy; Momín Khán Governor of Surat (a.d. 1722); Increase of Marátha power (a.d. 1723)        295–304

Sarbuland Khán fifty-second Viceroy (a.d. 1723–1730); Shujaât Khán appointed Deputy; Nizám-ul-Mulk and Sarbuland Khán; Sarbuland Khán’s Deputy defeated (a.d. 1724); the Maráthás engaged as Allies; Battle of Arás; Hámid Khán defeated by Rustam Áli (a.d. 1723); Hámid Khán joined by Maráthás against Rustam Áli; Mubáriz-ul-Mulk sent against the Maráthás (a.d. 1725); Retreat of Hámid Khán and the Maráthás; Ahmedábád entered by Mubáriz-ul-Mulk (a.d. 1725); Defeat of the Maráthás at Sojitra and Kapadvanj (a.d. 1725); Marátha expedition against Vadnagar (a.d. 1725); Tribute paid to the Maráthás (a.d. 1726); Alliance with the Peshwa (a.d. 1727); Baroda and Dabhoi obtained by Piláji Gáikwár (a.d. 1727); Capture of Chámpáner by the Maráthás (a.d. 1728); Grant of tribute to the Peshwa (a.d. 1729); Disturbance raised by Mulla Muhammad Áli at Surat (a.d. 1729); Petlád given in farm (a.d. 1729); Athva fort (a.d. 1730); The Viceroy in Káthiáváḍa and Kachh (a.d. 1730); Riots at Ahmedábád; Mahárája Abheysingh fifty-third Viceroy (a.d. 1730–1733); The new Viceroy resisted by Mubáriz-ul-Mulk; Battle of Adálaj; The Mahárája defeated by Mubáriz-ul-Mulk (a.d. 1730); Retreat of Mubáriz-ul-Mulk; Government of Abheysingh; Momín Khán, ruler of Cambay (a.d. 1730); The Peshwa and Viceroy against Piláji Gáikwár (a.d. 1731); The withdrawal of the Peshwa; His opponents defeated; [xxiii]Abdúlláh Beg appointed Nizám’s Deputy at Broach; The death of Piláji Gáikwár procured by the Viceroy (a.d. 1732); Baroda taken; Famine (a.d. 1732); Affairs at Surat (a.d. 1732); Teghbeg Khán Governor of Surat        305–313

Ratansingh Bhandári Deputy Viceroy (a.d. 1733–1737); Return of the Maráthás; Contest for the government of Gogha; Disturbance at Víramgám (a.d. 1734); Baroda recovered by the Maráthás (a.d. 1734); Change of governor at Víramgám; Failure of Jawán Mard Khán in an attempt on Ídar; Rivalry of Ratansingh Bhandári and Sohráb Khán (a.d. 1735); Battle of Dholi; Defeat and death of Sohráb Khán (a.d. 1735); Rivalry between Ratansingh Bhandári and Momín Khán (a.d. 1735); Marátha affairs; Dámáji Gáikwár and Kántáji (a.d. 1735); Battle of Ánand-Mogri; Defeat of Kántáji; The Maráthás helping Bhávsingh to expel the Víramgám Kasbátis; The country plundered by the Gáikwár and Peshwa; Momín Khán fifty-fourth Viceroy (a.d. 1737); Siege of Ahmedábád; Mahárája Abheysingh fifty-fifth Viceroy (a.d. 1737); The siege of Ahmedábád continued by Momín Khán; Defence of the city by Ratansingh Bhandári; Ahmedábád captured by Momín Khán (a.d. 1738); Momín Khán fifty-sixth Viceroy (a.d. 1738–1743); Prosperity of Ahmedábád (a.d. 1738); Tribute collected by the Viceroy (a.d. 1738); Sher Khán Bábi Deputy Governor of Sorath (a.d. 1738); Tribute collected by the Deputy Viceroy (a.d. 1739); Capture of Bassein by the Maráthás (a.d. 1739); Tribute expedition (a.d. 1740); The Viceroy at Cambay (a.d. 1741); Víramgám surrendered and Pátdi received by Bhávsingh; Siege of Broach by the Maráthás (a.d. 1741); Battle of Dholka; Defeat of the Maráthás (a.d. 1741); Contests between the Musalmáns and Maráthás; Disturbance at Ahmedábád (a.d. 1742); Collection of tribute in Káthiáváḍa by the Viceroy; Death of Momín Khán (a.d. 1743)        314–326

Fidá-ud-dín acting as Viceroy (a.d. 1743); The Maráthás defeated by Muftakhir Khán; Dámáji Gáikwár’s return to Gujarát; Abdúl Ázíz Khán of Junnar Viceroy (by a forged order); Mutiny of the troops; Petlád captured by the Maráthás; Muftakhir Khán fifty-seventh Viceroy (a.d. 1743–1744); Jawán Mard Khán appointed Deputy; The Maráthás in Ahmedábád; Battle of Kim Kathodra; Defeat and death of Abdúl Ázíz Khán (a.d. 1744); Fakhr-ud-daulah fifty-eighth Viceroy (a.d. 1744–1748); Jawán Mard Khán Bábi Deputy Viceroy; Khanderáv Gáikwár called to Sátára; Defeat and capture of the Viceroy by Jawán Mard Khán Bábi; Rangoji disgraced by Khanderáv Gáikwár; Rangoji and Jawán Mard Khán opposed by Punáji Vithal and Fakhr-ud-daulah; Siege of Kapadvanj by Fakhr-ud-daulah (a.d. 1746); The siege raised at the approach of Holkar; Momín Khán II. governor of Cambay (a.d. 1748); Increased strength of Fakhr-ud-daulah’s party; Dissensions among the Maráthás; Surat affairs (a.d. 1748); Escape of Mulla Fakhr-ud-din to Bombay; Cession of Surat revenue to the Gáikwár (a.d. 1747); Famine (a.d. 1747); Marátha dissensions; Fall of Borsad        326–332 [xxiv]

Mahárája Vakhatsingh fifty-ninth Viceroy (a.d. 1748); Ahmed Sháh Emperor (a.d. 1748–1754); Spread of disorder; Surat affairs (a.d. 1750); Sayad Achchan unpopular; Safdar Muhammad brought back by the Dutch; Retreat of Sayad Achchan; Jawán Mard Khán and the Peshwa (a.d. 1750); The Peshwa and Gáikwár (a.d. 1751); Broach independent (a.d. 1752); Pándurang Pandit repulsed at Ahmedábád (a.d. 1752); Marátha invasion; Return of Jawán Mard Khán; Gallant defence of Ahmedábád; Surrender of Jawán Mard Khán; Ahmedábád taken by the Maráthás (a.d. 1753); Collection of tribute; Mughal coinage discontinued; Failure of an attempt on Cambay (a.d. 1753); The Kolis; Cambay attacked by the Maráthás (a.d. 1754); Alamgír II. (a.d. 1754–1759); Contest with Momín Khán renewed (a.d. 1754); Gogha taken by Momín Khán (a.d. 1755); Ahmedábád recovered by Momín Khán (17th October 1756); Jawán Mard Khán allying himself with the Maráthás; Ahmedábád invested by the Maráthás (a.d. 1756); Momín Khán helped by Ráo of Ídar (a.d. 1757); Successful sally under Shambhurám; Negotiations for peace; Marátha arrangements in Ahmedábád; New coins; Momín Khán at Cambay; Expedition from Kachh against Sindh (a.d. 1758); Tribute levied by the Maráthás; Surat affairs (a.d. 1758); The command of Surat taken by the English (a.d. 1759); Momín Khán’s visit to Poona (a.d. 1759); Sadáshiv Rámchandra Peshwa’s Viceroy (a.d. 1760); The Maráthás in Káthiáváḍa (a.d. 1759); Ápa Ganesh Viceroy (a.d. 1761); Battle of Pánipat (a.d. 1761)        332–345

Appendix I.Death of Sultán Bahádur (a.d. 1526–1536)        347–351

Appendix II.The Hill Fort of Mándu; Description; History; The Málwa Sultáns (a.d. 1400–1570); The Mughals (a.d. 1570–1720); The Maráthás (a.d. 1720–1820); Notices (a.d. 1820–1895)        352–384.

MARÁTHA PERIOD (a.d. 1760–1819).

History; Śiváji’s first inroad (a.d. 1664); Śiváji’s second attack (a.d. 1670); Sáler taken (a.d. 1672); The Narbada crossed (a.d. 1675); Raids by Dábháde (a.d. 1699–1713); Dábháde (a.d. 1716); Dábháde Senápati; the Peshwa’s negotiations (a.d. 1717); Dámáji Gáikwár (a.d. 1720); Marátha tribute (a.d. 1723); Kántáji Kadam; Marátha dissensions (a.d. 1725); The Peshwa (a.d. 1726); Cession of tribute (a.d. 1728); Coalition against the Peshwa (a.d. 1730); Defeat of the allies (a.d. 1731); Assassination of Piláji Gáikwár (a.d. 1732); Baroda secured by the Gáikwár (a.d. 1734); The Marátha Deputy Governor (a.d. 1736); Ahmedábád riots (a.d. 1738–1741); Siege of Broach (a.d. 1741); Rangoji prisoner at Borsad (a.d. 1742); Quarrels regarding the Viceroyalty between Dámáji and Rághoji Bhonsle (a.d. 1743–44); Rangoji [xv]confined in Borsad (a.d. 1745); the Gáikwár in Surat (a.d. 1747)        385–395

Haribá attacked by Rangoji; Death of Umábái (a.d. 1748); Dámáji deputy in Gujarát; Dámáji against Peshwa; Dámáji Gáikwár arrested (a.d. 1751); The Peshwa and Surat; Release of Dámáji (a.d. 1752); Capture of Ahmedábád (a.d. 1753); Raghunáthráv at Cambay; The Peshwa’s deputy at Ahmedábád; Ahmedábád captured by the Nawáb of Cambay; Dámáji and Khanderáv Gáikwár at Ahmedábád; Surrender of the Nawáb; Sayájiráv in Ahmedábád; Peshwa’s agent Sadáshiv at Surat; The Marátha demand of tribute from the Nawáb of Cambay; The Nawáb at Poona; Lunáváḍa plundered by Khanderáv; Expedition against Bálásinor; The estates of Jawán Mard Khán retaken by Dámáji; The Peshwa and the English (a.d. 1761); One of the Jádhav family Senápati; Ghorpade family again Senápati; Intrigues of Rághoba (a.d. 1768); Death of Dámáji Gáikwár (a.d. 1768); Disputed succession; Rághobá Peshwa (a.d. 1774); Rághoba in Gujarát (a.d. 1775); Rághobá defeated; His arrival at Surat; Treaty of Surat (a.d. 1775); Colonel Keating in Gujarát; Rághoba accompanied by Colonel Keating; Rághoba in Cambay (a.d. 1775); Govindráv Gáikwár’s army; Advance of the combined forces; Defeat of Fatesingh (a.d. 1775); Retreat of the ministerial general; Colonel Keating at Dabhoi (a.d. 1775); Rághoba and the Gáikwárs; Withdrawal of the British contingent; Negotiations at Poona; Rághoba at Surat (a.d. 1776); Negotiations at Poona (a.d. 1777); Fresh alliance with Rághoba (a.d. 1778)        396–407

The convention of Bhadgaon (a.d. 1779); Negotiation with the Gáikwár; Escape of Rághoba from Sindia (a.d. 1779); League against the English (a.d. 1780); Treaty with Fatesingh Gáikwár; Ahmedábád taken by General Goddard (a.d. 1780); Operations against Sindia and Holkar; Treaty of Sálbái (a.d. 1782); Death of Fatesingh (a.d. 1789); Govindráv detained at Poona (a.d. 1793); Office of Regent at Baroda taken by Govindráv; Ába Shelukar Deputy Governor of Gujarát (a.d. 1796); Disputes between Ába and Govindráv Gáikwár; Gujarát farmed to the Gáikwár (a.d. 1799); Ánandráv Gáikwár (a.d. 1800); British aid to Govindráv’s party; The British and the Gáikwár (a.d. 1800); The Gáikwár’s minister Rávji; Treaty of Bassein (31st December 1802); Arabs disbanded; Malhárráv in revolt (a.d. 1803); Contingent strengthened (a.d. 1803); Death of Rávji (a.d. 1803); War with Sindia; The revenue collecting force; Renewal of (Gujarát) farm (a.d. 1804); The British and the Gáikwár (a.d. 1805); Káthiáváḍa tribute; State of Káthiáváḍa (a.d. 1807); The revenue raid system        407–418

The Maráthás in Sorath; Securities; Bháts and Chárans (a.d. 1807); British intervention; Financial and political settlements (a.d. 1807); Peshwa’s share in Káthiáváḍa; Later arrangements; The Mahi Kántha; Supplementary treaty (a.d. 1808); Okhámandal (a.d. 1809); Disturbances in Káthiáváḍa (a.d. 1811); The Gáikwár’s payment of the pecuniary loan to the British Government (a.d. 1812); Discussions with [xxvi]Poona government about the old claims on the Gáikwár’s estate (a.d. 1813–14); Peshwa intrigue in Baroda (a.d. 1814); Okhámandal ceded to the Gáikwár; British aid at Junágaḍh; Treaty of Poona (a.d. 1817); Treaty with the Gáikwár (a.d. 1817–18); Close of Marátha supremacy (a.d. 1819); General Review        418–432

GUJARÁT DISTURBANCES (a.d. 1857–1859).

The Red Salt Scare (a.d. 1857); The passing of the Pariah dog; Gold hoarding; Seditious native press; Maulvi Saráj-ud-din; Apparent weakness of British rule; Administrative defects; The Courts disliked; The Inám Commission; The army disloyal; Báiza Bái of Gwálior; Pársi riot in Broach (June 1857); Mutiny at Mhow (July 1857); Mutiny at Ahmedábád (July 1857); Mr. Ashburner’s force; General Roberts; Rising at Amjera and in the Panch Maháls (July 1857); Mutinies at Abu and Erinpur (a.d. 1857); Disturbance at Ahmedábád (14th September 1857); Rádhanpur disloyal; Arab outbreak at Sunth; Disturbance in Lunáváḍa; Conspiracy at Dísa; Conspiracy at Baroda; Want of combination; Marátha conspiracy; Gathering at Partábpur and at Lodra; Partial disarming; Náikda revolt (October 1858); Tátia Topi (a.d. 1858); Tátia Topi’s defeat at Chhota Udepur (December 1858); Náikda disturbance (a.d. 1858); Wágher outbreak (a.d. 1859); Expedition against Bet (a.d. 1859); Bet Fort taken; Dwárka fort taken; Rising in Nagar Párkar        433–448


Bhinmál or Shrimál—Description, People, Objects of Interest, History, Inscriptions        449–488

Java and Cambodia        489–504

Arab References        505–531

Greek References        532–547

Index        549–594 [xviii]


EARLY GUJARÁT b.c. 250–a.d. 1300.

EARLY GUJARÁT b.c. 250–a.d. 1300.

NOTE Ancient Spelling written thus Mandali
Modern __ do. ____ do. ____ Umarkot

Gov.t. Photozinco Office, Poona, 1896.



Page 3 note 5:

For about thirty miles north-east of Ábu
Read about fifty miles west of Ábu.

Page 140 note 5 and page 145 top line of notes:

For Aldjayháni read Aljauhari. [1]





Chapter I.
The portion of the Bombay Presidency known as Gujarát fills the north-east corner of the coast of Western India.

On the west is the Arabian Sea; on the north-west is the Gulf of Cutch. To the north lie the Little Ran and the Mevád desert; to the north-east Ábu and other outliers of the Árávali range. The east is guarded and limited by rough forest land rugged in the north with side spurs of the Vindhyas, more open towards the central natural highway from Baroda to Ratlám, and southwards again rising and roughening into the northern offshoots from the main range of the Sátpudás. The southern limit is uncertain. History somewhat doubtfully places it at the Tápti. Language carries Gujarát about a hundred miles further to Balsár and Párdi where wild forest-covered hills from the north end of the Sahyádri range stretch west almost to the sea.

The province includes two parts, Mainland Gujarát or Gurjjara-ráshtra and Peninsular Gujarát, the Sauráshṭra of ancient, the Káthiáváḍa of modern history. To a total area of about 72,000 square miles Mainland Gujarát with a length from north to south of about 280 miles and a breadth from east to west varying from fifty to 150 miles contributes 45,000 square miles; and Peninsular Gujarát with a greatest length from north to south of 155 miles and from east to west of 200 miles contributes about 27,000 square miles. To a population of about 9,250,000 Mainland Gujarát contributes 6,900,000 and the Peninsula about 2,350,000.

The richness of Mainland Gujarát the gift of the Sábarmati Mahi Narbada and Tápti and the goodliness of much of Sauráshṭra the Goodly Land have from before the beginning of history continued to draw strangers to Gujarát both as conquerors and as refugees.

By sea probably came some of the half-mythic Yádavas (b.c. 1500–500); contingents of Yavanas (b.c. 300–a.d. 100) including Greeks Baktrians Parthians and Skythians; the pursued Pársis and the pursuing Arabs (a.d. 600–800); hordes of Sanganian pirates (a.d. 900–1200); Pársi and Naváyat Musalmán refugees from Khulagu Khán’s devastation of Persia (a.d. 1250–1300); Portuguese and rival Turks (a.d. 1500–1600); Arab and Persian Gulf pirates (a.d. 1600–1700); African Arab Persian and Makran soldiers of fortune (a.d. 1500–1800); Armenian Dutch and French traders (a.d. 1600–1750); and the British (a.d. 1750–1812). By land from the north [2]
Chapter I.
The Name.
have come the Skythians and Huns (b.c. 200–a.d. 500), the Gurjjaras (a.d. 400–600), the early Jádejás and Káthis (a.d. 750–900), wave on wave of Afghan Turk Moghal and other northern Musalmáns (a.d. 1000–1500), and the later Jádejás and Káthis (a.d. 1300–1500): From the north-east the prehistoric Aryans till almost modern times (a.d. 1100–1200) continued to send settlements of Northern Bráhmans; and since the thirteenth century have come Turk Afghan and Moghal Musalmáns: From the east have come the Mauryans (b.c. 300), the half-Skythian Kshatrapas (b.c. 100–a.d. 300), the Guptas (a.d. 380), the Gurjjars (a.d. 400–600), the Moghals (a.d. 1530), and the Maráthás (a.d. 1750): And from the south the Śátakarṇis (a.d. 100), the Chálukyas and Ráshṭrakúṭas (a.d. 650–950), occasional Musalmán raiders (a.d. 1400–1600), the Portuguese (a.d. 1500), the Maráthás (a.d. 1660–1760), and the British (a.d. 1780–1820).

Gujars.The name Gujarát is from the Prákrit Gujjara-ratta, the Sanskrit of which is Gurjjara-ráshtra that is the country of the Gujjaras or Gurjjaras. In Sanskrit books and inscriptions the name of the province is written Gurjjara-maṇḍala and Gūrjjara-deśa the land of the Gurjjaras or Gúrjjaras. The Gurjjaras are a foreign tribe who passing into India from the north-west gradually spread as far south as Khándesh and Bombay Gujarát. The present Gujars of the Panjáb and North-West Provinces preserve more of their foreign traits than the Gujar settlers further to the south and east. Though better-looking, the Panjáb Gujars in language dress and calling so closely resemble their associates the Játs or Jats as to suggest that the two tribes entered India about the same time. Their present distribution shows that the Gujars spread further east and south than the Játs. The earliest Gujar settlements seem to have been in the Panjáb and North-West Provinces from the Indus to Mathurá where they still differ greatly in dress and language from most other inhabitants. From Mathurá the Gujars seem to have passed to East Rájputána and from there by way of Kotah and Mandasor to Málwa, where, though their original character is considerably altered, the Gujars of Málwa still remember that their ancestors came from the Doab between the Ganges and the Jamna. In Málwa they spread as far east as Bhilsa and Saháranpur. From Málwa they passed south to Khándesh and west probably by the Ratlam-Dohad route to the province of Gujarát.

Like the modern Ahirs of Káthiáváḍa the Gujars seem to have been a tribe of cattle-rearers husbandmen and soldiers who accompanied some conqueror and subsequently were pushed or spread forwards as occasion arose or necessity compelled. In the absence of better authority the order and locality of their settlements suggest that their introduction into India took place during the rule of the Skythian or Kushán emperor Kanerkes or Kanishka (a.d. 78–106) in whose time they seem to have settled as far east as Mathurá to which the territory of Kanishka is known to have extended. Subsequently along with the Guptas, who rose to power about two hundred years later (a.d. 300), the Gujars settled in East Rájputána, Málwa, and Gujarát, provinces all of which were apparently [3]
Chapter I.
The Name.
subjugated by the Guptas. It seems probable that in reward for their share in the Gupta conquests the leading Gujars were allotted fiefs and territories which in the declining power of their Gupta overlords they afterwards (a.d. 450–550) turned into independent kingdoms.

The earliest definite reference to a kingdom of North Indian Gujars is about a.d. 890 when the Kashmir king Śankaravarman sent an expedition against the Gurjjara king Alakhána and defeated him. As the price of peace Alakhána offered the country called Takkadeśa. This Takkadeśa1 appears to be the same as the Tsehkia of Hiuen Tsiang2 (a.d. 630–640) who puts it between the Biyás on the east and the Indus on the west thus including nearly the whole Panjáb. The tract surrendered by Alakhána was probably the small territory to the east of the Chináb as the main possessions of Alakhána must have lain further west between the Chináb and the Jehlam, where lie the town of Gujarát and the country still called Gujar-deśa the land of the Gujars.3

Northern Gurjjara Kingdom.As early as the sixth and seventh centuries records prove the existence of two independent Gurjjara kingdoms in Bombay Gujarát one in the north the other in the south of the province. The Northern kingdom is mentioned by Hiuen TsiangHiuen Tsiang’s Kiu-che-lo, a.d. 620. in the seventh century under the name Kiu-che-lo. He writes: ‘Going north from the country of Valabhi 1800 li (300 miles) we come to the kingdom of Kiu-che-lo. This country is about 5000 li in circuit, the capital, which is called Pi-lo-mo-lo, is 30 li or so round. The produce of the soil and the manners of the people resemble those of Sauráshṭra. The king is of the Kshatriya caste. He is just twenty years old.’4 Hiuen Tsiang’s Kiu-che-lo is apparently Gurjjara, the capital of which Pi-lo-mo-lo is probably Bhilmál or Bhinmál better known as Śrimál.5 Though Hiuen Tsiang calls the king a Kshatriya he was probably a Gujar who like the later Southern Gujars claimed to be of the Kshatriya race. [4]
Chapter I.
The Name.

Southern Gurjjara Kingdom, a.d. 589–735.The Southern Gurjjara kingdom in Gujarát, whose capital was at Nándipuri, perhaps the modern Nándod the capital of the Rájpipla State, flourished from a.d. 589 to a.d. 735.6 The earlier inscriptions describe the Southern Gurjjaras as of the Gurjjara Vanśa. Later they ceased to call themselves Gurjjaras and traced their genealogy to the Puráṇic king Karṇa.

From the fourth to the eighth century the extensive tract of Central Gujarát between the North and South Gurjjara kingdoms was ruled by the Valabhis. The following reasons seem to show that the Valabhi dynasty were originally Gujars. Though it is usual for inscriptions to give this information none of the many Valabhi copper-plates makes any reference to the Valabhi lineage. Nor does any inscription state to what family Senápati Bhaṭárka the founder of the dynasty belonged. Hiuen Tsiang describes the Valabhi king as a Kshatriya and as marrying with the kings of Málwa and Kanauj. The Valabhi king described by Hiuen Tsiang is a late member of the dynasty who ruled when the kingdom had been greatly extended and when the old obscure tribal descent may have been forgotten and a Kshatriya lineage invented instead. Intermarriage with Málwa and Kanauj can be easily explained. Rájputs have never been slow to connect themselves by marriage with powerful rulers.

The establishment of these three Gujar kingdoms implies that the Gurjjara tribe from Northern and Central India settled in large numbers in Gujarát. Several Gujar castes survive in Gujarát. Among them are Gujar Vániás or traders, Gujar Sutárs or carpenters, Gujar Sonis or goldsmiths, Gujar Kumbhárs or potters, and Gujar Saláts or masons. All of these are Gujars who taking to different callings have formed separate castes. The main Gujar underlayer are the Lewás and Kaḍwás the two leading divisions of the important class of Gujarát Kaṇbis. The word Kaṇbi is from the Sanskrit Kuṭumbin, that is one possessing a family or a house. From ancient times the title Kuṭumbin has been prefixed to the names of cultivators.7 This practice still obtains in parts of the North-West Provinces where the peasant proprietors are addressed as Gṛihasthas or householders. As cattle-breeding not cultivation was the original as it still is the characteristic calling of many North Indian Gujars, those of the tribe who settled to cultivation came to be specially known as Kuṭumbin or householders. Similarly Deccan surnames show that many tribes of wandering cattle-owners settled as householders and are now known as Kunbis.8 During the last [5]
Chapter I.
The Name.
twenty years the settlement as Kunbis in Khándesh of tribes of wandering Wanjára herdsmen and grain-carriers is an example of the change through which the Gujarát Kanbis and the Deccan Kunbis passed in early historic times.

Gujars.Besides resembling them in appearance and in their skill both as husbandmen and as cattle-breeders the division of Gujarát Kanbis into Lewa and Kadwa seems to correspond with the division of Málwa Gujars into Dáha and Karád, with the Lewa origin of the East Khándesh Gujars, and with the Lawi tribe of Panjáb Gujars. The fact that the head-quarters of the Lewa Kanbis of Gujarát is in the central section of the province known as the Charotar and formerly under Valabhi supports the view that the founder of Valabhi power was the chief leader of the Gujar tribe. That nearly a fourth of the whole Hindu population of Gujarát are Lewa and Kadwa Kanbis and that during the sixth seventh and eighth centuries three Gujar chiefs divided among them the sway of the entire province explain how the province of Gujarát came to take its name from the tribe of Gujars.9 [6]

1 Rája Tarangini (Calc. Edition), V. 150, 155; Cunningham’s Archæological Survey, II. 8. An earlier but vaguer reference occurs about the end of the sixth century in Báṇa’s Śríharshacharita, p. 274, quoted in Ep. Ind. I. 67ff, where Prabhákaravardhana of Thánesar the father of the great Śri Harsha is said to have waged war with several races of whom the Gurjjaras are one. 

2 Beal’s Buddhist Records of the Western World, I. 165 note 1. 

3 Cunningham’s Archæological Survey, II. 71. 

4 Beal’s Buddhist Records, II. 270. 

5 This identification was first made by the late Col. J. W. Watson, I.S.C. Ind. Ant. VI. 63. Bhinmál or Bhilmál also called Śrímál, is an old town about fifty miles west of Abu, north latitude 25° 4′ east longitude 71° 14′. General Cunningham (Ancient Geography of India, 313) and Professor Beal (Buddhist Records, II. 270) identify Pi-lo-mo-lo with Bálmer or Bádamera (north latitude 71° 10′ east longitude 20° 0′) in the Jodhpur State of West Rájputána. This identification is unsatisfactory. Bálmer is a small town on the slope of a hill in an arid tract with no vestige of antiquity. Hiuen Tsiang notes that the produce of the soil and the manners of the people of Pi-lo-mo-lo resemble those of Suráshṭra. This description is unsuited to so arid a tract as surrounds Bálmer; it would apply well to the fertile neighbourhood of Bhilmál or Bhinmál. Since it is closely associated with Juzr that is Gurjjara the Al Bailáiman of the Arabs (a.d. 750, Elliot’s History, I. 442) may be Bhilmál. A Jain writer (Ind. Ant. XIX. 233) mentions Bhilmál as the seat of king Bhímasena and as connected with the origin of the Gadhia coinage. The date Bhinmál in a M.S. of a.d. 906 (Ditto, page 35) suggests it was then a seat of learning under the Gurjjaras. The prince of Śrímál is mentioned (Rás Málá, I. 58) as accompanying Múla Rájá Solaṅkhi (a.d. 942–997) in an expedition against Sorath. Al Biruni (a.d. 1030, Sachau’s Edn., I. 153, 267) refers to Bhillamála between Multán and Anhilaváda. As late as a.d. 1611 Nicholas Ufflet, an English traveller from Agra to Ahmadádád (Kerr’s Voyages, VIII. 301) notices “Beelmahl as having an ancient wall 24 kos (36 miles) round with many fine tanks going to ruin.” The important sub-divisions of upper class Gujarát Hindus who take their name from it show Śrímál to have been a great centre of population. 

6 Indian Antiquary, XIII. 70–81. Bühler (Ind. Ant. VII. 62) identifies Nandipuri with a suburb of Broach. 

7 Bombay Gazetteer, Násik, page 604. Bombay Arch. Survey Sep. Number X. 38. 

8 Among Deccan Kunbi surnames are Jádhav, Chuhán, Nikumbha, Parmár, Selár, Solké. Cf. Bombay Gazetteer, XXIV. 65 note 2, 414. 

9 Though the identification of the Valabhis as Gurjjaras may not be certain, in inscriptions noted below both the Chávaḍás and the Solaṅkis are called Gurjjara kings. The Gurjjara origin of either or of both these dynasties may be questioned. The name Gurjjara kings may imply no more than that they ruled the Gurjjara country. At the same time it was under the Chávaḍás that Gujarát got its name. Though to Al Biruni (a.d. 1020) Gujarát still meant part of Rájputána, between a.d. 750 and 950 the name Gurjjaras’ land passed as far south as the territory connected with Anhilváḍa and Vaḍnagara that is probably as far as the Mahi. As a Rástrakuta copperplate of a.d. 888 (S. 810) (Ind. Ant. XIII. 69) brings the Konkan as far north as Variáv on the Tápti the extension of the name Gujarát to Láṭa south of the Mahi seems to have taken place under Musalmán rule. This southern application is still somewhat incomplete. Even now the people of Surat both Hindus and Musalmáns when they visit Pattan (Anhilváḍa) and Ahmadabad speak of going to Gujarát, and the Ahmadábád section of the Nágar Bráhmans still call their Surat caste-brethren by the name of Kunkaṇás that is of the Konkaṇ. 




Chapter II.
Ancient Divisions.
Ánartta.From ancient times the present province of Gujarát consisted of three divisions Ánartta, Suráshṭra, and Láṭa. Ánartta seems to have been Northern Gujarát, as its capital was Ánandapura the modern Vaḍanagara or Chief City, which is also called Ánarttapura.1 Both these names were in use even in the times of the Valabhi kings (a.d. 500–770).2 According to the popular story, in each of the four cycles or yugas Ánandapura or Vaḍanagara had a different name, Chamatkárapura in the first or Satya-yuga, Ánarttapura in the second or Tretá-yuga, Ánandapura in the third or Dvápara-yuga, and Vriddha-nagara or Vaḍanagar in the fourth or Káli-yuga. The first name is fabulous. The city does not seem to have ever been known by so strange a title. Of the two Ánarttapura and Ánandapura the former is the older name, while the latter may be its proper name or perhaps an adaptation of the older name to give the meaning City of Joy. The fourth Vriddha-nagara meaning the old city is a Sanskritized form of the still current Vadnagar, the Old or Great City. In the Girnár inscription of Kshatrapa Rudradáman (a.d. 150) the mention of Ánartta and Suráshṭra as separate provinces subject to the Pahlava viceroy of Junágaḍh agrees with the view that Ánartta was part of Gujarát close to Káthiáváḍa. In some Puráṇas Ánartta appears as the name of the whole province including Suráshṭra, with its capital at the well known shrine of Dwáriká. In other passages Dwáriká and Prabhás are both mentioned as in Suráshṭra which would seem to show that Suráshṭra was then part of Ánartta as Káthiáváḍa is now part of Gujarát.

Suráshṭra.Suráshṭra the land of the Sus, afterwards Sanskritized into Sauráshṭra the Goodly Land, preserves its name in Sorath the southern part of Káthiáváḍa. The name appears as Suráshṭra in the Mahábhárata and Páṇini’s Gaṇapáṭha, in Rudradáman’s (a.d. 150) and Skandagupta’s (a.d. 456) Girnár inscriptions, and in several Valabhi copper-plates. Its Prákrit form appears as Suraṭha in the Násik inscription of Gotamiputra (a.d. 150) and in later Prákrit as Suraṭhṭha in the Tirthakalpa of Jinaprabhásuri of the thirteenth or fourteenth century.3 Its earliest foreign mention is perhaps Strabo’s (b.c. 50–a.d. 20) Saraostus and Pliny’s (a.d. 70) Oratura.4 Ptolemy [7]
Chapter II.
Ancient Divisions.
the great Egyptian geographer (a.d. 150) and the Greek author of the Periplus (a.d. 240) both call it Surastrene.5 The Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsiang (a.d. 600–640) mentions Valabhi then large and famous and Suráshṭra as separate kingdoms.6

Láṭa.Láṭa is South Gujarát from the Mahi to the Tápti. The name Láṭa does not appear to be Sanskrit. It has not been found in the Mahábhárata or other old Sanskrit works, or in the cave or other inscriptions before the third century a.d., probably because the Puráṇas include in Aparánta the whole western seaboard south of the Narbada as far as Goa. Still the name Láṭa is old. Ptolemy (a.d. 150) uses the form Larike7 apparently from the Sanskrit Láṭaka. Vátsyáyana in his Káma-Sutra of the third century a.d. calls it Láṭa; describes it as situated to the west of Málwa; and gives an account of several of the customs of its people.8 In Sanskrit writings and inscriptions later than the third century the name is frequently found. In the sixth century the great astronomer Varáhamihira mentions the country of Láṭa, and the name also appears as Láṭa in an Ajanta and in a Mandasor inscription of the fifth century.9 It is common in the later inscriptions (a.d. 700–1200) of the Chálukya Gurjara and Ráshṭrakúṭa kings10 as well as in the writings of Arab travellers and historians between the eighth and twelfth centuries.11

The name Láṭa appears to be derived from some local tribe, perhaps the Lattas, who, as r and l are commonly used for each other, may possibly be the well known Ráshṭrakúṭas since their great king Amoghavarsha (a.d. 851–879) calls the name of the dynasty Ratta. Laṭṭalura the original city of the Raṭṭas of Saundatti and Belgaum may have been in Láṭa and may have given its name to the country and to the dynasty.12 In this connection it is interesting to note that the country between Broach and Dhár in Málwa in which are the towns of Bágh and Tánda is still called Ráṭha. [8]

1 See Nagarakhanḍa (Junágaḍh Edition), 13, 32, 35, 185, 289, 332, 542. 

2 The Alina grants (Indian Antiquary, VII. 73, 77) dated Valabhi 330 and 337 (a.d. 649–656), are both to the same donee who in the a.d. 649 grant is described as originally of Ánarttapura and in the a.d. 656 grant as originally of Ánandapura. 

3 Girnára-Kalpa, Atthi Suraṭhṭa vesaé Ujjinto náma pavvao rammo. In the Suraṭhṭha district is a lovely mountain named Ujjinto (Girnár). 

4 Hamilton and Falconer’s Strabo, II. 252–253; Pliny’s Natural History, VI. 20. 

5 Bertius’ Ptolemy, VII. 1; McCrindle’s Periplus, 113. The Periplus details regarding Indo-Skythia, Surastrene, and Ujjain are in agreement with the late date (a.d. 247) which Reinaud (Indian Antiquary of Dec. 1879 pp. 330–338) and Burnell (S. Ind. Pal. 47 note 3) assign to its author. 

6 Hiuen Tsiang’s Valabhi kingdom was probably the same as the modern Gohilváḍa, which Jinaprabhásuri in his Śatruñjaya-kalpa calls the Valláka-Visaa. 

7 Bertius’ Ptolemy, VII. 1. 

8 Vátsyáyana Sutra, Chap. II. 

9 Arch. Sur. of Western India, IV. 127. The Mandasor inscription (a.d. 437–38) mentions silk weavers from Láṭavishaya. Fleet’s Corpus Ins. Ind. III. 80. The writer (Ditto, 84) describes Láṭa as green-hilled, pleasing with choice flower-burdened trees, with temples viháras and assembly halls of the gods. 

10 Ind. Ant. XIII. 157, 158, 163, 180, 188, 196, 199, 204. 

11 Elliot’s History, I. 378. 

12 Compare Lassen in Ind. Ant. XIV. 325. 




Chapter III.
Ánartta the First Puráṇic King of Gujarát.The oldest Puráṇic legend regarding Gujarát appears to be that of the holy king Ánartta son of Śaryáti and grandson of Manu. Ánartta had a son named Revata, who from his capital at Kuśasthali or Dwáriká governed the country called Ánartta. Revata had a hundred sons of whom the eldest was named Raivata or Kakudmi. Raivata had a daughter named Revati who was married to Baladeva of Kuśasthali or Dwáriká, the elder brother of Kṛishṇa. Regarding Revati’s marriage with Baladeva the Puráṇic legends tell that Raivata went with his daughter to Brahmá in Brahma-loka to take his advice to whom he should give the girl in marriage. When Raivata arrived Brahmá was listening to music. As soon as the music was over Raivata asked Brahmá to find the girl a proper bridegroom. Brahmá told Raivata that during the time he had been waiting his kingdom had passed away, and that he had better marry his daughter to Baladeva, born of Vishṇu, who was now ruler of Dwáriká.1 This story suggests that Raivata son of Ánartta lost his kingdom and fled perhaps by sea. That after some time during which the Yádavas established themselves in the country, Raivata, called a son of Revata but probably a descendant as his proper name is Kakudmi, returned to his old territory and gave his daughter in marriage to one of the reigning Yádava dynasty, the Yádavas taking the girl as representing the dynasty that had preceded them. The story about Brahmá and the passing of ages seems invented to explain the long period that elapsed between the flight and the return.

The Yádavas in Dwáriká.The next Puráṇic legends relate to the establishment of the Yádava kingdom at Dwáriká. The founder and namegiver of the Yádava dynasty was Yadu of whose family the Puráṇas give very detailed information. The family seems to have split into several branches each taking its name from some prominent member, the chief of them being Vrishṇi, Kukkura, Bhoja, Śátvata, Andhaka, Madhu, Śurasena, and Daśárha. Śátvata was thirty-seventh from Yadu and in his branch were born Devaki and Vasudeva, the parents of the great Yádava hero and god Kṛishṇa. It was in Kṛishṇa’s time that the Yádavas had to leave their capital Mathurá and come to Dwáriká. This was the result of a joint invasion of Mathurá on one side by a [9]
Chapter III.
The Yádavas.
legendary Deccan hero Kálayavana and on the other by Jarásandha the powerful king of Magadha or Behár, who, to avenge the death of his brother-in-law2 Kansa killed by Kṛishṇa in fulfilment of a prophecy, is said to have invaded the Yádava territory eighteen times.

According to the story Kálayavana followed the fugitive Kṛishṇa and his companions as far as Suráshṭra where in a mountain cave he was burnt by fire from the eye of the sleeping sage Muchakunḍa whom he had roused believing him to be his enemy Kṛishṇa. According to the Harivanśa the fugitive Yádavas quitting Mathurá went to the Sindhu country and there established the city of Dwáriká on a convenient site on the sea shore making it their residence.3 Local tradition says that the Yádavas conquered this part of the country by defeating the demons who held it.

The leading Yádava chief in Dwáriká was Ugrasena, and Ugrasena’s three chief supporters were the families of Yadu, Bhoja, and Andhaka. As the entire peninsula of Káthiáváḍa was subject to them the Yádavas used often to make pleasure excursions and pilgrimages to Prabhás and Girnár. Kṛishṇa and Baladeva though not yet rulers held high positions and took part in almost all important matters. They were in specially close alliance with their paternal aunt’s sons the Pándava brothers, kings of Hastinápura or Delhi. Of the two sets of cousins Kṛishṇa and Arjuna were on terms of the closest intimacy. Of one of Arjuna’s visits to Káthiáváḍa the Mahábhárata gives the following details: ‘Arjuna after having visited other holy places arrived in Aparánta (the western seaboard) whence he went to Prabhás. Hearing of his arrival Kṛishṇa marched to Prabhás and gave Arjuna a hearty welcome. From Prabhás they came together to the Raivataka hill which Kṛishṇa had decorated and where he entertained his guest with music and dancing. From Girnár they went to Dwáriká driving in a golden car. The city was adorned in honour of Arjuna; the streets were thronged with multitudes; and the members of the Vrishṇi, Bhoja, and Andhaka families met to honour Kṛishṇa’s guest.’4

Some time after, against his elder brother Baladeva’s desire, Kṛishṇa helped Arjuna to carry off Kṛishṇa’s sister Subhadrá, with whom Arjuna had fallen in love at a fair in Girnár of which the Mahábhárata gives the following description: ‘A gathering of the Yádavas chiefly the Vrishṇis and Andhakas took place near Raivataka. The hill and the country round were rich with fine rows of fruit trees and large mansions. There was much dancing singing and music. The princes of the Vrishṇi family were in handsome carriages glistening with gold. Hundreds and thousands of the people of Junágaḍh with their families attended on foot and in vehicles of various kinds. Baladeva with his wife Revati moved about attended by many Gandharvas. Ugrasena was there with his thousand queens and musicians. Sámba and Pradyumna attended [10]
Chapter III.
The Yádavas.
in holiday attire and looked like gods. Many Yádavas and others were also present with their wives and musicians.’

Some time after this gathering Subhadrá came to Girnár to worship and Arjuna carried her off. Eventually Vasudeva and Baladeva consented and the runaways were married with due ceremony. The large fair still held in Mágh (February-March) in the west Girnár valley near the modern temple of Bhavanáth is perhaps a relic of this great Yádava fair.

The Yádava occupation of Dwáriká was not free from trouble. When Kṛishṇa was at Hastinápura on the occasion of the Rájasúya sacrifice performed by Yudhishṭhira, Śálva king of Mṛittikávatí in the country of Śaubha led an army against Dwáriká. He slew many of the Dwáriká garrison, plundered the city and withdrew unmolested. On his return Kṛishṇa learning of Śálva’s invasion led an army against Śálva. The chiefs met near the sea shore and in a pitched battle Śálva was defeated and killed.5 Family feuds brought Yádava supremacy in Dwáriká to a disastrous end. The final family struggle is said to have happened in the thirty-sixth year after the war of the Mahábhárata, somewhere on the south coast of Káthiáváḍa near Prabhás or Somnáth Pátan the great place of Bráhmanical pilgrimage. On the occasion of an eclipse, in obedience to a proclamation issued by Kṛishṇa, the Yádavas and their families went from Dwáriká to Prabhás in state well furnished with dainties, animal food, and strong drink. One day on the sea shore the leading Yádava chiefs heated with wine began to dispute. They passed from words to blows. Kṛishṇa armed with an iron rod6 struck every one he met, not even sparing his own sons. Many of the chiefs were killed. Baladeva fled to die in the forests and Kṛishṇa was slain by a hunter who mistook him for a deer. When he saw trouble was brewing Kṛishṇa had sent for Arjuna. Arjuna arrived to find Dwáriká desolate. Soon after Arjuna’s arrival Vasudeva died and Arjuna performed the funeral ceremonies of Vasudeva Baladeva and Kṛishṇa whose bodies he succeeded in recovering. When the funeral rites were completed Arjuna started for Indraprastha in Upper India with the few that were left of the Yádava families, [11]
Chapter III.
The Yádavas.
chiefly women. On the way in his passage through the Panchanada7 or Panjáb a body of Ábhíras attacked Arjuna with sticks and took several of Kṛishṇa’s wives and the widows of the Andhaka Yádava chiefs. After Arjuna left it the deserted Dwáriká was swallowed by the sea.8 [13]

1 The Vishṇu Purána (Anśa iv. Chap. i. Verse 19 to Chap. ii. Verse 2) gives the longest account of the legend. The Bhágavata Purána (Skanda ix. Chap. iii. Verse 16–36) gives almost the same account. The Matsya Purána (Chap. xii. Verse 22–24) dismisses the story in two verses. See also Harivanśa, X. 

2 Compare Mahábh. II. 13, 594ff. Jarásandha’s sisters Asti and Prápti were married to Kansa. 

3 Harivanśa, XXXV.–CXII. 

4 Mahábhárata Ádiparva, chaps. 218–221. 

5 Mahábhárata Vanaparva, Chap. xiv.–xxii. Skanda x. Mṛittikávatí the capital of Śálva cannot be identified. The name of the country sounds like Śvabhra in Rudradáman’s Girnár inscription, which is apparently part of Charotar or South Ahmadabad. A trace of the old word perhaps remains in the river Sábhramati the modern Sábarmati. The fact that Śálva passed from Mṛittikávatí along the sea shore would seem to show that part of the seaboard south of the Mahi was included in Śálva’s territory. Dr. Bühler (Ind. Ant. VII. 263) described Pandit Bhagvánlál’s reading of Śvabhra as a bold conjecture. A further examination of the original convinced the Pandit that Śvabhra was the right reading. 

6 The following is the legend of Kṛishṇa’s iron flail. Certain Yádava youths hoping to raise a laugh at the expense of Viśvámitra and other sages who had come to Dwáriká presented to them Sámba Kṛishṇa’s son dressed as a woman big with child. The lads asked the sages to foretell to what the woman would give birth. The sages replied: ‘The woman will give birth to an iron rod which will destroy the Yádava race.’ Obedient to the sage’s prophecy Sámba produced an iron rod. To avoid the ill effects of the prophecy king Ugrasena had the rod ground to powder and cast the powder into the sea. The powder grew into the grass called eraka Typha elephantina. It was this grass which Kṛishṇa plucked in his rage and which in his hands turned into an iron flail. This eraka grass grows freely near the mouth of the Hiraṇya river of Prabhás. 

7 This suggests that as in early times the Great Ran was hard to cross the way from Káthiáváḍa to Indraprastha or Delhi was by Kachch and Sindh and from Sindh by Multán and the Lower Panjáb. According to the Bhágavata Purána Kṛishṇa took the same route when he first came from Indraprastha to Dwáriká. On the other hand these details may support the view that the head-quarters of the historic Kṛishṇa were in the Panjáb. 

8 So far as is known neither Gujarát nor Káthiáváḍa contains any record older than the Girnár rock inscription of about b.c. 240: The Great Kshatrapa Rudra Dáman’s (a.d. 139) inscription on the same rock has a reference to the Maurya Rája Chandragupta about b.c. 300. No local sign of Kṛishṇa or of his Yádavas remains.

In the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, XX. XXI. and XXII. Mr. Hewitt has recently attempted to trace the history of Western India back to b.c. 3000 perhaps to as early as b.c. 6000. The evidence which makes so far-reaching a past probable is the discovery of Indian indigo and muslin in Egyptian tombs of about b.c. 1700 (J. R. A. S. XX. 206); and the proof that a trade in teak and in Sindhu or Indian muslins existed between Western India and the Euphrates mouth as far back as b.c. 3000 or even b.c. 4000 (J. R. A. S. XX. 336, 337 and XXI. 204). According to Mr. Hewitt the evidence of the Hindu calendar carries the historical past of India into still remoter ages. The moon mansions and certain other details of the Hindu calendar seem to point to the Euphrates valley as the home of Hindu lunar astronomy. As in the Euphrates valley inscriptions of the Semitic king Sargon of Sippara prove that in b.c. 3750 moon-worship was already antiquated (J. R. A. S. XXI. 325), and as the precession of the equinoxes points to about b.c. 4700 as the date of the introduction of the sun zodiac (Sayce’s Hibbert Lectures, 398) the system of lunar mansions and months, if it came from the Euphrates valley, must have reached India before b.c. 4700. The trade records of the black-headed perhaps Dravidian-speaking Sumris of the Euphrates mouth prove so close relations with the peninsula of Sinai and Egypt as to make a similar connection with Western India probable as far back as b.c. 6000. (Compare Sayce’s Hibbert Lectures, 33: J. R. A. S. XXI. 326.) Of the races of whose presence in Gujarát and the neighbourhood Mr. Hewitt finds traces the earliest is the same black-headed moon-worshipping Sumri (Ditto). Next from Susiana in south-east Persia, the possessors of a lunar-solar calendar and therefore not later than b.c. 4700 (J. R. A. S. XXI. 325, 327, 330), the trading Sus or Saus, in Hindu books known as Suvarnas, entered India by way of Baluchistán and settled at Pátala in South Sindh. (J. R. A. S. XXI. 209.) With or soon after the Sus came from the north the cattle-herding sun-worshipping Sakas (J. R. A. S. XXII. 332). The Sus and Sakas passed south and together settled in Suráshṭra and West Gujarát. At a date which partly from evidence connected with the early Vedic hymns (J. R. A. S. XXII. 466) partly from the early Babylonian use of the Sanskrit Sindhu for India (J. R. A. S. XXI. 309), Mr. Hewitt holds cannot be later than b.c. 3000 northern Áryas entered Gujarát and mixing with the Sus and Sakas as ascetics traders and soldiers carried the use of Sanskrit southwards. (J. R. A. S. XX. 343.) Of other races who held sway in Gujarát the earliest, perhaps about b.c. 2000 since their power was shattered by Paraśuráma long before Mahábhárata times (J. R. A. S. XXI. 209–266), were the snake-worshipping perhaps Accadian (Ditto, 265) Haihayas now represented by the Gonds and the Haihayas’ vassals the Vaidarbhas (Ditto, 209) a connection which is supported by trustworthy Central Indian Uraon or Gond tradition that they once held Gujarát (Elliott’s Races, N. W. P., I. 154). Next to the Haihayas and like them earlier than the Mahábhárata (say b.c. 1500–2000) Mr. Hewitt would place the widespread un-Aryan Bhárats or Bhárgavs (J. R. A. S. XXI. 279–282, 286) the conquerors of the Haihayas (Ditto, 288). In early Mahábhárata times (say between b.c. 1000 and 800, Ditto 197 and 209) the Bhárats were overcome by the very mixed race of the Bhojas and of Kṛishṇa’s followers the Vrishṇis (Ditto, 270). Perhaps about the same time the chariot-driving Gandharvas of Cutch (Ditto, 273) joined the Sus and Sakas, together passed east to Kosala beyond Benares, and were there established in strength at the time of Gautama Buddha (b.c. 530) (Ditto). To the later Mahábhárata times, perhaps about b.c. 400 (Ditto, 197–271), Mr. Hewitt would assign the entrance into Gujarát of the Ábhíras or Ahirs whom he identifies with the northern or
Chapter III.
The Yádavas.
Skythian Abárs. Mr. Hewitt finds the following places in Gujarát associated with those early races. Pátála in South Sindh he (J. R. A. S. XXI. 209) considers the head-quarters of the Sus and Sakas. Another Su capital Prágjyotisha which is generally allotted to Bengal he would (XXI. 206) identify with Broach. With the Vaidarbhas the vassals of the Haihayas he associates Surparika, that is Sopára near Bassein, which he identifies (Ditto, 206) with the modern Surat on the Tapti. He connects (Ditto, 266) the Baroda river Viśvámitra and Vaidurga the hill Pávágaḍ with the same tribe. He finds a trace of the Bhárats in Baroda and in Bharati an old name of the river Mahi (Ditto, 286) and of the same race under their name Bhárgav in Broach (Ditto, 289). The traditional connection of the Bhojas with Dwárka is well established. Finally Kárpásika a Mahábhárata name for the shore of the Gulf of Cambay (Ditto, 209) may be connected with Kárván on the Narbada about twenty miles above Broach one of the holiest Shaiv places in India. Though objection may be taken to certain of Mr. Hewitt’s identifications of Gujarát places, and also to the extreme antiquity he would assign to the trade between India and the west and to the introduction of the system of lunar mansions, his comparison of sacred Hindu books with the calendar and ritual of early Babylonia is of much interest. 




(b.c. 319–100.)

Chapter IV.
The Mauryas. b.c. 319–197.
After the destruction of the Yádavas a long blank occurs in the traditional history of Gujarát. It is probable that from its seaboard position, for trade and other purposes, many foreigners settled in Káthiáváḍa and South Gujarát; and that it is because of the foreign element that the Hindu Dharmasástras consider Gujarát a Mlechchha country and forbid visits to it except on pilgrimage.1 The fact also that Aśoka (b.c. 230) the great Mauryan king and propagator of Buddhism chose, among the Buddhist Theras sent to various parts of his kingdom, a Yavana Thera named Dhamma-rakhito as evangelist for the western seaboard,2 possibly indicates a preponderating foreign element in these parts. It is further possible that these foreign settlers may have been rulers. In spite of these possibilities we have no traditions between the fall of the Yádavas and the rise of the Mauryas in b.c. 319.

Gujarát history dates from the rule of the Mauryan dynasty, the only early Indian dynasty the record of whose rule has been preserved in the writings of the Bráhmans, the Buddhists, and the Jains. This fulness of reference to the Mauryas admits of easy explanation. The Mauryas were a very powerful dynasty whose territory extended over the greater part of India. Again under Mauryan rule Buddhism was so actively propagated that the rulers made it their state religion, waging bloody wars, even revolutionizing many parts of the empire to secure its spread. Further the Mauryas were beneficent rulers and had also honourable alliances with foreign, especially with Greek and Egyptian, kings. These causes combined to make the Mauryans a most powerful and well remembered dynasty.

Inscriptions give reason to believe that the supremacy of Chandragupta, the founder of the Mauryan dynasty (b.c. 319), extended over Gujarát. According to Rudradáman’s inscription (a.d. 150) on the great edict rock at Girnár in Káthiáváḍa, a lake called Sudarśana3 near the edict rock was originally made by Pushyagupta of the Vaiśya caste, who is described as a brother-in-law of the Mauryan king Chandragupta.4 The language of this inscription leaves no doubt that Chandragupta’s sway extended over [14]
Chapter IV.
The Mauryas. b.c. 319–197.
Girnár as Pushyagupta is simply called a Vaiśya and a brother-in-law of king Chandragupta and has no royal attribute, particulars which tend to show that he was a local governor subordinate to king Chandragupta. The same inscription5 states that in the time of Aśoka (b.c. 250) his officer Yavanarája Tusháspa adorned the same Sudarśana lake with conduits. This would seem to prove the continuance of Mauryan rule in Girnár for three generations from Chandragupta to Aśoka. Tusháspa is called Yavanarája. The use of the term rája would seem to show that, unlike Chandragupta’s Vaiśya governor Pushyagupta, Tusháspa was a dignitary of high rank and noble family. That he is called Yavanarája does not prove Tusháspa was a Greek, though for Greeks alone Yavana is the proper term. The name Tusháspa rather suggests a Persian origin from its close likeness in formation to Kersháshp, a name still current among Bombay Pársis. Evidence from other sources proves that Aśoka held complete sway over Málwa, Gujarát, and the Konkan coast. All the rock edicts of Aśoka hitherto traced have been found on the confines of his great empire. On the north-west at Kapurdigiri and at Shabazgarhi in the Baktro-Páli character; in the north-north-west at Kálsi, in the east at Dhauli and Jangada; in the west at Girnár and Sopára, and in the south in Maisur all in Maurya characters. The Girnár and Sopára edicts leave no doubt that the Gujarát, Káthiáváḍa, and North Konkan seaboard was in Aśoka’s possession. The fact that an inland ruler holds the coast implies his supremacy over the intervening country. Further it is known that Aśoka was viceroy of Málwa in the time of his father and that after his father’s death he was sovereign of Málwa. The easy route from Mandasor (better known as Daśapur) to Dohad has always secured a close connection between Málwa and Gujarát. South Gujarát lies at the mercy of any invader entering by Dohad and the conquest of Káthiáváḍa on one side and of Upper Gujarát on the other might follow in detail. As we know that Káthiáváḍa and South Gujarát as far as Sopára were held by Aśoka it is not improbable that Upper Gujarát also owned his sway. The Maurya capital of Gujarát seems to have been Girinagara or Junágaḍh in Central Káthiáváḍa, whose strong hill fort dominating the rich province of Sorath and whose lofty hills a centre of worship and a defence and retreat from invaders, combined to secure for Junágaḍh its continuance as capital under the Kshatrapas (a.d. 100–380) and their successors the Guptas (a.d. 380–460). The southern capital of the Mauryas seems to have been Sopára near Bassein in a rich country with a good and safe harbour for small vessels, probably in those times the chief centre of the Konkan and South Gujarát trade.

Buddhist and Jain records agree that Aśoka was succeeded, not by his son Kunála who was blind, but by his grandsons Daśaratha and Samprati. The Barábar hill near Gayá has caves made by Aśoka and bearing his inscriptions; and close to Barábar is the [15]
Chapter IV.
The Mauryas. b.c. 319–197.
Nágárjuna hill with caves made by Daśaratha also bearing his inscriptions. In one of these inscriptions the remark occurs that one of the Barábar caves was made by Daśaratha ‘installed immediately after.’ As the caves in the neighbouring hill must have been well known to have been made by Aśoka this ‘after’ may mean after Aśoka, or the ‘after’ may refer solely to the sequence between Daśaratha’s installation and his excavation of the cave. In any case it is probable that Daśaratha was Aśoka’s successor. Jaina records pass over Daśaratha and say that Aśoka was succeeded by his grandson Samprati the son of Kunála. In the matter of the propagation of the Jain faith, Jain records speak as highly of Samprati as Buddhist records speak of Aśoka.6 Almost all old Jain temples or monuments, whose builders are unknown, are ascribed to Samprati who is said to have built thousands of temples as Aśoka is said to have raised thousands of stupas. In his Páṭaliputra-kalpa Jinaprabhasuri the well known Jaina Áchárya and writer gives a number of legendary and other stories of Páṭaliputra. Comparing Samprati with Aśoka in respect of the propagation of the faith in non-Áryan countries the Áchárya writes: ‘In Páṭaliputra flourished the great king Samprati son of Kunála lord of Bharata with its three continents, the great Arhanta who established viháras for Sramaṇas even in non-Áryan countries.’7 It would appear from this that after Aśoka the Mauryan empire may have been divided into two, Daśaratha ruling Eastern India, and Samprati, whom Jaina records specially mention as king of Ujjain, ruling Western India, where the Jain sect is specially strong. Though we have no specific information on the point, it is probable, especially as he held Málwa, that during the reign of Samprati Gujarát remained under Mauryan sway. With Samprati Mauryan rule in Gujarát seems to end. In later times (a.d. 500) traces of Mauryan chiefs appear in Málwa and in the North Konkan. The available details will be given in another chapter.

After Samprati, whose reign ended about b.c. 197, a blank of seventeen years occurs in Gujarát history. The next available information shows traces of Baktrian-Greek sway over parts of Gujarát. In his description of Surastrene or Suráshṭra the author of the Periplus (a.d. 240) says: ‘In this part there are preserved even to this day memorials of the expedition of Alexander, old temples, foundations of camps, and large wells.’8 As Alexander did not [16]
Chapter IV.
The Greeks. b.c. 180–100.
come so far south as Káthiáváḍa and as after Alexander’s departure the Mauryas held Káthiáváḍa till about b.c. 197, it may be suggested that the temples camps and wells referred to by the author of the Periplus were not memorials of the expedition of Alexander but remains of later Baktrian-Greek supremacy.

Demetrius, whom Justin calls the king of the Indians, is believed to have reigned from b.c. 190 to b.c. 165.9 On the authority of Apollodorus of Artamita Strabo (b.c. 50–a.d. 20) names two Baktrian-Greek rulers who seem to have advanced far into inland India. He says: ‘The Greeks who occasioned the revolt of Baktria (from Syria b.c. 256) were so powerful by the fertility and advantages of the country that they became masters of Ariana and India …. Their chiefs, particularly Menander, conquered more nations than Alexander. Those conquests were achieved partly by Menander and partly by Demetrius son of Euthydemus king of the Baktrians. They got possession not only of Pattalene but of the kingdoms of Saraostus and Sigerdis, which constitute the remainder of the coast.’10 Pattalene is generally believed to be the old city of Pátál in Sindh (the modern Haidarábád), while the subsequent mention of Saraostus and Sigerdis as kingdoms which constitute the remainder of the coast, leaves almost no doubt that Saraostus is Suráshṭra and Sigerdis is Ságaradvípa or Cutch. The joint mention of Menander (b.c. 126) and Demetrius (b.c. 190) may mean that Demetrius advanced into inland India to a certain point and that Menander passed further and took Sindh, Cutch, and Káthiáváḍa. The discovery in Cutch and Káthiáváḍa of coins of Baktrian kings supports the statements of Justin and Strabo. Dr. Bhagvánlál’s collecting of coins in Káthiáváḍa and Gujarát during nearly twenty-five years brought to light among Baktrian-Greek coins an obolus of Eucratides (b.c. 180–155), a few drachmæ of Menander (b.c. 126–110), many drachmæ and copper coins of Apollodotus (b.c. 110–100), but none of Demetrius. Eucratides was a contemporary of Demetrius. Still, as Eucratides became king of Baktria after Demetrius, his conquests, according to Strabo of a thousand cities to the east of the Indus, must be later than those of Demetrius.

As his coins are found in Káthiáváḍa Eucratides may either have advanced into Káthiáváḍa or the province may have come under his sway as lord of the neighbouring country of Sindh. Whether or not Eucratides conquered the province, he is the earliest Baktrian-Greek king whose coins have been found in Káthiáváḍa and Gujarát. The fact that the coins of Eucratides have been found in different parts of Káthiáváḍa and at different times seems to show that they were the currency of the province and were not merely imported either for trade or for ornament. It is to be noticed that these coins are all of the smallest value of the numerous coins issued by Eucratides. This may be explained by the fact that these small [17]
Chapter IV.
The Greeks. b.c. 180–100.
coins were introduced by Eucratides into Káthiáváḍa to be in keeping with the existing local coinage. The local silver coins in use before the time of Eucratides are very small, weighing five to seven grains, and bear the Buddhist symbols of the Svastika, the Trident, and the Wheel. Another variety has been found weighing about four grains with a misshapen elephant on the obverse and something like a circle on the reverse.11 It was probably to replace this poor currency that Eucratides introduced his smallest obolus of less weight but better workmanship.

The end of the reign of Eucratides is not fixed with certainty: it is believed to be about b.c. 155.12 For the two Baktrian-Greek kings Menander and Apollodotus who ruled in Káthiáváḍa after Eucratides, better sources of information are available. As already noticed Strabo (a.d. 20) mentions that Menander’s conquests (b.c. 120) included Cutch and Suráshṭra.13 And the author of the Periplus (a.d. 240) writes: ‘Up to the present day old drachmæ bearing the Greek inscriptions of Apollodotus and Menander are current in Barugaza (Broach).’14 Menander’s silver drachmæ have been found in Káthiáváḍa and Southern Gujarát.15 Though their number is small Menander’s coins are comparatively less scarce than those of the earliest Kshatrapas Nahapána and Chashṭana (a.d. 100–140). The distribution of Menander’s coins suggests he was the first Baktrian-Greek king who resided in these parts and that the monuments of Alexander’s times, camps temples and wells, mentioned by the author of the Periplus16 were camps of Menander in Suráshṭra. Wilson and Rochette have supposed Apollodotus to be the son and successor of Menander,17 while General Cunningham believes Apollodotus to be the predecessor of Menander.18 Inferences from the coins of these two kings found in Gujarát and Káthiáváḍa support the view that Apollodotus was the successor of Menander. The coins of Apollodotus are found in much larger numbers than those of Menander and the workmanship of Apollodotus’ coins appears to be of a gradually declining style. In the later coins the legend is at times undecipherable. It appears from this that for some time after Apollodotus until Nahapána’s (a.d. 100) coins came into use, the chief local currency was debased coins struck after the type of the coins of Apollodotus. Their use as the type of coinage generally happens to the coins of the last king of a dynasty. The statement by the author of the Periplus that in his time (a.d. 240) the old drachmæ of Apollodotus and Menander were [18]
Chapter IV.
The Greeks. b.c. 180–100.
current in Barugaza, seems to show that these drachmæ continued to circulate in Gujarát along with the coins of the Western Kshatrapas. The mention of Apollodotus before Menander by the author of the Periplus may either be accidental, or it may be due to the fact that when the author wrote fewer coins of Menander than of Apollodotus were in circulation.

The silver coins both of Menander and Apollodotus found in Gujarát and Káthiáváḍa are of only one variety, round drachmæ. The reason that of their numerous large coins, tetradrachmæ didrachmæ and others, drachmæ alone have been found in Gujarát is probably the reason suggested for the introduction of the obolus of Eucratides, namely that the existing local currency was so poor that coins of small value could alone circulate. Still the fact that drachmæ came into use implies some improvement in the currency, chiefly in size. The drachmæ of both the kings are alike. The obverse of Menander’s coins has in the middle a helmeted bust of the king and round it the Greek legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ ΜΕΝΑΝΔΡΟΥ Of the king the Saviour Menander. On the reverse is the figure of Athene Promachos surrounded by the Baktro-Páli legend Mahárájasa Trádátasa Menandrasa that is Of the Great king the Saviour Menander, and a monogram.19 The drachmæ of Apollodotus have on the obverse a bust with bare filleted head surrounded by the legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ ΑΠΟΛΛΟΔΟΤΟΥ Of the king the Saviour Apollodotus. Except in the legend the reverse with two varieties of monogram20 is the same as the reverse of the drachmæ of Menander. The legend in Baktro-Páli character is Mahárájasa Rájátirájasa Apaladatasa that is Of the Great king the over-king of kings Apaladata. During his twenty-five years of coin-collecting Dr. Bhagvánlál failed to secure a single copper coin of Menander either in Gujarát or in Káthiáváḍa. Of the copper coins of Apollodotus a deposit was found in Junágaḍh, many of them well preserved.21 These coins are of two varieties, one square the other round and large. Of the square coin the obverse has a standing Apollo with an arrow in the right hand and on the top and the two sides the Greek legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΦΙΛΟΠΑΤΟΡΟΣ ΑΠΟΛΛΟΔΟΤΟΥ that is Of the King Saviour and Fatherlover Apollodotus. On the reverse is the tripod of Apollo with a monogram22 and the letter drí in Baktro-Páli on the left and the legend in Baktro-Páli characters Mahárájasa Trádátasa Apaladatasa. The round coin has also, on the obverse, a standing Apollo with an arrow in the right hand; behind is the same monogram as in the square coin and all round runs the Greek legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ ΑΠΟΛΛΟΔΟΤΟΥ. On the reverse is the tripod of Apollo with on its right and left the letters di and u in Baktro-Páli and all round the Baktro-Páli legend Mahárájasa Trádátasa Apaladatasa. [19]
Chapter IV.
The Greeks. b.c. 180–100.
The reason why so few copper coins of Apollodotus have been found in Gujarát perhaps is that these copper coins were current only in the time of Apollodotus and did not, like his silver drachmæ, continue as the currency of the country with the same or an imitated die. The date of the reign of Apollodotus is not fixed. General Cunningham believes it to be b.c. 165–150,23 Wilson and Gardner take it to be b.c. 110–100.24 Though no Indian materials enable us to arrive at any final conclusion regarding this date the fact that Apollodotus’ coins continued to be issued long after his time shows that Apollodotus was the last Baktrian-Greek ruler of Gujarát and Káthiáváḍa. After Apollodotus we find no trace of Baktrian-Greek rule, and no other certain information until the establishment of the Kshatrapas about a.d. 100. The only fact that breaks this blank in Gujarát history is the discovery of copper coins of a king whose name is not known, but who calls himself Basileus Basileon Soter Megas that is King of Kings the Great Saviour. These coins are found in Káthiáváḍa and Cutch as well as in Rájputána the North-West Provinces and the Kábul valley, a distribution which points to a widespread Indian rule. The suggestion may be offered that this king is one of the leaders of the Yaudheyas whose constitution is said to have been tribal, that is the tribe was ruled by a number of small chiefs who would not be likely to give their names on their coins.25 [20]

1 Mahábhárata Anuśásanaparvan 2158–9 mentions Láṭas among Kshatriya tribes who have become outcastes from seeing no Bráhmans. Again, Chap. VII. 72. ib. couples (J. Bl. As. Soc. VI. (1) 387) thievish Báhikas and robber Suráshṭras. Compare Vishṇu Purána, II. 37, where the Yavanas are placed to the west of Bháratavarsha and also J. R. A. S. (N. S.) IV. 468; and Brockhaus’ Prabodha Chandrodaya, 87. The śloka referred to in the text runs: He who goes to Anga, Vanga, Kalinga, Sauráshṭra, or Magadha unless it be for a pilgrimage deserves to go through a fresh purification. 

2 Turnour’s Maháwanso, 71. 

3 Bombay Branch Royal Asiatic Society Journal, 1891, page 47. 

4 It is interesting to note that Chandragupta married a Vaiśya lady. Similarly while at Sánchi on his way to Ujjain Aśoka married Deví, the daughter of a Setthi, Turnour’s Maháwanso, 76; Cunningham’s Bhilsa Topes, 95. 

5 Probably from some mistake of the graver’s the text of the inscription अशोकस्य ते यवनराजेन yields no meaning. Some word for governor or officer is apparently meant. 

6 Hemachandra’s Parisishta Parva. Merutunga’s Vicháraśreṇi

7 The text is ‘Kunálasûnustrikhandabharatádhipah Paramárhanto Anáryadeśeshvapi Pravarttitaśramaṇa-vihárah Samprati Mahárája Sohábhavat’ meaning ‘He was the great king Samprati son of Kunála, sovereign of India of three continents, the great saint who had started monasteries for Jain priests even in non-Aryan countries.’ 

8 McCrindle’s Periplus, 115. The author of the Periplus calls the capital of Surastrene Minnagara. Pandit Bhagvánlál believed Minnagara to be a miswriting of Girinagara the form used for Girnár both in Rudradáman’s (a.d. 150) rock inscription at Girnár (Fleet’s Corpus Ins. Ind. III. 57) and by Varáha-Mihira (a.d. 570) (Bṛihat-Saṃhitá, XIV. 11). The mention of a Minagara in Ptolemy inland from Sorath and Monoglossum or Mangrul suggests that either Girnár or Junágaḍh was also known as Minnagara either after the Mins or after Men that is Menander. At the same time it is possible that Ptolemy’s Agrinagara though much out of place may be Girinagara and that Ptolemy’s Minagara in the direction of Ujjain may be Mandasor. 

9 Justin’s date is probably about a.d. 250. His work is a summary of the History of Trogus Pompeius about a.d. 1. Watson’s Justin, 277; Wilson’s Ariana Antiqua, 231. 

10 Hamilton and Falconer’s Strabo, II. 252–253. 

11 These small local coins which were found in Hálár Gondal were presented to the Bombay Asiatic Society by the Political Agent of Káthiáwár and are in the Society’s cabinet. Dr. Bhagvánlál found the two elephant coins in Junágaḍh. 

12 Wilson’s Ariana Antiqua, 266. Gardner’s British Museum Catalogue, 26, brings Eucratides to after b.c. 162. 

13 See above page 15

14 McCrindle’s Periplus, 121. 

15 The Bombay Asiatic Society possesses some specimens of these coins of bad workmanship found near Broach with the legend incorrect, probably struck by some local governor of Menander. Two were also found in Junágaḍh. 

16 McCrindle’s Periplus, 115. 

17 Numismatic Chronicle (New Series), X. 80; Wilson’s Ariana Antiqua, 288. 

18 Numismatic Chronicle (New Series), X, 80. 

19 Wilson’s Ariana Antiqua, Plate XXII. Number 41. Gardner’s British Museum Catalogue, Plate XI. Number 8. 

20 Wilson’s Ariana Antiqua, Plate XXII. Number 66, shows one variety of this monogram. 

21 These coins are said to have been found in 1882 by a cultivator in an earthen pot. Two of them were taken for Pandit Bhagvánlál and one for Mr. Vajeshankar Gaurishankar Naib Diván of Bhávnagar. The rest disappeared. 

22 Ariana Antiqua, Plate XXII. Number 47. 

23 Numismatic Chronicle (New Series), X. 86. 

24 Ariana Antiqua, 288; Gardner and Poole’s Catalogue of Indian Coins, xxxiii. 

25 Wilson (Ariana Antiqua, 332–334) identifies the coins marked Basileus Basileon Soter Megas with a king or dynasty of Indian extraction who reigned between Azes and Kadphises (b.c. 50–25), chiefly in the Panjáb. Gardner (British Museum Catalogue, 47) says: The Nameless king is probably cotemporary with Abdagases (a.d. 30–50): he may have been a member of the Kadphises dynasty. Cunningham (Ancient Geography, 245) places the coins of the tribal Yaudheyas in the first century a.d. The remark of Prinsep (Jour. Bengal Soc. VI. 2, 973) that in the Behat group of Buddhist coins some with Baktro-Páli legends have the name Yaudheya in the margin seems to support the suggestion in the text. But the marked difference between the Stag coins of the Yaudheyas (Thomas’ Prinsep, I. Plate V.) and the Nameless king’s coins (Gardner, Plate XIV. 1–6) tells strongly against the proposed identification. Of the Yaudheyas details are given below. 




(b.c. 70–a.d. 398.)

Chapter V.
The Kshatrapas. b.c. 70–a.d. 398.
With the Kshatrapas (b.c. 70) begins a period of clearer light, and, at the same time, of increased importance, since, for more than three centuries, the Kshatrapas held sway over the greater part of Western India. Till recently this dynasty was known to orientalists as the Sáh dynasty a mistaken reading of the terminal of their names which in some rulers is Siṃha Lion and in others, as in Rudra Sena (a.d. 203–220) son of Rudra Siṃha, Sena Army.1

Two Dynasties.The sway of the rulers who affix the title Kshatrapa to their names extended over two large parts of India, one in the north including the territory from the Kábul valley to the confluence of the Ganges and the Jamná; the other in the west stretching from Ajmir in the north to the North Konkan in the south and from Málwa in the east to the Arabian [21]
Chapter V.
The Kshatrapas. b.c. 70–a.d. 398.
Sea in the west. The former may be called the Northern the latter the Western Kshatrapas.

The Name.Besides as Kshatrapa, in the Prákrit legends of coins and in inscriptions the title of these dynasties appears under three forms Chhatrapa,2 Chhatrava,3 and Khatapa.4 All these forms have the same meaning namely Lord or Protector of the warrior-race, the Sanskrit Kshatra-pa.5 It is to be noted that the title Kshatrapa appears nowhere as a title of any king or royal officer within the whole range of Sanskrit literature, or indeed on any inscription, coin, or other record of any Indian dynasty except the Northern and the Western Kshatrapas. According to Prinsep Kshatrapa is a Sanskritized form of Satrapa, a term familiar to the Grecian history of ancient Persia and used for the prefect of a province under the Persian system of government. As Prinsep further observes Satrapa had probably the same meaning in Ariana that Kshatrapa had in Sanskrit, the ruler feeder or patron of the kshatra or warrior class, the chief of a warlike tribe or clan.6 Prinsep further notes the Persian kings were often in need of such chiefs and as they entrusted the chiefs with the government of parts of their dominions the word came to mean a governor. So during the anarchy which prevailed on the Skythian overthrow of Greek rule in Baktria7 (b.c. 160) several chiefs of Malaya, Pallava, Ábhíra, Meda, and other predatory tribes came from Baktria to Upper India, and each established for himself a principality or kingdom. Subsequently these chiefs appear to have assumed independent sovereignty. Still though they often call themselves rájás or kings with the title Kshatrapa or Mahákshatrapa, if any Baktrian king advanced towards their territories, they were probably ready to acknowledge him as Overlord. Another reason for believing these Kshatrapa chiefs to have been foreigners is that, while the names of the founders of Kshatrapa sovereignty are foreign, their inscriptions and coins show that soon after the establishment of their rule they became converts to one or other form of the Hindu religion and assumed Indian names.8 [22]

Chapter V.
Northern Kshatrapas, b.c. 70–a.d. 78.
Northern Kshatrapas, b.c. 70–a.d. 78.According to inscriptions and coins Northern Kshatrapa rule begins with king Maues about b.c. 70 and ends with the accession of the Kushán king Kanishka about a.d. 78. Maues probably belonged to the Śaka tribe of Skythians. If the Maues of the coins may be identified with the Moga of the Taxila plate the date of king Patika in the Taxila plate shows that for about seventy-five years after the death of Maues the date of his accession continued to be the initial year of the dynasty. From their connection with the Śakas, arriving in India during the reign of the Śaka Maues and for nearly three quarters of a century accepting the Śaka overlordship, the Kshatrapas, though as noted above their followers were chiefly Malayas, Pallavas, Ábhíras, and Medas, appear to have themselves come to be called Śakas and the mention of Śaka kings in Puráṇic and other records seems to refer to them. After lasting for about 150 years the rule of the Northern Kshatrapas seems to have merged in the empire of the great Kushán Kanishka (a.d. 78).

Though recently found inscriptions and coins show that the Kshatrapas ruled over important parts of India including even a share of the western seaboard, nothing is known regarding them from either Indian or foreign literary sources. What little information can be gleaned is from their own inscriptions and coins. Of the Northern Kshatrapas this information is imperfect and disconnected. It shows that they had probably three or four ruling branches, one in the Kábul valley, a second at Taxila near Attak on the North-West Panjáb frontier, a third at Behát near Saháranpur or Delhi, and a fourth at Mathurá. The last two were perhaps subdivisions of one kingdom; but probably those at Kábul and at Taxila were distinct dynasties. An inscription found [23]
Chapter V.
Northern Kshatrapas, b.c. 70–a.d. 78.
in Mathurá shows a connection either by marriage or by neighbourhood between the Behát and Mathurá branches. This is a Baktro-Páli inscription recording the gift of a stúpa by Nandasiriká daughter of Kshatrapa Rájavula and mother of Kharaosti Yuvarája. Kharaosti is the dynastic name of the prince, his personal name appears later in the inscription as Talama (Ptolemy ?). From his dynastic name, whose crude form Kharaosta or Kharaottha may be the origin of the Prakrit Chhaharáta and the Sanskritised Kshaharáta, this Talama appears to be a descendant of the Kshatrapa Kharaosti whose coins found at Taxila call him Artaputa that is the son of Arta apparently the Parthian Ortus.

The same Baktro-Páli Mathurá inscription also mentions with special respect a Kshatrapa named Patika,9 who, with the title of Kusulaka or Kozolon, ruled the Kábul valley with his capital first at Nagaraka and later at Taxila.

The same inscription further mentions that the stúpa was given while the Kshatrapa Sudása son of the Mahákshatrapa Rájavula was ruling at Mathurá. The inference from the difference in the titles of the father and the son seems to be that Sudása was ruling in Mathurá as governor under his father who perhaps ruled in the neighbourhood of Delhi where many of his coins have been found. While the coins of Sudása have the legend in Nágarí only, Rájavula’s coins are of two varieties, one with the legend in Baktro-Páli and the other with the legend in Nágarí, a fact tending to show that the father’s territories stretched to the far north.

Though Kharaosti is mentioned as a Yuvarája or prince heir-apparent in the time of his maternal uncle Sudása, the inscription shows he had four children. It is curious that while the inscription mentions Nandasiriká as the mother of Kharaosti Yuvarája, nothing is said about her husband. Perhaps he was dead or something had happened to make Nandasiriká live at her father’s home.

Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.Another inscription of Sudása found by General Cunningham at Mathurá is in old Nágarí character. Except that they have the distinctive and long continued Kshatrapa peculiarity of joining ya with other letters the characters of this inscription are of the same period as those of the inscriptions of the great Indo-Skythian or Kushán king Kanishka. This would seem to show that the conquest of Mathurá by Kanishka took place soon after the time of Kshatrapa Sudása. It therefore appears probable that Nahapána, the first Kshatrapa ruler of Gujarát and Káthiáváḍa, the letters of whose inscriptions are of exactly the same Kshatrapa type as those of Sudása, was a scion of the Kharaosti family, who, in this overthrow of kingdoms, went westwards conquering either on his own account or as a general sent by Kanishka. Nahapána’s10 advance seems to have lain through East Rájputána by Mandasor11 [24]
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
in West Málwa along the easy route to Dohad as far as South Gujarát. From South Gujarát his power spread in two directions, by sea to Káthiáváḍa and from near Balsár by the Dáng passes to Násik and the Deccan, over almost the whole of which, judging from coins and inscriptions, he supplanted as overlord the great Ándhra kings of the Deccan. No evidence is available to show either that East Málwa with its capital at Ujjain or that North Gujarát formed part of his dominions. All the information we have regarding Nahapána is from his own silver coins and from the inscriptions of his son-in-law Ushavadáta at Násik and Kárle and of his minister Ayáma (Sk. Áryaman) at Junnar. Nahapána’s coins are comparatively rare. The only published specimen is one obtained by Mr. Justice Newton.12 Four others were also obtained by Dr. Bhagvánlál from Káthiáváḍa and Násik.

Kshatrapa I. Nahapána, a.d. 78–120.The coins of Nahapána are the earliest specimens of Kshatrapa coins. Though the type seems to have been adopted from the Baktrian-Greek, the design is original and is not an imitation of any previous coinage. The type seems adopted in idea from the drachma of Apollodotus (b.c. 110–100). On the obverse is a bust with a Greek legend round it and on the reverse a thunderbolt and an arrow probably as on the reverse of the coins of Apollodotus13 representing the distinctive weapons of Athene Promachos and of Apollo. In addition to the Baktro-Páli legend on the Apollodotus drachma, the reverse of Nahapána’s coin has the same legend in Nágarí, since Nágarí was the character of the country for which the coin was struck. The dress of the bust is in the style of the over-dress of Nahapána’s time. The bust, facing the right, wears a flat grooved cap and has the hair combed in ringlets falling half down the ear. The neck shows the collar of the coat. The workmanship of the coins is good. The die seems to have been renewed from time to time as the face altered with age. Of Dr. Bhagvánlál’s four coins one belongs to Nahapána’s youth, another to his old age, and the remaining two to his intervening years. In all four specimens the Greek legend is imperfect and unreadable. The letters of the Greek legend are of the later period that is like the letters on the coins of the great Skythian king Kadphises I. (b.c. 26). One of the coins shows in the legend the six letters L L O D O-S. These may be the remains of the name Apollodotus (b.c. 110–100). Still it is beyond doubt that the letters are later Greek than those on the coins of Apollodotus. Until the legend is found clear on some fresher specimen, it is not possible to say anything further. In three of the coins the Baktro-Páli legend on the reverse runs:

रञो छ्हरातस नहपानस.

Raño Chhaharátasa Nahapánasa.

Of king Chhaharáta Nahapána.

The fourth has simply

रञो छ्हरातस

Raño Chhaharátasa.

Of king Chhaharáta.


Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
The old Nágarí legend is the same in all:

रञो क्षहरातस नहपानस

Raño Kshaharátasa Nahapánasa.

Of king Kshaharáta Nahapána.

The Chhaharáta of the former and the Kshaharáta of the latter are the same, the difference in the initial letter being merely dialectical. As mentioned above Kshaharáta is the family name of Nahapána’s dynasty. It is worthy of note that though Nahapána is not styled Kshatrapa in any of his coins the inscriptions of Ushavadáta at Násik repeatedly style him the Kshaharáta Kshatrapa Nahapána.14

Ushavadáta, a.d. 100–120.Ushavadáta was the son-in-law of Nahapána being married to his daughter Dakhamitá or Dakshamitrá. Ushavadáta bears no royal title. He simply calls himself son of Díníka and son-in-law of Nahapána, which shows that he owed his power and rank to his father-in-law, a position regarded as derogatory in India, where no scion of any royal dynasty would accept or take pride in greatness or influence obtained from a father-in-law.15 Násik Inscription XIV. shows that Ushavadáta was a Śaka. His name, as was first suggested by Dr. Bhau Dáji, is Prákrit for Rishabhadatta. From the many charitable and publicly useful works mentioned in various Násik and Kárle inscriptions, as made by him in places which apparently formed part of Nahapána’s dominions, Ushavadáta appears to have been a high officer under Nahapána. As Nahapána seems to have had no son Ushavadáta’s position as son-in-law would be one of special power and influence. Ushavadáta’s charitable acts and works of public utility are detailed in Násik Inscriptions X. XII. and XIV. The charitable acts are the gift of three hundred thousand cows; of gold and of river-side steps at the Bárnása or Banás river near Ábu in North Gujarát; of sixteen villages to gods and Bráhmans; the feeding of hundreds of thousands of Bráhmans every year; the giving in marriage of eight wives to Bráhmans at Prabhás in South Káthiáváḍa; the bestowing of thirty-two thousand cocoanut trees in Nanamgola or Nárgol village on the Thána seaboard on the Charaka priesthoods of Pinḍitakávaḍa, Govardhana near Násik, Suvarṇamukha, and Rámatírtha in Sorpáraga or Sopára on the Thána coast; the giving of three hundred thousand cows and a village at Pushkara or Pokhar near Ajmir in East Rájputána; making gifts to Bráhmans at Chechiṇa or Chichan near Kelva-Máhim on the Thána coast; and the gift of trees and 70,000 kárshápaṇas or 2000 suvarṇas to gods and Bráhmans at Dáhánu in Thána. The public works executed by Ushavadáta include rest-houses and alms-houses at Bharu Kachha or Broach, at Daśapura or Mandasor in North Málwa, and gardens and wells at Govardhana and Sopára; free ferries across the Ibá or Ambiká, the Páráda or Pár, the Damaná or Damanganga, the Tápi or Tápti, the Karabená or Káveri, and the Dáhánuká or Dáhánu river. Waiting-places and steps were also built on both banks of each of these rivers. These charitable and public works of Ushavadáta savour much of the Bráhmanic religion. The only [26]
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Ushavdáta, a.d. 100–120.
Buddhist charities are the gift of a cave at Násik; of 3000 kárshápanas and eight thousand cocoanut trees for feeding and clothing monks living in the cave; and of a village near Kárle in Poona for the support of the monks of the main Kárle cave. Ushavadáta himself thus seems to have been a follower of the Bráhmanical faith. The Buddhist charities were probably made to meet the wishes of his wife whose father’s religion the Buddhist wheel and the Bodhi tree on his copper coins prove to have been Buddhism. The large territory over which these charitable and public works of Ushavadáta spread gives an idea of the extent of Nahapána’s rule. The gift of a village as far north as Pokhara near Ajmir would have been proof of dominion in those parts were it not for the fact that in the same inscription Ushavadáta mentions his success in assisting some local Kshatriyas. It is doubtful if the northern limits of Nahapána’s dominions extended as far as Pokhar. The village may have been given during a brief conquest, since according to Hindu ideas no village given to Bráhmans can be resumed. The eastern boundary would seem to have been part of Málwa and the plain lands of Khándesh Násik and Poona; the southern boundary was somewhere about Bombay; and the western Káthiáváḍa and the Arabian sea.

Nahapána’s Era.Nahapána’s exact date is hard to fix. Ushavadáta’s Násik cave Inscriptions X. and XII. give the years 41 and 42; and an inscription of Nahapána’s minister Ayáma at Junnar gives the year 46. The era is not mentioned. They are simply dated vase Sk. varshe that is in the year. Ushavadáta’s Násik Inscription XII. records in the year 42 the gift of charities and the construction of public works which must have taken years to complete. If at that time Ushavadáta’s age was 40 to 45, Nahapána who, as Inscription X. shows, was living at that time, must have been some twenty years older than his son-in-law or say about 65. The Junnar inscription of his minister Ayáma which bears date 46 proves that Nahapána lived several years after the making of Ushavadáta’s cave. The bust on one of his coins also shows that Nahapána attained a ripe old age.

Nahapána cannot have lived long after the year 46. His death may be fixed about the year 50 of the era to which the three years 41, 42, and 46 belong. He was probably about 75 years old when he died. Deducting 50 from 75 we get about 25 as Nahapána’s age at the beginning of the era to which the years 41, 42, and 46 belong, a suitable age for an able prince with good resources and good advisers to have established a kingdom. It is therefore probable that the era marks Nahapána’s conquest of Gujarát. As said above, Nahapána was probably considered to belong to the Śaka tribe, and his son-in-law clearly calls himself a Śaka. It may therefore be supposed that the era started by Nahapána on his conquest of Gujarát was at first simply called Varsha; that it afterwards came to be called Śakavarsha or Śakasaṃvatsara; and that finally, after various changes, to suit false current ideas, about the eleventh or twelfth century the people of the Deccan styled it Śáliváhana Saka mixing it with current traditions regarding the great Śátaváhana or Śaliváhana king of Paithan. If, as mentioned above, Nahapána’s conquest of Gujarát and the establishment of his era be taken to come close after the conquest of Mathurá by [27]
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Nahapána’s Era.
Kanishka, the Gujarát conquest and the era must come very shortly after the beginning of Kanishka’s reign, since Kanishka conquered Mathurá early in his reign. As his Mathurá inscriptions16 give 5 as Kanishka’s earliest date, he must have conquered Mathurá in the year 3 or 4 of his reign. Nahapána’s expedition to and conquest of Gujarát was probably contemporary with or very closely subsequent to Kanishka’s conquest of Mathurá. So two important eras seem to begin about four years apart, the one with Kanishka’s reign in Upper India, the other with Nahapána’s reign in Western India. The difference being so small and both being eras of foreign conquerors, a Kushán and a Śaka respectively, the two eras seem to have been subsequently confounded. Thus, according to Dr. Burnell, the Javanese Śaka era is a.d. 74, that is Kanishka’s era was introduced into Java, probably because Java has from early times been connected with the eastern parts of India where Kanishka’s era was current. On the other hand the astrological works called Karaṇa use the era beginning with a.d. 78 which we have taken to be the Western era started by Nahapána. The use of the Śaka era in Karaṇa works dates from the time of the great Indian astronomer Varáha Mihira (a.d. 587). As Varáha Mihira lived and wrote his great work in Avanti or Málwa he naturally made use of the Śaka era of Nahapána, which was current in Málwa. Subsequent astronomers adopted the era used by the master Varáha Mihira. Under their influence Nahapána’s a.d. 78 era passed into use over the whole of Northern and Central India eclipsing Kanishka’s a.d. 74 era. On these grounds it may be accepted that the dates in the Násik inscriptions of Ushavadáta and in Ayáma’s inscription at Junnar are in the era founded by Nahapána on his conquest of Gujarát and the West Deccan. This era was adopted by the Western Kshatrapa successors of Nahapána and continued on their coins for nearly three centuries.17 [28]

Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
The Málava Era, b.c. 56.
The Málava Era, b.c. 56.The question arises why should not the dates on the Western Kshatrapa coins belong to the era which under the incorrect title of the Vikrama era is now current in Gujarát and Málwa. Several recently found Málwa inscriptions almost prove that what is called the Vikrama era beginning with b.c. 56 was not started by any Vikrama, but marks the institution of the tribal constitution of the Málavas.18 Later the era came to be called either the era of the Málava lords19 or Málava Kála that is the era of the Málavas. About the ninth century just as the Śaka era became connected with the Śaliváhana of Paithan, this old Málava era became connected with the name of Vikramáditya, the great legendary king of Ujain.

It might be supposed that the Málavas who gave its name to the Málava era were the kings of the country now called Málwa. But it is to be noted that no reference to the present Málwa under the name of Málavadeśa occurs in any Sanskrit work or record earlier than the second century after Christ. The original Sanskrit name of the country was Avanti. It came to be called Málava from the time the Málava tribe conquered it and settled in it, just as Káthiáváḍa and Meváḍa came to be called after their Káthi and Meva or Meda conquerors. The Málavas, also called Málayas,20 seem like the Medas to be a foreign tribe, which, passing through Upper India conquered and settled in Central India during the first century before Christ. The mention in the Mudrárákshasa21 of a Málaya king among five Upper Indian kings shows that in the time of the Mauryas (b.c. 300) a Málaya kingdom existed in Upper India which after the decline of Maurya supremacy spread to Central India. By Nahapána’s time the Málavas seem to have moved eastwards towards Jaipur, as Ushavadáta defeated them in the neighbourhood of the Pushkar lake: but the fact that the country round Ujain was still known to Rudradáman as Avanti, shows that the Málavas had not yet (a.d. 150) entered the district now known as Málava. This settlement and the change of name from Avanti to Málava probably took place in the weakness of the Kshatrapas towards the end of the third century a.d. When they established their sway in Central India these Málavas or Málayas like the ancient Yaudheyas (b.c. 100) and the Káthis till recent times (a.d. 1818) seem to have had a democratic constitution.22 Their political system seems to have proved unsuited to the conditions of a settled community. To put an end to dissensions the Málava tribe appears to have framed what the Mandasor inscription terms a sthiti or constitution in honour of which they began a new era.23 It may be asked, Why may not Nahapána have been the head of the Málavas who under the new constitution became the first Málava sovereign and his reign-dates be those of [29]
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
The Málava Era, b.c. 56.
the new Málava era? Against this we know from a Násik inscription of Ushavadáta24 that Nahapána was not a Málava himself but an opponent of the Málavas as he sent Ushavadáta to help a tribe of Kshatriyas called Uttamabhadras whom the Málavas had attacked. Further a chronological examination of the early ruling dynasties of Gujarát does not favour the identification of the Kshatrapa era with the Málava era. The available information regarding the three dynasties the Kshatrapas the Guptas and the Valabhis, is universally admitted to prove that they followed one another in chronological succession. The latest known Kshatrapa date is 310. Even after this we find the name of a later Kshatrapa king whose date is unknown but may be estimated at about 320. If we take this Kshatrapa 320 to be in the Vikrama Samvat, its equivalent is a.d. 264. In consequence of several new discoveries the epoch of the Gupta era has been finally settled to be a.d. 319. It is further settled that the first Gupta conqueror of Málwa and Gujarát was Chandragupta II.25 the date of his conquest of Málwa being Gupta 80 (a.d. 399). Counting the Kshatrapa dates in the Samvat era this gives a blank of (399 - 264 = ) 135 years between the latest Kshatrapa date and the date of Chandragupta’s conquest of Gujarát to fill which we have absolutely no historical information. On the other hand in support of the view that the Kshatrapa era is the Śaka era the Káthiáváḍa coins of the Gupta king Kumáragupta son of Chandragupta dated 100 Gupta closely resemble the coins of the latest Kshatrapa kings, the workmanship proving that the two styles of coin are close in point of time. Thus taking the Kshatrapa era to be the Śaka era the latest Kshatrapa date is 320 + 78 = a.d. 398, which is just the date (a.d. 399) of Chandragupta’s conquest of Málwa and Gujarát. For these reasons, and in the absence of reasons to the contrary, it seems proper to take the dates in Ushavadáta’s and Ayáma’s inscriptions as in the era which began with Nahapána’s conquest of Gujarát, namely the Śaka era whose initial date is a.d. 78.

Kshatrapa II. Chashṭana, a.d. 130.After Nahapána’s the earliest coins found in Gujarát are those of Chashṭana. Chashṭana’s coins are an adaptation of Nahapána’s coins. At the same time Chashṭana’s bust differs from the bust in Nahapána’s coins. He wears a mustache, the cap is not grooved but plain, and the hair which reaches the neck is longer than Nahapána’s hair. In one of Chashṭana’s coins found by Mr. Justice Newton, the hair seems dressed in ringlets as in the coins of the Parthian king Phraates II. (b.c. 136–128).26 On the reverse instead of the thunderbolt and arrow as in Nahapána’s coins, Chashṭana’s coins have symbols of the sun and moon in style much like the sun and moon symbols on the Parthian coins of Phraates II., the moon being a crescent and the sun represented by eleven rays shooting from a central beam. To the two on the reverse a third symbol seems to have been added consisting of two arches resting on a straight line, with a third arch over and between [30]
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Chashṭana’s Coins, a.d. 130.
the two arches, and over the third arch an inverted semicircle. Below these symbols stretches a waving or serpentine line.27

Chashṭana’s Coins, a.d. 130.The same symbol appears on the obverse of several very old medium-sized square copper coins found in Upper India. These coins Dr. Bhagvánlál took to be coins of Aśoka. They have no legend on either side, and have a standing elephant on the obverse and a rampant lion on the reverse. As these are the symbols of Aśoka, the elephant being found in his rock inscriptions and the lion in his pillar inscriptions, Dr. Bhagvánlál held them to be coins of Aśoka. The arch symbol appears in these coins over the elephant on the obverse and near the lion on the reverse but in neither case with the underlying zigzag line.28 So also a contemporary coin bearing in the Aśoka character the clear legend वटस्वक Vaṭasvaka shows the same symbol, with in addition a robed male figure of good design standing near the symbol saluting it with folded hands. The position of the figure (Ariana Antiqua, Plate XV. Fig. 30) proves that the symbol was an object of worship. In Chashṭana’s coins we find this symbol between the sun and the moon, a position which suggests that the symbol represents the mythical mountain Meru, the three semicircular superimposed arches representing the peaks of the mountain and the crescent a Siddha-śilâ or Siddhas’ seat, which Jaina works describe as crescent-shaped and situated over Meru. The collective idea of this symbol in the middle and the sun and moon on either side recalls the following; śloka:

यावद्वीचीतरङ्गान्वहति सुरनदी जान्हवी पूर्णतोया ।

यावच्चाकाशमार्गे तपति दिनकरो भास्करो लोकपालः

यावद्वज्रेन्दुनीलस्फटिकमणिशिला वर्तते मेरुश्रृंङ्गे ।

तावत्त्वं पूत्रपौत्रैः स्वजनपरिवृतो जीव शम्मोः प्रसादत ॥

Mayest thou by the favour of Śambhu live surrounded by sons grandsons and relations so long as the heavenly Ganges full of water flows with its waves, so long as the brilliant sun the protector of the universe shines in the sky, and so long as the slab of diamond moonstone lapis lazuli and sapphire remains on the top of Meru.

Dr. Bird’s Kanheri copperplate has a verse with a similar meaning regarding the continuance of the glory of the relic shrine of one Pushya, so long as Meru remains and rivers and the sea flow.29 The meaning of showing Meru and the sun and moon is thus clear. The underlying serpentine line apparently stands for the Jáhnaví river or it may perhaps be a representation of the sea.30 The object of representing [31]
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Chashṭana’s Coins, a.d. 130.
these symbols on coins may be that the coins may last as long as the sun, the moon, mount Meru, and the Ganges or ocean. Against this view it may be urged that the coins of the Buddhist kings of Kuninda (a.d. 100), largely found near Saháranpur in the North-West Provinces, show the arch symbol with the Buddhist trident over it, the Bodhi tree with the railing by its side, and the serpentine line under both the tree and the symbol, the apparent meaning being that the symbol is a Buddhist shrine with the Bodhi tree and the river Niranjana of Buddha Gaya near it. The same symbol appears as a Buddhist shrine in Andhra coins31 which make it larger with four rows of arches, a tree by its side, and instead of the zigzag base line a railing. This seems a different representation perhaps of the shrine of Mahábodhi at Buddha Gaya. These details seem to show that popular notions regarding the meaning of this symbol varied at different times.32

Such of the coins of Chashṭana as have on the reverse only the sun and the moon bear on the obverse in Baktro-Páli characters a legend of which the four letters रञो जिमो Raño jimo alone be made out. An illegible Greek legend continues the Baktro-Páli legend. The legend on the reverse is in old Nágarí character:

राज्ञो क्षत्रपस य्समोतिकपुत्र [सच] ष्टनस.33

Rájño Kshatrapasa Ysamotikaputra(sa Cha)shṭanasa.

Of the king Kshatrapa Chashṭana son of Ysamotika.

The variety of Chashṭana’s coins which has the arch symbol on the reverse, bears on the obverse only the Greek legend almost illegible and on the reverse the Baktro-Páli legend चटनस Chaṭanasa meaning. Of Chashṭana and in continuation the Nágarí legend:

राज्ञोमहाक्षत्रपस य्समोदिकपुत्रस चष्टनस

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Ysamotikaputrasa Chashṭanasa.

Of the king the great Kshatrapa Chashṭana son of Ysamotika.

Chashṭana’s Father.The name Zamotika is certainly not Indian but foreign apparently a corruption of some such form as Psamotika or Xamotika. Further the fact that Zamotika is not called Kshatrapa or by any other title, would seem to show that he was an untitled man whose son somehow came to authority and obtained victory over these parts where (as his earlier coins with the sun and the moon show) he was at first called a Kshatrapa and afterwards (as his later coins with the third symbol show) a Mahákshatrapa or great Kshatrapa. We know nothing of any connection between Nahapána and Chashṭana. Still it is clear that Chashṭana obtained a great part of the territory over which [32]
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Chashṭana, a.d. 130.Nahapána previously held sway. Though Chashṭana’s coins and even the coins of his son and grandson bear no date, we have reason to believe they used a nameless era, of which the year 72 is given in the Junágaḍh inscription of Chashṭana’s grandson Rudradáman.34 Though we have no means of ascertaining how many years Rudradáman had reigned before this 72 it seems probable that the beginning of the reign was at least several years earlier. Taking the previous period at seven years Rudradáman’s succession may be tentatively fixed at 65. Allowing twenty-five years for his father Jayadáman and his grandfather Chashṭana (as they were father and son and the son it is supposed reigned for some years with his father35) Chashṭana’s conquest of Gujarát comes to about the year 40 which makes Chashṭana contemporary with the latter part of Nahapána’s life. Now the Tiastanes whom Ptolemy mentions as having Ozene for his capital36 is on all hands admitted to be Chashṭana and from what Ptolemy says it appears certain that his capital was Ujjain. Two of Chashṭana’s coins occur as far north as Ajmir. As the Chashṭana coins in Dr. Gerson DaCunha’s collection were found in Káthiáváḍa he must have ruled a large stretch of country. The fact that in his earlier coins Chashṭana is simply called a Kshatrapa and in his latter coins a Mahákshatrapa leads to the inference that his power was originally small. Chashṭana was probably not subordinate to Nahapána but a contemporary of Nahapána originally when a simple Kshatrapa governing perhaps North Gujarát and Málwa. Nor was Chashṭana a member of Nahapána’s family as he is nowhere called Kshaharáta which is the name of Nahapána’s family. During the lifetime of Nahapána Chashṭana’s power would seem to have been established first over Ajmir and Mewáḍ. Perhaps Chashṭana may have been the chief of the Uttamabhadra Kshatriyas, whom, in the year 42, Ushavadáta went to assist when they were besieged by the Málayas or Málavas37; and it is possible that the Málavas being thus driven away Chashṭana may have consolidated his power, taken possession of Málwa, and established his capital at Ujjain.

Deccan Recovered by the Andhras, a.d. 138.On Nahapána’s death his territory, which in the absence of a son had probably passed to his son-in-law Ushavadáta, seems to have been wrested from him by his Ándhra neighbours, as one of the attributes of Gautamíputra Śátakarṇi is exterminator of the dynasty of Khakharáta (or Kshaharáta). That North Konkan, South Gujarát, and Káthiáváḍa were taken and incorporated with Ándhra territory appears from Gautamíputra’s Násik inscription (No. 26) where Suráshṭra and Aparánta are mentioned as parts of his dominions. These Ándhra [33]
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
conquests seem to have been shortlived. Chashṭana appears to have eventually taken Káthiáváḍa and as much of South Gujarát as belonged to Nahapána probably as far south as the Narbada. Meváḍ, Málwa, North and South Gujarát and Káthiáváḍa would then be subject to him and justify the title Mahákshatrapa on his later coins.

The Mevas or Meḍas.The bulk of Chashṭana’s army seems to have consisted of the Mevas or Meḍas from whose early conquests and settlements in Central Rájputána the province seems to have received its present name Meváḍa. If this supposition be correct an inference may be drawn regarding the origin of Chashṭana. The Mathurá inscription of Nandasiriká, daughter of Kshatrapa Rájavula and mother of Kharaosti Yuvarája, mentions with respect a Mahákshatrapa Kuzulko Patika who is called in the inscription Mevaki that is of the Meva tribe. The inscription shows a relation between the Kharaostis (to which tribe we have taken Kshaharáta Nahapána to belong) and Mevaki Patika perhaps in the nature of subordinate and overlord. It proves at least that the Kharaostis held Patika in great honour and respect.

The Taxila plate shows that Patika was governor of Taxila during his father’s lifetime. After his father’s death when he became Mahákshatrapa, Patika’s capital was Nagaraka in the Jallálábád or Kábul valley. The conquest of those parts by the great Kushán or Indo-Skythian king Kanishka (a.d. 78) seems to have driven Patika’s immediate successors southwards to Sindh where they may have established a kingdom. The Skythian kingdom mentioned by the author of the Periplus as stretching in his time as far south as the mouths of the Indus may be a relic of this kingdom. Some time after their establishment in Sindh Patika’s successors may have sent Chashṭana, either a younger member of the reigning house or a military officer, with an army of Mevas through Umarkot and the Great Ran to Central Rájputána, an expedition which ended in the settlement of the Mevas and the change of the country’s name to Meváḍa. Probably it was on account of their previous ancestral connection that Nahapána sent Ushavadáta to help Chashṭana in Meváḍa when besieged by his Málava neighbours. That Ushavadáta went to bathe and make gifts38 at Pushkara proves that the scene of the Uttamabhadras’ siege by the Málayas was in Meváḍa not far from Pushkara.

Chashṭana is followed by an unbroken chain of successors all of the dynasty of which Chashṭana was the founder. As the coins of Chashṭana’s successors bear dates and as each coin gives the name of the king and of his father they supply a complete chronological list of the Kshatrapa dynasty.

Kshatrapa III. Jayadáman, a.d. 140–143.Of Chashṭana’s son and successor Jayadáman the coins are rare. Of three specimens found in Káthiáváḍa two are of silver and one of copper. Both the silver coins were found in Junágaḍh39 but they are doubtful specimens as the legend is not complete. Like Chashṭana’s [34]
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Kshatrapa III. Jayadáman, a.d. 140–143.
coins they have a bust on the obverse and round the bust an incomplete and undecipherable Greek legend. The reverse has the sun and the moon and between them the arched symbol with the zigzag under-line. All round the symbols on the margin within a dotted line is the legend in Baktro-Páli and Devanágarí. Only three letters रञो छ ञ of the Baktro-Páli legend can be made out. Of the Nágarí legend seven letters राज्ञो क्षत्रपस Rájno Kshatrapasa Ja can be made out. The remaining four letters Dr. Bhagvánlál read यदामस Yadámasa.40 The copper coin which is very small and square has on the obverse in a circle a standing humped bull looking to the right and fronting an erect trident with an axe. In style the bull is much like the bull on the square hemidrachmæ of Apollodotus (b.c. 110–100). Round the bull within a dotted circle is the legend in Greek. It is unfortunate the legend is incomplete as the remaining letters which are in the Skythian-Greek style are clearer than the letters on any Kshatrapa coin hitherto found. The letters that are preserved are S T R X Y. The reverse has the usual moon and sun and between them the arched symbol without the zigzag under-line. All round within a dotted circle is the Nágarí legend:

राज्ञो क्षत्र [पस] जयदामस.

Rájno Kshatra(pasa) Jayadámasa.

Of the king Kshatrapa Jayadáman.

Though the name is not given in any of these coins, the fact that Chashṭana was Jayadáman’s father has been determined from the genealogy in the Gunda inscription of Rudrasiṃha I. the seventh Kshatrapa,41 in the Jasdhan inscription of Rudrasena I. the eighth Kshatrapa,42 and in the Junágaḍh cave inscription43 of Rudradáman’s son Rudrasiṃha. All these inscriptions and the coins of his son Rudradáman call Jayadáman Kshatrapa not Mahákshatrapa. This would seem to show either that he was a Kshatrapa or governor of Káthiáváḍa under his father or that his father’s territory and his rank as Mahákshatrapa suffered some reduction.44 The extreme rarity of his coins suggests that Jayadáman’s reign was very short. It is worthy of note that while Zamotika and Chashṭana are foreign names, the names of Jayadáman and all his successors with one exception45 are purely Indian.

Kshatrapa IV. Rudradáman, a.d. 143–158.Jayadáman was succeeded by his son Rudradáman who was probably the greatest of the Western Kshatrapas. His beautiful silver coins, in style much like those of Chashṭana, are frequently found in Káthiáváḍa. On the obverse is his bust in the same style of dress as Chashṭana’s and [35]
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Kshatrapa IV. Rudradáman, a.d. 143–158.
round the bust is the Greek legend incomplete and undecipherable. The reverse has the usual sun and moon and the arched symbol with the zigzag under-line. The old Nágarí legend fills the whole outer circle. None of Rudradáman’s coins shows a trace of the Baktro-Páli legend. The Nágarí legend reads:

राज्ञो क्षत्रपस जयदामपुत्रस राज्ञो महक्षत्रपस रुद्रदामस.

Rájno Kshatrapasa Jayadámaputrasa
Rájno Mahákshatrapasa Rudradámasa.

Of the king the great Kshatrapa Rudradáman son of the king the Kshatrapa Jayadáman.

None of Rudradáman’s copper coins have been found. Except Jayadáman none of the Kshatrapas seem to have stamped their names on any but silver coins.46

An inscription on the Girnár rock gives us more information regarding Rudradáman than is available for any of the other Kshatrapas. The inscription records the construction of a new dam on the Sudarśana lake close to the inscription rock in place of a dam built in the time of the Maurya king Chandragupta (b.c. 300) and added to in the time of his grandson the great Aśoka (b.c. 240) which had suddenly burst in a storm. The new dam is recorded to have been made under the orders of Suvishákha son of Kulaipa a Pahlava by tribe, who was ‘appointed by the king to protect the whole of Ánarta and Suráshṭra.’ Pahlava seems to be the name of the ancient Persians and Parthians47 and the name Suvishákha as Dr. Bhau Dáji suggests may be a Sanskritised form of Syávaxa.48 One of the Kárle inscriptions gives a similar name Sovasaka apparently a corrupt Indian form of the original Persian from which the Sanskritised Suvishákha must have been formed. Sovasaka it will be noted is mentioned in the Kárle inscription as an inhabitant of Abulámá, apparently the old trade mart of Obollah at the head of the Persian Gulf. This trade connection between the Persian Gulf and the Western Indian seaboard must have led to the settlement from very early times of the Pahlavas who gradually became converted to Buddhism, and, like the Pársis their modern enterprising representatives, seem to have advanced in trade and political influence. Subsequently the Pahlavas attained such influence that about the fifth century a dynasty of Pallava kings reigned in the Dekhan, Hindu in religion and name, even tracing their origin to the great ancient sage Bháradvája.49

Sudarśana Lake, a.d. 150.The statement in Rudradáman’s Sudarśana lake inscription, that Ánarta and Suráshṭra were under his Pahlava governor, seems to show [36]
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Kshatrapa IV. Rudradáman, a.d. 143–158.
that Rudradáman’s capital was not in Gujarát or Káthiáváḍa. Probably like his grandfather Chashṭana Rudradáman held his capital at Ujjain. The poetic eulogies of Rudradáman appear to contain a certain share of fact. One of the epithets ‘he who himself has earned the title Mahákshatrapa’ indicates that Rudradáman had regained the title of Mahákshatrapa which belonged to his grandfather Chashṭana but not to his father Jayadáman. Another portion of the inscription claims for him the overlordship of Ákarávanti,50 Anúpa,51 Ánarta, Suráshṭra, Śvabhra,52 Maru,53 Kachchha,54 Sindhu-Sauvíra,55 Kukura,56 Aparánta,57 and Nisháda;58 that is roughly the country from Bhilsa in the east to Sindh in the west and from about Ábu in the north to the North Konkan in the south including the peninsulas of Cutch and Káthiáváḍa. The inscription also mentions two wars waged by Rudradáman, one with the Yaudheyas the other with Śátakarṇi lord of Dakshinápatha. Of the Yaudheyas the inscription says that they had become arrogant and untractable in consequence of their having proclaimed their assumption of the title of Heroes among all Kshatriyas. Rudradáman is described as having exterminated them. These Yaudheyas were known as a warlike race from the earliest times and are mentioned as warriors by Páṇini.59

The Yaudheyas.Like the Málavas these Yaudheyas appear to have had a democratic constitution. Several round copper coins of the Yaudheyas of about the third century a.d. have been found in various parts of the North-West Provinces from Mathurá to Saháranpur. These coins [37]
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
The Yaudheyas.
which are adapted from the type of Kanishka’s coins60 have on the obverse a standing robed male figure extending the protecting right hand of mercy. On the reverse is the figure of a standing Kártikasvámi and round the figure the legend in Gupta characters of about the third century:

यौधेय गणस्य

Yaudheya Gaṇasya.

Of the Yaudheya tribe.61

That the Girnár inscription describes Rudradáman as the exterminator of ‘the Yaudheyas’ and not of any king of the Yaudheyas confirms the view that their constitution was tribal or democratic.62

The style of the Yaudheya coins being an adaptation of the Kanishka type and their being found from Mathurá to Saháranpur where Kanishka ruled is a proof that the Yaudheyas wrested from the successors of Kanishka the greater part of the North-West Provinces. This is not to be understood to be the Yaudheyas’ first conquest in India. They are known to be a very old tribe who after a temporary suppression by Kanishka must have again risen to power with the decline of Kushán rule under Kanishka’s successors Huvishka (a.d. 100–123) or Vasudeva (a.d. 123–150 ?) the latter of whom was a contemporary of Rudradáman.63 It is probably to this increase of Yaudheya power that Rudradáman’s inscription refers as making them arrogant and intractable. Their forcible extermination is not to be understood literally but in the Indian hyperbolic fashion.

The remark regarding the conquest of Śátakarṇi lord of Dakshinápatha is as follows: ‘He who has obtained glory because he did not destroy Śátakarṇi, the lord of the Dekhan, on account of there being no distance in relationship, though he twice really conquered him.’64 As Śátakarṇi is a dynastic name applied to several of the Ándhra kings, the question arises Which of the Śátakarṇis did Rudradáman twice defeat? Of the two Western India kings mentioned by Ptolemy one Tiastanes with his capital at Ozene or Ujjain65 has been identified with Chashṭana; the other Siri Ptolemaios or Polemaios, with his royal seat at Baithana or Paithan,66 has been identified with the Pulumáyi Vásishṭhíputra of the Násik cave inscriptions. These statements of [38]
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Kshatrapa IV. Rudradáman, a.d. 143–158.
Ptolemy seem to imply that Chashṭana and Pulumáyi were contemporary kings reigning at Ujjain and Paithan. The evidence of their coins also shows that if not contemporaries Chashṭana and Pulumáyi were not separated by any long interval. We know from the Násik inscriptions and the Puráṇas that Pulumáyi was the successor of Gautamíputra Śátakarṇi and as Gautamíputra Śátakarṇi is mentioned as the exterminator of the Kshaharáta race (and the period of this extermination has already been shown to be almost immediately after Nahapána’s death), there is no objection to the view that Chashṭana, who was the next Kshatrapa after Nahapána, and Pulumáyi, who was the successor of Gautamíputra, were contemporaries. We have no positive evidence to determine who was the immediate successor of Pulumáyi, but the only king whose inscriptions are found in any number after Pulumáyi is Gautamíputra Yajña Śrí Śátakarṇi. His Kanheri inscription recording gifts made in his reign and his coin found among the relics of the Sopára stúpa built also in his reign prove that he held the North Konkan. The Sopára coin gives the name of the father of Yajñaśrí. Unfortunately the coin is much worn. Still the remains of the letters constituting the name are sufficient to show they must be read चतुरपन Chaturapana.67 A king named Chaturapana is mentioned in one of the Nánághát inscriptions where like Pulumáyi he is called Vásishṭhíputra and where the year 13 of his reign is referred to.68 The letters of this inscription are almost coeval with those in Pulumáyi’s inscriptions. The facts that he was called Vásishṭhíputra and that he reigned at least thirteen years make it probable that Chaturapana was the brother and successor of Pulumáyi. Yajñaśrí would thus be the nephew and second in succession to Pulumáyi and the contemporary of Rudradáman the grandson of Chashṭana, whom we have taken to be a contemporary of Pulumáyi. A further proof of this is afforded by Yajñaśrí’s silver coin found in the Sopára stúpa. All other Ándhra coins hitherto found are adapted from contemporary coins of Ujjain and the Central Provinces, the latter probably of the Śungas. But Gautamíputra Yajñaśrí Śátakarṇi’s Sopára coin is the first silver coin struck on the type of Kshatrapa coins; it is in fact a clear adaptation of the type of the coins of Rudradáman himself which proves that the two kings were contemporaries and rivals. An idea of the ‘not distant relationship’ between Rudradáman and Yajñaśrí Śátakarṇi mentioned in Rudradáman’s Girnár inscription, may be formed from a Kanheri inscription recording a gift by a minister named Satoraka which mentions that the queen of Vásishṭhíputra Śátakarṇi was born in the Kárdamaka dynasty and was connected apparently on the maternal side with a Mahákshatrapa whose name is lost. If the proper name of the lost Vásishṭhíputra be Chaturapana, his son Yajñaśrí Śátakarṇi would, through his mother being a Mahákshatrapa’s granddaughter, be a relative of Rudradáman.

Rudradáman’s other epithets seem to belong to the usual stock of [39]
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Kshatrapa IV. Rudradáman, a.d. 143–158.
Indian court epithets. He is said ‘to have gained great fame by studying to the end, by remembering understanding and applying the great sciences such as grammar, polity, music, and logic’. Another epithet describes him as having ‘obtained numerous garlands at the Svayamvaras of kings’ daughters,’ apparently meaning that he was chosen as husband by princesses at several svayamvaras or choice-marriages a practice which seems to have been still in vogue in Rudradáman’s time. As a test of the civilized character of his rule it may be noted that he is described as ‘he who took, and kept to the end of his life, the vow to stop killing men except in battle.’ Another epithet tells us that the embankment was built and the lake reconstructed by ‘expending a great amount of money from his own treasury, without oppressing the people of the town and of the province by (exacting) taxes, forced labour, acts of affection (benevolences) and the like.’

As the Kshatrapa year 60 (a.d. 138) has been taken to be the date of close of Chashṭana’s reign, and as five years may be allowed for the short reign69 of Jayadáman, the beginning of the reign of Rudradáman may be supposed to have been about the year 65 (a.d. 143). This Girnár inscription gives 72 as the year in which Rudradáman was then reigning and it is fair to suppose that he reigned probably up to 80. The conclusion is that Rudradáman ruled from a.d. 143 to 158.70

Kshatrapa V. Dámázaḍa or Dámájaḍaśrí, a.d. 158–168.Rudradáman was succeeded by his son Dámázaḍa or Dámájaḍaśrí regarding whom all the information available is obtained from six coins obtained by Dr. Bhagvánlál.71 The workmanship of all six coins is good, after the type of Rudradáman’s coins. On the obverse is a bust in the same style as Rudradáman’s and round the bust is an illegible Greek legend. Like Rudradáman’s coins these have no dates, a proof of their antiquity, as all later Kshatrapa coins have dates in Nágarí numerals. The reverse has the usual sun and moon and between them the arched symbol with the zigzag under-line. Around them in three specimens is the following legend in old Nágarí:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रदामपुत्रस72 राज्ञः क्षत्रपस दामाय्सडस

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudradámaputrasa Rájñaḥ Kshatrapasa Dámáysaḍasa.

Of the king the Kshatrapa Dámázaḍa73 son of the king the Kshatrapa Rudradáman.


Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Kshatrapa V. Dámázaḍa or Dámájaḍaśrí, a.d. 158–168.
The legend on the other three is:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रदाम्नः पुत्रस राज्ञः क्षत्रपस दामाजडश्रियः

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudradámnaḥputrasa Rájñaḥ Kshatrapasa Dámájaḍaśriyaḥ.

Of the king the Kshatrapa Dámájaḍaśrí son of the king the great Kshatrapa Rudradáma.

Dámázaḍa and Dámájaḍaśrí seem to be two forms of the same name, Dámázaḍa with य्स for Ζ being the name first struck, and Dámájaḍaśrí, with the ordinary for Ζ, and with Śrí added to adorn the name and make it more euphonic, being the later form. It will be noted that, except by his son Jivadáman, Dámázaḍa or Dámájaḍaśrí is not called a Mahákshatrapa but simply a Kshatrapa. His coins are very rare. The six mentioned are the only specimens known and are all from one find. He may therefore be supposed to have reigned as heir-apparent during the life-time of Rudradáman, or it is possible that he may have suffered loss of territory and power. His reign seems to have been short and may have terminated about 90 that is a.d. 168 or a little later.

Kshatrapa VI. Jivadáman, a.d. 178.Dámázaḍa or Dámájaḍaśrí was succeeded by his son Jivadáman. All available information regarding Jivadáman is from four rare coins obtained by Pandit Bhagvánlál, which for purposes of description, he has named A, B, C, and D.74 Coin A bears date 100 in Nágarí numerals, the earliest date found on Kshatrapa coins. On the obverse is a bust in the usual Kshatrapa style with a plump young face of good workmanship. Round the bust is first the date 100 in Nágarí numerals and after the date the Greek legend in letters which though clear cannot be made out. In these and in all later Kshatrapa coins merely the form of the Greek legend remains; the letters are imitations of Greek by men who could not read the original. On the reverse is the usual arched symbol between the sun and the moon, the sun being twelve-rayed as in the older Kshatrapa coins. Within the dotted circle in the margin is the following legend in old Nágarí:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस दामाश्रियः पुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस जीवदाम्नः

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Dámaśriyaḥputrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Jivadámnaḥ.

Of the king the Kshatrapa Jivadáman son of the king the great Kshatrapa Dámaśrí.

Coin B has the bust on the obverse with a face apparently older than the face in A. Unfortunately the die has slipped and the date has not been struck. Most of the Greek legend is very clear but as in coin A the result is meaningless. The letters are K I U I U Z K N S Y L perhaps meant for Kuzulka. On the reverse are the usual three symbols, except [41]
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Kshatrapa VI. Jivadáman, a.d. 178.
that the sun has seven instead of twelve rays. The legend is:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस दामजडस पुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस जीवदमस

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Dámajaḍasaputrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Jivadámasa.

Of the king the great Kshatrapa Jivadáman son of the king the great Kshatrapa Dámajaḍa.

Coin C though struck from a different die is closely like B both on the obverse and the reverse. Neither the Greek legend nor the date is clear, though enough remains of the lower parts of the numerals to suggest the date 118. Coin D is in obverse closely like C. The date 118 is clear. On the reverse the legend and the symbols have been twice struck. The same legend occurs twice, the second striking having obliterated the last letters of the legend which contained the name of the king whose coin it is:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस दामजडस पुत्रस

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Dámajaḍasaputrasa.

Of the son of the king the great Kshatrapa Dámájaḍa.

In these four specimens Dámaśrí or Dámájaḍa is styled Mahákshatrapa, while in his own coins he is simply called Kshatrapa. The explanation perhaps is that the known coins of Dámaśrí or Dámajaḍa belong to the early part of his reign when he was subordinate to his father, and that he afterwards gained the title of Mahákshatrapa. Some such explanation is necessary as the distinction between the titles Kshatrapa and Mahákshatrapa is always carefully preserved in the earlier Kshatrapa coins. Except towards the close of the dynasty no ruler called Kshatrapa on his own coins is ever styled Mahákshatrapa on the coins of his son unless the father gained the more important title during his lifetime.

The dates and the difference in the style of die used in coining A and in coining B, C, and D are worth noting as the earliest coin has the date 100 and C and D the third and fourth coins have 118. If Jivadáman’s reign lasted eighteen years his coins would be common instead of very rare. But we find between 102 and 118 numerous coins of Rudrasiṃha son of Rudradáman and paternal uncle of Jivadáman. These facts and the difference between the style of A and the style of B, C, and D which are apparently imitated from the coins of Rudrasiṃha and have a face much older than the face in A, tend to show that soon after his accession Jivadáman was deposed by his uncle Rudrasiṃha, on whose death or defeat in 118, Jivadáman again rose to power.

Kshatrapa VII. Rudrasiṃha I. a.d. 181–196.Rudrasiṃha the seventh Kshatrapa was the brother of Dámajaḍaśrí. Large numbers of his coins have been found. Of thirty obtained by Dr. Bhagvánlál, twenty have the following clearly cut dates: 103, 106, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, and 118. As the earliest year is 103 and the latest 118 it is probable that Rudrasiṃha deposed his nephew Jivadáman shortly after Jivadáman’s accession. Rudrasiṃha appears to have ruled fifteen years when power again passed to his nephew Jivadáman. [42]
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Kshatrapa VII. Rudrasiṃha I. a.d. 181–196.

The coins of Rudrasiṃha are of a beautiful type of good workmanship and with clear legends. The legend in old Nágarí character reads:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रदामपुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रसिंहस

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudradámaputrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudrasiṃhasa.

Of the king the great Kshatrapa Rudrasiṃha son of the king the great Kshatrapa Rudradáma.

Rudrasiṃha had also a copper coinage of which specimens are recorded from Málwa but not from Káthiáváḍa. Pandit Bhagvánlál had one specimen from Ujjain which has a bull on the obverse with the Greek legend round it and the date 117. The reverse seems to have held the entire legend of which only five letters रुद्रसिंहस (Rudrasiṃhasa) remain. This coin has been spoilt in cleaning.

To Rudrasiṃha’s reign belongs the Gunda inscription carved on a stone found at the bottom of an unused well in the village of Gunda in Hálár in North Káthiáváḍa.75 It is in six well preserved lines of old Nágarí letters of the Kshatrapa type. The writing records the digging and building of a well for public use on the borders of a village named Rasopadra by the commander-in-chief Rudrabhúti an Ábhíra son of Senápati Bápaka. The date is given both in words and in numerals as 103, ‘in the year’ of the king the Kshatrapa Svámi Rudrasiṃha, apparently meaning in the year 103 during the reign of Rudrasiṃha. The genealogy given in the inscription is: 1 Chashṭana; 2 Jayadáman; 3 Rudradáman; 4 Rudrasiṃha, the order of succession being clearly defined by the text, which says that the fourth was the great grandson of the first, the grandson of the second, and the son of the third. It will be noted that Dámájaḍaśrí and Jivadáman the fifth and sixth Kshatrapas have been passed over in this genealogy probably because the inscription did not intend to give a complete genealogy but only to show the descent of Rudrasiṃha in the direct line.

Kshatrapa VIII. Rudrasena, a.d. 203–220.The eighth Kshatrapa was Rudrasena, son of Rudrasiṃha, as is clearly mentioned in the legends on his coins. His coins like his father’s are found in large numbers. Of forty in Dr. Bhagvánlál’s collection twenty-seven bear the following eleven76 dates, 125, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 140, 142. The coins are of the usual Kshatrapa type closely like Rudrasiṃha’s coins. The Nágarí legend reads:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्त्रपस रुद्रसिंहस पुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रसेनस

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudrasiṃhasa putrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudrasenasa.

Of the king the great Kshatrapa Rudrasena son of the king the great Kshatrapa Rudrasiṃha.

Two copper coins square and smaller than the copper coins of [43]
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Kshatrapa VIII. Rudrasena, a.d. 203–220.
Rudrasiṃha have been found in Ujjain77 though none are recorded from Káthiáváḍa. On their obverse these copper coins have a facing bull and on the back the usual symbols and below them the year 140, but no legend. Their date and their Kshatrapa style show that they are coins of Rudrasena.

Besides coins two inscriptions one at Muliyásar the other at Jasdan give information regarding Rudrasena. The Muliyásar inscription, now in the library at Dwárka ten miles south-west of Muliyásar, records the erection of an upright slab by the sons of one Vánijaka. This inscription bears date 122, the fifth of the dark half of Vaishákha in the year 122 during the reign of Rudrasiṃha.78 The Jasdan inscription, on a stone about five miles from Jasdan, belongs to the reign of this Kshatrapa. It is in six lines of old Kshatrapa Nágarí characters shallow and dim with occasional engraver’s mistakes, but on the whole well-preserved. The writing records the building of a pond by several brothers (names not given) of the Mánasasa gotra sons of Pranáthaka and grandsons of Khara. The date is the 5th of the dark half of Bhádrapada ‘in the year’ 126.79 The genealogy is in the following order:

  • Mahákshatrapa Chashṭana.
  • Kshatrapa Jayadáman.
  • Mahákshatrapa Rudradáman.
  • Mahákshatrapa Rudrasiṃha.
  • Mahákshatrapa Rudrasena.

Each of them is called Svámi Lord and Bhadramukha Luckyfaced.80 As Rudrasena’s reign began at least as early as 122, the second reign of Jivadáman is narrowed to four years or even less. As the latest date is 142 Rudrasena’s reign must have lasted about twenty years.

Kshatrapa IX. Pṛithivísena a.d. 222.After Rudrasena the next evidence on record is a coin of his son Pṛithivísena found near Amreli. Its workmanship is the same as that of Rudrasena’s coins. It is dated 144 that is two years later than the last date on Rudrasena’s coins. The legend runs:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रसेनस पुत्रस राज्ञः क्षत्रपस पृथिवीसेनस

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudrasenasa putrasa Rájñaḥ Kshatrapasa Pṛithivísenasa.

Of the king the Kshatrapa Pṛithivísena son of the king the great Kshatrapa Rudrasena.

As this is the only known specimen of Pṛithivísena’s coinage; as the earliest coin of Pṛithivísena’s uncle the tenth Kshatrapa Saṅghadáman is dated 144; and also as Pṛithivísena is called only Kshatrapa he seems to have reigned for a short time perhaps as Kshatrapa of Suráshṭra or Káthiáváḍa and to have been ousted by his uncle Saṅghadáman.

Kshatrapa X. Saṅghadáman, a.d. 222–226.Rudrasena was succeeded by his brother the Mahákshatrapa Saṅghadáman. His coins are very rare. Only two specimens have been [44]
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Kshatrapa X. Saṅghadáman, a.d. 222–226.
obtained, of which one was in the Pandit’s collection the other in the collection of Mr. Vajeshankar Gavrishankar.81 They are dated 145 and 144. The legend in both reads:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रसिंहस पुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस सण्घदाम्न [ः]

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudrasiṃhasa putrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Saṅghadámna.

Of the king the great Kshatrapa Saṅghadáman son of the king the great Kshatrapa Rudrasiṃha.

These two coins seem to belong to the beginning of Saṅghadáman’s reign. As the earliest coins of his successor Dámasena are dated 148 Saṅghadáman’s reign seems not to have lasted over four years.82 [45]
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Kshatrapa XI. Dámasena, a.d. 226–236.

Kshatrapa XI. Dámasena, a.d. 226–236.Saṅghadáman was succeeded by his brother Dámasena, whose coins are fairly common, of good workmanship, and clear lettering. Of twenty-three specimens eleven have the following dates: 148, 150, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158. The legend runs:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रसिंहस पुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस दामसेनस.

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudrasiṃhasa putrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Dámasenasa.

Of the king the great Kshatrapa Dámasena son of the king the great Kshatrapa Rudrasiṃha.

Dámasena seems to have reigned ten years (148–158) as coins of his son Víradáman are found dated 158.

Kshatrapa XII. Dámájaḍaśrí II. a.d. 236.Dámájaḍaśrí the twelfth Kshatrapa is styled son of Rudrasena probably the eighth Kshatrapa. Dámájaḍaśrí’s coins are rare.83 The legend runs:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रसेनपुत्रस रज्ञःक्षत्रपस दामाजडश्रियः

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudrasenaputrasa Rajñaḥ Kshatrapas Dámájaḍaśriyaḥ.

Of the king the Kshatrapa Dámájaḍaśrí son of the king the great Kshatrapa Rudrasena.

Five specimens, the only specimens on record, are dated 154.84 As 154 falls in the reign of Dámasena it seems probable that Dámájaḍaśrí was either a minor or a viceroy or perhaps a ruler claiming independence, as about this time the authority of the main dynasty seems to have been much disputed. [46]
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.

After Dámasena we find coins of three of his sons Víradáman Yaśadáman and Vijayasena. Víradáman’s coins are dated 158 and 163, Yaśadáman’s 160 and 161, and Vijayasena’s earliest 160. Of the three brothers Víradáman who is styled simply Kshatrapa probably held only a part of his father’s dominions. The second brother Yaśadáman, who at first was a simple Kshatrapa, in 161 claims to be Mahákshatrapa. The third brother Vijayasena, who as early as 160, is styled Mahákshatrapa, probably defeated Yaśadáman and secured the supreme rule.

Kshatrapa XIII. Víradáman, a.d. 236–238.Víradáman’s coins are fairly common. Of twenty-six in Pandit Bhagvánlál’s collection, nineteen were found with a large number of his brother Vijayasena’s coins. The legend reads:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस दामसेनस पुत्रस राज्ञो क्षत्रपस वीरदाम्नः

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Dámasenasa putrasa Rájñaḥ Kshatrapasa Víradámnaḥ.

Of the king the Kshatrapa Víradáman son of the king the great Kshatrapa Dámasena.

Of the twenty-six ten are clearly dated, six with 158 and four with 160.

Kshatrapa XIV. Yaśadáman, a.d. 239.Yaśadáman’s coins are rare. Pandit Bhagvánlál’s collection contained seven.85 The bust on the obverse is a good imitation of the bust on his father’s coins. Still it is of inferior workmanship, and starts the practice which later Kshatrapas continued of copying their predecessor’s image. On only two of the seven specimens are the dates clear, 160 and 161. The legend on the coin dated 160 is:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस दामसेनस पुत्रस राज्ञः क्षत्रपस यशदाम्नः

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Dámasenasa putrasa Rájñaḥ Kshatrapasa Yaśadámnaḥ.

Of the king the great Kshatrapa Yaśadáman son of the king the great Kshatrapa Dámasena.

On the coin dated 161 the legend runs:

राज्ञो महक्षत्रपस दामसेनस पुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्स्हत्रपस यशदाम्नः

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Dámasenasa putrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Yaśadámnaḥ.

Of the king the great Kshatrapa Yaśadáman son of the king the great Kshatrapa Dámasena.

Kshatrapa XV. Vijayasena, a.d. 238–249.Vijayasena’s coins are common. As many as 167 were in the Pandit’s collection. Almost all are of good workmanship, well preserved, and clearly lettered. On fifty-four of them the following dates can be clearly read, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, and 171. This would give Vijayasena a reign of at least eleven years from 160 to 171 (a.d. 238–249). The legend reads:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस दामसेनपुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस विजयसेनस

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Dámasenaputrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Vijayasenasa.

Of the king the great Kshatrapa Vijayasena son of the king the great Kshatrapa Dámasena.

Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Kshatrapa XVI. Dámájaḍaśrí, a.d. 250–255.

In two good specimens of Vijayasena’s coins with traces of the date 166 he is styled Kshatrapa. This the Pandit could not explain.86

Kshatrapa XVI. Dámájaḍaśrí, a.d. 250–255.Vijayasena was succeeded by his brother Dámájaḍaśrí III. called Mahákshatrapa on his coins. His coins which are comparatively uncommon are inferior in workmanship to the coins of Vijayasena. Of seven in the Pandit’s collection three are dated 174, 175, and 176.

After Dámájaḍaśrí come coins of Rudrasena II. son of Víradáman, the earliest of them bearing date 178. As the latest coins of Vijayasena are dated 171, 173 may be taken as the year of Dámájaḍaśrí’s succession. The end of his reign falls between 176 and 178, its probable length is about five years. The legend on his coins reads:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस दामसेनपुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस दामाजडश्रियः

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Dámasenaputrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Dádmájaḍaśriyaḥ.

Of the king the great Kshatrapa Dámájaḍaśrí son of the king the great Kshatrapa Dámasena.

Kshatrapa XVII. Rudrasena II. a.d. 256–272.Dámájaḍaśrí III. was succeeded by Rudrasena II. son of Dámájaḍaśrí’s brother Víradáman the thirteenth Kshatrapa. Rudrasena II.’s coins like Vijayasena’s are found in great abundance. They are of inferior workmanship and inferior silver. Of eighty-four in Dr. Bhagvánlál’s collection eleven bore the following clear dates: 178, 180, 183, 185, 186, 188, and 190. The earliest of 178 probably belongs to the beginning of Rudrasena’s reign as the date 176 occurs on the latest coins of his predecessor. The earliest coins of his son and successor Viśvasiṃha are dated 198. As Viśvasiṃha’s coins are of bad workmanship with doubtful legend and date we may take the end of Rudrasena II.’s reign to be somewhere between 190 and 198 or about 194. This date would give Rudrasena a reign of about sixteen years, a length of rule supported by the large number of his coins. The legend reads:

राज्ञो क्षत्रपस वीरदामपुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रसेनस

Rájño Kshatrapasa Víradámaputrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudrasenasa.

Of the king the great Kshatrapa Rudrasena son of the king the Kshatrapa Víradáma.

Kshatrapa XVIII. Viśvasiṃha, a.d. 272–278.Rudrasena was succeeded by his son Viśvasiṃha. In style and abundance Viśvasiṃha’s coins are on a par with his father’s. They are carelessly struck with a bad die and in most the legend is faulty often omitting the date. Of fifty-six in the Pandit’s collection only four bear legible dates, one with 198, two with 200, and one with 201. The date 201 must be of the end of Viśvasiṃha’s reign as a coin of his brother Bharttṛidáman is dated 200. It may therefore be held that Viśvasiṃha reigned for the six years ending 200 (a.d. 272–278). The legend reads:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रसेनपुत्रस राज्ञः क्षत्रपस विश्वसिंहस.

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudrasenaputrasa Rájñaḥ Kshatrapasa Viśvasiṃhasa.

Of the king the Kshatrapa Viśvasiṃha son of the king the great Kshatrapa Rudrasena.

Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.

It is not known whether Viśvasiṃha’s loss of title was due to his being subordinate to some overlord, or whether during his reign the Kshatrapas suffered defeat and loss of territory. The probable explanation seems to be that he began his reign in a subordinate position and afterwards rose to supreme rule.

Kshatrapa XIX. Bharttṛidáman, a.d. 278–294.Viśvasiṃha was succeeded by his brother Bharttṛidáman.87 His coins which are found in large numbers are in style and workmanship inferior even to Viśvasiṃha’s coins. Of forty-five in the Pandit’s collection seven bear the dates 202, 207, 210, 211, and 214. As the earliest coin of his successor is dated 218, Bharttṛidáman’s reign seems to have lasted about fourteen years from 202 to 216 (a.d. 278–294). Most of the coin legends style Bharttṛidáman Mahákshatrapa though in a few he is simply styled Kshatrapa. This would seem to show that like his brother Viśvasiṃha he began as a Kshatrapa and afterwards gained the rank and power of Mahákshatrapa.

In Bharttṛidáman’s earlier coins the legend reads:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रसेनपुत्रस राज्ञः क्षत्रपस भर्तृदाम्नः

Rajño Mahákshatrapasa Rudrasenaputrasa Rajñaḥ Kshatrapasa Bhartṛidámnaḥ.

Of the king the Kshatrapa Bharttṛidáman son of the king the great Kshatrapa Rudrasena.

In the later coins the legend is the same except that महाक्षत्रपस the great Kshatrapa takes the place of क्षत्रपस the Kshatrapa.

Kshatrapa XX. Viśvasena, a.d. 294–300.Bharttṛidáman was succeeded by his son Viśvasena the twentieth Kshatrapa. His coins are fairly common, and of bad workmanship, the legend imperfect and carelessly struck, the obverse rarely dated. Of twenty-five in Dr. Bhagvánlál’s collection, only three bear doubtful dates one 218 and two 222. The legend reads:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस भर्तृदामपुत्रस राज्ञः क्षत्रपस विश्वसेनस,

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Bhartṛidáma putrasa Rájñaḥ Kshatrapasa Viśvasenasa.

Of the king the Kshatrapa Viśvasena son of the king the Mahákshatrapa Bharttṛidáman.

It would seem from the lower title of Kshatrapa which we find given to Viśvasena and to most of the later Kshatrapas that from about 220 (a.d. 298) the Kshatrapa dominion lost its importance.

A hoard of coins found in 1861 near Karád on the Kṛishṇa, thirty-one miles south of Sátára, suggests88 that the Kshatrapas retained the North Konkan and held a considerable share of the West Dakhan down to the time of Viśvasena (a.d. 300). The hoard includes coins of the six following rulers: Vijayasena (a.d. 238–249), his brother Dámájaḍaśrí III. (a.d. 251–255), Rudrasena II. (a.d. 256–272) son of Víradáman, Viśvasiṃha (a.d. 272–278) son of Rudrasena, Bharttṛidáman (a.d. 278–294) son of Rudrasena II., and Viśvasena (a.d. 296–300) son of Bharttṛidáman. It may be argued that this Karád hoard is of no historical value being the chance importation of some Gujarát pilgrim to the Kṛishṇa. The following considerations favour the [49]
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Kshatrapa XX. Viśvasena, a.d. 294–300.
view that the contents of the hoard furnish evidence of the local rule of the kings whose coins have been found at Karád. The date (a.d. 238–249) of Vijayasena, the earliest king of the hoard, agrees well with the spread of Gujarát power in the Dakhan as it follows the overthrow both of the west (a.d. 180–200) and of the east (a.d. 220) Śátakarṇis, while it precedes the establishment of any later west Dakhan dynasty: (2) All the kings whose coins occur in the hoard were Mahákshatrapas and from the details in the Periplus (a.d. 247), the earliest, Vijayasena, must have been a ruler of special wealth and power: (3) That the coins cease with Viśvasena (a.d. 296–300) is in accord with the fact that Viśvasena was the last of the direct line of Chashṭana, and that with or before the close of Viśvasena’s reign the power of the Gujarát Kshatrapas declined. The presumption that Kshatrapa power was at its height during the reigns of the kings whose coins have been found at Karád is strengthened by the discovery at Amrávati in the Berárs of a hoard of coins of the Mahákshatrapa Rudrasena (II. ?) (a.d. 256–272) son of the Mahákshatrapa Dámájaḍaśrí.89

Kshatrapa XXI. Rudrasiṃha, a.d. 308–311.Whether the end of Chashṭana’s direct line was due to their conquest by some other dynasty or to the failure of heirs is doubtful. Whatever may have been the cause, after an interval of about seven years (a.d. 300–308) an entirely new king appears, Rudrasiṃha son of Jívadáman. As Rudrasiṃha’s father Jívadáman is simply called Svámi he may have been some high officer under the Kshatrapa dynasty. That Rudrasiṃha is called a Kshatrapa may show that part of the Kshatrapa dominion which had been lost during the reign of Viśvasena was given to some distant member or scion of the Kshatrapa dynasty of the name of Rudrasiṃha. The occurrence of political changes is further shown by the fact that the coins of Rudrasiṃha are of a better type than those of the preceding Kshatrapas. Rudrasiṃha’s coins are fairly common. Of twelve in Dr. Bhagvánlál’s collection five are clearly dated, three 230, one 231, and one 240. This leaves a blank of seven years between the last date of Viśvasena and the earliest date of Rudrasiṃha. The legend reads:

स्वामिजीवदामपुत्रस राज्ञः क्षत्रपस रुद्रसिंहस

Svámi Jívadáma putrasa Rajñaḥ Kshatrapasa Rudrasiṃhasa.

Of the king the Kshatrapa Rudrasiṃha son of Svámi Jívadáman.

Kshatrapa XXII. Yaśadáman, a.d. 320.Rudrasiṃha was succeeded by his son Yaśadáman whose coins are rather rare. Of three in Dr. Bhagvánlál’s collection two are dated 239, apparently the first year of Yaśadáman’s reign as his father’s latest coins are dated 240. Like his father Yaśadáman is simply called Kshatrapa. The legend reads:

राज्ञः क्षत्रपस रुद्रसिंहपुत्रस राज्ञः क्षत्रपस यशदाम्नः

Rájñaḥ Kshatrapasa Rudrasiṃhaputrasa Rájñaḥ Kshatrapasa Yaśadámnaḥ.

Of the king the Kshatrapa Yaśadáman son of the king the Kshatrapa Rudrasiṃha.

Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Kshatrapa XXIII. Dámasiri, a.d. 320.

Kshatrapa XXIII. Dámasiri, a.d. 320.The coins found next after Yaśadáman’s are those of Dámasiri who was probably the brother of Yaśadáman as he is mentioned as the son of Rudrasiṃha. The date though not very clear is apparently 242. Only one coin of Dámasiri’s is recorded. In the style of face and in the form of letters it differs from the coins of Yaśadáman, with which except for the date and the identity of the father’s name any close connection would seem doubtful. The legend on the coin of Dámasiri reads:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रसिंहस पुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस दामसिरिस.

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudrasiṃhasaputrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Dámasirisa.

Of the king the great Kshatrapa Dámasiri son of the king the great Kshatrapa Rudrasiṃha.

It will be noted that in this coin both Rudrasiṃha and Dámasiri are called great Kshatrapas, while in his own coin and in the coins of his son Yaśadáman, Rudrasiṃha is simply styled Kshatrapa. It is possible that Dámasiri may have been more powerful than Yaśadáman and consequently taken to himself the title of Mahákshatrapa. The application of the more important title to a father who in life had not enjoyed the title is not an uncommon practice among the later Kshatrapas. The rarity of Dámasiri’s coins shows that his reign was short.

After Dámasiri comes a blank of about thirty years. The next coin is dated 270. The fact that, contrary to what might have been expected, the coins of the later Kshatrapas are less common than those of the earlier Kshatrapas, seems to point to some great political change during the twenty-seven years ending 270 (a.d. 321–348).

Kshatrapa XXIV. Rudrasena, a.d. 348–376.The coin dated 270 belongs to Svámi Rudrasena son of Svámi Rudradáman both of whom the legend styles Mahákshatrapas. The type of the coin dated 270 is clearly adapted from the type of the coins of Yaśadáman. Only two of Rudrasena’s coins dated 270 are recorded. But later coins of the same Kshatrapa of a different style are found in large numbers. Of fifty-four in the Pandit’s collection, twelve have the following dates 288, 290, 292, 293, 294, 296, and 298. The difference in the style of the two sets of coins and the blank between 270 and 288 leave no doubt that during those years some political change took place. Probably Rudrasena was for a time overthrown but again came to power in 288 and maintained his position till 298. Besides calling both himself and his father Mahákshatrapas Rudrasena adds to both the attribute Svámi. As no coin of Rudrasena’s father is recorded it seems probable the father was not an independent ruler and that the legend on Rudrasena’s coins is a further instance of a son ennobling his father. The legend is the same both in the earlier coins of 270 and in the later coins ranging from 288 to 298. It reads:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस स्वामिरुद्रदामपुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस स्वामिरुद्रसेनस.

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Svámi Rudradámaputrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Svámi Rudrasenasa.

Of the king the great Kshatrapa Svámi Rudrasena son of the king the great Kshatrapa Svámi Rudradáman.

Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Kshatrapa XXV. Rudrasena, a.d. 378–388.

Kshatrapa XXV. Rudrasena, a.d. 378–388.After Rudrasena come coins of Kshatrapa Rudrasena son of Satyasena. These coins are fairly common. Of five in the Pandit’s collection through faulty minting none are dated. General Cunningham mentions coins of Kshatrapa Rudrasena dated 300, 304, and 310.90 This would seem to show that he was the successor of Rudrasena son of Rudradáman and that his reign extended to over 310. The legend on these coins runs:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस स्वामिसत्यसेनपुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस स्वामिरुद्रसेनस.

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Svámi Satyasenaputrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Svámi Rudrasenasa.

Of the king the great Kshatrapa Svámi Rudrasena son of the king the great Kshatrapa Svámi Satyasena.

Of Rudrasena’s father Satyasena no coin is recorded and as this Rudrasena immediately succeeds Rudrasena IV. son of Rudradáman, there is little doubt that Satyasena was not an actual ruler with the great title Mahákshatrapa, but that this was an honorific title given to the father when his son attained to sovereignty. General Cunningham records that a coin of this Rudrasena IV. was found along with a coin of Chandragupta II. in a stúpa at Sultánganj on the Ganges about fifteen miles south-east of Mongir.91

Kshatrapa XXVI. Siṃhasena.With Rudrasena IV. the evidence from coins comes almost to a close. Only one coin in Dr. Bhagvánlál’s collection is clearly later than Rudrasena IV. In the form of the bust and the style of the legend on the reverse this specimen closely resembles the coins of Rudrasena IV. Unfortunately owing to imperfect stamping it bears no date. The legend reads:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस स्वामि रुद्रसेनस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस स्वस्रीयस्य स्वामिसिंहसेनस,

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Svámi Rudrasenasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa svasríyasya Svámi Siṃhasenasa.

Of the king the great Kshatrapa Svámi Siṃhasena, sister’s son of the king the great Kshatrapa Svámi Rudrasena.

This legend would seem to show that Rudrasena IV. left no issue and was succeeded by his nephew Siṃhasena. The extreme rarity of Siṃhasena’s coins proves that his reign was very short.

Kshatrapa XXVII. Skanda.The bust and the characters in one other coin show it to be of later date than Siṃhasena. Unfortunately the legend is not clear. Something like the letters राज्ञो क्षत्रपस Rájño Kshatrapasa may be traced in one place and something like पुत्रस स्कन्द Putrasa Skanda in another place. Dr. Bhagvánlál took this to be a Gujarát Kshatrapa of unknown lineage from whom the Kshatrapa dominion passed to the Guptas.

Íśvaradatta, a.d. 230–250.Along with the coins of the regular Kshatrapas coins of a Kshatrapa of unknown lineage named Íśvaradatta have been found in Káthiáváḍa. In general style, in the bust and the corrupt Greek legend on the obverse, and in the form of the old Nágarí legend [52]
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Kshatrapa XXVIII. Íśvaradatta, a.d. 230–250.
on the reverse, Íśvaradatta’s coins closely resemble those of the fifteenth Kshatrapa Vijayasena (a.d. 238–249). At the same time the text of the Nágarí legend differs from that on the reverse of the Kshatrapa coins by omitting the name of the ruler’s father and by showing in words Íśvaradatta’s date in the year of his own reign. The legend is:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस ईश्वरदत्तस वर्षे प्रथमे,

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Íśvaradattasa varshe prathame.

In the first year of the king the great Kshatrapa Íśvaradatta.

Most of the recorded coins of Íśvaradatta have this legend. In one specimen the legend is

वर्षे द्वितीये.

Varshe dvitíye.

In the second year.

It is clear from this that Íśvaradatta’s reign did not last long. His peculiar name and his separate date leave little doubt that he belonged to some distinct family of Kshatrapas. The general style of his coins shows that he cannot have been a late Kshatrapa while the fact that he is called Mahákshatrapa seems to show he was an independent ruler. No good evidence is available for fixing his date. As already mentioned the workmanship of his coins brings him near to Vijayasena (a.d. 238–249). In Násik Cave X. the letters of Inscription XV. closely correspond with the letters of the legends on Kshatrapa coins, and probably belong to almost the same date as the inscription of Rudradáman on the Girnár rock that is to about a.d. 150. The absence of any record of the Ándhras except the name of the king Madharíputa Sirisena or Sakasena (a.d. 180), makes it probable that after Yajñaśrí Gautamíputra (a.d. 150) Ándhra power waned along the Konkan and South Gujarát seaboard. According to the Puráṇas the Ábhíras succeeded to the dominion of the Ándhras. It is therefore possible that the Ábhíra king Íśvarasena of Násik Inscription XV. was one of the Ábhíra conquerors of the Ándhras who took from them the West Dakhan. A migration of Ábhíras from Ptolemy’s Abiria in Upper Sindh through Sindh by sea to the Konkan and thence to Násik is within the range of possibility. About fifty years later king Íśvaradatta92 who was perhaps of the same family as the Ábhíra king of the Násik inscription seems to have conquered the kingdom of Kshatrapa Vijayasena, adding Gujarát, Káthiáváḍa, and part of the Dakhan to his other territory. In honour of this great conquest he may have taken the title Mahákshatrapa and struck coins in the Gujarát Kshatrapa style but in an era reckoned from the date of his own conquest. Íśvaradatta’s success was shortlived. Only two years later (that is about a.d. 252) the Mahákshatrapa Dámájaḍaśrí won back the lost Kshatrapa territory. The fact that Íśvaradatta’s recorded coins belong to only two years and that the break between the regular [53]
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Kshatrapas Vijayasena and Dámájaḍaśrí did not last more than two or three years gives support to this explanation.93

The following table gives the genealogy of the Western Kshatrapas: [54]
Chapter V.
The Kshatrapa Family Tree.

The Kshatrapa Family Tree.THE WESTERN KSHATRAPAS.

King, Kshaharáta, Kshatrapa
(a.d. 100–120 ?).
Chashṭana, son of Zamotika,
King, Mahákshatrapa
(a.d. 100–130).
Jayadáman, King, Kshatrapa
(a.d. 130–140).
King, Mahákshatrapa
(a.d. 143–158 circa).
Dámázaḍa or Dámájaḍaśrí,
King, Kshatrapa
(a.d. 168 circa).
King, Mahákshatrapa
(a.d. 180–196 circa).
(a.d. 178, a.d. 196 circa).
King, Mahákshatrapa
(a.d. 200–220 circa).
King, Mahákshatrapa
(a.d. 222–226 circa).
King, Mahákshatrapa
(a.d. 226–236 circa).
Pṛithivísena, King, Kshatrapa
(a.d. 222 circa).
Dámájaḍaśrí II. King, Kshatrapa
(a.d. 232 circa).
King, Kshatrapa
(a.d. 236, 238 circa).
Yaśadáman II.
King, Kshatrapa
(a.d. 238, 239 circa).
King, Kshatrapa and Mahákshatrapa
(a.d. 238–249 circa).
Dámájaḍaśrí III.
King, Mahákshatrapa
(a.d. 251–255 circa).
Rudrasena II.
King, Mahákshatrapa
(a.d. 256–272 circa).
King, Kshatrapa
(a.d. 272–278 circa).
King, Kshatrapa and Mahákshatrapa
(a.d. 278–294 circa).
King, Kshatrapa
(a.d. 296–300 circa).
Rudrasiṃha son of Svámi Jívadáman,
King, Kshatrapa
(a.d. 308, 309, 318 circa).
Yaśadáman II. King, Kshatrapa
(a.d. 318 circa).
Dámasiri, King, Mahákshatrapa
(a.d. 320 circa).
Svámi Rudrasena III.
King, Mahákshatrapa son of king Mahákshatrapa, Svámi Rudradáma,
(a.d. 348, 366–376 circa).
Svámi Rudrasena IV.
King, Mahákshatrapa, son of king Mahákshatrapa, Svámi Satyasena,
(a.d. 378–388 circa).
Svámi Siṃhasena
King, Mahákshatrapa, sister’s son of king Mahákshatrapa Svámi Rudrasena (XXV).
Skanda ——?


1 Journal Bengal Asiatic Society (1835), 684; (1837), 351; (1838), 346; Thomas’ Prinsep’s Indian Antiquities, I. 425–435, II. 84–93; Thomas in Journal Royal Asiatic Society (Old Series), XII. 1–72; Wilson’s Ariana Antiqua, 405–413; Journal B. B. R. A. S. VI. 377, VII. 392; Burgess’ Archæological Report of Káthiáwár and Kachh, 18–72; Journal B. B. R. A. S. XII. (Proceedings), XXIII.; Indian Antiquary, VI. 43, X. 221–227.

The dynasty of the Kshatrapas or Mahákshatrapas of Sauráshṭra was known to Prinsep (J. R. A. S. Bl. VII.–1. (1837), 351) to Thomas (J. R. A. S. F. S. XII. 1–78), and to Newton (Jl. B. B. R. A. S. IX. 1–19) as the Sah or Sâh kings. More recently, from the fact that the names of some of them end in Sena or army, the Kshatrapas have been called the Sena kings. The origin of the title Sah is the ending siha, that is siṃha lion, which belongs to the names of several of the kings. Síha has been read either sáh or sena because of the practice of omitting from the die vowels which would fall on or above the top line of the legend and also of omitting the short vowel i with the following anusvára. Sáh is therefore a true reading of the writing on certain of the coins. That the form Sáh on these coins is not the correct form has been ascertained from stone inscriptions in which freedom from crowding makes possible the complete cutting of the above-line marks. In stone inscriptions the ending is síha lion. See Fleet’s Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, III. 36 note 1. Mr. Fleet (Ditto) seems to suggest that with the proof of the incorrectness of the reading Sáh the evidence that the Kshatrapas were of Indo-Skythian origin ceases. This does not seem to follow. In addition to the Parthian title Kshatrapa, their northern coinage, and the use of the Śaka (a.d. 78) era, now accepted as the accession of the great Kushán Kanishka, the evidence in the text shows that the line of Káthiáváḍa Kshatrapas starts from the foreigner Chashṭana (a.d. 130) whose predecessor Nahápana (a.d. 120) and his Śaka son-in-law Ushavadatta are noted in Násik inscriptions (Násik Gazetteer, 538 and 621) as leaders of Śakas, Palhavas, and Yavanas. Further as the limits of Ptolemy’s (a.d. 150) Indo-Skythia (McCrindle, 136) agree very closely with the limits of the dominions of the then ruling Mahákshatrapa Rudradáman (a.d. 150) it follows that Ptolemy or his informer believed Rudradáman to be an Indo-Skythian. There therefore seems no reasonable doubt that the Kshatrapas were foreigners. According to Cunningham (Num. Chron. VIII. 231) they were Śakas who entered Gujarát from Sindh. The fact that the Kushán era (a.d. 78) was not adopted by the first two of the Western Kshatrapas, Chashṭana and Jayadáman, supports the view that they belonged to a wave of northerners earlier than the Kushán wave. 

2 The Taxila plate in Journal R. A. S. (New Series), IV. 487; the Baktro-Páli on Nahapána’s coins also gives the form Chhatrapa. 

3 Chhatrava appears in an unpublished Kshatrapa inscription from Mathurá formerly (1888) in Pandit Bhagvánlál’s possession. 

4 Khatapa appears in the inscription of Nahapána’s minister at Junnar (Bombay Gazetteer, XVIII. Pt. III. 167) and in some coins of the Northern Kshatrapa kings Pagamasha, Rájavula, and Sudása found near Mathurá. Prinsep’s Indian Antiquities, II. Pl. XLIV. Figs. 12, 20, 21. 

5 Kshatrampâtîti Kshatrapaḥ. 

6 Thomas’ Prinsep, II. 63 and 64. 

7 Malaya or Malava, Pallava, Ábhíra, Meva or Meda, and Mihira or Mehr appear to be the leading warlike tribes who came to India under these chiefs. These tribes formed the Kshatras whose lords or Kshatrapas these chiefs were. 

8 The explanation of the word Kshatrapa started by Prinsep and accepted by Pandit Bhagvánlál is of doubtful accuracy. The title is well known in Greek literature in the form σατραπης, and in the form Kshatrapávan occurs twice (b.c. 520) in connection with the governors of Baktria and Arachosia in the great Behistan inscription of Darius (Rawlinson’s Herodotus, I. 329; Spiegel’s Altpersische Keilinschriften, 24–26). The meaning of Kshatrapávan in old Persian is not “protector of the Kshatra race” but “protector of the kingdom,” for the word kshatram occurs in the inscriptions of the Achæmenidæ with the meaning of “kingship” or “kingdom” (Spiegel, Altpersische Keilinschriften, 215). As is well known Satrap was the official title of the ruler of a Persian province. That the name continued in use with the same meaning under the Greek kings of Baktria (b.c. 250–100) is known from Strabo, who says (XI. 11) “the Greeks who held Baktria divided it into satrapies (σατραπειας) of which Aspionus and Touriva were taken from Eukratides (b.c. 180) by the Parthians.” It is to be presumed that the Baktro-Grecians introduced the same arrangement into the provinces which they conquered in India. The earliest occurrence of the title in its Indian form is on the coins of a Rajabula or Ranjabola (Gardner, B. M. Cat. 67), who in his Greek legend makes use of the title “King of kings,” and in his Indian legend calls himself “The unconquered Chhatrapa.” His adoption for the reverse of his coins of the Athene Promachos type of Menander and Apollodotus Philopator connects Rajabula in time with those kings (b.c. 126–100) and we know from an inscription (Cunningham Arch. Rep. XX. 48) that he reigned at Mathurá. He was probably a provincial governor who became independent about b.c. 100 when the Greek kingdom broke up. The above facts go to show that Kshatrapa was originally a Persian title which was adopted by the Greeks and continued in use among their successors: that it originally denoted a provincial governor; but that, when the Greek kingdom broke up and their provincial chiefs became independent, it continued in use as a royal title. That after the Christian era, even in Parthia, the title Satrapes does not necessarily imply subjection to a suzerain is proved by the use of the phrase σατραπης των σατραπων Satrap of Satraps, with the sense of King of Kings in Gotarzes’ Behistan inscription of a.d. 50. See Rawlinson’s Sixth Monarchy, 88 n. 2 and 260 n. 1.—(A. M. T. J.)

The Pandit’s identification of the Malavas or Malayas with a northern or Skythian tribe is in agreement with Alberuni (a.d. 1015), who, on the authority of the Báj Purána (Sachau’s Text, chap. 29 page 150–155) groups as northern tribes the Pallavas, Śakas, Mallas, and Gurjars. In spite of this authority it seems better to identify the Mallas, Malavas, or Malayas with Alexander the Great’s (b.c. 325) Malloi of Multán (compare McCrindle’s Alexander’s Invasion of India, Note P). At the same time (Rockhill’s Life of Buddha, 132, 133, 137) the importance of the Mallas in Vaisáli (between Patná and Tirhút) during the lifetime of Śakya Muni (b.c. 580) favours the view that several distinct tribes have borne the same or nearly the same name. 

9 Patika was apparently the son of the Liako Kujulako of the Taxila plate. Dowson in Jour. R. A. S. New Series. IV. 497 mistranslates the inscription and fails to make out the name Patika. 

10 Compare Specht. Jour. Asiatique. 1883. t. II. 325. According to Chinese writers about a.d. 20 Yen-kao-tchin-tai or Kadphises II. conquered India (Thientchou) and there established generals who governed in the name of the Yuechi. 

11 Pandit Bhagvánlál found two of his copper coins at Mandasor in 1884. 

12 This is a bad specimen with the legend dim and worn. 

13 Some coins of Apollodotus have on the reverse Apollo with his arrow; others have Athene Promachos with the thunderbolt. 

14 Bom. Gaz. XVI. 571ff. 

15 A well known Sanskrit saying is श्वशुरख्यातोधमाधम: A man known through his father-in-law is the vilest of the vile. 

16 Cunningham’s Arch. Sur. III. Plate 13. Inscriptions 2 and 3. 

17 The author’s only reason for supposing that two eras began between a.d. 70 and 80 seems to be the fact that the Javanese Śaka era begins a.d. 74, while the Indian Śaka era begins a.d. 78. It appears, however, from Lassen’s Ind. Alt. II. 1040 note 1, that the Javanese Śaka era begins either in a.d. 74 or in a.d. 78. The author’s own authority, Dr. Burnell (S. Ind. Pal. 72) while saying that the Javanese Śaka era dates from a.d. 74, gives a.d. 80 as the epoch of the Śaka era of the neighbouring island of Bali, thus supporting Raffle’s explanation (Java, II. 68) that the difference is due to the introduction into Java of the Muhammadan mode of reckoning during the past 300 years. The Javanese epoch of a.d. 74 cannot therefore be treated as an authority for assuming a genuine Indian era with this initial date. The era of Kanishka was used continuously down to its year 281 (Fergusson Hist. of Ind. Architecture, 740) and after that date we have numerous instances of the use of the Śakanṛipakála or Śakakála down to the familiar Śaka of the present day. It seems much more likely that the parent of the modern Śaka era was that of Kanishka, which remained in use for nearly three centuries, than that of Nahapána, who so far as we know left no son, and whose era (if he founded one) probably expired when the Kshaharáta power was destroyed by the Ándhrabhṛityas in the first half of the second century a.d. We must therefore assume a.d. 78 to be the epoch of Kanishka’s era. There remains the question whether Nahapána dates by Kanishka’s era, or uses his own regnal years. There is nothing improbable in the latter supposition, and we are not forced to suppose that Nahapána was a feudatory of the Kushán kings. It has been shown above that the use of the title Kshatrapa does not necessarily imply a relation of inferiority. On the other hand (pace Oldenburg in Ind. Ant. X. 213) the later Kshatrapas certainly seem to have used Kanishka’s era: and Nahapána and the Kushán dynasty seem to have been of the same race: for Heraus, who was certainly a Kushán, apparently calls himself Śaka on his coins (Gardner B. M. Cat. xlvii.); and it is highly probable that Nahapána, like his son-in-law Ushavadáta, was a Śaka. Further, the fact that Nahapána does not call himself Mahárája but Rája goes to show that he was not a paramount sovereign.—(A. M. T. J.) 

18 Jour. B. B. R. A. S. XVI. 378; Ind. Ant. XV. 198, 201, XIII. 126; Arch. Sur. X. 33. 

19 Cunningham’s Arch. Sur. XIII. 162. Cf. Kielhorn in Ind. Ant. XIX. 20ff. 

20 Cunningham’s Arch. Sur. X. 33–34. Numerous Western India inscriptions prove that ya and va are often intermixed in Prákrit. 

21 Vide Telang’s Mudrárákshasa, 204. Mr. Telang gives several readings the best of which mean either the king of the Málaya country or the king of the Málaya tribe. 

22 Macmurdo (1818) notices the democratic constitution of the Káthis. Trans. Bom. Lit. Soc. I. 274. 

23 Compare Fleet’s Corpus Ins. Ind. III. 87, 152, 158 from the (supremacy of) the tribal constitution of the Málavas. Prof. Kielhorn has however shown that the words of the inscription do not necessarily mean this. Ind. Ant. XIX. 56. 

24 Inscription 10 lines 3–4. Bom. Gaz. XVI. 572. 

25 Details are given below under the Guptas. 

26 Burgess’ Archæological Report of Káthiáwár and Cutch, 55; Numismata Orientalia, I. Pl. II. Fig. 8. 

27 The meaning of this symbol has not yet been made out. It is very old. We first find it on the punched coins of Málwa and Gujarát (regarded as the oldest coinage in India) without the serpentine line below, which seems to show that this line does not form part of the original symbol and has a distinct meaning. 

28 Compare Wilson’s Ariana Antiqua, Plate XV. Fig. 26–27. 

29 Cave Temple Inscriptions, Bombay Archæological Survey, Extra Number (1881), 58. 

30 Ariana Antiqua, Plate XV. Fig. 29. Some imaginary animals are shown under the serpentine line. 

31 Jour. B. B. R. A. Soc. XIII. 303. 

32 The variations noted in the text seem examples of the law that the later religion reads its own new meaning into early luck signs. 

33 This letter य्स in both is curiously formed and never used in Sanskrit. But it is clear and can be read without any doubt as य्स. Pandit Bhagvánlál thought that it was probably meant to stand as a new-coined letter to represent the Greek Ζ which has nothing corresponding to it in Sanskrit. The same curiously formed letter appears in the third syllable in the coin of the fourth Kshatrapa king Dámajaḍaśri. 

34 The text of the inscription is रूद्रदाम्नो वर्षे that is in the year of Rudradáman. That this phrase means ‘in the reign of’ is shown by the Gunda inscription of Rudradáman’s son Rudrasiṃha, which has रूद्रसिंहस्य वर्षे त्र्युत्तरशते that is in the hundred and third year of Rudrasiṃha. Clearly a regnal year cannot be meant as no reign could last over 103 years. So with the year 72 in Rudradáman’s inscription. The same style of writing appears in the inscriptions at Mathurá of Huvishka and Vasudeva which say ‘year —— of Huvishka’ and ‘year —— of Vasudeva’ though it is known that the era is of Kanishka. In all these cases what is meant is ‘the dynastic or era year —— in the reign of ——‘. 

35 See below page 34. 

36 McCrindle’s Ptolemy, 155. 

37 See above page 29

38 See above page 25

39 Of these coins Dr. Bhagvánlál kept one in his own collection. He sent the other to General Cunningham. The Pandit found the copper coin in Amreli in 1863 and gave it to Dr. Bhau Dáji. 

40 Except that the is much clearer the Nágarí legend in the silver coin obtained for General Cunningham is equally bad, and the Baktro-Páli legend is wanting. 

41 Ind. Ant. X. 157. 

42 Journal B. B. R. A. Soc. VIII. 234–5 and Ind. Ant. XII. 32ff. 

43 Dr. Burgess’ Archæological Report of Káthiáwár and Cutch, 140. 

44 The explanation of the reduction of Jayadáman’s rank is probably to be found in the Násik Inscription (No. 26) of Gautamíputra Śátakarṇi who claims to have conquered Suráshṭra, Kukura (in Rájputána), Anúpa, Vidarbha (Berár), Ákara, and Avanti (Ujain). (A. M. T. J.) 

45 See below page 39. 

46 Several small mixed metal coins weighing from 3 to 10 grains with on the obverse an elephant in some and a bull in others and on the reverse the usual arched Kshatrapa symbol have been found in Málwa and Káthiáváḍa. The symbols show them to be of the lowest Kshatrapa currency. Several of them bear dates from which it is possible as in the case of Rudrasiṃha’s and Rudrasena’s coins to infer to what Kshatrapa they belonged. Lead coins have also been found at Amreli in Káthiáváḍa. They are square and have a bull on the obverse and on the reverse the usual arched Kshatrapa symbol with underneath it the date 184. 

47 Compare however Weber, Hist. of Indian Lit. 187–8. 

48 Jour. B. B. R. A. S. VII. 114. 

49 Ind. Ant. II. 156; V. 50, 154 &c. 

50 Ákarávanti that is Ákara and Avanti are two names which are always found together. Cf. Gotamíputra’s Násik inscription (No. 26). Avanti is well known as being the name of the part of Málwa which contains Ujjain. Ákara is probably the modern province of Bhilsa whose capital was Vidiśa the modern deserted city of Besnagar. Instead of Ákarávanti Bṛihatsaṃhitá mentions Ákaravenávantaka of which the third name Vená Pandit Bhagvánlál took to be the country about the Sagara zilla containing the old town of Eraṇ, near which still flows a river called Vená. The adjectives east and west are used respectively as referring to Ákara which is East Málwa and Avanti which is West Málwa. Compare Indian Antiquary, VII. 259; Bombay Gazetteer, XVI. 631. 

51 Anúpa is a common noun literally meaning well-watered. The absence of the term nîvṛit or ‘country’ which is in general superadded to it shows that Anúpa is here used as a proper noun, meaning the Anúpa country. Dr. Bhagvánlál was unable to identify Anúpa. He took it to be the name of some well-watered tract near Gujarát. 

52 See above page 10 note 1. The greater part of North Gujarát was probably included in Śvabhra. 

53 Maru is the well known name of Márwár

54 Kachchha is the flourishing state still known by the name of Cutch. 

55 Sindhu Sauvíra like Ákarávanti are two names usually found together. Sindhu is the modern Sind and Sauvíra may have been part of Upper Sind, the capital of which is mentioned as Dáttámitrî. Alberuni (I. 300) defines Sauvíra as including Multán and Jahráwár. 

56 Nothing is known about Kukura and it cannot be identified. It was probably part of East Rájputána

57 Aparánta meaning the Western End is the western seaboard from the Mahi in the north to Goa in the south. Ind. Ant. VII. 259. The portion of Aparánta actually subject to Rudradáman must have been the country between the Mahi and the Damanganga as at this time the North Konkan was subject to the Ándhras. 

58 Nisháda cannot be identified. As the term Nisháda is generally used to mean Bhils and other wild tribes, its mention with Aparánta suggests the wild country that includes Bánsda, Dharampur, and north-east Thána. 

59 Grammar, V. iii. 117. 

60 Compare Gardner and Poole’s Catalogue, Pl. XXVI. Fig. 2 &c. 

61 Another variety of their brass coins was found at Behat near Saháranpur. Compare Thomas’ Prinsep’s Indian Antiquities, I. Pl. IV. Figs. 11B 12B and Pl. XIX. Figs. 5, 6, 9. General Cunningham, in his recent work on The Coins of Ancient India, 75ff, describes three chief types, the Behat coins being the earliest and belonging to the first century b.c., the second type which is that described above is assigned to about a.d. 300, and the third type, with a six-headed figure on the obverse, is placed a little later. General Cunningham’s identification of the Yaudheyas with the Johiya Rájputs of the lower Sutlej, seems certain, Rudradáman would then have “uprooted” them when he acquired the province of Sauvíra. 

62 Mr. Fleet notices a later inscription of a Mahárája Mahásenápati “who has been set over” the ‘Yaudheya gaṇa or tribe’ in the fort of Byána in Bharatpur. Ind. Ant. XIV. 8, Corp. Insc. Ind. III. 251ff. The Yaudheyas are also named among the tribes which submitted to Samudragupta. See Corp. Insc. Ind. III. 8. 

63 Huvishka’s latest inscription bears date 45 that is a.d. 123 (Cunningham’s Arch. Sur. III. Pl. XV. Number 8). 

64 Ind. Ant. VII. 262. 

65 McCrindle’s Ptolemy, 152. 

66 McCrindle’s Ptolemy, 175. 

67 Jour. B. B. R. A. Soc. XV. 306. 

68 Jour. B. B. R. A. Soc. XV. 313, 314. See also Ind. Ant. XII 272, where Bühler suggests that the queen was a daughter of Rudradáman, and traces the syllables Rudradá … in the Kanheri inscription. 

69 See above page 34. 

70 It seems doubtful whether the Pandit’s estimate of fifteen years might not with advantage be increased. As his father’s reign was so short Rudradáman probably succeeded when still young. The abundance of his coins points to a long reign and the scarcity of the coins both of his son Dámázaḍa and of his grandson Jívadáman imply that neither of his successors reigned more than a few years. Jivadáman’s earliest date is a.d. 178 (S. 100). If five years are allowed to Jivadáman’s father the end of Rudradáman’s reign would be a.d. 173 (S. 95) that is a reign of thirty years, no excessive term for a king who began to rule at a comparatively early age.—(A. M. T. J.) 

71 Two specimens of his coins were obtained by Mr. Vajeshankar Gavrishankar Náib Díwán of Bhávnagar, from Káthiáváḍa, one of which he presented to the Pandit and lent the other for the purpose of description. The legend in both was legible but doubtful. A recent find in Káthiáváḍa supplied four new specimens, two of them very good. 

72 Apparently a mistake for रुद्रदाम्नः पुत्रस. 

73 As in the case of Zamotika the father of Chashṭana, the variation य्स for proves that at first य्स and afterwards was used to represent the Greek Ζ

74 The oldest of the four was found by the Pandit for Dr. Bhau Dáji in Amreli. A fair copy of it is given in a plate which accompanied Mr. Justice Newton’s paper in Jour. B. B. R. A. S. IX. page 1ff. Plate I. Fig. 6. Mr. Newton read the father’s name in the legend Dámaśrí, but it is Dámájaḍaśrí, the die having missed the letters and though space is left for them. This is coin A of the description. Of the remaining three, B was lent to the Pandit from his collection by Mr. Vajeshankar Gavrishankar. C and D were in the Pandit’s collection. 

75 This inscription which has now been placed for safe custody in the temple of Dwárkánáth in Jámnagar, has been published by Dr. Bühler in Ind. Ant. X. 157–158, from a transcript by Áchárya Vallabji Haridatta. Dr. Bhagvánlál held that the date is 103 tryuttaraśate not 102 dvyuttaraśate as read by Dr. Bühler; that the name of the father of the donor is Bápaka and not Báhaka; and that the name of the nakshatra or constellation is Rohiní not Śravaṇa. 

76 Several coins have the same date. 

77 One is in the collection of the B. B. R. A. Society, the other belonged to the Pandit. 

78 An unpublished inscription found in 1865 by Mr. Bhagvánlál Sampatrám. 

79 The top of the third numeral is broken. It may be 7 but is more likely to be 6. 

80 The Jasdan inscription has been published by Dr. Bháu Dáji, J. B. R. A. S. VIII. 234ff, and by Dr. Hœrnle, Ind. Ant. XII. 32ff. 

81 Five have recently been identified in the collection of Dr. Gerson daCunha. 

82 His name, the fact that he regained the title Mahákshatrapa, and his date about a.d. 225 suggest that Saṅghadáman (a.d. 222–226) may be the Sandanes whom the Periplus (McCrindle, 128) describes as taking the regular mart Kalyán near Bombay from Saraganes, that is the Dakhan Śátakarṇis, and, to prevent it again becoming a place of trade, forbidding all Greek ships to visit Kalyán, and sending under a guard to Broach any Greek ships that even by accident entered its port. The following reasons seem conclusive against identifying Saṅghadáman with Sandanes: (1) The abbreviation from Saṅghadáman to Sandanes seems excessive in the case of the name of a well known ruler who lived within thirty years of the probable time (a.d. 247) when the writer of the Periplus visited Gujarát and the Konkan: (2) The date of Saṅghadáman (a.d. 222–226) is twenty to thirty years too early for the probable collection of the Periplus details: (3) Apart from the date of the Periplus the apparent distinction in the writer’s mind between Sandanes’ capture of Kalyán and his own time implies a longer lapse than suits a reign of only four years.

In favour of the Sandanes of the Periplus being a dynastic not a personal name is its close correspondence both in form and in geographical position with Ptolemy’s (a.d. 150) Sadaneis, who gave their name, Ariake Sadinôn or the Sadins’ Aria, to the North Konkan, and, according to McCrindle (Ptolemy, 39) in the time of Ptolemy ruled the prosperous trading communities that occupied the sea coast to about Semulla or Chaul. The details in the present text show that some few years before Ptolemy wrote the conquests of Rudradáman had brought the North Konkan under the Gujarát Kshatrapas. Similarly shortly before the probable date of the Periplus (a.d. 247) the fact that Saṅghadáman and his successors Dámasena (a.d. 226–236) and Vijayasena (a.d. 238–249) all used the title Mahákshatrapa makes their possession of the North Konkan probable. The available details of the Káthiáváḍa Kshatrapas therefore confirm the view that the Sadans of Ptolemy and the Sandanes of the Periplus are the Gujarát Kshatrapas. The question remains how did the Greeks come to know the Kshatrapas by the name of Sadan or Sandan. The answer seems to be the word Sadan or Sandan is the Sanskrit Sádhana which according to Lassen (McCrindle’s Ptolemy, 40) and Williams’ Sanskrit Dictionary may mean agent or representative and may therefore be an accurate rendering of Kshatrapa in the sense of Viceroy. Wilford (As. Res. IX. 76, 198) notices that Sanskrit writers give the early English in India the title Sádhan Engrez. This Wilford would translate Lord but it seems rather meant for a rendering of the word Factor. Prof. Bhandárkar (Bom. Gaz. XIII. 418 note 1) notices a tribe mentioned by the geographer Varáhamihira (a.d. 580) as Śántikas and associated with the Aparántakas or people of the west coast. He shows how according to the rules of letter changes the Sanskrit Śántika would in Prákrit be Sándino. In his opinion it was this form Sandino which was familiar to Greek merchants and sailors. Prof. Bhandárkar holds that when (a.d. 100–110) the Kshatrapa Nahapána displaced the Śátaváhanas or Ándhrabhṛityas the Śántikas or Sandino became independent in the North Konkan and took Kalyán. To make their independence secure against the Kshatrapas they forbad intercourse between their own territory and the Dakhan and sent foreign ships to Barygaza. Against this explanation it is to be urged; (1) That Násik and Junnar inscriptions show Nahapána supreme in the North Konkan at least up to a.d. 120; (2) That according to the Periplus the action taken by the Sandans or Sadans was not against the Kshatrapas but against the Śátakarṇis; (3) That the action was not taken in the time of Nahapána but at a later time, later not only than the first Gautamíputra the conqueror of Nahapána or his son-in-law Ushavadáta (a.d. 138), but later than the second Gautamíputra, who was defeated by the Káthiáváḍa Kshatrapa Rudradáman some time before a.d. 150; (4) That if the Śántikas were solely a North Konkan tribe they would neither wish nor be able to send foreign ships to Broach. The action described in the Periplus of refusing to let Greek ships enter Kalyán and of sending all such ships to Broach was the action of a Gujarát conqueror of Kalyán determined to make foreign trade centre in his own chief emporium Broach. The only possible lord of Gujarát either in the second or third century who can have adopted such a policy was the Kshatrapa of Ujjain in Málwa and of Minnagara or Junágaḍh in Káthiáváḍa, the same ruler, who, to encourage foreign vessels to visit Broach had (McCrindle’s Periplus, 118, 119) stationed native fishermen with well-manned long boats off the south Káthiáváḍa coast to meet ships and pilot them through the tidal and other dangers up the Narbada to Broach. It follows that the Sandanes of the Periplus and Ptolemy’s North Konkan Sádans are the Gujarát Mahákshatrapas. The correctness of this identification of Sadan with the Sanskrit Sádhan and the explanation of Sádhan as a translation of Kshatrapa or representative receive confirmation from the fact that the account of Kálakáchárya in the Bharaheśwara Vṛítti (J. B. B. R. A. S. IX. 141–142), late in date (a.d. 1000–1100) but with notable details of the Śaka or Śáhi invaders, calls the Śaka king Sádhana-Siṃha. If on this evidence it may be held that the Kshatrapas were known as Sádhanas, it seems to follow that Śántika the form used by Varáhamihira (a.d. 505–587) is a conscious and intentional Sanskritizing of Sádan whose correct form and origin had passed out of knowledge, a result which would suggest conscious or artificial Sanskritizing as the explanation of the forms of many Puráṇic tribal and place names. A further important result of this inquiry is to show that the received date of a.d. 70 for the Periplus cannot stand. Now that the Kanishka era a.d. 78 is admitted to be the era used by the Kshatrapas both in the Dakhan and in Gujarát it follows that a writer who knows the elder and the younger Śátakarṇis cannot be earlier than a.d. 150 and from the manner in which he refers to them must almost certainly be considerably later. This conclusion supports the date a.d. 247 which on other weighty grounds the French scholar Reinaud (Ind. Ant. Dec. 1879. pp. 330, 338) has assigned to the Periplus. 

83 The Pandit’s coin was obtained by him in 1863 from Amreli in Káthiáváḍa. A copy of it is given by Mr. Justice Newton who calls Saṅghadáman son of Rudrasiṃha (Jour. B. B. R. A. S. IX. Pl. I. Fig. 7). The other specimen is better preserved. 

84 One of these coins was lent to the Pandit by Mr. Vajeshankar Gavrishankar. 

85 One specimen in the collection of Mr. Vajeshankar bears date 158. 

86 One of them was lent by Mr. Vajeshankar Gavrishankar. 

87 This name has generally been read Atridáman. 

88 Jour. B. B. R. A. S. VII. 16. 

89 See below Chapter VI. page 57. 

90 Cunningham’s Arch. Sur. X. 127; XV. 29–30. 

91 This coin of Rudrasena may have been taken so far from Gujarát by the Gujarát monk in whose honour the stúpa was built. 

92 Íśvaradatta’s name ends in datta as does also that of Śivadatta the father of king Íśvarasena of the Násik inscription. 

93 Dr. Bhagvánlál’s suggestion that Vijayasena (a.d. 238–249) was defeated by the Ábhír or Ahír king Íśvaradatta who entered Gujarát from the North Konkan seems open to question. First as regards the suggestion that Vijayasena was the Kshatrapa whose power Íśvaradatta overthrew it is to be noticed that though the two coinless years (a.d. 249–251) between the last coin of Vijayasena and the earliest coin of Dámájaḍaśrí agree with the recorded length of Íśvaradatta’s supremacy the absence of coins is not in itself proof of a reverse or loss of Kshatrapa power between the reigns of Vijayasena and Dámájaḍaśrí. It is true the Pandit considers that Íśvaradatta’s coins closely resemble those of Vijayasena. At the same time he also (Násik Stat. Acct. 624) thought them very similar to Víradáman’s (a.d. 236–238) coins. Víradáman’s date so immediately precedes Vijayasena’s that in many respects their coins must be closely alike. It is to be noted that a.d. 230–235 the time of rival Kshatrapas among whom Víradáman was one (especially the time between a.d. 236 and 238 during which none of the rivals assumed the title Mahákshatrapa) was suitable to (perhaps was the result of) a successful invasion by Íśvaradatta, and that this same invasion may have been the cause of the transfer of the capital, noted in the Periplus (a.d. 247) as having taken place some years before, from Ozene or Ujjain to Minnagara or Junágaḍh (McCrindle, 114, 122). On the other hand the fact that Vijayasena regained the title of Mahákshatrapa and handed it to his successor Dámájaḍaśrí III. would seem to shew that no reverse or humiliation occurred during the coinless years (a.d. 249–251) between their reigns, a supposition which is supported by the flourishing state of the kingdom at the time of the Periplus (a.d. 247) and also by the evidence that both the above Kshatrapas ruled near Karád in Sátára. At the same time if the difference between Víradáman’s and Vijayasena’s coins is sufficient to make it unlikely that Íśvaradatta’s can be copies of Víradáman’s it seems possible that the year of Íśvaradatta’s overlordship may be the year a.d. 244 (K. 166) in which Vijayasena’s coins bear the title Kshatrapa, and that the assumption of this lower title in the middle of a reign, which with this exception throughout claims the title Mahákshatrapa, may be due to the temporary necessity of acknowledging the supremacy of Íśvaradatta. With reference to the Pandit’s suggestion that Íśvaradatta was an Ábhíra the fact noted above of a trace of Kshatrapa rule at Karád thirty-one miles south of Sátára together with the fact that they held Aparánta or the Konkan makes it probable that they reached Karád by Chiplún and the Kumbhárli pass. That the Kshatrapas entered the Dakhan by so southerly a route instead of by some one of the more central Thána passes, seems to imply the presence of some hostile power in Násik and Khándesh. This after the close of the second century a.d. could hardly have been the Ándhras or Śátakarṇis. It may therefore be presumed to have been the Ándhras’ successors the Ábhíras. As regards the third suggestion that Kshatrapa Gujarát was overrun from the North Konkan it is to be noted that the evidence of connection between Íśvarasena of the Násik inscription (Cave X. No. 15) and Íśvaradatta of the coins is limited to a probable nearness in time and a somewhat slight similarity in name. On the other hand no inscription or other record points to Ábhíra ascendancy in the North Konkan or South Gujarát. The presence of an Ábhíra power in the North Konkan seems inconsistent with Kshatrapa rule at Kalyán and Karád in the second half of the third century. The position allotted to Aberia in the Periplus (McCrindle, 113) inland from Surastrene, apparently in the neighbourhood of Thar and Párkar; the finding of Íśvaradatta’s coins in Káthiáváḍa (Násik Gazetteer, XIII. 624); and (perhaps between a.d. 230 and 240) the transfer westwards of the head-quarters of the Kshatrapa kingdom seem all to point to the east rather than to the south, as the side from which Íśvaradatta invaded Gujarát. At the same time the reference during the reign of Rudrasiṃha I. (a.d. 181) to the Ábhíra Rudrabhúti who like his father was Senápati or Commander-in-Chief suggests that Íśvaradatta may have been not a foreigner but a revolted general. This supposition, his assumption of the title Mahákshatrapa, and the finding of his coins only in Káthiáváḍa to a certain extent confirm. 




(a.d. 250–450.)

Chapter VI.
The Traikúṭakas, a.d. 250–450.
Two Plates.The materials regarding the Traikúṭakas, though meagre, serve to show that they were a powerful dynasty who rose to consequence about the time of the middle Kshatrapas (a.d. 250). All the recorded information is in two copperplates, one the Kanheri copperplate found by Dr. Bird in 1839,1 the other a copperplate found at Párdi near Balsár in 1885.2 Both plates are dated, the Kanheri plate ‘in the year two hundred and forty-five of the increasing rule of the Traikúṭakas’; the Párdi plate in Saṃvat 207 clearly figured. The Kanheri plate contains nothing of historical importance; the Párdi plate gives the name of the donor as Dahrasena or Dharasena ‘the illustrious great king of the Traikúṭakas.’ Though it does not give any royal name the Kanheri plate expressly mentions the date as the year 245 of the increasing rule of the Traikúṭakas. The Párdi plate gives the name of the king as ‘of the Traikúṭakas’ but merely mentions the date as Saṃ. 207. This date though not stated to be in the era of the Traikúṭakas must be taken to be dated in the same era as the Kanheri plate seeing that the style of the letters of both plates is very similar.

The initial date must therefore have been started by the founder of the dynasty and the Kanheri plate proves the dynasty must have lasted at least 245 years. The Párdi plate is one of the earliest copper-plate grants in India. Neither the genealogy nor even the usual three generations including the father and grandfather are given, nor like later plates does it contain a wealth of attributes. The king is called ‘the great king of the Traikúṭakas,’ the performer of the aśvamedha or horse-sacrifice, a distinction bespeaking a powerful sovereign. It may therefore be supposed that Dahrasena held South Gujarát to the Narbadá together with part of the North Konkan and of the Ghát and Dakhan plateau.

Initial Date.What then was the initial date of the Traikúṭakas? Ten Gujarát copper-plates of the Gurjjaras and Chalukyas are dated in an unknown era with Saṃ. followed by the date figures as in the Párdi plate and as in Gupta inscriptions. The earliest is the fragment from Saṅkheḍá in the Baroda State dated Saṃ. 346, which would fall in the reign of Dadda I. of Broach.3 Next come the two Kaira grants of the Gurjjara king Dadda Praśántarága dated Saṃ. 380 and Saṃ. 3854; and the Saṅkheḍá grant of Raṇagraha dated Saṃ. 3915; then the Kaira grant of the Chalukya king Vijayarája or Vijayavarman dated Saṃvatsara 3946; then the Bagumrá grant of the Sendraka chief Nikumbhallaśakti7; [56]
Chapter VI.
The Traikúṭakas, a.d. 250–450.
Initial Date.
two grants from Navsári and Surat of the Chalukya king Śíláditya Śryáśraya dated 421 and 4438; two the Navsári and Kávi grants of the Gurjjara king Jayabhaṭa dated respectively Saṃ. 456 and Saṃ. 4869; and a grant of Pulakeśi dated Saṃvat 490.10

Of these the grant dated 421 speaks of Śíláditya Śryáśraya as Yuvarája or heir-apparent and as the son of Jayasiṃhavarmman. The plate further shows that Jayasiṃhavarmman was brother of Vikramáditya and son of Pulakeśi Vallabha ‘the conqueror of the northern king Harshavardhana.’ The name Jayasiṃhavarmman does not occur in any copperplate of the main line of the Western Chalukyas of the Dakhan. That he is called Mahárája or great king and that his son Śíláditya is called Yuvarája or heir-apparent suggest that Jayasiṃhavarmman was the founder of the Gujarát branch of the Western Chalukyas and that his great Dakhan brother Vikramáditya was his overlord, a relation which would explain the mention of Vikramáditya in the genealogy of the copper-plate. Vikramáditya’s reign ended in a.d. 680 (Śaka 602).11 Supposing our grant to be dated in this last year of Vikramáditya, Saṃvat 421 should correspond to Śaka 602, which gives Śaka 181 or a.d. 259 as the initial date of the era in which the plate is dated. Probably the plate was dated earlier in the reign of Vikramáditya giving a.d. 250. In any case the era used cannot be the Gupta era whose initial year is now finally settled to be a.d. 319.

The second grant of the same Śíláditya is dated Saṃvat 443. In it, both in an eulogistic verse at the beginning and in the text of the genealogy, Vinayáditya Satyáśraya Vallabha is mentioned as the paramount sovereign which proves that by Saṃvat 443 Vikramáditya had been succeeded by Vinayáditya. The reign of Vinayáditya has been fixed as lasting from Śaka 602 to Śaka 618 that is from a.d. 680 to a.d. 696–97.12 Taking Śaka 615 or a.d. 693 to correspond with Saṃvat 443, the initial year of the era is a.d. 250.

The grant of Pulakeśivallabha Janáśraya dated Saṃvat 490, mentions Mangalarasaráya as the donor’s elder brother and as the son of Jayasiṃhavarmman. And a Balsár grant whose donor is mentioned as Mangalarája son of Jayasiṃhavarmman, apparently the same as the Mangalarasaráya of the plate just mentioned, is dated Śaka 653.13 Placing the elder brother about ten years before the younger we get Saṃvat 480 as the date of Mangalarája, which, corresponding with Śaka 653 or a.d. 730–31, gives a.d. 730 minus 480 that is a.d. 250–51 as the initial year of the era in which Pulakeśi’s grant is dated. In the Navsári plates, which record a gift by the Gurjjara king Jayabhaṭa in Saṃvat 456, Dadda II. the donor of the Kaira grants which bear date 380 and 385, is mentioned in the genealogical part at the beginning as ‘protecting the lord of Valabhi who had been defeated by the great lord the illustrious Harshadeva.’ Now the great Harshadeva or Harsha Vardhana of Kanauj whose court was visited by the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen [57]
Chapter VI.
The Traikúṭakas, a.d. 250–450.
Initial Date.
Tsiang between a.d. 629 and 645, reigned according to Reinaud from a.d. 607 to about a.d. 648. Taking a.d. 250 as the initial year of the era of the Kaira plates, Dadda II.’s dates 380 and 385, corresponding to a.d. 630 and 635, fall in the reign of Harshavardhana.

These considerations seem to show that the initial date of the Traikúṭaka era was at or about a.d. 250 which at once suggests its identity with the Chedi or Kalachuri era.14 The next question is, Who were these Traikúṭakas. The meaning of the title seems to be kings of Trikúṭa. Several references seem to point to the existence of a city named Trikúṭa on the western seaboard. In describing Raghu’s triumphant progress the Rámáyaṇa and the Raghuvaṃśa mention him as having established the city of Trikúṭa in Aparánta on the western seaboard.15 Trikúṭakam or Trikúṭam, a Sanskrit name for sea salt seems a reminiscence of the time when Trikúṭa was the emporium from which Konkan salt was distributed over the Dakhan. The scanty information regarding the territory ruled by the Traikúṭakas is in agreement with the suggestion that Junnar in North Poona was the probable site of their capital and that in the three ranges that encircle Junnar we have the origin of the term Trikúṭa or Three-Peaked.

Their Race or Tribe.Of the race or tribe of the Traikúṭakas nothing is known. The conjecture may be offered that they are a branch of the Ábhíra kings of the Puráṇas, one of whom is mentioned in Inscription XV. of Násik Cave X. which from the style of the letters belongs to about a.d. 150 to 200. The easy connection between Násik and Balsár by way of Peth (Peint) and the nearness in time between the Násik inscription and the initial date of the Traikúṭakas support this conjecture. The further suggestion may be offered that the founder of the line of Traikúṭakas was the Íśvaradatta, who, as noted in the Kshatrapa chapter, held the overlordship of Káthiáváḍa as Mahákshatrapa, perhaps during the two years a.d. 248 and 249, a result in close agreement with the conclusions drawn from the examination of the above quoted Traikúṭaka and Chalukya copperplates. As noted in the Kshatrapa chapter after two years’ supremacy Íśvaradatta seems to have been defeated and regular Kshatrapa rule restored about a.d. 252 (K. 174) by Dámájaḍaśrí son of Vijayasena. The unbroken use of the title Mahákshatrapa, the moderate and uniform lengths of the reigns, and the apparently unquestioned successions suggest, what the discovery of Kshatrapa coins at Karád near Sátára in the Dakhan and at Amrávati in the Berárs seems to imply, that during the second half of the third century Kshatrapa rule was widespread and firmly established.16 The conjecture may be offered that Rudrasena (a.d. 256–272) whose coins have been found in Amrávati in the Berárs spread his power at the expense of the Traikúṭakas driving them towards the Central Provinces where they established themselves at Tripura and Kálanjara.17 Further that under Bráhman [58]
Chapter VI.
The Traikúṭakas, a.d. 250–450.
Their Race or Tribe.
influence, just as the Gurjjaras called themselves descendants of Karṇa the hero of the Mahábhárata, and the Pallavas claimed to be of the Bháradvája stock, the Traikúṭakas forgot their Ábhíra origin and claimed descent from the Haihayas. Again as the Valabhis (a.d. 480–767) adopted the Gupta era but gave it their own name so the rulers of Tripura seem to have continued the original Traikúṭaka era of a.d. 248–9 under the name of the Chedi era. The decline of the Kshatrapas dates from about a.d. 300 the rule of Viśvasena the twentieth Kshatrapa son of Bharttṛidáman. The subsequent disruption of the Kshatrapa empire was probably the work of their old neighbours and foes the Traikúṭakas, who, under the name of Haihayas, about the middle of the fifth century (a.d. 455–6) rose to supremacy and established a branch at their old city of Trikúṭa ruling the greater part of the Bombay Dakhan and South Gujarát and probably filling the blank between a.d. 410 the fall of the Kshatrapas and a.d. 500 the rise of the Chálukyas.

About 1887 Pandit Bhagvánlál secured nine of a hoard of 500 silver coins found at Daman in South Gujarát. All are of one king a close imitation of the coins of the latest Kshatrapas. On the obverse is a bust of bad workmanship and on the reverse are the usual Kshatrapa symbols encircled with the legend:


Mahárájendravarmaputra Parama Vaishnava Śrí Mahárája Rudragaṇa.

The devoted Vaishnava the illustrious king Rudragaṇa son of the great king Indravarma.

At Karád, thirty-one miles south of Sátára, Mr. Justice Newton obtained a coin of this Rudragaṇa, with the coins of many Kshatrapas including Viśvasiṃha son of Bharttṛidáman who ruled up to a.d. 300. This would favour the view that Rudragaṇa was the successful rival who wrested the Dakhan and North Konkan from Viśvasiṃha. The fact that during the twenty years after Viśvasiṃha (a.d. 300–320) none of the Kshatrapas has the title Mahákshatrapa seems to show they ruled in Káthiáváḍa as tributaries of this Rudragaṇa and his descendants of the Traikúṭaka family. The Dahrasena of the Párdi plate whose inscription date is 207, that is a.d. 457, may be a descendant of Rudragaṇa. The Traikúṭaka kingdom would thus seem to have flourished at least till the middle of the fifth century. Somewhat later, or at any rate after the date of the Kanheri plate (245 = a.d. 495), it was overthrown by either the Mauryas or the Guptas.18 [60]

1 Cave Temple Inscriptions, Bom. Arch. Sur. Sep. Number XI. page 57ff. 

2 J. B. B. R. A. S. XVI. 346. 

3 Epigraphia Indica, II. 19. 

4 Ind. Ant. XIII. 81ff. 

5 Ep. Ind. II. 20. 

6 Ind. Ant. VII. 248ff. Dr. Bhandárkar (Early Hist. of the Deccan, 42 note 7) has given reasons for believing this grant to be a forgery. 

7 Ind. Ant. XVIII. 265ff. 

8 J. B. B. R. A. S. XVI. 1ff.; Trans. Vienna Or. Congress, 210ff. 

9 Ind. Ant. XIII. 70ff. and V. 109ff. 

10 Trans. Vienna Or. Congress, 210ff. 

11 Fleet’s Kánarese Dynasties, 27. 

12 Fleet’s Kánarese Dynasties, 27. 

13 Ind. Ant. XIV. 75 and Jour. B. B. R. A. S. XVI. 1ff. 

14 Mr. Fleet (Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 9) and Sir A. Cunningham (Arch. Sur. IX. 77) agree in fixing a.d. 250 as the initial date of the Chedi era. Prof. Kielhorn has worked out the available dates and finds that the first year of the era corresponds to a.d. 249–50. Ind. Ant. XVII. 215. 

15 Válmíki’s Rámáyaṇa, Ganpat Krishnaji’s Edition: Raghuvaṃśa, IV. 59. 

16 For details see above page 48

17 Tripura four miles west of Jabalpur; Kálanjara 140 miles north of Jabalpur. 

18 That the era used by the Gurjjaras and Chalukyas of Gujarát was the Chedi era may be regarded as certain since the discovery of the Saṅkheḍá grant of Nirihullaka (Ep. Ind. II. 21), who speaks of a certain Śaṅkaraṇa as his overlord. Palæographically this grant belongs to the sixth century, and Dr. Bühler has suggested that Śaṅkaraṇa is the Chedi Śaṅkaragaṇa whose son Buddharája was defeated by Mangalíśa some time before a.d. 602 (Ind. Ant. XIX. 16). If this is accepted, the grant shows that the Chedis or Kalachuris were in power in the Narbadá valley during the sixth century, which explains the prevalence of their era in South Gujarát. Chedi rule in the Narbadá valley must have come to an end about a.d. 580 when Dadda I. established himself at Broach. It being established that the Kalachuris once ruled in South Gujarát, there is no great difficulty in the way of identifying the Traikúṭakas with them. The two known Traikúṭaka grants are dated in the third century of their era, and belong palæographically to the fifth century a.d. Their era, therefore, like that of the Kalachuris, begins in the third century a.d.: and it is simpler to suppose that the two eras were the same than
Chapter VI.
The Traikúṭakas, a.d. 250–450.
that two different eras, whose initial points were only a few years apart, were in use in the same district. Now that the Śaka and the Vikrama eras are known to have had different names at different times, the change in the name of the era offers no special difficulty. This identification would carry back Kalachuri rule in South Gujarát to at least a.d. 456–6, the date of the Párdi grant: and it is worth noting that Varáhamihira (Bṛ. Saṃh. XIV. 20) places the Haihayas or Kalachuris in the west along with the Aparántakas or Konkanis.

Though the name Traikúṭaka means of Trikúṭa, the authorities quoted by Dr. Bhagvánlál do not establish the existence of a city called Trikúṭa. They only vouch for a mountain of that name somewhere in the Western Gháts, and there is no evidence of any special connection with Junnar. Further, the word Trikúṭakam seems to mean rock-salt, not sea-salt, so that there is here no special connection with the Western coast. Wherever Trikúṭa may have been, there seems no need to reject the tradition that connects the rise of the Kalachuris with their capture of Kálanjara (Cunningham’s Arch. Surv. IX. 77ff), as it is more likely that they advanced from the East down the Narbadá than that their original seats were on the West Coast, as the Western Indian inscriptions of the third and fourth centuries contain no reference either to Traikúṭakas or to Junnar or other western city as Trikúṭa.

With reference to the third suggestion that the Traikúṭakas twice overthrew the Kshatrapas, under Íśvaradatta in a.d. 248 and under Rudragaṇa in a.d. 310–320, it is to be noted that there is no evidence to show that Íśvaradatta was either an Ábhíra or a Traikúṭaka and that the identification of his date with a.d. 248–250 seems less probable than with either a.d. 244 or a.d. 236. (Compare above Footnote page 53). Even if Íśvaradatta’s supremacy coincided with a.d. 250 the initial date of the Traikúṭaka era, it seems improbable that a king who reigned only two years and left no successor should have had any connection with the establishment of an era which is not found in use till two centuries later. As regards Rudragaṇa it may be admitted that he belonged to the race or family who weakened Kshatrapa power early in the fourth century a.d. At the same time there seems no reason to suppose that Rudragaṇa was a Traikúṭaka or a Kalachuri except the fact that his name, like that of Śaṅkaragaṇa, is a compound of the word gaṇa and a name of Śiva; while the irregular posthumous use of the title Mahákshatrapa among the latest (23rd to 26th) Kshatrapas favours the view that they remained independent till their overthrow by the Guptas about a.d. 410. The conclusion seems to be that the Traikúṭaka and the Kalachuri eras are the same namely a.d. 248–9: that this era was introduced into Gujarát by the Traikúṭakas who were connected with the Haihayas; and that the introduction of the era into Gujarát did not take place before the middle of the fifth century a.d.—(A. M. T. J.) 




(G. 90–149; a.d. 410–470.)

Chapter VII.
The Guptas, 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:

Petty N. W. P. Chief.
Petty N. W. P. Chief.
Chandragupta I.
Powerful N. W. P. Chief.
Great N. W. P. Sovereign.
Chandragupta II.
Great Monarch conquers Málwa.
G.80 a.d.400 and Gujarát G.90 a.d.410.
Rules Gujarát and Káthiáváḍa.
Rules Gujarát Káthiáváḍa and Kachch.

According to the Puráṇas1 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 Smṛitis or Sacred Books,2 the terminal gupta belongs only to Vaiśyas a class including shepherds [61]
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470.
cultivators and traders. Of the first three kings, Gupta Ghaṭotkacha 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 Vishṇu 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 Śrí-gupta which is taken to mean protected by Śrí or Lakshmí. Against this explanation it is to be noted that in their inscriptions all Gupta’s successors, have a Śrí before their names. The question therefore arises; If Śrí forms part of the name why should the name Śrígupta have had no second Śrí prefixed in the usual way. Further in the inscriptions the lineage appears as Guptavaṃśa that is the lineage of the Guptas never Śríguptavaṃśa3; and whenever dates in the era of this dynasty are given they are conjoined with the name Gupta never with Śrígupta.4 It may therefore be taken that Gupta not Śrígupta is the correct form of the founder’s name.5

Ghaṭotkacha, 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 Ghaṭotkacha 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 Ghaṭotkacha, 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.6 [62]

Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470.
Samudragupta, a.d. 370–395.
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.7

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.8

Coins9 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 Garuḍa standard symbolizing the unrivalled supremacy of the king, his arrow no longer wanted, his standard waving unchallenged. On the obverse is the legend: [63]
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470.
Samudragupta, a.d. 370–395.

अप्रतिरथराजन्यकीर्ति (र) मम विजयते.

Apratiratharájanyakírti(r)mama vijáyate.10

Triumphant is the glory of me the unrivalled sovereign.

Coins with the attribute Kritánta paraśu the Death-like-battle-axe have on the obverse a royal figure grasping a battle-axe.11 In front of the royal figure a boy, perhaps Samudragupta’s son Chandragupta, holds a standard. Coins with the attribute Aśvamedhaparákramaḥ 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.12 The legend on the obverse is imperfect and hard to read. The late Mr. Thomas restores it:

नवजमधः राजाधिराज पृथिविं जियत्य.

Navajamadhaḥ rájádhirája pṛithivíṃ jiyatya.

Horse sacrifice, after conquering the earth, the great king (performs).

Coins with the legend Lichchhaveyaḥ, a coin abbreviation for Lichchhavidauhitra Daughter’s son of Lichchhavi (?), have on the obverse a standing king grasping a javelin.13 Under the javelin hand are the letters Chandraguptaḥ. 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 Lichchhaveyaḥ can apply only to Samudragupta.

His Allahábád Inscription.A fuller source of information regarding Samudragupta remains in his inscription on the Allahábád Pillar.14 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.15 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,16 Mundarája of Kauráttá,17 Svámidatta of Paishṭapura Mahendra-Giri and Auṭṭura18, Damana of Airaṇḍapallaka, Vishṇu of Káñchí, Nílarája Śápávamukta,19 Hastivarman of Veṅgí, Ugrasena of Pálaka,20 [64]
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470.
Samudragupta, a.d. 370–395.
Kubera of Daivaráshṭra, and Dhanaṃjaya of Kausthalapura. Line 21 gives a further list of nine kings of Áryávarta exterminated by Samudragupta:

  • Rudradeva.
  • Matila.
  • Nágadatta.
  • Chandravarman.
  • Gaṇapatinága.
  • Nágasena.
  • Achyuta.
  • Nandin.
  • Balavarmman.

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 Gaṇapatinága was one of the Nága kings of Gwálior and Narwár.21 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:22

  • Samataṭa.
  • Ḍaváka.
  • Kámarúpa.
  • Nepála.
  • Karttṛika.

The Indian kingdoms are:23

  • Málava.
  • Arjunáyana.
  • Yaudheya.
  • Mádraka.
  • Ábhíra.
  • Prárjuna.
  • Sanakáníka.
  • Káka.
  • Kharaparika.

Mention is next made of kings who submitted, gave their daughters in marriage, paid tribute, and requested the issue of the Garuḍa or Eagle charter to secure them in the enjoyment of their territory.24 The tribal names of these kings are:25

  • Devaputra.
  • Sháhi.
  • Sháhánusháhi.
  • Śaka.
  • Muruṇḍa.
  • Saiṃhalaka.
  • Island Kings.


Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470.
Samudragupta, a.d. 370–395.
The inscribed pillar is said to have been set up by the great Captain or Dandanáyaka named Tilabhaṭṭanáyaka.

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 Śakas 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 Vidiśá (the modern Besnagar) near Bhilsa records the making of a cave of Mahádeva by one Śába of the Kautsa gotra and the family name of Vírasena, a poet and native of Páṭaliputra 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.26 A neighbouring cave bears an inscription of a feudatory of Chandragupta who was chief of Sanakáníka.27 The chief’s name is lost, but the names of his father Vishṇudása and of his grandfather Chhagalaga remain. The date is the eleventh of the bright half of [66]
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470.
Chandragupta II, a.d. 396–415.
Ásháḍha Saṃvatsara 82 (a.d. 401). From this Chandragupta’s conquest of Vidiśá may be dated about Saṃvatsara 80 (a.d. 399) or a little earlier.

A third inscription is on the railing of the great Sáñchi stúpa.28 It is dated the 4th day of Bhádrapada Saṃvat 93 (a.d. 412) and records the gift of 25 dínáras and something called Íśvaravásaka (perhaps a village or a field) to the monks of the great monastery of Kákanádaboṭaśrí for the daily maintenance of five bhikshus and the burning of a lamp in the ratnagṛiha 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.29 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 Káthiáváḍa. He seems to have wrested Káthiáváḍa 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:

श्री गुप्तकुलस्य महाराजाधिराज श्री चंद्रगुप्तविक्रमाङ्कस्य

Śrí Guptakulasya Mahárájadhirája Śrí Chandraguptavikramáṅkasya.

(Coin) of the king of kings the illustrious Chandragupta Vikramáṅka, of the family of the illustrious Gupta.30

In the very rare Káthiáváḍa coins, though they are similar to the above in style, the legend runs:

परमभागवत महाराजाधिराज श्री चन्द्रगुप्त विक्रमादित्य

Paramabhágavata Mahárájádhirája Śrí Chandragupta Vikramáditya.

The great devotee of Vishṇu the supreme ruler of great kings, the illustrious Chandragupta Vikramáditya.31

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. [67]
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470.
Chandragupta II, a.d. 396–415.
The rareness of Chandragupta’s and the commonness of Kumáragupta’s coins in Káthiáváḍa, 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 Káthiáváḍa.

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.32 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.33

Working back from Gupta Saṃvat 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 Ghaṭotkacha: 29 to 49 (a.d. 349–369) to Ghaṭotkacha’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 Bilsaḍ inscription34 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). [68]

Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470.
Kumáragupta, a.d. 416–453.
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 Káthiáváḍa during his father’s reign makes it probable that on their conquest his father appointed him viceroy of Káthiáváḍa 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.35 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:

परम भागवत महाराजाधिराज श्री कुमार्गुप्त महेन्द्रादित्य.

Paramabhágavata Maharájádhirája Śrí Kumáragupta Mahendráditya.

The great Vaishnava the supreme ruler of great kings, the illustrious Kumáragupta Mahendráditya.36

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:

विजितवनिरवनिपति कुमार्गुप्तो देवं जयति.

Vijitávaniravanipati Kumáragupto devaṃ 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.


Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470.
Kumáragupta, a.d. 416–453.
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.37

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.38 The text runs: “By whom when he rose to fix fast again the shaken fortune of his house, three months39 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.40 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 Húṇas that is the Ephthalites, Thetals, or White Huns.41 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 Suráshṭra he selected a governor named Parṇadatta and to Parṇadatta’s son Chakrapálita he gave a share of the management placing him in charge of Junágaḍh city. During the governorship of Parṇadatta the Sudarśana lake close to Junágaḍh, 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 Paláśiní Sikatá, and Viláśiní42 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 [70]
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470.
Skandagupta, a.d. 454–470.
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.43 The inscription also records the making of a temple of Vishṇu 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 Chúḍásamá ruler of Junágaḍh. 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 Junágaḍh (1759–1784). It was proposed to make and consecrate new images. But certain old images of Vishṇu 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 Káthiáváḍa inherited from his father. In Káthiáváḍa Skandagupta’s coins are rare, apparently because of the abundant currency left by his father which was so popular in Káthiáváḍa 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:

विजितावनिरवनिपति जयति देवं स्कन्दगुप्तो यं

Vijitávaniravanipati jayati devaṃ Skandagupto’yaṃ.

This king Skandagupta who having conquered the earth conquers the Deva.44

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 Káthiáváḍa. 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:

परमभागवत महाराजाधिराज स्कन्दगुप्त क्रमादित्य

Paramabhágavata Mahárájadhirája Skandagupta Kramáditya.

The great Vaishnava the supreme ruler of great kings, Skandagupta the Sun of Prowess.45


Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470.
Skandagupta, a.d. 454–470.
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. 469.46

Budhagupta, a.d. 485.With Skandagupta the regular Gupta succession ceases.47 The next Gupta is Budhagupta who has a pillar inscription48 in a temple at Eraṇ in the Saugor district dated 165 (a.d. 485) and silver coins dated Saṃvat 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:

देवं जयति विजितावनिरवनिपति श्री बुधगुप्तो

Devaṁ jayati vijitávaniravanipati Śrí Budhagupto.

The king the illustrious Budhagupta who has conquered the earth conquers the Deva.49

Since the coins are dated Saṃvat 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 Eraṇ 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.50 In the west the failure of Gupta power seems still more complete. Neither in Gujarát nor in Káthiáváḍa 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 Vishṇu and his brother Mátṛi Vishṇu 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 [72]
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470.
Budhagupta, a.d. 485.
Toramáṇa the supreme ruler of great kings and was the gift of the same Dhanya Vishṇu whose brother Mátṛi Vishṇu is described as gone to heaven.51 Since Mátṛi was alive in the Budhagupta and was dead in the Toramáṇa inscription it follows that Toramáṇa was later than Budhagupta. His name and his new era show that Toramáṇa was not a Gupta. A further proof that Toramáṇa 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, Toramáṇa’s silver coins are directly adapted from Gupta coins of the eastern type. Certain coin dates seem at variance with the view that Toramáṇa flourished after Budhagupta. On several coins the date 52 is clear. As Toramáṇa’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 Toramáṇa’s die and that this date should read 152 not 52. Accepting this view Toramáṇa’s date would be 152 (a.d. 472) that is immediately after the death of Skandagupta.

The Gwálior inscription52 mentions prince Mihirakula as the son of Toramáṇa and a second inscription from a well in Mandasor53 dated Málava Saṃvat 589 (a.d. 533) mentions a king named Yaśodharman who was ruler of Málwa when the well was built and who in a second Mandasor inscription54 is mentioned as having conquered Mihirakula. This would separate Mihirakula from his father Toramáṇa (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 Toramáṇa’s reign in honour of his conquest of the eastern Gupta territory. A reign of twenty years would bring Toramáṇa 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 Yaśodharman’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 Eraṇ inscription55 found in 1869 on a liṅga-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 Śríharshacharita. While Gupta power failed in Málwa [73]
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470.
Bhánugupta, a.d. 511.
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.56

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 Skandagupta57 speaks of his restoring the fortunes of his family and conquering the Pushyamitras and also of his joining in close conflict with the Húṇas.58 Unfortunately the Bhitari inscription is not dated. The Junágaḍh inscription, which bears three dates covering the period between a.d. 455 and 458,59 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 historians60 the White Huns did not cross the Oxus into Baktria before a.d. 452, the founding of the Hun capital of Badeghis61 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 [74]
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470.
The Pushyamitras, a.d. 455.
since the terms of Parṇadatta’s appointment to Suráshṭra 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.62 That Skandagupta’s inscriptions are found in the Patna district in the east63 and in Káthiáváḍa in the west64 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 Narasiṃhagupta and his grandson Kumáragupta II.65

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, Toramáṇa and Mihirakula are prominent. It is not certain that these kings were Húṇas by race. Their tribe were almost certainly his rivals’ allies whom Skandagupta’s Bhitari and Junágaḍh inscriptions style the one Húṇas the other Mlechchhas.66 On one of Toramáṇa’s coins Mr. Fleet reads67 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. 515.68 In the neighbourhood of Gwálior he reigned at least fifteen years.69 The story of Mihirakula’s interview with Báláditya’s mother and his long subsequent history70 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,71 it seems probable that Toramáṇa came to the throne a good deal later than a.d. 460 the date suggested by Mr. Fleet.72 The date 52 on Toramáṇa’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,73 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 Toramáṇa’s coin. If this suggestion is correct a further identification follows. The Chinese ambassador Sungyun (a.d. 520)74 [75]
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470.
White Huns, a.d. 450–520.
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.75 Mihirakula is known to have ruled in Gandhára76 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 Sungyun77 is the family name or the name of the founder. As a recently deciphered inscription shows Toramáṇa’s family name to have been Jaúvla78 it seems to follow that Lae-lih, or whatever is the correct transliteration of the Chinese characters, is the name of the father of Toramáṇa. Sungyun’s reference to the establishment of this dynasty suggests they were not White Huns but leaders of some subject tribe.79 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 Húṇas newly come from the northern frontiers of China and proud of their recent successes.80 Chinese records show81 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.82 To this tribe it seems on the whole probable that [76]
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470.
White Huns, a.d. 450–520.
Lae-lih the father of Toramáṇa belonged.83 At the same time, though perhaps not themselves White Huns, the details regarding Toramáṇa and Mihirakula so nearly cover the fifty years (a.d. 470–530) of Húṇa 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),84 seems to have entrusted the conquest of India to Toramáṇa 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 Húṇas were probably closely associated with the Maitraka or Mehara conquest of Káthiáváḍa (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, Toramáṇa, and the Málwa chiefs. To the east of Saugor the Guptas succeeded in maintaining their power until at least a.d. 528–9.85 To the west of Saugor the Guptas held Eraṇ in a.d. 484–5.86 About twenty years later (a.d. 505)87 Eraṇ was in the hands of Toramáṇa, and in a.d. 510–11 Bhánugupta88 fought and apparently won a battle at Eraṇ.

Mihirakula, a.d. 512.Mihirakula’s accession to the throne may perhaps be fixed at a.d. 512. An inscription of Yaśodharman, 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 Śiva.89 In spite of this defeat Mihirakula held Gwálior and the inaccessible fortress of the Himálayas.90 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.91

Yaśodharman 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 Vishṇuvarman ruled as a local king.92 [77]
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470.
Yaśodharman of Málwa, a.d. 533–4.
Possibly Bandhuvarman afterwards threw off his allegiance to the Guptas and thereby caused the temporary loss of Suráshṭra towards the end of Kumáragupta’s reign. Nothing further is recorded of the rulers of Málwa until the reign of Yaśodharman in a.d. 533–4.93 It has been supposed that one of Yaśodharman’s inscriptions mentioned a king Vishṇuvardhana but there can be little doubt that both names refer to the same person.94 The name of Yaśodharman’s tribe is unknown and his crest the aulikara has not been satisfactorily explained.95 Mandasor96 in Western Málwa, where all his inscriptions have been found, must have been a centre of Yaśodharman’s power. Yaśodharman boasts97 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 Yaśodharman belonged to this family but that Yaśodharman was the great Vikramáditya himself.98

The difficult question remains by whom was the power of Mihirakula overthrown. Yaśodharman claims to have subdued Mihirakula, who, he distinctly says, had never before been defeated.99 On the other hand, Hiuen Tsiang ascribes Mihirakula’s overthrow to a Báláditya of Magadha.100 Coins prove that Báláditya101 was one of the titles of Narasiṃhagupta grandson of Kumáragupta I. (a.d. 417–453) who probably ruled Magadha as his son’s seal was found in the Gházipur district.102 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 Yaśodharman 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.103 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.104—(A.M.T.J.)] [78]

1 Váyu Puráṇa, Wilson’s Works, IX. 219n. 

2 Vishṇu Puráṇa, III. Chapter 10 Verse 9: Burnell’s Manu, 20. Mr. Fleet (Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 11 note 1) quotes an instance of a Bráhman named Brahmagupta. 

3 Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 53 line 7. 

4 Compare Skandagupta’s Junágaḍh Inscription line 15, Ind. Ant. XIV.; Cunningham’s Arch. Sur. X. 113; Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 59. 

5 Compare Mr. Fleet’s note in Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 8. 

6 Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 135. Mr. Fleet believes that the Lichchhavi family concerned was that of Nepál, and that they were the real founders of the era used by the Guptas. Dr. Bühler (Vienna Or. Journal, V. Pt. 3) holds that Chandragupta married into the Lichchhavi family of Páṭaliputra, and became king of that country in right of his wife. The coins which bear the name of Kumáradeví are by Mr. Smith (J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. 63) and others assigned to Chandragupta I., reading the reverse legend Lichchhavayaḥ The Lichchhavis in place of Dr. Bhagvánlál’s Lichchhaveyaḥ Daughter’s son of Lichchhavi. On the Kácha coins see below page 62 note 2.

The Lichchhavis claim to be sprung from the solar dynasty. Manu (Burnell’s Manu, 308) describes them as descended from a degraded Kshatriya. Beal (R. A. S. N. S. XIV. 39) would identify them with an early wave of the Yuechi or Kusháns; Smith (J. R. A. S. XX. 55 n. 2) and Hewitt (J. R. A. S. XX. 355–366) take them to be a Kolarian or local tribe. The fame of the Lichchhavis of Vaísáli or Passalæ between Patna and Tirhút goes back to the time of Gautama Buddha (b.c. 480) in whose funeral rites the Lichchhavis and their neighbours and associates the Mallas took a prominent share (Rockhill’s Life of Buddha, 62–63, 145, 203. Compare Legge’s Fa Hien, 71–76; Beal’s Buddhist Records, II. 67, 70, 73, 77 and 81 note). According to Buddhist writings the first king of Thibet (a.d. 50) who was elected by the chiefs of the South Thibet tribes was a Lichchhavi the son of Prasenadjit of Kośala (Rockhill’s Life of Buddha, 208). Between the seventh and ninth centuries (a.d. 635–854) a family of Lichchhavis was ruling in Nepal (Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 134). The earliest historical member of the Nepál family is Jayadeva I. whose date is supposed to be about a.d. 330 to 355. Mr. Fleet (Ditto, 135) suggests that Jayadeva’s reign began earlier and may be the epoch from which the Gupta era of a.d. 318–319 is taken. He holds (Ditto, 136) that in all probability the so-called Gupta era is a Lichchhavi era. 

7 The figure of the Ganges standing on an alligator with a stalked lotus in her left hand on the reverse of the gold coins of Samudragupta the fourth king of the dynasty may be taken to be the Śri or Luck of the Guptas. Compare Smith’s Gupta Coinage, J. Beng. A. S. LIII. Plate I. Fig. 10. J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. Pl. I. 2. 

8 The presence of the two letters क च that is ka cha on the obverse under the arm of the royal figure, has led the late Mr. Thomas, General Cunningham, and Mr. Smith to suppose that the coins belonged to Ghaṭotkacha, the last two letters of the name being the same. This identification seems improbable. Ghaṭotkacha was never powerful enough to have a currency of his own. Sarvarájochchhettá the attribute on the reverse is one of Samudragupta’s epithets, while the figure of the king on the obverse grasping the standard with the disc, illustrating the attribute of universal sovereignty, can refer to none other than Samudragupta the first very powerful king of the dynasty. Perhaps the Kacha or Kácha on these coins is a pet or child name of Samudragupta. Mr. Rapson (Numismatic Chron. 3rd Ser. XI. 48ff) has recently suggested that the Kácha coins belong to an elder brother and predecessor of Samudragupta. But it seems unlikely that a ruler who could justly claim the title Destroyer-of-all-kings should be passed over in silence in the genealogy. Further, as is remarked above, the title Sarvarájochchhettá belongs in the inscriptions to Samudragupta alone: and the fact that in his lifetime Samudragupta’s father chose him as successor is against his exclusion from the throne even for a time. 

9 Smith’s Gupta Coinage in J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. Pl. I. 10. 

10 Compare Wilson’s Ariana Antiqua, Pl. XVIII. Fig. 8, which has the same legend with me for mama

11 Smith J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. Pl. I. 11, 12. 

12 Smith J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. Pl. I. 4. 

13 Smith J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. Pl. I. Mr. Smith reads Lichchhavayaḥ (the Lichchhavis) and assigns this type to Chandragupta I. 

14 Corpus Ins. Ind. III. 1. 

15 Smith J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. Pl. I. 5, 6. 

16 Apparently South Kosala, the country about Raipur and Chhattísgarh. 

17 Fleet reads Maṇṭarája of Keraḷa. 

18 Fleet divides the words differently and translates “Mahendra of Pishṭapura, Svámidatta of Koṭṭura on the hill.” 

19 Fleet reads “Nílarája of Avamukta.” 

20 Fleet reads Palakka or Pálakka. 

21 Arch. Surv. II. 310; J. B. A. S. 1865. 115–121. 

22 Samataṭa is the Ganges delta: Daváka may, as Mr. Fleet suggests, be Dacca: for Karttṛika Mr. Fleet reads Kartṛipura, otherwise Cuttack might be intended. 

23 For the Málavas see above page 24. The Arjunáyanas can hardly be the Kalachuris as Mr. Fleet (C. I. I. III. 10) has suggested, as Varáha Mihira (Bṛ. S. XIV. 25) places the Arjunáyanas in the north near Trigarta, and General Cunningham’s coin (Coins of Ancient India, 90) points to the same region. The Yaudheyas lived on the lower Sutlej: see above page 36. The Mádrakas lived north-east of the Yaudheyas between the Chenáb and the Sutlej (Cunningham Anc. Geog. 185). The Ábhíras must be those on the south-east border of Sindh. The Prárjunas do not appear to be identifiable. A Sanakáníka Mahárája is mentioned (C. I. I. III. 3) as dedicating an offering at Udayagiri near Bhilsá, but we have no clue to the situation of his government. The name of his grandfather, Chhagalaga, has a Turkí look. Káka may be Kákúpur near Bithúr (Cunningham Anc. Geog. 386). Kharaparika has not been identified.—(A. M. T. J.) 

24 Mr. Fleet translates “(giving) Garuḍa-tokens, (surrendering) the enjoyment of their own territories.” 

25 The first three names Devaputra, Sháhi, and Sháhánusháhi, belong to the Kushán dynasty of Kanishka (a.d. 78). Sháhánusháhi is the oldest, as it appears on the coins from Kanishka downwards in the form Sháhanáno Sháho (Stein in Babylonian and Oriental Record, I. 163). It represents the old Persian title Sháhansháh or king of kings. Sháhi, answering to the simple Sháh, appears to be first used alone by Vásudeva (a.d. 128–176). The title of Devaputra occurs first in the inscriptions of Kanishka. In the present inscription all three titles seem to denote divisions of the Kushán empire in India. The title of Sháhi was continued by the Turks (a.d. 600?–900) and Bráhmans (a.d. 900–1000) of Kábul (Alberuni, II. 10) and by the Sháhis (Elliot, I. 138) of Alor in Sindh (a.d. 490?–631). Unless it refers to the last remnants of the Gujarát Mahákshatrapas the word Śaka seems to be used in a vague sense in reference to the non-Indian tribes of the North-West frontier. The Muruṇḍas may be identified with the Muruṇḍas of the Native dictionaries, and hence with the people of Lampáka or Lamghán twenty miles north-west of Jalálábád. It is notable that in the fifth century a.d. Jayanátha, Mahárája of Uchchakalpa (not identified) married a Muruṇḍadeví (Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 128, 131, 136).

The mention of the king of Siṃhala and the Island Kings rounds off the geographical picture. Possibly after the Chinese fashion presents from these countries may have been magnified into tribute. Or Siṃhala may here stand, not for Ceylon, but for one of the many Siṃhapuras known to Indian geography. Sihor in Káthiáváḍa, an old capital, may possibly be the place referred to. The Island Kings would then be the chiefs of Cutch and Káthiáváḍa.—(A. M. T. J.) 

26 Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 6. 

27 Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 3. 

28 Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 5. 

29 Mr. Fleet (Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 33) prefers to take Devarája to be the name of Chandragupta’s minister. 

30 J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. 120. 

31 J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. 121. 

32 Mr. Fleet (Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Introd. 130ff) argues that the era was borrowed from Nepal after Chandragupta I. married his Lichchhavi queen. Dr. Bühler thinks there is no evidence of this, and that the era was started by the Guptas themselves (Vienna Or. Jl. V. Pt. 3). 

33 The further suggestion may be offered that if as seems probable Dr. Bhagvánlál is correct in considering Chandragupta II. to be the founder of the Gupta era this high honour was due not to his conquest of Málwa but to some success against the Indo-Skythians or Śakas of the Punjáb. The little more than nominal suzerainty claimed over the Devputras, Sháhis, and Sháhánusháhis in Chandragupta’s father’s inscription shows that when he came to the throne Chandragupta found the Śaka power practically unbroken. The absence of reference to conquests is no more complete in the case of the Panjáb than it is in the case of Gujarát or of Káthiáváḍa which Chandragupta is known to have added to his dominions. In Káthiáváḍa, though not in Gujarát, the evidence from coins is stronger than in the Panjáb. Still the discovery of Chandragupta’s coins (J. R. A. S. XXI. 5 note 1) raises the presumption of conquests as far north and west as Pánipat and as Ludhiána (in the heart of the Panjáb). Chandragupta’s name Devarája may, as Pandit Bhagvánlál suggests, be taken from the Śaka title Devaputra. Further, the use of the name Vikramáditya and of the honorific Śrí is in striking agreement with Beruni’s statement (Sachau, II. 6) that the conqueror of the Śakas was named Vikramáditya and that to the conqueror’s name was added the title Śrí. Mr. Fleet (Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 37 note 2) holds it not improbable that either Chandragupta I. or II. defeated the Indo-Skythians. The fact that Chandragupta I. was not a ruler of sufficient importance to issue coins and that even after his son Samudragupta’s victories the Śakas remained practically independent make it almost certain that if any subjection of the Śakas to the Guptas took place it happened during the reign of Chandragupta II. 

34 Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 10. 

35 Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 8, 9, 10 and 11. 

36 J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. 123. 

37 J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. 126. That Kumáragupta’s two successors, Skandagupta and Budhagupta, use the same phrase devaṃ jayati makes the explanation in the text doubtful. As Mr. Smith (Ditto) suggests devaṃ is probably a mistake for devo, meaning His Majesty. The legend would then run; Kumaraguptadeva lord of the earth … is triumphant. Dr. Bhagvánlál would have preferred devo (see page 70 note 2) but could not neglect the anusrára.—(A. M. T. J.) 

38 Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 13. 

39 Mr. Fleet (Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 53, 55) reads “nítá triyámá” and translates “a (whole) night was spent.” Dr. Bhagvánlál read “nítás trimásáḥ.” 

40 Mr. Fleet finds that Pushyamitra is the name of a tribe not of a king. No. VI. of Dr. Bühler’s Jain inscriptions from Mathurá (Ep. Ind. I. 378ff) mentions a Pushyamitriya-kula of the Váraṇagaṇa, which is also referred to in Bhadrabáhu’s Kalpa-sútra (Jacobi’s Edition, 80), but is there referred to the Cháraṇa-gaṇa, no doubt a misreading for the Váraṇa of the inscription. Dr. Bühler points out that Varaṇa is the old name of Bulandshahr in the North-West Provinces, so that it is there that we must look for the power that first weakened the Guptas.—(A. M. T. J.) 

41 See V. de St. Martin’s Essay, Les Huns Blancs; Specht in Journal Asiatique Oct.–Dec. 1883 and below page 74. 

42 In Rudradáman’s inscription the Paláśiní is mentioned, and also the Suvarṇasikatás “and the other rivers,” In Skandagupta’s inscription Mr. Fleet translates Sikatáviláśiní as an adjective agreeing with Paláśiní. 

43 Remains of the dam were discovered in 1890 by Khán Bahádúr Ardesir Jamsetji Special Diván of Junágaḍh. The site is somewhat nearer Junágaḍh than Dr. Bhagvánlál supposed. Details are given in Jour. B. B. R. A. S. XVIII. Number 48 page 47. 

44 The reading devo is to be preferred but the anusvára is clear both on these coins and on the coins of his father. For these coins see J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. Pl. IV. 4. 

45 J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. Pl. IV. 697. 

46 The known dates of Skandagupta are 136 and 137 on his Girnár inscription, 141 in his pillar inscription at Kahaon in Gorakhpur, and 146 in his Indor-Khera copperplate. The coin dates given by General Cunningham are 144, 145, and 149. 

47 But see below page 73. 

48 Dr. Bhagvánlál examined and copied the original of this inscription. It has since been published as Number 19 in Mr. Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 

49 J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. 134. 

50 It is now known that the main Gupta line continued to rule in Magadha. See page 73 below. 

51 Published by Mr. Fleet Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 36. 

52 Fleet Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 37. 

53 Fleet Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 35. 

54 Fleet Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 33. 

55 Fleet Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 20. 

56 On Naragupta see below page 77, and for his coins J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. note Pl. III. 11. 

57 Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 13 lines 10 and 15. 

58 The Pushyamitras seem to have been a long established tribe like the Yaudheyas (above page 37). During the reign of Kanishka (a.d. 78–93) Pushyamitras were settled in the neighbourhood of Bulandshahr and at that time had already given their name to a Jain sect.

The sense of the inscription is somewhat doubtful. Mr. Fleet (Corp. Ins. Ind. III. page 62) translates: Whose fame, moreover, even (his) enemies in the countries of the Mlechchhas … having their pride broken down to the very root announce with the words ‘Verily the victory has been achieved by him.’ Prof. Peterson understands the meaning to be that Skandagupta’s Indian enemies were forced to retire beyond the borders of India among friendly Mlechchhas and in a foreign land admit that the renewal of their conflict with Skandagupta was beyond hope. The retreat of Skandagupta’s Indian enemies to the Mlechchhas suggests the Mlechchhas are the Húṇas that is the White Huns who were already in power on the Indian border, whom the enemies had previously in vain brought as allies into India to help them against Skandagupta. This gives exactness to the expression used in Skandagupta’s Bhitari inscription (Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Number 13 page 56) that he joined in close conflict with the Húṇas … among enemies, as if in this conflict the Húṇas were the allies of enemies rather than the enemies themselves. For the introduction into India of foreign allies, compare in b.c. 327 (McCrindle’s Alexander in India, 412) the king of Taxila, 34 miles north-west of Ráwalpindi, sending an embassy to Baktria to secure Alexander as an ally against Porus of the Gujarát country. And (Ditto, 409) a few years later (b.c. 310) the North Indian Malayaketu allying himself with Yavanas in his attack on Páṭaliputra or Patna. 

59 Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 14 line 4. 

60 T’oungtien quoted by Specht in Journal Asiatique for Oct.–Dec. 1883. 

61 Badeghis is the modern Badhyr the upper plateau between the Merv and the Herat rivers. The probable site of the capital of the White Huns is a little north of Herat. See Marco Polo’s Itineraries No. I.; Yule’s Marco Polo, I. xxxii. 

62 See the Ghazipur Seal. Smith & Hœrnle, J. A. S. Ben. LVIII. 84ff. and Fleet Ind. Ant. XIX. 224ff. 

63 Bihar Ins. Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 12. 

64 Junágaḍh Inscrip. Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 14. 

65 See note 1 above. 

66 See above notes 1 and 2. 

67 Ind. Ant. XVIII. 225. 

68 Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Introdn. 12. 

69 Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. Ins. 37 line 4. 

70 Beal’s Buddhist Records, I. 169–172 and Rájatarangiṅí, I. 289–326 quoted by Fleet in Ind. Ant. XV. 247–249. 

71 Beale’s Hiuen Tsiang, I. 169–171. As Mr. Fleet suggests the younger brother is possibly the Chandra referred to in Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 32 line 5 and Introd. 12 and 140 note 1. 

72 Ind. Ant. XIII. 230 and Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Introdn. 12. 

73 Specht in Journal Asiatique for Oct.–Dec. 1883. Histoire des Wei

74 Beal’s Buddhist Records, I. c.–cii. 

75 Beal’s Buddhist Records, I. xcix.-c. 

76 Beal’s Buddhist Records, I. 171. Hiuen Tsiang’s statement (Ditto) that Mihirakula conquered Gandhára after his capture by Báláditya may refer to a reconquest from his brother, perhaps the Chandra referred to in note 10 on page 74. 

77 Beal’s Buddhist Records (I. c.) suggests that Lae-lih is the founder’s name: in his note 50 he seems to regard Lae-lih as the family name. 

78 Bühler. Ep. Ind. I. 238. Dr. Bühler hesitates to identify the Toramáṇa of this inscription with Mihirakula’s father. 

79 Beal’s Buddhist Records, I. xcix.-c. This is the kingdom which the Ye-tha destroyed and afterwards set up Lae-lih to be king over the country. 

80 Maitraka is a Sanskritised form of Mihira and this again is perhaps an adaptation of the widespread and well-known Western Indian tribal name Mer or Med. Compare Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 326–327. It is to be remembered that the name of the emperor then (a.d. 450–500) ruling the White Huns was Khushnáwaz, a Persian name, the Happy Cherisher …. The emperor’s Persian name, Mihirakula’s reported (Darmsteter Jl. Asiatique, X. 70 n. 3) introduction of Magi into Kashmir, and the inaptness of Mihirakula as a personal name give weight to Mr. Fleet’s suggestion (Ind. Ant. XV. 245–252) that Mihirakula is pure Persian. The true form may then be Mihiragula, that is Sun Rose, a name which the personal beauty of the prince may have gained him. ‘I have heard of my son’s wisdom and beauty and wish once to see his face’ said the fate-reading mother of king Báláditya (Beal’s Buddhist Records, I. 169) when the captive Mihirakula was led before her his young head for very shame shrouded in his cloak. 

81 Specht in Jour. Asiatique 1883 II. 335 and 348. 

82 J. R. A. S. XXI. 721. According to other accounts (Ency. Brit. IX. Ed. Art. Turk. page 658) a portion of the Jouen-Jouen remained in Eastern Asia, where, till a.d. 552, they were the masters of the Tuhkiu or Turks, who then overthrew their masters and about ten years later (a.d. 560) crushed the power of the White Huns. 

83 The name Jouen-Jouen seems to agree with Toramáṇa’s surname Jaúvla and with the Juvia whom Cosmas Indikopleustes (a.d. 520–535) places to the north-east of Persia. Priaulx’s Indian Travels, 220. 

84 Rawlinson’s Seventh Monarchy, 311–349. 

85 Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 25 line 1. 

86 Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 19 line 2. 

87 Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins 36. 

88 Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 20. 

89 Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 33. 

90 Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. and Ind. Ant. XVIII. 219. 

91 Priaulx’s Indian Travels, 222. Compare Yule’s Cathay, I. clxx.; Mignes’ Patr. Gr. 88 page 450. For the use of Kula for Mihirakula, the second half for the whole, compare Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 8 note. As regards the change from Kula to Gollas it is to be noted that certain of Mihirakula’s own coins (Ind. Ant. XV 249) have the form Gula not Kula, and that this agrees with the suggestion (page 75 note 6) that the true form of the name is the Persian Mihiragula Rose of the Sun. Of this Gollas, who, like Mihirakula, was the type of conqueror round whom legends gather, Cosmas says (Priaulx, 223): Besides a great force of cavalry Gollas could bring into the field 2000 elephants. So large were his armies that once when besieging an inland town defended by a water-fosse his men horses and elephants drank the water and marched in dry-shod. 

92 Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 18. 

93 Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 33–35. 

94 Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 35 line 5. 

95 Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 151 note 4. 

96 N. Lat. 24° 3′; E. Long. 75° 8′. 

97 Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 33 line 5. 

98 This has already been suggested by Genl. Cunningham, Num. Chron. (3rd Ser.), VIII. 41. Dr. Hœrnle (J. B. A. S. LVIII. 100ff) has identified Yaśodharman with Vikramáditya’s son Śíláditya Pratápaśila. 

99 Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 33 line 6. 

100 Beal’s Buddhist Records, I. 169. 

101 Hœrnle in J. B. A. S. LVIII. 97. 

102 See Smith and Hœrnle J. B. A. S. LVIII. 84; and Fleet Ind. Ant. XIX. 224. 

103 Hœrnle makes light of this difficulty: J. B. A. S. LVIII. 97. 

104 Rawlinson’s Seventh Monarchy, 420, 422. 




(a.d. 509–766.)

Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
Vaḷeh Town, 1893.
Vaḷeh Town, 1893.The Valabhi dynasty, which succeeded the Guptas in Gujarát and Káthiáváḍa, take their name from their capital in the east of Káthiáváḍa about twenty miles west of Bhávnagar and about twenty-five miles north of the holy Jain hill of Śatruñjaya. The modern name of Valabhi is Vaḷeh. It is impossible to say whether the modern Vaḷeh is a corruption of Valahi the Prakrit form of the Sanskrit Valabhi or whether Valabhi is Sanskritised from a local original Vaḷeh. The form Valahi occurs in the writings of Jinaprabhasuri a learned Jain of the thirteenth century who describes Śatruñjaya as in the Valáhaka province. A town in the chiefship of Vaḷeh now occupies the site of old Valabhi,1 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 Vaḷeh 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 Liṅgas 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 [79]
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
Vaḷeh Town, 1893.
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. 630In 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 Aśoka (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 Śíláditya of Málava and the son-in-law of the son of Śíláditya the reigning king of Kanyákubja. His name was Dhruvapaṭu (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.3

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,4 up to the ninth century all temples and religious buildings in Káthiáváḍa and Gujarát were of brick and wood.5 [80]

Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
Valabhi Copperplates.
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 Bhaṭárka 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 Bhaṭárka or the clerks and writers of the plates came from South Gujarát.6 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 sandhivigrahádhikṛita or the military head baládhikṛita, 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 Bhaṭárka 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 dharmaśástras 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 saṃ or the letters saṃva for saṃvatsara 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 [81]
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
Period Covered.
that the Valabhis adopted an era already in use in Káthiáváḍa. No other era seems to have been in use in Valabhi. Three inscriptions have their years dated expressly in the Valabhi Saṃvat. The earliest of these in Bhadrakáli’s temple in Somnáth Pátan is of the time of Kumárapála (a.d. 1143–1174) the Solaṅki ruler of Aṇahilaváḍa. It bears date Valabhi Saṃvat 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 Saṃvat 1320, Valabhi Saṃvat 945, and Siṃha Saṃvat 151. The third inscription, in the same temple on the face of the pedestal of an image of Kṛishṇa 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 Śaka 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 Amśuvarman 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.”7

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) Cháṭabhaṭa that is bhaṭas or sepoys for chitas or rogues, police mounted and on foot, represent the modern police jamádárs haváldárs and constables. The Kumárapála Charita mentions that Cháṭabhaṭas were sent by Siddharája to apprehend the fugitive Kumárapála. One plate records the grant of a village ‘unenterable by cháṭabhaṭas.’8
  • (6) Dhruva fixed or permanent is the hereditary officer in charge of the records and accounts of a village, the Taláti and Kulkarni [82]
    Chapter VIII.
    The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
    Valabhi Administration, a.d. 500–700.
    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.9 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 Káthiáváḍa.
  • (7) Adhikaraṇika means the chief judicial magistrate or judge of a place.
  • (8) Daṇḍapáśika literally ‘holding the fetters or noose of punishment,’ is used both of the head police officer and of the hangman or executioner.
  • (9) Chauroddharaṇika 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 Káthiáváḍa 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) Śaulkika the superintendent of tolls or customs.
  • (14) Bhogika or Bhogoddharaṇika 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 Káthiáváḍa 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.10
  • (16) Pratisaraka patrols night-guards or watchmen of fields and villages.11
  • (17) Vishayapati division-lord probably corresponded to the present subáh.
  • (18) Ráshṭrapati the head of a district.
  • (19) Grámakúṭa 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 Áharaṇí 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.12

Land Assessment.The district of Kaira and the province of Káthiáváḍa to which the Valabhi grants chiefly refer appear to have had separate systems [83]
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
Land Assessment.
of land assessment Kaira by yield Káthiáváḍa by area. Under the Káthiáváḍa 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 Káthiáváḍa grants mention the bhúpádávarta or land pace. The Kaira system of assessment was by yield the unit being the piṭaka 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, Atimaṇa-kedára, Khaṇda-kedára, Gargara-kshetra, Bhíma-kshetra, Khagali-kedára, Śami-kedára.

Religion.The state religion of the Valabhi kings was Śaivism. Every Valabhi copperplate hitherto found bears on its seal the figure of a bull with under it the name of Bhaṭárka the founder of the dynasty who was a Śaiva. Except Dhruvasena I. (a.d. 526) who is called Paramabhágavata or the great Vaishṇava and his brother and successor Dharapaṭṭa who is styled Paramádityabhakta or the great devotee of the sun, and Guhasena, who in his grant of Saṃ. 248 calls himself Paramopásaka or the great devotee of Buddha, all the Valabhi kings are called Parama-máheśvara the great Śaiva.

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 Śaivism. This Śaivism seems to have been of the old Páśupata school of Nakulíśa or Lakulíśa as the chief shrine of Lakulíśa 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.13 The special [84]
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
holiness attached to the Narbadá in Śaivism and to its pebbles as liṅgas is probably due to the neighbourhood of this shrine of Kárván. The followers of the Nakulíśa-Páśupata school were strict devotees of Śaivism, Nakulíśa the founder being regarded as an incarnation of Śiva. 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. Nakulíśa had four disciples Kuśika, 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 Śankaráchárya the Daśanámis or Atíts are in fact Nakulíśas in their discipline doctrines and habits—applying ashes over the whole body, planting a liṅga over the grave of a buried Atít, and possessing proprietary rights over Śaiva temples. The Páśupatas 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 Páśupata 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 Śíláditya IV. is called Bávapádánudhyáta and all subsequent Śíládityas Bappapádánudhyáta both titles meaning Worshipping at the feet of Báva or Bappa.

This Báva is the popular Prakrit form of the older Prakrit or deśí 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:


Falling at the illustrious feet of the great Mahárája Lord Bappa.

These Nepál kings were Śaivas as they are called parama-máheśvara 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 [85]
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
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, Paramabhaṭṭáraka, and Parameśvara are ascribed to Bappa is in agreement with the present use of Mahárája for all priestly Bráhmans and recluses and of Bhaṭṭáraka for Digambara Jain priests. Though specially associated with Śaivas 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.14

Origin of the Valabhis.The tribe or race of Bhaṭárka the founder of the Valabhi dynasty is doubtful. None of the numerous Valabhi copperplates mentions the race of the founder. The Chalukya and Ráshṭrakúṭa 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 Bhaṭárka belonged to some low or stranger tribe. Though the evidence falls short of proof the probability seems strong that Bhaṭárka 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 Bhaṭárka 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 Puráṇic heroes. That such ennobling was not only possible but common is beyond question. Many so-called Rájput families in Gujarát and Káthiáváḍa 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 Karṇa. Again two of the Nándod Gurjjaras Dadda II. and Jayabhaṭa II. helped the Valabhis under circumstances which suggest that the bond of sympathy [86]
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
Origin of the Valabhis.
may have been their common origin. The present chiefs of Nándod derive their lineage from Karṇa 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.15

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 Káthiáváḍa. 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 Bhaṭárka (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.16 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 Káthiáváḍa.

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 Bhaṭárka. Of Senápati Bhaṭárka neither copperplate nor inscription has been found. Certain coins which General Cunningham Arch. Surv. Rept. IX. Pl. V. has ascribed to Bhaṭárka have on the obverse a bust, as on the western coins of [87]
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
First Valabhi Grant, a.d. 526.
Kumáragupta, and on the reverse the Śaiva trident, and round the trident the somewhat doubtful legend in Gupta characters:

Rájño Mahákshatri Paramádityabhakta Śrí Śarvva-bhaṭṭárakasa.

Of the king the great Kshatri, great devotee of the sun, the illustrious Śarvva-bhaṭṭáraka.

This Śarvva seems to have been a Ráshṭrakúṭa 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 Bhaṭṭáraka and Bhaṭárka but because the coiner was a king and the founder of the Valabhis a general.

Senápati Bhaṭárka, a.d. 509–520 ?Of the kingdom which Senápati Bhaṭárka 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 Meḍh or Mehr, the Mehrs being a tribe which at one time seem to have held sway over the whole of Káthiáváḍa and which are still found in strength near the Barda hills in the south-west of Káthiáváḍa.17 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 Káthiáváḍa 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 [88]
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
The Maitrakas, a.d. 470–509.
Húṇas the Mehrs may have joined the conquering armies of the Húṇas and passing south with the Húṇas may have won a settlement in Káthiáváḍa as the Káthis and Jhádejás settled about 300 years later. After Senápati Bhaṭárka’s conquests in the south of the Peninsula the Mehrs seem to have retired to the north of Káthiáváḍa.

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.18 Both the Gurjjaras (a.d. 580) and the Chálukyas (a.d. 642) adopted the existing era of the Traikúṭakas (a.d. 248–9) while as regards currency the practice of continuing the existing type is by no means uncommon.19 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 Bhaṭárka) give a complete genealogy from Bhaṭárka to Dharasena. Later copperplates omit all mention of any descendants but those in the main line.

Senápati’s Sons.Senápati Bhaṭárka had four sons, (1) Dharasena (2) Droṇasiṃha (3) Dhruvasena and (4) Dharapaṭṭa. 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 Droṇasiṃha 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 Bhaṭárka. Probably he was the king to whom Bhaṭárka owed allegiance. It is not clear where Droṇasiṃha was installed king probably it was in Káthiáváḍa from the south-east of which his father and elder brother had driven back the Mehrs or Maitrakas.20 [89]

Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
Dhruvasena I. a.d. 526–535.
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),21 an unpublished grant found in Junágaḍh dated Gupta 210 (a.d. 529), and the Vaḷeh grant dated Gupta 216 (a.d. 535).22 One of Dhruvasena’s attributes Parama-bhaṭṭáraka-pádánudhyáta, Bowing at the feet of the great lord, apparently applies to the same paramount sovereign who installed his brother Droṇasiṃha. The paramount lord can hardly be Dhruvasena’s father as his father is either called Bhaṭárka 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, Mahádaṇḍanáyaka23 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 Droṇasiṃha 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 Bhaṭárka and his elder brothers are described as ‘great Máheśvaras’ that is followers of Śiva, while Dhruvasena himself is called Paramabhágavata the great Vaishṇava. It is worthy of note, as stated in the a.d. 535 grant, that his niece Duḍḍá (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 Dharapaṭṭa or Dharapaṭṭa’s son Guhasena succeeded is doubtful. That Dharapaṭṭa 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 [90]
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
Dhruvasena I. a.d. 526–535.
Guhasena favour the succession of Dharapaṭṭa. 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 Dharapaṭṭa 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 Vaḷeh dated a.d. 559 and 565 (G. 240 and 246)24: the third is from Bhávnagar dated a.d. 567 (G. 248).25 The inscription is on an earthen pot found at Vaḷeh and dated a.d. 566 (G. 247).26 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 Káthiáváḍa 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.27 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 Śaiva and in another the great Buddhist devotee (paramopásaka), while he grants villages to the Buddhist monastery of his paternal aunt’s daughter Duḍḍá. Though a Śaivite Guhasena, like most of his predecessors, tolerated and even encouraged Buddhism. His minister of peace and war is named Skandabhaṭa.

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),28 the fourth dated a.d. 588 (G. 269),29 and the fifth dated a.d. 589 (G. 270).30 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.31 All his copperplates style Dharasena II. Parama-máheśvara Great Śaiva. A gap of eighteen years occurs between a.d. 589 Dharasena’s latest grant and a.d. 607 the earliest grant of his son Śíláditya.

Śíláditya I. a.d. 594–609.Dharasena II. was succeeded by his son Śíláditya I. who is also called Dharmáditya or the sun of religion.

The Śatruñjaya Máhátmya has a prophetic account of one Śíláditya who will be a propagator of religion in Vikrama Saṃvat [91]
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
Śíláditya I. a.d. 590–609.
477 (a.d. 420). This Máhátmya is comparatively modern and is not worthy of much trust. Vikrama Saṃvat 477 would be a.d. 420 when no Valabhi kingdom was established and no Śíláditya can have flourished. If the date 477 has been rightly preserved, and it be taken in the Śaka era it would correspond with Gupta 237 or a.d. 556, that is thirty to forty years before Śíláditya’s reign. Although no reliance can be placed on the date still his second name Dharmáditya gives support to his identification with the Śíláditya of the Máhátmya.

His grants like many of his predecessors style Śíláditya a great devotee of Śiva. 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 Chandrabhaṭṭi; the Dútaka or causer of the gift in two of the Buddhist grants is Bhaṭṭa Ádityayaśas apparently some military officer. The third grant, to a temple of Śiva, has for its Dútaka the illustrious Kharagraha apparently the brother and successor of the king.

Śíláditya’s reign probably began about a.d. 594 (G. 275). His latest grant is dated a.d. 609 (G. 290).32

Kharagraha, a.d. 610–615.Śíláditya was succeeded by his brother Kharagraha, of whom no record has been traced. Kharagraha seems to have been invested with sovereignty by his brother Śíláditya who probably retired from the world. Kharagraha is mentioned as a great devotee of Śiva.

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).33 As observed before, Dhruvasena is probably a Sanskritised form of the popular but meaningless Dhruvapaṭṭa 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 Jayabhaṭa 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 Śrí 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-bhaṭṭáraka, Mahárájádhirája, Parameśvara, 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. [92]

Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
Dharasena IV. a.d. 640–649.
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 Bhaṭṭikávya 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.34 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 Derabhaṭa the son of Dharasena IV.’s paternal grand-uncle. Derabhaṭa 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, Derabhaṭa’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 Peḍhapadra in Vanthali, the modern Vanthali in the Navánagar State of North Káthiáváḍa. 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 Skandabhaṭa.35 The Dútaka or causer of the gift was the Pramátṛi or survey officer Śríná.

Śíláditya III. a.d. 666–675.Kharagraha was succeeded by Śíláditya III. son of Kharagraha’s elder brother Śíláditya II. Śíláditya II. seems not to have ruled at Valabhi but like Derabhaṭa 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 Śíláditya III. remain, two dated a.d. 666 (G. 346)36 and the third dated a.d. 671 (G. 352).37 He is called Parama-bhaṭṭáraka Great Lord, Mahárájádhirája Chief King among Great Kings, and Parameśvara Great Ruler. These titles continue to be applied to all [93]
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
Śíláditya IV. a.d. 691.
subsequent Valabhi kings. Even the name Śíláditya is repeated though each king must have had some personal name.

Śíláditya IV. a.d. 691.Śíláditya III. was succeeded by his son Śíláditya IV. of whom one grant dated a.d. 691 (G. 372) remains. The officer who prepared the grant is mentioned as the general Divirapati Śrí Haragaṇa 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 Śíláditya V.

Śíláditya V. a.d. 722.Of Śíláditya V. the son and successor of Śíláditya 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 Buddhabhaṭṭa, and the gift-causer of both prince Śíláditya.

Śíláditya VI. a.d. 760.Of Śíláditya 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 Gánjaśáti Śrí Jajjar (or Jajjir).

Śíláditya VII. a.d. 766.Of Śíláditya VII. the son and successor of the last, who is also called Dhrúbhaṭa (Sk. Dhruvabhaṭa), one grant dated a.d. 766 (G. 447) remains.

Valabhi Family Tree.The following is the genealogy of the Valabhi Dynasty:

a.d. 509–766.

a.d. 509.
(Gupta 190?).
Dharasena I. Droṇasiṃha. Dhruvasena I.
a.d. 526.
(Gupta 207).
a.d. 559, 565, 567,
(Gupta 240, 246, 248).
Dharasena II.
a.d. 571, 588, 589
(Gupta 252, 269, 270).
Śíláditya I.
or Dharmáditya I.
a.d. 605, 609 (Gupta 286, 290).
Kharagraha I.
Dharasena III. Dhruvasena II.
or Báláditya,
a.d. 629 (Gupta 310).
Śíláditya II. Kharagraha II.
or Dharmáditya II.
a.d. 656 (Gupta 337).
Dhruvasena III.
a.d. 651 (Gupta 332).
Dharasena IV.
a.d. 645, 649,
(Gupta 326, 330).
Śíláditya III.
a.d. 671 (Gupta 352).
Śíláditya IV.
a.d. 691, 698
(Gupta 372 & 379).
Śíláditya V.
a.d. 722 (Gupta 403).
Śíláditya VI.
a.d. 760 (Gupta 441).
Śíláditya VII.
or Dhrúbhaṭa,
a.d. 766 (Gupta 447).


Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
The Fall of Valabhi, a.d. 750–770.
The Fall of Valabhi, a.d. 750–770.Of the overthrow of Valabhi many explanations have been offered.38 The only explanation in agreement with the copperplate evidence that a Śíláditya was ruling at Valabhi as late as a.d. 766 (Val. Saṃ. 447)40 is the Hindu account preserved by Alberuni (a.d. 1030)41 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 [95]
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
The Fall of Valabhi, a.d. 750–770.
that country as are found in places wasted by an unexpected attack.42 For this expedition against Valabhi Alberuni gives no date. But as Mansúra was not founded till a.d. 75043 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.44 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.45 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,46 a town Barada on the south-west coast of Káthiáváḍa the identification [96]
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
The Fall of Valabhi, a.d. 750–770.
of the raids against Barada with the traditional expedition against Balaba though perhaps probable cannot be considered certain. Further the statement of the Sindh historians47 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.48 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.49

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;50 the tracing to Valabhi of the Rána of Udepur in Mewáḍ the head of the Sesodias or Gohils the most exalted of Hindu families51; 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 [97]
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
The Importance of Valabhi, a.d. 750–770.
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 Káthiáváḍa, the separateness though perhaps dependence of Sauráshṭra even in the time of Valabhi’s greatest power,52 the rare mention of Valabhi in contemporary Gujarát grants,53 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 Mewáḍ in their Valabhi origin54 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 Káthiáváḍa 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 Káthiáváḍa 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 Káthiáváḍa and that the Válas of Dhánk still hold the place of heads of the Válas of Káthiáváḍa: And Third that both Sesodias and Válas trace their origin to Kanaksen a second century North Indian immigrant into Káthiáváḍa combine to raise the presumption that the Válas were in Káthiáváḍa before the historical founding of Valabhi in a.d. 52655 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 Káthiáváḍa before the establishment of Valabhi about a.d. 526 [98]
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
Valabhi and the Gehlots.
several considerations bear out the correctness of the Rájput traditions and the Jain records that the Gohils or Sesodias of Mewáḍ came from Bála or Valabhi in Káthiáváḍa. 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 Aṇahilaváḍa (a.d. 746).56 It is further in agreement with the establishment by the Gohil refugees of a town Balli in Mewáḍ; with the continuance as late as a.d. 968 (S. 1024) by the Sesodia chief of the Valabhi title Śíláditya or Sail57; and with the peculiar Valabhi blend of Sun and Śiva worship still to be found in Udepur.58 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.59 Tod61 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).62 By counting back nine generations from Śakti 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 [99]
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
Valabhi and the Gehlots.
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 Mewáḍ for about 800 years.63

The Válas of Káthiáváḍa.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 Vaḷeh until its conquest by Múla Rája Solaṇkhi in a.d. 950.64 Though their bards favour the explanation of Vála from the Gujaráti valvu return or the Persian válah65 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 Śíláditya.66

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 Solaṇkhi (a.d. 950).67 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.68 That the Válas held central Káthiáváḍa is shown by their possession of the old capital Vanthali nine miles south-west of Junágaḍh and by (about a.d. 850) their transfer of that town to the Chúḍásamás.69 Dhánk, about twenty-five miles north-west of Junágaḍh, was apparently held by the Válas under the Jetwas when (a.d. 800–1200?) Ghumli or Bhumli was the capital of south-west Káthiáváḍa. According to Jetwa accounts the Válas were newcomers whom the Jetwas allowed to settle at Dhánk.70 But as the Jetwas are not among the earliest settlers in Káthiáváḍa it seems more probable that, like the Chúḍásamás at Vanthali, the Jetwas found the Válas in possession. The close connection of the Válas with the earlier waves of Káthis is admitted.71 Considering that the present [100]
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
The Válas of Káthiáváḍa.
(1881) total of Káthiáváḍa Vála Rájputs is about 900 against about 9000 Vála Káthis, the Válas,72 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 Tod73 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 Káthiáváḍa (a.d. 470–480). The boast that Bhaṭárka, 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 Káthiáváḍa at an earlier date than the Mers and Jetwas. That is, if the identification is correct, the Válas and Káthis were in Káthiáváḍa 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 Junágaḍh. Since no trace of the Káthis appears in Káthiáváḍa 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 Káthiáváḍa. Both Válas and Káthis would then be northerners driven south from Multán and South [101]
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
The Válas and Káthis.
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.74

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 Káthiáváḍa.75 This tradition, which according to Tod76 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 Junágaḍh 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 Káthiáváḍa is likely to be able to prove. Besides by the Válas Kanaksen is claimed as an ancestor by the Chávaḍás of Okhámandal as the founder of Kanakapurí and as reigning in Kṛishṇa’s throne in Dwárká.77. In support of the form Kanaka for Kanishka is the doubtful Kanaka-Śakas or Kanishka-Śakas of Varáhamihira (a.d. 580).78 The form Kanik is also used by Alberuni79 for the famous Vihára or monastery at Pesháwar of whose founder Kanak Alberuni retails many widespread legends. Tod80 says; ‘If the traditional date (a.d. 144) of Kanaksen’s arrival in Káthiáváḍa 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 Káthiáváḍa. 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 Kośalaputra and brings him from Lohkot in North India.81 Kośala 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.82 [102]

Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
Mewáḍ and the Persians.
Mewáḍ and the Persians.One further point requires notice, the traditional connection between Valabhi and the Ránás of Mewáḍ with the Sassanian kings of Persia (a.d. 250–650). In support of the tradition Abul Fazl (a.d. 1590) says the Ránás of Mewáḍ consider themselves descendants of the Sassanian Naushirván (a.d. 531–579) and Tod quotes fuller details from the Persian history Maaser-al-Umra.83 No evidence seems to support a direct connection with Naushirván.84 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.85 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 Procopius86 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 Káthiáváḍa and Mewáḍ 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 Káthiáváḍa and Mewáḍ Rájputs came to believe in some family connection between their chiefs and the fireworshipping kings of Persia.87

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.88 Among the tribes mentioned in Varáha-Mihira’s sixth century (a.d. 580)89 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. 380–400,90 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 Harivaṃśa (a.d. 350–500 ?) are not as Langlois supposed people then ruling [103]
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
in Balkh but people then established in India.91 Does it follow that the Válhikas of the inscriptions and the Bálhikas of the Harivaṃśa 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?92 Of the two Mahábhárata forms Báhika and Bálhika recent scholars have preferred Bálhika with the sense of people of Balkh or Baktria.93 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.94 This explanation does not remove the difficulty caused by references to Báhikas and Bálhikas95 in Páṇini 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 [104]
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
if the form Bahlika occurs in Páṇini or other earlier writers it is a mistaken form due to some copyist’s confusion with the later name Bahlika. As used by Páṇini 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.97 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.98 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.99 [105]
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
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. Martin100 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 remembering101 Páṇini’s description of the Málavas and Kshudrakas as two Báhika tribes of the North-West the fact that Páṇini 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.102 As the Greeks sounded their kh (χ) as a spirant, the Indian Báhika would strike them as almost the exact equivalent of their own word βακχικος. More than one of Alexander’s writers has curious references to a Bacchic element in the Panjáb tribes. Arrian103 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 Curtius104 the name of Father Bacchus was famous among the people to the south of the Malloi. These references are vague. But Strabo is definite.105 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.106 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. Strabo107 gives two reasons why the Oxydrakai [106]
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
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.108 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.109 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 Káthiáváḍa 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 Káthiáváḍa 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:110 ‘The great marriage festival of the Káthiáváḍa 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 Káthiáváḍa as to be considered aboriginals their own tradition preserves the memory of a former settlement in Márwár.111 This tradition is supported by the fact that the shrine of the family goddess of the Cutch Rabáris is in Jodhpur,112 and by the claim of the Cutch Bharváds that their home is in the North-West Provinces.113 [107]

1 Mr. Vajeshankar Gavrishankar, Náib Diván of Bhávnagar, has made a collection of articles found in Valabhi. The collection includes clay seals of four varieties and of about the seventh century with the Buddhist formula Ye Dhárma hetu Prabhavá: a small earthen tope with the same formula imprinted on its base with a seal; beads and ring stones nangs of several varieties of akik or carnelian and sphatik or coral some finished others half finished showing that as in modern Cambay the polishing of carnelians was a leading industry in early Valabhi. One circular figure of the size of a half rupee carved in black stone has engraved upon it the letters ma ro in characters of about the second century.2 A royal seal found by Colonel Watson in Vaḷeh bears on it an imperfect inscription of four lines in characters as old as Dhruvasena I. (a.d. 526). This seal contains the names of three generations of kings, two of which the grandfather and grandson read Ahivarmman and Pushyáṇa all three being called Mahárája or great king. The dynastic name is lost. The names on these moveable objects need not belong to Valabhi history. Still that seals of the second and fifth centuries have been discovered in Valabhi shows the place was in existence before the founding of the historical Valabhi kingdom. A further proof of the age of the city is the mention of it in the Kathásarit-ságara a comparatively modern work but of very old materials. To this evidence of age, with much hesitation, may be added Balai Ptolemy’s name for Gopnáth point which suggests that as early as the second century Vaḷeh or Baleh (compare Alberuni’s era of Balah) was known by its present name. Badly minted coins of the Gupta ruler Kumáragupta (a.d. 417–453) are so common as to suggest that they were the currency of Valabhi. 

2 The ma and ra are of the old style and the side and upper strokes, that is the káno and mátra of ro are horizontal. 

3 As suggested by Dr. Bühler (Ind. Ant. VI. 10), this is probably the Vihára called Śrí Bappapádiyavihára which is described as having been constructed by Áchárya Bhadanta Sthiramati who is mentioned as the grantee in a copperplate of Dharasena II. bearing date Gupta 269 (a.d. 588). The Sthiramati mentioned with titles of religious veneration in the copperplate is probably the same as that referred to by Hiuen Tsiang. (Ditto). 

4 Burgess’ Káthiáwár and Kutch, 187. 

5 Stories on record about two temples one at Śatruñjaya the other at Somanátha support this view. As regards the Śatruñjaya temple the tradition is that while the minister of Kumárapála (a.d. 1143–1174) of Aṇahilaváḍa was on a visit to Śatruñjaya to worship and meditate in the temple of Ádinátha, the wick of the lamp in the shrine was removed by mice and set on fire and almost destroyed the temple which was wholly of wood. The minister seeing the danger of wooden buildings determined to erect a stone edifice (Kumárapála Charita). The story about Somanátha is given in an inscription of the time of Kumárapála in the temple of Bhadrakáli which shows that before the stone temple was built by Bhímadeva I. (a.d. 1022–1072) the structure was of wood which was traditionally believed to be as old as the time of Kṛishṇa. Compare the Bhadrakáli inscription at Somanátha. 

6 The correctness of this inference seems open to question. The descent of the Valabhi plate character seems traceable from its natural local source the Skandagupta (a.d. 450) and the Rudradáman (a.d. 150) Girnár Inscriptions.—(A. M. T. J.) 

7 The era has been exhaustively discussed by Mr. Fleet in Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Introduction. 

8 Nepaul Inscriptions. The phrase acháṭa-bhaṭa is not uncommon. Mr. Fleet (Corp. Ins. Ind. III. page 98 note 2) explains acháṭa-bhaṭa-praveśya as “not to be entered either by regular (bhaṭa) or by irregular (cháṭa) troops.” 

9 Bühler in Ind. Ant. V. 205. 

10 Ind. Ant. VII. 68. 

11 Ind. Ant. VII. 68. 

12 Of the different territorial divisions the following examples occur: Of Vishaya or main division Svabhágapuravishaye and Súryapuravishaye: of Áhára or collectorate Kheṭaka-áhára the Kaira district and Hastavapra-áhára or Hastavapráharaṇí the Háthab district near Bhávnagar: of Pathaka or sub-division Nagar-panthaka Porbandar-panthaka (Pársis still talk of Navsári panthaka): of Sthali or petty division Vaṭasthalí, Loṇápadrakasthalí, and others. 

13 Kárván seems to have suffered great desecration at the hands of the Musalmáns. All round the village chiefly under pipal trees, images and pieces of sculpture and large liṅgas lie scattered. To the north and east of the village on the banks of a large built pond called Káśíkuṇḍa are numerous sculptures and liṅgas. Partly embedded in the ground a pillar in style of about the eleventh century has a writing over it of latter times. The inscription contains the name of the place Sanskritised as Káyávarohana, and mentions an ascetic named Vírabahadraráśi who remained mute for twelve years. Near the pillar, at the steps leading to the water, is a carved doorway of about the tenth or eleventh century with some well-proportioned figures. The left doorpost has at the top a figure of Śiva, below the Śiva a figure of Súrya, below the Súrya a male and female, and under them attendants or gaṇas of Śiva. The right doorpost has at the top a figure of Vishṇu seated on Garuḍa, below the seated Vishṇu a standing Vishṇu with four hands, and below that two sitting male and female figures, the male with hands folded in worship the female holding a purse. These figures probably represent a married pair who paid for this gateway. Further below are figures of gaṇas of Śiva. In 1884 in repairing the south bank of the pond a number of carved stones were brought from the north of the town. About half a mile north-west of the town on the bank of a dry brook, is a temple of Chámundá Deví of about the tenth century. It contains a mutilated life-size image of Chámundá. Facing the temple lie mutilated figures of the seven Mátrikás and of Bhairava, probably the remains of a separate altar facing the temple with the mátri-maṇḍala or Mother-Meeting upon it. The village has a large modern temple of Śiva called Nakleśvara, on the site of some old temple and mostly built of old carved temple stones. In the temple close by are a number of old images of the sun and the boar incarnation of Vishṇu all of about the tenth or eleventh century. The name Nakleśvara would seem to have been derived from Nakuliśa the founder of the Páśupata sect and the temple may originally have had an image of Nakuliśa himself or a liṅga representing Nakulíśa. Close to the west of the village near a small dry reservoir called the Kuṇḍa of Rájarájeśvara lies a well-preserved black stone seated figure of Chaṇḍa one of the most respected of Śiva’s attendants, without whose worship all worship of Śiva is imperfect, and to whom all that remains after making oblations to Śiva is offered. A number of other sculptures lie on the bank of the pond. About a mile to the south of Kárván is a village called Lingthali the place of liṅgas

14 Compare Beal Buddhist Records, II. 268 note 76 and Ind. Ant. VI. 9. The meaning and reference of the title Bappa have been much discussed. The question is treated at length by Mr. Fleet (Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 186 note 1) with the result that the title is applied not to a religious teacher but to the father and predecessor of the king who makes the grant. According to Mr. Fleet bappa would be used in reference to a father, báva in reference to an uncle. 

15 Whether the Valabhis were or were not Gurjjaras the following facts favour the view that they entered Gujarát from Málwa. It has been shown (Fleet Ind. Ant. XX. 376) that while the Guptas used the so-called Northern year beginning with Chaitra, the Valabhi year began with Kártika (see Ind. Ant. XX. 376). And further Kielhorn in his examination of questions connected with the Vikrama era (Ind. Ant. XIX. and XX.) has given reasons for believing that the original Vikrama year began with Kártika and took its rise in Málwa. It seems therefore that when they settled in Gujarát, while they adopted the Gupta era the Valabhis still adhered to the old arrangement of the year to which they had been accustomed in their home in Málwa. The arrangement of the year entered into every detail of their lives, and was therefore much more difficult to change than the starting point of their era, which was important only for official acts.—(A. M. T. J.) 

16 Montfauçon’s Edition in Priaulx’s Indian Travels, 222–223. It seems doubtful if Cosmas meant that Gollas’ overlordship spread as far south as Kalyán. Compare Migne’s Patrologiæ Cursus, lxxxviii. 466; Yule’s Cathay, I. clxx. 

17 The Mehrs seem to have remained in power also in north-east Káthiáváḍa till the thirteenth century. Mokheráji Gohil the famous chief of Piram was the son of a daughter of Dhan Mehr or Mair of Dhanduka, Rás Mála, I. 316. 

18 All the silver and copper coins found in Valabhi and in the neighbouring town of Sihor are poor imitations of Kumáragupta’s (a.d. 417–453) and of Skandagupta’s (a.d. 454–470) coins, smaller lighter and of bad almost rude workmanship. The only traces of an independent currency are two copper coins of Dharasena, apparently Dharasena IV., the most powerful of the dynasty who was called Chakravartin or Emperor. The question of the Gupta-Valabhi coins is discussed in Jour. Royal As. Socy. for Jan. 1893 pages 133–143. Dr. Bühler (page 138) holds the view put forward in this note of Dr. Bhagvánlál’s namely that the coins are Valabhi copies of Gupta currency. Mr. Smith (Ditto, 142–143) thinks they should be considered the coins of the kings whose names they bear. 

19 The three types of coins still current at Ujjain, Bhilsa, and Gwálior in the territories of His Highness Sindhia are imitations of the previous local Muhammadan coinage. 

20 As the date of Droṇasiṃha’s investiture is about a.d. 520 it is necessary to consider what kings at this period claimed the title of supreme lord and could boast of ruling the whole earth. The rulers of this period whom we know of are Mihirakula, Yaśodharman Vishṇuvardhana, the descendants of Kumáragupta’s son Puragupta, and the Gupta chiefs of Eastern Málwa. Neither Toramáṇa nor Mihirakula appears to have borne the paramount title of Parameśvara though the former is called Mahárájádhirája in the Eraṇ inscription and Avanipati or Lord of the Earth (= simply king) on his coins: in the Gwálior inscription Mihirakula is simply called Lord of the Earth. He was a powerful prince but he could hardly claim to be ruler of “the whole circumference of the earth.” He therefore cannot be the installer of Droṇasiṃha. Taking next the Guptas of Magadha we find on the Bhitári seal the title of Mahárájádhirája given to each of them, but there is considerable reason to believe that their power had long since shrunk to Magadha and Eastern Málwa, and if Hiuen Tsiang’s Báláditya is Narasiṃhagupta, he must have been about a.d. 520 a feudatory of Mihirakula, and could not be spoken of as supreme lord, nor as ruler of the whole earth. The Guptas of Málwa have even less claim to these titles, as Bhánugupta was a mere Mahárája, and all that is known of him is that he won a battle at Eraṇ in Eastern Málwa in a.d. 510–11. Last of all comes Vishṇuvardhana or Yaśodharman of Mandasor. In one of the Mandasor inscriptions he has the titles of Rájádhirája and Parameśvara (a.d. 532–33); in another he boasts of having carried his conquests from the Lauhitya (Brahmaputra) to the western ocean and from the Himálaya to mount Mahendra. It seems obvious that Yaśodharman is the Paramasvámi of the Valabhi plate, and that the reference to the western ocean relates to Bhaṭárka’s successes against the Maitrakas.—(A.M.T.J.) 

21 Ind. Ant. V. 204. 

22 Ind. Ant. IV. 104. 

23 In a commentary on the Kalpasútra Daṇḍanáyaka is described as meaning Tantrapâla that is head of a district. 

24 Ind. Ant. VII. 66; IV. 174. 

25 Ind. Ant. V. 206. 

26 Ind. Ant. XIV. 75. 

27 Kumárápála-Charita, Abu Inscriptions. 

28 Ind. Ant. VIII. 302, VII. 68, XIII. 160. 

29 Ind. Ant. VI. 9. 

30 Ind. Ant. VII. 90. 

31 This change of title was probably connected with the increase of Gurjara power, which resulted in the founding of the Gurjara kingdom of Broach about a.d. 580. See Chapter X. below. 

32 Ind. Ant. XI. 306. 

33 Ind. Ant. VI. 13. 

34 Kávyamidam rachitam mayá Valabhyám, Śrí Dharasena-narendra pálitáyám. 

35 Ind. Ant. VII. 76. 

36 Journ. Beng. A. S. IV. and an unpublished grant in the museum of the B. B. R. A. Soc. 

37 Ind. Ant. XI. 305. 

38 Since his authorities mention the destroyers of Valabhi under the vague term mlechchhas or barbarians and since the era in which they date the overthrow may be either the Vikrama b.c. 57, the Śaka a.d. 78, or the Valabhi a.d. 319, Tod is forced to offer many suggestions. His proposed dates are a.d. 244 Vik. Saṃ. 300 (Western India, 269), a.d. 424 Val. Saṃ. 105 (Ditto, 51 and 214), a.d. 524 Val. Saṃ. 205 (Annals of Rájasthán, I. 83 and 217–220), and a.d. 619 Val. Saṃ. 300 (Western India, 352). Tod identifies the barbarian destroyers of Valabhi either with the descendants of the second century Parthians, or with the White Huns Getes or Káthis, or with a mixture of these who in the beginning of the sixth century supplanted the Parthians (An. of Ráj. I. 83 and 217–220; Western India, 214, 352). Elliot (History, I. 408) accepting Tod’s date a.d. 524 refers the overthrow to Skythian barbarians from Sindh. Elphinstone, also accepting a.d. 524 as an approximate date, suggested (History, 3rd Edition, 212) as the destroyer the Sassanian Naushirván or Chosroes the Great (a.d. 531–579) citing in support of a Sassanian inroad Malcolm’s Persia, I. 141 and Pottinger’s Travels, 386. Forbes (Rás Málá, I. 22) notes that the Jain accounts give the date of the overthrow Vik. Saṃ. 375 that is a.d. 319 apparently in confusion with the epoch of the Gupta era which the Valabhi kings adopted.39 Forbes says (Ditto, 24): If the destroyers had not been called mlechchhas I might have supposed them to be the Dakhan Chálukyas. Genl. Cunningham (Anc. Geog. 318) holds that the date of the destruction was a.d. 658 and the destroyer the Ráshṭrakúṭa Rája Govind who restored the ancient family of Sauráshṭra. Thomas (Prinsep’s Useful Tables, 158) fixes the destruction of Valabhi at a.d. 745 (S. 802). In the Káthiáwár Gazetteer Col. Watson in one passage (page 671) says the destroyers may have been the early Muhammadans who retired as quickly as they came. In another passage (page 274), accepting Mr. Burgess’ (Arch. Sur. Rep. IV. 75) Gupta era of a.d. 195 and an overthrow date of a.d. 642, and citing a Wadhwán couplet telling how Ebhal Valabhi withstood the Iranians, Col. Watson suggests the destroyers may have been Iranians. If the Pársis came in a.d. 642 they must have come not as raiders but as refugees. If they could they would not have destroyed Valabhi. If the Pársis destroyed Valabhi where next did they flee to. 

39 Similarly S. 205 the date given by some of Col. Tod’s authorities (An. of Ráj. I. 82 and 217–220) represents a.d. 524 the practical establishment of the Valabhi dynasty. The mistake of ascribing an era to the overthrow not to the founding of a state occurs (compare Sachau’s Alberuni, II. 6) in the case both of the Vikrama era b.c. 57 and of the Śáliváhana era a.d. 78. In both these cases the error was intentional. It was devised with the aim of hiding the supremacy of foreigners in early Hindu history. So also, according to Alberuni’s information (Sachau, II. 7) the Guptakála a.d. 319 marks the ceasing not the beginning of the wicked and powerful Guptas. This device is not confined to India. His Mede informant told Herodotus (b.c. 450 Rawlinson’s Herodotus, I. 407) that b.c. 708 was the founding of the Median monarchy. The date really marked the overthrow of the Medes by the Assyrian Sargon. 

40 Tod (An. of Ráj. I. 231) notices what is perhaps a reminiscence of this date (a.d. 766). It is the story that Bappa, who according to Mewáḍ tradition is the founder of Gehlot power at Chitor, abandoned his country for Irán in a.d. 764 (S. 820). It seems probable that this Bappa or Saila is not the founder of Gehlot power at Chitor, but, according to the Valabhi use of Bappa, is the founder’s father and that this retreat to Irán refers to his being carried captive to Mansúra on the fall either of Valabhi or of Gandhár. 

41 Reinaud’s Fragments, 143 note 1; Mémoire Sur l’Inde, 105; Sachau’s Alberuni, I. 193. The treachery of the magician Ranka is the same cause as that assigned by Forbes (Rás Málá, I. 12–18) from Jain sources. The local legend (Ditto, 18) points the inevitable Tower of Siloam moral, a moral which (compare Rás Málá, I. 18) is probably at the root of the antique tale of Lot and the Cities of the Plain, that men whose city was so completely destroyed must have been sinners beyond others. Dr. Nicholson (J. R. A. S. Ser. I. Vol. XIII. page 153) in 1851 thought the site of Valabhi bore many traces of destruction by water. 

42 Lassen (Ind. Alt. III. 533) puts aside Alberuni’s Arab expedition from Mansúra as without historical support and inadmissible. Lassen held that Valabhi flourished long after its alleged destruction from Mansúra. Lassen’s statement (see Ind. Alt. III. 533) is based on the mistaken idea that as the Valabhis were the Balharas the Balharas’ capital Mánkir must be Valabhi. So far as is known, except Alberuni himself (see below) none of the Arab geographers of the ninth, tenth or eleventh centuries mentions Valabhi. It is true that according to Lassen (Ind. Alt. 536) Masudi a.d. 915, Istakhri a.d. 951, and Ibn Háukal a.d. 976 all attest the existence of Valabhi up to their own time. This remark is due either to the mistake regarding Malkhet or to the identification of Bálwi or Balzi in Sindh (Elliot’s History, I. 27–34) with Valabhi. The only known Musalmán reference to Valabhi later than a.d. 750 is Alberuni’s statement (Sachau, II. 7) that the Valabhi of the era is 30 yojanas or 200 miles south of Aṇahilaváḍa. That after its overthrow Valabhi remained, as it still continues, a local town has been shown in the text. Such an after-life is in no way inconsistent with its destruction as a leading capital in a.d. 767. 

43 According to Alberuni (Sachau, I. 21) Al Mansúra, which was close to Bráhmanábád about 47 miles north-east of Haidarábád (Elliot’s Musalmán Historians, I. 372–374) was built by the great Muhammad Kásim about a.d. 713. Apparently Alberuni wrote Muhammad Kásim by mistake for his grandson Amru Muhammad (Elliot, I. 372 note 1 and 442–3), who built the city a little before a.d. 750. Reinaud (Fragments, 210) makes Amru the son of Muhammad Kásim. Masudi (a.d. 915) gives the same date (a.d. 750), but (Elliot, I. 24) makes the builder the Ummayide governor Mansúr bin Jamhur. Idrísi (a.d. 1137 Elliot, I. 78) says Mansúra was built and named in honour of the Khalif Abu Jáfar-al-Mansur. If so its building would be later than a.d. 754. On such a point Idrísi’s authority carries little weight. 

44 Elliot, I. 244. 

45 That the word read Barada by Elliot is in the lax pointless shikasta writing is shown by the different proposed readings (Elliot, I. 444 note 1) Nárand, Barand, and Barid. So far as the original goes Balaba is probably as likely a rendering as Barada. Reinaud (Fragments, 212) says he cannot restore the name. 

46 Though, except as applied to the Porbandar range of hills, the name Barada is almost unknown, and though Ghumli not Barada was the early (eighth-twelfth century) capital of Porbandar some place named Barada seems to have existed on the Porbandar coast. As early as the second century a.d., Ptolemy (McCrindle, 37) has a town Barda-xema on the coast west of the village Kome (probably the road or kom) of Sauráshṭra; and St. Martin (Geographie Grecque et Latine de l’Inde, 203) identifies Pliny’s (a.d. 77) Varetatæ next the Odomberæ or people of Kachh with the Varadas according to Hemachandra (a.d. 1150) a class of foreigners or mlechchhas. A somewhat tempting identification of Barada is with Beruni’s Bárwi (Sachau, I. 208) or Baraoua (Reinaud’s Fragments, 121) 84 miles (14 parasangs) west of Somanátha. But an examination of Beruni’s text shows that Bárwi is not the name of a place but of a product of Kachh the bára or bezoar stone. 

47 Elliot, I. 445. 

48 Compare Tod (Annals, I. 83 and 217). Gajni or Gayni another capital whence the last prince Śíláditya was expelled by Parthian invaders in the sixth century. 

49 Compare Reinaud (Fragments, 212 note 4) who identifies it with the Áin-i-Akbari Kandahár that is Gandhár in Broach. The identification is doubtful. Tod (Annals, I. 217) names the fort Gajni or Gayni and there was a fort Gajni close to Cambay. Elliot (I. 445) would identify the Arab Kandahár with Khandadár in north-west Káthiáváḍa.

Even after a.d. 770 Valabhi seems to have been attacked by the Arabs. Dr. Bhagvánlál notices that two Jain dates for the destruction of the city 826 and 886 are in the Vira era and that this means not the Mahávira era of b.c. 526 but the Vikram era of b.c. 57. The corresponding dates are therefore a.d. 769 and 829. Evidence in support of the a.d. 769 and 770 defeat is given in the text. On behalf of Dr. Bhagvánlál’s second date a.d. 829 it is remarkable that in or about a.d. 830 (Elliot, I. 447) Músa the Arab governor of Sindh captured Bála the ruler of As Sharqi. As there seems no reason to identify this As Sharqi with the Sindh lake of As Sharqi mentioned in a raid in a.d. 750 (Elliot, I. 441: J. R. A. S. (1893) page 76) the phrase would mean Bála king of the east. The Arab record of the defeat of Bála would thus be in close agreement with the Jain date for the latest foreign attack on Valabhi. 

50 The identification of the Balharas of the Arab writers with the Chálukyas (a.d. 500–753) and Ráshṭrakúṭas (a.d. 753–972) of Málkhet in the East Dakhan has been accepted. The vagueness of the early (a.d. 850–900) Arab geographers still more the inaccuracy of Idrísi (a.d. 1137) in placing the Balharas capital in Gujarát (Elliot, I. 87) suggested a connection between Balhara and Valabhi. The suitableness of this identification was increased by the use among Rájput writers of the title Balakarai for the Valabhi chief (Tod An. of Ráj. I. 83) and the absence among either the Chálukyas (a.d. 500–753) or the Ráshṭrakúṭas (a.d. 753–972) of Málkhet of any title resembling Balhara. Prof. Bhandárkar’s (Deccan History, 56–57) discovery that several of the early Chálukyas and Ráshṭrakúṭas had the personal name Vallabha Beloved settled the question and established the accuracy of all Masudi’s (a.d. 915) statements (Elliot, I. 19–21) regarding the Balhara who ruled the Kamkar, that is Kamrakara or Karnáṭak (Sachau’s Beruni, I. 202; II. 318) and had their Kánarese (Kiriya) capital at Mankir (Málkhet) 640 miles from the coast. 

51 After their withdrawal from Valabhi to Mewáḍ the Válas took the name of Gehlot (see below page 98), then of Aharya from a temporary capital near Udepur (Tod’s An. of Ráj. I. 215), next of Sesodia in the west of Mewáḍ (Tod’s An. of Raj. I. 216; Western India, 57). Since 1568 the Rána’s head-quarters have been at Udepur. Ráj. Gaz. III. 18. After the establishment of their power in Chitor (a.d. 780), a branch of the Gehlot or Gohil family withdrew to Kheir in south-west Márwár. These driven south by the Ráthoḍs in the end of the twelfth century are the Gohils of Piram, Bhávnagar, and Rájpipla in Káthiáváḍa and Gujarát. Tod’s Annals of Ráj. I. 114, 228. 

52 The somewhat doubtful Jáikadeva plates (above page 87 and Káthiáváḍa Gazetteer, 275) seem to show the continuance of Maitraka power in North Káthiáváḍa. This is supported by the expedition of the Arab chief of Sandhán in Kachch (a.d. 840) against the Medhs of Hind which ended in the capture of Mália in North Káthiáváḍa. Elliot, I. 450. Hiuen Tsiang (a.d. 630) (Beal’s Buddhist Records, II. 69) describes Sauráshṭra as a separate state but at the same time notes its dependence on Valabhi. Its rulers seem to have been Mehrs. In a.d. 713 (Elliot, I. 123) Muhammad Kasim made peace with the men of Surasht, Medhs, seafarers, and pirates. 

53 The only contemporary rulers in whose grants a reference to Valabhi has been traced are the Gurjjaras of Broach (a.d. 580–808) one of whom, Dadda II. (a.d. 633), is said (Ind. Ant. XIII. 79) to have gained renown by protecting the lord of Valabhi who had been defeated by the illustrious Śrí Harshadeva (a.d. 608–649), and another Jayabhaṭa in a.d. 706 (Ind. Ant. V. 115) claims to have quieted with the sword the impetuosity of the lord of Valabhi. 

54 Tod An. of Raj. I. 217: Western India, 269. 

55 Tod An. of Raj. I. 112 and Western India, 148: Rás Málá, I. 21. It is not clear whether these passages prove that the Sesodias or only the Válas claim an early settlement at Dhánk. In any case (see below page 101) both clans trace their origin to Kanaksen. 

56 Tod’s Western India, 51. 

57 Tod’s An. of Raj. I. 230. 

58 The cherished title of the later Valabhis, Śíláditya Sun of Virtue, confirms the special sun worship at Valabhi, which the mention of Dharapaṭṭa (a.d. 550) as a devotee of the supreme sun supports, and which the legends of Valabhi’s sun-horse and sun-fountain keep fresh (Rás Málá, I. 14–18). So the great one-stone liṅgas, the most notable trace of Valabhi city (J. R. A. S. Ser. I. Vol. XIII. 149 and XVII. 271), bear out the Valabhi copperplate claim that its rulers were great worshippers of Śiva. Similarly the Rána of Udepur, while enjoying the title of Sun of the Hindus, prospering under the sun banner, and specially worshipping the sun (Tod’s Annals, I. 565) is at the same time the Minister of Śiva the One Liṅg Eklingakadiwán (Ditto 222, Ráj. Gaz. III. 53). The blend is natural. The fierce noon-tide sun is Mahákála the Destroyer. Like Śiva the Sun is lord of the Moon. And marshalled by Somanátha the great Soul Home the souls of the dead pass heavenwards along the rays of the setting sun. [Compare Sachau’s Alberuni, II. 168.] It is the common sun element in Śaivism and in Vaishnavism that gives their holiness to the sunset shrines of Somanátha and Dwárka. For (Ditto, 169) the setting sun is the door whence men march forth into the world of existence Westwards, heavenwards. 

59 This explanation is hardly satisfactory. The name Gehlot seems to be Guhila-putra from Gobhila-putra an ancient Bráhman gotra, one of the not uncommon cases of Rájputs with a Bráhman gotra. The Rájput use of a Bráhman gotra is generally considered a technical affiliation, a mark of respect for some Bráhman teacher. It seems doubtful whether the practice is not a reminiscence of an ancestral Bráhman strain. This view finds confirmation in the Aitpur inscription (Tod’s Annals, I. 802) which states that Guhadit the founder of the Gohil tribe was of Bráhman race Vipra kula. Compare the legend (Rás Málá, I. 13) that makes the first Śíláditya of Valabhi (a.d. 590–609) the son of a Bráhman woman. Compare (Elliot, I. 411) the Bráhman Chách (a.d. 630–670) marrying the widow of the Sháhi king of Alor in Sindh who is written of as a Rájput though like the later (a.d. 850–1060) Shahiyas of Kábul (Alberuni, Sachau II. 13) the dynasty may possibly have been Bráhmans.60 The following passage from Hodgson’s Essays (J. A. Soc. Bl. II. 218) throws light on the subject: Among the Khás or Rájputs of Nepál the sons of Bráhmans by Khás women take their fathers’ gotras. Compare Ibbetson’s Panjáb Census 1881 page 236. 

60 In support of a Bráhman origin is Prinsep’s conjecture (J. A. S. Bl. LXXIV. [Feb. 1838] page 93) that Divaij the name of the first recorded king may be Dvija or Twice-born. But Divaij for Deváditya, like Silaij for Śíláditya, seems simpler and the care with which the writer speaks of Chach as the Bráhman almost implies that his predecessors were not Bráhmans. According to Elliot (II. 426) the Páls of Kábul were Rájputs, perhaps Bhattias. 

61 Tod’s Annals, I. 229–231. 

62 Annals, I. 229. 

63 Gladwin’s Áin-i-Akbari, II. 81; Tod’s Annals, I. 235 and note *. Tod’s dates are confused. The Aitpur inscription (Ditto, page 230) gives Śakti Kumára’s date a.d. 968 (S. 1024) while the authorities which Tod accepts (Ditto, 231) give a.d. 1068 (S. 1125). That the Moris were not driven out of Chitor as early as a.d. 728 is proved by the Navsárí inscription which mentions the Arabs defeating the Mauryas as late as a.d. 738–9 (Saṃ. 490). See above page 56

64 Tod Western India 268 says Siddha Rája (a.d. 1094–1143): Múla Rája (a.d. 942–997) seems correct. See Rás Málá, I. 65. 

65 Káthiáwár Gazetteer, 672. 

66 The chronicles of Bhadrod, fifty-one miles south-west of Bhávnagar, have (Káth. Gaz. 380) a Selait Vála as late as a.d. 1554. 

67 Káthiáwár Gazetteer, 672. Another account places the movement south after the arrival of the Gohils a.d. 1250. According to local traditions the Válas did not pass to Bhadrod near Mahuva till a.d. 1554 (Káth. Gaz. 380) and from Bhadrod (Káth. Gaz. 660) retired to Dholarva. 

68 Káth. Gaz. 111 and 132. According to the Áin-i-Akbari (Gladwin, II. 60) the inhabitants of the ports of Mahua and Tulája were of the Vála tribe. 

69 Káth. Gaz. 680. 

70 Káth. Gaz. 414. 

71 The Vála connection with the Káthis complicates their history. Col. Watson (Káth. Gaz. 130) seems to favour the view that the Válas were the earliest wave of Káthis who came into Káthiáváḍa from Málwa apparently with the Guptas (a.d. 450) (Ditto, 671). Col. Watson seems to have been led to this conclusion in consequence of the existence of the petty state of Kátti in west Khándesh. But the people of the Kátti state in west Khándesh are Bhils or Kolis. Neither the people nor the position of the country seems to show connection with the Káthis of Káthiáváḍa. Col. Watson (Káth. Gaz. 130) inclines to hold that the Válas are an example of the rising of a lower class to be Rájputs. That both Válas and Káthis are northerners admitted into Hinduism may be accepted. Still it seems probable that on arrival in Káthiáváḍa the Válas were the leaders of the Káthis and that it is mainly since the fall of Valabhi that a large branch of the Válas have sunk to be Káthis. The Káthi traditions admit the superiority of the Válas. According to Tod (Western India, 270: Annals, I. 112–113) the Káthis claim to be a branch or descendants of the Válas. In Káthiáváḍa the Válas, the highest division of Káthis (Rás Málá, I. 296; Káth. Gaz. 122, 123, 131, 139), admit that their founder was a Vála Rájput who lost caste by marrying a Káthi woman. Another tradition (Rás Málá, I. 296; Káth. Gaz. 122 note 1) records that the Káthis flying from Sindh took refuge with the Válas and became their followers. Col. Watson (Káth. Gaz. 130) considers the practice in Porbandar and Navánagar of styling any lady of the Dhánk Vála family who marries into their house Káthiáníbái the Káthi lady proves that the Válas are Káthis. But as this name must be used with respect it may be a trace that the Válas claim to be lords of the Káthis as the Jetwas claim to be lords of the Mers. That the position of the Válas and Káthis as Rájputs is doubtful in Káthiáváḍa and is assured (Tod’s Annals, I. 111) in Rájputána is strange. The explanation may perhaps be that aloofness from Muhammadans is the practical test of honour among Rájputána Hindus, and that in the troubled times between the thirteenth and the seventeenth centuries, like the Jhálás, the Válas and Káthis may have refused Moghal alliances, and so won the approval of the Ránás of Mewáḍ. 

72 Káth. Gaz. 110–129. 

73 Western India, 207; Annals, I. 112–113. 

74 It is worthy of note that Bálas and Káthiás are returned from neighbouring Panjáb districts. Bálas from Dehra Ismail Khán (Panjáb Census Report 1891 Part III. 310), Káthiá Rájputs from Montgomery (Ditto, 318), and Káthiá Játs from Jhang and Dera Ismail Khán (Ditto, 143). Compare Ibbetson’s (1881) Panjáb Census, I. 259, where the Káthias are identified with the Kathaioi who fought Alexander the Great (b.c. 325) and also with the Káthis of Káthiáváḍa. According to this report (page 240) the Válas are said to have come from Málwa and are returned in East Panjáb

75 Tod’s Annals, I. 83 and 215; Elliot, II. 410; Jour. B. Br. A. S. XXIII. 

76 Annals, I. 215. 

77 Kath. Gaz. 589. 

78 Bṛihat-Saṃhitá, XIV. 21. The usual explanation (compare Fleet Ind. Ant. XXII. 180) Gold-Śakas seems meaningless. 

79 Sachau, II. 11. Among the legends are the much-applied tales of the foot-stamped cloth and the self-sacrificing minister. 

80 Western India, 213. 

81 Tod’s Annals, I. 83, 215; Western India, 270–352. 

82 Sachau, I. 208, II. 341. For the alleged descent of the Sesodiás and Válas from Ráma of the Sun race the explanation may be offered that the greatness of Kanishka, whose power was spread from the Ganges to the Oxus, in accordance with the Hindu doctrine (compare Beal’s Buddhist Records, I. 99 & 152; Rás Málá, I. 320; Fryer’s New Account, 190) that a conqueror’s success is the fruit of transcendent merit in a former birth, led to Kanishka being considered an incarnation of Ráma. A connection between Kanishka and the race of the Sun would be made easy by the intentional confusing of the names Kshatrapa and Kshatriya and by the fact that during part at least of his life fire and the sun were Kanishka’s favourite deities. 

83 Gladwin’s Áin-i-Akbari, II. 81: Tod’s Annals, I. 235. 

84 The invasion of Sindh formerly (Reinaud’s Fragments, 29) supposed to be by Naushirván in person according to fuller accounts seems to have been a raid by the ruler of Seistán (Elliot, I. 407). Still Reinaud (Mémoire Sur l’Inde, 127) holds that in sign of vassalage the Sindh king added a Persian type to his coins. 

85 Compare Tod’s Annals, I. 235–239 and Rawlinson’s Seventh Monarchy, 576. 

86 Rawlinson Seventh Monarchy, 452 note 3. 

87 Compare Tod’s Annals, I. 63; Thomas’ Prinsep, I. 413; Cunningham’s Arch. Survey, VI. 201. According to their own accounts (Rás Málá, I. 296) the Káthis learned sun-worship from the Vála of Dhánk by whom the famous temple of the sun at Thán in Káthiáváḍa was built. 

88 Válas Musalmán Játs in Lahor and Gurdaspur: Váls in Gujarát and Gujranwálá: Váls in Mozafarnagar and Dhera Ismael Khan. Also Válahs Hindus in Kángra. Panjáb Census of 1891, III. 162. 

89 Bṛihaṭ Saṃhitá, V. 80. 

90 Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 140–141. 

91 The references are; Langlois’ Harivaṃśa, I. 388–420, II. 178. That in a.d. 247 Balkh or Báktria was free from Indian overlordship (McCrindle’s Periplus, 121), and that no more distant tribe than the Gandháras finds a place in the Harivaṃśa lists combine to make it almost certain that, at the time the Harivaṃśa was written, whatever their origin may have been, the Báhlikas were settled not in Báktria but in India. 

92 The passage from the Karṇa Parva or Eighth Book of the Mahábhárata is quoted in Muir’s Sanskrit Texts, II. 482, and in greater fullness in St. Martin’s Geog. Greque et Latine de l’Inde, 402–410. The Báhikas or Bálhikas are classed with the Madras, Gandháras, Araṭṭas, and other Panjáb tribes. In their Bráhman families it is said the eldest son alone is a Bráhman. The younger brothers are without restraint Kshatriyas, Vaiśyas, Śudras, even Barbers. A Bráhman may sink to be a Barber and a barber may rise to be a Bráhman. The Báhikas eat flesh even the flesh of the cow and drink liquor. Their women know no restraint. They dance in public places unclad save with garlands. In the Harivaṃśa (Langlois, I. 493 and II. 178, 388, 420) the Bahlikas occur in lists of kings and peoples. 

93 Kern in Muir’s Sanskrit Texts, II. 446. St. Martin (Geog. Greque et Latine de l’Inde, 149) takes Báhika to be a contraction of Báhlika. Reasons are given below for considering the Mahábhárata form Báhika a confusion with the earlier tribes of that name rather than a contraction of Báhlika or Bálhika. The form Báhika was also favoured by the writer in the Mahábhárata because it fitted with his punning derivation from their two fiend ancestors Vahi and Hika. St. Martin, 408. 

94 St. Martin Geog. Greque et Latine de l’Inde, 403, puts the probable date at b.c. 380 or about fifty years before Alexander. St. Martin held that the passage belonged to the final revision of the poem. Since St. Martin’s time the tendency has been to lower the date of the final revision by at least 500 years. The fact noted by St. Martin (Ditto, page 404) that Jartika which the Mahábhárata writer gives as another name for Báhika is a Sanskritised form of Jat further supports the later date. It is now generally accepted that the Jats are one of the leading tribes who about the beginning of the Christian era passed from Central Asia into India. 

95 The name Valabhi, as we learn from the Jain historians, is a Sanskritised form of Valahi, which can be easily traced back to one of the many forms (Bálhíka, Bálhika, Balhika, Bahlíka, Báhlika, Váhlíka, Vahlíka, Válhíka, Válhika, Valhika) of a tribal name which is of common occurrence in the Epics. This name is, no doubt rightly, traced back to the city of Balkh, and originally denoted merely the people of Baktria. There is, however, evidence that the name also denoted a tribe doubtless of Baktrian origin, but settled in India: the Emperor Chandra speaks of defeating the Váhlikas after crossing the seven mouths of the Indus: Varáha-Mihira speaks of the Válhikas along with the people who dwell on Sindhu’s banks (Bṛ. Saṃ. V. 80): and, most decisive of all, the Káśiká Vṛitti on Páṇ. VIII. iv. 9 (a.d. 650) gives Bahlíka as the name of the people of the Sauvíra country, which, as Alberuni tells us, corresponded to the modern Multán, the very country to which the traditions of the modern Válas point.

If the usual derivation of the name Bálhika be accepted,96 it is possible to go a step further and fix a probable limit before which the tribe did not enter India. The name of Balkh in the sixth century b.c. was, as we learn from Darius’ inscriptions, Bákhtri, and the Greeks also knew it as Baktra: the Avesta form is Bakhdhi, which according to the laws of sound-change established by Prof. Darmsteter for the Arachosian language as represented by the modern Pushtu, would become Bahli (see Chants Populaires des Afghans, Introd. page xxvii). This reduction of the hard aspirates to spirants seems to have taken place about the first century a.d.: parallel cases are the change from Parthava to Palhava, and Mithra to Mihira. It would seem therefore that the Bahlikas did not enter India before the first century a.d.: and if we may identify their subduer Chandra with Chandragupta I., we should have the fourth century a.d. as a lower limit for dating their invasion.

Unfortunately, however, these limits cannot at present be regarded as more than plausible: for the name Balhika or Valhika appears to occur in works that can hardly be as modern as the first century a.d. The Atharvaveda-pariśishtas might be put aside, as they show strong traces of Greek influence and are therefore of late date: and the supposed occurrences in Páṇini belong to the commentators and to the Gaṇapáṭha only and are of more or less uncertain age. But the name occurs, in the form Balhika, in one hymn of the Atharvaveda itself (Book V. 22) which there is no reason to suppose is of late date.

The lower limit is also uncertain as the identification of Chandra of the inscription with the Gupta king is purely conjectural.—(A. M. T. J.) 

96 There is a very close parallel in the modern Panjáb, where (see Census Report of 1881) the national name Baluch has become a tribal name in the same way as Bálhika. 

97 Hodgson’s Essays on Indian Subjects, I. 405 Note. 

98 McCrindle’s Periplus, 121. Compare Rawlinson’s Seventh Monarchy, 79. The absence of Indian reference to the Yuechi supports the view that in India the Yuechi were known by some other name. 

99 According to Reinaud (Mémoire Sur l’Inde, 82 note 3) probably the modern Kochanya or Kashania sixty or seventy miles west of Samarkand. This is Hiuen Tsiang’s (a.d. 620) Ki’uh-shwangi-ni-kia or Kushánika. See Beal’s Buddhist Records, I. 34. 

100 Etude sur la Geographie Grecque et Latine de l’Inde, 147. 

101 McCrindle’s Alexander in India, 350. 

102 The suggestion is made by Mr. A. M. T. Jackson. 

103 McCrindle’s Alexander, 136. 

104 McCrindle’s Alexander, 252. 

105 Compare Strabo, XV. I. 8. The Oxydrakai are the descendants of Dionysus. Again, XV. I. 24: The Malloi and the Oxydrakai who as we have already said are fabled to be related to Dionysus. 

106 See McCrindle’s Alexander, 157, 369, 378, 398. Compare St. Martin Geog. Grecque et Latine de l’Inde, 102. 

107 Strabo, XV. I. 8 and 24, Hamilton’s Translation, III. 76, 95. 

108 References to the vines of Nysa and Meros occur in Strabo, Pliny, Quintus Curtius, Philostratus, and Justin: McCrindle’s Alexander in India, 193 note 1, 321, and 339. Strabo (Hamilton’s Translation, III. 86) refers to a vine in the country of Musikanus or Upper Sindh. At the same time (Ditto, 108) Strabo accepts Megasthenês’ statement that in India the wild vine grows only in the hills. 

109 The Kathaioi Malloi and Oxydrakai are (Arrian in McCrindle’s Alexander, 115, 137, 140, 149) called independent in the sense of kingless: they (Ditto, 154) sent leading men not ambassadors: (compare also Diodorus Siculus and Plutarch, Ditto 287, 311): the Malloi had to chose a leader (Q. Curtius, Ditto 236). 

110 Káthiáwár Gazetteer, 138. 

111 Káthiáwár Gazetteer, 137. 

112 Cutch Gazetteer, 80. 

113 Cutch Gazetteer, 81. 




(a.d. 634–740.)

Chapter 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 dynasty1 ruled in the Konkan for at least a century before they came into collision with the Chálukyas under Kírtivarmman.2 They were finally defeated and their capital Purí taken by Chaṇḍadaṇḍa an officer of Pulakeśi II. (a.d. 610–640).3 The Chálukyas then pressed northwards, and an inscription at Aihole in South Bijápur records that as early as a.d. 634 the kings of Láṭa, Málava, and Gurjjara submitted to the prowess of Pulakeśi II. (a.d. 610–640).

Jayasiṃhavarmman, a.d. 666–693.The regular establishment of Chálukya power in South Gujarát seems to have been the work of Dháráśraya Jayasiṃhavarmman son of Pulakeśi II. and younger brother of Vikramáditya Satyáśraya (a.d. 670–680). A grant of Jayasiṃhavarmman’s son Śíláditya found in Navsárí describes Jayasiṃhavarmman as receiving the kingdom from his brother Vikramáditya. As Jayasiṃhavarmman is called Paramabhaṭṭáraka 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 Saṃ. which is clearly different from the Śaka 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 Jayasiṃhavarmman’s sons dated Ś. 421, 443, and 490.4 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 Traikúṭaka (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 Traikúṭaka epoch, as to place the correctness of the identification almost beyond question.

Jayasiṃhavarmman must have established his power in South Gujarát before a.d. 669–70 (T. 421), as in that year his son Śryáśraya made a grant as heir apparent. Another plate of Śryáśraya found in Surat shows that in a.d. 691–2 (T. 443) Jayasiṃhavarmman was still ruling with Śryáśraya as heir apparent. In view of these facts the establishment of Jayasiṃhavarmman’s power in Gujarát must be taken at about a.d. 666. The copperplates of his sons and grandson do not say whom Jayasiṃhavarmman 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 [108]
Chapter IX.
The Chálukyas, a.d. 634–740.
Jayasiṃhavarmman a.d. 666–693.
as is known the earliest of the Nándod Gurjjaras was Dadda who is estimated to have flourished about a.d. 580 (T. 331).5 The latest is Jayabhaṭa whose Navsárí copperplate bears date a.d. 734–5 (T. 486)6 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, Jayasiṃhavarmman 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.7 In either case the Chálukya power seems to have hemmed in the Broach Gurjjaras, as Jayasiṃhavarmman 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 Śryáśraya Śíláditya Yuvarája dated a.d. 669–70 (T. 421); the Surat grant of the same Śíláditya dated a.d. 691–2 (T. 443); the Balsár grant of Vinayáditya Mangalarája dated a.d. 731 (Śaka 653); the Navsárí grant of Pulakeśi Janáśraya dated a.d. 738–9 (T. 490); the Kaira grant of Vijayarája dated Śaṃvatsara 394; and the undated Nirpan grant of Nágavarddhana Tribhuvanáśraya.

Śryáśraya Śíláditya (Heir Apparent), a.d. 669–691.The first four grants mention Jayasiṃhavarmman as the younger brother of Vikramáditya Satyáśraya the son of Pulakeśi Satyáśraya the conqueror of Harshavarddhana the lord of the North. Jayasiṃhavarmman’s eldest son was Śryáśraya Śíláditya who made his Navsárí grant in a.d. 669–70 (T. 421); the village granted being said to be in the Navasáriká Vishaya. Śryáśraya’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 Śíláditya 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 Satyáśraya and in the second of his son Vinayáditya Satyáśraya. Apparently Śryáśraya died before his father as the two late grants of Balsár and Kheḍá give him no place in the list of rulers.

Mangalarája, a.d. 698–731.Jayasiṃhavarmman was succeeded by his second son Mangalarája. A plate of his found at Balsár dated a.d. 731 (Śaka 653) records a grant made from Mangalapurí, probably the same as Purí the doubtful Konkan capital of the Śiláháras.8 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. [109]

Chapter IX.
The Chálukyas, a.d. 634–740.
Pulakeśi Janáśraya, a.d. 738.
Pulakeśi Janáśraya, a.d. 738.Mangalarája was succeeded by his younger brother Pulakeśi Janáśraya. 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 Pulakeśi’s grant of a.d. 738–9 (T. 490) which states that the Arab army had afflicted the kingdoms of Sindhu, Kacchella, Sauráshṭra, Chávoṭaka, Maurya, and Gurjjara that is Sindh, Kacch, the Chávaḍás, the Mauryas of Chitor,9 and the Gurjjaras of Bhínmál.10 [110]
Chapter IX.
The Chálukyas, a.d. 634–740.
Pulakeśi Janáśraya, a.d. 738.
Pulakeśi 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 Ráshṭrakúṭas who were in possession in a.d. 757–8.11

Buddhavarmman, a.d. 713 (?).The Kaira grant dated 394 gives in hereditary succession the names Jayasiṃha, Buddhavarmman, and Vijayarája.12 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 Káśákula division. If taken as Traikúṭaka 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 Traikúṭaka era may be denoted by the word Saṃ. and which is more likely to be in use in North Gujarát the 394 would represent the fairly probable a.d. 713. Jayasiṃha may have conquered part of North Gujarát and sent his son Buddhavarmman to rule over it.

Nágavarddhana.Jayasiṃha 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,13 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 Ráshṭrakúṭas.


Pulakeśivallabha Satyáśraya,
Conqueror of Harshavarddhana, Lord of the North.
a.d. 610–640.
(Main Chálukyas). (Gujarát Branch).
Vikramáditya Satyáśraya,
a.d. 669–680.
Jayasiṃhavarmman Dháráśraya,
a.d. 669–691.
(Navsárí.) (Navsárí.) (Kaira.) (Násik.) (Navsárí.)
Śíláditya Śryáśraya Yuvarája,
T. 421 (a.d. 669–70) and T. 443 (a.d. 691–2).
Mangalarája or Mangalarasaráya,
Śaka 653
(a.d. 731–2).
G. 394
(a.d. 713).
Nágavarddhana. Pulakeśi Janáśraya,
T. 490
(a.d. 738–9).


Chapter IX.
The Chálukyas, a.d. 634–740.
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 Kheḍá grants of Dadda II. (see Ind. Ant. XIII. 81ff) which are dated (admittedly in the [so-called] Traikúṭaka 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 Traikúṭaka or Chedi date.

a.d. 610–640.This being so, it is clearly impossible to suppose that Vijayarája’s grandfather Jayasiṃha is that younger son of Pulakeśi II. (a.d. 610–640) who founded the Gujarát branch family. It has been usually supposed that the Jayasiṃha of our grant was a younger brother of Pulakeśi II.: but this also is chronologically impossible: for Jayasiṃha 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 Nikumbhallaśakti, which bears date Saṃ. 406 (a.d. 654–5) and relates to the gift to a Bráhman of the village of Balisa (Wanesa) in the Treyaṇṇa (Ten) district. Dr. Bühler has shown (Ind. Ant. XVIII. page 265ff) that the Sendrakas were a Kánarese family, and that Nikumbhallaśakti 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 Pulakeśi’s brother Jayasiṃha, though Dr. Bhagvánlál believed this Jayasiṃha to be Pulakeśi’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 Pulakeśi II. in this grant refers to his victory over Harshavarddhana, but also describes him as having conquered the three kingdoms of Chera, Chola, and Páṇḍya by means of his horse of the Chitrakaṇṭha breed, and as meditating on the feet of Śri Nágavarddhana. Now all of these epithets, except the reference to Harshavarddhana, belong properly, not to Pulakeśi II. but to his son Vikramáditya I. The conquest of the confederacy of Cholas, Cheras (or Keraḷas), and Páṇḍyas is ascribed to Vikramáditya in the inscriptions of his son Vinayáditya (Fleet in Ind. Ant. X. 134): the Chitrakaṇṭha 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 Śryáśraya Śíláditya (B. B. R. A. S. XVI. 1ff). This confusion of epithets between Pulakeśi 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. Pulakeśi 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 [112]
Chapter IX.
The Chálukyas, a.d. 634–740.
of the south we know from Vikramáditya’s own grants: but the grant of Śryáśraya Śíláditya 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 Pulakeśi 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 Pulakeśi’s brother Jayasiṃha 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 Ráshṭrakúṭas (a.d. 743).—(A. M. T. J.)


1 Bom. Gaz. XIV. 372. 

2 Ind. Ant. VIII. 243. 

3 Ind. Ant. VIII. 244. 

4 J. B. B. R. A. S. XVI. 1ff.: Proceedings VIIth Oriental Congress, 210ff. 

5 See Chap. X. below. 

6 Ind. Ant. XIII. 73. 

7 Ind. Ant. XIII. 70. 

8 B. B. R. A. S. XVI. 5. 

9 For the Moris or Mauryas, described as a branch of Pramáras, who held Chitor during the eighth century compare Tod. Jr. R. A. S. 211; Wilson’s Works, XII. 132. 

10 The text of the copperplate runs:

शरझसीरमुद्ररोद्धारिणि तरलतरतारतरवारिदा

[24] रितोदितसैन्धवकच्छेल्लर्सोराष्ट्र चावोटक मौर्यगुर्जरादिरा [ज्ये] निःशोषदाक्षिणात्यक्षितिपतिजि

[25] गीषया दक्षिणापथप्रवेश ……… प्रथममेवनवसारिकाविषयप्रसाधनायागते त्वरित

Plate II.

[1] तुरगखरमुखरखुरोत्खातधरिणिधूलिधूसरितदिगन्तरे कुन्तप्रान्तनितान्तविमर्द्यमानरभसाभिधावितो

[2] द्भटस्थूलोदरविवरविनिर्ग्गतांत्रप्रथुतररुधिरधारांजितकवचभीषणवपुषि स्वामिमहा

[3] सन्मानदानग्रहणᳲक्रयीकृतस्वशिरोभिरभिमुखमापतितैप्रदंयदशनाग्रदष्टोष्टपुटकैरने

[4] कसमराजिरविवरवरिकटितटहयविधटनविशालितधनरुधिरपटलपाटलितपटुक्रपाणपठ्ठैरपि महा

[5] योवैरलब्वपरभागैः विपक्षक्षपणाक्षेपक्षिप्रक्षिप्रतीक्ष्णक्षुरप्रप्रहारविलूनवैरिशिरᳲकमलगलनालैरा

[6] हवरसरभसरोमांचकंचुकाच्छादिततनूभिरनेकैरपि नरेन्द्रव्रंदव्रदारकैरजितपुर्वैः व्यपगतमस्माक

[7] म्रणमनेन स्वामिनः स्वशिरः प्रदानेनाद्यतावदेकजन्मीयमित्येवमिषोपजातपरितोषानन्तरप्रहतपटुप

[8] टहरवप्रवृत्तकबन्वबद्धरासमण्डलीके समरशिरासे विजितेताजिकानिके शोय्यानुरागिणा श्रीवदत्रमनरें

[9] द्रेण प्रसादीकृतापरनामचतुष्टयस्तद्ध्यथा दक्षिणापथसाधारणचलुक्विकुलालंकारपृथ्वीवदत्रमानिवर्त्तकनिव

[10] र्त्तयित्रवनिजनाश्रयश्रीपुलकेशिराजस्सर्वानेवात्मीयान्‌


11 Journal B. B. R. A. S. XVI. 105. 

12 Ind. Ant. VII. 241. 

13 Ind. Ant. IX. 123. 




(a.d. 580–808.)

Chapter 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,1 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 Kheḍá and south to the Tápti. Like the grants of the contemporary Gujarát Chálukyas all the genuine copperplates are dated in the Traikúṭaka era which begins in a.d. 249–50.2 The Gurjjara capital seems to have been Nándípurí or Nándor,3 the modern Nándod the capital of Rájpipla in Rewa Kántha about thirty-four miles east of Broach. Two of their grants issue Nándípurítaḥ4 that is ‘from Nándípurí’ like the Valabhítaḥ 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.5

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-panchamaháśabada ‘He who has attained the five great titles,’ or Sámanta Feudatory. In one instance Jayabhaṭa III. who was probably a powerful ruler is called Sámantádhipati6 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 [114]
Chapter X.
The Gurjjaras, a.d. 580–808.
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 Raṇagraha’s plate7 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 Báṇa in his great works the Kádambarí and Harshacharita. From this it may be inferred that Báṇa’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.
Jayabhaṭa I. a.d. 605.
Dadda II. a.d. 633.
Jayabhaṭa II. a.d. 655.
Dadda III. a.d. 680.
Jayabhaṭa III. a.d. 706–734.

A recently published grant8 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 Traikúṭaka era in South Gujarát. Nirihullaka names with respect a king Śaṅkaraṇa, whom Dr. Bühler would identify with Śaṅkaragaṇa the father of the Kalachuri Buddhavarmman who was defeated by Mangalíśa the Chálukya about a.d. 600.9 Śaṅkaragaṇa himself must have flourished about a.d. 580, and the Gurjjara conquest must be subsequent to this date. Another new grant,10 which is only a fragment and contains no king’s name, but which on the ground of date (Saṃ. 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 Śaṅkaragaṇa’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 [115]
Chapter X.
The Gurjjaras, a.d. 580–808.
in his grants of Saṃvat 25211 (a.d. 571) calls himself Mahárája, while in his grants of 269 and 27012 (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 Kheḍá grants of his grandson Dadda II. (C. 620–650 a.d.)13 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 Kheṭaka (Kheḍá).14 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.).15 Dadda I. is mentioned in the two Kheḍá 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.

Jayabhaṭa I. Vítarága, C. 605–620 a.d.Dadda I. was succeeded by his son Jayabhaṭa I. who is mentioned in the Kheḍá grants as a victorious and virtuous ruler, and appears from his title of Vítarága the Passionless to have been a religious prince.

Dadda II. Praśántarága, C. 620–650 a.d.Jayabhaṭa I. was succeeded by his son Dadda II. who bore the title of Praśántarága the Passion-calmed. Dadda was the donor of the two Kheḍá grants of 380 (a.d. 628–29) and 385 (a.d. 633–34), and a part of a grant made by his brother Raṇagraha in the year 391 (a.d. 639–40) has lately been published.16 Three forged grants purporting to have been issued by him are dated respectively Śaka 400 (a.d. 478), Śaka 415 (a.d. 493), and Śaka 417 (a.d. 495).17 Both of the Kheḍá grants relate to the gift of the village of Siríshapadraka (Sisodra) in the Akrúreśvara (Ankleśvar) vishaya to certain Bráhmans of Jambusar and Broach. In Raṇagraha’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 Raṇagraha sign their grants as devout worshippers of the sun. Dadda II. heads the genealogy in the later grant of 456 (a.d. 704–5),18 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 [116]
Chapter X.
The Gurjjaras, a.d. 580–808.
Dadda II. Praśántarága, C. 620–650 a.d.
(a.d. 607–648), perhaps the campaign in which Harsha was defeated on the Narbadá by Pulakeśi II. (which took place before a.d. 634). The protection given to the Valabhi king is perhaps referred to in the Kheḍá 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 Kheḍá 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.).19 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 Láṭa, Broach submitted to Pulakeśi II. (a.d. 610–640):20 it may afterwards have fallen to the Málava kings, to whom in Hiuen Tsiang’s time (a.d. 640) both Kheḍá (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).21

Knowledge of the later Gurjjaras is derived exclusively from two grants of Jayabhaṭa III. dated respectively 456 (a.d. 704–5) and 486 (a.d. 734–5).22 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 Puráṇic pedigree traced from king Karṇa, a hero of the Bhárata war. It also shows that from Dadda III. onward the family were Śaivas instead of sun-worshippers.

Jayabhaṭa II. C. 650–675 a.d.The successor of Dadda II. was his son Jayabhaṭa II. who is described as a warlike prince, but of whom no historical details are recorded.

Dadda III. Báhusaháya, C. 675–700.Jayabhaṭa’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 Śaiva of the family, studied Manu’s works, and strictly enforced “the duties of the varṇas or castes and of the áśramas or Bráhman stages.” It was probably to him that the Gurjjaras owed their Puráṇic pedigree and their recognition as true Kshatriyas. Like his predecessors, Dadda III. [117]
Chapter X.
The Gurjjaras, a.d. 580–808.
Dadda III. Báhusaháya, C. 675–700.
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 Jayasiṃha the Chálukya, who received the province of Láṭa from his brother Vikramáditya (c. 669–680 a.d.)23

Jayabhaṭa III. c. 704–734 a.d.The son and successor of Dadda III. was Jayabhaṭa III. whose two grants of 456 (a.d. 704–5) and 486 (a.d. 734–5)24 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 Śíláditya IV. (a.d. 691) or Śíláditya V. (a.d. 722). During the reign of Jayabhaṭa III. took place the great Arab invasion which was repulsed by Pulakeśi Janáśraya at Navsárí.25 Like the kingdoms named in the grant of Pulakeśi, Broach must have suffered from this raid. It is not specially mentioned probably because it formed part of Pulakeśi’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 Ráshṭrakúṭas (a.d. 750) is not known. Later references to Gurjjaras in Ráshṭrakúṭa 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 Śaka 400;
  • (2) That though they purport to belong to the fifth century they bear the same writer’s name as the Kheḍá 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 Kheḍá grants, and that where it differs the Kheḍá 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 Kheḍá grants, it cannot be assumed that he was the same person as the writer of the Iláo and Umetá grants; and [118]
    Chapter X.
    The Gurjjaras, a.d. 580–808.
  • (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 Kheḍá 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 Saṅkheḍá 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 Kheḍá 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 Kheḍá 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 Śaka 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.)


1 Ind. Ant. V. 109ff; Ind. Ant. VII. 61ff.; Jour. R. A. S. (N. S.), I. 274ff.; Ind. Ant. XIII. 81–91; Jour. B. B. R. A. Soc. X. 19ff.; Ind. Ant. XIII. 115–119. Ind. Ant. XVII. and Ep. Ind. II. 19ff. 

2 See above page 107

3 That Nándor or Nándod was an old and important city is proved by the fact that Bráhmans and Vániás called Nándorás that is of Nándor are found throughout Gujarát, Mángrol and Chorvád on the South Káthiáváḍa coast have settlements of Velári betelvine cultivators who call themselves Nandora Vániás and apparently brought the betelvine from Nándod. Dr. Bühler, however, identifies the Nándípurí of the grants with an old fort of the same name about two miles north of the east gate of Broach. See Ind. Ant. VII. 62. 

4 Ind. Ant. XIII. 81, 88. 

5 Ind. Ant. XIII. 70. 

6 The fact that the Umetá and Iláo plates give their grantor Dadda II. the title of Mahárájádhirája Supreme Lord of Great Kings, is one of the grounds for believing them forgeries. 

7 Ep. Ind. II. 20. 

8 Ep. Ind. II. 21. 

9 Ind. Ant. VII. 162. 

10 Ep. Ind. II. 19. 

11 Ind. Ant. VII. 68, VIII. 302, XIII. 160, and XV. 187. 

12 Ind. Ant. VI. 9, VII. 70. 

13 Ind. Ant. XIII. 81–88. 

14 Ind. Ant. VII. 70. 

15 Beal’s Buddhist Records, II. 266, 268. 

16 Ind. Ant. XIII. 81–88, Ep. Ind. II. 19. 

17 On these forged grants see below page 117. 

18 Ind. Ant. XIII. 70. 

19 Beal’s Buddhist Records, II. 259. 

20 Ind. Ant. VIII. 237. 

21 Ind. Ant. XV. 335. 

22 Ind. Ant. V. 109, XIII. 70. 

23 B. B. R. A. S. Jl. XVI. 1ff. 

24 Ind. Ant. V. 109, XIII. 70. The earlier grant was made from Káyávatára (Kárwán): the later one is mutilated. 

25 Before a.d. 738–9. See Chap. IX. above. 




(a.d. 743–974.)

Chapter XI.
The Ráshṭrakúṭas, a.d. 743–974.
The Ráshṭrakúṭa connection with Gujarát lasted from Śaka 665 to 894 (a.d. 743–974) that is for 231 years. The connection includes three periods: A first of sixty-five years from Śaka 665 to 730 (a.d. 743–808) when the Gujarát ruler was dependent on the main Dakhan Ráshṭrakúṭa: a second of eighty years between Śaka 730 and 810 (a.d. 808–888) when the Gujarát family was on the whole independent: and a third of eighty-six years Śaka 810 to 896 (a.d. 888–974) when the Dakhan Ráshṭrakúṭas again exercised direct sway over Gujarát.

Their Origin.Information regarding the origin of the Ráshṭrakúṭas is imperfect. That the Gujarát Ráshṭrakúṭas came from the Dakhan in Śaka 665 (a.d. 743) is known. It is not known who the Dakhan Ráshṭrakúṭas originally were or where or when they rose to prominence. Ráthoḍ the dynastic name of certain Kanauj and Márwár Rájputs represents a later form of the word Ráshṭrakúṭa. Again certain of the later inscriptions call the Ráshṭrakúṭas Raṭṭas a word which, so far as form goes, is hardly a correct Prakrit contraction of Ráshṭrakúṭa. The Sanskritisation of tribal names is not exact. If the name Raṭṭa 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 Ráshṭrakúṭas among the tribes of pre-Sanskrit southern origin.

Their Name.If Raṭṭa is the name of the dynasty kúṭa or kúḍa may be an attribute meaning prominent. The combination Ráshṭrakúṭa would then mean the chiefs or leaders as opposed to the rank and file of the Raṭṭas. The bardic accounts of the origin of the Ráthoḍs of Kanauj and Márwár vary greatly. According to a Jain account the Ráthoḍs, whose name is fancifully derived from the raht or spine of Indra, are connected with the Yavans through an ancestor Yavanaśva prince of Párlipur. The Ráthoḍ genealogies trace their origin to Kuśa son of Ráma of the Solar Race. The bards of the [120]
Chapter XI.
The Ráshṭrakúṭas, a.d. 743–974.
Their Name.
Solar Race hold them to be descendants of Hiraṇya Kaśipu by a demon or daitya mother. Like the other great Rájput families the Ráthoḍs’ 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.1 The Dakhan Ráshṭrakúṭas (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 Ráshṭrakúṭas no trace remains. The earliest known Ráshṭrakúṭa 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 Garuḍa mark which the Ráshṭrakúṭas assumed along with the claim of Yádava descent, leave no doubt that this is the earliest of known Ráshṭrakúṭa plates. Its probable date is about a.d. 450. The plate traces the descent of Abhimanyu through two generations from Mánáṅka. The details are:


The grant is dated from Mánapura, perhaps Mánáṅka’s city, probably an older form of Mányakheṭa the modern Málkhed the capital of the later Ráshṭrakúṭas about sixty miles south-east of Sholápur. These details give fair ground for holding the Mánáṅkas to be a family of Ráshṭrakúṭa rulers earlier than that which appears in the usual genealogy of the later Ráshṭrakúṭa dynasty (a.d. 500–972).

The Main Dynasty, a.d. 630–972.The earliest information regarding the later Ráshṭrakúṭas is from a comparatively modern, and therefore not quite trustworthy, Chálukya copperplate of the eleventh century found by Mr. Wathen. This plate states that Jayasiṃha I. the earliest Chálukya defeated the Ráshṭrakúṭa Indra son of Kṛishṇa the lord of 800 elephants. The date of this battle would be about a.d. 500. If historic the reference implies that the Ráshṭrakúṭas were then a well established dynasty. In most of their own plates the genealogy of the Ráshṭrakúṭas begins with Govinda about a.d. 680. But that Govinda was not the founder of the family is shown by Dantidurga’s Elura Daśávatára inscription (about a.d. 750) which gives two earlier names Dantivarmman and Indra. The founding of Ráshṭrakúṭa 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 Śaka 894 (a.d. 972) during the reign of the last Ráshṭrakúṭa Kakka III. or Kakkala. [121]

Ráshṭrakúṭa Family Tree, a.d. 630–972.The following is the Ráshṭrakúṭa 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.
(about a.d. 730).
Dhruva. 7 Kṛishṇa
(about a.d. 765).
6 Dantidurga, Dantivarmman
(Śaka 675, a.d. 753).
Kakka II.
Śaka 669 (a.d. 747).
8 Govinda II.
(about a.d. 780).
9 Dhruva, Dhárávarsha,
Nirupama, Dhora,
(about a.d. 795).
10 Govinda III. Prabhútavarsha Vallabhanarendra, Jagattuṅga Pṛithivívallabha,
(Śaka 725, 728, 729,
a.d. 803, 806, 807).
I. Indra (founder of Gujarát Branch).
II. Karka
(Śaka 734, 738, 743,
a.d. 812, 816, 821).
III. Govinda Prabhútavarsha,
(Śaka 749,
a.d. 827).
11 Amoghavarsha Śarvva, Durlabha Śrívallabha; Lakshmívallabha, Vallabha Skaṇḍa,
(Śaka 773, 799, a.d. 851, 877).
Dantivarmman (?) IV. Dhruva I. Dhárávarsha, Nirupama,
(Śaka 757, a.d. 835).
12 Akálavarsha Kṛishṇa II. Kannara
(about a.d. 880–911).
VII. Akálavarsha-Kṛishṇa
(Śaka 810, a.d. 888).
V. Akálavarsha Śubhatunga,
(a.d. 867).
(did not reign.)
VI. Dhruva II.
(Śaka 789, 793,
a.d. 867, 871).
13 Indra III. Pṛithivívallabha Raṭṭakandarpa, Kirttináráyana Nityaṃvarsha (Śaka 836, a.d. 914). 16 Baddiga
17 Kṛishṇa
(Ś. 867, 878
a.d. 945, 956).
19 Kottiga. Nirupama.
14 Amoghavarsha 15 Govindarája Sáhasánka Suvarnavarsha. Kakkala or Karkarája
(Śaka 894, a.d. 972).

Copperplates.The earliest Gujarát Ráshṭrakúṭa grant, Kakka’s of Śaka 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 Śaka era. The grant gives the following genealogy somewhat different from that of other known Ráshṭrakúṭa grants:

Kakka II.
(Śaka 669, a.d. 747).


Chapter XI.
The Ráshṭrakúṭas, a.d. 743–974.
Kakka II. 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 ‘Samadhigatapanchmaháśabdaḥ’ Holder of the five great names. At the same time he is also called Paramabhaṭṭáraka-Mahárája Great Lord Great King, attributes which seem to imply a claim to independent power. The grant is dated the bright seventh of Áśvayuja, Śaka 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 Ráshṭrakúṭas 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 Narbadá2 while his Elura Daśávatára inscription (a.d. 750) shows that he held Láṭa and Málava.3 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.4 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 Ráshṭrakúṭas. Karka’s Baroda grant5 (a.d. 812) supports this theory. Dantidurga died childless and was succeeded by his uncle Kṛishṇa. Of this Kṛishṇa 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. Kṛishṇa frustrated Kakka’s attempt and rooted him out so effectively that no trace of Kakka’s family again appears.

Kṛishṇa and Govinda II. a.d. 765–795.From this it follows that, so far as is known, the Ráshṭrakúṭa conquest of Gujarát begins with Dantidurga’s conquest of Láṭa, that is South Gujarát between the Mahí and the Narbadá, from the Gurjjara king Jayabhaṭa 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.6 No Gujarát event of importance is recorded during the reign of Kṛishṇa (a.d. 765) or of his son Govinda II. (a.d. 780) who about [123]
Chapter XI.
The Ráshṭrakúṭas, a.d. 743–974.
Kṛishṇa and Govinda II. a.d. 765–795.
a.d. 795 was superseded by his powerful younger brother Dhruva.7

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 Kṛishṇa-like powers, offered him the sovereignty of the whole world. Govinda declined, saying, The Kaṇṭhiká or coast tract already given to me is enough. Seeing that Mayúrakhandi or Morkhanda in Násik was Govinda’s capital, this Kaṇṭhiká 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 Ráshṭrakúṭa 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 Ráshṭrakúṭas. Of the kings who opposed Govinda the chief was Stambha who may have some connection with Cambay, as, during the time of the Aṇahilaváḍa 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 Śarva submitted to Govinda paying tribute. From the Vindhyas Govinda returned to Gujarát passing the rains at Śríbhavana,8 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 Ráshṭrakúṭas. Several plates distinctly mention that Indra was given the kingdom of the lord of Láṭa 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 Śarvva Amoghavarsha as the successor of Govinda (a.d. 818), state that the king (apparently of Gujarát) was Śarvva’s uncle Indra. [124]

Chapter XI.
The Ráshṭrakúṭas, a.d. 743–974.
Indra, a.d. 808–812.
Indra, a.d. 808–812.As Govinda III. handed Gujarát to his brother Indra about Śaka 730 (a.d. 808) and as the grant of Indra’s son Karka is dated Śaka 734 (a.d. 812) Indra’s reign must have been short. Indra is styled the ruler of the entire kingdom of Láṭeśvara,9 the protector of the mandala of Láṭa 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 (Dakshiṇápatha) feudatories (mahásámantas) whose glory was shattered by Śrívallabha (that is Śarvva or Amoghavarsha)10 then heir-apparent of Govinda. That is, in attempting to establish himself in independent power, Indra aided certain of the Ráshṭrakúṭa 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 Suvarṇavarsha and Pátálamalla. Karka reversed his father’s policy and loyally accepted the overlordship of the main Ráshṭrakúṭas. Three grants of Karka’s remain, the Baroda grant dated Śaka 734 (a.d. 812), and two unpublished grants from Navsárí and Surat dated respectively Śaka 738 (a.d. 816) and Śaka 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 Gauḍa 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 Chávaḍás of Aṇahilaváḍa 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-Śarvva 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 (Ś. 734 and 738). This supports Mr. Fleet’s conclusion, on the authority of Amoghavarsha’s Sirur inscription, that he came to the throne in Śaka 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 [125]
Chapter XI.
The Ráshṭrakúṭas, a.d. 743–974.
Karka I. a.d. 812–821.
subsequent success to his cousin Karka whom an unpublished Surat grant and two later grants (Ś. 757 and Ś. 789, a.d. 835 and 867) describe as establishing Amoghavarsha in his own place after conquering by the strength of his arm arrogant tributary Ráshṭrakúṭas who becoming firmly allied to each other had occupied provinces according to their own will.

Karka’s Baroda plates (Ś. 734, a.d. 812) record the grant of Baroda itself called Vaḍapadraka 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 Durgabhaṭṭa, 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 (Ś. 738, a.d. 816) is made from Kheḍá 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 Paṇḍita Vallabharája because he was proficient in the fourteen Vidyás. The Dútaka of this grant is a South Indian bhaṭa or military officer named the illustrious Droṇamma.

Karka’s Surat grant (Ś. 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 Durgabhaṭṭa. As this is the first grant by a Gujarát Ráshṭrakúṭa 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 (Ś. 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 (Ś. 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 Śaka 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,11 probably in Karka’s old age, a second [126]
Chapter XI.
The Ráshṭrakúṭas, a.d. 743–974.
Dantivarmman, Heir Apparent.
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 Śaka 749 (a.d. 827). It gives no details regarding Govinda. The grant is made from Broach and records the gift of a village12 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 Yogeśvara son of Avalokita and the Dútaka or grantor was one Bhaṭṭa 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 Śaka 757 (a.d. 835).13 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 (Ś. 757, a.d. 835) is made from a place called Sarvvamangalá near Kheḍá and records the gift of a village to a Bráhman named Yoga14 of Badarasidhi apparently Borsad. The writer of the grant is mentioned as the minister of peace and war, Náráyaṇa son of Durgabhaṭṭa, and the Dútaka or grantor is the illustrious Devarája. Dhruva seems to have abandoned his father’s position of loyal feudatory to the main Ráshṭrakúṭas. According to a copperplate dated Śaka 832 (a.d. 910) Vallabha that is Amoghavarsha, also called the illustrious great Skanda, sent an army and besieged and burned the Kaṇṭhiká 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),15 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 Śaka 799 (a.d. 877).

Akálavarsha, a.d. 867.Dhruva was succeeded by his son Akálavarsha also called Śubhatuṅga. A verse in Dhruva II.’s Bagumrá grant (Ś 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.16

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 Śaka 78917 (a.d. 867) and an [127]
Chapter XI.
The Ráshṭrakúṭas, a.d. 743–974.
Dhruva II. a.d. 867.
unpublished Baroda grant dated Śaka 793 (a.d. 871).18 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 Ráshṭrakúṭas was still against him; on another side Dhruva had to face an army of Gurjjaras instigated by a member of his own family19; thirdly he was opposed by certain of his relatives or bándhaváḥ; 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 Káthiáváḍa 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 Bhṛigu-Kachchha or Broach after bathing in the Narbadá. It records the gift to a Bráhman of the village of Páráhanaka, probably the village of Palsána20 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 Kapáleśvara 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 Ráshṭrakúṭas.

Akálavarsha-Kṛishṇa, a.d. 888.The next and last known Gujarát Ráshṭrakúṭa king is Akálavarsha-Kṛishṇa son of Dantivarmman. A grant of this king has been found in Bagumrá dated Śaka 810 (a.d. 888).21 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 [128]
Chapter XI.
The Ráshṭrakúṭas, a.d. 743–974.
Akálavarsha-Kṛishṇa, a.d. 888.
its details except its date which is clearly Śaka 810 (a.d. 888). It seems also improbable that the son of Dantivarmman who flourished in Śaka 734 (a.d. 812) could be reigning in Śaka 810 (a.d. 888) seventy-six years later. Still the sixty-three years’ reign of the contemporary Mányakheṭa Ráshṭrakúṭa Amoghavarsha (Ś. 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 Kaviṭhasádhi 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.22 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 Śaka 810 (a.d. 888) nothing is known of the Gujarát Ráshṭrakúṭas. Main Line Restored, a.d. 888–974.And the re-establishment of the power of the Ráshṭrakúṭas of Mányakheṭa of the main line in south Gujarát in Śaka 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 Láṭa country, by king Indra Nityaṃvarsha son of Jagattuṅga and grandson of Kṛishṇa Akálavarsha.23

That Amoghavarsha’s long reign lasted till Śaka 799 (a.d. 877) is clear from the Kanheri cave inscription already referred to. His reign can hardly have lasted much longer; about Śaka 800 (a.d. 878) may be taken to be its end.

Kṛishṇa Akálavarsha, a.d. 888–914.Amoghavarsha was succeeded by his son Kṛishṇa also called Akálavarsha, both his names being the same as those of the Gujarát Ráshṭrakúṭa king of the same time (a.d. 888).24 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 Ráshṭrakúṭas became extremely hostile and probably continued hostile till his death (a.d. 877). That Amoghavarsha’s son Kṛishṇa kept up the hostilities is shown by Indra’s two Navsárí plates of Śaka 836 (a.d. 914) which mention his grandfather Kṛishṇa fighting with the roaring Gurjjara.25 Regarding this fight the late Ráshṭrakúṭa Kardá plate (Ś. 891, a.d. 973) further says that Kṛishṇa’s enemies frightened by his exploits abandoned Kheṭaka, that is Kheḍá, with its Maṇḍala and its forepart that is the surrounding country. Probably this roaring Gurjjara or king of Gujarát, was a northern ally called in by some Ráshṭrakúṭa of the [129]
Chapter XI.
The Ráshṭrakúṭas, a.d. 743–974.
Kṛishṇa Akálavarsha, a.d. 888–914.
Gujarát branch, perhaps by Kṛishṇa’s namesake the donor of the a.d. 888 Bagumrá grant. The Dakhan Kṛishṇa seems to have triumphed over his Gujarát namesake as henceforward South Gujarát or Láṭa was permanently included in the territory of the Dakhan Ráshṭrakúṭas.26

At this time (a.d. 910) a grant from Kapadvanj dated Ś. 832 (a.d. 910) and published in Ep. Ind. I. 52ff. states that a mahásámanta or noble of Kṛishṇa Akálavarsha’s named Prachaṇḍa, with his daṇḍanáyaka Chandragupta, was in charge of a sub-division of 750 villages in the Kheḍá district at Harshapura apparently Harsol near Parántij. The grant gives the name of Prachaṇḍa’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 Prachaṇḍa’s ancestors, all of whom have non-Gujarát Kánarese-looking names. Though not independent rulers Prachaṇḍa’s ancestors seem to have been high Ráshṭrakúṭa officers. The first is called Śuddha-kkumbaḍi, the second his son Degaḍi, the third Degaḍi’s son Rájahaṃsa, the fourth Rájahaṃsa’s son Dhavalappa the father of Prachaṇḍa and Akkuka. The plate describes Rájahaṃsa 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 Maṇḍala or kingdom which the combined enemy, desirous of glory, had taken. This apparently refers to Akálavarsha’s enemies abandoning Kheṭaka with its Maṇḍala as mentioned in the late Ráshṭrakúṭa 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.27 The Kapadvanj (a.d. 910) grant describes Dhavalappa’s son Prachaṇḍa with the feudatory title ‘Who has obtained the five great words.’ Dr. Bhagvánlál believed Prachaṇḍa 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.28 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 Śiláháras (who traced their lineage from the Vidyádharas) also helped Akálavarsha against his enemies,29 probably by driving them from South Gujarát. The Śiláhára king at this time would be Jhanjha (a.d. 916). [130]

Chapter XI.
The Ráshṭrakúṭas, a.d. 743–974.
Indra Nityaṃvarsha, a.d. 914.
Indra Nityaṃvarsha, a.d. 914.Kṛishṇa or Akálavarsha had a son named Jagattuṅga 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, Jagattuṅga had a son named Indra also called Nityaṃvarsha Raṭṭakandarpa. 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.30 One historical attribute of Indra in both the plates is that “he uprooted in a moment the Mehr,”31 apparently referring to some contemporary Mehr king of North Káthiáváḍa. Both the Navsárí plates of Śaka 836 (a.d. 914) note that the grants were made under peculiar conditions. The plates say that the donor Indra Nityaṃvarsha, with his capital at Mányakheta, had come to a place named Kuruṇḍaka for the paṭṭabandha or investiture festival. It is curious that though Mányakheṭa is mentioned as the capital the king is described as having come to Kuruṇḍaka for the investiture. Kuruṇḍaka was apparently not a large town as the plates mention that it was given in grant.32 At his investiture Indra made great gifts. He weighed himself against gold or silver, and before leaving the scales he gave away Kuruṇḍaka 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 Ráshṭrakúṭa Kardá plate (Ś. 894, a.d. 972) where Indra is described as making numerous grants on copperplates and building many temples of Śiva.33 The date of Indra’s grants (Ś. 836, a.d. 914) is the date of his investiture and accession. This is probable as the latest known date of his grandfather Kṛishṇa is Śaka 83334 (a.d. 911) and we know that Indra’s father Jagattuṅga did not reign.35 Umvará and Tenna, the villages granted in the two investiture plates, are described as situated near Kammaṇijja the modern Kámlej in the Láṭa 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 Váraḍapallikâ as the eastern boundary village. Dhruva II.’s Bagumrá plate (Ś. 789, a.d. 867) mentions Tenna as granted [131]
Chapter XI.
The Ráshṭrakúṭas, a.d. 743–974.
Indra Nityaṃvarsha, a.d. 914.
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 Siddhabhaṭṭa is the grantee of Indra’s a.d. 914 grant.36 The re-granting of so many villages points to the re-establishment of the main Ráshṭrakúṭa power and the disappearance of the Gujarát branch of the Ráshṭrakúṭas.37

Though no materials remain for fixing how long after a.d. 914 Gujarát belonged to the Mányakheṭa Ráshṭrakúṭas, they probably continued to hold it till their destruction in Śaka 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 Śiláháras, acknowledged Ráshṭrakúṭa supremacy.

It is therefore probable that Gujarát passed to the conquering Tailappa as part of the Ráshṭrakúṭa kingdom. Further, as noted below in Part II. Chapter II., it seems reasonable to suppose that about Śaka 900 (a.d. 978) Tailappa entrusted Gujarát to his general Bárappa or Dvárappa, who fought with the Solaṅki Múlarája of Aṇahilaváḍa (a.d. 961–997).

[The text does not carry the question of the origin of the Ráshṭrakúṭas beyond the point that, about the middle of the fifth century a.d., two tribes bearing the closely associated names Ráthoḍ and Raṭṭa, the leaders of both of which are known in Sanskrit as Ráshṭrakúṭas, appeared the first in Upper India the second in the Bombay Karṇáṭak, 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 Ráshṭrakúṭa may mean either leaders of the Ráshṭra tribe or heads of the territorial division named ráshtra. The closely related forms Ráshṭrapati and Grámakúṭa occur (above page 82) in Valabhi inscriptions. And Mr. Fleet (Kánarese Dynasties, 32) notices that Ráshṭrakúṭa is used in the inscriptions of many dynasties as a title equivalent to Ráshṭrapati. 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 Ráthoḍ with Ráshṭra country making the original form Ráshṭravara or World-blessing and referring to an early tribal guardian Ráshṭraśyena or the World-Falcon. It is therefore possible that the origin of both forms of the name, of Ráthoḍ as well as of Ráshṭrakúṭa, is the title ruler of a district. At the same time in the case of the southern Ráshṭrakúṭas the balance of evidence is in support of a tribal origin of the name. The Raṭṭas of Saundatti in Belgaum, apparently with justice, claim descent from the former Ráshṭrakúṭa rulers (Belgaum Gazetteer, 355). Further that the Ráshṭrakúṭas considered themselves to belong to the Raṭṭa tribe is shown by Indra Nityaṃvarsha (a.d. 914) [132]
Chapter XI.
The Ráshṭrakúṭas, a.d. 743–974.
calling himself Raṭṭakandarpa the Love of the Raṭṭas. The result is thus in agreement with the view accepted in the text that Ráshṭrakúṭa means leaders of the Raṭṭa tribe, the form Ráshṭra being perhaps chosen because the leaders held the position of Ráshṭrakúṭas or District Headmen. According to Dr. Bhandárkar (Deccan History, 9) the tribal name Raṭṭa or Ráshṭra enters into the still more famous Dakhan tribal name Maharátha or Mahrátta. So far as present information goes both the Raṭṭas and the Great Raṭṭas are to be traced to the Rástikas mentioned in number five of Aśoka’s (b.c. 245) Girnár edicts among the Aparántas or westerners along with the Peteṇikas or people of Paithan about forty miles north-east of Ahmadnagar (Kolhápur Gazetteer, 82). Whether the Rástika of the edicts is like Peteṇika a purely local name and if so why a portion of the north Dakhan should be specially known as the country or Ráshṭra are points that must remain open.38

The explanation that Kúṭa the second half of Ráshṭrakúṭa, means chief, has been accepted in the text. This is probably correct. At the same time the rival theory deserves notice that the name Ráshṭrakúṭa is formed from two tribal names Kúṭa representing the early widespread tribe allied to the Gonds known as Koṭṭas and Koḍs 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 Ráshṭrakúṭa inscription (J. Bo. Br. R. As. XVI. 92) refers to the Koṭṭas though as enemies not allies of the Ráshṭrakúṭas. At the same time certain details in Abhimanyu’s grant favour an early Ráshṭrakúṭa settlement in the Central Provinces, the probable head-quarters of the Koṭṭas. The grant is dated from Mánapura and is made to Dakshiṇa Śiva of Peṭhapaṅgaraka which may be the Great Śiva 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 Kúṭa is to be set the fact that the northern Raṭṭas are also called Ráshṭrakúṭas though any connection between them and the Koṭṭa tribe seems unlikely.

The question remains were the southern Raṭṭas or Ráshṭrakúṭas connected with the northern Ráthoḍs or Ráshṭrakúṭas. If so what was the nature of the connection and to what date does it belong. The fact that, while the later southern Ráshṭrakúṭas [133]
Chapter XI.
The Ráshṭrakúṭas, a.d. 743–974.
call themselves Yádavas of the Lunar race, the northerners claim descent either from Kuśa the son of Ráma or from Hiraṇyakaśipu would seem to prove no connection did not Abhimanyu’s fifth century grant show that in his time the southern Ráshṭrakúṭas had not begun to claim Yádava descent. That the Márwár Ráthoḍs 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 Raṭṭas of Bijápur (Bijápur Stat. Account, 145) trace their name to the Kánarese raṭṭa right arm, may imply no closer connection than the common attempt to find a meaning for the name Raṭṭa 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 Karṇáṭak. where the Ráthoḍs had ruled before they came to Kanauj. From the Karṇáṭak Sevji brought the image of the Ráhtoḍ Ráshṭraśyena which is now in the temple of Nágána in Meváḍ. The account quoted in the text from Tod (Annals, I. 88) that the Ráthoḍs 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 Śríharshacharita 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 Rájátaraṅginí, Kanauj was held by Yaśovarmán, 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 Ráthoḍs of Márwár claim descent.39 If the legendary connection of the Márwár Ráthoḍs with Kanauj must be dismissed can the Márwár Ráthoḍs be a branch of the southern Ráshṭrakúṭas who like the Maráthás some 800 years later spread conquering northwards? Such a northern settlement of the southern Ráshṭrakúṭas might be a consequence of the victories of the great Ráshṭrakúṭa Dhruva who according to received opinions about a.d. 790 conquered as far north as Allahábád. It is beyond question that southerners or Karṇáṭas 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 Ráshṭrakúṭas and the middle-age settlements of southerners or Karṇáṭas in North India.40 Must therefore the North Indian tribe of Ráthoḍs be admitted to have its origin [134]
Chapter XI.
The Ráshṭrakúṭas, a.d. 743–974.
as late as the twelfth century, and further is the North Indian name Ráthoḍ 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.41 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 Ráthoḍ. Still it is to be noted: first that (Ibbetson, page 240) the Ráthoḍs 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 Ráthoḍs of the thirteenth century may have taken their name. Among other traces of northern Ráshṭras in the middle ages may be mentioned the twelfth and thirteenth century Ráshṭrakúṭas 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 Ráshṭra-deśa 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 Ráthoḍs. The fact that while claiming descent from Ráma the Márwár Ráthoḍs (Tod’s Annals, II. 2 and 5) preserved the legend that their founder was Yavanaśwa 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 Raṭṭas may be the ancient Araṭṭas 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 (Karṇaparvan, 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 Sháharaṭṭa and is the tribe of foreigners afterwards known in the Panjáb as Araṭṭas and of which traces survive in the present widespread tribal names Ráta, Ratta, Ratha, and Ráthor.]


1 Tod’s Annals of Rájasthán, I. 88; II. 2. 

2 Ind. Ant. XI. 112. 

3 Bombay Arch. Sur. Separate Number, 10, 94. 

4 This verse which immediately follows the mention of Govinda’s conquests on the banks of the Mahí and the Narbadá punningly explains the name of the Mátar táluka as meaning the Mother’s táluka. 

5 Ind. Ant. XII. 156. 

6 The Khándesh Reve and Dore Gujars of Chopdá and Raver in the east, and also over most of the west, may be a remnant of these Gujars of Broach who at this time (a.d. 740), and perhaps again about sixty years later, may have been forced up the Narbadá and Tápti into South Málwa and West Khándesh. This is doubtful as their migration is said to have taken place in the eleventh century and may have been due to pressure from the north the effect of Mahmúd Ghaznavi’s invasions (a.d. 1000–1025). 

7 Ind. Ant. VI. 65; Jour. R. A. Soc. V. 350. 

8 Ind. Ant. VI. 65. 

9 The kingdom is not called Láṭa in the copperplate but Láṭesvara-maṇḍala. An unpublished Baroda grant has शास्ता प्रतापप्रथितः पृथिव्यां सर्वस्य लाटेश्वरमण्डलस्य The ruler famous by glory, of the whole kingdom of the king of Láṭa. Other published grants record Govinda’s gift of Gujarát to Indra as तद्दत्तलटेश्वरमण्डलस्य Of him (Indra) to whom the kingdom of the lord of Láṭa had been given by him (Govinda). Ind. Ant. XII. 162.] 

10 Ind. Ant. XII. 160; unpublished Baroda grant. Śrívallabha appears to mean Amoghavarsha who is also called Lakshmívallabha in an inscription at Sirur in Dhárwár (Ind. Ant. XII. 215). 

11 Several copperplates give Karka the epithet Putríyatastasya Son-yearning. 

12 All village and boundary details have been identified by Dr. Bühler. Ind. Ant. V. 148. 

13 Ind. Ant. XIV. 199. 

14 This donee is said to have been given the name of Jyotishika by the illustrious Govindarája apparently the uncle and predecessor of the granting king. 

15 Ind. Ant. XII. 179. 

16 Ind. Ant. XII. 184. The verse may be translated ‘By whom before long was occupied the province handed down from his father which had been overrun by the forces of Vallabha and distracted by numbers of evil-minded followers.’ 

17 Ind. Ant. XII. 179. 

18 This plate was in Dr. Bhagvánlál’s possession. It is among the plates bequeathed to the British Museum. Dr. Bhandárkar (B. B. R. A. S. Jl. XVIII. 255) mentions another unpublished grant of Ś. 789 (a.d. 867) made by Dhruva’s brother Dantivarmman. 

19 These may be either the Gurjjaras between Málwa and Gujarát, or the Bhínmál Gurjjaras north of the Mahí. It is also possible that they may be Chávaḍás as in this passage the term Gurjjara does not refer to the tribe but to the country. [There seems little reason to doubt the reference is to the Gurjjaras of Bhínmál or Śrímál, probably acting through their underlords the Chávaḍás of Aṇahilaváḍa whose king in a.d. 865 was the warlike Kshem Rája (a.d. 841–866). Census and other recent information establish almost with certainty that the Chávaḍás or Chávoṭakas are of the Gurjjara race.] 

20 The identification is not satisfactory. Except the Bráhman settlement of Mottaka, apparently the well known Motála Bráhman settlement of Motá, which is mentioned as situated on the west though it is on the north-east, none of the boundary villages can be identified in the neighbourhood of Palsána. In spite of this the name Palsána and its close vicinity to Bagumrá where the grant was found make this identification probable. 

21 Ind. Ant. XIII. 65. 

22 Ind. Ant. XIII. 65–69. 

23 These were among Dr. Bhagvánlál’s copperplates, and seem to be the same as the two grants published by Dr. Bhandárkar in B. B. R. A. S. Jl. XVIII. 253. 

24 See above page 127

25 The text is: उद्यद्दीधितिरत्नजालजटिलंव्याकृष्टमीदग्धनुः । कुद्धेनोपरि वैरिवीरशिरसामेवं विमुक्ताः शराः । धारासारिणी सेन्द्रचापवलये यस्येत्थ मब्दागमे गर्ज्जरव्रूर्ज्जरसंगरव्यतिकरं जीर्णोजनः शंसति. 

26 It will be noted that in Śaka 836 (a.d. 914) Kṛishṇa’s grandson Indra re-grants 400 resumed villages many of which were perhaps resumed at this time by Kṛishṇa. 

27 It follows that none of Dhavalappa’s three ancestors had any connection with Gujarát. 

28 Dr. Hultsch (Ep. Ind. I. 52) identifies Vyághrása with Vaghás, north-east of Kapadvanj. Dr. Bhagvánlál’s account of the grant was based on an impression sent to him by the Mámlatdár of Kapadvanj. 

29 The text is: सेल्ल विद्याधरेणापि सेलु [हेलो] ल्लालित तपानि पाणिना निहत्या शत्रून्‌ समधे [रे] यशसाकुलमलंकृतं. Dr. Hultsch takes the Sella-Vidyádhara here named to be another brother of Prachaṇḍa and Akkuka. The verse is corrupt. 

30 The Khárepátan grant makes this clear by passing over Indra’s father Jagattuṅga in the genealogy and entering Indra as the grandson and successor of Akálavarsha. Jour. B. B. R. A. Soc. 1. 217. 

31 The text has Helonmúlitameruṇá to chime with the poetical allusion and figure about Indra. By Meru no doubt Mera or Mehr is meant. 

32 Kuruṇḍaka may be the village of Kurund in the Thána zilla seven miles north-east of Bhiwndi. It was a village given away in grant and cannot therefore be any large town. [Kurundvád at the holy meeting of the Kṛishṇa and Pañchgangá in the Southern Marátha Country close to Narsoba’s Vádi seems a more likely place for an investiture.] 

33 J. R. A. S. III. 94. 

34 Ind. Ant. XI. 109. 

35 See above. 

36 Though the name of the gotra Lakshamaṇasa and Láksháyaṇasa differs slightly in the two grants, the identity of the name Nennapa the son of Dhoddi and the father of Siddhabhaṭṭa the a.d. 914 grantee, suggests that the original grant of the village of Tenna by Dhruva I. (a.d. 795) had been cancelled in the interval and in a.d. 914 was renewed by king Indra Nityaṃvarsha. [Dr. Bhandárkar reads the name in Indra’s Navsárí grant (a.d. 914) as Vennapa.] 

37 That in a.d. 915 the Dakhan Ráshṭrakúṭas held Gujarát as far north as Cambay is supported by the Arab traveller Al Masúdi who (Prairies d’Or, I. 253–254) speaks of Cambay, when he visited it, as a flourishing town ruled by Bania the deputy of the Balhára lord of Mánkir. The country along the gulf of Cambay was a succession of gardens villages fields and woods with date-palm and other groves alive with peacocks and parrots. 

38 It seems doubtful whether the Kánarese Raṭṭas the Belgaum Raḍis and the Telugu Reddis could have been Rástikas or locals in the north Dakhan. The widespread Reddis trace their origin (Balfour’s Encyclopædia of India, III. 350) to Rájamandri about thirty miles from the mouth of the Godávari. A tradition of a northern origin remains among some of the Reddis. The Tinnivelly Reddis (Madras J. Lit. and Science, 1887–88, page 136 note 96) call themselves Audh Reddis and assert that Oudh is the native country of their tribe. The late Sir George Campbell (J. R. As. Soc. XXXV. Part II. 129) has recorded the notable fact that the fine handsome Reddis of the north of the Kánara country are like the Játs. With this personal resemblance may be compared the Reddis’ curious form of polyandry (Balfour’s Encyclopædia, III. 330) in accordance with which the wife of the child-husband bears children to the adult males of the family, a practice which received theories (compare Mr. Kirkpatrick in Indian Ant. VII. 86 and Dr. Muir in Ditto VI. 315) would associate with the northern or Skythian conquerors of Upper India during the early centuries of the Christian era. In support of a northern Ráṭa element later than Aśoka’s Rástikas the following points may be noted. That the Kshaharáta or Khaharáta tribe to which the great northern conqueror Nahápana (a.d. 180) belonged should disappear from the Dakhan seems unlikely. Karaháṭaka the Mahábhárata name (As. Res. XV. 47, quoted in Wilson’s Works VI. 178) for Karád on the Kṛishṇa suggests that Nahapána’s conquest included Sátára and that the name of the holy place on the Kṛishṇa was altered to give it a resemblance to the name of the conqueror’s tribe. That, perhaps after their overthrow by Gautamíputra-Śátakarṇi (a.d. 140), the Khaharátas may have established a local centre at Kurandwáḍ at the meeting of the Kṛishṇa and the Pañchgangá may be the explanation why in a.d. 914, centuries after Mányakheṭa or Málkhet had become their capital, the Ráshṭrakúṭa Indra should proceed for investiture to Kuruṇḍaka, which, though this is doubtful, may be Kurandwáḍ. The parallel case of the Khaharátas’ associates the Palhavas, who passed across the southern Dakhan and by intermarriage have in the Pállas assumed the characteristics of a southern tribe, give a probability to the existence of a northern Khaharáta or Ráta element in the southern Ráshṭrakúṭa and Raṭṭas which the facts at present available would not otherwise justify. 

39 The eleventh century Kanauj Gáhaḍaválas are now represented by the Bundelas who about a.d. 1200 overthrew the Chándols in Bundelkhand. These Gáharwáls or Bundelas trace their origin to Benares or Kási and may, as Hœrnle suggests, have been related to the Pálas of that city who several times intermarried with the Dakhan Ráshṭrakúṭas. The Gáharwáls seem to have nothing to do with the district of Garhwál (Gadwál) in the Himálayas.—(A. M. T. J.) 

40 The Vatsarája defeated by Dhruva who has hitherto been identified with the Vatsa king of Kosambi is more likely to prove to be a Bachrája of the Gurjjaras of Bhínmál or Śrímál in north Gujarát. Among references to southern settlements in North India between a.d. 600 and 1000 may be noted the tradition (Wilson’s Indian Caste, II. 143) of a Dravidian strain in the Kashmir Bráhmans and in the eleventh century also in Kashmir (Rajátaranginí, VI. 337) the presence of a Śátaváhana dynasty bearing the same name as the early Śátaváhanas of Paithan near Ahmadnagar. Other instances which might seem more directly associated with the southern Ráshṭrakúṭas (a.d. 500–970) are the six Kárṇáṭaka rulers of Nepál beginning with a.d. 889 (Ind. Ant. VII. 91) and the natives of Karṇáṭadeśa in Máhmúd Ghaznavi’s army (a.d. 1000–1025) who (Sachau’s Alberuni, I. 173; II. 157) used the Karṇáṭa alphabet. The presence of Karṇáṭa rulers in Nepál in the ninth and tenth centuries remains a puzzle. But the use of the term Karṇáṭa for Chálukyas of Kalyán in a.d. 1000 (Ep. Ind. I. 230) suggests that the Nepál chiefs were Chálukyas rather than Ráshṭrakúṭas: while Máhmúd Ghaznavi’s Karṇáṭas may naturally be traced to the mercenary remains of Bárappa’s army of Kalyán Chálukyas whose general Bárappa was slain (Rás Málá, I. 51) and his followers dispersed in north Gujarát by Múla Rája Solaṅki at the close of the tenth century. The only recorded connection of the southern Ráshṭrakúṭas with Northern India during the middle ages (a.d. 750–1150) are their intermarriages with the Pálas of Benares (a.d. 850–1000) mentioned above (Page 132 Note 1), and, between a.d. 850 and 950, with the Kalachuris of Tripura near Jabalpur (Cunningham’s Arch. Survey Report for 1891, IX. 80). 

41 The details compiled from the excellent index and tables in the Panjáb Census yield the following leading groups: 37 sub-castes named Ráthor, Rátor, and other close variants; 53 Rath and Rathis and 2 Rahtas; 50 Ratas, Ratis, or other close variants. Compare Ráhti the name of the people of Mount Abu (Rájputána Gazetteer, III. 139) and the Raht tract in the north-west of Alvar (Ditto, 167). 




a.d. 470–900.

Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d. 470–900.
That the Guptas held sway in Káthiáváḍa 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 Suráshṭra and Gujarát during the period of Gupta decline until the arrival and settlement of Bhaṭkárka 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 Káthiáváḍa and established a maṇḍala or kingdom. Though these Maitrakas are mentioned in no other records from Suráshṭra 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 Káthiáváḍa 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 Puráṇic 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 [136]
Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d. 470–900.
the Mhers had a fight. This fight is probably the historical contest in which the Mhers fought with and overthrew the Gupta Viceroy of Káthiáváḍa.

The Káthiáváḍa 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 Káthiáváḍa leaving settlements at Ajmír, Bádner, Jesalmír, Kokalmír, and Mherváḍa. How and when the Mhers made these settlements and entered Káthiáváḍa is not known. It may be surmised that they came with Toramáṇa (a.d. 470–512) who overthrew the Guptas, and advanced far to the south and west in the train of some general of Toramáṇa’s who may perhaps have entered Suráshṭra. This is probable as the date of Toramáṇa who overthrew Budhagupta is almost the same as that of the Maitrakas mentioned as the opponents and enemies of Bhaṭárka. In the time of Bhaṭárka (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 Bhaṭárka, a tribe or maṇḍala wielding incomparable power. As stated above in Chapter VIII. some time after the Mher settlement and consolidation of power, Bhaṭárka seems to have come as general of the fallen Guptas through Málwa and Broach by sea to East Káthiáváḍa. 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 Káthiáváḍa. 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 Káthiáváḍa, 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 Káthiáváḍa 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 Śaka 789 (a.d. 847) of the Gujarát Ráshṭrakúṭa king Dhruva describes him as attacked by a powerful Mihira king whom he defeated.1 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 Káthiáváḍa. 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.2 Unfortunately only the second plate remains. Still the fish mark on the plate, the locality where it was found, and its date [137]
Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d. 470–900.
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.3 This copperplate describes the king as ruling at Bhúmiliká or Bhúmli in Sorath and gives him the high titles of Parama-bhaṭṭáraka-Mahárájádhirája-Parameśvara, 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 Saṃvat 794 Jyeshṭha 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 Śaka 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 Káthiáváḍa. Among the invading tribes were the Jádejás of Kacch and the Chúḍásamás of Sorath, who like the Bhattis of Jesalmír call themselves of the Yaduvaṃśa stock. Doctor Bhagvánlál held that the Chúḍásamás 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 Dvyáśraya 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 Chúḍásamás 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 [138]
Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d. 470–900.
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 Káthiáváḍa. On the decline of local rule brought about by these incursions and by the establishment of an Ahir or Chúḍásamá kingdom at Junágaḍh, the Jethvás seem to have abandoned Bhúmli which is close to Junágaḍh and gone to Srínagar or Káṇtelun 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 (Śaka 839) shows that there reigned at Vadhwán a king named Dharaṇívaráha of the Chápa dynasty,4 who granted a village to one Mahesvaráchárya, an apostle of the Ámardáka Śákhá of Śaivism. Dharaṇívaráha 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 Káthiáváḍa 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 Junágaḍh. The copper coin, about ten grains in weight, has one side obliterated but the other side shows clearly the words Ráná Śrí 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 Śrí Mahípála Deva. From the locality where the name Mahípála appears both in coins and inscriptions, and from the fact that the more reliable Chúḍásamá lists contain similar names, it may be assumed as probable that Mahípála was a powerful Chúḍásamá ruler of Káthiáváḍa 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 Chávaḍás of Aṇahilapura. Even for the Chávaḍás nothing is available but scant references recorded by Jain authors in their histories of the Solaṅkis and Vághelás.

The Chúḍásamás, a.d. 900–940.[The modern traditions of the Chúḍásamá clan trace their origin to the Yádava race and more immediately to the Samma tribe of Nagar Thatha in Sindh.5 The name of the family is said to have been derived from Chúḍáchandra the first ruler of Vanthalí [139]
Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d. 470–900.
The Chúḍásamás, a.d. 900–940.
(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 Chúḍásamá’s ancestors from Nuh (Noah), including not only Kṛishṇa 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 Chúḍásamá 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 Chúḍáchandra, the traditional eponym of the family, is in the Tuhfat-ul-Kirám made a son of Jádam (Yádava) and only a great-grandson of Kṛishṇa 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 Viśvavaráha and his grandfather Múlarája, there is no reason to doubt that they were real persons, although it is very questionable whether the Chúḍásamás were settled in Káthiáváḍa 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 Dharaṇívaráha’s Vadhván grant proves that the Chápa family of Bhínmál were still supreme in Káthiáváḍa in a.d. 914: whereas the Taríkh-i-Tahiri’s account of the Chúḍásamá conquest of Kacch implies that the Cháwaras, who must be identified with the Chápas of Bhínmál, were losing their power when the Chúḍásamás captured Gúntrí, an event which must have preceded the settlement at Vanthalí in Káthiáváḍa. Beyond the fact that Múlarája Solaṅki transferred the capital to Aṇahilaváḍa 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 Chúḍásamás were able first to conquer Sindh and then to settle in Káthiáváḍa.—A. M. T. J.]

[Káthiáváḍa 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 [140]
Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d. 470–900.
The Jethvás.
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 Káthiáváḍa either by land or sea through Sindh and Kacch. So far as record or tradition remains the Mers and The Jethvás.Jethvás reached Káthiáváḍa 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.6 The three tribes differ widely in numbers and in distribution. The ruling Jethvás are a small group found solely in south-west Káthiáváḍa.7 The Jhálás, who are also known as Makvánas, are a much larger clan. They not only fill north-east Káthiáváḍa, but from Káthiáváḍa, about a.d. 1500, spread to Rájputána and have there established a second Jháláváḍa,8 where, in reward for their devotion to the Sesodia Rája of Mewáḍ 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.9 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 Káthiáváḍa.10 Further they seem to be the Mers of Meváḍa or Medapatha in Rájputána11 and of Mairváḍa in Málava,12 and also to be the Musalmán Meos and Minas of Northern India.13 In Gujarát [141]
Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d. 470–900.
The Mers.
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.14

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 Káthiáváḍa or to determine to which of the many swarms of non-Hindu Northerners they belonged.15 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 Káthiáváḍa 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 [142]
Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d. 470–900.
White Húṇas.
White Húṇas. power of the Maitrakas with the North Indian empire of the Epthalites, Yethas, or White Húṇas.16

Though the sameness in name between the Mihiras and Mihirakula (a.d. 508–530), the great Indian champion of the White Húṇas, may not imply sameness of tribe it points to a common sun-worship.17

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.18 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.19 That the Meyds were associated with the Magas is shown by the mention of the Magas as Mihiragas.20 The third class whom the Bhavishya Purána associates with the introduction of sun-worship are the Mânas who [143]
Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d. 470–900.
White Húṇas.
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 Puráṇic name for the White Húṇas.21 That the Multán sun idol of the sixth and seventh centuries was a Húṇa idol and Multán the capital of a Húṇa 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 Húṇa supremacy in north and north-west India it does not follow that authority at once forsook the Húṇas. 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 Húṇas 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 Húṇas and Hára-Húṇas, the Maitrakas or Mers, and the Gurjjaras hold in the centuries that follow the overthrow of the White Húṇa empire. According to one rendering of Cosmas22 (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 Húṇas. These details support the view that the Maitrakas, Mihiras, or Mers who in Cosmas’ time were in power in Káthiáváḍa, 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 Húṇa invasion (a.d. 480–530).23 In the many recorded swarmings south from [144]
Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d. 470–900.
White Húṇas.
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 Húṇas 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).24 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.25 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 Húṇas a century later, who were welcomed as allies by some of the Panjáb chiefs,26 would cause fresh movements among the frontier tribes. The welcome given to the Húṇas, 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 Káthiáváḍa and Málava large bodies of the earlier northern settlers. To which of the waves of earlier northerners the Medhs belonged is doubtful.27 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.28 [145]

Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d. 470–900.
White Húṇas.
Dr. Bhagvánlál’s view that the Jethvás are Medhs ennobled by long overlordship is somewhat doubtfully shared by Colonel Watson29 and is not inconsistent with Tod’s opinions.30 Still though the Hindu ruler-worship, which, as in the case of the Marátha Śiváji, 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.31 According to the bards the name of the Káthiáváḍa 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 Jyeshṭha constellation.32 The common practice of explaining a tribal name by inventing some name-giving chief deprives this derivation of most of its probability.33 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.34 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 Húṇas.35 It is true that so good an authority as Specht36 holds that the shortened form Yetha is peculiar to the Chinese and was never in use. But the form Tetal or Haital, adopted by [146]
Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d. 470–900.
White Húṇas.
Armenian Musalmán and Byzantine historians,37 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.38 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 Húṇas, or for a section of the White Húṇa swarm, is preserved by Cosmas39 in the form Juvia. This form, if it is not a misreading for Ounia or Húṇa, suggests Jáuvla the recently identified name of the tribe ennobled in India by the great Toramáṇa (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.40 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.’41 That the Káthiáváḍa 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,42 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 Húṇa supremacy in North India, seems to imply a similar supremacy in Gujarát. The facts that up to the twelfth century Húṇas held a leading place in Gujarát chronicles,43 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 Húṇa strain in Káthiáváḍa is hid under the names Mera, Jethva, and Jhála.44 [149]

1 Ind. Ant. XII. 179. 

2 Ind. Ant. II. 257. 

3 Ind. Ant. XII. 151. 

4 The inscription calls Chápa the founder of the dynasty. The name is old. A king Vyághrarája of the Chápa Vaṃśa, is mentioned by the astronomer Brahmagupta as reigning in Śaka 550 (a.d. 628) when he wrote his book called Brahma-Gupta Siddhánta. The entry runs “In the reign of Śrí Vyághramukha of the Śrí Chápa dynasty, five hundred and fifty years after the Śaka king having elapsed.” Jour. B. B. R. A. Soc. VIII. 27. For Dharaṇívaráha’s grant see Ind. Ant. XII. 190ff. 

5 Elliot’s History, I. 266. 

6 According to the Káthiáwár Gazetteer pages 110 and 278, the first wave reached about a.d. 650 and the second about 250 years later. Dr. Bhagvánlál’s identification of the Mers with the Maitrakas would take back their arrival in Káthiáváḍa from about a.d. 650 to about a.d. 450. The Mers were again formidable in Gujarát in the late ninth and early tenth centuries. In a.d. 867 (see above Pages 127 and 130) the Ráshṭrakúṭa Dhruva II, checked an inroad of a Mihira king with a powerful army. Again in a.d. 914 the Ráshṭrakúṭa Indra in a moment uprooted the Mehr (Ditto). 

7 The Áin-i-Akbari (Gladwin, II. 69) notices that the sixth division of Sauráshṭra, which was almost impervious by reason of mountains rivers and woods, was (a.d. 1580) inhabited by the tribe Cheetore that is Jetwa. 

8 Of the Jhálás or Chalahs the Áin-i-Akbari (Gladwin, II. 64) has: Chaláwareh (in north-east Káthiáváḍa) formerly independent and inhabited by the tribe of Chálah. 

9 Tod’s Annals of Rájasthán, II. 113. 

10 Elliot and Dowson, I. 114 and 519–531. It is noted in the text that to the Arab invaders of the eighth and ninth centuries the Medhs of Hind were the chief people of Káthiáváḍa both in Soráth in the south and in Mália in the north. They were as famous by sea as by land. According to Beláduri (a.d. 950) (Reinaud’s Mémoire Sur l’Inde, 234–235) the Meyds of Sauráshṭra and Kacch were sailors who lived on the sea and sent fleets to a distance. Ibn Khurdádba (a.d. 912) and Idrísi (a.d. 1130), probably from the excellent Aljauhari (Reinaud’s Abulfeda, lxiii. and Elliot, I. 79), have the form Mand. Elliot, I. 14. The form Mand survives in a musical mode popular in Rájputána, which is also called Rajewári. The Mand is like the Central Asian Mus-ta-zad (K. S. Fazullah Lutfallah.) 

11 Indian Antiquary, VI. 191. 

12 Rájputána Gazetteer, I. 11. 

13 Rájputána Gazetteer, I. 66; North-West Province Gazetteer, III. 265; Ibbetson’s Panjáb Census page 261. Some of these identifications are doubtful. Dr. Bhagvánlál in the text (21 Note 6 and 33) distinguishes between the Mevas or Medas whom he identifies as northern immigrants of about the first century b.c. and the Mers. This view is in agreement with the remark in the Rájputána Gazetteer, I. 66, that the Mers have been suspected to be a relic of the Indo-Skythian Meds. Again Tod (Annals of Rajasthán, I. 9) derives Meváḍa from madhya (Sk.) middle, and the Mer of Merwáḍa from meru a hill. In support of Tod’s view it is to be noted that the forts Balmer Jesalmer Komalmer and Ajmer, which Pandit Bhagvánlál would derive from the personal names of Mer leaders, are all either hill forts or rocks (Annals, I. 11, and Note †). It is, on the other hand, to be noted that no hill forts out of this particular tract of country are called Mers, and that the similar names Koli and Malava, which with equal probability as Medh might be derived from Koh and Mala hill, seem to be tribal not geographical names. 

14 The tales cited in the Rás Málá (I. 103) prove that most of the Kolis between Gujarát and Káthiáváḍa are Mairs. That till the middle of the tenth century the south-east of Káthiáváḍa was held by Medhs (Káth. Gazetteer, 672) supports the view that the Kolis, whom about a.d. 1190 (Tod’s Western India, I. 265) the Gohils drove out of the island of Piram, were Medhs, and this is in agreement with Idrísi (a.d. 1130 Elliot, I. 83) who calls both Piram and the Medhs by the name Mand. Similarly some of the Koli clans of Kacch (Gazetteer, 70) seem to be descended from the Medhs. And according to Mr. Dalpatram Khakkar three subdivisions of Brahmo-Kshatris, of which the best known are the Mansura Mers and the Pipalia Mers, maintain the surname Mair or Mer. (Cutch Gazetteer, 52 note 2.) Mera or Mehra is a common surname among Sindhi Baluchis. Many of the best Musalmán captains and pilots from Káthiáváḍa, Kacch, and the Makrán coast still have Mer as a surname. Mehr is also a favourite name among both Khojáhs and Memans, the two special classes of Káthiáváḍa converts to Islám. The Khojáhs explain the name as meaning Meher Ali the friend of Ali; the Memans also explain Mer as Meher or friend. But as among Memans Mer is a common name for women as well as for men the word can hardly mean friend. The phrase Merbaí or Lady Mer applied to Meman mothers seems to have its origin in the Rájput practice of calling the wife by the name of her caste or tribe as Káthiáníbaí, Meraníbaí. In the case both of the Khojáhs and the Memans the name Mer seems to be the old tribal name continued because it yielded itself to the uses of Islám. Mehr, Mihr, and Mahar are also used as titles of respect. The Khánt Kolis of Girnár, apparently a mixture of the Maitrakas of the text and of a local hill tribe, still (Káthiáwár Gazetteer, 142) honour their leaders with the name Mer explaining the title by the Gujaráti mer the main bead in a rosary. Similarly in Málwa a Gurjjara title is Mihr (Rájputána Gazetteer, I. 80) and in the Panjáb Máhar (Gazetteer of Panjáb, Gujrát, 50–51). And in Kacch the headman among the Bharwáds, who according to some accounts are Gurjjarás, is called Mir (Cutch Gazetteer, 81). Similarly among the Rabáris of Kacch the name of the holy she-camel is Máta Meri. (Ditto, 80.) All these terms of respect are probably connected with Mihira, Sun. 

15 Compare Tod (Western India, 420): Though enrolled among the thirty-six royal races we may assert the Jethvás have become Hindus only from locality and circumstance. Of the Jhálás Tod says (Rajasthán, I. 113): As the Jhálás are neither Solar Lunar nor Agnikula they must be strangers. Again (Western India, 414): The Jhálá Makvánás are a branch of Húṇas. Of the name Makvána (Káthiáwár Gazetteer, 111; Rás Málá, I. 297) two explanations may be offered, either that the word comes from Mák the dewy tracts in Central Kacch (Cutch Gazetteer, 75 note 2) where (Káthiáwár Gazetteer, 420) the Jhálás stopped when the Mers and Jethvás passed south, or that Makvána represents Mauna a Puráṇic name for the Húṇas (Wilson’s Works, IV. 207). Tod’s and Wilford’s (Asiatic Researches, IX. 287) suggestion that Makvána is Maháhuna is perhaps not phonetically possible. At the same time that the Makvánás are a comparatively recent tribe of northerners is supported by the ascendancy in the fourteenth century in the Himálayas of Makvánis (Hodgson’s Essays, I. 397; Government of India Selections XLVII. 54 and 119) who used the Indo-Skythian title Sáh (Ditto). With the Nepal Makvánis may be compared the Makpons or army-men the caste of the chief of Baltistán or Little Tibet. Vigne’s Kashmir, II. 258, 439. 

16 The evidence in support of the statement that the Maitrakas and Húṇas fought at the same time against the same Hindu rulers is given in the text. One of the most important passages is in the grant of Dhruvasena III. (Epig. Ind. I. 89 [a.d. 653–4]) the reference to Bhaṭárka the founder of Valabhi (a.d. 509–520) meeting in battle the matchless armies of the Maitrakas. 

17 Mr. Fleet (Epigraphia Indica, III. 327 and note 12) would identify Mihirakula’s tribe with the Maitrakas. More recent evidence shows that his and his father Toramáṇa’s tribe was the Jáuvlas. That the White Húṇas or other associated tribes were sun-worshippers appears from a reference in one of Mihirakula’s inscriptions (Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, III. 161) to the building of a specially fine temple of the sun; and from the fact that in Kashmír Mihirakula founded a city Mihirapura and a temple to Mihireshwar. (Darmsteter in Journal Asiatique, X. 70: Fleet in Indian Antiquary, XV. 242–252.) Mihirakula’s (a.d. 508–530) sun-worship may have been the continuance of the Kushán (a.d. 50–150) worship of Mithro or Helios (Wilson’s Ariana Antiqua, 357). At the same time the fact that Mihirakula uses the more modern form Mihir makes it probable (Compare Rawlinson’s Seventh Monarchy, 284) that Mihirakula’s sun-worship was more directly the result of the spread of sun-worship in Central Asia under the fiercely propagandist Sassanians Varahan V. or Behram Gor (a.d. 420–440), and his successors Izdigerd II. (a.d. 440–457), and Perozes (a.d. 457–483). The extent to which Zoroastrian influence pervaded the White Húṇas is shown by the Persian name not only of Mihirakula but of Kushnawaz (a.d. 470–490) the great emperor of the White Húṇas the overthrower of Perozes. That this Indian sun-worship, which, at latest, from the seventh to the tenth century made Multán so famous was not of local origin is shown by the absence of reference to sun-worship in Multán in the accounts of Alexander the Great. Its foreign origin is further shown by the fact that in the time of Beruni (a.d. 1020 Sachau’s Edition, I. 119) the priests were called Maghas and the image of the sun was clad in a northern dress falling to the ankles. It is remarkable as illustrating the Hindu readiness to adopt priests of conquering tribes into the ranks of Bráhmans that the surname Magha survives (Cutch Gazetteer, 52 note 2) among Shrimáli Bráhmans. These Maghas are said to have married Bhoja or Rájput girls and to have become the Bráhman Bhojaks of Dwárka. Even the Mands who had Śaka wives, whose descendants were named Mandagas, obtained a share in the temple ceremonies. Reinaud’s Mémoire Sur l’Inde, 393. 

18 Wilson’s Vishṇu Purána Preface XXXIX. in Reinaud’s Mémoire Sur l’Inde, 391. Details are given in Wilson’s Works, X. 381–385. 

19 Reinaud’s Mémoire Sur l’Inde, 393; Wilson’s Works, X. 382. 

20 The name Mehiraga is explained in the Bhavishya Purána as derived from their ancestress a daughter of the sage Rigu or Rijvahva of the race named Mihira (Reinaud’s Mémoire Sur l’Inde, 393; Wilson’s Works, X. 382). The name Mihiraga suggests that the spread of sun-worship in the Panjáb and Sindh, of which the sun-worship in Multán Sindh Káthiáváḍa and Mewáḍ and the fire-worshipping Rájput and Sindh coins of the fifth and sixth centuries are evidence, was helped by the spread of Sassanian influence into Baluchistán Kacch-Gandevi and other parts of western Sindh, through Sakastene the modern western Seistan near the lake Helmund. This Sakastene or land of the Śakas received its name from the settlement in it of one of the earlier waves of the Yuechi in the second or first century before Christ. The name explains the statement in the Bhavishya Purána that sun-worship was introduced by Magas into Multán from Sakadvipa the land of the Śakas. In this connection it is interesting to note that Darmsteter (Zend Avesta, xxxiv.) holds that the Zend Avesta was probably completed during the reign of Sháhpur II. (a.d. 309–379): that (lxxxix.) Zend was a language of eastern Persia an earlier form of Pashtu; and that (lxxxiv.) western Seistan and the Helmund river was the holy land of the Avesta the birth-place of Zoroaster and the scene of king Vishtasp’s triumphs. A memory of the spread of this western or Sassanian influence remains in the reference in the Mujmalu-T-Tawárikh in Elliot, I. 107–109, to the fire temples established in Kandabil (Gandevi) and Buddha (Mansura) by Mahra a general of Bahman that is of Varahran V. (a.d. 420–440). It seems probable that Mahra is Mehr the family name or the title (Rawlinson’s Sassanian Monarchy, 224 note 4 and 312) of the great Mihran family of Persian nobles. The general in question may be the Mehr-Narses the minister of Varahran’s son and successor Izdigerd II. (a.d. 440–457), who enforced Zoroastrianism in Armenia (Rawlinson, Ditto 305–308). Mehr’s success may be the origin of the Indian stories of Varahran’s visit to Málwa. It may further be the explanation of the traces of fire temples and towers of silence noted by Pottinger (1810) in Baluchistán (Travels, 126–127) about sixty miles west of Khelat. 

21 Wilson’s Works, IX. 207. 

22 Compare Priaulx’s Embassies, 222. 

23 The White Húṇas overran Bakhtria and the country of the Yuechi between a.d. 450 and 460. About a hundred years later they were crushed between the advancing Turks and the Sassanian Chosroes I. or Naushirván (a.d. 537–590). Rawlinson’s Sassanian Monarchy, 420; Specht in Journal Asiatique (1883) Tom II. 349–350. The Húṇas supremacy in North India did not last beyond a.d. 530 or 540. The overthrow of their supremacy perhaps dates from a.d. 540 the battle of Karur about sixty miles east of Multán, their conqueror being Yasodharmman of Málwa the second of the three great Vikramádityas of Málwa. Of the Húṇas’ position among Hindu castes Colonel Tod says: The Húṇas are one of the Skyths who have got a place among the thirty-six races of India. They probably came along with the Káthi, Bála, and Makvána of Sauráshṭra. Tod’s Annals of Rajasthán, I. 110. 

24 Specht in Journal Asiatique (1883), II. 348. 

25 Specht in Journal Asiatique (1883), II. 349. 

26 Compare above Chapter VII. page 73 note 3. 

27 Dr. Bhagvánlál (Text, 33) traces one set of Medhs to the Mevas the tribe of Ysamotika the father of the Kshatrapa Chashṭana (a.d. 130). He holds these Mevas entered India (21) with the Malayas, Palhavas, and Ábhíras about b.c. 150(?) At the same time he seems to have considered those early Mevas different from the fifth and sixth century Mihiras and from the seventh and eighth century Medhs. 

28 Arch. Report for 1863–64, II. 52. In support of this Cunningham cites Ptolemy’s (a.d. 150) Euthymedia that is Sagala, sixty miles north-west of Lahor, and the Media of Peutinger’s Tables (a.d. 400). This Euthymedia is a corruption of the original Euthydemia the name given to Sagala by Demetrios (b.c. 190) the great Græco-Baktrian in honour of his father Euthydemos (Compare Text page 16 and McCrindle’s Ptolemy, 124). Of the cause of this change of name, which may be only a clerical error, two different explanations have been offered. Tod (An. of Rajn. I. 233) would make the new form Yuthi-media the Middle Yuchi. Cunningham (Arch. Surv. Rep. II. 53) would attribute it to the southward migration towards Sindh about b.c. 50 of the Kushán-pressed horde which under Moas or Mogha came from Little Tibet and entered the Panjáb either by way of Kashmír or down the Swát valley. According to General Cunningham (Ditto, 53) the followers of this Moas were Mandrueni called after the Mandrus river south of the Oxus. The two forms Medh and Mand are due to the cerebral which explains the Minnagaras of Ptolemy and the Periplus; Masudi’s (a.d. 915) Mind and Ibn Khurdádbha’s (died a.d. 912) and Idrísi’s (perhaps from Aljauhari) Mand (Elliot, I. 14 and 79, Reinaud’s Abulfeda, lxiii.); the present associated Mers and Mins in Rájputána (Ditto, 53); and perhaps the Musalmán Meos and Minas of the Panjáb (Ibbetson’s Census, 261). 

29 The Jethvás are closely allied to the Medhs (Káth. Gaz. 138); they entered Káthiáváḍa along with the Medhs (Ditto, 278). 

30 The passages are somewhat contradictory. Tod (Western India, 413) says: Jethvás marry with Káthis, Ahirs, and Mers. In the Káthiáwár Gazetteer (page 110) Colonel Barton seems to admit the Jethvás’ claim to be of distinct origin from the Mers. In another passage he says (page 138): The Mers claim to be Jethvás: this the Jethvás deny. So also Colonel Watson in one passage (page 621) seems to favour a distinct origin while in another (page 279) he says: It seems probable the Jethvás are merely the ruling family Rájkula of the Mers and that they are all of one tribe. Two points seem clear. The Jethvás are admitted to rank among Káthiáváḍa Rájputs and they formerly married with the Mers. The further question whether the Jethvás were originally of a distinct and higher tribe remains undetermined. 

31 Bombay Administration Report for 1873. Colonel Tod made the same suggestion: Western India, 256. Compare Pottinger’s (Travels in Baluchistán, 81) identification of the Jeths of Kacch-Gandevi north of Khelat with Játs or Jits. 

32 Tod’s Western India, 413. 

33 Compare Bühler in Epigraphia Indica, I. 294. Like the Chálukyas and other tribes the Jethvás trace the name Jethva to a name-giving chief. Of the Jethvás Tod says (Annals of Rajasthán, I. 114): The Jethvás have all the appearance of Skythian descent. As they make no pretension to belong to any of the old Indian races they may be a branch of Skythians. In his Western India (page 412), though confused by his identification of Śánkha-dwára with Sakotra instead of with Bet-Dwárka (compare Káth. Gaz. 619), Tod still holds to a northern origin of the Jethvás. 

34 Nos. 6 and 82 of Colonel Watson’s List, Káthiáwár Gazetteer, 621. The Pandit’s evidence in the text ascribes to the somewhat doubtful Jáikadeva a date of a.d. 738 (Vikram 794); to Jáchikadeva a date of about a.d. 904 (Gupta 585); and to the Ghúmli ruins a probable eleventh century. Tod (Western India, 417) traces the Jethvás further back putting the founding of Ghúmli or Bhúmli at about a.d. 692 (Ś. 749) the date of a settlement between the Tuars of Delhi and the Jethvás (Ditto, 411). Col. Watson (Káth. Gaz. 278) gives either a.d. 650 or a.d. 900. 

35 The form Yetha is used by the Chinese pilgrim Sung-yun a.d. 519. Beal’s Buddhist Records, I. xc. 

36 Journal Asiatique (1883), II. 319. 

37 Journal Asiatique (1883), II. 314. 

38 Compare for the chief’s name Jetha, Colonel Watson Káth. Gaz. 622 in the Jyeshṭha Nakshatra. 

39 Priaulx’s Embassies, 220; Migne’s Patrologiæ Cursus Vol. 88 page 98. 

40 Census of 1891. III. 116. A reference to the Jhauvlas is given above page 75 note 4. General Cunningham (Ninth Oriental Congress, I. 228–244) traces the tribe of Jhauvla ruling in Sindh, Zabulistan or Ghazni, and Makran from the sixth to the eighth and ninth centuries. 

41 Tod’s Western India, 194 Note ‡. Tod adds: Chand abounds in such jeu-de-mot on the names of tribes. 

42 Rás Málá, I. 302: Káthiáwár Gazetteer, 111. 

43 Tod’s Annals of Rajasthán, I. 111. 

44 Among references to Húṇas may be noted: In the Váyu Purána (Sachau’s Alberuni, I. 300) in the west between Karṇaprávarna and Darva; in the Vishṇu Purána Húṇas between the Saindhavas and the Sálvás (Wilson’s Works, VII. 133 and 134 Note †); in the eighth century Ungutsi lord of the Húṇas who helped Chitor (Tod’s Annals, II. 457); in the Khichi bard Mogji, traditions of many powerful Húṇa kings in India (Tod’s Annals, I. 111 Note †) among them the Húṇa chief of Barolli (Ditto, II. 705); and Rája Húṇa of the Pramára race who was lord of the Pathár or plateau of Central India (Ditto, II. 457).
Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d. 470–900.
In the Middle Ages the Húṇas were considered Kshatriyas and Kshatriyas married Húṇa wives (Wilson’s Works, VII. 134 Note †). Of existing traces in the Panjáb may be noted Hon and Hona Rájputs and Gujjars, Hona Jats, Hon Labánas, Hon Lohárs, Honi Mális, Hon Mochis, Húṇa Barbers, and Haun Rabáris (Panjáb Census. 1891. III. pages 116, 139, 227, 233, 246, 265, 276, 305, 315). The only traces Colonel Tod succeeded in finding in Gujarát were a few Húṇa huts at a village opposite Umetha on the gulf of Cambay, a second small colony near Somanátha, and a few houses at Trisauli five miles from Baroda. (Western India, 247, 323.) Since 1825 these traces have disappeared. 



a.d. 720–1300.




(a.d. 720–956.)

Chapter I.
The Chávaḍás, 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 Aṇahilaváḍa kingdom (a.d. 720) marks a new period of Gujarát history regarding which materials are available from formal historical writings.1 Though this section of Gujarát history begins with the establishment of Aṇahilaváḍa by the Chávaḍás (a.d. 720–956) the details for the earlier portions are very imperfect being written during the time of the Chálukya or Solaṅki (a.d. 957–1242) successors of the Chávaḍás. The chief sources of information regarding the earlier period of Chávaḍá rule are the opening chapters of the Prabandhachintámaṇi, Vicháraśreṇi, Sukṛitasankírtana, and Ratnamálá.2

Pañchásar, a.d. 788.Before the establishment of Aṇahilaváḍa a small Chávaḍá chiefship centred at Pañchásar, now a fair-sized village in Vadhiár between Gujarát and Kacch.3 The existence of a Chávaḍá chiefship at Pañchásar is proved by the Navsárí grant dated Saṃvat 490 (a.d. 788–89) of the Gujarát Chálukya king Pulikeśí Janáśraya. This grant in recording the triumphant progress of an army of Tájikas or Arabs [150]
Chapter I.
The Chávaḍás, a.d. 720–956.
Pañchásar, a.d. 788.
from Sindh to Navsárí and mentioning the kingdoms “afflicted” by the Arabs, names the Chávoṭakas next after the kings of Kacch and Sauráshṭra. These Chávoṭakas can be no other than the Chávaḍás of Pañchásar on the borders of Kacch. The Chávaḍás 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 Káthiáváḍa. Whatever be the origin of the name Chávaḍá, which was afterwards Sanskritised into the highsounding Chápoṭkaṭa or Strongbow, it does not seem to be the name of any great dynasty. The name very closely resembles the Gujaráti Chor (Prakrit Chauṭá or Choraṭá) meaning thieves or robbers; and Jávadá, which is a further corruption of Chávaḍá, is the word now in use in those parts for a thief or robber. Except the mention of the Chávoṭakas in the Navsárí copperplate we do not find the Chávaḍás 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 Aṇahilaváḍa.

Jayaśekhara, a.d. 696.The author of the Ratnamálá (C. 1230 a.d.) says that in a.d. 696 (S. 752) Jayaśekhara the Chávaḍá king of Pañchásar was attacked by the Chaulukya king Bhuvaḍa of Kalyánakaṭaka in Kanyákubja or Kanoj and slain by Bhuvaḍa in battle. Before his death Jayaśekhara, finding his affairs hopeless, sent his pregnant wife Rupasundarí to the forest in charge of her brother Surapála, one of his chief warriors. After Jayaśekhara’s death Rupasundarí gave birth to a son named Vanarája who became the illustrious founder of Aṇahilaváḍa. 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 Kalyánakaṭaka 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 Bhuvaḍa, 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 Solaṅkis originally belonged to a city called Kalyán, and knowing that a Chálukya king named Bhuvaḍa had defeated the Chávaḍás may have called Bhuvaḍa king of Kalyánkaṭaka and identified Kalyánkaṭaka with a country so well known to Puráṇic fame as Kanyákubja. This view is supported by the absence in the Prabandhachintámaṇi and other old records of any mention of an invasion from Kanoj. It is possible that in a.d. 696 some king Bhuvaḍa of the Gujarát Chálukyas, of whom at this time branches were ruling as far north as Kaira,4 invaded the Chávaḍás under Jayaśekhara. Since traces of a Chávoṭaka kingdom remain, at least as late as a.d. 720, it seems probable that the destruction of Pañchásar was caused not by Bhuvaḍa in a.d. 696, but in the Arab raid mentioned above whose date falls about a.d. 720.5 About a.d. 720 may therefore be taken as the date [151]
Chapter I.
The Chávaḍás, a.d. 720–956.
Jayaśekhara, a.d. 696.
of the birth of Vanarája. Merutuṇga the author of the Prabandhachintámaṇi tells how Rupasundarí was living in the forest swinging her son in a hammock, when a Jain priest named Śílaguṇasúri 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.6

Vanarája, a.d. 720–780 (?).In the forests where Vanarája passed his youth lived his maternal uncle Surapála, one of Jayaśekhara’s generals, who, after his sovereign’s defeat and death, had become an outlaw. Vanarája grew up under Surapála’s charge. The Prabandhachintámaṇi records the following story of the origin of Vanarája’s wealth. A Kanyákubja king married Maháṇaká 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 drammas7 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 Aṇahilaváḍa, a.d. 746–765.He fixed the site of a capital which afterwards rose to be the great city of Aṇahilapura. 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 Bharváḍ or Shepherd named Aṇahila son of Śákhadá to show him the best site. Aṇahila agreed on condition that the city should be called by his name. Aṇahila 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 Aṇahilaváḍa (Sk. Aṇahilaváta) that is the place of Aṇahila. In the Prabandhachintámaṇi Merutuṇga gives a.d. 746 (S. 802) as the date of the installation of Vanarája, while in his Vicháraśreṇi the same author gives a.d. 765 (S. 821 Vaisakha Śukla 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 Aṇahilaváḍa. 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 [152]
Chapter I.
The Chávaḍás, a.d. 720–956.
Founding of Aṇahilaváḍa, a.d. 746–765.
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 Vicháraśreṇi, seems the more probable date for the installation as the Prabandhachintámaṇi says that Vanarája got himself installed at Aṇahilapura when he was about fifty.8 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 Vicháraśreṇi he was formally installed as sovereign of Aṇahilaváḍa. Merutuṇga 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 Prabandhachintámaṇi narrates how generously Vanarája rewarded those who had helped him in his adversity. His installation was performed by a woman named Śrí Deví of Kákara village whom in fulfilment of an early promise Vanarája had taken to be his sister.9 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.10 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.11 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 Aṇahilváḍa 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 Solaṅki 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 [153]
Chapter I.
The Chávaḍás, a.d. 720–956.
Image of Vanarája.
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 Ráshṭrakúṭa kings who were cotemporary with Vanarája.12 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 Solaṅki 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 Solaṅkis. 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 Solaṅki 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 Chávaḍá dynasty after the accession of Vanarája. The accession of the Solaṅki founder Múlarája is given in the Vicháraśreṇi at Saṃvat 1017 and in the Prabandhachintámaṇi at Saṃvat 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 Prabandhachintámaṇi and the Ratnamálá, and as twenty-nine by the Vicháraśreṇi. That is according to the Prabandhachintámaṇi and Ratnamálá his reign closes in a.d. 841 (S. 897) and according to the Vicháraśreṇi in a.d. 836 (S. 891). On the whole the Prabandhachintámaṇi date a.d. 841 (S. 897) seems the more probable. The author of the Vicháraśreṇi 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. [154]

Chapter I.
The Chávaḍás, a.d. 720–956.
Yogarája, a.d. 806–814.
Of Yogarája the Prabandhachintámaṇi 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 Prabandhachintámaṇi in a.d. 841 (S. 898) Yogarája was succeeded by his son Kshemarája. The Vicháraśreṇi says that Yogarája was succeeded by Ratnáditya who reigned three years, and he by Vairisiṃha 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 Vairisiṃha is not given. Probably both were sons of Yogarája as the Prabandhachintámaṇi 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 Prabandhachintámaṇi. Accepting this chronology a.d. 880 (S. 936) will be the date of the close of Kshemarája’s reign.

Chámuṇḍa, a.d. 880–908.According to the Vicháraśreṇi and the Sukṛitasankírtana Kshemarája was succeeded by his son Chámuṇḍa. Instead of Chámuṇḍa the Prabandhachintámaṇi mentions Bhúyada perhaps another name of Chámuṇḍa, as in the Prabandhachintámaṇi the name Chámuṇḍa does not occur. The Prabandhachintámaṇi notes that Bhúyada reigned twenty-nine years and built in Aṇahilaváḍa Patan the temple of Bhúyadeshvar. The Vicháraśreṇi gives twenty-seven years as the length of Chámuṇḍa’s reign an insignificant difference of two years. This gives a.d. 908 (S. 964) as the close of Chámuṇḍa’s reign according to the Vicháraśreṇi.

Ghaghaḍa, a.d. 908–937.After Bhúyada the Prabandhachintámaṇi places Vairisiṃha and Ratnáditya assigning twenty-five and fifteen years as the reigns of each. The Vicháraśreṇi mentions as the successor of Chámuṇḍa his son Ghaghaḍa who is called Ráhaḍa in the Sukṛitasankírtana. Instead of Ghaghaḍa the Prabandhachintámaṇi gives Sámantasiṃha or Lion Chieftain perhaps a title of Ghághaḍa’s. The Vicháraśreṇi gives Ghaghaḍa a reign of twenty-seven years and mentions as his successor an unnamed son who reigned nineteen years. The Sukṛitasankírtana gives the name of this son as Bhúbhaṭa. According to these calculations the close of Ghághaḍa’s reign would be a.d. 936 (Saṃvat 965 + 27 = 992). Adding nineteen years for Bhúbhaṭa’s reign brings the date of the end of the dynasty to a.d. 956 (Saṃvat [155]
Chapter I.
The Chávaḍás, a.d. 720–956.
Ghaghaḍa, a.d. 908–937.
993 + 19 = 1012) that is five years earlier than S. 1017 the date given by the Vicháraśreṇi. Until some evidence to the contrary is shown Merutuṇga’s date a.d. 961 (S. 821 + 196 = 1017) may be taken as correct.

According to the above the Chávaḍá 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.
a.d. 842.
a.d. 845.
a.d. 856.
Chámuṇḍa or Bhúyada (?),
a.d. 881.
Ghághaḍa or Ráhaḍa,
a.d. 908.
Name Unknown,
a.d. 937–961.

[The period of Chávaḍá rule at Aṇahilaváḍa 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 Solaṅki historians, none of whom are older than the twelfth century. For the present a few points only can be regarded as established:

(i) The Chávaḍás, Chávoṭakas, or Chápotkaṭas, 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 Aṇahilaváḍa in a.d. 746, the grant of Pulakeśi Janáśraya shows that a Chávaḍá (Chávoṭaka) 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 Chámuṇḍa has, as Dr. Bühler long ago pointed out, crept in through some error from the Solaṅki list. But when the same author in two different works gives such contradictory lists and dates as Merutuṇga does in his Prabandhachintámaṇi and his Vicháraśreṇi, it is clearly useless to attempt to extract a consistent story from the chroniclers.—A. M. T. J.] [156]

1 The following manuscript histories have been used in preparing Part II. Hemachandra’s Dvyáśrayakávya, Merutuṇga’s Prabandhachintámaṇi, Merutuṇga’s Vicháraśreṇi, Jinaprabhasúri’s Tírthakalpa, Jinamandanopádhyáya’s Kumárapálaprabandha, Kṛishṇa-ṛishi’s Kumárapálacharita, Kṛishṇabhaṭṭa’s Ratnamálá, Someśvara’s Kírtikaumudí, Arisiṇha’s Sukṛitasankírtana, Rájaśekhara’s Chaturvinśatiprabandha, Vastupálacharita, and published and unpublished inscriptions from Gujarát and Káthiáváḍa. 

2 The Prabandhachintámaṇi is a short historical compilation; the Vicháraśreṇi, though a mere list of kings, is more reliable; the Ratnamálá is a poetic history with good descriptions and many fables taken from the Prabandhachintámaṇi; the Sukṛitasankírtana is a short work largely borrowed from the Vicháraśreṇi

3 This is apparently Vṛiddhi Áhára or the Vṛiddhi Collectorate, probably called after some village or town of that name. 

4 See above page 108

5 See above page 109

6 In the Satyapurakalpa of his Tírthákalpa, Jinaprabhasúri tells an almost identical story of another king. 

7 This name often recurs in Jain works. These would seem to be Kshatrapa coins as Gadhaiya coins are simply called drammas

8 The text is Pañcháśatavarshadesyaḥ.” 

9 Probably Kákrej famous for its bullocks. 

10 Stories of thieves refraining from plundering houses where they have accidentally laid their hands on salt or millet are common. 

11 The making of the installation mark on the forehead is the privilege of the king’s sister who gives a blessing and receives a present of villages. 

12 Elliot and Dowson, I. 11. 




(a.d. 961–1242)

Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Authorities.The next rulers are the Chaulukyas or Solaṅkis (a.d. 964–1242) whose conversion to Jainism has secured them careful record by Jain chroniclers. The earliest writer on the Solaṅkis, the learned Jain priest Hemachandra (a.d. 1089–1173), in his work called the Dvyáśraya, has given a fairly full and correct account of the dynasty up to Siddharája (a.d. 1143). The work is said to have been begun by Hemachandra about a.d. 1160, and to have been finished and revised by another Jain monk named Abhayatilakagaṇi in a.d. 1255.1 The last chapter which is in Prakrit deals solely with king Kumárapála. This work is a grammar rather than a chronicle, still, though it has little reference to dates, it is a good collection of tales and descriptions. For chronology the best guide is the Vicháraśreṇi which its author has taken pains to make the chief authority in dates. The Vicháraśreṇi was written by Merutuṇga about a.d. 1314, some time after he wrote the Prabandhachintámaṇi.

The Name Chaulukya.According to the Vicháraśreṇi after the Chávaḍás, in a.d. 961 (Vaishakh Suddha 1017), began the reign of Múlarája the son of a daughter of the last Chávaḍá ruler. The name Chaulukya is a Sanskritised form, through an earlier form Chálukya, of the old names Chalkya, Chalikya, Chirîkya, Chálukya of the great Dakhan dynasty (a.d. 552–973), made to harmonise with the Puráṇic-looking story that the founder of the dynasty sprang from the palm or chuluka of Brahma. The form Chaulukya seems to have been confined to authors and writers. It was used by the great Dakhan poet Bilhaṇa (c. 1050 a.d.) and by the Aṇahilaváḍa chroniclers. In Gujarát the popular form of the word seems to have been Solaki or Solaṅki (a dialectic variant of Chalukya), a name till lately used by Gujarát bards. The sameness of name seems to show the Dakhan and Gujarát dynasties to be branches of one stock. No materials are available to trace the original seat of the family or to show when and whence they came to Gujarát. The balance of probability is, as Dr. Bühler holds, that Múlarája’s ancestors came from the north.2

Múlarája, a.d. 961–996.The Sukṛitasankírtana says that the last Chávaḍá king Bhúbhaṭa was succeeded by his sister’s son Múlarája. Of the family or country of Múlarája’s father no details are given. The Prabandhachintámaṇi calls Múlarája the sister’s son of Sámantasiṃha and gives the following details. In a.d. 930 of the family of Bhuiyaḍa (who destroyed Jayaśekhara) were three brothers Ráji, Bija, and Daṇḍaka, who stopped at Aṇahilaváḍa on their way back from a pilgrimage to Somanátha in the guise of Kárpaṭika or Kápdi beggars. The three brothers attended a cavalry [157]
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Múlarája, a.d. 961–996.
parade held by king Sámantasiṃha. An objection taken by Ráji to some of the cavalry movements pleased Sámantasiṃha, who, taking him to be the scion of some noble family, gave him his sister Líládeví in marriage. Líládeví died pregnant and the child, which was taken alive from its dead mother’s womb was called Múlarája, because the operation was performed when the Múla constellation was in power. Múlarája grew into an able and popular prince and helped to extend the kingdom of his maternal uncle. In a fit of intoxication Sámantasiṃha ordered Múlarája to be placed on the throne. He afterwards cancelled the grant. But Múlarája contended that a king once installed could not be degraded. He collected troops defeated and slew his uncle and succeeded to the throne in a.d. 942 (S. 998). The main facts of this tale, that Múlarája’s father was one Ráji of the Chálukya family, that his mother was a Chávaḍá. princess, and that he came to the Chávaḍá throne by killing his maternal uncle, appear to be true. That Múlarája’s father’s name was Ráji is proved by Dr. Bühler’s copperplate of Múlarája.3 Merutuṅga’s details that Ráji came in disguise to Aṇahilaváḍa, took the fancy of Sámantasiṃha, and received his sister in marriage seem fictions in the style common in the bardic praises of Rájput princes. Dr. Bühler’s copperplate further disproves the story as it calls Múlarája the son of the illustrious Ráji, the great king of kings Mahárájádhirája, a title which would not be given to a wandering prince. Ráji appears to have been of almost equal rank with the Chávaḍás. The Ratnamálá calls Ráji fifth in descent from Bhuvaḍa, his four predecessors being Karṇáditya, Chándráditya, Somáditya, and Bhuvanáditya. But the Ratnamálá list is on the face of it wrong, as it gives five instead of seven or eight kings to fill the space of over 200 years between Jayaśekhara and Múlarája.

Most Jain chroniclers begin the history of Aṇahilaváḍa with Múlarája who with the Jains is the glory of the dynasty. After taking the small Chávaḍá kingdom Múlarája spread his power in all directions, overrunning Káthiáváḍa and Kacch on the west, and fighting Bárappa of Láṭa or South Gujarát on the south, and Vigraharája king of Ajmir on the north. The Ajmir kings were called Sapádalaksha. Why they were so called is not known. This much is certain that Sapádalaksha is the Sanskrit form of the modern Sewálik. It would seem that the Choháns, whom the Gujarát Jain chroniclers call Sapádalakshíya, must have come to Gujarát from the Sewálik hills. After leaving the Sewálik hills the capital was at Ajmir, which is usually said to have been first fortified by the Chohán king Ajayapála (a.d. 1174–1177).4 This story seems invented by the Choháns. The name Ajmir appears to be derived from the Mehrs who were in power in these parts between the fifth and the eighth centuries. The Hammíramahákávya begins the Chohán genealogy with Vásudeva (a.d. 780) and states that Vásudeva’s fourth successor Ajayapála established the hill fort of Ajmir. About this time (a.d. 840) the Choháns seem to have made settlements in the Ajmir country and to have harassed Gujarát. Vigraharája the tenth in succession [158]
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Múlarája, a.d. 961–996.
from Vásudeva is described as killing Múlarája and weakening the Gurjjara country.5 The author of the Prabandhachintámaṇi gives the following details. The Sapádalaksha or Ajmir king entered Gujarát to attack Múlarája and at the same time from the south Múlarája’s territory was invaded by Bárappa a general of king Tailapa of Telingána.6 Unable to face both enemies Múlarája at his minister’s advice retired to Kanthádurga apparently Kanthkot in Cutch.7 He remained there till the Navarátra or Nine-Night festival at the close of the rains when he expected the Sapádalaksha king would have to return to Ajmir to worship the goddess Śákambharí when Bárappa would be left alone. At the close of the rains the Sapádalaksha king fixed his camp near a place called Śákambharí and bringing the goddess Śákambharí there held the Nine-Night festival. This device disappointed Múlarája. He sent for his sámantas or nobles and gave them presents. He told them his plans and called on them to support him in attacking the Sapádalaksha king. Múlarája then mounted a female elephant with no attendant but the driver and in the evening came suddenly to the Ajmir camp. He dismounted and holding a drawn sword in his hand said to the doorkeeper ‘What is your king doing. Go and tell your lord that Múlarája waits at his door.’ While the attendant was on his way to give the message, Múlarája pushed him on one side and himself went into the presence. The doorkeeper called ‘Here comes Múlarája.’ Before he could be stopped Múlarája forced his way in and took his seat on the throne. The Ajmir king in consternation asked ‘Are you Múlarája?’ Múlarája answered ‘I would regard him as a brave king who would meet me face to face in battle. While I was thinking no such brave enemy exists, you have arrived. I ask no better fortune than to fight with you. But as soon as you are come, like a bee falling in at dinner time, Bárappa the general of king Tailapa of Telingana has arrived to attack me. While I am punishing him you should keep quiet and not give me a side blow.’ The Ajmir king said, ‘Though you are a king, you have come here alone like a foot soldier, not caring for your safety. I will be your ally for life.’ Múlarája replied ‘Say not so.’ He refused the Rája’s invitation to dine, and leaving sword in hand mounted his elephant and with his nobles attacked the camp of Bárappa. Bárappa was killed and eighteen of his elephants and 10,000 of his horses fell into Múlarája’s hands. While returning with the spoil Múlarája received news that the Sapádalaksha king had fled. [159]

Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Múlarája, a.d. 961–996.
This story of the author of the Prabandhachintámaṇi differs from that given by the author of the Hammírakávya who describes Múlarája as defeated and slain. The truth seems to be that the Ajmír king defeated Múlarája and on Múlarája’s submission did not press his advantage. In these circumstances Múlarája’s victory over Bárappa seems improbable. The Dvyáśraya devotes seventy-five verses (27–101) of its sixth chapter to the contest between Bárappa and Múlarája. The details may be thus summarised. Once when Múlarája received presents from various Indian kings Dvárappa8 king of Láṭadeśa sent an ill-omened elephant. The marks being examined by royal officers and by prince Chámuṇḍa, they decided the elephant would bring destruction on the king who kept him. The elephant was sent back in disgrace and Múlarája and his son started with an army to attack Láṭadeśa and avenge the insult. In his march Múlarája first came to the Śvabhravatí or Sábarmatí which formed the boundary of his kingdom, frightening the people. From the Sábarmatí he advanced to the ancient Purí9 where also the people became confused. The Láṭa king prepared for fight, and was slain by Chámuṇḍa in single combat. Múlarája advanced to Broach where Bárappa who was assisted by the island kings opposed him. Chámuṇḍa overcame them and slew Bárappa. After this success Múlarája and Chámuṇḍa returned to Aṇahilapura.10

The Dvyáśraya styles Bárappa king of Láṭadeśa; the Prabandhachintámaṇi calls him a general of Tailapa king of Telingána; the Sukṛitasankírtana a general of the Kanyákubja king; and the Kírtikaumudí11 a general of the Lord of Láṭa.

Other evidence proves that at the time of Múlarája a Chaulukya king named Bárappa did reign in Láṭadeśa. The Surat grant of Kírtirája grandson of Bárappa is dated a.d. 1018 (Śaka 940). This, taking twenty years to a king, brings Bárappa’s date to a.d. 978 (Śaka 900), a year which falls in the reign of Múlarája (a.d. 961–996; Ś. 1027–1053). The statement in the Prabandhachintámaṇi that Bárappa was a general of Tailapa seems correct. The southern form of the name Bárappa supports the statement. And as Tailapa overthrew the Ráshṭrakúṭas in a.d. 972 (Śaka 894) he might well place a general in military charge of Láṭa, and allow him practical independence. This would explain why the Dvyáśraya calls Bárappa king of Láṭadeśa and why the Kírtikaumudí calls him general of the Lord of Láṭa.

One of Múlarája’s earliest wars was with Graharipu the Ábhíra or Chúḍásamá ruler of Sorath.12 According to Múlarája’s bards, the cause [160]
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Múlarája, a.d. 961–996.
of war was Graharipu’s oppression of pilgrims to Prabhása. Graharipu’s capital was Vámanasthalí, the modern Vanthalí nine miles west of Junágaḍh, and the fort of Durgapalli which Graharipu is said to have established must be Junágaḍh itself which was not then a capital. Graharipu is described as a cow-eating Mlechha and a grievous tyrant. He is said to have had much influence over Lákhá son of king Phula of Kacch and to have been helped by Turks and other Mlechhas. When Múlarája reached the Jambumáli river, he was met by Graharipu and his army. With Graharipu was Lákhá of Kacch, the king of Sindh probably a Sumrá, Mewás Bhilas, and the sons of Graharipu’s wife Nílí who had been summoned from near the Bhadar river by a message in the Yavana language.13 With Múlarája were the kings of Śiláprastha,14 of Márwár, of Kásí, of Arbuda or Abu, and of Śrímála or Bhínmál. Múlarája had also his own younger brother Gangámah, his friend king Revatímitra, and Bhils. It is specially mentioned that in this expedition Múlarája received no help from the sons of his paternal uncles Bíja and Dandaka. The fight ended in Graharipu being made prisoner by Múlarája, and in Lákhá being slain with a spear. After the victory Múlarája went to Prabhása, worshipped the liṅga, and returned to Aṇahilaváḍa with his army and 108 elephants.

According to the author of the Prabandhachintámaṇi Lákhá met his death in a different contest with Múlarája. Lákhá who is described as the son of Phuladá, and Kámalatá daughter of Kírttirája a Parmár king, is said to have been invincible because he was under the protection of king Yaśovarman of Málwa. He defeated Múlarája’s army eleven times. In a twelfth encounter Múlarája besieged Lákhá in Kapilakot, slew him in single combat, and trod on his flowing beard. Enraged at this insult to her dead son Lákhá’s mother called down on Múlarája’s descendants the curse of the spider poison that is of leprosy.15

Mr. Forbes, apparently from bardic sources, states that on his wife’s death Ráji the father of Múlarája went to the temple of Vishṇu at Dwárká. On his return he visited the court of Lákhá Phuláni and espoused Lákhá’s sister Ráyáji by whom he had a son named Rákháich. This marriage proved the ruin of Ráji. In a dispute about precedence Lákhá slew Ráji and many of his Rájput followers, his wife Ráyáji becoming a Satí. Bíja the uncle of Múlarája urged his nephew to avenge his father’s death and Múlarája was further incited against Lákhá because Lákhá harboured Rákháich the younger son of Ráji at his court as a rival to Múlarája.

According to the Dvyáśraya, either from the rising power of his son or from repentance for his own rough acts, after Chámuṇḍa’s victory over Bárappa Múlarája installed him as ruler and devoted himself to religion and charity. According to the Prabandhachintámaṇi Múlarája built in Aṇahilaváḍa a Jain temple named Múlavasatiká. But as the Nandi [161]
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Múlarája, a.d. 961–996.
symbol on his copperplate shows that Múlarája was a devoted Śaivite, it is possible that this temple was built by some Jain guild or community and named after the reigning chief.16 Múlarája built a Mahádeva temple called Múlasvámi in Aṇahilaváḍa, and, in honour of Somanátha, he built the temple of Muleśvara at Maṇḍali-nagara where he went at the bidding of the god.17 He also built at Aṇahilaváḍa a temple of Mahádeva called Tripurushaprásáda on a site to which the tradition attaches that seeing Múlarája daily visiting the temple of Múlanáthadeva at Maṇḍali, Somanátha Mahádeva being greatly pleased promised to bring the ocean to Aṇahilaváḍa. Somanátha came, and the ocean accompanying the god certain ponds became brackish. In honour of these salt pools Múlarája built the Tripurushaprásáda. Looking for some one to place in charge of this temple, Múlarája heard of an ascetic named Kaṇthadi at Siddhapura on the banks of the Sarasvatí who used to fast every other day and on the intervening day lived on five morsels of food. Múlarája offered this sage the charge of the temple. The sage declined saying ‘Authority is the surest path to hell.’ Eventually Vayajalladeva a disciple of the sage undertook the management on certain conditions. Múlarája passed most of his days at the holy shrine of Siddhapura, the modern Sidhpur on the Sarasvatí about fifteen miles north-east of Aṇahilaváḍa. At Sidhpur Múlarája made many grants to Bráhmans. Several branches of Gujarát Bráhmans, Audíchyas Śrígauḍas and Kanojias, trace their origin in Gujarát to an invitation from Múlarája to Siddhapura and the local Puráṇas and Máhátmyas confirm the story. As the term Audíchya means Northerner Múlarája may have invited Bráhmans from some such holy place as Kurukshetra which the Audíchyas claim as their home. From Kanyákubja in the Madhyadeśa between the Ganges and the Yamuná another equally holy place the Kanojías may have been invited. The Śrí Gauḍas appear to have come from Bengal and Tirhut. Gauḍa and Tirhut Bráhmans are noted Tántriks and Mantrasástris a branch of learning for which both the people and the rulers of Gujarát have a great fondness. Grants of villages were made to these Bráhmans. Sidhpur was given to the Audíchyas, Siṃhapura or Sihor in Káthiáváḍa to some other colony, and Stambhatírtha or Cambay to the Śrí Gauḍas. At Siddhapura Múlarája built the famous temple called the Rudramahálaya or the great shrine of Rudra. According to tradition Múlarája did not complete the Rudramahálaya and Siddharája finished it. In spite of this tradition it does not appear that Múlarája died leaving the great temple unfinished as a copperplate of a.d. 987 (S. 1043) records that [162]
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Múlarája, a.d. 961–996.
Múlarája made the grant after worshipping the god of the Rudramahálaya on the occasion of a solar eclipse on the fifteenth of the dark half of Mágha. It would seem therefore that Múlarája built one large Rudramahálaya which Siddharája may have repaired or enlarged. Múlarája is said while still in health to have mounted the funeral pile, an act which some writers trace to remorse and others to unknown political reasons. The Vicháraśreṇi gives the length of Múlarája’s reign at thirty-five years a.d. 961–996 (S. 1017–1052); the Prabandhachintámaṇi begins the reign at a.d. 942 (S. 998) and ends it at a.d. 997 (S. 1053) that is a length of fifty-five years.18 Of the two, thirty-five years seems the more probable, as, if the traditional accounts are correct, Múlarája can scarcely have been a young man when he overthrew his uncle’s power.

Chámuṇḍa, a.d. 997–1010.Of Múlarája’s son and successor Chámuṇḍa no historical information is available. The author of the Prabandhachintámaṇi assigns him a reign of thirteen years. The author of the Dvyáśraya says that he had three sons Vallabha Rája, Durlabha Rája, and Nága Rája. According to one account Chámuṇḍa installed Vallabha in a.d. 1010 (S. 1066) and went on pilgrimage to Benares. On his passage through Málwa Muñja the Málwa king carried off Chámuṇḍa’s umbrella and other marks of royalty.19 Chámuṇḍa went on to Benares in the guise of a hermit. On his return he prayed his son to avenge the insult offered by the king of Málwa. Vallabha started with an army but died of small-pox. The author of the Prabandhachintámaṇi gives Chámuṇḍa a reign of six months, while the author of the Vicháraśreṇi entirely drops his name and gives a reign of fourteen years to Vallabha made up of the thirteen years of Chámuṇḍa and the six months of Vallabha. This seems to be a mistake. It would seem more correct, as is done in several copperplate lists, to omit Vallabha, since he must have reigned jointly with his father and his name is not wanted for purposes of succession. The Vicháraśreṇi and the Prabandhachintámaṇi agree in ending Vallabha’s reign in a.d. 1010 (S. 1066). The author of the Dvyáśraya states that Chámuṇḍa greatly lamenting the death of Vallabha installed Vallabha’s younger brother Durlabha, and himself retired to die at Śuklatírtha on the Narbadá.

Durlabha, a.d. 1010–1022.Durlabha whom the Sukṛitasankírtana also calls Jagatjhampaka or World Guardian came to the throne in a.d. 1010 (S. 1066). The Prabandhachintámaṇi gives the length of his reign at eleven years and six months while the Vicháraśreṇi makes it twelve years closing it in a.d. 1022 (S. 1078). The author of the Dvyáśraya says that along with his brother Nága Rája, Durlabha attended the Svayaṃvara or bridegroom-choosing of Durlabha Deví the sister of Mahendra the [163]
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Durlabha, a.d. 1010–1022.
Rája of Nadol in Márwár. The kings of Aṅga, Kásí, Avantí, Chedí, Kuru, Húṇa, Mathurá, Vindhya, and Andhra were also present.20 The princess chose Durlabha and Mahendra gave his younger sister Lakshmí to Durlabha’s brother Nága Rája. The princess’ choice of Durlabha drew on him the enmity of certain of the other kings all of whom he defeated. The brothers then returned to Aṇahilaváḍa where Durlabha built a lake called Durlabhasarovara. The author of the Prabandhachintámaṇi says that Durlabha gave up the kingdom to his son (?) Bhíma.21 He also states that Durlabha went on pilgrimage and was insulted on the way by Muñja king of Málwa. This seems the same tale which the Dvyáśraya tells of Chámuṇḍa. Since Muñja cannot have been a cotemporary of Durlabha the Dvyáśraya’s account seems correct.

Bhíma I. a.d. 1022–1064.Durlabha was succeeded by his nephew Bhíma the son of Durlabha’s younger brother Nága Rája. The author of the Dvyáśraya says that Durlabha wishing to retire from the world offered the kingdom to his nephew Bhíma; that Bhíma declined in favour of his father Nága Rája; that Nága Rája refused; that Durlabha and Nága Rája persuaded Bhíma to take the government; and that after installing Bhíma the two brothers died together. Such a voluntary double death sounds unlikely unless the result was due to the machinations of Bhíma. The Prabandhachintámaṇi gives Bhíma a reign of fifty-two years from a.d. 1022 to 1074 (S. 1078–1130), while the Vicháraśreṇi reduces his reign to forty-two years placing its close in a.d. 1064 (S. 1120). Forty-two years would seem to be correct as another copy of the Prabandhachintámaṇi has 42.

Two copperplates of Bhíma are available one dated a.d. 1030 (S. 1086) eight or nine years after he came to the throne, the other from Kacch in a.d. 1037 (S. 1093).

Bhíma seems to have been more powerful than either of his predecessors. According to the Dvyáśraya his two chief enemies were the kings of Sindh and of Chedí or Bundelkhand. He led a victorious expedition against Hammuka the king of Sindh, who had conquered the king of Sivasána and another against Karṇa king of Chedí who paid tribute and submitted. The Prabandhachintámaṇi has a verse, apparently an old verse interpolated, which says that on the Málwa king Bhoja’s death, while sacking Dhárápuri, Karṇa took Bhíma as his coadjutor, and that afterwards Bhíma’s general Dámara took Karṇa captive and won from him a gold maṇḍapiká or canopy and images of Ganeśa and Nílakaṇṭheśvara Mahádeva. Bhíma is said to have presented the canopy to Somanátha.

When Bhíma was engaged against the king of Sindh, Kulachandra the general of the Málwa king Bhoja with all the Málwa feudatories, invaded Aṇahilaváḍa, sacked the city, and sowed shell-money at the gate where the time-marking gong was sounded. So great was the [164]
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Bhíma I. a.d. 1022–1064.
loss that the ‘sacking of Kulachandra’ has passed into a proverb. Kulachandra also took from Aṇahilaváḍa an acknowledgment of victory or jayapatra. On his return Bhoja received Kulachandra with honour but blamed him for not sowing salt instead of shell-money.22 He said the shell-money is an omen that the wealth of Málwa will flow to Gujarát. An unpublished inscription of Bhoja’s successor Udayáditya in a temple at Udepur near Bhilsá confirms the above stating that Bhíma was conquered by Bhoja’s officers.23

The Solaṅki kings of Aṇahilapura being Śaivites held the god Somanátha of Prabhása in great veneration. The very ancient and holy shrine of Prabhása has long been a place of special pilgrimage. As early as the Yádavas of Dwárká,24 pilgrimages to Prabhása are recorded but the Mahábhárata makes no mention either of Somanátha or of any other Śaivite shrine. The shrine of Somanátha was probably not established before the time of the Valabhis (a.d. 480–767). As the Valabhi kings were most open-handed in religious gifts, it was probably through their grants that the Somanátha temple rose to importance. The Solaṅkis were not behind the Valabhis in devotion to Somanátha. To save pilgrims from oppression Múlarája fought Graharipu the Ábhíra king of Sorath.25 Múlarája afterwards went to Prabhása and also built temples in Gujarát in honour of the god Somanátha. As Múlarája’s successors Chámuṇḍa and Durlabha continued firm devotees of Somanátha during their reigns (a.d. 997–1022) the wealth of the temple must have greatly increased.

Mahmúd’s Invasion, a.d. 1024.No Gujarát Hindu writer refers to the destruction of the great temple soon after Bhíma’s accession.26 But the Musalmán historians place beyond doubt that in a.d. 1024 the famous tenth raid of [165]
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Somanátha, a.d. 1024.
Somanátha, a.d. 1024.Mahmúd of Ghazni, ended in the destruction and plunder of Somanátha.27

Of the destruction of Somanátha the earliest Musalmán account, of Ibn Asír (a.d. 1160–1229), supplies the following details: In the year a.d. 1024 (H. 414) Mahmúd captured several forts and cities in Hind and he also took the idol called Somanátha. This idol was the greatest of all the idols of Hind. At every eclipse28 the Hindus went on pilgrimage to the temple, and there congregated to the number of a hundred thousand persons. According to their doctrine of transmigration the Hindus believe that after separation from the body the souls of men meet at Somanátha; and that the ebb and flow of the tide is the worship paid to the best of its power by the sea to the idol.29 All that is most precious in India was brought to Somanátha. The temple attendants received the most valuable presents, and the temple was endowed with more than 10,000 villages.30 In the temple were amassed jewels of the most exquisite quality and of incalculable value. The people of India have a great river called Ganga to which they pay the highest honour and into which they cast the bones of their great men, in the belief that the deceased will thus secure an entrance to heaven. Though between this river and Somanátha is a distance of about 1200 miles (200 parasangs) water was daily brought from it to wash the idol.31 Every day a thousand Bráhmans performed the worship and introduced visitors.32 The shaving of the heads and beards of pilgrims employed three hundred barbers.33 Three hundred and fifty persons sang and danced at the gate of the temple,34 every one receiving a settled daily allowance. When Mahmúd was gaining victories and demolishing idols in North India, the Hindus said Somanátha is displeased with these idols. If Somanátha had been satisfied with them no one could have destroyed or injured them. When Mahmúd heard this he resolved on making a campaign to destroy Somanátha, believing that when the Hindus saw their prayers and imprecations to be false and futile they would embrace the Faith.

So he prayed to the Almighty for aid, and with 30,000 horse besides volunteers left Ghazni on the 10th Sha’bán (H. 414, a.d. 1024). [166]
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Somanátha, a.d. 1024.
He took the road to Multán and reached it in the middle of Ramzán. The road from Multán to India lay through a barren desert without inhabitants or food. Mahmúd collected provisions for the passage and loading 30,000 camels with water and corn started for Aṇahilaváḍa. After he had crossed the desert he perceived on one side a fort full of people in which place there were wells.35 The leaders came to conciliate him, but he invested the place, and God gave him victory over it, for the hearts of the people failed them through fear. He brought the place under the sway of Islám, killed the inhabitants, and broke in pieces their images. His men carrying water with them marched for Aṇahilaváḍa, where they arrived at the beginning of Zílkáda.

The Chief of Aṇahilaváḍa, called Bhím, fled hastily, and abandoning his city went to a certain fort for safety and to prepare for war. Mahmúd pushed on for Somanátha. On his march he came to several forts in which were many images serving as chamberlains or heralds of Somanátha. These Mahmúd called Shaitán or devils. He killed the people, destroyed the fortifications, broke the idols in pieces, and through a waterless desert marched to Somanátha. In the desert land he met 20,000 fighting men whose chiefs would not submit. He sent troops against them, defeated them, put them to flight, and plundered their possessions. From the desert he marched to Dabalwárah,36 two days’ journey from Somanátha. The people of Dabalwárah stayed in the city believing that the word of Somanátha would drive back the invaders. Mahmúd took the place, slew the men, plundered their property, and marched to Somanátha.

Reaching Somanátha on a Thursday in the middle of Zílkáda Mahmúd beheld a strong fortress built on the sea-shore, so that its walls were washed by the waves.37 From the walls the people jeered at the Musalmáns. Our deity, they said, will cut off the last man of you and destroy you all. On the morrow which was Friday the assailants advanced to the assault. When the Hindus saw how the Muhammadans fought they abandoned their posts and left the walls. The Musalmáns planted their ladders and scaled the walls. From the top they raised their war-cry, and showed the might of Islám. Still their loss was so heavy that the issue seemed doubtful. A body of Hindus hurried to Somanátha, cast themselves on the ground before him, and besought him to grant them victory. Night came on and the fight was stayed.

Early next morning Mahmúd renewed the battle. His men made greater havoc among the Hindus till they drove them from the town to the house of their idol Somanátha. At the gate of the temple the slaughter was dreadful. Band after band of the defenders entered the temple and standing before Somanátha with their hands clasped round their necks wept and passionately entreated him. Then they issued forth to fight and fought till they were slain. The few left alive took [167]
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Somanátha, a.d. 1024.
to the sea in boats but the Musalmáns overtook them and some were killed and some were drowned.

The temple of Somanátha rested on fifty-six pillars of teakwood covered with lead.38 The idol was in a dark chamber. The height of the idol was five cubits and its girth three cubits. This was what appeared to the eye; two cubits were hidden in the basement. It had no appearance of being sculptured. Mahmúd seized it, part of it he burnt, and part he carried with him to Ghazni, where he made it a step at the entrance of the Great Mosque.39 The dark shrine was lighted by exquisitely jewelled chandeliers. Near the idol was a chain of gold 200 mans in weight. To the chain bells were fastened. And when each watch of the night was over the chain was shaken and the ringing of the bells roused a fresh party of Bráhmans to carry on the worship. In the treasury which was near the shrine were many idols of gold and silver. Among the treasures were veils set with jewels, every jewel of immense value. What was found in the temple was worth more than two millions of dinárs. Over fifty thousand Hindus were slain.40

After the capture of Somanátha, Mahmúd received intelligence that Bhím the chief of Aṇahilaváḍa had gone to the fort of Khandahat,41 about 240 miles (40 parasangs) from Somanátha between that place and the desert. Mahmúd marched to Khandahat. When he came before it he questioned some men who were hunting as to the tide. He learned that the ford was practicable, but that if the wind blew a little the crossing was dangerous. Mahmúd prayed to the Almighty and entered the water. He and his forces passed safely and drove out the enemy. From Khandahat he returned intending to proceed against Mansúra in central Sindh, whose ruler was an apostate Muhammadan. At the news of Mahmúd’s approach the chief fled into the date forests. Mahmúd followed, and surrounding him and his adherents, many of them were slain, many drowned, and few escaped. Mahmúd then went [168]
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Somanátha, a.d. 1024.
to Bhátiá, and after reducing the inhabitants to obedience, returned to Ghazni where he arrived on the 10th Safar 417 H. (a.d. 1026).

The Rauzatu-s-safá of Mirkhand supplements these details with the following account of Mahmúd’s arrangements for holding Gujarát: ‘It is related that when Sultán Mahmúd had achieved the conquest of Somanátha he wished to fix his residence there for some years because the country was very extensive and possessed many advantages among them several mines which produced pure gold. Indian rubies were brought from Sarandíp, one of the dependencies of the kingdom of Gujarát. His ministers represented to Mahmúd that to forsake Khurásán which had been won from his enemies after so many battles and to make Somanátha the seat of government was very improper. At last the king made up his mind to return and ordered some one to be appointed to hold and carry on the administration of the country. The ministers observed that as it was impossible for a stranger to maintain possession he should assign the country to one of the native chiefs. The Sultán accordingly held a council to settle the nomination, in concurrence with such of the inhabitants as were well disposed towards him. Some of them represented to him that amongst the ancient royal families no house was so noble as that of the Dábshilíms of whom only one member survived, and he had assumed the habit of a Bráhman, and was devoted to philosophical pursuits and austerity.’42

That Mahmúd should have found it necessary to appoint some local chief to keep order in Gujarát is probable. It is also probable that he would choose some one hostile to the defeated king. It has been suggested above that Bhíma’s uncle Durlabha did not retire but was ousted by his nephew and that the story of Vallabha and Durlabha dying together pointed to some usurpation on the part of Bhíma. The phrase the Dábshilíms seems to refer either to Durlabhasena or his son. Whoever was chosen must have lost his power soon after Mahmúd’s departure.43 [169]

Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Bhíma I. a.d. 1022–1064.
Bhíma I. a.d. 1022–1064.An inscription at Somanátha shows that soon after Mahmúd was gone Bhímadeva began to build a temple of stone in place of the former temple of brick and wood.

A few years later Bhíma was on bad terms with Dhandhuka the Paramára chief of Ábu, and sent his general Vimala to subdue him. Dhandhuka submitted and made over to Vimala the beautiful Chitrakûṭa peak of Ábu, where, in a.d. 1032 (S. 1088), Vimala built the celebrated Jain temples known as Vimalavasahi still one of the glories of Ábu.44

Bhíma had three wives Udayámatí who built a step-well at Aṇahilaváḍa, Bukuládeví, and another. These ladies were the mothers of Karṇa, Kshemarája, and Múlarája. Of the three sons Múlarája, though his mother’s name is unknown, was the eldest and the heir-apparent. Of the kindly Múlarája the author of the Prabandhachintámaṇi tells the following tale: In a year of scarcity the Kuṭumbikas or cultivators of Vishopaka and Daṇḍáhi found themselves unable to pay the king his share of the land-produce. Bhímarája sent a minister to inquire and the minister brought before the king all the well-to-do people of the defaulting villages. One day prince Múlarája saw these men talking to one another in alarm. Taking pity on them he pleased the king by his skilful riding. The king asked him to name a boon and the prince begged that the demand on the villagers might be remitted. The boon was granted, the ryots went home in glee, but within three days Múlarája was dead. Next season yielded a bumper harvest, and the people came to present the king with his share for that year as well as with the remitted share for the previous year. Bhímdev declined to receive the arrears. A jury appointed by the king settled that the royal share of the produce for both years should be placed in the king’s hands for the erection of a temple called the new Tripurushaprásáda for the spiritual welfare of prince Múlarája.45 [170]

Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Bhíma I. a.d. 1022–1064.
Bhíma reigned forty-two years. Both the Prabandhachintámaṇi and the Vicháraśreṇi mention Karṇa as his successor. According to the Dvyáśraya Bhíma, wishing to retire to a religious life, offered the succession to Kshemarája. But Kshemarája also was averse from the labour of ruling and it was settled that Karṇa should succeed.

Bhíma died soon after and Kshemarája retired to a holy place on the Sarasvatí named Mundakeśvara not far from Aṇahilaváḍa. Karṇa is said to have granted Dahithalí a neighbouring village to Devaprasáda the son of Kshemarája that he might attend on his father in his religious seclusion. But as the Kumárapálacharita mentions Kshemarája being settled at Dahithalí as a ruler not as an ascetic it seems probable that Dahithalí was granted to Kshemarája for maintenance as villages are still granted to the bháyás or brethren of the ruler.

Karṇa, a.d. 1064–1094.Karṇa who came to the throne in a.d. 1064 (S. 1120) had a more peaceful reign than his predecessors. He was able to build charitable public works among them a temple called Karṇa-meru at Aṇahilaváḍa. His only war was an expedition against Áshá Bhil, chief of six lákhs46 of Bhils residing at Áshápallí the modern village of Asával near Ahmadábád.47 Áshá was defeated and slain. In consequence of an omen from a local goddess named Kochharva,48 Karṇa built her a temple in Asával and also built temples to Jayantí Deví and Karṇeśvara Mahádeva. He made a lake called Karṇaságara and founded a city called Karṇávatí which he made his capital.

Karṇa had three ministers Muñjála, Sántu, and Udaya. Udaya was a Śrímálí Vániá of Márwár, who had settled in Aṇahilaváḍa and who was originally called Udá. Sántu built a Jain temple called Sántu-vasahi and Udá built at Karṇávatí a large temple called Udaya-varáha, containing seventy-two images of Tirthankars, twenty-four past twenty-four present and twenty-four to come. By different wives Udá had five sons, Áhaḍa or Asthaḍa, Cháhaḍa, Báhaḍa, Ámbada, and Sollá, of whom the last three were half brothers of the first two.49 Except Sollá, who continued a merchant and became very wealthy, all the sons entered the service of the state and rose to high stations during the reign of Kumárapála.

In late life Karṇa married Miyáṇalladeví daughter of Jayakeśi son of Śubhakeśi king of the Karṇáṭaka. According to the Dvyáśraya a wandering painter showed Karṇa the portrait of a princess whom he described as daughter of Jayakeśi the Kadamba king50 of [171]
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Karṇa, a.d. 1064–1094.
Chandrapura51 in the Dakhan, and who he said had taken a vow to marry Karṇa. In token of her wish to marry Karṇa the painter said the princess had sent Karṇa an elephant. Karṇa went to see the present and found on the elephant a beautiful princess who had come so far in the hope of winning him for a husband. According to the Prabandhachintámaṇi Karṇa found the princess ugly and refused to marry her. On this the princess with eight attendants determined to burn themselves on a funeral pyre and Udayámatí Karṇa’s mother also declared that if he did not relent she too would be a sacrifice. Under this compulsion Karṇa married the princess but refused to treat her as a wife. The minister Muñjála, learning from a kañchukí or palace-servant that the king loved a certain courtezan, contrived that Miyánalladeví should take the woman’s place, a device still practised by ministers of native states. Karṇa fell into the snare and the queen became pregnant by him, having secured from the hand of her husband his signet ring as a token which could not be disclaimed. Thus in Karṇa’s old age Miyánalladeví became the mother of the illustrious Siddharája Jayasiṃha, who, according to a local tradition quoted by Mr. Forbes, first saw the light at Pálanpur.52 When three years old the precocious Siddharája climbed and sat upon the throne. This ominous event being brought to the king’s notice he consulted his astrologers who advised that from that day Siddharája should be installed as heir-apparent.

The Gujarát chronicles do not record how or when Karṇa died. It appears from a manuscript that he was reigning in a.d. 1089 (S. 1145).53 The Hammíramahákávya says ‘The illustrious Karṇadeva was killed in battle by king Duśśala of Śákambharí,’ and the two appear to have been cotemporaries.54 The author of the Dvyáśraya says that Karṇa died fixing his thoughts on Vishṇu, recommending to Siddharája his cousin Devaprasáda son of Kshemarája. According to the Prabandhachintámaṇi Vicháraśreṇi and Sukṛitasankírtana Karṇa died in a.d. 1094 (S. 1150).

Siddharája Jayasingha, a.d. 1094–1143.As, at the time of his father’s death, Siddharája was a minor55 the reins of government must have passed into the hands of his mother Miyánalladeví. That the succession should have been attended with struggle and intrigue is not strange. According to the Dvyáśraya Devaprasáda, the son of Kshemarája burned himself on the funeral pile shortly after the death of Karṇa, an action which was probably the result of some intrigue regarding the succession. Another intrigue [172]
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Siddharája Jayasingha, a.d. 1094–1143.
ended in the death of Madanapála brother of Karṇa’s mother queen Udayámatí, at the hands of the minister Śántu, who along with Muñjála and Udá, helped the queen-mother Miyánalladeví during the regency. Muñjála and Sántu continued in office under Siddharája. Another minister built a famous Jain temple named Mahárájabhuvana in Sidhpur at the time when Siddharája built the Rudramálá. An inscription from a temple near Bhadresar in Kacch dated a.d. 1139 (S. 1195 Ásháḍha Vad 10, Sunday), in recording grants to Audíchya Bráhmans to carry on the worship in an old temple of Udaleśvara and in a new temple of Kumárapáleśvara built by Kumárapála son of the great prince Ásapála,56 notes that Dádáka was then minister of Siddharája. Among his generals the best known was a chief named Jagaddeva (Jag Dev), commonly believed to be a Paramára, many of whose feats of daring are recorded in bardic and popular romances.57 Though Jag Dev is generally called a Paramára nothing of his family is on record. The author of the Prabandhachintámaṇi describes Jagaddeva as a thrice valiant warrior held in great respect by Siddharája. After Siddharája’s death Jagaddeva went to serve king Permádi to whose mother’s family he was related.58 Permádi gave him a chiefship and sent him to attack Málava.

When Siddharája attained manhood his mother prepared to go in great state on pilgrimage to Somanátha. She went with rich offerings as far as Báhuloḍa apparently the large modern village of Bholáda on the Gujarát-Káthiáváḍa frontier about twenty-two miles south-west of Dholká. At this frontier town the Aṇahilaváḍa kings levied a tax on all pilgrims to Somanátha. Many of the pilgrims unable to pay the tax had to return home in tears. Miyánalladeví was so saddened by the woes of the pilgrims that she stopped her pilgrimage and returned home. Siddharája met her on the way and asked her why she had turned back. Miyánalladeví said, I will neither eat nor go to Somanátha until you order the remission of the pilgrim tax. Siddharája called the Bholáda treasurer and found that the levy yielded 72 lákhs a year.59 In spite of the serious sacrifice Siddharája broke the board authorizing the levy of the tax and pouring water from his hand into his mother’s declared that the merit of the remission was hers. The queen went to Somanátha and worshipped the god with gold presenting an elephant and other gifts and handing over her own weight in money.

According to the Prabandhachintámaṇi while Miyánalladeví and Siddharája were on pilgrimage Yaśovarman king of Málwa continually harassed the Gurjjara-Maṇḍala. Śántu who was in charge of the kingdom asked Yaśovarman on what consideration he would retire. [173]
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Siddharája Jayasingha, a.d. 1094–1143.
Yaśovarman said he would retire if Siddharája gave up to him the merit of the pilgrimage to Someśvara. Sántu washed his feet and taking water in his hand surrendered to Yaśovarman the merit of Siddharája, on which, according to his promise, Yaśovarman retired. On his return Siddharája asked Sántu what he meant by transferring his sovereign’s merit to a rival. Sántu said, ‘If you think my giving Yaśovarman your merit has any importance I restore it to you.’60 This curious story seems to be a Jain fiction probably invented with the object of casting ridicule on the Bráhmanical doctrine of merit. Yaśovarman was not a cotemporary of Siddharája. The Málwa king referred to is probably Yaśovarman’s predecessor Naravarman, of whom an inscription dated a.d. 1134 (S. 1190) is recorded.61

Under the name Sadharo Jesingh, Siddharája’s memory is fresh in Gujarát as its most powerful, most religious, and most charitable ruler. Almost every old work of architectural or antiquarian interest in Gujarát is ascribed to Siddharája. In inscriptions he is styled The great king of kings, The great lord, The great Bhaṭṭáraka, The lord of Avantí, The hero of the three worlds, The conqueror of Barbaraka, The universal ruler Siddha, The illustrious Jayasiṃhadeva. Of these the commonest attributes are Siddhachakravartín the Emperor of Magic and Siddharája the Lord of Magic, titles which seem to claim for the king divine or supernatural powers.62 In connection with his assumption of these titles the Kumárapálaprabandha, the Dvyáśraya, and the Prabandhachintámaṇi tell curious tales. According to the Dvyáśraya, the king wandering by night had subdued the Bhútas, Sákinís, and other spirits. He had also learnt many mantras or charms. From what he saw at night he would call people in the day time and say ‘You have such a cause of uneasiness’ or ‘You have such a comfort.’ Seeing that he knew their secrets the people thought that the king knew the hearts of all men and must be the avatára of some god. A second story tells how Siddharája helped a Nága prince and princess whom he met by night on the Sarasvatí.63 According to a third story told in the Kumárapálaprabandha two Yoginís or nymphs came from the Himálayas and asked the king by what mystic powers he justified the use of the title Siddharája. The king agreed to perform some wonders in open court in the presence of the nymphs. With the help of a former minister, Haripála, the king had a dagger prepared whose blade was of sugar and its handle of iron set with jewels. When the king appeared in court to perform the promised wonders a deputation of ambassadors from king Permádi of Kalyánakaṭaka64 was [174]
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Siddharája Jayasingha, a.d. 1094–1143.
announced. The deputation entered and presented the prepared dagger as a gift from their lord. The king kept the prepared dagger and in its stead sent all round the court a real dagger which was greatly admired. After the real dagger had been seen and returned the king said: I will use this dagger to show my mystic powers, and in its place taking the false dagger ate its sugar blade. When the blade was eaten the minister stopped the king and said Let the Yoginís eat the handle. The king agreed and as the Yoginís failed to eat the handle which was iron the superiority of the king’s magic was proved.

A fourth story in the Dvyáśraya tells that when the king was planning an invasion of Málwa a Yoginí came from Ujjain to Patan and said ‘O Rája, if you desire great fame, come to Ujjain and humbly entreat Kálika and other Yoginís and make friends with Yaśovarman the Rája of Ujjain.’ The king contemptuously dismissed her, saying, ‘If you do not fly hence like a female crow, I will cut off your nose and ears with this sword.’

So also the king’s acts of prowess and courage were believed to be due to magical aid. According to the common belief Siddharája did his great acts of heroism by the help of a demon named Bábaro, whom he is said to have subdued by riding on a corpse in a burying ground. The story in the Prabandhachintámaṇi is similar to that told of the father of Harshavardhana who subdued a demon with the help of a Yogí. It is notable that the story had passed into its present form within a hundred years of Siddharája’s death. Someśvara in his Kírtikaumudí says, ‘This moon of kings fettered the prince of goblins Barbaraka in a burial-place, and became known among the crowd of kings as Siddharája.’ Older records show that the origin of the story, at least of the demon’s name, is historical being traceable to one of Siddharája’s copperplate attributes Barbaraka-jishṇu that is conqueror of Barbaraka. The Dvyáśrayakosha represents this Barbara as a leader of Rákshasas or Mlechhas, who troubled the Bráhmans at Śrísthala-Siddhapura. Jayasiṃha conquered him and spared his life at the instance of his wife Piṅgaliká. Afterwards Barbara gave valuable presents to Jayasiṃha and ‘served him as other Rájputs.’65 Barbaraka [175]
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Siddharája Jayasingha, a.d. 1094–1143.
seems to be the name of a tribe of non-Áryans whose modern representatives are the Bábariás settled in South Káthiáváḍa in the province still known as Bábariáváḍa.

A Dohad inscription of the time of Siddharája dated a.d. 1140 (S. 1196) says of his frontier wars: ‘He threw into prison the lords of Suráshṭra and Málwa; he destroyed Sindhurája and other kings; he made the kings of the north bear his commands.’ The Suráshṭra king referred to is probably a ruler of the Áhír or Chúḍásamá tribe [176]
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Siddharája Jayasingha, a.d. 1094–1143.
whose head-quarters were at Junágaḍh. According to the Prabandhachintámaṇi Siddharája went in person to subdue Noghan or Navaghani the Áhír ruler of Suráshṭra; he came to Vardhamánapura that is Vadhván and from Vadhván attacked and slew Noghan. Jinaprabhasúri the author of the Tírthakalpa says of Girnár that Jayasiṃha killed the king named Khengár and made one Sajjana his viceroy in Suráshṭra. So many traditions remain regarding wars with Khengár that it seems probable that Siddharája led separate expeditions against more than one king of that name. According to tradition the origin of the war with Khengár was a woman named Ráṇakadeví whom Khengára had married. Ránakadeví was the daughter of a potter of Majevádi village about nine miles north of Junágaḍh, so famous for her beauty that Siddharája determined to marry her. Meanwhile she had accepted an offer from Khengár whose subject she was and had married him. Siddharája enraged at her marriage advanced against Khengár, took him prisoner, and annexed Sorath. That Khengár’s kingdom was annexed and Sajjana, mentioned by Jinaprabhasúri, was appointed Viceroy is proved by a Girnár inscription dated a.d. 1120 (S. 1176).

An era called the Siṃha Saṃvatsara connected with the name of Jayasiṃha and beginning with a.d. 1113–1114 (S. 1169–70), occurs in several inscriptions found about Prabhása and South Káthiáváḍa. This era was probably started in that year in honour of this conquest of Khengár and Sorath.66 The earliest known mention of the Siṃha Saṃvatsara era occurs in a step-well at Mángrol called the Sodhali Váv. The inscription is of the time of Kumárapála and mentions Sahajiga the father of Múlaka the grantor as a member of the bodyguard of the Chálukyas. The inscription states that Sahajiga had several sons able to protect Sauráshṭra, one of whom was Somarája who built the temple of Sahajigeśvara, in the enclosure of the Somanátha temple at Prabhása; another was Múlaka the náyaka of Suráshṭra, who is recorded to have made grants for the worship of the god by establishing cesses in Mangalapura or Mángrol and other places. The inscription is dated a.d. 1146 (Monday the 13th of the dark half of Aśvín Vikrama S. 1202 and Siṃha S. 32). This inscription supports the view that the Siṃha era was established by Jayasiṃha, since if the era belonged to some other local chief, no Chálukya viceroy would adopt it. The Siṃha era appears to have been kept up in Gujarát so long as Aṇahilapura rule lasted. The well known Verával inscription of the time of Arjuṇadeva is dated Hijri 662, Vikrama S. 1320, Valabhi S. 945, Siṃha S. 151, Sunday the 13th of Ásháḍha Vadi. This inscription shows that the Siṃha era was in use for a century and a half during the sovereignty of Aṇahilaváḍa in Suráshṭra.

Regarding Sajjana Siddharája’s first viceroy in Suráshṭra, the Prabandhachintámaṇi says that finding him worthy the king appointed Sajjana the daṇḍádhipati of Suráshṭradeśa. Without consulting his master Sajjana spent three years’ revenue in building a stone temple of [177]
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Siddharája Jayasingha, a.d. 1094–1143.
Neminátha on Girnár instead of a wooden temple which he removed. In the fourth year the king sent four officers to bring Sajjana to Aṇahilaváḍa. The king called on Sajjana to pay the revenues of the past three years. In reply Sajjana asked whether the king would prefer the revenue in cash or the merit which had accrued from spending the revenue in building the temple. Preferring the merit the king sanctioned the spending of the revenues on the Tírtha and Sajjana was reappointed governor of Sorath.67 This stone temple of Sajjana would seem to be the present temple of Neminátha, though many alterations have been made in consequence of Muhammadan sacrilege and a modern enclosure has been added. The inscription of Sajjana which is dated a.d. 1120 (S. 1176) is on the inside to the right in passing to the small south gate. It contains little but the mention of the Sádhu who was Sajjana’s constant adviser. On his return from a second pilgrimage to Somanátha Siddharája who was encamped near Raivataka that is Girnár expressed a wish to see Sajjana’s temple. But the Bráhmans envious of the Jains persuaded the king that as Girnár was shaped like a liṅg it would be sacrilege to climb it. Siddharája respected this objection and worshipped at the foot of the mountain. From Girnár he went to Śatruñjaya. Here too Bráhmans with drawn swords tried to prevent the king ascending the hill. Siddharája went in disguise at night, worshipped the Jain god Ádíśvara with Ganges water, and granted the god twelve neighbouring villages. On the hill he saw so luxuriant a growth of the sállaki a plant dear to elephants, that he proposed to make the hill a breeding place for elephants a second Vindhya. He was reminded what damage wild elephants would cause to the holy place and for this reason abandoned his plan.

Siddharája’s second and greater war was with Málwa. The cotemporary kings of Málwa were the Paramára ruler Naravarman who flourished from a.d. 1104 to 1133 (S. 1160–1189) and his son and successor Yaśovarman who ruled up to a.d. 1143 (S. 1199) the year of Siddharája’s death As the names of both these kings occur in different accounts of this war, and, as the war is said to have lasted twelve years, it seems that fighting began in the time of Naravarman and that Siddharája’s final victory was gained in the time of Yaśovarman in Siddharája’s old age about a.d. 1134 (S. 1190). This view is supported by the local story that his expedition against Yaśovarman was undertaken while Siddharája was building the Sahasraliṅga lake and other religious works. It is not known how the war arose but the statement of the Prabandhachintámaṇi that Siddharája vowed to make a scabbard of Yaśovarman’s skin seems to show that Siddharája received grave provocation. Siddharája is said to have left the building of the Sahasraliṅga lake to the masons and architects and himself to have [178]
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Siddharája Jayasingha, a.d. 1094–1143.
started for Málwa. The war dragged on and there seemed little hope of victory when news reached Siddharája that the three south gates of Dhárá could be forced. With the help of an elephant an entrance was effected. Yaśovarman was captured and bound with six ropes, and, with his captured enemy as his banner of victory, Siddharája returned to Aṇahilapura. He remembered his vow, but being prevented from carrying it out, he took a little of Yaśovarman’s skin and adding other skin to it made a scabbard. The captured king was thenceforward kept in a cage. It was this complete conquest and annexation of Málwa that made Siddharája assume the style of Avantínátha ‘Lord of Avantí,’ which is mentioned as his biruḍa or title in most of the Chaulukya copperplates.68 Málwa henceforward remained subject to Aṇahilaváḍa. On the return from Málwa an army of Bhíls who tried to block the way were attacked by the minister Sántu and put to flight.

Siddharája’s next recorded war is with king Madanavarman the Chandela king of Mahobaka the modern Mahobá in Bundelkhand. Madanavarman, of whom General Cunningham has found numerous inscriptions dating from a.d. 1130 to 1164 (S. 1186–1220),69 was one of the most famous kings of the Chandela dynasty. An inscription of one of his successors in Kálanjar fort records that Madanavarman ‘in an instant defeated the king of Gurjjara, as Kṛishṇa in former times defeated Kaṃsa,70 a statement which agrees with the Gujarát accounts of the war between him and Jayasiṃha. In this conflict the Gujarát accounts do not seem to show that Siddharája gained any great victory; he seems to have been contented with a money present. The Kírtikaumudí states that the king of Mahobaka honoured Siddharája as his guest and paid a fine and tribute by way of hospitality. The account in the Kumárapálacharita suggests that Siddharája was compelled to come to terms and make peace. According to the Kírtikaumudí, and this seems likely, Siddharája went from Dhárá to Kálanjara. The account in the Prabandhachintámaṇi is very confused. According to the Kumárapálacharita, on Siddharája’s way back from Dhárá at his camp near Patan a bard came to the court and said to the king that his court was as wonderful as the court of Madanavarman. The bard said that Madanavarman was the king of the city of Mahobaka and most clever, wise, liberal, and pleasure-loving. The king sent a courtier to test the truth of the bard’s statement. The courtier returned after six months declaring that the bard’s account was in no way exaggerated. Hearing this Siddharája at once started against Mahobaka and encamping within sixteen miles of the city sent his minister to summon Madanavarman to surrender. Madanavarman who was enjoying himself took little notice of the minister. This king, he said, is the same who had to fight twelve years with Dhárá; if, as is probable, since he is a kabádi or wild king, he wants money, pay him what he wants. The money [179]
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Siddharája Jayasingha, a.d. 1094–1143.
was paid. But Siddharája was so struck with Madanavarman’s indifference that he would not leave until he had seen him. Madanavarman agreed to receive him. Siddharája went with a large bodyguard to the royal garden which contained a palace and enclosed pleasure-house and was guarded by troops. Only four of Siddharája’s guards were allowed to enter. With these four men Siddharája went in, was shown the palace garden and pleasure-houses by Madanavarman, was treated with great hospitality, and on his return to Patan was given a guard of 120 men.

The Dvyáśraya says that after his conquest of Ujjain Siddharája seized and imprisoned the king of a neighbouring country named Sim. We have no other information on this point.

The Dohad inscription dated a.d. 1140 mentions the destruction of Sindhurája that is the king of Sindh and other kings. The Kírtikaumudí also mentions the binding of the lord of Sindhu. Nothing is known regarding the Sindh war. The Kírtikaumudí mentions that after a war with Arṇorája king of Sámbhar Siddharája gave his daughter to Arṇorája. This seems to be a mistake as the war and alliance with Arṇorája belong to Kumárapála’s reign.

Siddharája, who like his ancestors was a Śaiva, showed his zeal for the faith by constructing the two grandest works in Gujarát the Rudramahálaya at Sidhpur and the Sahasraliṅga lake at Patan. The Jain chroniclers always try to show that Siddharája was favourably inclined to Jainism. But several of his acts go against this claim and some even show a dislike of the Jains. It is true that the Jain sage Hemáchárya lived with the king, but the king honoured him as a scholar rather than as a Jain. On the occasion of the pilgrimage to Somanátha the king offered Hemáchárya a palanquin, and, as he would not accept the offer but kept on walking, the king blamed him calling him a learned fool with no worldly wisdom. Again on one occasion while returning from Málwa Siddharája encamped at a place called Śrínagara, where the people had decorated their temples with banners in honour of the king. Finding a banner floating over a Jain temple the king asked in anger who had placed it there, as he had forbidden the use of banners on Jain shrines and temples in Gujarát. On being told that it was a very old shrine dating from the time of Bharata, the king ordered that at the end of a year the banner might be replaced. This shows the reverse of a leaning to Jainism. Similarly, according to the Prabandhachintámaṇi, Hemáchárya never dared to speak to the king in favour of Jainism but used to say that all religions were good. This statement is supported by the fact that the opening verses of all works written by Hemáchárya in the time of Siddharája contain no special praise of Jain deities.

So great is Siddharája’s fame as a builder that almost every old work in Gujarát is ascribed to him. Tradition gives him the credit of the Dabhoi fort which is of the time of the Vághelá king Víradhavala, a.d. 1220–1260. The Prabandhachintámaṇi gives this old verse regarding Siddharája’s public works: ‘No one makes a great temple (Rudramahálaya), a great pilgrimage (to Somanátha), a great Ásthána (darbár hall), or a great lake (Sahasraliṅga) [180]
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Siddharája Jayasingha, a.d. 1094–1143.
such as Siddharája made.’71 Of these the Rudramahálaya, though very little is left, from its size and the beauty of its carving, must have been a magnificent work the grandest specimen of the architecture of the Solaṅki period. The remains of the Sahasraliṅga lake at Aṇahilapura show that it must have been a work of surprising size and richness well deserving its title of mahásaraḥ or great lake. Numerous other public works are ascribed to Siddharája.72

At this period it seems that the kings of Gujarát Sámbhar and other districts, seeing the great reputation which his literary tastes had gained for Bhoja of Dhárá used all to keep Pandits. Certain carvings on the pillars of a mosque at the south-west of the modern town of Dhárá show that the building almost as it stands was the Sanskrit school founded by Bhoja. The carvings in question are beautifully cut Sanskrit grammar tables. Other inscriptions in praise of Naravarman show that Bhoja’s successors continued to maintain the institution. In the floor of the mosque are many large shining slabs of black marble, the largest as much as seven feet long, all of them covered with inscriptions so badly mutilated that nothing can be made out of them except that they were Sanskrit and Prakrit verses in honour of some prince. On a rough estimate the slabs contain as many as 4000 verses.73 According to the old saying any one who drank of the Sarasvatí well in Dhárá became a scholar. Sarasvatí’s well still exists near the mosque. Its water is good and it is still known as Akkal-kui or the Well of Talent. As in Dhárá so in Ajmir the Aṛháí-dinká Jhopḍá mosque is an old Sanskrit school, recent excavations having brought to light slabs with entire dramas carved on them. So also the Gujarát kings had their Pandits and their halls of learning. Śrípála, Siddharája’s poet-laureate, wrote a poetical eulogium or praśasti on the Sahasraliṅga lake. According to the Prabandhachintámaṇi Siddharája gathered numerous Pandits to examine the eulogium. As has already been noticed Siddharája’s constant companion was the great scholar and Jain áchárya Hemachandra also called Hemáchárya, who, under the king’s patronage, wrote a treatise on grammar called Siddhahema, and also the well-known Dvyáśrayakosha which was intended to teach both grammar and the history of the Solaṅkis. Hemachandra came into even greater [181]
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Siddharája Jayasingha, a.d. 1094–1143.
prominence in the time of Kumárapála, when he wrote several further works and became closely connected with the state religion. Several stories remain of Siddharája assembling poets, and holding literary and poetic discussions.

Record is preserved of a sabhá or assembly called by the king to hear discussions between a Śvetámbara Jaina áchárya named Bhaṭṭáraka Devasúri and a Digambara Jaina áchárya named Kumudachandra who had come from the Karṇáṭak. Devasúri who was living and preaching in the Jain temple of Arishṭanemi at Karṇávatí,74 that is the modern Ahmadábád, was there visited by Kumudachandra. Devasúri treated his visitor with little respect telling him to go to Patan and he would follow and hold a religious discussion or váda. Kumudachandra being a Digambara or skyclad Jaina went naked to Patan and Siddharája honoured him because he came from his mother’s country. Siddharája asked Hemachandra to hold a discussion with Kumudachandra and Hemachandra recommended that Devasúri should be invited as a worthy disputant. At a discussion held before a meeting called by the king Kumudachandra was vanquished, probably because the first principle of his Digambara faith that no woman can attain nirváṇa, was insulting to the queen-mother, and the second that no clothes-wearing Jain can gain mukti or absorption, was an insult to the Jain ministers. The assembly, like Bráhmanical sabhás at the present day, appears to have declined into noise and Siddharája had to interfere and keep order. Devasúri was complimented by the king and taken by one Áhada with great honour to his newly built Jaina temple.75

Kumárapála, a.d. 1143–1174.In spite of prayers to Somanátha, of incantations, and of gifts to Bráhmans, Siddharája Jayasiṃha had no son. The throne passed into the line of Tribhuvanapála the great-grandson of Bhímadeva I. (a.d. 1074–62) who was ruling as a feudatory of Siddharája at his ancestral appanage of Dahithalí. Tribhuvanapála’s pedigree is Bhímadeva I.; his son Kshemarája by Bakuládeví a concubine; his son Haripála; his son Tribhuvanapála. By his queen Kásmíradeví Tribhuvanapála had three sons Mahípála, Kírttipála, and Kumárapála, and two daughters Premaladeví and Devaladeví. Premaladeví was married to one of Siddharája’s nobles a cavalry general named Kánhada or Kṛishṇadeva: Devaladeví was married to Arṇorája76 or Anarája [182]
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d. 961–1242.
Kumárapála, a.d. 1143–1174.
king of Śákambhari or Sámbhar, the Ánalladeva of the Hammíramahákávya. Kumárapála himself was married by his father to one Bhupáladeví. According to the Dvyáśraya, Tribhuvanapála was on good terms with Siddharája serving him and going with him to war. The Kumárapálacharita also states that Kumárapála used to attend the court of Siddharája. But from the time he came to feel that he would have no son and that the bastard Kumárapála would succeed him Siddharája became embittered against Kumárapála. According to the Jain chronicles Siddharája was told by the god Somanátha, by the sage Hemachandra, by the goddess Ambiká of Kodinár,77 and by astrologers that he would have no son and that Kumárapála would be his successor. According to the Kumárapálacharita so bitter did his hate grow that Siddharája planned the death of Tribhuvanapála and his family including Kumárapála. Tribhuvanapála was murdered but Kumárapála escaped. Grieved at this proof of the king’s hatred Kumárapála consulted his brother-in-law Kṛishṇadeva who advised him to leave his family at Dahithalí and go into exile promising to keep him informed of what went on at Aṇahilapura. Kumárapála left in the disguise of a jaṭádhári or recluse and escaped the assassins whom the king had ordered to slay him. After some time Kumárapála returned and in spite of his disguise was recognized by the guards. They informed the king who invited all the ascetics in the city to a dinner. Kumárapála came