Chapter I.
Boundaries. 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]

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]

Chapter III.
Legends. 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.
Legends.
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.
Legends.
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.
Legends.
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]

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]

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:

The fourth has simply

[25]

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

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:

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:

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:

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 ज 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:

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:

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:

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:

[40]

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

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 ज 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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

On the coin dated 161 the legend runs:

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:

[47]
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:

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:

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:

[48]
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:

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:

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:

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:

[50]
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:

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:

[51]
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:

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:

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:

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

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.

[55]

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:

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]

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:

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.

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:

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.

[65]

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:

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

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:

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:

This legend is hard to translate. It seems to mean:

[69]

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:

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:

[71]

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:

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]

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.
Religion. 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:

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.
Religion. 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:

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:

VALABHI FAMILY TREE,
a.d. 509–766.

[94]

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.
Válas. 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.
Válas. 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.
Válas. 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.
Válas. 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]

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.

Chálukya Tree.CHÁLUKYA FAMILY TREE.

[111]

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.)

[113]

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.
Copperplates. 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:

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.)

[119]

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:

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:

[122]

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.]

[135]