History of Gujarát / Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Volume I, Part I.

GAZETTEER
OF THE
BOMBAY PRESIDENCY

VOLUME I. PART I.

HISTORY OF GUJARÁT.

UNDER GOVERNMENT ORDERS.
BOMBAY:
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS.
1896.

Bombay Castle, 14th February 1902.

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

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

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

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

H. O. QUIN,
Secretary to Government,
General Department.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JAMES MACNABB CAMPBELL.

Bombay Customs House,
29th May 1896.

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

HISTORY OF GUJARÁT.

This Volume contains the Articles named below:

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

Appendices:

• I.—[The Death of Sultán Bahádur.]
• II.—[The Hill Fort of Mándu.]
• III.—[Bhinmál or Shrimál.]
• IV.—[Java and Cambodia.]
• V.—[Arab References.]
• VI.—[Greek References.]

JAMES M. CAMPBELL.

29th May 1896.

CONTENTS.

[EARLY HISTORY OF GUJARÁT].

PAGE

[Boundaries and Name] 1–5

[Ancient Divisions]:

Ánartta; Suráshṭra; Láṭa 6–7

[Legends]:

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

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

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

[The Kshatrapas] (b.c. 70–a.d. 398):

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

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

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

[The Traikúṭakas] (a.d. 250–450):

Initial Date; Their Race 55–59

[The Guptas] (G. 90–149; a.d. 410–470):

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

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

[The Valabhis] (a.d. 509–766):

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

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

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

[The Chálukyas] (a.d. 634–740):

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

[The Gurjjaras] (a.d. 580–808):

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

[The Ráshṭrakúṭas] (a.d. 743–974):

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

[The Mihiras or Mers] (a.d. 470–900):

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

[THE KINGDOM OF AṆAHILAVÁḌA] (a.d. 720–1300).

[The Chávaḍás] (a.d. 720–956):

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

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

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

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

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

[The Vághelás] (a.d. 1219–1304):

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

[MUSALMÁN PERIOD] (a.d. 1297–1760).

[Introduction]:

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

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

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

[Ahmedábád Kings] (a.d. 1403–1573):

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

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

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

[Mughal Viceroys] (a.d. 1573–1758).

[Emperor Akbar] (a.d. 1573–1605):

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

[Jahángir Emperor] (a.d. 1605–1627):

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

[Sháh Jehán Emperor] (a.d. 1627–1658):

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

[Aurangzib Emperor] (a.d. 1658–1707):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MARÁTHA PERIOD] (a.d. 1760–1819).

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDICES.

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

[Java and Cambodia] 489–504

[Arab References] 505–531

[Greek References] 532–547

[Index] 549–594

EARLY GUJARÁT b.c. 250–a.d. 1300.

NOTE		Ancient Spellingwritten thus		Mandali
				SINDHU
		Modern __ do.____ do. ____		Umarkot
				SINDHIA

Gov.^t. Photozinco Office, Poona, 1896.

ERRATA.

Page [3 note 5]:

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

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

For Aldjayháni read Aljauhari.

EARLY HISTORY OF GUJARÁT.

CHAPTER I.

BOUNDARIES AND NAME.

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
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
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 Takkadeśa[1] appears to be the same as the Tsehkia of Hiuen Tsiang[2] (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.
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
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]

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

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

[3] Cunningham’s Archæological Survey, II. 71. [↑]

[4] Beal’s Buddhist Records, II. 270. [↑]

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER II.

ANCIENT DIVISIONS.

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
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 Larike[7] 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 kings[10] 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[7] Bertius’ Ptolemy, VII. 1. [↑]

[8] Vátsyáyana Sutra, Chap. II. [↑]

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

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

[11] Elliot’s History, I. 378. [↑]

[12] Compare Lassen in Ind. Ant. XIV. 325. [↑]

CHAPTER III.

LEGENDS.

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
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-law[2] 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
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 rod[6] 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,
Chapter III.
Legends.
The Yádavas. chiefly women. On the way in his passage through the Panchanada[7] 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]

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

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

[3] Harivanśa, XXXV.–CXII. [↑]

[4] Mahábhárata Ádiparva, chaps. 218–221. [↑]

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER IV.

MAURYAN AND GREEK RULE

(b.c. 319–100.)

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

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

Inscriptions give reason to believe that the supremacy of Chandragupta, the founder of the Mauryan dynasty (b.c. 319), extended over Gujarát. According to Rudradáman’s inscription (a.d. 150) on the great edict rock at Girnár in Káthiáváḍa, a lake called Sudarśana[3] 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
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 inscription[5] 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
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
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
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 Periplus[16] 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
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 monogram[20] 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 monogram[22] 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.
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]

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

[2] Turnour’s Maháwanso, 71. [↑]

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

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

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

[6] Hemachandra’s Parisishta Parva. Merutunga’s Vicháraśreṇi. [↑]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[13] See above page [15]. [↑]

[14] McCrindle’s Periplus, 121. [↑]

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

[16] McCrindle’s Periplus, 115. [↑]

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

[18] Numismatic Chronicle (New Series), X, 80. [↑]

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

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

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

[22] Ariana Antiqua, Plate XXII. Number 47. [↑]

[23] Numismatic Chronicle (New Series), X. 86. [↑]

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

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

CHAPTER V.

THE KSHATRAPAS

(b.c. 70–a.d. 398.)

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

Two Dynasties.The sway of the rulers who affix the title Kshatrapa to their names extended over two large parts of India, one in the north including the territory from the Kábul valley to the confluence of the Ganges and the Jamná; the other in the west stretching from Ajmir in the north to the North Konkan in the south and from Málwa in the east to the Arabian
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 Baktria[7] (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]

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
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’s[10] advance seems to have lain through East Rájputána by Mandasor[11]
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 Apollodotus[13] representing the distinctive weapons of Athene Promachos and of Apollo. In addition to the Baktro-Páli legend on the Apollodotus drachma, the reverse of Nahapána’s coin has the same legend in Nágarí, since Nágarí was the character of the country for which the coin was struck. The dress of the bust is in the style of the over-dress of Nahapána’s time. The bust, facing the right, wears a flat grooved cap and has the hair combed in ringlets falling half down the ear. The neck shows the collar of the coat. The workmanship of the coins is good. The die seems to have been renewed from time to time as the face altered with age. Of Dr. Bhagvánlál’s four coins one belongs to Nahapána’s youth, another to his old age, and the remaining two to his intervening years. In all four specimens the Greek legend is imperfect and unreadable. The letters of the Greek legend are of the later period that is like the letters on the coins of the great Skythian king Kadphises I. (b.c. 26). One of the coins shows in the legend the six letters L L O D O-S. These may be the remains of the name Apollodotus (b.c. 110–100). Still it is beyond doubt that the letters are later Greek than those on the coins of Apollodotus. Until the legend is found clear on some fresher specimen, it is not possible to say anything further. In three of the coins the Baktro-Páli legend on the reverse runs:

रञो छ्हरातस नहपानस.

Raño Chhaharátasa Nahapánasa.

Of king Chhaharáta Nahapána.

The fourth has simply

रञो छ्हरातस

Raño Chhaharátasa.

Of king Chhaharáta.

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

रञो क्षहरातस नहपानस

Raño Kshaharátasa Nahapánasa.

Of king Kshaharáta Nahapána.

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

Ushavadáta, a.d. 100–120.Ushavadáta was the son-in-law of Nahapána being married to his daughter Dakhamitá or Dakshamitrá. Ushavadáta bears no royal title. He simply calls himself son of Díníka and son-in-law of Nahapána, which shows that he owed his power and rank to his father-in-law, a position regarded as derogatory in India, where no scion of any royal dynasty would accept or take pride in greatness or influence obtained from a father-in-law.[15] Násik Inscription XIV. shows that Ushavadáta was a Śaka. His name, as was first suggested by Dr. Bhau Dáji, is Prákrit for Rishabhadatta. From the many charitable and publicly useful works mentioned in various Násik and Kárle inscriptions, as made by him in places which apparently formed part of Nahapána’s dominions, Ushavadáta appears to have been a high officer under Nahapána. As Nahapána seems to have had no son Ushavadáta’s position as son-in-law would be one of special power and influence. Ushavadáta’s charitable acts and works of public utility are detailed in Násik Inscriptions X. XII. and XIV. The charitable acts are the gift of three hundred thousand cows; of gold and of river-side steps at the Bárnása or Banás river near Ábu in North Gujarát; of sixteen villages to gods and Bráhmans; the feeding of hundreds of thousands of Bráhmans every year; the giving in marriage of eight wives to Bráhmans at Prabhás in South Káthiáváḍa; the bestowing of thirty-two thousand cocoanut trees in Nanamgola or Nárgol village on the Thána seaboard on the Charaka priesthoods of Pinḍitakávaḍa, Govardhana near Násik, Suvarṇamukha, and Rámatírtha in Sorpáraga or Sopára on the Thána coast; the giving of three hundred thousand cows and a village at Pushkara or Pokhar near Ajmir in East Rájputána; making gifts to Bráhmans at Chechiṇa or Chichan near Kelva-Máhim on the Thána coast; and the gift of trees and 70,000 kárshápaṇas or 2000 suvarṇas to gods and Bráhmans at Dáhánu in Thána. The public works executed by Ushavadáta include rest-houses and alms-houses at Bharu Kachha or Broach, at Daśapura or Mandasor in North Málwa, and gardens and wells at Govardhana and Sopára; free ferries across the Ibá or Ambiká, the Páráda or Pár, the Damaná or Damanganga, the Tápi or Tápti, the Karabená or Káveri, and the Dáhánuká or Dáhánu river. Waiting-places and steps were also built on both banks of each of these rivers. These charitable and public works of Ushavadáta savour much of the Bráhmanic religion. The only
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
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 inscriptions[16] 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]

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 lords[19] 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 Mudrárákshasa[21] 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
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 Ushavadáta[24] 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
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Chashṭana’s Coins, a.d. 130. the two arches, and over the third arch an inverted semicircle. Below these symbols stretches a waving or serpentine line.[27]

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

यावद्वीचीतरङ्गान्वहति सुरनदी जान्हवी पूर्णतोया ।

यावच्चाकाशमार्गे तपति दिनकरो भास्करो लोकपालः

यावद्वज्रेन्दुनीलस्फटिकमणिशिला वर्तते मेरुश्रृंङ्गे ।

तावत्त्वं पूत्रपौत्रैः स्वजनपरिवृतो जीव शम्मोः प्रसादत ॥

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

Dr. Bird’s Kanheri copperplate has a verse with a similar meaning regarding the continuance of the glory of the relic shrine of one Pushya, so long as Meru remains and rivers and the sea flow.[29] The meaning of showing Meru and the sun and moon is thus clear. The underlying serpentine line apparently stands for the Jáhnaví river or it may perhaps be a representation of the sea.[30] The object of representing
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 coins[31] which make it larger with four rows of arches, a tree by its side, and instead of the zigzag base line a railing. This seems a different representation perhaps of the shrine of Mahábodhi at Buddha Gaya. These details seem to show that popular notions regarding the meaning of this symbol varied at different times.[32]

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

राज्ञो क्षत्रपस य्समोतिकपुत्र [सच] ष्टनस.[33]

Rájño Kshatrapasa Ysamotikaputra(sa Cha)shṭanasa.

Of the king Kshatrapa Chashṭana son of Ysamotika.

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

राज्ञोमहाक्षत्रपस य्समोदिकपुत्रस चष्टनस

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Ysamotikaputrasa Chashṭanasa.

Of the king the great Kshatrapa Chashṭana son of Ysamotika.

Chashṭana’s Father.The name Zamotika is certainly not Indian but foreign apparently a corruption of some such form as Psamotika or Xamotika. Further the fact that Zamotika is not called Kshatrapa or by any other title, would seem to show that he was an untitled man whose son somehow came to authority and obtained victory over these parts where (as his earlier coins with the sun and the moon show) he was at first called a Kshatrapa and afterwards (as his later coins with the third symbol show) a Mahákshatrapa or great Kshatrapa. We know nothing of any connection between Nahapána and Chashṭana. Still it is clear that Chashṭana obtained a great part of the territory over which
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 father[35]) 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 capital[36] 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 Málavas[37]; 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
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 gifts[38] 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 Junágaḍh[39] but they are doubtful specimens as the legend is not complete. Like Chashṭana’s
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:

राज्ञो क्षत्र [पस] जयदामस.

Rájno Kshatra(pasa) Jayadámasa.

Of the king Kshatrapa Jayadáman.

Though the name is not given in any of these coins, the fact that Chashṭana was Jayadáman’s father has been determined from the genealogy in the Gunda inscription of Rudrasiṃha I. the seventh Kshatrapa,[41] in the Jasdhan inscription of Rudrasena I. the eighth Kshatrapa,[42] and in the Junágaḍh cave inscription[43] 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 exception[45] 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
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Kshatrapa IV. Rudradáman, a.d. 143–158. round the bust is the Greek legend incomplete and undecipherable. The reverse has the usual sun and moon and the arched symbol with the zigzag under-line. The old Nágarí legend fills the whole outer circle. None of Rudradáman’s coins shows a trace of the Baktro-Páli legend. The Nágarí legend reads:

राज्ञो क्षत्रपस जयदामपुत्रस राज्ञो महक्षत्रपस रुद्रदामस.

Rájno Kshatrapasa Jayadámaputrasa
Rájno Mahákshatrapasa Rudradámasa.

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

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

An inscription on the Girnár rock gives us more information regarding Rudradáman than is available for any of the other Kshatrapas. The inscription records the construction of a new dam on the Sudarśana lake close to the inscription rock in place of a dam built in the time of the Maurya king Chandragupta (b.c. 300) and added to in the time of his grandson the great Aśoka (b.c. 240) which had suddenly burst in a storm. The new dam is recorded to have been made under the orders of Suvishákha son of Kulaipa a Pahlava by tribe, who was ‘appointed by the king to protect the whole of Ánarta and Suráshṭra.’ Pahlava seems to be the name of the ancient Persians and Parthians[47] 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
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
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
The Yaudheyas. which are adapted from the type of Kanishka’s coins[60] have on the obverse a standing robed male figure extending the protecting right hand of mercy. On the reverse is the figure of a standing Kártikasvámi and round the figure the legend in Gupta characters of about the third century:

यौधेय गणस्य

Yaudheya Gaṇasya.

Of the Yaudheya tribe.[61]

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

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

The remark regarding the conquest of Śátakarṇi lord of Dakshinápatha is as follows: ‘He who has obtained glory because he did not destroy Śátakarṇi, the lord of the Dekhan, on account of there being no distance in relationship, though he twice really conquered him.’[64] As Śátakarṇi is a dynastic name applied to several of the Ándhra kings, the question arises Which of the Śátakarṇis did Rudradáman twice defeat? Of the two Western India kings mentioned by Ptolemy one Tiastanes with his capital at Ozene or Ujjain[65] 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
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
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 reign[69] of Jayadáman, the beginning of the reign of Rudradáman may be supposed to have been about the year 65 (a.d. 143). This Girnár inscription gives 72 as the year in which Rudradáman was then reigning and it is fair to suppose that he reigned probably up to 80. The conclusion is that Rudradáman ruled from a.d. 143 to 158.[70]

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

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रदामपुत्रस[72] राज्ञः क्षत्रपस दामाय्सडस

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudradámaputrasa Rájñaḥ Kshatrapasa Dámáysaḍasa.

Of the king the Kshatrapa Dámázaḍa[73] son of the king the Kshatrapa Rudradáman.

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

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रदाम्नः पुत्रस राज्ञः क्षत्रपस दामाजडश्रियः

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudradámnaḥputrasa Rájñaḥ Kshatrapasa Dámájaḍaśriyaḥ.

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

Dámázaḍa and Dámájaḍaśrí seem to be two forms of the same name, Dámázaḍa with य्स for Ζ being the name first struck, and Dámájaḍaśrí, with the ordinary 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:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस दामाश्रियः पुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस जीवदाम्नः

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Dámaśriyaḥputrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Jivadámnaḥ.

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

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

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस दामजडस पुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस जीवदमस

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Dámajaḍasaputrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Jivadámasa.

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

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

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस दामजडस पुत्रस

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Dámajaḍasaputrasa.

Of the son of the king the great Kshatrapa Dámájaḍa.

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

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

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

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

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रदामपुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रसिंहस

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudradámaputrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudrasiṃhasa.

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

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

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

Kshatrapa VIII. Rudrasena, a.d. 203–220.The eighth Kshatrapa was Rudrasena, son of Rudrasiṃha, as is clearly mentioned in the legends on his coins. His coins like his father’s are found in large numbers. Of forty in Dr. Bhagvánlál’s collection twenty-seven bear the following eleven[76] dates, 125, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 140, 142. The coins are of the usual Kshatrapa type closely like Rudrasiṃha’s coins. The Nágarí legend reads:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्त्रपस रुद्रसिंहस पुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रसेनस

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudrasiṃhasa putrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudrasenasa.

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

Two copper coins square and smaller than the copper coins of
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Kshatrapa VIII. Rudrasena, a.d. 203–220. Rudrasiṃha have been found in Ujjain[77] though none are recorded from Káthiáváḍa. On their obverse these copper coins have a facing bull and on the back the usual symbols and below them the year 140, but no legend. Their date and their Kshatrapa style show that they are coins of Rudrasena.

Besides coins two inscriptions one at Muliyásar the other at Jasdan give information regarding Rudrasena. The Muliyásar inscription, now in the library at Dwárka ten miles south-west of Muliyásar, records the erection of an upright slab by the sons of one Vánijaka. This inscription bears date 122, the fifth of the dark half of Vaishákha in the year 122 during the reign of Rudrasiṃha.[78] The Jasdan inscription, on a stone about five miles from Jasdan, belongs to the reign of this Kshatrapa. It is in six lines of old Kshatrapa Nágarí characters shallow and dim with occasional engraver’s mistakes, but on the whole well-preserved. The writing records the building of a pond by several brothers (names not given) of the Mánasasa gotra sons of Pranáthaka and grandsons of Khara. The date is the 5th of the dark half of Bhádrapada ‘in the year’ 126.[79] The genealogy is in the following order:

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

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

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

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रसेनस पुत्रस राज्ञः क्षत्रपस पृथिवीसेनस

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudrasenasa putrasa Rájñaḥ Kshatrapasa Pṛithivísenasa.

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

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

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

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रसिंहस पुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस सण्घदाम्न [ः]

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudrasiṃhasa putrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Saṅghadámna.

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

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

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

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रसिंहस पुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस दामसेनस.

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudrasiṃhasa putrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Dámasenasa.

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

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

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

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रसेनपुत्रस रज्ञःक्षत्रपस दामाजडश्रियः

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudrasenaputrasa Rajñaḥ Kshatrapas Dámájaḍaśriyaḥ.

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

Five specimens, the only specimens on record, are dated 154.[84] As 154 falls in the reign of Dámasena it seems probable that Dámájaḍaśrí was either a minor or a viceroy or perhaps a ruler claiming independence, as about this time the authority of the main dynasty seems to have been much disputed.
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.

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

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

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस दामसेनस पुत्रस राज्ञो क्षत्रपस वीरदाम्नः

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Dámasenasa putrasa Rájñaḥ Kshatrapasa Víradámnaḥ.

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

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

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

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस दामसेनस पुत्रस राज्ञः क्षत्रपस यशदाम्नः

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Dámasenasa putrasa Rájñaḥ Kshatrapasa Yaśadámnaḥ.

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

On the coin dated 161 the legend runs:

राज्ञो महक्षत्रपस दामसेनस पुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्स्हत्रपस यशदाम्नः

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Dámasenasa putrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Yaśadámnaḥ.

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

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

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस दामसेनपुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस विजयसेनस

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Dámasenaputrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Vijayasenasa.

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

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

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

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

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

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस दामसेनपुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस दामाजडश्रियः

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Dámasenaputrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Dádmájaḍaśriyaḥ.

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

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

राज्ञो क्षत्रपस वीरदामपुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रसेनस

Rájño Kshatrapasa Víradámaputrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudrasenasa.

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

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

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रसेनपुत्रस राज्ञः क्षत्रपस विश्वसिंहस.

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudrasenaputrasa Rájñaḥ Kshatrapasa Viśvasiṃhasa.

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

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

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

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

In Bharttṛidáman’s earlier coins the legend reads:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रसेनपुत्रस राज्ञः क्षत्रपस भर्तृदाम्नः

Rajño Mahákshatrapasa Rudrasenaputrasa Rajñaḥ Kshatrapasa Bhartṛidámnaḥ.

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

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

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

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस भर्तृदामपुत्रस राज्ञः क्षत्रपस विश्वसेनस,

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Bhartṛidáma putrasa Rájñaḥ Kshatrapasa Viśvasenasa.

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

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

A hoard of coins found in 1861 near Karád on the Kṛishṇa, thirty-one miles south of Sátára, suggests[88] 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
Chapter V.
Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398.
Kshatrapa XX. Viśvasena, a.d. 294–300. view that the contents of the hoard furnish evidence of the local rule of the kings whose coins have been found at Karád. The date (a.d. 238–249) of Vijayasena, the earliest king of the hoard, agrees well with the spread of Gujarát power in the Dakhan as it follows the overthrow both of the west (a.d. 180–200) and of the east (a.d. 220) Śátakarṇis, while it precedes the establishment of any later west Dakhan dynasty: (2) All the kings whose coins occur in the hoard were Mahákshatrapas and from the details in the Periplus (a.d. 247), the earliest, Vijayasena, must have been a ruler of special wealth and power: (3) That the coins cease with Viśvasena (a.d. 296–300) is in accord with the fact that Viśvasena was the last of the direct line of Chashṭana, and that with or before the close of Viśvasena’s reign the power of the Gujarát Kshatrapas declined. The presumption that Kshatrapa power was at its height during the reigns of the kings whose coins have been found at Karád is strengthened by the discovery at Amrávati in the Berárs of a hoard of coins of the Mahákshatrapa Rudrasena (II. ?) (a.d. 256–272) son of the Mahákshatrapa Dámájaḍaśrí.[89]

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

स्वामिजीवदामपुत्रस राज्ञः क्षत्रपस रुद्रसिंहस

Svámi Jívadáma putrasa Rajñaḥ Kshatrapasa Rudrasiṃhasa.

Of the king the Kshatrapa Rudrasiṃha son of Svámi Jívadáman.

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

राज्ञः क्षत्रपस रुद्रसिंहपुत्रस राज्ञः क्षत्रपस यशदाम्नः

Rájñaḥ Kshatrapasa Rudrasiṃhaputrasa Rájñaḥ Kshatrapasa Yaśadámnaḥ.

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

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

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

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस रुद्रसिंहस पुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस दामसिरिस.

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Rudrasiṃhasaputrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Dámasirisa.

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

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

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

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

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस स्वामिरुद्रदामपुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस स्वामिरुद्रसेनस.

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Svámi Rudradámaputrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Svámi Rudrasenasa.

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

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

Kshatrapa XXV. Rudrasena, a.d. 378–388.After Rudrasena come coins of Kshatrapa Rudrasena son of Satyasena. These coins are fairly common. Of five in the Pandit’s collection through faulty minting none are dated. General Cunningham mentions coins of Kshatrapa Rudrasena dated 300, 304, and 310.[90] This would seem to show that he was the successor of Rudrasena son of Rudradáman and that his reign extended to over 310. The legend on these coins runs:

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस स्वामिसत्यसेनपुत्रस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस स्वामिरुद्रसेनस.

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Svámi Satyasenaputrasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Svámi Rudrasenasa.

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

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

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

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस स्वामि रुद्रसेनस राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस स्वस्रीयस्य स्वामिसिंहसेनस,

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Svámi Rudrasenasa Rájño Mahákshatrapasa svasríyasya Svámi Siṃhasenasa.

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

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

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

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

राज्ञो महाक्षत्रपस ईश्वरदत्तस वर्षे प्रथमे,

Rájño Mahákshatrapasa Íśvaradattasa varshe prathame.

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

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

वर्षे द्वितीये.

Varshe dvitíye.

In the second year.

It is clear from this that Íśvaradatta’s reign did not last long. His peculiar name and his separate date leave little doubt that he belonged to some distinct family of Kshatrapas. The general style of his coins shows that he cannot have been a late Kshatrapa while the fact that he is called Mahákshatrapa seems to show he was an independent ruler. No good evidence is available for fixing his date. As already mentioned the workmanship of his coins brings him near to Vijayasena (a.d. 238–249). In Násik Cave X. the letters of Inscription XV. closely correspond with the letters of the legends on Kshatrapa coins, and probably belong to almost the same date as the inscription of Rudradáman on the Girnár rock that is to about a.d. 150. The absence of any record of the Ándhras except the name of the king Madharíputa Sirisena or Sakasena (a.d. 180), makes it probable that after Yajñaśrí Gautamíputra (a.d. 150) Ándhra power waned along the Konkan and South Gujarát seaboard. According to the Puráṇas the Ábhíras succeeded to the dominion of the Ándhras. It is therefore possible that the Ábhíra king Íśvarasena of Násik Inscription XV. was one of the Ábhíra conquerors of the Ándhras who took from them the West Dakhan. A migration of Ábhíras from Ptolemy’s Abiria in Upper Sindh through Sindh by sea to the Konkan and thence to Násik is within the range of possibility. About fifty years later king Íśvaradatta[92] 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
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:
Chapter V.
The Kshatrapa Family Tree.

The Kshatrapa Family Tree.THE WESTERN KSHATRAPAS.

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

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

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

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

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

[5] Kshatrampâtîti Kshatrapaḥ. [↑]

[6] Thomas’ Prinsep, II. 63 and 64. [↑]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[14] Bom. Gaz. XVI. 571ff. [↑]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[25] Details are given below under the Guptas. [↑]

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

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

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

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

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

[31] Jour. B. B. R. A. Soc. XIII. 303. [↑]

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

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

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

[35] See below page 34. [↑]

[36] McCrindle’s Ptolemy, 155. [↑]

[37] See above page [29]. [↑]

[38] See above page [25]. [↑]

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

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

[41] Ind. Ant. X. 157. [↑]

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

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

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

[45] See below page 39. [↑]

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

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

[48] Jour. B. B. R. A. S. VII. 114. [↑]

[49] Ind. Ant. II. 156; V. 50, 154 &c. [↑]

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

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

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

[53] Maru is the well known name of Márwár. [↑]

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

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

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

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

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

[59] Grammar, V. iii. 117. [↑]

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

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

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

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

[64] Ind. Ant. VII. 262. [↑]

[65] McCrindle’s Ptolemy, 152. [↑]

[66] McCrindle’s Ptolemy, 175. [↑]

[67] Jour. B. B. R. A. Soc. XV. 306. [↑]

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

[69] See above page [34.] [↑]

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

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

[72] Apparently a mistake for रुद्रदाम्नः पुत्रस. [↑]

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

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

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

[76] Several coins have the same date. [↑]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[86] One of them was lent by Mr. Vajeshankar Gavrishankar. [↑]

[87] This name has generally been read Atridáman. [↑]

[88] Jour. B. B. R. A. S. VII. 16. [↑]

[89] See below Chapter VI. page 57. [↑]

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER VI.

THE TRAIKÚṬAKAS

(a.d. 250–450.)

Chapter VI.
The Traikúṭakas, a.d. 250–450. Two Plates.The materials regarding the Traikúṭakas, though meagre, serve to show that they were a powerful dynasty who rose to consequence about the time of the middle Kshatrapas (a.d. 250). All the recorded information is in two copperplates, one the Kanheri copperplate found by Dr. Bird in 1839,[1] the other a copperplate found at Párdi near Balsár in 1885.[2] Both plates are dated, the Kanheri plate ‘in the year two hundred and forty-five of the increasing rule of the Traikúṭakas’; the Párdi plate in Saṃvat 207 clearly figured. The Kanheri plate contains nothing of historical importance; the Párdi plate gives the name of the donor as Dahrasena or Dharasena ‘the illustrious great king of the Traikúṭakas.’ Though it does not give any royal name the Kanheri plate expressly mentions the date as the year 245 of the increasing rule of the Traikúṭakas. The Párdi plate gives the name of the king as ‘of the Traikúṭakas’ but merely mentions the date as Saṃ. 207. This date though not stated to be in the era of the Traikúṭakas must be taken to be dated in the same era as the Kanheri plate seeing that the style of the letters of both plates is very similar.

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

Initial Date.What then was the initial date of the Traikúṭakas? Ten Gujarát copper-plates of the Gurjjaras and Chalukyas are dated in an unknown era with Saṃ. followed by the date figures as in the Párdi plate and as in Gupta inscriptions. The earliest is the fragment from Saṅkheḍá in the Baroda State dated Saṃ. 346, which would fall in the reign of Dadda I. of Broach.[3] Next come the two Kaira grants of the Gurjjara king Dadda Praśántarága dated Saṃ. 380 and Saṃ. 385[4]; and the Saṅkheḍá grant of Raṇagraha dated Saṃ. 391[5]; then the Kaira grant of the Chalukya king Vijayarája or Vijayavarman dated Saṃvatsara 394[6]; then the Bagumrá grant of the Sendraka chief Nikumbhallaśakti[7];
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 443[8]; two the Navsári and Kávi grants of the Gurjjara king Jayabhaṭa dated respectively Saṃ. 456 and Saṃ. 486[9]; 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
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
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:

महाराजेन्द्रवर्मपुत्रपरमवैष्णवश्रीमहाराजरुद्रगणः

Mahárájendravarmaputra Parama Vaishnava Śrí Mahárája Rudragaṇa.

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

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

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

[2] J. B. B. R. A. S. XVI. 346. [↑]

[3] Epigraphia Indica, II. 19. [↑]

[4] Ind. Ant. XIII. 81ff. [↑]

[5] Ep. Ind. II. 20. [↑]

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

[7] Ind. Ant. XVIII. 265ff. [↑]

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

[9] Ind. Ant. XIII. 70ff. and V. 109ff. [↑]

[10] Trans. Vienna Or. Congress, 210ff. [↑]

[11] Fleet’s Kánarese Dynasties, 27. [↑]

[12] Fleet’s Kánarese Dynasties, 27. [↑]

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

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

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

[16] For details see above page [48]. [↑]

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER VII.

THE GUPTAS

(G. 90–149; a.d. 410–470.)

Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470. After the Kshatrapas (a.d. 120–410) the powerful dynasty of the Guptas established themselves in Gujarát. So far as the dynasty is connected with Gujarát the Gupta tree is:

According to the Puráṇas[1] 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
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 Śríguptavaṃśa[3]; 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]

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]

Coins[9] 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:
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470.
Samudragupta, a.d. 370–395.

अप्रतिरथराजन्यकीर्ति (र) मम विजयते.

Apratiratharájanyakírti(r)mama vijáyate.[10]

Triumphant is the glory of me the unrivalled sovereign.

Coins with the attribute Kritánta paraśu the Death-like-battle-axe have on the obverse a royal figure grasping a battle-axe.[11] In front of the royal figure a boy, perhaps Samudragupta’s son Chandragupta, holds a standard. Coins with the attribute Aśvamedhaparákramaḥ Able-to-hold-a-horse-sacrifice have on the obverse a horse standing near a sacrificial post yúpa and on the reverse a female figure with a flyflap.[12] The legend on the obverse is imperfect and hard to read. The late Mr. Thomas restores it:

नवजमधः राजाधिराज पृथिविं जियत्य.

Navajamadhaḥ rájádhirája pṛithivíṃ jiyatya.

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

Coins with the legend Lichchhaveyaḥ, a coin abbreviation for Lichchhavidauhitra Daughter’s son of Lichchhavi (?), have on the obverse a standing king grasping a javelin.[13] Under the javelin hand are the letters Chandraguptaḥ. Facing the king a female figure with trace of the letters Kumáradeví seems to speak to him. These figures of his mother and father are given to explain the attribute Lichchhaveya or scion of Lichchhavi. This coin has been supposed to belong to Chandragupta I. but the attribute Lichchhaveyaḥ can apply only to Samudragupta.

His Allahábád Inscription.A fuller source of information regarding Samudragupta remains in his inscription on the Allahábád Pillar.[14] Nearly eight verses of the first part are lost. The first three verses probably described his learning as what remains of the third verse mentions his poetic accomplishments, and line 27 says he was skilled in poetry and music, a trait further illustrated by what are known as his Lyrist coins where he is shown playing a lute.[15] The fourth verse says that during his lifetime his father chose Samudragupta to rule the earth from among others of equal birth. His father is mentioned as pleased with him and this is followed by the description of a victory during which several opponents are said to have submitted. The seventh verse records the sudden destruction of the army of Achyuta Nágasena and the punishment inflicted on a descendant of the Kota family.

Lines 19 and 20 record the conquest, or submission, of the following South Indian monarchs, Mahendra of Kosala, Vyághrarája of Mahá Kántára,[16] Mundarája of Kauráttá,[17] Svámidatta of Paishṭapura Mahendra-Giri and Auṭṭura[18], Damana of Airaṇḍapallaka, Vishṇu of Káñchí, Nílarája Śápávamukta,[19] Hastivarman of Veṅgí, Ugrasena of Pálaka,[20]
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470.
Samudragupta, a.d. 370–395. Kubera of Daivaráshṭra, and Dhanaṃjaya of Kausthalapura. Line 21 gives a further list of nine kings of Áryávarta exterminated by Samudragupta:

• Rudradeva.
• Matila.
• Nágadatta.

• Chandravarman.
• Gaṇapatinága.
• Nágasena.

• Achyuta.
• Nandin.
• Balavarmman.

As no reference is made to the territories of these kings they may be supposed to be well known neighbouring rulers. General Cunningham’s coins and others obtained at Mathurá, show that the fifth ruler Gaṇapatinága was one of the Nága kings of Gwálior and Narwár.[21] The inscription next mentions that Samudragupta took into his employ the chiefs of the forest countries. Then in lines 22 and 23 follows a list of countries whose kings gave him tribute, who obeyed his orders, and who came to pay homage. The list includes the names of many frontier countries and the territories of powerful contemporary kings. The frontier kingdoms are:[22]

• Samataṭa.

• Ḍaváka.

• Kámarúpa.

• Nepála.

• Karttṛika.

The Indian kingdoms are:[23]

• Málava.
• Arjunáyana.
• Yaudheya.

• Mádraka.
• Ábhíra.
• Prárjuna.

• Sanakáníka.
• Káka.
• Kharaparika.

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

• Devaputra.
• Sháhi.
• Sháhánusháhi.
• Śaka.

• Muruṇḍa.
• Saiṃhalaka.
• Island Kings.

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

This important inscription shows that Samudragupta’s dominions included Mathurá, Oudh, Gorakhpur, Allahábád, Benares, Behár, Tirhút, Bengal, and part of East Rájputána. The list of Dakhan and South Indian kingdoms does not necessarily imply that they formed part of Samudragupta’s territory. Samudragupta may have made a victorious campaign to the far south and had the countries recorded in the order of his line of march. The order suggests that he went from Behár, by way of Gayá, to Kosala the country about the modern Ráipur in the Central Provinces, and from Kosala, by Ganjam and other places in the Northern Circars, as far as Káñchí or Conjeveram forty-six miles south-west of Madras. Málwa is shown in the second list as a powerful allied kingdom. It does not appear to have formed part of Samudragupta’s territory nor, unless the Śakas are the Kshatrapas, does any mention of Gujarát occur even as an allied state.

Chandragupta II. a.d. 396–415.Samudragupta was succeeded by his son Chandragupta II. whose mother was the queen Dattádeví. He was the greatest and most powerful king of the Gupta dynasty and added largely to the territory left by Samudragupta. His second name Vikramáditya or the Sun of Prowess appears on his coins. Like his father Chandragupta II. struck gold coins of various types. He was the first Gupta ruler who spread his power over Málwa and Gujarát which he apparently took from the Kshatrapas as he was the first Gupta to strike silver coins and as his silver coins of both varieties the eastern and the western are modifications of the Kshatrapa type. The expedition which conquered Málwa seems to have passed from Allahábád by Bundelkhand to Bhilsá and thence to Málwa. An undated inscription in the Udayagiri caves at Vidiśá (the modern Besnagar) near Bhilsa records the making of a cave of Mahádeva by one Śába of the Kautsa gotra and the family name of Vírasena, a poet and native of Páṭaliputra who held the hereditary office of minister of peace and war sandhivigrahika, and who is recorded to have arrived with the king who was intent upon conquering the whole earth.[26] A neighbouring cave bears an inscription of a feudatory of Chandragupta who was chief of Sanakáníka.[27] The chief’s name is lost, but the names of his father Vishṇudása and of his grandfather Chhagalaga remain. The date is the eleventh of the bright half of
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470.
Chandragupta II, a.d. 396–415. Ásháḍha Saṃvatsara 82 (a.d. 401). From this Chandragupta’s conquest of Vidiśá may be dated about Saṃvatsara 80 (a.d. 399) or a little earlier.

A third inscription is on the railing of the great Sáñchi stúpa.[28] It is dated the 4th day of Bhádrapada Saṃvat 93 (a.d. 412) and records the gift of 25 dínáras and something called Íśvaravásaka (perhaps a village or a field) to the monks of the great monastery of Kákanádaboṭaśrí for the daily maintenance of five bhikshus and the burning of a lamp in the ratnagṛiha or shrine of the Buddhist triratna, for the merit of the supreme king of great kings Chandragupta who bears the popular name of Devarája or god-like.[29] The donor a feudatory of Chandragupta named Ámrakárdava is described as having the object of his life gratified by the favour of the feet of the supreme ruler of great kings the illustrious Chandragupta, and as showing to the world the hearty loyalty of a good feudatory. Ámrakárdava seems to have been a chief of consequence as he is described as winning the flag of glory in numerous battles. The name of his kingdom is also recorded. Though it cannot now be made out the mention of his kingdom makes it probable that he was a stranger come to pay homage to Chandragupta. The reference to Chandragupta seems to imply he was the ruler of the land while the two other inscriptions show that his rule lasted from about 80 (a.d. 399) to at least 93 (a.d. 412). During these years Chandragupta seems to have spread his sway to Ujjain the capital of west Málwa, of which he is traditionally called the ruler. From Ujjain by way of Bágh and Tánda in the province of Ráth he seems to have entered South Gujarát and to have passed from the Broach coast to Káthiáváḍa. He seems to have wrested Káthiáváḍa from its Kshatrapa rulers as he is the first Gupta who struck silver coins and as his silver coins are of the then current Kshatrapa type. On the obverse is the royal bust with features copied from the Kshatrapa face and on the reverse is the figure of a peacock, probably chosen as the bearer of Kártikasvámi the god of war. Round the peacock is a Sanskrit legend. This legend is of two varieties. In Central Indian coins it runs:

श्री गुप्तकुलस्य महाराजाधिराज श्री चंद्रगुप्तविक्रमाङ्कस्य

Śrí Guptakulasya Mahárájadhirája Śrí Chandraguptavikramáṅkasya.

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

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

परमभागवत महाराजाधिराज श्री चन्द्रगुप्त विक्रमादित्य

Paramabhágavata Mahárájádhirája Śrí Chandragupta Vikramáditya.

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

Several gold coins of Chandragupta show a young male figure behind the king with his right hand laid on the king’s shoulder. This youthful figure is apparently Chandragupta’s son Kumáragupta who may have acted as Yuvarája during the conquest of Málwa.
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 inscription[34] 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).

Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470.
Kumáragupta, a.d. 416–453. Kumáragupta, a.d. 416–453.Chandragupta II. was succeeded by his son Kumáragupta whose mother was the queen Dhruva-Deví. On Kumáragupta’s coins three titles occur: Mahendra, Mahendra-Vikrama, and Mahendráditya. As already noticed the circulation of Kumáragupta’s coins in Káthiáváḍa during his father’s reign makes it probable that on their conquest his father appointed him viceroy of Káthiáváḍa and Gujarát. Kumáragupta appears to have succeeded his father about 96 (a.d. 416). An inscription at Mankuwár near Prayága shows he was ruling as late as 129 (a.d. 449) and a coin of his dated 130 (a.d. 450) adds at least one year to his reign. On the other hand the inscription on the Girnár rock shows that in 137 (a.d. 457) his son Skandagupta was king. It follows that Kumáragupta’s reign ended between 130 and 137 (a.d. 450–457) or about 133 (a.d. 453).

None of Kumáragupta’s four inscriptions gives any historical or other details regarding him.[35] But the number and the wide distribution of his coins make it probable that during his long reign he maintained his father’s dominions intact.

Large numbers of Kumáragupta’s coins of gold silver and copper have been found. The gold which are of various types are inferior in workmanship to his father’s coins. The silver and copper coins are of two varieties, eastern and western. Both varieties have on the obverse the royal bust in the Kshatrapa style of dress. In the western pieces the bust is a copy of the moustached Kshatrapa face with a corrupted version of the corrupt Greek legend used by the Kshatrapas. The only difference between the obverses of the Western Gupta and the Kshatrapa coins is that the date is in the Gupta instead of in the Kshatrapa era. On the reverse is an ill formed peacock facing front as in Chandragupta II.’s coins. The legend runs:

परम भागवत महाराजाधिराज श्री कुमार्गुप्त महेन्द्रादित्य.

Paramabhágavata Maharájádhirája Śrí Kumáragupta Mahendráditya.

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

In Kumáragupta’s eastern silver and copper coins the bust on the obverse has no moustache nor is there any trace of the corrupt Greek legend. The date is in front of the face in perpendicular numerals one below the other instead of behind the head as in the Kshatrapa and Western Kumáragupta coins. On the reverse is a well-carved peacock facing front with tail feathers at full stretch. Round the peacock runs the clear cut legend:

विजितवनिरवनिपति कुमार्गुप्तो देवं जयति.

Vijitávaniravanipati Kumáragupto devaṃ jayati.

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

Kumáragupta, lord of the earth, who had conquered the kings of the earth, conquers the Deva.

Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470.
Kumáragupta, a.d. 416–453. Probably the Deva whose name suggested the antithesis between the kings of the earth and the gods was one of the Devaputra family of Indo-Skythian rulers.[37]

Skandagupta, a.d. 454–470.Kumáragupta was succeeded by his son Skandagupta. An inscription of his on a pillar at Bhitarí near Saidpur in Gházipur bearing no date shows that on his father’s death Skandagupta had a hard struggle to establish his power.[38] The text runs: “By whom when he rose to fix fast again the shaken fortune of his house, three months[39] 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 Viláśiní[42] 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
Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470.
Skandagupta, a.d. 454–470. long by 68 cubits broad and 7 men or about 38 feet high. The probable site of the lake is in the west valley of the Girnár hill near what is called Bhavanátha’s pass.[43] The inscription also records the making of a temple of Vishṇu in the neighbourhood by Chakrapálita, which was probably on the site of the modern Dámodar’s Mandir in the Bhavanátha pass, whose image is of granite and is probably as old as the Guptas. A new temple was built in the fifteenth century during the rule of Mandalika the last Chúḍásamá ruler of Junágaḍh. At the time of the Musalmán conquest (a.d. 1484) as violence was feared the images were removed and buried. Mandalika’s temple was repaired by Amarji Diván of Junágaḍh (1759–1784). It was proposed to make and consecrate new images. But certain old images of Vishṇu were found in digging foundations for the enclosure wall and were consecrated. Two of these images were taken by Girnára Bráhmans and consecrated in the names of Baladevji and Revatí in a neighbouring temple specially built for them. Of the original temple the only trace is a pilaster built into the wall to the right as one enters. The style and carving are of the Gupta period.

As almost all the Gupta coins found in Cutch are Skandagupta’s and very few are Kumáragupta’s, Skandagupta seems to have added Cutch to the provinces of Gujarát and Káthiáváḍa inherited from his father. In Káthiáváḍa Skandagupta’s coins are rare, apparently because of the abundant currency left by his father which was so popular in Káthiáváḍa that fresh Kumáragupta coins of a degraded type were issued as late as Valabhi times.

Like his father, Skandagupta issued a gold coinage in his eastern dominions but no trace of a gold currency appears in the west. Like Kumáragupta’s his silver coins were of two varieties, eastern and western. The eastern coins have on the obverse a bust as in Kumáragupta’s coins and the date near the face. On the reverse is a peacock similar to Kumáragupta’s and round the peacock the legend:

विजितावनिरवनिपति जयति देवं स्कन्दगुप्तो यं

Vijitávaniravanipati jayati devaṃ Skandagupto’yaṃ.

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

Skandagupta’s western coins are of three varieties, one the same as the western coins of Kumáragupta, a second with a bull instead of a peacock on the reverse, and a third with on the reverse an altar with one upright and two side jets of water. Coins of the first two varieties are found both in Gujarát and in Káthiáváḍa. The third water-jet variety is peculiar to Cutch and is an entirely new feature in the western Gupta coinage. On the reverse of all is the legend:

परमभागवत महाराजाधिराज स्कन्दगुप्त क्रमादित्य

Paramabhágavata Mahárájadhirája Skandagupta Kramáditya.

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

Chapter VII.
The Guptas, a.d. 410–470.
Skandagupta, a.d. 454–470. The beginning of Skandagupta’s reign has been placed about Gupta 133 or a.d. 453: his latest known date on a coin in General Cunningham’s collection is Gupta 149 or a.d. 469.[46]

Budhagupta, a.d. 485.With Skandagupta the regular Gupta succession ceases.[47] The next Gupta is Budhagupta who has a pillar inscription[48] in a temple at Eraṇ in the Saugor district dated 165 (a.d. 485) and silver coins dated Saṃvat 174 and 180 odd (a.d. 494–500 odd). Of Budhagupta’s relation or connection with Skandagupta nothing is known. That he belonged to the Gupta dynasty appears from his name as well as from his silver coins which are dated in the Gupta era and are the same in style as the eastern coins of Skandagupta. On the obverse is the usual bust as in Skandagupta’s coins with the date (174, 180 odd) near the face. On the reverse is the usual peacock and the legend is the same as Skandagupta’s:

देवं जयति विजितावनिरवनिपति श्री बुधगुप्तो

Devaṁ jayati vijitávaniravanipati Śrí Budhagupto.

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

Since the coins are dated Saṃvat 174 and 180 odd (a.d. 494 and 500 odd) and the inscription’s date is 165 (a.d. 485) the inscription may be taken to belong to the early part of Budhagupta’s reign the beginning of which may be allotted to about 160–162 (a.d. 480–482). As this is more than ten years later than the latest known date of Skandagupta (G. 149 a.d. 469) either a Gupta of whom no trace remains must have intervened or the twelve blank years must have been a time of political change and disturbance. The absence of any trace of a gold currency suggests that Budhagupta had less power than his predecessors. The correctness of this argument is placed beyond doubt by the pillar inscription opposite the shrine in the Eraṇ temple where instead of his predecessor’s title of monarch of the whole earth Budhagupta is styled protector of the land between the Jamna (Kálindí) and the Narbadá implying the loss of the whole territory to the east of the Jamna.[50] In the west the failure of Gupta power seems still more complete. Neither in Gujarát nor in Káthiáváḍa has an inscription or even a coin been found with a reference to Budhagupta or to any other Gupta ruler later than Skandagupta (G. 149 a.d. 469). The pillar inscription noted above which is of the year 165 (a.d. 485) and under the rule of Budhagupta states that the pillar was a gift to the temple by Dhanya Vishṇu and his brother Mátṛi Vishṇu who at the time of the gift seem to have been local Bráhman governors. A second inscription on the lower part of the neck of a huge Boar or Varáha image in a corner shrine of the same temple records that the image was completed on the tenth day of Phálguna in the first year of the reign of
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 inscription[52] mentions prince Mihirakula as the son of Toramáṇa and a second inscription from a well in Mandasor[53] 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 inscription[54] 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 inscription[55] 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
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 Skandagupta[57] 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 historians[60] the White Huns did not cross the Oxus into Baktria before a.d. 452, the founding of the Hun capital of Badeghis[61] 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
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 east[63] and in Káthiáváḍa in the west[64] 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 reads[67] 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 history[70] 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]
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 Gandhára[76] and Sungyun’s description of the king’s pride and activity agrees well with other records of Mihirakula’s character. It seems therefore reasonable to suppose that the warlike sovereign who treated Sungyun and the name of his Imperial mistress with such scant courtesy was no other than the meteor Mihirakula. If Sungyun is correct in stating that Mihirakula was the third of his line the dynasty must have been established about a.d. 460. Beal is in doubt whether the name Lae-lih given by Sungyun[77] is the family name or the name of the founder. As a recently deciphered inscription shows Toramáṇa’s family name to have been Jaúvla[78] 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 show[81] 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
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 Bhánugupta[88] 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]
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] Mandasor[96] in Western Málwa, where all his inscriptions have been found, must have been a centre of Yaśodharman’s power. Yaśodharman boasts[97] 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 Báláditya[101] 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.)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[14] Corpus Ins. Ind. III. 1. [↑]

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

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

[17] Fleet reads Maṇṭarája of Keraḷa. [↑]

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

[19] Fleet reads “Nílarája of Avamukta.” [↑]

[20] Fleet reads Palakka or Pálakka. [↑]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[26] Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 6. [↑]

[27] Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 3. [↑]

[28] Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 5. [↑]

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

[30] J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. 120. [↑]

[31] J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. 121. [↑]

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

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

[34] Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 10. [↑]

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

[36] J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. 123. [↑]

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

[38] Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 13. [↑]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[47] But see below page 73. [↑]

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

[49] J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. 134. [↑]

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

[51] Published by Mr. Fleet Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 36. [↑]

[52] Fleet Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 37. [↑]

[53] Fleet Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 35. [↑]

[54] Fleet Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 33. [↑]

[55] Fleet Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 20. [↑]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[63] Bihar Ins. Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 12. [↑]

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

[65] See note 1 above. [↑]

[66] See above notes 1 and 2. [↑]

[67] Ind. Ant. XVIII. 225. [↑]

[68] Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Introdn. 12. [↑]

[69] Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. Ins. 37 line 4. [↑]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[81] Specht in Jour. Asiatique 1883 II. 335 and 348. [↑]

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

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

[84] Rawlinson’s Seventh Monarchy, 311–349. [↑]

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

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

[87] Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins 36. [↑]

[88] Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 20. [↑]

[89] Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 33. [↑]

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

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

[92] Fleet’s Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 18. [↑]

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

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

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

[96] N. Lat. 24° 3′; E. Long. 75° 8′. [↑]

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

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

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

[100] Beal’s Buddhist Records, I. 169. [↑]

[101] Hœrnle in J. B. A. S. LVIII. 97. [↑]

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

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

[104] Rawlinson’s Seventh Monarchy, 420, 422. [↑]

CHAPTER VIII.

THE VALABHIS

(a.d. 509–766.)

Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
Vaḷeh Town, 1893. Vaḷeh Town, 1893.The Valabhi dynasty, which succeeded the Guptas in Gujarát and Káthiáváḍa, take their name from their capital in the east of Káthiáváḍa about twenty miles west of Bhávnagar and about twenty-five miles north of the holy Jain hill of Śatruñjaya. The modern name of Valabhi is Vaḷeh. It is impossible to say whether the modern Vaḷeh is a corruption of Valahi the Prakrit form of the Sanskrit Valabhi or whether Valabhi is Sanskritised from a local original Vaḷeh. The form Valahi occurs in the writings of Jinaprabhasuri a learned Jain of the thirteenth century who describes Śatruñjaya as in the Valáhaka province. A town in the chiefship of Vaḷeh now occupies the site of old Valabhi,[1] whose ruins lie buried below thick layers of black earth and silt under the modern town and its neighbourhood. The only remains of old buildings are the large foundation bricks of which, except a few new houses, the whole of Vaḷeh is built. The absence of stone supports the theory that the buildings of old Valabhi were of brick and wood. In 1872 when the site was examined the only stone remains were a few scattered Liṅgas and a well-polished life-size granite Nandi or bull lying near a modern Mahádeva temple. Diggers for old bricks have found copper pots and copperplates and small Buddhist relic shrines with earthen pots and clay seals of the seventh century.

The ruins of Valabhi show few signs of representing a large or important city. The want of sweet water apparently unfits the site for the capital of so large a kingdom as Valabhi. Its choice as capital was probably due to its being a harbour on the Bhávnagar creek. Since
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]

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
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
  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.

(1) Áyuktaka,		meaningappointed, apparently any superior official.
(2) Viniyuktaka

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
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
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:

Parama-daivata-bappa-bhaṭṭáraka-mahárája-Śrí-pádánudhyáta.

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

These Nepál kings were Śaivas as they are called parama-máheśvara in the text of the inscription and like the Valabhi seals their seals bear a bull. It follows that the term Bappa was applied both by the Valabhis and the Nepál kings to some one, who can hardly be the same individual, unless he was their
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
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
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
First Valabhi Grant, a.d. 526. Kumáragupta, and on the reverse the Śaiva trident, and round the trident the somewhat doubtful legend in Gupta characters:

Rájño Mahákshatri Paramádityabhakta Śrí Śarvva-bhaṭṭárakasa.

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

This Śarvva seems to have been a Ráshṭrakúṭa or Gurjjara king. His coins were continued so long in use and were so often copied that in the end upright strokes took the place of letters. That these coins did not belong to the founder of the Valabhi dynasty appears not only from the difference of name between Bhaṭṭáraka and Bhaṭárka but because the coiner was a king and the founder of the Valabhis a general.

Senápati Bhaṭárka, a.d. 509–520 ?Of the kingdom which Senápati Bhaṭárka overthrew the following details are given in one of his epithets in Valabhi copperplates: ‘Who obtained glory by dealing hundreds of blows on the large and very mighty armies of the Maitrakas, who by The Maitrakas, a.d. 470–509.force had subdued their enemies.’ As regards these Maitrakas it is to be noted that the name Maitraka means Solar. The sound of the compound epithet Maitraka-amitra that is Maitraka-enemy used in the inscription makes it probable that the usual form Mihira or solar was rejected in favour of Maitraka which also means solar to secure the necessary assonance with amitra or enemy. The form Mihira solar seems a Hinduizing or meaning-making of the northern tribal name Meḍh or Mehr, the Mehrs being a tribe which at one time seem to have held sway over the whole of Káthiáváḍa and which are still found in strength near the Barda hills in the south-west of Káthiáváḍa.[17] The Jethvá chiefs of Porbandar who were formerly powerful rulers are almost certainly of the Mehr tribe. They are still called Mehr kings and the Mehrs of Káthiáváḍa regard them as their leaders and at the call of their Head are ready to fight for him. The chief of Mehr traditions describes the fights of their founder Makaradhvaja with one Mayúradhvaja. This tradition seems to embody the memory of an historical struggle. The makara or fish is the tribal badge of the Mehrs and is marked on a Morbí copperplate dated a.d. 904 (G. 585) and on the forged Dhíníki grant of the Mehr king Jáíkádeva. On the other hand Mayúradhvaja or peacock-bannered would be the name of the Guptas beginning with Chandragupta who ruled in Gujarát (a.d. 396–416) and whose coins have a peacock on the reverse. The tradition would thus be a recollection of the struggle between the Mehrs and Guptas in which about a.d. 470 the Guptas were defeated. The Mehrs seem to have been a northern tribe, who, the evidence of place names seems to show, passed south through Western Rájputána, Jaslo, Ajo, Bad, and Koml leaders of this tribe giving their names to the settlements of Jesalmir, Ajmir, Badmer, and Komalmer. The resemblance of name and the nearness of dates suggest a connection between the Mehrs and the great Panjáb conqueror of the Guptas Mihirakula (a.d. 512–540 ?). If not themselves
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]

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, Mahádaṇḍanáyaka[23] 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
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
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.

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
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.

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
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. 750[43] 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
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 historians[47] 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 families[51]; 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
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 origin[54] 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. 526[55] 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
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 Sail[57]; 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] Tod[61] 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
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 válah[65] 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
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 Tod[73] 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
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 Tod[76] 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 Alberuni[79] for the famous Vihára or monastery at Pesháwar of whose founder Kanak Alberuni retails many widespread legends. Tod[80] 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]

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 Procopius[86] 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
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 Bálhikas[95] 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
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]
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. Martin[100] says: ‘The Greek historians do not show the least trace of the name Báhlika.’ Accepting Báhika, with the general sense of Outsider, as the form used by Indian writers before the Christian era and remembering[101] 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. Arrian[103] notices that, as Alexander’s fleet passed down the Jhelum, the people lined the banks chanting songs taught them by Dionysus and the Bacchantes. According to Quintus Curtius[104] 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. Strabo[107] gives two reasons why the Oxydrakai
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]

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

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

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

[4] Burgess’ Káthiáwár and Kutch, 187. [↑]

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

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

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

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

[9] Bühler in Ind. Ant. V. 205. [↑]

[10] Ind. Ant. VII. 68. [↑]

[11] Ind. Ant. VII. 68. [↑]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[21] Ind. Ant. V. 204. [↑]

[22] Ind. Ant. IV. 104. [↑]

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

[24] Ind. Ant. VII. 66; IV. 174. [↑]

[25] Ind. Ant. V. 206. [↑]

[26] Ind. Ant. XIV. 75. [↑]

[27] Kumárápála-Charita, Abu Inscriptions. [↑]

[28] Ind. Ant. VIII. 302, VII. 68, XIII. 160. [↑]

[29] Ind. Ant. VI. 9. [↑]

[30] Ind. Ant. VII. 90. [↑]

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

[32] Ind. Ant. XI. 306. [↑]

[33] Ind. Ant. VI. 13. [↑]

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

[35] Ind. Ant. VII. 76. [↑]

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

[37] Ind. Ant. XI. 305. [↑]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[44] Elliot, I. 244. [↑]

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

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

[47] Elliot, I. 445. [↑]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[56] Tod’s Western India, 51. [↑]

[57] Tod’s An. of Raj. I. 230. [↑]

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

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

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

[61] Tod’s Annals, I. 229–231. [↑]

[62] Annals, I. 229. [↑]

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

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

[65] Káthiáwár Gazetteer, 672. [↑]

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

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

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

[69] Káth. Gaz. 680. [↑]

[70] Káth. Gaz. 414. [↑]

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

[72] Káth. Gaz. 110–129. [↑]

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

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

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

[76] Annals, I. 215. [↑]

[77] Kath. Gaz. 589. [↑]

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

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

[80] Western India, 213. [↑]

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

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

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

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

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

[86] Rawlinson Seventh Monarchy, 452 note 3. [↑]

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

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

[89] Bṛihaṭ Saṃhitá, V. 80. [↑]

[90] Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 140–141. [↑]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[101] McCrindle’s Alexander in India, 350. [↑]

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

[103] McCrindle’s Alexander, 136. [↑]

[104] McCrindle’s Alexander, 252. [↑]

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

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

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

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

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

[110] Káthiáwár Gazetteer, 138. [↑]

[111] Káthiáwár Gazetteer, 137. [↑]

[112] Cutch Gazetteer, 80. [↑]

[113] Cutch Gazetteer, 81. [↑]

CHAPTER IX.