Chapter XLVII: Book VI: , it follows that it was from Megasthenês that he drew his (3)

[166] 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 Sankhedá grant of Nirihullaka (Ep. Ind. II. 21), who speaks of a certain Sankarana as his overlord. Palæographically this grant belongs to the sixth century, and Dr. Bühler has suggested that Sankarana is the Chedi Sankaragana whose son Buddharája was defeated by Mangalísa 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 Traikútakas with them. The two known Traikútaka 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 that two different eras, whose initial points were only a few years apart, were in use in the same district. Now that the Saka 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 (Br. Samh. XIV. 20) places the Haihayas or Kalachuris in the west along with the Aparántakas or Konkanis.

Though the name Traikútaka means of Trikúta, the authorities quoted by Dr. Bhagvánlál do not establish the existence of a city called Trikúta. 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 Trikútakam seems to mean rock-salt, not sea-salt, so that there is here no special connection with the Western coast. Wherever Trikúta 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 Traikútakas or to Junnar or other western city as Trikúta.

With reference to the third suggestion that the Traikútakas twice overthrew the Kshatrapas, under Ísvaradatta in A.D. 248 and under Rudragana in A.D. 310-320, it is to be noted that there is no evidence to show that Ísvaradatta was either an Ábhíra or a Traikútaka 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 Ísvaradatta's supremacy coincided with A.D. 250 the initial date of the Traikútaka 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 Rudragana 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 Rudragana was a Traikútaka or a Kalachuri except the fact that his name, like that of Sankaragana, is a compound of the word gana and a name of Siva; 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 Traikútaka and the Kalachuri eras are the same namely A.D. 248-9: that this era was introduced into Gujarát by the Traikútakas 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.)

[167] Váyu Purána, Wilson's Works, IX. 219n.

[168] Vishnu Purána, 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.

[169] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 53 line 7.

[170] Compare Skandagupta's Junágadh Inscription line 15, Ind. Ant. XIV.; Cunningham's Arch. Sur. X. 113; Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 59.

[171] Compare Mr. Fleet's note in Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 8.

[172] 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 Pátaliputra, 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 Lichchhavayah The Lichchhavis in place of Dr. Bhagvánlál's Lichchhaveyah 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 Kosala (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.

[173] 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 Sri 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.

[174] The presence of the two letters ka ca 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 Ghatotkacha, the last two letters of the name being the same. This identification seems improbable. Ghatotkacha 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.

[175] Smith's Gupta Coinage in J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. Pl. I. 10.

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

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

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

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

[180] Corpus Ins. Ind. III. 1.

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

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

[183] Fleet reads Mantarája of Kerala.

[184] Fleet divides the words differently and translates "Mahendra of Pishtapura, Svámidatta of Kottura on the hill."

[185] Fleet reads "Nílarája of Avamukta."

[186] Fleet reads Palakka or Pálakka.

[187] Arch. Surv. II. 310; J. B. A. S. 1865. 115-121.

[188] Samatata is the Ganges delta: Daváka may, as Mr. Fleet suggests, be Dacca: for Karttrika Mr. Fleet reads Kartripura, otherwise Cuttack might be intended.

[189] 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 (Br. 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.)

[190] Mr. Fleet translates "(giving) Garuda-tokens, (surrendering) the enjoyment of their own territories."

[191] 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 Saka seems to be used in a vague sense in reference to the non-Indian tribes of the North-West frontier. The Murundas may be identified with the Murundas 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 Murundadeví (Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 128, 131, 136).

The mention of the king of Simhala 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 Simhala may here stand, not for Ceylon, but for one of the many Simhapuras known to Indian geography. Sihor in Káthiáváda, an old capital, may possibly be the place referred to. The Island Kings would then be the chiefs of Cutch and Káthiáváda.--(A. M. T. J.)

[192] Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 6.

[193] Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 3.

[194] Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 5.

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

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

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

[198] 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).

[199] 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 Sakas 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 Saka 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 Káthiáváda which Chandragupta is known to have added to his dominions. In Káthiáváda, 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 Saka title Devaputra. Further, the use of the name Vikramáditya and of the honorific Srí is in striking agreement with Beruni's statement (Sachau, II. 6) that the conqueror of the Sakas was named Vikramáditya and that to the conqueror's name was added the title Srí. 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 Sakas remained practically independent make it almost certain that if any subjection of the Sakas to the Guptas took place it happened during the reign of Chandragupta II.

[200] Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 10.

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

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

[203] J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. 126. That Kumáragupta's two successors, Skandagupta and Budhagupta, use the same phrase devam jayati makes the explanation in the text doubtful. As Mr. Smith (Ditto) suggests devam 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.)

[204] Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 13.

[205] Mr. Fleet (Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 53, 55) reads "nítá triyámá" and translates "a (whole) night was spent." Dr. Bhagvánlál read "nítás trimásáh."

[206] 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 Váranagana, which is also referred to in Bhadrabáhu's Kalpa-sútra (Jacobi's Edition, 80), but is there referred to the Chárana-gana, no doubt a misreading for the Várana of the inscription. Dr. Bühler points out that Varana 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.)

[207] See V. de St. Martin's Essay, Les Huns Blancs; Specht in Journal Asiatique Oct.-Dec. 1883 and below page 74.

[208] In Rudradáman's inscription the Palásiní is mentioned, and also the Suvarnasikatás "and the other rivers," In Skandagupta's inscription Mr. Fleet translates Sikatávilásiní as an adjective agreeing with Palásiní.

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

[210] 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.

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

[212] 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.

[213] But see below page 73.

[214] 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.

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

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

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

[218] Fleet Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 37.

[219] Fleet Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 35.

[220] Fleet Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 33.

[221] Fleet Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 20.

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

[223] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 13 lines 10 and 15.

[224] 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 Húnas 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 Húnas ... among enemies, as if in this conflict the Húnas 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 Pátaliputra or Patna.

[225] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 14 line 4.

[226] T'oungtien quoted by Specht in Journal Asiatique for Oct.-Dec. 1883.

[227] 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.

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

[229] Bihar Ins. Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 12.

[230] Junágadh Inscrip. Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 14.

[231] See note 1 above.

[232] See above notes 1 and 2.

[233] Ind. Ant. XVIII. 225.

[234] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Introdn. 12.

[235] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. Ins. 37 line 4.

[236] Beal's Buddhist Records, I. 169-172 and Rájataranginí, I. 289-326 quoted by Fleet in Ind. Ant. XV. 247-249.

[237] 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.

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

[239] Specht in Journal Asiatique for Oct.-Dec. 1883. Histoire des Wei.

[240] Beal's Buddhist Records, I. c.-cii.

[241] Beal's Buddhist Records, I. xcix.-c.

[242] 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.

[243] 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.

[244] Bühler. Ep. Ind. I. 238. Dr. Bühler hesitates to identify the Toramána of this inscription with Mihirakula's father.

[245] 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.

[246] 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.

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

[248] 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.

[249] The name Jouen-Jouen seems to agree with Toramána'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.

[250] Rawlinson's Seventh Monarchy, 311-349.

[251] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 25 line 1.

[252] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 19 line 2.

[253] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins 36.

[254] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 20.

[255] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 33.

[256] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. and Ind. Ant. XVIII. 219.

[257] 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.

[258] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 18.

[259] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 33-35.

[260] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 35 line 5.

[261] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 151 note 4.

[262] N. Lat. 24° 3'; E. Long. 75° 8'.

[263] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 33 line 5.

[264] This has already been suggested by Genl. Cunningham, Num. Chron. (3rd Ser.), VIII. 41. Dr. Hoernle (J. B. A. S. LVIII. 100ff) has identified Yasodharman with Vikramáditya's son Síláditya Pratápasila.

[265] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 33 line 6.

[266] Beal's Buddhist Records, I. 169.

[267] Hoernle in J. B. A. S. LVIII. 97.

[268] See Smith and Hoernle J. B. A. S. LVIII. 84; and Fleet Ind. Ant. XIX. 224.

[269] Hoernle makes light of this difficulty: J. B. A. S. LVIII. 97.

[270] Rawlinson's Seventh Monarchy, 420, 422.

[271] 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. [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.] A royal seal found by Colonel Watson in Valeh 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 Pushyána 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 Valeh 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.

[272] As suggested by Dr. Bühler (Ind. Ant. VI. 10), this is probably the Vihára called Srí 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).

[273] Burgess' Káthiáwár and Kutch, 187.

[274] Stories on record about two temples one at Satruñjaya the other at Somanátha support this view. As regards the Satruñjaya temple the tradition is that while the minister of Kumárapála (A.D. 1143-1174) of Anahilaváda was on a visit to Satruñjaya 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 Krishna. Compare the Bhadrakáli inscription at Somanátha.

[275] 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.)

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

[277] Nepaul Inscriptions. The phrase acháta-bhata is not uncommon. Mr. Fleet (Corp. Ins. Ind. III. page 98 note 2) explains acháta-bhata-pravesya as "not to be entered either by regular (bhata) or by irregular (cháta) troops."

[278] Bühler in Ind. Ant. V. 205.

[279] Ind. Ant. VII. 68.

[280] Ind. Ant. VII. 68.

[281] Of the different territorial divisions the following examples occur: Of Vishaya or main division Svabhágapuravishaye and Súryapuravishaye: of Áhára or collectorate Khetaka-áhára the Kaira district and Hastavapra-áhára or Hastavapráharaní 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 Vatasthalí, Lonápadrakasthalí, and others.

[282] 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 lingas lie scattered. To the north and east of the village on the banks of a large built pond called Kásíkunda are numerous sculptures and lingas. 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 Vírabahadrarási 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 Siva, below the Siva a figure of Súrya, below the Súrya a male and female, and under them attendants or ganas of Siva. The right doorpost has at the top a figure of Vishnu seated on Garuda, below the seated Vishnu a standing Vishnu 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 ganas of Siva. 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-mandala or Mother-Meeting upon it. The village has a large modern temple of Siva called Naklesvara, 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 Vishnu all of about the tenth or eleventh century. The name Naklesvara would seem to have been derived from Nakulisa the founder of the Pásupata sect and the temple may originally have had an image of Nakulisa himself or a linga representing Nakulísa. Close to the west of the village near a small dry reservoir called the Kunda of Rájarájesvara lies a well-preserved black stone seated figure of Chanda one of the most respected of Siva's attendants, without whose worship all worship of Siva is imperfect, and to whom all that remains after making oblations to Siva 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 lingas.

[283] 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.

[284] 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.)

[285] 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.

[286] The Mehrs seem to have remained in power also in north-east Káthiáváda 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.

[287] 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.

[288] 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.

[289] As the date of Dronasimha'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, Yasodharman Vishnuvardhana, the descendants of Kumáragupta's son Puragupta, and the Gupta chiefs of Eastern Málwa. Neither Toramána nor Mihirakula appears to have borne the paramount title of Paramesvara though the former is called Mahárájádhirája in the Eran 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 Dronasimha. 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 Narasimhagupta, 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 Eran in Eastern Málwa in A.D. 510-11. Last of all comes Vishnuvardhana or Yasodharman of Mandasor. In one of the Mandasor inscriptions he has the titles of Rájádhirája and Paramesvara (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 Yasodharman is the Paramasvámi of the Valabhi plate, and that the reference to the western ocean relates to Bhatárka's successes against the Maitrakas.--(A.M.T.J.)

[290] Ind. Ant. V. 204.

[291] Ind. Ant. IV. 104.

[292] In a commentary on the Kalpasútra Dandanáyaka is described as meaning Tantrapâla that is head of a district.

[293] Ind. Ant. VII. 66; IV. 174.

[294] Ind. Ant. V. 206.

[295] Ind. Ant. XIV. 75.

[296] Kumárápála-Charita, Abu Inscriptions.

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

[298] Ind. Ant. VI. 9.

[299] Ind. Ant. VII. 90.

[300] 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.

[301] Ind. Ant. XI. 306.

[302] Ind. Ant. VI. 13.

[303] Kávyamidam rachitam mayá Valabhyám, Srí Dharasena-narendra pálitáyám.

[304] Ind. Ant. VII. 76.

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

[306] Ind. Ant. XI. 305.

[307] 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 Saka A.D. 78, or the Valabhi A.D. 319, Tod is forced to offer many suggestions. His proposed dates are A.D. 244 Vik. Sam. 300 (Western India, 269), A.D. 424 Val. Sam. 105 (Ditto, 51 and 214), A.D. 524 Val. Sam. 205 (Annals of Rájasthán, I. 83 and 217-220), and A.D. 619 Val. Sam. 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. Sam. 375 that is A.D. 319 apparently in confusion with the epoch of the Gupta era which the Valabhi kings adopted. ((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 Sáliváhana 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.)) 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 Ráshtrakúta Rája Govind who restored the ancient family of Sauráshtra. 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.

[308] 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 Mewád 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.

[309] 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.

[310] 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 Anahilaváda. 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.

[311] 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.

[312] Elliot, I. 244.

[313] 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.

[314] 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 Sauráshtra; 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.

[315] Elliot, I. 445.

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

[317] 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 Káthiáváda.

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.

[318] The identification of the Balharas of the Arab writers with the Chálukyas (A.D. 500-753) and Ráshtrakútas (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 Ráshtrakútas (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 Ráshtrakútas 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 Karnátak (Sachau's Beruni, I. 202; II. 318) and had their Kánarese (Kiriya) capital at Mankir (Málkhet) 640 miles from the coast.

[319] After their withdrawal from Valabhi to Mewád 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 Mewád (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 Ráthods in the end of the twelfth century are the Gohils of Piram, Bhávnagar, and Rájpipla in Káthiáváda and Gujarát. Tod's Annals of Ráj. I. 114, 228.

[320] The somewhat doubtful Jáikadeva plates (above page 87 and Káthiáváda Gazetteer, 275) seem to show the continuance of Maitraka power in North Káthiáváda. 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 Káthiáváda. Elliot, I. 450. Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 630) (Beal's Buddhist Records, II. 69) describes Sauráshtra 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.

[321] 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 Srí Harshadeva (A.D. 608-649), and another Jayabhata in A.D. 706 (Ind. Ant. V. 115) claims to have quieted with the sword the impetuosity of the lord of Valabhi.

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

[323] 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.

[324] Tod's Western India, 51.

[325] Tod's An. of Raj. I. 230.

[326] The cherished title of the later Valabhis, Síláditya Sun of Virtue, confirms the special sun worship at Valabhi, which the mention of Dharapatta (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 lingas, 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 Siva. 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 Siva the One Ling Eklingakadiwán (Ditto 222, Ráj. Gaz. III. 53). The blend is natural. The fierce noon-tide sun is Mahákála the Destroyer. Like Siva 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 Saivism 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.