The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s11.274

c8.s11.274

⁷ There are also three spurious records, which purport to register grants made by Dadda II.; viz., the Umêtâ grant, with the date of *Śaka-Saṃvat* 400, = A.D. 477-78 or 478-79, according as the *Śaka* year is taken as current or as expired (*Ind. Ant.* Vol. VII. p. 61); the Bagumrâ grant, with the date of *Ś.S.* 415, = A.D. 492-93 or 493-94 (*id.* Vol. XVII. p. 183); and the Ilâo grant, with the date of *Ś.-S.* 417, = A. D. 494-95 or 495-96 (*id.* Vol. XIII. p. 115). And, accepting these as genuine, Dr. Bühler has deduced a longer genealogy (*id.* Vol. XVII. p. 191), in which, before Dadda I. of my list, whom he calls Dadda III., he places—Dadda I., about A. D. 430; his son, Vitarâga-Jayabhaṭa I., about A. D. 455; and his son, Praśantarâga-Dadda II., with dates in A. D. 478 to 495. But, as was declared by Pandit Bhagawanlal Indraji (*id.* Vol. XIII. p. 72) as well as by myself, these charters are unquestionably forgeries, concocted, in all probability, by the person who fabricated the spurious grant of Dharasêna II. of Valabhî, of *Śaka-Saṃvat* 400 (*id.* Vol. X. p. 277). And, thus, Dr. Bühler's paper includes a good deal of imaginary history, for which there is no basis in fact, and some geographical mistakes in connection with the supposed extent of the Broach kingdom.