Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c34: Chapter XVIII. The Guhila-Putras (Guhilots) of the Punjab, Rajputana and Kathiawar

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c34

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XVIII. The Guhila-Putras (Guhilots) of the Punjab, Rajputana and Kathiawar

v2.c34.2

The rise and early history of the Guhila-putras,¹ are shrouded in mystery, and still remains a subject of great controversy. According to the bardic tradition, the Guhila-putras belong to the Solar line,² and are direct descendants of Rāma³ through Sumitra, Kanakasena and Śīlāditya (the last of the Valabhī princes of Gujarat). The story runs that after the fall of Valabhī in 524 A.D., Puṣpavatī, the daughter of the Paramāra prince of Candrāvatī and queen of Śīlādity , who had escaped the tragic fate of her husband, was delivered of a son in a cave (*guhā*). The child grew up in charge of Kamalāvatī, the married daughter of a Brāhman of Birnagar. When the child grew up, he came to be known as Guhila (cave-born), and was elected king by the Bhils of Idar.⁴ The Bhils however in time grew tired of foreign rule, and rising in rebellion killed the 8th prince of his line, Nāgāditya. His son Bappa was at that time an infant, only three years of age. The descendants of Kamalāvatī, who had become the hereditary priests of Guhila's successors, again came to the rescue of the family. Under their protection Bappa was removed to the hilly region known as Nagindra¹ (mod. Nagda, near Udaipur). While tending cows in this retreat he found favour with a sage named Hārita, a devotee of the god Ekaliṅga (Śiva). Hārita accepted the boy as his disciple and through his favour Bappa obtained invulnerability and other supernatural gifts. When Hārita went to heaven, Bappa entered the service of his uncle, the Mori (Maurya)² prince of Chitor. After successfully repulsing a 'barbarian' expedition from 'Gajni,' he dethroned the Mori king and seized the crown. Thus was laid the foundation of the Guhila dynasty in Mewar.³

v2.c34.3

¹ Sometimes *Gohila-putra* (*EI*, Vol. II, pp. 10 ff.); *Guhila-putra* (*JASB*, Vol. LV, Part 1, pp. 18 and 48); *Guhalautra* (*ASI, WC*, 1911-12, p. 53); *Guhila-uta* (*IA*, 1912, pp. 17 ff.); *Guhila-vaṁśa* (*IA*, Vol. XXII, pp. 80 ff.; *ibid*, Vol. XVI, pp. 315 ff.); *Guhila-gotra* (*JBRAS*, Vol. XXII, pp. 166 ff.); *Guhil-āṅgaja-vaṁśa* (*WZKM*, Vol. XXI, pp. 142 ff.); *Guhil-ānvaya* (*EI*, Vol. IV, pp. 29 ff.); *Guhilākhyānvaya* (*BI*, pp. 158 ff.); *Guhilya-vaṁśa* (*BI*, pp. 74 ff.). The form *Guhilot* or *Gehlot* is a further corruption from Guhila-uta.

v2.c34.4

² *Sūryavaṁśī* (Children of the sun). *Sūrya-vaṁśīya-M.-Śrī-Śīlāditya-vaṁśe-Śrī-Guhadatta-raula*......(*BI*, p. 141, lines 27-29). But the Guhilots also sometimes claimed to belong to the family of the Moon (*Mṛgāṅka-vaṁśa*). See *ibid*, lines 33-36. *Mṛgāṅka-vaṁśodyota kāraka-pratāpa-mārttaṇḍāvatā** Rāṇā-śrī-Kumbhakarṇa*. I am indebted for this reference to Dr. H. C Raychaudhury.

v2.c34.5

³ *Raghuvaṁśī*, derived from a predecessor of Rāma. Note also that Abu'l Fazl (*AAk*, Vol. II, p. 268) says that the Rāṇās of Mewar consider themselves as descendants of the Sassanian Naushirvān (c. 531-79 A.D.), king of Persia, also *AR*, Vol. I, pp. 271 ff. See also *BG* (Vol. I, Part I, p. 102) which considers a marriage connection with the Valabhīs and the fugitive daughter of the last Sassanian (A.D. 651) as 'not impossible.'

v2.c34.6

⁴ No doubt the State of that name in the Northern Division of the Bombay Presidency, east of Vadnagar.

v2.c34.7

¹ Also known as Nāgadraha or Nāgahrada.

v2.c34.8

² The Morya or Maurya sub-clan of the Paramāras still exists. *Census Report, Rajputana*, 1911, I, 255; *AR*, Vol. I, p. 265, fn 3. See also *supra, DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 6.

v2.c34.9

³ *AR*, Vol. I, pp. 247 ff.

v2.c34.10.1

Scholars are unanimous that there are some elements of truth in this tradition. For instance, it is accepted that the ancestors of the Guhila-putras originally migrated from Gujarat. The close association of the early founders with the Brāhmans is also taken to be true. But while one school is still trying to prove the descent of the family from the kings of Valabhī,⁴ others⁵ have pointed out literary and epigraphic evidence to show their origin from the Brāhmans of Ānandapura⁶ in Gujarat. The difficulty of connecting the origin of the Guhila-putras with the death of Sīlāditya VII of Valabhī is obvious. For the latest known date for the latter is A.D. 766,⁷ and we have an inscription dated in A.D. 646 for Sīla,⁸ the fifth prince of the Guhila-putra family. Assigning a period of twenty years for each reign, we must place Guhadatta or Guhila, the first prince, to about the middle of the 6th century A.D., clearly two centuries before his supposed father. The attempt to connect the reigning family of Mewar with Śīlāditya VII and the fall of Valabhī must therefore be given up. In the Atpur inscription of Śaktikumāra, dated in V. S. 1034 (*c.* 977 A.D.), his ancestor Guhadatta is described as a *Mahīdeva* and *Vipra-kula-nandana*, who had emigrated from Ānandapura.¹ It will be observed that this Ānandapura, which is the modern Vadnagar in Baroda State, is quite close to Idar, which according to bardic tradition was the original seat of power of Guhila.

v2.c34.10.2

The Chatsu inscription of the Guhila Bālāditya (about the 10th century) describes his ancestor Bhartṛpaṭṭa as being, like Rāma (Paraśu-Rāma), endowed with both priestly and martial qualities (*brahma kṣatrānvita*).² In the Mt. Abu inscription of Samarasiṁha dated in V. S. 1342, Bappa or Bappaka, the founder of the Guhila-vaṁśa, is said to have 'obtained regal splendour (*kṣātram mahaḥ*) in the guise of an anklet after he had bestowed on the sage priestly splendour (*brāhmaṇya*) under the guise of his devotion.' In the *Rasika-priyā*, a commentary on Jayadeva's *Gīta-govinda* by Rāṇā Kumbhakarṇa, Bappa is referred to as *dvija-puṅgava* and as belonging to the *Vaijavāpa gotra*.³ A verse cited by the Brāhmans of Mewar, in giving the description of the Rāṇās' family, says that the '*gotra* is Vaijavāpa, the *pravaras* are three and the Veda is Yajus.'⁴ The *Gotra-pravara-nibandha-kadamba*⁵ gives Vajavāpi as the name of a *pravara*, and Ātreya, Gāviṣṭhira and Paurvātitha as names of three *gotrarṣis*. Hence it may be concluded with reasonable certainty that the ancestors of the 'Guhila-putras' of Mewar were originally Brāhmans of Ānandapura in Gujarat.

v2.c34.10.3

Very possibly, like the founders of the Kadambas in the South and the Senas in the North-East, the ancestor of the Guhila-putras may have changed his priestly occupation for that of arms, and in due course laid the foundations of a State, which is still ruled by his descendants in Mewar.¹ The statement in the bardic annals that Bappa founded his dynasty by supplanting the Moris (Mauryas) of Chitor seem to be based on fact. The Dabok inscription² of Dhanika, one of the ancestors of the Guhila Bālāditya, of the (Gupta) year 407 (*c.* 725 A.D.), is dated in the victorious reign of *Pb.M.-P.*-Dhavalappa-deva, who has been with some probability identified with the Maurya prince Dhavala referred to in the Kanaswa (Kotah State, Rajputana) inscription dated (V.)S. 795 (*c.* 738 A.D.).³ The Nausari grant of the Cālukya prince Pulakeśi Avanijanāśraya informs us that sometime before 739 A.D. an army of Arabs (*Tājikas*) advanced as far south as Navasārikā in Gujarat after destroying on its way Saindhava, Kacchella, Saurāṣṭra, Cāvoṭaka, Maurya and Gurjara princes. Possibly the bardic tradition about the barbarian invasion from "Gajni" is only a later distortion of this Arab expedition from Sind, which took place sometime before the end of the fourth decade of the 8th century A.D. Bappa, who may have distinguished himself by his bravery in this crisis of the fortunes of his Maurya masters, may have later appropriated the royal power.

v2.c34.11

⁴ *JASB*, 1912, pp. 63-99; *IA*, 1927, pp. 169-74.

v2.c34.12

⁵ *JASB*, 1909, pp. 167-87; *IA*, Vol. XXXIX, pp. 189-91.

v2.c34.13

⁶ Mod. Vadnagar, in Baroda State.

v2.c34.14

⁷ *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 98.

v2.c34.15

⁸ *JASB*, 1909, p. 181.

v2.c34.16

¹ *IA*, Vol. XXXIX, pp. 186 ff.

v2.c34.17

² *JASB*, 1909, p. 173.

v2.c34.18

³ *EI*, Vol. XII, pp. 10 ff.

v2.c34.19

⁴ *Ibid.*

v2.c34.20

⁵ Mysore Govt. Oriental Series, p. 82.

v2.c34.21

¹ I reserve for Vol. III a fuller discussion on the 'origin of the Rajputs.'

v2.c34.22

² Referred to as 'Dhōḍ (Udaipur State, Rajputana), now Victoria Hall, Udaipur Inscription' in *EI*, Vol. XX, *Appendix*, p. 187, No. 1371, through it is stated in *ASI WC*, 1905-06, p. 61, that the record was 'originally found at Dabok.' The epigraph is so named probably because Dhanika held Dhavagarta (mod. Dhod).

v2.c34.23

³ *ASI, WC*, 1906, p 61; *EI*, Vol. XII, pp. 11-12. Ojha does not accept this identification and proposes to read the date of the Dabok inscription as 207, which he refers to the Harṣa era, see *HR*, I, p. 421, fn. 1. *IA*, Vol. XIX, pp. 55 ff.

v2.c34.24

This brings us to the discussion of Bappa's date and his position in the genealogy of the Guhila-putras. In the Atpur inscription of Śaktikumāra (V. S. 1034), the earliest epigraphic record which supplies a regular genealogy of the family, the name of Bappa does not occur at all. It traces the family's pedigree from Guhadatta. This does not however prove the non-existence of Bappa. For it is recognised that Bappa is not really a proper name. Tod held that "it signified merely 'a child,'" ¹ while Crooke is of opinion that 'it is the old Prākṛt form of *bāp* (father)' ² D. R. Bhandarkar has suggested that it is the same as ‘Bāpā’ or ‘Bāvā,’ a respectful term for ascetics.³ This designation attached itself to the real founder of the Guhilaputras because he was a disciple of the Śaiva ascetic Hāritarāśi and the 'Diwan' of the god Ekaliṅga. Crooke's view however seems to be supported by the fact that in Pallava history, the earliest known ruler is designated by the title Bappa-deva in the Hirahadgalli grants of his son Śivaskandavarman.⁴ Whatever may be the value of these various suggestions, we accept the view that Bappa was only a *biruda* and not the prince's real name. Who was then this ruler and what was his position in the family's pedigree? Certain inscriptions of the 14th century and later place Bappa or Bappaka just before Guhila.⁵ This must however be wrong for a stone inscription of Naravāhana, dated in V.S. 1028 and found on the wall of the 'Nātha's mandir' near Ekaliṅgajī's temple, near Udaipur⁶ describes Bappaka the ruler of Nāgahrada⁷ as the 'moon amongst the princes of the Guhila family' (*Guhila-gōtra-narendra-candra*). It is therefore impossible that Bappa was a predecessor of Guhila.

v2.c34.25

¹ *AR*, Vol. I, p. 261, fn. 1.

v2.c34.26

² *Ibid*; see also *IA*, Vol. XV, pp. 275 ff.; *BG*, Vol. I, Part 1, p. 84; *HR*, I, p. 405.

v2.c34.27

³ *JASB*, 1909, 189 ff. The suggestion was originally made by Bhagvanlal Indraji in *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 84.

v2.c34.28

⁴ *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 2-10.

v2.c34.29

⁵ Chirwa stone-inscription of Samarasimha, V.S. 1330 (*WZKM*, Vol. XXI, pp. 142 ff.); Chitor stone-inscription of the Guhila-vaṁśa, V.S. 1331 (*IA*, Vol. XXII, pp. 80 ff.); Abu stone-inscription of Samarasimha, V.S. 1342 (*IA*, Vol. XVI, pp. 345 ff.); Ranpur (near Sadadi) Jain temple-inscription of Kumbha, V.S. 1496 (*BI*, pp. 113 ff.).

v2.c34.30

⁶ *BI*, pp. 69-71; *JBRAS*, 1905-08, Vol. XXII, pp. 166-67.

v2.c34.31

⁷ Also called Nāgadraha, see *RMR*, 1925, p 2; *WZKM*, pp. 142 ff., Called 'Nagindra' (Nagendra) in *AR*, Vol. I, p. 260. It is modern Nagda, 14 miles north of Udaipur, at the foot of a hill on which stands the temple of Ekaliṅgajī. *JBRAS*, Vol. XXII, pp. 150 ff.

v2.c34.32

The Kumbhalgarh inscription of Rāṇā Kumbha, dated in V.S. 1517 (A.D. 1460), mentions Bappa as the fifth prince between Nāga and Aparājita.¹ As this place is given to Śīla by the Atpura and all other records, including the Sadadi inscription of Kumbha (V.S. 1496), the conclusion seems to be forced upon us that this *praśastikāra* of Kumbha's reign really believed that Bappa was a *biruda* of Śīla. Tod accepted the identity of these two princes, though on somewhat different grounds.² But there are certain difficulties in accepting this identification. An Udaipur inscription gives the date V.S. 718 (661 A.D.) for Aparājita, the son of Śīla.³ But the *Ekaliṅgajī-māhātmya*, composed during the reign of Kumbha (Vs. 19-20), gives V.S. 810 (*c.* 753 A.D.) as Bappa's date. In another work bearing the same name which was composed during the reign of Kumbha's son Rāyamalla, the same year is given as the date of Bappa's abdication in favour of his son. As in the first work the verse begins with *Yad uktam purātanaiḥ kavibhiḥ*, D. R. Bhandarkar thought that the date was copied from some older record, and as such deserving of some credence. "As the date for Aparājita is V.S. 718 and for Allaṭa V.S. 1010 we have 292 years for 12 generations; it gives 24⅓ years for each generation. The difference between Allaṭa's 718 and Bappa's 810 is 92 years; if we assign 24⅓ years for each generation we find that Bappa is placed in the 4th generation from Aparājita." In the Atpur list this is Khommāṇa I.⁴ Bhandarkar therefore thought that Bappa must be identical with this Khommāṇa.⁵ Recently however G. H. Ojha has arrived at the conclusion that Bappa was the *biruda* of Khommāṇa I's father Kālabhoja.⁶ He rightly rejected the view of Kavirāja Syāmal Das,¹ who proposed to identify Aparājita's son Mahendra with Bappa. For, as the Kavirāja accepted V.S. 810 as the year of Bappa's abdication, a period of nearly one hundred years must accordingly be assigned to two consecutive reigns, which is unusual and cannot be accepted without the support of stronger evidence. Ojha points out that in the *Rāja-praśasti-mahākāvya* as well as the *Khyāta* of Naiṇsī, 'Khumhmāṇa' is given as the name of the son of 'Bāppā.' As in the Atpur inscription Kālabhoja is given as the name of Khommāṇa's father, Ojha is certain that Bappa must be the *biruda* of Kālabhoja.² It is unwise to be dogmatic in regard to either of these two views.³ But it seems to me that Bappa should be referred to the period between 739 A.D., the approximate date of the destruction of the Maurya principality by the Arabs, and 753 A.D., the traditional date for Bappa's abdication. Now we have the date 661 A.D. for Aparājita.⁴ The period between this date and 753 A.D. is 92 years which can be covered by 3 or 4 generations. But as Mewar tradition is unanimous that Bappa had a very long reign⁵ we can accept that it was probably covered by three generations. This would tend to support the identification of Bappa with Kālabhoja.

v2.c34.33

¹ Noticed in *ASI, WC*, 1905-06, p. 61, No. 2214. *HR*, I, 398.

v2.c34.34

² *AR*, Vol. I, p. 270. He proposed the date of accession of Śīla-Bappa, and hence of the foundation of the Guhilot dynasty in Mewar, as V.S. 784 (A.D. 728), see *ibid* pp. 268-69.

v2.c34.35

³ *EI*, Vol. IV, pp. 29-32.

v2.c34.36

⁴ This name is sometimes spelt as '*Khaummāṇa*' and '*Khumhmāṇa.*' But the form *Khommāṇa* which occurs as early as c. 942 A.D. seems to be the oldest.

v2.c34.37

⁵ *JASB*, 1909, pp. 189-90.

v2.c34.38

⁶ *HR*, I, p. 409.

v2.c34.39

¹ *Vīravinoda*, Vol. I, p. 250.

v2.c34.40

² *HR*, I, p. 409.

v2.c34.41

³ More recently the identification of Bappa with Khummāṇa has been urged by Prof. S. Dutt. For his arguments see *IHQ*, 1928, pp. 796-97. He points out that the Guhilots of Mewar in the inscriptions of the 15th century and later are described as belonging to *Bappa-vaṁśa* while in earlier inscriptions they are referred to as *Khummāṇa-vaṁśīya*. That Khummāṇa loomed large in Guhilot tradition is also proved by the fact that of the first 20 Guhilots as many as 3 bore that name and 'the most ancient poetic chonicle of Mewar' probably 'written in the 9th century......and......recast during the reign of Pratāpasiṁha' (1572-98 A.D.) is designated *Khumāṇa-Rāso*.

v2.c34.42

⁴ *EI*, Vol. IV, pp. 29-32.

v2.c34.43

⁵ *AR*, Vol. I, p. 267.

v2.c34.44

On this view, the first seven Guhila-putras, from Guhadatta (Guhila) to Mahendra II (*c.* 550-720 A.D.), either were subordinate princes of the Mauryas, or otherwise held a very unimportant position. It may be that, as tradition says, the first eight of them held a principality somewhere in the upper Sabarmati valley, portions of which are now included in the State of Idar and S. W. Mewar. The principality appears to have been founded by the Brāhman Guhadatta (Guhila), who migrated from Ānandapura. Inasmuch as in ancient days there was no bar to intermarriage between the Brāhmans and the Kṣatriyas, Guhadatta may possibly have claimed some relationship with the Valabhīs of Gujarat. As I have already remarked, instances are not wanting in India where Brāhmans have founded dynasties. When the 7th prince Mahendra, who is wrongly mentioned as the 8th and named Nāgāditya in tradition, was killed by a rising of the Bhils or non-Aryan inhabitants of the State, his son Kālabhoja escaped and subsequently became the chief disciple of Hāritarāśi, the powerful Śaiva priest of the shrine of Ekaliṅga at Nāgahrada.² After Hāritarāśi's death he succeeded his spiritual guide as the head of the Śaiva temple. When the Arabs invaded the Maurya kingdom sometime before 739 A. D., they seem to have threatened the shrine of Ekaliṅga at Nāgahrada, following their usual practice. Like the monks of mediaeval Europe Kālabhoja-Bappa could probably wield a sword with as much dexterity as a sacrificial ladle. The destruction of the Maurya State gave him the opportunity to found a dynasty of his own.

v2.c34.45

² *IA*, Vol. XXII, p. 80ff.

v2.c34.46

Besides this line of Guhilas, there appears to have been at least one other branch of the family in that region, further to the north-east, which was distinct from the dynasty of Bappa. The founder of this line was Bhartṛpatta of the Guhila lineage, who is reported to have been endowed like (Paraśu-) Rāma with priestly and martial qualities. As Dhanika, the fifth prince of his line, appears to have left an inscription dated in Gupta-*Saṁvat* 407 (A.D. 725),³ we can approximately place the date of Bhartṛpaṭṭa to *c.* 625 A.D. He therefore seems to have branched off earlier than Kālabhoja from the common stock in the upper Sabarmati valley. There appear to have been other branches besides these two. Some of them were connected with the Medapāṭa family. The relationship of others is obscure. For convenience we collect the account of the various Guhila families under the following heads : ¹ (1) *Guhila-putras of Medapāṭa*, (2) *Guhila-putras of Chatsu and Dabok*, (3) *Guhila-putras of Saurāṣṭra*, (4) *Guhila-putras of Āsikā*, (5) *Guhila-putras of Naḍūlaḍāgikā*, (6) *Guhila-putras of Sesoda*, (7) *Guhila-putras of Dungarpur (Vāgaḍa)*.

v2.c34.47

¹ *AB*, Vol. I, p. 259.

v2.c34.48

³ *ASI, WC*, 1906, p. 61; *EI*, Vol. XII, pp. 11-12,

v2.c34.49

¹ For the names of the traditional list of the 24 *Śākhās* of the Guhilots see *AR*, Vol. I, pp. 99-101; *Census Report, Rajputana*, 1911, I, 256. See also the Abu inscription of Samara-siṁha (V. S. 1342) which refers to the numerous branches and the sub-branches of the *Guhila-vaṁśa*, *IA*, Vol. XVI, pp. 345 ff.

v2.c34.50

Before giving an account of all these various branches I would add, by way of introduction, that none of them appear to have held any considerable power till nearly the second half of the 12th or the beginning of the 13th century A.D. We have seen that according to traditional and epigraphic evidence they were feudatories of the Mauryas in the 8th century A.D. In the 9th they must have gradually come into the orbit of the mighty Pratīhāra empire, which extended from Kāthiawar to Northern Bengal. The annals of the bards are silent on this point; but the Chatsu inscription of the Guhila Bālāditya refers to the inevitable fact. One of his ancestors Harṣarāja, we are told, conquered princes in the north and presented horses to Bhoja,² who, as we shall see, must be identified with the first Pratīhāra prince of that name (*c.* 836-82 A.D.). Again, the Partabgarh inscription of the Pratīhāra Mahendrapāla II, shows that in *V.S.* 999 (*c.* 942 A.D.) the Medapāṭa Guhila Bhartṛpaṭṭa II, son of Khommāṇa III, still acknowledged the sovereignty of the Kanauj emperor.³ There is no doubt therefore that from about the middle of the 9th to the middle of the 10th century the Guhilas occupied the position of feudatories of the powerful Pratīhāra empire. From the middle of the 10th to the end of the 12th century most of the region occupied by the Guhilas either directly came into the possession of the three powerful kingdoms, the Caulukyas of Anhilvada, the Paramāras of Mālava and the Cāhamānas of Sākambharī, which sprang up on the ruins of the Kanauj empire, or became the bone of contention between them. Some of the branches, as those of Āsikā¹ and Saurāṣṭra² definitely figure as vassal chiefs of Caulukyas and the Cāhamānas respectively. The early attempts of the Medapāṭa branch to secure a sovereign position were speedily frustrated by the growing strength of these three powers. One of the Medapāṭa chiefs, Ambāprasāda, who probably ruled in the first quarter of the 11th century, lost his life in the hands of the Śākambharī Cāhamāna Vākpatirāja II,³ while the Chirwa inscription of the Guhila Samarasimha (V. S. 1330) shows that the Mālava Paramāra Bhoja (*c.* 1010-55 A.D.) was in possession of the fort of Chitor itself.⁴ The Atru (1127-28 A.D) and the Talwara inscriptions of the Caulukya Jayasiṁha and the Chitorgadh inscriptions (*c.* 1150 A.D.) of his successor indicate that the triangular area between Kotah, Mewar and Banswara was included within the Caulukya dominions during the first half of the 12th century.⁵ It seems very likely that after the second half of the 12th century, when the power of the Caulukyas and the Paramāras had declined, the Guhilas of Medapāṭa found opportunities to establish themselves as sovereigns. But by this time the Turks were in possession of Delhi and Ajmer, and the temples and cities of Mewar were not seldom visited by their plundering bands. Aided by their hills, the Guhilas kept up a desperate resistance against Delhi. Their efforts were not always successful. Often when the throne of Delhi was occupied by an able military leader, as in the reign of ‘Alā ud-Dīn Khaljī (1296-1316 A.D.), their fortunes sank very low. But they recovered their strength during the weak reigns which often followed. The halo of romance and dignity with which tradition has invested the history of the Guhila-putras is due to this struggle often against enormous odds to save Hindu independence from being completely submerged in Northern India by the Turkish and Timurid¹ floods. Their history before the 13th century lacks the dramatic element and seems to contain nothing which could fire the imagination of poets and bards. The bulk of the bardic annals about the Guhila-putras therefore grew up very late, certainly not before the 14th century. This explains their frequent divergence from fact when they deal with the early history of their heroes’ family.

v2.c34.51

² *EI*, Vol. XII, pp. 10 ff., V. 19.

v2.c34.52

³ *EI*, Vol. XIV, pp. 176 ff.. Part III.

v2.c34.53

¹ Hansi inscription of Pṛthvīrāja II (A.D. 1167); *IA*, 1912, pp. 17-19; see *DHNI*, Vol. II, *supra*, pp. 1078-79, and *infra*, pp. 1201-02.

v2.c34.54

² Mangrol inscription of Kumārapāla (A.D. 1145) *BI*, pp 158-60. See also *DHNI* Vol. II, *supra*, p. 977, and *infra*, pp. 1199-1200.

v2.c34.55

³ See *DHNI*, Vol. II, *ante*, chapter on the Cāhamānas, p. 1068.

v2.c34.56

⁴ *Ibid*, pp. 870-71.

v2.c34.57

⁵ *Ibid*, chapter on the Caulukyas; pp. 965, 967 and 978-79.

v2.c34.58

¹ The *Timurids* are also Turkish and not Mughal in origin; but it has become customary to separate them from the earlier Turki sovereigns.

(1) Guhila-putras of Medapāṭa

v2.c34.s1.1

As I have previously suggested, the first seven princes of the Guhila-putra family who preceded Kālabhoja-Bappa, probably the real founder of the Medapāṭa line, lived and died rather ingloriously, ruling over a small principality somewhere in the upper Sabarmati valley, which is now occupied by the south-western portion of Mewar and Idar. The Atpur inscription of Śaktikumāra supplies the following names of the predecessors of Kālabhoja :—

v2.c34.s1.2

Guhadatta : In his family

Bhoja
Mahendra I
Nāga
Śīla
Aparājita
Mahendra II

v2.c34.s1.3

No epigraphic records have yet been discovered of the first four members of the family. Certain small silver coins bearing the legend *Śrī-Guhila* or *Guhila-Śrī*, ‘in an ancient western form of the Sanscrit character,’ which were dug up at Agra,¹ have been referred by some scholars to the reign of the first prince.² But, as we shall see later, it is more than likely that they were issued by a prince of the same name who belonged to the Chatsu branch. There is at present no sufficient reason to suspect that the dominions of Guhadatta really extended from the upper valley of the Sabarmati to the neighbourhood of Agra.³ His principality appears to have included only portions of the present State of Idar and S. W. Mewar. As we have an inscription for Śīla dated in V. S. 703 (*c.* 646 A.D.),⁴ we may safely place him about the middle of the sixth century A.D. He may have been at first a feudatory of the Valabhīs of Gujarat. The only thing known about the next four princes is the tradition recorded in the *Khyātas* that Nāgahrada or Nagadraha (mod. Nagda) was founded by Nāga,⁵ the fourth prince. But Ojha has rightly pointed out that this admittedly ancient place may have been named after the Nāgas, who it is well known ruled in Rajputana and Mathura in the 3rd and 4th centuries A.D.⁶ The *Khyātas* also give the name of Bhoja as Bhojāditya (or Bhogāditya), and that of Nāga as Nāgaditya⁷ while the Abu inscription of Samarasimha (V. S. 1342) mentions Bhoja as a devotee of Viṣṇu. For the reign of the fifth prince Śīla, also called Śīlāditya, we have the *Samoli stone-inscription* dated in V. S. 703 (*c.* 646 A.D.). This was found in the village of Samoli in the Bhumat district of Mewar (not far from Vasantagaḍh, in the Sirohi State).¹ It records the construction and dedication of a temple by one Jeka, a *mahājana* from Vaṭangara.² Ojha states that he has seen a copper coin of this prince. On one side of this coin, according to him, appears the name of Śīla; the writing on the other side is illegible.³ Śīla was succeeded by Aparājita, for whose reign we have the *Nagda stone-inscription* dated in V. S. 718 (*c.* 661 A.D.). The stone bearing the inscription is reported to have been found near the temple of Kuṇḍeśvara at Nagda, near Udaipur. It contains 12 lines of writing. The first two verses invoke Viṣṇu under the names Hari and Śauri. We are next told that *Rājā* Aparājita of the *Guhilānvaya* chose for his leader (of troops) the *Mahārāju* Varāhasiṁha, the son of Śiva (siṁha?). The inscription records that Yaśomatī, the wife of Varāhasiṁha, built a temple of (Viṣṇu) the enemy of Kaiṭabha. The *praśasti* was composed by Dāmodara, and incised by Yaśobhaṭa. The prose part states that on the above date, the temple of Vāsudeva was inaugurated. The inscription ends with *Namaḥ Puruṣottamāya*.⁴

v2.c34.s1.4

¹ The number of coins is given by Carlleyle as ‘upwards of two thousand.’ *ASR*, Vol. IV, p. 95. Another coin found in Narwar, bearing the legend *Śrī-Guhilapati* (*JASB*, 1895, p. 122), is also referred by some scholars to a prince of the Guhila family, *see HR*, I, p. 400, fn. 1.

v2.c34.s1.5

² Carlleyle in *ASI*, Vol. IV, p. 95; Ojha in *HR*, I, p. 400; *ibid*, p. 401.

v2.c34.s1.6

³ As Ojha has done. He is of opinion that after the fall of the Hūṇa Mihirakula, nearly the whole of Rajputana and the neighbouring countries came under the possession of Guhadatta. The doubtful evidence of the Agra and Narwar coins and of the Chatsu inscription does not, in my opinion, support such a sweeping conclusion. See *ibid*.

v2.c34.s1.7

⁴ Noticed in *ASI, WC*, 1908-09, p. 48. See also *Nāgarī-pracāriṇī Patrikā*, Vol. I, pp. 311-24; *HR*, II, p. 402, and *JASB*, Vol. 1909, p. 181.

v2.c34.s1.8

⁵ *HR*, II, p. 402.

v2.c34.s1.9

⁶ Raychaudhuri, *Political History of India*, 1932, p. 328.

v2.c34.s1.10

⁷ *HR*, II, p. 402.

v2.c34.s1.11

¹ See above, chapter on the *Paramaras*, p. 910 and fn. 4 on pp. 910-11.

v2.c34.s1.12

² Kielhorn suggested its identification with Vasantagaḍh in Sirohi, see *ante*, pp. 910-11, fn. 4.

v2.c34.s1.13

³ *HR*, II, p. 403 and fn. 5. It is reported to be in the possession of one Śobhālāl of Udaipur.

v2.c34.s1.14

⁴ Edited by Kielhorn, *EI*, Vol. IV, pp. 29-32; for its findspot, see *ibid*, II, p. 408.

v2.c34.s1.15

The above inscription unfortunately records no incident of political interest, besides the date, for the reign of Aparājita. The reign of the next prince, Mahendra II, is also a blank, having left no epigraphic or numismatic records. But if there is any historical basis in the Rajput tradition recorded by Tod, he may have been, as I have previously suggested, the prince who lost his life in a rising of the aboriginal Bhils, who formed the bulk of the population in the Guhila State. His successor was Kālabhoja, who probably bore the *biruda* Bappa or Bāpā.¹ We have already discussed the circumstances which may have helped him to rebuild his ancestral state on a stronger foundation by the assimilation of the Maurya State of Chitor.² I have tentatively assigned for his reign the period *c.* 739-753 A.D., and noticed his close association with the influential Saiva ascetic Hārītarāśi, the chief priest of the shrine of Ekaliṅga at Nāgahrada (Nagda). The ending *-rāśi* seems to indicate that he belonged to the Lakulīśa sect of the Pāśupata ascetics.³ A Chitor stone-inscription dated in V.S. 1331 tells us that it was through the favour of the sage Hārītarāśi that Bappa became lord of Medapāṭa and its town Nāgahrada.⁴ The Mt. Abu inscription of Samarasiṁha dated in V.S. 1342 also states that Bappa obtained ‘regal splendour’ through the favour of the same sage practising penance in the town of Nāgahrada.⁵ These statements may indicate that his association with this ascetic must have materially assisted him in reviving his power. This conclusion is supported by the recent discovery of a gold coin which in the opinion of Ojha belongs to Bappa.⁶ On the top of the obverse of the coin is the legend *Śrī-Voppa*; below this to the right is a trident; by its side is a *liṅga* (representing the God Ekaliṅga at Nagda). To the right of this is the bull couchant (Nandin) and below the bull the figure of a monkey lies prostrate on the ground. This represents according to Ojha Voppa (*i.e.*, Bappa), the founder of the Mewar line, who is considered to be Nandi-gaṇa of Śiva.¹ He points out that according to the *Sundarakāṇḍa* of the *Rāmāyaṇa* Nandin has the face of a monkey.² On the reverse of the coin there is a folded *Cāmara*, a cross enclosed in a circle; to the right of this symbol is the handle of a *chatra*; below this is the representation of a cow suckling its calf; below the cow are parallel lines ending on the right with a fish. There is also a pot or vase to the right of the cow and four dots below the parallel lines. According to Ojha the cow and the calf represent the cow of the sage Hāritarāśi, which according to the Muhanoṭa Naiṇsī he tended for 12 years before he attained royalty through his favour.³ If the coin is genuine,⁴ and this interpretation of the symbol is correct, it supports the epigraphic and bardic tradition which ascribes his royal power to the favour of the sage. With the exception of this coin there are no records of the reign of Kālabhoja-Bappa. The only incident ascribed to his reign is that mentioned in the late Abu inscription of Samarasiṁha (*V.S.*

v2.c34.s1.16

¹ See *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, pp. 1157-58, and fn. 3 on p. 1158.

v2.c34.s1.17

² Ojha however disbelieves in the unanimous tradition about this break and revival of Guhila power, see *HR*, II, 418 ff. He believes that the Guhilas ruled from Nagda uninterruptedly from Guhadatta downwards.

v2.c34.s1.18

³ For some of these names ending in *-rāśi*, see *JBRAS*, 1905-08, Vol. XXII, pp. 150 ff.; also *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 211 ff.

v2.c34.s1.19

⁴ *IA*, Vol. XXII, pp. 80 ff.

v2.c34.s1.20

⁵ *IA*, Vol. XVI, pp. 345 ff.

v2.c34.s1.21

⁶ *ASI, WC.*, 1921, pp. 57-58; also *JASB*, 1927, *Numismatic Supplement*, pp. 14-18.

v2.c34.s1.22

¹ Dr. Barnett points out that '*Nandi* is different from the *Gaṇas* or goblins. See *Elements of Hindu Iconography*, by Gopinath Rao, Madras, 1914.

v2.c34.s1.23

² Dr. Barnett is not convinced. He demands better evidence to prove that Nandin had a monkey's face. He rightly points out that a monkey's face is not a monkey's body.

v2.c34.s1.24

³ *HR*, II, p. 417. For two more coins, one ascribed to Bappa, the other to Kālabhoja, see *NC*, 1933, pp. 138-42.

v2.c34.s1.25

⁴ This coin is said to be in the possession of the prince of Sirohi, Mahārājā Kesari Siṁha. It should be carefully examined. Is it not rather strange that we should have no *gold* coins of some of the greatest kings of this period, in comparison with whose power, prestige and extent of dominions, Kālabhoja-Bappa's position seems rather insignificant and shadowy? I am doubtful about Ojha's interpretation of the 'square enclosed in a circle' as the symbol for the sun. He finds in it a sure evidence of the Solar origin of the Guhilas. But it is significant that unlike some other dynasties, the epigraphic records of the Guhilas even as late as the 14th century A.D. never trace the genealogy of the family to the sun, nor do they even hint at a solar origin while earlier inscriptions trace the pedigree back to the Ānandapura Brāhman Guhadatta, later records trace it to Bappa and refer to his connections with the sage Hāritarāśi. It is only in records which are considerably later than A.D. 1302 that the sun or the moon are mentioned. It therefore seems to me that either the symbol has not been properly read or that its interpretation is wrong. But if Ojha has been right in his reading and interpretation of the symbol then it raises serious doubts as to the genuineness of the coin itself.

v2.c34.s1.26

1342), *viz.*, an invasion of peninsular India by him in the course of which he is said to have punished the ruler of Karṇāṭa and ‘put an end to the pleasure of love of Coḍa women.’¹

v2.c34.s1.27

¹ *IA*, Vol. XVI, 345 ff.

v2.c34.s1.28

Practically nothing is known about Khommāṇa I,² Mattaṭa, Bhartṛpatta I,³ Siṃha, Khommāṇa II, Mahāyaka, and Khommāṇa III, who according to the Atpur and other inscriptions are said to have ruled in succession after Kālabhoja. Tod quoting from *Khummāṇa-Rāso*, gives a description of the conflict between the Mewar prince ‘Khummāṇa’ and the Muslim leader ‘Mahmud Khorasan Pat’ when the latter invaded the Guhila territories.⁴ Tod identified ‘Khummāṇa’ with the first Guhila of that name, and thought that the name of the Muslim chief is a mistake for that of the Abbasid Caliph Al-Ma’mūn (813-33 A.D). If there is any historical foundation to this story, it is more probable, as Ojha suggests, that the prince who came into conflict with the Arab invaders was Khommāṇa II (c. 810-30 A.D.), and not the first of that name (c. 753-73 A.D.).⁵ The 3rd Guhila bearing the name Khommāṇa has been rightly identified with Khommāṇa, the father of Mahārājādhirāja Bhartṛpatta, the feudatory of the Kanauj emperor Mahendrapāla II (946 A.D.). The Partabgarh inscription of this last prince records that *M.*-Bhartṛpaṭṭa granted in perpetuity a field named Vavvulika (Babbulika) situated by the side of the river Nandyā in the village of Palāsa-Kūpikā to the (Sun) god Indrarājāditya-deva of Ghoṇṭāvarṣi in V.S. 999 (c. 942 A.D.).¹ Ojha would identify Palāsa-Kūpikā with Parāsia, which is about 15 miles south of Mandasor, and Ghaṇṭāvarṣi with Ghotarsi, about 7 miles east of Partabgarh. Another fragmentary stone-inscription which supplies a date for Bhartṛpaṭṭa, the son of Khummāṇa III, was discovered at Ahar near Udaipur.² It is dated in V. S. 1000 (c. 943 A.D.), in the reign of Bhartṛ (Bhartṛbhaṭa), and registers the construction of a temple of Ādivarāha (Viṣṇu)) at the Gaṅgodbheda-*tīrtha*³ by a person named Ādivarāha. It may be inferred from the Partabgarh inscription that during the period *c.* 800-950 A.D. the Guhilas of Nāgahrada were the feudatories of the Pratīhāra rulers of Avanti and Kanauj. According to Ojha, it was Bhartṛpaṭṭa II who founded the city of Bhartṛpura, identical with the modern village of Bhatevar, which has given the name *Bhartṛpurīya* to one of the Jaina *gacchas*.⁴

v2.c34.s1.29

² But see *ante*, p. 1157, fn. 4.

v2.c34.s1.30

³ Ojha (HR, II, pp. 420 ff.) has identified this prince with Bhartṛpatta the founder of the Chatsu branch of the Guhilas. This however seems to be improbable, if not impossible, even if we accept the reading of his date of the Dabok inscription of Dhanika (Harṣa year 207 = V.S. 870 = A.D. 813). For Bhartṛpatta of the Chatsu inscription, being the 5th prince counting backwards from Dhanika, must be referred approximately to c. 713 A.D. But we have seen that the period of Kālabhoja-Bappa, the 4th, counting backwards, from Bhartṛpatta of the Nagda branch, is approximately 789-58 A.D. Thus it is absolutely impossible to identify these two Bhartṛpattas. It may be added that Ojha himself believes in V.S. 810 (c. 753 A.D.) to be the date of Kālabhoja-Bappa's abdication. This is also clear from another calculation. Ojha accepts the Pratīhāra emperor Bhoja (c. 836-881 A.D.) as being the Bhoja who was a contemporary of Harṣarāja, the 9th prince from Bhartṛpatta of the Chatsu branch. This fixes the period of the latter roughly about the first half of the 8th century, which was the period of Bappa.

v2.c34.s1.31

⁴ *AR*, Vol. I, pp. 283 ff.

v2.c34.s1.32

⁵ *HR*, II, p. 420.

v2.c34.s1.33

¹ *EI*, Vol. XIV, pp. 177 ff. Part III. See also *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 586-87.

v2.c34.s1.34

² Noticed in *RMR*, 1914, p. 2; *HR*, I, p. 425. *EI*, Vol. XIX, *Appendix* (p. 11, No. 60) seems to doubt the reading of the date.

v2.c34.s1.35

³ Mod. Gangobhev at Ahar.

v2.c34.s1.36

⁴ *HR*, II, p. 426

v2.c34.s1.37

Bhartṛpaṭṭa II was succeeded by Allaṭa,⁵ his son by the queen Mahālakṣmī. The *Ahar Sāraṇeśvara temple-inscription of Allaṭa* contains the dates V.S. 1008 (*c.* 951 A.D.) and 1010 (*c.* 953 A.D.) for his reign.⁶ It is incised on a slab of white marble attached to two pillars in front of the *Raṅga-maṇḍapa* of the Śaiva temple near the burning ground at Ahar in Mewar. It contains 6 lines opening with an invocation to Hari. It then mentions the *Rājñī* Mahālakṣmī, her son the king (*medinī-pati*) Allaṭa, and his son Naravāhana. It then speaks of the *Amātya* Mammaṭa, the *Sāndhivigrahika* Durlabharāja, the *Akṣapaṭalakas* Mayūra and Samudra, the *Vandīpati* Nāga and the *Bhiṣagadhirāja* Rudrāditya. It registers the construction of a temple of the god Murāri (Viṣṇu), which was begun in V.S. 1008 and completed in V.S. 1010 and records various endowments for its maintenance, on the sale of an elephant one *dramma*, on that of a horse two *rūpakas*, a horned animal *drummārdha-viṁśaka* (*i.e.*, 1/40 *dramma*), etc. Contributions were also levied upon various other traders of the locality, including even the gamblers. It is also laid down that the merchants of Karṇāṭa, Lāṭa, Madhyadeśa and Ṭakka should pay contributions to the temple.

v2.c34.s1.38

⁵ Known in local annals as Ālu Rāval, *ibid*.

v2.c34.s1.39

⁶ *BI*, pp. 67-69. Also *Prācīna-lekha-mālā*, Vol. II, p. 24; *IA*, Vol LVIII, p. 162.

v2.c34.s1.40

Practically nothing is known about the political incidents of Allaṭa’s reign. But Ojha¹ mentions an unpublished damaged and fragmentary inscription in a small Jain temple at Ahar, near Udaipur, which says that Allaṭa killed in fight his powerful enemy Devapāla, and also mentions the *Akṣapaṭalika* Mayūra, whose name occurs in the Sāraṇeśvara inscription referred to above. Though at present there is no evidence it is not impossible that this Devapāla is identical with the Kanauj Pratīhāra of that name.²

v2.c34.s1.41

¹ *HR*, II, p. 428.

v2.c34.s1.42

² *HR*, II, p. 428, fn. 2. See *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, pp. 587ff. According to Barnett this identification is ‘possible but not very probable.’ Though at present there is no definite evidence that the Pratīhāra emperor Devapāla was killed yet it is certain that he was not a very powerful prince. Dissensions within and invasions hastened the decline and break up of the Pratīhāra empire. It is therefore not impossible that like Rājyapāla (*c.* 1010 A.D.), he may have also been killed in trying to put down internal foes who were often the feudatories of the Kanauj empire.

v2.c34.s1.43

Allaṭa was succeeded by Naravāhana, his son by the Hūṇa queen Hariyadevī. The Atpur inscription of Śaktikumāra tells us that ‘her fame shone forth in the form of Harṣapura.’³ This probably indicates that she founded a city of that name. Only one inscription, dated in V.S. 1028 (*c.* 971 A.D.) has so far been published for the reign of Naravāhana.⁴ This is his *Ekalingajī* *stone-inscription*, which was discovered in the temple of Nātha, 14 miles north of Udaipur. It is incised on a slab in the proper right-hand niche in the outside wall facing east of the *Sabhāmaṇḍapa* of the temple. It contains 18 lines, and opens with obeisance to Lakulīśa.¹ The first verse is damaged ; the second praises Sarasvatī, and the next two eulogise the city of Nāgahrada.² Verse 5 tells us that in that city flourished the prince Bappaka, who was a moon amongst the kings of Guhila lineage. The following verse probably mentioned the name of Allaṭa, the father of Naravāhana, to whose reign the inscription refers itself (Vs. 7-8). The inscription then supplies an account of the Lakulīśa sect of the Śaivas. We are told that in the country of Bhṛgukaccha (Broach), through which flows Narmadā, the daughter of Mekala, the sage Bhṛgu being cursed by Murabhid (Viṣṇu), propitiated the god Śiva. The latter in the presence of that sage incarnated himself in a form characterised with a club (*lakula*) in his hand. The place where Śiva thus descended to the earth was called *Kāyavarohana*.³ In this place, the inscription tells us, Śiva did not remember his Kailāsa. Then follows an account of Kuśika and other sages who were conversant with the Pāśupata-yoga, and who resorted to the use of ashes, bark, and matted hair. Then follows a statement that there were certain sages whose fame had spread from the Himalayas to Rāma’s bridge who worshipped the god Ekaliṅga. It was by them that this temple of Lakulīśa was raised on Mt. Aśvagrāma. The next verse states that the *praśasti* was composed by the poet Āmra, the pupil of the celebrated dialectician the sage Vedāṅga, who had silenced the disputants of the *Syādvāda* (Jaina), *Saugata* (Buddhist), and other sects. V. 19 gives the date V.S. 1028. At the end occur the names of Supūjitarāśi and Viniścitarāśi and others who erected a temple and dedicated it to Lakulīśa.¹

v2.c34.s1.44

³ *IA*, Vol. XXXIX, pp. 186 ff.

v2.c34.s1.45

⁴ *BI*, pp. 69-71; then edited by D. R. Bhandarkar in *JBRAS*, 1905-08, Vol. XXII, pp. 166-67. In the account of the contents of the inscription I have followed this later version of the record.

v2.c34.s1.46

¹ Lakulīśa was believed to be an *Avatāra* of Śiva.

v2.c34.s1.47

² Mod. Nagda, about 14 miles north of Udaipur.

v2.c34.s1.48

³ Mod. Karvan in the Dabhoi Taluka of Baroda prānt, Baroda State.

v2.c34.s1.49

¹ For an account of the Lakulīśa sect see Bhandarkar's introduction to his edition of this record. See also *Gaṇa-kārikā* of Bhāsarvajña (Bhāva Sarvajña). Date of the author about the second half of the 10th century A.D., Ed. by C. D. Dalal, *GOS*, No. XV, 1920.

v2.c34.s1.50

Apart from the dates supplied by this inscription, very little is known about Naravāhana's reign. The Atpur inscription of Śaktikumāra only praises him in vague and general terms which mean nothing. It however mentions the fact that he married the daughter of a Cāhamāna named Jejaya. Ojha noticed an unpublished Ahar inscription which mentions the name of Naravāhana's *Akṣapaṭalādhīsa*, Śrīpati, son of Mayūra, who held the same post in the previous reign. Naravāhana was succeeded by his son Śālivāhana,² who had a short reign and was in turn succeeded by his son Śaktikumāra some time before V.S. 1034 (*c.* 977 A.D.). Śālivāhana's reign therefore falls between V.S. 1028 (*c.* 971 A.D.), the last known date of his predecessor, and V.S. 1034 (*c.* 977 A.D.), the first known date of his son. This makes him a contemporary of the Mālava Paramāra Muñja-Vākpati II (*c.* 974-95 A.D.), who is said in the Bijapur inscription of the Hastikuṇḍi Rāṣṭrakūṭa Dhavala (V.S. 1053) to have 'destroyed Āghāṭa³ the pride of Medapāṭa.'⁴ I have already suggested elsewhere that one of the princes, who was defeated on this occasion and whom Dhavala claims to have protected was possibly the Guhila Sālivāhana, or his son Saktikumāra.¹ The following inscriptions are known for the reign Saktikumāra :

v2.c34.s1.51

² Ojha believes that the Kathiawar Guhilas are descended from this prince, see *HR*, II, pp. 431-433 and fn. 2 on p. 431; also *DHNI*, Vol. II, *infra*, pp. 1199 ff.

v2.c34.s1.52

³ Mod. Ahar, near Udaipur.

v2.c34.s1.53

⁴ *EI*, Vol. X, pp. 18 and 20-21, V. 10. The capital of the Guhilas had probably been transferred by this time from Nāgahrada to Āghāṭa. This latter town appears from the Sāraṇeśvara temple inscription of Allaṭa (V. S. 1008 and 1010) to have already become an important trading centre in Medapāṭa. According to Mewar tradition Alu Rāval (Allaṭa) founded the city of Aḍa (i.e., Āhāḍa, Āghāṭa, Ahar, etc.). The existence of the place as a holy site before the reign of Allaṭa is however proved by the Ahar inscription of his father Bhartṛpaṭṭa II (V. S. 1000). It is likely that the development of the site as a commercial entrepôt began in the reign of Allaṭa, who later may have even transferred his residence to that town. See *HR*, II, pp. 427-28.

v2.c34.s1.54

¹ See *ante, DHNI*, Vol. I, p. 561; *ibid*, Vol. II, p. 855.

v2.c34.s1.55

(1) *Atpur stone-inscription (i).*—Found by Tod at Atpur (Ahar), near Udaipur in Mewar. It opens with the date (V.) S. 1034 (*c.* 977 A.D.), and records the erection of a temple to the god Nānigasvāmi. Next it gives the genealogy of the Guhila family from the Ānandapura Brāhman² Guhadatta to Saktikumāra.³

v2.c34.s1.56

² For different interpretation of *Mahīdeva* (Brāhman) and *Vipra-kula-nandana*, see Mohanlal Vishunlal Pandia in *JASB*, 1912, pp. 63 ff.

v2.c34.s1.57

³ First edited by Tod in *AR*, Vol. II, pp. 924-25. Then fully edited by D. R. Bhandarkar from a transcript of the original inscription prepared by Ojha, in *IA*, Vol. XXXIX, pp. 186-91. See also M. V. Pandia in *JASB*, Vol. VIII, pp. 63ff.

v2.c34.s1.58

(2) *Ahar stone-inscription (ii).*—Discovered in the village of Aṛ (Ahar) near Udaipur. It was incised on a piece of marble built into some steps leading to the terrace of a Jaina temple. It appears from the inscription that during the reign of Saktikumāra 'the previously existing practice of offering each year 14 *drammas* to the sun-god (*tapana*) was continued.' It mentions the name of *Akṣapaṭalika* Mattaṭa.⁴

v2.c34.s1.59

⁴ Edited by C. Bendall, *Journey*, p. 82; see also *HR*, II, p. 484.

v2.c34.s1.60

(3) *Ahar stone-inscription (iii).*—Incised in a Jaina *Devakulikā* at Ahar, near Udaipur. It is damaged and fragmentary. It probably contained a panegyric on Saktikumāra and some of his officials, and seems to mention Mattaṭa and Gundala, the two sons of *Akṣapaṭalika* Srīpāti, as the two arms of Saktikumāra.⁵

v2.c34.s1.61

⁵ Noticed in *ASI, WC*, 1906, p. 62; also in *HR*, II, pp. 434 and 487.

v2.c34.s1.62

Nothing is known about the incidents of Saktikumāra's reign. He was succeeded by his son Ambāprasāda, also known as Āmraprasāda.⁶ The Abu inscription of Samarasiṁha (V.S. 1342)⁷ and the Sadadi inscription of Kumbha (V.S. 1496)⁸ omits him and places his brother Śucivarman immediately after Śaktikumāra. But the Chitor inscription of the Guhilas, dated in V. S. 1331,¹ and the Kumbhalgarh inscription of Kumbha (V.S. 1517)² mention him as successor of Śaktikumāra and predecessor of Śucivarman. A damaged unpublished inscription found at Ahar mentions his queen as belonging to the Caulukyavaṁśa. Unfortunately her name is lost.³ Ambāprasāda seems to have had a tragic end. The *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya* claims that the Śākambharī Cāhamāna Vākpatirāja II sent Ambāprasāda, the lord of Āghāṭa, with his army to the abode of Yama.⁴ The epithet *Āghāṭa-pati* applied to the Guhila prince shows that the royal residence was now definitely transferred from Nāgahrada to this place. In the Atpur inscription of Śaktikumāra he is described as having ‘established himself at Ātapura,’ which is generally taken as another form of the name of Āghāṭa or modern Ahar. Probably the Guhila princes had begun to prefer this new city as their place of residence even earlier.⁵

v2.c34.s1.63

⁶ Also sometimes spelt as Ambāprasāda.

v2.c34.s1.64

⁷ *IA*, Vol. XVI, pp. 345ff.

v2.c34.s1.65

⁸ *BI*, pp. 118 ff.; also *ASI*, 1907-08, pp. 214 ff. The record is sometimes called 'Ranpur inscription.'

v2.c34.s1.66

¹ *IA*, Vol. XXII, pp. 80-81.

v2.c34.s1.67

² *HR*, II, p. 440; see also *ASI, WC.*, 1905-06, p. 61, No. 2214.

v2.c34.s1.68

³ *HR*, II, p. 438, fn. 1.

v2.c34.s1.69

⁴ Vś. 59-60; see also *ante*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, chapter on the Cāhamānas, p. 1068.

v2.c34.s1.70

⁵ See *ante*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 1171, fn. 4.

v2.c34.s1.71

Ambāprasādā was succeeded by his brother Śucivarman, for whose reign only one inscription is known. This is his *Hastamātā temple-inscription at Ahar*.⁶ Unfortunately this epigraph which is cut on one of the steps leading to the entrance to the temple, is much mutilated. In the beginning it mentions king Śucivarman as son of Śaktikumāra. Its object was probably to register the foundation of the temple to the god Rāhileśvara. It also mentions one Soḍuka of the Caulukya-*kula* and his daughter Mahimā; but owing to its damaged state their relationship with the other persons mentioned cannot be determined. The history of the Guhilas after Śucivarman is rather obscure. From the inscriptions of the 14th century and later we may perhaps be allowed to conclude that Naravarman (*alias* Nṛvarman), Anantavarman, Kīrtivarman (*alias* Yaśovarman), Yogarāja and Vairaṭa succeeded Śucivarman, one after the other, on the throne of Medapāṭa. The Chitor inscription dated V.S. 1331,¹ and the Abu inscription dated in V.S. 1342 ² of Samarasiṁha mention Naravarman as the successor of Śucivarman. The unpublished Kumbhalgarh inscription has the following verse : ³

v2.c34.s1.72

⁶ *BI*, pp. 72-74; see also *HR*, II, p. 442, fn. 1.

v2.c34.s1.73

¹ *IA*, Vol. XXII, pp. 80, 81. The names after Naravarman are lost.

v2.c34.s1.74

² *IA*, XVI, pp. 345 ff.

v2.c34.s1.75

³ Quoted in *HR*, II, p. 439, fn. 1.

v2.c34.s1.76

*NṛvarmĀnantavarmā ca Yāśovarmā mahīpatis,*
*trayo’py Ambāprasādasya jajñire bhrātaro’sya ca.*

v2.c34.s1.77

This may indicate that these three brothers of Ambāprasāda probably succeeded Śucivarman. The Abu inscription of Samarasiṁha (V.S. 1342) however mentions after Naravarman the names of only Kīrtivarman and Vairaṭa.⁴ But the Sadadi inscription of Kumbha places Kīrtivarman, Yogarāja and Vairaṭa in succession to Śucivarman ⁵ while the Kumbhalgarh inscription of the same king dated in V. S. 1517 gives Nṛvarman, Yaśovarman, Yogarāja and Vairaṭa after Ambāprasāda.⁶ The above shows that there was considerable confusion in the 14th century and later regarding the order of succession and the names of the rulers who came after Naravarman. No records either epigraphic or numismatic, are known to refer themselves to these princes, and the only important information about them is contained in the unpublished Kumbhalgarh inscription which tells us that after Yogarāja Vairaṭa, a descendant of Allaṭa, occupied the throne.⁷ This certainly indicates that the princes from Vairaṭa downwards belonged to a separate line, which claimed descent from Allaṭa. Whether this Allaṭa is the Guhila prince of the same name who ruled in V. S. 1008-10 is uncertain. I have already accepted the conjecture of Ojha that the names Kīrtivarman and Yaśovarman being synonymous, probably belonged to the same person. We do not know the exact relationship between this prince and Yogarāja, though there is no reason to doubt that he was closely connected with him. We may tentatively suggest the following order of succession after Allaṭa

First 136 of 426 passages. Read on

Linked texts (15)