Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c34.s1: (1) Guhila-putras of Medapāṭa

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c34.s1

Language
English

Contents

(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

v2.c34.s1.78

⁴ *IA*, Vol. XVI, pp. 345 ff.

v2.c34.s1.79

⁵ *EI*, pp. 113 ff. ; see also *ASI*, 1907-08, pp. 214 ff.

v2.c34.s1.80

⁶ *HR*, II, p. 440.

v2.c34.s1.81

⁷ *Tataś ca Yogarājo 'bhūn-Medapāṭe mahīpatiḥ,* *api rājye sthite tasmiṁs tacchā-(no divaṁ) gataḥ.* *paścād Allaṭa-saṁtāne Vairaṭo-'bhūn nareśvaraḥ.*—*HR*, II, p. 443, fn, 2. But Muhanota Naiṇsī in his chronicle (17th century) describes Vairaṭa as the son of Yogarāja (Yogarājarā), see *Muhṇota Naiṇsī kī Khyāta* (Prathama bhāga), Hindī Trans. by R. Dugaḍa, p. 20.

v2.c34.s1.82

```
(1) Allaṭa

v2.c34.s1.83

(2) Naravāhana

v2.c34.s1.84

(3) Sālivāhana

v2.c34.s1.85

(4) Saktikumāra . . . . . | . . . . .

v2.c34.s1.86

(5) Ambāprasāda (6) Śucivarman (7) Naravarman (8) Anantavarman (9) Kīrtivarman (Nṛvarman) *alias* Yaśovarman

v2.c34.s1.87

?
(10) Yogarāja

v2.c34.s1.88

?
(11) Vairaṭa (Descendant of Allaṭa?) ```

v2.c34.s1.89

As we have the dates V.S. 1034 for Saktikumāra and V.S. 1173 for the fourth from Vairaṭa, we may roughly fix the period V.S. 1050-1125, corresponding to *c.* 993-1068, as that during which the seven princes from Nos. 5-11 may have held sway in Medapāṭa, or in portions of it. This gives each of them a reign of little less than 10½ years. There is reason to suspect that during most of this period a large part of Medapāṭa was conquered by the Paramāras of Mālava. The Chirwa stone-inscription of Samarasiṁha (V.S. 1330) tells us that Madana, who was appointed his *Talāra* in the fort of Citrakūṭa, composed hymns of praise in honour of Śiva in the temple of Tribhuvana-Nārāyaṇa raised by Bhoja-rāja.¹ This Bhoja has rightly been identified with the Paramāra Bhoja who ruled in Mālava from *c.* 1010 to 1055 A.D. I have shown elsewhere that Bhoja was in possession of Vāgaḍa, the area now occupied by the States of Dungarpur and Banswara, and that his armies maintained contact with the Cāhamānas of Naddula.² It may therefore indicate that before they could recover from their defeat at the hands of the Sākambharī Vākpati, Medapāṭa was invaded and practically conquered by the Paramāras. But following their usual practice, the Guhilas perhaps maintained their independence in the more hilly and inaccessible portions of Mewar. Whether the Mewar territories of the Paramāras after the death of Bhoja passed under the control of the Caulukya Bhīma I (*c.* 1022-64 A.D.) is more than we can say at present. But there is sufficient evidence to show that the Caulukyas during the rule of Jayasiṁha (*c.* 1094-1144 A.D.) and his successor Kumārapāla (*c.* 1144-73 A.D.) dominated a large part of Mewar. The Chitor inscriptions of the latter prince show that, like Bhoja, he was in possession of Chitor *c.* 1150 A.D. It is therefore not surprising that the later *praśastikāras* of the Guhilas found it rather difficult to give a satisfactory account of the Guhila princes who ruled in the 11th and early 12th centuries. It is very significant that the Chitor inscription of the Caulukya Kumārapāla dated in V. S. 1207 refers only to his campaign against the rulers of Śakambharī, and does not even hint at the existence of the Guhila kingdom. It is therefore possible that the Guhilas during this period had either become feudatories of the Caulukyas or otherwise occupied so insignificant a position as to deserve omission in a record of royal victories. It should also be noted that not a single inscription of Śaktikumāra's (V. S. 1034) nine successors survives and even later up to the time of Jaitrasiṁha (V. S. 1270-1309) the epigraphic records of the Guhilas are extremely rare. This remarkable scarcity of epigraphic documents, when considered with other facts detailed above, tends to support our conclusion as to the comparative insignificance of the Guhilas of Mewar during the 11th, 12th, and even the 13th centuries A.D.

v2.c34.s1.90

¹ *WZKM*, Vol. XXI, pp. 142ff.

v2.c34.s1.91

² See *ante*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, pp. 870-71.

v2.c34.s1.92

According to the Sadadi (V.S. 1496)¹ and Kumbhalgarh (V.S. 1517)² inscriptions of Rāṇā Kumbha, Vairaṭa was succeeded by Haṁsapāla,³ and the latter by Vairisiṁha. According to the Abu inscription of Samarasiṁha (V.S. 1342) Vairisiṁha was followed by Vijayasimha.⁴ The accuracy of this order of succession is fortunately verified by the Bheraghat inscription of the reign of the Ḍāhala Kalacuri Narasiṁhadeva, dated in the Kalacuri year 907 (*c.* 1155 A.D.).⁵ It gives us the following genealogy of his mother Alhaṇadevī:

v2.c34.s1.93

¹ *EI*, pp. 118 ff.

v2.c34.s1.94

² *HR*, II, p. 440.

v2.c34.s1.95

³ Given as Vaṁsapāla in the Sadadi epigraph. This is clearly a mistake of the scribe.

v2.c34.s1.96

⁴ Given as Vīrasiṁha II, by the two inscriptions of Kumbha mentioned above. See *EI*, Vol. XIX, *Appendix*, p. 109, No. 784.

v2.c34.s1.97

⁵ *EI*, Vol. II, p. 10, Haṁsapāla is called *Prāgvaṭe'vanīpāla*. See also the slightly variant genealogical information in Karanbel stone-inscription, *IA*, Vol. XVIII, pp. 214-18, See *ante*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, chapter on the Haihayas, pp. 791 and 799.

v2.c34.s1.98

Gobhila-putra

$Haṁsapāla \dots\dots\dots\dots\dots\dots Prāgvaṭe 'vanīpāla / | & / Vairisiṁha & Mālava (Paramāra) / | & Udayāditya (c. 1060-87 A.D.) / | & | / Vijayasimha = & Śyāmaladevī / & | / & Alhaṇadevī = & Gayākarṇa (1151 A.D.) / & & Ḍāhala Kalacuri.$

v2.c34.s1.99

This matrimonial connection between Udayāditya and Vijayasimha suggests an alliance between the struggling Paramāra and Guhila dynasties against the imperialism of the Qaulukyas, who under Bhīma I (*c.* 1022-64 A.D.) had become by far the strongest power in Western India after the fall of Bhoja I (*c.* 1055 A.D.). Only one inscription was so far known for the reign of Vijayasimha. This is his *Paldi stone-inscription* dated in V. S. 1173 (*c.* 1116 A.D.)¹ It was found in the temple of Kārttikasvāmin near Paldi about 4 miles north of Udaipur. But recently Ojha claims to have discovered a grant of this prince in the village of Kadmal. According to him it is incised on two plates and contains the genealogy of the Guhilas from Guhadatta to Vijayasimha of Nāgahrada. ² It is dated in (V.S. 1164 (*c.* 1108 A.D.).³

v2.c34.s1.100

¹ Noticed in *RMR*, 1915-16, p. 8.

v2.c34.s1.101

² Noticed in *HR*, II, pp. 445-46. The genealogy from Guhadatta to Allaṭa is the same as in the Atpur inscription of Śaktikumāra (V.S. 1034). See *ibid*, fn. 1. Ojha has not been able to decipher the inscription fully. See also *Rajputana Gazetteer*, Vol. II A (Mewar Residency), 1908, p. 14.

v2.c34.s1.102

³ See *EI*, Vol. XIX. *Appendix*, p. 26, No. 176. D. R. Bhandarkar is inclined to refer the Pipad (Jodhpur State, Rajputana) inscription of *Rāṇā Śrī-Rājakula*]Vijayasimha reigning at Pippalapāda in V.S. 1224 to this prince, see *EI*, Vol. XX, *Appendix*, p. 49, No. 328.

v2.c34.s1.103

Nothing is known about the next three princes, Arisimha, Coda (or Codasimha) and Vikramasimha (or Vikramakesarī). Even their relationship to each other is uncertain. Thus while the Abu inscription of Samarasimha (V.S. 1342 mentions) Vikramasinha as the son of Coda ⁴ the Kumbhalgarh inscription of Kumbha (V.S. 1517) refers to Vikramakesarī as the elder brother (*agraja*) of Coda.⁵ According to the Sadadi and Kumbhalgarh inscriptions of Kumbha Vikramasimha was succeeded by his son Ranasimha.⁶ Bhandarkar has identified this prince with the *Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara Rājakula* Raṇasīdeva reigning at Cāmdapallī,⁷ whose *Ajahari stone-inscription* is dated in V.S. 1223 (A.D. 1167). It was found at Ajahari, Jodhpur State, Rajputana.⁸ The *Ekaliṅga-māhātmya*, composed in the reign of Rāṇā Kumbha, gives the name of this prince as Karṇa which appears to be another name of Raṇasiṁha.¹ This work tells us that from the reign of 'Karṇa' the Guhilas branc hed off into two sections, one of which was known as *Rāval* (*Rājakula*), and the other as *Rāṇā*. In the Rāval branch flourished Jitasiṁha (Jaitrasiṁha),² Samarasiṁha and Ratnasiṁha, while in the Rāṇā branch there were Māhapa, Rāhapa, etc. The *Rāvals* ruled in the fort of Citrakūṭa, while the *Rāṇās* were the chiefs of Sesoda under the former, and became known as the Sesodia clan. It was Hammīra of this line who recovered Chitor from the Muslims after it had been taken from the *Rāval* Ratansiṁha in 1303 A.D. and revived once again the power of the Guhilas in Mewar.

v2.c34.s1.104

⁴ *IA*, Vol. XVI, pp. 345 ff.

v2.c34.s1.105

⁵ *HR*, II, p. 446, fn. 8.

v2.c34.s1.106

⁶ *HR*, II, p. 440; *BI*, pp. 118 ff. This name is omitted in the Abu inscription of Samarasimha, *IA*, Vol. XVI, pp. 345 ff.

v2.c34.s1.107

⁷ According to D. R. Bhandarkar 'probably the same as Candrāvatī.'

v2.c34.s1.108

⁸ Noticed in *ASI*, *WC*, 1910-11, p. 39. See also *EI*, Vol. XX, *Appendix*, p. 49, No. 324; also fn. 1, on the same page. This would place him before Vijayasimha if we accept Bhandarkar's identification in *ibid*, p. 49, No. 328. See above, fn. 3 on this page.

v2.c34.s1.109

¹ *HR*, II, p. 447. The *Ekaliṅga-māhātmya* gives the name of Karṇa's father as Śrī-Puñja, which is taken by Ojha as another name of Vikramasiṁha. Ojha points out that the author of the *Māhātmya*, in trying to exaggerate the importance of Karṇa, describes the princes of most of the countries known to him as paying homage to him.

v2.c34.s1.110

² The *Māhātmya* does not mention the name of the 5 princes (Kṣemasiṁha to Padmasiṁha) who ruled between Raṇasiṁha (Karṇa) and Jaitrasiṁha.

v2.c34.s1.111

Raṇasiṁha (Karṇa) was succeeded by his son Kṣemasiṁha³ who is represented in the Kumbhalgarh *Praśasti* as the younger brother of Mahana.⁴ This may indicate that Mahana was passed over in favour of the younger son Kṣemasiṁha, a not unusual incident in the history of the Rajput dynasties. Nothing is known about Kṣemasiṁha. He was succeeded by his son Sāmantasiṁha, for whose reign we have the following seven inscriptions:

v2.c34.s1.112

³ Sadadi (V.S. 1496) and Kumbhalgarh (V.S. 1517) inscriptions; see also *HR*, II, p. 440.

v2.c34.s1.113

⁴ *Ibid*, p. 448, fn. 1.

v2.c34.s1.114

(1) *Jagat stone-inscription.*—Incised on a pillar in the temple of Ambādevī at the village of Jagat, in the Chapan district of Mewar. It is dated in V.S. 1228 (*c.* 1172 A.D.), in the reign of *Mahārāja* Sāmantasiṁha, and records the gift of a *Suvarṇa-kalasa* to the local temple.⁵ (2) *Solaj stone-inscription.*—Incised on the door of the temple of Boreśvara Mahādeva near the village of Solaj on the bank of the Mahi in the Dungarpur State, Rajputana. It is dated in V.S. 1236 (*c.* 1179 A.D.), in the reign of the same as in No. 1 above.¹

v2.c34.s1.115

⁵ Noticed in *RMR*, 1914-15, p. 3; *HR*, II, p. 449. See also *IA*, Vol. LIII, p. 100, n. 2.

v2.c34.s1.116

¹ Noticed in *RMR*, 1914-15, p. 3; *HR*, II, p. 449.

v2.c34.s1.117

(3) *Uthman* (Sirohi State, Rajputana) *inscription* of the time of Sāṁvatasiṁha (Sāmantasiṁha, dated in V.S. 1256 A.D. 1200). It is incised on a pilaster of a temple of Mahādeva at Uthman about 11½ miles NE. of Sirohi. Language is Mārwārī.²

v2.c34.s1.118

² Noticed in *ASI, WC*, 1916-17, pp. 65-66; also *EI*, Vol. XX, *Appendix*, p. 64, No. 441.

v2.c34.s1.119

(4) *Bamnera* (Jodhpur State, Rajputana) *inscription* (i) of *Mahārāja* Sāmantasiṁha, dated in V.S. 1258 (A.D. 1202). It is incised on a porch pillar of a temple of Sūrya at Bamnera, about 7 miles from Erinpura railway station.³

v2.c34.s1.120

³ *Ibid*, 1908-09, p. 52; also *EI*, Vol. Vol. XX, *Appendix*, p. 64, No. 444.

v2.c34.s1.121

(5) *Bamnera* (Jodhpur State, Rajputana) *inscription* (ii) of the time of *M.*-Sāmantasiṁha dated in V.S. 1258 (A.D. 1202). Incised and found as No. 4.⁴

v2.c34.s1.122

⁴ *Ibid*; also *EI*, Vol. XX, *Appendix*, p. 64, No. 445.

v2.c34.s1.123

(6) *Sanderav* (Jodhpur State, Rajputana) *inscription* of the time *M.*-Sāmantasīhadeva dated in V.S. 1258 (A.D. 1202). Incised on a pillar of a Jain temple of Mahāvīra at Sanderav about 10 miles NW. of Bali.⁵

v2.c34.s1.124

⁵ *Ibid*; also *EI*, Vol. XX, *Appendix*, p. 64, No. 446.

v2.c34.s1.125

(7) *Bamnera* (Jodhpur State, Rajputana) *inscription* (iii) of the time of *M.*-Sāmantasiṁha, dated in V.S. 1258 (AD. 1202). Incised and found as No. 4.⁶

v2.c34.s1.126

⁶ *Ibid*; also *EI*, Vol. XX, *Appendix*, p. 64, No. 447. Though from the notices of the inscriptions Nos. 3-7 in the *ASI, WC*, it appears that the dynastic name of the ruler is not specifically mentioned, Bhandarkar accepts him as a *Guhila* (*EI*, XX, *Appendix*). In the opinion of some, however, the provenance of these records seem to create some difficulties in the acceptance of this Sāmantasiṁha as belonging to the Guhila dynasty. The *Unstra* (Jodhpur State, Rajputana) *devli* inscription recording that the Guhilāūtra Rāṇā Moṭisvarā was followed *Satī* by his wife, a Mohilī in V.S. 1248 (A.D. 1192) must be referred to this reign. See *ASI, WC*, 1911-12, p. 58.

v2.c34.s1.127.1

The seven inscriptions noticed above give the dates V.S. 1228-1258, corresponding to *c.* 1171-1202 A.D., for Sāmantasiṁha. But they supply no details of the incidents of his reign.¹ He has however been identified with the Sāmantasiṁha who is mentioned in an inscription in the shrine of Neminātha on Mt. Abu dated in V.S. 1287 (1230 A.D.) as contemporary with Prahlādana, the younger brother of the Candrāvatī Paramāra Dhārāvarṣa (*c.* 1163-1219 A.D.).² This inscription tells us that Prahlādana, apparently during the administration of his brother, defended the Gurjara king when his power had been broken by Sāmantasiṁha. I have already suggested the identification of the Gurjara king with the Caulukya Ajayapāla (*c.* 1173-76 A.D.), the nephew and successor of Kumārapāla (*c.* 1144-73 A.D.).³ Kumārapāla, as we have seen, was in possession of the fort of Chitor and a large portion of Mewar. It is possible that Sāmantasiṁha, taking advantage of the trouble that followed Kumārapāla's death *c.* 1173 A.D., tried to recover Chitor or otherwise to strengthen his position. The Abu inscription and the provenance of his records show that he at first gained considerable degree of success, but Ajayapāla partially recovered his position with the help of his feudatory's brother.

v2.c34.s1.127.2

There is reason to believe that Ajayapāla took such drastic steps against Sāmantasiṁha that the latter for some time at least had to take shelter in the hills of Vāgaḍa, which lies to the east of the Mahi, and is now known as the State of Dungarpur. The Abu inscription of Samarasiṁha (V.S. 1342)⁴ relates that Kumārasiṁha, the successor of Sāmantasiṁha, "made the earth possessed of a good king after having taken it away again from the possession of the enemy." The unpublished Kumbhalgarh inscription of Kumbha says that after Sāmantasiṁha his brother Kumārasiṁha ousted from the country the enemy prince Kītu, who had seized his kingdom, and after pleasing the Gurjara king became king at Āghāṭapura.¹ This Kītu has been identified with Kīrtipāla,² a younger brother of the Naddūla Cāhamāna Kelhaṇa (*c.* 1163-92 A.D.), the reputed founder of the Jāvālipura Cāhamānas. I have shown elsewhere that Kelhaṇa was a feudatory of the Caulukya Kumārapāla about 1171 A.D.,³ and it is not unlikely that he continued to acknowledge the sovereignty of his successor Ajayapāla. The principality of Kīrtipāla assigned to him in his father Ālhaṇa's reign (*c.* 1152-62 A D.) appertained to Naddūlāī,⁴ modern Nādlai in Godwar (Jodhpur State), not far from the frontiers of Mewar. It is therefore quite likely that on the instructions and with the assistance of Ajayapāla, Kīrtipāla invaded Mewar and occupied it on behalf of the Caulukya king.

v2.c34.s1.127.3

This possibly happened sometime after *c.* 1171 A.D., the date of the Jagat inscription of Sāmantasiṁha, and before *c.* 1179 A.D., the date of his Solaj inscription. The former was found in the state of Udaipur and the latter in the State of Dungarpur (Vāgaḍa). According to Muhaṇota Naiṇsī,⁵ Sāmantasiṁha voluntarily abdicated his throne of Chitor in favour of his younger brother, in reward of his devoted service to him, and having ousted and killed Caurasīmalaka, the prince of Vāgaḍa, established his line in that region.⁶ We can well believe the chronicler as regards his statement about the retirement of Sāmantasiṁha from Mewar to Dungarpur, for this is supported by the Solaj stone-inscription of the Guhila prince. But what he writes about the voluntary abdication, when read with the statements of the tradition contained in his successor's inscriptions, seems clearly to be wrong. It appears that after the defeat of Sāmantasiṁha, when the country was occupied by the Jalor Cāhamāna Kītu, his brother Kumārasiṁha succeeded in pacifying the wrath of the Caulukya sovereign and with his assis-tance got himself installed on the throne of Āghāṭa-pura (mod. Ahar), from which his brother had been ousted. Kītu seems to have retired to his Jalor principality after peace had thus been restored between the two powers. Kumārasiṁha, we may assume, must have acknowledged the supremacy of the Caulu-kyas.

v2.c34.s1.127.4

As we have inscriptions of Kīrtipāla's son Samarasiṁha dated in 1182 A.D., the restoration of the Guhila power appears to have occurred sometime before this date. The contemporary Caulukya prince may have been Ajayapāla (*c.* 1173-76), or any of his two immediate successors, Mūlarāja II (*c.* 1176-78 A.D.) and Bhīmadeva II (*c.* 1178-1241 A.D.). The inscriptions Nos. 3-7 of Sāmantasiṁha, if they really belong to him, seem to indicate that he took full advantage of the weakness of the Caulukyas during the period *c.* 1176-1202 A D. to recover his power to some extent and even extend his authority across the Aravalli Range into the Sirohi and Jodhpur States.

v2.c34.s1.128

¹ When edited properly they may reveal some important data.

v2.c34.s1.129

² *EI*, Vol. III, pp. 200-04 and 208-19; see also *ante*, pp. 918 and 1014.

v2.c34.s1.130

³ See *ante*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, chapter on the *Caulukyas*, pp. 1001 ff. See also *ibid*, chapter on the *Paramāras*, p. 918.

v2.c34.s1.131

⁴ *IA*, Vol. XVI, pp. 345 ff.

v2.c34.s1.132

¹ *Sāmantasiṁha-nāmā bhūpatir bhūtale jātaḥ. Bhrātā Kumārasiṁho 'bhūt svarājya-grāhiṇaṁ param, deśān niṣkāsayāmāsa Kītu-saṁjñāṁ nṛpam tu yaḥ, svīkṛtam Āghāṭa-puram Gurjara-nṛpatim prasādya.* See *HR*, II, p. 451, fn. 2.

v2.c34.s1.133

² *Ibid*, p. 451.

v2.c34.s1.134

³ *EI*, Vol. XI, pp. 47-48; also *ante*, *DHNI*, chapters on the Caulukyas and Cāhamānas, pp. 984-85, 987-88, 1119-20 and 1121.

v2.c34.s1.135

⁴ *EI*, Vol. IX, pp. 66-70.

v2.c34.s1.136

⁵ Also called Muhnot Neṇsī or Mūtā Neṇsī, the author of the yet unpublished *Khyāta*, a valuable chronicle of the history of Rajputana. The author lived in the court of the Rathor prince Jaswant Singh (A.D. 1638-78) of Marwar. Recently a Hindi translation of a part of the work has been published. See Bibliography at the end of the chapter.

v2.c34.s1.137

⁶ *HR*, II, pp. 453-54.

v2.c34.s1.138

According to the Abu inscription of Samarasiṁha¹ (V.S. 1342) and the Sadadi² (V.S. 1496) and Kumbhalgarh³ (V.S. 1517) in-scriptions of Kumbha, Kumārasiṁha was succeeded by his son⁴ Mathanasiṁha and the latter by his son Padmasiṁha.⁵ No in-scriptions are known for the reigns of these two princes. The only light upon the subject comes from the Chirwa inscription of Samarasiṁha (V.S. 1330).¹ This states that Mathanasiṁha appointed Uddharaṇa of the Tāṁtaraḍa family² to the post of the *Talārakṣa*³ of the city of Nāgadraha (Nagda). His duties are probably indicated by the words *duṣṭa-śiṣṭa-śikṣaṇa-rakṣaṇa-dakṣtva*⁴ used by the *praśastikāra* to praise him. Uddharaṇa, we are told, had 8 sons, of whom the eldest, Yogarāja, was appointed as *Talāra* in the same city by Padmasiṁha.

v2.c34.s1.139

¹ *IA*, XVI, pp. 345.

v2.c34.s1.140

² *BI*, pp. 113 ff.; *ASI*, 1907-08, pp. 214 ff.

v2.c34.s1.141

³ *HR*, II, p. 440.

v2.c34.s1.142

⁴ The Abu inscription does not specify relationship, but see *HR*, II, p. 458.

v2.c34.s1.143

⁵ *Ibid.*

v2.c34.s1.144

¹ *WZKM*, Vol. XXI, pp. 142 ff.

v2.c34.s1.145

² *Ibid*, p. 156, V. 9.

v2.c34.s1.146

³ For the farms *Talāra* and *Talarakṣaka*, see *ibid*, pp. 146-47.

v2.c34.s1.147

⁴ "An example of the figure *Yāthāsāṁkhya*" (Barnett).

v2.c34.s1.148

Padmasiṁha was succeeded by his son⁵ Jaitrasiṁha⁶ The following dates and records are known for his reign:

v2.c34.s1.149

⁵ See *WZKM*, Vol. XXI, pp. 142 ff.

v2.c34.s1.150

⁶ Apparently also known as Jayatasiṁha, Jayasiṁha, Jayaṁtasiṁha, Jitasiṁha, Jayatala and Jesala.

v2.c34.s1.151

(1) *Ekliṅgaji stone-inscription.*—On a stone near the Nandi in the courtyard of the temple of Ekaliṅgaji in Mewar. It is dated in (V.S.) 1270 (*c.* 1213 A.D.), in the reign of *M.* Jaitrasiṁhadeva.⁷

v2.c34.s1.152

⁷ *BI*, p. 96 fn.; *HR*, II, p. 470, fn. 2; also *Bhāvnagar Prācīna-śodha-saṁgraha*, p. 47, fn.

v2.c34.s1.153

(2) *Nandesama stone-inscription.*—Engraved on a pillar in the temple of Sūrya (the Sun) at the village of Nandesama in Mewar. It is dated in V.S. 1279 (*c.* 1223 A.D.), when *M.* Jayatasiṁha was victoriously reigning at Nāgadraha, and while *Mahaṁ* Duṅgarasiṁha was administering the treasury (*Śrī-karaṇa*).⁸

v2.c34.s1.154

⁸ Noticed in *RMR*, 1925, p. 2; see also *HR*, II, p. 470, fn. 3.

v2.c34.s1.155

(3) *MS. of the Daśavaikālika-sūtra.*—Written by Hemacandra in (V.)S. 1284 (*c.* 1227 A.D.) at Āghāṭa-*durga* in the reign (*kalyāṇa-vijaya-rājye*) of *Samasta-rājāvalī-samalaṅkṛta-M.* Jaitrasiṁha, while the *Mahāmātya* Jagatsiṁha appointed by him, was carrying on the administration of the seal (*samasta-mudrā-vyāpārān paripanthayati*).⁹ (4) *Jharole stone-inscription.*—Engraved on a lintel of the temple of Vayajanātha (Vaidyanātha-Śiva) at Jharole. It is dated in (V.)S. 1308 (*c.* 1251 A.D.), in the reign of the illustrious *Mahārājakula* (Mahārāval) Jayasiṁhadeva, while he was ruling over Vāgaḍa. It registers the erection of the temple by one Khetaka and two others.¹

v2.c34.s1.156

⁹ *Peterson's Third Report* (1884-86), *Appendix*, p. 52. The date is quoted by Kielhorn in *IA*, Vol. XIX, p. 165, No. 86; see also *HR*, II, p. 471, fn. 1.

v2.c34.s1.157

¹ Noticed in *RMR*, 1925, p. 2.

v2.c34.s1.158

(5) *MS. of the Pākṣika-vṛtti.*—Writen by *Ṭhakkura* Jayatala in Āghāṭa in (V.)S. 1309 (*c.* 1256 A.D.), in the reign of *M.* Jayatasiṁha and that of his dependent (*āśrita*) Jayasiṁha, while Talhana was transacting the business of the seal.²

v2.c34.s1.159

² *HR*, II, p. 471, fn. 2.

v2.c34.s1.160

The above records give dates ranging from V.S. 1270 to 1309, corresponding to *c.* 1213-1256 A.D. As we have the date V.S. 1317 (*c.* 1260 A.D.) for his son and successor, his reign certainly ended some time between *c.* 1256 and 1260 A.D.³ The titles and epithets of Jaitrasiṁha seem to indicate that he very nearly succeeded where his predecessors had failed. Though the title *Mahārājādhirāja* is no sure indication of sovereign rank, the facts of his reign, as we shall presently see, seem to show that he had won a larger degree of independence than any of his predecessors. His success was no doubt due to a large measure to the fall of the Cāhamānas of Śākambharī and the decline of the Paramāras of Mālava and the Caulukyas of Anhilvada. In the latter kingdom the intrigues and treason of Vīradhavala and other high officials of the State had paralysed foreign policy. It was at this opportune moment that the reign of Jaitrasiṁha came; and he was not slow to take advantage of his position. In the Guhila inscriptions he is unanimously praised for his military success against his various neighbours and the Muslims. Thus the Ghaghsa inscription of his son Tejasiṁha (V.S. 1322) tells us that the lords of Mālava, Gurjara, Sākambharī and the Turuṣkas were unable to humble his pride.¹ The Chirwa inscription of his grandson Samarasiṁha (V.S. 1330) asserts that his pride was never brought low by the princes of Mālava, Gurjara, Jāṅgala, and the Mlecchas.² The Abu inscription of the same prince (V.S. 1342) declares that his arm "completely eradicated Naḍūla, and he proved a very Agastya to the Turuṣka army. Even now the mistresses of the goblins were tottering about intoxicated with the blood of the Sindhuka (?) army."³ The conflict with the Gurjaras must refer to his struggles with the Caulukya Bhīma II (*c.* 1178-1241 A.D.), or with his feudatory the Dholka *Rāṇā* Vīradhavala. Geiger however would identify the *Rāṇaka* Tribhuvana mentioned in the Chirwa inscription with the Caulukya Tribhuvanapāla, who appears to have succeeded Bhīma II, at Aṇahillapāṭaka before V.S. 1299 (*c.* 1242 A.D.).⁴ The inscription relates that Bāla, the grandson of Yogarāja, the Talāra of Nagda in the reign of Padmasiṁha, went to heaven fighting in front (*purataḥ*) of Jaitrasiṁha to capture Koṭṭadaka⁵ from the *Rāṇaka* Tribhuvana. The mention of a struggle with the rulers of Sākambharī and Jāṅgala seems to point to a conflict between Jaitrasiṁha and the Cāhamānas, who were the traditional rulers of these places. But as both

First 163 of 239 passages. Read on

Linked texts (14)