The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c34.s1.77

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are known to refer themselves to these princes, and the only important information about them is contained in the unpublished Kumbhalgarh inscription which tells us that after Yogarāja Vairaṭa, a descendant of Allaṭa, occupied the throne.⁷ This certainly indicates that the princes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