History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v2.c29.s1.29

v2.c29.s1.29

We shall try to assign probable dates to and Sāmantadeva Gūvaka I. We cannot assign to this line 20 years per reign on an average. We know that Vigraharāja was alive in V. E. 1030 or A. D. 973. His grandfather was Vākpatirāja who had a younger son Lachhmana who founded the Nadul branch and for him we have a date V. E. 1039 or 982 A. D. in the inscription. His father Vākpati therefore cannot be put in 933 A.D. or 40 years earlier than Vigraha but we might put him 30 years earlier *i. e.*, in 943. We may take, therefore, 15 years as average for each reign in this line and we thus find that Gūvaka I must have reigned in 868 A.D. (973—105). And Sāmanta may be placed 195 years before 973 A.D. or in 778 A.D. The Rajputana Gazetteer assigns 750 A.D. as the date for Sāmanta which is not improbable, though it is not apparent on which definite data this date has been assigned to him. By probable calculation we can only arrive at rough dates only but the two dates given above are probable and also well fit in with the course of Indian history at this period. Sāmantadeva must have attained to fame by his conflicts with Mahomedans at about the same time as or a little later than Bappā Rāwal and established his power in Sāmbhar in the middle of the 8th century. One of his descendants viz., Gūvaka I became still more famous in the conglomeration of Indian kings and established his power firmly in that kingdom. The expression in the Harsha inscription " who obtained the fame of a warrior in the great kings' sabhā of Nāgāvaloka " has been interpreted to mean that Gūvaka I obtained fame as a Sāmanta or Sardar in the court of the Imperial Pratihāra king Nāgabhata. Kielhorn started this theory but subsequently changed his opinion (Ep. Ind. IX. p. 62) and yet again changed his view and reaffirmed his first opinion as appears from Stein Konow's paper on the Hansot inscription (Ep. Ind. XII. p. 67). It is, however, not probable that Gūvaka I was a dependent king though Sāmantadeva might have been. The Nripasabhā does not necessarily mean the Darbar of an emperor but may be translated as " an assemblage of kings called by Nāgāvaloka, who himself might be taken to be an imperial king. It is further not quite certain if the Hansot inscription is related to the Chāhamānas, for even there the word Chāhamāna is not clear and is only read by surmise. Its date again is St. 813 or A. D. 756 which does not fit in with Gūvaka I and we prefer to say that Gūvaka was an independent king who established his fame among kings by his exploits against the Mahomedans. He also in this respect resembled Bappā the founder of the Mewad Rajput family of Guhilots.