History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v2.c29.s1.4

v2.c29.s1.4

† It is sought to identify either of these two kings with Bappā by Dr. Bhandarkar and others, because if Guhadatta is identified with Bappā we have 20 kings from 820 V. E. to 1034 which gives 10 years for each reign. Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar looks upon the 9th Khommāna as the Bappā of the Guhilot tradition which will give 214 (1034-820) years for 11 kings or an average of 20 per king. But it seems to us that for securing the usual average of 20 years per king it is not advisable to upset the whole tradition. If Khommāna is taken to be Bappā the whole line of successors is upset; you do not get Guhila, Bhoja, Śila and Kālābhoja as descendants of Bappā which they were believed to be at the time of the Achalagadh ins. You can not set at naught the tradition current in the thirteenth and even in the eleventh century (see Naravāhana Ins.), for merely securing the usual average. It may be that this line of kings had a specially short average or it may be that the Ātapurā ins. repeats some kings wrongly or brings together kings of different branches who were contemporaries ? for instance Śālivahana is unnecessary very probably being king not in Chitore but in Ātapurā itself where a younger branch may have continued ruling. If the Achalagadh inscription is alone relied upon, we get 11 kings only after Bappā to Śaktikumāra i. e. from 820 to 1034 V. E. In any case it is practically impossible to equate Bappā with Khommāna as the successon would be entirely different and we have no hesitation in identifying him with Guhadatta of the Ātapurā inscription.