JOURNAL

THE ROYAL ASIATIC SOCIETY.

i.

SOME PROBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY.

No. I l l : THE GURJARA CLANS.

. BY A. F. RUDOLF HOERNXE, PH.D., C.I.E.

(Concluded from p. 662, October, 1904.)

T HAVE already expressed my agreement with General

Sir A. Cunningham's theory that the emperors of Kanauj
were Tomaras. For the evidence, such as it is, I must
refer to his Arch. Sun. Reports, vol. i, p. 132 ff. From
this theory, in combination with that of Mr. Bhandarkar,
it follows, of course, that the Tomaras were a clan of the
Gurjara tribe. It is curious that the Tomaras are hardly
ever mentioned in older records. There are, so far as I am
aware, only two old inscriptions that name them. One is
the Pehewa inscription (E.I. i, 244) of the time of
Mahendrapala (c. 885-910 A.D.), and the other is the Harsha
inscription (E.I. ii, 116) of the Chohan Vigraharaja, dated
973 A.D., which would fall into the reign of Vijayapala
(c. 950 - 975 A.D.). Vigraharaja's great - grandfather
Chandana is said to have defeated or slain (hatvd) a Tomara
J.R.A.S. 1905. 1

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 2 SOME PROBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY.

lord (isa and bhupa) named Rudrena, and to have been

a cause of terror (bhaija-da) to the sovereign (Ksitipati).
Seeing that Chandana's date would coincide with that of
Kshitipala (alias Mahlpala, c. 913-945 A.D.), it suggests
itself that the term Ksitipati may have been chosen on
purpose in allusion to Kshitipala's name, and that the
Chohan Chandana may have been one of the chiefs who
gave assistance to the Rashtrakiita Indra III in his great
war with Mahlpala. Chandana's grandson Simharaja is also
said to have had an (apparently unsuccessful) encounter with
a Tomara leader (nayaka). Both this "leader" and the
" lord " Rudrena must have been chiefs of minor divisions of
the imperial Tomara clan of Grurjaras.
Another minor division of the same clan is recorded in
the Pehewa inscription (E.I. i, 244). This inscription
mentions three generations of a Tomara family, resident
apparently in or near Pehewa, in the Karnal District. Its
chief interest, however, lies in a remark concerning the
descent of the family. It states that the family originally
sprang from a king (raja) named Jaula, who, as is clearly
implied, lived ages ago. The name Jaula is peculiar: it
reminds one of the well-known coins of the Shahi Javuvla
or Jabula (Mr. Rapson's Indian Coins, p. 29), and of the Kura
inscription (E.I. i, 239) of the " great king" (mahdrdja)
Toramana Shahi Jauvla. Now there is an old Bandelkhand
tradition (J.A.S.B. lxxi, 102) that "Toraman, the general
of Raja Gopal, who was a Kachhwaha by race, invaded Eran
in 243, and conquered all countries from Bhopal to Eran.
Toraman's son (Sur Sen) subdued Gwaliyor at the same time,
and also built the famous fort of Gwaliyor in 285 [A.D.].
The descendants of Sur Sen [i.e. the Kachhwahas] ruled
over Central India for a long time," down to about 933 A.D.,
when the Parihar dynasty is said to have " invaded and
conquered Grwaliyor." In passing, it may be noted that,
according to this tradition, Toramana was a Kachhwaha;
also, that what it calls the Kachhwahas are evidently
identical with the Grurjaras. What makes the tradition
interesting, however, is that, as a fact, there exists an Eran

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 SOME PROBLEMS OP ANCIENT INDIAN HISTOBY. 3

inscription of Toramana (F.GI., p. 158),1 as well as one

of Goparaja, dated in the year 510 (F.GI., p. 191). The
Pehewa inscription shows that at the end of the ninth
century there still survived a recollection of the descent
of the Tomaras from a Javula king Toramana; and the
Bandelkhand tradition proves that even as late as the earlier
part of the seventeenth century (Bard Kharg Rai, in Shah
Jehan's reign, Sir A. Cunningham's A.S. Reports, ii, 370)
there still lived a reminiscence of Toramana's rule in Eran.
The presumption is that the Toramana of Eran and the
Javula Toramana were the same person. It has been said
that "there is no evidence to show that the Toramana of
the Kura inscription [i.e. Jauvla] is in any way connected
with the Toramana of the Eran inscription" (E.I. v, 72,
note 1). But, as the case stands, it would be more correct
to say that there is no evidence to show that the two
Toramanas are not connected with each other. This is
practically also the opinion of Biihler2 (E.I. i, 239),
Mr. Vincent Smith (J.A.S.B. lxiii, 186, 189), and
Mr. Rapson (Indian Coins, p. 29). I do not mean to say
that all these things are assured historical facts, but they
do seem to me to offer the elements of a fairly sound working
hypothesis. The Tomaras were Gurjaras; so were the
Kachhwahas and the Parihars; they all descend from the
Javula king Toramana, or rather were clans or divisions of
a Javula tribe; in which case the Javulas would be Gurjaras.
It has been accepted as an undoubted fact that Toramana
was the king of the Hunas (White Huns or Ephthalites).
The Hunas are, no doubt, mentioned in numerous old Indian
inscriptions, but the only Indian evidence connecting
Toramana with the Hunas is the Mandasor inscription of
535 A.D. (F.GI., p. 148). This inscription, though it does

1
I adopt Dr. Fleet's practical suggestion regarding the method of citing the
volume on the Gupta Inscriptions, in J.B.A.S., 1904, p. 7, footnote.
2
Biihler has been represented as denying the identity of the two Toramanas.
This probably goes too far. "What he says is " I am not able to assert t h a t " the
two are identical {E.I. i, 239); which may only mean that the identity seemed
to him possible, though, for the reasons stated by him, he did not like to state it
as a fact.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 4 SOME PROBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY.

not say so, certainly suggests that Mihirakula, the son of

Toramana, whom Yasodharman defeated, was the king, or
leader, of the Hunas. Dr. Fleet has suggested that "the
Maitrakas, i.e. the Mihiras [the modern Mers], were the
particular family or clan among the Hunas to which
Toramana and Mihirakula belonged" (F.GL, Introd., p. 12).
But if Dr. Hultzsch's interpretation of the passage on which
the suggestion rests should be correct {E.I. iii, 319; I express
no opinion on this point), the latter could not be any longer
sustained. Moreover, the Mihiras (Mers or Mehars) were
" attached from time immemorial to the Jethwa Rajputs"
(Ind. Ant., xv, 362), who are only the " Senior " (Jet/ncd)
or rajakula (royal clan) of the Mehars. It seems more
probable that Toramana would belong to the royal clan;
and this royal (or jethwa) clan may have been that of the
Javulas, or (as they came to be called in later times) Tomaras.
In fact, might not Tomara, a comparatively late Indian
word, be an Indian corruption of Toramana, signifying
the descendants, or family, of Toramana? A transposition
of syllables {aksharas) is a by no means uncommon Indian
habit. In the manuscripts of the Rajatarangini, the reading
Tomarana is found alternating with Toramana (see Dr. Stein's
edition, v, 233). Several good examples of ancient date are
noted by Professor Kielhorn in the Epigraphia Indica (vi, 3),,
and the habit is well-known to all acquainted with modern
India. The Hunic connection of Toramana and Mihirakula
is certainly supported by extra-Indian evidence : thus Gollas,
whom Kosmas Indikopleustes (c. 525 A.D.) calls the king
of the Indian White Huns, is probably Mihirakula. But
the Huns were evidently divided into several clans: a royal
clan and several subordinate clans. The Gurjaras may
have been one of these clans. The exact ethnic relation of
the Gurjaras to the Hunas is still very obscure. These may
be generic names of the same people; or they may be
specific names of subdivisions of the same people; or they
may be names of two peoples, differing ethnically, but driven
by connected causes to settle in India. It may be doubted
whether even the contemporary Indians had an exact

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 SOME PROBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY. 5

knowledge of the inter-relation of these foreign peoples.

Bana, when enumerating the campaigns of Prabhakara
Vardhana (c. 600 A.D.), distinguishes the Hiinas and Gurjaras.
He was undoubtedly referring to foreign peoples who, under
differing names, were at that time overrunning the Panjab
and Rajputana respectively, but his manner of using the
names is no sufficient proof respecting the ethnic inter-
relation of their bearers, or respecting the exact delimitation
and denotation of the two names.1
Mr. Bhandarkar has shown (p. 15 ff. of his paper
on the Gurjaras) that there is good reason to believe that
the Solankls (Chaulukyas), Parihars (Pratiharas), Parmars
(Paramaras), and Chohans (Chahumanas or Chahuvanas),
the four so-called Agnikula clans of Rajputs, are really,
or were originally, divisions of the Gurjaras. To these, the
Tomaras may now be added as another Gurjara division; and
there is still another clan which may also be added to the
list. This is the Kachhwahas {Kacchapaghatas). Regarding
them there is an interesting Bandelkhand tradition, which
is related by Diwan Bighe Bahadur Mazbiit Singh in his
History of Bandelkhand (translated by Mr. Silberrad in
J.A.8.B. lxxi (1902), pp. 100 ff.). It says that "about
933 [A.D.] the Parihar dynasty rose into importance and
invaded and conquered Gwalior. The first king of the
Parihar dynasty was Vajradaman, who subdued Central
India. He was followed successively by Rajaklrat, Raja
Bhuvanpal I, and Raja Padhpal. In 1093 succeeded
Mahipal,2 but even before his accession the Ohandels had
got possession of the whole kingdom except Gwalior." Now
there is a Sasbahu inscription of Mahlpala, of the year
1093 A.D. (Ind. Ant., xv, 35). It mentions a line of eight
Kachhwaha (Kacchapaghata) princes, who are clearly
identical with the Parihar princes of the Diwan. The

1
Similarly, in the Badal Pillar inscription, of c. 925 A.D. {E.I. ii, 161, 165),
the HOnas and Gurjaras are distinguished. But here it may be mere poetical
license.
2
I have slightly revised this remark, which, as printed in J.A.S.B., makes
no sense.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 6 SOME FKOBLEHS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY.

latter's list is short by three names, but the five names it

mentions are not only the same as in the Sasbahu inscription,1
but also follow one another in the same order. For Yajra-
daman we have the date 977 A.D. (J.A.S.B. xxxi, 393;
E.I. ii, 235). The Diwan calls him the first of the dynasty,
but as he himself refers the rise of the dynasty to 933 A.D.,
his Yajradaman must clearly have had a predecessor, who,
as the inscription shows, was Lakshmana. In the inscription
Vajradaman is said to have "defeated the ruler of Gadhi-
nagara (or Kanauj) and conquered the fort of Gopadri
(or Ghvaliyor)." The Kanauj ruler here referred to must
be either Yijayapala, for whom we have the date 960 A.D. in
the Raj or inscription, or his successor of the (at present)
unknown name. As to Lakshmana, the traditional date
933 A.D. suits fairly well, seeing that his son Yajradaman
reigned in 977 A.D. In the Journal A.S.B., vol. L, p. 46
(1881), it is stated that the Lakshmana Sagar at Bilhari is
traditionally attributed to Lakshman Parihar, who is said to
have reigned about 900 years, or 30 generations, ago. This
gives us for him the approximate date 950 A.D. (i.e. 1880 —
930). The point, however, to which I wish to draw attention
is that the tradition reported by Mr. V. Smith and that
related by the Diwan agree in representing Lakshmana and
Yajradaman and their dynasty to have been Parihars, while
in their own inscription they call themselves Kachhwahas.
This would make for an identity of the Parihars and
Kachhwahas; but, at any rate, it points to a close connection
of them with the Giirjaras, of whom, no doubt, they were
subdivisions. Another indication of identity, or intimate
connection, of the Kachhwahas and Gurjaras has alreadjr
been mentioned in connection with Toramana. The rise of
the Kachhwaha -Parihars under Lakshmana, about 933 A.D.,,
falls within the period of the reign of the Gurjara emperor
Mahlpala. Under him, with the decline of the power of
the imperial (Tomara) clan, the chiefs of the subordinate
clans began to assert their independence: the Parmars of

1
The Diwan's Padhpal is the Padmapal of the inscription. Is it a misprint'{

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 SOME PEOBLEM8 OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY. 7

Malwa, under Krishnaraja, about 915 A.D. ; the Chohans

of Ajmlr, under Chandana, about the same date; and the
Kachhwahas of Gwaliyor, under Lakshmana, about 933 A.D.
About the latter date, also, the Parihars of Alwar must have
become independent under Savata, for his son Mathanadeva
describes himself as an independent ruler in his Rajor grant
of 960 A.D. {E.I. iii, 263).
As to the Chandels, who were the earliest to assert their
independence, under Yasovarman, and perhaps already under
Harsha, about 910 A.D., it is not impossible that they also
were really a subordinate Gurjara clan. But I know of no
clear evidence on this point.
With regard to the Chaulukya clan of Gurjaras, it has
already been stated (J.R.A.S., 1904, p. 640) that they
conquered for themselves an independent kingdom in Lata,
in the latter part of the tenth century, and that from them
that country received its modern name of Gujarat. It
appears, however, that there were two distinct migrations of
Chaulukyas into Lata, which took place at two distinct dates,
though not separated by any great interval of time. On
the first immigration we receive information from the Siirat
grant of the Chaulukya Kirtiraja, dated in 1018 A.D. (Vienna
Or. Journ., vii, 88; E.I. v, App., No. 940). It tells us
that Klrtiraja's grandfather Barapa obtained (adhigamya) the
country of Lata. This vague remark is explained by the
tradition (see details in Ind. Ant., xii, 199 ; vi, 183, 184) that
Barapa took military service as a " general" under Tailapa,
the restorer of the southern Chalukya empire. As a reward
for his services, he would seem to have obtained a grant
of land in Lata; and it would further seem that in this
position of a great Lata landowner he came into collision
with Miilaraja, under whom the second, and more important,
Chaulukya settlement in Lata took place. Mularaja's two
earliest (known) grants are dated in 974 {Vienna Or. Journ.,
v, 300) and 987 A.D. {Ind. Ant., vi, 191; also Nos. 45 and
50, in E.I. v, App., pp. 7, 8). In these grants Mularaja
claims to be no more than a Mahdrdjddhirdja. In his
subsequent grant of 995 A.D. (Vienna Or. Journ., v, 300;

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 8 SOME PROBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY.

E.I. v, App., p. 8, No. 52) he already claims the full imperial

titles. It appears probable, therefore, that Mularaja's
encounter with his kinsman Barapa took place between 974
and 987 A.D. This also agrees with Barapa's date as
deducible from his grandson Kirtiraja's grant of 1018 A.D.,
according to which he should have reigned from about 960
to 980 A.D. There is nothing to show that Barapa was
ever anything more than a Lata landholder. It was his
grandson Klrtiraja who first held some kind of dependent
regal position in Lata. In the Surat grant of Kirtiraja's
grandson, Trilochanapala, dated in the year 1051 A.D. (Ind.
Ant., xii, 201; E.I. v, App., p. 51, No. 356) he is said
to have " attained the rank of a lord of Lata " (Lata-bhupa-
padavim adhigamya, verse 12). In his own grant, dated
1018 A.D., he only claims the title of " Governor-General"
(mahdmandalesvara). Even his grandson, Trilochanapala, in
his charter of 1051 A.D., still claims to be no more than
a chief (nrpa) and ruler (bhoktd) of the Lata country. At
that time Mularaja's dynasty had already held the supreme
power in Lata for several generations. It is quite clear
that Barapa's dynasty never held any but a subordinate
position in Lata; and it is not from them that the country
is likely to have acquired its new name of Gujarat. This it
can only have done through the powerful position obtained
by the Chaulukyas of Mularaja's dynasty. The latter
conquered for himself the independent sovereignty of Lata,
with the imperial title, about 995 A.D., as shown by his
Baroda grant of that year. This assertion of independence,
however, had probably as much reference to the imperial
claims of the southern Chalukya Tailapa (973-997 A.D.) as
to those of the northern Gurjara monarch, Vijayapala's
successor of the unknown name (about 975-1000 A.D.).
Both Chaulukya branches, that of Barapa as well as that
of Mularaja, must have migrated into Lata from the country
lying immediately in the north, that is, from Rajputana,
the old home province of the Gurjara race. Regarding 1jhis
home, Buhler (Ind. Ant., vi, 81) refers to a tradition of
*' most Jain chroniclers of Gujarat," according to which

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 SOME PROBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY. 9

Riiji, the father of Mularaja, and his ancestors "held the

throne of Kalyana in Kanauj." I cannot quite make out
the grounds for this statement. At least, those chronicles
which are accessible to me do not seem to bear it out. The
earliest of them, the Dvyakraya Mahdkavya of Hemachandra,
written about 1150 A.D., says of Mularaja that he was " born
of the Chalukya (sic) race," and just mentions his father
Eaji, but it has not one word about his ancestors or the
place where they lived (Ind. Ant., iv, 72,74). Contemporary
with Hemachandra's chronicle is the Vadnagar PraSasti, of
1151 A.D. (E.I. i, 293). It just mentions the myth of the
miraculous birth of Chulukya, the heros eponymos of the
•Chaulukya race, but again says not one word about Miilaraja's
father, or his ancestors and their original home. Nor is
there any more information to be found in the Sukrta
Sahklrtana of Arisiihha, or in the Klrtikaumudi of Somesvara,
both of about 1230 A.D.1 On the other hand, a still later
chronicle, the Kumdrapala Carita of Jayasiihha, begun about
1365 and completed about 1435 A.D., while it duly relates
the story of the miraculous birth of Chulukya, makes him
live, not at Kanauj, but in Madhupaghna, which is supposed
to be the same as Mathura (Ind. Ant., xii, 197). Further,
the very much earlier chronicle, Vikramdhkadeva Carita of
Bilhana, of about 1085 A.D., while relating the miraculous
birth-story of Chulukya (in connection, it is true, not with
the Chaulukyas, but with the southern Chalukyas), represents
him and his early descendants as living in Ayodhya (Ind.
Ant., v, 317; cf. vii, 17, and xiv, 49). Again, the Hindi bard
Chand, about 1190 A.D., according to Tod (Rajasthan, i, 88,
Madras ed.), "makes the Solankhis [Chaulukyas] important
as princes of Sooru on the Ganges, ere the Eahtores obtained
Kanauj." I have no doubt that there may be Gujarat
chroniclers who give the story as related by Biihler, but
I suspect that they are of very late date, and deserving of
little credence. In any case, it is clear that the chroniclers

1
See Kathvate's edition of the latter, and Biihler's paper on the former in
the Sitzungsberichte of the K. Akademie d. "VViss., vol. cxix, No. vii.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 10 SOME PEOBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY.

are by no means in agreement with one another. They offer

the choice of Kanauj, Mathura, Ayodhya, and " Sooru "
(Soron ?). It seems pretty evident that they are drawing on
their imagination for their facts.
, The only mention of Kanauj that I can find in the
chronicles accessible to me occurs in Arisimha's Sukrta
Sankirtana, sarga ii, verse 5 (quoted by Biihler, I.e., p. 41,
compare p. 11; also Ind. Ant., xii, 199), which describes
Barapa as the "general of the king of Kanyakubja." Its
date is about 1230 A.D. A still earlier reference, however,
to Kanauj, in connection with the Chaulukyas, exists in the
Surat grant of Trilochanapala, of 1151 A.D. It appears to
me to afford a clue to the origin of the tradition concerning
Kanauj. Having related the story of the miraculous birth
of Chulukya, it goes on to say of him that he married
a Rashtrakuta lady, and lived with her in Kanauj. The
original of the passage runs as follows {Ind. Ant., xii, 201,
verse 6) :—
Kanydkubje Maharaja Bdslrakutasya kanyakam
labdhva sukhdya tasyam tvam Cauluky-apnuhi santatim \\

This has been translated to mean {ibid., p. 203), " 0 thou

Chaulukya, king of kings, marrying the princess of the
Rastrakutas in Kanyakubja, bless thou {the world) with
offspring obtained from h e r " ; and thence the conclusion
has been drawn {ibid., p. 199; also E.I. v, App., p. 51,.
No. 356) that the grant referred to a " Rastrakuta Maharaja
of Kanyakubja." But there is no ground for believing
that Rashtrakuta (Rahtor) kings of Kanauj ever existed;
nor does the passage really say so. For Kanydkubje must
be constructed with dpnuhi, and what the passage really
means is " O Maharaja Chaulukya, having married the
daughter of the Rastrakuta, do thou, for the sake of the
welfare {of thy people), beget offspring on her in Kanya-
kubja." Accordingly it is Chaulukya who is represented
as the Maharaja of Kanauj, not the Rashtrakuta. If we
now remember that Kanauj was the capital of the great
Gurjara empire, and think of the prestige it must have

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 SOME PEOBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY. 11

enjoyed as the seat of the imperial GHirjara clan, it does not

appear wonderful that the writer of Trilochana's grant
should have chosen that town as the residence of the
eponymous hero of the collateral Chaulukya clan. But,,
clearly, the writer's statement is of no historical value.
What may have suggested to him the idea of Chaulukya
marrying a Rashtrakuta lady is at present impossible to say.
That the Chaulukyas, on migrating to Lata, may have
formed matrimonial connections with the Rashtrakuta chiefs
of that country is probable enough. It is to be noted that
the grant does not describe the Rashtrakuta whose daughter
Chaulukya is said to have married by any regal title,—
indeed, by any title whatsoever: she is simply a Rashtrakuta
lady. From Kirtiraja's grant of 1018 A.D. it is clear that
there were Rashtrakuta chiefs subordinate to the Chaulukya
"Governors-General" (mahdmandalesmra) of Lata; and
matrimonial alliances with them on the part of the
Chaulukyas would be only natural. But further, as Kirti-
raja's grant is said1 (Vienna Or. Journ., vii, 89) to agree
with that of Trilochanapala in respect of " the origin of the
name and race of the Chaulukyas," it may be concluded
that the passage above referred to can be traced back to
1018 A.D. In all probability the tradition embodied in it
goes back to the time of the founder of the dynasty, Barapa,
i.e. to about 975 A.D. That dynasty, no doubt, claimed from
the beginning an ancestral connection with the royal clan
of the Gurjaras, whose capital was at Kanauj. The court-
poets and bards converted this claim into an actual rule of
the Chaulukya ancestors in Kanauj, but there is no good
reason to believe that either Barapa or Raji or their
immediate predecessors ever lived anywhere else than some-
where in Rajputana (see pp. 23, 24).
Both Chaulukya migrations into Lata took place about
975 A.D. This was the time of the reign of the Gurjara
emperor Vijayapala (or possibly of his successor of the
unknown name). What the cause of the migrations may

1
It does not seem to have ever been textually published.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 12 SOME PROBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY.

have been is not known. None of the inscriptions as yet

discovered throws any light on this point. But as tradition
makes Barapa a " general" of Tailapa, the heir of the Earlier
Ohalukya dynasty, I would suggest that the Ohaulukyas
may have been called in by that prince, who was about that
time (from 973 A.D.) engaged in re-establishing the Chalukya
rule over the southern empire, with the object of assisting
him in his undertaking. For there seems good reason to
believe that the Chalukyas were kinsmen of the Ohaulukyas
—that, in fact, they represent a very early immigration into
Southern India of that portion of the Grurjara stock which
called itself Chalukya or Chaulukya. The very fact of the
identity of the names goes to prove the original unity of the
Chaulukyas and Chalukyas.1 I am disposed to agree with
Biihler (Ind. Ant., vi, 182) that the two words are " only
dialectic forms of the same name." But, despite the
attempted Sanskrit derivation of the genealogists, I would
suggest that the name is not a Sanskritic word at all, but of
foreign (Gurjara or Hunic) origin.2
The migration of the Chalukyas from the north into the
south appears to be generally admitted. As Dr. Fleet says,
they themselves " always represent themselves as having
come originally from the north " (Ind. Ant., vii, 247); and
he holds that " it is an undoubted fact that the Chalukyas
did come originally from the north " (ibid., vii, 246 ; xiv, 49).
His theory, which I am disposed to accept, is that their
southward migration took place under Pulikesin I, about
550 A.D. (Ind. Ant., vii, 247; viii, 12, 239). Before that
Chalukya chief acquired his new capital Vatapi (Badami)
in the south, he had a capital in the north, where his
grandfather Jayasimha ruled as the "chief" of the Chalukyas
(or Chalukiyas). In the Mahakuta inscription of Pulikesin's
son Mangalesa, dated in the year 602 A.D., Jayasimha is
1
The spelling of the latter form Cdlukya varies with Caluhja and Calikya.
The form Caluhja is used by the earlier, and Calukya by the later dynasty of the
Southern Empire.
2
Might it be connected with the Turk! root cTiap, gallop, chapaul, a plundering
raid, a charge of cavalry? See J.A.S.B., extra number for 1878. Perhaps
Turk! scholars would tell us.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 SOME PROBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN BISTORT. 1$

described simply as a chief (nrpa, Ind. Ant., xix, 16, line 2),
while in the Aihole inscription of his grandson, Pulikesin I I ,
of the year 634 A.D., he is said to have been a king {raja,
E.I. vi, 4, verse 5). There is practically little difference
between the two terms : they both indicate a mere chief or
ruler. With reference to the cause of the Chalukya
migration to the south, Dr. Fleet suggests {Ind. Ant., vii,
247) that the Chalukyas may have been " originally
feudatories of the Gurjara kings, but, in the person of
Pulikesin I, threw off that yoke, and, migrating to the
south, established an independent sovereignty of their own."
That they were feudatories of the paramount Gurjara king
I agree; but seeing that the date of Jayasimha must be
somewhere very near the date, about 533 A.D., of the great
defeat inflicted on the Hunas by Yasodharman (i.e. Vikra-
maditya), and that the Gurjaras were closely connected with
the Hunas, I would suggest that, when the combined Huna-
Gurjara invasion was stemmed by the Malava emperor
Vikramaditya, the component parts of the invading hosts
were dispersed, some (the main portion) settling for the time
in Rajputana, others in the Panjab (Gujarat District), while
a third portion, the Chalukya, moved southwards. This
third portion, apparently after leaving a small detachment in
Lata, where it founded the Samanta dynasty of Bharoj (see
J.B.A.S., 1904, p. 643), penetrated into the country south
of the Narmada, and there established the Chalukya empire
of Badami (Vatapi). Even then it was only a division of
the Chalukya clan which proceeded south. Another division
remained in Rajputana, whence, at a much later date, it
followed the earlier emigrants southwards into Lata in the
latter part of the tenth century, under Barapa and Miilaraja.
The difference in the names of the two divisions of the clan
—Chalukya (Chalukya, Chalikya) and Chaulukya—may well
be explained by the fact that they separated at such a very
early period, and for several centuries lived in localities so
widely separated as the Dekhan and Rajputana. In the
Aihole inscription of Pulikesin II, above referred to, there
is a remark which is worth noting in the present connection.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 14 SOME PROBLEMS .OP ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY.

According to Professor Kielhorn, the inscription (E.I. vi, 2,

verse 22) indicates that the " Gurjaras submitted to Pulikesin
of their own accord." This is no more than one would
expect on the theory that the Chalukyas themselves were
members of the Gurjara race. In that remark, it may be
further noted, the Latas and Malavas are joined with the
Gurjaras in the policy of voluntary submission. Here
' Latas' must refer to the Gurjara (Chalukya) chiefs who
settled in Lata as its Samanta rulers, while ' Malavas' refers
to the Gurjara (Paramara) chiefs who appear to have
remained behind in Malwa, after the retirement of the main
body of the Gurjaras into Rajputana. Latas, Malavas, and
Gurjaras, therefore, in that remark refer to the Gurjaras in
Lata (modern Gujarat), Malwa, and Rajputana respectively.
There is one point in connection with the Gurjara theory
(explained in No. II of my Problems, J.B.A.8., 1904, p. 639)
which it may be well to notice. In pursuance of that
theory, and in support of it, Mr. Bhandarkar proposes
a correction of the date of Dharmapala, and consequently
of the whole chronology of the so-called Pala dynasty of
Bengal. This correction I hold to be untenable; but that
does not upset the Gurjara theory, into which the usually
accepted date of Dharmapala fits perfectly well. In his
paper on the Cambay Plates of Govinda IV (E.I. vii, p. 31 ff.),
Mr. Bhandarkar says that "we have positive evidence
that Dharmapala lived in the earlier part of the tenth
century, i.e. at least half a century later than he has hitherto
been placed." His " positive evidence " is as follows :
(1) the Bhagulpur and Khalimpur grants tell us that
Dharmapala, having defeated Indraraja, and thus obtained
the sovereignty of Kanauj, gave it over to Candrayudha;
(2) Kshitipala was placed on the throne by the Chandel
Harsha (see, however, p. 15); (3) the Rashtrakuta Indra III
attacked Kanauj, whose ruler at that time was Kshitipala
(or Mahlpala). On these premises Professor Bhandarkar
founds the following argument : (1) Indra III not only
attacked Kanauj, but he must have ousted its ruler
Kshitipala ; for, unless he had done so, Kshitipala could
\
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 SOME PROBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY. 15

not have been replaced by Harsha; (2) Kshitipala could not

have been replaced on the throne of Kanauj, unless previously
Indra III had been defeated; (3) that previous defeat of
Indra III was effected by Dharmapala, because he is said
to have defeated Indraraja ; (4) Indraraja's (i.e. Indra Ill's)
defeat was followed by Chandrayudha's enthronement in
Kanauj, which shows that Chandrayudha and Kshitipala
are identical. Now No. 3 of the argument implicates the
assumption that Indraraja and Indra I I I are the same
person, which is precisely the point to be proved. Nos. 1
and 2 of the argument make the assumption that Kshitipala
was replaced on the throne of Kanauj ; but the Khajuraho
inscription (E.T. i, 121) says only that he was placed,
not that he was replaced, on the throne, by the Chandel
king. No. 4 of the argument necessitates the implication
that the enthronement of Kshitipala was the joint work of
Harsha and Dharmapala. This implication Mr. Bhandarkar
expressly admits, and considers such a joint action as
"what in all likelihood must have come to pass." But
there is no " positive evidence " for it whatsoever ; and the
probability of it will, to most people, appear infinitesimal.
"What, in all probability, did occur has been explained in
No. II of my Problems (J.R.A.8., 1904, p. 656). Kshitipala
(i.e. Mahlpala) was originally placed on the throne, in
succession to his brother Bhoja II, by the Chandel king
(not Harsha, but) Yasovarman ; and Indra I I I in all
probability was not defeated, either by Dharmapala or any-
one else, but returned to his own country after his successful
raid on Kanauj. If it is supposed that Indra I I I returned
in consequence of a defeat, that defeat could only have
been inflicted on him by Yasovarman, the friend of Mahlpala.
But in that case the probability is that such a signal
success over the powerful Rashtrakuta emperor would have
been enumerated in the list of Yasovarman's successes in
the practically contemporaneous Khajuraho inscription of
954 A.D. Verse 23 of that inscription (E.I. i, 132) gives
a list of successes in war over a number of peoples, but
the Rashtrakutas are not among them. This being so, it is

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 16 SOME PROBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY.

not probable that Yasovarman came into collision with

Indra III.
As to Dharmapala's date, there exists as yet only one
positive piece of evidence, and that appears to me to be
distinctly in favour of the date assigned to him by Professor
Kielhorn (E.I. iv, 246). This is the date 1026 A.D. for
the Bengal Mahlpala, and it admits no other date for
Dharmapala than the middle of the ninth century, say
about 840 A.D. In two instances the Palas are recorded
in marriage connection with the Rashtrakutas, but neither
instance affords any help. Dharmapala himself is said
to have married a daughter of the Rashtrakuta Parabala
(Ind. Ant., xxi, 254); but the biruda Parabala is otherwise
unknown. Again, Riijyapala married a daughter of the
Rashtrakuta Tunga {Ind. Ant., xxi, 99). But the biruda
Tunga is too vague to support any conclusions. It has
been referred to Jagattunga II, but that prince never reigned
(E.L iv, 288, verse 16; also E.I. vi, 176) ; and though
that may not be an absolute objection, the biruda Tunga
was a speciality of the whole Rashtrakuta family (E.I. vi,.
189), and occurs in various combinations in connection
with several of the Rashtrakuta emperors. Admitting the
middle of the ninth century for Dharmapala, the bearer of
the biruda Parabala might be Amoghavarsha I, and Tunga
might refer to Govinda IV, called Nripatunga,
"With Dharmapala's date about 840 A.D. both identifications
are incompatible, that of Chakrayudha with Mahlpala (or
Kshitipala), and that of Indraraja with Indra III. The
probability undoubtedly is that, as suggested by Professor
Kielhorn (Ind. Ant., xx, 188*), Chakrayudha was Indraraja's
younger brother; and seeing that by defeating Indraraja,
Dharmapala was enabled to give the kingdom of Kanauj to
Chakrayudha, it seems necessarily to follow that Indraraja
was the then (c. 840 A.D.) ruling king of Kanauj. As there
was an Indrayudha reigning in the north, i.e. in the
1
Chandrayudha cannot, however, be identified with Bhoja I (Adwaraha), for
though the latter's date would suit well enough, he was the most powerful
member of the Gurjara imperial house, and never required Dharmapala's aid.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 SOME PROBLEMS OP ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY. 17

kingdom of Kanauj, in the year 783 A.D., it suggests itself

(especially as Indraraja may very well have borne also the
name Indrayudha, and as the same name is apt to recur
in the same family) that Indraraja and Chakrayudha of
Dharmapala's time were descendants of the earlier Indrayudha.
This line of thought only follows out a suggestion, already
thrown out by Professor Kielhorn (E.I. iv, 246, footnote 1)
and Dr. Fleet {E.I. vi, 197). Further, seeing that, in all
probability, Bhoja I was a contemporary of Dharmapala,
it further suggests itself that Bhoja I's conquest of the
northern kingdom was the direct consequence of the disastrous
war of that kingdom with Dharmapala, which rendered it
so weak as to finally perish under Bhoja I's attack.
The history of the northern kingdom of Kanauj is still
almost a blank for the two centuries following immediately
after the emperor Harsha Vardhana's death. That event
was followed by a palace revolution (Journal Adatique, 1900,
p. 300), and a general anarchy^nd disruption of the empire.
Between it and the conquest of Kanauj by Bhoja I, only
three, or perhaps four, facts are known. First, there is the
reign of Yasovarman, to which belong the years 731-745 A.D.
(see Dr. Stein's translation of the Rajatarangini, p. 132,
footnote 134, for particulars). Secondly, there is the reign
of Indrayudha in 783 A.D. Thirdly, there is the defeat and
deprivation of Indraraja and the restoration of (his brother)
Chakrayudha by Dharmapala, about 840 A.D. Fourthly,
there is the mention of an unnamed king of Kanauj, who
is said, in the Rajatarangini, to have been defeated by
Jayaplda, a grandson of Lalitaditya (Muktaplda), the
conqueror of Yasovarman. He was, therefore, probably also
a grandson of Yasovarman. Jayaplda reigned thirty-one
years, about 772-803 A.D. The Rajatarangini says (iv, 471,
Dr. Stein's transl., p. 103) that "after defeating the king
of Kanyakubja in battle that king of surpassing valour
(Jayaplda) carried off his throne, the ensign of royal power."
This seems to indicate not only the defeat of the king of
Kanauj, but a termination of his dynasty. If this surmise
is correct, the subsequently mentioned kings Indrayudha,
J.R.A.S. 1905. 2
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 18 SOME PROBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY.

Indraraja, and Chakrayudha would have belonged to a new

dynasty. But the name of neither dynasty—if there were
two dynasties—is known at present.
Incidentally it may be noted here that an advance of
Kashmirian troops so far into the centre of North India, as
is implied by the relation of the Rdjataranginl, is supported
by a remark in the Khajuraho inscription of 954 A.D.
That record describes {E.I. i, 132, verse 23) the Chandel
king Yasovarman as one " before whom perished the
Kashmiri warriors."
The traditional genealogy of the Gurjara emperors of
Mahodaya-Kanauj commences with a prince named Deva-
sakti. The earliest occurrence of this genealogy is in the
Daulatpura grant of Bhoja I, dated in 843 A.D. {E.I. v, 208).
Devasakti's date, at the usual rate of twenty years for
a reign, would be only about sixty years earlier, say about
770 to 780 A.D. ; for he is the fourth predecessor of Bhoja I.
In the genealogy he is clearly treated as a real person, and
a queen is assigned to him, named Bhuyika, who is said to
be the mother of Vatsaraja. After an interval of only about
sixty years one would suppose a correct knowledge of
Bhoja's ancestry to have survived; and, of course, devaiakti,
taken as a bahuvrihi compound, is not an impossible name
of a real person. Still, it is a curious name, and outside
fable-literature it is unique, so far as I know. Might it not
be a mere legendary name ? It means literally ' the power
of Deva,' and it is as if one of our royal houses who claim
to reign by "the grace of God" were to make that "grace
of God " the ancestor of their house. Might not this name
devaiakti give us the earliest indication of the rise of the
later legend of the miraculous birth of the ancestors of the
Rajput clans ?
A well-known form of this legend is related by Tod
(Rajasthan, i, 86, 87, Madras ed.); also in the Rasmala
(ii, 234), and by Sir Alexander Cunningham {Arch. Survey
Reports, ii, 253 ff.). According to it Vasishta had once
convened all the other sages on Mount Abu to perform
a sacrifice before the assembled gods. In this they were

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 SOME PROBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY. 19

disturbed by the Asuras. Thereupon Yasishta caused to

come forth from the sacrificial fire-pit successively the four
eponymous ancestors of the so-called Agnikula or ' fire-clans'
of Rajputs, the Parihars, Chalukyas (or Solankis), Parmars,
and Chohans. This form of the legend which makes all
the four clans to have sprung equally from the sacred fire is
given on the authority of the Rajput bards, especially of the
Hindi bard Chand Bardai. But Sir A. Cunningham suggests
{I.e., p. 254) that in the original legend the fire-birth must
have been limited to the Chohans. Herein, I think, he is
right. Chand lived about 1190 A.D., and he is, so far as
I know, the earliest witness to the existence of the legend
in the form above given. He certainly seems to limit the
fire-birth to the Chohans. The legend is related by him in
stanzas 124 ff. of the first book {prastdva) of his PrithirdJ
Rdsau.1 The following are its essential portions :—

Taba su-rikhkhi Batista kunda rocana raci tdmahi \

Dhariya dhydna jaji homa madhya vedi sura sdmaha \
Taba pragatyau Pratihdra, rdha tint thaura su-dhariya |
Phuni pragatyau Cdlukka, Brahma tint cdlu su-sdriya \
Pavdra pragatyau lira vara, kahyau rikhkhi para-mdra
dhana \
Traya purukha juddha kinau atula, naha Rakhkhasa

khuddanta tana \ \ 124 11

Taba citiya Batista, eha Asura avicdriya |[ 127 [|

Anala-kunda kiya anala sajji upagdra sdra sura |

Upajyau anala Cdhuvdna taba cam su-bdhu asi baha dhari \\

1
So in the MSS. and in the Bibliotheca Indica ed., p. 67; but in M. V.
Pandia's ed., p. 49, verses 127 ff. The text varies slightly ; the only important
difference is in Pandia's ed., line 4, brahmacdri vrata dhariya, " h e kept the
brahmacarl vow," for Brahma tini cdlu su-sariya. That reading can hardly be
correct, because it is incongruent with the tenour of the stanza, which intends to
describe warriors, not ascetics. Calu is also spelt cullii, calu, calu, caluka,
Skr. caliika or cultika.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 20 SOME PROBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY.

That is—
"Then the sage Vasishta carefully prepared a pit; per-
forming meditation, he offered a homa in the midst of the
altar in the presence of the Suras. Then there appeared
the Pratihara : him he placed on the road to the palace.
Next there appeared the Chalukka: him Brahma brought
forth from his hollowed palm. The Pavara (Parmar) (now)
appeared, the excellent hero : (him) the sage called blessed
as the 'Slayer of the enemy' {para-mara). The three
men made a fight unequalled; (but) the Rakshasas did not
draw back a whit . . . Vasishta thought to himself,
' These Asuras are very impudent' . . . So he made
a fire in the fire-pit, preparing a thorough protection for
the Suras . . . Then there arose from the fire the
Chahuvan, four-armed, holding a sword in each arm."
Here the fire-birth is distinctly ascribed to the Chohans,
but to them only. Of the others it is not said that they
came out of the fire. With regard to the Parmars and
Chaulukyas, indeed, Chand's words seem to contain a distinct
allusion to peculiar legends of theirs concerning the miraculous
birth of their eponymous ancestors. It is certain from their
inscriptions that these two clans possessed such legends at
a date considerably anterior to Chand, while, for the present
at least, there is no evidence to prove this either concerning
the Parihars or the Chohans. I t would seem that in Chand's
time the leading rival clans among the Rajputs were the
Parihars, Chaulukyas, Parmars, and Chohans. I t is not
impossible that the legend in the form in which it is quoted
above is an invention of Chand Bardal himself, for the
purpose of extolling his particular clan, the Chohan, at the
expense of the three others. For this purpose he appears to
have appropriated to the Chohans a peculiar claim of the
Parmars. For, so far as we know, the Parmars are the only
clan who, anteriorly to Chand, laid claim to the fire-birth.
The existing evidence is meagre, but such as it is the
inscriptions of the Chohans themselves give no countenance
to the belief that they claimed to be a ' fire-race.'
Their earliest (known) record is a jpra&asti, dated 842 A.D.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 SOME PROBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY. 21

{J.G.O.S. xl, 39; E.I. v, App., No. 12), of a branch line

of Chohans ruling in Dholpur in Eastern Rajputana. It
simply states that the line belongs to " the goodly race
of the eminent ' land-lord' Chahavana" (Cdhavana mra-
bhupati-caru-vmhsa) without the least suggestion of anything
miraculous. The next is a prasasti, dated 973 A.D., of the
main line of Chohans. It similarly speaks only of the
Cahamananvaya (E.I. ii, 121, verse 13) or Chahamana line.
So also the prasasti, dated 1170 A.D. (J.A.S.B. lv, 41,
verse 10), of the main line; and the charter, dated 1161 A.D.
{J.B.B.R.A.S. xix, 26; E.I. v, App., No. 141), of the Nadol
branch of Chohans. The latter two records are practically
contemporaneous with Chand Bardai. It seems clear,
therefore, that the whole of the Chohan clan, in the main
as well as the side lines, laid no claim to being a 'fire-race.'
The only Rajput clan which, so far as I know, puts forth
in its records a claim to be a ' fire-race' is that of the
Parmars. Their claim can be traced back to about a century
earlier than Chand Bardal, that is, to the year 1060 A.D.,
the date of the Arthuna (Ind. Ant., xxii, 80) and (approxi-
mately) of the Udepur prasastis (E.I. i, 224), which belong
to the junior and senior branches respectively of the royal
line of Parmars of Malwa. It is in these inscriptions that
we first meet with the legend of the miraculous birth of
the eponymous hero from the sacrificial fire-pit. As told
here it runs as follows (E.I. i, 234, 236, verses 5, 6): At
one time on Mount Abu, Visvamitra forcibly took away
the cow of Vasishta; thereupon the latter caused a hero
to arise from the fire-pit (agni-kunda) ; that hero slew the
enemies, and recovered the cow; in reward thereof the sage
gave him the name Para-mara or slayer of the enemies.
This is substantially the same story as given by Chand
Bardal, though in his version the enemies are Rakshasas,
and no mention is made of any abduction of the cow.1 The

1
Chand also knows the story of Vasishta's cow, but according to him the
cow was not abducted, but fell into a bottomless cleft of the mount (athdva bila,
stanza 81) ; also, the loss of the cow has no immediate connection with the
creation of the fire-races.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 22 SOME PEOBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY.

term 'fire-race,' though implied in the legend of these

two pra§astis, does not actually occur in them. The first
actual use of it we find in the slightly later Nagpur prasasti
of the year 1104 A.D. It occurs there {E.I. ii, 182, verse 4}
in the form vahni-vamsa, not agni-kula.
It may be worth noting that the legend is not found intro-
duced in the nearly contemporaneous Bhinmal inscription,
dated 1060 A.D. {Bombay Gazetteer, vol. i, pt. 1, p. 472 ;
E.I. v, App., No. 689), of the Rajputana line of Parmars.
This inscription (like those of the Chohans) speaks simply
of the " Paramara race" without the least suggestion of
any miraculous occurrence. It would seem, therefore, that
the legend of the ' fire-birth' was limited to the royal
Parmar line of Malwa. What is curious, however, is the
fact that there exist several Parmar inscriptions of earlier
date than 1080 A.D. which make no mention whatever
of that legend. This circumstance might be thought to
prove that the legend was not known before 1080 A.D., or
the latter half of the eleventh century, if it were not that
we have also inscriptions later than 1080 A.D. which do
not mention the legend. Such are the charters (land-grants)
of Lakshml Varma Deva, dated 1143 A.D. {Ind. Ant., xix,
353 ; E.I. v, App., No. 121), and of Arjuna Varma Deva,
dated 1211 A.D. {J.A.S.B. V, 378; E.I. v, App., No. 195).
The evidence of the charters, therefore, does not necessarily
disprove an existence of the legend earlier than the latter
half of the eleventh century, but it does prove that no
credence, or at least no importance, was attached to it
officially. It might be introduced into private, or semi-
private, eulogies {prasasti), but not into official charters
{sasana).
The case is similar with the Chaulukyas (Solankis). At
least it is so with the more important (imperial) line of
Mularaja. In the official charters of this line the legend
of the miraculous birth of their eponymous hero is never
admitted. As a rule, indeed (just as in the Parmar charters),
there is not even any mention of his name, nor of the descent
from him. Mularaja's charter, of 987 A.D.,, appears to be the

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 SOME PROBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY. 23

solitary exception in describing that sovereign as belonging

to the "Chaulukya line" (Caulukikdnvaya, Ind. Ant., vi,
191, line 5). The legend appears in Chaulukya prasadis,
and it is found so for the first time, in the year 1151 A.D.,
in the Vadnagar prasasti (E.I. i, 301, verse 2). As here
given, the legend says that at the request of the gods, to
protect them from the Danavas, Brahma, when performing
the sandhyd ceremony, produced the hero Chulukya from
the Ganges water in his hollowed palm (culuka). It is this
form of the legend, evidently, which is referred to in the
verses of Ohand Bardai above quoted.
With the less important Chaulukya line of Barapa, the
legend is not only met with at a considerably earlier date,
but is also admitted into their official charters. It is, for the
first time, found in Klrtiraja's grant of 1018 A.D. (Vienna
Or. Jonrn., vii, 88 ; E.I. v, App., No. 354), and is repeated
in Trilochanapala's grant of 1051 A.D. (Ind. Ant., xii, 201,
verses 4-7; E.I. v, App., No. 356). Here it is given in
a somewhat different form. The passage runs as follows :—
Kaddcid Daitya-khed-ottha-cintd-Mandara-manthandt \
Virinces culuk-dmbodhe raja-ratnampumdn abhut \\
"Deva kim karavdn" -Ui nattvdprdha tarn eva sah \
Samddiddrtha-samsiddhau install srast- dbravic ca \ \
" Kanydkubje, Maharaja, Bdstrakutasya kanyakdm \
labdhvd sukhdya tasydm tvam Caulukyzdpnuln santatim \\
Ittham atra bliavet ksatra-santatir vitatd kila \
Qaulukydtprathitd nadydh srotdms-iva malndhardt " ||
That is—
" Once on a time, through the churning with the Mandara
(mount) of anxiety roused by the oppression of the Daityas
(called Danavas in verse 1), out of the ocean in the hollowed
palm (culuka) of Brahma there arose a man, a jewel of a king.
' 0 Deva, what shall I do,' so respectfully he addressed
Brahma; and the pleased Creator, for the attainment of the
indicated object, spoke to him: 'In Kanyakubja (Kanauj),
0 great King Chaulukya, after having taken (in marriage)
the daughter of a Eashtrakuta, do thou, for the sake of the

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 24 SOME PROBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY.

welfare (of the people), raise progeny on her. Thus there

may here arise from a Chaulukya (i.e. from a palm-born
being) a truly extensive race of Kshatriyas, far-spreading like
river streams (coming) from a mountain.'"
The point in this version of the legend which is particularly
to be observed is that it has much less of a mythological
complexion. There is here no suggestion of a quarrel
between the Devas and Daityas. We have evidently before
us no myth, but a semi-historical account of an early occur-
rence, expressed in poetical and figurative language. And
perhaps it is this semi-historical character of the occurrence
which accounts for its being mentioned in the official charters.
" At some time," not exactly known, but still remembered,
the natives of the country and their brahmanical institutions
were being harassed by non-brahmanical foreigners (poetically
called Daityas or Danavas). One of the foreign chiefs,
a Chaulukya, married the daughter of one of the native
Rashtrakuta chiefs and pursued a pro-Hindu policy. The
Brahmans, relieved of their mountain-load of anxiety, gladly
regularised the transaction by declaring the Chaulukyas
a Kshatriya caste. This appears to be the meaning of the
semi-historical legend. Its earliest known date is 1018 A.D.,
but, as already remarked on p. 11, it probably existed as
early as the middle of the tenth century, and there is no
reason why it should not have existed among the Chaulukyas
even earlier, at a time when they still lived in their original
home in Rajputana. There is nothing strange in the occur-
rence itself : the assimilating power of Hinduism is well
known in India. If the Moghul emperors, when they formed
matrimonial alliances with daughters of Rajput princes, had
at the same time adopted Brahmanic Hinduism, we should
now have a Moghul caste of Hindu Kshatriyas. But even
the loose Muhammadanism of the early Moghuls possessed
more power of persistence than the Shamanism of the Huns
or Gurjaras.
A curious point about the semi-historical tradition of the
Chaulukyas is that Bilhana, about 1085 A.D., in his Vikra-
mdhkadeva Garita, transfers it to the southern Chalukyas.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 SOME PROBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY. 25

He also gives it a more strictly mythological character.

According to him, " Brahma was once engaged in his
sandhya devotions, when Indra came to him to complain
of the growing godlessness on earth. On hearing this
request the Creator directed his looks towards his culuka, and
from it sprung a handsome warrior fit to protect the three
worlds. From him descended the Chalukyas, among whom
Harlta is reckoned as first progenitor, as well as Manavya
who humbled the pride of the enemies " (Ind. Ant., v, 317;
xii, 198, 199). Bilhana here combines the legend of
the euluJca-hirth, which is peculiar to the later northern
Chaulukyas, with the tradition of a descent from Manavya
and Harlta, which is the property of the earlier southern
Chalukyas; and, so far as I know, the combination is
limited to him. It cannot be traced elsewhere in the
records of the southern Chalukyas. As to their own
proper tradition of the Manavya and Harlta descent, it
can be traced back to a very early age. We meet with it
for the first time, as early as 601 A.D., in the Mahakuta
inscription of Mangalesa (Ind. Ant., xix, 17; E.I. vii, App.,
No. 5); and it can be followed down to 1009 A.D. in the
Kan them grant (Ind. Ant., xvi, 17), and even to 1077 A.D.
in the Yeur inscription (Ind. Ant., viii, 11; E.I. vii, App.,
~No. 185), among the records of the Later Western Chalukya
dynasty. The last-mentioned date is the very time of Bilhana
and his combination, just referred to. About the same time
another combination of the original tradition was effected
with a Puranic genealogy (quite different from the culuka-
birth legend) in the records of the Eastern Chalukya dynasty.
This combination is first met with in the Ranastipundi grant
of 1011 A.D. (E.I. vi, 347).
With reference to the original and simple Chalukya
tradition of their descent from Manavya and Harita, it is
worth noting what Mangalesa's Mahakuta inscription, of
601 A.D., says regarding Pulikesin I (Ind. Ant., xix, 17, 18,
line 4), that his "body was purified by the religious merit
of oblations performed after celebrating agnistoma (and
other) sacrifices; that he was descended from the (god)

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 26 SOME PROBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY.

Hiranyagarbha (Brahman), accepted the admonitions of the

elders, and was good to the Brahmans." "We have here (so
it seems to me) a fairly plain statement of the adoption of
Brahmanism by Mangalesa's grandfather, the foreign invader
or immigrant, Pulikesin I, and of his admission, with solemn
ceremonial, by the Brahman " elders" into the Brahmanic
social system, in confirmation whereof he was assigned
membership of the Manavya gotra and descent from an
original ancestress of the Harlta gotra (Ind. Ant., xix, 13).
The same characteristic incidents are described in even plainer
language in the Ranastipundl grant {E.I. vi, 852, lines
17-20; see also South Indian Inscriptions, i, No. 39, p. 58,
and Ind. Ant, vii, 243-245; xiv, 49, 51) : " During this
battle his (Vijayaditya's) great queen, who was pregnant,
reached, together with the family priest and the old ministers,
an agrahdra, called Mudirema, and being protected like
a daughter by Vishnubhatta Somayajin, a great ascetic,
who dwelt there, she gave birth to a son, Vishnu Vardhana.
She brought him up, having caused to be performed for
this prince the rites which were suitable to his two-sided
Kshatriya descent from the Manavya gotra and the sons of
HaritT." Though the date of this grant, 1011 A.D., is much
too late to inspire any confidence in the historical truth
of the minuter details of its tradition, the general drift of
the latter is fully confirmed by the Mahakuta inscription,
which, being dated in 601 A.D., is nearly contemporary with,
that is, only about fifty years after, the date of the incidents
in Pulikesin I's life which it records.1 Moreover, both
records agree in one important item of the tradition, namely,
that the Brahmanic naturalization of the Chalukyas took

1
There is another point of detail in the later record of 1011 A.D., which,
even with the late authority for it, is perhaps not altogether without significance.
It is said that Vishnu Vardhana, after his naturalization, went to the " Chalukya
mountain," and there paid worship to a number of Brahmanical deities (E.I.
vi, 352, line 4 ; Ind. Ant., xiv, 49). This story seems to reflect a variant of
Chand Bardal's legend, which places the origin of the Chalukyas, and of their
kindred clans, on Mount Abu, in connection with a solemn Brahmanical
ceremony. " T h e Chalukya mountain'' I take to mean the mount which was
the ancestral stronghold of the Chalukyas, and the reference may well he to this
very Mount Abii.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 SOME PROBLEMS OV ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY. 27

place, not in the lifetime of their reputed founder, Jayasiihha

(called Vijayaditya in the later record), but in that of one
of his immediate successors. According to the later record
(of 1011 A.D.) it was Jayasimha's son, Vishnu Vardhana
(the Ranaraga of the earlier record?), while, according to
the earlier and more trustworthy record (of 601 A.D.), the
naturalized person was his grandson, Pulikesin I, who was,
no doubt, the actual invader of Southern India and the
founder there of the Chalukya sovereignty.
The later record has preserved another significant incident.
It records that the " great queen " (mahddevl) of the
above-mentioned Vishnu Vardhana, who received Brahmanic
naturalization, was a Pallava princess {E.I. vi, 353, line 24).
The Pallavas were an intensely Brahmanical dynasty; and
the adoption of Brahmanism by the Chalukya chief would
be the natural corollary of his matrimonial alliance with
a Pallava princess. We have here a tradition parallel to
that of the Chaulukyas mentioned above, p. 24. The
authority for it, no doubt, is of a very late date; the early
record, of 601 A.D., does not mention it; but the incident
itself possesses the greatest intrinsic probability, with this
modification only, that the Chalukya chief who concluded
the Pallava matrimonial alliance was, not the problematic
Vishnu Vardhana, but the real founder of the southern
Chalukya sovereignty, Pulikesin I. In any case, the
tradition recorded in the Ranastipundi grant shows what
at that date, 1011 A.D., was believed to be the natural
concomitant of the Brahmanic naturalization of a foreign
invader.
As regards the Parihars, we have, as yet, very few records.
But there are two very early ones of nearly the same date,
861 A.D., the Ghatayal and Jodhpurprasastis (JournalB.A.S.,
1894, p. 1, and 1895, p. 513; E.I. v, App., Nos. 13, 330), of
the two half-brothers Kakkuka and Bauka. They appear to
have held a considerable tract of country in western and
northern Rajputana, and their date would show that they
must have done so under the sovereignty of the Grurjara
emperor Bhoja I (c. 840-845 A.D.). Their prasastis give

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 "28 SOME PROBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTOKY.

them no territorial titles whatsoever, not even raja, though

it is specially noted in the Jodhpur inscription that one of
Kakka's (their father's) two wives, the mother of Bauka, was
a mahdrdjni, that is, an imperial princess. This shows that
the princes of this dynasty were only small chiefs, who in
course of time grew sufficiently powerful to form, in the
person of Kakka, a matrimonial alliance with the imperial
Grflrjara house of Bhoja I. This is confirmed by the notice
in the Jodhpur inscription (I.e., 1. 14) that Kakka, whose
date must be about 830-850 A.D., " gained renown in a fight
with the Graudas at Mudgagiri (Mungir)." As the son-in-law
of Bhoja I he would naturally have assisted him in his
attempted "conquest of the three worlds" (see J.B.A.8.,
1904, pp. 646, 647). The two half-brothers Kakkuka and
Bauka formed the twelfth generation of their Parihar
dynasty. This fact, at the usual rate of twenty years for
a reign, will place Harichandra, the founder of the dynasty,
nt about 640 A.D.
The particular point of interest, however, of the two
prasastis is that apparently they profess to give an account
of how the Parihar clan of Rajputs really arose. According
to them, Harichandra was a Brahman who, as the Jodhpur
prasasti tells us, married two wives, one of Brahman, the
other of Kshatriya caste. The Brahman wife is not named,
and she was probably an ordinary woman of her own caste.
The Kshatriya wife, on the other hand, is described as a lady
of noble birth (mahdlailagundnvitd, verse 7) and a princess
(rajni, verse 8), and her name is given as Bhadra. The
descendants of the Brahman wife are expressly stated to
have taken rank as Brahmans, while those of the Kshatriya
lady are not specifically classed, though of course the impli-
cation is that they enjoyed their mother's rank. But the
implication is expressed in a very curious way. The text
runs as follows:—
Viprah sn-Haricandr-dkhyah patni Bhadra ca ksattriyd \
Tdbhydn tit ye sutdjdtah Pratihdrdrk-k-ca tan viduh 11 5 ||
Pratihdrd dvijd bhutd brdhmanydm ye 'bhammzt-sutdh \
Rajni Bhadra ca ydm-t-suie te bhutd madhu-payinah || 8 ||
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 SOME PROBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY. 29

That is—
" There was a Brahman named Harichandra, and his wife
was Bhadra, a Kshatriya lady. Now the sons that were born
from this pair have become known as the Parihars. The
sons that were born to the Brahman! woman became Parihar
Brahmans, and those whom the princess Bhadra bore they
became liquor-drinkers."
Let us note, first, all the sons of the " Brahman " Hari-
chandra were Parihars, his sons of the Brahman woman
as well as those of the Kshatriya lady. Secondly, what
differentiates them is not so much the fact that they were
born of mothers of two different castes, but the fact that
some of the sons were addicted to the habit of drinking
liquor. The drinking of liquor is a well-known distinctive
trait of the Rajputs. There is another curious remark in
the Jodhpur prasasti (verse 6). Harichandra, who is
described as a " Brahman" (dvija or vipra) and a " Vedic
scholar " (vedasastrartha-paraga), is nevertheless said to have
been a Rohilla (or Rohilladdhi).1 Though the meaning of the
latter designation is not exactly known, it is at least -certain
that it is not any Indian brahmanic term : it seems to point
to Harichandra having been of foreign extraction.
The facts which the statements of the pra&astis seem to
me to suggest are these. Harichandra by race belonged to
the Rohillas, a clan or sept of the foreign invaders. Among
them he held the position of a priest or wizard, or what
corresponded to that of the Brahman among the natives of
India. As such he not only claimed to be a Brahman, but
adopted Brahman practices and married a real Brahman
woman. In addition, being an influential Rohilla, he also
married a noble lady of the country, a real Kshatriya
princess. The sons of the latter lady naturally adhered to
the noble ' passions' of their class, especially in the matter

1
The word in the original is either Rohilla-dvy-anl:a or MolMladdhy -ahka,
pointing to a clan Rohilla or Rohilladdhi. Dvy-anlca, ' having two marks,'
might indicate that Harichandra belonged by birth to the Rohillas, but by
profession, or class, to the ' Brahmans.' Compare the term dvi-paksa as applieil
to the southern Chalukyas, Ind. Ant., xiv, 51, line 24.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 30 SOME PROBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY.

of drinking liquor ; and, as an indication of their noble birth,

as sons of a rajnl or princess, they were called raja-putra or
Rajputs, that is, princely sons. The sons of the Brahman
woman also followed the practices of their mother's class,
and abstained from drink, and consequently they took rank
as a species of Brahmans. Thus there arose Parihar
Brahmans and Parihar Rajputs. Here we have an actual
example of the mergence of a foreign people into the
Hindu population, to which Mr. Bhandarkar refers in the
concluding paragraph of his paper on the Gurjaras (pp. 20,
21). With his remarks I fully agree. But what is
interesting is that we have in the two Parihar prasastis
such an early testimony to the actuality of the process of
fusion. It goes back to the middle of the ninth century;
and though the beginning of the fusion, according to the
prasastis themselves, must be placed about 200 years earlier,
in the middle of the seventh century, there is no good reason
to doubt the soundness of the tradition. It is a further
illustration of the general conclusion to which all the
traditions we have been examining point. The Rajput clans
are the result of intermarriages of foreign (Grurjara and
other) invaders with women of the native Indian ruling
classes. The period of the non-brahmanical foreign invasion
was one of great trouble and oppression for the Brahmanism
of the country. Those foreigners who intermarried with
natives were naturally disposed to favour and even adopt
Brahmanism; and in return the Brahmans naturalized them by
providing them with a respectable place in their caste system.
The earliest instances of such naturalization would appear
to have been those of the southern Chalukyas of the Dekhan
and the northern Parihars of Rajputana, occurring about
the sixth and seventh centuries respectively. The imperial
Gurjaras appear to have come later in the middle of the
eighth century (Devasakti); and the Parmars and Chohans
probably arose about the same time. The rise of the
Chaulukyas (Solankls) would seem to fall into the middle
of the tenth century. No doubt there must have been great
differences in the times and conditions of these several

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 SOME PROBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY. 31

growths.
to
On all points of detail we are still very much in
the dark: what we seem clearly to see is only the general
trend of the events.
In conclusion, I will venture to sketch, as a working
hypothesis, the outlines of the course of the history of this
period as it presents itself to my mind. In the earlier part
of the sixth century a great invasion took place into India
of Central Asiatic peoples, Huns, Gurjaras, and probably
others, whose exact interrelation we do not know. Their
first onset carried them as far east as Gwaliyor. For a time
their advance was stemmed by the signal defeat inflicted on
them about 533 A.D. by the Malava emperor Yasodharman-
Vikramaditya, and later by the efforts of the Kanauj
emperor, Harsha Vardhana. The foreign hordes, thus
checked in their eastward advance, divided. One (probably
the main) portion settled in Rajputana and the Panjab,
stragglers also in Southern Malwa. Another portion, known
as the Chalukyas, turned southward across the Narmada,
and about 550 A.D., under Pulikesin I, won for themselves
a kingdom with its capital at Badami, and, by the inter-
marriage of their chief with the old Brahmanic royal house
of the Pallavas, became naturalized in the Brahmanically
constituted Indian community. A period of about 200
years now followed, in the south, of the steady growth of
the Chalukya empire. In the north, it was a period of
quiescence of the northern settlers. During this period
a gradual fusion took place with the natives of the country,
as evidenced by the upgrowth of the Parihars in the middle
of the seventh century, and of the Parmars, Chohans, and
imperial Gurjaras in the middle of the eighth century.
This was the period of the nascence of the Rajput clans.
It was at last terminated by a fresh outbreak of the ethnic
volcano. About 780 A.D. the eastward movement was
resumed by the imperial Gurjaras of Rajputana, under
Vatsaraja. Their new onset led them as far as the borders
of Bengal. It was again temporarily checked by the
Rashtrakuta emperors, who, in the meanwhile, had subverted
the empire of the southern Chalukyas, and who represented

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676
 32 SOME PROBLEMS OF ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY.

a recrudescence of the native opposition to the foreign

invaders, enacted 200 years earlier under the Malava and
Kanauj emperors. The check was not permanently effective ;
Vatsaraja's successors succeeded in making good their advance,
and about 840 A.D., under Bhoja I, the Gurjara empire, with
its capital at Kanauj, embraced nearly the whole of northern
India, up to the borders of Bihar and Bengal (Gauda).
After Bhoja I, the Gurjara empire began to decline, owing
partly to the internal rivalry of the constituent clans
(Parmars, Chohans, Chandels, Parihars, Kachhwahas, etc.),
partly to external wars with the Chedis and Rashtrakutas.
About 950 A.D. the empire had shed a number of independent
sovereignties, Malwa, Bandelkhand, and several smaller ones
in Rajputana. At the same time, however—by way of
compensation, as it were—a fresh activity manifested itself
in a southerly direction. About 975 A.D. the Rashtrakuta
empire was subverted by a renascence of the Chalukya
power, and Lata was conquered by the Chaulukyas. The
latter, who were kinsmen of the Chalukyas, but had remained
behind in Rajputana, thus reverted to the original southward
movement of their kindred. In the meantime the stump
of the Gurjara empire, consisting of the small kingdom of
Kanauj, continued to exist for about a century longer, till,
about 1050 A.D., it was finally extinguished by the Gaharwar
Chandra Deva. This brings us near to the next great
foreign invasion of India by the Turki hordes, which, about
a century and a half later, from 1191 A.D. onwards, once
more changed the face of northern India.

P.8. to p. 2.—In Mr. Sibberrad's paper on the History of

Western Bundelkhand, the era of the dates is not mentioned.
It would seem that they are intended to be taken in terms of
the Christian era. In that case, 243 and 285 as dates A.D.
are obviously much too early. But if referred to the Gupta
era, they are much nearer the truth: 243 = 563 G.E., and
285 = 605 G.E.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 12 Oct 2018 at 17:18:34, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00032676