________________
202
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
Kumarapala himself is dated in Vikrama-Samvat 1202. According to Mêrutunga's Prabandhachintamani Jayasimhadêva reigned until Vikrama-Samvat 1199, and in the same author's Vicharaérênt the date of his death is given as the third day of the bright half of Karttika of Vikrama-Samvat 1199, and that of his successor's coronation as the fourth day of the bright half of Mârgasira of the same year. Ballâla, therefore, must have found his death between A.D. 1142 and 1169, the date of the Sômnâthpattan inscription. No king of that name, however, is found among the Paramâra rulers of Målava of this or, in fact, of any other period, and it is altogether improbable that Ballâla belonged to this dynasty. The question who he was and how he came to acquire the kingdom of Målava cannot be answered at present, but I wish to draw attention to the fact discussed at length by Professor Kielhorn that after the death of Yasôvarman, which must have occurred between A.D. 1135 and 1144, the Málava kingdom was for some time in a troubled state apt to rouse the ambitions of a conqueror or usurper.
[VOL. VIII.
Dhârâvarsha, who seems to have been extraordinarily fond of hunting expeditions (v. 37), was an enemy of the lord of Kaunkana or Konkan (v. 36), but no particulars are added. I have quoted already above the Mount Abû inscription of Vikrama-Samvat 1265 (A.D. 1209), where Dhârâvarsha, the lord of Chandrâvati, the Sambhu to the Asuras-the provincial chiefs (mendalika),' is mentioned as the feudatory of Bhimadêva II.
Bhirnagar Inser, p. 155 ff.
1 See the end of sarga III.
His younger brother Prahladana is called he' whose sword was dexterous in defending the illustrious Gûrjara king, when his power had been broken on the battle-field by Samantasimha' (v. 38). The Gurjara king who was saved by Prahladana from Sâmantasimha, of course, was Bhimadeva II., but it is difficult to say who that Sâmantasimha was. No further details being given and the name being not uncommon in this period, it is hardly possible to identify that prince with certainty. The person who in my opinion has the best right of being considered the Samantasimha of the inscription is the Guhila chief of that name mentioned in two inscriptions on Mount Abû and at Sâdadi. In the former inscriptions he takes the fifth place after Vijayasimha, who must have flourished about A.D. 1125,9 and the fifth place before Têjaḥsimha, whose Chitorgadh inscription is dated in Vikrama-Samvat 1324 A.D. 1257.10 He thus appears to have reigned about A.D. 1200, which would well accord with the fact that his adversary Prahladana was yuvaraja in A.D. 1209.11 Also from a geographical point of view there is no objection to my identification, as Médarâța, the country of the Guhilas, bordered the district ruled by the Paramâras of Chandrâvati. It would be quite natural therefore to find Prahladans defending his suzerain against the attack of a Guhila chief. That the relations between the Chaulukyas and the Guhilas were not always of a friendly nature is proved by a grant of Visaladeva, the son of Viradhavala, where the king is given the epithet Médapat akadéśakalusha-rajya-ralli-kand-ochchhedana-kuddula-kalpa, 'he who resembled a hoe for rooting out the bulb of (that) creeper-the turbulent government of the Mêdapâtaka country.' 12
Ind. Ant. Vol. X. p. 162.
Ind. Ant. Vol. XIX. p. 348.
The latest inscription of Yasôvarman is the Ujjain plate of Vikrama-Samvat 1192, and the earliest in-cription of his son Lakshmivarman is the Ujjain plate of Vikrama-Samvat 1200. See Ind. Ant. Vol. XIX. p. 349 and n. 352 f.
6 Ind. Ant. Vol. XVI. p. 347 f.
1 Bharnagar Inser, p. 114 ff.
The Sâdadi inscription, which is considerably later, slightly differs in its list of rames.
Vijayasimha's daughter was the Kalachuri queen Alhanadevi, whose Bléra-Ghât inscription is dated in the year 907 of the Kalachuri-Chêdi era A.D. 1155; see Ep. Ind. Vol. II. p. 7 ff.
10 Journ. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. LV. Part I. p. 46 f.
11 Ind. Ant. Vol. XI. p. 222.
sa Ind. Ant. Vol. VI. p. 210.
