________________
No. 39.)
TWO HARSOLA GRANTS OF PARAMARA SIYAKA OF V. S. 1005.
239
held sway over Gujarāt, he admits that no materials exist for fixing how long after A.D. 914, Gujarat belonged to the Manyakheta Rashtrakūtas, and ventures the suggestion that probably they continued until their destruction in A.D. 972 by the Chālukya king Taila or Tailapa. The present grants, I think, would go to supply the required information to a large extent. It is possible that the Yögarāja of the present grants was a chief of the Chäpotkata or Chāvdā dynasty of Anahilavāda-Pātan (if the account of some Jain prabandhas that the Chāvda rule ended in V. S. 1017 instead of in V. S. 998 is correct), or of the Chalukya dynasty of Southern Käthiāwār. As Siyaka when returning from his expedition against Yögarāja was encamped (near Sārnāl) on the banks of the Mahi, it follows that Yögarāja's principality must lie somewhere to the west of the Mahi and of the Khotaka-mandala, which was in his own possession. The Chấpotkatas of Patan and the Chālukyas of South Käthiāwār acknowledged the overlordship of the Pratibāra kings of Kanauj and Siyaka's intimate connection with the Rāshtrakūtas, the enemies of the Pratihāras, explains why he attacked Yogaraja.
The Siyaka of the present grants is no doubt Siyaka II, the father of Vākpati-Muñja, whose date in his Dharampuri copper plates being 974 A. D. was 25 years later than the date of the present records or, just the period of a generation. In fact Mabel Duff actually gives 950 A.D. as the date of Siyaka II, the Paramāra, probably working backwards from the known dates of Väkpati-Muñja. He is also identical with the Siyaka of the Ahmadābād grant of V. 8. 1026. Biyaka's father's name is Vairisimha in this, as well as in all previously known Paramāra records. The Vākpati-Muñja grants give the name of the father of Vairisimha as Krishna, who may be identical with Bappaiparāja of the present grant and with Vākpati I of the Navasähasānkacharita of Parimala and the Udayapur Prasasti. It may be noted that Bappai is a good Präkfit equivalent of Vakpati.
The Udayapur Prasasti further mentions two forbears of Vākpati I, viz., Vairisimha I and Siyaka I, but as no historical fact is recorded regarding them except that they followed each other in the direct line of succession, we can assume that they had not established their power, and the first prince of the family who assumed importance was Bappaipa or Vikpati or Krishna.
We find no mention in the present records of the mythical ancestor Paramāra, born of the sacrificial fire on Mount Abu. Mr. C. V. Vaidya in his article on the exploded myth of Agnikulas mentions that of the four supposed Agnikula families only the Paramāras seem to trace their descent to Agni, from their Udayapur inscription. At least the present records, which are earlier than any other record of the Paramāras, are silent on this point.
The presence of the birudas Amöghavarsha Prithvivallabha and Srivallabha among the titles of Vākpati-Muñja have never been explained before, but on the basis of the relationship of the Paramāras with the Rashtrakūtas revealed by the present grants, it is now possible to do so. From the fact that only Amõghavarsha I and Akālavarsha (Kțishna II) are mentioned in the plates, it seems that these two princes were held in special esteem by the early Paramāras. What exactly the relation between the two families was it is difficult to say, but possibly the Paramāras were descended from a Rāshtrakūta princess. As some of the Vākāțaka' plates begin with & 1 Bombay Gazetteer, VoL I, Part I, page 131.
Above Vol. IX, p. 2t. . Ind. Ant., Vol. VI, p. 48f. • The Chronology of India, P. 92. See also Journal of Indian History, Vol. IV, p. 80. . Above Vol. I, p. 333.
• Or their names might have been repeated in the genenlogy through mistake. See Proceedings of the Madras Oriental Conference, p. 803ft. and History of Medical Hindu India by C V. Vaidya, Vol. II, p. 118.
1J. B. B. R. A. 8., Vol. XXVI, p. 110. . Abovo Vol. XV, p. 39 and Ind. An , Vol. LIII, p. 48.
