________________
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
(VOL. XX.
is not very clear, the inscription being broken at the corner. It appears, however, that the Mahatara Jentaka, having seen the approach of the messengers of Yama entered fire (?) or com. mitted suicide at the holy place of Dēbuvaka. The record ends with the date 703 Katika
Kürttika) di ()-. Evidently the year belongs to the Mälava-Vikrama era and corresponds to 646 A.C.
As regards the personages mentioned in the inscription it would appear that Siladitya was a scion of the Guhila family of Mewar. This inference is supported by the documents which have already been published-e.g., the Āțapura inscription of Saktikumāra, the inscription of Chitor, datod V. S. 1331, the Mt. Ābū' inscription of Samarasimha. As has been pointed out by Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar, the name Sila in the Atapura inscription stands for Silāditya who was succeeded by Aparajita whose inscription, dated V. S. 718 (A. C. 661), has been alluded to above. Nothing of importance is recorded about the Mahatara Jentaka.
Vatanagara of the inscription is evidently the same as Vatao (Vațapura) which has been identified with Vasantagadh' in Sirohi State and is about 16 miles from Samõli, where the inscription was found.
This inscription is of special interost, as it enables us to rectify a mistake made in connection with the pedigree of Göha. Col. Tod supposed that Gõha (Guhila, Guhadatta, Guhāditya, elc., the founder of the Guhila family of Mewar, to which Siladitys of this inscription belongs) deBoended from the last Siladitya (Siladitya VI) of Valabhipura." The Alină copper-plate inscription of the last Silāditya of Valabhipura dated in Gupta Samvat 447 (A. C. 766-67), would show that he was the ruler of the Valabhi kingdom at least up to the date of his inscription, i.e., the latter half of the eighth century A. C.20 As the date of Silāditya of the present inscription is Samvat 703 (A. C. 646), that of Göha or Guhila, the fifth 11 predecessor from him, should fall in the latter half of the sixth century A. C., if an average reign of twenty years be assigned to each of the rulers precoding Siladitya (of Mewar). Thus there is a difference of about two centuries between the reigns of Gõha (Guhila) of Mewār and the last Silāditya of Valabhipurs. In other words, we might say that Göha (Guhila) had established his rule in Mewar about two centuries prior to the break up of the Valabhi kingdom. Therefore Gõha could not have been the descendant of the last Silāditya (Silāditya VI) of Valabhipura."
10 wafa HAETT
unifoqni ne : Ind. Ant., Vol. XXXIX, p. 191. • Bhavnagar Inscriptions, p. 75, v. 18. Ind. Ant., Vol. XVI, p. 348, v. 14.
Ibid, Vol. XXXIX, p. 180. . Cf. noto 1 above whore the kings are mentioned in succession. • Above, Vol. LX, p. 12.
* Ibid, p. 191. Of. also Ind. Ant., Vol. XXXIX, p. 187. [But V antagadh cannot be philologically derived from Vatanagara.--Ed.]
• Tod's Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan (W. Crooke's Edition), Vol. I, pp. 263-69.
C. 1. 1., Vol. III, pp. 171 ff. Dr. Fleet assigns the inscription to siladitya VIL In faot, Siladitya II of his book (vida p. 41, introduction) did not actually reign at Valabhi (Ind. An., Vol. V, p. 208 and Duff's Chronology. P. 308). Hence Siliditya VII ought to be siladitya VI. (This is a matter of opinion only, cf. Kialhorn's Northern List No. 487, footnote B.Ed.)
10 Duff's Chronology of India, p. 67. Tod's Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan (W. Crooke's Edition), VoL I, p. 254, note 3.
11 Ind. Ant., Vol. XXXIX, p. 188, Inscription No. IV. 11 Ser Ind. Ar., Voi. LVI, pp. 169 74.
