________________
176
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
No. 24.-A NOTE ON THE PRINCE OF WALES MUSEUM PLATES OF JAYABHATA (III ?). BY PROF. V. V. MIRASHI, M.A., NAGPUR.
In his article1 entitled 'A Grant of the Gurjara King Jayabhața III: [Kalachuri] Year 486' Mr. G. V. Acharya has re-arranged the succession of the Early Gurjara princes. As the subject is of importance for the history of Gujarat, I propose to examine his views in the light of the published records of the dynasty.
Until the publication of the Prince of Wales Museum plates by Mr. Acharya in the aforementioned article, seven records of the Early Gurjaras were known to us. The genealogy together with relevant details about the birudas and religious creeds of the princes as mentioned in each is given below :
I and II-Kaira Plates" (K. 380 and 385)
Dadda
Jayabhata-Vitaraga T Dadda-Prasantaraga (Dinakara-charan-archchana-rata)
IV and V-Sankheda Plates (Two sets of K. 392)
Vitaraga
Dadda-Prasantaraga (Dinakara-charan-archchana-rata)
VII-Kävi Plate" (K. 486) Jayabhata
III-Sänkheḍā Plate (K. 391)
Vitaraga 1 Ranagraha (Dinakara-kiran-abhyarchchana-rata)
VI-Nausari Plates (K. 456)
[VOL. XXIV.
Dadda
Jayabhata
Dadda-Bahusahaya (Paramamahēévara)
Jayabhata (Paramamahēévara)
In the Kaira plates of K. 380 and 385 and the Sankheda plates (two sets) of K. 392 the same draft of the eulogistic portion is used with this difference that in the latter the portion descriptive of the donor's ancestors is omitted, the name of the donor's father being known only from the sign-manual at the end. The Sänkheḍā plate of K. 391 being the last plate of its set, contains no genealogical portion, but since it mentions that the grant was written with the permission of the illustrious Dadda who is mentioned separately from the donor Raṇagraha, we may take the latter to be a brothers and feudatory of Dadda-Prasantaraga. In the Nausari plates of K. 456
1 Above, Vol. XXIII, pp. 147 ff. Dr. Bhandarkar takes Radlagrafaku
dahaxe Val TI. DD. 19 ff) as it mentions no king. Similarly the of Northern India, p. 161, n. 3. What he proposes to read as Dadda-pad-äntarjääti[na] is really Dadda-påd. antajata[m] which is evidently a mistake for Dadda-pad-anujata[m].
