________________
No. 33]
HILOL PLATES OF YEAR 470
215
modified Gupta era, known later as the Valabhi era. Lastly, there was the Vikrama era which is current today and was popularised by the Chaulukyas.
The script of our record shows that the year 470 cannot be referred to the Saka or Vikrama era. We have to choose between the Kalachuri and the Gupta-Valabhi. If the year is referred to the former, the grant would be dated in 718-19 A.D. But the details of the date do not agree. Moreover, as Dr. Shastri has pointed out, Northern Gujarat, where the present grant was found and the land donated was situated, was at this time under Siladitya V, and not Kakka. The year 470 may therefore be referred to the Gupta-Valabhi era so as to yield 788 A. D.
A Rashtrakuta king named Kakka (II), who enjoyed the titles Paramabhaṭṭāraka Mahārājādhiraja and Paramesvara, is known to have ruled Southern Lata around Surat about 757 A.D.1 Dr. Shastri thinks that he drove out the Chahamanas of Broach and later, when Valabhi was destroyed by the Arabs in 788 A.D., extended his sway over the former territories of the Maitrakas which included Kheṭaka of our grant."
This is a plausible suggestion, though there are some difficulties in accepting it. Firstly, we do not know Kakkarāja to have ruled for so long a period, some 30 years or more. From 750 A.D., the Imperial Rashtrakutas had begun their raids over Gujarat and, by 788 A.D., Southern and Central Gujarat came fully under their control. It is therefore difficult to reconcile Kakka's rule over the area since his relationship with the imperial family is unknown. But, if the identification is accepted, it explains how in his inscription of 757 A.D. Kakka claims imperial titles and why no details are given in our grant. It appears that he or his successors, bearing the same name had a precarious rule over Central and Northern Gujarat contemporaneoulsy with the emperors of the Imperial dynasty. It may further be said that Samanta Chandräditya, as the title aditya suggests, was a member of the Maitraka family stationed at Harshapura by the king of Valabhi. He might have been retained in this position by the new ruler and, according to the practice in the region, dated the grant in the Valabhi era. The saptami fell on Monday, the 10th November 788 A.D., though Dr. Shastri says that the date would correspond to Tuesday, 11th November 788 A.D. According to him, the grant indicates that the destruction of Valabhi by the Arabs took place before this date."
It may, however, be pointed out that there is one more Karka or Kakka of the Rashtrakuṭa family of Central India, who is said to have defeated a king named Nagavalōka. And a brother of his father Jöjja had, after defeating the Karnatas, taken possession of the Lata kingdom. It is with this Karkarāja, that we may, with greater probablity, identify our Kakka. Chandraditya's grant shows that Kakka was in actual possession of the present Districts of Ahmedabad and Kaira, which he presumably took from Nagavalōka, i.e. Nagabhața II. Under Dantidurga, his uncle defeated the Western Chalukyas and advanced further into Central India and founded a kingdom. It has, however, to be admitted that the name of the ruler as found in our record can also be read as Nanna and that the nature of the grant creates a doubt as to its genuineness."
The existence of so many Samanta Brahmanas with a Brahmana general of the army (mahābalädhikrita) implies the prevalence of a strong well-organized Brahmana feudalism in Gujarat.
JBBRAS, Vol. XVI, pp. 105-13.
This is not unlikely, as he is specifically said to have driven out the leaders of his enemies (ibid., p. 111). According to Altekar, he was a nephew of Dantidurga who appointed him to rule over this region. See The Age of Imperial Kanauj (History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol. IV, Bombay, 1955), p. 2.
"Swamikannu Pillai, Indian Ephemeris, Vol. I, Part ii (1922), p. 179.
Shastri, Maitrak-kalin Gujarat, Vol. I, pp 157-58. [See below, p. 219.-Ed.]
See the Pathari inscription above, Vol. IX, pp. 248 ft. Persons with such a name among the Gurjara-Pratähäras need not be considered, as none of them claims to be an emperor.
[See below, p. 219.-Ed.
