________________
OCTOBER, 1881.]
VALABHI GRANTS.
281
This synopsis shows clearly that my former | the Valabhsans ruled with one Sándhivigrahika expression, declaring this sásana to be an exact only. For both the grants of Dharasena IV, copy of the Umetà grant, is too strong, but which dispose of villages in Sorath and in that if it is a forgery, its affinity to the latter Gohelvad" and his grant of Sam. 330 which and to the Ilão grant presupposes an acquaint- was issued at Bharuch, and refers to a village ance with either both those grants or with one situated in the Kheda Zillâ, were written by of them and with the political history of the one and the same minister Skandabhata, Gurjara kingdom. I feel compelled also to the son of Chandra bhatti." If Dharasena retract my former assertion that the resemblance IV contented himself with one minister, it is between the Umeta sasana and this may be used certainly not likely that Dharasena II, wh as an argument against the genuineness of the was a much smaller prince, kept two. The latter. But I maintain now that its date and second alternative-the supposition that Reva the statement about the writer, the minister for might have succeeded Skandabhata is not probpeace and war Reva, the son of Madhava, able, because the office of Sandhivigrahika furnish an additional argument for considering seems to have been hereditary at Valabhi for a our grant spurious. The undoubted grants of considerable period. From Sam. 246-270 we find Dharasena II, which range between the year Skanda bhata ; next from Sam. 286-290 252-270 of the peculiar era of the Valabhi grants, Chandra bhatti; further Sam 310, Vasaare all countersigned by the minister for peace bhatti;'* from Saṁ. 322-330, Skandaand war, the chief secretary Skandabhat ay bhata, the son of Chandrabhatti; and from Sain. while our grant bears the countersignature of 332-348, Anahila, the son of Skandabhata. Reva, the son of Madhava. This same Now, though the grants do not state that Skandabhata, as we learn from Guha sena's Chandrabhatti was the son of the first Skangrants dated Saṁ. 246 and 248, was also em- dabhata, that is highly probable, because Chanployed as minister by Dharasena's father. It is drabhatti's son is again called Skandabhata, clear that we have here to deal with a fact which and it is customary with Hindus to name a. seems to go against the genuineness of our grant. child after its grandfather. Under these In order to remove it, it might, however, be circumstances the appearance of the name of a contended that Reva might either have held stranger in a grant of Dharasena is suspicious. office simultaneously with Skandabhata or during But this suspicion becomes stronger if it is the last portion of Dharasena's reign, which borne in mind that in Saka Samyat 417 the as the first grant of his son Siladitya I is dated Ildo grant of Dadda II was written by the Sam. 286, must have ended some time between minister Reva, the son of Madhava, and Sam. 270 and Sam. 286. In favour of the former that the general Madhava the son of Gila ka alternative it might further be said, that Indian wrote a grant for Dadda II on the same day prinoes sometimes actually employed two Sán- that Reva, who probably was his son, is said dhivigrahikas, and the case of the Silahâra to have written one for Dharasena II, the foe Chhittar âja might be adduced as an instance. of the Gurjara kings. It seems to me that For, as we learn from the Bhandûp plates, that every attempt to uphold the genuineness of prince had besides his Sándhivigrahika Siha- our grant entangles us in a maze of impropaiya, a second minister for peace and war, babilities. We should have firstly to assume Kapardi for Kanarâ. It might further be that a Brahmana from continental Gujarat, for argued that such an arrangement would be as such is Reva marked by his name,"succeeded natural for Dharasena II, as he held portions of temporarily to an office held for generations by Kathiâvàd and of continental Gujarat. Plausi- inhabitants of Valabhî, while his father held ble as this explanation may appear, it can- office under a hostile king; and secondly, that not be accepted, because through the grants of afterwards he entered the service of that king Dharasena IV we have certain evidence that whom his father served. It will be necessary to 11 Ind. Ant., vol. V, p. 280.
the facsimile appears clear, the name is not quite certain, 1 Ind. Ant., vol. I, pp. 16, 45.
and may be a mistake for Chandrabhatti. 13 This is the correct form of the name, not Vasha- 15 The modern form would be RevRankar, & Dame bhatti or Vatrabhatti as Prof. Bhandarkar doubtingly which is extremely common among the BrAhmane, 08геаdѕ.
pecially the Nagars living between the Tapti and the ** Ind. Ant., vol. VI, p. 16. I must add that, though Sebharmatt
