________________
OCTOBER, 1881.]
VALABHI GRANTS.
283
be that the Gurjara characters continued to be was buried in oblivion, as a perusal of the Jaina used a little longer,-- perhaps up to the end of the chronicles will show. ninth century. In the tenth century they were Irrespective of this point, there is another supplanted by the northern Kayastha-Nagari, historical fact which the forger must have known, which we find on Múlraja's grant" and other viz., that Gujarat for a time belonged to the unpublished documents. For these reasons, I kings of Valabhî. That this actually was the think, our grant can in no case be placed later case, I have proved by the grant of Dharasena than 850 or 900. But as its characters come very IV, dated Sam. 330. Now neither the bards close to those of Dadda's plates, it is probably nor the Jainas have the slightest notion of it. older and belongs to the 6th or 7th century. Nay it will be news to most antiquarians that
The fact that the forger knew something of Bharuch was actually conquered by the the ancient political history of Gujarat points Maharajadhiraja Chakravartin of Valabhî. Is to the same date. I have shown above that the | it, under these circumstances, likely that any. second part of our grant agrees in the main body but a man who lived shortly after the with the Umetâ and Ilâo grants, but that in time when the conquest happened should know two important particulars the date and the the fact ? That he knew it is plain enough, name of the writer wavers between the two. because he makes Dharasena II dispose of a The date is that of the Umetà sâsana, while village situated probably in the Surat collectorate. the name of the writer is identical with that The forgery would finally have been without of the Tao grant. This circumstance may be any practical object, if it had been made explained by assuming that the forger had during a period when the dominion of the access to both documents and mixed their con- Valabhsans over Gujarât had ceased or was no tents. But such an assumption is not safe longer fresh in the memory of the actual rulers. because the two grants were not given to The forger, of course, wanted to prove his own, members of the same family or of the same or his employer's title to the village of Nandiar. Brahmanical tribe. The Umetà grant originally If the actual rulers had not either been Valabhians belonged to a Kánya kubja Brâhman and or at least had known something about the fact the Ilâo grant to an Abhich hattra (i.e. that the Valabhsans once held the country, be Ahichhattra) Brâhman. Now Brâhmans are not would certainly not have taken the trouble to at all communicative with regard to their family insert the name of Dharasena. He would have documents, and it must be a curious accident chosen some other king whose name was known. which gave to one and the same person access to Hence and because the fact of the Valabhsan both documents. It is much more likely that he rule over Gujarat was soon forgotten, we are saw only one of the documents, the Umetà sasana, driven again to the same conclusion that the and took from this the wording of the second forger lived not very long after the date which part of his composition, and the date, which he he inserted in his grant. could not have possibly given. But if that be so, Enough has been said, I think, to make this he must have got the name of Reva, the son point credible. The conclusions to be drawn of Madhav a, from his knowledge of history from it regarding the credibility of the chief The fact that such a man existed and held the historical statement of our grant, viz., that the office of Sándhivigrahika, could, in the absence Saka year 400 fell in the reign of Dharascna of annals, only be known to a person who lived II, and that Dharasena possessed Gujarat in not long after the times of Dadda II, i.e. in that year, I reserve for another paper, in which the 6th or perhaps in the 7th century. Later I intend to discuss the question of the Valabla the knowledge of this whole period of history and Gupta eras.
Plate I. [1] ओं स्वस्ति श्रीवलभितः सकलपृथ्वीपालमौलिमालापरिचुंबितचरणारविन्दो निजभुजस्लम्भोद्भुतवि-" [2] श्वविश्वांभरभारः परममाहेस्वरो निजभुजबलनिहतसकलरिपुकुलललनालोचनः कमलविनि23 Ind. Ant., vol. V, p. 191.
| * L. 1, read of:.-L. 2. read (aur; OHET; .
