________________
180
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
(JULY, 1883.
happa. Both these points, it is evident, were to five generations. This fact alone is sufficient also mentioned in the Kavi grant. But as the to show that the period must have been a time corresponding verses, 13 and 15 are mutilated, of troubles and wars, and that Kakka III, they were not intelligible. I am unable to say must have come to the throne late in life and who this Råhapya was. The only list in have died or have been killed soon after, when which I find a similar name is that of the his son and grandson were already grown up. princes of Mevad. Professor H. H. Wilson Else it would be incredible that five generations mentions' a Rahup, who reigned about 1200 could have ruled within less than half a century. A.D. Of course that individual cannot be The few details given regarding the reign of identical with the enemy of Krishna I. each of the four new kings, fully bear out the Secondly, we hear (vs. 23, 24), for the first time assertion that they had a hard life and with the real name of the son of Govinda III, difficulty held their own. Vs. 29 says of Kakka who is tusually called Amoghavarsha III, surnamed Amoghavarsha, that he According to our plates it was Sarva. If we conquered 'the tributary Rashtrakatas, who turn to the history of the Gujarât line, it is were firmly allied and occupied districts accorinteresting to note that the statement of the ding to their own will' (svechchhágrihitavishother plates, according to which Indra II. ayán dridhasanghabhájah gulki ka-Rashtrareceived Gujarât from his brother, is repeated kútán). His son, Dhruva II, called also in somewhat different terms. The district is Nirupama, according to vs. 32, lost his life in here (vs. 26) called látiyari mandalam, the battle "after putting to flight the army of a province of L â ţa,' not Láteśvaramandalam, as king named Vallabh a.' But the victory the Baroda and Kåvi plates have it. This new must have been as doubtful as it was dearly version shows clearly that my formerly pro- bought. For, as vs. 34 asserts, Dhruva's son, posed rendering of the latter expression, the Akala varsha or Subhatunga, whose province of the lord of Lata', is correct, and wicked servants were disloyal,' had to recover" that the idea of the earlier translators of the his paternal realm 'which had been attacked by grant, who speak of a "province called Vallabh a' This can only mean that Låteśvara," is erroneous. The dependent Vallabha, though he may have been checked by position of Indra II. and of his successors Dhruva II, remained powerful enough to is plainly admitted by our grant, which calls renew his attack, and used the confusion arising Gôvinda III, the svamin or master, of his on his adversary's death to win over the minisyounger brother. Another highly interesting ters or generals of the latter, and became by their point is that our grant does not name Govinda help, for a time at least, master of the Bharoch IV, the second son of Indra II, who, as the kingdom. Though Akâ la varsha, accord Kavi plates show, ruled after his brother, Karka ing to our grant, subsequently conquered both or Kakka II. As he was the uncle of Kakka | Vallabha and the treacherous officials, still III, whom our grant places immediately aftermatters did not mend. For his son and succes. Kakka II, it is very probable that the lattersor, Dhruva III, the donor of our grant, died while his son was a minor, and that according to v. 37, had again trouble with Gôvinda IV, deprived his nephew of his hostile' (vimukha) Vallabha, and with rightful inheritance. The erasion of his name seditious kinsmen (viksitimágatabándhavdh). from the list of Gujarat Rathors in a grant Moreover, he was assailed by 'the very powerful issued by the great-grandson of Kakka army of the Gûrjaras,' (vs. 37-38), with III, is probably intentional, and meant as a whom an unnamed younger brother of his had punishment for his disloyalty. The informa- allied himself. Finally a king, called Mihira, tion, too, which our grant gives regarding the attacked Dhruva, but suffered defeat (vs. 41). hitherto unknown four Rathor kings of Guja- Though the verses 38-42 repeatedly assert that råt is very valuable. We learn that in the short Dhruva resisted all his enemies anaided, the space of forty years between Saka Samvat 749 and contradictory statement made at the end of 789, no fewer than five princes ruled who belonged the grant (vs. 58-59), that another brother • Prinsep's Essays, vol. II, p. 257...
given formerly wrongly represent the Govinda IV as the The pedigrees of the Rashtrakūtas which I have son of Karka II.
