________________
46
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[NOVEMBER, 1928
of the plates to refer to towns and villages is by mentioning the territorial division in which they were situated. The fact that Simhapura is mentioned by itself shows that it was then too well known to need any such reference.
How much older than the sixth century the city is we do not know. Among the several cities mentioned in Ptolemy or the Periplus, it does not bear resemblance to any, nor are there any inscriptional or litorary references to it. So the exact antiquity of the city we cannot determino.
In the tenth century, the city becamo a colony of Audichya Brahmanas who came to reside there at the invitation of Malardja. Siddharája Jayasimha is said to have assigned a hundred villages 101 to this Audichya colony in the twelfth century.
The site of the old city is half a mile away from the modern village. In connection with the name of the place, it is interesting to note that as late as the middle of the last century, lions were numerous in the adjoining forest-clad bills; even now there are many panthere.
51. Saml. Among the cities east of the Indus Ptolemy (p. 150 ff.) mentions one as Auxoamis or Ayumis. Saint Marten identifies this with Sami, the capital of a Muhammadan chief, lying a little to the east of the Saraswati and 25 miles from the coast. Yule, however, thinks that Auzoamis is Ajmer, but this is doubtful, for the sequence of the oities mentioned leads us to think that the city in question should be not far from Astakapra and Theophile, both of which are situated in the peninsula. Ajmer besides is too much inland. Saint Marten's identification too is by no means convincing ; we are inclined to think that modern Sami may not be so old. We are, however, unable to propose any identification for Auxoamis of Ptolemy. It was probably in Rajputana as it is stated to be to the east of the Indus and not in Gujarat.
52. Suryapura. A grant of Siladitya V dated 441 G.E. mentions one Saryapura as the head. quarter of a vishaya or district. Forbes names Suryapura as one of the harbours of Anahila vad kingdom and thinks that it may be Surat. 192 But this view has to be rejected. In the first place Surat is a modern town; we have already seen that Karmântapura was the chief city in Surat district in ancient times. It is hardly possible for two cities situated two miles apart to flourish together. Secondly, we must remember that the Chavotakas never possessed the Lata provinces; it was as late as the time of Solanki Karņa (1064—1094] that the territories upto modern Ahmedabad came under the Solanki sway. It is almost oertain that the Solankis never possessed territories so much to the south as Surat. For Godhra and Bharoch were independent chiefships even in the twelfth century when the Solanki power was at its height ; how then is it possible to maintain that Suryapura was Surat and was a port of the Anahilwad kingdom?
The Silâditya grant above referred to was issued from Godhra ; Säryapura then must have been somewhere in the Panch Mahals or even further to the east. The grant says खुर्वपुरविषये वप्पोहनदीताहेबाभवटकमामः There is a village Bhaliawad in Dohad Taluka on & rivulet which is not named in the map. If this is our Babuvataka, Süryapura must be situated within a radius of about 40 miles from it. We are unable however to propose any identification as we can discover no village bearing a name resembling Suryapura within that radius. Of course there is one Surpur in Bikaner State but as the dominion of the Valabhis never extended beyond Anandapura, it cannot be our Suryapura. .
191
Pbc., p. 107.
193 Ras Maia, I, p. 245.
