- (1) That though there is a resemblance between these grants and that of Dharasena II., still it does not prove more than that the forger of Dharasena’s grant had one of the other grants before him;
- (2) That, as the father’s name of the writer is not given in
the Kheḍá grants, it cannot be assumed that he was the
same person as the writer of the Iláo and Umetá grants;
and
Chapter X.
The Gurjjaras, a.d. 580–808. - (3) That genuine grants sometimes show that a description written for one king is afterwards applied to another, and that good or bad readings are no test of the age of a grant.
[1] Ind. Ant. V. 109ff; Ind. Ant. VII. 61ff.; Jour. R. A. S. (N. S.), I. 274ff.; Ind. Ant. XIII. 81–91; Jour. B. B. R. A. Soc. X. 19ff.; Ind. Ant. XIII. 115–119. Ind. Ant. XVII. and Ep. Ind. II. 19ff. [↑]
[3] That Nándor or Nándod was an old and important city is proved by the fact that Bráhmans and Vániás called Nándorás that is of Nándor are found throughout Gujarát, Mángrol and Chorvád on the South Káthiáváḍa coast have settlements of Velári betelvine cultivators who call themselves Nandora Vániás and apparently brought the betelvine from Nándod. Dr. Bühler, however, identifies the Nándípurí of the grants with an old fort of the same name about two miles north of the east gate of Broach. See Ind. Ant. VII. 62. [↑]
[4] Ind. Ant. XIII. 81, 88. [↑]
[6] The fact that the Umetá and Iláo plates give their grantor Dadda II. the title of Mahárájádhirája Supreme Lord of Great Kings, is one of the grounds for believing them forgeries. [↑]