[31] This change of title was probably connected with the increase of Gurjara power, which resulted in the founding of the Gurjara kingdom of Broach about a.d. 580. See Chapter X. below. [↑]
[34] Kávyamidam rachitam mayá Valabhyám, Śrí Dharasena-narendra pálitáyám. [↑]
[36] Journ. Beng. A. S. IV. and an unpublished grant in the museum of the B. B. R. A. Soc. [↑]
[38] Since his authorities mention the destroyers of Valabhi under the vague term mlechchhas or barbarians and since the era in which they date the overthrow may be either the Vikrama b.c. 57, the Śaka a.d. 78, or the Valabhi a.d. 319, Tod is forced to offer many suggestions. His proposed dates are a.d. 244 Vik. Saṃ. 300 (Western India, 269), a.d. 424 Val. Saṃ. 105 (Ditto, 51 and 214), a.d. 524 Val. Saṃ. 205 (Annals of Rájasthán, I. 83 and 217–220), and a.d. 619 Val. Saṃ. 300 (Western India, 352). Tod identifies the barbarian destroyers of Valabhi either with the descendants of the second century Parthians, or with the White Huns Getes or Káthis, or with a mixture of these who in the beginning of the sixth century supplanted the Parthians (An. of Ráj. I. 83 and 217–220; Western India, 214, 352). Elliot (History, I. 408) accepting Tod’s date a.d. 524 refers the overthrow to Skythian barbarians from Sindh. Elphinstone, also accepting a.d. 524 as an approximate date, suggested (History, 3rd Edition, 212) as the destroyer the Sassanian Naushirván or Chosroes the Great (a.d. 531–579) citing in support of a Sassanian inroad Malcolm’s Persia, I. 141 and Pottinger’s Travels, 386. Forbes (Rás Málá, I. 22) notes that the Jain accounts give the date of the overthrow Vik. Saṃ. 375 that is a.d. 319 apparently in confusion with the epoch of the Gupta era which the Valabhi kings adopted.[39] Forbes says (Ditto, 24): If the destroyers had not been called mlechchhas I might have supposed them to be the Dakhan Chálukyas. Genl. Cunningham (Anc. Geog. 318) holds that the date of the destruction was a.d. 658 and the destroyer the Ráshṭrakúṭa Rája Govind who restored the ancient family of Sauráshṭra. Thomas (Prinsep’s Useful Tables, 158) fixes the destruction of Valabhi at a.d. 745 (S. 802). In the Káthiáwár Gazetteer Col. Watson in one passage (page 671) says the destroyers may have been the early Muhammadans who retired as quickly as they came. In another passage (page 274), accepting Mr. Burgess’ (Arch. Sur. Rep. IV. 75) Gupta era of a.d. 195 and an overthrow date of a.d. 642, and citing a Wadhwán couplet telling how Ebhal Valabhi withstood the Iranians, Col. Watson suggests the destroyers may have been Iranians. If the Pársis came in a.d. 642 they must have come not as raiders but as refugees. If they could they would not have destroyed Valabhi. If the Pársis destroyed Valabhi where next did they flee to. [↑]
[39] Similarly S. 205 the date given by some of Col. Tod’s authorities (An. of Ráj. I. 82 and 217–220) represents a.d. 524 the practical establishment of the Valabhi dynasty. The mistake of ascribing an era to the overthrow not to the founding of a state occurs (compare Sachau’s Alberuni, II. 6) in the case both of the Vikrama era b.c. 57 and of the Śáliváhana era a.d. 78. In both these cases the error was intentional. It was devised with the aim of hiding the supremacy of foreigners in early Hindu history. So also, according to Alberuni’s information (Sachau, II. 7) the Guptakála a.d. 319 marks the ceasing not the beginning of the wicked and powerful Guptas. This device is not confined to India. His Mede informant told Herodotus (b.c. 450 Rawlinson’s Herodotus, I. 407) that b.c. 708 was the founding of the Median monarchy. The date really marked the overthrow of the Medes by the Assyrian Sargon. [↑]