Chapter I.
The ChÁva?Ás, a.d.720–956. The history embodied in the preceding chapters is more or less fragmentary, pieced together from coins, stone and copperplate inscriptions, local traditions, and other similar sources. A history based on such materials alone must of necessity be imperfect, leaving blanks which it may be hoped fresh details will gradually fill.

The rise of the A?ahilavÁ?a kingdom (a.d.720) marks a new period of GujarÁt history regarding which materials are available from formal historical writings.1 Though this section of GujarÁt history begins with the establishment of A?ahilavÁ?a by the ChÁva?Ás (a.d.720–956) the details for the earlier portions are very imperfect being written during the time of the ChÁlukya or Solan?ki (a.d.957–1242) successors of the ChÁva?Ás. The chief sources of information regarding the earlier period of ChÁva?Á rule are the opening chapters of the PrabandhachintÁma?i, VichÁrasre?i, Suk?itasankÍrtana, and RatnamÁlÁ.2

PaÑchÁsar, a.d.788.Before the establishment of A?ahilavÁ?a a small ChÁva?Á chiefship centred at PaÑchÁsar, now a fair-sized village in VadhiÁr between GujarÁt and Kacch.3 The existence of a ChÁva?Á chiefship at PaÑchÁsar is proved by the NavsÁrÍ grant dated Sam?vat 490 (a.d.788–89) of the GujarÁt ChÁlukya king PulikesÍ JanÁsraya. This grant in recording the triumphant progress of an army of TÁjikas or Arabs
Chapter I.
The ChÁva?Ás, a.d.720–956.
PaÑchÁsar, a.d.788. from Sindh to NavsÁrÍ and mentioning the kingdoms “afflicted” by the Arabs, names the ChÁvo?akas next after the kings of Kacch and SaurÁsh?ra. These ChÁvo?akas can be no other than the ChÁva?Ás of PaÑchÁsar on the borders of Kacch. The ChÁva?Ás of PaÑchÁsar do not appear to have been important rulers. At the most they seem to have held VadhiÁr and part of the north coast of KÁthiÁvÁ?a. Whatever be the origin of the name ChÁva?Á, which was afterwards Sanskritised into the highsounding ChÁpo?ka?a or Strongbow, it does not seem to be the name of any great dynasty. The name very closely resembles the GujarÁti Chor (Prakrit Chau?Á or Chora?Á) meaning thieves or robbers; and JÁvadÁ, which is a further corruption of ChÁva?Á, is the word now in use in those parts for a thief or robber. Except the mention of the ChÁvo?akas in the NavsÁrÍ copperplate we do not find the ChÁva?Ás noticed in any known cotemporary GujarÁt copperplates. For this reason it seems fair to regard them as unimportant rulers over a territory extending from PaÑchÁsar to A?ahilavÁ?a.

Jayasekhara, a.d.696.The author of the RatnamÁlÁ (C. 1230 a.d.) says that in a.d.696 (S. 752) Jayasekhara the ChÁva?Á king of PaÑchÁsar was attacked by the Chaulukya king Bhuva?a of KalyÁnaka?aka in KanyÁkubja or Kanoj and slain by Bhuva?a in battle. Before his death Jayasekhara, finding his affairs hopeless, sent his pregnant wife RupasundarÍ to the forest in charge of her brother SurapÁla, one of his chief warriors. After Jayasekhara’s death RupasundarÍ gave birth to a son named VanarÁja who became the illustrious founder of A?ahilavÁ?a. It is hard to say how much truth underlies this tradition. In the seventh century not Chaulukya but PÁla kings flourished in Kanoj. No place of importance called KalyÁnaka?aka is recorded in the Kanoj territory. And though there was a southern ChÁlukya kingdom with its capital at KalyÁn, its establishment at KalyÁn was about the middle of the eleventh not in the seventh century. Further the known Dakhan ChÁlukya lists contain no king named Bhuva?a, unless he be the great ChÁlukya king VijayÁditya (a.d.696–733) also called BhuvanÁsraya, who warred in the north and was there imprisoned but made his escape. The inference is that the author of the RatnamÁlÁ, knowing the Solan?kis originally belonged to a city called KalyÁn, and knowing that a ChÁlukya king named Bhuva?a had defeated the ChÁva?Ás may have called Bhuva?a king of KalyÁnka?aka and identified KalyÁnka?aka with a country so well known to PurÁ?ic fame as KanyÁkubja. This view is supported by the absence in the PrabandhachintÁma?i and other old records of any mention of an invasion from Kanoj. It is possible that in a.d.696 some king Bhuva?a of the GujarÁt ChÁlukyas, of whom at this time branches were ruling as far north as Kaira,4 invaded the ChÁva?Ás under Jayasekhara. Since traces of a ChÁvo?aka kingdom remain, at least as late as a.d.720, it seems probable that the destruction of PaÑchÁsar was caused not by Bhuva?a in a.d.696, but in the Arab raid mentioned above whose date falls about a.d.720.5 About a.d.720 may therefore be taken as the date
Chapter I.
The ChÁva?Ás, a.d.720–956.
Jayasekhara, a.d.696. of the birth of VanarÁja. Merutu?ga the author of the PrabandhachintÁma?i tells how RupasundarÍ was living in the forest swinging her son in a hammock, when a Jain priest named SÍlagu?asÚri noticing as he passed royal marks on the boy bought him from his mother. The story adds that a nun named VÍramatÍ brought up the boy whom the sÁdhu called VanarÁja or the forest king. When eight years old, the priest employed VanarÁja to protect his place of worship from rats. The boy’s skill in shooting rats convinced the priest he was not fit to be a sÁdhu but was worthy of a kingdom. He therefore returned the boy to his mother. These details seem invented by the Jains in their own honour. No mention of any such story occurs in the RatnamÁlÁ.6

VanarÁja, a.d.720–780 (?).In the forests where VanarÁja passed his youth lived his maternal uncle SurapÁla, one of Jayasekhara’s generals, who, after his sovereign’s defeat and death, had become an outlaw. VanarÁja grew up under SurapÁla’s charge. The PrabandhachintÁma?i records the following story of the origin of VanarÁja’s wealth. A KanyÁkubja king married MahÁ?akÁ the daughter of a GujarÁt king. To receive the proceeds of the marriage cess which the GujarÁt king had levied from his subjects, a deputation or panchkÚla came from KanyÁkubja to GujarÁt. The deputation made VanarÁja their leader or sellabhrit to realize the proceeds of the cess. In six months VanarÁja collected 24 lÁkhs of PÁruttha drammas7 and 4000 horse, which the deputation took and started for KanyÁkubja. VanarÁja waylaid and killed them, secured the money and horses, and remained in hiding for a year. With the wealth thus acquired VanarÁja enrolled an army and established his power assuming the title of king. Founding of A?ahilavÁ?a, a.d.746–765.He fixed the site of a capital which afterwards rose to be the great city of A?ahilapura. The story of the choice of the site is the usual story of a hunted hare turning on the hounds showing the place to be the special nurse of strength and courage. VanarÁja is said to have asked a BharvÁ? or Shepherd named A?ahila son of SÁkhadÁ to show him the best site. A?ahila agreed on condition that the city should be called by his name. A?ahila accordingly showed VanarÁja the place where a hare had attacked and chased a dog. Though much in this tradition is fabulous the city may have been called after some local chief since it was popularly known as A?ahilavÁ?a (Sk. A?ahilavÁta) that is the place of A?ahila. In the PrabandhachintÁma?i Merutu?ga gives a.d.746 (S. 802) as the date of the installation of VanarÁja, while in his VichÁrasre?i the same author gives a.d.765 (S. 821 Vaisakha Sukla 2) as the date of the foundation of the city. The discrepancy may be explained by taking a.d.746 (S. 802) to refer to the date of VanarÁja’s getting money enough to fix the site of his capital, and a.d.765 (S. 821) to refer to the date of his installation in the completed A?ahilavÁ?a. Local tradition connects the date a.d.746 (S. 802) with an image of Ganpati which is said to be as old as the establishment of the city and
Chapter I.
The ChÁva?Ás, a.d.720–956.
Founding of A?ahilavÁ?a, a.d.746–765. to bear the date 802. But as the letters of the inscription on the image can be made out by ordinary readers they cannot have been inscribed at nearly so early a date as 802. a.d.765 (S. 821), the year given in the VichÁrasre?i, seems the more probable date for the installation as the PrabandhachintÁma?i says that VanarÁja got himself installed at A?ahilapura when he was about fifty.8 This accords with the date fixed on other grounds. Placing VanarÁja’s birth at about a.d.720 would make him 44 in a.d.765 (S. 821) the date at which according to the VichÁrasre?i he was formally installed as sovereign of A?ahilavÁ?a. Merutu?ga in both his works gives the length of VanarÁja’s life at 109 and of his reign at sixty years. The figure 60 seems to mark the length of his life and not of his reign. So long a reign as sixty years is barely possible for a sovereign who succeeded late in life, and the 109 years of his life can hardly be correct. Taking VanarÁja’s age at 45 when he was installed in a.d.765 (S. 821) and allowing fifteen years more to complete the sixty years a.d.780 (S. 836) would be the closing year of his reign.

VanarÁja’s Installation.The PrabandhachintÁma?i narrates how generously VanarÁja rewarded those who had helped him in his adversity. His installation was performed by a woman named SrÍ DevÍ of KÁkara village whom in fulfilment of an early promise VanarÁja had taken to be his sister.9 The story regarding the promise is that once when VanarÁja had gone with his uncle on a thieving expedition to KÁkara village and had broken into the house of a merchant he by mistake dipped his hand into a pot of curds. As to touch curds is the same as to dine at a house as a guest, VanarÁja left the house without taking anything from it.10 Hearing what had happened the merchant’s sister invited VanarÁja as a brother to dinner and gave him clothes. In return VanarÁja promised if he ever regained his father’s kingdom he should receive his installation as king at her hands.11 VanarÁja chose as minister a Bania named JÁmba. The story is that while VanarÁja was looting with two others he came across a merchant JÁmba who had five arrows. Seeing only three enemies, JÁmba broke and threw away two of the arrows, shouting ‘One for each of you.’ VanarÁja admiring his coolness persuaded JÁmba to join his band and found him so useful that he promised to make him minister. From the absence of any reference to him in these and similar tales it is probable that his uncle SurapÁla died before the installing of VanarÁja. VanarÁja is said to have built at A?ahilvÁ?a a Jain temple of PaÑchÁsarÁ PÁrasnÁth so called because the image was brought from the old settlement of PaÑchÁsar. Mention of this temple continues during the Solan?ki and VÁghelÁ times.

His Image.VanarÁja is said to have placed a bowing image of himself facing the image of PÁrasnÁth. The figure of VanarÁja is still shown at Sidhpur
Chapter I.
The ChÁva?Ás, a.d.720–956.
Image of VanarÁja. and a woodcut of it is given by the late Mr. Forbes in his RÁs MÁlÁ. It is clearly the figure of a king with the umbrella of state and a nimbus round the head and in the ears the long ornaments called kundalas noticed by Arab travellers as characteristic of the Balhara or RÁsh?rakÚ?a kings who were cotemporary with VanarÁja.12 The king wears a long beard, a short waistcloth or dhoti, a waistband or kammarband, and a shoulder garment or uparna whose ends hang down the back. Besides the earrings he is adorned with bracelets armlets and anklets and a large ornament hangs across the chest from the left shoulder to the right hip. The right hand is held near the chest in the act of granting protection: and the left hand holds something which cannot be made out. By his side is the umbrella-bearer and five other attendants. The statue closely resembles the lifesize figure of a king of the Solan?ki period lying in the yard of a temple at MÁliÁ about twenty-four miles north of SomanÁtha Patan. At SomanÁtha Patan are similar but less rich cotemporary figures of local officers of the Solan?kis. Another similar figure of which only the torso remains is the statue of AnrÁja the father of VastupÁla in a niche in VastupÁla’s temple at GirnÁr. The details of this figure belong to the Solan?ki period.

VanarÁja’s Successors, a.d.780–961.The lists of VanarÁja’s successors vary so greatly in the names, in the order of succession, and in the lengths of reigns, that little trust can be placed in them. The first three agree in giving a duration of 196 years to the ChÁva?Á dynasty after the accession of VanarÁja. The accession of the Solan?ki founder MÚlarÁja is given in the VichÁrasre?i at Sam?vat 1017 and in the PrabandhachintÁma?i at Sam?vat 998 corresponding with the original difference of nineteen years (S. 802 and 821) in the founding of the city. This shows that though the total duration of the dynasty was traditionally known to be 196 years the order of succession was not known and guesses were made as to the duration of the different reigns. Certain dates fixed by inscriptions or otherwise known to some compilers and not known to others caused many discrepancies in the various accounts.

YogarÁja, a.d.806–841.According to the calculations given above VanarÁja’s reign lasted to about a.d.780. Authorities agree that VanarÁja was succeeded by his son YogarÁja. The length of YogarÁja’s reign is given as thirty-five years by the PrabandhachintÁma?i and the RatnamÁlÁ, and as twenty-nine by the VichÁrasre?i. That is according to the PrabandhachintÁma?i and RatnamÁlÁ his reign closes in a.d.841 (S. 897) and according to the VichÁrasre?i in a.d.836 (S. 891). On the whole the PrabandhachintÁma?i date a.d.841 (S. 897) seems the more probable. The author of the VichÁrasre?i may have mistaken the 7 of the manuscripts for a 1, the two figures in the manuscripts of that date being closely alike. If a.d.780 is taken as the close of VanarÁja’s reign and a.d.806 as the beginning of YogarÁja’s reign an interval of twenty-six years is left. This blank, which perhaps accounts for the improbably long reign and life assigned to VanarÁja, may have been filled by the forgotten reign of a childless elder brother of YogarÁja.

Chapter I.
The ChÁva?Ás, a.d.720–956.
YogarÁja, a.d.806–814. Of YogarÁja the PrabandhachintÁma?i tells the following tale. KshemarÁja one of YogarÁja’s three sons reported that several ships were storm-stayed at PrabhÁsa or SomanÁtha. The ships had 10,000 horses, many elephants, and millions of money and treasure. KshemarÁja prayed that he might seize the treasure. YogarÁja forbad him. In spite of their father’s orders the sons seized the treasure and brought it to the king. YogarÁja said nothing. And when the people asked him why he was silent he answered: To say I approve would be a sin; to say I do not approve would annoy you. Hitherto on account of an ancestor’s misdeeds we have been laughed at as a nation of thieves. Our name was improving and we were rising to the rank of true kings. This act of my sons has renewed the old stain. YogarÁja would not be comforted and mounted the funeral pyre.

KshemarÁja, a.d.841–880.According to the PrabandhachintÁma?i in a.d.841 (S. 898) YogarÁja was succeeded by his son KshemarÁja. The VichÁrasre?i says that YogarÁja was succeeded by RatnÁditya who reigned three years, and he by Vairisim?ha who reigned eleven years. Then came KshemarÁja who is mentioned as the son of YogarÁja and as coming to the throne in a.d.849 (S. 905). The relationship of YogarÁja to RatnÁditya and Vairisim?ha is not given. Probably both were sons of YogarÁja as the PrabandhachintÁma?i mentions that YogarÁja had three sons. The duration of KshemarÁja’s reign is given as thirty-nine years. It is probable that the reigns of the three brothers lasted altogether for thirty-nine years, fourteen years for the two elder brothers and twenty-five years for KshemarÁja the period mentioned by the PrabandhachintÁma?i. Accepting this chronology a.d.880 (S. 936) will be the date of the close of KshemarÁja’s reign.

ChÁmu??a, a.d.880–908.According to the VichÁrasre?i and the Suk?itasankÍrtana KshemarÁja was succeeded by his son ChÁmu??a. Instead of ChÁmu??a the PrabandhachintÁma?i mentions BhÚyada perhaps another name of ChÁmu??a, as in the PrabandhachintÁma?i the name ChÁmu??a does not occur. The PrabandhachintÁma?i notes that BhÚyada reigned twenty-nine years and built in A?ahilavÁ?a Patan the temple of BhÚyadeshvar. The VichÁrasre?i gives twenty-seven years as the length of ChÁmu??a’s reign an insignificant difference of two years. This gives a.d.908 (S. 964) as the close of ChÁmu??a’s reign according to the VichÁrasre?i.

Ghagha?a, a.d.908–937.After BhÚyada the PrabandhachintÁma?i places Vairisim?ha and RatnÁditya assigning twenty-five and fifteen years as the reigns of each. The VichÁrasre?i mentions as the successor of ChÁmu??a his son Ghagha?a who is called RÁha?a in the Suk?itasankÍrtana. Instead of Ghagha?a the PrabandhachintÁma?i gives SÁmantasim?ha or Lion Chieftain perhaps a title of GhÁgha?a’s. The VichÁrasre?i gives Ghagha?a a reign of twenty-seven years and mentions as his successor an unnamed son who reigned nineteen years. The Suk?itasankÍrtana gives the name of this son as BhÚbha?a. According to these calculations the close of GhÁgha?a’s reign would be a.d.936 (Sam?vat 965 + 27 = 992). Adding nineteen years for BhÚbha?a’s reign brings the date of the end of the dynasty to a.d.956 (Sam?vat
Chapter I.
The ChÁva?Ás, a.d.720–956.
Ghagha?a, a.d.908–937. 993 + 19 = 1012) that is five years earlier than S. 1017 the date given by the VichÁrasre?i. Until some evidence to the contrary is shown Merutu?ga’s date a.d.961 (S. 821 + 196 = 1017) may be taken as correct.

According to the above the ChÁva?Á genealogy stands as follows:

[The period of ChÁva?Á rule at A?ahilavÁ?a is likely to remain obscure until the discovery of cotemporary inscriptions throws more light upon it than can be gathered from the confused and contradictory legends collected by the Solan?ki historians, none of whom are older than the twelfth century. For the present a few points only can be regarded as established:

(i) The ChÁva?Ás, ChÁvo?akas, or ChÁpotka?as, are connected with the ChÁpas of BhÍnmÁl and of VadhvÁn and are therefore of Gurjjara race. (Compare Ind. Ant. XVII. 192.)

(ii) They probably were never more than feudatories of the BhÍnmÁl kings.

(iii) Though the legend places the fall of PaÑchÁsar in a.d.696 and the foundation of A?ahilavÁ?a in a.d.746, the grant of Pulakesi JanÁsraya shows that a ChÁva?Á (ChÁvo?aka) kingdom existed in a.d.728.

As regards the chronology of the dynasty, the explanation of the long life of 110 years ascribed to VanarÁja may be that a grandson of the same name succeeded the founder of the family. The name of ChÁmu??a has, as Dr. BÜhler long ago pointed out, crept in through some error from the Solan?ki list. But when the same author in two different works gives such contradictory lists and dates as Merutu?ga does in his PrabandhachintÁma?i and his VichÁrasre?i, it is clearly useless to attempt to extract a consistent story from the chroniclers.—A. M. T. J.]