Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d.470–900. That the Guptas held sway in KÁthiÁvÁ?a till the time of Skandagupta (a.d.454–470) is proved by the fact that his Sorath Viceroy is mentioned in Skandagupta’s inscription on the GirnÁr rock. After Skandagupta under the next known Gupta king Budhagupta (Gupta 165–180, a.d.484–499) no trace remains of Gupta sovereignty in Sorath. It is known that Budhagupta was a weak king and that the Gupta kingdom had already entered on its decline and lost its outlying provinces. Who held SurÁsh?ra and GujarÁt during the period of Gupta decline until the arrival and settlement of Bha?kÁrka in a.d.514 (Gupta 195) is not determined. Still there is reason to believe that during or shortly after the time of Budhagupta some other race or dynasty overthrew the Gupta Viceroy of these provinces and took them from the Guptas. These powerful conquerors seem to be the tribe of Maitrakas mentioned in Valabhi copperplates as people who had settled in KÁthiÁvÁ?a and established a ma??ala or kingdom. Though these Maitrakas are mentioned in no other records from SurÁsh?ra there seems reason to identify the Maitrakas with the Mihiras the well-known tribe of Mhers or Mers. In Sanskrit both mitra and mihira are names of the sun, and it would be quite in agreement with the practise of Sanskrit writers to use derivatives of the one for those of the other. These Mhers or Mers are still found in KÁthiÁvÁ?a settled round the Barda hills while the Porbandar chiefs who are known as JethvÁs are recognized as the head of the tribe. The name JethvÁ is not a tribal but a family name, being taken from the proper or personal name of the ancestor of the modern chiefs. As the Porbandar chiefs are called the kings of the Mhers they probably belong to the same tribe, though, being chiefs, they try, like other ruling families, to rank higher than their tribe tracing their origin from HanÚmÁn. Though the JethvÁs appear to have been long ashamed to acknowledge themselves to belong to the Mher tribe the founders of minor Mher kingdoms called themselves Mher kings. The Porbandar chiefs have a tradition tracing their dynasty to Makaradhvaja son of HanÚmÁn, and there are some PurÁ?ic legends attached to the tradition. The historical kernel of the tradition appears to be that the Mhers or JethvÁs had a makara or fish as their flag or symbol. One of the mythical stories of Makaradhvaja is that he fought with MayÚradhvaja. Whatever coating of fable may have overlaid the story, it contains a grain of history. MayÚradhvaja stands for the Guptas whose chief symbol was a peacock mayÚra, and with them Makaradhvaja that is the people with the fish-symbol that is
Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d.470–900. the Mhers had a fight. This fight is probably the historical contest in which the Mhers fought with and overthrew the Gupta Viceroy of KÁthiÁvÁ?a.
The KÁthiÁvÁ?a Mhers are a peculiar tribe whose language dress and appearance mark them as foreign settlers from Upper India. Like the MÁlavas, JÁts, Gurjjaras, and Pahlavas, the Mhers seem to have passed through the PunjÁb Sindh and North GujarÁt into KÁthiÁvÁ?a leaving settlements at AjmÍr, BÁdner, JesalmÍr, KokalmÍr, and MhervÁ?a. How and when the Mhers made these settlements and entered KÁthiÁvÁ?a is not known. It may be surmised that they came with ToramÁ?a (a.d.470–512) who overthrew the Guptas, and advanced far to the south and west in the train of some general of ToramÁ?a’s who may perhaps have entered SurÁsh?ra. This is probable as the date of ToramÁ?a who overthrew Budhagupta is almost the same as that of the Maitrakas mentioned as the opponents and enemies of Bha?Árka. In the time of Bha?Árka (a.d.509–520?) the Mhers were firmly established in the peninsula, otherwise they would not be mentioned in the Valabhi grants as enemies of Bha?Árka, a tribe or ma??ala wielding incomparable power. As stated above in Chapter VIII. some time after the Mher settlement and consolidation of power, Bha?Árka seems to have come as general of the fallen Guptas through MÁlwa and Broach by sea to East KÁthiÁvÁ?a. He established himself at Valabhi and then gradually dislodged the Mhers from Sorath until they retired slightly to the north settling eventually at Morbi, which the JethvÁs still recognize as the earliest seat of their ancestors. At Morbi they appear to have ruled contemporarily with the Valabhis. In support of this it is to be noted that no known Valabhi plate records any grant of lands or villages in HÁlÁr, MachhukÁntha, or OkhÁmandal in North KÁthiÁvÁ?a. As the northmost place mentioned in Valabhi plates is Venuthali known as Wania’s Vanthali in HÁlÁr it may be inferred that not the Valabhis but the Mhers ruled the north coast of KÁthiÁvÁ?a, probably as feudatories or subordinates of the Valabhis. On the overthrow of Valabhi about a.d.770 the Mhers appear to have seized the kingdom and ruled the whole of KÁthiÁvÁ?a dividing it into separate chiefships grouped under the two main divisions of BardÁi and GohelvÁdia. About a.d.860 the Mhers made incursions into Central GujarÁt. A copperplate dated Saka 789 (a.d.847) of the GujarÁt RÁsh?rakÚ?a king Dhruva describes him as attacked by a powerful Mihira king whom he defeated.1 At the height of their power the Mhers seem to have established their capital at the fort of Bhumli or Ghumli in the BardÁ hills in the centre of KÁthiÁvÁ?a. The traditions about Ghumli rest mainly on modern JethvÁ legends of no historical interest. The only known epigraphical record is a copperplate of a king named JÂchikadeva found in the Morbi district.2 Unfortunately only the second plate remains. Still the fish mark on the plate, the locality where it was found, and its date
Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d.470–900. leave little doubt that the plate belongs to the Makaradhvaja or JethvÁ kings. The date of the grant is 585 Gupta era the 5th PhÁlguna Sudi that is a.d.904, about 130 years after the destruction of Valabhi, a date with which the form of the letters agrees.
A similar copperplate in which the king’s name appears in the slightly different form JÁikadeva has been found at Dhiniki in the same neighbourhood as the first and like it bearing the fish mark.3 This copperplate describes the king as ruling at BhÚmilikÁ or BhÚmli in Sorath and gives him the high titles of Parama-bha??Áraka-MahÁrÁjÁdhirÁja-Paramesvara, that is Great Lord Great King of Kings Great King, titles which imply wide extent and independence of rule. This grant purports to be made on the occasion of a solar eclipse on Sunday Vikrama Sam?vat 794 Jyesh?ha constellation, the no-moon of the second half of KÁrttika. This would be a.d.738 or 166 years before the JÁchika of the MorbÍ plate. Against this it is to be noted that the letters of this plate, instead of appearing as old as eighth century letters, look later than the letters of the tenth century MorbÍ plate. As neither the day of the week, the constellation, nor the eclipse work out correctly Dr. BhagvÁnlÁl believed the plate to be a forgery of the eleventh century, executed by some one who had seen a fish-marked copperplate of JÁchika dated in the Saka era. It should however be noted that the names of ministers and officers which the plate contains give it an air of genuineness. Whether the plate is or is not genuine, it is probably true that JÁikadeva was a great independent sovereign ruling at BhÚmli. Though the names of the other kings of the dynasty, the duration of the BhÚmli kingdom, and the details of its history are unknown it may be noted that the dynasty is still represented by the Porbandar chiefs. Though at present BhÚmli is deserted several ruined temples of about the eleventh century stand on its site. It is true no old inscriptions have been found; it is not less true that no careful search has been made about BhÚmli.
Early in the tenth century a wave of invasion from Sindh seems to have spread over Kacch and KÁthiÁvÁ?a. Among the invading tribes were the JÁdejÁs of Kacch and the ChÚ?ÁsamÁs of Sorath, who like the Bhattis of JesalmÍr call themselves of the Yaduvam?sa stock. Doctor BhagvÁnlÁl held that the ChÚ?ÁsamÁs were originally of the ÁbhÍra tribe, as their traditions attest connection with the ÁbhÍras and as the description of Graharipu one of their kings by Hemachandra in his DvyÁsraya points to his being of some local tribe and not of any ancient RÁjput lineage. Further in their bardic traditions as well as in popular stories the ChÚ?ÁsamÁs are still commonly called Áhera-rÁnÁs. The position of Aberia in Ptolemy (a.d.150) seems to show that in the second century the Ahirs were settled between Sindh and the PanjÁb. Similarly it may be suggested that JÁdejÁ is a corruption of JaudhejÁ which
Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d.470–900. in turn comes from Yaudheya (the change of y to j being very common) who in Kshatrapa Inscriptions appear as close neighbours of the Ahirs. After the fall of the Valabhis (a.d.775) the Yaudheyas seem to have established themselves in Kacch and the Ahirs settled and made conquests in KÁthiÁvÁ?a. On the decline of local rule brought about by these incursions and by the establishment of an Ahir or ChÚ?ÁsamÁ kingdom at JunÁga?h, the JethvÁs seem to have abandoned BhÚmli which is close to JunÁga?h and gone to SrÍnagar or KÁ?telun near Porbandar which is considered to have been the seat of JethvÁ power before Porbandar.
A copperplate found at HaddÁlÁ on the road from Dholka to Dhandhuka dated a.d.917 (Saka 839) shows that there reigned at VadhwÁn a king named Dhara?ÍvarÁha of the ChÁpa dynasty,4 who granted a village to one MahesvarÁchÁrya, an apostle of the ÁmardÁka SÁkhÁ of Saivism. Dhara?ÍvarÁha and his ancestors are described as feudatory kings, ruling by the grace of the feet of the great king of kings the great lord the illustrious MahÍpÁladeva. This MahÍpÁla would seem to be some great king of KÁthiÁvÁ?a reigning in a.d.917 over the greater part of the province. Dr. BhagvÁnlÁl had two coins of this king of about that time, one a copper coin the other a silver coin. The coins were found near JunÁga?h. The copper coin, about ten grains in weight, has one side obliterated but the other side shows clearly the words RÁnÁ SrÍ MahÍpÁla Deva. The silver coin, about fourteen grains in weight, has on the obverse a well-executed elephant and on the reverse the legend RÁnÁ SrÍ MahÍpÁla Deva. From the locality where the name MahÍpÁla appears both in coins and inscriptions, and from the fact that the more reliable ChÚ?ÁsamÁ lists contain similar names, it may be assumed as probable that MahÍpÁla was a powerful ChÚ?ÁsamÁ ruler of KÁthiÁvÁ?a in the early part of the tenth century.
After the fall of Valabhi no other reliable record remains of any dynasty ruling over the greater part of GujarÁt. The most trustworthy and historical information is in connection with the ChÁva?Ás of A?ahilapura. Even for the ChÁva?Ás nothing is available but scant references recorded by Jain authors in their histories of the Solan?kis and VÁghelÁs.
The ChÚ?ÁsamÁs, a.d.900–940.[The modern traditions of the ChÚ?ÁsamÁ clan trace their origin to the YÁdava race and more immediately to the Samma tribe of Nagar Thatha in Sindh.5 The name of the family is said to have been derived from ChÚ?Áchandra the first ruler of VanthalÍ
Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d.470–900.
The ChÚ?ÁsamÁs, a.d.900–940. (KÁthiÁwÁr Gazetteer, 489). Traces of a different tradition are to be found in the Tuhfat-ul-KirÁm (Elliot, I. 337) which gives a list of ChÚ?ÁsamÁ’s ancestors from Nuh (Noah), including not only K?ish?a the YÁdava but also RÁma of the solar line. In this pedigree the MusalmÁn element is later than the others: but the attempt to combine the solar and lunar lines is a sure sign that the Samma clan was not of Hindu origin, and that it came under Hindu influence fairly late though before Sindh became a MusalmÁn province. This being admitted it follows that the Sammas were one of the numerous tribes that entered India during the existence of the Turkish empire in Transoxiana (a.d.560–c. 750). In this connection it is noteworthy that some of the JÁms bore such Turkish names as TamÁchi, Tughlik, and SanjÁr.
The migration of the Sammas to Kacch is ascribed by the TarÍkh-i-Tahiri (a.d.1621) to the tyranny of the SÚmra chiefs. The Sammas found Kacch in the possession of the ChÁwaras, who treated them kindly, and whom they requited by seizing the fort of GÚntrÍ by a stratagem similar to that which brought about the fall of GirnÁr.
The date of the ChÚ?ÁsamÁ settlement at VanthalÍ is usually fixed on traditional evidence, at about a.d.875, but there is reason to think that this date is rather too early. In the first place it is worthy of notice that ChÚ?Áchandra, the traditional eponym of the family, is in the Tuhfat-ul-KirÁm made a son of JÁdam (YÁdava) and only a great-grandson of K?ish?a himself, a fact which suggests that, if not entirely mythical, he was at all events a very distant ancestor of MÚlarÁja’s opponent GrahÁri, and was not an actual ruler of VanthalÍ. As regards GrahÁri’s father VisvavarÁha and his grandfather MÚlarÁja, there is no reason to doubt that they were real persons, although it is very questionable whether the ChÚ?ÁsamÁs were settled in KÁthiÁvÁ?a in their time. In the first place, the MorbÍ grant of JÁikadeva shows that the JethvÁs had not been driven southwards before a.d.907. Secondly Dhara?ÍvarÁha’s VadhvÁn grant proves that the ChÁpa family of BhÍnmÁl were still supreme in KÁthiÁvÁ?a in a.d.914: whereas the TarÍkh-i-Tahiri’s account of the ChÚ?ÁsamÁ conquest of Kacch implies that the ChÁwaras, who must be identified with the ChÁpas of BhÍnmÁl, were losing their power when the ChÚ?ÁsamÁs captured GÚntrÍ, an event which must have preceded the settlement at VanthalÍ in KÁthiÁvÁ?a. Beyond the fact that MÚlarÁja Solan?ki transferred the capital to A?ahilavÁ?a in a.d.942, we know nothing of the events which led to the break-up of the BhÍnmÁl empire. But it is reasonable to suppose that between a.d.920 and 940 the ChÁpas gradually lost ground and the ChÚ?ÁsamÁs were able first to conquer Sindh and then to settle in KÁthiÁvÁ?a.—A. M. T. J.]
[KÁthiÁvÁ?a contains three peculiar and associated classes of Hindus, the Mers, the JethvÁs, and the JhÁlÁs. The Mers and the JethvÁs stand to each other in the relation of vassal and lord. The JhÁlÁs are connected with the JethvÁs by origin history and alliance. The bond
Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d.470–900.
The JethvÁs. of union between the three classes is not only that they seem to be of foreign that is of non-Hindu origin, but whether or not they belong to the same swarm of northern invaders, that they all apparently entered KÁthiÁvÁ?a either by land or sea through Sindh and Kacch. So far as record or tradition remains the Mers and The JethvÁs.JethvÁs reached KÁthiÁvÁ?a in the latter half of the fifth century after Christ, and the JhÁlÁs, and perhaps a second detachment of Mers and JethvÁs, some three hundred years later.6 The three tribes differ widely in numbers and in distribution. The ruling JethvÁs are a small group found solely in south-west KÁthiÁvÁ?a.7 The JhÁlÁs, who are also known as MakvÁnas, are a much larger clan. They not only fill north-east KÁthiÁvÁ?a, but from KÁthiÁvÁ?a, about a.d.1500, spread to RÁjputÁna and have there established a second JhÁlÁvÁ?a,8 where, in reward for their devotion to the Sesodia RÁja of MewÁ? in his struggles with the Emperor Akbar (a.d.1580–1600), the chief was given a daughter of the Udepur family and raised to a high position among RÁjputs.9 The Mers are a numerous and widespread race. They seem to be the sixth to tenth century Medhs, Meds, Mands, or Mins of BaluchistÁn, South-Sindh, Kacch, and KÁthiÁvÁ?a.10 Further they seem to be the Mers of MevÁ?a or Medapatha in RÁjputÁna11 and of MairvÁ?a in MÁlava,12 and also to be the MusalmÁn Meos and Minas of Northern India.13 In GujarÁt
Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d.470–900.
The Mers. their strength is much greater than the 30,000 or 40,000 returned as The Mers.Mers. One branch of the tribe is hidden under the name Koli; another has disappeared below the covering of IslÁm.14
Formerly except the vague contention that the MedhÁs, JhetvÁs, and JhÁla-MakvÁnÁs were northerners of somewhat recent arrival little evidence was available either to fix the date of their appearance in KÁthiÁvÁ?a or to determine to which of the many swarms of non-Hindu Northerners they belonged.15 This point Dr. BhagvÁnlÁl’s remarks in the text go far to clear. The chief step is the identification of the Mers with the Maitrakas, the ruling power in KÁthiÁvÁ?a between the decline of the Guptas about a.d.470 and the establishment of Valabhi rule about sixty years later. And further that they fought at the same time against the same Hindu rulers and that both are described as foreigners and northerners favours the identification of the
Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d.470–900.
White HÚ?as. White HÚ?as. power of the Maitrakas with the North Indian empire of the Epthalites, Yethas, or White HÚ?as.16
Though the sameness in name between the Mihiras and Mihirakula (a.d.508–530), the great Indian champion of the White HÚ?as, may not imply sameness of tribe it points to a common sun-worship.17
That the MultÁn sun-worship was introduced under Sassanian influence is supported by the fact (Wilson’s Ariana Antiqua, 357) that the figure of the sun on the fifth century Hindu sun coins is in the dress of a Persian king; that the priests who performed the MultÁn sun-worship were called Magas; and by the details of the dress and ritual in the account of the introduction of sun-worship given in the Bhavishya PurÁna.18 That the Meyds or Mands had some share in its introduction is supported by the fact that the PurÁna names the third or Sudra class of the sun-worshippers Mandagas.19 That the Meyds were associated with the Magas is shown by the mention of the Magas as Mihiragas.20 The third class whom the Bhavishya PurÁna associates with the introduction of sun-worship are the MÂnas who
Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d.470–900.
White HÚ?as. are given a place between the Magas and the Mands. The association of the MÂnas with the Mihiras or Maitrakas suggests that MÂna is Mauna a PurÁ?ic name for the White HÚ?as.21 That the MultÁn sun idol of the sixth and seventh centuries was a HÚ?a idol and MultÁn the capital of a HÚ?a dynasty seems in agreement with the paramount position of the Rais of Alor or Rori in the sixth century. Though their defeat by Yesodharmman of MÁlwa about a.d.540 at the battle of Karur, sixty miles east of MultÁn, may have ended HÚ?a supremacy in north and north-west India it does not follow that authority at once forsook the HÚ?as. Their widespread and unchallenged dominion in North India, the absence of record of any reverse later than the Karur defeat, the hopelessness of any attempt to pass out of India in the face of the combined Turk and Sassanian forces make it probable that the HÚ?as and their associated tribes, adopting Hinduism and abandoning their claim to supremacy, settled in west and north-west India. This view finds support in the leading place which the HÚ?as and HÁra-HÚ?as, the Maitrakas or Mers, and the Gurjjaras hold in the centuries that follow the overthrow of the White HÚ?a empire. According to one rendering of Cosmas22 (a.d.525) the chief of Orrhotha or Sorath in common with several other coast rulers owed allegiance to Gollas, apparently, as is suggested at page 75 of the text, to Gulla or Mihirgulla the Indian Emperor of the White HÚ?as. These details support the view that the Maitrakas, Mihiras, or Mers who in Cosmas’ time were in power in KÁthiÁvÁ?a, and to whose ascendancy during the seventh and eighth centuries both the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsiang (a.d.612–640) and the Arab historians of Sindh bear witness, were a portion of the great White HÚ?a invasion (a.d.480–530).23 In the many recorded swarmings south from
Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d.470–900.
White HÚ?as. Central Asia into Persia and India no feature is commoner than the leading of the conquered by certain families of the conquering tribe. Chinese authorities place it beyond doubt that when, towards the middle of the fifth century a.d., the White HÚ?as crossed the Oxus they found in power a cognate tribe of northerners whose date of settlement on the Indian frontier was less than a century old. This preceding swarm was the YuÁn-YuÁn, Var-Var, or AvÁr, who, about the close of the fourth century (a.d.380), had driven from Balkh southwards into the KÁbul valley Kitolo the last ruler of the long established Yuetchi (b.c. 50–a.d.380).24 It is known that in retreating before the YuÁn-YuÁn a division of the Baktrian Yuetchi, under the leadership of Kitolo’s son, under the name of the KidÁras or Little Yuetchi, established their power in GandhÁra and PeshÁwar.25 This KidÁra invasion must have driven a certain share of the people of the KÁbul valley to the east of the Indus. The invasion of the White HÚ?as a century later, who were welcomed as allies by some of the PanjÁb chiefs,26 would cause fresh movements among the frontier tribes. The welcome given to the HÚ?as, and the show and dash which marked their century of ascendancy in India and Persia, make it probable that as leaders they conducted south as far as KÁthiÁvÁ?a and MÁlava large bodies of the earlier northern settlers. To which of the waves of earlier northerners the Medhs belonged is doubtful.27 The view held by Pandit BhagvÁnlÁl that one branch of the Medhs entered India in the first century before Christ among the tribes of which the great Yuechi were the chief is on the whole in agreement with General Cunningham’s argument that Medus Hydaspes, Virgil’s phrase for the Jhelum, proves that the Medhs were then (b.c.40) already settled on its banks.28
Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d.470–900.
White HÚ?as. Dr. BhagvÁnlÁl’s view that the JethvÁs are Medhs ennobled by long overlordship is somewhat doubtfully shared by Colonel Watson29 and is not inconsistent with Tod’s opinions.30 Still though the Hindu ruler-worship, which, as in the case of the MarÁtha SivÁji, explains the raising to the twice-born of leaders of successful early and foreign tribes makes it possible that the JethvÁs were originally Mers, it seems on the whole probable that the JethvÁs’ claim to an origin distinct from the Mers is well founded. The evidence recorded by Colonel Tod and the name Jethva led the late Dr. John Wilson to trace the JethvÁs to the JÁts or Jits.31 According to the bards the name of the KÁthiÁvÁ?a tribe Jethva is derived from Jetha No. 85 or No. 95 of the Porbandar list, who was probably so called because he was born under the Jyesh?ha constellation.32 The common practice of explaining a tribal name by inventing some name-giving chief deprives this derivation of most of its probability.33 In the present case it may further be noticed that the name Jethi is borne by two of the chiefs earlier than the Jetha referred to.34 In the absence of any satisfactory explanation the name Jethva suggests an origin in Yetha the shortened Chinese form of Ye-ta-i-li-to or Ephthalite the name of the ruling class of the White HÚ?as.35 It is true that so good an authority as Specht36 holds that the shortened form Yetha is peculiar to the Chinese and was never in use. But the form Tetal or Haital, adopted by
Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d.470–900.
White HÚ?as. Armenian MusalmÁn and Byzantine historians,37 makes probable an Indian YethÁl or JethÁl if not a Yetha or Jetha. Nor does there seem any reason why Yetha the Chinese form of the word should not be more likely to be adopted in India than the western and otherwise less correct form Tetal or Haithal. In any case the irregular change from a correct YethÁl to an incorrect Yetha cannot be considered of much importance, if, as seems likely, the change was made in order to give the word an Indian meaning.38 The v in Jethva would come to be added when the origin from a chief named Jetha was accepted.
JhÁlÁs.Another name for the White HÚ?as, or for a section of the White HÚ?a swarm, is preserved by Cosmas39 in the form Juvia. This form, if it is not a misreading for Ounia or HÚ?a, suggests JÁuvla the recently identified name of the tribe ennobled in India by the great ToramÁ?a (a.d.450–500) and his son Mihirakula (a.d.500–540), and of which a trace seems to remain in the JÁwla and JhÁwla divisions of PanjÁb Gujjars.40 This JÁuvla, under such a fire baptism as would admit the holders of the name among Hindus, might be turned into JvÁla flaming and JvÁla be shortened to JhÁla. That JhÁla was formerly punningly connected with flame is shewn by a line from the bard Chand, ‘The lord of the RÁnÁs the powerful JhÁla like a flaming fire.’41 That the KÁthiÁvÁ?a bards were either puzzled by the name JhÁla or were unwilling to admit its foreign origin is shewn by the story preserved in the RÁs MÁlÁ,42 that the tribe got the name because the children of HirpÁl MakvÁna, about to be crushed by an elephant, were snatched away jhÁla by their witch-mother. It has been noticed in the text that the break in GujarÁt History between a.d.480 and 520, agreeing with the term of HÚ?a supremacy in North India, seems to imply a similar supremacy in GujarÁt. The facts that up to the twelfth century HÚ?as held a leading place in GujarÁt chronicles,43 and that while in RÁjputÁna and other parts of Northern India the traces of Huns are fairly widespread in GujarÁt they have almost if not altogether disappeared, support the view that the HÚ?a strain in KÁthiÁvÁ?a is hid under the names Mera, Jethva, and JhÁla.44