a.d. 470 - 900.

Previous


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


1 Ind. Ant. XII. 179.?

2 Ind. Ant. II. 257.?

3 Ind. Ant. XII. 151.?

4 The inscription calls ChÁpa the founder of the dynasty. The name is old. A king VyÁghrarÁja of the ChÁpa Vam?sa, is mentioned by the astronomer Brahmagupta as reigning in Saka 550 (a.d.628) when he wrote his book called Brahma-Gupta SiddhÁnta. The entry runs “In the reign of SrÍ VyÁghramukha of the SrÍ ChÁpa dynasty, five hundred and fifty years after the Saka king having elapsed.” Jour. B. B. R. A. Soc. VIII. 27. For Dhara?ÍvarÁha’s grant see Ind. Ant. XII. 190ff.?

5 Elliot’s History, I. 266.?

6 According to the KÁthiÁwÁr Gazetteer pages 110 and 278, the first wave reached about a.d.650 and the second about 250 years later. Dr. BhagvÁnlÁl’s identification of the Mers with the Maitrakas would take back their arrival in KÁthiÁvÁ?a from about a.d.650 to about a.d.450. The Mers were again formidable in GujarÁt in the late ninth and early tenth centuries. In a.d.867 (see above Pages 127 and 130) the RÁsh?rakÚ?a Dhruva II, checked an inroad of a Mihira king with a powerful army. Again in a.d.914 the RÁsh?rakÚ?a Indra in a moment uprooted the Mehr (Ditto).?

7 The Áin-i-Akbari (Gladwin, II. 69) notices that the sixth division of SaurÁsh?ra, which was almost impervious by reason of mountains rivers and woods, was (a.d.1580) inhabited by the tribe Cheetore that is Jetwa.?

8 Of the JhÁlÁs or Chalahs the Áin-i-Akbari (Gladwin, II. 64) has: ChalÁwareh (in north-east KÁthiÁvÁ?a) formerly independent and inhabited by the tribe of ChÁlah.?

9 Tod’s Annals of RÁjasthÁn, II. 113.?

10 Elliot and Dowson, I. 114 and 519–531. It is noted in the text that to the Arab invaders of the eighth and ninth centuries the Medhs of Hind were the chief people of KÁthiÁvÁ?a both in SorÁth in the south and in MÁlia in the north. They were as famous by sea as by land. According to BelÁduri (a.d.950) (Reinaud’s MÉmoire Sur l’Inde, 234–235) the Meyds of SaurÁsh?ra and Kacch were sailors who lived on the sea and sent fleets to a distance. Ibn KhurdÁdba (a.d.912) and IdrÍsi (a.d.1130), probably from the excellent Aljauhari (Reinaud’s Abulfeda, lxiii. and Elliot, I. 79), have the form Mand. Elliot, I. 14. The form Mand survives in a musical mode popular in RÁjputÁna, which is also called RajewÁri. The Mand is like the Central Asian Mus-ta-zad (K. S. Fazullah Lutfallah.)?

11 Indian Antiquary, VI. 191.?

12 RÁjputÁna Gazetteer, I. 11.?

13 RÁjputÁna Gazetteer, I. 66; North-West Province Gazetteer, III. 265; Ibbetson’s PanjÁb Census page 261. Some of these identifications are doubtful. Dr. BhagvÁnlÁl in the text (21 Note 6 and 33) distinguishes between the Mevas or Medas whom he identifies as northern immigrants of about the first century b.c. and the Mers. This view is in agreement with the remark in the RÁjputÁna Gazetteer, I. 66, that the Mers have been suspected to be a relic of the Indo-Skythian Meds. Again Tod (Annals of RajasthÁn, I. 9) derives MevÁ?a from madhya (Sk.) middle, and the Mer of MerwÁ?a from meru a hill. In support of Tod’s view it is to be noted that the forts Balmer Jesalmer Komalmer and Ajmer, which Pandit BhagvÁnlÁl would derive from the personal names of Mer leaders, are all either hill forts or rocks (Annals, I. 11, and Note †). It is, on the other hand, to be noted that no hill forts out of this particular tract of country are called Mers, and that the similar names Koli and Malava, which with equal probability as Medh might be derived from Koh and Mala hill, seem to be tribal not geographical names.?

14 The tales cited in the RÁs MÁlÁ (I. 103) prove that most of the Kolis between GujarÁt and KÁthiÁvÁ?a are Mairs. That till the middle of the tenth century the south-east of KÁthiÁvÁ?a was held by Medhs (KÁth. Gazetteer, 672) supports the view that the Kolis, whom about a.d.1190 (Tod’s Western India, I. 265) the Gohils drove out of the island of Piram, were Medhs, and this is in agreement with IdrÍsi (a.d.1130 Elliot, I. 83) who calls both Piram and the Medhs by the name Mand. Similarly some of the Koli clans of Kacch (Gazetteer, 70) seem to be descended from the Medhs. And according to Mr. Dalpatram Khakkar three subdivisions of Brahmo-Kshatris, of which the best known are the Mansura Mers and the Pipalia Mers, maintain the surname Mair or Mer. (Cutch Gazetteer, 52 note 2.) Mera or Mehra is a common surname among Sindhi Baluchis. Many of the best MusalmÁn captains and pilots from KÁthiÁvÁ?a, Kacch, and the MakrÁn coast still have Mer as a surname. Mehr is also a favourite name among both KhojÁhs and Memans, the two special classes of KÁthiÁvÁ?a converts to IslÁm. The KhojÁhs explain the name as meaning Meher Ali the friend of Ali; the Memans also explain Mer as Meher or friend. But as among Memans Mer is a common name for women as well as for men the word can hardly mean friend. The phrase MerbaÍ or Lady Mer applied to Meman mothers seems to have its origin in the RÁjput practice of calling the wife by the name of her caste or tribe as KÁthiÁnÍbaÍ, MeranÍbaÍ. In the case both of the KhojÁhs and the Memans the name Mer seems to be the old tribal name continued because it yielded itself to the uses of IslÁm. Mehr, Mihr, and Mahar are also used as titles of respect. The KhÁnt Kolis of GirnÁr, apparently a mixture of the Maitrakas of the text and of a local hill tribe, still (KÁthiÁwÁr Gazetteer, 142) honour their leaders with the name Mer explaining the title by the GujarÁti mer the main bead in a rosary. Similarly in MÁlwa a Gurjjara title is Mihr (RÁjputÁna Gazetteer, I. 80) and in the PanjÁb MÁhar (Gazetteer of PanjÁb, GujrÁt, 50–51). And in Kacch the headman among the BharwÁds, who according to some accounts are GurjjarÁs, is called Mir (Cutch Gazetteer, 81). Similarly among the RabÁris of Kacch the name of the holy she-camel is MÁta Meri. (Ditto, 80.) All these terms of respect are probably connected with Mihira, Sun.?

15 Compare Tod (Western India, 420): Though enrolled among the thirty-six royal races we may assert the JethvÁs have become Hindus only from locality and circumstance. Of the JhÁlÁs Tod says (RajasthÁn, I. 113): As the JhÁlÁs are neither Solar Lunar nor Agnikula they must be strangers. Again (Western India, 414): The JhÁlÁ MakvÁnÁs are a branch of HÚ?as. Of the name MakvÁna (KÁthiÁwÁr Gazetteer, 111; RÁs MÁlÁ, I. 297) two explanations may be offered, either that the word comes from MÁk the dewy tracts in Central Kacch (Cutch Gazetteer, 75 note 2) where (KÁthiÁwÁr Gazetteer, 420) the JhÁlÁs stopped when the Mers and JethvÁs passed south, or that MakvÁna represents Mauna a PurÁ?ic name for the HÚ?as (Wilson’s Works, IV. 207). Tod’s and Wilford’s (Asiatic Researches, IX. 287) suggestion that MakvÁna is MahÁhuna is perhaps not phonetically possible. At the same time that the MakvÁnÁs are a comparatively recent tribe of northerners is supported by the ascendancy in the fourteenth century in the HimÁlayas of MakvÁnis (Hodgson’s Essays, I. 397; Government of India Selections XLVII. 54 and 119) who used the Indo-Skythian title SÁh (Ditto). With the Nepal MakvÁnis may be compared the Makpons or army-men the caste of the chief of BaltistÁn or Little Tibet. Vigne’s Kashmir, II. 258, 439.?

16 The evidence in support of the statement that the Maitrakas and HÚ?as fought at the same time against the same Hindu rulers is given in the text. One of the most important passages is in the grant of Dhruvasena III. (Epig. Ind. I. 89 [a.d.653–4]) the reference to Bha?Árka the founder of Valabhi (a.d.509–520) meeting in battle the matchless armies of the Maitrakas.?

17 Mr. Fleet (Epigraphia Indica, III. 327 and note 12) would identify Mihirakula’s tribe with the Maitrakas. More recent evidence shows that his and his father ToramÁ?a’s tribe was the JÁuvlas. That the White HÚ?as or other associated tribes were sun-worshippers appears from a reference in one of Mihirakula’s inscriptions (Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, III. 161) to the building of a specially fine temple of the sun; and from the fact that in KashmÍr Mihirakula founded a city Mihirapura and a temple to Mihireshwar. (Darmsteter in Journal Asiatique, X. 70: Fleet in Indian Antiquary, XV. 242–252.) Mihirakula’s (a.d.508–530) sun-worship may have been the continuance of the KushÁn (a.d.50–150) worship of Mithro or Helios (Wilson’s Ariana Antiqua, 357). At the same time the fact that Mihirakula uses the more modern form Mihir makes it probable (Compare Rawlinson’s Seventh Monarchy, 284) that Mihirakula’s sun-worship was more directly the result of the spread of sun-worship in Central Asia under the fiercely propagandist Sassanians Varahan V. or Behram Gor (a.d.420–440), and his successors Izdigerd II. (a.d.440–457), and Perozes (a.d.457–483). The extent to which Zoroastrian influence pervaded the White HÚ?as is shown by the Persian name not only of Mihirakula but of Kushnawaz (a.d.470–490) the great emperor of the White HÚ?as the overthrower of Perozes. That this Indian sun-worship, which, at latest, from the seventh to the tenth century made MultÁn so famous was not of local origin is shown by the absence of reference to sun-worship in MultÁn in the accounts of Alexander the Great. Its foreign origin is further shown by the fact that in the time of Beruni (a.d.1020 Sachau’s Edition, I. 119) the priests were called Maghas and the image of the sun was clad in a northern dress falling to the ankles. It is remarkable as illustrating the Hindu readiness to adopt priests of conquering tribes into the ranks of BrÁhmans that the surname Magha survives (Cutch Gazetteer, 52 note 2) among ShrimÁli BrÁhmans. These Maghas are said to have married Bhoja or RÁjput girls and to have become the BrÁhman Bhojaks of DwÁrka. Even the Mands who had Saka wives, whose descendants were named Mandagas, obtained a share in the temple ceremonies. Reinaud’s MÉmoire Sur l’Inde, 393.?

18 Wilson’s Vish?u PurÁna Preface XXXIX. in Reinaud’s MÉmoire Sur l’Inde, 391. Details are given in Wilson’s Works, X. 381–385.?

19 Reinaud’s MÉmoire Sur l’Inde, 393; Wilson’s Works, X. 382.?

20 The name Mehiraga is explained in the Bhavishya PurÁna as derived from their ancestress a daughter of the sage Rigu or Rijvahva of the race named Mihira (Reinaud’s MÉmoire Sur l’Inde, 393; Wilson’s Works, X. 382). The name Mihiraga suggests that the spread of sun-worship in the PanjÁb and Sindh, of which the sun-worship in MultÁn Sindh KÁthiÁvÁ?a and MewÁ? and the fire-worshipping RÁjput and Sindh coins of the fifth and sixth centuries are evidence, was helped by the spread of Sassanian influence into BaluchistÁn Kacch-Gandevi and other parts of western Sindh, through Sakastene the modern western Seistan near the lake Helmund. This Sakastene or land of the Sakas received its name from the settlement in it of one of the earlier waves of the Yuechi in the second or first century before Christ. The name explains the statement in the Bhavishya PurÁna that sun-worship was introduced by Magas into MultÁn from Sakadvipa the land of the Sakas. In this connection it is interesting to note that Darmsteter (Zend Avesta, xxxiv.) holds that the Zend Avesta was probably completed during the reign of ShÁhpur II. (a.d.309–379): that (lxxxix.) Zend was a language of eastern Persia an earlier form of Pashtu; and that (lxxxiv.) western Seistan and the Helmund river was the holy land of the Avesta the birth-place of Zoroaster and the scene of king Vishtasp’s triumphs. A memory of the spread of this western or Sassanian influence remains in the reference in the Mujmalu-T-TawÁrikh in Elliot, I. 107–109, to the fire temples established in Kandabil (Gandevi) and Buddha (Mansura) by Mahra a general of Bahman that is of Varahran V. (a.d.420–440). It seems probable that Mahra is Mehr the family name or the title (Rawlinson’s Sassanian Monarchy, 224 note 4 and 312) of the great Mihran family of Persian nobles. The general in question may be the Mehr-Narses the minister of Varahran’s son and successor Izdigerd II. (a.d.440–457), who enforced Zoroastrianism in Armenia (Rawlinson, Ditto 305–308). Mehr’s success may be the origin of the Indian stories of Varahran’s visit to MÁlwa. It may further be the explanation of the traces of fire temples and towers of silence noted by Pottinger (1810) in BaluchistÁn (Travels, 126–127) about sixty miles west of Khelat.?

21 Wilson’s Works, IX. 207.?

22 Compare Priaulx’s Embassies, 222.?

23 The White HÚ?as overran Bakhtria and the country of the Yuechi between a.d.450 and 460. About a hundred years later they were crushed between the advancing Turks and the Sassanian Chosroes I. or NaushirvÁn (a.d.537–590). Rawlinson’s Sassanian Monarchy, 420; Specht in Journal Asiatique (1883) Tom II. 349–350. The HÚ?as supremacy in North India did not last beyond a.d.530 or 540. The overthrow of their supremacy perhaps dates from a.d.540 the battle of Karur about sixty miles east of MultÁn, their conqueror being Yasodharmman of MÁlwa the second of the three great VikramÁdityas of MÁlwa. Of the HÚ?as’ position among Hindu castes Colonel Tod says: The HÚ?as are one of the Skyths who have got a place among the thirty-six races of India. They probably came along with the KÁthi, BÁla, and MakvÁna of SaurÁsh?ra. Tod’s Annals of RajasthÁn, I. 110.?

24 Specht in Journal Asiatique (1883), II. 348.?

25 Specht in Journal Asiatique (1883), II. 349.?

26 Compare above Chapter VII. page 73 note 3.?

27 Dr. BhagvÁnlÁl (Text, 33) traces one set of Medhs to the Mevas the tribe of Ysamotika the father of the Kshatrapa Chash?ana (a.d.130). He holds these Mevas entered India (21) with the Malayas, Palhavas, and ÁbhÍras about b.c.150(?) At the same time he seems to have considered those early Mevas different from the fifth and sixth century Mihiras and from the seventh and eighth century Medhs.?

28 Arch. Report for 1863–64, II. 52. In support of this Cunningham cites Ptolemy’s (a.d.150) Euthymedia that is Sagala, sixty miles north-west of Lahor, and the Media of Peutinger’s Tables (a.d.400). This Euthymedia is a corruption of the original Euthydemia the name given to Sagala by Demetrios (b.c.190) the great GrÆco-Baktrian in honour of his father Euthydemos (Compare Text page 16 and McCrindle’s Ptolemy, 124). Of the cause of this change of name, which may be only a clerical error, two different explanations have been offered. Tod (An. of Rajn. I. 233) would make the new form Yuthi-media the Middle Yuchi. Cunningham (Arch. Surv. Rep. II. 53) would attribute it to the southward migration towards Sindh about b.c.50 of the KushÁn-pressed horde which under Moas or Mogha came from Little Tibet and entered the PanjÁb either by way of KashmÍr or down the SwÁt valley. According to General Cunningham (Ditto, 53) the followers of this Moas were Mandrueni called after the Mandrus river south of the Oxus. The two forms Medh and Mand are due to the cerebral which explains the Minnagaras of Ptolemy and the Periplus; Masudi’s (a.d.915) Mind and Ibn KhurdÁdbha’s (died a.d.912) and IdrÍsi’s (perhaps from Aljauhari) Mand (Elliot, I. 14 and 79, Reinaud’s Abulfeda, lxiii.); the present associated Mers and Mins in RÁjputÁna (Ditto, 53); and perhaps the MusalmÁn Meos and Minas of the PanjÁb (Ibbetson’s Census, 261).?

29 The JethvÁs are closely allied to the Medhs (KÁth. Gaz. 138); they entered KÁthiÁvÁ?a along with the Medhs (Ditto, 278).?

30 The passages are somewhat contradictory. Tod (Western India, 413) says: JethvÁs marry with KÁthis, Ahirs, and Mers. In the KÁthiÁwÁr Gazetteer (page 110) Colonel Barton seems to admit the JethvÁs’ claim to be of distinct origin from the Mers. In another passage he says (page 138): The Mers claim to be JethvÁs: this the JethvÁs deny. So also Colonel Watson in one passage (page 621) seems to favour a distinct origin while in another (page 279) he says: It seems probable the JethvÁs are merely the ruling family RÁjkula of the Mers and that they are all of one tribe. Two points seem clear. The JethvÁs are admitted to rank among KÁthiÁvÁ?a RÁjputs and they formerly married with the Mers. The further question whether the JethvÁs were originally of a distinct and higher tribe remains undetermined.?

31 Bombay Administration Report for 1873. Colonel Tod made the same suggestion: Western India, 256. Compare Pottinger’s (Travels in BaluchistÁn, 81) identification of the Jeths of Kacch-Gandevi north of Khelat with JÁts or Jits.?

32 Tod’s Western India, 413.?

33 Compare BÜhler in Epigraphia Indica, I. 294. Like the ChÁlukyas and other tribes the JethvÁs trace the name Jethva to a name-giving chief. Of the JethvÁs Tod says (Annals of RajasthÁn, I. 114): The JethvÁs have all the appearance of Skythian descent. As they make no pretension to belong to any of the old Indian races they may be a branch of Skythians. In his Western India (page 412), though confused by his identification of SÁnkha-dwÁra with Sakotra instead of with Bet-DwÁrka (compare KÁth. Gaz. 619), Tod still holds to a northern origin of the JethvÁs.?

34 Nos. 6 and 82 of Colonel Watson’s List, KÁthiÁwÁr Gazetteer, 621. The Pandit’s evidence in the text ascribes to the somewhat doubtful JÁikadeva a date of a.d.738 (Vikram 794); to JÁchikadeva a date of about a.d.904 (Gupta 585); and to the GhÚmli ruins a probable eleventh century. Tod (Western India, 417) traces the JethvÁs further back putting the founding of GhÚmli or BhÚmli at about a.d.692 (S. 749) the date of a settlement between the Tuars of Delhi and the JethvÁs (Ditto, 411). Col. Watson (KÁth. Gaz. 278) gives either a.d.650 or a.d.900.?

35 The form Yetha is used by the Chinese pilgrim Sung-yun a.d.519. Beal’s Buddhist Records, I. xc.?

36 Journal Asiatique (1883), II. 319.?

37 Journal Asiatique (1883), II. 314.?

38 Compare for the chief’s name Jetha, Colonel Watson KÁth. Gaz. 622 in the Jyesh?ha Nakshatra.?

39 Priaulx’s Embassies, 220; Migne’s PatrologiÆ Cursus Vol. 88 page 98.?

40 Census of 1891. III. 116. A reference to the Jhauvlas is given above page 75 note 4. General Cunningham (Ninth Oriental Congress, I. 228–244) traces the tribe of Jhauvla ruling in Sindh, Zabulistan or Ghazni, and Makran from the sixth to the eighth and ninth centuries.?

41 Tod’s Western India, 194 Note ‡. Tod adds: Chand abounds in such jeu-de-mot on the names of tribes.?

42 RÁs MÁlÁ, I. 302: KÁthiÁwÁr Gazetteer, 111.?

43 Tod’s Annals of RajasthÁn, I. 111.?

44 Among references to HÚ?as may be noted: In the VÁyu PurÁna (Sachau’s Alberuni, I. 300) in the west between Kar?aprÁvarna and Darva; in the Vish?u PurÁna HÚ?as between the Saindhavas and the SÁlvÁs (Wilson’s Works, VII. 133 and 134 Note †); in the eighth century Ungutsi lord of the HÚ?as who helped Chitor (Tod’s Annals, II. 457); in the Khichi bard Mogji, traditions of many powerful HÚ?a kings in India (Tod’s Annals, I. 111 Note †) among them the HÚ?a chief of Barolli (Ditto, II. 705); and RÁja HÚ?a of the PramÁra race who was lord of the PathÁr or plateau of Central India (Ditto, II. 457).
Chapter XII.
The Mers, a.d.470–900.
In the Middle Ages the HÚ?as were considered Kshatriyas and Kshatriyas married HÚ?a wives (Wilson’s Works, VII. 134 Note †). Of existing traces in the PanjÁb may be noted Hon and Hona RÁjputs and Gujjars, Hona Jats, Hon LabÁnas, Hon LohÁrs, Honi MÁlis, Hon Mochis, HÚ?a Barbers, and Haun RabÁris (PanjÁb Census. 1891. III. pages 116, 139, 227, 233, 246, 265, 276, 305, 315). The only traces Colonel Tod succeeded in finding in GujarÁt were a few HÚ?a huts at a village opposite Umetha on the gulf of Cambay, a second small colony near SomanÁtha, and a few houses at Trisauli five miles from Baroda. (Western India, 247, 323.) Since 1825 these traces have disappeared.?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Clyx.com


Top of Page
Top of Page