Gurjaras of Lata

A grant[4] made by Nirihullaka, the chieftain of a forest tribe in the lower valley of the Narmada, shows that towards the end of the sixth century CE that region was occupied by forest tribes who acknowledged the supremacy of the Kalachuri dynasty; a fact which accounts for the use of the Chedi or Traikúṭaka era in South Gujarāt. Nirihullaka names with respect a king Śaṅkaraṇa, identified with Śaṅkaragaṇa (r. c. 575-600 CE) of Kalachuri dynasty and the Gurjara conquest must be subsequent to this date. Another grant,[5] which is only a fragment and contains no king's name, but which on the ground of date (Samvat 346 = 594–5 CE) and style may be safely attributed to the Gurjara dynasty, shows that the Gurjaras were established in the country within a few years of Śaṅkaragaṇa's probable date.[2]

A still nearer approximation to the date of the Gurjara conquest is suggested by the change in the titles of Dharasena I of Maitraka dynasty, who in his grants of Saṃvat 252[6] (571 CE) calls himself Mahārāja, while in his grants of 269 and 270[7] (588 and 589 CE), he adds the title of Mahāsāmanta, which points to subjection by some foreign power between 571 and 588 CE. It seems highly probable that this power was that of the Gurjaras of Bhīnmāl; and that their successes therefore took place between 580 and 588 CE or about 585 CE.[2]

The above-mentioned anonymous grant of the year 346 (CE 594–95) from Sankheda is ascribed with great probability to Dadda I. who is known from the two Kheḍā grants of his grandson Dadda II. (C. 620–650 CE)[8] to have “uprooted the Nāga” who may be the same as the forest tribes ruled by Nirihullaka (possibly later represented by the Nāikdās of the Panchmahāls and the Talabdas or Locals of Bharuch).[2]

The northern limit of Dadda's kingdom seems to have been the Vindhya, as the grant of 380 (CE 628–29) says that the lands lying around the feet of the Vindhya were for his pleasure. At the same time it appears that part at least of Northern Gujarāt was ruled by the Mahāsāmanta Dharasena of Maitraka dynasty, who in Val. 270 (589–90 CE) granted a village in the āhāra (province) of Kheṭaka (Kheḍā).[9] Dadda is always spoken of as the Sāmanta, which shows that while he lived his territory remained a part of the Gurjara kingdom of Bhīnmāl. Subsequently, North Gujarāt fell into the hands of the Mālava kings, to whom it belonged in Hiuen Tsiang’s time (c. 640 CE). In Tsiang's accounts, Po-lu-ka-cha-po (Bharigukacchapa or Bhrigukaccha, i.e., Bharuch) is mentioned. Dadda I. is mentioned in the two Kheḍā grants of his grandson as a worshipper of the sun: the fragmentary grant of 346 (594–95 CE) which is attributed to him gives no historical details.[10][2][11]

Dadda I was succeeded by his son Jayabhaṭa I who is mentioned in the Kheḍā grants as a victorious and virtuous ruler, and appears from his title of Vītarāga the Passionless to have been a religious prince.[2]

Jayabhaṭa I. was succeeded by his son Dadda II who bore the title of Praśāntarāga, the Passion-calmed. Dadda was the donor of the two Kheḍā grants of 380 (628–29 CE) and 385 (633–34 CE), and a part of a grant made by his brother Raṇagraha in the year 391 (639–40 CE) has been recorded.[12] Both of the Kheḍā grants relate to the gift of the village of Sirīshapadraka (Sisodra) in the Akrúreśvara (Ankleshwar) vishaya to certain Brāhmans of Jambusar and Bharuch. In Raṇagraha's grant the name of the village is lost.[2]

Dadda II’s own grants describe him as having attained the five great titles, and praise him in general terms: and both he and his brother Raṇagraha sign their grants as devout worshipers of the sun. Dadda II heads the genealogy in the later grant of 456 (704–5 CE),[13] which states that he protected "the lord of Valabhi [Dhruvasena II] who had been defeated by the great lord the illustrious Harshadeva." The event referred to must have been some expedition of Harsha of Kanauj (Vardhana dynasty) (607–648 CE), perhaps the campaign in which Harsha was defeated on the Narmada by Pulakeshin II of Chalukya dynasty (which took place before 634 CE). The protection given to the Valabhi king is perhaps referred to in the Kheḍā grants in the mention of "strangers and suppliants and people in distress." If this is the case the defeat of Valabhi took place before 628–29 CE, the date of the earlier of the Kheḍā grants. On the other hand, the phrase quoted is by no means decisive, and the fact that in Hiuen Tsiang's time Dhruvasena II of Valabhi was son-in-law of Harsha's son, makes it unlikely that Harsha should have been at war with him. It follows that the expedition referred to may have taken place in the reign of Dharasena IV who may have been the son of Dhruvasena by another wife than Harsha's granddaughter.[2][14][15][11][16]

To Dadda II's reign belongs Hiuen Tsiang's notice of the kingdom of Bharuch (C. 640 CE). He says "all their profit is from the sea" and describes the country as salt and barren, which is still true of large tracts in the west and twelve hundred years ago was probably the condition of a much larger area than at present. Hiuen Tsiang does not say that Broach was subject to any other kingdom, but it is clear from the fact that Dadda bore the five great titles that he was a mere feudatory. At this period the valuable port of Bharuch, from which all their profit was made, was a prize fought for by all the neighbouring powers. With the surrounding country of Lāṭa, Bharuch submitted to Pulakeśin II. (610–640 CE),[17] it may afterwards have fallen to the Mālawa kings, to whom in Hiuen Tsiang's time (640 CE) both Kheḍā (K’i.e.-ch’a) and Ánandapura (Vadnagar) belonged; later it was subject to Valabhi, as Dharasena IV made a grant at Bharuch in VS 330 (649–50 CE).[18][2]

The knowledge of the later Gurjaras is derived exclusively from two grants of Jayabhaṭa III dated respectively 456 (704–5 CE) and 486 (734–5 CE).[19] The later of these two grants is imperfect, only the last plate having been preserved. The earlier grant of 456 (704–5 CE) shows that during the half century following the reign of Dadda II the dynasty had ceased to call themselves Gurjaras, and had adopted a Purāṇic pedigree traced from Karna of Mahabharata. It also shows that from Dadda III onward the family were Śaivas instead of sun-worshipers.[2]

The successor of Dadda II was his son Jayabhaṭa II who is described as a warlike prince, but of whom no historical details are recorded.[2]

Jayabhaṭa's son, Dadda III Bāhusahāya is described as waging wars with the great kings of the east and of the west (probably Mālava and Valabhi). He had received title of Bāhusahāya to for showing valour of his arms in fights with suzerain of east and west. He was Śaiva. Like his predecessors, Dadda III was not an independent ruler. He could claim only the five great titles, though no hint is given who was his suzerain. His immediate superior may have been Jayasimhavarma, who received the province of Lāṭa from his brother Vikramaditya I of Chalukya dynasty.[20][2][21] During his rule Jayasimhavarma had defeated Vajjada between Mahi and Narmada rivers. Vajjada may be another name of Dadda III or another king of that name had invaded his state and was defeated by Jayasimhavarma.[11][16]

The son and successor of Dadda III was Jayabhaṭa III whose two grants of 456 (704–5 CE) and 486 (734–5 CE)[22] must belong respectively to the beginning and the end of his reign. He attained the five great titles, and was therefore a feudatory, probably of the Chālukyas: but his title of Mahāsāmantādhipati implies that he was a chief of importance. He is praised in vague terms, but the only historical event mentioned in his grants is a defeat of a Maitraka ruler of Valabhi, noted in the grant of 486 (734–5 CE). The Maitraka king referred to must be Śīlāditya IV (691 CE).[2]

Jayabhata III was succeeded by Ahirole. He ruled till c. 720 CE.[11]

Ahirole's son Jayabhata IV's copperplate states that he defeated the Arabs fighting for the Umayyad Caliphate at Valabhi, the capital of his probable overlords, the Maitrakas, in the year 735-36 CE. He assumed title of Mahasamanradhipati. He must be feudatory of Maitraka ruler Shiladitya IV or Shiladitya V as he had helped his suzerain Maitrakas in battle. Majumdar had suggested that he may have helped as a feudatory of Chalukyas.[16][23][11] Bharuch may have finally destroyed by the Arabs and the Gurjara principality overtaken by them. The Arab were severely defeated and repulsed by Chalukya governor Avanijanashraya Pulakeshin in 738-39 at Navsari. He may have annexed the Gurjara kingdom to the Chalukya territory after evicting the Arabs.[24] Alternatively, the state may have been absorbed under Dantidurga of Rashtrakuta dynasty.[2][16]