316

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.

Kumār Pāla is thus used. The Jethvā chronicles

say that the title of Rånå was derived from a defeat by Jethva Sangji of the Wāghclá Rånå of Anhilwādā Pat'an, Kumār Pāla's son Karsanji

or Krishnaji. The Jethvā is said to have de feated Karsanji and taken him prisoner, but to have released him at the intercession of the

neighbouring chieftains, among whom was Ak hūrājji of Sirohi. A condition of the release was that the Wāghelà should resign the title of Rånä, which has from that day been held by the Jethvā Chief of Porbandar. The bardic couplet regarding this battle is as follows:

• iºus 2 ſtºl allºt asiou ºl ºutlºº

[NoveMBER, 1873.

originated the name Chudāsamá, his descend ants being called Chuda-Sammās. Rå Gário would thus be the second Chuqāsamā.

Look

ing also at the antiquity of the Chudāsamá dynasty, its introduction into Käthiawād at about the middle of the eighth century of the Christian era seems also probable, and this account fits in with the Vâlâ and Gehlot chro

nicles. However it may be, these legends may. in abler hands than mine, form a connecting link between the era of the Valabhi kings and the consolidation of the Chudāsamä rule in Saurashtra. A better translation also of the

Gujarāti verses might throw more light on the subject, and this I doubt not might be furnished

219, 13 Alva 29; ai & Atºll 214t2. Saigaji, with a body like the sun, founded a (new) title ; While the Rånå who descended into the Ran had his title of Rånå burned to ashes.

Now as Akhérāj of Sirohi ascended the gédi in Samvat 1580 (A. D. 1524), it is clear that this could not be Kumār Pāla of Anhilwālā Pattan,

and it is highly probable that the Wāghelă Rånå in question was Rånå Mandanji of Gedi in Waghar, or possibly Rånå Visal Dè of Morwādā, both of whom were Wāghelă Rånås

and contemporaries, being both of them sons of Rånå Vanoji of Gedi. Rånå Visal Dé's date is known from theinscription on the Rāmā Wáv near Morwādā, to have been Sam. 1516, or A.D. 1460.

His younger brother Mandanji succeeded to the gádí, and is in all probability the Rånå in ques tion, if it be not Visal D6 himself, who may

have essayed to conquer Morbi after his esta blishment at Morwādā. If this slight alteration then be made in the names of the sovereigns of Pattan in the legends in question, the dates given in Ranchodji Devān's history may be accepted as the approximately correct ones. The legend about Rä Gário styles him grandson of Räe Chuda, who was probably Chudachand Yadav, and who is well known in the contemporary

annals of the Rājput houses. Tod assigns to Rāo Chudachand the date Sam. 960 (A.D. 904), whereas if he were grandfather of Ră Gário, Sam. 760 (A.D. 704) would be nearer the mark. This discrepancy is diſilcult to reconcile, but as in the main features of the legend respecting Rā Gário there is no striking improbability, I would be inclined to assign to Rāo Chudachand the older date.

Rāo Chudachand is said to have

by many of the readers of the Antiquary. Pos sibly, however, the king of Pattan who fought with Rā Khengår was Mula Rāja Solanki. In the account by Kinloch Forbes of Mula Rāja's warfare in Saurashtra (see Rás Málá, vol. I. pp. 53 etc. and 154 etc.), quoting from both the Dryáshrāya and the Prabandh Chintá maní, the Lord of Wämanasthali is described

as a Shepherd King, or Åhir Rånå. Now both Noghan and Khengår might fairly be called by such a name, as Noghan was placed on the throne by the aid of the Áhirs. It will be seen by referring to the Sindhi version of the legend of Râ Dyās that the account given therein of the cause of quarrel between Anerai and the Rā is almost exactly the same as the one in the Turi's version quoted by Mr. Forbes. Mr. Forbes re presents Lākhā Phulāni to have been slain by Mularāja, but he also mentions that the honour of slaying Lākhā has been also claimed by Siñhoji Räthod. It will, I think, be easy to prove that Lākhā Phulāni did not live for up wards of four centuries after Mularāja, and as the descendants of Sihoji Rathod still enjoy lands in Gujarāt, and as the Wāghelă chronicles show Muluji, the conqueror of Sirdargadh in

Käthiawād, and founder of the Sirdhāra Wåghe lås, to have been a contemporary of Lākhā, and that it was Muluji who with Siâhoji Räthod

defeated Lākhā at Adkot, where Lākhā fell by the hand of Sinhoji, it may fairly be inferred that Lākhā was a contemporary of Wäghelă Muluji. Professor Wilson has pointed out (in Bombay Government Records No. XV. New Series) that the era of Lākhā Ghurārā has been antedated by 621 years. This would make the death of Lākhā, if the Jhādejā chronicles be