Vol. VIiI, No. 3.) The Atapura Inscription. 77 
[V.S.] 
4. Being the founder, Guhadatta, a Nagar Brahmana of 
Anandapura or Vadanagar, in Gujarat, the chiefs of Mewar were 
originally Nagar Brahmanas and afterwards they have become 
Kshatriyas, as they have hitherto been generally acknowledged 
or accepted, but they are Brahma-Kshatriyas, i.e. illegitimate 
Kshatriyas 
Ba apa Ravala was called by the name Bapa Ravala, as 
he became a member of Ravalas, a sect of ascetics. e wa. 
either in- the seventh or eighth or ninth generation of 
Guhadatta of the Atapur inscription and was not the founder 
and predecessor of the Mewar family as mentioned by the 
ape ee Achalgadh and Chitorgadh epigraphs. 
6. The inscription of Siladitya lately found at Samoli, 
dated 8. 703, and that of Aparajita, dated S. 718, belong to the 
Sila and Aparajita of the pee ake inscription, and not to their 
namesakes, who flourished before them 
There are such more peated tions of this theory, but we 
have mentioned here the most important ones only. With 
— ahegpane aeo our readers should know and bear in mind 
ne thing m the peculiarity of this theory, that it recog- 
nizes as authorities ie those inscriptions, works and khyatis 
portions of them, as are not so favorable, are rejected r 
instance, in the Achalgadh inscription oc the incident of 
Bapa’s acceptance of Kshatriyaism in lieu of Brahmanaism 
when in the same authority it is discovered that there were the 
branches and sub-branches of the Guhilots anterior to Bapa 
and his (Bapa’s) son was Guhila, from whom the Mewar 
dynasty was designated as Guhilot, and he was the founder of 
the family, the authority is not accepted. Similarly, in the 
(spurious) Ekalinga-mahatmya No. I, it is said that Guhadatta 
was a Nagar Brahmana, he migrated from Anandapura and he 
was the progenitor of Guhilots—so far it is accepted as an 
authority ; but when it says that there were these seven 
ancestors of that Guhadatta,—namely Vijayaditya, Kesawa, 
Naga Raula, Bhoga Raula, Asadhara, Sri-deva a and Mahadeva 
—and his son wa as it is said in the Ranpur and 
Raya-Sagar inscriptions also, it is rejected. There are other 
similar inconsistencies, which we have pointed out in their 
appropriate plac es in our rerreety notes on the Brief History of 
Mewar by Kaviraj Shyamaladan. These presumptions ‘and 
peculiarity do not turn topsy-turvy the generally accepted 
history of Mewar only, but they create a great disagreement 
among the inscriptions also by wrongly attributing the inscrip- 
tions dated s. 703 and 718 to Sila and Aparajita, which re eally 
and thereby assigning also the mere conjectural date 546 a.p. 
to Guhila or Guhadatta of the Atapura inscription. These 
