78 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [March, 1912. 
inscriptions themselves are not at variance but the adherents 
of this theory cause them to differ by their treating them in a 
far-fetched conjectural wrong way to accomplish their object. 
There is no need to take a wrong way of treating these 
epigraphs, leaving the right one, which we have stated above. 
Thus the question—who was really the founder and prede- 
cessor of the Mewar dynasty ?—is at present in great dispute 
and its final determination entirely rests on the opinions of 
those scholars only who are unbiassed by the beliefs and dis- 
beliefs of the both theories. Because the great difficulty in solv- 
ing this problem is—that the same authorities, which are cited 
y the followers of the Anandapura theory to prove the 
Brahmanic origin of the Guhilots, tell us in plain and decisive 
terms, that Bapa was STZ and afer, ie. the first founder 
of the Mewar Kingdom and family, and the so-called Guhadatta 
or Guhila was only the UH@, i.e. progenitor of the Guhilots, 
and not the first founder of the Mewar Kingdom. For, there 
is some difference in the senses of the terms ‘ progenitor,’ i.e. 
one who begets before, and ‘founder of a kingdom.’ In the 
text of the couplet of this transcript of the Atapura inscription, 
as well as in the same of the (spurious) Ekalinga-mahatmya 
. * : d | 
with Kalabhoja and Mahendraji II in vol. IT ‘Pacts raped 
saying that one of these two should be Ba a, but it is not 
certain (see Appendix E). Is it not surprising that these three 
great adherents of the Anandapura theory differ with one 
