Vol. VIII, No. 3.) The Atapura Inscription. 89 
[N.S.] 
Sila, the prince who was one of the earliest Guhila kings. 
His name no doubt occurs in the dynastic lists of Mewar 
princes furnished by the Chitorgadh, Achalgadh and Ranpur 
prasastis, but had been thought to be more or less fabulous. 
But now his historical existence is attested by the Samoli 
inscription, which also furnishes a specific date for him.’’ 
(Prog. Rep. Archeeol. Surv., Western Circle, for 1908-09, 
pp. 48—49.) 
And in his note on this transcript he has said :— 
‘‘ Sila must be the same as Siladitya, of whom an inscrip- 
tion has been found at Samoli in the Bhumat district, Mewar. 
It is dated v.s. 703=a.p. 646.”” : 
(I.A., vol. XXXIX, Part. XDV, p. 189.) 
In these statements no reason is given by Mr. Bhandarkar 
for his identifying Siladitya with Sila of the Atapura inscrip- 
tion, but it is said only, that— 
‘« Siladitya is undoubtedly Sila, the prince who was one 
of the earliest Guhila kings. 
‘¢ Sila must be the same Siladitya, of whom an inscription 
has been found at Samoli in the Bhumat district, Mewar.” 
These are only the assertions of Mr. Bhandarkar, but no 
reason at all, that the doubt of a sceptic may be completely 
set at rest. Because the opposition boldiy affirms that this 
inscription of Siladitya and that of Aparajita also have 
wrongly been ascribed to Sila and Aparajita of this transcript 
by the followers of the Anandapura theory, as they really 
belong to their namesakes who flourished long before Guha- 
datta even. This fact has already been stated by us in para. 
K. Therefore, it is plain that on the basis of the wrong conjec- 
tural identification of Siladitya with Sila, the merely conjec- 
tural date has been fixed for Guhadatta. 
Further, Mr. Bhandarkar has not taken the trouble to 
consider and discuss these most essential questions in his note 
and paper in connection of Guhadatta :— 
1. On what well authenticated proof it is accepted, that 
Guhadatta’s another name was uhila, because it is not said 
in the first couplet of this transcript, but it is plainly said only 
in it—WHF sigte cara , that he was the forefather or 
progenitor of Sri-guhila family ‘ 
When Guhadatta emigrated from Anandapura, was he 
a common Nagar-Brahmana, or a ruling prince of the Nagar- 
Brahmana caste ? : 
3. If he was really a ruling prince, does the -history of 
Gujarat or Kathiawar tell us that there was ever or about 
ap. 546, or the middle of the sixth century, a Nagar-Brah- 
manic kingdom of Anandapura or Va nagar 1 i 
which the eighth ruling prince, Cuhadatta, emigrated to Mewar ? 
