90 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [March, 1912 
4. Why Guhadatta, such a most powerful and illustrious 
ruling chief of the (spurious) Mahatmya No. I. an tapura 
inscription, having abandoned his own flourishing hereditary 
ingdom of Anandapura, came to the hilly and desolated 
II, has identified him with Khammana I of the Atapura 
inscriptions, that is, Khumman is made Bapa and Bapa’s date 
v.s. $10.” 
‘“‘The date 810 for Bappa, therefore, deserves some cre- 
dence. Let us see with what Guhila prince in the dynastic 
who was in the fourth generation from Aparajita, is om- 
mana I. Bappa must, therefore, be identified with this Khom- 
m Aha wel XIX, Part XDV, Dp. 4 
But this conjecture is utterly untrue and_ far-fetched. 
e have no concern 
whatever with the Anandapura theory, but they really belong 
i ry. His name has not been mentioned in 
the Atapura inscription. It has not yet been satisfactorily 
proved by well-authenticated proof that Khummana’s another 
name was Bapa or Bapa’s another name was Kh 
Bapa, whose name and date (v.s.) 810 are taken in this iden- 
an 
