The Gurjaras of Lata, also known as Gurjaras of Nandipuri or Bharuch Gurjaras, was a Gurjara dynasty which ruled Lata region (now South Gujarat, India) as a feudatory of different dynasties from c. 580 CE to c. 738 CE.
All the available information regarding the Bharuch Gurjaras comes from copperplates, all obtained from South Gujarat. Like the grants of the contemporary Chalukyas all the genuine copperplates are dated in the Traikúá¹Âaka era which begins in 249âÂÂ50 CE. The Gurjara capital seems to have been NÃÂndëpurë or NÃÂndor, the modern Nandod near Bharuch. Two of their grants issue NÃÂndëpurëtaḥ that is 'from NÃÂndëpurëâÂÂ, a phrase which seems to show the place named was the capital since in other Gurjara grants the word vÃÂsaka or camp occurs.
These copperplates limit the regular Gurjara territory to the Bharuch district between the Mahi and the Narmada rivers, though at times their power extended north to Kheá¸Âàand south to the TÃÂpti river.
Though the Gurjaras held a considerable territory in South Gujarat their plates seem to show they were not independent rulers. The general titles are either Samadhigata-panchamahÃÂà Âabada 'He who has attained the five great titles,â or SÃÂmanta Feudatory. In one instance Jayabhaá¹Âa III who was probably a powerful ruler is called SÃÂmantÃÂdhipati Lord of Feudatories. It is hard to say to what suzerain these Bharuch Gurjaras acknowledged fealty. Latterly they seem to have accepted the Chalukyas on the south as their overlords. But during the greater part of their existence they may have been feudatory of the Maitraka dynasty.
The origin of dynasty is not known. They probably originated from the neighboring dynasty, Gurjaras of Mandor or Bhinmal.
A grant made by Nirihullaka, the chieftain of a forest tribe in the lower valley of the Narmada, shows that towards the end of the sixth century CE that region was occupied by forest tribes who acknowledged the supremacy of the Kalachuri dynasty; a fact which accounts for the use of the Chedi or Traikúá¹Âaka era in South GujarÃÂt. Nirihullaka names with respect a king à Âaá¹ karaá¹Âa, identified with à Âaá¹ karagaá¹Âa (r. c. 575-600 CE) of Kalachuri dynasty and the Gurjara conquest must be subsequent to this date. Another grant, which is only a fragment and contains no king's name, but which on the ground of date (Samvat 346 = 594âÂÂ5 CE) and style may be safely attributed to the Gurjara dynasty, shows that the Gurjaras were established in the country within a few years of à Âaá¹ karagaá¹Âa's probable date.
A still nearer approximation to the date of the Gurjara conquest is suggested by the change in the titles of Dharasena I of Maitraka dynasty, who in his grants of Saá¹Âvat 252 (571 CE) calls himself MahÃÂrÃÂja, while in his grants of 269 and 270 (588 and 589 CE), he adds the title of MahÃÂsÃÂmanta, which points to subjection by some foreign power between 571 and 588 CE. It seems highly probable that this power was that of the Gurjaras of BhënmÃÂl; and that their successes therefore took place between 580 and 588 CE or about 585 CE.
The above-mentioned anonymous grant of the year 346 (CE 594âÂÂ95) from Sankheda is ascribed with great probability to Dadda I. who is known from the two Kheá¸Âàgrants of his grandson Dadda II. (C. 620âÂÂ650 CE) to have âÂÂuprooted the NÃÂgaâ who may be the same as the forest tribes ruled by Nirihullaka (possibly later represented by the NÃÂikdÃÂs of the PanchmahÃÂls and the Talabdas or Locals of Bharuch).
The northern limit of Dadda's kingdom seems to have been the Vindhya, as the grant of 380 (CE 628âÂÂ29) says that the lands lying around the feet of the Vindhya were for his pleasure. At the same time it appears that part at least of Northern GujarÃÂt was ruled by the MahÃÂsÃÂmanta Dharasena of Maitraka dynasty, who in Val. 270 (589âÂÂ90 CE) granted a village in the ÃÂhÃÂra (province) of Kheá¹Âaka (Kheá¸ÂÃÂ). Dadda is always spoken of as the SÃÂmanta, which shows that while he lived his territory remained a part of the Gurjara kingdom of BhënmÃÂl. Subsequently, North GujarÃÂt fell into the hands of the MÃÂlava kings, to whom it belonged in Hiuen TsiangâÂÂs time (c. 640 CE). In Tsiang's accounts, Po-lu-ka-cha-po (Bharigukacchapa or Bhrigukaccha, i.e., Bharuch) is mentioned. Dadda I. is mentioned in the two Kheá¸Âàgrants of his grandson as a worshipper of the sun: the fragmentary grant of 346 (594âÂÂ95 CE) which is attributed to him gives no historical details.
Dadda I was succeeded by his son Jayabhaá¹Âa I who is mentioned in the Kheá¸Âàgrants as a victorious and virtuous ruler, and appears from his title of VëtarÃÂga the Passionless to have been a religious prince.
Jayabhaá¹Âa I. was succeeded by his son Dadda II who bore the title of Praà ÂÃÂntarÃÂga, the Passion-calmed. Dadda was the donor of the two Kheá¸Âàgrants of 380 (628âÂÂ29 CE) and 385 (633âÂÂ34 CE), and a part of a grant made by his brother Raá¹Âagraha in the year 391 (639âÂÂ40 CE) has been recorded. Both of the Kheá¸Âàgrants relate to the gift of the village of Sirëshapadraka (Sisodra) in the Akrúreà Âvara (Ankleshwar) vishaya to certain BrÃÂhmans of Jambusar and Bharuch. In Raá¹Âagraha's grant the name of the village is lost.
Dadda IIâÂÂs own grants describe him as having attained the five great titles, and praise him in general terms: and both he and his brother Raá¹Âagraha sign their grants as devout worshipers of the sun. Dadda II heads the genealogy in the later grant of 456 (704âÂÂ5 CE), which states that he protected "the lord of Valabhi [Dhruvasena II] who had been defeated by the great lord the illustrious Harshadeva." The event referred to must have been some expedition of Harsha of Kanauj (Vardhana dynasty) (607âÂÂ648 CE), perhaps the campaign in which Harsha was defeated on the Narmada by Pulakeshin II of Chalukya dynasty (which took place before 634 CE). The protection given to the Valabhi king is perhaps referred to in the Kheá¸Âàgrants in the mention of "strangers and suppliants and people in distress." If this is the case the defeat of Valabhi took place before 628âÂÂ29 CE, the date of the earlier of the Kheá¸Âàgrants. On the other hand, the phrase quoted is by no means decisive, and the fact that in Hiuen Tsiang's time Dhruvasena II of Valabhi was son-in-law of Harsha's son, makes it unlikely that Harsha should have been at war with him. It follows that the expedition referred to may have taken place in the reign of Dharasena IV who may have been the son of Dhruvasena by another wife than Harsha's granddaughter.
To Dadda II's reign belongs Hiuen Tsiang's notice of the kingdom of Bharuch (C. 640 CE). He says "all their profit is from the sea" and describes the country as salt and barren, which is still true of large tracts in the west and twelve hundred years ago was probably the condition of a much larger area than at present. Hiuen Tsiang does not say that Broach was subject to any other kingdom, but it is clear from the fact that Dadda bore the five great titles that he was a mere feudatory. At this period the valuable port of Bharuch, from which all their profit was made, was a prize fought for by all the neighbouring powers. With the surrounding country of LÃÂá¹Âa, Bharuch submitted to Pulakeà Âin II. (610âÂÂ640 CE), it may afterwards have fallen to the MÃÂlawa kings, to whom in Hiuen Tsiang's time (640 CE) both Kheá¸Âà(KâÂÂi.e.-châÂÂa) and ÃÂnandapura (Vadnagar) belonged; later it was subject to Valabhi, as Dharasena IV made a grant at Bharuch in VS 330 (649âÂÂ50 CE).
The knowledge of the later Gurjaras is derived exclusively from two grants of Jayabhaá¹Âa III dated respectively 456 (704âÂÂ5 CE) and 486 (734âÂÂ5 CE). The later of these two grants is imperfect, only the last plate having been preserved. The earlier grant of 456 (704âÂÂ5 CE) shows that during the half century following the reign of Dadda II the dynasty had ceased to call themselves Gurjaras, and had adopted a PurÃÂá¹Âic pedigree traced from Karna of Mahabharata. It also shows that from Dadda III onward the family were à Âaivas instead of sun-worshipers.
The successor of Dadda II was his son Jayabhaá¹Âa II who is described as a warlike prince, but of whom no historical details are recorded.
Jayabhaá¹Âa's son, Dadda III BÃÂhusahÃÂya is described as waging wars with the great kings of the east and of the west (probably MÃÂlava and Valabhi). He had received title of BÃÂhusahÃÂya to for showing valour of his arms in fights with suzerain of east and west. He was à Âaiva. Like his predecessors, Dadda III was not an independent ruler. He could claim only the five great titles, though no hint is given who was his suzerain. His immediate superior may have been Jayasimhavarma, who received the province of LÃÂá¹Âa from his brother Vikramaditya I of Chalukya dynasty. During his rule Jayasimhavarma had defeated Vajjada between Mahi and Narmada rivers. Vajjada may be another name of Dadda III or another king of that name had invaded his state and was defeated by Jayasimhavarma.
The son and successor of Dadda III was Jayabhaá¹Âa III whose two grants of 456 (704âÂÂ5 CE) and 486 (734âÂÂ5 CE) must belong respectively to the beginning and the end of his reign. He attained the five great titles, and was therefore a feudatory, probably of the ChÃÂlukyas: but his title of MahÃÂsÃÂmantÃÂdhipati implies that he was a chief of importance. He is praised in vague terms, but the only historical event mentioned in his grants is a defeat of a Maitraka ruler of Valabhi, noted in the grant of 486 (734âÂÂ5 CE). The Maitraka king referred to must be à ÂëlÃÂditya IV (691 CE).
Jayabhata III was succeeded by Ahirole. He ruled till c. 720 CE.
Ahirole's son Jayabhata IV's copperplate states that he defeated the Arabs fighting for the Umayyad Caliphate at Valabhi, the capital of his probable overlords, the Maitrakas, in the year 735-36 CE. He assumed title of Mahasamanradhipati. He must be feudatory of Maitraka ruler Shiladitya IV or Shiladitya V as he had helped his suzerain Maitrakas in battle. Majumdar had suggested that he may have helped as a feudatory of Chalukyas. Bharuch may have finally destroyed by the Arabs and the Gurjara principality overtaken by them. The Arab were severely defeated and repulsed by Chalukya governor Avanijanashraya Pulakeshin in 738-39 at Navsari. He may have annexed the Gurjara kingdom to the Chalukya territory after evicting the Arabs. Alternatively, the state may have been absorbed under Dantidurga of Rashtrakuta dynasty.
The rulers till Dadda III were worshipers of Surya (sun) but after Dadda III they are identified as Shaiva. Jayabhata I and Dadda II, are given the epithets 'VitarÃÂga' and 'PrasÃÂntarÃÂgaâ in their grantsâÂÂwords which indicate that they may have patronized Jainism though they themselves were not converts.