1. “Vāta Tīḍai Chāḍāvata rī,” in V¯tāṃ ro Jhūmakho, ed. Śarma, M. (Bissau, n.d.), part 3, p. 43.Google Scholar This translation and those from other Mārvāṛī texts in this paper are mine.

2. Tod, J., Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan (Calcutta, 1902), I, iii.Google Scholar

3. The term “Rājasthān” is of nineteenth century origin, having been coined by the British to designate this area of northwestern India. In local dialects, it was referred to either by the name “Rājvāṛā,” the more refined “Raithāna,” or by names designating local, internal division of territory, such as “Mārvāṛa,” “Mevāṛa,” etc., which were controlled by local rulers or brotherhoods.

4. Spate, O.K.H., Indian and Pakistan: A General and Regional Geography (London, 1957), p. 565.Google Scholar

5. Rajpūt, “son of a king,” from the Sanskrit ràjaputra. See below for a discussion of this term.

6. Mārvāṛa is known today by the name of Jodhpur, the name of its traditional capital founded in 1459 by Rāo Jodhojī. It comprises the western division of the modern Indian state of Rājasthān.

7. Rajputana Gazetteers, III-A, The Western Rajputana States Residency and the Bikaner Agency, compiled by Erskine, Major K.D. (Allahabad, 1909), part II, p. 43.Google Scholar

8. The most important works in English dealing with Mārvāṛa and Rajpūt society in general are the following: Banerjee, A.C., Lectures on Rajput History (Calcutta, 1962)Google Scholar; idem, The Rajput States and the East India Company (Calcutta, 1951); Bhargave, V.S., Marwar and the Mughal Emperors (Delhi, 1966)Google Scholar; Carstairs, G.M., The Twice-Born (Bloomington, 1967)Google Scholar; Chauhan, B.R., A Rajasthani Village (New Delhi, 1967)Google Scholar; List of the Ruling Princes, Chiefs and Leading Personages, Rajputana and Ajmer, sixth ed. (Calcutta, 1931)Google Scholar; Lyall, A., “The Rajput States of India,” in Asiatic Studies: Religious and Social (London, 1906)Google Scholar; Minturn, L. and Hitchcock, J.T., The Rajputs of Khalapur, India (New York, 1966)Google Scholar; Parihar, G.R., Marwar and the Marathas (Jodhpur, 1965)Google Scholar; Qanungo, K.R., Studies in Rajput History, second ed. (New Delhi, 1971)Google Scholar; Reu, B.N., Glories of Marwar and the Glorious Rathors (Jodhpur, 1943)Google Scholar; Rudolph, S.H., “The Princely States of Rajputana: Ethic, Authority and Structure,” The Indian Journal of Political Science 24 (1963): 14–37 Google Scholar; Tod, James, Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, ed. Crooke, William, 3 volumes (London, 1920)Google Scholar; Vyas, R.P., Role of Nobility in Marwar (New Delhi, 1969)Google Scholar; Ziegler, N.P., “Action, Power and Service in Rājasthānī Culture: A Social History of the Rajputs of Middle Period Rājasthān” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, Department of History, 1973).Google Scholar

9. The depth and range of sources for different states of this area vary. For some, there is rather extensive epigraphic data; for others, this kind of material is minimal, and reliance must be placed to a much greater degree on the historical chronicles of the late medieval period.

10. The term Ḍiṃgala designates the Mārvāṛi or Western Rāhasthānī dialect of the late medieval period in Rājasthān (fifteenth-eighteenth centuries). Both it and what is understood under the term Guj¯raī have their base in post-Apabhramśa and were at one time the same language, termed by Tessitori “Old Western Rājasthānī” or “Old Gujarātī.” Only in the fifteenth century did Mārvāṛ¯ or Ḍiṃgala develop the characteristics which mark it today as a regional dialect in its own right. See Tessitori, L.P., “Notes on the Grammar of the Old Western Rajasthani, with Special Reference to Apabhramsa and to Gujarati and Marwari,” The Indian Antiquary (January-February, 1914), p. 21 Google Scholar; idem, “A Scheme for the Bardic and Historical Survey of Rajputana,” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 10(1914): 375-76.

11. In preparing this paper, I have relied on various works in Indian languages, which I have not specifically cited here. Whenever possible, I have tried to note comparable English language sources.

12. Tessitori, “A Progress Report on the Work Done During the Year 1917 in Connection with the Bardic and Historical Survey of Rajputana,” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 15 (1919): 19.Google Scholar

13. Following such recitations, opium mixed with water and placed in the palm of the hand in the form of a ball was offered to those present. The senior Ṭhākura always offered the first ball to the Cāraṇa, out of honor and respect.

14. Songs and poems of praise and edification. Gita is a major form of Ḍiṃgala poetry, has a specific meter of its own, and generally consists of eighty-four lines, though there are variations. Dohā (or dūho) is a rhymed couplet of Ḍiṃgala poetry, also with its own special meter.

15. See Carstairs, , The Twice-Born (p. 111)Google Scholar for his comments on the ways such tales were used in the education of young Rajpüt boys. While in Rājasthān, I heard tales recited by elderly Rajpūt Ṭhākuras while they sat around evening fires in their villages before an audience of male relations, friends, and other villagers who had come to smoke a pipe or simply to pay court.

16. T.N. Dave has written that sons had to follow their fathers' profession as bard, irrespective of whether they had their fathers' talents or not. However, this does not seem to be the case. See Dave, T.N., “The Institution of Bards in Western India,” Eastern Anthropologist 4 (1951): 167.Google Scholar

17. Bārhaṭa was a title given by Rajpū;t rulers to Cāraṇa bards held in great esteem. The title poḷpata, which also means “guardian of the gate,” was given to other Cāraṇas attached to the ṭhikāṇas (“estates”) of prominent ṭhākuras. Generally poḷpata Cāraṇas and their families maintained very close hereditary relationships with particular families of Rajpūts, the title being given only to the most trusted and faithful. It was their duty to see to the defense and safety of their Rajpüt benefactors: under siege, they would be the first line of defense at the gate of the fort. Bārhaṭa and poḷpata Cāraṇas also held the right to be first in line (ahead of Brāhmaṇas, who were higher in caste rank) at weddings of their Rajpūt patron families to receive the nega of traditional offerings of money by the bride's side.

18. The word sāsaṇa comes from the Apabhraṃśa term svasāsaṇa, meaning “self-rule,” and was applied to special land grants to Cāraṇas because a local ruler's writ against fugitives did not apply in such territory. Theoretically, these lands were also free from resumption. See Ujwal, K.S., Bhagavati Shri Karniji Maharaj: A Biography (Jodhpur, n.d.), p. 16.Google Scholar

19. I am grateful for much of the above information about Cāraṇas to Śrī Kailāṣdāna Ujvala, a prestigious Cāraṇa poet and writer, and member of the IAS from Jodhpur; and to Narāiṇsiṃgha Sāṃdu, my Cāraṇa assistant in Jodhpur while I was doing my Ph.D. research in 1971-72 (under a grant from the Fulbright-Hays Graduate Fellowship Committee).

20. The word Bhāṭa (from Sanskrit, bhaṭṭa) originally meant “one with knowledge of prayers, eulogies and invocations,” but it has come to refer to those with specialized knowledge of genealogies. There are Bhāṭas for all castes, known by different names depending on the caste they serve. Those for Rajpüts, for example, are called Vāṛvā.

21. These traditional practices are still carried out in some areas of Rājasthān today. I was, unfortunately, unable to witness any of these recitations while in India, but was told about the procedures and formalities by Rajpūt informants in Mārvāṛa. The Bhāṭas are in general very secretive about their registers and are suspicious of strangers inspecting them for fear that information might be stolen. See also Dave, “The Institution of Bards…” (p. 168) for his comments on the manner of recording entries; and Shah, A.M. and Shroff, R.G., “The Vahīvancā Bāroṭs of Gujarat: A Caste of Genealogists and Mythographers,” in Traditional India: Structure and Change, ed. Singer, M. (Philadelphia, 1959), pp. 48–49 Google Scholar, for a discussion of a group of genealogists of Gujarāt.

22. Tessitori, , “A Progress Report on the Work Done During the Year 1917 …” (p. 23).Google Scholar Tessitori suggests that—at least in some cases—the genealogists who kept vaṃsāvatī were not Bhāṭas, but specialists of the caste known as “Jaina Jatīs.” While in Mārvaṛā, I was not able to verify this assertion, but such specialization among castes is not unusual.

23. This distinction is only a general one; fairly elaborate pīḍhiāvalī, often included in larger clan histories, are also found.

24. von Fürer-Haimendorf, C., “The Historical Value of Indian Bardic Literature,” in Historians of India, Pakistan and Ceylon, ed. Philips, C.H. (London, 1967), p. 90.Google Scholar Fürer-Haimendorf has remarked that the genealogies are in large measure bare lists of names without dates—while this statement is true of some genealogies (especially those giving the names of very early ancestors of particular lines or those tracing descent from mythical Purāṇic ancestors), it is not true of those dealing with later historical periods.

25. Tessitori, , “A Progress Report on the Work Done During the Year 1917 …” pp. 22–25.Google Scholar

26. Much of this information on oral genealogies was supplied by my Rajpūt informants, Kuṃvara Śrī Gopālsiṃghajī Rāṭhoṛa of Ṭhikāṇa Bhādṛājuṇ, Mārvāṛa, and Ṭhākura Bhavāṇīsiṃghajī Rāṭhoṛa of Thikāṇa Pāḷa, Mārvāṛa.

27. The original manuscript has now been fully published in Ḍiṃgala, along with a thorough editing in Hindi and an index of names: Naiṇsī rī Khyāta, ed. Muni, P.V. (4 volumes, Jodhpur, 1960–1967).Google Scholar

28. This distinction is true only of the earliest records. Later khyātas from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries have lost almost all indications of oral origin and are written in the past tense as official histories of particular royal houses. Most of these later khyātas are also based on earlier histories, which may or may not be available now.

29. Tessitori, , “A Progress Report of the Work Done During the Year 1917…” p. 20 Google Scholar Tessitori notes that most of these early praśastīs were composed by poets of the Brāhmaṇa caste, who called themselves Bhaṭṭas. The term Bhāṭa, used to designate members of the genealogist caste, appears to be simply the vernacular form of Bhaṭṭa. It is perhaps significant in this light that some Bhāṭas of today claim Brāhmaṇ origins.

30. Some Rājasthānī scholars argue that the initial entrance of the Muslims into Rājasthān prior to and during the fifteenth century was responsible for the destruction of much old literature.

31. Tessitori, , “A Progress Report of the Work Done During the Year 1917 …“ p. 24.Google Scholar

32. Fürer-Haimendorf, , “The Historical Value of Indian Bardic Literature,” p. 80.Google Scholar It is probable that the bardic and genealogist castes that we know today originated in this period.

33. Vaṃsāvalī available from the late sixteenth century, which are the immediate precursors of khyāta, are also characterized by a loose and often disconnected structure. See Tessitori, , “A Progress Report on the Work Done During the Year 1917 …” pp. 20, 26.Google Scholar

34. Akbar, Mughal Emperor from 1556 to 1605.

35. The Akbar-nàma and the Ā īn-ī-Akbarī were respectively the official history of Akbar's reign and the laws and regulations of Akbar.

36. Tessitori, , “A Progress Report on the Work Done During the Year 1917…” p. 27.Google Scholar Tessitori was really the first to express this opinion, and later Rājasthānī scholars appear to have followed his lead unquestioningly. Tessitori writes, for example: “The example of the Emperor must have been contagious for the Rajpüt Princes, who … were at that time equally interested in historical pursuits. Perhaps the Emperor himself suggested to them that they should also keep records of all the notable events happening in their respective territories and of the campaigns which they were making in the service of the empire, and they readily responded to the hint.” Akbar set up a record office at Āgra in the nineteenth year of his reign (1574).

37. The Imperial Gāhaḍavāla dynasty ruled areas of North India from Kanauj in the mid-Gangetic plain from ca. 1075 to 1200. The dynasty came to an end with its defeat at the hands of invading Muslim armies in the early thirteenth century. Rāṭhoṛas of Mārvāṛa claim descent from the last great king of this dynasty, Jāyacandra (ca. 1170-1193).

38. The Purāṇas refer to a body of sacred works which were written after the turn of the Christian era and which contain the sum of modern Hindu theology and mythology. Parts of these works are semi-historical in nature and recount the genealogies and histories of ancient Indian dynasties which ruled in areas of North India.

39. Henige, D.P., The Chronology of Oral Tradition: Quest for a Chimera (Oxford, 1974), p. 202.Google Scholar See also: Tessitori, , “A Progress Report on the Work Done During the Year 1917 …” p. 25 Google Scholar; and idem, “A Progress Report on the Work Done in the Year 1918 … “ Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 16 (1920): 263.

40. Henige, , The Chronology of Oral Tradition, pp. 53, 202–3.Google Scholar

41. Ruka'at-i-A lamgiri, or, Letters of Aurangzebe, translated from the Persian by Bilimoria, J.H. (Delhi, 1972), p. 18.Google Scholar

42. Henige, , The Chronology of Oral Tradition, pp. 4–5.Google Scholar Henige remarks with reference to genealogies that there are generally great differences between those found in centralized “state” societies and those in decentralized, kin-based, “stateless” societies. In the latter, genealogies tend to be quite shallow; while in the former, one finds the greatest efforts to create and remember a continuous past.

43. Lingat, R., The Classical Law of India, translated from French by Derrett, J.D.M. (Berkeley, 1973), p. 260.Google Scholar

44. The original manuscript has been recently published in ḍiṃgala with some Hindi editing: Naiṇsī, Muṃhata, Mārvāṛa rā Parganāṃ ή Vigata, ed. Bhāṭṭī, N.S. (2 vols., Jodhpur, 1968–1969).Google Scholar

45. Tessitori, , “A Progress Report on the Work Done During the Year 1917 …” pp. 27–28.Google Scholar

46. Naiṇsī was addressed by the titles of Muṃhata (or Muhnota) and Mehta. The latter is an official title of respect given to non-Rajpūt administrative dignitaries (drawn predominantly from the Jaina and Vaiṣnāva communities of Osvālas, Siṃghavīs and others) and to Kāyastha administrators of importance, such as the Paṃcolīs. Muṃhata or Muhnota is a family name meaning “son of Mohana,” the progenitor of the family line.

47. For more information on Naiṇsī, see: A Brief Family History of Muhnot Sardarmal (Jodhpur, 1940)Google Scholar; and Qanungo, , “Muhnot Nainsi: The Abul Fazl of Rajasthan,” in his Studies in Rajput History, pp. 80–95.Google Scholar

48. Rajpüts were, with some exceptions, almost totally illiterate as a caste group. Their profession as warriors and rulers mitigated against their learning to read and write, and cultural norms also inhibited literary pursuits.

49. The actual writing of the documents themselves was done both by the mutsaddis and by members of a caste of hereditary scribes attached to the local courts, known in Rājasthān as Paṃcott.

50. It is not unlikely that literate Cāraṇas also played a part in the compilation. Other chronicles which I have seen of important Ṭhākuras and their families (but which are of later date) are modelled after the early khyātas and often import sections from them;in most cases they are the work of family bards.

51. See Vansina, J., Oral Tradition: A Study in Historical Methodology (Chicago, 1965), p. 22 Google Scholar, for Vansina's distinction between free and fixed forms of oral tradition; and pp. 49-50 for his distinction between public and private traditions.

52. Ibid., p. 91; Lord, A.B., The Singer of Tales (Cambridge, Mass., 1964), p. 220.Google Scholar

53. Though the recitation and composition of narratives and verses was almost exclusively the domain of the Cāraṇas, Bhāṭas and others who were knowledgeable in this art are also mentioned. See Tessitori, , “A Progress Report on the Work Done During the Year 1917 …“ p. 18.Google Scholar

54. I was informed that these competitions still take place among Cāraṇas of Mārvāra. Today, they are generally held in Cārana villages instead of at the houses of Ṭhakuras or of a local Rājā and can run as long as several days and nights or a week, with only brief pauses for rest.

55. There are a number of examples in the texts of these occurrences.

56. Rāvaḷa Māldejī Lüṇkaraṇota was a Rajpüt of the Bhāti clan and ruler of Jaisaḷmera state to the northwest of Mārvāṛa, 1550-1561.

57. The son and chosen successor of Rāo Mālde. He ruled Mārvāṛa from 1562-1581, during the height of Mughal advance into Rājasthān, and spent most of his life fighting in the hills.

58. A local area of western Rājasthān, situated directly to the northeast of Jodhpur city. Nāgaura was controlled throughout most of the medieval period by Muslims.

59. Mālde's capture of Nāgaura from Muhammad Daulat Khān took place around 1595.

60. Dharṇa: the act of sitting doggedly before the house of someone and fasting in order to extort favors or force compliance with a demand.

61. The rite of trāga or suicide by cutting one's throat, the ultimate weapon held by a Cāraṇa to force compliance with his wishes. Responsibility for the death of a Cāraṇa was considered a great sin, comparable to the killing of a Brāhmaṇa. That this practice was still in vogue in Mārvāṛa in the nineteenth century is evidenced by comments in the journal of J. Holland, an aide-de-camp of the Governor-General of India, who made a tour through parts of Mārvāṛa in the winter of 1829-1830 and met many Cāraṇas bearing the scars of such an ordeal. See Holland, J., “Journal of a Route through Parkur, Jeysulmeer, Joodpoor, etc., etc., December, 1829-March, 1830,” Extract Bombay Political Consultation, 1st December, 1830, No. 94, Indian Office Library, London.Google Scholar

62. Umāde Bhaṭiyānī was the second wife of Rāo Māldejī and daughter of Rāvaḷa Lüṇkaraṇa Jaitsiṃghota Bhāṭī, ruler of Jaisaḷmera, 1529-1550.

63. Rājā, “ruler or sovereign,” a form of address conveying respect and deference.

64. Naiṇsī, , Mārvāṛa rā Parganām I (1968): 53–54.Google Scholar

65. See note 2.

66. Tessitori, , “A Progress Report on the Work Done During the Year 1916 …“ Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 13 (1917): 228.Google Scholar

67. Tessitori, , “A Progress Report on the Work Done During the Year 1917 …” p. 48.Google Scholar

68. See Lord, , The Singer of Tales, pp. 28, 220 Google Scholar, for his remarks on the bard as historian and seer.

69. See Shah, and Shroff, , “The Vahīvancā Bāroṭs…” pp. 43–44.Google Scholar Shah and Shroff consider that the sacredness of the Cārana and the Bhāṭa in Gujarāt stems from their position as devīputta (“son of a goddess”) or worshippers of the mother-goddess (mātā). In Rājasthān, Cāraṇas and Bhāṭas are also generally worshippers of Śiva-Mahādev's female consort, the śakti or the kuḷadevī (“clan goddess”). However, the name devīputta is not mentioned in any of the texts from the seventeenth century, nor was it mentioned in conversation with Cāraṇas as being of particular importance.

70. Cāraṇas and Bhāṭas rank below the Brāhmaṇa because they do not possess the Veda, the corpus of sounds out of which the universe and all in it are seen to have been created. The Veda is, more literally, a body of sacred texts composed by the early Äryan invaders of India between 1200 B.C. and 600 B.C. There are four basic texts, each comprised of sacred hymns to the Vedic deities or hymns along with sacred formulas (maṇtras) and specifications for the performing of rituals, used in the sacrifice to the gods.

71. Bhūṃḍ: a specialized form of ridicule in poetic meter, which was recited only. Tessitori has remarked of such verse (which he calls vishara, “venomous”) that: “Stigmatizing verses … are dreaded by the Rajpūts, who consider open censure, both when deserved and when not, as the greatest possible degradation” ( Tessitori, , “A Progress Report on the Work Done During the Year 1917 …” p. 46, n2Google Scholar).

72. Another approach to the understanding of the position of the Cāraṇa and Bhāṭa and their “powers” is a structural one, similar to that employed by Turner, Victor in his book, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (Chicago, 1969), especially pp. 94–130 Google Scholar (“Liminality and Communitas”). My approach does not contradict Turner's, but is rather meant to be considered with the categories of thought present in Rājasthānï society.

73. This expression comes from Geertz's definition of culture in human society; see Geertz, C., “The Impact of the Concept of Culture on the Concept of Man,” in Man in Adaptation: The Cultural Present, ed. Cohen, Y.A. (Chicago, 1968), p. 24.Google Scholar

74. Leach, E.B., Political Systems of Highland Burma (Boston, 1954), pp. 15–17 Google Scholar; Schneider, D., American Kinship: A Cultural Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1968), p. 1.Google Scholar

75. Vansina notes that genealogies, being for the most part merely lists of names, are among the most easily falsified of documents (see Vansina, , Oral Tradition, pp. 151–54Google Scholar, for his discussion of “Lists”). See also Bhargava, , Marwar and the Mughal Emperors, p. 44 Google Scholar, nl, for his remarks concerning the deletion of the name of one ruler of Jodhpur who was not favored by the Mughals from the official genealogy of the Rāṭhoṛas in the mid-sixteenth century.

76. For a discussion of this problem with regard to the Mārvāṛi genealogies of the ruling house of Jodhpur, see Henige, , The Chronology of Oral Tradition, pp. 201–6.Google Scholar

77. See Shah, and Shroff, , “The Vahīvancā Bāroṭs…” (pp. 46–52)Google Scholar for a discussion of the manner in which Gujarātī genealogists preserve and bequeath their records and of the biases to which they are prone.

78. Tessitori, , “A Scheme for the Bardic and Historical Survey …” p. 382.Google Scholar

79. In the seventeenth century chronicles, these poems are often referred to either as the basis for a bāta, or the actual poem is included along with its prose rendition. See Tessitori, , “A Progress Report on the Work Done During the Year 1916 …” p. 229.Google Scholar

80. Vansina has remarked that the more a tradition “is associated with vested interest, and the more this interest is a concern of the public as a whole and is functionally important, the more exacting will be the control over its recital, and the better guarantee against distortion” ( Vansina, , Oral Tradition, p. 42 Google Scholar).

81. Kṣatriya, “one embued with or possessed of kṣatra (sovereignty, royal power, force)”; within the caste system of ancient India, the second ranking varṇa (“color”) or Great Caste, below the Brāhmana.

82. See Venkatachar, C.S., Census of India, II, Central Indian Agency, 1931 (Delhi, 1933)Google Scholar, “Appendix II”; Blunt, E.A.H., The Caste System of Northern India (London, 1931), p. 26 Google Scholar; SirBaines, A., Ethnography (Castes and Tribes) (Strasburg, 1912), pp. 29–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

83. See, for example, Habib, M., “Introduction,” in Some Aspects of Religion and Politics in India during the Thirteenth Century, by Nizami, K.A. (Delhi, 1974), p. xiii.Google Scholar

84. Pinhey, A.F., History of Mewar (Calcutta, 1909), p. 2.Google Scholar

85. Ibid., pp. 1-5; Sircar, D.C., The Guhilas of Kiṣkindhā (Calcutta, 1965), pp. 1–13 Google Scholar; Sharma, D., Early Chauhan Dynasties (Delhi, 1959), pp. 9–11.Google Scholar Brāhmaṇa means “one imbued with or possessed of brahmaṇ, divine power or the power of the word.” Although Brāhmaṇas were the highest ranked among the varṇas (“castes”) and generally associated with literary and sacrificial functions, Brāhmaṇa ruling dynasties were not uncommon, and one finds many examples of them from the turn of the Christian era forwards. Brahmā-Kṣatriya dynasties were generally dynasties formed by the mingling of Brāhmaṇa and Kṣatriya varṇas, and in terms of Indian cultural concepts were felt to be extremely prestigious, for they possessed inherent powers of both brahmaṇ and kṣatra.

86. Pinhey, , History of Mewar, p. 2 Google Scholar; see also A Collection of Prakrit and Ṡanskrit Inscriptions (Bhavnagar, 1894), p. 89n.Google Scholar

87. A Collection of Prakrit and Sanskrit Inscriptions, p. 89; also Pinhey, , History of Mewar, p. 4.Google Scholar

88. Sircar, , The Guhilas of Kiṣkindhā, pp. 15–16.Google Scholar

89. For a discussion of rank as a subjective concern, see Marriott, M. and Inden, R., “An Ethnosociology of South Asian Caste Systems” (paper presented at the American Anthropological Association Convention, Toronto, December 1, 1972).Google Scholar

90. The Sīsodiyā Gehlotas are Sūryavaṃsī Rajpüts, “of the Sun clan.”

91. Satī, “virtuous wife.” The act of a widow who burns herself on the pyre of her husband in order to join him after death.

92. Naiṇsī rī Khyāta I: 1–2.Google Scholar

93. Ibid., I: 12.

94. Tod, , Annals and Antiquities of Rafasthan, I: 15.Google Scholar

95. For some further comment concerning this matter, see Pinhey, , History of Mewar, pp. 2–5.Google Scholar

96. Sircar, , The Guhilas of Kiṣkindhā, p. 4.Google Scholar The Sisodiyas along with other Rajpüts had considerable contact with the Deccan in this period, serving in Mughal armies expanding into the south. It should also be mentioned here that the origin story of the S¯isodiyās bears a close resemblance to that of the Eastern Cālukyas of Veṇgi, a branch of the Cālukya house of Bādāmi, who ruled between the seventh and eleventh centuries. It thus appears to be the result of rather extensive and complex feedback from the literary traditions of other prominent ruling houses. See Sircar, , “The Guhila Claim of Solar Origin,” Indian Antiquary 42(1964): 384.Google Scholar

97. Ray, H.C., The Dynastic History of Northern India (2nd ed., Delhi, 1973), I: 563–64Google Scholar; Jain, K.C., Ancient Cities and Towns of Rajasthan (Delhi, 1973), p. 264.Google Scholar

98. Tripathi, R.S., History of Kanauj (Delhi, 1964), pp. 296–300.Google Scholar

99. Other writers have reached the same conclusion, although there is still considerable debate on the subject. See Henige, , The Chronology of Oral Tradition, pp. 202–3Google Scholar; Tessitori, , “A Progress Report on the Work Done in the Year 1917 …” pp. 25–26 Google Scholar; Tripathi, , History of Kanauj, pp. 296–323 Google Scholar; Reu, , Glories of Marwar, pp. 39–47 Google Scholar; idem, History of the Rāshṭrakūṭas (Rāṭhoḍas) (Jodhpur, 1933); Bhandarkar, D.R., “The Dates for the Early Princes of the Present Jodhpur Family,” Indian Antiquary 40 (1911): 301 Google Scholar; idem, “Bithu Inscription of Siha Raṭhod,” Indian Antiquary 40 (1911): 81-83; Ramkaran, Pandit, “History of the Rathors,” in Sir Asuthosh Mukherjee Silver Jubilee Volume, Orientalia (Calcutta, 1921–1927), III, part 1, pp. 255–336 Google Scholar; Sharma, D. (ed.), Rajasthan through the Ages (Bikaner, 1966), I: 687–690 Google Scholar; Ray, , The Dynastic History of Northern India, III: 551-52, 559–64.Google Scholar

100. See Henige, , The Chronology of Oral Tradition (pp. 51–53)Google Scholar for his use of this terminology.

101. A famous pilgrimage center on the coast of Kāthiāvaṛa in western India.

102. Naiṇsi rī Khyāta, II: 266.Google Scholar

103. Venkatachar, C.S., Census of India, II, Central Indian Agency, 1931 (Delhi, 1933), part 1, pp. 167–76.Google Scholar

104. Altekar, A.S., The Rāstrakūtas and Their Times (Poona, 1934).Google Scholar

105. Tripathi, , History of Kanauj, p. 309.Google Scholar

106. Reu, , Glories of Marwar, p. 43.Google Scholar

107. Sharma, , Rajasthan through the Ages, pp. 687–88Google Scholar; Tripathi, , History of Kanauj, p. 299 Google Scholar; Reu, , Glories of Marwar, p. viii.Google Scholar

108. Vansina, , Oral Tradition, p. 116 Google Scholar—note, however, his more recent views on the matter: idem, “Traditions of Genesis,” JAH 15 (1974): 317-22.

109. Steiner, F., Taboo (Harmondsworth, 1967), p. 38.Google Scholar

110. Sinha, S., “State Formation and Rajput Myth in Tribal Central India,” Man in India 17 (1962): 35–86.Google Scholar

111. Naiṇsī, , Mārvāṛa rā Parganām I: 37.Google Scholar

112. Bohannan, L., “A Genealogical Charter, Africa 22 (1952): 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar