[Jayabhata II. C. 650-675 A.D.] The successor of Dadda II. was his son Jayabhata II. who is described as a warlike prince, but of whom no historical details are recorded. [Dadda III. Báhusaháya, C. 675-700.] Jayabhata's son, Dadda III. Báhusaháya, is described as waging wars with the great kings of the east and of the west (probably Málava and Valabhi). He was the first Saiva of the family, studied Manu's works, and strictly enforced "the duties of the varnas or castes and of the ásramas or Bráhman stages." It was probably to him that the Gurjjaras owed their Puránic pedigree and their recognition as true Kshatriyas. 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 Jayasimha the Chálukya, who received the province of Láta from his brother Vikramáditya (c. 669-680 A.D.) [415] [Jayabhata III. c. 704-734 A.D.] The son and successor of Dadda III. was Jayabhata III. whose two grants of 456 (A.D. 704-5) and 486 (A.D. 734-5) [416] 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 Chálukyas: but his title of Mahásámantádhipati 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 lord of Valabhi, noted in the grant of 486 (A.D. 734-5). The Valabhi king referred to must be either Síláditya IV. (A.D. 691) or Síláditya V. (A.D. 722). During the reign of Jayabhata III. took place the great Arab invasion which was repulsed by Pulakesi Janásraya at Navsárí. [417] Like the kingdoms named in the grant of Pulakesi, Broach must have suffered from this raid. It is not specially mentioned probably because it formed part of Pulakesi's territory. After A.D. 734-5 no further mention occurs of the Gurjjaras of Broach. Whether the dynasty was destroyed by the Arabs or by the Gujarát Ráshtrakútas (A.D. 750) is not known. Later references to Gurjjaras in Ráshtrakúta times refer to the Gurjjaras of Bhínmál not to the Gurjjaras of Broach, who, about the time of Dadda III. (C. 675-700 A.D.), ceased to call themselves Gurjjaras. A few words must be said regarding the three grants from Iláo, Umetá, and Bagumrá (Ind. Ant. XIII. 116, VII. 61, and XVII. 183) as their genuineness has been assumed by Dr. Bühler in his recent paper on the Mahábhárata, in spite of Mr. Fleet's proof (Ind. Ant. XVIII. 19) that their dates do not work out correctly. Dr. Bhagvánlál's (Ind. Ant. XIII. 70) chief grounds for holding that the Umetá and Iláo grants (the Bagumrá grant was unknown to him) were forgeries were: