The dynastic name vAkATaka is believed to have been derived from the place vAkATa. However, the identity of that place remains an enduring mystery to this date.
wouldn’t that be baghāṭa village, niwāɽī dist. in bundélkhaṇḍa region in m.p.
That is phonetically a good choice but the geographic evidence would favor something in the vidarbha region where they seemed to have first emerged; this would be a bit too north for that.
I thought it was almost settled that pravarasena I had kañcanā, nācanā in pannā dist. as its capital in todays m.p. many early vākāṭaka records had also been found in pannā. niwāɽī dist. is ~ 200 km north-west to pannā.
Interestingly, Mirashi IIRC thought pravarasena-I never crossed north of Narmada and centered him more to the south. He also identified the first reference to a vAkATaka in prAkR^ita form at amarAvati which is considerably south of the proposed place but closer to their center of gravity. In light of the doubt cast on Paunar being pravarapura, I have also begun wondering about what was the real vAkATa – I’m less convinced of the popular proposal.