________________
366
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[Dec. 6, 1872
chronicle in the Mackenzie collection. But the second in Mr. Elliot's list ; since there is no fifth in the above list is represented in the other of that name in the list. His date also chronicle as Vishnu Gopa's adopted son, and a is thus fixed by this grant to be 466 A.D. or very short tenure is assigned to him, for he had thereabouts. Mr. Elliot assigns to the preto give place to Krishna Varmma, a son after- decessor of this king the date 500 or 520 Saka, wards born to Vishņu Gopa. This Krishna i.e. 578 or 598 A.D., but his sources of Varmma and the next king Dindikêra, son of information regarding this dynasty were so Kulaţi Raya of the family of Vishnu Gopa, arescanty that very little faith can be placed in not given in the grant. The sixth king Kongani the date. is placed after Dindikâra in the Tamil chronicle, Prof. Dowson's abstract assigns to Kongani II. and is mentioned as the son of Krishna Varmma's the last king in the above list, 288 Saka, that is, younger sister. As his relationship with any he is placed a hundred years before he actually other king of the dynasty is not given, it is to flourished according to the grant. But whether be understood that the Krishna Varmma here this is a mistake of the chronicle itself I cannot meant is the one who is represented in the list say. The accession of the fourth king after as the son of Vishņu Gopa. But in the grant
Kongaņi II. is represented to have taken place before us he is mentioned as the son of Madhava,
in 461 Saka. The four kings then beginning with represented in the chronicle as the adopted sonk ongani II. reigned according to the chronicle of Vishnu Gopa, and the Krishna Varmma whose for 173 years, i.e. each reign lasted for 43 years, nephew he was, is spoken of distinctly as "the
which is very improbable, since each of them was sun in the sky of the prosperous race of the his predecessor's son. But if 888, the date given Kadambas." In this place therefore the grant in the grant be taken, the duration would be at gives us information, while the chronicle as ap
least 73 years, which would give 18 years to each pears from the abstract is silent.
king. The first date in Prof. Dowson's abThe date of the grant is 388. What æra is
stract must therefore be considered to be an meant we do not know. The dates in the chro
error, while the second may be depended on. nicle are in the Saka ära, from which it ap- The Professor considers all the dates to be too pears likely that this is also to be referred to learly and proposes new ones. But Prof. Lassen that æra. If so the date is 466 A.D. Krishna inclines to defend the chronology of the chroVarmms of the Kadamba race is very likely the nicle, which is supported by this grant.
. Lassen (Alterthumskunde, II. p. 1017-18), says: "With was the Pandya king Vans'n sekara, who_probably reference to the chronology it must be remarked that, reigned in the second century (see Wilson, Jour. R'As. 800. besides quoting the years in which grants of land were Vol. III., p. 215). I considered it proper therefore to fol. made by the princes whose acts are narrated, there occurs low different course and to support the traditional chronoalso mention of the years according to the cycle of sixty logy as being upon the whole correct. My reasons for this vents in use in the Dekhan, which may be regarded as are as follows:-Of the BellAla kinge it has already been evidences that the unknown writer of the work in question noticed [Dowson, in Jour. R. As. Soc., Vol. VIII., p. 24); found a well arranged chronology for the reigos of the that they reigned on an average nearly 30 years, so that kings whose acts he has described. According to the dates somewhat longer duration appears admissible in this case. of hisland-grants Malladeva, the twenty-eighth king of Secondly, it must be remarked that it is true that of the Chera, reigned in the years 818 and 898. The seventh, Chera princes only two (the 12th and 14th) had short Vikramadeva I., in the year 178. These dates give & reigns, and two others (the 11th and 27th) abdicated the total rule of more than seven hundred and twenty years for throne, but one (the 8th) reigned fifty-one years and ono twenty-two princes,--for these dates cannot be regarded as (the 23rd) was the great grandson of his predecessor, 80 the first and last years of the reigns of the two kings. that to him a tolerably long rulo may be allowed. Only Hence each sovereign would bave ruled on an average against the commencement of the dynasty and against About thirty-three years, period which certainly seems in- the first date can a valid objection be raised. The 5th admissible, because the utmost average length of the reigns king, Govinda, is said to have made # grant of land of Indian kings amounts only to twenty-five years (Thomas, in the 4th year of the S'a kas or in 82 A.D., it may, howJour: R. A. Soc., Vol. XII, p. 86). From this difficulty, we ever, be legitimately doubted whether this chronology had have two ways of escape. The first is by supposing that come into use in the southern districts of Indis so soon the reigns of the Chera kings have been lengthened in order after its establisbment. To the insecurity of the chronoto give them a higher antiquity, and starting from the logy of the earliest period of the kings of Chers also, the cirfixed datum of the subjugation of the Chera sovereigos about cumstance that of the fifth it was only known that he was 900, to shorten the period so that Vikram I should reign of the same descent as his four predecessors but that his [as Dowson supposes only in the 6th century. Against father was not known-bears testimony. We can scarcely this hypothesis it may be observed that in such case the go far wrong, however, if we place the rise of the Chers supposition would have to be made, that the author of the dynasty back in the commencement of our ers, because at history of these kings had wilfully falsified the numbers of that time the two adjoining, kingdoms of the Påndyas the inscriptions, or bad read them wrongly, which, consi- and Chola already existed. dering the acknowledged excellency of his work does not Lassen's notices of the Chers kings, (both in II. pp. 1017appear to me admissible. It should also be remarked fur- 1020, and IV. PP. 248-245) are founded almost exclusively ther that the contemporary of Vikrama I. of Chen,Ion Dowson's article above referred to.-ED.
