________________
NOVEMBER, 1893.]
NOTES AND QUERIE3.
325
father. He found many people collected there, and they were talking about the platform which the king had seen in his dream. He complained to the king that the princes had robbed him of three pictures. The King ordered the pictures to be produced, and when the princes brought them he told them to produce the platform and other things by means of them; but they could not do so as they were ignorant of the spells. The boy then asked the king's lense to try, and permission was given him. He at once produced a platform of silver, a tree of gold with leaves of topaz, and a peacock sitting in the branches. So the king offered him half his kingdom and the hand of his daughter; but he said that he could accept nothing until he took the advice of his mother. The king agreed to go with him, and when they sat down to eat there was no salt in any of the dishes. The king did not like the food, and then the princess sent him a dish seasoned with salt. This he liked, and she then fell at the feet of her father, and told him the whole history. He was much pleased to get her back, and took her to the palace. He put her son on the throne, and they all lived happily.
NOTES.
The story is incomplete, but is exactly as the narrator, a village labourer, told it. The fairies should come in and have their heads cut off before the platform is made, and the wicked fairies should be punished. Khanmansáyan, = "fee fo fum," in Chamir tales. I suppose it comes from khána = to eat: manushya = man. The fairies with palaces underground reached through wells, and the Life Index of the Deo are familiar. He is as stupid as these goblins usually are.
NOTES AND QUERIES.
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KAKATIYA 1 We know that Ganapati died in A. D. 1257, DYNASTY.
and local records say he was succeeded by his The Ekamranatha inscription, edited by Dr. wife, who survived him either 28 or 38 years. If Hultzsch (ante, Vol. XXI. p. 197), furnishes the there is any truth in this, it suggests the inference following list of the Kakatiyas of Orangal:- that Ganapati himself had a short reign. It is (1) Betmarája.
impossible, however, to place implicit reliance on (2) Prôdarfja.
this kind of evidence, and in this case the Pratá(3) Rudradêva.
parudrfya of Vidyanatha makes his successor
his daughter (4) Mahadeva. (5) Ganapati; S. 1172 = A. D. 1250.
In spite of this, however, there is still a diffiDr. Hultzsch assumes that the “Rudradêva"
culty in covering the period between Rudra and of this group is identical with the "Rudra" of Ganapati satisfactorily. the Anumakond inscription and that he was, If we give Rudra a 30 years' reign, his father consequently, a son of Prodaraja. This assump- Próda having probably had a long one, and allow tion, however, involves a serious chronological to Mabadêra the usual 25 years, we should still difficulty. The Anumakond inscription fur- have to assume a 40 years' reign for Ganapati, for nishes Rudra with the date S. 1084 = A.D. 1162, which we have no special justification. and by its evidence he would appear to have The possibility has been suggested of another begun to reign in A. D. 1160. Ganapati's date,
Ganapati and another Rudra having intervened according to the Ekamranatha inscription, is
between the Rudra of the Anumakond inscription S. 1172 = A. D. 1250, 90 years later. If we accept and the Mahadeva of the Ekâmranatha group. Dr. Hultzsch's genealogy of the Kakatiyas we
This is by no means unlikely. have only one king - Mahadeva - to fill the gap.
In the first place, to judge from the wording Tradition records that Mahadeva fell in battle of the Ekamranatha inscription there is nothing in the third year of his reign. But apart from to suggest that the Rudra mentioned in it is a this, in order to bridge the distance, we should son of Prôdaraja. It merely states after him," have to give Ganapati a much longer reign than i. e., Pródarája, " this race was adorned by Rudrawe are, under the circumstances, entitled to do. dôva." There is nothing in this to necessitate
