Page:The Indian Antiquary Vol 1.pdf/406

 366

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.

chronicle in the Mackenzie collection.

But the

fifth in the above list is represented in the chronicle as Vishnu Gopa's adopted son, and a very short tenure is assigned to him, for he had to give place to Krishna Varmma, a son after wards born to Vishnu Gopa. This Krishna Warmma and the next king Dindikāra, son of

Kulati Rāya of the family of Vishnu Gopa, are not given in the grant. The sixth king Kongani is placed after Dindikāra in the Tamil chronicle,

[DEc. 6, 1872.

second in Mr. Elliot's list ; since there is no other of that name in the list.

His date also

is thus fixed by this grant to be 466 A.D. or

thereabouts. Mr. Elliot assigns to the pre decessor of this king the date 500 or 520 Saka, i.e. 578 or 598 A.D., but his sources of information regarding this dynasty were so scanty that very little faith can be placed in the date.

Prof. Dowson's abstract assigns to Kongani II.

and is mentioned as the son of Krishna Warmma's

the last king in the above list, 288 Šaka, that is,

younger sister. As his relationship with any other king of the dynasty is not given, it is to

he is placed a hundred years before he actually 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 as the son of Vishnu Gopa. But in the grant

say. The accession of the fourth king after Kongani II. is represented to have taken place

before us he is mentioned as the son of Mādhava,

in 461 Saka. The four kings then beginning with

represented in the chronicle as the adopted son of Vishnu Gopa, and the Krishna Varmma whose nephew he was, is spoken of distinctly as “the sun in the sky of the prosperous race of the Kadambas.” In this place therefore the grant gives us information, while the chronicle as ap

Kongani II. reigned according to the chronicle for 173 years, i.e. each reign lasted for 43 years, which is very improbable, since each of them was his predecessor's son. But if 388, the date given in the grant be taken, the duration would be at least 73 years, which would give 18 years to each king. The first date in Prof. Dowson's ab

pears from the abstract is silent.

The date of the grant is 388. What aera 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 Śaka ara, from which it ap

The Professor considers all the dates to be too

pears likely that this is also to be referred to

early and proposes new ones. But Prof. Lassen

that a ra.

inclines to defend the chronology of the chro nicle,” which is supported by this grant.

If so the date is 466 A.D. Krishna

Warmma of the Kadamba race is very likely the
 * Lassen (Alterthumskunde, II. p. 1017-18), says: “With

reference to the chronology it must be remarked that, besides quoting the years in which grants of land were made by the princes whose acts are narrated, there occurs

also mention of the years according to the cycle of sixty years in use in the Dekhan, which may be regarded as evidences that the unknown writer of the work in question found a well arranged chronology for the reigns of the kings whose acts he has described. According to the dates

of his land-grants M all a de va, the twenty-eighth king of Ch era, reigned in the years 878 and 898. The seventh, Vikram a deva I., in the year 178. These dates give a total rule of more than seven hundred and twenty years for twenty-two princes, for these dates cannot be regarded as the first and last years of the reigns of the two kings.

Hence each sovereign would have ruled on an average about thirty-three years, a period which certainly seems in admissible, because the utmost average length of the reigns of Indian kings amounts only to twenty-five years (Thomas,

was the Pān dya king Wan s'as'e kara, who probably reigned in the second century [see Wilson, Jour: R As. Soc., Wol. III., p. 215]. I considered it proper therefore to fol low a different course and to support the traditional chrono logy as being upon the whole correct. reasons for this

M;

are as follows:–Of the Bellāla kings it has already been

noticed [Dowson, in Jour. R. As. Soc., Vol. VIII., p. 24], that they reigned on an average nearly 30 years, so that a somewhat longer duration appears admissible in this case. Secondly, it must be remarked that it is true that of the Cher a princes only two (the 12th and 14th) had short reigns, and two others (the 11th and 27th) abdicated the throne, but one (the 8th) reigned fifty-one years and one

(the 23rd) was the great grandson of his predecessor, so that to him a tolerably long rule may be allowed. Önly against the commencement of the dynasty and against the first date can a valid objection be raised.

The 5th

Jour: R. A. Soc., Vol. XII., p. 36). From this difficulty, we

king, Gov in dia, is said to have made a grant of land in the 4th year of the Sä k as or in 82 A.D., it may, how ever, be legitimately doubted whether this chronology had

have two ways of escape. The first is by supposing that the reigns of the Chera kings have been lengthened in order

after its establishment. To the insecurity of the chrono

to give them a higher antiquity, and starting from the

logy of the earliest period of the kings of Chera also, the cir

fixed datum of the subjugation of the Chera sovereigns about

cumstance that of the fifth it was only known that he was of the same descent as his four predecessors but that his father was not known—bears testimony. We can scarcely

come into use in the southern districts of India so soon

900, to shorten the period so that Vikram I. should reign as Dowson supposes] only in the 6th century. Against this hypothesis it may be observed that in such a case the supposition would have to be made, that the author of the history of these kings had wilfully falsified the numbers of

far wrong, however, if we place the rise of the Cher a š. back in the commencement of our era, because at

the inscriptions, or had read them wrongly, which, consi

and Chola already existed.

dering the acknowledged excellency of his work does not appear to me admissible. It should also be remarked fur ther that the contemporary of Vikrama I. of Chere,

Lassen's notices of the Chera kings, (both in II. pp. 1017 1020, and IV. pp. 243-245) are founded almost exclusively

that time the two

adjºining, kingdoms

of the Pâ in dy as

on Dowson's article above referred to.-E.D.