208 V. A. Smitli — C'uins of tlie Pcila Devas. [Ado. 



Mariana Pala coins to the Cliaudols, liis decision was based on tlio sup- 

 posed identity of names. Bat the names are not really identical. The 

 name Sallakshana does not occai' on the Ghandel coins at all. Tlte 

 Chandella prince was named Hallakshana, and the legend on his coins 

 is unmistakeably S'rimad Hallakshana Varma Deva. The common 

 name Madana certainly does occur in the Chandel as well as the Bull 

 and Horseman series, but no Chandel king ever assumed the cogno- 

 men of Pala. The distinctive cognomen of the dynasty is Vai'ma 

 (Varmma). 



Thus it is apparent that absolutely no reason whatever exists for 

 the assignment of the Sallakshana Pala and Madana Piila coins to the 

 Chandel dynasty of Bundelkhand, but that on the contrary the attribu- 

 tion of them to that dynasty is demonstrably wi'ong. 



I am not prepared to decide the question as to who Sallakshana 

 Pala and Madana Pala really were, but they were certainly not Chandel 

 princes. 



On page 19 of the Chronicles Mr. Thomas has made an equally 

 serious blunder by ascribing to Prithivi Varma Deva Chandel a gold 

 coin with the legend S'rimat Prithivi Deva, and the usual seated 

 Lakshmi reverse. This coin he says is common. On the other hand 

 only 9 specimens of the Chandel king Prithivi Varma's coinage are 

 known, namely six gold and one silver in the British Museum, and 

 two copper in Sir A. Cunningham's cabinet (Arch. Bejp. Vol. II, 

 p. 58). 



The gold coins of Prithivi Varma Chandel agree in type with those 

 of the other princes of his dynasty, as above described, which type 

 differs considerably from that of the coin described by Mr. Thomas. It 

 seems evident that Mr. Thomas had never seen a Chandel coin. 



I have now disposed of the main subject of this communication, 

 but may take this opportunity of remarking that I believe the supposed 

 " appearance of the joint names of Muliammad bin Sam and Prithivi 

 Raja on one and the same coin " {Chronicles, page 17, with ivoodcuf) to 

 be purely imaginary. In the text Mr. Thomas says that " the imperfect 

 and obscured reverse epigraph, in which is involved the whole question 

 of novelty, leaves a doubt as to the finality of any opinion that may now 

 be pronounced." 



But in the foot-note he calls the reading " obvious," and says that 

 General Cunningham did not contest the " obvious reading of the letters 

 still visible on the coin." I cannot see the name Prithivi in the wood- 

 cut, and I do not believe that he and his opponent ever put their names 

 together on a coin. 



