Report of the Archaeological Survey. vii 



change of name, and we are left to conjecture whether the city of 

 Dilli* had already been founded, or whether this name has been used 

 instead of that of Indraprastha through simple inadvertence. Ac- 

 cording to one tradition, which is but little known, the city of Dilli 

 was founded by Eaja Dilipa, who was the ancestor in the fifth gene- 

 ration of the five Pandu brothers. But this story may be dismissed 

 at once as an ignorant invention, as Dilli is universally acknowledged 

 to be of much later date than Indraprastha, the city of Yudhishthira 

 himself. 



9. According to a popular and well known tradition, Dilli, or 

 DMli, was built by Eajah Dilu, or Dhilu, whose date is quite uncer- 

 tain. This tradition was adopted by Ferishta, who adds that Eaja 

 Dilu, after a reign of either 4 or 40 years, was attacked and killed by 

 Eaja Dhur, or Porus, of Kumaon, who was the antagonist of Alexan- 

 der the Great. If this statement could be depended upon, it might 

 perhaps be entitled to some consideration, as giving the probable 

 period of the foundation of Dilli. But unfortunately Ferishta's 

 ancient chronology is a mere jumble of errors ; thus, for instance, 

 Phur's nephew, Juna, who should have been a contemporary of 

 Seleukos Nikator, is said to be a contemporary of Ardashir Babekan, 

 the founder of the Sassanian Dynasty in A. D. 226, But Ardashir 

 himself is afterwards made a contemporary of Vikramaditya of Ujain 

 in 57 B. C. The most probable explanation of these different dates 

 would seem to be some confusion regarding the name of Ardashir, 

 and perhaps the safest plan will be to accept the author's last state- 

 ment, that Eaja Dilu was a contemporary of Vikramaditya. 



10. Now the story of Dilu, and of his defeat by Phur, Eaja of 

 Kumaon, is exactly the same as that of Raja Dal, King of Dilli, and 

 of his defeat by Sulcwanti, (or Sukdat, or SaMditya,) Eaja of 

 Kumaon, as related in several different copies of the Eajavali. As in 

 all of these the invader is said to have been defeated and slain by 

 Vikramaditya Safcdri, the date of this event must be assigned either 

 to 57 B. C. or to A. D. 79. The latter date is the true one, accord- 

 ing to Abu Eihan; and as Sakaditya is said to have reigned 14 

 years in Dilli, his conquest must have taken place in A. D. 65. I 

 confess, however, that I have but little faith in the dates of any 

 Hindu traditionary stories, unless they can be supported by other 



* Dilli or Dehli. 



