xii Heport of the Archaeological Survey. 



21. 3rd. — In two manuscripts from Kumaon and Garhwal, the 

 date of the first Tomara Raja is given as J 3th Bhadon S. 846, which 

 is equivalent to A. D. 789. But as both of these manuscripts omit 

 the first three names, which are found in all the other manuscripts, I 

 conclude that the date therein given is that of the fourth prince of the 

 other lists. Deducting, therefore, from the above date the sum of the 

 three omitted reigns, which amount to 58 years, we obtain A. D, 731 

 as another period for the re-building of Dilli by Anang Pal. 



22. It will be observed that the three manuscripts from Gwalior, 

 Kumaon, and Grarhwal, place the date of the re-founding of Dilli in 

 the eighth century A. D., whereas Abul Fazl and the inscription on 

 the Iron Pillar refer this event to the fourth century A. D. ; and so 

 also does the author of the Araish-i Mah/il, who gives S. 440. Now* 

 although Abul Fazl specially notes that his date of 429 is of the era 

 of Vikramaditya, yet he is most undoubtedly wrong, as I will now 

 show from other statements of his own. According to his account? 

 the Tomar dynasty, which lasted 419 years, was succeeded by the 

 Chohan dynasty, which ruled for 83 years, and was then overcome by 

 Sultan Maaz-uddin Sane. The period of this event is stated to be 

 A. H. 588, or A. D. 1192. Now, deducting 419 + 83, or 502 years, 

 from A. D. 1192, we obtain A. D. 690 as the true date of Anang Pal 

 according to Abul Fazl's own figures, instead of S. 429 — 57, or A. D. 

 372, as stated in his text. But as the rule of the Chohans is limited 

 to 4 If years in my two manuscripts from Kumaon and Grarhwal, 

 and to 40 years in my Grwalior manuscript , I think that the authority 

 of these three records may be taken as at least of equal weight with 

 that of the Ayin Akbari. The true periods of the two dynasties will 

 therefore be 419 + 41 = 460 years, which deducted from A. D. 1193, 

 the correct date of Muaz-uddin's conquest, will give A. D. 733 for 

 Anang Pal's re-building of Dilli, which is within three years of the 

 traditional date of A. D. 736, already noticed. 



23. The only explanation which I can propose of the great discre- 

 pancy between the true date and that which is stated in the Ayin 

 Akbari is, that Abul Pazl simply mistook the era in which he found 

 the date recorded. Now, if we suppose that the era of his dates was 

 that of Balabhi, which began A. D. 319, we shall have S. 429 + 318 

 — 747 A. D. as the corrected date for the re-building of Dilli by 

 Anang Pal according to Abul Fazl. But by using the date of S. 419, 



