303 
1893.] 
E. A. Gait — The Koch Kings of Kamarupa. 
of tlie Yogini Tantra in the possession, of the Brahman of Hauli 
Mohanpnr. 
Briefly these events ai’e : — 
(1.) Expulsion and pursuit of Kara Sim ha. 
(2.) Construction of Gosaih Kamala Ali. This is said to have 
taken a year to make, but the real time it took was 
probably considerably longer. 
(3.) Invasion of the Ahom kingdom. The Ahom chronicles 
mention at least two expeditions, and the VamSavali 
relates that Kara Narayana remained a year at Garhgaon 
before the Ahom king submitted. 
(4. ) Conquest of Hiramba or Cachar. 
(5.) War with the king of Jaintia. 
(6.) War with the king of Tipperah. 
(7.) War with the king of Dimarua. 
(8.) War with the king of Sylhet. 
(9.) War with the ruler of Gaur. 
(10.) S'ilarai’s detention at Gaur. 
(11.) Erection of Kamakhya. According to the Vams'dvali this 
was carried out in six months, but other accounts say 
that the temple took ten years to build. 
It is difficult to arrive at any exact conclusion as to the time which 
these events occupied, but bearing in mind the difficulties of locomotion 
at that time, and the fact that between each war it would probably be 
necessary for the Raja to spend some time attending to the internal 
affairs of his kingdom and consolidating his rule, I do not think it 
would be safe to allow a smaller period than 30 years for these occur- 
rences. Deducting this period from the date of the erection of Kama- 
khya, we get 1535 A. D., as the date of his accession, which is again 
very nearly the date quoted in Prasiddha Narayana’s Vams'dvali. On the 
other hand, the Ahom chronicles fix 1562 as the date of his invasion of 
their country, and as this is one of the earliest events of his reign as 
recorded in the Purushanamah , it would seem that his reign could not 
have commenced long before that date. As, however, it is certain that 
Kamakhya was rebuilt in 1565, and all the intervening events could 
not possibly have occurred within the short space of three years, it is 
clear either that this date is incorrect or else that the Vdmsavali does 
not record events in their historical sequence. On the whole the weight 
of the evidence seems to show that NaraNarayanacame to the throne in 
1534 A. D., or soon afterwards. 
The same dates, of course, represent the conclusion of Vigva 
Simha’s reign. As regards its commencement, 
Visva Simha s dates. j-, e remem t> el 'ed that Nilambara w r as over- 
J. i. 39 
