1881.] 
Y. A. Smith —History of Bundellchand. 
5 
given the following dates for the accession of the Chandels to power— 
204, 225, 661, and 682. As it is well established that the Chandel dynas¬ 
ty attained power in or about 800 A. D. (probably a little later, say in 830 
A. D.), it is clear that these dates do not refer to the Vikrama Samvat. # 
General Cunningham proposes, and I think rightly, to refer the smaller 
numbers, i. e ., the dates 204 and 225 to the era of Sri Harsha of Kanauj, 
which began in 607 A. D., and thus to make them equivalent to 810 and 
831 A. D. respectively, a conclusion which is in complete accordance with 
the Chandel inscriptions. 
But, when he attempts to interpret the dates 661 and 682 by referring 
them to the Saka era, thus making them equivalent to A. D. 739 and 760 
respectively, he is not so happy, for those dates are much too early. 
It is curious that the difference between 204 and 225, the extreme 
dates of one set, and 661 and 682, the extreme dates of the other set, is 
the same, viz., 21 years. 
This circumstance may be accidental, but perhaps it may not be too 
fanciful to conjecture that the traditions have preserved in two forms the 
dates of two events which were separated by an interval of 2 L years, but 
have confounded the events. 
It is hard to determine the era to which the higher numbers, if they 
are not purely imaginary, should be referred. 
The recently discovered Kulacliuri era of the kingdom of Chedi,f 
which kingdom at one time included Mahoba, naturally occurs to the mind, 
but that era would give A. D. 910, 926, and 931 respectively as the equi¬ 
valents of 661, 677 and 682 ; and the first and last of the dates so obtained 
are exactly a century later than the dates resulting from the application of 
the Sri Harsha era to the other set of traditional dates. 
Still, in spite of this difficulty, I am disposed to believe that the Chedi 
era supplies the right key, and I conjecture that there is a mistake of a 
century in the tradition, and that the larger numbers should be read as 
561, 577 and 582. 
Such an interpretation of a tradition may appear to the reader unrea¬ 
sonably fanciful, but I justify it by showing that similar mistakes do occur 
in traditions. I have heard the date of the capture of Mahoba by Raja 
Prithiraj stated as S. 1140, the correct date being S. 1240, or more accu¬ 
rately S. 1239; and my notes give the traditional date for the foundation 
of Murhari near Jaitpur as “ S. 641 or S. 741.” 
What is probably an instance of a similar error will be noticed in the 
discussion on the reign of Madana Varmma Chandel in the second part of 
this essay. 
* The known Chandel inscriptions are all beyond doubt dated in the Vikrama 
Sam vat. 
f See Arch. Rep. IX. Ill and 112. 
