1903.] C. Bendall— History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms. 5 
Nevertheless I feel sure that this section must contain much 
valuable information, and it is in the hope of drawing the attention 
of the few scholars skilled in the Himalayan languages to the matter 
that I reproduce a specimen-leaf (Plate, fig. 10). The passage refers 
to the invasion of Harisiipha of Simraon about which I have more to 
say below. 
Having thus indicated the materials of the present investigation, 
the divisions of the subject may be stated. 
I. —The History of the Nepal Valley, A.D. 1000-1600 (f.e., 
Kathmandu, Patan, and Bhatgaon): 
Chronological notes on the dynasties of the surrounding 
states: 
II. —'Western Nepal. III.—Tirhut (Eastern and Western). 
To these notes I have added (as Table IV) a list of a dynasty, which 
I have not been able to recognize. 
The main results of the enquiry are summarized in the Tables at 
the end of this article, which constitute of course its most important 
feature, and will probably provide most students with all that they 
require. The present notes are chiefly intended to elucidate the Tables 
and especially to bring out the relations between the dated series of 
kings obtained from MSS. and the dynasties detailed in the new 
Vaipsavali. 
I. The present collection of MSS. affords an example [See 
Plate ; fig. 2, L 2] of a date 1 earlier than any hitherto found referable 
to the Nepal era, but unfortunately no dated MS. with a king’s name 
occurs earlier thau those previously known. 
It is interesting to note that the king Raghavadeva mentioned by 
Cunningham 8 as the traditional founder of the Nepal era of 879-80, 
but passed over in the Vamsavali of D. Wright 3 and by Kirkpatrick, 4 
is duly recorded in the new chronicle. Not only so, but the years of 
reign assigned to him and his immediate successors quite accord with 
Anuradha.” I have, moreover, noted quite a number of cases where months in cer¬ 
tain years are called dvi ( tiya) where no such intercalation, according to Sewell and 
Dlksit’s Tables, occurred ; compare Table of Kings, note 10, below. 
1 See Catalogue, pp. 85 (^j) and 140 (Lankavatara). The reading 28 must be 
altered to 29 ; nor can I concur in the description ‘ guptaksara-likhitam,.’ The form of 
k is distinctly post-Gupta; and the general appearance of the writing with its closely 
placed aksaras seems to preclude the S'ri-Harsa era. The forms of n (guttural) and 
the form of the a&sara-numeral 20 are archaisms that one would expect to find 
in a document written early in the tenth century. 
2 Indian Eras, p. 74. 
8 ‘ History of Nepal,’ Cambridge, 1877. 
* ‘ An account of the Kingdom of Nepaul,’ London, 1811, 
