[56]. [These statements regarding the Chauhān dynasty are inconsistent with the Bijolli inscription, and Cunningham (ASR, i. 157) finds it impossible to make any satisfactory arrangement, either of the names of the princes, or of the length of their reigns. The facts, as far as they can be ascertained, are given by Smith (EHI, 386 ff.). Cunningham (op. cit. ii. 256) points out the author twice ignores the date of A.D. 1163 of Vīsaladeva on the Delhi pillar, to make him an opponent of Mahmūd in the beginning of the eleventh century. “In one place he gives to Hansrāj, whom the Hāra bard assigns to the year A.D. 770, the honour of conquering Sabuktigīn, which in another place he gives to his successor Dujgandeo.” He concludes that the chief cause of error is the identification of two different princes of the name of Vīsaladeva as one person. For his discussion see ASR, ii. 256 f.]
[57]. See Asiatic Researches, vol. i. p. 379, vol. vii. p. 180, and vol. ix. p. 453. [Nigambhod Ghāt is immediately outside the north wall of Shāhjahānābād, and above, not below, the city of Delhi (ASR, i. 136, 161, 164).]
[58]. I brought away an inscription of this, the last Chauhan emperor, from the ruins of his palace at Hasi or Hansi, dated S. 1224. See comments thereon, Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. i. p. 133.
[59]. These inscriptions, while they have given rise to ingenious interpretations, demonstrate the little value of mere translations, even when made by first-rate scholars, who possess no historical knowledge of the tribes to whom they refer. This inscription was first translated by Sir W. Jones in 1784 (Asiatic Researches, vol. i.). A fresh version (from a fresh transcript I believe) was made by Mr. Colebrooke in 1800 (Asiatic Researches, vol. vii.), but rather darkening than enlightening the subject, from attending to his pandit’s emendation, giving to the prince’s name and tribe a metaphorical interpretation. Nor was it till Wilford had published his hodge-podge Essay on Vikramaditya and Salivahana, that Mr. Colebrooke discovered his error, and amended it in a note to that volume; but even then, without rendering the inscription useful as a historical document. I call Wilford’s essay a hodge-podge advisedly. It is a paper of immense research; vast materials are brought to his task, but he had an hypothesis, and all was confounded to suit it. Chauhans, Solankis, Guhilots, all are amalgamated in his crucible. It was from the Sarangadhar Padhati, written by the bard of Hamira Chauhan, not king of Mewar (as Wilford has it), but of Ranthambhor, lineally descended from Visaladeva, and slain by Alau-d-din. Sarangadhar was also author of the Hamir Raesa, and the Hamir Kavya, bearing this prince’s name, the essence of both of which I translated with the aid of my Guru. [For these works see Grierson, Modern Literature of Hindustan, 6.] I was long bewildered in my admiration of Wilford’s researches; but experience inspired distrust, and I adopted the useful adage in all these matters, 'nil admirari.' [Cunningham, while admitting the wild speculations of Wilford, says that important facts and classical references are to be found in his Essays (ASR, i. Introd. xviii. note)[note)].]
[60]. See Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. i. p. 133.
[61]. See Annals of Jaisalmer, for foundation of Derawar, Vol. II. p. [1196].
[62]. In transcribing the Annals of the Khichis, an important branch of the Chauhans, their bards have preserved this passage; but ignorant of Derawar and Lodorva (both preserved in my version of Chand), they have inserted Jaisalmer. By such anachronisms, arising from the emendations of ignorant bards, their poetic chronicles have lost half their value. To me the comparison of such passages, preserved in Chand from the older bards, and distorted by the moderns, was a subject of considerable pleasure. It reconciled much that I might have thrown away, teaching me the difference between absolute invention, and ignorance creating errors in the attempt to correct them. The Khichi bard, no doubt, thought he was doing right when he erased Derawar and inscribed Jaisalmer.
[63]. [The correct dates are as follows: Vīsaladeva, middle of 12th century A.D. (Smith, EHI, 386); Jayapāla of Delhi succeeded 1005 (ASR, i. 149); Durlabha Chaulukya and Bhīma, respectively 1010-22, 1022-64 (BG, i. Part i. 1626); Tej Singh or Tejsi, Rāwal of Chitor about 1260-67 (Erskine ii. B. 10); Bhoja of Mālwa, 1018-60 (Smith, EHI, 395).]
[64]. This town—another proof of the veracity of the chronicle—yet exists in Northern Gujarat. [15 miles N. of Baroda. It is doubtful if it takes its name from Vīsaladeva of Delhi. At any rate, it is said to have been restored by Vīsaladeva Vāghela (A.D. 1243-61) (BG, i. Part i. 203).]
[65]. [See p. [1328].] The pickaxe, if applied to this mound (which gives its name to Dhundhar), might possibly show it to be a place of sepulture, and that the Chauhans, even to this period, may have entombed at least the bones of their dead. The numerous tumuli about Haidarabad, the ancient Gualkund, one of the royal abodes of the Chauhans, may be sepultures of this race, and the arms and vases they contain all strengthen my hypothesis of their Scythic origin. [See p. [1445].]