Jaipál died in 1002 A.D., and it is evident from the statement in the Táríkh-i Yamíní, that he was then a very old man. He had opposed Subuktigín, while yet that warrior was only general of Alptigín, and therefore before 976 A.D., making his reign at least a quarter of a century. If we assume that Kamlúa's reign commenced in 890 A.D., being about the middle of that of 'Amrú Lais, we shall have to divide the period extending from 890 to 1002 A.D., between the reigns of Kamlúa, Bhím and Jaipál, being an average of thirty-seven years for each, which seems much too long. But as there is no dis­puting the dates, we must admit the long duration of 112 years for only three reigns, or admit that the names of unimportant monarchs have been omitted; just as in the case of the Turkish series, of which only Kanak is mentioned, between the first and last of the dynasty.

In the same way, between Kalar and Sámand, and Sámand and Kamlúa—there may have been other omissions, and even long inter­regna of Muhammadan supremacy; and we may thus throw back the period of the Brahmanical revolution to an earlier date than has yet been conjectured. It must be confessed this would relieve us of some difficulties, and enable us to dispose of other names of this series, of which we have incidental notice elsewhere: as, for instance, in the Sairu-l Mulúk, where we meet with the name of Lomak.

Syála, Khedavayaka, Varka, and even Ranbal may have been individuals of the Kábul series, either Turk or Hindú, though not honoured with distinct mention by Abú Ríhán. Numismatists, indeed, are now so certain that these coins do belong to the Kábul series, and trace with such confidence the relative antiquity of each extant medal from the difference in devices and execution, that we may readily concede the point to such able and experienced enquirers. All that is required is that there should be no unnatural forcing to suit preconceived theories.

Mr. Thomas has conjectured on other grounds that the acces­sion of Sámand occurred in 935 A.D.,* but his computation does not rest on any such specific dates as the two mentioned above, and he considers that, under any circumstances, it is imperfect, and that “the utmost the materials at our command enable us to assert with any degree of certainty is that Syála's usurpation took place early in the tenth century;” but even this certainty is dispelled by the establishment of the fact that Kamlúa was, unquestionably, a contemporary of 'Amrú Lais. Altogether, we may consider the sub­version of the Turk by the Brahman dynasty to have occurred about 850 A.D., shortly before its capture by Ya'kub Lais; and as it appears from the Arab geographers that Musulmáns held the castle, it is evident that the Brahmans were only occasionally dominant, and did not hold their power without long and frequent interruptions.

Bhím.—The coins of Bhím are found in Kábulistán, but are seldom, if ever, met with in India. There is no reason to doubt that this is the same Bhím as the Srí Bhím Deva of the bull-and-horse­man series, and this is the only one of which the identification can be admitted without question.

M. Reinaud considers that this Bhím is the one mentioned by 'Utbí and Firishta as the founder of Nagarkot;* but there is more reason to believe the hero of the Mahá-bhárata to be the one indicated.

Jaipál I.—It is strange that no coins of Jaipál are found. Firishta calls him the son of Ishtpál,* and distinctly avers that he was a Brahman, and Bírúní also includes him in that dynasty; but the introduction of the term Pál, which is now continued to the close of the dynasty, might incline us to suppose that a new family had com­menced. This seems in other respects not improbable, for in the opening of the Táríkh-i Yamíní we find Jaipál's western border extended no further than Lamghán, Kábul being already in posses­sion of Subuktigín. It seems probable, therefore, that the succession of the real Kábul sovereigns ceased with Bhím, and that the king of Northern India succeeded to the paramount sovereignty which, as far as the Muhammadans were concerned, had hitherto been held by the ruler of Kábul. It is a mistake to suppose that Jaipál was king of Dehli. It does not appear that any such place existed in his time, and Abú-l Fidá's determination of its latitude and longitude on the authority of the Kánún-í Mas'údí is a misquotation, which it is of importance to correct, for there is nowhere mention of Dehli either in that work or in the Táríkhu-l Hind. The principal places of his residence appear to have been Lahore, Bhera, and Waihind; and it may be doubted if any of these places, except perhaps the last, had been held by the kings of Kábul.

The assertion that he was a Brahman probably arises from ignorance on the part of Firishta. Al Bírúní is not specific in his statement that he was a Brahman, but merely includes him in the dynasty which commenced with a Brahman, and he may no more have been really of that caste than were the Bahmaní sovereigns of the Dekhin, though they were called after one. The term Brahman, in the conception of a Musulmán, might merely imply that he maintained the doctrines of that faith, and from his position was its staunchest defender and champion. There seems ground to suppose he must have been a Rájpút, and some reasons have been assigned in the note on Mahmúd's invasion for considering him a Bhattí.

Anandpál.—Mr. Thomas observes* that the coins of Anandpál are common, and are plentiful in the Panjáb and the northern parts of the Ganges Dúáb. But these are evidently to be referred to the monarch of Delhi, who lived a century and a half later, and we have to deal with Anandpál not Anangpál. 'Utbi calls him Andpál.

Jaipál II.—This is not the name given by Al Bírúní, where it appears more like Tardijanbál, and in the other authors who men­tion him it goes through various forms. Tadan jaipál, Nanduwa Jaipál, Turu Jaipál, Parou Jaipál, Nardajanpála, Niranjanpál, Tasd?? Jaipál, and many more.* The latest reading proposed by M. Reinaud is Trilochan Pál, after the “three-eyed” Siva. Persian authors generally call him Nabíra Jaipál, or the grandson of Jaipál, and in that relationship no doubt he stood to the first Jaipál. Hence Dow calls him “Pitterugepál.” The real name was, perhaps, Púr Jaipál, or Jaipál junior, Jaipál the son or grandson. Al Bírúní tells us that his father Anandpál was an inveterate enemy of the Musulmáns from the time that Púr Jaipál was taken prisoner, but Púr Jaipál himself was well disposed towards them.

According to 'Utbí we find him holding dominion as far eastward as Kanauj and the Ráhib, respecting which the note on the ninth and twelfth expeditions of Mahmúd may be consulted. The same author mentions another son of Anandpál, by the name of Brahman Pál, who is probably a different one.

Abú Ríhán informs us that he was killed in 412 A.H.=1021-2 A.D. It does not appear exactly when he began to reign, but he certainly opposed Mahmúd during the Kanauj campaign in 409 H.

Bhím Pál.—In him we have the last of the dynasty of Kábul and Northern India. As he is mentioned by Abú Ríhán, he must have succeeded to some remnant of his father's domains; but it does not appear that in his time he contested the advance of the Muham-madans, though before he ascended the throne we find him taking an active part in defending his father's dominions, under the name of Nidar Bhím, “Bhím the Dauntless.”*

From his letter to Chand Ráí, which is recorded by 'Utbí, it would appear that he was inclined to peaceful counsels, and that bitter experience had taught him the hopelessness of contending with his relentless and sanguinary rivals.*

From a statement in the Táríkhu-l Hind, we may infer that his capital was Bárí, to the ??ast of Kanauj.

Neither of Bhím Pál, nor of any other of the Pál family, are any coins extant.

Bhím Pál survived his father five years, and died, therefore, in 417 A.H., the eventful year of the capture and plunder of S??nát. Haidar Rázi gives nine years as the period of his reign.