By referring to the passages given above from the geographers, we shall learn the state of the occupancy of Kábul from the time of the Saffárides to that of the Ghaznivides, which commenced as early as the time of Alptigín, according to the statement of Abú-l Fazl, and it is probably to his time that the story related by Al-Birúní refers, where he states that when the Espehbed, or general-in-chief, had the gates of Kábul opened to him, the inhabitants imposed upon him the condition not to eat cow's flesh or indulge in unnatural crimes.* Neither condition is strictly observed by the modern occupants.
We will now proceed to examine more particularly the attempted identification of the several names of this series of Kábul kings:—
| TURKS. | Kamlú. |
| Barhtigín. | Bhím. |
| Kanak. | Jaipál I. |
| Katormán. | Anandpál. |
| * * * | Jaipál II. |
| BRAHMANS. | Bhímpál. |
| Kalar. | * * * |
| Sámand. |
Barhtigín has been already sufficiently remarked upon.
Kanak—Katormán.—Both these names have also been the subject of extended remarks. It will be observed that all the authorities quoted above from the original, make Kanak the last of the Turks, excepting only the Táríkhu-l Hind, which makes him only one, and the most famous one of the middle series of the Turkish kings for sixty generations. Allowing that Kanak is Kanishka, for which ample ground has already been advanced, this becomes impossible, and we must fall back upon the better authority of the Táríkhu-l Hind, and consider the Katormán or Laktúzamán as the last. In the more modern narratives of Rashídu-d dín and Binákití we must place a full stop after “Kanak returned to his country.” Then proceed, “the last of the kings was the Katormán.” This requires no violent alteration of the text. Indeed the mere omission of <arabic> from the Arabic, and <arabic> from the Persian reconciles everything, and this last omission is actually made in the British Museum MS.
The writers themselves knew little of the state of the case, and
wished merely to translate Al Bírúní, who knew well enough what he
was writing. For instance, Binákití wishing to reduce the narrative
of the Jámi', makes it appear that Ujen was the predecessor of
Kanak. Haidar Rází, again, among the names of the illustrious
kings of India who succeeded Basdeo (here meant not for him of
Kanauj, but the great Krishna) mentions Arjun and Jasand (the
former being manifestly the famous hero of the Mahá-bháráta, and
the latter Jarásandha), and “after him came Kanak, Chand.” This,
thorough indifference to correct chronology, enables us to see that by
Ujen is meant Arjun, the senior of Kanak by several centuries.
Mr. Thomas is persuaded that to this Kanak, the last of the Turks,
are to be ascribed the coins which bear the name of Sri Vanka Deva
“of the elephant-and-lion type of coin, which preceded the bull-
Kalar “is, we have little doubt, the Syálapati of our coins. There is less difference in sound between Syála and Kalar than would at first be imagined; so that if our translator, Al Bírúní, wrote his Arabic version from oral tradition, this slight change in the initial pronunciation of the name would be fairly probable.” This is carrying speculation to an extreme, and there is no warrant whatever for the presumed identification.
It is to be observed that the Jámi'u-t Tawáríkh and its followers omit all notice of Kalar, making Sámand the immediate successor of Kanak.
The Syála or Syál-pati (<greek> in Greek), of whom so many coins are found in Afghánistán, was probably a leader, and, perhaps, even the progenitor of the Syál Játs of Jhang Syál and other localities in the Panjáb.
Samand.—Coins of Samanta, or Samanta Deva, are found in great
profusion not only in Afghánistán, but throughout the Panjáb and
the whole of Northern India, and one has even been found in the
province of Posen.*
Mr. Thomas is of opinion that this is owing
to his having called in the coins of his Buddhist predecessors, in
order to give prevalence to his own creed of Brahmanism by the
substitution of the bull-and-horseman type for that of the elephant-
Professor Wilson attributed these coins to a Rájpút prince, who lived many years afterwards. M. Reinaud never hesitated to recognize in these medals the name of the king of Kábul, and his opinion was confirmed by the examination which M. Adrien de Longpérier made of them.*
It may be considered presumption to oppose such an array of authority in favour of this identification, but, nevertheless, I hesitate to concur in it without more cogent arguments than those that have yet been adduced. Putting aside the improbability that one man's name should be stamped on a series of coins, extending through more than two centuries, sometimes in supercession, and sometimes in conjunction with, that of the reigning monarch—and that, too, even in the case of the later Ghaznivides—there seems so obvious a solution of this continuance of a single name, that it requires far less boldness to adopt this simple explanation, than to seek grounds for establishing a position which, from its many improbabilities, is always open to question. It may, perhaps, be admitted that the coins which bear the simple name of Srí Samant Deva are to be referred to the Sámand of Abú Ríhán; but even that admission is open to objection, there being a double mis-spelling in the name, for in the former we have a short a instead of a broad one, and a t instead of a d.*
It appears to me, then, that Samanta, whenever it is found with another name, is throughout merely a title, meaning the warrior, the hero, the preux chevalier, the leader of an army, the Amír; and that after being used concurrently with Srí Hamír on the later Ghaznivide coins, it was by the early Ghorian monarchs altogether displaced by that more appropriate title.
At this latter period the prevalence of the title of Samant is obvious from its frequent use by the bard Chand, who has celebrated the exploits of Ráí Pithaurá, and his three hundred Samants, or stalwart knights.
Kamlúa.—Mr. Thomas wishes to appropriate to this monarch a medal bearing the legend of Khvadavayaka or Khedavayaka, while he confesses that even to liberal ears these names are not quite accordant in sound. He then seeks to justify the appropriation by mutations, blots, or intermixture of letters.* We must reject this, it being not worthy of the least credit; and the discovery of the name of Kamlúa in another history sets the question at rest, and establishes the correctness of Al Bírúní.
This discovery is in other respects important, as enabling us to fix a synchronism by which we may conjecture the periods of the other monarchs of this dynasty. In one of the stories translated from the Jámi'u-l Hikáyát,* it will be found that he was a contemporary of 'Amrú Lais, who reigned between 265-287 A.H.=878-900 A.D. Kamlúa is there called the Ráí of Hindústán, and he must have ruled sometime within this period.
If we admit that these names represent a continuous series of successive monarchs, and not rather those who alone were conspicuous, we shall have to place the commencement of Kamlúa's reign as late as possible within the twenty-two years above-named. For we must connect it with another synchronism which we obtain from the same Jámi'u-l Hikáyát, wherein we learn that Mahmúd was only fourteen years old when the defeat of Jaipál occurred near the miraculous fountain, which—as he died in A.H. 421,* when he was sixty-three years old—reduces that date to 372 A.H., or 982-3 A.D., fifteen years before the death of Subuktigín.