The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c12.105

v1.c12.105

The next question that confronts us is the identification of Lalliya. There is no prince of this name on the list of al-Bīrūnī. He was a contemporary of Śaṅkaravarman (883-902 A.D.), and was apparently dead in A.D. 902-04, when Gopālavarman was king of Kashmīr. His son Kamalū, as we shall see further on, was a contemporary of 'Amr ibn Laith (*c.* 879-900 A.D.). As al-Bīrūnī's account is confirmed whenever we can check it, it is unlikely that he would omit the name of such an important prince as Lalliya. Cunningham first suggested that Kallār of al-Bīrūnī is identical with Lalliya of Kalhaṇa.¹ Stein has pointed out that Kalhaṇa's description of Lalliya Śāhi's great power and repute, agrees singularly with what al-Bīrūnī has to tell us of the 'energetic founder of the *Hindu Shāhiya* dynasty.'² 'The proposed identification of Kallār with Lalliya finds further support in the convincing conjecture by which Prof. Ch. Seybold, in his remarks on the *Indica* of al-Bīrūnī, has explained the apparent difference of the names. Prof. Seybold sees in the form کلر of the single MS. which has preserved for us the text of the *Indica* a misread للى or لليه, and accounts for such a corruption by well-known palæographic peculiarities of Arabic manuscripts.'¹ Edward Thomas referred to this prince certain silver coins of the Bull-and-horseman type with the legend *Syālapatideva*. This identification, based on a possible mistake of the copyists, a ک for س, was rightly rejected by Elliot as unwarranted.² But there is no inherent impossibility in the guess of the latter authority that the subversion of the *Turki Sāhiyas* by Lalliya may have occurred about 850 A.D.³