[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [General history and culture](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general) › [The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period)](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931) › v1.c14.162 # The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c14.162 The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c14.162 - **Language:** English ### [v1.c14.162](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c14.162) Lévi has identified \*Ma-ta-na-lo-mo\* and \*Cha-ko-sin-ti\* with the princes mentioned as Matisiṁha and Śaktisiṁha. \*Ma-ta-na\* however corresponds more nearly to Madana, and the Professor offers the plausible suggestion that it was amended by the local annalists into \*Mati\* on account of its closeness to the next name Śakti. \*Lo-mo\*, according to this scholar is the Buddhist title \*lama\* (Tibetan \*blama\*), which the Ming emperors lavished widely for political reasons.¹ The other difficulty that arises in these identifications is chronological. According to the Chinese account, the first embassy of \*Ma-ta-na-lo-mo\* arrived in 1387 A.D. while that from \*Cha-ko-sin-ti\* came in 1414 A.D. According to the chronology of the Vaṁśāvalīs the date of Matisiṁha falls in \*c.\* 1353-69, and that of Śaktisiṁha in 1368-90, 1368-95 or 1401 A.D. But in view of the artificial character of the chronology of the local annals, we think we are justified in overlooking this and accepting the identifications proposed. - [Previous: v1.c14.161](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c14.161) - [Next: v1.c14.163](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c14.163) - [Up: v1.c14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c14) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c14.162](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c14.162) · Pramāṇa