Sri Harsha era of 607 A. D., which would bring the date of the inscription down to A. D. 823. But if the middle figure is actually a 7 (as read by Rajendra, although his facsimile gives a 1) then the date would be 276, or A. D. 883 if referred to the Sri Harsha era, a period which would enable us to identify the Bhoja of the Pehewa inscription with his namesakes of Gwalior in A. D. 876, and of the Raja Tarangini in A D. 883 to 901. I will endeavour to examine the original inscription during the ensuing cold weather, as I have a suspicion that the first figure of the date is not a 2, but either a 1 or a 9. In the pencil tracing sent to me by Mr. Grote the figure is a 1, and so it was read by Rajendra himself, as I have conclusively shown in the opening paragraphs of this paper.

Babu Rajendra has drawn attention to another Raja Bhoja, to whom allusion has been made by Professor Hall in his "Vestiges of the royal lines of Kanoj," with the dates of 960 and 964. To this monument the Babu states that I probably refer (see p. 96 of his article) in my letter published in the Journal for 1860, p. 395. But here again (to use the Babu's own words) he did not think it "worth his while to look to" my actual statement. Had he done so he would have found in J. A. S. B. 1860, p. 395, that I referred to the Gwalior Bhoja Deva inscription with its date of Samvat 933, "both in words. and figures." In the same letter I added that "the form of the figure 9 in this date is the same as that which Rajendralal has read as 7," that is, in the Buddha Gaya inscription already quoted. Notwithstanding this direct notice of his misreading of the figure 7, the Babu, in his very last article on Raja Bhoja, has again brought forward this erroneous date of Samvat 721 to prove that the Kutila character was in use as early as that time. I may add that the Babu is equally wrong in his statement that the inscription referred to by Professor Hall, was found "at Gwalior." It is believed to have been found somewhere in the Gwalior territory, but the actual site is not known. It is certain, however, that it was not found "at Gwalior."

In the remarks which accompany his translation of the Bhoja Deva inscription of Gwalior, of which the date, Samvat 933, is given both in words and in figures, Babu Rajendra (J. A. S. Bengal 1862, p. 399) states that "the date is open to question." "The first figure," he adds, "is peculiarly formed, and may be taken for a 7, which would carry the prince to A. C. 676 S. 733, or within eleven years of the

=

second Bhoja of Colonel Tod, with whom he may be taken to be identical." Here then we have the Babu deliberately committing the very error, which he has erroneously attributed to me. It is Rajendra himself who has "hastily jumped to a conclusion regarding the age of a dated inscription from the mere circumstance of the word Bhoja occurring in it."

Hitherto I have spoken only of Rajendra's errors of commission, of which I have to complain, as most of them affect myself personally. I will conclude with noticing his errors of omission, which are equally unfair towards me, and one of which has been the cause of error in others.

In his last article on the Bhojas (J. A. S. Bengal, 1863, p. 97) after mentioning the names of Bhoja Raja of Dhâra, and the Bhoja of the Raja Tarangini, Rajendra says, "The second of these princes I assume to have been identical with the sovereign named in an inscription on a Vaishnavite temple at Gwalior. He is described as a lord paramount, who flourished in A. C. 876." In this paragraph the Babu assumes the identity without making any reference to my letter, published in this Journal for 1860, p. 395, in which this identification was first made known.

A similar omission of my name occurs in the Babu's latest account of the Rohtas inscription, of which a translation was published in Vol. VIII. of this Journal, p. 695. In my letter, printed in this Journal for 1860, p. 395, I first pointed out that this inscription gave the genealogy of the Tomara Rajas of Gwalior, and that the name of the fourth prince, Dungara, had been misread as Hungara. In his Vestiges of the kings of Gwalior, published only last year, the Babu adopts this identification of the genealogy without acknowledgment and adheres to the name of Hungara in the Rohtas inscription, without mentioning my opinion that it is erroneous.

The last instance of the Babu's omissions, which I shall [notice, is a more serious one, namely his adoption of my reading and identification of the Huvishka of the Wardak and Mathura inscriptions with the Hushka of the Raja Tarangini, without any mention of my name (see his translation of the Wardak inscription in this Journal for 1861, p. 339). My reading of the name of Huvishka in the Wardak inscription, and my identification of this prince with the Huvishka of the Mathura inscriptions, and also with the Hushka of

the Raja Tarangini, will be found in this Journal for 1860, pp. 400, 401. This silent adoption of my identification has enabled Mr. Thomas to ascribe it to Rajendra himself (see Journ. Royal Asiat. Soc. Vol. XX. p. 108; note 2.)*-and Mr. Thomas's authority, added to the Babu's own silence, has induced Professor Dowson to do the same. In the same Vol. of the Royal Asiat. Soc. Journal, Mr. Dowson writes as follows regarding Rajendra's translation of the Wardak inscription," Before proceeding to criticise I will perform the more grateful task of applauding the success he has achieved, especially in the reading of the name of the king and in identifying him with the Hushka of the Raja Tarangini. This alone would have been a valuable gain." Here then we see that the two points in the Babu's version of the Wardak inscription, to which Professor Dowson has awarded special praise, are precisely those two which the Babu has adopted from my published letter without any acknowledgment whatever.

Extract from a letter from Major-General CUNNINGHAM.
Dated, Nynee Tál, 24th May, 1864.

"I have succeeded in clearing up the whole mystery of the date of Raja Bhoja in the Pehoa inscription, which is written at full length in words, as well as in figures. The date is 276-Rajendra has misread the name of Bhoja's father, which is Râmabhadra Deva, and not Ramachandra Deva, as may be seen most distinctly even in his own facsimile. This correction is most important, as it enables us to identify both father and son with two of the Rajas of Kanoj, whose names are given in the Benares copper-plate. To this identification Rajendra will object that the genealogy of the Pehoa inscription prior to Râmabhadra differs entirely from that of the Benares copper-plate; and so it does differ beyond all doubt; but there is no such genealogy in the Pehoa inscription of Raja Bhoja! The explanation of this

66

* In the same volume, p. 99, in an article read on the 5th July, 1862, Mr. Thomas describes a square copper coin of Epander whom he calls a new king." But the name of this king had already been made known by me in this Journal for 1860, p. 396, from a similar copper coin in my own possession. Since then I have obtained a hemidrachma of Epander, in bad order, and another copper coin in very bad preservation.

seeming mystery is simple enough. There are two distinct inscriptions at Pehoa, which have been taken by Rajendra Lal as forming only one record. The first inscription of twenty-one lines which contains the names of Mahendra Pâla, Vajrata, Gogga, &c., is given by Rajendra quite complete; but of the second inscription he has given only eight lines out of sixteen and a quarter lines. It is this second inscription which contains the names of Raja Râmabhadra Deva, and Raja Bhoja Deva, together with the date, which is written at full length in words, as well as in figures-thus:

samvatsare satadwaye shadsaptatyadike (?)
Vaisakhamasa sukla paksha saptasyẩm.
Samvat 276 Vaisakha sudi 7.

all of which may be read in Rajendra's own facsimile.

This I believe D. 607, which

The date of the inscription being thus conclusively settled, it now remains to ascertain the era to which the date refers. to be the era of Sri Harsha of Kanoj, beginning in A. would make the date of the inscription A. D. 882. Now at this very time we know that a Raja Bhoja Deva was paramount sovereign of Gwalior, as his inscription, carved on the rock itself, is dated in Samvat 933, or A. D 876. From the Raja Tarangini also we learn that a Raja Bhoja contended with Sankara Varmma of Kashmir, who reigned between the years 883-901 A. D. I am quite satisfied that all these records refer to the same Prince, Bhoja Deva, who was Raja of Kanoj during the last quarter of the 9th century, or from about A. D. 875 to 900.

Το prove this last statement it will be sufficient to show that Bhoja Deva, son of Râmabhadra Deva, was Raja of Kanoj about the date specified. Now the genealogy of this family, consisting of eight names, is given in the Benares copper-plate (Journ. As. Soc. Bengal, XVII. 71) in which Râmabhadra Deva and Bhoja Deva are the 4th and 5th names. The date of the inscription which is recorded in tife reign of Bhoja's great grandson, is 65, which must refer to some recent era, and is not therefore of any assistance in fixing the actual date of this copper-plate. But the name of Bhoja's great grandfather, Vatsa Raja, is found in another copper-plate which is dated in 730 of the Sake Salivahána or A. D. 808. In this record it is stated that Paura Raja, the father of the inscriber, had conquered Fatsa

Raja "who had become intoxicated with the wealth of the king of Gaur," (see Journ. Royal As. Soc. V. 350). According to this statement Paura Raja must have been reigning just one generation, or twenty-five years, prior to A. D. 808, or in A. D. 783. His antagonist Vatsa Raja may therefore be dated about A. D. 800, and Vatsa's great grandson Bhoja Deva about seventy-five years later, or in A. D. 875.

The result of all these concurring dates is to give us a very good and almost continuous outline of the history of Kanoj from the end of the sixth century down to the Muhammadan conquest, or for upwards of six centuries. The different dynasties may, according to my view, be dated as follows.

1.-BAIS RAJPUTS.

A. D. 575. Prabhâkara Vardhana.

600. Rajya Vardhana.

607. Harsha Vardhana, founder of the era.

650. (Harsha's death).

700. Ranmal, invaded Sind (Journ. As. Soc. Beng. X. 188). 715. Harchand, contemporary of Muhammad bin Kâsim (Abul

Fazl).

730. Yaso Varmma, conty. of Lalitaditya of Kashmir (Raj. Tar.) Benares copper-plate.

775. Devasakti Deva.
800. Vatsa Raja Deva.
825. Nagabhatta Deva.

850. Rámabbadra Deva,}

875. Bhoja Deva,

900. Mahendra Pâla Deva.
920. Bhoja Deva II.

930. Vinayaka Pâla Deva.

of Pehoa inscription.

TOMARAS.

979. Sallakshana.

1005. Jaya Pâla.

1021. Kumâra Pâla.

1051. Ananga Pâla, refounded Dilli.