________________
DeceMBER, 1885.)
MISCELLANEA.
351
by Mâna d êva in A.D. 705-6 and 732-33 (not A.D. 329 and 356), and by Vasanta sê na or Vasantadhva in A.D. 754-55 (not A.D. 378). The six names from Vrishadeva to Vasantagona are given correctly in the Varnsávali, as Nos. 18 to 23 of the Sûryavamsi family. If inscription 0. is to be accepted throughout, this branch of the family was founded by Jay a dê va I. He is doubtless the person who is intended by Jayavarman, No. 3 in the Varnéávali list of the Suryavamsi family. And, calculating back fifteen generations, at the average rate of twenty-five years, from Manadêva, whose generation is represented by his recorded dates, we have for Jayadeva I the date of about A.D. 330 to 355, not A.D. 1. But if Vpishadêra was a direct lineal descendant of Jayadeva I., it is rather peculiar that the composer of inscription 0., writing only five generations after him, was unable to give the names of the persons, only eleven in number, who intervened before him and after Jayadeva I. - In the Thakuri family, the earliest name is that of Amsu varman, with the extreme
dates of A.D. 637 and 651 (?); and the next is that of Jis hņu gupta; A.D. 654-55. Amsuvarman is mentioned in the Varsávali, under exactly the same name, as the founder of the Thakuri family; but Jishņugupta's name is not given or represented. The connection between them is not as yet explained. They were followed by Uday ad êva (about A.D. 675-700, not A.D. 400) and his descendants, who, from there being no mention of Amuvarman and Jishnugapta in inscription 0., plainly belonged to another branch of the family. Udayadeva was contemporaneous with Dharmadêva of the Lichchhavi family; he is not mentioned in the Vansvali, being certainly not the Udayadevavarman, No. 24. in the Vamávalt list of the Suryavamới family. His son, Narendradeva, is possibly the person intended by Narendradêva No 7, in the Vankávalt list of the Thakuri family. His son, Sivadôva II. is not mentioned in the Variávali. His son Jayadeva II. is possibly the person intended by Jayadeva, No. 11 in the Vamnsávali list of the shâkuri family.
377995827124 kg
MISCELLANEA. THE DATE OF THE KOTA BUDDHIST INSCRIP
TION OF THE SAMANTA DEVADATTA. This inscription has been edited by Dr. Hultzsch at page 45ff. above. The reading of the date The date is rather a peculiar one, in containing a given there is--Samvat saranka (read samvatsar. decimal figure combined with a numerical symbol. anka) 7 Magha budi 6 "In the (regnal) year, But it seems plain to me that what follows the in figures, 7; on the 6th day of the bright half word samvat, is a late form of the numerical of Magha."
Bymbol for 100, followed again by the decimal Even if only because of the peculiar way in figure 8; the two together representing 800. The which, according to this emendation, anka is next sign cannot be the symbol for 4, as, being compounded with sasivatsara, this is not at all a followed by a third sign, it must be one of the Batisfactory rendering of the date, and must tens, not a unit. Moreover, in the symbol for 4, certainly be abandoned. And, in his original the upward stroke in the left lower corner is edition of the inscription, in the Jour. Germ. Or. not joined to the cross-stroke (thus forming a Soc. Vol. XXXVIII. p. 546tf., Dr. Hultzsch had loop), as it is here. It is plainly a form of the interpreted the date differently-Samvat ka 841 symbol for 70. The third sign is not straight Magha budi 6l; with the suggestion that the ba enough to be the decimal figure 1; it is plainly might represent either bata, hundreds,' or the the symbol for 9. After su di we have evidently numerical symbol for 100, or Saka, the name of a late form of the symbol for 20,--not the decimal the era.
figure 6, with a half mark of punctuation after it. I now give a lithograph of the date, reduced My reading of the date is Samvat 800 70 9 from the lithograph given with Dr. Hultzsch's Magha bu di 20,-"The year 800 (and) 70 (and) original notice, and compared by me with the 9; (the month) Magha; the bright fortnight; the paper-rubbing of the inscription :
the day 20.”
Not of the fortnight, but of the month; and in accordance with the arrangement indicated by Hauen Triang, -"The procoding dark portion, and the following light
portion, together form month" (Boal's Buddh. Rec. West. World, Vol. I. p. 71.)
