________________
108
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[APRIL, 1886.
4. Nagabhața, son of 3....
mentioned ; and, after him, Déva pâla, the date 5. Råmabhadra, son of 4 ...
1005 being close by." He observed that 6. Bhôja I., son of 5 .....
these dates were not sufficiently particularised 7. Mahêndrapala I., son of 6 ...
for him to certify their era by calculation; and 8. Bhòja II., son of 7.......
he threw out the suggestion, as a barely possible 9. Mahôndra pila II., brother of 8 ..... one, that in these kings we had the progeny 10. Vinayakapala, son of 9 .........
of Dévasakti of Kanauj (Mahôdaya). 11. Mahendrapala III
Meanwhile, in 1853, in his paper entitled 12. Karmachandra ... till about A. D. 850. & "Note on an Ancient Inscription from 13. Vijayananda
Tháneswar," Dr. Rajendralal Mitra had Dr. FitzEdward Hall followed. In 1861, in published, from imperfect materials, an inscriphis paper entitled "A Donative Inscription of tion" from Pehewa' about fifteen miles west the Tenth Century," he pointed out, very of Tháneswar,' which gave the names of (1) correctly, that Professor Lassen was wrong in Mahêndrapaladêva, (2) Jâtula, (3) Vajrata, a derespect of all the leading conclusions at which scendant of Játula, (4) Yajõika or Yajñaka, (5) he had arrived in respect of this family, and Sogga, (6) Pärnarâja, son of Sogga,(7) Devaraja, he took this opportunity of identifying the brother of Purnarâja,-and, finally, (8) the ParaMahôdaya of these inscriptions with Kanya- mabhatáraka, Maharajadhiraja, and Paramé. kubja or Kananj, on the authority of the Hai- ivara Ramachandradêva, and (9) his successor, makosa, iv. 39. And in 1862, in his paper the Paramabhaffáraka, Maharaja dhiraja, and entitled “Vestiges of Three Royal Lines of Parameswara Bhôjadêva, with the date for the Kanyakabja," as a supplement to which last-mentioned of, as he gave it, the year 179," he re-edited Vinayakapala's grant, he took up which he interpreted as equivalent in the the subject again; but without advancing it Vikrama era) to A.D. 122.-After this, in 1863, beyond pointing out that Mahôdaya could not in his paper entitled "Bhoja Rájá of Dhár be identified with either Mahobá,' Maudhé,' and his Homonyms," as an accompaniment to or Mahedú,' and repeating his previous identi- which a lithograph of the Pehewa' inscription fication of it with Kanauj,-endorsing the was issued, he took ap again the subject of identification of the Tikkarikâgrama of Vina- Dôvasakti of Mahôdaya and his descendants. yakapala's grant with the modern Tikree, Repeating, but now with an expression of doubt, of maps, close to Benares, "--and suggesting his reading of the year 65 as the date of that we may possibly have traces of one or Vinayakapâla's grant, and referring it to some other of the Bhojas of this family in Mahor' unspecified local era, -and using his subseor Maholl,' as the traditionary capital of a Raja quently published rendering of MahendraBhôja, and in Bhojpur near Farrukabad.' In pala's grant,-he allotted definite dates to the course of his remarks he spoke of a huge them, commencing with Dêvasakti, A.D. 779, inscription in some part of the Gwalior State," down to Vinayakapala, A.D. 900. He also which mentions first “Mahendrapůla. Near identified Bhoja II. with the Paramébvara where he is spoken of is the date 960. Next Bhôjadêva, the lord of Gopagiri or Gwalior, of comes Bhôja ; and then Mahendrapala again, an inscription at Gwalior," dated," in both with the date 964. Further on, Kshitipála is words and decimal figures, Samvat 933, which # Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. XXX. p. 195 ff.
the rest of his paper he treated it, with emphasis, as one 18 d. Vol. XXXI. p. 1 ff.
hundred and seventy-nine. 11 This identification was first pointed out by R Jour. Bong. As. Soc. Vol. XXXII. p. 9111. Mitra Gen. Cunningham supplied F. E. Hall with the
" It had already been read before the Society, on the transcript from which he wrote. It is very desirable
2nd July 1862. that the original inscription should be rediscovered and
Previously published by him in Jour. Beng. As. Soc. published in full. It has probably to be looked for at or Vol. XXXI. p. 407f., text and translation, with a lithoin the neighbourhood of Sironij, 160 miles south by west graph by Gen. Cunningham, No. 4, Plate ii. In his of Gwalior, and 60 miles north by east of BhopA1.
remarks on it he said id. Pp. 399 and 407, note t) that » Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. XXII. p. 6738.
the first figure of the dato might be 7, which would *. It was subsequently pointed out by Gen. Canning
bring it back to Samvat 733 (A.D. 676); but, as the word bam, in the Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. XXIII. p. 280, navani, nine, is very distinct, there was no need for that the last eight lines, as publisbed, were in reality any such remark. quite separate record.For a lithograph of these eight
11 The date Samvatsara-fatlahu mau trayas. lines, see id. Vol. XXXII. p. 97.
tringad-adhikeah Magha-fukla-dvilfydydm sath 958 M&In the text, he read Sarhvat 170; but throughoutgha fu di ..
