________________
110
THE INDIAN ANTIQUABY.
[APRIL, 1886.
Dévasakti, married to Bhdyika.
Vatsarkja, m. to Sundart.
Nagabhata, m. to Isati.
Ramabhadra, m. to Appa.
Bhoja I., m. to Chandrabhattarika.
Mahendra påla. A.D. 761-62.
In 1879, General Cunningham took up the subject again." Reading the date of Mahồndrapala's grant as 315, and referring it to the Harsha era with the result of A.D 921,-maintaining his identification of the Ramabhadra and Bhoja I. of Devasakti's family with the kings of the same name in the Pabewa' inscription, and also his identification of Bhoja I. both with the Adhiraja Bhoja of the Rájatarangini," v. 156, the contemporary of Śarkaravarman of Kasmir, who expelled him between A.D. 883 and 901, and with the Bhoja of the Gwalior inscription of A.D. 876,--and also identifying Bhoja I. with the Paramabhaftáraka, Mahárdjádkirája and Paramósvara Bhðja of a new inscription of (Vikrama).Samvat 919 and Saks-Samvat 784 (A.D. 862-63) from the fort of Deogarh, in eastern Malwa, "-he finally fixed the time of Bhoja I. from A.D. 860 to 890. And in 1880 again, when publishing this new
Deogarh' inscription," he repeated his former conclusions about the identity of the various Bhojas and of the two Vatsarajas, and finally fixed the following dates for the Mahodaya familyDévasakti......
.. A.D. 730 Vatsaraja .............. Nagabhata ........................... 800 Ramabhadra ......... ..........., 830 Bhoja I ............
» 860 This, as far as I have been able to ascertain, is the last occasion on which the subject has been discussed.
by his wife Dêhanaga
by his wife Mahidevi
Bhoja II.
Vinayakapala.
A.D. 794-95, Each member of the family had simply the sabordinate feudatory title of Mahdrdja;" and this alone would be sufficient prima facie reason against identifying Bhoja I. with the king Bhoja who has the paramount titles of Paramabha fáraka, Mahárdjadhiraja, and Pa. Tamé kvara in the Deogarh' inscription of A.D.862 and the 'Pahewa, Pehewa, Pehewk' or Pehoa' inscription of A.D. 882, and of Paraméóvaru in the Gwalior inscription of A.D. 876. For, if Ramabhadra and Bhoja I. of this family had ever held the paramount rank and titles, the fact would, as a matter of course, have been commemorated by connecting the titles with their names in the inscriptions of Mahendrapala and Vinayakapála, even if the
The historical facts supplied by these two inscriptions are very simple.
In the first place they establish the following genealogy and definite dates :
30 Archaol. Surv. Ind. Vol. IX. p. 84. a1 Caloutta ed., verne 156; French ed., verse 181 -- Hritam Bhoj-Adhirajena s smrkjyam-adapayat
pratibarataya bhritylbhdtd Thakkiyak-Anvaye || "He (Samkaravarman) caused to be restored the dominion which had been taken away by the Adhiraja Bhoja, when the Thakkiyaka family was reduced to the condition of servants by being put to the duty of door keepers."-Bhrityfbhat is the reading of the French edition, in preference to the bhrityau bhit of the Caleatta edition. Both editions read Thakviyak-Andaya; but the correct form of the name seems to be Thaka. yake.It is difficult to my whether Adhirdja in this pas Sage in used in the sense of paramount sovereign, or in its technical fondatory mense (ante, Vol. XIII. p. 50, note 18.)
* The date, as far as the lithograph can be relied on, is Sathvat 9.19 Afvayuja-Fukla-paksha-chatur. dasydu Prihaspati-dind Uttara-Bhadrapada-nakshatra
... ..... ...... Saka-kdi-abda-sapta fatani chatur.affty-adhikni 70.-It answers, by General Conningham's caloulation (Archæol. Sury. Ind. Vol. X. P. 108), to Thursday, the 10th September, A.D. 869.
Ho lao wed this result me one of the grounds for Axing the time of Kokkalla I. of the Kalachuri dynasty of Tripura, from A.D. 860 to 870. This probably holds good, w far the Bhojn of the 'Deogarh,' Gwalior, and Pahews' inscriptions in oonorned. But, for the rousons given by me below, Bhoja I. of Déralakti's family is not ooncerned in the question.
Archeol. Suru. Ind. Vol. X. p. 1004., and Plate zani. No. 2.
ante, Vol. XIII. p. 50, note 18.
