________________
JULY, 1916)
EPIGRAPHIC NOTES AND QUESTIONS
123
mesvara, and secondly because the dates of the latter clearly ranged between V. S. 960 and 1005 and consequently they were posterior to the former by full one century. Fourteen years ago I wrote a paper combating this view. I contended that the title maharaja did not necessarily denote a subordinate feudatory rank and could be appropriately applied even to an independent ruler, that the dates of the copper-plate inscriptions were wrongly read and ought to be read 900, 955 and 988 and referred to the Vikrama era so that they were in perfect conformity with the Vikrama dates supplied by the stone inscriptions, and that the very fact that there was a perfect agreement not only in the names but also in the order of succession of four princes mentioned in the copper-plates on the one hand and the stone inscriptions on the other, could not be attributed to a mere coincidence but was a conclusive proof in favour of their identity. Three years later a stone inscription was discovered near Saqartal in the close vicinity of Gwalior in which the agreement in names and order of succession extended to six generations, and, curiously enough, it suddenly brought round Prof. Kielhorn to my views. It is noteworthy that this new inscription contained no date and that no titles, subordinate or paramount, were conjoined with the names of any kings, and what I cannot understand is why the agreement in point of names and genealogical order was thought by Prof. Kielhorn to be sufficient when it was carried to six generations by this Gwalior record and not sufficient though it was carried to four generations before its discovery. The present inscription, however, clearly decides in favour of my view. All the names except Bhoja II. mentioned in the copper-plate grants are found in this stone record. Secondly, the title mahârâ ja which was so far found coupled with the royal names in the copper-plates only is repeated in this stone epigraph. In fact, as stated above, the actual language employed in the copper-plates to describe the genealogy is reiterated in this stone inscription, and to me it appears almost certain that this last is but a lithic copy of the grant originally issued in copper-plate by Mahendra pala II. Whether we suppose that the grant was originally issued in copper-plate or in stone, the date of the present inscription can be read beyond all doubt; and this is the most crucial point. It is expressed both in symbols and in words. This is a most fortunate circumstance, for the words can never be doubtful whereas the reading of symbols is still so. Leaving aside therefore for the present the numerical symbols, the words indicate that the date is clearly 1003. Here then we have got an inscription which contains a word for word repetition of the genealogical preamble of the copper plates including even the title mahârâja and gives the date 1003 for a son of Vinayakapala (-Kshitipala ) for whom the date 974 has been furnished, in words and consequently without any doubt, by a stone inscription. The conclusion is therefore irresistible that the kings of the copper-plates are identical with the homonymous kings of the stone inscriptions and that the correct readings of the dates of the copper plates which are denoted in symbols are not 100, 155 and 188 as done by Dr. Fleet and Prof. Kielhorn, but 900, 955 and 988 as shown by me and Dr. Hoernle. Nov for the numerical symbols in which also the date of our inscription is expressed. The numerical symbols are trso, san and lri. Of the first symbol the letter t is to be taken along with the preceding letters saill and va' so as to form the word saivat. This is on the analogy of the dates expressed in the copper-plates of this dynasty. The remainder, vir, r80, must be taken to be identical with sro and to stand for 100 as ably shown by
