444 ON ANCIENT MONUMENTS 



Mongir *, containing a grant of land by a prince who 

 appears to be of the same family, the date was read by 

 Mr. WiLKiNS, Samvat 33 ; which was supposed both 

 by him and by Sir W. Jones to intend the era of Vi- 

 ckama'ditya "i-. I have always entertained doubts of 

 that interpretation : and, among other reasons for he- 

 sitating, one has been the improbabihty, which to my 

 apprehension exists, that the era should have been in 

 use, and denoted by the same abbreviated term, so 

 early after the time at which it commences. Eras, by 

 which nations have continued to reckon for a series of 

 ages, have not usually been introduced until a consi- 

 derable time after the event from which they are count- 

 ed ; and, when first introduced, have been designated 

 by some more definite term than one merely signifying 

 a year. But the word Samvat (abbreviated from Sam- 

 "oatsara a year,) being in that inscription prefixed to a 

 low numeral, and not expressly restricted, as is usual 

 where Vicrama'ditya's era is meant, was more likely 

 to intend the year of the reigning king (though Sir W. 

 JoxVEs thought otherwise J,) than that of a period 

 reckoned from the birth^ or the accession, or the de- 

 mise, of another monarch. It appeared to me likewise, 

 as to Captain Wilford, on examining the fac simile 

 of the inscription in question^, that tfce character, 

 wliich stands in the place of the / of Samvat, resembled 

 more nearly the numeral ] . The date might thercr 

 fore be 133 instead of 33. I inclined, however, 

 to believe the lower number to have been rightly 

 read by Mr. Wilkijss on the original plate : 



^ As. Res. vol. 1. p. 123. 

 t Ibid. p. 130. 

 X Ibid. p. 142. 

 -5 Plates 1 and 2 in the 1st vol. of As. Res. 



