304 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [June, 1911. 
1) Mr. Pargiter has already noticed the superfluous 
uses of the word Ka in these four inscriptions. The presence 
of the seals together with the comparison of the three grants 
enabled him to read the name Varaka with certainty. h 
absence of the seal I thought that the name was Kavaraka. 
This is natural, as the previous word is usually written Anumo- 
dita and not Anumoditaka. Similarly in the absence of the 
seal in the other plates I believe no one could have read the 
name as Kavaraka in the first grant. Inthe fourth grant we 
have to read Jivadattas-tadanumoditaka Varakamandale. 
(2) In the 11th line we have to read T'adarhatha instead of 
Tadarham yatha. This word occurs in the three grants edited 
by Mr. Pargiter. 
(3) In the 12th line we have to read Yata etadabhyar- 
thanamupalabhya instead of Yatadhanadabhyarth palabhy 
The very phrase is to be found in the first grant (line 9) and 
the third grant (line 15). 
(4) Ihave already stated that the word read by me as 
Kulacaran is to be read Kulavaran. 
(5) In the 16th line the reading is to be corrected into 
Krtya ksettra kulyavapattrayam. — - 
(6) In the 22nd line the first word is written Sadatam in- 
stead of Sadattam. 
(7) The reading of the date is to be corrected to 14 instead 
of 34, Dr. Bloch read the date as 14, but at that time I did 
not agree with him. I was of opinion that the forger of the 
another mistake in using the 8th century form for 10 in an 
fon 
several times in the next paragraph. It should be noted that 
the form of dental na in the word Supratikasvaminah is the 
8th or 9th century form and not the earlier form, I had omit- 
ted this inadvertently in my first article. 
(V) THe Dare or tHe Grants. 
Only three of these four plates are dated, and in these the 
date is always expressed in numerals. The clue to the proper 
assignation of the dates of these inscriptions is probably to be 
found in the forms of numerals used in them. This part of the 
question may be taken in two different instalments. Firstly, 
the forms of the numerals used, and secondly, the assignation 
of dates. First of all, in two of these dates out of three we 
have the numeral for 10. When I edited Mr. Stapleton’s grant 
in these pages, I was of opinion that the grant was issued in 
the 34th year of Samaciradeva, but as I have already noted 
above, the late Dr. Bloch was concurrent in opinion with 
