98. Bhoja Rijé of Dhar and his Homonyms. | No. 2, 
Cunningham, an authority of great eminence in all matters connected 
with Indian antiquities, was the first who noticed my mistake, but 
by taking a misprint in my paper in which 179 is, in one place, put 
for 279, he was led to suppose that a small cypher after the first 
figure had escaped me and the date was really 1079. The actual 
date being 279 a cypher after the first figure would give us Samvat 
2079, which would carry us nearly a hundred and sixty years into 
futurity. The Colonel, however, subsequently changed his opinion 
as regards the cypher and said “the inscription is beyond all 
doubt, a middle age one, that is, the forms of the letters are those 
of the eleventh and twelfth centuries; I read the date 1190 S. 
or 1133 A. D.’* Mr. KH. Thomas entirely concurred in this reading 
and the learned Professor Weber, in the Zeitschrift of the German 
Oriental Society,f in commenting upon my paper, supposed with 
Col. Cunningham that either I must have overlooked a cypher after 
the first figure which he imagined existed and that the date was 1079, 
or the era used was other than that of the Samvat of Vikramaditya. 
None of my critics thought it worth his while to look to the genea- 
logy of the prince named. It may appear strange that such distin- 
* Ante, Vol. XXIV. p. 243. 
+ Vol. IX. p. 629. I translate the Professor’s remarks for easy reference. “ A 
very fragmentary inscription, bearing date ....._ Babu Rajendra Lal, in the face 
of the doubts hitherto entertained on this subject, draws hence the bold cone 
clusion, that Bhoja lived A. C. 122 (he reads here Samvat 179; but the 
text, p. 676 has 279). As unfortunately no facsimile has been added (a great 
mistake, the writing alone furnishing the safest starting poiat) we think our- 
selves justified to doubt the correctness of the reading, which, even as it 
stands, fluctuates between 179 and 279. The time of Bhoja, however, by Las- 
sen’s excellent examination (Zeitschrift der Kunde des M. VII. 345) of the 
Nagpore inscription (J. Bombay B. of the R. A. S. 1,254) has been clearly defin- 
ed, viz. the close of the eleventh and the commencement of the twelfth Samvat 
century. The special supposition of Lassen, that the 553 years of his reign, as 
given by tradition, fall between Samvat 1093-1149 (A. D. 1037-1093) is chiefly 
based on the year of the death of one of his successors, viz. of Naravarmadeva, 
which Colebrooke (Misc. Hss. II, 298-303) fixed at Samvat 1390, as according to 
one inscription the anniversary of his funeral rites took place Samvat 1191, 
(maharajas’rinatavarmadeva samvatsarike), From these words, however, only this 
follows, that he must necessarily have died at the latest Samvat 1190, but this does 
not exclude the possibility of his having died several years before. With reference 
to our inscription there is only one alternative, either the reading is 1079 (the 
small circle of the zero could easily escape observation), or, however improbable, 
the Samvat calculation differ here from the common one. In the first case, 
which I would approve of, Bhoja would have reigned already 1079 (A. D. 1023), 
aud this being correct, Tod’s conjecture, that the temporary expulsion of Bhoja, 
mentioned by tradition, was perhaps connected with the inroad of Mahmud of 
Ghuzni, who conquered Guzerat in the year 1024-26,—a conjecture which was 
attacked by Lassen,—would have been corroborated.” 
