1853. | Bhoja Raj of Dhér and his Homonyms. 101 
racters, and of four centuries to No. IV. of the Guzerat plates. He 
could not intend his table to be other than tentative and open to 
considerable corrections and modifications, for it is impossible to 
believe that with the limited data before him in regard to a subject 
which had never, before his time, had the benefit of any scientific 
enquiry, he could be so far satisfied as authoritatively to lay down 
each particular set of characters to one well defined period which 
would not admit of either extension or contraction, The so-called 
kutila or the “ crooked” characters which, according to Col. Cunning- 
ham, owes its name to a mislection of the word kumuda or the “lotus 
like,” was marked by Mr. Prinsep against the tenth century ; but he 
did not by any means intend that it should be confined to that cen- 
tury alone, for he had himself translated several records of the 
eleventh century in that character. I have since noticed an inscrip- 
tion from Buddha Gaya* in which the Kutila is associated with the 
Samvat date 781 = A.C.726. This would give a range of four 
centuries, but as it is not to be supposed that the Kutila had just 
been formed when it was used in the Buddha Gya monument, we 
may fairly give it an additional fifty, eighty or even a hundred years. 
No doubt there are peculiarities of certain forms and archaisms 
which to a practised eye distinguish the earlier from the later Kutila, 
but they are of no value whatever in cases where the difference is 
not greater than a century. ‘The character of the Thaneswar monu- 
ment is the Kutila without any marked archaisms or tendency to 
merge into the modern Devanagari, and judging from it, one may be 
fully justified in placing it in the ninth, tenth or eleventh century 
according to his choice. ‘The archaic character of some of the names 
Jatula, Vajrata, &c., would carry us to the earliest period of the 
Kutila range, but under no circumstance to the third century of the 
Vikramaditya era, to which the date would bring us. 
The discrepancy between the date and the style of writing, there- 
fore, can be solved only by supposing, as I have already said, the 
Samvat of the date to be a local or family era utterly unconnected 
with Vikramaditya ; and if this be admitted, our prince will be left to 
occupy a place in the Kutila period which, until future research set- 
tles it more definitely, must enjoy a range of near three centuries. 
* Ante, Vol. XXVII. p. 74. 
