106 Bhoja Raji of Dhar and his Homonyms. [ No. 2, 
the former into one of one village, and make Lakshmadeva acknow- 
ledge it as a matter of course. It may hence be inferred that Nara- 
varma was the immediate heir and successor of Udaydditya in Mal- 
wa, and that his brother held an appanage to the south of the 
Vindhya, having Nagpur for its capital. Probably he was a gover- 
nor of the southern provinces during his father’s lifetime and subse- 
quently retained them for himself, in vassalage to his brother.* Pro- 
fessor Lassen supposes that he must have revolted against his brother, 
by whom he was overcome and expelled the country, and hence it is 
that he names Naravarma in the inscription without any praise. 
We think, however, that had such been the case, he would have 
scarcely thought it necessary to advert to the revocation of his grant 
by his brother in a document intended only to record the glories of 
his family, and his dedication of a temple to his god-elect. 
But however that be, certain it is that he was a son of Bhoja’s 
successor Udayaditya, and lived at the beginning of the twelfth cen- 
tury, and this being the case, the question arises, is the Bhoja of the 
Sattara inscription identical with the sovereign of that name 
noticed in the Madhukargarh record and the Bhoja-Prabandha ? or 
is he different ? The two last authorities concur in giving the same 
genealogy and evidently intend to describe the same prince. It is 
true the Bhoja-Prabandha names Munja, who does not appear on the 
Madhukargarh tablet, but as the object of the latter was only to 
give the lineal ancestors of Bhoja Raja, the omission is not a matter 
of any consequence, inasmuch as Munja was only an uncle of Bhoja, 
and could not therefore be included among his direct ancestors. The 
Sattara and the Nagpur inscriptions name Munja as the immediate 
predecessor of Bhoja, and therefore may be supposed to allude to the 
hero of the Bhoja-Prabandha, but it makes Munja the son of Siyaka 
and Bhoja that of Sitharaja. This discrepancy is farther confound- 
ed by an inscription from Ujjayini decyphered by me in 1850,+ and 
another found at Indore and published in the last volume of the 
Journal,t both of which make a Krishnardja to be the first of a line 
* Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Vol. II. p. 340. 
+ Ante XIX. p. 475. The conjecture thrown out there regarding the suc- 
cession of Vakpati is untenable. 
{ Ante XXX. p.195. Mr. Hall, with his wonted predilection for microscopic 
criticism, complains in this paper, as elsewhere, of Colebrooke’s imperfect trans- 
lations of the imprecatory verses in the record, and supplies new versions of 
some under the apology of more than one of their number haying been “ repeat- 
