1863. | Sanskrita Inscriptions from Central India. 277 
T.—Nannuka, ......... 206-0 Beers ~ AD. 746-771 
II.—Vagyati or Vakpati Ueerding if vaanoral C., 772—797 
MD Ses Vijagragy (ceed) 8 Jocvetsss 4 798 —823 
1V.—Vihala or Réhila a aking Ne Genetal ce 824—849 
WR TNET CHIE Jon Bent He dee Becerra ieaiees SSR ne aE 850—875 
VI.—Yasodharma Deva, son of Vv, Dili atm et 876—991 
Mi Dltangareoniat Whe) 0262 Jeldesl.ccesdeawoes sce 902—962 
VIII.—Ganda Deva, son of VIL.,  .....0...c2.000 008 962—988 
IX.—Vidyddhara Deva, son of VIII., ............... 999-1014 
Ne Vijavapealayson/of LK... cuss the ccdsanseeres, LOIS —104O 
X1.—Kirttivarma Deva, son of X., .............22.5. 1040-—1066 
XII.— Varma Deva, son of XI., ............ 1066—1092 
XIII.—Jayavarma* Deva, brother of XII., ...... 1092—1118 
XIV.—Sallakshana Varma, son of XIII1., ......... 1118—1144 
XV.—Madanavarma, son of XIV., .............. 1144,—1170 
Of the history of these chieftains I shall here say nothing. General 
Cunningham has lately obtained a Hindvi poem, containing a chronicle 
of the principality of Kajraha, a summary of which, now under his 
pen, will, I have no doubt, throw much more light on the subject, 
than any thing that I can compile from the meagre inseriptions at 
my disposal. 
The second inscription is from Ratanpur in the province of Nagpur, 
It is inscribed on a temple of Mahadeva, and measures 2 feet 6 inches 
by 14 inches. The face of the stone on which it is recorded, is in a 
good state of preservation, and perfect facsimiles in intaglio may he 
taken off, by impressing on it moistened paper with the hand. Col. 
Cunningham’s facsimile has heen so prepared, and the depressions 
have been since filled up with ink, but the operation having 
been carelessly done, the ink-tracing, instead of proving a help to 
the reader, often misleads him. In deeyphering the record, I have, 
therefore, followed the relief side which, though reversed, is neverthe- 
less more trustworthy than the former, 
The character used for the inscription is intermediate between the 
Kutila and the modern Devanagari, with several letters which seem 
peculiar to the era of the document. The ¢ and the 62 have been 
written almost alike, the lower arm of the one being slightly rounded, 
* Mr. Sutherland had a notion that Jayayarma was the son of Dhénga, but 
ee inscriptions completely refute his idea. 
2%. 
