1863. ] Proceedings of the Asiatie Society. 439 
in two separate inscriptions, the Rohtas and the Narwar, and on find- 
ing one of the names to be written Hungara in one and Dungara in 
the other, he attributed the difference to an error in the reading of 
the first named document, as that of the second, he found, had the 
support of three independent inscriptions from Gwalior. His reading 
of the documents was perfectly independent of the researches of the 
General, and his identification the imevitable result of the proofs he 
had before him, and he could not therefore hold himself in any way 
indebted for them to his eritic, who, to the best of his knowledge, had 
nowhere given the correct reading Dungara. General Cunningham, 
in his letter on the subject, alluded exclusively to the Rohtas record, 
and said “the name of the fourth prince has been mis-read, it should 
te) 
be Dunggara and not Hungara.” There was nothing to show that 
when he said this he had read either the Narwar or the Gwalior records, 
for he made no allusion to them, and his new reading, or more strictly 
suggestive alteration, was wrong, as he spelt the name with two g’s 
(Dunggara) and not with one g (Dungara ;) he could not therefore 
fairly claim the credit of a deduction which was founded upon an 
examination of four, tiil then, undecyphered documents. 
The last imstance of alleged error of omission on his part, the 
Babu said, referred to the reading of the name of Huvishka and his 
identification with the Hushka of the Rdjataranginé which General 
Cunningham claimed as his own. The name, however, as read by the 
General and printed in his letter in the 29th Vol. of the Journal, 
pages 400 and 401, was Hoveshka in the Wardak and Huveshka in the 
Mathura inscriptions. These readings were got at without decypher- 
ing either of those records, and consequently were, to all intents and 
purposes, quite as much guesses as the General’s suggestive reading of 
Harishchandra of the same word, and all three being wrong, had no 
claim to any consideration. 
The Babu was the first to deeypher and translate the Wardak 
record, and as his reading was different from that of General Cunning- 
ham, (Huvishka and not Hoveshka) he felt bound in justice to him- 
self to deny the claim of the General. The correct reading, Huvishka, 
was first met with in the Mathura inscription by the Babu himself, 
and subsequently in the Wardak record which he read with Mr. 
Bayley’s tentative Nagari transcript in hand, and he did not feel called 
upon to concede to the General what was strictly Mr. Bayley’s and his 
3K 
