224 



Pehewa Inscription of Raja Bhoja. 



[No. 3, 



Bhqjas had flourished at much later periods, namely in A. D. 876 and 

 A. D. 1030, I thought it quite possible that there might have been 

 some omission in the figured date, and that the true reading might 

 perhaps be 1079, instead of 179. Eajendra now states that the 

 actual date is 279, and that the reading of 179 was a misprint in his 

 paper in one place (see J. A. S. B. 1863, p. 98.) But on this point I 

 must refer the Babu to his previous article, where he will find that the 

 number 179 is given twice directly, and twice indirectly, or altogether 

 in no less tlian/o w places. As in the two latter instances this number is 

 obtained by subtraction, I think that the Babu must have altogether for- 

 gotten the remarks which accompanied his translation. At p. 674, J. A. 

 S. Bengal, 1853, he gives the date of the inscription as " S. 179 = A. C. 

 122." Now if S. 179 be a misprint, even so must the equivalent date 

 of A. C. 122 be a misprint. And similarly the Babu's remark that 

 " the first Bhoja lived about three and a half centuries before the time 

 assigned him by the learned historian of the Bajputs" must contain 

 another mistake in the number three, which is written at full length. 

 For the date of Col Tod's first Bhoja is the end of the fifth century 

 (or 483 A. C. as quoted by the Babu in this very paper) from which 

 deducting 350 years we obtain A. D. 133, which is within eleven years 

 of A. D. J 22, (the equivalent of Sam vat 179) but which differs no 

 less than eighty-nine years from A. J). 222, the equivalent of Samvat 

 279. There can be little doubt therefore that when the Babu obtain- 

 ed the date of A. D. 122, and also when he wrote at full length the 

 words "three and a half centuries" he must himself have read the 

 date as 179. The number 279 occurs once only in this paper, and 

 that is in the Devanagari transcript, 



A long time after I had made the above objection Mr. Grote kind- 

 ly sent me a pencil tracing of the date made by Eajendra himself, 

 together with the words Samvat and Vaisdkh Sudi. On seeing the 

 few letters of these words I wrote to Mr. Grote, as printed in the 

 Bengal As. Soc. Journal, that the inscription was beyond all doubt a 

 middle age one, because the forms of the letters were those of the 

 11th and 12th centuries, to which I added that I read the date as 

 S. 1190 or A. D. 1133. 



Babu Eajendra now writes that Mr. E. Thomas entirely concurred 

 in this reading, and that Professor Weber had also adopted it, but, 

 adds the Babu " none of my critics thought it worth his while to look 



