226 



Teliewa Inscription of Haja BJwja. 



[No. 3, 



As in these inscriptions we have a range of exactly three centuries 

 we may safely extend the range of the use of the Kutila character to 

 at least four centuries, or say from A, D. 750 to 1150. There are of 

 course some differences between the forms of the earlier and later let- 

 ters, but the general appearance of the writing is essentially the same. 

 But when an inscription in the Kutila character was seriously refer- 

 red to the year 179 of the Vikramaditya Samvat, or to A. D. 122 I 

 certainly did object, and I do so still. 



With regard to the Kutila character I have to point out another 

 misstatement regarding myself which has been made by Babu Eajendra 

 Lai. In the article now under notice on Baja Bhoja of Dhara (Bengal 

 Journal, 1863, p. 101) the Babu says " the so-called Kutila, or the 

 c crooked' character, which according to Col. Cunningham owes its 

 name to a mislection of the word Kumuda, or the ' lotus-like,' " On 

 this subject I beg to refer the Babu to the Society's Journal for 1860, 

 p 394, where he will find that I have made no mention of the word 

 Kutila at all ; I simply corrected the word Kakuda, or " bad," which 

 was most absurdly applied to the alphabetical character of one of the 

 Kajraha inscriptions, to Kumuda, or " beautiful." It is true that I 

 once thought it possible that the word Kutila of the Bareilly inscription 

 might also be, what the. Babu calls a " mislection;" but I confined my 

 published opinion to the word KaJcuda, and kept my thoughts regarding 

 the word Kutila to myself. Since then I have examined the Kutila in- 

 scription itself, and I find that the word is correctly rendered. Kuti- 

 la means " crooked, or bent," and I would refer the epithet to the 

 sloping or bent stroke which is attached to the foot of each letter. 

 Apparently the Babu did not think it " worth his while (I quote his 

 own words, vide p. 98 of Journal for 1863) to look to" the actual state- 

 ment which I had published in 1860, and, trusting to his memory, has 

 unintentionally made this statement regarding me. 



Eajendra Lai has now given a facsimile of the Pehewa inscription, 

 the date of which he says is " unmistakeably Samvat 279." (See p. 97.) 

 But here I must again differ with him, for the middle figure of his 

 facsimile is a 1, and not a 7. The day of the month also has been 

 misread, as the figure of the facsimile is a J, and not a 7. The first 

 cypher of the date, as now given, looks certainly more like a 2 than 

 any other figure, and the last cypher, according to my reading, is a 6, 

 thus making the whole date 216. This might possibly refer to the 



