1864.] On a Land- Grant of Mahendrapdla Deva of Kanauj. .331 



Kamabhadra and a sovereign of Kanauj, the case would have been 

 different, but as it stands we have simply a Bhoja at Gwalior in A. D. 

 876, but nothing to shew that he was in any way connected with 

 Kanauj or Pehewa, and we cannot therefore at once accept him to be 

 the same with the first Bhoja of Kanauj. The name Bhoja has been so 

 frequently assumed by Indian princes from the time of the Kig Veda to 

 within the last two hundred years, that it cannot possibly be taken by 

 itself as a guide to the identification of persons or dates. The identity 

 of names in such cases can never be a proof of identity of persons. No 

 doubt the Kanaujites had for a time exercised paramount power in 

 Gwalior, but there is nothing to prove that Bhoja son of Eama- 

 bhadra did so, nor anything to prevent Bhoja son of Mahendrapala, 

 being the individual named in the Gwalior inscription. 



The era of the Pehewa record may be that of Harshavardhana, 

 but that of the Stacy and Dighwa plates cannot be the same, for they 

 place an interval of J 13 years between Bhoja and his son Mahendra- 

 pala. It is worthy of remark too, that it is odd, that the father 

 and son should adopt two different eras. 



General Cunningham observes that the Pehewa record as published 

 by me comprises portions of two separate inscriptions and that I mis- 

 took them for one. In explanation of this charge I beg to state that I 

 have never been to Pehewa myself, and that the inscription I pub- 

 lished was communicated to the Asiatic Society by Mr. L. Bowring, 

 C. S., who distinctly stated it to be one record, and added that it was 

 " engraved on a tablet of red sandstone in the temple of a follower of 

 the Gorakhnath persuasion," and not on two tablets at different 

 places. On the face of this, all I could say at the time when I noticed 

 the record was, that " the document was divided into two portions 

 first of which was in verse and comprised twenty- one lines, and the 

 second was in prose and included eight lines." The facsimile was full 

 of lacunae and blots, and, as now appears, very imperfect, the prose 

 portion containing only eight out of sixteen and a quarter lines. It 

 is a pity that the General who has lately visited and examined the 

 record has not given more detailed description of the places which 

 the two inscriptions occupy in the temple, nor furnished the Society 

 with fresh facsimiles. The missing eight and a quarter lines of the 

 prose portion is likely to throw much new light on the question at 

 issue. 



