1886.] 
19 
Kavi Raj Shyamal Das —On the Prithi Edj Pdsd. 
Text. 
[ 1 ] ^ 
[2] ft 
[3] ft 
[4] [in?] TT^ m ^T% 
[5] ¥rfrJT ft ^ 
[6] TT.. .^TT ^T^sft 1?T., • 
[7] qm ^ 1?% ’Elf fi ^JT 
[8] ftsTOT EffTTlfqrf I) 
These inscriptions prove that Rawal Samar Singh’s father Tej 
Singh was the reigning sovereign of Chitor and Me war in S. 1324 ; 
and that Rawal Samar Singh reigned from S. 1332—S. 1344 (= A. D. 
1275—1287). 
Thus we see, the reign of Samar Singh conld never have been be¬ 
fore S. 1324, though there is nothing improbable as to his having reigned 
a few years after S. 1344, 
Therefore, the S. 1158 (= A. D. 1101) written in the * Priihi 
Edj Edsd ’ for the death of Rawal Samar Singh with Prithi Raj, cannot 
be correct any how. 
Moreover Rawal Samar Singh cannot be proved to have been 
in existence even in S. 1249 (= A. D. 1192-93). the actual year of the 
battle between Prithi Raj and Shahabnddin Ghori. 
Hence, it follows, if Prithi Raj’s sister was married at all to any 
ruler of Chitor, she must have been wedded to another prince; because 
Prithi Raj was killed in S. 1249, and Samar Singh’s inscriptions are 
dated S. 1332—1344; that is, his reign falls 83* years after the death of 
Prithi Raj : hence the assertion that, the latter’s sister was married to 
this Samar Singh, is absurd. 
It may be argued that there may have been another Raja, bearing 
the name Samar Singh at Chitor : but the argument falls to the ground 
by the following correct and infallible genealogy, extending from Bapa 
Rawal to Samar Singh, and copied from a stone Inscription :—■ 
1. Bapa Rawal— 
2. Guhil— 
3. Bhoj—VfTof 
4. Shil— 
5. Kalbhoj— 
6. Bhartri Bhat— 
7. Agh Singh— 
8. Samhayak— 
9. Khaman— 
10. Allat— 
11. Naravahan— 
12. Shakti Kumar— 
# 1332 — 1249 - 83 . 
