1897.] 
R. Hoernle— The Now gong Copper-plate. 287 
at the top; and under it, and detached from it, a sign of virama is 
placed, made exactly like the modern Nagari sign of the medial long u. 
This final m occurs in tailam I6 5 , purjsam II6 1 , gesam I16 l , katakam 
1I6 4 . For the final n the ordinary n is used, with the virama on its 
right side, made in the form of a long serpentine stroke, slanting from 
above it to below its foot. It occurs in amalan 1 b 2 , tasmin lb 1 , yauva- 
nan Ua 1 , janapadan II b M , sarvvan lib 11 . The final t is made by a 
minute truncated ordinary t (or rather double t), to which is attached 
the virama in the form of a circular line, which, commencing at its foot, 
runs up on its left side, over its top, and down again along its right 
side. This curious form occurs regularly in nayat I6 l , ’bhut lla 2 , meat 
Ila 3 , abhut lie*- 4 *, vagdt lla 12 , vidhivat lib 2 , etat Ilia 8 , ’ bliut Ilia 4 ; 
bhuydt Ilia 11 . In a slightly modified form it occurs in anayat lib 2 . 
Precisely, or very nearly, the same forms occur in the Dharmapala 
copper-plate grant, published by Mr. Batavyal in this Journal, VoL 
LXIII, pp. 39 ff. The occurrence of these special forms has been pointed 
out by Professor Kielhorn, in the Epigraphia Indica, Vol. IV, p. 244, 
footnote 1. The Dharmapala grant belongs to the 9th century A.D., 
while the JSTowgong grant, probably, belongs to the 10th century. In 
the later Gauhati grants these final letters occur in a still further 
conventionally modified form; see ante , Vol. LXVI, p. 115. 
The sign of avagraha occurs twice : in punye ’hani 7 at the end of 
II6 1 , and in prathitd’tha Ilia 9 . 
Regarding the date of the Nowgong grant, I have already fully 
explained my reasons for referring it to not later than the latter part 
of the 10th century, i.e., about 975 A.D. See ante, Vol. LXVI, p. 120. 
In the same place, pp. 117-119, will be found a statement of the 
genealogy of Balavarman, the grantor of the Nowgong plate, together 
with some remarks on the probable relation of his dynasty to others 
that preceded and followed it. 
There is, however, one point which I must particularly notice. 
At the time when I wrote my paper on the Gauhati plate, I had, by 
an oversight, now inexplicable to me, read tanuja for anuja in the 8th 
verse of the Nowgong plate. This made Vajradatta to be the son of 
Bhagadatta, instead of bis younger brother. On this point, therefore, 
all my remarks in that paper on the relation of Vajradatta to Bhaga¬ 
datta must be revised. In fact, on this point the Nowgong plate agrees 
with the general tradition that Vajradatta was the younger brother of 
Bhagadatta ; and the only plate which states the case differently, and 
makes Vajradatta to be a son of Bhagadatta, is the Gfauhatl one. This 
being so, and the tradition on the subject being so uniform and explicit, 
I am now disposed to believe, that there is a clerical error in the 
