1881.] 
21 
Y. A. Smith— History of Bundlelchand. 
inscriptions give the genealogy of Paramardi Deva ; nor is any coin of 
his known, and there is only known one inscription of his of which we 
can say that we are certain of the date. 
General Cunningham indeed (Arch. Rep. II, 447) affirms that “ of 
Parmal or Paramardi Deva there are three dated inscriptions ranging 
from S. 1224 to S. 1240, or A. D. 1167 to 1183.” 
But on consulting his list of inscriptions on the next page we find 
that one of them is the Malioba inscription dated 1240, and another 
Maisey’s No. I inscription, which is cited as being dated 1228 S. 
Now, the Mahoba inscription dated 1240 S. is that at present built 
into the wall of the Engineer’s bungalow near Mahoba, from which the 
Raja’s name is lost, and the date of Maisey’s No. I inscription is extremely 
doubtful. 
As published and translated that inscription bears the date of S. 1298 
and not 1228. # Other readings are S. 1209 and S. 1198.§ 
The inscription undoubtedly commemorates a king named Paramardi 
Deva, but until the date is definitely settled, we are not entitled even to 
assume that the person commemorated was Paramardi Deva Chandel, 
who died in 1202 A. D. or S. 1259. 
Of the proposed readings of the date the only one which falls within 
the limits of Parmal’s reign is that of S. 1228 = A. D. 1171, proposed 
by General Cunningham, but unfortunately he assigns no reason for so 
reading the date, and it is therefore impossible to accept with confidence 
his reading. 
The “ three dated inscriptions” of Parmal thus dwindle down to one, 
that, namely, dated S. 1224 at Mahoba, and even this document is not now 
to be found, and General Cunningham gives no hint as to the nature of 
the inscription, or the precise locality where he found it. 
Raja Parmal is the only prince of the Chandel race whose name is 
widely known, but were it not, (as we shall see in Part III of this paper) 
that he is mentioned by the Muhammadan historians, we should know 
almost nothing of his reign. 
The detailed particulars respecting it given by Chand and popular 
tradition are in part obviously mythical, and in part, ( e . y., as to the 
alleged retirement to Gya) can be proved untrue. 
There is not even any building or tank of which Parmal can be said 
with certainty to have been the constructor. Popular tradition ascribes 
to him in a vague way a great part of the antiquities in the country. 
* J. A. S. B. XVII, (1) pp. 313-317. 
$ Gazetteer, N. W. P. Yol. I, 15, note. The same note refers to inscriptions of 
Parmal’s dated 1177 and 1178 A. D. apparently on the authority of Pogson’s History 
of the Boondelas, but I have been unable to verify the reference. 
