“_Samvat sāt sau iktālīs Mālat bāli bes Sāmbhar āya tūti sarasē Mānik Rāē, Narēs._” [This quotation is so incorrect that neither Dr. Tessitori nor Major Luard’s Pandit is able to restore it. The latter cannot make any sense of the second line. The date is impossible.] Footnote 10.1.21: An inscription on the pillar at Firoz Shāh’s palace at Delhi, belonging to this family, in which the word _sākambhari_ occurs, gave rise to many ingenious conjectures by Sir W. Jones, Mr. Colebrooke, and Colonel Wilford. Footnote 10.1.22: Called Khichkot by Babur. Footnote 10.1.23: [The Bhaurecha and Bāghrecha do not appear in modern lists of the Chauhān clans (_Census Report Rājputāna_, 1911, _i._ 255 f.).] Footnote 10.1.24: In the Annals of Marwar it will be shown, that the Rathors conquered Nagor, or Naga-durg (the ‘serpent’s castle’), from the Mohils, who held fourteen hundred and forty villages so late as the fifteenth century. So many of the colonies of Agnikulas bestowed the name of serpent on their settlements, that I am convinced all were of the Tak, Takshak, or Nagvansa race from Sakadwipa, who, six centuries anterior to Vikramaditya, under their leader Seshnaga, conquered India, and whose era must be the limit of Agnikula antiquity [?]. Footnote 10.1.25: The importance of Nadol was considerable, and is fully attested by existing inscriptions as well as by the domestic chronicle. Midway from the founder, in the eighth century, to its destruction in the twelfth, was Rao Lakhan, who in S. 1039 (A.D. 983) successfully coped with the princes of Nahrvala. “_Samaya das sai unchālīs Bār ikauta, Pātan pela paul Dān Chauhān ugāvi Mēwār Dhanni dand bhari Tis par Rāo Lākhan thappi Jo arambha, so kari._” Literally: “In S. 1039, at the farther gate of the city of Pātan, the Chauhān collected the commercial duties (_dān_). He took tribute from the lord of Mēwār, and performed whatever he had a mind to.” [This verse is so corrupt that Dr. Tessitori has been unable to correct it.] Lakhan drew upon him the arms of Sabuktigin, and his son Mahmud, when Nadol was stripped of its consequence; its temples were thrown down, and its fortress was dilapidated. But it had recovered much of its power, and even sent forth several branches, who all fell under Alau-d-din in the thirteenth century. On the final conquest of India by Shihabu-d-din, the prince of Nadol appears to have effected a compromise, and to have become a vassal of the empire. This conjecture arises from the singularity of its currency, which retains on the one side the names in Sanskrit of its indigenous princes, and on the other that of the conqueror. Footnote 10.1.26: