364 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [July, 1908. 
Cunningham says the 
first letter is more like a 
than Sa, but his facsimile 
anything bnt ta. 
second letter is prgorrek 
e va. cannot make 
ontthe third oti which 
facsimile. The absence 
of the original piece, and 
the general unreliability 
of Cunningham’s  fac- 
similes, make it very diffi- 
ed. That the initial words 
are not ‘“ Samvatsara 
dasa miti 10” becomes at 
once ae on con- 
sidering tha 
(1) The pati two let- 
ters are not he and va, 
but fa and va, 
(2) ther es no room 
for four letters between 
vaand m 
the viliage and the pos- 
sessive case ending Sa 
and the initial letter of 
the donor’s name. I 
read walla ona as 
follow 
i-akhena 
IED Te thabo pra- 
tistavito matapitu puyaé 
aghasa ca nayae 
Remarks. 
(1) The first letter in 
the photograph publ lish- 
ed herewith is “ me’ and 
not ant 

(2) The second and 
third letters look more 
like di and ca than ¢7 and 
ings and indentations on 
the plate. 
(3) The seo letter 
is khe and no 
(4) The woke “Sabhay- 
Sabharyyakenu, Bhaya 
is the usual word for 
Bharryya in the Jaina in- 
kd tay can be de- 
differs from those of the 
Maurya and Indo-Greek 
varieties, in this that 
the vertical line does not 
touch the upper extrem- 
ity of the curve. The let- 
ter bha and ka are angn- 
Jar and not cursive, and, 
last of all, the form of Sa 
in aghasa is to be found 
in this variety only3 
e ca occurs in some 
of the Maurya ea 
Indo-Greek and beter 
varieties, 

1 Bihler, sero Palgo- 
graphy Ed. Fleet pp. 24-25. 
2 Biibler’ 8 Inidieghe Paleo- 
Baz .G. Vol. 
XLIIL., oi 65, and plate , 
