340 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S., XIX, 
The object of the inscription is to record the excavation 
of a well by the Mahadandanayaka Saka Sridharavarmman, 
son of Saka Nanda. The purpose of the record seems 
mentioned twice, first in the prose portion and for the second 
not possible to ascertain exactly what information it wanted 
to convey. But the instrumental in the donor’s name 
Sridharavarmmana in line 2, together with the statement in the 
following line ‘for the increase of welfare and prosperity, for 
the attainment of eternal heaven and for the sake of merit and 
fame’ makes it probable that the following passage originally 
contained a verb in the passive voice as well as its ‘object 
which would of course have been the meritorious deed t 
donor aia ne 
Ta afraid I cannot agree in regard to some of the 
sibprtdti issues raised by Mr. Banerji, and therefore feel it 
necessary to consider them briefly here : 
(1) In line 1, Mr. Banerji reads in jar ernie ance 
senapater = ajitasenasya svamt-Mahasena mahateja.. . .8-a¢ 
viryya-Jivadama.... According to him the inscription alongs 
to the reign of Svami-Jivadiman, father of Rudrasinha " 
‘of the third dynasty of the Satraps of Surashtra.’ It open 
says he, ‘ with a number of adjectives and the first line er 
with the name of Jivadaman’ (op. cit., p. 230). Elsewhere 
in no equivocal language. Thus in his Progress Report, ASI. 
WC., 1919-20, p. 53, we read in connection with a newly 
discovered Junagadh inscription of Jivadaman I: ‘‘ The only 
other Jivadiman known to history is the father of the Kshatrapa 
ee II, who i is known to us from his Sanchi inscription 
e Saka year 201.” (The italics in the quotation are mine). 
The definite assertion that the Safichi inscription belongs to the 
reign of Jivadaman, father of Kudrasinha II, deserves our 
special attention as it proceeds from no less a scholar than Mr. 
R. D. Banerji. He has not even entered into a discussion as 
regards the reading ‘ Jivadama’ perhaps giving us to under- 


