Vol. VIII, No. 3.] The Atapura Inscription. 67 
[V.S.] 
one in the absence of the original inscription-stone, as what- 
ever we will conclude would be merely conjectura 
. Both the transcripts are not clear and incomplete, 
which Mr. Bhandarkar also has acknowledged in his note. 
He says :— 
‘* Owing to the transcript of Gyanchand not being clear 
after verse 6, I am not in a position to determine with certainty 
what was further intended to be said.’’ 
* * * * 
But what the sense of that verse is, is not clear from the 
transliteration as it stands.’’! Sage 
; The concluding part of the inscription is wanting In both 
that it shall be kept in the Victoria Hall Museum, at leo oi 
Further, we are informed by another respectable gentleman © 
Udaipur, that it is not in the Victoria Hall even. Thus, if or 
informants are right, it might be, at present, either > 
Pandit Gaurishankar or some body else interested in * e 
Anandapura theory. Moreover, the statement of Mr. Bhan- 
darkar, quoted above, shows that it is not in his possession, 
nor has he seen it, as he has said that his text of the transcript 
is a copy of that copy which was supplied to him by the afore- 
said Pandit. 
Sirdars, Umraos, Paswans and Seths and Sabukars : 
has become a household word with that of Pardee eee 
Mewar. He is popularly called as ‘Tod Sahab-ka 
; ‘2 . . ee oy 
epigraph from a long time before Pandit Ojhaj: was emp 
under Kaviraj, We recollect that he was employed 12 A 
IT. Kove XX XIX, Part XDV, P- 187. 
