347 e 
[No. 4, 
Translation of a Sacfrian Inscription. 
The word occurs in the inscription on the steatite vase found by 
Mr. Masson at Bimaran and figured by Jas. Prinsep, as from the 
brass cylinder found at Jelalabad. 
The second version of the inscription, that oh the lid, I read as 
sira (for sri) Vicliitrasa, Nirvedhata putrasa, nananehi, Bhagavatasa 
Sarirehi. 
The fourth word is evidently the substantive of the sentence and 
is some such word as “ gift” or “ offering.” 
The sentence on the lid is the abbreviated form of that on the 
box and on the latter just preceding the name Vichitrasa the word 
“ pusa” occurs. 
“ Hasphimatega” I read “ Hashtwanammatega.” 
I cannot see that the first word of the second clause of the third 
cone can read anything except “ sarvasa,” there is no resemblance to 
“ tli” in the second letter. 
With the above exceptions and explanations, I am disposed to 
accept Babu Rajendra Lai’s version and to join with him in putting it 
forward not as a finished decipherment, but as an attempt to assist 
the enquiries of other students. 
To those who study the Manikyala inscription, it will be manifest 
that the inflexions are many of them the same as those of the War- 
dale inscription, and as the name of Kanishka occurs in it, it is pro- 
bably of nearly the same date, but the ciphers which I would read 
441 or 144, add a fresh complication on the question of dates, and I 
think prove conclusively that the “ teras” employed at Wardak and 
in Upper India must have been different. 
P. S . — Since writing the above I have seen Mr. Trumpp’s paper (Journal 
Hoy. As. Soc.) on the Kafir language. 
He gives I see “ s'iga” as the pronoun “ that,” and “ Imena” would be the 
oblique form of the pronoun “ I” in that form of Pracrit. I prefer, however, 
to take it from the context as the oblique form of “iya” which seems to be 
the pronoun “ this.” 
But I am on further consideration inclined to give up “Gatriga” as a 
proper name and to take the concluding verb of the first clause as in the 
active sense, which, as it is not in any pure Sanscrit form, may easily be allowed. 
I would therefore read the first clause thus — 
“Imena gatrigeno Samagusa putra Yagamitegaso iya khaba dliarma- 
