291 
1872.] A. M. Broadley — The Buddhistic "Remains of Bihdr. 
nately the surface of the stone has peeled off considerably, so that both 
the inscriptions are incomplete. The upper inscription, which is of Kumara 
Gupta, has lost both ends of every line, being probably about one-third of 
the whole. The lower inscription has lost only the left upper corner, and 
some unknown amount at the bottom, where the pillar is broken off. But 
as the remaining portion of the upper part is letter for letter the same as 
the opening of the Bhitari pillar inscription, nearly the whole of the 
missing part of the left upper corner can be restored at once. This record 
belongs to Skanda Gupta, the son and successor of Kumara Gupta. 
“ In the plate the upper inscription is numbered 1 and the lower one 2. 
The former extends to 13 lines, and bears the name of Kumara Gupta, whose 
eulogium it is perhaps intended to be. I say “ perhaps” deliberately, for a 
large portion at the beginning of every lino being lost, and it being im- 
possible to give a connected translation, I cannot be certain that the record 
did not contain same other name which has now been lost. In the fourth 
line the word Kavi/a, or “ funeral cake,” may refer to Kumara Gupta, whose 
name occurs in the 3rd line, and the record may consequently belong to 
Skanda Gupta, but in the absence of connecting words such a supposition 
cannot be justifiable. The document is most probably in verse, and the 
word Chandra in the first line suggests the idea that the Kumara Gupta of 
the record was the son of Chandra Gupta II. of the Kuhan Pillar. The 
figure for the year in the last lhie is perfectly clear, and is indicated, as 
usual in Gupta records, by three parallel lines, but the letters before and 
after it ai - e very doubtful, and no reliance can be placed on the date. The 
letter preceding the 3 may be a 60, and some of the letters after the letter 
for S'aka may be figures, but I am not certain of their value. As Kumara 
was the sixth in a direct line from S'ri Gupta, the founder of the Gupta 
dynasty, it is certain that the date, whether 3 or 63, cannot be of the 
Gupta era ; for according to the Udayagiri and S'anchi inscriptions, Chandra 
Gupta II. lived from 82 to 93 of that era. It must therefore be either of 
the reigning sovereign, or of some now unknown era, other than that used in 
the Allahabad column inscription. 
“ The second inscription is even more imperfect than the first, and has 
no date ; hut there is no doubt of its being an edict ot the Gupta who 
recorded the Bhitari inscription, or of one oi his descendants. General Cun- 
ningham imagines it to be a counterpart of the Bhitari record, and says that 
the portion extant “ is letter for letter the same as the opening of the Bhi- 
tari pillar inscription.” Such, however, is not the case. It is true, the first 
line has an epithet which occurs in the first line of the Bhitari inscription, 
and lines 3 to 12 are made up of words whose counterparts are seen in that 
record. It may also be admitted that Kumara Devi, the wife of Chandra 
Gupta I, is named in the 5th line, and the word Gupta occurs in the 10th, 
