202 
A. M. Broadley — The Buddhistic Remains of Bihar. 
[No. 3, 
which leave no doubt as to tho race of the sovereign who recorded the docu- 
ment. But as no specific name is legible, and the words common to the two 
records are mostly adjectives expressive of royal qualities which are generally 
attributed to all Hindu sovereigns, their evidence cannot be accepted as con- 
clusive as to the identity of the two records. Were it otherwise, still it 
would be of no use, for we have positive proof to shew that they are not 
identical. The second line of the Bihdr record has a word which does not 
occur in tho first two lines of the Bhitari inscription, and the matter from 
the 13th line to the end, if my reading be correct, is new. In the 18th line 
there is mention made of Bhatta Guhila Swamin, whose name does not occur 
in the Bhitari column. The conclusion, therefore, that I come to is, that the 
two documents were put up by the same race, and very likely by the same 
king, but on different occasions, and to record different occurrences. There 
is nothing in the record to justify the positive opinion of General Cunning- 
ham that it belongs to 8 k an da Gupta, son of Kumara Gupta.” 
Tentative Readings of the Bihdr Pillar Inscriptions. 
No. I. (^) *;fa ^+-=?n^TfT-t--8W 
vrfTOsnjfa^THTsr *i: <33TW: 
(a) fa fa 
(a) ^faT^fa^rpr fagwTTO: 
(if) — ■% 
fa) f 
fa) gqmfagiTqiffigfa 
(<t) fagfarfvrg g;r^iws-j- 
fa°) wsrr^rgipT ^ «st4ifa: 
(U) ms-. 
(\<{) ^TfaWfa^ <fa 
(ff ) qfTq^fa g-gfa ^ gqrggfagTq 
No. II. fa) -(-gfa^fyHqfaxrsi^i 
fa) -f-g^gg*g arTW 
fa) 
(a) gNKT3TI 
(a.) +gfaiT 
fa) +<TfqfaJZ’?tm 
fa) ^VTNRrn fl^TTT5ir 
fa) + g’sfa^TT q: gqifar 
(<t) gfqrg;rgum: 
fa°) 
(U) + + i TCiWTJrem 
