No. 1. Gaдha (Jasdan) pillar inscription. Mixed dialect.

1868 Bhau Daji, JBBRAS VIII, p. 234 f., and Plate; 1883 Hoernle, IA XII, p. 32 f.; 1890 note by Bh. Indraji, JRAS 1890, p. 652; 1895 PSIK, p. 22 f., No. 4, and Plate XVIII; 1896 note by Bh. Indraji, BG, Vol. I. Part I, p. 43; 1908 note by Rapson, CCAD, etc. p. LXII, No. 42; Luders list No 967; R. Banerji and V. S. Sukthankar-EI, XVI, No. 17.
Lu: - Records the erection of a щatra by the brothers of the son of Pranаthaka, the grandson of Khara, of the Mаnasa gоtra. The inscription gives the following pedigree: rаjan mahаkшatrapa bhadramukha svаmi-Chaштana, his son rаjan kшatrapa svаmi-Jayadаman, his son rаjan mahаkшatrapa bha[dramukha] svаmi-Rudradаman, his son rаjan mahаkшatrapa bhadramukha svаmi-Rudrasиha (Rudrasiмha), his son rаjan mahаkшatrapa svаmi-Rudrasеna. There is some doubt about the last figure of the date of the year, which may be 6.
- Varше 100 20 7 Bhаdrapadabahulasa 5 . . . . rаjго mahаkшatrapasya svаmi-Rudrasеnasya.
(RB & VS)
The inscription was first edited, with a translation and lithograph, prepared probably from an eye-copy, in 1868, by Dr. Bhau Daji in JBBrRAS., Vol. VIII, pp. 234 f., and Plate. After that it remained unnoticed till 1883, when Hoernle published a revised transcript and translation of it in Ind. Ant., Vol. XII, pp. 32 f. The posthumous papers of Bhagvanlal Indraji, edited by Rapson in JRAS., 1890, p. 652, contain a short note on it. In 1885 the text and a translation, based upon the editio princeps of Dr. Bhau Daji, were republished in the Collection of Prakrit and Sanskrit Inscriptions, Bhavnagar, pp. 22 f., No. 4, and Plate XVIII. The Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. I, Part 1, p. 43, contains a very short note on it, originating from the pen of Bhagvanlal Indraji. Rapson's Catalogue of the coins of the Andhra Dynasty, etc. (p. lxii, No. 42), includes a short summary of its contents, and a reference to the literature of the subject, Prof. Luders in his List of Brаhmи Inscriptions (Appendix to Epigraphia Indica, Vol. X), No. 967, gives a complete biblography of the inscription, a reading of the date (it cannot be said whether from the published facsimiles or directly from an impression of the stone), and a summary of its contents. Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar refers to the inscription in Prog. Rep. Arch. Surv. of India, W. Circle, 1914-15, pp. 67-68, and suggests certain corrections.
The inscription is said to have been found at Gaдhа, about two miles north of Jasdan, Kатhiаvад, engraved on a thick irregular slab standing upright on the margin of a lake. Subsequently the inscribed stone was transferred to the Watson Museum of Antiquities, Rajkot, where it is now exhibited.'

TEXT. (RB & VS)

1 [Va]rше 100 20 [7] [Bhа]drapada-bahulasa 5 [|*] R[а]jго mahakshat[r]apasa
2 bhadra-mukhasa svam[a]-Chашtana-putra-papau[t]trasya rаjго Kшa[tra*]pasa
3 svаmi-Jayad[a]ma-putra-pautrasya rаjго maha-Kшatrapasya bhadra-mukhasya
4 [sva]ma-Rud[r]adаma-pau[tra]sya rаjго ma[ha]-Kшa[tra*]pasya bhadra-mukhasya svа[m]i-
5 Rudrasиha[-putra*]sya rаjго maha-Kшatrapasya svаmi-Rudrasеnasya [|*] idam щatraм
6 Mаnasa-sa-gоt[r]asya Pra[tа]щaka-putrasya Khara[r]patthasya bhаtrabhiх utthavita[м] sva[rga]
7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Remarks on the Transcript. (RB & VS)
______________________________________
From a set of estampages. Explanation of abbreviations:-D = Bhau Daji, JBBrRAS., Vol, VIII, pp. 234 f.; H=Hoernle, Ind. Ant., Vol. XII, pp. 32 f.; DRB = D. R. Bhandarkar, PRAS of India, W. Circle, 1914-15, pp. 67-8.
L. 1 The reading 7 is unceriain; it may be 6. DRB reads 5. L. 2. D and H -mukhasya svаmi-. The slanting line below the sa of the first word is an abrasion and not the subscript y. L. 3. D and H Jayadаma. bhadra-mukhasya is continued in a slanting direction above the level of the same line.
L. 4. No trace remains of the i in svаmi, if it was marked at all. L. 5. D and H mahа-. DRB Щakri (for щatraм), which is very doubtful.
L. 6. Hoernle's reading -mаna[м]tu Tuмgоtras[y]a is out of the question, and need not be discussed here. D pranаthtaka- (the previous syllable is read by him as Su-), and H Pratа[ra]thaka (for Pratащaka), both of which are inadmissible. The second syllable may, perhaps, be nа; but the third one cannot be tha, as tha does not contain the vertical bar in the centre which our letter shows; the shallow stroke at the lower end of the letter is an accidental mark, of which the rock has many. D and H Khara-pautrasya, but the fourth syllable is clearly ttha and not tra; cf. the same ligature in a subsequent word of the same line. DRB Kharapиtthasya. D and H bhrаtрbhiх (for bhаtrabhiх). It is doubtful if the medial р would be marked
differently from the subscript r by the writer of this inscription, DRB bhаttrabhiх utthavitаsva and H utthavitаst[i]. The top of the fourth syllable is no doubt somewhat thick; nevertheless the sign of the length cannot be looked upon as having been marked. A part of our bracketed [rga] is lost in the crack and not distinguishable on the facsimile. DRB ends line 6 with utthavita sva-, and then gives an additional (seventh) line, [rggasukhartha], which we were not able to trace on the stone.