No. 1. Dharaíikîòa Dharmachakra pillar inscription.

P. Seshadri Sastri - EI, XXIV, No. 36.
(PSS) It has been my privilege to recover within the last two years three inscribed marble pillars at Dharaíikîòa in the Guntur District on the information supplied by a local resident. Subsequently I brought them to the notice of the authorities of the Archeological Department, who have got them removed to Amaràvatè where other antiquities of the place are preserved. I edit below one of the three epigraphs at the instance of Rao Bahadur K. N. Dikshit, Director General of Archeology in India, while the remaining two are dealt with by some other scholars.
The shaft or pillar on which the subjoined inscription is engraved is square at its base and hexagonal above. The base is decorated with some carvings, representing a casket and a floral design in the centre, a hooded Nàga on the left and a railing with a sun-window on the right. The object of the inscription is to record the erection of the Dharmachakra-dhvaja at the eastern gate of the Mahàvihàra at Dhaãakaäa, the modern Dharaíikîòa.[The same place is mentioned under its variant names such as Dhaìãakaäa, Dhaìãakaòa and Dhaìãakaòaka in other inscriptions of about the same period; see Luders' I.ist of Bràhmè Inscriptions, ~Nos. 1205, 1225 and 1271; above, Vol. XV, pp. 262-263, Nos. 4 and 5. See also N. L. Dey's Geographical Dictionary of Ancient and Mediaeval India, s.v. Dhanakaòaka, where it is stated to be a corruption of Sudhanyakaòaka, Hiuen Tsian mentions T'o-na-kie-tse-kia (Dhanakaòaka) as the name of a country (Si-yu-ki, transl. by S. Beal, Vol. II, pp. 221 ff.), T. Watters (On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India, Vol. II, p. 216) restores the name to Skt. Dhànyakaòaka on the evidence of the Tibetan rendering of it. In later inscriptions the name of the place is spelt as Dhànyaghaòaka and Dhànyàêkapura; see above, Vol. XV, pp. 261-262. Prof. Vogel suggests that 'the remains of Nàgàrjunikoíäa can possibly represent the ancient capital of Dhaããakaòaka (above, Vol. XX, p. 9)] The Mahàvihàra is stated to have been in possession of the Buddhists of the Pórvaùailèya school, about whom we shall discuss more below.
The name of the donor or the individual who set up the pillar has apparently been omitted in the record. He is, however, stated to be son of Vèraskanda (?) and described as an Agalokaka Atapora minister[See below p. 259, n. 10.]. As to whose minister he was is not explicit. Nor is the reading of his father's name Virakhada free from doubt. The epithet preceding this name must have referred to the donor, as is obvious from its case-termination in the instrumental. Before this occurs the name Khadanàga (Skandanàga). This person is said to be a householder (kîòubika, Skt. kauòumbika), but his relation with the donor cannot be ascertained owing to the gap. The meanings of the terms Agalokaka and Atapora are not clear. As both of them are attributes of the donor, they probably refer to his original home and to his place of residence respectively unless they have been used in some technical sense.
Atapora, as already remarked, perhaps indicates the donor's place of residence. A similar instance is furnished by a short votive inscription from Sàãchi, which calls the donor there Adhaporika[Luders' List of Bràhmè Inscriptions, No. 600; above, Vol. II, p. 112, No. 13.]. This term has been explained as 'inhabitant of Adhapura', while the Sanskrit equivalent for Adhapura has been suggested to be Ardhapura. The place has, however, not been identified.
Judging from the proximity of the two localities Amaràvatè and Dharaíikîòa, the resemblance between the scripts ot the two records and the high regnal year, it seems very likely that the present record also referred itself to the reign of the very same Àndhra king Pulumàvi of the Sàtavàhana dynasty. The latest known regnal year of this monarch is twenty-four.[See Rapson's Catalogue of the coins of the Andhra Dynasty, etc., p. XXXVII.] If the reading panatrise proposed in the present record be correct, then we have to conclude that Pulumàvi's reign extended over at least thirty-four years [Ibid., p. LXVI, where Puràíic lists of Andhra kings are given. It will be seen there that No. 15 Pulîmàvi, according to the Matsyapuràía, ruled for 36 years and No. 24 Pulîmà for 28 years]. The inscription contains the numerals 1 and 6 in l. 3 and l. 2 respectively.


TEXT. (PSS)

1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . chhara
2 pana . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 divasa
3 prathame 1 . . . . . . . ka-kotubikasa
4 Khadanàgasa a . . r[i]kena Agalokakena Virakha . . sa
5 putena amachena
6 Ataporena Dhaãakaäasa Mahàvihàre puva-dàre pava-
7 jitàna bhikhu-saghasa Puvasel[i]yàna nigàyasa
8 parigahe dhamachaka-dhayo paäiòhapito sava-loka-
9 satva-hita-sukhàya
_________________
From ink impressions.
L. 1. Restore the word as savachhara (saìvatsara). The preceding portion, comprising about eighteen syllables, is lost. It might have contained the name of the king to whose reign the inscription was referred.(PSS)
L. 2. After pana, the lower part of the third syllable is visible, which is most probably a subscript r, judging from the formation of pra in the beginning of the next line. We may restore this word as panatrise (paãchatriìùe). The following letters, which are now missing, obviously contained the name of the season and then probably such words as pakhe chhaòhe, as is suggested by the numeral 6 before the word divasa in the end of this line. (PSS)
L. 3. The syllable preceding ka, only a lower portion of which is now preserved, may have been ri. The word however, cannot be restored.(PSS)
L. 4. The right-hand portion of this letter is effaced. It has been read as initial a, but the curl at its lower end forms almost a circle, and as such it differs from that found in a of Agaloka- l. 4 and Ataporåna l. 6. The reading of this (Virakha . . sa ) name is doubtful. The letter ra shows on its top something like a hook opening to the left. If that is meant to be the sign for medial i, we have to read the syllable as ri and not as ra. Moreover, the impression shows some faint traces of a letter between kha and sa. The last syllable appears a little below the line, making it difficult to ascertain whether the intervening letter is conjoined with sa or whether it stands independently. The latter is most probably the case, as the word is required to be in the genitive. Thus Virakhadasa may have been the intended reading.(PSS)
L. 5. This partial line of writing was inserted later, as is clear from its position. Obviously, the two words contained herein were first left out by the engraver through oversight, who discovered the omission after having incised the whole record and then could do nothing but supply the omitted matter in the manner he has done. The letter che in amachena was imperfectly formed due to the insertion between the narrow space below the downward curl of a in l. 4. Hence it is read as amachena and not amakhena. If we adopt amakhena it would be a proper name. (PSS)
L. 6. The reading is probably Ataberena, Atabera being a personal name.(PSS)
L. 9. There is an ornamental design carved here, which marks the conclusion of the record.(PSS)