484 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [July, 1907. 



tliej were atlso in use much later, and in no other kho'wn example 

 are such symhols used .with .place-values. • Also there are nine 

 tno^vn examples of iusci^iptions later than this one with Chedi 

 dates written in the.old notation (Epigr. Ind. v., app.), e.g'., there is 

 another grant of the Gurjaras of Bharoch in which the date sam- 

 391 (i.e., A;D. 640) is given in the old notation. Again there is 

 no other known Chedi date, at least hefore the eleventh centuiy 

 A.D., given in the modera (place-value) notation. There cannot 

 be the remotest douht as to the unsoundness of this particular piece 

 of evidence of the early use of the modern .system of notation 

 in India. ' ;. r 



(3) In 1863 Thomas (Journal Asiatique, p, 380) wrote : '' The 

 oldest example of the original typ^s of figures endued with local 

 value . . . . is to be found in. a brief inscription of Belhai"i in 

 the Jubbalpur district w^hich commences Samvat 703 Saka 568 (or 

 A.D. 646-7). The figui^es there appear, it must be confessed, in a 



suspiciously modem form (Table I (b)) .• . . I do not quote these 



figures with confidence.' 



(4) In continuation of the passage just quoted, ^Ir. Thomas 

 writes, " The next date in order of priority, which I can refer to, 

 occurs among the Kanlieri inscriptions, but the date is expressed in 

 numerals only and the Samvat is not specially defined . . . . 

 supposing the date to refer to the Khramaditya era, it will corres- 

 pond with A.D. 674."" Mr. West gives the figures of this date, 



Table I (c), which he interprets as 731 or 732. {ih. p. 392). 



(5) Kielhom marks the figures of this date doubtful (Epigr, 

 Ind. V. app., p. 68)^ - '^ . ' 



(6) ^ The Dhiniki plates of V. 794 were quoted by Bayley as 

 the earliest example of the ' modem decimal :5ystem.'' The date is 

 given in words and also in figures (Table I (tZ))- The plates have 

 been proved to be spurious. (Ind. Antiq. xxx., p. 216). 



(7) The Samangad plates of S. 675, or A.D. 754, are also 

 quoted by Thomas and Biihler. The former writes, *' A third . - 



, - date about the true application of which there is also great 

 doubt, is to be seen in the copper-plate grant of Dantidurga . - 

 , .. which carries with it in its date the Saka date of 675 (in 

 written words) together with the corresponding Samvat (Vikra- 

 maditoya) defined by figures 810 or 818 about A.D. 753-4.'' Bal 

 Gangadhar Sastri read 811 for this "date, but, according to Dr. 



Fleet, he was entirely wrong. *' The Sastri's facsimile," he 

 says, "is faulty^ as well as his transcription and translation- 

 The first two figures are approximately of correct form, and 

 mean, not 8 £ind 1 as read by him but 6 and 7. But whereas 

 in his facsimile the third figure is represented as .identical in 

 form with the second, and, like the second, is taken by him to 

 mean 1, in the original there is a very important difference, con- 

 $isting of a prolongation of the left down stroke and then a 

 course up to the left, which makes it 5, not 7 as it stands. " 

 Pr. Fleet afterwards stated that this record had been tampered 

 with (Ind. Antiq. xxx., 213). : ' 



(8) In the' impression of the Baijnath inscription of S. 726 



