Vol. VII, No. 6.] The Evidence of the Faridpur Grants. 305 
[V.S.] 
Mr. Pargiter and Dr. Hoernle about the interpretation of the 
symbol. These three scholars agree in taking this symbol to 
stand for 10. I am now convinced that they are correct, but 
at the same time it is not possible to assign these three inscrip- 
tions tothe 6th century A.D. or any date before that. From the 
majority of Northern Indian inscriptions we can prove that the 
symbol for 10 from the dawn of Indian history to the 6th cen- 
tury A.D. has been the lateral Ma and no other form is tobe 
found among cognate inscriptions. The only exception to this 
is a solitary inscription found in Nepal. The date of this 
inscription is still doubtful, as it is dated in an era the initial 
year of which still remains to be definitely caleulated.'! Dr. 
Buhler in his masterly work on Indian Palewography has 
proved absolutely beyond doubt that the symbol for 10 during 
the first six centuries of the Christian era is the lateral Ma 
with very slight changes. It is only during the latter part of 
the 7th century that changes take place in the sign for this 
numeral. The sign which is used in these three dates is to be 
found in Nepalese inscriptions of the 8th century A.D and 
not before that. In Northern Indian inscriptions of the first 
six centuries A.D. the lateral Ma denotes the numeral 10 and 
changes come over tae numeral from the 6th to the 8th century 
A.D. These transition forms are to be found in the Valabhi 
copperplate grants, and they show that the form used in these 
inscriptions had gradually been evolved out of the older form ; 
so by means of this datum, viz., the date of the inscription from 
Nepal in which this form of the symbol is to be found, it can 
be safely asserted that this formisa later one. As Dr. Kielhorn 
has shown in the case of the tripartite form of Ya,’ it is not safe 
to assign a definite limit to a particular form of a character or 
numeral on the basis of paleography only, but it is quite safe 
to assert that such and such form is earlier or later. Compara- 
tive terms are always used with reference to a particular period 
and locality. The gradual evolution of this symbol will be ap- 
parent from Dr. Buhler’s tables.* The only other noticeable 
form in the numerals used in these inscriptions is the symbol 
for 9 in the Grant of Gopacandra. It is unlike any of the 
well-known forms of that numeral to be found in Indian In- 
scriptions. In fact, the decipherment of this symbol is one of 
Mr. Pargiter’s greatest successes. It resembles Dr. Buhler’s 
. X to some extent. From the very first I was pretty 
doubtful about the reading of this symbol. I had the oppor- 
tunity of examining the original, as Dr. Hoernle has since 
returned the plates to the Asiatic Society of Bengal, and I am 
quite convinced of the faultlessness of Dr. Fleet’s ink impres- 
} Bendall’s Journey to Nepal, p, 72, pl. VIII. 
2 Epi. Ind., vol. iv, pp 29-30. ee 
8 Indische Paleographie. Tafel ix, Cols. i—xiii. 
