1891.] Dr. E.oGvulo—Bemar'ks on Birch Bark MS. 63 



ill the Jauiipui* inscripfcion in. anvavdye (line 2). Now precisely the 

 same practice is noticeable in the main portion of the MS., written 

 in the first variety of the alphabet. The older form is used throughout, 

 except in connection with the vowels e and o, when the intermediate 

 form is used optionally with the older form. Thus in Plate I, No. I, 

 the intermediate form occurs twice in the 2nd line in yoga, and in the 

 9th line in haljpayet. Again in the upper portion of Plate VI of the 

 November Proceedings the intermediate form occurs in the middle of the 

 third line in lepayet, and in the beginning of the 6th line in misrayet ; 

 also twice in the beginning of the llth line in prayojayet. On the other 

 hand we have the older form in Plate I, No. 1, 10th line, chur?mayet, and 

 in Plate VI of the November Proceedings, 2nd line, kalpayet ; and both 

 the older and intermediate forms we have in the same Plate VI, middle 

 of 6th line, jprayojayet. Once I have noticed the intermediate form 

 with the analogous case of the vowel ai^ viz., in Plate VI, middle of 

 4th line, jivaniyais = cha. The inscriptions show that this intermediate 

 form was peculiar to a particular period, the limits of which may 

 be roughly put down as between 470 and 630 A. D. It is not found in 

 any inscription either before or after these dates. And as inscriptions 

 longer conserve archaic forms of writing than manuscripts, that fact 

 further proves that the date of writing the MS. must fall somewhere 

 within that period, that is, about 500 A. D. I have not noticed 

 the intermediate form of ya either in the second or in the third 

 portion of the MS. In both these portions, the older forms are used 

 exclusively ; and as these portions were certainly written after the first 

 portion, they confirm the conclusion, that the writing of the whole 

 MS. cannot be placed later than 500 A. D. 



" As tending to confirm this conclusion, it may be further noted 

 that throughout the MS., wherever there is any occasion to use a num- 

 ber, whether in the body of the work in numbering slokas, or on the 

 margin of the leaves in numbering the latter, the ancient practice of 

 employing numeral letters is exclusively followed, while numeral figures 

 are never used. What is more, — there is no trace of the knowledge of 

 the modern system of notation with the help of the zero and the 

 value of position ; every numeral sign has its own fixed value, inde- 

 pendent of the position it may occupy in a series, there being separate 

 signs for the units, the tens, hundreds, etc. Thns * twenty-five ' is 

 not expressed by the signs for ' two ' and ' five ' (^. e. 25), placed 

 in a certain order, which order imparts the value of ' twenty ' to 

 the sign for ' two ;' but it is expressed by two special signs, one 

 for ' twenty,' the other for ' five.' That the ' value of position ' 

 was not known to the writer of the second part of the MS., seems 



