118 
A, F, R. Hoernle — EpiyrapMcal Note on Palm-leaf, etc. [No. 2, 
I liave also examined seven other manuscripts whicli are undated. 
Their width varied from 1 to inches, and their number of lines from 
3 to 6. They were made of Borassus flab. Their general appearance 
indicates them as being of the same period as the dated ones. 
1 have not met with any Oriya palm-leaf manuscript of an earlier 
date than the 24th year of Mukunda Deva, or A.D. 1683, though 
No. 1 may go back to 1660. So far as this evidence goes, it shows 
that Oriya palm-leaf manuscripts are not older than the second half 
of the 17th century, and are invariably written on Borassus leaves. 
The evidence, however, is not complete. It seems to be certain that 
the Orija characters were not employed in Orissa before the 15th 
century A.D. The earliest epigraphical record in Oriya characters 
is an inscription, -dated 1436 A.D., of Kapile 9 vara Deva. The earlier 
inscriptions of the 13th and 14th centuries are in a species of early 
Bengali characters.*^ It is not impossible therefore, that manuscripts 
may have been written in Oriya characters as early as the 15th century 
A.D. Possibly among the undated manuscripts some may go back to 
such an early date ; and it is also possible that dated manuscripts of 
that early period may yet come to light. In the latter case it is pro- 
bable that they will be found to be Borassus manuscripts ; for hitherto 
not a single manuscript written in Oriya characters is known to 
exist which is written on Corypha leaves. At present, however, there 
is a gap of 200 or 250 years (about 1436-1660 A.D.) in the evidence. 
On the whole, the probability is that the case of Orissa is much the 
same as that of Hengal. If Corypha leaves were ever used in Orissa 
at all, their use must have gone out of fashion, as it did in Bengal, in 
the course of the 16th century. At present, the available evidence 
elsewhere. The exact periods of the several reigns are only approximately known. 
There were three Mukundas and two Divya Siihhas. The former reigned 17, 32, 
and 19 years respectively ; accordingly it must be Mnkunda II who is referi’ed to in 
Table VI, and who reigned, approximately, from 1660 to 1692 A.D. The two Divya 
Simhas reigned 28 and 18 years respectively ; probably it is Divya Siihha I who 
is here intended, and who reigned from 1692-1720 A.D. Ke 9 ari Deva (in Prinsep, 
Bir Kishore Deo) reigned from 1743-1780 A.D. In the manuscripts the reigns of 
these kings are quoted in a^Tcas. On the method of converting these a^^fcas into 
regnal years, see Babu Mon Mohan Chakravarti’s explanation in Journal, A.8.B. 
vol. LXII, (1893), p. 89. The number one and all numbers ending with zero 
(except 10) or with 6 are omitted. Hence the 29th aylca of Mukunda is equal to his 
24th year; i.e., 5 aylcas (1, 6, 16, 20, 26) are omitted; and so forth. The a-nlcas of 
Table VI are : 38 (No. 4), 29 (Nos. 2, 3 and 7), 21 (No. 5), 12 (No. 6). No. 1 simply 
refers to the reign of Mukunda. 
18 See Journal, A.8.B. Vol. LX II (1893), p. 88, 89. Also ibidem, Vol. LXIV 
(1895) and Vol, LX V (1896). 
