120 A. F. R. Hoernle — HJpigraphical Note on Falm-leaf, etc. [No. 2, 
for Wesfcei n India, gathered from the Reports of Professors Bhandarkar, 
Kielhorn and Peterson.*^ For my present statistical purpose these 
Reports, unfortunately, are not so well fitted as the “ Notices ; ” still 
such as they are, their evidence distinctly tends in the same direction. 
A considerable portion of the manuscripts described in the “ Notices ” 
belong to the North-West Provinces and Oudh, which form the central 
portion of Northern India. Accordingly the column for the “ Notices ” 
is divided into East and Centre. 
Table VII. 
Periods. 
Notices. 
Bhan- 
darkar. 
Kielhorn. 
Peterson. 
East. 
Centre. 
West. 
Palm- 
leaf. 
Paper, 
Paper. 
Palm- 
leaf. 
Paper. 
Palm- 
leaf. 
Paper. 
Palm - 
leaf. 
Paper. 
(1) 
1050-1150 
7 
6 
14 
(2) 
IJ 50-1250 
1 
14 
5 
68 
(3) 
1250-1350 
1 
13 
1 
6 
46 
(4) 
1 1350-1400 
2 
1 
I 
3 
2 
2 
4 
10 
(5) 
j 1400-1450 
1 
4 
5 
2 
9 
1 
27 
(6) 
1450-1550 
12 
7 
8 
20 
47 
61 
(7) 
1550-1650 
16 
14 
40 
i 
61 
53 
162 
(8) 
1650-1750 
18 
56 
70 
i 
1 
93 
65 
240 
(9) 
1750-1850 
5 
107 
201 
96 
48 
.369 
The general drift of this evidence is to show that from the end of 
the 13th and the beginning of the 14th centuries paper began to 
These are Bhandarkar’s Report for 1882-83 ; Kielhorn’s Report for 1880-81, 
containing also a list of the collection in 1873-74 ; Peterson’s Second Report for 
1882-83 (being an Extra Number of the Journal of the Bombay Branch of the 
Royal Asiatic Society for 1883) ; his Third Report for 1884-86 (being another Extra 
Number for 1887) ; his Fifth Report, for 1892-95, and his Sixth Report, for 1895-98. 
