127 
1900.] A. F. R. Hoernle — EpigrapMcal Note on Palm-leaf j etc. 
writing is seen to be in two columns and running parallel with the 
longer side of the strip as shown in fig. 3 of the Woodcut. 
A noteworthy point in Alberuni’s statement is that it seems to 
assert that, in his time at least, the use of birch-bark was peculiar 
to Central and Northern India, while palm-leaf was peculiar to Southern 
India. At first sight this assertion does not seem to be borne out by 
the evidence set out in the earlier part of this paper. Hiuen Tsiang 
also states explicitly that in his time (7th century) palm-leaf was used 
throughout India, and he travelled over the whole of India, and was 
in touch with the literary classes of India. All depends on the exact 
meaning of Alberuni’s terms. That Ke cannot have included in his 
“Northern India” those portions which I have denoted Western and 
Eastern India is clear from the fact shown by my evidence that all 
the oldest manuscripts of those parts of Northern India, going 
back practically to the time of Alberuni himself, are of palm-leaf. 
There is no reason why birch-bark manuscripts should not have 
survived as well as palm-leaf manuscripts in the libraries of Patan 
and Cambay, and elsewhere, if any birch-bark manuscripts had existed 
at all. That birch-bark manuscripts are quite capable of surviving 
for so long a time is proved by the Bower MS. Alberuni’s “Northern 
India” most be limited to the Panjab, Sindh, Rajputana and Kashmir, 
and his “Central India” must mean the North-West Provinces and 
Oudh, or what I have called the “Centre” of Northern India. In 
fact, Alberuni’s terms are bounded by about the 24th Lat. and 85th 
Long., and India below the 24th Lat. is what he designates “Southern 
India.” Understood in this sense, his statement is probably quite 
correct. It is true the evidence available on the point is very scanty. 
The only three birch-bark manuscripts of any considerable age, which 
are known to have survived are (1) the Paris and St. Petersburg MSS., 
(2) the Bower MS., and (3) the Bakhsliali MS. They all come originally 
from that portion of India which Alberuni includes in his “ Northern 
India ; ” and — so far — they show that birch-bark was used there for book- 
writing. Nos. 1 and 2 are much older than Alberuni’s time. No. 1 dates 
probably from the 1st or 2nd century A.D., the period of a still strong 
Greek influence, and its apparently roll-like form may be due to that 
influence. No. 2 dates from about 450 A.D., and is in the Indian Pofchi 
form, oblong, like the corypha leaf, with a string-hole.^^ It belongs to a 
period of a still strong Buddhist intercourse between what Alberuni 
calls “ Southern India ” and Central Asia. This may account for its 
distinctly Indian P5thi form. No. 3 probably dates from about the 
21 The Bower MS. contains several distinct works, written on leaves of two 
distinct sizes, II 5 x 2^" and 9 x 2", but both imitating the Corypha leaf. 
