Indian Palaeography c13.s1.8

c13.s1.8

These common features are new developments. But Bharhut I shows a number of differences from Bharhut II and other records. Only here do older forms optionally persist, suggesting that it is somewhat earlier than the other inscriptions. The date of these latter inscriptions is fixed with more or less certainty by Pabhosa and Ayodhya examples, where we find the full use of the new pen and equalization of the verticals as in the Śaka Kshatrapa inscriptions of Mathura. In Hathigumpha, Bodhgaya, and Bharhut II these forms are copied. It does not seem that the writers knew the use of the new pen. This is also the reason why there is great variance in the length of the verticals in the same inscription. It must also be pointed out that if one analyses these inscriptions from the morphological point of view, he will find the disparity in the forms very confusing; for example the inscriptions other than the Hathigumpha found in the Khandagiri and Udaigiri caves, which are all contemporary, show marked differences in the forms. These other inscriptions show a preference for archaic forms which are optionally met with in the Hathigumpha inscription. This is bound to be the case in such a remote region as Orissa, where the new technical tradition could not get a foothold for a long time. It is only by incidental letter forms that the palaeography of this region is related to those of other areas. This is an important point, but it is usually forgotten by Indian palaeographers, who are bewildered to find archaic forms surviving side by side with the newer types. All these inscriptions date from the same time as that when the Pabhosa and Ayodhya records derived the new technique from the Śaka Kshatrapa inscriptions of Mathura, i.e. in the first half of the first century A.D.¹ Hence Bharhut I may be dated in the later half of the first century B.C.