Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c10.s3.t1: 5.4.1 Undated or inadequately dated inscriptions; paleographic dating and problems thereof
Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c10.s3.t1
- Language
- English
5.4.1 Undated or inadequately dated inscriptions; paleographic dating and problems thereof
c10.s3.t1.1
K. V. Ramesh, "The [F*]utility and (F)utility of Palaeography in Dating Undated Inscriptions," *Studies in Indian Epigraphy* [=JESI] 3, 156–62; RIE 51–62 (ch. V: "Scriptal Ramifications and Palaeographical Dating of Undated Inscriptions," a revised and expanded version of the preceding).
c10.s3.t1.2
In the cases—all too frequent, especially among earlier inscriptions—where a record has no explicit date, or only a date whose absolute value cannot be definitely ascertained, epigraphists must resort to estimating the date on the basis of paleographic analysis by comparing the script of the undated record with specimens of similar scripts from other dated or datable inscriptions. Because this method is inherently imprecise, paleographic dating should in general be treated as a last resort. Other dating techniques, such as historical analysis based on references to persons or events of known date, or chronological analysis based on linguistic or archaeological data, may supersede or be used in conjunction with paleographic estimates. But the fact remains that, since so many inscriptions are undated or inadequately dated, paleographic dating, imperfect as it may be, must be employed in a great many cases.
c10.s3.t1.3
The inherent imprecision of this method alluded to earlier is due mainly to the variability in writing styles and forms at any given place and time in history. Though it is true that in the long run scripts, like languages, follow more or less consistent courses of development, this does not mean that at any given time and place one and only one form of a script is in use. On the contrary, there will always be a variety of script forms for different contexts and purposes in simultaneous use in any particular place; and the stage and pace of development will by no means always be the same in different, even adjoining regions. Individual and idiosyncratic variations must also be kept in mind; for example, in the past, as in modern times, an older person tended to write in a more old-fashioned style than a younger contemporary.²¹ But despite these and other limiting factors, it has often been the practice to assign relatively precise dates to undated inscriptions on the basis of simple paleographic comparisons, which are sometimes chosen arbitrarily and evaluated in a superficial manner.
c10.s3.t1.4
²¹ Cf. Woodhead, *The Study of Greek Inscriptions*, 29 and 62–3. The limitations of paleographic dating are by no means peculiar to India but rather constitute a general principle of paleographic studies.
c10.s3.t1.5
Given the relatively undeveloped state of comparative paleography in India, as well as the inherent limitations of the method, it will not be surprising that the results obtained are often unsatisfactory. Any number of instances could be cited where widely varying dates have been proposed by reputable scholars for the same inscription. For instance, the undated Võ-cạnh inscription, the earliest Sanskrit inscription from Southeast Asia (see 4.3.7.8), has been dated on paleographic grounds to anywhere from the third to the fifth century A.D.²² The situation is hardly any better in the case of inscriptions with dates in regnal years of unknown rulers or in unspecified eras. The year 30 of an unspecified era in the Muṇḍeśvarī inscription of the time of Udayasena, for example, was attributed by R. D. Banerji (EI 9, 285 and 290) to the Harṣa era, equivalent to A.D. 635, while N. G. Majumdar (IA 49, 25) assigned it to the Gupta era and dated the inscription to A.D. 348–49.²³ Ramesh (RIE 55–7) cites several other cases where dates for a given inscription arrived at by paleographic estimate vary by two centuries or more. The problem is particularly acute in connection with the dating of the earliest inscriptions (other than those of Aśoka), where, due to the paucity and brevity of the materials, all undated, it is all but impossible to establish a convincing relative, let alone absolute, sequence for paleographic dating. Moreover, given the inherent flexibility of paleographic dating, there is often a temptation (not always resisted) to manipulate it in order to confirm a preconceived notion of an inscription's date or to prove some historical argument (cf. RIE 55).
c10.s3.t1.6
²² See 4.3.7.8 and references given there in n. 117; see esp. Kamaleshwar Bhattacharya, *Artibus Asiae* 24, 1961, 219–24.
c10.s3.t1.7
²³ See also more recently G. S. Gai in IEBHA 129–31, who would place the inscription in the early to middle sixth century.
c10.s3.t1.8
The dating of inscriptions by paleographic estimate alone is thus an approximate method at best, even as carried out by reputed experts in the field. In recent years a few scholars, notably Ramesh and A. H. Dani in his *Indian Palaeography*, have attempted to refine our knowledge of the regional, local, and stylistic subvarieties of the various Indian scripts. Ramesh has emphasized the importance of distinguishing "settled and stylized 'urban' writing" from " 'rural' or rustic paleography" (RIE 58–9; cf. JESI 3, 157–61). Inscriptions in the latter style, according to Ramesh, tend to appear to be later in date than contemporary records in more formal writing.²⁴ He therefore concludes (RIE 62; cf. JESI 3, 161–2) that in estimating the date of an inscription on paleographic grounds one must take into consideration first of all the nature of the writing, whether "urban" or "rural," and make suitable adjustments; and second, one must also keep in mind considerations of "dynastic, regional or religious influence" on the relative speed or conservatism in paleographic developments. Finally, he declares, "Where palaeography is the lone consideration in suggesting a date for an early inscription which contains no other sort of supplementary internal evidence, the suggested date must always be taken to represent the date so suggested + or –100 years" (ibid.) The examples cited above of widely differing dates for particular inscriptions would seem to confirm this rule, since the estimates tend to vary over a range of roughly two hundred years.
c10.s3.t1.9
²⁴ Chronological illusions created by differences between formal and informal styles are also by no means peculiar to India; see Woodhead, *The Study of Greek Inscriptions*, 64.
c10.s3.t1.10
Dani, too, has emphasized the limitations of paleographic dating, warning against the common practice of relying on one or a few "test letters" for paleographic dating, since "we must allow a margin for the transition period in which the new and old forms were used simultaneously" (DIP, 132). Paleographic dating "can never supply infallible dates" (ix); "this is too much to expect from palaeography" (11).
c10.s3.t1.11
Thus while it is true that in certain cases, where a relatively large and cohesive body of securely dated material is available for comparison, a somewhat higher level of precision may be attainable, as a general rule of thumb it would be wise to adopt Ramesh's principle of plus or minus one hundred years for the range of accuracy of paleographic dating. In the past many epigraphists have paleographically dated inscriptions to a range as short as a quarter of a century, but such precise claims should not be uncritically accepted.