II. Western variety:—(i) mūlyam (L. 14), (ii) kulavārān (L. 18), (iii) prakalpya (L. 18), (iv) dharmaśīla (L. 19), (v) nalena (L. 19), (vi) Vatsapāla (L. 19), (vii) kulya (L. 20), (viii) Dhruvilāṭa (L. 22), (ix) Śīlakuṇḍa (L. 23).
It should be noted in this connection that in the majority of cases we find the bipartite form of ya. In the fourth grant we find, that in all cases the bipartite form of ya, the Western variety form of the lingual ṣa and la have been used. With the exception of three instances, ha also has the Western variety form. These three instances are: (1) vrāhmaṇ-opāya (L. 11), (2) vrāhmaṇa (L. 14), (3) sahasrāṇi (L. 20-21). In addition to these, we find later forms, in the word parkkaṭṭi (L. 18) and svāminaḥ (L. 17), in case of ka and na respectively. In conclusion, we may freely say, that all four copper plates are forged. It may be asserted that, the plates belong to the transitional period, when Eastern variety forms were gradually being displaced by Western ones. But, the use of mediaeval forms, precludes such a possibility:—(1) I have already commented on the form of the ligature kṣa in the first plate. (2) Another, much later form, is that of śa, in the date of the first plate, which occurs for the first time in the Aphsaḍ inscription of Ādityasena and Dighwā-Dubhauli grant of Mahendrapāla, the Pratīhāra, of V.E. 955=898 A.D. The form of ka in parkkaṭṭi and na in svāminaḥ in the fourth grant had already been commented upon. Consequently we find that the four copper-plate inscriptions, being forgeries, are of no use in a palaeographical discussion.
