Dear Agathe,
Thank you for specifying the content aspect of folio 16v and 17r. I have to say however that in cases like this the fact that there is a relationship in content of the text does not always mean that the two folios were produced at the same time. In my modest
experience as a cataloguer, it can be quite tricky to establish the correct stratigraphy of composite manuscripts. In fact, if I understand correctly the edition and translation by Hayashi (many thanks, your work is masterpiece of textual scholarship and it
saved me during the last months!), the first example for sutra 27 finishes on folio 16v, and on folio 17r a new verification begins, followed by another example. In my modest opinion, this is not so conclusive as it might look at a first glance, as we could
always argue that the verification and the second example (which is not marked as such in the manuscript, if I understand correctly the editorial practice, the use of the brackets, and if I read correctly the manuscript) were added in a second moment to verify
and explain the sutra further. I'm afraid that we don't have a smoking gun, so to say, to be totally sure that the two folios are contiguous, although it is obviously that it is most probable that they are indeed contiguous. This doesn't necessarily mean however
that they were written at the same time, since the upper part of folio 17 is missing and therefore we cannot be sure that the text was continuous between the two folios. All we can know is that on folio 17r there is a verification for the sutra on folio 16v
and a second example, but we cannot know for sure whether they were added later or not. Still, I'm not doubting the order of the folios here, only that we cannot be sure that they were written at the same time.
As to the analysis of the ink, I know of the laboratory at the CSMC in Hamburg, as I used to work in the predecessor of the CSMC. I am not sure though how far it could help us to know about the composition of the ink in solving the conundrum of the date. When
I was in Cambridge we analysed the inks used in miniatures of a Pancaraksa manuscript, but all we could get to know was the composition of the ink, surely not the date. I'm not totally sure, but if I remember correctly, if the ink was produced also with mineral
substances, then the radiocarbon dating wouldn't be totally reliable. All we would know from the analysis of the ink would be whether they used the same type of ink or not on the two folios. Surely this would help us a bit more, but again it wouldn't be totally
conclusive.
Finally, I have given a lot of thought before introducing in my report the statement about the function of the Bakhshali manuscript(s). I understand fully and totally agree with you that "many of the general procedures and problems found in the BM have echoes
in problems and procedures found in the highbrow scholarly mathematical chapters of later sanskrit siddhāntas. As any historian of mathematics could tell you, apparently “practical” problems are sometimes pretexts for theoretical considerations…" Indeed this
is natural (didn't it happen in late medieval Europe as well? I'm thinking of the rising trade and merchant corporations). I'm not saying that merchants wrote the texts in the Bakhshali, what I am saying is that it makes a hell of a lot of sense that precisely
this type of practical problems–and not, for instance, an overwhelming number of astrological calculations–are found in this manuscript (or manuscripts?). Also, the style of the texts obviously points to a scholarly context, but we have to bear in mind that
the language per se is not Paninian Sanskrit, it is rather a sort of Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. I kindly have to ask you however to wait until I finish to write the article, if you don't mind.
Best wishes,
Camillo