On the Origin of the Indian Brahma Alphabet c8: Appendix I. The Origin of the Kharoṣṭhī Alphabet
On the Origin of the Indian Brāhma Alphabet c8
- Language
- English
Appendix I. The Origin of the Kharoṣṭhī Alphabet
c8.2
[44]¹ Though the origin of the Kharoṣṭhī alphabet is much easier to explain than the derivation of the Brāhmī and though the general lines for the enquiry have already been settled by others, yet a somewhat fuller review of the whole question, than the narrow compass of my *Grundriss der indischen Palaeographie* permits, will perhaps not be superfluous. The very considerable progress, which has been achieved, is chiefly due to the discussions of the Kharoṣṭhī by Mr. E. Thomas in his edition of *Prinsep's Essays*, vol. II, p. 147 ff., by Dr. Isaac Taylor in *The Alphabet*, vol. II, p. 256 ff., and by Sir A. Cunningham, who has also settled the value of many of its signs, in his book on *The Coins of Ancient India*, p. 31 ff.
c8.3
¹ The bracketed figures refer to the pages of the first edition of this article in the Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, (Vienna Oriental Journal) vol. IX.
c8.4
Sir A. Cunningham's remarks refer to the first point which requires consideration in all questions of this kind, viz. the true character of the script, the origin of which is to be determined. He has emphatically recalled to the memory of the palaeographists that the Kharoṣṭhī is an Indian alphabet, and by an ingenious utilisation of his finds of ancient coins in the ruins of Taxila he has shown that the Kharoṣṭhī held always, during the whole period for which epigraphic evidence is available, only a secondary position by the side of the Brāhma alphabet even in Northwestern India. It is rather curious that the reminder regarding the essentially Indian character of the alphabet should have been necessary, as even a superficial considera- [45] tion of its letters teaches that lesson. Its full system of palatals and linguals cannot be designed for any other language than Sanskrit or an ancient Prakrit, the only forms of speech which possess five sounds of each of the two classes mentioned. If this has been sometimes forgotten and even Bactria has been considered as the cradle of the Kharoṣṭhī, the cause is no doubt the loose way in which it used to be called the "Bactrian, Bactro-Pali or Indo-Bactrian" alphabet, which appellations are due to its occurrence on the coins of Greek kings, who, originally ruling over Bactria, conquered portions of Northwestern India. Sir A. Cunningham very properly points out, op. cit., p. 35, that not a single Kharoṣṭhī inscription has been found north of the Hindu Kush and that in Bactria a different alphabet seems to have been used. He further proposes to substitute for "Indo-Bactrian" the Indian term "Gandharian", which would have been suitable in every way, if in the mean time the old Indian name had not been found. The districts, in which the largest number of Kharoṣṭhī inscriptions have been found, are situated roughly speaking between 69º—73º, 30′ E. L. and 33º—35º N. L., while single inscriptions have turned up southwest near Multan, south at Mathurā and east at Kangra, and single letters or single words even at Bharahut, in Ujjain and in Maisur. This tract, to which the Kharoṣṭhī inscriptions of the third century B. C. are exclusively confined, corresponds to the Gandhāra country of ancient India, the chief towns of which were Puṣkalāvatī-Hashtnagar to the west of the Indus and Taxila or Shah Deri to the east of the river. And it is here, of course, that the Kharoṣṭhī alphabet must have originated.
c8.5
In addition, Sir A. Cunningham has shown that the Kharoṣṭhī held always a secondary position and was used even in the earliest times side by side with the Brāhmī. This is proved by the evidence of his coins from Taxila, several of which bear only Brāhma inscriptions or Kharoṣṭhī and Brāhma inscriptions, with letters of the type of Aśoka's Edicts. The analysis of the legends, which I have given ante p. 48 f., shows that those of four types have been issued by traders' guilds and that one is probably a tribal [46] coin, belonging to a subdivision of the Aśvakas or Assakenoi, who occupied portions of the western bank of the Indus at the time of Alexander's invasion. This result considerably strengthens Sir A. Cunningham's position, as it of the Edicts and of its derivatives *dipati* "he writes" and *dipapati* "he causes to write", which are not found in any other Indian language. *Dipi* is undoubtedly as Dr.
c8.6
subjects to form out of these characters an alphabet suited for their own language. But the case becomes different, if it must be admitted that the Hindus possessed already a script of their own before the Persian conquest. With this admission it becomes neccessary to show that there were special circumstances which forced them to use the alphabet of their conquerors.
c8.7
Both the points just discussed are explained, it seems to me, by certain discoveries, made of late years in Semitic palaeography. M. Clermont-Ganneau's important articles in the *Revue archéologique* [48] of 1878 and 1879 have shown that the Aramaic language and writing, which already in the times of the Assyrian empire occur in contracts and on the official standard weights, were frequently employed for official correspondence, accounts and other official purposes during the rule of the Akhaemenian kings in many different provinces of their empire. Egypt has furnished Aramaic inscriptions on stones and potsherds as well as Aramaic Papyri, addressed to Persian governors; in western Asia and in Arabia both inscriptions and numerous Satrap coins with Aramaic legends have been found, and even Persia has yielded an Aramaic inscription (of which unfortunately no trustworthy facsimile exists) at Senq-Qaleh, midway between Tabriz and Teheran.¹ And, I may add, there is also a scrap of literary evidence to the same effect. A statement in the Book of Ezra IV. 7, points to the conclusion that the Aramaic language and writing was wellknown in the Imperial chancellerie at Susa. For it is said that a letter, addressed by the Samaritans to Artaxerxes, “was written”, as the Revised Version of the Bible has it, “in the Syrian (*character*) and in the Syrian tongue”. The Samaritans would hardly have adopted the “Arāmīt” in addressing their liege lord, if it had not been commonly used in official correspondence, sent out from, or into, the Imperial Secretariat.²
c8.8
¹ See Ph. Berger, *Histoire de l’Écriture dans l’Antiquité*, p. 218 ff., where M. Berger pertinently remarks with respect to the last inscription, that it puts us on the road to India.
c8.9
² As Prof. Euting kindly points out to me, a similar inference has already been drawn from the above passage by the authors of the *Kurzgef. Commentar z. d. heil. Schriften d. N. u. A. Test.*, hg. v. H. Strack und O. Zöckler; Alt. Test., Abth. 8, p. 159.
c8.10
The custom itself, no doubt, has to be explained by a strong infusion of Aramaeans, or of men trained in the learning of the Aramaeans, in the lower grades of the Persian Civil Service, among the scribes, accountants, treasurers and mint-masters, and this is no more than might be expected, when a race like the Persian suddenly comes into the possession of a very large empire and becomes the heir of an older civilisation.
c8.11
Under these circumstances it appears natural to assume that the Persian Satraps carried with them also into India their staff of [49] subordinates, who were accustomed to the use of the Aramaean letters and language. And this would fully explain, how the Hindus of the Indo-Persian provinces were driven to utilise the characters, commonly employed by the scribes and accountants of their conquerors, though they already possessed a script of their own. The Kharoṣṭhī alphabet would appear to be the result of the intercourse between the offices of the Satraps and of the native authorities, the Indian chiefs and the heads of towns and villages, whom, as the accounts of the state of the Panjab at the time of Alexander's invasion show, the Persians left in possession in consideration of the payment of their tribute. The Hindus probably used at first the pure Aramaic characters, just as in much later times they adopted the Arabic writing for a number of their dialects, and they introduced in the course of time the modifications, observable in the Kharoṣṭhī alphabet, for which process the additions to the Arabic alphabet, employed for writing Hindī, furnish an analogy, perhaps not perfect but nevertheless worthy of notice.
c8.12
In support of these conjectural combinations three further points may be adduced. First, the Kharoṣṭhī alphabet is not a Pandit's, but a clerk's, alphabet. This appears to me evident from the cursive appearance of the signs, which has been frequently noticed by others, from its (according to Indian views) imperfect vowel-system, which includes no long vowels, from the employment of the Anusvāra for the notation of all nasals before consonants and from the almost constant substitution of single consonants for double ones. The expression of all long vowels by separate signs, which occurs in no other ancient alphabet but the Brāhmī lipi, was no doubt natural and desirable for the phoneticists or grammarians, who developed that alphabet.¹ But it is a useless encumbrance for men of business, whose aim is rather the expeditious despatch of work than philological or phonetic accuracy. Hence, even the Indian clerks and men of business using the Brāhmī, have never paid much attention to their correct use, though they were instructed by Brahmans in the principles of their peculiar alphabet.² If, therefore, these signs, which have only a value for schoolmen, do not occur in the Kharoṣṭhī, the natural inference is that this alphabet was framed by persons who paid regard only to the requirements of ordinary life. The other two peculiarities mentioned, the substitution of the Anusvāra for all nasals, standing before consonants, and the substitution of *ka* for *kka*, of *ta* for *tta* and so forth and of *kha* for *kkha*, of *dha* for *ddha* and so forth, are clearly the devices of clerks, who wished to get quickly through their work. If thus the Kharoṣṭhī appears to be an alphabet, framed with particular regard to the wants of clerks, that agrees with and confirms the assumption, put forward above, according to which it arose out of the official intercourse between the scribes of the Satraps and those of the native chiefs or other authorities.
c8.13
¹ Ante p. 86 f.
c8.14
² Ante p. 43 f., note 3.
c8.15
More important, however, is the second point, which is intimately connected with the details of the derivation of the Kharoṣṭhī. The originals of the Kharoṣṭhī letters are, it seems to me, to be found in the Aramaic inscriptions, incised during the rule of the earlier Akhaemenian kings. The whole *ductus* of the Kharoṣṭhī with its long verticals or slanting downstrokes is that of the Saqqārah inscription of 482 B. C. and the probably contemporaneous larger Teima inscription, which Professor Euting assigns to *circiter* 500 B. C. It is also in these inscriptions that most of the forms occur, which apparently have served as models for the corresponding letters of the Kharoṣṭhī. One or perhaps two seem to rest on forms found in the somewhat later Lesser Teima, Serapeum and Stele Vaticana inscriptions, while three are connected with older letters on the Assyrian Weights and the Seals and Gems from Babylon.
c8.16
The accompanying Comparative Table, Plate II,¹ illustrates the details of the derivation, as I understand it. Cols. I and II have been reproduced by photozincography from Professor Euting's Tabula Scripturae [51] Aramaicae, Argentorati 1892, and give the twenty Aramaic signs, which, as I believe, have been utilised by the Hindus, *Theth* and *Ain* being rejected by them.² In Col. I the fat signs belong to the Teima inscription (Euting, Col. 9) with the exception of No 1, I, b and No 9, I, b—c, which come from the Stele Vaticana (Euting, Col. 12). The thin signs have been taken from the Saqqārah inscription (Euting, Col. 11) with the exception of No 4, I, a; No 9, I, a; No 10, I, b and No 20, I, a, which are from the Assyrian Weights and the Babylonian Seals and Gems (Euting, Cols. 6, 8), as well as of No 17, I, a—b, which are from the Serapeum inscription (Euting, Col. 12), and of No 10, I, a, which Professor Euting has kindly added on once more looking over the Babylonian Aramaic inscriptions.³
c8.17
¹ Arranged by Dr. W. Cartellieri and etched by Messrs. Angerer & Göschl of Vienna.
c8.18
² According to Dr. Taylor these two characters are also, reflected in the Kharoṣṭhī. But the sign opposite *Theth* in his Table, *The Alphabet*, vol. II, p. 236, is a late *vra*, and *Ain*, cannot be *O*, as he doubtfully suggests. M. Halévy identifies *Theth* with the letter, which used to be read *tha*, but is in reality *ṭha* and a derivative from *ṭa*, see below.
c8.19
³ In this as well as in other respects I have to acknowledge Professor Euting's kind assistance, who sacrificed a good deal of time in order to verify the Semitic signs, which I had selected for comparison, in the Plates of the Corp. Inscr. Sem. and carefully went with me through my Table during a personal interview in Strassburg.
c8.20
The signs of Col. II have all been taken from Professor Euting's Cols. 14—17, and represent the chief types on the Aramaic Papyri, which M. J. Halévy⁴ and others believe to be the prototypes of the Kharoṣṭhī. They have been given in my Table chiefly in order to show that they are not suited for the derivation. Col. III gives the oldest forms of the borrowed Kharoṣṭhī letters according to Tafel I of my *Grundriss der Indischen Paläographie*, and Col. IV with the signs, which I consider to be derivatives invented by the Hindus, comes from the same source.
c8.21
⁴ *Journ. Asiatique* 1885, p. 251 ff.
c8.22
Before I proceed to give my remarks on the details of the derivation, I will restate the general principles which have to be kept in mind for this and all other similar researches.
c8.23
[52] (1) The oldest actually occurring signs of the alphabet to be derived (in this case the Kharoṣṭhī) have to be compared with the supposed prototypes (in this case actually occurring Aramaic signs) of the same period (in this case of ca. 500—400 B. C.).
c8.24
(2) Only such irregular equations of signs are admissible as can be supported by analogies from other cases, where nations are known to have borrowed foreign alphabets. Thus it is not permissible to identify the Kharoṣṭhī sign for *ja* with the Aramaic *ga* on account of a rather remote resemblance between what the modern researches have shown to be a secondary form of the Kharoṣṭhī palatal media and the guttural media of the Aramaeans.
c8.25
(3) The comparison must show that there are fixed principles of derivation.
c8.26
The latter are given chiefly by the unmistakable tendencies underlying the formation of the Kharoṣṭhī signs,
c8.27
(1) A very decided predilection for forms, consisting of long vertical or slanting lines with appendages added do the upper portion,
c8.28
(2) An antipathy against such with appendages at the foot of the verticals, which in no case allows a letter to consist of a vertical with an appendage at the foot alone;
c8.29
(3) An aversion against heads of letters, consisting of more than two lines rising upwards, as well as against top lines encumbered with transverse or pendant strokes.
c8.30
These tendencies required two Aramaic letters, *Lamed*, (No 11, I and III) and *Shin* (No 19, I and III) to be turned topsy-turvy, and caused in the Shin the development of a long vertical out of the short central stroke, as well as mutilations of some other signs. And it would seem that the aversion against appendages at the foot is probably due to the desire to keep the lower ends of the *mātṛkās* free for the addition of the medial *u*, the Anusvāra and the *ra*-strokes which are ordinarily added here, while the top lines were kept free from transverse or pendant lines on account of the signs for medial *i*, *e* and *o*. Some other changes, such as turnings from the right to the left, have been made in order to avoid collisions with other signs, while again other modifi- [53] cations are purely cursive or due to considerations of convenience in writing.
c8.31
As regards the details, I have to offer the following remarks regarding the Borrowed Signs.
c8.32
No 1. The identity of *A* with *Aleph* is evident enough (Thomas, Taylor, Halévy). The long stretched shape of the Kharoṣṭhī letter, which leans to the right, makes it in my opinion more probable that it is a simplification of a sign like that from the Saqqārah inscription in Col. I, a, than that it should be connected with the diminutive letters in Col. I, b and in Col. II, which are inclined the other way.
c8.33
No 2. *Ba* is, of course, a slightly modified form of the *Beth* in Col. I, a—b (Thomas, Taylor and Halévy). The upward bulge next to the vertical has been introduced in order to make the letter with one stroke of the pen, and the bent line at the foot is represented by a prolongation of the vertical in accordance with the principle stated above. The *Beth* of the Papyri (when cursive forms are used as in Col. II, b—c and in Professor Euting's Col. 15 b—c, 16 b—d) is more advanced than the Kharoṣṭhī *ba*.
c8.34
No 3. The identity of *ga* (Col. III) with *Gimel* (Cols. I and II) has been recognised by Dr. Taylor alone. The loop on the right has been caused by the desire to make the letter with one stroke of the pen. It may be pointed out as an analogy that in the late Kharoṣṭhī of the first and second centuries A. D. cursive loops are common in ligatures with *ra* and *ya* and that there is a looped *ja*, exactly resembling a *ga*, on the Bimāran vase in the word *Muṁjavata*. The Aramaic prototype may possibly have been set up straighter than the forms given in Cols. I and II, and it may be noted that such forms occur already on the Mesa stone and in other old inscriptions, see Euting, Cols. 1 and 3.
c8.35
No 4. *Da* (Col. III) comes, as has been asserted by all my predecessors, from a *Daleth* like that in Col. I, a, which is found, as Professor Euting informs me, already on an Assyrian Weight of circiter 600 B. C. The cursive simplification of this letter was therefore ancient in Mesopotamia. It re-occurs in the Papyri, with a slight [54] modification, compare especially Euting, Col. 14 b. The hook at the foot of the *da*, (Col. III, b), which occurs twice in the Aśoka Edicts and survives in the later inscriptions, seems to have been added in order to distinguish the letter from *na* (No 13, III, a).
c8.36
No 5. The identity of *ha* (Col. III) with *He* has not been recognised hitherto. But it seems to me derived from a round *He*, like the Teima form in Col. I, a, with the transposition of the central vertical to the lower right end of the curve, which is particularly clear in the letter, given in Col. III, b, a not uncommon form in the Aśoka Edicts. A similar transposition of an inconvenient pendant, due to the consideration for the medial *i*, *e* and *o*, will be noticed below under No 17. The *He* of the Papyri, though not rarely round at the top, shows nearly always a continuation of the central bar on the outside of the topline, and hence is less suitable for comparison.
c8.37
No 6. *Va* has preserved, as all previous writers have acknowledged, exactly the form of the *Waw* in the Teima inscription, which re-occurs on various later documents as the Ostraka from Elephantine and the Cilician Satrap coins, and which is foreshadowed by the letter of the ancient Assyrian Weights in Euting's Tabula Col. 6. The Papyri again offer a more advanced round form, which is common in the Kharoṣṭhī inscriptions, incised during the first and second centuries of our era.
c8.38
No 7. Dr. Taylor alone derives *ja* (Col. III, a—b) from *Zain*, apparently relying on the similar Pehlevi letter. The form in Col. III, a, which is found repeatedly¹ in the Mansehra version and survives in the legends of the Indo-Grecian and Śaka coins, is, however, without doubt the oldest, and derived from a *Zain*, like those of the Teima inscription (Col. I, a—b) in which the upper bar has been turned into a bent stroke with a hook rising upwards at the left end. In the second *ja* (Col. III, b) the lower bar has been dropped in order to keep the foot of the sign free. The Pehlevi letter probably is an analogous development. The *Zain* of the Papyri (Col. II) is again [55] much more advanced and unfit to be considered the original of the Kharoṣṭhī sign.
c8.39
¹ Edict III, 9 in *raja*, IV, 16 in *raja*, V, 19 in *raja*, V, 24 in *praja*, VIII, 35 in *raja*, XII, 1 in *raja*.
c8.40
No 8. With respect to the representative of the *Cheth* I differ from all my predecessors. The Aramaic letter, such as it is found in the Saqqārah inscription (Col. I, a—c), in Teima and various other documents¹ is exactly the same as the Kharoṣṭhī palatal sibilant *śa*. The pronunciation of the Indian *śa* comes very close to the German *ch* in *ich*, *lich* etc.,² and hence the utilisation of the otherwise redundant *Cheth* for the expression of *śa* appears to me perfectly regular and normal.
c8.41
No 9. The derivation of *ya* (Col. III) from the Aramaic *Yod* has been generally assumed, and it has been noticed that the Kharoṣṭhī sign is identical with the late Palmyrenian and Pehlevi forms (Euting, Cols. 21—25, 30—32, 35—39, 58), which of course are independent analogous developments, as well as that it resembles the *Yod* of the Papyri (Col. II, c and Euting, Cols. 14—17), where however the centre of the letter is mostly filled in with ink. Still closer comes the first sign (Col. II, b of the Babylonian *Kaph* in Col. I, b, which was turned round in order to avoid a collision with *la* and further received the little bar at the top for the sake of clearer distinction from *pa*. The sign in Col. I, a, which likewise comes from Babylon, has been added in order to show the development of that in Col. I, b, from the oldest form.
c8.42
No 11. *Lamed*, consisting of a vertical with an appendage at the foot had, as stated above, to be turned topsy-turvy in order to yield the Kharoṣṭhī *la*, with which Dr. Taylor and M. Halévy have identified it. Moreover, the curve which then stood at the top was converted into a broken line¹ and attached a little below the top of the vertical, in order to avoid a collision with *A*. The signs of the Papyri (Col. II) are mostly far advanced and cursive, so that they can not be considered the prototypes of the Kharoṣṭhī *la*.
c8.43
¹ The *la* of the Edicts almost invariably shows the broken line. The later inscriptions offer instead a curve open below.
c8.44
No 12. The Kharoṣṭhī *ma* (Col. III, a—c) is, as has been generally recognised, not much more than the head of the Aramaic *Mem* in Col. I. The first two forms, which are common in Aśoka's Edicts and the second of which occurs also on the Indo-Grecian coins, still show remnants of the side-stroke and of the central vertical or slanting stroke. But they have been placed on the left instead of on the right. The mutilation of the letter is no doubt due, as has been suggested by others, to the introduction of the vowel signs, which would have given awkward forms, and the fact of the mutilation is indicated by its size, as it is always much smaller than the other Kharoṣṭhī signs. The curved head appears in the Saqqārah *Mem*, which I have chosen for comparison, as well as on Babylonian Seals and Gems (Euting, Col. 8, e) and in the Carpentras inscription (Euting, Col. 13, c), and the later forms from Palmyra prove that it must have been common. The *Mem* of the Papyri are again much more cursive and unsuited for comparison.
c8.45
[57] No 13. Regarding *na* (Col. III, a), which is clearly the *Nun* of the Saqqārah (Col. I, a—b) Teima, Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions, it need be only pointed out that the forms of the Papyri are also in this case further advanced than those of the Kharoṣṭhī. The *na*, given in Col. III, b, is a peculiar Indian development, rather rare in the Aśoka Edicts.
c8.46
No 14. The identity of *sa* with the Aramaic *Samech* (Col. I) has hitherto not been recognised. Nevertheless the not uncommon form of *sa* with the polygonal or angular head, given in Col. III, permits us to assert that also in this case the Gandharians used for the notation of their dental sibilant the sign which one would expect to be employed for the purpose. The top stroke and the upper portion of the right side of the Kharoṣṭhī *sa* correspond very closely to the upper hook of the *Samech* of Teima, being only made a little broader. The little slanting bar in the centre of the *Samech* may be identified with the downward stroke, attached to the left of the top line of *sa*, and the lower left side of *sa* appears to be the corresponding portion of the *Samech*, turned round towards the left in order to effect a connexion with the downward stroke. These remarks will become most easily intelligible, if the component parts of the two letters are separated. Then we have for *Samech* [Figure:] and for *sa* [Figure:]. The forms, in which the right portion of the head of *sa* is rounded, are of course cursive. The Teima form of the *Samech* with the little horn at the left end of the top stroke is unique in the older inscriptions. But the Palmyrenian letters (Euting, Cols. 24—29, 32—33, 37, 39—40), though otherwise considerably modified, prove that the *Samech* with an upward twist must have been common. Finally, the corresponding Nabataean characters (Euting, Cols. 46—47), are almost exactly the same as the Kharoṣṭhī *sa* and show that the changes, assumed above, are easy and have actually been made again in much later times. The signs of the Papyri are again far advanced and unsuited for comparison.
c8.47
No 15. The identity of *pa* with *Phe* is plain enough (Thomas, Taylor, Halévy). The Semitic letter (Col. I) has been turned round [58] in order to avoid the resemblance to *A*. The form with a hook, attached to the right top of the vertical (Col. III, a) occurs still a few times in the Mansehra version of the Edicts. Usually the hook or curve is placed lower, as in Col. III, b, and it may be noted that in the Mansehra *pa* it is attached nearly always very high up, in the Shāhbāzgarhī letter not rarely lower.
c8.48
No 16. On phonetic grounds it may, of course, be expected that *Tsade* should have been used for the Indian *ca*. But the recognition of the real Kharoṣṭhī representative has been impeded by the circumstance that the earlier tables of the alphabet neglect to give the form of *ca*, which comes closest to the Semitic letter, viz. that with the angular head (Col. III). The tables give only the *ca* with the semicircular top, though the other form is by no means rare in the Edicts and is used also in the *cha* (Col. IV) of the same documents and even survives in the late Kharoṣṭhī inscriptions of the first and second centuries of our era. If the angular *ca* is chosen for comparison, it is not difficult to explain how the Kharoṣṭhī sign was developed. The Hindus made the top of the *Tsade* (Col. I, a—b) by itself, separating it from the remainder of the vertical, and omitted in accordance with the principles of their writing, which do not admit more than two strokes at the tops of letters (see above p. 52) the small hook on the right of the angle. Next, they placed the lower part of the vertical under the point of the angle and in doing so added a small flourish to the top of this line, which in course of time became an important element of their sign. The *Tsades* of the Papyri (Col. II) come very close to the Kharoṣṭhī *ca* and the second even shows the small projection on the left, just below the top. Nevertheless they are only independent analogous developments. For in both, the long line on the left has been made continuous with one stroke of the pen and the hook or curve on the right has been added afterwards. Moreover, in the sign of Col. II, b, it is very plain that the small projection on the left of the main line, which makes the letter so very like the Kharoṣṭhī *ca*, has been caused by a careless continuation of the right hand hook across the vertical.
c8.49
[59] No 17. The utilisation of the ancient *Qoph* for the expression of *kha* in the Brāhma alphabet suggests the conjecture that the curious Kharoṣṭhī sign for *kha* may be derived from the corresponding Aramaic character. And in the Serapeum inscription the *Qoph* (Col. I) has a form which comes very close to the Kharoṣṭhī *kha*. Only the upward stroke on the left is shorter and there is still a small remnant of the original central line of the ancient North-Semitic character. The smaller Teima inscription¹ (Euting, Col. 10) has a *Qoph*, in which the central pendant has been attached to the lower end of the curve (compare above the case of the Kharoṣṭhī *ha*). These two forms, it seems to me, furnish sufficient grounds, for the assumption, that in the earlier Aramaic writing the component parts of the looped *Qoph* (Col. II, c) were disconnected and arranged in a manner, which might lead to the still simpler Kharoṣṭhī sign, where the central pendant seems to have been added to the upstroke on the left in order to gain room for the vowel-signs. To this conclusion points also the first corresponding sign of the Saqqārah inscription (Euting, Col. 11, a) though the top has been less fully developed and the ancient central pendant has been preserved much better.²
c8.50
¹ Compare the end of l. 1 of the facsimile in M. Ph. Berger's *Histoire de l'Écriture*, p. 217.
c8.51
² Compare also the sign from the Lion of Abydos, Euting, Col. 7.
c8.52
No 18. *Ra* (Col. III) has been recognised as the representative of *Resh* by all previous writers. But it deserves to be noted that the sign, which comes nearest to the Kharoṣṭhī letter is the character from Saqqārah, given in Col. I, b.³ The Papyri offer mostly more advanced forms with top lines sloping downwards towards the right.
c8.53
³ Compare also Euting, Col. 7, b.
c8.54
No 19. Regarding *Shin* (Col. I) and its Kharoṣṭhī counterpart, the sign for the lingual sibilant *ṣa* (Col. III), see above p. 100. I may add that round forms of *Shin* appear already on the Babylonian Seals and Gems (Euting, Col. 8).
c8.55
No 20. The oldest representatives of the Semitic *Taw* appear in the dental *tha* (Col. IV, a), which consists of the old Assyrian [60] Aramaic *Taw* (Col. I, a) of the 8th century B. C.,⁴ or of a slight modification of the very similar Saqqārah letter (Col. I, b) (turned round from the right to the left) *plus* the bar of aspiration on the right, about which more will be said below, and in the lingual *ṭa* (Col. IV, b—c), where the second stroke on the right in *b* and on the left in *c* denotes the organic difference or, as the Hindus would say, the difference in the Varga. In the second form of *ṭa* (Col. IV, c) the bar, which originally stood at the side, has been added at the top, and out of such a form the dental *ta* (Col. III)
c8.56
⁴ Ante p. 72.
c8.57
With respect to the origin of the mark of aspiration I can only agree with Dr. Taylor, who explains it as a cursive form of *ha*, *The Alphabet*, vol. II, p. 260, note 1. The manner, in which it was attached in each particular case, seems to have been regulated merely by considerations of convenience and the desire to produce easily distinguishable signs. The way in which the hook or curve of aspiration has been used in the Brāhma alphabet is analogous. There too, it is added very irregularly sometimes to the top, sometimes to the middle and more frequently to the foot of the letters, where properly it ought to stand.¹ If the Kharosthī characters never show it at the foot, the cause is no doubt the desire to keep the lower ends of the signs free from encumbrances, as has been noticed above p. 100.
c8.58
¹ Ante p. 76 f.
c8.59
The device for expressing the lingualisation in *ṭa* (No 20, Col. IV, b—c) and *ṇa* (No 13, Col. IV, a) is very similar to that sometimes used in the Brāhma alphabet, in order to indicate the change of the Varga or class of the letter. A straight stroke, added originally on the right, serves this purpose in the Bhaṭṭiprolu *ḷa*, in the Brāhma *ṇa*, *ña* and *ṅa*.² The case of the Kharosthī *ṭa* has been stated above in the remarks on the representatives of *Taw*. With respect to *ṇa* it is sufficient to point out that it has been developed from the *na* No 13, Col. III, b, by a slight prolongation of the right hand stroke. The case of the lingual *ḍa* (No 4, Col. IV, b) is doubtful. Possibly it may be derived from an older dental *da*, like that [62] in No 4, Col. I, a, by the addition of a short vertical straight line on the right, which coalesced with the vertical of the *da* and thus formed the sign with the open square at the head. But it is also possible that the Aramaic alphabet, imported into India, possessed several variants for *Daleth*, and that the heavier one (No 4, Col. I, b) was chosen by the Hindus to express the heavier lingual *ḍa*, while the lighter or more cursive one was utilised for the dental *da*.
c8.60
² Ante p. 76.
c8.61
The origin of the remaining two Kharosthī consonantic signs, the palatal *ña* (No 13, Col. IV, b, c) and of the Anusvāra in *maṃ* (No 12, Col. IV) has been already settled by Mr. E.
c8.62
Thomas. He has recognised that the palatal *ña* consists of two dental *na*, joined together, and it may be added that in the Aśoka Edicts sometimes the right half and sometimes the left half is only rudimentary, as shown by the two specimens given in the Table. He has also asserted that the Anusvāra is nothing but a subscript small *ma*, which proposition is perfectly evident in the form given in the table, less apparent, but not less true in other cases, for which I must refer to Tafel I. 29. IV of my *Grundriss der indischen Palaeographie*.
c8.63
As regards, finally, the Kharoṣṭhī vowel system, and the compound consonants (not given in the accompanying table) I can only agree with Mr. E. Thomas, Professor A. Weber and Sir A. Cunningham, that they have been elaborated with the help of the Brāhma alphabet. Among the vowel signs the medial ones have been framed first and afterwards only the initial *I*, *U*, *E*, *O* (No 1, Col. IV, a—d). They consist merely of straight strokes, which (1) in the case of *i* go across the left side of the upper or uppermost lines of the consonant, (2) in the case of *u* slant away from the left side of the foot, (3) in the case of *e* stand, slanting from the right to the left, on the top line of the consonant (mostly on the left side) and (4) in the case of *o* stand below the top line (compare *ṭho*, No 20, Col. IV, d) or slant away from the upper half of the vertical as in *O*. The position of the four medial vowels thus closely agrees with that of the corresponding signs of the Brāhma alphabet, where *i*, *e* and *o* stand at the top of the consonants and *u* at the foot. This circumstance [63] alone is sufficient to raise the suspicion that there is a direct connexion between the two systems of vowel-notation; see add. p. 124. And the suspicion becomes stronger, if some further facts are taken into consideration. In the Brāhma alphabet of the Aśoka Edicts the medial *e* and *u* are mostly expressed by straight strokes. The medial *o*, too, consists at least in one case, Delhi Sivalik Pillar Edict, VII. 2, l. 2 (*nigohāni*) of a straight bar across the top of the consonant, and has the same form frequently, on the Persian *sigloi* (see below p. 113) and in the Bhaṭṭiprolu inscriptions. Again the medial *i* of the Girnār version is expressed by a shallow curve, which in many instances is not distinguishable from the medial *ā*. Thus even the oldest Brāhma documents furnish instances, in which all the four vowels, expressed in the Kharoṣṭhī by straight strokes, have exactly the same form, and it is very probable that in the ordinary writing of every day life these cursive forms were in the case of *o* and *i* much more frequent than the Edicts show, as well as that they go back to earlier times than the third century B. C. If, finally, the fact is added, that the Kharoṣṭhī, like the Brāhmī considers the short *a* to be inherent in all consonants and does not express it by any sign, it becomes difficult to avoid the inference, drawn already by Professor Weber, that the Kharoṣṭhī system of medial vowels has been borrowed from the older alphabet.
c8.64
The marking of the initial *I*, *U*, *E*, *O* (No 1, Col. IV, a—d) by *A plus* the corresponding medial vowel-sign is, of course, an independent invention of the framer or framers of the Kharoṣṭhī and probably due to a desire to simplify the more cumbersome system of the Brāhmī, which first developed the initial vowels, next used them in combination with the consonants and finally reduced their shapes in such combinations to simple strokes and curves.¹ Similar attempts have been repeatedly made on Indian ground. The modern Devanāgarī has its ओ and औ since the thirteenth or fourteenth century, the modern Gujarātī has its *E*, *AI*, *O* and *AU*, consisting of *A plus* the medial vowel-signs, and [64] the Tibetan alphabet, framed out of the *Vartu* letters of the seventh century A. D., expresses even *I* and *U* by *A plus* *i* and *u*. These examples show that the idea at all events came naturally to the Hindus and that it is unnecessary to look for a foreign source of its origin.
c8.65
¹ Ante p. 77 ff.
c8.66
The rules for the treatment of the compound consonants again agree so fully with those of the Brāhmī, especially with those adopted in the Girnār version, that they can only be considered as copies of the latter.
c8.67
(1) Double consonants like *kka*, *tta*, and groups of unaspirated consonants like *kkha*, *ttha* etc., are expressed by the second element alone, except in the case of two nasals of the same class, where the first may be optionally expressed by the Anusvāra as in *aṁña* or *aña*. Three times, however, a double *ma* is used in the word *samma°* (*samyak-pratipatti*), Shāhbāzgaṟhī Ed. IX. 19, XI. 23 and XIII. 5.¹
c8.68
¹ In the third case Sir A. Cunningham's copy of the Shāhbāzgaṟhī Edicts in the Corpus Inscr. Ind., vol. I, Pl. II, gives the *mma* correctly.
c8.69
(2) Groups of dissimilar consonants are expressed by ligatures of the signs, except if the first is a nasal, for which the Anusvāra is used throughout.
c8.70
(3) In the ligatures the sign for the consonants, to be pronounced first, stands above and the next is interlaced with the lower end of the first, except in the case of groups with *ra*, where *ra* is almost invariably placed below.² The forms of the Kharoṣṭhī ligatures are shaped exactly like those of the Brāhmī and, like these, illustrations of the grammatical term *saṁyuktākṣara* "a conjunct syllable". The neglect of non-aspirates, preceding aspirates, and of the double consonants, with the exception of the nasals, which can be marked without trouble by the Anusvāra, is, as already pointed out, a clerks' trick and the same as that used in the Brāhmī lipi³ of the Prakrit inscriptions. The treatment of *ra* in groups is closely analogous to that adopted in Girnār, where this letter or its cursive representative always occupies the same position, whether it must be pronounced before or after the consonant with which it is combined. There is, however, this [65] difference that in the Girnār Brāhmī *ra* stand always at the top and in the Kharoṣṭhī invariably at the foot. The one writes *e. g.* *rta* for *rta* and *tra*, and the other *tra* both for *rta* and *tra*.
c8.71
² There is only one exception in the Mansehra version Ed. V, 24, *karṭabhikare*.
c8.72
³ Compare also the Grundriss, I, 11, § 14.
c8.73
These remarks at all events suffice to show that a rational derivation of the Kharoṣṭhī from the Aramaic of the Akhaemenian Period, based on fixed principles, is perfectly possible and the attempt has this advantage that it shows some letters, as *da*, *ka* and *ta*, to be closely connected with Mesopotamian forms, which *a priori* might be expected to have been used by the writers of the Satraps, ruling over the extreme east of the Persian empire. If the ruins of the eastern Persian provinces are ever scientifically explored and ancient Aramaic inscriptions are found there, forms much closer to the Kharoṣṭhī will no doubt turn up.
c8.74
The third and last point, the existence of which has been indicated above, furnishes perhaps the most convincing proof for very curious names—apparently nicknames.¹ Thus we find already in the Vedas three men, called *Śunaḥśepa*, *Śunaḥpuccha* and *Śunolāṅgūla* "Dog's-tail", and *Śunaka* "Little-Dog" is the progenitor of a very numerous race. Again a *Kharījaṅgha* "She-Ass'-Leg" is according to a Gaṇa in Pāṇini's Grammar likewise the father of a tribe or family.
c8.75
¹ But compare now the interesting article of Professor A. Ludwig in the Gurupūjākaumudī p. 68. Professor A. Ludwig takes *kharoṭṭha* to be the original form of the name and *kharoṣṭha* a false transliteration into Sanskrit. And he considers *kharoṭṭha* to be the Indian representative of a possible, though not actually found, Aramaic *harūtthā* חרותתא "engraving, writing". In favour of Professor A. Ludwig's view that *kharoṣṭha* may be due to the false transliteration of a foreign word it may urged that its derivative *kharoṣṭhī*, more usually spelt *kharoṣṭī* and even *kharostī* or *kharostrī* (Mahāvastu p. 135, l. 5), occurs only in Northern Buddhist texts and that these are full of similar blunders in the conversion of Pali words into Sanskrit. If the actual and frequent occurrence of *harūtthā* should be proved hereafter, I should be quite ready to give up my conjecture in favour of his. Regarding other derivations of the name Kharoṣṭha see, A. Weber, Indische Streifen, vol. III, p. 8 f.
Linked texts (2)
- Mahāvastu — Sanskrit
- Aṣṭādhyāyī — Pāṇini, Sanskrit