Indian Palaeography from about B.C. 350 to about A.D. 1300 c7.s12: § 17. — The Drāviḍī of Bhaṭṭiprolu; Plate II
Indian Palaeography from about B.C. 350 to about A.D. 1300 c7.s12
- Language
- English
§ 17. — The Drāviḍī of Bhaṭṭiprolu; Plate II
c7.s12.1
To the remarks on the value of the Drāviḍī of Bhaṭṭiprolu for the history of writing in India (above, page 8), and to the explanations of its peculiar signs (above, § 6, A, 3, 7, 12, 15, 18; B, 4 c, 5; and C, 2), I have now to add the reasons for the assumed reading of the sign in pl. II, 38, XIII—XV. It seems to me certain that originally it had the value of *ṣ*. For there can be no doubt that it expresses a sibilant, and that the Drāviḍī is, like the Brāhmī, an alphabet invented in order to write Sanskrit (see above, § 6, C, 2). As signs for two of the three Sanskrit sibilants are easily recognisable, — the palatal in 37, XIII, XIV, and the dental in 39, XIII, XIV, XV, — the third sign can only have been intended to express the lingual sibilant. But it is a different question, whether in the words of the Prākrit Bhaṭṭiprolu inscriptions, in which the sign occurs, the lingual sibilant was actually pronounced, or whether, owing to the negligent orthography of the clerks, the sign has been put where the pronunciation was *ś* or *s*. A certain answer to this question is for the present impossible. It could be given only if we knew more about the ancient Prākrit of the Kistna districts [39] than is actually the case. But the correct use of *śa* in *śamaṇudēśānaṁ* (Bhaṭṭiprolu, No. X) indicates that the dialect possessed two sibilants; and it can only be doubted, whether *ṣ* has been put erroneously for *ś*, as often happens in the Jaina inscriptions from Mathurā (compare EI 1, 376), or whether it was still the lingual sibilant. Another point in the character of the Drāviḍī, which requires special mention, is, that its signs, which agree with those of the Brāhmī, in several cases present characteristic peculiarities of the southern variety. This may be seen (1) in the angular *A*, *Ā*; (2) in the *kh* (10, XIII, XV) consisting, like that of Girnār, merely of a vertical, with a hook at the top; (3) in the *dh*, which has the same position as that of the Jaugaḍa separate edicts and the Nānāghāt inscriptions; (4) in *m*, which, though turned topsy-turvy, retains the angle of the *ma* of Girnār; and (5) in *s*, which mostly has the straight side-limb, as in Girnār and Siddāpura.
c7.s12.2
As the inscription on the crystal prism (No. X), found with the stone vessels, shows the ordinary Brāhmī except in the *da* opening to the right, it follows that the Drāviḍī was not used exclusively even in the Kistna districts, but together with the common old Indian alphabet. The small number of the inscriptions hitherto found, makes it impossible to say anything definite regarding the spread of this alphabet. And it is equally difficult to fix with certainty the time and the duration of its use. As king Kubiraka or Khubiraka (Kubera) is not known from other sources, we can only fall back on the never absolutely certain palæographic grounds.
c7.s12.3
The signs, which agree with the Brāhmī, point to the time immediately after Aśoka, or about B. C. 200. In favour of this estimate is particularly the occurrence of the long verticals, the invariably round *g*, and the *r*, which is always represented by a straight line.