Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Indian Palaeography c12.s2: Technique of Engraving

Indian Palaeography c12.s2

Language
English

Technique of Engraving

c12.s2.1

Rock engravings of about this period and of slightly later date¹ have been discovered in India at several places. Here the figures are drawn by scratching. But the technique of the engraving of the Aśokan inscriptions was far in advance of these. We find the technical terms *lipikara* or *dipikara*, derived from the original Achaemenian *dipi* and used with the verb *likhite* or *lekhite*, from the root *likh*, ‘to draw’ or ‘to write’. In the Shahbazgarhi R.E.² the verb used is *nipistaṁ* or *nipesitaṁ*, formed from the root *ni-pis*, equivalent to the modern Persian *navishtan*, also meaning ‘to write’. Hence the word *lipikara* or *dipikara* is taken to mean ‘writer’. Bühler translates it as ‘clerk’. These terms from the Aśokan inscriptions do not explain the complete process involved in engraving on stone. But it is significant that the emphasis was laid on ‘writing’, because the writer’s part was of primary importance.³

c12.s2.2

¹ D. H. Gordon, *Prehistoric Background of Indian Culture*, Bombay, 1958, pp. 98–118.

c12.s2.3

² For a complete list of the Aśokan inscriptions, see Bibliography, pp. 48–49.

c12.s2.4

³ Compare Aśoka’s remark in the 14th R.E.

c12.s2.5

Another term for engraving found in literature is *chhindati*, from the root *chhid*, meaning 'to cut'. These two verbs together describe the whole process of engraving. There were two stages: the first was the writing of the inscription on the stone by a *lipikara*, and the second was the actual work of cutting the letters on the stone. The former was done by a literate man, but the latter was the work of a stone-cutter who was probably illiterate, judging from the way he blindly followed the long wavy lines of the writer. The letters were cut by chiselling along the lines drawn by the writer, but the chiseller did not always follow the same process of forming the letters as was done by the writer. The writer, of course, was responsible for the shape and the style of the letters, but the chiseller made slight variations; e.g. while cutting the letter *ya* he might begin with [Figure:] or [Figure:], and then add the second hook as [Figure:] or [Figure:]. These variations do not make any fundamental difference in the actual form of the letters. The very technique of engraving implies such variations. But it is important to note that the engraver's part was secondary in the Aśokan inscriptions. It was the writer who dictated the style of writing.

c12.s2.6

It was on the writer's method of producing the letters on a given surface that their actual shape depended. Leaving aside individual mannerisms, which are also a factor to be considered, we can detect the final influence of the tool of writing on the shapes of the letters. Individual mannerisms, if common to a large group of writers in a given region, determine the regional school, but the introduction of new tools results in a new style of writing, with consequent simplification or elaboration of shapes. After all, writing is an art, and its principles are not different from those governing other arts. In the Aśokan inscriptions the writer used the simplest of tools—a longish piece of chalk, charcoal, or haematite—so that the lines drawn were uniform in width. His hand is clearly discernible in the long wavy lines at Girnar and Jaugada. This device cannot result in the formation of the so-called 'serifs' on the tops of verticals. Bühler was mistaken in detecting these marks in Aśokan Brāhmī. Their formation is due to the introduction of a new tool in a subsequent period (see Chapter 5). The size of letters again is not a fundamental factor, for it depends on the available space. More important is the ratio between the verticals and the horizontals; double is usual, but longer forms, as in the Mysore inscriptions (i.e. Brahmagiri, Siddhapur, and Jatinga Ramesvara), and shorter (as in Kosam P.E.), are also to be found.

c12.s2.7

*Method of reproduction*

c12.s2.8

It is almost impossible to reproduce on paper all the peculiarities of the writer and the engraver. The photographs and the tracings of the inscriptions hitherto published do not tell us as much as we can learn from the original stone. Moreover, one cannot be certain whether one has given all the variations of a particular letter unless one traces all its occurrences in the inscriptions. Herein lies a difference between handwriting and mechanical reproduction. The most important point is to find the manner in which the letters were actually formed; once we discover this, the shapes emerge of themselves. In Pls. III and IV, illustrating Aśokan Brāhmī, no attempt has been made to trace the letters. They have been copied from the published photographs after determining the various methods of their formation, and this process has given the important varieties. It has also helped to correct many mistakes made by earlier palaeographers. The letters have not been drawn to scale, as this was not possible from the published photographs, and hence no conclusion should be derived from the drawings as regards their size and proportion. The rare types are shown in brackets.

c12.s2.9

*Arrangement of plates*

c12.s2.10

There is at least fifteen to twenty years' difference between the writings of the earliest and the latest records, but no gradual improvement in the engraving of the letters is to be noticed, except that the pillar inscriptions are better written than the rock inscriptions. Hence the letters cannot be arranged on the basis of chronology. It would again be wrong to separate rock inscriptions from pillar inscriptions, as there is no difference in the actual method of writing. The regional groupings—northern and southern (according to the theory of Bühler and, following him, others), eastern and western—do not work out, as exactly the same methods are traceable in different regions. The various inscriptions show individual characteristics, and I have found them hard to reduce to any one or two systems. Even on one particular rock different hands are traceable. As a result it was considered desirable to copy in separate rows as many hands as possible. These rows of alphabets have then been classified in two plates (III *a*, *b*) showing letters from the pillar and minor pillar inscriptions and the Kalasi R.E., all of which come from north of the Vindhyas. The pillar inscriptions are on a prepared surface, but they hardly differ in style of writing from the rock edicts, which are on a natural rock surface. Pl. IV *a*, *b* depicts the writing from the remaining rock edicts and minor rock inscriptions, all of which come from south of the Vindhyas. The plates also include the Bairat slab, the Gujarra and Sasaram M.R.I., and the Barabar cave inscriptions. Except for the last these inscriptions are engraved on natural rock surfaces. The few North Indian inscriptions are given here for the sake of comparison with the inscriptions of the south. But, as the plates show, there is hardly any recognizable basis on which to differentiate between northern and southern styles.

c12.s2.11

The inscriptions suggest that knowledge of writing travelled along the imperial routes, and that the imperial scribes were the carriers of Aśokan Brāhmī to the distant parts of the empire. Otherwise it is difficult to explain how the same type of the script is to be found in the far-flung areas of north, south, east, and west. Since in the north-west Aśoka used Kharoshṭhī, Aramaic, and Greek¹ scripts, it is very unlikely that he would not have used regional scripts in other parts of his empire, if such had existed. Aśokan Brāhmī does not tend to show regional variations, but the Aśokan inscriptions mark the process of cultural infiltration into the distant parts of this subcontinent.

c12.s2.12

¹ 'Une bilingue Gréco-Araméenne D'Aśoka', by Daniel Schlumberger in *Journal Asiatique*, 1958, pp. 1–48.

Linked texts (6)