Indian Palaeography c18.s3: Origin
Indian Palaeography c18.s3
- Language
- English
Origin
c18.s3.1
The very fact that Kharoṣṭhī was written from right to left led to the easy recognition of its relationship³ with the Aramaic script, which was the main branch of the North Semitic alphabet.⁴ This relationship was strengthened by the identity of letters such as *na*, *ba*, *ra*, and *va*, and the close similarity of a few other features, the most important being the employment of one basic form for the initial vowels in Kharoṣṭhī, as is also the case in Aramaic. Isaac Taylor⁵ explained the circumstances under the Achaemenians, which helped in the origin of Kharoṣṭhī and its evolution as seen in the Aśokan inscriptions. But Cunningham⁶ rightly pointed out that the expansion of the alphabet ‘took place after its contact with the more fully developed system of the Indian alphabet’. It seems that Cunningham did not agree with Taylor when the latter proposed a gradual evolution of the Kharoṣṭhī letters from the Aramaic alone or through its influence. However, the confusion could not be removed, mainly because no distinction was made between the script and the alphabet. Bühler accepted the proposal of Taylor and argued for the original and derivative signs and further added: ‘with respect to the origin of the mark of aspiration I can agree with Dr. Taylor, who explains it as a cursive form of *Ha*.’⁷ Bühler further develops the idea of Taylor and explains the circumstances of the origin of Kharoṣṭhī. He calls it a popular script, and remarks: ‘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.’¹ Though Bühler’s definition of the character of the Kharoshṭhī script has been modified by us in the previous paragraph on the evidence of the documents from Chinese Turkestan, it is nevertheless true that Kharoshṭhī was originally adopted to write the local language spoken by the common people. This necessity must have been felt by the foreign conquerors who desired to establish relations with their subjects—relations demanded by administrative necessity. The local language had to be adopted for dealings with them, but the problem was to find a vehicle through which this language could be written in such a way that it was intelligible to the local people as well as convenient to learn by the administrative staff who were familiar with Aramaic. It was this necessity which created Kharoshṭhī from Aramaic, and it is mainly in the records of foreign rulers that this script was used. The script was carried as far as Mathura by the Śaka Kshatrapas and Gujarat by the Western Kshatrapas. It survived for as long as the foreign rulers were able to maintain their individuality against the growing Indianizing influences.
c18.s3.2
³ E. Thomas, *Indian Antiquities*, ii. 144–68.
c18.s3.3
⁴ D. Diringer, *The Alphabet*, 2nd ed., p. 255.
c18.s3.4
⁵ *The Alphabet*, London, 1883, ii. 252–62.
c18.s3.5
⁶ *Coins of Ancient India*, London, 1891, p. 33.
c18.s3.6
⁷ Bühler, *Origin of the Indian Brāhma*, p. 109.
c18.s3.7
¹ Bühler, *Origin of the Indian Brāhma*, p. 98.
c18.s3.8
While Aramaic script was suited to the Aramaic language, it could hardly be used for writing the local language without making necessary changes in the values of the letters to represent the local sounds. It would have been possible to develop Aramaic by the addition of diacritic marks, but this would have led to much complication. Kharoshṭhī is not the result of this process. The letter-forms have not gradually evolved from the original Aramaic to Kharoshṭhī. In order to understand its basic character we must analyse it into an alphabet as following a certain phonology and a script as conforming to certain general principles of form and shape. Its phonology, as has been shown in Chapter 3, is identical with that of Brāhmī, and both have the same rules underlying the conjuncts and vocalized consonants. But the forms are entirely different. The whole system of Kharoshṭhī follows the pattern of Aramaic. The resemblance is not so much in the identity of forms, though a few letters are the same, but in the way in which these forms are produced. The difference in the phonology and the grammar of the local languages stood in the way of adopting Aramaic forms wholesale. The same Aramaic letters could have been taken to stand for different values of sounds, but this would have caused greater confusion, *at least in the minds of the Aramaic-* knowing Satraps, for whose convenience the script was primarily evolved. Hence it was necessary to create the Kharoshṭhī script on the basis of Aramaic. It is only on such an assumption that we can explain the differences in the letter forms of Aramaic and Kharoshṭhī. There is no necessity for assuming a long duration between the introduction of the original Aramaic and the Aśokan Kharoshṭhī, as is done by Taylor. In fact the writing, as seen in the rock edicts of Aśoka, hardly shows any variation in forms. Minor differences seen in them are due to different hands being used and to the engravers’ slips.
c18.s3.9
As we have seen, Kharoshṭhī follows the principles of Brāhmī as far as the language demands. It was the necessity of grammar that brought it closer to Brāhmī and helped in the evolution of similar vowel notation and an equal number of consonants. The conjuncts are also formed in similar ways. But the main difference is seen in the vowels. While Brāhmī has three basic forms of vowels, *a*, *i* and *u*, Kharoshṭhī has only one, the forms of the remaining vowels being obtained by the addition of diacritic strokes. In this respect Kharoshṭhī is nearer to Aramaic, but while Aramaic does not need to express the medial vowels, Kharoshṭhī has to do it according to the needs of the grammar. Kharoshṭhī also differs from Brāhmī in the application of the signs for *dīrgha*, *guṇa* and *vṛiddhi*. As shown in Fig. 19, in Kharoshṭhī an extra stroke is added to the right bottom of the letters, but Brāhmī usually doubles the stroke.¹ This difference suggests that the indication of long vowels in the Kharoshṭhī script is of later origin, as it appears only in the documents from Chinese Turkestan, where it is mainly used in Sanskrit words.
c18.s3.10
¹ See above, p. 46.
c18.s3.11
The debt of Kharoshṭhī to Aramaic is not in borrowing the latter’s signs wholesale for writing the local language, but in making them the basis for the evolution of its own signs. This basis will be clear from the following analysis. Out of the twenty-two letters in Aramaic one has been adopted, as shown above, as the base of the vowels. The remaining letters are distributed as follows (Fig. 19):
c18.s3.12
(1) *ka* and (2) *ga* from *kaph* and *gimel*;
(3) *cha* and (4) *ja* from *ṣad* and *zayin*;
(5) *ta*, (6) *da*, and (7) *na* from *taw*, *daleth* and *nun*;
c18.s3.13
ORIGIN OF THE KHAROṢHṬHĪ
c18.s3.14
(8) *pa*, (9) *ba*, and (10) *ma* from *pe*, *beth* and *mem*;
(11) *ya*, (12) *ra*, (13) *la*, and (14) *va* from *yod*, *resh*, *lamed* and *waw*;
(15) *sha*, (16) *sa*, and (17) *ha* from *shin*, *samekh* and *he*.
c18.s3.15
Out of the remaining four Aramaic letters, *'ayin* and *ṭeth* have been discarded by Bühler. He derives *kha* from *qoph* and *śa* from *kheth*. Here *kha* is an aspirate, but it is derived separately from the Aramaic, though the other aspirates are formed by the addition of an extra stroke to the unaspirated consonants. The only exception is *tha*, which on no account can be derived from *ta*, but, on the other hand, is connected with the cerebral consonants. It seems that *tha* and the cerebral consonants (except the nasal) are to be derived from *ṭeth*. The original nasal letters are *ma* and *na*. From *na* is formed *ṇa* by extending the head forwards. Bühler says that *ña* consists of 'two *na* joined together'. But this does not appear to be so. This relation is not maintained through all the inscriptions. *Ña* appears to be formed from either *ja* or *jha*, as is perfectly clear from its later form. This same relation exists in Brāhmī.¹ The nasal *ṅa*, seen in the conjuncts *ṅka* and *ṅga* only in the Sanskrit words, appears to be influenced by the Brāhmī form.
c18.s3.16
¹ See above, p. 37.
c18.s3.17
Thus we get: (1) the evolution of the basic form of the initial vowel, and from it other vowels with the addition of the diacritic marks; (2) one diacritic stroke for *dīrgha*, *guṇa* and *vṛiddhi*; (3) seventeen letters based on Aramaic; (4) six aspirates, *gha*, *chha*, *jha*, *dha*, *pha* and *bha*, formed by the addition of a diacritic stroke; (5) three letters, *kha*, *śa* and *tha*, again based on Aramaic; (6) the four cerebral letters, *ṭa*, *ṭha*, *ḍa* and *ḍha*, based on the form of *tha*; (7) two nasals, *ma* and *na*, based on the Aramaic; (8) the nasal *ña*, based on the form of *ja* or *jha*; and (9) *ṅa*, suggested by the Brāhmī form. Besides these two further letters evolved; these are shown on Pl. XXIII as *ṭh'a* and *chh'a*. The first is formed by adding a stroke to the form of *ṭha*, and the second is derived from *chha* by dropping its horizontal stroke. And finally we have another diacritic stroke, an upward slant at the lower ends of the verticals on the right, to make other sounds like *g'a*, *ch'a*, *ḍ'a*, &c. A similar stroke added to *sa* I have read as *s'a* instead of *sa*. Rapson argues for another form of *k'a*, in which the stroke is added to the top of the vertical upwards instead of at the bottom. This form is also met in the Kurram casket inscription.¹ From these practices it is clear that the original letter forms of Kharoṣṭhī were based on Aramaic as far as the Indian alphabet could allow. The remaining letters were evolved by the addition of the diacritic marks.
c18.s3.18
¹ Konow, *C.I.I.* ii, pl. XXIX.