Indian Palaeography c3: Preface to the Second Edition
Indian Palaeography c3
- Language
- English
Preface to the Second Edition
c3.1
As the first edition of the book was long out of stock, it was found desirable to make copies available to scholars. Although there is a need of revising the main text in view of several new discoveries, no attempt has been made to alter the text. This was primarily because the main thesis remains the same and the methodology, propounded here, deserves to be applied to new material. However, there are some points on which, I hope, younger scholars will pay greater attention. In this preface I will try to throw some light on these issues.
c3.2
1. The first important issue is about the origin of the Indian alphabet. Brāhmī certainly has the precedence. My new study on *Taxila* has convinced me that Brāhmī was not a stranger in this part. Right from the time it appeared on the local coins in the second century B.C., it continued to be used though occasionally. Kharoshṭhī was evolved for foreigner's use on Indian phonetic system, the roots of which lay in Brāhmī. There is a need to build a complete history of the evolution of Indian phonetic system based on earlier grammarians. If this system is properly understood, the special character of the Brāhmī alphabet, particularly its vowel system, will be clear. The vowel sounds have special role to play even in Vedic recital. How did they systematise that sound system? I have not been able to work out the detail. I am convinced that the system is different from Semitic. Hence for the origin of Brāhmī we should look elsewhere.
c3.3
2. The discovery of large number of inscriptions along the Karakorum Highway has changed the whole perspective of the spread of Indian writing system. Our present concept of geographic nomenclature does not seem to hold good any more. There is need to discover different schools and the masters who founded those schools. They dictated the character of one or the other style and the scribes followed them as far as it was possible for them to do so. The hand writings are only attempts to conform to the set character.
c3.4
3. *Indian Numerals
c3.5
And finally our numerals still remain to be understood in their true nature. The recent book on *Indian Numerals*, Poona, 1966, by Dr. Shobhana Laxman Gokhale does not improve the situation, although she has painstakingly collected together all the symbols and made additions to what was earlier done by G. Bühler in his *Indian Palaeography*. My original intention was to write a separate book on this subject but I never got an opportunity to do so. Here I briefly state my ideas for the younger generation of scholars to work the detail.
c3.6
Dr. Shobhana has summarised the earlier views. I have reclassified the charts given by her and Bühler and am appending here my reconstructed chart.
c3.7
The difference in the charts lies in the main concept. I am trying to discover the main principle underlying the Indian numerical system. The ideas, so far propounded, that some of the symbols represent alphabetical forms, like *tha*, *gra*, *hra*, *la*, etc., are fantastic, unconvincing and unreasonable. They have not led to formation of any system. On the other hand the European scholars have tried to borrow the symbols from the Semitic world. This is also not convincing as the local system is entirely different. In order to make the issue clear I have placed the Kharoshṭhī and Brāhmī symbols side by side. The last row gives the modern Hindi shapes as evolved from Brāhmī.
c3.8
Both Brāhmī and Kharoshṭhī numbers accept the units of *four*, *ten*, *twenty* and *eighty*. I will try to show how these units are expressed in the symbols actually used. But before that is explained, it must be emphasized that the above units are clearly derived from human limbs: four hands, ten fingers or twenty fingers, and four twenties make eighty. This is absolutely clear in Kharoshṭhī numerals, which are based on quaternary system; e.g. four, four plus four make eight, four twenties make eighty. But disparity lies in ten and twenty. Here the unit is actually twenty, and not ten, although the basic form is of ten, which is clearly a fishhook sign, that stands for the first letter ‘*a*’ in Kharoshṭhī. This extra use of the symbol of ten is due to influence from other system. I maintain that this was due to the influence of the system in Brāhmī, although Brāhmī has its own particular characteristic. It is under the influence of Brāhmī that the signs for hundred and thousand have been formed in Kharoshṭhī. It is wrong to say that the Kharoshṭhī hundred has the form of Brāhmī *ta* (𑀢). Actually it is the unit of ten with an inclined stroke on the left:
c3.9
1 (+) 1 = h or 𐨐
c3.10
To this composite symbol can be added signs for one, two, three, etc. to make it one hundred, two hundred, three hundred, etc.
c3.11
Similarly symbol for one thousand, as taken from Rapson's chart, is clearly borrowed from the Brāhmī form of a circle.
c3.12
Now for the symbols of the first four numbers—one, two, three and four—are the same in both, with the difference that Kharoshṭhī has vertical lines while Brāhmī has horizontal lines. The symbol for four is a cross, whether Roman cross or Maltese cross. The Brāhmī symbol is also a cross. It does not represent any alphabet, as has been supposed so far. The variation on the top head is due to different hands. So far comparison between Brāhmī and Kharoshṭhī holds good. But hereafter there is a complete departure in the system of Brāhmī.
c3.13
In Brāhmī the unit now becomes ten, which is actually a semicircle or semi elliptical, to which a handle is added to the left:
c3.15
I maintain that the shape is based on *tulā* or *bhāra* as is known in the Indian weight system—a shape of weight, going as far as Mohenjodaro, in which case some scholars have wrongly taken it for *liṅga*. If a handle is attached to this symbol, it exactly gives the form of ten, as used in Brāhmī.
c3.16
The remaining symbols from 5 to 100 are all derived from this symbol of ten but the principle of derivation is different from that seen in Kharoshṭhī. There the derivation is simple as the unit is twenty, which is actually double ten. In Brāhmī also the symbol for twenty is a full circle or ellipse, with handle inside depicted by a line or dot. This symbol of twenty is actually double ten as seen in Brāhmī:
c3.17
On the other hand the main unit, being ten in Brāhmī, other symbols are derived from it by the Indian method of additional strokes. Five has a symbol of ten with its mouth open upward and a vertical stroke added to it. The symbol of six is two ten symbols, placed one on the top of the other, both having their mouth open to the right. The symbol for seven has the symbol of ten with its mouth downward and a stroke extends the right arm downward. The dead value of nothingness can be understood by the simple riddle of play balls:
c3.18
Fig.1
c3.19
*Note:* 0 represents a ball. X represents nothing or zero. Split occurs at the tenth ball on top because of decimal system, where X is absorbed in the ball and an extra X is thrown outside, resulting in the place value of the ball in relation to X
c3.20
If the balls are counted vertically. they give the figures 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and what is left below is X, i.e. nothing or empty or *Śūnya*. If the balls are counted diagonally the uppermost row leaves only one ball and so many *nothings*. At the end there is again an extra *nothing*, which is similar to the dead value of the bottom row. But is it so dead? This was the main question. It remained a riddle for a long time.
c3.21
However, it was later expressed in a single pole weight calculation. The relationship of the ball at the end of the pole (C) to the [Figure: Tulā-daṇḍa
c3.22
weight of the pan (A) was represented by the same diagonal equation of the triangle.
c3.23
If the two weights are harmonious and balancing the string handle is at D, which is 0, which has now become a functional zero or potential zero, in place of dead zero. This realization, when conceived diagonally, can be expressed in the multiples of ten in a decimal system—a system derived from the earlier riddle of play balls. And that was what exactly done by the mathematical genius. It led to the place value of zero and the numbers on the left could go to infinity. Thus infinity was integrated into the potential living of zero. The infiniteness of universe became integrated into the life-giving force of zero. This mathematical realization was the greatest contribution that the Buddhist thought has made to the concept of eternal universal peace. Thus infinity, which is apparently not understood, is concealed within the living principle of zero. This concept of zero was borrowed by the Arabs who passed it on to Europe. This greatest mathematical invention is the gift which mankind owes to India. While mathematics is now well understood, its living philosophy is forgotten. It is the integration of the infinite universe to the potential zero, towards which man is advancing. While we understand this process, let us pay homage to the unknown genius who invented this great principle and made our calculation so easy and at the same time opened the path for the future realization of the integration of the entire universe.
c3.24
A.H. DANI Dani House No. 17, St. No. 10 Shalimar, F. 8/3 Islamabad, Pakistan. 4th April, 1985
c3.25
INDIAN NUMERALS
c3.26
| No. | Kharoshṭhī | Basic forms in Brāhmī | Brāhmī examples from records | Modern Hindi forms |
| 1 | I | — | —, ౼, ⌢, | १ |
| 2 | II | = | =, ≍, ≏, | २ |
| 3 | III | ≡ | ≡, ミ, 2, | ३ |
| 4 | IIII, ✕ | + | +, ᚵ, ᚵ, ᚵ, | ४ |
| 5 | IIII I, IX | ५ or ᕮ, Ᏺ | Ᏺ, Ᏺ, ᕮ, 2, ५ | ५ |
| 6 | IIX | ६ | ६, ६, ६, ६, | ६ |
| 7 | IIIX | ၇ | ၇, ၇, ၇, 𐡈, 𐡈, 𐡈, 𐡈, 𐡈, 𐡈 | ७ |
| 8 | ✕✕ | ᔑ | | ౮ |
| 9 | I✕✕ | ᖘ | 3, 3, 3, 3, の | e |
| 10 | ੭ | ∝ or ∩ | ∝, ∝, ∝, ⋉, ५, | १० |
| 20 | 3 | ʘ | ʘ, ʘ, ᗝ, ᗝ | २० |
| 30 | ੭3 | ᙁ | ᙁ, ᙁ, ᙁ, | ३० |
| 40 | 33 | 𑁋 | 𑁋, 𑁋, 𑁋, | ४० |
| 50 | ੭33 | C | ᕦ, ᕦ, ᕦ, | ५० |
| 60 | 333 | ५ | ५, ५, ५, | ६० |
| 70 | ੭333 | ५ | ५, ५, ५, | 60 |
| 80 | 3333 | ⨀ | ⨀, ᙡ, ᙡ, ᙡ, | ౮० |
| 90 | ੭3333 | ⨁ | ⨁, ᙡ, ᙡ, | e० |
| 100 | ⋊I | ᗢ or 𑀬 | ᗢ, 𑀬, 𑀬, 𑀬, | १०० |
| 200 | ⋊II, ჳII | ᗢ or 𑀬 | ᗢ, 𑀬, 𑀬, | २०० |
| 1000 | ჳI | 𑀥 | 𑀥, T | १००० |