Indian Palaeography c9.s2.5

c9.s2.5

There is very little external evidence to prove or disprove the readings suggested by the different scholars mentioned above. The only effective argument against each of them is the fact that the criticism levied by one against the other is equally applicable to the critic’s own method. These difficulties were fully realized by Gadd, Sydney Smith, Langdon, and Hunter, and they all chose to confine themselves to listing the signs, mechanically counting their use in the different inscriptions, and suggesting their possible significance. Beyond this mechanical process Gadd has ventured to discover in them ‘an ancient Indo-Aryan language’ and actually suggested the reading *putra* (son) for [Figure:] [Figure:] [Figure:]. Langdon and, following him, Hunter have tried to see some connexion between the Aśokan Brāhmī and the Indus Script, and the latter especially has ventured to suggest vowel signs on this very basis. Both of them argue for a syllabic system of writing. Sydney Smith alone has refrained from falling into any such temptation. He has commented on the mechanical nature of the writing, and has attempted to discover the determinatives, end-signs, and beginning-signs. Beyond this stage it is hardly possible to go with the materials at present available. Professor J. Friedrich rightly points out the main difficulty: