Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s2: 2.2 The Brāhmī Script and Its Derivatives

Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s2

Language: English

c7.s2.t1 2.2.1 Geographical and chronological range — 1 part
c7.s2.t2 2.2.2 The name of the script — 27 parts
c7.s2.t3 2.2.3.2 Theories of non-Indian (Semitic) origin — 39 parts
c7.s2.t4 2.2.3.3 Observations and conclusions on the probable origin of Brāhmī — 12 parts
c7.s2.t5 2.2.4 Characteristics of Brāhmī in the Mauryan period (third century B.C.) — 8 parts
c7.s2.t6 2.2.5 The historical development and derivatives of Brāhmī — 66 parts

2.2 The Brāhmī Script and Its Derivatives

2.2.1 Geographical and chronological range

c7.s2.t1.1

Unlike Kharoṣṭhī, which was always geographically limited and died out at a relatively early period (see 2.3.1 and 2.3.2), the Brāhmī script (see table 2.1) appeared in the third century b.c. as a fully developed pan-Indian national script (sometimes used as a second script even within the proper territory of Kharoṣṭhī in the northwest) and continued to play this role throughout history, becoming the parent of all of the modern Indic scripts both within India and beyond. Thus, with the exceptions of the Indus script in the protohistoric period, of Kharoṣṭhī in the northwest in the ancient period, and of the Perso-Arabic and European scripts in the medieval and modern periods, respectively, the history of writing in India is virtually synonymous with the history of the Brāhmī script and its derivatives.

2.2.2 The name of the script

c7.s2.t2.1

Until the late nineteenth century, the script of the Aśokan (non-Kharoṣṭhī) inscriptions and its immediate derivatives was referred to by various names such as “lath” or “Lāṭ,”³⁸ “Southern Aśokan,” “Indian Pali,” “Mauryan,” and so on. The application to it of the name Brāhmī [*sc. lipi*], which stands at the head of the Buddhist and Jaina script lists (see 2.1.1), was first suggested by T[errien] de Lacouperie,³⁹ who noted that in the Chinese Buddhist encyclopedia *Fa yüan chu lin* the scripts whose names corresponded to the Brāhmī and Kharoṣṭhī of the *Lalitavistara* are described as written from left to right and from right to left, respectively. He therefore suggested that the name Brāhmī should refer to the left-to-right “Indo-Pali” script of the Aśokan pillar inscriptions, and Kharoṣṭhī to the right-to-left “Bactro-Pali” script of

c7.s2.t2.2

³⁸ This name arose from the occurrence of Aśokan inscriptions on pillars known colloquially in northern India as *lāṭh* (< Skt. *yaṣṭi*).

c7.s2.t2.3

³⁹ “Did Cyrus Introduce Writing into India?” *Babylonian and Oriental Record* 1, 1886–87, 58–64 (esp. 59–60). As noted by Falk (SAI 84, 106), Terrien de Lacouperie evidently got the references in question from the note of T. Choutzé (pseudonym of Gabriel Devéria) in the *Revue de l’Extrême-Orient* 1, 1882, 158–9, though he does not mention him.

c7.s2.t2.4

TABLE 2.1. Early Brāhmī Script

c7.s2.t2.6

Note: These are normalized forms, based on letters found in Aśokan inscriptions, where available; otherwise from other earliest citations elsewhere.

c7.s2.t2.7

the rock inscriptions from the northwest. Lacouperie’s suggestion was adopted by his contemporaries, most significantly by Bühler⁴⁰ in his influential works, and thereby became the accepted term.

c7.s2.t2.8

⁴⁰ The expression “Brāhma alphabet” used by Bühler in OIBA has, however, been supplanted in modern usage by “Brāhmī” [*lipi*].

c7.s2.t2.9

While the name Brāhmī for the ancient Indian national script is no doubt in a general sense correct, it should be kept in mind that we do not really know precisely what form or derivative of the script the authors of the early script lists were referring to as “Brāhmī,” nor whether this term was actually applied to the script used in the time of Aśoka.⁴¹ The name Brāhmī is thus used loosely, as a matter of convenience, by modern scholars to refer to the Aś method [as Cunningham’s] may establish anything, or—nothing.”⁴⁵ Other early speculative theories attributed the origin of Brāhmī in the protohistoric period to various “races,” such as the Dravidians⁴⁶ or the “enlightened Aryans.”⁴⁷

c7.s2.t2.10

⁴⁵ *The Alphabet*, I.307 n. 1.

c7.s2.t2.11

⁴⁶ Edward Thomas, *JRAS*, n.s. 5, 1871, 421–2 n. 2. See also, more recently, T. N. Subramanian in SITI III.2, 1587–1608.

c7.s2.t2.12

⁴⁷ John Dowson, “The Invention of the Indian Alphabet,” *JRAS*, n.s. 13, 1881, 102–20 (quoted 118).

c7.s2.t2.13

Somewhat more sophisticated than these superficial theories are the arguments of G. H. Ojhā in BPLM, who was highly critical of Bühler’s Semitic derivation (see 2.2.3.2.4) and was inclined to doubt any foreign derivation, though he avoided denying the possibility altogether. Ojhā concluded (30) that an indigenous origin is most likely, although the precise source and development cannot be specified. R. B. Pandey (PIP 35–51) argued more categorically in favor of an indigenous origin, concluding that “the *Brāhmī* characters were invented by the genius of the Indian people who were far ahead of other peoples of ancient times in linguistics and who evolved vast Vedic literature involving a definite knowledge of alphabet” (51).

c7.s2.t2.14

Since the discovery in the 1920s and subsequent decades of extensive written artifacts of the Indus Valley civilization dating back to the third and second millennia B.C., several scholars have proposed that the presumptive indigenous prototype of the Brāhmī script must have been the Indus Valley script or some unknown derivative thereof. This possibility was first proposed⁴⁸ by S. Langdon in 1931,⁴⁹ supported by G. R. Hunter,⁵⁰ and endorsed by several later authorities,⁵¹ most significantly by D. C. Sircar.⁵²

c7.s2.t2.15

⁴⁸ It is, however, interesting to note that as early as 1877 Cunningham (*Inscriptions of Asoka*, 61) proposed as a possible ancestor of Aśokan Brāhmī a single inscribed seal from Harappa, which was then an isolated find whose significance had not yet become clear; Cunningham estimated its date as not later than 500 or 400 B.C.

c7.s2.t2.16

⁴⁹ “The Indus Script,” ch. 23 of John Marshall, *Mohenjo-daro and the Indus Valley Civilization* (London: Arthur Probsthain, 1931), II.423–55.

c7.s2.t2.17

⁵⁰ *The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and Its Connection with Other Scripts*, Studies in the History of Culture, no. 1 (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1934).

c7.s2.t2.18

⁵¹ E.g., Pandey (PIP 51), who suggests a connection with the Indus Valley script (“The *Brāhmī* was derived from pictographs, ideographs and phonetic signs, the earliest specimens of which are to be found in the Indus Valley inscriptions”), but does not elaborate any further.

c7.s2.t2.19

⁵² SI I.242 n. 1; IIEP 107–8, 111; EINES 85. See also OBS 70–1 and 84–5.

c7.s2.t2.20

It has already been mentioned (2.1.2) that such a connection between the protohistoric Indus writing and the later Brāhmī script should not be taken for granted, that is, it should not be assumed a priori that two scripts of the same cultural area but different periods must be historically or genetically connected. It is all too easy, given the large number of characters in the Indus script (over four hundred), to find superficial connections between similar shapes of some characters in the two scripts, but these are of little value unless and until the Indus script itself is convincingly deciphered and the alleged graphic similarities can be correlated to phonetic values. Various claims to decipherment of the Indus script based on such superficial comparisons with Brāhmī, such as that of Langdon and many since him, are not at all convincing and have little if any scholarly value. Equally unconvincing are the various claims put forward for the Vikramkhol and other pseudoinscriptions (see 2.1.2) as constituting a link between the Indus Valley and Brāhmī scripts.⁵³

c7.s2.t2.21

⁵³ E.g., K. P. Jayaswal, “The Vikramkhol Inscriptions,” *IA* 62, 1933, 58–60.

c7.s2.t2.22

There is, however, at least one feature of the Indus script which could in fact indicate a systemic connection with the historical scripts of India. The former script has a large number of what appear to be compounded and/or diacritically modified forms of the basic characters, which are reminiscent of the characteristic patterns of the Indic scripts of the historical period (2.1.3). Hunter⁵⁴ hypothesized that this system functioned to indicate, among other things, vowel variations, exactly as in Brāhmī, and ventured (92–3, 102–3) to directly derive some of the Brāhmī vowel diacritics from Indus Valley signs. He also pointed out (54) a possible relationship with the Brāhmī system of conjunct consonant formation. These parallels, noted by Hunter and others since him (e.g., Dani, DIP 16–7), are certainly intriguing, and could actually reflect some historical connection, direct or indirect, between the scripts. Nevertheless, in view of the still undeciphered status of the Indus script and the huge chronological gap between it and the earliest attested scripts of the historical period, it would be premature to try to explain and evaluate the significance of the apparent typological similarities.

c7.s2.t2.23

⁵⁴ Op. cit. (n. 50), 1 and 51–8.

c7.s2.t2.24

Recently several writers have put forth theories to the effect that Brāhmī was purposefully invented ex nihilo in or around the time of Aśoka. S. R. Goyal, for example,⁵⁵ argued that the phonetically logical structure, primary geometric forms, and geographical uniformity of early Brāhmī show that it was “an invention of the grammarians” (10) of the time of Aśoka. Similar arguments were presented by T. P. Verma, who proposed an origin in Buddhist circles.⁵⁶ N. P. Rastogi, in *Origin of Brāhmī Script*, offered a purely formal presentation of “the origin of the Brāhmī script from the geometric signs in the Vedic period” (139).

c7.s2.t2.25

⁵⁵ “Brāhmī—An Invention of the Early Mauryan Period,” in OBS 1–53.

c7.s2.t2.26

⁵⁶ *The Palaeography of Brāhmī Script in North India*, 8, and “Fresh Light on the Origin of Brāhmī Alphabet,” JOI 13, 1964, 360–71 (esp. 367).

c7.s2.t2.27

The strongest point in favor of the invention theory is the stiffly symmetrical, geometric appearance of Aśokan Brāhmī, which does indeed give the impression of an arbitrarily created script. But this superficial feature does not necessarily prove anything about the history of the script; Aśokan Brāhmī as we have it could be a formalized monumental version of a preexisting script of more cursive aspect. Moreover, despite its superficially regular and standardized appearance, closer analysis reveals variations in individual letter forms and systemic features (see 2.2.4) which are suggestive of a reformed version of a preexisting script. For other reasons as well, the invention theories are not persuasive.⁵⁷ The comparative study of the history of the evolution of writing systems worldwide shows that the invention ex nihilo of a highly sophisticated script would be unusual, if not completely unique. Arbitrarily created scripts are generally based, to a greater or lesser degree, on preexisting scripts which the creators of the new script know or at least have seen. Moreover, as will be seen later (2.2.3.2.4 and 2.2.3.2.5), there are clear indications that a Semitic script, presumably Aramaic, served, in part at least, as a model for Brāhmī. In any case, all of the invention theories are purely speculative, lacking any hard historical or documentary support.

c7.s2.t2.28

⁵⁷ See also the generally critical discussions of Goyal’s invention theory in OBS 67–125.

2.2.3.2 Theories of non-Indian (Semitic) origin

c7.s2.t3.1

*2.2.3.2.1 Greek.* James Prinsep, the decipherer of Brāhmī (see 6.2.1), was the first to suggest a possible connection between Greek and the ancient Indian scripts, namely, that “the oldest Greek . . . was nothing more than Sanskrit [*sic*] turned topsy turvy!”⁵⁸ This relationship was reversed by K. Ottfried Müller,⁵⁹ who proposed that Brāhmī was derived from Greek after the invasion of Alexander the Great. A modified version of the Greek theory was proposed by J. Halévy,⁶⁰ who derived six of the Brāhmī characters (*a*, *ba*, *ga*, *dha*, *tha*, and *na*) from the corresponding Greek letters, and the rest of the characters from Kharoṣṭhī (see 2.3.7) and Aramaic. While composite alphabets are not in principle impossible, as in the example of the Coptic script which supplements the Greek alphabet with six characters from demotic Egyptian, Halévy’s derivation from three separate prototypes is obviously forced.

c7.s2.t3.2

⁵⁸ *JASB* 6, 1837, 390.

c7.s2.t3.3

⁵⁹ *Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen* 1838, 252.

c7.s2.t3.4

⁶⁰ *JA*, ser. 8, vol. 6, 1885, 290ff.; see also *Revue Sémitique* 3, 1895, 256ff. For full references, see n. 77 and section 2.3.6.

c7.s2.t3.5

Although the theory of Greek origin won some early followers,⁶¹ it had fallen out of favor until recently, when it was revived by Falk in SAI (109–12 and 338–9). Falk, influenced by the arguments of Halévy, sees Brāhmī as an intentional creation of the time of Aśoka, created on the model of Kharoṣṭhī and Greek. According to him, the formation of Brāhmī was influenced by Greek, particularly in respect to its direction of writing (cf. 2.2.3.2.4), its monumental ductus, the differentiation (in contrast to Kharoṣṭhī) of short and long vowels, and the specific formation of some characters, especially ʘ *tha*, which he connects with Greek *θ* *theta* (SAI 111). Although the arguments for a Greek influence on the general ductus of Brāhmī (cf. n. 61) are plausible, it would seem that Greek had little influence on the specific formation of the Brāhmī characters. The example of *tha* and *theta*, stressed by Falk, is an isolated and exceptional case for which other possible explanations are available (see 2.2.3.3). The development in Brāhmī of a system for the differentiation of vowel quantity can more easily be seen as indigenous, in light of the long-standing Indian tradition of sophisticated phonetic analysis, than as an influence from Greek. Whereas the short/long vowel pairs in Brāhmī are indicated by a complete and regular system of variations of a basic form or diacritic for each vowel, in Greek script they were represented by an entirely different (and defective) system involving distinct and unrelated alphabetic signs (e.g., ε *epsilon*/ η *ēta*). In light of these very different approaches to the notation of vowel quantity, it is doubtful whether Brāhmī derived even the basic concept from a Greek prototype. Thus although it is possible that Brāhmī was influenced by Greek in the formation or development of its superficial aspect, the evidence for an underlying role in the formation of the script itself is not strong.

c7.s2.t3.6

⁶¹ See, for example, SAI 109–11. Diringer’s account in *The Alphabet*, 335, of the adherents of the derivation of Brāhmī from Greek is inaccurate and misconstrues the views of some of the persons cited, notably of Émile Senart, who really suggested (in his review of Cunningham’s *Inscriptions of Asoka*, *JA*, ser. 7, vol. 13, 1879, 535) nothing more than an “influence grecque . . . extérieure et secondaire” on the monumental character of the script.

c7.s2.t3.7

*2.2.3.2.2 Kharoṣṭhī.* As noted earlier, Falk (SAI 338–9), influenced by Halévy (see also 2.3.8), saw Brāhmī as essentially based on Kharoṣṭhī with a strong secondary influence from Greek; according to him, “haben wir es bei der Brāhmī mit einer Neuentwicklung auf der Basis zweier Schriften zu tun”⁶² (338). If it is true, as now seems nearly certain (see 2.1.2), that Kharoṣṭhī was older than Brāhmī, it can certainly be accepted that the overall graphic system which characterizes both (2.1.3) was adapted from the former to the latter, and in this limited sense Brāhmī can be said to be “derived” from Kharoṣṭhī. But in terms of the actual forms of the characters, the differences between the two Indian scripts are much greater than the similarities (see 2.3.7), and many more of the forms of the Brāhmī characters can be explained by reference to Aramaic and/or other Semitic scripts (2.2.3.2.3–2.2.3.2.5) than to Kharoṣṭhī. Although some of the Brāhmī forms, such as ∧ *ga* and ⊙ *tha*, are explained by Falk (SAI 111) by reference to the corresponding Greek letters (γ *gamma* and θ *theta*; see earlier), the great majority of them can be accounted for by neither Greek nor Kharoṣṭhī.

c7.s2.t3.8

⁶² “In Brāhmī we are dealing with a new development on the basis of two scripts.”

c7.s2.t3.9

*2.2.3.2.3 South Semitic.* An apparent relationship between Brāhmī and the ancient South Semitic scripts was noted by several early scholars⁶³ who noted similarities between certain Brāhmī letters and the corresponding characters of the Himyaritic inscriptions of South Arabia. A South Semitic prototype for Brāhmī was first proposed by François Lenormant in 1875,⁶⁴ and at greater length by W. Deecke in 1877.⁶⁵ A more plausible argument for a South Semitic (Sabaean) derivation was presented by Isaac Taylor⁶⁶ with a comparative chart (320) of the alphabets concerned.

c7.s2.t3.10

⁶³ References given by Albrecht Weber, “Ueber den semitischen Ursprung des indischen Alphabets,” ZDMG 10, 1856, 389–406 (esp. 402–5) = *Indische Skizzen* (Berlin: F. Dümmler, 1857), 127–50 (esp. 145–8).

c7.s2.t3.11

⁶⁴ *Essai sur la propagation de l’alphabet phénicien dans l’ancien monde* (Paris: Maisonneuve, 1875), 1.152.

c7.s2.t3.12

⁶⁵ “Ueber das indische Alphabet in seinem Zusammenhange mit den übrigen südsemitischen Alphabeten,” ZDMG 31, 1877, 598–612. Deecke proposed to derive both Brāhmī (“Indisch”) and Himyaritic from a hypothetical Ur-South Semitic script, which, in turn, was derived from Assyrian cuneiform. A similar idea was espoused by T. W. Rhys Davids in *Buddhist India* (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1903), 114.

c7.s2.t3.13

⁶⁶ *The Alphabet*, II.314–23.

c7.s2.t3.14

Among the points argued in favor of the South Semitic hypothesis is, first of all, the direction of writing. South Semitic inscriptions were written from right to left, like other Semitic scripts, but also sometimes in boustrophedon, or, like Brāhmī, from left to right. Second, and more important, a South Semitic prototype for Brāhmī, or a hypothetical common ancestor, would provide plausible prototypes for several of the Brāhmī letters which are most problematic in the North Semitic derivation (2.2.3.2.4). Thus Brāhmī 𑀩 *ba*, for which a North Semitic prototype is problematic, is very much like some Sabaean forms of *bet* such as 𐩨, as given by Taylor in his comparative chart. Likewise Brāhmī 𑀤 *da*, which also presents serious problems in the North Semitic derivation, has a much closer resemblance to such Sabaean forms of *dalet* as 𐩵; Brāhmī 𑀫 *ma* looks like Sabaean 𐩣 *mem*; and so on. According to Taylor, the South Semitic derivation can also be justified on historical and geographical grounds: “[F]rom the 10th to the 3rd century B.C. Yemen was the great central mart in which Indian products were exchanged for the merchandize of the West” (314), so that “there was . . . ample opportunity for the transmission to India of the Sabean alphabet” (315).

c7.s2.t3.15

Despite these advantages, the South Semitic hypothesis also has several important weaknesses. First, the argument based on the common direction of writing in Brāhmī and some South Semitic inscriptions does not carry great weight; for, as will be discussed shortly (2.2.3.2.4), the overall importance of the factor of direction of writing has been exaggerated in much of the discussion of this subject. Second, as for the derivation of individual characters, for every case in which South Semitic offers a better prototype, there is at least one other where a North Semitic model is preferable. Brāhmī し *pa*, for instance, is certainly more readily derivable from North Semitic 𐤐 *pe* than from the South Semitic forms of the letter. Finally, the historical arguments are similarly inconclusive, in view of the lingering uncertainty as to the antiquity both of the South Semitic inscriptions⁶⁷ and of Brāhmī itself.

c7.s2.t3.16

⁶⁷ See, e.g., J. Naveh, *Early History of the Alphabet*, 2d ed. (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1987), 43–4.

c7.s2.t3.17

For these reasons, the South Semitic hypothesis, though not completely without merit, no longer enjoys much support,⁶⁸ and Bühler’s criticisms (OIBA 53–5) of Taylor’s South Semitic models and arguments in favor of North Semitic prototypes for the Brāhmī letters have been generally accepted. The undeniable similarities between some South Semitic letters and their Brāhmī correspondents are nowadays usually considered by the proponents of a Semitic origin to be due to parallel but independent developments from an ultimate common prototype, conditioned, in part at least, by their common monumental form which was conducive to the development of plain geometric forms such as the square *bet*/*ba*.⁶⁹

c7.s2.t3.18

⁶⁸ R. N. Cust, e.g., at first favored this theory but later retracted his support for it (“On the Origin of the Indian Alphabet,” *JRAS*, n.s. 16, 1884, 325–59; see especially 351–4 and 359). Although Cust’s article does not contribute much in the way of original ideas on this subject, it does provide useful summaries and evaluations of previous discussions, as well as bibliographic information. (See also Cust’s article “The Origin of the Phenician and Indian Alphabets,” *JRAS* 1897, 49–80.)

c7.s2.t3.19

⁶⁹ Cf. 2.2.3.2.1, n. 61. According to Senart, cited there, the common factor would be the secondary influence of Greek on the outward monumental form of both Brāhmī and South Semitic.

c7.s2.t3.20

*2.2.3.2.4 Phoenician.* The possibility of a connection of the Indic scripts with North Semitic writing (see table 2.2) was noted as early as 1821 by Ulrich Friedrich Kopp.⁷⁰ But Kopp’s comparisons (which, to his credit, were presented with the greatest hesitancy and restraint) were based on modern forms of the Indic scripts and hence did not permit of anything like reliable conclusions. The first comprehensive and authoritative treatment of the Semitic hypothesis was Albrecht Weber’s influential “Ueber den semitischen Ursprung des indischen Alphabets” (see n. 63), in which he presented the first detailed comparison of the Phoenician script with early Brāhmī. Although the results were inevitably imperfect,⁷¹ on the whole the argument is reasonably TABLE 2.2. Comparison of the North Semitic and Early Indian Scripts

c7.s2.t3.21

⁷⁰ *Bilder und Schriften der Vorzeit* (Mannheim: privately printed, 1819–21), II.367–75.

c7.s2.t3.22

⁷¹ Some of the identifications, such as that of Phoenician *ṣade* with Brāhmī *jha*, were obviously wrong.

c7.s2.t3.23

c7.s2.t3.24

convincing, and Weber’s conclusion is not unjustified: “Sollte im Einzelnen die paläographische Identification Widerspruch und Berichtigung erfahren, so wünsche ich dergl. selbst auf das dringendste herbei, das allgemeine Resultat aber wird schwerlich angefochten werden können”⁷² (401).

c7.s2.t3.25

⁷² “Though the paleographic identification may be subject to refutations and correction in details, I would most insistently maintain that the overall result can hardly be challenged.”

c7.s2.t3.26

Weber’s pioneering efforts were refined in the definitive statement of the North Semitic hypothesis by Georg Bühler in 1895, namely, in his classic *On the Origin of the Indian Brāhma Alphabet* (*OIBA*).⁷³ Bühler compared the early forms of Brāhmī from the Aśokan and other early inscriptions, including the aberrant forms of the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu inscriptions, with the corresponding letters of the North Semitic alphabet of the tenth to eighth centuries B.C. (to which period he attributed the Indian borrowing; see 2.1.2) as found in the early Phoenician inscriptions and other contemporary documents which were then known. He was thereby able to formulate a derivation which improved in several respects upon that of Weber. For example, Bühler gave Brāhmī *ca* as the derivative of *ṣade*, which is obviously preferable to Weber’s *jha*. Likewise Bühler’s *gha* from *ḥet* is clearly better than Weber’s *ca*, as is his *kha* instead of Weber’s *ka* as the derivative of *qoph*.

c7.s2.t3.27

⁷³ Here Bühler acknowledged his debt to his predecessor with the comment that “the identifications agree for the greater part with Professor Weber’s, whose important essay . . . very nearly solved the problem of the origin of the Brāhma alphabet” (55).

c7.s2.t3.28

By no means, however, were all of Bühler’s derivations beyond question. In order to account for graphic differences between many of the Brāhmī characters and their supposed Semitic prototypes, Bühler had to invoke certain general derivational principles (*OIBA* 56–8). For example, the “appendages” which constitute the distinctive portion of the letters are generally attached at the bottom or middle, rather than at the top as in Semitic; therefore, “a number of the Semitic signs had to be turned topsy-turvy or to be laid on their sides, while the triangles or double angles, occurring at the tops of others had to be got rid of by some contrivance or other” (57–8). But even if these principles are accepted, fewer than half of the equations of the twenty-two original Semitic characters with their alleged Brāhmī derivatives can be considered beyond doubt. Among these, only seven—*a*, *ga*, *tha*, *pa*, *ca*, *kha*, and *śa*—can be derived from their proposed prototypes with a minimum of manipulation, for example, by simple inversion as in the case of し *pa* < 𐤐 *pe* and 𑀔 *kha* < 𐤒 *qoph*. The remaining fourteen derivations range from likely but paleographically uncertain, for example 𑀬 *ya* < 𐤆 *yod*, to highly problematic, as in 𑀫 *ma* < 𐤌 *mem*, 𑀭 *ra* < 𐤓 *resh* and 𑀩 *ba* < 𐤁 *bet*. In his explanations of some of the more difficult derivations Bühler could well be charged with abusing his rather vague principle of “some contrivance or other” (58) in the adaptation of the Semitic forms to the Indian pattern.

c7.s2.t3.29

Moreover, the direct derivations from the twenty-two consonantal characters of the supposed North Semitic prototype account for less than half of the full Indic alphabet, which comprises at least forty-six⁷⁴ distinct characters. Bühler thus derived the remaining Brāhmī characters by a process of secondary development from the primary, Semitic-based characters. Most of his secondary derivations, such as those of the aspirates 𑀨 *pha* and 𑀙 *cha* from the corresponding nonaspirates 𑀧 *pa* and 𑀘 *ca* are obvious, but others, such as *bha* and *dha*, are less convincing.⁷⁵ The retroflex consonants, which have no direct prototypes in Semitic, are derived, according to Bühler, by a similar secondary process, whereby, for instance, 𑀞 *ṭha* is a reduction of 𑀣 *tha* and 𑀝 *ṭa* a further reduction of *ṭha*.

c7.s2.t3.30

⁷⁴ On the probable number of characters in the primitive form of Brāhmī, see OIBA 27–35.

c7.s2.t3.31

⁷⁵ On the derivation of the aspirates *kha*, *gha*, and *tha*, see section 2.2.3.3.

c7.s2.t3.32

Thus although Bühler's North Semitic hypothesis has much merit, it is far from perfect, and has not surprisingly been subjected to extensive criticism on various methodological, procedural, and historical grounds. Ojhā, for example (BPLM 24–6), was strongly critical of Bühler's manipulations of the forms of the supposed Phoenician prototypes, alleging that by such methods one could "derive" virtually any script from any other.⁷⁶ J. Halévy⁷⁷ objected, with good reason, to Bühler's citation of the aberrant forms of several letters of the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu script as intermediate forms between those of the Semitic prototype and their Aśokan Brāhmī reflexes.⁷⁸ He argued that since the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu inscriptions are at least fifty years later than the Aśokan,⁷⁹ Bühler's use of them constitutes a violation of the first part of his own guiding principle that "the comparison must be based on the oldest forms of the Indian alphabet and actually occurring Semitic signs of one and the same period" (OIBA 55).⁸⁰ Although some of Halévy's other criticisms of Bühler are completely unjustified, and although his own conclusions (see 2.2.3.2.1) are highly questionable, Halévy's methodological criticisms, especially those from the point of view of Semitic epigraphy, do expose significant weaknesses in Bühler's arguments.

c7.s2.t3.33

⁷⁶ By way of illustration, Ojhā shows how by such arbitrary alterations of forms one could formulate a pseudoderivation of Brāhmī from modern Roman script (26). But while it is true that several of Bühler's derivations did involve seemingly arbitrary alterations of the originals, Ojhā's criticisms are exaggerated and hence only partially justified, since, as we have seen, at least half of Bühler's derivations are reasonably cogent. Thus when Ojhā emphasizes (21) that only one Brāhmī letter (*ga*) agrees exactly with Phoenician, he hardly does justice to Bühler's carefully argued, if not invariably satisfactory, formulation; insisting on exact identity between prototype and derivative is just as unreasonable as arbitrarily concocting resemblances between dissimilar characters.

c7.s2.t3.34

⁷⁷ "Nouvelles observations sur les écritures indiennes," *Revue Sémitique* 3, 1895, 223–86 (discussed 234).

c7.s2.t3.35

⁷⁸ E.g., Bühler gives the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu form of *ja*, 𑁂, as a link between Phoenician 𐤆 *zain* and Aśokan Brāhmī 𑀚 *ja*.

c7.s2.t3.36

⁷⁹ Actually, as it now appears, they may even be considerably later than that; see section 2.2.5.1.

c7.s2.t3.37

⁸⁰ The second part of this rule is also violated, according to Halévy (242–3), by Bühler's choice of North Semitic prototype letters from various inscriptions of widely differing regions and periods.

c7.s2.t3.38

Finally, there is the much discussed matter of the direction of writing. In support of his argument for a Semitic derivation, Bühler cited an early coin from Eraṇ bearing a Brāhmī legend running from right to left instead of the normal direction as a remnant of "a period during which the Brāhma characters were written in both directions" (OIBA 45), that is, of a transitional phase in the reversal of the original direction of writing of the Semitic prototype. This particular piece of evidence has been rejected by several scholars⁸¹ on the grounds that reversed coin legends are not at all uncommon from various periods and regions. However, some more recent discoveries, such as the Erraguḍi Aśokan rock edicts written in semiboustrophedon,⁸² have again raised the possibility that Brāhmī might sometimes have been written from right to left in the early phase of its development. The several early Brāhmī cave inscriptions from Sri Lanka written from right to left⁸³ could also

c7.s2.t3.39

⁸¹ E.g., by E. Hultzsch in his otherwise favorable review of BIP in *IA* 26, 1897, 336. See also J. F. Fleet in the introductory note (3–4) to his English translation of Bühler's *Indian Paleography* (*IA* 33).

2.2.3.3 Observations and conclusions on the probable origin of Brāhmī

c7.s2.t4.1

The various theories of an indigenous Indian origin for Brāhmī are all more or less speculative, and hence impossible to either prove or disprove. Nonetheless, it would be imprudent to dismiss them entirely. In particular, the possibility that there is ultimately some historical connection between the Indus Valley script and Brāhmī cannot be decisively ruled out, but unless and until some significant progress toward the decipherment of the former is achieved, we can only treat the matter as an unproven hypothesis.

c7.s2.t4.2

The theory of a Semitic origin for Brāhmī, on the other hand, does have a strong, if not entirely conclusive, body of concrete evidence in its favor. The derivation, along the lines worked out by Bühler, has (as noted earlier, 2.2.3, n. 42) been generally adopted by Western scholars; typical is the opinion of Hultzsch that the North Semitic theory "is so well supported with facts that it cannot fail to meet with general acceptance."⁸⁸ But in South Asia, as we have seen (see 2.2.3 and 2.2.3.2.4), the Semitic hypothesis is not widely accepted, though there too some scholars, notably A. H. Dani in his influential work on Indian paleography (DIP 23–30),⁸⁹ have cautiously supported some form of Semitic derivation.⁹⁰ Part of the problem is that, despite the defects in Bühler's methodology and data, no one since him has undertaken a comprehensive and careful paleographic reexamination of the Semitic hypothesis. Hence evaluations of the theory have essentially consisted of discussions, supportive or critical, of Bühler's work; but it should be kept in mind that the shortcomings of Bühler's presentation do not necessarily discredit the Semitic hypothesis itself.

c7.s2.t4.3

⁸⁸ IA 26, 1897, 336.

c7.s2.t4.4

⁸⁹ In the preface to the recent second edition of this book (1986), however, Dani expresses some second thoughts on the matter, suggesting that "for the origin of Brāhmī we should look elsewhere [than Semitic]" (ix).

c7.s2.t4.5

⁹⁰ Cf. also K. G. Krishnan in OBS 68: "The Semitic affiliation of some of the forms, as explained by Bühler, cannot be ignored, though it is . . . partial in its coverage."

c7.s2.t4.6

Moreover, searching for formal prototypes for each of the characters of early Brāhmī in one or the other alleged Semitic prototypes is one way, and not necessarily the most effective way, to address the problem. For even many of the supporters of the Semitic hypothesis concede that, in Dani's words, "[T]he Brāhmī letters are not literally 'derived' from the Semitic letters as is commonly understood, but are only based on them" (DIP 29).⁹¹ In other words, the relationship of Brāhmī to an alleged Semitic parent script may be more analogous to, say, that of the Arabic script and its presumptive Nabataean parent, which is widely accepted even though it cannot be traced in every detail,⁹² than it is to better attested derivations such as that of the Greek alphabet from Phoenician (which seems to have served as the model, consciously or otherwise, for the studies of Bühler et al.).

c7.s2.t4.7

⁹¹ See also Diringer, *The Alphabet*, 336.

c7.s2.t4.8

⁹² See ibid., 270–1, and Naveh, *Early History of the Alphabet*, 160–1 and 221.

c7.s2.t4.9

Thus it may be more revealing to pay more attention to systemic features and patterns instead of concentrating on the formal derivation of individual characters. From this point of view, the Semitic hypothesis is more convincing. For instance, the system of postconsonantal diacritic vowel indicators looks like a natural adaptation of the Semitic consonant-syllabic script for use in Indian languages (2.1.2 and 2.3.6). Similarly, the evident development of the retroflex consonants as modified forms of the corresponding dentals suggests an adaptation of a non-Indic prototype, since in an originally Indian system one would have expected independent signs for the two classes from the very beginning. Particularly revealing is the pattern of formation of the aspirate consonants. For while these are typically formed as modifications of the corresponding nonaspirates (2.2.3.2.4), there are some striking exceptions to this pattern, notably, 𑀔 *kha*, 𑀖 *gha*, and 𑀣 *tha*,⁹³ none of which bear any graphic relationship to the corresponding nonaspirates (+ *ka*, 𑀕 *ga*, and 𑀢 *ta*) but which can be derived directly from Semitic prototypes, namely, 𐤒 *qoph*, 𐤇 *ḥet*, and 𐤈 *ṭet*, respectively. This pattern can hardly be coincidental, and is perhaps the single strongest systemic indication of a Semitic background.

c7.s2.t4.10

⁹³ The cases of two other anomalous aspirates, *dha* and *bha*, seem to involve different circumstances.

c7.s2.t4.11

In conclusion, there are strong systemic and paleographic indications that the Brāhmī script derived from a Semitic prototype, which, mainly on historical grounds, is most likely to have been Aramaic. However, the details of this problem remain to be worked out, and in any case it is unlikely that a complete letter-by-letter derivation will ever be possible; for Brāhmī may have been more of an adaptation and remodeling, rather than a direct derivation, of the presumptive Semitic prototype, perhaps under the influence of a preexisting Indian tradition of phonetic analysis.⁹⁴ However, the Semitic hypothesis is not so strong as to rule out the remote possibility that further discoveries could drastically change the picture. In particular, a relationship of some kind, probably partial or indirect, with the protohistoric Indus Valley script should not be considered entirely out of the question.

c7.s2.t4.12

⁹⁴ Cf. DIP 28–30, and Diringer, *The Alphabet*, 336.

2.2.4 Characteristics of Brāhmī in the Mauryan period (third century B.C.)

c7.s2.t5.1

The Brāhmī script as it first appears in inscriptions of the Mauryan period (see table 2.1) is an almost fully developed writing of the characteristic Indian diacritically modified syllabic type described earlier (2.1.3). The repertoire of the script as represented in the Aśokan inscriptions consists of six full (initial) vowel signs (*a*, *ā*, *i*, *u*, *e*, *o*), thirty-two consonants, and eight medial vowel diacritic signs (*ā*, *i*, *ī*, *u*, *ū*, *e*, *o*, *ai*), plus the *anusvāra* sign. The absence of the initial vowel signs *ī* and *ū* is no doubt a statistical accident due to their rarity, but other vowels which are absent in both full and diacritic form, such as *ṛ*, *ṝ*, and possibly *au*, apparently did not yet exist in the script, as they were developed only later when Brāhmī began to be used for writing Sanskrit (see 2.2.5.2). Among the consonants only the sign for *ṅa* is lacking, as is the *visarga*, no doubt also because they are not needed for the Prakrits which Brāhmī was used to record at this time.

c7.s2.t5.2

Aśokan Brāhmī displays on the whole a uniform aspect, and although it was formerly believed⁹⁵ to have significant regional varieties, more recent studies have shown that the script was in fact essentially uniform all over India.⁹⁶ There are, however, variant forms for many of the characters, which, though evidently not geographically determined, are still significant for the development of the script; see, for example, the several varieties of initial *a* noted in BIP 6. Also of interest are a few letters such as *dha* (D or ᗡ) and diacritic *o* (e.g., in ł or ⟡, *no*), whose directional orientation has not been fixed (DIP 48).

c7.s2.t5.3

⁹⁵ See, e.g., BIP 33–4.

c7.s2.t5.4

⁹⁶ C. S. Upasak, *The History and Palaeography of Mauryan Brāhmī Script*, especially 29–32 and 193; DIP 35; and section 2.1.2.

c7.s2.t5.5

The orthography of Brāhmī of the Mauryan period is also not fully developed or standardized. The notation of the three sibilants in some of the Aśokan inscriptions is inconsistent and inaccurate (especially in Kālsī rock edicts XI–XIV where, for example, *ṣuṣuṣā* = Skt. *śuśrūṣā*, XI. 29). Vowel quantity, especially the distinctions between *i*/*ī* and *u*/*ū*, is not always consistently noted, again at Kālsī in particular.⁹⁷ Consonantal conjuncts are in general constructed as in the later scripts, that is, by the graphic combination of the component characters, sometimes with abbreviation of one component; but the relative positioning of the components is not always phonetically accurate. For example, combinations with *r* are always constructed with the *r* above, regardless of its actual phonetic position, so that the same character (☿) represents both *rva* and *vra*.⁹⁸

c7.s2.t5.6

⁹⁷ Hultzsch, *Inscriptions of Aśoka* (CII 1), lxxi.

c7.s2.t5.7

⁹⁸ Other instances of apparently reversed conjuncts, such as ⎊ *yva* for *vya*, are also quotable (see section 3.1.2.2).

c7.s2.t5.8

The other (non-Aśokan) early Brāhmī inscriptions, such as Sohgaurā, Piprāwā, and Mahāsthān (2.1.2), have an even more primitive orthography. They have no conjuncts, and do not distinguish *i*/*ī* or *u*/*ū* at all; Piprāwā seems not to have long vowels at all, except for one doubtful *ā*. These inscriptions also have a few variant letter forms, such as the *ma* (४) at Sohgaurā; but due to the paucity of the materials it is difficult to evaluate their chronological significance. Thus while some scholars have attributed an early, pre-Mauryan date to some or all of this group, others (e.g., Dani, DIP 56–7) have dated them to the post-Mauryan era. All in all, it seems most likely that they are roughly contemporaneous with the Aśokan inscriptions. Their primitive orthography does not prove an early date for the inscriptions themselves, only the use of a less formal style than that of the Aśokan inscriptions, which occasionally show early signs of the influence of Sanskritic orthography.

2.2.5 The historical development and derivatives of Brāhmī

c7.s2.t6.1

2.2.5.1 The “Śuṅga” period (second through first centuries B.C.)

c7.s2.t6.2

After the Mauryan period, Brāhmī script began to undergo its gradual process of evolution (see tables 2.3 and 2.4). But, with the exception of the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu and early Tamil scripts (to be discussed shortly), the changes are at first mostly minor, so that Brāhmī of the first century B.C. is still not markedly different in appearance from its Mauryan predecessor. Nonetheless, certain of the formal evolutions first noted in this period (especially in the latter half thereof), such as the development of rudimentary head marks and the equalization of the vertical portions of certain letters, are important in prefiguring more radical formal changes which are to appear in the following centuries.

c7.s2.t6.3

The head marks which begin to appear in certain inscriptions of this period (e.g., in the Hāthīgumphā inscription) in the form of a small triangle at the top of the ver- TABLE 2.3. The Development of Brāhmī Script

c7.s2.t6.4

| Value | Mauryan (3rd c. B.C.) | Śuṅga (2nd–1st c. B.C.) | Scythian- Kuṣāṇa (1st–3rd c. A.D.) | Gupta (4th–6th c. A.D.) | Siddhamātṛkā (7th–9th c. A.D.) |
| ka | + | 𑀓 | 𑀓 | 𑀓 | [Figure:] |
| ga | 𑀕 | 𑀕 | 𑀕 | 𑀕 | [Figure:] |
| ja | 𑀚 | 𑀚, 𑀚 | 𑀚 | 𑀚 | [Figure:] |
| ta | 𑀢 | 𑀢 | 𑀢 | 𑀢 | [Figure:] |
| da | 𑀤 | 𑀤 | 𑀤 | 𑀤 | [Figure:] |
| pa | 𑀧 | 𑀧 | 𑀧 | 𑀧 | [Figure:] |
| ya | 𑀬 | 𑀬 | 𑀬 | 𑀬 | [Figure:] |
| la | 𑀮 | 𑀮 | 𑀮 | 𑀮, [Figure:] | [Figure:] |
| sa | 𑀲 | 𑀲 | 𑀲, 𑀲 | 𑀲, 𑀲 | [Figure:] |
| ha | 𑀳 | 𑀳 | 𑀳 | 𑀳, [Figure:] | [Figure:] |

c7.s2.t6.5

Note: These are selected representative North Indian characters in normalized forms.

c7.s2.t6.6

Table 2.4. The Development of *ṆA* in Brāhmī and Its Derivative Scripts

c7.s2.t6.7

Note: This table presents in broad outline the development of a representative character, *ṇa*, from early Brāhmī to the major modern Indian scripts. Detailed charts for the development of each *akṣara* are provided in Sivaramamurti, IESIS 57–153 tical stroke are no doubt due to the influence of pen and ink writing,⁹⁹ in which such a mark naturally tends to appear at the point where the scribe begins the letter. This accidental formation eventually came to be perceived as a part of the letter form itself, so that it began to appear in epigraphic writing by way of imitation of pen and ink script. This head mark was to develop in the succeeding centuries into different shapes in different regions, eventually resulting in the formation of such characteristic features of medieval and modern Indian scripts as the square of the “box-headed” script, the continuous top line of Devanāgarī, the curved “umbrella” of Oriya, or the “check-mark” of Telugu.

c7.s2.t6.8

⁹⁹ See DIP 52–3.

c7.s2.t6.9

The tendency toward equalization of the two verticals in such characters as [Image/symbol: curved vertical with flat bottom] *pa* and [Image/symbol: curved letter with left loop] *sa*, which begins to make its appearance in some inscriptions of this period, also prefigures developments of later centuries wherein the letters tend to be remodeled into a square frame. This again is an influential development for the history of the derivative scripts, many of which (notably Devanāgarī) retain this pattern throughout their history.

c7.s2.t6.10

Notable developments of individual characters in this period include the elongation of the vertical of the old cross-shaped *ka* of Mauryan Brāhmī leading to the “dagger-shaped” form of this letter (+ > ☨); the rounding of the top of *ga* (∧ > ∩); the reversal in direction of *dha* (D > Ɑ); a tendency toward the development of angular forms in such letters as *ma* and *va* (ɤ > ⧖; 𝛿 > ⍡); and the replacement of the old curved *ra* with a straight vertical shape (⌇ > I). Among the few new characters which make their appearance in this period is the initial *ai* (𑀐), first seen in the Hāthīgumphā inscription (l. 1).

c7.s2.t6.11

While the changes which Brāhmī underwent in this period in northern India are relatively minor and superficial, the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu inscriptions present a unique and radically different southern variety of the script. This script, found in nine inscriptions¹⁰⁰ on relic caskets from the *stūpa* at Bhaṭṭiprōḷu in Andhra Pradesh, differs from standard early Brāhmī in two important respects. First, the formation of five of the consonantal characters, namely *gha*, *ja*, *ma*, *la*, and *sa* (or *ṣa*)¹⁰¹ is radically different. The character *ma*, for example, (𑁤) is upside-down compared with the standard form (ɤ) of the letter. Particularly interesting is the formation of *gha* (𑀖), which can be seen (EI 2, 323–4) as a secondary derivative of the sign for *ga*, unlike standard Brāhmī *gha*, which appears to be a distinct character probably derived directly from Semitic *ḥet*.¹⁰²

c7.s2.t6.12

¹⁰⁰ A tenth inscription on a small piece of crystal is in a script which is much more like standard early Brāhmī, though it has a few features, such as *da* with the opening to the right, which agree with the aberrant local script rather than the standard.

c7.s2.t6.13

¹⁰¹ The character in question (𑀰) was read by Bühler (EI 2, 324) as *ṣa* because of its paleographic similarity to standard *ṣa*, but Lüders (*Philologica Indica*, 213–29) provided cogent linguistic arguments (213–7) for reading it as *sa*. Although most modern scholars have followed Bühler, Lüders’ reading seems to be preferable. (Note that the relation and distinction between *sa* and *ṣa* in early Brāhmī are often problematic; see 2.2.4 and 3.1.2.1 n. 5.) It is worth noting that although Bühler’s edition of the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu inscriptions is the one which is usually referred to and followed in subsequent publications, Lüders’ readings and interpretations are very different from and much superior to Bühler’s, and thus should be adopted as the standard.

c7.s2.t6.14

¹⁰² OIBA 46; see section 2.2.4. Note, however, that Dani (DIP 70) sees the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu *gha* as a reformed variant of the standard Brāhmī *gha*. See also section 2.2.3.2.4, on Bühler's treatment of the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu script in connection with his derivation of Brāhmī.

c7.s2.t6.15

The second peculiarity of the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu script is its system for notation of the postconsonantal vowels *a* and *ā*. Uniquely among all the early Indic scripts, at Bhaṭṭiprōḷu the inherent vowel system is discarded, and a consonant followed by *a* does have a vowel marker consisting of a short horizontal line at the upper right, similar to the sign for *ā* in standard Brāhmī; e.g., [Figure:] = *ka*. (*ā* in the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu script is marked with a further downward extension of the *a* diacritic, as in [Figure:] = *kā*.) Bühler (OIBA) explained that this device "seems to have been invented in order to avoid the necessity of forming the ligatures, which make the ordinary Brāhma alphabet cumbersome and difficult to read . . . , and in order to express final consonants more conveniently" (82). He evidently assumed that consonantal groups would have been written in this script by putting the prior member(s) in the bare form, without any diacritic, to indicate their vowelless state, thereby obviating the complication of conjunct consonants. But, as noted by Mahalingam (ESIP 120), no such vowelless characters or final consonants actually occur in the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu inscriptions, presumably because they were written in a vernacular Prakrit dialect. Bühler's explanation seems to presuppose that the script was also used for writing Sanskrit or more formal varieties of Prakrit in this period, but there is no evidence that this was the case. Rather, discoveries made subsequently to Bühler's writings, namely the Old Tamil Brāhmī inscriptions discussed later, suggest that this aberrant vowel notation system reflects innovations made in the environment of Dravidian rather than Indo-Aryan languages.

c7.s2.t6.16

The significance of the anomalous consonant forms at Bhaṭṭiprōḷu is, however, still not entirely clear, especially in light of the prevailing uncertainty as to the date of the script; Bühler (EI 2, 325) tentatively dated the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu inscriptions at not later than 200 B.C., while Sircar (SI 224; cf. n. 5 there) places them at "about the end of the 2nd century B.C." These nonstandard consonant characters can hardly be dismissed as mere "mistakes" on the part of the engraver (so Dani, DIP 70), though Bühler (2.2.3.2.4) seems to have overemphasized their significance for the origin and history of Brāhmī. All in all, it seems more likely that the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu script represents a provincial offshoot of early Brāhmī in the south, rather than a separate line of development from a hypothetical Semitic prototype itself, as Bühler believed.

c7.s2.t6.17

A second southern Indian variety of Brāhmī attributable to this period¹⁰³ is the script used in a series of brief dedicatory cave inscriptions from Tamil Nadu in an early form of the Tamil language. This alphabet has two notable peculiarities, which in some respects resemble those of the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu script. First, it has four entirely new characters, interpreted as *ṉa*, *ṟa*, *ṛa*, and *ḷa*, which were evidently created in order to represent Dravidian phonemes not represented in standard (northern) Brāhmī. (It does not, however, share with Bhaṭṭiprōḷu the peculiar forms of the consonants *gha*, *ja*, etc.) Second, its system of vowel notation differs from that of standard Brāhmī and resembles that of Bhaṭṭiprōḷu. According to the authoritative interpretation of this system by Mahadevan,¹⁰⁴ in what appears to be the earlier form of this script a consonant written without a vowel diacritic is to be understood as representing the vowelless consonant itself, while the consonant written with the diacritic sign which denotes long *ā* in standard Brāhmī is to be read with either the vowel *a* or *ā*, depending on the context.¹⁰⁵ In other words, the script in question has essentially abandoned the “inherent vowel” principle.

c7.s2.t6.18

¹⁰³ The dates of the Old Tamil inscriptions are uncertain and controversial. Iravatham Mahadevan, in "Tamil-Brahmi Inscriptions of the Sangam Age" (in R. E. Asher, ed., *Proceedings of the Second International Conference Seminar of Tamil Studies* [Madras: International Association of Tamil Research, 1971], 73–106), 83, stresses their overall close paleographic resemblance to Aśokan Brāhmī and hence dates the earliest specimens to the second and first centuries B.C. But Dani (DIP 72–4) places them in the first century A.D., citing the evidence of potsherds from Arikamēḍu bearing inscriptions in this script (AI 2, 1946, 109–14) which are stratigraphically datable to this period. However, Mahadevan points out that in some respects the Arikamēḍu inscriptions are paleographically more advanced than the early cave inscriptions, and thus his dating seems preferable.

First 105 of 160 passages. Read on

Linked texts (8)

Tolkāppiyam — Tolkāppiyar, Tamil
Aśoka
Epigraphia Indica
Nāgārjunakoṇḍa
Jaggayyapeta
Bhattiprolu Stupa
Benares copper-plate inscription of Karṇadeva. The [Chedi] year 793 — Sanskrit
Nālandā Inscription of Vipulaśrīmitra — Sanskrit