Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s2.t2: 2.2.2 The name of the script
Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s2.t2
- Language
- English
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.