Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s2.t3: 2.2.3.2 Theories of non-Indian (Semitic) origin

Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s2.t3

Language: English

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).

Linked texts (1)

Aśoka