Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s2.t3.32

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.