Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s2.t3.7

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.