Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s2.t4: 2.2.3.3 Observations and conclusions on the probable origin of Brāhmī
Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s2.t4
- Language
- English
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.