Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s2.t4.2

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.