Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s2.t5: 2.2.4 Characteristics of Brāhmī in the Mauryan period (third century B.C.)
Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s2.t5
- Language
- English
2.2.4 Characteristics of Brāhmī in the Mauryan period (third century B.C.)
c7.s2.t5.1
The Brāhmī script as it first appears in inscriptions of the Mauryan period (see table 2.1) is an almost fully developed writing of the characteristic Indian diacritically modified syllabic type described earlier (2.1.3). The repertoire of the script as represented in the Aśokan inscriptions consists of six full (initial) vowel signs (*a*, *ā*, *i*, *u*, *e*, *o*), thirty-two consonants, and eight medial vowel diacritic signs (*ā*, *i*, *ī*, *u*, *ū*, *e*, *o*, *ai*), plus the *anusvāra* sign. The absence of the initial vowel signs *ī* and *ū* is no doubt a statistical accident due to their rarity, but other vowels which are absent in both full and diacritic form, such as *ṛ*, *ṝ*, and possibly *au*, apparently did not yet exist in the script, as they were developed only later when Brāhmī began to be used for writing Sanskrit (see 2.2.5.2). Among the consonants only the sign for *ṅa* is lacking, as is the *visarga*, no doubt also because they are not needed for the Prakrits which Brāhmī was used to record at this time.
c7.s2.t5.2
Aśokan Brāhmī displays on the whole a uniform aspect, and although it was formerly believed⁹⁵ to have significant regional varieties, more recent studies have shown that the script was in fact essentially uniform all over India.⁹⁶ There are, however, variant forms for many of the characters, which, though evidently not geographically determined, are still significant for the development of the script; see, for example, the several varieties of initial *a* noted in BIP 6. Also of interest are a few letters such as *dha* (D or ᗡ) and diacritic *o* (e.g., in ł or ⟡, *no*), whose directional orientation has not been fixed (DIP 48).
c7.s2.t5.3
⁹⁵ See, e.g., BIP 33–4.
c7.s2.t5.4
⁹⁶ C. S. Upasak, *The History and Palaeography of Mauryan Brāhmī Script*, especially 29–32 and 193; DIP 35; and section 2.1.2.
c7.s2.t5.5
The orthography of Brāhmī of the Mauryan period is also not fully developed or standardized. The notation of the three sibilants in some of the Aśokan inscriptions is inconsistent and inaccurate (especially in Kālsī rock edicts XI–XIV where, for example, *ṣuṣuṣā* = Skt. *śuśrūṣā*, XI. 29). Vowel quantity, especially the distinctions between *i*/*ī* and *u*/*ū*, is not always consistently noted, again at Kālsī in particular.⁹⁷ Consonantal conjuncts are in general constructed as in the later scripts, that is, by the graphic combination of the component characters, sometimes with abbreviation of one component; but the relative positioning of the components is not always phonetically accurate. For example, combinations with *r* are always constructed with the *r* above, regardless of its actual phonetic position, so that the same character (☿) represents both *rva* and *vra*.⁹⁸
c7.s2.t5.6
⁹⁷ Hultzsch, *Inscriptions of Aśoka* (CII 1), lxxi.
c7.s2.t5.7
⁹⁸ Other instances of apparently reversed conjuncts, such as ⎊ *yva* for *vya*, are also quotable (see section 3.1.2.2).
c7.s2.t5.8
The other (non-Aśokan) early Brāhmī inscriptions, such as Sohgaurā, Piprāwā, and Mahāsthān (2.1.2), have an even more primitive orthography. They have no conjuncts, and do not distinguish *i*/*ī* or *u*/*ū* at all; Piprāwā seems not to have long vowels at all, except for one doubtful *ā*. These inscriptions also have a few variant letter forms, such as the *ma* (४) at Sohgaurā; but due to the paucity of the materials it is difficult to evaluate their chronological significance. Thus while some scholars have attributed an early, pre-Mauryan date to some or all of this group, others (e.g., Dani, DIP 56–7) have dated them to the post-Mauryan era. All in all, it seems most likely that they are roughly contemporaneous with the Aśokan inscriptions. Their primitive orthography does not prove an early date for the inscriptions themselves, only the use of a less formal style than that of the Aśokan inscriptions, which occasionally show early signs of the influence of Sanskritic orthography.