Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s2.t6: 2.2.5 The historical development and derivatives of Brāhmī
Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s2.t6
- Language
- English
2.2.5 The historical development and derivatives of Brāhmī
c7.s2.t6.1
2.2.5.1 The “Śuṅga” period (second through first centuries B.C.)
c7.s2.t6.2
After the Mauryan period, Brāhmī script began to undergo its gradual process of evolution (see tables 2.3 and 2.4). But, with the exception of the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu and early Tamil scripts (to be discussed shortly), the changes are at first mostly minor, so that Brāhmī of the first century B.C. is still not markedly different in appearance from its Mauryan predecessor. Nonetheless, certain of the formal evolutions first noted in this period (especially in the latter half thereof), such as the development of rudimentary head marks and the equalization of the vertical portions of certain letters, are important in prefiguring more radical formal changes which are to appear in the following centuries.
c7.s2.t6.3
The head marks which begin to appear in certain inscriptions of this period (e.g., in the Hāthīgumphā inscription) in the form of a small triangle at the top of the ver- TABLE 2.3. The Development of Brāhmī Script
c7.s2.t6.4
| Value | Mauryan (3rd c. B.C.) | Śuṅga (2nd–1st c. B.C.) | Scythian- Kuṣāṇa (1st–3rd c. A.D.) | Gupta (4th–6th c. A.D.) | Siddhamātṛkā (7th–9th c. A.D.) |
| ka | + | 𑀓 | 𑀓 | 𑀓 | [Figure:] |
| ga | 𑀕 | 𑀕 | 𑀕 | 𑀕 | [Figure:] |
| ja | 𑀚 | 𑀚, 𑀚 | 𑀚 | 𑀚 | [Figure:] |
| ta | 𑀢 | 𑀢 | 𑀢 | 𑀢 | [Figure:] |
| da | 𑀤 | 𑀤 | 𑀤 | 𑀤 | [Figure:] |
| pa | 𑀧 | 𑀧 | 𑀧 | 𑀧 | [Figure:] |
| ya | 𑀬 | 𑀬 | 𑀬 | 𑀬 | [Figure:] |
| la | 𑀮 | 𑀮 | 𑀮 | 𑀮, [Figure:] | [Figure:] |
| sa | 𑀲 | 𑀲 | 𑀲, 𑀲 | 𑀲, 𑀲 | [Figure:] |
| ha | 𑀳 | 𑀳 | 𑀳 | 𑀳, [Figure:] | [Figure:] |
c7.s2.t6.5
Note: These are selected representative North Indian characters in normalized forms.
c7.s2.t6.6
Table 2.4. The Development of *ṆA* in Brāhmī and Its Derivative Scripts
c7.s2.t6.7
Note: This table presents in broad outline the development of a representative character, *ṇa*, from early Brāhmī to the major modern Indian scripts. Detailed charts for the development of each *akṣara* are provided in Sivaramamurti, IESIS 57–153 tical stroke are no doubt due to the influence of pen and ink writing,⁹⁹ in which such a mark naturally tends to appear at the point where the scribe begins the letter. This accidental formation eventually came to be perceived as a part of the letter form itself, so that it began to appear in epigraphic writing by way of imitation of pen and ink script. This head mark was to develop in the succeeding centuries into different shapes in different regions, eventually resulting in the formation of such characteristic features of medieval and modern Indian scripts as the square of the “box-headed” script, the continuous top line of Devanāgarī, the curved “umbrella” of Oriya, or the “check-mark” of Telugu.
c7.s2.t6.8
⁹⁹ See DIP 52–3.
c7.s2.t6.9
The tendency toward equalization of the two verticals in such characters as [Image/symbol: curved vertical with flat bottom] *pa* and [Image/symbol: curved letter with left loop] *sa*, which begins to make its appearance in some inscriptions of this period, also prefigures developments of later centuries wherein the letters tend to be remodeled into a square frame. This again is an influential development for the history of the derivative scripts, many of which (notably Devanāgarī) retain this pattern throughout their history.
c7.s2.t6.10
Notable developments of individual characters in this period include the elongation of the vertical of the old cross-shaped *ka* of Mauryan Brāhmī leading to the “dagger-shaped” form of this letter (+ > ☨); the rounding of the top of *ga* (∧ > ∩); the reversal in direction of *dha* (D > Ɑ); a tendency toward the development of angular forms in such letters as *ma* and *va* (ɤ > ⧖; 𝛿 > ⍡); and the replacement of the old curved *ra* with a straight vertical shape (⌇ > I). Among the few new characters which make their appearance in this period is the initial *ai* (𑀐), first seen in the Hāthīgumphā inscription (l. 1).
c7.s2.t6.11
While the changes which Brāhmī underwent in this period in northern India are relatively minor and superficial, the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu inscriptions present a unique and radically different southern variety of the script. This script, found in nine inscriptions¹⁰⁰ on relic caskets from the *stūpa* at Bhaṭṭiprōḷu in Andhra Pradesh, differs from standard early Brāhmī in two important respects. First, the formation of five of the consonantal characters, namely *gha*, *ja*, *ma*, *la*, and *sa* (or *ṣa*)¹⁰¹ is radically different. The character *ma*, for example, (𑁤) is upside-down compared with the standard form (ɤ) of the letter. Particularly interesting is the formation of *gha* (𑀖), which can be seen (EI 2, 323–4) as a secondary derivative of the sign for *ga*, unlike standard Brāhmī *gha*, which appears to be a distinct character probably derived directly from Semitic *ḥet*.¹⁰²
c7.s2.t6.12
¹⁰⁰ A tenth inscription on a small piece of crystal is in a script which is much more like standard early Brāhmī, though it has a few features, such as *da* with the opening to the right, which agree with the aberrant local script rather than the standard.
c7.s2.t6.13
¹⁰¹ The character in question (𑀰) was read by Bühler (EI 2, 324) as *ṣa* because of its paleographic similarity to standard *ṣa*, but Lüders (*Philologica Indica*, 213–29) provided cogent linguistic arguments (213–7) for reading it as *sa*. Although most modern scholars have followed Bühler, Lüders’ reading seems to be preferable. (Note that the relation and distinction between *sa* and *ṣa* in early Brāhmī are often problematic; see 2.2.4 and 3.1.2.1 n. 5.) It is worth noting that although Bühler’s edition of the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu inscriptions is the one which is usually referred to and followed in subsequent publications, Lüders’ readings and interpretations are very different from and much superior to Bühler’s, and thus should be adopted as the standard.
c7.s2.t6.14
¹⁰² OIBA 46; see section 2.2.4. Note, however, that Dani (DIP 70) sees the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu *gha* as a reformed variant of the standard Brāhmī *gha*. See also section 2.2.3.2.4, on Bühler's treatment of the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu script in connection with his derivation of Brāhmī.
c7.s2.t6.15
The second peculiarity of the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu script is its system for notation of the postconsonantal vowels *a* and *ā*. Uniquely among all the early Indic scripts, at Bhaṭṭiprōḷu the inherent vowel system is discarded, and a consonant followed by *a* does have a vowel marker consisting of a short horizontal line at the upper right, similar to the sign for *ā* in standard Brāhmī; e.g., [Figure:] = *ka*. (*ā* in the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu script is marked with a further downward extension of the *a* diacritic, as in [Figure:] = *kā*.) Bühler (OIBA) explained that this device "seems to have been invented in order to avoid the necessity of forming the ligatures, which make the ordinary Brāhma alphabet cumbersome and difficult to read . . . , and in order to express final consonants more conveniently" (82). He evidently assumed that consonantal groups would have been written in this script by putting the prior member(s) in the bare form, without any diacritic, to indicate their vowelless state, thereby obviating the complication of conjunct consonants. But, as noted by Mahalingam (ESIP 120), no such vowelless characters or final consonants actually occur in the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu inscriptions, presumably because they were written in a vernacular Prakrit dialect. Bühler's explanation seems to presuppose that the script was also used for writing Sanskrit or more formal varieties of Prakrit in this period, but there is no evidence that this was the case. Rather, discoveries made subsequently to Bühler's writings, namely the Old Tamil Brāhmī inscriptions discussed later, suggest that this aberrant vowel notation system reflects innovations made in the environment of Dravidian rather than Indo-Aryan languages.
c7.s2.t6.16
The significance of the anomalous consonant forms at Bhaṭṭiprōḷu is, however, still not entirely clear, especially in light of the prevailing uncertainty as to the date of the script; Bühler (EI 2, 325) tentatively dated the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu inscriptions at not later than 200 B.C., while Sircar (SI 224; cf. n. 5 there) places them at "about the end of the 2nd century B.C." These nonstandard consonant characters can hardly be dismissed as mere "mistakes" on the part of the engraver (so Dani, DIP 70), though Bühler (2.2.3.2.4) seems to have overemphasized their significance for the origin and history of Brāhmī. All in all, it seems more likely that the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu script represents a provincial offshoot of early Brāhmī in the south, rather than a separate line of development from a hypothetical Semitic prototype itself, as Bühler believed.
c7.s2.t6.17
A second southern Indian variety of Brāhmī attributable to this period¹⁰³ is the script used in a series of brief dedicatory cave inscriptions from Tamil Nadu in an early form of the Tamil language. This alphabet has two notable peculiarities, which in some respects resemble those of the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu script. First, it has four entirely new characters, interpreted as *ṉa*, *ṟa*, *ṛa*, and *ḷa*, which were evidently created in order to represent Dravidian phonemes not represented in standard (northern) Brāhmī. (It does not, however, share with Bhaṭṭiprōḷu the peculiar forms of the consonants *gha*, *ja*, etc.) Second, its system of vowel notation differs from that of standard Brāhmī and resembles that of Bhaṭṭiprōḷu. According to the authoritative interpretation of this system by Mahadevan,¹⁰⁴ in what appears to be the earlier form of this script a consonant written without a vowel diacritic is to be understood as representing the vowelless consonant itself, while the consonant written with the diacritic sign which denotes long *ā* in standard Brāhmī is to be read with either the vowel *a* or *ā*, depending on the context.¹⁰⁵ In other words, the script in question has essentially abandoned the “inherent vowel” principle.
c7.s2.t6.18
¹⁰³ The dates of the Old Tamil inscriptions are uncertain and controversial. Iravatham Mahadevan, in "Tamil-Brahmi Inscriptions of the Sangam Age" (in R. E. Asher, ed., *Proceedings of the Second International Conference Seminar of Tamil Studies* [Madras: International Association of Tamil Research, 1971], 73–106), 83, stresses their overall close paleographic resemblance to Aśokan Brāhmī and hence dates the earliest specimens to the second and first centuries B.C. But Dani (DIP 72–4) places them in the first century A.D., citing the evidence of potsherds from Arikamēḍu bearing inscriptions in this script (AI 2, 1946, 109–14) which are stratigraphically datable to this period. However, Mahadevan points out that in some respects the Arikamēḍu inscriptions are paleographically more advanced than the early cave inscriptions, and thus his dating seems preferable.
c7.s2.t6.19
¹⁰⁴ In “Tamil-Brahmi Inscriptions of the Sangam Age”; see also his “Corpus of the Tamil-Brahmi Inscriptions,” in R. Nagaswamy, ed., *Kalveṭṭik Karuttaraṅku/Seminar on Inscriptions, 1966* (Madras: Books [India] Private Ltd., 1968), 57–73; and T. V. Mahalingam, ESIP 120–2 and 140–1.
c7.s2.t6.20
¹⁰⁵ Mahadevan, “Tamil-Brāhmī Inscriptions,” 79. Mahalingam (ESIP 120) thinks that the long vowel *ā* is sometimes noted by a doubled form of the diacritic, but no clear examples of this are actually visible in the reproductions of the inscriptions.
c7.s2.t6.21
Thus we find in the Tamil Brāhmī inscriptions a system of representation of pure (i.e., vowelless) consonants which seemed to be implied, but was not actually attested, in the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu inscriptions. Therefore, although the two scripts do not appear to be directly related paleographically, there evidently is a systemic relationship between them. The presence in Bhaṭṭiprōḷu of explicitly noted postconsonantal *a*, but without any examples of the expected “pure” or vowelless consonants, now looks, in light of the Tamil Brāhmī inscriptions, like the reapplication to Prakrit of a form of Brāhmī which had been previously modified for the representation of a Dravidian language. For, as explained by Mahadevan (“Tamil-Brahmi Inscriptions,” 81–2), the systemic features of these early southern varieties of Brāhmī would seem to reflect phonetic features of Dravidian, such as the common occurrence of consonants in word final position, rather than of Prakrit, which has no word final consonants.
c7.s2.t6.22
The subsequent historical development of the modified southern system, however, is not at all what one would have anticipated by comparison with the usual patterns of evolution of scripts. Surprisingly, the capability of the Bhaṭṭiprōḷu and Tamil Brāhmī scripts to write vowelless consonants in a simple manner and thus to obviate the need for consonantal conjuncts does not seem to have been continued in the later forms of the southern scripts. Indeed, as shown by Mahadevan (op. cit., 82–3), this innovative system actually is attenuated in some (perhaps later)¹⁰⁶ Tamil Brāhmī inscriptions, in which the unmarked consonant may represent either the pure consonant *or* the consonant plus *a*, and in still later inscriptions the system of vowelless consonants falls out of use entirely. Mahadevan attributes the failure of this tentative experiment toward alphabetization to the influence of the scripts of adjoining regions of India and Sri Lanka, which retained the standard Indic modified syllabic system;
c7.s2.t6.23
¹⁰⁶ In “Some Aspects of the Tamil-Brahmi Script” (JESI 12, 1985, 121–8), Mahadevan expresses some doubts about his own earlier formulation of the chronological relation of the two forms of the script, considering it “more likely” that they were “more or less contemporaneous styles” (123). See also R. Nagaswamy, “The Tamil, Vatteluttu and Grantha Script,” in *Proceedings of the Second International Conference Seminar of Tamil Studies* [see n. 103] II.410–5 (esp. 413).
c7.s2.t6.24
in his words, the southern innovation was "too radical a departure from all the other systems of Indian writing" (83).¹⁰⁷
c7.s2.t6.25
¹⁰⁷ Later scripts used for Tamil did, however, develop a vowel cancellation marker consisting of a dot above the consonant (*puḷḷi*; cf. n. 37) which has the same effect as the vowelless consonant system, i.e., eliminating the need for conjuncts, but which departs less radically from the standard Indic graphic principles. The *puḷḷi* is attested as early as the second century A.D. in Dravidian coin legends (D. C. Sircar, "Silver Coin of Vasishthi-putra Satakarni," EI 35, 1963–64, 247–52; see also R. Nagaswamy, "A Bilingual Coin of a Satavahana," in *Seminar on Inscriptions, 1966* [see n. 104], 200–2, and P. Panneerselvam, "Further Light on the Bilingual Coin of the Sātavāhanas," IIJ 11, 1968–69, 281–8), and is also referred to in the Tolkāppiyam (*Eṟuttadikāram, sūtra* 15). But it is difficult to know whether *puḷḷi* was a survival of the peculiar vowel notation system of the Tamil Brāhmī inscriptions, or evolved separately as a result of the internal phonetic characteristics of Tamil.
c7.s2.t6.26
2.2.5.2 The first through third centuries A.D.
c7.s2.t6.27
In about the first three centuries of the Christian era, the gradual geographical differentiation of the Brāhmī script continued to the point that we begin to discern several distinct regional varieties. Although these local forms can still be considered essentially as varieties of the same script, they clearly foreshadow the development of separate local scripts which was to take place in the following centuries (cf. DIP 77–8). While it was formerly the standard practice to classify the scripts of this and the succeeding periods in dynastic terms ("Kuṣāṇa script," "Gupta script," etc.), Dani (DIP 78–9, 100–1; cf. 2.2.2) has argued that the traditional dynastic terminology is misleading and inaccurate, and has preferred to treat the paleographic development of Brāhmī in regional rather than dynastic terms. Thus, for the period in question, he discerns several local varieties, among which the Kauśāmbī, Mathurā, western Deccan, and eastern Deccan styles are of particular importance. Dani's geographical approach to historical paleography is undoubtedly a major improvement in this field, and will in general be followed here.
c7.s2.t6.28
Among the new developments in this period, several characters such as *ṛ* (both initial and postconsonantal), *au*, *ṅa*, *ḥ* (*visarga*), and *halanta* (vowelless consonants)¹⁰⁸ first came into common use. These are, of course, the result of the growing popularity in this period of Sanskrit or "Epigraphical Hybrid Sanskrit" (EHS) (3.2) as inscriptional languages (see 3.3.1). For the same reason, we now see a further development of consonantal conjuncts, which become more frequent and more complex. Particularly noteworthy is the development of special modified or abbreviated forms of the semivowels *r* (in both preconsonantal and postconsonantal position, e.g., 𑀭𑁆𑀧 *rpa* and 𑀧𑁆𑀭 *pra*) and *y* (postconsonantal), reflecting their statistical frequency in consonantal combinations in Sanskrit.¹⁰⁹
c7.s2.t6.29
¹⁰⁸ This is used only in *pausa* (sentence final or verse final position), not within or between words as in the Tamil systems discussed in the preceding section.
c7.s2.t6.30
¹⁰⁹ Note that a similar development takes place in Kharoṣṭhī; see section 2.3.4.
c7.s2.t6.31
The forms of the basic characters as well underwent significant modifications, such that for the first time in this period (especially in the latter half thereof) the script began to differ markedly in its overall appearance and ductus from the early forms of Brāhmī. Among the most important changes was the further development of the head mark, whose origins were first noticed in the preceding period. Now, the head mark becomes firmly entrenched as an intrinsic rather than incidental part of the letters, and is written as a distinct separate stroke. Moreover, we now begin to discern the different regional treatments of the head mark (DIP 79–81), which are to have such far-reaching consequences in later centuries (cf. 2.2.5.1).
c7.s2.t6.32
Some of the consonantal characters were radically remodeled in this period. For instance, the old form of *da* with the bulge to the right (𑀤) was replaced by its mirror image (𑀤). The tendency toward the equalization of verticals in characters such as *pa* and *sa*, first noted in the preceding period, is now strengthened so that these and others tend to be molded into a square outline, which is reinforced by the angularized forms of some letters such as E *ja*, ⧖ *ma*, and 𑀏 *ṣa*. But in this period (especially in its later phases) we also see in other characters the contrary effects of cursivization (here, as elsewhere, reflecting the epigraphic imitation of pen-and-ink forms), which result in rounded and looped forms of such characters as 𑀢 *ta*, 𑀦 *na*, 𑀪 *bha*, and 𑀲 *sa*.
c7.s2.t6.33
Also in this period there first emerged a tendency toward calligraphic elaboration. Thus characters such as *a*, *ka*, and *ra*, which end with verticals at the bottom, developed ornamental loops to the lower left (e.g., 𑀓 *ka*). The diacritic vowel signs were also often elaborated with extensions and flourishes. These more elaborate forms are characteristic of the Deccan style, especially in the eastern Deccan. Here, in inscriptions from such sites as Nāgārjunakoṇḍa, Amarāvatī, and Jaggayyapeta, we find extreme calligraphic developments with long vertical flourishes above and below many of the letters (cf. 2.5.3.1). In general, we can begin to perceive in this period a broad differentiation between the northern scripts, which are beginning to develop their characteristic squarish and angular forms, and the southern scripts with their typically rounded and flowing shapes.
c7.s2.t6.34
2.2.5.3 The fourth through sixth centuries A.D.
c7.s2.t6.35
During this period, conventionally referred to as the “Gupta era,” the degree of regional differentiation continued to increase. The northern and southern groups were by now clearly differentiated, and other distinct regional scripts made their appearance, for instance, in central India. In the north, the inscriptions of the Guptas and their contemporaries were written in regional varieties of the northern script, which may be called, following Sircar’s terminology (IIEP 113; cf. 2.2.2), “late Brāhmī.” The varieties of the northern Gupta script have traditionally been classified as western and eastern, the latter being characterized mainly by cursivized forms of *la* (𑀮) and *ha* (𑀳) and the looped *sa* (𑀲). But Dani (DIP 102ff.) has shown that this division is oversimplified, and he classifies the northern script into regional subvarieties such as the Kauśāmbī (roughly equivalent to the old “eastern” style), Mathurā, and Malwa styles. In general, the northern scripts of the Gupta era are characterized by the continued extension of various forms of the head mark or, as it now can be called, the top line. The shapes of the individual characters also continued to develop; among the changes which prefigure important characteristics of later scripts are the prolongation of the right arm in 𑀕 *ga*, 𑀢 *ta*, 𑀪 *bha*, and 𑀰 *śa*; the looped form of 𑀦 *na*; and the development of the dot inside 𑀣 *tha* into a horizontal line.
c7.s2.t6.36
In central India the peculiar “box-headed script” began to develop during this period. The principal characteristic of this script, namely, the square head mark, is noted in some northern Gupta inscriptions, but its full development, with the letters themselves molded into characteristically square, angular forms, first appeared in the inscriptions of the Vākāṭakas. This highly stylized script enjoyed a long period of popularity in central India, where it continued to be used into the seventh century,¹¹⁰ and also spread to the south, where it appears in some Kadamba and Pallava inscriptions.
c7.s2.t6.37
¹¹⁰ So according to Sircar in IIEP 113; according to C. Sivaramamurti (IESIS 202) it remained in use into the eighth or ninth centuries.
c7.s2.t6.38
In the south, we now begin to see clearly, for instance, in the inscriptions of the Kadambas and early Cālukyas, the strong preference for rounded forms and wavy lines which is to characterize most of the southern scripts of subsequent centuries up to modern times.¹¹¹ In some inscriptions from the earlier part of this period we find peculiar aberrant forms, apparently cursive modifications, of certain letters such as 𑌤 *ta*, 𑌨 *na*, 𑌮 *ma*, and 𑌸 *sa* in the Mayidavōlu (SI I.457–61) and other early Pallava copper plates. But in general the southern scripts of this and subsequent periods tended to be more conservative as regards the basic shapes of the characters, which underwent less radical reformation than in the north.
c7.s2.t6.39
¹¹¹ This characteristic of the southern scripts is usually explained as a result of the exigencies of writing with a stylus on palm leaves. This explanation has, however, been challenged in IC II.680–1, where it is attributed to the influence of calligraphic tendencies.
c7.s2.t6.40
2.2.5.4 The development of the regional scripts in the early medieval period (ca. seventh–tenth centuries A.D.)
c7.s2.t6.41
Around the late sixth century, the so-called Gupta script of northern India evolved into a distinct new script for which the preferred name is Siddhamātṛkā,¹¹² which was to have a profound effect on the subsequent development of the northern scripts. Early specimens of this script include the Bodh-Gayā inscription of Mahānāman (A.D. 588/89; CII 3, 274–8) and the Lakkhā Maṇḍal *praśasti* (Appendix, no. 8). It continued to be used into the tenth century, undergoing a gradual transformation into Devanāgarī during the latter part of this period. Siddhamātṛkā was used as an epigraphic script not only in northern and eastern India but also in the west, where it replaced the southern-style scripts which until then had predominated there, and occasionally in the Deccan and even in the far south, for example, in the Paṭṭadakal biscript inscription (EI 3, 1–7; see 2.5.4). In this respect it prefigured the role of its daughter script, Devanāgarī, as a quasi-national script which was sometimes preferred to the local scripts for writing Sanskrit.
c7.s2.t6.42
¹¹² The script has also been referred to by several other names, such as “acute-angled,” “early Nāgarī,” “Kuṭila,” or “Vikaṭa.” (The latter two result from apparent misinterpretations of descriptive terms found in various inscriptions; see Bühler, EI 1, 1892, 75–6; Fleet, CII 3, 201; and Sircar, EI 36, 1965–66, 50). The name Siddhamātṛkā is reported by Al-Bīrūnī, and appears to be corroborated by the term “Siddham” which is applied to it by Buddhist tradition in East Asia. This is thus one of the few cases wherein we know the traditional name for one of the premodern scripts (cf. 2.2.2).
c7.s2.t6.43
The Siddhamātṛkā script is principally characterized by a strongly angular aspect, with a sharp angle (whence the term “acute-angled script”) at the lower right corner of each letter, reflecting the influence of pen-and-ink writing on the epigraphic script; by the extension of the head mark into wedgelike or triangular forms (whence it is sometimes referred to as “nail-headed”); and by a strong tendency toward calligraphic elaboration, especially in the treatment of the vowel diacritics and subscript consonants (see 2.5.3.1). Some of the vowel signs are highly developed; in particular, the curves of diacritic *i* and *ī* are extended downward to the point that they are equal to or even greater in height than the consonant character to which they are attached, prefiguring the development of vertical lines as vowel markers in Devanāgarī. The shapes of certain letters underwent major alterations, particularly in the later stages of the script wherein the bipartite *ya* (𑌯) and looped *ka* (क), which would become characteristic of Devanāgarī and other northern scripts, began to make their appearance.
c7.s2.t6.44
In the far northwest, the Proto-Śāradā script first emerged around the beginning of the seventh century. This isolated variety is the ancestor of the later Śāradā and other scripts of the northwestern subgroup (see 2.2.5.5).
c7.s2.t6.45
In the upper part of southern India, what may now be called the Telugu-Kannada script continued its separate development. Changes in the characters were largely determined by a strong tendency toward rounded and enclosed forms; thus ð *ka* and 0 *ra* have fully enclosed shapes, and the left member of ౠ *ya* grew into an ovoid. The base of several letters such as *pa*, *da*, and *tha* () developed a pronounced notch, which was to become characteristic of the later forms of the script.
c7.s2.t6.46
In the far south, three scripts, namely, Grantha, Tamil, and Vaṭṭeḻuttu, made their appearance in the early medieval period; of these, the first was used for writing Sanskrit, the other two for Tamil. These scripts constitute a distinct subgroup, and while there is no question that all three are Brāhmī-derived, the precise details of their evolution are still somewhat unclear and controversial, due mainly to the paucity of inscriptional materials in the centuries immediately preceding their appearance. Although Bühler (BIP 75) thought that the Tamil script was derived from a northern alphabet, it is nowadays recognized that it, along with Grantha and Vaṭṭeḻuttu, developed from earlier southern scripts (cf. IIEP 124 and IESIS 222). Grantha and Tamil in their earlier stages resembled the forerunner of the Telugu-Kannada script, and are presumably derived from it. Vaṭṭeḻuttu, which Bühler (BIP 51–6) thought to be a cursive variety of Tamil, is nowadays generally considered to be a separately developed script; some scholars¹¹³ have recently pointed out apparent affinities with the later stages of the Tamil Brāhmī script (2.2.5.1) and suggest that Vaṭṭeḻuttu is actually the descendant of it.
c7.s2.t6.47
¹¹³ Mahalingam, ESIP 299–307; K. G. Krishnan, EI 40, 1973–74, 91–2.
c7.s2.t6.48
2.2.5.5 Developments in the later medieval period: Origins of the modern Indic scripts (ca. A.D. 1000 onward)
c7.s2.t6.49
In northern India, the late forms of Siddhamātṛkā gradually shaded into early versions of the modern northern scripts, the most important of which is the Nāgarī or Devanāgarī script.¹¹⁴ Bühler (BIP 51) cited examples of inscriptions in Nāgarī, or showing Nāgarī characteristics, as early as the eighth or even seventh centuries, but V. S. Sukthankar¹¹⁵ argued that there are actually no authentic specimens of this script earlier than two Śilāhāra inscriptions from Kāṇheri dated a.d. 851 and 877/78 (CII 6, 3–8). By the beginning of the eleventh century, Devanāgarī has supplanted Siddhamātṛkā for epigraphic and literary purposes and has essentially attained its modern form, characterized by the horizontal top line across the entire character, rectangular corners and generally square frame, and fully extended vowel diacritics. The individual characters have by now undergone extensive, sometimes radical remodeling, as in the case of *ja*, *tha*, and *ha*. Thus, although numerous subvarieties of (Deva-) nāgarī are known from both epigraphic and literary sources from different times and regions, by about a.d. 1000 it can be said to have essentially achieved its standard form. As such, it became the closest thing to a national script of India for writing Sanskrit; although the regional scripts continued to be widely used for this purpose in medieval, and to a considerable extent still in modern, times, Nāgarī was not rarely used for Sanskrit inscriptions outside of northern India, including the Deccan and the far south (the so-called Nandi-nāgarī variety; for examples see IESIS 184–93).¹¹⁶
c7.s2.t6.50
¹¹⁴ On these terms, see IC II.678.
c7.s2.t6.51
¹¹⁵ “Palaeographic Notes,” in *Commemorative Essays Presented to Sir Ramkrishna Gopal Bhandarkar* (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1917; reprint ed. as *R. G. Bhandarkar Commemoration Volume* [Delhi: Bharatiya Publishing House, 1977]), 309–22.
c7.s2.t6.52
¹¹⁶ Various other local scripts of northern and western India, such as Moḍī and Kāyethī, developed out of Nāgarī; of these, only the Gujarati script has attained any importance as an epigraphic script (see 3.4.3), the others being used mainly for ephemeral documents in the local languages.
c7.s2.t6.53
In the northeast, the local derivative of Siddhamātṛkā was the script known as Proto-Bengali or Gauḍī, which was current from the tenth to the fourteenth centuries.¹¹⁷ This, in turn, gave rise to the modern eastern scripts, namely, Bengali-Assamese, Oriya,¹¹⁸ and Maithili, which became clearly differentiated around the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
c7.s2.t6.54
¹¹⁷ See, for example, the Nālandā inscription of Vipulaśrīmitra, Appendix, no. 12.
c7.s2.t6.55
¹¹⁸ The Oriya script actually appears to have had a composite origin, with secondary influences from the southern scripts and Nāgarī (IC II.680).
c7.s2.t6.56
In the far northwest, Proto-Śāradā developed into the Śāradā script of Kashmir and neighboring hill regions, which was important both as an epigraphic and literary script in medieval times and as the forerunner of the Punjabi (Gurmukhī) and other scripts of the western Himalayas and adjoining areas.
c7.s2.t6.57
In upper southern India, the Telugu-Kannada script began to approach the modern forms of Kannada and Telugu in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. These two scripts are only minimally differentiated, the main contrast being the shape of the head mark, which takes a form like a check mark in Telugu and a horizontal line with a hook at the upper right in Kannada.
c7.s2.t6.58
In the far south, the Tamil and Grantha scripts continued to develop and approximated their modern forms by about the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, as seen, for example, in the inscriptions of the Vijayanagara kings. At about the same period, the Malayalam script developed out of Grantha.
c7.s2.t6.59
2.2.5.6 Extra-Indian derivatives of Brāhmī
c7.s2.t6.60
In ancient times, Brāhmī and its derivatives were in use over a vast area of the Indian-influenced regions of Asia, and thus came to be the parent of several important scripts of these regions. The Tibetan script is evidently derived from a form of Siddhamātṛkā of about the seventh century, adapted to the phonetic structure of the Tibetan language. According to some authorities,¹¹⁹ the Indian prototype came into Tibet through a central Asian intermediary.
c7.s2.t6.61
¹¹⁹ E.g., A. H. Francke, EI 11, 1911–12, 269.
c7.s2.t6.62
The Sinhalese script is thought to be essentially a local development from an early form of Brāhmī, which is well attested in the early cave inscriptions of Sri Lanka (3.1.4.2.2 and 4.3.7.1). But the evolution of the Sinhalese script over the centuries has been strongly influenced by other Indian models, especially Grantha (see DIP 215–25, esp. 216).
c7.s2.t6.63
In Southeast Asia, Indian scripts came into wide use from the early centuries of the Christian era on (4.3.7.5–4.3.7.11). Although northern scripts were occasionally found there, the predominant form was from the beginning a script which, according to most authorities, is derived from the southern script used by the early Pallava kings, often referred to as Pallava Grantha. Others, however (e.g., Sircar, IIEP 132–3), have noted paleographic similarities in the early Southeast Asian inscriptions to scripts of the western coastal region of India. In view of the close relationship between the early southern and western scripts, it is difficult to reach a definite conclusion as to the exact geographical origin of the early Southeast Asian form of Brāhmī (cf. DIP 232–3), but the predominant influence does seem to have been from the south.
c7.s2.t6.64
Whatever may have been the precise origin of the Southeast Asian form of Brāhmī, it rapidly developed local characteristics of its own, which may be broadly characterized as a tendency toward curved and wavy lines (somewhat like those of the Telugu-Kannada script), calligraphic elaboration in the form of extended curves and curls, and a precise and artistic ductus.¹²⁰ Over the centuries this script gradually developed into local varieties, used both for Sanskrit and for the indigenous languages, and these in turn eventually evolved, through various processes of differentiation and phonetic adaptation, into the later and modern scripts used for Thai, Lao, Cambodian, and Burmese.¹²¹
c7.s2.t6.65
¹²⁰ See, for example, the Văt Ph’u inscription, Appendix, no. 9.
c7.s2.t6.66
¹²¹ On the origin and development of Cambodian and other Southeast Asian scripts, see the recent studies of J. G. de Casparis, “Palaeography as an Auxiliary Discipline in Research on Early South East Asia,” in R. B. Smith and W. Watson, eds., *Early South East Asia: Essays in Archaeology, History and Historical Geography* (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 380–94, and H. B. Sarkar, “The Introduction of the Indian Art of Writing to Southeast Asia,” chapter 7 of his *Cultural Relations Between India and Southeast Asian Countries* (New Delhi: Indian Council for Cultural Relations/Motilal Banarsidass, 1985), 168–79.