Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s3: 2.3 The Kharoṣṭhī Script

Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s3

Language: English

c7.s3.t1 2.3.1 Geographical range — 31 parts
c7.s3.t2 2.3.2 Chronological range — 10 parts
c7.s3.t3 2.3.3 Uses of Kharoṣṭhī — 3 parts
c7.s3.t4 2.3.4 Paleographic features of Kharoṣṭhī — 8 parts
c7.s3.t5 2.3.5 The name of the script — 9 parts
c7.s3.t6 2.3.6 The origin of Kharoṣṭhī — 11 parts
c7.s3.t7 2.3.8 The paleographic development of Kharoṣṭhī — 8 parts

2.3 The Kharoṣṭhī Script

c7.s3.1

S. Konow, *Kharoshṭhī Inscriptions* . . . (CII 2.1); A. M. Boyer, E. J. Rapson, and E. Senart, *Kharoṣṭhī Inscriptions Discovered by Sir Aurel Stein* . . . [KI]; C. C. Das Gupta, *The Development of the Kharoṣṭhī Script* [DKS]; S. J. Mangalam, *Kharoṣṭhī Script*; J. Brough, *The Gāndhārī Dharmapada* [GD]; G. Bühler, “The Origin of the Kharoṣṭhī Alphabet” [OKA]; SAI, 84–105.

2.3.1 Geographical range

c7.s3.t1.1

The presumptive homeland and principal area of the use of Kharoṣṭhī script (see table 2.5) was the territory along and around the Indus, Swat, and Kabul River Valleys of Table 2.5. Kharoṣṭhī Script

c7.s3.t1.2

VOWELS

c7.s3.t1.3

Full or initial forms

c7.s3.t1.4

| ă | [Figure:] | ĭ | [Figure:] | ŭ | [Figure:] | e | [Figure:] | o | [Figure:] | aṃ | [Figure:] |

c7.s3.t1.5

Medial (postconsonantal) forms

c7.s3.t1.6

| kă | [Figure:] | kĭ | [Figure:] | kŭ | [Figure:] | ke | [Figure:] | ko | [Figure:] | kaṃ | [Figure:] |

c7.s3.t1.7

CONSONANTS

c7.s3.t1.8

c7.s3.t1.9

Conjunct consonants (representative examples)

c7.s3.t1.10

| kṣa | [Figure:] | tra | [Figure:] | tva | [Figure:] | pra | [Figure:] |
| rva | [Figure:] | sta | [Figure:] | spa | [Figure:] | sya | [Figure:] |

c7.s3.t1.11

Note: These are normalized forms based on inscriptions of ca. first century A.D.

c7.s3.t1.12

the modern North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan; that is, the ancient Gandhāra and adjoining regions, with whose MIA language, nowadays usually called “Gāndhārī” (see 3.1.4.2.1), the script is almost invariably associated (see map 1). In Konow’s words, “The Kharoshṭhī area proper may be defined as extending from about 69° to 73° 30′ E. and from the Hindu Kush to about 33° N., and there can be little doubt that its place of origin was Gandhāra, perhaps more especially Taxila” (CII 2.1, xiv).¹²²

c7.s3.t1.13

¹²² See also Konow’s map of the findspots of Kharoṣṭhī inscriptions (CII 2.1, xiv), and the maps in G. Fussman, “Gāndhārī écrite, Gāndhārī parlée” (for reference see the bibliography), 434–5.

c7.s3.t1.14

But although Konow’s general comments about the Kharoṣṭhī area “proper” still hold true, numerous discoveries since his time have provided many examples of inscriptions and other documents in Kharoṣṭhī script ranging over a much broader area.¹²³ To the far west and northwest, we can now add to the handful of inscriptions known to Konow several more specimens (for details see 4.3.7.3) from sites along the Kabul River in Afghanistan as far west as Wardak or Khawat,¹²⁴ some thirty miles west of Kabul. Recent archaeological excavations have also yielded numerous Kharoṣṭhī inscriptions from north of the Hindu Kush, in ancient Bactria, both in sites in northern Afghanistan such as Qunduz and in several places in the former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan (see 4.3.7.3 and 4.3.7.4).

c7.s3.t1.15

¹²³ For a survey of these discoveries, see Fussman, “Gāndhārī écrite, Gāndhārī parlée,” 444–51.

c7.s3.t1.16

¹²⁴ I.e., the Wardak vase inscription, CII 2.1, 165–70.

c7.s3.t1.17

In the far north, graffiti in Kharoṣṭhī have recently been found in large numbers at various sites around Chilas and other places along the upper course of the Indus River (see 4.3.3.1). These new discoveries provide a connecting link between the central Kharoṣṭhī area and the previously isolated Kharoṣṭhī inscription from Khalatse¹²⁵ along the Indus in Ladakh.

c7.s3.t1.18

¹²⁵ CII 2.1, 79–81.

c7.s3.t1.19

To the south and southwest, sporadic examples of Kharoṣṭhī inscriptions were known to Konow (there are no major subsequent discoveries in this area) along the lower Indus as far as Mohenjo-Daro, and in Baluchistan;¹²⁶ and to the southeast, in Kāṅgrā¹²⁷ and in the region around Delhi and Mathurā.¹²⁸ Occasional stray finds of Kharoṣṭhī letters farther to the east and south are not indicative of significant use of the script in those regions. Thus a plaque with a Kharoṣṭhī inscription found at Kumrahār (Patna; CII 2.1, 177–8) is most likely an import from the northwest (CII 2.1, xiv), and the apparent occurrence of a few Kharoṣṭhī letters on the bases of pillars from Bhārhut (Satna Dist., MP) as reported by Cunningham¹²⁹ is of uncertain significance. Still farther afield, the well-known occurrence of the single word *lipikareṇa* in Kharoṣṭhī in three Aśokan inscriptions from Karnataka (see 4.3.1.1 n. 67) is evidently only a scribe’s flourish.¹³⁰

c7.s3.t1.20

¹²⁶ Tor Dherai, CII 2.1, 173–6.

c7.s3.t1.21

¹²⁷ Both of the Kāṅgrā inscriptions, from Pāṭhyār (CII 2.1, 178) and Kaṇhiāra (ibid., 178–9), are biscripts, with the text given (with some variation) in both Kharoṣṭhī and Brāhmī.

c7.s3.t1.22

¹²⁸ Karnāl, CII 2.1, 179; Rāwal, ibid., 161–2; Mathurā, ibid., 30–49.

c7.s3.t1.23

¹²⁹ *The Stûpa of Bharhut*, 8 and pl. VIII.

c7.s3.t1.24

¹³⁰ Cf. Konow, CII 2.1, xiv. Reports by B. N. Mukherjee (c.g., *Quarterly Review of Historical Studies* 29.2, 1989–90, 6–14) of inscriptions in Kharoṣṭhī or a mixed Kharoṣṭhī-Brāhmī script from West Bengal and even farther to the east are of questionable validity; see SAI 91–2 for evaluation and further references.

c7.s3.t1.25

[Figure: Map 1 Extent Of Kharoṣṭhī Script]

c7.s3.t1.26

MAP 1

c7.s3.t1.27

Extent of Kharoṣṭhī script

c7.s3.t1.28

In the form of legends on the coins of the Indo-Greek and Scythian kings, Kharoṣṭhī script was also in use over a wide area of northern India and adjoining regions, including the western coastal region. Noteworthy in the latter region are the coins of the early Western Kṣatrapas Nahapāna and Caṣṭana, whose coins had legends in three scripts—Greek, Brāhmī, and Kharoṣṭhī.

c7.s3.t1.29

Finally, in and around the third century A.D. Kharoṣṭhī was a major script for epigraphic and literary purposes in central Asia, as attested especially by the abundant finds of official documents of the Shan-shan (Kroraina) kingdom on the southern rim of the Tarim Basin written on leather and wood (see 4.3.7.12) as well as of other inscriptions, and by the birch-bark manuscript of the *Dharmapada* in Kharoṣṭhī script from the region of Khotan (Brough, GD). Some still unpublished Kharoṣṭhī documents, apparently of later date, have also been found at sites on the north of the Tarim Basin.¹³¹ A few Kharoṣṭhī inscriptions have even been found in China proper, for instance, at Lo-yang (see 4.3.7.12).

c7.s3.t1.30

¹³¹ See n. 138.

c7.s3.t1.31

Thus, while the Kharoṣṭhī script developed and remained concentrated in the Gāndhāra region, it also spread over a wide area within and far beyond the immediately adjoining portions of modern Pakistan and Afghanistan. The spread of Kharoṣṭhī was no doubt promoted by its use by the Indo-Scythian rulers, and especially by the Kuṣāṇa kings, who seem to have been responsible for its introduction into the north Indian heartland on the one hand and Bactria on the other. The expansion of Kharoṣṭhī was also intimately connected with the spread of Buddhism under the patronage of the aforementioned rulers, as is indicated by the content of the inscriptions from outlying regions such as Bactria and China; these inscriptions, mostly dedicatory and memorial in content, are often hardly distinguishable in form from similar inscriptions from India, and presumably reflect the presence of Gāndhārī-speaking Indian monks in the Buddhist monasteries of these places.

2.3.2 Chronological range

c7.s3.t2.1

The Kharoṣṭhī script first appears in inscriptions in the Shāhbāzgaṛhī and Mānsehrā rock edicts of Aśoka, datable to the middle of the third century B.C. In these early records the script appears as a more or less fully developed system, which may be taken to indicate a significant prehistory. But it is difficult to estimate how long such a presumed developmental period might have taken, though it is likely on historical and paleographic grounds (see 2.3.6) that Kharoṣṭhī originated sometime during the Achaemenian era.¹³² Bühler (OKA 50 = OIBA 98) was inclined on paleographic grounds to date the origin of Kharoṣṭhī to the earlier phase of this period, that is, around the beginning of the fifth century B.C., but in view of uncertainties about the details of his proposed Aramaic derivation (see 2.3.6), Bühler's early dating can be accepted only provisionally at best. On the other hand, late dates such as ca. 330 B.C. proposed by Halévy¹³³ or after 325 B.C. suggested by Falk¹³⁴ are problematic, especially if, as seems most likely, the *lipi* referred to by Pāṇini is Kharoṣṭhī (2.1.2). In short, there is no clear evidence to allow us to specify the date of the origin of Kharoṣṭhī with any more precision than sometime in the fourth, or possibly the fifth, century B.C.

c7.s3.t2.2

¹³² E. J. Rapson ("Counter-marks on early Persian and Indian Coins," *JRAS* 1895, 865–77) thought that some silver *sigloi* of the Achaemenian kings of Iran, dating from the fifth and fourth centuries B.C., bore countermarks consisting of *akṣaras* in Kharoṣṭhī (and Brāhmī; cf. 2.1.2 n. 20) scripts. However, Rapson's identification of these countermarks as syllables of the Indian alphabets was called into question by G. F. Hill ("Notes on the Imperial Persian Coinage," *Journal of Hellenic Studies* 39, 1919, 116–29) and is no longer generally accepted, so that they cannot be taken as specimens of pre-Mauryan Kharoṣṭhī.

c7.s3.t2.3

¹³³ *JA*, ser. 8, vol. 6, 1885, 267; *Revue Sémitique* 3, 1895, 378–80. (For full references see 2.3.6.)

c7.s3.t2.4

¹³⁴ *SAI* 104.

c7.s3.t2.5

Kharoṣṭhī continued to be the principal script of the northwest in the following centuries, flourishing during the so-called foreign period of the reigns of the Indo-Greek, Indo-Scythian, Indo-Parthian, and Kuṣāṇa kings from the first century B.C. to the second century A.D. But the script appears to have fallen out of general use in South Asia itself by sometime in the third century A.D. or shortly thereafter. The latest datable inscription in Kharoṣṭhī is probably Skārah Ḍherī (CII 2.1, 124–7), apparently dated in the year 399 of an unspecified era, usually presumed to be the "Old Śaka" era, which would put the date of the inscription around the middle of the third century A.D.¹³⁵ Two other Kharoṣṭhī inscriptions from Jamālgaṛhī and Hashtnagar (CII 2.1, 110–3 and 117–9) are dated in the years 359 and 384, presumably of the same era, confirming that the script was still in use around the period in question.

c7.s3.t2.6

¹³⁵ See section 5.5.1.2. Konow, following W. E. van Wijk, places the epoch of the era in question in 84 B.C., so that the date of the inscription would correspond to A.D. 315.

c7.s3.t2.7

A series of Kharoṣṭhī image inscriptions from Jauliāñ (CII 2.1, 92–7) were attributed by John Marshall¹³⁶ on archaeological grounds to a date as late as the second half of the fifth century a.d., and taken as evidence that “Kharoshṭhī was still the ordinary script of the townspeople of Taxila” at this period. But Konow suspected that these inscriptions may have been copies of older ones, and thus do not constitute evidence that Kharoṣṭhī was still in active use at this late date. It is thus safest to conclude that Kharoṣṭhī probably fell out of general use in South Asia in or around the third century a.d., but it may have been used occasionally for another century or more.

c7.s3.t2.8

¹³⁶ *Excavations at Taxila: The Stupas and Monasteries at Jauliāñ* (MASI 7, 1921), 10.

c7.s3.t2.9

This conclusion is supported by the material from central Asia, where the Kharoṣṭhī documents from Niya and other sites on the southern rim of the Tarim Basin (4.3.7.12) are also approximately datable to the third and early fourth centuries, mainly on the grounds of their co-occurrence with a Chinese document dated a.d. 269.¹³⁷ It is possible, however, that Kharoṣṭhī continued to be used in the cities of the northern rim of the Tarim Basin well after this time; documents in this script were reported to have been found there together with others in the Kuchean language datable to the seventh century.¹³⁸ But since these documents are still unpublished their significance remains uncertain, and there is still no firm evidence that Kharoṣṭhī survived much longer than the third century.

c7.s3.t2.10

The decline of Kharoṣṭhī around the third century a.d. can presumably be attributed to historical developments of this time. With the decline and fall of the Kuṣāṇa empire, the center of political power in South Asia began to shift from the northwest toward northern and northeastern India. This development presumably reduced the importance of Kharoṣṭhī as the regional script of the former area, with the eventual result that it was supplanted entirely by the pan-Indian Brāhmī.

2.3.3 Uses of Kharoṣṭhī

c7.s3.t3.1

In South Asia, the Kharoṣṭhī script is preserved principally in inscriptions, mostly on stone but also on metal and other materials, numbering in the hundreds. The vast majority of these are Buddhist records, mostly concerning pious donations and foundations. Kharoṣṭhī was also extensively used in the coin legends of the Indo-Greeks, Indo-Scythians, and other foreign rulers of India, as well as of some indigenous polities such as the so-called tribal republics of the Audumbaras, Kuṇindas, and Rājanyas. Kharoṣṭhī was rarely used by itself on coins; most specimens are biscriptual (or even triscriptual), in combination with legends in Greek and/or Brāhmī (2.3.1).

c7.s3.t3.2

Kharoṣṭhī is also well attested, in relics from central Asia, in nonmonumental functions. In the Niya documents (2.3.1) it functions as an administrative script, while the manuscript of the *Dharmapada* attests to its literary usage.¹³⁹ Moreover, the fact that some Chinese Buddhist texts reflect originals in the Gāndhārī language (see 3.1.4.2.1 n. 23), and hence, presumably, in Kharoṣṭhī script, confirms that Kharoṣṭhī was in its day a major vehicle of culture in the Buddhist circles of northwestern India. Thus the judgments of earlier scholars such as Bühler, which were based mainly on the somewhat misleading evidence of the bilingual coin legends and the then fairly sparse repertoire of inscriptions and other Kharoṣṭhī records, to the effect that “Kharoṣṭhī held always . . . only a secondary position by the side of the Brāhma alphabet even in Northwestern India”¹⁴⁰ are no longer valid in light of subsequent discoveries which have vastly enhanced our understanding of the important historical and cultural role of this script.

c7.s3.t3.3

¹⁴⁰ OKA 44 = OIBA 92; cf. also OIBA 51.

2.3.4 Paleographic features of Kharoṣṭhī

c7.s3.t4.1

Unlike Brāhmī and the many scripts derived from it, Kharoṣṭhī, alone among Indic scripts,¹⁴¹ is written from right to left. Unlike the highly symmetrical, “monumental” early Brāhmī script, Kharoṣṭhī has a cursive ductus which would seem to reflect an origin in a “clerk’s” script, written with pen and ink.¹⁴² The Kharoṣṭhī script also contrasts with Brāhmī in that it is top-oriented; that is, the distinctive features of each character tend to be at the top instead of at the bottom as in Brāhmī.

c7.s3.t4.2

¹⁴¹ Except for occasional examples of early Brāhmī inscriptions written from right to left; see 2.2.3.2.4.

c7.s3.t4.3

¹⁴² Cf. Bühler, OKA 49 = OIBA 97: “The Kharoṣṭhī alphabet is not a Pandit’s, but a clerk’s, alphabet.”

c7.s3.t4.4

As noted earlier (2.1.3), Kharoṣṭhī employs essentially the same diacritically modified consonantal syllabic system of Brāhmī and its derivatives, despite some important differences in detail. The script comprises a basic set of consonantal symbols with inherent *a*, “full” vowel signs used for word initial and non-postconsonantal vowels, and diacritic signs attached to the consonants to indicate postconsonantal vowels. The main difference in graphic principle between Brāhmī and Kharoṣṭhī is that the latter for the most part¹⁴³ does not differentiate long and short vowels. That is to say, the vowel signs, both full and diacritic, designate vowel quality but not quantity. For example, the same sign represents either *i* or *ī*, and the inherent postconsonantal vowel can be read as either *a* or *ā* (to be understood by context); thus [Figure:] = *ka* or *kā*; [Figure:] = *ki* or *kī*, and so on. The full or initial vowel signs further differ from those of Brāhmī in that they are all constructed from the basic vowel sign for *a* to which are affixed the postconsonantal vowel diacritics to form initial *i*, *u*, and so on; thus [Figure:] = initial *a*/*ā*, while [Figure:] = initial *i*/*ī*.

c7.s3.t4.5

¹⁴³ For the development in the later period of a system for differentiating vowel quantity in Kharoṣṭhī, see section 2.3.8.

c7.s3.t4.6

As in Brāhmī, the inherent vowel system necessitates the formation of consonantal conjuncts or ligatures, though the methods and details of their formation in Kharoṣṭhī are somewhat different and sometimes problematic. The basic principle is the same as that of Brāhmī, with the two or more consonants of a phonetic cluster joined graphically from top to bottom, with or without abbreviation of one of them.

c7.s3.t4.7

Some of the resulting conjuncts, for example, 𐨮𐨿𐨐 *ṣka* < 𐨮 *ṣa* + 𐨐 *ka*, are self-evident, but many others involve alterations of the constituent parts to the point that they may become unrecognizable. As in later forms of Brāhmī and its derivatives (see 2.2.5.2), *ra* (which is especially common in Kharoṣṭhī texts, since the Gāndhārī language tends to retain it in consonantal groups; see 3.1.2.3 and 3.1.4.2.1) develops special forms for both pre- and postconsonantal position: for example, 𐨪 *ra* + 𐨬 *va* > 𐨪𐨿𐨬 *rva*; 𐨬𐨿𐨪 = *vra*. Similarly (and again as in Brāhmī),¹⁴⁴ postconsonantal *ya* has a special form, as in 𐨯𐨿𐨩 *sya*.

c7.s3.t4.8

Other consonantal combinations, particularly those involving stops and sibilants, are also prone to take special and often obscure forms in Kharoṣṭhī, for instance, 𐨯 *sa* + 𐨟 *ta* > 𐨯𐨿𐨟 *sta*. Some special consonantal signs are problematic in that both their graphic constituents and their phonetic value are uncertain, notably the common character 𐨲, which regularly corresponds to Sanskrit *kṣa*¹⁴⁵ but which can hardly be derived from a graphic combination of 𐨐 *ka* and 𐨮 *ṣa*; Dani (DIP 259) considers it a reduction of 𐨖 *cha*, while Rapson (KI III.320 n. 3) suggests a connection with 𐨮 *ṣa*. Thus it is not at all certain that Kharoṣṭhī characters of this type are really conjuncts in the standard sense of the term; they may have arisen from modifications of single consonants, or may have been created ad hoc

2.3.5 The name of the script

c7.s3.t5.1

The script which is nowadays generally known as Kharoṣṭhī (or Kharoṣṭī, Kharoṣṭrī, etc.) was until the end of the nineteenth century referred to by various names such as "Bactrian," "Indo-Bactrian," "Kabulian," "Bactro-Pali," "Ariano-Pali," and so on.¹⁴⁸ It was T with the entire intermediate region between China and India, and endorsed the spelling *kharoṣṭrī* on the grounds that it could be connected with the “donkeys and camels” (Sanskrit *kharoṣṭra*) which are characteristic of the region in question.

c7.s3.t5.2

None of these explanations being particularly convincing, several other suggestions of a non-Indic origin for the name Kharoṣṭ(h)ī have been offered. Albert Ludwig¹⁵⁶ proposed a derivation from an unattested Aramaic **ḥarūttā* predicted on the basis of the root *ḤRŠ* (Hebrew)/ *ḤRT* (Aramaic) ‘engrave’, and Bühler (OIBA 114 n. 1) seemed willing to accept this as an alternative to the traditional etymology. Others have looked for Iranian or semi-Iranian etymologies, most persuasive among which is Jean Przyluski’s suggestion¹⁵⁷ connecting the name with that of *Kharaposta*, given in the *Mahāmāyūrī* as one of the *yakṣas* of northwestern India and rendered into Chinese as ‘hide of donkey’ (<*khara* ‘donkey’ + Iranian *post* ‘hide’). *Kharoṣṭha*/*Kharoṣṭhī*, and so on, would evidently result from an incorrect Sanskritization of the Prakrit form of the word in question. According to Przyluski, the application of the name to the script can be attributed to the practice (actually attested in some of the central Asian Kharoṣṭhī documents) of writing on the hides of donkeys and other animals.¹⁵⁸ He also suggested a connection of the name Kharaposta with that of king Kharaosta, known from coins and from the Mathurā lion capital inscriptions. This suggestion was taken up by H. Humbach,¹⁵⁹ who proposed that the script was named directly after King Kharaosta, with whom its importation into India proper may have been associated. Humbach’s explanation is endorsed by Falk (SAI 90). More recently, H. W. Bailey¹⁶⁰ has proposed several possible Iranian etymologies for *Kharoṣṭhī*, of which the most compelling is **xšaθra-pištra* ‘royal writing’.

c7.s3.t5.3

¹⁵⁶ “Über den Namen der alten linksläufigen Schrift der Inder,” in *Gurupūjākaumudī: Festgabe zum fünfzigjährigen Doctorjubiläum Albrecht Weber* (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1896), 68–71.

c7.s3.t5.4

¹⁵⁷ “Le nom de l’écriture kharoṣṭhī,” *JRAS* 1930, 43–5 = “The Name of the Kharoṣṭhî Script,” *IA* 60, 1931, 150–1.

c7.s3.t5.5

¹⁵⁸ Compare Skt. *pustaka* ‘book’ from the same Iranian *post*.

c7.s3.t5.6

¹⁵⁹ Review of DIP, *Orientalistische Literaturzeitung* 63, 1968, 489–91.

c7.s3.t5.7

¹⁶⁰ “Kharoṣtrī,” in *Indo-Scythian Studies Being Khotanese Texts*. Vol. 7 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 46–9; see also *JRAS* 1978, 4.

c7.s3.t5.8

All in all, the question of the origin and meaning of the name Kharoṣṭhī remains problematic, but it appears that the connections noted by Przyluski et al. with the well-attested proper names Kharaposta and Kharaosta lie at the heart of the matter. In all probability *Kharoṣṭ(h)ī* is a Sanskritization of an original Iranian name whose etymology is uncertain. The connection with *khara* ‘donkey’ is probably nothing more than folk etymology, and the original term was most likely connected with Old Iranian **xšaθra* ‘sovereignty’, as noted by Bailey and others,¹⁶¹ though the second part of the word remains unclear, as does the process by which the name in question became associated with the script.

c7.s3.t5.9

¹⁶¹ For example, F. W. Thomas, *EI* 9, 1907–8, 139.

2.3.6 The origin of Kharoṣṭhī

c7.s3.t6.1

J. Halévy, “Essai sur l’origine des écritures indiennes,” *JA*, ser. 8, vol. 6, 1885, 243–301; “Un dernier mot sur le kharoṣṭhī,” *Revue Sémitique* 3, 1895, 372–89; G. Bühler, OKA; C. C. Das Gupta, DKS, ch. 17, “The Origin of the Script,” 280–90; SAI 92–9.

c7.s3.t6.2

A connection between Kharoṣṭhī and the Semitic scripts (see table 2.2), particularly Aramaic, has been evident to scholars from an early period. The Semitic connection was first discussed in general terms by Edward Thomas¹⁶² as early (e.g., 𐡂 *ga* > 𐨒 *gha*),¹⁶⁹ or by adaptation of a phonetically similar Aramaic character (e.g., 𐨑 *kha* < 𐡒 *qoph*). The derivation of the Kharoṣṭhī retroflexes is more problematic; Bühler takes them all as secondary derivatives within Kharoṣṭhī (e.g., 𐨛 *ṭha* < 𐨟 *ta* and 𐨜 *ḍa* < 𐨡 *da*), but the paleographic connections here are far from certain.

c7.s3.t6.3

¹⁶⁹ According to Bühler (OKA 61 = OIBA 109), the extra stroke of *gha* and similarly derived aspirates represents a reduced form of the consonant 𐡄 *ha*.

c7.s3.t6.4

Third, as noted earlier (2.1.3), the diacritically modified syllabic system of Kharoṣṭhī can be best explained in historical terms as a refinement of the Semitic consonant-syllabic system.¹⁷⁰ The nondifferentiation of vowel length in Kharoṣṭhī can be seen as an intermediate stage of development between the consonant-syllabic Semitic prototype and the fully vocalized Indic system as found in Brāhmī.

c7.s3.t6.5

¹⁷⁰ According to Halévy (“Essai sur l’origine,” 248–9), the Kharoṣṭhī vowel diacritics for *i* and *u* reflect the use of *yod* and *waw* as *matres lectionis* for these vowels in Aramaic, and the adoption of *a* as the inherent vowel in Kharoṣṭhī is due to the absence of any such graph for that vowel in the parent script.

c7.s3.t6.6

Thus, the three main criteria—historical, paleographic, and systemic—for establishing genetic connections between scripts are satisfied in the derivation of Kharoṣṭhī from Aramaic. The theory has accordingly been accepted by nearly all authorities on the subject, including many of those (e.g., Ojhā, BPLM 31–7) who do not accept a Semitic origin for Brāhmī. R. B. Pandey (PIP 53–8) is virtually alone in completely rejecting a Semitic origin for Kharoṣṭhī in favor of the traditional view (as attested in Chinese sources; see 2.3.5) that “it was invented by an Indian genius whose nick-name was *Kharoṣṭha*, as the letters resembled ass-lips” (58). But Pandey’s arguments against the Semitic origin are not persuasive and do not present any significant challenge to it. More recently, C. D. Chatterjee¹⁷¹ and following him V. S. Pathak¹⁷² have expressed doubts about the Aramaic origin of Kharoṣṭhī, but their arguments are equally unconvincing.

c7.s3.t6.7

¹⁷¹ “The Aramaic Language and Its Problems in the Early History of Iran and Afghanistan,” in Samaresh Bandyopadhyay, ed., *Ācārya-vandanā: D. R. Bhandarkar Birth Centenary Volume* (Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1984), 205–26 (esp. 210–4).

c7.s3.t6.8

¹⁷² JESI 13, 1986, 7–8.

c7.s3.t6.9

This is not to say, however, that the Aramaic derivation as formulated by Bühler et al. is free of problems in all details. Bühler was severely criticized on methodological grounds by Halévy (“Un dernier mot,” 380–1), who charged, not without cause, that Bühler used Aramaic forms from widely differing periods and places for his hypothetical prototypes of Kharoṣṭhī characters.¹⁷³ And among Bühler’s specific formulations, Halévy (op. cit., 383) rejected the derivation of Kharoṣṭhī *śa* from Aramaic *ḥet* as an “idée bizarre”; while this, like many of Halévy’s criticisms, seems unduly harsh, it does legitimately point out a weakness in Bühler’s formulation. Also problematic on paleographic grounds is Bühler’s derivation of 𐨠 *tha* as a secondary form from 𐨟 *ta*. Dani’s suggestion (DIP 258–9) to derive Kharoṣṭhī *tha* directly from Aramaic 𐡈 *ṭet* (which, along with *ʻain*, is one of the two Aramaic letters for which Bühler found no correspondent in Kharoṣṭhī) seems preferable, though the equation is paleographically uncertain.

c7.s3.t6.10

¹⁷³ Cf. Halévy’s similar criticism of Bühler’s Brāhmī derivation, mentioned in section 2.2.3.2.4.

c7.s3.t6.11

Although such problems are not nearly weighty enough to cast serious doubts on the Aramaic derivation as a whole, they do show that the final word has yet to be said on the subject, which, after all, has not been comprehensively examined for nearly a hundred years.¹⁷⁴ The

2.3.8 The paleographic development of Kharoṣṭhī

c7.s3.t7.1

Unlike Brāhmī and its derivatives, Kharoṣṭhī script did not undergo extensive paleographic changes in the course of its historical development. This is no doubt mainly due to the fact that its history (at least as known to us from extant documents) covers only some five centuries and takes place within a relatively limited geographical area, as opposed to Brāhmī, which developed over two millennia throughout India and in many other parts of Asia. Kharoṣṭhī can be treated essentially as one and the same script throughout its history, and, with the exception of the central Asian variety, does not have clearly differentiated local variants. The changes which the individual characters underwent were gradual and for the most part minor, so that it is difficult to establish reliable criteria for the paleographic dating of Kharoṣṭhī documents in anything other than broad terms such as “early,” “middle,” and “late.” Even the central Asian form of the script is not essentially different from the Indian; many of its peculiar characteristics, such as its generally more cursive aspect, are attributable as much to the different physical character of the documents, which were written in pen and ink rather than carved into stone or metal, as to geographical variation.

c7.s3.t7.2

Among the characters which do show clear chronological development, *sa* is often cited as the most reliable “test letter.” In the early forms of Kharoṣṭhī of the Aśokan and Indo-Greek period, the head portion of *sa* is usually closed (𐨯). In the middle period of the Indo-Scythian and Indo-Parthian era, the head is typically open, but the vertical line still has a projection toward the top of the letter (𐨯). Finally, in the later phase of the script during the Kuṣāṇa period, the head is fully open (𐨯). This character, along with a few other test letters such as *ya* and *ca*, can be used to date Kharoṣṭhī documents in a broad fashion. But, as pointed out by Das Gupta (DKS, 102, 146), the three types of *sa* actually overlap considerably throughout the history of the script, so that to use it alone as a criterion for paleographic dating is an uncertain method at best (see 5.4.1).

c7.s3.t7.3

Several other characters underwent similar developments involving cursivization and stroke reduction or reordering. The original form of 𐨐 *ka*, for example, developed into a secondary one in which the extra stroke at the right is combined with the top stroke (𐨐); this, in turn, led to a late form in which the right-hand portion curves around to the left to meet the vertical (𐨐). In certain cases paleographic changes resulted in the development of ambiguous letters, the most important case being *ya*, whose original angular form (𐨩) developed a horizontal line across the top (𐨩) which often makes it virtually identical with *śa* (𐨭). In some cursive hands, *ta* and *ra*, *ta* and *da*, *va* and initial *a*, and various other pairs of letters are so similar as to cause serious difficulties in interpretation.

c7.s3.t7.4

The diacritic vowels were also subject to minor changes, notably postconsonantal *u*, which originally was written as a short horizontal line to the left of the foot of the consonant to which it is attached (e.g., 𐨐𐨂 *ku*) but later developed into a loop (𐨐𐨂). Similarly, the original mark for *anusvāra* (e.g., 𐨒𐨎 *gaṃ*), clearly recognizable as a miniature *ma*, later changed into a hook shape (𐨒𐨎) which disguises its origin. Certain combinations of consonants and vowel diacritics were subject to special cursive developments leading to ligatures in which the constituent parts are no longer readily apparent; for example, *mu* (with several other varieties) and *de*.

c7.s3.t7.5

Several modified characters developed in Kharoṣṭhī of the middle and later periods. For instance, *ṣa* frequently appears in alternation with ordinary *sa* (), of which it is presumably a modification, perhaps derived from a reduction of the conjunct *sya*.¹⁷⁷ Several consonants, such as *ga*, *ḍa*, and *va*, were often written in intervocalic position with a diacritic mark consisting of a horizontal line added at the lower right, which is usually thought to represent a fricative pronunciation; for example, *g'a*. Such diacritically marked consonants are particularly common in the central Asian documents but also occur in some later Indian inscriptions, notably in the Wardak vase inscription (CII 2.1, 165–70). Another diacritic sign, again most common in central Asia but also found in India, is a horizontal line or dot above the character, which usually indicates an abridged conjunct consonant; thus *ṣ̄a* = *ṣṇa*, *c̄a* = *śca*, and so on.

c7.s3.t7.6

¹⁷⁷ See Brough, GD 67–70; see also GD 75–7, for the similar problem of the characters *ṭha* and *ṭ'ha*.

c7.s3.t7.7

Various further modifications arose in varieties of Kharoṣṭhī used to write texts or words of non-Gāndhārī origin. Most important, late Kharoṣṭhī records sometimes added a line or curve at the lower right of a consonant character to indicate a long vowel (e.g., = *kā*). A few sporadic and somewhat uncertain examples of this device are noted in inscriptions from India,¹⁷⁸ but it is much more common in the central Asian documents, especially those in Sanskrit (e.g., KI II nos. 511, 523). In the latter we also find signs for syllabic *r*, the *vṛddhi* vowels *ai* and *au* (formed by combining the ordinary diacritics for *e* and *o* with the long vowel sign), vowelless consonants (see KI III.297), *ṅa*, and *visarga* (the last two being perhaps borrowings from Brāhmī). In the central Asian documents, non-Indic names and loan words were represented with the help of new conjuncts such as *pga*, *cma*, and *jhbo*. Many of the diacritically modified characters mentioned previously were also used for this purpose.

c7.s3.t7.8

¹⁷⁸ See Konow, CII 2.1, cxx, and Salomon, StII 7, 1981, 14.

Linked texts (15)

Aṣṭādhyāyī — Pāṇini, Sanskrit
Patna Dharmapada — Prakrit
Epigraphia Indica
Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum
Mahāmāyūrī — Sanskrit
Kharoṣṭhī inscriptions
Bharhut
Kumrahar
Skārah Ḍherī
Jaulian
Kanhiara
Mansehra
Shahbaz Garhi
Raval
Mathurā lion-capital inscriptions — Prakrit