Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s3.t6: 2.3.6 The origin of Kharoṣṭhī
Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s3.t6
- Language
- English
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