History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.203

v4.c63.203

Then Bühler (in 'the Origin of the Indian Brāhmī alphabet') started the theory that Brāhmī was derived from a foreign Semitic script about 800 B. C. and this hypothesis held the field for a long time (vide e. g. Rhys Davids in 'Buddhist India' chapters VII and VIII). Even Western scholars are not now prepared to accept this dating of Bühler; vide Cambridge History of India, vol. I. p. 141 (1922). The excavations at Mohenjodaro tend to throw grave doubts on this theory and discredit it. At Harappa and Mohenjo-daro there is writing (not satisfactorily deciphered yet) on burnt clay and pottery. The Piprahva vase shows writing on stone several centuries before the Christian era and the Sohagpur copperplate inscription is the earliest writing on copper plates yet discovered (vide Annals of B. O. R. Institute, Vol. XI. p. 32 ff). This is not the place to discuss the questions about the origin of the art of writing in India and of the Brāhmī script. It cannot be gainsaid that the most ancient dharmaśāstras refer to writing as well-known. Gaut. XIII. 4 appears to refer to a witness signing himself as such on a document. Vas. 16. 10, Viṣṇudharmasūtra VI. 23, Yāj. II. 22 mention *likhita* (document) as the first means of proof. Manu VIII. 51 uses the word *karaṇa* in the sense of document (*arthepavyayamānaṁ tu karaṇena vibhāvītam*), in VIII. 168 refers to documents obtained by coercion and in IX. 232 to fabricated royal edicts (*kūṭaśāsana*). Kauṭ. has a special chapter (II. 10) on royal writings (*śāsana*), in which he dilates upon the qualifications of the king's scribe, on the contents of an official document, the good points required in an official missive, on various divisions of writings and on the faults in official writings that are to be avoided. In I. 11 Kauṭ. prescribes that the king should hold consultations with absent ministers by sending a letter (*patra*, a leaf of palm or a piece of birch bark or similar material) and in I. 19 states that consultation by letter (*patra*) with the council of ministers should be held in the fifth part of the day. In II. 7 Kauṭ. advises the construction of rooms with shelves for books containing accounts (*akṣapaṭalaṁ nibandhapustakasthānaṁ kārayet*). Vide also Kauṭ. II. 21, II. 30, IV. 9, IV. 10 for references to writing in various other connections. Kauṭ. (III. 1) appears⁴³⁴ to use the word *karaṇa* in the sense of document and gives a rule which is the same as Yāj. II. 23. Yāj. I. 319 speaks of land grants being written or engraved on cloth or copperplate. Megasthenes (McCrindle p. 69) no doubt says that Indians have no written laws, but there is no doubt that he is under some misapprehension as to what he was told, since in another place (p. 83) he refers to philosophers committing useful suggestions to writing. Similarly Strabo (XV. 1. 53-54) states that the Indians were ignorant of writing, but (67) narrates that Nearchus states that Indians write letters on cloth. One of the oldest copperplate grants is the Taxila plate of Moga (identified with Moa of the Śakas) and is not later than 120 B. C. Vide E. I. Vol. IV. p. 54 and Rapson's 'Indian coins' p. 7. It appears that wooden boards were used for writing ephemeral matters and *patra* for more permanent use, as Kāt. (p. 293, n. 400 above) states that the first information was to be written on a board with chalk and the formal plaint on a leaf (*patra*). The Lalitavistara (10th chap. p. 143, B. I. ed.) states that the Buddha used a board of sandal-wood for learning the scripts (-candanamayam lipiphalakam-ādāya).