Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c25: 20 Writing

An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c25

Language
English

Contents

20 Writing

20.1 Graffiti on Pottery

v1.c25.s1.1

Graffiti, mainly as post-firing scratched marks, are often found on Indian pottery. Though mostly geometric in form they sometimes resemble natural objects such as the sun, fish and man, and sometimes man-made objects, such as the ladder, boat and arrowhead. Opinion is divided on their meaning—some take them as pictographs, others as marks of identification and still others as representation of magic. But it is not certain what they really stand for.

v1.c25.s1.2

According to Yazdani, 1917, 1918, they are 130 in number, while according to Lal, 1960, they are around 60; others count up to 150 and odd, depending upon one's own view about certain variations. They are only rarely found on the Neolithic pottery [11.1] but are common on the Harappa [11.3], late Harappa [11.4] Chalcolithic [11.7-12] and Megalithic [11.15] pottery. They also occur as pre-firing symbols on the pre-Harappa pottery [11.2], particularly at Amri in Sind, where sometimes they are called 'proto-Harappan characters'. The Harappa sites with graffito-marked pottery are Harappa, Mohenjo-daro, KALIBANGAN, and the late Harappa ones are RANGPUR, LOTHAL (upper levels), etc. The Chalcolithic sites are NEVASA, CHANDOLI, NAVDATOLI, PRAKASH, KORAT, BAHAL, TEKWADA and others. The Megalithic sites which have yielded a large amount of pottery with graffito marks include sites like SANUR, T. NARSIPUR, FEROKE, TOZHUPEDU, JADIGENHALLI, MASKI, CHANDRAVALLI, SAVANDURG, etc.

v1.c25.s1.3

Some of the symbols commonly found on the pottery of the various periods may be classified as: that resembling a trident; arrowhead; bow-and-arrow; two opposed triangles meeting at apex; V-, D-, W- and I-shaped forms; 'jambs' with 'lintel'; plus sign; sign of multiplication; circle; circle cut by a vertical or a horizontal or both kinds of lines; parallel loops; zigzags of various kinds; parallel vertical lines in groups of two, four and five, sometimes cut by a transverse line, criss-cross pattern; cross with balls at four ends; coniferous trees; sun with rays; deer; and fish.

v1.c25.s1.4

The symbols found more or less exclusively on Megalithic pottery are: M-shape; the *m* of Brāhmī (two intersecting oblique lines joined by a horizontal line at the base); and oblique lines cut variously by different kinds of lines.

v1.c25.s1.5

The symbols found more or less exclusively on the Chalcolithic pottery are: human forms; a vertical line ending downwards in two sideway upturns resembling the letter *ya* of Brāhmī; star with five prongs; oblong with diagonals; oblong divided into two parts by a horizontal stroke; and elongated S.

v1.c25.s1.6

An analysis of 61 basic symbols made by Lal shows that 47 of them are common to the Harappa, Chalcolithic and Megalithic complexes; six belong to the Megalithic exclusively and eight to the Harappa and Chalcolithic combined. He feels that some 'definite meaning and purpose seems to be involved' in them, particularly when 'some of the symbols occur on the Harappa seals on the one hand and in the early Brāhmī seals on the other', and also because a large majority of the symbols occur at sites connected with black-and-red pottery [11.6] from the 3rd millennium B.C. to the early centuries of the Christian era, particularly in the w. half of the country. However so far it has not been possible to suggest any phonetic, syllabic or alphabetic value for them.

v1.c25.s1.7

Lal, B.B., 1960, in *AI*, 16, pp. 4-24. Yazdani, G., in *An. Rep. Hyderabad Arch. Dept. 1915-6*. pp. 9-10, *1916-7*, pp. 5-8.—S. ASTHANA

20.2 Ink-pots

v1.c25.s2.1

Archaeological evidence tends to show that metallic ink-pots were introduced in the subcontinent by the Greeks; the Śakas imitated them in terracotta. In India the earliest ink-pots were in the shape of a ledged lid and hence the name 'ink-pot type of lid'. Some specimens recovered at AHICCHATRĀ contain traces of ink while a few examples from VAIŚĀLĪ have soot stains on the rim or inside. Thus it can be inferred that at least some of them, if not all, were used as ink-pots. These are generally made of fine to medium quality clay, bear a wash or slip and have a short rim, prominently splayed waist and a thick, flat or round base, though specimens having a flat base are more appropriate for ink-pots. They are dated between the 1st and 6th century.

v1.c25.s2.2

A vase-shaped ink-pot of bronze fixed on a pedestal has been recovered from NĀLANDĀ. Datable to the 8th to 10th century, it is decorated with Buddhist figures on the top of the rim. Indigenous ink-pots of various shapes are still used in India and are mostly of glass or terracotta and rarely of metal.

20.3 Materials

v1.c25.s3.1

Archaeology recovers only the durable writing materials. Aśoka records that he got his edicts engraved on stones so that they might endure long and used pillars and rocks for this purpose. In later periods engraving was done on stone slabs, temples, caves, images, vases and caskets. Terracotta seals and sealings [3.2] have on them names of individuals or institutions, and sometimes ennobling tracts, often from scriptural texts. Besides those containing names or one or more letters, there are bricks with Buddhist *sūtras* and in a solitary case a mortgage deed engraved on them. Inscribed conch-shells and tortoise shells and seals made of ivory plaques have also been discovered.

v1.c25.s3.2

Copper-plates were used for recording many types of inscriptions and were called *tāmra-paṭa*, *tāmra-patra*, *tāmra-śāsana*, *śāsana-patra* or *dāna-patra* according to their contents, but almost invariably land-grants were inscribed on them. The SOHGAURA inscription is on a bronze tablet cast in a mould of sand. But generally the copper-plates were hammered out and the letters were incised with a chisel or sometimes with a graver. Fa-Hien speaks of Buddhist monasteries possessing copper-plate grants belonging to the times of Buddha, but the available grants are from the middle of the 4th century, increasing in number between the 6th and the 12th centuries. According to Hiuen Tsang, in the Buddhist assembly convened by Kaniṣka commentaries on the *Tripiṭakas* were engraved on copper-plates and buried under *stūpas*. The tradition cannot be brushed aside as improbable considering the later practice of engraving full texts on copper-plates. Inscriptions appear on a few objects made of other metals, but they were not in common use. The use of gold and silver for recording in religious contexts is indicated by a Kharoṣṭhī votive inscription on a gold plate from Taxila and the Bhattiprolu and Taxila silver-plate inscriptions. The iron pillar at Mehrauli (Delhi) bears an inscription of king Candra.

v1.c25.s3.3

*Bhūrja-patra*, the inner bark on the birch tree grown in the Himalayan region, was a very common writing material which spread to different parts of India and to C. Asia. Its use is recorded by Q. Curtius at the time of Alexander's invasion and the *Kumāra-sambhava* (1.7). ‘Al-Bīrūnī describes how birch-bark was treated. The birch-bark manuscripts do not go before the 15th century, but in C. Asia those of the 2nd-3rd century have been preserved under sand and stone. In n.-e. India sheets of the inner bark of aloe (*aguru*) tree locally called *sānchī* were in popular use. Palm leaves or *tāḍa-patras* (covering *tāḍī* as well, also spelt as *tāla* and *tālī*) were more popular and possibly more ancient as would appear from the fact that Taxila copper-plate of Patika (A.D. 21) and the birch-bark sheets of the Bower manuscripts were shaped after palm leaves. According to Hiuen Tsang's biographer Hwui Li the first Buddhist Council recorded the Buddhist canon on palm leaves. Hiuen Tsang himself mentions plam leaf as the common writing material. The Sanskrit terms *patra* and *parṇa* and Pāli *paṇṇa* in the context of writing refer to a palm leaf. In the n. pen and ink were used for writing on the leaves; in the s. letters were incised with a stylus and then besmeared with soot. The pre-15th century palm leaf manuscripts are destroyed possibly because of the hot and humid climate, but in cold and dry climate those of the early centuries of the Christian era have survived in C. Asia and of the 7th century in Nepal.

v1.c25.s3.4

Nearchus, a general of Alexander, noted that the Indians wrote on very closely woven linen cloth. Hwui Li and ‘Al-Bīrūnī mention the use respectively of white cotton stuff and silk for writing. *Cirikā*, *paṭa* and *paṭikā* in ancient records refer to documents written on a piece of cloth. In Rajasthan and Mysore the use of cotton cloth treated with paste persists. The Jaina libraries contain manuscripts on cloth. C. Asia sites have yielded records on silk.

v1.c25.s3.5

Leather documents are reported from C. Asia, but not from India. Some Buddhist texts mention hide as a writing material and Subandhu's *Vasavadatta* implies the common use of *ajina* (skin of an antelope or tiger) for writing.

v1.c25.s3.6

Before it was popularized by the Muslims paper had been introduced by the Chinese. Sanskrit-Chinese lexicons of the 8th century mention *śaya* (from Chinese *tsie* meaning paper) and *kakalī* or *kakari* (from *kāghaz*). Some paper manuscripts from c. Asia are palaeographically of the 5th century. Though a few paper manuscripts of an earlier date are referred to the earliest available one in India belongs to 1223-4.

v1.c25.s3.7

The use of ink is implied in the work *lipi* in Pāṇini’s *Aṣṭādhyāyī* and the inscriptions of Aśoka. The evolution of some Brāhmī and Kharoṣṭhī letters in many cases shows the use of pen and ink. A pre-Christian relic vessel from Andher contains a record in ink. The Kharoṣṭhī *Dhammapada* from Khotan is among the earliest manuscripts in ink. The Sanskrit terms for ink (*maṣī* or its variants, and *melā*) refer to the powdering and mixing of colour-giving objects. Words for containers (*pātra*, *bhāṇḍa*, *kūpikā*, etc.) were suffixed to those for ink to signify ink-pots [20.2]. Besides the general term *lekhanī*, *varṇikā* was a wooden pen, *isīkā* or *iṣīkā* was a reed or bamboo pen and *varṇa-vartikā* was a kind of brush. The *Kāvyamīmāṃsā* mentions *loha-kaṇṭaka* (an iron needle for writing on *tāla-dala*), *lekhanī* and *maṣī-bhājana* (for writing on birch-bark) and *phalaka* (a board) and *khaṭikā* (a piece of chalk). Plaints written on boards with *pāṇḍu-lekha* (chalk) and royal declarations recorded on a varnished board are referred to in other sources. The *Vinaya-piṭaka* speaks of wooden boards as writing material. Young learners used wooden planks (*phalaka*). Some Gandhāra sculptures portray a child Bodhisattva and his classmates with writing boards and ink-pots. A recently discovered Śuṅga terracotta from Sugh, Dt Ambala, depicts a young boy, possibly Kṛṣṇa, practising alphabets on a writing-board in his lap (Chhabra, 1970).

v1.c25.s3.8

Chhabra, B. Ch., 1970, in *Bull. National Museum*, 2, pp. 14-16.—L. GOPAL

20.4 Scripts

v1.c25.s4.1

*20.4.1 Indus script.* Writing occurs on a variety of objects found at sites of the Indus civilization [4.9]. The script consisting of individual signs and their variants was in use almost throughout the area of the extent and during the period of the existence of the civilization as is evident from the discovery of objects containing writing in the script from many sites located over the wide area of its spread (Mahadevan, 1977, p. 6). Some inscribed objects have been found at sites in w. Asia (Mahadevan, 1977, p. 6) and the s. parts of the Soviet Union (Gupta, 1979, p. 168), mostly in levels contemporary with the Indus civilization, but there is no evidence of its use outside the subcontinent; nor is there any inscribed Indus object from other cultures contemporary with the Indus civilization. The script also did not survive after the end of the civilization notwithstanding the fact that some scholars have tried to see its continuity, on the basis of occurrence of certain signs resembling the Indus script, in the later cultures (Lal, 1960, pp. 4-24; Rao, 1963, p. 133; Joshi, 1967, pp. 1-7) and even connecting it with the Brāhmī script [20.4.2] (Hunter, 1934; Pran Nath, 1931, 1931-2).

v1.c25.s4.2

The Indus script consists of basic signs which are modified by internal and external strokes, combinations of two or more signs or ligatures, mirror-reflected pairs of signs, ‘bracket’ or ‘enclosure’ signs, realistically drawn animal, bird or human figures and signs which may represent numerals (Ross, 1938). Besides there are also graphic variants of some of the basic signs. The number of signs in the script has been computed differently by different workers as it is difficult to be precise about the total number of basic signs (Langdon in Marshall, 1931, 2, pp. 434-52; Gadd and Smith in Marshall, 1931, 2, pp. 406-22, 3, pls. CXIX-CXXIX; Vats, 1940, 2, pls. CV-CXVI; Hunter, 1934, pp. 203-10; Dani, 1963, pp. 12-20, pls. I-II; Koshenniemi *et al.*, 1943, pp. XXII-XXVII. On the basis of the analysis of different scholars the normalized signary of the Indus script, without the graphic variants, is generally taken to be approximately between 250 and 400 basic signs (Parpola *et al.*, 1969a, pp. 8-9; Mahadevan, 1977, pp. 14-6 and 32-5).

v1.c25.s4.3

Inscriptions in Indus script are mostly on seals, generally of steatite, and in a few cases of terracotta as well, where they are deeply engraved in intaglio in the reversed direction; on terracotta, clay or faïence sealings which contain the impression of the inscription in positive in relief made by seals; as graffiti on pottery, copper tablets, bronze implements, ivory or bone rods and stone, terracotta faïence objects where the inscriptions are in positive and were meant for direct reading.

v1.c25.s4.4

The total number of inscribed objects discovered till 1977 (Mahadevan, 1977, pp. 5-7) is 3455; of these 2906 objects contain ‘legible or partly legible inscriptions’; these texts have been published by Mahadevan, 1977, who has also included 634 hitherto unpublished texts.

v1.c25.s4.5

The largest number of inscribed objects are from Mohenjo-daro (Marshall, 1931; Mackay, 1938) and Harappa (Vats, 1940), where respectively 1540 and 985 inscribed objects in various media have been found, LOTHAL (Rao, 1961a and b; 1963; 1973; *IAR 1954-5* onwards), KALIBANGAN (*IAR 1960-1* onwards, Lal, 1962; Lal and Thapar, 1967) and Chanhu-daro (Mackay, 1943), where respectively 165 and 99 and 66 inscribed objects (Mahadevan, 1977, pp. 5-7 for further details) have been found, while 34 inscribed objects have been found at other Harappa sites like ALAMGIRPUR, BANAWALI, SURKOTADA (*IAR 1971-2*), etc., and 17 from sites in w. Asia (Mahadevan, 1977, pp. 6-7).

v1.c25.s4.6

The Indus signs generally occur as continuously written texts of inscriptions, the number of signs varying, in a single line, between two and 14; in some cases signs have been used singly. The maximum number of signs used in a single text is 17 though according to Mahadevan it is 26 (Mahadevan, 1977, pp. 9, 56, 82). The maximum number of lines on one side of an inscribed object is three. In one case, if the lines inscribed on each face of the objects are taken to be the text of the same inscription, the maximum number of lines is seven. The lines, on a single face of an object, are generally one below the other, though there are some spceimens where lines are engraved on the sides of seals or the signs are distributed on the face of the seals in the space available after the central figure has been drawn.

v1.c25.s4.7

It is generally agreed that the direction of the script is from the right to the left; this has also been conclusively demonstrated by Lal, 1966, pp. 52-5, 1967-8, pp. 15-6. However where the inscription contains more than one line, the boustrophedon mode has been used. On the basis of detailed analysis, Mahadevan, 1977, pp. 10-14, has concluded that while the majority of Indus texts are from the right to the left, some of the inscriptions suggest a left-to-right direction.

v1.c25.s4.8

As already stated, the Indus inscriptions occur on a variety of media. Of these the maximum number of inscriptions are on seals, sealings and copper tablets (Mahadevan, 1977, pp. 6-7) where they occur generally along with some animal figure. While the inscriptions on seals and sealings are on one side, copper tablets contain inscription on one face and an animal or human figure or a symbol on the other hand. in a few cases, inscriptions on both faces (Pande, 1973, pp. 305-22; reprinted in Possehl, 1979, pp. 268-73). Miniature terracotta, faience or stone sealings, found so far only at Harappa, are also generally found inscribed on both faces. Inscriptions also occur on different faces of prism seals, bone/ivory sticks and cube sealings. In a few cases seals are found inscribed only on one or both the flat faces but also on the edges or even on the boss at the back of stamp seals (Mahadevan, 1977, p. 7).

v1.c25.s4.9

The most common type of objects containing inscriptions in the Indus script is however the steatite seals and impressions of seals, generally on terracotta. The seals have the inscriptions engraved on them in the reversed direction in the upper register with the figure of an animal occupying the centre of the field. While the most common figure occurring on the seals is that of a unicorn with an 'incense-burner' or 'manger' in front, 'the other animals depicted on the inscribed objects include bull with two long horns (otherwise resembling the 'unicorn'), humped bull, short-horned bull, buffalo, elephant, tiger, rhinoceros, different types of goat-antelopes (with short tail) and ox-antelopes (with long tail), hare, crocodile (*gharial*), fish, tortoise, frog, serpent, bird, and different kinds of fabulous and composite animals' (Mahadevan, 1977, p. 9). Apart from the animals some of the seals/sealings depict the kino tree, pipal tree, pipal leaf, anthropomorphic figures, including a horned figure seated on a tree with a tiger standing on the ground below, a person grappling with two rearing tigers on either sides, sacrificial scenes and symbols like the *svastika* and dotted circle, cross-like motif and geometrical patterns.

v1.c25.s4.10

The language of the Indus inscriptions has been variously claimed as Sanskrit or archaic Vedic (Pran Nath, 1931, 1931-2; Ray, 1963, 1965a and b, 1966; Rao, 1971, 1972-3, 1973a and b; Krishna Rao, 1969, 1973; Fateh Singh, 1968; Karmarkar, 1940; Gadd in Marshall, 1931, p. 414; Paranavitana, 1961), symbols of the Tantric code (Sankarananda, 1943-4, 1955, 1963; Barua, 1946; Nath, 1959), Hittite (Hrozný, 1953; Meriggi, 1934), Easter Island script (Hevesy, 1933; Heine-Geldern, 1957; Billimoria 1937a-c, 1940), Sumerian (Waddell, 1925, 1926; Kinnier-Wilson, 1974), Etruscan (Piccoli, 1933), Egyptian hieroglyphic (Petrie, 1932), Dravidian group of languages (Heras, 1953) and even Bundelkhandi (Sapre, 1960, 1966). It has also been suggested that the Harappans were the Asuras mentioned in the *Ṛgveda* and the Indus script shows borrowings from proto-Elamites, Egyptians and Sumerians (Shendge, 1977, pp. 385-7). These attempts are invalid (Zide, 1970; Parpola, 1979; Metraux, 1938; Otto, 1936; Wheeler, 1968, pp. 107-8) as 'the "decipherments" have been based on untenable hypotheses, lack of chronological accuracy, unsound reconstructions because of linguistic naïvete, and in gen-

v1.c25.s4.11

eral, preconceptions of the language of the inscriptions which were not based on any systematic or rigorous evaluation but on *a priori* and untenable assertions' ignoring or violating the linguistic principles of decipherment (Zide, 1979, p. 259; also 1970).

v1.c25.s4.12

In recent years claims of decipherment of the Indus script have been made by Rao, 1971, 1972-3, 1973, Krishna Rao, 1969, 1973, and Fateh Singh, 1968, who have proposed various Sanskrit solutions to the problems of the Indus script. The Finnish team of scholars consisting of Parpola, Parpola and Koskenniemi (Parpola, 1970, 1979; Parpola *et al.*, 1969a and b) and the Soviet team consisting of Knorozov, Gurov, Volchok and others (Alekseev *et al.*, 1965; Gurov *et al.*, 1972; Knorozov *et al.*, 1968, 1970; also see Pande, 1969, 1973, and Zide and Zvelebil, 1976) have proposed the early Dravidian group of languages or 'Proto-Dravidian' as the language used in the Indus script. Mahadevan, 1970, also independently came to the conclusion that the language underlying the Indus script was Dravidian. The attempts of these scholars like that of Heras, 1953, are based on the assumption that the Harappan language belonged to the Dravidian group of languages and by reconstructing Proto-Dravidian they have tried to read the Indus inscriptions. However the phrases read by Heras in the Indus inscriptions are too obtruse and do not give any meaning, nor are his 'Proto-Dravidian' reconstructions based on sound historical and comparative technique and 'his "Proto-Dravidian" bears far too close a resemblance to Old Tamil than would be likely for a language of the (projected) age of "Proto-Dravidian"' (Zide, 1979, p. 257). According to Parpola, 1979, p. 174, the Indus script is 'morphographic' in which 'one and the same sign could be used in either semantic *or* phonetic function, having inherently both of the logographic *and* the syllabic value' and 'the Indus people learnt this *principle* of morphographic writing from the Proto-Elamites at Tepe Yahya in s.-e. Iran, where evidence has recently been found of both Proto-Elamite writing and of trade with the early Indus cultures in the early 3rd millennium B.C The actual pictograms however the early Harappans in all likelihood devised themselves, probably making use of the Early Indus pot marks and art conventions' (Parpola, 1979, pp. 174-75; also see Lal, 1975). The Finnish scholars, on the basis of grammatical analysis of the Indus texts, have come to the conclusion that the evidence 'points to an agglutinative language, in which the words are inflected by adding suffixes at the end, while prefixes are absent, and the attribute precedes the head noun' (Parpola, 1979, p. 175). According to Parpola, the archaeological evidence also supports the linguistic evidence.

v1.c25.s4.13

The Indus inscriptions, according to the Soviet scholars, have certain specific combinations which occur only in Dravidian languages. On the basis of positionalstatistical analysis of the texts of the Indus inscriptions they have divided them into ‘blocks corresponding to definite grammatical units (words and word-combinations)’ (Knorozoy, in Alekseev *et al.*, 1965; Pande, 1969; Knorozov, *et al.*, 1970; Pande, 1973) by establishing ‘the relationship of the formal structure of the Proto-Indian inscriptions with facts of Dravidian morphology’ (Gurov in Knorozov *et al.*, 1970; Pande, 1973, p. 24). The blocks consist of set, semivariant and variant signs. While the set signs are for the root part of the word and contain morphemic signs, syllabic signs, sound confirmations or phonetic complements and root determinatives, the semivariants are used as attributes, usually an adjective or a numeral. The variant signs at the end of the block stand for suffixes—word-forming and word-changing. The inscriptions consist of main blocks and additional main blocks which are syntactically complete and abbreviated inscriptions. The main blocks consist of nouns often accompanied by adjectives and numerals which occupy the position of semivariants at the beginning of the block, and a noun without suffixes occurring before another noun performs the function of an adjective. Like other ancient systemes of writing, homonyms were used in Indus script ‘for conveying the meaning of concepts which were difficult or impossible of depiction, and also for reducing the total number of signs (Knorozov *et al.*, 1970; Pande, 1973) and there are purely phonetic signs as well. On the basis of analysis, the Soviet scholars have divided the inscriptions as sacrificial inscriptions which carry names of gods and names of constellations; protective inscriptions containing names of gods and names of owner of the seal and explanations about him; temple inscriptions and nominal inscriptions (Knorozov *et al.*, 1970; Pande, 1973).

v1.c25.s4.14

While agreeing on certain broad points with the Finns, Gurov and Knorozov consider that their work is characterized by very sweeping and hasty generalizations (Gurov and Knorozov, 1969; Pande, 1970). According to Lal, 1969, not only is the identification of Indus signs by the Finns incorrect and their hypothesis ‘that the inscriptions have a genitive ending goes against their theory that the language used is a Dravidian one’ but there are several inconsistencies. (Also see for criticism of the Finns’ work, Burrow, 1969, pp. 274-8, 1970, pp. 149-56; Glauson and Chadwick, 1979, pp. 200-7, 1970, pp. 135-48: Diakonov, 1970, p. 49.)

v1.c25.s4.15

Except for giving detailed excursus on the morphological and linguistic structure of the Indus inscriptions and interpretation of the figures accompanying the Indus inscriptions on various media or some individual signs, the Soviet scholars have so far not published ‘reading’ of any Indus deciphered text.

v1.c25.s4.16

The latest approach towards the decipherment of Indus inscriptions is by Walter A. Fairservis Jr. (Sankalia, 1978, pp. 28-35; Fairservis, 1976, as cited in Possehl, 1979; original not seen by the writer) who is also working on the assumption that the language of the inscriptions is Proto-Dravidian. Fairservis has given the reading of about 175 signs which, according to Sankalia, appears to be quite consistent. In his work Fairservis has also taken into consideration the graffiti on the pottery of Chalcolithic cultures of c. India, Maharashtra and Karnataka [4.14.5, 6, 8] which may have been derived from the sings on Indus seals and which also shows ‘that the Proto-Dravidian Culture of the Indus Valley had gradually filtered through the heart of India and ultimately became the dominant culture in the South, while the North, the original home of the Proto-Dravidian, became Aryan’ (Sankalia, 1978, p. 33).

v1.c25.s4.17

According to Mahadevan, 1970, 1972, 1973, the language used in the Indus script is non-Indo-European and resembles the Dravidian languages. On the basis of homophony, he has assigned phonetic values to certain signs and has also interpreted that certain signs represent different areas of Harappa settlements such as the temple, the citadel or acropolis, the lower city, etc. He has further divided the system into two main groups: the priest-rulers who resided in the citadel area and the others living in the lower city. He has identified the former with the Veḷir who, after the disintegration of the Indus civilization, established the Āndhra, Cera-Cola and Veḷir kingdoms and the latter with the Kochars who had perhaps migrated from Elam and were mountain people. Mahadevan also connects the Indus priest-rulers with the Kurus and the ‘lower city’ peoples with the Pāṇḍus and contends that the *Mahābhārata* war was fought between these two groups in which the Kochars emerged victorious (Mahadevan, 1970, p. 51). Mahadevan, 1972 (reprinted in Possehl, 1979, pp. 261-67), tries to read names of dynasties of the historical period in the Indus inscriptions by giving pictographic equivalents of certain Harappa signs in Sanskrit. In his detailed critique Lal, 1973, has shown that Mahadevan’s conjectures are invalid. Mahadevan has now compiled with the aid of computers a concordance of Indus inscriptions (Mahadevan, 1977) which is a very useful contribution to the subject. It may also be mentioned here that the Finns (Koskenniemi *et al.*, 1973) have also compiled and published a concordance of Indus inscriptions taking help of computers.

v1.c25.s4.18

Considering that the Indus script ‘had already reached the syllabic, if not a partly alphabetic stage’ and that ‘there are about 52 basic signs including 12 pictorials … in the writing of the mature Harappan period’, Rao, 1973, p. 326, has concluded that by late Harappa period the number of basic signs used in the inscriptions was reduced to 20. On this basis he regards the late Harappa script to be alphabetic on the analogy of the Semitic script. However for assigning phonetic values he has freely borrowed from the s. Semitic Sabaean script, Akkadian and Ugaritic cuneiform writing and Hittite and has concluded that 'the early syllabic-cum-alphabetic writing of the Indus people was disciplined into an alphabetic system by 1500 B.C. They spoke an Indo-European language which shows close affinity to Indo-Aryan in vocabulary, semantics and phonology' (Rao, 1973, p. 338). He has also read epithets, names of rulers, chiefs, sacrifices and divinities on the seals and has stated that the language shows affinity with the Hittite both in the semantics and syntax of epithets (Rao, 1973, p. 338). In Lal's view (Lal, 1973) the available late Harappa material is too meagre to give an exhaustive picture of the late Harappa times and the reduction by Rao in the total number of basic signs by calling certain signs as 'alternatives' and thereby regarding the late Harappan script as alphabetic, morphological comparison on the late Harappan signs with those of the Semitic script and taking their values and at the same time taking 'shelter under the Akkadian and Ugaritic cuneiform writing' do not appear to be plausible, nor are his readings of the Indus inscriptions grammatically sound.

v1.c25.s4.19

Krishna Rao, 1969, 1973, claims to have read all the Indus inscriptions by giving phonetic values to signs on the principle of acrophony. His methodology consists of 'a comparison and identification of every Indus sign with the original pictographic form' and identifying the 'evolutionary conventional and abstract froms ... with the help of the archaic Sumerian script and Egyptian, Minoan and Hittite hieroglyphs, and then translating the name of the object into Sanskrit and fixing the first syllable of the name thus obtained. Where it is found to be difficult to identify a sign with the pictographic form, the phonetic values are adopted from the ancient scripts, provided such values do not conflict with meaningful readings' (Krishna Rao, 1973, p. 279). According to him the Indus script was syllabic rather than logographic. He reads 'terminations and titles' on the tiny Indus seals, which he identifies as weights, measures and currency, and names of tribes, foreign rulers, merchant-princes, governors and kings on the seals, copper tablets and other objects. Thus he reads the names of foreign rulers like Narmer (Menes), Sargon, Rimus, etc., in the Indus inscriptions (Krishna Rao, 1973, pp. 286-9). The key seal of Krishna Rao is however the so-called Paśupati seal from Mohenjo-daro (Mackay, 1937, 2, pl. XCIV, 420). He connects the five symbols on top of the seal with the five animal and human figures on the seal and after taking for granted that the language used is Sanskrit or one of its early forms and using the principle of acrophony, gives the reading 'Makhanāśana', an epithet of Indra, as destroyer of Makha or Asur Makhas, the Asura priests (Krishna Rao, 1969, pp. i-iii). In an appraisal B.B. Lal, 1969, has demonstrated how Krishna Rao has read two different names 'Makhanā-śana' and 'Īśāna' on the two seals (Mackay, 1937, 2, pl. XCIV, 420 and pl. LXXXVII, 222) even though the figure represented on both is the same. Similarly Krishna Rao's identification of the figure standing within the arch with a radiating design in two other seals as 'Syona' meaning the sun and 'Ishtar' 'the Aryan and Babylonian goddess of war' is internally inconsistent. Besides Krishna Rao has adopted the system of acrophony for assigning phonetic values to various Indus signs in one case only and in other cases he has freely borrowed 'the phonetic values of similar symbols occurring in a very large number of languages, cutting across all frontiers of space and time. Thus, his borrowings range from England to Mesopotamia and from the 3rd millennium B.C. to the early centuries A.D.: Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Ogham and Runic are all deeply involved in this affair' (Lal, 1969). Not only this, on the basis of the alleged occurrence of the Sumerian, Egyptian, Phoenician, Ogham and Runic signs in the Indus inscriptions, Krishna Rao has also dated the Indus civilization between the 3rd millennium B.C. and 9th century B.C. when it is already established that the terminal date of the civilization is not after the mid-2nd millennium B.C. Lal has also shown that contrary to stratigraphic and chronological evidence Krishna Rao found 'that the Third Dynasty of Ur (assignable to the period about 2000 B.C.) prospered in the 1st millennium B.C. or that Solomon (10th century B.C.) was earlier than the Third Dynasty of Ur as well as Narmer (around 3000 B.C.)' (Lal, 1969).

v1.c25.s4.20

The position as obtaining now thus shows that all the claims of decipherment are invalid. However the work done by various scholars has to an extent helped in understanding the nature of the script and its mechanics. Thus, apart from the first systematic attempt on an undertstanding of the Indus script by Smith and Gadd (in Marshall, 1931, pp. 406-55), works of scholars like Hunter, 1934, Ross, 1938, Heras, 1953, the Finns (Koskenniemi *et al.*, 1973), and the Soviet team of scholars (Alekseev *et al.*, 1965; Gurov *et al.*, 1972; Knorozov *et al.*, 1968, 1970), Mahadevan, 1977, and Fairservis stated in Sankalia, 1978), have contributed to the understanding of the script.

v1.c25.s4.21.1

Alekseev, G.V., Probst, M.A., Kondratov, A.M., Knorozov, Yu. V., Fedorova, I.K., & Volchok, B. Ya., 1965, *Predvaritel-noe soobshchenie ob Issledovanii Protoinduskikh Tekstov*, Moscow, (English tr., Pande, H.C., 1969). Barua, B.M., 1946, *in Indo-Iranica*, 1, pp. 15-21. Billimoria, N.M., 1937a, in *Daily Gazette*, Karachi, pp. 8-10; 1937b, in *Jour. Sind Hist. Soc.*, 3, 2, pp. 46-54; 1937c, in *ibid.*, 3, 3, pp. 84-93, 1940, in *Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Res. Inst.*, 20, 3-4, pp. 262-75. Burrow, T., 1969, in *Antiquity*, 43 (reprinted in *Jour. of Tamil Studies*, 2, 1, pp. 149-56). Dani, A.H., 1963, *Indian Plaeography*, Oxford. Diakonov, I., 1970, in *Antiquity*, 44, p. 49. Fairservis, Jr., W.A., 1976, *Excavations at Allahdino I, Seals and Inscribed Material*, the Papers of the Allahdino Expedition (reference as cited in Possehl, G.L., 1979, p. 382). Fateh Singh, 1968, in *Svāhā* (Hindi), Jaipur, 1, 1, pp. 1-76. Glauson, G., & Chadwick, J., 1969, in *Antiquity*, 42, pp. 300-7 (reprinted in *Jour. Tamil Studies*, 2, 1, pp. 135-48). Gupta, S.P., 1979, *Arch. of Soviet C. Asia & the Indian Borderlands*, 2, *Protohistory*, Delhi. Gurov, N.V., & Knorozov, Yu.V., 1969, in *Sovetskaya Etnografiya*, 6, pp. 151-8 (review of Parpola, et al., 1669 a-b; English tr., Pande, H.C., 1970b). Gurov, N.V., Arutyunoy, S.A., Chebksrov, N.N., Misyugin, V.M., Knorozov, Yu. V., Volchok, B. Ya., & Vasilikob, Ya.

v1.c25.s4.21.2

V., 1972 *Proto-Indica: 1972 Soobshchenie ob issledovanii protoindiiskikh Tekstova*, Moscow, 2 vols. Heine-Geldern, R. von, 1957, in *Runa*, Buenos Aires, 8, pp. 5-27. Heras, H., 1953, *Studies in Proto-Indo-Mediterranean Culture*, Bombay. Hevesy, M.G. de, 1933, in *Bull. de la Société Préhistorique Française*, Paris, 30, pp. 434-9 (English text in *Jour. Indian Hist.*, 13, 1, pp. 1-17). Hrozný, B., 1953, *Ancient History of W. Asia, Indus & Crete*, Prague. Hunter, G.R., 1934, *Script of Harappa & Mohenjo-daro & its Connection with other Scripts*, London. Joshi, J.P., 1967, in *Jour. Madhya Pradesh Itihasa Parishad*, 5. Karmarkar, A.P., 1940, in *Annals of the Bhandarkar Res. Inst.*, 21, 1-2, pp. 115-27. Kinnier-Wilson, J.V., 1974 *Indo-Sumerian: a New Approach to the Problems of the Indus Script*, Oxford. Knorozov, Yu.V., Volchok, B.Ya., & Gurov, M.V., 1968, *Proto-Indica: Brief Rep. on the Investigation of the Proto-Indian Texts*, Moscow; 1970, *Soobshchenie ob issledovanii protoindiskikh Tekstov Proto-Indica: 1970*, Moscow (English translation, Pande, H.C., 1973). Koskenniemi, S., & Parpola, A. & S., 1973, *Materials for the Study of the Indus Script, I, Concordance to the Indus Inscriptions*, Helsinki. Krishna Rao, M.V.N., 1969, in *Hindustan Times Weekly*, 30 March, pp. i-iii; 1973, in Agrawal, D.P., & Ghosh, A., ed., *Radiocarbon & Indian Arch.*, Bombay, pp. 279-90. Lal, B.B., 1960, in *AI*, 16; 1962, in *Illustrated London News*, 24 March, pp. 454-7;

v1.c25.s4.21.3

1966, in *Antiquity*, 40; 1966-7, in *Purātattva*, 1; 1969, in *Hindustan Times Weekly*, 6 April 1973, 'Has the Indus Script been Deciphered?', paper read at the 29th International Congress of Orientalists, Paris; 1975 in *Jour. Royal Asiatic Soc.*, pp. 173-7. Lal, B.B., & Thapar, B.K., 1967, in *Cultural Forum*, 9, 4, pp. 77-88. Mackay, E.J.H., 1938, *Further Excavations at Mohenjo-daro*, Delhi, 2 vols.; 1943, *Chanhu-daro Excavations 1935-6*, New Haven. Mahadevan, I., 1970, in *Jour. Tamil Studies*, 2, 1, pp. 157-256; 1972, in Papers read at the Second All-India Conference of Dravidian Linguists, Tirupati (reprinted in Possehl, 1979, pp. 261-7); 1973, in *Proc. Third International Seminar, Paris, 1970; International Association of Tamil Res.*, Pondicherry, pp. 44-55; 1977, *Indus Script: Texts, Concordance & Tables*, *Mem. ASI*, 77, New Delhi. Marshall, J., 1931, *Mohenjo-daro & the Indus Civilization*, London, 3 vols. Meriggi, P., 1934, in *Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgendlän-dischen Gesellschaft*, N.F., 12, pp. 198-241. Metraux, A., 1938, in *Anthropos*, 33, pp. 218-39. Nath, R.M., 1959, *Clue to the Indus Valley Script & Civilzation*, Shillong. Otto, E. von, 1936 in *Zentralblatt fur Bibliothekswesen*, 53, pp. 109-14. Pandle, B.M., 1973, in Agrawal, D.P. & Ghosh, A., ed., *Radiocarbon & Indian Arch.*, Bombay (reprinted in Possehl, 1979). Pande, B.M., & Ramachandran, K.S., 1971, *Bibliography of the Harappan Culture*, Florida.

v1.c25.s4.21.4

Pande, H.C., tr., 1969, *Soviet Studies on Harappan Script by G.V. Alekseev, Yu.V., Knologzou, A.M., Kondratov, & B. Ya. Volchok*, Florida; tr, 1970, *Review of Finnish Decipherment of Proto-Dravidian Inscriptions by N.V. Gurov & Yu. V. Knorozov*, Florida, tr., 1973, *Proto-Indica; 1970 by N.V. Gurov, Yu. V. Knorozov & B. Ya. Volchok*, Florida. Paranavitanạ, 1961, in *International Conference on Asia Arch., Summaries of Papers*, New Delhi, pp. 42-4. Parpola, A., 1970, in *Tamil Studies*, 2, 1, pp. 89-109; 1979, in Agrawal, D.P., & Chakrabarti, D.K., ed., *Essays in Indian Protohistory*, Delhi. Parpola, A., Koskenniemi, S., Parpola, S., & Aalto, P., 1969a, *Decipherment of the Proto-Dravidian Inscriptions of the Indus Civilization: a First Announcement*, Copenhagen; 1969b, *Progress in the Decipherment of the Proto-Dravidian Script*, Copenhagen. Petrie, F., 1932, in *Ancient Egypt*, June, pp. 33-4. Piccoli, G., 1933, in *Indian Antiquary*, 62, pp. 213-5. Possehl, G.I., ed., 1979, *Ancient Cities of the Indus*, New Delhi. Pran Nath, 1931, in *Jour. Royal Asiatic Soc.*; 1931-2, in *Indian Hist. Quarterly*, 7, Supplement, pp. 1-52, & 8, pp. 1-32. Rao, S.R., 1961a, in *Illustrated London News*, 25 Feb., pp. 302-4; 1961b, in *ibid.*, 11 March, pp. 387-9; 1962 & 1963, in *AI*, 18 & 19 (for Rangpur excavation); 1971, in *Illustrated Weekly of India*, 12 Dec., pp. 21-5; 1972-3, in *Jour. Andhra Hist. Res. Soc.*, 33, 1, pp. 1-34; 1973a, *Lothal & the Indus Civilization*, Bombay;

v1.c25.s4.21.5

1973b, in Agrawal, D.P., & Ghosh, A., ed. *Radiocarbon & Indian Arch.*, Bombay, pp. 323-40; 1979, *Lothal, a Harappan Port Town (1955-62)*, *Mem. ASI*, 78, (which contains a chapter on the Indus script, not consulted here, and which promises a comprehensive work on the subject). Ray, S.K., 1963, *Indus Script, an Appeal to the Orientalists*, New Delhi; 1965a, *Indus Script*, New Delhi; 1965b, in *Śakti*, 2, 2, pp. 31-3; 1966, *Indus Script: Methods of Study*, New Delhi, Ross, A.S.C., 1938, '*Numeral-signs*' *of the Mohenjo-daro Script*, *Mem. ASI*, 5. Sankalia, H.D., 1978, in *Science Today*, June, pp. 28-35; Sankarananda, Swami, 1943-4, *Prehistoric Culture of the Prehistoric Indus*, Calcutta, 2 vols.; 1965, *Indus People Speak*, Calcutta; 1963, *Dictionary of Indian Hieroglyphs*, Calcutta. Sapre, N.M., 1960/66, *Aṇda-Baṇḍa* (Hindi), Damoh. Shendge, M.J., 1977, *Civilized Demons: the Harappans in Ṛgveda*, New Delhi. Vats, M.S., 1940, *Excavations at Harappa*, Delhi, 2 vols. Waddell, L.A., 1925, *Indo-Sumerian Seals Deciphered*, London; 1926, in *Jour. Royal Asiatic Soc.* Wheeler, M., 1968, *Indus Civilization*, Cambridge. Zide, A.R.K., 1970, in *Jour. Tamil Studies*, 2, 1 (reprinted Possehl, 1979, pp. 256-60). Zide, A.R.K., & Zvelebil, K., 1970, in *Indo-Iranian Jour.*, 12, 2, pp. 126-34 (review of Parpola *et al.*, 1969 a-b); 1976, ed., *Soviet Decipherment of the Indus Valley Script. Translation & Critique*, The Hague.—B.M. PANDE

v1.c25.s4.22

20.4.2 *Brāhmī and its derivatives.* The name Brāhmī was applied by Bühler to the script in which most of the inscriptions of Aśoka are engraved. It appears in some Jaina and Buddhist texts at the top of the lists of scripts. Though the finality of this nomenclature is not established the usage has persisted.

v1.c25.s4.23

The antiquity of writing of India after the discovery of the Harappa civilization [4.9] it traced to the 3rd millennium B.C., but there is no clear relationship between the Harappa [20.4.1] and the earliest Brāhmī characters. The Vedic literature does not contain any direct reference to any script but according to some several indications make a case for the currency of a writing system. Some scholars fix the antiquity of the Brāhmī script between the 8th and 6th centuries B.C. But Bühler brings the date forward on the ground that the literary evidence shows a widespread use of writing in the 5th century B.C. and perhaps in the 6th, as the alphabets of the Aśokan edicts not being a homogeneous writing was no recent invention in the 3rd century B.C. But recent researches during the last two decades have led some scholars to maintain that Brāhmī was invented just before Aśoka. These scholars do not place any inscription, including those from PIPRAHWA, Mahasthan and SOHGAURA, before Aśoka. They hold that a standard script has been used in Aśokan edicts without any form exclusive to the n. or the s. The theory that Brāhmī was originally written from right to left has long been discredited.

v1.c25.s4.24

The theories about the origin of the Brāhmī script can roughly be grouped into two, one ascribing it to an Indian and the other to a foreign source. Among the advocates of indigenous origin Edward Thomans subscribes to the Dravidian origin; and Cunningham, Dowson, Lassen, and Ojha believe in Aryan or Vedic origin. After the discovery of the Indus writing some scholars have attempted to trace the roots of Brāhmī in that system of writing. Pandey, 1952, on the basis of the name Brāhmī credits the Vedic Brāhmaṇas with its origin. But the use of the name Brāhmī for Aśokan script is itself of doubtful merit. Shamasastry, 1973, derives the Brāhmī characters called Devanagara (the city of gods) from Tantric signs and symbols, representing *devas* (deities). But these suggestions militate against the general pattern of the development of scripts, i.e. pictography, ideography and phonetic scripts, and cannot be accepted because there is no example of this writing before the 4th century B.C. and the earliest available specimens of Brāhmī writing have Jaina or Buddhist associations.

v1.c25.s4.25

Among scholars advocating a foreign origin one group favours a Greek origin and the other a Semitic. Prinsep, Müller, Sénart and de Rochette derive Brāhmī from the Greek alphabet, whereas Wilson and Halevy suggest a Hellenistic influence on the Brāhmī script. But the Brāhmī script seems to have been invented at least one or two centuries earlier than the earliest Indo-Greek cultural contacts. Moreover, whereas the Greek alphabet shows an improvement on the Semitic in the introduction of vowels, the Indian scripts suffer from 'an unsatisfactory solution of vocalization'.

v1.c25.s4.26

The Semitic derivation of Brāhmī first suggested by Jones in 1806 has been subsequently supported by von Seentzen, Kopp, Lepsius, Weber, Bühler and recently by Dani.

v1.c25.s4.27

In the camp of the supporters of Semitic origin Benfey, Weber, Bühler and Jensen suggest a Phoenician origin on the ground that about one-third of the Brāhmī signs has forms identical with the Phoenician letters, another one-third is somewhat similar and the reminder can be more or less harmonized.

v1.c25.s4.28

Deecke, Taylor and Sethe advocate a s. Semitic origin of Brāhmī. Rhys Davids holds that 'the Indian letters were derived from the pre-Semitic form of writing used in the Euphrates valley from which both the n. and s. Semitics also originiated.' Diringer considers the early Aramaic alphabet as the prototype of Brāhmī. Dani equates the sound and form of only 11 Brāhmī letters with those of n. Semitic and early Phoenician letters and concludes that 'the Brahmi letters are not literally "derived" from the Semitic ... but are only based on them. The idea may have been brought from further afield'.

v1.c25.s4.29

But if only idea was needed for the creation of the Brāhmī script there is no need for a cumbersome exercise to derive the forms of only 11 out of 46 letters from n. Semitic and early Phoenician scripts. The Indian *varṇa-mālā* was in existence well before Pāṇini, and even before Yāska. To create a script on the basis of the *varṇa-mālā* with the help of simple geometrical signs—angle, triangle, hook, dash and dot—was not a difficult task. For this the 'idea' or 'inscription', if any is needed, cannot be fixed with certainty.

v1.c25.s4.30

Brāhmī is said to be the great-grandmother of all Indian scripts. Many scripts of S.-E. Asia, some still in use, also originated and developed from Brāhmī.

v1.c25.s4.31

Earlier palaeographists led by Bühler recognized the n. and s. varieties in the Aśokan Brāhmī but recent researches do not confirm any regional differentiation. Aśoka used a standard script throughout his empire and the differences, if any, are due to scribes.

v1.c25.s4.32

The script developed in later times under a single process of evolution. Regional cultures, personal mannerisms, efforts at speed, beautification and decoration and the writing materials and the tools are some of the factors which explain the differences and characteristics of later writings in India and abroad.

v1.c25.s4.33

Earlier palaeographists used dynastic names, Maurya, Kushan, Gupta, Chalukya, etc., to label palaeographical developments of later periods. It is however better to give them regional identities. Writing being an item of culture, regional traits and culture vitally governed the development of Brāhmī script into present regional scripts.

v1.c25.s4.34

After Aśoka more and more people became interested slowly in this useful medium which was patronized by both indigenous and foreign rulers. Down to the end of the 1st century B.C. the writing tool or engraving was some rod-like instrument which gave equal breadth to all parts of a letter. But the tendency of equalizing the verticals was gaining popularity. In the last quarter of the 1st century B.C. the Śaka Kṣatrapas of Mathurā introduced the edged pen as a writing tool. This gave new face to the letters and a pleasant shape to its parts. This 'new pen' was mainly responsible for causing variation in the script in different parts of the country especially in the early centuries of the Christian era and for creating varieties in the subsequent periods.

v1.c25.s4.35

From the fall of the Mauryan empire to the middle of the 1st century A.D. the script shows four broad regional variations, e., n.-w., Deccan and s. India. From the 1st century A.D. the writing styles tended to become localized, but this was partially retarded by the use of a common language, Sanskrit, facilitating the easy movement of literates and scribes and the technical skill or styles of writing and by the growth of larger kingdoms, which had to adopt a uniform style of writing. This explains how the Kauśāmbī style of the 2nd-3rd century A.D. spread throughout the middle Ganga valley up to Bengal after its adoption by the Guptas; but in the 6th-7th centuries, with the growth of the power of Kanauj, it was replaced by another style from the w. region.

v1.c25.s4.36

Bühler recognized nine important styles of the n. and five of the s. alphabets about A.D. 350. For the regional scripts of later times Bühler gave names on the basis of a classification of the form, but Ojha preferred modern names. Dani classifies the scripts into four geographical groups—(a) n. India, (b) Gujarat, Rajasthan and c. India, (c) the Deccan, and (d) s. India. He again divides these into nine recognizable regional scripts—(a.1) middle Ganga, (a.2) e. India, (a.3) Mathurā and the n.-w. region, (b.4) Rajasthani, (b.5) Kathiawadi, (c.6) Deccani, (d.7) Mysore and Maharashtra, (d.8) Andhra and (d.9) s. India. Dani claims that these divisions closely agree with the account of 'Al-Bīrūnī. 'Out of the 11 scripts mentioned by him Ardhanāgarī, Malwārī, and Saindhava, current in Bhatiya and Sind are unknown to us because no record from this region is available so far ... 'Al-Bīrūnī's Bhaikṣukī style used in Udunpur in Purvadeśa was probably a special writing used by the Buddhists.' The remaining scripts, Siddhamātṛkā, Nāgara, Gauḍī, Lāḍī (Lāṭī or Kathiawadi), Karṇāṭa, Āndhrī and Dirwārī (Drāviḍī), are easy to recognize. Of these Nāgara is derived from Varṇanāga, a style of writing current in Malwa. Siddhamātṛkā, current in Kashmir, Madhyadeśa (the region round Kanauj) and Varanasi, refers to the style named 'Kuṭila' by Fleet and 'acute-angled' by Bühler, but by the 10th century Nāgarī displaced it in the Ganga valley and Śāradā in Kashmir.

v1.c25.s4.37

These protoregional scripts developed into the modern regional scripts of India. Some of these are still used for the regional languages, but some others went out of use. At the beginning of the Gupta period alphabets in the Madhya Pradesh area developed square and triangular head-marks which could be either solid or hollow and are designated as box-head. This style persisted in Madhya Pradesh and some countries of S.-E. Asia up to the end of the 8th century A.D.

v1.c25.s4.38

Devanāgarī, developed from Siddha-mātṛkā, a variety of the Gupta character, is the most popular script in India. Sanskrit is now mostly written in this script. Nandināgarī, the name for the s. Indian form of Nāgarī, is an obscure term.

v1.c25.s4.39

The Śāradā script, descended from the w. type of the Gupta characters, is still used by some for writing Kashmiri.

First 60 of 99 passages. Read on

Linked texts (30)