Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c25.s4: 20.4 Scripts

An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c25.s4

Language
English

Contents

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.

v1.c25.s4.40

The Kauśāmbī style of the 4th-5th centuries went to Bengal and from there to Nepal. In the 11th-12th centuries it developed into the Bengali character, which with a few adaptations, are used in Assam. But Oriya letters were influenced mostly by the Telugu script, their peculiar shapes being governed by technical factors.

v1.c25.s4.41

In Bihar Maithilī is still in use in the Mithila region. Kaithī, with many local varieties, in use all over n. India from Gujarat to Bihar, is rapidly falling into disuse. It is a true cursive writing and differs from the Devanāgarī characters in the omission of the horizontal and perpendicular strokes where possible.

v1.c25.s4.42

Besides Nāgarī (associated with the Nāgara Brāhmanas of Gujarat?) Gujarati claims two more scripts.

v1.c25.s4.43

In Rajasthan Mahājanī, a variety of Devanāgarī, is 11th century onwards, is the official printing and writing script for Gujarati. The Vanaiyī or Sarāfī (also called Bodīā) is a variety of it used by merchants.

v1.c25.s4.44

In Rajasthan Mahājanī, a variety of Devanāgarī, is in use.

v1.c25.s4.45

Bühler regards Bālabodha or Devanāgarī of the Maharashtra region to be a survival of s.Nāgarī. A variety of it is in used by the s. Brahmaṇas in Thanjavur, Dt Moḍī, possibly the running hand of Bālabodha, is related to the Mahājanī and is used for private correspondence and for commerical purposes.

v1.c25.s4.46

In the n.-w. the main characters are Śāradā (for writing Kashmiri), Tākrī, Lanḍā and Gurumukhī. Tākrī, used by ordinary traders in the lower ranges of the Himalayas n. of Punjab including Simla area, was developed on the lines of Devanāgarī. It often omits medial short vowels and uses medial long vowels in their initial forms. Dogarī and Chamaulī are used respectively for the Dogri and hill dialects of the Chamba area. Mandeali Sirmauri, Junasari, Kochī, Kului and Kastawari are some of their varieties. Lanḍā is used from Punjab to Sind for the Punjabi language mainly by shopkeepers. Its varieties include Multānī, and about a dozen others for writing Sindhi. In Sindhi Lanḍā is called Baniyā or Waniko. About a hundred years ago it was used in schools and for printing books but has now been replaced by Persian-Arabic alphabet.

v1.c25.s4.47

Tradition says that Gurumukhī was intended by Angadadeva, the second *guru* of the Sikhs, because he found Landa inadequate for writing the sacred scriptures of the Sikhs.

v1.c25.s4.48

About the s. Indian scripts Kanarese and Telugu are used in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh respectively. On the e. coast of Tamil Nadu early Grantha letters were used in the Sanskrit inscriptions of the Pallavas, Coḷas and Pāṇḍyas. The modern Grantha script dates from 1300. It has two varieties, Brāhmaṇic or 'square' hand, used mainly in Thanjavur, and Jaina or 'round' hand used near Arcot and Madras.

v1.c25.s4.49

Under the Pallavas the Tamil portions of the inscriptions were written in Vaṭṭeluttu which means round hand as opposed to the Malayalam (script of the Kerala) called Koleluttu of 'sceptre hand'. Burnell regards Vaṭṭeḷttu to be the original Tamil character and termed it as the Pāṇḍyan writing which after the conquest by the Coḷas in the 11th century was supplanted by Tamil characters and finally disappeared in the 15th century. Bühler describes Veṭṭeḷuttu as an ancient cursive variety of the Tamil script.

v1.c25.s4.50

Simhalese is a further development of Brāhmī. Modern Simhalese is more developed than old Simhalese.

v1.c25.s4.51

Brāhmī went to other countries in Asia. The w. variety of Gupta characters developed into C. Asian slanting Gupta and the C. Asian cursive Gupta in the 6th or 7th century. The C. Asian slanting characters generally have the inherent *a*, though possessing special signs for the same. At least two varieties of it can be distinguished, the Agnean and the Kuchean, the latter being more cursive than the former.

v1.c25.s4.52

The C. Asian cursive Gupta alphabets are named Khotanese after the language. It began in the 2nd century A.D. but the extant manuscripts are of the 9th-10th centuries. The existing Brāhmī was adopted to suit the requirement of the new language and consequently signs for new compounds, such as *tch*, *js*, *ts*, *ys*, were created. Hoernle suggests that the Khotanese script was strongly influenced by a Semitic alphabet. This script was used to express Chinese words also.

v1.c25.s4.53

Traditionally Thon-mi-Sam-bhota, minister of king Srong-btsan-Sgam-po, is credited to have invented the Tibetan script in 639. But the Tibetan script is only a revision of an earlier script already in use in Tibet. It contains signs for additional sounds not present in Indian languages. Hoernle suggested that the Tibetan script was introduced from Khotan. Thus the Tibetan alphabet can be called Indian inasmuch as its source, the Khotanese alphabet, was derived from an Indian script. Two varieties of the Tibetan script have been recognized; *dbu-chan* (pron. *u-chan*) meaning ‘head-possessing’ and used for literary purposes and printing and *dbu-med* (pron. *umed*) or ‘headless’ used for secular purposes. The main variety of the second is Khyug-yig or the current hand. Chinese was also written in Tibetan characters.

v1.c25.s4.54

There were two main offshoots of the Tibetan characters: (1) the Passepa characters, written under Chinese influence in vertical columns downwards, although the columns read from left to right, and (2) Lepcha characters employed by the Rong people of Sikkim.

v1.c25.s4.55

In Ceylon and the S.-E. Asian countries—Burma, Kampuchea (Cambodia), Cochin China, Thailand, Malaya and Indonesia—merchants, fortune-seekers and Brāhmaṇical and Buddhist priests from India took with them their script as well. Cham-Khmer formed a definite family of scripts. The French scholars Aymonier and Cabaton trace two early varieties of the Cham-Khmer scripts: (1) the lapidary script found in inscriptions, and (2) the current hand traceable in a few inscriptions, from which evolved nearly all the current scripts.

v1.c25.s4.56

The alphabets used in the early Mon inscriptions from Burma are the ancestors of the Modern Mon script and the Burmese and some Shan characters. The early Mon was largely influenced by the s. Indian script. Modern Pyu and Burmese developed from this script.

v1.c25.s4.57

The Siamese of modern times is the main script of the Thai group of languages. But the earliest of the group is the Lao script used in n. Siam and Dt Amherst of Burma. Lu and Hkun characters derived from the Lao are used by the Shan tribes of Kentung state. The Ahom characters of the Ahom people in Dt Sibsagar Assam are also derived from Lao.

v1.c25.s4.58

In Java (Indonesia) some people still use the Old-Javanese script. In Sumatra many scripts in use are of Indian origin. These are directly or indirectly originated from Old-Javanese. Among these Lampong and Redjang scripts of the Batak and Celebes script of the Turajas and other n.-e. tribes are worth mentioning.

v1.c25.s4.59

We have mentioned only some of the main branches of the scripts which developed out of Brāhmī, though there are many more branches and sub-branches.

v1.c25.s4.60

Bhandarkar, D.R., 1922, in *Sir Asutosh Mukherji Silver Jubilee Volume*, 3 (Oriental), 1, pp. 492-514. Bühler, G., 1882, in *Indian Antiquity*, 11, p 268; 1956 reprint, *Indian Palaeography in Indian Studies, Past & Present*, Calcutta, 1, 1, 3. Burnell, A.C., 1878, *Elements of S Indian Palaeography*, London. Cust, R.N, 1884 in *Jour. Royal Asiatic Soc.*, New Series, 16; 1897, in *ibid.*, pp. 49-80. Dani, A.H., 1963, *Indian Palaeography*, London Diringer, D., 1953, *Alphabet, a Key to the History of Mankind*, London; 1962, *Writing*, London. Gelb, I J., 1963, *Study of Writing*, Chicago. Mahalingam, T V, 1967, *Early s. Indian Palaeography*, Madras. Ojha, G.H., 1959 reprint, *Bharatiya Prachina Lipimala* (Hindi), Delhi. Pandey, R.B., 1953, *Indian Palaeography*, Varanasi, Shamasastry, R, 1973, reprint, *Origin of the Devanagari Alphabets*, Varanasi, Sivaramamurti, C., 1952, *Indian Palaeography & s. Indian Scripts*, Madras. Upasak, S.C., 1960, *History & Palaeography of Mauryan Brahmi Script*, Nalanda. Verma, T P., 1971, *Palaeography of Brāhmī Script in n. India*, Varanasi; 1976, *Development of Script in Ancient Kamarupa*, Gauhati. Waddell, L A., 1927, *Aryan Origin of the Alphabet*, London.—L. GOPAL & T.P VERMA

20.4.3 Kharoṣṭhī

v1.c25.s4.t1.1

Of the two main scripts known from ancient Indian epigraphs, the one written from right to left was earlier designated as Bactrian or Indo-Bactrian, being first noticed on the coins of the Indo-Greek rulers of Bactria, as Kabulian, Arianian or Gandhārian on geographical grounds, and as Bactro-Pāli or Ariano-Pāli on the basis of the language used. Kharoṣṭhī, the name currently popular, was used first by T. de Lacouperie and was popularized by Bühler. It is mentioned in the *Lalitavistara* (c. 3rd century A.D.). The Chinese encyclopaedia *Fa-Wan-Shu-Lin* (A.D. 668) speak of the script invented by Kia-lu (or Kia-lu-she-ti). Kharoṭṭhi (Kharoṣṭhī) appears among the 18 scripts listed by the *Pannavaṇa-sūtra* and *Samavāyaṅga-sūtra*. The *Mahavastu* records the form Kharostri.

v1.c25.s4.t1.2

Kharoṣṭha is apparently a Prakritized form of the Sanskrit name *Kharauṣṭha* (*khara*+*oṣṭha* meaning ass-lip). The *Fa-Wan-Shu-Lin* takes Kharoṣṭha to be the personal name of the inventor of the script, probably on the analogy of the connection between Brahmā and Brāhmī but this does not have any other tradition to support it. Lacouperie identifies Kia-lu with Kyros, the Kuras and Kurish of the cuneiform inscriptions, the Khusrau of Persian history. The suggestion connecting the name of the script with the barbarous peoples on the n.-w. boundaries, covered by the common appellation Kharoṣṭha, or with the fact that its characters are irregular elongated curves resembling the moving lips (*oṣṭha*) of an ass (*khara*) is hypothetical. According to Lévi the correct name of the script was Kharoṣṭra derived from the Chinese name Kia-lu-shu-tan-le for the province of Kashgar. Franke equates the Prakrit form Kharoṭṭha with Ko-lo-to, a country to the s.-w. of Kashgar, also named as Kie-pan-to Han-to and Ko-kuan-tan. But Kharoṣṭhī as the earliest form of the name of the script and its continuous history in India long before its introduction in C. Asia go against the theory. Ludwig’s suggestion that the name was a false transliteration of Kharoṭṭha equated with an imaginary Aramaic word meaning ‘engraving, writing’ is conjectural. Przyluski’s theory, which finds favour with Das Gupta, postulates that the original name of the script, derived from *kharaposta* (or *kharaosta*) meaning hide of donkey, referred to the material on which it was originally written, *kharoṣṭha* being its Indian corruption. But this is equally a presumption, and the derivation of the name remains open.

v1.c25.s4.t1.3

The use of Kharoṣṭhī by Aśoka for his edicts at Mansehra and Shahbazgarhi is a clear proof that it was in popular use in the n.-w. regions before his times. Further the script is found mostly in the records of foreign rulers, the Greeks, Scythians, Parthians and Kushans. Thomas pointed out the close connection between Kharoṣṭhī and Aramaic as obvious in the direction of writing, the identical forms of some letters (e.g., *na*, *ba*, *ra* and *va*) and the employment of one basic form for the initial vowels. Taylor attributed the origin of Kharoṣṭhī to the requirements of the Achaemenian rule and proposed that its letters had gradually evolved from Aramaic. Bühler who elaborated Taylor’s arguments said that the script had arisen out of the official intercourse between the scribes of the Satraps and those of the native chiefs or other authorities. Das Gupta lists the principal letters of the Kharoṣṭhī borrowed from the Aramaic and the letters derived from the borrowed signs and then mentions two new features of Kharoṣṭhī: the formation of the compound *akṣaras* and the adding of the vowel-signs. Dani’s analysis is more penetrating. He holds that Kharoṣṭhī resulted from the effort to find a vehicle for writing the local language in a way ‘intelligible to the local people as well as convenient to learn by the administrative staff who were familiar with Aramaic’. There is no long gap between the introduction of Aramaic and the evolution of Kharoṣṭhī. Though its letters have not evolved from the Aramaic ones, the Kharoṣṭhī script was created on the basis of Aramaic. The peculiarities of the phonology and the grammar of the local languages could not be adequately expressed through Aramaic letters and this brought Kharoṣṭhī nearer to Brāhmī. The Kharoṣṭhī letters were based on Aramaic to the extent the requirements of the Indian alphabet permitted; other letters were created by adding diacritical marks.

First 67 of 78 passages. Read on

Linked texts (9)