[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Reference works](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference) › [An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989) › v1.c25.s4.25 # An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c25.s4.25 An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c25.s4.25 - **Language:** English ### [v1.c25.s4.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.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'. - [Previous: v1.c25.s4.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c25.s4.24) - [Next: v1.c25.s4.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c25.s4.26) - [Up: v1.c25.s4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c25.s4) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c25.s4.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c25.s4.25) · Pramāṇa