Brahmi script

Semitic model hypothesis

Left pillar No.9 of the Great Chatya at Karla Caves. This pillar was donated by a Yavana (Indo-Greek), circa 120 CE, like five other pillars. The inscription of this pillar reads: "dhenukākaṭa yavanasa / yasavadhanānaṃ / thabo danaṃ" i.e. "(This) pillar (is) the gift of the Yavana Yasavadhana from Denukakata".^[60] Below: detail of the word "Ya-va-na-sa" (𑀬𑀯𑀦𑀲, adjectival form of "Yavana", Brahmi script).

James Prinsep, known for deciphering Brahmi in early 19th-century, was first to propose a connection between Indian scripts and Greek. He suggested that the oldest Greek was a "topsy-turvy" version of an ancient Indian language.^[61] K. Ottfried Muller reversed this proposal suggesting that Brahmi was derived from Greek after the arrival of Alexander the Great.^[61]

Many scholars link the origin of Brahmi to Semitic script models, particularly Aramaic.^[49] The explanation of how this might have happened, the particular Semitic script and the chronology have been the subject of much debate. Bühler followed Max Weber in connecting it particularly to Phoenician and proposed an early 8th century BCE date^[62] for the borrowing. A link to the South Semitic script, a less prominent branch of the Semitic script family has occasionally been proposed but has not gained much acceptance.^[63] Finally, the Aramaic script being the prototype for Brahmi has been the more preferred hypothesis because of its geographic proximity to the Indian subcontinent, and its influence likely arising because Aramaic was the bureaucratic language of the Achaemenid empire. However, this hypothesis does not explain the mystery of why two very different scripts, Kharoṣṭhī and Brahmi, developed from the same Aramaic. A possible explanation might be that Ashoka created an imperial script for his edicts, but there is no evidence to support this conjecture.^[64]

Bühler's theory

According to the Semitic hypothesis as laid out by Bühler in 1898, the oldest Brahmi inscriptions were derived from a Phoenician prototype.^{[65][note 3]} Salomon states Bühler's arguments are "weak historical, geographical, and chronological justifications for a Phoenician prototype". Discoveries made since Bühler's proposal, such as of six Mauryan inscriptions in Aramaic suggest Bühler's proposal about Phoenician as weak. It is more likely that Aramaic, which was virtually certain the prototype for Kharoṣṭhī, also may have been the basis for Brahmi. However, it is unclear why the ancient Indians would have developed two very different scripts.^[64]

According to Bühler, Brahmi added symbols for certain sounds not found in Semitic languages, and either deleted or repurposed symbols for Aramaic sounds not found in Prakrit. For example, Aramaic lacks the phonetic retroflex feature that appears among Prakrit dental stops, such as ḍ, and in Brahmi the symbols of the retroflex and non-retroflex consonants are graphically very similar, as if both had been derived from a single prototype. (See Tibetan alphabet for a similar later development.) Aramaic did not have Brahmi’s aspirated consonants (kh, th, etc.), whereas Brahmi did not have Aramaic's emphatic consonants (q, ṭ, ṣ), and it appears that these unneeded emphatic letters filled in for some of Brahmi's aspirates: Aramaic q for Brahmi kh, Aramaic ṭ (Θ) for Brahmi th (ʘ), etc. And just where Aramaic did not have a corresponding emphatic stop, p, Brahmi seems to have doubled up for the corresponding aspirate: Brahmi p and ph are graphically very similar, as if taken from the same source in Aramaic p. Bühler saw a systematic derivational principle for the other aspirates ch, jh, ph, bh, and dh, which involved adding a curve or upward hook to the right side of the character (which has been speculated to derive from h, ), while d and ṭ (not to be confused with the Semitic emphatic ṭ) were derived by back formation from dh and ṭh.^[67]

Bühler's aspirate derivations

IAST	-aspirate	+aspirate	origin of aspirate according to Bühler
k/kh			Semitic emphatic (qoph)
g/gh			Semitic emphatic (heth) (hook addition in Bhattiprolu script)
c/ch			curve addition
j/jh			hook addition with some alteration
p/ph			curve addition
b/bh			hook addition with some alteration
t/th			Semitic emphatic (teth)
d/dh			unaspirated glyph back formed
ṭ/ṭh			unaspirated glyph back formed as if aspirated glyph with curve
ḍ/ḍh			curve addition

The following table lists the correspondences between Brahmi and North Semitic scripts.^[68][69]

Comparison of North Semitic and Brahmi scripts^{[69][note 4]}

Phoenician	Aramaic	Value	Brahmi	Value
		*		a
		b [b]		ba
		g [ɡ]		ga
		d [d]		dha
		h [h], M.L.		ha
		w [w], M.L.		va
		z [z]		ja
		ḥ [ħ]		gha
		ṭ [tˤ]		tha
		y [j], M.L.		ya
		k [k]		ka
		l [l]		la
		m [m]		ma
		n [n]		na
		s [s]		ṣa
		ʿ [ʕ], M.L.		e
		p [p]		pa
		ṣ [sˤ]		ca
		q [q]		kha
		r [r]		ra
		š [ʃ]		śa
		t [t]		ta

Bühler states that both Phoenician and Brahmi had three voiceless sibilants, but because the alphabetical ordering was lost, the correspondences among them are not clear. Bühler was able to suggest Brahmi derivatives corresponding to all of the 22 North Semitic characters, though clearly, as Bühler himself recognized, some are more confident than others. He tended to place much weight on phonetic congruence as a guideline, for example connecting c to tsade rather than kaph , as preferred by many of his predecessors.

One of the key problems with a Phoenician derivation is the lack of evidence for historical contact with Phoenicians in the relevant period.^[64] Bühler explained this by proposing that the initial borrowing of Brahmi characters dates back considerably earlier than the earliest known evidence, as far back as 800 BCE, contemporary with the Phoenician glyph forms that he mainly compared. Bühler cited a near-modern practice of writing Brahmic scripts informally without vowel diacritics as a possible continuation of this earlier abjad-like stage in development.^[62]

The weakest forms of the Semitic hypothesis are similar to Gnanadesikan's trans-cultural diffusion view of the development of Brahmi and Kharoṣṭhī, in which the idea of alphabetic sound representation was learned from the Aramaic-speaking Persians, but much of the writing system was a novel development tailored to the phonology of Prakrit.^[71]

Some common variants of Brahmic letters

Another evidence cited in favor of Persian influence has been the Hultzsch proposal in 1925 that the Prakrit/Sanskrit word for writing itself, lipi is similar to the Old Persian word dipi, suggesting a probable borrowing.^[72][73] A few of the Ashoka edicts from the region nearest the Persian empire use dipi as the Prakrit word for writing, which appears as lipi elsewhere, and this geographic distribution has long been taken, at least back to Bühler's time, as an indication that the standard lipi form is a later alteration that appeared as it diffused away from the Persian sphere of influence. Persian Dipi itself is thought to be an Elamite loanword.^[74]

Falk's theory

Falk's 1993 book Schrift im Alten Indien is considered a definitive study on writing in ancient India.^[75][76] Falk's section on the origins of the Brahmi script^[46] features an extensive review of the literature up to that time. Falk also puts forth his own ideas. As have a number of other authors, Falk sees the basic writing system of Brahmi as being derived from the Kharoṣṭhī script, itself a derivative of Aramaic. At the time of his writing, the Ashoka edicts were the oldest confidently dateable examples of Brahmi, and he perceives in them "a clear development in language from a faulty linguistic style to a well honed one"^[77] over time, which he takes to indicate that the script had been recently developed.^[46][78] Falk deviates from the mainstream of opinion in seeing Greek as also being a significant source for Brahmi. On this point particularly, Salomon disagrees with Falk, and after presenting evidence of very different methodology between Greek and Brahmi notation of vowel quantity, he states "it is doubtful whether Brahmi derived even the basic concept from a Greek prototype".^[61] Further, adds Salomon, in a "limited sense Brahmi can be said to be derived from Kharosthi, but in terms of the actual forms of the characters, the differences between the two Indian scripts are much greater than the similarities".^[79]

Falk also dated the origin of Kharoṣṭhī to no earlier than 325 BCE, based on a proposed connection to the Greek conquest.^[80] Salomon questions Falk's arguments as to the date of Kharoṣṭhī and writes that it is "speculative at best and hardly constitutes firm grounds for a late date for Kharoṣṭhī. The stronger argument for this position is that we have no specimen of the script before the time of Ashoka, nor any direct evidence of intermediate stages in its development; but of course this does not mean that such earlier forms did not exist, only that, if they did exist, they have not survived, presumably because they were not employed for monumental purposes before Ashoka".^[78]

Coin of Agathocles with Hindu deities, in Greek and Brahmi.
'Obv Balarama-Samkarshana with Greek legend: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΓΑΘΟΚΛΕΟΥΣ.
Rev Vasudeva-Krishna with Brahmi legend:𑀭𑀸𑀚𑀦𑁂 𑀅𑀕𑀣𑀼𑀓𑁆𑀮𑀬𑁂𑀲 Rājane Agathukleyesa "King Agathocles". Circa 180 BCE.

Taxila coin. Obverse: Negamā in Brahmi. Reverse Dojaka in Brahmi. (185-168 BCE). An example of the Post-Mauryan coinage of Gandhara.

Coin of the Vemaka or Audumbaras tribe. Obverse: Bhagavata mahadevasa rajarana in Kharosthi. Reverse: Bhagavata-mahadevasa rajarana in Brahmi. 1st century BCE.^[81]

Unlike Bühler, Falk does not provide details of which and how the presumptive prototypes may have been mapped to the individual characters of Brahmi. Further, states Salomon, Falk accepts there are anomalies in phonetic value and diacritics in Brahmi script that are not found in the presumed Kharoṣṭhī script source. Falk attempts to explain these anomalies by reviving Greek influence hypothesis, a hypothesis that had previously fallen out of favor.^[78][82]

Hartmut Scharfe, in his 2002 review of Kharoṣṭī and Brāhmī scripts, concurs with Salomon's questioning of Falk's proposal, and states, "the pattern of the phonemic analysis of the Sanskrit language achieved by the Vedic scholars is much closer to the Brahmi script than the Greek alphabet".^[10]

Indigenous origin theory

The idea of an indigenous origin such as a connection to the Indus script is supported by some Western and Indian scholars and writers. The theory that there are similarities to the Indus script was suggested by early European scholars such as the Cambridge University archaeologist John Marshall^[83] and the Oxford University professor Stephen Langdon,^[84] and it continues to be suggested by scholars and writers such as (among others) the computer scientist Subhash Kak, the German Indologist Georg Feuerstein, the American teacher David Frawley, the British archaeologist Raymond Allchin, and the Cambridge University professor Jack Goody.^[85][86][87]

Raymond Allchin states that there is a powerful argument against the idea that the Brahmi script has Semitic borrowing because the whole structure and conception is quite different. He suggests that the origin may have been purely indigenous with the Indus script as its predecessor.^[88] However, Allchin and Erdosy later in 1995 expressed the opinion that there was as yet insufficient evidence to resolve the question.^[89] G.R. Hunter in his book The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and Its Connection with Other Scripts (1934) proposed a derivation of the Brahmi alphabets from the Indus Script, the match being considerably higher than that of Aramaic in his estimation.^[90]

A proposed connection between the Brahmi and Indus scripts, made in the 19th century by Alexander Cunningham.

Subhash Kak disagrees with the proposed Semitic origins of the script,^[91] instead states that the interaction between the Indic and the Semitic worlds before the rise of the Semitic scripts might imply a reverse process.^[92] However, the chronology thus presented and the notion of an unbroken tradition of literacy is opposed by a majority of academics who support an indigenous origin. Evidence for a continuity between Indus and Brahmi has also been seen in graphic similarities between Brahmi and the late Indus script, where the ten most common ligatures correspond with the form of one of the ten most common glyphs in Brahmi.^[93] There is also corresponding evidence of continuity in the use of numerals.^[94] Further support for this continuity comes from statistical analysis of the relationship carried out by Das.^[95] Salomon considered simple graphic similarities between characters to be insufficient evidence for a connection without knowing the phonetic values of the Indus script, though he found apparent similarities in patterns of compounding and diacritical modification to be "intriguing." However, he felt that it was premature to explain and evaluate them due to the large chronological gap between the scripts and the thus far indecipherable nature of the Indus script.^[96]

The main obstacle to this idea is the lack of evidence for writing during the millennium and a half between the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilisation around 1500 BCE and the first widely accepted appearance of Brahmi in the 3rd and 4th centuries BCE. Iravathan Mahadevan makes the point that even if one takes the latest dates of 1500 BCE for the Indus script and earliest claimed dates of Brahmi around 500 BCE, a thousand years still separates the two.^[97] Furthermore, there is no accepted decipherment of the Indus script, which makes theories based on claimed decipherments tenuous. A promising possible link between the Indus script and later writing traditions may be in the megalithic graffiti symbols of the South Indian megalithic culture, which may have some overlap with the Indus symbol inventory and persisted in use up at least through the appearance of the Brahmi and Tamil Brahmi scripts up into the third century CE. These graffiti usually appear singly, though on occasion may be found in groups of two or three, and are thought to have been family, clan, or religious symbols.^[98] In 1935, C.L. Fábri proposed that symbols found on Mauryan punch-marked coins were remnants of the Indus script that had survived the collapse of the Indus civilization.^[99] Iravatham Mahadevan, decipherer of Tamil-Brahmi and a noted expert on the Indus script, has supported the idea that both those semiotic traditions may have some continuity with the Indus script, but regarding the idea of continuity with Brahmi, he has categorically stated that he does not believe that theory "at all."^[97]

Another form of the indigenous origin theory is that Brahmi was invented ex nihilo, entirely independently from either Semitic models or the Indus script, though Salomon found these theories to be wholly speculative in nature.^[100]

Foreign origination

The word Lipī (𑀮𑀺𑀧𑀻) used by Ashoka to describe his "Edicts". Brahmi script (Li=𑀮La+𑀺i; pī=𑀧Pa+𑀻ii). The word would be of Old Persian origin ("Dipi").

Main article: Lipi

Pāṇini (6th to 4th century BCE) mentions lipi, the Indian word for writing scripts in his definitive work on Sanskrit grammar, the Ashtadhyayi. According to Scharfe, the words lipi and libi are borrowed from the Old Persian dipi, in turn derived from Sumerian dup.^[73][101] To describe his own Edicts, Ashoka used the word Lipī, now generally simply translated as "writting" or "inscription". It is thought the word "lipi", which is also orthographed "dipi" in the two Kharosthi-version of the rock edicts,^{[note 5]} comes from an Old Persian prototype dipî also meaning "inscription", which is used for example by Darius I in his Behistun inscription,^{[note 6]} suggesting borrowing and diffusion.^{[102][103][104]}

Scharfe adds that the best evidence, at the time of his review, is that no script was used or ever known in India, aside from the Persian-dominated Northwest where Aramaic was used, before around 300 BCE because Indian tradition "at every occasion stresses the orality of the cultural and literary heritage."^[73]

Issues with current theories on Brahmi script origins

Connections between Phoenician (4th column) and Brahmi (5th column). Note that 6th-to-4th-century BCE Aramaic (not shown) is in many cases intermediate in form between the two.

Kenneth Norman, a professor and the President of the Pali Text Society, suggests that writing scripts in ancient India evolved over a long period of time as with other cultures and that it is unlikely that Brahmi was devised as a complete writing system in a single effort in the Maurya era. Norman suggests that it is even less likely that Brāhmī was invented during Aśoka's rule, starting from nothing, for the specific purpose of writing his inscriptions and subsequently understood all over South Asia where the pillars of Ashoka are found.^[112] Reviewing recent archaeological discoveries relating to writing scripts in ancient India and particularly to Buddhism, Norman writes, "Support for this idea of pre-Aśokan development has been given very recently by the discovery of sherds at Anuradhapura in Sri Lanka, inscribed with small numbers of characters which seem to be Brāhmī. These sherds have been dated, by both Carbon 14 and Thermo-luminescence dating, to pre-Aśokan times, perhaps as much as much as two centuries before Aśoka."^[113]

Jack Goody, a professor of social anthropology, similarly suggests that ancient India likely had a "very old culture of writing" along with its oral tradition of composing and transmitting knowledge, because the Vedic literature is too vast, consistent and complex to have been entirely created, memorized, accurately preserved and spread without a written system.^[114][115] Walter Ong, a professor of literature and religious history, and John Hartley, a professor of cultural science, concur with Goody and share the same concerns about the theory that there may not have been any writing scripts including Brahmi during the Vedic age, given the quantity and quality of the Vedic literature.^[116]

Falk disagrees with Goody and suggests that it is a Western presumption and inability to imagine that remarkably early scientific achievements such as Panini's grammar (5th to 4th century BCE), and the creation, preservation and wide distribution of the large corpus of the Brahmanas and the Buddhist canonical literature, could have occurred without any writing scripts.^[117] Johannes Bronkhorst, a professor of Sanskrit and Indian studies, acknowledges that Falk is widely regarded as the definitive study on this subject but disagrees and states,

Falk goes too far. It is fair to expect that we believe that Vedic memorisation — though without parallel in any other human society — has been able to preserve very long texts for many centuries without losing a syllable. (...) However, the oral composition of a work as complex as Pāṇini’s grammar is not only without parallel in other human cultures, it is without parallel in India itself. (...) It just will not do to state that our difficulty in conceiving any such thing is our problem.^[75]

Origin of the name

Several divergent accounts of the origin of the name "Brahmi" appear in history and legend. Several Sutras of Jainism such as the Vyakhya Pragyapti Sutra, the Samvayanga Sutra and the Pragyapna Sutra of the Jain Agamas include a list of 18 writing scripts known to teachers before the Mahavira was born, with the Brahmi script (bambhī in the original Prakrit) leading all these lists. The Brahmi script is missing from the 18 script list in the surviving versions of two later Jaina Sutras, namely the Vishesha Avashyaka and the Kalpa Sutra. Jain legend recounts that 18 writing scripts were taught by their first Tirthankara Rishabhanatha to his daughter Brahmi, she emphasized Brahmi as the main script as she taught others, and therefore the name Brahmi for the script comes after her name.^[118]

A Chinese Buddhist account of the 6th century CE attributes its creation to the god Brahma, though Monier Monier-Williams, Sylvain Lévi and others thought it was more likely to have been given the name because it was moulded by the Brahmins.^[119][120]

The term Brahmi appears in ancient Indian texts in different contexts. According to the rules of the Sanskrit language, it is a feminine word which literally means "of Brahma" or "the female energy of the Brahman".^[121] In other texts such as the Mahabharata, it appears in the sense of a goddess, particularly for Saraswati as the goddess of speech and elsewhere as "personified Shakti (energy) of Brahma".^[122]

Consonants

Brahmi is an abugida, meaning that each letter represents a consonant, while vowels are written with obligatory diacritics called mātrās in Sanskrit, except when the vowels commence a word. When no vowel is written, the vowel /a/ is understood. This "default short a" is a characteristic shared with Kharosthī, though the treatment of vowels differs in other respects.

Brahmi consonants.

Conjunct consonants

Special conjunct consonants are used to write consonant clusters such as /pr/ or /rv/. In modern Devanagari the components of a conjunct are written left to right when possible (when the first consonant has a vertical stem that can be removed at the right), whereas in Brahmi characters are joined vertically downwards.

• 
  Kya (vertical assembly of consonants "Ka" and "Ya" ), as in "Sa-kya-mu-nī " ( 𑀲𑀓𑁆𑀬𑀫𑀼𑀦𑀻, "Sage of the Shakyas")
• 
  Sva (Sa+Va)
• 
  Kla (Ka+La)
• 
  Sya (Sa+Ya)
• 
  Hmī (Ha+Ma+i+i), as in the word "Brāhmī" (𑀩𑁆𑀭𑀸𑀳𑁆𑀫𑀻).

Vowels

Brahmi diacritic vowels.

The Brahmi symbol for /ka/, modified to represent different vowels

Vowels following a consonant are inherent or written by diacritics, but initial vowels have dedicated letters. There are three "primary" vowels in Ashokan Brahmi, which each occur in length-contrasted forms: /a/, /i/, /u/; long vowels are derived from the letters for short vowels. There are also four "secondary" vowels that do not have the long-short contrast, /e/, /ai/, /o/, /au/.^[127] Note though that the grapheme for /ai/ is derivative from /e/ in a way which parallels the short-long contrast of the primary vowels. However, there are only nine distinct vowel diacritics, as short /a/ is understood if no vowel is written. The initial vowel symbol for /au/ is also apparently lacking in the earliest attested phases, even though it has a diacritic. Ancient sources suggest that there were either 11 or 12 vowels enumerated at the beginning of the character list around the Ashokan era, probably adding either aṃ or aḥ.^[128] Later versions of Brahmi add vowels for four syllabic liquids, short and long /ṛ/ and /ḷ/. Chinese sources indicate that these were later inventions by either Nagarjuna or Śarvavarman, a minister of King Hāla.^[129]

It has been noted that the basic system of vowel marking common to Brahmi and Kharosthī, in which every consonant is understood to be followed by a vowel, was well suited to Prakrit,^[130] but as Brahmi was adapted to other languages, a special notation called the virāma was introduced to indicate the omission of the final vowel. Kharoṣṭhī also differs in that the initial vowel representation has a single generic vowel symbol that is differentiated by diacritics, and long vowels are not distinguished.

The collation order of Brahmi is believed to have been the same as most of its descendant scripts, one based on Shiksha, the traditional Vedic theory of Sanskrit phonology. This begins the list of characters with the initial vowels (starting with a), then lists a subset of the consonants in 5 phonetically-related groups of 5 called vargas, and ends with 4 liquids, 3 sibilants, and a spirant. Thomas Trautmann attributes much of the popularity of the Brahmic script family to this "splendidly reasoned" system of arrangement.^[131]

Punctuation

A 1st century BCE/CE inscription from Sanchi: "Vedisakehi daṃtakārehi rupakaṃmaṃ kataṃ" (𑀯𑁂𑀤𑀺𑀲𑀓𑁂𑀨𑀺 𑀤𑀁𑀢𑀓𑀸𑀭𑁂𑀨𑀺 𑀭𑀼𑀧𑀓𑀁𑀫𑀁 𑀓𑀢𑀁, "Ivory workers from Vidisha have done the carving").^[132]

Punctuation^[133] can be perceived as more of an exception than as a general rule in Asokan Brahmi. For instance, distinct spaces in between the words appear frequently in the pillar edicts but not so much in others. ("Pillar edicts" refers to the texts that are inscribed on the stone pillars oftentimes with the intention of making them public.) The idea of writing each word separately was not consistently used.

In the early Brahmi period, the existence of punctuation marks is not very well shown. Each letter has been written independently with some occasional space between words and longer sections.

In the middle period, the system seems to be developing. The use of a dash and a curved horizontal line is found. A lotus (flower) mark seems to mark the end, and a circular mark appears to indicate the full stop. There seem to be varieties of full stop.

In the late period, the system of interpunctuation marks gets more complicated. For instance, there are four different forms of vertically slanted double dashes that resemble "//" to mark the completion of the composition. Despite all the decorative signs that were available during the late period, the signs remained fairly simple in the inscriptions. One of the possible reasons may be that engraving is restricted while writing is not.

Baums identifies seven different punctuation marks needed for computer representation of Brahmi:^[134]

• single and double vertical bar (danda) - delimiting clauses and verses
• dot, double dot, and horizontal line - delimiting shorter textual units
• crescent and lotus - delimiting larger textual units

Vowels

Consonants

The final letter does not fit into the table above; it is 𑀴 ḷa.

Birthplace of the historical Buddha

In a particularly famous Edict, the Rummindei Edict in Lumbini, Nepal, Ashoka describes his visit in the 21th year of this year, and designates Lumbini as the birthplace of the Buddha. He also, for the first time in historical records, uses the epithet "Sakyamuni" (Sage of the Shakyas), to describe the Buddha.^[141]

Rummindei pillar, inscription of Ashoka (circa 248 BCE)

Translation (English)	Transliteration (original Brahmi script)	Inscription (Prakrit in the Brahmi script)
When King Devanampriya Priyadarsin had been anointed twenty years, he came himself and worshipped (this spot) because the Buddha Shakyamuni was born here. (He) both caused to be made a stone bearing a horse (?) and caused a stone pillar to be set up, (in order to show) that the Blessed One was born here. (He) made the village of Lummini free of taxes, and paying (only) an eighth share (of the produce). — The Rummindei Edict, one of the Minor Pillar Edicts of Ashoka.[142]	𑀤𑁂𑀯𑀸𑀦𑀁𑀧𑀺𑀬𑁂𑀦 𑀧𑀺𑀬𑀤𑀲𑀺𑀦 𑀮𑀸𑀚𑀺𑀦𑀯𑀻𑀲𑀢𑀺𑀯𑀲𑀸𑀪𑀺𑀲𑀺𑀢𑁂𑀦 Devānaṃpiyena Piyadasina lājina vīsati-vasābhisitena 𑀅𑀢𑀦𑀆𑀕𑀸𑀘 𑀫𑀳𑀻𑀬𑀺𑀢𑁂 𑀳𑀺𑀤𑀩𑀼𑀥𑁂𑀚𑀸𑀢 𑀲𑀓𑁆𑀬𑀫𑀼𑀦𑀺𑀢𑀺 atana āgācha mahīyite hida Budhe jāte Sakyamuni ti 𑀲𑀺𑀮𑀸𑀯𑀺𑀕𑀥𑀪𑀺𑀘𑀸𑀓𑀸𑀳𑀸𑀧𑀺𑀢 𑀲𑀺𑀮𑀸𑀣𑀪𑁂𑀘 𑀉𑀲𑀧𑀸𑀧𑀺𑀢𑁂 silā vigaḍabhī chā kālāpita silā-thabhe cha usapāpite 𑀳𑀺𑀤𑀪𑀕𑀯𑀁𑀚𑀸𑀢𑀢𑀺 𑀮𑀼𑀁𑀫𑀺𑀦𑀺𑀕𑀸𑀫𑁂 𑀉𑀩𑀮𑀺𑀓𑁂𑀓𑀝𑁂 hida Bhagavaṃ jāte ti Luṃmini-gāme ubalike kaṭe 𑀅𑀞𑀪𑀸𑀕𑀺𑀬𑁂𑀘 aṭha-bhāgiye cha — Adapted from transliteration by E. Hultzsch,[143]	The Rummindei pillar edict in Lumbini.

Heliodorus Pillar inscription

The Heliodorus pillar is a stone column that was erected around 113 BCE in central India^[144] in Vidisha near modern Besnagar, by Heliodorus, an Indo-Greek ambassador of the Indo-Greek king Antialcidas in Taxila^[145] to the court of the Shunga king Bhagabhadra. Historically, it is one of the earliest known inscriptions related to the Vaishnavism in India.^{[146][147][148]}

Heliodorus pillar inscription (circa 113 BCE)

Translation (English)	Transliteration (original Brahmi script)	Inscription (Prakrit in the Brahmi script)[145]
This Garuda-standard of Vāsudeva, the God of Gods was erected here by the devotee Heliodoros, the son of Dion, a man of Taxila, sent by the Great Yona King Antialkidas, as ambassador to King Kasiputra Bhagabhadra, the Savior son of the princess from Varanasi, in the fourteenth year of his reign. [149] Three immortal precepts (footsteps)... when practiced lead to heaven: self-restraint, charity, consciousness	𑀤𑁂𑀯𑀤𑁂𑀯𑀲 𑀯𑀸(𑀲𑀼𑀤𑁂)𑀯𑀲 𑀕𑀭𑀼𑀟𑀥𑁆𑀯𑀚𑁄 𑀅𑀬𑀁 Devadevasa Vā[sude]vasa Garuḍadhvaje ayaṃ 𑀓𑀭𑀺𑀢𑁄 𑀇(𑀅) 𑀳𑁂𑀮𑀺𑀉𑁄𑀤𑀭𑁂𑀡 𑀪𑀸𑀕 karito i[a] Heliodoreṇa bhāga- 𑀯𑀢𑁂𑀦 𑀤𑀺𑀬𑀲 𑀧𑀼𑀢𑁆𑀭𑁂𑀡 𑀢𑀔𑁆𑀔𑀲𑀺𑀮𑀸𑀓𑁂𑀦 vatena Diyasa putreṇa Takhkhasilākena 𑀬𑁄𑀦𑀤𑀢𑁂𑀦 𑀅𑀕𑀢𑁂𑀦 𑀫𑀳𑀸𑀭𑀸𑀚𑀲 Yonadatena agatena mahārājasa 𑀅𑀁𑀢𑀮𑀺𑀓𑀺𑀢𑀲 𑀉𑀧𑀁𑀢𑀸 𑀲𑀁𑀓𑀸𑀲𑀁𑀭𑀜𑁄 Aṃtalikitasa upa[ṃ]tā samkāsam-raño 𑀓𑀸𑀲𑀻𑀧𑀼𑀢𑁆𑀭𑀲 𑀪𑀸𑀕𑀪𑀤𑁆𑀭𑀲 𑀢𑁆𑀭𑀸𑀢𑀸𑀭𑀲 Kāsīput[r]asa [Bh]āgabhadrasa trātārasa 𑀯𑀲𑁂𑀦 (𑀘𑀢𑀼)𑀤𑀲𑁂𑀁𑀦 𑀭𑀸𑀚𑁂𑀦 𑀯𑀥𑀫𑀸𑀦𑀲 vasena [chatu]daseṃna rājena vadhamānasa 𑀢𑁆𑀭𑀺𑀦𑀺 𑀅𑀫𑀼𑀢𑁋𑀧𑀸𑀤𑀸𑀦𑀺 (𑀇𑀫𑁂) (𑀲𑀼)𑀅𑀦𑀼𑀣𑀺𑀢𑀸𑀦𑀺 Trini amuta𑁋pādāni (i me) (su)anuthitāni 𑀦𑁂𑀬𑀁𑀢𑀺 𑀲𑁆𑀯(𑀕𑀁) 𑀤𑀫 𑀘𑀸𑀕 𑀅𑀧𑁆𑀭𑀫𑀸𑀤 neyamti sva(gam) dama cāga apramāda — Adapted from transliterations by E. J. Rapson,[150] Sukthankar,[151] Richard Salomon,[152] and Shane Wallace.[145]	Heliodorus pillar rubbing (inverted colors). The text is in the Brahmi script of the Sunga period.[152] For a recent photograph.

Bibliography

• Annette Wilke; Oliver Moebus (2011). Sound and Communication: An Aesthetic Cultural History of Sanskrit Hinduism. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-024003-0.
• Bühler, Georg (1898). On the Origin of the Indian Brahma Alphabet.
• Deraniyagala, Siran (2004). The Prehistory of Sri Lanka: An Ecological Perspective. Department of Archaeological Survey, Government of Sri Lanka. ISBN 978-955-9159-00-1.
• Falk, Harry (1993). Schrift im alten Indien: ein Forschungsbericht mit Anmerkungen (in German). Gunter Narr Verlag.
• Gérard Fussman, Les premiers systèmes d'écriture en Inde, in Annuaire du Collège de France 1988–1989 (in French)
• Oscar von Hinüber, Der Beginn der Schrift und frühe Schriftlichkeit in Indien, Franz Steiner Verlag, 1990 (in German)
• Keay, John (2000). India: A History. Grove Press. ISBN 978-0-8021-3797-5.
• Ledyard, Gari (1994). The Korean Language Reform of 1446: The Origin, Background, and Early History of the Korean Alphabet. University Microfilms.
• Masica, Colin (1993). The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-29944-2.
• Norman, Kenneth R. (1992). "The Development of Writing in India and its Effect upon the Pāli Canon". Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens / Vienna Journal of South Asian Studies. 36 (Proceedings of the VIIIth World Sanskrit Conference Vienna): 239–249.
• Patel, Purushottam G.; Pandey, Pramod; Rajgor, Dilip (2007). The Indic Scripts: Palaeographic and Linguistic Perspectives. D.K. Printworld. ISBN 978-81-246-0406-9.
• Rocher, Ludo (2014). Studies in Hindu Law and Dharmaśāstra. Anthem Press. ISBN 978-1-78308-315-2.
• Salomon, Richard (1996). "Brahmi and Kharoshthi". In Daniels, Peter T.; Bright, William. The World's Writing Systems. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-507993-0.CS1 maint: Uses editors parameter (link)
• Salomon, Richard (1998). Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the other Indo-Aryan Languages. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-535666-3.
• Salomon, Richard (1995). "On the Origin of the Early Indian Scripts". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 115 (2): 271–279. doi:10.2307/604670. JSTOR 604670.
• Salomon, Richard (1998). Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-509984-2.
• Trautmann, Thomas (2006). Languages and Nations: The Dravidian Proof in Colonial Madras. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24455-9.
• Timmer, Barbara Catharina Jacoba (1930). Megasthenes en de Indische maatschappij. H.J. Paris.