Abstract
Indic scripts are the writing systems descended from the third-century bce Brahmi script, which was used throughout the realm of Emperor Aśoka. They are used by nearly two billion people from Pakistan through India, Tibet, Sri Lanka, and Southeast Asia, and in former times parts of Indonesia and the Philippines and along the Silk Road; Indic scripts have influenced scripts as far away as the Horn of Africa. Most of them are characterized by the distinctive typological property of basic characters denoting consonants plus the unmarked vowel (usually /a/), with the other vowels denoted by marks attached to the base characters; and in many, consonant clusters (not respecting syllable boundaries) are denoted by ligatures of two (or more) consonant characters. This chapter describes the descent and distribution of the forms, the varying typologies over space and time, and the investigations by which their properties became known to linguistic scholarship.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The author is immensely grateful to David L. Share (University of Haifa) for the Prologue and Epilogue that situate the chapter within the context of this book.
- 2.
There is only one survey intended for a general audience (Hosking & Meredith-Owens, 1966). The two comprehensive albeit outdated English-language histories of writing include fairly sizable accounts describing the development of and relationships among the forms of Indic scripts (Diringer, 1968, pp. 1:237–239, 257–307. 310–351; Jensen, 1969, pp. 361–406).
- 3.
Planches, vol. 2, pt. 1, section “Caractères et alphabets,” pls. XV, XVII–XXII.
- 4.
- 5.
The account of Prinsep’s decipherment of Brahmi lightly adapted here was presented at the American Oriental Society’s 1987 annual meeting, in recognition of the sesquicentennial. As the last time his methods had been reviewed in detail was in Rudolf Hoernle’s Centenary Review (1884; neither Georg Bühler [1896, translated as Bühler, 1904] nor Ernst Windisch [1917] in their contributions to the Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie has much to say about them)—over a hundred years earlier—I considered it appropriate to recall them.
- 6.
Before the late nineteenth century, there was no concept of “types” of writing system, and “alphabet” was used of all.
- 7.
It may be noted that Prinsep was not the only numismatist/decipherer. Jean-Jacques Barthélemy (Daniels, 1988) in the mid eighteenth century was the Keeper of the Royal Coin Collection in Paris, and was the very first scholar to decipher an unknown script—he is credited with no fewer than three decipherments. (And the archeologist narrator of James Michener’s novel The Source credits his career to having collected coins, rather than stamps, as a boy.) Unlike Barthélemy, however, Prinsep was never entirely forgotten by the discipline he brought into being; his name is usually mentioned in, for instance, books on the origin of Brahmi, but almost never with clear or accurate references to his publications.
- 8.
Despite its title, Thomas (1858) collects only Prinsep’s numismatic essays, and for the most part they are not reprinted verbatim. Thomas chose to omit most of the passages detailing the decipherments; he was focused on creating a reference work on Indian coins and had no scruples about silently deleting superseded passages by Prinsep and inserting his own observations (in brackets), incorporating two further decades of research: Thomas may well have written more than half the contents of the volumes himself.
- 9.
As is their unfortunate wont, Google Books did not unfold the plates, so the on-line version is unusable. Harington’s introduction notes that the unknown character of this inscription is also found on the Allahabad pillar, of which a specimen is included, and it is not possible to determine how many of the seven relevant plates depict the Delhi and how many the Allahabad inscription.
- 10.
The acute accent was often used, like the macron today (ā), to mark a long vowel.
- 11.
“We consider it a duty to insert this paper, just received, in the same volume with our version of the inscription, adding a note or two in defence of the latter where we consider it still capable of holding its ground against such superior odds!—Ed.” (Prinsep apud Turnour, 1837, p. 1049 n. *)
- 12.
We take this for granted today, with the photographer constantly in attendance, but in 1837 photography was just being invented.
- 13.
I do not know why the Delhi column text, available for nearly four decades, had not been an adequate stimulus. Perhaps it was because even then, as now, the Indian alphabets were taught as some number of basic signs to which vowel markers are added, rather than in a two-dimensional array such as is used for Ethiopic (Section “Ethiopic” below); and it simply never occurred to a learned Sanskritist to arrange all the letters into such a scheme.
- 14.
For completeness, these are: the existence of bilingual inscriptions, which contain proper names, with one-to-one correspondences of letters within them.
- 15.
On these and other Iranian scripts see Skjærvø, 1996.
- 16.
“Pali” is used nowadays for a Middle Indo-Aryan language associated particularly with Theravada Buddhism; it is first attested somewhat later than the considerable variety of Prakrits whose earliest records are from the time of Aśoka.
- 17.
Meerut Universal Magazine was a satirical publication that brought out at least four volumes beginning in 1835. It has not been possible to discover how it dealt with Prinsep’s work.
- 18.
Thomas (1858, p. 2: 127), on the grounds of the immediately corrected misreading, omits both of Prinsep’s arguments save for Eucratides’ non-royal parentage, thus offering no account at all of Prinsep’s insight that the Bactrian inscriptions ought to be interpreted in terms of Prakrit. Prinsep’s was a far from unique example of a correct conclusion arrived at by way of a mistaken assumption.
It may further be noted that where Prinsep was able to use accurate Bactrian type in Calcutta, Thomas in England admittedly had to make do with approximations, thus further distorting Prinsep’s work.
- 19.
The ancient names “Brahmi” and “Kharoṣṭhi” were properly assigned to the scripts only some decades later (Bühler, 1898, pp. 23–24; 1904, p. 2). I use the modern terms here so as to avoid having to list the multitude of designations employed by the various nineteenth-century authors.
- 20.
The existence of these documents shows that an argument by Harry Falk (1993) for the very late invention of Kharoṣṭhi, as summarized by Salomon (1995, p. 275b), does not hold: “Kharoṣṭhi, according to Falk, must have been created at one stroke at some time later, not before 325 B.C. (p. 104). The argument for this date is based on the theory that the new script could only have originated when the professional monopoly of the Aramaic scribe-bureaucrats of the Achaemenid empire (cf. pp. 78–81) had broken down in the wake of the Greek conquest.”
- 21.
“Mr. Stirling has suggested as a remarkable circumstance that many letters of the No. 1 type resemble Greek characters, and he instances the ‘ou, sigma, lambda, chi, delta, epsilon, and a something closely resembling the figure of the digamma.’ This resemblance is, however, entirely accidental, and the genus of the alphabet can I think be satisfactorily shewn to have no connection whatever with the Greek” (1834a, p. 117).
- 22.
In some ways Taylor’s account of Indian writing has still not been superseded, but the attitude of many of his successors can be seen from a remark in a popular book from the turn of the last century: “Those who care to pursue a subject yielding to few in dryness will find it summarised in the tenth chapter” of Taylor’s Alphabet (Clodd, 1900, p. 192).
- 23.
How different the conclusion might have been had those scholars known of the Iranian language Bactrian, which was written with the Greek alphabet (Sims-Williams, 2000–2007)!
- 24.
In fact Benfey’s “conjecture” was a mere throw-away line that can be rendered “The Phoenicians were certainly long before [Solomon’s reign] intermediaries in the trade between India and the West, and as they, most probably, brought writing to India, they and perhaps Egypt itself moved various other cultural traits to and fro.” (Benfey, 1864, p. 170).
- 25.
“The great difficulty is to show that the people of S. W. Arabia were in a position to furnish India with the elements of an alphabet so early as the fourth century B.C. … It must also be recollected that the Himyaritic alphabet did not mark the vowels, as its derivative, the Æthiopic alphabet does” (Burnell, 1878, p. 8). The first reliable synthesis of South Arabian materials was still well in the future (Hommel, 1893). A recent review of archeological work on Arabian–Indian contacts shows virtually no evidence of inscriptional interchange (Seland, 2014).
- 26.
To wit: “(1) The comparison must be based on the oldest forms of the Indian alphabet and actually occurring Semitic signs of one and the same period. (2) The comparison may include only such irregular equations, as can be supported by analogues from other cases, where nations have borrowed foreign alphabets. (3) The comparisons must show that there are fixed principles of derivation” (Bühler, 1898, p. 55).
- 27.
To my way of thinking, writing was not independently invented in Egypt (Daniels, 2018, pp. 141–142).
- 28.
The Indus Valley signs were not yet known, except for a single seal that had been found at Harappa (see Fig. 3 herein, lower right corner), but had they been, the complete absence of intermediate forms would have been a powerful argument against them as a possible origin of Kharoṣṭhi or Brahmi.
- 29.
- 30.
The distinction between “sound” and “letter” was not consistently made until comparatively recent times (Abercrombie, 1949).
- 31.
The borrowing is undoubted, not least because there are no retroflexes in the intimately related Iranian languages (except those in direct contact with Indo-Aryan ones). An overly clever argument has been made that the retroflexes are an inner-Indo-Aryan development (Hamp, 1996).
- 32.
Dani (1986, p. 9) remarks: “Efforts have been made to trace the evolution of the regional scripts and bring them down to modern times. An elaborate application of this principle is seen in [Sivaramamurti, 1948], in which he has tried to put on different pages the changing forms of every letter and then reduce them into abstract shapes apart from the context in which they appear. This method is no doubt suitable for showing the development of the forms in a museum gallery, and the book is at best a faithful record of that method.” Cf. n. 34.
- 33.
Though an incipient distinction between North and South can be identified, in that southern inscriptions show that for the distinctive Old Tamil sounds ṉa ṟa ḻa, three extra letters were derived from Aśokan Brahmi letters.
- 34.
Each of Dani’s plates occupies four octavo pages, displaying a dozen or so complete alphabets from a specific chronological and geographic range. His remit extends to the eighth century and as far as the Sanskrit and earliest native inscriptions of insular and mainland Southeast Asia.
- 35.
The examples are ke and ka¯ taken from, in order left to right, Devanagari, Gurmukhi, Gujarati, Bengali, Oriya, Tamil, Malayalam, Sinhala, Telugu, and Kannada.
- 36.
This sequence shows how the preposing of certain vowel marks, which exercises some psychologists of reading (Kandhadai & Sproat, 2010), came about.
- 37.
Tumshuqese (attested until the fourteenth century) and Khotanese are the (Iranian) Saka languages.
- 38.
This style is known as Siddham to the Chinese and to modern calligraphers (Stevens, 1988).
- 39.
hPags pa letters probably inspired the shapes of the letters of the Korean alphabet devised in 1446 (Ledyard, 1997).
- 40.
Taylor (1883, pp. 2: 340–341, 359–361) already had available the vast array of alphabets collected by Holle in 1877 (1999) and made a valiant, though largely wrong, attempt to organize them historically.
- 41.
Reflected also in Daniels, 2018, p. 193, Map 5.
- 42.
Christopher Miller (pers. comm.) detects some similarity between some of the vowel markings in Ethiopic and some in (Middle) Brahmi.
- 43.
- 44.
The term “ideogram” was often seen in place of logogram, but the incorporation of the morpheme “ideo-” wrongly suggests that such characters denote “ideas” rather than elements of language.
- 45.
“Words” is a pretheoretic term; what logograms denote are morphemes, and careful writers use morphogram rather than logogram.
- 46.
Cf. n. 22.
- 47.
If the orders originally used for Kharoṣṭhi consonants and vowels (Salomon, 2006) had been known in 1988, this type might have been called the arepiconu accordingly.
- 48.
From time to time, scholars, particularly of Indian languages, noticed that the Indic scripts differed from other syllabaries and devised a number of terms for the type: neosyllabary, semisyllabary, pseudo-alphabet, and, most popularly, alphasyllabary. I reject all these terms because they suggest that the abugida is somehow an intermediate type standing between alphabet and syllabary. It is not.
- 49.
Vowel length may have been lost in Gandhari before Kharoṣṭhi was devised. A possible indication that there was no such distinction is that when, eventually, a mark was added for *ā, there was none for the other long vowels, suggesting that what was recognized was a distinction in quality ([ʌ] or [ɔ], perhaps, vs. [a]) rather than a distinction in length (R. G. Salomon, pers. comm., 30 December 2016).
- 50.
Cf. n. 53.
- 51.
sa has a vertical stroke at the top, 
has a slanted stroke at the top. 
has rounded shoulders, 
la has sloped shoulders. - 52.
It is this property of hPags pa that brought to light a significant difference between alphasyllabary and abugida, namely, that the former is a formal category, the latter a functional category (Daniels apud Daniels & Bright, 1996, p. 4 n. *). The putative inventor of the term alphasyllabary explained that it does not apply to hPags pa because the vowels are not indicated by appendages to the consonant letters (Bright, 2000). The inventor of the term abugida explains that it applies to hPags pa because the consonant letters carry an inherent vowel.
- 53.
In most modern Indian scripts, cluster-initial r is written with a hook above the top right corner of the following consonant(s), cluster-final r with a stroke beneath: Devanagari
-rnta, 
-ntra. The character 
ra is the narrowest in the set. - 54.
Few of the older forms have been included in contemporary Unicode-compliant Malayalam fonts, and so cannot be shown here, but a number of them can be seen in (pre-Unicode) Mohanan, 1996.
sa has a vertical stroke at the top, 
has a slanted stroke at the top. 
has rounded shoulders, 
la has sloped shoulders.
-rnta, 
-ntra. The character 
ra is the narrowest in the set.References
Abercrombie, D. (1949). What is a ‘letter’? Lingua, 2, 54–63.
Allen, W. S. (1953). Phonetics in ancient India (London Oriental series 1). London, UK: Oxford University Press.
Arbuthnot, A. J. (1896). Prinsep, James (1799–1840). In S. Lee (Ed.), The dictionary of national biography (Vol. 16, pp. 395–396). London, UK: Oxford University Press.
Benfey, T. (1864). Indien und Aegypten. Orient und Occident, 3(1), 168–170.
Bright, W. (2000). A matter of typology: Alphasyllabaries and abugidas. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences (Urbana), 30, 63–71.
Brown, J. M. (1985). From ancient Thai to modern dialects and other writings on historical Thai linguistics. Bangkok, Thailand: White Lotus.
Bühler, G. (1898). On the origin of the Indian Brāhma alphabet, together with two appendices on the origin of the Kharoṣṭhī alphabet and the origin of the so-called letter-numerals of the Brāhmī (2nd ed.). Strasbourg, Germany: Trübner.
Bühler, G. (1904). Indian paleography (Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, vol. 1 section 2). (J. F. Fleet, Ed., & G. Bühler, Trans.) Indian Antiquary, Appendix.
Burnell, A. C. (1878). Elements of South-Indian palæography from the fourth to the seventeenth century A.D (2nd ed.). London, UK: Trübner.
Burnouf, E. (1833). Commentaire sur le Yaçna. Paris, France.
Burt, T. S. (1834, March). A description, with drawings, of the ancient stone pillar at Allahabad called Bhim Sén’s Gadá or Club, with accompanying copies of four inscriptions engraven in different characters upon its surface. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 3(3), 105–113.
Chao, Y. R. (1940). A note on an early logographic theory of Chinese writing. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 5(2), 189–191.
Clodd, E. (1900). The story of the alphabet. New York, NY: Appleton.
Coulmas, F. (2009). Evaluating merit — The evolution of writing reconsidered. Writing Systems Research, 1(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/wsr/wsp001.
Court, C. (1996). The spread of Brahmi script into Southeast Asia. In P. T. Daniels & W. Bright (Eds.), The world’s writing systems (pp. 445–449). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cunningham, A. (1879). Inscriptions of Asoka (Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum 1). Calcutta, India: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing.
Dani, A. H. (1986). Indian palaeography (2nd ed.). New Delhi, India: Munshiram Manoharlal.
Daniels, P. T. (1988). ‘Shewing of hard sentences and dissolving of doubts’: The first decipherment. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 108, 419–436.
Daniels, P. T. (1990). Fundamentals of grammatology. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 110, 727–731.
Daniels, P. T. (1992). Contacts between Semitic and Indic scripts. In A. Harrak (Ed.), Contacts between cultures: Selected papers from the 33rd International Congress of Asian and North African Studies, Toronto, August 15–25, 1990, vol. 1: West Asia and North Africa (pp. 146–152). Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen.
Daniels, P. T. (2000). Syllables, consonants, and vowels in West Semitic writing. Lingua Posnaniensis, 42, 43–55.
Daniels, P. T. (2008). Writing systems of major and minor languages. In B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, & S. N. Sridhar (Eds.), Language in South Asia (pp. 285–308). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Daniels, P. T. (2018). An exploration of writing. Sheffield, UK: Equinox.
Daniels, P. T. (in press). Aramaic Documents from Achaemenid Bactria: Connections to the West—and the East—and the Future. In A. Kaplony & D. Potthast (Eds.), From Barcelona to Qom: Documents from the Medieval Muslim World (Islamic History and Civilization). Leiden: Brill.
Daniels, P. T., & Bright, W. (Eds.). (1996). The world’s writing systems. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Daniels, P. T., & Share, D. L. (2017). Writing system variation and its consequences for reading and dyslexia. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22 (2018), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1379082.
de Casparis, J. G. (1975). Indonesian palaeography: A history of writing in Indonesia from the beginnings to c. A.D. 1500 (Handbuch der Orientalistik 3.4.1). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
Deecke, W. (1877). Ueber das indische Alphabet in seinem Zusammenhange mit den übrigen südsemitischen Alphabeten. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 31, 598–612.
DeFrancis, J. (1989). Visible speech: The diverse oneness of writing systems. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Diller, A. (1996). Thai and Lao writing. In P. T. Daniels & W. Bright (Eds.), The world’s writing systems (pp. 457–466). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Diringer, D. (1968). The alphabet: A key to the history of mankind (3rd ed., R. Regensburger (Ed.), 2 vols. [text and plates]). New York, NY: Funk & Wagnall’s.
Dowson, J. (1881). The invention of the Indian alphabet. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, NS 13(1), 102–120.
Du Ponceau, P. S. (1838). A dissertation on the nature and character of the Chinese system of writing in a letter to John Vaughan, esq. (Transactions of the Historical and Literary Committee of the American Philosophical. Society 2, pp. vii–xxxii, 1–123). Philadelphia, PA: M‘Carty and Davis.
Falk, H. (1993). Schrift im alten Indien: Ein Forschungsbericht mit Anmerkungen (ScriptOralia 56). Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
Farmer, S., Sproat, R., & Witzel, M. (2004). The collapse of the Indus-script thesis: The myth of a literate Harappan civilization. Retrieved from Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies: http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs1102/ejvs1102article.pdf
Ferguson, C. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15, 325–340.
Filliozat, J. (1953). Paléographie. In L. Renou & J. Filliozat (Eds.), L’Inde classique: Manuel des études indiennes (pp. 665–712). Paris, France: Imprimerie Nationale.
Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(5), 263–279.
Gelb, I. J. (1952). A study of writing: The foundations of grammatology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Gill, H. S. (1996). The Gurmukhi script. In P. T. Daniels & W. Bright (Eds.), The world’s writing systems (pp. 395–398). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Gill, H. S., & Gleason, H. A. (1969). A reference grammar of Punjabi (2nd ed.). Patiala, India: Punjabi University, Department of Linguistics.
Glass, A. (2000). A preliminary study of Kharoṣṭhi manuscript paleography. M.A. Thesis, University of Washington, Dept. of Asian Languages and Literature. Retrieved from http://andrewglass.org/ma.php
Gnanadesikan, A. E. (2017). Towards a typology of phonemic scripts. Writing Systems Research, 9(1), 14–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2017.1308239.
Haas, M. (1956). The Thai system of writing. Washington, DC: American Council of Learned Societies.
Hamp, E. P. (1996). On the Indo-European origins of the retroflexes in Sanskrit. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 116(4), 719–723.
Harington, J. H., & Colebrooke, H. (1799). Translation of one of the inscriptions on the pillar at Delhee, called the Lāt of Feerōz Shah. Asiatick Researches, 7, 175–182.
Hitch, D. A. (1989). Brāhmī. In Encyclopædia Iranica (Vol. 4, pp. 432–433). Retrieved from http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/brahmi-indian-script.
Hitch, D. A. (2010). Aramaic script derivatives in Central Eurasia. Sino-Platonic Papers, 198. Retrieved from http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp198_aramaic_script.pdf
Hodgson, B. H. (1834, October). Notice of some ancient inscriptions in the characters of the Allahabad Column. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 3(10), 481–483.
Hoernle, A. F. (1884). Centenary review of the Asiatic Society of Bengal from 1774–1883, part 2: Archæology, history, literature, &c. Calcutta, India: Asiatic Society of Bengal.
Holle, K. F. (1999). Table of old and new Indic alphabets: Contribution to the paleography of the Dutch Indies. (C. Molony & H. Pechler, Trans.). Written Language and Literacy, 2(2), 167–246.
Hommel, F. (1893). Süd-arabische Chrestomathie: Minäo-sabäische Grammatik – Bibliographie – Minäische Inschriften nebst Glossar. Munich, Germany: G. Franz.
Hosking, R. F., & Meredith-Owens, G. M. (1966). A handbook of Asian scripts. London, UK: British Museum.
Jensen, H. (1969). Sign, symbol and script (3rd ed.). (G. Unwin, Trans.) London, UK: George Allen & Unwin.
Joyce, T., & Borgwaldt, S. R. (2011). Typology of writing systems: Special issue introduction. Written Language and Literacy, 14(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.14.1.01joy.
Kandhadai, P., & Sproat, R. (2010). Impact of spatial ordering of graphemes in alphasyllabic scripts on phonemic awareness in Indic languages. Writing Systems Research, 2(2), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1093/wsr/wsq009.
Kopp, U. F. (1819–1821). Bilder und Schriften der Vorzeit. Mannheim, Germany: Author.
Kuipers, J. C., & McDermott, R. (1996). Insular Southeast Asian scripts. In P. T. Daniels & W. Bright (Eds.), The world’s writing systems (pp. 474–484). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ledyard, G. K. (1997). The international linguistic background of the Correct Sounds for the Instruction of the People. In Y.-K. Kim-Renaud (Ed.), The Korean alphabet (pp. 31–87). Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.
Mahadevan, I. (1990). Orthographic systems in early Tamil writing. Journal of the Institute of Asian Studies, 8(1), 35–47.
McCawley, J. D. (1968). The phonological component of a grammar of Japanese (Janua Linguarum Series Practica 5). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
Miller, C. R. (2010). A Gujarati origin for scripts of Sumatra, Sulawesi and the Philippines. In N. Rolle, J. Steffman, & J. Sylak-Glassman (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-sixth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society February 6–7, 2010 (pp. 276–291). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4q6906nz.
Miller, C. R. (2014a). Devanagari’s descendants in North and South India, Indonesia and the Philippines. Writing Systems Research, 6(1), 10–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2013.857288.
Miller, C. R. (2014b). A survey of indigenous scripts of Indonesia and the Philippines. In Proceedings of the international workshop on endangered scripts of Island Southeast Asia (pp. 1–49). Tokyo, Japan: University of Foreign Studies, Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Mohanan, K. P. (1996). Malayalam writing. In P. T. Daniels & W. Bright (Eds.), The world’s writing systems (pp. 420–425). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Naveh, J., & Shaked, S. (2012). Aramaic documents from ancient Bactria (fourth century BCE) from the Khalili collections. London, UK: The Khalili Family Trust.
Parpola, A. (1994). Deciphering the Indus script. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Perfetti, C. A., & Harris, L. N. (2013). Universal reading processes are modulated by language and writing system. Language Learning and Development, 9(4), 296–316.
Prinsep, J. (1834a, March). Note on inscription no. 1 of the Allahabad column. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 3(3), 114–123.
Prinsep, J. (1834b, October). Note on the Mathiah Láth inscription. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 3(10), 483–487.
Prinsep, J. (1834c, October). Second note on the Bhilsá inscription. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 3(10), 488–490.
Prinsep, J. (1835, June). Further notes and drawings of Bactrian and Indo-Scythic coins. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 4(6), 327–348.
Prinsep, J. (1837a, June). Note on the facsimiles of inscriptions from Sanchí near Bhilsa, taken for the Society by Captain Ed. Smith, Engineers; and on the drawings of the Buddhist monument presented by Captain W. Murray, at the meeting of the 7th June. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 6(6), 451–477.
Prinsep, J. (1837b, July). Interpretation of the most ancient of the inscriptions on the pillar called the lát of Feroz Sháh, near Delhi, and of the Allahabad, Radhia and Mattiah pillar, or lát, inscriptions which agree therewith. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 6(7), 566–609.
Prinsep, J. (1838a, February). Discovery of the name of Antiochus the Great, in two of the edicts of Asoka, king of India. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 7(2), 156–166.
Prinsep, J. (1838b, March). On the edicts of Piyadasi, or Asoka, the Buddhist monarch of India, preserved on the Girnar rock in the Gujerat peninsula, and on the Dhauli rock in Cuttack; with the discovery of Ptolemy’s name therein. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 7(3), 219–283.
Prinsep, J. (1838c, July). Additions to Bactrian numismatics, and discovery of the Bactrian alphabet. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 7(7), 636–655.
Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Ashby, J., & Clifton, C. (2012). Psychology of reading (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Rimzhim, A., Katz, L., & Fowler, C. A. (2013). Brāhmī-derived orthographies are typologically Āksharik but functionally predominantly alphabetic. Writing Systems Research, 6(1), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2013.855618.
Rogers, H. (2005). Writing systems: A linguistic approach (Blackwell textbooks in linguistics). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Salomon, R. G. (1995). On the origin of the early Indic scripts. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 151(2), 271–279.
Salomon, R. G. (1998). Indian epigraphy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Salomon, R. G. (2002). Gāndhārī and the other Indo-Aryan languages in the light of newly-discovered Kharoṣṭhī manuscripts. In N. Sims-Williams (Ed.), Indo-Iranian languages and peoples (Proceedings of the British Academy 116, pp. 119–134). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Salomon, R. G. (2006). Kharoṣṭhī syllables used as location markers in Gandhāran Stūpa architecture. In P. Callieri (Ed.), Architetti, capomastri, artigiani: L’organizzazione dei cantieri e della produzione artistica nell’Asia ellenistica, Studi offerti a Domenico Faccenna nel suo ottantesimo compleano (Serie Orientale Roma 100, pp. 181–224). Rome, Italy: Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente.
Salomon, R. G. (2007). Writing systems of the Indo-Aryan languages. In G. Cardona & D. Jain (Eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages (Routledge language family series, pp. 67–103). London, UK: Routlege.
Sander, L. (1986). Brahmi scripts on the eastern Silk Roads. Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik, 11–12, 159–192.
Sander, L. (2005). Remarks on the formal Brāhmī script from the southern Silk Route. Bulletin of the Asia Institute, NS 19, 133–144.
Schiller, E. (1996). Khmer writing. In P. T. Daniels & W. Bright (Eds.), The world’s writing systems (pp. 467–473). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Seland, E. H. (2014). Archaeology of trade in the western Indian Ocean, 300 BC—AD 700. Journal of Archaeological Research, 22, 367–402.
Seymour, P. H., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174.
Share, D. L., & Daniels, P. T. (2015). Aksharas, alphasyllabaries, abugidas, alphabets, and orthographic depth: Reflections on Rimzhim, Katz, and Fowler (2014). Writing Systems Research, 8 (2016) (1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2015.1016395.
Sims-Williams, N. (2000–2007). Bactrian documents from northern Afghanistan (3 vols. Studies in the Khalili Collection 3; Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum 2.3). London, UK.
Sircar, D. C. (1965). Indian epigraphy. Delhi, India: Motilal Banarsidass.
Sircar, D. C. (1970–71). Introduction to Indian epigraphy and palaeography. Journal of Ancient Indian History, 4(1–2), 72–136.
Sivaramamurti, C. (1948). Indian epigraphy and South Indian scripts (Bulletin NS General Section 3/4 [1952]). Madras [now Chennai]: Madras Government Museum.
Skjærvø, P. O. (1996). Aramaic scripts for Iranian languages. In P. T. Daniels & W. Bright (Eds.), The world’s writing systems (pp. 515–535). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sproat, R. (2014). A statistical comparison of written language and nonlinguistic symbol systems. Language, 90(2), 457–481.
Steever, S. B. (1996). Tamil writing. In P. T. Daniels & W. Bright (Eds.), The world’s writing systems (pp. 426–430). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Stevens, J. (1988). Sacred calligraphy of the East. Boulder, CO: Shambhala.
Taylor, I. (1883). The alphabet: An account of the origin and development of letters. London, UK: Kegan Paul, Trench.
Thomas, E. (Ed.). (1858). Essays on Indian antiquities, historic, numismatic, and palæographic, of the late James Prinsep, F.R.S. London, UK: John Murray.
Thomas, E. (1871). Comments on recent Pehlvi decipherments. With an incidental sketch of the derivation of Aryan alphabets. And contributions to the early history and geography of Tabaristán. Illustrated by coins. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, NS, 5(2), 408–459.
Turnour, G. (1837, December). Further notes on the inscriptions on the columns at Delhi, Allahabad, Betiah, &c. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 6(12), 1049–1064.
van Schaik, S. (2011). A New look at the Tibetan invention of writing. In Y. Imaeda, M. T. Kapstein, & T. Takeushi (Eds.), New studies of the old Tibetan documents: Philology, history and religion (Old Tibetan documents online monograph series 3, pp. 45–96). Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa. Retrieved January 27, 2014, from Old Tibetan Documents: https://otdo.aa.tufs.ac.jp.
Verhoeven, L., & Perfetti, C. A. (Eds.). (2017). Reading acquisition: Cross-linguistic and cross-script perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
von Hinüber, O. (1990). Der Beginn der Schrift und frühe Schriftlichkeit in Indien (Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 1989/11). Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur.
Weber, A. (1856). Ueber den semitischen Ursprung des indischen Alphabetes. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 10, 389–406.
Wheatley, J. K. (1996). Burmese writing. In P. T. Daniels & W. Bright (Eds.), The world’s writing systems (pp. 450–456). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Windisch, E. (1917). Geschichte der Sanskrit-Philologie und indischen Altertumskunde, part 1 (Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, vol. 1 section 1B). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 3–29.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Daniels, P.T. (2019). Indic Scripts: History, Typology, Study. In: Joshi, R.M., McBride, C. (eds) Handbook of Literacy in Akshara Orthography. Literacy Studies, vol 17. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05977-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05977-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05976-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05977-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)