________________
SEPTEMBER, 1909.] SOME MORE ROCK-CARVINGS FROM LOWER LADAKH. 363
At the present day we find two types of writing in general use in Ladakh : dbu med (headless) and dbu oan (headed). The head of the character is the reunnant of the line below which the letters used to be written in India. Thus in India we meet with three kinds of writing : (1) Headless characters; for instance, in the ancient Brahma Alphabet. (2) Complete line with characters fastened to it; for instance, in several current scripts of North India. (3) lleaded character, i, e., remnants of the line on the top of the character; for instance, in the molern Devanagari Alphabet. It is remarkable that in Tibet the second type of writing (that with a coniplete line) is entirely unknown.
The Tibetan dbu can headed) characters are the holy characters; they are used for religious purposes only. The Lamas do not allow profane subjects (the Kesar Sagi among them to be written in headed characters. The dbu med (headless) alphabet is the alphabet of the Tibetan merchant.
Now I wish to draw attention to the fact that the most ancient records of stify18 in Lavlakh are not written in the holy character, but in an ancient form of the headless' type of writing. This fact makes it almost certain that in Laulakh the Buddhist priest was preceded by the Tibetan merchant. If the headed' alphabet had been known at the time of the crection of the ancient stiprs,
it would certainly have been used, as it is used almost exclusively for such purposes now-a-day's in • consequence of its meritorious powers. .
But I go a step further. Although it cannot yet be proved for certain, it is not quite improbable that the whole of Tibet was in possession of a heailless' alphalict before the introduction of Buddhism, and that Thonmisambhota, the renowned so-called inventor of the Tibetan Albabet, did no more than furnish the alphabet of the Tibetan merchant with heads and adapt it for the writing of Sanskrit names.
My reasons are the following: (1) If no alphabet was in existence in Tibet at the time of Thonmisambhota, why did he not derive the Tibetan linguals (t, th, d, n) froin their Indian prototypes, instead of forming them by reversing the ordinary Tibetan t, th, d, n? (2) Can we expect the Tibetan merchants to have been ingenious enough to distinguish between what is essential in a letter and what is not, and to see, for instance, that in the Tibetan 6 the uppermost part is not the
head' only, but an essential part of the character, whilst in a d and t it is not? (3) The Tibetan alphabet is most closely related to Indian alphabets of the Himalayan frontier district. In very ancient times Tibet was perhaps not so exclusive as she is now-a-days. Why should she not bave accepted from her neighbours what is of practical valne? (4) The alphabet of the Leichas is a done mel (headless) alphabet of a type which is most closely related to the Tibetan don meil. If this Lepeha Alphabet was also derived from a 'headed' alphabet, why did the latter not survive ?
The Alphabet of the ancient inscriptions from Lower Ladakh. k k g ng c ch j ny t th d 1 P ph i ai
a( şu ? b q lo udod ts ths dz w zh z 'a y 1 h 8 h & g y E 4 q ะ ก ๒ { ษ 4 H 4 พ
. Compound letters. strgy brkhy rk sd sby Hi f g niso Hd
Vowels. gi'i kusu she rgye to lo
á RD
o
5
+ Perhaps M a sign of holinesu. In his time holy and profane alphabets may have boon distinguished in India.
