________________
10
INDIAN ANTIQUARY, VOL. XXXIII, 1904; APPENDIX.
[$ 4.
a high antiquity probable for also the Sabaean script, and point to the conclusion that this alphabet not only is older than the oldest Indian inscriptions, but that it existed at a period for which no evidence for the use of writing in India is available. But according to these results, the question has to be put in a manner somewhat ditfering from that in which DEECKE and TAYLOR have put it. The point to be ascertained is no longer, whether the Brahmi can be derived from an unknown predecessor of the Sabaean alphabet, but whether it can be derived directly from the actually known Sabaean characters.
In all attempts at the derivation of alphabets, it is necessary to keep in mind three fundamental maxims, without which no satisfactory results can be obtained :
(1). For the comparison of the characters to be derived, the oldest and fullest forms must be used, and the originals from which they are derived must belong to the types of one and the same period.
(2) The comparison may include only such irregular equations as can be supported by analogies from other cases where nations have borrowed foreign alphabets.
(3) [11] In cases where the derivatives show considerable differences from the supposed prototypes, it is necessary to show that there are fixed principles, according to which the changes have been made.
If one wishes to keep to these principles in deriving the Brāhmi from Semitic signs, neither the Sabaean alphabet, nor its perhaps a little more archaic variety, the Lihyanian or Thammudaean, will serve the purpose, in spite of a general resemblance in the ductus and of & special resemblance in two or three letters. The derivations proposed by DEECKE and TAILOR do not fulfil the absolutely necessary conditions, and it will probably not be possible to obtain satisfactory results, even if all the impossible equations are given up, and the oldest Indian signs in every case are chosen for comparison. It would be necessary to assume that several Sabaean letters, such as Aleph, Gimel, Zain, Teth, Phe; Qoph, Resh, which show strong modifications of the North-Semitic forms, had been again made similar to their prototypes on being converted by the Hindus into d, ga, ja, tha, pa, kha and ra. In other cases, it would be impossible to show any connection between the Sabaean and the Indian signs. These difficulties disappear with the direct derivation of the Brāhmi from the oldest North-Semitio alphabet, which shows the same type from Phoenicia to Mesopotamia. The few inadmissible equations which WEBER's earlier attempt contains, may be easily removed with the help of recently discovered forms, and it is not difficult to recognise the principles, acoording to which the Semitio signs have been converted into Indian ones.
An examination of the old Indian alphabet in plate II. reveals the following peculiarities :
(1) The letters are set up as straight as possible, and, with occasional exceptions in the case of fa, ha and ba, they are made equal in height.
(2) The majority consist of vertical lines with appendages attached mostly at the foot, occasionally at the foot and at the top, or rarely in the middle; but there is no case in which an appendage has been added to the top alone.
(3) At the top of the letters appear mostly the ends of verticals, less frequently short horizontal strokes, still more rarely curves on the tops of angles opening downwards, and, quite exceptionally, in ma and in one form of jha, two lines rising upwards. In no case does the top show several angles, placed side by side, with a vertical or slanting line hanging down, or a triangle or a circle with a pendant-line.
The causes of these characteristics of the Brāhmi are a certain pedantie formalism, found also in other Indian creations, a desire to frame signs suited for the formation of regular lines, and an aversion to top-heavy characters. The last peculiarity is probably due in part to the
1 MORDTMANN and D. H. MÖLLER, Sab. Denkmäler (in DWA. Phil. Hist. CI. 31), p. 108 f. * D, H. MÜLLER, Denkmäler aus Arabien (PWA. Phil. Hist. Cl. 87), p. 15 ff.
