Talk:Kamarupi script

Kamarupi script or Kamarupi scripts?

@Bhaskarbhagawati:, @Chaipau: There was not a single script used in Kamarupa kingdom in the time period of 5th to 13th century. From 5th-7th (Nagajari-Khanikar gaon to Dubi inscriptions) it's a variant of the Eastern variation of Gupta script (we can call this variant the Kamarupi Gupta or Assamese Gupta since Assam is a more known term today for most of the core region of Kamarupa kingdom); then in late 7th century or 8th century the script is post Gupta script, as in the Nidhanpur copper-plate inscription (the last line in the inscription mentioned that the original inscription was burnt and a new one was made and that there are differences in the letters.), some inscriptions from Golaghat. Then from 9th century to ealy 12th century (Hyunthal inscription to Khonamukh inscription) it's Siddham, we can call it Kamarupi/Assamese Siddham due to its difference from others. Then from late late 12th century to 13th century (Kamauli or Assam plates to Kanai Boroxiboa and Gachtal pillar inscriptions) it's early Assamese script (or early Assamese Eastern Nagari script), it seems this stage extends upto 14th or 15th century, as in the scripts of Nilachal inscription of Madhavdeva and Charyapada manuscript. Msasag (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

True. Kamarupi script is not "a" script but a developmental stage of a script covering the Kamarupa period (5th to the 13th century). So yes, this article could trace the course of development from the eastern Gupta script to the Kanai Boroxoboa script, via Siddham and other influences. This stage is found predominantly as engravings; whereas the medieval script is found mostly as manuscripts. Though I am OK with calling it a scripts, this does not mean they are "different" scripts---just different stages of development of the same script. Chaipau (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Do you have access to the "The Assamese script (1983)" source that claims modern Assamese script directly descends from Kamarupi? I thought it was pretty well established that Assamese is a 19th century Bengali script variation and that Kamarupi is an evolutionary dead-end, maybe only giving Modern Assamese script a few letters? I see in revisions from 2017 that the same source even claimed Bengali script to descend from Kamarupi. Are we sure this source is reliable? The following source mentions Gaudi as Proto-Bengali, the ancestor of all the Eastern Nagari scripts: https://archive.org/details/IndianEpigraphy/page/n63/mode/2up?q=Gaudi Unicode mentions: "The Assamese language has also been written historically using distinct regional scripts known as Kamrupi." I think this matter requires some attention. Glennznl (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: I do not currently have access to the 1983 journal article. But you are partially correct. The current Bengali/Assamese script converged very rapidly when printing, typefaces and their manufacture became constraining factors—earlier everything was written by scribes. I am not sure whether anyone has looked at the details. So both Bengali and Assamese scripts evolved in the 19th century. But the Bengali and Assamese scripts were themselves not independent before then. For example R D Banerjee could not trace the evolution of the Bengali script without the use of inscriptions found in Kamakhya Temple. And the use of the scripts in Bengal (don't know how many) and Assam (three) were sufficiently close for them to be brought together. But as far as the Kamarupi and Assamese scripts are concerned---they do have a continuous evolution pattern. I am OK for keeping Gaudi as a parent, but my guess is there were many different crisscrossing paths of evolution over the last 1500 years. Chaipau (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Mhm, if they were not independent even before the "merge", how was Kamarupi even an independent thing? I believe that if Assamese mostly assimilated to Bengali script and only kept a few letters from the old script, it is more accurate to name Gaudi/Bengali-Assamese as the ancestor and name Kamarupi in the history section. According to this: http://www.typoday.in/2019/spk_papers/abhijit_padun_typoday_2019.pdf and this: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.643.9003&rep=rep1&type=pdf source, Kamarupi = Eastern Nagari = Bengali-Assamese, which according to Salomon = Gaudi. I am not sure how reliable that is (Kamrupi/Kamarupi script gets 4 and 5 results respectively in Google Scholar to begin with), Are we sure Gaudi and Kamarupi are not the same thing? (Btw shouldn't this article be named Kamrupi?) Glennznl (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: The Kamarupi script (Kamrupi denotes Kamrup region and so should not be used in this context) defines the development of the script under the Kamarupa kings till around the time the Kamata kingdom was established. It was influenced by the Siddhamatrika script sometime in the 7th century, but it continued its independent development till the end of the Kamarupa period (13th century). The Kamarupi thus developed from the Eastern Gupta script with an influence from the Siddhamatrika, and also developed some modern forms, as Goswami has shown. It is in this sense that Kamarupi was independent and at the same time was influenced. So it does not look to me that the style in Gauda could be called a parent of the style that developed in Assam. Goswami's paper also makes some very strong claims regarding the influence of Kamarupa script (p3) but I would not like to push it because it has so far appeared in the "parochial" space. So I would keep Kamarupa script as it is for now and develop it according to published sources (like Goswami etc.). I am OK keeping Gaudi as a parent of Bengali-Assamese (since it in found in WP:RS), with probably a mention that Kamarupi was a development stage in Assam. It might be that future studies on epigraphy will tell us more about the interconnectedness. Chaipau (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Thanks. It sounds a lot like Sinhalese, which is an independent Southern Brahmic development, but then underwent very strong Grantha influence. In any case, I re-added Gaudi as an ancestor to these scripts (earlier Amshpatten deleted that sourced info lol). Perhaps with newer studies we could make it even more accurate. Glennznl (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: Thank you. I greatly admire your diligent approach to Wikipedia. Chaipau (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: I have been reviewing some of the discussion that happened here: Talk:Bengali–Assamese_script#Is_this_a_legit_article?. user:Msasag's comment caught my attention, and am thinking that we can probably put the ancestor as Gaudi/Kamarupi and cite Goswami's Foreword (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.643.9003&rep=rep1&type=pdf) as reference for Kamarupi and Salomon for Gaudi. What do you think? Chaipau (talk) 10:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Mhm that source is also interesting, as this one too mentions Kamarupi being the origin of Bengali and Tirhuta/Maithili scripts. I think Gaudi/Kamarupi would work as an origin. I wish we had a modern authorative source to clear up the confusion.

I wonder if these scrips are just one and the same "Proto-Eastern Nagari script" but given different names because of their different locations. 100 years later teens are fighting internet wars to make the variant found in their state the origin of all others. Glennznl (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: Yes. In my mind I tend to picture them as different paths of evolution with occasional genetic sharing. As far as I know, the Bengali did use the Assamese /r/ and occasionally the /v/ in the past. The Bengali /r/ came into being when they tried to create a typeset for printing. This actually makes the "Bengali" script a daughter of the "Assamese" script, because it is a further development. So it is really messy. When Assamese was being typeset, the Assamese /r/ entered the scene. And then the script developed further in the 19th century. One of the changes was in the shape of the retroflex /n/, which earlier looked like an /l/. At some point we will have to seek out proper RSs for these and bring out the details. I am sure there are similar analogies in the development and use of scripts in Europe. For example this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_type#/media/File:One-story-a.svg Chaipau (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, I do not buy the claim that Kamarupi was the mother of Bengali and Maithili based on these references, though it is possible there was some influence or a letter or two leaked out. But it definitely engendered the development in Assam. Chaipau (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Assamese got a, ā, ṛ, gha, ṅa, ṭha and bha from Bengali. The rest are common to both (except that Bengali didn't have va which Assamese had). Due to printing many ligatures were dropped from Bengali, those ligatures were also present in traditional Assamese as well as Tirhuta where they are still used. That's the difference among them. Msasag (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The Kamarupi script claim for Bengali script as its descendant is same as the Gaudi or Proto Bengali script claim for Assamese, Tirhuta. In reality they were just different variations of the same script. Msasag (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Msasag: That's what I suspected. I wish we could find a source that explains this. It would be a cleaner solution to just have one single page for the "proto-Eastern Nagari" than for Gaudi and Kamarupi individually. Glennznl (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: I totally agree with this name. And "Eastern Nagari script" for Bengali-Assamese script as page name. Msasag (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Msasag: @Glennznl: I agree we need a neutral name. But we have to accept that there are three phases that are defined here: 5th-13th century; 13th-19th century — when printing intervened. The script evolved very quickly towards some kind of standardization in the 19th century and then emerged in the 20th century in the modern form. Kamarupi here refers to the 5th-13th century period, when the eastern Gupta script (Umachal_rock_inscription) evolved into the nearly modern forms here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assamese_alphabet#/media/File:Kanai_Baraxiboa_rock_inscription.png. These divisions are based on the history of Assam, but are these tenable from the epigraphy point of view? From what I understand, the first is predominantly rock/copper engravings, the second is writing and the third is printing. Chaipau (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Yeah, that's why I made this discussion. But I won't divide them like you did. From 5th century to mid 8th century it's Gupta script (Kamarupi variation), then from mid 8th century to mid 13th century it's Siddham script (Kamarupi variation) and from mid 13th to mid 19th century it's Eastern Nagari (Kamarupi variation) and from mid 19th century to present it's also Eastern Nagari (Kamarupi variation with Bengali influence). Since some of the characters were borrowed from Bengali we can't call the present variation as purely continuous evolution of Kamarupi variation. Also, since Kamarupa kingdom started with Varman dynasty from 4th century, I think there's an oldest (compared to the ones found) Gupta variation from 4th century which is lost or not yet discovered. Msasag (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, Proto-Eastern Nagari won't be a different script because it only gets 12th-14th century which is a very short period. It's just the earliest form of Eastern Nagari, plus Odia and Nepalese scripts. We have to find resources that support this. Unfortunately a large percentage of resources are based on politics in the Eastern region. That's the problem we are facing. And this is why we are having to consider the same thing or same thing with slight variations as totally different things or totally different things as the same thing (like the so called dialects). Msasag (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Msasag: I tried to divide up the phases according to what is already done and according to the "epigraphic" phases (rock/copper, manuscript, printing); and not on Assamese/Bengali sensibilities. As to your comment on Siddham, I think Kamarupi script felt the influence earlier in Bhashkarvarman's Niddhanpur inscription, which he issued from Karnasuvarna. Also, as to break because of printing, Mahendra Bora has mentioned that in his "Evolution of the Assamese script"; unfortunately, it has not been described in detail which is yet to be worked out. Every letter has a story. The a, ā which you mention were present in the Assamese form in the 1813 Assamese bible. So what happened? And we need to know that the Bengali too was impacted by printing. The current Bengali /r/ was created, as I understand, because the type creator could not engrave the medieval shape. So we need to know how each letter evolved. I think it is important to go beyond thinking in terms to Assamese and Bengali and who borrowed from whom. Chaipau (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Msasag: Here is the Bengali Alphabet in 1778 (Halhed's Grammar): [1]. As you can see, at this stage it is using the Assamese /ro/. It became the Bengali /ro/ later. It too had /vo/ but written the same way as /bo/ and dropped later. It also had /khya/. The /anno/ is the old Assamese style. Chaipau (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I think your divide is based on different kingdoms. 5th-13th is Kamarupa kingdom, 13th to 19th is Ahom kingdom and Kamata kingdom, and from 19th British colonization. Msasag (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Yeah I've seen that. I have been doing a very detailed study on Eastern Nagari script and its ancestors from manuscripts, inscriptions and books. The Assamese ro became known as Assamese ro only recently when Bengali dropped it. This ro (ৰ) is also used in Tirhuta so it's not specific to Assamese. Traditional Assamese ṇa (using IAST) had two variations, the double curved one is more conservative, it became single later and remained as a variation. If you look at older writings from Assam, Bengal and Mithila, you'll find very little difference. That's the reason why I don't prefer Unicode to choose their names. Unicode is standard form and technical based. Unicode could include Tirhuta in the same block as Bengali but it didn't, because ligatures don't have separate codes, they are formed by combinations of different letters and many ligatures in standard Assamese and Bengali alphabets were dropped during printing, so for example, ক + ুু = কু in Bengali-Assamese but in Tirhuta it uses the form used in Assamese and Bengali before mid 19th century, and slightly different (more simplified) from the one used in Assamese which is like ন্ধ ndha (btw ndha's back part was like that of ত্ৰু in traditional Assamese.). Msasag (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Msasag: Yes, precisely. These names, "Bengali" or "Assamese" etc have no meaning when we look back. I have seen the Tihuta কু form in Assamese as recently as the middle of 19th century, which is well into the printing period.

Yes, the three phases are partly based on history, because historical events influence scripts. The three phases also align with the medium of writing. As far as I know, manuscripts are available from 14th century. Furthermore, from 12th century saw the Muslim Turkic/Afghan/Mughal influence in Bengal, and other languages (besides Bengali/Sanskrit) took hold there. Halhed reported that he could find only six Bengali manuscripts when he wrote his grammar in 1778. The British needed to encourage Bengali because it wanted to replace Persian, which was the official language in Mughal Bengal. The British similarly had an interest to replace Assamese in Assam because Assamese was the court language of the Ahoms. In contrast to medieval Bengal, medieval Assam had a profusion of manuscripts and three different styles of writing. In any case, the most crucial period for the development of this script was the printing period. Halhed's alphabet still had many letters in the medieval styles and it is obvious that the modern forms are later standardization under colonialism, the technology of printing and the business of printing and publishing. Chaipau (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Msasag: That's the point I was trying to make earlier. These names are artificial and a modern invention that doesn't give an accurate picture of the history of these scripts. There was never one single standard script in Assam and one single standard script in Bengal, instead there was a continuum of styles and varieties of the Eastern Nagari script. Glennznl (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: As I predicted, random IPs are alreading trying to remove the sourced Gaudi ancestor at Odia script. Glennznl (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break:

@Glennznl: yes. Operationally, we will have to follow the rules and bring it to admin notice if repeated. Fundamentally though, this is the problem of naming rearing its head again. Neither Kamarupi nor Gaudi nor Kamarupi-Gaudi will be acceptable in the Odia case. Chaipau (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Name

@Glennznl: @Msasag: here are additional names of this script: "Early Nagari", "Proto-Bengali", "Gaudi". [2] (last paragrapgh of 145). There should be more, let me dig a little. Chaipau (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Nice find. Salomon used "Gaudi" and "Proto-Bengali" as synonyms at [3]. Further evidence that we are talking about essentialy the same script but in different locations, and having multiple Wiki articles about it is misleading. Glennznl (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: yes. They are essentially the same, different only in their development paths. T P Verma says it the best in page 71 (quoting him again): "Historically speaking Bengali, Assamese and Maithili are sister scripts and although they had their independent traditions of development they were considerably influenced with each other." This single sentence, I believe, captures the essence of this relationship.

@Chaipau: I believe we should merge them into a single page and explain those later development paths in that article. Keeping multiple pages is misleading and now we can't even have a satisfactory ancestor between Siddham and Odia for example. Glennznl (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gennznl: I agree. But we need a few more references to pin down Gaudi and to decide whether we should have Early Nagari for this name and connect it with Odia. This will enable us to define the three (four) developments individually within the same article. Chaipau (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I will try to research more into that soon, I haven't had much time lately. Did you find anything yet? Glennznl (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: Just as Kamarupi (not Gaudi) script is mentioned as an ancestor of Assamese in Assam, the Odia speak of proto-Oriya (not Gaudi). Look at the last paragraph here: [4]. Chaipau (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: But it is just a matter of the name. (The author suggests the use of "Proto-North-Eastern script"—in the next page—which is actually a good one). We are all good for now. Chaipau (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Good find, it nicely shows what we have already theorized before, that they are essentially all the same but with different names and sometimes unfortunate ancestor names like Proto-Bengali. Proto-North-Eastern script isn't very descriptive, I think Proto-North-Eastern Nagari would be fair and better. What do you think, do we still need more evidence and sources? Glennznl (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: I am more conservative...I would prefer to keep it Gaudi but explain the name and alternatives there. But I would not merge Kamarupi unless Sircar himself has done so explicitly (WP:OR/WP:SYNTHESIS problem). I am still searching for the corpus he used to define Gaudi. Chaipau (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I myself prefer long and general articles over short stubs about every subtopic, but it would be a good thing to find out what exactly makes Kamarupi Kamarupi and Gaudi Gaudi. --Glennznl (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: I agree with you completely. I am looking for the reference which will enable us to merge. Right now, my problem is that the people who are talking about Kamarupi and those who are talking about Gaudi are not acknowledging each other. We could see that in the Sircar paper. Chaipau (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Factual accuracy dispute

@Glennznl: could you please point to the claim that is factually inaccurate? Chaipau (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

As on my talk page:

The article uses only Goswami to say that modern Assamese script developed from Kamarupi (which developed straight from Gupta), which is contradicted by much more numerous material and authors saying that modern Assamese developed out of Gaudi/Proto-Bengali. Note also that Goswami claims in the same paper that all BAMO scripts developed out of Kamarupi, a minority view, so the reliability of his statements is questionable:

• "... was the script used in ancient Kamarupa from as early as 5th century to 13th century, from which the modern Assamese script eventually evolved. In the development of the Assamese script, this phase was followed by the medieval and then by the modern Assamese scripts"

• "The Kamrupi script took the form of the old Assamese script in the latter period."

I do not mean to say Kamarupi does not exist or is not it's own thing, it obviously does, but I believe Goswami's linking of Kamarupi with Assamese, and it being the ancestor of all BAMO scripts is possibly unreliable. Glennznl (talk) 11:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: I could not find that claim in this article. If it is quoted, it can be safely deleted. Chaipau (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: The first sentence comes straight out of the lead, the second sentence is under the last paragraph of the history section. Glennznl (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: The last paragraph in the history section comes from Sharma, not Goswami. So are you suggesting that any reference to Assamese script/alphabet connecting it to Kamarupi has to go. I don't think that is warranted. Chaipau (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: My bad, I mixed it up with Goswami and thought both sentences were from the same source. I wonder how Sharma reaches that conclusion then, if it is based on theories and historical assumptions like Goswami rather than epigraphic comparisons, it is quite sketchy. In any case a lot of the sources seem to be Assamese, and as you probably know even better than I do, nationalism and scholarship often go hand in hand in the region, so that is something we have to take into consideration. I think it would be a good idea to find western sources on the subject as well. I haven't found anything about the Kamarupi script in western sources as of yet.

In any case, Assamese can't derive from Gupta>Kamarupi and Gupta>Siddham>Gaudi at the same time, so either one is wrong or both are partially true and it is a mixed script of two origins. I haven't read anything about such an explanation yet, though. Notably Bhattacharya doesn't seem to consider "Script in Assam" as something that lead to the BAMO scripts. Neither does the random Unicode sentence. We need to find more information. --Glennznl (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: Please let me know how I may address your concept of Kamarupa script as something entirely different. Kamarupi script is a regional variation of a broader trend. The Siddham influences were minor in Kamarupi. The analogy you seem to have in mind seems to a that of a tree where a subbranch can attach only to one previous branch; whereas the situation here is like that of the delta of rivers. An example is the letter 'va' which disappeared in the mid-1st-millennium and re-emerge in Assam (but not in Bengal) in the mid-2nd-millennium. Now, since 'va' wasn't there in Gaudi, can we now say Assamese is from Gaudi? This letter 'va' is used in Maithili too. But after 1840s or so Bengali and Assamese saw a standardization together due to printing (and also for other reasons). And thus we have the Bengali-Assamese script. Maithili had abandoned its script and did not standardize it and began using Devanagari instead. But in the last decade, someone looked through the old manuscripts and standardized it and submitted it to Unicode. So your formulation "Assamese can't derive from Gupta>Kamarupi and Gupta>Siddham>Gaudi at the same time" is wrong. Because we are not dealing with standardized scripts. Chaipau (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Yes, correct, they are fluid evolutions but we are trying to visualize it as a vertical tree in the infoboxes, in which lies the problem. For the Sinhala script I stuck to the concept of "genetic continuity" as is used in languages, focussing on the "core", which is directly from Brahmi, and ignoring (but mentioning) the very heavy Grantha influence. So in the end I labeled Sinhala as an independent Brahmi descendant despite it having received heavy Grantha influence. Now applying this to Kamarupi/Assamese, the question is whether Kamarupi was replaced by Gaudi, or whether modern Assamese was originally Kamarupi, but then underwent very strong Gaudi influence, after which standardization with Bengali in the 19th century left next to nothing of the independent Kamarupi stage. Hope you understand my thoughts now. Glennznl (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: Are there any sources that say that Gaudi (of Bengal or Gauda region) replaced Kamarupi? or that modern Assamese underwent strong Gaudi influence? In my opinion during printing in mid 19th century, Kamarupi descendant and Gaudi descendant merged for modern standard Assamese alphabet (not yet found any sources that say this though). Msasag (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Msasag: Nope, no source ever mentions Gaudi AND Kamarupi at the same time. Bhattacharya does talk about "script in Assam" as a different script before proto-BAMO/Gaudi/Bengali showed up, perhaps we can look more into that. Glennznl (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: I am OK with keeping Gaudi in the tree and not mentioning Kamarupi. But an overzealous imposition of the tree view is biased. Because the correct representation is a directed graph, not a tree structure. And yes, Bhattacharya's major contribution to epigraphy in his thesis is Chapter VIII, which is Kamarupi script. Chaipau (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)