Sanskrit inscription Older than Ashoka.

 In 1882 an inscription was received in Babylon. This inscription was published with a translation in the 1881 –82 edition of Proceedings of the society of Biblical Archeology. Pages 103 - 107 of the April 1883 edition of the journal refer to the illustrations and translations of this inscription. Whom theo. Translated and published by G. Pincher. This inscription in the British Museum number 81.11.3. Secured in Both the articles of this inscription were carved. Which had a different script on the back side than the inscription. Theo is a different script than the calender script. G. Pincher left it without reading, assuming an unknown script. We are giving below the picture and translation of this inscription which mentions the unknown script -

    - Proceedings of the Society of biblical Archaeology 1881 - 82 , pp. 103

Its origin and translation-

    - Proceedings of the society of the Biblical Archaeology, April 1883, pp. 105 

Here the line is shown by colored lines in the picture, in which the script other than the signature letter was not translated as an unknown script.

 Many years later, in 1936, the University of chicago's G.V. Bobrinskoy identified the unknown script as Brahmi script in this inscription. He identified some of the letters in the inscription as 'm(म), kh(ख), ra(र), d(द) or do(दो) (two)' of Brahmi, but he could not read the script completely. He Journal of the American oriental society vol. His research was presented on page numbers 86 - 88 of 56.

 In which he also gave a picture of the inscription. We are giving pictures of the letters identified by him and pages related to his Brahmi -

   - Journal of the American oriental Society, Vol. 56. pp. 86 - 88 

After several years of this research, in June 1954 A.B. Walawalkar ji read the Brahmi script typed on this Babylonian record and his research was published in the Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (new series) vol. 29, part 1 of page number 62 - 65 titled "Decipherment of a pre - ashokan brahmi writing found engraved on a Babylonian tablet". He has also presented a picture of the inscription and the Devanagari conversion of Brahmi. It also presents a critique of Bobrinskoy.

      - Journal of the bombay branch of the Royal asiatic society (new series) part 1 vol. 29, pp. 62, Fig 1

Its Devanagari transformation has been given by Walawalkar ji on page 63 "Akhajnakhno Harmnubhya: Dadhatu"(अखझनाखनोऔ हर्म्नुभ्यः दधतु"). Which is the Sanskrit expression of the epigraph article of the inscription.

                         - Ibid. pp. 63 

(Note - This page has been received by us from The Asiatic Society of Mumbai with the help of Tukkaram Ji Chinchikar Ji. We are very thankful to him)

 Here some people will say that how the sentence of this Brahmi script is in Sanskrit, then for that I want to tell that there is a use of a long vowel here. The second is the use of Dadhatu verb which is also used in Rigveda 7.51.001.

आ॒दि॒त्याना॒मव॑सा॒ नूत॑नेन सक्षी॒महि॒ शर्म॑णा॒ शंत॑मेन । अ॒ना॒गा॒स्त्वे अ॑दिति॒त्वे तु॒रास॑ इ॒मं य॒ज्ञं द॑धतु॒ श्रोष॑माणाः ॥ - ऋ. 7.51.1 

 Adyatyanaamvassa Noottanen Sakshi Mahmi Sharmana Shanthamen. ॒Nānāgaत्वsatve ॑adītītvaye tu॒ara॑ ॑am yānagya d॑dhatu ॒r॑॑āmāाa: ः - 7.51.1

 In this action, "Dudhan, Dharanakatniyoh" is the use of metal which is on the 10th number of Juhotadirgana in the metalwork. Which is in the sense of holding and nurturing.

 Therefore, this entire Brahmi sentence is proved to be Sanskrit. This proves the archival antiquity of Sanskrit to be earlier than Ashoka. This inscription was written in the 23rd year of Artaxerxes. Therefore, if Artaxerxes was the first king, the period of this inscription would be around 441 BCE and the second would be 381 BCE. Which is ancient from Ashoka in both the situations.

 If some people tell Sanskrit as a language outside India, then they should pay attention to Ashoka's bilingual and bilingual records. Just as Ashoka's Shar-e-Kuna inscription is also in Aramayika and Yavani script, will Aramayika and Yavani be called Indian script or Bharatiya script? No! Similarly, the use of Sanskrit in Babylon does not prove Sanskrit to be foreign.

 We got information about this record long ago from Suresh Soni ji's book "Bharat ka vegyanik chintan(Scientific Thinking of India)" from the chapter 'Dhawni Shastra par adharit lipi(Script based on sound scripture)'. But at that time we did not have enough references and evidence to verify this. So today we have written it down after getting all the certified references.

 Therefore, it is concluded that Sanskrit is an ancient language and the Vedas existed even before Avesta and Ashoka.

1) Proceedings of the society of Biblical Archaeology 1881 - 82 

2) Journal of the American Oriental Society vol. 56 

3) Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (new series) part 1 vol. 29 

4) ऋग्वेद मूल 

5) धातुपाठ - रामलाल कपूर ट्रस्ट 

6) भारत का वैज्ञानिक चिन्तन - सुरेश सोनी (http://vaigyanik-bharat.blogspot.com/2010/06/blog-post_04.html?m=1) 

(Special courtesy - Tukaram Chinchikar, Bhavitavya, Karthik Iyer)

Note: The information provided in this Blog is taken from these references. We do not own it. 

1)https://nastikwadkhandan.blogspot.com/2020/08/blog-post.html

2)https://youtu.be/qNGmrTC38L8