Understanding Asokan Inscriptions and Related Facts

The question asks us to identify the correct statements regarding Asoka, his inscriptions, and the historical context surrounding their study and decipherment. Let's analyze each statement carefully.

Analyzing Statement (A): Scripts Used for Asoka's Name

Statement (A) says: ‘Asoka’ was mentioned in Brahmi and Kharosthi Scripts.

• Asoka's inscriptions were written in various scripts and languages depending on the region.
• The most common script was Brahmi, used for most edicts across India.
• Kharosthi script was used in the northwestern parts of the empire.
• While most edicts refer to Asoka by titles like 'Devanampiya' (Beloved of the Gods) and 'Piyadassi' (Of pleasing appearance), his actual name 'Asoka' appears in a few inscriptions, such as the Minor Rock Edicts at Maski, Gurjara, Udegolam, and Nittur.
• These specific edicts where the name 'Asoka' is mentioned are primarily in the Brahmi script.
• It is less common or perhaps not definitively established that the name 'Asoka' itself appears in the Kharosthi script versions of the edicts.
• Therefore, the statement claiming it was mentioned in *both* Brahmi and Kharosthi scripts might be considered inaccurate or not universally true, making this statement likely incorrect in this context.

Analyzing Statement (B): Publication of Epigraphica Indica

Statement (B) says: Epigraphica Indica was first published in 1888.

• Epigraphica Indica is a prominent journal dedicated to Indian epigraphy (the study of inscriptions).
• Historical records confirm that this journal commenced its publication in the year 1888.
• This publication has been crucial for documenting and interpreting a vast number of Indian inscriptions, including many related to the Mauryan period and Asoka.
• Thus, statement (B) is correct.

Analyzing Statement (C): R.E.M. Wheeler and Asokan Inscriptions

Statement (C) says: R.E.M. Wheeler published a set of Asokan inscriptions.

• Sir Mortimer Wheeler (R.E.M. Wheeler) was a renowned British archaeologist who served as the Director-General of the Archaeological Survey of India.
• While he significantly contributed to Indian archaeology through excavations and administrative reforms, his primary work was not centered around publishing a comprehensive set of Asokan inscriptions.
• Key figures known for publishing sets of Asokan inscriptions include earlier scholars like Alexander Cunningham (who published the first volume of Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum on Asoka's inscriptions) and E. Hultzsch (who published a revised edition).
• Therefore, statement (C) is likely incorrect.

Analyzing Statement (D): James Prinsep's Decipherment

Statement (D) says: James Prinsep deciphered the Brahmi script of Asokan inscriptions.

• James Prinsep was a British scholar and antiquarian.
• His monumental achievement was the decipherment of the Brahmi script in the 1830s.
• This decipherment was pivotal because Brahmi was the script used for most of Asoka's inscriptions, allowing historians to finally read and understand these ancient records, thereby shedding immense light on Asoka's reign, his policies, and the extent of his empire.
• Prinsep also played a role in deciphering the Kharosthi script.
• Thus, statement (D) is unequivocally correct.

Analyzing Statement (E): Language of Asokan Texts and Inscriptions

Statement (E) says: ‘Asoka’ was mentioned in Prakrit texts and inscriptions.

• Asoka's major and minor rock and pillar edicts are primarily composed in various regional dialects of Prakrit.
• These Prakrit texts were then written down using scripts like Brahmi and Kharosthi.
• As discussed for statement (A), the name 'Asoka' itself (in addition to titles) does appear in some of these Prakrit inscriptions (e.g., Maski, Gurjara edicts in Brahmi script).
• Therefore, it is correct to say that Asoka was mentioned in Prakrit texts and inscriptions, as the inscriptions are indeed Prakrit texts that contain references to him, including his name in specific cases.
• Thus, statement (E) is correct.

Summary of Analysis

Based on the analysis:

• Statement (A) is likely incorrect as the name 'Asoka' is primarily found in Brahmi, not extensively in both Brahmi and Kharosthi versions.
• Statement (B) is correct: Epigraphica Indica started in 1888.
• Statement (C) is incorrect: R.E.M. Wheeler is not primarily known for publishing sets of Asokan inscriptions.
• Statement (D) is correct: James Prinsep deciphered the Brahmi script.
• Statement (E) is correct: Asoka was mentioned in Prakrit texts/inscriptions (which is the language of his edicts where he is referred to).

The correct statements are (B), (D), and (E).

Conclusion

The statements that are correct are (B), (D), and (E).

Revision Table: Key Facts on Asokan Edicts

Additional Information: Studying Ancient Indian Epigraphy

The study of ancient Indian inscriptions, known as epigraphy, is crucial for reconstructing history. Asoka's inscriptions are among the most significant.

• Scripts Used: Beyond Brahmi and Kharosthi, Asoka also used Greek and Aramaic scripts and languages for edicts in the northwestern parts of his empire (near modern Afghanistan), reflecting the linguistic diversity of those regions.
• Content of Edicts: Asoka's inscriptions primarily disseminate his policy of Dhamma (Dharma), which emphasized principles like non-violence, religious tolerance, welfare of his subjects, and respect for elders. They provide unique insights into his administration, ethical vision, and the geography of his empire.
• Prakrit Language: Prakrit was a group of Middle Indo-Aryan vernacular languages spoken in ancient India. Asoka used different regional variations of Prakrit in his edicts to make them accessible to the local populace.
• Importance of Decipherment: Before Prinsep's work, Brahmi and Kharosthi scripts were unreadable, leaving a vast period of Indian history obscure. The decipherment unlocked the knowledge contained in Asokan edicts and numerous other ancient inscriptions, revolutionizing the understanding of early Indian history.