Who of the following had first deciphered the edicts of Emperor Ashoka?

Says reconstruction of the Mauryan period became possible only after the Brahmi script of the inscriptions at Sanchi was deciphered by James Prinsep in 1837.

A student could check the chronological order of decipherment efforts (Prinsep 1837 vs Bühler) to see who worked first.

A quiz-style snippet explicitly credits James Prinsep with deciphering the Brahmi script in Ashoka's pillar inscriptions.

Use this attribution as a lead to compare Prinsep's published work and dates with any publications by Georg Bühler.

Notes that most of Ashoka's edicts were inscribed in Prakrit and written in the Brahmi script, implying that deciphering Brahmi was the key step to reading the edicts.

Knowing decipherment of Brahmi is pivotal, a student can investigate who first deciphered Brahmi and thus first made the edicts readable.

Describes the geographic spread and forms (rock/pillar) of Ashokan edicts, indicating multiple inscriptions existed requiring script-decipherment for decoding.

A student could correlate the locations and publication times of early transcriptions/decipherments to identify who first presented readable texts (Prinsep or Bühler).

States that reconstruction of the Mauryan period became possible only after the Brahmi script of the Sanchi inscriptions was deciphered by James Prinsep in 1837.

A student could take this named-date attribution (Prinsep, 1837) and compare it with Max Müller's life and publications to check who published decipherment earlier.

A multiple-choice question explicitly lists James Prinsep as the person who deciphered the Brahmi script in Ashoka's pillar inscriptions.

Use this as evidence of standard school/historiographical attribution and cross-check biographical timelines of Prinsep vs. Max Müller to assess the claim.

Describes the wide geographical spread and importance of Ashoka's edicts, implying that decipherment of Brahmi was a key scholarly milestone enabling their study.

Knowing decipherment is central, a student could search for who first achieved Brahmi decipherment (Prinsep) and whether anyone else (e.g., Max Müller) made an earlier claim.

Lists modern editions/translations of the edicts (e.g., Dhammika) but does not mention Max Müller, suggesting later translators are distinct from the original deciphers noted in other snippets.

A student could use the absence of Müller in such lists plus the named decipherer (Prinsep) to probe primary 19th-century publications for who first published readable translations.

The multiple-choice item lists 'Brahmi script in Ashoka's pillar inscription was deciphered by __' with options including James Prinsep and William Jones, implying these names are commonly discussed in connection with decipherment.

A student could use this to focus research on Prinsep and Jones as primary candidates and then check independent biographical dates/works to see who actually deciphered Brahmi.

This snippet directly states that the Brahmi script of the inscriptions at Sanchi was deciphered by James Prinsep in 1837.

A student can compare this specific attribution and date with William Jones's known lifetime/publications (basic historical dates) to judge whether Jones could have been the first decipherer.

Describes the wide geographical spread and composition of Ashoka's edicts, implying the need for deciphering Brahmi to reconstruct Mauryan history.

A student could use the fact that these inscriptions are in Brahmi to confirm that any claimed 'first decipherer' must have worked on Brahmi script and compare known scholars associated with Brahmi.

Lists modern scholarly works and translations of Ashoka's edicts, indicating a historiographical tradition where specific scholars (e.g., those credited in textbooks) are cited for decipherment/translations.

A student might consult the cited works or their prefatory notes (basic library search) to see which scholar(s) are credited with deciphering Brahmi and when.

Mentions specific names and foreign kings referred to in the edicts (e.g., 'Yona king Antiyoka (Antiochus)'), showing that identifying historical names required accurate decipherment of script.

A student can use this example to reason that correct readings (and their scholarly attribution) are traceable in secondary literature—so checking who first produced such identifications helps test the statement.