Cataloguing Culture in Medieval India: Evidence from the Bṛhaṭṭippanikā
Vyom A. Shah (✉) | January 13, 2026
The Royal Library of Ashurbanipal
The year 1849 became significant with Austen Henry Layard unearthing the mighty Royal Library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh, Assyria. Named after the last king, Ashurbanipal of the Assyrian Empire, the discovery was made in the Royal Palace of King Sennacherib (705–681 BCE). With more than 30,000 clay tablets and fragments containing texts from the 7th century BCE, this became one of the earliest known library complexes in human history. The discovery of the Royal Archives of Ebla by Paolo Matthiae at Tell Mardikh and the accidental discovery of libraries at Ugarit by Ras Sharma through the abundant availability of cuneiform tablets and fragments in the 20th century expanded our knowledge about how knowledge was stored and organised in ancient times.
Though the Royal Archives of Ebla and tablets in Ugarit respectively date nearly two thousand and eight centuries earlier than the Royal Library of Ashurbanipal, the available evidence prevents us from concluding whether those repositories were well-organised or not. A point, however, worth noting here is that what was found at Ebla was administrative, economic, and legal records summing up to an archive and not a library. The library of Ugarit, on the other hand, housed the literary as well as administrative materials, including the fifty epic poems (the Baal Cycle, the Legend of Keret, etc.). It was a natural accumulation of texts based on functional needs rather than being an organised collection.
The Royal Library of Ashurbanipal serves as a watershed moment in the cataloguing history of the world. King Ashurbanipal (r. 668–627 BCE) deliberately assembled what scholars now recognise as the world's first systematically organised and catalogued library. Though the original collection would have been larger, the extant collection holds 20,000 to 32,000 clay tablets and fragments. The organisational method of the Royal Library of Ashurbanipal was a phenomenal leap from the other two ancient known repositories. The library had shape-based classification, subject-based categorization, and a colophon system inscribing the text name, scribe's name, etc. Moreover, the library maintained a general catalogue and class catalogue (Clark, p. 4) with an official responsible for the management of the order of the tablets.
The Indian Context
Returning to the Indian sub-continent, there is a lack of definitive sources on the history of cataloguing. In the Indian context, we ought to rely on secondary literary sources until the late medieval era. The Nālandā, for instance, has housed thousands of texts during its glory, and the management & organization of such a knowledge repository would not be possible without a standard catalogue.
The Bṛhaṭṭippanikā
The earliest known catalogue of the Indian sub-continent is the Bṛhaṭṭippanikā. The compiler of the text is unknown, but the work is based upon the texts included in the list, the list was seemingly compiled after the 14th century. Jinavijaya, in his remarks on this manuscript, places its compilation between 1440 and 1460. The assumption is based on unavailable mention of any text composed after 1443 VS. The scholar has classified the list on the basis of themes dealt with (List in Appendix 1) within the text. The catalogue records 653 main entries with commentaries nested underneath the main text. For instance:
निर्यु्क्तिः गाथाः ४४५, ४५२
चूर्णिः ७०००, ७९७०
बृहद्वृत्तिर्हारिभद्री वृत्तिः श्रीतिलकीया नेमिचरित्रगर्भा ७०००
लघुबृहद्वृत्त्युद्धाररूपा सुमतिसूरीया २६००
40. जीतकल्पसूत्रं जिनभद्रीम् गाथा १०५
भाष्यम् ३१२५ नास्ति।
चूर्णिः सिद्धसेनीया १०००
चूर्णिटिप्पनकं भृगु. गु. ३ विना न।
वृत्तिः १२२४वर्षे श्रीतिलकीया १८००।
जीतकल्पविवरणं संक्षिप्तगमनिकारूपम् 'सिरिवीरजिणं नमिउं' इति ५४३।
श्राद्धजीतकल्पस्य सूत्रवृत्ती श्रीतिलकीये गाथा ३० वृत्ति. ११५।
यतिजीतकल्पस्य श्रीसोमप्रभसूरीयस्य वृत्तिः साधुरत्नसूरीया ५७००।
श्राद्धजीतकल्पस्य तपाश्रीधर्मघोषसूरीयस्य वृत्तिः श्रीसोमतिलकसूरीया २६००।
The arrangement of commentaries was generally in order of the year of composition. The entries were followed by the number of verses in the text like noted above already. In exceptional cases, the compiler also recorded the difference in the granthāgra in two folios of the same text. For instance,
Instead of recording eulogist work by the theme of the praise, the scholar has tried to be innovative in his approach by supplying the first words of the praises. For instance,
Multi-Repository Coverage
The master scholar did not compile a list of a single jñānabhaṇḍāra but of four individual jñānabhaṇḍāras: (Aṇahilapura) Pattana [=Patan], Sthambhatīrtha [=Khambhat], Bṛgupura [=Bharuch] and Deva Pattana [=Prabhas Patan]. He took utmost care to mention which texts were available at which place. For instance,
140. उपसर्गहर-भयहरस्तववृत्ता उपसर्ग. वृत्तिः ३०० भयहर. वृत्तिः १६०। देवपत्तनं विना नास्ति।
180. धर्मोपदेशमालाविवरणं स्तम्भतीर्थं विना न।
The manuscript isn't available except for Deva Pattan [=Prabhas Patan].
Sectarian Classification
The compiler has also successfully classified the works that have been composed by Digambara authors than those from Śvetāmbara authors. For instance,
Evidence of Lost Texts
These avid descriptions also provide us upon the information of how much literature have we have lost over the last six centuries and how much was already lost before that. For instance, Siddhasena Divākara composed 32 thirty-two-versed texts (Dvātriṃśad Dvātriṃśikā), out of which only twenty-one are available today. As a matter of interest, the first publication of this text mentions that most of the manuscripts contain only 20 dvātriṃśikās of Siddhasena and the twenty-first Mahāvīra-Dvātriṃśikā was only found in a single manuscript. The compiler, in this case, mentions:
This implies that the other parts of texts, including 12 dvātriṃśikās, were already lost by the 15th century CE. The compiler sometimes also mentions the year of composition of the text:
177. पुष्पमालावृत्तिर्मलधारि-सूत्रकृत्-हेमचन्द्रैः ११७५ वर्षे कृता १३८६८।
It also appropriately fixates the dates of works.
Conclusion:
The journey from the clay tablets of Ashurbanipal's library to the Bṛhaṭṭippanikā manuscript reveals humanity's enduring commitment to organizing and preserving knowledge across civilizations. While the Royal Library of Ashurbanipal stands as a pioneering achievement in systematic cataloguing with its shape-based classification and colophon system, the Indian tradition demonstrated equally sophisticated approaches to knowledge management. The Bṛhaṭṭippanikā, though compiled centuries later, exemplifies a mature cataloguing culture with its meticulous recording of textual details, chronological arrangement of commentaries, cross-referencing of multiple repositories, and careful documentation of manuscript locations and variations.
The compiler's innovative methods—from noting verse counts and composition dates to recording the opening words of eulogistic works—suggest that cataloguing practices in the Indian subcontinent were well-developed long before the 15th century. The catalogue's coverage of four major jñānabhaṇḍāras and its distinction between Digambara and Śvetāmbara works demonstrates an organized, interconnected library system that facilitated scholarly access across different centers of learning.
Perhaps most poignantly, the Bṛhaṭṭippanikā serves not only as evidence to what was preserved but also as a sobering record of what has been lost. The record of Siddhasena Divākara's missing dvātriṃśikās reminds us that catalogues are often the last witnesses to vanished texts, preserving at least the memory of knowledge that time has claimed. This dual function—celebrating preservation while mourning loss—underscores why the history of cataloguing is inseparable from the history of human civilization itself.
Bibliography
Jaina Sāhitya Saṁśodhaka, Year 1, Issue 2 (Ed. by Jinavijaya)
Menant, Joachim. Découvertes Assyriennes: La Bibliothèque du Palais de Ninive. N.p.: LEGARE STREET Press, 2023.
Divākara, Siddhasena. Siddhasenadivākarakṛtagranthamālā, Jaina Dharma Prasāraka Sabhā, 1892
Appendix 1: Classification in the Bṛhaṭṭippanikā
एकादशाङ्गानि – The eleven aṅgas
द्वादशोपाङ्गानि – The twelve upāṅgas
आवश्यकमूलच्छेदसूत्रवृत्त्यादीनि – Āvaśyakasūtra, Mūlasūtra, Chedasūtra, etc., and their commentaries
आगमेतरचरणकरणानुयोगादिग्रन्थाः – Texts related to Caraṇānuyoga and Karaṇānuyoga, sans Āgamas
कथानुयोगग्रन्थाः – Texts related to Kathānuyoga
न्यायतर्कग्रन्थाः –Nyaya and Tarka texts
व्याकरणकोशग्रन्थाः – Grammatical and Lexical texts
छन्दःसाहित्यग्रन्थाः – Prosodical and literary texts
गद्यपद्यकाव्यग्रन्थाः – Prose, Verse and Kāvya texts
नाटकानि - Plays
ज्योतिःशकुनयोगाम्नायमन्त्रकल्पसामुद्रिकशास्त्राणि – Texts related to jyotiṣ, śakuna (omen), yoga,
प्रकीर्णकग्रन्थाः – Miscellaneous texts
Appendix 2: Archive vs. Library
Archive vs. Library: Understanding the Distinction
While archives and libraries both serve as repositories of recorded knowledge, they differ fundamentally in purpose, content, and organization.
Archives primarily preserve original, unique documents created during the course of administrative, legal, or personal activities. The materials in archives—such as correspondence, official records, manuscripts, and legal documents—are typically one-of-a-kind items valued for their evidential significance and historical context. As seen in the Royal Archives of Ebla, which contained administrative, economic, and legal records, archives document transactions and provide proof of activities. The arrangement in archives often reflects the original order in which documents were created and used, preserving the organic relationship between records.
Libraries, by contrast, collect published materials and multiple copies of works intended for dissemination and use. Libraries house books, journals, and other published resources selected and organized by subject matter to facilitate access and learning. The Royal Library of Ashurbanipal exemplified this distinction by deliberately assembling literary, religious, and scholarly texts—including the Epic of Gilgamesh and astronomical treatises—organized through systematic classification for consultation and study.
Author of this blog is an enthusiast in Saṃskṛta, Prākṛta and Apabhraṃśa, and has pursued Masters' degree in Sanskrit. Know more here.