________________
OCTOBER, 1895.)
ORIGIN OF THE KHAKOSHTHI ALPHABET.
287
is undoubtedly, as Dr. Taylor himself has stated, an Old Persian loan-word, and all the three words mentioned point to a Persian influence, dating from the Akhæmenian period. And the Sauskțit and Pali lipi or libi "writing, document," which does not occur in the Vedic and Epic literature, nor in the ancient works of the Buddhist Canon of Ceylon, but appears first in Sútras of Paşini, & native of Gandhâra (traditional date 350 B. C.), furnishes the same indication, since in all probability, as Dr. Barnell conjectured, it is a corruption of dipi, favoured by a fancied connexion with the verb lip, limpati "he smears." Equally valuable is a socond point, the fact that the territory of the Kharðslathi corresponds very closely with the extent of the country presumably held by the Persians. Dr. Taylor and Sir A. Cunningham very justly lay stress on the statement of Herodotus (L. III. 94, 96), who asserts that the Persian satrapy of India paid a tribute of 360 talents of gold dast. They naturally infer that the Indian possessions of the Akhæmenians must have been of considerable extent, as well as that it must have included the greater portion of the Pañjab.
But there remain still two gaps which must needs be filled up. The Akhæmenian theory requires it to be shewn that the ancient Persians actually used the Aramaic lotters and that peculiar circumstances existed which compelled the Hindus to use these letters. The second point is at present particularly important, because the literary evidence regarding the use of writing in Indias (with which the epigraphic evidence fully agrees) proves that the Hindus were by no means anlettered in the fifth and sixth centuries B. C., but possessed and extensively used an alphabet, which probably was a form of the Brithmi lipi. As long as it was possible to maintain that the Hindus became acquainted with the art of writing not earlier than 400 B, C., it was, of course, easy to understand, that the use of the Aramaic letters by the conquerors of North-Western India should have acted as a natural incentive for their Hindu subjects to form out of these characters an alphabet suited for their own language. But the case becomes different, if it must be admitted that the Hindus possessed already a script of their own before the Persian conqnest. With this admission it becomes necessary to shew that there were special circumstances which forced them to use the alphabet of their conquerors.
Both the points just discussed are explained, it seems to me, by certain discoveries, made of late years in Semitic palæography. M. Clermont-Ganneau's important articles in the Revue Archéologique of 1878 and 1879 have shewn that the Aramaic language and writing, which, already in the times of the Assyrian empire, occur in contracts and on the official standard weights, were freqnently employed for official correspondence, accounts and other official purposes during the rule of the Akhwmenian kings in many different provinces of their empire. Egypt kas furnished Aramaic inscriptions on stones and potsherds, as well as Aramaic Papyri addressed to Persian governors; in western Asia and in Arabia both inscriptions and numerous Satrap coins with Aramaic legends have been found ; and even Persia has yielded an Aramaic inscription (of which unfortunately no trustworthy facsimile exists) at Senq-Qaleh, midway between Tabriz and Telerán.3 And, I may add, there is also a scrap of literary evidence to the same effcct. A stateinent in the Book of Ena, iv. 7, points to the conclusion that the Aramaic language and writing was well-known in the Imperial chancellerie at Susa. For it is said that a letter, addressed by the Samaritans to Artaxerxes, “was written," as the Revised Version of the Bible has it, "in the Syrian (character) and in the Syrian tongue." The Samaritans would hardly have adopted the "Arâmit" in addressing their liege lord, if it had not been commonly used in official correspondence, sent out from, or in to the Imperial Secretariat. The custom itself, no doubt, has to be explained by a strong infusion of Arameans, or of men trained in the
? Indian Stuulies, No. III. p. 5ff.
* Soe Ph, Berger, Histoire de l'Ecriture dans l'Antiquité, p. 2184., whero M, Borgor pertinently remarks with respect to the last inscription, that it puts us on the road to India.
• As Prof. Euting kindly points out to me, a similar inference has already been drawn from the above passage by the authors of the Kurzjej. Commentar I, d. heil. Schriften d. N. X. A. Tel., lig. v. H. Struck uud O. Zückler; Alt. Test., Abth. 8, p. 159.
