On the Origin of the Indian Brahma Alphabet c8.7

c8.7

Both the points just discussed are explained, it seems to me, by certain discoveries, made of late years in Semitic palaeography. M. Clermont-Ganneau's important articles in the *Revue archéologique* [48] of 1878 and 1879 have shown 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 frequently employed for official correspondence, accounts and other official purposes during the rule of the Akhaemenian kings in many different provinces of their empire. Egypt has 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 Teheran.¹ And, I may add, there is also a scrap of literary evidence to the same effect. A statement in the Book of Ezra IV. 7, points to the conclusion that the Aramaic language and writing was wellknown 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 “Arāmīt” in addressing their liege lord, if it had not been commonly used in official correspondence, sent out from, or into, the Imperial Secretariat.²