The Personal Name Here Is Again Obscure. At

342 THE FIRST ARAMAIC INSCRIPTION FROM INDIA

1. 10 : " his conduct " ? 1. 11 : " and also his sons." 1. 12 : the personal name here is again obscure. At the end of the line are traces of the right-hand side of a letter, which might be samekh or beth; if we accept the former, it is possible to vocalize as Pavira-ram, i.e. Pavira-rdja, corresponding to the Sanskrit Pravira- rdja. The name Pravira is well known in epos, and might well be borne by a real man ; and the change of a sonant to a surd consonant, such as that of j to «, is quite common in the North-West dialects.

L. D. BARNETT.

THE FIRST ARAMAIC INSCRIPTION FROM INDIA I must thank Mr. F. W. Thomas for his great kindness in sending me the photograph taken by Sir J. H. Marshall, and also Dr. Barnett for letting me see his tracing and transliteration. The facsimile is made from the photograph, which is as good as it can be. Unfortunately, on the original, the letters are as white as the rest of the marble, and it was necessary to darken them in order to obtain a photograph. This process inti'oduces an element of uncertainty, since in some cases part of a line may have escaped, and in others an accidental scratch may appear as part of a letter. Hence the following passages are more or less doubtful: line 4, 3PI; 1. 6, Tpfl; 1. 8, "123 and y\; 1. 9, the seventh and ninth letters; 1. 10, ID; 1. 12, the name. The difficulty of reading, where the words are unfamiliar, is increased by the similarity of some of the letters : 0> J, *1 (*"!?), and even "1, are liable to confusion; £ and PI in 1. 7 C*IPO), and 11. 8, 10; X. p. fl- No doubt if we had more material it would be possible to distinguish the forms. I read as follows :— Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 25 May 2018 at 14:39:52, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00048280 THE FIRST ARAMAIC INSCRIPTION FROM INDIA 343

i Memorial Sy 'pvtrk 2 to DMIRKI for 3 the carving on NnianaKn nx 4 cedar and ivory wi -rtatib\ 5 . . . and they belonged to his father. POT TlTpfl p 6 Behold, this is my charge piTiwa *JT 7 . . . this Vohuvarda 8 . . . bequeathing, and when she was IT-IS j*na 9 ... our lord PDIDU (?) 10 . . . his kingdom Til:! ClXl 11 ... and also his sons enris ttno1? 12 ... to our lord PVIDDS (?) The first four lines (and perhaps the first six) are evidently continuous. Lines 6-10 ai-e certainly not so. Nothing seems to be lost before 1. 1 or at the end. On the right each line (?1. 6) begins with a full word. On the left nothing is missing but a letter here and there. Consequently it would appear that the inscription was originally engraved round a doorway or window, or more probably a panel containing a portrait (like e.g. the Nerab monument), thus—

pro

Line 1 is quite uncertain. A word for " memorial" is wanted. The first letter may be a V. The next may be a ""!, perhaps like the 1 (?) in 1. 6. Otherwise a certain "T does not occur. The word pi"-!)? is not found in this sense of "justification" or "acknowledgment", but it is quite a possible word. Cf. perhaps NJlplX, CIS. ii, 11315. 1. 2. The first word must be a personal name. The T might be "1 or even 3, the 1 might be T (or D?), the p might be fl. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 25 May 2018 at 14:39:52, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00048280 344 THE FIRST ARAMAIC INSCRIPTION FROM INDIA

It cannot be Ptolemy's Aafiipucrj (== South India), nor probably a Greek name A^/id^o?. 1. 4. There is no doubt about the reading HX " cedar ". The remaining'letters seem to be meant as one word, since elsewhere words are usually separated with some care. It would be read most naturally as NHIDiJB', which (unless it be an Indian word) is meaningless. If divided, j^ would mean "ivory", but NJTQJ is difficult. The 3 is unlike that in 1. 3. I suggest that it is a badly formed PI, and that the compound is a variant of the Hebrew D*!1PI3&J> (l Kings x, 22; 2 Chron. ix, 21), meaning simply " ivory ". 1. 5, if it follows without a break on 1. 4, may be translated " which belonged ". 1. 6. This and 1. 8 are the most difficult parts of the inscription. PI3T is certain. The preceding letters look like one word. The suffix ' shows that it must be a noun. The rt and n are certain, and the first * is probable. The other letters are 1 (or J), S (or 1), p (or T\ or "£). The 1 is strange, and no certain instance of it occurs elsewhere in the inscription. It seems necessary to divide the letters and read TWOS fPI, or °fl "IPl, making IPl— the end of a lost word, since the pronoun could hardly stand in the same phrase with POT. The word XlWpfl is not found in the sense of a " trust ", but it is quite possible. Or is it, after all, a Hebraism (cf. 1. 8) *fl"VX1 " and I designed " or " decorated " ? I confess it is more like that. Then |PI might be the pronoun, subject of 11PI in 1. 5, and the text would be continuous so far. 1. 7. PlTVfiPQ a Persian name ? Cf. Huvaredhi ? (Justi, Iran, Namenbuch, s.v.). ^T may agree with a previous noun now lost, or with °1PO " the said V." 1. 8. The first letter is probably a 12 which has lost its two top strokes (cf. 1. 10). It might perhaps be PI (cf. 1. 7), but in the certain cases of PI its right-hand stroke is more slanting. The 1 might be a J. The ]"l is more probable than j* after C, but it might be a p (pfc^JIPl). If we read ri&J'")1)^, it can only be a Hebraism (cf. on 1. 6), a feminine participle Hiphil referring to PmHPQ, which will be a feminine name. Then fVlPI Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 25 May 2018 at 14:39:52, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00048280 THE FIRST ARAMAIC INSCRIPTION' FROM INDIA 345

naturally agrees with the same. The intervening word must be '"TDI, though the 3, as it appears, is more like a "1, as Dr. Barnett reads it. 1. 9. The name is very uncertain. Its second and fourth letters should be 1 or "T. If we were right in reading nTTlini in 1. 7, the second letter, at least, ought to be 1. The fifth may be the same, with its top stroke lost, or a 1. The third is the most puzzling. The top is very small for a p. It might possibly be a V, as Dr. Barnett takes it, but the tail looks more like n scratch on the marble than an intentional stroke. Then what can the small remaining head be ? I suspect that the name is the same as that in 1. 12. As the name of some important personage, perhaps a king (cf. lUli^bD in 1. 10), it is written large here (so iTiTfirO in 1. 7), hut smaller when repeated in 1. 12. Both names" have the same title JX"lO, and in so short an inscription there does not seem room for the mention of two such persons. If they are the same the third letter may be a strangely formed * in both cases. In the Elephantine papyri JfcOD is the title of the Persian governor. 1.10. The first letter is the same as in 1. 8. Dr. Barnett takes both as n, but PlfflD/Fl is a very unlikely word here. The last letter must be PI, though only a thin outline of it remains. 1. 12. See above on 1. 9. The second letter of the name as it stands is a clear *l. The third seems to be a badly formed '. The other two may be 1 or T. At the end is a trace of {?, which need not necessarily be part of the name. Some letters may be missing at the end of lines 9-12. If 11. 11, 12 are continuous the meaning may be either the sons of P." or his sons (did or gave something) to P."

As to the date, since the names are not identified, we can only judge from the forms of the letters. Note especially the !"l> T> *> 7> fi> J?- Unfortunately we have no other Aramaic inscription from India for comparison, and must therefore look elsewhere. All these letters are far removed from the archaic forms, e.g. of Sinjirli. The n> Ti y are very like the forms used in the Elephantine papyri—allowing for the difference between carving and Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 25 May 2018 at 14:39:52, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00048280 346 THE FIRST ARAMAIC INSCRIPTION FROM INDIA

writing—but slightly more simplified. Several other, less crucial, letters are practically the same as at Elephantine. We might then conclude that the inscription is of about the same date as the papyri, say somewhat earlier than 400 B.C., and that both are in the official hand of the Persian Empire. But N, JJ *, ^ are slightly later in style. The S is exactly like that in CIS. ii, 144* (about 400 B.C.). In a Ptolemaic papyrus published in PSBA. (1907, p. 260 +, and plates) it has an almost modern form. The Ptolemaic X is somewhat like the X here, and the * is very like that in 1. 12. We shall probably therefore not be far wrong in ascribing the inscription to about the middle of the fourth century. Whether Aramaic would have continued in use in India after the expedition of Alexander we cannot say. There are no Greek inscrip- tions in India, and Greek influence seems to have come much later. The discovery of this inscription throws an interesting light on the origin of the Kharosthi alphabet. Taxila, where it was found, was a chief city of the Kharosthi district, and as Biihler says (Vienna Or. Journ., 1895, p. 45) " it is here, of course, that the Kharosthi alphabet must have originated". The view that Aramaic was officially used by the Achsemenians (first suggested by Clermont Ganneau), that after their conquest of Northern India about 500 B.C. it became current there, and that Kharosthi was derived from it in this way, is thus being gradually confirmed. The papyri have shown that the language was officially used by the Persian Government, and no doubt when (if ever) excavation is possible on suitable sites in Persia itself, further evidence will be found. As a matter of fact, however, Aramaic as a lingua franca was not introduced by the Persian Empire. It was used in much earlier times, not for monumental or literary purposes so far east, but as a trade language side by side with the impossible cuneiform system, as is Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 25 May 2018 at 14:39:52, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00048280 THE FIRST ARAMAIC INSCRIPTION FROM INDIA 347

shown by the " dockets " on Babylonian tablets. Under Assurbanipal (from 668 B.C.) an Aramaean copyist (A-BA [ = dupsar] mat armda) was officially employed as well as an Assyrian (Hommel, Geogr., i, p. 191 +). By the Persians this was further extended, whether or not we believe with Hommel (ibid., p. 202 +) that the O.P. cuneiform is derived from some form of " Phoenician- Aramaic " alphabet. The use of cuneiform for writing Persian did not last long, and after the fall of the empire when we next meet with written Persian it is in various forms of the Aramaic character. It is not difficult to see how the alphabet would eventually reach India. This inscription is the first proof that it did get there. Its date is nearly that of the first specimens of Kharosthi, and it thus forms a sound basis for comparing the two systems of writing. See Biihler's table in VOJ. (1895, after p. 66) or in his Indische Paldographie, p. 22. A. COWLEY.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 25 May 2018 at 14:39:52, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00048280