1840.] from Bactrian and Indo- Scythian coins. 261 



When we meet upon the coins with legends of a twofold writing, 

 viz., a Grecian and another unknown, we dare positively assert, 

 that the names written on the one side in Grecian characters, 

 must be repeated on the reverse. From this point of view 

 Messrs. Prinsep and Grotefend have also found the alphabet, 

 which I have to rectify only in a few points ; for in the main 

 point the deciphering of the alphabet is already completed. 



If I may be allowed to state beforehand, in what respect both 

 have been mistaken, it appears to be the following : — Neither of 

 them has succeeded in the choice of words to explain the 

 appellatives in the native language, in consequence of which, 

 both have adopted some spurious letters. Mr. Grotefend had not 

 at his command coins enough to observe this mistake in the ap- 

 plication of these words to proper names ; besides, the legends 

 have become so indistinct, that without comparing many copies, 

 it is often impossible to find the real shape of some letters, 

 or the proper native orthography. Mr. Grotefend appears in 

 general not to have borne in mind, that the native language 

 might be of such a nature as to require an orthography 

 different from the Grecian, and he therefore adapts also the 

 vowels to the latter, though the native writing has its pro- 

 per system of denoting vowels, from which it is not allowed 

 to depart. 



Mr. Prinsep has arrived at this system ; but as he does 

 not apply it with sufficient exactness, he is mistaken in the 

 reading of an important letter, and obstructs his own way to 

 an accurate knowledge of the native language. Though he 

 is quite correct in supposing, that the native orthography 

 must not always copy every Grecian letter, yet, he does not 

 accurately define the nature of those deviations, and is too 

 easily satisfied with a groundless difference in the orthography. 



With regard to some letters, the proposed alphabets present 

 also differences in shape too great to allow their adoption, 

 without a more careful examination. 



It would be unjust to mention this censure, without adding 

 at the same time, that my alphabet is entirely grounded upon 

 that of my predecessors, and that the merit of the real de- 

 cyphering is due to them. 



. 



