1861.] Translation of a Bactrian Inscription. 339 
have depended entirely upon the alphabets supplied by Mr. Thomas in 
his essay on Bactrian writing, and by Professor Wilson in his reading 
of the Kapur di giri inscription, and taken Mr. Bayley’s transcript for 
my guide with regard to compound letters. I do not, neverthe- 
less, wish to submit my reading as other than tentative. In decy- 
phering documents of which the characters are, to some extent, 
unknown, the letters most carelessly written, the vowel marks 
frequently omitted, and the language corrupt, — in short of which 
the language, character and grammar are all, more or less, doubtful, — a 
great deal is done by guesses, of which some may be happy, but others 
must be wrong ; I keep myself therefore fully prepared to surrender 
my version, whenever further research will suggest another better 
fitted to suit all the requirements of the monument. 
The record opens with the word sam, the usual abbreviation for 
samvat, the era when it was inscribed, and the year is indicated by 
the figures which follow ; but the nasal mark under the sibilant is pe- 
culiar. It bears no resemblance to its counterpart in the Kapur di giri 
inscription, where it is indicated by a triangular mark resembling 
an arrow-head placed under the letter, or to the semi-circu- 
lar mark or the dot elsewhere used ; but if allowance be made 
for the carelessness with which the characters are punched on the 
urn, and the fact of their having been formed by a series of dots 
and not by lines, the difference is not sufficient to justify any doubt 
as to the accuracy of the reading. 
The figures which follow are three in number, of which the first 
two are exactly alike. There is little, however, to aid us in ascer- 
taining then- values. The first figure looks like 1, and the other two 
may be compared to the modern Sanskrit 3, which together, reading 
from the right, would amount to 331. This, however, did not at first 
sight appear to me to be satisfactory, as I knew that there was a 
Sanskrit inscription some time ago found at Mutra and recorded during 
the reign of Huviska, the prince named in the monument under notice, 
which bore date the 417* Samvat,' and it was natural to expect that 
the century alluded to in the two documents should be the same. 
As Kaniska and his brother Pluviska reigned before the commencement 
of the Christian era and contemporaneously with Vikramaditya, 
the Samvat alluded to by them, I thought, must refer to other than 
* So read by Mr. E. C. Bay ley. 
