211 
1879.] R. Hoernle— Remarks on General Cunningham's Notes. 
the example just quoted would prove the law only with regard to the inter¬ 
change of a conjunct sh and r ; but not as regards single medial or single 
initial sh and r. In Kusliana = Korano, the letters in question are single 
medial; in zavu = rdo they are single initial. Letters in such different posi¬ 
tions may not, primd facie, be treated alike. But further, zavu — rao does 
not appear to me to be an illustration of the law at all. Zavu, I suppose, 
must represent a Turki word ; so does rao, if it he identical with zavu. Now 
as far as I know, both zavu and rdo always occur in legends written in Greek 
characters. It would appear then, that in this case the Turki initial sound, 
whatever it was, became in Greek (i. e., when it was expressed by a Greek 
letter) z at an earlier period, and r at a later .period. In the Arian Pali 
the word appears in the form yaiiasa ; so that we should get here three 
interchangeable letters (when single initial), viz., the two Greek « andr and 
the (Indian or) Pali y, all three equally representing some unknown Turki 
sound. Or again, if it he said, that rdo though written in Greek, gives the 
Indian pronunciation of the same Turki word, which by the Greeks was 
pronounced and written zavu in this case we have an Indian r inter¬ 
changeable with a Greek z, both representing some unknown Turki sound 
(besides being equivalent to a Pali y) ; that is, we have a case precisely the 
reverse of that seen in Kanishka = Kanerki. Add to this, that it does not 
seem probable, that rdo, standing as it does in close connexion with raonano, 
should not be the well-known Indian word rdo, hut another form of zavu. 
But whether zavu — rao be or be not true ; it does not strictly prove the case 
of Kusliana = Korano ; in so far as the letters do not occupy analogous posi¬ 
tions in the two sets of words. I may add that supposing Korano to he 
KnsUna, it seems strange that the word does not occur in the titles of 
Kadphises, while it occurs in those of his predecessor (Kadaphes) and his 
successors Kanerki and Hverki ; yet all belong to the same tribe. . If Kad¬ 
phises dropped it as unnecessary, why did his successors revert to it ? I do 
not deny that the identification of Kusliana with Korano may yet be prov¬ 
ed to be correct; it only seems to me that the evidence hitherto produced 
does not warrant it. On the other hand, I confess, I cannot understand, 
why a great king like Kanerki should not have borne the lesser title of 
“ military chief,” beside the more imposing “ king of kings” ; just as, now¬ 
adays, I believe Khan may be found joined with Shah, or the like. This 
is not incompatible with the fact, that in later times there were not allowed 
to be any kings, hut only military chiefs. 
The remaining points are' of less importance. It is very possible that 
the obscure marks under the bust of Kadphises represent clouds. If so, 
their apparent resemblance to Greek letters on two of the coins is mere¬ 
ly a curious accident. On this point as well as on the following, General 
