^{page 408 note 1} These plates are now the property of that enterprising collector of Oriental antiquities, Col. S. C. Guthrie, who has freely permitted them to be used, in transfer, on stone, by the Royal Asiatic Society. The reduction from the original 4to. form on copper to the 8vo. reproduction now presented, signalizes an epoch in the history of the lithographer's art, and exemplifies a process which, under scientific treatment, even improves upon the effect of the metal engravings.

^{page 409 note 1} La Stêle de Dhiban, M. Clermont-Ganireau, Révue Archéologique, March, 1870, p. 184. Derenbourg, Journal Asiatique, Jan. and Feb. 1870. Sehlotmann, March 15. Times, May 5. Zeitschrift, ii and ii. Heft. 1870.

Notices more readily available to English readers may be found in Professor Rawlinson's article in the Contemporary Review, vol. xv. (08 and 11) 1870, p. 96, et seq.Google Scholar; and in Dr. Wright's learned and exhaustive paper in the unhappily concluding number of the North British Review. From the latter I extract the following close summary:—

“An alphabet common to all the Shemitio populations of Syria—an alphabet from which were derived the Greek letters on the one side, and all the later alphabets of the East on the other. . . . . .

“This alphabet is, doubtless, almost, if not absolutely identical with that employed by the poets, prophets, and historians of the kingdom of Judah and Israel, when they committed their works to writing; and it may be well for scholars to bear this in mind when attempting conjectural emendations upon the Biblical texts.”—North British Review, October, 1870.

^{page 410 note 1} Num. Chron, iii. n.s. p. 280.

^{page 410 note 2} Dr. Wright fixes the date of the inscription as “approximately in the 2nd year of Ahaziah's reign, or the beginning of that of his brother Jehoram” (b.c. 896, 894). The seats and tablets horn Sargon's treasure chamber are supposed to belong to the time of Assher bani pal (about 667 b.c.). The Assyrian Lion weights are understood to be earlier (Mr. Norris, J.R.A.S. xvi. p. 215); and Sir H. Rawlinson places some of his Ninevite tablets in the eighth century b.c. J.R.A.S. 1870, p. xxx. See also vol. i. N.S. p. 187.

^{page 410 note 3} Gesenius, passim. de Luynes, M., in Prinsep's Essays, ii. p. 166Google Scholar. DrLevy's, “Contributions to Aramæan Numismatics,” 1867Google Scholarde Vogüé, M., “Mélanges,” p. 145Google Scholar, The outlines given in the text were copied from the paper impressions of the original stone in the Palestine Exploration Collection; they have, however, suffered greatly in the reduction into type.

^{page 410 note 4} J.R.A.S. vol. xii. o.s. (1850), p. 265. See also Num. Chron. xii. p. 77.

^{page 410 note 5} Anquetil himself, in speaking of the learning of his own instructors at an anterior period, or in the middle of the eighteenth century, uses the words, “L'ignorance était le vice dominant des Parses de l'lnde.” (Zend Avesta, p. cccxxvi.; Burnouf, Ya¸na, p. x.) Dr. Haug gives us an amusing pendant to this statement in saying, “The European reader will not be a little astonished to learn that Anquetil's work was regarded afterwards as a kind of authority by the Desturs themselves.” (“Sacred Language of the Pársís.” Bombay, 1862, p. 21Google Scholar See also Westergaard, J.R.A.S. viii. p. 350; and Müller, Max, “Chips from a German Workshop,” i. pp. 122, 167, 172, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 411 note 1} Vol. iii. N.S. p. 260.

^{page 411 note 2} I conclude it is to some such feeling of hostility at my venturing to differ, not only from certain Continental professors, but more expressly from their masters in Bombay, that I owe an amusingly rabid attack in the “Révue Critique” (27th 03, 1869), by Justi, M.Google Scholar. The tone of this article would alone prevent my conceding to it any serious notice; but it is clear that no object could be attained by my entering upon a discussion with the author, or those who accept his interpretations upon texts the very alphabet of which is still in dispute. So that, although M. Justi's eccentric lucubration has received the commendation of M. Renan (Rapport, Journal Asiatique), I am content to surrender the writer to the more congenial conflict with his countryman, Dr. Haug, who has already sounded the note of defiance, about the “grave errors” of my “vicious” critic, whom he contemptuously designates as “a mere follower of Spiegel.” (Pahlavi-Zand Glossary, pp. 25, 32.)

^{page 411 note 3} Dr. Haug is scarcely candid in affirming that “the phonetic value of the character has been thought to be i, chiefly on account of its resemblance in form to the Zend letter (An Old Pahlavi-Pazand Glossary, 1870, p. 44). There is far more varied testimony towards the identification than this abrupt utterance would imply, as I have, in effect, repeated above. My first acceptance of the letter as i dates from 1852 (Journal Royal Asiatio Society, xiii. p. 375); and I find Dr. Haug confessing in 1862 (Essays on the Sacred Language of the Parsees, Bombay, p. 45) that Barj is the Chaldee bar, “son,” (ben in Hebrew and Arabic); the j at the end is another pronunciation of the relative i (or iẓáfat) above mentioned [in Bagi]. It is curious that the Professor should at this period have so accurately realized and defined the mission of the letter and its direct association with the short i, and yet have failed to detect its positive import. It was reserved, however, for his later baptism in the fire-worship of the Gujaráti Destúrs to convert him from his hard-earned European knowledge to their atmosphere of placid ignorance, and the restoration of the contested symbol to Anquetil du Perron's faulty version of man, contributed of old by the less degraded representatives of the Pársí faith in 1759.

Mr. E. W. West, C.E., whose good service to the cause of Indian palæography in his facsimiles and decipherments of the inscriptions on the walls of the Western Cave Temples, I can freely bear testimony to, has lately undertaken the study of Pehlvi, in concert with Dr. Haug, of Munich, and has argued the question of the value of the character under discussion with much patience and ingenuity in opposition to my interpretation. I am unable to discover that he has at all shaken my position, and I regret to find that he ignores, or unduly subordinates, the very important evidence in favour of the i, to be drawn from the previous identities of the Phoenician and other derivative forms of (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1870, p. 364.)

^{page 412 note 1} A large assortment of these compounds is given in my plate of the Bactrian alphabet (Num. Chron. iii. N.S. plate vi.), and the particular instances above cited may be consulted in Gen. Cunningham's plate v. vol. viii. of the same journal; and the facsimiles illustrating Professor Dowson's article on Bactrian Inscriptions, J.R.A.S. xx. o.s. p. 221. See also Professor Wilson's Kapurdigiri Inscription, J.R.A.S. xii. p. 153.

^{page 414 note 1} The Old Pahlavi-Pazand Glossary devotes sixteen pages (25–41) to “the various phonetic powers of the letters and their compounds occurring in the glossaries,” etc., and its Editors confess that the list of needless ohscurations is far from exhausted.

^{page 414 note 2} In 1858, I said in my edition of “Prinsep's Essays,” ii. p. 108, “Of all those who are learned in Zend and its cognate languages—of the various professors who edit Pehlvi texts, or who put together grammars of that tongue—no single individual has to this day been able to add one line of translation to the bilingual inscriptions of Hájíabád, beyond what De Sacy had already taught us in 1793. In brief, our power of interpretation fails us exactly where the Sassanians have omitted to supply us with the Greek translations they appended to some of the parallel texts.”

^{page 414 note 3} J.R.A.S. iii. n.s. p. 339.

^{page 414 note 4} Lest my readers should suppose that I am exaggerating in thiB matter, I append M. Haug's revised version in his own original words:—After titles, etc., “the king. As we shot this arrow, then we shot it in the presence of the satraps, the grandees, peers and noblemen; we put the foot in this cave; we threw the arrow outside that it should reach the target; the arrow (was) flying beyond that (target); whither the arrow had been thrown, there was no place (to hit), where if a target had been constructed, then it (the arrow) would have been manifest (?). Afterwards it was ordered by us: an invisible target is constructed for the future (?); an invisible hand has written, ‘do not put the foot in this cave, and do not shoot an arrow at this target after an invisible arrow has been thrown at this target;’ such wrote the hand.”—Haug, Pahlavi General Glossary, p. 64. This reads like a very chaotic version of the ancient fable of Minuchehar, whose arrow from the peak of Damavand was to settle new boundaries, but whose progress through the air the incredulous reduced from the pretended Divine interposition to the mechanical aid of a wounded eagle.—Chronicles of Tabari, i. p. 280.

^{page 415 note 1} For the last 500 or 600 years, the knowledge of Pázand, or pure Persian, has gradually declined amongst Persian scholars in general, and especially amongst Pársí priests; so much so, that very few of the Destúrs can now either write or understand it correctly, as can readily be seen from their imperfect notes in Páhlavi books, and incorrect modes of expression in other writings. This ignorance has prevailed to such an extent that though the priests learn this glossary, parrot-like, off by heart, yet they cannot critically make out the exact meanings of many words, but are satisfied with mere guesses, etc.—Destúr Hoshang Jamasp, in his Old Pahlavi-Pázand Glossary, p. ix.

^{page 415 note 2} Ibid. p. vii.

^{page 415 note 3} There has been a good deal of needless acerbity introduced into these discussions, and Dr. Haug seems to exist only in a permanent state of warfare with the rest of his countrymen. Spiegel, however, is more distinctly singled out for condemnation in such amiabilities as the following: “As regards his views of the character of the language, and his explanations of the non-Iranian element, linguists are not likely to feel satisfied.” “The title of (a later) work, ‘The Traditional Literature of the Parsis,’ in its connexion with the conterminous literature, is therefore more pretentious than appropriate,” etc. etc. (An Old Pahlavi-Pazand Glossary, pp. 16, 20.)

^{page 416 note 1} Grammatik der Pârsisprache (Leipzig, 1851), p. 22.

(a) î. oder ist der Zend vocal 10, z. B. etc.

(b) ê. oder wird im Pâtrsi durch ausgedrückt, in , etc.

^{page 416 note 2} Grammatik der Huzváresch-sprache. (Wien, 1856.)

^{page 416 note 3} J.R.A.S. n.s. iii. p. 262. The name Khusrui on the coins was for a long time supposed to lie Khusrub. J. Müller, Journal Asiatique (1839), vii. pp. 335, 342; Olshausen, Num. Chron. xi. 135; Rawlinson, J.R.A.S. x. I myself at one time shared this impression, which received much force from the parallel Armenian Khosrov (St.-Martin, Arménie, i. 412). The contrast, however, between the forms of the letter in question and that of the true b in the accompanying plates must be held conclusively to settle the point.

^{page 416 note 4} Die Traditionelle Literatur der Pursen (Wien, 1860), p. 424; J.R.A.S. xii. p. 275.

^{page 417 note 1} By some strange want of perception, the Editors of this Glossary have confounded the î and the very differently formed b, so that they describe the identical as ab (sic) and or = aî with charming indifference (p. 30).

^{page 417 note 2} There is no possible pretence for saying that Alexander destroyed the ancient literature of the land; the single Palace and the Royal Archives at Persepolis were burnt; but so far from the Macedonian conqueror having proposed to himself any mission of eradicating old creeds, he rather took to them under their pleasant aspects. The real destroyers of the primitive lore were the Muslims, who nevertheless reverenced, and for a time preserved, and finally translated all that was worth having in the accessible Pehlvi MSS. It would rather seem that the new Zoroastrianism ought to take its date from the latter period of depression; for there clearly were plenty of Pehlvi MSS. still extant in a.h. 318 = a.d. 930.—See Reinaud, Abulfeda, p. lxv. note 2.

^{page 419 note 1} A Grammar of the Pahlavi Language, by Peshotun Dustoor Behramjee Sunjana. (Bombay, 1871.) Preface, p. iii.: “The pronunciations of the Semitic terms as used by the Dustoors of Irán and of India are founded on the well known authority of Malik Namah Assooree, which, as will be mentioned hereafter, is now more than 1200 years old, and at the time when this work was written the Pahlavi language was in its pristine use amongst the Zoroastrians of Irán. The modern Orientalists of Europe, however, have modified such pronunciations, but such modifications I do not feel justified in recommending to my Zoroastrian brethren.” Of course, I am not likely to endorse all our new grammarian's notions, many of which are clearly crude, and require for their correction that foreign travel and outside ventilation which I have advised above; but not the less may I welcome an effort at free thought, and a seeking after the truth, which I admire above all things. One word of warning, too, I must add to those who may be disposed to over-estimate the advantages of Iranian descent, in the revival and reconstruction of their ancient tongue, as they must bear in mind that for generations past they have been domiciled and educated in a foreign land, and learnt from their cradles to frame their ideas in an alien idiom; so that their ancestral language, or even its modern representative, has to be acquired anew.

The Right. Hon. Viscount Strangford in the chair.—Mr. Thomas, adverting to recent controveries respecting the parentage of the various modes of writing in use in ancient India, spoke “On the Adapted Alphabets of the Aryan Races.” These were the results of his palæographical investigations: The aryans invented no alphabet of their own for their special form of human speech, but were, in all their migrations, indebted to the nationality amid whom they settled for their instruction in the science of writing: (1) The persian Cunciform owed its origin to the Assyrian, and the Assyrian Cuniform emanated from an antecedent Turanian symbolic character; (2) the Greek and Lalin alphabets were manifestly derived from the Phœnician; (3) the Bactrian was adapted to its more precise functions by a reconstruction and amplification of Phœnician models; (4) the Devanàgari was appropriated to the expression of the Sanskrit language from the pre-existing Indian Páli or Lát alphabet, which was obviously originated to meet the requirements of Turanian (Drávidion) dialects; (5)tho Pehlvi was the offspring of later and already modified Phœnician letters; and (6) the Zend was elaborated out of the limited elements of the Pehlvi writing, but by a totally different method to that followed in the adaptation of the Semitic Bactrian. Mr. Thomas then Proceeded to advert to the single point open to discussion involved under the 4th head, tracing the progress of the successive waves of Aryan immigration from the Oxus into the Province of Ariania and the Hindu Kush, and the downward course of the pastoral races from their first entry into the Panjáb and the assiciate crude chants of the Vedic hymns to the establishment of the cultivates Brahmanic institutions on the banks of the Sarasvati, and the elaboration of Sanskrit grammar at Taxila, connecting the advance of their literature eith the simplified but extended alphabet they constructed in the Arianian provinces out of a very archaic type of Phœnician, and whose graphic efficiency was so singularly aided by the free use of birch bark. This alphabet continued in use as the offical writing under the Greek and Indo-Scythian rulers of Northern India, until it was superseded by the superior fitness and capabilities of the local Páli, which is proved by Asoka's scattered inscriptions on rocks and monoliths (Láts) to have constituted the current writing of the continent of India in b.c. 250, while a similar, if not identical, character is seen to have furnished the prototype of all the varying systems of writing employed by the different nationalities of India at large, from Sind to Ceylon, and spreading over Burmah, till the Indian Páli meets Chinese alphabets on their own soil in Annam. In conclusion, Mr. Thomas pointed out the importanoe of the discoveries of Norris and Caldwell, derived from completely independent sources, regarding the Scythic origin of the introductory Indian alphabets.

^{page 421 note 1} Journal Asiatic Society, Bengal, and Meeting, 6th Feb., 1867, p. 33.

^{page 421 note 2} The subjoined quotation is in so far a virtual reproduction of my letter, inviting the discussion, in situ, of the comparative priority of Indian alphabets, which was read at the Meeting of the Asiatio Society of Bengal, on the 5th February, 1867. I have taken thus much of liberty with the printed report, as to rectify the singular error of the local press, which contrived to arrange my data in the directly opposite sense to the concurrent argument; and as chance would have it, by a casual transposition of the descriptive headings of the alphabets, to obscure completely the whole question, either to Eastern or Western comprehensions. I have, perhaps, been over-confident of the strength of my position, in abstaining, until this moment, from any protest against an editorial blunder, which, in mild terms, left me in a complete minority. But I am quite content to revive this corrected version as a basis for future discussion.

“I am glad to find that my notice of the derivation of Arian alphabets attracted attention, and I am most curious to learn the course the discussion took at the Meeting of the Asiatic Society of Bengal; more especially as I am now following out the Indian section of the inquiry, and have arrived already at some unexpected results, tending to confirm the original Dravidian derivation of the Sanskrit alphabet. The readers of our Journal will not fail to call to mind that Prinsep, in his early comments upon the Lát alphabet, pointed out that, in many instances, the aspirate letters were formed by a duplication of the lines of their corresponding simple letters. The question was not raised as to when these aspirates had been designed, but the inference was, that they had been formed simultaneously with the simple letters, and out of the same elements. I have a different theory to propose, which I submit for the examination and comments of your members: it is to assume that all the simple letters were Dravidian, and constituted a complete and sufficient alphabet for that class of languages, while the aspirates were later additions required for the due expression of Mágadhi and other northern dialects, as the Sanskrit in after-times added its own sibilants to the latter alphabet.

A glance at the subjoined comparative alphabets will show the twenty consonants (out of the full twenty-one) of the Dravidian system, as opposed to the thirty-one consonants of the Prakrit of Asoka's edicts. Of the additional aspirates of the latter scheme, two only can in any way claim to be ordinary duplications, the chh and ṭh; while a more simple origin might be sought for the latter in a common circle: ḍh, dh, and ph may fairly be taken as intentional modifications of their corresponding normal letters; but kh and gh, like ṭh and th, have more in common as fellow aspirates than association with their own leading consonants; and, finally, jh and bh seem to have been unfettered adaptations. The s again differs from the y only in the reversal of the leading lower limb. As the alphabetical data, upon which alone we have now to rely, are derived from inscriptions embodying a different language, and dating so late as B.C. 250, we can scarcely expect to recover the missing Dravidian consonants; but one, at least, of the vowel tests is significant in the extreme. The Dravidian vowels, as contrasted with the Sanskrit series by Caldwell, arrange themselves as follows:—

Sabskrit, a, ā i, ī u, ū, ṛi, ṛī, lrī, —, ē, aī, — ō, aū, ṉ, ah.

Tamil, a, ā i, ī u, ū, —, —, —, e, ō, eī, o, ō, —, —, —.

“The value of the simple e, in the Lát character, admits of no doubt, the outline of the letter takes the form of ⊳, while the elongated vowel is constructed by a duplication of the sound, effected by the addition of a medial e, thus ^-⊳ = ee, apparently the original Dravidian ē (or possibly eī), but which, in Asoka's inscriptions, is made to do duty for aī. In the more distinctly Sanskrit adaptations of the Devanágari Bactrian alphabet, the initial a formed the basis of all the other vowels, whose varying values were discriminated by their several vowel marks.

“I am unwilling to enlarge upon au avowedly speculative suggestion, but I think few will fail to detect the contrast between the archaic crudeness of the simple letters and the more complicated and cursive forms of the aspirates in the Lát alphabet. Had the latter class of characters uniformly followed the typical design of their corresponding simple letters, there would have been more reason o t have assumed a simultaneous and congruous initiation; but the introduction of anomalous signs among the gutturals, the remarkable cursive development assigned o t the aspirates, as opposed to the stiff outlines of their simple prototypes (an advance equal in degree, but less obviously marked in the ḍh and dh), and the inconsistent development of the bh, upon the basis of the old ḍ, all seem to indicate a later and independent elaboration of the aspirates.

Sanskrit additions to the Lát alphabet, .

^{page 423 note 1} Muir, vol. ii., edit. 1871, pp. 423, 438, 437, 488. The succession of occupants, now conditionally accepted, runs: 1. The Forest tribes; 2. The Drávidiana; 3. “A race of Scythian or non-Aryan immigrants from the N.W.;” 4. The Aryan invaders.

^{page 423 note 2} Prinsep's Essays, London, 1858, ii. p. 43; Numismatic Chronicle, 1863, p. 226, and 1864, p. 43; J.A.S. Bengal, 1864, p. 255; Wilson, Rig Veda, London, 1857, iii. pp. xviii. xix.

^{page 423 note 3} See Norris, Jour. R.A.S. xv. p. 19; Caldwell's Drávidian Grammar (1856), pp. 23, 43, 95, 100, 102, 104, 105, etc.; Hunter's Rural Bengal, pp. 112, 126, 168, 176, 180, etc.; Dr. Stevenson, Bombay Branch J.R.A.S. 1847, p. 328; B. St.- Hilaire, Jour, des Sav. 1857, p. 42, and 1862, p. 241; Prinsep's Essays, ii. pp. 43, 151; J.R.A.S. i. N.s. p. 466; ii. N.S. p. 46; Burnout Yaçna cxlv., August Schleicher, Compendium, pp. 11–14. V. St.-Martin, E'tude sur la Géographie … d'après les Hymnes Védiques, Paris, 1859, p. 82. [Results definitively concurred in by Mr. Muir, ii. p. xxiv.]

^{page 424 note 1} J.R.A.S. iv. n.s. p. 505; Num. Chron. (1870), x. p. 139.

^{page 424 note 2} J.R.A.S. iv. p. 500. Journ. Bombay Branch R.A.S. 1869, plate iv. fig. 1.

^{page 424 note 3} “Early Sassanian Inscriptions” (Trübner, 1868), 133Google Scholar. Num. Chron. xii. Pl. 4 (page 68), figs. 5, 6,.7. Lindsay, Pl. x. 27. DrLevy, , “Zeitschrift,” xxi. pl. ii. 2–5Google Scholar.

^{page 424 note 4} Silver. Size, 4½. W.eight, 58 grains. British Museum. Unique.

Obverse—Head of king to the left, thinly but not closely bearded, with a low Parthian tiara surmounted by two rows of studs. Monogram in Chaldæo-Pehlvi, .

Reverse—The usual Parthian type of the king seated on his throne holding out a bow. Monogram, (Tambrax, the capital of Hyrcania). Legendinimperfect Greek, BAΣIΛΕϒΣ MEΓAΣ ΣANΛBαρους.

Date in the field ΓI (313 of the Seleuoidan θra=a.d. 2).

Associate Bactrian Coin of Sanabares.

Copper Weight, 111·6-grains. British Museum. Unique.

Obverse—Head of king to the left, lightly or meagrely bearded, wearing the Parthian cap studded with jewels. Close fitting vest, with jewelled collar, and a boldly ornamented border to the outer garment. Legend, BAΣIΛEϒΣ μεγας.

Reverse—Winged figure of Victory, to the right, holding out chaplet, as on the Baetrian coins of Mauas, Azas, &c. Legend, ΣANABAPOϒΣ.

Prinsep's Essays, ii., p. 215. Engravings of both pieces are to be found in the Numismatic Chronicle for 1871, pi. vii.

This king's name is supposed to he identical with that of Sanabassar, “the ruler.”—(Esdras, i. ii. 12, 15; iv. 18, 20. Ezra, i. 8, 11; v. 14, 16.) The derivation of the term has hitherto been considered uncertain; the dictionaries give one of its variants as “Ignis cultor”; but the simple version here seems to be “light,” with the conjunction of from “to bear,” or “with fire,” in the Biblical form. Though the as a Semitic word might seem out of place in combination with an Aryan termination, I should feel no difficulty in this respect, as the languages were conterminpus and interchangeable in many quarters, Sand was latterly so established a titular term that we find and on monograms, and Saná ul Millat, “light of the faith,” on the coins of the Ghaznavides.—J.R.A.S. ix. 367. The Armenians speak of “Sanassor,” son of Sennecherim. (Moses of Khorene, i. cap. 23, p. 103, French edition, and cap. iii. p. 145. St.-Martin, Armenie, i. 411, mentions Sanadroug, “the Izates of Josephus.”)

^{page 425 note 1} “The belief in a very early empire in Central Asia, coeval with the institution of the Assyrian monarchy, was common among the Greeks long anterior to Alexander's expedition to the East, and could only have been derived from the traditions current at the court of the Achæmenian kings. This belief, again, is connected through the names of Oxyartes and Zoroaster with the Iranian division of the Aryan race, and receives confirmation from the earliest memorials of that people… It is with the Eastern Iranians, however, that we are principally concerned, ss the founders of Central Asian civilization. This people, on the authority of the Vendidad, may be supposed to have achieved their first stage of development in Sughd. Their language was probably Zend, as distinguished from the Achæmenian Persian, and somewhat more removed than that dialect from the mother tongue of the Aryans of the south. A more important evidence, however, of the very high state of power and civilization to which they attained is to be found in the information regarding them preserved by the celebrated Abu Rihan Al Bírúní, himself a native of the country, and the only Arab writer who investigated the antiquities of the East in a true spirit of historical criticism. This writer supplies us with an extensive specimen of the old dialects of Sughd and Kharism. He gives us in those dialects the names of the twelve months, the names of the thirty days of the month, and the five Epagomenæ, together with the names of the signs of the Zodiac and of the seven planets, and lastly of the mansions of the moon. A portion of his nomenclature is original and offers a most curious subject for investigation; but the majority of the names can be compared, as was to be expected, with the Zend correspondents, and, indeed, are much nearer to the primitive forms than are the better known Parsee equivalents. According to Abu Eihan, again, the solar calendar of Kharism was the most perfect scheme for measuring time with which he was acquainted; and it was maintained by the astronomers of that country that both the solar and lunar Zodiacs had originated with them, the divisions of the signs in their system being far more regular than those adopted by the Greeks or Arabs. … Abu Rihan asserts that the Kharismians dated originally from an epoch anterior by 980 years to the era of Seleucidse, a date which agrees pretty accurately with the period assigned by our best scholars to the invention of the Jyotisha or Indian calendar.” —Quarterly Review, October, 1866, p. 488, etc.

This last is, perhaps, the most interesting item we gain from All Bírúní's revelations; That there should have existed, in Khárism, a serial system of dating, commencing from 980 years anterior to the official epoch of the Seleucidæ (312—311 b.c.) = 1304 b.c., Was startling enough; but it is seldom that a given arithmetical problem obtains such definite results as to establish, beyond its own mission, so distinct an identity between scattered and severed branches of one and the same section of the human family; and it is something more than a curious coincidence to associate with this independent method of reckoning the fact that the Oriental world has been wearying itself, for a long time past, to explain whence, how, and why, a fixed sacrificial date, variously calculated by modern astronomers, and possibly, but imperfectly, sustained in the transmuted versions of the old texts, should have developed so close an identity, in its latest and most matured average, with the original numbers of 1304 b.c.; but such would seem to be the result of the independent tests applied to the Jyotisha observation of the Colures, still in use in the Vedic rituals of India under the confession of the later Brahmanical exponents of the ancient creed.

See also Num. Chron. N.s. iv. pp. 46, 126; Colebrooke, Asiatic Researches, viii.; Archdeacon Pratt, Journal Asiatic Soc. Bengal, 1862, p. 49; Max Müller, Sanskrit Literature (1859), p. 521; Text of Rig Veda, vol. iv., preface, p. lxxiv.; Journal Royal Asiatic Society, Dr. Whitney, vol. i. n.s. p. 316; SirColebrooke, Edward, “Note on the preceding article,” p. 332Google Scholar; Strabo, ii. c. i. 15, xi, c. vi. 1, c. vii. 3, c. xi. 5; Pliny, vi. 18, 19; Arrian, iii. c. 29, vii. c. 16; Chronique de Tabari, i. 119; Wilson, Ariana Antiqua, 144; Bawlinson's Herodotus, i. 564; Journal Eoyal Geographical Society, xix. (1849), p. lxiv., and Sir R. Murchison's Address, 1867, p. 38.

^{page 426 note 1} Trühner & Co., London, 1868, p. 120. See also Num. Chron. vii. n.s. p. 143. Since the above text and associate notes were set up in type, Sir H. Rawlinson has continued the publication of his expositions of the ancient Geography of the Oxus, in a paper contributed to the current number of the Edinburgh Review (Jan., 1872), from which I extract the subjoined notice; but, in explanation of a somewhat dubious expression in the context, I am given to understand that the emplacement of the original “Oromasdian” Hapta Hindu on the Upper Oxus, is not in any way to be understood to conflict with the later Vedic designation of the Saptu Sindhu of the Panjáb.—“As these identifications are all new and contravene the criticism of the last hundred years, it may be necessary to cite some authority in their support. First, then, for the application of the name of Hapta Hindu, or ‘the seven rivers,’ to the Upper Oxus, there is the direct authority of Abu Rihán.” See Elliot's Historians, i., p. 49. “India, or the Panjáb, had been previously understood by the critics.” (p. 13.)

^{page 426 note 2} Dr. Sachau says:—“The most valuable part of Al ákbár el Bakiya seems to me that which refers to the Central Asiatic Mesopotamia, the country between the Oxus and Jaxartes, and its southern and northern centres of civilization, i.e. Sughdiana and Khiwárizm. Bírúní's information on this subject is alike new and important, for these countries were the homestead of Zoroastrianism and the focus of Central Asian civilization, which, shortly before it was trodden down by the Mughals and Tatars, struck a traveller, like Yákút, with admiration. By the help of Bírúní we shall be able to trace the outlines of the dialects of Sughdiana and Khiwárizm, and to bring back the history of those countries.”—Academy, Nov. 1, 1871.

^{page 426 note 3} “Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum,” de Goeje, M. J. (Lugd. Bat. 1870)Google Scholar. See also Prof. Nöldeke's review of this work in the Academy, Oct. 1,1871, p. 461.

^{page 426 note 4} “In the Scythic version of the Behistun cuneiform inscription of Darius, the name of the province of Khárism is expressed by ‘Varasmiya,’ admitting a free and optional interchange of the consonants m and v or w; the parallel Persian cuneiform text reproduces the name more closely as Uvarazmia or Uuarazmish.”—(Mr. Norris, J.R.A.S. xv. pp. 28, 97, 191.)

Mr. Norris and myself have since discussed this question, and I find that he was under the impression that he himself had already conceived such a solution. However, as we have both sought for any published declaration to that effect, we are quite content to concur in the probable coincidence now put forth.

^{page 427 note 1} Jamaspji, Destúr Hoshangjí, in his Oimyák, Bombay, 1867, preface, p. iii.Google Scholar, asserts, that “Huzváresh means nothing, and can neither be explained from the Persian nor from a Semitic language.” The latest Pársí attempt at the explanation of the term is that of Destúr Sanjana, who transforms it into Huzekhaldea, i.e. the Chaldee language.—(DrHaug, , in Trübner's Record, 11 30, 1871, p. 75Google Scholar.

^{page 427 note 2} “It is to be written in the writing of the Avesta, or in that of Sevat (Chaldæa), which is uzvársh.”—(Haug, p. 42, quoting J. Müller.)

^{page 427 note 3} “Dilem was the Media inferior, Mazenderán and the countries between the Caspian and the Tigris, one of the original seats of the Pehlvi, (Heeren, Act. Soc. Gött. xiiiGoogle Scholar. Dilem was also a retreat of that language. In the breaking up of a great empire, the institutions of the conquered race always linger iu the extremities. The Caucasus, the country of Derbend, Segestán, and Kermán, thus sheltered the ancient language and religion of Persia, and thus the mountains of Dilem retained till the tenth century the worship of fire, and perhaps, therefore, the Pehlvi, with which that worship had been connected.”—James Morier, Persia, etc. (1812), pp. 288, 406. See also Malcolm's History of Persia (1815), i. p. 203; Ouseley's Oriental Geography, pp. 141, 146, 195; and passim, on the subject of languages, pp. 76, 114, 143, 152, 159, 174, 261; Rawlinson, J.R.A.S., x., note, p. 143; Haug, Glossary, p. 34.

^{page 428 note 1} nomen regionis, a qua lingua pehlevica nomen duxit B. et alio loco dictæ, qua roce provincia urbium et siguiflcatur B.—Vullers’ Lexicon.

The original passages from Hamza Isfaháni and Ibn Muḳaffa are quoted at large by J. Müller, Bull, der K. Bayer. Akad. der Wissensck, Sept. 1842, p. 106.

DrSprenger, A., Die Post-und Reiserouten des Orients (1864), p. 53Google Scholar, “Gibál (das Gebirgsland),” p. 54, “Das Land der Pehlwier”.

^{page 429 note 1} Olshausen was under the impression that this word might be taken to correspond, in general terms, with the Arabic (Num. Chron. p. 48). Cf. also in the mixed dialects zúd, ziyád, “May God increase,” etc. But I should prefer to associate it with the extensive class of Mint marks which so abound in the subsequent division of the Kuflc coinages, and which refer more or less to the fullness and sufficiency of the money itself, such as , etc. This attribution extends itself naturally into the inquiry as to whether the concurrent introductory monogram does not follow some such similar law, as we find the Mint-mark amid the Kufic issues, where it is supposed to stand for or “rectitudo, integritas,” or the exact parallel of etc. (See Stickel, Zeitschrift, 1864, p. 773.) Though we need not limit the range of interpretation to Semitic identities, when we have the ever-recurring Persian the Huzvárish even if the leading term might not he extended in its ejaculatory sense to Om, etc.

^{page 431 note 1} Dr. Mordtmann has hitherto enjoyed the exclusive privilege of describing the Constantinople collections. I am glad to see that the Turks are beginning to appreciate Numismatics in their higher sense, and Western Orientalists may compliment them on the original work of Djevet E'fendi, which the French epitomist designates by the title of “Coup d'œil sur les Monnaies Musulmanes.” This publication enumerates the following novelties from the cabiuets of Subhi Bey, who has since been nominated to the Government of Damascus, where we may wish him every success, on such promising ground, in the further acquisition of new aids to history. 1st. Une monnaie coufique, frappée à Hertek chef-lieu d'un district du Tabarístán, dans I'année 28 de l'hégire (648–649), dont la légende circulaire portait Au nom de Dieu, mon maître. 2nd. Une monnaie coufique de l'an 27 (657–658), sous le Khalife ‘Ali, dont la légende circulaire etait l'ami de Dieu. 3rd. Deux monnaies coufiques de l'an 38 et 39 (658–660), ornées de la lé"gende circulaire du No. 1: Au nom de Dieu, mm maître. In addition to these pieces, Djevet E'fendi quotes two coins of Abd’ allah Zobeir, of Dárábgird, a.h. 60, and Yezd, a.h. 61. As the author acknowledges his inability to read the Pehlvi legends, I need not stop to contest his reproduction of the concluding title of which legend I have adverted to under Coin No. 5.—Journal Asiatique, Aout, 1862, p. 185. See also a notice in the Zeitschrift, 1863, p. 39, on Subhi Bey's Coins.

^{page 439 note 1} “I contrived to delineate the head of one (peasant), at the same time representing the manner in which many carry the tabr or axe for cutting wood, and the form of this instrument. It is headed with iron, the wooden handle being generally about three feet long. Here I may take an opportunity of remarking, that throughout most parts of this province nearly all the men, several women, and even little children, carried tabrs of this kind, either in their hands, like walking sticks, or resting by the curve on their shonldersi”—Ouseley, iii. 269. Pictet, , “Les Origines Indo-Européennes” (1859)Google Scholar, positively revels in the multitude of Aryan terms for this aboriginal implement, from which the province of Tabaristán took its name, and which he pushes up to the dubious sounds of tak-tok, “the voice of the axe”; and though in no wise repudiating the heavy stone period, which might have produced a less definite sound, yet still insisting upon the root tak, taksh, but admitting very broad latitudes when he comes to the Persian tabar, tawar, teper, topor, dabar, and Tabíadn, Tapak, Taprah, Tapanchah, down to talavári, talâtr, and some further undeveloped coincidences that may suggest themselves to the English reader.

^{page 439 note 2} SirHerbert, T., “Some Teares Travaile in Africa and Asia,” Lond., 1634–1677Google Scholar; Jonas Hanway, 2 vols., London, 1754; Forster's Journey to the Caspian (1798), 2 vols. 8vo., London, 1808; Sir W. Ouseley (1812). Travels in Persia, 3 vols. 4to., London, 1823; Baillie Fraser (1821), Travels in Khorasán and on the Shores of the Caspian, 2 vols. 4to., 1825–6 (see also his paper on Northern Khorasán, Journ. Royal Geog. Society, viii. p. 308, London); Capt. Arthur Conolly, Journey to the North of India, 2 vols. 8vo., London, 1834; Major D'Arcy Todd (1836), Journ. Royal Geog. Society, viii. p. 101; Mr. W. T. Thomson (1838), Account of the Pass from Amol to the Westward, under Mount Damavend, to Rudehan (with a map), Journ. Royal Geog. Society, viii. p. 109. See also, incidentally, Chardin, Voyages, Amst. 1725, iii. p. 7, etc.; Morier, J., “Journey through Persia” (1808), London, 1812, p. 287Google Scholar; Kinneir, J. M., “Geographical Memoir on the Persian Empire,” London, 1813Google Scholar; Sir J. Malcolm's History of Persia, London, 1815; Viaggi di Pietro della Valle, Lettera IV. Da Ferhabad e da Cazuin, 1618 A.D.; “Master Anthony Jenkinson” (1561 a.d.), Voyages, Hakluyt's, i. pp. 386, 395Google Scholar; M. N. de Khanikoff's most conscientious recognition of other men's labours and exact definition of his own observations on the passes and later geography of this locality, in his “Asie Centrale,” Paris, 1861Google Scholar. Finally, M. N. de Khanikoff has given a résumé of the results of M. Dorn's mission to Mazanderán in 1860 in the Journal Asiatique, 1862, p. 214.

^{page 440 note 1} There seems to have been a very prevalent idea that Hudson had reproduced the whole of Ptolemy's work. He has done so in regard to the text of certain localities, but for the bulk of the original he avowedly confines himself to very meagre extracts.

^{page 440 note 2} αȗτα δἔ διαπραξμενος ἧγεν ὡς π Zαδράκαρτα, τν μεϒστην πόλιν τς ‘Γρκανας ἵνα κα τ βασλεια τοȋς ‘Γρκανοις ἧν.—Arrian, Exp. Alex. iii. e. xxv.

^{page 441 note 1} ‘H δ’ ‘Γρκανα σΦόδρα εὐδαμων κα πολ κα τ πλέον πεδις πόλεσί τε ξιολόϒοις διειλημένη, ὧν στι Ταλαβρόκη κα Σαμαριανή κα Κάρτα κα τ βασλειον Τάπη, ὂ Φασι μικρν ὑπρ τς θαλάττης ἱδρυένον διέϰειν τν Kαστίων πυλν σταδςυς ϰιλους τετρακοσους.—Strabo, xi. c. vii. § 2.

^{page 441 note 2} Flandin, La Perse, plate 31, furnishes a plan and elevation of this ancient fortress, and traces—A. The central rock around which the defences were formed. B. Première enceinte. D. Restes d'un mur circulaire, formant la deuxième enceinte. E. Troisième enceinte. G. Fossé. The place had eight gates at equidistant points.

^{page 441 note 3} Wilson gives a very extended range of meanings to the combined word, but the preferable interpretation in this case would: certainly seem to belong of right to the Herons, who reckon among their families a special class of “Ardea Sarunga.” —Carey.

^{page 441 note 4} οὺς δ’ οὖν ν ριστερᾷ εἰσπλοντι τ Kσπιον πέλαϒος παροικοȗντας νομάδας

^{page 442 note 1} “Erat eo tempore Arsaces, vir sicut incert* originis, ita virtutis expertee. Hie solitua latrociniis et rapto vivere aooepta opinione Seleucum a Gallis in Asia victum, solutus regis mefcu, cum praedonum manu Parthos ingressus prsefectum eorum Andragoran oppressit sublatoque eo imperium gentis invasit. Non magno deinde post tempore Hyrcanorura quoque regmim occupavit, atque ita duarum civitatium imperio prseditus grandem exercitum parat njetu Seleuoi et Theodoti, Bactrianorum regis.”—Justin, xli, 4.

^{page 442 note 2} Zend, vehrka. S. .

^{page 443 note 1} The commercial centre of Hyrcania, onthe proximate modern site, is thus described by B. Fraser:—“The rich and extensive plain in which Barfarosh is placed, affording very considerable supplies of those articles produced in Mazanderan, constitutes this spot a mart for those commodities; besides which, it is centrically placed in regard to Kasvin, Tehran, Shahrood, and the interior of Persia being near two principal passes through the Elburz), as well as to Eesht, the capital of Ghilan, also a place of very extensive trade… The whole town is built in and surrounded by a forest of high trees; and none of the streets being straight, there is no one spot from whence a spectator can see to any distance. The buildings are indeed so screened and separated by foliage, that except when passing through the Bazars a stranger would never suspect that he was in the midst of a populous city.”—B. Fraser, Caspian, p. 83.

^{page 443 note 2} “Equis omni tempore yectantur: illis bella, illis convivia, illis publica ac privati officia oheunt; super illos ire, consistere, mercari, colloqui.”—Justin, xli. 3.

^{page 444 note 1} “Hie amnes duo pervulgati sunt nominis, Oxus et Maxera, quos urgente inedia sujjerantes natatu aliquoties tigres, improvise flnitima populantur. Habent etiam civitates inter minora municipia validas, duas quidem maritimas,, Socunda et Saramanna: mediterraneas alias, Azmornam (var. Amorna) et Solen, et his nobiliorem Hyrcanam.”—Ammian Marcell., Ed. Wagner, xxiii. 6, § 52.

^{page 444 note 2} 2 Justin, xli. 5. Sic Arsaces queesito simul constitutoque regno non minus memorabilisParthis quam Persis Cyrus, Macedonibus Alexander, Romania Romulus, matura senectute decedit, eujus memorise hunc honorem Parthi tribuerunt, ut omnes exinde regea suos Arsacis nomine nuncupent.

^{page 446 note 1} To show the licence permitted in the transcription into Greek of local Persian names, I annex a later reproduction of the native nomenclature. Excerpta ex Georgii Medici Chrysococcæ (about the middle of the fourteenth century a.d.). TAMIIAPIΣTAN. Αμούδ, 77° 10'—36° 35'; Σαριά 73° 0'—36° 16';Γόρ(or Σόρ) 89° 0'—36° 40'; Tóp (or Σòρ), 89° 0'—33° 0'.—KOPKAN. ΙσΓαρβά, 79° 20'—37° 5'; Kopyav, 82° 10'—38° 10'. Then Nτɛλàμ, i.e. Delam.—Hudson's Geog. iii. p. 5.

^{page 446 note 2} Pliny's list is as follows:ACaspiis ad orientem versus regio est, Apavortene dicta, et in ea fertilitatis inclytaa locus Dareium. Mox gentes Tapyri, Anariacse, Stauri, Hyrcanii, a quorum littoribus idem mare Hyrcanium vocari incipit, a flumine Sideri. Citra id amnes Maxeras, Stratos, omnia ex Caucaso. Sequitur regio Margiane, etc. Pliny, yi. xviii.

^{page 447 note 1} Colonel Yule has a curious note upon what he conceives to be Ptolemy's system of map-making. “It is evident thathe first drew his maps embodying all the information that he had procured, however vague and rough it might be. From these maps he then educedhis tables of latitudes and longitudes, and his systematic topography. The result is that everything assumes an appearance of exact definition; and indications on the map which meant no mote than ‘somewhere hereabouts is said to be such and such a country,’ become translated into a precision fit for an Act of Parliament.”—Cathay and the Way Thither. Hakluyt Soc. Publication, p. cli. On the other hand, we must hear what one of the most precise geographers of thepresent day has to say in, favour of the rough system:— “Nous profitons de cette occasion pour faire observer que, tout extraordinaire que puisse paraitre l'assertion que les longitudes fournies par une simple opération topographique puissent surpasser en exactitude eelles qu'on obtient par des methodes astronomiques, cette assertion n'en est pas moins vraie si l'observateur n'est pas un astronome consommi, et s'il n'a pas a sa disposition tous les instruments de precision indispensables pour obtenir des rtSsultats d'unegrande exactitude.”—M. de Khanikoff, Mem., p. 30.

^{page 448 note 1} “He escorted us to his own village, called fromits situation on a tumular piece of ground, Kard- Tapeh or Tepeh ‘Black hillock,’ distant from Ashraf ahout seven miles, and in the midst of an extensive level tract, of which the surface was now covered with water and moist clay to the depth of ten or twelve inches, hut in summer formed a rich and very fertile plain. Rising abovethis, the Tapeh or ‘mount’ appeared like an island barely large enough to contain the houses that stood upon it; all light structures of wood, reeds and straw, except one emdrat, a mason-work edifice (of brick), which had been erected for the king's accommodation.… I had entertained some hopes of being able, in this Tapeh, to ascertain the position of Tape, which Strabo describes as the principal or royal city of Hyrkania, advantageously situate within a little distance of the sea.”—iii. 275.

Two difficulties presented themselves, however, to the traveller's mind: “the Turkish name,” which he did. not regard as an insuperable objection, and the absence of ruins, which he rightly met by the remark that “in the time of Strabo, the houses of this country were most probably constructed of very perishable materials, as in the tenth century after, when Ibn Haukal travelled, and as they are now in the nineteenth.”

We have seen how great a latitude is to be allowed in the transcription of native names; but the Kala Tapah is not necessarily Turkish or Scythian: the interchange of l and τ was never more free than in Ptolemy's list, where we find λ used in Sári and ρ in Amol. is very good Aryan for black, and is freely admitted into Persian Dictionaries. The Hindustani equivalents are and, . And as regards the possible Palace on the hillock, we must remember that among these nomad tribes the rising ground, or small mounds, as the case might be, were always selected as the natural head-quarters of the chief.

^{page 449 note 1} Some might claim to read the name as but I prefer to follow the Greek, in making it one combined word. More especially, as there is authority for the term which must necessarily refer to ancient usage, in the typical “trench” of King Firnz, who is reputed to have founded Amol, and whose “big cutting” still retains the name of .—Ouseley, iii. p. 310.

^{note 449 note 2} I am quite aware that Sir H. Rawlinson advooates the identity of the Sokanda with the “Ab-oskún of the Arabs.” (aqua tranquila.—Vullers, p. 3.)

^{page 449 note 3} Quintus Curtius also makes his two strangely-designated rivers of Hyrcania join each other (vi. iv. 7), and the almost fabled Zioberus, with its underground current, may have something in common with the newly excavated “Nokandah.”

^{page 450 note 1} Marḥalat (day's journey).

^{page 451 note 1} Ouseley, who delighted in ancient identifications, and who had so many opportunities of tracing the old names in situ, quotes from the Táríkh-i Tabaristán a passage to the effect that “A'mul (or Amal) originally signified in the Dilami dialect the same as the Pehlvi hush “death, destruction,” , iii, p.310.

^{page 452 note 1} Barbier de Meynard, p. 35.

^{page 452 note 2} “I believe this is the place of Semulghan, which gives its name to the valley. The Fort receives its appellation from beingthe residence of the Khan.”—B. Fraser, p. 591.

^{page 453 note 1} This interesting specimen of a true forest town is thus further described. “Instead of dull mud walls and flat mud roofs corresponding exactly with the colour of the ground, to which we had been so long accustomed, we found here everything made of wood. … The houses were constructed of posts, wattled and plastered with mud. … Instead of a wall to protect the place, a deep ditch had been dug … a hedge of reeds and creeping thorns, etc. … on the inside served to render the defence more perfect, and it was indeed impenetrable to cavalry. The gates and portals were all constructed of wood; a wooden bridge was thrown across the ditch; the very domestic implements, instead of earthenware or metal, were here made of wood.”—B. Fraser, p. 610.

^{page 453 note 2} “The appearance of Astrabad differs from that of cities in the southern and more elevated provinces of Persia, as much as that of the respective surrounding countries from each other. The forest or thicket approach on every side to the very ditch; the houses are constructed chiefly of wood. There are no buildings, public or private, deserving of particular notice at Astrabad. The revenue derived from this little province does not exceed 12,000 tomans, or about £7000 sterling.”

^{page 453 note 3} A scattered village in the forest. The houses, built “of frames of rudely squared wood, with uprights and beams, raised upon blocks 3 feet above the ground, with a straw thatch.”

^{page 454 note 1} Sir A. Burnes's route was over much of the same ground. After Boojnoord he mentions Kila Khán, in the district of Simulgán; Sháhbdz village (38 miles), the source of the Gurgán river, the Atruck river, the Gumbuj-i-Kaus at Gurgán, Asterabad, Nokandak, etc. He further notices the recession of the southern waters of the Caspian (ii. 121), and adds, “during these twelve years they have retired about 300 yards, of which I had ocular proof.” (See also M. de Khanikoff Mémoire, p. 39). Súrí was avoided on account of the plague, but Barfarosh and its port on the Caspian are described (123), as well as the pass of Gudook and Koh, Fírfúz, the real Pylas Caspise (“Alexander's route”), the greatest of the passes into Mazanderán, p. 130Google Scholar.

^{page 454 note 2} The distribution of the political power in this division of the Persian empire on the eve of the Muhammadan conquest is thus described by the local historian: “Sowaid occupa Dameghan sans coup férir. Les Perses s'étant retirés vers Gorgân et dans le Taberistân, Sowaid quitta immédiatement Dâmeghân et marcha à leur poursuite. II arriva à Bastâm, ville du territoire de Qoumes du cóté de Gorgân, et y établit son camp. II y avait à Gorgân un prince dailamite, professant la religion perse, appelé merzebán, qui régnait sur Gorgân et Dihistân; et chaque ville du Tabaristan avait un prince que, dans la langue du pays, on appelait ispehbed. (). Tous ces princes dépendaient du merzebân de Gorgân … Or le prince de Gorgân etait Dailamite, et les ispehbeds du Tabaristân etaient du Guilsin … [After the submission of the prince of Gurgân the narrative continues:] Lorsque les ispehbeds du Tabaristân eurent connaissance de ces faits, ils vinrent trouver leur suzerain, dont ils dependaient tous, et qui résidait a Ámol, au centre de la province. C'était un homme puissant, un Guilânien, du nom de Feroukhân, et que Ton appelait l'ispehbed des ispehbeds … II portait aussi le nom de Guil de tous les Guilún.” –Chronique de Tabari, iii. p. 492.

^{page 455 note 1} General, Reneral.—O. G. Tychsen, Addiamentum ad Introd. in rem Num. I. Mihr and T. C. Tychsen, Comm. I, de Numis. yett. Persarum in Comm. Soe. Goett.; Frsehn, Transactions of the Academy of St. Petersburg; Justus Olshausen, Die Pehlewi-Legenden, Kopenhagen, 1843, translated and published in the London Numismatic Chronicle, vol. xi. p. 68. My Article in the Journ. E.A.S. yol. xii. (1849), p. 346; Mordtmann, Zeitschrift, 1854, p. 173; M. Dorn, Papers in the St. Petersburg Academy Transactions; M. Soret, Letters to the Révenue Numismatique, Beige; C. J. Tornberg, Symbolae ad rem Num. Muhammad, 1856, p. 25; J. G. Stiekel, Handbuch, 1870, p. 104.

^{page 457 note 1} Quoted from Subhi Bey's Cabinet, Journal Asiatiqtre, 1862, p. 185.

^{page 47 note 2} No. 6a. M. Tornberg (supra cit.) gives a new name from a coin which he describes as follows:—

“Adv. dexk. Jahja(ben Mikhnfâq).

“Reverse.—Sinistr. = 129 (a 780, p. Chr.).”

^{page 49 note 1} Mémoires de la Société d'Arcbiologie et de Numismatique de St. Petersbourg, vol. iii., 1849, p. 272, Quoted by Mordtmann, p. 177.