The designation by the caliph al-Ma'mūn of the ‘Alid imām ‘Alī al-Riọā as his successor was an extraordinary event by the standards of the time. Based on a letter that al-Ma'mūn is said to have written to the ‘Abbāsids after the death of al-Riḍā, in which he appears to confess that his decision to designate the latter had been influenced by apocalyptic beliefs about the end of the ‘Abbāsid dynasty, Madelung has argued that the caliph's decision can indeed be explained in terms of those beliefs. This article seeks to demonstrate that the relevant passage of the confession is unlikely to have been part of the original document. It goes on to suggest that the passage was probably added by Ibn Ṭāwūs (d. 664/1266), the document's redactor, in an attempt to support his own perceived role as the pre-Mahdic ‘Alid destined to rule after the fall of the ‘Abbāsids.

This paper describes attribution in Old Babylonian. The principles drawn upon are the traditional view of Akkadian syntax, modern Semitic syntax, and the principles of European structuralism. Bringing all these together, while exemplifying and proving previous unexplained statements by using Old Babylonian material, renders the whole issue tangible for every linguistically-oriented reader. ša syntagms are described, each component separately, as a pronominal construct nucleus with an attribute; this attribute is either a nominal or a clause. ša syntagms, being appositive to a referent substantive (when occurring), are in the same paradigm with adjectives, which are shown to have the same components as ša syntagms: a pronominal nucleus, an attribute and the attributive link between them.

Different readings of the first and the last phrase of the short Middle Persian text Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr are suggested; these show that its beginning and end are not as strange or exceptional as is suggested in its latest edition. In particular, it is argued here that a Middle Persian translation of the title of the ‘Abbāsid caliph al-Manṣūr can be found in the text.

In this article I edit and comment on the Hoernle manuscript IOL Toch 81 (H 149.292) with fragmentary texts in three languages, Sanskrit (6 lines) TocharianB (1 line) and Turkic (15 lines). The primary interest is in the Turkic text, which probably forms part of an upāsaka's vow. Its orthography, morphology and lexis, perceptibly different from standard Uighur, show features which point to high antiquity and perhaps to non-Uighur provenance. Some Buddhist terms seem to be deliberately designed on a Manichaean foil. Thus the Turkic part of the manuscript may date back to the second half of the ninth century, or, if non-Uighur, to an even earlier period.

The last active period in the tradition of Sanskrit poetics, although associated with scholars who for the first time explicitly identified themselves as new, has generally been castigated in modern histories as repetitious and devoid of thoughtfulness. This paper presents a case study dealing with competing analyses of a single short poem by two of the major theorists of this period, Appayya Dīkṣita (sixteenth century) and Jagannātha Paṇḍitarāja (seventeenth century). Their arguments on this one famous poem touch in new ways on the central questions of what the role of poetics had become within the Sanskrit world and the way in which it should operate in relation to other systems of knowledge and literary cultures.

Four fourth-century ad inscriptions of Ezana, first Christian king of Aksum (Ethiopia), are surveyed, with special attention to Ezana's only known post-conversion inscription, written in Greek. Greek syntax and terminology in Ezana's inscription point to an anti-Arian Christology which may be associated with Frumentius, first bishop of Aksum, and his connection with Athanasius of Alexandria. The inscription's trinitarian formula “the power of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit” is structured in such a way as to assert the identity of the three members of the Trinity. The phrase “in the power of God Christ” further equates Christ with God. This christological language stands in contrast to the Arian imperial policy of the time, and is historically significant in light of Constantius's attempt to force Frumentius's recall to Alexandria. This inscription serves as the first internal documentary evidence for an anti-Arian Christology in the earliest developments of Ethiopian Christianity.