Since the beginning of the present century students of Indian history have been making strenuous efforts to collect such materials as would help them to reconstruct the early history of Bengal. But so far they have not succeeded in ascertaining definitely even the dates of those kings of the Sena Dynasty who governed dominions of large extent and took rank among the great powers. The discovery of the era with which is associated the name of Laksmana Sena Deva induced several well-known archaeologists to bring its initial date to bear on the history of Bengal. From the scanty data which were then available the late Professor Kielhorn after much laborious calculation definitely settled that the Lakṣmaṇa Samvat or La-Sam began in A.D. 1119–20. According to him the La-Sam was an ordinary Southern (Kārttikādi) year with Amānta scheme of lunar fortnights; and the first date of the era was October 7, A.D. 1119. As this date has not been made use of in reconstructing the chronology of the Sena kings, it may be accepted for the present; and time will show whether the conclusion of the learned doctor is right or wrong. But the assertion of the historians that the initial date of the Lakṣmaṇa Sena era synchronizes with the commencement of Lakṣmaṇa Sena's reign is quite untenable and can never be accepted as true. In Indian history there is no era which does not commemorate some epoch-making event which affected the people of the country in general. And ordinary succession to the throne in its normal course, as was the case with Lakṣmaṇa Sena Deva, does not justify the inauguration of an era in place of the usual regnal years to which the people in those days were accustomed.

An important difference between the North-Western and South-Western Middle Iranian dialects consists in the correspondence of North-Western -ḥ- to South-Western -d- (that is -δ-), beside -y-.

Assyriologists have neglected the fundamental meaning of the common Semitic verb , to test, assign, allot. From this verb the name of the Arabic goddess of fate is derived. Curiously enough the earliest known Arabic name of Manât is written in the Thamudic (Minæan) n. pr. Ta'bad- Manât. In Nabatæan the ordinary form is , which Wellhausen Reste des Arabischen Heidentums, p. 24, takes as a plural, defending this etymology by the Arabic derivative maniyyat, fate, death, and broken plural manāya, in same sense. Goldziher, Archæologische epigraphische Mittheilungen aus Æsterreich vi (1882), 109, also takes the Nabatæan name as a plural, defending it from the Latin inscription from Aquileia, which has Manawat. Lidsbarski, Handbuch der Nordsemitischen Epigraphik, 313. reads Manāwatu. G. A. Cooke, North Semitic Inscriptions, 79, 5 et p. reads Manūthu, as singular; the writing in the Coran is Manātun. Arabic derivatives of this verb are maniyyatun, fate, māni(n), one who determines, assigns, manā(n), death, fate, number, size. Hebrew derivatives are, mānā, portion, menāth, pi. mĕnayōth, portion, share. Aramaic mĕnāthā, portion, part. Syriac mĕnātha, part, portion; menyānā, number, and qal participle māne kaukebe, one who determines by stars, astrologer.

There is a difference of opinion among scholars as regards the exact significance of such Nyāya-sūtras as are supposed to refer to the doctrines of the Mādhyamika and the Yogācāra schools of Buddhism. It has also been suggested that probably some of these sūtras have been interpolated later on, possibly by Vātsyāyana—the author of the Nyāya-bhāṣya. After making a careful study of the sūtras in question, however, I have come to the conclusion that some of them, in any case, do not refer to the Buddhist doctrines at all, and form a natural and quite an integral part of the particular sections in which they occur, and that the theory which regards them as later interpolations is not justifiable.

The well-known hymn to Shamash, edited by Gray, The Šamaš Religious Texts, pp. 9–23 (and more recently by Schollmeyer, Hymnen und Gebete an Šamaš, pp. 80 ff. and Jensen, KB., vi2, 96 ff.), can be partly restored, as Professor Langdon informs me, from Ebeling, KAR. 321 (edited by Ebeling, Berliner Beiträge, ii, 1, 8 ff.), where part of the hymn has been inserted into the so-called Girra(or Irra)-Myth. KAR. 321, obv. 12–17 = col. iii, 31–42 of Gray, ibid., and the two texts mutually restore each other. Judging from the shape of the tablet (VAT. 10714), one would suspect that a long break exists between the Obverse and the Reverse of KAR. 321, and where the text recommences (rev. 1 ff.), we find ourselves in the closing lines of another Shamash hymn.

Parmi les génies tutélaires des villes du Nord-Ouest de l'Inde, la Mahāmāyurī cite le yakṣa Kharaposta dont le nom est traduit en chinois par “peau d'âne”. Khara signifie âne en indo-aryen, mais posta manque aux lexiques Sanskrits. Gauthiot en étudiant le mot voisin pustaka a montré qu'on devait en chercher l'origine dans l'iranien pōst (avest. pašta, pehl. pōst, pers. pūst) “peau”. Skr. pusta ou pustaka “manuscrit” dérive d'un mot iranien signifiant “peau” parce que le pustaka était d'abord un manuscrit sur peau dont l'usage se répandit de l'Iran dans 1'Inde du Nord-Ouest.

Coming at length to Khotan, we observe first that it is frequently mentioned in the documents under its name Hu-ten or with minor variations, such as Hu-den (M.T. a, iii, 0063), Hu-then (M.T. b, i, 0098). The country and the inhabitants are designated Li as in the other known sources. The material may be grouped under heads as follows:—I: The Khotan district and city, including A, The two rivers; B, The Parishes and streets; C, Temples or Monasteries; D, The citadel of Khotan; E, The Khotan King; F, Amacas, a Nan-rje-po and a Dmag-pon. II: Śin-śan. III: Gyu-mo, Ho-toṅ Gyu-mo, and Ho-se Gyu-mo. IV: Places with names ending in rtse. V: Other places presumably in the Khotan region. VI: Places or states adjacent to, or connected with, the Khotan region. VII: Personal names of Khotanī people. VIII: The Khotan language.

In the Journal for 1923, pp. 386–90, in the Series of “Pictographic Reconnaissances”, Part V, a small set of ancient forms was discussed and illustrated which I gave reasons for considering the original scription of the word hsün, now written and meaning to question, examine with authority, and, in the phrase, chih hsün, standing for “bound captives”. It was there maintained that the archaic form represented a kneeling human figure having the arms pinioned behind with cords. Fig. 21 on p. 389 of that Paper, reproduced as Fig. 1 on Plate II of the present Number, shows best the conception of the early design.