The border of this stone is composed of several rows of ornament. The outermost rim is carved in low relief that not only confines but gives width to the row of animals next to it. Those animals chase one another with the vigour of beasts in a circus ring, their exuberance apparent not only in the general rhythm but in the individual shape of every one of them. Each elephant is modelled with extreme sensitiveness in spite of his monumental form. The horses trot briskly with an air of concentration. The lions are alert and aggressive as if in. the presence of danger, while the cows are tame and placid. In every animal the massiveness of the body is a prominent feature, while sculptural stability is retained by the exaggerated shortness of the legs. The animals tread a row of foliated pattern, which gives the feeling of ground for their support and by its elaboration brings out the simplicity of the animals above and the geese beneath. The geese at first glance look symmetrical, yet they are not only pattern but alive, and the reason is that though they are subdued to an architectural purpose, there is individuality in every goose, and a slight variation in the gesture of every head. The lowest part of the border consists of two rows of lotus petals, delicate and faintly traced, the larger row climbing a swelling curve in the stone. The plain centre underlines the smallest modulation in the carving. This stone, which at first sight might be taken for decoration in the modern sense of a trade piece, proves on examination to be particularly rich and beautiful. How very different, for example, from Mestrovic's “Canadian War Memorial” illustrated in Some Modern Sculptors, by Stanley Casson.

There can be no doubt that to Asiatic ingenuity we owe the beginnings of the world's principal types of Water Transport. Early man in Asia invented means of extraordinary diversity to enable him to cross rivers, coast along the sea-shore, transport the produce of his little fields and the spoils of the chase to the tribal barter centre, carry his family and his scanty belongings to a new settlement, go afloat for fishing or waging war or to escape from hostile raids.

During 1937–38, with my wife's tireless co-operation, I archæologically explored the Malay States of Kedah, Perak, and Johore, with the primary object of obtaining data on the spread of Indian civilization in South-East Asia. The full report, including that of the systematic excavation of many sites of the “Hindu period” in Kedah, was published in JRASMB, vol. xviii, part 1, 1940, with 89 plates and 15 figures. Subsequently we excavated one or two other sites in Kedah and also explored Province Wellesley. The report of this supplementary work, delayed by the war, will shortly appear in JRASMB. The object of the present paper is to give a summary of our main Malayan results in the sphere of cultural history, as well as to point out some wider implications in conjunction with my earlier excavations in Siam, which these Malayan investigations do much to complete and illuminate.

“Quanta sea la aversion entre Portuguéses, y Castellânos, es cósa tan sabída, que no necessita testimónios,” wrote the Spanish Friar, Juan Francisco de San Antonio, O.F.M., in his Chronicas of the Franciscan Order in the Philippines, China, and Japan, printed at the Convent of Our Lady of Loreto, at Sampaloc, a suburb of Manila, in 1738–41 (vol. ii, book i, ch. xv, page 81). Although, like most ex-cathedra pronouncements, this sweeping statement does not hold good for all times and places, it was undoubtedly correct for the region and century with which this essay is primarily concerned.

In a paper entitled “Two Notes on Ptolemy's Geography of India” published in JRAS., 1941, pp. 208 ff., the late Professor E. H. Johnston discussed the location of a place named “Dounga” by Ptolemy, book vii, ch. 1, s. 6. He also examined the historical circumstances relating to Dounga and suggested its possible identity with Dhenukākaṭa mentioned in some of the cave inscriptions ofthe Bombay region. Professor Johnston, however, did not arrive at a sufficiently exact idea of the topography, possibly because he was without that local knowledge which adds so much to any reading of a map. Consequently, some of his suggestions appear to be susceptible of amendment.

In the book of Esther ii, 7, we are told that Mordecai brought up his niece Hadassah, and it adds “Hadassah that is Esther” . While it has been generally recognized that is the feminine of “Myrtle” which occurs several times in the Bible (Is. xli, 19; lv, 13; Zach. i, 8, 10, 11; Neh. viii, 15), there has never been any clear and definite opinion as to the meaning of Esther. Already in olden times it was felt that Esther was of foreign origin, but no one thought that meant to convey that there was an identity of meaning in both names. Thus, we find in the Bab Talmud, Megilla 13A, that Rabbi Nehemia was of the opinion that her name was Hadassah, but that she was called by the Gentiles Esther, after the “star-Venus” whereas according to Rabbi Jehoshua, her name was Esther, and she was subsequently characterized as Hadassah “Myrtle” because of the greenish colour of her face.

The Sogdian fragment of the Acts of St. George, published by O. Hansen in APAW., 1941, contains a number of words and passages mistranslated or left untranslated by the editor, which can be understood through careful examination of the text and its parallel versions. I have to thank Dr. Henning for lending me his reprint of Hansen's paper and allowing me to include in what follows his marginal notes on restoration and translation of numerous passages. The words zwby 273, and r'n' 278, which Hansen has not attempted to explain, will be treated first.

There exists in some parts of Ceylon an occult ceremony called the Kohobā Yakkama, which according to tradition was introduced into the island by the three sons of Sita: Malaya, Kit-Śrī, and Sadalidu, among whom Malaya, the flower-born prince, took the leading part. This is the story connected with the first ceremony of its kind.

G. Huth, when translating the Hor-chos-ẖhbyuṅ (Geschichte des Buddhismus in der Mongolei, i, Strassburg, 1892), attributed this chronicle to ẖJigs-med nam-mkhaẖ, a high incarnate bLa-ma of the great bLa-bran bKra-śis-ẖkhyil monastery in the Amdo Province of North-Eastern Tibet. For over fifty years this attribution remained unchallenged, notwithstanding the fact that it is based on a wrong translation of the Tibetan text of the closing paragraphs of the chronicle. An attentive perusal of the Tibetan text shows that ẖJigs-med nam-mkhaẖ, whose short biography is given on p. 225 of the Tibetan text of the Hor-chos-ẖbyuṅ (ed. G. Huth), and on p. 356 of Huth's translation (Geschichte des Buddhismus in der Mongolei, ii, 1896), was not the author of the chronicle, but the inspirer of the work which was carried out at ẖJigs-med nam-mkhaẖ's command by Gu-śri (kuo-shih or State Preceptor) dKaẖ-bcu Su-dhī (Śuddhi) Ā-yu-warta (Āyurvarta), also known by the name of dbYaṅs-can sGeg-pahi blo-gros ẖJigsmed Rig-paẖi rdo-rje. The author of the chronicle met with ẖJigsmed nam-mkhaẖ during the latter's visit to the Barūn Türned principality in Eastern Mongolia (see Hor-chos-ẖbyuṅ, pp. 227–8). This ẖJigs-med nam-mkhah, better known by his title of Zam-tsha sku-zabs rin-po-che, was one of the “Four Golden Pillars” of bLa-bran in Amdo.1 Soon after A.D. 1803 (chu-phag lo, Water- Hog year) ẖJigs-med nam-mkhah was appointed to the abbot's chair (chos-khri) of the Yung Ho Kung () monastery in Peking. Later he was nominated tamaya lama (tha-ma-ka bla-ma) of Dolōn-nūr (mTsho-bdun) in Chakhar (E. Mongolia).

Since I wrote a paper on the above (JRAS., 1945) I have received programmes of the installations of the present Sultan of Selangor in January, 1939, and the present Sultan of Perak in March, 1939.

Si l'on ignorait que le brahui est une langue dravidienne, ce n'est pas la conjugaison du present verbal qui le révélerait. En voici les désinences (Bray, §§ 202–3):—

Qu'il suffise de mettre en regard le paradigme des langues qui lui sont le plus proches, le gondi (prétérit, d'après Ch. Trench, Gr. of Gondi, p. 15):

et le kurukh (d'après A. Grignard, Gr. of the Oraon language, pp. 68–9):

pour se rendre compte que, sauf aux 2e et 3e personnes du pluriel, le système est différent.