The circumstances under which these inscriptions were discovered are detailed in my Archæological Report for 1862–3, par. 159–184.

Professor Dowson's translations were handed over to me in the end of April last, and I read them at a meeting of the Royal Asiatic Society on the 5th of July, just four months before the receipt of Bâbu Râjendralâl's translations, which appeared in the Bengal Asiatic Society's Journal for 1870, p. 117–130. But the Bâbu's translations are confined to the inscriptions which I first made known to Mr. E. C. Bayley in November or December, 1860, by the copies which are now engraved in the Bengal Journal. Mr. Bayley visited Mathura early in April, 1861, and made independent copies of most of these inscriptions; and in 1863 a considerable number of the inscribed stones were forwarded to Calcutta, where Bâbu Râjendra had the opportunity of studying them at leisure. The Bâbu mentions that the inscriptions which he has translated are taken from my transcripts, “with such corrections and emendations as a careful examination of the original and comparison with Mr. Bayley's transcripts would warrant.”

The subject on which I propose to address you possesses a certain degree of interest, if it be only for its novelty. We have heard, it is true, for a series of years, of races of Hill-people in different parts of India; and latterly the accounts of them have crowded in upon us from many directions. Some have called them aborigines, without troubling themselves about their origin; while others have considered them Hindus expelled from their caste for some misdemeanour; but no one seems to have entertained the idea that the numerous communities which have been found spread over the surface of India, were the inhabitants of the country before the Hindus, or that those communities had one common origin. This idea appears to have occurred to no one that I am aware of till about six years ago, when I had occasion to refer to several papers on this subject in the Transactions of this Society, and those of the more ancient Society in Calcutta. When I began to compare the various accounts one with another, I did not fail to perceive the very close general analogies of their customs and their institutions. This led to fuller inquiries into their physiological, and eventually, into their philological peculiarities, till at length I arrived at the conclusion that all these various tribes were of one and the same race; and I shall endeavour to lead you to coincide with my sentiments on this interesting question.

I have two reasons for writing this paper. The first is that, while I have occasionally heard the word Nostratic, I have never had a clear idea what it meant, and I suspect that most readers of this Journal are in a similar position. The second is that I have recently received from a colleague in Moscow a book just published there entitled “An attempt to compare the Nostratic languages” (Opyt sravneniya nostraticheskikh yazykov) which defines the term, gives a history of the origin and development of the Nostratic theory, and marshals a great deal of evidence in support of it. The author, V. M. Illich-Svitych, died in 1964, and the first part of his book, which was perhaps never finished, has now been published, with an introduction, notes, and some supplementary matter, by his friend and colleague, V. A. Dybo. This was Illich-Svitych's only major work, but the bibliography (p. 74; this and similar references are to pages in the book) lists also six articles by him in various learned journals. The first feeling of any reader of the book must be utter astonishment at the amount of sheer hard detailed work which he packed into a short life of no more than 32 years.

The religion of the Hindus of the Dekkan seems to me to consist of four constituent parts; 1st. Pure Brahmanism, as contained in the Vedas and Puranas; 2nd. An ante-Brahmanical worship, consisting in the adoration of painted stones, which are not acknowledged as objects of worship by the Brahmans, but considered as the representatives of demons; 3d. Buddhism, or that modification of it which subsists among the Jains; and under which heads falls the worship of the Pandharpur Vitthoba. 4. A local superstition based on Brahmanism, and consisting of the worship of remarkable persons who have arisen in the Maratha country in times comparatively modern. It is to these modern local deities that I now solicit attention.

The Fárs-Námeh-i-Náṣirí (lith. Tihrán 1313/1895–6) contains much valuable information regarding the various nomad tribes of the province.

“The tendencies of Apabhraṃśa in phonetics and grammar help to bridge the gap between typical Prakrit and the modern languages.” A. Woolner expressed this view in 1928 when comparatively few Apabhraṃśa texts had been published and the remarkable continuity of the Indo-Aryan languages was accepted as a fact. Since then their general pattern of development, which appeared with simple clarity to Woolner, has often been obscured by the wealth of linguistic material of the Middle Indo-Aryan period that has come to light.

When laying before the Society the results of my examination of the Girnár, Dhauli and Kapur di giri inscriptions of Raja Priyadarsí I expressed an opinion, that, although the tenor of the inscriptions was not incompatible with a leaning to the religion of Buddha, yet the total absence of any positive indication of the usual epithets of Buddha, or any reference to the peculiarities of the Buddhist system, left some uncertainty; with regard to the actual creed of the Raja, and his intimate connection with the followers of Buddha.

In a well-known collection of ritual notes, the Ta Tai Li (The Rites of the Elder Tai), considered to be earlier than the Han period (206 B.C.), there is a calendar section (No. 47), termed Hsia Hsiao Chêng (The Lesser Canon of the Hsia), which is traditionally regarded as a true relic of the Hsia dynasty (about 2000 B.C.). It was translated by DouglasR. K.Professor (Orientalia Antiqua, 1882) and was regarded by him and some other students as of great antiquity. On the other hand, it is very difficult to understand, in the light of modern discoveries as to the Shang culture (circa 1200 B.C.), how such a document could have been produced in 2000 B.C., and the more conservative students are unwilling to admit that it can be much older than, say, 500 B.C.

In reviewing the discoveries that have been made by the Archæological Department in India during the year 1908–9, I propose to start with one of unique historical interest—the only lithic record that has yet been found in which reference is made to the Indo-Greek rulers of the Panjab.

The language specimen here reproduced was brought in to me while in the Darjeeling neighbourhood in 1931, having been taken down in the recently revived Limbu alphabet by an educated Limbu, by name Iman Singha Chemjong, direct from the dictation of the speaker himself. Though pressure of work on other languages of the “pronominalized” group prevented my seeing the actual speaker, who Was off in another part of the hills, there is no difficulty in placing the dialect with its nearest relatives in the Linguistic Survey. It is, without doubt, a form of Rungchhēnbūng, and a near relative of Wāling. To the former the Linguistic Survey was able to devote, through lack of material, only some two pages, to the latter, for the same reason about a page and a half, no specimen being available in either case. I, therefore, give what follows as a small supplement to our knowledge of this little-known form of speech.

There are several recensions of the Hikayat Seri Rama or Malay Ramayana. There are three folk-versions: Seri Rama of Sumatran origin, edited with an outline in English by W. E. Maxwell (JRAS. Straits Branch, 17, 1886); Hikayat Maharaja Ravana, by H. Overbeck (JRAS. Malayan Branch, xi, pt. ii, 1933); and a Patani version, of which an outline was given by me in the Royal Batavian Society's Feestbundel, Batavia, 1929. Of literary recensions the best known are Archbishop Laud's text in the Bodleian, ed. W. G. Shellabear (JRAS. Straits Branch, 71, 1915, with outline, ibid., 70, 1917) = Sh. in this article, and that printed by Roorda van Eysinga (Amsterdam, 1843) = Ro. in this article. The last two have been compared by A. Zeiseniss in his Die Rāma-Sage bei den Malaien (Hamburg, 1928), which has a fairly complete bibliography except for the folk-tale versions. But beyond a few lines in van der Tuuk's catalogue (reprinted in Essays on Indochina, 2nd series, vol. ii) nothing has been written of Raffles Malay MS. 22 in the Library of this Society, which for various reasons is of unique interest. Throughout my description I retain the Malay forms for Sanskrit words.

By the end of the Tang Dynasty (618–907 CE), olfactory culture in China had evolved significantly as coveted aromatics continued to be imported and in increasing quantities from Southeast Asia. Although there is no surviving treatise dedicated to aromatics from this period, anecdotes in prose literature describing the uses and curation of scents reveal a process in which imported aromatics were being actively incorporated into existing olfactory culture and accrued new social, aesthetic, and ritual significance. This process is discernible in two major respects. First, a discourse of connoisseurship for aromatics arose in contrast to the conspicuous consumption of imported aromatics that flaunted wealth and status. Secondly, aromatics that were once the privilege of the very few began to be circulated among a wider (admittedly still elite) population, as seen in the case of the dragon brain aromatic in late-Tang and Five Dynasties accounts. By delving into these and related prose narratives and by cross-examining these accounts against other types of records, this article examines how imported aromatic goods shaped the Tang elite's perception of how scent was—and could be—used as part of a socially rooted sensory experience.