A Portion of a Hittite cuneiform tablet from Boghaz Keui has come into my possession, which is shown by its contents to belong to the same tablet as that of which I have published another portion in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1907 (pp. 919, 920). The original tablet must have been a very large one, and probably contained a complete list of the oiferings to be made to the various deities in the Hittite pantheon. It thus resembled the great inscription of Meher Kapussi, near Van, in which we find a similar list of the offerings to be made to the Vannic gods (J.R.A.S., New Ser., xiv, 3 (1882), pp. 461 sqq.). As I have already stated in the Journal for last April, p. 548, the new fragment enables me to correct some of the readings in my copy of the first fragment.

Two important contemporary authors provide primary sources for the history of Qalāwūn's reign. The first of these, Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn ʽAbd al-Ẓahir, had been the head of Baybars's chancery, and continued to hold office, possibly until his death in 692/1293. He was, however, overtaken during his lifetime by his son, Fatḥ al-Dīn, whom Qalāwūn appointed to the new post of confidential secretary (kātib al-sirr). Muḥyī al-Dīn was the author of Baybars's official biography, a Rawḍ al-zāhirfisirat al-Malik al-Ẓāhir – indeed one might say that he ghosted the memoirs recounted to him by the sultan. In due course he also produced the official biography of Qalāwūn, Tashrlf al-ayyām wa 'l-'uṣūr fi sīrat al-Malik al-Manṣūr, of which unfortunately only the latter part, beginning with the year 680/1281–82, is now extant. A great deal of the value of this work lies in the state papers it transmits. These include the texts of truces with the Templars, Acre, Lesser Armenia, and the Lady Margaret of Tyre, as well as treaties (also formally truces in Islamic international law) with Aragon and Genoa.

In his al-Munkidh min al-Ḍalāl al-Ghazālī states that he studied the works of al-Muḥāsibī, together with those of Abū Ṭālib al-Makkī, al-Junayd, Shiblī, and Abū Yazīd al-Bisṭāmī, and of these Ḥārith b. Asad al-Muḥāsibī (ob. 243/857) was the earliest and the most prolific writer, and to him al-Ghazālī owes more of his teaching than has been generally realized, and much that has been attributed to al-Ghazālī as representing his original ideas, is in fact based upon the earlier teaching of al-Muḥāsibī and, in many instances, is directly borrowed from him.

Crete is a large off-shore island, and whether it belongs primarily to Europe or to Asia is a moot point—it is equidistant from the European and Asiatic mainlands of the Aegean. Inevitably it has served as an intermediate link in the transmission of influences in either direction. Hence I am pleased to see its indigenous script accorded a place in this Symposium, alongside many other famous problems.

Recent work among the Sippar Collections of the British Musuem has brought to light a number of interesting texts, among which is the fragment BM 63570. This text lists the qīpu's of numerous temples along with other officials, associating them all with bundles of reeds measured in hundreds. This is of unusual interest, however it is not the first time such a text has come to light as a similar fragment, BM 68777, was identified and published by the present author in 1993. Indeed, without a doubt the two pieces belong to the same tablet. BM 68777 is the beginning of the text, while BM 63570 carries on the obverse from this after a very small break and then gives some lines from the top of the reverse. The reverse of BM 68777 was uninscribed.

These inscriptions were found among the rubbish surrounding the Great Temple at Buddha-Gayâ; this rubbish had accumulated during the progress of the alterations and improvements carried out by the Burmese deputation who visited the Temple in 1877. Quoting from p. 65 of Dr. Rajendralála Mitra's work on Buddha Gayâ. we learn “that certain Burmese gentlemen, deputed by his Majesty the King of Burmah, arrived at Buddha Gayâ, at the beginning of 1877, and with the sanction of the Mahant, who is the present owner of the Great Temple and the surrounding ground, carried on demolitions and excavations round the temple, which in a manner swept away most of the old land-marks. The remains of the vaulted gateway in front of the temple had been completely demolished and the place cleared out and levelled. The stone pavilion over the Buddhapad had been dismantled and its materials cast aside on a rubbish mound at a distance. The granite plinth beside it had been removed. The sites of the chambers brought to light by Major Mead had been cleared out. The drain-pipe and gargoyle which marked the level of the granite pavement had been destroyed. The foundations of the old buildings noticed by Hiouen Thsang around the Great Temple had been excavated for bricks and filled up with rubbish. The revetment wall round the sacred Bodhi tree had been rebuilt on a different foundation on the West.

“In the beginning was the Word” is a truth the sublimity of which grows upon us the more we ponder it. And, indeed, the common consciousness of mankind has ascribed to the Logos the supreme act of Creation. Alike in India, China, Egypt, and Mesopotamia, the world is said to exist as the audible thought of the Deity. Moreover, the creative power of the divine Voice is intimately associated with the possession of the sacred Name.

Muḥammad I, the founder of the Naṣrid Sultanate in 629/1232, originated the first dynasty, al–dawla al–ghālibiyya al-nasriyya, as it has been called in modern times from his laqab, al-ghālib bi-llāh (= “the victor through Allāh”). He was succeeded by his son Muḥammad II al-Faqīh and grandsons Muḥammad III al-Makhlū‘ (= “the Dethroned”) and Abū I-Juyūsh Naṣr, with whom the direct masculine line of the al-Aḥmares (= “the Reds”) ended. Naṣr was dethroned by his nephew Ismā‘īl I, the son of their paternal sister Fāṭima and her husband the ra‘īs of Málaga, Abū Sa‘īd Faraj, who was also a member of the royal family.

I shall deal here with the sultans of the second dynasty up to the death of Muḥammad V, and will concentrate on its three main figures: Ismā‘īl I, his second son YūsufI and grandson Muḥammad V, and deal only briefly with Muḥammad IV - the firstborn son of Ismā‘īl I – and Muḥammad VI el Bermejo (the Redhead), a relative and brother-in-law of Ismā‘īl II. However, we should first establish the identity and origins of Ismā‘īl I‘s father, to understand why he did not become the first sultan of the new dynasty.

This article discusses a story that has enjoyed a long life in scholarly literature, drama, and the visual arts: the alleged caging of the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid I Yildirim (r. 1389–1402) by the Central Asian conqueror, Temür (r. 1370–1405). Attention is focused on the evolution of scholarly discourse on the existence (or otherwise) of the cage. The period from the late seventeenth to the first half of the twentieth century is looked at in particular detail. The debate around the captivity of Bayezid is only fully understood when it is located within a larger historical framework, namely the changing political relationships between Christian Europe and the Ottoman Empire from the fall of Constantinople in 1453 until the nineteenth century.

The Rev. Dr A.A. Führer lived to the age of seventy-seven. Herein is examined his first forty years. Trained as an Oriental Linguist, Führer eventually found employment as a field archaeologist. Three years after his appointment, the Archaeological Survey of India entered the worst crisis of its existence. Führer reacted in ways incompatible with scholarly integrity. It remains to be seen whether he committed further transgressions and or forgeries during his final thirty-seven years.