The fragment K. 2784, published by Langdon in his OECT. vi, pi. xxii, belongs to the same tablet as K. 7593, which was edited by King, Babylonian Magic and Sorcery, No. 62. We now have, therefore, an almost complete text of the earlier part of a hymn to Ea, Shamash, and Marduk. I have to thank Dr. H. R. Hall and Mr. C. J. Gadd, of the British Museum, for permission to collate the reunited tablet, and Professor Langdon for his kindness in helping me with the interpretation of the text.

Professor Langdon has pointed out to me that the Assyrian text published in Ebeling, KAR., No. 360, bears a close resemblance, alike in diction and in subject-matter, to Lehmann, Šamaššumukin, Taff. xxxvii f., edited in Streck, Assurbanipal, ii, 264–8, and it is almost certain that we have here two different but relạted accounts of the return of the god Marduk to Babylon with Shamashshumukin, in 668 B.C. In the following interpretation of KAR. 360, I am again very greatly indebted to Professor Langdon.

The following translations are from the texts in my Assyrian Medical Texts for sick men suffering from diseases brought about by the “hand of a ghost”.

In Ethe's Catalogue of the Persian Manuscripts in the India Office Library, there is an entry (No. 1778) describing a prose work entitled Anīsu 'l-Murīdīn wa Shamsu 'l-Majālis, which is ascribed in the introduction and colophon to Shaykh 'Abdullāh Anṣārī of Harāt. Ethé, obviously assuming the genuineness of this ascription, states in Geiger und Kuhn's Grundriss (vol. ii, p. 282) that the work is the oldest prose version of the Yūsuf and Zulaikha story, and on this assertion of Ethé's a recent number of Islamica (vol. iii, April, 1927, p. 10) contained a plea from Berthels for fuller information about the work. At the suggestion of Professor Nicholson I undertook the examination of the MS., which the India Office authorities kindly placed at my disposal in the University Library at Cambridge.

The Turkish shrine to be described below lies in Greek Macedonia, where there are now no Turks. But the paper will describe the shrine as it was in 1923, a year before the Turks were removed from Greece to Asia Minor under the terms of the Lausanne Convention for the Exchange of Populations between Greece and Turkey.

The relation between Bhamaha and Bhaṭṭi is very interesting. It was once believed that Bhāmaha preceded Bhaṭṭi. But Dr. Jacobi's discovery that he has borrowed Dharmakīrti's doctrines and phraseology has changed his relation to Bhaṭṭi. Not only is it now presumed that “Bhāmaha probably knew Bhaṭṭi's work”, but that he even “clumsily repeats inalmost identical terms” a verse of Bhaṭṭi. The point, however, does not appear to have been definitely settled, and a few remarks will not be deemed unnecessary in reviewing the entire question.

Portraiture, as we now know, was a very early member of the nascent arts of primitive man.

Palæolithic men were of necessity hunters. What they hunted on the plains and among the hills for food and covering, that they painted or carved on the walls and roofs of their cave dwellings and cliff shelters. The reindeer, the bison, the horse, the elephant were favourite objects of their vivid and impressionistic genius. What they lacked of imagination they made up for by exact memories and singularly skilful technique. Less frequent were their delineations of humanity, and as concerns the female part of it, most unflattering, being affected by a kind of exasperated candour. The Age of Chivalry was far distant indeed!

This was given some years ago to the University Library at Cambridge by Sir Herbert Thompson, who bought it with other objects from a dealer in London. I have to thank the Librarian for his kind permission to publish it.

In recent years explorations of great importance have been conducted on a Buddhist site in the Pālnād taluk of the Guntur district of the Madras Presidency, lastly under the superintendence of Mr. A. H. Longhurst, of the Archaeological Survey of India. The site in question which comprises several ancient mounds is situated in the midst of wooded hills on the right bank of the river Kistna or Kṛishṇā, the Kaṇṇapeṇṇa or Kaṇṇavaṇṇā (Skt. Kṛishṇavarṇā) of Pali literature, at a distance of some 15 miles from Macherla and on the border of the Nizam's dominions. One of those mounds is known by the name of Nāgārjunikoṇḍa. Mr. Longhurst claims it to be the most important Buddhist site hitherto discovered in Southern India.

It is one of the curses of Central Asiatic linguistic research that no language of this meeting-place of nations can be studied without reference tothe history of its neighbours and predecessors, which often belong to entirely different linguistic families. It is therefore only persons of singular erudition, or, like ourselves, of that hardihood which is bred of ignorance, who venture to dogmatize on any really difficult question of Central Asiaticphonetics or lexicography.

One of the most important Vannic inscriptions—or rather series of inscriptions—yet found in Armenia was discovered and excavated in 1916 by Professor Marr and Mr. Orbeli immediately under the walls of the citadel of Van. Here they found steps and niches cut in the rock, at the back of one of which was the monument in question. Under its vaulted roof was a rectangular stone stela standing on a pedestal. The sides of the stela were inscribed, as also was the pedestal; while two other inscriptions were engraved on either side of the stela on the wall of the rock behind it. Exceptionally good photographs were taken of the inscriptions, which have been edited by Professor Marr with transliteration and translation as well as an elaborate commentary. The volume containing them, Archæological Discoveries at Van in the year 1916 (Petersburg, 1922), is a very sumptuous one and more than equal in matter and appearance to any of the previous volumes of the Archæological Society of Russia.