Southern Iouthern abounds in prehistoric remains, mostly of the neolithic, but some few undoubtedly of the palaeolithic age; and of all the districts of the Madras Presidency none is more remarkable in this respect than the country about Bellary. The present area of this division comprises the old capital of the Vijayanagar kingdom, now usually called Hampe, from the name of alittle village on the Tungabhadra River, which in the old palmy daysconstituted a small fraction of the great city. On the south of the districtthe territories of Maisūr form the boundary. The fine old rock-fortress of Adoni lies near its eastern frontier, and on the north the Tungabhadra River divides it from the country belonging to the Nizām of Haidarābād. Within these boundaries are seen in every direction rocky hills with a very sparse covering of vegetation, standing boldly out of the level plain, some singly, some in ridges, and in a few tracts massed together into confused heaps extending in all directions for many miles.

Dr. William Hunter (d. 1783) bequeathed to the University of Glasgow, along with his Natural History Collection, a library containing about twelve thousand volumes of printed books and six hundred manuscripts. The latter were catalogued by G. Haenel, in his Catalogi Librorum Manuscriptorum, Leipzig, 1830, columns 786–798. In regard to the Oriental manuscripts, however, he frequently does no more than state in what languages they are written, and that not always correctly. Thanks to the courtesy of the Keeper of the Museum, who gave every facility of access to the cases, the following is an emended list of the Arabic, Syriac, and Hebrew manuscripts. With the exception of No. 7, none of these is written on vellum.

The Purra-poruḷ Veṇbā-Mālai is a very ancient work, professing to be founded upon a still older composition called “The Twelve Chapters,” by one of the twelve disciples of Agastiyar. This points to a mythic origin, but we cannot historically go further than its Tamil author, or compiler, as he would represent himself. It is quite essential for a Tamil writer who would become a classic to cite his original, or the authoritative ‘first-work’ from which he draws (or professes to draw) his materials. (See Nannul, 4–10, and Pope's 3rd Grammar, p. 142.) Where there is no such ‘first-work’ (, Muthanūl), he or his commentators must suppose or invent one, and ascribe it to some venerable personage. The real author here is Aiyanār-Ithan, of whom nothing is known but that he is said to have been a descendant of the old Çēra kings, and the compiler of this very interesting composition. It can hardly be less than ten centuries old.

The following lists are composed of words and meanings which, occurring in the Harṣa-Carita of Bāṇa, are not quoted, or are instanced only from grammars, dictionaries, and commentaries, in the great St. Petersburg Lexicon and the smaller Lexicon of Böhtlingk. Only a few words not coming under this definition have for special reasons been included; namely, where I was unable in the Kashmir text to verify Böhtlingk's references to Bāṇa's work, where only an inferior work is cited, and where I or the Sanskrit commentator, Çaṅkara, did not adopt the exact rendering given in the two dictionaries. It did not appear on the whole worth while to quote words and meanings simply because their earliest occurrence was in the Harṣa-Carita, or because they illustrated the well-known and extremely close lexical affinity of Bāṇa's works with such books as the Bṛhat-Saṃhitā, Rāja-Taraṅngiṇī, Kathā-Sarit-Sāgara, Vāsavadattā, Daçakumāra-Carita, and also the Kāvya literature in general.

This manuscript, which is now in my possession, has unfortunately lost anumber of pages at the beginning. Neither title nor author's name occurs in the text, but inside the cover an old Oriental penman has left the following inscription: , “The Preservation of Health, composed by Imām Fakhru' ddīn Rāzī — may God make bright his tomb! “The colophon is: Hājī Khalīfa (under ) ascribes to Hippocrates a work with this title, addressed to King Antiochus, but does not mention the translator nor the language into which itwas rendered.

I Have announced as my subject in these introductory lectures the general relation of the Avesta to other systems of theology and philosophy. And I have especially mentioned its interest for Biblical criticism, because a relation, or a supposed relation, between the Avesta and Exilic and post-Exilic books of the Old Testament has been notorious for half a century.

They relate thus, that Naṣr b. Aḥmad, who was the central point of the Sámánid group, whose fortunes reached their zenith during the days of his rule, was most plenteously equipped with every means of enjoyment and material of splendour—well-filled treasuries, an efficient army, and loyal servants. In winter he used to reside at Bukhárá, his capital, while in summer he used to go to Samarqand or some other of the cities of Khurásán. Now one year it was the turn of Herat. He spent the spring at Bádghís, where are the most charming pasture-grounds of Khurásán and 'Iráq, for there are nearly a thousand watercourses abounding in water and pasture, any one of which would suffice for an army.

The whole of this subject is so difficult that I must submit the following remarks as purely tentative, and express a hope that others with more accurate knowledge will correct me. It will be well to begin with what appears to be at least tolerably certain facts. (1) The Ṛgveda shows nothing, directly, of any advance of Aryans to Ayodhya or the further kingdoms under the Naipāl Himalaya, nor does the Mahābhārata. But both specify an Aikshwāka settlement on the Indus; and we shall see some early indications, from other sources, of ‘Solar’ tribes beyond Ayodhya, Mithilā, and Vaiśāli, their chief centres. Our evidence for the ‘Solar’ dynasty of Ayodhya is the Rāmāyana, supplemented by the genealogies of the Purāṇas. The Buddhist writings throw some light on the subject also. (2) The kingdom of Ayodhya very early passed away; the more historic kingdoms in that region are connected with Buddhist times and with Śravasti, Kapilavastu, etc. (3) It is certainly the case that there were early sun-worshipping tribes in India, and not only in the Oudh region. We know of sun-worship and serpent-worship in Kāśmīr; we hear of it among the ancient Saurā of Saurāṣṭra and the Bāla (or originators of Valabhipura); the Kāthi (vassals of the Bāla) are still sun - worshippers.

By way of explanation, I may be permitted to say that having been for some time engaged on an inquiry into the history of the various kinds of Indian landlord tenure, not as a matter of theory, but on the basis of local facts, it became necessary to consider the origin and distribution of the tribes or clans to which the landlord classes most commonly belong. A number of notes were thus accumulated; and I thought it might be useful to put them together, much more in the hope of receiving correction, and of thus gaining information, than with the design of imparting it. It at once appears, as regards Northern India, that of the superior proprietor class when ‘Hindu,’ or at least originally Hindu, a large proportion belongs to the tribes known as ‘Rājput.’ Some of the higher families, however, now resent being so designated, and call themselves ‘Kshatriya.’ The latter name, again, is usually understood to have reference to the military and ruling caste of ancient times, and to have been comprised in two great groups known as ‘Solar’ and ‘Lunar’ respectively. It was almost inevitable to inquire whether anything could be ascertained about the (probable) real birthplace and connection of the so-called ‘Rājput’ races. So much is clear, that the names of the various clans and septs are not names which occur in any early literature; and they can but rarely be connected, even by any tradition that will stand the slightest analysis, with the Kshatriya races of the Mahābhārata and Purāṇas.

Four years ago I submitted to the readers of this Journal “A Description, of Mesopotamia and Baghdad, written about the year 900 a.d. by Ibn Serapion,” in the course of which paper an attempt was made to sketch, in rough outline, the Plan of the mediaeval City of the Caliphs. This was derived from the accounts of the canals given by Ibn Serapion; and recognizing the imperfection of this Sketch Plan, I expressed my intention of returning again to the subject of Baghdad topography, and of completing, in a future article, the very cursory notes which were all that I had then been able to give with the translation of Ibn Serapion.

In reviewing lately Mr. Portman's “Notes on the Languages of the South Andaman Group of Tribes,” I pointed out that he had used a pamphlet of my own, privately printed in 1883, entitled “A Brief Exposition of a Theory of Universal Grammar,” which was specially designed to meet the very difficulties he had to face in giving a general idea of languages constructed on lines at first sight very different from those on whose structure modern European Grammar is based.

At the International Congress of Orientalists held in Paris in September, 1897, I had the honour of submitting to my fellow-students there assembled a scheme for the publication of a series of Persian historical and biographical texts, to be inaugurated by a critical edition of Dawlatshah's Tadhkiratu'sh-Shu'arā, or “Lives of the Persian Poets.” The carrying out of this scheme was made conditional on the promise of so much support as should ensure the sale (at a price less by one-third than that at which the volume would subsequently be sold to non-subscribers)of atleast 200 copies. It is a matter of some disappointment to me that during the year which has elapsed since this announcement was made the number of subscribers has hardly reached the quarter of this modest minimum; in spite of which discouraging fact I have resolved to proceed with an undertaking of the necessity of which I am more than ever convinced. The arrangements for publication are completed: the texts will be printed by Messrs. Brill at Leyden with the Beyrout types (adapted to the Persian usage by the addition of the four supplementary letters required by that language); and Messrs. Brill and Luzac will act as joint publishers. It is hoped that the first volume of the series may be ready in time to be laid before the Congress of Orientalists which will meet at Rome next October.

On reference to the Millennial Chronology of the Bundahiś (as corrected and extended in S.B.E., vol. xlvii, Introduction, § 55) it will be seen that the first millennium commenced in b.c. 9630 with the formation of the Fravashis, or primary ideas of the good creations, which remained insensible and motionless for 3,000 years. At the beginning of the fourth millennium (b.c. 6630) the spiritual body of Zarathuśtra was framed together and remained 3,000 years with the Ameśaspentas, while the primeval man and ox existed undisturbed in the world, because the Maleficent spirit was still confounded and powerless. But, at the beginning of the seventh millennium (b.c. 3630) the Maleficent spirit rushed into the creation, destroyed the Primeval ox, and distressed Gayomart, the primeval man, who died thirty years later; but Zarathuśtra was not born till B.C. 660.

For some time back the attention of scholars interested in the history and antiquities of the North-West Frontier regions of India has been drawn towards the remarkable series of inscriptions “in unknown characters” which the zealous search of Major H. A. Deane, C.S.I., Political Officer, Swat, Dir and Chitral, has brought to light in the territory of the ancient Udyāna.

In Mr. Baden-Powell's article, No. XXV of the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for July, 1898, on Village Land-Tenures in India, he asks with reference to my letter on the same subject in the Journal of the Society for July, 1897, for further local details on the following points:—

I. As to whether the original matriarchal stage of village life described by me is to be found in the primaeval history of both Kolarian and Dravidian tribes, or whether its institutions were only indigenous among one of these groups.

There is no work to which a student who wished to study the doctrine of Soul as set forth in the Upanishads could be referred. There are excellent popular accounts of later Indian beliefs. Professor Deussen has written a very complete and scholarly exposition of the views of the great Vedantist Śankar Āeārya. And Professor Garbe has now given us an equally valuable presentation of the Sānkhya philosophy. But Śankara is of the eighth century of our era (about 760–820 a.d.); and the earliest corresponding commentary on Sānkhya—that of Gandapāḍa—is approximately dated by Garbe between 700 and 750 a.d. The very curt texts which these old commentators expound, though of quite unknown date, are probably at least three centuries earlier. What the student would want would be the views on the subject current in the Valley of the Ganges 1,200 years earlier, before the time when Buddhism arose.

In my article on The Sources of Dawlatsháh, which appeared in the January number of the Journal, I have already spoken of the excellent work which I now have the pleasure to present in English dress. For my translation I have used the Tihrán lithographed edition of a.h. 1305, which I have carefully collated throughout with the older of the two British Museum MSS. (Or. 3,507, dated a.h. 1017), and, in all doubtful passages, with the second MS. (Or. 2,955, dated a.h. 1274) also. These MSS. are fully described in Rieu's Persian Supplement, pp. 244–245 and 265, Nos. 390 and 418. It remains only to say a few words concerning the author and the book.

More than eight years have passed since the publication in this Journal of a posthumous article by Paṇḍit Bhagvānlāl Indrājī on “The Coinage of the Western Kṣatrapas.” With the exception of a chapter in “Coins of Mediaeval India,” by the late General Sir A. Cunningham, little of importance has since been written on the history of this dynasty. The Pandit's article is still the best and fullest account of the subject taken as a whole. So much new information has, however, been obtained from the coins— partly from specimens recently brought to light, and partly from a more minute scrutiny of specimens previously known —that a supplementary account has become necessary. The following notes profess merely to supply addenda et corrigenda to the article in question, and are not intended in any way to supersede it.

These drawings were first brought to notice by the late Mr. Archibald Carlleyle and myself, and were discovered by us independently of each other in 1880, he working in Rewah and Mirzāpur and I in Banda. I took up the subject from the anthropological and zoological side entirely, Mr. Carlleyle from the antiquarian or philological side. He evidently had made some important discoveries of ancient records, but, as he desired to work them himself, he imparted no information on either the nature or the localities of his discoveries, and his knowledge has died with him. The first scientific paper on the drawings was by myself published in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for 1883, and was entitled “On the recent existence of Rhinoceros Indicus in the North-West Provinces, and a description of an archaic rock painting from Mirzapur, representing the hunting of this animal” (Journ., lii, part 2, 1883, pp. 56 to 64, with two plates). This article excited much interest in Europe, and great things were expected from the discovery. I regret that I have no copy of the paper. A short paragraph is also devoted to the subject in the Gazetteer of Mirzāpur. There is a further paper in the Proc. Asiatic Society, Bengal, for 1884, on the durability of haematite drawings on sandstone rocks, by myself also. Shortly afterwards Mr. A. M. Markham, C.S., noticed a few words written in this pigment in ancient characters at Chachaie Koond, or the Falls of the Tons in Rewah.