The number of Hittite hieroglyphic inscriptions known to us has increased considerably of late years. Unfortunately a large proportion of the texts is either broken or illegible, not infrequently just where a complete text is most needed. Thanks, however, to our increased knowledge, it is now possible to correct former copies and supply in many caṡes missing characters or words. The result is that I can now improve to a large extent upon my old attempts at translation as well as correct mistakes and misreadings. Another result is to show that the fundamental elements in my decipherment are correct; it is true that I have made many mistakes, as is inevitable in pioneering work of the kind, but on the whole it was based on sound principles and a considerable proportion of the phonetic values or ideographic meanings I have attached to the characters turn out to be right. Those who wish to see the evidence for these will find it given in detail in my articles in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archœology. In my present notes I shall give it only where the identifications are either new or corrections of those I formerly proposed.

Although references to the subject of Ismā'īlī doctrine have been frequent enough in the text-books and learned journals, the earliest source quoted in nearly all of them is the Ta'rīkh-i Jahān-Gushā of Juwaynī. By a comparison of that work with the corresponding section of the Jāmi' al-Tawārīkh of Rashīd al-Dīn it is evident that the latter is the source from which Juwaynī drew most of his materials, and that for his compilation he used such sections of it as suited his purposes, omitting and transposing passages as he thought fit. In certain instances his omissions from the text have caused obscurities which the original version of Rashīd al-Dīn does not contain, and quite often the borrowings have been incorporated without any great effort to make them fit snugly into their context. Since the Ta'rīkh-i Jahān-Gushā is fairly well known I shall confine myself here to the work of Rashīd al-Dīn, which seems destined for some time longer to remain in the obscurity of manuscript.

Since the beginning of the present century students of Indian history have been making strenuous efforts to collect such materials as would help them to reconstruct the early history of Bengal. But so far they have not succeeded in ascertaining definitely even the dates of those kings of the Sena Dynasty who governed dominions of large extent and took rank among the great powers. The discovery of the era with which is associated the name of Laksmana Sena Deva induced several well-known archaeologists to bring its initial date to bear on the history of Bengal. From the scanty data which were then available the late Professor Kielhorn after much laborious calculation definitely settled that the Lakṣmaṇa Samvat or La-Sam began in A.D. 1119–20. According to him the La-Sam was an ordinary Southern (Kārttikādi) year with Amānta scheme of lunar fortnights; and the first date of the era was October 7, A.D. 1119. As this date has not been made use of in reconstructing the chronology of the Sena kings, it may be accepted for the present; and time will show whether the conclusion of the learned doctor is right or wrong. But the assertion of the historians that the initial date of the Lakṣmaṇa Sena era synchronizes with the commencement of Lakṣmaṇa Sena's reign is quite untenable and can never be accepted as true. In Indian history there is no era which does not commemorate some epoch-making event which affected the people of the country in general. And ordinary succession to the throne in its normal course, as was the case with Lakṣmaṇa Sena Deva, does not justify the inauguration of an era in place of the usual regnal years to which the people in those days were accustomed.

The word rtse, “peak” or “top”, is a very appropriate termination for the names of places in a mountainous region; in Tibet there are innumerable place-names of this type. In the Nob region of Chinese Turkestan we have noticed (JRAS. 1928, pp. 586–8) several such names, e.g. Klu-rtse, Snuṅ-rtse, Gyuṅ-druṅ-rtse. In the case of the last named we have suggested the possibility that -rtse may have denoted nothing more than a height in a fort. There may have been instances of such a nature; but in general the position will have been otherwise. The numerous names in -rtse will have been due to the occupation of commanding positions by the Tibetan troops for the purpose of observation and control. In the case of Pehu-rtse we shall quote documents which in fact refer to building operations. The actual designations of some of the places, e.g. Stag-sras-dges-gyi-rtse “Young-tigerdelight(??)-peak”, Hphrul – gyi – me – loṅ – kun – snaṅ – rtse “Magic – mirror – all – vision – peak”, while characteristically Tibetan, may also be set down partly to the fancy of those who established the new military posts. The names are naturally all Tibetan, and will not often have been attached to old sites.

In the “Yuzgat” Tablet we read: “and the dirges for Telibinus are finished” (Telibinuss-a mugauwas qati). The word I have rendered “dirges” is translated by the Assyrian tazimtu and includes the legends which were repeated in the celebration of what may be termed the death and resurrection of the Hittite god Telibinus. Telibinus, “the son of Teli,” like Khatebinus “the child of Khate”, was one of the deified kings of the primitive Hittites and is accordingly coupled with Zidkhariyas, another early hero, and Khebe the goddess of Kizzuwadna. In Greek mythology he was known as Telephus, King of Mysia. In the treaty of Subbiluliuma with Simassara he is called the god of Turmitta, which is identified by Professor Garstang with Derende.

An important difference between the North-Western and South-Western Middle Iranian dialects consists in the correspondence of North-Western -ḥ- to South-Western -d- (that is -δ-), beside -y-.

The preceding article of this series is in the Journal for 1923, p. 406. Mr. H. A. Elsberg of New York has kindly supplied photographs and descriptions of the following Fatimid pieces in his collection and authorized their publication, and Mr. S. Flury has been so good as to give assistance in the decipherment of the inscriptions:—

No. 1. Collection No. 1356.

Beames.—A comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India. London, 1872.

Blooh.—When referred to without special qualification refers to La formation de la langue marathe, Paris, 1920. His article, “La nasalité en Indoaryen,” is to be found on p. 61 fl. of the Cinquantenaire de l'École Pratique des Hautes Études.

In 1848 Juynboll published the Arabic text with a Latin translation and elaborate introduction of a Samaritan work, which he called the Samaritan Chronicle. He printed it from a MS. in the Leyden library deposited there by Scaliger; this MS. belonged to the fourteenth century. It was written by two hands, the second part being of a somewhat later date. Juynboll was quite justified in callingit a chronicle, although the largest part of the MS. consists of the book of Joshua. It is a paraphrase of the book of Joshua of the Jewish Bible, containing chiefly the first chapters to which various legendary stories had been added. But the MS. contains much more. It starts with the appointment of Joshua as successor to Moses, in the latter's lifetime, then the history of Bileam, slightly differing from the record in the Bible, then also two different recensions of the death of Moses are given, after which, with a special heading, the book of Joshua begins. At the end of it the history is continued; it is very fragmentary. Within a very brief space the story of the Exile, under Bokht Nasar—the Arabic form for Nebuchadnezzer—is told, and then it is continued in the same brief form down to the time of Baba Rabba—second or third century—the great hero of Samaritan history. The Samaritans considered him as the one who had been able to throw off the yoke of the foreign rulers and to obtain for them a certain amount of political liberty.

Among the instruments of Mediaeval Europe that contributed most to the progress of the art of music the lute and rebec stand pre-eminent. That they were introduced into Western Europe by the Arabs is generally admitted, and for that reason the question of their original adoption by the Arabs themselves is of some importance, especially in view of the statements of Miss Schlesinger; not only in the above extract, but in the works to which she refers us.

Assyriologists have neglected the fundamental meaning of the common Semitic verb , to test, assign, allot. From this verb the name of the Arabic goddess of fate is derived. Curiously enough the earliest known Arabic name of Manât is written in the Thamudic (Minæan) n. pr. Ta'bad- Manât. In Nabatæan the ordinary form is , which Wellhausen Reste des Arabischen Heidentums, p. 24, takes as a plural, defending this etymology by the Arabic derivative maniyyat, fate, death, and broken plural manāya, in same sense. Goldziher, Archæologische epigraphische Mittheilungen aus Æsterreich vi (1882), 109, also takes the Nabatæan name as a plural, defending it from the Latin inscription from Aquileia, which has Manawat. Lidsbarski, Handbuch der Nordsemitischen Epigraphik, 313. reads Manāwatu. G. A. Cooke, North Semitic Inscriptions, 79, 5 et p. reads Manūthu, as singular; the writing in the Coran is Manātun. Arabic derivatives of this verb are maniyyatun, fate, māni(n), one who determines, assigns, manā(n), death, fate, number, size. Hebrew derivatives are, mānā, portion, menāth, pi. mĕnayōth, portion, share. Aramaic mĕnāthā, portion, part. Syriac mĕnātha, part, portion; menyānā, number, and qal participle māne kaukebe, one who determines by stars, astrologer.

In the Cairo Museum of Arab Art there are more than three thousand slabs of marble and stone bearing Cufic inscriptions. Most of these slabs are tombstones found in the ancient cemeteries of Cairo and Aswan. On each of these tombstones are inscribed the name of the deceased and the date of his death; hence they are invaluable in working out the evolution of Arabic writing. Only two hundred of these slabs are exhibited in the Museum, the others being kept in the stores and recesses of the building.

There is a difference of opinion among scholars as regards the exact significance of such Nyāya-sūtras as are supposed to refer to the doctrines of the Mādhyamika and the Yogācāra schools of Buddhism. It has also been suggested that probably some of these sūtras have been interpolated later on, possibly by Vātsyāyana—the author of the Nyāya-bhāṣya. After making a careful study of the sūtras in question, however, I have come to the conclusion that some of them, in any case, do not refer to the Buddhist doctrines at all, and form a natural and quite an integral part of the particular sections in which they occur, and that the theory which regards them as later interpolations is not justifiable.

Kumzāri is a dialect spoken exclusively by certain coastal elements of the Shiḥuḥ tribe, the Kumāzara section, who occupy Kumzār at the head of the Musandam Peninsula of Oman, and are found at Dibah, Khasab, the coastal villages of Elphinstone and Malcolm Inlets and at Larek Island.

The hymn RV. iii, 53, is of an obscure and difficult nature. Oldenberg sees in it only an incongruous jumble of disconnected stanzas and refuses to adopt the theories of either Hillebrandt or Geldner concerning it. The former scholar looked upon it as a collection of yājyānuvākyāḥ belonging to the horse-sacrifice; but it really seems difficult to subscribe to such an explanation. The late Professor Geldner again always maintained that the hymn represented a uniform composition which had been taken out from the complete family saga of the Viśvāmitras. In one passage he calls it an āyuṣmatāṃ kathā; and, as then at any rate he was a staunch supporter of the ākhyāna-theory of Oldenberg, he probably found littledifficulty in looking upon it as being the metrical part of a composition, the prose frame of which was wanting and could only be supplied from Sāyaṇa and other commentator literature. The present writer long ago tried to explain why he cannot accept the ākhyāna-theory. But in spite of that it seems to him that Geldner was probably, in the main, right in looking upon the hymn as one connected piece of poetry, though details partly remain very obscure.

LAST winter was the seventh consecutive season of the Herbert Weld (for Oxford) and Field Museum Expedition at Kish, when Mr. Watelin, in charge of the excavations, reached virgin soil 28 feet below plain level, and 61 feet below mound level. At the end of the sixth season (1927–8), Watelin, Mr. Henry Field, and Mr. Eric Schroeder found the series of vaulted brick tombs and four-wheeled chariots, described in Art and Archœology, 1928, November, pp. 155–68. The Neo-Babylonian reconstruction of the temple Ehursagkalamma by Nebuchadnezzar and Nabunidus, whose pavement lies 20 feet below mound level, may be seen in the back ground on the photograph in Illustrated London News, 1930, 8th February, p. 206. Where the deep wide excavations now appear, stood a large mound, when Mr. Mackay and I first attacked this great tal in 1925. This mound marked Z on my plan of Kish, contained above the red stratum or temenos platform (see below) a ruined building from the periods of Sargon of Agade and the first Babylonian dynasty. Outside the wall near the ziggurat we found that year a marble statuette after the style of the one published in Art and Archœology, 1928, November, p. 160, with the cartouche on the right shoulder as figured on p. 602.

Very little, as it is known, remains in Sanskrit of the literary activity of Vasubandhu. If we except some kārikās of the Abhidharma-kośa, we have nothing else than the Viṃśikā and the Triṃśikā, recently edited by Sylvain Lévi. I may add that the Trisvabhāva-kārikā has also been found in Nepal, and copies are with the French Sanskritist and with me. I shall also mention the fragments of the vṛtti upon the Madhyānta-vibhaṅga (or vibhāga) by Maitreya, incorporated in the ṭīkā of Sthiramati, which is being edited by me and Vidhusékhara śāstrī from the Nepalese manuscript. It will, therefore, be of interest to Buddhist scholars and to Indologists in general to see here published another short, but not insignificant, fragment from the pen of the same ācārya, viz. the Pratītya-samutpāda-vyākhyā, a commentary upon the Pratītya-samutpāda-sāūtra referred to in the discussion of this same subject in the Abhidharma-kośa (Bkaḥ-ạgyur, Mdo, xviii, 11).

The well-known hymn to Shamash, edited by Gray, The Šamaš Religious Texts, pp. 9–23 (and more recently by Schollmeyer, Hymnen und Gebete an Šamaš, pp. 80 ff. and Jensen, KB., vi2, 96 ff.), can be partly restored, as Professor Langdon informs me, from Ebeling, KAR. 321 (edited by Ebeling, Berliner Beiträge, ii, 1, 8 ff.), where part of the hymn has been inserted into the so-called Girra(or Irra)-Myth. KAR. 321, obv. 12–17 = col. iii, 31–42 of Gray, ibid., and the two texts mutually restore each other. Judging from the shape of the tablet (VAT. 10714), one would suspect that a long break exists between the Obverse and the Reverse of KAR. 321, and where the text recommences (rev. 1 ff.), we find ourselves in the closing lines of another Shamash hymn.

The assemblage of tribes known as the Bakhtiāri occupy the mountain tract in Southern Persia lying roughly between longitudes 48 40′ and 51 E, bounded on the south by the plains of Khuzistan and on the north by the districts of Chahārmahāl, Farēdan, and Khonsār, where the central Iranian Plateau blends into the great southern mountain range.

That the religious ideas of any epoch tend to flow in the channels dug by the philosophy then prevailing is a commonplace, and it is not surprising, therefore, that in the period between the composition of the Kaṭha Upaniṣad and that of the SK. the various religions which are described in more or less detail in the Upaniṣads and the MBh. are for the most part strongly impregnated with Sāṁkhya doctrines. Not that they accepted the Sāṁkhya scheme wholesale; they accept only so much as is necessary for their purposes and have no hesitation in making modifications or discordant additions of their own. Nevertheless we can discern through the confused welter of systems that the general outlines of the scheme set out by Īśvarakṛṣṇa with its summing up of existence under twenty-five heads were accepted as the standard throughout the period. But how disturbing it would be to all our convictions of historical development if, as has been held, not merely was the outer façade of the Sāṁkhya philosophy maintained intact for all that time, but also there was no change inside. In a lapse of many centuries, during which philosophical speculation was so active and new schools with new ideas and methods were developing, we should expect some change in nomenclature and a great deal of change in the conceptions underlying the apparently unchanging scheme; but there is no general agreement yet about the nature and extent of such changes, if any. Partly, the quality of the evidence is to blame; for we have no exposition of Sāṁkhya teaching which is both certainly authoritative and certainly older than the SK., so that a way is always left open to the retort, when a view other than that contained in the SK.