^{page 241 note 1} DrCust's, Vide interesting paper on the “Origin of the Phoenician and Indian Alphabets,” J.R.A.S., 01, 1897, pp. 62–5Google Scholar.

^{page 241 note 2} On the antiquity of the puranas, vide “Coins of Ancient India,” by SirCunningham, A., pp. 52–3. London, 1891Google Scholar.

^{page 243 note 1} Better known by its modern name of Tell-loh. The civil name was Shirpurla, the sacred name Lagash. It was situated on a canal not far from the ancient course, and near the mouth of the Tigris.

^{page 243 note 2} On Magan and Malukhkha, vide Sayce, Lectures, Hibbert, 1887: “Lectures on the Religion of the Ancient Babylonians,” pp. 31–2. (London, 1889.)Google Scholar Malukhkha is the district to the south of the Wādi-el-'Arish.

^{page 244 note 1} Sayce, , Hibbert Lectures, 1887, p. 137Google Scholar. The statue is in the Louvre, and a east of it in the British Museum.

^{page 244 note 2} Gudea's inscriptions are translated in Sarzec's, De magnificent “Découvertes en Chaldée,” and in “Records of the Past,” N.s., vol. ii, pp. 80–2Google Scholar.

^{page 244 note 3} “Niduk-ki in Accadian, and Tilvun or Tilmun in Assyrian, unquestionably applies to Bahrein.”— SirEawlinson, H., J.R.A.S. 1880, vol. xii, p. 212Google Scholar.

^{page 244 note 4} Petrie, W. M. Flinders, “A History of Egypt,” vol. i, p. 79. London, 1894Google Scholar.

^{page 244 note 5} Petrie, , “History of Egypt,” vol. i, p. 100Google Scholar. Cf. Budge, “Book of the Dead: Papyrus of Ani,” Introd., xxv.

^{page 244 note 6} Maspero gives a full account of the maritime expeditions of the Pharaohs from the eleventh to the twentieth dynasty in his essay “Navigations des E'gyptiens”: Revue Historique, vol. ix, 1879Google Scholar.

^{page 245 note 1} Herod., i, 183.

^{page 246 note 1} Pinches, T. G., quoted by Lacouperie, De, “Western Origin of the Early Chinese Civilization,” p. 105. London, 1894Google Scholar.

^{page 246 note 2} Herod., iii, 93.

^{page 246 note 3} “Periplus,” c. 20. The author calls it a “dreadful shore.”

^{page 246 note 4} “Periplus,” c. 4.

^{page 246 note 5} Herod., i, 1, and vii, 89. Strabo, xvi, c. 3, § 4. Justin, xviii, 3. Nearchus found a city called Sidon or Sidodona on the opposite side of the Persian Gulf.

^{page 246 note 6} J.R.A.S., vol. xii, 1880Google Scholar: “The Islands of Bahrein,” by Captain (now Sir E.) Durand, with notes by Major-General SirEawlinson, H.. Proceedings of the R.G.S., vol. iii, 1890Google Scholar: “The Bahrein Islands in the Persian Gulf,” by Bent, J. T., pp. 13–17Google Scholar.

^{page 247 note 1} Keane, A. H., in “Stanford's Compendium of Geography,” etc., ‘Asia,’ vol. ii, p. 439Google Scholar. The connection of the Phoenicians with the Persian Gulf was denied by Movers, and asserted by Lassen, (“Ind. Alt.,” vol. ii, p. 583)Google Scholar and Lenorraant, (“Histoire Ancienne de l'Orient,” vol. iii, p. 3Google Scholar; Paris, 1869). Renan, says that “the great number of modern critics admit it as demonstrated” (“Histoire des langues Semetiques,” ii, 2, p. 183, quoted by Eawlinson, G.)Google Scholar. The recent discoveries of archaeological finds practically put the matter beyond a doubt.

^{page 247 note 2} Sayce, , “The Races of the Old Testament,” p. 62Google Scholar. Strabo, xvi, c. 1, § 6.

^{page 247 note 3} Isaiah, xliii, 14.

^{page 247 note 4} Lenormant, F., “Histoire Ancienne” vol. ii, p. 104Google Scholar.

^{page 247 note 5} Strabo, xvi, c. 3, § 3. Lassen, , “Ind. Alt.,” ii, pp. 601–2Google Scholar.

^{page 248 note 1} “The Ruined Cities of Mashonaland,” by Bent, J. Theodore, chaps, iv–vii, pp. 87–210Google Scholar; London, 1892. R.G.S. Geographical Journal, vol. viii, pt. 2, 1896Google Scholar: “A Visit to the Northern Soudan,” by Bent, J. T., pp. 342, 344–51Google Scholar.

^{page 248 note 2} “Periplus,” c. 27. Strabo, xvi, 4, §§ 18 and 19.

^{page 248 note 3} “Periplus,” c. 19–21.

^{page 248 note 4} “Periplus,” c. 16.

^{page 248 note 5} Agatharcides, quoted by McCrindle in his translation of the “Periplus,” p. 86.

^{page 248 note 6} “Periplus,” c. 16 and 21, with McCrindle's note, p. 73.

^{page 248 note 7} Strabo, xvi, 4, § 19.

^{page 249 note 1} Lassen admits that of all the Arabs the merchants of Mouza alone had sea-going ships (in the days of the “Periplus”): ‘Ind. Alt.,” ii, 583. So also Lenormant, , “Hist. Anc,” iii, 267–8Google Scholar.

^{page 249 note 2} McCrindle, , “The Erythraean Sea,” etc., pp. 194–5Google Scholar. The sufferings of Nearchus and his fleet are vividly described by Arrian, “Indika,” pt. ii, c. xxvi–xxxii (translated by McCrindle). There is an excellent account of Mekran in R.G. S. Geographical Journal, April, 1896, by Colonel T. H. Holdich.

^{page 249 note 3} Herod., iii, 93.

^{page 250 note 1} Lassen, , “Ind. Alt.,” ii, p. 578 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 2} I am not aware whether this scarab has ever been figured. I believe that a somewhat similar scarab waa found in Spain, but I am unable to find the reference.

^{page 250 note 3} Lacouperie, De, “Western Origin of the Early Chinese Civilization,” p. 98, note 415Google Scholar.

^{page 250 note 4} Lassen, , “Ind. Alt.,” ii, p. 596Google Scholar.

^{page 251 note 1} Journal Asiatique, ser. iv, vol. viii, pp. 132–3Google Scholar.

^{page 251 note 2} “The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,” by SirWilkinson, J. Gardner, revised by Birch, S., vol. ii, p. 162. London, 1878Google Scholar.

^{page 251 note 3} Wilkinson's, “Manners and Customs,” etc, by Birch, , vol. ii, pp. 163–4Google Scholar.

^{page 251 note 3} Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 164–5.

^{page 252 note 3} I take this extract from the abridged edition of Wilkinson's, G. Sir work, entitled “A Popular Account of the Ancient Egyptians,” vol. ii, p. 68Google Scholar; London, 1871. Sir G. Wilkinson's words are found on pp. 152–4, vol. ii, of Birch's edition.

^{page 252 note 2} “Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,” by SirWilkinson, G., edited by Birch, S., vol. ii, p. 154Google Scholar. Similar bottles are found on mediaeval sites in the Persian Gulf.

^{page 252 note 3} Ibid., vol. ii, p. 154.

^{page 252 note 4} “The Mummy,” by Budge, E. A. Wallis, p. 190Google Scholar; Cambridge, 1893. Compare Wilkinson's, “Manners and Customs,” by Birch, , vol. ii, pp. 158–9Google Scholar.

^{page 253 note 1} WAI. V. 28.

14, 19, and 20.

30(c).

II. 29.

50(g).

The colophon of the second is lost, and it cannot be dated.

^{page 253 note 2} Sayce, , Hibbert Lectures, 1887, p. 138Google Scholar.

^{page 253 note 3} e.g., Nin-kur-gal, “lord of the great mountain”; Nin-kur-el, “lord of the high mountain”; E-kur-gal, “temple of the great mountain.”

^{page 253 note 4} Lasaen, , “Ind. Alt.,” ii, p. 554Google Scholar.

^{page 253 note 5} Sayce, , Hibbert Lectures, 1887, pp. 137–8Google Scholar.

^{page 253 note 6} Lacouperie, De, “Western Origin of the Early Chinese Civilization,” p. 104, note 428Google Scholar.

^{page 253 note 7} Lassen, , “Ind. Alt.,” i, 357Google Scholar; ii, 552–92. Cunningham, , “Coins of Ancient India,” p. 4Google Scholar.

^{page 254 note 1} Cunningham, , “Coins of Ancient India,” p. 5Google Scholar.

^{page 254 note 2} Ibid., p. 22.

^{page 254 note 3} For David, 1 Chronicles, xxix, 4; for Jehoshaphat, 1 Kings, xxii, 48, also Isaiah, xiii, 12.

^{page 254 note 4} “Periplus,” c. 39, where a full list of exports is given. Lassen and Sir A. Cunningham are hard put to it to explain the absence of gold among the exports from Barbarike.

^{page 254 note 5} Cunningham, , “Coins of Ancient India,” pp. 5, 6, 21, 22, 49Google Scholar.

^{page 254 note 6} The matter is not quite clear. Sir A. Cunningham says the gold of Ophir was gold-dust, and refers to Job, xxviii, 6–16. But thegold-dust of verse 6 cannot be referred to the gold of Ophir in verse 16, which is expressly contrasted with the common gold previously described by the poet. On the other hand, Cunningham admits that the gold of Ophir was made into ingots (p. 49) and refers to Isaiah, xiii, 12. The “golden wedge of Ophir” there mentioned in the authorized English version rests on a mistranslation. Job, xxii, 24 appears to me to refer to nuggets of gold, but it is an open question. I give Dr. A. B. Davidson's translation:—

Verse 24. “And lay thou thy treasure in the dust,

And gold of Ophir among the stones of the brooks:

25. Then shall the Almighty be thy treasure (lit. ore),

And silver in plenty (lit. in bars) unto thee.”

Had gold of Ophir been gold-dust we should have expected ‘sands’ and not ‘stones’ of the brooks.

^{page 255 note 1} ProfessorBonney, , in the “Cambridge Companion to the Bible,” p. 526. London, 1893Google Scholar.

^{page 255 note 2} Cf. Lacouperie, De, “Western Origin,” etc., p. 99, note 416Google Scholar.

^{page 255 note 3} The ‘pillars’ of 1 Kings, x, 12 literally mean ‘props’ (Cheyne). Ewald conjectures ‘balustrades.’ The ‘terraces’ of 2 Chron., ix, 11 are ‘raised paths’ (Cheyne).

^{page 255 note 4} In 2 Chron., ii, 8, ‘algum’ or ‘almug trees’ are brought from Lebanon. The LXX here also reads ‘pine.’

^{page 255 note 5} Caldwell, , “Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian Languages,” p. 66Google Scholar.

^{page 256 note 1} Cf. Lacouperie, De, “Western Origin of the Early Chinese Civilization,” p. 99, note 416Google Scholar.

^{page 256 note 2} Lassen, , “Ind. Alt.,” ii, p. 580Google Scholar.

^{page 257 note 1} On Sokotra, vide “Periplus,” c. 30, with McCrindle's note, pp. 9'2–5.

^{page 257 note 2} It was so obscure that the Romans knew nothing, or nothing accurately, of it down to the time of the Mithridatic war—so says Pliny, quoting Varro: — “Adicit idem [M. Varro] Pompeii ductu exploratum in Bactros vii diebus ex India perveniri ad Iachrum flumen quod in Oxum influat, et ex eo per Caspium in Cyrum subvectos, et v non amplius dierum terreno itinere ad Phasim in Pontum Indicas posse devehi merces.” —Plini, C., N. H., vi, 52Google Scholar. The Greeks first discovered it when Alexander and his Macedonians reached the Oxus. The Indian traffic on the Oxus at that time was very considerable.—Strabo, xi, c. 7, § 3. The route was always the same. As part of the journey was made by land and part by water, it is probable that merchandise changed hands on the route, and Indian merchants seldom accompanied their goods to the West, or, if they did, we do not hear of them. In this they differed from the Indian traders to the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. Strabo, himself a native of Pontus, would scarcely have failed to notice the presence of Indian traders in Armenia or on the Euxine, had any been there.

^{page 259 note 1} The British Museum possesses only five specimens, all found by Layard. Four of these are uninscribed axe-heads (three grass-green and one blue-green); they come from Mugheir (Ur), and are exhibited with other prehistoric celts. The fifth specimen is an archaic cylinder found in the south-west palace of Esarhaddon, at Nimrud. Two men in robes, a woman, and a kneeling boy, are represented on it, with a dedication to Sin, in worn archaic characters of the time of Hammurabi (circá 2100 B.C.). Jade is found in the Caucasus, and geologists have not yet decided, I believe, on the provenance of these specimens. The Uk-nu stone of the inscriptions is sometimes identified with yu, the Chinese name for jade (B. & O.R., iii, p. 102), but Mr. Pinches has shown that it denotes lapis lazuli from the Zagros range. The earliest mention of jade in India occurs, so far as I know, in Hiuen Tsiang's description of Nalanda. Mr. Budler has summarized the evidence regarding the provenance of prehistoric jade implements in a paper read before the Anthropological Society, London (“On the Source of the Jade used for Ancient Implements,” etc., 1891), but he does not mention these Assyrian specimens.

^{page 259 note 2} Some pieces of bamboo(?) found by Taylor in undated graves at Mugheir, and a representation of a Tibetan hound (B. & O.E., iii, p. 135) on a Babylonian terra-cotta, are, I think, the only other material objects which would suggest an early commerce overland with Central Asia or India. Tibetan dogs were favourites in after days with the Achaemenids. Four villages near Babylon were assigned for their support (Herod., i, 192), and a large pack accompanied Xerxes to Greece (vii, 187). Ctesias says they could cope with a lion (Ind., 5). Ivory came to the Assyrians from many quarters. The elephant, in early days, was found, not only in Assyria, but apparently throughout Central Asia, on the borders of the central plateau, as far east as China (B. & O.R., vii, 15, 16), and in later times a constant supply of ivory must have been obtained from Africa. The Assyrian trade with the mountaineers of Kurdistan is, of course, not here in question (cf. Maspero, , “Hist. Anc,” 4th edition, p. 489)Google Scholar, nor is the gradual introduction of plants and fruits, nor of animals like the horse, which, as the ideogram shows, came to the Assyrians from the East.

^{page 259 note 3} On these animals, vide Eev. Houghton, W., “The Mammalia of the Assyrian Sculptures,” part ii, in Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, vol. vGoogle Scholar; London, 1877. For the monkeys vide p. 320; for the elephant, p. 348.

^{page 260 note 1} Brugsch, H., “History of Egypt,” Eng. translation, 2nd edition, vol. i, p. 400. London, 1881Google Scholar.

^{page 260 note 2} See the authorities in De Lacouperie's “Western Origin,” etc., p. 100, note 423. Macdonell says it is used of cows and other female animals, but especially of the female elephant (Sanskrit-English Diet., p. 278).

^{page 260 note 3} There was nothing impossible in this. Hiuen Tsiang's presentation elephant (probably aged) managed to clamber over these passes.

^{page 260 note 4} I have already pointed out that Indian traders can rarely have accompanied their goods by this route as far as the Euxine in the first century b.c.

^{page 260 note 5} Lenormant, F., “The Beginnings of History,” translated by Brown, F., p. 387Google Scholar. Professor Max Miiller denies any connection between the two (“India: What can it teach us?” pp. 133–9), but Lenormant makes out a very strong case, in my opinion.

^{page 261 note 1} Lenormant, Vide, “The Beginnings of History,” pp. 429–31Google Scholar.

^{page 261 note 2} Ibid., p. 426.

^{page 261 note 3} Miiller, Vide Max, “India: What can it teach us P” pp. 125–6Google Scholar, for a discussion of this question.

^{page 261 note 4} Vide the point argued and refuted in Max Miiller's “India: What can it teach us?” pp. 126–33.

^{page 261 note 5} Brunnhofer, , “Iran and Turan,” pp. 217–26Google Scholar. I have to thank Professor Rhys Davids for drawing my attention to this passage.

^{page 262 note 1} ‘Syncellus ex Eusebio, vel aicuti Eusebius sua hausit ex Africano, Africanus ex Alexandra Polyhistore, hie ex Apollodoro.”—Muller, “Frag. Hist. Graee.,” ii, 496. But Polyhistor came from Phrygia, and probably used Berosus at firsthand, although occasionally content to extract from Apollodorus. Berosus, priest of Bel, at Babylon, presented his history to Antiochus Soter about 280 b.c. (ibid., ii, 495).

^{page 262 note 2} “Posthos.… derepente Medos collectis copiis Babylonem cepisse ait [Polyhistor], ibique de suis tyrannos constituisse. Hine nomina quoque tyrannorum Medorum edisserit octo, annosque eorum viginti quattuor supra ducentos,” etc.— Muller, “Frag. Hist. Graec,” ii, 503.

^{page 262 note 3} Syncellus says that “after this time [of the eighty-six Chaldaean kings] … (Polyhistor) introduces Zoroaster and seven who came after him, as kings of the Chaldaeans, and makes them reign for 190 solar years.” Up to this point, Syncellus continues, Polyhistor had reckoned not by solar years, but by Sari, Neri, and Soss.—G. Syncelli Chronographia, ed. Dindorf, p. 78, D (“Corpus Script. Hist. Byzant.,” ed. Niebuhr). In his nominal lists, Syncellus throws Zoroaster and his company altogether overboard. Of. the Babylonian nominal roll, p. 90, D, and the Assyrian, p. 96, D, p. 103, B.

^{page 262 note 4} Oppert, Histoire, p. 9: “Le règne des Ariens dut bientôt finir.” He says: “La Médie n'était pas uniquement peuplée par les races indo-européennes; au contraire,” etc. Canon Rawlinson thinks that some Aryan elements were to be found in Elam, although it was mainly Turanian; but he supports this statement only by two untenable etymologies.—G. Eawlinson, “The Five Great Monarchies,” etc., i, 159. M. Maspero says: “Une dynastie nouvelle que Bérose appelle Méde et qu'on a prise a tort pour une dynastie arienne.” —“Hist. Anc,” 4th edition, p. 160.

^{page 262 note 5} He points out that the hymn is unintelligible in its usual acceptation, and the translations of it poles asunder. For positive proof he relies chiefly on the identification of vauri (‘lurking-place’) with Bauri in the Avesta, and the Bāveru of the Jātakas.—“Iran und Turan,” von Dr. H. Brunnhofer, p. 221.

^{page 263 note 1} Hommel, , “Geschichte Babyloniens,” etc., pp. 343–4, 357Google Scholar. Maspero, , “Struggle of Nations,” p. 37Google Scholar.

^{page 263 note 2} Hommel, , “Geschichte Bab.,” pp. 275–6Google Scholar.

^{page 263 note 3} Maspero, , “Hist. Anc,” 4th edition, p. 490Google Scholar. For the early relations of Medes and Assyrians Maspero, vide, “Dawn of Civilization,” pp. 603–10Google Scholar; Lenormant, , “Hist. Anc.” (ed. 1869), ii, 339Google Scholar; Delattre, , “Le peuple et la langue des Perses,” pp. 246–60Google Scholar; Tiele, , “Babylonische Geschichte,” p. 469Google Scholar; Jhering, R. von, “vorgeschichte der Inde-Europäer,” pp. 102–5Google Scholar.

^{page 264 note 1} Müller, , “Frag. Hist. Graec,” p. 502Google Scholar.

^{page 264 note 2} Although my conclusions differ widely from Professor T. de Lacouperie'e, my obligations to his writings are considerable, and it would be ungrateful of me not to acknowledge them. The late Professor de Lacouperie was one of the most learned and ingenious of men, but I need hardly say that his writings require to be used with caution. He was apt to produce his theories before he verified his facts, and fancy sometimes took the place of judgment. Moreover, he had a bad habit of hanging his learning in the shape of notes upon a slender thread of text, as the Indians hang their letters on a line. But the notes are an excellent quarry for out-of-the-way information, and his Catalogue of Chinese Coins in the British Museum is, I believe, a standard work.

^{page 265 note 1} Maspero, G., “Histoire Ancienne des peuples de 1'Orient,” 4th edition, pp. 442–3Google Scholar; Paris, 1886. Lenormant, F., “Hist Anc,” Ii. pp. 104–5Google Scholar; Smith, G., “History of Babylonia,” pp. 128–31Google Scholar; Lacouperie, De, “Western Origin,” etc., p. 102Google Scholar. Maspero says: “Les mâats et les voiles, la double rangée de rames, les éperons pointus des nefs syriennes, furent probablement des nouveautés pour les habitants de ces contrées.”

^{page 265 note 2} Lacouperie, De, “Catalogue of Chinese Coins from the seventh century B.C. to 621 a.d., including those in the British Museum,” Introd., p xiGoogle Scholar; London, 1892. The coins were struck, says M. de Lacouperie, according to the maneh of Carchemish, and the Babylonian empan of 27 mm. (Introd., chap, vi, and “Western Origin,” etc., p. 385). It is a pity that he used these terms at all, for no materials exist, so far as I can learn, for determining the value of the maneh of Carchemish; and what M. de Lacouperie meant was the light Babylonian maneh (“Western Origin,” etc., p. 93), a perfectly well-known weight. The Babylonian empan of 27 mm. also appears to me entirely arbitrary. The Babylonian measures of length were determined by fingers, cubits, canes, etc., as they still are in India and many other countries, and doubtless varied for every locality and at different times, as they still do throughout the East (vide, e.g., tablets 30, 61, 78, and 97, British Museum Guide to Nimroud Central Saloon). Uniformity of weight between these Chinese knife-coins and Babylonian standards is all that can be admitted.

^{page 266 note 1} Lacouperie, De, “Catalogue of Chinese Coins,” Introd., p. xiiGoogle Scholar.

^{page 266 note 2} Lacouperie, De, “Catalogue,” etc., Introd., p. xiiiGoogle Scholar.

^{page 266 note 3} Lacouperie, De, “Catalogue,” etc., Introd., p. xiiGoogle Scholar.

^{page 266 note 4} This ring money represents ½, ⅓, and ¼ of a shekel, and goes back to some period antecedent to 2100 B.C—W. St. Chad Boscawen, in Babylonian and Oriental Record, vol. vii, p. 243. The Egyptians used gold and silver rings as currency even in the twelfth dynasty (Lepsius, “Denkmaler”), and these rings are often represented in the scales (Wilkinson, , “Manners,” etc., by Birch, , vol. l, p. 285, and ii, pp. 244–5)Google Scholar. The use of gold and silver rings for currency continues in Sennaar to this day.

^{page 266 note 5} Vide Mr. Rassam's letter given below. The wood is exhibited in the new Assyrian Room, Table-case B.

^{page 267 note 1} Lenormant, , “Histoire Ancienne,” ii, p. 236Google Scholar, for Nebuchadnezzar. Cf. p. 241 and also the Nabonidus cylinders for Nabonidus.

^{page 267 note 2} J.R.A.S., vol. xv, 1855, p. 264Google Scholar: “Ruins of Muqeyer.” So many contradictory statements have been made regarding these logs that I have been at some pains to ascertain the real facts, and I give the result of my inquiry.

First. Taylor does not seem to have removed these logs. He does not say that he did so, and no trace of them can be discovered in the British Museum, where his finds were deposited. Dr. Budge, the Keeper of the Oriental Department, does not know of any teak, and Mr. Pinches informs me that he never heard the late Keeper, Dr. Birch, mention any. We must, therefore, take the teak on Taylor's authority.

Second. Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus rebuilt the Temple of Sin at Ur, the latter probably completing what the other had begun, as he did also at Babylon (Lenormant, , “Hist. Anc,” ii, p. 241)Google Scholar. The second story (in which the logs were found) is their handiwork. It is separated from the lower story by a pavement, and the bricks of each story are “totally different in size, colour, and in the inscription.” The bricks of the lower story were “imbedded in bitumen; those in the second story in a mixed lime and ash cement.” The bricks in which these teak logs were imbedded had “an amazing thickness; their size was 16 inches square and 7 inches thick” (J.R.A.S., Taylor's article, p. 264). Here we have the well-known characteristics of Nebuchadnezzar's masonry. Whether Taylor brought any of these bricks away I cannot say, but if so, they are not exhibited. Taylor's description, however, is sufficient to settle the matter.

Third. At each corner of the second story Taylor found an inscribed cylinder, and “just below the cylinder” were the logs of teak (p. 264). The four cylinders are exhibited in Table-case C in the new Assyrian Room of the British Museum, and they are cylinders of Nabonidus. It is certain, then, that the teak was built into the brick masonry (perhaps as a tie-beam) by Nebuchadnezzar or (more probably) by Nabonidus.

The famous hexagonal “Taylor cylinder” of Sennacherib has nothing to do with Ur. Its provenance is Nineveh, according to Bezold's Catalogue.

I give an extract from an interesting letter of Mr. H. Rassam on the subject: “Most probably the block of wood which Mr. John Taylor discovered in the ruins of Moggaier was Indian cedar, like the beam I discovered in the Palace of Nebuchednezar at Birs Nimrud, of which I brought a piece for the British Museum. There is no doubt that this wood was imported into Babylonia from India, as it is the only cedar which does not rot so quickly as other cedar, and it is, in my opinion, a kind of teak.

‘With regard to the Taylor cylinder, it must have been found in the Palace of Sennacherib, either at Koyunjik or Nebbi Yenis, the same as the one bought by Sir H. Layard in 1845, and which was used by the native owner as a candlestick. I have no doubt that Colonel Taylor, the father of Mr. John Taylor, bought it when he visited Mossul before he began his researches.”

On the various spellings of Mugheir or Muqeyer vide J.E.A.S., July, 1891, p. 479, and correspondence there alluded to. It is, of course, quite possible that Mugheir may not be the Ur of Abraham or of the Chaldees, for there were probably several places of the same name, but Mugheir was the Ur of Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus.

^{page 268 note 1} B. & O.R., iv, 7.

^{page 268 note 2} “Professor Minayeff saw in the Bāveru Jātaka the oldest direct trace in India of Phoenicio-Babylonian intercourse.”—B. & O.R., iv, 9.

^{page 268 note 3} “Periplus,” c. 14 and 31.

^{page 268 note 4} It is mentioned in one of his fragments: vide Liddell and Scott, Greek Diet., s.v. ⋯ρίνδης áρτος

^{page 268 note 5} Caldwell, , “Comparative Grammar,” p. 66Google Scholar.

^{page 268 note 6} Aristoph., Av., 102, 269; Ach., 63.

^{page 268 note 7} For instance, Av., 102, where ðρνις = ‘fowl’; so also Av., 269.

^{page 268 note 8} Caldwell, , “Comparative Grammar,” p. 66Google Scholar.

^{page 268 note 9} See the evidence in Liddell and Scott, s.v. rcuis.

^{page 268 note 10} The Sanskrit name for sandal-wood, ‘chandana’ = σάνταλον, does not appear to have been known in the West until the first century a.d.

^{page 269 note 1} Weber, , “History of Indian Literature,” Eng. trans., p. 246 ff. London, 1892Google Scholar.

^{page 269 note 2} Lacouperie, De, “Western Origin,” etc., p. 89Google Scholar. A corrupt list of the signs of the Zodiac, and the nineteen years cycle of Assyria in the seventh century, and the names of some of the planets in the sixth century b.c., are the chief. The Chinese Shepti = Jupiter, is said to have been borrowed from the Sanskrit Vrishas Pati in the sixth century b.c. (pp. 93 and 296–385).

^{page 269 note 3} Bühler, G., “Indian Studies,” No. 3, pp. 81–2Google Scholar. in the Sitzungsberichte der Kais.-Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. cxxxii. Wien, 1895.

^{page 270 note 1} Lassen, , “Ind. Alt.,” ii, p. 580Google Scholar.

^{page 270 note 2} From 631 b.c. onwards, according to De Lacouperie. For the earliest instance of an Indian trader with a Sanskrit name in China, vide his “Western Origin,” etc., p. 89.

^{270 note 3} Crowds of strangers lived at Babylon. “ΠολÙ πλñθος άνθρώπων άλλοεθνŵν says Berosus. Müller, Vide C., “Frag. Hist. Graec.,” ii, p. 496Google Scholar.

^{270 note 4} Herod., i, 178.

^{page 271 note 1} Or 521–485 b.c.

^{page 271 note 2} Herod., i, 183; iii, 150–9. Lenormant, , “Hist. Anc,” pp. 244–5Google Scholar. Maspero, , “Hiat. Anc,” pp. 608–27Google Scholar. For a summary of the Behistun inscription Lenormant, vide, “Hist. Anc,” ii, pp. 429–32Google Scholar.

^{271 note 3} Strabo, xvi, c. 1, § 9. Lassen, , “Ind. Alt.,” ii, p. 601Google Scholar.

^{271 note 4} Herod., i, 196.

^{page 271 note 5} The date of the foundation of Gerrha is uncertain, but it must have been after the Persians conquered Babylon. —Lassen, , “Ind. Alt.,” ii, p. 601Google Scholar. In all probability it was after Darius had reconquered Babylon, in 488 b.c., and thrown down its walls. —Lenormant, , “Hist. Anc,” p. 244Google Scholar; Strabo, xvi, c. 3, § 3.

^{page 271 note 6} Strabo, xvi, c 1, § 5. After the foundation of Seleucia few of the inhabitants remained except the priests and attendants of the temple of Bel (Paus., i, c. 16, § 3). In ancient times the temples were the last buildings left intact in a deserted city.

^{page 272 note 1} A summary of the Indian trade with Arabia will be found in Lassen, , “Ind. Alt.,” ii, pp. 581–4 and 593–6Google Scholar.

^{page 272 note 2} Herod., iv, 44; Maspero, “Hist. Anc,” p. 618; Lenormant, , “Hist. Anc,” ii, p. 484Google Scholar. The fleet of Darius was manned by a mixed crew (like the fleets of Sennacherib and Alexander), and it took thirty months to reach Arabia. The account written by Scylax of Karyanda, a countryman of Herodotus, who sailed with the expedition, was well known. Aristotle and Strabo refer to it. Herodotus goes on to say that after the expedition Darius used this sea, a fact which would imply that it was not used by the regular traders of Gerrha, Mouza, and India, who had the Indian trade entirely in their hands and were outside the Persian Empire.

^{page 272 note 3} Forthe sufferings of the fleet with Nearchus, vide Arrian, “Indika,” c. xxvi–xxxii. The voyage occupied about five months.

^{page 272 note 4} “Periplus,” c. 57.

^{page 272 note 5} “Periplus,” c. 58 ad fin.

^{page 272 note 6} Arrian says (“Indika,” xliii, McCrindle's translation) that “a voyage could be made all the way from Babylon to Egypt by means of this [Persian] Gulf. But, owing to the heat and utter sterility of the coast, no one has ever made this voyage, except, it may be, some chance navigator.” The expedition sent by Alexander failed to get round the coast of Arabia, and without local pilots it was impossible to do so.

^{page 273 note 1} Arrian, , “Indika,” xxiGoogle Scholar. Pliny, (“Nat. Hist.,” vi, 23 (26))Google Scholar, after relating the yoyage of Onesicritus and Nearchus, expressly says that, although the ships of Alexander sailed along the coast, afterwards vessels never took this course, but sailed direct with the monsoon (“favonio quern hippalum ibi vocant”) from the Syagros promontory in Arabia to Patale. For Patale another port, Sigerus, was substituted, and ting route was long in fashion, until, in much later times, vessels ventured with the monsoon straight from Ocelis (at the Straits of Babelmandeb) to Muziris or Barake. Pliny says nothing of any individual called Hippalus, he knows it only as the name of a wind; and the ‘mercator’ in vi, 23–101, is used in a generic sense, and not of any special individual. Since Vincent's time many writers have accepted it for a fact that the monsoons were known long before the first century a.d. Cf. Lassen, , “Ind. Alt.,” ii, 582Google Scholar.

^{page 273 note 2} Down to the very end of the Middle Ages the voyage from Ormuz to India was rarely attempted except at the commencement or in the middle of the monsoon. At other times it was considered extremely dangerous, on account of storms. Vide ‘Abdur Razzak's narrative in SirElliot's, H. M. “Historians of India,” iv, p. 97Google Scholar.

^{page 274 note 1} “The Alphabet,” by Taylor, J., vol. ii, p. 231Google Scholar.

^{page 274 note 2} We are only now beginning to realize how great our losses are. “The few classical papyri preserved in Egyptian tombs suffice to show how the immense stores of Greek and Latin MSS. have disappeared.”—Burgon, and Miller, , “The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels,” pp. 155–8 (London, 1896)Google Scholar, and Sir E. Maunde Thompson's Greek and Latin Palaeography there referred to.

^{page 274 note 3} In Sitzungsberichte der Kais.-Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. cxxxii. Wien, 1895.

^{page 275 note 1} Bühler, , “Indian Studies,” No. iii, p. 58Google Scholar.

^{page 275 note 2} Ibid., p. 64.

^{page 275 note 3} Ibid., pp. 5–26 and 85–6.

^{page 275 note 4} As the majority of the early traders to Babylon were Dravidian, we may conjecture that the alphabet was first employed for writing Tamil; modified by the Aryans for the Prakrit; and finally adopted by the Brahmans for the Sanskrit. I understand Bishop Caldwell to assert the antiquity of Tamil letters when he says: “The art of writing [Tamil] had probably been introduced several centuries before the arrival of the Greek merchants” (“Comparative Grammar,” etc., p. 67).

^{page 275 note 5} For the evidence vide SirCunningham's, A. “Coins of Ancient India,” pp. 52–3Google Scholar. The bas-reliefs at Bodh Gaya and Bharhut representing the story of the Jetavana garden are well known. Photographs of them form the frontispiece to Sir A. Cunningham's work; and a larger photograph is given by way of frontispiece to his Bharhut.

^{page 276 note 1} Cunningham, , “Ancient Coins,” etc., pp. 55 and 58Google Scholar.

^{page 276 note 2} Private coinage of copper was also known under the Mahomedans. Ziāu-d dīn Barni says of Muhammad hin Tughlik Shāh that “he introduced his copper money, and gave orders that it should be used in buying and selling. The promulgation of this edict turned the house of every Hindu into a mint, and the Hindus of the various provinces coined krors and lacs of copper coins. With these they paid their tribute,” etc.—“The History of India as told by its own Historians,” by Sir H. M. Elliot and Professor Dowson, vol. iii, p. 240.

^{page 276 note 3} “Memoir of Central India,” by SirMalcolm, J., vol. ii, p. 80Google Scholar; London, 1823. I am indebted to Mr. Rapson for the reference.

^{page 276 note} Ibid., vol. ii, p. 84.

^{page 277 note 1} Cunningham, , “Ancient Coins,” etc., pp. 63–4Google Scholar.

^{page 277 note 2} Bühler's, “Indian Studies,” No. iii, p. 47Google Scholar.

^{page 277 note 3} Ibid., p. 46.

^{page 277 note 4} Cunningham, , “Ancient Coins,” etc., p. 42Google Scholar.

^{page 277 note 5} British Museum Guide to the Nimroud Central Saloon, 1886, p. 124.

^{page 278 note 1} Perrot, and Chipiez, , “History of Art in Persia,” Eng. trans., p. 458. London, 1892Google Scholar.

^{page 278 note 2} British Museum Guide to the Nimroud Central Saloon, No. 79, p. 109. The translations are by Mr. T. G. Pinches. For other examples of silver shekels in the above Guide see, for the reign of Darius, No. 81, p. 110; No. 83, p. 111; No. 86, p. 112; No. 87, p. 112; No. 89, p. 113 (where ‘refined’ silver is especially opposed to ‘white,’ i.e. coined silver); No. 90, p. 114; No. 92, p. 115; No. 96, p. 117;—nine examples, commencing with the first and ending with the last year of Darius. No. 104, p. 120, is an example from the time of Xerxes, and No. 106, p. 121, from the time of Artaxerxes. Notice also how contracts which do not mention coined shekels mention ‘pure’ or ‘refined' silver, a distinction which first commences with the reign of Darius.

^{page 278 note 3} “Records of the Past,” N.S., vol. iv, p. 105.

^{page 278 note 4} British Museum Guide to the Nimroud Central Saloon, No. 92, p. 116.

^{page 278 note 5} It is generally supposed that Darius first began to issue his new coinage in 516 b.c.

^{page 279 note 1} Cunningham, “Ancient Coins of India”: for the shekel, p. 30; for the siglos, p. 47. It is immaterial to my argument whether these determinations are exact or not; they are sufficiently approximate.

^{page 279 note 2} British Museum Guide to the Nimroud Central Saloon, No. 112, p. 124.

^{page 279 note 3} The difference in size, and the rudeness and variety of the devices, are the natural result of leaving the coinage in private hands; whereas a fixed weight is necessary for the issue of any one trader to pass current with those of another in the market.

^{page 280 note 1} None of the Babylonian shekels have been preserved, and it is impossible to say what shape they had. The shape of coins must have been chiefly determined, in the first instance, by the shape of the silver ingots and the convenience of manufacture. The Lydian coins are bean-shaped ingots. The round shape of later coins was probably due to the belt which held them when punched. Silver was imported into India in the shape of silver plate (“Periplus,” c. 39), and Sir A. Cunningham has shown that the puranas were cut out of it with a chisel: “Ancient Coins,” etc., p. 43.

^{page 280 note 2} Wilkinson, , “Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,” edited by Birch, S., vol. ii, p. 245Google Scholar.

^{page 281 note 1} Cunningham, , “Ancient Coins,” etc., p. 58Google Scholar.

^{page 281 note 2} The use of private marks as a guarantee for coin among traders is illustrated by a practice still prevailing among the merchants of Mirzapur. My friend Mr. Irvine, the historian of the Moghul Empire, tells me that in Mirzapur large payments are made in bags of Rs. 1,000 each, which bear the seals of well-known merchants, and are never opened. Cunningham (“Ancient Coins,” etc., p. 49) remarks that gold-dust tied up in small bags circulates in the Western Himalayas, and Wilkinson, (“Popular Account of the Ancient Egyptians,” vol. ii, p. 149Google Scholar; London, 1871) says that the Egyptians kept golddust in sealed bags.

^{page 281 note 3} I first heard the suggestion of private coinage being anterior to official coinage from the late Dr. R. S. Poole, in the course of a lecture. Lectures have a great advantage over books as a medium for ‘happy thoughts” and unsigned ideas; much the advantage which a conditional I.O.U. has over a regular cheque.

^{page 281 note 4} It is usual in India to hand over to the silversmith a certain amount of coin, and to receive in return an equal weight of jewellery, the cost of manufacture being fixed by bargain at a certain percentage, usually from one-eighth to one-fourth, half, or even three-quarters of the whole, according to the difficulty of the work.

^{page 281 note 5} As I know from experience.

^{page 284 note 1} The Buddhist rails and their decoration are alike unique. But the method of decoration is so singular and yet so artistic that I cannot help believing the first suggestions were borrowed from abroad. The processions of bulls and other animals upon the plinth are obviously a modification of the Persian practice; the division of the coping into sculptured groups by means of floral ornament may possibly have had its origin in the lotus-divided bas-reliefs such as those which crowned the top of the staircases at Persepolis. The decoration of the uprights is the real difficulty. The decoration of these must have been originally floral; for in the earlier examples the semi-discs at top and bottom of the upright are commonly filled with floral or geometric patterns, and the central discs surround the figure-sculpture with a floral band, or else reliefs and rosettes occur on alternate rails. The origin of the scheme of decoration must therefore be sought in some scheme of floral ornament; and this, I think, may be found in rows of palmettes or semi-discs at the top and bottom of an entablature or other plain surface with rosettes in the middle. Something of the kind may sometimes be seen rudely painted on the walls of an Indian house; and I fancy that the wooden posts of the Buddhist rails were originally painted, although metal must often have been used instead of paint, on account of its durability and lustre. Metal rosettes on wood were common enough in Persia. For Fergusson's suggestion vide ‘History of Indian and Eastern Architecture,” p. 93; London, 1891. Of course, the so-called Buddhist rails were not necessarily Buddhist. Hindoos and Jains, as well as Buddhists, employed them for buildings of every kind, sacred and profane.

^{page 285 note 1} But see Fergusson's remarks on this cave in “Cave Temples of India,” by Fergusson and Burgess, p. 78; London, 1880. His explanation appears to me very far-fetched and improbable.

^{page 285 note 2} Fergusson, (“History of Indian Architecture,” pp. 202 and 618)Google Scholar has attempted to connect certain Burmese and Sinhalese dagobas with the Babylonian type, and has suggested that connecting links once existed in brick and plaster in the valley of the Ganges. Cf. also his “Cave Temples of India,” p. 34. But there are two objections: (1) Had massive buildings of solid brick, either temples or viharas, ever existed in the valley of the Ganges, they could not fail to have left their traces, as the stupas have done. (2) The Indian buildings, so far as we know (apart from the stupas, which are not buildings at all), were not solid, but hollow.

^{page 286 note 1} The earliest existing zigurats (at Mugheir and Nippur) were built by Ur-gur and Dungi (circâ 2500 b.c.), and are therefore much later than the step pyramids of Medum and Sakkarah. There was frequent communication between Egypt and Babylonia in the days of Ur-gur and his descendants, and it is sometimes supposed that the zigurats of Babylonia took their shape from the step pyramids of Egypt. But I do not think this view can be maintained. The step pyramids of Egypt were developed from the mastaba, and were exceptional. They were always tombs, and had temples in front of them. The Babylonian zigurats were never tombs, they had raised ascents, and shrines on their summits, and their form was fixed throughout the whole period of Babylonian history. The zigurats of Mugheir and Nippur are built on the ruins of temples as old as the step pyramids of Egypt, and there is no reason to believe that the Chaldaeans ever materially altered the shape of their temples. The names of the zigurats often recall the idea of a mountain, e.g. “temple of the great mount,” and kings compare their temples to hills. Thus, Kudur-Mabug says he has made a temple to the goddess Ninni (Istar) like a mountain (Hommel, , ‘Geschichte Babylon,” p. 358)Google Scholar.

^{page 287 note 1} Jhering, (“Evolution of the Aryan,” Eng. trans., p. 182)Google Scholar has no difficulty in deriving the whole of Indian architecture from Bahylon. He says that a Babylonian architect had only to despatch the necessary models and workmen in a ship or fleet for the Indian Prince to select what he required. The ancient myth-makers, with their Argo, are not a patch on the modern rationalists, with their superficiality and dogmatism, their appalling blunders, and massive ignorance. Jhering sometimes has good ideas, and I occasionally agree in his conclusions; but he repels me by his method, his absurdities and blunders.

^{page 283 note} The remains of Asoka's time show considerable skill in the use of stone, and prove that stone-work was no novelty. The imitation of wooden forms in stone does not necessarily imply a recent origin; similar imitations lasted for centuries in the Doric order and in Achaemenid architecture. The progress of the Indians was necessarily of the slowest, for Persia could supply them with scarcely any models, and they had to discover everything for themselves; so that, according to Fergusson, they took a thousand years to get rid of all traces of wooden forms. The rise of stone architecture must, therefore, be dated long before Asoka, either in the end of the fifth or beginning of the fourth century B.C. But these remarks do not apply to the western caves. The slanting pillars at Bhaja and Kondane show a very novel and rudimentary knowledge of work in stone. Not that this implies any very low stage of civilization; on the contrary, the elaborate wooden screens, and the grandeur of conception which these caves display, are proofs of a very considerable culture; and we must remember that these Dravidians had long carried on trade with Babylon, and Sabaean colonies had settled among them. But it does imply that Persian influences took some centuries to extend to the west coast, and that the intercourse between India north and south of the Nerbudda was not great.