The following Itinerary, or account of the route from Kashmír, viâ Leh, to Yarkand, is translated from a little Persian MS., written by Ahmed Shah Nakshahbandí, at the request of Lord Elphinstone, and presented to that nobleman at Kashmír, in July, 1846. The author, Ahmed Shah, was the son of Khájah Sháh Niyáz of Kashmīr, a man of high reputation and sanctity, who was held in great esteem by the Mohamedans of Yarkand and the surrounding countries, where he had numerous disciples. Ahmed Shah had himself visited the countries he describes, and spent some time in the chief places, his religious character and reputation giving him peculiar advantages for travelling and observing in these countries.

These notes, supplementary to the necessarily brief review of Mevrouw van Lohuizen-De-Leeuw's meritorious work, do not at all seek to revive the exhaustive discussions of 1913 or to scrutinize any subsequent contributions of fact or opinion. The aim is simply to signalize the authoress's main propositions and to record a few such provisional comments as seem relevant. In view of some tendency towards a “general opinion” a new objectively elaborated interpretation has a claim to careful consideration: and it seemed permissible to include, on a reviewer's part, one or two partly novel observations. While awaiting some new evidence of a “knock-out” kind, scholars may give attention to any serious reasonings.

In JRAS, 1964, I edited an eighth-century inscription from 'Phyong rgyas known only through its survival in a collection which once belonged to Rig-'dzin Tshe-dbang Nor-bu of Ka-thog monastery, a famous lama of the 18th century (hereafter referred to as RT). The present article is concerned with his copy of another inscription described as “at Srong-brtsan Bang-so”. That is the popular name not only for the tumulus called Bang-so dMar-po and known as that of Srong-brtsan sGam-po but also of the whole burial area near 'Phyong rgyas. The inscription comes from a pillar near the tumulus attributed to Khri IDe Srong brTsan, who reigned from c. 804–815. Professor Giuseppe Tucci, the first Western visitor to examine the royal burial ground, has edited it in his Tombs of the Tibetan kings (TTK), Rome, 1950; and in CAJ, June 1963,1 have added some information about the pillar and the burial ground as a whole as the result of a visit in 1949, not long after Professor Tucci. Describing the pillar in TTK, p. 36, Professor Tucci writes “the surface of the stone is nowadays much damaged and a great part of the inscription is effaced. The lower portion is completely gone and a few lines are underground.”

Beginning in the seventh century, the expansion of Islam brought with it an outpouring of peoples from the Arabian Peninsula. While the composition of these Islamic armies became more diverse as the religion spread through the Near East and across North Africa to Western Europe, there were clearly elements of both the urban Arabian population, of which the Prophet was a member, and the rural Bedouins, whose migrations from their original homeland continued sporadically for several centuries. This slowed during the period of Turkish hegemony, but it left a scattering of enclaves identifying themselves as ethnic Arabs throughout the Islamic world.

In comparing Japanese and Korean with each other and with other languages, there are three things to be considered: —1st, their phonetic systems; 2nd, the functions of their grammar; and 3rd, the character of their grammatical procedures.

The notices of Ibn Salama are short. Al-Nawawī (d. 1277) and Ibn Khallikān (d. 1282) make reference to him only in the biography of his son, Abū '1-Ṭaiyib, who died in 920.

Ibn Salama was a grammarian of the Kūfan school. He studied under his father, Salama ibn 'Āṣim, a friend of Al-Farrā' (d. 822) and teacher of Tha'lab (d. 904); but Yāqūt says that he departed from his father's views. The Fihrist, followed by Ibn Khallikān, says that he met Ibn al-A'rābi (d. 846) and other learned men. Yāqūt says that he studied under Ibn al-A'rābī, Tha'lab, Ibn al-Sikkīt (d. 860), and others.

In JRAS., 1932, pp. 789–814, the time of the comprehensive collection of Indian medical sciences is established approximately in the middle of the first millennium A.D. and later. In this connection a sketch of the local origin of the precepts chiefly current in the oldest Saṃhitās, which bear the names of Caraka and Suśruta (abbreviated: CaS and SuS), may be of interest. In the introduction (pp. 7–8) to his celebrated inquiry into Indian osteology, Hoernle answers this question: According to the tradition preserved in the Buddhist Jātakas, in the age of Buddha there were two great universities, Kāśi or Benares in the East, and the still more famous Takṣaśilā [the Taxila of the Greeks] on the Jhelam River in the West. Ātreya, whose doctrines are propagated in the CaS, lived at Takṣaśilā; the king of Kāśī instructed Suśruta in surgery. This would place the origin of surgery, as a science, in the Bast of India. Furthermore, Nemi, the lord of Videha (or Tirhut in the eastern province of Bihar) is regarded as the author of ophthalmic surgery.

In 1947 partition left India without a single site attributable to the Indus civilization. During the past two decades there has been a considerable extension of our knowledge, due mainly to the explorations and excavations of the Archaeological Survey of India. It now appears as though the Harappan culture spread into India in two principal directions: north-eastwards into the eastern Panjāb and across the Indo-Gangetic divide into the plains that lie between the Ganges and Jamunā rivers; and south-eastwards into Kacch and Kāṭhiāwār, and thence perhaps inland towards southern Rājāsthān and into the coastal region of Gujarāt. In the north the principal sites are at Rūpar in the Panjāb, Alamgīrpur in U.P., and Kālibangan in north Rājāsthān. In the south the principal excavated site is at Lothal on the Gulf of Cambay. In particular the extensive excavations at Kālibangan and Lothal have provided a mass of solid data relating to the Harappan settlements and series of well stratified radio-carbon dates. In 1957 S. R. Rao explored southern Gujarāt and in the light of his discoveries at a number of sites there he proposed a sequence of three stages of “Harappan” and “late Harappan” cultures. These he showed might be related to the sequence revealed by his excavations at Lothal and Rangpur in Saurāṣṭra. Rao's exploration suggested a number of interesting questions.

It is well known that Damascus was formerly celebrated all over the world for its manufacture of sword-blades, and it is recorded, that when Timúr Lang conquered Syria, in the beginning of the fourteenth century, he carried off all the manufacturers of steel into Persia; since which period, the fabrication of arms has declined at Damascus, and the successors of those workmen, being dispersed over the East, are said either to have lost the secret, or ceased to make blades of more than ordinary goodness. We must, however, first divest ourselves of all prejudice in favour of the exaggerated reports of their qualities, and remember, that at the time when the natives of the East were well acquainted with the art of working in iron and steel, we, and indeed all Europe, appear to have been comparatively in a state of perfect ignorance; the ancient swords of Damascus, therefore, when opposed to those of other countries, were probably found to be infinitely superior in temper and quality; which, combined with their great external beauty, stamped them for ages with so high a character for excellence, that they are even now handed down as heir-looms by Eastern princes to their posterity. The extraordinary prices that have been offered and obtained for them, sufficiently attest the estimation in which they were held, which is certainly not warranted in the present day, when swords of equal, or superior quality, might be manufactured at one-twentieth of the expense. In addition to the foregoing observations, the strength and great dexterity of the swordsmen must be taken into consideration, and much of the apparent superiority of these blades may be undoubtedly ascribed to this cause.

On the reliefs of the Gandhāra School, in all scenes where Gautama is shown, and thus in constant association with him, there appears a figure which has been the subject of much discussion. He is called Vajrapāṇi by reason of the thunderbolt which he either grasps by its middle, or supports on the palm of his hand. This thunderbolt is the exact copy of the weapon which Indra, or Sakka, holds; but in these sculptures it is not so much a weapon, to my mind, as it is a symbol of divine authority, which is a matter of importance for the interpretation of the figure.

SINCE, during the last few years, Si-Hia texts with transliterations into Tibetan character have been brought to light, it seems that a new aspect may be put upon the morphology of this language.

Previously the texts studied provided us only with transcriptions into Chinese characters, and it is on their evidence that reconstructions of Si-Hia words were first based. Writing in 1916 with this class of material before him, Laufer consequently stated that “consonantal prefixes can be pointed out only in four cases: k-ṅü or k-ṅu(‘five’), k-ṅum (‘heaven‘), r-ni (‘ear’), and possibly m-ru, m-lu (‘worm’)”.

“Quanta sea la aversion entre Portuguéses, y Castellânos, es cósa tan sabída, que no necessita testimónios,” wrote the Spanish Friar, Juan Francisco de San Antonio, O.F.M., in his Chronicas of the Franciscan Order in the Philippines, China, and Japan, printed at the Convent of Our Lady of Loreto, at Sampaloc, a suburb of Manila, in 1738–41 (vol. ii, book i, ch. xv, page 81). Although, like most ex-cathedra pronouncements, this sweeping statement does not hold good for all times and places, it was undoubtedly correct for the region and century with which this essay is primarily concerned.

IN my “Notes on the Śaiva Siddhāntam”, published last year in Le Muséon, I called attention to the fact that the living faith of the majority of modern Tamils is in almost every respect, and certainly in all essentials, the same doctrine that was taught in Kashmir about the beginning of the eleventh century by Abhinava-gupta; and I endeavoured to indicate what, in my opinion, the links are which join the modern theology of the South to the ancient teachings of the North, and ultimately to the school which is represented by the Śvetāśvatara Upanisad. In further illustration of this view I now present the Paramārthasāra of Abhinava-gupta.

The Periplus Marts Erythræ describes the seaports below Barygaza in the following way according to Schoff's translation: “The market-towns of this region are, in order, after Barygaza: Suppara, and the city of Calliena, which in the time of the elder Saraganus became a lawful market-town; but since it came into the possession of Sandares [an unjustified conjecture for the text's Sandanes] the port is much obstructed, and Greek ships landing there may chance to be taken to Barygaza under guard. Beyond Calliena there are other market-towns of this region; Semylla.…” Suppara is now Sopara on the coast above Bassein, Semylla is Cemūla of two inscriptions, now Chaul, and Calliena is Kalyāṇa. This last, situated at the foot of the two regular ascents of the Western Ghats leading towards Nasik and Poona respectively and with good access to the sea, was the natural outlet for the commerce of the Andhra dominions on the west coast, and the notice, just quoted, shows how its trade was stifled, as the Kṣaharātas extended their rule southwards from Broach. It is unnecessary here to consider who are the kings alluded to in this passage or in the earlier one mentioning Nambanus (a conjecture for the text's Mambarus), but clearly we are dealing with the rivalry of the Western Satraps and the Andhra kings. That the former were successful in their policy towards Kalyāṇa is shown by Ptolemy's omission of the town. The order he gives (taking Renou's text) is Souppara mouth of the River Goaris, Dounga, mouth of the River Bêndas, Semyla.

Khuddaka Páṭha, or “Lesser Readings,” is one of the books of the Buddhist Scriptures. It is the first of the fifteen divisions of Khuddaka Nikáya, and immediately precedes Dhammapada, The text which I have adopted is that of a manuscript written and collated for me by a Singhalese priest of great learning. I have compared with it the Burmese manuscript belonging to the collection presented by Sir A. Phayre to the India Office Library. This, however, I found to contain numerous clerical and other errors, and it failed to supply me with a single corrected reading.

The general injunction in the Ḳurān to “eschew evil and do good” was held sufficiently definite to be the basis of a jurisdiction distinct both from that of the Ḳaḍi and of the police (shurṭa). Māwardi contrasts its powers with those of the Ḳaḍi's court and of the Maẓālim tribunal; but it may be that in practice the distinction was of small account, for I have found no trace of the Muḥtasib's authority ever being called in question, nor indeed much definite trace of its exercise. The wide and minute range of its duties should have made it an important factor in commercial life, but perhaps in this, as in other fields, Māwardi's work includes theory unsupported by much practice.

With advancing knowledge of the Iranian language of the Sakas of Khotan, it has proved possible to establish the connections of several words hitherto misunderstood and to separate some words which have been confused.

One of the chief difficulties which I have to encounter in the study of Old-Javanese manuscripts consists in the faulty spelling introduced by the Balinese transcribers. The Balinese language is not closely related to Javanese, the latter being a foreign language in. Bali. Only a few words are identical in both languages, while many others have in each case a more or less different form. Thus, the Old-Jav. nyû, cocoanut, is nyuh in Balinese; hence, the Balinese transcribers, finding the word nyû in a Kawi composition, change it into nyuh. Again, being unable in their own language to distinguish between u, wu and hu, all three being pronounced u, they write promiscuously uçinâra, huçinâra, wuçinâra, as well as hûçinâra or wûçinâra, so that it is difficult to say which is really the Kawi form of this name. The metre sometimes helps us in settling the spelling of a word, but this can only be in the poems called Kĕkawin (from Kawi, poet), the metre of which is essentially Indian and is regulated by long and short syllables; but, clearly, not in the poems called Kiḍung, wherein the metre is regulated by rhyme and the number of syllables. The Kiḍung are of far greater interest than the Kĕkawin, the latter being simply imitations from the Sanskrit, containing nothing about ancient Javanese life, whereas the Kiḍung, on the other hand, supply us with valuable particulars in this respect. It is, therefore, a matter of regret that the manuscripts are so faulty.