The Arab writers who describe for us the intercourse of the early Arabs with the Turks of Turan speak of the former as Afrasiyabi Turks, and the dynasty as the Afrasiyabi dynasty. They identify them apparently with the earliest Turks of whom we have any record under that name, who apparently dominated the steppes north of Mavera-un-Nehr from the middle of the sixth century, and with whom they associate an heroic figure named Afrasiyab. Their capital and metropolis was a famous city situated on the river Chui, called Belasaghun, and they also acquired authority— we do not know exactly when—over Kashgar and the district round it. These Khans also dominated over the more nomadic Turks in their neighbourhood, who were divided into several sections, such as the Karluks, the Kankalis, the Kipchaks, etc.

Exact investigation, assisted by some recent fortunate discoveries, has proved that the reputed identifications of many of the ancient sites famous in early Indian history are beyond doubt erroneous. Almost every such identification requires to be submitted to searching criticism before it can be accepted as correct. If any ancient site could be regarded as satisfactorily identified, that of the city of Kauśāmbī might apparently be so regarded. Nevertheless, the current belief is mistaken.

The recent discoveries in Nepāl associated with the name of Dr. Fuhrer, Archaeological Surveyor in the employment of the Government of India, may lead at an early date to a revival of interest in the life of the historical Buddha, distinguished generally by the names Gautama and Sakyamuni, and in the district in which he is supposed to have been born.

Since the discovery of the pillar at the Lumbinī Garden commemorating the birthplace of Gautama Buddha considerable curiosity has been aroused concerning the different mounds, or koṭs as they are locally called, which occur dotted over the tract extending from Kapilavastu on the north-west and the Lumbinī Garden on the north-east in Nepalese territory to a distance of several miles southwards inside the British frontier.

Vasco da Gama, though not a man of words, was, as Camoens says, a man of strenuous deeds, and it is for the sake of his deeds, and of the results which during four centuries have flowed from them, that we are now commemorating him. We celebrate in him the man whose courage and perseverance gave India to Europe and to England, and who, all unknowingly, was, with Columbus and Magellan, one of the three men who saved the Europe of the Renaissance and of the Reformation from being laid in ruins by Turkish tyranny seconded by French treachery. Had not Columbus and Da Gama, twenty years before the battle of Mohacs and the successes of Barbarossa in the Mediterranean, bestowed upon Spain and Portugal the riches of Asia and America, Charles V could never have hurled back from the German frontiers and the Italian coasts the all but overwhelming inrush of the hordes of Suleiman the Magnificent. But what could the defenders of Christendom have done save for the coffers of the Fuggers and the Welsers, of the bankers of Antwerp and the bankers of Genoa? and whence did these derive their wealth but from the newly-opened Spice Islands of the East and the new-found gold-mines of the West? By discovering the sea road to India, Vasco da Gama made Lisbon and Antwerp the emporia of the world. In 1517 the Turks conquered Egypt, and thus closed the last of the roads along which the world's wealth had of old passed from East to West.

In the Journal of this Society for July, 1897 (pp. 628–641), an interesting communication was made by Mr. J. F. Hewitt regarding the existence of a real community of ownership in land, among the earliest Kolarian and Dravidian village settlers. I had hoped to see this followed up by some further local and other details, as the matter is one of great importance, and one that cannot be elucidated except by the aid of such special local knowledge as Mr. Hewitt, from his long residence on the Central Provinces and in Chutiya Nāgpur, undoubtedly possesses.