The subject of Tibetan seals has already been discussed in this Journal in connexion with the seal of the Dalai Lama, the reading of which was first given by Dr. Bushell in JRAS. 1906, p. 476, referring to the illustration of the seal in Colonel Waddell's Lhasa and its Mysteries, in his review of that book. But he gave no examples of the character.

The following discussion of the treatment of the Indo-Āryan nasals in Gujrātī is based on materials which I have been collecting with a view to a more complete account of the sound changes of the language, but of which circumstances have delayed the publication.

For the sake of clearness I have grouped my discussions under four separate headings, namely: (I) Punctuations, (II) Misreadings of the Chinese Text, (III) Errors in the Text itself, and (IV) Other discussions.

I feel very grateful to Mr. Suh Hu. for having read my article with such care, and for having pointed out some undoubted mistakes. Unfortunately, there are others that have escaped him, but which have been brought to my notice by my father, Professor Herbert A. Giles, and other scholars, to whom I also tender hearty thanks. In the light of these corrections it seems desirable that a revised translation of the whole text should now be published.

Meagre and disappointing as it seems, the collection of phrases and sentences that follows has been extorted from the nearly nine hundred specimens of inscribed bone and horn fragments in my possession only after close study during six years. Whether the result is worth the work and the time, it is useless now to ask. But such as they are, I have desired to put before other workers the deciphered extracts from these unusual records for two reasons. The first is that I seem to have reached the limit attainable by my own individual efforts. The second and especial reason is that if other students of Chinese would consent to devote some attention to the texts now presented and translated, I am confident that numerous difficulties would be cleared up, not a few fruitful suggestions elicited, and—it would be too foolish to think otherwise—various errors and ignorances exposed. If all or any of these consequences should follow, much needed light would fall on dark places, and some misty uncertainties be dissipated. I feel fairly convinced that there are things of real interest concealed in the legends on these objects, and I suspect also some surprises.

Ever since the exact site of Aśoka's classic capital was determined for us by the keenness and sagacity of Colonel Waddell, it has been a dream of the Government of India in the Archæological Department to subject the site of Pāṭaliputra to an examination commensurate with its importance. Colonel Waddell had, however, so abundantly demonstrated, in his trial excavations, the difficulty and costliness of extended operations here, that the dream had, until recently, appeared remote of realization. The munificence of Mr. Ratan Tata of Bombay has made the undertaking possible, and his offer of twenty thousand rupees a year, for an indefinite number of years, has enabled the Archæological Department to take up the work on a scale that would otherwise have been far beyond our resources.

On p. 111 of Ariana, Antiqua, under the heading “Tope No. 13 of Hidda”, we read as follows: “This tope is situated on the brink of a water-course, more than a mile from the village of Hidda. In our progress towards the centre we fell upon a small earthen jar, enclosing a stone wrapped in tuz-leaves. This simple deposit was perhaps the most useful that any of the many topes examined had yielded, for it was encompassed with a Bactro-Pali inscription, written with a pen, but very carelessly. Fearful that this testimony might become obliterated, or suffer in its journey from Kabul, I copied it at the time as well as I could, under the hope that, if necessary, a transcript would be serviceable.” Other references to the same find may be seen on pp. 60, 113, and 258–9.

The phrase ete ca amne ca bahukā mukhā dānavisagasi vyāpaṭā = ete ca anye ca bahukā mukhā (masc.) dānamsarge vyāpṛtāh, occurring in Pillar Edict VII–VIII, 6, is rendered by M. Senart “these functionaries and others are my intermediaries: it is they who are occupied with the distribution of my alms …” (Inscriptions de Piyadasi, ii, p. 97), and it is explained (pp. 91–2) that the employment of the word mukha is similar to that of dvāra in the sense of “means” (separate Orissa Edicts, i, 3).