I have attempted, in the lists which accompany this paper, to collect and classify all discoveries of Roman coins made in India during the last century and a half, which have been regularly recorded in English scientific publications; adding to them some remarks on finds which, though not so published, it is impossible for me to ignore, since they came under my own observation. It is perhaps hardly necessary for me to enter on an elaborate explanation of the reasons why such tabulated information may be held to be of value, seeing that obviously, if the lists are accurate and exhaustive, a classification such as this assumes the nature of an index to a volume, or, as in the present case, to a very large number of volumes.

The object of this essay is not so much to propound a new theory of my own, as to draw more prominent attention to one put forth by Mr. Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar in two papers contributed by him to the Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1903. They are entitled Gūrjaras and Epigraphic Notes and Questions, No. III. Stated quite briefly, the theory is that the well-known ‘ Kings of Mahodaya ’ were Gūrjaras. Mr. Bhandarkar does not claim the whole credit of it for himself. Much of his material, as he himself admits, has been drawn by him from the Bombay Gazetteer. But he has added to it new material and fresh points of view, and worked up the whole into a consistent theory. To me it appears that, in the main, the theory is sound, and throws unexpected light on a period of Indian history until now very dark. I will first briefly explain the main positions of the theory, as I gather them from the two papers above referred to: the evidence, in detail, must be read in the papers themselves. Next, I shall set out, in detail, such further particulars as a closer examination of the contemporary records of that period appears to me to yield, partly in corroboration, partly in modification of Mr. Bhandarkar's theory.

The sources whence have come all the coins and seals obtained in Seistan are the extensive ruins situated to the east of the Helmand, in Afghan Seistan, which it has not been possible to explore thoroughly.

The following is a description of the coins referred to in Mr. Tate's article which appears in the present number of the Journal, pp. 663–672.

The following coins were sent by Mr. Tate, together with those described by Professor Rapson in the preceding article:—

Khalif coins of Taimarah mint are rare, but one of the year 94 is given in Tiesenhausen, No. 402.

While I celebrate (my sacrifice) I invite (in this announcement) the Creator, Aūharmazd: [I invite Him to this Yasna sacrifice; and I will invite Him continuously on. That is to say, I would now make the beginning of it, and I (will) complete it, that is, I will perform its conclusion].

The explanation was given that the word Sakastana stands for Śakasthāna, with the use of the dental s for the palatal Ś, and with omission of the aspiration in the th (page 528). The word was thus taken to mean ‘the country of the Śakas,’ with, however, the observation that “the insertion of the “whole country of the Śakas in this list is remarkable, as “a similar case is not known” (page 530). And the deduction was made that the princes mentioned in these records, including the Mahachhatrava Rajula and his son the Chhatrava Śuḍasa, were “Śaka Satraps of Mathurā” (page 531).

While going over Messrs. Sinclair and Ferguson's able translation of the “Travels of Pedro Teixeira,” recently (1902) published by the Hakluyt Society, I have noticed that several names of places on the Indo-Chinese Peninsula have been left unidentified. As they all are important for historical geography, I venture to hope that the following short notes on them may prove acceptable to those who take an interest in the subject.

In the discussion lately held as to how far Sanskrit was a spoken language, I drew attention to the points of resemblance which existed between the so-called ‘Dard’ languages and the language employed by Aśōka in the Shāhbāzgaṛhī inscription. During the past few months I have been examining all these languages with considerable minuteness, and hope to publish the results of my studies after a reasonable period. In the meantime I have been pressed to give further details regarding the connection between ‘Dard’ and Shāhbāzgaṛhī. I therefore submit the following list of phonetic parallels. I have taken the Shb. examples entirely from M. Senart's analysis of the Kapur di Giri inscription in the Indian Antiquary, vol. xxi (1892), pp. 8 ff. As for the ‘Dard’ examples, I intend them to be taken as preliminary to my more extended account which I hope to publish at a future date. I must therefore ask leave to make a few explanatory statements in anticipation. Miklosich and Pischel have shown reasons for assuming that these ‘Dard’ languages are modern representatives of the old Paiśācī Prākrit described by Hēma-candra. My researches have amply corroborated this suggestion, and I now call these languages, not ‘Dard’ (which is an unsuitable name), but ‘Modern Paiśācī.’ It will be noticed that I sometimes refer derivations to the Avesta, and sometimes to Sanskrit.

Ahitherto, I believe, unknown collection of Jātakas, bearing the above title, is to be found in the Tanjur (Mdo, xcii, foll. 1–229). It is, as may be seen, a work of considerable extent, though the number of the stories is no more than thirty-five, in three decades plus five. The detailed examination of this probably not uninteresting work may be left to those who devote special attention to this class of writings. But I may here collect the facts recorded concerning the author, and append the commencement of the book, the titles of the stories, and the colophons, together with as adequate a translation of these as I can provisionally present. The folio numbers given in the margin refer to the India Office edition and (when in brackets) the ‘ red’ edition of St. Petersburg.