It is difficult to lose a good story. Many of the bestfolk tales transcend the boundaries of language andnationality, and the Gilgamesh Epic, attested inHuman, Hittite, Elamite and Akkadian cuneiform, isno exception. The latest Akkadian tablets to beinscribed with the story come from the site of Urukof the late Babylonian period, some time after thefall of Babylon in 539 B.C. and perhaps as late asthe Seleurid period, after the reign of Alexanderthe Great. The story had been popular for some twothousand years. Despite this popularity in so manycountries and for such a very long period of time,the story of Gilgamesh was supposed to have diedmore or less with the death of cuneiform writing,although some residual themes were recognised invarious versions of the Alexander Romance.

It has been suggested that all historical sources aresubjective from their inception and that authors'styles, commitments and views determine the bases ofhistorical writings. Claude Lévi-Strauss hasventured so far as to claim: “Besides, historicalfact has no objective reality. It only exists as aresult of a retrospective construction undertaken bypeople who have lived the events they speak of in apurely arbitrative sense.” Indeed, historicalnarratives are fraught with danger when used assources of actual information, for factual accuracyoften does not extend to validity in representationof events. Formal histories such as dynasticchronicles were particularly vulnerable tomisrepresentation. They usually were composed eitherwith the intent of flattering the rulers who servedas patrons of the author's efforts - and, hence,reflect royal ideology and imperial propaganda - oras a means of disparaging and vilifying the royalhouse

During the fourteenth century on the Travancore coastof South India an independent Muslim sultanate wasestablished which lasted for less than half acentury, and was eventually terminated by the newlyestablished neighbouring kingdom of Vijayanagar. Theshort, brutal and enigmatic period of this sultanatehas attracted the attention of a number of modernscholars who have tried to put together its historythrough study of the coins, a few inscriptions, andthe brief, often dismissive remarks found in theNorth Indian histories, as well as, most informativeof all, the travel account of Ibn Baṭṭūṭa, whovisited the region when the power of the sultanatewas at its peak. However, none of these studiesagrees even in the number and chronology of thesultans, let alone the details of the events: aconfusion which is a direct result of the lack ofadequate information at the present time. Under thecircumstances it may appear presumptuous to embarkon a description of the architectural monuments ofthis sultanate.

As is usual in texts which were composed more aspanegyrics than as strict historical records, theepitaph inscription for Wu Liang , who diedat the age of 74 in A.D. 151, tells of his virtuesand his qualities as a scholar. But in common with anumber of famous men of ability and learning of histime, such as Zhang Heng (78–139),Ma Rong (79–166) orWang Fu (c. 90–165), Wu Liang showed apersistent reluctance to serve in an officialcapacity, preferring to devote himself to a study ofhistory and philosophy. In all probability he felt,like the others, that in the prevailing politicalcircumstances, it was not possible both to embark onan official career and to retain a measure ofpersonal integrity. Be that as it may, other membersof his family evidently felt no such scruples; hisnephew Wu Ban , forexample, was appointed to be chief clerk atDunhuang.