Previous dictionaries of Jewish Aramaic (JA) have pursued practical rather than strictly linguistic aims and tried to include lexical material from the whole of Rabbinic literature written in East and West Aramaic as well as in post-Biblical Hebrew. Given that (1) Rabbinic literature is thoroughly infused with Hebrew passages and words commonly used in JA, (2) that the Jewish literary ‘diglossia’ in (East and West) Aramaic may even have developed into ‘pentaglossia’ (i.e. two spoken and literary Aramaic dialects and Hebrew), (3) and that Jewish copyists were more used to the language of the Talmudic Babylonian Aramaic (TBA) and altered many original Palestinian forms accordingly—to mention just three main reasons—it is obvious that earlier lexicographers of JA were entangled in a complex of problems which they were forced to solve practically rather than linguistically. Their works will stand as the great achievements of JA lexicography before the later classifications of JA dialectology took effect.

The Altmeister of Aramaic studies, Th. Nöldeke, who is quoted by Michael Sokoloff, author of this first dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (JPA), said more than a century ago:

One could doubt the propriety of a dictionary of the entire old Rabbinic literature. Namely, it is anathema for linguists to find Hebrew and Aramaic together in one lexicon. But on the other hand, this entire literature, as diverse as it is, stands together.

In the mid eighth century, towards the end of the Umayyad regime, a major earthquake occurred in Palestine and the East, of which we know from Christian, Jewish and Muslim sources. Archaeologists relate to destruction by this earthquake layers in several sites, such as Jerusalem, Gerasa in Arabia, and sites mostly along the Jordan valley, among them Kh. Mefjer near Jericho, Pella, Capernaum, Sussita-Hippos, and recently, Bet Shean-Scythopolis (see below).

The exact date of this earthquake is controversial; some scholars date it to 746, others to 747 or 748, In 1960, M. Margaliot suggested that the earthquake took place in 749. In this article we present new archaeological and numismatic evidence in support of this later date (see below p. 234, and pl.II).

The flourishing of Ṣūfism in al-Andalus during the first half of the sixth/twelfth century with mystics like Ibn al-‘Arīf, Ibn Barrajān (who both died in 536/1141) and Ibn Qasī(d. 546/1151) has been interpreted in different ways. For M. Asín Palacios it reflects the influence of the mystical tradition initiated by Ibn Masarra in the second half of the third/ninth century, although he himself does not fail to mention the impossibility of providing evidence for such influence. For other scholars, it was mainly due to the influence of al-Ghazālī's works and thought. D. Urvoy, for his part, has shown how in the ‘image’ of Andalusian Islam during the fifth/eleventh-seventh/thirteenth centuries presented by scholars like Ibn Bashkuwāl and Ibn al-Abbār, Ṣūfism appears to be almost non existent. The question of what religious, intellectual and sociopolitical background allowed figures like Ibn al-‘Arīf, Ibn Barrajān and Ibn QasīT to appear, is still to be answered.

The main purpose of this two-part essay is to reconsider the interpretation Western scholarship has generally placed on the Akhbārī/Uṣūlī confrontation in Twelver Shī‘ism. To this end, Part 1 (BSOAS, LV, 1, 1991, 22–51) presented an edition and translation of the relevant section of ‘Abdallāh al-Samāhijī's twelfth/eighteenth-century treatise, ‘Munyat al-Mumārisīn’. The importance of this text to the present discussion is twofold. First, Western scholars have considered this treatise to be a summary of the main points of Akhbārī/Uṣūlī disagreement, the Akhbārī element generally being understood as having been given its earliest discrete form only a century earlier by Muḥammad Amīn al-Astarābādī; and secondly, discussion of al-Samāhijī's treatise has relied primarily on an abridged version of the text written nearly two centuries later.

A large number of bronze musical instruments of the Shang and Zhou periods (thirteenth–ninth centuries B.C.E.) which display pronounced regional characteristics have been unearthed in south China. As systematic research on these was relatively late in getting under way, their importance in terms of archaeology and the history of music has not yet been nearly sufficiently recognized. Many divisions remain among scholars on issues of typology, periodization and the origins of yongzhong bells, and on the question of the relationship of these artifacts to central plains culture. In this article I intend to discuss my own views on these questions.

The challenge of establishing the chronology of the early Zhou dynasty, especially the date of the Zhou Conquest of Shang, periodically arouses the intense interest of scholars. Down the centuries interest in the general problem has revived whenever advances in calendrical, astronomical, or textual knowledge seemed to offer the promise of a breakthrough. Extraordinary efforts have repeatedly been brought to bear, but until quite recently little progress was achieved in verifying benchmarks prior to 841 B.C., a date already regarded as secure in the time of Sima Qian toward the end of the second century B.C.

This paper is part of an ongoing investigation into the nature of grammatical relations in the Sino-Tibetan language family. The ultimate goal of this investigation is to develop a hypothesis on the typological nature of word order and grammatical relations in the mother language which gave rise to all of the many languages within the Sino Tibetan language family. As the verb agreement (pronominalization) systems of Tibeto-Burman have been said to be a type of ergative marking, and to have been a part of Proto-Tibeto-Burman grammatical relations, the questions of the dating and nature of the agreement systems in Tibeto-Burman are relevant to the discussion of the nature of grammatical relations in Proto-Sino-Tibetan.

The purpose of this Note is to make available to scholars the text of a new letter by Sir William Jones (1746–94) to Richard Johnson (1753–1807), recently discovered in an antiquarian book and manuscript catalogue issued in 1924 by Maggs Brothers, the London dealers, and otherwise unpublished and unrecorded.

Johnson, an important though neglected figure in the history of the British ‘discovery’ of Hinduism, held a number of influential posts within the East India Company's administration during his sojourn in India from 1770 to 1790. But it is for his investigations into Indian literature and music, including his substantial and important collection of Indian miniatures and Persian and Sanskrit manuscripts, that he deserves to be better known.