Some time ago, while discussing the date of the enthronement of the Kushite king Irikeamannote, the author of this article revised one of the indications of his so-called Great Inscription. Let me remind you that this indication at one time suggested that the mentioned king was for some time the co-ruler of his predecessor, Talahamani (1). The special significance of this evidence lies in the fact that of all the examples-very controversial in general, which are based on the long-standing hypothesis of M. F. McAdam about the existence of such a practice in Kush, just the given one looks the most plausible. The final solution to the problem would allow us to answer the fundamentally important question - whether the joint rule of kings in ancient Sudan was really possible.

The problem, however, is complicated by the fact that the corresponding fragment is a handwritten copy of the Large Inscription Irikeamannote (= Kawa IX), which was published by McAdam in 1949. (2) and which still serves as the main source for its study, raises serious doubts, as well as the photo that supports it. Of course, the best way to test these doubts would be to re-examine the body itself in situ at the so-called T Temple in Kava. However, after a report on this topic was published in the materials of the Turin Congress of Egyptology (3), the author, thanks to the kind assistance of his British colleagues, became aware that the original Large Inscription is practically no longer available: the sanctuary is almost completely covered with sand since the last excavations (1935-1936), and new ones in the foreseeable future not planned.

Another possibility of verification could be provided by the material used at one time by McAdam himself in the preparation of the"Temples of Kava". This may have been preserved in the archives of the Griffith Institute, where McAdam's work was published. In addition, it was the Griffiths who played the main role in the archaeological research of the Kava monuments [4]. In response to the request sent, a response was received from Dr. J. Malek, who confirmed the availability of relevant documentation in the archive. The response paid particular attention to the prints of the Large Inscription kept in the archive,

The author wishes to express his deep appreciation to Dr. J. Malek, Curator of the Archives at the Griffith Institute (Oxford), Dr. S. Querck, Assistant Curator at the W. M. F. Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology (London), and Dr. D. Welsby, Assistant Curator in the Department of Egyptian Antiquities at the British Museum (London), for your friendly assistance at all stages of the work carried out in preparation for publication of the material discussed in this article. The following words of gratitude are addressed to the International Scientific Foundation for financial support that made possible the author's research in Oxford in 1994-1995, as well as to the Dromos Shopping Center for technical assistance to his work in Moscow.

1. Vinogradov A. K. On the alleged co-rule of Amanneteyerike and Talahamani // Meroe. Issue 1. Moscow, 1989, pp. 64-72 (cf. Politicheskaya organizatsiya obshchestva Kusha [Political organization of the Kush society]. Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 1983, pp. 56-63).

2. Macadam M. F. L. The Temples of Kawa. V. I. The Inscriptions, Text, Plates. L., 1949. PI. 17-21 (photocopy), 22-26 (handwritten copy).

3. Vinogradov A.K. On the Supposed Coregency of Irikeamannote with Talakhamani // VI Congresso Intern, di Egittologia. Atti. V. I. Torino, 1992. P. 635-641.

4. It is worth recalling that it was Griffith who led the archaeological survey (1929-1930) and the work in Kava during the first excavation season (1930-1931), and N. Griffith, after his death, directed (while remaining in England) the work of the second expedition (1935-1936), headed by L. P. Kerven.

page 107

which Dr. Malek himself reasonably considered the most important evidence and the existence of which came as a complete surprise to me (5). The letter was kindly accompanied by a photocopy of the text fragment under discussion (stb. 21), accompanied by a drawing made from it (see below, Fig. 3 and note 22).

The photocopy, while not clear in itself (a common problem when working with print photographs), seemed to confirm some of the criticisms made earlier, leaving some uncertainty about others, but in any case it was different from the version presented in McAdam's publication. The reasons for the discrepancies were anyone's guess, and as a result, the matter became even more complicated. It became obvious that the solution to the problem could only be helped by studying the de visu material stored at the Griffith Institute.

By a favorable combination of circumstances, this opportunity presented itself to the author in 1994. At first, the main task was to find an answer to the questions raised in previous articles on the hypothesis of the co-rule of King Irikeamannote with his predecessor, the topic of which was undoubtedly interesting (I want to believe, not only for the author of the present lines) and important, but still private. Soon, however, new perspectives opened up in terms of studying the entire monument as a whole, and this is actually even more important.

It should be emphasized that the Large inscription from the Temple of T in Kava occupies a very special place among the written monuments of ancient Sudan. Narrative material from Kush is generally very scarce. To date, no more than about two dozen royal stelae are known, mostly very brief. The large inscription from the Temple of T is one of the longest (126 columns) local chronicles (second in length, it seems, only to the text of the famous Victory Stele of King Piankha from Gebel Barkala). For this reason alone, it deserves the closest attention of researchers. However, of course, not so much the volume as the content of the text itself (with all the losses due to annoying destruction) makes the Large inscription an invaluable source for studying the history and culture of the oldest center of civilization in Africa after Egypt.

In general, the text is devoted to the events of the beginning - the first year and a half of the reign of Irikeamannote, but first of all it tells about the circumstances of his coming to power. An exceptional value is attached to the text, probably based on fresh memories, by the story of the enthronement: about the election of the tsar by the army and his subsequent legitimation in the main sanctuaries of the country (stb. 3-21). Significantly expanding our understanding of the political structure of Kush, it serves as a remarkable addition to the evidence of the Stele of the election of King Aspelta, which has long been considered the main source on this topic. Undoubtedly unique are the numerous historical and "ethnographic" data contained in the Large Inscription, for example, a report about the participation of the king (along with his relatives, courtiers and army) in the clearing of the sand-covered temple of Amun (stb. 64-79) or a story about the paradoxical, "charitable" distribution of the loot captured by" His Majesty's army " from the invading "rebels" (stb. 21-33) (6). The names of the subject peoples found in the Large Inscription, as well as the regions visited by the tsar during his inaugural tour of the country, serve as important material for reconstructing the political and administrative structure of Kush and are of great importance for studying the problems of toponymy. By the way, it should be mentioned that it is in this text that the earliest example of the use of the toponym BArAwA "Meroe" is attested (Fig. I) (7) - the name of the city, which later (especially in the ancient tradition) became the name of the city.

5. The only hint (as is only now becoming clear) could be found in McAdam's reference to an unsuccessful "attempt to produce more perfect prints in 1935" (Op. cit. I. P. 51), from which it would be possible to conclude that less perfect ones already existed.

6. См. Vinogradov A.K. Some Notes on the Account of Kawa IX, Cols. 21-33 // VI Intern. Conference for Nubian Studies. Abstracts of Communications / Ed. Dehlin R., Hagg T. Bergen, 1986. P. 136- 137.

7. Drawing of the fragment of stb. 5 was made by the author from a photocopy of the reverse side of the impression KS I. 1,

page 108

Figure 1. First historical mention of the city of Meroe (Kawa IX, stb. 5) (scale 1 : 2)

Figure 2. Typical working marks (traces of reconstruction and comments on the state of the monument) in the" margins " of the drawing

It became a household name for the entire civilization in the middle part of the Nile Valley, and in recent times it has served as the basis for the term "meroistics", denoting the discipline that studies this civilization of ancient Sudan.

In philological terms, the inscription is no less interesting than in historical terms. Stylistically, it is not as perfect as some of the earlier local Egyptian - language monuments-especially those that date back to the Kushite period in Egypt and were probably made by the Egyptians. Nevertheless, both from the point of view of grammar and graphics (spelling and palaeography), the text looks much better than, for example, the annals of the kings who are already closest in time, Khorsiotef

made in 1931 by the Griffith expedition. Published with the kind permission of the Griffith Institute.

page 109

and Nastasen, and even with the later texts of Irikeamannote himself. With this in mind, it can be argued that the Large Inscription from the Temple of T in Kava is the last of the narrative written monuments of Kush that can now be read with relative reliability. It thus represents a kind of borderline milestone that closes an entire period. The inscription is interesting because it already contains a noticeable number of grammatical and, especially, graphic (orthographic and palaeographic) deviations from classical norms. In part, they reflect general trends in the development of the Egyptian language itself, which is confirmed by comparison with the actual Pharaonic written monuments. However, a significant part of the deviations are those in which, it seems, one can see the influence of the peculiarities of thinking and language of the Kushites themselves. Such examples are especially valuable, since little is known about the Meroitic language itself (although the script that served it seems to have been deciphered). In the absence of bilinguals who would make it possible to understand the text written in Meroitic script, the interspersed " barbarisms "in the Egyptian-language texts of Kush could possibly serve as a kind of" bridge " between the two languages. From this point of view, the Large inscription is of exceptional value, since the main part of the text - the narrative background itself, on which the mentioned deviations are revealed, is still quite understandable, which can no longer be said about the monuments of even the closest successors of Irikeamannote.

And yet, despite the importance of the inscription, it is by no means well-studied. This is even evidenced by the fact that in the research literature it is traditionally referred to as a "stele", although in reality it is an inscription on the inner wall of the temple (8), written out, moreover, in columns, and not lines - contrary to the prevailing opinion in the literature (9). The misunderstandings noted above, as well as others, The fact that the Irikeamannote inscription has not yet been properly published is undoubtedly the reason why it is so much more important than the actual text itself. This is one of the last major written monuments of Kush (along with the Nastasen Stele), facsimile reproduction of which is absent, despite the fact that the copies of it (autographic and photographic) placed in the Macadam edition are a series of small and not always clear pictures.

When I started working in the archive, I intended to study the print of stb. 21, and also hoped to get access to the photographs that McAdam used in the preparation of the Temples of Kava. The reality has exceeded all expectations. Related to the excavations in Kava (more precisely, to the project "Oxford excavations in Nubia") the archive material consists of two parts. The first one includes a variety of documentation: field diaries, correspondence of expedition leaders with various officials (regarding the organization of excavations, distribution of finds, etc.), as well as drafts and prints of published reports. The second part consists of illustrative materials: prints of some written monuments from the temples of Kava, an extensive series of negatives on glass plates, four photo albums and an impressive stack of individual images, as well as a large package with the label: "Kava. Handwritten copy of inscription IX (= Makadam, Kava, I, Tables 22-26)".

Assuming that the" handwritten copy "could hardly be anything other than the materials already published in the Temples of Kava, I decided to start with the evidence of less familiar ones, first of all-with prints. Among them were copies of several stelae of the kings of Taharqa, Anlamani, and Ari, published by Macadam; the bulk of them were reprints of a Large Inscription, probably the same ones that the publisher mentions in his preface, complaining of their quality, and which have since been fully preserved.

8. "Inscribed as graffito in Temple T, Hypostyle Hall, E.wall, S. side" (Macadam. Op. cit. I. Text. P. 50).

9. The situation has changed somewhat in recent times with the appearance of a new translation of the Large Inscription made by R. H. Pierce (Fontes Historiae Nubiorum. V. II / Ed. Eide T., Hagg T., Pierce R. H? Torok L. Bergen, 1996. P. 400-428). The dependence on the McAdam edition remains, however, very noticeable.

page 110

disappeared from the researchers ' field of vision. Made on 72 sheets of paper (of varying size and quality), they appeared at first glance to be nothing more than a collection of fragments. Only later it was discovered that they reproduce the entire text in full.

When studying prints, the fragment I was looking for was found in three (!) versions at once (I was already familiar with one thanks to the photocopy sent), as it appeared at the junction of three adjacent sheets (10). Despite the differences between the copies (which seem to be due to purely technical reasons), they seem to be quite consistent with each other, while at the same time differing from the version in McAdam's publication. Full clarity, however, could not be obtained, as the damage was more serious than can be judged from the handwritten copy in the "Temples of Kava" (11). A number of discrepancies, though not always significant, were further revealed by a cursory review of other sheets, and the question arose as to which copy was more trustworthy. Since the handwritten copy was eventually preferred when publishing, this could mean that it was considered more accurate.

Believing that a comparison of copies with a photograph could solve the problem (I recall that McAdam himself called for such verification in the preface to his publication) [12], I turned to photo albums. The latter initially contained, apparently, all the photographs taken on the way to Kava and during field reconnaissance (1929-1930), as well as during the first field season (1930-1931). Unfortunately, my search was not very successful. In one of the albums, it was only possible to find a place where, judging by the captions, a series of five photos (13) representing the inscription Irikeamannote was once placed. There were a lot of empty spaces in the albums: each of them (as in our case) was "reserved" with the appropriate signature and number, which referred, as it became clear later, to the corresponding negative. There were two possibilities: to view the impressive stack of scattered photographs and to study the collection of negatives, and in both cases it was not possible to find any inventory.

The search in both directions was futile. The collection of photos consists, as it turned out, of duplicates and/or samples of those cards that are presented in albums. There were no wanted copies among them. As for the plate-negatives, only the place where five negatives of the Large Inscription were once located was found: this was evidenced by a gap in the numbers that turned out to be identical to those found in the album (14). The negatives themselves, like all the prints made from them, disappeared without a trace.

Without much hope of success, I finally turned to the item listed in the archive inventory as a " handwritten copy." Contrary to the label (which seems to be very old), the copy turned out to be a pencil drawing of the entire text, made in full size on 12 sheets of translucent synthetic fabric. It certainly should have served as the basis for a facsimile reproduction of the inscription (which was made from all the other written monuments from Kava), since at the very beginning of the copy (in the upper quarter of sheet 1), the signs were even circled in ink.

However, the discovery of this new evidence only increased the number of questions: neither the author of this copy, nor the time of its production, nor the reason why it remained unpublished were known. It might have been the same drawing that McAdam mentions in passing in his preface as having "become unusable."-

10. Kawa Squeezes: I. 8; I. 14; I. 16 + I. 17 (the latter is a part-upper-left corner-of the previous one, so both are considered as a single sheet here).

11 See note 21 below.

12. Macadam. Op. cit. I. Text. P. XVI.

13. Album entitled " Vol. II", pp. 109-111. Signatures mistakenly refer to a large inscription in the " 11th Yard. The inner (part) (instead of: "Hypostyle Hall" - LV) of the Temple T", which was. apparently, the original ("pre-Kerven"?) identification of this part of the building.

14. (Collection of negatives) Ncg. 216-218.

page 111

A.V.) under the influence of the sun and sand" (15). However, in this case, attempts to turn the drawing into facsimiles would require an explanation, which left traces and which could probably appear only at the final stage of the work and, therefore, after reading from the original. In the drawing, numerous small lacunae, dents and partial damage to the characters were identified, which are also visible on the prints, but are not present in the handwritten copy in the "Temples of Kava". Based on this, it would be possible to conclude that the drawing was made later than the handwritten copy, which, therefore, contains a more complete version, which is probably why the publisher eventually preferred it. However, in other cases, on the contrary, signs that are quite clearly visible on the drawing (and impressions) are shown in the handwritten copy as damaged or even missing! Hence, contrary to the previous assumption, it seems to follow that both first copies preceded the handwritten reproduction.

The solution to this problem, however, was facilitated by numerous pencil notes made in the "margins": they concerned the reconstruction of the text in places of damage, as well as the degree of preservation of the monument (for example: "now destroyed"," not preserved", etc.). Some notes are signed with the initials VS (Battiscom Gunn), others are accompanied by the letters F. L. G. (Frances Llewellyn Griffith), apparently this is a reference to the researcher's opinion (16). Most of the comments, however, are anonymous. To identify the handwriting, we needed samples of the letter, and it seemed logical to look for them in the expedition archive.

Two field notebooks, the so - called "Blue Book" and "Red Book" (17), related to the 1930-1931 season, attracted attention in the first place. The first of these, according to the headline written on the first page in McAdam's handwriting (which was confirmed by his signature), was "Griffith's dictated description of the site." Nothing that would help answer these questions was found here. A real surprise was waiting in the "Red Book". As a kind of illustrative supplement to the previous one, it contained handwritten reproductions of all the texts from Kava that McAdam discovered that season and subsequently published. There was also a copy (already the fifth in a row) of a Large inscription from the Temple of T. As in other cases, there was no indication of when it was made, but this time it was possible to establish this with a certain degree of reliability: all previous copies in this notebook were accompanied by notes about the time of manufacture and reconciliation with the original version.

The copyist's hieroglyphic handwriting was significantly different from the one presented in the published version in the Temples of Kava. Upon further "investigation" , I was able to establish that Griffith himself was the author of reproductions in the "Red Book", as well as hieroglyphic quotations in the "Blue Book", which were recorded under his dictation (according to McAdam's clarification) by N. Griffith, his wife.

It was this identification of handwriting that proved to be the key point in the "investigation", as it allowed us to determine the authorship of existing lists of Large Inscriptions and comments on the "margins"of the Oxford drawing. After that, a close study of all existing versions of the text was undertaken, with particular attention to discrepancies, which made it possible to determine their chronological sequence and establish what could be called a "hierarchy of trust".

Griffith's copy from the Red Book is obviously the earliest and was probably made shortly after the inscription was discovered (early February 1931). This seems to have been only a preliminary list, since the author seems to have been the first to make it.,

15. Macadam. Op. cit. I. Text. P. XVI.

16. This is indicated, in particular, by the fact that the mark always follows the "signature", and not vice versa.

17.The names of notebooks written in large letters on the cover are given according to the color of the latter. Both names are found in the forwarding documentation.

page 112

I didn't even check it (unlike all other copies) with the original. It is likely that at about the same time, photocopies were made and prints were made, so that the handwritten copy could be used as a conditional scheme for "assembling" the latter in the future. Neither the photographs nor the paper prints made at the end of the excavation season (when there may have been a lack of time and even materials) were of particularly high quality (18), but this was probably realized only much later, when the prints were drawn from the prints upon arrival in England. It is difficult to say who did this. In any case, McAdam (who, after Griffith's death in 1934, was entrusted with the publication of the Cava materials) studied it very carefully, leaving countless comments in the "margins" (Figure 2) and sometimes (in places of damage and other ambiguities) giving references to Griffith's version from the "Red Book". Another participant in the work was the well - known Egyptologist B. Gunn, to whom McAdam apparently sometimes turned for advice and micro - "dialogues" with whom are visible in many places of the drawing [19].

During the second expedition to Cava (1935-1936), McAdam, who was not a member of the first, was engaged in checking the drawings of reliefs and some inscriptions (including the current one) with the originals in situ. In the copy of the Large Inscription, he made numerous corrections concerning the paleography, but at the same time witnessed a number of new damages due to unfavorable natural conditions in the period between the two seasons [20]. For reasons that can only be guessed today, the drawing was never completed. Instead, at some point (it looks like after the expedition is over) Macadam produced a new handwritten version, which was later reproduced in the Temples of Kava.

A comparison of all the versions available today revealed many significant differences between all of them. Upon closer inspection, it is obvious that the published list in many places is a reconstruction, and not a mechanical reproduction of the text. Most of the conjectures, of course, are quite acceptable (although sometimes alternative interpretations are acceptable), but in some cases they seem controversial and even erroneous in the light of new evidence - especially prints. In any case, the new materials provide an opportunity to check the reconstructions proposed by the publisher and establish, where possible, the most plausible option. It should also be emphasized that the copies found at the Griffith Institute-the impressions and drawings (in its earlier version) - represent the text in the form in which it was discovered in 1931, i.e. in its best condition. As noted above, the monument suffered serious damage by the time of the next expedition, which took place just four years later, and there is reason to believe that in the future its preservation deteriorated even more. In any case, unfortunately, we will not be able to see this text as it appeared to Griffith and the members of his expedition. The detected reproductions, therefore, represent a source of unique importance. The importance of publishing this material is indisputable , especially since the original text, as mentioned above, is now unavailable. This task, however, is extremely difficult. It should be taken into account that each copy has its own advantages, but none of them can be considered completely satisfactory. They should only be studied together. This type of publication is currently being prepared by the author of these lines. Since for technical reasons it is not possible to reproduce the version of paper prints, the drawing of a Large inscription was chosen as the basis of the publication. It is supposed to be copied (since the original is almost impossible to reproduce in some places), checked with all other evidence, and

18. Cf. McAdam's remark (Op. cit. V. II. History and Archaeology of the Site. Text. L., 1955. P. XIV).

19. Judging by the order of the remarks (McAdam usually doesn't answer the question), it is possible that Gunn started working on the drawing even earlier than McAdam, to whom the work was then transferred.

20. Cf. Macadam. Op. cit. I. Text. P. 51; II. Text. P. XIV, 1. 51.

page 113

provide detailed comments. They will include: (a) a" transcript "and explanation of the notes on the" margins " of the drawing, (b) the results of studying the inner side of the impressions that are not contoured with pencil, which, by the way, in addition to a number of important corrections, allowed us to offer many new reconstructions. A handwritten copy of McAdam, reproduced from the original edition, will be given as a parallel version to facilitate orientation in the drawing (which, please note, was left unfinished). Griffith's copy from the "Red Book" is supposed to be placed as an appendix.

The proposed work should not be considered the final publication of the Large Irikeamannote Inscription, but rather the publication of relevant materials from the Griffith Institute Archive collection. No copy, of course, can completely replace the original - especially in such a complex case as the current one; some ambiguities will probably remain - at least until the time of the new excavations in Kava.

The essence of the matter is clearly seen in the example with the interpretation of the intriguing reference in stb. 21 to the "miracle of beauty", the desire to understand which was the reason for all the searches undertaken. A study of all available copies of the damaged phrase from stb. 21, which mentions the "beautiful miracle" performed for Irikeamannote by the god Amon (which, as is commonly believed, contains a hint of his enthronement), finally showed that in the current state of affairs, both interpretations proposed so far are theoretically permissible.

The pencil outline (often unreliable in other cases) on the front side of the prints can be interpreted in favor of the interpretation proposed at the time by the publisher of the text and implying the grammatically erroneous phrase "a beautiful miracle (which) my father performed for me [Amon in ///// / - i (month) zi]we, the day (9th), (day) of my exaltation as king" (21). If we see traces of a calendar date in the text, then with the data available today, we could even take a step that McAdam did not dare to take. Given that the dating formulas in Egyptian-language monuments are usually stable, and knowing the "arithmetic mean" dimensions of the hieroglyphs, it was possible to assume the following restoration of the destroyed part: "[(1st) month of zi]we, day 9) (see Fig. 3, A) (22). With such a reconstruction ,the" beautiful miracle "(i.e., the enthronement, as the publisher believed) would have taken place much earlier than the election of Irikeamannote to the kingdom (after the death of his predecessor) by the"army of His Majesty" mentioned at the beginning of the text. Therefore, by the time of this election, he is already in power, and hence Macadam's hypothesis that Irikeamannote has ascended to the throne (becoming co-ruler) even during the life of the previous king, it has the right to exist. Recognizing this brings us back to the need to look for explanations for a number of contradictions that are found in the text with such an understanding (23). It should, however, be recalled that such an interpretation of the evidence of the text is based on the McAdam hypothesis of the provision according to which the phrase in question from stb. 21 has a calendar date. However, such a reading is not really the only possible one. Analysis of internal (non-contoured in pencil and therefore more trustworthy)information the use of impressions also allows us to consider a completely different interpretation of the text acceptable, which, by the way, is much more satisfactory from the point of view of grammar and more consistent with the internal logic of the narrative. With this second interpretation (proposed by the author of the current lines for quite some time, and

21. In McAdam's translation:" (...) day 19, (day) of elevation ( ... )". On the prints and on the drawing, however, the number "9" is quite clearly visible (cf. Figs.3, A and 3, B), so here the quote is already given in a corrected form.

22. Conditional reconstructions of the "date" are made on the basis of drawing from a photocopy of the front side of the impressions (KS I. 14,1. 16).

23. See notes 1, 3 above.

page 114

3. "Date" in stb. 21: a-reconstruction of M. F. L. Makadam (with clarifications); b-reconstruction of A. K. Vinogradov; c-context of the message about the "miracle of beauty" (fragment of a handwritten copy from Makadam's publication)

now somewhat refined (24)) instead of the designation of the month and the name of the season ([ibd p]r. (t)) in the damaged place of stb. 21, the word "day" is restored ([m h]r(w)) (see Fig. 3, b). Thus, the text should contain would it be a "miracle of beauty"?,

24. The details of the study of the mentioned evidence, as well as new considerations in favor of an alternative interpretation of the key phrase from stb. 21, are described in detail by the author in one of the works currently being prepared.

page 115

(which) my father [Amon] did for me in de] ny on the 9th (after / from the time) of my appearance as king." Therefore, there is no calendar date here. There is only a reference to some event that took place on the 9th day after the ascension of Irikeamannote to the throne (thanks to the army, as the text directly implies) and, apparently, interpreted as an auspicious omen. This interpretation leaves no basis for the hypothesis of the co-rule of two kings. Unfortunately, the quality of existing copies of the text does not allow us to recognize the problem as finally solved now. An in situ study of the original inscription could probably provide definitive clarity. New excavations at the T Temple in Kava, whenever they occur, will undoubtedly mark a turning point in the study of the Great Irikeamannote Inscription. Only then will the true extent of the already irretrievable losses become apparent, and only then will the true value of the evidence found in the Griffith Institute Archive be fully realized.

BACK TO AN OLD SOURCE (A Find in the Archive ofGriffit Institute, Oxford)

A.V. Vinogradov

The paper tells about an interesting and important document discovered by the author in the Archive of Griffit Institute in Oford.

Permanent link to this publication: