Among the many attractive rugs illustrated and described in H. A. Lorentz's book on Chinese rugs are two pillar rugs, one of which bears a dedicatory inscription in Chinese, the other a dedicatory inscription in Mongol. The rugs apparently form a pair. They are of the same size, the design of each, an encircling dragon, is a mirror image of that of the other, the borders are identical, and the positions of the inscriptions correspond. The shades of colour, too, are the same, indicating contemporaneous manufacture. Yet, on the face of it, the two inscriptions refer to two distinct donations, and they have been so interpreted by the author. The date in the Chinese inscription is the first month of summer in the year i-yu in the reign of Ch'ien Lung, that is 1765, while the date in the Mongol inscription is the first month of summer in the female-blue hen year in the reign of Badarayultu Törö (Kuang Hsü), that is 1885. Mr. Lorentz quotes expert opinion to the eifect that, the dates apart, the two rugs look as if they must have been woven at the same time as each other and be of late date. The inference is, he says, that both were made in 1885. Yet, he says, after describing the Chinese inscription: ‘The puzzle is that the Mongol inscription in the other rug declares that this rug was presented by a different person one hundred and twenty years later!’. He offers an ingenious explanation for this dilemma, suggesting that the second donor, for he is of the opinion that two donations did indeed take place, at an interval of 120 years, caused an earlier rug to be copied, in order that he could present a pair, rather than a single item. The donor's idea would have been, to quote Mr. Lorentz: ‘I herewith submit the copy of a famous rug dedicated in 1765, to which I add another such rug with my own dedication, presenting thus a pair’.