^{page 139 note 1} Cunningham: Archæological Survey Reports, vols. i, xviii, xxii.

^{page 139 note 2} “ The Remains near Kasia, in the Gorakhpur District, the Reputed Site of Kuçanagara or Kuçināra, the Scene of Buddha's Death,” by Vincent A. Smith, I.C.S., Fellow of the University of Allahabad, Allahabad: Printed at the North-Western Provinces and Oudh Government Press, 1896.

^{page 140 note 1} Kuśinagara is the form of the name which corresponds best with the Chinese notation, and is used by Mr. Takakusu in his translation of I-tsing. Mr. Beal transliterates the Chinese as Kiu-shi-na-k'ie-lo. Mr. Giles writes Chü-i-na-chieh. In Pālī the dental sibilant alone is used, and the name is invariably given in the form Kusinārā.

^{page 140 note 2} “ On the Identification of Kusinara, Vaisali, and other places mentioned by the Chinese Pilgrims,” by W. Hoey, Litt.D., I.C.S.: J.A.S.B., 1900, vol. lxix, pt. 1, p. 74.

^{page 141 note 1} [I must be allowed to enter a mild protest against this reading of my views. They are expressed, perhaps not clearly, in the words immediately quoted. In discussing historically the archæological remains at any ascertained spot the writer should consider all the evidence, and not ignore that preserved in the books. I have not said, and assuredly do not think, that the evidence afforded by the Chinese pilgrims, or any other evidence, is of secondary importance.

In the attempt to fix upon a doubtful site, that of the Chinese is of especial value, as it is the Chinese who give bearings and distances. If a book put together many centuries before the Chinese writers visited the spot should happen also (which such books, alas ! very seldom do) to give bearings or distances, then these also should be considered and due weight attached to them, and Mr. Vincent Smith does this.—Rh. D.]

^{page 142 note 1} “Sacred Books of the East,” vol. xiii, pp. 121–143.

^{page 142 note 2} J.R.A.S., Oct., 1897, p. 920.

^{page 144 note 1} Legge's version. Giles makes the distance from Rāma (Lan-mo) to the place of Caņḓaka's return to be three, not four, yojanas. His other distances agree with Legge's, but he renders the last clause quoted as “proceeding further twelve yuyen, they arrived at the city of Chü-i-na-chieh.” Beal agrees with Giles in making the distance between Rāmagrāma and Lan-mo to be three yojanas. He translates the last clause, “again going twelve yojanas eastward, we arrive at the town of Kuśinagara.” He gives the name of “Ashes-tower” to the monument named “Charcoal tope” by Legge and “Ashes pagoda” by Giles. Rémusat (Laidlay) calls the same monument “Tower of the Charcoal,” and agrees with Giles and Beal in giving three yojanas as the distance between Rāma and the place of Caṇḍaka's return. The preponderauce of authority is, therefore, in favour of the shorter distance, which is also supported by Hiuen Tsiang's estimate of the distance as 100 li, equivalent to 2½ yojunas.

^{page 145 note 1} “Environ deux cents li” (Julien). The “300 li or so” of Beal is evidently an error. Hiuen Tsiang reckoned 40 li to the yojana. His distance and direction, therefore, agree with those of Fā-hien.

^{page 145 note 2} 100 li = 2½ yojanas, roughly equivalent to Fā-hien's “3 yojanas.” Hiuen Tsiang says “about 100 li.”

^{page 145 note 3} 180 or 190 li = about 4½ yojanas. Fā-hien gives the round number 4. Note the precision of Hiuen Tsiang in direction as compared with his predecessor. The deviation to the south-east adds greatly to the distance by road.

^{page 145 note 4} Here Hiuen Tsiang gives the correct bearing, and Fā-hien gives the estimated distance. In the time of Hiuen Tsiang the difficulties of the journey, over the hills and through the forests infested by wild beasts, were so great that he did not attempt to estimate the distance. But his distance of 480 or 490 li from the Lumbini Garden to the stūpa of Candaka's return agrees with Fā-hien's estimate of 12 yojanas. The earlier pilgrim's estimate of the distance from the Ashes stūpa to Kuśinagara may, therefore, be accepted as correct.

^{page 146 note 1} The distance stated, 12 yojanas, is much too short. Rémusat and his colleagues state it as 20 yojanas (Laidlay's translation), which figure, according to Beal, is due to a mistranslation. But is it not possible that the text used by Rémusat correctly read “20 yojanas” ? Inasmuch as the distance from the Ashes stūpa to Kuśinagara is reckoned as 12 yojanas, and the site of the Ashes stūpa (Lauriyā-Nandangarh) is distant about 55 or 56 miles, or 7 to 8 yojanas, from Kesariyā, which was, according to Fā-hien, the scene of the leave-taking, the figure 20 is approximately correct. The road from Kuśinagara to Vaisāli passes Lauṛiyā-Nandangaṛh.

^{page 146 note 2} Legge gives “ten yojanas,” an absolutely impossible distance. The error is evidently in the text used by him. Giles and Rémusat agree with Beal in stating the distance as “five yojanas.” Giles points out that there is no authority in the original for the words “went back” in Beal's version.

^{page 147 note 1} The suggestion has been made that the name Kesariyā may be equivalent to Cæsarea, and may he an echo of the Roman Cæsar (D'Alviella, “Ce que l'lnde doit à la Grèce,” p. 17, note). This conjecture, which cannot be either proved or disproved, is not very probable.

^{page 148 note 1} The exposition of this theory will he found in my Prefatory Note to Bābū P. C. Mukherji's “Report on Explorations in the Nepalese Tarāi.”

^{page 149 note 1} Garrick in Arch. Survey Reports, vol. xxii, p. 51.

^{page 152 note 1} Dr. Hoey published an account of his excursion under the title “Buddhist Sites in Nepāl“ in the Pioneer newspaper, Allāhābād, March 25th, 1889.

^{page 153 note 1} Cunningham writes the second name as Navandgarh, but Bābū P. C. Mukherjī states that the correct form is Nandangaṛh, and in proof of his statement refers to a local folk-tale which associates the remains near Lauṛiyā with the nand and the remains at Chānkīgaṛh with the bhaujāī of the Rāja or Rānī. Nand means ‘husband's sister,’ and bhaujāī means ‘elder brother's wife.’ Earlier writers on Indian antiquities described this Aśoka pillar under the name of ‘Mathiah,’ which is a village about three miles distant.

^{page 154 note 1} Cunningham estimated the height of the great stūpa as 80 feet; Bābū P. C. Mukherjī estimated it as 100. The Bābū visited many of the ancient sites in the Campāran District in March, 1897, under the orders of the Bengal Government. He gave me a copy of his draft report, which has been of use, although it was too crude for publication. The dimensions of the bricks are as stated by the Bābū.

^{page 154 note 2} The stream bends to the north, and the most easterly barrow, A of Cunningham, is consequently east of the stream, which flows between A and B. The pillár is north of a point midway between A and B.

^{page 155 note 1} Cunningham, Archæol. Survey Reports, i, pp. 68–74, pls. xxiii and xxv; xvi (Garrick), pp. 104–109, pls. xxvii and xxviii; xxii (Carlleyle), pp. 36–49. In “the large mound directly south of the lion pillar,” apparently B of Cunningham, Mr. Garrick found a shallow earthen vessel containing 67 cowrie shells at a depth of seven feet. Cowries have often been found in stūpas. In the great stūpa of Nandangaṛh, at a depth of about five feet from the top, Mr. Garrick found an earthenware lamp bearing traces of an inscription in early Brāhmī characters, apparently similar to those of the Aśoka inscriptions. The reports of Messrs. Carlleyle and Garrick are very unsatisfactory, and both gentlemen failed to keep proper notes of their destructive proceedings.

^{page 156 note 1} Beal, ii, 31.

^{page 157 note 1} The correct name of this place seems to be Cānkī, or Chankee, as it is spelled in the Indian Atlas. Mr. Garrick, in Reports, vol. xvi, p. 109, calls it Chandkigarh, whereas in vol. xxii, p. 50, he calls it Jānki Garh.

^{page 158 note 1} Marked on Sheet 102 of the Indian Atlas as “Choorea Ghati Pass, a large Stockade.” Oldfield spells the name Cherya Ghatti.

^{page 159 note 1} Bābū P. C. Mukherjī heard of Mawāgaṛh, and was told that there are also ruins at a place called Bāngaṛh, to the east of the Pass.

^{page 160 note 1} A list of the principal known remains on this line of road is given in my paper entitled “The Buddhist Monastery at Sohnāg,” in J.R.A.S., July, 1900, pp. 437–439.

^{page 162 note 1} Rhys Davids in J.R.A.S. for July, 1901, p. 405.