^{page 34 note 1} “Culture Change in Greater India,” JRAS., pts. 1 and 2, 1948.

^{page 34 note 2} His main styles and their approximate dating are as follows:—

Early Style: probably eighth century a.d.

Prasat Damreî Krap (Cham temple in Khmer territory): slightly before 802 a.d.

Hoa-lai Style: first half of ninth century.

Dông-dzu'o'ng Style: second half of ninth century, probably continuing into tenth century.

Mi-S'on A₁ Style: probably beginning of tenth century, continuing to beginning of eleventh century.

Transition to Binh-dinh Style: eleventh century.

Binh-dinh Style: twelfth century to early part of thirteenth.

Late Style: late thirteenth to seventeenth century.

^{page 34 note 3} Archæological Research in Indochina, 1947, p. xxiii. Notably he mentions finds of shoe-shaped bronze celts and basket pottery (the latter at Tra-ki'eù in Quan'g-nam), while “split, disc-shaped jade rings and beads similar to those found at Dong-so'n have been discovered at Sa-hùynh in Qu'ᾰng-ngai”.

^{page 35 note 1} It is partly due to this that the arts of the western zone, though purely colonial Indian manifestations, yet show a recognizable individuality. In the eastern zone any initial differentiation, dependent on the relative proportion of the various Indian influences, becomes of less importance as local genius asserts itself.

^{page 35 note 2} MASI., No. 16, pls. IVa and b, and VIIc.

^{page 35 note 3} Stern, op. cit., pl. 49; Krom, , Inleiding, pl. 12Google Scholar.

^{page 36 note 1} Rémusat, G. de Coral, L'Art Khmer, Paris, 1940, p. 74Google Scholar.

^{page 36 note 2} H. Parmentier, L'Art Khmer Primitif, fig. 72.

^{page 36 note 3} Stern, op. cit., p. 30.

^{page 36 note 4} de Coral Rémusat, op. cit., pls. XI, 34; XXI, 73; and XXIX, 102.

^{page 36 note 5} For convenience, in the following comparisons, I give references where possible to both Stern's L'Art da Champa and to Parmentier's, H.Inventaire descriptif des Monuments Cams de l'Annam, Paris, 1909–1918 (abbreviated IC.)Google Scholar.

^{page 36 note 6} Stern, pl. 22; IC., i, figs. 90 bis, 93.

^{page 37 note 1} Stern, pl. 23; Parmentier, L'Art Khmer Primitif, pl. lxi.

^{page 37 note 2} Stern, pl. 24; IC., i, fig. 21.

^{page 37 note 3} Stern, pl. 27; IC., ii, fig. 41.

^{page 37 note 4} In passing it may be noted that the arch (in lintel or pediment frame) is one of the most distinctive features of each of the great architectures of the eastern zone of Greater India, although we are prevented from comparing all three the same period because the specific character of the Khmer arch is temporarily delayed in making its appearance by Javanese influence. I suggest, however, that in each art the distinctive character of the arch decoration is clearly due the nature of the genius guiding the development of this particular architectural member, Dong-So'n in the case of the undulating vermiculated Cham arch, Han in the Central Javanese kāla-makara arch, and Older Megalithic in the typical nāga arch of the Khmers.

^{page 37 note 5} Stern, pls. 22a and b, 52; IC., i, fig. 90.

^{page 37 note 6} Stern, pl. 34b; IC., pl. cxlv.

^{page 38 note 1} Stern, pl. 22b; IC., pl. cxli (H.I.).

^{page 38 note 2} Stern, pl. 34b.

^{page 38 note 3} Rémusat, op. cit., pls. vi–x.

^{page 38 note 4} Stern, p. 8, pls. 22, 52; IC., i, figs. 90, 93.

^{page 38 note 5} Stern, pl. 53; IC., ii, fig. 69.

^{page 38 note 6} p. 75.

^{page 38 note 7} “Vorgeschichtliche Grundlagen der Kolanialindischen Kunst” in Wiener Seitrage zur Kunst- und Kulturgeschichte Asiens, vol. viii, 1934, pp. 23–7Google Scholar.

^{page 39 note 1} Janse, op. cit., pl. 55.

^{page 39 note 2} The Older Megalithic element in Indo-Javanese, as in Khmer art, was intrinsically less able to release its pent up force because of its more primitive technique. But once it learnt from the Indians how to express itself, its force also manifested itself as harnessed to spiritual ends whenever Indian or Central Javanese influence was strong, but more physically as local genius asserted itself. The latter can be distinctly seen in those periods of Khmer art in which local genius was most active.

^{page 39 note 3} Though foreshadowed at Prambanan the definite change came about in East Java, perhaps as a result of a violent reaction to the too intense Indian influence, after the manner of what are known to anthropologists as “nativistic movements”. This triumphed and persisted, despite a limited late Pāla Buddhist influence, which had in course of time become more suitable for local assimilation.

^{page 39 note 4} Stern, pl. 55b; IC., i, figs. 111, 112.

^{page 40 note 1} In my previous article I touched sufficiently on the return of Dong-So'n motifs and ancestor worship with kut steles in the Late period. Since both the Cham spirit and Cham material fortunes were then in complete decay, this final miserable return to a shadow of the pre-Indian civilization in Champa was a very different matter from the virile renascence that had taken place centuries earlier in East Java.

^{page 40 note 2} Op. cit., pp. 50, 64.

^{page 41 note 1} Stern, pl. 31; IC., ii, fig. 43; and pl. clvi.

^{page 41 note 2} Stern, pp. 67, 68.

^{page 41 note 3} Stern, p. 64.

^{page 41 note 4} Stern, p. 18.

^{page 41 note 5} Stern, p. 78.

^{page 41 note 6} Stern, pl. 59b; Ars Asiatica, iv, pl. xx.

^{page 42 note 1} Stern, pl. 48a; IC., pls. xlvii and clxxiii B.

^{page 42 note 2} Stern, pl. 20a; IC., i, fig. 49; ii, fig. 168.

^{page 42 note 3} Stern, pp. 65, 66.

^{page 42 note 4} Stern, pls. 61, 62.

^{page 43 note 1} Stern, p. 65.

^{page 43 note 2} E.g. Chandi Kalasan, Stern, pl. 49.

^{page 43 note 3} Rémusat, op. cit., pl. xxi, fig. 68.

^{page 43 note 4} Ibid., fig. 69.

^{page 44 note 1} Ibid., fig. 72.

^{page 44 note 2} Ibid., fig. 73.

^{page 44 note 3} Ibid., pl. xxix, fig. 102.

^{page 44 note 4} Ibid., Pl. xxix, figs. 100, 101.