^{page 40 note 1} Cœdès, G., Ars Asiatica, XII, 1928, pp. 22 ff.Google Scholar; Recueil des inscriptions du Siam, pt. 2, 1929, pp. 1 ff.

^{page 40 note 2} Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. LII, pt. 1, 04, 1964, p. 102Google Scholar.

^{page 40 note 3} Dupont, P., L'archéologie mône du Dvāravatī, Paris, 1959 (Pub. École Française d'Extrěme-Orient, Vol. XLI)Google Scholar. Published posthumously with notes by A. B. Griswold.

^{page 41 note 1} Gombrich, E. H., The story of art, 10th Edition, London, 1960, p. 42Google Scholar.

^{page 41 note 2} Bosch, F. D. K., “‘Local genius’ en oud-Javaanse kunst”, Med. der Kon. Ned. Akad. van Wetenschappen, afd. Letterkunde, 1952, p. 24Google Scholar.

^{page 41 note 3} P. Dupont, op. cit, pp. 237 ff., figs. 472–97.

^{page 42 note 1} ibid., pp. 188 ff., figs. 355–442.

^{page 42 note 2} Wales, H. G. Quaritch, “Anuruddha and the Thaton tradition”, JRAS, 1947, pp. 152 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 3} Dupont, op. cit., p. 14.

^{page 42 note 4} Cœdès, G.' review in Arts Asiatiques, Vol. VII, 1960Google Scholar.

^{page 43 note 1} The Pyus, forerunners of the Burmese, do not appear even to have been Buddhist before 638 a.d., states G. H. Luce in a recent article. And they evidently remained marginal, retaining much that was (younger) megalithic. “The Pyu kings still clung to megalithic customs: their ashes are found in huge stone urns, engraved with Pyu inscriptions, but otherwise like those of the Plaine des Jarres in Laos.” (Luce, G. H., “Dvāravatī and Old Burma”, Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. LII, pt. 1, 1965, pp. 9, 11Google Scholar.) The massive stone reredos backing Pyu stone images he ascribes (p. 14) to a megalithic factor, whereas Môn images are always in the round. So it would have been Indianization that provided the ability to make freestanding images.

^{page 43 note 2} However, Luce (loc. cit., pp. 23–5) cites several archaic images, with both hands raised in the same mudrā, from various places in Burma, which he attributes to Dvāravatī influence.

^{page 43 note 3} Schnitger, F. M., The archaeology of Hindoo Sumatra, Leiden, 1937, pl. XIGoogle Scholar.

^{page 43 note 4} H. G. Quaritch Wales, The making of Greater India, Chapter II.

^{page 43 note 5} ibid., p. 57.

^{page 43 note 6} ibid., p. 240.

^{page 44 note 1} P. Dupont, op. cit., p. 178.

^{page 44 note 2} ibid., p. 176.

^{page 44 note 3} ibid., p. 203 and fig. 419.

^{page 45 note 1} ibid., figs. 363–73.

^{page 45 note 2} ibid., p. 188.

^{page 45 note 3} ibid., figs. 392–8.

^{page 45 note 4} ibid., p. 221.

^{page 47 note 1} ibid., Chaps. II and III, pls. 1–10, figs. 1–139.

^{page 47 note 2} ibid., pp. 126 f.

^{page 48 note 1} ibid., figs. 517–20.

^{page 48 note 2} ibid., p. 135.

^{page 48 note 3} Illustrated in H. W. Cave, The ruined cities of Ceylon, H. De Beylié, L'architecture hindoue d'Extrême-Orient, etc.

^{page 48 note 4} P. Dupont, op. cit, p. 95, footnote.

^{page 48 note 5} Bull, of Madras Govt. Mus., Vol. VII, 1954, pl. XXIGoogle Scholar.

^{page 49 note 1} Such Chinese pagodas as the rock-cut one in cave 39, Yün-kang, and the tomb pagoda of Hiuan-tsang (Sickman, L. and Soper, A., The art and architecture of China, 1956, pls. 157, 162Google Scholar) provide further evidence as to the nature of the Indian structural prototypes of the Môn caitya.

^{page 49 note 2} Boisselier, J., “Un fragment inscrit de Roue dela Loi de Lop'buri”, Artibus Asiae, Vol. XXIV, 3/4, 1961, p. 225CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 49 note 3} Evidently the remarkably elaborate example from Prac'in which Boisselier also illustrates is something quite exceptional, and certainly would be surprising had it come from any of the main Dvāravatī Buddhist sites. But in this eastern district where Dupont has remarked on the strength of Khmer influences (op. cit., p. 119 f.) that would seem to provide the explanation, just as it does for the drapé en poche seen on bas-reliefs at Müang Fa Daed, north-east Siam (Diskul, M. C. Subhadradis, Artibus Asiae, Vol. XIX, 3/4, pp. 362 ff.Google Scholar). Since writing the above I have seen an article on “Dharmacakra” by Khun Dhanit Yupho, Director-General of the Fine Arts Department, in the Thai journal Silpākon, Vol. 8, No. 6, 03, 1965Google Scholar, in which he illustrates this Wheel (Fig. 7), giving as its provenance not Pra'cin, but Müang Sema, Korat. Such provenance would lend further support to the likelihood that Khmer influence is involved.

^{page 50 note 1} Indian Archaeology for 1954–55, p. 61, and for 1959–60, p. 67 and pl. CVII.

^{page 50 note 2} Griswold, A. B., Kim, Chewon and Pott, P. H., Burma, Korea, Tibet, London, 1964Google Scholar (Art of the World).

^{page 50 note 3} ibid., p. 39.

^{page 50 note 4} ibid., p. 45.

^{page 51 note 1} ibid., p. 33.

^{page 51 note 2} Judging by the remains, there were evidently small Vaiṣṇava communities both in the peninsular portion of Dvāravatī and near the western border, where they would have been in touch with strong Vaiṣṇava centres in Chen-la. But this Hindu Pallava element scarcely survived in Dvāravatī after the 8th century, and as a factor in the cultural history of the kingdom needs little consideration here.

^{page 51 note 3} Annual Bibliography of Indian Archaeology, Vol. XVI, pi. xi.

^{page 51 note 3} Lamb, A., “Notes on Satingphra”, JRASMB, Vol. XXXVII, pt. 1, 1964, pp. 74–87Google Scholar.

^{page 52 note 1} O'Connor, Stanley J. Jr, “An early Brahmanical sculpture at Songkhla”, Journ. of the Siam Society, Vol. LII, pt. 2, 1964Google Scholar.

^{page 52 note 2} There it is labelled as from Songkhla. But the provenance is indeed obscured in Dupont, P., “Viṣṇu mitrés de l'Indochine occidentale”, BEFEO, Vol. 41, pi. XXXB and p. 235Google Scholar, where it is stated to be from Pacin (eastern Siam).