No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
![Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'](https://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS0035869X00047948/resource/name/firstPage-S0035869X00047948a.jpg)
- Type
- Other
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1915
References
page 151 note 1 He seems to have taken A.D. 1099 as the general equivalent of Bahudhānya, as a result of which these three dates and also No. 1 would belong to the early part of A.D. 1100: see what he has said about Bahudhānya on p. 153 below, and my comment on p. 154–5.