^{page 1053 note 1} The site, apparently, of the ancient Vidiśā.

^{page 1053 note 2} This point can be more definitely settled when the column has been cleaned and can be re-examined. A crowning ornament of a very similar design is among the Mathurā sculptures in the Lucknow Museum.

^{page 1055 note 1} A, line 1. Garuḍadhvaj[ō] For another garuḍadhvaja of the same period see Cunningham, The Stupa of Bharhut, plate xii.

Line 2. The title of Heliodoros was probably given in the lacuna before his name.

Line 5. Aṁtalikitasa. Clearly identical with the Græco-Baktrian king Antialkidas (c. B.C. 140). The name is generally spelt Aṁtialikida in the Kharōshṭhī legends of the coins of Antialkidas.

Line 5. Upatāsakāsa, “vassal;” from Sanskrit upatyē āsakaḥ, “one who sits close to, but a little below, another.” Cf. the Buddhist term upāsaka.

Line 6. K[ō]sīputasa. That is, in Sanskrit, Kautsīputrasya, with which compare the well-known epithets, such as Vāsiṭhīputra, Gōtamīputra, etc., held by the kings of Western India in the last centuries before and first centuries after Christ.

Line 6. Trātārasa = of Græco-Baktrian coins.

^{page 1056 note 1} B, line 2. Nēyati. I explain this as a 3rd pers. sing. pres. pass. of a denominative verb from nyāya, ‘rule, order.’

^{page 1058 note 1} The name of Agiśala is certainly non-Indian, and there is good reason to suppose that it represents a corruption of the Greek name Agesilaos, the i vowel of śa being omitted, as it seems to be in Kanishka's name. Cf. the form Thaïdöra, a corruption, apparently, for Theodoros; Ind. Ant., vol. xxxvii (1908), p. 66.Google Scholar The term dasa is noteworthy: it will be remembered that, according to the legend of St. Thomas, the Lord sold him into the service of Gondophares for twenty pieces of silver. (J. H. M.)

^{page 1058 note 2} In the second letter of Kanishka's name the i vowel appears to be omitted, but the omission is not quite certain.

^{page 1058 note 3} Apparently Kanishka's stūpa was not erected on an altogether new site, but on a spot already hallowed by tradition, and the expression Mahasénasa saṅgharamē appears to give us the name of the earlier establishment.

^{page 1060 note 1} The surface of the fragment is curved, and consequently it has not been possible to obtain a good photograph of the three figures.

^{page 1062 note 1} This is the stūpa which Dr. Hoey imagined to be a cockpit.

^{page 1062 note 2} General Cunningham over-estimates the height when he says that it was 70 feet (ASR., i, p. 345).Google Scholar

^{page 1064 note 1} The bricks used in their construction measure 14 x 10 x 2 inches, which are the dimensions of bricks found in the Gupta monuments of Sārnāth.

^{page 1065 note 1} This was evident from the heaps of ashes which covered the floor of this building and a mass of gold which was found mixed with them.

^{page 1066 note 1} JRAS., 1908, p. 792, n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 1066 note 2} Beal, , Buddhist Records of the Western World, vol. ii, p. 1,Google Scholar n. 2, points out that the Chinese term kung shing does not mean “palace”, but “royal precincts defended by surrounding walls”. He agrees, as I do, with General Cunningham's remarks on this point.

^{page 1066 note 3} Vide JRAS., 1898, p. 531.Google Scholar

^{page 1067 note 1} Vide Hardy's, S.Manual of Buddhism, p. 224.Google Scholar

^{page 1067 note 2} Vide JASB., vol. lxvii, pt. i, p. 278.Google Scholar

^{page 1068 note 1} The error of distance, if error it really is, is easy to account for. For there can be no doubt that the pilgrims reckoned their distances according to the time which it took to cover them; and in this case they may have had a far more difficult country to traverse than the modern traveller has. Possibly, too, the road was more circuitous than it is now. A striking instance of Hiuen Thsang's exaggeration of distance is to be found in his account of Mt. Gṛidhrakūṭa at Rājgīr.

^{page 1069 note 1} JRAS., 1907, p. 1009 f.Google Scholar

^{page 1070 note 1} JRAS., 1908, p. 1110, Pl. VII, 1.Google Scholar

^{page 1072 note 1} Cave Temples of India, p. 97.Google Scholar

^{page 1074 note 1} I agree with Dr. Bloch in regarding these reliefs as evidence of the existence of the cult of Jagannāth at Puri at the time when the Black Pagoda at Kōṇārak. was being built, though not as evidence of the existence of the present temple of Jagannāth. I agree, also, with what he says about the transfer of the Jagannāth cult from the Śaivas to the Vaishṇavas. But I do not feel convinced of the truth of his identification of the suppliant figure before the shrine as Sūrya, or of the figures below as Ṛishis and Grahas. It seems to me more natural to explain the suppliant as a human being, perhaps as the monarch himself, who erected the Black Pagoda. (J. H. M.)

^{page 1074 note 2} Generally we find Durgā represented in this attitude in the wellknown class of images which, in Bengal, now go by the name of Mahiṣamardinī, or “Durgā slaying the buffalo-demon”. The buffalo is the well-known vāhana of Yama, and it appears to me an exceedingly probable suggestion that the group really signifies Durgā as the principle of life destroying death (the buffalo = Yama).

^{page 1074 note 3} I may add here that the temple of Jagannāth at Puri is only 24 miles to the west of the Black Pagoda at Kōṇārak. Both stand in almost immediate proximity of the sea, only one mile, or even less, distant from it.

^{page 1075 note 1} I may mention here that the building of the Black Pagoda at Kōṇārak is attributed, both by tradition and by inscriptions, to the Eastern Gaṅga king Narasiṁhadēva I, about A.D. 1240–80, while the temple of Jagannāth at Puri seems to have been constructed by one of his predecessors, Anantavarma-Chōḍagaṅga, who reigned from A.D. 1078 to 1140; see JASB., 1898, vol. lxvii, pt. i, p. 328 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 1076 note 1} It has never been finished, as I shall be able to prove in my article on Kōṇārak in the Annual Report of the Archæological Survey for 1908–9.

^{page 1076 note 2} The first name in each group is given to these two attendants of Jagannāth by Bengalis; Hindustanis, as far as I know, generally call them Lakshmaṇa and Sītā, while I have sometimes heard Jagannāth himself spoken of as “Raghunāth” by pilgrims who had come from the north to Puri. Jagannāth's face, as I need scarcely mention, is now universally represented black like the faces of Rāma and Kṛishṇa.

^{page 1076 note 3} I should regard it rather as a coincidence that the temples at Puri and Kōṇārak happen to be near the sea. I understand that Dr. Bloch's chief reason for identifying Jagannāth with the Sun is that the festivals of the god fall at the time of the summer and winter solstices. But this fact, unless supported by other evidence, hardly seems to me to justify his conclusion. Admitting that the cult of Sūrya was strong in Orissa, it seems to me strange that there should not be more definite traces of contamination between the cults of Sūrya and Jagannāth, if the latter was identified with the Sun. (J. H. M.)

^{page 1077 note 1} Cf. Annual Report of the Archæological Survey, 1903–1904, p. 132 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 1079 note 1} Mr. Cousens' remarks are true, I believe, of all early buildings in India. (J. H. M.)

^{page 1083 note 1} Ind. Ant., vol. x, p. 198 f.Google Scholar

^{page 1084 note 1} Ep. Ind., vol. viii, p. 237;Google Scholar see also Ind. Ant., vol. xx, p. 98.Google Scholar

^{page 1084 note 2} Ep. Ind., vol. iv, p. 195.Google Scholar

^{page 1084 note 3} Loc. cit., preceding note.