^{page 1 note 1} Āraṇya parva, III, 188, 64–6. The variants include aiḍükān,, gokhalāln, jālükān, jālyükān, and jāḷükān. The jālüka variants are found in the Southern recension and possibly represent a MS misreading of elūka.

^{page 1 note 2} Lassen, C., Ind. Alt., I1, 490.Google Scholar

^{page 1 note 3} Divyāvadāna, p. 244, quoted by Agraval, V.S. in Ancient India, No. 4, 1947–1948, 167.Google Scholar The comparison is not very close and although it must be admitted that the Viṡṇudharmottara eḍūka is in the same tradition it is clearly mucḥ later than this often quoted stūpa, the monumental layout of which rather recalls that of the mahācetiya at Nāgārjunikoṇḍa.

^{page 2 note 1} See, for example, Combaz, , MCB, II, 1932–1933, fig. 41.Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 2} Listed by Srinivasan, K.R. in Ancient India, No. 2. 1946,Google Scholar 9 ff. The need for a thorough study of these references is as pressing to-day as when Codrington first drew attention to them in his ‘Indian cairn- and urn-burial’, Man, XXX, 1930, 139.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 1} Fergusson, J., Rude stone monuments, 1872, 89,Google Scholar etc.