[702] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ 1866, p. 273. See also Cunningham’s ‘Archæological Reports,’ vol. iii. p. 136.
[703] ‘Journal Asiatique,’ 4me série, tom. iv. p. 286.
[704] Tod’s ‘Annals of Rajputana,’ vol. i. p. 801.
[705] Lassen’s ‘Ind. Alt.’, vol. ii. p. 752, et seqq. to 987; Dowson, ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society’ (N.S.), vol. i. p. 247, et seqq.; Thomas’s ‘Prinsep,’ vol. i. p. 270-276; Cunningham’s ‘Archæological Reports,’ vol. iii. p. 56; Babu Rajendra Mittra, ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. xliii. p. 372, &c., &c.
[706] ‘Annals,’ vol. i. p. 216, et seqq. At p. 230 he quotes another account, which places the destruction of the Ballabhi era at 305, instead of 205, as in the previous statement. These are evidently clerical errors. If he had found another 405, it would probably have been correct within a year or so—405+319=724.
[707] ‘Vie et Voyages,’ pp. 206, 254, 260; ‘Relations,’ &c., vol. ii. p. 163.
[708] ‘Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. viii. p. 245.
[709] Ibid., vol. viii. p. 245.
[710] Forbes’ ‘Ras Mala,’ vol. i. p. 18; Tod, ‘Annals,’ vol. i. p. 230.
[711] Elliot, ‘Historians of India,’ vol. i. p. 417.