sidaḥ yām̃ pom̃ ku śrī bhr̥ ṣuviṣṇujātti vīrabhadravr̥rmmadeva ā dīnāma pom̃ cim̃ ṇan· thām̃ amā pu pom̃ ku urām̃ paramapūra ṅauk· glaum̃ vijaya pajaḥ parok· glai hayāv· pavam̃k· kraum̃ hayāv· parok· glai ṅap· jem̃ humā bhām̃ ya doṁ yvan· si pu pom̃ ku mak· di nagara yvan· vā rai vuḥ sa pamr̥m̃m̃ yām̃ pu inā ja siddhi pu pom̃ ku yvā vrim̃ kire ndra dvā pluḥ kukum̃ ka pu pom̃ ku gvac·. ṅan· ya doṁ mahnākire ndra vukam̃n· ya syāṁ rūpa ka pu pom̃ ku gvac· madā doṁ pramānna padam̃ṅ· rūmaḥ vrim̃ nāma śrīsamr̥m̃ddhipurī pakr̥m̃tta kutī dakṣinā gni harmya nan· vrim̃ śilpakāra. rijan· śivaprathimānna pyauḥ bha nakti prathidinna di loka ṅan· paraloka dudim̃ nau. mayvā di pu pom̃ tana rayā dudim̃ ya dr̥m̃ṅ· rāja jmai paliṅyak· rājadharmma 1331

It is Y.P.K. Śrī Br̥ṣuviṣṇujāti Vīrabhadravarmadeva. The original name of that ṇan? prince, like his father, P.P.K., is Man of Paramapūra Ṅauk Glauṅ Vijaya. He cleared and cut down the forest of Hayāv ‘Fish’?. He dammed the Hayāv river. He cut down the forest. He made the ricefields become dry bhaṅ?. All the Viets whom P.P.K. captured in the land of the Viets, he brought them here and gave them as papamr̥m̃ cf. Old Khmer pamre? to Milady the Mother who is successful. P.P.K. as guest yvā? gave twenty kirendra ‘montagnards’? correct mahnākirendra? which/whom kukum̃ = kum̃? to P.P.K. gvacignore the punctuation | together with all the other mahnākirendras who were beautiful in appearance to P.P.K. gvac present in all provinces. He erected a palace giving it the name Śrīsamr̥ddhipurī. He had made pakr̥m̃tta = pa-kr̥ta, causative prefix on Sanskrit form kr̥ta meaning ‘made’? a chamber for the south fire of that stronghold. He instructed an artisan to make a statue prathimānna = pratimā? of Śiva. He admonished the population: Let there be worship every day, with a view to the prosperity of all and sunder in the world here and later in the next world! Go ignore the punctuation | as guests to their majesties in the future who will hold the kingdom rāja = rājya! Do not destroy the king’s foundation. Engraved in the Śaka year 1331.

The punctuation sign | apparently has to be ignored in order properly to break down the text. Comparison with the opening of inscriptions such as C. 30A1, C. 30B4, C. 47, C. 86.1, C. 89 (face B) and C. 225 strongly suggests that at least one, possibly two lines of text would, in the original state of the inscribed sculpture, have preceded the text as we have it now. Given the limited amount of space that would have been available between tapering margins, one expects little more that what we read e.g. in C. 86.1, lines 1-2: madā pu pom̃ tana rayā sidaḥ yām̃ pom̃ ku śrī jayaparameśvaravarmmadeva ..., or perhaps a shorter version of what we see in C. 225, l. 1-3: | svasti jaya ni trā madā paramarājādhirāja sidaḥ yām̃ pom̃ ku śrī vraṣuviṣṇujātti vīrabhadravarmmadeva .... So the line-numbers adopted in this edition are off by 1 or 2 from the original state of the text.

Mentioned by 223 , whence by 199 .The information published by Golzio is at least eight decades outdated with regard to the location of the inscription, and even his source Majumdar was already wrong in stating that the inscription is mutilated. In fact the inscription is very well preserved. About half of the text was edited, without translation, in 227 . This first complete reading of the inscription was done from photographs provided by the Museum of Fine Art and the EFEO estampage.This estampage has been reproduced as fig. 8 (p. 43) in .

202-204 227 562-563 146 448