^{page 361 note 1} Duroiselle in A list of inscriptions found in Burma (Rangoon, 1921: Appendix A, No. 15)Google Scholar erroneously assigns the Shwe Dagon inscription to 1436, through taking the last date mentioned n the text as the date of the record; cf. Epigraphia Birmanica, IV, 1, § 94, p. 21. An undated nscription allegedly of Rājadhirāj (1385–1423) was discovered by J. A. Stewart in 1913, but is reported by Blagden to be ‘mostly illegible ’. See Duroiselle, op. cit., Appendix A, No. 44.

^{page 362 note 2} Appendix G, Nos. 8, 9; cf. also Duroiselle, op. cit., Appendix A, Nos. 16, 33.

^{page 361 note 3} tko’, modern ‘island’ denotes also an area of high ground not subject to seasonal flooding.

^{page 362 note 1} Emendations involving insertion and not substitution are not specifically referred to in the notes.

^{page 362 note 2} gah COB, which I cannot follow.

^{page 362 note 3} low restorer.

^{page 362 note 4} scil. [p]adān.

^{page 362 note 5} represents a logogram derived from the aksaras e, ya, and current throughout MM.

^{page 362 note 6} scil. °sath[ī].

^{page 363 note 1} Or silawa

^{page 363 note 2} Perhaps °watī.

^{page 363 note 3} low restorer.

^{page 363 note 4} The virāma over the m is doubtful.

^{page 363 note 5} Perhaps curakā°; or ñurakā°.

^{page 363 note 6} sañjiwa COB.

^{page 363 note 7} -hā- is inserted below the end of 1. 23.

^{page 363 note 8} soil. c[o]h.

^{page 363 note 9} °tandā°restorer.

^{page 363 note 10} °rāñi COB.

^{page 363 note 11} °'ātaCOB.

^{page 363 note 12} (bu)ddha°COB.

^{page 363 note 13} Or cāruka°.

^{page 363 note 14} Blagden inserts (II) here.

^{page 363 note 15} 26 September 1455.

^{page 363 note 16} The doubling of tila ‘lord ’ by its Tai synonym caw, not found in later texts, echoes the Tai origins of the Martaban-Pegu dynasty.

^{page 363 note 17} tuiw ‘to give’ occurs in the Mon version of the Ndrada-jataka: cf. Dupont, , La version du Nārada-jātaka (Saigon, 1954), 193.Google Scholartawuiw, lit. tawuiw, twuiw, is a nominal formation from tuiw. [p]adān is from Pali padāna ‘gift‘.

^{page 363 note 18} The Myatheindan at Martaban, on the point facing Moulmein.

^{page 363 note 19} The meaning of dek and kuip is not known.

^{page 363 note 20} The first two and the last of these were among the five treasurers of Bimbisāra, king of Magadha, in Buddhist tradition. Dhanañjaya, son of Mendaka, was sent by Bimbisāra to Pasenadi of Kosala in a similar capacity.

^{page 364 note 1} A fabulous king of Benares.

^{page 364 note 2} Mentioned at Apadāna, I, 235, as a king of 16 kappas ago.

^{page 364 note 3} Another king of Benares, the Bodhisatta in the Mahāsīlava-jātaka.

^{page 364 note 4} This list enumerates the rulers of the deva-worlds in ascending order.

^{page 364 note 5} The meaning of surakā° is not known.

^{page 364 note 6} Pali ussada°.

^{page 364 note 7} Pali °tanhā°.

^{page 364 note 8} Pali °puñña.

^{page 364 note 9} Pali atthi°.

^{page 364 note 10} Pali °kūta

^{page 364 note 11} Pali kanhavanna.

^{page 364 note 12} It is tempting to take this as Pali kanikābhakkha ‘eaters of broken rice particles ’. But the Pali-Mon glossary Akkharavidhāna has ‘kanikā: gandharā plant’ and ‘gundā: a large creeper ; tiger-grass’ (this is clearly Sanskrit gundra ‘ Saccharum sara; etc.’), and one might assume a parallelistic ‘ eaters of tiger-grass, eaters of kanilca plant’.

^{page 364 note 13} The meaning of bhānahārā is not known.

^{page 364 note 14} This term also is puzzling, since both caraka and vasa normally require an antecedent.

^{page 364 note 15} uy, lit. uy, ‘ to see to, to dispose of’.

^{page 364 note 16} The phrase is obscure, uy jwa is attested in the early text Pum Dhammacetī. pkāw ‘flower’ seems completely irrelevant; I am inclined to think that the stonecutter, misled by an anomalous spelling jawa for jwa ‘corpse’ in his copy, has supplied jawa pkāw (for jaw pkāw) ‘blossoms’, which makes no sense.

^{page 364 note 17} Of pagodas, thus pagoda slaves. This assumes a somewhat dubious connexion of with ‘to clear away’ (Kalyānī) ; it is perhaps a pseudo-archaism or hypercorrection.

^{page 364 note 18} Taking ñah ñah together in a distributive sense.

^{page 364 note 19} The number of dots indicates the approximate number of missing letters.

^{page 364 note 20} Or °sāmī.

^{page 365 note 1} A ‘village of the prince of Sudasuim ’ is mentioned in the Kalyānī inscription, K 39.

^{page 365 note 2} Beading kw(ā)n or kw(o)n.

^{page 365 note 3} From this point the text follows that of I, 11. 8–20.

^{page 365 note 4} These references are to lines of the inscription.

^{page 365 note 5} The word cited is a neologism ; but the OM correspondent of MM -ȧk is -ok.

^{page 366 note 1} Three, if its occurrence in random variation with other graphemic elements is considered, e.g. yuk/yok ‘to lift’.

^{page 366 note 2} Wat Kukut I, A 11; Wat Ban Hlni, 2, 12. See BEFEO, xxx, 1930, 81–105.Google Scholar

^{page 367 note 1} In the phrase pa ñaṁ ‘how ?’ (D 17, and once in an unpublished fragment).

^{page 367 note 2} With one apparent exception, discussed in the next paragraph. The bell inscription is unpublished.

^{page 367 note 3} gah, 12, is probably related to bgah (I 11, etc.) morphologically rather than historically.

^{page 367 note 4} Duroiselle, op. cit., Appendix A, No. 18. These inscriptions are not, as stated in ABASI, oc. cit., duplicates. For the texts I have had recourse to the Blagden MS.