cañcalā buddhiḥ yasya prajāsu sutarāṁ kr̥ bhāṇḍāgārādhikāro ’yaṁ tasya bhr̥tyaḥ prasā ntaṁ yat puṇyavarddhanam·. ratnalokeśvaro yena sthāpito rajatātmakaḥ vr̥ddhe ratnapure śā hjai-traṅ·-kṣetraṁ juṅā-pure cvaḥ-sirālaya

*m an-upama-matiḥ śrīmāñ jayasiṅhavarmmadevo ’ya

tasya tasyā ntaṁ yat ntayat It seems the stone has suffered a little bit of damage at the left extremity, so that the akṣara ntaṁ is now entirely lost, and can be read only from the estampage. cvaḥ dvaḥ *m anupama- manupāma- A symbol, ignored by Finot & Goloubew, seems to be squashed below the ma at line opening.

Finot & Goloubew observe that Le texte subsistant ne doit guère représenter que le quart de l'inscription totale and that Il paraît être rédigé en çlokas (472). The second claim is not confirmed by the more precise metrical analysis presented here. Our reconstruction of the lost text is based on the assumption that the text would have been more or less symmetrically distributed over the two sides of a pedestal, the conduit for libation fluids marking the transition from the first part (A) to the second (B). Part A of the text would have begun on either near the middle of the vertical face straight across the pedestal from the conduit, or in the far left corner viewed from the conduit; part B would have ended on back at the same point on the vertical face across the conduit, or in the far right corner. One line of text would, in each part, have extended over about 65 akṣaras. ]

First edited by Finot & Goloubew (). Re-edited and here by Dániel Balogh & Arlo Griffiths from the estampages EFEO n. 507 and photographs of the stone.

472-474 93