The Angkor Borei Inscription K. 557/600 from Cambodia: An English translation and commentary
Table of contents
Share
Metrics
The Angkor Borei Inscription K. 557/600 from Cambodia: An English translation and commentary
Annotation
PII
S086919080003960-3-1
DOI
10.31857/S086919080003960-3
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Anton Zakharov 
Affiliation:
Leading Research Fellow, Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences
Professor, Moscow State University of Psychology and Education
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Edition
Pages
66-80
Abstract

The author offers the first complete English translation of the Old Khmer inscription K.557/600 from Angkor Borei, which dates from 611 CE. It is the earliest dated inscription of Cambodia known today. This source was first published by George Cœdès in 1942. He translated the inscription into French but omitted the names of servants. Since his edition there has been no attempt to produce the full translation, except the Russian translation by Anton O. Zakharov in 2016. The inscription sheds light on the ancient Khmer personal names and sobriquets. Namesofservants or ‘slaves,’ whowere granted to various gods, i.e. religious foundations, by various donators, were of Sanskrit, Old Khmer, Austronesian, and Austroasiatic origin. But servants who bore these names or sobriquets played similar social roles. Thus, names of different origin were not indicators of different social status.

Keywords
Cambodia, inscriptions, epigraphy, personal names, servants, donations, slaves, Angkor Borei
Received
17.12.2018
Date of publication
21.03.2019
Number of characters
43680
Number of purchasers
33
Views
1190
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf 100 RUB / 1.0 SU

To download PDF you should sign in

Full text is available to subscribers only
Subscribe right now
Only article
100 RUB / 1.0 SU
Whole issue
800 RUB / 16.0 SU
All issues for 2019
4224 RUB / 30.0 SU
1 The early seventh century CE was in some way a dawn of the new era in the history of Cambodia. The beginning of the century saw the first dated inscriptions in vernacular Old Khmer language. These texts supplanted step-by-step local Sanskrit epigraphy. However, Sanskrit had continued in the dating formulae, royal names and eulogies placed inside the Old Khmer texts1.
1. According to scholarly convention, the inscriptions of Cambodia are designated by the letter K whereas the inscriptions of Campā in Central Vietnam by the letter C since the catalogues of George Cœdès (Cœdès 1908: 37–92; Cœdès, Parmentier 1923; Cœdès. 1937; 1942; 1966).
2 The earliest dated inscription of Cambodia K. 557/600 was found on an elevation Vằt Črôy on the right riverbank of the Angkor Borei River where an ancient urban site of the same name has been excavated by an American excavation team of the University of Hawai’i at Manoa under the direction of Miriam Stark (2003; 2004; 2006a–d) (see fig. 1). The inscription is dated from 611 CE. It is written in Old Khmer with Sanskrit loan-words and engraved in the Early Pallava script–a kind of Brahmi script.
3 The text is engraved on the three surfaces of a square stone whose height is 0.80 m and whose breadth is 1.20 m. The southern part of the inscription contains three lines. They were published as the Touol Vat Komnou inscription K. 557 in the Volume 5 of the six-volume Inscriptions du Cambodge (Finot 1935, pl. XIII)2. The northern and eastern parts of the inscription were deciphered and translated into French by George Cœdès (1886–1969, 1942: 21–23) as K. 600. His translation is incomplete. He omitted all the names of dependent persons, or “slaves” (esclaves). The Indian historian Ramesh Chandra Majumdar (1888–1980) in his Inscriptions of Kambuja described the content of the inscription following Cœdès (Majumdar 1953: 7–8, 559–560, No. 6)3. The American linguist Philipp Jenner published a drawing of the inscription’s part with his commentaries in his A Chrestomathy of Pre-Angkorian Khmer: Dated Inscriptions from the Seventh and Eighth Centuries (Jenner 1980: 1–9). Michael Vickery did analyze some terms and fragments of the inscription K. 557/600 in his colossal Society, Economics, and Politics in PreAngkor Cambodia: The 7th–8th Centuries (Vickery 1998).
2. It should be emphasized that the well-illustrated six-volume Inscriptions du Cambodge have the same title that the seminal eight-volume edition by George Cœdès. His edition has no pictures whereas the six-volume edition offers no transliteration and no translation. On the contrary, Cœdès did translate a huge amount of Cambodian Old Khmer inscriptions.

3. It should be stressed that Majumdar offers an English-language compilation of previous French scholarship. He gives Sanskrit parts of the Cambodian inscriptions in Devanagari script and describes its contents very briefly. Due to these weaknesses, contemporary scholars have rarely mentioned Majumdar’s book. Michael Vickery (1931–2017), for instance, does not mention it at all (Vickery 1998).
4

Fig. 1: A map of Pre-Angkorian Cambodia. From (Stark 2003, 89, map III–1).

5 Jenner rather ironically states that “The analysis of slave lists can be rewarding if one has the stomach for it” (Jenner 1980: 7)4. He adds that the personal names in the inscription are of Sanskrit, Old Khmer and other languages’ origin. The most reliable markers of the personal name, in Jenner’s view, are words va/ ‘a man’ and ku ‘a woman’. These markers occur immediately before the name or sobriquet. I would add that the inscription K. 557/600 contains an Austronesian and an Austroasiatic name, Putiḥ and Lavo respectively.
4. The Russian scholar Dega V. Deopik attempted to apply statistical methods to ancient Khmer personal names from the Old Khmer inscriptions (1969; 1972; 1975; 1979; 1983) but his works contain the lists and pure numerical data only, without providing interpretation.
6 In 1977 Long Seam, a Khmer PhD student at the Institute of Asian and African Studies of the Lomonosov Moscow State University who worked under supervision of Deopik, published a paper on the personal names of pre-Angkorian and Angkorian Cambodia (1977: 111–119). He summarized data from more than one thousand inscriptions. He described the structure, morphology and semantics of Old Khmer personal names. Later Long Seam published a study of Khmer geographic names (1993: 127–147).
7 Some Old Khmer personal names may have been sobriquets due to their meaning5. The inscription K. 557/600 mentions certain Klapit ‘to be fettered, confined’, Laṅsoṅ ‘one who has received retribution’, Sa’uy ‘To smell bad, stink, reek; stinker’, Cke ‘dog’6, Santos ‘spit’, Ragāl ‘diminished, reduced’, Rapak ‘broken, ruined’, Cmā ‘cat’, Tvin ‘twisted, bent, deformed’, Knāy ‘device for scraping, grubbing’, Crañ ‘bristle’, Tvoc ‘small, little’, Adās ‘opponent, rival’, Asaru ‘ bad, evil, ill-disposed’, Vaḥ ‘aged (lit. parted of her youth)’, Knur ‘leprous (?)’, etc.
5. I am grateful to Mark Yu. Ulyanov for that idea.

6. Long Seam points out that Old Khmer “names of animals were used to denote personal names of lower social classes (Catégorie sociale inférieure)” (Long Seam 1977: 118).
8 Sanskrit personal names in Old Khmer inscriptions are always harmonious but their bearers carried out the same functions as those who had Old Khmer names and/or sobriquets. For example, the inscription K. 557/600 mentions house-serfs Śivadāsa (Skr. ‘a slave of Shiva’) and Sa’uy (Old Khmer ‘a stinker’), rice-fields workers Jyeṣṭhahvarmma (Skr. ‘the best protector’) and Aras (Old Khmer ‘living, live’), female dancers Tanvaṅgī (Skr. ‘slender’) and Pit ' (Old Khmer ‘sealed by me (?)’).
9 The date of the inscription occupies the first line of its northern part: traitrīśottarapañcaśata śakaparigra[ha] trayodaśī ket māgha puṣyanakṣatra tulalagna “In the Śaka year 533, thirteenth day of the waxing moon of the month Māgha (January–February), when the lunar mansion was Puṣya (the sixth lunar mansion), and the Sun entered Libra”. The Sanskrit part contains few inaccuracies. It gives traitrīśottara instead of trayastriṃśa + uttara. It uses no cases. It also makes use of the Old Khmer word ket instead of Skr. śuklapakṣa ‘waxing Moon’.
10 The transition to Old Khmer in epigraphy looks a bit sudden due to the fact that all earlier inscriptions dated from the sixth century CE are composed in Sanskrit only7. They include multiple records of the king Citrasena-Mahendravarman: fragmentary К. 377 from Vat Sumphon in Surin (Cœdès 1953: 3–4), К. 509 from Tham Prasat in Ubon (Cœdès apud Seidenfaden 1922: 57–60), both in Thailand; К. 116 from Kruoi Ampil in the Stung Treng Province of Cambodia (Cœdès 1942: 134); К. 122 from Thma Kre in the Kratie Province (Finot 1903: 212); К. 514 from Tham Pet Thong in the Nakhon Ratchasima, or Khorat Province, Thailand (Seidenfaden 1922: 92); К. 363 from Phu Lokhon in the Basak Province of Laos (Barth 1903: 442–446)8 ; К. 496–497 from Pak Mun or Khan Thevada (Cœdès apud Seidenfaden 1922: 57–60); К. 508 from Tham Prasat, or Tham Phu Ma Nay in the Ubon Province of Thailand9; К. 1102 from Khon Kaen and К. 1106 from Phimai (Vickery 1998: 74–75); К. 969 from Khau Sra Cheng, or Ta Phraya in Thailand (Cœdès 1964: 152; Chhabra 1961: 109). Other examples are the inscription К. 213 from Phnom Banteay Neang in the Battambang Province of Cambodia issued by the king Bhavavarman who was elder brother of CitrasenaMahendravarman (Barth 1885: 26–28), and the inscription К. 359 from Veal Kantel in the Stung Treng Province of Cambodia. The K. 359 inscription mentions a nephew of female line of Bhavavarman named Hiraṇyavarman and the latter’s father Somaśarman (Barth 1885: 28– 31).
7. The inscriptions of Funan are also written in Sanskrit. They date from the fifth – early sixth centuries as well as the Sanskrit inscription of a certain king Devānīka who ruled in the region of Vat Phou (modern Laos). See Cœdès 1931; 1937b; Zakharov 2015a: 1–23; 2015b: 170–177; 2014: 142–148.

8. Cœdès calls its find-place Čăn Năk‘ôn (1966: 138).

9. «Chronique de l’année», BEFEO 22 (1922), p. 385, section « Laos » ;Cœdès 1931, pl. I. While the Sanskrit root -śarman occurs unfrequently in royal names, it is synonymous of the root –varman: they both mean ‘a protector’ (Monier-Williams 1899: 926, 1058).
11 The content of the Angkor Borei inscription K. 557/600 is a bestowal or granting which is at the same time a religious merit. All acts of bestowal mentioned in its text concern deities. In fact, the inscription has a dual nature. It is a record of juridical facts and of pious deeds that are inseparable of each other. The inscription gives no information what these merits are except bestowals and donations. The text contains repetitious formulae of land, cattle and rice-fields donations.
12 Donors and recipients bear personal names or titles. Differentiating names and titles sometimes looks problematic. A certain poñ Uy made a gift to kpoñ kamratāṅ '. A certain jaṃ ' made a donation to the god Ganesa or Mahāgaṇapati. A certain mratāṅ 'Antār bestowed servants to a deity Kamratāṅ Teṃ Kroṃ. A certain ācārya or religious teacher Kandin gave a gift to Maṇīśvara or Shiva. A mixture of Old Khmer and Sanskrit divine names as well as pure Old Khmer titles implies a unique local culture with an Indic stratum.
13 The objects of bestowing in the K. 557/600 are slaves or dependent peoples – men, women and children; cows and buffaloes, goats, coconut trees in groves and orchards, and rice-fields.
14 I offer an English translation of the inscription K. 557/600 with a commentary. The basis for any translation is a French one made by Cœdès. I have checked the readings through the prints of the Ecole Française d’Extrême-Orient10 (See figures 2–4). My commentary is based on the online Phillip Jenner’s Dictionary of Pre-Angkorian Khmer and Dictionary of Angkorian Khmer (Jenner 2009a–b = http://sealang.net/ok/). The numbers of lines are given in curly brackets. The square brackets include necessary additions. The round brackets contain my comments of the text.
10. I thank Arlo Griffiths who kindly sent them to me.
15

The Angkor Borei К.557/600 Inscription of 611 CE

16

The Northern Part

17

Figure 2. Print n. 1054-N K.600. Courtesy: École française d’Extrême-Orient

18 {1} traitrīśottarapañcaśata śakaparigra[ha]11 trayodaśī ket māgha puṣyanakṣatra tulalagna poñ uy oy kñuṃ ai ta kpoñ kamratāṅ 'añ va klapit 1 va kantāṅ srāṅ 1 va tloṅ 1 {2} va kcār 1 ku kantau 1 kon ku va 'alaṅ 1 ku yaleṅ 1 tmur 60 krapī 2 vave 10 toṅ tneṃ 40 sre sanre 2 ai 'aṃpoṅ kñuṃ 'aṃnoy jaṃ 'añ ai ta vraḥ kamratāṅ 'añ mahāgaṇapati {3} va nñā 1 va kantāṅ 1 va knoc 1 va tmo 1 va daśamī 1 ku koñ vraḥ 1 ku juṅ poñ 1 kon ku 1 ku mānra 'añ 1 ku plas 1 tmur 20 kantai ta pos oy (ya)jamāna kpoñ 1 ta cuḥ tṅai vraḥ jon vṅe ṅnau danhuṃ 1 ci 'añ tāñ 1 ||
11. Jenner already mentioned the omission of [ha] (1980: 6).
19

The Eastern Part

20

Figure 3. Print n. 1054-E K.600. Courtesy: École française d’Extrême-Orient

21 {1} kñuṃ vraḥ kamratāṅ 'añ...śara12 man mratāṅ 'antār oy saṃ paribhoga ai ta vraḥ kamratāṅ 'añ kamratāṅ teṃ kroṃ ramaṃ 7 caṃreṅ 11 tmīṅ viṇa kañjaṅ lāhv 4 {2} caṃ'uk va paṃre kralā vraḥ 20-2 kñuṃ sre 40.. tmur 100 krapi 20 sre ai kantok 10-7 sre ai caṃrai sanre 4 sre ai knar teṃ sanre 4 sre ai piṅ tvaṅ sanre 10 sre ai pradul sanre 2 {3} sre ai..l laṃ 'añ sanre 2 daṃriṅ ai panlaxaṅān 1 jmaḥ ge ramaṃ13 carumatī 1 priyasenā 1 'aruṇamatī 1 madanapriyā 1 samarasenā 1 vasantamallikā 1 jmaḥ ge caṃreṅ14 tanvaṅgī 1 guṇadhārī 1 dayitavatī 1 sārāṅgī 1 {4} payodharī 1 ratimatī 1 stanottarī 1 rativindu 1 manovatī 1 pit 'añ 1 juṅ poñ 1 tmiṅ kanjaṅ sakhipriyā 1 madhurasenā 1 tmiṅ vīṇa gandhinī 1 tmiṅ lāhv vinayavatī 1 jmaḥ caṃ'uk va laṅsoṅ 1 va tpun 1 va 'ahvāṅ 'aṃve ley 1 {5} va sa’uy 1 va cke 1 va kañcan 1 va śivadāsa 1 va toy bhāgya 1 va kroṅ 1 va ṅā 1 va lābha 1 va laxu 1 va santos 1 va soc tarka 1 va ragāl 1 va prāsāda 1 va vrau 1 va ta'ūṃ 1 va krāñ 1 va kcī 1 va rapak 1 va cmā 1 jmaḥ 'naka15 sre {6} va tvaḥ 1 va tpaṅ 1 va 'aras 1 va caṃ'uk vraḥ 1 va tvin 1 va toh 1 va tyx 1 va xāṅ 1 va crañ 1 va knāy 1 va cke 1 va tvāṅ 1 va kaṃpoñ 1 va jyeṣṭhahvarmma 1 va tvoc 1 va daśamī1 va 'adās 1 va phāñ 1 va panlas 1 ku cpoṅ 1 ku vnāk 1 {7} ku 'asaru 1 ku tacaṅ 1 ku tvāṅ 1 ku ta'āy 1 ku knur 1 ku mañjarī 1 ku tyor 1 ku yatey 1 ku yapan 1 ku śaṃṅkha 1 ku ya'ir 1 ku yaluṅ 1 ku raṅap 1 ku lahve 1 ku raṃnoc ta mān 1 ku klaṅ vroṅ 1 ku tyuṅ 1 ku tvuc 1 {8} ku ravā 1 kon ku 2 ku kañheṅ 1 ku men kan 1 ku poñ vraḥ 'añ 1 ku kpoñ 1 ku laṅgāy 1 ku syāṃ po 1 ku taṃve ru 1 ku vaḥ kloñ 1 ku 'aras 1 ku 'asaru 1 ku vaḥ cī 1 ku putiḥ 1 ku mratāṅ 1 ku mratāṅ jīva 1 ku vrau srac 1 {9} ku 'aṃvai ru 1 kñuṃ vraḥ maṇīśvara 'aṃnoy 'ācāryya kandin 1 va nirākranda 1 va śivadāsa 1 va haradāsa 1 va kñuṃ vraḥ 1 va kiṅkara 1 va puṇyāśraya 1 va mitradatta 1 va dhara 1 kantai kloñ mratāṅ 1 loṅ 'añ 1 ku 'aras 1 {10} ..ḷ vṅā 1 tmur 10 ||
12. Cœdès writes çvara (Cœdès 1942: 22). But the print Cœdès has no sign v.

13. Cœdès and the online corpus of Old Khmer inscriptions give raṃ (Cœdès 1942: 22; >>>> classic/khmer/; Jenner 1980: 9).

14. The word caṃreṅ in the first line of the eastern part of inscription is used without the third person pronoun ge (Jenner 1980: 9).

15. Cœdès offers anak sre (1942: 22). But -ka is evident.
22

The Southern Part

23

Figure 4. Print n. 1054-S K.557/600. Courtesy: École française d’Extrême-Orient

24 {1} …'āṅ vraḥ 'añ 1 dalā 'añ 1 {2} …ku tpoñ 1 ku lacak 1 kon ku 3 {3} …mratāṅ bhānu 1 kñuṃ ku tanmā ru 1 va lavo 1 ||
25

Translation

26

The Northern Part

27 “{1} “In the Śaka year 5331616, thirteenth day of the waxing moon17 of the month Māgha (January–February), when the lunar mansion was Puṣya (the sixth lunar mansion), and the Sun entered Libra, poñ18 Uy19 bestowed slaves to Kpoñ Kamratāṅ 'Añ20: a man [named] Klapit21, a man [named] Kantāṅ srāṅ22, a man [named] Tloṅ23, {2} a man [named] Kcār24, a woman [named] Kantau25, her son [named] 'Alaṅ26, a woman [named] Ya leṅ27, 60 cows, 2 water buffaloes, 10 goats, 40 coconut trees, 2 rice-fields (or 2 rice-fields measuring 2 sanre28 ) in29 a place [called] Aṃpoṅ30. Slaves31 [whom] Jaṃ 'Añ32 granted to a deity (vraḥ kamratāṅ ')33 Mahāgaṇapati34: {3} a man [named] Nñā35, a man [named] Kantāṅ36, a man [named] Knoc37, a man [named] Tmo38, a man [named] Daśamī39, a woman [named] Koñ vraḥ40, a woman [named] Juṅ Poñ41, her child (kon ku 1)42, a woman [named] Mānra 'Añ43, a woman [named] Plas44, 20 cows, religious females [are] givento the priest of the Kpoñ45, who keeps notes of saint days46, presents flowers, incense and perfume47; one Ci 'Añ48, one Tāñ49”.
16. Jenner (1980: 6–7) points out that traitrīśottarapañcaśata is trayastriṃśa + uttara + pañcaśata, literally “thirty three after five hundred,” i.e. the year 533. According to Jenner, Śakaparigraha means “a year of the Śaka dominion, i.e. a year of the Śaka era” ( >>>> accessed 08.09.2018).

17. Ket is the Old Khmer term for the month which in Sanskrit calls śuklapakṣa.

18. Poñ is a court male and, perhaps, female title ( >>>> Deopik supposes that “poñ is a small landholder who was not a member of a community but who made use of the labour of the kñum” (Deopik 1981: 29). Sachchidanand Sahai holds that poñ did not occupy high official posts (1970: 56). Long Seam treats poñ as a religious title (Long Seam 1977: 113). According to Jenner, poñ is an “unidentified title, presumably of a low rank in the feudal hierarchy”(1981: 197, italics of Jenner). He once translated it as ‘sir’: “Sir Uy has given slaves to the kpon Our High Lord” (Jenner 1981: 381). Michael Vickery did find evidence that poñ may belong to the upper social classes. For example, the inscription K. 90 from Kuk Prasat Kot in the Kampong Cham Province of Cambodia calls a servant of the king Ĭśānavarman named Bhadrāyudha, bhṛtya ‘id.’ in the Sanskrit part and poñ in the Old Khmer part (Cœdès 1953: 26). The inscription K. 54 from Kdei Ang dated from 629 CE a donor gives a property obtained from a certain poñ Śivadatta. That Śivadatta is called a son of Ĭśānavarman and very likely an elder brother of Bhavavarman II in the inscription K. 1150 found in the region of Aranyaprathet, the Prachinburi Province of Thailand, in 1986. Śivadatta also bears the Sanskrit title svāmin ‘owner or lord’ (Cœdès 1951: 159; Jacques 1986: 79). After 719 CE the title poñ disappeared from inscriptions. Its last mention in the inscription K. 1029 dated from 743–744 CE, concerns the generation of the parents of the text authors (Vickery 1998: 190–192: 190. n. 55; 118: 363–365).

19. Uy may denote a slave-name and a verb ‘to smell’ ( >>>> Vickery is inclined to treat the word as a title part (1998: 277).

20. The title kpoñ kamratāṅ also occurs in the inscriptions К. 79 of 639 CE (line 7: 'aṃnoy mratāñ īśānapavitra ta kpoñ kaṃmratāṅ ' “a gift of Mratāñ Īśānapavitra to Kpoñ Kaṃmratāṅ '”) and К. 910 from Tuol Ang Srah that dated from 651 CE (line 17: kñuṃ kpoñ kaṃmratāṅ “slaves of Kpoñ Kaṃmratāṅ,” whom Jenner identifies with Śrī Kedāreśvara) (Jenner 1980: 50; 1981: 41; >>>> accessed 08.09.2018). The name Īśānapavitra has the same root that occurs in the name of the king of Zhenla Ĭśānavarman who ruled in the first half of the seventh century. Kedārezvara is the name of a Shiva’s statue in Kashi and of a tīrtha, or bathing place in Himalayas (Monier-Williams 1899: 309). Kpoñ is a name of female slaves (Jenner 1981: 41). kaṃmratāṅ ' means “Our High Lord” (Jenner 1981: 381).

21. Klapit means ‘fettered, confined’.

22. Kantāṅ srāṅ means a ‘`handsome servant,’ >>>> s.v. ‘srāṅ’.

23. Tloṅ is a slave name and is also a “unit of measure for paddy and salt”.

24. Kcār is a hapax in the corpus of Old Khmer names.

25. Kantau means ‘ardent, energetic’.

26. I translate following Jenner (1980: 8). The meaning of 'alaṅis unknown (Jenner 1981: 366).

27. The meaning of Ya leṅ is undefined. According to Jenner, Ya may denote a female slave of non-Khmer origin (Jenner 1981: 239). However, his online dictionary gives the meanings ‘female creature; courtesy title for (presumably older) women’ only >>>> a >>>>

28. Sanre or sanrey[y] or sare is a ‘numeral classifier for rice-field’; sre sanre 2 means ’2 rice-fields’ or ‘a rice-field of 2 sanre ’ (http://seal a >>>> cf. Jenner 1981: 313). Sre means a rice-field (Jenner 1981: 345).

29. The preposition ai here is incomplete. Its complete form is ai ta (see line 1 – ai ta kpoñ kamratāṅ ', and line 2 – ai ta vraḥ kamratāṅ ' mahāgaṇapati).

30. Aṃpoṅ is a hapax.

31. The term kñuṃ/khñuṃ is a point at issue between the scholars. It usually has been translated as ‘slave’. But Claude Jacques expressed serious doubts in this interpretation (Jacques 1976). Vickery points out that kñuṃ “in fact belong to several categories, perhaps few of which should be termed ‘slaves’ in the accepted Western sense” (Vickery 1998: 225). He states that he will call them “serving personnel” (Vickery 1998: 231, 439–440). During the 5th International Conference of the European Association for Southeast Asian Studies held in Naples in September 2007, there was a panel “Slaves in the inscriptions of Ancient Cambodia”. Its moderator Eric Bourdonneau and its participant Sachchidanand Sahai argued that kñuṃ often were not slaves in the sense of Ancient Greek and Roman slavery. (I participated in the conference and attended this session; see my review: Zakharov 2008: 177.)

32. 'Aṃnoy jaṃ ' literally means ‘the gift of the jaṃ '’ (Jenner 1980: 8). Vickery holds that jaṃ ' is a title (1998: 277).

33. See Cœdès 1961; Ferlus 1994. Vickery translates the title vraḥ kamrateṅ as ‘his majesty’ (1985: 240, n. 52). Jenner supposes that kamrateṅ is ‘Holy Lord’ whereas vraḥ means ‘celestial or holy being: god, demigod, the Buddha’ (1981: 15, 297).

34. The phrase vraḥ kamratāṅ ' mahāgaṇapati is curious due to its combination of Old Khmer and Sanskrit words. vraḥ kamratāṅ ' are Old Khmer. Mahāgaṇapati is a name of Ganesa in Sanskrit (Monier-Williams 1899: 795).

35. Nñā is a hapax.

36. Kantāṅ means ‘designated, appointed’.

37. The meaning of knoc is unclear. According to Jenner, it occurs in the inscriptions K. 138:20 (620 CE, Cœdès 1953: 18); K. 127:7 (683 CE, Cœdès 1942: 89); K. 904B:3 (713 CE, Cœdès 1952: 54). K. 24:1 (578–677 CE, Cœdès 1942: 16); K. 149:8 (578–677 CE, Cœdès 1952: 28); K. 389B:2 (578–677 CE, Cœdès 1954: 78; 1958: 127); K. 424B:7 (578–677 CE, Cœdès 1942: 73); K. 502:6 (578–677 CE, Cœdès 1924: 353); K. 11:4 (578–677 CE, Cœdès 1942: 7) >>>> .

38. Tmo means ‘stone or precious stone’.

39. Daśamī is the Sanskrit word for ‘ten’ (Monier-Williams 1899: 472).

40. Koñ vraḥ probably means ‘bent by a god’ as koñ has meanings ‘bent, twisted, knotted’.

41. The name juṅ poñ consists of the two words. The first means ‘subject, dependent’. The second was discussed earlier (see above).

42. The gender of a child remains unknown (Jenner 1980: 8).

43. ku mān ra ʼañ means ‘rich, wealthy’, >>>> entry ‘mān’.

44. Plas is a hapax but Jenner offers a meaning ‘substitute’ ( >>>> Jenner 1981: 209).

45. The translation “religious females [are] givento the priest of the Kpoñ” follows Joseph Deth Thach and Denis Paillard (Deth Thach, Paillard 2011: 10).

46. According to Vickery, the priest of the Kpoñ is the “one who records holy days” (1998: 218). He follows Cœdès.

47. I follow Vickery (Vickery 1998: 217) with a correction. He omits the verb oy and translates “kantai in cult service (pos) with the officiant of the kpoñ 1…”

48. Ci means ‘young’ whereas ci ' is a “court title for young men?” >>>> t >>>> But ci ' literally means ‘my youth, my young man’ because ' is the first person singular (cf. vraḥ kamratāṅ ' ‘my divine lord, my God’)

49. Tāñ is a ‘title for woman of rank: lady, wife’ or conjecturally ‘a king’s servant’ ( >>>> It is difficult to say whether it concerns a man or a woman. It is also possible that the word tāñ relates to the previous words. As the inscription says ci ' tāñ 1, one may suppose a translation “one young man [named] Tāñ”.
28

The Eastern Part

29 “{1} The slaves of the god (vraḥ kamratāṅ ')… whom mratāṅ50 Antār51 bestowed52 to the god (vraḥ kamratāṅ ') Kamratāṅ Teṃ Kroṃ (Holy Lord of the tree Kroṃ)53: seven dancing girls54, eleven female singers, four female players on [musical instruments] viṇa, kañjaṅ,55 and lāhv, {2} twenty two domestic servants56 for the services in a sanctuary(?); 40 – – [57]57 slaves for rice-fields (sre), one hundred cows, twenty water buffaloes, seventeen ricefields in Kantok58; four rice-fields in Caṃrai59 (or a rice-field measured four sanre in Caṃrai)60; four rice-fields in Knar teṃ61 (or a rice-field measured four sanre in Knar teṃ); a rice-field on a pond with coconuts (or in Piṅ Tvaṅ[measured] ten sanre62); two rice-fields in Pradul63 (or a rice-field measured two sanre in Pradul); {3} two rice-fields in – l l aṃ 'añ64, and an orchard in Panlaxaṅān65. The names of these dancing girls are Carumatī66 , Priyasenā67 , Aruṇamatī68 , Madanapriyā69, Samarasenā70, and Vasantamallikā71. The names of female singers are Tanvaṅgī72, Guṇadhārī73, Dayitavatī74, Sārāṅgī75, {4} Payodharī76, Ratimatī77, Stanottarī78, Rativindu79, Manovatī80, Pit 'añ81, Juṅ poñ82. [The names] of female players on kañjaṅ are Sakhipriyā83 and Madhurasenā84, on viṇa is на Gandhinī85; on lāhv is Vinayavatī86. The names of domestic male servants87 are: Laṅsoṅ88, Tpun89, 'Ahvāṅ 'Aṃve Ley90, {5} Sa’uy91, Cke92, Kañcan93, Śivadāsa94, Toy bhāgya95, Kroṅ96, Ṅā97, Lābha98, La[…]u99, Santos100, Soc Tarka101, Ragāl102, Prāsāda103, Vrau104, Ta'ūṃ105, Krāñ106, Kcī107, Rapak108, Cmā109 . The names of rice-fields workers110 are: {6} Tvaḥ111, Tpaṅ112, Aras113, Caṃ'uk Vraḥ114, Tvin115, Toh116, Ty[…], […]āṅ, Crañ117, Knāy118, Cke119, Tvaṅ120, Kaṃpoñ121, Jyeṣṭhahvarmma122, Tvoc123, Daśamī124, 'Adās125, Phāñ126, Panlas127, [female workers128:] Cpoṅ129, Vnāk130, {7} 'Asaru131, Tacaṅ132, Tvāṅ133, Ta'āy134 , Knur135 , Mañjarī136 , Tyor137 , Yatey138 , Yapan139 , Śaṃṅkha140 , Ya'ir 141 , Yaluṅ142 , Raṅap143, Lahve144, Raṃnoc ta mān145, Klaṅ vroṅ146, Tyuṅ147, Tvuc148, {8} Ravā149, two girls (kon ku), Kañheṅ150 and Men kan151, a female of poñ Vraḥ 'Añ152, Kpoñ153, Laṅgāy154, Syāṃ Po1155 Taṃve Ru156, Vaḥ kloñ157, Aras158, Asaru159, Vaḥ Cī160, Putiḥ161, Mratāṅ162, Mratāṅ Jīva163, Vrau Srac164, {9} 'Aṃvai Ru165. The slaves of Vraḥ Maṇīśvara166 are the gift of religious teacher (ācārya) Kandin167: Nirākranda168, Śivadāsa169 , Haradāsa170 , Kñuṃ Vraḥ171 , Kiṅkara172, Puṇyāśraya173, Mitradatta174, Dhara175, Kantai Kloñ Mratāñ176, Loṅ 'Añ177, Aras178, {10} – – …, ten cows”.
50. Jenner writes ‘Lord’ (1980: 9) or ‘eminence’ (1981: 237).

51. Antār is a hapax. Jenner once erroneously defined it as a slave-name (1981: 361). But it is equally possible that one should read “the lord of Antār”.

52. saṃ paribhoga means ‘to share the use of with (ai ta, daṅ, droṅ)’ ( >>>>

53. Cf. ge vraḥ saṃ paribhoga droṅ vraḥ kaṃmratāṅ ʼañ kaṃmratāṅ teṃ kroṃ voṃ saṃ droṅ samudrapura (K.137:3–4, Cœdès 1942: 116), “The divinities shall share the use [thereof] with My Holy High Lord the high lord of the kroṃ tree, [but] not with Samudrapura”. >>>>

54. Cœdès righty points out that the third line of the eastern part mentions only six dancing girls (Cœdès 1942: 23, n. 9). Their names are obviously female (see below).

55. The term kañjaṅ occurs in this inscription only, here and in the fourth line.

56. Caṃʼuk va paṃre kralā vraḥ means “Domestics: males for service in the sanctuary court”(?). Cœdès leaves the term untranslated: “22 caṃʼuk va” (1942: 23). The inscription from Lonvek gives caṃʼuk ple le (K.137:17), `domestics [and] upper servants' (Cœdès 1942: 116).

57. Only the sign ‘40’ is read with certainty. But as the inscription further enumerates fifty seven names, Cœdès translates “57”.

58. Kantok is a hapax. Possibly it means a ‘small granary’ >>>> referring to Saveros Pou).

59. Caṃrai is a hapax as a place-name. It means an ‘ill omen or sinister’.

60. I follow Jenner ( >>>>

61. Knar teṃ means ‘log palisade, stockade’ and knar means ‘protective barrier, earthen embankment or rampart’ >>>> .

62. Sre ai piṅ tvaṅ sanre 10 may be translated as follows: “ten rice-fields on a pond with coconuts”. The word tvaṅ means ‘coconut, Cocos nucifera L. (Palmae)’.

63. Pradul is a hapax.

64. Laṃ 'añ is a hapax.

65. Panlaxaṅān is a hapax.

66. Carumatī is from Sanskrit cārumatī ‘lovely’ or ‘female attendant’ (Monier-Williams 1899: 393).

67. Priyasenā is a Sanskrit compound. It may literally mean ‘beloved army’ or, more likely, ‘beloved courtesan’ (Monier-Williams 1899: 710, 1246). Интересно, что это имя танцовщицы, возможно девадаси.

68. 'aruṇamatī is from Sanskrit “*aruṇama(n)t `having a ruddy color', < aruṇa `reddish-brown color', + sfx -ma(n)t, forming possessive adjectives]” ( >>>> or ‘ruddy’ (s.v. aruṇa, Monier-Williams 1899: 88).

69. Madanapriyā means ‘beloved of Madana, or god of love’ (Monier-Williams 1899: 778, s.v. madana).

70. Samarasenā is a Sanskrit compound which means ‘spear of battle or Lady of Battle’ from samara ‘battle or missile, spear’ and senā “Indra’s wife or his thunderbolt personified” (Böhtlingk, Roth: 1875: 1187; Böhtlingk 1889: 184; Monier-Williams 1899: 1246). This name of Indra’s wife occurs in the Taittirīya-Saṃhitā, Aitareya-Brāhmaṇa and Vaitāna-Sūtra. Vladimir N. Toporov pointed out that it occurs in the Atharvaveda (Mify narodov mira, vol. 1, 1980, p. 533); I suppose he bears in mind the Vaitāna-Sūtra. Otto von Böhtlingk adds that Senā may be an abbreviation of the name of a courtesan Kuberasenā. Jenner stresses that Samarasenā is a hapax referring to an erroneous idea of Saveros Pou (b. 1929, also known as Levitz) that it means a ‘soldier’ >>>> / >>>> accessed 16 September 2018; cf. Jenner 1981: 314).

71. Skr. Vasantamallikā means a ‘spring jasmine (Jasminum Zambac)’ (Monier-William 1899: 793, s.v. mallaka).

72. Skr. Tanvaṅgī means a ‘delicate-limbed woman’ (Monier-Williams 1899: 436).

73. Skr. Guṇadhārī is from Skr. guṇadhara ‘possessing good qualities’ (Monier-Williams 1899: 357).

74. Skr. Dayitavatī means ‘beloved’. Jenner writes “Sanskrit fem. of *dayitava(n)t `having a husband or lover', < dayita `husband, lover', + sfx -va(n)t, forming possessive adjectives” >>>> But the affix –vat denotes likeness or resemblance, and no belonging (Monier-Williams 1899: 915).

75. Skr. Sārāṅgī means ‘having the best body’ from sāra + aṅga, fem. Jenner offers an erroneous etymology: “Sanskrit, fem. of sāraṅga `of variegated color, dappled, spotted; name of a particular Rāga; a kind of spotted antelope; a bee, &c.” >>>> . Jenner 1981: 319).

76. Skr. Payodharī is a feminine of payodhara ‘a woman’s breast’ (Monier-Williams 1899: 586), or ‘big-bosomed’. Cf. Jenner’s literal etymology: “Sanskrit, fem. of payodhara `milk-bearing, full of juice', < payas ‘fluid, juice, esp. milk’, + dhara>>>> Jenner 1981: 184); he refers to Saveros Pou’s version ‘containing milk’ (“contenant du lait”).

77. Skr. Ratimatī means ‘glad’ (Monier-Williams 1899: 867).

78. Skr. Stanottarī means ‘full-bosomed’ (Monier-William: 1899: 178, 1257 – stana ‘the female breast or nipple’ + uttara ‘upper, higher, superior, excellent’). Jenner gives an inaccurate reading: “Sanskrit stanottarīya `wearing a breast-cloth', < stana ‘breast (mamma)’, + uttarīya ‘upper or outer garment’” >>>> e >>>> Jenner 1981: 336).

79. Skr. Rativindu means ‘getting sexual pleasure’ from rati + vindu, Monier-Williams: 1899: 876, 972). Jenner translates ‘knowing or having pleasure’ ( >>>> cf. Jenner: 1981: 246 – ‘finding or knowing delight”).

80. Skr. Manovatī means ‘thoughtful’ ( >>>> cf. Jenner 1981: 226). It is a female name, a name of an Apsara and of several women; it is also the name of a city on Mount Meru (Monier-Williams 1899: 785).

81. The Old Khmer name Pit ' consists of two parts. Pit means ‘closed, sealed’ >>>> t >>>> Pit may mean ‘closed or sealed by me or my virgin’ (cf. Jenner 1981: 191).

82. The name Juṅ poñ also occurs in the northern part of the inscription in a list of donations by a certain Jaṃ 'Añ, line 3. It may mean both that Jaṃ 'Añ and mratāṅ Antār are one and the same persons and that there were two women who bore the name Juṅ poñ. The only thing that may argue in favour of the latter is that the northern part tells about her child whereas the eastern part mentions no child of her.

83. Skr. Sakhipriyā means ‘a friend’s beloved’.

84. Skr. Madhurasenā means a ‘sweet courtesan’. Jenner erroneously translates it as ‘having missiles of sweet sound, whose weapon is melody’, citing Saveros Pou who gives a more appropriate reading ‘nice or sweet female servant’ ( >>>>

85. Skr. Gandhinī denotes ‘odoriferous’.

86. Skr. Vinayavatī means ‘well-behaved’.

87. The names of domestic servants begin with a male marker -va. I omit it for the sake of simplicity.

88. Laṅsoṅ conjecturally means ‘one who has received retributio >>>> and a hapax.

89. Tpun is a hapax.

90. 'Ahvāṅ means ‘to turn, bend, twist’. Aṃve denotes 'act, activity, work’. Ley means ‘at all’. Jenner offers a translation “he who ‘avoids all work’ ”, >>>> s.v. ʼahvāṅ or ley).

91. Sa’uy means ‘a stinker’. The name occurs in several pre-Angkorian inscriptions K. 28:3 (578–677 CE, Cœdès 1942: 24); K. 149:25 (578–677 CE, Cœdès 1952: 28); K. 357:19 (578–677 CE, Cœdès 1954: 41); K. 548:2 (578–777 CE, Cœdès 1942: 154), >>>>

92. Cke (chke) means a ‘dog’.

93. Kañcan is a widespread name of an uncertain meaning. It occurs in the inscriptions K. 138:20 (620 CE, Cœdès 1953: 18); K. 149:11 (578–677 CE, Cœdès 1952: 28); K. 563:11 (578–677 CE, Cœdès 1942: 198); K. 155:9 (578–777 CE, Cœdès 1953: 64).

94. Skr. Śivadāsa literally means ‘a slave of Shiva’. But the literal meaning does not necessarily imply a low social rank as a famous writer of the Gupta Age and the author of a play “The Recognition of Shakuntala” was Kālidāsa whose name means ‘a slave or servant of the [goddess] Kali.’

95. Toy bhāgya means ‘following one’s destiny’ (bhāgya < Skr. bhāga ‘a part, share’). The person of this name in the K. 557/600 was a man because his name follows a male prefix va. The inscription K. 138 from Prasat Toč mentions a woman of the same name ku Toy Bhāgya (l. 28, Cœdès 1953: 19). >>>> Interestingly, the name consists of an Old Khmer toy and a Sanskrit bhāgya at one and the same time.

96. Kroṅ means to ‘weave into garlands’.

97. Ṅā means ‘dear, beloved’. It occurs in the inscription from Prasat Pram Loven K. 8, line 2, as krov ṅā (578– 777 CE, Cœdès 1942: 79).

98. Skr. Lābha denotes ‘gain, profit, acquisition’.

99. Only the syllable la is clear.

100. Santos ‘a spit’ as a name occurs in the inscriptions K. 357:9 (578–677 CE, C VI:41); K. 956:6 (578–677 CE, Cœdès 1964: 128) >>>>

101. According to Jenner, Soc originates from Skr. śocya ‘miserable’ and tarka is from Skr. `conjecture, speculation, reasoning', so Soc Tarka may mean ‘a wise Soc’ ( >>>> One may speculate that the name has a meaning ‘source of knowledge’.

102. Ragāl means ‘diminished, reduced’.

103. Prāsāda is a temple or sanctuary (< Skr. prāsāda ‘id.’).

104. Vrau means ‘pretty, beautiful, handsome’.

105. The meaning of Ta'ūṃ is obscure.

106. Krāñ means ‘disobedient’.

107. Kcī means ‘immature, young’.

108. Rapak is a hapax. It supposedly means ‘broken’.

109. Cmā means a ‘cat’.

110. 'Naka sre is 'tiller of wet rice-fields, cultivator of wet rice, laborer in rice1ands' (Jenner 1981: 345).

111. Tvaḥ supposedly means ‘separated, cut off (from home and family)’ >>>>

112. Tpaṅis a hapax. It supposedly means ‘protector’ ( >>>>

113. 'Aras means ‘alive, living’.

114. Caṃ'ukVraḥ means ‘a domestic servant of a god’. See the beginning of the line 2 on the eastern part of the inscription K. 557/600. In the line 6, it is a personal name because it is preceded by a male prefix va and succeeded by a vertical sign or the number ‘1’ after vraḥ.

115. Tvin “conjecturally [means] ‘twisted, bent, deformed’ ” >>>>

116. Toh means ‘released, freed’.

117. Crañ means ‘bristle’ (?) (cf. >>>>

118. Knāy is a ‘Device for scraping, grubbing’ >>>>

119. Another servant named Cke is mentioned in the line 5 of the inscription (see above). If these two Cke were one and the same man, he could be simultaneously a rice-field worker and a domestic servant. If this supposition is correct, Cœdès’ calculation of twenty two domestic servants and fifty seven rice-fields workers needs a revision. But it is likely that there were two men of the same name, like two Johns or Bills.

120. Tvaṅ means a coconut (see above).

121. While Jenner interprets Kaṃpoñ as ‘one who is elder or of higher status’ ( >>>> I suppose here the name means ‘a subject’, literally ‘one who is not a poñ’ when kaṃ is a negative or prohibition marker.

122. Jyeṣṭhahvarmma is from Skr. jyeṣṭhavarman ‘the best protector’. There was a poet of this name mentioned in the Śārṅgadhara-paddhati (“ThePath of the Poets/Cuckolds”) LVIII: 1 (Monier-Williams 1899: 426). Jenner gives no meaning and believes the name is a hapax >>>> / >>>>

123. Tvoc means ‘small, little’. The name occurs in another inscription from Angkor Borei Ka.57:4 (700–750 CE, Vong Sotheara, see >>>> This text also mentions the name ’Aras. It is worthy of note that the names Tvoc and ’Aras belong to men in the inscription К. 557/600 whereas the inscription Ka.57 speaks about women of the same name.

124. A worker of the same name occurs among the gifts of certain Jaṃ 'Añ in the line 2 of the northern part of the inscription K. 557/600 (see above). There are two possibilities: whether there were namesakes Daśamī or there was a single person of that name. In the latter case, one should explain why this Daśamī was once bestowed by Jaṃ 'Añ and twice by a certain mratāṅ Antār. One may even suppose that mratāṅ Antār and Jaṃ 'Añ were really one and the same person. Or might they both have had a right to transmit the workforce of kñuṃs to deities?

125. 'Adās means an ‘opponent’.

126. Phāñ means ‘to show, point out’. As a personal name, it is a hapax.

127. Panlas means ‘substitute, representative’; cf. early Jenner’s “male substitute slave” (Jenner 1981: 182).

128. From then on follows a list of women-ku.

129. Cpoṅ means ‘older, elder, senior’.

130. Vnāk denotes ‘support or servant’.

131. 'asaru means ‘bad, evil, reprehensible’.

132. Tacaṅ also occurs in another inscription K. 424 B:7 (578–677 CE, Cœdès 1942: 73) and possibly means ‘divided’.

133. Tvāṅ is a coconut (see above). The name was male and female, like Tvoc and Aras.

134. Ta'āy occurs in the inscriptions K. 24:11 (578–677 CE, Cœdès 1942: 16); K. 137:19 (578–677 CE, Cœdès 1942: 115), and K. 149:7 (578–677 CE, Cœdès 1952: 28).

135. Knur mean ‘jackfruit’ or ‘unidentified disease of the scalp’ (Jenner gives an incorrect Latin name for jackfruit Artocarpus integra instead of correct Artocarpus Heterophyllus >>>> e >>>> I suppose Knur may mean mutatis mutandis ‘leprous’.

136. Skr. Mañjarī means ‘a cluster of blossoms, flower; pearl’.

137. The meaning is unknown.

138. Ya denotes ‘female creature’ whereas tey denotes a tree Pandanus. The meaning of the name is unclear. Jenner simply says Yatey is a name of a female slave (1981: 239).

139. The meaning of Yapan is uncertain. Jenner interprets *pan as ‘to pledge’ >>>> / >>>> The word pan occurs in an undated inscription from Neak Ta Svay Damba in the Kandal Province К. 903 B.4 (Cœdès 1954: 70) but its condition is poor and gives no clue to the meaning of the word.

140. Śaṃṅkha is a Sanskrit śaṅkha ‘a shell’ (Monier-Williams 1899: 1047).

141. The meaning of Ya'ir is unclear. Jenner (1981: 239) erroneously states that the name occurs in the inscriptions K. 138: 10 (620 CE), K. 54: 14 (629 CE), K. 109N: 22 (655 CE), K. 451S: 9 (680 CE) (see the texts of the inscriptions >>>> The word is omitted from the online dictionaries of Old Khmer >>>> t >>>> accessed 25 September 2018). The syllable ya may be a female honorific title adopted from Old Mon.

142. Yaluṅ literally means ‘a big woman’

143. Raṅap is a hapax. Perhaps, it means ‘waning, dying’.

144. Jenner holds that Lahve may denote a member of a Mon-Khmer ethnic group from the Bolaven Plateau in Laos (Jenner 1981: 262; >>>> The place-name Bolaven literally means ‘a country of Laven’.

145. Raṃnoc ta mān means ‘actual extinction >>>> p >>>>

146. Klaṅ vroṅ means ‘strongly brilliant or radiant’.

147. Tyuṅ literally means ‘charcoal’ that may be a denotation of one who has black skin like a charcoal.

148. Tvuc is the same as tvoc ‘small, little’.

149. The meaning of Ravā is unclear. As rava it occurs in the inscription K. 904B: 4 (713 CE, Cœdès 1952: 54).

150. Kañheṅ means ‘high lady’ ( >>>>

151. Men kan probably means ‘strong grip or stronghold’.

152. See Jenner 1981: 197. One may assume that there is a name Poñ Vraḥ ' meaning ‘a Lady of Gods’.

153. Kpoñ denotes ‘elder or superior’.

154. Laṅgāy is a hapax of uncertain etymology.

155. Syāṃ po originates from Sanskrit śyāma ‘black, dark-coloured’ + Old Khmer po ‘Lord’. According to Jenner, Syāṃ means ‘a division of Thai people’ ( >>>> s.v. ‘po’ and ‘syāṃ’). The name literally means ‘a Black Lady’.

156. Taṃve ru means ‘a good worker’ ( >>>> s.v. ‘taṃve’).

157. Vaḥ kloñ means ‘separated from her lord’.

158. Here Aras is a female name, cf. the line 6.

159. The name Asaru also occurs in the beginning of the line 7. I suppose that these Asaru were namesakes.

160. Vaḥ means ‘one who is deprived of her/his youth’.

161. Putiḥ is an Austronesian word meaning ‘white’. See, for example, Old Javanese putih (Zoetmulder 1982: 1465), Javanese putih (Robson, Wibisono 2002: 608), Cham patiḥ (Aymonier, Cabaton 1906: 259: 288; Moussay 1971: 268).

162. Here it is a name or sobriquet and not a title.

163. Mratāṅ jīva means ‘the Lord of Life’ (Skr. jīva ‘life’).

164. Vrau srac means ‘beautifully made’.

165. 'Aṃvai Ru means ‘very vigilant or alert’.

166. That is Shiva.

167. Skr. Kandin denotes Amorphophallus campanulatus (Monier-Williams 1899: 249).

168. Skr. Nirākranda means ‘having no friend or protector’ (Monier-Williams 1899: 540).

169. The name Śivadāsa occurs among the names of domestic servants bestowed by mratāṅ Antār to the deity Kamratāṅ Teṃ Kroṃ (see above).

170. Skr. Haradāsa literally means ‘a slave of the Destroyer, i.e. Shiva’.

171. Kñuṃ Vraḥ means ‘a slave of the God’.

172. Kiṅkara is from Skr. kiṃkara ‘a servant, slave’ (Monier-Williams 1899: 283).

173. Skr. Puṇyāśraya means ‘religious authority or pure resting-place’.

174. Skr. Mitradatta means ‘given by the god Mitra’.

175. Skr. Dhara means ‘holder, possessor; sword’.

176. Kantai kloñ mratāñ means ‘a woman of the chief lord’ ( >>>> Vickery interprets the term kloñ as a certain female title and offers three versions of translation: “kantai of kloñ mratāñ [the officiant of the last named god] 1, loṅ 1, ku aras 1”; “female kloñ of the mratāñ” or “the female kloñ mratāñ 1, loṅ 1, ku aras 1” (1998: 217). Judging from his spelling of the words, he does not consider them personal names. But interestingly he prescribes titles to women who were bestowed to the god Maṇīśvara by the teacher Kandin (kñuṃ vraḥ maṇīśvara 'aṃnoy 'ācāryya kandin).

177. Loṅ ' means ‘my high, outstanding, eminent’.

178. Cœdès leaves the term untranslated: « esclaves femmes du Kloñ Mratāṅ, Loṅ Añ, Ku Aras » (Cœdès 1942: 23). There is the third use of the name Aras in the inscription.
30

The Southern Part

31 “{1} …[named] 'Āṅ Vraḥ 'Añ179, Dalā 'añ180, {2} …[women named] Tpoñ181, Lacak182, three children (kon ku), {3} … Mratāṅ Bhānu183, female slave [named] Tanmā Ru184 и [male slave named] Lavō185”.
179. 'Āṅ Vraḥ ' presumably means ‘My Reliable God’ or ‘a servant of my god’.

180. Jenner compares Dalā with the Khmer word thlā ‘pure, perfect, precious’ >>>> t >>>> So, Dalā ' means ‘my precious’. Dalā also occurs in the inscription K. 904 B: 19–20: ku | dalā 1 ‘a woman [named] Dalā’ (713 CE, Cœdès 1952: 54).

181. Tpoñ may mean ‘superior, of high status, senior’.

182. Lacak as a personal name or sobriquet is a hapax meaning ‘a lame person’.

183. Judging from the eastern part of the inscription K. 557/600, Mratāṅ may be a personal name.

184. Jenner translates Tanmā Ru as ‘fair endurance’ >>>> / >>>>

185. Jenner compares the name with a Thai term for Lopburi ละโว้ [lawóo] (Jenner 1981: 261; >>>> Long Seam believes that Lavō was a native of the city Lavo (1977: 119). But one may suppose that Lavō was a member of the people of Loven from the Bolaven Plateau.

References

1. Aymonier, Çabaton 1906 – Aymonier É., Çabaton A. Dictionnaire čam-français. Paris, 1906.

2. Barth 1885 – Barth A. Inscriptions sanscrites du Cambodge. Paris, 1885.

3. Barth 1903 – Barth A. Inscription sanskrite de Phou Lokhon (Laos). Bulletin de l’Ecole Française d’Extreme Orient (further – BEFEO). 1903. 3/3. Pp. 442–446.

4. Böhtlingk 1889 – Böhtlingk O. Sanskrit-Wörterbuch in Kürzerer Fassung. T. VII. St.-Petersburg, 1889.

5. Böhtlingk, Roth 1875 – Böhtlingk O., Roth R. Sanskrit-Wörterbuch. T. VII. St.-Petersburg.

6. Chhabra 1961 – Chhabra B.Ch. Bangkok Museum Stone Inscription of Mahendravarman. Journal of the Siam Society. 1961. 49/2. Pp. 109–111.

7. Cœdès 1908 – Cœdès G. Inventaire des inscriptions du Champa et du Cambodge. BEFEO. 1908. 8/1. Pp. 37–92.

8. Cœdès 1924 – Cœdès G. Études cambodgiennes. XVII. L’épigraphie du temple de Phimai. XVIII. L’extension du Cambodge vers le sud-ouest au VIIe siècle (nouvelles inscriptions de Chantaboun). BEFEO. 1924. 24/3–4. Pp. 345–358.

9. Cœdès 1931 – Cœdès G. Études cambodgiennes. XXV. Deux inscriptions sanskrites du Fou-nan. XXVI. La date de Kôh Ker. XXVII. La date du Bàphûon. BEFEO. 1931. 31/1. Pp. 1–23.

10. Cœdès 1937 – Cœdès G. Inscriptions du Cambodge. T. I. Hanoi, 1937.

11. Cœdès 1942 – Cœdès G. Inscriptions du Cambodge. T. II. Hanoi, 1942.

12. Cœdès 1951 – Cœdès G. Inscriptions du Cambodge. T. III. Paris, 1951.

13. Cœdès 1952 – Cœdès G. Inscriptions du Cambodge. T. IV. Paris, 1952.

14. Cœdès 1953 – Cœdès G. Inscriptions du Cambodge. T. V. Paris, 1953.

15. Cœdès 1954 – Cœdès G. Inscriptions du Cambodge. T. VI. Paris, 1954.

16. Cœdès 1958 – Cœdès G. Données épigraphiques sur l’histoire de l'Indochine centrale. Journal Asiatique. 1958. 246/2. Pp. 125–142.

17. Coedès 1961 – Coedès G. Les expressions vrah kamraten an et kamraten jagat en vieux khmer. The Adyar Library Bulletin. 1961. 25/1–4, Jubilee Vol. Pp. 447–60.

18. Cœdès 1964 – Cœdès G. Inscriptions du Cambodge. T. VII. P., 1964.

19. Cœdès 1966 – Cœdès G. Inscriptions du Cambodge. T. VIII. P., 1966.

20. Cœdès, Parmentier 1923 – Cœdès G., Parmentier H. Listes générales des inscriptions et des monuments du Champa et du Cambodge. Hanoi, 1923.

21. Deopik 1969 – Deopik, D.V. “Corpus of the names of pre-Angkorian Cambodia,” Epigraficheskii sbornik Instututa Etnografii, Moscow, 1969, in Russian (Деопик Д.В. Корпус имен доангкорской Камбоджи. Эпиграфический сборник Института этнографии. М., 1969).

22. Deopik 1972 – Deopik, D.V. “Corpus of slave-names and other lower social classes names of Cambodia, fifth to eighth centuries, from epigraphy,” Epigrafika Vostochnoi i Yugo-Vostochnoi Azii, Moscow, 1972, pp. 114–120, in Russian [Деопик Д. В. Корпус имен рабов и представителей других категорий личнозависимых в Камбодже V–VIII в. (по данным эпиграфики). Эпиграфика Восточной и Юго-Восточной Азии. М., 1972. С. 114–200].

23. Deopik 1975 – Deopik, D.V. “Epigraphy and map”, Karta, Skhema, Chislo v Etnicheskoi Geografii, Moscow, 1975, pp. 3–16, in Russian [Деопик Д.В. Эпиграфика и карта. Карта, схема и число в этнической географии. М., 1975. С. 3–16].

24. Deopik 1979 – Deopik, D.V. “Types of social terminology of the Khmers in the sixth–thirteenth centuries”, Problemy tipologii v etnografii, Moscow, 1979, pp. 105–115, in Russian [Деопик Д.В. Типы социальной терминологии кхмеров (VI–XIII вв.). Проблемы типологии в этнографии. М., 1979. С. 105–115].

25. Deopik 1981 – Deopik, D.V. “Kampuchea since ancient times till the middle nineteenth century”, in Yu.Ya. Mikheev (ed.) Istoriia Kampuchii. Kratkii ocherk, Moscow: Nauka, 1981, pp. 10–115, in Russian [Деопик Д.В. Кампучия с древнейших времён до середины XIX в. История Кампучии. Краткий очерк. Отв. ред. Ю.Я. Михеев. М., 1981. С. 10–115].

26. Deopik 1983 – Deopik, D.V. “The Problems of Quantity Analysis of Epigraphic Sources”, Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta, series 13 Vostokovedenie, 1983, No. 4, pp. 43–53, in Russian [Деопик Д.В. Вопросы количественного анализа эпиграфических памятников. Вестник Московского университета. Сер. 13. Востоковедение. 1983. № 4. С. 43–53].

27. Deth Thach, Paillard 2011 – Deth Thach J., Paillard D. Towards a Textual Approach of the Inscriptions in Old Khmer: About TA and MAN: Paper presented to the 21st Annual Conference of the Southeast Asian Linguistic Society, Vachiranusorn Building, Kasetsart University, May 11–13 2011; http://www.jseals.org/seals21/paillard11towardh.pdf (accessed 26 September 2015).

28. Ferlus 1994 – Ferlus M. Kamratān˙, kamratāñ, kamraten, et autres : un cas d’imbrication lexical entre le khmer et le môn. Recherches nouvelles sur le Cambodge. P, 1994 (BEFEO. Études thématiques 1). Pp. 19–25.

29. Finot 1903 – Finot L. Notes d’épigraphie. BEFEO. 1903. 3. Pp. 206–213.

30. Finot 1935 – Finot L. Inscriptions du Cambodge. T. V. P., 1935.

31. Jacques 1976 – Jacques Cl. A propos de l’esclavage dans l’ancien Cambodge. Actes du 29e Congrès international des Orientalistes. Asie du Sud-Est continentale 1. P., 1976. Pp. 71–76.

32. Jacques 1986 – Jacques Cl. Le pays Khmer avant Angkor. Journal des savants. 1986. 1–3. Pp. 59–95.

33. Jenner 1980 – Jenner Ph.N. A Chrestomathy of Pre-Angkorian Khmer: Dated Inscriptions from the Seventh and Eighth Centuries (A.D. 611–781). Manoa, 1980 (Southeast Asia Paper. 20/1).

34. Jenner 1981 – Jenner Ph.N. A Chrestomathy of Pre-Angkorian Khmer: II: Lexicon of the Dated Inscriptions. Honolulu, 1981 (Southeast Asia Paper. 20/2).

35. Jenner 2009a – Jenner Ph.N. Dictionary of Pre-Angkorian Khmer. Canberra, 2009 (Pacific Linguistics. 597; http://sealang.net/ok/).

36. Jenner 2009b – Jenner Ph.N. 2009: Dictionary of Angkorian Khmer. Canberra, 2009 (Pacific Linguistics. 598; http://sealang.net/ok/).

37. Long Seam 1977 – Long Seam “Personal Names in the inscriptions of Cambodia, sixth to thirteenth centuries”, in: Narody Azii i Afriki, 1977, No. 3, pp. 111–119, in Russian [Лонг Сеам. Об антропонимах в надписях Камбоджи (VI–XIII вв.). Народы Азии и Африки. 1977. № 3. С. 111–119].

38. Majumdar 1953 – Majumdar R.C. Inscriptions of Kambuja. Calcutta, 1953 (The Asiatic Society Monograph Series. Vol. VIII).

39. Monier-Williams 1899 – Monier-Williams M. A Sanskrit–English Dictionary Etymologically and Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-European languages. Oxford, 1899.

40. Moussay 1971 – Moussay G. Dictionnaire căm-vietnamien-français. Tự -điển chàm-việt-pháp. Phanrang, 1971.

41. Robson, Wibisono 2002 – Robson S., Wibisono S. Javanese-English Dictionary. Singapore, 2002.

42. Sahai 1970 – Sahai S. Les institutions politiques et l’organisation administrative du Cambodge ancien (VIe – XIIIe siècles). Paris, 1970.

43. Seidenfaden 1922 – Seidenfaden E. Complément à l'Inventaire descriptif des monuments du Cambodge pour les quatre provinces du Siam Oriental. BEFEO. 1922. 22. Рp. 55–99.

44. Stark 2003 – Stark, M. Angkor Borei and the Archaeology of Cambodia’s Mekong Delta. Art & Archaeology of Fu Nan, Pre-Khmer Kingdom of the Lower Mekong Valley. Ed. by J.C.M. Khoo. Bangkok, 2003. Рp. 87–105.

45. Stark 2004 – Stark M. Pre-Angkorian and Angkorian Cambodia. Southeast Asia: From Prehistory to History / Ed. by I.C. Glover & P. Bellwood. L., 2004. Рp. 89–119.

46. Stark 2006a – Stark M. Early Mainland Southeast Asian Landscapes in the First Millennium A.D. Annual Review of Anthropology. 2006. 35. Pp. 407–432.

47. Stark 2006b – Stark M. From Funan to Angkor: Collapse and Regeneration in Ancient Cambodia. After Collapse: The Regeneration of Complex Societies. Ed. by G.M. Schwartz and J.J. Nichols. Tucson, 2006. Pp. 144–167.

48. Stark 2006c – Stark M. Pre-Angkorian Settlement Trends in Cambodia’s Mekong Delta and the Lower Mekong Archaeological Project. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association. 2006. 26. Pp. 98–109.

49. Stark 2006d – Stark M. Textualized Places, Pre-Angkorian Khmers, and Historicized Archaeology. Excavating the Relations between History and Archaeology in the Study of PreModern Asia. Ed. by N. Yoffee & B. Crowell. Tucson, 2006. Pp. 307–326.

50. Vickery 1985 – Vickery M. The Reign of Süryavarman I and Royal Factionalism at Angkor. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies. 1985. 16/2. Pp. 226–244.

51. Vickery 1988 – Vickery M. Society, Economics, and Politics in Pre-Angkor Cambodia: The 7th–8th Centuries. Tokyo, 1998.

52. Zakharov 2008 – Zakharov, Anton O. “The Fifth Conference of the European Association for Southeast Asian Studies”, in: Vostok (Oriens), 2008, No. 1, pp. 175–179, in Russian [Захаров А.О. Пятая конференция Европейской Ассоциации по изучению Юго-Восточной Азии. Восток. Афроазиатские общества: история и современность. 2008. 1. С. 175–179].

53. Zakharov 2014 – “The Inscription of Devānīka from Văt Luong Kău K.365: A Translation into Russian with a Commentary”, in: Vostok (Oriens), 2014, No. 2, pp. 142–148, in Russian [Захаров А.О. Надпись Деваники из Ват Луонг Кау (Лаос) K.365. Вступ. ст., пер. с санскрита и коммент. Восток. Афро-азиатские общества: история и современность. 2014. № 2. С. 142–148].

54. Zakharov 2015a – Zakharov, Anton O. “Devānīka’s inscription from Văt Luong Kău near Vat Phou in Laos K. 365: first English translation”, in: South East Asian Review. Vol. 40, 2015, pp. 1–23.

55. Zakharov 2015b – Zakharov, Anton O. “Royal Inscriptions of Funan”, in: Problemy istorii, filologii, kul’tury = Journal of Historical, Philological and Cultural Studies 47, 2015 (No. 1), pp. 170–177, in Russian [Захаров А.О. Царские надписи фунаньской эпохи. Проблемы истории, филологии, культуры. 2015. 1 (47). С. 170–177].

56. Zakharov 2016 – Zakharov, Anton O. “The inscription K.557/600 611 CE: A Russian translation with commentary,” in: Scripta Antiqua: Voprosy drevnei istorii, filologii, iskusstva i material’noi kultury, T. 5, Moscow: Sobranie, 2016, pp. 190–213, in Russian [Захаров А.О. Надпись K.557/600 611 г. из Ангкор Борея (Камбоджа): перевод и комментарий. Scripta antiqua. Вопросы древней истории, филологии, искусства и материальной культуры. Альманах. Гл. ред. М.Д. Бухарин. Т. 5. М.: Собрание, 2016. С. 190–213].

57. Zoetmulder 1982 – Zoetmulder P.J. (with the collaboration of S.O. Robson): Old Javanese-English Dictionary: Parts 1–2. ‘s-Gravenhage, 1982.