[195] See especially Fournereau and the publications of the Mission Pavie and B.E.F.E.O.
[196] Gerini, Ptolemy, p. 176.
[197] See Fournereau, I. p. 225. B.E.F.E.O. 1916, III. pp. 8-13, and especially Bradley in J. Siam Society, 1909, pp. 1-68.
[198] This alphabet appears to be borrowed from Cambojan but some of the letters particularly in their later shapes show the influence of the Môn or Talaing script. The modern Cambojan alphabet, which is commonly used for ecclesiastical purposes in Siam, is little more than an elaborate form of Siamese.
[199] See B.E.F.E.O. 1904, p. 161.
[200] Bradley, J. Siam Society, 1913, p. 10, seems to think that Pali Buddhism may have come thence but the objection is that we know a good deal about the religion of Camboja and that there is no trace of Pali Buddhism there until it was imported from Siam. The fact that the Siamese alphabet was borrowed from Camboja does not prove that religion was borrowed in the same way. The Mongol alphabet can be traced to a Nestorian source.
[201] See for these inscriptions papers on the Malay Peninsula and Siam by Finot and Lajonquière in Bull. de la Comm. Archéol. de l'Indo-Chine, 1909, 1910 and 1912.
[202] Fournereau, pp. 157 ff. and Coedès in B.E.F.E.O. 1917, No. 2. Besides the inscription itself, which is badly defaced in parts, we have (1) a similar inscription in Thai, which is not however a translation, (2) a modern Siamese translation, used by Schmitt but severely criticized by Coedès and Petithuguenin.
[203] This portion of the narrative is found only in Schmitt's version of the Siamese translation. The part of the stone where it would have occurred is defaced.
[204] See Fournereau, vol. II. inscriptions xv and xvi and the account of the Jâtakas, p. 43.