Pre-8th century inscription Mon/Pyu

Well, I found the EFEO library --contrary to earlier indications, it
is open to the public, so I need not sully myself by joining the EFEO
in order to use its collection.

Lorrillard showed me two _in situ_ photographs of the inscription in
question --I must assume that the Mon specialists he showed it to are
only familiar with much later inscriptions, as it seemed to me quite
clear and easy to transliterate.  I made notes in advance based on
what I expected to see (i.e., given that it is 8th century or earlier,
possibly in Sanskrit, and based on the other scant details that I
could glean from the article) --these proved to be adventitious notes.
  The orthography was just about exactly what I had expected, i.e.,
looking as much like Pyu (of the period) as Mon, with a lot of glyphs
being directly comparable to South-Indian (e.g., Kadamba) forms of the
same time.

Lorrillard evidently wants to conduct the rest of the research himself
(as is his right), after further cleaning and rubbing the stone; he
did not deign to provide me with a copy or print-out of the
inscription --although he insisted that he had shared it with a large
number of experts, none of whom could transliterate it.  However, I
honestly think that I could have transliterated it fairly easily; the
simple fact is that while the people who produced that stone were (it
seems) ethnically Mon, it isn't really useful to think of it as "Mon
script".  In the 8th century you've got a soup of Pallava and Pyu
elements being used to write Sanskrit and Pali; someone whose
expertise is in fully-developed Mon orthography (Dvaravati or later)
would indeed find this very wierd.  If you're familiar with the
earliest range (i.e., from Ashokan to Pallava) it doesn't seem so
cryptic at all.

In any case, I'm sure Lorrillard is capable of bringing the study to a
conclusion; but I find it strange that he complained (in the article
that drew my attention to the case) about the difficulty of getting it
transliterated, and the need for the help of others to do so --but he
now seems satisfied to proceed to do it himself --when, in my opinion,
there does not seem to be any special difficulty in so doing.

Although I looked at it for less than two full minutes, one could
immediately see that it is indeed a work in verse, with the Sanskrit
spelling of "Sri" (not a conclusive criterion as to its language, BTW;
the spelling of "Sri Lanka" also defies the Pali convention).

E.M.