The back of a Viṣṇu Statue at Biên Hòa (C. 1), 1343 Śaka

Editor: Arlo Griffiths.

Identifier: DHARMA_INSCIC00001.

Hand description:

Language: Old Cham.

Repository: Campa (tfc-campa-epigraphy).

Version: (934784c), last modified (19e4040).

Edition

⟨1⟩ || svasti| pu pom̃ ku nan· sūnnu ⟨2⟩ yām̃ pom̃ ku śrī jaya siṅhavarmmadeva ⟨3⟩ Urām̃ ṅauk· glauṅ· vijaya paripāla rāṣ¡t!ra sim̃ tmum̃ ⟨4⟩ jaya di nagara yvan· maUdyāṇna gulāc· tok· nagara ⟨5⟩ braḥ kānda nī yuddha Aneka sim̃ tmum̃ gulāc· jem̃ nagara ca⟨6⟩mpa di śaka loka-Aṣṭārdh¡a!nalaḥ-ṇrapaḥ pakram̃t(t)a tri⟨7⟩bh¿a?⟨u⟩vanākrānta nī ṅan· ri jittasatrāsi sim̃ tmum̃ jaya di kvīra ⟨8⟩ tmum̃ vuḥ bhogopabhoga yathādeva liṅga vukam̃n· rim̃ sim̃ jmai tmum̃ ⟨9⟩ jem̃ nagara kvīra jem̃ nagara campa sadākāla|

Apparatus

⟨3⟩ Urām̃ Guraṅ C. — ⟨3⟩ rāṣ¡t!ra Grāṣṭra C.

⟨6⟩ -Aṣṭārdh¡a!nalaḥ- G-ṣaṣṭārthānalaḥ- C • Aymonier’s proposal to read aṣṭārdhānalaḥ was mentioned in an authorial addition to Cabaton 1904, p. 690, while Finot took the editorial liberty of inserting his own reading aṣṭārdhanalaḥ in n. 5 on that same page. Although I do not see an ā marker on the rdh, I agree with Finot and Aymonier that it is necessary to understand aṣṭārdha-analaḥ. — ⟨6⟩ -ṇrapaḥ G-ṇdapaḥ C • The same spelling is found in C. 43, face B, lines 4 and 7. — ⟨6⟩ pakram̃t(t)a ⬦ pakram̃ttha C G • This word must be equivalent to pakram̃tta in C. 42, line 10, where the subscript t is clear. — ⟨6⟩ tri⟨7⟩bh¿a?⟨u⟩vanākrānta • Cf. Vickery 2004, pp. 11, 51, 52 for the name of the 16th-century Cambodian ruler Tribhuvanādityavarman, whose name is likewise spelt without the expected u.

⟨7⟩ ri jittasatrāsi Gvijitta sa trā si C • I am unable to interpret ri; as for jittasatrāsi, I guess that it may represent what would be jitaśatru (“one who has conquered the enemies”) in Sanskrit. — ⟨7⟩ kvīra Gkvīr C.

⟨8⟩ vukam̃n· Gvukān· C.

⟨9⟩ kvīra Gkvīr C.

Translation by Arlo Griffiths

Hail! The P.P.K., son of Y.P.K. Śrī Jaya Siṁhavarmadeva, man of Ṅauk Glauṅ Vijaya, was the protector of the realm. He had obtained victory in the land of the Viet, went out [and] returned to take this land of Braḥ Kānda [through] many battles.1 He has succeeded to create again (? tmuv gulāc jeṅ) a Campa land in Śaka (3) worlds, half-of-eight (4), (3) fires, (1) king (i.e., in 1343 Śaka). He had this Tribhuvanākrānta (i.e., Viṣṇu) made with ri jittasatrās he obtained victory in Cambodia and succeeded to give property and means of existence per deity for various liṅgas. Also: let the Khmer land never succeed in ruling it, but [let] the Campa land [rule it] forever.

Translation into French by Cabaton 1904

Le fils de Śrī Jaya Siṁhavarman, Ṅauk Glauṅ Vijaya, protège le royaume. Il a vaincu le royaume annamite. Il est parti (en campagne) et est revenu prendre ce nagara Braḥ Kānda. Il a gagné de nombreuses batailles et est revenu au royaume de Champa en (l’année de l’ère) śaka (désignée par) mondes, soixante (ou huit), trois, roseau (ou feu). Il a édifié pieusement ce Tribhuvanākrānta avec le butin qu’il avait conquis sur les Khmèrs. Il a donné comme possession à différents dieux et liṅgas et il s’abstient à jamais d’en jouir, soit dans le nagara khmèr, soit dans le nagara cham.

Commentary

Notwithstanding Cabaton’s remark “La date qui, par malheur, est la partie la plus endommagée de l’inscription” (1904, p. 688), the whole of the inscription is very well preserved. The problems that previous scholars felt in interpreting the chronogram were due to inexperience with the peculiarities of the inscriptions of this period, not due to the state of preservation of the inscription.

Bibliography

Partly deciphered on the basis of unsatisfactory documents by Aymonier (1891, pp. 84–85),2 with French translation of the translated parts. Completely edited for the first time by Cabaton (1904). Barring a small number of new insights, the present edition reproduces that published in Griffiths 2019 based on the EFEO estampages.

Primary

[A] Aymonier, Étienne. 1891. “Première étude sur les inscriptions tchames.” JA, pp. 5–86. [URL]. Pages 84–85.

[C] Cabaton, Antoine. 1904. “L'inscription chame de Bien-Hoa.” BEFEO 4, pp. 687–690. DOI: 10.3406/befeo.1904.1363. [URL].

[G] Griffiths, Arlo. 2019. “Études du corpus des inscriptions du Campā, VI: Epigraphical Texts and Sculptural Steles Produced under the Vīrabhadravarmadevas of 15th-Century Campā.” In: Champa: Territories and Networks of a Southeast Asian Kingdom. Edited by Arlo Griffiths, Andrew Hardy and Geoff Wade. Etudes thématiques 31. Paris: École française d’Extrême-Orient, pp. 193–219. [URL]. Pages 200–201, figure 4.

Secondary

Finot, Louis. 1901. “La religion des Chams d'après les monuments, étude suivie d'un inventaire sommaire des monuments chams de l'Annam.” BEFEO 1, pp. 12–33. DOI: 10.3406/befeo.1901.950. [URL]. Page 18, figure 4.

Finot, Louis. 1915. “Notes d’épigraphie, XIV : Les inscriptions du musée de Hanoi.” BEFEO 15 (2), pp. 1–38. DOI: 10.3406/befeo.1915.5229. [URL]. Page 14.

Parmentier, Henri. 1909. Inventaire descriptif des monuments čams de l’Annam. Tome premier: Description des monuments. Paris: Imprimerie nationale. [URL]. Pages 553–555, figure 127.

Majumdar, Ramesh Chandra. 1927. Ancient Indian colonies in the Far East, Vol. I: Champa. Punjab Oriental (Sanskrit) Series 16. Lahore: The Punjab Sanskrit Book Depot. [URL]. Book III, page 224, item 121.

Boisselier, Jean. 1963. La statuaire du Champa : Recherches sur les cultes et l’iconographie. Publications de l'École française d'Extrême-Orient 54. Paris: École française d'Extrême-Orient. Page 365, figure 235.

Golzio, Karl-Heinz. 2004. Inscriptions of Campā: Based on the editions and translations of Abel Bergaigne, Étienne Aymonier, Louis Finot, Édouard Huber and other French scholars and of the work of R. C. Majumdar; newly presented, with minor corrections of texts and translations, together with calculations of given dates. Aachen: Shaker Verlag. Pages 199–200.

Notes

  1. 1. The toponym Braḥ Kāṇḍa, which was thus far attested only in this inscription and has been variously identified by previous scholars, is now found twice in C. 225.
  2. 2. Aymonier observed: “Le document doit être assez net, mais nous ne le connaissons que par des photographies de copies faites à la main, procédés dont l’exactitude laise trop à désirer”.