Tư Lương stele (C. 237), 1360 Śaka

Editor: Arlo Griffiths.

Identifier: DHARMA_INSCIC00237.

Language: Old Cham.

Repository: Campa (tfc-campa-epigraphy).

Version: (a2d4f44), last modified (e60a27c).

Edition

⟨Face A: Front⟩ ⟨A1⟩ svasti madā parama-rājādh(i)rāja Ā⟨A2⟩tmaja di yām̃ pom̃ k(u) jayasiṅhavarma vr̥ṣu-vam̃ṅṣa (pu-po)⟨A3⟩ k(u) pura rāja-grāmma ṅauk· glaum̃ vijaya du¿ṅ?⟨n⟩an· dram̃ rāja yvan· kvīra ma⟨A4⟩rai tupak· ṣuḥ khin· rajan· yuddha

trā tam̃l· dvau triṅṣa Abhiśe⟨A5⟩ka dram̃ Inravarma paṇḍap· dadam̃n· bhaṇḍ(ā)ra patryak· lyam̃ kanāya pajem̃ ⟨A6⟩ samram̃ddhipurī

di thun· (bhyā)gra-ṇakṣatra padam̃ṅ· maṇḍīra ṅan· paṅap· ⟨A7⟩ sām̃ surak· dadam̃n· Adhvā pavam̃k· vanam̃k· kraum̃ hayāvv· pajem̃ rājadhā⟨A8⟩ṇnī

madā ka tmum̃ kirenra vap· viṅṣa kāla di hayāvv· Amil· ⟨Face B: Back⟩ ⟨B1⟩ [3+](pa)dadam̃n· d(a)k· varna trā madā ka tmum̃ dhaval(a) ⟨B2⟩ [2+]ra nī putta di vavaḥ Air· laṅuv· tam̃l· Aṣta triṅṣa ⟨B3⟩ (sām̃) surak· śilā-likhitta ṇī di rājadhvanna nī 1360||

Apparatus

⟨A2⟩ vr̥ṣu-vam̃ṅṣa (pu-po)⟨A3⟩ k(u) • Or should we read vr̥ṣu-vam̃ṅṣa (pu po)m̃ kā? It’s conceivable that kā=u was engraved, i.e., the consonant k with two vowel markers (ā and u), and that both a syllable ku and a syllable should be read. Indeed, the sequence pu pom̃ ku kā is found in contemporary inscriptions C. 43, C. 57 and C. 214.

⟨A3⟩ du¿ṅ?⟨n⟩an· • It seems that duṅan· must be a scribal error for dunan·, a word found in numerous other inscriptions and sometimes in similar contexts (e.g., C. 3.2, C. 3.2 and C. 43).

⟨A4⟩ ṣuḥ • This seems to be an apheretic form for mr̥suḥ, and probably not an error for the same sequence ṣuḥ khin· also occurs in C. 43 (B6). The expression marai mr̥suḥ/mrasuḥ is common, here with inserion of the word tupak.

⟨A6⟩ (bhyā)gra-ṇakṣatra • Rustic spelling for vyāghra-nakṣatra. — ⟨A6⟩ maṇḍīra ṅan· ⬦ maṇḍī vaṅan· BEFEO • In my previous publication, I misread ra as va and wrongly split the words, not recognizing maṇḍīra as a rustic spelling for Sanskrit mandira.

⟨A7⟩ rājadhā⟨A8⟩ṇnī • Depending on how we choose to interpret rājadhvanna nī in B3 (see below), it is conceivable that we must intervene in the text to allow the same reading and interpretation here. But in favor of accepting the word rājadhānī speaks the fact that it is found in some other inscriptions (C. 25, line A17, and C. 64, line 3), so that an emendation to rājādhva nī here seems rather less plausible.

⟨A8⟩ madā ka tmum̃ • The same words occur again below in B1. The string madā tmum̃ occurs in C. 30A1 (7); kā tmum̃ C. 30A2 (7) and C. 89 (B11 and B14). — ⟨A8⟩ Amil· • Is this a verb related to ambil “take” in Malay? Or do we rather have the same word amil that means “tamarind” in Modern Cham?

⟨B1⟩ (pa)dadam̃n· d(a)k· • The reading of this sequence is probably not yet as it was intended. The expression (dadam̃n·) dadam̃n· varṇna occurs in C. 4 (A3–4) and C. 214 (3). As for dak, this might be the word recorded by Aymonier and Cabaton 1906, p. 213, with the meanings « ranger, arranger, placer, etc. … ». Reading directly from the stone, I failed to confirm the impression given by the estampage that we should rather read dik. If nevertheless this is the intended word, it could be a hitherto unattested alternative manifestation of the Sanskrit word diś that commonly occurs as loanword in Old Cham in the form diśa. Indeed one reads (dadam̃n·) dadam̃n· diśa in C. 13 (B6) and C. 56 (C3). See also our discussion of the expression diśa sā diśa in Griffiths and Lepoutre 2016, p. 270. — ⟨B1⟩ dhaval(a) ⟨B2⟩ [2+]ra • A hypothetical restoration, based on the parallelism with the phrase Un·karśa-dhavala-gajādi (that I assume to be a rustic spelling for utkarṣa-dhavala-gajādi in Sanskrit) found in C. 56 (A9–10) would be dhavala-gaja-vara “excellent white elephant”.

⟨B2⟩ di vavaḥ Air· laṅuv· • It might also be possible to read Uvaḥ. But see C. 56 (B1–3) di vabaḥ (c)rauḥ laṅuvv·.

⟨B3⟩ rājadhvanna nī • There are a number of angles for interpreting this sequence, which I am tempted, within this inscription itself, to compare with the words Adhvā and rājadhāṇnī in A7–8, while more distant comparisons are also conceivable, such as rājamāna “royal dignity” (an expression that seems to appear in C. 225, line 9) or rājadharmma (C. 42, line 13). It is imaginable that we are dealing with a rustic spelling of rājadhānī nī (“this capital”), but I tentatively assume that it is rather to be understood as rājādhvā nī (“this royal road”).

Translation by Arlo Griffiths

(A1–A4) Hail! There was a supreme sovereign of kings, son of His Majesty (yāṅ poṅ ku) Jayasiṅhavarman of the line of Vr̥ṣu, my lord (pu-pov ku) of the city of royal residence (rājagrāma) Ṅauk Glauṅ Vijaya. [When] this one (dunan) took the kingship, the Viets (yvan) and the Khmers (kvīra) attacked openly (tupak), wishing (khin) to make war.

(A4–A6) And in [the year] thirty-two, he received consecration, taking [the name of] Indravarman,1 awarded various estates (bhaṇḍāra), by his grace (kanāya) had a prince crowned (pa-tryak),2 founded (the temple called) Samr̥ddhipurī.3

(A6–A8) In the year of the Tiger (vyāghra-nakṣatra),4 he founded temples (maṇḍīra) and built houses of letters5 [on] various roads (adhvā), laid dams across the Hayāv river, founded the capital.

(A8–B3) It happened that he met (madā ka tmuv) the Montagnards (kirendra)6 a total (vap) of twenty times in Hayāv he again put the various social classes (varṇa) in order. It happened that he obtained this white [excellent elephant].7 He washed (putta) himself at the mouth of the Air Laṅuv. In (the year) thirty-eight [was built] the house of letters of this stone inscription on the royal road. [It was in the year Śaka] 1360.

Translation into French by Griffiths [2021] 2020

Salut ! Il y eut un suzerain suprême des rois, fils de sa Majesté (yāṅ poṅ ku) Jayasiṅhavarman de la lignée de Vr̥ṣu, mon seigneur (pu-pov ku) de la cité de la résidence royale (rājagrāma) Ṅauk Glauṅ Vijaya. (Lorsque) celui-ci (dunan) prit la royauté, les Viets (yvan) et les Khmers (kvīra) attaquèrent ouvertement (tupak), souhaitant (khin) faire la guerre.

Et en (l’année) trente-deux, il reçut la consécration, prenant (le nom d’)Indravarman, attribua divers domaines (bhaṇḍāra), par sa grâce (kanāya) eut un prince couronné pa-tryak, fonda (le temple appelé) Samr̥ddhipurī.

En l’année du Tigre (vyāghra-nakṣatra), il fonda des temples8, construisit des maisons de lettres [sur] diverses routes, construisit un barrage sur la rivière Hayāv, fonda la capitale.

Il arriva qu’il rencontrât les Montagnards un total (vap) de vingt fois à Hayāv il mit à nouveau les divers rangs (de la société))en ordre. Il arriva qu’il obtînt cet [excellent éléphant] blanc. Il se lava (putta) à l’embouchure de l’Air Laṅuv. Dans (l’année) trente-huit [fut construite] la maison de lettres de cette inscription sur pierre sur la route royale. [Ce fut en l’année Śaka] 1360.

Bibliography

First published, with a translation into French, in Griffiths [2021] 2020 on the basis of direct inspection of the stone as well as photographs and estampages. The present edition and translations are based on those of the mentioned publication, with some improvements.

Primary

[BEFEO] Griffiths, Arlo. [2021] 2020. “Études du corpus des inscriptions du Campā, X : Le haut Campā de Gia Lai-Bình Định au xve siècle selon les stèles de Tư Lương (C. 237) et du mont Man Lăng (C. 56).” BEFEO 106, pp. 363–377. [URL].

Secondary

Trần Kỳ Phương, Thonglith Luongkhote and Phon Kaseka. 2015. “The New Archaeological Finds in Northeast Cambodia, Southern Laos and Central Highland of Vietnam: Considering on the Significance of Overland Trading Route and Cultural Interactions of the Ancient Kingdoms of Champa and Cambodia.” In: Advancing Southeast Asian archaeology, 2013: selected papers from the first SEAMEO SPAFA International Conference on Southeast Asian Archaeology, Chonburi, Thailand 2013. Edited by Noel Hidalgo Tan. Bangkok: SEAMEO SPAFA Regional Centre for Archaeology and Fine Arts, pp. 432–443. Pages 439, 467, figures 36.21, 36.22.

Notes

  1. 1. The same event is mentioned in C. 56.
  2. 2. This translation is probably to be revised. My interpretation of patryak as “had crowned” was only based on the unproven supposition that the base tryak in Old Cham can be connected with the entries tvak/trvak « coiffer, poser sur, mettre comme coiffure, endosser » in Aymonier and Cabaton 1906, p. 199 and 203. Under kanāy (p. 56), the dictionary quotes a phrase kanāy malyaṅ patau « roi clément en magnifique (expression usitée en parlant du roi) ». This is very reminiscent of the phrase patryak· lyam̃ kanāya that we have here.
  3. 3. Samr̥ddhipurī is probably the name of a temple, for in inscription C. 42, l. 10, is is the name of a rumaḥ. See Hardy 2019, p. 231.
  4. 4. See Cœdès 1935, p. 319 on the use of the cycle of twelve animals in Modern Cham, ibid., pp. 323–324 on the use of the term nakṣatra in the sense of “year” in this context. On this last point, see also Eade 1995, p. 31, n. 27 and Ferlus 2010.
  5. 5. “Houses of letters” is a translation for the words sām̃ surak that reappear below in B3. The implication of this expression is uncertain. Perhaps sām̃ simply means dwelling, container instead of house, while surak surely means letter, so sām̃ surak may refer to the inscription itself. If so, sām̃ surak śilālikhitta in B3 could be translated as the inscription engraved in stone (since śilālikhitta literally means “engraved in stone”).
  6. 6. The meaning of the phrase madā ka tmuv kirendra (and of madā ka tmuv dhavala in B1–2) is very uncertain, the meaning of each word being debatable. On tmuv, in particular, a useful discussion can be found in Finot 1903, p. 640, n. 2, although the author does not take into account the obvious etymological connection with təmu “to meet” in Malay. See also mahnā kirendra in C. 56, C8–9.
  7. 7. Cf. C. 56.
  8. 8. My previously published translation “fonda le Maṇḍī Vaṅan” is now obsolete.