|| hetu śanāpa di pūrvvakāla mam̃n· madā urām̃ kā ñu putau di nagara campa ñu paliṅyak· nagara urām̃ ṅan· yām̃ svon· hajai tralauṅ· lumvauv· kruvau ṅan· samastavījāṅkura ru maṅ· pramāṇa nagara campa avista kā dhvasta nirmūla nau | mam̃n· yām̃ po ku vijaya śrī harivarmmadeva yam̃ṅ· devatājanma sī purāṇa āgama daḥ viṣṇumūrtti matam̃l· paliṅyak· śatruma ṇḍala di nagara campa | mam̃n· devatāmūrtti nan· kā paliṅyak· kalikalaṅka avista | pakā bharuv· ra putau di nagara campa ra pajem̃ rumaḥ rājadhānī ṅan· hajai tralauṅ· svon· ṅan· sama stavījāṅkura kā paripūrṇṇa samū dhiluv· tra | pakā yām̃ po ku īśāna ṅan· ya doṁ yām̃ ṅan· puṇya vukan· dadam̃n· sthāna kā vr̥ddhi mulaṅ· tra | punaḥ ra mak· nagara kmīra lac· paści sāra sā vandaḥ niy· avista tra | ra mak· sumrāṅ· dakṣiṇa rumaṅ· krauṅ· patam̃l· campeśvara avista nau tra | ra tmuv· lac· sumrāṅ· uttaradiśa rumaṅ· krauṅ· dā nan· kā jem̃ maṇḍalīka nagara campa mam̃n· yām̃ po ku vijaya śrī harivarmmadeva ra vuḥ yām̃ di madhurāpura di pak· dunan· tra | ra pratiṣṭhā śivaliṅga di harināpura karaṇā kīrtti | pakā ra vuḥ kmīra yvan· si mak· nan· di yām̃ hajai tralauṅ· svon· dadam̃n· sthāna tra ra vuḥ urām̃ dinan· pajem̃ karadā yam̃ di nagara campa deśāntara ṅan· vanyāga kā ñu tam̃l· di nagara campa sadākāla mam̃n· nagara campa kā paripūrṇṇa luvaiḥ nariy· dhīluv· | mam̃n· yām̃ po ku vijaya śrī harivarmmadeva kā santoṣa paribhoga ṅan· puṇyadāna nityapr̥tiḥ sadākāla mam̃n· || ||

|| hetu śanāpa ⊙ {1}pākuśadā {1} ma(d)[ā urām̃] (kā) ma[dā] ñūThere are certainly more akṣaras lost between the two fragments than Schweyer supposes. The concrete sequence of words we conjecture here, mam̃n madā urāṅ kā ñu putau, is found also in C. 30A1, l. 4. putau puitau campa ñu campā ñū nagara urām̃ {3} rā tralauṅ· lumvauv· kruvau ṅan· samastavījāṅkura rumaṅ· tralaṅ lumve{1} tra {7} kā {1} di campa campā kā dhvasta(kāvvasta)nau | mam̃n·nau mănpopŏThe cases of po in this inscription are all plain, without any added diacritic in the original, so there is no need for any diacritic in the transliteration either. yam̃ṅ·yā(ṅ) ncampa |campā | pakā(ṅ)a kācampacampā svon· ṅan·svon nan samastavījāṅkurasta (vajustta) pakā yām̃(sa) {2} (yāṅ) yayăThe estampage is a bit deceptive here, for the stone clearly shows that the akṣara does not bear the anusvāra-candra sign. puṇyapūṇyaThe estampage is a bit deceptive here, for the stone clearly shows that the vowel is short. vukan·(sukan)mulaṅ·mulan punaḥ ra mak·punaḥ makkmīrakmira lac· paści-{2} paśyi(sāra) sāvandaḥsaranda sumrāṅ· dakṣiṇa rumaṅ· krauṅ·(sumrāṅ dukyaṇarumaj) rā krauṅSchweyer has misread the leftward extension of the r in krauṅ· as rā. tmuv· lac·tmuv la {2}sumrāṅ· uttaradiśa rumaṅ·{2} krāṅ uttarad śarumaṅ krauṅ· dā nan· kākrauṅ ṅa{n} {7}n kā maṇḍalīkamaṇdalikacampacampā di pak· dunan·di para(.)ra karaṇākīrttitara{4}ttaThe expression karaṇā kīrtti is found in several other inscriptions (C. 30A1, l. 23; C. 75, l. 3; C. 120, face B, l. 6) and can clearly be reconstituted from the parts of akṣaras that remain here. pakāsa kākmīrakmira yvan·yvăn siseiThere is no anusvāra-candra above the akṣara in question to justify Schweyer's reading. tralauṅ·tralaṅ tra ra vuḥtra | vuḥ dinan· nan karadā yam̃karadāya campa campā deśāntara ṅan· vanyāga kā ñu {1} śāntaḥ ṅan· vadyāg(.)ata kāñu campacampā sadākālanan (dāka) {2} campacampā luvaiḥ nariy· dhīluv· | mam̃n·luvai{1} niy (maluva) măn kā santoṣa paribhogakā ra {5+3} pari(.)ośa SchweyerCf. C. 94, face B, ll. 1–2: yāṅ po ku vijaya śrī harivarmmadeva kā santoṣa nirākula dauk aṅguy rājaparibhoga. The passage can very likely be restored on the basis of the elements in this parallel passage, but the present inscription seems to have had a slightly shorter formula, since the lacunae cannot have offered space for all of the akṣaras seen between santoṣa and paribhoga in C. 94. nityapr̥tiḥnītya sr̥tiḥUnderstand nityaprītiḥ. mam̃n· ||||Schweyer notes an illegible syllable before the quatrefoil. But we think it is more likely that the text ends with mam̃n·, after which follows a complex of (non-akṣara) terminal symbols. This appears to the case also at the end of C. 210, face D, although the reading there is not clear either. On C. 119, face B, the text ends with sadākāla mam̃n· niś(c)aya ||, but we certainly cannot have a full word like niścaya after mam̃n· here.

Because of a curse in the past, for that reason there was a man who became king in the Campā country, who robbed the country, the people and the gods of the citadel of Tralauṅ Svon, the cows, the buffaloes. And all seeds and sprouts, from all the provinces of the Campā country, then went to radical annihilation.

After that Y.P.K. the victorious Śrī Harivarmadeva, who is of divine birth — namely, according to the Purāṇas and Āgamas, an incarnation of Viṣṇu —, succeeded in expelling the coalition of enemies in the Campā country. Thereupon that divine incarnation went on to destroy all faults of the Kali age.

Only then pakā bharuv he was king in the land of Campā. He built an abode as capital and he rebuilt? the citadel of Tralauṅ Svon. And then all seeds and sprouts also tra became prosperous as before.

Then my lord the god Īśāna and all the other gods and religious foundations puṇya, of various places, also prospered again ?, mulaṅ.

In turn he took the lac land of the Khmers country in the west ... all of this one part too. He took all of Southern direction from the river to Campeśvara too. He met (?) lac the northern direction, from the river ... then became vassals of the land of Campā. After that my lord his victorious majesty Śrī Harivarmadeva also offered to the gods of Madhurāpura in those four directions. He installed a liṅga of Śiva at Harināpura to make fame.

Then he offered those Khmers and Viets whom he had captured to the gods of the citadel of Tralauṅ Svon and those of various other shrines too. He ordered these men to make subject to the taxes of the Campā country ... foreigners and the traders who arrive in the Campā country, always.

So the Campā country became even more prosperous than before. Then my lord his victorious majesty Śrī Harivarmadeva became satisfied ... royal property and meritorious gifts, permanent pleasure, always!

This theme of a curse (śanāpa) is expressed also in other inscriptions. Cf. e.g. C. 89, face B, l. 16: ... hetu śanāpana ... Other expressions that seem noteworthy in the present inscription are also shared with that text. See e.g. C. 89, face B, l. 20: ra vuḥ urāṅ ṅan lumvau kruvāv ṅan samasta upakaraṇa panūjā devatā dinan. We also find noteworthy parallels in C. 94. See face A, l. 19: rā pajeṅ .... śvan tralauṅ ṅan samastavījāṅkura... The word śatrumaṇḍala, found here in lines 2–3, is also seen in C. 94, face A, ll. 1 and 12 and C. 89, face B, l. 8; it may further be compared with mandala śatruḥ in C. 19, l. 9.

The sequence svon hajai tralauṅ in our inscription seems to be an error for hajai tralauṅ svon: cf. lines 3 and 7, as well as C. 95, face B, ll. 17–18. On the word purāṇa in connection with what seems to have been a different king Harivarman than the one of the present inscription, cf. C. 100 B, l. 12: etena purāṇārthena lakṣaṇenaitad gamyate śrī jaya harivarmmadevo yaṁ sa uroja eveti || and stanza XVII: śivānandanaśabdasya dr̥ṣṭenārthādriṇā kṣitau urojo lokavācyo yaḥ purāṇārthena lakṣaṇī ||.

41-45 219-224 III19577With outdated attribution to a site Hoà Mi. 163-164Attributed to a site Hoà Mi-Chiêm Dang (sic).