An Mỹ fragment (C. 227), 9th century Śaka EpiDoc Encoding Salomé Pichon intellectual authorship of edition Arlo Griffiths Salomé Pichon DHARMA Paris DHARMA_INSCIC00227

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported Licence. To view a copy of the licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.

Copyright (c) 2019-2025 by Arlo Griffiths & Salomé Pichon.

 2019-2025 DHARMAbase

The lettering is characteristic of the ninth and tenth centuries CE.

The project DHARMA has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no 809994).

Public URIs with the prefix bib to point to a Zotero Group Library named ERC-DHARMA whose data are open to the public.

Internal URIs using the part prefix to point to person elements in the DHARMA_idListMembers_v01.xml file.

 Initial encoding of the inscription

pom̃ ku sa top· dravya yām̃ pu pom̃ ku siniy· si top· humā yām̃ dandau yām̃ krauṅ· vaṁk· prauk· yām̃ dlai yām̃ top· Aṭul· top· sulā supāy· dlai dyā sulā supāy· ndop· kaIn· ne siy· Urām̃ pamataḥ matandās· niy· aso v· vañāk· hitaṁ putiḥ Urāṅ· nan·

humā vihāra trā ya doṁ di vāyavya sā dauk· kadyaṅ· humā va cal· sulauṅ· humā di ka yām̃ pamataḥ humā yām̃ pu vañāk· hitaṁ putiḥ sa di naraka avīci madyān· ga Urāṅ· nan· dauk· di naraka Avista la ciy· humā luvuk· ticcau A nāya

pamataḥ ticcau A ticcau

my lord destroy the property of my lord the god of this place destroy the rice-fields of the god, the ponds of the god, the dikes and the praukprauk: in this context, the sense of this word (which elsewhere means ‘squirrel’ or ‘divinities, spirits, ancestors’) still eludes us. of the god forestdlai: this inscription yields some of the few attested cases of the word dlai, which seems to be the older form of the word that later became glai, as seen in numerous Cam inscriptions of later centuries, and still used in the modern Cam language. An example of a related sound change is seen in the word tluv, observed in some inscriptions of the first millennium, where it means ‘three’, and which obviously constitutes an etymologically more authentic form of the word that became and still is klov. Cf. also the word draṁ/graṁ, as discussed in this catalog under C. 150, pp. 235–236 and C. 43, p. 216 n. 73. of the god, destroy the aṭul,aṭul: one could possibly read aṅul·. Either way, the word is unknown to us destroy the leavessulā: possibly to be translated rather as ‘wood chip'. of the Supāy treessupāy: our supposition that this denotes some kind of tree is a pure contextual guess. , forest dyādyā: we do not know such a word. Possibly emend vyā? leaves of the Supāy trees?, ndopndop·: this is the only occurrence of this word in the entire corpus, and the word is not recorded in the available Cam dictionaries. We only find the form mandop, probably derived from base ndop by prefix ma-, in C. 108, face B, l. 5: vr̥liy urāṅ mandop sarvvākarādāna du yāṅ pov mahāliṅga. Huber (276) translated this “si un homme détruit les biens du dieu Mahāliṅga”. If this translation is correct, then mandop would mean ‘destroy’ and the base ndop would be a synonym of the word top that is repeatedly used in this inscription. But Huber gives no arguments and his proposal seems to us rather unlikely to be correct (among other reasons because sarvvākarādāna can hardly mean ‘goods’). the clothkaIn: this is very likely the same as the word kain in Malay, which was likewise spelled kaIn in Old Malay (cf. Griffiths 148). It is found once elsewhere in Cam inscriptions, in C. 106, face A, l. 11, but was not recognized by the editor Finot (101), who separated ka in (and did not translate). whichever man breaks or annuls this grant many black and white dogs visit that man hitaṁ putiḥ … urāṅ nan: these words are found in other inscriptions too, always with the word asov ‘dog’, and are a typical part of the admonitory formulas. Dreadful black and white dogs will visit him who does not respect the grant. From other inscriptions, one expects inā urāṅ nan ‘that man’s mother’, for it is usually she who will be the victim of her son’s wrongdoings, but it seems impossible to read (i)nā at the beginning of line 8.

rice-field monastery too all that is in the north-west, one resides at Kadyaṅ. Rice-field Sulauṅ. Rice-field at god . Rice-field of his highness many black and white dogs visit in the hell Avīci madyān that man will reside in all hells rice-field Luvuk

The museum holds two fragments that were found during excavations at An Mỹ, in Quảng Nam province, in the year 1982. We consider it possible that they belong to one original object, along with a third inscribed fragment, that is currently held by a villager close-by the site (inscription C. 229, see ECIC III 454 ). The fragment bearing C. 227 shows text on two faces and is nicely readable, but given the fragmentary state, with not a single line completely preserved, it is nearly impossible to extract any coherent sense out of it. Things are even worse for C. 228 (which is virtually unreadable on the estampages), and the same seems to be true for C. 229, which is illegible on photos and for which we do not have any estampage at all. For this reason, the remainder of this entry will deal only with C. 227

First edited with translation into English by Arlo Griffiths et al. (273-275). The inscription is re-edited here by Salomé Pichon based the EFEO estampages n. 2077 and n. 2078.

273-275 450