Kinewu (829 Śaka – 907-11-20)

Encoded in TEI/EpiDoc according to the DHARMA Encoding Guide for Documentary Editions, version 2

BACK OF GAṆEŚA

|| • || svasti śakavarṣātīta 829 mārgasiramāsa tithi dvāda śi śuklapakṣa ha va śu vāra bharaṇī-nakṣatra siddha-yoga yamadevatā tatkālanikanaṁ rāma I kinvu vatak· raṇḍaman· Inanugrahān· de śrī mahārāja ra kai vatu kura dyaḥ balituṁ śrī Iśvarakeśavasamarottuṅga mvaṁ rakryān mahāmantri śrī dakṣo ttamavajrabāhupratipakṣakṣaya sambandhanyann inanugrahān· mūla savaḥ kahadyanan· kmi kakannikanaṁ rāma lamvit· 6 tampaḥ 3 kaṭik· 28 gavai 8 kunaṁ saṅkā ri durbbalanikanaṁ rāma I kinvu tan· vnaṁ Umijillakan drabya hajinikaṁ samaṅkana jarīya manamvaḥ I rakryānn i raṇḍaman· pu vāma mamalaku maṁL̥piha savaḥ tlas· vyayanya tumama mas· pagəḥ ka 3 su 1 ḍap· da 2 ha ḍaṅan· 1 masnya su l maparaḥ I saṁ juru mas· su 2 kinabaihannira pjaḥ pva rakryānn i raṇḍaman lumāḥ I tamblaṁ tapvan linapiḥ savaḥnikaṁ rāma jarīya maṅabarat· manamākan ya mas· ka 5 I śrī mahārāja mvaṁ ra kryān· mahāmantrī muAṁ rakryanta gaṅsal· vuṅkal tihaṁ vka sirikan· kaluṁ varak· tiru raṇu ḍumata ṅakan samvaḥnya samgat· momah-umaḥ I mamrata pūttara mvaṁ saṁ prataya I raṇḍaman· rake hamprun· mvaṁ pu vata mvaṁ rovaṁ rakryān sañjiva saṁ pamilihan· mvaṁ saṁ dumba nāhan· kvaiḥnira ḍumataṅṅakan ṣamvaḥ rā manta I kinvu yāta sambandhanyann inanugrahān· masavaha lamvit· 6 kaṭik· 12 gavai mā 6 tatra sākṣī saṁ paṅuraṁ Iṁ kabandharyyan· makabaihan rake maṇḍyāṅin· pu khaṭṭvāṅga saṁ prasan· saṁ mala ñjaṁ saṁ kasugihan· saṁ roṅguy· ḍa punta vadya saṁ ra lva Iṁ kamanilan· kālīḥ saṁ nīla saṁ dramp r̥ s· parujar· I mamrata saṁ turuhan· saṁ panagar· manurat· prasasti ḍa punta gara lek· nāhan· kvaiḥnira sākṣī huvus· rāmanta Inanugrahan· muliḥ ta sira tkanira hinanākan ta saṁ hadyan maṁhilirī kabaiḥ laki-laki vadvan vinaiḥ manaḍaha I maṁhilirī tinaḍaḥnira haḍa ṅan· prāṇa 2 masnya su 2 tlas· Inadaggakan ta saṁ hyaṁ təAs· tatra sākṣī vadiha ti saṁ kasugihan pu padma Akalamvī haji dyaḥ maṅgala ḍanuku I makudur·

BASE

(a) long side [n. 2292 left]

.................................................................. X X X X X X lubak· .................................... halira saṁ X saṁ X X X rāma ...................... duṁ saṁ kintya I mga saṁ toḍi I vulakan· saṁ duduṁ I sumur samuṇḍya I X X huḍa X huḍavas· dya tulaman· I lulamviran· punta sārthi I hārar· saṁ ludhira I lucam· sabujaṁ rāma I kinvu sagañca hyasaka X

(b) short side [n. 2292 right]

.................................................................. ...] saṁ yacuka1 sa2m· vinkas· saṁ ma lamvan· gusti saṁ kuḍyā varigga si _ _ k· paru jar· si kuṭak· Apkan· si catur· tuha buru si ba- likuḥ rāmāratā saṁ kisa ḍapu talimvak· saṁ liṇḍū saṁ bikhyā rāma I kasumuran· saṁ jurvan· saṁ rāmvu saṁ səntə saṁ khaceṇḍa saṁ buvun· saṁ śuḍuṁ rāmāratā: MS&DK read rāma māratā, and this is perhaps what was intended. If tā is the correct reading, the shape of the vocalization is very unusual.

.................................................................. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X nugraha śrī mahārāja mvaṁ rakryān· mahāmantrī pari X ki samma X kinvu tan katamānna deni patiḥ vahuta ṅuni ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) hulun· huṅā X X Ityevamādi sakveḥni maṅilala d r̥vya haji

(d) short side [n. 2293 right]

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) X X mantrī ........................................... X X X X X X X lakilaki X X X X X X X X X n· saṁ hyaṁ prasāsti X X

rakryānthis word is omitted in OJO CIJ. kahadyanan·katajyanan·The reading is difficult here, but my new reading is possible, and probably preferable in the light of the role of a hadyan in l. 19 below. Note that Cohen Stuart read kahā(?)dyana ... (KO). See also Wukajana I 1r4 savaḥ kahadyanan. kmikakannikanaṁkmitakannikanaṁ The form assumed by Brandes and Sarkar is not grammatically acceptable and probably a misreading. Emend kmitannikanaṁ. kaṭikkaḍikThe reading is clearly kaṭik, and this is the expected term. maṁL̥pihamaṁL̥piha Sarkar’s note ‘The better form is : °viha’ is misguided. The base must here be ləpih, as is proven by occurrence of linapiḥ in line 10. This was already observed by Boechari (2012: 302 n. 30). ḍap· da 2 this sequence was left unread in OJO CIJ. The reading ḍap· seems relatively clear, but forms no (part of a) recognizable word. I have considered reading ḍa pāda 2, which with pāda would yield a recognizable word, but would leave the unmistakable ḍa stranded, and requires reading as pā an akṣara that quite clearly seems to be p·. Perhaps read ḍaṅ· ‘copper pot’? See OJED. masnyamāsuyaCf. māsya, recognized as error for māsnya, by Brandes in Groeneveldt 1887: 326 (note), for inscription on silver plate (MNI 1738). See masnya attested as such in E.8 and E.64. See also l. 20 below. pvaomitted in CIJ. samgat· momah-umaḥ I mamrata pūttaraOJO CIJ misread samgat momahumaḥ i pamrata puttara. Cf. Mantyasih A11 samgat momah-umaḥ mamrata pu uttara. See also Wanua Tengah III (2r14) and Sarkar p. 79 n. 57. hamprunhamparan A toponym Hampran is attested in the Plumpungan inscription and in Mantyasih III, A.14. But the reading here is clearly hamprun. vata mvaṁ rovaṁvatabvaṁ rovaṁ For the combination mvaṅ rovaṅ, see Luītan l. 3: saṅ wahuta hyaṅ kudur muaṅ rowaṅ rakryān i pagarwsi; Rukam, II.6; Palepengan, l. 5 kinon maṅukura wadwā rakryān i hino saṅ brahmā muaṅ rowaṅ samgat priñ sakañcur. sañjiva saṁ pamilihan OJO CIJ misread pañji vasapamilihan. Perhaps understand sañjīvana saṁ pamilihan. Cf. Rukam, I.2: rakryān sañjīwana nini haji; see also Rukam, II.17, 21, and OV 1939, 21, about three talams inscribed with sañjīwana nini haji. kaṭikkadikkaḍikCf. the note on line 6. khaṭṭvāṅgathis name also occurs in Tihaṅ, l. 14. malañjaṁmalañjaThe [la] is entirely unverifiable; if we assume that it was correctly read by Brandes, then we may have to suppose the presence of a final anusvāra and read malañjaṁ, a name attested in Kwak Ib, l. 5; Saṅsaṅ Ia, l. 8. vadya thus KO and Damais (1970); vadva OJO CIJ. kālīḥ kāliḥ prasasti ḍa puntaprasasti ḍa puntapraṣasti saṁ ḍa puntaThere is no saṁ here. kvaiḥnirakveḥnira inanugrahaninanugrahān maṁhilirī ... I maṁhilirīmahilirī ... i paṁhilirīThe same word occurs in the Karangtengah inscription (Blitar). masnyamasuyaSee note on l. 9 above. saṁ this word is omitted in OJO CIJ; in KO, we find sakai....n for saṁ kasugihan. Akalamvīakalambi maṅgala Damais 1970: 182 n. 5 proposes naṅgala and explicitly rejects nāṅgala, which would have been better supported by from the van Kinsbergen photo; but the latter as well as the estampage and inspection of the stone allow reading as I do here, replacing unknown names by a well-known one.

This inscription on a Gaṇeśa statue was not included in Edi Sedyawati 1995. Its date was discussed by Damais (1955: 48). The text on the base has been published only once, and very partially, in Machi Suhadi & Richadiana Kartakusuma, Berita Penelitian Arkeologi 47, 1996: 30-32, no. 2.4.8. Red indicates readings that cannot be verified from photos or estampage and remain doubtful even after direct inspection of the stone at Museum Penataran in Blitar (21/6/2014), when there was time only for a rapid inspection of the back of the Gaṇeśa, none for the base.

109–117 KO XXVI OJO XXVI CIJ LXXV 30–32 translations: Sarkar 1970; Barret-Jones 1984, Appendix 1, pp. 158–159 CVIII bijlage N 109–117 V Bijlage no. 6 358–359 5 272 no. 561 120–121 318 no. 2029 50–511 1, 16 132 131