Tugu Boulder Inscription of Pūrṇavarman (ca. 6th c. CE)

Authors of digital edition: Arlo Griffiths (argr), Emmanuel Francis (emfr).

Contributor: Arlo Griffiths (argr).

Language: Sanskrit (san) [Southeast Asian Brāhmī (other) (brāhmī_southeast_asian_other)].

Repository: Nusantara Epigraphy (tfc-nusantara-epigraphy).

Identifier: DHARMA_INSIDENKTugu.

File path: xml/DHARMA_INSIDENKTugu.xml.

Version: 2026-07-17 15:37 (95db375), last modified 2026-07-17 15:37 (95db375).

Edition

⟨1⟩ @ purā rājādhirājena guruṇā pīna-bāhunā khātā khyātāṁ purīṁ prāpya
⟨2⟩ candrabhāgārṇṇavaṁ yayau || pravarddhamāna-dvāviṅśad-vatsara śrī-guṇaujasā narendra-dhvaja-bhātena
⟨3⟩ śrīmatā pūrṇṇavarmmaṇo || prārabhya phālguṇe māse khātā kr̥ṣṇāṣṭamī-tithau caitra-śukla-trayodaśyāM dinais siddhaikaviṅśakai[ḥ ||]
⟨4⟩ Āyatā ṣaṭ-sahasreṇa dhanuṣā[ṁ] saśatena ca dvāviṅśena nadī ramyā gomatī nirmalodakā || pitāmahasya rājarṣer vvidāryya śibirāvani[M]
⟨5⟩ brāhmaṇair go-sahasre¿nā? prayāti kr̥ta-dakṣiṇā || ... || @ || ... ||

Bibliography

Kern’s readings, fully accounted for by Vogel, are not taken into account here any longer. There are several small differences of reading between Vogel, Chhabra and Sarkar. Chhabra indicates no source for his readings, or variants from his predecessors. Sarkar (p. 5) claims to base his on the facsimile published by Vogel. Yet both seem partly to copy Vogel, because they ignore the fact that in the system of transliteration used in POD 1, roman m stands for anusvāra: only this can explain why they misread m for ṁ several times. The text constituted below is based on consultation of POD 1, plate 27 (= OD XXX?).

Primary

[V] Vogel, Jean Philippe. 1925. “The earliest Sanskrit inscriptions of Java.” In: Publicaties van den Oudheidkundigen Dienst in Nederlandsch-Indië — I. Batavia, pp. 15–35. Page ???, item ???

Display Options Word Wrap Line Numbers Comments Processing Instructions

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<?xml-model href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/erc-dharma/project-documentation/master/schema/latest/DHARMA_Schema.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>

<?xml-model href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/erc-dharma/project-documentation/master/schema/latest/DHARMA_SQF.sch" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron"?>

<?xml-model href="https://epidoc.stoa.org/schema/latest/tei-epidoc.rng" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>

<?xml-model href="https://epidoc.stoa.org/schema/latest/tei-epidoc.rng" schematypens="http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron"?>

<title>Tugu Boulder Inscription of Pūrṇavarman (ca. 6th c. CE)</title>

<resp key="contributor">EpiDoc encoding</resp>

<surname>Griffiths</surname>

</persName>

</respStmt>

<resp key="creator">intellectual authorship of edition</resp>

<surname>Griffiths</surname>

</persName>

<forename>Emmanuel</forename>

<surname>Francis</surname>

</persName>

</respStmt>

</titleStmt>

<authority><ref target="https://dharmalekha.info">DHARMA</ref></authority>

<idno type="filename">DHARMA_INSIDENKTugu.xml</idno>

</publicationStmt>

<repository>DHARMAbase</repository>

</msIdentifier>

</msContents>

<!-- If you need to identify individual hands (EGD §7.5/) in addition to one or more paragraphs of general palaeographic description, wrap <summary> around the <p> or <p>s above, and, outside <summary>, create <handNote> elements for each hand as follows:

-->

</handDesc>

</physDesc>

</msDesc>

</sourceDesc>

</fileDesc>

<p>Encoded in TEI/EpiDoc according to the <ref target="https://hal.science/halshs-02888186">DHARMA Encoding Guide for Documentary Editions, version 2</ref></p>

</encodingDesc>

<change who="part:argr" when="2024-08-14" status="draft">started encoding the inscription</change>

</revisionDesc>

</teiHeader>

<body>

<l n="a"><lb n="1"/>@ purā rājādhirājena</l>

<l n="b">guruṇā pīna-bāhunā</l>

<l n="c">khātā khyātāṁ purīṁ prāpya</l>

<l n="d"><lb n="2"/>candrabhāgārṇṇavaṁ yayau ||</l>

</lg>

<!-- @: a sign that might represent a fly-whisk, a very stylized triśāla, or "a burning torch" (Sarkar, p. 5 and his n. 26).

b. guruṇā: Chhabra Sarkar; gurunā Vogel (probably a misprint). See guṇaujasā in l. 2 for the shape of gu.

c. khyātāṁ purīṁ: thus Vogel (see his remark on the notation of anusvāra, p. 33: "In the first instance, it is marked by means of a dot, in the second by a dot enclosed within a circle"); khyātām purīm Chhabra Sarkar.

d. °bhāgārṇṇavaṁ: thus Vogel (see his note, p. 33); ̌°bhāgārṇṇavam Chhabra Sarkar.

||: Vogel Sarkar; omitted by Chhabra. -->

<l n="a" enjamb="yes">pravarddhamāna-dvāviṅśad</l>

<l n="b">-vatsara śrī-guṇaujasā</l>

<l n="c">narendra-dhvaja-bhātena</l>

<l n="d"><lb n="3"/>śrīmatā pūrṇṇavarmmaṇo ||</l>

</lg>

<!-- a. °vatsara: °vatsa(re) Vogel (see his n., p. 33); °vatsare Chhabra; "Read °śare" (Sarkar, misprint).

c. °bhātena: Sarkar; °bhānena (bhātena) Vogel; °bhāne(te)na Chhabra. See Sarkar n. 30: "Te is however certain. In this inscription, ta is distinguished from na by the slightly triangular form it (ta) betrays."

d. °varmmaṇo: °varmmaṇā Vogel. The element that seems to form the e-mātrā is not likely to be accidental. Cf. the ṇai is l. 5.

||: Vogel Sarkar; omitted by Chhabra. -->

<l n="a">prārabhya phālguṇe māse</l>

<l n="b">khātā kr̥ṣṇāṣṭamī-tithau</l>

<l n="c">caitra-śukla-trayodaśyāM</l>

<l n="d">dinais siddhaikaviṅśakai<supplied reason="lost">ḥ ||</supplied></l>

</lg>

<!-- a. phālguṇe: phālguṇe(ne) Vogel Chhabra Sarkar. It is unnecessary to correct to phālgune, the variant with retroflex nasal being extremely common in Southeast Asian epigraphy (Cambodia, Campa) as in India.

b. kr̥ṣṇāṣṭamī°: as pointed out by Sarkar (n. 32), Vogel's kr̥ṣṇātaṣmī° must be a misprint.

c. caitra°: Vogel and Sarkar have expressed doubt about the ai (suspecting rather e), but the ai seems certain to me, in comparison with dinais and °viṅśakai further on in this line.

d. dinais: thus do Vogel, Chhabra and Sarkar read; the n is rather unclear, but no other reading is imaginable.

d. °viṅśakai[ḥ ||]: Vogel (p. 33) thinks the visarga can still be traced; Chhabra assumes one without question; Sarkar thinks is invisible but needs to be restored; I do not see it. All ignore the fact that a pair of daṇ.das must also have been lost.

-->

<l n="a"><lb n="4"/>Āyatā ṣaṭ-sahasreṇa</l>

<l n="b">dhanuṣā<supplied reason="lost">ṁ</supplied> saśatena ca</l>

<l n="c">dvāviṅśena nadī ramyā</l>

<l n="d">gomatī nirmalodakā ||</l>

</lg>

<!--

b. dhanuṣā[ṁ] saśatena: Chhabra; dhanuṣā(m) saśatena Sarkar; dhanuṣā[ṁ]sa-śatena Vogel. The anusvāra is not visible.

-->

<l n="a">pitāmahasya rājarṣer</l>

<l n="b">vvidāryya śibirāvani<supplied reason="lost">M</supplied></l>

<l n="c"><lb n="5"/>brāhmaṇair go-sahasre<choice><sic>nā</sic><corr>ṇa</corr></choice></l>

<l n="d">prayāti kr̥ta-dakṣiṇā || ... || @ || ... ||</l>

</lg>

<!--

b. vvidāryya: Chhabra Sarkar; vvidārya Vogel.

b. śibirāvani[M]: śibirāvanim Vogel Chhabra Sarkar; none observes that the final nasal (presumably written in reduced size below the baseline, as in l. 3) is invisible, at least on POD, pl. 27. Sarkar's note 37 (although marred by several disturbing misprints/errors) makes the valid point that the reading in fact seems to be śī°. Since śi° is the desired reading, and since this inscription does not otherwise commit errors involving vowel length, I assume the trace that would distinguish ī from i is accidental.

c. °sahasrenā: corr. °sahasreṇa (with Vogel Chhabra Sarkar).

d. kr̥tadakṣiṇā: kr̥tadakṣiṇo Vogel.

|| ... || @ || ... ||: an elaborate final punctuation, ignored by Vogel, Chhabra and Sarkar. -->

</div>

<listApp>

</app>

</listApp>

</div>

</div>

</div>

<p>Kern's readings, fully accounted for by Vogel, are not taken into account here any longer. There are several small differences of reading between Vogel, Chhabra and Sarkar. Chhabra indicates no source for his readings, or variants from his predecessors. Sarkar (p. 5) claims to base his on the facsimile published by Vogel. Yet both seem partly to copy Vogel, because they ignore the fact that in the system of transliteration used in POD 1, roman m stands for anusvāra: only this can explain why they misread m for ṁ several times. The text constituted below is based on consultation of POD 1, plate 27 (= OD XXX?).</p>

</listBibl>

<bibl/>

</listBibl>

</div>

</body>

</text>

</TEI>