. svasti śaka-varṣātīta 844 baisākha-māsa, tithi sāṣṭi kr̥ṣṇa, vā, va, śāa, vāra, Irikā divasa saṁ dhanadī vvaṁ Iṁ vuruḍu kidul· vatək· halaran· vinaiḥ surat· jayapātra kmitananya,

sambandha saṁ dhanadī Inujar· samgət· maṁhuri maṅaran· vukajana, sinaṅguḥ, vka kilalān· I maṅhuri, kunaṁ An· pabyavāhāra ḍataṁ ta ya I saṁ tuhān· I paḍaṁ Iṁ *pakaraṇān· makabaihan· tlas· rumuhun· ri saṁ pamgət·, kinonakan· svavargā saṁ dhanadī kabaiḥ petan· sigi-sigīn· yan· hana *lava-lava An· vka kilalān· ri maṁhuri *kavvī-bvītan· saṁ dhanadī, kakinya, *kvinya, mvaṁ yan· hana vvaṁ Udāśīna vka-vkaniṅ vaṁ yukti vnaṅa *manarimākna saṁ dhanadī An· tan· vka kilalān· kavvī-bvītanya ṅūni, ri saṁ Atīta-prabhu,

kunaṁ I ḍataṁni svavarganya kabaiḥ, lāvan· Ikāṅ vaṁ Udāśīna, I griḥ, I kahuripan·, I paniṁlaran·, tinañān· ya de saṁ pamgət· mvaṁ saṁ tuhān·, tan· mevəḥ sahurnya ka⌈baiḥ vnaṅa manarima kosapāna, An· tan· hana lava-lyeava mātra An· tan· vka kilalān· I maṁhuri saṁ dhanadī, kakinya kvinya puyut·nya ṅūni riṅ aāsīt·kāla vvaṁ, yukti Ataḥ tuha-tuha saṁ dhanadī, maṅkana līṁnikanaṁ Udāśīna ṅunivaiḥ svavarganikā saṁ dhanadī mvaṁ Ikaṁ rāma Iṁ buruḍu sapasuk vanva rarai matuha, ya ta mataṁnyan· vineḥ surat· pagə-pagəḥ kmitananya de saṁ pamgat· I paḍaṁ pu bhadra mvaṁ samgət· lucəm· pv ānanta tuhāniṁ kanayakān· pu sumiṁ juru lampuran· rake roṅga, nāhan· sira mavaiḥ jayapātra, yathānya tan· hanāvuvusa riṁ dlaāhaniṁ dlaāha Āpan· huvus· mabuṅaḥ kavivenāṇy,

tatra sākṣī saṁ hadəAn· Apatiḥ saṁ kiraṭā, vahuta maraṅin· saṁ bābru, pagər ruyuṁ saṁ kaṇḍyul·, rāma tpi siriṁ I griḥ saṁ tyanta, saṁ kranti, saṁ ñuṅul·, saṁ vrati, I vuruḍu lor· saṁ kavat· saṅ abi, I kahuripan· saṁ guha, mvaṁ rāmanta I halaran· sapasuk· vanva grāma bihāra kabikuAn·, vinkas· Irika kāla saṁ manata, saṁ gaḍya, saṁ mandu, saṁ balikuḥ, saṁ caki, saṁ byuūha, tuha kila saṁ kiṅil·, parujar· si panait·, rāma kabayan· saṁ surat· saṁ vantər· tuhān·n i patiga saṁ jaluk·, saṁ rodaya, saṁ paragul·, saṁ goma, saṁ padhara, nāhan· sira hana Irika kāla, likhita-pātra saṁ hadəAn· citralekha saṁ hadəAn· bajra

. svasti śaka-varṣātīta 844 jyaiṣṭa-māsa, tithi saptamiī śukla-pakṣa, vu, ka, so, vāra, Irikā divaśa saṁ dhanadī vinaiḥ surat· jayapātra kmitananya de samgət· juru I maḍaṇḍar·,

samvandha hana saṁ pāmāriva ṅaranya Inanugrahān· de samgat· juru Irikā vanuA I maṁhuri, makon ta rasikā kumilalā Ikā kəkəran· I maṁhuri, *Andān· kadi rakuA ya tumuduḥ Ikā saṁ dhanadī, sinaṅguḥnya vka kmir·, kunaṁ saṁkā ri nāgata rasikā dinaliḥ tan· ri śiīlanya dadi ya manambaḥ I saṁ tuhān· I pakaraṇān·, mājar· ya I padārmthanikā vuvus· kinirim· Ikā saṁ kinon·kon· surat· kinon· mājara I prastutanikā vuvus·, vkasan· tadiīya-gr̥ha-sthāna, tan aṅgā tkā I pakaraṇān·, mapiṇḍuA maṅkin ta kinirim· surat· kinon· marā, tan aṅgā Ataḥ, ya ta mataṅ yan· vinaiḥ Ikā saṁ dhanadī surat· pagə-pagəḥ kmitananya yathānya tan· vuvusa tkā I dlāhaniṁ dlāha,

tatra sākṣī saṁ tuhān· I pakaraṇān· makabaihan·, samgat· jambi katrīṇi, sandiḥ, vikrami, savit· paṅkur· samgat· pamratan·, samgat· tālan·, makalaṅkaṁ samgat· dhusan· ḍaṅ ācāryya beṣṇa, makudur· saṁ vaḍiṅin· madihati dyaḥ paduruṅan· citralekha samgat· tiruAn vəL̥, samgat· paṅaruhan· saṁ raturus·, patiḥ vaśaḥ saṁ kulumpa, kuci saṁ parahita pisor· hyaṁ si sḍut·,

likhita-pātra citralekha saṁ yidī || * || * likhita-taāmvra Arthahetoḥ ḍaṅ ācāryya I griḥ prāmodyajāta . * . . tha .

sāṣṭi ṣaṣṭhī śāa śa I am unable to confirm or reject the presence of the tarung implied in Stutterheim's original reading and indicated also in Boechari's, although it is unexpected in this abbreviation for śani/śanaiścara. Stutterheim's revised and normalized reading, followed by Sarkar, of course polished away the irregularity. vatək· vatik· pabyavāhāra pavyavahāra pabyavāhārā tinañān· tinañan· vineḥ vinaiḥ mvaṁ vmaṁ tuhāniṁ tuhāni dlaāhaniṁ dlaāha dlāhaniṁ dlāha dlāhaniṁ dlaha kavivenāṇy, kavivekāṇya, kavivekānya, The reading kavivekāṇya might make sense if we can understand it as ka-viveka-an-nya, where kavivekān could mean adjudication. However, the spelling ṇ for n (silently changed in Stutterheim's second edition, followed by Sarkar), would be surprising in this inscription, where the two consonants are not otherwise interchanged. Furthermore, previous editors have ignored the large space that is left open for a descender from this akṣara in the next line, which seems to mean that there once was another subscript part to the akṣara that has become illegible. The original akṣara may theoretically have been ṇyu or ṇyū. Is it at all possible that the reading was ṇyū and that the use of this idiosyncratic pronominal suffix reflects a usage particular to such closing fornulae, of which we would have another instance in tmū-nyū in the Wanua Tengah III inscription? kiraṭā, vahuta kiraṭā vahuta The punctuation sign was omitted by previous scholars. In its place, one could also read visarga, which would yield kiraṭāḥ. pagər ruyuṁ pangərruyuṁ kaṇḍyul· kaṇḍyal· It seems that Stutterheim himself in 1935 overlooked his 1925 corrigenda (where he corrected ṇḍya to ṇḍyu), and that Sarkar and Boechari did the same. ñuṅul· nanul· saṅ abi saṅ avi sapasuk· saṁ pasuk· bihāra vihāra balikuḥ baliku tuha kila tuha kilaṁ si panait· sipanaik· saṁ surat· saṁ vantər· sasurat· savantər· sa surat· sa vantər· tuhān·n i tuhān· si jyaiṣṭa-māsa jyeṣṭa-māsa samgət· pamgət· juru Irikā vanuA juru Ikā vanuA makon ta rasikā kumilalā Ikā kəkəran· makon ta rasikā kamilalā Ikā kitəran· makon ta rasikā ta milalā Ikā kikəran· makon ta rasikā ta, milalā Ikā kitəran· The u in kumilalā is invisible on the photo available to me, and probably also very faint on the plate, if any trace of it remains visible at all, but it was almost certainly engraved. The verb form in question is not common in epigraphy, where one normally finds maṅilala, and so it was not recognized by previous scholars. The reading kəkəran was proposed but not adopted by Stutterheim, who could not yet benefit from the lexical data on this word, assembled in OJED. Andān· Andan· dhanadī, sinaṅguḥnya vka kmir·, kunaṁ dhanadī sinaṅguḥnya vka kmir·, kunaṁ dhanadī sinaṅguḥnya vka kmir· kunaṁ Both punctuation signs can be detected on the photograph. padārmthanikā padārmanikā padharmanikā The akṣaras tha and ma are very easily confused in this script. Although comparison with thā in line v14 and rtha in v19 suggests that the scribe did indeed engrave rma here, attempts to explain padārman as padhārman and to translate accordingly fail to convince because the word padhārman is not otherwise attested, whereas padārtha is well attested and fitting in the context. mājara mājar -gr̥ha-sthāna grahastāna pakaraṇān·, mapiṇḍuA pakaraṇān· mapiṇḍuA pagə-pagəḥ pagəgəḥ pagəḥ-pagəḥ pagə pagəḥ vuvusa vuvus· tuhān· I pakaraṇān· tuhān· pakaraṇān· jambi katrīṇi, sandiḥ, vikrami, savit· jambika trīṇi sandiḥ vitrami, saṁ vit· jambi katriṇi, sandiḥ vikrami savit· jambi katriṇi, sandiḥ, vikrami savit· pamratan· Correct pamvatan·? dhusan· pusan· pasan· makudur· matudur· saṁ raturus· surat urus· sura turus· hyaṁ si sḍut· hyaṁ si sḍat· hyasiṣṭat· hyasisṭat· yidī yiḍī likhita-taāmvra likhita-tambra likhita tāmra prāmodyajāta . tha . . tha . prāmodyajāta . da . . tha . prāmodyajāta . * . . da . Stutterheim's second edition does not represent the end of the text, which is interpreted somewhat differently in the other three editions. In my interpretation, the original layout concept involved a final line without text but with . tha . in left and right margin (the symbols between the daṇḍas have been read as akṣaras by previous editors); having reached the end of line 19, the scribe found he needed space for one more syllable, and hence he engraved the final ta of the text before the closing symbols on line 20.

Hail! Elapsed Śaka year 844, month of Vaiśākha, sixth tithi of the waning fortnight, Vās, Vagai, Saturday. That was the time that saṅ Dhanadī, native of Vuruḍu South, vatək Halaran, was given a letter surat, namely a victory-document jayapattra to be kept hy her.

The occasion: saṅ Dhanadī was spoken about by the officiant of Maṅhuri, named Vukajana, and was considered to be an unfree kilalān native of Maṅhuri. Now, as she disputed this, she came before the headmen of Paḍaṅ in the Secretariat pakaraṇān, foremost among them the officiants. An order was given regarding all members of saṅ Dhanadī's own family that it should be found out and investigated whether there were any indications lava-lava that the ancestors of saṅ Dhanadī — her grandfathers, her grandmothers — were unfree natives of Maṅhuri, and whether there are any uninvolved people, descendants of free yukti people, who would be able to guarantee for saṅ Dhanadī that her ancestors did not use to be unfree natives under previous kings.

Now when all her own family members came, together with persons uninvolved from Grih, Kahuripan, Paniṅlaran, they were questioned by the officiants and the headmen. They all responded without difficulty that they would be able to accept the record to be cleared, as there were no indications whatsoever that saṅ Dhanadī, her grandfathers, her grandmothers, her great-grandparents in the past, were unfree natives of Maṅhuri. Saṅ Dhanadī's ancestors were nothing other than free people. Thus spoke the ones who were uninvolved, all the more so saṅ Dhanadī's family members and the elders of Vuruḍu, junior and senior, with all the constituent villages. That is why a confirmatory letter, to be kept by her, was given to her by the officiant of Paḍaṅ, called pu Bhadra and the officiant of Lucəm, pu Ananta, the headman of kanayakān called pu Sumiṅ, the foreman of bards lampuran called rake Roṅga. Those are the ones who gave the victory-document, in order that there be no one who shall say it again into the future's future. For the is already clear.

The witnesses to it were: saṅ hadəan apatih called saṅ Kiraṭā, the vahuta maraṅin called saṅ Bābru, the pagər ruyuṅ called saṅ Kaṇḍyul the headmen of neighboring villages: at Grih, saṅ Tyanta, saṅ Kranti, saṅ Ñuṅul, saṅ Vrati; at Vuruḍu North, saṅ Kavat, saṅ Abi; at Kahuripan, saṅ Guha, and the elders of Halaran, and of all of the constituent villages, of the Vihāra(s) and of the Kabikuan(s).

The vinəkases at the time were saṅ Manata, saṅ Gaḍya, saṅ Mandu, saṅ Balikuh, saṅ Caki, saṅ Vyūha. The tuha kila was saṅ Kiṅil. The parujar was si Panait. The elders of the kabayan were saṅ Surat and saṅ Vantər. The headmen of patiga were saṅ Jaluk, saṅ Rodaya, saṅ Paragul, saṅ Goma, saṅ Padhara. Those were the ones present at the time.

The document was drafted by saṅ hadəan; the engraver was saṅ hadəan called Bajra.

Hail! Elapsed Śaka year 844, month of Jyeṣṭha, seventh tithi of the waxing fortnight, Vurukuṅ, Kalivon, Monday. That was the time that saṅ Dhanadī was given by the officiant leader saṅ pamgət juru of Madaṇḍər a letter, namely a victory-document to be kept hy her.

The occasion: There was one called saṅ Pāmāriva, to whom that village of Maṅhuri had been granted by the officiant leader of Madaṇḍər. He ordered him to enjoy the usufruct of the territory of Maṅhuri. He was reportedly kadi rakva about to classify the aforementioned ikā saṅ Dhanadī as being of Khmer descent. But because she was apprehensive of being accused improperly, it happened that she first paid her respects to the headmen in the Secretariat and informed of the contents padārtha of the words. That ? messenger was presented with a letter and ordered to inform of the opening prastuta of the words, and to conlude with informing of his dwelling place. He was unwilling to come to the Secretariat, and so he was presented with a letter a second time and ordered to go. He was still unwilling. That is why a confirmatory letter, to be kept by her, was given to the aforementioned saṅ Dhanadī, in order that such words not occur again down into the future's future.

The witnesses to it were: all the headmen in the Secretariat the three officiants of Jambi, called Sandih, Vikrami and Savit, the paṅkurs namely the officiant of Pamratan (Pamvatan?) and the officiant of Tālan, the makalaṅkaṅ namely the officiant of Dhusan, master Beṣṇa, the makudur namely saṅ Vaḍiṅin, the madihati namely dyah Paduruṅan, the calligraphers namely the officiant of Tiruan called Vələ, and the officiant of Paṅaruhan, called saṅ Raturus, the patih of vasah called saṅ Kulumpa, the patih of kuci called saṅ Parahita, the pisor hyaṅ called si Sḍut.

The document was drafted by the scribe saṅ Yidī; the copper was engraved by the master of Grih, whose name mentioned here only for practical necessity is Prāmodyajāta.

The protagonist, saṅ Dhanadī, was presumably a woman. There is no other indication in the text itself than the suffix -ī, whose presence becomes all the more remarkable if one lists all the rather numerous occurrences of a, presumably male, figure called pu Dhanada, who is often associated with the place name Halaran: Kasugihan (829): saṅ halaran pu dhānada anak vanua i paṇḍamuan vatak ayam təas Mantyasih I (829): maraṅkapi halaran pu dhanada vanua i paṅḍamuan sīma ayam təas Mantyasih III (presumably 829): maṅraṅkappi halaran pu dhanada vanua iṅ paramuan śima ayam təas Rukam (829): maṅraṅkapi saṅ halaran pu dhanada anak banua i paṇḍamuan sīma vadihati Poh (827): maṅrangkappi saṅ halaran pu dhanada anak vanua i paṅramvan sīma vadihati Rongkab (823): maṅrakappi saṅ halaran pu dhānada anak vanwa i paṇḍamuan vatak vadihati Luitan (823): maṅraṅkapi halaran saṅ dhanada Rongkab (823): juruniṅ lapuran pu dhanada kapva anak vanva i turai Kurungan (807): pu dhanada

Important toponyms: Halaran, Grih, Kahuripan, Vuruḍu.

Role of Buddhists and Buddhist Monasteries: scribes (Bajra, Prāmodyajāta) have very suggestive names; use of term arthahetoḥ (Griffiths 2020).

The first witness of the original proceedings was also the scribe.

pakaraṇān: see useful comments Stutterheim 1935: 449. The term also occurs in Kubu-kubu (1v3), SugihManek (B5), Sangguran (B5) and in several Sindok-period charters (e.g. Alasantan 2r12).

lava-lava: the meaning indicated in OJED is every part, every detail?. Among the examples quoted there, SH 25.24: vinarah ri lavā-lavānikaṅ rahasya instructed in the finer points of the secret doctrine and RY 13.41 ike mahārāja matakvan iṅ naya / lavā-lavānuṅ viniveka saṅ prabhu this great king is asking about policy, the finer points which a king distinguishes, support a meaning details but, contextually, I think traces, indications suits better. The word occurs again, in surprisingly corrupt form, as lavalyeva in line 11.

manarimākna: none of the meanings in OJED seem precisely suitable. Cf. Mantranaya 37 hurip tuvi tinarimakan ri ḍaṅ guru even (his) life is pledged to the guru.

bihāra kabikuan: are these one or two establishments? Absence of other co-occurrences of the two words tends to suggest the latter option.

prastuta = prastuti? the function of Ikā before saṁ kinonkon here may mean that ikā saṁ dhanadī need to not be translated "the aforementioned D."

mapiṇḍuA maṅkin: tentatively translated and so a second time, but perhaps the meaning is rather a second time and yet again?

The two calligraphers mentioned here were perhaps those who had written the aforementioned letters.

vasah kuci: see Stutterheim on Palebuhan inscription. The patihs called vasah and kuci co-occur also in a few inscriptions of the Sindok period, e.g. Alasantan 2.16-17 patiḥ juru kāliḥ vaśaḥ saṁ śabda, kuci saṁ makāra, mā 5 vḍihan· yu 1 sovaṁ-sovaṁ, parujarniṁ patiḥ vaśaḥ piṅsor hyaṁ saṁ pakudān· mā 2 ku 2 vḍihan· hlai 1 sovaṁ-sovaṁ, parujarniṁ patiḥ kuci paskaran· saṁ caitya mā 2 ku 2 vḍihan· hlai 1 sovaṁ-sovaṁ.

arthahetoḥ prāmodyajāta: see Griffiths 2020: 127-129.

First transcribed by W. F. Stutterheim (, with extensive corrigenda on p. 187); a corrected and partly normalized edition was then brought out, with Dutch translation, by the same scholar (), and these were reused by H. B. Sarkar for his publication with English translation (); the plate was transcribed again by Boechari (, obviously without taking Stutterheim's corrigenda into account). Re-edited here, with a new translation, by Arlo Griffiths based on B.-Ph. Groslier's photos of the plate. I cite readings from with application of the relevant corrigenda.

59-60, 187 444-456 2198-20690 120-122 E.63 714-715 54-55 A 100, 101 53 53161, 162 98-991114, 115 133The book does not seem to contain a discussion of this inscription's date. 251-252 127-129