Batutulis

⟨1⟩ vaṁ(ṅa?) (p)un· ⬦ vaṁ na pun HD • For the shape of ṅa, see ṅabalay in l. 9. — ⟨1⟩ pura:na ⬦ purane HD • There is a vertical stroke between r and n, which has been interpreted as panéléng by Pleyte and Hasan Djafar, but we think it is a panolong, for panéléng has a different shape in this inscription. See the panéléngs in mok·ta (ll. 5 and 6) and in ḍeva nis·kala (l. 4) — they are all different from the shape we see here in line 1. It seems that the marker in line 1 is intended to be the same as the panolong we have identified in kaca:na (l. 5). There is a horizontal stroke on top, but it could be accidental.

⟨2⟩ ḍy¿i?⟨ə⟩, viṅaran· ⬦ diya viṅaran HD • HD suggests an emendation of the second word to diṅaran. We accept the emendation and add that ḍyi needs to be emended to dyə, the word we also find further on in this line and in l. 4. — ⟨2⟩ p¿ra?⟨u⟩n· ⬦ prana HD • Hasan Djafar’s reading seems impossible to us, for there is unmistakably a sign between the n and the following ḍi, and this sign can only be a paten or punctuation. We feel compelled to emend because no word pran seems to exist in Sundanese or Javanese. — ⟨2⟩ p¿ra?⟨u⟩n· ⬦ prana HD • This reading seems impossible to us, for there is unmistakably a sign between the n and the following ḍi, and this sign can only be pamaéh or punctuation. Since the word pran (even if interpreted as pəran) does not seem to exist in Sundanese, we propose to emend this to pun·, as in lines 1 and 4.

⟨4⟩ ñusuk· na ⬦ ñusuk·na HD • All predecessors have by their non-insertion of a space between ñusuk and na implied that na is a pronominal clitic, but it seems more convincing to take it as article na (Noorduyn and Teeuw 2006, pp. 53–60). — ⟨4⟩ rahyi⟨ṁ⟩ ⬦ rahiyaṁ HD • We do not see the panyecek.

⟨5⟩ sa⟨ṁ⟩ siḍa ⬦ saṁ sida HD • Hasan Djafar explains with a note explaining that the panyecek is present although hard to read. We are inclined to assume that it is absent. Cf. the cases of sa ratu and rahyi for saṁ ratu and rahyiṁ (= rahiyaṁ) above. — ⟨5⟩ mok(·)ta ⬦ mok·ta HD • We can not clearly see the bottom stroke expected as pamaéh, but there is a trace of a small stroke to the right and bottom of the aksara k. — ⟨5⟩ gunuṁ ⬦ guna HD • There can be no doubt about reading with panyuku and panyecek. See the toponym Gunuṅ Tiga in the CP as cited by Pleyte (1911, p. 176). — ⟨5⟩ qə⟨ñ⟩cu ⬦ I⟨ñ·⟩cu HD. — ⟨5⟩ (n)is·kala ⬦ nis·kala HD • The first consonant is very hard to read as n, but that is what is must be.

⟨7⟩ (ṅa)balay· • The first consonant is unclear. If we are to follow Hasan Djafar who reads ṅabalay, then this means that at the beginning of line 1, we also need to read ṅa. Another possibility would be to read Abalay·. Whether we read it as ṅa or A, the aksara seems slightly deviant from the other instances of the same aksaras in this inscription. — ⟨7⟩ talaga [va]⟨8⟩R̥na • Restoration proposed by Hasan Djafar. Cf. Pleyte 1911, p. 172, citation from FCP.6a: ti saṁ hyiṁ talaga varna miñak· hanət· sago⟨m⟩boṁ Uyaḥ salave kəlek lilitan salave təktək ... “From Talaga Warna: essential oil one gombong, salt 25 kəlek, waist cloth 25 təktək...”; cf. also BM 1352-1355, a passage which locates Talaga Varna somewhere around Bukit Agəṅ (presumably the ancient name of present-day Gunung Gede in Bogor)