Munggut charter (944 Śaka)

Editors: Eko Bastiawan, Arlo Griffiths.

Identifier: DHARMA_INSIDENKMunggut.

Language: Old Javanese.

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

Version: (f7262b6), last modified (e0c683b).

Edition

⟨Face 1: Front main part⟩ ⟨1.1⟩ |◯| svasti śaka-vārṣătīta 944 cetrā-masa tithi caturdaśī kr̥(ṣ)ṇa⟨1.2⟩-pakṣa, vu, pa, Aṁ, vāra, balamuki, kr̥tikā{raṇa}-nakṣatra, dahana-devatā, Āyu[ṣ]m[ān·]⟨1.3⟩yoga, vanija-kāraṇa,

Irikā divāsanyājñā śrī mahārāja rake halu, śrī loke(ś)va[ra] ⟨1.4⟩ dharmmavaṅśa Airlaṅgănantavikramottuṅgadeva, tinaḍah rakryān· mahāmantrī hino śrī saṁgrā⟨1.5⟩mavijayaprasādottuṅgadevī, Umiṅsor· I rakryān· paḍaṁ pu dvija, kumonakən ikanaṁ karāmā⟨1.6⟩n· Iṁ muṅgut· sapasuk thāni kab¿a?⟨e⟩ḥ tka ri babadnya,

maṅaran· Aṇḍu(k)·, bara, marma, cucya, (g)eḍoḥ, ⟨1.7⟩ bə(c)əm·, bajəm·, buṅaḥ, dītən·, bijo, kuniṁ, kəmbaṁ, kilano, gajusa, tiṅgal·(,) gantar· li⟨1.8⟩ṇḍuṁ, R̥mban·, tuñjuṁ, [5+]do, marum·, beca, vecuṁ, kuruk· lca, bəntəL̥, R̥ntap· ba⟨1.9⟩hum(a)n·, robhana, (Ibuni ran·, ma)ṅaran· ḍə(r)ən·, gosəṁ, plī, kleṁ, bavvat·, godhanā, (ṅ)itam·, ba⟨1.10⟩sakaṁ, garuṁ, Aṣṭamī, Adinəm·, śoḍagañciṁ, bamī, Aṣṭi, paraḥ, śrīnam·, Iṅgut·, vatəhər·, ḍintə(n·)⟨1.11⟩ jenī, gr̥ha, (dhā)ryya, kesar·, nadī Untal·, (b)ənər·, Uṅabakaḍut·, (lu)tilaya, sabh(ā)mogha, gə⟨1.12⟩ḍe, bayog·, (ḍaL̥)man·, maraṇa, daḍatañjamī, surat·, pagəḥ, śrĭmato, Iyo, tuvuḥ, ⟨1.13⟩ kuniṁ, nikiṁ lekəm·, mūlū, sabotī, boḍatəm·, pənəd·, kejī, kedranī, patyən·, bhuvana⟨1.14⟩ṇī, rimpiṁ, godr̥sa, Ajum·, dhəti(,) hambəṁ, sadī,

vulu karaman·, patṅahan· rapiḥ, Akə⟨1.15⟩mbaṁ tr̥piṁ, Abūbū(ḥ Au)ḍi, Atahun·, gosatəm·, pañarikan· sudvinəm·(,) saṁkuba, landə⟨1.16⟩so(ḍ)i, gəvəg·, bhuvaṇa, bata, madoti, (A)mpaṁ, galuḥ, baṣūddha, jujul·, sulu(r)·, vinkas· ⟨1.17⟩ bagnalo, makādi kabayān· kāliḥ maṅaran· japo, vvātan·,

madamlakna saṁ hyaṅ ā⟨1.18⟩jñā haji prasāsti pa(gə)-pagəḥ tinaṇḍa garuḍamukha kmitananya,

sambandha, Ikanaṁ karāmān· I mu⟨1.19⟩ṅgut· sapasuk thāni kabeḥ, masamāgrī mapuluṁ rahi manambaḥ I taṇḍa rakryān· ri pakira⟨1.20⟩kiran· makabehan·, karuhun· I lbū ri pāduka śrī mahārāja makārasa maṁhyaṅā⟨1.21⟩nugraha I pāduka śrī mahārāja, I knohanya makmitana saṁ hyaṅ ājñā haji tina⟨Face 2: Back main part⟩⟨2.1⟩(ṇḍa ga)[ruḍam]u(kha, ma)karasa, An· su(m)ĭma thāninya I muṅgut·, kumabhaktyan(i)⟨2.2⟩ra buyut· s(ū)kṣma (An)iddhākna drabya haji paṅaṣṭaṅgī mā 5 Aṅkən· katiga māsa, meriṅa sarvvavija lima ⟨2.3⟩ sukat· riṁ savulu, kaharan· puṣpapañcopacāra, t¡ī!⟨i⟩la-t¡e!⟨ai⟩la, dhŭpa, dīpa, gandha, mvaṁ nivedyādi prakāra, pū⟨2.4⟩jāknanyăṁkən· katiga māsa,

mvaṁ tan·tunya I saprakārani⟨ṁ maṅilala⟩ drabya hajī vulu-vulu magəṁ maḍmit· kabeḥ, paṅkur·, tavan· ⟨2.5⟩ tirip· ṅuniveḥ sakveḥ saṁ maṅilala vulu-vulu riṁ daṅū, makădiṁ miśra, paramiśra, paṅuraṁ kriṁ, paḍəm· manimpiki pa⟨2.6⟩ranakan·, limus· galuḥ maṁriñca, maṁhuri, paraṁ, suṅka, dhūra, sukun·, sinagiha, kyab· liṅgaṁ, sr̥kan·, halu vara⟨2.7⟩k·, rakadut·, ramanaṅ s(va)ra gəṇḍiṁ, piniṁlai, kataṅgaran·, tapa haji, Air haji, malandaṁ, lca, lablab·, pakalaṅkaṁ, kutak· ⟨2.8⟩ taṅkil·, tr̥pan·, salyut·, vatu valaṁ, pamanikan·, maniga, sikpan·, rumban·, tirvan·, vilaṁ thāni, viji kavaḥ, tiṅkə⟨2.9⟩s·, māvī, manambaṅi, taṁhiran·, tuha dagaṁ, juru gosalī, maṁrumbai, maṁguñjai, tuh¿an?⟨ān n⟩ambi, juru juḍi, juru jalir·, pabisa⟨2.10⟩r· paguluṁ, pavuṁkunuṁ, vli hapū, vli harR̥ṁ, vli pañjut·, palamak·, Urutan·, dampulan·, tpuṁ kavuṁ, suṁsuṁ paṅuraṁ, pasuk a⟨2.11⟩ las·, tikəl· haṅgas·, sipad vilut· jukuṁ, paniṅ-aṅin·, pamavasya, hopan·, panrāṅan·, skār tahun·, paba(yai) ⟨2.12⟩ paṁ(rā)ma, tuluṁ hutaṁ, pobhaya, pacumbi, paprăyaścita, kḍi, valyan·, sambal·, sumbul·, hulun· haji, ⟨2.13⟩ jəṅgi, siṅgaḥ, pamr̥ṣi, mavuluṁ-vuluṁ, vatək i jro Ityevamādi kabeḥ, tan tamā ta ya Irikanaṁ sīma I ⟨2.14⟩ muṅgut· kevalā Ikanaṁ ⟨⟨ka⟩⟩rāman· I muṅgut· juga pramāṇa I⟨ri⟩kā,

maṅkana Ikanaṁ sukhaduḥkha magə:ṁ maḍmit· ka⟨2.15⟩beḥ, kady aṅgāniṁ mayaṁ tan· pavvaḥ, valū rumambat iṁ natar·, vipati⟨,⟩ vaṅke kabunan·, rāḥ kasavur iṁ dalan·, ⟨2.16⟩ duhilatən·, sāhasa, vākcapala, hastacapala, mamijilakən· vuriniṁ kikir·, mamuk· mamumpaṁ ⟨2.17⟩ lūdan·, tūtan·, Aṅśa, pratyaṅśa, ḍəṇḍa kuḍəṇḍa, maṇḍihalādi prakāra, Ann ikanaṁ karāman· I muṅgut· A⟨2.18⟩ta pramāṇā Irikā,

maṅkana ra⟨sa⟩ (s)aṁ hyaṁ ājñā hajī kmitanikanaṁ karāman· I muṅgut·, sapasuk· ṣīma kabeḥ ⟨2.19⟩ mvaṁ ri vnaṅanikanaṁ vargga mūla sīma I muṅgut· mapadagaṅa, lvīranya, Atitiḥ rvaṁ siki, Alavay· rvaṁ siki, ⟨2.20⟩ (A)ba⟨sa⟩na rvaṁ siki, Acămara rvaṁ siki, Aṅuñjal· rvaṁ siki, Aṅavari rvaṁ siki, Amaṁmaṁ rvaṁ siki, A(muti-muti) ⟨2.21⟩ rvaṁ siki, paṇḍay· mās· rvaṁ siki, paṇḍay· vsi rvaṁ siki, paṇḍay· tāmra rvaṁ siki, paṇḍay· kaṅśa ⟨2.22⟩ rvaṁ siki, Amutər· rvaṁ siki, (Apa)rahu rvaṁ siki, Adagaṁ sapi rvaṁ siki, Aṅulaṁ kbo rvaṁ siki, pa(ram·)⟨Face 3: Right main part⟩⟨3.1⟩ma(s)an· rvaṁ siki, mabakulan· rvaṁ ⟨3.2⟩ siki, (ma)səpahan· rvaṁ siki, ma⟨3.3⟩hī(ṣṭhva)n· rvaṁ siki, samaṅkana I(ka)⟨3.4⟩naṁ karma dagaṁ salviranikanaṁ (na)⟨3.5⟩[1×]ṁ (bha)ṇḍa pamvatanya,

tamola⟨3.6⟩h ata(ḥ paṅa)sthāna Irikanaṁ sī⟨3.7⟩ma I muṅgut· (A)nn ikanaṁ varga mūla ⟨3.8⟩ sīma I muṅgut· Ata(ḥ v)āsa-pra⟨3.9⟩māṇa manahi(la)na ya drabya haji ⟨3.10⟩ tuhun· maveha patūt· pa⟨3.11⟩dulur· juga marayan· mareṁ ⌈⟨3.12⟩deśa salen· mvaṁ yan· pame⟨3.13⟩t· dval·,

maṅkanātaḥ Ikanaṁ varga⟨3.14⟩kilalan·, kliṁ, Ăryya, siṁhala, ⌈⟨3.15⟩(g)olaviṣaya, coli⟨⟨ka⟩⟩, malyāla, ka⟨3.16⟩rṇnăṭaka, vallahāra, cəmpa, R̥mən·, ⟨3.17⟩ havaṁ, mambaṁ, huñjəman·, senămu⟨3.18⟩kha, varahan·, mapaḍahi, ke{ñ}caka⟨,⟩ ⟨3.19⟩ tarimba, mat¿u(p)u?⟨apu⟩kan·, Aba⌈⟨3.20⟩ñol·, salahan· varga kila⟨3.21⟩lan·, Asiṁ samakavarga ya, A⟨3.22⟩siṁ pravr̥tinya, sadeśa-saṁka(na)⟨3.23⟩nya(,) yāvat ya muṅgu Irikeṁ sīma ⟨3.24⟩ I muṅgut·, An ikanaṁ varga mūla sī⟨3.25⟩ma I muṅgut· Atikā pramāṇa ⟨3.26⟩ I sukhaduḥkhanya magəṁ maḍmit· ka⟨3.27⟩beḥ, tumūtak(na) yacānyayan i⟨3.28⟩ka masthānabati ri sājñānya mapa⟨3.29⟩knā tambəhani pamūjanya, buyut· ⟨3.30⟩ śūkṣma,

maṁkana rasany anugraha śrī ⟨3.31⟩ mahāraja, Irikanaṁ varga mūla sīma ⟨3.32⟩ I muṅgut· sapasuk ṣīma kabeḥ ⟨3.33⟩ kapagəhaknanyan· tamolaḥ I ⟨3.34⟩ panataranya sovaṁ-sovaṁ tan· ⟨3.35⟩ kolah-ulaha de sa⟨ṅ a⟩nāgata pra⟨3.36⟩bhu, (mvaṁ saṅ anāgata vineḥ tiṁha)⟨Face 4: Left main part⟩⟨4.1⟩[l· piṁhay]·, (ma)katə(vəka) ⟨4.2⟩ [śrī ma](h)ārāja ri maṇiratnasi⟨4.3⟩[ṅhāsa]na makaḍatvan· vvatan mās·⟨,⟩

⟨4.4⟩yapvan· hana sira kamatan· ⟨4.5⟩ tan· yatnā I sara⟨sa⟩ny ājñā śrĭ ma⟨4.6⟩hāraja, Umulah-ulaḥ Ikeṁ ⟨4.7⟩ sīma I muṅgut·, ya saṅkāna⟨4.8⟩ni pramādanya, salvirani la(ṅgha)⟨4.9⟩(na) ri saṁ hyaṅ ājñā haji lviranya ⟨4.10⟩ knāna ya nigraha mā kā 1 su ⟨4.11⟩ 5

Īndaḥ ta kita bhaṭāra (śrī) ⟨4.12⟩ haricandana, Agasti, mahārṣ(i), ⟨4.13⟩ pūrbva, dakṣiṇa, paścima, Uttarā⟨4.14⟩gneya(,) neriti, băyabya, Urd(dhva)ma⟨4.15⟩dhaḥ raviḥ śaśi kṣiti jala pavana ⟨4.16⟩ hutāsana ya⟨ja⟩māṇākāśa, A⟨4.17⟩horătra sandhyā, nāgarāja durgă⟨4.18⟩devī, sahananta hyaṁ kālamr̥tyu ⟨4.19⟩ yama baruṇa kuvera bāsava (ki)⟨4.20⟩ta masuki manarĭrerika vva(ṁ) sa(r)va⟨4.21⟩siddha rikiṁ jagat·, yāvat· bhaṅ(gi) ⟨4.22⟩ gaṇa-gaṇa vna(ṅa), Umulah-ulaḥ I⟨4.23⟩keṁ sīma I muṅgut· patyanantā ya ⟨4.24⟩ kamuṁ hyaṁ śŭkṣma, deyantat· pa⟨4.25⟩tīya, ta(t· to)liha ri vuntat· ⟨4.26⟩ ta¡t!⟨t t⟩iṅhala ri likuran·, taruṁ riṅ adga⟨4.27⟩n·, tampyal· (I) hiriṅan·, tutu⟨4.28⟩ḥ tuṇḍanya, blaḥ kapālanya, carika⟨4.29⟩kan· vtaṅnya, (vtvakə)n daL̥manya, pa⟨4.30⟩ṅan dagiṁnya, Inum· rāḥnya (vkasakə)⟨4.31⟩n· pranantika, (yan pare)ṅ alas· ⟨4.32⟩ [5×]paraniṁ moṁ sa… ⟨Face 5: Back: Additional lines at top⟩ ⟨5.1⟩ [5×] ⟨5.2⟩ […][sa]mb[ə]R̥n(i)[ṁ] glap·, puliraknaniṁ devamanyu… ⟨Face 6: Right upper part⟩ ⟨6.1⟩ [4×] (p)ināna [3×] ⟨6.2⟩ [6×] bhraṣṭa lipu⟨6.3⟩[7×] (tan· sva) [2×] ⟨6.4⟩ [1×] piṁpitu Ata yan· bimba⟨6.5⟩n· pāpāta sajīvakāla, maṁ⟨6.6⟩kana tmahananikeṁ vvaṁ Anyāya ⟨6.7⟩ Um(u)lah-ula(ḥ Ik)eṁ sīma I mu

…

⟨Face 8: Front Additional lines at top⟩ ⟨8.1⟩ rva(ṁ) 977 kā(la) ⟨8.2⟩ sa[ṁ] hadyan· (j)ujul· sulur· kabayan·

⟨Face 9: Front Additional line at bottom⟩ ⟨9.1⟩ guve Ubena giditikəm·, cacəm·, ṅayai

Apparatus

⟨1.2⟩ kr̥tikā{raṇa}-nakṣatra ⬦ kr̥tikāraṇanakṣatra D TSN; kati karaṇa nakṣatra MS&RK; katikāraṇa nakṣatra NST • on the eccentric form of the nakṣatra name engraved here, Damais wrote: “We will study elsewhere the aberrant forms of certain calendrical elements in Airlangga’s charters and comparable to the kṛtikāraṇanakṣatra of this inscription” (1955, p. 64, n. 3). As far as we are aware, Damais was never able to publish his observations on these aberrant elements. If we are not mistaken, the discussion in Eade & Gislén 2000, pp. 71–72, which we find difficult to understand, touches upon the fact that the inscription seems to indicate Kr̥ttikā as nakṣatra, whereas the real nakṣatra was Revatī; we do not know whether this was the aberration that Damais had in mind, or whether he was rather alluding to the aberrant form of the name itself, which seem to be a contamination before nakṣatra of kr̥t(t)ikā with karaṇa/kāraṇa (on the interchangeability of the spelling, see Damais 1955, p. 64, n. 4).

⟨1.5⟩ kumonakən ikanaṁ MS&RK ⬦ kumonakən nikanaṁ D TSN; kumonakenikaṁ NST.

⟨1.6⟩ thāni D MS&RK NST TSN • Damais’ reading breaks off at this point. — ⟨1.6⟩ kab¿a?⟨e⟩ḥ TSN ⬦ kabaḥ MS&RK; kabeḥ NST • Cf. 1.19, Ninny silently corrected the reading — ⟨1.6⟩ tka ri babadnya, maṅaran· TSN ⬦ tka ni papadya maṅaran MS&RK NST • Machi Suhadi & Richadiana Kartakusuma’s reading (reproduced by Ninie Susanti) breaks off at this point. The expression tka ri badbadnya occurs several times in the Cane inscription (Ab6, 24, 25; Cd9, 11, 22). — ⟨1.6⟩ kilano TSN • The apparent anusvāra on akṣara la seems to be due to an irregularity in the stone, so we ignore it.

⟨1.8⟩ ba⟨1.9⟩hum(a)n· ⬦ dahurman· TSN • Ee initially interpreted the crescent-shaped mark above the ma as an ulu, until we realized that all ulus in this inscription are of circular form. We therefore propose to consider it as the beginning of a virāma sign that the scribe did not continue once he realized he had started engraving the virāma one akṣara too early. It seems that the ma in (ḍaL̥)man· in line 12 may show the same phenomenon.

⟨1.12⟩ (ḍaL̥)man· ⬦ Abaman· TSN • see our note on ba⟨1.9⟩hum(a)n· in lines 8–9 — ⟨1.12⟩ daḍatañjamī ⬦ ḍetakdamīyurat· TSN • perhaps one must read ḍetañjamī?

⟨1.18⟩ pa(gə)-pagəḥ ⬦ -i pagəh TSN • For similar phrase, see Kusambyan A37–38 and Sima Angalayang 13v3.

⟨2.2⟩ (An)iddhākna drabya haji paṅaṣṭaṅgī mā 5 Aṅkən· katiga māsa ⬦ niddhakna drabya haji paṅaṣṭaṅgī mā 5 Aṅkən· katiga māsa TSN • Cf. Turun Hyang A17 kramanya maniddhākna drabya haji paṅaṣṭaṅgi mās ⟨s⟩u 2 mijil aṅkən asujimāsa

⟨2.3⟩ t¡ī!⟨i⟩la-t¡e!⟨ai⟩la ⬦ tīla, tela TSN.

⟨2.4⟩ saprakārani⟨ṁ maṅilala⟩ drabya hajī vulu-vulu ⬦ saprakārani drabya haji vulu vulu TSN • The need to supply at least the article ṁ (if not kanaṁ) plus maṅilala is shown by many parallel passages. (See the next footnote for some examples.) The specific word we assume here, with saprakāraniṁ maṅilala, is not found elsewhere in the Airlangga corpus (where the normal expression is saprakāra saṁ maṅilala), but we encounter it in several inscriptions of the reigns of Balitung and Sindok.

⟨2.5⟩ saṁ maṅilala vulu-vulu ri daṅū ⬦ saṁ maṅilala vulu vulu ri daṅu TSN • We expect here saṁ maṅilala drabya haji vulu-vulu ri daṅū. Cf. Sima Anglayang 14r4–5 saṁ maṅilala drabya haji vulu-vulu and 16v6–7 samaṅilala dr̥vya haji vulu-vulu magə:ṁ maḍm⟨i⟩t· as well as Padlegan I (1038 Śaka) saṅ maṅilala dravya haji vulu-vulu riṅ daṅū agə:ṅ aḍmit. But in the present context, the words drabya haji were perhaps felt still to be in force from the previous line.

⟨2.7⟩ ramanaṅ s(va)ra gəṇḍiṁ ⬦ ramana⟨ṁ⟩ magəṇḍi TSN • The reading is rather uncertain, all the more so as the words svara gəṇḍiṁ are not found in any of the numerous other instances of this kind of list known to us.

⟨2.9⟩ tuh¿an?⟨ān n⟩ambi ⬦ tuha nambi TSN.

⟨2.11⟩ jukuṁ TSN • Although this word is more often spelled with a nasal on the first syllable (e.g. Kusambyan B13 and Anjatan 3r1 juṅkuṁ, Pandaan C11 juṁkuṁ), there is also a fair number of occurrences without that nasal (e.g. Baru Abe24) so we do not supply a cecak. — ⟨2.11⟩ paba(yai) TSN • The use of this term with skar tahun and paṅrāma around it is quite typical of the inscriptions known or suspected to belong to the Airlangga period. It is pabaye in Cane and Turun Hyang, pabayai in Adulengen, Barsahan and Anjatan in the same contexts.

⟨2.20⟩ A(muti-muti) ⬦ Amutərmutə⟨r⟩ TSN • Various alternative readings are imaginable, depending on whether the word ended at the end of line 2.20, or whether anything was engraved before rvaṁ at the beginning of line 21, and on how the horizontal stroke above the penultimate akṣaras of line 2.20 is explained. Neither the reading tentatively adopted here, nor any of the alternatives we have considered (Amutər-mutəra, Amuti-mutiḥ, Amutirmutəḥ), yield a word that is expected in this context.

⟨3.2⟩ ma⟨3.3⟩hī(ṣṭhva)n· • The reading ṣṭhva is purely diagnostic, for we see an akṣara with two pasangans below it, but do not recognize which word is intended here so we offer merely what seems to be a possible reading of the problematic ligature.

⟨3.4⟩ salviranikanaṁ (na) ⟨3.5⟩ [1×]ṁ (bha)ṇḍa pamvatanya • We seem to have here a somehow expanded version of the expression found as salvīrani bhaṇḍanya kabeḥ in Cane Cd21 and as salviraniṅ bhaṇḍanya in Patakan B22. There seems to be an intrusive pasangan or full interlinear akṣara below the sa of salviranikanaṁ as well as an intrusive ṅa or U engraved below the pa of pamvatanya.

⟨3.5⟩ tamola ⟨3.6⟩ h ata(ḥ paṅa)sthāna • The reading is rather uncertain, but paṅasthāna occurs in a similar context in Sima Anglayang 4v4–5.

⟨3.7⟩ (A)nn ikanaṁ ⬦ sannikanaṁ TSN • Instead of A, it would be easier to read sa, but this is hard to accept in the context. The turn of phrase ann ikanaṅ was also found above in 2.17.

⟨3.19⟩ mat¿u(p)u?⟨apu⟩kan· ⬦ matuvuṅan· TSN.

⟨3.27⟩ tumūtak(na) yacānyayan i⟨3.28⟩ka masthānabati ri sājñānya ⬦ tumutaku yavanya ya ni⟨ṁ⟩ kamaśthanaṁ kaki ri sājmanya TSN • We are unable to understand thi sequence, and therefore uncertain about some of the readings as well as the word divisions. We suspect yacānyayan may be a scribal error for yathānyayan or yavānya yan, but in neither case do we obtain an understandable text. More substantial emendation seems to be necessary.

⟨3.34⟩ pana□taranya sovaṁ-sovaṁ tan· ⟨3.35⟩ kolah-ulaha de sa⟨ṅ a⟩nāgata pra⟨3.36⟩bhu, (mvaṁ saṅ anāgata vineḥ tiṁha)⟨Face 4: Left main part⟩⟨4.1⟩[l· piṁhay]·, (ma)katə(vəka) ⟨4.2⟩ [śrī ma](h)ārāja ri maṇiratnasi • This reconstruction is inspired by Cane Cd24–25: tan· kolah-ulaha de saṁ Anāgata-prabhu ṅuniveḥ saṁ Anāgata vineḥ tiṅhal· piṁhai makatəvəka paṁḍiri śrī mahārāja ri maṇiratnasiṅhāsana makaḍatvan· ri vvatan mās. Nevertheless it is quite hypothetical, among other reasons because (1) the number of akṣaras on line 4.1 resulting from the reconstruction is 9, while the following lines have more; (2) the precise spelling piṁhay·, known in other periods, is never found in other Airlangga inscriptions.

⟨4.4⟩ yapvan· hana sira kamatan· ⟨4.5⟩ tan· yatnā I sara⟨sa⟩ny ājñā śrĭ ma⟨4.6⟩hāraja, Umulah-ulaḥ Ikeṁ ⟨4.7⟩ sīma I muṅgut·, ya saṅkāna⟨4.8⟩ni pramādanya, salvirani la(ṅgha)⟨4.9⟩(na) ri saṁ hyaṅ ājñā haji lviranya ⟨4.10⟩ knāna ya □ nigraha mā kā 1 su ⟨4.11⟩ 5 • Cf. Baru Cf8–10 kapvātikā tan· bari-barin denira, yathānya tan· pamuhara pramāda riṁ sira yāpvan hana sira kamatan· tan· yatna I sarasa (saṁ) hyaṅ ajñā haji tāmraprasāsti kmitanikanaṁ karāman· riṁ baru sapaśuk thāni matuha manvam· kabeḥ, ya saṅkānani pramādanya salvirniṁ laṅghana saṁ hyaṅ ājñā haji lviranya knāna nigraha kā 2 mās ⟨s⟩u 10 and Sima Anglayang 4v3–5 yāpvan hana baṇigrāma mvaṁṅ ikaṁ sĭmāṅlayaṁ kamatān· kentasa tan pasuṁ ri kapālihani dr̥ byanika(ṁ) madaga(ṁ) pjaḥ Anăpatya, yāvat tamolaḥ I saṁ hyaṁ sarvvadharmma, mvaṁ paṅasthāna ri jātakanira, ya saṁkanāni pramādanya, salvirniṁ laṅghana I saṁ hyaṁṅ ājñā haji lvirānya, knāna ya nigraha, mā (k)ā 1, su 5 //. There is also a damaged parallel passage in Pandaan B17–18 yāpvan hana sira kamatan ta[n yatna I] saraśa saṁ hyaṅ ājñā haji, ya saṁkanani pramādanya, salvīrnīṁ laṅghana [I] saṁ hyaṅ ājṅā haji lvīranya, knāna ya nigraha mā kā [1 su] 5.

⟨4.5⟩ sara⟨sa⟩ny ⬦ sarany TSN • cf. Baru Cdef lines 8 and 39, and Gandhakuti 4v5.

⟨4.25⟩ ta(t· to)liha ⬦ [tat tano]liha TSN • The presence of a large irregularity in the surface of the stone and the descending parts of the word sŭkṣma in line 24 make it hard to recognize the segment t· to that is expected on the basis of Terep IITerep II 8r1 and Pandaan B26.

⟨4.26⟩ ta¡t!⟨t t⟩iṅhala ⬦ (tat)tiṅhala TSN • Cf. Bimalasrama 12r7 and Terep II 8r1.

⟨4.31⟩ (yan pare)ṅ alas· ⟨4.32⟩ [5×]paraniṁ moṁ • It seems that there may be about five akṣaras engraved on the left half of line 4.32, but if indeed any were engraved here they must have been wholly or partially superfluous, as there are numerous parallels for the phrase yan pareṅ alas paṅananiṁ moṁ or yan pareṅ alas dmakniṁ moṁ, where nothing ever intervenes between alas and the passive irrealis form of paṅan or dmak. Based on the parallels, it also seems that paraniṁ is an error for paṅananiṁ.

⟨6.4⟩ A□ta yan· bimba⟨6.5⟩n· pāpāta sajīvakāla • There are no exact parallels for this passage in the Airlangga corpus, but there is a partial one in Kusambyan d33–34, while more extensive ones are found in the inscriptions of the time of Sindok. After piṁpitu, we normally find the words ata yan bimbān pāpa ata ya saṁsāra sajīvakāla (Linggasuntan C42; Paradah II 2B15; Alasantan 4r9) or ata yan bimban pāpa ata ya kadi lavas saṅ hyaṅ candrāditya (Anjuk Ladang C21). Although the entire passage is badly weathered, the proposed reading seems possible, but we cannot find any trace of ya saṁsāra.

⟨9.1⟩ guve Ubena giditikəm·, cacəm·, ṅayai • The reading of this line is extremely uncertain. Seemingly it consists only in proper names, none of which are recognizable with certainty

Translation by Arlo Griffiths

(1.1–1.3) Hail! Elapsed Śaka year 944, month of Caitra, fourteenth tithi, waning fortnight, Vurukuṅ, Pahiṅ, Tuesday, [the Vuku being] Balamuki, lunar mansion Kr̥ttikā, the deity Dahana (i.e., Agni),1 the conjunction Āyuṣmān, the karaṇa Vaṇija.

(1.3–1.6) That was the time when the decree of the Great King, the Lord of (rakai, i.e. rakryān i) Halu, Śrī Lokeśvara Dharmavaṅśa Airlaṅga Anantavikramottuṅgadeva, was received by the Lady (rakryān) the Great Minister of Hino (named) Śrī Saṅgrāmavijayaprasādottuṅgadevī. It came down to the Lord of Paḍaṅ (named) pu Dvija. It gave an order with regard to the community in Muṅgut including all its (constituent) villages (sapasuk thāni) up to its (forest) clearings.2

(1.6–1.14) [The inhabitants] were named: Aṇḍuk, Bara, Marma, Cucya, Geḍoh, Bəcəm, Bajəm, Buṅah, Dītən, Bijo, Kuniṅ, Kəmboṅ, Kilano, Gajusa, Tiṅgal, Gantar, Liṇḍuṅ, Rəmban, Tuñjuṅ, ... do, Marum, Beca, Vecuṅ, Kuruk Ləca, Bəntələ, Rəntap Bahuman, Robhana, the mother of Ran named Ḍərən, Gosəṅ, Pəlī, Kəleṅ, Bavvat, Godhanā, Ṅitam, Basakaṅ, Garuṅ, Aṣṭamī, Adinəm, Śoḍagañciṅ, Bamī, Aṣṭi, Parah, Śrīnam, Iṅgut, Vatəhər, Ḍintən Jenī,3 Gr̥ha, Dhārya, Kesar, Nadī, Untal, Bənər, Uṅabakaḍut, Lutilaya, Sabhāmogha, Gəḍe, Bayog, Ḍaləman, Maraṇa, Daḍatañjamī, Surat, Pagəh,4 Śrīmato, Iyo, Tuvuh, Kuniṅ, Niki, Gokəm, Mūlū, Sabotī, Boḍatəm, Pənəd, Kejī, Kedranī, Patyən, Bhuvanaṇī, Rimpiṅ, Godrəsa, Ajum, Dhəti, Hambəṅ, Sadī.

(1.14–1.17) The community occupational groups (*vulu):

  • patṅahans:106 Rapih,AkəmbaṅTrəpiṅ,AbūbuhAuḍi,Atahun,Gorsatəm.
  • scribes (pañarikan): Sudvinəm,Saṅkuba, Landəsoḍi, Gəvəg, Bhuvaṇa, Bata, Madoti, Ampaṅ, Galuh, Baṣūddha, Jujul, Sulur.
  • vinəkas: Bagnalo.
  • in the first place the two chiefs (kabayan) named Japo [and] Vvātan.

(1.17–1.18) [The order was] that they should make the holy royal decree in the form of an edict as confirmatory document sealed with the Garuḍa-face, to be kept in custody.

(1.18–2.4) The occasion: the community in Muṅgut including all its constituent villages, all together took counsel with and paid homage to all high functionaries of the council (taṇḍa rakryān ri pakira-kirān),5 [but] in the first place to His Majesty the Great King, having as purpose to beg His Majesty the Great King for the grant that it would be proper6 for them to keep in custody a holy royal decree sealed with the Garuḍa-face, having as substance to make the village of Muṅgut into a sīma, worshiping the invisible ancestors (*buyut sūkṣma)7 [and] yielding royal revenue [in the form of] paṅaṣṭaṅgi (tax) worth 5 māṣa every third month, to be accompanied with five sukat of all grain-crops (sarvavīja)8 from every occupational group, as though they were a fivefold service with flowers — oil of sesame seed, incense, lamp, fragrance, and also diverse food offering — to be used by it (i.e., by the village) for worship every third month.9

(2.4–2.14) And the fixed rule (tantu) regarding all kinds of people who collect (maṅilala)10 royal revenue from the occupational groups, big or small — the Paṅkur, the Tavan, the Tirip —, particularly all those who previously had a claim on the occupational groups, beginning with the various Miśras, the Paṅuraṅ, the Kriṅ, the Paḍəm, the Manimpiki, the Paranakan, the Limus Galuh, the Maṅriñca, the Maṅhuri, the Paraṅ, the Suṅka, the Dhūra, the Sukun, the Sinagiha, the Kyab, the Liṅgaṅ, the Sr̥kan, the Halu Varak, the Rakadut, the Ramanaṅ, the Svara Gəṇḍiṅ, the Piniṅlai, the Kataṅgaran, the Tapa Haji, the Air Haji, the Malandaṅ, the Lca, the Lablab, the Pakalaṅkaṅ, the Kutak, the Taṅkil, the Trəpan, the Salyut, the Vatu Valaṅ, the Pamanikan, the Maniga, the Sikpan, the Rumban, the Tirvan, the Vilaṅ Thāni, the Viji Kavah, the Tiṅkəs, the Māvī, the Manambaṅi, the Taṅhiran, the Tuha Dagaṅ, the Juru Gosalī, the Maṅrumbai, the Maṅguñjai, the overseer of the Nambi, the overseer of gambling, the overseer of prostitutes, the Pabisar, the Paguluṅ, the Pavuṅkunuṅ, the Vli Hapū, the Vli Harəṅ, the Vli Pañjut, the Palamak, the Urutan, the Dampulan, the Tpuṅ Kavuṅ, the Suṅsuṅ Paṅuraṅ, the Pasuk Alas, the Tikəl Haṅgas,11 the Sipad Vilut, the Jukuṅ, the Paniṅaṅin, the Pamavasya, the Hopan, the Panrāṅan, the Skar Tahun, the Pabayai, the Paṅrāma, the Tuluṅ Hutaṅ, the Pobhaya, the Pacumbi, the Paprāyaścitta, the eunuch, the healer, the Sambal, the Sumbul, the royal servants, the Jəṅgi,12 the Siṅgah, the Pamr̥ṣi, the Mavuluṅ-vuluṅ, all of the courtiers, and so forth — [is that] they shall not enter the sīma at Muṅgut. It is only the community in Muṅgut that has the exclusive authority over it.

(2.14–2.18) Likewise are all the [fines to be imposed for] ‘pain and relief ’ (sukha-duḥkha),13 great or small — ‘areca-blossom without betelnut’ (mayaṅ tan pavvaḥ), ‘gourd vines that grow in the courtyard’ (valū rumambat iṅ natar), ‘disaster’ (vipati), ‘a corpse covered with dew’ (vaṅke kabunan), ‘blood spattered on the road’ (rāh kasavur iṅ dalan), ‘slander’ (duhilatən), ‘violence’ (sāhasa), ‘rash speech’ (vākcapala), ‘rash acts with the hand’ (hastacapala), ‘producing the dust of a file’ (mamijilakən vuriniṅ kikir), ‘attacking in fury’ (mamuk), ‘rape’ (mamuṅpaṅ), ‘repeated attack’ (ludan), ‘following’ (tūtan), ‘apportioning of shares’ (haṅśa pratyaṅśa), ‘punishment and wrongful punishment’ (ḍəṇḍa kuḍəṇḍa), ‘poisons of all sorts’ (maṇḍihala) and such like — namely that only the community in Muṅgut has the authority over all of them.

(2.18–3.5) Such was the substance of the holy decree of the king kept in custody by the community in Muṅgut including all its (subsidiary) sīmas. And as for the entitlements of the inhabitants of the original sīma at Muṅgut14 to have shops, [these include] for instance: two vendors of titih, two vendors of yarn, two vendors of cloth, two vendors of fly-whisks (cāmara), two porters, two awar-awar preparers, two conjurors (? amaṅmaṅ), two amuti-muti (?), two goldsmiths, two ironsmiths, two bronze smiths, two coppersmiths, two amutər (churners? potters?), two boatmen, two cow traders, two buffalo buyers, two parəmasan, two retailers, two *pasəpahan, two mahīṣṭhvan. Such were the ... of the traders ... all of the varieties of ... of the goods that they transport (*pamvatan).

(3.5–3.13) Unceasing, indeed, is [their] residence (*paṅasthāna) in the sīma at Muṅgut, insofar as inhabitants of the original sīma at Muṅgut alone have power and authority (*vaśa-pramāṇa) to weigh the royal revenues, although they shall still allow (others? the revenue collectors?) to maintain harmony side by side (*patūt padulur), so that (they) go to other regions (deśa *salen) and so that they seek wares.

(13.14–3.30) Only the following are the inhabitants from whom revenue may be collected: the South Indians (kliṅ), the North Indians (ārya), the Singhalese, those from the Gauḍa-territory (*gola-viṣaya), those from the Cola country (*colika), those from Kerala (malyāla), those from Karṇāṭaka, from the Rāṣṭrakūṭa-territory (*vallahāra),15 those from Campā, the Mons (rəmən), the Havaṅs, the Mambaṅs, the Huñjəmans, the Senāmukhas, the Varahans, the drummers (mapaḍahi), the Kecakas, the dancers (tarimba), the Tapuk performers, the comedians (abañol), the *Salahans. [They are] the inhabitants from whom revenue may be collected, to whatever group they belong, whatever be their activity, whatever be their country of origin, as long as they reside in that sīma at Muṅgut, whereas (an) the inhabitants of the original sīma at Muṅgut alone (atikā) have the authority over all of its [payments for] ‘pain and relief’, great or small, following ... (? yacānyayan ika masthānabati) its entire decree, intended to further its worship of the invisible ancestors (buyut sūkṣma).

(3.30–4.3) Such was the substance of the grant of the Great King, to the inhabitants of the original sīma at Muṅgut including all its (subsidiary) sīmas. It is to be considered by them as irrevocable, as [long as] (an) they remain in their respective domains (panataran, *natar).16 It is not to be disturbed by future kings or by those who in the future will be granted [the status of] Tiṅhal Piṅhai, beginning with the Great King on the Gem-Jewel Lion-throne who has Vvatan Mās as royal residence (i.e., Airlangga).

(4.4–4.11) If there are ones seen not to be diligent with regard to the whole of the intent of the Great King’s decree, disturbing the sīma at Muṅgut, it will become the cause of their [guilt of] negligence.17 All forms of transgression of the holy royal decree, whatever kind, will be subjected to a fine in gold of 1 kāṭi and 5 suvarṇa.

(4.11–6.7) Pay heed, you Lord Śrī Haricandana, Great Sage Agasti; (gods of the directions) East, South, West, North, Southeast, Southwest, Northwest,18 Zenith, Nadir; (the eight forms of Śiva, which are) Sun, Moon, Earth, Water, Wind, Fire, Sacrificer, Ether; day and night, transitional times (sandhyā); the king of the Nāgas; the goddess Durgā; all of you gods of Time and Death, Yama, Varuṇa, Kubera, Vāsava (i.e., Indra), you who penetrate [and] take bodily form in all people who have supernatural powers in the world: if arrogantly (bhaṅgi), wildly (gaṇa-gaṇa) they will be able to disturb the sīma at Muṅgut, let them be killed by you, the invisible gods (*buyut sūkṣma). In killing, your approach shall be that you do not look to the rear, do not look to the side, while clashing with the opponent. Slap [his] side, cut his snout, split his skull, rip open his belly, draw out his entrails, eat his flesh, drink his blood, leave the dead one behind. When going to the forest, may he be eaten by a tiger, ... . let him be struck by thunderclap, whirled around by the anger of the gods ... ruined ... no less than seven times. When he is given shape, it will only be a bad one as long as he lives! Such will be the consequence for the delinquent man who disturbs the sīma at Mu[ṅgut]...

(8.1–2) 977 was the time the honorable (saṅ hadyan) Jujul [and] Sulur were chiefs (kabayan).19

Commentary

The left upper part is engraved with 9 lines of akṣaras. The first line is a bit better preserved than the following eight lines, but still nothing can be read with certainty on the 9 top lines. Some akṣaras can be discerned a bit more clearly on lines 10–12, but there too the absence of any certainty about context has persuaded us not to make any attempt at deciphering the short segments of akṣaras that might be legible.

The reader should consult our lexicographic notes notes in Titi Surti Nastiti et al. [2023] 2022, pp. 180–194 for discussion of any * signs indicated in the text

Bibliography

Primary

[D] Damais, Louis-Charles. 1955. “Études d’épigraphie indonésienne, IV: Discussion de la date des inscriptions.” BEFEO 47, pp. 7–290. DOI: 10.3406/befeo.1955.5406. [URL]. Page 64, item A. 136.

[MS&RK] Machi Suhadi and Richadiana Kartakusuma. 1996. Laporan penelitian epigrafi di wilayah Provinsi Jawa Timur. Berita penelitian arkeologi 47. Jakarta: Proyek Penelitian Arkeologi Jakarta, Pusat Penelitian Arkeologi Nasional, Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. Page 45.

[NST] Ninny Susanti Tejowasono. 2003. “Airlangga: Raja pembaharu di Jawa pada abad ke-11 Masehi.” Thesis, Program Pasca Sarjana Fakultas Ilmu Pengetahuan Budaya Universitas Indonesia. Depok. Page 357, item 3.

[TSN] Titi Surti Nastiti, Yusmaini Eriawati, Arfian, Fadhlan S. Intan, Dwi Mauliyati, Aulia Muharani, Frandus, Atika Windiarti, Suhandi, Hasan Djafar, Muhammad Ichwan, Masbuchin, Prapto Saptono and Rika Paur Fibriamayusi. 2012. Penelitian arkeologi masa klasik di Kabupaten Jombang. Jakarta: Pusat Arkeologi Nasional dan Pemerintah Daerah Kabupaten Jombang. Pages 33–44.

Notes

  1. 1. On the use of synonyms for deity names, see Gomper (2001, pp. 101–103, n. 10).
  2. 2. The expression sapasuk thāni (which might also be translated ‘including all its village inhabitants’) occurs again in 1.19, but is then changed to sapasuk sīma in 2.18 and 3.32. Evidently, the change in terminology from thāni to sīma is a direct consequence of the grant recorded in lines 1.18 to 2.4.
  3. 3. The name Dintən stands so close to the right end of the front face that even its final consonant and virāma cannot be read with confidence. It is imaginable that the scribe, had space been sufficient, would have inserted a comma between this name and Jenī at the beginning of the next line — in other words, that we are dealing with two names and not one.
  4. 4. It is tempting to see in the words surat pagəḥ some kind of expression introducing a short list of names, but the punctuation of the text rather suggests that the words are themselves also names rather than common nouns in this context.
  5. 5. Boechari (1962, p. 57; 1963, p. 126; 2012, pp. 75, 109) has suggested that the taṇḍa rakryān pakira-kirān are first mentioned in the Kediri period, but he seems to have overlooked the occurrence in the Adulengen inscription which was known to him as Kakurugan. They also occur in Sima Anglayang 4v7 and 13r4.
  6. 6. The phrase maṅhyaṅ ri knohanya occurs also in Cane Ab.24–26: maṁhyaṁ ri knohanya sumīma thāninya I cane, sīma karāmān·, phalānyan· prasiddha sāra, pinakapanpi kulvan·, maṅkana rasani panambaḥ, nikanaṁ karāmān· I cane sapaśuk thāni tka ri babadnya, kunaṁ saṅkā ri gə:ṁnyānumoda śrī mahārāja ri sapaṁhyaṁnikanaṅ karāmān· I cane. Related passages with the keyword knoh are also found in Turun Hyang A4 and Bularut C14.
  7. 7. We have difficulty understanding the syntax of the words kumabhaktyanira buyut sūkṣma (and the reading is also slightly uncertain for the first word), so our translation is only approximative.
  8. 8. See Sukhamerta 10v6 mvaṁ sarvvavĭja, śveta rakta pīta kr̥ṣṇa, sukat·, 5, sovaṁ, Aṅkən tahun. Cf. also, within the corpus of Airlangga inscriptions, the expression sarvvaphala mūlaphala found in Baru Cf8; Kusambyan B31–32; and Sima Anglayang 17r4.
  9. 9. This is a very interesting passage, which rather beautifully compares the five sukat of sarvavīja to be collected from the vulus to the five constituents (tīlatela, dhūpa, dīpa, gandha, nivedya) of a so called pañcopacārapūjā ‘worship in five services’. The presence of the element puṣpa is a bit difficult. The same expression occurs in Kusambyan A28, but there without metaphorical meaning. Note also the offerings made in the Bimalasrama charter (3.1–2, emended kaharan· mantranamaskārā parṇnaḥ dhūpadīpagandhākṣatā pamūjā mpuṅku muntun· ri bhaṭārĭ prajñāpāraramitā) and in the Baharasrama charter of the time of Daksa (1v11–12 vras· caturvvarṇna kukusan· 1 Iṁ savulu-savulu‚ piṇḍa kukusan· 4 vavānya matə[hər·] [16+] [sarbvaphalapha]li bras· caturvvarṇna vavānya).
  10. 10. That the term maṅilala is to be understood more or less in this sense is shown by the use of the word maminta in the parallel passage of Adulengen (3r3). This use of maminta, instead of the ubiquitous maṅilala, has no precise parallel anywhere in the Airlangga corpus, but may be compared with the sentence An· tan deyən ata kāminta tinuṇḍa right after the list of maṅilala dravya haji in Sima Anglayang 17v5. And we find the precise phrase maminta drabya haji in the Barsahan plate (r6), which we are inclined to date to the period between the reigns of Balitung and Airlangga: tan· tamā ta ya maminta drabya haji vulu-vulu Irikeṁ sīma I barsahan·. The same phraseology was already in use under King Daksa, as appears from Timbanan Wungkal (14) nahan (pra)kārani tan tumamā maminta drabya haji. See also pinta-pintan in Kubu-kubu (4v1) and Hantang (A20).
  11. 11. Cf. the patikəl (h)aṅgas whom we find mentioned in the Balambangan, Garaman, Kudadu and Balawi inscriptions.
  12. 12. On the term jəṅgi, see Jákl 2017.
  13. 13. On the sukha-duḥkha, see Boechari 1977, pp. 14–15 (2012, pp. 39–41, esp. p. 40): “sukhaduḥkha bukanlah ‘suka dan duka’, melainkan diterangkan dengan hala hayu, ialah segala perbuatan yang buruk dan yang baik yang terjadi dalam masyarakat, atau seperti yang dimaksudkan di dalam setiap prasasti, yang terjadi dalam lingkungan daerah perdikan. Bahkan sebenarnya hanya perbuatan yang jahat saja yang dimaksudkan. Dengan perkataan lain, sukhaduḥkha ialah segala tindak pidana (yang terjadi di dalam lingkungan daerah perdikan) yang harus dikenai hukuman denda.” Boechari seems to allude to a normative text that gave the explanation hala hayu, but we have not yet been able to identify the text in question. For translations of the individual terms, see Boechari 1986: 161–162 / 2012: 309–310; see also Boechari 2012: 510 for an English translation of a sukha-duḥkha passage. We adopt the interpretation of the term sukha-duḥkha itself, and of the meanings of the items in the following list, from work in progress by Timothy Lubin.
  14. 14. Or do the words sapasuk· ṣīma kabeḥ mvaṁ ri vnaṅanikanaṁ vargga mūla sīma I muṅgut· rather mean ‘including all its sīma inhabitants. And as for the entitlements of the original inhabitants of the sīma at Muṅgut’? Several occurrences of the parallel phrase vargga mūla sīma I kusambyan· are found in the Kusambyan charter, to which we turn below. We find it perhaps slightly more likely that mūla goes with sīma than with vargga, in view of combinations like mūla savah, mūla təgal, mūla kaḍatvan in OJ literature, although the notion of ‘original inhabitant’ (varga mūla) also seems very plausible, and can be compared to the arguments advanced by protagonist Dhanadī in the Wurudu Kidul inscription (844 Śaka) that she was a true local and not a Khmer, hence not an descendant of ‘unfree’ or ‘taxable’ inhabitants.
  15. 15. The term Vallahāra, along with several other of the terms for foreigners figuring here, is also found in the (post-Airlangga) Sumengka charter of 981 Śaka. For discussion, see §7. Through which networks the term became known in Java is a fascinating question for further research.
  16. 16. The sentence is not explicit as to who or what remains (tamolah). The very close parallel passages in Cane Cd23–24 (quoted in our lexicographic notes under panataran) and Kusambyan
  17. 17. The phrase ya saṅkānani pramādanya is a formulaic expression occurring also in several other inscriptions of this period. See the parallels cited in our n. 96 above, as well as Anjatan 4r9 yathānya tan pamuhara pramāda magə:ṁ I sira.
  18. 18. The Northeast has been omitted in the text.
  19. 19. This seems to be additional information about two persons mentioned in 1.16.