Palepangan charter (828 Śaka)

Editor: Arlo Griffiths.

Identifier: DHARMA_INSIDENKPalepangan.

Hand description:

The basic punctuation sign takes the shape of a raised circle.

Language: Old Javanese.

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

Version: (20bd983), last modified (f510d28).

Edition

⟨Page 1r⟩

⟨Page 1v⟩ ⟨1v1⟩ || || svasti śaka-varṣātīta 828 punaḥ-śravaṇa-māsa, tithi Aṣṭami kr̥ṣṇa-pakṣa, ha, ¿va?⟨pa⟩, śu, vāra, Irikā divasa rāmanta I paL̥paṅan makabehan·, I⟨1v2⟩nanugrahān· vineḥ makmitana prasasti de rakryān· mapatiḥ I hino pu dakṣottama bāhubajra-pratipakṣakṣaya,

samvandhanya saṅkā I tan patūtnikanaṁ ⟨1v3⟩ rāma lavan· saṁ năyaka bhagavanta jyotiṣa, Ikana savaḥnya sinaṅguḥ lamvit· 2 kinon ta ya modhāra, pirak· dhā 6 I satampaḥ-satampaḥ⟨,⟩ kunaṁ saṅkā ri ⟨1v4⟩ hə:tnya tan· vnaṁ modhāra samaṅkana, ya ta mataṁṅ yan panamvaḥ rāmanta I rakryān· mapatiḥ⟨,⟩

kinonakan· savaḥnya U(k)uran· Iṁ tampaḥ haji, sinaṅguḥ ⟨1v5⟩ tampaḥ haji, sātus· ḍpa sihvā pañjaṁnya, s(ə)ṅkə:nya tluṁ puluḥ ḍpa sihvā, kinon· maṅukura vadvā rakryān· I hino saṁ brahmā muAṁ rovaṁ samgat· priṁ sa(ṁ) kañcur· ⟨1v6⟩ mijilakan ya lamvit· 1 tampaḥ 7 blaḥ 1 Ikana samaṅkana ya ta kinon· mo(dhāra,) pirak· dhā 6 I satampaḥ-satampaḥ⟨,⟩

jari rāmanta matahil· pirak· dhā ⟨1v7⟩ 6 I satampaḥ-satampaḥ⟨,⟩ piṇḍa pirak· patahil· rāmanta rikanaṁ savaḥ lamvit· 1 tampaḥ 7 blaḥ 1 pirak· 5 dhā 5 len· saṅkā ri pilih mas· muA(ṁ) kaṭik· prāṇa, ⟨1v8⟩ 8 mara I bhaṭāra prāṇa 4 I saṁ năyaka prāṇa 4 piṇḍa savaḥni kaṭik· lamvit· 1 tampaḥ 1 suku 1 kinabehanya, savaḥ rāmanta lamvit· 1 blaḥ 1 katuhala⟨1v9⟩san· tampaḥ 2 kapkanan· tampaḥ 1 nāhan· pratyekani savaḥ rāmanta sampunyan inukur· I tampaḥ haji, len· sumaṅkā rika hana ta savaḥ bhaṭāra kmitan· rā⟨1v10⟩manta lamvit· 1 dmak·ni p¿a?⟨ū⟩ja(,?) mūla lamvit· 1 tan inukur· Ikā Āpan· hĭnanyan· svabhāvanya, muAṁ lañjān· pirak· dhā 14 patukan· pirak· dhā 4|| panurat· pira⟨1v11⟩ 4(||) Umijil· ri māgha vinava saṁ Umikul· vali bhaṭāra, pavḍus· pirak· 8 Umijil· ri sasāṅan·, nāhan· Anugraha rakryān· mapatiḥ I rāmanta I paL̥pa⟨1v12⟩ṅan· sapasug banu¿Ā?⟨A,⟩

tatra sākṣī samgat· priṁ ḍapunta Udāra Anak vanuA I srāṅan· pumpunanni bihāra Iṁ pahai, Amasaṅakan· I rakryān· mapatiḥ (d)y(aḥ) (va)⟨1v13⟩no Anak vanuA I syutan· vatək· tiru raṇu, tuha kalaṁ rikaṁ kāla pu baruṇa, pu palinī, tuha banuA pu kmir·, pu gamana, pu gambir·, gusti pu karṇa, pu Aruṇa, pu ⟨1v14⟩ (vā)ri, guru pu tarañjal·, parujar· pu pradhāna, maṁraṁkpi pu kuḍut·, vinkas· pu sādha, tuha banuA I lampahan· pu gammar·, variga pu bur·, huler pu bay·, nā⟨1v15⟩han· kvaiḥnira maṅagam· kon·, kumayatnākan· Uja¡r!⟨r r⟩akryān· mapatiḥ I hino, likhitapātra citralekha samgat· priṁ

Apparatus

⟨1v1⟩ 828 punaḥ-śravaṇa-māsa D Boe848 [4×]-māsa B. — ⟨1v1⟩ kr̥ṣṇa-pakṣa D Boeśukla-pakṣa B. — ⟨1v1⟩ ¿va?⟨pa⟩ • The need to make this correction was first pointed out by Damais 1955 and confirmed by Eade and Gislén 2000.

⟨1v3⟩ Ikana ⬦ Ikanaṁ B Boe.

⟨1v4⟩ U(k)uran· ⬦ Uturan B Boe • The reading Ukuran was proposed by Sarkar 1939, p. 126, n. 6. — ⟨1v4⟩ s(ə)ṅkə:nya ⬦ siṅkrənya B Boe • The prevous editors have misunderstood the length-mark (tarung) as r (cakra).

⟨1v5⟩ sa(ṁ) kañcur· ⬦ sakañcur· B Boe • The reading with anusvāra to yield saṁ was proposed by Damais 1970, p. 324.

⟨1v6⟩ mijilakan ya ⬦ mijilakanya B Boe. — ⟨1v6⟩ blaḥ 1 Bblaḥ I Boe.

⟨1v9⟩ katuhala⟨1v9⟩san· ⬦ katuha lavan· B Boe. — ⟨1v9⟩ tampaḥ 2 Boetampaḥ 4 B.

⟨1v10⟩ dmak·ni p¿a?⟨ū⟩ja(,?) mūla ⬦ dmak·ni pajamūla B Boe • The presence of a punctuation sign before mūla is very uncertain. If there is none, then an alternative way to edit the segment might be p¿aj?⟨ād⟩amūla, with reference to the Tiga Ron inscription, lines 6–7: vuAra mas· su 10 Akṣayiṇi kmitanni rāma I vuru tuṅgal· parbhaktya[nya] (pā)damūla “It has 10 suvarṇa of permanent gold kept by the elders of Vuru Tuṅgal, as endowment for the temple manager”. The idea that dmak·ni paja is a mistake for dmak·ni pūja is supported by the mention of a savaḥ dmak· caruA saṁ hyaṁ vināya “endowment wet-ricefield for offerings to god Vināya”. The word mūla is then assumed to stand at the head of a new phrase, as is often seen in inscriptions of this period. — ⟨1v10⟩ Ikā Āpan· ⬦ Ika Āpan· B Boe.

⟨1v11⟩ sasāṅan· ⬦ (vata)ṅan· B Boe.

⟨1v14⟩ lampahan· Blampapan· Boe.

Translation by Arlo Griffiths

(1v1–1v2) Hail! Elapsed Śaka year 828, intercalary month of Śravaṇa, eighth tithi of the waning fortnight, Haryaṅ, Vās, Friday. That was the time that the elders of Palepangan were collectively granted the privilege of being allowed to keep a charter by the lord minister of Hino, pu Dakṣottama Bāhubajra Pratipakṣakṣaya.

(1v2–1v4) The occasion for it was due to the elders not being in accord with the nāyaka, (namely) the reverend Jyotiṣa [that] their wet ricefield is considered as [measuring] 2 lamvit. They were ordered to excise (udhāra) 6 dhāraṇa of silver for every single tampah. But due to its deficiency (compared to said estimate) they were not able to excise that much. That is why the elders petitioned (sambah) the lord minister.

(1v4–1v6) Their wet ricefield was ordered to be measured by the royal tampah. The royal tampah is considered to be a hundred ḍpa sihvā in length, thirty ḍpa sihvā in breadth. The assistant of the lord of Hino, (namely) saṅ Brahmā, as well as the officiant of Priṅ’s companion (called) saṅ Kañcur, were ordered to measure. They produced [as result] 1 lamvit, 7 tampah, 1 blah. As much as that (aforementioned sum) they (namely the elders) were ordered to excise: 6 dhāraṇa of silver for every single tampah.

(1v6–1v12) Thereupon (jari), the elders contributed in tahil (tax) 6 dhāraṇa of silver for every single tampah. The total amount of silver serving the elders to contribute tahil on the ricefield of 1 lamvit, 7 tampah, 1 blah, was 5 kāṭi and 5 dhāraṇa of silver, besides pilih mas and 8 laborers (kaṭik), 4 of them for the deity, 4 of them for the nāyaka. The total amount of wet ricefield of the laborers was 1 lamvit, 1 tampah, 1 suku held in common. The wet ricefield of the elders was 1 lamvit, 1 blah; the [wet ricefield] of the forest inspector was 2 tampah; the [wet ricefield] of the surveyor of markets was 1 tampah. Such was the specification of the wet ricefields after they had been measured in tampah haji. Besides them there was 1 lamvit of wet ricefield of the deity kept by the elders as endowment for the cult (pūja) — the value (mūla) of 1 lamvit was not measured, because of the destituteness of its condition — with the income from subletting (lañjān) of 14 dhāraṇa of silver; the patukan of 4 māṣa of silver; the panurat of 4 dhāraṇa of silver. They are due (umijil) in Māgha [and] taken by the ones who carry the deity’s offerings (bali) by pikul. The pavḍus of 4 māṣa of silver is due in the Ninth [month] (Caitra). Thus was the grant of the lord minister of Hino to the elders of Palepangan with all the village inhabitants.

(1v12–1v15) The witnesses to it were:

  • the officiant of Priṅ [named] ḍapunta Udāra, native of the village of Sraṅan, domain of the monastery at Pahai, teaming up (?) with the lord minister dyah Vano, native of the village of Syutan, district of Tiru Raṇu;
  • the Kalaṅ overseers at the time (named) pu Baruṇa [and] pu Palinī;
  • the village overseers pu Kmir, pu Gamana [and] pu Gambir;
  • the gustis: pu Karṇa, pu Aruṇa, pu Vāri;
  • the teacher pu Tarañjal;
  • the herald pu Pradhāna;
  • the maṅraṅkəpi pu Kuḍut;
  • the vinkas pu Sādha;
  • the village overseer of Lampahan: pu Gəmar;
  • the astrologer pu Bur;
  • the irrigation head: pu Bay.
Thus was the total of those holding office, who devoted their full attention to the words of the minister of Hino.

(1v15) Written by the officiant of Priṅ as calligrapher.

Commentary

(3) On the nāyaka bhagavanta Jyotiṣa, J. G. de Casparis observed: “From the high title of the nāyaka (Bhagawanta is derived from Sanskrit bhagavant), we may conclude that the nāyakas were by no means always lower-class people; their position may have been in relation with the authorities in whose name they acted.” (de Casparis 1956, p. 228, n. 65) However, it is also possible that the words mean “the nāyaka of the reverend Jyotiṣa”.

(3–6) The term modhāra, here tentatively translated as “to excise”, has not so far been properly explained. Sarkar (n. 14 = n. 16) states: “The text has modhāra, whereof the root appears to be u(d)dhara. The term therefore appears to have the same significance as soddhara in soddhara haji (= dravya haji).” The latter thus seems to mean “all royal excise”. A helpful parallel passage is found in the Luitan charter (823 Śaka), 1v2: Umajarakan· parṇaḥnikanaṁ savaḥ kmitanya tan· vnaṁ maṅisī Uddhāra, saṁkhā ri hə:tnikanaṁ sinaṅguḥ satampaḥ. In OJED, under uddhāra, only the verb form aṅuddhāra meaning “to make selections” is recorded. Money-related meanings are however recorded for the original Sanskrit word, also borrowed into several other Indian languages, in Sircar 1966, p. 348 (“borrowed on trust or credit”).

(6) On jari, cf. my notes in translation file for Kinewu. OJED’s suggestion thereupon s.v. jarīya works well here.

Wisseman Christie 2004: 92: "20 dharana ... = 1 kati".

"There were apparently 4 suku or 2 blah in 1 tampah, and 10 tampah in 1 lamwit." Barrett Jones 1984: 145 comes to a different conclusion.

On kaṭik, see Stutterheim 1925: 241 f n. 61. Barrett Jones 1984: 128 and Tiga Prasasti Jaman Balitung p. 41 n. 10. Connection with patik?

On hĭnanyan svabhāvanira, see Sarvadharma 3r3–4 ya tikānmahakən trāsanya, An tinitiḥ byət· deniṁ thāni bala, pinisakitan· tan kinavruhan hĭnanya “That resulted in their fear of being heavily imposed by the Thāni Bala; that they would be tormented without their misery being known”.

(10–11) The emendation of paja to pūja makes it possible to imagine a meaningful connection with the mention of vali (Sanskrit bali) in the next line, as pūjā and bali are two fundamental categories of Hindu worship. It seems unnatural to give to mūla any of the meanings recorded in OJED. The meaning “value” assumed in my translation is attested in Old Khmer (http://sealang.net/oldkhmer/) and is found also in some other contemporary inscriptions of Java, notably in the Landa inscription. That same inscription is relevant for our understanding of the term lañjān, not recorded in OJED. It occurs three times in that inscription, in contexts which are very comparable to the present one. (Another possible occurrence is found in Rumwiga 1r3.) While no word lañjān or base lañja is recorded in OJED, or even in any dictionary of Modern Javanese that I have been able to consult, the word lañja is attested in Old Sundanese where it means “layer” and is also used as verb meaning “to layer, to apply as a layer”, normally applied to precious metal or gems, as for instance in the Siksa Kandaṅ Karəsian. But in Modern Sundanese the base lanja is used in connection with sawah. See Hardjadibrata and Eringa 2003, s.v. lanja: “vi. ngalanja (unc.) add a second layer to the first one, cover in (over/up) st.; repeat a job or action; take a second one to a woman; take a second one to a moneylender/supplier; ngalanja sawah (of a landowner) get rice-fields under his management in order to sublet them to small farmers; ngalanjakeun give management of (rice-fields) to sublet them to a third party (esp. by a village head to a trusted person, middleman/agent between the owner and cultivator); jual lanja s.m. tutung duit (see tutung)”. It is on this basis, and on the basis of what can be extrapolated from the present context, to I propose to interpret the derived form lañja-an as meaning “income from subletting”.

(11) sasaṅan: the morphological pattern of this designation for the Ninth month does not seem to have been described yet for OJ. In Modern Sundanese, there is lilikuran meaning “(of the month) between the 20th and the 30th (particularly during the fasting month)”.

It seems that here, as in other cases, the first witness is also the scribe, though the last sentence could equally be translated “Written by the calligrapher of the officiant of Priṅ”.

(12) amasaṅakan i: the same usage is found in the Alasantan charter.

Bibliography

First published by F. D. K. Bosch (1917), without translation; reading of the date revised by Bosch (1924); text republished by H. B. Sarkar (Sarkar 1939), who offered no new readings but did add an English translation (this article was republished as part of Sarkar 1971–1972, without significant changes); the dating formula was re-edited and analyzed by L.-Ch. Damais (1955); a slightly revised reading of the whole text was included in Boechari 1985–1986; a new English translation was offered by Wisseman Christie (1998, App. 3). The text is re-edited here by Arlo Griffiths based on the photos EFEO_GROB03804 and OD-5197, with a new translation into English. While the edition of Bosch (and after him, that of Sarkar) entirely ignored the basic punctuation signs in the original, Boechari represents them but does so haphazardly. The apparatus offered here does not record any diference of reading punctuation signs vis-à-vis prevous editions. Since Sarkar’s editions are entirely derivative from Bosch’ work, his readings are not recorded in the apparatus either.

Primary

[B] Bosch, Frederik David Kan. 1917. “Een koperen plaat van 848 Śaka.” OV (Bijlage M), pp. 88–98.

[S1] Sarkar, Himansu Bhusan. 1939. “The copper-plate of Barabudur, 828 Saka.” JGIS 6 (2), pp. 124–130.

[S2] Sarkar, Himansu Bhusan. 1971–1972. Corpus of the inscriptions of Java (Corpus inscriptionum Javanicarum), up to 928 A. D. 2 vols. Calcutta: K.L. Mukhopadhyay. Volume 2, pages 55–59, item 68.

[Boe] Boechari. 1985–1986. Prasasti koleksi Museum Nasional, Jilid I. Jakarta: Proyek Pengembangan Museum Nasional, Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. [URL]. Pages 124–126, item E.63.

Secondary

Krom, Nicolaas Johannes. 1919. “Epigraphische bijdragen, I: Een koperplaat van 848 Çāka? II: De inscriptie van Pereng; III: De Singasari-inscriptie van 1273.” BKI 75, pp. 8–24. Item I.

Bosch, Frederik David Kan. 1920. “Epigraphische en iconographische aanteekeningen, 1: Nogmals de koperen plaat van 848 Çaka; 2: De inscriptie van Ranoe-Kembolo; 3: Een gouden Hindoe-beeldje van Mindanao (Philippijnen); 4 Oudheden ter Westerafdeeling van Borneo; 5 Aanvulling op de literatuur-opgave van Tjandi Prambanan (Rapp. Oudhk. Dienst 1915 p. 54).” OV (Bijlage I), pp. 98–106. Item 1, pages 98–101.

Muusses, Martha A. 1923. “Gedateerde inscripties van Nederlandsch-Indië (vierde aanvulling).” OV (Bijlage I), pp. 103–109. Page 105.

Bosch, Frederik David Kan. 1924. “Het Lingga-heiligdom van Dinaja.” TBG 64, pp. 227–286. Page 229, note 1.

Krom, Nicolaas Johannes. 1931. Hindoe-Javaansche geschiedenis. 2nd edition. ’s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff. [URL]. Page 186.

Stutterheim, Willem Frederik. 1937. “De archaeologische verzameling.” JBG 4, pp. 146–156. Page 154.

No name. 1937. Koninklijk Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen: Jaarboek IV — 1937. Bandoeng: Nix & Co. Page 160.

Damais, Louis-Charles. 1951. “Études d’épigraphie indonésienne, I: Méthode de réduction des dates javanaises en dates européennes.” BEFEO 45 (1), pp. 1–41. DOI: 10.3406/befeo.1951.5509. [URL]. Page 59.

Damais, Louis-Charles. 1952. “Études d’épigraphie indonésienne, III: Liste des principales inscriptions datées de l’Indonesie.” BEFEO 46 (1), pp. 1–105. DOI: 10.3406/befeo.1952.5158. [URL]. Pages 46–47, part A, item 80.

[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]. Pages 178–180.

de Casparis, Johannes Gijsbertus. 1956. Selected inscriptions from the 7th to the 9th century A.D. Prasasti Indonesia 2. Bandung: Masa Baru. Page 228, note 65.

Damais, Louis-Charles. 1970. Répertoire onomastique de l'épigraphie javanaise (jusqu'à Pu Siṇḍok Śrī Īśānawikrama Dharmmotuṅgadewa): Étude d'épigraphie indonésienne. Publications de l'École française d'Extrême-Orient 66. Paris: École française d'Extrême-Orient. Page 51, item 133.

Nakada, Kōzō. 1982. An inventory of the dated inscriptions in Java. Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 40. Tokyo: Toyo Bunko. Pages 92–95, part 1, item 93.

Wisseman Christie, Jan. 1998. “Weights and measures in early Javanese states.” In: Southeast Asian Archaeology 1996: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists, Leiden, 2–6 September 1996. Edited by Marijke J. Klokke and T. de Bruijn. Hull: Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 147–162. Pages 160–161.

Eade, J. C. and Lars Gislén. 2000. Early Javanese inscriptions: A new dating method. Handbuch der Orientalistik. 3. Abt., Südostasien 10. Leiden: Brill. Pages 34–36.