Taji Gunung (Sañjaya 194, 910-12-21)

Editors: Tyassanti Kusumo Dewanti, Arlo Griffiths.

Identifier: DHARMA_INSIDENKTajiGunung.

Languages: Old Javanese, Sanskrit.

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

Version: (b42d535), last modified (f510d28).

Edition

⟨Face A: Front⟩ ⟨01⟩ Om̐

⟨1.1⟩

|| Om̐ namaś śivāya namo buddhāya

￮￮￮ svasthā śrī sañjaya-varsā⟨tīta⟩ 19(4) posya⟨1.2⟩-māsa tithi tritīya kr̥ṣṇa-pakṣa tu U (ś)u vāra

Irikā mūlapra(tha)manikai banuAni taji gu⟨1.3⟩nuṁ sinusuk ṣ(ī)mā dai rakryan· mahāman·tri muAṁ rakryan· gurum (va)ṅi muAṁ samg(ə)t· ⟨1.4⟩ luA Anuṁ Ayam· təhas· ṅūni An· sinīmma Ikai banuA pu ḍapit· Ana⟨1.5⟩k· banuA I paṇḍamuAn· vatak· vadihati Anuṁ juru-juru I sira saṁ hadyan· mira-mi⟨1.6⟩raḥ Ataḥ vatak· vadihati muAṁ saṁ hadyan· halar·ran· pu dhanada Anak· banuA ⟨1.7⟩ I paṇḍamuAn· vatak· vadihati makalambi haji paṅuraṁnira ry āyām· təhas· ⟨1.8⟩ saṁ hadyan· buAṅən· Anak· banuA I gunuṅan· vatak ta(ṁ)killan· saṁ Ilu Uma⟨1.9⟩yutti saṁ hyaṅ· buṁkal· sīma susuk· kulumpaṁ ṅūni muvaḥ samgat· makudur· (bra)da Ana⟨1.10⟩k· banuA I vaduṁ poḥ vatak· makudur· Anuṁ sira juru-juru I sira (saṁ hadya)n· (da)⟨1.11⟩vaha Anak· banuA I ra təguḥ vatak· khaməhas· maAṁ dyaḥ maṇḍyāṅin· Anak· ⟨1.12⟩ banuA I kahaṅat·tan· vatak· khaməhas· Ataḥ paṅuraṁ I saməgat· ⟨1.13⟩ makudur· saṁ Umilu Umuyutti saṁ hyaṁ buṅkal· sĭma susuk· kulumpaṁ dyaḥ raṇḍə ⟨1.14⟩ Anak· banuA I liṅai vatak· makudur· vuṅkal· tpat· ṅūni duvə(g)·nikai ⟨1.15⟩ banuA An· sinĭma pu saranna Anak· banuA Iṅ ulu kabikuAn· ri taṁkillan· va⟨1.16⟩{tak·}tak taṁkillan· Ataḥ

yāpuAn· hana drohaka Umulaḥh-ulaḥha Ikai ⟨1.17⟩ sĭma paṅanugraha rakryan· I sira {piṅi}piṁhay· vahuta I vuṅkal· tpat· maka⟨1.18⟩beḥhan· dlāhaniṁ dlāha I vka vet· saṁ piṁhay· vuAra tan· tam·muA pha{ṁ}⟨1.19⟩l·lani kadadin· vuAṁ [1×] ṅunivaiḥ vka-vetnikāṁ Umulaḥh-ulaḥ Ikaiṁ saṁ ⟨1.20⟩ h(yaṁ) ⟨buṅkal·⟩ s(ī)ma susu(k kulu)mpaṁ (Ā)pan· huvus· sapattha saṁ vahuta hyaṁ m(u)Aṁ saṁ ma⟨1.21⟩ka(la)mbi haji (Iri)ka maṅka(na) (duvəg·) (saṁ) hyaṁ vuṅkal· sīma susuk· kulumpaṁ ⟨1.22⟩ śinivi rikaṁ rāt· ṅūni śrī sañjaya naranāttha haji balituṁ Aśrī yovanna mū⟨1.23⟩(vaḥ)juruni kanayakan· I sira pu givaṁ Anak· banuA I poḥ vatak· pagar· ⟨1.24⟩ (vs)i mūvaḥ juruni lam·puran· pu jaya Anak· banuA I galagaḥ (vata)k· khin(o) ⟨1.25⟩ mūvaḥ juru vaduA raray· saṁ bulibak· Anak· banuA I guva vatak· khīno ⟨1.26⟩ mūvaḥ piṁhay· mānak· saṁ hadyan· Ayuḥ Anak· banuA I trirava mūvaḥ paru⟨1.27⟩jar·nira pu l(ī)kaṁ mūvaḥ piṁhay· I jro turus· saṁ ⟨ha⟩dyan· mali mūvaḥ saṁ hadya⟨1.28⟩n· galuṁ Anak· banuA I trirava mūvaḥ I trirava pu madhya m(ū)vaḥ piṁhay· I (jr)o ⟨1.29⟩ turus· saṁ hadyan· lvaḥ vatu Anak· banuA I vuAtan·n əmmas· parujar·ni⟨1.30⟩ra pu rinu mūvaḥ rāma kabayan· I savaṁṅan· pu kura mūvaḥ pu bura(v)un· mūvaḥ ⟨1.31⟩ pu Antiṁ parujar· rāmanta I savaṁṅan· si basinəḥ mūvaḥ magala(ḥ) I (sa)va(ṁ)ṅan· si ⟨1.32⟩ bala⟨⟨va⟩⟩mūvaḥ vahuta I savaṁṅan· si kja mūvaḥ bīnkas· I savaṁṅan· pu ⟨Face B: Back⟩ ⟨2.1⟩ puñjaṁ mūvaḥ vahuta I jruk· śrī pu danta mūvaḥ {I jruk· śrī} pu bajra mūvaḥ pu sakti gusti I jru⟨2.2⟩k· śrī, vinkas· pu tiriṁ rāma maratā I jruk· śrī pu kevala mūvaḥ parujar· rāmanta pu ⟨2.3⟩ Am·loḥ mūvaḥ piluṅgaḥ pu mala mūvaḥ pu codya Anak· banuA I bakal· mūvaḥ ⟨2.4⟩ pu Asiki vatak· khino mūvaḥ tuha paḍahi pu dreṅo Anak· banuA I hulu ⟨2.5⟩ vanuA mūvaḥ Aravanas·ta Anak· banuA I bhavantan· maṅla pu kinaṁ Anak· banu⟨2.6⟩A I vuattan· śrĭ sĭma A⟨⟨ṅa⟩⟩sə I ḍihyaṁ mūvaḥ pu tiṇḍi Anak· banuA I hijo sī-⟨2.7⟩ma Aṅasə I (ta)lun· Atari si kutil· jajamāna pu nătha Anak· banuA I mu⟨2.8⟩ṅgu vatak· taṅkillan· mūvaḥ (pu) sukha Anak· banuA I tumurun· mūvaḥ saṁ ha ⟨2.9⟩ dyan· bisañja paḍamm apuy· saṁ hadyan· dumma Anak· banuA I parahita Ataḥ va⟨2.10⟩tak· halu mūvaḥ saṁ hadyan· mahintu I susuḥhan· pu siga mūvaḥ kaki Udiḥ pr̥⟨2.11⟩(tta)ya I vuṅkal· tpat· saṁ saraṅgaṁ Ana⟨k⟩ banuA I layaṁ vatak· layaṁ mūvaḥ pr̥ttaya ⟨2.12⟩ maḍaṁkappi saṁ hijo mūvaḥ kalaṁ I hulu vanuA pu bhūmi mūvaḥ pu tolai ⟨2.13⟩ Anak· banuA I bakal· mūvaḥ I pigi pu galinī I sukun· pu susū kalaṁ I ⟨2.14⟩ ruṇḍuṅan· pu lima I vuattan·n əmas· pu sagu I tamvak· haji pu Asti I kahu⟨2.15⟩rippan· pu dhara I ramvi pu tirip· I tugu pu bahas· vatu viriṁ pu gara I tlaṁ moliḥ pu ⟨2.16⟩ cr̥ñcaṁ I bhavantan· dyaḥ gun·dyaṁ kalaṁ I seser· pu dhara binkas· I seser· ⟨2.17⟩ pu sita vinəkas· ruḍuṁṅan· pu subhā vinkas· I hurantan· pu Isuk· I salambaya⟨2.18⟩n· pu vagay· I sibun·nan· pu Aṁkan· juruni Alivat· pu rati I susuḥha⟨2.19⟩n· mūva(ḥ) pu Ele Anak· banuA I vuAttan· śrī Ujar samgat· luA ⟨2.20⟩ sakveḥniṁ maṅilala drabya haji kabaiḥ tapa haji kadut· maṅūri parana⟨2.21⟩kkan· hiñjamman· kḍi valyan· tuha paḍahi paṇḍay· Aravanasta kutak· ka⟨2.22⟩p(ū)r· Etyevam·mādi saprakāra saṁ maṅilala drabya haji kabaiḥ tan· tu⟨2.23⟩mamā Irikaiṁ banuA I taji gunuṁ muAṁ rămanta kabaiḥ Āpan· sampun· ya Ina⟨2.24⟩nugrahān· dai rakryan· mahāman·trī muAṁ rakryan· momaḥh-umaḥ guru⟨⟨m·⟩⟩ ba⟨2.25⟩(ṅ)i mu(Aṁ) samgat· luA kunaṁ yāpuĀn· Asiṁ sira maṅilala drabya haji ma⟨2.26⟩[ca. 3×] muAṁ ramannātaya Irikai sapavkas· samgat· luA Irikaṁ ta kḍammvatannā ⟨2.27⟩ ma saṁ ma ṅilala drabya haji syaṁṅantā ḍramma maṅavai(ta)nna rovaṁṅantā mana⟨2.28⟩mvaḥ I rakryan· kāliḥ muAṁ samgat· luA Āpan· maṁkana pavkasnira ri kitta ḍram·⟨2.29⟩ma r(i) taji gunuṁ makabaiḥhan· ￮￮￮ ⟨3.1⟩ || tuha v(ə)R̥ḥ pu san·dyā‚ memen· rakryan· maṅigal· ri susukkan· sīma I taji gunuṁ si Aṁkus· ⟨3.2⟩ si ryyak· prabayan· si kasuk· si maṅakap· si manikap· si vija si maṅatar· si maṅagul· ⟨3.3⟩ kalima pu galuḥ gus⟨t⟩i pu lyān·⟨3.4⟩(ta) binkas· pu (c)ara vu(ra)k· vari ga pu kaco vadva rarai pu (ra) Isuk· ⟨4.1⟩ // pīṇḍani byāyanta Irikeṁ susukkan· sīma vuAluṁ kati ma⟨4.2⟩hisa 2 pāja 2 vḍus· 1 citralekha saṁ rudra Anak· banu⟨4.3⟩A I vuAttan· śrĭ pasaji ri sira pirak· dha 1 mā 4 bras sapāja ⟨4.4⟩ paranakkan· I vuAttan· saṁ vulu ṣayaṁ ⟨5.1⟩ paṅasəAnnikanaṁ sīma denira I ḍihyaṁ masǎks(i) (d)e⟨5.2⟩nira ta māva maryya I ḍ(i)h(yaṁ) sa [ca. 2×] (mu)la [ca. 4×] ⟨5.3⟩ si[ca. 1×]mi kovā [ca. 2×] vḍihan· [ca. 5×]

Apparatus

⟨1.1⟩ śrī sañjaya-varsā⟨tīta⟩ ⬦ śrī sañjaya-varsā Br Na • From the presence of tarung to signify a long ā in varṣā and from the fact that the word sañjayavarṣa is normally followed by atīta,becoming sañjayavarṣātīta through sandhi, we infer that the two last syllables of atīta have been involuntarily omitted. ⟨1.3⟩ ṣ(ī)mā ⬦ ṣīma Br Na. ⟨1.4⟩ sinīmma ⬦ sinimma Br Na. ⟨1.5⟩ banuA Na ⬦ vanuA Br. ⟨1.5⟩ Anuṁ ⬦ Ana Br; An[u] Na. ⟨1.5⟩ mira-miraḥ ⬦ si raraḥ Br; si ra miraḥ Na. ⟨1.6⟩ pu dhanada Na ⬦ pu ḍanada Br. ⟨1.7⟩ paṅuraṁnira ry āyām təhas Na ⬦ paṅuraṁ miraryāyām təhas Br • . This reading is peculiar because the use of ligature ya below ra is unusual. To have a combination of rya, normally it would have a layar on top of ya. ⟨1.8⟩ ta⟨ṁ⟩killan· ⬦ taṁkillan Br Na • The anusvāra seems to have been forgotten here by the scribe. The expected spelling with anusvāra is found below (1.15 and 1.16). ⟨1.8⟩ Umayutti ⬦ Um[u]yutti Br Na • Corr. Umuyutti. ⟨1.9⟩ ṅū ni ⬦ dū_ni Br Na. ⟨1.9⟩ muvaḥ ⬦ savah Br Na. ⟨1.10⟩ vaduṁ poḥ Na ⬦ vaju poḥ Br • This toponym occurs in Mantyasih I (1r14), Mantyasih III (2r2) and Wanua Tengah III (2v16) ⟨1.11⟩ davaha Na ⬦ dava ... Br. ⟨1.11⟩ maAṁ dyaḥ maṇḍyāṅin· ⬦ saṁ Adyaḥ aṇḍyāṅin· Br; (saṁ) Adyaḥ maṇḍyāṅin· Na • Corr muAṁ dyaḥ maṇḍyāṅin· ⟨1.12⟩ paṅuraṁ ⬦ bara (...) Br; (...) bara Na • Note 47 Nakada (1991: 10): One character (?) immediately before the letter ba is a small circular line. ⟨1.14⟩ vuṅkal· ⬦ buṅkal· Br Na. ⟨1.15⟩ Iṅ ulu Na ⬦ I ṅulu Br. ⟨1.17⟩ I sira {piṅi}piṁhay ⬦ I sigaḍiri Br Na • Our new reading is based on our understanding of the intended meaning of the text. The previous editions’ reading sigaḍiri seems hard to fit in the context where the sīma is the favor of the Lords to the piṅhays and vahutas. Besides, the combination of “I sira” occurs frequently in the text, namely in lines 1.5, 1.10, and 1.23. Given the clear reading of si and a space that can accommodate as many as four akṣaras, we suspect that the engraver had erroneously written sira piṁhay as sira piṅi, upon which he canceled piṅi and again wrote piṅhay, so that the syllables piṅi should be treated as superfluous. ⟨1.17⟩ vuṅkal· Br ⬦ buṅkal· Na. ⟨1.18⟩ dlāhaniṁ dlāha ⬦ dlāhani dlāha Br Na. ⟨1.18⟩ vuAra Na ⬦ buAra Br • corr. vahuta. The scribe seems to have mistakenly written vuAra instead of vahuta, which in the previous line (1.17) comes after piṅhay. Indeed, the expected translation requires us to have vahuta instead of vuara. ⟨1.18⟩ pha{ṁ}l·lani ⬦ phallani Br Na. ⟨1.19⟩ kadadin· vuAṁ ⬦ jarin guna Br; jarin guA[--] Na. ⟨1.19⟩ ṅunivaiḥ ⬦ ṅimiveḥ Br; ṅuniveḥ Na. ⟨1.20⟩ saṁ h(yaṁ) ⟨buṅkal·⟩ s(ī)ma ⬦ saṁ hyaṁ sīma Br Na • This insertion is based on the complete phrase of saṅ hyaṅ buṅkal sīma susuk kulumpaṅ that is repeatedly getting mentioned in this inscription. Cf. 1.9, 1.13, 1.21. Because the two first mentions are written with bu and only the last has vu for the word stone (buṅkal), this restitution conforms to that. ⟨1.21⟩ (I ri)ka maṅka(na) ⬦ (I ri)ka maṅka(na) Na; jarin maṅkana Br. ⟨1.21⟩ (duvəg·) ⬦ (...) Br; juru-juru Na • In none of the visual documentation available to us, this part of the stone can be read with any certainty. The previous reading by Nakada, juru-juru, seems doubtful to us because it does not fit in the context. We at first focused our search for a suitable word on terms expressing the ritual action called uyut or meaning “in front of” or “facing”. Given the space that suffices for about 3–4 akṣaras, we try to advance two possibilites of reading, which both of them yield their own advantage and disadvantage. The first option is to read huvus as in 1.20. It results us two consecutives sentences which both start with huvus. Here, huvus stands as the auxiliary when combined with śinivi that comes after. However, it would nuance the text as if the stone was worshipped in the past (śinivi), whereas the subjects who were worshipped refer to Sanjaya and Balitung. The second option is to have duvəg, which also occurs earlier in 1.14. The meaning would be a bit puzzling and less make sense but it is the least bad since it causes no syntax problem in the sentence. ⟨1.21⟩ saṁ hyaṁ vuṅkal· sīma Br ⬦ saṁ hyaṁ buṅkal·sīmau Na. ⟨1.22⟩ rikaṁ rāt· Na ⬦ ri tarab Br • Krom 1931: 191 cited the reading as ri tarub, and attached a historical argument to it. He argued that ri tarub alludes to the site of the former camp (or tent) of King Sanjaya. ⟨1.22⟩ haji balituṁ Aśrī ⬦ haji bali tuA śrī Br; haji balituṁ Aśri Na. ⟨1.22⟩ yovanna ⬦ lovanna Br Na • Sarkar (vol. II 1971–72: 133 n.61), who still retained Brandes’ reading, commented: “The significance of the following two words (śrī lovanna) is also not clear Can it signify: Lord of the Saltish (Sea)?”. ⟨1.23⟩ mūvaḥ Na ⬦ mūah Br. ⟨1.23⟩ juruni kana(ya)kan· ⬦ ṅunikana ha-an Br; juru nikana ha(...)en· Na. ⟨1.23⟩ Anak· banuA I poḥ Na ⬦ Anak· vanuA I poḥ Br. ⟨1.23⟩ vatak· pagar· vsi Na ⬦ vatak· pal … Br. ⟨1.25⟩ juru vaduA raray· Na ⬦ juru banuA raray· Br. ⟨1.25⟩ vatak· khīno Na ⬦ vatak· khino Br. ⟨1.26⟩ Anak· banuA I trirava Na ⬦ Anak· banna I trirava Br. ⟨1.27⟩ parujarnira Na ⬦ parujarniru Br. ⟨1.27⟩ pu l(ī)kaṁ ⬦ pu laka Br; pu ləka Na. ⟨1.27⟩ saṁ ⟨ha⟩dyan· mali ⬦ saṁ dyan· mali Br Na • The insertion of ⟨ha⟩ is supported by the abundant mentions of saṅ hadyan in this inscription. Cf. 1.5, 1.6, 1.8, 1.26, 1.29, 2.9, 2.10. ⟨1.28⟩ galuṁ Na ⬦ kalaṁ Br. ⟨1.29⟩ vuAtan·n əmmas· ⬦ vuAtanimmas· Br; vuAtan· n(i) mmas· Na. ⟨1.31⟩ si basinəḥ Na ⬦ si basini Br. ⟨1.32⟩ si bala⟨⟨va⟩⟩ ⬦ si bala Br Na. ⟨1.32⟩ si kja Na ⬦ si ca Br. ⟨2.1⟩ I jruk· śrī Br ⬦ I jruk· śrī⟨ṁ⟩ Na • To other occurrences of this toponym (2.2), Nakada adopts that insertion of anusvāra. Note 135 Nakada (1991: 12, translated): A cecak-like dot is engraved in the upper right corner of ulu. ⟨2.1⟩ puñjaṁ ⬦ vuñjaṁ Br Na. ⟨2.2⟩ I jruk· śrī Br ⬦ I jruk· śrī⟨ṁ⟩ Na • For details, see app. 2.1 ⟨2.3⟩ pu Am·loḥ Na ⬦ pu Am·boḥ Br. ⟨2.3⟩ pu codya ⬦ pu vodya Br Na. ⟨2.4⟩ banuA I bakal· ⬦ banuA I baṁkal· Br; banuA I baṅkal· Na • This toponym recurs in 2.13 in the form bakal, which is why we adopt the same reading here. It also figures elsewhere as a proper name.. In a recently discovered inscription coming from East Java, under the patronage of Sindok — Prasasti Masahar —, what may have been intended as the same toponym is attested in B14–15: pinakamaṅgalyaniṁ manusuk· śīma ḍaṅ upāddhyāya I bkal· Arthahetoḥ māravijaya (Ismail Lutfi and Andi Muhammad said in https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prasasti_Gemekan; Griffiths, (forthcoming). ⟨2.5⟩ bhavantan· maṅla ⬦ bavantan· maṅlu Br; savantan· maṅla Na. ⟨2.6⟩ mūvaḥ pu tiṇḍi ⬦ muvaḥ patiṇḍiḥ Br; mūvaḥ patiṇḍi Na. ⟨2.7⟩ jajamāna Br ⬦ jajahana Na • This word seems to correspond to Sanskrit yajamāna. ⟨2.7⟩ muṅgu Na ⬦ muṅga Br. ⟨2.8⟩ (pu) sukha ⬦ sa sukha Br; sa(ṁ) sukha Na • Here the difficulty to read what the text intends to say lies in the first akṣara. It can be understood as either sa or pa with a longer downward extension on its left vertical, as if it has a suku in the wrong place. To render it as sasukha is not a good solution since this passage concerns a function which is normally followed by an honorific and name. We have considered the possibility of reading sa and supplying an anusvāra. Indeed, we find that the sequence saṁ sukha occurs in other inscriptions, but sukha is then normally part of the expression sukha paṅgil, as in Wuatan Tija (2r3–4) samgat pinapan samgat savyan samgat sukha paṅgil,Poh (1v8–9) rakai halaran· pu tloḍuṁ, samagat· dalinan· saṁ sukha paṁgil. Only in Turyan (A42) does saṁ sukha stand independently. However, the surrounding names in the Turyan context also have the structure saṁ X, while in the present context, the structure pu + proper name is predominant. On these grounds, we prefer to assume that pu was intended but realized with an eccentric shape. ⟨2.10⟩ vatak· halu Na ⬦ vatak· talu Br. ⟨2.12⟩ vuṅkal· tpat· Br ⬦ buṅkal· tpat· Na. ⟨2.12⟩ maḍaṁkappi ⬦ vayaṁ kappi Br; vayaṁkappi Na • Note by Damais (1970: 375): “Il ne peut s’agir que d’une mauvaise lecture ou d’une erreur pour ma(ṅ)ḍaṅkappi.” Edhie Wurjantoro (2018: 126), for his part, notes: “Kata vayaṅkappi seharusnya maṅraṅkappi.” We prefer the first of the offered emendations, as it is orthographically closer to the engraved text. While Edhie Wurjantoro was right that the intended word must be a form of the base that is recorded as raṅkəp or raṅkap in OJED, spelling variations ḍ/r are quite common in early Old Javanese. ⟨2.12⟩ pu bhūmi Na ⬦ pabhumi Br. ⟨2.12⟩ pu tolai ⬦ pu tole Br; pu talai Na. ⟨2.13⟩ pigi Na ⬦ sigi Br • Damais also records this word as pigi (Damais 1970: 536) ⟨2.13⟩ pu galinī ⬦ pu galini Br; pu golini Na. ⟨2.14⟩ vuAttan·n əmas· ⬦ vuAttan· ni mas· Br Na. ⟨2.14⟩ tamvak· Na ⬦ tambak· Br. ⟨2.15⟩ viriṁ Na ⬦ viri Br. ⟨2.15⟩ pu gara ⬦ pu garu Br Na. ⟨2.15⟩ tlaṁ Na ⬦ tla Br. ⟨2.16⟩ bhavantan· ⬦ gavantan· Br Na. ⟨2.17⟩ vinəkas· ⬦ binəkas· Br Na. ⟨2.17⟩ ruḍuṁṅan· ⬦ ruḍuṅan· Br Na. ⟨2.17⟩ vinkas· Br ⬦ binkas· Na. ⟨2.18⟩ Alivat· Na ⬦ halivat· Br. ⟨2.19⟩ mūva(ḥ) ⬦ mūla Br Na. ⟨2.19⟩ Ele Na ⬦ Ile Br. ⟨2.19⟩ Ujar ⬦ raja Br; [... …] Na. ⟨2.19⟩ samgat· luA ⬦ sampag· luA Br; sam[...] luA Na • Sarkar, who still adopted Brandes’ reading found it difficult to understand the word. He thus left this comment in the translation (vol. II 1971–72 n. 75): “Or: (1) Raja Sa(ng) Məpag (of) Lua, (2) Rajasa Məpag (of) Lua, (3) Raja (of) Sampag Lua etc. Any of these may also be intended.” ⟨2.20⟩ maṅūri ⬦ paṅuraṁ Br Na. ⟨2.21⟩ paranakkan· Br ⬦ paranakkān· Na. ⟨2.22⟩ Etyevam·mādi Na ⬦ Ittevammādi Br • Corr. Ityevamādi. ⟨2.24⟩ muAṁ Na ⬦ muAty(?) Br. ⟨2.24⟩ rakryan· momaḥh-umaḥ ⬦ rakryan· momaḥhomaḥ Br; rakyan· momaḥ-humaḥ Na. ⟨2.24⟩ guru⟨⟨m·⟩⟩ ba(ṅ)i ⬦ gurubaṅi Br; guruṁ baṅi Na. ⟨2.26⟩ muAṁ ramannātaya ⬦ muAṁ cimannāta ya Br; … śimannāta ya Na • In CIJ II, which is derived from Brandes’ reading, Sarkar rendered the segment as muAṁ śimannāta ya and added a footnote (p. 133, n. 48): “ci appears to be a printing mistake for śi”. Later, this version was applied by Edhie Wurjantoro (2018: 126) who also added a note (p. 126, n. 26): “Kata śimannāta seharusnya śimânta (agar dijadikan śīma olehmu)”. ⟨2.26⟩ kḍammvatannā(ma) ⬦ tḍāmmatannā Br Na • An alternative reading tḍarammakannā is noted by Brandes. Edhie Wurjantoro also added a note on this word: “Kata tdāmmatannā seharusnya dharmma-nta ya”(2018: 126, n. 29). ⟨2.27⟩ syaṁṅantā ⬦ syaṅanta Br Na. ⟨2.27⟩ ḍramma ⬦ ḍ(..)mma Br; ḍ(r)amma Na • Corr. dharmma. ⟨2.28⟩ rovaṁṅantā manamvaḥ ⬦ rovaṁṅantāmanambah Br; rovaṁṅantā manambaḥ Na. ⟨2.28⟩ ḍramma • Corr. dharmma. ⟨3.1⟩ san·dyā Br ⬦ san·vyā Na. ⟨3.2⟩ vija Na ⬦ viju Br. ⟨3.2⟩ maṅatar· ⬦ matar· Br. ⟨3.2⟩ maṅagul· Br ⬦ maṅugul· Na. ⟨3.4⟩ galuḥ ⬦ galaḥ Br. ⟨3.4⟩ gus⟨t⟩i pu lyān·(ta) ⬦ gaḍiṁ lu Br; gusiṁ palyān·(ta) Na. ⟨4.1⟩ pīṇḍani Br ⬦ k[i] pīṇḍani Na. ⟨4.1⟩ Irikeṁ ⬦ Irikāṁ Br Na. ⟨4.1⟩ vuAluṁ ⬦ vuAlaṁ Br Na. ⟨4.2⟩ pāja 2 Na ⬦ pāja 4 Br. ⟨4.3⟩ Almost the whole line is omitted in Brandes, who only reads • A I [omitted text] pāja. ⟨4.3⟩ sapāja ⬦ [....]paja Br; sapātha Na. ⟨4.4⟩ ṣayaṁ ⬦ payaṁ Br Na. ⟨5.1⟩ paṅasəAnnikanaṁ ? ⬦ paṅasəAnnikanaṁ Na • Brandes seems to have skipped these lines (5.1) because he found them too heavily weathered ⟨5.1⟩ denira I ḍihyaṁ Na ⬦ de ni— I dihyaṁ ?. ⟨5.1⟩ masǎks(i) ⬦ pasajya ?; pasaṁnya Na. ⟨5.1⟩ (d)enira ta māva maryya I ḍ(i)h(yaṁ) sa [ca. 2×] (mu)la [ca. 4×] ⬦ — ni po ma 5 ... sang hyang i dihyang sa — — sajya— — ?; nira ta mā l [ca. 12 akṣ. illegible] Na. ⟨5.3⟩ si[ca. 1×]mi kovā [ca. 2×] vḍihan· [ca. 5×] ⬦ sī ra — po — —— —ha śu — —— ?; sira [-]i [k]ovā [-- –] vḍiḥhan mā [-- l] //￮// Na.

Translation into English

(1.1) Om!Homage to Śiva! Homage to the Buddha!

(1.1–1.8) May [the world] be prosperous! Elapsed Śrī Sañjaya year 194, month of Poṣya, third tithi of the waning fortnight, Tuṅlai, Umanis, Friday. That was the initial beginning of the village of Taji Gunuṅ, which was demarcated to become a sīma by the Lord chief minister and the Lord of Gurum Vaṅi and the official of Lua. The one who was formerly ayam təas, when the village was made into a sīma, was pu Ḍapit, native of Paṇḍamuan, district Vadihati. The ones who were chiefs for them (the Lords) were:

  • the honorable one exclusively (atah) of mirah-mirah, district Vadihati
  • and the honorable (of) Halaran, pu Dhanada, native of Paṇḍamuan, district Vadihati,
  • The makalambi haji was his paṅuraṅ at Ayam Təas, the honorable one of Buaṅən, native of Gunuṅan, district Taṅkilan.

(1.8–1.12) The one who also formerly participated in performing uyut on the holy sīma stone [and] the kulumpaṅ demarcator was the official ofMakudur [called] Brada, native of Vaduṅ Poh, district Makudur. The ones who were chiefs for him were the honorable one of Davaha, native of Ra Təguh, district Haməas and dyah Maṇḍyāṅin, native of Kahaṅatan, district Haməas exclusively.

(1.12–1.16) The paṅuraṅ of the official ofMakudur was the one who participated in performing uyut on the holy sīma stone [and] the kulumpaṅ demarcator: dyah Raṇḍə, native of Liṅai, district Makudur. The [official of] Vuṅkal Tpat, formerly at the time (when) the village was made into a sīma, was pu Sarana, native of the village upstream of the monastery of Taṅkilan, district Taṅkilan exclusively.

(1.16–1.22) If in the future’s future there is any wrong-doer disturbing this sīma, which is the favor of the Lords to the piṅhays [and] vahutas of Vuṅkal Tpat [and] to the descendants of the piṅhays [and vahutas], may they not obtain the fruits of human birth. All the less so the descendants of those who disturb the holy sīma stone [and] the kulumpaṅ demarcator, because the curse of the vahuta hyaṅ and the makalambi haji on such ones is finished. At the time of the holy sīma stone [and] the kulumpaṅ demarcator, formerly, Śrī Sañjaya, the Lord of men [and] King Balituṅ, endowed with fortune and youth, were venerated in the world.

(1.23–2.1) And the chief of the nāyakas for them was pu Givaṅ, native of Poh, district Pagar Vsi. And the chief of lampuran was pu Jaya, native of Galagah, district Hino. And the chief of young troops was saṅ Bulibak, native of Guva, district Hino. And the minister with subordinates (piṅhay mānak) was the honorable (of) Ayuh, native of Trirava. And his herald was pu Līkaṅ. And the piṅhay of Jro Turus were the honorable (of) Mali and the honorable (of) Galuṅ, natives of Trirava. And [the piṅhays] of Trirava was pu Madhya. And the piṅhay of Jro Turus was the honorable (of) Lvah Vatu, native of Vuatan Mas, his herald was pu Rinu. And the elder headmen of Savaṅan were pu Kura and pu Buravun and pu Antiṅ. The herald of the elders of Savaṅan was si Basinəḥ. And the magalah of Savaṅan was si Balava and the vahuta of Savaṅan was si Kja and the bīnkas of Savaṅan was pu Puñjaṅ and the vahutas of Jruk Śri were pu Danta and pu Bajra and pu Sakti. The gusti of Jruk Śri were: the vinkas was pu Tiriṅ, the retired headman of Jruk Śri was pu Kevala. And the herald of the headmen was pu Amloh. And the piluṅgah(s) were pu Mala and pu Codya, natives of Bakal and pu Asiki, district Hino

(2.4–2.9) And the chief drummer was pu Dreṅo, native of the upstream village. And the lute player (aravanasta) was a native of Bhavantan. The maṅla were pu Kinaṅ, native ofVuatan Śri, the sīma (village) of the Dihyaṅ and pu Tiṇḍi, native of Hijo, the sīma (village) of the Talun. The atari was si Kutil. The offerer (jajamāna) were pu Nātha, native of Muṅgu, district Taṅkilan and pu Sukha, native of Tumurun and the honorable (of) Bisañja.

(2.9–2.17)The paḍam apuy were the honorable (of) Duma, native of Parahita exclusively, district Halu and the honorable (of) Mahintu of Susuhan (who was) pu Siga and the elder of Udih. The pṛttaya of Vuṅkal Tpat was saṅ Saraṅggaṅ, native of Layaṅ, district Layaṅ. And the pṛttaya of Maḍaṅkapi was saṅ Hijo. And the kalaṅ of the upstream village were pu Bhūmi and pu Tolai, natives of Bakal. And [the kalaṅ] of Pigi was pu Galini, [the kalaṅ] of Sukun was pu Susū. The kalaṅ of Ruṇḍuṅan was pu Lima, [the kalaṅ] of Vuatan Mas was pu Sagu, [the kalaṅ] of Tamvak Haji was pu Asti, [the kalaṅ] of Kahuripan was pu Dhara, [the kalaṅ] of Ramvi was pu Tirip, [the kalaṅ] of Tugu was pu Bahas, [the kalaṅ] of Vatu Viriṅ was pu Gara, [the kalaṅ] of Tlaṅ Molih was pu Cṛñcaṅ, [the kalaṅ] of Bhavantan was dyah Gundyaṅ, [the kalaṅ] of Seser was pu Dhara.

(2.17–2.19) The binkas of Seser was pu Sita, the vinəkas of Ruḍuṅan was pu Subha, the vinkas of Hurantan was pu Isuk, [the vinkas] of Salambayan was pu Vagay, [the vinkas] of Sibunan was pu Aṅkan, his chief of alivat were pu Rati [native] of Susuhan and pu Ele, native of Vuatan Śri.

(2.19–2.26) Said the official of Lua: All the collectors of royal revenue: the tapa haji, the kadut, the maṅūri, the paranakan, the hiñjəman, the eunuchs, the healers, the chief drummers, the smiths, the lute players, the kutak, the kapūr and so forth, all sort of the collectors of royal revenue and all the elder shall not enter the village of Taji Gunung because it has already been granted by the Lord chief minister and the Lord of Momah-umah, the Gurum Baṅi and the official of Lua. Further, when those collectors of royal revenue … and the elders (went off) after the instruction of the official of Lua. That is the …

(2.27–2.29) The collectors of royal revenue were invited to go from the foundation. They proceeded to the east, their companions paid respects to both the Lords and the official of Lua. For that was all the result of them to us, the foundation at Taji Gunung.

(3.1–3.4) The head of young men (called) pu Sandyā, the performer(s) of the Lord who danced at the sīma demarcation at Taji Gunung (called) si Aṅkus[,] si Ryak Prabayan, si Kasuk, si Maṅakap, si Manikap, si Vija, si Maṅatar, si Maṅagul. The kalima (called) pu Galuh; the gusti (called) pu Lyanta; the binkas (called) pu Cara Vurak; the variga (called) pu Kaco; the [member] of young troop (called) pu Ra Isuk

(4.1–4.4) Its total cost of the sīma demarcation is 8 kati, 2 buffaloes, 2 pāja, 1 goat. The scribe, saṅ Rudra, native of Vuatan Ṡri. The offering for him is 1 dhāraṇa, 4 māṣa of silver, one pāja of unhusked rice. The paranakan of Vuatan (called) saṅ Vulu Sayaṅ.

(5.1–5.3) The sīma of those in Ḍihyaṅ give [the gift(s) for the demarcation ceremony], to witness the submission of Ḍihyaṅ ….

Commentary

1.4 samgət Lua is also attested in Gilikan I (A5) and Panggumulan II ( line 11). In Panggumulan I (2v7), it only writes lua and in Poh (2r14), it appears as saṅ ra Lua. In other contexts, Lua serves as a toponym. Cf. Poh (1v19) Panggumulan I (2v8), Bhatari (1v13), Rukam (1v16) and Lintakan (2r4). In the first four charters, it has ra in front of lua, hence vatak ra lua.

1.4 pu Ḍapit as a native of Pandamuan village, Vadihati district figures several times in the Balitung corpus. Cf. Kayu Ara Hiwang (A9), Rongkab (1r7), and Turu Mangambil (A6). Whether it still has any connection with the Vadihati district or not, this personage also seems to hold the function of Vadihati, as in Ayam Teas I (1r6), Ayam Teas II (1r4), Rongkab (1r7), Samalagi (1v10), Panggumulan I (1v11), Telang I (1r8), Telang II (1r3), Poh (1v9), Mantyasih I (1r12), Hujung Galuh (1v11), Turu Mangambil (A6), Kaladi (8v6) and Barahasrama (1v6).Exceptional notes for this figure: 1) in Kasugihan 829 (1v3), the district is attested differently: vatak ayam təas and apparently his function accords to it, hence saṅ pamgat ayam təas; 2) in Kaladi (8v6), he is addressed as dyah ḍampit, but still hold the function vadihati; 3) in Lintakan, pu Ḍapit goes with a Mamrati function.

It is actually written as ḍaṅpit, but Damais (1970: 364) left a footnote as follows: “forme secondaire de « ḍapit » qui est la forme usuelle. On voit, par cet exemple de 823 Saka, quels phénomènes de nasalisation interne sont anciens.”Other spelling variants of this name are dhapit (Hujung Galuh 1v11) and ḍampit (Turu Mangambil A6 and Kaladi 8v6).

1.6 pu Dhanada as saṅ halaran is also attested in the Balitung corpus, namely in Rongkab (1r6 and 1v9), Poh (1v12), Mantyasih I (1r13), Mantyasih III (2r2), Kasugihan (1v4). In all of those occurrences, he is attested as the native of Pandamuan village (the spelling is varied: paṅramvan in Poh 1v12, paṅḍamuan in Mantyasih I 1v13, paramuan in Mantyasih III 2r2). The district is also not always vadihati; some charters have ayam təas instead. Cf. Mantyasih I (1r13), Mantyasih III (2r2) and Kasugihan (1v4–5).

1.8 The combination of toponym gunuṅan and taṅkilan figures as well in Panggumulan I (1v16) and Poh (1v14). In Panggumulan, the suffix -an is dropped, hence only taṅkil. From other inscriptions coming around this period, different villages figure under the district taṅkilan, namely sḍəḥ (Rongkab 1r7), vulakan (Kiringan 1r8) and muṅgu from this inscription (B7–8). In Poh (2r2), however, this toponym serves as a vanua, under the district mamrati.

In the Répertoire onomastique, it is still registered under the old reading version by Brandes, hence muṅga (Damais 1970: 887). A footnote, however, is left by Damais: “peut-être faut-il lire « muṅgu », toponyme attesté par ailleurs.”

1.10 The toponym vaduṅ poh also occurs in Mantyasih I (1r14) and Mantyasih III (2r2). The district (vatak), however, is different. Both figure paṅkur poh, while our charter has makudur. Damais (1970: 677) read it as vaju poh and added this note: “On pourrait être tenté de considérer ce terme comme un erreur pour « vaduṅ poh » mais le « vatak » est différent et il s’agit donc bien d’un autre toponyme.”

English translation: “One could be tempted to consider this term as an error for “vaduṅ poh” but the “vatak” is different and it is therefore another toponym.”

1.10 Besides vaduṅ poh and liṅai (A14), the villages under the vatak makudur are as follows: mantyasih (Kayu Ara Hiwang C10, Panggumulan I 1v14, Poh 1v13), puluṅ (Lintakan 1r12).

1.11 The district of Haməas (another spelling: hamyas) isalso found in Mulak I 1r3–1r4, Kwak I 1r9–1r10, Kwak II 1r2–1r3, Poh 1v12–1v13, Mantyasih I 1v13–1v14, Mantyasih II 1r2–1r3. Under this district, there are several villages: tāl varani (Mulak I 1r3–4, Kwak I 1r10, Kwak II 1r3), kahaṅatan (Poh 1v13, Taji Gunung A12), kataṅguhan (Mantyasih I 1r14), katguhan (Mantyasih III 2r3), ra təguh (Taji Gunung A11). The last three mentioned villages may refer to the same place as indicated by the word təguh that forms the toponyms.

1.11 mandyāṅgin as a personage is attested in Poh (1v13), with an exact origin (village Kahaṅatan, district Hamyas) but bearing a different honorific title: saṅ. As a toponym, it appears in Kinewu (A15: rake maṇḍyāṅin), and Piling-Piling B (A8: rāmanta I maṇḍyaṅin).

1.14 The toponym vuṅkal tpat — that recurs in A17, B13 — appears as both vatak and vanua in Kandangan (A5–6: vanua I Er hijo vata⟨k·⟩ vuṅkal· tpat·, B5: rāma vanuA I vuṅkal· tpat·, B11–12: …vanuA I vuṅkal· tpat).

1.15 The translation for pu saranna Anak· banuA Iṅ ulu kabikuAn· ri taṁkillan· is given as “pu Sarana, native of the village upstream of the monastery of Taṅkilan”. Here, we encounter an instance of an unnamed village which is specified by its geographical situation in relation to a named monastery (kabikuan). This manner of using religious institutions to specify a place also occurs in several inscriptions. Cf. Palepangan (1v12), Poh (2v11) both of these charters using a named vihāra to specify the villages. According to Griffiths in his article on Buddhist monasteries (forthcoming), this tendency might indicate that the religious foundations had a great social importance at that time.

1.17 Instead of rakryan I sira ⟨⟨piṅi⟩⟩, previous scholars read rakryan I sigaḍiri. The apparent toponym Sigaḍiri does not figure in any Old Javanese source. Rouffaer (1918: 155–57) attempted to analyze this personage, rakryan I sigadiri, by linking this charter with another charter bearing the same Sanjaya era, namely the Timbanan Wungkal stone. He took the Lord of Sigadiri as the protagonist of Taji Gunung, as shown in A17 (sĭma paṅanugraha rakryan· I sigaḍiri), King Daksa as the protagonist of Timbanan Wungkal (A5), and then ventured to conclude that both refer to the same person. Our interpretation, however, goes in a different direction. In view of the fact that sigaḍiri would be attested uniquely in this inscription while the combination I sira figures frequently in this text (and in other inscriptions), we focus on the sīma being a favor of the Lords (rakryan) to the piṅhays and vahutas, as seen in the next phrase which mentions the descendant of the concerned officials. Therefore, we expect a sequence which can hark back to the benefactor and the grantee rather than a reading of an unfamiliar name that comes in abruptly and distorts the coherence of the text.

The complete Dutch version of this passage is as follows: “Maar waar in beide oorkonden de Rijkbestierder + Rakryan Goeroenwangi (d.i. «Heere Geurige Wildernis» ; in de 2e oorkonde, zooals boven reeds bleek, eerst verhaspeld tot «Gurumwangi» , en daarna tot «Gurubangi») een rol spelen, bij de eerste in de schaduw van Z. M. Vorst Daksha, bij de tweede als protagonisten voor «den Heere te Sigadiri» — wie deze dan ook geweest moge zijn —; waar in beide de nimmer meer gebruikte Sandjaja-jaartelling voorop staat; waar in beide Śiwa + het Boeddhisme gehuldigd worden; daar durf ik de sluitrede opstellen: Vorst Daksha der eerste moet dezelfde zijn als de Opperheer van den «Heere te Sigadiri» der tweede.”(Rouffaer 1918: 157).

1.19 The expression tan təmua phalani kadadin vuaṅ also figures in one inscription from the Balitung period, Watu Ridang (1v7): tan təmva phalaniṅ dadi vvaṅ. Other variants of tan təmua phalani also occur in Dalinan (4v5): tan tamuA phalaniṅ dadi kady aṅgānnikanaṅ hayam pgat tan baluy and Wurandungan from the Sindok period (6v): tan katkana phalaniṁ dadi janma.

1.23 Apart from the village of poh,district pagar vsi comprises other villages such as: juruṅan (Jurungan 1v2, Lintakan 1r12), kalaṅkyaṅ (Kayu Ara Hiwang A17) — which elsewhere is written as pakalaṅkyaṅan (Panggumulan 2v1, Lintakan 3r8) —, vatu-vatu (Kasugihan 1r2), limo (Wuru Tunggal 1v3) and kahuripan (Lintakan 2r3).

1.24 hino as a toponym of district (vatak) appears several times in the Kayuwangi and Balitung corpora, along with the villages (vanua). Here are the villages covered under this district: śri maṅgala (Sri Manggala I B1: hana sīma I śrī maṅgala vatak hino), śru ayun (Kayu Ara Hiwang A18), siṅha (Panggumulan I 2v2), suru (Panggumulan I 3r5), kinavuhan (Panggumulan I 3r6), varak-varak (Poh 2r3), marumvi (Poh 2r4), tarum bajaṅ (Poh 2r7), galagah (Taji Gunung A24), guva (Taji Gunung A25) and taṅga (Wuru Tunggal 1v2).

In the edition provided by Bosch (OV 1925: 41–45), his reading of the vatak is actually ho, but followed by a suggestion “hino?”

1.26 The half Sanskrit toponym trirava does not figure elsewhere. It might imply a fully Javanese notion of rava təlu or rava tiga, similar to the case of the toponym tiga ron and tlu ron in the Tiga Ron charter.

1.29 The toponym vuatan əmas (another spelling variant is vvatan mās)figures in inscriptions coming from the Balitung (Ramwi 1v8) and Airlangga periods, and under the latter’s reign it is one of the places where the kraton is said to be situated. Cf. Cane (Cd 24–25), Munggut (Left main part no. 3), Kusambyan (c48), Terep I (2r3) and Terep II (2r3).

2.1 pu Puñjaṅ as a vinkas is attested in Plered (4r4). In Samalagi (1v10), Panggumulan A (1v11), Telang I (1v7), Dalinan (2r2), Kubu-kubu (5v2), Poh (1v9), Rukam (1v7), Mantyasih I (1r11), Wanua Tengah III he was the Lord of palar hyaṅ. In Kubu-kubu his name is rendered as puñjuṅ, while in Mantyasih I as puñjəṁ.

2.5 The toponym bhavantan, that reoccurs in B17,might be the krama form of the word bhavana (see Damais 1970: 655). It is uniquely found in this charter.

2.6 Another mention of vanua I hijo is found in Poh (2v14–15), where it is a part of vatak vulakan.

2.17 The toponym hurantan does not figure elsewhere. Damais assumes that it is a krama form of the base word aran (Damais 1970: 86).

2.21 Kern in VG vol. VII proposes to understand the word paranakan as a class of persons born of a mixture of races or castes (Kern 1917: 47). While Zoetmulder in OJED (1982) suggests to refer this term to the Balinese kang anak, meaning disciple of a priest (see van der Tuuk 1897: 27). For the moment, the meaning of this word is still unknown to us and so it will be left untranslated. One thing is for sure, this word is often found among the list of maṅilala dravya haji. It is placed after manimpiki.

4.2 The word pāja that recurs in 4.3 in the form sāpaja is not registered in any Old Javanese dictionary. In view of its function which seems to represent a certain unit of commodity, it might be cognate with another similar word denoting a unit for measuring unhusked rice, i.e. pāda or pada. Cf. Haliwangbang (1v2): saragi pagaṅanan· 1 kampil· 1 vəAs· pada 1, Mamali (1v2): mas· mā 4 vəAs· pada 5, Kwak I (1v8): vḍihan yu 4 bras pāda 1, Kwak II (1r5): raṅga yu 2 vras pada 1, Taragal (1v2): saragi Inuman· 1 kampil· 1 vəAs· pada 1, Taji (3r2): mas· mā 4 vəAs· pada 1, Poh (1v11): mas· su 14 kbo 1 vḍus· 1 pada 1. In fact, in an edition of Rukam issued by Titi Surti Nastiti et al. (1982: 23–28, 36–40), this term actually figures in 2r5: 1 kumol· 1 bras· paja 1, but a note is left for it (p. 27 n. 17): “Penulis prasasti terlanjur menulis garis horizontal di tengah, sehingga da menjadi ja.” Consequently in the translation, the word paja is rendered as pada.

Bibliography

The sigla Br and Na refer to Brandes’ and Nakada’s editions, respectively. In view of the fact that the fifth section was read by Kern and Nakada, both of them yielding rather different readings, for this part I use the siglum K, which stands for Kern.

Primary

[Br] Brandes, Jan Laurens Andries and Nicolaas Johannes Krom. 1913. Oud-Javaansche Oorkonden: Nagelaten transcripties. Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen 60 (parts 1 and 2). Batavia; 's-Hage: Albrecht; Nijhoff. [URL]. Item XXXVI, pages 54–57.

[Na] Nakada, Kōzō. 1991. “Indonesia kokubun no komonjogakuteki kenkyū (IV) [A palaeographical study of Indonesian inscriptions (IV)].” HSRKU 38, pp. 1–53. Item X, pages 3–16.

Rouffaer, Gerret Pieter. 1918. “Oudheidkundige opmerkingen.” BKI 74, pp. 138–166. DOI: 10.1163/22134379-90001649. [URL]. Pages 154–158.

Secondary

NBG 1868. Notulen van de Algemeene en Bestuurs-vergaderingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen: Deel VI — 1868. Batavia: Lange & Co., 1869. Page 60.

NBG 1875. Notulen van de Algemeene en Bestuurs-vergaderingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen: Deel XIII — 1875. Batavia: Bruining & Wijt, 1875. Page 60.

NBG 1876. Notulen van de Algemeene en Bestuurs-vergaderingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen: Deel XIV — 1876. Batavia: Bruining, 1877. Pages III (no. 3), VII (no. 42).

Brandes, Jan Laurens Andries. 1886. “Een Nâgarî-opschrift gevonden tusschen Kalasan en Prambanan.” TBG 31, pp. 240–260. Pages 31, 250, note 1.

Groeneveldt, Willem Pieter. 1887. Catalogus der archaeologische verzameling van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen. Batavia: Albrecht & Co. Pages 366, 373–374.

Verbeek, Rogier Diederik Marius. 1891. Oudheden van Java: Lijst der voornaamste overblijfselen uit den Hindoetijd op Java, met eene oudheidkundige kaart. Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen 46. Batavia; 's-Hage: Landsdrukkerij; Nijhoff. [URL]. Page 8.

Juynboll, Hendrik Herman. 1909. Catalogus van 's Rijks ethnographisch Museum, deel V: Javaansche oudheden. Leiden: Brill. Page 232, item 2983.

Rouffaer, Gerret Pieter. 1909. “Lijst der beschreven steenen (D. 1-116), op ult<sup>o<sup/>. Dec. 1909 aanwezig in het Museum van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van K. en W.” NBG 47 (Bijlage XII), pp. LXXVII–LXXXV. Page LXXVIII, item D.6.

No name. 1911. Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde uitgegeven door het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen: Deel LIII, 1911. Batavia; 's Hage: Albrecht & Co; M. Nijhoff. Pages 238, 248.

Krom, Nicolaas Johannes. 1911. “Lijst der abklatschen, bewaard op het Oudheidkundig Bureau.” ROC (Bijlage 57), pp. 48–61. Page 57, item D.6.

ROD 1915. Rapporten van den Oudheidkundigen Dienst in Nederlandsch-Indië 1915: Inventaris der Hindoe-oudheden op den grondslag van Dr. R. D. M. Verbeek's Oudheden van Java samengesteld op het Oudheidkundig Bureau — Tweede deel. Edited by Frederik David Kan Bosch. Weltevreden; 's Gravenhage: Albrecht; Nijhoff, 1918. Page 80, item 1335.

No name. 1918. Oudheidkundige Dienst in Nederlandsch-Indië: Oudheidkundig Verslag 1918. Weltevreden; 's Gravenhage: Albrecht & Co.; Nijhoff. Pages 76–77.

Goris, Roelof. 1929. “De eenheid der Mataramsche dynastie.” Feestbundel uitgegeven door het Koninklijk Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen bij gelegenheid van zijn 150-jarig bestaan, 1778-1928, Weltevreden 1, pp. 202–206. Page 203 (cek lagi).

Krom, Nicolaas Johannes. 1931. Hindoe-Javaansche geschiedenis. 2nd edition. ’s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff. [URL]. Pages 190–191.

Damais, Louis-Charles. 1951. “Études d’épigraphie indonésienne, II: La date des inscriptions en ère de Sañjaya.” BEFEO 45 (1), pp. 42–63. DOI: 10.3406/befeo.1951.5509. [URL]. Pages 42–43.

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]. Page 50, part A, item 90.

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 10, 14, 246.

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. Pages 40, 52, item 148.

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 II, pages 123–134, item LXXX.

Nakada, Kōzō. 1982. An inventory of the dated inscriptions in Java. Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 40. Tokyo: Toyo Bunko. Page 96, part I, item 104.

Edi Sedyawati. 1983. “Kemungkinan prasasti sebagai sumber data ikonologi.” BA(Y) 4 (2), pp. 16–26. DOI: 10.30883/jba.v4i2.309. [URL]. Page 17.

Barrett Jones, Antoinette M. 1984. Early tenth century Java from the inscriptions: A study of economic, social, and administrative conditions in the first quarter of the century. Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 107. Dordrecht: Foris. Page 16.

Sundberg, Jeffrey Roger. 2009. “Appendix A — The State of Matarām: A review of recent efforts to clarify its history.” In: Caṇḍi Mendut: womb of the Tathāgata. Edited by Mark Long. Śata-piṭaka series 632. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan, pp. 329–362. Page 343.

Edhie Wurjantoro. 2018. Anugerah Sri Maharaja: Kumpulan alihaksara dan alihbahasa prasasti-prasasti Jawa Kuna dari abad VIII-XI. Depok: Universitas Indonesia, Fakultas Ilmu Pengetahuan Budaya, Departemen Arkeologi. Pages 121–132.

Hasan Djafar, Trigangga, Hasan Djafar, Ninie Susanti Tedjowasono, Andriyati Rahayu, Trigangga, Sri Ambarwati, Chaidir Ashari, Fifia Wardhani and Ken Bimo Ramadhana. 2019. Prasasti Batu: Pembacaan ulang dan alih aksara II. Jakarta: Museum Nasional Indonesia. Page 240.