Wintang Mas II (841 Śaka, 919-10-12)

1r1 The toponym Maṅulihi is quite interesting. It is found in Maṅulihi (line 7), Wintang Mas I (line 3,7,8) and Barahasrama (1v23). Basically it is attested rarely in the clear context of a toponym, often following or preceding a certain function — the most common one is samgat. But, we are sure that it refers to a toponym at least in these two examples: tuhān I maṅulihi pagar vsi (Wintang Mas I, line 8) and rāma I maṅulihi si dadhi (Barahasrama 1v23).

1r3 The toponym vintaṅ mas is only attested in the Wintang Mas I (A3).

1r3 The toponym pastika figures several times since the reign of Kayuwangi, and most likely is mentioned in the context of a religious foundation (dharma). Cf. Marsmu (1v2) kunaṁ paṅansəAnnanya I dharmma rakryān· I vka I pastika, Kwak I (1r4) buAt-thajyanya maṁragā kamvaṁ Iṁ pastika, Ratawun II (1v3) simāniṅ dharma umaḥ iṅ pastika, Pastika (inscribed liṅga) tatkālani sīma bhaṭāra I Pastika(...), Ramwi (1r3) kumonnakan· Ikanaṁ dharmma Iṁ pastika dharmma rakarayān· halu pu catura;(1r7) bhaṭāra i dharmma rake halu i ramvi iṁ pastika aparānanya, Munggu Antan (1r2–3) saṅ devata I pastika. In Balitung corpus, the picture of pastika as a place where a figure is deified emerges. Cf. Poh (1v3) saṁ lumāḥ I pastika, (1v5) saṁ lumāḥ Iṁ pastika. Then, in this charter, the deified figure is revealed, the Great King (1r3). So, the sequence of the foundation at Pastika might be like this: during Kayuwangi’s reign, the foundation is entitled under the name of the Lord of Halu. While in the Balitung period, it becomes the veneration place for a personage which apparently is the former Great King. On the name of the Great King, Poerbatjaraka (1926: 78 n. 2) and Wisseman Christie in her working paper (ed. 2004) argues that it might refer to King Kayuwangi. It is based on the grant made in Wintang Mas I to the villagers of Kapuhunan who no longer had an obligation to the dharma of Wintang Mas. The obligation hence was transferred to Maṅulihi. Even though the name of the King is not attested in the charter, judging from the time when the edict was issued, which falls under the reign of Kayuwangi, Wisseman Christie perceives that it must refer to him. On the contrary, De Casparis proposes that the King in question must be one of Kayuwangi’s predecessors due to the fact that during Kayuwangi’s reign, he was actively granting privileges to the foundation at Pastika.

de Casparis 1992: 484.

1r4 The mention of deity Haricandana in Old Javanese epigraphic records is divided into two nuances. The first one is in the context of veneration of this deity, as shown in Wintang Mas I and Wintang Mas II. The other one is in the context of the oath formula, commencing around the second quarter of the 10th century onwards, where the deity Haricandana is invoked along with other deities and spirits. Cf Air Kali (6r2), Linggasuntan (B22), Gulung-gulung (c25), Waharu IV (5v4), Paradah I (2A28), Anjuk Ladang (C6), Alasantan (3r17), Muncang (c25), Wwahan (C7), Cane (d26), Munggut (4.12), Bimalasrama (11v5), Patakan (A26). About the identity of this deity, it has been a matter of debate among scholars working in pre-Islam Java. In his 1916 article which mainly discusses the Dinoyo stone (D. 113 in the Museum), Bosch tried to demonstrate the link between Agastya and Haricandana. The gist of this inscription tells about a King named Gajayana from Kanjuruhan who founded a temple for Agastya and installed a new statue made from a black marble to substitute the old one made from sandalwood (devadāru). In the course of examining the worship of Agastya, Bosch stumbled upon the mention of this sage in the oath formula from inscriptions coming from the 10th century. He noticed that Agastya always gets mentioned after Haricandana and was questioning why both of these religious figures appear in the beginning of the oath formula. He then came to conclusion that possibly they were once the Great sages venerated in the initial period of Hindu in Java (Bosch 1916: 439). Yet, Bosch still attempted to decode the literal meaning of Haricandana (green/yellow sandalwood) and alluded it to the sandalwood image mentioned in the Dinoyo stone that is possibly referring to Agastya. That point was taken up by Poerbatjaraka (1926:27) to understand the sequence of ”Haricandana Agastya mahārṣi” in the oath formula as “a yellow sandalwood (image) of the sage Agastya”. To all those attempts to link Haricandana and Agastya, de Casparis refuses to accord and referred to Krom’s argument that Haricandana is still a mysterious figure to us after all.

Brandes 1913: 1–2 (no. I), Sarkar 1971–72, vol. I: 25–33 (no. IV)

Bosch 1916: 437–39.

de Casparis 1992: 487.

1r6 pu Cakra as an official of Maṅhuri (samgat maṁhūri) in this corpus is attested in Tihang (1r6). In Balitung corpus, he seems to hold the same function, as attested in Panggumulan A (1v11), Telang I (1r3), Dalinan (2r2), Poh (1v9), Kubu-kubu (5v2), Mantyasih I (1r12), Rukam (1v8), and Wanua Tengah III (2r12). All occurences in Balitung corpus do not give the title samgat.

1r6 The term vandāmi occurs in Wanua Tengah III (1v11) patati vandāmi bhadrasūryya, Hering (A29) I ḍopāddhya I vtəḥ-vtəḥ mandami kaki jurvan, and also in some Balinese inscriptions.Observing its use in Old Javanese epigraphic records, it seems that vandāmi marks a certain function in the Buddhist context, possibly referring to a kind of priest. We note that it always occurs without any honorific (saṅ, pu, si).In Prasasti Bali II, Roeloef Goris observed that the form literally means ‘I speak’ in Sanskrit and suggested it might have been an equivalent of OJ parujar ‘spokesman’. Meanwhile, Damais (1970) suggested about this word that it could be a compound of va-nda-āmi, but this hypothesis seems much less plausible to us. Arlo Griffiths, in his forthcoming article about Buddhist monasteries, provides a fruitful discussion on this term, vandāmi, which comes from the Sanskrit verb meaning “I venerate”. From Old Balinese epigraphic records, Griffiths discerns that the vandāmi holds a lower rank than the upādhyāya, a function that also frequently figures in Buddhist context and is rendered as “teacher”. On why this Sanskrit word was used exclusively in the Old Javanese Buddhist context, Griffiths suggests that it might have a reference to the verb vand in the Indian Buddhist context, which is often derived as an individual designation.

Even though the inscription has mandami instead of vandāmi, Griffiths assumes that it intends to express the spelling variant of vandāmi.

Goris 1954: 332.

The Dutch version: “(Skt: Ik spreek) woordvoerder in de rechtbank? (vgl. OJO parujar); in 209.5b.2: nāyakan makarun ida —; sinds 302 regelmatig: samgat mangirengin — (een Bd function).”

Damais 1970: 573.

Zoetmulder 1982: 2130.

1r6 We find a few other occurrences of the toponym valeṁ in this corpus, namely in the Wuru Tunggal and Tulang Er inscriptions (in the latter one, it is written as baleṁ). It must be the same toponym as valaiṁ which is often mentioned in inscriptions from the 9th–10th century CE. Further observations on this toponym have been made in Damais (1964) under the discussion of the toponym Po-ling being figured in Chinese annals.

Damais 1964: 118–141.

1r6 Notice the absence of tatkāla after the date expressed here, by contrast with the date in 1r1. It seems that tatkāla is applied once, on the dating formula which normally begins with svasti. See Wanua Tengah III (1v7) where we have some calendrical components but tatkāla is only attested when we encounter the opening exclamation.

1r7 On the discussion about pu Ketuvijaya as the Lord of Hino, see the comment in Barahasrama (1v2).

1r9 The toponym vuru siki is also recorded in Poh 905 CE (1v16, 1v19), Rukam 907 CE (1v13, 1v16), Bhatari 907 CE (1v13). Damais records this toponym together with vuru tuṅgal because they are synonymous (see siki in OJED, ‘a unit, one’).

Damais 1970: 583–84, Zoetmulder 1982: 1763.

1r9 In a strict translation, the expression rakryān hino Anakbi might be rendered as: ‘the Lord of Hino, the wife’. To make it sound more familiar, the free translation “the wife of the Lord of Hino” is given. The use of anakbi to denote a woman is common to be found in Old Javanese epigraphic records, as shown in Kayuwangi until Sindok corpora. It appears not only in the gift lists but also as the protagonist one as seen in the Abhayananda inscription, where the wife of the Lord of Bavaṅ demarcated 4 tampah of wet rice field to benefit of the Abhayānanda vihāra (Griffiths, forthcoming). A brief remark on this term is made by van Naerssen when discussing the use of anakbi for the four spouses of the official of kalaṅ vuṅkal in Dalinan (4r12), while in another place, the spouse of Daksa goes with binihaji. According to Stutterheim, this term has its roots from the morpheme bi or vi and is derived in kbi/kvi, anakbi, bibi, and bini, all words to express a woman.

van Naessen 1937: 455–56.

Stutterheim 1935: 458–59.

1r9 rakryān maputu is a unique expression. In this context, it could be understood at least in three manners. First, it might be read in relation with the previous expression, namely rakryān anakbi, in which case it could mean “the Ladies with grandchildren”. Second, it might mean “the (previously mentioned) Lords (who now had) grandchildren”. The third possibility might be “to the wife of the Lord of Hino (who was) a lady with grandchildren". Given the uncertainty as to its meaning, we leave the expression untranslated. In any case, we do not think it is necessary to emend it, as proposed by Sarkar, who was thinking of the word mapatih.

Sarkar 1971–72, vol. II: 195, n. 23.

1r11 The word pitāmaha is considered as a title, possibly of a particular priest, and much mentioned in the old inscriptions coming from the Dieng plateau. The same phrase pitāmaha I hlaḍan is found also in the Ra Kidan inscription. It is always followed by a toponym and no name is given.

De Casparis 1991: 35.

Griffiths 2012: 482, n. 18.