Om!Homage to Śiva! Homage to the Buddha!
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 ….
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.