svasti śaka-varṣātīta 796 cetra-māsa dvitīya (2) śukla-pakṣa haryyaṁ kalivuAn· buddha-vāra tithi nakṣa- (3) tra kr̥tikā tatkāla saṁ pamgat· hino pu Apus· manusuk· (4) sīma lmaḥ dharmmanira I saliṅśiṅan· paṅidulnya pataṁ puluḥ pa- (5)t· ḍpanya paṅavetannya nmaṁ puluḥ pitu ḍpa pinanusukkannya savaḥ I śrī ma- (6)ṅgala lān· 1 paṁhli Irikanaṁ lmaḥ dharmmanira paknanikana(ṁ) savaḥ (7) kavaduA-hummā I saliṅśiṅan· săkṣī rāmmanta I sali- (8)ṅśiṅan· patiḥ kalaṁ gusti variga vinkas· parujar· tuha vanuA (9) muAṁ rāma jātaka marhiyaṁ sthāpaka Upakalpa kāyasthā devakarmma (10) muAṁ rāma I śrī maṅgala, I vanuA poḥ kapuA sira vineḥ manaḍaḥha muAṁ (11) vḍihan· mataṁṅya yāpvaAn· hanna Umulaḥ-Ulaḥha Ikana(ṁ) dharmma dlāhaniṁ (12) dlāha pañcamahāpātaka muAṁ saluIr·ni(ṁ) dukha kapaṅguḥhannya |

tithi This word is misplaced both here and in the parallel text of Sri Manggala II. On the latter inscription, 312 commented as follows: Stutterheim fait remarquer (TBG, 74, 19З4 : 86, note 6) que le mot tithi n'est pas à sa place normale (c'est-à-dire après cetramāsa) et il suppose qu'il aura été déplacé par suite d'une erreur de lecture dans le manuscrit (donc de Brandes). Mais sur la pierre, le mot tithi se trouve bien gravé après budhawāra. Il se peut qu'il s'agisse d'une erreur de la part du graveur lequel, ayant remarqué qu'il avait omis ce mot à sa place normale, l'aura gravé à l'endroit où il en était de son travail, soit entre budhawāra et nakṣatra. The fact that our text shows the same anomaly reveals that the misplacement must have occurred in the template from which both texts have been copied onto stone.

Hail! Elapsed Śaka year 796, month of Caitra, second tithi of the waxing fortnight, Haryaṅ (of the 6-day cycle), Kalivuan (of the 5-day cycle), Wednesday, lunar mansion Kr̥ttikā (i.e., on 24 March 874 CE).

That was when the offical of Hino called pu Apus demarcated as a sīma the land of his foundation at Saliṅsiṅan. Its extent from south to north: 44 ḍpa; its extent from east to west: 67 ḍpa. 1 lān paddy field of Śrī Maṅgala was delimited by it (i.e., by the land, for him) as replacement for the land of his foundation.The form pinanusukkakannya is problematic. On the face of it, we have a p-in-anusukakan-nya, so a passive form with pronominal agent suffix -nya, derived from panusukakən which is itself a paN-...-akən derivation from susuk. Such forms normally have benefactive meaning. Moreover, since in the context honorific -nira is used a pronominal suffix with reference to pu Apus, -nya must refer to something or someone else, of lower status. This means that Sarkar’s translation was marked out by him (i.e., by pu Apus) of the parallel passage in Sri Manggala II cannot be accepted; equally problematic is Stutterheim’s translation het afgebakend worden door hem (i.e., the fact of being delimited by him), which implies the interesting idea that -nya could here serve to nominalize the verb, as in Indonesian, but then still takes -nya as expressing the agent, again in contravention of the fact that this text refers to pu Apus with -nira. Anyhow, I don't remember having seen any clear evidence of the existence of such a nominalizing construction with -nya in Old Javanese. Since in paṅidulnya and paṅavetannya, the suffix -nya refers to the lmah dharmanira, and since it is most likely that pinanusukkakannya literally means was demarcated on behalf of so. by it/him/her, I assume that -nya in pinanusukkakannya has the same references as in paṅidulnya and paṅavetannya, while the beneficiary is not explicitly expressed but seems to have been pu Apus. The purpose of the paddy field was as place for the field laborers kavaduā-humānIn Sri Manggala II, the reading is kavaduA-hummā, which seems to be an error. The base is obviously vadvā huma, which in turn must be an otherwise unattested equivalent to the more common term vadahuma, glossed in as a category of functionaries (inscr.). The spelling vadvā huma makes it transparent that the expression probably had a meaning like field laborers. in Saliṅsiṅan.

The witnesses were the elders, the patihs, the kalaṅs, the gustis, the vinəkases, the varigas, the heralds, the village headmen, the custodians, the priests, the officiants, the scribes, the temple workers in village Poh. They were all given vəḍihan cloth and ate.

Whoever disturbs the foundation will meet with great sin, suffering and pain, and disappears in the Mahāprīta hell.

First edited in . This digital edition, from photogrammetry, is based on the new edition in .

196-197 ???2.4.2