MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY

Author(s): J. NOORDUYN
Source: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde , 1978, Deel 134, 2/3de Afl. (1978),
pp. 207-274
Published by: Brill

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27863183

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bijdragen tot de
Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J. NOORDUYN

MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY*

Introduction
If the name Majapahit evokes a picture of a powerful empire politically
and culturally dominating the whole of the Indonesian Archipelago, it
is invariably the image of Majapahit as it flourished in the fourteenth
century that presents itself to the mind, Majapahit as it was in the time
of its great king Hayam Wuruk (1350-1389) and his still greater minis
ter Gajah Mada (d. 1364), in the time of the famous poets Prapanca
and Tantular, and of the sculptors of such reliefs as have been preserved
on the Surawana, Tigawangi and K?daton temples.
This golden age of Majapahit, however, was followed by a much
longer period which, in contrast with the former, has been described
as an age of decline and disintegration. The final chapter of Krom's
still unsurpassed Hindu-Javanese History (1931:426-467) bears the
ominous title "Decline and Fall of the Hindu-Javanese Power", and
is pervaded by the idea that Java's history of the fifteenth century was
characterized by the unmistakably progressive decline of the previously
unrivalled power of Majapahit.

* The research on the subject of the present article was begun in 1969, and
progressed slowly and intermittently in the few spare hours available for it
in the years after that. Preliminary reports on the principal conclusions reached
at the time were presented under the same title, in the form of a paper read
for the Sixth International Conference on Asian History, held in Yogyakarta,
from August 26 to 30, in 1974, and as a lecture at the Huishoudelijk Congres
of the Oosters Genootschap in Nederland in Leiden on September 17 in 1976.
Any statements in the latter which are at variance with those contained in
the present article should be considered as being superseded by these.

Editorial Note: As contributors may remember, it is the Editorial Board's policy,

although not explicitly stated, to give preference as a rule to articles not ex
ceeding about 30 pages in print. However, as the present article is too short for
a separate publication ? e.g., in the Verhandelingen series ? and could not
conveniently be split up for publication in two successive issues of the Bijdragen,
the editors have decided by way of rare exception to place it in its entirety in
the current issue in view of its importance.

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 208 J. NOORDUYN

Some of the external factors which contributed to the reduction of

Java's power and prestige were, as Krom points out, the rise of Malaka
as the new, Muslim emporium in the western part of the Archipelago,
and the concurrent penetration of Islam as far as the coasts of Java,
which induced the commercial towns along the north coast to make
themselves increasingly independent of the old inland centre. A third
external factor was the continuing expansion of the Chinese empire,
which in the first decades of the fifteenth century made its presence felt
more tangibly than ever through the famous voyages of Admiral Cheng
Ho, and interfered in the political affairs of the Archipelago more
actively than before. As a consequence such small principalities as
Palembang, Brunei and the Sulu Islands renounced their allegiance to
Java, their former master (Krom 1931: 427, 432-439).
In Krom's view, however, these external factors were not the primary
and most fundamental causes of Majapahit's decline. According to him,
there were important internal developments which led to a weakening
of the central authority and eventually caused the empire to fall apart.
Already at the beginning of the 15 th century the civil war of 1405 to
1406 between the western part of the state under King Wikrama
wardhana (1389-1429) and the eastern part under his cousin Bhre
Wirabh?mi "was the beginning of the end for the island empire of
Majapahit". Admittedly this war ended with the defeat and ruin of the
eastern centre, so that the unity of the Javanese kingdom was restored,
but this was at the expense of its internal strength (Krom 1931:427,
430-432). Krom considered the empire's increasing weakness to be
further attested by the great famine of 1426; by a certain lack of spirit
and vigour which he believed he could observe in the few works of art
which have been preserved from that time; and by the prolonged and
increasingly frequent dissensions among members of the royal family
(1931:444-446). For instance, when in 1437 an otherwise completely
unknown Bhre Daha became ratu, in his view this possibly constituted
an open act of repudiation of the central authority, and as such again
marked "the beginning of the end". According to Krom's hypothesis
the discord came to a head some forty years later, when rival princes
of Daha captured the old capital of Majapahit and founded a new
dynasty, which Krom called the Girindrawardhana dynasty, although
no more than one king of this name is known (1931: 446, 450).
It was these internal rivalries and dissensions, culminating in civil
war, which in Krom's view led to Majapahit's gradual disintegration
and made its final decline and fall inevitable.

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 209

This view of what determined developments in Majapahit in the

course of the 15 th century has remained the accepted one ever since
the publication of Krom's Hindu-Javanese History. Schrieke, in his
book which was posthumously published under the tide Ruler and
Realm in Early Java in 1957, characterized the course of events after
the end of the civil war in 1406 in one sentence, viz. "What followed
was one continuous process of disintegration" (1957:65). Coed?s, in the
personally authorized English version of his standard work on early
Southeast Asia which appeared in 1968, continues in the same vein
where he summarizes the last century of the existence of Majapahit
with the words "Vikramavardhana's reign marks the beginning of the
decline of Majapahit, a decline that accelerated greatly during the
reigns of his successors" (1968: 241). A theory of complete disintegration
was alluded to by Stutterheim in 1938, when he referred to "the later
Hindu-Javanese kingdoms into which Majapahit had split up" (1938b:
29), and was formulated in 1969, when Teeuw and Robson stated in
the introduction to the joint edition of Tanakung's Siwar?trikalpa
kakawin that in the time of King Krtawijaya (1447-1451) "East Java
was not a unitary kingdom at all, but an assemblage of miniature king
doms under the hegemony of the strongest among them" (Teeuw et al.
1969: 15). Similarly Slametmulj ana, when discussing the period from
1450 onward in his recent book about Majapahit, speaks of a succession
of wars, rulers of different houses coming to power, and unrest and
disorder dominating the country and lasting until the end of the century
(Slametmuljana 1976: 186).
Although these theories rightly try to explain the unquestionable
decline of Majapahit in the 15th century, it should be realized that the
Javanese sources on which they are based are extremely defective. Krom
already complained about their inadequacy. It would even seem as if
he is of the opinion that the lack of data from Javanese sources of this
period itself is evidence of a Javanese cultural decline, where he points
out (1931:447,448) that the Pararaton, the Javanese book of kings,
becomes increasingly incoherent and obscure towards the end ? its
final note is dated 1481 ?, containing information here which some
times proves painfully inadequate.
The available written sources for the history of Majapahit in the
15 th century are, in fact, extremely scanty. Apart from a few contem
porary copperplate and stone inscriptions, they comprise only the three
final pages of the Pararaton, which, aside from providing a valuable
basic chronology, contain not much more than a number of seemingly

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
210 J. NOORDUYN

disconnected scraps of information almost totally lacking in background

material. As a result, much of what ought to have been basic facts can
be established only through deduction and reconstruction, and all the
available material must be reconsidered as soon as new data come
to light.
New information of this kind is provided by the Waringin Pitu cop
perplate inscription. This Old Javanese charter, issued in 1447, was
discovered in 1937, and hence was unknown to Krom when he was
writing his Hindu-Javanese History. It played no part in Krom's later
writings either, and was used only partially by other authors because
of the fact that the greater part of the text for a long time remained
unpublished. The discovery was immediately announced in the 1938
year-book of the Batavia Society by Stutterheim. He was unable, how
ever, to publish the entire text of the inscription, covering 14 copper
plates, here, and he restricted himself for the time being to stating its
date of issue (which is 15 M?rgasira, Saka 1369, or 22 November 1447)1
and the full names and titles of King Krtawijaya and the fourteen
princes and princesses who issued the charter. The complete text was
not published until 1962, when an edition along with an Indonesian
translation by Moh. Yamin on the basis of a transliteration by De
Gasparis appeared on the occasion of the Second National Science
Congress in Yogyakarta.2
In the meantime, however, the incomplete data from Stutterheim's
announcement were drawn on by Schrieke in his posthumous book of
1957, and by Berg in his book of 1962, the Dutch title of which means
"The Kingdom of the Fivefold Buddha". Each attempted a determina
tion of the kinship relationships between the fifteen princes and prin
cesses of the charter (Schrieke 1957:25-65; Berg 1962: 73 ff.), but
many of their conclusions on the basis of these incomplete data have
proved untenable on comparison with the complete text as published
by Yamin.
Schrieke cautiously made the reservation that the Sanskrit epithets,
which occurred in the at that time still unpublished part of the inscrip
tion, might contain information which would compel him to revise his
opinion. Although it is clear from Yamin's edition that in general these
epithets contribute little to an answer to the question of who these
fifteen persons were, in one case Schrieke's reservation has proved
justified. As regards the Princess of Daha, some of the epithets applied
to her provide an unequivocal answer to this question, an answer which

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY

does not agree with that proposed by Schrieke and Berg, however. As
a result, other elements of their theories also lose their basis.
Below I shall examine this and other implications of the study of the
complete text of the Waringin Pitu charter. For this purpose I shall
first give the following list of the fifteen royal personages mentioned
in the inscription as the persons who issued the charter:
1. m. Sri Bhatt?ra Prabhu, Wijayapar?kramawardhana, dyah Krtawijaya
"H2. f. Bhatt?ra ring Daha, Jayawardhan?, dyah Jayeswar?
3. f. Bhatt?ra ring Jagaraga, Wijayendudew?, dyah Wijayaduhit?
4. m. Bhatt?ra ring Kahuripan, R?jasawardhana, dyah Wijayakum?ra
+5. f. Bhatt?ra ring Tanjungpura, Manggalawardhan?, dyah Suragh?rini
6. f. Bhatt?ra ring Pajang, ., dyah Sureswar? 3
7. f. Bhatt?reng K?mbang J?nar, R?j?nandaneswari, dyah Sudharmin?
8. m. Bhatt?reng W?ngk?r, Gir?sawardhana, dyah S?ryawikrama
+9. f. Bhatt?ra ring Kabalan, Mah?mahisi,^y?/i S?witr?
10. m. Bhatt?ra ring Tumap?l, Singhawikramawardhana, dyah Suraprabh?wa
+ 11. f. Bhatt?ra ring Singhapura, R?jasawardhanadew?, dyah Sripur?
12. m. Bhatt?ra ring Matahun, Wijayapar?krama, dyah Samarawijaya
+ 13. f. Bhatt?ra ring Wirabh?mi, R?jasawardhanendudew?, dyah Pureswari
14. m. Bhatt?reng K?ling, Gir?ndrawardhana, dyah Wijayakarana
+ 15. f. Bhatt?ra ring Kalinggapura, Kamalawarnadew?, dyah Sud?yit?
m. = male f. = female + = introduced by sahacarita mwang (see p. 219 below)
See also the genealogical table at the end of this article.

Krtawijaya and the Princess of Daha

First place among the fifteen royal personages who together issued the
Waringin Pitu charter is occupied, as might have been expected, by
the ruling king of Majapahit himself. He is plainly identified as the
sovereign by the lofty titles accorded to him in the charter, viz.

(a 4) p?duka sr? maharaja, sri sakala-yawa-r?j?dhir?ja parameswara

sr? bhatt?ra prabhu,

i.e., His Majesty the Maharaja, the King of kings of the whole of
Java and Supreme Lord, the august Sovereign.

His exalted status is further underlined by a large number of epithets

in Sanskrit, but they contain no indication as to his identity. Even
without such additional clues, however, it has not been difficult to
recognize in him one of the kings whose identity is known from in
formation in the Pararaton. His name, Krtawijaya, and the date of the
charter are sufficient for us to be able to identify him as the King
K?rtawijaya who according to the Pararaton reigned from 1447 to 1451,
and who was the youngest son of King Wikramawardhana (1389-1429),

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 212 J. NOORDUYN

and the successor of his sister, Queen Suhit? (1429-1447) (cf. Krom
1931:447; Hail 1968:93).
This confirmation of data in the Pararaton by a contemporary charter
is important for our evaluation of the Pararaton as a historical source.
It is equally important to note the incompleteness of the Pararaton data
as far as the names of the king are concerned, on the other hand. The
Waringin Pi tu charter is the first known text to inform us that King
Kertawijaya's most official name, his 'royal consecration' name, was
Wi j ay apar ?kramawar dhana.
Dyah Jayeswari, the Princess of Daha, who is mentioned second in
the list of the charter, was supposed by both Schrieke (1957: 55) and
Berg (1962: 81) to be a daughter of the king. This supposition is not
borne out by her epithets, however. From Yamin's edition (1962:6)
it appears that in the seventh of the twelve lines of high-flown Sanskrit
verse (in Vasantatilaka metre) which are included in the charter in
her praise she is unequivocally indicated as the king's wife. Lines 5 to 8
of this eulogy, as quoted below, give an interesting sidelight on her
function as queen in relation to her consort, the king, and to their
joint subjects:

(b B 2-3) Prthv?darendra-duhituh pratim?pratisth?

Lokesa-kesava-mahesvara-srsta-deh?
Yavesvarasya nrpateh parisangrah?ya
sarvva-pramoda-jana-vrddhi-vivarddhan?ya.

i.e., She who is the living image of the daughter of the Lord of
the mountains (i.e., Urna),
and whose body was created by Lokesha, Keshava and
Maheshvara (i.e., Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva),
to be embraced by the King, the Lord of Java,
to increase the prosperity of mankind to everyone's delight.

The religious and magic function of a royal marriage, which was

conceived of as a genuine source of prosperity for the people, clearly
emerges from these verses, which leave no doubt that Jayeswari, Princess
of Daha, was King Krtawijaya's wife, and not his daughter.
This fact, though of little significance in itself, is of some special
importance in that it has certain direct or indirect consequences for the
interpretation of other data from the Waringin Pitu charter, for our
understanding of a number of relevant Pararaton passages, and for the
evaluation of the hypotheses put forward by Schrieke and Berg.

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 213

An example of the latter is the fact that Jayeswari, being the king's
consort, cannot have been the wife of the prince who is mentioned as
fourth in the charter, namely, R?jasawardhana, as Schrieke supposed
(1957: 55). As regards Berg's theory, there is not only the fact that his
identification of Jayeswari as the king's daughter has proved erroneous,
but, more fundamentally, the explanatory principle on which he has
based this incorrect identification ? a supposed structural resemblance
between the list of royal persons in the Waringin Pitu charter of 1447
and a similar list in the N?garakrt?gama of 1365 (Berg 1962:73 ff.)4 ?
has turned out to be unsound at the same time. As a consequence, the
other identifications suggested by Berg, as far as they are based on
the same principle, are left without any foundation as well.
As for the Pararaton passages in question, it should be observed firstly
that in Jayeswari's case, as in that of King Krtawijaya, there is agree
ment between them and the Waringin Pitu charter in that the Pararaton
text likewise contains the information that Krtawijaya was married to
a Princess of Daha. This agreement should be especially emphasized
since it contradicts another hypothesis of Berg's, in which he suggests
(1962: 70) that it was not this Princess of Daha who was Krtawijaya's
wife, but Suhit?, who according to the Pararaton was Krtawijaya's
sister. This alteration of Pararaton information as proposed by Berg
is not supported by the Waringin Pitu charter.
In the Pararaton passage concerned (Par. 30: 3-8), first three children
of Hyang Wisesa, that is, King Wikramawardhana, are mentioned, the
third of whom is:

putra pamungsu jalu Bhre Tumapel, sri Kertawijaya

his youngest son, Prince of Tumapel, Krtawijaya.

Following this, three children of Bhre Pandan-Salas I are mentioned,

the third of whom is:

Bhre Daha, kambil denira Bhre Tumapel, sama pamungsu

the Princess of Daha, married by the Prince of Tumapel, both
of them being youngest children.

These two statements together imply that according to the Pararaton

itself Kertawijaya5 was the Prince of Tumapel who was married to
the Princess of Daha. Since, as was said above, the Kertawijaya of the
Pararaton is the same person as King Krtawijaya of the Waringin Pitu
charter, it is plausible that his wife is also the same Princess of Daha
in both cases, or in other words, that Jayawardhan? dyah Jayeswari of

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 214 J. NOORDUYN

the Waringin Pitu charter was Bhre Daha, the youngest child of Bhre
Pandan-Salas I, of the Pararaton.
As a result, this Princess of Daha cannot possibly have died between
1413 and 1416, as has hitherto been assumed. This assumption had
never lost its hypothetical character, owing to the incompleteness of the
data in this part of the Pararaton. Since most persons in the Pararaton
are indicated not by their proper name but only by their title, it is
frequently uncertain who is who, especially where different princes
successively held the same title. The prefix bhre, moreover, which the
Pararaton uses most often in such titles, does indicate the noble status
but not the sex of the person concerned. For these reasons, Brandes has
based his identifications of such uncertain cases in the Pararaton on
the working hypothesis that each time a death is recorded it concerns
a person who is mentioned earlier in the text and who is the next one
bearing the title in question after the one whose death is previously
recorded (Brandes 1920: 168-175). Since, in the present case, the
previous Bhre Daha mentioned in the Pararaton is King Hayam Wuruk's
aunt R?jadew?, who died between 1371 and 1376 (Par. 29 : 31), Brandes
assumed that the Bhre Daha who according to Par. 31:21 died between
1413 and 1416 was Kertawijaya's wife, although these two Bhre Daha
differed as much as three generations. This assumption was subsequently
maintained in default of other data, though incorrectly so as now
appears. Krtawijaya's wife was alive, and had become the King of
Majapahit's consort, more than thirty years after the above date.6
This implies in the first place that her death should instead be placed
in the next year in which according to the Pararaton a Bhre Daha died,
that is, 1464 (Par. 32: 18). Secondly, any mention of a Bhre Daha be
tween the dates 1416 and 1464 must hence also refer to Krtawijaya's wife.
There is only one Pararaton sentence to which this, in fact, applies,
namely the one recording that "Bhre Daha became ratu in 1437"
(Par. 31: 32).
Much has been written about this extremely brief piece of information,
and a number of divergent explanations have been given. Brandes
assumed that this Bhre Daha was a Princess of Daha who acceded to
the throne of Majapahit in 1437, and was therefore to be identified
with the unnamed queen who according to the Pararaton died in 1447
(Par. 31:35). Krom, however, demonstrated that the latter was, in
fact, Queen Suhit?, who succeeded her father Wikramawardhana on
his death in 1429, and ruled until 1447 (Krom 1916a: 15-22; 1931:
429-430). Consequently, there was no room for another king or queen

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 215

in this period. Moreover, as Krom pointed out, in this part of the

Pararaton the term prabhu, and not ratu, is used with reference to the
sovereign. In default of further data, Krom put forward the theory
that this Bhre Daha was a man who, either by peaceful means or by
force, secured himself a higher title and office in 1437, and whose sons,
whether or not he himself ever challenged the central authority, suc
ceeded in conquering the capital forty years later.
Although Krom was cautious enough to consider the independent
position of this Prince of Daha as only one of a number of possibilities,
this reserve was dropped by later authors. Schrieke and Berg (1962: 231 )
used the term usurper, and Hall (1968:93) stated for a fact that
"a rebellion occurred under a leader called Bhre Daha". Slametmuljana
(1976: 192-193) completes the imaginary picture by taking it for
granted that Bhre Daha, whom he supposes to be a son of Bhre W?ra
bh?mi, rebelled to avenge his father's death, usurped the power, and
became king for less than one year in 1437, Suhit? being restored to
her position as queen in the same year. These unfounded fantasies need
not be explicitly refuted. The way to a better solution had already been
shown earlier.
Schrieke identified both the Bhre Daha of 1437 and the one of 1464
with the Princess of Daha who is mentioned in the Waringin Pitu
charter of 1447, though not with Krtawijaya's wife, and drew the
obvious conclusion that this royal princess was unlikely to have been
a usurper (1957:48).
Berg, on the other hand, ignored the Waringin Pitu charter here, and
identified the Bhre Daha of 1437 with the one who is referred to as
K?rtawijaya's wife in the Pararaton (1962:71), though he believed
the latter to have actually been Queen Suhit?'s younger sister, who
shared the royal authority with Suhit?, just as a century previous Queen
Tribhuwanottunggadewi had a sister Bhre Daha, who, again according
to Berg, shared the royal power with her.
Although this latter part of Berg's theory is unacceptable, as it in
volves arbitrary changes of the Pararaton text, these two identifications
of Berg and Schrieke combined are in agreement with our conclusion
that the Bhre Daha who was K?rtawijaya's wife, the Bhre Daha of 1437
and the Princess of Daha of 1447 were all of them one and the same
person.
Since Krtawijaya, who, as her only surviving brother, succeeded his
childless sister Suhit? in 1447, was heir to the throne during his sister's
reign, clearly his wife cannot have been a usurper in 1437. Krom's

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 216 J. NOORDUYN

supposition to this effect should definitely be rejected. As far as this

princess is concerned, there was no sign yet of the approaching end of
the Javanese empire.
But there is likewise no reason to assume that she became queen
earlier than her husband became king in 1447. Even after this year
she was no more than the king's consort, although she was in that
capacity the most prominent of the royal princes and princesses. If she
attained to this second most important position in the state in 1447
because her husband became king in that year, it is unlikely that she
was a kind of co-queen prior to that year, in Queen Suhit?'s reign, as
Berg supposed. For in that case she would have been higher in rank
than her husband before he became king. It is most likely, therefore,
that the term ratu in this time indicated neither the highest rank nor
a special second highest one, but rather that of a Bhre or Bhatt?ra, i.e.,
prince or princess of one of the parts of the realm.
Thus it becomes clear that the Pararaton note of 1437 says no more
than that in that year the Princess of Daha became . .. princess of
Daha, and should be interpreted accordingly. In the Pararaton edition
the sentence reads:

Bhre Daha duk anjeneng ratu i saka manawa-pancagni-wulan, 1359

the Princess of Daha became princess in Saka 1359.

No other interpretation is possible if the other variant reading, as found

in five Pararaton manuscripts, is used, viz.

Bhre Daha duk j?n?ng ring Daha i saka manawa-pancagni-wulan,

1359
the Princess of Daha became Princess of Daha in Saka 1359.

Our conclusion must be that the Pararaton simply notes the year in
which Jayeswar?, Princess of Daha, attained this rank.
One may ask what the special importance of this fact was for it to be
recorded at all. This question cannot be satisfactorily answered unless
one takes a brilliant discovery by Berg into account. He has shown that
the date Saka 1359, or A.D. 1437, which is mentioned in this note, and
has thus far been accepted at face value, is in fact, incorrect. He pointed
out on more than one occasion (Berg 1962:71, 231; 1969:672) that
the Javanese chronogram, or date-in-words, in this case is different
from the date-in-figures which follows it. The first word, which in such
chronograms represents the units, namely manawa, in the date-in-figures
has been rendered as 9 (presumably because nawa is a word for 'nine').

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 217

This is not correct, however, because the meaning of manawa, a Sanskrit

loanword, is 'human being', and the numerical value of words with this
meaning is 1 in Javanese chronograms. The date in question was,
therefore, eight years earlier, namely ?aka 1351, or A.D. 1429. The
argument is irrefutable, because the syllable ma- would otherwise remain
unexplained and in view of this simple and appropriate explanation it
can hardly have dropped into the text by chance.7
If it is accepted, therefore, that Jayeswar? became Princess of Daha
in 1429, one is struck by the remarkable fact that this is the same year
in which her sister-in-law Suhit? became queen after the death of the
latter's father. It is quite possible that this simultaneity was the result
of a causal connection between the two events. If Suhit? herself was
Princess of Daha before becoming queen in 1429, then this title would
have fallen vacant as soon as she acceded to the throne. In that case
Jayeswar?, her sister-in-law, whose husband was the new heir to the
throne, would have been her obvious successor as Bhre Daha in that year.
We have no certainty that Suhit? once was Bhre Daha, since the
Pararaton only refers to her as prabhu stri, queen'. But this title only
relates to her position after 1429, while before that year, when she was
heiress to the throne, she will undoubtedly also have had a title. Her
husband was Prince of Kahuripan, and her brother Prince of Tumapel,
so that it is likely that she herself possessed the Daha title, the third of
the three most important titles then in existence. Moreover, this sup
position would fill in the gap between c. 1415 and 1429, in which no
one else is known as Bhre Daha.
Be that as it may, it seems certain that Suhit?, on becoming queen,
laid down whatever title she had borne up till then. This seems to have
been the usual procedure on an accession to the throne, as is clearly
demonstrated by the Waringin Pitu charter. Krtawijaya, who according
to the Pararaton was Prince of Tumapel, did not use this or any similar
title in 1447, when he was prabhu: in the Waringin Pitu charter someone
else, namely Suraprabh?wa, the 10th person in the list, is mentioned
as Prince of Tumapel. It may safely be assumed that Suraprabh?wa
had acquired this title only very recently, that is, after his predecessor
of Tumapel became king in that same year. A similar thing happened
almost a century previously. Hayam Wuruk's title as Prince of Kahuri
pan, which he bore during his minority, was taken over by his mother,
who until then had been regent, when he became king in his 16th year
in 1350, as we learn from the N?garakrt?gama (N?g. 2-2).
If it is accepted that Suhit? was Jayeswari's predecessor as Princess

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
218 J. NOORDUYN

of Daha, this again implies that the latter acquired this position in an
entirely regular way.8
If it is assumed that Jayeswar? also was the Bhre Daha who according
to the Pararaton (32: 18) died 35 years later in 1464, it should be
emphasized that she must have reached quite an advanced age. In
1464 she must have been at least 64 years of age, though possibly a
good many years older, since, according to the charter of Bungur of
1367, her parents were already married in that year (Krom 1931: 424),9
and according to the Pararaton (30:37-31: 1) both died in 1400. In
view of this advanced age it is unlikely that her death should have
been antedated ten years, and actually occurred in 1474, as Krom
assumed (1931: 448,450 ).
On the other hand, this advanced age also makes it clear that
Jayeswar?, although she was never sovereign herself, and was only the
king's consort for five years (1447-1451), must for many years have
occupied an important position at court as Princess of Daha, prior to
1447 as consort of the heir to the throne, and after 1451 as queen
dowager (see also p. 236 below). Thus the fact that both the date of her
accession to the title and that of her death have been recorded in the
Pararaton may be attributable to her exceptionally long term as Princess
of Daha and her prominent position as grand old lady at court.

The other princesses of the Waringin Pitu charter

The fact that Jayeswar?, Princess of Daha, according to the Waringin
Pitu charter was King Krtawijaya's consort enables us next to draw
some conclusions concerning the position of a number of the other
princesses listed in the first part of this charter.
As Schrieke rightly remarked (1957:54), the fourteen royal persons
mentioned after the king are each introduced in the text by one of two
different expressions, viz. either by sahacarita mwang, lit. going along
with', or by iniring deny a, lit. 'followed by'. These two expressions are
almost synonymous, and it is not immediately clear what the specific
significance, if any, of this use of the two different expressions may have
been. Schrieke supposed that the fifteen royal persons of the charter
were classified in seven hierarchically ordered groups, and that, in the
text of the inscription, these groups are separated off from each other
by the former of these two expressions. Berg (1962: 73) accepted this
theory of Schrieke's unquestioningly, and both have used it in their
attempts at determining the family relationships between the fifteen
princes and princesses.

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 219

It now appears, however, that this supposition has produced incorrect

results. For it implies that King Krtawijaya and the Princess of Daha,
Nos. 1 and 2 of the list, belong to two different groups, since the express
ion used to introduce the Princess of Daha happens to be sahacarita
mwang. This is clearly contradicted by the fact that King Krtawijaya
and the Princess of Daha were husband and wife, and are hence more
likely to have been indicated as belonging together than as belonging
to two different categories.
Consequently the expression sahacarita mwang, if it has any special
significance here, was most likely used as an indication that the persons
concerned belonged together also in the other cases in which it is found
in the text.
Clearly the results thus arrived at are the exact opposite of Schrieke's
? persons he placed in separate groups are now classed together, and
vice versa. So instead of Schrieke's seven groups, comprising Nos. 1,
2 + 3 + 4, 5 + 6 + 7 + 8, 9 + 10, 11 + 12, 13 + 14, and 15 of the
list respectively, there now appear to be six pairs, each connected by
the expression sahacarita mwang and comprising Nos. 1+2, 4 + 5,
8 + 9, 10 + 11, 12 + 13, and 14 + 15, as well as three unconnected
individuals, viz. 3, 6, and 7.
It is worthy of note that the six groups emerging in this way each
comprise only two persons, and that in each case these two persons are
a man and a woman. Since the first of these pairs (the king and queen)
has proved to have been a married couple, this together with the other
two facts would seem to suggest that the other five pairs were also
married couples.
This supposition is corroborated for three of these pairs in that the
three princesses concerned are clearly indicated as married women in
the inscription. One of the Sanskrit epithets applied to the Princess of
Tanjungpura (No. 5) designates her (in Upendravajra metre) as vast
krta-sv?mi-day?tirikt?, 'she whose husband is overwhelmed by her
abundance of love' (Yamin 1962: 7; c-A-6). The Princess of Kabalan
(No. 9) is described (in Varhsastha metre) as sva-sv?mi-samsevana
k?ryya-tatpar?, 'devoted to the service of her husband' (Yamin 1962: 8;
d-A-4), and nit?nta-bhartr-priya-karmma-k?rttrk?, constantly preoccu
pied with the utmost devotion to her husband' (Yamin 1962: 8; d-A-5).
The Princess of Singhapura (No. 11), finally, is praised (in Upendra
vajra metre) as pati-priy?rambhana-karmma-sll?, 'she whose virtue
consists in acts of devotion and support to her husband' (Yamin 1962: 8;
d-B-5). These epithets leave no doubt that the princesses concerned

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
220 J. NOORDUYN

were married. Their husbands are not positively identified in the text,
but they were most likely the princes immediately preceding each in the
list, that is, the other half of the relevant pair, namely the princes of
Kahuripan (No. 4), W?ngk?r (No. 8), and Tumap?l (No. 12) res
pectively.
Comparable evidence for the princesses of W?rabh?mi (No. 13) and
Kalinggapura (No. 15) is lacking. In the Sanskrit epithets applied to
them (Yamin 1962:9) their charms and physical beauty are praised,
but there are no indications as to whether or not they were married.
In view of the other cases, however, the term sahacarita mwang makes
it likely that they, too, were married, each to the prince preceding her
in the list.
The three remaining princesses, Nos. 3, 6, and 7, constitute a case
apart, since they are not members of any of the pairs in the list, and
are not introduced by sahacarita mwang, but by iniring deny a. Notwith
standing, in the epithets for two of them unambiguous reference is made
to a husband. The Princess of Jagaraga (No. 3), for instance, is praised
(in Indravajra metre) as sv?mi-bratatvonnata-punya-g?trl, she whose
pure arms are raised in devotion to her husband' (Yamin 1962:6,*
b-B-6), and the Princess of K?mbang-J?nar (No. 7) (in Vamsastha
metre) as pati-vratatva-dhva-niyukta-samskrt?, 'she who perseveres on
and is devoted to the path of faithfulness to her husband' (Yamin
1962: 7; c-B-5).
Since all the princes in the list are already mentioned as being married
to other princesses, it can only be concluded that the two princesses in
question were the second wives of the King and of the Prince of
Kahuripan (No. 4) respectively, or were married to a man not men
tioned in the charter, or widowed.
There is, however, one epithet used for the Princess of Jagaraga which
may possibly be interpreted as indicating that her husband had, in fact,
already died, namely that in which she is called paty?valupta-smarana
prasann?, 'serene in uninterrupted meditation on her husband' (c-A-1).
Since smarana means especially 'meditation on a deity', pati... smarana
'meditation on her husband', might imply that the husband had died
and been deified.10
The same concept of smarana or smrti, 'meditation on a deity', is
found in an epithet used for the Princess of K?mbang-J?nar, in which
she is referred to as ?diteya-deva-smrti-sampravarttit?, 'constantly en
gaged in meditation on the god ?diteya' (c-B-5/6). In view of the
above-mentioned epithet referring to her husband, the words 'the god

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 221

?diteya' (i.e., 'son of Aditi', the sun-god) may be interpreted as im

plying her deified husband, so that 'the path of faithfulness to her hus
band' consisted, in fact, in worshipping her deceased husband as a god.
The same may apply to the third princess under consideration, the
Princess of Pajang (No. 6), since in an epithet used for her (in Upen
dravajra metre), namely visista-deva-smarana-prasakt?, 'wholly devoted
to meditation on her special god' (Yamin 1962: 7; c-B-3/4), the words
visista deva, 'special god', may well refer likewise to her deceased and
deified husband.
This way it is possible that the special position occupied by these
three princesses amongst the other royal personages of the list is explained
by their being widows of unnamed royal princes.
The special position of these three princesses also becomes apparent
from a consideration of the number of epithets devoted to each of the
fifteen royal persons. These Sanskrit epithets are all of them in verse,
and are arranged in stanzas of four lines each. Their metre as well as
their number is different for various persons in the list, however. Ap
parently the number of epithets applied to a person is an indication of
his rank. The higher his position, the greater is the number of his
epithets, although only the highest personages in the list differ individu
ally as to the number of stanzas devoted to them. The king is clearly
the highest in rank ? he has four stanzas devoted to him. The queen
is second highest with three stanzas.11 All the other princes and prin
cesses are given two stanzas, except for the three princesses under con
sideration, who have only one. In this respect the latter occupy the
lowest position, lower even than that of their colleagues following them
in the list. Apparently a distinction is made between two different kinds
of ranking order. It may be supposed, for instance, that these three
princesses on the one hand, as belonging to the older generation, had to
be assigned a place among the other members of their generation in the
upper part of the list, but on the other, as second wives or widows, had
to be ranked lower than all the others.
It is impossible to say more than this on the basis of the inscription
alone. There are, however, a number of data in the Parar a ton which
may profitably be compared with those from the inscription and to
gether with them provide more certainty.
In the long genealogical Pararaton passage beginning with Krta
wijaya's generation, which has been partly quoted above (Par. 30: 3-18)
and which relates to roughly the same period as the Waringin Pitu
charter, the Princesses of Jagaraga, Tanjungpura, Pajang and Kembang

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
222 J. NOORDUYN

J?nar occur in this same order. It may therefore be assumed that they
are the same princesses, whose personal names we learn for the first
time from the charter.
In this Pararaton passage, the three first-mentioned princesses are
referred to as the daughters of Bhre Tumap?l and his (unnamed)
secondary wife. It is uncertain which of the two princes Bhre Tumap?l
occurring in the passage was their father. Teeuw/Robson (1969: 15)
believed Krtawijaya was. Schrieke (1957:44) thought the latter's elder
brother was. Neither state their arguments, however, while the Pararaton
itself contains no indication at all as to which of the two is meant here.
Although this is quite an important point, there is no objection to
leaving it undecided until later on in this paper (see p. 236).
According to the Pararaton, Bhre Jagaraga was married to Bhra
Hyang Parameswara Ratnapangkaja, the prince consort of Queen Su
hit?. Since this Ratnapangkaja died in 1446 (Par. 31: 35-36), he could
not have occurred in the Waringin Pitu charter, which was issued the
next year. Both his marriages were childless (Par. 30: 6, 14). This means
that after 1446 Bhre Jagaraga was a childless widow. It is unlikely that
she had remarried and become the new King Krtawijaya's second wife.
This is excluded if he was her father, and improbable if he was her
uncle. Therefore she was most likely a widow in the Waringin Pitu
charter. This would provide a good explanation for her ambiguous
position in this charter, ranking third in the list as the eldest daughter
or niece of the king and the only surviving widow of the late prince
consort on the one hand, but still no higher than a childless widow
on the other.
If such was Bhre Jagaraga's position, it implies that the genealogical
passage of Par. 30: 10 ff. is describing the situation of the royal family
as it was in a period slightly earlier than the charter of 1447.
The same remark can be made with respect to Bhre Jagaraga's two
younger sisters, Bhre Tanjungpura and Bhre Pajang. In Par. 30: 14-16
they are mentioned as being married to their half-brother Bhre Paguhan,
and their marriages as being childless. But in the charter of 1447 there
is no mention of a Prince of Paguhan. He, too, must have died prior
to its being issued.
In the Pararaton, the death of Bhre Paguhan is not clearly dated.
What it says is, "Bhre Paguhan, who died in Canggu, is enshrined in
Sabyantara". This information is given after that concerning Krta
wijaya's accession in 1447 (Par. 32:4). It may be supposed, therefore,
that either Bhre Paguhan died before 1447 and was enshrined after

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 223

that date, or he died in 1447 after Krtawjjaya's accession but before

the issue of the Waringin Pitu charter. Bhre Pajang's death together
with her enshrinement in the same Sabyantara is recorded shortly after
wards (Par. 32:6-7). As Brandes already observed (1920: 192), this is
a clear confirmation that she was Bhre Pagurian's consort (and, we may
add, that she remained a widow after his death).
In the Waringin Pitu charter, therefore, Bhre Pajang was in almost
the same position as her elder sister Bhre Jagaraga: that of a childless
widow, although a daughter or niece of the king.
Her other elder sister, Bhre Tanjungpura, according to the data of
the Pararaton had likewise been in the same situation. She, too, had
been a childless widow of Bhre Paguhan. But she had afterwards
remarried with R?jasawardhana, Prince of Kahuripan, as has been
established above (p. 220), though this is not mentioned in the
Pararaton. This, it may be assumed, was the reason for her higher
status in the Waringin Pitu charter as apparent from the greater num
ber of her epithets. Her second marriage must have been very recent
at that time, since her first husband had not died much earlier than
1447. The date of her own death is unknown.
Bhre Kembang-Jenar according to the Pararaton (30: 16) was mar
ried to Bhre Kieling, who is usually held to be Bhre Pajang's younger
brother, since he is mentioned directly after her, although nothing is
said in the text about this or any other possible relation to preceding
persons. The data from the Waringin Pitu charter are in agreement
with this assumption inasmuch as this Bhre Keling (who is not men
tioned in the charter) died in 1446 or 1447 (Par. 31:34), and con
sequently his wife was a widow and her position comparable to that
of Bhre Jagaraga and Bhre Pajang at the time of this charter. Since
her descent is not mentioned in the Pararaton, however, she presumably
was a relative only by marriage, which means that her position in the
charter was determined completely by that of her deceased husband.
If he was Bhre Pajang's younger brother, his place would be directly
after hers, as it is in the Pararaton, while his widow would also come
in this place, directly after Bhre Pajang, as she does in the charter.
After Bhre K?mbang-J?nar there follow two other princesses in the
genealogical passage of Par. 30, who occur in the same order in the
charter. They are the Princesses of Kabalan and Singapura. In both
these cases again it is clear that the Pararaton portrays a slightly earlier
situation than the charter. In the former, Bhre Kabalan is mentioned
as the daughter of Bhre W?ngk?r, who is the eldest brother of the

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 224 J. NOORDUYN

earlier mentioned princes and princesses of Paguhan to K?ling (Par. 30:

17, 12). Hence the Princess of Kabalan was a niece of the princesses
preceding her in the charter, where consequently the next generation
begins after the Princess of K?mbang-J?nar. The Prince of W?ngk?r
occurring in the charter of 1447 cannot have been the Princess of
Kabalan's father, since according to the Pararaton (31:25) the latter
had already died about 1427. Instead of her father he was, as has been
shown above (p. 220), her husband, who apparently held the same
title as his deceased father-in-law. This Bhre Kabalan died about 1450,
and was enshrined in the same place, Sum?ngka, as her father (Par.
32:5-6).
Bhre Singapura, finally, was the daughter of a secondary wife of Bhre
Paguhan (Par. 30: 18), and consequently a cousin-german of Bhre
Kabalan. The Pararaton mentions the title of Bhre Singapura's husband,
viz. Bhre Pandan-Salas,12 but does not say who he was. The Princess
of Singhapura of the Waringin Pitu charter was married to a Prince of
Tumap?l. There is reason to believe that this was the same marriage,
since, as was shown above (p. 217), her husband Suraprabh?wa had
received the Tumap?l title only very recently. Before him Krtawijaya
had been Prince of Tumap?l until becoming king in 1447. Therefore
Suraprabh?wa may have had another title prior to 1447. As will be
demonstrated in the next section, his previous tide was, in fact, Prince
of Pandan-Salas. The date of Bhre Singapura's death is unknown.
This case is yet another indication of the slight difference in time
between the Waringin Pitu charter and the genealogical passage of
Pararaton 30. Another indication of this is the termination of the said
passage at this point. None of the four princes and princesses following
the Princess of Singhapura in the Waringin Pitu charter occurs in this
or any other Pararaton passage. In default of other data we are there
fore compelled to leave them unidentified.
As may be apparent from the above discussion, the agreement between
the genealogical Pararaton passage and the Waringin Pitu charter is
confined almost exclusively to the princesses mentioned in both. As
regards the princes, none of those mentioned after Krtawijaya in the
Pararaton passage occurs in the charter, and vice versa, with the sole
exception of the prince who is called Singhawikramawardhana dyah
Suraprabh?wa, Prince of Tumap?l, in the charter and Bhre Pandan
Salas in the Pararaton.
This Bhre Pandan-Salas recurs two pages further on in the Pararaton,
this time as the prince who became prabhu in 1466 (Par. 32: 21). Here

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 225

it is the Waringin Pitu charter which is able to clarify certain passages

of the Pararaton, in the first place with respect to this prince, and
subsequently as regards other princes.

Suraprabh?wa 13
For some time before the discovery of the Waringin Pitu charter Prince
Singhawikramawardhana dyah Suraprabh?wa had already been known
from two other copperplate inscriptions, namely the Pamintihan charter
issued on 14 May 1473, and published in OV 1922:22-27, in which
he is the prabhu who issued the charter; and the fragmentary Trawulan
III inscription, published in OV 1918: 170, which contains no date and
in which, as in the Waringin Pitu charter, he occurs as Prince of
Tumap?l and the husband of the Princess of Singhapura.
On the basis of these inscriptions Miss Muusses (1929:209) con
cluded that this Suraprabh?wa was identifiable with the Bhre Pandan
Salas who according to Par. 30: 18 was married to Bhre Singapura and
according to Par. 32:21 became prabhu in 1466. Why he was called
Prince of Tumap?l in the inscription, but Prince of Pandan-Salas in
the Pararaton remained unexplained, however.
This seeming contradiction nevertheless disappears when it is realized
that a change of tides is mentioned in the Pararaton itself. The sentence
recording the prince's accession to the throne in 1466 begins with the
statement: Bhre Pandan-Salas anj?neng ing Tumap?l, meaning "Bhre
Pandan-Salas became ruler of Tumap?l",14 which seems to imply that
this was in the year 1466. But since it is known from the Waringin Pitu
charter that he was already ruler of Tumap?l in 1447, the above
Pararaton clause cannot relate to the year 1466, but must refer to a
date even earlier than the Waringin Pitu charter. This further means
that only a change of princely tides is being referred to, and not an
accession to the throne of Majapahit (because at that time someone
else was prabhu).
After what has been said earlier about Krtawijaya transferring his
Tumap?l title on becoming prabhu in 1447, it is clear that what the
above Pararaton clause records, in fact, is Suraprabh?wa's change of
title from Pandan-Salas to Tumap?l on that same occasion. What we
have here are two chronologically separate facts, the one relating to
1447 and the other to 1466, which have been telescoped into a single
statement, under the date 1466.
This 19-year interval between the two facts recorded in that state
ment is indicated in rather an unspecified way by the first word of the

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 226 J. NOORDUYN

second part of the sentence, namely anuli, 'afterwards',15 which can

now, however, be interpreted precisely. This second part runs: anuli
prabhu ring saka . .. 1388, meaning: "afterwards (i.e., 19 years after
becoming Prince of Tumap?l) he became prabhu in A.D. 1466". In
this clause a real accession to the throne is recorded. At the same time
Tumap?l became a thing of the past.
For it may be presumed that Suraprabh?wa in his turn laid down
the Tumap?l title on becoming king in 1466. This explains at the same
time why Tumap?l is not mentioned in the Pamintihan charter of 1473:
at that time Suraprabh?wa was sovereign, and no longer Prince of
Tumap?l. It is incorrect, therefore, to say, as do Teeuw/Robson (1969:
17, 18), following Krom (1931:448), that Rhre Pandan-Salas "according
to the Pararaton became king in Tumap?l in 1466" (my italics), and to
assume on this basis that after 1466 "the hegemony over East Java
appears definitively to have been taken by Tumap?l" (Teeuw/Robson
1969:16).
There are no positive data on the capital of this king. Strictly
speaking, therefore, his kraton might just as well have been in Tumap?l
as in any other part of the realm, as is rightly contended by Zoetmulder
on p. 65 of the same book in which Teeuw/Robson earlier on express
a contrary opinion. Conversely there is no reason to doubt that the
residence of this king was in Majapahit, like that of his illustrious
predecessors.16

R?jasawardhana
Now that a piece of data from the Waringin Pitu charter has provided
a better understanding of the Pararaton sentence 32:21 about Bhre
Pandan-Salas, this in its turn may help to clarify the information con
tained in Pararaton sentence 32: 11-12, which tells us in rather a
cryptic way that prince R?jasawardhana became sovereign, succeeding
his predecessor, Krtawijaya, who died in A.D. 1451.
One of the difficulties about this sentence concerning R?jasawardhana
is that neither the word prabhu nor any other word meaning 'sovereign'
occurs in it. Brandes added the word prabhu in his translation (1920:
199), while Krom supplied the reason why this addition was necessary
(1931: 448). This reason is that a few lines further down the Pararaton
states that after R?jasawardhana's death there was no prabhu for three
years (Par. 32: 14), which of course implies that before his death there
was a prabhu, namely R?jasawardhana himself. Schrieke was wrong,
therefore, when he repeatedly asserted that R?jasawardhana was not

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 227

prabhu (1957:44,49,50). The word prabhu should, in fact, be added

somewhere in the sentence, but not in the place where Brandes put it.
The sentence reads:

Bhre Pamotan anj?n?ng ing K?ling, Kahuripan, abhisekanira sri

Rajasawardhana,
and is translated by Brandes as:

"Bhre Pamotan became king (prabhu) in K?ling, Kahuripan, under

the name sri Rajasawardhana",

and by Schrieke as:

"Bhre Pamotan came to power' in K?ling-Kahuripan under the

sacral name of Rajasawardhana".

It should be noted, however, that the beginning of this sentence

corresponds exactly to the beginning of Par. 32: 21 about Bhre Pandan
Salas becoming ruler of Tumapel, which has been discussed in the pre
vious section. It should therefore also be translated in the same way, as:

"Bhre Pamotan became ruler of K?ling .. ."

Following the example of the Bhre Pandan-Salas sentence still further,

this means that here, too, only a change of title, and not the attainment
of sovereignty is recorded. Consequently the word prabhu should not
be added in this part of the sentence, but further on. The next word
in the sentence, however, is Kahuripan, and this brings us back to the
Waringin Pitu charter.
The identification of the Rajasawardhana whom this charter in 1447
mentions as the first prince after King Krtawijaya, with the Rajasa
wardhana who according to the Pararaton four years later succeeded
King K?rtawijaya, is sufficiently certain primarily because of the iden
tical royal consecration name, and has been accepted without exception
(e.g. Schrieke 1957: 57; Berg 1962: 89). In the charter, however, Rajasa
wardhana is not called a prince of either Pamotan or K?ling, but of
Kahuripan. It then becomes easy to see a connexion between these two
mentions of Kahuripan, and to draw the conclusion that in the Parara
ton also it refers to the time when Rajasawardhana was Prince of
Kahuripan. In other words, the change of his tide from Pamotan to
K?ling took place before 1447, while a second change of titles, from
K?ling to Kahuripan, occurred after the first, though also prior to the
issue of the Waringin Pitu charter in 1447.17 Evidently the word Ka

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 228 J. NOORDUYN

huripan coming after K?ling in the Pararaton sentence under discussion

is a compressed way of saying "he then became ruler of Kahuripan"
(tumuli anj?n?ng ing Kahuripan, or similar words).
At this stage he was not yet sovereign. The word prabhu should then
be inserted after the word Kahuripan, and the entire sentence inter
preted in the following way (explanatory additions between brackets) :

"Bhre Pamotan became ruler of K?ling, (and afterwards became

ruler of) Kahuripan, (and then became prabhu;) his consecration
name was Rajasawardhana."

This interpretation has the advantage of clarifying the juxtaposition

of K?ling and Kahuripan without any intervening element but a comma,
which puzzled Krom (1931: 448), and at the same time of automatically
dismissing the idea of the strange twin-region of K?ling-Kahuripan,
which was first proposed by Schrieke (1957:31) and repeated after
him by others (Ras 1968: 182).18
An extreme economy of words thus caused three chronologically
different events to be telescoped into one statement under one and the
same date.
The above interpretation of Par. 32: 11-12 only partly agrees with
Berg's (1962: 89). He adds the word prabhu in the same place, using the
phrase angganteni prabhu ('succeeding as p.') from Par. 32: 1, instead
of which one might also borrow the words anuli prabhu from Par. 32: 21,
or tumuli prabhu from Par. 32: 15. Berg's solution for the first part of
the sentence, however, is quite different from the one suggested above.
It nevertheless does not need to be refuted in detail, since it is based
on the assumption that "there is no possibility to integrate the first five
words of Par. 32, 11 sq. with the following four into a comprehensible
whole". It has been shown in the foregoing that such a possibility does
exist. Therefore more drastic measures to clarify the sentence, such as
the ones resorted to by Berg, are unnecessary.
As Schrieke remarked (1957:31), the Pararaton also contains the
necessary data to establish who R?jasawardhana's predecessor as Prince
of Kahuripan was. This was Bhra Hyang Parameswara Ratnapangkaja,
the consort of Queen Suhit? (1429-1447), since he was Bhre Koripan
(Par. 30: 5), and there is no reason to doubt that he bore this highly
important title until his death in 1446 (Par. 31: 35), shortly before his
wife's demise, and also shortly before Rajasawardhana is known to have
been Prince of Kahuripan in 1447.
In view of this short interval of about one year, one would be inclined

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 229

to assume that R?jasawardhana received his new title of Prince of

Kahuripan immediately after the death of Queen Suhit?'s consort.
However, if the Pararaton is right, this was not the case. As was shown
above, R?jasawardhana was Prince of Keling before becoming Bhre
Kahuripan. But the Pararaton records the death of the previous Bhre
Keling after the demise of Queen Suhit?'s consort (Par. 31:36). This
means that, after the title of Kahuripan fell vacant, R?jasawardhana
first became Prince of Keling! Possibly he did not receive the Kahuripan
title under Queen Suhit?, but immediately after her death, under her
successor King Krtawijaya. If this is true, it would imply that R?jasa
wardhana was an important man to Krtawijaya rather than to Suhit?.
This is in agreement, as we shall see, with his family relationship to
both the latter.
It is clear furthermore that Girindrawardhana, whom the Waringin
Pitu charter mentions as Prince of Keling (No. 14 of the list), whoever
he may have been, had likewise received this title only very shortly
before that charter was issued. He probably succeeded R?jasawardhana
as Prince of Keling.

The Prince of Wengker

As the preceding discussion shows, there is remarkable correspondence
between three of the first four kings mentioned on page 32 of the
Pararaton and three of the first four princes listed in the Waringin Pitu
charter. After one has succeeded in identifying these three, namely
Krtawijaya (War. Pitu No. 1; Par. 32:2), R?jasawardhana (War. Pitu
No. 4; Par. 32: 11-12) and the Prince of Tumap?l Suraprabh?wa (War.
Pitu No. 10; Par. 32: 21), the question arises whether the fourth, who
in both sources is called Prince of W?ngk?r, can also be taken as one
and the same person. This identification is uncertain, because the identity
of only their title, which was borne by many people before and after
them, constitutes insufficient proof. There is, besides, seeming dis
agreement between their names. These are Bhra Hyang Purwawisesa
according to Par. 32:15, and Girisawardhana dyah S?ryawikrama
according to the charter (No. 8 of the list). Nonetheless, the conclusion
drawn by Teeuw/Robson (1969: 16) that they were different persons
on account of this difference in name is unwarranted. There is a special
reason for considering the possibility that the Pararaton and the charter
may each be mentioning the same person under a different name. The
charter records names of exclusively two types, namely the so-called
'birth-name' (garbha-pras?ti-n?ma), such as dyah S?ryawikrama in

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 230 J. NOORDUYN

the present case, and the royal consecration name (r?ja-abhiseka-n?ma),

such as Girisawardhana. A few of both types are also mentioned in the
Pararaton, which, however, sometimes also contains names of another
type. These Krom has termed sacral names (1931:448), and presum
ably had some special religious function. Unlike the two types mentioned
above, they have the word hyang as one of their constituent parts.
A well-known example is the name of the king who succeeded Hayam
Wuruk in 1389, whose royal consecration name was Wikramawardhana
(N?g. 6-3-4), but whom the Pararaton calls mainly Bhra Hyang
Wisesa.19 Bhra Hyang Purwawisesa is a very similar name, and ap
parently belongs to the same category as Hyang Wisesa. So the hyang
name of the Prince of W?ngk?r who became king in 1456 most likely
was not his royal consecration name. As his real r?ja-abhiseka-n?ma is
not mentioned in the Pararaton, it may well have been Girisawardhana.
The possibility is not excluded, therefore, that this Girisawardhana,
who according to the charter was Prince of W?ngk?r in 1447, was also
the Bhre W?ngk?r who according to the Pararaton became prabhu in
1456. There is one additional circumstance which turns this possibility
into a probability, namely the fact that the agreement between the two
lists is not restricted to the identity between the three persons mentioned,
but also extends to the order in which they are listed. It can hardly
be mere coincidence that Krtawijaya is the first prince, R?jasawardhana
the second, and Suraprabh?wa the fourth in both lists : a special relation
between these princes, and not the fact that they became king one after
the other in this order must be the background of this remarkable
agreement, since in 1447 the latter fact still lay concealed in the future.
This relation, as we shall see in the next section, was a definite family
relationship. If the agreement between the two lists to the extent that
the first, second and fourth person they mention are each one and the
same person is no coincidence, then it is most likely that the Princes
of W?ngk?r who each occupy third place in his respective list are
identical, too. It may be concluded, therefore, that Girisawardhana,
Prince of W?ngk?r, most probably was the Bhre W?ngk?r Bhra Hyang
Purwawisesa who became prabhu in 1456, and died and was enshrined
in Puri in 1466 (Par. 32: 19).20
This identification implies that this prabhu was the husband of the
Princess of Kabalan of 1447, who, according to an earlier identification
(see p. 224 above), was the daughter of a previous Bhre W?ngk?r,
and who died about 1450 (Par. 32: 5-6). Her death occurred many
years before her husband's, and even before the latter became prabhu.

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 231

This must be the reason why she was not enshrined in the same place
as her husband, as was sometimes the case, but in Sum?ngka, where
her father had been enshrined in 1427 (Par. 31: 25).
The family relationship between the four successive kings Krtawijaya,
R?jasawardhana, Gir?sawardhana and Suraprabh?wa can be established
with the help of the copperplate inscription that is usually referred to
as Trawulan III.

The Trawulan III charter

The copperplate inscription which was published in 1918 as Trawulan
III (OV 1918: 170), because it was found, together with a number of
other inscriptions, in the village of Trawulan, near the site of the former
kraton of Majapahit, is only a fragment. The text begins and ends
abruptly, the only surviving plate being the fourth of a series, as is
apparent from the figure on its reverse side. Because the other plates
have not been preserved, the identity of the king issuing the charter,
the date of and reason for its issue, and its proper contents are all
unknown. The single surviving plate mentions two princes and two
princesses, who apparently had a part in issuing the charter. They are:

1. Mah?mahisI dyah S?witr?, Princess of Kabalan;

2. Singhawikramawardhana dyah Suraprabh?wa, Prince of Tumapel;
3. R?jasawardhanadew? dyah Sripur?, Princess of Singhapura;
4. Wijayapar?krama dyah Samarawijaya, Prince of Matahun.

The importance of this fragmentary inscription lies in the fact that

these same princes and princesses also occur in the Waringin Pitu
inscription, where they are mentioned as Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 12, with
exactly the same names and titles, in exactly the same order, and even
in almost exactly the same part of the inscription, namely the fourth
plate.
This close conformity in content between the Trawulan III and
Waringin Pitu charters is a clear indication that they date from roughly
the same time. Krom's conclusion (1931:448) that the Trawulan III
charter was issued some time between 1447 and 1466 ? which he
reached before the Waringin Pitu charter was discovered ? is still valid
as indicating the two extreme limits, therefore. These were the years
in which Suraprabh?wa was Prince of Tumapel: after 1466 he was
prahhuy while prior to 1447 Krtawijaya was Prince of Tumapel.
The correspondence between the two charters also extends to the
words which are used to introduce the four persons mentioned in the

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 232 J. NOORDUYN

Trawulan III inscription. The Princes of Tumap?l and Matahun are

both introduced by the word iniring, 'followed (by)', in Trawulan III
as well as in Waringin Pi tu. The Princess of Kabalan is introduced by
the word sahacaritra, which may be considered as a variant of sahacarita,
going along (with)', the word used to introduce her in Waringin Pi tu.
Only in the case of the Princess of Singhapura is a different word
used, namely bh?ry?pati, 'husband', instead of sahacarita, the use of
this word permitting us to draw the conclusion that Suraprabh?wa
was married to the Princess of Singhapura according to both the
Trawulan III and the Waringin Pi tu charter.
The agreement between the two charters on this point constitutes
a decisive argument against the opinion expressed by Berg concerning
the Trawulan III inscription (1962: 238-239). According to Berg, this
inscription is not a charter in its own right, but a 'tendentious correction'
of the corresponding part of the Waringin Pitu charter, undertaken with
the sole purpose of trying to change the position of Suraprabh?wa by
giving him another wife, the Princess of Singhapura instead of the
Princess of Kabalan. Obviously, since the contents of the two charters
do not disagree on this point, as we have shown, there is no justification
for assuming that the one is a conscious correction of the other.
The many lexical differences between the two charters, in contrast
to their essential agreement in content, provide another reason why
Berg's view seems unlikely. These differences are not limited to the few
words mentioned by Berg. Almost all the words and sentences in Tra
wulan III, in fact, excepting personal and geographical names and the
few words mentioned above, differ either partially or completely from
those in the corresponding parts of Waringin Pitu. Even a relatively
unimportant word like that for 'birth name' is garbha-janma-n?ma in
the former and garbha-pras?ti-n?ma in the latter. The most conspicuous
examples of such formal differences are provided by the Sanskrit
epithets, these differing in vocabulary and number of verses, and partly
even on the point of metrics. For example, the epithets applied to Sura
prabh?wa in Trawulan III comprise four lines in Indravajra metre,
and in the Waringin Pitu four lines in Varhsastha metre followed by
four lines in Upendravajra metre. It is unlikely that anyone making a
correction of an existing charter with the sole intention of changing
the position of one prince should have taken the additional trouble to
construct a large number of entirely new Sanskrit verses.
If the data contained in Trawulan III can be taken seriously, there
fore, this must apply also to the words defining the family relationship

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 233

between Suraprabh?wa and the then king in it. These words consist
of a Sanskrit compound, tadantik?tmaja, followed by the Old Javanese
clause pamungsu putra sir a tkap sn mah?r?ja. The meaning of the Old
Javanese clause is obviously: "he is the youngest son of His Majesty".
This has been the interpretation of most writers on the subject (Krom
1931:448; Teeuw/Robson 1969: 15), although the order of the words
pamungsu putra is unusual; but this may be attributable to the need
for special emphasis.
The meaning of the Sanskrit compound, however, is less clear. While
tad- may be translated with 'his' in this context, and -?tmaja means
'son', the central part of the compound has been interpreted in various
ways. Krom (1920: 154) opted for the rather doubtful Sanskrit word
antik?, 'elder sister', which, according to Monier-Williams' Sanskrit
English dictionary, s.v., is only to be found in Indian lexicons as occur
ring in the theatrical language, and perhaps is a corruption of attik?,
which itself is a similarly doubtful word (ibidem). Berg went one step
further, assuming a non-existent masculine form antika, 'elder brother',
and explaining that the compiler of the charter was "not entirely expert
in the field of language" (1962: 239). One wonders, however, why this
man, if he was able to find an unusual word like antik?, was unable
to use the obvious word for 'elder brother or sister', agrajal-?. One also
wonders why, if he intended 'brother', he should have concealed this
intention by using words which do not allow us to decide whether
'brother' or 'sister' is meant. One finally wonders why the Sanskrit com
pound should convey something different from what is expressed in the
Old Javanese clause following it. As is well known, some Old Javanese
charters follow the custom of giving an important expression first in
Sanskrit, and then, by way of explanation, in Javanese, thus, in fact,
saying the same thing twice, but in different languages.21 That is what
one would also expect in the passage under discussion in Trawulan III.
Instead of suspecting the writer of the charter of doubtful competence
in order to come to an interpretation that is still unsatisfactory, it seems
more plausible to assume incompetence on the part of the copyist of
the inscription and conjecture an error of one letter, namely the i,
substitution of which by an a would produce the entirely correct word
tadantak?tmaja, meaning 'his final, last, i.e., youngest son'.22 This con
jecture would thus confirm the conclusion reached on the basis of the
Old Javanese clause that Suraprabh?wa was the youngest son of the
ruling king.
The fact that this king had a youngest son of course implies that he

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 234 J. NOORDUYN

had at least one other child. We may surmise who this other child
was, although this involves going beyond the limits of the surviving
Trawulan III fragment.
The complete agreement between the Waringin Pitu and Trawulan
III charters as regards the names and titles of the royal persons men
tioned in them, as well as with respect to the order in which they occur,
makes it likely that this correspondence was not limited to plate 4 of
Trawulan III, but extended to at least some of the other plates which
have not been preserved. This would apply especially to the part of the
inscription immediately preceding plate 4. The beginning of plate 4
contains a number of Sanskrit epithets which, in view of the exclusively
masculine forms occurring in them, refer to a male person, whose name
must then have preceded the epithets, as in the other cases, and, there
fore, must have occurred in the last part of plate 3. Since, following
these epithets, the Princess of Kabalan is the first to be mentioned by
name on plate 4, and since the person preceding her in the Waringin
Pitu charter is the Prince of W?ngk?r, Girisawardhana dyah S?rya
wikrama, it is likely that this same Prince of W?ngk?r was also the one
preceding her in Trawulan III, and therefore was the person occurring
in the last part of plate 3. This is the more probable since the epithets
accorded to the Princess of Kabalan in Trawulan III include one which
unambiguously indicates her as a married woman, namely sv?mi-hit?nu
k?lin?, 'devoted to the welfare of her consort', and since it has already
been concluded that the said Prince of W?ngk?r was her husband, he
is again most likely to have preceded her in Trawulan III.
The first word of the first line on plate 4 of Trawulan III is maharaja,
followed by a full stop (a p?da), while the above-mentioned epithets
begin only after that. The same word maharaja also occurs as the first
word on the reverse side of plate 4, where it is also followed by a full
stop, and by Sanskrit epithets after that. In this case, however, maharaja
is the last word of the Old Javanese clause identifying Suraprabh?wa
as the king's youngest son. By analogy it may be surmised that the last
part of plate 3 contained a like sentence stating the family relationship
between the prince concerned, i.e., Girisawardhana, and the Maharaja.
And since Suraprabh?wa, immediately following Girisawardhana, was
His Majesty's youngest son, Girisawardhana presumably was His Majes
ty's elder son. Hence Girisawardhana and Suraprabh?wa were probably
elder and younger brother.23
This conclusion brings us to the question of who was the Mah?r?ja,
the father of both Girisawardhana and Suraprabh?wa, and the king

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 235

who presumably issued the Trawulan III charter. Since it has earlier
been concluded that this charter was issued between the years 1447
and 1466, we have on the face of it a choice between three kings:
Krtawijaya, who ruled from 1447 to 1451, R?jasawardhana, who ruled
from 1451 to 1453, and Ginsawardhana, who ruled from 1456 to 1466.
The latter can be ruled out, however, as he himself is mentioned in the
charter as one of the sons of the ruling king.
R?jasawardhana may presumably, though less definitely, also be dis
missed because, when later on in the Pararaton (32:23) his four
children are listed, Suraprabh?wa is not among them, although the
latter is the ruling king at that time (see the next section).
It seems most likely, therefore, that the king who was the father of
Ginsawardhana and Suraprabh?wa and who issued the Trawulan III
charter was King Krtawijaya (1447-1451).
This conclusion has certain repercussions for a number of other
matters. The first of these is the position of R?jasawardhana. Although
there is no direct clue as to his specific family relationship, it may be
taken for certain that he, too, was a member of the royal family. His
position in the Waringin Pitu charter, where he is the first prince to be
mentioned after the king in the list of royal persons, his successive titles
of Pamotan, K?ling and Kahuripan, and the fact that he succeeded
Krtawijaya as king, all this makes it very unlikely that he was not a
direct descendant of the royal house of Majapahit, as Schrieke is inclined
to believe (1957: 55, 57). For once, any remaining doubts are dispelled
by an epithet in the Waringin Pitu charter which unequivocally con
firms that he was ksiti-dharesvara-vansa'samudbharah (Yamin 1962: 6;
c-A2, 3), 'sprung from the family of the Lord of the Mountains', that
is, from the lineage of the kings of Majapahit.24
Although this is rather a general qualification, from which nothing
specific about R?jasawardhana's relationship to the king may be
deduced, there is, in fact, little choice in the present circumstances.
A man who was a member of the royal house and who took precedence
over two of the king's sons, both in the list of the Waringin Pitu charter
and in the royal succession, can hardly have been anything other than
the king's eldest son. Admittedly there is the possibility of a given king
being his predecessor's son-in-law, as was King Wikramawardhana,
though not, one would imagine, when that predecessor had sons with
a right to the throne themselves.
This brings us to the conclusion that the four kings who acceded to
the throne in the period 1447-1466 succeeded each other in the same

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 236 J. NOORDUYN

order in which they occur in the Waringin Pitu charter, because they
were a father and his first, second and third son.
Consequently, the latter were also the sons of Krtawijaya's consort,
Jayeswari, Bhre Daha, who therefore was not only queen dowager after
her husband's death in 1451, but also queen mother until her own
death in 1464.25
A second consequence of the above conclusion concerns the identity
of the Bhre Tumap?l who is mentioned in the genealogical passage of
Pararaton 30 as the father of the Princesses of Jagaraga, Tanjungpura
and Pajang. He was either Krtawijaya or the latter's elder brother,
since they both bore the title of Bhre Tumap?l (see pp. 213 and 222
above), though presumably the younger succeeded the elder after the
latter's death about 1427 (Par. 30: 3, 7; 31 : 24). Since the Bhre Pandan
Salas who occurs in this same passage without any mention of his father
was Suraprabh?wa and was therefore, as has been stated above, the
son of Krtawijaya, who consequently cannot also have been the father
of the said princesses, it follows that the Bhre Tumap?l who occurs in
this passage as the father of these princesses was Krtawijaya's elder
brother.
Finally, we must return to the last four persons listed in the Waringin
Pitu charter, following Suraprabh?wa and his consort. Since Sura
prabh?wa was King Krtawijaya's youngest child, it must be assumed
that the persons following him in the list belonged to the next generation,
and, therefore, were most probably the children (-in-law) of one or
more of those preceding them in the list.
One of the latter, the Princess of Kabalan (No. 9), was the daughter
of a Princess of Matahun (Par. 30: 12-13, 17), whose father was Prince
of W?rabh?mi (Par. 30: 11-12). These two titles are also borne by the
persons listed as Nos. 12 and 13 in the Waringin Pitu charter, namely
Samarawijaya, Prince of Matahun, and his wife Pureswari, Princess
of W?rabh?mi. Since such appanage titles often remained in the same
line (the Prince of W?rabh?mi's adoptive father had been Prince of
Matahun, and his own wife had been Princess of W?rabh?mi before
him, Krom 1931:384-5), it is likely that Samarawijaya, being Prince
of Matahun, was the son of the Princess of Kabalan and her husband
Girisawardhana, who later became king (1456-1466).
No similar argument is available for the Prince of K?ling and the
Princess of Kalinggapura (Nos. 14 and 15 of the Waringin Pitu list).
One of them may have been another child of Girisawardhana, or a
child of the latter's younger brother Suraprabh?wa. Both possibilities

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 237

are admissible, though the latter perhaps a little more than the former,
as it may be expected that the two brothers had at least one child each.
The preceding discussion implies that there were no children of
Girisawardhana's elder brother R?jasawardhana among the members
of the youngest generation in the list, since if there were, they would
almost certainly have preceded Girisawardhana's children here. That
R?jasawardhana had no children in 1447 is in agreement with our
earlier conclusion (see p. 223 above) that his marriage to the Princess
of Tanjungpura had been concluded only very recently, since her first
husband had not died much earlier than 1447. They did have children
soon after this, however.

Sang Sinagara and his children

King R?jasawardhana (1451-1453) is mentioned three times in the
Pararaton, though only once under that name. The second and third
times he is called sang Sinagara, which seems to be a kind of surname.
Since the meaning of this surname is unclear (si + nagara?) it may be
an abbreviated form of S?mi-nagara, as Berg has suggested (1962: 76),
on the analogy of S?mi-ning-Rat, a title given to Jaya-Wisnuwardhana
in the 13th century (Poerbatjaraka 1922:440-441 ) and to Krtawardhana
in the 14th century (Pigeaud 1960-1963 III: 157). There are also other
alternatives, however, such as Singa-nagara (lion of the state') and
Sin?-nagara (radiance of the state'). On the other hand, the form in
which we have this name in the Pararaton was already an old one, since
Tom? Pires, the Portuguese traveller who was in Java in 1513, heard
it on being informed that a former king, the grandfather of the king of
his own time, had been called Bataram Sinagara (Cortes?o 1944: 230;
cf. De Graaf 1952: 138).
It is not stated in so many words in the Pararaton that R?jasa
wardhana, who became king in 1451, and sang Sinagara, who died in
1453, were one and the same person. This identity is nevertheless clearly
suggested in the context as we have it, and any doubts in this respect
would necessitate changes of the text, which displays an extreme economy
of words but is not demonstrably defective (cf. Berg 1962: 75-78).
On this basis it can be assumed that the last sentence concerning
sang Sinagara (Par. 32: 23-25; almost the very last sentence of the
Pararaton), in which his four children are mentioned, also refers to King
R?jasawardhana. This sentence poses several problems of interpretation
and prompts a number of more far-reaching questions. An obvious
question to be asked is: if R?jasawardhana had four children, why

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 238 J. NOORDUYN

was he succeeded by someone else? And secondly, if none of his

children succeeded him, why are they mentioned further on in the
text and in relation to a king who died in 1478? Some sort of political
irregularity is suggested by these very Pararaton data themselves. The
eldest child is referred to as Bhre Koripan, and, therefore, possessed the
same title as his or her father had borne in 1447, probably until the
latter became king in 1451. At that moment, it may be supposed,
R?jasawardhana, like other kings before him, transferred his title to
his eldest child, who thus clearly became his heir apparent. Nevertheless
this Bhre Koripan did not succeed his or her father on his death in
1453: there was no prabhu for three years after that. Was there a
struggle for the succession which was responsible for this interregnum,
and was it lost by Bhre Koripan, seeing that Bhre W?ngk?r became
prabhu in 1456?
If so, neither Bhre Koripan nor any of his or her brothers or sisters
gained the upper hand in 1466 either, when Bhre W?ngk?r died and
Suraprabh?wa became king. Did they organize resistance to the new
king two years later? If so, the effect may be reflected in the obscure
Pararaton sentence about king Suraprabh?wa which reads: Prabhu
rong tahun. Tumuli sah saking kadaton (Par. 32: 22), and which was
translated by Brandes as "He was king for two years. After that he left
the kraton". However, since it is proved by the Pamintihan charter that
Suraprabh?wa was still king in 1473, it is impossible that his leaving
the kraton two years after his accession, in 1468, signified the end of his
reign. Teeuw/Robson (1969: 17) have shown the way out by proposing
the translation: "After he had been king for two years, he left the
kraton", implying that he returned after a certain time, and thus was
the unnamed king who died in the kraton in 1478 (Par. 32: 25). Was
there an initially successful resistance of R?jasawardhana's children to
Suraprabh?wa in 1468? And is that the reason why they are introduced
at precisely this point in the text?
The sentence concerned reads: Putranira sang Sinagara, bhre
Koripan, bhre Mataram, bhre Pamotan, pamungsu bhre Kertabhumi,
kapernah paman, bhre prabhu sang mokta ring kadaton i saka 1400.
Brandes translated it as:: "The children of Sinagara were Bhre Koripan,
Bhre Mataram, Bhre Pamotan, and the youngest, Bhre Kertabhumi,
who was an uncle of the king who died in the kraton in Saka 1400".
At the same time he pointed out in his annotations that the text does
not indicate who was the uncle and who the nephew, the translator
of course being compelled to opt for either the one or the other alter

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 239

native, even though it is impossible to take a decision in the matter on

the basis of the Pararaton text alone (Brandes 1920:200). Berg con
firms this. While taking the opposite view and translating the pertinent
words as "the nephews of the king" (1957:420), he added a similar
note saying that he was not sure of his translation. Schrieke (1957: 57),
and after him Teeuw/Robson (1969: 17), advocated a third possibility,
though it seems linguistically the least probable one. They suggested
that Sinagara himself was the uncle of the king who died in 1478. The
solution of the problem is obvious once it is accepted that Sinagara =
R?jasawardhana was a brother of Suraprabh?wa, and the latter was
the king who died in 1478. In that case the children of Sinagara were
the nephews or nieces of King Suraprabh?wa, as Berg had surmised.
This conclusion is confirmed entirely by a closer look at the Pararaton
passage concerned. In the first place it should be pointed out that the
words paman and bhre are separated by a comma, showing that they
are not meant to constitute a single phrase with the meaning 'the uncle
of the king'. Secondly, if the latter meaning had been intended, the
words pamanira bhre prabhu would have been used in the language of
the Pararaton, that is, incorporating the suffix -(n)ira, 'his', in the same
way as it is used in the phrase putranira sang Sinagara, 'the children
of Sinagara', at the beginning of the quotation; 26 or rather, since the
word kap?rnah, denoting a family relationship, precedes the phrase, the
connecting word denira, 'to him', would have been used, as it is in
comparable cases in the Pararaton, e.g. Par. 16: 16, where someone is
qualified as kap?rnah kaponakan denir?panji Tohjaya, 'who was the
nephew of Apanji Tohjaya'.
Hence the sentence quoted above should, in fact, be read as two
separate sentences. The former informs us that Sinagara's children were
called such and such, and the latter that the king who died in the kraton
was their uncle. The correct translation of the passage, therefore, is:
"The children of Sinagara (were) Bhre Koripan, Bhre Mataram, Bhre
Pamotan, and, the youngest, Bhre Kertabhumi; (and) their uncle was
the king who died in the kraton in Saka 1400". This clearly indicates
that Sinagara and the unnamed king who died in 1478 were brothers,
in conformity with our earlier conclusion on the basis of data from
outside the Pararaton. This conclusion in its turn confirms that the
unnamed king who died in 1478 was indeed Suraprabh?wa, who had
acceded to the throne in 1466, and whose death is not mentioned earlier.
The new interpretation of this Pararaton passage implies that the
text provides no basis for assuming, as has been done repeatedly, that

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 240 J. NOORDUYN

Sinagara's youngest son Bhre K?rtabhumi became king in 1468 or 1474.

This idea was first put forward by Miss Muusses (1929:210), who
tentatively identified him with Suraprabh?wa, advancing the rather
weak argument that both are explicitly mentioned as a youngest son
(in the Pararaton and Trawulan III charter respectively), and it was
indicated by Krom as a possibility (1931:449). It was put forward
again in a revised form by Slametmuljana (1968:41; 1976: 196,238).
He presented it as a certainty since, according to him, Bhre K?rtabhumi
is mentioned as King Kung To Bu Mi of Majapahit in what he calls
the Chinese Chronicles of Semarang, for which he refers to a book
published about 1964 by M. O. Parlindungan. As Parlindungan claims
that what he published (1964:650-664) is based on Dutch extracts
from these chronicles, while the whereabouts of the Chinese originals
are unknown, it is impossible to check these assertions. Now that the
theory that Bhre K?rtabhumi became king of Majapahit in these years
turns out not to be corroborated by the Pararaton, this seems a decisive
argument against the authenticity of these Chinese chronicles, rather
than the alleged contents of these chronicles serving as support for the
theory. The theory was a weak one from the start, for that matter, as
it seems most unlikely that anyone would succeed to the throne while
his three elder brothers were still alive.
A second Old Javanese source mentioning Sinagara's children has
become available recently with Zoetmulder's publication (1974: 506-507)
of the text of the poem entitled Banawa S?kar, 'Flower Boat', which is
one of the shorter works of Tanakung, the mid-15 th century Javanese
poet mentioned earlier (see note 16). It is a typically occasional poem,
describing the magnificent gifts presented by several princely persons
on the occasion of a grand funeral festival (sr?ddha) held in honour
of a deceased king (prabhu) whose posthumous name was sang mokta
maluy ing Somy?laya, 'Released in the Somya heaven'. It is unknown
which king bore this posthumous name, but the poem does mention the
titles of the princely persons making the gifts, namely Krtabh?mi, Mata
ram, Pamotan, Las?m and Kahuripan. Apart from that of Las?m, these
are exactly the same titles, mentioned in exactly the same order, moreover,
(though starting from the youngest) as those of Sinagara's children in
the Pararaton. Hence one can be reasonably sure that these personages
featuring in Tanakung's poem were the children of Sinagara.
As regards the question of whether they were his sons or daughters,
the poem contains some clues, though not decisive ones, pointing to the
former possibility. In the first place, the persons concerned were all

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 241

married and accompanied by their consorts, dampati, at the festival

(line l.l.d). Though this word does not actually indicate the sex of the
consort, it is used most often in the sense of 'together with his wife'.
Secondly, it is said at the end of the poem (line 3.1.a) that the gifts
which were presented by the royal personages aroused the love {kung) of
the girls (adyah) present, and one would think that girls may have been
mentioned here because the gifts came from male persons. These ad
mittedly meagre indications may be considered nevertheless as pointing
to the likelihood that Sinagara's children were all of them male persons,
and in any case as sufficiently strong to regard them as such at least
for the sake of convenience.
In the opening line of his poem the poet informs us that the sr?ddha
festival was held or arranged (winangun) by the Prince of J?wana, that
is, the Prince of Kahuripan, or Bhre Koripan, the eldest son of King
Sinagara (J?wana being a well-known alternative Sanskrit name for
Kahuripan), Since such sr?ddha were given by the direct descendant(s)
of the deceased, the conclusion seems warranted that the prabhu with
the posthumous name sang mokta ing Somy?laya for whom this sr?ddha
was held by Sinagara's sons was the latter's father, King Sinagara
himself.
The last, and highest, personage mentioned as participating in the
festival, who presented the beautiful flower boat as his gift, was the king,
srl n?tha prabhu (line 2.1.a).27 Though no name of this king is men
tioned, it seems most likely that he was the successor of the King
Sinagara whose sr?ddha he attended, that is, King Gir?sawardhana,
who acceded to the throne in 1456, three years after Sinagara's death,
and reigned until 1466. If it was this king who was present at the
festival, it cannot have been held immediately after Sinagara's demise
because of the three kingless years after Sinagara's death, and may
therefore have been the great concluding sr?ddha, the pasraddhan
agung (Par. 29:27), or sr?ddha w?kasan (N?g. 63-2-2) or samp?rna
(cf. the next section), which was held 12 years after a person's demise,
hence in this case in 1465. Perhaps this is the reason why the festival
is designated the mah?sr?ddha ('the great i.') at the end of the poem
(line 3.1.c).
If the main points of this historical setting of Tanakung's poem are
acceptable, then the most important general conclusion which may be
drawn from it is that at the time of this festival there apparently was
no conflict whatsoever between the then king and the sons of his pre
decessor, King Sinagara. The fact that he attended his predecessor's

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 242 J. NOORDUYN

funeral festival and was the most distinguished participant in it does

not accord with the theory that he had seized the power in an irregular
way and to the prejudice of Sinagara's sons, let alone that there had
been a civil war at the time of King Sinagara, or that the latter had
been killed in a rebellion against him, as Schrieke (1957:65) has con
tended, without supporting this with arguments, however. It seems that
at least one of our earlier questions regarding the possible occurrence
of irregularities must thus be answered in the negative. The reason why
Sinagara's eldest son did not succeed his father on his death, or three
years later, may have been simply that he was still considered too young.
If we are right in contending that Sinagara's children are not mentioned
in the Waringin Pi tu charter of 1447 because they were not yet born
at that time, his eldest son must have been 6 years old at most when
his father died in 1453, and 9 when his uncle Gir?sawardhana ascended
the throne in 1456. It nonetheless remains obscure why he was still
excluded from the succession on his uncle's death in 1466.
This seems to be a crucial question, and in order to get a possible
answer to it we must return to the Pararaton passage (32: 21-25) about
King Suraprabh?wa and Sinagara's sons. Although the interpretation
of this passage arrived at above is not incorrect from a linguistic point
of view, it nonetheless raises several as yet unclarified questions. Ac
cording to this interpretation the king left his kraton after two years.
It leaves us in the dark as to why he did so, however. He must have
afterwards returned to the kraton, since it is expressly stated that he
died in it; but we are not explicitly told that he returned, let alone
when. Instead, the sons of the former King Sinagara are introduced
suddenly, and for no apparent reason.
All these obscurities are eliminated if we opt for another interpre
tation and assume that it was not King Suraprabh?wa who left the
kraton in 1468, but his nephews, the sons of Sinagara. If this is what
did happen, in fact, the question of why the king left his kraton and
when and why he returned to it need not be answered, because he
never left his residence. Secondly, the reason why Sinagara's sons are
introduced at this point becomes clear: they left the kraton in which
their uncle resided as king. And thirdly, their reason for leaving, although
it is not mentioned in the text, is not far to seek. The departure of royal
princes from the kraton can mean only one thing in a Javanese context:
it is tantamount to an open declaration of disloyalty to the king. In the
present case the basic reason for this disloyalty must have been that
Sinagara's sons, especially the eldest, the Prince of Kahuripan, had a

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 243

greater right to the throne than their uncle Suraprabh?wa, since they
were the sons of his eldest brother. In their eyes Suraprabh?wa must
have been a usurper who refused to cede the throne which was their
birthright to them.
Although the text of the Pararaton passage concerned is not un
ambiguous in this respect, it definitely admits of an interpretation which
is in accordance with the above assumption. In that case only the full
stop after the word kadaton (Par. 32: 22) needs to be deleted, and the
resultant sentences .. . Prabhu rong tahun. Tumuli sah saking kadaton
putranira sang Sinagara ... translated as "(Suraprabh?wa) was king
for two years. Then the sons of Sinagara left the kraton ...".
This translation is no more than a possibility, however. It would
have been a certainty if the text had read, for instance: Tumuli putra
nira sang Sinagara sah saking kadaton. Although the inversion of
subject and predicate is very common in the Pararaton, and though
tumuli usually introduces a new topic, so that accordingly a new subject
may be expected after it, it cannot be denied that it is also possible
for the previous subject, namely 'the king' in this case, to be the subject
of the following verb, i.e., 'left' (the kraton). Hence it cannot be decided
with certainty from a purely linguistic interpretation of this Pararaton
passage whether it was the king or Sinagara's sons who left the kraton.
We are forced to leave the matter undecided, therefore, though the
interpretation suggested here offers the marked advantage of making
the whole passage much more comprehensible and leaving none of our
earlier questions unanswered.
Thus there is at least the possibility that the Pararaton is informing
us of an incipient rebellion of Sinagara's sons against King Suraprabh?wa
here. But it remains unknown whether their action had any further
consequences, or whether any of them succeeded their uncle after the
latter's death in 1478. The Pararaton has nothing to say on the subject
because this text nearly ends at this point and mentions no further
kings.
There definitely were Hindu-Javanese kings after 1478, however, as
we know from the P?tak and Trailokyapuri stone inscriptions of 1486,
as well as from information by Tom? Pires. The latter was told that
Sinagara was succeeded by his son Bataram Mataram (i.e., Bhre Ma
taram), and the latter by Batara Vigiaya (i.e., Bhra Wijaya, which
according to later Javanese tradition was the name of the last king of
Majapahit), the ruling king at the time Pires visited Java in 1513
(Gortesao 1944: 230).

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 244 J. NOORDUYN

The P?tak and Trailokyapuri charters

The four charters issued in A.D. 1486 have long been known as the
Dukuhan Duku(h) and the Jiyu or Mojojejer stone inscriptions, after
the villages to the south of Mojosari where they were found. They are
referred to in the present article as the P?tak and the Trailokyapuri I,
II and III charters, following the system introduced by Damais (1952:
8-9), which more appropriately uses the names of the principal villages
mentioned in the charters themselves.28
They are of special importance for the political history of Java in
that they testify that there was a Hindu-Javanese king of Majapahit
well after 1478, the year adopted by later Javanese tradition as that of
the final fall and destruction of Majapahit by Muslim conquerors. They
clearly demonstrate that this tradition cannot be based on historical fact,
therefore. In the second place they are of interest insofar as they have
given rise to the alternative theory, first propounded by Adinegoro
(1915:29-32) and later confirmed by Krom, that Majapahit was
conquered by Hindu-Javanese rebels at about this date.
Since they are the only contemporary Javanese documents from the
last quarter of the 15 th century, and there are no texts comparable to
the Pararaton which may be turned to for an elucidation of the isolated
pieces of information which these inscriptions contain, while the
Waringin Pitu charter is likewise of little help here, the inscriptions
of 1486 remain the sole basis for the history of this period. If some new
evidence is available nevertheless, it is provided by the texts of these
inscriptions themselves.
The texts have been made available in Brandes' transliterations, which
were posthumously published by Krom (1913: 213-226) as OJO 91-95.
But this posthumous work of Brandes' is clearly unfinished and incom
plete, and even contains doubtful readings,29 while the texts as published
by Yamin (1962-1964 11:233-256) show only a few improvements,
based on new readings made available to him by De Gasparis. There
fore, in order to have a satisfactory basis for the discussion in the present
section, I have made new transliterations of all four of the inscriptions,
as completely as the writing on the stones allowed, using new rubbings,
which were prepared in 1976 in the Archaeological Museum at Mojo
kerto, where the four stones of the Trailokyapuri I, II and IIIa,b
inscriptions are kept as Nos. 123, 61, 432, and 403, and at the desa of
K?mbang Sore, where the P?tak inscription still exists in the padukuhan
(hamlet) of Dukuh.30 The new transliterations contain a number of
amended or additional readings, some of which compel us to reconsider

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 245

earlier interpretations and theories. As a whole, however, the inscriptions

remain isolated documents, leaving many questions unanswered. For
instance, they contain the names of several kings and princes without
providing information on their relationship to members of the royal
family known from other sources.
The P?tak and Trailokyapuri I charters were issued by a king (bna
tura prabhu) called srl Girindrawardhana dyah Ranawijaya, and the
Trailokyapuri III charter by a prince called srl Girindrawardhana srl
Singhawardhana dyah Wijayakusuma. Krom called them members of
a Girindrawardhana dynasty because they shared this name. The term
'dynasty' seems less appropriate, however, since Ranawijaya is the only
king known from this 'dynasty'. Wijayakusuma was Prince of K?ling
(srl maharaja bhatt?re Kling), according to his charter, and ? whether
he was the king's brother or son (Krom 1931:451) ? never himself
became king, as can be inferred with sufficient certainty from the
Trailokyapuri III charter.
This inscription records Wijayakusuma's order for a royal charter
(ha jipros ?sti) to be drawn up, provided with the Girindrawardhana
seal and copied on copper, palm-leaf or stone (umunggw i salah sikya
ning tamrariptopala), to the effect that the villages of Sawek, Pung,
Talasan and Batu were granted to His Eminence the court priest, srl
Brahmar?ja Ganggadhara, to serve as a temple foundation (sima
paryangan) referred to as the sacred religious domain (sang hyang
dharma) of Trailokyapuri, which would be an abode (pratista) for
the holy sage Bharadhwaja and for the god (srl bhatt?ra) R?ma. The
inscription then goes on to say that the boundary posts protecting the
eight quarters (tugu astadikparip?na) had already been put up (tinan
j?ngan) and the order already been written on copperplates (uwus
handika tambra), when suddenly the prince died, lit. 'was unexpectedly
overtaken by his return to the Siwa heaven' (mogha sir a k?langan
umantuk ing S iw ab haw ana). Since the prince's grant was cut short
(tan tulus klrty?nugraha srl maharaja) by his death, the beneficiary,
Brahmar?ja, was requesting the help of King Ranawijaya through the
intermediary of the great brahmin Madhaw?c?rya and the patih Ma
h?w?rottama Pu Wahan.31 The King thereupon confirmed the grant
of Prince Singhawardhana by issuing a royal charter provided with
the Girindrawardhana seal.
It is obvious from the text of the inscription that the sudden death
of Prince Singhawardhana dyah Wijayakusuma, who initiated the
Trailokyapuri land grant, occurred while he was Prince of K?ling, and

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 246 J. NOORDUYN

that he cannot therefore ever have become prabhu, even if he had the
right to eventually succeed King Ranawijaya.
Where the inscription mentions that the king confirmed the prince's
grant, the latter's relationship to that king is indicated by a term which
unfortunately cannot be explained with sufficient certainty. This term
was read by Brandes as harananira, a word which would seem to be
made up of haranan, from haran, name', plus the suffix -an, and ira,
'his', but such a word haranan is unknown. Other readings are also
possible, however, since the shapes of the characters for na and ka are
so alike, and even overlapping in these inscriptions of 1468, that it is
impossible to distinguish between them solely on the basis of their
palaeographical form. Therefore one or both n's of harananira may also
be read as k. The reading harakakira does not yield any sensible result;
haranakira, on the other hand, seems to contain the word ranak, 'son',
and harakanira the word raka, 'elder brother'. In both cases, however,
we are left with a superfluous initial syllable ha-, while even if this
syllable could be explained, we would still be left with the choice
between 'son' and 'elder brother'.
Be that as it may, the Prince of K?ling's relationship to the king
clearly was a close one. Though not a king himself, he apparently was
able to issue a king's charter provided with the Girindrawardhana seal,
that is, the seal which bore the consecration name of the prahhu, who
would normally be the only person entitled to issue such charters.
Admittedly the Prince of K?ling may possibly have had the right to use
this royal seal because Girindrawardhana was also one of his own con
secration names. But this fact itself again points to a close relationship
to the king. That he had two different consecration names, Girindra
wardhana and Singhawardhana, and that one of these was the same
as that of the king are two quite striking peculiarities, the reasons for
which are unknown, but which must have been very relevant for his
special relation to the king, distinguishing him from the other royal
princes. The inscription informs us that there were, in fact, several royal
princes (or princesses) in the passage where they are referred to col
lectively as sri paduka bhatt?ra to all of whom was offered (samudaya
samenaturan) 2l gift of 5 pieces of gold, over against the 10 received
by the king and the 3 by the patih and other functionaries.
It seems most likely that the royal prince who enjoyed this special
position was the king's eldest son and heir apparent, who, however, was
prevented from succeeding his father by his early death. Here, then,
we would have some justification for using the term Girindrawardhana

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 247

'dynasty', namely for something perhaps intended by the king, provided

there really had been discontinuity in the hereditary succession of the
Majapahit kings. But this does not seem to have been the case.
Girindrawardhana is also found in the Waringin Pi tu charter as the
royal consecration name of the Prince of K?ling Girindrawardhana dyah
Wijayakarana (No. 14 of the list). This does not imply that this Prince
of K?ling of 1447 can be identified with either the King or the Prince
of K?ling bearing the name Girindrawardhana in 1486, as Berg (1962:
88) tried to do. Apart from Berg's error in stating that Ranawijaya was
Prince of K?ling, the second names of the three Girindrawardhanas are
neither the same nor synonymous. This is decisive for establishing their
identity as three different individuals. On the other hand, the occurrence
of the name Girindrawardhana in the earlier inscription shows that it
was by no means an innovation monopolized by the king and prince
of 1486, so that it cannot be taken as an indication that King Girindra
wardhana was the founder of a new dynasty, as Berg did when
explaining the name as meaning "New Sailendra", or "successor to the
Sailendra kings" (1969: 356, 654). On the contrary, it is an indication
rather of continuity in the royal family of those times, while the name
may perhaps even be connected with the term Girindrawangsa, 'the
Line of the Lord of the Mountain', used to designate the royal house
of Majapahit.
The thesis that a successful rebellion had taken place is founded on
the P?tak inscription. In it mention is made of a war against Majapahit
(yuddha lawan ing Majapahit), and of King Girindrawardhana's
favourable attitude towards those who had successfully launched the
attack. According to Krom's interpretation (1931:450) it was Girin
drawardhana himself who, as a prince of Daha, had attacked and
conquered Majapahit, ousted the king, and established his own dynasty.
Krom proposed as date for this event the year 1478, assuming that
later Javanese tradition had re-interpreted the event but preserved
the date.
However, several of Krom's suppositions must be called into question.
In the first place, Daha is not mentioned in the inscription at all. The
person who launched the attack is called in it sang munggw ing Jinggan,
which means literally "he who resides in Jinggan". Though this expres
sion is perhaps not unambiguous,32 it may most obviously be interpreted
as "the Lord of Jinggan", on the analogy of such expressions as sang
munggw ing Lasern, which is used in the N?garakrt?gama (5-1-2) as

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 248 J. NOORDUYN

a designation for the Princess of Lasern. It is not known who this Lord
of Jinggan was, however.
On the other hand, his victory is referred to by a term, kadigwijayan,
which is used in the N?garakrt?gama to describe the "world-conquering
rule" of King Hayam Wuruk (N?g. 94-2-2), and which therefore seems
to imply that after his victory this Lord of Jinggan became King of
Majapahit.
In the second place, the contents of the inscription leave no doubt
that it was not Girindrawardhana who became king immediately after
this victory. The inscription is, in fact, a confirmation by King Girin
drawardhana of a grant by an earlier king to the above-mentioned
priest Brahmar?ja Ganggadhara because the latter had "promoted (by
magical means?) the world conquest of he who resided in Jinggan when
engaged in war against Majapahit" (hamrih kadigwijayan ira sang
munggw ing Jinggan duk ayunayunan y?dha lawan ing Majapahit) ,33
This priestly assistance is mentioned in so many words as the reason
for the original grant, namely the desa P?tak, also called Sumanggala
pura, which was bestowed on Brahmar?ja by two persons who are
indicated by their posthumous names (unknown from elsewhere) as
sang mokta ring Amrtt?wisesalaya34 and sang mokteng Mah?laya
hhawana. The first, on account of his title hhat?ra prahhu? was defi
nitely a king; the second may have been a royal prince. Since the person
giving this compensation for services rendered may be assumed to have
been the person most directly interested, it may well be that it was this
Amrtawises?laya who became king after the successful war against
Majapahit, which he had possibly initiated himself as Lord of Jinggan,
and that Girindrawardhana, who confirmed Amrtawises?laya's grant,
was (one of) the latter's regular successor(s).
King Girindrawardhana's special connections with Daha seem ap
parent from one of the titles he bears in the Trailokyapuri I inscription,
which in Brandes' transliteration (OJ0 92) includes the word Daha.
Krom, who translated the title as "the king of sr? Wilwatikta Daha
Janggala Kadiri", expressed astonishment at the occurrence of both
Daha and Kadiri in it, since these are two names for the same town
or region. He accordingly tried to explain this strange circumstance as
follows within the framework of his theory of the emergence of the new
Girindrawardhana dynasty. Whereas Janggala Kadiri, as the traditional
designation for the Javanese kingdom comprising these two parts, clearly
refers to the official Javanese royal dignity, the first two names indicate
the parts of which the king had now in actual fact composed his king

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 249

dorn, viz. Wilwatikta (a Sanskrit translation of Majapahit), which he

had conquered, and Daha, where he came from (Krom 1931: 450-451).
As the rubbings of this inscription show, and as had already been
observed earlier (Yamin 1962-1964 II: 235), however, this title actually
reads slightly differently and contains the word pura, 'royal residence',
instead of the supposed Daha. The full title reads: srl Wilwatiktapura
Janggala Kadiri prabhu n?tha,35 and may be translated as "His Majesty
the King of the palace of Majapahit in (the Javanese kingdom con
sisting of) Janggala (and) Kadiri". This is a perfec?y comprehensible
title, containing no strange elements which need to be explained by
special theories.
The presence of the word pura makes it certain beyond doubt that
this king resided in Majapahit.36 King Hayam Wuruk was called Tikta
wilwa-pura-r?ja, 'the king of the palace of Majapahit', by the poet of
the N?garakrt?gama (73-1-1) in the same way. In 1486 the Javanese
king was certainly not "a prabhu residing in Daha", nor had "the centre
of gravity ... moved to Kadiri", as Schrieke asserted (1957:63,66).
The resultant absence of the word Daha in this inscription shows that
here again Krom's theory of a conquest of Majapahit by princes who
came from Daha finds no support in the epigraphical evidence. The
same applies to the references to Dahanapura in the Trailokyapuri
inscriptions, although this name is commonly accepted as indicating 'the
palace of/in Daha' (cf. Teeuw 1972: 214). Here there is a connection
between King Girindrawardhana and Daha, though not the one sup
posed by Krom. King Girindrawardhana's possible connections with the
earlier kings of Majapahit, conversely, can be inferred from this part
of the Trailokyapuri inscriptions.
Two of these inscriptions mention a royal order (issued in I by King
Ranawijaya, in III (inutusan) by Prince Wijayakusuma) to the court
priest Brahmar?ja Ganggadhara to perform the final twelfth-year mor
tuary rites (dw?dasawarsa sraddha samp?rna) of someone whose name
is recorded most completely in III as srl paduka bhatt?ra ring Dahana
pura (title) and sang mokteng Indranibhawana (posthumous name),
and who consequently died twelve years previously, in 1474. Berg's
contention (1969: 10) that such funeral rites could not have been
postponed for twelve years since Hindu religious thinking makes it
essential that the soul of a deceased person reach its new destination
without delay, so that the sr?ddha ensuring this should be held as soon
as possible, is based on a misunderstanding. The word samp?rna in the
term quoted above shows that this was the final, 'concluding' sr?ddha,

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 250 J. NOORDUYN

Krtawardhana Queen Tribhuwanottu Wijayar?jasa R?jadew?

Prince of Tumap?l (Princess of Kahuripan) Prince of W?ngk?r Princess of Daha
d. 1386 (1328-1350) d. c. 1372 d. 1388 d. c. 1372

King R?jasanagara X Sudewi Singhawardhana R?jasaduniteswar? Rajasawardhana R?jasaduhitendudew?

Dyah Hayam Wuruk d. 1388 Prince of Paguhan Dyah Nrtaja Prince of Matahun Princess of Las?m
(1350-1389) d. 1388 Princess of Pajang d. 1388 Bhre Daha
d. 1388 d. c. 1415

Kusumawardhan? King Wikramawardhana Nagarawardhan? : Bhre W?rabh?mi R?jasawardhan? Ranamanggala

Princess of Kabalan Bhra Hyang Wisesa Princess of W?rabh?mi d. 1406 Princess of Kahuripan Bhre Pandan-Salas
Bhre Lasern the Fair (Prince of Mataram) Bhre Las?m the Fat d. 1400 d. 1400
d. 1400 (1389-1429) d. 1400

il) I
Hyang W?kasing-Suka Prince of Tumap?l X Princess of Las?m Ratnapangkaja Queen \suhit? King Wijayapar?Jayawardhan?
d. 1399 d. 1427 Prince of Kahuripan (Princess of Daha?) kramawardhana Dyah Jayeswar?
X second wife d. 1446 (1429-1447) Dyah KrtawijayaPrincess of Daha
d. )1464
( Prince of Tumap?l
(1447-1451)

Bhre Matahun
<3>.. I (5) I
Bhre Tanjungpura
7?) r~
Dyah Sure swanBhre K?ling
(7)
R?j?nandaneswan
Bhre W?ngk?r Bhre Paguha Wijayendudevv?
d. 1427 (daughter of d. c. 1447 Dyah Wijayaduhit? (married to King Bhre Pajang d. c. 1446 Dyah Sudharmin?
Bhre W?rabh?mi Bhre Jagaraga Rajasawardhana ) d. c. 1449 Bhre K?mbang J?na
d. 1406) d. 1466

(9)
Princess of Kabalan Princess of Singhapura
(married to King (married to King
Girisawardhana) Singhawikramawardhana )

N.B. The figures printed above some of the names

refer to the table on p. 211.

Family relationships between the

Majapahit referred

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 251

(4) I
King R?jasawardhana
Manggalawardhan?
(5) _ _| (9)
Mah?mahis?
King Girtsawardhana
(10) I
R?jasawardhanadew
King Singhawikramawardhana
(11)
Dyah Suragh?rini
Dyah Wijayakum?ra Dyah S?witr?
Dyah Sfiryawikrarria Dyah Suraprabh?wa Dyah Sr?pur?
Princess of Tanjungpura
(Prince of Kahuripan) Princess of Kabalan
(Prince of W?ngk?r) Princess of
(Prince of Pandan-Salas,
(1451-1453) (1456-1466) d. c. 1449 Tumap?l) Singhapura
(1466-1478)

(12) I (13) (14) J

Girmdrawardhana
(15)
Kamalawamadew?
Bhre Koripan, | Wijayapar?krama R? j asawardhanendudew?
Dyah Samarawijaya Dyah Pureswari Dyah Wijayakarana Dyah Sud?yit?
Bhre Ma tar am, j Prince of Matahun Princess of W?rabh?mi
Bhre Pamotan,| Prince of K?ling Princess of Kalinggapura
Bhre Las?m,
j Bhre K?rtabh?mi

King Girtndrawardhana Dyah Ranawijaya (c. 1486)

I?
Girindrawardhana Singhawardhana
Dyah Wijayakusuma Prince of K?ling
d. 1486

members of the royal house of

to in the text

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 252 J. NOORDUYN

and hence not the only one. In India, too, several successive sr?ddha
may be held. Only the twelve-year interval seems to have been specific
ally Hindu-Javanese. Although the available information on ancient
Javanese religious customs such as this is extremely scanty, there is no
reason to call the final sr?ddha of the hhatt?ra ring Dahanapura in 1486
a mystification or a mere fiction without any factual basis.
In Krom's view the person concerned was the rebellious Prince of
Daha of 1437, whose son Girindrawardhana conquered Majapahit.
However, his identification with this earlier hhatt?ra of Daha (who
has turned out to have been Princess Jayeswari) has already been shown
to be untenable. Secondly, the person who died in 1474 was most prob
ably also a princess, as her posthumous name incorporates the name of
the spouse of the god Indra, Indr?ni. This conclusion, contrary to
Schrieke's view (1957:59), is not in conflict with the title hhatt?ra,
since the Waringin Pitu charter shows that this title was used for prin
cesses as well as princes.
Although it is not known who this princess was, it is certain that her
posthumous name also occurs in the Trailokyapuri I charter. As the new
rubbing of the inscription at Mojokerto has shown, the correction of
Brandes' transliteration of the name Indrabhawana to Indrambhawana,
a correction which was already published by Miss Muusses (1929: 213),
but for unknown reasons was never adopted by Krom, is justified.
Therefore Berg's supposition (1969:7-9) that two different deceased
persons are mentioned in these charters, namely a prince deceased in
Indrabhawana and a princess deceased in Indranibhawana, must be
rejected. Berg's other hypothesis, according to which there was con
fusion with the prince who in the Pararaton is called sang mokta ring
Indrabhawana, that is, King Hayam Wuruk's grandson who died in
1399 (Par. 30:31), should be discarded for the same reason.
Since it was King Girindrawardhana dyah Ranawijaya (as well as
his son (?) Wijayakusuma) who in 1486 arranged the mortuary rites
of this Princess of Daha who had died in 1474, the latter most probably
was one of his close relatives in the ascending line, possibly his mother
or grandmother. The year of the death of this Princess of Daha proves
that she must have obtained this title either under King Suraprabh?wa
(d. 1478), or under his predecessor, King Gir?sawardhana (1456-1466),
but in any case after 1464, the year in which the earlier Princess of
Daha, the queen mother Jayeswari, died. As it is unlikely that this high
title was conferred upon anybody but the most highly placed relative
of the ruling king, and the consort of King Gir?sawardhana had already

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 253

died much earlier, it may well have been King Suraprabh?wa's consort,
the earlier Princess of Singhapura, who became Princess of Daha at this
time and therefore died in 1474. This would then also make King
Girindrawardhana the son or grandson of King Suraprabh?wa himself,
so that from this point of view, too, he cannot have been a member
of a 'new' dynasty.
However, since we do not know whether this Princess of Singhapura
was still alive in 1464, it is also possible that the Princess of Daha who
died in 1474, instead of being the consort of King Suraprabh?wa, was
a close relative of the latter's elder brother, King R?jasawardhana or
Sinagara, e.g., his widow, the Princess of Tanjungpura. In that case
King Girindrawardhana may have been a direct descendant of King
Sinagara, and therefore also a member of the royal house of Majapahit,
though of a different branch.
Whether King Girindrawardhana was a descendant of King Sinagara
or of King Suraprabh?wa, he was certainly no less legitimate than
either of these kings. In either case the war against Majapahit' as it is
mentioned in the P?tak inscription was not a rebellious conquest of
Majapahit, but rather its reconquest by a member of the legitimate
royal house. It is not impossible that this war was, in fact, a civil war
between the representatives of two branches of the royal house, namely
a senior and a junior line, the sons of King Sinagara and the son(s)
of King Suraprabh?wa, who could both claim a legitimate right to the
throne, and that, whether King Suraprabh?wa was succeeded by his
own son or by one of Sinagara's sons in 1478, whoever did succeed was
attacked by the other. One thing is certain: whichever of the two lines
launched the attack was also the victor, King Girindrawardhana's reign
being founded on this victory.
At this point our discussion must come to an end, as it will be obvious
that the available data do not allow of any more definite conclusions.
To go beyond this would definitely be venturing into the realm of pure
speculation. Only when new evidence comes to light will further con
clusions be possible.

Conclusion
The new evidence provided by the Waringin Pitu charter, by Tanakung's
short poem "The Flower Boat", and by the inscriptions of 1486 has
enabled us, by a careful comparison with the few other extant documents,
in particular the relevant Pararaton passages and some epigraphical
material, to reach a number of specific conclusions which cast a new

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
254 J. NOORDUYN

light on the internal situation and development of Majapahit in the

course of the 15 th century. Although the degree of certainty of these
conclusions varies, ranging from (near) certainty to acceptable likeli
hood, depending on the available supporting evidence, taken together
they produce a picture which is less gloomy than the one painted by
Krom and others.
There is no hint of the rebellion by a Bhre Daha in 1437 which Krom
supposed. On the contrary, the latter was a legitimate Princess of Daha,
Jayawardhan? dyah Jayeswar?, the consort of Wijayapar?kramawar
dhana dyah Krtawijaya, who was Prince of Tumapel from 1427 (when
he succeeded his deceased elder brother as such) to 1447 (when he
became prabhu, succeeding his childlessly deceased sister Suhit?).
Jayeswar? was the younger sister of Suhit?'s husband and had become
Princess of Daha in 1429, when Suhit? succeeded her deceased father
King Wikramawardhana as prabhu. In all of these cases there was
question only of regular successions within a royal family whose members
were closely connected by blood and marriage. There were no signs
of an internal weakening and decline.
There are likewise no positive traces of a rebellion at the time of
King R?jasawardhana's death in 1453 (Schrieke), even though he was
not succeeded by one of his sons, but, after a period of three kingless
years, by his younger brother Girisawardhana. On the contrary, despite
the fact that this was strictly speaking an irregular succession, this king
participated in the great funeral festival which R?jasawardhana's sons
arranged for their deceased father in 1465, as the most distinguished
guest. Possibly the reason why none of them had succeeded as prabhu
was simply that they were still too young at the time. In this period,
again, there were no open signs of internal dissensions in the royal
family.
The three kings who succeeded one another after King Krtawijaya's
death in 1451 were anything but obscure rulers from different houses
or from different parts of what was an assemblage of kingdoms, who
one after the other managed to obtain the hegemony in a practically
dissolved kingdom of Majapahit (Teeuw/Robson, Slametmuljana). On
the contrary, Kings R?jasawardhana dyah Wijayakum?ra (1451-1453),
Girisawardhana dyah S?ryawikrama (1456-1466) and Singhawikrama
wardhana dyah Suraprabh?wa (1466-1478) were the first, second and
third sons of King Krtawijaya, and therefore members of the same
royal family,37 being already mentioned as such in the charter of 1447.
They ruled in the old kraton in what must still have been the undivided

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 255

kingdom of Majapahit, "the Javanese country consisting of Janggala

and Kadiri" (charter of Pamintihan of 1473).
No more was King Girindrawardhana dyah Ranawijaya, who issued
some of the charters of 1486, an obscure ruler of Daha, who had
conquered the kraton of Majapahit as a rebel and had established
a new dynasty (Krom). On the contrary, he, too, most likely was a
member of the same royal family, being a descendant either of King
Suraprabh?wa or of the latter's eldest brother, King R?jasawardhana.
In either case the conquest of Majapahit which is mentioned in 1486,
and which must have taken place some time between 1478 and 1486,
most probably was rather a reconquest of the kraton by a branch of
the legitimate royal line.
This conquest of Majapahit possibly marked the end of a civil war
between these two branches of the royal line ? the descendants of
King Krtawijaya's eldest and youngest sons respectively ? which each
claimed a certain right to the throne. In this civil war, then, the discord
within the royal family, which was rooted in the irregular succession
after King R?jasawardhana's death, came into the open. But there were
still Hindu-Javanese kings after that, who in 1486 at least still resided
in the old kraton of Majapahit. The end of this kingdom did not come
until some forty years later, after it had been gradually reduced in size
by the continual attacks of Muslim harbour states along the north coast
like Demak and Surabaya, as we learn from Tom? Pires' account of
his visit to Java in 1513.
By the beginning of the 15th century Majapahit had lost its ascendancy
in the Indonesian Archipelago outside Java, and this was a considerable
decline in comparison, with its greatness at the time of King Hayam
Wuruk and his famous patih, Gajah Mada. Nevertheless ? and this
is the general conclusion which emerges from our discussion in the
present paper ? it continued to exist as the supreme Javanese kingdom
in much the same way as before for probably the whole of the 15 th
century. It had a continuous line of kings residing in the traditional court,
who occasionally issued charters in the old style. There was considerable
activity in the fields of religion and literature, as great sr?ddha festivals
were still held in 1465 and 1486 and religious foundations established
in Waringin Pitu (1447) and Trailokyapuri (1486). Its scholars still
had an excellent knowledge of Sanskrit, as the Sanskrit passages of the
Waringin Pitu charter testify. Moreover, a community in which Hindu
Javanese literature and religion could flourish must have existed, as is
presupposed by the works of Tanakung, who continued the age-old

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
256 J. NOORDUYN

tradition of Old Javanese belles lettres at this time. His poem on metrics
entitled Wrtasancaya no doubt was intended as a guide for his fellow
poets, while his kakawin about the Siwar?tri ritual was a didactic means
of promoting, and perhaps even introducing, this Siwaite ceremony in
Java. His personal familiarity with Indian culture is demonstrable in
both works. This picture of a flourishing Hindu-Javanese culture in the
15th century is altogether compatible with the conclusions reached
in the present article, and not at all with the picture of political
disintegration painted in the introduction to the Siwar?trikalpa edition.
Our conclusions relating to the political and cultural history of
Majapahit in the 15 th century have been drawn on the basis of the
existing documents, but in turn have contributed to a better under
standing of these same documents. It has proved possible to identify
most of the royal persons mentioned in the Waringin Pitu charter and
to reconstruct the historical setting for Tanakung's poem "The Flower
Boat". Most importantly, a better evaluation of the final pages of the
Pararaton has been arrived at. These have as a rule been condemned
as being too obscure, confused, incoherent and even corrupt to be of
any use to the historian at all. The considerable difficulties they present
to the interpreter have now proved to be attributable mainly to their
extreme verbal economy, besides their omission of many essential, basic
facts, let alone wider background information. Clearly this has con
stituted a considerable obstacle to a correct translation, let alone a
correct interpretation. It has now turned out that the information
contained in this part of the Pararaton, as far as it goes, is reliable
and intelligible, and can be used as a historical source in combination
with information from other sources.
It should be stressed that the Old Javanese texts discussed in the
aforegoing have been used as they stand, unchanged and practically
without emendations. In this I have proceeded from the firm conviction
that philological spade-work is the only sound basis for historical research
of the type that is dependent on written documents, and that the op
timum value these documents can have lies in their texts as they have
been transmitted, no amount of emendation being able to compete with
the original text, unless this is clearly corrupt. One implication of this
is that, although one text may be able to supplement or clarify another,
beyond the limits of what the texts actually say one should be content
to leave questions undecided in preference to venturing into the realm
of outright speculation.
We ourselves have repeatedly come to the limits of our sources. Not

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 257

all of the royal persons mentioned in the Waringin Pitu charter proved
to be identifiable, because some are mentioned nowhere else. In the
same way the exact role played by Sinagara's sons and the precise
family relationships of King Girindrawardhana had to be left undecided,
because there is clearly an unbridgeable gap in our information between
the end of the Pararaton and the inscriptions of 1486. Here one must
content oneself with mentioning a number of possibilities, mainly in
order to indicate that the limits of our knowledge have been reached
and that only new evidence which may come to light may enable us
to decide between these possibilities. Often new evidence shows previous
speculations to have been fruitless, the new facts being altogether
different from any imagined possibilities.
This is clearly what has happened with much of what was written
by earlier writers on the subjects dealt with in the present article. Many
theories and hypotheses advanced by Krom, Schrieke, Muusses, Berg,
Teeuw/Robson and Crucq have had to be discarded simply on the
basis of new evidence which was not at their disposal, although there
are also several cases of earlier conclusions having to be rejected in the
light of evidence that was already available at the time they were
formulated. So most of what was written about Majapahit in the 15th
century by Schrieke, for example, must be considered as being com
pletely superseded by the conclusions of the present paper, if these are
correct. The same applies to those of Berg's theories and conclusions
which are explicitly mentioned here. Although I believe they are
representative, I am aware that they are only an incomplete selection
from Berg's writings about the 15th century, as they form part of his
much wider theories as expounded in his most recent major works. His
fivefold Buddha theory, which is intended to apply to the whole of
Javanese history (Berg 1962), and his theory of the Lalitavistara being
the basic example used by Prapanca when composing his N?garakrt?ga
ma (Berg 1969) have never yet been seriously examined. This has not
been done in the present article, either. It still remains to be seen,
therefore, whether and to what extent these wider theories are affected
by the criticism directed against their smaller and perhaps insignificant
elements here. An answer to this question can only be obtained if these
broader theories are investigated as such and in their entirety. There
is not much sense, in my view, in discussing for this purpose the general
principles advanced by Berg, such as the one according to which ancient
texts like the Old Javanese ones should be interpreted in terms of the
culture to which they belonged. For no one will seriously deny the

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 258 J. NOORDUYN

truth of such principles, and at most one may hold different views on
their applicability in practice. From my own experience I am convinced
that the only way of assessing the validity of Berg's theories is by
checking the basic, factual details of the arguments they are founded
on, that is, by doing the philological spade-work which, according to
one of Berg's own principles, is the indispensable precondition for the
usefulness of textual material to the historian. We have repeatedly come
across hypotheses of Berg's which, when checked, have turned out to be
based on inadequate or weak arguments, or no arguments at all. The
implication is that these grand theories, no matter how stimulating and
provoking, remain unacceptable until every detail, especially of their
basic arguments, has been checked and tested as to its validity in
this way.
I would like to give one final example to illustrate this. Though it
concerns only a small detail of the Butak charter of 1294, it is given
a wider application by Berg himself (1969:27), as he presents his
opinion on the matter as an argument to demonstrate that Old Javanese
charters in general should be considered first and foremost as religious
texts relating to the kingship cult, rather than as legal documents, as
they are according to the usual view. Here the person whom this charter
mentions as the recipient of a grant by the king is called rame kudadu,
which in Berg's view should be interpreted as rama Ikudadu, 'Daddy
Red-Rump', that is, the monkey Sugriwa, the companion of Rama in
the Ram?yana story, instead of rama i Kudadu, 'the village head of
Kudadu'. Apart from the questions of whether this is an acceptable
translation (the Javanese word iku does not mean 'posterior' but 'tail'),
whether the monkey Sugriwa is represented as a red-rumped 'sacred
baboon' anywhere else, or whether Old Javanese charters are anything
other than legal documents, the matter at issue is conclusively decided
by the text of the inscription itself. For it also contains the phrase wanwe
kudadu, meaning 'the village of Kudadu', in which there is an i as
connecting preposition, as in the phrase wanwe kdung plut, 'the village
of Kdung Plut', which also occurs in this same inscription (Brandes
1920: 95). This is not, therefore, acceptable as an argument for denying
the character of charters as legal documents. There may of course be
other arguments which do support Berg's theories in their essential
details. But that is a matter for continued research.

Leiden, 1977

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 259

NOTES

1 In Stutterheim's announcement of the discovery the date is incorrectly stated

as ?aka 1368 (1938a: 117). This is most probably an error, since a few
pages further on (1938a: 127) the correct date is mentioned. The full date
according to the Julian calender was computed by Damais (1953:85), who
also introduced the name Waringin Pitu charter because of its principal
concern with the royal religious domain (r?jadharma) of Waringin Pitu
(Yamin 1962: 10; Noorduyn 1968b: 543), the present-day village of Wringin
Pitu, located on the southern bank of the Surabaya River, a few miles
upstream of Kriyan. The inscription is also known as the inscription of
Surodakan, which latter is the name of the village where the copperplates
were found, to the south of Mt. Wilis in the regency of Trenggalek.
Schrieke, misled by the error in Stutterheim's announcement, supposed that
the charter was dated 1446, and tried to explain why King Krtawijaya should
have issued it in that year while his predecessor, Queen Suhit?, according to
the Pararaton (31:35-32:1) died in 1447. Towards this end he assumed
that Suhit? died in 1446, but was deified in 1447 (Schrieke 1957: 54). This
assumption is superfluous, however, as actually the date of the charter is not
at variance with the relevant Pararaton data at all: Krtawijaya must, in fact,
have issued it in the year of the death of his sister and predecessor, Queen
Suhit?, shortly after he himself had succeeded her as king. Berg (1962: 74),
while accepting the correct date of the charter on the authority of Damais,
nevertheless also assumed, following Schrieke, and in contradiction with the
Pararaton, that Suhit? died in 1446, because, according to him, "it was a
Javanese custom to date the next event in the next year, and Suhit?'s death
consequently should have to be placed in 1446 at the latest". In the case of
Suhit?'s death, however, it seems preferable to take the agreement between
the data from the charter and from the Pararaton as evidence against the
existence of such a hypothetical custom.
2 Yamin's edition has been printed three times: once as a monograph on the
occasion of the Second National Science Congress (October 1962), once in
the report of this congress (Vol. VI, 1965, pp. 399-428), and once again in
his four-volume book Tatanegara Madjapahit (Vol.11, pp. 181-212). In the
latter Yamin acknowledges that he is indebted for the text as published here
to Dr. J. G. de Casparis, who had made the transliteration. This edition,
which was published after Yamin's untimely death on October 17, 1962, is
quite useful, even though there are several misprints in the text of the
inscription, while Yamin's Indonesian translation is not free from error and
his comments are rather superficial. A re-edition and -translation, preferably
in a more widely accessible medium, would not be superfluous.
3 The royal consecration name of the Princess of Pajang is not mentioned in
the inscription, probably because of an oversight of the scribe.
4 The similarity between the two lists actually does not extend, as Berg points
out, beyond the fact that both contain the names of fifteen persons, nine of
whom are female. Berg's hypothesis that because of this slight similarity in
content the relationships between the persons of the Waringin Pitu list of 1447
must also correspond to those between the persons of the N?garakrt?gama list
of 1365 leads him to conclusions (1962: 81-82) which not only are incorrect,
as has been shown above (see also p. 219 below), but also are inconsistent
with the hypothesis itself, as a careful examination of Berg 1962: 62-85 will
reveal. In these pages Berg tries to prove the theory that "The entire

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 260 J. NOORDUYN

period beginning in 1351 is characterized by a genealogy which is a 'copy'

of the genealogy which characterizes the period beginning in 1254" (p. 62),
or in other words, "that the posterity of Tribhuwanottunggadew? is the
'copy' of Jaya-Wisnuwardhana's posterity" (p. 72). His findings, however,
show that this is simply not the case. Berg's theory of what he calls the
"second Krtanagara genealogy" must therefore be considered a failure.
5 And not his elder brother, mentioned in the same Pararaton passage, who
was likewise Bhre Tumap?l, but who had died in 1427 (Par. 31:24). On
him also see pp. 222 and 236 below.
6 Schrieke's main reason for identifying the Princess of Daha of the Waringin
Pi tu charter as Krtawijaya's daughter seems to be provided by his acceptance
of Brandes' hypothesis that Krtawijaya's wife died between 1413 and 1416
(Schrieke 1957:35,54). Now that this hypothesis has proved wrong, the
question remains as to who the Bhre Daha who died between those years was.
Recently an answer to this question has been provided which fits in very
well with the conclusions arrived at so far. In Noorduyn 1975 it has been
argued that Hayam Wuruk's cousin R?jasaduhitendudew? succeeded her
mother as Princess of Daha and was the Bhre Daha who died between 1413
and 1416.
7 As Berg rightly remarks (1962:231), the relation between this Pararaton
chronogram and its incorrect date-in-figures provides clear evidence that, at
least in this case, the date was based on the chronogram, and not the other
way round, as was supposed by Brandes. The latter was of the opinion that
the chronograms in the Pararaton were probably added to the dates later on,
when errors had already crept into some of these (Brandes 1920: 342).
Javanese chronograms may originally have constituted a mnemonic device,
and may in the course of time have developed the characteristics of enigmas,
occurring either in the form of a separate sentence by itself, or as part of a
larger text, the chronogram being a veiled representation of the date, and
the date itself the 'answer' to the 'riddle'. In either case it is reasonable to
assume that either originally or as a rule the chronogram, as Berg argues, was
not accompanied by its date-in-figures. This does not alter the fact that any
chronogram is basically and intrinsically secondary to the date it represents.
For an understanding of the nature of the Pararaton chronograms and
their contexts a study of the chronograms in stone inscriptions in the Sukuh
temple complex on the western slopes of Mt. Lawu is useful. As the Sukuh
chronograms are dated from ?aka 1359 to 1381, i.e., A.D. 1437 to 1459, they
belong to a period in Majapahit's history which is close in time to the latter
part of the Pararaton text.
It is interesting to note that in some cases a three-stage representation of
the date can be recognized, with (part of) the chronogram in its turn being
pictorially represented. In its most elaborate form this kind of threefold
representation is found in the inscription of ?aka 1379 (A.D. 1457), which
contains a statement concerning an anchoress from Kayangan, followed by
the chronogram (sakakalanya) : goh wiku hanahut butut (i.e., 'cow monk
biting tail'), followed in turn by the date 1379, and which occurs on the
back of a statue of a cow with a monk's headdress which is biting the end
of its own tail (Brandes 1904: 12, plate 7; Muusses 1923:509-510).
As the plate clearly shows, this threefold representation of the date without
any doubt forms a coherent unit, all the parts of which were conceived and
executed in close interrelation with each other. Therefore the riddle element
is plainly absent in this dated statement. Here the triple form of the repre

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 261

sentation clearly has the intended effect of reinforcement through repetition.

Similar effects are to be discerned in several other of the Sukuh chronograms,
most of which are accompanied by a date-in-figures.
The following table sets out the relevant data concerning all the dates
and chronograms which have been found in the Sukuh complex. It is based
on the excellent articles on the Sukuh inscriptions by Miss Muusses (1923,
1924), supplemented by Grucq 1930:264-266, and Stutterheim 1935, and
mentions the items in the same order as these articles.

? aha pictorial
date inscription representation key word(s) in chronogram

chronogram of 1359 on gate: demon gopura buta mangan wong

devouring man (gate demon eating man)
2. 1364 chronogram of 1364 statue of Garu(Ja -
3. 1363 statement ending in statue of Garuda babajang (young brahmin)
chronogram of 1363(?) with monk's headdress
4. 1365 chronogram of 1365 statue of Bima Bima
5. 1363
6. 1361 statement relief depicting Bima
stabbing demon
Kalantaka
7. 1338
8. chronogram of 1359(?) ? (?)
9. 1361 statue of pig
10. 1362 chronogram of 1362 statue of lingga purusa and laksanapurusa
and statement (penis)
11. 1379 statement ending in statue of cow with goh wiku hanahut butut
chronogram of 1379 monk's headdress (cow monk biting tail)
biting its tail
12. 1381 chronogram of 1381
13. chronogram of 1381 relief

Another chronogram from the 15th century has been found on the wall of
the stairs leading to the 8th terrace of the Ceta complex, which, like the
Sukuh complex, lies on the western slopes of Mt. Lawu. It is accompanied
by a date-in-figures, but not by a pictorial representation. The inscription
commemorates the building of a fence and ends with the date (sakakalanya) :
wiku goh anahut iku 1397} i.e., 'monk cow biting tail (numerical value 1397)
A.D. 1475' (Stutterheim 1930).
A chronogram with a pictorial representation but without a date-in-figures,
which is found on a piece of stone originating from Grobogan, has been
deciphered by Grucq (1930:275; 1936:399). The picture represents a cow
wearing a headdress and biting the sun. The inscription ends with the words
goh wiku t?da sayanginge, i.e., 'cow monk eating sun', or 'a cow as an ascetic
biting the sun', which represents the date ?aka 1379, i.e., A.D. 1457.
A very similar example of a chronogram with a pictorial representation but
without a date-in-figures is provided by the first item of the above table. This
chronogram, reading gopura buta mangan wong, i.e., 'gate demon devouring

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 262 J. NOORDUYN

man', which yields the date ?aka 1359 (A.D. 1437), is inscribed on the left
wing of the gate of the Sukuh complex, underneath a relief showing a demon
devouring a man (Muusses 1924:34).
The interpretation of a date which is represented in pictorial form only
may be more problematic. An example of this is furnished by the relief of
a man biting the tail of a snake which is found on the right wing of the
same gate of the Sukuh complex. According to Crucq (1930: 265) this may
mean either 'gate demon biting tail', i.e., ?aka 1359 (A.D. 1437), in other
words, the same date as on the left wing of this gate, or 'snake demon biting
tail', i.e., ?aka 1358 (A.D. 1436). In other cases dates in pictorial form only
can be established with more certainty. A stone medallion depicting in relief an
elephant with a demon's head biting a star, discovered on Mt. Penanggungan,
clearly represents the date ?aka 1358 = A.D. 1436. Another, representing a
snake with a monk's headdress and with its tail in its mouth, clearly stands for
?aka 1378 = A.D. 1456 (Stutterheim 1938b: 28; Van Romondt 1951: 30, 32).
In all these cases in which a date-in-figures is not added, the riddle element
is clearly present. However, as is obvious from the examples given so far, there
was no uniform practice in this respect in the 15th century. There are cases
in which either the date-in-figures, or a chronogram, or its pictorial represen
tation was presented by itself. In other cases the chronogram was combined
with a date-in-figures or with a pictorial representation. In yet other cases
again the three stages of representation are found together. At Sukuh six of the
nine chronograms found there are accompanied by their date-in-figures, while
four of these are in threefold form.

8 The new information about the true identity of the Bhre Daha of 1437, and
her first appearance as such already in 1429, also deprives Crucq's theory
of 1936 concerning the role of this Bhre Daha of its basis, since it was
founded on the fact that the oldest date found at the Sukuh complex is
equivalent to A.D. 1437. The identity of the two dates, which provided
Crucq's starting-point, has proved to be non-existent.
It is true that the Sukuh temple complex, in view of the majority of the
dates which have been found there, was occupied and in use in the middle
of the 15th century. But no direct link can be established with the centre of
Majapahit. The conquest of Raj?gw?si by Medang, mentioned in the Sukuh
inscription of ?aka 1363 = A.D. 1441 (No. 3 in the table of note 7), was
most probably a local affair. Raj?gw?si most likely was not the centre of
Majapahit, as Crucq assumed (1936:337), but a small district near present
day Bojanegara (Krom 1931:447; Noorduyn 1968a: 447-478). Medang most
probably was the likewise small district of M?dang Kamulan in present-day
Grobogan, not far to the west of Bojanegara. This does mean, however, that
in this period it was possible for two rather small districts within the state
of Majapahit to be at war with each other.

9 It seems impossible, however, that Jayeswari had already been born in 1367.
As Schrieke (1957:28) has convincingly demonstrated, her mother, R?jasa
wardhan?, whose third child she was, was born around 1355 at the earliest.
R?jasawardhan?'s eldest child in that case could definitely not have been born
before 1372, or her third child, Jayeswari, before 1375. In 1464, then, the
latter was 89 at the most. On the other hand, her elder brother, Ratnapang
kaja, according to Par. 31: 6-10 played a role in the paregr?g war of 1405
1406, and hence cannot have been younger than about 20 in 1405, so that
he was born no later than about 1385. If, in that case, Jayeswari, Ratnapang
kaja's youngest sister, was born in 1386, she was 78 years old in 1464. These

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 263

calculations show that Jayeswar? was probably around 80 years old when she
died in 1464. It follows from the above, then, that if the Bungur charter was
issued in 1367 ? which, according to Damais' calculations (1953: 200-203),
is the only date tallying with the calendrical data supplied in the inscription,
whereas these are inconsistent with 1373, the date actually stated in it ?
Jayeswar?'s mother was no older than 12 at the time this charter mentions
her as being married. Most probably this was a pre-arranged child marriage,
like the marriage between her brother Wikramawardhana and Hayam Wuruk's
daughter Kusumawardhan? mentioned in the N?garakrt?gama (N?g. 7-4-3/4)
of 1365, when they were no older than 12 and 7 years respectively (Schrieke
1957:28). The comparison seems justified, even though the latter marriage
is referred to with a verb in the future tense (Pigeaud 1960-1963 II: 17).
10 I am indebted to Prof. J. Ensink for pointing out (in a personal communi
cation) the special meaning of St. smarana or smrti as 'meditation on a
deity', cf. Jinasmrti in the Sutasoma kakawin.
11 The fact that in the Waringin Pitu charter the queen has fewer laudatory
verses devoted to her than the king is of some importance for the interpre
tation of a comparable case in the N?garakrt?gama. For this fact is in clear
contradiction with Pigeaud's supposition regarding King Hayam Wuruk's
consort, viz. "If she really had been Queen no doubt she would have been
given the same number of lines with praise and epithets as the King himself"
(Pigeaud 1960-1963 IV: 9). At the same time Pigeaud's argumentation,
unlike Berg's ( 1969: 243 ), is essentially correct, since it is remarkable indeed
that King Hayam Wuruk's consort should receive even fewer lines than
his sisters and their husbands (N?g. 5-1 and 2; 6-1 and 2), who all have
four lines devoted to them, just like his aunt and uncle (Nag. 4-1 and 2),
as opposed to his consort, who is given only two (N?g. 7-3-3/4), like his
daughter (N?g. 7-4-1/2) and his sister's children (N?g. 6-3; 6-4-1/2). This
fact, which Berg ignores, is in conflict with his theory that the king's wife
is considered of equal rank with his sisters. The number of lines devoted to
each person in this part of the N?garakrt?gama, as Krom already remarked,
is definitely meant by the poet to accord with that person's rank. The king is
given ten lines (N?g. 7), and his grandmother, mother and father five each
(N?g. 2 and 3).
12 Berg (1962: 180) expresses doubts as to whether Pandan-Salas, which means
'a field (or forest) full of pandanus', was originally used in titles since it is
a name for the realm of the dead. It is true that this name is not known from
any contemporary charter, and is also unknown as a toponym, although it
does occur as the name of a Javanese kingdom in some Panji stories (Poer
batjaraka 1940: 24), which latter, however, do no claim to be realistic as
far as toponymy is concerned. But in the sources Berg refers to (1954: 206,
216; 1962:289) it is not Pandan-Salas, but the near-synonymous Pudak
Sat?gal ('a field full of pandanus flowers') which occurs as the name of a
place in the realm of the dead, not of the realm of the dead as a whole.
Moreover, even if it was once used as a name for the realm of the dead, it
still is not certain that this particular usage had already come about by the
14th and 15th centuries, and that it was not preceded by the use of this
name in a ? definitely minor ? princely title. The latter would not neces
sarily imply that it was also the name of a definite administrative unit.
A comparable situation is found in South Celebes, where the title Karaeng
Balla'-Bugisika, 'Princess of the Buginese House', of a particular Macassarese
princess was never a territorial name, like most other Karaeng titles.

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 264 J. NOORDUYN

13 The spelling of the first part of the name Suraprabh?wa in the Waringin
Pitu inscription is confirmed by the way in which it occurs in the ?iwar?tri
kalpa kakawin (Teeuw et al. 1969:68), where its first vowel is metrically
short. The name hence incorporates the word sura, 'god', and not sura, 'hero',
and means 'divine power'. It is largely, though not completely, synonymous
with the name S?ryawikrama (No. 8 of the list), which means 'valour of the
sun (-god)'. Cf. Berg 1962: 232.
14 Since Suraprabh?wa's title of Pandan-Salas does not occur in the Waringin
Pitu charter, in which he is mentioned as Prince of Tumap?l, he apparently
did not bear these titles simultaneously but successively. Therefore the verb
anjeneng, 'to rule', must have an inchoative sense in the Pararaton clause
in question, as it does in similar cases in which this follows from the context,
since any Javanese verb may be used inchoatively without a formal element
to make this explicit.
15 This 19-year interval provides clear evidence against Berg's contention ( 1969 :
14) that tumuli (= anuli) always means 'immediately afterwards'.
16 Dyah Suraprabh?wa is responsible for an important addition to our knowledge
of the culture of 15th-century Java as a result of the recent discovery that
the poet Tanakung, author of several well-known Old Javanese kakawins,
lived and worked in this century. His royal patron, whom he mentioned by
name in the first canto of his ?iwar?trikalpa kakawin as ?r? ?di-Suraprabh?wa
(Teeuw et al. 1969: 67), was recognized by Zoetmulder (Teeuw et al. 1969:
65) as the ruling king (prabhu) who issued the Pamintihan charter of 1473.
Zoetmulder is not expressing himself quite correctly, however, when he says,
speaking of the date of the ?iwar?trikalpa: "It is not certain whether Ta
nakung wrote his poem when dyah Suraprabh?wa had already assumed the
consecration name ?ri Singhawikramawardhana. He may well have done so
before that time, as we know that it was by no means always the ruling
sovereign who was the patron of the authors of kakawin". This is less correct
because it is clear from the Waringin Pitu charter that Suraprabh?wa already
bore his consecration name in 1447, long before he became prabhu in 1466.
On the other hand, Zoetmulder is quite right in questioning in the same
passage whether Suraprabh?wa was already ruling sovereign when Tanakung
wrote his poem. Dyah Ranamanggala, the son of a half-brother of King
Hayam Wuruk, who was the royal patron of the poet Tantular, is a good
example of such a non-ruling prince acting as protector of poets. So it remains
uncertain until further evidence is forthcoming whether the earliest date of
the ?iwar?trikalpa is 1466, as Teeuw/Robson (1969: 18) assert, and ought
not to be put back to at least 1447. On the basis of the available data, it is
impossible to be more precise than saying that Tanakung wrote his work in
or around the third quarter of the 15th century (cf. Zoetmulder 1974: 365).
17 Berg (1962:229) has expressed doubts as to whether changes of titles of
royal princes actually ever occurred in Majapahit, or at least, whether con
crete examples of such changes can be pointed out. He prefers to explain
cases of one person bearing different titles in different texts as the result of
mistakes on the part of the author of the later text (Berg 1962:67), or as
representing synonymous forms of the same title (Berg 1954: 204; 1962: 229).
Clearly the above interpretation of the Pararaton sentences about Surapra
bh?wa and R?jasawardhana, if accepted as correct, yields a number of such
concrete examples of changes of titles, and hence does not support Berg's
doubts. They contain information about actual changes of titles rather than
hypothetical ones assumed in order to explain differences in titles in texts

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 265

from different periods. They can therefore be taken as corroboration of such

hypothetical ones as assumed by Van Stein Gallenfels (1919:342-343),
Schrieke (1957 : 29), and recently, Noorduyn (1975 : 483-484), including the
Matahun/W?ngk?r case, even if in the latter the names are etymologically
synonymous (as 'yearly' = 'a year round' and 'circle'). Whatever their origin
and meaning, these latter names had a different geographical background.
W?ngk?r was situated to the south of Madiun (there is no justification for
Berg's assumption (1954:214) that this location, as mentioned in the 19th
century C?ntini text, coincides with that of the 11th-century W?ngk?r, but
not with that of the 14th-century W?ngk?r). The situation of Matahun, con
trary to my earlier assertion (Noorduyn 1968a: 480), is not unknown. Stutter
heim (1948:98) identified it with the village of Tawun, a few miles east
of Ngawi, to the north of Madiun, and not far south of Jipang, with which
Matahun has sometimes erroneously been identified (Schrieke 1957: 154, 334).
18 Ras erroneously states, referring to Schrieke 1957, that "the consort of king
Hayam Wuruk's mother, Krtawardhana, who died in 1386" (cf. Schrieke
1957:26), was styled "ruler of Keling-Kahuripan". Ras here confuses Krta
wardhana with R?jasawardhana, who died in 1453 (cf. Schrieke 1957:31).
There are also no data to support Ras' remark that "in the Majapahit period
this country of Keling was normally united with Kahuripan", or the latter
part of Schrieke's observation, to which Ras is referring, that the region of
Kahuripan (Janggala) "probably also embraced the residency Surabaya along
with northern Kadiri (K?ling)" (Schrieke 1957: 25-26). K?ling most probably
was a small region in the north-eastern (not north-western, Krom 1931:448)
part of the present-day regency of K?diri, where a village bearing the name
Kling is still found a few miles east of Pare, not far from a small river which
on 19th-century maps is designated Kali K?ling (Krom 1931:448), being
a left-hand tributary of the Kali Konto, itself a tributary of the River Brantas.
The name of this River K?ling, which is misplaced completely on the archaeo
logical map in Krom 1931, does not constitute a strong argument, however.
It was probably taken from the nearby village of Kling, since on later maps
the river bears different names. As this region of Keling bordered on
Kahuripan as well as on K?diri, it is not improbable that it did at one time
belong, or was considered as belonging, to Kahuripan. This would then be
the reason why its name occurs as an alternative name for Koripan or
Janggala in some Javanese Panji works (Poerbatjaraka 1940: 100, 158,260).
19 As Krom pointed out (1931:444), this King Wikramawardhana in the
second half of his reign sent two embassies to China, one in 1415 and one
in 1418, while the Chinese Ming History records that the Javanese king in
1415 informed the court that he had adopted the name Yang-wei-hsi-sha, i.e.
Hyang Wisesa. This does not mean that, as Krom asserts (1931:430), he
adopted this name no earlier than 1415, since it is already known from the
charter of Patapan of 1385 (Pigeaud 1960-1963 III: 172; IV: 447).
20 This king sent embassies to China in 1460 and 1465 (Krom 1931:448). In
the Chinese records he is referred to as King Tumapan, which is the usual
Chinese designation for Tumap?l. The use of this name does not imply that
he was King of Tumap?l only, because King Wikramawardhana of Majapahit
was also called King Tumapan by the Chinese on the occasion when he sent
an embassy to China in 1403 (Krom 1931:431-432). The Chinese apparently
continued to use the name Tumap?l for the East Javanese kingdom from
the time it was known as Singasari (the alternative name for Tumap?l) until
long after the kraton was established in Majapahit in 1293.

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 266 J. NOORDUYN

21 A clear example of this is furnished by the Balawi inscription of A.D. 1305,

published by Poerbatjaraka (1936:373-383). A similar phenomenon is to be
observed in Old Javanese prose works on Hindu epic themes and theological
subjects, in which there occasionally occur Sanskrit quotations followed by
their translation in Old Javanese (cf. Goris 1926:69-74).
22 I am indebted to Prof. Haryati Soebadio for suggesting this emendation,
which involves no more than the removal of one small vowel symbol, and is
therefore palaeographically far more attractive than the other possible emen
dation, namely antima, 'last', instead of antika, which involves the change
of a full consonant symbol ka into the very dissimilar ma. The word antaka,
"end-making", consists of anta, 'end', and the suffix ka, which has "adjective
making value" (Whitney 18963: ? 1222c, where this same word is mentioned
as an example). Other examples of this use of the ka suffix are to be found
in Soebadio 1971: 138, 142 (nir?tmaka, sapta-bhedaka, svetavarnaka).
If the Old Javanese clause is indeed no more than a translation of the
Sanskrit compound, this may be the real reason for the unusual order of
the Javanese words pamungsu putta, in which apparently the Sanskrit word
order of antaka ?tmaja is slavishly copied, as is often the case in translation
work.
23 Miss Muusses was unable to reach this conclusion in her important article
of 1929, since the relevant data from the Waringin Pitu charter were not yet
available at that time. It is worth noting, however, that she already pointed
the way which has been trodden above, and drew two preliminary conclusions
which were within her reach, viz. that other members of the royal family
besides the king must have been mentioned on the preceding plates of the
Trawulan III inscription, and that one of these, the husband of the Princess
of Kabalan, must have been the elder brother of Suraprabh?wa (Muusses
1929:211-212). Miss Muusses furthermore corrected the editor's reading of
the date of the Pamintihan inscription (1929: 208; which was overlooked by
Slametmuljana 1976:89, 155), which enabled her to identify Suraprabh?wa
with Bhre Pandan-Salas of the Pararaton (1929:209). She also made some
errors, such as further identifying Suraprabh?wa with Bhre K?rtabhumi, the
youngest son of sang Sinagara (1929:210), and with the Bhattara of Daha
mentioned in the Trailokyapuri III inscription of 1486 (1929:213). Both
these latter conclusions were mentioned by Krom as possibilities (1931: 449,
450; and also already in the first edition 1926:447,448, referring to an
unpublished article by Dr. Muusses). Miss Muusses concluded, however, by
expressing the hope that another inscription might be found which would
make it possible to either confirm or correct her conclusions (1929: 214), thus
anticipating in a way the discovery of the Waringin Pitu charter.
24 This 12-syllable Sanskrit compound, consisting of words which have clearly
been specially selected to make up together one line of Drutavilambita metre,
represents another example of the dynastic name of the royal house of Maja
pahit, besides two known from other sources, which, though made up of quite
different words, have exactly the same meaning, viz. 'mountain-lord descend
ant'. King Suraprabh?wa was styled Giri-pati-pras?ta... in his Pamintihan
charter of 1473, and Giri-indra-wamsa-ja in the first canto of the Siwar?tri
kalpa kakawin by Tanakung (Teeuw et al. 1969:65,68). These three
designations identify both King Suraprabh?wa and Prince R?jasawardhana
as 'scions of the line of the Lord of the Mountain'.
It would be an error to assume that this was the name of a Girindra
wardhana dynasty ? supposing there was such a dynasty "at the end of the

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 267

Majapahit period" (quod non, see pp. 248-253 below) ? as has been proposed
by Zoetmulder (Teeuw et al. 1969: 64) as a possibility, and by Teeuw/Robson
(1969:322) as a certainty, witness their reference to Krom 1931:451. For
Krom asserted the Girindrawardhana kings to represent a new dynasty pre
cisely because, in his view, they belonged to a different house from preceding
kings such as Suraprabh?wa and R?jasawardhana.
Ultimately they were the descendants of King R?jasa, the founder of this
dynasty, who in the N?garakrt?gama is designated by precisely the same
dynastic name: Giri-n?tha-putra (37-2-3), Giri-indra-?tmaja (40-2-3), Giri
indra-?tmas?nu (40-5-1), and ?dri-indra-tanaya (44-3-1). It is likely, there
fore, that in the above case of Prince R?jasawardhana, too, we have the old
dynastic name of the royal family of (Singasari and) Majapahit.
Recently Supomo in his extremely important article about the Lord of the
Mountains (1972) convincingly demonstrated that this term was neither a
reminiscence of the 9th-century ?ailendra dynasty, as Berg assumed, nor
a designation of the god Shiva, as had been generally supposed up till then,
but denoted the national god of the Javanese kingdom, who was revered
especially in the State sanctuary, Palah, the present-day candi Panataran at
the foot of Mt. K?lut (Supomo 1972: 292-294).
25 Since Jayeswari's father, Ranamanggala, according to the Pararaton (29: 36,
30: 5) possessed the title Bhre Pandan-Salas, clearly her son Suraprabh?wa
received this same title because he was Ranamanggala's grandson. However,
Suraprabh?wa did not succeed his grandfather, who died in 1400 (Par. 31: 1),
directly, as the Pararaton (31:31) also states that a certain Raden Jagulu
Bhre Pandan-Salas, whom it has not mentioned before, died between 1429
and 1433. Presumably this was another son of Ranamanggala, and it was
this Raden Jagulu who around 1432 was succeeded by Suraprabh?wa as
Bhre Pandan-Salas.
In a similar way Ranamanggala's eldest son, Ratnapangkaja, received his
much higher title of Bhre Kahuripan (Par. 30: 5) through his mother, who
was King Wikramawardhana's youngest sister, Surawardhani (N?g. 6-4-2) or
R?jasawardhan? (Brandes 1920: 163) Bhre Kahuripan (Par. 29: 23, 26).
Presumably Ratnapangkaja received this high title also because of his marriage
to King Wikramawardhana's daughter Suhit?, his father Ranamanggala being
only a distant relative of the royal family (Par. 29: 24-25). Likewise Jayeswari
received the high title of Bhre Daha because of her marriage to King Wikra
mawardhana's son Krtawijaya, and her elder sister the title of Bhre Lasem
because of her marriage to the king's second son Bhre Tumapel (Par. 30: 7),
possibly in this respect succeeding her mother-in-law, Wikramawardhana's
wife, who was Bhre Lasem the Fair (Par. 29:21-22) and died in 1400
(Par. 30: 36).
It is most remarkable that there should have been two princesses of Lasem
at the same time: Bhre Lasem the Fair, Wikramawardhana's consort, and
Bhre Lasem the Fat, the consort of Bhre W?rabh?mi. They are distinguished
in the Pararaton by their cognomen. As this seems so very unusual, it perhaps
reveals something of the reasons for the conflict, leading to the civil war of
1405-1406, between King Wikramawardhana and Bhre W?rabh?mi. For,
although we know something about the general background of this conflict
(cf. Noorduyn 1975), there is no information on the specific factors respon
sible for the dissensions, which in the Pararaton are denoted with a word
abelah, meaning 'rebellion' (Par. 31:4).
The duplication of the Lasem title seems toi have continued in the next
generation. After the death of both Bhre Lasem the Fair and Bhre Lasem

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 268 J. NOORDUYN

the Fat in 1400 (Par. 30: 36, 37), there were again two princesses of Las?m:
the eldest daughter of Ranamanggala and the second daughter of Bhre
W?rabh?mi (Par. 30:7, 11). According to the Pararaton (30:7, 11) both
Bhre Las?ms were married to Bhre Tumap?l, the elder son of Wikramawardh
ana (d. 1427).
It seems unlikely, though not impossible, that this Bhre Tumap?l should
have married the daughter of Bhre W?rabh?mi either before or during the
conflict between Bhre Tumap?l's father, Wikramawardhana, and Bhre W?ra
bh?mi, if the duplication of the Las?m title provided one of the reasons of
this conflict. This argument is lent still greater force by the information in
the Pararaton that Wikramawardhana himself married Bhre W?rabh?mi's
eldest daughter, Bhre Mataram, and his grandson Bhre W?ngk?r married
Bhre W?rabh?mi's third daughter, Bhre Matahun (Par. 30: 10, 12-13). It
seems inconsistent with the conflict between King Wikramawardhana and
Bhre W?rabh?mi that these three marriages, as Krom assumed (1931:431),
should have antedated this conflict. It is far more probable that they were
concluded at the same time after the defeat and death of Bhre W?rabh?mi
in 1406. His mother, Bhre Daha, was taken captive and brought to the
Majapahit kraton by King Wikramawardhana. For his three daughters it
was likewise impossible to remain in the ruined eastern kraton, so that it
may be assumed that they were married by the king, his elder son and the
latter's eldest son as a kind of gesture of final reconciliation between the two
families, and at the same time for the purpose of taking care ? in more
than one sense ? of the rebel's offspring.
If this is, in fact, what happened, the reason why King Wikramawardhana's
elder son Bhre Tumap?l and his son-in-law Ratnapangkaja initially hesitated
to take Wikramawardhana's side in his war with Bhre W?rabh?mi ( Par. 31 :
5-6) cannot have been Bhre Tumap?l's marriage to a daughter of Bhre
W?rabh?mi, as Krom ( 1931: 431 ) assumes, but may have been that they did
not quite agree with Wikramawardhana's reasons for taking issue with Bhre
W?rabh?mi. Only when Wikramawardhana was in danger of being defeated
did they take his side to prevent his defeat (Par. 31: 9-10).
It is furthermore impossible that Wikramawardhana's daughter Suhit? was
the daughter of Bhre W?rabh?mi's daughter Bhre Mataram, as Krom assumes
(1931:446), because Suhit? had been born before Bhre Mataram became
Wikramawardhana's wife. She most probably was the child of Wikrama
wardhana's first wife, Bhre Las?m the Fair, King Hayam Wuruk's only
daughter, just like her elder brother Bhre Tumap?l, her younger brother
Krtawijaya, and her eldest brother Hyang W?kas-ing-Suka II.
Although the Pararaton informs us in so many words that Hyang W?kas
ing-Suka II was the son of Wikramawardhana and Bhre Las?m the Fair
(Par. 29: 20-22), it mentions his younger brothers and sister further on only
as children of Wikramawardhana, without reference to their mother (Par, 30:
3-5). There are several circumstances, however, which make it likely that the
latter, too, were children by his first wife, and therefore just as much of
royal birth as their eldest brother. Usually, if a prince or princess was born
of a secondary wife, the Pararaton says so quite explicitly by using a term
like rabi haji (Par. 29: 18), rabi anom (Par. 30: 13), or rabi ksatriya (Par. 30:
17-18). Moreover, Wikramawardhana's three younger children are mentioned
five lines prior to the reference to Wikramawardhana's marriage to Bhre
Mataram. As a result, the mention of Wikramawardhana's eldest son in a
different place from his younger children presumably is not to be explained
by assuming that the latter had a different mother, and therefore were of

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 269

lower birth, let alone that Suhit? was born of Bhre Mataram, but was
nevertheless of higher birth than her younger brother Krtawijaya, as Krom
assumes. The reason why Suhit? took precedence over her younger brother
Krtawijaya in the succession of their father as prabhu in 1429 should not
be sought in a difference of birth, but simply in the apparent fact that an
elder sibling had priority of succession over a younger sibling, regardless
of their sex.
Finally, the fact that Raden Gajah, the man who killed Bhre W?rabh?mi
in 1406 (Par. 31: 12), was put to death for this in 1433, after Suhit? had
become queen (Par. 31: 32-33), should not be explained, as by Krom (1931:
446), with the assumption that Bhre W?rabh?mi was Suhit?'s grandfather,
but with some other reason, e.g., that he had been wanted for his act of lese
majesty but had not been found prior to 1433.
The above exposition in my view offers a sufficient explanation for why
in 1429 Wikramawardhana was succeeded by his daughter Suhit?, and not
by her younger brother Krtawijaya nor by her husband Ratnapangkaja (cf.
Krom 1931:446).
26 I am indebted to Dr. J. J. Ras for confirming my translation of this passage
as the correct one on the basis of his own study of the Pararaton language,
and for putting forward this decisive argument proving that it is the only
acceptable translation.

27 Zoetmulder's note (1974: 554 n. 21) according to which the Prince of J?wana
and the Prince of Kahuripan in this poem (lines 1 and 28 respectively) seem
to be two different persons cannot be correct, precisely because "J?wana is
another name for Kahuripan". As the eldest son of the deceased king for
whom the festival was held, this Prince of J?wana/Kahuripan is mentioned
twice: first as the person who arranged the festival, and then, following his
younger brothers, as the most distinguished of the deceased king's sons in the
series of those who presented gifts. Nor is he the sovereign king, as Zoetmulder
asserts, since neither of these passages refers to him as prabhu. The person
who was prabhu offered his gift after the Prince of Kahuripan.

28 It should be noted that the date of issue of the Trailokyapuri charters presents
a problem. According to Damais' calculations (1953:86), the charter of
Petak was issued on 11 June 1486. The Trailokyapuri charters were issued
a few months later, all three on the same day, which, however, cannot be
determined with absolute certainty. Damais (1952:6), in fact, mentions the
Trailokyapuri I and II charters as examples of original inscriptions for which
he is unable to establish the Julian date in spite of the presence of all the
necessary calendrical data for conversion. Unfortunately he has never published
the study on this and other similarly problematic dates which he promised.
The difficulty in the present case appears to be that the calculations on the
basis of the date of the lunar month and those on the basis of the wuku
elements produce two different results, showing a divergence of 6 days. The
former date is given as pratipadakrsna, or 1 krsna, (= the 16th), of the
month of K?rtika (= October/November). As 1 K?rtika coincided with
27 October, 1486, the 16th was 11 November, 1486. The wuku elements
given are WU U SU of Kulawan. As in 1486 the wuku cycle began on 7 May,
WU U SU, being the 195th day of the cycle, fell on 17 November, 1486.
This discrepancy seems insoluble without the assumption that there is an
error in the statement of the calendrical elements. Since this error may in
theory have crept into any of the elements, including the year, the date of

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 270 J. NOORDUYN

the Trailokyapuri inscriptions remains uncertain, also as a basis for historical

research, as long as no satisfactory explanation is found.
29 There is nothing strange about the fact that these published texts are insuf
ficiently reliable. The same is true of several other texts of charters in the
collection in question. Many transcriptions were in an unfinished state at
Brandes' untimely death, and Krom has rightly published them exactly as he
found them. It is surprising, however, that at least in the present case they
were not checked and corrected later, but were used as they stand by his
torians, among them Krom himself, on the apparent assumption that they
were completely reliable.
30 This part of the research was carried out under the auspices of the Indonesian
Institute of Science (LIPI) and the National Research Centre of Archaeology
(P3N) in Jakarta. I gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of these organi
zations, which enabled me to visit the relevant sites in East Java in August
1976, and especially the generous help given me by Dr. R. S. Soejono and his
staff, in particular Drs. Machi Suhadi, in Jakarta and Mojokerto.
31 The same name of the patih of this time occurs also in the Trailokyapuri I
inscription (second side, lines 9-10; unpublished). In the P?tak inscription
the name is found in an abbreviated form, Pu Wah?n, and not Thah?n (Krom
1913: 215; 1931:451). It is this Wahan which, as Krom pointed out (1931:
462), has been preserved by later Javanese tradition as the name of a patih
of Majapahit, though in a quite different context, namely the patih of King
Hayam Wuruk's grandfather.
32 Berg (1962:86; 1969:651) translates this word munggu as 'enshrined', and
assumes that the person concerned was Ranamanggala, who in the Pararaton
is called Bhre Pandan-Salas, and who died in 1400 and was enshrined
(dhinarma) in Jinggan (Par. 31:1). However, the assumption that the
person who is mentioned in the P?tak inscription of 1486 as the conquerer
of Majapahit was a prince who died almost a century earlier is far from
likely, let alone a certainty. The word munggu means 'to be (somewhere)',
and I, for one, have found no example of its being used in the sense of
'enshrined'; on the contrary, deceased princes are usually indicated as such
by a word like mokta, 'released', while in the Pararaton dhinarma is used for
'enshrined (in a special temple complex)'.
33 This has been generally assumed to be the correct reading of the sentence,
although Brandes' transliteration in OJO 91 deviates from it on two points:
he read dun- instead of duk-3 and lahaning instead of lawaning. When I had
an opportunity of studying the inscription from the original stone as well as
from the newly made rubbing in August, 1976, I discovered that from a
palaeographic point of view Brandes had good reason for adopting these
readings, while there are also sufficient arguments for rejecting them. As was
said earlier, the characters for na and ka are so similar in shape and over
lapping to such an extent that one is compelled in practically each individual
case to select the reading which most suits the context. In this particular case
only duk3 'when', makes sense. Although the difference in the shape of the
wa and ha is generally clear, it is based on such a tiny detail, viz. whether
the middle, rising line curves to the right with or without a pointed turn
to the left at the top first, that a slight irregularity is likely to cause con
fusion. In the present case the pointed turn is absent, but there is room for
the possibility that it was effaced by wearing of the stone. Here lawan best
fits the context.

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 271

The construction of the last part of the sentence is typically Javanese, and
can be explained as follows: 'when (he was) standing facing each other
{ayun-ayunan) with {lawan ing) Majapahit in war (yuddha)\ This un
doubtedly means 'when he was warring against Majapahit'. Although lawan
ing Majapahit by itself might also mean 'the opponent of Majapahit', this
interpretation is excluded here, since the reciprocal verb ayun-ayunan demands
the presence of a word like lawan in its sense of 'with'.

34 This is Miss Muusses' reading (1929:213), who thus corrected and supple
mented Brandes' transliteration ri.. . mrtt?wiihi. . . salaya (cf. Krom 1931:
451). At present this reading can be only partially checked against the stone,
since a small portion of its surface, containing the end of lines 2 (between
ri and salaya) and 3, has disappeared. Presumably this part of the inscription
was still extant when Miss Muusses studied it, and possibly its reading can
still be checked against the old rubbing, if this has been preserved.
35 The word pura is already found in the title as rendered by Miss Muusses
(1929:213). Her reading pura Daha is impossible, however, since the in
scription does not contain more than two aksaras between wilwatikta and
janggala.
Although the rubbings leave no doubt that pura is the right reading, it
should be remarked that, as a result of several epigraphical errors, the stone
also contains conflicting evidence. Most of the aksaras on the obverse side
of the stone show marks of having been traced with black ink or paint, which
presumably was done in order to improve the legibility of the inscription.
But apparently Brandes' transliteration, including its erroneous readings, was
followed when making these tracings, so that as a result the wrong reading
daha shows up on the stone and in particular on any photograph of it. This
is a clear example of the dangers of making tracings with ink or chalk as
a method of facilitating the reading of inscriptions on stone. If the inscription
is too indistinct to be read straight from the stone, a rubbing provides the
only satisfactory solution.

36 This is not in conflict with Pires' information that in his time (1513) the
capital of the Hindu-Javanese state was called Daha (Noorduyn 1976:469).
Since Pires does not mention the name Majapahit at all, the capital may
have been moved south from Majapahit to Daha some time between 1486
and 1513 in order to be at a safe distance from Muslim states on the north
coast like Surabaya, which were expanding further and further southward
and therefore coming dangerously close to the capital of Majapahit.
37 In the course of the present study practically all the princes and princesses
occurring with a bhre title in the last part of the Pararaton have, in fact,
turned out to belong to the royal family by blood or by marriage. This clearly
disproves the theory recently put forward by Deopik (1977), on the basis of
the final part of the Pararaton, that there existed in the 15th century a class
of great feudal lords, or bhre, who were unrelated to the prabhu and came
to be increasingly in opposition to the prabhu and his traditional officials,
finally destroying the prabhu9s despotic power, which was then taken over
by one of the bhre of the central provinces (p. 40). The author's conclusions
are for the greater part generalizations of what in the single source he has
used are no more than isolated pieces of information, or even absence of
information turned into positive facts. His article furthermore contains occa
sional errors of detail, such as his supposition that bhreng is the feminine
form of bhre (whereas actually both are contractions of bhra plus the

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 272 J, NOORDUYN

(locative) preposition i or ing), an apparent result of his lack of familiarity

with the Javanese language, his study being based on a Russian translation
of Brandes' Dutch translation of the Pararaton (p. 25).
I am much indebted to Dr. H. Steinhauer for his oral translation of the
article by Deopik.

REFERENCES

Adinegoro 1915: see Krom 1915.

G. C. Berg
1954 "Bijdragen tot de kermis der Panji-verhalen", BKI 110: 189-216.
1957 "De weg van Oud- naar Nieuw-Mataram", Indonesie 10:405-432.
1962 Het rijk van de vijfvoudige Buddha. Amsterdam.
1969 Maya's hemelvaart in het Javaanse Buddhisme. I. Amsterdam.

J. L. A. Brandes
1904 Rapporten van de Commissie in Nederlandsch-Indi? voor oudheidkun
dig onderzoek op Java en M adoer a 1902. Batavia/'s-Gravenhage.
1920 Pararaton (Ken Arok) of het boek der K?ningen van Tumap?l en van
Majapahit uitgegeven en toegelicht. Tweede druk, bewerkt door N. J.
Krom. VBG 62.
G. Coed?s
1968 The Indianized States of Southeast Asia. Honolulu.
A. Cortes?o
1944 The Suma Oriental of Tom? Pires. Hackluyt Society, London.

K. G. Grucq
1930 "Epigraphische aanteekeningen", OV 1929: 258-283.
1936 "Een opmerking over de jaartallen te Soekoeh en Tj?ta", TBG 76:
337-339.
L.-Ch. Damais
1952 "Etudes d'?pigraphie Indon?sienne III. Liste des principales inscriptions
dat?es de l'Indon?sie", BEFEO 46: 1-105.
1953 "Etudes d'?pigraphie Indon?sienne IV. Discussion de la date des in
scriptions", BEFEO 47: 7-290.
D. V. Deopik
1977 "Vnutripoliticeskaja istorija pozdnego Madzapachita i ee svjaz' s
izmeneniem struktury klassa feodalov (po materialam chroniki "Para
raton" - "Kniga carej")", in: Malajsko-Indonezijskie Issledovanija,
Moskva, pp. 25-41.
R. Goris
1926 Bijdrage tot de kennis der Oud-Javaansche en Balische th?ologie. Leiden.

H. J. de Graaf
1952 "Tom? Pires' "Suma Oriental" en het tijdperk van godsdienstovergang
op Java", BKI 108: 132-171.
D. G. E. Hall
1968 A History of South-East Asia. London/New York.

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAJAPAHIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 273

N. J. Krom
1913 Oud-Javaansche Oorkonden. Nagelaten transcripties door Dr. J. L. A.
Brandes. VBG 60.
1915 "Eenige opmerkingen aangaande den val van Majapahit [van R. A. A.
Kromo Djojo Adinegoro]", OV 1915: 29-32.
1916a "De laatste Bhre Daha", TBG 57: 15-22.
1916b "De troonsbestijging van Suhit?", TBG 57:23-29.
1920 "De vorsten der derde Trawoelan-oorkonde", OV 1919: 153-155.
1926 Hindoe-Javaansche Geschiedenis1, 's-Gravenhage.
1931 Hindoe-Javaansche Geschiedenis2, 's-Gravenhage.

M. Monier-Williams
1899 A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Oxford.

M. A. Muusses
1923 "De Soekoeh-opschriften", TBG 62:496-514.
1924 "De oudheden te Soekoeh", Djawa 4 (M.N. nummer) : 32-37.
1929 "Singhawikramawarddhana", Feestbundel KBG II: 207-214.

N?garakrt?gama: see Pigeaud 1960-1963.

J. Noorduyn
1968a "Further Topographical Notes on the Ferry Charter of 1358", BKI
124:460-481.
1968b "The Names of Hayam Wuruk's Sisters", BKI 124: 542-544.
1975 "The Eastern Kings in Majapahit", BKI 131: 479-489.
1976 "Concerning the Reliability of Tom? Pires' Data on Java", BKI 132:
467-471.

Pararaton: see Brandes 1920.

M. O. Parlindungan
[1964] Pongkinangolngolan Sinambe?a gelar Tuanku Rao.

Th. G. Th. Pigeaud

1960-1963 Java in the 14th Century. A Study in Cultural History. The
N?gara-K?rt?gama by Rakawi Prapatica of Majapahit, 1365 A.D.
5 Vols. 's-Gravenhage.

R. Ng. Poerbatjaraka
1922 "De inscriptie van het Mahaksobhya-beeld te Simpang (Soerabaya)",
BKI 78:426-462.
1936 "Vier oorkonden in koper", TBG 76: 373-390.
1940 Pandji-verhalen onderling vergeleken. Bandoeng.

J. J. Ras
1968 Hikajat Band jar. A Study in Malay Historiography. The Hague.

V. R. van Romondt
1951 "Peninggalan-peninggalan purbakala di Gunung Penanggungan", Publi
kasi Dinas Purbakala Republik Indonesia.

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 274 J. NOORDUYN

B. Schrieke
1957 Indonesian Sociological Studies II. Ruler and Realm in Early Java.
The Hague and Bandung.
Slametmuljana
1968 Runtuhnya keradjaan Hindu-Java dan timbulnja ne gara2 Islam di
Nusantara. Djakarta.
1976 A Story of Majapahit. Singapore.
H. Soebadio
1971 Jnanasiddh?nta. Secret Lore of the Ba?inese Saiva-priest. The Hague.
P. V. van Stein Callenfels
1919 "De inscriptie van Kandangan", TBG 58: 337-347.
1920 "De vorsten van de Trowoelan-plaat No. Ill", OV 1919: 22-30.
W. F. Stutterheim
1930 "Het opschrift van tjandi Tj?ta", BKI 86: 557-561.
1935 "Inscriptie no. 3 (8) van Soekoeh", TBG 75:462-467.
1938a "De archaeologische verzameling", Jaarboek KBG V: 108-142.
1938b "The Exploration of Mount Penanggungan, Eastern Java", Annual
Bibliography of Indian Archaeology XI 1936: 25-30.
1948 De kraton van Majapahit. 's-Gravenhage.
S. Supomo
1972 " 'Lord of the Mountains' in the Fourteenth Century Kakawin", BKI
128:281-297.
A. Teeuw
1972 "Prose and Poetry. A Contribution to the Study of Versification in Old
Javanese", in: From India Major} Leiden, pp. 208-221.
A. Teeuw, S. O. Robson et al.
1969 ?iwar?trikalpa of M pu Tanakun. 's-Gravenhage.
W. D. Whitney
18963 A Sanskrit Grammar. Leipzig/London.
M. Yamin
1962 Pertulisan Widjaja-parakrama-wardana dari Surodakan (Kediri), dengan
bertarich 1368 - T.M. 1447.
1965 idem, in: Laporan Kongres Ilmu Pengetahuan Nasional kedua, Vol. 6,
Djakarta, pp. 399-428.
[1962-1964] Tatanegara Madjapahit. 4 Vols.
P. J. Zoetmulder
1974 Kalangwan. A Survey of Old Javanese Literature. The Hague.

This content downloaded from

125.162.209.180 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:05:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms