Plate 1

THE ANTIQUITIES OF

SINGASARI

BY

JESSY BLOM PH. D.

14741

913.5961

B BURGERSDIJK& NIERMANS — TEMPLUM SALOMONIS LEIDEN — 1939

CENTBAS ARCHABOLOGIGAL LIDRARY, NEW DELHI.

3 Call Na-

UEN URRALY Acc

LOGHUAL

DELHL

Dat

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE...· P. 1

CHAPTER ISituation of the ruins 1803—1939 - Present- day remains-ENGELHARD-RaFFLES-REIN-WaRDT and Bik-DomIs-SiEBUrGH-JuKEs-RIGG-BRUMUND-VAN SCHMID-VERBEEK-Investigation by the Archaeological Survey in 1904 P. 7 CHAPTER II The chandi A after the restoration-The outside aspect of the temple-The inside-The images in the cellas-Durgā - Gaņeša-Bhatāra Guru-The images in the niches: Mahākāla and Nandīsvara-The pedestal in the temple-chamber-Bhairava-STUTTERHEIM contra MoENs-The terrace and Nandi-The pendåpå-terrace south of the temple-The arrangement of the images in the Leiden

Ethnographical Museum.....p. 38

CHAPTER III The chadi B-The data given by the first visitors-RouFFAER's Siva-Buddhist sanctu- ary-The Parvatī - STUTTERHEIM's hypothesis-The excavations in 1927 - The sculpture-The

VI

chandi C-The data-The statuary-The chandi D, the data and sculpture-The chandi E or Wayang, the data and its exact
position-The images.............. p. 6o

CHAPTER IV The images found scattered about the grounds-The rāksasas-The Leiden Brahmā - The

rși-images-The inscription of Sāka 1273 -

The images and sculpture still at Singasari-The Camundā found at Ardimoelja-The images at Malang, probably removed from Singasari-The images in the Batavia Museum

• The Gaesa at Bangkok.......... p. 88
  CHAPTER V The date of the foundation of the chadi A-BRANDEs' opinion-BERG about the Paranggalawe and the foundation of the chandi A-POERBATJARAKA-The Paranggalawe in 1295 or 13o9? - The Purwapatapan and the inter- ment of Krtanagara-Krom's point of view-BERG's conclusions: the Paranggalawe in 1295 and Krtanagara's burial in 1312 - MoENs about Krtanagara's Buddhism-Nāg. 43 : 5, 6 - Opinions of the other scholars about the burial-places of Krtanagara-STUTTERHEIM's

opinion: the chadi A is a Siva-Buddhist

sanctuary-The inscription of Šaka 1273 -

The caitya one of the southern ruins? p. 116

CHAPTER VI Portrait- and posthumous-images-Camundā -

Parvatī - Bhairava-Brahmā - The Sivaitic images at Leiden and Singasari-The Prajña-

VII

pāeamitās-No. 1o a third Prajñāpāramita? - The inscriptions of later date-The inscriptions

of an earlier period ............. p. 141

RECAPITULATION ....
.... p. 159

APPENDIX I Inventory of the Singasari antiquities p. 162

APPENDIX II Bibliography ......... p. 172
INDEX.... p. 180

PLATES

Plate 1 The tower-temple after the restoration. Plate 2 The Parvatī-group. Plates 3A and 3B Detail photograph of the head-piece of Pārvatī. Plate 3c Seated female images. Plate 3D Head of an image. Plate 4 The third rși-image.

MAPS

Map I Reconstruction of the situation of the temples at Singasari; places where images were found during the period 1822—1928.

Map II Situation of the four southern temples during the

researches in 1927.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

B.K.I.Bijdragen Koninklijk Instituut.
H.J.G. Hindoe-Javaansche Geschiedenis-Prof. Dr.
N. J. KROM (1931).
Inl. Inleiding tot de Hindoe-Javaansche Kunst-Prof. Dr. N. J. KRom (1923). Mon.Monografie II, Tjandi Singasari-Dr. J. L. BRANDES. Nag. Nāgarakrtāgama-ED. KERN-KROM (1919).

N.B.G. Notulen Bataviaasch Genootschap.
O.D.Oudheidkundige Dienst.
O.J.O. Oud-Javaansche Oorkonden-Nagelaten trans-
cripties van wijlen Dr. J. L. BRANDEs, uitgegeven door Dr. N. J. Krom.

O.R. Oudheidkundig Rapport.
O.V. Oudheidkundig Verslag. Par. Pararaton-ED. BRANDEs-KROM (1920).
R.C.N.I.O.O. Rapport Commissie Ned. Indie voor Oudheid-
kundig Onderzoek.

T.B.G. Tijdschrift Bataviaasch Genootschap.
V.B.G. Verhandelingen Bataviaasch Genootschap.
V.G.Verspreide Geschriften-Prof. Dr. H. KERN.

PREFACE

It was with mixed feelings that the following pages of this monography dealing with some aspects of the antiquities of Singasari, were written. There is certainly cause for rejoicing that the Archaeological Survey .Department of the Netherlands East Indies has under- taken the restoration, but on the other hand, as will appear below, only one temple could be saved from utter ruin. All the other buildings which once constituted this East-Javanese complex are now lost to us, owing to various causes. With the greatest regret we are forced to state that the once mighty group of buildings near the main road from Malang to Pasuruan had fallen into such a state of decay that one can hardly call them ruins. This is chiefly due to the absolute indifference of the native population of the district, and the lack of respect for what their ancestors achieved by the means then at their disposal. The European section of the community had very little knowledge of the past history of Java, and we can positively state that even at the beginning of the 19th century, when people began to write about these buildings, and more or less detailed descriptions appeared in print, no attempt was made to check their decay. We learn from various sources that there was a time when the Civil Service assessed the value of

the building materials of the temples according to their usefulness for paving the roads of the district. The inhabitants of the kampong also did their share, and used the stones of the sanctu- aries for their own purposes whenever it was possible to drag them away. In this way much material was lost that would have been invaluable for the work of restoration, and the lack of which made restoration so difficult and incomplete. However badly

the buildings of the site had been treated, the population

appeared to have had more veneration for the statues which had once adorned the temples, even though this could have been interpreted in more than one way. On the one hand one might

say that their indifference was so great that they left the images

exposed to all weathers on the grounds surrounding the temples; on the other hand, that they did not hesitate to mutilate the statues to such an extent, even though this was done to save them from the cupidity of strangers that the damage was almost irreparable. As the population professed the Moslem religion, it was obvious that there could be no question of worship. On the other hand, it is difficult for us to conceive that a people who were and still are so attached to the traditions of their ancestors, should be so indifferent towards the products of their art. The pedestal in the main apartment of the tower-temple which still exists, was the only object that could formerly lay claim to worship. The circumstances in which the Bhaara Guru was found, justify the suspicion that strangers had a hand in the threatening collapse of this temple. The lack of interest and the carelessness of the native population greatly facilitated the removal of the statues to other places. We need only mention the Leiden

Museum in order to give an idea of what has been taken away

from Singasari. In Bangkok there are 'two' images — and several antiquities from other parts of Java which were presented to H.M. the late King of Siam in the year 1896 during his tour of Java. Meanwhile, as we shall see later, it has not been possible to prove that there is more than one statue from Singasari in the Bangkok National Museum (this one statue is the Gaņeša, to which we shall refer later on). As regards the ‘export' of statues to Holland, we have had a good deal of ill-luck; at least three consignments of images found a watery grave and were therefore lost to us. We examined the articles of the Batavia Courant' on the subject, but unfor- tunately nothing was known about the matter, except that 'statues' had been shipped from Malang; it is therefore with- in the bounds of possibility that images from Singasari were among them. This attitude of 'laisser faire', of general apathy, is very marked. It appears that there have been Javanese antiquities which suffered by being 'visited', the visits being generally followed by gifts, so that some of the images became a 'commemoration' in every sense of the word. As a consequence of neglect and indifference on the one hand, and the removal of images and stones on the other, there was nothing left here of all the buildings that might have been restored, except the temple opposite the front page (PLATE I). Meanwhile, since a large number of images still remain, it became difficult to decide which of these used to stand in the temple still in existence, and which images were in the temples of which there is no longer any trace. Speculation is naturally rife on the subject, especially as there are possibly more images underground. One might feel inclined to let matters rest until the time comes

fora renewed examination of the grounds, which will probably never happen, owing to the enormous cost of buying out the inhabitants. The question as to whether it would be desirable to once more devote attention to these antiquities, must be answered in the affirmative, in spite of the fact that in 19o9 the late lamented

Dr. J. L. A. BRANDEs published his Monography on Singasari,

which, when one takes into consideration the time in which it appeared, was almost complete. A reason must be given for the desirability of devoting a

thesis to these antiquities, considering that so much has already

been written about them. One might begin by saying that no complete work about Singasari has been written since BRANDEs' Monography, but only separate treatises, mainly concerning the statues. In the period from 19o9—'39 sufficient discoveries and details have been brought to light to warrant a new examination. We have therefore collected all the available material so as to

give the completest possible summary of the whole, which might

serve as a starting-point if the suppositions concerning antiquities which may still be excavated turn out to be justified. To put it as clearly as possible: we shall give the facts as they are, and raise no hopes that cannot be realised. As far as possible we have refrained from putting any hypothetical case as regards the temples or images: we have, however, examined, and if we considered it necessary, contested the already existing suppositions. We hope to have raised new points of view that may be of assistance in solving the many problems that are mentioned in connection with the Singasari complex.

As regards the appended maps, it is necessary to state that the

buildings and statues could not always be reproduced to the exact scale.

We have chiefly been guided by the figurative sketch of the ground made by BIk, and by LEYDIE MELVILLE's drawing, and also by the data supplied by many visitors to the site. We have supplemented all this with the data and results of the subsequent examination, and thus obtained a more or less sketchy rendering of the position of the buildings and the places where the images were found. Because the first Dutch descriptions of these antiquities were written in somewhat bombastic and occasionally obscure language, we have felt obliged, when quoting from their works, to give a free translation, since a literal translation would have been more likely to confuse the argument than to make it clear. For convenience' sake, when necessary, we have given the Dutch text literally in a foot-note.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.

I infinitely regret that it is no longer possible 1) to give adequate

expression to my gratitude towards Professor Dr. N. J. Krom,

under whose auspices I am taking my degree, except by mentioning his name on page VII. It is with gratitude that I mention the assistance afforded me by the Netherlands Minister at Bangkok, and also by the Director of the Bangkok National Museum, during my investigations with regard to the 'two' statues which were supposed to have come from the Singasari complex.

In connection with these same investigations I acknowledge

1) Gids der Rijksuniversiteit (1939—'40), p. 240.

my indebtedness to the Director of Education and Public Worship, and to the Archaeological Survey at Batavia for their help in placing photographs and drawings at my disposal. I also tender my thanks to the Resident of Malang, and to Mr. W. MEYER of Toeren for his kindness in taking many photographs of the antiquities of Singasari for my use. Finally I thank Dr. D. FRIEDMANN, whose accuracy has been of great help to me, and Mrs. D. HARTog for her assistance in partly correcting and partly translating my manuscript.

CHAPTER I

SITUATION OF THE RUINS 1803—1939.

The archaeological remains of Singasari are situated west of the village and about half-way along the highroad from Malang to Pasuruan. Leaving the highroad and turning to the left, a road leading north-west takes us to the antiquities of Singasari. Following this road we pass the tower-temple which lies to the right about 3oo meters from the highway; on the open, well-kept square some images and fragments of images are still to be found. Six hundred meters further on we come across two colossal rākšasas, one of which has sunk into the earth up to the navel, and these together with the statuary and fragments of images on the aloon-aloon are all that remain of the once famous complex at Singasari. Before we pass on to the history of this archaeological site, we wish to point out clearly that in writing about chandi Singasari we do not intend to restrict ourselves to the still existing chaņdi, which since 1936 has been partly restored to its former beauty by Dutch archaeologists. On the contrary, our intention is to investigate those ruins of which scientific research has stated that they once formed part of the group of Singasari, and of which, as will appear below, the foundations lie entirely buried under the ground.

The temple proper, chandi Singasari, which in the course of

years became known under the name of tower-temple, fortunately

escaped the fate of utter ruin which the remaining monuments suffered, a fact which enabled several scholars to submit this site to a thorough examination. Besides, from its discovery in 1803 until 19o1 when the Archaeological Commission came into being, this tower-temple has been examined by many visitors who have left us more or less detailed descriptions of it. The other temples, however, were already more than a century ago reduced to mere ruins, whereas the images belonging to these

temples were removed from their proper places, some being

scattered over the ground and some of them disappearing alto- gether. At present these images, as well as those of which we know positively that they must have had a place in the tower-temple, are spread over several Museums 1), but still there is nothing that proves beyond doubt the original locality and setting of most of the images. The temples they once adorned have abso- lutely vanished, and at present not even their basements can be traced. In the course of this treatise it will become clear that these basements are hidden under a thick layer of earth, and covered by bushes and ∂esah's; it would require enormous labour and capital to excavate them. We hope that one day the Archaeological Survey Department of the Netherlands East Indies will undertake this strenuous work, the result of which, we are sure, will afford much help in solving the many puzzling problems con- cerning the exact situation of the ruins. In order to obtain a clear insight into the original position and number of the temples now no longer existing, we shall examine thoroughly and criti- cally the various descriptions mentioned above. For this purpose

1) See Chapter II, IV.

it will be necessary to quote sentences and even whole passages

from the descriptions concerned. Later on in this treatise we shall give an inventory of all the images in the order in which they were found in the grounds or in the temples, removed from the latter, lost during their removal or by carelessness, and of those which are still in the grounds or placed in Museums. To begin with we shall deal with those images from which direct evidence can be derived with regard to the position of the temples.

With NicoLAUs ENGELHARD, the former Governor of Java's north-east coast, we open the list of visitors to the archaeolo- gical remains of Singasari, and we shall discuss some points of his report on Java's antiquities in connection with two letters, the one written by the Commissioner-General Du Bus DE GHISIGNIES, and the other by ENGELHARD himself. This report served as an answer to the urgent questions put by Lt. Colonel MAcKENzIE concerning the inscriptions, history, populace etc. of Java 1). In translating the English text of this list of questions into Dutch, a mistake was made; the word inscriptions'

was wrongly translated as ‘antiquities', and this led to the

above-mentioned report of ENGELHARD concerning the antiquities in which he was much interested. From the part relating to Singasari, we gather that he wishes to clear his name from the generally accepted accusation that he robbed' the images from the temple, and he explains his reasons for 'removing'

1) B.K.I. vol. 76, (1920) p. 435 f.; Dr. N. J. KROM, ENGELHARD over de
Javaansche oudheden.

them. The first is, that the natives no longer seemed to worship these images, and the second — and here he adduces a motive which sounds more important — that he wanted to protect them against violence, since there was one amongst them that was badly damaged. Undoubtedly it was the Mahāguru image seen by RAFFLEs in 1815 and afterwards by many other visitors. It used to be in the cella, and visitors reported that it was badly damaged and that the head was smashed. After the excavations, the fragments were put together, and the image replaced in the cella. We are inclined to believe with Prof. Krom, that the first reason given by ENGELHARD is only a poor invention to

hide his eagerness for the possession of antiquities; the second

reason seems more plausible; though there may be one argu- ment that militates against it. We might suppose that the Mahāguru was damaged in ENGELHARD's attempt to lift the image out of its cella (the southern one), and that after ascertaining the

damage, he was of opinion that it was not worth the trouble and

expense of transport. But, as ENGELHARD so frankly admitted

his robbery, or to put it mildly, his having taken care of the

images, we may safely assume that his statement about the

desecrators is true and not a mere invention. It is difficult to establish the identity of these violators; were they natives or treasure-hunters? One cannot form an idea of the nature of the motives which may induce a native to wilfully damage his images. There is, for instance, the fear that they might be carried off by strangers, and also the fear of the magic influence which he believes to be diffused by the images. We shall deal with examples of both motives in the chapter on iconography. According to the first letter mentioned above, the one written by Du Bus DE GHisiGNIEs in the year 1827, it was assumed that

the tower-temple was first discovered by ENGELHARD in 18o4 1).

The second letter, however, which we found in the Manuscripts section of the University library of Leiden and which is written by ENGELHARD himself to Prof. C. J. C. REUVENs and dated 28 Febr. 1827, tells us and here we quote the very words of ENGELHARD that "the six images which were in my posses- sion before Dr. HorsFIELD came to Java, are from a temple discovered in 18o3, in the wastes of Malang" 2). This information is very important for two reasons: it fixes the year 18o3 as the date of the discovery of the tower-temple, and furthermore we have written evidence that the six images 8) concerned come from this very temple. In the same letter we can read between the lines that ENGELHARD is irritated by the fact that authors such as RAFFLEs, CRAWFURD and others, who described Java's antiquities, used "his temples and his images", thereby forgetting to mention his name; or when they referred to him, they did so in a spirit of criticism. He would send his collection to Holland "so as to disprove the proud assertions and vain boasting of strangers who usually dress themselves in borrowed

plumage... ." 4).

1) Mon. p. 59.
2) This letter was first discovered by Dr. F. M. SchNItGER, but is not
yet published. The Dutch text reads as follows: De ses beelden, die in mijn bezit geweest zijn, zijn reeds voor de komst van Dr. HorsFiELD op Java, (zijn) uit een tempel in 18o3 ontdekt in de wildernissen van Malang.

3) The six images are: Durgā, Gaņesa, Nandi, Mabākāla, Nandisvara
and Bhairava.

4) .... tot tenietdoening van alle grootsche opgaven en grootspraak
van vreemdelingen (en) die doorgaans met de veeren van anderen
pronken.....

The second who appears on our list of visitors as having

examined the archaeological remains of Singasari, is the English

Lt. Governor TH. STAMFORD RAFFLES. He investigated the

grounds in 1815, and from him we derive the first important

information. We shall follow him here on the route he took, in order to fix the exact situation of the remains 1). Raffles 1815. "On the next morning we visited the ruins of Singa Sari, which are situated a few paces within the entrance of a teak forest about four miles from Lawang, and to the right of the highroad to Malang... ." He observes the tower-temple 2) and gives us a description of it: "a square building having the entrance on the western side:

its present height may be about 3o feet. ..."

In the temple-chamber RAFFLEs saw the linga-pedestal, and outside "on the part of ruins which appeared to have been a lower terrace" he noticed two small rākšasas. Proceeding a little further into the forest (RouFFAER interprets: south-west 8), he
found the Nandi (now in the Batavia Museum)".... quite
perfect with the exception of the horns. ... and about five feet

and a half long ...."

Close by he observed an image which he thought to be a

Mahādeva (later identified as Tavindu and also transported

to Batavia), a magnificent Brahma, and "another stone with a figure
nearly similar ...." A little further on RAFFLEs came upon Sūrya's
vahana drawn by seven horses with their heads missing; this Sūrya appears to be the northern one on our ground-plan 4).

1) TH. S. RAFFLEs, History of Java, vol. II, p. 44 ff.
2) From now on we shall call it the chadi A.
3) The remarks between brackets are ours. For RouFFAER's interpretation,
see Mon. p. 54.

4) See Map I.

".... At the distance of about a hundred yards (RouFFAER

interprets: northwards 1) from this spot we were conducted to a magnificent Ganesa of a colossal size, most beautifully executed
and in high preservation ...." 2). Still further in the forest he
saw two colossal rāksasas; both statues had fallen from their pedestal which he discovered close by. Comparing RAFFLEs' description with our ground-plan we can positively state that he did not go further than the northern Surya. He made no mention of the other ruins; the fact that at the time the whole

site was covered with thick woods probably prevented him

from going further south.

The ruins of a second temple were discovered in 182o; it is not known who was the first discoverer of this monument ³).

In 1822 when Prof. C. G. C. REINWARDT, accompanied by

J. TH. Bik, visited the place, this newly-discovered temple was mentioned for the first time. This scholar also noticed the existence of the remains of three other temples. His description is as follows 4): Reinwar∂t an∂ Bik 1822. "We visited the antiquities of Mon- doroko, an old pit at that place, and the temples of Singasari.... One of these temples was discovered in 182o and made acces- sible by cutting down the wood. From south-east to north-west
it measures 93 by 35 feet 5).... At both ends were large

1) Mon. p. 55.
2) This Gaņesa was presented to the late King Chulalongkorn of
Siam in 1896 and is still in Bangkok.

3) Mon. p. 57, RoUFFAER gives: MoNNEREAU?
4) Mon. p. 2—3.
5) i.e.: RHINELAND feet; 1 Rh. foot = o,31 meter.

rooms...." At the north-west side of this temple he found

a big stone image, representing a woman, and the head of the

image was broken 1). Bik called it 'the image with the bishop's mitre' and it is still known under this name. Upon the edge of the temple the image of a squatting woman (padmāsana) was noticed; it was badly damaged and the head was missing.
"....South-west from here stand three other temples, of
which the first is small and entirely decayed; the second is large and measures 72 by 4o feet 2); to the left and right of this temple are two images representing the Ox(Nandi) and the chariot (Surya); both images and the temple itself are in a bad state; there is no entrance. The third temple has almost entirely collapsed; on some walls one can still trace beautiful bas-reliefs. ... At the side 8) of the largest temple is the image of a woman sitting cross-legged and holding a censer in both hands; her neck is covered with ornaments. Round the head is a halo carved in the stone against which the figure leans; the face and
feet are very much damaged. This image is extremely beautiful...."
Recapitulating, we are dealing here with the ruins of four temples:

B..... the temple measuring 93 by 35 feet.

C..... the temple small and decayed.

D..... the temple measuring 72 by 40 feet.

E..... the temple with the bas-reliefs.
1) See Plate 5.
2) Also RHINELAND feet.
3) Mon. p. 3 gives: op de zijde van", whereas BRuMuND in V.B.G.

XXXIII, p. 2o2, gives: op zijde van", which in this case makes a great

difference; comparing this with Bik's ground-plan, we conclude that BrumuND is right, because the former fixed the above-mentioned image

north-west of the chadi B. For BIk's ground-plan, see: Mon. Pl. A2.

15 Comparing Bik's account with his ground-plan, there are points which strike us as peculiar. In the first place it is strange that Bik did not fix the position of the chadi A on his plan; a rough sketch of this temple proves to us that he noticed it. In the second place there are the two small squares viz. the one south of the road leading along the chadi A, and the other south of the chai E, which we fail to locate. Another point that is not quite clear to us, is the pit between the chanis C and D. It is regrettable that Bik gave no explanation of this; at the very beginning of his description he merely speaks of a pit situated in the vicinity of the ruins of Mondoroko, and although BRANDEs gave the explanation later on 1), that these ruins were located in the present ∂esah Pagentan, i. e. south of the temple E, this does not solve the problem, for the pit lies more to the north on Bik's plan.

Domis 1829 & 1836. We pass on to the next visitor to the site, H. J. Domis, who does not seem to have been a very accurate observer, and who gives us a rather confusing account of what he noticed. According to his description, he came from Pasuruan and reached the coffee plantation Glandang ²), where he turned to the left side (sic!) 3).
".... Driving on for about 75o meters, one discovers a
temple on the same side (sic!) ...." That is the chandi A, as
we gather from his description which almost agrees with that of RAFFLEs. He also noticed the Mahāguru inside, and then con- tinues:... ." Having left the temple, I first returned to the main

1) R.C.N.I.O.O. 1906, p. 6.
2) See Mon. Pl. A2.
3) H. J. Domıs, De residentie Pasoeroeang op het eiland Java, p. 119 ff.

16 road, and turning to the left (sic!) and following a small path, I came upon a beautiful Genesa of a colossal size ... ." If we credit Domis' assertion that after leaving the temple he turned to the left, this means that the Gaņeša stood south of the road, instead of north as is given on Bik's ground-plan. Of course, the removing of images is nothing very extraordinary, and though apparently done without special purpose, we have some examples of its having occurred. In this case, we are more inclined to believe that Domis made another mistake. On the other hand, we must bear in mind that the whole site was still covered by woods, and that naturally there were no proper roads.
To continue Domis' account, he says: ".... From this Genesa
which stood hidden and solitary in the dense forest, I returned to the main road and continued my way to the main building proper (sic!). Of that (building) I found but two large heaps of
stones .... The height of these must be about 18 to 2o feet;
they lie at a good distance from each other and seem to have served as a support for the two colossal door-waiters which
have fallen from them ...."
Further on in his description, Domis declares that he had the whole place 1) cleaned, and transferred the images which formerly stood here, and which, together with other antiquities, were then standing in the garden of the Asst. Resident of Malang, to Singasari, where he had them placed near the Chungkup (i. e. the chandi A). Among the stones (?) were six well-preserved specimens about 6 to 8 feet high, on which Kawi-characters were written 2).

1) The present aloon-aloon.
2) We are not able to make out whether these stones originally be-
longed to the large heaps of stones" or to the antiquities, which Domis transported from Malang to the Chungkup.

17
".... Penetrating the wood southwards, I found several
decayed temples... ." He noticed the Mahādeva and the Nandi; near by he found the upper part of a Brama', and the Sūrya. He regretted that the heads of the horses were struck off; people assured him that this had been done by the natives, who were afraid that if these images remained undamaged, they might be transported to the capital 1), a fact to which we have already referred in connection with the Mahāguru of the chadi A. Returning to the ‘several decayed temples' seen by Domis, we shall try to locate them. In the description, no special mention is made of the chadi B which certainly must have been worth noticing at that time. Furthermore, Domis says nothing about the other stone images, such as the squatting figure of a woman, the southern Nandi and Surya. From the above-mentioned facts we must draw the conclusion that Domis did not go as far as the chadi B, and with regard to this statement two questions may arise. Why did Domis not go further into the wood, that is: further south? and which are these decayed temples? The answer to the first question might be that the natives who accompanied DomIs told him, as was the case with VERBEEK in 1891, that with the exception of the above-mentioned remains and images, nothing else was to be seen. Further evidence in support of this might be the argument, that, as we stated above, the grounds were overgrown by trees and weeds which obstructed the view. We know too well how quickly tropical vegetation grows and hides everything in its tangled growth. As to the second question, we are inclined to believe that these temples had escaped notice hitherto. We read in RigG's description

1) It is not clear to us what is meant here by ,capital"; probably the
capital of Pasuruan? 2

later on that it is an established fact that on the line we draw between the chandi B and the Ganesa there must have been the ruins of two temples, which makes it almost certain that these are the same which were seen by Domis. We shall call these ruins: F and G (see Map I). As regards the two large heaps of stones mentioned above, it is evident that Domis supposed them to be the main building of the site; later on he contradicts himself by saying that these heaps are the pedestals of the two colossal door-waiters. At the end of his account Domis remarks: ".... Behind the main building which is now destroyed, a small path takes us to an opening leading to a ∂esah. Here they showed me the remains of a wall together with a plateau which is now overgrown with plants, but which bore the traces of a destroyed
city...."
The mentioning of a wall here agrees with Prof. REINwARDT's description of ,an amazingly large wall which was formerly built around the old city and with the stones of which the road (from Malang to Lawang) and all the other roads leading through

the district are paved, so that one can see how exceedingly

vast those masses of masonry must have been 1).

The next visitor to the remains of Singasari is the painter

H. N. SIEBURGH, who left us many paintings and sketches of

Javanese temples and images, besides his notes on the anti-

quities. There are two of his paintings representing temples of

1) Mon. p. 57, f. In his Inventaris van Hindoe-oudheden op Java"

(R.O.D. 1923), VERBEEk forgot to mention under No. 2251, the fragments

of a wall on the Kawi-mountain; see: DoMIs, p. 69 f. and BRuMuND, p. 206.

Singasari, one of the chadi A (No. 26) and another, recognised

by DE BRUYN as the chandi C (No. 27). There are also the

sketches of the fragments of two temples on this site (No. 39).

In his thesis 1) DE BRuYN dealt with these paintings and sketches;

from it we obtain the following idea of the position of the remains: Sieburgh 1837. "Singo Sari supplies us with a group of temples which are not to be considered in connection with each other; although near to one another one must not conclude that they belonged to the same sects, (since) their construction is so

divergent 2). Five ruins which still rise high above the ground

seem to have been temples ...." 3).
Only one temple had a name. It is the one described by Bik as 'the temple with the bas-reliefs' and which SıEBuRGH for the first time wrote of as the chandi Wayang (E): since then it has been known by that name, which is derived from the bas-reliefs that were carved on the walls. It is remarkable that this temple was built of a soft white stone, different from the material used for the construction of the other temples.
".... Three other temples are in its immediate vicinity, and
though on the same line they are in no way connected with each other, architecturally speaking. The first is only a base of which the building is razed to the ground ... ." 8): He admires

1) J. V. DE BRUYN, H. N. SIEBURGH en zijn beteekenis voor de Javaansche
Oudheidkunde.

2) MS., boek II, p. 164:,. ... Levert ons een groep van tempels op,
welke niet als in onderling verband mogen beschouwd worden; hoezeer dezelve bijna(ar) naast elkander zijn gelegen, mag men niet besluiten dat dezelve tot dezelfde secten behoord hebben, (de) de constructie zoo
uiteenloopend is ...."

s) DE BRUYN, p. 128.

the style of the building, consisting of a squat pedestal surrounded by what might be described as rows of bead carvings which are in such high relief that they are almost level with the body of the temple. He gives a sketch (No. 27) of the middle one of these temples; it has a square body and shows an inner hall-room which might formerly have been covered by a dome- shaped roof. And further: "It is not unlikely that this temple was a specimen of those which used to be entirely bricked up, because in the place where there are still traces of an entrance, a projecting wing has been fixed. The third of these (ruins) is of less importance than the preceding one, and shows nothing but a colossal heap of ruins, between which an architectural line seems to appear here and there 1). At the distance of some hundred paces from this last temple stands a building of a better style .... 2)" According to the description this is the chadi A. In a note 8) DE BRUYN remarks: "Probably SIEBURGH meant four instead of five ruins, because a little farther on he speaks of the 'chandiWayang' and the 'three other ruins'. It is strange, however, that in his list published in T.B.G. IX (186o), van ScíMID also mentions "five ruins of temples," besides the tower-temple. Is it possible that in alluding to this fifth ruined temple he meant the small square ruin, on the north of Bik's ground-plan, south of the road to Gunung Sari?" We fail to understand where DE BRuYN's difficulty lies, since SiEBuRGH does not mention anywhere that he saw five ruins besides the chandi A; we consider this temple to be one of the five ruins.

1) De BruYN, p. 129.
2) Id. p. 125.
s) Id. p. 128, note 2.

There are only two temples about which we can be certain,

viz. the chandis A and E; furthermore, we have evidence that the ruins of three temples lie between the former two. We shall try to discover whether these three ruins correspond with those known to us from the descriptions. Admitting that SıEBuRGí came from the chandi E, it is obvious that he first reached the temple D, which according to his account is the temple with the "squat pedestal, surrounded by rows of bead carvings." If however, SiEBuRGH started with the examination of the chandi B, the above-mentioned description would apply to this temple; but neither in Bik's sketch of this temple nor in SIEBuRGH's do we find a trace of these bead carvings. We must therefore assume that the first of the three temples is the chandi D. In discussing the middle one we have to deal with the following data:
SIEBURGH.... 1) an unnumbered sketch,

2) probably once covered by a kind of cupola,

3) a projecting wing.

DE BRuYN already identified sketch No. 27 (temple at night)

as representing the middle temple. This (painted) sketch 1) is rather indistinct. It shows us a square building with vague outlines due to the fact that it was painted at night, and because of the dark colours used by SiEBuRGí. The temple appears to be in fairly good condition. As the drawing of the roof is blurred where it blends with the sky, we are unable to see whether the building might have been covered by a dome-shaped roof. What SiEBuRGH might have meant by the "projecting wing", is not

quite clear to us; it is possible that this wing was a kind of

vestibule such as is spoken of by Rigg 2); on the other hand,

1) By sketch SIEuRGí meant a painted sketch.
2) J. Rigg, Tour in Java, p. 542.

that projecting wing, as shown in SiEBuRGH's painting, is too small to be taken for a vestibule, and probably is the ordinary projecting wing which is so typical of a Javanese temple. We wish to state that the above-mentioned temple is the chandi C. With regard to Bik's assertion that this temple is "small and decayed" 1), we notice that this is contradicted both by SıEBuRGí's description and his painting. We refer to the description given by Rigg 2), that this temple might have risen to the height of 25 or 3o feet, which can only apply to the middle one of the three ruins, since we proved that the temple sur- rounded by rows of bead carvings and which was razed to the ground, is the chaņdi D. The assertion of Bik still remains to be discussed; DE BRuYN calls it a curious mistake. In an article on this very subject Prof. Krom wonders whether it was Bik who was wrong, and he thinks it more likely that SiEBuRGH made a mistake, as the latter repeatedly contradicts himself in his
notes: ".... His having mistaken the 'first', the 'middle'
and the 'third' chandi for each other, ,,can more easily be explained when one knows that the chandi D actually lies
between the two others.... and the situation of the three
temples can be more clearly realised than the connection with B which is obviously further away... ."8). We may add that in the same article, the author positively asserts that SIEBURGH's ‘first' temple, i. e. the one we proved to be the chadi D, is the chaņdi B, basing his opinion on Bık's description and drawing of the buildings. This means that according to Prof. Krom, SiEBuRGH first dealt with E and continued with B, before des-

1) Mon. p. 2.
2)RIGG, p. 542.
3) Dr. N. J. Krom, Tjandi Papak? This article will be published in B.K.I.
vol. 98.

cribing D and C. But how does he account for the fact that SiEBuRGH's painting undoubtedly represents a square building, whereas the chai D, which he assumes to be represented in the

painting, is oblong? In the foregoing pages we have explained our reasons for holding a different opinion. We must now choose between the statement of SIEBURGH who gave us the painted proof of his

assertion, in conjunction with that of Rigg on whose powers

of accurate observation we place absolute reliance on the one hand, and the views of Bik on the other. We agree with DE BRuYN, that "we are merely surprised by Bik's opinion, and cannot do otherwise than call it absolutely mistaken" 1). The result of our investigations is therefore that the middle one of the three ruins is the chandi C. Consequently, the third is the chandi B, reduced to a shapeless mass of stones, among which one discovers an occasional trace of architectural design. With regard to the sketches of the fragments of two temples (No. 39), we support DE BRuYN's contention that the first represents the chadi B; it shows the same profile as the one on Bik's sketch²). The other sketch which also represents one of the ruins of
Singasari, is described by DE BruYN as follows: ".... a

ruin, roughly sketched, of which the reliefs at the foot of the

building are the most striking.. .. The chaņdi, like the chaņdi B,

is merely a shapeless mass, and this being roughly sketched,
the sanctuary cannot be better described...."s). There is however, more in this sketch than DE BruYN saw! At the foot

of the ruins we noticed a gap in the wall, made by breaking away

the stones. Besides, the faint outlines of the reliefs show us

1) DE BRUYN, p. 126.
2) Mon. Plate 6o.
3) DE BRUYN, p. 133.

24 something that on closer investigation proves to be a squatting figure on a dais, and further to the right a horse, behind which we observe a spoke-wheel. For an explanation of our discoveries we turn to Rigg, who in the account of his exploration of the ruins, gives the following description in connection with this
temple: ".... A little north north-west of these (viz. the
chandis C and D) is the last ruins of the group of Singasari; it is also a Chungkup, but has a secret vault placed under ground beneath the centre of the buildings and to which a breach broken
through the wall lays open a view .... Round the lower part
of this Chungkup, it has been embellished with neatly executed sculpture, cut in a still finer variety of the same white stone (of which the temple is built), applied in slabs. On two sides this has entirely mouldered away, but on that where the opening has been made into a vault, it is still very clear and distinguishable though often much injured. The subject matter appears to be similar to that observed at Panataran; the same old holy man with flowing beard, is entreating with folded hands a queen or
princess squatting in a bali-bali.... The same description of
the open chariots with spoke-wheels drawn by horses ... ." 1). It is therefore established beyond doubt that the above-described drawing represents the chadi Wayang (E).

We must now mention J. B. Jukes, unfortunately for us a layman, as he confesses himself, but interested in antiquities. His description 2) reads as follows:.. ..

1) RIGG, p. 542.
2) J. B. Jukes, Narrative of the surveying voyage of the H. M. S. FLY,
vol. II, p. 104 f.

Jukes 1844.". .. .We turned to the left, leaving the highroad (from Malang to Pasuruan) for a grassy lane leading towards a wood. At each side as we turned off, was a large stone covered with inscriptions, probably in Old-Javanese or Kawi characters. In less than half a mile from the main road we reached the ruins of Singha sari.... They stand scattered at the edge of a wood, the recesses of which may conceal others. There were six principal erections, besides the base of a circular tower and many large and small figures and fragments of sculpture scattered about. Group I. Three of the buildings were temples of similar form to those of Djago and Kedal.. .. they were quadrangular..., in which were statues of a large size, but more or less defaced.... The base of the largest measures 93 by 36 feet. Group II. Two of the other buildings we called tombs, but very likely were quite incorrect in doing so. They were similar to the temples in style, but much smaller, square at the base, rapidly diminishing in stories upwards, and then bulging out again in overhanging steps or ledges. One of them was crowned with the base of a circular erection, perhaps a dome or cupola. This the Widono called Chungkoop Wyang, the others Chungkoop Putri. The sixth building we could not make out at the time, as it consisted merely of two solid blocks of half ruined masonry; I believe, however, it was part of a gateway, probably the enclosure in which the temples stood. On each side was a
gigantic figure...."
We have to deal here with the ruins of six temples, and with the base of a circular tower. From the fact that statues 1) of a large size were lying inside the temples of group I, we are able to draw the conclusion that two of them are the chandis A

1) i.c. the Mahaguru in the chandi A and the "image with the bishop's
mitre" in the chaņdi B.

26 and B; we are even given the measurements of the latter and these coincide with BIk's. The third ruin is the chandi D, as the ruins of the second group are 'much smaller'. As regards the temples of group II, one of them is the chadi Wayang (E); the more definite indi- cation “"crowned with the base of a circular erection", is some- thing new to us. For an explanation of this, DE BRuYN refers to the fact that the chandi C also had a kind of dome covering the body of the temple, which makes it not unlikely that the chandi E might have been covered by a similar dome 1). RouFFAER explains the circular erection as "probably the collapsed top which gave a round appearance to the profile" 2). The second ruin of group II must be the chadi C of which unfortunately we have no further description here. The sixth building consisted of the heaps of stones of the pedestals of the colossal rākšasas. It is remarkable that both JukEs and Domis, were of opinion that these rāksasas on their pedestals formed a gate-way; Domis even went further and suggested that they were watching the kraton, i. e., where he mentioned the ‘destroyed city' 3). There is still 'the base of a circular tower' to be explained. There are two possibilities:

1) as RouFFAER assumes, the pit on Bik's ground-plan, or
2) a building that has escaped notice hitherto. As we have already said, we have some doubts with regard
to the existence of this pit, but we admit the former existence of a pit near the ruins of Mondoroko, which were fixed south of the chadi E. 4). As the above-mentioned ruins lie more to

1) DE BrUYN, p. 127.
2) Mon. p. 68.
3) Domis, p. 123.
4) See p. 13.

27 the north, we must here rule out the first possibility. We wish to accept the second for the time being; perhaps the next visitor to the remains can furnish us with a solution of this problem.

Rigg 1847. JoN. RiGg has left us an excellent and most detailed description of this site. ".... Walking a short way from the post station (Singasari) we found a road diverging to the left towards the Arjuno.
Right and left, as you enter, is seen a slab of stone 2)....
Passing downwards, at the distance of a few hundred yards, you find on the right a small temple, which is the most perfect
of the ruins ...." Then he deals with the chandi A and adds
the description of the Mahāguru in the southern cella "thrown down upon his back, with the shoulders directed outwards." Furthermore he furnishes us with a list of images round about
the temple. ".... Proceeding inwards a little further, along the
road by which we had just entered, a collection of antiquities
is found ...." Among these he found a plump Braminy bull,
the colossal rāksasas, the Gaesa, the squatting female figure with the head missing and a large and a smaller Surya. It is evident that all the images, formerly scattered in the wood and in the vicinity of the ruins, had been removed to the north, near the rāksasas which stood and still stand on the aloon- aloon since they were too heavy to be moved. We can take it for granted that the transport of the images took place even before JukEs visited the remains, since he mentioned them as

2) The same stones observed by Jukes, and probably two of the six
stones, inscribed with Kawi-characters, mentioned by Domis.

28 lying at the same place where RigG noticed them later. He did not see the Mahādeva and Brahmā, which were still there in JUKES' time. ".... Proceeding through the coffee bushes, a little southward of the last mentioned group of images, we found:

1) that the natives had been lately grubbing up the foundations
of a small building.. ..

2) Close to it was the crumbling heap of another building
hardly distinguishable for bushes and tangled weeds. An aperture, however, on one side exposed a hidden under ground recess, under the body of the ruins, similar to the one seen at the stone
temple first mentioned (the chandi A)....

3) Going on a little further in the same direction, a most
extraordinary edifice is met with. This is an oblong smooth sided, quadrangular, solid building, composed of hewn trachyte,
31 paces long by 12 broad .... and about 20 feet high....
It can only be ascended at the centre of the south western face, where the wall has either partially tumbled down or may have originally had some steps. It is remarkable that one half end of the building from this gangway towards the north is partially embellished with cornices and other architectural ornaments, whereas the other half towards the south presents nothing more than a simple plain wall. The north end is a little higher than the south and contains a fosse or square hole, in which is lying a large female image with the head broken off but still here.... I am at a loss to imagine for what purpose this building can have served, unless it has been a place on which to burn the dead, the ornamented end being reserved for the use of the priest- hood and nobles, whilst the lower castes received the same rifes at the other end.

4) Close to this, on the south west, are the remain of three

other structures; the foundations only of the first exist, they are circular, and many blocks hewn to the segment of a circle show what sort of a building they have formerly helped to compose. 5 & 6) The next two ruins have been Chungkups, that is temples without any interior or central chamber. Judging from the more perfect one which still stands, they may have risen to a height of 25 or 3o feet and been fitted with vestibules and niches, though no images longer exist.

7) A little to the northwest of these is the last ruins of the
group of Singo Sarie; it is also a Chungkup, but has a secret vault placed under ground beneath the centre of the buildings, and to which a breach broken through the wall lays open a view. These secret walled vaults in so many buildings, most probably originally served to contain either the pious offerings of their
founders or some holy relic...."1). Here follows the first
description of the bas-reliefs, which we mentioned before in connection with the identification of the second sketch (No. 39) drawn by SıEBuRGí; the temple embellished by these reliefs is the chandi Wayang. The ruins 1 and 2 can be identified as the temples F and G which, unfortunately, are in such a state of decay, that it is impossible for us to find out what they represented. It is not difficult to establish the identity of ruins 3; it is the chandi B. In ruins 4 we again meet with the mysterious base of the circular tower of Jukes; it is situated between the chandi B and "the next two ruins". The explanation set forth by Rigg, who was obviously possessed of keen powers of observation, makes the second possibility, such as we have already suggested, more likely ²). It must be the temple, the possible existence of

1) JoNATHAN RIGG, Tour in Java, p. 537 f.
2) See p. 26.

30 which we referred to before; we will call it: H. The next two ruins, viz. 5 and 6 are the chandis C and D.

Brumun∂ 1854 & 1863. As the last of the important visitors to the remains of Singasari, we mention the Reverend J. F. G. BRumuND. He examined the ruins in 1854 and for a second time in 1863. As he described his second visit in great detail, it will only be necessary to give an extract of this description 1).
".... Following a wide path to the left of the highroad,
one soon reaches the ruins of a very important temple ...."
He gives an accurate account and the measurements of this temple (the chaņdi A). He discovers that it was left unfinished, since the structural ornamentation of the upper part of the building was not quite completed, whereas the ornamentation of the body and foot were not even begun. He further discovered that the space between the temple chamber and the top was not bricked up, as was at first alleged by every visitor, but that there was an empty space. The Mahāguru was still in its cella. On the terrace he came across many images, of which he made a list. At both sides of the entrance to the temple was a stone inscribed with Kawi characters. On the aloon-aloon he also noticed several statues, some of which were made of the same white stone such as had been used for the construction of the chandi Wayang. As regards the colossal rāksasas, he agreed with Domis and Jukes that they had served as watchers of the kraton, because "Singosarie", he says, "has no ruins of temples

1) J. F. G. BrumuND, Bijdragen tot de kennis van het Hindoeïsme op
Java, V.B.G. vol. XXXIII, p. 191 ff.

entitled to the superb powers of these giants, with which those

of Prambanan.... cannot even be compared. And what are the ruins of temples of Singosarie compared with those of

Prambanan? nothing...." And he proceeds : ".... Coming from the temple and going southwards, one turns to the left and

follows a path passing along three of the (southern) ruins; a little further on, one turns to the right where the remains of
a fourth temple lie...." He first describes the image with
the bishop's mitre lying at the bottom of the chandi B. As to the former use of this temple he has the same opinion as Rigg, namely, that it may have been a place where the dead were
burned. Further he remarks: "....It seems to me that the
oblong ruin. ... had an entrance at its broad side and probably might have been divided into three rooms, such as we meet at Plaosan and Sari. The entrance then led to the middle room.... It is, however, possible that our building had been a terrace, which must have had cellar-vaults, as the image lies at the bottom. No walls can be traced, but this does not prove that no temple ever emerged above the terrace. The building may
have been dilapidated and the stones carried off...." This
last suggestion actually turns out to be true, as will appear later on in his account. On the terrace of this temple he also finds a squatting figure, four-armed and with the head missing 1).

And then: ".... Proceeding from our ruin and following

the path, we soon reach the remains of two other temples, of which nothing is left but heaps of stones. The first measured 95 and the second 9o paces in outline. Nothing of the

1) Mon. p. 74, RouFFaER says: Probably the image of a sitting woman
with the head missing on p. 2, and the image excavated by Knebel in 19o1 (p. 49), but his suggestion is wrong; it is an entirely different image, see chapter III, p. 6o, 76 f.

32 former shape of the temples can be discovered. According to the many stones, all of trachyte,.... however, they must have been important temples. People from the neighbouring kampong
used the stones ...." Near the second of the ruins he found
some images, including the Sūrya. As regards the third remains, of which he gave a description as early as 1854, he remarks: ".... and what do I now find of all this ? Nothing but a shapeless mass 15 or 16 feet high in the centre, covered with bushes and
trees and of which the outer covering has vanished ...."
At the end of his description, he says: ". ... North of the path leading to Singosarie lies a bathing-place of bamboo; it seemed deserted. The large square basin is paved all over with the trachyte stones taken from a chandi. Many images still lie
scattered there ...." The four above-mentioned ruins require
no further explanation; we know that they are the chaņis B, C, D and E. In BRuMuND's description, we noted that even at that time it still happened that stones of temples and other anti- quities were used for the purpose of bordering the openings of wells, the foundation of first layers of huts etc. 1). Even scores of years ago, people made use of the chadi stones for the laying- out of roads and that this should have been approved by a govern- ment official 2), makes our condemnation of such unpardonable vandalism even more severe. Even the natives seemed no longer to appreciate their sanctuaries. That a native sculptor 2) un- scrupulously used the stones of the chandi Wayang to minister to his passion for art, has also led to the rapid decay of this temple, a decay which would have been slower if the building had been simply abandoned to the disintegrating forces of nature

1) BRUMUND, p. 203.
2) Mon. P. 71.

and time. It is not surprising that visitors to the ruins as they

are now, do not appreciate them as they ought, and can no longer recognise in them the remains of what was once so great a work of art. The visits and reports concerning Singasari become more and more scarce. In 1856 W. VAN ScHMID published a list of various antiquities of Singasari: one temple.... by the Javanese called Chungkup. The ruins of 5 temples by the Javanese called: Bali Kambang Bali Wertio and Wajang 1). An explanation of the names of these temples is given by RouFFAER 2). The Bali Kambang or Floating Pavilion was identified according to its name, as the chadi B, in which RouFFAER saw the shape of a floating pavilion such as is used by the natives nowadays. Wertio which is a corruption of Werdija (Skt. hrdaya) meaning heart, accounts for the name of Heart Pavilion. Assuming that the five ruins of vAN ScHMID correspond with the five largest temples on Bik's plan, and leaving the Wajang out of discussion, two of the four remaining temples, having analogous oblong forms, must also have analogous names, and this means that the Bali Wertio must be identified as the oblong chadi D. The Chungkup is the chadi A and the Wajang needs no further explanation. The remaining two of the six temples must have been in a very ruinous condition, as nothing further is said about them, Dr. R. VERBEEk made a ground-plan 8) of the ruins as they

1) N.B.G. 1858, p. 6.
2) Mon. P. 76 ff.
3) Mon. Plate J.
3

were in 1886, but only of the chandi A and the aloon-aloon with several images and fragments of images. It is a very clear ground-plan, and we can only regret that the natives made VERBEEk believe that no other ruins were to be found. In 1891 he published his "Antiquities of Java" where he mentioned a chaņdi of andesite (the chandi A) as the only existing ruin of a temple at Singasari. New inquiries were made locally by the Archaeological Com- mission in 19o1. The results as regards the ruins were poor; the chandi A, however, was in no worse condition than when exami- ned on the last occasion. But the chandi Wayang in the ∂esah Pagentan had been practically razed to the ground; a portion of the foundations was found. The pedestal which appeared later on to belong to 'the image with the mitre', was also found here. In 1904 LEYDIE MELVILLE drew a ground-plan 1) of the remains at that time. It shows us the chandi Singasari (A), the aloon-aloon with the two rāksasas and other statuary. Further south

a chandi Papak, to the left of which many images are lying

scattered, and still further south, the chadi Wayang or Ringgit (Kråmå for Wayang). All that is left to us are the remains of three temples, a deplorable reminder of what had once been the

proud and glorious Singasari-group.

The only problem to be solved is whether the chadi Papak

can be identified as one of the southern ruins on Bik's plan.

RouFFAER thought that he had proved the chandi Papak to

be the temple C, (see Map I). On comparing the measure-

ments given by BIK with those of LEYDIE MELVILLE, he found

them to be practically identical. His argument in support of his

theory is as follows: "On LEYDIE's plan we note the distance

1) Mon. Plate J.

between the centres of both chandis (the Papak and Wayang)

as 59 meters. On BIk's plan the measurements of the oblong temple (D) are 72 by 40 feet (that is: 22,6 by 12,5 meters) and this settles the matter, because, — we may assume that the distance of the four temples from each other, as given on Bik's plan, is as nearly as possible correct, since he gives the exact measurements of two of them the centres of the smallest square temples on his plan, are situated at a distance of 56,5 meters from each
other, which seems to be accurate ...." 1). We must confess
that we are not of the same opinion; firstly, we cannot under- stand how RouFFAER could bring himself to rely on the measurements given on Bik's ground-plan, considering that the heading of this is as follows: Figurative sketch etc. and which we are sure is only a sketch of the site of the ruins without regard to their correct proportions. This can easily be understood when we take the measurements of the chandi D. For the shorter side Bik gave 40 and for the longer 72 feet, which is almost twice as long as the shorter side; the measurements on the ruler are therefore 11 ×14 m.m., which of course do not agree with the calculation given above. Our own measurements and calcu- lations did not enable us to arrive at the same conclusion as RouFFAER. Even the name Papak meaning flat (i. e. flat by decay) does not permit us to assume that the chadi Papak is the temple C, because we know from the descriptions mentioned above that the chani D and the other ruins were also in a state of utter decay. This does not, however, exclude the possibility that the Papak may be the temple B. or D. This question is still unanswered, because since 19o9, when BRANDEs' Mono- graphy was finished and published, no more detailed descriptions

1) Mon. P. 77.

36 have been forthcoming, with the exception of an occasional essay on the subject of images which were of general interest. Many years later the Archaeological Survey Department of the Netherlands East Indies undertook the restoration of the chaņdi Singasari, whereas the chadi Papak no longer exists. There- fore the chandi Singasari, together with the colossal rāksasas and some statuary, is the only local representative of the whole complex. The restoration was finished in 1936. It is regrettable that, as we stated previously, so many stones of the constructive part of the temple were used for other purposes, and this is why the restoration could not be completed, especially as regards the structure of the upper part of the building. New stones were used to replace those of the body which had disappeared, and this does not contribute much to the beauty of the temple. The upper portions of the cellas are also missing, which makes it difficult to see the temple in its proper proportions. The whole building, comprising the terrace, the massive base- ment and the slender super-structure, strikes us as peculiar. As we mentioned at the very beginning of this chapter, the temple is surrounded by a well-kept lawn and enclosed by a fence. Close by there are groups of European and native houses. South of the asphalt road which goes past the temple and leads to the rāksasas, the whole space which was formerly occupied by temples, is now filled by native houses. Recapitulating, we have come to the conclusion that at least seven temples existed at Singasari, namely:

1) the chaņdi A (now chadi Singasari).
2) B (93 by 35 Rh. feet).
3) ,, C (square).
4) D (72 by 40 Rh. feet).

5) the chandi E (Wayang). 6 & 7) the chandis F and G (no further indication).
8) the possibility of the chadi H (?). It is our intention to deal with these temples one by one
in the following chapters, and to decide to which temples the various images originally belonged. Secondly we shall endeavour to discover the place each temple occupied in the group; thirdly, what the connection was between these temples as regards the religions practised there, and finally we shall try to fix the possible date of their construction.

CHAPTER II

THE CHANDI A AND ITS IMAGES.

It is not our intention to give an exhaustive description of the structure and details of the temple buildings, since this has already been so accurately and clearly done by Dr. BRANDEs 1) and Professor Krom 1). But as the building has not been described since its restoration, we consider it necessary, in view of the data which we have collected, to give a general sketch of it. When discussing the temple, we shall draw attention to the following particulars:

a) The construction of the various component parts (namely the terrace, the basement, the actual foot of the temple, the temple-body, the formation of the tower;
b) The niches in the temple-body, which were originally hidden by the tops of the cellas;
c) The unfinished appearance of the decorative ornamentation; ∂) The temple-chamber in the basement;
e) The existence of the two empty spaces, viz. in the temple-body and in the roof.

1) Mon. P. 4 f; Prof. Dr. N. J. KRoM, Inleiding II, p. 7o ff.

THE EXTERNAL APPEARANCE.

The building stands on a square elevated terrace, the profile

of which is very simple; this terrace measures 13,84 square meters. It consists of deep-set oblong panels, lying lengthwise, between

a series of lower and upper ledges. Both the panels and ledges

display an almost entire absence of any carved mouldings;

probably the panels were originally intended to be adorned

with carvings in relief, as is often the case with Hindu-Javanese

temples. The rich decorative ornamentation already carried

out might incline one to this belief. A smaller, square platform,

measuring 3.47 × 4.18 meters, formerly projected from the western side of the terrace and was level with it. On either side was a flight of steps leading to the temple-chamber in the basement, the entrance to which is from the west. The temple itself is also square at the base, though smaller and of complicated construction. At each of the four sides of the temple-basement there is a cella, the one at the western side an entrance porch to the central cella itself, while the others are subsidiary cellas which can only be entered from the terrace on which the temple stands. On either side of the porch leading to the temple-chamber there is a niche, also projecting from the basement. Both niches are framed by smooth pilasters, which is also the case with the cellas. The basement of the temple has plain oblong panels set on their shorter side between a number of inverting and projecting ledges; its height from terrace to temple-foot measures

3.29 meters. The actual foot of the temple, which is also very simple and unadorned, emerges from this part of the structure. The body of the temple is slender; it rises between smooth lower and upper ledges and is girdled by a kind of belt. In the middle of each side of the body is a niche framed by

40 smooth pilasters and crowned with banaspati, the Kirtimukha or 'face of the sanctuary', which according to the Skandapurāņa, was commanded by lord Siva to protect his sanctuaries 1). With the exception of the banaspati surmounting the eastern niche, these banaspatis are richly carved. The demoniacal character is still adhered to in the bulging eyes, but the remainder, i.e. the head with horns and the claws, are decorated with a spiral leaf ornamentation in baroque style. No images were found in the niches, nor were any discovered in or near the temple. We were unfortunately unable to obtain the measurements of these niches, but judging from the photographs it seems to us that they were neither wide nor deep enough for images to have been placed there. Moreover, they were originally kept out of sight by the tops of the cellas, so that it was only possible te get a side view of them. Even then, only the posts of the niches could be seen, and not the images. We could, however, approximately fix the measurements of the niches by those given by BRANDES (Mon. PLATE v): we therefore conclude that they must be about 55 centimeters deep, 5o centimeters wide, and from 1.70 to 1.8o meters in height. If one takes the depth and width of the niches into consideration, the images cannot have been large, supposing there ba∂ been images at all. Possibly there may have been small ones, which in proportion to their little pedestals, cannot have filled more than half the height of the niches. The effect would have been decidedly curious; moreover, we may safely assume that the builders of the temple had too much aesthetic feeling and too true a sense of proportion to have had any such intention.

1) Djawa III (1923); Dr. F. D. K. Bosch, De Banaspati van Tjadi
Singasari, p. 95.

We think it extremely unlikely that there really were images in the niches, and we therefore consider them to be part of the structural ornamentation of the temple. Besides, it has been shown elsewhere 1) that niches hollowed out of the walls in the temple-body were not necessarily made to hold images, since the division of the temple-body into three parts be- longed to the style of architecture. We do not agree with STUTTERHEIM who says that "the niches are suitable for holding figures either standing, or sitting on a base" 2), and who has also forgotten to give the measurements of the niches. His contention, namely that there was a reason for the concealment of the niches and their contents by the tops of the cellas, “a position that to us has a certain significance in view of what we see at chandi Baraboedoer" 2), seems rather far-fetched. To us it seems more likely that the tops of the cellas were constructed in this manner because, as there were no images placed in the niches, nothing coul∂ be hidden from the sight- seers. And if according to STUTTERHEIM's supposition, to which we shall refer later on there really were Buddhist images in the niches, it is certainly strange that of the four images (one in each niche) not one, nor even a single fragment of one of them has been found that could show a trace of Buddhist character. On the other hand it would be obviously far-fetched to say that we must bear in mind the shiploads that were lost at sea, to which the disappearance of many antiquities may rightly be attributed, but not all of the images which one might like

1) Besides the niches in the roofs of a number of temples (for instance
Měndut) special mention must be made of chaņdi Jabung (East Java).

2) T. B. G. vol. LXXVI (1936); Dr.W. F. STUTTERHEIM, De dateering
van eenige oost-javaansche beeldengroepen, p. 3o1.

to assume as belonging to a particular group. Until there is evidence to the contrary, we therefore take it for granted, as we have previously stated, that the niches are part of the structural ornamentation. The cornice of the temple rests upon the banaspatis, and from here the roof assumes a pyramidal form, owing to the overhanging and inverting stories, which diminish in size towards the summit. Two projecting, richly decorated ledges, alternating with plain ledges that bend inwards, support a row of five small pedestals like models of temples. Although the top-formation could not be restored any higher up because the stones were missing, one may safely assume that this formation of the roof was originally repeated three times, becoming more pointed each time. The summit of all this must

have been formed by a large round flattened top (see Mon.

PLATE v). At the south-east corner the roof was purposely built up to the third storey, in order to avoid the appearance of its having stopped after the first storey. As to the structure of the subsidiary cellas, their basements are level with that of the temple; their foot is simple, their body more complicated. The jambs framing the entrance project; the lintels of the portals are surmounted by large and roughly sculptured banaspatis, which in spite of their unfinished state, or perhaps for that very reason, give an effect of greater subtlety than the banaspatis above the niches of the temple-body. Each cella once had a roof of its own, no doubt similar to that of

the temple. The general aspect of the structure appears strangely

out of proportion because the tops are missing. The decorative

ornamentation is only applied to the upper part of the building, and

even this is far from being finished. The reason for this is a problem

that may possibly have some connection with the fixing of the

period to which the edifice belongs, and with which we shall deal later (Chapter V).

THE INTERIOR.

Architecturally speaking, the principal apartment, as well as the chambers of the cellas, are situated in the basement of the structure. What we call 'temple' is really a tower forming the summit of the building and which accounts for the name of tower-temple. The walls of the chambers inside are plain and unadorned, with the exception of a projecting ledge immediately under the vaulted roof; they meet overhead in a series of overhanging and inverting ledges and are closed by a key-stone. In the principal apartment the key-stone has a funnel-shaped hole communicating with an empty space above the chamber; this space is in the centre of the temple-body. The arched roof has the same pyramidal shape as that of the temple-chamber, and is closed by a key-stone similar to the first. The hole leads to a second empty space, this time in the roof of the building, but smaller. According to BRANDEs, the obvious reason for these empty spaces was that they should lessen the weight on the arch and ventilate the chamber. The longitudinal section of the building, drawn by LEYDIE MELVILLE 1), shows us the exact situation of these spaces. According to Dr. STuTTERHEIM 2), the foundation shaft of the temple appears to have been entirely bricked up, and was there- fore not used as a place of burial. We take it for granted that he relies on the data given by BRANDEs, who — by shaded lines

1) Mon. Pl. V.
2) T. B. G. vol. LXXVI (1936), p. 300.

on the longitudinal section of the temple (see Mon. PLATE v) certainly shows that the shaft of the building was filled with a regular layer of stones, but at the same time observes "that the precarious condition of the building demands the very greatest care. Excavation, and especially deep excavation, would be too heavy a responsibility. For this reason an exami- nation of the foundations, that would have satisfied all require-
ments, had to be abandoned.... What is told about the
foundations, and what one can see in the longitudinal section see PLAtE v — is perfectly correct, but only on the outside.... The shaded lines are drawn on the assumption that the inside of the massive portions of the foundations is built of
the same materials.... while the shaft of the building, i. e.
the space under the temple-chamber, is filled up with red brick... ." 1).

After this quotation, it is needless to say that no deep excava-

tions were undertaken. Had this been the case, a foundation shaft might have been found, similar to those met with under the

chambers of all the temples of the Lårå Djonggrang group,

i. e. a shaft comprising — from top to bottom — a wide, even layer of stones, a loose mass of stones, followed by an empty space containing the ashes etc. of someone or other 2). The reports of the last investigations, followed by the resto- ration, merely say "that the foundations were made secure" 3), and the photographs that were taken do not show whether deep excavations were made; except that one of them 3) shows the floor ofthe basement with channels to drain off the water. We

1) Mon. p. 6 f.

2) Inl. vol. II, p. 476.

3) O. V. 1934, Extract from the O. V. 1931—'35, p. 15; photograph 18.

must therefore point out that these channels must have been

connected with the shaft underneath so as to be able to convey

the sacrificial water or milk to the ashes of the deceased. STuTTERHEIm's theory, that there was no place for the interment of the ashes, is thus disproved, together with the hypothesis that he built up on this mistaken conviction, i. e. the absence of a burial pit. The following is a short summary of his hypothesis: The pedestal found in the tower-temple is hollowed out much more deeply than would have been necessary for the placing of the linga-base. Dr. STuTTERHEIm therefore thinks it extremely likely that the ashes etc. of the deceased monarch were contained in the yoni underneath the linga. From this he draws the conclusion that this apartment was not a temple-chamber at all, but in point of fact a room that was intended to take the place of a burial pit. The peculiar construction of the chamber in the basement strengthens the supposition that the real apartment the place where the soul of the royal deceased would be re-incarnated —, must be above the chamber in the basement. The first empty space, (which we have already discussed and which is situated in the temple-body), might have been intended for this purpose. Both facts, viz. that the empty space above the basement-chamber was only meant to lessen the weight on the vaulted roof, and that the real temple-chamber was lacking, would be in conflict with the rules of ancient Javanese architectural style. This style does frequently display marked variations in design, but nothing is done without a definite purpose. And in this case the variation might be that the temple-chamber must be found in the empty space 1).

1) T.B.G. vol. LXXVI, p. 3oo f.

46 "We must," says STUTTERHEIM, "also remember, that in the ancient Javanese idea of religion, there was only one world of the gods that was considered higher than the Sivaitic, viz. the Buddhist, and thus it is obvious that the niches outside the real cella were meant for images from the Buddhist pantheon, and that in the cella itself there must also have been something of a Buddhist nature" 1). Special significance must thus be ascribed to the fact that the images in the niches were almost invisible, and that the image of Buddha in the centre of the temple-body was altogether unapproachable and invisible; possibly the same significance that is attributed to the partly visible Buddha images at Bara- budur 2). If we take all this for granted we must then assume that the temple is a double-temple 8), of which the lower floor is Šivaitic and the upper floor Buddhistic. Should we accept this theory, we can use STuTTERHEIM's term, i. e. "cellar-temple"', instead of "tower-temple", but this place is hardly worthy of the dignity of the Sivaitic pantheon. In discussing the niches, we stated our reasons for not admitting the existence of Buddha-images in the outer niches, and we also disagree with STuTTERHEIM as regards the Buddha-image which he supposed to have been in the body of the temple. Firstly, because during the exca- vations of the site no trace of it was found, and secondly, if we agreed with STUTTERHEIM that the image did exist and that it disappeared, we really cannot imagine how this can have happened. According to the reports of former visitors, the vaulted roof of the temple-chamber was intact, so that the

1) Id., p. 302.
2) Id., p. 301.
3) Such as is the case at Chaņdi Jawi.

image could not have been removed that way, and although Bru-

mund 1) observes that there was a hole on the outside of the

temple roof, large enough for a man to pass through, we can

scarcely believe that anyone would climb to a height of at least

33 feet (according to Brumund), in order to drag an image which must have been anything but light in weight, out of the hole. Until there is proof to the contrary, we shall assume that this temple is a Šivaitic sanctuary, and for the present we will dismiss from our mind the problem as to whether it is one of the temples in which the ashes of king Krtanagara were interred; the question will arise when we deal with the history of the temple. Against the back-walls of the three cellas lotus-cushions were found, and in the southern cella, as we have already mentioned, lay the mutilated image of Bhațāra Guru. In the principal apartment there was a damaged pedestal which is supposed to have served as a receptacle for the linga-symbol.

THE IMAGES BELONGING TO THE TEMPLE.

In the letter written by ENGELHARD to REUVENs 2), there was a reference made to six images which had been removed from the temple and had been in ENGELHARD's possession for a long time. Though not named in the letter, these images were sub- sequently identified as: Durgā, Ganesa, Mahākāla, Nandišvara, Nandi and Bhairava. It is therefore clear that besides finding a place for the supposed linga-yoni-combination, (the Bhaāra Guru is already located), we must find a position in this temple for seven images.

1) V.B.G. vol. XXXIII, p. 196.
2) See: p. 11.

48 NoRTHERN CELLA. DURGA. (No. 1) 1). Measurements: Height: 1.57 Meters : Width: 1.15,9 99 : Depth: 0.64 According to the measurements of the lotus-cushion, Durgā must have stood here before ENGELHARD felt obliged to remove the image elsewhere. The statue represents Durgā as Mahisā- suramardinī. She stands upon the bull with her legs wide apart, the demon in the form of a fat boy at her left side. She was originally eight-armed. The lower left hand is laid upon the curly head of the demon as though caressing it; the forearm holds the shield and the others are broken off. With the lower right arm the goddess holds up the bull's tail; the upper right arm is raised above the shoulder and draws the upper part of the body backwards; the hand which dealt the death-blow to the bull is missing, which is also the case with the other arms. The figure is richly dressed and adorned with many ornaments, such as bracelets, anklets and chains; the mukuta consists of three parts and bears the skull-ornament. There is lotus-vegetation at the back. The chief figure in this group of images is that of the goddess, for neither the bull which lies, conquered and submissive, beneath her feet, nor the demon which has sprung from the animal and looks very much like a naughty schoolboy being scolded, can in any way give an idea of the violence of the story they are supposed to represent. But the main figure, which almost suggests motion, radiates vigour that impresses the beholder, and makes him

1) The numbers in the following pages are ours; see: Inventory.

49 speculate as to what thoughts may be hidden behind that serene brow 1).

EASTERN CELLA — GANESA (No. 2).

Measurements: Height: 1.54 Meters : Width: 1.05 99 : Depth: 0.7499 This is the region where Gaņesa resides. The heavy figure of the elephant-faced god is seated on a throne, decorated with a row of skulls. The head is sunk between the shoulders, and crowned with a stūpa-like mukuta in which we find skull- ornaments and the crescent moon. He is four-armed and richly adorned with bracelets and anklets. He wears the snake-upavīta; the ear-rings with the skull-emblems hang down on his breast on either side of the trunk; even the dress is patterned with skulls. The trunk is coiled towards the left side and rests on a kapāla (skull-bowl) which is held in the lower left hand. The upper hand holds the aksamāla (rosary) against the back-stone. The lower right hand holds another kapāla, and the upper hand the axe. The left leg is bent under the heavy body, the right is raised. The soles of the feet do not touch. On the right and left of the head, sculptured in the stone against which the figure leans, is a disk surrounded by an irregular nimbus; we are at a loss as to what might be the meaning of these disks 2). There is also lotus- vegetation at the back 3).

1) Mon. pl. 43, 44, 45.
2) Inl. II, p. 81, Prof. Krom observes, that these might be the represen-
tations of sun and moon, if the disks were not exactly alike.

3) Mon. Pl. 40, 41, 42.
4

SoUTHeRN CELla — BHaTaRA GURU (No. 4).

Measurements: Height: 1.67 Meters : Width:?99 : Depth: ? 9 The fragments of this irreverently mutilated figure have been put together, and though not quite complete, it represents one of the finest Gurus of Java. Fortunately, the head which in the course of a hundred years had been reported by investigators as missing, afterwards found, and again lost, has now been excavated. It was badly smashed 1). The image is two-armed and represents Siva in the shape of a thick-set hermit. The upper portion of the body is naked and wears the upavīta; the dress covering the lower part of the body and the legs, is fastened under the protruding belly. Over the left shoulder hangs the cāmara (fly-whisk), attached to a neatly chiselled, naturally curved lotus-stem. The right arm, which is broken, holds the aksamālā in front and against the body; the left arm hangs straight down, and must have held the kudi (water-jug), judging by the shape of the damaged part. To the right of the figure is a pedestal which supported the trisula (trident), the upper part of which is missing; on the left is a luxuriant vegetation of lotus-leaves, flowers and buds. The dress, unlike that of the other images, is very simple and clings to the body; it resembles the so-called Indian ‘wet drapery'. The face has a serene ex- pression and is partly covered by a long beard, chiselled on the breast in fine natural waves. On the head the figure wears the typical head-dress of the hermit, consisting of braids plaited around and in the head-cloth, the whole resembling a large

1) O.V. 1928, p. 72 f, P. S. PERQuIN, De Bhatara-Goeroe van Singasari.

14741

turban. It is a fine and very remarkable statue, and owing to the simplicity of its execution, more beautiful than the other images 1).

THE NICHES.

A. THE LEFT NICHE — NANDÍSVaRA (No. 6). Measurements: Height: 1.74 Meters
: Width: o.89,, : Depth: 0.50 99 The image of Siva in his two-armed form of Nandīsvara once stood here. Whereas the Bhaāra Guru of Singasari is of a finer, more natural and suppler execution than the specimen of the Lårå Djonggrang group, the Nandīsvara of Singasari cannot be compared with the example of the above-mentioned group. The figure is unusually stiff. The undergarment is fastened with a big pouch-shaped knot under the belly. The mukuta consists of a wide jewelled band and a pointed crown. On the right of the statue stands the trisula on a pedestal; the prongs are convergent, and surrounded by a nimbus. On either side of the image is a vegetation of lotus-leaves, the stems of which spring from the roots 2).

B. THE RIGHT NICHE — MAHAKALA (No. 7). Measurements: Height: 1.70 Meters
,, : Width: 0.74 ,, : Depth: 0.60 In this representation of Siva in his second principal form,

1) O.V. 1928, Pl. 15, 16.
2) Mon. Pl. 46, 47, 48.

52 that of Mahākāla the Destroyer, nothing remains of the original savage character. The massive figure is two-armed; the left hand clasps the gaā (club), and the right hand holds the khadga (sword). The undergarment reaches as far as the knees and is fastened with a wide sash. The face is uncommon, with coarse features and very thick lips, such as we meet with in the java- nized images of more modern art. The upper lip is covered by a moustache, the chin by a short beard. The hair is tied with a band at the back, and passes into three rows of thick curls. The lotus-vegetation on either side of the figure also springs from the roots 1).

THE PRINCIPAL APARTMENT — LIÑGA OR SIVA-IMAGE?

The measurements of the pedestal (No. 8) found in the temple-chamber are: Height: About three feet, i. e. o.9o Meters. Foot: One square meter (which also applies to the surface). Hollow in the surface: about o.5o meters. The pedestal has an unusually deep hollow in its upper surface. Hitherto it was supposed to have served originally as the base of a large linga, which must have been the main object of worship. It is, however, very strange that no linga, or even a fragment of a linga, has been reported as found in or near the temple, nor elsewhere in the grounds. Its absence might be attributed to the fact that at some time or other a visitor to the sanctuary could have removed it; but on the other hand, lingas are not attractive enough to warrant such an assumption. If a linga

1) Mon. Pl. 49, 5o, 51.

53 or lingas existed, surely some fragment or trace of them would

have been found here, but as far as we know, nothing of the

kind has ever been excavated. In our opinion, one cannot simply

assume that a linga stood on the pedestal, which might quite

well be an ordinary pedestal, and not a yoni or linga-receptacle.

There is another possibility which we wish to take into account, viz. that there was formerly an image in this room. The images that must still be located in the temple are the Nandi and the Bhairava. We may as well eliminate the Nandi, because, apart from the fact that its measurements do not correspond with that of the pedestal, a Nandi never occupies the most important position in a temple of the type of our tower- temple. Chandi Pringapus is quite another matter; Nandi

lies alone there in a little temple that has been specially

built around him.

Only the Bhairava remains to be considered. Before discussing

whether the image stood here or not, we shall describe it and give its measurements:

Height: 1.67 Meters ,,

Width: 0.78

Depth: 0.60

The figure represents Siva in the terrific form of the Destroyer (No. 3) 1). He is seated on a jackal, an animal of which it may truly be said that it is most at home where death is. The feet of the god touch the macabre row of human skulls. He is

entirely naked, his only adornment being a long chain of decapi-

tated heads and a smaller one of skulls. Around the waist there is a chain of death-bells, and the two lower arms wear

1) Mon. Pl. 52.

bracelets with skull-ornaments. The wildly flowing tresses are

bound together in front by a diadem of skulls. The figure is

four-armed; the lower right hand holds the sacrificial knife on the head of the jackal, and the upper hand holds the trisūla.

The lower left hand carries the kapāla in front of the body,

and the upper hand holds up the damaru (drum). The face is

distorted by a demoniacal grin, displaying the large fangs in

the upper jaw; the eyes bulge. The stone against which the

figure leans is broken on the left side, but the right portion

shows the inscription 'cakra-cakra' in Nāgarī-characters. There is no lotus-vegetation. Incidentally it may be noted that this image is the only one of Siva's Bhairava form in Java.

We now wish to draw attention to the essays of two scholars,

who discussed the point as to whether the Bhairava belongs

to the temple.

MOENs 1)

STUTTERHEIM 2)

1. The Bhairava is the
2. The Bhairava is not
   image described by CRAWFURD any larger than the Mahā- as "the superb one of Kala kāla; the height of the former 2 or Death"3); MoENs bases image being 1.67 meters, that his opinion on the fact that of the latter 1.70 meters. the image is larger than the Mahākāla; since the Kāla (Bhairava) was removed to-

1) T.B.G. vol. LXIV (1924); Ir. J. L. MoNs, Het Buddhisme op Java

en Sumatra in zijn laatste Bloeiperiode, p. 546 ff.

2) T.B.G. LXXIV (1934); Dr. W. F. STUTTERHEIM, De Leidsche Bhai-

rawa en Tjaņdi B van Singasari, p. 441 ff.

3) Mon. p. 57.

gether with the other images (Durgā, Gaņeša etc.), he con- cluded that the Bhairava be- longed to this group.

2. This argument is streng-
   thened by the conformity in style and execution of the image with the Gaņeša of the eastern cella. From these ar- guments MoENs drew the con- clusion that the Bhairava be- longed to the temple.

3. Its proper place could
   only be in the principal apart- ment behind the pedestal (which stood in the middle of the room), against the back-wall, and facing the entrance. This would be the most sui-table position for the terrible guardian of the sanctuary.

4. As regards the similarity

   to the Gaņesa of the tower- temple, MoENs might as well

have compared it with the

other Gaņeša (now at Bang- kok), which most certainly

did not belong to the temple.

3. a: If the Bhairava stood
   

   against the back-wall, there

would not be sufficient room between the image and the pedestal (only o.56 meters). b: No lotus-cushion sui-

table for the image was ever

found either in or near the temple, nor elsewhere in the grounds. c: Moreover, one has to consider the ledge under the vault, which in the cellas is interrupted at the place where

the images stood against the

back-wall. In the temple- chamber there is no inter- ruption, which proves that no image ever stood there.

56 Besides, the altar is too small; for the measurements of the image (the pedestal of the Bhairava without the lotus-cushion must have been about o.70 meters wide, and the hollow in the pedestal only measures about 0.50
meters in width), .... which
proves that the Bhairava does not belong to the temple. We agree with Dr. STUTTERHEIM's conclusive arguments with regard to his proof of the fact that the Bhairava cannot have stood against the back-wall of the temple, but we must still consider the evidence of ENGELHARD's letter, "that the six images are from a temple etc" 1), and in which no mention is made of any other temple. Otherwise we might assume that the Bhairava came from one of the other ruins. If the image stood somewhere in the neighbourhood of the tower-temple, we are bound to take it for granted that it must have had a place in 4 a building, but where and in what position? That the image stood in the temple-chamber seems to us within the bounds of possibility. We stated above that it is not necessary to assume that the pedestal is a yoni. The measurements of the Bhairava are: depth o.6o meters, width o.78 meters; the pedestal measures one square meter. We were unfortunately unable to verify these measurements, because the pedestal is still in the temple. We do not consider it absolutely necessary for the image to

1) See: p. 11.

fit into the hollow of the pedestal; nor is it essential that the

Bhairava should stand on a lotus-cushion in addition to the

pedestal, which in itself is sufficient for his dignity in the temple-

chamber, since it places him high above the subordinate images

in the cellas. That the measurements of the pedestal are large

enough for it to bear an image of the size of the Bhairava, can be proved by comparing it with the Siva-image and its pedestal

that are to be found in the Siva-temple of the Lårå-Djonggrang

group. Here the pedestal is 1.25 meters square, and the width

of the image is o.88 meters, which is about 4 × 3. The measu-

rements of our pedestal and the Bhairava are repectively 1 and

o.78 meters, which is also about 4 × 3, so that the image can quite easily have stood on the pedestal. Another example is the Leiden Prajñāparamitā; in this case the pedestal only pro- jects 5 centimeters beyond the image. And even though both image and pedestal are hewn from one block of stone, it shows us that it is possible for an image with a semi-circular base to stand on a square pedestal. As regards the removal of the image, if it were there, this could easily be done because the width of the entrance leading to the apartment measures o.88 meters, which is more than sufficient to allow of the image being carried in or out of the temple.

THE PLATFORM — NANDI? (No. 5).

Measurements: Length: 1.98 meters : Width: 1.15 : Height: 1.13

The bull 1) lies in its usual attitude with the legs stretched

1) Mon. Pl. 53.

58 out along the body. There are several chains with bells round its neck; the saddle and harness are richly ornamented. The most suitable position for the vāhana (mount) of Siva would be the platform facing the entrance to the temple. There is no evidence to prove the existence of a smaller temple opposite the principal temple, such as is the case at the Lårå Djonggrang complex, but this does not make it less probable that the Nandi might have been placed on the platform. In India it frequently happens that Nandi lies on a raised level platform, which is either open to the sky or covered, and faces the entrance to Siva's sanctuary (for instance, the temple at Sakegaon, Dekhan) 1). KroM thinks it not impossible that Singasari might have had a separate Nandi-temple, like Lårå Djonggrang, and that it may perhaps be found in the so-called pěndåpå- terrace, which formerly lay south of the tower-temple. This theory would be more plausible if we were not obliged to take the projecting platform into account, which is so suitable for its purpose. Undoubtedly there were occasions when the regu- lations were set aside, and it sometimes occurs that the Nandi lies in a separate temple next to the principal temple. The fact that the entrance to the little terrace has also a western + aspect, need not be considered as a drawback, because Nandi can be placed with the head towards the principal temple, but we are of opinion that the two buildings were not con- nected in this way.

THE PENDÅPÅ-TERRACE. So little remained of this terrace south of the tower-temple, that when the investigation took place in

1) HENRY Cousens, Mediaeval Temples of Dekhan, Calcutta 1931,
pl. CX, below. C

1901, it could not be determined whether it was the basement of a subordinate temple or of a pendåpå. BRANDEs 1) says that it consisted of a square with a double projection, and that in the angles formed by the front and rear portions of this projection, the foundations of the pieces of spurious profile are still present. The stones must have been used by the natives a long time ago, since none of the visitors mentioned the terrace.

All the images which we have discussed above, have been

placed in a special room in the Leiden Ethnographical Museum,

with the exception of the Bhatāra Guru, which once more stands where the builders of the temple placed it, and the Bhairava which stands in the gallery of the above-mentioned Museum. The moss that covered the images when they stood in the gardens of the Ethnographical Museum on the Rapenburg, is now removed. Thanks to the skilful and artistic arrangement of Lieutenant-Colonel vAN ERp the images are now seen to greater ad- vantage. But they would look infinitely better in the places which

were originally made for them, and the beauty of the temple itself

would be enhanced if they were replaced in the cellas and

niches. Notwithstanding the trouble taken by REINwARDT in

order to save the images from a worse fate, he sent them

to Holland we consider that the images ought to be sent back to Singasari where they belong, especially in view of the

fact that there is a special department for the protection of

monuments, and there is no longer any danger of their being

neglected.

1) Mon. p. 35; Pl. H.

CHAPTER III THE VANISHED TEMPLES. THE CHANDI B. For convenience' sake we once more enumerate the facts known about this temple. Bik 1). The building measures 93 × 35 Rhineland feet (i. e. 11 × 29) meters, and is in a very dilapidated condition. All that is left of it is the western wall, which is adorned with a moulding; at this point the building is 17 (Rhineland) feet high. Lingas were used in order to support the upper ledge, and are also met with in bas-relief on the temple-wall; there is no roof. Three images were found in the ruins:è

a. The image with the bishop's mitre; the head is broken.
b. The image of a squatting woman, without a head.
c. Another image of a squatting woman; the face and feet are
badly damaged and the hands hold a censer.

Rigg 2). The northern wall is ornamented with cornices and other architectural embellishments, whereas the surface of the southern wall is plain. The building measures 31 × 12 paces

1) See: p. 13 f.
2) See: p. 27 ff.

and is about 17 feet high. Rigg found the image with the mitre with the head broken off, but it was still there together with

the yoni (sic!) pedestal. He also found three or four other square yoni pedestals.

HaGEMAN 1) describes the edifice as an unrecognizable, shape- less heap of stones, and states that it formerly had wings (?).

BruMuND 2) found the building in a still more dilapidated condition, and propounds the theory that it might have been divided into three chambers, or that it was only a terrace which had cellar-vaults, since the image with the mitre lay at the bottom. The walls have disappeared, and only a few stones are scattered over the ground. He also finds the headless image of a woman (b), three or four yonis, a yoni with a nāga-nozzle, and an unfinished stone with a nozzle.

RouFFAER 8) enumerates various points, which according to him are well-established facts, and which led him to infer that

the building is a Šiva-Buddhist sanctuary. The following are the

facts referred to, and we shall deal with them one by one:

I. The image with the bishop's mitre is undeniably of Mahāyā-
nistic origin. It is difficult to conceive how RouFFAER reached this conclusion — which has since been disproved by Prof. Krom 4) unless he assumes that it was because of the upper acolyte on

the right, which according to him is a Buddha-figure (see: Pl. 72).

1) B. K. I. vol. 72, Dr. N. J. Krom, Eenige gegevens over de Hindoe-
Oudheden van Oost-Java, p. 444 ff.

2) See: p. 30 ff.

3) Mon. p. 76 ff; p. 87 f.
4) Inl. II, p. 87.

The statue is 2.15 meters in height and represents a group of

figures, the chief of which occupies the central position. This is a female figure, standing on its own lotus-cushion; although badly mutilated, it can still be recognized as four-armed. The two under-arms are in front of the body; the hands are broken off, and probably were so placed that the right hand, forming a fist with the thumb pointing upwards, rests on the open palm of the left hand. The upper-arms are both raised above the shoul- ders; the right hand probably held the lotus and the left the cāmara, judging from the damaged parts. The figure is clothed in a richly ornamented robe and is adorned with the upavīta — in the form of a snake —, pearl-braids, bracelets and foot-ornaments. The head with its curious head-dress, which was apparently the reason for describing it as a 'mitre', is unfinished, and this strikes us as extremely peculiar. It consists of a wide band with double points; the cap is high and pointed, and clasped in the middle by a spiked band. The crown deserves special notice because it is the first of its kind to have been seen on a Hindu-Javanese image. We shall refer to this head-dress again later on. To the left and right of the principal figure stand statues with their hands in añjali-mudrā; the figures have suffered a good deal from being exposed to the air, and are badly weather-stained. They do not stand on lotus-cushions; they are richly adorned and wear mukuțas. Above these statues, on either side of the large figure, there are little images on lotus-cushions, which rest on the stem of the lotus-vegetation that rises up from little pots. Ganeša sits underneath on the right side with a fat belly, and the axe raised

in the upper left hand. Siva sits on the top, the upper part of

the body naked, and the kundi on his left side, from which we

63 may infer that this is a representation of the Guru. The head, together with part of the back, is broken off. Underneath on the left side, stands Bhairava, apparently a reproduction of the large Bhairava, supported by what is probably a jackal; the trisula can be recognized in the rear right hand. The little image is badly damaged, which is also the case with the one above it. Nevertheless we can still recognize the peacock and various attributes which were originally carried by twelve hands. This is Kārttikeya, the god of war. All the figures, with the exception of the Bhairava, have a halo round their heads. The projecting portions of the back-piece are adorned with the makara. From the above description it is clear that nothing in the group of figures warrants the assumption that they are Mahāyānistic. Judging from the attributes of the chief figure, one may conclude that it is Parvatī, the consort of Siva. We now return to the typical headdress of the goddess. There are several points which lead us to conclude that it is not the original head-piece (see: Pl. 2, 3 A and B).

A. The fact that it is unfinished. This would not necessarily
be surprising, but that the head itself should be unfinished, is remarkable. It may be taken for granted that in carving a figure they began at the top. Since the chief figure is the most important of the whole group, and not only the smallest details of her clothing and jewels are perfectly finished, but the rest of the images and the back-piece are also delicately worked and quite completed, our reasoning would appear to be correct. Moreover, we know that the image must have stood in a temple, which may be inferred from the fact that it was found in ruin B, and this would not tally with what is written in the Mahānirvāatantra 1):

1) Avalon, p. 328.

"No temple, nor other thing, should be dedicated to a Deva, whose image has not been consecrated". The consecration cannot be performed unless an image has been completed ac- cording to the rules of the sāstras, and unless it is found to be in such a condition as to make it possible for the god to incarnate himself in the image. In this case it would not have been possible. The image stood in a temple and must therefore have satisfied all requirements, in other words, it must have been completed.

B. Another point in support of our assertion is the curious
crack (see Pl. 3 and 4), which is unnaturally perpendicular and not at all what one might expect to see as the result of a fall, for example. It looks more as if the head-piece had been purposely hacked out of the back-piece. The present head is sunk deeply into the trunk, and makes it appear as if there were a fragment missing. If this is so, the head-piece must have been raised higher than it now is, and that cannot be the case, because:

C. If the curved lines of the back-piece are drawn upwards
until the outer edge of the head-piece is reached, one comes some distance beyond the edge a difference of several centi- meters. The difference would be even greater if one assumes that a fragment is missing.

D. The stone of the head-piece seems to us more granular
than that of the large piece which is hewn out of one block. These facts cause us to decide finally that the head-piece is not the original one. Obviously some covetous admirer or other knocked the real head off the image because the whole statue would have been too heavy to carry away. Possibly the original head is still buried in the ground, but it was not found during the last excavations. The same thing

65 1 occurred at chadi Jago (Tumpang) 1); the head of the main image, that of the Amoghapāsa, was knocked off and taken away by a Dutchman, whose name is unknown to us. As to when the beheading of the Parvatī took place, nothing can be said with certainty; it could have happened either before or after Bik's visit in 1822, because all the visitors to the site who noticed the image, report that the head was broken off and lay on the ground near-by. As regards the present head, any sculptor could have been capable of carving a faint reproduction of the face and the head-dress without knowing exactly how to chisel it. He could see from the curved lines of the back-piece that the upper edge of the head-piece was also curved. We now return to the point where we started, viz. that RouFFAER took it for granted that the image described above was Mahāyānistic, which we have just disproved. II. From BIk's description 2) of the chaņdi B, that it had large rooms at each end, and from the linga-ornamentation both on the upper edge and on the temple-wall, he infers that the temple was also Sivaitic. The building would thus be a double- temple, with our Parvatī in the southern chamber, and the lińga-symbol, the large linga-pedestal with the 17 holes, in the northern chamber. We have disproved point I, and in the absence of anything else that points to a Buddhist factor in this temple, his second argument is also disposed of. Meanwhile it is an established fact that it is impossible and unjustifiable to decide whether a sanctuary is Sivaitic or Buddhist by examining the outside ornamentation of East-Javanese temples. Prof. Krom says: ".... in general we consider it useless to try to discern Sivaitic

1) Inl. II, p. 96.
2) See: p. 13 f.
5

or Buddhist composing parts or ornaments on Hindu-Javanese temples, such as are known to us. It is quite conceivable that in the land of their origin these ornaments etc. were used by one of these two religious sects in preference to others. It is not impossible that one could have distinguished the one from the other during a phase of Javanese art that is unknown to us. But in the Hindu-Javanese art which we know, we cannot decide which elements are Sivaitic or Buddhistic ... ." 1). This is made still clearer by what FoucíER says on the subject of Brahmanistic and Buddhist artistic workmanship: ".... Nous

ne voyons pas qu'à aucune époque ni dans aucune région de

l'Inde aient coexisté des arts bouddhique, brahmanique et jaïn distincts par leurs procédés ou leur style: nous apercevons seulement une corporation d'artistes travaillant presque indif- féremment pour des clients de toute confession" 2). There is no indication that the large linga-pedestal stood on this particular spot. BRuMuND found it in 1863 on the aloon-aloon together with other antiquities which no doubt had also come from another part of the site, but there is no proof of where they originally belonged. III. From the fact that the chandi B was a Šivaitic-Buddhist sanctuary, RouFFAER inferred that this temple must be the

Sivabuddhālaya mentioned in the record of Gunung Buțak from

Šāka 1216 (1294 A.D.), in which it is said:

Šrī Krtanagara sang līņa ring Šivabuddhālaya

which means: H.M. Krtanagara who departed this life at

Sivabuddhālaya (abode of Siva and Buddha). The monarch was

then interred as Siva-Buddha in the central chamber between

1) Inl. I, p. 146.
2) A. FouchEr, L'art Gréco-Bouddique du Gandhāra, tome II, p. 755 f.

the lińga-pedestal and our Pārvatī. RouFFAEr thinks he recognizes the sculptured portrait in the seated Buddha-image at Malang 1) which so much resembles the Surabaya Mahākşobhya and which really does come from Singasari. It is needless to add that in disproving points I and II, this last argument is disposed of. We shall presently refer to the above-mentioned Buddha-image more fully. After explaining his reasons for assuming that the Bhairava could not have belonged to the tower-temple, Dr. STuTTERHEIM devoted the rest of his article 2) to the finding of a suitable place for the image. The fact that a small replica of the Bhairava is found in the Parvatī-group, and the resemblance between the personal orna- ments of Parvatī and those of the large Bhairava, led him to suppose that the latter belongs to Parvatī's mandala, and that he either stood in the same temple with her, or at all events in the same complex. Assuming that the Bhairava belonged to the circle of Parvatī, the other three acolytes must also have had large counterparts belonging to the same mandala. STuTTERHEIM went in search of these counterparts. Neither for the Guru nor for the Gaņesa was he succesful in finding one, but this — in his opinion was not necessarily a counter-argument. He reminds us that REINwARDT, when he went on a plundering expedition to Java (1816—1822) by order of the government 3), had collected many images and sent them to Holland in separate consignments, of which at least four never reached their desti- nation. It was therefore quite within the bounds of possibility

1) Mon. pl. 71 at the right.
2) T.B.G. vol. LXXIV (1934), P. 450 ff.
3) Ditto p. 454.

that among these there might have been images from Singasari, and perhaps even those for which he was searching. On the other hand it is also possible that there are still images in the ground. With regard to the little acolyte Kārttikeya, STuTTERHEIM assumes that it is ten-armed; we are, however, of opinion that it was twelve-armed, because, although it is much damaged, we can still distinguish the sixth right arm, which the god holds in front of his body and which is broken off at the elbow. Naturally the image must also have had six left arms, but unfortunately these can no longer be seen, owing to the mutilation they have suffered. According to STUTTERHEIM the 'ten' hands held:

left right 1 khadga (sword) khetaka (shield) 2 trisula (trident) broken 3 kartrka (dagger) 99 4 sara (arrow),, 5 mudrā on the peacock's head,

(6) (broken) ()

The pose of the statuette suggests violent movement, it almost dances (just like the Bhairava); it is supported by the peacock which stands behind the god. The damage shows that the figure was six-headed. STuTTERHEIM thinks that he has discovered the large counterpart of this little image in the unknown male figure 1), which was excavated in 19o4 just to the north-west of the chandi Papah. This is an unfinished image, 1.9o meters in height, which repre-

1) Mon. pl. 73, below at the left.

sents an eight-armed male figure with a high mukuta. The hands carry attributes, identified by STuTTERHEIM as follows:

right left

1 khadga kheaka 2 trisula kartrka

3 mudrā on a perpendicular mass of cakra (disk) stone on the back-piece 4 mudrā in front of the breastsamkha (conch)

The unfinished mass of stone might conceivably be intended for the vāhana, in the present case the peacock; nor is the presence of a gaā beyond the bounds of possibility. On com- paring the image with a twelve-armed South-Indian bronze

figure 1), representing Karttikeya, he is fortified in his opinion

considering the similarity between the two series of attributes that the figure is indeed a Kārttikeya, "and it is undesirable to deny its connection with the Parvatī-group, merely on account of the difference in the rendering of the acolyte" 2). We do not consider that there are sufficient grounds for taking this unfinished image to be a Kārttikeya, nor do we quite agree

1) In the Leiden Museum; JuYNBOLL, Catalogus V: 72 (No. 2843); we
take this opportunity of correcting STuTTERHEIM's description of the attributes of this bronze; the sequence should be as follows:

right left broken broken hand intact; attribute disappeared kartrka kheaka cakra kukkuta (cock) samkha gaā abbayamu∂rā varadamudrā

2) T.B.G. vol. LXXIV, P. 457.

with STuTTERHEIM's identification of the attributes. In our opinion the hands carry respectively:

right left

1 khadga cakra (?) 2 trisula dhanu

3 gada padma

šamkha

4 mudrā (with akšamālā?)

Among these attributes we recognize with certainty at least three which Visnu invariably carries; they are the gada; samkha and padma. These three attributes are sufficient proof that the image bears Visnuitic characteristics; the fourth Visnuitic attribute is usually the cakra, which we think we can see, but which might possibly be a khetaka, according to STuTTERHEIM. The round garland hanging down over the shoulders could be the vanamala (wreath of flowers), which is usually met with on Vişnu images, and which is as much a part of his character as the attributes. The mass of stone above the cakra (?) which is carved in slight relief, may perhaps be a nimbus such as we noticed on several of the images of the tower-temple. If the attribute carried by the second left hand from the top is not a bow (which appears to pass downwards on to the pedestal of the image), this lightly-drawn line might be the beginning of the growing stems of lotus-vegetation such as are usually met with. It is also possible that the image bears partly Sivaitic characteristics; in this case it could be a Harihara, which might tally with the attributes. The remaining attributes are: khadga, trisula, mudra with akšamālā (?) and dhanu. We should then arrive at the following arrangement of the attributes:

right left 1 Šiva

Visnu

2 SivaSiva 3Visnu

Visnu

4 Siva

Visnu

Since, however, the head-dress can be of no help to us as it is unfinished, nothing can be proved with regard to the Harihara case, but at any rate it is certain that the image bears Vişņuitic distinguishing marks and cannot be a Karttikeya, which was what STUTTERHEIM tried to prove. The only image therefore, that might have any connection with the mandala of Parvatī would be the Bhairava, but we have already said that it is quite possible that the Bhairava belonged to the tower-temple. It seems to us far-fetched, and neither plausible nor demon- strable, that this particular group of images should be taken as belonging together, simply because of the resemblance in style and execution between the two Bhairavas, and while there is nothing else that points to the presence of other large replicas. Starting with the above-mentioned mandala of the five (Pār- vatī, Guru, Ganeša, Karttikeya and Bhairava), STuTTERHEIM went in search of a temple that might possibly have contained this group. It would have to be a temple with a temple-chamber and four symmetrical cellas. In view of the fact that the Pārvati was discovered in the ruins of chandi B, and by combining the data supplied by Bik, BRuMuND, RiGG and HaGEMaN, Dr. STuTTERHEIM designates the chandi B as the temple for which he has been searching. Originally it should not have been oblong in shape he observes but, referring to HaGEMAN's comment that the building had wings "just like the earlier ones", he then goes on to say that we "may assume that two wings of

the original building had been entirely demolished and that they had already begun to pull down the southern half of the rest of the building. All that was left was the northern wing of the terrace. We thus have a terrace with four wings,

the width between the principal axes being about 3o meters;

there is consequently a similarity between this and chandi Panataran's chief temple. The condition of the building, which indicates that the west and east wings, part of the southern wing and the central section have been entirely demolished, accounts for the fact that they (Bik, RiGG and BRuMuND) found the principal image in the still undamaged northern wing... ."1). It seems to us rather risky to build up a hypothesis, as STuttERHEIM has done, on HaGEMAN's remark that the building had wings. Bik's drawing of this temple only shows the northern and southern halves of the building, besides a few stones scattered about on the ground. And how could HaGEMAN, who came to the place much later (the exact date is not known, but it must have been between 1841 and 1862) have seen more in the building than Bik? He says himself that it was "an unrecognizable, shapeless heap of stones". His following remark, viz. that the building had wings just like those of the former temples, seems to us a mere supposition. As we have previously ruled out the possibility of there being large counterparts of Parvatī's acolytes, and since no more images of equal importance have been met with that would be considered worthy of being set up in the same temple as the principal image, we cannot do otherwise than reject STuTTERHEIM's working hypothesis, all data being lacking. We prefer not to propound another theory in opposition to the one we have just mentioned, not only because the lack of

1) T.B.G. vol. LXXIV, p. 462.

73 data is disheartening, but because it would be absolutely im-

possible to determine the shape of the building by excavation. Unfortunately, when the position of the four southern ruins was being investigated, the topographical survey showed that only a small portion of the foundations of chandi B had been excavated. According to the O. V. 1927, "the section in the neighbourhood

of the four temples which had been previously noticed, was

traversed in various directions, and since there is no visible trace above ground either of temples or walls, Bik's drawing received special attention; a search was made for what remained of chandi Papah, and as a result, trachyte walls three meters thick

were dug up" 1).

We have had a good deal of difficulty in finding out the exact

meaning of this passage. On the face of it, it would appear that PERQuIN, the architectural surveyor, has made a mistake in adopting the name Papah which designates the first square ruin on LEYDIE MERVILLE's map and attributing it to his ruin I, which, according to his report, we must identify as our chandi B. But he happened to be right, and his apparent mistake put us on the right scent. Because we thought at first that the mistake was PERQuIN's, we tried to find out where the fault lay, and the result of our investigations is as follows: by com- paring the topographical map No. 416 (we were allowed to make use of a white-print by courtesy of the Archaeo- logical Survey) with LEYDIE MELvILLE's topographical drawing, we came to the conclusion that there could not possibly have been any excavating done in the neighbourhood of the chandi B. Both the topographical map 416 and LEYDIE MELVILLE's

1) p. 25.

74 drawing 1) are drawn to a scale of 1 to 2ooo, and the distance

from the chaņdi A to the first square ruin, measured from the central points of both temples, is 15 centimeters (on the ruler) on both maps; this distance is given by LEYDIE MELVILLE as 295 meters. Nothing is shown of the chandi B on either drawing at the spot where we may assume that the temple was situated. Ruin I (the numbering is architectural surveyor PERQuIN's), which we at first identified as our chandi C, would be the first of the series to be excavated. Ruin IV is the chandi Wayang (our E), judging by the objects which have been dug up there, and the ruins II and III which are situated between the two above-mentioned, are undoubtedly the remains of our chandi D. On the other hand one might say that LEYDIE MELVILLE's drawing is a mere sketch; but seeing that he gives the distance in meters between A and C, we may take it that these measurements are correct. It appears from the O.V.'s 1927 text that Bik's

sketch 2) served as a guide during the excavations, but judging

by the remains of the chandi Wayang that were dug up, the sketch was not particularly reliable. These remains show that the building was not in line with the rest of the temples (as is shown on Bik's map, and whose statements have hitherto been taken on trust), but that it was situated much further westwards, which can clearly be seen on our appended map II. As regards the text of the report, we regret to state that instead of explaining points about the map it does the opposite. PERQuIN begins by saying that the four southern ruins are to be excavated, and further on he says that a search is being made for chadi Papah; he produces the remains of walls and

1) See: Mon. pl. J.
2) Mon. Pl. A2.

mentions them as I, from which one may conclude that he

takes I to be LEYDIE MELVILLE's Papah. If, however, it is our

chandi B, we must put on record that he is wrong in calling

this temple Papah, the ruin mentioned by name on LEYDIE

MELVILLE's drawing.

The necessity now arises of finding out which of our four

southern ruins is the Papah mentioned both by LEYDIE MELVILLE and PERQuIN, and so we have once more taken measurements on BIK's and LEYDIE MELVILLE's maps. From the middle of the kampong road to the rākšasas the distance on LEYDIE MELvILLE's map is nearly 9 centimeters on the ruler; Bik gives the same distance as nearly 6 centimeters, i. e. two-thirds of LEyDiE

MELVILLE's. The distance from the central point of the chadi A

to the central point of the first square ruin is 15 centimeters

according to LEYDIE MELVILLE, so that according to Bik we

can reckon on 1o centimeters, which does not bring us to the

first square ruin, but to the second balf of the chandi B. The

investigations in 19o1 seem to have been rather superficial; it appears that they simply started digging where they imagined the southern ruins might be found. The literal meaning of the name Papah, which LEYDIE MELVILLE evidently adopted from

RouFFAER, is just as appropriate to the chandi B as to the

other ruins. The result of our measurements supports us in the assumption that he was mistaken in giving the name Papah to a ruin that was only partially excavated and which must be our chandi B. The remains of what is mentioned as Wayang, must be our chandis C and D, because the investigations in 1927 showed that the Wayang was situated further to the south-west. During these excavations PERQuIN adopted the name Papah and gave this to his ruin I. At first it caused some

confusion, but it has now proved to be of great advantage to us.

76 The rest of the 1927 map is easy to follow, and we can now

positively state that II and III are respectively our chandis C and D, and that IV is our E or Wayang. It is not possible — from the small portion of the chaņdi B that has been excavated to judge in what manner the divisions of this temple were arranged. The native houses which are built over the rest of the foundations prevented further excavations; this was also the case when the other ruins were being examined. We will now pass on to the discussion of the images noticed by previous visitors, and those which were dug up during the investigations in 1901 and 1927. Having discovered that LEYDIE MELVILLE's Papah is our chandi B, we must also mention the statuary which was observed north-west of the Papah 1).

THE IMAGES.

No. 9. Parvatī. This image having been fully described in the foregoing pages, it will not be mentioned again here. No. 1o 2). The seated headless female image, which luckily we found again⁸), is mentioned in the Monography among the remains of the chandi Wayang 4). The image was found there during the excavations in 19o4 and was not photographed. It sits on a lotus-cushion in padmāsana attitude, and was origi- nally four-armed. Both the rear arms the right arm down

to the wrist —, the head, and the greater part of the back-

piece, are broken off. The image having already been fully

1) See: Mon. Pl. J.
2) See: Pl. 3C. at the left.
s) It was not photographed; see Mon. p. 31, note 1.
4) Mon. p. 50 ff.

77 described by KNEBEL in the Monography, we shall abstain from

writing any more about it.

No. 11 1). Another seated female figure was found in

1901 on the aloon-aloon. The head, together with the crown, has been broken away from the back-piece. The hands are joined in front of the breast in the dharmacakra-mudrā (turning the wheel of the Law). The image is richly decorated; the strings of beads hanging from the various ornaments are con- spicuous here; these are to be seen on the preceding image and also on various others (among others Parvatī, Bhairava) found on the site. The back-piece of the image is also very striking; on either side of it there are animal figures in relief, viz. an elephant bearing a rampant heraldic lion, the 'vyālaka', the name by which it is known in Indian art 2). As far as we know, this type of ornamentation of the back-piece is the only example on this site; even the Leiden Prajñapāramitā which this image so closely resembles, is not adorned in this manner. For a more detailed description, Brandes' work must again be consulted 8). No. 21. The pedestal with the nāga-head under the nozzle,

o.93 meters in height, the upper surface measuring o.84 ×
o.72 meters, and various other pedestals were reported (BRuMuND, Rigg.) near the remains of the chandi B, though they were excavated in the vicinity of the chandi D in 1904.

1) See: Pl. 3C at the right.
2) Prof. Dr. J. Ph. VoGEL, De Buddhistische Kunst in Voor-Indië,
A'dam 1932, afb. 27, 31.

3) Mon. p. 47. Pl. 67.

78 THE IMAGES EXCAVATED DURING THE INVESTIGATIONS IN 1901.

No. 13. A pedestal 1), 50 centimeters in height and about

1.9o meters long; these measurements 1) do not seem to be quite correct, and we are unfortunately unable to verify them, as the pedestal is still at Singasari. The spout is carried by a small seated lion. The pedestal has since been proved to belong to the Parvati-group, which has now once more been placed on it, and the whole is to be found on the site of the tower- temple. Further westwards there were several pieces in the ground : No. 14. The lower part of an image in padmasana attitude. The left hand rests on the left knee with the palm upwards. The crossed legs rest on a lotus-cushion carried by a tortoise, of which the head and feet are seen in front 2). No. 15. Visnu or Harihara? for a description see above. No. 16. Lotus-cushion. It lies on a square ornamented base 8). No. 17. Fragment of a back-piece. In front of which is a lotus-cushion, with two feet on it. The back-piece has on each side a small elephant on a separate lotus-cushion looking outwards; on the head and the back of the left elephant and also above it there are hooves, possibly of a vyālaka; the width of the whole is about 57 centimeters 4). No. 18 5). A block of stone with a faintly indicated head and figure. No. 35. Lotus-cushion. It lies on a ditto base; the ornamen- tation is slightly different 6).

1) Mon. pl. 73, above at the right; p. 49, note 2.
2) Mon. pl. 72, below.
3) Mon. pl. 72, above.
4) Mon. pl. 73, above at the left.
5) Photograph O.D. 755.
6) Mon. pl. 72, above.

IMAGES AND OTHER SCULPTURE EXCAVATED DURING THE INVESTI-GATIONS IN 1927.

No. 12. A square stone with an ornament; probably it was not photographed so we know nothing further about it. No. 19 1). Head and head-dress of an image about 3o centimeters in height. The top is broken and the front badly damaged, as well as the face, of which the nose and the lips are missing. The head appears to have been obliquely broken off the trunk of some image or other. The head-dress is orna- mented in much the same way as those of the standing figures of the Parvatī-group. At first we thought this was the original head of the Parvatī, but had to abandon the idea because the head is too small to fit on to the trunk of the image. But might not this head belong to the seated female figure No. 11 which, with its base and back-piece is 1.37 meters in height? It seems to us not improbable, considering that the proportion of the head with the crown to the body is about 1 to 3, which corresponds with the measurements of the Leiden Prajñapāramitā 2). The curious obliquely chopped-off head can quite well fit the obliquely damaged trunk of the image. The place where the head is found may also be an indication, because the seated female figure was also seen near the chandiB (by Bik) and even at that time it was headless. It might be a good idea to take the exact measurements! Although the figure bears a striking resemblance to the Prajñapāramitā, it would be too much to assume that it is actually a replica; there is no erect lotus-stalk with a book, and since the vyālaka-decoration of the back-piece also occurs

1) Plate 3D.
2) The head with the crown is about one third of the figure.

8o

in Brahmanistic art, there is really nothing that points to the Buddhist character of the image. No. 2o. White stone disk 1), bearing a rosette in relief, and surrounded by foliage.

THE CHANDI C.

We are inclined to think that there is even less information available on the subject of this temple than of the one previously discussed.

It is called by Bik, small and dilapidated; by Jukes, square;

by RigG, a chungkup; by BruMuND, a shapeless mass of stone, 95 paces in outline. Later on RouFFAER calls it Papah, and in 1904 there is not enough of it left for LEYDIE MELVILLE to be able to mark its exact position and ground-plan on his drawing. But the chief data concerning this building are provided by SiEBuRGh's painted sketch (No. 27), although this only gives a rather vague idea of it. It shows us a square temple, of which the basement is unfortunately too indistinctly drawn for us to be able to describe it. The foot of the building consists of a conspicuously large ogive, and supports the temple-body, which is short, and set between several inverting and projecting ledges. The painting is too vague for us to see whether there are niches hollowed out of the temple-body. Then comes the cornice, which appears to have antefixae at the corners. The first receding storey of the roof warrants the supposition that the roof, like that of the tower-temple, became more pointed to- wards the top. Nothing is shown of the decorative ornamen-

1) Photograph O.D. 8596, at the left.

81 tation. Unfortunately the remains of this building afford us little help in making a reconstruction, because not enough could be excavated owing to the native houses which are built in its immediate vicinity. No sculpture has been found that might help to show what kind of a sanctuary it was. The sculpture found here consists only of: No. 23. A white stone, and No. 24. the base of a tower(?); neither of these is photographed, and we therefore do not know what they represent.

THE CHANDI D.

Bik calls this a large temple; it measures 72 × 40 Rhineland feet, that is about 22 × 12 meters; Nandi and Surya stand to the left and right of the temple. SIEBuRGH mentions it as consisting only of a base, of which the building appears to be razed to the ground; he admires the compact base which is circled by rows of beads. BRuMuND comes upon it when it has become a shapeless, overgrown mass, measuring 9o paces in outline, and adds that many stones must have been taken away. He mentions three linga-pedestals and a Surya. According to RouFFaER it has been known as Bali Werdijå (Heart-pavilion) since 1858, on the analogy of the name Bali Kambang for the chandi B. In 19o4 the building had completely disappeared, for neither its situation nor its ground-plan were fixed by LEYDIE MELvILLE. The excavations in 1927 exposed the remains of part of the foundations. 6

It may be inferred from the images and fragments that have been found and dug up here, that this temple was Sivaitic.

THE IMAGES AND SCULPTURE.

Here follows a description of the images which are mentioned by various visitors: No. 47. The Nandi, of which we cannot fix the identity, as Nandis were found in all parts of the grounds. No. 48. A Surya, of which one may say the same thing. BruMuND mentions it as being damaged, but there are several in that condition; almost all the Surya-images are without their riders, and the heads of the horses are missing. Three pedestals, of which two were probably dug up in 1927; see below. In 1927 the following were found: No. 25. Unfinished standing image; probably not photographed. No. 26. Ganeša. The image is four-armed and sits on a lotus- cushion with the soles of its feet touching each other; it leans against a back-piece of which the upper part is broken off, as well as the crown of the god. The image wears several orna- ments and the serpent-upavīta. Is this the Gaņeša on the right of the photograph O.D. 86o2? No. 27 1). Fragment of a base of Durgā Mahisāsuramardinī on the bull. The piece is badly damaged, but it can still be seen that as usual the goddess stands with her legs wide apart. On the right of the pedestal we can see two little paws, probably those of the lion, Durgā's mount, which is curiously reminiscent

1) Photograph O.D. 8574, 8576.

of the Indian 1) representations of this form of the goddess. No. 28. Fragment of a yoni. No. 29. Ditto. No. 32. Fragment of an image with back-piece; this is a badly mutilated bust of an image; the hair is chiselled in loose curls and there is no crown. It is probably the bust on the right of photograph O.D. 86oo. Dug up south of the temple: No. 33. Fragment of the base and feet of an image; probably one of the bases on photograph O.D. 86o4. No. 34. Fragment of the hand of an image; this may perhaps be found among the fragments on photograph O.D. 9044.

THE CHANDI E OR WAYANG.

This is the last temple of the four southern ruins and is the one most fully described. Bik says in 1822 that it had almost entirely collapsed, and that there were still some beautiful bas-reliefs on some of the walls. SiEBuRGH made a pencil-drawing of it (No. 39c), and says that of the five temples it is the only one which is called by its name, viz. Wayang. The temple was built of soft white stone. JukEs describes it as being "square at the base and crowned with the base of a circular erection, perhaps a dome or cupola. This the Widono called Chungkoop Wyang, the others Chungkoop Putri"2). Until hitherto this last line was taken to mean

1) H. KRIsHNA SAsTRI, South-Indian images of gods and goddesses,
fig. 129, 131.

2) p. 25.

"this temple the Widono called Chungkoop Putri, the others (the

more northerly temples) (he called) Chungkoop Putri". We our-

selves think that this interpretation is not correct and that it means 'the Widono called this temple Wyang, whereas the others (the people of the Widono's suite 1)) called it Putri'. In our opinion "the others" cannot be 'the other temples', because in the paragraph under discussion only two temples are mentioned

("two of the other buildings"), of which one is the Wayang,

whereas the other would be "the others", and this is grammati- cally incorrect. We therefore take for granted that our chadi E had two names, viz. Wayang and Putri. When examining the past history of the site, we find that the Leiden Prajñaparamita, which according to Monnereau's ac- count 2) was connected in Malang with a coarse one-eyed statue called Djåkå Loelå, was then known as Putri Dedes. And in 1822 when REINWARDT 8) mentions the forest Djåkå Loelå in the immediate vicinity of the four southern ruins, we might infer from this that the Prajñapāramitā, commonly called Putri Dedes, originally comes from the chadi Wayang or

Putri.

In 1847 RigG gives a detailed description of the bas-reliefs. On the occasion of his first visit BRuMuND describes these reliefs as resembling wayang figures, and says that the temple is constructed of limestone and marlstone, from which he draws the conclusion that it belongs to a later period. In 1863 he only sees an overgrown, unrecognizable mass, about 16 feet high in the middle, and observes that a great

1) Jukes, Narrative, p. 104.
2) Mon. p. 56 ff.
s) Mon. p. 58.

number of stones have been taken away by the inhabitants of the desab for their own uses. In 1904 there was so little left of the remains of the three southern temples, that their foundations were fixed on LEYDIE MELvILLE's drawing as one temple (chaņdi Wayang). The excavations in 1927 exposed part of the foundations of the chandi Wayang, and it then appeared that the exact site of this building was further westwards than Bik indicated on his topographical drawing (see Map II). The walls showed that the temple had formerly been altered and added to, because the older walls are flat and smoothly polished, whereas clay was used as mortar for the walls which were built more recently. Judging by the lines on the ground-plan, the temple was square, with projections at the middle of each side.

IMAGES AND FRAGMENTS OF IMAGES FOUND AND EXCAVATED IN AND NEAR THE FOUNDATIONS.

Although not found here, on the strength of the fore- going argument we consider ourselves justified in classifying the Prajñapāramitā 1) as belonging to this temple. The image, No. 91, together with its pedestal and projecting back-piece, is

1.26 meters in height, and is one of the best preserved images of this site. The figure sits in the padmāsana attitude on the lotus-cushion, and the hands are joined in front of the breast in the dharmacakra-mudrā. An uprising lotus-stalk is wound round the left arm, and carries the book of Wisdom on the flattened lotus. The uā is between the eyes; the image is richly
1) Mon. p. 97 ff.; Pl. 76, 77, 78.

decorated, but the back-piece is plain. For a fuller description the Monography must be referred to.

A great number of fragments of images and temple decoration were found in and near the temple; Nos. 36, 40 and 43; see the

photographs O.D. 8593, 8594, 8596, 8599, 9043, and 9044,

under H. No. 37; perhaps photograph O.D. 86o5 on the left? An unfin- ished Nandi. No. 38; perhaps photograph O.D. 86oo on the right? Frag-

ment of the base of an image.

No. 39; photograph O.D. 86o3. Headless Garua; the mount is represented in human form and sits on a base,

with the knees on which the claws rest drawn up leaning

against a back-piece. On the feet we see three long front toes, and the back toe. The shape of the damage to the trunk leads

us to suppose that the animal served as a mount, and carried

a seated image on its shoulders. At the south-west was found: No. 42; photograph O.D. 86o5 on the right. A headless seated figure.

The image sits in yogāsana attitude against the back-piece:

the hands, which rest on the knees, are broken off. The pedestal consists of a lotus-cushion which rests on a base, ornamented in front with a recumbent animal figure (a goat or deer?). The image wears ornaments. Found at the north: No. 44; perhaps on photograph O.D. 86oo? Fragment of the base and feet of an image, Found at the north-west: No. 45; photograph O.D. 86o3. Garuda; the animal also sits with the knees drawn up, but the hands, which are broken

87 off, must originally have supported the pedestal that lies on the shoulders; the pedestal itself carries two crossed legs, and resembles the pedestal of image No. 14. The whole of it leans against the back-piece. Found at the west: No. 46. A flat stone, the top of which is hewn into a semi- circle; there is no further mention of this and we have not come across it among the photographs.

CHAPTER IV

THE IMAGES THAT WERE FOUND SCATTERED ABOUT THE GROUNDS.

No. 55 and No. 56. The colossal rāksasas. For centuries the immense guardians of the temples have stood, heavy and immovable, on either side of the path now a high-road —, which, passing the tower-temple, leads from the main road in a westerly direction. Beneath the shadows of kamboja-trees 1), and partly sunk into the ground, they have lost much of their menacinglydemoniacal character. They were obliged to look on impotently, forever mounting guard, while many of the treasures entrusted to their care and protection were desecrated and stolen. The rākšasa 2) which has sunk into the ground less than its opposite neighbour, is 3.7o meters in height and stands on the right side of the road. He kneels on his right knee, the left knee is drawn up, and against it rests the left hand with a club underneath it. The right hand is held admonishingly in front of him, with the fore and middle fingers pointing upwards. The massive body is girdled by an

1) Note: a jati forest was once seen here by RAFFLEs; later on by Domis
and other visitors a coffee-plantation; a little farther on, there is now a coffee plantation.

2) Mon. pl. 62, at the left.

89 upavīta in the form of a serpent, which also appears as a deco- ration on the arms and ankles. The bulging eyes, the grinning mouth with its fangs, and the angrily frowning brow give a demoniacal expression to the face. The head wears a diadem of skulls; from the lower jaws of these, as well as from the skulls on the ear-rings and necklace, hang the usual strings of beads. The resemblance in style between these colossi and the Bhairava is so great that we are convinced that they are the work of the same sculptor. The other rāksasa 1), as we have said above, has sunk into the ground up to the navel. The right hand rests on the club and the left on the left knee, but otherwise the two images are exactly similar to one another. Each of the images formerly stood on a kind ofraised terrace (No. 57; No. 58), but since many stones have been lost, and very likely on account of their weight, they have not been removed.

NO. 5o. THE BRAHMA-IMAGE 2) (NOW IN LEIDEN).

The image is hewn from a lighter, more granular species of stone than was used for the other images. The figure represents the supreme god Brahmā with his four heads and four arms. A large portion of the backpiece, as well as the lower part from the knees downwards, is broken off. The two forearms are held in front of the body, and the lotus-bud lies in the open left hand. The rear left hand bears the cāmara, the right is broken off. The kundi hangs among the lotus-vegetation on either

1) Mon. Pl. 62, at the right.
2) Mon. Pl. 54.

90 side of the back-piece, and behind the figure stands his mount, the hamsa (swan). The god is richly attired; he is adorned with the upavitā consisting of five strings of beads; from the rest of the ornaments hang the little strings of beads which we see on so many images. All four heads are alike, and covered with pointed drooping moustaches and naturally wavy beards. The mukuțas are high and surrounded by rows of bead-strings hanging down like garlands. The height of the image in its present state is 1.74 meters. As regards the head-dress, it is very like that of the Mañjusrī-image in Berlin 1).

THE RSI-IMAGES.

An uncommonly interesting group is formed by a few și-images which were also found in the grounds. In the first place we must mention the Trnavindu 2) (now in Batavia) and the mutilated Marīci ³), and a third unnamed rsi 4), which, although the place where it was recently found is not exactly known, must be grouped with the other two on account of its great resemblance to them.

No. 51. TRNAVINDU.

This figure of a hermit, which was formerly quite perfect and recently returned from the Paris exhibition in the form of a few burnt fragments, represents a pot-bellied, two-armed rsi; except

1) Mon. Pl. 81.
2) Mon. Pl. 79, 8o.
3) Mon. Pl. 8o.
4) Plate 4.

for the upavīta the upper part of the body is naked; the lower

part of the body is covered by a tightly-fitting garment. Like the Brahmā, he wears a moustache and wavy beard. The left hand hangs down at the side of the body and carries the kuņdi, while the right hand, bearing the aksamālā, is held in front of the breast. The cāmara attached to a gracefully-curved handle hangs over the left shoulder, while the lotus-vegetation, as in the case of the Pārvati-group emerges from a little pot at the left side of the backpiece. To the right, on a lotus-shaped pedestal, stands the trisūla. The head, surrounded by a nimbus hewn out of the back-piece, wears a head-dress, which as regards its decoration very much resembles that of the Brahmā, except that it has two rows of garlands and is therefore not so high. The expression of the face is almost the same as the Brahmā's, being serene and finely chiselled. To the left of the head on the back-piece there is an inscription in Nagarī-characters, the words being: Bhagavān Travindu Mahārșih, and underneath is engraved the Old-Javanese cypher 1. This is therefore: The Lord Travindu, the

great sage.

NO. 52. MARīCI.

The fragment (the bust and head) of the Marīci-image as

will appear below — together with an inscription dated Šāka

1273 (1351 A.D.), were recovered in 1904 from the pond of Khaji Napii, to the north of the tower-temple. The image is badly damaged; there is little left of the face, and of the head-dress one can just distinguish some bead-strings, similar to those of the Trnavindu. The cāmara can still be seen, and the rsi-type is also shown by the fat belly. There is a separate halo round the

92 head, and on the left of this there is an inscription in Nāgarī- characters: Bhagavān Marīci Maharsih and — very indistinct — the Old-Javanese cypher 2. RAFFLEs 1) tells us that a number of images were found together quite close to the northern Nandi, and these were: The Brahmā, Trnavindu and "another stone, with a figure nearly similar", of which the Hindu Sepoy who accompanied RAFFLEs said "that it represented a Bramin", but owing to the extreme mutilation it was impossible to determine whom it represented. We are of opinion that it could be none other than our Marīci that was afterwards dragged away and thrown into the pond, together with the inscribed stone which was not mentioned with the images at that time. We will begin by giving a short summary of the meaning of the inscription 2). Following the traditional introductions of year, month, day etc., the last lines state that the R. H. Regent Mada (the well-known Gajahmada of the royal house of Maja- pahit), has established a caitya for the "mahābrāhmāa çeva sogata" and "the vrddhamantri", who perished together with King Krtanagara during the attack on Tumapěl. The translation of "mahābrāhmāna çeva sogata" offers two alternatives. The first is the theory advanced by Brandes and later by RouFFAER ³), who consider that the "mahābrāhmāņa"' must be translated as "the chief brahmans", which would indicate the chief brahmans of the Šivaitic and Buddhist doctrine; RouFFAER adds that Marīci and Trnavindu might each represent one of the two sects. RouFFAER considers the Marīci as purely Brama-

1) RaFFLes, History of Java, vol. II, p. 45.
2) Mon. p. 38 ff.
3) Mon. P. 91 ff.

nistic, and according to Brandes the Trņavindu might possibly

be Buddhistic. Supported in his theory by the cyphers 1 and 2,

he supposes the Marīci and the Travindu to be respectively the representations of the Sivaitic and Buddhist religions.

On the analogy of his first Šiva-Buddhist sanctuary 1) (our

chandi B), these images must probably have stood in the temple which measures 70 × 42 Rhineland feet (our chandi D). Apart from the fact that we have disproved the Siva-Buddhist character of the chadi B, whereby the analogy of the second temple is also disposed of, the aspect of affairs is to a great extent modified by the finding of the third almost identical și-image. The figure (No. 13o) is undamaged, but unfortunately the whole of the back-piece is broken off, which means that here we have no inscription to help us such as would probably have been found in the same place as on the other images. In any case, RouFFAERr's theory is now of much less value, especially if we take into consideration another possibility which to us seems more plausible. We return to the "mahabrāhmāņa çewa sogata", which one can also take to mean that there are three religions in question, viz. the Brahman, the Sivaite and the Buddhist, in which case the word 'brāhmāņa' must be regarded as another name for rsis, a sect of hermits. This religion was professed at that time by only a small number of adherents, but is nevertheless frequently mentioned in literature and inscriptions in this triple combination, or tripakșa. For this the Nāgarakrtāgama 2) can be referred to. Also the Old-Javanese prose poem the Koravāçrama XI 8), in which

1) p. 61 ff.
2) Edition 1919. p. 133 and 280 ff.
8) Dr. J. L. SwELLENGREBEL, De Koravāçrama.

there is a discourse on the clergy, and the Brahmanas, Šridāntas

and Boddhas are mentioned. SwELLENGREBEL remarks following PIGEAUD's 1) example, that these same three groups are expressed by the well-known

term: rsi-çaiva-sogata (in Balinese: seva-sogata-resi 2). This tripakșa is also mentioned in various inscriptions. It is therefore obvious that the same tripakșa is alluded to here, although the 'brāhmāņa' is mentioned first. We shall try to explain

this later. If, therefore, we admit the possible existence of the above- named religions, it must also be admitted that these rsi-images

represent the ancestors of the gotras (stocks), whose descendants perished during the fall of Tumapël. An examination of the images themselves does not prove that the one is more Buddhist in character than the other, which is RouFFAER's opinion; it is not clear to us what reasons he had for thinking so. The characteristic features of both images (the third had not yet been found) are the same, and we cannot imagine why the Trnavindu should look more Buddhist than the Marīci. Trnavindu is according to the Visnu-purāna 8) one of the

veda-vyāsas (veda-editors), whereas Marīci belongs to the group

of the sapta-rsis (seven seers). All this points to the Brahmanistic

character of the images. As to the third rsi-image, we are

inclined to group it with the two others, considering the similarity in appearance and style. The only points of difference are: the head-dress consists of

1) Dr. TH. PiGeaUD, Tantu Panggělaran, p. 41.
2) Dr. R. GoRis, Secten op Bali. Meded. III, v. D. KiRTYA LIEFRINck—
VAN DER TUUK.

8) H. H. WILsON, The Vishnu Purāa (1840), p. 242.

three rows of bead-garlands; although there is a beard, the waves are not clearly defined; the pedestal of the trisula is not lotus-shaped, but of the same type as the pedestal of the Bhatāra Guru from the tower-temple. The fact in the case of at least two images that the lotus-vegetation emerges from little pots, and that they may therefore be considered as belonging to the Majapahit period of Singasari art, may indeed as KroM says 1) — tally with the date of the inscription (1351 A.D.), but it is still uncertain whether the images and the inscription belong together. That the Marīci was found in the pond together with the stone, does not prove that they belonged together, since RAFFLEs saw the image, but not the inscription. We must again refer to the attack on Tumapël, and mention a comment made by Prof. Dr. C. C. BERG 2) on the importance of the attack described in the Pararaton. Whereas the Nāgarakrtā- gama 8) speaks highly of the virtues of Ktanagara, the Pararaton describes him as a drunkard and a glutton, although many scholars doubted the truth of these allegations. BERG is now inclined to believe that the story has more truth in it than people used to think. The so-called orgies of palm-wine drinking might have been the expression of a ritual which the monarch celebrated with the representatives of the various sects, and which was merely the means to an end, viz. the welfare of the world: This seems to us quite a plausible expla- nation, especially if considered in the light of Javanese Buddhism, which at that time was strongly tinged with Tantrism 4).

1) Inl. II, p. 91.
2) Versl. 8ste congres v. h. Oost. Gen. te Leiden 1936, p. 52 ff.
3) ED. KERN, V.G. VIII, zang 42 : 3; 43 : 2, 3, 4.
4) T.B.G. vol. LXIV (1924), Ir. J. L. MoeNs, Het Buddhisme op Java
en Sumatra in zijn laatste Bloeiperiode, p. 521 ff.

It is thus quite possible that Krtanagara was found with his followers in a circle consecrated by exorcism — i.e. a sanctuary— in the act of drinking palm-wine, one of the kālacakra-Buddhist rites. Obviously he could not defend himself against his assailant, and so he perished, and with him the "mahābrāhmana çewa sogata". The 'brāhmaņa' are mentioned first on the inscription, because in the hour of attack there were probably more adherents of this sect, as Krom observes 1). Where the images of the representatives of these gotras stood, is another matter. According to Boscí 2) the resemblance in style to the Leiden Brahmā might serve as a guide. The head- dresses are ornamented in the same way (the crown of Brahmā

is higher), and the refined expression of the faces indeed reveals

the handiwork of the same sculptor. Although one knows that there was not much Brahmā-worship, the fact must be taken into account that a Brahmā was met with here, which must certainly have been the object of a cult. Considering that there are no less than 28 rșis on the outer walls of the Brahmā-temple of the Lårå Djonggrang

group in Central Java, one might, like Boscí, hazard a guess

that here also was a similar case, viz. Brahmā surrounded by

rsis "meditating upon him". It is, of course, by no, means certain

that there are no more șis under the ground. Time will show.

Even if Boscí is right about Brahmā and the group of rsis, the situation of the memorial-temple is still uncertain. It seems to

us improbable that the pendåpå-terrace was the place where it

stood. The terrace is about 6.40 meters square, which would

1) B.K.I. vol. 75, p. 23 ff. Dr. N. J. KRoM, Epigrafische bijdragen.

2) O.V. 1922, p. 66 ff. Dr. F. D. K. Boscí, Epigrafische en icono-

grafische aanteekeningen.

be too small for a temple with projecting cells; neither can it be said with certainty whether the rsi-images stood in niches in the outer wall, because one must reckon with the possibility of there being still more rși-images buried in the ground.

THE IMAGES AND OTHER SCULPTURE AT SINGASARI.

No. 22. Between the Papah and Wayang (on LEYDIE MEL- vILLE's map), an image was dug up in 19o4 that is known in the Monography as "an unknown female figure" 1). The figure has neither head nor feet and is four-armed. The two rear arms are broken off at the wrists together with the back-piece, but we can see the handle of some object in the right hand. The two fore-arms hang down along the body; the left hand has disappeared; the right hand is damaged, but wears the aksamāla on the wrist. The image is richly decorated, and a rope of four bead-strings is worn hanging down. Under a canopy of lotus-vegetation on the left and right, and level with the knees of the image, there are naked women with loosened hair and the hands clasped in front of their breast. We should have been unable to identify this image if we had not met with an almost similar one in the Leiden Ethnographical Museum ²). It is labelled Harihara and the catalogue of the museum says: Harihara? or Krsna? This statuette is undamaged; it is also four-armed, and the most peculiar thing about it is that we find on either side the same naked female figures under a

canopy of lotus-vegetation rising from the roots. The rear left

1) Mon. p. 52; photograph O.D. 1185; Batavia Museum No. 281e.
2) Catalogus JUYNBOLL, No. 1859.
7

98 arm of the main figure bears the shield with the flame symbol; the rear right hand carries an attribute, of which the upper part is broken off; the catalogue calls it a club. The front left hand holds the bowl (kapāla) and the right, a small round object, which the catalogue describes as a lotus, while the akša- mālā encircles the wrist. The image is also richly ornamented and wears the upavīta consisting of three bead-strings. We fully agree with STuTTERHEIM 1) that there is not sufficient reason for calling this image a Krșņa or a Harihara. The attributes which we can recognize with certainty, viz. the shield (khetaka) with the flame-symbol, the aksamālā and the kapāla, are Sivaitic distinguishing marks. Besides, it seems to us highly improbable that the attribute in the upper right hand should be a club, because this weapon is generally found in one of the lower hands resting on the pedestal. The handle or shaft, which is all that remains of this attribute, looks to us more like that of a trisula or an arrow (such as is known in Indian art 2). The round object in the lower right hand we take to be an unidenti- fiable fruit such as the Indian 8) representations of Siva usually hold in their hands, and which greatly resembles a lemon. But what chiefly confirms our belief in the Sivaitic character of the image, is the object on the pedestal in front of the feet of the god, which we recognized as a yoni with a nozzle, resting on the head of a nāga. There is a small round hollow in the upper surface, which probably contained the linga-symbol. Two more

1) T.B.G. vol. LXXIX (1939), Dr. W. F. STUTTERHEIM, Een bijzettings-
beeld van Koning Rajasa? p. 9o.

2) H. KRIsHNA SAsTRI, South-Indian images of gods and goddesses,
fig. 90 and fig. 96.

3) Dr. J. PH. VoGEL, Antiquities of Chamba State, part I, Pl. XXXIX.

99 yonis are found: in front of the navel on the girdle and in front of the mukua of the figure. Judging by the strong likeness between the Singasari statuette and the one in the museum, we may con- sider this to be a Šivaitic image. ScHNITGER 1), and afterwards STUTTERHEIM 2) considered the possibility that the image in the museum also came from Singasari, which to us seems highly probable. No. 31; photograph O.D. 745. Linga-pedestal ³), consisting of a flat stone 1.6o meters square and ending on one side in a nozzle; in the centre is a large square hole surrounded by sixteen smaller square holes. BRANDEs 4) showed that many such linga-pedestals are found in Kamboja. He refers, among others, to a pedestal that was found at Phnom Thbong, which also has a large square hole and sixteen smaller ones; there was still a lińga in the central hole and also in three of the smaller holes; the rest of the lińgas were broken off. These pedestals were probably meant to serve as consecration gifts to temples; in the same way as votive stupas were given by Buddhists. Rows of seven lingas on a pedestal hewn out of one block of stone are sometimes met with. No. 48; photograph O.D. 757, 757a. This is probably the Surya indicated on Bik's ground-plan as the southern Surya. The rider has disappeared; between the upper part — which was meant to serve as a cushion for Surya and the base, there are seven animals, which are wrongly described as horses. The heads have unfortunately been broken off, and the feet

1) B.K.I., 89 (1932), p. 251 f.
2) T.B.G. vol. LXXIV (1934), p. 473, note 2.
8) Mon. P. 29 ff.; P. 47 ff.
4) T.B.G. vol. XLVII (1904), p. 461-467.

have leonine claws instead of hooves. The tails (of the two outermost animals) are docked. The ears are long and leaf- shaped, and the one visible eye is almond-shaped and looks more like a cat's-eye than that of a horse. The animals wear strings of bells round their necks. Under the body there is some scroll- work ornamentation to fill up the space. The wheels of the chariot are six-spoked 1). No. 53; photograph O.D. 746, 746a. Another riderless Surya-chariot. The heads of the horses are also broken off, These really are horses; the hooves are clearly to be seen; the tails are long and laid across the six-spoked wheel. The manes on the neck are chiselled in the form of pointed leaves; the horses wear a double cord round their necks. No. 59; photograph O.D. 747. Another Surya-chariot and horses as above; wheels in the shape of a four-leaved rosette 2). No. 6o; photograph O.D. 746b. This is the same represen- tation as the above, but here there is a six-leaved rosette instead of a wheel 2). No. 61; photograph O.D. 748, 748a. Bell-shaped white stone, o.8o meters wide and o.75 in height. Probably from the chadi Wayang. It is decorated all round with triangular foliage ornamentation 8). No. 65. Base of a Gaņeša on a lotus-cushion. The trunk rests on the bowl in the left hand, and the right hand also carries a bowl. The image is simply modelled. No. 68. Naga; o.5o meters in height; the hood is ornamented and the ears have ear-rings.

1) Mon. p. 51.
2) Mon. p. 48 ff.
8) Mon. p. 48.

No. 69. Roughly modelled rākšasa with the right knee drawn up and a club over the right shoulder 1).

No. 71. Banaspati; o.85 meters in height and o.72 meters wide. It probably surmounted a niche or cell of some temple or other. No. 1o8. Fragment of an image propped up on its knee; the left knee is drawn up, the arms are missing. The head is badly damaged; one can still see part of the crown with bead-garlands. Above the right shoulder the space is filled in with thickly executed scroll-work ornamentation. Perhaps a rāksasa? No. 109; photograph O.D. 86o1 (second from the right). Fragment of a roughly-modelled image, probably representing the figure of an ascetic. The garment which is fastened under the abdomen, can still be seen, and also the left hand with a water-bag (?); the right hand rests on the stick (the handle of a trisula?).

No. 11o. Fragment of an image, representing the right half

of what we believe to be the figure of an ascetic. The figure is thick-set, and to the right of it we see a handle or stick (of a trisula?). The head is broken off. No. 111. Fragment of the base of an image; the legs are in padmāsana attitude on a plain cushion, and over them hangs a four-stringed bead chain.

No. 113. Simply executed Nandi without muzzle, on a plain cushion.

No. 114. Torso of an image from the shoulders down to the hips; the left hand rests on the hip; the right is missing. The fragment wears elaborate ornaments. No. 115. Fragment of a pedestal with legs and part of a garment.

1) The images numbered 63, 69, 108, 110, 111, 113, 114, 119, are all
on photograph O.D. 768.

No. 119. Shapeless block of stone, probably destined for

carving out a Nandi.

No. 121; photographs O.D. 8889, 889o. Spout, representing

a human head with fish-like features, which take us back to the original makara-representations 1). The nose is small and round, the eyes elongated, fish-like and staring. The mouth is shaped like an O in the middle and indented at the corners like that of

a fish. The hair is ornamented with a diadem, and on top of the

head a coil of hair is knotted together with a band. There are ear-pendants in the ears and a small goatee beard under the chin. No. 122; photograph O.D. 8604 (left). A headless, two-armed image seated on a lotus-cushion in yogāsana attitude. The greater part of the back-piece is broken away. The figure wears bracelets; an upavīta consisting of three rows of bead-strings hangs down over the crossed legs; most probably the figure wears a loin-cloth. The little animal figure

in front of the lotus-cushion is worthy of notice; judging from

the long tail, it represents a horse. Another point which strikes us is the remarkable similarity between the workmanship of this image and that of No. 42 2), except that the animal figure of the latter represents a goat, stag or ram, and on the pedestal in front of the figure there is an attribute which probably hung down from the right hand. The animal figures, which are undoub- tedly meant to be mounts, lead us into the sphere of the dikpalakas, the regents of the sky-quarters. If we consult the various schematic lists of the South-Indian asta-dikpālakas

1) For the development of the makara in Indian and Hindu-Javanese
art, see: Ned. Indië, Oud en Nieuw, 8ste Jrg. (1923, 1924), Prof. Dr. J. Ph. VoGEL, De makara in de Voor-Indische beeldhouwkunst. p. 263 ff.

2) p. 86.

(the eight guardians of the sky-quarters), we arrive at the following possibilities:

No. Name Regent of Vāhana1) Vāhana ) Vāhana ) Vāhana4) 2 Agni South-east Gray goat Gray goat Horse Gray goat 4 Nirriti South-west Crocodile Gray goat Bhüta Horse 5 Varua West Stag Crocodile Crocodile Crocodile 6 Vayu North-west Bhūta Stag Stag Stag 7 Kuvēra NorthChariot Horse

Gray goat Ram

Agni, the Fire-god, thus has the stag three times as a vāhana,

and his most frequent attribute is the flame-symbol. Varuņa, who has the crocodile three times as a mount which thus seems to be his favourite we can therefore

rule out as being identical with the image No. 42; in any

case his attributes the serpent and the noose do not tally with the object on the pedestal.

Vayu although we find him three times with the stag

as his mount — must also be ruled out, since his attribute the banner is generally raised in te right hand; he would not, however, be absolutely abandoned as a possibility, if we were to assume that his attribute was held up in one of the hands on the knee; this does not seem very likely to us. On the whole we consider that Agni with his flame-symbol has the best qualifications.

1) ZiEGENBALG, South-Indian Gods, p. 8, 191.
2) Archaeological Survey of India, New Imperial Series, vol. XXI,
Pl. CVII, p. 32. Ceiling in the antarāla maņdapa of the Hariharēsvara temple (Harihar).

3) Ditto, Pl. II, fig. 1; Figure panels on the blocks of the main
building of the Kallēsvara temple (Bāgali).

4) The Indian Antiquary, vol. VI (1877); Sculptures on the roof of
the great cave at Badāmī, facing p. 36o; first row (right).

104 For the identification of the image No. 122, Kuvēra appears

to be the most likely candidate; especially on account of his

corpulent belly. The vahanas chariot and horse are so closely

allied to one another that his chances of being No. 42 and

No. 122 are about equal, but the corpulent belly may tip the scales in favour of his identification as No. 122. Unfortunately there are no attributes to help us in his case, because a side- view of the image was photographed; possibly the problem might be solved by local examination. If our identification of

No. 42 as Agni is correct, he is at any rate one of the

asta-dikpālakas, which may point to the existence of eight regents of the sky-quarters at Singasari. It is uncertain where these images stood, in spite of the fact that No. 42 was excavated south-east of the chandi E. No. 123; photograph O.D. 8602 (left). The trunk and part of the legs of a squatting figure, which

much resembles a Garuda. The feet have disappeared, so that

we are unable to see whether we are justified in our surmise. The arms appear to be raised. The rather corpulent belly is encircled by a decorated belt. No. 124; photograph O.D. 8888. Headless, two-armed image

leaning against a plain back-piece on a square stone slab. One

cannot see whether it represents a man or a woman. The left

arm hangs straight down at the side of the body; the right is bent in front of the body, the hand is broken. The image is richly decorated and wears a loin-cloth; round the body hangs the upavīta consisting of five strings of beads. No. 125; photograph O.D. 8891. A badly damaged two-armed

female image; the upper part of the head and of the back-piece

have disappeared. The back-piece is plain. The left hand of the figure forms

105 the varada-mudrā; the right is broken off at the elbow and possibly formed the abhaya-mudra. The feet and the pedestal are broken off. The decoration is coarse. There is an upavīta composed of three bead-strings. No. 127; photograph O.D. 86o1 (left). Fragment of the base of an image; it is probably a rāksasa, because one still can see the club.

No. 133; photographs O.D. 8897, 8898, 8901—8908, 9019—

9030. The last of the Singasari images which we shall mention is the startling discovery made at Ardimoelja (Karanglo district, Malang), about two kilometers north of the tower-temple 1). Innumerable fragments of an image were found on the compound of a native house. The image had been smashed to pieces by the former owner because of the fatal influence which he attributed to it. The fragments were taken to the grounds of the tower-temple at Singasari, and were put together with the result that a group of images made its appearance at the front, and a much damaged inscription at the back. The central figure of the group is the most important, and represents an eight-armed goddess seated on two corpses, which lie prone on a lotus-cushion; the feet and heads with the eyes closed, project on either side from underneath the goddess. The face and legs of the latter have unfortunately not been found; but the fragment of the right leg shows that she sat with her leg drawn up; the left leg was most likely underneath her body, or else stretched out in front of her. The eight arms bear the following attributes:

1) O.V. 1928, p. 27 ff.

106 left right kapāla broken off (stretched in front of the body) head of the hindmost corpse šakti (lance) dhanu khadga nāgapāsa (serpent-noose) broken off (only handle)

To the right on the back-piece there is a trisūla which stands by itself. The head of the goddess is encirled by a nimbus, with curls fluttering about it; there are also curls over the shoulders. To the left and right of the central figure there is a statuette which reaches up to her breast. On the left, on a field of skulls stands a Bhairava figure, which bears a remarkable likeness to the large Bhairava at Leiden. Here he is also four-armed: on the left in front he carries the skull-bowl and the arm at the back is broken off; on the right in front, he holds the butcher's knife on the head of the jackal standing behind him, and above he holds the trisula. A long chain of skulls hangs round the body, and the hair which stands on end, wears a diadem of skulls; there are strings of bells round the ankles. This figure is also represented as naked. On the right there is a Gaņeša figure, also on a field of skulls; one cannot distinguish whether it originally had four arms. The front left arm carries the skull-bowl, and the right hand holds an unrecognizable object; PERQuIN thinks it is the broken tusk. The figure wears a short garment reaching to the knees; the diadem on its head is adorned with the crescent moon and the skull. There are strings of bells round the ankles, and a nimbus encircles the head. Above the Gaņeša behind the uplifted sword of the goddess there is a kind of rockery with a fish on it car-

rying a seated figure which holds its right hand in front of its breast; the left hand is broken off.

Above the Bhairava there is a similar rockery, but the upper

part of it is so much damaged that a figure such as the one

just described cannot be seen on it. At the back of this sculptured group there is an inscription which places on record that in the year Sāka 1254 (1332 A.D.) a statue was erected to a Pāduka Bhatārī.

Both PERQuIN and BoscH 1) are of opinion that the goddess

represents a Buddhist Durgā, a Guhyešvarī, the lady of secrets. They base their theory on a description of that goddess in the

Brhatsvayambhūpurāa 2), and on a description made known by

means of a Nepalese manuscript, published by SYLvAIN LÉvı ³). According to the text the Guhyešvarī must be naked, she must have three eyes, hair standing on end, and in the crown there must be

five Dhyāni-Buddhas. Dr. STuTTERHEIM very properly observes

that the body of the goddess cannot have been completely naked, since the fragment of the leg shows distinct traces of the pattern of a dress.

This same scholar also observes that the image bears a

speaking likeness to the Bhairavī-image in the Leiden Museum 4). This one has no third eye, the goddess wears a loin-cloth, and there is no trace of the five Dhyani-Buddhas in the head-dress. The Leiden image indeed bears such a striking resemblance to the one from Singasari, that we entirely agree with STuTTERHEIM's opinion that the latter image is a tantric Durgā 5). The

1) O.V. 1928, p. 30 ff.
2) Calcutta 1900, P. 79 ff.
3) SYLVAIN LÉVi, Le Nepal III, p. 164.
4) JUYNBoLL, Catalogus, dl. V, p. 36, pl. V, fig. 1.

5) B.K.I. 92 (1934), Dr. W. F. STUTTERHEIM, Oudheidkundige Aan-

teekeningen, p. 184.

name Bhaārī, which Bosch declares to be the common surname of Tārā 1), might as has been demonstrated elsewhere — quite well be the Old-Javanese title for a princess. Dr. STuTTERHEIM observes that it is usually a posthumous title 2), which leads him to believe that the image is the portrait-image of a princess; we shall, however, refer to this later. Later on STUTTERHEIM read the inscription in Nāgarī-characters above the Kawi-characters: cāmuau, Cāmudā being another name for Durgā 8).

IMAGES AT MALANG, PROBABLY REMOVED FROM SINGASARI.

No. 75; Bik drawing No. 103; Mon. pl. 71 (left). Two-armed seated image in padmāsana attitude on a plain pedestal; there is no back-piece. The left hand lies on the lap and carries in the open palm what is probably a lotus-bud. The right hand is held in front of the breast, probably in abhayamudrā. The image is richly decorated with ornaments. It wears a high crown which strikingly resembles the jatāmukuta. The sole garment worn by the figure is a loin-cloth, held up by a girdle. No. 92; Bik drawing No. 101; Mon. pl. 7o left. This represents the second Brahmā image, which was noticed by BRuMuND in the garden of the Asst. Resident at Malang 4). The image is more than a meter in height and sits cross-legged on a lotus-cushion. It is four-headed and two-armed, and

1) O.V. 1928, p. 31.
2) T.B.G. LXXVI (1936), Dr. W. F. STUTTERHEIM, De dateering van
eenige Oostjavaansche beeldengroepen, p. 314, note 2.

3) B.K.I. 92 (1934), p. 210.
4) V.B.G. XXXIII, p. 207 ff.

109 é represents Brahmā. The arms which are raised on either side of the body to the level of the shoulders, probably carry the kuņdis. In the back-piece an oval opening is hewn, through which looks the hindmost face; to the left and right of the figure there is luxuriant lotus-vegetation rising from the roots. Around the head of the god there is an ornamented aureole; a border of flames, carved in the back-piece, surrounds this halo. The figure wears the upavīta round the naked upper part of the body; the abdomen is covered by a loin-cloth with richly decorated belts. No. 102. BRuMuND 1) also mentions a chiselled back-piece in front of which there must have been two seated images; this back-piece he found at the bathing-place north of the Singasari road, and is to be seen on photograph O.D. 9353. No. 12o; Bik drawing No. 107; Mon. pl. 71, 2nd and 3rd from the left. A richly modelled and ornamented makara-spout with widely- opened mouth in which sits a little lion. No. 128; Bik drawing No. 106; Mon. pl. 71 right. This image was also noticed by BRuMuND in the garden of the Asst. Resident at Malang 1); he took it to be a Buddha-image, which indeed it greatly resembles. It sits cross-legged on a plain pedestal and is about 1.5o meters in height. The figure is two- armed; the left hand lies on the lap with the palm turned up; the right hand rests on the knee. The hair lies close to the head like a helmet; the ears are long. With the exception of the upavīta, the figure appears to be completely naked. There is every reason to believe that this image is a small replica of the Mahākşobhya image at Surabaya. The image was

1) V.B.G. XXXIII, p. 207 ff.

not seen by RAFFLEs during his visit in 1815, but was sketched by Bik in 1822 at Malang; we may therefore assume that both this one and the second Brahmā image were removed from the site between these two dates. The paragraph (see Chapter VI) in which the posthumous images are discussed, may be referred to for fuller information.

THE SINGASARI IMAGES AT BATAVIA 1).

No. 49; photograph O.D. 1188; Batavia Museum No. 324∂. The second large Nandi, its measurements being: Height (with pedestal): 1.45 meters : 2,, Length Width,, : 0.90 This Nandi bears such a striking resemblance to the Leiden specimen, that we need not describe it. The bull has a band of bells and two more flat ornamented bands than the other. The saddle-girth is decorated in exactly the same manner as the Leiden Nandi. No. 67; photograph O.D. 1186; Batavia Museum No. 321a. The headless Nandi lies on a lotus-cushion with a decorated band round its neck and without a harness. On the middle of its back there is a damaged lotus-bud; a kind of foliage ornamen- tation (lotus-leaves?) rises against the belly. No. 78; photograph O.D. 1179; Batavia Museum No. 157a. This is a four-armed Gaņesa, 1.22 meters in height, sitting on a lotus-cushion. He wears ornaments the serpent-upavīta

1) Mon p. 43 ff.

111 é and has a nimbus round his head. The rear left arm bears the axe and the front hand his skull-bowl, on which the trunk rests. The rear right hand probably carried the aksamāla, which cannot be seen clearly because part of the back-piece is broken away on that side. The front right hand with the pāša (noose) rests on the thigh. The image is roughly executed; this time the rims of the ears are crenated; the image probably belongs to a much later period than those of the tower-temple, for instance. In our opinion this is shown by the interchange of attributes and by the general workmanship. The image does not strike one as a dignified god, but it looks more like an ordinary con- ceited little elephant. No. 79; photographs O.D. 1181, 1181a; Batavia Museum No. 164a. This four-armed Gaņesa is o.86 meters in height; it sits on a lotus-cushion. With the exception of the tip of the trunk it is undamaged. The rear left hand bears the aksamālā and the front hand the bowl. The rear right hand holds the axe upraised. Both aksamālā and axe are surrounded by scroll-work. The right lower hand holding the bowl rests on the knee. There are skull ear-rings in the ears. The head-dress consists of a wide ornamented band and a cap composed of two rows of garlands. There is also a nimbus of which the upper edge coincides with that of the undecorated back-piece. Round the heavy body hangs the serpent-upavīta. No. 8o; photograph O.D. 118o; Batavia Museum No. 157b. Four-armed Gaņeša, o.8o meters in height, sitting on a lotus-cushion. The left-hand portion of the back-piece — most probably holding the axe is broken off. The front left hand holds the bowl with the trunk on it; there is only part of this left. The rear right hand bears the akšamālā and the front hand on

the knee holds the same peculiar object (as No. 92) which looks

to us like a noose. The ears are crenated and the head-dress ornamented with fluttering ribbons. The workmanschip of the whole is rough. No. 81; photograph O.D. 1183; Batavia Museum No. 187a.

A Gaņeša without a back-piece (broken off?), and with only

two arms which are broken off at the elbow, but judging by

the damage, must have held the bowls. The nimbus is also

broken off; there are few ornaments and a rounded upavīta.

No. 87; photograph O.D. 1187; Batavia Museum No. 342c. This represents a smaller bull with its muzzle broken off, also lying on a lotus-cushion. It has a collar of bells round its neck and an ornamented band. The harness is plain. No.88; photograph O.D. 1189; Batavia Museum No. 325. An entirely unornamented bull on a plain pedestal; the dewlap is represented by thick folds. No. 105; photograph O.D. 1184, 1184a; Batavia Museum

No. 204a.

Chariot of the sun with rider. The heads of the horses are damaged, only the legs with the hooves can be seen; the wheels of the chariot are eight-spoked. Surya himself sits cross-legged on the upper surface which is borne by the horses, his left hand resting on it and his right hand probably holding the reins; the hand being damaged, this can no longer be seen. The god leans against a separate back-piece, which merges into a curved nimbus at the level of the shoulders. The crown tapers to a point; the hair is in loose curls.

No. 118; photograph O.D. 1178; Batavia Museum No. 153. Durgā in the form of Mahisāsuramardinī, standing on a buffalo; the height of the image including the square base, is

1.48 meters. It is noticeable that instead of the demon — which is lacking — the goddess holds a club which rests on the head of the buffalo. The goddess is eight-armed and holds: left
right the bull's tail cakra dhanu khadga pāša șara (?) lotus-shaped object (thunderbolt?) gadā The loin-cloth is simple and fastened by a double belt. The face of the goddess is badly damaged; her ears are long. From the crown a chain of beads hangs down on the breast. The head-dress itself resembles the jatāmukuța.

No. 54. THE GaNESa AT BaNGKOK. According to the accounts of visitors to Singasari this Gaņeša 1) stood until the year 1896 at the right side of the road leading to the colossal rāksasas, and judging from VERBEEk's ground-plan, made in 1886 ²), quite near to them. It would be too much to say that Bik has made another mistake on his map in marking the position of the Gaņesa farther to the east; the image might quite well have been dragged away westwards to the intermediate station, to which so many Singasari antiquities were taken before being removed elsewhere. We shall discuss in fuller detail RouFFaEr's lively account 8) of

1) Mon. pl. 75.
2) Mon. pl. J.
3) Mon. p. 83.
8

114 the further adventures of the Ganesa, because the story of the so-called second, Singasari image, which was also taken to Bangkok, is closely bound up with it. In the minutes of the T.B.G. 1898 Mr. J. H. ABENDANON 1) relates how two images from Singasari were presented to the late King of Siam when he was touring Java in 1896. He mentions the Gaņesa in question as No. 1, and after No. 2 he puts a query. This started the well-known story of the two images which has led many a scholar astray. Dr. VAN STEIN CALLEN-FELs' visit has shed no light on the subject. Lieutenant-Colonel VAN ERp's treatise 2) on the Bangkok images gave us the idea of investigating the matter in the residency archives at Pasuruan. We accordingly wrote to the Resident at Malang, who searched in vain for the records relating to this matter both in his own office and in that of the local Regent. We corresponded with the Netherlands Minister at Bangkok and found that nothing was known about a second image, not even by H.R.H. Prince Damrong, who accompanied the King of Siam on his tour. A letter from the Director of the Department of Education and Public Worship gave us no further information on the subject, so that we can be sure that ABENDANoN's story was untrue and that the matter may therefore be considered as settled. The Ganeša which was removed to Bangkok is 1.7o meters in height, and bears a striking resemblance to the Gaņesa of the tower-temple. The right side of the back-piece with the arm which carries the axe, is broken off. Fortunately, this piece 8) was recovered

1) Mon. p. 52.
2) B.K.I. 79 (1923) p. 511 f., TH. VAN ERP, Hindu-Javaansche Beelden
thans te Bangkok.

3) Photographs, O.D. 7947, 7948.

115 during the excavations and the axe can actually be seen, while above it there is a disk with a nimbus, similar to that of the Leiden Ganeša. It is probable that there was also a disk on the other half of the back-piece, which is also broken off. The right leg of Gaņeša is not drawn up, but lies in an almost horizontal position. The top of the nimbus coincides with the line of the back-piece; the pedestal is surrounded by a row of skulls (it has some more skulls than that of the Leiden Gaņeša). It is possible that the Bangkok image was formerly enclosed in a niche; this might be inferred from the presence of the back-piece. RAFFLEs says 一that "the figure appears to have stood on a platform, and from the number of stones scattered, it is not improbable it may have been inclosed in a niche or temple" 1). Under the belly of the animal there is a square hole which vAN ERp thinks to have been used for a temple-lamp or other.

These are all the images and fragments of images which we were able to describe by means of the photographs placed at our disposal. Apart from the images and sculpture described in the Chapters II—IV, in the inventory (Appendix I) we have also placed on record the images, which were mentioned by various visitors and of which unfortunately no sketches nor pictures exist.

1) RaFFLes, History of Java, vol. II, p. 46.

CHAPTER V

THE DATE OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHANDI A AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE

Like many others before us, we ask ourselves whether the tower-temple must be considered as an ordinary temple for worship, or whether the sanctuary originally served as the burial-temple of some king or other. Temples in Java were frequently erected as burial-temples for kings; the ashes were interred in the foundation shaft, and the king himself was worshipped in the image of a god whom he had venerated during his lifetime and in whom his soul could be incarnated. In that case there are two possibilities:

a) the temple might originally have been meant for worship,

and was subsequently consecrated as a royal burial-temple,

b) the temple could have been specially built for the burial of a king.

The period in which the temple was founded can frequently be ascertained, as it is closely connected with the purpose for which the building was erected, whereas an ordinary temple for worship, when there are no inscriptions, presents far greater difficulties. If there was no date for instance on the lintels of the temple — that might help us to fix the period of the foundation, the general plan, style and ornamentation, and occa- sionally the workmanship of the images found in the temple might serve as a guide. The inscriptions — if there happened to be any — might confirm the suppositions. Other data could

be derived from the Nāgarakrtāgama, the poem in praise of the

117 2 great Hayam Wuruk, 1) written by the Buddhist court poet Prapañca in 1365, and from the Pararaton, the book of the Kings of Tumapěl and Majapahit, a collection of romantic stories, historical events and items of news about the family connections of the dynasty. Unfortunately there is no date whatever on the tower-temple of Singasari, and the inscriptions found here are of no use to us. With the exception of the inscription of 1273 Šāka which was recovered from the pond of Khaji Napii, no other has been met with that can give us any information as to the date of the foundation of the temple. The following are the various theories concerning the period of the foundation: As regards plan, style etc., BRANDEs 2) gave as his opinion that Singasari is of a later date than the chadi Jago, because of the construction of the latter's terraces; he considers that the terrace-construction at Singasari is of a later style of architec- ture. Jago dates from the time of King Wisuwardhana, who reigned from 1248—1268, so that Singasari's tower-temple was built during Wisņuwardhana's reign or that of his successor Krtanagara (1268—1292). In 1292, when Krtanagara died, the kingdom of Singasari (Tumapël) was overthrown, and after an interregnum of two years, during which the seat of the govern- ment was transferred to Kairi, in 1294 the Majapahite dynasty came into power. According to BRANDEs, the unfinished state of the decorative ornamentation of the tower-temple must either be ascribed to

1) In the text we have used the customary transcription for the Javanese
names of persons and places, and the current transcription for the names of gods etc. of Hindu origin, as well as for words of Sanskrit derivation,

2) Mon. p. 36 ff,

the confusion arising from the fall of Tumapël, and the temple

must at that time have been in the state in which we now see it: or else the sanctuary was completed in 1294 with the exception of the decorative ornamentation, which was added later, i.e. under the Majapahite dynasty, and for some reason left un- finished. The former possibility seemed to BRANDEs more plausible, and in his opinion, a passage in the Pararaton gives added weight to the argument; this passage reads as follows:

Šrī Siwabu∂∂ba ∂hinarma ring Tumapěl, bbișekaning ∂barma

ring Purwapatapan. Helet pituwélas tabun adég ing ∂barma lawan paranggalawe, which means: H.M. Siwabuddha was cere- monially interred at Tumapël (araning nagari singasari, a name

both for the kingdom of Singasari and for its capital) and this dharma was given the name of Purwapatapan. There was an interval of seventeen years between the founding of the sanctuary and the rebellion of Rangga Lawe. As to the meaning and importance of this passage there are various opinions which we consider necessary to mention. Having set forth the three dates — which do not tally with one another — given in the Pararaton for the Paranggalawe, Prof. BERG 1) considers that preference should be given to 1295 A.D. as the date of the rebellion, rather than 13og.

The above-mentioned relative dating of the foundation of the

Purwapatapan can only be definitely established if we know when the Paranggalawe took place, and whether it is possible to find out how the author of the passage arrived at his calculation of the seventeen years interval. Did he mean that the Purwapatapan was founded seventeen years before or after the rebellion?

1) B. K. I. vol. 97. Prof. Dr. C. C. BERG, Opmerkingen over de chrono-
logie van de oudste geschiedenis van Maja-pahit en over Ktarajasajaya- wardhana's regeering, p. 135 ff,

119 二 BRANDEs 1) took the passage to mean that the sanctuary was founded before the rebellion, the Paranggalawe happened in about the same year as Jayanagara came to the throne (1217 Šāka); he therefore calculated that the temple was founded in 1200 Šāka, during the reign of King Krtanagara. "All things considered" says BRANDEs in his Monography, "one naturally comes to the conclusion that the sanctuary mentioned in the Pararaton is a royal building, the tower-temple of Singasari, which must therefore have been founded in 12oo Šāka" 1). Prof. BERG believes — and we agree with him — that if we fix the date of the Paranggalawe as 1295 A.D. (only a few 2 years after Krtanagara's death) there could obviously not have been an interment 17 years before, although a sepulchral monu- ment was erected then (adëg ing dharma). If we were to take BRANDEs' point of view — that the foun- dation of the temple was in 1278 A.D. and the burial of Ktanagara in 1295 A.D. we should have to conclude that the building (which must have been a dharma because of the burial) was erected as a burial-temple. 情 BERG thinks it extremely strange that Ktanagara should have decided to found the sanctuary in 1278, eleven years before his Mahākșobhya-consecration at Wurare (Simpang-inscription). It seems equally strange and improbable that the king should have had the temple built for some one else, and that he himself would thus have to be buried in another place. These two points would incline one to the belief that the building was not erected as a sepulchral-temple, and it is therefore possible that Ktanagara was interred "in a building, that would serve as a dharma later on"; as a translation BERG considers this rather far-fetched,

1) Mon. p. 37 f.

but it may not be excluded as a possibility. On the other hand

he cannot accept the hypothesis "that in the Java of the 13th

century a building that was not a mortuary-temple should be changed into a mortuary-temple, in order to become the last dwelling-place of the tyrant Krtanagara". Moreover, BERG refers to his demonstration of the identity of the Purwapatapan with the panadahan sajeng, where Krtanagara, together with his

followers, performed the rites of the Kalacakra-Buddhism

among them, the drinking of palm-wine and perished. He

considers it improbable that the carouse' should have taken

place in a temple-chamber, and as a consequence, equally unlikely, that the 'dharma ring purwapatapan' stood there at the time of Krtanagara's death. Tāpa is synonymous with yogi and yogini, the participants in circle-ritual or cakra; it therefore follows that patāpan is identical with cakra and that Krtanagara was buried at the place where pūrwa formerly the patāpan stood; the name can only be used in this connection. Reverting once more to the subject treated by BERG we arrive at the view held by PoERBATJARAKA 1), who — referring to a passage in the Nāgarakrtāgama (43 : 17), in which it is said that Krtanagara

returned to the abode of the Jina-King in 1292 — is of opinion

that the Paranggalawe took place in 13o9. BERG very properly observes that only the death of Ktanagara

is mentioned in Nāg. 43 : 5a, and the interment in the following

verse "ringke sthāna", but this does not imply that the king was buried immediately after his death. Consequently the ‘aděg ing dharma' and Nāg. 43 : 5a refer to different events. BERG con- tinues that, if the Paranggalawe had occurred in 13o9, and if

1) T. B. G. vol. 56 (1914) Rn. PoRATJARAKA, De dood van Raden
Wijaya, den eersten Koning en stichter van Majapahit, p. 146 f.

121 by ‘adeg ing dharma' the burial was meant, counting back from 1309, one obtains as the date of the funeral 1309—17, i.e. 1292, the year of Ktanagara's death, which is practically impossible, because 'dhinarma' (Par. 25, 4) means: solemn burial; this could not possibly have happened in 1292 owing to the attack on Tumapël and its fall, and the surrender of the kingdom to the enemy. The memorial-image of the monarch is considered as a centre of magic force in favour of the king's descendants which the hostile government would certainly not have permitted. More- over, it is customary for the burial of a king to take place a considerable time after his death (this is the case in Bali). The early years of Jayanagara's reign must also have been very unfavourable for a ceremonial burial, because after the interim much had to be consolidated. As an illustration one can take the case of the Rājapatnī, who died in 135o and was only buried in 1362, while the regnal years at that time were supposed to have been a period of great prosperity and peace. A favourable time had to be chosen for the burial, and neither the year 1292, nor even the year after, could possibly be considered as such. One cannot arrive at a satisfactory result, even if one combines the opinions of BRANDEs and PoERBATJARAKA that the foundation of the dharma and the burial-ceremony were different events, and that the rebellion of Rangga Lawe took place in 13o9, because in that case the temple would have been brand-new at the time of Krtanagara's death; this could have been possible, but does not tally with BERG's argument that the Purwapatapan was not in existence at that time. Like Poerbatjaraka, Prof. KroM is inclined to believe the statements as to the sequence of the various rebellions (Parang- galawe, Panambi etc.) and also assumes that the periods between the rebellions are correctly given; in this particular case he

considers some of the data to be useful, and others untenable. KroM says: "The first-mentioned episode (viz. the Paranggalawe), happening before an event in 1311 (viz. the eruption of the Lungge) may be assumed to have taken place at the very beginning of the new reign, and not — as the Pararaton asserts — 17 years after Jayanagara came to the throne" 1). From this one must conclude that KroM supposes the Paranggalawe to have happened in 1309.

If the number 'seventeen' is correct, our calculations again

take us back to 1292 as the date of Krtanagara's burial, which BERG, in the above-mentioned argument, asserts to be chrono- logically incorrect. The question arises as to whether the foundation of the Purwapatapan and the funeral are to be taken as one event, or as two occurrences, separated by an interval of time. Prof. Krom assumes — we believe — that there were two events, one of which was the foundation of the sanctuary in 1292; he expresses no opinion as to the date of the burial, but unlike BRANDEs, he observes that it is still uncertain whether the above-mentioned Purwapatapan is the tower-temple, because "during the reign of Krtanagara, which was one of outstanding brilliance, special mentioning being made of the embellishment of the capital, other temple-buildings besides the Purwapatapan must undoubtedly have been erected; the fact that just one name has been preserved in literature, and that just one temple remains on the site, is no reason for assuming that they are one and the
same...."2). He admits the connection in building and or-
namentation between Jago and Singasari, and on that account he considers it not improbable that the tower-temple is a product

of the period of the Singasari dynasty.

1) Prof. Dr. N. J. Krom, Hindoe-Javaansche Geschiedenis, p. 372.
2) Inl. vol. II, p. 85.

123 Prof. BERG suggests another possibility for solving the curious fact that on this one occasion the author of the Pararaton interrupted the chronological sequence if one assumes that the Paranggalawe took place in 13o9, and Ktanagara's burial 17 years earlier, i.e. in 1292 for no apparent cause. Hitherto it has been generally taken for granted that the burial took place before the rebellion, but there is no written reason for this assumption; what would the chronological sequence be like, if the funeral took place after the Paranggalawe? The general view of the data thus obtained strikes one as strange, but can be logically accounted for if the fact is taken into consideration that the author of the Pararaton only mentions events which form part of the history of the Majapahite dynasty. Summing up, this is BERG's ultimate conclusion: that the Paranggalawe took place in 1295 and Krtanagara's burial in 1312, these dates being only valuable as provisional points for the chronology of the oldest history of Majapahit. In the main we agree with Prof. BERG, although one might bring forward arguments in opposition to his objections to BRANDEs' theory. By this we mean that the foundation of the temple and the burial of Krtanagara may still be considered as two distinct facts. If one's starting-point is 1295 as the date of the Paranggalawe and reckons 17 years back for the foundation of the sanctuary, which is thus in 1278, one comes to the esta- blishment of the fact, that the primary object in building the temple was not that it should serve as a sepulchral-temple. This possibility is not entirely ruled out; the religious practises of the king — we allude to the far from orthodox Kalacakra-Buddhism 1) which he professed — need not have been of recent

1) p. 95 f.

date. Krtanagara as a Kālacakra-Buddhist may have founded a sanctuary in which to perform his rites. This is BERG's objection, since he considers it out of question that these rites carouses' — could have taken place in a temple-chamber. On the other hand, it would be strange if the king had not chosen a consecrated building in which to practise his sacred rites. And could not this building have been the cakra the circle məde sacred by exorcism? It seems to us highly probable. The sanctuary the Purwapatapan can already have been in existence at the time of the king's death. From the point of view of the author of the Pararaton, the significance of this burial-place — i.e. the former abode of the ascetics remains the same. If we adhere to the above-mentioned schematic outline, i.e. the Paranggalawe in 1295 and the foundation of the Purwapatapan in 1278, it follows that another date must be found for the burial, which cannot be fixed exactly, but in any case must have been some years after Krtanagara's death. On the other hand, this does not tally with the chronology of the Pararaton itself, which allows of an interruption of events with regard to the ceremonial burial of a king, but not of the foundation of a temple that happened at a much earlier date. The dates 1295 and 1312, demonstrated

by BERG for the Paranggalawe and the burial of Krtanagara,

seem to us highly probable. Moens 1) has devoted special study to Buddhism in Java, and more particularly to Buddhism during Krtanagara's time. A critical examination of the verses of the Nagarakrtagama dedicated to this king, convinced Moens that the Buddhism at

that time must have been tantric, even vajrayanistic in character.

The cult which placed Krtanagara in the midst of the ritual

1) T. B. G. LXIV (1924), Het Buddhisme op Java en Sumatra in zijn
laatste Bloeiperioden, p. 521 ff.

125 E ceremonies, was that of Kālacakra-Buddhism, in which the king thus acted as the cult-god (cakresvara), under whose guidance the votaries of the cult performed their sacred ceremonies in the cakra; this, as we already explained, means the consecrated circle of initiates (yogi and yogini). According to MoENs, a communal cakra-ceremony of this kind can be found in the ‘gaņacakra' of Nāg. 43 : 3. The various names assigned to the king during his lifetime and after his death, such as Nārasimhamurti (the avatara of Visu as man-lion) and Šiva-Buddha, combined with the Kālacakra- 2Buddhism professed by Krtanagara, might lead to the trans- figuration among themselves of the trio Viu-Šiva-Buddha, out of which the Siva-Buddha could come into being, as well as the Buddhist Ardhanārī; Tarā, taking the place of Buddha, was thus a double-šakti, viz. of Šiva and Vișu. According to MoeNs, the 'five commandments' to which Krtanagara aspired, could certainly not have been those of orthodox Buddhism; on the contrary, these commandments would allow the king to over- indulge in intoxicating liquors (palm-wine). The pañcakāmo- 2 pabhoga no longer harms him, and he can freely enjoy the five sensual pleasures, besides which it must be remembered that these five commandmends were included in the Kalacakra- ritual. It is now clear that the stories of the Pararaton (which were considered as unfavourable to Krtanagara) agree with those of the Nāg. without either adding to or detracting from the merits of the king. Krtanagara received the consecration name of Jñaneswarabajra at a most solemn ceremony of consecration, and thus the king reached the state of jīvanmukta', 'he who is redeemed during his lifetime', and in the Kaliyuga (see Nāg. 41 : 4 and 42 :1 for the destruction of many evil- doers) the king appears as the active, aggressive Bhairava, and

notin his peaceful Ādibuddha (highest Jina-) form. The inscription of the Surabaya Mahāksobhya image, in which the sculptured portrait of Ktanagara was recognized, states that the king was consecrated on a field of corpses, which tallies quite well with his Bhairava-form. The Aksobhya-Bhairava connection can iconographically speaking best be indicated by giving the Bhairava an Akşobhya image in the head-dress. Moens then comes to the discussion of the verses 43 : 5 and 6 of the Nāg. in which mention is made of Krtanagara's burial- places where this king was interred in various forms.

For the sake of clearness we think it necessary to insert those

passages:

sang mokteng Šiwabuddhaloka kalahan Šrī-Nātha ling ning sarāt

ringke sthāna nirān dhinarma Šiwabuddhārccā halěpnyottama.

Lāwan ring (Sagala) pratista Jinawimbātyanta ring sobhita

těkwann Arddhanarešwarī mwang ika sang Srī-Bajradewy

āpupul

sang rowang nira wddhi ring bhuwana tunggal ring kriyā

mwang brata hyang wairocana Locanā lwir iran-ekārccā prakāšeng prajā.

The translation is as follows: "It is generally said of the late king that he is 'the blessed departed in Šivabuddha's world'. There is an extremely beautiful

Šivabuddha image in the place where he is buried.

In Sagala he is represented by a splendid Jina image. Besides, as Arddhanarešwarī united to (or coupled with) H. M. Bajradewī,

his consort in the (furtherance of) the welfare of the world,

sharing in the sacred ceremonies and vows: the Higher Being (Jina) Wairocana and Locanā (his female better half) bear their

127 2 likeness in one image, that is far-famed all over the country" 1). This is KERN's translation. According to MoeNs, there are two burial-places: 'ringke' and 'ring sagala', although neither of them is mentioned by name. Like PoERBATJARAKA, he translates 'ring' as 'here', viz. on the spot (Tumapěl), where Prapañca obtains his information from the sthāpaka. The first burial-place is at Singasari, and MoENs agrees with BRANDEs' supposition that 'ringke' is the Purwapatapan of the Pararaton, and that this temple is Sivaitic, because he believes 区'ring sagala' to be the Buddhist burial-place of Ktanagara. He translates verse 6: "And 'ring sagala' he is erected as an extremely beautiful Jina image; moreover it is Ardhanareswarī, viz. united to the sacro-
sanct Bajradewī, his partner etc. .... one, as if they were Hyang
Wairocana and Locanā it is one image, renowned in the Land". 2) The Buddhistic equivalent of Vişņu in the Harihara which is transformed into Sivabuddha, possesses Akșobhya characteris- tics, and the double-Tarā with whom this Buddha forms an Ardhanārī, must at least possess Locanā attributes. MoENs imagines this sculptured portrait of Krtanagara to be a Buddhistic Bhairava in the abstract, forming a double personality with his psychic šakti like a Buddhistic Ardhanārī. This image probably resembles the two-armed Bhairava figure with the Akşobhya in the head-dress that was found at Padang Rotjo near Sungai Langsat (Upper Batang-Hari). We have already mentioned MoeNs' assertion that the Leiden Bhairava belongs to the tower-temple and must have stood behind the linga. The linga must thus be regarded as the Siva-Buddhistic posthumous

1) Prof. Dr. H. KERN, Verspreide Geschriften, vol. VIII, p. 21 f.
2) T. B. G. LXIV (1924), pag. 551 f.

image of Ktanagara, and the Bhairava figures as Kşetrapāla — the tutelary deity of the sacrosanct Sivakşetra; he is also ŠivaBuddhistic in character. The completion of the inscription on the broken back-piece is most probably 'buddha'. Taking Prapañca's liking for parallelism into account, and since there is no burial-place mentioned in ringke', MoeNs thinks that we must not expect to find one in the following verse. He does not take ‘ring sagala' to be a name of a place, but thinks it synonymous with 'ring ușāna', of old; but because the burial-place Jajawi — where Krtanagara was interred as Šiva and Buddha — is mentioned in the cantos 56 and 57, MoENs is of opinion that Sagala with its Ardhanārī can be considered equal to Jajawa (or Jawi) with its Šiva image and Akşobhya in the head-dress. Later on he reverts to the subject of his identi- fication of Sagala with Jawi, but he still does not believe it to be the name of a place. He changes sagala to sakala — the revealed form of the apparently purely Buddhist Amoghapāša-Ardhanārī — which he thinks to have stood in an unspecified place at Singasari. With this he increases the number of burial-places of Krtanagara to three; of the other two he mentions: ringke (also Singasari) with an apparently purely Šivaitic linga and the distinctly Šivabuddhistic sculptured Bhairava Yamāri at Jajawa. The posthumous images of the king were then succes- sively: the first in nişkala-form, the second in sakala-niskala- form and the third in sakala-form. That the passages quoted above are liable to more than one interpretation, is proved by the articles written by many scholars in opposition to one another. To give a clear idea of the matter we append the opinions of these scholars as regards the problem of the burial-places:

129 Number Name PlacesImages KERN 1) 2 1) Sagala 1) Jina image -Krtanagara

2) Unnamed 2) Arddhanarešwarīz
Bajradewi -Krtanagara Arddhanareswarī BrANDEs 2) Sagala Paramesvarī Ratu-Šrī Bajradewī -Krtanagara-Wairocana 1 1) Sagala Arddhanareswarī Boscí ³)

Saktis: Wajradhatiswara

and Locana Later on:

1) Sagala1) Jina Mahākșobhya (the Surabaya replica) (probably one of the southern ruins 2) Wairocana-Locanā at Singasari)
2) Jajawa 2) Sivabuddha
PoERBATJARAKA 4) 2 1) Singasari

3) Jajawa
1) Singasari 2) Sagala 2) Krtanagara-Wairocana
3) Jajawa 3) Šiva and Buddha
3) Jajawa 3) Šivabuddha-Bhairava

2) Sagala 3) Sivabuddha

31) Sivabuddha
Krom ) Šrī Bajradewi-Locanā

2) Amoghapasa-Ardhanarī
2) Singasari
1) Ardhanārī (Berlin Museum)
2) Šivabuddha
1) Šiva and Buddha, i. e. as linga and a Buddhist symbolic nothingness
2) Sagala 2) Šiva and Buddha, i. e. Ardhanārī and dhyāni-
buddha

3) Šiva and Buddha
3) Jajawa
1) V. G. VIII p. 22 f.

2) Tjandi Djago, P. 94.

) O. V. 1917, P. 135 f.; O. V. 1918, p. 21 f.

4) B. K. I. vol. 80, P. 239. 5) H. J. G., P. 344.

) T. B. G. vol. LXXIII (1933), P. 124 ff. Het Berlijnsche Ardhanārī- beeld en de bijzettingsbeelden van Ktanagara.

7) T. B. G. vol. LXXII (1932), P. 715 ff. Een bijzettingsbeeld van
Koning Krtanagara in Berlijn?; T. B. G. vol. LXXIII (1933), p. 292 ff. 9

We already spoke of the arguments which Dr. STUTTERHEIM set forth in disproving Moens' theory that the Bhairava stood in the tower-temple. At the same time we said that we agreed with STuTTERHEIM as regards the fact that there is nothing to prove that the temple is Buddhistic, or even Siva-Buddhistic. Originally STUTTERHEIM was of opinion that the tower-temple had no connection with Krtanagara, and he therefore denied that there was any proof of identification with the Purwapatapan. From the verses quoted above, STuTTERHEIM concluded that there were meant two burial-places. The first is 'ringke' in which he perceives an identification with Jawi, where according to the text — a Siva and Aksobhya were to be found. The second is Sagala with the Ardhanārī (which he thinks is the Berlin Ardhanārī), which he believes to have stood near, or may be even at Singasari, in which case it might be the Purwapatapan. STUTTERHEIM denies MoENs' assertion that there were three burial-places, for if one assumes this to be true, Prapañca must have made a mistake, because Jawi, being specially mentioned in the cantos 56 and 57, would not be found in canto 43. He disagrees with the translation here' of 'ringke', because the cantos are written in indirect speech, and it. would certainly be exceedingly strange if one line were to differ from all the others. If, however, one agrees with MoENs' interpretation, 'ringke' would refer to the preceding Šivabuddhaloka and not necessarily be considered equal to Singasari (mokta would then mean ,redeemed' and not 'deceased'). Furthermore, 'ring sagala' — as a revealed form cannot be right. Sakala is only used as an adjective or adverbially, and never with 'ring', and must therefore be taken to mean the name of a place, which, however, has no reference to Krtanagara's burial as Sivabuddha. In a later article STuTTERHEIM comes to the conclusion that

131 three burial-places are referred to in the cantos under discussion: besides KERN's translation of the first line of verse 5, one can give another translation which is equally admissible: "at the places where he (Ktanagara) was buried, there are exceedingly fine images of Siva and Buddha". It is thus possible that there are mentioned three burialplaces respectively: One in Singasari (Tumapěl), one in Sagala with an Ardhanārī under an unnamed dhyānibuddha, and one in Jawi with a Siva under an Akșobhya. But there is a difficulty: the verses 43 : 5 and 6 must tally with the list of royal burial-temples in the cantos 73 : 3 and 74 : 1, and how is this possible, since the places Jawi and Tumapěl are not named in canto 43? STUTTERHEIM remarks that the junction of verse 5 to 6 is not quite correct; lawan which means 'besides', and which, according to him, implies more or less of a contra- diction, would therefore be out of place here. Rather than accuse Prapañca of inaccuracy, STuTTERHEIM decides that a verse was left out when the manuscript was copied. If there were another verse between 5 and 6 dealing with the burial-places at Tumapël and Jawi, everything would tally with the list of the temples mentioned in the cantos 73 and 74. Even if one were to advance a counter-argument, and agree with PoERBATJARARA's translation of 'ringke' as 'here', i.e. Tumapël, it would still be an open question, because Jawi is not mentioned; unless one agrees with Boscí that Jawi was not a burial-place. Furthermore STUTTERHEIM brings forward other data which strengthen him in his belief that the tower-temple is a Siva-Buddhist sanctuary. The first point he advanced and which we already discussed in Chapter II — is the absence of the burial pit, from which he concludes that the building is a double- temple, the lower and upper floors being respectively Šivaitic and Buddhistic.

The second point which increases the probability of there being a connection between Ktanagara and the tower-temple, is the fact that — with the exception of the Bhaāra Guru — all the images belonging to the temple, have sleeveless jackets. A fact that has hitherto escaped notice and which is very remar- kable. These jackets have never been seen on any other images. STUTTERHEIM wonders whether they were merely a kind of ornamen- tation, or whether they were the fashion locally at the time when the images were made. In his opinion they are the prototypes of the present kotangs of the kraton-padjurits of Jogjakarta and Surakarta. STUTTERHEIM observes: "If they have sleeves, they are a kind of service-jackets; if sleeveless, they are the official war- uniform of the soldiers" 1). And he adds that these jackets are the kavacas' mentioned in Sanskrit literature — wrongly trans- lated as cuirasses and they serve as a magic projection due to the double magic of their red colour and special fabric. The images of the tower-temple must thus be considered as guardians, and this tallies quite well with the attack on Tumapël. "The ashes of the king could not be guarded more suitable than by means of the images of gods, clad in military garb; in all probability we must consider these to be representatives of the mightiest personalities in the entourage of the king" 1). STuTTERHEIM also observes that the court-chaplain, whom he thinks to be represented by the Bhaāra Guru, must be excepted from the group of guardians, because it is not likely that he took part in the conflict. As regards the date when the temple was founded, he agrees for the time being with the opinion held by BRANDEs and KROM,

1) T. B. G. LXXVI, p. 3o8.

who put the date of the building before the Majapahit period. He observes, however, that while Jago's group of images might have been placed in the temple during the ‘golden age’ of Majapahit, it is equally possible that the temple itself dates from that time. Since the connection between Jago and Singasari is ad- mitted, the latter building could also belong to the Majapahit period. The date of Krtanagara's death is 1292; the Paranggalawe STUTTERHEIM assumes to have taken place in 13og. The word 'dharma', which occurs in Par. 25 : 5, refers to the whole freehold, on which a sanctuary was built later on for a burial; this took place after Jayanagara came to the throne, but it must remain an open question whether the building was erected during the reign of this king, or that of his predecessor. Never- theless, STUTTERHEIM assumes that the temple was completed about 131o, at any rate so that an interment with its attendant consecration could take place. If one also assumes that the tower-temple at Singasari is identical with the Purwapatapan of the Pararaton the date of the foundation of the temple is fixed; it cannot be positively asserted, because Tumapěl can apply to the whole kingdom of Singasari; but STUTTERHEIM thinks the identity very likely. In order to avoid repetitions we thought it necessary to note down all the interpretations of the Nāg. passages 43: 5, 6, so that we can discuss them as a whole 1). As to the question, whether the tower-temple really is the

1) The Jawi sanctuary which we were obliged to include in the text,
but which was only indirectly concerned we will leave out of further discussion, since it has already been identified. The upper part of the face with the head-dress — in which the skull — of the magnificent Šiva-image has recently been found, together with the bust of an Ardhanārī.

Purwapatapan we must answer in the negative. One may expect that the sanctuary where Sivabuddha was interred (Par. 25 : 5) and erected as a Sivabuddha (Nāg. 43 : 5) is of the Siva-Buddhistic type. This conviction is the more strengthened by BERG's argumentation that the Šivabuddha-loka (-ālaya) — which indicates a place on earth is identical with the cakra = panaahan sajěng = Purwapatapan. We have already demonstrated the definitely Sivaitic character of the tower-temple, and shown that there is nothing to indicate a Buddhist origin. Judging by the ardent religious zeal for Bud- dhism attributed by historians to Ktanagara, whose profession of the Sivaitic faith was undoubtedly on a lower plane, we must certainly assume that the place where the ashes of the king ware interred was chiefly Buddhist and in a lesser degree Sivaitic, which in no way tallies with the data in our possession concerning the tower-temple. We cannot do otherwise than contest the arguments advanced by Dr. STUTTERHEIM with regard to what he considers the Siva-Buddhistic character of the temple. Chapter II must be referred to for his first point the absence of the burial pit — on which the hypothesis of a double-temple was built up. As regards the interpretation of the verses 5 and 6 of canto 43, we share Prof. KERN's opinion; it seems to us that three temples and three images are mentioned in these verses. Firstly in 'ringke' which we also take to mean 'here on the spot',

i.e. Tumapěl. Secondly: Sagala, where Krtanagara was buried as a Jina (Mahāksobhya); it is still uncertain where this sanctuary was situated. Thirdly: in an unnamed place, where the same king was erected with his consort as an Ardhanārī; this sanctuary is to be found in Jawi in the cantos 56 and 57 and in the general enumeration given in the cantos 73 : 3 and 74 : 1. Prapañca is not guilty of inaccuracy, nor does he abandon

135 his habit of parallelism, if the three lines devoted to the des- cription of the last-mentioned sanctuary and its image are due to the two royal personages who are met with therein. The second point which STUTTERHEIM mentions in support of his argument that the tower-temple had some connection with Ktanagara, is that the images — belonging to that temple — are dressed in so-called military jackets. It seems to us rather improbable; we have never met with images of similar work- manship, and they must be considered as especially interesting in their own type. The military jackets are probably a product of their sculptor's imagination. Furthermore, we think it hard to believe that the images are representations of the most important personages in the entourage of the king, especially as we have already demonstrated that at the time of the attack on Tumapěl the king and his clergy (maybe also personages of high rank) were occupied with the performance of rites. Under these circumstances neither the king nor the clergy surrounding him would have worn military uniforms. Whether there is any connection between the tunics of the Singasari images and the military uniforms of the kraton-pajurits, is most uncertain; in the series of sculptured reliefs which we find on the walls of some temples, no such tunics are worn by the warriors where real fighting is depicted. Moreover, the images of the tower-temple have a character of their own in other respects, and their curious clothing is quite in keeping with the remarkable style and conception of the images. The question arises whether influences might have been at work here; Dr. BERNET KEMPERs 1) pointed out a similar instance when discussing

1) Dr. A. J. BERNET KEMpERs, The bronzes of Nālandā and Hindu-
Javanese art (Thesis) ed. in: B. K. I. vol. 9o, p. 1.

the Jago images, which differ from others in style, composition and ornamentation. They certainly resemble the Singasari images; a resemblance which "cannot be denied, but there are
Indian, i.c. Pāla elements in the images of Singasari too ....
Even the lotus plant on one or both sides of the figure is very frequent in Pāla art" 1). A final argument: what would be the use of protecting the monarch (against whom or what?) after his burial and thus after his redemption by means of figures, arrayed in military uniforms? Recapitulating, we wish to state, that the tower-temple is not the Purwapatapan of the Pararaton, and can in no way be connected with one of the burial-places of Ktanagara. In our opinion, it is probable that mention is made of the Purwapatapan in the inscription of 1273 Šāka (1351 A.D.), which we have partly dealt with in our discussion of the rși- images; the following is the complete transcription:

//o// i šāka 1214 jyeșamāsa irika diwaša ni kamoktanpāduka bhatāra sang lumah ri Siwabuddha//o//swa sti šrī šāka warşatita 1273 wešakamāsa tithi pratipā da suklapakșa ha po bu wara tolu niritistha graha cara mrgašira naksatra sašidewata bāyabyamandala sobhanayoga sweta muhurtta brahmāparweša kistughna kāraņa wşabharaši irika diwaša sang mahāmantrimukya ra kryan mapatih mpu mada sakşat praņala kta rāsika de bhatā ra sapta prabhu makādi srī tribhuwanotungga dewī mahārā jasajaya wişņuwardhanī potra potrikā de pāduka bha āra šrī ktanagara jñanešwara bajra nāmābhișaka sama

1) p. 76.

137 ngkāna twěk rakryan mapatih jinodhara makirtti caitya ri mahābrāhmāņa sewasogata samãnjālu ri kamokta- n pāduka bhaāra muwa sang mahāwddha mantrilinari dagan bhaāra doning caitya de rakryan mapatih pangabhaktya nani santanapratisantana sang parama satya ri pādadvaya bhatā ra ika ta kirtti rakryan mapatih ri yāwadvīpa maala //

TRANSLATION:

In Šāka 1214 (1292 A. D.) in the month Jyeșa, His Majesty,

who is buried in the sanctuary in which Šiva and Buddha are worshipped with equal fervour, achieved redemption. Haill Šāka-years passed by 1273 (1351 A. D.) in the mont of Vešaka, on the first day of the crescent moon, on Haryang pon Wednesday in the week Tolu, while the planet was in the southwest, and the moon in the lunar mansion Mgašira was the ruling divinity, and in the maņdala (astrologer's circle) the north-west came to be considered, in the yoga Sobhana, the hour Šveta, the kāraa Kistughna, under Brahmā, lord of the knot, and the sign of the zodiac, the Bull, then the principal high official, the Right Honourable Governor of the realm Mada, acting as inter- mediary for Their Majesties the seven kings, led by H. M. Tribhuwanotunggadewī Mahārāja Wişuwardhanī, (and of) the grandsons and granddaughters of H. M. Krtanagara (who is mentioned) with the consecration name Jñanešwarabajra, at the said moment the patih, being the restorer of that which had fallen into ruin, founded a caitya for the great brahmans (rșis), the Šivaites and Buddhists, who followed the king in death, and also for the mahāmantri, who was slain at his feet in the same hour. The R. H. Governor hopes in this way to have attained (his

object) namely that the homage (due) (to their souls) will be rendered by the children and children's children of the faithful companions of the king. This is the foundation of the R. H. Governor of the realm of Java's (sea-girt) circle. Such is the translation of BRANDEs; we have introduced corrections that we considered necessary in view of the inter- pretations made more plausible by Prof. KRom. It is thus esta- blished that the inscription puts two sanctuaries on record; in the first place casual mention is made of a temple in which Sivabuddha was interred in 1292, a sanctuary, which may therefore be Siva-Buddhistic, and which may be identical with the Purwapatapan. For the 'sang luma ri Sivabuddha', which means he who died in the Šivabuddha', as well as ‘he who was buried in the Sivabuddha', the last-mentioned meaning may likely be accepted when one assumes the identification with the Purwapatapan. We wish to propose that the second sanctuary, which was the immediate cause of the drawing up of the inscription — and in which its restoration is alluded to —, was Siva-Buddhistic, because the representatives of the 'mahabrāhmana sevasogata' were buried there. The question is, where we imagine this sanctuary to have been situated. Possibly the inscription which was not noticed before 1904 — did not actually come from this site. Domis might have brought this stone here together with others (there were six of them) during his mania for collecting antiquities at Malang. On the other hand, it seems to us more than likely that the inscription belonged here, because of the rși-images that were found. The question at issue is whether the sanctuary can be identified with one of the four southern temples that formerly stood on the site, and if so, which was it?

139 The argumentation which follows is simply meant to serve as an attempt to localize the temple. Of the four temples there are three, each of which may be the one we wish to find. The chai B we ruled out as a Siva-Buddhistic sanctuary on account of the arguments brought forward by RouFFAER; but if one takes the squatting female images (Nos 1o and 11) to be Prajñāpāra- mitas which is STUTTERHEIM's opinion — it might be Siva-Buddhistic. Unfortunately not much is known about the chai C, so that nothing can be said with certainty as to whether the temple was Siva-Buddhistic. As regards the chandi D, its Sivaitic character is more pronounced if one examines the iconographical data: the Nandi and Surya described by Bık, and the excavations in 1927, of which an account has been given in Chapter III. The third sanctuary that may be considered to have the necessary qualifications is the chandi E, otherwise called Wayang or Putri. We have already said that the name Putri reminds us strongly of the Leiden Prajñāpāramitā, which was called Putri Dedes at Malang in 1819. It has been proved that this image is Buddhistic, and we may surely assume that the sanctuary in which the image formerly stood must also have been Buddhistic. The excavations of 1927 revealed that several images found here and in the vicinity were Šivaitic, which might indicate the Sivaitic character of the temple. Another indication might be furnished by the presence of older and more recent layers of wall-building, which would show that the more recent layer was built over the older stones during a restoration, in this case possibly in 1351. The layer of limestone must have been added still layer. We are therefore — apart from the fact whether this temple was the sanctuary mentioned in the inscrip- tion — concerned with a building which has passed through three stages: a Buddhist sanctuary in which the Prajñāpāramitā

140 and possibly other images stood; afterwards it was partially restored and if one may expect the temple of 1351 on this site — the images representing the sects (perhaps including the Leiden Brahmā) were placed there, the temple then becoming Šiva-Buddhistic. In the last phase, which is the one known to us by means of the descriptions of various visitors, the building was faced with limestone in which bas-reliefs were carved, while various objects were made of the same white stone; since the temple had then fallen to utter ruin, there was no indication as to character of the building. Again we must emphatically state that the above-mentioned argument to prove the identity of the caitya of the inscription with one of the southern ruins- is mere conjecture. Moreover, if we take into consideration the place where the images of Brahmā and two șis were found west of the small temples F and G (see Map I) the question arises as to whether the caitya is one of these temples. The sanctuary for which we are searching might also have been situated north of the tower-temple, if we take into account that the inscription was found in the pond there, and supposing that the inscription refers to the images.

CHAPTER VI.

SCULPTURED PORTRAITS AND POSTHUMOUS IMAGES.

For a long time it had only been possible in a very few in- stances to identify images of gods as portraits or posthumous images of kings, princes or princesses of Hindu-Javanese history, but at present there is a more general tendency to search for data which might help in framing a hypothesis in a given case. There really are data (including the Nāg., which gives more or less detailed descriptions of memorial buildings and images that were placed there), that have taken us a step further in the right direction, even in cases when the investigations did not result in a definite solution of the problem. More indications can be derived from the style of the images and from trifling details such as the lotus-vegetation — with or without pots —, which enable us to distinguish between images of the princes of the Singasari and Majapahite dynasties. Another point — as we shall see later — is the difference in size, and number of the strings of beads adorning the images. A number of images from the Singasari site may possibly be identified as portraits or posthumous images: Cāmundā (No. 133, p. 105 ff.) Pārvatī (No. 9, 6 ff.) Bhairava (No. 3, p. 53 ff.)

142 The image with Šivaitic characteristics at Leiden (No. 84,

P. 97 f.) Ditto at Singasari (No. 22, p. 97 ff.) Prajñāpāramitā (No. 91, p. 76 f.) Ditto (No. 10, p. 76 f.) The headless squatting female image (No. 11, p. 77) By means of the inscription 1) at the back of the group of images, we know the date, viz. 1332 A.D. of the Cāmudā of Ardimoelja dug up in 1927. Although the whole of the inscription was not found, on setting up the image enough was visible to enable us to decipher its contents, which read as follows: //šakawarșatita (). 254 caitra māsa tithi (ca)turdaši krsa pakșa () wāra tulung punut (?) pašcimastha grahacāra aswinī-(nak- şatra - - dewa) ta mahaindra-maņdala priti-yoga wairājya-muhurtta sakuni- karaname šārāši tatkāla kapratiştān pāduka bhațārī makatěwěk huwus (-šrī) mahārāja digwijaya ri sakala loka manuyu(ng) 2) yi sa-(e) //subham bhawatu// Above this there are a few letters in Devanāgarī-script which have not yet been made public, but of which we already know the name Cāmundā (p. 105). The translation, the last three lines of which are STUTTERHEIM's, is as follows:
"Sāka years elapsed 1254..... in the month of Caitra, on

1) O. V. 1928, p. 32.
2) STUTTERHEIM corrects: mawuyung; T. B. G. vol. LXXVI (1936), p. 34.

the fourteenth day of the waning moon, in the week tulung

pujut (?) 1) while the planet stood in the west and the (moon)

was the reigning divinity of the house of the moon Ašwinī, and

came to be considered in the mandala Mahendra, in the yoga

Priti, the hour Wairājya, the Karaa Sakuni, the sign of the zodiac the Ram, at this point of time an image of Pāduka Bhaārī was erected, after H.M. the great King (Queen?) became con- queror of the whole world through making His (Her?) wrath
felt by ...... May there be prosperity!"
As STuTTERHEIM says, it seems probable that this image of Durgā in krodha-form is none other than the celebrated Regent of Majapahit, Tribhuwana; we know that (according to both the Nāg. and the Par.), 1331 is the date of the rebellion of the East-coast, of Saeng 2) and Kěa 3). The contents of the inscription and the object in setting up the image can scarcely apply to any other episode. It is uncertain whether the person mentioned as maharāja' is Tribhuwana herself or her consort Krtawardhana, because we cannot judge by the masculine ter- mination of a word in Old-Javanese. As regards the identity of the two acolytes on the back-piece, Bhairava and Gaņeša, STUTTERHEIM suggests as the most likely figures: Adityawarman, the great-mantri of Malayu, and Gaja Mada, the regent. Seeing that the Bhairava is met with on the back-piece of the Cāmuņdā as well as on that of the Parvatī, one may infer that these images form a group dating from about the same period. The size of the lotus-pots, out of which — in the case of the

1) It is obvious to think of julung pujut', which is possible according to
the photograph.

2) On the syllable 'sa' follows another with — 'e' in the middle, which
makes it likely that the whole word is saeng.

3) H. J. G., p. 387 f.

144 Parvati-group the lotus-vegetation rises, is exactly the same as that of the two și-images: Tavindu and the nameless one, and that of the rākšasas of Panataran (about 1347). This brings us to the golden age of the Majapahite dynasty. If one assumes that the rși-images and the inscription of 1351 A.D. belong together, one can very well accept STuTTERHEIM's assertion that the Parvatī-group dates from the Majapahite period. It is pos- sible that Parvatī is a representation of Tribhuwana, but one might say the same of all princesses of royal lineage. Although Tribhuwana was maried to a prince of Singasari, one need not take for granted that she is more eligible on that account. We know that she was buried at Panggih, in the mortuary-temple at Pāntarapūrwa (Par. p. 159); this does not necessarily preclude the possibility of a second burial in another unnamed place, but we ourselves do not think it reasonable to consider the Regent as the only possibility. Assuming that Parvatī is a representation of Tribhuwana, STuTTERHEIM goes on to argue that there are only two princes eligible for identification with the acolyte Bhairava: Adityawarman and Krtawardhana. STUTTERHEIM considers the former as the most likely; firstly because — according to his records he was consecrated to Bhairava. Secondly, starting from the fact that Tribhuwana died in 1372 and that the unfinished state of so many parts (?) of the group may have some connection with the srāddha, STuTTERHEIM observes that in order to identify the acolytes, one must try to find persons which at that time were already dead. Since Ktawardhana died only in 1386, he cannot have been represented in this group. STuTTERHEIM observes that the date of Adityawarman's last record was 137o, and the ceremony mentioned therein may be taken to mean a preparation for death. In spite of this reasoning we do not consider it likely that Aditya-

warman should have been chosen for the representation as Bhairava. First of all he was not a ruling personality in Java although he was educated at the court of Majapahit, and for this reason his connection with the dynasty might be conceded. Moreover, there is only the name 'Aditya' in the inscriptions, from which it was assumed that this was identical with the name Adityawarman. Our final objection to STuTTERHEIM's argument is that the Nag. does not even mention the name, and if Adityawarman had had any closer connection with Java than the one just mentioned above, we might surely exspect to find his name in that poem. Undoubtedly it is Krtawardhana who may be con- sidered as having a reasonable chance of being identified as the

Bhairava-acolyte, both in the Camudāgroup, the Parvati-group,

and as the large Bhairava. He is lord of Singhasari and a very

important personage on account of his marriage to the Regent

Tribhuwana. Besides, his surname was Cakradhara or Cakreš-

vara, so that there is a striking coincidence between this name and the 'cakra-cakra' on the back-piece of the large Bhairava.

His death in i386 presents no difficulty as regards the identi-

fication, because both the building and the consecration of the image could have taken place previously. The interment on his own territory would be quite a matter of course. Further we do not agree with STuTTERHEIM's conjecture as to the identification of the acolytes Gaņeša, Karttikeya and Guru, respectively as Gaja Mada, the regent, Lěmbu Nala, Majapahit's commander- in-chief, and Brahmārāja, head of the Sivaitic brahmans (Nāg. 12 : 1 and 83 : 3). On examining the inscriptions with reference to the important personages at court, we find the record of a whole series of dignitaries who are mentioned before the above- named people, and who would therefore be far more eligible for 10

identification. In our opinion the choice of candidates among those available seems to us more or less casual, and we there- fore consider STUTTERHEIM's conjecture very weak. Another indication which according to this scholar may point to Majapahit, and is also worthy of discussion when identifying the Bhairava as a possible portrait or memorial-image, is the presence of the upavīta, consisting of five strings of beads. After having made an investigation as to the number of rows of bead-strings found on the images hitherto known as memorial-images, STuTTERHEIM came to the conclusion that the threefold string is met with on figures of the Singhasāri period, and four and fivefold on images of the Majapahite period. If we apply this working hypothesis to the images found on the Singasari-site, we arrive at the following result: Threefold bead-string: The Leiden image with Sivaitic charac- teristics, The Prajñāpāramitā, also at Leiden. Fourfold bead-string: The Singasari image with Šivaitic cha- racteristics, The pedestal with crossed legs, carried by a Garuda (No. 45, p. 86), The torso on photograph O.D. 9042 (right) (No. 139). Fivefold bead-string: Pārvatī Bhairava Brahmā (No. 5o; p. 89ff). The pedestal with the crossed legs, carried by a tortoise (No. 14, p. 78). On account of the fivefold bead-upavīta the Brahmā image would also be a product of Majapahite art. In this case one cannot take the lotus-pots as a starting-point since — as we have

147 already mentioned the whole of the lower part of the image, from the knees downwards, is missing. We should not like to assert with STuTTERHEIM that there never were any lotus-pots; in our opinion there may have been at least one pot on the right next to the hamsa, because the vegetation on the left side of the figure appears to rise from the right behind the body of the god. This argument could, however, never provide us with a solution as to the date of the image. On the other hand, the similarity in style and workmanship of this image and the și-figures a point already noted by Boscí 1) — may be of some help to us, though it is still uncertain whether the Brahmā and the rșis actually belong together; they may simply be the work of the same sculptor. If one groups the șis and the 1351 A.D. inscription together, the images likewise on account of the lotus-pots may be considered as belonging to the Majapahite period; owing to the resemblance, the same may be said of the Brahmā image ²). The working hypothesis of the bead-strings does not always hold good; this is proved by the two images with Šivaitic charac- teristics at Leiden and Singasari; the former has a threefold, the latter a fourfold string, which would naturally cause one to place them respectively in the Singhasāri and Majapahite periods. The figures, however, bear such a strong resemblance to one another in composition and execution, and even in the details of their ornamentation, that one cannot do otherwise than consider them as the work of the same sculptor's hand. The Leiden image is undamaged and 7o.5 centimeters in height; the Singasari figure has neither head nor pedestal and is about 63 centimeters in height. One can reckon the missing fragments as 1/3 of the whole,

1) P. 96.
2) In our opinion it is not very likely that it is a portrait-image.

148 so that the total height must be more than 9o centimeters. According to STuTTERHEIM, this means that the images were not counterparts in a temple; it would not be necessary for this to be taken for granted, any more than one would be obliged to infer that the Leiden image, on account of its great resemblance to that of the Singasari figure, must have come from Singasari 1). Hitherto it has been assumed that the Singasari image is that of a woman, but in our opinion that is by no means certain. The shape of the damaged breasts, especially of the right one, does not warrant the assumption that the figure is that of a woman. Even when images are intact, it is sometimes difficult to decide whether they represent male or female figures, because the breasts of the male images are frequently rounded, and if there were no other points of difference to enable us to distinguish between them, one might easily make a mistake. The above- mentioned hypothesis concerning the bead-strings viz. that the Leiden and Singasari figures belong respectively to the Singhasāri and Majapahite periods — is contradicted by the fact that the lotus-vegetation springs from the roots, which in the case of the Leiden figure is certain, and in that of the Singasari figure is almost certain, judging by the shape of the damage. One should therefore be particularly careful not to depend too much on this method of investigation. In any case we may not expect to find that a prince of the Majapahite dynasty is repre- sented by the Leiden image, and ScHNITGER's assumption 2) that it is a representation of Jayanagara must therefore be dismissed as incorrect. This at any rate narrows the radius of inquiry as to the prince

1) T. B. G. vol. LXXIX (1939), p. 104, note 2.
2) B. K. I. vol. 89 (1932), p. 251 f.

who might possibly satisfy our requirements. A Singasari prince must be found who was buried as a Šiva imagel This could be: Rajasa (Ken Angrok), Nāg. 37 : 2; 40 : 5; Wisnuwardhana, Nāg. 41 : 4; his cousin and co-ruler Narasingha (mūrti), Nāg. 41 : 4; his father and his son; Tohjaya, Nāg. 41 : 4 (if one assumes that he did reign as a king) and finally Ktanagara, Nāg. 57 : 2 1). STUTTERHEIM produces data which limit the choice even more. Firstly there is an ornament on the upper bracelets of the image, consisting of seven little strings pointing upwards. This ornament is only met with on three other images: the Leiden Prajñapāramitā, the headless seated female figure (No. 11) and

the Šiva image at Amsterdam (Colonial Museum; the figure was

recognized as the memorial-image of Anușanātha 2). Owing to the resemblance in style between the Leiden image and the Šiva at Amsterdam, as well as the presence of the above-mentioned ornament, STUTTERHEIM believes that we may consider the

Leiden figure to be a product of the 13th century Singhasari

school. This scholar also discusses the working hypothesis concerning the difference in measurements of the various memorial-images which we already noted and concludes that the figure under discussion, bein 7o.5 centimeters in height, is

the smallest of the memorial-images that have hitherto been

identified. The image must therefore represent a prince who lived at the beginning of the Singhasari dynasty. This brings us

to Rajasa, the very first king of that dynasty. STuTTERHEIM

considers that his assumption is supported by the presence of

the three yonis, respectively on the head-dress, girdle (in front

1) All princes of the Singhasāri dynasty must be considered for the identi-
fication; see below.

2) B. K. I. vol. 89 (1932), p. 123 f.

of the navel) and feet 1). He sees in these a connection with the

three spheres: bhur, bhuvah and svar, i. e. earth-sphere, atmos-

phere and ether. This theory can be further developed, because

the division runs parallel to the grouping of the tripurușa, viz. Visņu, Šiva and Brahmā. Ken Angrok's legendary history,

which has been recorded by the Pararaton, tells us that he was

the incarnation of Visnu, Siva's adopted son and Brahmā's son 2). This is indeed a striking coincidence, and is sufficiently

tempting and strong enough for the building up of a hypothesis;

should it eventually prove to be true, the image might formerly have stood in the memorial-temple at Kagěněngan 3) (at a

distance of about 6 kilometers from Malang), but this need not

have been the case. For, if the Camunda and the Parvatī really are portrait- images of Tribhuwana, it shows that — in many more cases than those recorded in literature princes and princesses were buried under various forms. By this we mean that it would have been quite possible for Rajasa — if the Sivaitic image is his burial-image to be erected in one of the temples on the Singasari-site. The image can therefore be a counterpart of the Singasari image and have stood with it in a temple; if we take the Leiden image to be a portrait- or memorial-image of a prince, the same must be assumed as to the Singasari figure, but whom the latter may be representing, is uncertain. We will now pass on to the discussion of the Prajñapāramitā image and the figure No. 11, which STUTTERHEIM takes to be

another Prajñaparamita; he identified them as memoral-images

1) p. 98 f.
2) Par. ed. 1920, p. 45 ff.
3) O. V. 1923, p. 85 ff.

of the first Singhasāri princess and foundress of the dynasty, Ken Děděs 1). The Leiden image has the lotus-vegetation we believes it springs from the roots but only on the left side of the figure. BRANDEs had already observed that it must have been copied from a living model. According to RouFFAER's opinion 2), the image was a product of the Majapahite period, judging by the its undeniable connec- tion with the Berlin Mañjusrī, which dates from 1343; but the well-known lotus-pots, which are so characteristic of the Majapahite school of art are lacking and therefore RouFFAER's supposition could not be correct. We shall now go in search for a princess of the Singhasāri dynasty who might be eligible for identification. Krom 3) considers that the possibility of a memorial-image of Ken Děěs need not be excluded, since at Malang the image was popularly known as Putri Dedes. This tallies with what history tells us, viz. that Ken Dëděs was the foundress of the Singhasāri dynasty and Buddhistic by birth. It is strange, however, that there is only lotus-vegetation on one side; there was plenty of space on the right side of the figure to allow for another vegetation, if the sculpture of a royal person had been planned 4). On the other hand, Ken Děës did not actually belong to the Singhasāri dynasty, and one might therefore say that she was not entitled to the lotus-vegetation.

1) T. B. G. vol. LXXIX, p. 95 f.
2) Mon. p. 98.
3) H. J. G., p. 319.
4) It may be assumed that at the beginning of the Singhasāri school of art,
the lotus-vegetation was not yet a distinguishing mark of the dynasty, and that the sculptors later on, did not even intend it, i. e. the lotus-vegetation to be interpreted as a special characteristic.

The single lotus-stalk one might take to be the ordinary dis- tinguishing mark of the goddess Prajñāpāramitā. As to the other working hypotheses concerning the identifica- tion of the images as royal personages, we are somewhat criti- cally disposed towards the theory of the bead-strings after the case of the Šivaitic images which we discussed above, and we cannot accept the argument as conclusive. The ornament on the upper bracelets may indicate the Singhasāri school, but in our opinion it cannot be accepted as a clue to the problem: is a figure a memorial-image or not? Both Prajñāpāramitās are representatives of a particular type of image, and since we may safely assume that both of them are the work of the same artist, the ornament as in the case of the Siva-mage at Amsterdam might easily be a product of the maker's imagination. That the Leiden image was formerly known as Putri Dedes is therefore the only fact which might help us to arrive at a decision in this matter; but it seems dange- rous to place one's reliance on one fact only. The same may be said of the second Prajñapāramita; strange is that this representation of the goddess who is usually provided with two lotus-stalks — lacks the uprising lotusses, as well as the book of Wisdom. All that one can say of this image is that if the former figure is Ken Dëděs, this one may also be a representation of the princess, judging from the great resemblance between the two images. According to the photograph, the bead-upavita, although worn away and therefore difficult to distinguish is wide, and seems to us to consist of more than three strings, perhaps there are even five. This is one more proof that great care must be exercised in working on STUTTERHEIM's theory. From the above reasoning one must conclude that the image belongs to the Majapahite period, so that the possible identifica-

153 tion with the Rajapatnī remains an open question; and since the latter was a princess of the Singhasāri dynasty, she could quite well have been represented without the well-known lotus-pots. Another fact points to Majapahit, viz. that the Singasari image is larger than the Leiden example; the former measures

1.37 meters in its damaged condition, and the latter 1.26 meters. It is obvious that the various data contradict each other, both as regards the identification of the two images as the Rajapatnī, and their identification as Ken Dees. The former is refuted
d by the ornament on the upper bracelets, which according to STuTTERHEIM must be considered as a characteristic of the Singasari school of art; the difference in the number of bead-strings and the measurements of the images militates against the second identification. In our opinion it would be wiser to wait until there are additional facts available which do not flatly contradict each other, if one wishes to prove that both images represent royal personages. The third image (No. 1o) that looks like Prajñāpāramita, but which is considerably smaller than the two others, ought to be submitted to a critical examination for the sake of a possible identification, on account of the resemblance in style. The photograph of this little image was unfortunately taken from a great distance, which prevents us from discussing it in detail; but we believe it to be a four-armed representation of the goddess Prajñāpāramitā. The two front hands are placed on the lap in dhyāni-mudra; the rear arms are broken off, but the stumps which remain show that they were raised, so that the right and left hands may have carried the attributes: the lotus and the book. This finishes our discussion of possible portrait-images, which shows that we could not risk a more definite statement with

154 regard to this matter. It would in fact be impossible to do so, because the identifying of images as representations of royal personages is of comparatively recent date. Moreover, we have no data at our disposal which might lead to a more convincing result than that obtained by a working hypothesis.

We now pass on to the discussion of the inscriptions found on the site, in the first place those which may be regarded as relating to the Singasari from the 13th until the 15th century; in the second place, those belonging to a much earlier period and which cannot therefore have any connection with the Singasari of a later date. We must, however, deal with these, since they were mentioned by former visitors. The inscription 1) which was discovered when the foundations of the so-called pěndåpå-terrace south of the chandi A were excavated, is as follows:

wināya și bhaāra damalung an pinuna jiva parhya- nganira wkas tangan samgët watu karas makakasirangga....

BRANDES' translation is: (In the year indicated by the words) wināya (6) i (7) the sanctuary of Bhaāra Damalung (the well-known sacred moun- tain) was once more called into existence. This was written by the official (entrusted with the care of) the inscribed stones,
called Angga...."
According to BRANDEs, it was impossible to fix the date of the inscription; he also observes that the name Damalung is found in much older documents of Mpu Siņok period (about 928).

1) Mon. p. 35, 39.

The inscription only proves that the sanctuary was restored, or else that new rights were accorded to the foundation. We wish to mention that according to CoHEN STuART 27, the name Dama- lung occurs in Šāka 1371 (i.e. 1449 A.D.); the characters of the inscriptions compared with those in the existing table 1), point out the possibility that they are dating from a time much later than 928. Two lintels 2) were excavated on the Singasari-site; the place where they were found is not mentioned. The inscription on the first lintel is:

1 Iti caitya pāduka mahābrāhmaa sira(še) 2 Wa līna samargga pandjālu ri kamoktān bhatā(ra)

Only the left portion of the second lintel was found:

2ri(ng) kasoga(tān) 3 bhatāra

The translation of the first lintel is: Such is the caitya of the venerable brahmans, (those) of the

Šivaites who followed the king into death.

The second inscription will have been of the same tenor, with the exception of the 'kasoga(tān)', which indicates the Buddhist clergy who perished with the king. It is worthy of notice that

both inscriptions immediately remind us of the great inscription

of 1273 Šāka 3). From the fact that both the inscriptions are

carved in lintels, one might suppose that a separate caitya was erected for each of the sects, but if that were the case, one

1) HoLLE, Tabel van Oud- en Nieuw-Indische Alphabetten, 1882.
2) O. V. 1928, p. 32, 33.
3) p. 136 ff.

might reasonably expect to find a building for the rsis. Possibly there were three separate buildings, but it is just as likely that there was only one building sacred to the memory of these sects; in that case there must have been a sanctuary divided into three parts. BRumuND's description 1) of the chandi B immediately occurs to us; he observes that this temple may have been a large terrace divided into three rooms; the shape of the building which must originally have been oblong, would have been extremely suitable for our purpose. This, however, is only a casual observation.

The second category of stones with which we shall now deal,

have as we already mentioned no connection with Sin-

gasari-site itself and we have no special reason for assuming that they originally belonged here. The inscription of Šāka 813 (891 A.D.) 2) is the only one of

the five briefly discussed here, that is not a royal record. The contents speak of the staking out of a tract of freehold 'tgal ring Gurubhakti', a field belonging to the village of Bali-

ngawan. The village was greatly troubled by robberies that were

perpetrated on this piece of land and for which it was held

responsible. In order to be released from this constantly recurring responsibility, the village presented a petition to have the field declared a freehold; this was granted as a protection for the 'highway'. This must have been the main road from Malang to Pasuruan, from which one may conclude that the village and

the freehold territory must at any rate have been situated in the

neighbourhood of the Singasari-site 8).

1) V. B. G. vol. XXXIII, p. 203.
2) O. J. O. XIX; H. J. G. p. 184.
3) The remainder of the inscription continues on the back-piece of the
Gaņesa that was found in the Chinese cemetery at Malang.

157 The following inscription dates from Šāka 837 (915 A.D.) 1), and is a record of King Dakșa (915). We find a special type of the East-Javanese maledictory formulary and the formula for protecting the kraton of the king in the Matarām domain. The document refers to the freehold of the temple and monastery at Sugih, and to a 'wanua i Limus (mwang i Tampuran)', which, like the places mentioned in the former record, were also situated near Singasari. The inscription of Sāka 851 (929 A.D.) 2) is one dating from King Siņdok's reign and mentions a 'mahāprāsāda Hěmad', one of the many institutions of Siņok's time. It also mentions a 'lmah sawah i Gulunggulung' and a sanctuary or foundation at Pangawān. The latter name is also met with in the Nāg. (78 : 5). The inscription of Sāka 852 (93o A.D.) 8) also treats of a 'sang hyang sāla i Himad (gotra i Tampuran), which is undoub- tedly the same name as the Hemad' mentioned above. Finally there is an inscription of Šāka 866 (944 A.D.) 4) which refers to the sanctuary, the 'sang hyang prāsāda kabhak- tyan i Siddhayoga', a 'lmah i Muñcang', and a consecrated place called Walandët. The Siddhayoga is perhaps the same as the Siddhayātra in Nag. 78 : 2, while the place Walandet is to be found in Nag. 77 : 2 as Palaņdi(t). Like the preceding record, this one also dates from Siok's reign. The names of institutions and freehold territories which occur in the inscriptions dealt with above are those of places in the

1) O. J. O. XXX; H. J. G. p. 193.
2) O. J. O. XXXVIII; H. J. G. p. 218.
3) O. J. O. XLIII; H. J. G. p. 218.
4) O. J. O. LI.

158 neighbourhood of Singasari and refer to an earlier period. Of the later period the only one remaining is Walandët (possibly the Wěndit which still exists), but which is not situated on the Singasari-site, and perhaps Pangawān, of which we do not know the exact position. Evidently the remaining sanctuaries were no longer in existence in the Singhasāri and Majapahite periods.

RECAPITULATION

In conclusion we shall give a brief summary of our obser- vations on Singasari. We begin by saying that none of the antiquities found on the site refer us back to the period before the

kingdom of Singhasāri or Tumapël, of which the capital origi-

nally known as Kutarāja and since Rajasa (1222) the residency of the kings of Java was given the name of Singasari during the reign of Wisņuwardhana. Until 1292 it remained the capital, and was still an important town during the Majapahite period.

1. On submitting the descriptions of former visitors to a close
   examination, we found that besides the well-known chandis A—E, there were two small buildings, F and G (p. 18) on the Singasari site, and we made the suggestion that in addition to

these there might have been a seventh sanctuary H (p. 26, 29).

2. It also appears that on reconstructing the position of the
   

   remains (see Map I), these were not found in separate groups

on the site (i. e. the aloon-aloon at the nort-west, the chandi A at the north-east, and the other temples due south) but that with the exception of the chandi A these remains were situated on a line drewn from the chandi E through the chandis D, C, B, G and F in a north-westerly direction to the aloon-aloon.

3. We think that it may be considered as proved that the
   

   chadi A is an exclusively Sivaitic sanctuary (p. 47), and that

it is not the temple (Purwapatapan) in which Krtanagara was

interred as Sivabuddha (p. 133 ff). In this connection it must be said that — in spite of STUTTERHEIM's assertion (p. 54 f) — it is still an open question whether the Bhairava belongs in the above-mentioned temple (p. 56 f).

4. On comparing the map of the Archaeological Survey 416
   with those of BIK and LEYDIE MELVILLE, we made certain that the name Papak was wrongly attributed by the latter to the chandi C, and that this name belongs by rights to the chadi B (p. 75). Neither must we omit to point out that the head-piece of Parvatī — found among the ruins of the chaņdi B — is not the head-piece which originally belonged to this image (p. 63 ff).

5. We were also able to establish the fact that the chandi E
   (Wayang) was situated considerably further to the south-west of the other sanctuaries at the south (p. 74) than was generally assumed hitherto, which showed that Bik's ground-plan of the antiquities is not as trustworthy as it was hitherto believed to be. In this connection we must also observe that the Bangkok Gaņeša did not stand to the east of the colossal rākšasas on the aloon-aloon according to Bik but west of these as appears on VERBEEK's ground-plan (p. 113). From the fact that the name Putri was formerly given both to the chandi E and to the Leiden Prajñāpāramitā image (p. 84), one may readily assume that the image originally came from that temple. The contents of the inscription 1273 Šaka and the report of the archaeological investigation in 1927 lead us to draw the attention to the possibility that the chadi E passed through three different phases, viz. the original state, the restoration (of Šāka 1273), and finally the facing of the walls with a layer of limestone (p. 139).

6. We also wish to point out the curious fact that represen-

161 tations of the regents of the sky-quarters were apparently met with on the site, and probably on the outer walls of a temple (p. 102 ff.).

7. As we have stated, a great number of Surya images have
   been found. In this connection we call to mind the great impor- tance of Surya-worship in the Hindu-Javanese. cult; among those who drew attention to this point are GoRis (see: Oud-Javaansche en Balineesche theologie (1926) p. 1o ff. for the Sanskrit data) and DE KAT ANGELINO (Mudras auf Bali, P. 14, 37, 41 and 50, for the data of Bali).

APPENDIX I

No.:

1 2

3 45

6 78

9 10 11 12

Specification:

Durgā Mahisāsuramardinī ...

Ganesa ..

Bhairava

Bhațāra Guru

Nandīšvara. Mahākāla.

Pedestal

Parvatī ..

Squatting headless female image

Prajñapāramitā Square stone ornament 1).

INVENTORY OF

Place of origin, found in or near:

Chai A

", ,9 ,, 99 " ,9 ,,

Chandi B

,, ,, ” ,9

20 21 22

White stone disk

Yoni with nāga-head

Šivaitic-image ...

Unfinished standing image.

Fragment of a yoni

Linga-pedestal with 17 holes

,, ,, 9,

11 99

South of chaņi B

,, ,,

99 99 ,, 99

1) We assume that the images, found on the site or excavated there and which are.

not known to have been removed elsewhere, are still at Singasari.

THE SINGASARI ANTIQUITIES 163

Present whereabouts: Dealt with on page: No.:

Leiden Musem... 1 48f ,9

Leiden Museum. 57 ff ,,23456 99

78 62 ff 76f

78 78

, ,978 ,,78 1,78 35 ,, 20 21 97 ff22 Singasari. 39 95Only mentioned on Map O.D. 414 ,9

99 ,,

Mon. p. 51 30 99 31

No.:

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

46 47 48

Specification:

Bust of an image Fragment of a base Hand of an image Lotus-cushion .. Fragments. Nandi ... Fragment of a pedestal Garuda. Fragments (of white stone). Ditto .. Kuvēra? Fragments Pedestal with feet of an image. Garuda Stone .. Nandi Surya..

Brahmā .. Trnavindu ..

Place of origin, found in or near:

Chandi D 9, 9, Chandi B Chandi E ,, ,, 心 ,, 99 East chandi E. North chandi E ， ,, West 99 ", ,, chandi D 19 99chandi F ,,,3 ,,， ,, chandi G Aloon-aloon. 39 ,9 ,, ,9 ,, ,,

Right of the road leading to the aloon-aloon... Left f the road leading to
the aloon-aloon ......

53 54 56 58 59 61

63 Inscription 1)...

1) Perhaps one of the six stones, mentioned by Domis (see under the numbers 95—99).

Present whereabouts: No.:

32 33

03 5 6 738

39 40 41

Singasari. ,, つ ,, ,, 3 ,, ，

,, ， ,, ，,, 19 3, Batavia Museum. Leiden Museum. Batavia Museum. 1, Singasari. Bangkok National Museum. Singasari.

Disappeared.. Singasari.. ,, ,, ,, ?

Dealt with on page:

83 83 82 78 86 86 86 86 86 86 102 ff 86 86 86f 87 82 82 110 89 ff, 96 f 90 ff 91 ff 100 113 ff 88 f 89 89 89 100 100 100

Mon. 65

444789555

53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

Place of origin, found No.:Specification: in or near:

Chandi A (1901)..

,, ,, Nandi.

69,,, 71 Banaspati. 39 72 Ditto .Chandi A 73Ditto Ditto Singasari-site. 74 Seated image (Bik 103) ..?

57Fragment of the back-piece of Bangkok

Gaņeša Singasari-site ,,

78,, 99 ,, ,,,, 84 Šiva Buddha, naked, about 4 ft high. 86 Nandi.. ,, ? 89 Šivaitic image Prajñāpāramitā Seated Brahmā (Bik drawing No. 101) Singasari?.. 93 25

1) See Mon., P. 72 the list of VAN SCHMID.

Dealt with on page: No.:

Mon. 44

100 65 66

Mon. 44

Present whereabouts:

Singasari.. 19

Batavia Museum.

Singasari. 39 ,, ,, ,, Batavia Museum. ?

Bangkok National Museum..
Lost?......
Batavia Museum. 1

,, Lost?.

Mon. 44, 46

Mon. 44

19 99 108

114f Mon. 72 110f

111f

Mon. 69

O.V. 1926, p. 34 112 112 97 ff 84 84, 150 ff 109 Mon. 44 Mon. 66 156
69

72 73 74 75 76 77 78 80

83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Singasari.. Batavia Museum.

Leiden Museum.. Malang ... Leiden Museum. Lost.. 9

Batavia Museum No. 1). 54 ...

Specification:

Inscription — Sāka 837 Inscription Sāka 851 Inscription — Sāka 852 Inscription Sāka 866 Hermit with large turban Rsi (roughly modelled) ... Back-piece for two images

No.:

96 97 98 99 100 101 102

110 Rsi (fragment) ..

Pedestal with fragment of an image.

Torso of an image

Head of a lion (terra cotta).

Makara-spout with lion. Makara-spout ... Agni?...

Standing headless image. Torso of an image

Place of origin, found in or near:

Singasari-site ,, 99,
Chandi A ....
North of Singasari-site ..

Singasari-site ？ Chinese cemetery at

39 ,, ,9 99 99 ,,

Chandi C ... Singasari-site 99 " 39 ,9 ,,, ,, ,,

120 121

126 127

Pedestal with fragment of an image. 19

Pedestal with fragment of a rāksasa...

1) Photographs O. D. 7476—7479

Dealt with on page: No.:

157 96

" 97 99 98 99 99 Mon. 81 f 100

Mon. 73 108 103

O.V. 1925, p. 16
Photograph O.D. 86o0 104 105 81 106 Mon. 83

" 109 ,, 93 Batavia Museum

Present whereabouts:

Batavia Museum No. 87 ......
99No. 88 ......
,9No. 70 ... Malang ... Lost? Last seen at Batavia ...

,,

Lost? Last seen at Batavia ..

Mon. 44

101 101

Photograph O.D. 9041

112 f 102 109 102 102 ff 104 104 104f

114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127

,, 99

, ,, 9, ,,, 99 つ

Photograph O.D. 86o5 (left)

Photograph O.D. 9042 (right)

Place of origin, found No.: Specification: in or near:

?

Inscription Šāka 1273. North of chadi A.....
Third rsi-image .....
131 Lintel with inscription .,, 132 133Cāmunda. Ardimulja.. 134 Ditto 135 West of chandi A..
136 Lintel with inscription .. South of chandi A....
137 Fragment of image, representing rockery in which a naked human figure; above a kind of deer with long ears ... Singasari-site 138 Fragments of images, among which: cāmara, hand, khadga surrounded by a nimbus, hand with rosette, lotus-bud 99
139Torso of an image ....

Present whereabouts: Dealt with on page: No.:

Batavia Museum No. D 111 ...

No. D 150 ..

No. D 151 ..

O.V. 1927, P. 107; photograph

Batavia Museum No. D 112 ...

Singasari..

Photograph O.D. 8595 137

,,Photographs O.D. 9044—'56 99 Photograph O.D. 86o0139

一

APPENDIX II

BIBLIOGRAPHY SINCE 1908, SEQUEL TO THE LIST OF LITERATURE GIVEN BY ROUFFAER IN THE MONOGRAPHY (1909).

1908 HAvELL (E. B.). Indian sculpture and painting, p. 51 sq., Pl. 14, about the Prajñāpāramitā; p. 75, Pl. 27, about the Gaeša of the chadi A. ToNNET (MARTINE). Het werk der Commissie in Nederl. Indië voor Oudheidkundig Onderzoek op Java en Madoera, uit Bulletin v. d. Nederl. Bond II, 1ste Jrg., p. 83—87. 1909 JuYNBOLL. Catalogus van 's Rijks Ethnographisch Museum,

p. 1 No. 1582, P. 7 No. 1624, p. 12 No. 1628, p. 13 No. 1680, p. 15 No. 1622, p. 25 No. 1681, p. 39 No. 1682,
p. 215 No. 1603/4. RouFFAER (G. P.). Lijst der beschreven steenen in het Museum Bat. Gen., N. B. G. Bijl. XII D 54, 70, 87, 88, 109, 111, 112.
1910 KERN (Prof. Dr. H.). Geschiedkundige gegevens in het gedicht Nāgarakrtāgama, B. K. I. 63, p. 8—14. Reprinted in V. G. VIII (1918) p. 3, 21 sq. 80; Editie KERN-KROM (1919) p. 93—96, 271, 277 sqq. 1911 HAvELL (E. B.) Ideals of Indian Art, p. 71 sq., Pl. 6; about the Brahmā-image. KroM (Dr. N. J.). R. O. C. p. 8 sq., 13 sq.; about inscriptions of East- and Central-Java.

173 1913 BRANDES (Dr. J. L. A.) O. J. O., Verh. Bat. Gen. LX,

p. 22 sq., 24 sq., 63 sq., 76 sq., 263, pl. 6.
O. V. p. 89 sq., 105 Blad XXIII en XXIV, and 106 L. Drawings of Singasari antiquities.
1914 O. V. p. 198, 200; the condition of the chadi A. 1915 Bosch (Dr. F. D. K.), De Sanskrit-inscriptie op den steen van Dinaja, T. B. G. LVII, p. 41o sq., 432.

O. V. p. 69 sq., about the ‘image with the bishop's mitre'; p. 98; the condition of the chaņdi A.
1916 O. V. p. 36, 72 sq., 104, 131 sq., ascertaining of the — damage of the chandi A (after the earthquake). 1917 BoscH (Dr. F. D. K.). De bijzetting van Koning Krtanagara te Sagala, O. V. p. 26 sq. ERP (TH. VAN). Eenige mededeelingen betreffende de beelden en fragmenten van Boroboedoer in 1896 geschonken aan

Z.M. den Koning van Siam, B. K. I. 73, p. 286. LAFEBER (A.). De Pradjnaparamita, Tijdschrift Nederl. Indië Oud en Nieuw, p. 325. VIssER (H. F. E.) Over de waardeering der Leidsche Pradjnaparamita, Tijdschr. Ned. Indië Oud en Nieuw,
p. 406.
O. V. p. 1 sq. Inspection and preservation of the chaņdi A; VAN STEIN CALLENFELS, Nog een Siņdok-raadsel, inscriptie van Šāka 851, p. 131 sq.
1918 Bosch (Dr. F. D. K.). Nog eens: De bijzetting van Koning Krtanagara te Sagala, O. V. p. 26 sqq.; p. 49, 53, the preservation of the chadi A; Poerbatjaraka, De bijzetting van Koning Krtanagara te Toemapël, Bijl. L, p. 113 sqq. 1919 KroM (Dr. N. J.). De Singasari-inscriptie van Šāka 1273, Epigrafische Bijdragen III, B. K. I. 75, p. 19 sqq.

174 MoENs (Ir. J. L.). Hindu-Javaansche Portretbeelden,

T. B. G. LVIII, p. 497, about the Akșobhya-image at Malang.
O.V. p. 42, 46, 78, Inspection and preservation of the
17 chaņdi A; VAN STEIN CALLENFELS, Oudheidkundige Aanteekeningen II, O. V. Bijl. H., p. 66 sqq. 1920 FRuIN-MEEs (W.). Geschiedenis van Java I. Hindoetijd- perk, p. 99 sq.; Reprint in 1922, p. 62—66. HAvELL (E. B.). Handbook of Indian Art, p. 163 sq., Pl. 59, About the Brahmā. KRoM (Prof, Dr. N. J.). ENGELHARD over de Javaansche Oudheden, B. K. I. 76, p. 440, 445 sq.

O. V., p. 7, 114. With, Java, Brahmanische, Buddhistische und eigenlebige Architektur und Plastik auf Java, p. 39, pl. 107, plan 11;
p. 49, pl. 107; p. 82, pl. 107; p. 86, 128 sq., plan 13;
p. 96, pl. 120; p. 101, pl. 130; p. 108, pl. 129, 130; p. 111, pl. 130—132; p. 112, pl. 131; p. 113, pl. 130; 132, 138, 139;
p. 114, pl. 130, 132.
1922 Boscí (Dr. F. D. K.) Epigraphische en Iconographische Aanteekeningen, O. V. o. 68, about the Brahmā and the rsi-images. 1923 Boscí (Dr. F. D. K.). De Sanskrit-inscriptie op den steen van Dinaja, O. V. Bijl. C. p. 83. Boscí (Dr. F. D. K.). De Banaspati van Tjandi Singasari, Djawa III, p. 95. ERP (TH. vAN). Hindu-Javaansche beelden thans te Bang- kok, B. K. I. 79, o. 492, 511 sqq., 511 sqq., Pl. 6, about the Gaņeša.

175 Krom (Prof. Dr. N. J.). Inleiding tot de Hindoe-Javaansche Kunst I, p. 5, 36, 49, 136, 474, 479; II, 26, 51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 64, 66—94, 123, 128—130, 138, 141, 166, 202, 224, 248, 249, 291, 322, 355, 363. KRom (Prof. Dr. N. J.). Het oude Java en zijn Kunst, p. 152. 1924 MoeNs (Ir. J. L.). Het Buddhisme op Java en Sumatra in zijn laatste Bloeiperiode, T. B. G. LXIV, p. 545 sqq., about the chai A and the Bhairava.

O. V. p. 9, 101, about the preservation of the chandi A. PoERBATJARAKA (R. NG.). Aanteekeningen op de Nāgara- ktāgama, B. K. I. 8o, p. 238 sq. STUTTERHEIM (W. F.). Rāma-legenden und Rama-reliefs in Indonesien, p. 140, 195, 284, 285, about the images of Singasari.
1925 O. V. p. 15, 16, about the preservation of the chadi A, and the find of the spout-image west of the aloon-aloon, Pl. 11. VoGEL (Prof. Dr. J. PH.). The influences if Indian Art,

p. 44, 85, pl. 11.
1926 L'ART JAvANAIs dans les Musées de Hollande et de Java, Ars Asiatica VIII, p. 58 ff., pl. XXVI—XXVIII — About the Durgā, Gaņesa and Prajñāpāramitā. KoHLBRUGGE (J. H. F.). Tier-und Menschenantlitz als Abwehrzauber, p. 32 f, pl. 118, 122.

O. V. p. 3, 32 sq., the find of a fragment of the back-piece of the Bangkok Gaņesa; p. 34, Find of the head of a Garuda; p. 140, the preservation of the chaņdi A; p. 147 sq.
1927 CooMARAswAMY (A.). History of Indian and Indonesian Art, p. 208. ERP (TH. VAN). Nog eens de Hindu-Javaansche beelden te Bangkok, B. K. I. p. 501, 511.

D

176 O. V. p. 3, 24 sqq., Excavations of the four southern ruins

(Maps 414, 415, 416); p. 100, continuation of the excavations; condition of the chandi A.; p. 107. 1928 HALLEMA (A.). Het Boeddhabeeld, p. 25, afb. 1, about the Prajñāpāramitā.

O.V. p. 18 sq., continuation of the excavations; p. 27, about the Durgā found at Ardimoelja (pl. 11, 12, 13, 14); the find of two inscriptions. PERQuIN (P. S.). De Bhatara-Goeroe van Singasari,
O.V., Bijl. G, p. 71 sqq.; pl. 15, 16; p. 94.
T.B.G. LXVIII, p. 394 sqq., the removing of the two lintels with inscriptions to the Batavia Museum.
1929 Goetz (H.). Epochen der Indischen Kultur, p. 264. GRoussET (R.). Histoire de l'Extrême Orient, p. 167.

O.V. p. 129, 132, about the Bhaāra Guru and fragments of images and temple-buildings; p. 139.
193o GroussET (R.). Les Civilisations de l'Orient II, l'Inde, p. 275, pl. 127, about the Prajñāpāramitā.

O.V. p. 29, preservation of the chadi A. SMITH (V. A.). History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon,
p. 160, pl. 112.
1931 Boscí en LE Roux. Wat te Parijs verloren ging, T.B.G. LXXI, p. 663, about the Trnavindu. Krom (Prof. Dr. N. J.). Hindoe-Javaansche Geschiedenis,

p. 176, 182, 184, 185, 189, 190, 193, 214, 417, 418, 436, 437, 441, 443.
1932 RouFFAER (G. P.). Beeldende Kunst in Nederlandsch Indië (written in 1898), B.K.I. 89, p. 471, 472. ScHNITGER (F. M.). Het Portretbeeld van Anuşanātha,

B.K.I. 89, p. 124, 127; Een Hindu-Javaansch Portret-

beeld te Leiden, p. 252.

177 zv STUTTERHEIM (J. F.). De teekeningen van Javaansche oud- heden in het Rijksmuseum van Ethnografie, p. 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 124, 133, 134, 135, 166, 169. a STUTTERHEIM (Dr. W. F.). Een bijzettingsbeeld van Koning Krtanagara te Berlijn?, T.B.G. LXXII, p. 720, 723 sq. 1933 BERNET KEMPERS (A. J.). The bronzes of Nalandā, and Hindu-Javanese Art, B.K.I. 90, P. 75, 76. MoeNs (Ir. J. L.). Het Berlijnsche Ardhanārī- beeld en de bijzettingsbeelden van Ktanagara, T.B.G. LXXIII,

p. 125 sqq., 149 sq.
O.V. (Uittreksel uit de O.V. over 1931—1935), P. 12. STUTTERHEIM (Dr. W. F.). Naschrift op het artikel van Ir. J. L. MOENs, T.B.G. LXXIII, P. 291 sqq.
1934 O.V. p. 15, the pulling down of the chadi A. STUTTERHEIM (Dr. W. F.). De Leidsche Bhairava en Tjaņdi B. van Singasari, T.B.G. LXXIV, p. 441 sqq. 1935 O.V. p. 17, the beginning of the restoration of the chadi A. ScHNITGER (F. M.). Enkele oudheidkundige opmerkingen over het Tantrisme op Java, B.K.I. 92, p. 152 sqq., about the Bhairava. STuTTERHEIM (Dr. W. F.). Oudheidkundige Aanteekeningen XXXIX, De zgn. Guhyešvarī van Singasari, B.K.I. 92,

p. 181 sqq., 210.
1936 BERG (Prof. Dr. C. C.). Eenige opmerkingen over het leven, den dood en de bijzetting van Koning Ktanagara, Verslag v. h. 8ste Congres van het Oostersch Genootschap te Leiden, p. 52 sqq. GHETTY (ALICE). Gaņesa, a Monography, p. 59 about the Durgā of Ardimoelja, p. 61 about the Gaesa of the chaņdi A. 12

O.V. p. 1, about the restoration of the chadi A; p. 6 sq., report of the restoration, pl. 1. STUTTERHEIM (Dr. W. F.). De dateering van eenige oost- javaansche beeldengroepen, T.B.G. LXXVI, p. 298 sqq., about the images of the chai A; p. 313 sqq., the Cāmuņā- group.

1937 BERNET KEMPERs (Dr. A. J.). Cultural relations between

India and Java, publ. by the University of Calcutta, p. 24. DE BRUYN (J. V.). H. N. SIEBURGH en zijn beteekenis voor de Javaansche Oudheidkunde, p. 24, 123—133, 134, 145, 146, 156, 161, 162, 163, 172, 188, 193, 195. MAJuMDAR (R. C.). Suvaradvīpa, p. 3o6 sqq., about the burial-temples of Krtanagara.

O.V. p. 1, 7.

1938 BERG (Prof. Dr. C. C.). Over de chronologie van de

oudste geschiedenis van Maja-pahit en over Krtarajasa- jayawardhana's regeering, B.K.I. 97, p. 152 sqq., about the interment of Krtanagara in the Purwapatapan. Krom (Prof. Dr. N. J.). Geschiedenis van Nederlandsch Indië I, p. 251.

O.V. p. 2, 14, 16.

1939 STERN (P. H.). Art Musulmans Extrême Orient, in:

Histoire Universelle des Arts (sous la direction de Louis Réau), p. 198, 199. STUTTERHEIM (Dr. W. F.). Een bijzettingsbeeld van Koning Rājasa? T.B.G. LXXIX, p. 85 sqq., about the Šivaitic images at Leiden and Singasari, and the Prajñāpäramitas. Oudheidkundige teekeningen van ENGELHARD te Batavia,

p. 159 sqq., about the Gaņeša, Durgā, Bhairava, Nandi, Mahākāla and Nandīšvara.

179 Complete list of photographs: VAN KINsBERGEN No. 1, images from Singasari, formerly at Buitenzorg. Bat. Gen. II No. 1, 573. ee

O.D. Nos. 238, 518, 666, 698, 727–742, 745—773,
923, 924, 948, 1176—1192, 2613, 2614, 3094—3098, 3685, 7476—7479, 7948, 7949, 8567—8584, 8593—8606, 8887—8910, 9019—9030,9040—9070, 9229—9233, 9353—9359, 9518—9521, 11005, 11682—11696, 11746—11767, 11872—11880, 12012, 12013, 12271—12311, 12460, 12464—12473, 12475, 13015 13026.

Abendanon 114 Agni 103 f Akşobhya 126 ff Amoghapāsa 65, 128 f Amsterdam 149, 152 Angrok (Ken) 149 f Anūşanātha 149 Arddhanarešwarī 126 f, 129 Ardhanārī 125, 127 ff, 133 f Ardimoelja 105, 142

Arjuno 27

Avalon 63 Adibuddha 126 Aditya 145 Adityawarman 143 ff

Badāmī 103

Bajradewī 126 f, 129

Bali 94, 121, 161 Balingawan 150 Bangkok 3, 55, 113 ff Baraboedoer, see Barabuur Barabuur 41, 46 Batang Hari 127 Batavia 12, 90, 97, 110 ff Bagali 103 Berg 95, 118 ff, 134

Berlin 90, 129 f, 151

Berlijn, see Berlin

INDEX

Bernet Kempers 135

Bhairava 11, 47, 53 ff, 59, 63, 67 f,

71, 77, 89, 106 f, 125 ff, 129 f, 141, 143 ff, 160 Bhairavī 107 Bhatara Goeroe, see Bhațara Guru Bhațāra Guru 2, 47, 50 f, 59, 95, 132 Bhatārī 107, 143 Bik 13 ff, 19, 21 ff, 26, 33 ff, 60, 65, 71 f, 79 ff, 83, 85, 99, 108, 113, 139, 160 Bosch 40, 96, 107 f, 129, 131, 147 Brama, see Brahmā Brahmā 12, 17, 27, 89, 91 f, 96, 108 ff, 137, 140, 146 f, 150 Brahmārāja 145 Brandes, 4, 15, 35, 38, 40, 43, 59, 77, 92 f, 99, 117 ff, 121 ff, 129,

132, 138, 151, 154 Brhatsvayambhupurāņa 107 Brumund 1, 14, 17, 30, 32, 47, 61, 66, 71 f, 77, 80 ff, 84, 109, 156 Bruyn (de) 19 ff, 26 Buddha 46, 61, 66 f, 109, 125, 127 f, 129 ff

Cakradhara 145 Cakrešvara 146

Callenfels (van Stein) 114

Camuda 108, 141 ff, 145, 150 Chamba 98 Chulalongkorn 13

Cohen Stuart 155

Cousens 58

Crawfurd 11, 54

Dakșa 157

Damalung (Bhatāra) 154 f

Damrong 114

Dees (Putri) 84, 159, 151 f Dedes (Ken) 151 ff Dekhan 58 Djago, see Jago Djäkå Loelå 84 Domis 15 ff, 26 f, 30, 88, 138 Du Bus de Ghisignies 9 f Durgā 11, 47 f, 55, 82 f, 107 f, 112, 143

Engelhard 9 ff, 47 f, 56 Erp (van) 59, 114 f

Foucher, 66

Gajahmada, 92, 137, 143, 145

Gandhāra 66

Ganesa, see Gaņesa

Gaņeša 3, 11, 15, 16, 18, 27, 47, 49,

55, 62, 67, 71, 82, 100, 106, 110 ff,

113 ff, 143, 145, 156, 160 Garuda 86, 104, 146 Genesa, see Ganesa Glandang 15 Goris, 94, 161

Guhyešvarī 107 Gulunggulung 157

Gunung Buțak 66

Gunung Sari 20

181 Guru 50, 63, 67, 71, 145

Gurubhakti 156

Hageman, 61, 71 f Harihar 103

Harihara 7o f, 78, 97 f, 127

Hariharešvara 103

Hayam Wuruk 117

Holland 3, 11, 59, 67

Horsfield 11

India 58

Jabung 41 Jago 25, 65, 117, 122, 129, 133, 136 Jajawa, see Jawi Jajawi, see Jawi Jawi 46, 128 ff, 133 f Jayanagara 119, 121 f, 133, 148 Jina 120, 126 f, 129, 134 Jñanesvarabajra 125, 137 Jokjakarta 132 Jukes 24 ff, 80, 83 f

Juynboll 69, 97, 107

Kairi 117 Kagěněngan 150 Kala 54 Kallešvara 103 Kambang 33, 81

Kamboja 99

Karanglo 105

Kat Angelino (de) 161 Kawi 18 Kāla 54 Kārttikeya 63, 68 f, 145 Kedal, see Kidal Kern 95, 127, 129, 131, 134

Kěa 143

Khaji Napii 91, 117

Kidal 25 Kirtimukha 40 Knebel 31, 77 Korawāšrama 93 Krom, 9 f, 22, 38, 49, 58, 61, 65, 95 f, 129, 132, 138, 151 Krsa 97 f

Krtanagara 47, 66, 92, 95 f, 117,

119 ff, 122 ff, 129 ff, 149, 159 Krtawardhana 143 ff Ktarajasajayawardhana 118 Kutarāja 159 Kuvēra 103 f

Lawang 12, 18 Lårå Djonggrang 44, 51, 57 f, 96 Leiden 2, 57, 59, 67, 77, 79, 84, 89, 96, 97, 106 f, 115, 127, 139 f, 142, 146 ff, 152 f, 160 Lěmbu Nāla 145 Lévi (Sylvain) 107

Leydie Melville 5, 34, 43, 73 ff, 80,

85, 97, 160 Limus 157

Locanā 126 f, 129 Lungge 122

Mackenzie 9

Mada 92

Mahāguru 10, 15, 17, 25, 27, 30

Mahādeva 12, 17, 27

Mahākāla 11, 47, 51 f, 54

Mahākșobhya 67, 109, 119, 126, 129, 134

Mahānirvāņatantra 63 Mahisāsuramardinī 48, 82, 112 Majapahit 92, 95, 117 f, 123, 133, 143, 145 f, 153, 159

Malang 1, 3, 7, 11 f, 16, 18, 25, 67, 84, 105, 109 f, 114, 138 f, 150, 156 Malayu 143 Mañjusrī 90, 151 Marīci 9o ff Matarām 157

Měndut 41

Moens 54 f, 95, 124 ff, 129 f

Mondoroko 13, 26 Monnereau 13, 84

Muñcang 157

Nālanda 135 Nandi 11, 14, 17, 47, 53, 57 f, 81 f, 86, 92, 101 f, 110, 139 Nāg., see Nāgarakrtāgama Nāgarakrtāgama 93, 120, 124 ff, 132 ff, 141, 143, 145, 149, 157

Nandīšvara 11, 47, 51

Nirriti 103 Nārasimhamurti 125 Narasingha(mūrti) 149

Padang Rotjo 127

Pagěntan 15, 34

Palandi(t) 157

Panggih 144

Panambi 121

Panataran 24, 72, 144 Pangawān 157 f Papah, see Papak Papak 22, 34 ff, 68, 73 ff, 80, 97, 160 Par., see Pararaton Paramešwarī 129 Pararaton 95, 117 f, 121 ff, 127, 133 f, 136, 143 f, 150 Paranggalawe, see Rangga Lawe Paris 90 Pasoeroeang see Pasuruan

Pasuruan 1, 7, 15, 17, 114, 156 Pāla 136 Pāntarapūrwan 144 Pārvatī 63, 65, 67, 71 f, 76 f, 91, 141, 143 ff, 150, 160 Perquin 50, 73 ff, 106 f Phom Thbong 99 Pigeaud 94 Plaosan 31 Poerbatjaraka 120 f, 127, 129, 131 Prajñapāramitā 57, 77, 79, 84 f, 139, 142, 146, 149 ff, 160 Prambanan 31 Prapañca 117, 127 f, 130, 134 Pringapus 53 Purwapatapan 118, 121 f, 127, 130, 133 f, 136, 138, 159 Putri 25, 83 f, 139, 160

Raffles 10 ff, 80, 92, 110, 115 Rangga Lawe 118 ff, 133 Rājapatnī 121, 153 Rājasa 98, 149 f, 159 Reinwardt 13, 18, 59, 67 Reuvens 11, 47 Rigg 17, 21 ff, 27 f, 60 f, 71 f, 77, 8o, 84 Ringgit 34 Rouffaer 12 f, 26, 31, 35 ff, 61, 65 ff, 80 f, 92 ff, 113, 159, 151

Saeng 143 Sagala 126, 129 ff, 134 Sakegaon 58 Sari 31 Sastri 83, 98 Schmid (van) 20, 53 Schnitger 11, 99, 148 Siam 3, 13, 114

183 Siddhayoga 157 Sieburgh 18 ff, 28, 80 f, 83 Simpang 119 Sindok 154, 157 Singhasāri 146 ff, 151 ff, 158 f Šiva 40, 50 ff, 57 f, 62 f, 66, 71, 98, 125, 128 ff, 149 f, 152 Šiva-Buddha, see Šivabuddha Sivabuddha 66, 118, 125 ff, 129 ff, 134, 138, 160 Skandapurāņa 40 Stutterheim 41, 43, 45 f, 54, 56, 67 ff, 98 f, 107 f, 129 ff, 139, 142 ff, 152 f, 160 Sugih 157 Sumatra 54, 95, 124 Sungai Langsat 127 Surabaya 67, 109, 126, 129 Surakarta 132 Sūrya 12 ff, 17, 27, 32, 81 f, 99 f, 112, 139, 161 Swellingrebel 93 f Tampuran 157 Tarā 108, 125, 127, 129 Tohjaya 149 Tribhuwana 143 f, 150 Tribhuwanottungadewī 137 Travindu 12, 90 ff, 144 Tumapël 92, 94 f, 117 f, 121, 127, 131 ff, 159 Tumpang 65 Vairocana 126 f, 129 Varuņa 103 Vayu 103 Verbeek 17 f, 33 f, 113, 160 Vişņu 70 f, 78, 125, 127, 150 Vişnupurāna 94 Vogel 77, 98, 102

184 Wěrtio 33, 81 Wairocana, see Vairocana Wajradhatīšwara 129Wijaya 120 Walaņdět (Walandět) 157 f Wilson 94 Wyang, see Wayang Wişņuwardhana 117, 159 Wajang, see Wayang Wişņuwardhanī 137, 149 Wayang 19, 24 ff, 30, 32 ff, 37, 74 ff, Wurare 119 83 ff, 97, 100, 139, 160 Yamari 128 Wěndit 158 Wěrdija, see Wěrtio Ziegenbalg 103

Plate 2

Plate 3

A B

C D

Plate 4