Bibliographie
Agni Seseria Muchtar (2016). “Wanua i Rukam, Nama Asli Situs Liangan? (Kajian terhadap Prasasti Rukam 907 M sebagai data pendukung penelitian Situs Liangan),” in Novida Abbas (ed.), Liangan. Mozaik Peradaban Mataram Kuno di Lereng Sundoro: 149-163.
Bakosurtanal Peta Rupa Bumi Digital Indonesia Seri I (2000-2001). Scale 1: 25 000. Bogor: Badan Koordinasi Survey dan Pemetaan Nasional.
Baskoro D. Tjahjono, Agustijanto Indrajaya & V. Degroot (2015). “Prospection archéologique de la côte nord de Java Centre : le district de Kendal,” Bulletin de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient 101: 327-356.
Boechari (1985-1986). Prasasti Koleksi Museum Nasional. Jilid 1, Jakarta: Museum Nasional.
Brandes, J.L.A. (1913) Oud-Javaansche Oorkonden. Nagelaten Transscripties, Batavia – ’s Hage: Albrecht – M. Nijhoff. (Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch genootschap van kunsten en wetenschappen LX).
de Casparis, J.G. (1950). Inscripties uit de Çailendra-tijd, Bandung: Pjawatan Purbakala Republik Indonesia (Prasasti Indonesia I).
Coenen W.J. & N.J. Krom (1914). “Notulen der zevende Directievergadering, gehouden op Maandag 17 Augustus 1914,” Notulen van het Bataviaasch genootschap van kunsten en wetenschappen 52: 91-107.
Damais, L.-C. (1955). « Études d’épigraphie indonésienne IV. Discussion de la date des inscriptions », Bulletin de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient 47: 7-290.
— (1970). Répertoire onomastique de l’épigraphie javanaise (jusqu’à Pu Siṇḍok śrī Īśānawikrama Dharmmotungadewa) : étude d’épigraphie indonésienne, Paris: EFEO (Publications de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient 66).
Degroot, V. (2009). Candi, Space and Landscape. A study on the distribution, orientation and spatial organization of Central Javanese temple remains, Leiden: Sidestone Press (Mededelingen van het Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde, 38).
Dumarçay, J. (1993). Histoire de l’architecture de Java, Paris: École française d’Extrême-Orient (Mémoires archéologiques 19).
Dwiyanto, D., G. Nitihaminoto, S. Pinardi (1981). Laporan penjagan lokasi Candi Perot, Prambanan: Suaka Peninggalan Sejarah dan Purbakala (unpublished report).
Hoepermans, N.W. (1913). “Hindoe-oudheden van Java,” Rapporten van den Oudheidkundigen Dienst in Nederlandsch-Indië: 73-372.
Krom, N.J. (1914). “Inventaris der Hindoe-oudheden op den grondslag van Dr. R.D.M. Verbeek’s Oudheden van Java. Eerste deel,” Rapporten van den Oudheidkundigen Dienst in Nederlandsch-Indië: 1-358.
Mulyana, A.R., A. Martono, A.D. Sumpena, Riyadi & W. Suherman (2007). Peta Kawasan Rawan Bencana Gunungapi Sundoro, Provinsi Jawa Tengah. Volcanic Hazard Map of Sundoro Volcano, Central Java Province, Scale 1: 50 000. Bandung: Pusat Vulkanologi dan Mitigasi Bencana Geologi.
Nakada, Kōzō (1982). An Inventory of the Dated Inscriptions in Java, Tokyo: Tokyo Bunko.
Notulen (1911). “Lijst der voorwerpen, die in het jaar 1911 voor de Archeologische Verzameling zijn verkregen,” Notulen van het Bataviaasch genootschap van kunsten en wetenschappen 49: lxxv–lxxxii.
Oktory Prambada, Yoji Arakawa, Kei Ikehata, Ryuta Furukawa, Akira Takada, Haryo Edi Wibowo, Mitsuhiro Nakagawa, M. Nugraha Kartadinata (2006) “Eruptive history of Sundoro volcano, Central Java, Indonesia since 34 ka,” Bulletin of Volcanology 78 (11): article id. 81, 19 pp. DOI: 10.1007/s00445-016-1079-3
Quarles de Quarles, A.J. & B.A.J. van Wettum (1911). “Notulen van de zesde Directievergadering, gehouden op Maandag 4 September 1911,” Notulen van het Bataviaasch genootschap van kunsten en wetenschappen 49: 72-97.
Sarkar, H.B. (1971-1972). Corpus of the inscriptions of Java. Corpus inscriptionum Javanicarum, Up to 928 A.D. Calcutta: Mukhopadhyay.
Stutterheim, W.F. (1932). “Van een tjaṇḍi, een grottempel en een oorkonde,” in Djåwå. Tijdschrift van het Java-instituut 12: 292-301.
Titi Surti Nastiti, Dyah Wijaya Dewi & Richardiana Kartakusuma (1982). Tiga Prasasti dari Masa Balitung, Jakarta: Pusat Penelitian Arkeologi Nasional.
Verbeek, R.D.M. (1891). Ouheden van Java. Lijst der voornaamste overblijfselen uit den hindoetijd op Java met eene oudheidkundige kaart, ’s Gravenhage – Batavia: Nijhoff – Landsdrukkerij.
Wisseman Christie, J. (2001). “Revisiting Early Mataram,” in M.J. Klokke & K.R. van Kooij (eds), Fruits of inspiration. Studies in honour of Prof. J.G. de Casparis, Groningen: Forsten : 25-55.
Haut de page
Notes
Both the text and the table (p. 56-57) mention 13 sites. Strangely enough, the pictures on p. 55 show sites that do not appear in Sugeng Riyanto’s list, namely Piyudan, Kramat and Limbangan. In the absence of information regarding desa and kecamatan, I was not able to plot the latter on a map.
Stone sculptures, pedestals, bricks and/or stone blocks have been found in 19 of these sites. The other sites have yielded only small finds, such as metal objects, jewelry and/or ceramics. The amount of stones apparently found in Jamus, Nglarangan, Traji and Kentengsari suggest that those sites used to be temples as well.
In his list of 13 sites, Sugeng Riyanto mentions locations that are as far as 20 km from Liangan. In the present review article, I have limited the indexing to a radius of 10 km. For those wishing to know more about sites reported in the district of Temanggung during colonial times, see Krom 1914. Temples and presumed temple sites are also listed in Degroot 2009: 416-423.
To my knowledge, some 30 inscriptions are thought to come from the Temanggung area. The earliest is probably the Gondosuli I inscription (early 9th c.?), the latest the Wanua Tengah III inscription (908 CE) or, possibly, the Taji Gunung inscription (910 CE). For complete references, see Nakada 1982: I-9, 13, 15, 19, 21, 22, 31, 32, 49, 51, 52, 53, 61, 62, 64, 76, 95, 96, 97, 100, 104; Krom 1914, no 980; Sarkar 1971-1972 : cxi; Boechari 1985-1986: 52-57; Titi Surti Nastiti et al. 1982: 23-40; Wisseman Christie 2001. Note that the inscriptions of Mandang, Mulak, Kwak, Ra Tawun and Ra Mwi, mentioned by Nakada (1982) as coming from Magelang, actually come from the Temanggung area.
Notulen van de Algemeene en Directievergaderingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen. It is replicated in Krom 1914: no 960.
Museum Nasional Indonesia, Jakarta (MNI), Inv. no 1672b (5164) and 1672c (5165), for the pot and the lid respectively.
Based on Krom 1914. Unless specified, all the sites are in the kabupaten of Temanggung. Spelling and administrative localization have been modernized and may vary compared with the names given in Krom 1914.
Sugeng Riyanto gives a brief description of what remains of these sites. The state of preservation of the others in this list is unknown.
Spelling and administrative divisions according to the Peta Rupa Bumi Digital Indonesia Seri I published by BAKOSURTANAL in 2000–2001.
Distance from Liangan, as the crow flies. When the exact location of the findspot is not known, the point of reference is the centre of the dusun.
When the site is a temple, sculptures are not listed individually. A site is identified as a temple if remains of a stone/brick structure were found in situ. “Hindu temple” means that a yoni, a bull or another element of clearly Hindu iconography was discovered on the site as well.
Unless specified, references are to Krom 1914.
Inscriptions of Tulang Air I & II (850 CE). For references, see Nakada 1982: I/21.
The Alih Tinghal inscription would have been found near Candi Bongkol and transferred to Magelang before being sent to Batavia. It is now in the Museum Nasional Indonesia, inv. no D. 83. It is dated to the third quarter of the 9th century. See Stutterheim 1932: 294; Damais 1970: no 107; Sarkar 1971-1972: no cxi.
Bongkol, Candi and Kebumen are possibly listed as Situs Candi, Batu Lapik Candi and Yoni Candi by Sugeng Riyanto, but the differences between the Dutch descriptions and what is still visible today make it difficult to identify which is which. Knowing their geographical coordinates would have helped.
The Mantyasih III inscription is part of a series of three inscriptions recording a sīma grant made by Balitung in 907 CE. The exact findspot of the inscriptions is unknown. The Mantyasih I inscription was in the collection of the pangeran of Solo. The Mantyasih II plate was said to have been found in East Java. About the Mantyasih III inscription, Brandes said that it comes from “Li Djok Ban, Ngadirejo, Kedu” (Brandes 1913: no cviii). Since the place names in the three inscriptions seem to refer to the Temanggung area, a Ngadirejo origin is assigned to the whole series – but the plates might have been found anywhere in the district of Ngadirejo. The Mantyasih III inscription was sent to Batavia and is now in the collection of the MNI, inv. no E. 19. For references, see Nakada 1982: I/97 and Boechari 1985-86: 57-59.
A series of eleven gold leaves and four gold beads were sent to Batavia (MNI, inv. nos 5480 and 5481); a string of gold beads was sent to Leiden (Coenen & Krom 1914: 97).
The inscription in question is a fragment of the Kayumwungan/Karang Tengah inscription, dated 824 CE (MNI, inv. no D27 and D34). For further references, see Nakada 1982: I/13. Two of the place names mentioned in the inscription, namely Trihaji and Ptir, may most probably be matched with the modern villages of Traji and Petirejo, located some 4 km to the northwest of Parakan, along the Parakan-Ngadirejo road.
Sent to Batavia. MNI inv. nos 5151-5160 and 5172.
Listed as “Situs Bagusan” by Sugeng Riyanto.
Findspot of the Rukam inscription. See Titi Surti Nastiti et al. 1982: 23-28 and 36-40; Agni Sesaria Muchtar 2016: 149-164.
Hoepermans (1913: 167) reports that an inscription was discovered in Telahap, slightly north of Parakan-Wonosobo road. He saw the inscription, broken into two fragments, in 1865 in front of the house of the Controleur in Magelang. It was already reported as lost by Verbeek (1891: no 235). For references, see Nakada 192: I/76.
I would like to seize the opportunity to correct a mistake. In Degroot 2009: 417, I misread Verbeek’s report and wrongly listed Candi Argopuro as being in desa Lempuyang, kecamatan Candiroto. It should be desa Sigedong, kecamatan Tretep.
Kabupaten Kendal.
The Gondosuli II inscription (early 9th c.?) is carved on a large boulder and is still in situ. The Gondosuli I inscription, dated 827 CE, was carved on a stele and was already reported as lost by Brandes (1913: no iii). About Gondosuli II, see De Casparis 1950: 50–73. For references concerning Gondosuli I, see Nakada 1982: I/15.
Since the 1980s, Buddhist monks come to Umbul Jumprit to collect its sacred waters and used them during the large waisak ceremony at Candi Borobudur.
Today this part of the site is cut through by a small ravine where a streamlet flows.
This bath – or, more probably, water temple – was excavated after 2014 and is thus not mentioned in the book under review. It is a small but complex structure that underwent several modifications and repairs. It is hoped that the Balai Arkeologi Yogyakarta soon publishes a report about its excavation.
Candi Arjuna, Barong, Gebang, Gedong Songo, Kedulan, Ngempon, Semar, Kimpulan and Losari, for example, do not have a torus, even though they are located in Central Java and date back to the Central Javanese period. On the other hand, Candi Gunung Gangsir (East Java) and Candi Padang Roco (West Sumatra) also have a torus. For a short study on the profile of Central Javanese temples, see Degroot 2009: 193-203.
This early date shows how careful we need to be when using C14 results in a geologically unstable environment. In this case, only the eruption that produced the pyroclastic material has been dated. The landslide that brought the debris to the Liangan area is obviously of a later date.
As the crow flies. See Mulyana et al. 2007.
In 1865, a landslide in the village of Telahap revealed an ancient staircase that, in all likelihood, had laid buried under volcanic material. Two lingga-shaped boundary stones, a statue and fragments of an inscription were found nearby. The inscription – now lost – was only partly legible; it apparently recorded a sīma grant made by Balitung in 899 CE. Telahap might as well be the village destroyed by guntur from the Rukam inscription. And Telahap is much closer to Petarongan, the findspot of the inscription, than Liangan. On Telahap, see Krom 1914: no 950; Damais 1955: 117-118.
The modern village of Kedu is located some 11 km away from Petarongan.
Mt Sumbing was sometimes referred to as Gunung Kedu. The Rukam inscription also mentions a wanua i Galuh. The name “Galuh” is still found in the area: it is the name of the river flowing southwestwards from the Reco Pass to the Serayu River basin. A river with a quite similar name – sungai Galeh – flows northeastwards from the Reco Pass to the Progo water system – the Reco Pass being on the watershed divide between the Serayu and Progo valleys.
Dimensions of all the buildings are given in the following format: “475 x 480 cm2”.
The small raised platform appears square on the plans in Sugeng Riyanto’s paper and on the picture published by Hery Priswanto, so that we cannot conclude straightaway that the mistake is just a typo and that the measurement should therefore be read 1.65 x 2.09 m.
Possibly header. In order to determine the exact position of the stone (stretcher or header), one would have to partly dismantle the wall.
Tool-mark traces are visible on many stones – and not only at batur 2a. A close study might give interesting insights into the organization of the building site.
The fact that the buildings are plain and that excavations have not yielded ornamented stones could strengthen this hypothesis. But it might be that most of the buildings – except for the shrine of the third courtyard – had wooden superstructures.
The outline of the northeast section is also slightly different from the profile of the rest of the pagar lempeng batu.
Some stones have notches and were initially meant to be laid in shiner. Stones in reuse are mainly visible in the upper part of the wall. A few river stones have been used as well.
The retaining wall made of boulders that fences in the site on the southwest side might date from after this first destruction. Although its height is impressive, its construction does not require mastery of stone masonry techniques. Finding a wall with such a rough appearance in such a visible place is surprising since it contrasts with the quality of other retaining walls.
“Pendataan Temuan Lepas Tinggalan Arkeologi Situs Liangan dan Sekitarnya”.
“Keramik Cina Dinasti Tang Abad IX Masehi dari Situs Liangan, Temanggung, Jawa Tengah”.
“The rice remains from Temanggung. First evidence of tropical japonica in Indonesia”.
“Report of DNA analysis for rice remains at Javanese settlement site, Indonesia”.
“Sisa Rangka Manusia dari Situs Permukiman Mataram Kuna – Liangan, Temanggung, Jawa Tengah”.
“Situs Liangan dan Masyarakat”.
Haut de page