amrit gomperts, arnoud haag and peter carey …

AMRIT GoMpERTS, ARNoUd HAAG ANd pETER CAREy

Stutterheim’s enigmaThe mystery of his mapping of the

Majapahit kraton at Trowulan in 1941In welches Dorf habe ich mich verirrt? Ist denn hier ein Schloß?

Franz Kafka, Das Schloß1

Introduction

For over a century archaeologists have been trying to unravel the mystery of the location of the fourteenth-century kraton (palace) of the rulers of the Maja-pa hit kingdom which held power in Java from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century. It has been long known that the royal city and its palace was located at Trowulan about 50 kilometres southwest of Surabaya, the present-day capi-tal of East Java. Today, unfortunately, all that remains of its former glory are isolated piles of broken bricks and an archaeologically mutilated landscape littered with craters dug by colonial-era asset strippers and treasure hunter s.2 Knowledge of its exact position seemed to have vanished. In 1365 AD, how-ever, the Javanese author Prapañca, had described the Majapahit capital and its royal palace in an extant Old Javanese text, called the Nāgarakrtāgama or Deśawarn ana. Based upon this description, several scholars published recon-structions of the lay-out of the kraton of Majapahit, but none of them have been able to offer an identification of its exact location. In 1941, however, the then Head of the Netherlands Indies Archaeological Service (Oudheidkun-dige Dienst), W.F. Stutterheim, made a detailed reconstruction of the kraton

1 In Kafka’s The Castle (1922), the main character is the land surveyor K. who says: ‘In which village have I got lost? So is there a castle here?’ (translation by present authors).2 The present authors estimate that at least five million cubic metres of soils with medieval bricks were removed from the Trowulan site since 1816.

AMRIT GOMPERTS is product manager with a professional experience in GPS and GIS. He is an independent scholar who publishes on Old Javanese and Javano-Sanskrit texts and Javanese archaeology. Amrit Gomperts may be contacted at: [email protected] HAAG is an agricultural engineer who works as a consultant in hydrology and irriga-tion in Southeast Asia. He is specifically interested in the hydrological aspects of Southeast Asian archaeology. Arnoud Haag may be contacted at: [email protected] CAREY is Fellow Emeritus of Trinity College, Oxford and currently project director of the Cambodia Trust in Jakarta for the establishment of an Indonesian School of Prosthetics and Orthotics. Peter Carey may be contacted at: [email protected].

Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde (BKI) 164-4 (2008):411-430© 2008 Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde Downloaded from Brill.com01/03/2022 11:05:58PM

via free access

Amrit Gomperts, Arnoud Haag and Peter Carey412

of Majapahit, which the present authors are convinced correctly identified its precise location. The mystery is that Stutterheim himself did not reveal that location. This article sheds new light on the accuracy of Stutterheim’s recon-struction and his seemingly intentional obfuscation of the site identifications in Prapañca’s monumental work.

An archaeological identification in disguise

The Dutch archaeologist Willem Frederik Stutterheim (1892-1942) was Head of the Oudheidkundige Dienst between 1936 and 1942. His posthumously published monograph, which describes in detail the lay-out of the kraton of Majapahit, was completed in July 1941 (Stutterheim 1948:118). Stutterheim claimed that he based his reconstruction on his own translation and interpre-tation of Prapañca’s description, combined with his knowledge of Javanese and Balinese court architecture. He argued that the lay-out of the Yogyakarta kraton and the nineteenth-century Balinese puri (palace) of Klungkung re-sembled that of the Majapahit royal palace. In his monograph, although he provided a detailed plan of the vanished kraton of Majapahit, rather strangely he explicitly stated that he would not discuss its location (Stutterheim 1948:1, note 4). He even warned his reader that Prapañca’s descriptions were not de-tailed enough for an archaeological identification: ‘We repeatedly find such imprecisely formulated descriptions; they could easily set us on the wrong track if we were to accept them literally and transfer them onto a map’.3 How-ever, detailed cartographical analysis, using software for geographical infor-mation systems (GIS), reveals that he did exactly that. He used Prapañca’s ‘imprecisely formulated directions’ to draw his own quite detailed plan onto an accurate Dutch topographic map issued in 1941 (see Figures 1 and 2).4 It is clear that Stutterheim had precise locations in mind when he made his plan: it was much more than mere interpretation and guess work based on Prapañca,

3 ‘Dergelijke weinig preciese aanduidingen [van de dichter] vinden we herhaaldelijk; zij kun-nen ons gemakkelijk op een verkeerd spoor brengen, indien wij ze al te letterlijk nemen en ze op de kaart zouden willen intekenen.’ (Stutterheim 1948:7.)4 The original topographic map is available online at the web site of the Koninklijk Instituut voor de Tropen: http://maps.kit.nl/apps/search ‘Trowulan’, map 05120348C. It is the third ediIt is the third edi-tion of sheet Modjoagoeng, number 53/XLID, and scale 1:50,000, 1941. The former colonial survey Topografische Dienst in Nederlandsch-Indië (TDNI) revised the preceding edition of the map, on the basis of field surveys in 1939 (personal communication with Dr F.J. Ormeling 30-05-2008), and published the third edition in 1941. For the georeferencing of the topographic map, we refer the reader to the datum transformation Java 1897 and the TDNI coordinates in ‘quasimetres’ discussed in Gomperts (2006:216-7). On Stutterheim’s plan, the north arrow and its tip coincide with the TDNI gridlines x (easting) = 817000 and y (northing) = 156000 ‘quasimetres’ respectively which uniquely appear on the 1941 edition of the topographic map (Gomperts 2006:217, Figure 3 in comparison with Figure 2 here).

Downloaded from Brill.com01/03/2022 11:05:58PMvia free access

Stutterheim’senigma 413

the plans of the Klungkung puri and the Yogyakarta kraton.5 Such interpreta-tions are, of course, the aim of archaeology, but Stutterheim intentionally re-fused to acknowledge the extent to which he used other sources. He also did not reveal his own extensive surveys on site and deliberately twisted his argu-ments in order to withhold information about the identifications he made.

When we began our research, we visited Trowulan for a few days and fieldwalked the site with the 1941 Dutch topographic map in hand along with the Old Javanese text Nāgarakrtāgama, Stutterheim’s monograph (1948) and a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver. Then, after months of detailed cartographic analysis with computers, we were able to assign one pair of geographical coordinates to Stutterheim’s plan in order to situate his entire reconstruction in the context of the built landscape and verify his archaeological identification of the kraton of Majapahit. In the next sections we will assess the accuracy of Stutterheim’s plan. The numbers between angle brackets <...> refer to Figures 1, 2 and 4 and our explanation of Stutterheim’s legend which can be found in the Appendix.

The royal palace

In Prapañca’s description (Nāgarakrtāgama 8.2.1-2), the panggung (tower) is sit-uated just east of the palace gate. Both are located in the outer northern palace walls. Stutterheim interprets Prapañca’s panggung <6> as the ‘watchtower’ that King Hayam Wuruk (reigned, AD 1350-1389) ascended to observe court spectacles. An Islamic shrine with tombs now stands on this site. It is built over ancient brick remains and still bears the name ‘Panggung’ <6>. The brick remains are medieval but the Islamic shrine dates from between 1815 and 1850 and may have been intentionally put up by local inhabitants to prevent access to the site by local Dutch entrepreneurs interested in securing bricks for the construction of their sugar factories. Between 1925 and 1930 the Dutch and Austrian architects Henri Maclaine Pont (1884-1971) and Bruno Nobile de Vistarini (1891197?) excavated a 150 metre long segment of the northern palace wall on the east side of the Panggung, sections of the internal walls, and a brickwalled ‘vyver’ or pond (see Figure 3). Stutterheim drew the po-sition of the watch-tower <6>, the northern palace wall <1> and parts of the internal palace walls <15, 19, 21, 26> in accordance with Vistarini’s excava-tion plan (1931:31), but strangely he does not refer to the Austrian architect’s publication (see Figure 4). At the site a few remains of the northern palace

5 Stutterheim 1948:120-3. There have been six published translations of Prapañca’s Old Java-nese text — in Dutch, English and Modern Indonesian. However, only Stutterheim’s monograph is more than a translation, providing detailed contextual interpretation of the archaeological re-mains and landscape at Trowulan.


Figure 1. Stutterheim’s plan (1948:124) of the royal palace and capital of Majapahit, original scale 1:18,350 (1941)


Figure 2. Stutterheim’s plan of the royal palace and capital of Majapahit reprojected onto the third edition of the topographic map of the

Topografische Dienst in Nederlandsch-Indië, sheet Modjoagoeng, number 53/XLID, original scale 1:50,000 (1941)

The contours of his plan correspond to roads, paths, ditches and enclosures on the topographic map with deviations of 32 metres or less. The added gridlines with numbers appear at intervals of 1000 metres and represent geographical coordinates UTM, zone 49 M, WGS84 (Gomperts 2006). The accuracy of Stutterheim’s mapping is 60 metres with respect to the UTM coordinates (number 3 coincides with the current location of the Balai Penyelamatan museum).


Figure 3. Vistarini’s excavation plan (1931:31) of the northern section of the Majapahit royal palace, original scale 1:5,900 (1930)

All archaeological remains to the south of ‘Graf Panggoeng’ (grave of Panggung) have been destroyed. The ‘vyver’ (pond), 80 metres long (northsouth) and 50 metres wide, and all internal palace walls have vanished. The soil has been dug out to a depth of 2-4 metres.


Figure 4. Stutterheim’s plan of the northern section of the Majapahit royal palace projected onto Vistarini’s excavation plan (1931:31), original scale 1:5,900 (1930)

The added gridlines with numbers appear at intervals of 200 metres and represent geographical coordinates UTM, zone 49 M, WGS84. Our georeferencing reveals that the orientations on Vistarini’s map are slightly distorted in comparison to the actual geometry on site. Therefore, Stutterheim’s plan and the UTM gridlines appear rotated with respect to Vistarini’s plan. The accuracy of Stutterheim’s mapping is 60 metres with respect to Vistarini’s plan. Stutterheim correctly identified ‘Graf Panggoeng’ (grave of Panggung) and ‘Nog bestaand stuk van den stadsmuur’ (section of the city walls still standing) as the panggung watch-tower <6> and the northern palace walls <1> respectively.



walls <1> are still visible where the newly erected Pendopo Agung complex now stands.6 Furthermore, an archaeological map by the Indonesian National Mapping Agency (Bakosurtanal 1983, no. 7), marks the foundations of walls which correspond to the internal western walls within the palace. This wall adjoins the western sides of the inner courtyards, which are indicated as leg-end numbers <15, 19, 21> in Stutterheim’s plan (see Figure 4). A few isolated brick remains of the foundations of the walls are still visible, but are now in danger of being completely destroyed.

Prapañca describes the witāna (pavilion) <23> within the palace where King Hayam Wuruk sat in royal council with his high officials. The topo-graphic map shows that Stutterheim must have identified it with the site of Can di Kĕdaton <23>, but again he did not mention this (see Figure 5). It is a brick platform some 13 metres long, 9 metres wide and 1.6 metres high. Oriented north-south, its westward-facing stairs are located on the northeast-ern corner of a terrace. The dimensions of the terrace are 70 metres in length on a north-south directional axis, 55 metres wide and 2 metres high. In the nineteenth century, the local population appropriately called the terrace Siti Inggil (The High Ground), which in Modern Javanese is the designation for an elevated structure where the ruler appears in formal public audiences.

According to Prapañca, the three royal compounds <22, 25, 26> were situated in the southeastern area of the palace. Oral tradition locates the kĕdaton in the hamlet of Kĕdaton, which is the Modern Javanese word for the innermost part of the palace containing the royal family’s private quarters (see Figure 2). Although Stutterheim refers three times to the location of the kĕdaton given by Prapañca and refutes Maclaine Pont’s stubborn refusal to

6 In Yingyai Shenglan (1433), the Chinese traveller Ma Huan refers to the measurements of the royal palace’s circumference and height of its walls at the beginning of the fifteenth century. Ms M. de Vries Robbé kindly translated the 1922 Chinese reprint of the Chen Xuru’s (15581639) edition of Ma Huan’s text for us (personal communication, 11102006): ‘The king’s palace is sur-rounded on all four sides by a brick wall. The brick wall is higher than three zhang. The circum-ference is more than 300 li. The walls and buildings are very forbidding. The living quarters are four zhang high’ (Chen Xuru 1922, 8.12). However, it remains a question whether Ma Huan ever visited the Majapahit capital (personal communication with Dr J.L. Blussé, 11-03-2008). As Paul Pelliot (1933:364) has it: ‘Ma Houan, qui ne doit parler de Mojopahit que par ouïdire ...’ [‘Ma Huan, who should only have been able to speak of Majapahit by hearsay ...’]. We consulted five other translations of Ma Huan’s account, including those quoted by Stutterheim (1948:7-12) and Robson (1995:100-1), and fragments from two other Chinese texts borrowing from Ma Huan’s description. All translations agree that the palace walls were 3 zhang or 30 Chinese feet (chi) high which convert into 7-10 metres in height, see also Stutterheim (1948:8). However, the listed Chi-nese measures of length or circumference of the palace walls vary widely in conversion between (100 chi) 24-33 metres long and (300 li) 168 kilometres in circumference. Moreover, we cannot confirm Stutterheim’s interpretation (1948:78) of W.W. Rockhill’s reading ‘over three or four li square’ as around 6 kilometres in circumference. Pertinently, the circumference of the palace walls <1> measures 3.4 kilometres on Stutterheim’s plan which, according to our current views, seems correct (see Figure 1). Further discussion of Ma Huan’s description, which is the work of sinologists with the relevant expertise, is beyond the scope of the present article.


Figure 5. The remains at Can di Kĕdaton

On Stutterheim’s orders, the prehistorian W.J.A. Willems (1898-1964) excavated the remains at Can di Kĕdaton between May and October 1941. Willems took the pho-tograph from the west towards the east. In the witāna <23>, depicted in the corner above left corner, King Hayam Wuruk sat facing west in royal council with his high officials (see Nāgarakrtāgama9.4.4, 10.1, 10.3). The walls, as seen on the right, have now vanished. (Photograph by courtesy and copyright of Mr Erik Willems, son of the late W.J.A. Willems).



accept such a positioning, he does not acknowledge that he himself locates the royal compounds precisely there (Stutterheim 1948:5, note 14; 16; 105, note 246). Our projection of his plan onto the topographic map shows that he unambiguously accepted Prapañca’s location of the royal compounds <22, 25, 26> in the hamlet of Kĕdaton.7 Indeed, we have more evidence corrobo-rating Stutterheim’s views on the location and the layout of the royal palace which we intend to publish in a future publication. Hence, we entirely agree with Bosch’s comment that Stutterheim’s monograph was ‘a quite acceptable reconstruction of the [Majapahit] kraton of the 14th century’.8

The rest of the royal city

At the heart of the royal city was a crossroads and a nearby alun-alun (open field or great square in front of the court). Prapañca refers to the sacred cross-roads with the Sanskrit word catuspatha which literally means ‘a place where four roads meet’. In our view, Stutterheim correctly situated the crossroads <8> near the northeastern corner of the palace walls <1>. He argued that he could not determine the positions of the market <7> and crossroads <8> by making comparisons with traditional city planning such as is found in con-temporary Javanese and Balinese courts (Stutterheim 1948:27-9, 100-1, 116). Pertinently, none of the four main roads leading to the crossroads appear as roads on existing present-day and historic maps of the area. Stutterheim’s lo-cation of the crossroads <8> is in a field where sugar cane is grown nowadays. However, the precise location of the crossroads holds the key to the entire ori-

7 During our presentation of an outline of this article at the 12th EurASEAA conference in Lei-den, 3 September 2008, we learned of the significant recent fieldwork by students of Dr Marijke Klokke of the Department of Archaeology of the University of Leiden who had participated in Indonesian excavations at Trowulan. The present authors are of the opinion that one of the boxes excavated at this time can be positively identified as part of the northwestern side of <25>.8 Stutterheim 1956:xv. This is F.D.K. Bosch’s (1886-1967) own translation into English of his original comment in Dutch in 1947: ‘een alleszins aannemelijke reconstructie van den kraton uit de 14e eeuw’ (Bosch 1947:158). Our research shows that Bosch, who was Stutterheim’s predeces-sor as Head of the Oudheidkundige Dienst (1916-1936), was the only scholar after the Second World War who was able to judge the full extent and quality of Stutterheim’s monograph. Bosch had also contracted Vistarini for the excavations at Trowulan in 1930 and published the latter’s report (Vistarini 1931). In view of this publication, as well as his knowledge of Verbeek’s article (1890), his own facility with Old Javanese, and the discussions at the Oudheidkundige Dienst on site in Trowulan in the 1930s, Bosch must surely have been aware of the basic soundness of Stutterheim’s plan (Figures 2 and 4). Indeed, a year before the publication of Stutterheim’s mono-graph, Bosch had commented on it in glowing terms. Pertinently, Bosch must surely have realized that Stutterheim had intentionally obfuscated some of the site identifications when he read and corrected the proofs of his late colleague’s publication on the Majapahit kraton in 1947-1948. Bosch was certainly fully aware of the importance of these site identifications for the archaeology of Trowulan and Nāgarakrtāgama studies. So the question arises as to why he chose not to highlight such insights when he prepared Stutterheim’s monograph for publication after the war?



entation and lay-out of the vanished capital within the context of the historical landscape. Determining the location of the crossroads is thus crucial for any reconstructive mapping.

Other evidence might also be deduced from surveys carried out in the early 1980s. A team of scientists explored the area using remote sensing and geophysics techniques. Their conclusions suggest the existence of an exten-sive grid of very wide medieval canals in the area of the vanished Majapahit capital. If we compare Stutterheim’s plan with their map, we discover that the four main roads leading to the crossroads <8> coincide exactly with canals marked on the map (Bakosurtanal 1983). All this could, of course, point to conflicting archaeological interpretations. However, taking into consideration Stutterheim’s map, our observations at the site, as well as expert hydrological considerations, it is possible that these canals could have been ditches, val-lums or drains a few metres wide running along the four main roads leading to the crossroads, rather than fully engineered broad waterways per se. In our opinion, the Bakosurtanal (1983) canal theory in its present form is inconclu-sive and further field research is necessary.9

On the orders of the British lieutenant-governor of Java, Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles (in office 18111816), the former captain in the corps of engi-neers of the Dutch colonial army, Johannes Willem Bartolomeus Wardenaar (1785-1869) surveyed the remains of the vanished capital of Majapahit in September and October 1815. Wardenaar’s map was never published and was considered lost. The famous mining engineer and pioneer of modern volcanology, Rogier Verbeek (1845-1926), published the texts contained in the legend list of Wardenaar’s map and a few notes jotted on his draw-ings (Verbeek 1890:1-8). However, in our recent research we rediscovered Wardenaar’s unpublished Plan of Majapahit in the Drake Collection of the British Museum.10 Wardenaar’s survey is important because he obtained

9 Based on soil resistivity measurements and the analyses of layers in a few soil borings, the ge-ophysicists concluded that a system of canals 20-25 or 35-45 metres wide and 4 metres deep with a total length of 23 kilometres existed in the area (Simoen 1980; Simoen et al. 1983; Bakosurtanal 1983; Arifin 1983:23, 71). The geophysical data fails to convince one of the present authors, Amrit Gomperts, a trained physicist (see also Gaffney and Gater 2006:26-36, 56-60, 112-3). The slightest suggestion that the Majapahit capital might have been designed like Venice with canals and with Javanese pĕrahu (canoes) instead of Venetian gondolas strikes the present authors as being un-realistic in view of our own observations of the current topography of Trowulan, in combination with three-dimensional modelling of the landscape based upon present digital elevation models (both STRM90 data and recent Bakosurtanal DEMs). Moreover, the photogrammetrists honestly acknowledge that they could not determine whether the rectilinear patterns on the aerial images represented roads or canals (Darmoyuwono et al. 1981:15, 31, Table 3.7.1).10 Wardenaar’s Plan of Majapahit is available online at the website of the British Museum at: http://www.britishmuseumshoponline.org/invt/cda00261622 (Registration Number: 1939,0311,0.5.36). It is probably a copy of Wardenaar’s original plan and may have been made in late 1815 or early 1816. Moreover, in the scalebar on the map, there is an error in the unit of length (‘Engl. Roods’). Our georeferencing reveals that Wardenaar’s original map should have read in Dutch: ‘Schaal



information from the local population on the eve of major changes in the landscape and demography of Trowulan. These changes came about with the opening of East Java to intensive sugar-cane cultivation at the end of the Java War (18251830). While Stutterheim (1948:1, n. 3, 4) never saw Wardenaar’s plan he surely used Verbeek’s article (1890).

Our analysis shows that Stutterheim’s plan of the kraton is in agreement with Wardenaar’s map. Stutterheim (1948:16) does not identify the large tank of Sĕgaran in Prapañca’s description which is situated in the northeastern corner of the alun-alun <3> (see Figure 2). The position of the alun-alun <3> corresponds to Wardenaar’s mapping which reveals the sheer quality of Stutterheim’s archaeological observations on site. Spatial analysis of the Old Javanese description confirms that lĕbuhagĕng or ‘large open space’ must refer to the alun-alun <3>. Prapañca compares the panorama at the field of Bubat, facing east, ‘like the vastly extending lĕbuh agĕng’ (Nāgarakrtāgama 87.1.4). Therefore, we cannot agree with Stutterheim’s view that Bubat is the same as the lĕbuhagĕng (alun-alun <3>).11

Finally, Stutterheim’s positioning of the residence of Gajah Mada (in office, AD 13311364) is not in agreement with oral tradition. It results from an error in Stutterheim’s translation of Prapañca. The Old Javanese author’s description of the field where the army was annually mustered in fact allows two different translations (Nāgarakrtāgama 8.2.4). According to Stutterheim’s rendering (1948:20, 978), the army mustering field <9> is situated south of the crossroads <8>. However, in our view, the crossroads is situated to the south of the army mustering field. This can be deduced from a close textual analy-sis of Prapañca’s description in concordance with two kakawin texts by the

van 300, Rijnl. Roeden’. A Rijnlandse Roede or Rhineland Rod corresponds to a length of 3.767 metres. The cartographic style of Wardenaar’s map resembles that of contemporary topographic maps (see Knaap et al. 2007:382, 394-5, 406). We will only discuss here those places indicated on Wardenaar’s map which, in the view of the present authors, are referred to in the Nāgarakrtāgama (see also Verbeek 1890:3-7). On Wardenaar’s plan, the eastern side of the hamlet of Kĕd aton coincides with the royal com-pound of Hayam Wuruk’s sister and his brother-in-law <25> (Nāg. 11.1.3-4 śrī nr pati singha-warddhana kidul... tiga tang pura...). The terrace Siti Singgil (letter N) corresponds to gr hânopama ‘abode beyond compare’ (Nāg. 9.4.3). Can di Kĕd aton is the witāna <23> on the northeastern corner of the terrace (Nāg. 9.4.4). On Dutch city plans of Java in the VOC period, ‘passe(e)(r)baa(h)n’ is a Dutch corruption of the Javanese word paséban uniquely denoting the alun-alun (see Knaap et al. 2007: 3624, 3778, 3912, 4012, 407, 4101, 429). Thus, Wardenaar’s spatial reference to ‘passe-erbaan’ (letter P) pinpoints the alun-alun <3> (Nāg. 8.1.2 lĕbuhagĕng, 8.2.4 pahömaningbalasamūha, 9.2.1 alun-alun, 12.2.1 lĕbuh). The split gate at Jatipasar or Can di Waringinlawang (letter G) was once the entrance to the residence of the patih Gajah Mada (Nāg. 12.4). Moreover, Nāg. 8.1.2 refers to ‘deep encircling water’ (wayedranadalĕm). However, no stream appears on this map in 1815.11 According to the former bupati of Mojokerto, R.A.A. Kromo Djojo Adinegoro (in office, 1894-1916), the field of Bubat was located 3 kilometres to the west of the city of Mojokerto, along the southern banks of the now canalized stream Kali Gunting, see N.J. Krom’s note as quoted by Robson (1995:142). In the manuscript of the second version of his monograph kept at the Arsip Nasional in Jakarta (p. 13a), Stutterheim explicitly refutes this siting of Bubat.



Old Javanese poet Tantular. Supomo (1977, I:49-56), for example, accurately observes that Tantular’s Arjunawijaya (circa AD 1379) also refers to the archi-tecture and lay-out of the Majapahit capital. According to Arjunawijaya 3.3.1-2, the army mustering field (pahĕmaningbalagana) is situated ‘in front’ (harĕp), that is, to the north of the royal palace. Furthermore, Tantular’s Sutasoma 103.1013 (circa AD 1385), confirms that the crossroads is situated to the east of the watch-tower (papanggungan) <6> (Santoso 1975:445, 447). Thus, if we rely on Tantular, the crossroads is situated to the south of the army mustering field that actually coincides with the southeastern area of the alun-alun <3>. But the problem here is that acceptance of this siting of the army mustering field would implicitly shift all the other locations <7, 14, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33>. Hence, the identification of the other sites within the royal city will have to remain a challenge for the next generation of archaeologists.

For those inspired to take on such a challenge, one starting point might be the article on the Majapahit kraton which has appeared in the Dutch cartographic magazine Caert Thresoor (Gomperts et al. 2008). In this article, we publish other key maps of the Trowulan area in full colour and discuss our cartographic analysis in more detail including the complete legend of Wardenaar’s map and the coordinates of georeferenced positions of archaeo-logical sites which disappeared at the hands of asset strippers between 1815 and 1887.

Conclusion

On the basis of the arguments advanced in the present article, we conclude that Stutterheim correctly identified the location of the kraton of Majapahit and went a long way to reconstructing its layout. However, the way in which he presented his monographic evidence leaves us with an unanswered ques-tion. Why did such a distinguished archaeologist not want to reveal all these highly important details in July 1941? In the end, Stutterheim has left us with an enigma. We can only conclude by concurring with the words of his fellow archaeologist and successor as Head of the Oudheidkundige Diens t (1947-1953), the late A.J. Bernet Kempers (19061992), ‘it is not easy to understand fully such a manyfaceted and intensely alive man [... and] such a complex character too. It also cannot be expected of us’.12

12 ‘Het is niet gemakkelijk een zo veelzijdig en fel levend mens als Stutterheim was, een zo gecompliceerd karakter ook, ten volle te begrijpen. Het wordt ook niet van ons verwacht’ (Bernet Kempers 1949:22).



Postscript

During the final days of the editing of the proofs of this article, our research took another unexpected turn. In the Arsip Nasional in Jakarta, we came across a second version of Stutterheim’s monograph, entitled De pura van Majapahit en de huidige Javaansche kratons (The court of Majapahit and the present-day Java-nese kraton). It is dated Batavia, February 1942 (Arsip Nasional, Archives of the Bataviaasch Genootschap, inventory number: KBG Red. 0031). The manuscript contains 114 numbered pages but the texts of the 281 footnotes are lacking. In this version Stutterheim puts forward more plausible arguments than in his published monograph (1948), omitting the misleading sentence which ap-peared in his published version of July 1941, in which he had deliberately dis-couraged his readers from plotting Prapañca’s description onto a topographi-cal map. He rephrases it here as follows: ‘We repeatedly find such imprecisely formulated descriptions; they have nearly always led translators of the [Old Javanese] text to “find themselves lost”’.13 Indeed, at the end of his February 1942 manuscript version, Stutterheim makes a rather more modest reflection than in the last paragraph of his published version (see Stutterheim 1948:118):

Now, I have reached the end of my attempt to identify certain characteristics of contemporary Central Javanese kraton in Prapañca’s description. The reader may judge whether or not I have succeeded. Insofar as this might not have been the case, may this study inspire [others] to proceed in the same direction because it at least has shown that more detailed knowledge about the Javanese kraton and Balinese puri will be important for our reconstruction of the Majapahit pura (palace).14

Following the landings at Kota Bahru in British Malaya and the raid on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, the Japanese imperial army moved south to at-tack the Netherlands East Indies in January 1942. During these desperate weeks, while the Dutch forces on the islands of Sumatra, Borneo, Bali and Lombok were collapsing before the ferocious Japanese onslaught, the Head of the Oudheidkundige Dienst was fighting against time to redraft his unpub-lished monograph on the Majapahit kraton. Seven months later, on 12 Sep-tember 1942, he died of a brain tumour (see the inscription on his gravestone

13 In the second version Stutterheim states: ‘Degelijke weinig preciese aanduidingen vinden wij herhaaldelijk en hebben bijna steeds aanleiding gegeven tot ‘verdwalen’ van de vertalers van den tekst’ (ms. Arsip Nasional, p. 5; compare with Stutterheim 1948:7, lines 4-7).14 Stutterheim (ms. Arsip Nasional, p. 1134): ‘Thans ben ik aan het einde gekomen van mijn poging om in de beschrijving van Prapañca bepaalde kenmerkende onderdeelen der huidige Vorstenlandsche kraton’s te herkennen. Of ik daar in geslaagd ben moge de lezer beoordelen. Voorzoover zulks niet het geval moge zijn, vorme deze studie een aansporing om op den ingesla-gen weg voort te gaan, daar deze in ieder geval heeft aangetoond, dat de beschikking over meer gedetailleerde kennis der Javaansche kraton’s en Balische poeri’s voor onze reconstructie van den pura van Majapahit van belang kan zijn.’



at the Taman Prasasti in Jakarta). Despite the doubt expressed in this article regardin g the ethical principles of his scholarship, history will remember Stut-terheim as one of the greatest archaeologists of the twentieth century.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the bupati of Sragen, Mr Untung Wiyono, Ms Z. Enis Arifah, Drs Aris Soviyani (Departemen Kebudayaan dan Pariwisata, Trowulan), Mr Arthur de Vries Robbé, Ms Mieke de Vries Robbé, Mr Erik Wil-lems, Dr Roy Jordaan, Dr Ferjan Ormeling (University of Utrecht), Dr Leonard Blussé (University of Leiden), Dr John Bastin, Dr Annabel Teh Gallop (British Library), Mr T. Richard Blurton (British Museum), Ir Heru Joko Susilo (GPS), Drs Revi Soekatno and Ms Rens Heringa for their assistance with our research and the writing of this article.



Appendix: Legend of Stutterheim’s plan

The numbers correspond to Stutterheim’s legend (1948:125). However, we have modified and expanded his brief and incomplete explanations on the ba-sis of his monograph and other passages in the Nāgarakrtāgama. We have also divided his legend into explanations and references to the Old Javanese text. In some cases, Stutterheim combined differing or overlapping meanings in Pra-pañca’s Old Javanese text to refer to the same locations on his plan. While they are essential to verify his mapping of the description in Prapañca’s text, they can be quite confusing. Therefore, we have identified them with the equal sym-bol (=). Although Stutterheim (1948) only translates part of the Nāgarakrtāgama text (cantos 8-12), he also comments on other verses. For the rest of the Old Javanese text, we refer the reader to Pigeaud’s transcription (1960, I:3-76) of the Lombok version and Robson’s more recent translation (1995) which is based on a critical interpretation of the Lombok version ‘MS. C’ in combination with the two now inaccessible Balinese manuscripts ‘MS. A’ and ‘S’. For a few important variant readings, see Robson (1995:12, 104, 120, 122, 125, 129, 134, 136, 137, 143) which should be compared with ‘MS. C’ (Pigeaud 1960, I:376).

Nr. Explanation Nāgarakrtāgama (Pigeaud 1960, I:3-76)

1 rectangular-shaped palace walls consisting of red bricks

8.1.1 kutha

2 western access road with a split gate to the alun-alun <3>

8.1.1 pura-waktra, 84.6.3 dwāra

3 large square alun-alun with surrounding ditches along its sides, nonirrigated field bubat

8.1.2 lĕbuhagĕng = 9.2.1 alun-alun = 84.6.2 lĕbuh = 86.1.2 tĕgal...bubat, 86.2.1, 87.3.1 bubat, 87.1.4 lwir nika sad awatāninglĕbuhagöng

4 row with holy fig trees (Ficus religiosa), along the western access road <2>

8.1.3 brāhmāsthāna

5 lockable palace-gate, furnished with iron plates and adorned with ornaments

8.2.1 gopura = 8.5.1 palawangan

6 watch-tower with a base furnished with white diamantine plaster

8.2.1, 8.5.3 panggung... patiga nika binajralepa maputih

7 (large) market with long sheds 8.2.3 pĕkĕn = 12.3.1 pĕkĕnagöng; 8.2.3 yaśawĕkasingapañjang

8 sacred crossroads and the (northern) royal road leading to it

8.2.4 catuspatha, 86.2.2 rājamārga

9 open space where the entire army assembled in the months of March-April

8.2.4 pahömaningbalasamūha = 12.2.1 lĕbuh



10 audience yard, a partitioned area of the alun-alun <3>

8.3.1, 8.5.1, 63.4.2, 83.6.2, 84.7.2 wanguntur

11 external audience pavilion facing west in the audience yard <10>, where King Hayam Wuruk sat on the lion-throne and granted audience

8.3.1, 63.1.2, 64.1.2, 66.4.3 witāna

12 pavilion of officials and scholars north of the audience yard <10>

8.3.2 weśmapanangkilan

13 pavilion for resolution of formal disputes by Śiwaite and Buddhist priests east of the audience yard <10>

8.3.3 nggwan para śaiwa-boddha

14 walled state temple yard with altars for the Śiwaite, Brahman, Rĕṣi and Buddhist faiths

8.4.1 pahoman

15 ‘place where guard duties are performed while seated’, inner courtyard within the palace leading to inner courtyard <19>

8.5.1 pasewan = 8.5.4 natar

16 internal palace road from east to west 8.5.2 hawan17 tanjung trees (Mimusops elengi) planted along

the internal palace road <16>8.5.2 tañjung

18 open pavilion with hanging cages for the royal fighting cocks

8.5.4 mandapa pasatan

19 ‘place where guard duties are performed while seated’, inner courtyard within the palace, leading to the second gate <20>

8.6.1 pasewan

20 lockable second gate guarded by the [female] royal body guards or Bhayangkarī, which closed off main courtyard <21>. (In the Old Javanese text Pararaton, it is called the Bhayangkara Gate.)

8.6.1 wijilkapingrwa, 9.2.3, 9.4.1 wijilping kalih = 9.2.4 dwārêdalĕm

21 main courtyard, ‘level and wide’ (According to the Old Javanese text Pararaton, the trapped Mongol Chinese soldiers were killed in this yard in 1293)

9.4.1 natar

22 ‘abode beyond compare’, the royal compound of King Hayam Wuruk

9.4.3-4 gr hânopama...nggwanśrīnātha = 11.1.4 tiga... pura = 7.3.1, 10.2.1, 12.5.1, 17.2.4 purī

23 internal audience pavilion where the king met with his most senior officials

9.4.2, 9.4.4, 10.1.1, 10.3.2, 11.1.1 witāna = 89.4.12 uttara-pūrwawitanna...tri-witāna, 91.5.2 witāna

24 lockable first gate closing off the three royal com-pounds in the east <22, 25, 26> from visitors

11.1.2 wijilpisan

25 royal compound of Singhawarddhana, King of Paguhan, the brother-in-law of the king; and of Warddhanaduhitā, Queen of Pajang, sister of the king

11.1.3-4 singhawarddhana... tiga... pura = 10.2.1, 12.5.1 purī



26 royal compound of Krtawarddhana, King of Singhasāri, the father of King Hayam Wuruk

11.1.4 kr tawarddhana... tiga... pura = 10.2.1, 12.5.1 purī

27 quarter with the houses of the Śiwaite priests headed by Reverend Brahmārāja

12.1.2 śaiwa

28 quarter with the houses of the Buddhist priests headed by Reverend Rĕngkan Nadī

12.1.3 boddha

29 quarters with the houses of the ksatriya (high officials?), mantri (officials?) and punggawa (lower court functionaries?)

12.1.4 ks atriya mantri punggawa= 86.2.4 kuwuningmantrī

30 palace of Wĳayarājasa, King of Wĕngkĕr (Ponorogo), and Rājadewī Mahārājasa, Queen of Daha (Kĕdiri)

12.2.1 pura...wĕngkĕr

31 residence of Rājasawarddhana, King of Matahun (Ngawi), and Rājasadutitendewī, Queen of Lasĕm, daughter of the above <30>

12.2.3 matahun...dalĕm

32 the residence of Narapati, the Vice-regent of Daha (Kĕdiri)

12.3.1-4 kuwu... narapati

33 residence of Gajah Mada, prime minister of Majapahit (Stutterheim does not accurately mark the position of Gajah Mada’s residence which should be positioned further to the north-east in the direction of the arrow in Figures 1-2)

12.4.1 kuwu... gajah mada

34 residence of the superintendent of Śiwaite freeholds(In the second version of his monograph, Stutterheim positions this residence 300 metres further to the south)

12.5.1-2 kadharmmādhyaksan...kaśaiwan

35 residence of the superintendent of Buddhist freeholds(In the second version of his monograph, Stutterheim positions this residence 300 metres further to the south)

12.5.1-2 kadharmmādhyaksan... kaboddha



References

Arifin, Karina1983 ‘Waduk dan kanal di pusat kerajaan Majapahit Trowulan, Jawa Timur’. MA thesis. University of Indonesia, Jakarta.Bakosurtanal1983 Trowulan; Rekonstruksi ibukota kerajaan Majapahit. (Special edition: aerial photograph published as an archaeological map, scale 1:8,800). [Cibi[Cibi-

nong:] Bakosurtanal.Bernet Kempers, A.J.1949 ‘In memoriam Dr. W.F. Stutterheim (27 september 189210 september

1942)’, Oudheidkundig Verslag van de Oudheidkundige Dienst in Indonesië 1941-1947:15-28.

Bosch, F.D.K.1947 ‘Levensbericht van W.F. Stutterheim (27 september 189210 september

1942)’, Jaarboek van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschap-pen 1946-1947:150-8.

Chen Xuru1922 Yingyai Shenglan. Baoyantang Miji Collection. Shanghai: Wenming Shuju.Darmoyuwono, Kardono et al.1981 Penerapan Teknik Pengindaraan Jauh untuk Inventarisasi dan Pemetaan

Pe ninggalan Purbakala Daerah Trowulan, Mojokerto, Jawa Timur. [Cibinong/Yog ya karta:] Bakosurtanal/Gajah Mada University, Faculty of Geogra-phy.

Gaffney, C. and J. Gater2006 Revealing the buried past; Geophysics for archaeologists. Stroud: Tempus.Gomperts, Amrit2006 ‘GPS, GIS en topografische kaarten van Java (19001946)’, Geo-Info

35:2169. [Also available online at: www.geoinfo.nl.]Gomperts, Amrit, Arnoud Haag and Peter Carey2008 ‘De veertiendeeeuwse Javaanse hofstad Majapahit alsnog op de kaart

gezet’, Caert Thresoor 27, 3:71-78.Knaap, G.R., J.R. van Diessen, W. Leijnse and M.P.B. Ziellemans2007 Grote Atlas van de Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie/Comprehensive Atlas

of the Dutch United East India Company, Volume II: Java en Madoera/Java and Madura. Voorburg: Asia Maior.

Pelliot, P.1933 ‘Les grands voyages maritimes chinois au début du XVe siècle’, T’oung

Pao 30:237-452.Pigeaud, Th.G.Th.1960-63 Java in the 14th century; A study in cultural history. TheNāgara-Kĕrtāgama

by Rakawi Prapañca of Majapahit, 1365 A.D.. Third edition, revised and enlarged by some contemporaneous texts, with notes, translations, com-mentaries and a glossary. Illustrated with drawings by Professor Th.P. Galestin. The Hague: Nijhoff. Five vols. [KITLV, Translation Series 4, 15.]

Robson, Stuart1995 Deśawarn ana(Nāgarakĕrtāgama)byMpuPrapañca. Leiden: KITLV Press.

[Verhandelingen 169.]



Santoso, Soewito1975 Sutasoma; A Study in Javanese Wajrayana. Śatapit aka Series 213. New

Delh i: International Academy of Indian Culture.Simoen, Soenarso1980 Penelitian geolistrik di bekas kerajaan Mojopahit, Trowulan, Jawa Timur.

Yog ya karta: University of Gajah Mada, Faculty of Geography.Simoen, Soenarso, Suratman, Sudarmadji, Jomulyo and Sudibyakto1983 Penelitian geolistrik detail di sepanjang saluran bekas ibukota kerajaan di Trowu-

lan, Mojokerto, Jawa Timur. Yogyakarta: Gajah Mada University, Faculty of Geography.

Stutterheim, W.F.1948 De kraton van Majapahit. ’sGravenhage: Nijhoff. [KITLV Verhandelingen

7.]1956 Studies in Indonesian archaeology. The Hague: Nijhoff. [With a biographiThe Hague: Nijhoff. [With a biographi-

cal note by F.D.K. Bosch.] [KITLV, Translation Series 1.]Supomo, S.1977 Arjunawijaya: A Kakawin of Mpu Tantular. The Hague: Nijhoff. Two vols.

[KITLV, Bibliotheca Indonesica 14.]Verbeek, R.D.M.1890 ‘De oudheden van Madjapahit in 1815 en 1887’, Tijdschrift voor Indische

Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde (TBG) 33:1-15.Vistarini, B.1931 ‘Oudheidkundige Vereeniging Majapahit’, Oudheidkundig Verslag van de

Oudheidkundige Dienst in Nederlandsch-Indië 1930:29-34.


amrit gomperts, arnoud haag and peter carey …

Documents