A note on the Trengganu inscription

C. O. Blagden published this philological and historical note in 1924, addressing the Trengganu (Terengganu) inscription—the earliest known record of Islam as a state religion in the Malay Peninsula. The article’s central thesis is that the inscription’s date, conventionally read as A.H. 702 (A.D. 1303), is textually incomplete and astronomically problematic, and that the zodiacal year-name “Saratan” (Cancer) embedded in the date formula points to a surviving Hindu 12-year Jupiter cycle that may push the true date considerably later, possibly into the 1380s.

Summary

Blagden’s note engages with the most pressing interpretive difficulty in the Trengganu inscription: the date statement on the first face of the stone ends with the words “di-tahun Saratan di-sasanakala Baginda Rasul Allah telah lalu tujoh ratus dua,” which he argues is necessarily incomplete because the word tahun must have continued onto the now-lost upper portion of the next face (p. 259). This lacuna opens a range of possible readings for the final digit group—dua alone, dua-lapan (eight), dua-puloh (twenty), or combinations thereof—yielding candidate years of A.H. 702, 708, 720–729, and 780–789, which in the Gregorian calendar correspond to lunar months beginning in 1303, 1307, 1320–1329, and 1378–1387 respectively (p. 259).

The crux of the argument then turns to the zodiacal designation “Saratan” (Cancer). Blagden systematically eliminates the possibility that this refers to the Sun’s position at the start of the Islamic year, since the 11-day annual drift of the lunar calendar would make such a system incoherent (p. 260). He instead proposes that the name derives from the Hindu 12-year cycle based on Jupiter’s revolution through the zodiacal signs, a system in which each solar year was named after the sign in which Jupiter stood at the Sun’s entry into Aries. The critical question becomes whether this cycle was still understood astronomically or had degenerated into a mechanical sequence. Blagden notes that the use of the Arabic form “Saratan” rather than an Indian form suggests the users retained some awareness of the astronomical reference (p. 260). He then works through two models: if the Hindu practice was retained (naming by Jupiter’s position at the Indian solar new year), A.H. 702 and 708 are eliminated, while A.H. 728 and 789 survive; if the system was modified to use the start of the Islamic year as the determining moment, A.H. 702 itself becomes viable, along with A.H. 727 and 788 (pp. 260–261).

Beyond the dating problem, Blagden appends philological notes on numerous words in the inscription, tracing their Sanskrit etymologies and comparing them with the earlier Kota Kapur inscription and with Javanese usage. He highlights that the text employs the Javanese word hembalang (“pelting, throwing stones”) rather than the Arabic technical term for stoning, and that the commutation of corporal penalties into monetary fines represents a concession to indigenous legal ideas rather than strict Islamic jurisprudence (p. 263).

Key Findings

• The date formula on the inscription’s first face is textually incomplete; the word tahun must have continued onto the lost upper portion of the second face, opening the year to readings of 702, 708, 720–729, or 780–789 A.H. (p. 259).
• The zodiacal year-name “Saratan” (Cancer) is incompatible with a simple solar-position system applied to the drifting Islamic lunar year; it most plausibly reflects a surviving Hindu 12-year Jupiter cycle (p. 260).
• Under the modified model (Jupiter’s position at the start of the Islamic year), A.H. 702, 727, and 788 all qualify as Cancer years, corresponding to beginnings in August 1302, November 1326, and February 1386 respectively (p. 261).
• The inscription uses the Javanese hembalang for stoning rather than the Arabic legal term, and commutes penalties to money payments—both features indicating adaptation to indigenous legal culture rather than strict Islamic law (p. 263).
• The word bēndara (Sanskrit bhāndāgāra, “store-house, treasury”) in the inscription carries its original sense, and its later use as a title is explained by the preceding honorific dato’ (p. 263).
• The spelling tida (without the glottal stop later represented by k in modern tidak) agrees with the Kota Kapur inscription, confirming the glottal stop as a later accretion (p. 263).

Conclusion

Blagden concludes that the dating problem remains fundamentally inconclusive on the available evidence. He states a personal inclination toward the latest possible date (A.H. 789 / A.D. 1387), but explicitly disclaims this as proof, grounding it only in the relatively late 13th-century evidence for Islam as a state religion in Northern Sumatra and the general ignorance of 14th-century Malay Peninsula political conditions (p. 261). He affirms that whatever the true date, the inscription was produced at no long interval after the event it records, and that his proposed translation remains tentative and provisional in many respects (p. 263).

Context

• The primary source is the Trengganu stone inscription itself, examined in conjunction with the earlier Kota Kapur inscription and the Javanese Nagarakretagama (1365 A.D.) for comparative linguistic and historical data (pp. 258, 262).
• The article represents an early 20th-century attempt at mastering the inscription’s contents; Blagden explicitly positions his notes as dealing with “obvious and superficial points” and acknowledges that the deeper historical and philological analysis exceeds his scope, while thanking a colleague (unnamed in the excerpt) for the translation on which he builds (p. 258).

References