下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
Claudine Salmon
At a time when in Asia burial grounds have become heavily contested domains of social life and places of seriously conflicting discourse，
[1]
it is worth pausing to consider how they were conceived and organized by the Chinese residing in the Dutch Indies. It seems that in Java，as in Imperial China，the Chinese were at liberty to place their dead in whatever soil they had acquired the ownership of or had been granted to them by local rulers.
The situation changed after the coming of the Dutch to Batavia，for they saw in the death rituals，erection of tombs and foundation of cemeteries，opportunities to levy taxes and to exert a certain control over the Chinese. The rich migrants who，as in the motherland，used to be buried on their own land，such as Su Minggang 苏鸣岗（ca.1580-1644），the first head of the community，whose tomb is still
in situ
and remains as a landmark of the history of the Chinese in Batavia/Jakarta，had usually to pay a fee in order to obtain the consent of the Dutch East India Company（Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie，VOC）.
In this article our aim is to examine the way in which the Company officers，urban managers
avant la lettre
，perceived Chinese cemeteries as a waste of land，
and consequently tried to control their development，and the manner the Chinese opposed a cultural resistance. For this purpose，we mainly rely on the
Nederlandsch-Indisch Plakaatboek
（Collection of edicts of the Dutch Indies，hereafter
Plakaatboek
）edited by J.A.van der Chijs
[2]
on the one hand，and on a few Chinese sources，on the other. We will first survey the concessions of burial lands，and then examine the various regulations introduced by the Company in order to be interfere in Chinese affairs.
（1）The first burial grounds as Recorded in Chinese and Dutch Records
Dutch sources are seemingly silent regarding the erection of the first Chinese burial ground in the vicinity of Batavia，perhaps because the VOC in its debut had not yet legislated on funeral matters，and also because the Chinese community was still very small. However，according to de Haan，a Chinese burial site already existed in the 1620s which was located to the southeast of the city，north of Herrenweg. [3] Only wealthy Chinese could take back their deceased or their bones to China after having applied for permission from the VOC，and paid an expensive fee. [4] The Plakaatboek states that in 1641 the Company issued various regulations aimed at levying taxes on funerals and tombs for the benefit of the Chinese hospital. [5] In effect，the previous year the Chinese had been permitted to found an institution called Yangji yuan 养济院，a kind of hospice for the poor，which also operated as hospital. [6] The Yangji yuan was placed under the management of four inheritance curators（two Chinese and two Dutch who were appointed yearly） [7] and maintained thanks to private donations and revenues of funeral taxes. [8] In case of death of a resident the eventual relatives of the deceased had to be informed；and the corpse could not be taken out the city without a written permission of the curators. [9]
The Kai Ba lidai shiji （《开吧历代史记》， Chronicle of the Chinese in Batavia ）dates the first cemetery from Shunzhi 顺治七年（1650）. [10] This version of the facts may be based on oral tradition，which would explain some discrepancies with Dutch sources. In effect，the chronicle states that a certain Guo Shunguan 郭顺官，assisted by his elder brother， [11] took the initiative of founding a collective cemetery for the Chinese called “Tangren yizhong 唐人义冢”. [12] Guo is said to have summoned his compatriots who contributed money，and purchased a piece of land which was developed into a cemetery（to the southeast of the city）. He is also thought to have recruited an overseer called tugong 土公，to take care of funeral matters. Dutch sources do not expressly record this foundation，but the Plakaatboek in date of June 11 1660 states that “the Chinese have asked to open a new burial ground near the fort of Jakatra，arguing that ‘the old one was already full’”. At this occasion，the authorities are reported to have increased the amount of the funeral tax from 2 to 3 rixdollars； [13] in addition they put a new imposition of 12 rixdollars on the engraving of an epitaph in Chinese characters. [14] According to the same source，in 1668 the Chinese obtained the permission to purchase a new piece of land. Because the Plakaatboek at this point only provides a summary of the decision，it cannot be ascertained if it referred to the application made in 1660，or to a second one made in 1668：
The Chinese community paid for this piece of land 400 rixdollars，sum that the Government allocated to the Chinese Hospital，with permission for the Chinese to dig a canal around the cemetery ［to protect it from the looting of the Ambonese whose village was located next to it］. [15]
From the middle of the 17th century until the mid-18th century，the Chinese officers tried to enlarge the cemetery southwards by buying further plots of land along the river Ciliwong. The Dutcharchives and the Kai Ba lidai shiji record four successive concessions granted by the authorities of Batavia（1696/97，1728，1745/46，1761）. [16] It appears that more or less every twenty years a new graveyard adjacent to the previous one had to be developed. The reasons of these recurrent demands in burial ground which greatly worried the VOC were：first，the Chinese only buried one person（or eventually a couple）in a tomb；second，according to their tradition each grave was meant to last forever，and even if a deceased had no more descendants to take care of his or her tomb，and if it was dilapidated，it could not be demolished；third，the mausoleums often exhibited ostentatious or opulent displays of wealth that were supposed to reflect the social status of the dead and of his or her family. One may get an idea of the size of a sumptuous Chinese mausoleum and of the ample space in front of the grave to allow for the performance of rites of worship and sacrifices by observing a drawing made by the Dutch artist and traveler Cornelis de Bruijn（ca.1652-ca.1727），who was in Batavia in 1706. [17] see plate 1.
Plate 1 Drawing of a luxurious Chinese mausoleum in Batavia by Cornelis de Bruijn（1706）
（2）The Foundation of Gunung Sari Cemetery as Perceived by Chinese and Dutch
In 1761，the foundation of the “New Cemetery” or Sentiong 新冢 which reached as far as Kemayoran and Gunung Sari areas
was rather well recorded thanks to two documents，one in Chinese and the other in Dutch. The first consists of a commemorative stone inscription erected by a monk presumably attached to the Wanjie si 完劫寺（a funerary temple located to the south of this new cemetery），
[18]
and engraved on a stone tablet formerly imbedded in the cemetery wall（since demolished）. The second，a piece of archive，dated 6 October，which relates how the Governor-General gave to the Chinese Captain Lim Tjipko（or Lin Jiguan 林缉官in office 1756-1774，year of his death）
the permission to transform the land of Gunung Sari，which he recently purchased，into a cemetery.
The Chinese commemorative stone inscription was removed to the courtyard of the Dicang yuan地藏院，a second funerary temple（dedicated to the God of Hell）erected by Captain Cai Dunguan 蔡敦官（in office 1784-1790），close to the Wanjie si. [19] It is not only the oldest known stele in Jakarta，but also the oldest recording the foundation of a collective cemetery in Insular Southeast Asia，see plate 2. [20] Its title reads Changjian Niu-lang-sha-li yizhong biji 倡建牛郎沙里义冢壁记（Wall narrative of the construction project of the collective cemetery of Gunung Sari）. The text that was conceived by a certain Chen Liyi 陈立义 and composed by the Buddhist monk Gan Jiang 干江，is interesting for three reasons.
Plate 2 Wall narrative of the construction project of the collective cemetery of Gunung Sari（1761）
First，it shows the great importance of the dead for the living. It also reveals the fear of the Chinese at the idea of not being in a position to handle decent burials of their deceased，as their forefathers did，and their desire to ensure that no abandoned souls will roam the paths.
Second，it highlights the fact that the author of the stele presents the project and the realization of the cemetery as if everything occurred within the Chinese world，without any allusion to the fact that Captain Lim Tjipko had first to obtain the permission of the VOC；in other words，as if the Chinese of Batavia were their own masters，and lived their own lives without interference.
Third，it exposes the willingness of the leaders of the community to engage themselves to enlarge the burial ground by purchasing a new plot of land，and collecting the money for the purpose among the Chinese in Batavia. In effect，apart from the captain，the list includes the four lieutenants（
lei-zhen-lan
雷珍兰）in office：Khouw Hong Liang 许弘良 appointed in 1756，
[21]
Lim Kienko 林健官 appointed in 1751，Lim Theecko 林钗官 appointed in 1754，
[22]
and Thee Ponko 戴牟官 appointed in 1759.
[23]
It also lists the names of three
boedelmeesters
（
wu-zhi-mi
武直迷）or “inheritance curators”.
[24]
Among the donors（74 names）are listed Lian Musheng 连木生，who was portrayed as a literatus in Wang Dahai 王大海’s account，
[25]
Cheng Guoshi 陈国使 who donated a tablet to the temple of Ancol（in the vicinity of Batavia）in 1755，
[26]
and a lady，called
Nhai
Jian Shou
翦寿.
[27]
The list also contains the names of two other captains：Huang Jingguan 黄井官 formerly in office in Semarang（central Java），
[28]
and Yang Xuanguan 杨璇官，as well as Lieutenant Chen Jingguan 陈静官. These two latter names appear neither in the Chinese lists of captains and lieutenants，nor in the Dutch one.
[29]
Perhaps Yang and Chen had been simply awarded honorary titles. The text reads：
Since we have been trading in Batavia，four cemeteries have been erected.
We have buried skeletons for one hundred years.
The number of inhumed carcasses ［is not less than］ ten thousand. This generous action which consisted of gathering the dead bodies and burying them was due to our Chinese forefathers. When ［in the past］ the people saw an opportunity for doing the right，they did it；as for us，how could we not to accomplish our own duty？The current captain has the heart to rescue the living and is preoccupied to relieve the dead，he endorses the ［…］ sufferings of others，and accomplishes achievements benefiting ［the population］.
He assembled like-minded people who in great number promptly took part in the project. Each contributed ［…］ in order to develop the cemetery of Gunung Sari. Thereupon we can close the tombs，and select lucky spots for the graves. During the cold waves of moonlight nights there are no more souls roaming the paths. When strange birds are weeping in the autumn wind，they reveal that the spirits of the dead have no place to return. Thanks to the support of all the travelers they have escaped the physical sufferings of floods，
this is great. Together we plan to celebrate the event and have engraved the names of the donors on a tablet. This is a great action. On the one hand，it equates those of the past by its excellence，and on the other，it brings relief to the deceased. Aren’t like the achievements of our forebears who founded four cemeteries？We implore the gods so that this action will not fall into oblivion.Hence this brief outline to inform the future generations so that they may know the origin of this praise.
The Dutch record suggests the concern of the VOC about the extension taken by the cemeteries to the southeast of the city，and about the fact that some tombs had already been constructed on the southern part of the land of GunungSari. It also shows the fear that in the future the Chinese further encroach on the lands belonging to the Company；hence the decision of the latter of having landmarks erected to clearly delimitate the new cemetery boundary on its eastern side where the adjoining lands were still empty. It reads：
After the Captain of the Chinese nation in this place，namely Lim Tjipko，had introduced a request，asking that he be permitted to transform into a Chinese cemetery a certain plot of land called Gunung Sari which he had recently acquired，stating that the space at present destined for this purpose was insufficient，taking into account the fact that there were already some Chinese tombs in the south west and that it was far from the roads frequently used by the men of the Company and out of the way，and also the fact that the present Chinese cemetery was completely full as this nation had the habit of placing only one body in each grave and consequently one could not refuse them the opening of another cemetery，thus it was seen fit to decide to authorize the Chinese to transform into a cemetery the part farthest away，that is，the south-west of the said land of Gunung Sari，under the express condition that it be ordered that not only the leaders but also the surveyors trace there a line south south-east/north north-west from the course of the Great River and place two boundary stones at each end of the limits，at the north north-east where it be forbidden for them to bury the dead because at this place the land adjoins the Herrenweg and the land of（place name illegible）should remain at the Company’s disposition.
（3）The Last Foundations of the 18 th Century
In 1771 and 1791 the Chinese were again allowed to purchase two plots of land adjoining the existing cemetery，see map， [30] but at the beginning of the 19th century，they were definitively refused permission to dig new graves in the Gunung Sari region， [31] probably in connection with Governor-General Daendels’ plan to establish the new town of Weltevreden，around Koningsplein（present Lapangan Merdeka or Independence Square，see map）. These recurrent purchases of lands give an idea of the burial space problem within the vicinity of Batavia，and make evident the urgency for the VOC to exert a permanent control on Chinese cemeteries. Below we analyze the measures the Dutch took to interfere with the deep-seated burial practices of the Chinese that were deemed to enter into conflict with the urban development of the capital.
Plate 3 Map of Batavia showing the cemetery of Sentiong（Gunung Sari）in 1897
During the 17 th century the agents of the VOC saw essentially Chinese cemeteries and burials in terms of profits，consequently they sold the required plots at prohibitive prices while they levied various taxes on graves and burials，as seen above. With the 18 th century，the constructed landscape of Batavia changed， [32] and the Dutch began to perceive the city differently. Some，among the agents of the VOC，conceived a kind of urban land use planning that they brought to bear upon Chinese deathscapes，which in their eyes were land wasters. For this purpose，they issued various regulations aimed at limiting their surface，and at controlling burial practices. These regulations have been published in the Plakaatboek ，some fully，some others in summary. A text from the Nieuwe Statuten van Batavia （New Statutes of Batavia）of 1766，and entitled Keuren op de begraffenissen en bebraafplaatsen （Control upon burials and cemeteries）reveals the fact that there had been a strong cultural resistance of the Chinese. As a result，the VOC had no choice but to reissue the regulations which had remained dead letters：
Thereon decisions，regulations，orders and other texts that have been successively enacted and promulgated since 1684 shall be observed without the slightest departure，according to the letter of the collection published here，which should be put in the hands not only of the colleagues concerned，namely the officers of justice，but in those of all employees of the present and future funeral directors. [33]
These constantly renewed regulations were of three kinds：First，those aimed at restricting the lands where the Chinese could inhume their dead，and at strictly forbidding the use of those belonging to the VOC for that purpose. Second，since the 18 th century，those aimed at rigorously limiting the sizes of the tombs，according to the social status of the deceased，in order to reduce the demand for burial lands in the Batavian vicinity. Third，those aimed at controlling and improving the sanitation of Chinese cemeteries that，being close to swampy areas，were often flooded. At first the VOC commissioned the captain to ensure the implementation of these regulations as well as the penalization of offenders，a system which happened not to be effective.
（1）Prescriptions concerning the places were the Chinese were permitted to bury their dead
The text of 1766，already quoted above，states that the Chinese were allowed to bury their dead in the cemeteries which had been legally conferred to them，provided that they remove twice a year，at their own expenses，all the accumulated brush，dirt and carrion and this under the control of the Supervisory Board. The same text reminds the Chinese that nobody had the right to burial in the gardens between the military posts of Ancol，Jakatra，Ryswyk and Angke，with the exception of collective cemeteries reserved for this use，unless they expressly notified the Governor-General，and obtained permission. [34]
（2）Prescriptions Aimed at Limiting the Size of the Tombs
Considering the continuous extension of Chinese burial grounds，the VOC finally decided to issue regulations aimed at limiting the size of the tombs，especially those of wealthy Chinese. The heads of the Chinese still benefited of a special treatment allowing them to raise their social status，and simultaneously to demonstrate filial piety. The text reads：
The Government has seen fit to decide that the tombs destined for the officers of the Chinese nation and for the members of the college of the inheritance curators，as well as their families，concerning this capital only，may not exceed a width of 24 feet，a length of 36 feet and a maximum height of 8 feet，with，however，the liberty，only for them，to raise the height，if they so decide，to 10 or 11 feet，under the condition that the earth necessary for this additional height not be taken from the surrounding land but brought in from outside the domain of Gunung Sari.
That the tombs of all the other membersof their nation，without distinction，should be limited to a width of 8 feet，a length of 12 feet and a height of 6 at a maximum，unless an express request of a dispensation be granted by the Government.
Of the captain in particular it has been requested that he not only make sure that the new limits not be infringed under the penalty of a 500 rixdollars fine（1/3 for the informer，1/3 for the Chinese hospital and 1/3 for the college of law clerks），but also that he avoid as far as possible，that the water remain and stagnate in the excavations and see that the necessary trenches remain well open so that the water can circulate.
And finally，to be sure that all the other prescriptions be observed concerning the ordering of the cemetery. [35]
Obviously，the implementation of this set of prescriptions did not bring the expected results，for six years later the VOC felt the need to renew the regulations concerning the size of Chinese graves. This time，to make sure that the new tombs would not exceed the prescribed sizes，a new system of control was conceived，that involved both the Chinese captain and Dutch officers. Moreover，to be sure that the captain and his lieutenants would exercise themselves due vigilance each time a new tomb was erected，they would be liable to pay the fine when failing to exercise their authority. The text reads：
Considering that the measures taken by the declaration of April 9，1791，concerning the size of the tombs，have not been followed as should have been expected，we have seen fit，continuing our indulgence，that from now on，in addition to the fine set at 500 rixdollars，the tombs found to exceed the prescribed dimensions should be reduced and brought down to the authorized size at the expense of those who built them or at that of their heirs.
And so that this order be better carried out，it has been decided that in addition to obliging the Chinese Captain and his lieutenants to verify themselves that each time a Chinese tomb is erected，it does not exceed the prescribed dimensions orthey will be liable to pay out of their own pockets，each time the contrary is proved，a fine of 500 rixdollars to the benefit of the Chinese hospital.
Moreover，to the bailiff of the suburb of Batavia，Andries Hartzink，the order is given to have examined all the tombs built after the date of this order and，in case of transgression to proceed immediately to carry out the required penalties. [36]
（3）Sanitary Measures for the Maintenance of Cemeteries
Since the early 18 th century，the VOC was concerned with the issue of insalubrity of Chinese burial grounds，especially during the rainy season. The sanitary measures mainly concerned the cleaning of the burial grounds，and the construction of tumuli. According to tradition，tombs were cleaned once a year for the Qingming jie 清明节 festival，or tomb sweeping day，by the families of the deceased，while the VOC wanted the Chinese to clean the cemetery twice a year at their own expenses（directives of June 11，1660，November 20，1668，August 23，1746，October 2，1753，October 6，1761，December 28，12）. [37]
The development of burial mounds with earth from the cemetery caused the appearance of many deep ditches where water stagnated. Moreover，this meant that the poor and the needy found no suitable place for their dead and were often forced to bury them in these ditches. Consequently，a decision dated 9 Augustus 1707 ordered the Chinese to bring from outside the earth needed for the construction of their tumuli. [38] This requirement does not appear to have been well observed，since the VOC repeatedly intervened to prohibit the removal of earth from the cemetery and even from surrounding lands. Similarly，in 1791 and in 1798 the Company was still obliged to intervene in relation to the formation of swamps and mires between the tombs，and to require the heads of the community to ensure the maintenance of drainage channels at their own expense. During the rainy season the insalubrity of the cemeteries was such that the VOC commissioned the dike board to ensure the maintenance of the channels in case the Chinese officials failed in their duties. [39]
At the end of this study，it appears that Chinese burial landscapes in Batavia were fields of strategic power relations between Chinese and Dutch. The Chinese for whom there was acontinuity beyond death and an exchange between the living and the dead，conceived graves as privileged places to dialogue with their ancestors. Hence，for them cemeteries were important religious spaces where the living attended to burial rites for their forebears，followed them when they were gone by various rites of worship and sacrifice，without interference from the state. In return they expected their ancestors to bring them good fortune.
The agents of the Company，who were deeply concerned with land use in the vicinity of Batavia，perceived the extensive burial grounds of the Chinese as incongruent with their own politics，and even as a threat for future land development. Consequently，they interfered by taking recurrent restrictive measures to bring about a change in the religious practices of the Chinese. The translations of these measures were the responsibility of the Chinese Council. We have not found any information regarding the renditions of these directives and the way they were circulated within the Chinese community. However，considering that these regulations were at odds with filial piety requirements，one may conceive that the community as a whole did all it could to prevent their application. As a result，this unproductive antagonism continued during the whole period under consideration，and even after.
The system of indirect rule of the Chinese in Batavia was abolished only in 1942，but the Chinese Council continued to run the Chinese cemeteries until after Indonesian Independence. It was dissolved in the 1950s，while its landed property，including burial sites，in the vicinity of Jakarta was expropriated. The Indonesian municipal authorities，suddenly faced with the problem of incoming migrants squatting on Chinese cemeteries，issued new regulations intended to close them and eventually to demolish them. In brief，it was only demographic pressure that finally compelled the Chinese to seriously rethink their funeral culture.
義塚之建，販吧以來，四定厥基矣。掩骼已經百年，埋胔［奚］［啻］萬骨。此我唐先世瘗旅之盛事也。在［昔］人既見義而必為，於吾儕豈當仁而獨讓。現任列位甲百丹濟明為心，賑幽在念，囗飢溺，由已之痛，行立建，及人之方［眾］。鳩同志，劻勷勝参，各捐囗囗囗囗，復建牛郎沙里，於是馬鬣可封，牛眠是卜。寒潮衝夜月，不作歧路之魂。怪鳥泣秋風，鸣有無家之鬼。免水潦之肌淪髓浹，成旅襯之地厚天高。僉謀告慶，勒石紀名，此盛事也。上以嫓美前徽，下而垂澤枯骨，豈不與先世四定厥基之舉，共尸祝於不朽哉，故為略而敘之，以昭後人，知歌頌之所由來云爾。峨峰陳立義謹議。
甲百丹林諱緝官捐金壹千文
雷珍蘭林諱健官捐金陸百文
雷珍蘭許諱弘良捐金陸百文
雷珍蘭林諱釵官捐金肆百文
唐恩官 許燦官 陳順官 上各捐金叁百文
雷珍蘭戴諱牟官 甲百丹楊諱璇官 雷珍蘭陳諱靜官
劉廉使 戴潺官 上各捐金貳佰文
武直迷陳諱巧郎 戴旺蘭 鄭尚勳 陳國使 林森官 蔡陽官
黃恆官 陳敬官 陳讚官 連金生 連木生 上各捐金壹佰伍拾文
甘卓官捐金壹佰壹拾文
甲百丹黃諱井官 朱紹官 盧郎官 謝華珍 陳褒官 鄒來官 蔡鎮官 雍茂官 陳雙秋 盧甫官 蔣勳官 林廣官 林賢官 陳籍生 魏漢官郭挺官 鄒岱官 黃芳官 王倚郎 魏瑞官 郭榔官 莊蔚官 黃詣官 林祥官 上各捐金壹百文
林亞官 捐金陸拾文
武直迷林囗椿舍 陳預官 余［施］官 吳隨官 李桓公 雍養官
林理官 楊性官 王乾官 林英官 上各捐金伍拾文
林光官 王编官 以上各捐金参拾貳文貳
王嘉官 黄傅官 蔣元官 吳鉢官 許蓬萊 郭鋽官 陳訓官 黃州官 楊木官 林亨官 盧爻官 王課官 上各捐金参拾文
蔡貴官 吳倪官 林施官 王好官 雍科官 陳貞官 陳漸官 翦壽 上各捐金貳拾伍文
林德郎 黃文官 上俱捐金貳拾文
武直迷施諱華官 捐金壹拾文
峕大清乾隆貳拾陸年歲次辛巳秋八月 穀旦立石零頂僧干江敘書
（执行编辑：罗燚英）
摘要： 当今亚洲主要城市内不再容许死者拥有一席之地，故此，十七、十八世纪，荷兰治理巴达维亚（今雅加达）期间对华人墓地的观点与处理方式值得关注。荷兰东印度公司的代理人将华人义冢视为浪费土地的态度，试图限制其发展，并采取了一系列措施，这些措施引起了当地华人强大的文化性抵制，从而让墓地转化为战略的权力关系领域。直到印度尼西亚独立之，人口压力成为一个严重问题后，华人才开始重新思考他们的丧葬文化。
关键词： 巴达维亚 华人与荷兰人的关系 华人丧葬文化 城市空间规划
[1] See inter alia Brenda S.A.Yeoh and Tan Boon Hui，“The politics of space：changing discourses on Chinese burial grounds in post-war Singapore，” Journal of Historical Geography ，21，2（1995），pp.184-201；Natacha Aveline-Dubach（éd.）， La Place des morts dans les mégapoles d’Asie Orientale ，Paris：Les Indes Savantes，2013.
[2] J.A.van der Chijs ed.， Nederlandsch-Indisch Plakaatboek，1602-1811 ，Batavia：Landsdrukkerij’s Hage：M.Nijhoff，1865-1897，vol.16，index.
[3] Frederik de Haan， Oud Batavia. Gedenkboek uitgegeven ter gelegenheid van het 300 = jarig bestaan der stad Batavia in 1919 ，Batavia，Weltevreden，Leiden：Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen & G.Kolff & Co.，vol.I，p.504，paragraph 934.
[4] In 1755，for instance，the tax on the transfer of deceased bodies ranged from 50 to 100 rixdollars；cf. Plakaatboek ，vol.VII，p.116，25 August 1755.
[5] Plakaatboek ，vol.I，pp.454-455，28 December 1640-2 February 1641.
[6] Plakaatboek ，vol.I，p.446，13 August 1640.
[7] Plakaatboek ，vol.I，p.438，26-31 May 1640.
[8] Plakaatboek ，vol.I，pp.454-455，28 December 1640-2 February 1641.
[9] Plakaatboek ，vol.I，1642，p.526，“Boedelmeesters der Chineese als andere vreemde sterffhuysen op Batavia”（The inheritance curators running Chinese and other foreigner homes for the deceased）.
[10] Hsü Yün-Ts’iao ed.， Kai Ba lidai shiji，Nanyang xuebao 《南洋学报》，vol.XI：2（December 1955），p.30.
[11] According to the Kai Ba lidai shiji ，p.30，Guo Shunguan had the position of “lieutenant” in 1650，whereas according to B. Hoetink，“Chineesche officieren te Batavia onder de Compagnie（Chinese officers in Batavia under the Company），” Bijdragen tot de taal-，land-en volkenkunde ，78（1922），pp.31-32，Guo，who for a time had been based in Banten，was appointed captain in 1685 and passed away the same year.
[12] The first meaning of yizhong is “charitable cemetery”，but in Batavia this term was understood as a burial place intended for the Chinese community in city.
[13] In 1705，this tax was again increased from 3 to 6 rixdollars， cf. Plakaatboek ，vol.III，p.560，26 June 1705.
[14] Plakaatboek ，vol.II，pp.335-336，11 June 1660.
[15] Plakaatboek ，vol.II，p.465，20 November 1668.
[16] 1696-97： Plakaatboek ，vol.III，p.583，decision of August 1707；1728： Kai Ba lidai shiji ，pp.38-39；1745/46： Kai Ba lidai shiji ，p.47； Realia ， Register op de generale resolutiën van het kasteel Batavia，1632-1805 （Realia，register on the General resolutions of the Castle Batavia，1632-1805），Leiden：Kolff & Nijhoff，1882-1886，vol.I，p.281，23 August 1746；1760/61： Kai Ba lidai shiji ，p.51；Netherlands Royal Archives，The Hague，K.A.，676，October 6，1761.
[17] Cf. Cornelis de Bruijn， Reizen over Moskovie，door Persie en Indie ，Amsterdam：R.en G.Wetstein，1714. The illustration is taken from the French edition Voyages de Corneille le Brun，par la Moscovie，en Perse et aux Indes Orientales ，Amsterdam：Wetstein，1718，vol.II，no.223.
[18] This temple was established in the house of the former Governor General Julius Coyett（d.in 1736）. See inter alia de Haan， Oud Batavia ，vol.1，pp.504-505；C.Salmon & D.Lombard， Les Chinois de Jakarta. Temples et vie collective ，Paris：Edition de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme，1980，pp.110-115.
[19] Salmon & Lombard， Les Chinois de Jakarta. Temples et vie collective ，p.129.
[20] The text of the inscription was first published by Hibino Takeo日比野丈夫，“Jakaruta no gyûrôsari gichôhi ni tsuite ジャかルタの牛郎沙 里义冢碑につぃて”（About the stele of Gunung Sari in Jakarta）， Nampô bunka 南方文化（The Tenri Bulletin of South Asian Studies），June 1974，pp.41-55. At that time，the stele was embedded in a wall，and its lower part was buried in the earth，so that several characters were missing in each line. Since it has been relocated in the temple courtyard，all the characters are visible，but some are blurred beyond recognition. Moreover，the inscription was recently repainted，sometimes awkwardly. Our gratitude to Mau Chuanhui 毛传慧 who helped us to decipher some characters.
[21] In the list of lieutenants published by Hoetink，“Chineesche officieren te Batavia onder de Compagnie，” p.90，the character 弘 is replaced by its Hokkien homophone 芳.Wang Dahai 王大海， Haidao yizhi 海岛逸志provides a biography sketch of the lieutenant whose personal name is written as on the stone inscription.（Yao Nan 姚楠 & Wu Langxuan 吴琅璇 eds.， Haidao yizhi ，Xianggang：Xianggang xuejin shudian，1992，p.45.）
[22] In the list of lieutenants published by Hoetink，“Chineesche officieren te Batavia onder de Compagnie”，p.90，the character jiao 铰stands for chai 钗.
[23] The captain and his associates formed a Chinese Council，called gongguan 公馆，that administrated the community under the control of the VOC.
[24] Namely Chen Qiaolang 陈巧郎 and Shi Huaguan 施华官 whose names appear in the list of boedelmeesters which precedes the Kai Ba lidai shiji ，p.19，and a third one，Lin？Chunshe 林囗椿舍，unidentified.
[25] Wang Dahai， Haidao yizhi ，pp.42-43.
[26] W.Franke，C.Salmon and Anthony Siu（eds.）， Chinese Epigraphic Materials in Indonesia ，Singapore：The South Seas Society，vol.II，1（1997），p.24.
[27] The Malay term of address Nyai ，means “Madam”.
[28] Huang Jingguan’s biography also appears in Wang Dahai， Haidao yizhi ，pp.47-49.
[29] Cf.Hoetink，“Chineesche officieren te Batavia onder de Compagnie，” pp.8-9；Franke，Salmon and Siu（eds.）， Chinese Epigraphic Materials in Indonesia ，II，1，pp.115-116.
[30] The texts of these two permissions are not reproduced in the Plakaatboek ，but they are mentioned in the archives of the Gongguan；cf.Salmon & Lombard， Les Chinois de Jakarta. Temples et vie collective ，p.223，note 24.
[31] Plakaatboek ，vol.XIV，pp.322-323，3 July 1806.
[32] See the topographical views of Batavia by the Danish painter and topographer Johannes Rach（1720-1783），J.de Loos-Haaxman， Rach en zijn werk . Uitgegeven bij gelegenheid van het 150-jarig bestaan van het Koninklijk Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen op 24 April 1928，Batavia：G.Kolff & Co.
[33] Plakaatboek ，vol.IX，1766，p.503-505，“Keuren op de begraffenissen en bebraafplaatsen”（Control of burial and burial places）.
[34] Plakaatboek ，vol.IX，1766，pp.503-505， Nieuwe Statuten van Batavia .
[35] Plakaatboek ，vol.XI，pp.283-284，9 August 1791.
[36] Plakaatboek ，vol.XII，pp.471-472，2/13 June 1797.
[37] Plakaatboek ，vol.IX，pp.504，1766，“Keuren op de begraffenissen en bebraafplaatsen”.
[38] Plakaatboek ，vol.III，p.583，9 August 1707.
[39] Plakaatboek ，vol.XI，pp.383-384，9 August 1791；vol.XII，p.836，6 July 1798.