CC BY
14
© 2007 r. A.O. Zakharov
CONSTRUCTING THE INSULAR POLITIES OF SOUTHEAST ASIA
IN THE 5th-7th CC. A.D.
The history of Southeast Asia (further — SEA) has drawn attention of scholars for a long time but even now some its aspects remain not quite known. Existing theories of statehood allow to re-study the earliest chronologically political formations of SEA. This paper is devoted to the analysis of the political organization of the Southeast Asian island world from the 5th to the 7th century. It would be desirable to evaluate whether it is possible to speak about ‘the state’ in the history of SEA on the basis of the available data, namely some inscriptions from Borneo, Sumatra and Java. If the answer is negative, how can we characterize the societies which left these inscriptions?
First of all, it is necessary to answer what is ‘the state’. As numerous definitions of the state exist now, I shall analyze only the most influential theories.
Among them the interpretation of the state by F. Engels occupies a special place due to its influence on the Soviet and Russian historiographic traditions. Engels holds that the state is ‘the organization of the possessing class for its protection against the non-possessing class’. It is characterized by the existence of territorial division, public power separated from people, taxes, and also professional army (apparatus of coercion). “It [the state] is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it become necessary to have a power seemingly standing above the society that would alleviate the conflict, and keep it within the bounds of ‘order’; and this power, arisen out of society, but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state”1.
This approach implies a contradictory juxtaposition of two various premises in one and the same definition. On the one hand, the state is the organization of the possessing class for its protection against the non-possessing class, therefore it includes only one part of a society; on the other hand, it is a power, which is above the society. Another consequence of Engels’s concept of the state is the thesis that it is a product of the society. In the Soviet historiographic tradition it was interpreted as the postulating that the state arose under certain circumstances and must collapse in future.
However, another interpretation is possible according to which the state exists only if there are people, making it. The state then is a human product, and not a thing, given in the same sense in what physical objects are given. It does not imply that the state is appeared out of the blue awing by an intellectual effort of an individual. In relation to the latter it acts as an element of the world, constructed during primary socialization through conceptualization of diverse relations, into which the individual is included, by means of language protocols, already constructed and consequently playing the role of pre-constructions in relation to this individual. At the same time, the relevant phenomena continue their existence only as a result of the activity of individuals who internalized these pre-constructions. And since the mastering of the data proceeds differently in various conditions and in view of varying abilities of the concrete people, the social order is characterized by ongoing changes. They also require conceptualization and internalization that leads to constant transformations of all the components of the human world2. The statement that the state is an institution (organization) can be interpreted by means of the constructionist paradigm of P. Berger and T. Luckmann. According to them, institutionalization occurs whenever there is a reciprocal typification of habitual actions by different actors. In other words, any such typification is an institution3. In view of their statement that ‘social order is a human product or, more precisely, an ongoing human production’, we can conclude that the state is constituted by human activities. These activities are understood as widely as possible, including intellectual procedures, by means of which all
habitual actions are conceptualized and the relevant mental images are formed. One may say that the state does not exist without its idea.
Besides the contradiction noted above, Engels’s conception has other drawbacks. One of them is the impossibility to prove that classes arose earlier than the state. It is a serious restriction of Engels’s definition but it does not imply its general falsity as, for example, the classical capitalism is described successfully by this model. But the aspiration to eliminate this restriction and/or desire to offer one’s own scheme together with some ethnographic and (partly) archaeological data have led some scholars to other interpretations of the state.
A. Johnson and T. Earle hold that the state in contrast of the chiefdom is a regionally organized society whose population number in the hundreds of thousands or millions and often are economically and ethnically diverse4. It arises due to such factors as technological changes, exchange and trade, and war. On the contrary, some scholars think war was the basic factor in the state-formation5. Johnson’s and Earle’s interpretation of the state can hardly be verified with respect to ethnical characteristic of some concrete polities. Such presumed attributes of the state as the regional organization and considerable population do not enable to regard Sumerian polities as the states within the framework of this concept. Yet I.M. Diakonoff supposes that they were the states6.
H.T. Wright offered another conception of the state: ‘In contrast to a developed chiefdom, a state can be recognized as a cultural development with a centralized decision-making process which is both externally specialized with regard to the local processes which it regulates, and internally specialized in that the central process is divisible into separate activities which can be performed in different places at different times’7. The chiefdom can be recognized as a cultural development whose central decision-making activity is differentiated from decision-making regarding local production and local social process while ultimately regulating it. This central activity is not itself internally differentiated. It is thus externally but not internally specialized8. Ch. Spenser assumes that the main attribute of these societies is the existence of the chief both on the regional and on the community level. The title of the chief exists independently of the person who has it, and is transmitted from generation to gene-ration9. Since internal specialization is absent in such polities, the central power in the chiefdom does not have constant areas or blocs of government. Therefore the chief cannot really delegate his power to the subordinate: any delegating of power turns into complete resignation. So the usurpation of the chief power is one of the main risks for the chief. Hence there is the limit of territory for this political form — with the radius of half a day way from the centre10.
Wright’s interpretation of the state may be formulated simpler: internal specialization is differentiated administration, or system of government, in which separate functions of government are allotted to certain positions/posts. The aggregate of these positions forms the staff of officials. Wright‘s theory is constructionist and abstract in some respect but its empirical application may be considered as destructive for our historical representations as, for example, the medieval European societies and ancient Indian polities are characterized by the absence of formal distinguishing of governmental functions11.
One of the most popular concepts of the state (more exactly, ‘the early state’) belongs to H. Claessen and P. Skalnik. They define it as ‘a centralized sociopolitical organization for the regulation of social relations in the complex, stratified society divided into at least two basic strata, or emergent social classes — viz. the rulers and the ruled — whose relations are characterized by political dominance of the former and tributary relations of the latter, legitimized by a common ideology of which reciprocity is the basic principle’12. Claessen holds that its main features are a fixed territory, a minimum population of a few thousand persons, production system providing a regular and reasonably stable surplus to maintain aristocracy, an ideology legitimizing the political and social hierarchy, and some sort of sacral position of the ruler13. The idea about two strata in the archaic state was first formulated by E. Service14. In his recent article Claessen corrected his initial definition by adding requirement of the three-level: national, regional, local — sociopolitical organization and
replacing tributary relations with the obligation to pay taxes15. The scholar makes an important remark in constructionist spirit, referring to the fragment of the monograph of Engels quoted above: ‘The state, being a product of social relations must not be reified, personified or sacralized. It is a specific kind of social organization, expressing a specific type of social order in a society. It gives expression to the existing social, economical and political relations in that society and to ideas pertaining to power, authority, force, justice, and property’16. Claessen’s and Skalnik’s initial definition was used by J. Wisseman Christie and R. Hagesteijn for the study of Southeast Asian island and continental societies respectively17. The main drawback of this definition is its similarity to Service’s description of the chiefdom (see below) while the second variant appears to be very close to Engels’s approach, only without the emphasis on exploitation and without the institutionalized coercion.
Yet another concept of the Oriental state was offered by L.S. Vasiliev. E. E. Service and
K. Wittfogel influenced him in a great degree18. The basic idea of the Russian historian is that
the Orient and the West are two different ways of social development. They form the
dichotomy of two various structures, one of which — Oriental — is based on
‘power-property’, centralized redistribution and the leading role of the state. The second
structure is based on private property and corresponding institutions such as democratic
management, civil society and the system of public psychology focused on blossoming of
creative opportunities of an individual19. “The early state is the multistage hierarchical
structure based on clan and out-clan connections, familiar with specialization of production
and administrative activity ... the early state ‘grows’ into the developed one gradually —
although this process is not universal. The basic difference of the developed political state
structure from the early one consists of the occurrence of two new institutions — system of
coercion and the institutionalized law, and as well as. the further development of
private-ownership relations”20. Chiefdom which precedes the state is characterized by the
absence of multistage structure, and the latter contains at least three levels: national, regional
and local21. ‘The state not only carried out the functions of the ruling class (state-class) on
behalf of social tops involved in power, but also was the leading element of the basic structure
of the society’; ‘It absolutely dominated over the society, having subordinated it to itself722.
What Vasiliev regards as ‘the basic structure of the society’ is not clear. If it is the basis in its
Marxist sense, i.e. dialectic unity of productive forces and relevant relations of production, it is
necessary to prove that there are such productive forces to which exclusively the state of
Vasiliev’s conception corresponds. There is also a curious imposing of some spatial images
and eo ipso some concepts of the state upon each other in the cited statement. On the one hand,
it is the basic element, i.e. the basis on which everything rests, and it is thought being below or
under all; on the other hand it ‘dominates over the society’. Probably, to develop Vasiliev’s
constructions, it is more expedient to replace the term ‘basis’ with ‘a structure-forming
component or framework’. The society about which Vasiliev speaks in the second of the
quoted statements is the civil one. Really we can see a juxtaposition of the two meanings of
the term ‘society’ since the phrase ‘the state ... was the leading element of the basic structure
of a society’ refers to the well-known Marxist concept of a society as ‘the sum of
interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand’23. Thus, the ‘language
games’ of historians and their spatial logic are evident here. The hypothesis about the
state-class in the Ancient East seems to be incorrect in view of the ‘Codex of Hammurabi’
24
(§ 35-39) and some other legal texts .
25
It is necessary to characterize briefly some theories of chiefdom . Service supposes that chiefdoms have centralized direction, hereditary hierarchical status arrangements with an aristocratic ethos, but no formal, legal apparatus of forceful repression; the organization seems to be universally theocratic, and the form of submission to authority that of a religious congregation to a priest-chief26. Claessen and Skalnik offered somewhat different attributes of this political form. First, though the centralized management exists, the leaders have no constantly legitimized power; second, there are no opportunities for prevention of the disintegration of structure: there are two levels — elite and members of communities. Third,
there is a division into the rulers and the ruled, but it is not absolute and it is often based on a degree of genealogical affinity to the leader. Fourth, institutions for alienation of surplus products are undeveloped and applied sporadically; tribute and gifts are not the main sources of the leader’s existence. Last, all components of chiefdom should have a common ideology27.
Can we now offer more complex and universal definition of the state? I believe this project has a shortage as this set of the state’s definitions considered above, comes from the diversity of the human world and the different social positions from which the scholars try to conceptualize the manifold of social phenomena. Thus, these definitions of the state reflect some different ideological implications. But if one chooses only one definition of the state, s/he soon discover some polities which are called ‘the states’ but do not satisfy this accepted theoretical model. I’ve already written that Wright’s definition of the state calls for to exclude from the list of the historically known states medieval European polities. From its part, Engels’ theory compels to describe Sumer and ancient Egypt as these political formations, probably, did not have class structure in the Marxist sense of the world. How, therefore, can I analyze early medieval polities of SEA?
I offer to use diverse definitions of the state as working hypotheses. Consequently, the discrepancy between them and the empirical basis does not imply their general fallaciousness. My research does not pretend to prove which of these definitions is true. I think it is more important to study how theoretic constructions can be applied to the empirical basis.
Now let me pass to SEA. The inscriptions in Sanskrit and Old Malay serve as the main sources for my research. For a long time the societies of SEA in the early Medieval (5th-7th centuries) were considered as the states28. Thus, Coedes’ monograph is even entitled ‘The Indianized states of Southeast Asia’. I shall investigate only three cases: the societies of Borneo and West Java of the 5th century and Qrivijaya.
A compact group of the seven inscriptions of king Mulavarman written on Sanskrit and dated palaeographically to the 5th century A.D., was found in the area of Kutei in the lower reaches of the river Mahakam on East Borneo 9. The inscription A published by J.Ph. Vogel contains the family tree of Mulavarman including his grandfather Kundunga, called ‘king’ or ‘Indra / first among men’ (narendra < nara + indra), and his father Agvavarman carrying a title vauga-kartar (‘a founder of a dynasty’)30. It is curious that ‘the founder of a dynasty’ was not Kundunga though he had three sons, from whom Agvavarman was ‘the most famous’. It is not quite clear what caused such a phenomenon. Anyway, only Mulavarman is called ‘rajan’ — king par excellence, and, probably, therefore his father was designed by this title.
Some scholars think the actions of Mulavarman represent the potlatch ceremony — a reciprocal exchange of gifts, because they are called ‘gift’ (dana)31. Various gifts are mentioned in five of seven known texts. Vasiliev emphasizes the important role of such institution as the reciprocal exchange for the state-formation32. The leader must be generous, and, distributing available property among members of her/his group, s/he receives greater prestige than her/his rivals. As the reciprocal exchange goes back to the primitive society, so the title of grandfather of Mulavarman, Kundunga, may be interpreted as an indication that for him, probably, the hereditary authority still was not characteristic.
Wisseman Christie discusses in detail the problem of potlatch ceremony. She writes: ‘The most striking difference between the inscriptions of Purnavarman in Java and Mulavarman in Kutei is the fact that Mulavarman’s claims are so much less plausible’33. The gift in twenty thousand cows, mentioned in the inscription B34, in the area strongly covered by woods, whose inhabitants used buffaloes, pigs and even chickens as ceremonial gifts and sacrifices during a greater part of history, is absolutely improbable, no less than the statement about melted butter. The final conclusion of Wisseman Christie is that ‘this combination of hyperbole and general implausibility probably indicates that the list of gifts was more symbolic than real’35. But even if Mulavarman exaggerated the sizes of gifts, obvious attention to this form of human interaction testifies that it played an important role in the East Borneo society of 5th century A.D. Wisseman Christie believes the society Mulavarman may not be characterized as a state if one follows Claessen’s definition.
To apply Engels’s conception one must find in the inscriptions the elements testifying to exploitation, social groups, taxes and other criteria of the Marxist scheme. The inscription C published by Chhabra36, contains the lines (1-2): ‘gro-Mulavarmma rajendra[h] sama(re) jitya partthi[van] karadam nrpatim g=cakre yatha raja Yudhisthirah’, that is translated as ‘Illustrious Mulavarman, greatest of kings, having conquered kings (parthivan) in a battlefield, made kings / masters / lords (nppaton) his tributaries (karadan), as king Yudhisthira’. The form jitya seems to be an obvious mistake and it must be corrected by the gerund jitva37. The term parthiva means in Sanskrit ‘an inhabitant of the earth; a lord of the earth, king, prince, warrior, sovereign; an earthen vessel’38. The word nipati denotes “‘a lord of men’, king, prince, sovereign”39. These two words probably may be viewed as synonyms. Kulke writes: “The use of the title parthiva in this connection seems to be very significant. Of course, it is often translated as ‘prince’ or even ‘king’. But more than most other conventional royal titles, parthiva has the original meaning of a landholder (parthiva = earthly, coming from earth). Parthiva thus designates exactly the local landlord whom we know from Java as raka”40. This interpretation is rather interesting yet leaning on etymology alone remains problematic in respect to the historical analysis. If parthiva were landholders, one has to conclude that the society of Borneo knew private property. But the role of gifts (dana) in it seems to exclude such a possibility. The term kara means ‘royal revenue, toll, tax, tribute, duty’ and karada denotes ‘paying taxes, subject to tax, tributary’41.
The information about ‘kings’ (parthiva) who were the tributaries of Mulavarman, can be an argument in favour of the existence of exploitation. But if parthiva were ‘kings’, it cannot be regarded as a proof of the classes’ existence in the East Borneo society: Marxist classes belong to one and the same society, not to the different ones. As Mulavarman recognized these ‘kings’, the integration of the conquered societies into his own social system seems to be very problematic.
Social stratification existed in the realm of Mulavarman as he had a hereditary status of the ruler: in one of his inscriptions his father Agvavarman bore the title vauga-kartar (‘a founder of a dynasty’). Moreover, the word vipra, met in four inscriptions, seem to designate a group connected with a religious activity because it means ‘a sage, seer, singer, poet, learned theologian, wise; brahmana; priest, domestic priest; the Asvattha tree’42 or ‘a priest, domestic priest; the singer, the poet; the scientist’43. But this stratification in Mulavarman’s realm probably was not highly developed since his inscriptions do not mention any officials. As stated above, the term kara may mean ‘tax’ and ‘tribute’ at the same time; thus, it does not imply taxation. No evidence of the institutionalized coercion is testified by the inscriptions of Mulavarman. The public power is attested only by the royal title of Mulavarman himself. Thus, the analyzed material does not give factual support to Engels’s concept of the state.
Service’s concept of chiefdom (see above) is more consistent with the available data. The hereditary character of Mulavarman’s power is proved by his father’s title ‘a founder of a dynasty’. The fact that he called himself king, made donations to priests and subordinated to himself other local rulers is beyond doubt and can be interpreted as an evidence of the existence of inequality and centralized management (without the latter it is impossible to be at war). As the inscriptions tell nothing about the administrative personnel separated from the person of the king, one of the attributes of chiefdom according to the Service’s scheme remains doubtful. I have already cited arguments in favour of the existence of social differentiation. Wars undertaken by Mulavarman, confirm, on their part, the success of his policy. At the same time, the absence of his successors who would leave inscriptions makes this last premise rather hypothetic.
The first two of five attributes of the chiefdom offered by Claessen and Skalnik (see above) seem to be inextricably interwoven and probably call for the retrospective analysis, i.e. consideration of situation before and after the emergence of such political entity. No other inscriptions of the 1st millenium A.D. from territory of Borneo are known. Some scholars explain it by referring to the limited opportunities for conducting irrigated agriculture44. In any
case, the early political structure broke up. The third attribute of Claessen’s and Skalnik’s theory cannot be verified on the available materials. Only one of the seven inscriptions mentions the subjugation of other ‘kings’ by Mulavarman, therefore, tribute was not the main source of the king’s income. As to the uniform ideology, it was formed or began to be formed since Mulavarman’s records mention only the king and no gods or deities; it is quite probable that the king was considered as an owner of a specific force/power similar to Polynesian Mana.
In 1986 H. Kulke used the concept of chiefdom to characterize the Borneo society. He investigated the terminology of Mulavarman’s inscriptions: “[Mulavarman] defeated other landlords (parthiva) and made them ‘tribute givers’ (kara-da). The use of the title parthiva in this connection seems to be very significant. Of course, it is often translated as ‘prince’ or even ‘king’. But more than most other conventional royal titles, parthiva has the original meaning of a landholder (parthiva = earthly, coming from earth). Parthiva thus designates exactly the local landlord whom we know from Java as raka. Mulavarman obviously had defeated several of them in his neighbourhood, but he confirmed them in their legitimate local rights on the condition that they ‘give’ (da) tribute (kara)”45. The latter statement raises some doubts since it remains unknown how regular this tribute was and whether the submission of the parthiva to Mulavarman lasted long. As we have no data on Borneo of the 1st millenium A.D. except the inscriptions of Mulavarman, these relations between him and various parthiva were probably short-lived.
At the same time, Kulke’s theory is more complex as it changed in some respect. In the beginning he offered the concept of ‘Early Kingdom’: “The early State which emerged from this struggle between several ‘nuclear areas’ and their ‘men of prowess’ will be called the Early Kingdom. Its leader usually acquired a new title, e.g. Raja or even Maharaja. But, despite the various royal paraphernalia which surrounded these new Rajas and their courts, they remained basically primT inter pares among the local leaders throughout this period. The structural weakness of this political system was the precarious position of Raja. His tributary chiefs outside his own nuclear area were often of the same stock and had therefore, at least theoretically, the same chances to become a Raja once they were able to prove their own ‘prowess’. Political system of these ‘early kingdoms’ was characterized by a ‘multiplicity’ of local political centers and shifting loyalties of their leaders, particularly at the periphery of their system”46. Keeping in mind these theoretical premises, Kulke in 1991 already believed the inscriptions of Mulavarman show the transition from chiefdom to the early kingdom47. He also thought brahmanas are mentioned in these sources under their own name but it seems to be problematic (see above). Another circumstance is more important: the description of ‘the early kingdom’ which Kulke considered as the state, de facto coincides with Service’s definition of the chiefdom. As a result, the polity of Mulavarman can be interpreted either as a state (Kulke) or as chiefdom (Wisseman Christie).
As for other interpretations of the state, it is difficult to prove the existence of the three-level (national, regional, local) sociopolitical organization which is an attribute of this political form in the second definition of Claessen and Vasiliev’s theory. Since Mulavarman’s records mention no officials, Wright’s interpretation of the state is hardly applicable to these empirical data. Johnson’s and Earle’s approach does not enable to describe the political organization of early Borneo as its population was too scanty. Thus, according to the definitions of the state elaborated by Engels, Johnson and Earle, and Wright, the polity of Mulavarman was not a state.
Let me pass to the Sanskrit epigraphy from West Java dated palaeographically to the 5th century A.D. as well as the inscriptions from Borneo. The inscriptions mention the king of Tarumanagara (<*taRum ‘indigo’) named Purnavarman and were found in the province of Batavia (modern Djakarta)48. Three of them (Ci-Aruton, Jambu and Kebon Kopi) bear the image of footprints: in two cases of Purnavarman himself and in one (Kebon Kopi) of his elephant. The inscription from Tugu speaks about the digging of the canal (‘river’) and does not contain any images, which would be compared with the footprints from the other records. The fifth inscription found in 1949 in the bed of the river Cidanghyang refers to the footprints
of the king49, as well as the texts from Ci-Aruton and Jambu (unfortunately, it has remained inaccessible to me). Two more inscriptions are not readable50.
From the point of view of political organization, the remarks on the polity of Mulavarman can be safely applied to that ruled by Purnavarman. First, the analyzed texts do not mention any officials or dignitaries. It turns out to be a common feature of this group of inscriptions and the ones of Mulavarman from East Borneo. But the records of Purnavarman differ from later epigraphy of Sumatra and Java (e.g., from the well-known Telaga Batu-II inscription dated to the 7th century and being a major source on the history of Qrivijaya51), where officials are mentioned. Kulke also makes distinction between Borneo and Western Java of the 5th century. One can find only one term — pura — in the inscriptions of Mulavarman, while the records of Purnavarman contain three terms: nagara, purT and gibira. The Sanskrit term pura/purT, as well as nagara, has the first meaning ‘town, city’, but possesses also the secondary meanings: ‘castle, fortress, stronghold’52. A predecessor of Purnavarman, Pinabahu is called ‘the overlord of kings’ (rajadhiraja). The term gibira means ‘camp’. Kulke translates it as ‘cantonment’ and defines it as‘kraton' — a residence of the ruler, and purT as ‘famous city’. But the most important observation of Kulke is the following: ‘Only the term nagara occurs in connection with TBruma and the polities of its defeated enemies’ (arinagara); thus, ‘Purnavarman, in spite of his conquest, remains primus inter pares, ruling over his own nagara as his enemies (ari) did in their own nagara’53. Kulke also notices that such usage of the term nagara “may be understood as an indication that the spatial concept of the state in the 5th century Java was primarily ‘city’-centered”54. He holds that Purnavarman’s society was a state, following his concept of ‘the early kingdom’.
The hereditary clan hierarchy of leaders in the society of Purnavarman is testified by the mention of ‘senior relative (guru) Pinabahu’ in the Tugu inscription. The reference to ‘the camp of the grandfather of a royal wise man’ also seems to be confirmative. Since Purnavarman is called ‘king’, one can speak about social inequality. Brahmanas are mentioned under their own name. The Tugu inscription is rather important for our study, therefore I shall give it completely:
[1] Pura rajadhirajena guruna pinabahuna
Khata khyatam puri[m] prapya candrabhagarnnavam yayau ||
Pravarddhamanadvavim gadvatsarah erigunaujasa Narendradhvajabhutena [3] erimata purnnavarmmana ||
Prarabhya phalgune masi khata krsnastamitithau Caitraguklatrayodagyam dinais siddhaikavimgakai[h]
[4] Ayata satsahasrena dhanusa[m] sa gatena ca Dvavimgena nadi ramya gomati nirmalodaka ||
Pitamahasya rajarserbbidaryya gibiravanim
[5] Brahmakairggosahasrena prayati krtadaksinah ||
Translation of H.B. Sarkar (with corrections): ‘Formerly, the CandrabhBga dug by the overlord of kings, the senior relative Pinabahu, having reached the glorified town (a fortress?) (purT), has come to the ocean. In the twenty-second year of his augmenting [reign] by the illustrious Purnavarman, who became the foremost of the rulers of men (narendra) on account of the lustre of auspicious qualities, was dug the charming river Gomati, of pure water, in length six-thousand one hundred and twenty-two dhanus, having begun in on the eight day of the dark half if the month Phalguna and completed it in twenty-one days, on the thirteenth day of the bright half of (the month) Caitra. It proceeds, dividing the ground with the fortified camp of the grandfather of a royal wise man with the brahmanas with the gift of a thousand cows’55.
According to Noorduyn and Verstappen, the water works were undertaken for the control over the river in order to prevent flooding. These works consisted in changing the direction of the river course from northern to northeast56. Noorduyn and Verstappen did not discuss the question of manpower resources. It is worth noting that such action did not necessarily demand the bureaucratic staff since simple cooperation of some communities could take place.
On the ground of a geomorphologic analysis, Noorduyn and Verstappen concluded that the royal settlement was situated between Tugu and the modern port Tanjung Priok57. Could Purnavarman undertake the irrigation works? It seems to be unlikely since the ladang (dry agriculture) system dominated on West Java up to the 19th century58. K. Hall notices: ‘Western Java’s dry agriculture population was more mobile and was capable of escaping the grasp of oppressive court elite.’59. It explains the absence of other inscriptions in this area, which would be dated from the time after Purnavarman, up to 10th century A.D.60 The change of the river course may be considered as a result of the decision-making for resolving a problem, important for all the society/societies involved, because the deficiency in water (as well as its abundance) prevents the successful economic development. Inaccessibility of harbour to overseas merchants also does not give an opportunity for trade development.
At the same time, the Javanese inscriptions of the 5th century do not contain any information about the territorial division and taxes. It gives no possibility to apply to this empirical data the concepts of the state offered by Engels, Vasiliev, Johnson and Earle. As one cannot be sure that there were officials in the polity of Purnavarman it does not seem advisable to characterize it by means of Wright’s interpretation of the state. However, some scholars believe the polity of TBruma is mentioned under the name of To-lo-ma in the Chinese chronicles. In 666-669 A.D. it sent several missions to China61. Though this circumstance can be interpreted as a sign of stability of the political structure, I think these missions to China indicate only that there were leaders who thought it was necessary to send them. Chinese chronicles tell nothing about the status of these rulers. These embassies also could be sporadic individual acts. Moreover, the external (diplomatic) connections do not necessarily imply that their participants are the states in their political organization. It is well attested by the history of nomads. Kradin wrote: “Similarity of the steppe empires to the state is clearly revealed only in their relations with the external world. [It includes] (the military-hierarchical structure of nomadic societies for the withdrawal of the prestigious products and the goods from their neighbours as well as for the restraint of external pressure; the international sovereignty, specific ceremonial in the foreign policy relations)”62. Therefore, one may define Purnavarman’s society as chiefdom according to the conception of Service. But Kulke thinks that this polity was ‘an early kingdom’, i.e. the state of his conception.
Now I would like to inquire in brief into the political organization of Qrivijaya. Its inscriptions from Sumatra written in Old Malay and in an unknown, probably Proto-Malagasy language, are dated to the end of 7th century A.D. The well-known Sanskrit Ligor inscription dated to 775 A.D. also mentions the ruler of Qrivijaya63. For a long time Qrivijaya was often described as a ‘state’, ‘empire’ and ‘kingdom’ 4. A closer inspection of the Qrivijayan political structure is, however, highly desirable.
One of the most important fragments of the famous Telaga Batu-II inscription (further — TB-2) is the list of participants in the oath ceremony which included the drinking of ritual water (minum sumpah). ‘Kamu vanak=mamu rajaputra prostara bhupati senapati nayaka pratyaya hajipratyaya dandanayaka ... murddhaka tuha an vatak=vuruh addhyaksi nijavarna vasikarana kumaramatya catabhata adhikarana karmma ... kayastha sthapaka puhavam vaniyaga pratisara da ..kamu marsi haji hulun=haji vanak=mamu uram nivinuh sumpah’ (lines 3-5)65. De Casparis offered the following translation: ‘[3] All of you, as many as you are, — sons of kings, ... chiefs, army commanders, nayaka, pratyaya, confidants (?) of the king, judges, [4] chiefs of ...(?), surveyors of groups of workmen, surveyors of low-castes, cutlers, kumaramatya, catabhata, adhikarana, ... clerks, sculptors, naval captains, merchants, commanders, . and you — , [5] washermen of king and slaves of the king, — all of you will be killed by the curse of (this) imprecation’.
The terms yuvaraja, pratiyuvaraja and rajakumara designate categories of princes: the crown prince, the second crown prince and other princes respectively66. De Casparis admits that the meaning of the first word in the list, i.e. rajaputra ‘children of kings’, is fairly diffuse and varies depending on place and time. However, he believes it refers either to the children of king born by concubines or to vassal princes67. The second word of the list prostara is not clear.
The ambivalence of the term bhüpati in Sanskrit does not enable to define its exact meaning in the narrow context of the TB-2. It could mean ‘a vassal’, although the term ‘chief’ was used in translation68. Concerning the following five terms: senapati, nayaka, pratyaya, hajipratyaya, dandanayaka — the historian emphasized that neither the former, nor the latter cause any difficulties in interpretation, denoting an army commander and a judge respectively. De Casparis kept the nayaka and the pratyaya in his translation but assumed that they could be the lowest officials, for instance, taxation officers and/or lower district officers69. The word haji-pratyaya consisting of the Indonesian and Sanskrit roots is tentatively translated as ‘the confidants of the king’. The variant ‘royal sheriffs’ was given in the introduction to this inscription.
De Casparis believes the term mürdhaka denotes a leader of a certain group of people, and translates this word as ‘a chief of770. But this interpretation is very doubtful. First, there is a lacuna in the inscription before this word. Second, it means ‘ksatriya’ in Sanskrit71. Tuha an vatak=vuruh and adhyaksi nocavarna mean ‘surveyors of groups of workmen’ and ‘surveyors of low castes’; vasikarana is ‘a cutler’72. The terms kumaramatya, catabhata, adhikarana were not translated by De Casparis. Following M. De and K.P. Jayasval, the scholar holds that kumaramatya means ‘a minister of not royal blood, but on account of merits considered by royal decree as an equal of a prince’73. The translation of amatya ‘a minister’ seems to be unconvincing. It is more likely ‘an associate, a companion’74. The other terms of the TB-2 list do not cause special difficulties. ‘We meet there with clerks (kayastha), architects (sthapaka), shippers (puhavam), merchants (vaniyaga), commanders (pratisaraj, royal washermen (marso haji if our translation is correct) and royal slaves (hulun=haji)’ . At the same time, in the translation of the TB-2 sthapaka ‘architects’ are turned to ‘sculptors’, and puhavam ‘shippers’ are converted into ‘naval captains’76.
Thus, the existence of the administrative personnel in Crivijaya is well attested. But there is a question of the structure of the polity and the position of administration in it. All the available data can be summarized as follows. First, the TB-2 inscription contains the curse to all those who breach the oath. K. Hall compares this source with the other Old Malay texts (the inscriptions from Kota Kapur 686 A.D. from the island of Bangka, Karang Brahi and Palas Pasemah from Sumatra). He rightly points out that, despite the uniform content — the punishment for high treason — in the majority of inscriptions the rebels should be punished by deity, while in the TB-2 inscription by the king himself77. ‘The distinction suggested by these inscriptions, is that near the center of the Crivijaya king’s domain his power was direct, yet in the state’s hinterland the king was forced to emphasize the more theoretical and mythical aspects of his kingship because his power would seem to have been less direct’78.
Second, there is no evidence that all peoples who recognized the power of the monarch of Crivijaya were under direct administrative control. My arguments are follows. The ruler of Crivijaya is often called in the texts not only haji ‘king’ or dapunta hiyang (hiyang is ‘god’) but also datu (a traditional Malayan title ‘a chief’). The TB-2 inscription and other texts of the 7th century mention people denoted as datu, and subjugated to the datu of Crivijaya who seems to be, therefore, primus inter pares. Moreover, it seems unlikely that the officials from the centre of Crivijaya (its kadatuan) could carry out a strict control over the areas subjected to other datus. The inscription of Kota Kapur from the island of Bangka mentions only the datu of Crivijaya and other datus but no officials79. The Crivijayan ‘king of kings’ is also called bhüpati in the Ligor inscription80. The term bhüpati in the TB-2 inscription refers to a non-royal dignitary and is translated by De Casparis as ‘a chief’. Probably, in the 8th century the monarch of Crivijaya remained the first among equals. In any case, the inscriptions of this polity refer to the only means of its protection from the internal enemy — the curse to the perjurers. Hence, the administrative personnel do not imply the integration of all territories under the power of uniform government.
One of the most intriguing aspects of the history of Crivijaya is how its inhabitants conceptualized their own political organization. De Casparis writes: “An interesting expression not yet known from the other Crivijaya inscriptions is huluntuhanku, apparently meaning ‘my empire’ (lines 7, 11, 12, 14, 17 and 23); the literary meaning seems to be: ‘my
slaves (hulun) and lords (tuhan), implying classification of the subjects into two large groups, either slaves and free man or, more probably, the common people and the ruling class, the former comprising also the population of the conquered territories”81. On the same page De Casparis translates the term kadatuan as ‘kraton ’. But on page 18 he notices that kadatuan means ‘empire’ as a whole which is divided into the great number of mandalas, and the meaning of the Old Javanese term «keraton» (royal residence) cannot be applied to kadatuan. According to the scholar, the relation between the datu and kadatuan is not direct: the first ruled a mandala. But Coedes holds that the king appointed datu everyone from whom should rule kadatuan 82. As De Casparis translates two different Old Malay words by the only term ‘empire' his theory seems to contain an inner contradiction. It should be emphasized, however, that the term huluntuhanku ‘my slaves and lords' refers to private connections (bonds) between the ruler and his subjects, instead of territorial or other formal connections. Besides, Van Naerssen considers kraton and kadatuan as synonyms meaning the place of the ruler83.
O.W. Wolters tried to elaborate the theory of mandala and to describe Qrivijaya by means of this concept84. But the only case of the usage of this word in the TB-2 inscription gives no such possibility. The phrase sakalamandalaca kadatuanku ‘you, who protect all the provinces of my kadatuan’ refers to the territories small in size85. Also the term mandala never occurred together with the name QrTvijaya. Therefore to define the polity of Qrivijaya as a whole (and even its kadatuan only) by means of the term mandala seems to be unconvincing.
H. Kulke thinks the unity of the Qrivijayan kadatuan and the areas subjected to other datus was designated by the Sanskrit term bhumi ‘a land, earth; kingdom, country’86. But a drawback of his theory is that the term QrTvijaya never occurs together with the term bhumi. But we find the expressions ‘kadatuan QrTvijaya’ in the inscriptions from Kedukan Bukit, Kota Kapur, Palas Pasemah and Bungkuk and ‘vanua QrTvijaya’ in the texts from Kota Kapur and Karang Brahi87. Vanua means ‘a community, inhabitant land and country’88. In any case, it is obvious that the authors of these records did not need the special way to designate the unity of kadatuan and the dependent lands.
Applying the selected concepts of the state to the epigraphy from Sumatra, the administrative staff in the kadatuan of Qrivijaya and social stratification implies that one may define the kadatuan as a state according to its concept of Wright. The mention of slaves of the king (hulunhaji) would even testify to a class differentiation in the Marxist sense of the word though it seems to be unconvincing as the term huluntuhanku ‘my slaves and lords’ covers, probably, all those who were subjected to the king of Qrivijaya. The fragmental inscription which was found near Palembang at a place called Telaga Batu (Telaga Batu-1) contains a curious expression neta maddasasenayah ‘commander of an army of my slaves’ 9. This fact probably testifies that the term hulun must not be interpreted as having connotation of social group in the Marxist sense of the word. Concerning a territorial division in Qrivijaya, i.e. one of the necessary features of Engels’s concept of the state, the inscriptions contain the Sanskrit term dega which designated separate regions and is interpreted by S. Kullanda as an indication of territorial division90. But this latter thesis raises some doubts. The only case of usage of this Sanskrit term in the TB-2 does not imply the existence of territorial division in Qrivijaya: ‘.if (such) (making crazy. — A.Z.) actions (of other persons) are known to you in your region (dega)...’91. The Sanskrit term dega means ‘place, land, earth, country, state, kingdom, area, and region’92. Thus, the meaning of dega in the TB-2 inscription is not quite clear. We can translate this passage as ‘.if such actions are known to you in your country’, or ‘your land’, or even ‘your kingdom’. The list of persons who took the oath to the ruler of Qrivijaya does not mention degadhyaksa (see above). Hence, the term dega itself does not point to the existence of territorial division.
The finance of Qrivijaya is practically unknown. The Chinese text of Chau Ju-kua dated to the 13th century contains a negative mention: ‘Local people . pay neither a rent payment-ch’iu, nor the land tax-fu’ (translation of M. Ulianov)93. It is difficult to say whether this information can be extrapolated for earlier time. K Hall holds that the king was connected with taxes referring to the idiom dandaku danda of the TB-2 inscription. De Casparis
interpreted it as ‘are fined by me with fine’, but omitted it in his translation of the inscription94. The scholar, however, pointed out that it differs greatly from the main intention of the graver sentences which ‘almost always death, pronounced against most of the criminals’. It also should be emphasized that only the TB-2 inscription contains this quite strange idiom. In any case, fine is not tax.
As the TB-2 inscription mentions ‘an army (vala) which will undertake a punitive expedition’95, one would conclude that Qrivijaya was a state, according to Engels’ definition. But what was this army and what were the principles of its organization? Such knowledge is contained only in some Chinese chronicles. Certainly, these sources are dated to later times but one may rely on them in this respect since all medieval maritime Malay societies enjoyed homogeneous economy based on trade and piracy. Chau Ju-kua writes: ‘The people either lived scattered about outside the city, or on the water on rafts of boards covered over with reeds, and these are exempt from taxation. They are skilled at fighting on land or water. When they are about to make war on another state they assemble and send forth such a force at the occasion demands. They (then) appoint chiefs and leaders, and all provide their own military equipment and the necessary provisions. In facing the enemy and craving death they have not their equal among nations’9 . Chou-k’u-fen, whose monograph is dated to 1178, refers to the same people’s custom to appoint chiefs and leaders97. Hence the Qrivijaya’s monarch did not have the monopoly on armed forces: the people were an army in one and the same time. Thus, Qrivijaya cannot be described as a state according to its definition of Engels.
The weakness of links between the kadatuan of Qrivijaya and the polities of other datus (because the monarch of Qrivijaya was only primus inter pares, see above) gives no possibility to suppose that Qrivijaya had three levels of administrative control. Hence, it cannot be described as a state according to the theories of Johnson and Earle and Vasiliev. As for Claessen’s theory of early state98, it also raises some doubts. Certainly, some attributes of this political form may be attested in Qrivijaya but such important attribute as tributary relations or obligation to pay taxes (see above) is not testified. Moreover, the only available evidence (Chao Ju-kua) is negative. According to Claessen and Skalnik, another attribute of the early state is the production system providing a regular and reasonably stable surplus. A carefully elaborated complex of irrigation canals and tanks near the hill Bukit Seguntang is well-known. These constructions are dated to the second half of the 1st Millennium A.D.99 But it is not quite clear whether a surplus was regular and reasonably stable. At least, the archaeological map of Sumatra demonstrates the absence of monumental temple construction in comparison with Java, and it probably implies that the manpower which was in disposal of the Qrivijayan ruler was limited in considerable degree. It conforms to our thesis that the datu of Qrivijaya was only primus inter pares.
The concept of ‘empire’ which was often applied to Qrivijaya was criticized by the Soviet scholars Kozlova, Sedov, and Tiurin100. They wrote: “Unlike ‘irrigation societies’ where the tendency to formation of the uniform apparatus of official management covered all the territory of the state .in nagaras such an apparatus existed only in the center. .in the case when the growth of nagara took place (Fu-nan of the 3rd century, Qrivijaya of the 7th-10th centuries), it became not an empire covering extensive spaces and aspiring to create the centralized management personnel, but a thalassocracy, dominating on the major sea routs owing to its fleet and contenting with sometimes pure formal dependence of the majority of its possessions. . apparently, Malayan possessions of Qrivijaya also enjoyed significant independence, for example, the nagara Langkasuka, which arose in the 1st-2n centuries A.D. and then became a part of Qrivijaya, is again mentioned as an independent state down to the 13th century”101. Recently Kulke and Manguin also rejected the thesis about the empire of Qrivijaya .
Thus, the kadatuan of Qrivijaya was a state according to its definition offered by Wright and was not such according to the theories of Engels, Johnson and Earle, Vasiliev, and Claessen and Skalnik. Some of the existing concepts of the state were accepted as working hypotheses and were compared to the empirical data. The societies of SEA of the 5th — 7t
centuries are well described by some of them and, on the contrary, cannot be characterized by others. The scholar depending on what approach s/he assumes can represent differently the genesis of statehood in this region (as sequence of political forms in SEA will be reconstructed in completely different ways). My research did not pretend to prove which of the definitions of the state is true. De facto, I only tried to show the plurality of probable approaches and the ways of their functioning in historiographic process. I believe this manifold of diverse theories gives us a possibility of deeper understanding of social phenomena.
NOTES
1. Engels F. The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State: In the Light of the Researches of Lewis H. Morgan. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1972. P. 166.
2. For more detail see: Berger P., & T. Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality: a Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1966.
3. Berger P. & T. Luckmann. Op. cit. P. 72.
4. Johnson A.W., & T. Earle. The Evolution of Human Societies. From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Stanford (California): Stanford University Press, 1987. P. 246.
5. Marcus J., & K. Flannery. Zapotec Civilization: How Urban Society Evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. London: Thames & Hudson, 1996. P. 157.
6. Istoriya drevnego Vostoka. Zarojdenie drevneishih klassovyh obstchestv i pervye shagi rabovladel’cheskoy tsivilisazii (History of the ancient Orient. The Origin of the most ancient class societies and the first steps of slave-owning system civilization), T. 1. Mesopotamia, ed. by I.M. Diakonoff. Moscow: ‘Nauka’ Publishing House, 1983. P. 139.
7. Wright H.T. Recent Research on the Origin of the State // Annual Review of Anthropology. Vol. 6. 1977. P. 383.
8. Ibid. P. 381.
9. Spenser Ch. Politicheskaya ekonomiya stanovleniya pervichnogo gosudarstva (Political economy of the pristine state origin) // Al’ternativnye puti k tsivilizatii (Alternative pathways to civilization). Moscow: Logos, 2000. P. 139.
10. Wright H.T. Op. cit. P. 381.
11. Bloch M. La Société Féodale. P.: Editions Albin Michel, 1968; Leliukhin D.Y.Kontseptsia ideal’nogo tsarstva v ‘Arthashastre’ Kautilyi i problema struktury drevneindiyskogo gosudarstva (the conception of ideal kingdom in the ‘Arthaçâstra’ of Kautilïya and the problem of structure of the ancient Indian state) // Gosudarstvo v istorii obstchestva (k probleme kriteriev gosudarstvennosti) (The State in history of society (to the problem of the criteria of the statehood)). 2nd ed., revised and enlarged. Moscow: Institute for Oriental Studies, 2001. P. 9-148.
12. The Early State /ed. by H.J.M. Claessen, & P. Skalnik. The Hague: Mouton, 1978. P. 640.
13. Claessen H.J.M. How Unique was Srivijaya? // Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde. Deel 151. 3e aufl. 1995. P. 444-445.
14. ServiceE. Origins of the State and Civilization. N.Y.: Norton, 1975.P.XIII.
15. Claessen H.J.M. Was the State Inevitable? // The Early State, its Alternatives and Analogues /ed. by L.E. Grinin, R.L. Carneiro, D.M. Bondarenko, N.N. Kradin, A.V. Korotayev. Volgograd: ‘Uchitel’ Publishing House, 2004. P. 74.
16. The Early State. P. 4; Claessen H.J.M. Was the State Inevitable. P. 73.
17. Wisseman Christie J. State Formation in Early Maritime Southeast Asia. A Consideration of the Theories and the Data // Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde. Deel 151. 2e Aufl. 1995. P. 237; Hagesteijn R.R. Circles of Kings. Political Dynamics in Early Continental Southeast Asia: Proefschrift ter Verkrijging van de Graad van Doctor in de Sociale Weten-schappen aan de Rijksuniversiteit. s’Gravenhage, 1985. P. 107.
18. Service E. Primitive Social Organization. N.Y.: Random House, 1962; Service E. Origins of the State and Civilization.; Wittfogel K.A. Oriental Despotism. A Comparative Study of Total Power. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957.
19. Vasiliev L.S. Istoriya Vostoka (History of the Orient). T. 1. Moscow: ‘Vysshaya shkola’ Publishing House, 1993.
20. Vasiliev L.S. Op. cit. P. 75-76.
21. Ibid. P. 71.
22. Ibid. P. 223.
23. Marx K. Grundrisse. Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, translated with a Foreword by M. Nicolaus. N.Y.: Vintage Books (a Division of Random House), 1973. P. 265.
24. See, for example: Driver G.R., & J.C. Miles. The Babylonian Laws. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955-1956; Yale Oriental Series. Babylonian Texts. Vol. VIII. Faust D.E. Contracts from Larsa Dated in the Reign of Rim-Sin. New Haven: Yale University press; London: Oxford University press, 1941.
25. For more detail see: Earle T. Chiefdoms in Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Perspective //Annual Review of Anthropology. Vol. 16. 1987. P. 279-308; Kradin N.N.Vojdestvo: sovremennoe sostoyanie i problemy izucheniya’ (Chiefdom: Current state of research problems) // Rannie formy politicheskoy organizatsii (ot pervobytnosti k gosudarstvennosti) (The Early Forms of Political Organization: from the Primitiveness to the Statehood). Moscow: ‘Vostochnaya Literatura’ Publishing House, 1995. P. 11-61.
26. Service E. Origins of the State and Civilization. P. 16.
27. The Study of the State / ed. by H.J.M. Claessen, & P. Skalnik. The Hague: Mouton, 1981. P. 491.
28. Coedes G. The Indianized States of Southeast Asia, ed. by W.F. Vella, translated by S. Brown Cowing. Honolulu, Hawaii: East-West Center Press, 1968; Krom N.J.Hindoe-Javaansche Geschiedenis. 2nd ed. s’-Gravenhage: Nijhoff, 1931; Hall D.G.E. A History of South-East Asia. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 1964; Slamet-VelsinkI.E. Emerging Hierarchies: Processes of Stratification and Early State Formation in the Indonesian Archipelago: Prehistory and the Ethnographic Present. [Ph.D. thesis, Leiden University], 1986.
29. Vogel J.Ph. The Yüpa Inscriptions of king Mülavarman, from Koetei (East Borneo) // Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde. Deel 74. 1918. P. 167-232; Chhabra B.Ch. Expansion of Indo-Aryan Culture During the Pallava Rule (as evidenced by inscriptions). Delhi: Munshi Ram Manohar Lal, 1965. P. 85-92.
30. Vogel J.Ph. The Yüpa inscriptions. P. 212-213; Chhabra B.Ch. Expansion of Indo-Aryan Culture. Pl. 8.
31. Naerssen F.H. van, & R.C. de Jongh. The Economic and Administrative History of Early Indonesia. Leiden-Köln: Brill, 1977. P. 18-21; Casparis J.C. de, & I.W. Mabbett. Religion and Popular Beliefs of Southeast Asia before c. 1500 // The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia. Vol. I. From Early Times to c. 1500 /ed. by N. Tarling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. P. 305.
32. Vasiliev L.S. Op. cit. P. 50f.
33. Wisseman Christie J. State Formation. P. 261.
34. Vogel J.Ph. The Yüpa inscriptions. P. 214.
35. Wisseman Christie J.Op. cit. P. 261-262.
36. Chhabra B.Ch. Op. cit. P. 90-92, pl. 13.
37. Ibid. P. 91.
38. Monier-Williams M. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary etymologically and philologically arranged with the special reference to cognate Indo-European languages. Oxford: Clarendon press (1st ed. — 1899), 1951. P. 621, col. 3.
39. Ibid. P. 567, col. 3.
40. Kulke H. The Early and Imperial Kingdoms in Southeast Asian History // Southeast Asia in the 9th to 14th Centuries /ed. by D.G. Marr and A.C. Millner. Singapore: ISEAS and Australian National University, 1986. P. 6.
41. Monier-Williams M. Op. cit. P. 254, col. 3.
42. Ibid. P. 972-973.
43. Böhtlingk O. Sanskrit-Wörterbuch in kürzerer Fassung. T. VI. 1886. St. Petersburg:
Buchdruckerei der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. S. 103. The problem of vipra was artificially complicated by some scholars. The inscriptions of Mülavarman do not mention brähmanas under their own name. Chatterje interpreted the term vipra as a designation of brähmanas. See: Chatterji B.R. History of Indonesia. Early and Medieval. 3rd ed. Meerut: Meenakshi Prakashan, 1967. P. 116, 122-124. But Vogel and Chhabra used the concept ‘priest’. See: Vogel J.Ph. The Yüpa inscriptions. P. 214-215; Chhabra B.Ch. Op. cit. P. 89-92. Chatterji translated the term vipra as ‘brähmana’ following his general idea of the transference of civilization to Borneo from India by representatives of the first varna. The term dvijä ‘twice-born’ from the 12th line of the inscription A [Vogel, 1918, p. 213, n. 9] favours Chatterji’s hypothesis as it is sometimes applied to brähmanas. But the meaning ‘priest’ seems to reflect the role of the potlatch ceremony participants more adequately.
44. Kullanda S.V.Genesis gosudarstvennosti u narodov Zapadnoy Indonesii. Shrividjaya’ (Genesis of statehood of peoples of Western Indonesia. £rivijaya) // Istoriya Vostoka (History of the Orient), T. II. Vostok v srednie veka (The Orient in the Middle Ages). Moscow: ‘Vostochnaya Literatura’ Publishing House, 1995. P. 216; Ng, Ronald C.Y. The Geographical Habitat of Historical Settlement in Mainland Southeast Asia // Early South East Asia. Essays in Archaeology, History and Historical Geography /ed. by R.B. Smith, & W. Watson. New York-Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University press, 1979.
45. Kulke H. The Early and Imperial Kingdoms. P. 6.
46. Ibid. P. 7.
47. Kulke H. Epigraphical References to the “City” and the “State” an Early Indonesia // Indonesia. Deel 52. 1991. P. 4f.
48. Vogel J.Ph. The Earliest Sanskrit Inscriptions of Java. Batavia: Publicaties van den Oudheidkundigen Dienst in Nederlandsch-Indrn, 1925. P. 15-35; Chhabra B.Ch. Op. cit. P. 93-97, pl. 14-18; Sarkar H.B. Corpus of the Inscriptions of Java (Corpus Inscriptionum Java-nicarum) (up to 928 A.D.). Vol. I. Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay, 1971.
49. Wisseman Christie J.Op. cit. P. 257-258; Van Naerssen F. & R.C. de Jongh. Op. cit. P. 23, n. 50.
50. Sarkar H.B. Op. cit. P. 1.
51. Casparis J.C. de, 1956, Prasasti Indonesia. Selected Inscriptions from the 7th to the 9th century A.D. Vol. II. Bandung: MasaBaru, 1956. P. 15-46.
52. Monier-Williams M. Op. cit. P. 635, col. 2-3; Bqhtlingk O. Op. cit. T. IV, 1883. S. 97: Burg, eine befestige Stadt, Stadt.
53. Kulke H. Epigraphical References to the “City” and the “State”. P. 6-7.
54. Ibid. P. 7.
55. Sarkar H.B. Op. cit. P. 6.
56. Noorduyn J., & H.Th. Verstappen. Pürnavarman’s River-works near Tugu // Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde. Deel 128. 1972. Aufl. 2/3. P. 298-307.
57. Ibid. P. 305-306.
58. Van Naerssen F., & R.C. de Jongh. Op. cit. P. 28; Kano, Hiroyoshi. Land Tenure System and the Desa Community in Nineteenth-Century Java. Tokyo: Institute of Developing Economies. (Special Paper, № 5), 1977.
59. Hall K. Maritime Trade and State Development in Early Southeast Asia. Honolulu: Hawaii University Press,1985. P. 105.
60. Van Naerssen F., & R.C. de Jongh. Op. cit. P. 25.
61. Coedes G.The Indianized States. P. 53-54.
62. Kradin N.N. Kochevniki, mir-imperii i social’naya evolutsiya (Nomads, world-empires, and social evolution) // Al’ternativnye puti k tsivilizatii (Alternative pathways to civilization). Moscow: Logos, 2000. P. 329.
63. De Casparis J.C. Op. cit. P. 1-46; Coedes G. Le Royaume de £rivijaya // Bulletin de l’Ecole Francaise d’Extreme Orient. T. 18-6. 1918. P. 1-36; Coedes G. Les Inscriptions malaises de £rivijaya // Bulletin de l’Ecole Francaise d’Extreme Orient. T. 30. 1930. P. 29-80.
64. Coedes G. Le Royaume de £rivijaya...; Coedes G. The Indianized States...; Ferrand G.
L’Empire Sumatranais de Çrïvijaya // Journal Asiatique. 11 sér. T. 20. 1922. P. 1-104, 161-246; Nilakanta Sastri K.A. History of Sro Vijaya (Sir William Meyer Lectures, 1946-1947). Madras: University of Madras, 1949; Majumdar R.C. Hindu Colonies in the Far East. 2nd ed. Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mudhopadhyay, 1963; Chatterji B.R. Op. cit.
65. De Casparis J.C. Op. cit. P. 32.
66. Ibid. P. 17-18.
67. Ibid. P. 19.
68. Ibid. P. 19, 37, n. 4.
69. Ibid. P. 19, 37, n. 5, 6.
70. Ibid. P. 19-20, 37.
71. BöhtlingkO. Op. cit. T. V, 1884. S. 95.
72. De Casparis J.C. Op. cit. P. 20, 32, n. 6, 37, n. 8.
73. Ibid. 1956, p. 20.
74. Leliukhin D.N.Op. cit. P. 23-24.
75. De Casparis J.C. Op. cit. P. 20
76. Ibid. P. 37.
77. This thesis of K. Hall, probably, has a serious drawback as the monarch of Çrïvijaya bore the
title dapunta hiyang where hiyang meant ‘a god’, and, therefore, the ruler was considered as a
god or, at least, a person of divine origin. But K. Hall’s reflection corresponds to my
hypothesis about the status of the Çrïvijayan ruler (see below).
78. Hall K. State and Statecraft in Early Srivijaya // Explorations in Early Southeast Asian History: The Origins of Southeast Asian Statecraft /ed. by K. Hall & J.K. Whitmore. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, 1976. P. 69.
79. Sriwijaya. History, Religion & Language of an Early Malay Polity. Collected Studies by G. Coedès and L.-Ch. Damais. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1992. P. 54-56.
80. Nilakanta Sastri K.A. Op. cit. P. 120, çloka 6.
81. De Casparis J.C. Op. cit. P. 26.
82. Coedus G. Les Inscriptions malaises de Çrïvijaya... P. 54.
83. Van Naerssen F., & R.C. de Jongh. Op. cit. P. 17, 27.
84. Wolters O.W.History, Culture, and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives. Singapore: Institute for Southeast Asian Studies, 1982. P. 17, 22f.
85. De Casparis J.C. Op. cit. P. 35.
86. Kulke H. Epigraphical References to the “City” and the “State”. P. 10.
87. Nilakanta Sastri K.A. Op. cit. P. 113-116; Sriwijaya... P. VII.
88. Kullanda S.V.Genesis gosudarstvennosti... P. 217; Kullanda S.V.Istoriya drevney Yavy (History of Ancient Java). Moscow: Nauka Publishing House, 1992. P. 80-81.
89. De Casparis J.C. Op. cit. P. 6-7.
90. Kullanda S.V. Genesis gosudarstvennosti... P. 217.
91. De Casparis J.C. Op. cit. P. 34, 42.
92. BöthlingkO. Op. cit. T. III. 1882. S. 120.
93. Chao Ju-kua. ‘Chu Fang Chi’ (1225) (a report on the state of Çrïvijaya), introduction, translation from Chinese into Russian and commentary by M.Yu. Ulianov // Vostok (Oriens). 1996. №6. P. 143.
94. De Casparis J.C. Op. cit. P. 27, 42; Hall K. State and Statecraft in Early Srivijaya. P. 80.
95. De Casparis J.C. Op. cit. P. 46, 45.
96. Hirth F., & W.W. Rockhill. Chau Ju-kua, His work on the Chinese and Arab trade in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, entitled Chu-fan-chi. Saint-Petersburg, 1911. P. 60f.; Nilakanta Sastri K.A. Op. cit. P. 88-89.
97. Ferrand G. L’Empire Sumatranais de Çrïvijaya... P. 16.
98. Claessen H.J.M. How Unique was Srivijaya?
99. McKinnon E.E. Early Polities in Southern Sumatra: Some Preliminary Observations Based on Archaeological Evidence // Indonesia. Deel 40. 1985. P. 1-36.
100. Kozlova M.G., Sedov L.A., & Tiurin V.A. Tipy panneklassovyh obstchestv Yugo-Vostochnoy Asii’ (Types of the early class societies of Southeast Asia), in: Problemy istorii dokapitalis-ticheskih obstchestv (Problems of history of the pre-capitalist societies). Book 1. Moscow: Nauka Publishing House, 1968. P. 516-545.
101. Ibid. P. 528.
102. Kulke H. Epigraphical References to the “City” and the “State”. P. 10; Manguin P.-Y. City-States and City-State Cultures in pre-15th-Century Southeast Asia // A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures. An Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre /ed. by M.H. Hansen. Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzels Forlag, 2000. P. 410-412.
