Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East (Vol. I: Champa; Vol. II: Suvarnadvipa) v2.c13.s2: Appendix
Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East (Vol. I: Champā; Vol. II: Suvarṇadvīpa) v2.c13.s2
- Language
- English
Contents
- v2.c13.s2.t1 § 1 — 15 parts
- v2.c13.s2.t2 § 2 — 652 parts
- v2.c13.s2.t3 Group I.—Malayu (Sumatra) — 1 part
- v2.c13.s2.t4 Group II. Tanjungnagara ( Borneo ) — 1 part
- v2.c13.s2.t5 Group III Pahang (Malay Peninsula) — 3 parts
- v2.c13.s2.t6 Group IV. Eastern Island — 56 parts
- v2.c13.s2.t7 1. West Borneo (Pu-ni) — 2 parts
- v2.c13.s2.t8 2. San-fo-tsi — 2 parts
- v2.c13.s2.t9 3. Sumatra — 3 parts
- v2.c13.s2.t10 4. Malay Peninsula — 71 parts
Appendix
v2.c13.s2.1
¹ This Appendix forms the part of an article published in B.E.F.E.O., Vol. xxxiii, pp. 121-141. On the publication of this and another article (corresponding to Chapter I, Bk. II) M. Coedès contributed an article 'On the origin of the Śailendras' in J. G. I. S., Vol. I, pp. 61ff. Here he modified some of his old views which will be noted in footnotes.
§ 1
v2.c13.s2.t1.1
The present views about the greatness of the Śailendras have been gradually developed during the last twenty years.
v2.c13.s2.t1.2
It was Dr. Coedès who first set the ball rolling. In an article, which has now become almost classic, he sought to prove that Śrī-Vijaya is the original form of the name which has been rendered variously as Fo-Che, Che-li-fo-che, Fo-tsi and San-fo-tsi by the Chinese, and Sribuza by the Arabs. As these places could be positively located at Palembang, Śrī-Vijaya also must be identified with that place.²
v2.c13.s2.t1.3
² B.E.F.E.O., Vol. xviii, No. 6.
v2.c13.s2.t1.4
M. Coedès then naturally inferred from the Ligor Inscription that the authority of Śrī-Vijaya had extended to the northern part of Malay Peninsula by the end of the eighth century A. D. He further assumed that the king of the Śailendra dynasty, referred to in face B of the Ligor Ins., was the same as king of Śrī-Vijaya referred to in face A of that inscription.³
v2.c13.s2.t1.5
³ M. Coedès States : "Although I had not formulated this hypothesis in a sufficiently precise manner in 1918 (i.e. in article referred to in the preceding footnote) I willingly recognise my part of the responsibility for the identification of the Śailendras with the kings of Śrī-Vijaya" (op. cit., p. 64).
v2.c13.s2.t1.6
A Śailendra empire, with Palembang as capital,¹ and including Sumatra and Malay Peninsula, was thus the logical conclusion of M. Coedès' studies. He also regarded as probable the views of Chavannes and Gerini, that this empire was identical with the one described by the Arabs as Zābag. Ferrand² went a step further, and declared this identity to be beyond all doubt, by equating Zābag with San-fo-tsi. The Śailendra dynasty of Palembang thus came to be regarded as the ruler of a mighty empire in the Pacific, of which glowing descriptions have been preserved by so many Arab writers.
v2.c13.s2.t1.7
¹ M. Coedès has made the following observation in his recent article (op. cit., p. 63, f.n. 4).
v2.c13.s2.t1.8
² G. Ferrand—L'Empire Sumatranais de Śrivijaya,' J. A., II-XX, pp. 1-104, 161-244 ; cf. specially pp. 163. ff.
v2.c13.s2.t1.9
Further light on the greatness of the Śailendras was thrown by Krom³ and Vogel.⁴ These two scholars, writing independently almost at the same time, brought out the important part which the Śailendras must have played in Java. The Kalasan and Kelurak inscriptions clearly indicated Śailendra supremacy in Java in 778 and 782 A. D. Starting from this basis, Krom pointed out the great influences which the Buddhist Śailendras must have exerted on the art and religion of Java. In short, he held the view that these Śailendras imported the Mahāyāna form of Buddhism into Java and were instrumental in building
v2.c13.s2.t1.10
³ Krom—De Soematraansche periode in de Javaansche Geschiedenis, Leiden, 1919. A French summary of this article appeared in B.E.F.E.O., Vol. XIX, No. 5, p. 127.
v2.c13.s2.t1.11
⁴ J. P. Vogel—'Het Koninkrijk Śri-vijaya' B. K. I., 1919, pp. 626 ff.
v2.c13.s2.t1.12
"Everybody (including myself) has had difficulty in losing sight of a note in my first article on Śri-Vijaya (B.E.F.E.O., XVIII, 6, p. 3, note 5) where I cautiously said, 'This expression, 'The kingdom of Palembang' which will frequently occur in course of the present article, is a convenient designation : in employing it, however, I do not wish to affirm that the capital of this State was always at Palembang.'"
v2.c13.s2.t1.13
such famous structures as Barabuḍur, Caṇḍi Mendut and Caṇḍi Kalasan. Thus originated the hypothesis of a Sumatran period in Javanese history, with far-reaching consequences in the political and cultural history of Java.
v2.c13.s2.t1.14
The table was, however, completely turned by Stutterheim,¹ who amazed the world of scholars by his bold hypothesis, that the Śailendra dynasty belonged to Java, and, later, conquered Śrī-Vijaya. Thus, instead of a Sumatran period in Javanese history, we should, in his opinion, think of a Javanese period in Sumatran history.
v2.c13.s2.t1.15
¹ W. F. Stutterheim—A Javanese period in Sumatran History, Surakarta, 1929.
§ 2
v2.c13.s2.t2.1
In view of this radical difference among the scholars, we propose to review the whole question again from the very beginning, in the clear light of positive data, without any theory or prejudice to obscure our view.
v2.c13.s2.t2.2
In the first place, let us examine Dr. Coedès’ view that the Śailendras were originally kings of Śrī-Vijaya (Palembang). The evidence on which he relies is the Ligor Inscription. In face A, it refers to Śrī-Vijayendrarāja, Śrī-Vijayeśvarabhūpati, and Śrī-Vijayanṛpati. Dr. Coedès takes them all to mean ‘king of Śrī-Vijaya,’ but Stutterheim proposes the translation “king over the lords of Śrī-Vijaya” for the first two expressions. The third expression, of course, can mean only ‘king of Śrī-Vijaya.’ Stutterheim, in defending his hypothesis about ‘overlord,’ remarks: “In mentioning his person for the third time, this intentional indication was no longer added, and replaced by the short indication of ‘king of Śrī-Vijaya’, which, in fact, he was for the people of that country.”² Now, without ignoring the force of this argument, it must be conceded that the probability lies in favour of Dr. Coedès’ view.³ Although, therefore, we may not regard it as certain, we may hold for the time being that the king of Śrī-Vijaya was intended by those expressions.
v2.c13.s2.t2.3
² Ibid., p. 14.
v2.c13.s2.t2.4
³ The correctness of Coedès view was also shown by Mus in B.E.F.E.O., Vol. XXVIII, p. 520.
v2.c13.s2.t2.5
But when this king of Śrī-Vijaya is identified with the king of Śailendravaṃśa mentioned in the inscription on face B, we must express a serious doubt. The word ‘Svasti’ at the beginning of the second inscription shows that it was an entirely new record, and not a part of the first. A comparison of the alphabets of the two records certainly indicates that they were contemporary or nearly so, but were not incised by the same hand, at one and the same time. Then, in the long eulogy of the king of Śrī-Vijaya in the first inscription, he is nowhere referred to as belonging to the Śailendra dynasty. On the other hand, Śrī-Vijaya is not mentioned in the second inscription, which not only refers to a Rājādhirāja and Prabhu (Lord) of the Śailendra dynasty, but gives us two of his appellations, Viṣṇu and Mahārāja. It is thus legitimate to hold that the two inscriptions must be regarded as emanating from different persons until we find proof to the contrary¹, the face B being obviously later in point of time. Thus the only reasonable conclusions that we can draw from the Ligor inscriptions are that the locality was included in the kingdom of Śrī-Vijaya in 775 A. D., and that it acknowledged the suzerainty of a king of the Śailendra dynasty at a subsequent period. There is nothing to prove that the king of Śrī-Vijaya belonged to the Śailendra dynasty.
v2.c13.s2.t2.6
¹ This is now admitted by Coedès ( op. cit , pp. 64-65).
v2.c13.s2.t2.7
It has been argued by Dr. Coedès that kings Cūḍāmaṇivarman and Māra-vijayottuṅgavarman, belonging to the Śailendra dynasty, are referred to in Cola records as rulers of Śrī-Vijaya, and that, therefore, the Śailendra king of Face B of Ligor Ins. may also be regarded as king of Śrī-Vijaya.
v2.c13.s2.t2.8
On examining the Cola records it appears that the two kings were regarded rather as kings of Kaḍāra (or Kaṭāha=Kedda in Malay Peninsula), also ruling over Śrī-Vijaya, than kings of Śri-Vijaya. In all records, save one, they are referred to simply as rulers of Kaṭāha, Kaḍāra or Kiḍāra. Even in the one exceptional case, *vix.*, the Larger Leiden Grant, the Tamil portion refers to Cūḍāmaṇivarman as king of Kaḍāra, while the Sanskrit portion refers to Śri-Māra-vijayottuṅgavarman as lord of Śri-Vijaya, and extending the suzerainty of Kaṭāha (see ante, p. 168). This last phrase hardly leaves any doubt that the Colas regarded them primarily as rulers of Kaṭāha who had extended their suzerainty over Śri-Vijaya.
v2.c13.s2.t2.9
While the records of the Śailendra kings have been found in Java and Malay Peninsula, none has yet been found in Sumatra, and there is no evidence whatever to locate the centre of authority of the Śailendra kings in Śri-Vijaya, at least before the close of the 10th century A. D. It is interesting to note in this connection, that the Śailendra dynasty is not referred to in any of the four inscriptions¹ of Śri-Vijaya, belonging to the close of the seventh century A. D., when that kingdom had already begun its career of aggrandisement which, according to Krom and others, ultimately led it to establish its mastery over Java.
v2.c13.s2.t2.10
¹ These inscriptions have been edited by Coedès (B.E.F.E.O., Vol. XXX, Nos. 1-2). See ante, pp. 122-3.
v2.c13.s2.t2.11
We have thus definite evidence that the Śailendras were ruling over Malay Peninsula and Java about the end of the eighth century A. D. Now the story of the grand empire of Zābag, consisting of the islands of Indonesia and Malay Peninsula, first appears in Arab writings in the middle of the ninth century A. D.². The earliest Arab writer, Ibn Khordādzbeh (844-848 A. D.), makes the statement that the king of Zābag is named Mahārāja. This immediately recalls to our mind that in the Ligor Inscription, face B, the Śailendra emperor is said to be ‘Mahārājanāmā’, ‘whose name is Mahārāja’. This is interesting, but can not be regarded as a conclusive argument in favour of the view that the empire of Zābag and the Śailendra empire are one and the same. But, on general grounds, it is reasonable to hold, that there was only one such empire, rather than two, in the Pacific in the ninth and subsequent centuries, as is described by the Arab writers. As the Śailendras undoubtedly ruled over an extensive empire in Malayasia during this period, a *prima facie* case is established for the hypothesis that the Śailendra empire is referred to by the Arabs as the empire of the Mahārāja of Zābag. But before this question can be further discussed we have to consider the identity of Zābag.
v2.c13.s2.t2.12
² Cf. Bk. II, Ch. I.
v2.c13.s2.t2.13
As stated above, it is now generally accepted that the name Zābag and its variants, used by the Arab writers, denote the same country which the Chinese designate as Che-li-fo-che, Fo-Che, or San-fo-tsi, *i.e.*, Śrī-Vijaya. The question is, however, not certainly free from doubts or difficulties. Ferrand, the latest writer on this subject, has given the following reasons for the identification¹.
v2.c13.s2.t2.14
¹ Ferrand, op. cit. pp. 163 ff.
v2.c13.s2.t2.15
1. According to Ligor Inscription, the king of Śrī-Vijaya is called Mahārāja (*Śrī-Mahārāja-nāmā*). The Arab writers all refer to Zābag as the kingdom of Mahārāja.
v2.c13.s2.t2.16
2. Abūlfidā states, on the authority of previous writers, that "the island of Mahārāja is the island of Sribuza", which means that the two refer to the same island. Sribuza, undoubtedly, stands for Śrī-Vijaya. The island of Mahārāja, according to Dimasḳi, is "the mother of the islands belonging to Mahārāja", or, in other words, the capital of the islands forming the domain of Mahārāja. It, therefore, denotes Zābag. We thus get the following equation.
v2.c13.s2.t2.17
The island of Mahārāja = Zābag = Śrī-Vijaya.
v2.c13.s2.t2.18
Now the first of these arguments loses its force in view of what has been said before. As to the second, we can easily accept the view that the "island of Mahārāja" is identical with Zābag. It is also proved by the fact that various Arab writers describe some peculiar characteristics of the kingdom which they refer, sometime to Zābag, and sometime to the island of Mahārāja. Thus, Abū Zayd Ḥasan says that Zābag is thickly populated, and there is a continuous line of villages there, so that when the cocks crow in the morning, the cry is taken up by those in the next village, and in this way the sound is taken up for nearly a distance of 100 *parsangs*. The same writer tells the story of the lake in front of the palace, in which the king of Zābag throws a brick of gold everyday. Now Ibrāhīm bin Waṣif Sāḥ relates the first story about the island of Mahārāja, while Ibn Sa‘īd reproduces the second in connection with the island of Mahārāja.
v2.c13.s2.t2.19
But although the island of Mahārāja is the same as Zābag, its identification with Śrī-Vijaya seems to be impossible. For Abūlfidā, on whose statement Ferrand relies, clearly distinguishes Zābag from Sribuza (Śrī-Vijaya), and gives different longitudes for the two. This view is supported by the testimony of other Arab writers,¹ which Ferrand has altogether ignored. Ibn Sa‘īd, for example, definitely distinguishes Sribuza from Zābag. The former he places in 3°-40′ Latitude and 88°-30′ Longitude, while the Latitude and Longitude for the latter are given respectively as 12°-30′ and 151°. This is fully in keeping with his general statement that to the south-east of Sribuza is a large number of islands which constitute the archipelago of Zābag.
v2.c13.s2.t2.20
¹ For the Arab accounts cf. J. A., 11-XX, pp. 52 ff.
v2.c13.s2.t2.21
Abū Zayd Ḥasan also clearly distinguishes Zābag from Śrī-Vijaya. After describing the kingdom of the Mahārāja, of which Zābag was the capital, he says: “Among the kingdoms over which he rules are the islands called Sribuza and Rāmi.” Similarly Mas‘ūdī also states that the island of Sribuza is within the empire of Zābag, thus distinguishing the two. Haraki enumerates Zābag and Sribuza as separate islands in the Indian sea. Yākūt is still more definite. He not only mentions the two separately in the list of islands, but further remarks that while Zābag is an island at the border of India and China, Sribuza is an island in India itself.
v2.c13.s2.t2.22
It is thus quite clear that as against Abūlfidā’s statement that the island of Mahārāja is the same as Śrī-Vijaya, there are definite statements by a large number of Arab writers that Zābag and Śrī-Vijaya are two separate islands.
v2.c13.s2.t2.23
The Arab writers do not enable us to locate Zābag definitely, but they make certain general statements about its position. These may be summed up as follows¹
v2.c13.s2.t2.24
¹ Numerical figures within brackets in the following passages refer to pages of Ferrand’s article (J. A., 11-XX).
v2.c13.s2.t2.25
(1) India is bounded on the south by the kingdom of Zābag (62,54) which is midway between China and the Balharā kingdom (62). Zābag is at the eastern end of India beyond the sea of Harkand (Bay of Bengal), and to the west of China (66)
v2.c13.s2.t2.26
(2) Zābag separates China from India (62), and its capital is about a month’s journey by sea from China (56)
v2.c13.s2.t2.27
(3) The Khmer country is situated on the same longitude as Zābag. The distance between the two is ten to twenty days’ journey by sea in the direction north to south, or reverse (59). The relative position of Khmer and Zābag is like that of Madura and Ceylon (62).
v2.c13.s2.t2.28
(4) There is a ‘bay of Zābag’, and the sea of China forms numerous creeks on the coast of Zābag (62). The islands of Zābag form a large archipelago (63).
v2.c13.s2.t2.29
(5) The equator commences in the sea to the south of China and passes through the island of Zābag (which contains gold) between the islands of Kalah and Sribuza (65, 73)
v2.c13.s2.t2.30
(6) The Latitude and Longitude of Zābag, as given by the Arab writers, do not always agree, and as their mode of calculation differs considerably from ours, the utmost that we can safely deduce from these data is a comparative view of the position of different localities.
v2.c13.s2.t2.31
Thus Ibn Sa‘īd (70) gives us the following data.
v2.c13.s2.t2.32
| | Latitude. | Longitude. | |
| Zābag | 12°-30′. | 151°. | |
| Sribuza | 3°-40′ | 88°-30′ | (Abūlfidā (p. 74) quoting Ibn Sa‘īd gives this figure as 108°-30′. |
| Jāwa | 5° | 145°(a) | (a) According to |
| Lamuri | 5° | 145°(a) | quotation of Abūl- |
| Pancūr (Fancūr) | 1°-30′ | 145°(a) | fidā (p. 74) |
v2.c13.s2.t2.33
Aṭwāl quoted by Abūlfidā (p. 74) Zābag 115°
v2.c13.s2.t2.34
Alberuni quoted by Abūlfidā (p. 74) Sribuza 1° 140°
v2.c13.s2.t2.35
The only place in the above list that can be definitely identified is Lamuri or Lambri in Northern Sumatra which evidently is referred to as Jāwa.
v2.c13.s2.t2.36
It will appear that the island of Zābag is definitely located about 6° to the east and about 7°-30′ to the north of Northern Sumatra which contains Lambri. The Longitudes given for Sribuza differ widely, but all of them place it to the west of Lambri.
v2.c13.s2.t2.37
All these data would point toward Malay Peninsula which, like Sumatra, was conceived by the Arab writers as consisting of a number of islands. The account of Ibn Sa‘īd seems to be very definite on this point. It says that to the south of Zābag is the island of Jāwa. As the towns of Lamuri and Fancūr are placed in Jāwa, it must be identified with the northern part of Sumatra. Thus the island of Mahārāja is to be placed in Malay Peninsula. This is confirmed by the fact, that the author places Kalah in the south-east, either of the island of Mahārāja, or of Jāwa. In any case as Kalah denotes the well-known place Keddah, the island of Mahārāja must be placed to its north. The Longitudes for Jāwa (the western-most point), Zābag, and Kalah are given respectively as 144°, 151°, and 154°. Jāwa is placed between Latitudes 1 and 5 while the island of Mahārāja is placed at the latitude of 12°-30'. Further, Ibn Sa'id places the islands of Mahārāja not far from Andaman in a south-easterly direction. All these would fit in well with the northern part of Malay Peninsula.
v2.c13.s2.t2.38
The earliest Arab writer Ibn Khordādzbeh (844-848 A.D.) refers to the island kingdom of Djāba, and although he sometimes uses the form Djāwaga, the following considerations show that the two places were identical¹.
v2.c13.s2.t2.39
¹ Cf. Ferrand—Textes (Figures within bracket refer to pages of this book).
v2.c13.s2.t2.40
(1) He refers to the island of Kilah (i.e. Kalah) as belonging to the kingdom of Djāba (p. 27), while his contemporary Sulaymān (851 A.D.) and other Arab writers refer to Kalah-bar, the same place as Kilah, as a dependency of Djāwaga.
v2.c13.s2.t2.41
(2) He refers to the volcano at Djāba (p. 28), which Sulaymān (p. 41) and other Arab writers (p. 60) place close to Djāwaga (p. 41, f.n. 7).
v2.c13.s2.t2.42
(3) He refers to Djāba, Salahit, and Harladj as lying in close proximity to one another (pp. 27-8), whereas Ibn Rosteh (903 A.D.) puts Djāwaga, Salahat, and Harladj as neighbouring islands (pp. 78-9).
v2.c13.s2.t2.43
Now Edrisi (1154 A.D.) not only refers to Kilah, Djāba, Salahat, and Haridj (variant of Harladj)² as lying in close proximity, about two parsangs from one another, but he further states that all these form the territories of one king, who lives in Kilah, and is called Djāba³. In other words, the lord of all these states took his title from Djāba, but his headquarters were in Kilah. This statement leaves no doubt that Djāba and also, therefore, Djāwaga, was in Malay Peninsula, and in the 12th century, the overlord of this and the neighbouring islands lived in Kalah. This fits in well with the Cola records which refer to the king as that of Kaṭāha (Kalah).
v2.c13.s2.t2.44
² Ibid., p. 27 f. n. 9.
v2.c13.s2.t2.45
³ Ibid., pp. 184-5.
v2.c13.s2.t2.46
We arrive at the same conclusion by a general study of the geographical conception of the Arabs. The early Arab writers refer to a country called Rahma, and, from the details given, there remains no doubt that by that term they meant Pegu, as is indeed admitted by Ferrand¹. Now Ibn al-Fakih says: "In India there is a kingdom called Rahma which is situated on the sea-coast. Next to this is the country of Djāwaga whose king is called Mahārāja. There is nobody behind him for he is in the last of the islands²."
v2.c13.s2.t2.47
¹ Ibid., pp. 29,36,43 (f.n. 2).
v2.c13.s2.t2.48
² Ibid., p. 64.
v2.c13.s2.t2.49
Now if Rahma denotes Pegu, we have evidently to look for Djāwaga in Malay Peninsula, and to an Arab writer, perhaps ignorant of Borneo, and regarding China, Combodia, and Malaya Peninsula as a series running from north to south, the expression 'there is no country behind (i.e. to the east of) Djāwaga' is not very far from the truth. Of course we must not forget that the name Djāwaga is also used by almost all the Arab writers in the extended sense of Malayasia, and the statements of Ibn al-Fakih may easily be explained on this supposition. Some other statements may also be similarly explained. Thus Ibn al-Fakih refers to the volcano in the *neighbourhood* of Zābag³, and also describes Fancūr as a province or country included in Zābag⁴. As Sumatra, or at least a part of it, was undoubtedly included in the wider designation of Zābag, his statements are not difficult to understand, and do not appear to be inconsistent with the view that Zābag proper denotes Malay Peninsula. As against Fancūr, we may note, for instance, that Ka-Kula which Kia-tan places to the west of Kalah, and which has thus to be located in Malay Peninsula⁵, is referred to as a country of Djāwaga⁶.
v2.c13.s2.t2.50
³ Ibid., p. 59.
v2.c13.s2.t2.51
⁴ Ibid., p. 65.
v2.c13.s2.t2.52
⁵ B.E.F.E.O., Vol. IV, p. 353.
v2.c13.s2.t2.53
⁶ Ferrand—Textes, p. 308.
v2.c13.s2.t2.54
The Arab statement that Zābag was the borderland between India and China supports its location in the Malay Peninsula. For the port of Kalah is referred to by the Arab writers as the first Indian country in the neighbourhood of China, and 300 *parsangs* from the latter¹. If we remember that also Rahma (Pegu) and Khmer² are both regarded as parts of India, and that Djāwaga is described as ‘separating China from India, or at the eastern end of India, beyond the sea of Harkand, and to the west of China’³ we should naturally take Djāwaga as denoting the northern part of the Malay Peninsula and the countries adjoining to the north of it.
v2.c13.s2.t2.55
¹ Ibid., p. 313.
v2.c13.s2.t2.56
² Ibid., p. 64.
v2.c13.s2.t2.57
³ Ibid., pp. 92, 205. From these two instances we may conclude that although Zābag was in the borderland between India and China, it was technically included in the former. But an earlier writer, Ibn Rosteh (c. 903 A. D.), definitely says that ‘behind Multan are many kings as far as Djāwaga. The king of Djāwaga is not included among Indian kings because he lives in the island’ (Ibid p. 78.)
v2.c13.s2.t2.58
The Arab statement that Zābag was the borderland between India and China might induce us to include within it Laos and the vaguely defined hilly country on its north which was actually known as Java or Sava.⁴ In this vague extended sense, Ḍavāka, used in Samudragupta’s inscription, may be regarded as the origin of the forms Jāvaka or Arabian Zābag.⁵
v2.c13.s2.t2.59
⁴ Gerini—Researches, p. 131.
v2.c13.s2.t2.60
⁵ The connection of Zābag with Java, Sava or Ḍavāka, is merely offered as a suggestion which need not be pressed very far in the present state of our knowledge.
v2.c13.s2.t2.61
The view that Zābag is to be located in Malay Peninsula is strikingly confirmed by independent evidence. The South Indian literature refers to an oversea kingdom called Śāvaka, Sāvaka, or Jāvaka. We find references to it in the famous epic Maṇimekhalai⁶ which mentions its kings Bhūmicandra and Puṇyarāja, and says that the latter was ruling the earth with his capital at Nāgapura. That this country is the same as Zābag admits of no doubt. As Ferrand has remarked, the two names Jāvaka and Zābag are the only ones in Indonesian geography which can be equated with certainty.¹
v2.c13.s2.t2.62
⁶ V.R.R. Dikshitar—Studies in Tamil Literature and History, p. 83; S.K. Aiyangar—Maṇimekhalai in its Historical Setting, pp. 147, 149, 165, 180, 182, 199.
v2.c13.s2.t2.63
¹ Op. cit., p. 172.
v2.c13.s2.t2.64
The Ceylonese Chronicle Cullavaṃsa has preserved a detailed account of two invasions of Ceylon by Candrabhānu, king of Jāvaka.² Now an inscription of a king Candrabhānu, king of Tāmbraliṅga, has been found at Caiya, near Ligor. Dr. Coedès has shown, by a comparison of the dates, that king Candrabhānu of Ligor, who issued this inscription in 1230 A.D., must be the king referred to in the Ceylonese Chronicle.³ It is thus definitely established, that by Jāvaka, the Cullavaṃsa meant a part of the Malay Peninsula.
v2.c13.s2.t2.65
² Cullavaṃsa, Ch. 83, vv. 36-48; Ch. 88 vv. 62, 75. See ante, pp. 197 ff.
v2.c13.s2.t2.66
³ B.K.I., 1927, pp. 463 ff. See ante, p. 198.
v2.c13.s2.t2.67
Candrabhānu was helped in his second expedition by the Pāṇḍyas. But, sometime later, the Pāṇḍya king boasts in his inscriptions of having defeated the Jāvaka king as well as Ceylon. Now in an inscription of Jaṭāvarman Vira Pāṇḍya, dated A.D. 1264, he claims to have defeated and killed the Śāvaka (king), and in an inscription of the following year we find among the list of defeated kings, king of Kaḍāram (and no king of Śāvaka)⁴ The conclusion is almost irresistible, that Śāvaka or Jāvaka and Kaḍāra both refer to the kingdom of Candrabhānu in the Malay Peninsula. Thus the Ceylonese Chronicle agrees with the Arab writers in locating Jāvaka in the Malay Peninsula. Further, the Arab writer Sulaymān, writing in 851 A.D., has remarked that “Kalah-bar and Zābag are ruled over by the same king.” Kalah-bar is, no doubt, the same as Keddah, and thus Keddah and Zābag formed a united kingdom.
v2.c13.s2.t2.68
⁴ These inscriptions are reported in S. I. Ep Rep. (No. 588 of 1917, and No. 356 of 1906). Their contents are summarised by Ferrand, J. A., 11-XX, pp. 48-49.
v2.c13.s2.t2.69
The Arab writers of the tenth century A.D. refer to the extension of the authority of Zābag over the various islands of the Pacific. But Abū Zayd Ḥasan ( c. 916 A.D. ), our earliest authority in this respect, clearly distinguishes the kingdom of Zābag proper, with its capital city called Zābag, from the island called Sribuza,¹ forming a dependent state of the former. In Sribuza we cannot fail to recognise Śrī-Vijaya. Thus it is quite clear that Zābag was originally a different kingdom, and had extended its authority over Śrī-Vijaya at least as early as the tenth century A.D. It is, no doubt, due to this extension of political authority of Zābag over the various islands, that the Arab writers gave the name of Zābag to the whole of Malayasia. But the island of Zābag proper was always distinguished from the Zābag empire comprising the archipelago. In view of the agreement between the accounts of Arab writers and the Cullavaṃsa, we are justified in locating the kingdom of Zābag proper in the Malay Peninsula, probably in the neighbourhood of Ligor.
v2.c13.s2.t2.70
¹ Ferrand, op. cit, p. 56.
v2.c13.s2.t2.71
The discussion of the identity of Zābag cannot be closed without a reference to the Chinese data. It is now generally accepted that the kingdom referred to as San-fo-tsi in the Chinese documents from tenth to fourteenth century A.D. is the same as Zābaj or Zābag. But there are two implications in this theory which, in my opinion, have been tacitly accepted, without sufficient evidence. These are : (1) that San-fo-tsi, Che-li-fo-che, Zābag, and Sribuza are all equivalent to Śrī-Vijaya ; and (2) that all these are to be identified with modern Palembang.
v2.c13.s2.t2.72
As regards (1) we have seen above that Zābag is different from Sribuza, and this alone is sufficient to show the weakness of the theory. Che-li-fo-che and Sribuza are both obviously equivalent to Śrī-Vijaya, but the same cannot be said either of San-fo-tsi or of Zābag. M. Aurousseau, no doubt, equates San-fo-tsi with Che-li-fo-che,² but Ferrand is of opinion that it is impossible to equate San-fo-tsi with Śrī-Vijaya from a philological point of view.¹ Further, the Chinese accounts do not seem to imply that Che-li-fo-che is the same as San-fo-tsi. The history of the Ming Dynasty² says that San-fo-tsi was formerly called Kan-da-li ( or Kan-to-li ). According to Chau Ju-kua³ San-fo-tsi began to have relations with China during 904-907 A.D. Both these statements are definitely against the proposed identification. It is true that Cūḍā-maṇivarman and Śrī-Māra-vijayottuṅgavarman are referred to as kings of San-fo-tsi, but that does not prove that San-fo-tsi was Śrī-Vijaya. For, as stated above, we have no right to infer from the Cola records that these two were primarily kings of Śrī-Vijaya. We should rather regard them as kings of Kaḍāram, and Śrī-Vijaya was included in their realm. Thus the fact remains that no satisfactory evidence has yet been brought forward to show that San-fo-tsi is equivalent to Śrī-Vijaya. It is noteworthy that there is no reference to Che-li-fo-che in Chinese records after 742 A.D.,⁴ while San-fo-tsi makes its appearance early in the tenth century A.D., shortly after the first reference to Zābag by Arab writers. Of course if ultimately San-fo-tsi proves to be the same as Śrī-Vijaya, we have to dissociate the former from Zābag.
v2.c13.s2.t2.73
² B.E.F.E.O. Vol. XXIII, p. 476.
v2.c13.s2.t2.74
¹ Ferrand, op. cit. p. 179.
v2.c13.s2.t2.75
² Groeneveldt—Notes, p. 68. Ferrand, op. cit. p. 24.
v2.c13.s2.t2.76
³ Edited by Hirth and Rockhill, p. 62. Ferrand, op. cit, p. 14.
v2.c13.s2.t2.77
The identity of San-fo-tsi and Palembang also does not appear to be beyond question. It evidently rests upon the following statement of Ma Huan ( 1416 A. D. ): "Ku-kang is the same country which was formerly called San-fo-tsi ; it is also called Palembang, and is under the supremacy of Java."⁴ The History of the Ming dynasty also informs us that sometime before 1397 A. D., "Java had completely conquered San-fo-tsi and changed its name to Ku-Kang."⁵
v2.c13.s2.t2.78
⁴ Groeneveldt—Notes, p. 73. I have substituted San-fo-tsi for San-bo-tsai of Groeneveldt.
v2.c13.s2.t2.79
⁵ Groeneveldt—Notes, p. 71.
v2.c13.s2.t2.80
These statements appear to be decisive in favour of the identification of San-fo-tsi with Palembang. But when we read the detailed account which follows the statement quoted above from the History of the Ming dynasty, the view is bound to be changed. It tells us in effect that when the Javanese had conquered San-fo-tsi, they could not keep all the land and the whole country was disturbed. It then describes how two Chinese adventurers set up as kings of San-fo-tsi and Ku-Kang. From this Groeneveldt has made the obvious inference that Ku-Kang and San-fo-tsi were different places.¹ It might appear that Ku-Kang was the name given to that part of the extensive kingdom of San-fo-tsi which was under the control of Java, and by a natural process, the name of the former kingdom, San-fo-tsi, came to be applied to the latter, which originally formed merely a part of it. But then we should remember that San-fo-tsi and Ku-kang are treated as two different places in Tao-yi Che-lio (1349-50 A.D.), i.e. long before Java finally conquered San-fo-tsi. All these certainly go against the view that San-fo-tsi is equivalent to Ku-kang or Palembang.² That San-fo-tsi and Palembang were different places is also proved by the account of Chau Ju-kua who includes Pa-lim-fong or Palembang among the dependencies of San-fo-tsi.³ Palembang was thus a dependent kingdom of, and therefore different from, San-fo-tsi.
v2.c13.s2.t2.81
¹ Ibid., f.n. 4 ; cf. also p. 76.
v2.c13.s2.t2.82
² Ferrand, op. cit. p. 167. The attempts of Rockhill and Pelliot to explain away the difficulty, and maintain the identity of San-fo-tsi and Palembang do not appear to me to be at all successful (cf. T'oung Pao, 1915, pp. 134-5 ; 1933, p. 376).
v2.c13.s2.t2.83
³ p. 62.
v2.c13.s2.t2.84
We have thus no satisfactory evidence for the identification of either (1) Śrī-Vijaya with San-fo-tsi, or (2) of San-fo-tsi with Palembang. It is needless to add that the identification of Śrī-Vijaya with Palembang, so far as it is based on these two identifications, cannot be seriously maintained. At the same time it is only fair to add that there is a strong presumption in favour of this identification, as the inscriptions of Śrī-Vijaya have been found in this locality, and one from Palembang itself seems to refer to the foundation of Śrī-Vijaya.¹
v2.c13.s2.t2.85
¹ Cf. B.K.I., 1931, pp. 508 ff. J.G.I.S., Vol. I, p. 63, f.n. 7.
v2.c13.s2.t2.86
The only safe clue for the identification of San-fo-tsi is to regard it as equivalent to Arabic Zābaj or Zābag. In that case San-fo-tsi should be located in Malay Peninsula, and several circumstances support this view.
v2.c13.s2.t2.87
The Chinese writers of the Ming period assert that Kan-to-li was the old name of San-fo-tsi. The History of the Liang dynasty refers to several embassies from Kan-to-li to China, one between 454 and 465 A. D. and three others in 502, 519 and 520 A. D. The history of the Chen dynasty refers to another embassy from the kingdom in 563 A. D.
v2.c13.s2.t2.88
Gerini² was the first to point out that "there was, and still exists, Khanthuli or Kanturi district on the east coast of Malay Peninsula which may very well be old Kan-to-li of First Sung and Liang periods." But the chief objections against this view were the generally accepted identification of San-fo-tsi with Palembang, and the fact that Kan-to-li is mentioned as a separate state in 820 A. D., whereas Palembang was called by the Chinese as Che-li-fo-che for at least 150 years before that.
v2.c13.s2.t2.89
² Gerini—Researches, pp. 602 ff.
v2.c13.s2.t2.90
Now the view propounded above disposes of both these objections, and I may point out that Kan-to-li (or Kin-to-li), which is regarded by the Chinese as the old name of San-fo-tsi, resembles to a great extent Kaḍāra or Kiḍāra, the Cola name for the kingdom of Cūḍāmaṇivarman and Śrī-Māra-vijayottuṅgavarman who are referred to in the Chinese records as kings of San-fo-tsi. It is thus legitimate to suggest, as a not improbable hypothesis, that the first Chinese name, Kan-to-li, corresponded to Kaḍāra, while the second Chinese name, San-fo-tsi was equivalent to Arabic Zābaj or Zābag.
v2.c13.s2.t2.91
Except for the addition of a nasal sound in both Kan-to-li and San-fo-tsi, these two names seem to correspond quite well with Kaḍāra and Zābaj. Further, it is to be noted that corresponding to the variant forms Kaḍāra and Kiḍāra in the Cola records, we have Kan-to-li and Kin-to-li in the Chinese annals.¹
v2.c13.s2.t2.92
¹ Not being a sinologue or a philologist I do not stress these points very much, but merely offer a suggestion to scholars who are competent to deal with them. It may be noted that my main thesis does not rest on these identifications.
v2.c13.s2.t2.93
The location of Kan-to-li, as suggested by Gerini, is supported by the fact that both the History of the Liang dynasty and Han Yü mention Kan-to-li along with Champā and Kāmboja. Ma-Twan-lin also enumerates in a course with Kan-to-li, P'an-p'an, Lan-ya-hsiu, and Po-li, the first two of which can be definitely located in Malay Peninsula. All these would suit the location of Kan-to-li in Malay Peninsula far better than in Sumatra, as Ferrand does, on the authority of Ibn Majid ( A.D. 1462 ) who mentions Kandari as a general name of Sumatra.
v2.c13.s2.t2.94
I am indebted to Dr. Coedès for an additional argument, which the Chinese sources supply, in favour of locating San-fo-tsi in the Malay Peninsula.² The Chinese Charts of Father Ricci ( beginning of the 17th century) place Kieou-Kiang and San-fo-tsi in the middle of the Peninsula.³ Dr. Coedès, however, observes that the Charts give fantastic localisations for this region; besides their late date takes away much of the weight of their evidence.⁴ But taken in conjuction with the other Chinese evidences quoted above, the Charts constitute, in my opinion, an important evidence.
v2.c13.s2.t2.95
² J.G.I.S., Vol I., p. 63.
v2.c13.s2.t2.96
³ The Geographical Journal, Vol. LIII, pp. 20-21.
v2.c13.s2.t2.97
⁴ Op. cit, f.n. 3.
v2.c13.s2.t2.98
We must now go back to the Nālandā copper-plate which refers to the Śailendra kings as ruling over Yavabhūmi and Suvarṇadvīpa. Paṇḍit H. Śāstrī repeats the generally accepted view when he says: "The Yavabhūmi and the Suvarṇadvīpa are evidently identical with the Yavadvīpa and the Suvarṇadvīpa islands spoken of in Sanskrit works like the Rāmāyaṇa or the Kathāsaritsāgara, and are unquestionably the modern Java and Sumatra."¹
v2.c13.s2.t2.99
¹ Ep. Ind., Vol. XVII, p. 312.
v2.c13.s2.t2.100
Unfortunately, none of these identifications is beyond question. Ferrand has challenged the identification of Yavadvīpa of Rāmāyaṇa with Java, and whether one agrees with him or not, it is difficult to ignore altogether the arguments of considerable weight which he has brought forward in support of his thesis that Yavadvīpa denotes Sumatra and not Java.² But we shall see presently that Yavabhūmi is perhaps to be taken in a different sense altogether.
v2.c13.s2.t2.101
² Ferrand, op. cit., pp. 173 ff. See ante, pp. 98 ff.
v2.c13.s2.t2.102
As regards Suvarṇadvīpa, the assumption that it unquestionably denotes Sumatra is as unwarranted as the assertion that immediately follows, viz., 'that Suvarṇadvīpa is different from Suvarṇabhūmi.' The question has been fully discussed above in Bk. I., Chap. IV, and it has been shown that the name Suvarṇabhūmi or Suvarṇadvīpa was indifferently used to denote a wide region including Burma, Malay Peninsula, and the islands of the Indian archipelago.
v2.c13.s2.t2.103
I am inclined to agree with Paṇḍit H. Śāstrī that the author of the Nālandā plate regarded Yavabhūmi and Suvarṇadvīpa as one and the same. If this view be correct we can easily equate Yavabhūmi = Zābag = Suvarṇadvīpa = San-fo-tsi.
v2.c13.s2.t2.104
As a result of the preceding discussions we can now consider briefly the relations of the Śailendras with Sumatra and Java.
v2.c13.s2.t2.105
It is well-known that, with the exception of Stutterheim, all scholars locate the seat of authority of the Śailendras in Sumatra. It will appear from what has been said above that there is no warrant for such an assumption. In view of the insufficient nature of evidence, it is unwise to be dogmatic one way or the other, but I hope it will be readily conceded, that barring the identification of San-fo-tsi with Palembang, which is at best a very doubtful one, there is no evidence to regard Sumatra as the home of the Śailendras. Only in the Cola Inscriptions of eleventh century A. D. they are referred to as kings of Kaṭāha and Śrī-Vijaya, very much in the same way as the Arab writers from the tenth century onwards regard Sribuza as one of the dependent states of Zābag. The growing commercial importance of Śrī-Vijaya, and perhaps its past historical record, invested it with special importance, and hence it formed an important centre of the growing Śailendra Empire. The evidence at our disposal proves nothing beyond this.
v2.c13.s2.t2.106
Indeed, the case for Java is much stronger. We find here two records, definitely referring to the Śailendra kings, and belonging to the earliest period of their history known to us. At least one of these kings, Rakai Paṇaṃkaraṇa, appears in the famous Kedu inscriptions among the predecessors of the Javanese kings of Matarām. It is also possible to identify Samarōttuṅga, mentioned in a Kedu record dated 847 A.D., with Samarāgravīra of the Nālandā Inscription.¹ These facts, added to the existence of Barabuḍur and other famous temples, may tempt us to the view that Java was the original home of the Śailendras. The temptation is increased if we remember how easy and natural it would be to derive Zābag from Yava, and how certain statements of Arab writers would admirably suit Java. We may refer, for example, to three characteristics of Djāwaga which are constantly referred to by Arab writers.
v2.c13.s2.t2.107
¹ See later, Bk. III, Chap I.
v2.c13.s2.t2.108
(1) There is a volcano in the neighbourhood of Djāwaga.
v2.c13.s2.t2.109
(2) There is no land behind Djāwaga, and it is the last of the islands.
v2.c13.s2.t2.110
(3) The whole country is fertile, and the villages succeed one another without interruption, so that the cries of cocks in the morning would be heard continuously for 100 parsangs.
v2.c13.s2.t2.111
Now all these characteristics would be more applicable to Java than Malay Peninsula. The statement that Djāwaga is situated on the borderland between India and China may not be regarded as a decisive argument against Java, if we remember that the early Arab writers had a somewhat vague notion in this respect. It is clear, however, that some of their positive statements, particularly those about the latitude and longitude of Djāwaga, as compared with those of Sribuza and other well-known places, cannot apply to Java. It is thus legitimate to hold that Djāwaga perhaps originally meant Java, but later, the Arab writers located it in some place in the Malay Peninsula. This confusion can be easily explained by the transference of the seat of authority of the Śailendras from Java to Malay Peninsula in the ninth or tenth century A.D. Perhaps the Arab writers applied the original name of the Śailendra kingdom to its new seat of authority.
v2.c13.s2.t2.112
The only other alternative view, which can be justified by available evidences, is to locate Djāwaga, and therefore the seat of authority of the Śailendras, in Malay Peninsula from the beginning.
v2.c13.s2.t2.113
The Malay Peninsula is indeed poor in antiquities as compared with Java, but not poorer in this respect than Sumatra, where Zābag is usually located. Wilkinson goes even further. Referring to the antiquities and some other characteristic features of the northern part of the Peninsula he remarks: “All these facts point to the past existence of powerful states and high standard of wealth and luxury in the north of the Malay Peninsula."¹
v2.c13.s2.t2.114
¹ R. G. Wilkinson—History of the Peninsular Malays, 3rd Ed. p. 15.
v2.c13.s2.t2.115
Quite recently, Dr. H. G. Quaritch Wales made an archaeological survey of several ancient sites in the Malay Peninsula, and has emphatically endorsed the hypothesis that the centre of the mighty empire of the Śailendras was in Malay Peninsula. He holds that Caiya or Jaiya was the first capital of this empire, and when this city was overrun by the Khmers in the twelfth century, the capital was transferred further south to Nakhon Sri Thammarat.²
v2.c13.s2.t2.116
² I.A.L., Vol. IX, No 1, pp. 1-25. See ante, pp. 80-7.
v2.c13.s2.t2.117
Indeed it is in Malay Peninsula alone that we can trace the rule of the Śailendras from beginning to end. The Ligor inscription, the series of South Indian inscriptions referring to friendly or hostile relations of Coḷas with Śailendras of Kaṭāha or Kaḍāra, the continuity of similar relations between Kaḍāra and Śāvaka king on the one hand and the Pāṇḍya and Ceylonese kings on the other, and the location of Zābag or Śāvaka in Malay Peninsula, all these constitute a strong argument in favour of regarding Malay Peninsula as the home of the Śailendras, and the seat of the great empire over which they ruled.
v2.c13.s2.t2.118
Such an assumption would further explain the spread of the Malay people and their language all over Indonesia, and the extensive application of the name Yava, Jāwa or its equivalents in Sumatra, Cambodia, Laos, and Annam. In other words, the trace of the old Malay empire of the Śailendras called Jāvaka can still be found in the wide-spread character of the Malay race and language all over Indonesia, and the wide use of the geographical name to its different constituent parts.
v2.c13.s2.t2.119
In conclusion we must lay stress on the fact that there are some reasons to believe that the Śailendras were new arrivals from India. This would explain the introduction of Nāgarī alphabet in their inscriptions and of a new name, Kalinga, for Malayasia, as we know from the Chinese records. The portion of the western coast of Bay of Bengal, which was known as Kalinga in old days, contained the famous port ‘Paloura’ which was from very early times the port of embarkation for the Far East. The same region was ruled over in the sixth and seventh centuries A.D. by the Gāṅga¹ and Śailodbhava² dynasties, and behind them, in the Vindhya region, we find another dynasty called the Śailas. In the preamble of an inscription, this family is said to have descended from Gaṅgā, the daughter of Himālaya (Śailendra), and the first king is referred to as Śailavaṃśa-tilaka (ornament of the Śaila family).³ Thus the Gāṅga, Śailodbhava, and Śaila dynasties may all be the source of a name like Śailendra.
v2.c13.s2.t2.120
¹ Cf. e.g., Urlam plates, Ep. Ind., Vol. XVII, pp. 330 ff.
v2.c13.s2.t2.121
² Cf. e g., Buguda Plates, Ep. Ind., Vol III, p. 41.
v2.c13.s2.t2.122
³ Ep. Ind., Vol. IX, p. 41.
v2.c13.s2.t2.123
The Gāṅgas were a wide-spread tribe, the most notable being the Gāṅgas of Kalinga and Mysore. According to the tradition preserved among the Gāṅgas of Kalinga, Kāmārṇava, giving over the paternal kingdom to his uncle, set out with his four brothers to conquer the earth, and took possession of the Kalinga country. The accession of Kāmārṇava would fall in the eighth century A. D., according to the regnal years supplied in their records.⁴ But, before him also, Gāṅga kings ruled in Kalinga, probably from the sixth century A. D.
v2.c13.s2.t2.124
⁴ Cf. Ep. Carn, Vol. IX. Introduction, p. 9; Eng. Translation of Inscriptions, pp. 39 ff.; Ep. Ind. Vol. VIII, APP. I, p. 17, and the references given there. J.B.O. R.S., Vol. XVIII, pp. 285 ff.
v2.c13.s2.t2.125
The title ‘Lord of Tri-Kalinga’ was borne by the Gāṅga kings from the sixth century A. D. till a late period. Now the expression Tri-Kalinga is an old one, and is perhaps preserved even now in the Telinga or Talaings of lower Burma. If so, we may find here an evidence of the Gāṅga conquest of lower Burma in the eighth century A. D. From this base in lower Burma they might have rapidly spread to the Far East.
v2.c13.s2.t2.126
It is interesting to note that the names of the Gāṅga kings end in Mahārāja or Mahādhirāja, as *e.g.* Viṣṇugopa-Mahādhirāja, and Śrī-puruṣa Pṛthvī-Koṅgaṇi-Mahārāja. In the former of these we get an almost exact form of "Viṣṇuvākhyo Mahārājanāmā," *i.e.* having the name of Viṣṇu Mahārāja, which we meet with in the Ligor inscription. It is not, of course, suggested that the two kings were identical, but the agreement in the very unusual fashion of including Mahārāja as part of the name is certainly striking. Reference may also be made to the city named Gangganegara (see p. 188, f. n. 2).
v2.c13.s2.t2.127
Thus while no definite conclusion is possible at the present state of our knowledge, indications are not altogether wanting that the Śailendras originally came from Kaliṅga, and spread their power in the Far East through Lower Burma and Malay Peninsula.¹ the *Gesta Romanorum*, the *Legenda Aurea* of Jacobus de Voragine, and the *Speculum Historiale* of Vincent of Beauvais. These were the books that fed the imagination of the Middle Ages, and they were the books that the Church, in its wisdom, provided for the instruction and edification of the faithful.
v2.c13.s2.t2.128
¹ Since the publication of my paper on the Śailendras in B.E.F.E.O., Vol. XXXIII, pp. 121 ff—of which this appendix is the English original—several views have been put forward regarding the origin of the Śailendras. Dr. Coedès suggested that they were kings of Funan, and being evicted therefrom, carved out a kingdom in Java in the 8th century A.D., and claimed back their own possessions in the 9th cent. A.D. (J.G.I.S., Vol, I, pp. 66 ff.). Dr. J. Przyluski opposes this view and holds that Śailendravamśa derives its origin from ‘Śailendra’, originally an Indonesian deity of the Bataks, enthroned upon a high mountain, who has been successively identified with Śiva Giriśa and the supreme Buddha (J.G.I.S., Vol. II, pp. 28 ff.). Prof. K. A. Nilkanta Sastri infers from some expressions in the Cangal Ins. of Sañjaya that the Pāṇḍyan country was the original home of the Hindu-Javanese immigrants and their rulers, and he thinks it possible that Sañjaya himself was a member of the Śailendravamśa. (T. B. G., 1935, pp. 610-11). The last two views do not appear to me to be even plausible. The view of Coedès is not in conflict with my theory. As regards Prof. Sastri’s criticism (op. cit.) of this theory, it is partly based on misunderstanding of my arguments. For the rest, I may point out to him that my view is a tentative one, and is not to be regarded as one that can be definitely proved. Indeed this was quite clearly stated in my paper, and has been properly understood in this spirit by others.
v2.c13.s2.t2.129
But the Church did not merely provide books; it also provided the means of their dissemination. The monastic scriptoria, where monks labored in silence to copy the sacred texts, were the precursors of the printing press. And when the press finally arrived, it was the Church that first harnessed its power, using it to spread the word of God to the corners of the earth. The Gutenberg Bible, the first major book printed in Europe, was a testament to the Church's commitment to the written word.
v2.c13.s2.t2.130
Yet, even as the Church championed the spread of knowledge, it also sought to control it. The *Index Librorum Prohibitorum*, or List of Prohibited Books, was a tool used by the Church to suppress ideas it deemed dangerous or heretical. This tension between the desire to educate and the need to control would define the Church's relationship with literature for centuries to come.
v2.c13.s2.t2.131
It is a complex history, one that is marked by both enlightenment and suppression. But it is a history that cannot be ignored, for it is the history of the very foundation of Western civilization. The Church, in its role as the guardian of knowledge, has shaped the way we think, the way we write, and the way we understand the world around us.
v2.c13.s2.t2.132
RISE AND FALL OF THE INDO-JAVANESE EMPIRE
v2.c13.s2.t2.133
the *Gesta Romanorum*, the *Legenda Aurea* of Jacobus de Voragine, and the *Speculum Historiale* of Vincent of Beauvais. These were the books that fed the imagination of the Middle Ages, and they were the books that the Church, in its wisdom, provided for the instruction and edification of the faithful.
v2.c13.s2.t2.134
But the Church did not merely provide books; it also provided the means of their dissemination. The monastic scriptoria, where monks labored in silence to copy the sacred texts, were the precursors of the printing press. And when the press finally arrived, it was the Church that first harnessed its power, using it to spread the word of God to the corners of the earth. The Gutenberg Bible, the first major book printed in Europe, was a testament to the Church's commitment to the written word.
v2.c13.s2.t2.135
Yet, even as the Church championed the spread of knowledge, it also sought to control it. The *Index Librorum Prohibitorum*, or List of Prohibited Books, was a tool used by the Church to suppress ideas it deemed dangerous or heretical. This tension between the desire to educate and the need to control would define the Church's relationship with literature for centuries to come.
v2.c13.s2.t2.136
It is a complex history, one that is marked by both enlightenment and suppression. But it is a history that cannot be ignored, for it is the history of the very foundation of Western civilization. The Church, in its role as the guardian of knowledge, has shaped the way we think, the way we write, and the way we understand the world around us.
v2.c13.s2.t2.137
THE KINGDOM OF MATARĀM
v2.c13.s2.t2.138
We have seen above that several Hindu kingdoms flourished in Java as early as the fifth or sixth century A. D. But we do not possess any detailed knowledge of the history of the country till we come to the eighth century A. D. About the beginning of this century, a powerful kingdom was founded in central Java by king Sannāha. Some information about him and his successor is furnished by the Cangal inscription.¹ This record is engraved on a stone slab, which was discovered among the ruins of a Śaiva temple at Cangal, on the plateau of the Wukir Hill in Kedu. It contains twelve verses in Sanskrit. It begins by stating that a Śivaliṅga was set up in the Śaka year 654, i.e. 732 A. D., by a king named Sañjaya, son of Sannāha. Then, after an invocation of the gods Śiva (vv. 2-4), Brahmā (v. 5), and Viṣṇu (v. 6), it praises the island of Java (v. 7), and refers to its king Sanna or Sannāha who ruled righteously like Manu for a long time. He was succeeded by Sañjaya (vv. 8-12) who was ruling at the time the record was set up. Certain statements of the inscription have led scholars to think that the dynasty had recently emigrated to Java from a locality named Kuñjara-Kuñja in South India. The relationship between Sannāha and Sañjaya, although generally presumed to be that of father and son, cannot be regarded as absolutely certain on account of some lacuna in the record.
First 154 of 818 passages. Read on
Linked texts (8)
- Kathāsaritsāgara — Somadeva Bhaṭṭa, Sanskrit
- Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
- Epigraphia Indica
- Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
- Epigraphia Carnatica
- Vālmīkirāmāyaṇa — Vālmīki, Sanskrit
- South Indian Inscriptions
- Two grants of Indraraja III.; Saka-samvat 836: No. II (grant of Tenna) (ed. Bhandarkar 1908) — Sanskrit