Ancient Indian Colonization in South-East Asia c9.16

c9.16

This complacent view was first challenged by me in 1937. I pointed out that the inscription B begins with *svasti* and was written by a different hand. It was thus a separate record and not a part of the other. Besides, in the long eulogy of the king of Śrī-Vijaya in Ins. A, he is nowhere referred to as belonging to the Śailendra dynasty, while Śrī-Vijaya is not mentioned in Ins. B. There is, therefore, no valid ground to connect the Śailendra with Śrī-Vijaya. On the other hand, the only legitimate conclusion from the comparison of the two records seems to be, that the authority over Ligor region passed from the king of Śrī-Vijaya to the hands of the Śailendra kings who were different persons. As the Ins. B was short and incomplete, it was presumably engraved later than Ins. A for which the stele was originally prepared.