Talk:Srivijaya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] earlier comments

Why is there no mention of the empire's Hindu roots? Majaphit originated from this empire.--Dangerous-Boy

  • Srivijaya was always Buddhist and Majapahit originated from Singhasari, not Srivijaya. Alan 07:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Paramesvara of Srivijaya was Hindu before he converted to Islam. --Dangerous-Boy 07:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
You're right, Parameswara was a Hindu. But he was a Majapahit prince (the great-great-grandson of the first Emperor, the grandson of Tribhuwana Wijaya Tunggadewi) and Majapahit was a Hindu Empire. Remember, by that time Srivijaya had already fallen to the hand of Majapahit. Matahari Pagi 06:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no information on specific rulers of the Srivijaya Kingdom. How can we know when their golden age is and so much about their history without knowing a single ruler's name or anything a specific ruler has contributed? Should this be put up for articles for expansion, because this information seems small for such an influential kingdom? --Shackleton 00:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

We actually know the names of very few maharajas of Srivijaya. Records seemt o have been kept on some perishable medium and their buildings seem to have been wooden. What we know is from the extraordinarily limited inscriptions and the Chinese Annals. Remember there is no historical consciousness of this empire among the peoples of Sumatra, Malaya or Java although it ruled all or some of those islands. Its memory further afield is even thinner. For example almost every Tibetan would recognise Atisha's name but very few of them would know Atisha studied in Srivijaya or received his major initiations there. Historians concerned with medieval Bengal and South India would know about the Srivijayan endowments at Nalanda or the Chola raids on Srivijayan territory. but that's all. It would be possible to build a very partial list, but often we know little more abut individual rulers than their names. The only real personalities are Balaputra, a Sailendra who took power in the 900s and Paramesvara, a Srivijayan prince who converted to Islam and founded the Sultanate of Malacca. Alan 02:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed reversion

I propose to revert many of the most recent changes to this article. To give a few examples:

  • Indianized kingdom is a more precise historical category than Malay kingdom. I am not trying to deny the ethnic origin of Srivijaya, but I'd argue assigning a contemporary ethnic category to events in the sixth century is bad encyclopaedic practice, especially when Indianized kingdom emphasizes the comonalities with other Inidinaized kingdoms in Southeast Asia in a way that 'Malay kingdom' does not.
  • 'The Khmer kingdom may also had been a tributary in its early stages. Srivijaya also maintained close relations with the Pala Empire in Bengal' as against 'The Khmer kingdom may also had been a tributary in its early stages. They also maintained close relations with the Pala Empire ' The current version is ambiguous as to whether the Khmer empire or Srivijaya maintained close relations with the Palas.
  • 'inscription in 860' as against 'inscription that dates 860 ' has syntactic problems. The usual way to describe the date of an inscription in English is to call it a date 'in' or 'from' not 'that dates'.
  • I can see no reason at all to delink Kediri.
  • I can see no reason to simply delete the late move of Srivijaya's centre to Jambi.

Please discuss. Alan 06:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

How about Indianized and Malay? Both terms completely describe the situation? __earth 16:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Indianized is rather an old-fashioned term; it's widely deprecated by today's scholars as downplaying the role of indigenous cultures in these kingdoms. Since it's still a well-known term, it should be mentioned somewhere (ideally with a discussion of how accurate it is), but not too prominently (certainly not in the first sentence). I would suggest keeping the category, and mentioning the term in the context of the extent of Indian influence. Mark1 17:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd contest that it's rather an old-fashioned tem although I accept the content of the term is changing radically, particularly since the work of historians like Wolters and Day. I say the place to resolve this is in the article Indianized kingdom rather than in unilaterally whipping various Indianized kingdoms in and out of the category. Certainly plain 'Malay kingdom' is not as rich an analytical term and simply perpetuates what already prevails on too too many Southeast Asian pages, a retrojection of current ethnicities and boundaries into a period where they existed in different and much more tenuous forms. For an example, see the page datu which barely even mentions that the word exists outside the Philippines. I also ask why the varous other changes like delinking Kediri were made. Alan 00:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, if we stick to the specifics of the article, we don't have to worry too much about Indianized kingdoms- can we agree that the category should stay, and that the extent of Indianization should be discussed in the text, but that putting the term in the first sentence would be oversimplifying (and POV)? Otherwise I agree with all your points, except that I'd say "an inscription from 860". Mark1 00:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hi

hi, i add some inscription from the founder of Srivijaya kingdom the Dapunta Hyang cri Yacanara. Also some hidden factor behind the decline of Srivijaya that is the mud sedimentation in Musi River Estuaria. It was once a port, but if you visited Palembang now, you will know that the estuaria had been sedimented deeper and it created a gap of several kilometres before the sea could be seen.Tasfan 08:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the Philippines in the Sri Vijaya Empire? Not just the article, but the map also blinds out what is present-day Philippines from the Sri Vijaya Empire. There is artifactual evidence along with primary resources out there that what is the present-day Philippines was part of the empire from at least the 9th century AD. Also, the Visayas region and Sulu archipelago of the Philippines formed at one point the seat of the empire itself. There is also that gold statue of the Golden Tara of Batuan found in Mindanao decades ago. And I believe it is presently in the Chicago Museum of Natural History (I don't know if I got the museum's name right, but I know for sure it is a museum of natural history and is located in Chicago). That is evidence of the empire's extent in the Philippine Islands. Another piece of evidence is the Laguna Copperplate transcription.

Plz. change that map because that map just doesn't look right. Include the Philippines (more specifically, at least the Visayas, Sulu, Mindanao and Palawan) in the shaded region depicting the empire. The empire's extent was definitely also in the Philippines by the end of the 12th century.

One more thing. Another spelling of Sri Vijaya is Sri Vishaya.

[edit] some text attributing to Sri Vijaya in the Philippines

"...Hence, independent Malay states, notably Sri Vishaya [Sri Vijaya] and Majhapahit empires arose through which India[n] cultural influence reached the Philippines. The Sri Vishaya empire arose in the 8th century in Sumatra which ruled over Sumatra, Ceylon, Malay Peninsula, Western Java, Celebes, Moluccas, Borneo and the Philippines. Sulu and Visayas were the center of Shri Vishaya power... (Rasul 4)" -Taken from "Agonies and Dreams: The Filipino Muslims and Other Minorities"
Citation: Rasul, Justice Jainal D. Agonies and Dreams: The Filipino Muslims and Other Minorities. Quezon City: CARE Minorities, 2003.

[edit] Page move

A user recently moved Srivijaya to Sriwijaya. I've undone the move due to the fact that the move pre-empted discussion. __earth (Talk) 15:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you do that? Don't you have to be an administrator to move something to an already created page (ie, Srivijaya) including moving something back? --Merbabu 07:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear Merbabu, nope, you don't have too. It used to be an exclusive admin privilege but anybody could do it now, I think. __earth (Talk) 08:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am the one who moved Srivijaya to Sriwijaya because the latter is the spelling used by academics on Indonesia and the Malay world, for example O. W. Wolters from Cornell University for his book The Fall of Sriwijaya in Malay History, 1970, and Pierre-Yves Manguin from Ecole francaise d'Extreme-Orient in "Sriwijaya, entre texte historique et terrain archéologique : un siècle à la recherche d’un État évanescent", Bulletin de l’EFEO, 88, 2001, not mentioning of course Georges Cœdès's Sriwijaya : History, religion & language of an early Malay polity : collected studies, Monograph of the Malaysian Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, :-) Anda Djoehana 04:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Sriwijaya seems to be spelled under an outdated Malay system though I admit, by Malay, I mean that used in Malaysia. It may not be the case in Indonesia. My readings seem to use Srivjaya to refer to the kingdom though I don't think I'll be able to provide the citation soon. If it's a majority the support the move, you may move it. I'm kind of sitting on the fence. __earth (Talk) 05:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Territorial extension

O. W. Wolters, Pierre-Yves Manguin and other historians and archaeologists have shown that basically Sriwijaya was a city-state located in modern Palembang. Based on other considerations such as agronomy and ecology, the city must have had 50,000 inhabitants at most. Sriwijaya's hinterland was made of forests that could hardly have supported a larger population. Sriwijaya's power resided in its capacity to control maritime traffic in the Malacca Strait, possibly through an alliance with the ancestors of present Orang Laut. The myth of a vast territorial control by Sriwijaya was launched in the 1930's by Moehamad Yamin, who wanted to give the Netherlands Indies's inlanders ("natives") a sense of grandeur. This myth might be needed politically and ideologically at the time, but history must be based on facts and research, not on propaganda! :-) Anda Djoehana 05:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

How about the Chinese record confirming Srivijayan presence in Java and in Chaiya in southern Thailand? I've also read that Srivijaya is really a confederation of states rather than a unity one. __earth (Talk) 05:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of such Chinese records and will check with Pierre-Yves Manguin, whom I know personally. As for Chaiya, what has been found there is an inscription stating that a king of Sriwijaya built a temple there as a donation. On the other side of the plate, the name "Sailendra" is written. Sailendra was the name of a dynasty that reigned in Central Java in the 8th century. Some people interpreted that this mention of "Sailendra" meant that the donator was a Sailendra king, but I hope you will admit that this is a bit too quickly inferred! :-) As for the confederation concept, there is not much evidence to support it, Anda Djoehana 05:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You do? Send me his autograph please! __earth (Talk) 08:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you know him personally? Cool! About Srivijaya... I'm from South Kalimantan(or Borneo)island. We believe our ancestors were Malay people who came from Sumatra, at a time of Srivijaya. In the year 520, they built a Buddhist Kingdom, Tanjungpuri, in the area now known as Tabalong. We actually have a candi (Candi Laras) which is the remnants of Tanjungpuri Kingdom. So I actually have a reason to say that Srivijaya's sphere of power was true. As you can see, the southern part of Kalimantan is highlighted as a part of the empire.Matahari Pagi 09:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rulers

So far, one of the few written mentions of a Sriwijaya ruler is that of Dapunta Hyang Sri Yacanara in the Kedukan Bukit inscription dated 682 AD and found on Bangka island. The Nagarakertagama epic written in 1365 does not make any reference to Sriwijaya but instead to Palembang, so Parameswara, who according to legend founded Malacca around 1400 could not have been a Sriwijaya prince, :-) Anda Djoehana 05:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand why the Malaysians keep insisting that Parameswara was a Srivijayan prince when in fact at that time Srivijaya had disappeared. His religion before Islam was Hinduism, which would be very weird if he really was a Srivijayan prince (Srivijayans were Buddhists).
The reason why he was a Hindu is because he was in fact a Majapahit prince. Both article of Parameswara in English and Malay, even though they claim he was a Srivijayan prince, stated his lineage: Raden Wijaya the first king (1293-1309) of Majapahit was married to Sri Gayatri Rajapatni, a daughter of Sri Kertanegara, the last king (1268-1292) of Singhasari Kingdom, and had a daughter Tribuana Tunggadewi, the third leader/queen (1326-1350) of Majapahit. She married Kertawardana, and had a daughter: Iswari. She married Singawardana, and had a daughter: Sarawardani. She married Ranamenggala, and had a son: Parameswara who was born in 1344 during the reign of his great grandmother, Tribuana Tunggadewi, the third leader/queen of Majapahit.Matahari Pagi 09:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Probably because he had identified himself with the Malay instead of the Javanese. That is the reason why he ran away when the Javanese reinvaded Palembang in the late 1300s. While Srivijaya had varnished, they were several groups that tried to recreate Srivijaya (i.e. Wuni), claiming ties to Srivijaya. The fact that he was a Hindu and Srivijaya was a Buddhist kingdom does not change the fact that he had his loyalty to Palembang and Malay instead of Java. The same goes with Sultan Alauddin of Johor-Riau-Lingga. He was a Malacca prince despite the fact that Malacca no longer existed. __earth (Talk) 11:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
That's understandable if he thought himself as a Malay rather than a Javanese, but it doesn't change the fact. The fact that his ethnicity was Javanese and there was no such thing as a Srivijayan prince anymore at that time. That'd be like trying to pass Adolf Hitler as a native German while in reality he truly was an Austrian. :D Matahari Pagi 03:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps. But I have placed a request for citation for that particular point. I hope that would temporarily settle this discussion among us. __earth (Talk) 04:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
If we want to know why Parameswara identified himself as Srivijayan lineage I think we have to check the background of his father, Ranamenggala and maybe Sailendra lineage since Srivijaya time. Majapahit Genealogical Diagram shows Sarawardani married to Bhre Pandan Salas, not Ranamenggala. We have to know also that time "forced political marriage" is part of the strategy to neutralise your enemy. Need to clarify on this. (ChikDin) 09:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

May I express some doubt about the way the references have been presented in this article? A title, once cited, in subsequent notes is repeated in its entirety. This seems to me to have two disadvantages:

  • It is hard on the reader, who does not really need to take note of the ISBN, say, over and over again, but had rather concentrate on the evidence, i.e. the page number.
  • It seems at odds with usual scholarly practice (as far as my experience goes).

I would therefore suggest that when a title is referred to for the second and subsequent times, the short version be used.

  • Additionally there is the problem that pages 127 is not quite grammatical and might even lead to confusion. I'd like to suggest substitution by p. 127 (or, as the case may be, pp. 127-28).

Kind regards, Bessel Dekker 17:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

dear Bessel, please, be my guest. I reverted your earlier edit because there was a technical error with the citation, not because I disagree with your edit. __earth (Talk) 03:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was aware of that, Earth: thank you. Regards, Bessel Dekker 22:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] update first section

Small changes in the first section. The reference nr 1. to Munoz (accidently removed before )is kept, but the unsourced info is removed, namely the reference to sri boja, the estimate of 200s and the citation needed templates. Apart from beeing unsourced, there was already a reference to ' sriboja '( with source )under the next section.A. Post-Muller (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)