I

Changing Perspectives
 CHAPTER 1

The Concept of Cultural

Hermann Kulke

This essay gives me the opportunity to present is as symptomatic of this attitude as the more
my ‘convergence thesis’ of India’s early influence recent names like Further India, East Indies, the
in Southeast Asia again, after about twenty years, Indies, Indian Archipelago or Islands, Insulinde,
with additional remarks on further research on Hinterindien, Nederlandsch-Indië, Indochina,
the so-called Indianization of Southeast Asia.1 and Indonesia (Wheatley 1982, 13).
The focus is on India’s strong impact on the Southeast Asian historical research by Euro-
emergence of the early kingdoms in the middle pean scholars developed parallel to the progress
of the first millennium CE during the second of Western colonization in that part of the world.
stage of early state formation in Southeast Asia, a In order to do justice to the arduous epigraphic
process which I depicted elsewhere in three stages and chronological work of a small group of,
from chieftaincies to the early and the imperial particularly French and Dutch, historians of
kingdoms (Kulke 1986b). the pioneer generation in the late 19th and early
For a long time, Western knowledge about 20th century, which may rightly be criticized as
Southeast Asia has been overshadowed by the ‘Indocentric’ or even biased, one has to keep in
fame of India and the greatness of her culture. mind that originally they had to resist the even
India remained the main attraction in the East greater prejudice of Southeast Asia’s alleged
ever since Alexander’s India campaign more than cultural and historical insignificance vis-à-vis
two thousand years ago. ‘Trans-Gangetic India’ the greatness of the neighbouring cultures
(India extra Gangem), the name used by Claudius and empires of India and China. In order to
Ptolemy for the countries of Southeast Asia, overcome this preconception, the easiest and
4 Asian Encounters

most effective way was to show that Southeast However, ‘the much maligned term of
Asia itself produced or at least possessed several colonies’ (Sarkar 1970, 5) and the concept of
of the most important monuments of India’s ‘Greater India’ did not long survive the demise
culture as a whole, as for instance the Borobudur of European colonies in the East. ‘Indianization’
and Angkor Vat. And since at that time next to now became the new keyword. It has to be
nothing was known about the autochthonous regarded primarily as a reaction against the
prehistory and protohistory of Southeast Asia, untenable concept of ‘Indian Colonies’ in
what was more understandable than proclaiming the East and its obvious excesses. Already in
an Indian origin of the early Southeast Asian 1934, van Leur, a young Dutch student, had
states and cultures? dealt this concept a first blow in his thesis On
It should not be forgotten that in the age Early Asian Trade.2 Strongly influenced by Max
of European colonialism, this approach to Weber’s studies on India and his statements
Southeast Asian history also legitimized, after about the active role played by Brahmins and
all, the domination of Europeans as successors local rulers in the process of Hinduization in
to their erstwhile Indian predecessors who central and southern India (Kulke 1986a), van
once had also come from the West. But the Leur came to very similar conclusions about
Indocentric (mis)interpretation of Southeast early Indonesian rulers:
Asian history and culture culminated during the
In the same sort of attempt at [....] organizing and do-
twenties and thirties of the last century when
mesticating their states and subjects, they called Indian
nationalist Indian historians introduced the
civilization to the east -- that is to say, they summoned
concept of ‘Greater India’ and ‘Hindu Colonies’
the Brahman priesthood to their courts. There was,
in Southeast Asia. In 1926, the Greater India then, no ‘Hindu colonization’ in which ‘colonial states’
Society was established in Calcutta and in the arose from intermittent trading voyages followed by
following year, the first volume of a series of permanent trading settlements, no ‘Hindu colonies’
monographs on The Indian Colonies in the Far from which the primitive indigenous population and
East was published by R C Majumdar. Majum- first of all its headmen took over the superior civiliza-
dar became the most prominent proponent tion from the west (van Leur 1967, 98).
of this school. In a special lecture delivered in
1940 he asserted that ‘the Hindu colonists [in Van Leur did not live to see the recognition of
Southeast Asia] brought with them the whole his work, not even in the Netherlands. He died
framework of their culture and civilization and in the Pacific War at the age of 34. The impact
this was transplanted in its entirety among the of his ‘often rather bold and heretical hypotheses’
people who had not yet emerged from their (van Leur 1967, Introduction, VII) was first
primitive barbarism’ (Majumdar 1940, 21). felt in 1946, only a few months after Indonesia
Majumdar has rightly been blamed for such had declared its independence, when F. D. K.
statements, but one should keep in mind that Bosch delivered his famous inaugural lecture at
even scholars like Nilakanta Sastri titled a short Leiden University on ‘Problems of the Hindu
article in the Journal of the Greater India Society Colonization of Indonesia’ (Bosch 1961). Hav-
as ‘The Tamil Land and the Eastern Colonies’ ing meanwhile arrived at similar conclusions,
(Sastri 1944). Bosch referred in his lecture specifically to van
 The Concept of Cultural Convergence Revisited 5

Leur’s thesis when he undertook for the first example in this context. Originally published
time a systematic study of different theories of in French in 1944, it was revised several times
Indianization which he labelled as ‘Brāhma�a’, till it was translated into English in 1967 with
‘K�atriya’, and ‘Vaiśya’ hypotheses. In a careful the author’s approval. The two introductory
analysis, he refuted both the K�atriya-warrior chapters on the ‘Land and its Inhabitants’ and
and the Vaiśya-trader hypotheses and came to on ‘Indianization’ are followed by a chapter on
the conclusion that Brahmins were the major ‘The First Indian Kingdoms’ (emphasis mine).
agents of Indianization. Bosch’s lecture initiated The book concludes with two chapters entitled
a long and often very contentious discussion ‘The Decline of the Indian Kingdoms’ and ‘The
about the process of Indianization which may End of the Indian Kingdoms’ (emphasis mine).
be regarded as the major theoretical issue of Moreover, in the context of his theoretical dis-
classical Southeast Asian studies during the first cussion of the process of Indianization, Coedès,
two or three decades after World War II. For too, speaks of the ‘transplantation’ of the Indian
the time being, it found its conclusion in two civilization into Southeast Asia (Coedès 1968,
comprehensive and well-balanced articles by I W 16), though not in its entirety, as postulated by
Mabbett (1977) on the prehistoric and historic R C Majumdar.
sources of the ‘Indianization’ of Southeast Asia.3 It is therefore not astonishing that sooner or
The concept of Indianization has doubtless later the concept of Indianization as a whole
led to a more refined analysis of the whole was bound to come under fire. In a lecture on
complex of India’s cultural influence in Southeast ‘India and Maritime South East Asia: A Lasting
Asia. As its major advantage, one may regard its Relationship,’ J G de Casparis pointed out that
final refutation of the ‘K�atriya hypothesis’ and it was not his ‘intention to demolish existing
the emphasis it laid instead on the role played theories about “Indianization” but rather to call
by Brahmins as advisors and ritual specialists at attention to some of their weaknesses and so to
the courts of Southeast Asia—without, however, prepare the way for a more satisfactory approach’
neglecting the importance of trade and traders. (de Casparis 1983, 7). He concluded that
But the intensive discussions of, and restriction
instead of the conception based on the principle of
to, the three different hypotheses had a serious
initial ‘Indianization’, I propose to substitute the
repercussion, too, as they perpetuated the
pattern of a lasting relationship between the Indian
Indocentric view of early Southeast Asian history.
subcontinent and maritime South East Asia. The
Van Leur’s scornful comment in 1934—‘to what relatively simple, or perhaps simplistic, view of
an extent Indonesian shipping played an active Indianization is replaced by a complicated network
role is a question never raised’—was not taken of relations, both between various parts of each of
up seriously in the context of these Indianization the two great regions and between the two regions
studies. Despite its undeniable merits, the themselves (de Casparis 1983, 17).
concept of Indianization thus still kept, tough in
an alleviated way, to the beaten track, neglecting Already in 1982, P Wheatley, too, had
indigenous Southeast Asian initiative. observed that ‘the tide of revisionism that is
G Coedès’ famous standard work The currently sweeping through Southeast Asian his-
Indianized States of Southeast Asia is a good toriography has in effect taken us back almost to
6 Asian Encounters

the point where we have to consider re-evaluating Indianization regarded India’s impact during the
almost every text bearing on the protohistory first centuries of the first millennium CE as the
period and many from later times’ (Wheatley beginning of Southeast Asia’s historical develop-
1982, 27). This paradigmatic change was caused ment, the new archaeological findings show that
by the far-reaching and sweeping prehistoric we have to understand the congenial acceptance
archaeological discoveries in mainland Southeast of India’s influence and the subsequent Indian-
Asia. Wheatley pointed out that ization as the final stage or even culmination
of Southeast Asia’s indigenous prehistory and
prior to World War II, and even later, virtually all
protohistory. In 2007, Ian Glover, too, asserted
prehistoric research in Southeast Asia was undertaken
on the basis of his own seminal archaeological
within an evolutionary paradigm that was strongly
research that ‘the first civilizations of Southeast
predisposed to interpret changes in the composition
of archaeological assemblages as the results of either Asia had their origins in the prehistoric past and
population movements or the diffusion of cultural were not brought by advanced immigrants from
traits into the region from outside. During the 1960s the west’ (Glover 2007, 12).
and 1970s [and we may now add, even more so in the The second major cause of the paradigmatic
following decades], it became increasingly clear that change is the re-evaluation of processes of state
the old paradigm was no longer an adequate vehicle formation and of the nature of the early state
for fruitful thought about these matters (Wheatley on both sides of the Bay of Bengal (Kulke
1982, 18). 1986b, 1991). Previously, the early and early
medieval states in eastern and southern India
Wheatley therefore concluded that
as well as in Southeast Asia had been depicted
at about the beginning of the Christian era, Southeast as centralized kingdoms or even empires. More
Asia was occupied by a mosaic of societies and recent studies emphasize processual modes of
cultures ... within a common, recognizably Southeast state formation and the segmentary, integra-
Asian trajectory of cultural evolution. Organization- tive, galactic, amorphous, or mandala-like
ally, these communities ran the whole gamut from nature of the state; the ritual sovereignty of its
bands through tribes to chiefdoms, including strongly imperial rulers; and the ‘shared sovereignty’ of
developed paramountcies exhibiting substantial de- its little kings.4
grees of centralized direction, hereditary hierarchical Space does not permit to explain this new
statuses, and dominantly redistributive modes of
approach in detail. But let me illustrate it with a
economic integration not far removed from those of
few examples beginning with Funan, Southeast
true states (Wheatley 1982, 18).
Asia’s first so-called ‘empire’. In his standard
He then arrived at an inference which is of monograph on Angkor, L P Briggs (1951, 18)
great importance for our consideration when depicts third-century Funan under king Fan
he summarized ‘that it is in these pre- and Shih-man as an ‘empire more than a thousand
protohistoric paramountcies that much of the miles in extent, with boundaries perhaps as wide
dynamism of the so-called Hinduization process as those of which the proudest Khmer Emperor
should be sought’ (Wheatley 1982, 18). could later boast’. 5 More recent research,
Whereas the hypotheses of ‘Indian Colonies however, particularly by C Jacques (1979) and
in the Far East’ and (though to a lesser degree) Michael Vickery (1998), has shown that none
 The Concept of Cultural Convergence Revisited 7

of these statements can be accepted any longer One of these inscriptions relates the genealogy
as established facts.6 of Mūlavarman’s ‘dynasty’. It begins with the
Briggs’ interpretation of early Funan is clearly grandfather Ku��u�ga about whom only his
contradicted by its earliest inscription, the famous Sanskrit title narendra (Lord of Men) is known,
Vo-canh inscription (from Central Vietnam) of which, however, might have been conferred
rājā Śrī Māra, whom Coedès identified with the upon him posthumously by his son or grand-
great king Fan Shi-man and which is dated on son. In the second generation, some incipient
palaeographical grounds between the third and change is clearly discernable. Ku��u�ga’s son
fifth centuries CE (Majumdar 1927, 1–3). In adopted the Sanskrit name Aśvavarman and
my understanding, the Vo-canh inscription does is explicitly praised as the ‘maker’ of a (royal)
not depict an ‘empire’ but the transition from lineage or ‘dynasty’ (va�śa-kartā). The political
chiefdom to an early kingdom. The inscription significance of this foundation of a ‘dynasty’ is
refers only to the ‘king’ (rājā), his own relatives unknown. But sociologically it certainly must
(svajana), the ‘royal lineage’ (rājakula), and the have meant a considerable raise of status for
host of kings (rājaga�a), most likely the heads Aśvavarman’s family or lineage within his own
of minor lineages. Furthermore, the welfare of clan. Under Aśvavarman’s son Mūlavarman, a
the ‘people’ (prajā) is invoked twice explicitly genuine socio-political change took place, which
which, most likely, comprised the whole clan. appears to have led to the emergence of an early
No other patrimonial administrative officers are kingdom. Mūlavarman assumed the foreign
mentioned. Obviously Śrī Māra’s ‘state affairs’ (Indian) royal title rājā, defeated neighbouring
were still the affairs of his own patriarchal chiefs or ‘landlords’ (pārthiva) and made them
household. He ruled his people through the ‘tribute givers’ (kara-da). He invited Brahmins
traditional means of ‘conciliation and gifts’ ‘who came hither’ (iha āgata), performed grand
(sāma-dāna), as is mentioned more explicitly in ceremonies at a ‘most sacred place’ near his
Sañjaya’s inscription of early 8th century Java. In [Mūlavarman’s] own town (svaka pura), pro-
this context, it may be mentioned that, as in the duced the series of impressive yūpa inscriptions,
case of Funan, Srivijaya’s definition as an empire and were showered with gifts of land and cows
too has been questioned by Bronson (1979, by Mūlavarman.
395–405), K R Hall (1976), and more recently Śrī Māra’s Vo-canh inscription and Mūlavar-
by myself (Kulke 1991, 1993). man’s (most likely contemporary) yūpa inscrip-
The seven yūpa stone inscriptions of Mūlavar- tions pertain to a very similar developmental
man from Kutei in East Kalimantan provide stage. They depict the rise of a family (kula) or
another excellent example as they depict para- lineage (va�śa) within their own wider society
digmatically the rise of a strong local chiefdom and the emergence of early kingdoms. Mūlavar-
to an early kingdom within three generations man’s inscriptions particularly bear witness to
(Kulke 1991, 4–5). These earliest inscriptions of ‘first victories’ over neighbouring chiefs and the
Indonesia are incised on seven sacrificial stone establishment of ‘royal authority’ beyond the
pillars (yūpas) which strongly resemble menhirs clan’s own territory through the engagement of
(Chhabra 1963, 85–92). On palaeographical Brahmins ‘who have come hither’ (iha āgata) as
grounds their date is assumed as c. 400 CE. ‘extra-patrimonial functionaries’ and experts of
8 Asian Encounters

religious and magic knowledge. Their creation Kanchipuram. Samudragupta claims to have
and mounting of a series of unprecedented and defeated, released and, out of favour, reinstated
impressive inscriptions and the royal redistribu- all these kings. Although most of these rulers are
tion of the spoils of victories and of the (most known only from Samudragupta’s inscription,
likely) irregular tributes from defeated chiefs the list provides a unique insight into processes
validated and legitimized their newly acquired of state formation in eastern and southern India
‘royal’ status as rulers of an early kingdom. in late 4th century CE.
It was at this stage of the emergence of early Let me illustrate the new kind of local state
kingdoms in Southeast Asia that Indian influence formation in tribal and post-tribal eastern India
apparently fell on fertile ground. Brahmins were in mid-first millennium CE by just one example
not only welcome administrators but obviously from southern Orissa. The 7th and 8th century
there existed also a tremendous need for addi- inscriptions of the Śailodbhava dynasty of
tional legitimation which indigenous traditional Ko�go�ama��ala in Southern Orissa/Kali�ga
institutions were unable to fully provide. contain a revealing dynastic foundation legend
In the context of our deliberations about the which may go back to the late 4th or early 5th
possible causes of early local state formation in centuries CE (Sircar 1951). The legend relates
Southeast Asia under strong Indian influences that Pulindasena, who was famous among the
in the late 4th and 5th centuries, it is significant people of Kali�ga, requested Śiva to relieve
that we observe similar evolutionary processes of him from the burden of rulership. Śiva granted
early local state formation on the other side of this boon and a young man appeared out of
the Bay of Bengal. In post-Sātavāhana eastern, a piece of rock (śilā-sakala-udbhedi). Both
central, and southern India,7 too, we ascertain names–Pulindasena (who has no title) and
similar ‘trajectories’ of political and socio- Śailodbhava—clearly reveal a tribal origin of
economic evolution and a new kind of incip- this dynasty. The Pulindas were a well-known
ient local state formation as in contemporary tribe of ancient central India. Pulindasena thus
Southeast Asia.8 The existence of a large number may have been a military chief (sena) of this
of local polities in the coastal regions of eastern tribe. The name of his successor, Śailodbhava
India is well-documented by Samudragupta’s (‘born from the mountain’) and the mention of
great Allahabad inscription (Fleet 1888, 1–17). the Mahendragiri as the ‘great family mountain’
It lists altogether twelve rulers of chieftaincies (b�hat-kula-giri), points even more clearly
and little kingdoms which Samudragupta to their mountainous homeland from where
defeated during his famous conquest of the they conquered the nearby fertile valley of the
south (dak�i�āpatha). After crossing Kosala, Rishikulya river in coastal south Orissa. Their
he defeated the ruler of the great forest region inscriptions depict the Śailodbhavas as stern
Mahākāntāra in present day Kalahandi/Koraput followers of Hinduism who claimed to rule their
districts of Orissa whose name ‘King of the early kingdom according to Hindu śāstras. In
Tigers’ (Vyāghrarāja) seems to reveal his tribal the early centuries of the second half of the first
origin. In coastal Orissa and Andhra Pradesh, millennium CE, more than half a dozen such
he subdued altogether five rulers until he finally dynastic foundation legends and stories of divine
defeated king Vi��ugopa, the Pallava ruler of metamorphoses of formerly tribal �hakurānās
 The Concept of Cultural Convergence Revisited 9

(aniconic tribal or village deities) to tutelary But despite their unique greatness, even such
Hindu deities of these early kingdoms are known centres of Buddhist art on India’s eastern coast
from epigraphic sources in Orissa (Eschmann like Amaravati and Nagarjunakonda had nearly
1978, 79–98; Kulke 1993). They all testify to no direct impact on the emergence of Southeast
stages of incipient state formation connected Asia’s indigenous art and architecture. This
with protracted processes of socio-economic changed all of a sudden, shortly after Hindu
changes and cultural transformation which we temples became for the first time a royal symbol
are now used to calling Hinduization. of the emerging early kingdoms in eastern India’s
In view of our knowledge about the already coastal region from the late 7th century. The best
far advanced material culture and trade relations examples are the well-known early temples of the
of the societies of Southeast Asia at the begin- Pallavas at Mahabalipuram and Kanchipuram
ning of the CE and due to the reinterpretation and even a few decades earlier, the temples at
of the alleged ‘empires’ of the early centuries CE Bhubaneswar, as well as the Western Cālukya
as chiefdoms, principalities, and early kingdoms, temples at Aihole and Pattadakal. Java’s earliest
we are now perceiving similar processes of early temples on the Dieng Plateau are dated around
state formation on both sides of the Bay of 700 CE and are thus exact contemporaries of
Bengal. But whereas early developmental pro- the Kailāśanātha temple at Kanchipuram and
cesses in eastern and southern India, e.g. during the famous Shore temple at Mahabalipuram,
the Sangam age or under the Sātavāhanas and which must have been most impressive for sea-
the earliest Pallavas, did not influence Southeast faring visitors from Southeast Asia. I am neither
Asia, the new processes of local state formation concerned here with the controversial question of
on the Indian side of the Bay of Bengal from the the exact dates of Java’s earliest temples at Dieng
middle of the first millennium CE increasingly plateau nor with the possible Indian models of
influenced and accelerated indigenous processes Java’s earliest temples. 9 My main concerns are
of early state formation in Southeast Asia. It was three conclusions. First, the early temples of
then that rulers of Southeast Asia ‘summoned’ Southeast Asia are nearly contemporary to those
(or, more likely, invited) Brahmins to their little Hindu temples which sprang up like mushrooms
courts, in order to legitimize and strengthen in coastal eastern, central, and southern India in
their claim to superior authority and power the 7th century AD. Second, the early temples
through their advice, a claim which, as we of Southeast Asia from the very beginning devel-
know from anthropologists, is not sanctioned oped peculiar regional styles in the same way
by tribal norms. as it happened in the various regions of India.
As another significant case of concurrence Third, the spread of Hindu temple architecture
and nearly simultaneous developments on both beyond the frontiers of the former Gupta empire
sides of the Bay of Bengal, the emergence of on both sides of the Bay of Bengal was directly
free-standing stone temples may be at least linked with the emergence of the early regional
briefly referred to. It is, of course, well-known kingdoms.
that India produced masterpieces of Buddhist If we look at the political and cultural
art and stupa architecture since the age of the developments on both sides of the Bay of Bengal
Mauryas, as for instance under the Sātavāhanas. in the middle of the first millennium CE, we
10 Asian Encounters

observe a similarity and even convergence of of an overall historical process which included
social and cultural evolution in both regions. and affected the societies of South and Southeast
It is the major thesis of this paper that it was Asia as a whole. According to this thesis, it was
exactly this nearness between the societies in the socio-economic and political convergence
the coastal regions of the Bay of Bengal rather in both regions in the middle of the first
than the social distance between imperial millennium CE which required and enabled
Indian states and emerging early kingdoms of similar solutions to similar problems of social
Southeast Asia which made the Indian model change. In this context, the just-mentioned
so attractive to Southeast Asian rulers. For nearly contemporary emergence of freestanding
obvious reasons, the Hindu model of a ‘limited Hindu temple architecture on both sides of the
universal kingship’ was initially taken over by Bay of Bengal is particularly revealing. Whereas
early local rulers of Southeast Asia from the early Indianization presumes social distance as a
kingdoms of southern and eastern India and not major cause of acceptance of Indian influences
from the imperial Guptas of northern India, a in Southeast Asia, the convergence hypothesis
model that did not yet fit the requirements of postulates social nearness as the promoter
contemporary Southeast Asian rulers. Brahmins of social change under, undoubtedly, Indian
and scribes who brought the so-called Pallava influence in Southeast Asia.
grantha script to Indonesia in about 400 CE I may now try to summarize a few contribu-
were thus not emissaries of powerful Hindu tions to the ‘Indianization discourse’ since my
rulers of south India (where indeed no powerful convergence thesis was first published in 1990.
empires existed at that time). They came rather In 1999, two substantial articles were published
from the courts of early kingdoms like that of by Monica L Smith and Roy E Jordaan. The
the Pallavas, whose rulers had only recently been title of Smith’s article ‘“Indianization” from the
able to establish their authority and ‘domesticate’ Indian Point of View’ (Smith 1999) may be mis-
their people with the help of invited Brahmins leading as one might expect a treatise on Indian
and thus were able to successfully solve similar concepts of Indianization like ‘Indian Colonies
problems which their emerging colleagues in in the Far East’ etc. But instead of that, it is a
Southeast Asia were still facing. Once we look critical evaluation of the Indian sources on India’s
in this way at the societies on both sides of the contacts with Southeast Asia. Smith rightly
Bay of Bengal, we understand why India’s culture emphasises that ‘prior to the fourth century
did not reach Southeast Asia through an act of C.E. Indian trade activities appear to have been
‘transplantation’, but through a ‘complicated relatively infrequent ... as the level of open-water
network of relations’ (de Casparis 1983) between seafaring technology in the subcontinent appears
partners of mutual ‘processes of civilization’ to be rather limited’ (Smith 1999, 15). Moreover,
which comprised both sides of the Bay of Bengal. depictions of boats from the early centuries are
Unlike the Indianization concept, this ‘river-boats rather than seagoing craft’. She also
convergence thesis not only provides more assumes that ‘whatever contact was sustained in
space for indigenous initiatives in Southeast the early first millennium between Southeast
Asia. It also tries to interpret the developments Asia and the subcontinent was likely to have been
in early Southeast Asia within the framework initiated by individuals sailing from Southeast
 The Concept of Cultural Convergence Revisited 11

Asia’ (Smith 1999, 6–7). In her conclusion, she art and architecture was based on architectural
points out that the term ‘Indianization’ ‘conceals manuals (śilpa-śāstras) obtained by Javanese
the complexities of socio-political organization pilgrims from India. Instead, he vehemently
in the first millennium C.E’. (Smith 1999, 18). claims that the classical monuments of Central
As has been argued above, she, too, emphasizes Java, particularly the Borobudur, are the creation
that a genuine adoption of Indian traditions is of the allegedly Indian Śailendra dynasty, which
discernible only after the 4th century, and was brought in its entourage Indian craftsmen with
undertaken by dynastic leaders of Southeast their architectural silpa-sastra manuals. In this
Asia who were increasing their dominance over context, he points out several times that my
local groups as well as improving their contacts above-mentioned statement that Bosch’s famous
with other cultures. But in contrast to my inaugural lecture marks the final refutation
arguments, Smith argues that the point of origin of the K�atriya theory ‘is wrong, at least with
of the so-called Indianization was the successful respect to the Śailendras’ (Jordaan 1999, 213).
political growth of the Guptas since the late 4th The theory of an Indian origin of the Śailendra
century which ‘provided a powerful, coherent dynasty, brought up by R C Majumdar (1933),
and attractive ensemble of religious motifs has meanwhile been abandoned nearly com-
and bureaucratic mechanism’ (Smith 1999., pletely, but still lingers on in the writing of few
15). I agree that the fame of the contemporary scholars, mostly Indian adherents of the ‘Greater
Gupta empire and its culture may be ‘under- India School’. There exists, of course, a general
represented’ in my convergence thesis, linking agreement that the art of the Śailendras was
the development in Southeast Asia primarily strongly influenced by the art of the Pāla dynasty
with coastal eastern and southern India. I am of Bihar and Bengal, best known for the great
therefore surprised that finally she, too, comes monastic ‘Buddhist University’ of Nālandā. But
to the conclusion that ‘after the fourth century it is revealing to note that Jordaan, too, is unable
C.E. many of the areas along the eastern Ocean to substantiate his claim of an Indian origin of
sustained the development of complex political the Śailendras by any reliable historical source
entities that adopted Indian political terms and and thus to verify the ‘present aim’ of his paper ‘to
religious motifs. These Indian traditions were re-assess the k�atriya theory’ (Jordaan 1999, 218).
attractive because they had been fashioned into More recently, Aoyama Toru of the Indone-
a coherent socio-political model by groups in sian Programme, Tokyo University, delivered a
the subcontinent’.10 still unpublished lecture at Yogyakarta in 2007
Jordaan’s article follows a very different line on the concept of Indianization, which contains
as can already be detected from its title, ‘The several interesting points.11 Important, and to
Sailendras, the Status of the K�atriya Theory, my knowledge new in the international debate
and the Development of Hindu-Javanese Temple on Indianization, is his comparison of Sinization
Architecture’ (Jordaan 1999). He refutes again and Indianization of East Asia and Southeast Asia
and again the theory of F D K Bosch, the respectively with particular reference to Japan
doyen of Dutch ‘Indonesian’ scholars since and Indonesia. He points out, for instance, that
the twenties of the last century, namely that according to his philological studies, the direct
the uniqueness of the so-called Indo-Javanese and indirect influence of Chinese and Sanskrit
12 Asian Encounters

on the vocabulary of Japan and Indonesia comes degree the Sanskrit “cosmopolis” I shall describe
in both cases to nearly 50 per cent, whereas the consists precisely in this common aesthetics of
influences of Chinese law and social system in political culture, a kind of poetry of politics’
Japan clearly exceeds the influence of India’s (Pollock 1996, 198). After clearly dismissing all
dharmaśāstra and caste system in Southeast Asia. facets of an Indian ‘colonization’ of Southeast
Although he does not hesitate to speak of Siniza- Asia as possible explanation of the spread of
tion and Indianization, ‘Sinized’ or ‘Indianized’ Sanskrit, he points out that from about the 5th
states are not the point of his analysis. He clearly century onwards, ‘Sanskrit inscriptions appear
rejects Coedès’ concept of the transplantation with an almost breath-taking simultaneity and
of India’s culture in Southeast Asia en bloc and with increasing frequency in what are now the
emphasizes the longue durèe of Indianization nations [of Southeast Asia]’” (Pollock 1996,
and the essential process of the localization of 217) and charts ‘very briefly [in fact in great and
India cultural influences. Significant in our significant detail!] the career of public Sanskrit
context is his emphasis on south India’s role of in two areas, Khmer country and Java’. And
mediator of the ‘cultural affinity between India after pointing out that no significant Sanskrit
and Southeast Asia as one of the factors that poetry existed outside the royal inscriptional
characterizes the process of Indianization’ (my praśasti poetry in Angkor and Java, he concludes
emphasis). If one replaces India by south India that Sanskrit was ‘exclusively the cosmopolitan
(about which he in fact is speaking), his ‘cultural language of elite self-presentation’ in Angkor and
affinity’ comes near to the concept of ‘cultural ‘the first vehicle for literized royal self-expression’
convergence’, particularly as he also refers in this in Java (Pollock 1996, 226, 229).
context to the above-mentioned Mūlavarman. So far, so good. Problems arise only with
Measured by its impact on recent debates on Pollock’s comprehensive conclusion of his article.
Indian influences in Southeast Asia, the most He is certainly right when he observes that after
important but also controversial contribution World War II, decolonization predictably ‘stim-
is Sheldon Pollock’s seminal paper (1996, ulated a quest for the local, the indigenous, the
197–247) on the Sanskrit cosmopolis, which autochthonous’. But he then goes on to criticize
therefore will have to be dealt with at some the important works of A Reid, O W Wolters,
length.12 As it encompasses a vast range of D Lombard and, others for pursuing exactly this
different aspects,13 only those will be taken up ‘quest’, and quotes, for instance, from Wolters’
which pertain to Southeast Asia and particularly famous late work, that Indianization did not
to his criticism of the convergence thesis. Right introduce ‘an entirely new chapter in the region’s
from the beginning, Pollock emphasises the history’, but ‘brought ancient and persisting
almost concurrent spread of Sanskrit in south indigenous beliefs into sharper focus’ (Wolters
India and Southeast Asia in the first millennium 1982, 11). After asserting that ‘much of this
CE. But ‘no political power [...] was at work (often masterful) analysis is open to criticism,
here. Sanskrit’s spread was effected by traditional not least for what strikes the non-Southeast
intellectuals and religious professionals. [...] Asianist as its defensive indigenism’ he concludes
Sanskrit articulated politics not as material power that ‘indeed, the very concepts ‘indigenism’ and
[...] but politics as aesthetic power. To some “autochthonism” are empty ones’ (my emphasis)
 The Concept of Cultural Convergence Revisited 13

(Pollock 1996, 233f.). In a way, Pollock’s Pollock is of course entitled to assume ‘that it
argumentation is paradoxical. None of these is a fact that the theoretical basis for this entire
authors has ever come forward with a concept of explanatory structure has been exploded by
indigenism or autochtonism (my emphasis). It contemporary social theory’, referring to A
is Pollock who labelled their multifaceted work Giddens’ critique of functionalism and his main
in this way only to blame them for it. Referring argument that social systems “have no “needs”’.
to J Filliozat’s interpretation that the spread of But it is strange that Pollock bases the assumed
Sanskrit was driven by practical interregional ‘explosion’ of the ‘refined functionalism’ of
communication needs (Filliozat 1977), he Wheatley’s and my legitimation thesis more or
expresses in the same way his uneasiness with less exclusively only on Giddens and his demand
what he calls ‘weak functionalism’ which ‘seems that the concrete conditions of the historical
not only anachronistic but conceptually flawed’ rise and decline of social institutions have in
(Pollock 1996, 235). He explicates his critique every case to be directly analysed.15 After all,
with special reference to Paul Wheatley and this is exactly what I am trying to do with my
his ‘post-Independence indigenist revisionism’ convergence thesis.
(my emphasis) as ‘a stronger and more refined It is, therefore, not astonishing that a
functionalism [which] holds that the idea-system thorough scrutiny of Pollock’s article reveals
of which Sanskrit was the vehicle was needed for several cases of overlapping or even a kind of
political “legitimation”’” (Pollock 1996, 236). convergence of his argumentation and that
According to Wheatley, [Southeast Asians] ‘came of the ‘more refined functionalists’.16 Thus,
to realize the value of Indian concepts as a means for instance, already in the introduction to
of legitimizing their political status, and possibly, his above-mentioned book (Pollock 2006),
stratifying their subjects. To achieve this end they he emphasizes the ‘political dimension’ of the
summoned to their courts Brahmans skilled in cosmopolis as his main interest. Or he asks the
protocol and ritual’ (Wheatley 1961, 161). meaningful question, ‘how are we to grasp the
Moreover, Pollock observes (without doubt power of such cultural forms [the translocality of
correctly) that ‘this explanatory framework Sanskrit], their attraction for local people, their
remains intact in Hermann Kulke’s recent careers, their hegemony over or compromise
analysis’. After a rather lengthy quotation from with the vernacular’ (Pollock 2006, 230).
my paper (Kulke 1990, 20–21) on convergence, One need not be an uncritical adherent of
which ends with the statement that there existed postmodern discourses to argue that all this has
obviously at both sides of the Bay of Bengal the to do as much with competition, contestation
same or at least similar socio-political needs for and in some cases perhaps even with actual
a new type of legitimation, Pollock concludes political control and power as with Pollock’s
with, to my mind, an inconsistent statement: main paradigm, ‘the aesthetics of political
‘There is nothing obvious in this statement at culture’. After all, I do not believe that Pollock is
all, for there is no reason to accept legitimation really of the opinion that ‘elite self-presentation’
theory in the first place, though it is ubiquitous and ‘literized royal self-expression’ operate sans
in the literature especially on the question of the politics and power—which require legitimacy
transculturation of the Sanskrit cosmopolis’.14 and thus legitimation.
14 Asian Encounters

Three contributions to the conference on does not explain their importance at the local
‘Early Interactions between South and Southeast level for the Javanese. What is needed is a more
Asia: Reflections on Cross-Cultural Exchange’ thorough examination of Dieng as a site in
held at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies relation to the political centre of Central Java at
at Singapore in 2007 (Manguin et al. eds. 2011), Prambanam’ (Romain 2011, 314).
deal critically with Pollock’s Sanskrit Cosmop- Johannes Bronkhorst observes in his article
olis hypothesis. Julie Romain’s article ‘Indian ‘The Spread of Sanskrit in Southeast Asia’ (2011)
Architecture in the “Sanskrit Cosmopolis”: that Pollock seems to think that his rejection of
The Temples of the Dieng Plateau’, focuses on the ‘legitimation theory’ also does away with
the comparison of 7th and 8th century temple the peculiar connection between Brahmins and
sites in central Java, Tamil Nadu, and Orissa Sanskrit, thus explaining ‘the spread of Sanskrit
which ‘immediately follows the rise of Pollock’s in terms of the language rather than in terms of
“Sanskrit Cosmopolis”’ (Romain 2011). Refer- its users. This allows him to propose his hypoth-
ence has already been made to Hindu temple esis of “politics as aesthetic power”’ (Bronkhorst
architecture as the visible sample of cultural 2011, 265). Moreover Bronkhorst, too, quotes
convergence; suffice it to summarize Romain’s at some length van Leur’s reference to the role
evaluation of the convergence and Sanskrit of Brahmins to legitimize dynastic interests.
Cosmopolis concepts within the scope of early He admits that Pollock may object to the word
Javanese art. After remarking that ‘the degree of legitimation and that nothing much may be lost
“cultural convergence” of Indian and Javanese by removing it. But ‘the factual situation remains
visual art traditions challenges the traditional the same. Brahmans were called to Southeast Asia
model of influence used to explain Indian cul- [and] brought with them their sacred language,
tural diffusion in Southeast Asia’ (Kulke 1990), Sanskrit’ (Bronkhorst 2011, 270).17
she points out that Pollock’s ‘recent work on the Daud Ali’s article ‘The Early Inscriptions
formation of a “Sanskrit Cosmopolis” is a useful of Indonesia and the Problem of the Sanskrit
framework for thinking about the diffusion of Cosmopolis‘ (Ali 2011) contains, to my knowl-
Indian art tradition in Southeast Asia’ (Romain edge, the most comprehensive debate so far on
2011, 300). But she detects a significant dif- Pollock’s concept of the Sanskrit Cosmopolis in
ference. ‘Unlike the exclusive use of Sanskrit as the Southeast Asian context. Important in our
language of royal political expression, there was context is that Ali emphasizes critically Pollock’s
not an exclusive Indian art style that was adopted refusal to take notice of the extensive literature
across Southeast Asia. [...] Certain regional on recent theories of state formation in South
Indian art traditions had a stronger impact on and Southeast Asia. ‘Pollock’s indifference to this
Southeast Asia art than others’ (Romain 2011, scholarship is hardly accidental, being connected
301). Of particular relevance in our context is with his sustained criticism of the regnant social
her conclusion that the diffusion of Indian visual scientific approaches to “ideology”. While his
art in Southeast Asia was ‘vernacular from the disagreement with historians for their banalisa-
start. [...] While this may help us to understand tion of Sanskrit sources through the “paradigm”
the significance of the Dieng temples within the of “legitimation” may be justified, his own
larger context of the “Sanskrit Cosmopolis”, it attempt to connect Sanskrit and power would
 The Concept of Cultural Convergence Revisited 15

have been enhanced considerably by attention 6. In this regard one may also refer to O.W.
to this literature’. (Ali 2011, 281). Ali then Wolters’ study of 7th century Chenla, the post-Funan
refers at length to the convergence theory and state about which he notices, ‘that the evidence reflects
ascertains that its ‘theory of social circulation, the multiplicity of regional centres in the land which
networks and convergence clearly in some way for convenience, we call “Cambodia”. Greater unities
were still only the fragile consequence of the power
provides a sociological complement to Pollock’s
of an individual leader. This kind of unity quickly
Sanskrit cosmopolis’ (Ali 2011, 282). After
dissolved when an overlord died or lost the confidence
scrutinizing Indonesia’s earliest inscription, 18 of his allies’. Wolters concludes that ‘in this situation
he concludes, dissenting with Pollock, that the term “kingdom” is an inappropriate one’ See
‘Sanskrit in Southeast Asia was hardly reserved Wolters, ‘North-Western Cambodia in the Seventh
for exclusively “eternal” rhetorical claims; it also Century’, (1974), p. 371.
articulated quotidian, material ones, particularly 7. Of particular importance for our consideration
as a language of formal affiliation among elites, are India’s coastal regions and the early political cen-
where it rubbed shoulders with and stimulated tres in their immediate hinterland (e.g. Kanchipuram
the development of other, existing vocabularies and Bhubaneswar) as they must have been visited
of power’ (Ali 2011, 290–1). most frequently by Southeast Asian traders and other
visitors.
8. For coastal Eastern and Southern India see
Notes
Senaviratne, ‘Kalinga and Andhra’, (1980/81);
1. This essay is a revised version of Kulke, Indian Maloney, ‘Archaeology in South India’, (1976),
Colonies, Indianization or Cultural Convergence?, pp. 1–40; Allchin, The Archaeology of Early Historic
(1990). South Asia, (1995) pp. 140–51; for a more general
2. J. C. van Leur, Eenige beschouwingen betreffende discussion see Chattopadhyaya, Political Processes and
den ouden Aziatischen handel (Leiden 1934). The Structure of Polity in Early Medieval India, (1983). For
English translation was published posthumously Southeast Asia, see a wide range of articles in Tarling,
under the title On Early Asian Trade together with a The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, (1992) and in
selection of his publications in the monograph. See Glover and Bellwood, eds. Southeast Asia, (2004), as
van Leur, Indonesian Trade and Society Essays in Asian well as Higham, Early Cultures of Mainland Southeast
Social and Economic History, (1967). Asia, (2002). For early maritime contacts, see Ray,
3. For a more recent comprehensive summary see The Winds of Change, (1994) and The Archaeology of
P.-Y. Manguin’s, Introduction to Early Interactions Seafaring in Ancient South Asia, (2003).
between South and Southeast Asia, (2011), pp. 9. For recent and comprehensive disquisition of
xiii–xxxi. these problems see Romain, ‘Indian Architecture in
4. See Berkemer and Frenz, eds Sharing the “Sanskrit Cosmopolis”’ (2011), pp. 299-316).
Sovereignty, (2003); Veluthat, The Early Medieval 10. Smith (1999, 19). I am glad that she arrived
in South India, (2009); Kulke, ‘The Early and independently at this conclusion as she does not refer
the Imperial Kingdom’, (2011); Tambiah, World to my paper.
Conqueror and World Renouncer, (1976); Wolters, 11. Aoyama Toru, ‘Indianization Revisited:
‘North-Western Cambodia in the Seventh Century’, A Comparative Review and its Contemporary
(1982); Manguin, ‘The Amorphous Nature of Coastal Significance’, Seminar at the Center for Religious
Polities in Insular Southeast Asia’, (2002). and Cross-Cultural Studies (CRCS), Gaja Mada
5. See L P Briggs, The Ancient Khmer Empire, p. 18. University, Yogyakarta, 4 September 2007.
16 Asian Encounters

12. See also his monograph Pollock, The Language southern India before the middle of the first millen-
of the Gods in the World of Men, (2006). nium CE, e.g. to the three Sangam kingdoms—the
13. ‘The “Sanskrit Cosmopolis” is the name I Satavahanas, Vishnukundins, and Kharavela. The
want to suggest for what may be the most complicated problem is that none of them seem to have had any
– and as totality least studied – transregional cultural impact on contemporary state formation Southeast
formation in the premodern world. While cosmopolis Asia, the focus of this paper.
might imply a number of things to different readers, 17. Bronkhorst, ‘The Spread of Sanskrit in
it is on the ‘polis’ or political dimension that I want Southeast Asia’, (2011), p. 273, n. 34) offers the inter-
to concentrate’. Pollock, ‘The Sanskrit Cosmopolis, esting suggestion to replace the word ‘legitimation’
300 – 1300’, p. 197. with ‘protection’—‘Protection of the ruling groups’
14. Pollock, ‘The Sanskrit Cosmopolis, 300 – and ‘sacral protection of dynastic interests’ may give
1300’ (1996), p. 236, fn 46). complains, for instance, less reason for objection.
that ‘functionalist legitimation theory undergirds 18. See also Kulke (1991, 1993).
the entire conceptual framework of the new
Cambridge History of Southeast Asia’, quoting several Bibliography
passages from its first volume, edited by Tarling, The Ali, D. ‘Early Inscriptions of Indonesian and the
Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, (1992). For a Problem of the Sanskrit Cosmopolis’. In P.-Y.
lengthy critique of the legitimation concept see also Manguin, A. Mani and G. Wade, eds Early
Pollock, The Language of the Gods in the World of Men. Interactions between South and Southeast Asia:
(2006), pp. 511–24. Reflections on Cross-cultural Exchange. eSingapore:
15. ‘Institutional features come about historically Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and Delhi:
(emphasis by the author), as a result of concrete Manohar, 2011. 277–98
conditions that have in every case to be directly Allchin, F.R. The Archaeology of Early Historic
analyzed’. Giddens, A Contemporary Critique of South Asia: The Emergence of Cities and States.
Historical Materialism, (1981), p. 18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
16. Most recently, Prof. N Karashima pointed Berkemer, B. and M. Frenz eds. Sharing Sovereignty:
out in a personal communication that the concept The Little Kingdom in South Asia. Berlin: Klaus
of Sanskrit Cosmopolis is compatible with the Schwarz Verlag, 2003.
convergence hypothesis although it is in a sense a Bosch, F.D.K. ‘Problems of the Hindu Colonization
revival of the Indianization concept. I am thankful of Indonesia’. Selected Studies in Indonesian
to him for inviting me to lecture at Tokyo University Archaeology. Den Hague: Nijhoff, 1961. 1–22.
on the convergence thesis on 18 January 2012. In Briggs, L.P. The Ancient Khmer Empire. Philadelphia:
his comments he also pointed out that in view of The American Philosophical Society, 1951.
the non-existence of the varna system in Southeast Bronkhorst, J. ‘The Spread of Sanskrit in Southeast
Asia and of the peculiar Brahmin/Kshatriya relation Asia’. In P.-Y. Manguin, A. Mani and G. Wade, eds
which were of crucial importance for state formation Early Interactions between South and Southeast Asia:
in India, it is difficult to speak of ‘Indianized’ states reflections on cross-cultural exchange. Singapore:
in Southeast Asia. He, too, refuted the idea of Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and Delhi:
Indianization which presumes ‘social distance’ as Manohar, 2011. 243–62.
the main cause of the spread of India’s culture to Bronson, B. ‘The Archaeology of Sumatra and the
Southeast Asia and prefers instead ‘social nearness’. Problems of Srivijaya’. In R.B. Smith and W.
But he rightly missed in my delineations references Watson, eds Early South East Asia. New York:
to processes of early state formation in eastern and Oxford University Press, 1979. 395–405.
 The Concept of Cultural Convergence Revisited 17

Chattopadhyaya, B.D. Political Processes and Structure Higham, C. Early Cultures of Mainland Southeast Asia.
of Polity in Early Medieval India: Problems of Bangkok: River Books, 2002.
Perspective. Presidential Address, Indian History Jacques, C. ‘“Funan”, “Zhenla”: The Reality Con-
Congress, 44th Session, Burdwan, 1983. cealed by these Chinese Views of Indochina’. In
Chhabra, B.Ch. Expansion of Indo-Aryan Culture R.B. Smith and W. Watson, eds. Early South East
during Pallava Rule. Delhi: Munshiram Mano- Asia. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.
harlal, 1963. 371–9.
Coedès, G. The Indianized States of Southeast Asia. Jordaan R.E. ‘The Sailendras, the Status of the
Honolulu: University of Hawaii, 1968. Ksatriya Theory, and the Development of Hindu-
de Casparis, J.G. 1983. India and Maritime South Javanese Temple Architecture’. In Bijdragen tot
East Asia: A Lasting Relationship. Kuala Lumpur: de Taal-, Land-, en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch
University of Malaya. Indië, (BKI) 155 (1999): 210–43.
Eschmann, A. ‘Hinduization of Tribal Deities in Kulke, H. ‘Max Weber’s Contribution to the Study
Orissa: The Śākta and Śaiva Typology’. In A. of “Hinduization” in India and “Indianization”
Eschmann, H. Kulke, and G. C. Tripathi, eds in Southeast Asia’. In D. Kantowsky, ed. Recent
The Cult of Jagannath and the Regional Tradition Research on Max Weber’s Studies of Hinduism.
of Orissa. New Delhi: Manohar, 1978. München: Weltforum Verlag, 1986a. 97–116.
Filliozat, J. ‘Le Sanskrit et le Pali en Asie du sud-est’. ———. ‘The Early and the Imperial Kingdom in
Comptes Rendus, Academie des Inscriptions et Southeast Asia’. In D.G. Marr and A.C. Milner
Belles-lettres, 1977. 398–406. ed. Southeast Asia in the 9th to 14th Centuries.
Fleet, J.F. Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies,
and Their Successors (Corpus Inscriptionum 1986b, 1–22. Reprinted in Kulke, H. Kings and
Indicarum,Vol. III). Calcutta: Superintendent of Cults: State Formation and Legitimation in India
Government Printing, 1888. and Southeast Asia. New Delhi: Manohar, 1993.
Glover I. and P. Bellwood, eds Southeast Asia: From 262–93.
Prehistory to History. London: Routledge Curzon, ———. ‘Indian Colonies, Indianization or Cultural
2004. Convergence? Reflections on the Changing Image
Glover, I.C. ‘Early States and Cities in Southeast of India’s Role in Southeast Asia’. In H. Schulte
Asia-Transition from Prehistory to History’ Nordholdt, ed. Onderzoek in Zuidoost-Azie. Agen-
Revised paper contributed to the conference, da’s voor de Jaren Negentig. 1990. 8–32. Vakgroep
‘State Formation and the Early State in South Talen en Culturen van Zuidoost-Azie en Oceanie,
and Southeast Asia Reconsidered’, Asia Research Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden (Semaian 3).
Institute, University of Singapore, 21–23 March ———. ‘Epigraphical References to the “City” and
2007. the “State” in Early Indonesia: A Reassessment
Giddens, A. A Contemporary Critique of Historical of the Evidence’. Indonesia, 52 (1991): 3–21.
Materialism. Berkeley: University of California, Reprinted in Kings and Cults: State Formation
1981.18 and Legitimation in India and Southeast Asia. New
Hall, K.R. ‘State and Statecraft in Early Srivijaya’. In Delhi: Manohar, 1993. 294–326.
K.R. Hall and J.K. Whitmore, eds Explorations Kulke, H. ‘Kadatuan Srivijaya - Kraton or Empire
in Early Southeast Asian History: The Origins of of Srivijaya?’. Bulletin de l’École française
Southeast Asian Statecraft. Ann Arbor: University d’Extrême-Orient 80 (1993): 159–80.
of Michigan, 1976. 61–106. Kulke, H. 1993. “Tribal Deities at Princely Courts.
The Feudatory Rajas of Central Orissa and their
18 Asian Encounters

Tutelary Deities (istadevatas).” In Kings and Cults. India and South East Asia. Delhi: B.R. Publishing
State Formation and Legitimation in India and Corporation, 1979. 1–45.
Southeast Asia. New Delhi: Manohar, 114–136 Maloney, C. ‘Archaeology in South India: Accom-
———. ‘The Early and the Imperial Kingdom: A plishments and Prospects’. In B. Stein, ed. Essays
Processual Model of Integrative State Formation on South India. New Delhi: Vikas, 1976. 1–40.
in Early Medieval India’. In Upinder Singh, ed. Manguin, P.-Y., A. Mani, G. Wade (eds.) 2011. Early
Rethinking Early Medieval India. A Reader. New Interactions between South and Southeast Asia.
Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2011. Reflections on Cross-Cultural Exchange. Singapore:
Leiden. Ph.D. Dissertation. Middelburg: G.W. den Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and New
Boer, 1934. Delhi: Manohar.
van Leur, J.C. Indonesian Trade and Society Essays in Pollock, S. ‘The Sanskrit Cosmopolis, 300 – 1300:
Asian Social and Economic History. The Hague, Transculturation, Vernacularization, and the
Bandung: Van Hoeve, 1967. Question of Ideology’. In J.E.M. Houben, ed.
Mabbett, I.W. ‘The “Indianization” of Southeast Asia: Ideology and Status of Sanskrit: Contributions to
Reflections on the Prehistoric Sources’. Journal of the History of Sanskrit Language. Leiden: E.J. Brill,
Southeast Asian Studies 8 (1977): 1–14 1996. 197-247.
———. ‘The “Indianization” of Southeast Asia: ———. The Language of the Gods in the World of Men:
Reflections on the Historical Sources’. Journal of Sanskrit, Culture and Power in Premodern India.
Southeast Asian Studies 8 (1977): 143–61. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.
Majumdar, R.C. The Inscriptions of Champa (Ancient Ray, H.P. The Winds of Change: Buddhism and the
Indian Colonies in the Far East, vol. I: Champa). Maritime Links of Early South Asia, Delhi: Oxford
Lahore: The Punjab Sanskrit Book Depot, 1927. University Press, 1994.
Maloney, C. ‘Archaeology in South India: Accom- ———. The Archaeology of Seafaring in Ancient
plishments and Prospects’. In Burton Stein, ed. South Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Essays on South India. New Delhi: Vikas, 1976. Press, 2003.
1–40. Romain, J. ‘Indian Architecture in the “Sanskrit
Manguin, P.-Y. ‘The Amorphous Nature of Coastal Cosmopolis”: The Temples of the Dieng Plateau’.
Polities in Insular Southeast Asia: Restricted In P.-Y. Manguin, A. Mani and G. Wade, eds Early
Centres, Extended Peripheries’. Moussons 5 (2002): Interactions between South and Southeast Asia:
73–99. Reflections on Cross-cultural Exchange. Singapore:
Manguin, P.-Y., A. Mani, and G. Wade, eds. Early Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and Delhi:
Interactions between South and Southeast Asia. Manohar, 2011.
Reflections on Cross-Cultural Exchange. Singapore: Sarkar, H.B. Some Contribution of India to the Ancient
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and New Civilization of Indonesia and Malaysia. Calcutta:
Delhi: Manohar, 2011. Punthi Pustak, 1970.
Majumdar, R.C. ‘Les rois Śailendra de Suvarnadvīpa’. Sastri, K.A.N. ‘The Tamil Land and Eastern
Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient 33 Colonies’. Journal of the Greater Indian Society 11
(1933): 121–41. (1944): 26–8.
Majumdar, R.C. Greater India (Sain Dass Foundation Seneviratne, S. ‘Kalinga and Andhra: The Process of
Lectures 1940). Sholapur: Institute of Public Secondary State Formation in Early India’. Indian
Administration, 1940; reprinted in 1949 and Historical Review 7 (1980/81): 54–69.
1958, and again in 1979 in his collection of Sircar, D.C. ‘Two Sailodbhava Grants from Banpur’.
essays, in K.S. Ramachandran and S.P. Gupta, eds Epigraphia Indica 39 (1951): 32–43.
 The Concept of Cultural Convergence Revisited 19

Smith, M.L. ‘“Indianization” from the Indian Point of Veluthat, K. The Early Medieval in South India. Delhi:
View: Trade and Cultural Contacts with Southeast Oxford University Press, 2009.
Asia in the Early First Millennium C.E’. Journal Vickery, M. Society, Economics and Politics in Pre-
of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 42 Angkor: The 7th-8th Centuries. Toyo Bunko: Centre
(1999): 1–26. for East Asian Studies for UNESCO, 1998.
Tambiah, S. World Conqueror and World Renouncer: Wheatley, P. 1961. The Golden Khersonese: Studies
A Study of Buddhism and Polity in Thailand against in the Historical Geography of the Malay Peninsula
a Historical Background. Cambridge: Cambridge before A.D. 1500. Kuala Lumpur: University of
University Press, 1976. Malaysia Press.
Tarling. Nicholas, ed. The Cambridge History of ———. ‘Presidential Address: India Beyond the
Southeast Asia: Volume One, from Early Times to Ganges—Desultory Reflections on the Origins
c. 1500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, of Civilization in Southeast Asia’. Journal of Asian
1992. Studies, 42/1 (1982): 13–28.
Toru, Aoyama. ‘Indianization Revisited: A Compar- Wolters, O.W. ‘North-Western Cambodia in the
ative Review and its Contemporary Significance’. Seventh Century’. Bulletin of the School of Oriental
Unpublished lecture presented in a seminar at the and African Studies 37 (1974): 355–84.
Center for Religious and Cross-Cultural Studies ———. History, Culture, and Region in Southeast
(CRCS), Gaja Mada University, Yogyakarta, 4 Asian Perspectives. Singapore: Institute of Southeast
September 2007. Asian Studies, 1982. (revised edition 1999).