Intersecting mandalas c.

1360: from north to south: Lan

Xang, Lanna, Sukhothai, Ayutthaya, Khmer and Champa.//Notable mandalas in classical Southeast Asian
history (c. 5th to 15th century). From north to
 south; Bagan, Ayutthaya, Champa, Angkor, Srivijaya and Majapahit. The map of earlier Southeast Asia
which evolved from the prehistoric networks of small settlements and reveals itself in historical records was a
patchwork of often overlapping mandalas.

Maṇḍala is a Sanskrit word meaning 'circle'. The mandala is a model for describing the patterns
of diffuse political power distributed among Mueang or Kedatuan (principalities) in medieval
Southeast Asian history, when local power was more important than the central leadership. The
concept of the mandala balances modern tendencies to look for unified political power, e.g. the
power of large kingdoms and nation states of later history – an inadvertent byproduct of 15th
century advances in map-making technologies In the words of O. W. Wolters who further
explored the idea in 1982:

It is employed to denote traditional Southeast Asian political formations, such as federation of

kingdoms or vassalized polity under a center of domination. It was adopted by 20th century
European historians from ancient Indian political discourse as a means of avoiding the term
"state" in the conventional sense. Not only did Southeast Asian polities, except Vietnam, not
conform to Chinese and European views of a territorially defined state with fixed borders and
a bureaucratic apparatus, but they diverged considerably in the opposite direction: the polity was
defined by its centre rather than its boundaries, and it could be composed of numerous other
tributary polities without undergoing administrative integration.

In some ways similar to the feudal system of Europe, states were linked in suzerain–
tributary relationships. The concept of "Indianized kingdoms" and "Indianization", coined
by George Coedès, originally describes Southeast Asian principalities that flourished from
the early common era as a result of centuries of socio-economic interaction having
incorporated central aspects of Indian institutions, religion, statecraft, administration, culture,
epigraphy, literature and architecture.

Greater India, also known as the Indian cultural sphere, or the Indic world, is an area
composed of several countries and regions in South Asia, East Asia and Southeast Asia that were
historically influenced by Indian culture, which itself formed from the various distinct
indigenous cultures of South Asia. It is an umbrella term encompassing the Indian
subcontinent and surrounding countries, which are culturally linked through a diverse cultural
cline. These countries have been transformed to varying degrees by the acceptance and
introduction of cultural and institutional elements from each other. The term Greater India as a
reference to the Indian cultural sphere was popularised by a network of Bengali scholars in the
1920s, but became obsolete in the 1970s.

Since around 500 BCE, Asia's expanding land and maritime trade had resulted in
prolonged socio-economic and cultural stimulation and diffusion of Buddhist and Hindu beliefs
into the region's cosmology, in particular in Southeast Asia and Sri Lanka. In Central Asia, the
transmission of ideas was predominantly of a religious nature.

By the early centuries of the common era, most of the principalities of Southeast Asia had
effectively absorbed defining aspects of Indian culture, religion, and administration. The notion
of divine god-kingship was introduced by the concept of Harihara, and Sanskrit and other
Indian epigraphic systems were declared official, like those of the south Indian Pallava
dynasty and Chalukya dynasty. These Indianized kingdoms, a term coined by George Cœdès in
his work Histoire ancienne des états hindouisés d'Extrême-Orient, were characterized by
resilience, political integrity, and administrative stability.8 Histoire ancienne des États
hindouisés d'Extrême-Orient, 1944 (Trans. Hinduised ancient states of the Far East)

As early as the first century, Indian traders came to the valley and brought a host of foreign
elements which were embraced by and influenced the locals, thus beginning the process of
"Indianisation" in what is today known as Malaysia.

According to professor Kernial Singh Sandhu, "Indianised" and "Indianisation" are terms
associated with the process which established a cross-cultural link between India and Southeast
Asia, and by means of which Indian, particularly Hindu and Buddhist, cultural traits were
transferred from the subcontinent to Southeast Asia."It falls under two broad divisions – the age
of the city-states (up to 1400), when the focus of attention was the isthmian tract of the Siamo-
Malay peninsula, and the period of the Malacca sultanate (1400-1511), when the centre of
attention was the Straits of Malacca."The former director of the Institute of Southeast Asian
Studies added, "The Indian era of Malayan history (up to AD 1511) was the period when
Indianised kingdoms flourished in Malaya and elsewhere in Southeast-Asia, either as semi-
independent city-states or under the hegemony of some controlling power, also Indianised and
generally based outside Malaya.
Indian traders also culturally and religiously influenced Sumatra and Java.They not only plied
their trade in the region but also interacted with the locals. That interaction, over a period of a
millennia, resulted in a lasting influence on languages, rituals, system of governance, divinity of
the monarch, court ceremonies, social classes, dance, mythologies and even class and ruling
structure.We often compress these vast-ranging influences into "cultures" or "traditions", but this
broad terminology certainly does not do justice to the deep influences of the Indians.

When Malays were Hindus and Buddhists were Indians-

The Hindu-Buddhist heritage of the South East Asian world, brought by the Indians, is in stark
contrast with the rigidly defined notion of ethnicity and religion today.The fluidity of movement
no longer exists. To the north, Indian religious ideas were assimilated into the cosmology of
Himalayan peoples, most profoundly in Tibet and Bhutan, and merged with indigenous
traditions. Buddhist monasticism extended into Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and other parts
of Central Asia, and Buddhist texts and ideas were accepted in China and Japan in the east. To
the west, Indian culture converged with Greater Persia via the Hindu Kush and the Pamir
Mountains.

Geographical designation

The concept of the Three Indias was in common circulation in pre-industrial Europe. Greater
India was the southern part of South Asia, Lesser India was the northern part of South Asia,
and Middle India was the region near the Middle East. The Portuguese form (Portuguese: India
Maior was used at least since the mid-15th century. The term, which seems to have been used
with variable precision, sometimes meant only the Indian subcontinent; Europeans used a variety
of terms related to South Asia to designate the South Asian peninsula, including High
India, Greater India, Exterior India and India aquosa.

However, in some accounts of European nautical voyages, Greater India (or India Major)
extended from the Malabar Coast (present-day Kerala) to India extra Gangem (lit. "India,
beyond the Ganges," but usually the East Indies, i.e. present-day Malay Archipelago) and India
Minor, from Malabar to Sind. Farther India was sometimes used to cover all of modern
Southeast Asia.Until the fourteenth century, India could also mean areas along the Red Sea,
including Somalia, South Arabia, and Ethiopia (e.g., Diodorus of Sicily of the first century BC
says that "the Nile rises in India" and Marco Polo of the fourteenth century says that "Lesser
India ... contains ... Abash [Abyssinia]").

In late 19th-century geography, Greater India referred to a region that included: "(a) Himalaya,
(b) Punjab, (c) Hindustan, (d) Burma, (e) Indo-China, (f) Sunda Islands, (g) Borneo, (h) Celebes,
and (i) Philippines." German atlases distinguished Vorder-Indien (Anterior India) as the South
Asian peninsula and Hinter-Indien as Southeast Asia.

Geological connotation
Greater India, or Greater India Basin also signifies "the Indian Plate plus a postulated northern
extension", the product of the Indian–Asia collision. Although its usage in geology pre-
dates Plate tectonic theory, the term has seen increased usage since the 1970s. It is unknown
when and where the India–Asia (Indian and Eurasian Plate) convergence occurred, at or before
52 million years ago. The plates have converged up to 3,600 km (2,200 mi) ± 35 km (22 mi).
The upper crustal shortening is documented from geological record of Asia and the Himalaya as
up to approximately 2,350 km (1,460 mi) less.
 Candi Bukit Batu Pahat of Bujang Valley. A Hindu-
Buddhist kingdom ruled ancient Kedah possibly as early as 110 CE, the earliest evidence of
strong Indian influence which was once prevalent among the Kedahan Malays.
The use of Greater India to refer to an Indian cultural sphere was popularised by a network of
Bengali scholars in the 1920s who were all members of the Calcutta-based Greater India Society.
The movement's early leaders included the historian R. C. Majumdar (1888–1980); the
philologists Suniti Kumar Chatterji (1890–1977) and P. C. Bagchi (1898–1956), and the
historians Phanindranath Bose and Kalidas Nag (1891–1966). Some of their formulations were
inspired by concurrent excavations in Angkor by French archaeologists and by the writings of
French Indologist Sylvain Lévi. The scholars of the society postulated a benevolent ancient
Indian cultural colonisation of Southeast Asia, in stark contrast – in their view – to the Western
colonialism of the early 20th century.

By some accounts Greater India consists of "lands including Burma, Java, Cambodia, Bali, and
the former Champa and Funan polities of present-day Vietnam," in which Indian and Hindu
culture left an "imprint in the form of monuments, inscriptions and other traces of the historic
"Indianizing" process." By some other accounts, many Pacific societies and "most of the
Buddhist world including Ceylon, Tibet, Central Asia, and even Japan were held to fall within
this web of Indianizing culture colonies"This particular usage – implying cultural "sphere of
influence" of India – was promoted by the Greater India Society, formed by a group
of Bengali men of letters, and is not found before the 1920s. The term Greater India was used in
historical writing in India into the 1970s.

Terminology

The term draws a comparison with the mandala of the Hindu and Buddhist worldview; the
comparison emphasises the radiation of power from each power center, as well as the non-
physical basis of the system .Other metaphors such as "galactic polity" describe political
patterns similar to the mandala. The historian Victor Lieberman prefers the "solar polity"
metaphor, referencing the gravitational pull the sun exerts over the planets.

Historically, the main suzerain or overlord states were the Khmer

Empire of Cambodia; Srivijaya of South Sumatra; the successive kingdoms
of Mataram, Kediri, Singhasari and Majapahit of Java; the Ayutthaya
Kingdom of Thailand; Champa and early Đại Việt. China occupies a special place in that the
others often in turn paid tribute to China, although in practice the obligations imposed on the
lesser kingdoms were minimal. The most notable tributary states were post-Angkor
Cambodia, Lan Xang (succeeded by the Kingdom of Vientiane and Luang Prabang) and Lanna.
Cambodia in the 18th century was described by the Vietnamese emperor Gia Long as "an
independent country that is slave of two" (Chandler p. 119). The system was eventually ended by
the arrival of the Europeans in the mid-19th century. Culturally, they introduced Western
geographical practices, which assumed that every area was subject to one sovereign. Practically,
the colonisation of French Indochina, Dutch East Indies, British Malaya and Burma brought
pressure from the colonisers for fixed boundaries to their possessions. The tributary states were
then divided between the colonies and Siam, which exercised much more centralised power but
over a smaller area than thitherto. The advent of Islam in the archipelago saw the application of
this system which is still continued in the formation of the government, such as the formation of
the 18th century Negeri Sembilan coalition which focused on Seri Menanti as a center flanked by
four inner luak serambi and four outer districts. Another example is the post-Majapahit Islamic
kingdoms in Java.

Historian Martin Stuart-Fox uses the term "mandala" extensively to describe the history of the
Lao kingdom of Lan Xang as a structure of loosely held together mueang that disintegrated after
Lan Xang's conquest by Thailand starting in the 18th century.

Thai historian Sunait Chutintaranond made an important contribution to study of the mandala in
Southeast Asian history by demonstrating that "three assumptions responsible for the view that
Ayudhya was a strong centralized state" did not hold and that "in Ayudhya the hegemony of
provincial governors was never successfully eliminated."

obligations

The obligations on each side of the relationship varied according to the strength of the
relationship and the circumstances. In general, the tributary was obliged to pay bunga mas, a
regular tribute of various valuable goods and slaves, and miniature trees
of gold and silver (bunga mas dan perak). The overlord ruler reciprocated with presents often of
greater value than those supplied by the tributary. However, the tributary also had to provide
men and supplies when called on, most often in time of war. The main benefit to the tributary
was protection from invasion by other powers, although as South East Asia historian Thongchai
Winichakul notes, this was often "mafia-like protection" from the threats of the overlord himself.
In some cases, the overlord also controlled the succession in the tributary, but in general
interference with the tributary's domestic affairs was minimal: he would retain his own army and
powers of taxation, for example. In the case of the more tenuous relationships, the "overlord"
might regard it as one of tribute, while the "tributary" might consider the exchange of gifts to be
purely commercial or as an expression of goodwill (Thongchai p. 87).

Personal relationships-Marriage (affinity)

Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that
establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between
them and their in-laws. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is
principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are
acknowledged. When defined broadly, marriage is considered a cultural universal. A broad
definition of marriage includes those that are monogamous, polygamous, same-sex and
temporary.

The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals
involved, and any offspring they may produce. Marriage may result, for example, in "a union
between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate
offspring of both partners." Edmund Leach argued that no one definition of marriage applied to
all cultures, but offered a list of ten rights frequently associated with marriage, including sexual
monopoly and rights with respect to children (with specific rights differing across cultures).

There is wide cross-cultural variation in the social rules governing the selection of a partner for
marriage. In many societies, the choice of partner is limited to suitable persons from specific
social groups. In some societies the rule is that a partner is selected from an individual's own
social group – endogamy, this is the case in many class and caste based societies. But in other
societies a partner must be chosen from a different group than one's own – exogamy, this is the
case in many societies practicing totemic religion where society is divided into several
exogamous totemic clans, such as most Aboriginal Australian societies. Marriages between
parents and children, or between full siblings, with few exceptions, have been
considered incest and forbidden. However, marriages between more distant relatives have been
much more common, with one estimate being that 80% of all marriages in history have been
between second cousins or closer.[

Alliance (marital exchange systems)

Systemic forms of preferential marriage may have wider social implications in terms of
economic and political organization. In a wide array of lineage-based societies with
a classificatory kinship system, potential spouses are sought from a specific class of relatives as
determined by a prescriptive marriage rule. Insofar as regular marriages following prescriptive
rules occur, lineages are linked together in fixed relationships; these ties between lineages may
form political alliances in kinship dominated societies. [31] French structural anthropologist Claude
Lévi-Strauss developed the alliance theory to account for the "elementary" kinship structures
created by the limited number of prescriptive marriage rules possible.[

Claude Lévi-Strauss argued in The Elementary Structures of Kinship (1949), that the incest
taboo necessitated the exchange of women between kinship groups. Levi-Strauss thus shifted the
emphasis from descent groups to the stable structures or relations between groups that
preferential and prescriptive marriage rules created.

One of the foundational works in the anthropological study of kinship was Morgan's Systems of
Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family (1871). As is the case with other social
sciences, Anthropology and kinship studies emerged at a time when the understanding of the
Human species' comparative place in the world was somewhat different from today's. Evidence
that life in stable social groups is not just a feature of humans, but also of many other primates,
was yet to emerge and society was considered to be a uniquely human affair. As a result, early
kinship theorists saw an apparent need to explain not only the details of how human social
groups are constructed, their patterns, meanings and obligations, but also why they are
constructed at all. The why explanations thus typically presented the fact of life in social groups
(which appeared to be unique to humans) as being largely a result of human ideas and values.
The emphasis on personal relationships was one of the defining characteristics of the mandala
system. The tributary ruler was subordinate to the overlord ruler, rather than to the overlord state
in the abstract. This had many important implications. A strong ruler could attract new
tributaries, and would have strong relationships over his existing tributaries. A weaker ruler
would find it harder to attract and maintain these relationships. This was put forward as one
cause of the sudden rise of Sukhothai under Ramkhamhaeng, for example, and for its almost
equally steep decline after his death (Wyatt, 45 and 48). The tributary ruler could repudiate the
relationship and seek either a different overlord or complete independence. The system was non-
territorial. The overlord was owed allegiance by the tributary ruler, or at most by the tributary's
main town, but not by all the people of a particular area. The tributary owner in turn had power
either over tributary states further down the scale, or directly over "his" people, wherever they
lived. No ruler had authority over unpopulated areas .

The personal relationship between overlord and subordinate rulers also defined the dynamic of
relationship within a mandala. The relations between Dharmasetu of Srivijaya
and Samaratungga of Sailendra, for instance, defined the succession of this dynastic family.
Dharmasetu was the Srivijayan Maharaja overlord, while the house of Sailendra in Java is
suggested to be related and was subscribed to Srivijayan mandala domination. After
Samaratungga married Princess Tara, the daughter of Dharmasetu, Samaratungga became his
successor and the house of Sailendra was promoted to become the dynastic lineage of later
Srivijayan kings, and for a century the center of Srivijaya was shifted from Sumatra to Java.

Non-exclusivity

The overlord-tributary relationship was not necessarily exclusive. A state in border areas might
pay tribute to two or three stronger powers. The tributary ruler could then play the stronger
powers against one another to minimize interference by either one, while for the major powers
the tributaries served as a buffer zone to prevent direct conflict between them. For example, the
Malay kingdoms in Malay Peninsula, Langkasuka and Tambralinga earlier were subject to
Srivijayan mandala, and in later periods contested by both Ayutthaya mandala in the north and
Majapahit mandala in the south, before finally gaining its own gravity during Malacca Sultanate

The image of governance in early Southeast Asia as a “mandala” is essentially a modern one.
The distinguished historian O.W. Wolters who first used the term to refer to a “system in
History, Culture, and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives (Studies on Southeast Asia, Vol
26) . The concept didn’t exist when I started study Southeast Asian history in the 1960s. Wolters
didn’t “invent” the system, he merely found an image that reflected (as he saw it) traditional
Southeast Asian concepts of where power came from and how it was distributed through the
state, with extreme power at the very center (palace or temple or the person of the ruler)
declining little by little the farther from the center something was: the capital city, the
surrounding (home) provinces, the more distant provinces, the faraway “dependencies” or
tributary states. Southeast Asian societies borrowed this concept from India - of power as a
spiritual force (mana?) that was concentrated in the very center, in the person of the ruler, and
thus was easy to envisage as weakening with distance.
In administrative terms, a ruler had his own army, was able to enforce his rule wherever that
army was (and stayed - little use in sending them out and bringing them right back home again),
so distance was always a major factor. The concept of the mandala has its roots in Hinduism,
Buddhism and Jainism. Mandala which means “circle” in Sanskrit represents an ideal universal
order: the Chakravala, a sphere whose ruler is called the Chakravarti (literally ”those who cause
the wheel to turn”). Chakravarti is also another name for a supreme ruler, an emperor or
a Maharaja.

The political concept of the Mandala first appeared in the Arthashastra, a treatise on political
economy written by Kuatilya, a minister for King Chandragupta, ruler of the
MuaryanEmpire.There is a chapter in the Arthashastra devoted to the discussion about kingship
and the Rajamandala (circle of kings), where states are arranged according to circles of enemies,
friends, frenemies and everything in between. Hinduism, a mandala is a model of the Universe.
The language of God is mathematics and the Universe that emanates from God is in the form of
sacred geometry. At the centre of the Mandala is a dot or focal point representing the
original Bindu - a singularity or point of stress from which the whole Mandala emerges and
expands into the bhūpura or square of space-time. This is why Śūnya or the Void is an epithet of
the absolute in both Hinduism and Buddhism. From the Void (Zero) arise both positive and
negative integers, so Zero is the basis for mathematics.

A statue of
Buddha, discovered in Bukit Seguntang archaeological site, today displayed in Sultan Mahmud Badaruddin
II Museum Palembang.//Here’s the Mandala of the Chola (see Chola dynasty) in Southern India, one of

the longest ruling dynasty in history.

The Mandalas and the Mandalams are defined by their political relations, like a superpower and
client states, independent states and vassal states, basically it represents the sphere of influences.

This pattern of governance spread to mainland Southeast Asia through trade and conquests by
the Kshatriya warrior class (who would have been well versed in the Arthashastra). It’s also
interesting to note the Kshatriyas traditions of naming warriors based on the lunar and solar
dynasty. For instance the sun king is called Suryavanshi in Sanskrit and there’s a Khmer king
called Suryavarman (builder of the Angkor Wat). Chola Empire also conquered Langkasuka and
Kedaram (modern day Kedah State in Malaysia) and Srivijaya (KedatuanSrivijaya).
This concept of the Mandala was later used by Southeast Asian scholars to describe the
Indianised states whose governance structures were modelled on Indian mandalams. Georges
Coedes, the eminent archaeologist who wrote an influential book: Histoire ancienne des
étatshindouisésd'Extrême-Orient (The Indianized States of Southeast Asia) posited that the
Indianisation of Southeast Asia led to the development of complex social hierarchies based on
Hindu deity worships as well as adoption of Sanskrit.

Read the author’s major contribution to this arena- his book RAJAMANDAJA
https://www.academia.edu/116837965/
Book_V_on_RAJMANDALA_Mandala_of_the_Oriental_Kingdoms
The Rajamandala (or Rāja-maṇḍala meaning "circle of kings";[1] मण्डल, maṇḍala is
a Sanskrit word that means "circle") was formulated by the Indian author Chanakya (Kautilya) in
his work on politics, the Arthashastra (written between 4th century BCE and 2nd century CE). It
describes circles of friendly and enemy states surrounding the king's (raja) state. Also known
as Mandala theory of foreign policy or Mandala theory, the theory has been called as one of
Kautilya's most important postulations regarding foreign policy.

The term draws a comparison with the mandala of the Hindu and Buddhist worldview; the
comparison emphasises the radiation of power from each power center, as well as the non-
physical basis of the system. In particular, it postulates that a neighboring state or neighbor of a
natural friend is a natural enemy and that a neighbor of a natural enemy is a natural friend, such
that one can visualize a set of concentric circles emanating from any given state, with alternating
circles including enemies and allies of that state respectively.
The terminology was revived two millenniums later as a result of twentieth-century efforts to
comprehend patterns of diffuse but coherent political power. Metaphors such as social
anthropologist Tambiah's idea of a "galactic polity", [7] describe such political patterns as the
mandala. Historian Victor Lieberman preferred the metaphor of a "solar polity," as in the solar
system, where there is one central body, the sun, and the components or planets of the solar
system. The "Rajamandala" concept of ancient India was the prototype for the Mandala model of
South East Asian political systems in later centuries, established by British historian O. W.
Wolters

The Mandala of the Asvamedha

The Ashvamedha ritual was used by ancient Indian kings to prove their imperial sovereignty
and create as association of States that wee subservient to the Center of power, A mandala!!

A horse accompanied by the king's warriors would be released to wander for a year. In the
territory traversed by the horse, any rival could dispute the king's authority by challenging the
warriors accompanying it. After one year, if no enemy had managed to kill or capture the horse,
the animal would be guided back to the king's capital. It would be then sacrificed, and the king
would be declared as an undisputed sovereign. The ritual is recorded as being held by many
ancient rulers, but apparently only by two in the last thousand years. The most recent ritual was
in 1741, the second one held by Maharajah Jai Singh II of Jaipur.
 When Lord Ram, the
protagonist of Ramayana sent out a horse it was stopped by his 2 sons living in a forest and
unknown to him as also to them. They defeated his armies and thwarted hos attempts at
Mandalization. This is how he recognized them on a confrontation.

The Mandala of the Gupta Empire in India-320 CE–550 CE

Kumaragupta fighting a lion, as depicted on his gold coin

Kumaragupta I (415–455 CE) who was an emperor of the Gupta Empire of Ancient India,
performed an Ashvamedha sacrifice, which was usually performed to prove imperial
sovereignty, although no concrete information is available about his military achievements.
Based on the epigraphic and numismatic evidence, some modern historians have theorized that
he may have subdued the Aulikaras of central India and the Traikutakas of western India.
The Nalandamahavihara was possibly built during his reign. A son of the Gupta
emperor Chandragupta II and Queen Dhruvadevi. He seems to have maintained control of his
inherited territory, which extended from Gujarat in the west to Bengal region in the east.

The Bhitari pillar inscription states that his successor Skandagupta restored the fallen fortunes of
the Gupta family, which has led to suggestions that during his last years, Kumaragupta suffered
reverses, possibly against the Pushyamitras or the Hunas. However, this cannot be said with
certainty, and the situation described in the Bhitari inscription may have been the result of events
that happened after his death.
 Kumaragupta I, "Archer type" coin. King
Kumaragupta, nimbate, holding arrow and bow with Garuda standard behind. Brahmi Legend
Ku-ma-ra vertically to the right. Reverse: Goddess Lakshmi, seated facing on open lotus,
holding diadem and lotus. Circa 415-455 CE.
Epigraphic evidence suggests that Kumaragupta ruled his empire through governors (Uparikas),
who bore the title Maharaja ("great king"), and administered various provinces (Bhuktis). The
districts (vishayas) of the provinces were administered by district magistrates (Vishyapatis), who
were supported by an advisory council comprising:

 the town president or mayor (Nagara-Shreshtin)

 the representative of the merchant guild (Sarthavaha)
 the chief of the artisan guild (Prathama-Kulika)
 the chief of the guild of writers or scribes (Prathama-Kayastha)
One type of the gold coins of the Gupta Empire kings Samudragupta (reigned c. 350–370 CE)
and Kumaragupta (reigned c. 415–455 CE) commemorates their Ashvamedha sacrifices.
The obverse shows the horse anointed and decorated for sacrifice, standing in front of
a Yūpa sacrificial post, and is inscribed "The king of kings who has performed the Vajimedha
sacrifice wins heaven after protecting the earth". The reverse shows a standing figure of the
queen, holding a fan and a towel, and is inscribed "Powerful enough to perform the Ashvamedha
sacrifice".

Samudragupta, Ashvamedha horse///The queen, reverse of last/Samudragupta/Kumaragupta

History
Today we know that the history of Indonesia has been shaped by its geographic position, natural
resources, a series of human migrations and contacts, wars and conquests, as well as by trade,
economics and politics. Indonesia is an archipelagic country of 17,000 to 18,000 islands
stretching along the equator in Southeast Asia. The country's strategic sea-lane position fostered
inter-island and international trade; trade has since fundamentally shaped Indonesian history. The
area of Indonesia is populated by peoples of various migrations, creating a diversity
of cultures, ethnicities, and languages.

Example of Rice Terraces in Indonesia//Megalithic statue found in

Tegurwangi, Sumatra, Indonesia, 1500 CE

Early kingdoms -Hindu Buddhist

8th century Borobudur Buddhist monument, Sailendra dynasty, is the largest Buddhist
temple in the world/1600-year-old stone inscription from the era of Purnawarman, king
of Tarumanagara, founded in Tugu sub-district of Jakarta
Indonesia like much of Southeast Asia was influenced by Indian culture. From the 2nd century,
through the Indian dynasties like the Pallava, Gupta, Pala and Chola in the succeeding centuries up
to the 12th century, Indian culture spread across all of Southeast Asia.
References to the Dvipantara or Yawadvipa, a Hindu kingdom in Java and Sumatra appear in
Sanskrit writings from 200 BCE. In India's earliest epic, the Ramayana, Sugriva, the chief
of Rama's army dispatched his men to Yawadvipa, the island of Java, in search of Sita.
According to the ancient Tamil text Manimekalai Java had a kingdom with a capital called
Nagapuram. The earliest archaeological relic discovered in Indonesia is from the Ujung Kulon
National Park, West Java, where an early Hindu statue of Ganesha estimated from the 1st
century CE was found on the summit of Mount Raksa in Panaitan island. There is also
archaeological evidence of Sunda Kingdom in West Java dating from the 2nd-century, and Jiwa
Temple in Batujaya, Karawang, West Java was probably built around this time. South Indian
culture was spread to Southeast Asia by the south Indian Pallava dynasty in the 4th and 5th
centuries and by the 5th century, stone inscriptions written in Pallava scripts were found in Java
and Borneo.
A number of Hindu and Buddhist states flourished and then declined across Indonesia. Seven
rough plinths dating from the beginning of the 4th century CE were found in Kutai, East
Kalimantan, near the Mahakam River known as the Yupa inscription or "Mulavarman
Inscription" believed to be one of the earliest Sanskrit inscriptions of Indonesia, the plinths were
written by Brahmins in the Sanskrit language using the Pallava script of India recalling of a
generous king by the name of Mulavarman who donated a huge amount of alms to Brahmin
priests in his kingdom, the kingdom was known as the KutaiMartadipura Kingdom located in
present East Kalimantan Province, believed to be the oldest and first Hindu kingdom of
Indonesia.
Mataram Empire
Mataram Empire, sometimes referred to as Mataram Kingdom, was an Indianized
kingdom based in Central Java around modern-day Yogyakarta between the 8th and 10th
centuries. The kingdom was ruled by the Sailendra dynasty, and later by the Sanjaya dynasty.
The centre of the kingdom was moved from central Java to East Java by MpuSindok. An
eruption of the volcano Mount Merapi in 929, and political pressure from Sailendrans based in
the Srivijaya Empire may have caused the move. The first king of Mataram, Sri Sanjaya,
left inscriptions in stone. The monumental Hindu temple of Prambanan in the vicinity of
Yogyakarta was built by Pikatan. Dharmawangsa ordered the translation of
the Mahabharata into Old Javanese in 996.
In the period 750 CE – 850 CE, the kingdom saw the blossoming of classical Javanese art and
architecture. A rapid increase in temple construction occurred across the landscape of its
heartland in Mataram (Kedu and Kewu Plain). The most notable temples constructed in Mataram
are Kalasan, Sewu, Borobudur and Prambanan. The Empire had become the supreme power not
only in Java but also over Srivijayan Empire, Bali, southern Thailand,
some Philippine kingdoms, and Khmer in Cambodia.
Later in its history, the dynasty divided into two dynasties based on their own religion,
the Buddhist and Shivaist dynasties. Civil war was unavoidable and the outcome was Mataram
Empire divided into two powerful kingdom based on region and religion. The Shivaist
dynasty of Mataram kingdom in Java led by RakaiPikatan and the Buddhist
dynasty of Srivijaya kingdom in Sumatra led by Balaputradewa. The hostility between them
didn't end until in 1006 when the Sailendran based in Srivijaya kingdom incited rebellion by
Wurawari, vassal of Mataram kingdom and sacked Shivaist dynasty's capital in Watugaluh, Java.
Srivijaya kingdom rose into undisputed hegemonic Empire in the era as the result. Yet the
Shivaist dynasty survived and successfully reclaimed the east Java in 1019 then descended
to Kahuripan kingdom led by Airlangga son of Udayana of Bali.
The Sanjaya–Shailendra relationship has been uncertain. Poerbatjaraka theorized that there was
no distinct Sanjaya dynasty and one dynasty, Shailendra, ruled central Java. The kingdom was
called Mataram (Javanese: mātaram), with its capital in the Mataram]] area. Sanjaya and his
offspring belonged to the Shailendra family, who were initially Shaivist.
Another theory suggests that the Sanjaya dynasty was forced into northern Java by the
Shailendra dynasty, which emerged around 778. Evidence for this event is based on the Kalasan
inscription. The Sanjaya and Shailendra dynasties co-existed during this period in central Java,
which was characterized by peace and cooperation.
The association of Shailendra with Mahayana Buddhism began after the conversion of Raja
Sankhara (RakaiPanaraban or Panangkaran) to Buddhism.[3] Later Shailendran kings, successors
of Panangkaran, also became followers of Mahayana Buddhism and gave it royal patronage in
Java until the end of Samaratungga's reign. This theory is based on the Raja Sankhara
inscription (now missing), the Sojomerto inscription, and the CaritaParahyangan manuscript.
Shaivism regained royal patronage again from the reign of Pikatan to the end of the Mataram
Kingdom.
The Shailendra family used the Old Malay language in some of their inscriptions, which suggests
the dynasty's origin in Sumatra and their connections with Srivijaya. This theory posits that the
Shailendras, with their strong connections to Srivijaya, gained control of central Java and ruled
the rakais (local Javanese lords); this included the Sanjaya, incorporating the dynasty's kings into
their bureaucracy. The dynastic court was apparently in the southern Kedu Plain,
near Magelang (north of Yogyakarta).
The Javanese kingdoms maintained a close relationship with the Champa polities of mainland
Southeast Asia as early as the Sanjaya dynasty. Like the Javanese, the Chams are
an Austronesian people. An example of their relationship can be seen in the architecture of Cham
temples, which share a number of similarities with temples in central Java built during the
Sanjaya dynasty.
Crown prince RakaiPikatan married Pramodhawardhani (833–856), a daughter of the Shailendra
king Samaratungga. The influence of the Hindu Sanjaya began to replace the Buddhist
Shailendra in Mataram. RakaiPikatan overthrew King Balaputra, son of Samaratungga and the
brother of Pramodhawardhani. In 850, the Sanjaya dynasty became the sole ruler in Mataram.
This ended the Shailendra presence in central Java and Balaputra retreated to rule
in Srivijaya, Sumatra.
Information about the Sanjaya dynasty is also found in the 907 Balitung inscription; when a ruler
died, he assumed a divine form. From this inscription, scholars estimated the sequence of the
Sanjaya kings:

 Sanjaya (732–760)
 Panangkaran (760–780)
 Panungalan (780–800)
 Samaragrawira(RakaiWarak) (800–819)
 RakaiGarung (819–838)
 RakaiPikatan (838–850)
 RakaiKayuwangi (850–898), also known as Lokapala
 Balitung (898–910)
During the Sanjaya dynasty, classic Javanese literature blossomed. Translations and adaptations
of classic Hindu literature into Old Javanese were produced, such as the Kakawin Ramayana.
Around the 850s, Pikatan began construction of the Prambanan temple in central Java; it was
later completed and expanded by King Balitung. The Prambanan temple complex is one of the
largest Hindu temple complexes in Southeast Asia, rivaling Borobudur (the world's
largest Buddhist temple).
Sanjaya kings after Balitung were:

 Daksa (910–919)
 Tulodong (919–924)
 Wawa (924–929)
 MpuSindok (929–947)
In 929, MpuSindok moved the Mataram court from central Java to eastern Java for unclear
reasons. Possible causes include an eruption of the Merapi volcano, a power struggle, or political
pressure from the Shailendra dynasty in the Srivijaya Empire. The move to eastern Java marked
the end of the Sanjaya dynasty, and it was followed by the Isyana dynasty.
Srivijaya- was also a kingdom on Sumatra which influenced much of the Maritime Southeast
Asia. From the 7th century, the powerful Srivijaya naval kingdom flourished as a result of trade
and the influences of Hinduism and Buddhism that were imported with it.Srivijaya was centred
in the coastal trading centre of present-day Palembang. Srivijaya was not a "state" in the modern
sense with defined boundaries and a centralised government to which the citizens own
allegiance. Rather Srivijaya was a confederacy form of society centred on a royal heartland. It
was a thalassocracy and did not extend its influence far beyond the coastal areas of the islands of
Southeast Asia. Trade was the driving force of Srivijaya just as it is for most societies throughout
history. The Srivijayan navy controlled the trade that made its way through the Strait of Malacca.
By the 7th century, the harbours of various vassal states of Srivijaya lined both coasts of the
Straits of Melaka. Around this time, Srivijaya had established suzerainty over large areas of
Sumatra, western Java, and much of the Malay Peninsula. Dominating the Malacca and Sunda
straits, the empire controlled both the Spice Route traffic and local trade. It remained a
formidable sea power until the 13th century. This spread the ethnic Malay culture throughout
Sumatra, the Malay Peninsula, and western Borneo. A stronghold of Mahayana Buddhism,
Srivijaya attracted pilgrims and scholars from other parts of Asia.
The relation between Srivijaya and the Chola Empire of south India was friendly during the reign
of Raja RajaChola I but during the reign of RajendraChola I the Chola Empire attacked Srivijaya
cities. A series of Chola raids in the 11th century weakened the Srivijayan hegemony and
enabled the formation of regional kingdoms based, like Kediri, on intensive agriculture rather
than coastal and long-distance trade. Srivijayan influence waned by the 11th century. The island
was in frequent conflict with the Javanese kingdoms, first Singhasari and then Majapahit. Islam
eventually made its way to the Aceh region of Sumatra, spreading its influence through contacts
with Arabs and Indian traders. By the late 13th century, the kingdom of Pasai in northern
Sumatra converted to Islam. The last inscription dates to 1374, where a crown prince,
Ananggavarman, is mentioned. Srivijaya ceased to exist by 1414, when Parameswara, the
kingdom's last prince, fled to Temasik, then to Malacca. Later his son converted to Islam and
founded the Sultanate of Malacca on the Malay peninsula.
Map of the expansion of the Srivijaya empire, beginning in Palembang in the 7th century, then extending to most
of Sumatra, then expanding to Java, Riau Islands, Bangka Belitung, Singapore, Malay Peninsula (also known as: Kra
Peninsula), Thailand, Cambodia, South Vietnam, Kalimantan, Sarawak, Brunei, Sabah, and ended as the Kingdom
of Dharmasraya in Jambi in the 13th century.

Early 20th-century historians who studied the inscriptions of Sumatra and the neighboring
islands thought that the term "Srivijaya" referred to a king's name. In 1913, H. Kern was the
first epigraphist that identified the name "Srivijaya" written in a 7th-century Kota
Kapurinscription (discovered in 1892). However, at that time he believed that it referred to a
king named "Vijaya", with "Sri" as an honorific title for a king or ruler.
The Sundanese manuscript of CaritaParahyangan, composed around the late 16th century
in West Java, vaguely mentioned about the name "Sang Sri Wijaya". The manuscript describes
princely hero that rose to be a king named Sanjaya that — after he secured his rule in Java —
was involved in battle with the Malayu and Keling against their king Sang Sri Wijaya.
Subsequently, after studying local stone inscriptions, manuscripts and Chinese historical
accounts, historians concluded that the term "Srivijaya" was actually referred to
a polity or kingdom. The main concern is to define Srivijaya's amorphous statehood as
a thalassocracy, which dominated a confederation of semi-autonomous harbour cities in
Maritime Southeast Asia.
 TalangTuwo inscription, discovered in Bukit Seguntang area, tells the
establishment of the sacred Śrīksetra park.
Little physical evidence of Srivijaya remains. [17] There had been no continuous knowledge of the
history of Srivijaya even in Indonesia and Maritime Southeast Asia; its forgotten past has been
resurrected by foreign scholars. Contemporary Indonesians, even those from the area
of Palembang (around where the kingdom was based), had not heard of Srivijaya until the 1920s.
The Srivijayan historiography was acquired, composed and established from two main sources:
the Chinese historical accounts and the Southeast Asian stone inscriptions that have been
discovered and deciphered in the region. The Buddhist pilgrim Yijing's account is especially
important in describing Srivijaya, when he visited the kingdom in 671 for six months. The 7th-
century siddhayatra inscriptions discovered in Palembang and Bangka Island are also vital
primary historical sources. Also, regional accounts that some might be preserved and retold as
tales and legends, such as the Legend of the Maharaja of Zabaj and the Khmer King also provide
a glimpse of the kingdom. Some Indian and Arabic accounts also vaguely describe the riches and
fabulous fortune of the king of Zabag. It's likely that the Zabag-Khmer story was based on
Javanese overlordship over Cambodia.
Srivijaya, and by extension Sumatra, had been known by different names to different peoples.
The Chinese called it Sanfotsi, Sanfoqi or Che-li-fo-che (Shilifoshi), and there was an even older
kingdom of Kantoli, which could be considered the predecessor of Srivijaya. The Arabs called
it Zabag or Sribuza and the Khmers called it Melayu.[21] While the Javanese called
them Suvarnabhumi, Suvarnadvipa, Melayu, or Malayu. This is another reason why the
discovery of Srivijaya was so difficult.[21] While some of these names are strongly reminiscent of
the name of Java, there is a distinct possibility that they may have referred to Sumatra instead.
Strong historical evidence found in Chinese sources, speaking of city-like settlements as early as
700 AD, and later Arab travelers, who visited the region during the 10th and 11th centuries, held
written proof, naming the kingdom of Srivijaya in their context. Lack of evidence of southern
settlements in the archaeological record comes from the disinterest in the archeologistand the
unclear physical visibility of the settlement themselves. Archeology of the 1920s and 1930s
focused more on art and epigraphy found in the regions. Some northern urban settlements were
sited due to some overlap in fitting the sinocentric model of city-state urban centers. An
approach to differentiate between urban settlements in the southern regions from the northern
ones of Southeast Asia was initiated by a proposition for an alternative model. Excavations
showed failed signs of a complex urban center under the lens of a sinocentric model, leading to
parameters of a new proposed model. Parameters for such a model of a city-like settlement
included isolation in relevance to its hinterland. No hinterland creates for low archaeological
visibility. The settlement must also have access to both easy transportation and major
interregional trade routes, crucial in a region with few resources. Access to the former and later
played a major role in the creation of an extreme economic surplus in the absence of an exploited
hinterland. The urban center must be able to organize politically without the need for ceremonial
foci such as temples, monuments and inscriptions. Lastly, habitations must be impermanent,
being highly probable in the region Palembang and of southern Southeast Asia. Such a model
was proposed to challenge city concepts of ancient urban centers in Southeast Asia and basic
postulates themselves such as regions found in the South, like Palembang, based their
achievements in correlation with urbanization.
Due to the contradicting pattern found in southern regions, like Palembang, in 1977 Bennet
Bronson developed a speculative model for a better understanding of coastal-oriented states in
Insular Southeast Asia, such as insular and peninsular Malaysia, the Philippines, and
western Indonesia. Its main focus was the relationship of political, economic and geographical
systems. The general political and economic pattern of the region seems irrelevant to other parts
of the world of their time, but in correlation with their maritime trade network, it produced high
levels of socio-economic complexity. He concluded, from his earlier publications in 1974 that
state development in this region developed much differently than the rest of early Southeast
Asia. Bronson's model was based on the dendritic patterns of a drainage basin where its opening
leads out to sea. Being that historical evidence places the capital in Palembang, and in junction of
three rivers, the Musi River, the Komering River, and the Ogan River, such model can be
applied. For the system to function appropriately, several constraints are required. The inability
for terrestrial transportation results in movements of all goods through water routes, lining up
economical patterns with the dendritic patterns formed by the streams. The second being the
overseas center is economically superior to the ports found at the mouth of the rivers, having a
higher population and a more productive and technologically advanced economy. Lastly,
constraints on the land work against and do not developments of urban settlements.
An aerial photograph taken in 1984 near Palembang (in what is now Srivijaya Archaeological
Park) revealed the remnants of ancient man-made canals, moats, ponds, and artificial islands,
suggesting the location of Srivijaya's urban centre. Several artefacts such as fragments of
inscriptions, Buddhist statues, beads, pottery and Chinese ceramics were found, confirming that
the area had, at one time, dense human habitation. [29] By 1993, Pierre-Yves Manguin had shown
that the centre of Srivijaya was along the Musi River between Bukit Seguntang and
Sabokingking (situated in what is now Palembang, South Sumatra, Indonesia). Palembang is
called 'Giant Harbour', this is probably a testament of its history as once a great port.
The recent discoveries from Musi river seems to confirms that Palembang was indeed the
commercial centre of Srivijaya kingdom. In 2021 numbers of treasures were surfaced from
shallows and riverbed by local fishermen that turns to be treasure divers. The troves includes
coins of certain periods, gold jewelries, Buddhist statues, gems, colourful beads, and Chinese
ceramic fragments. However, these troves are immediately lost for the historical knowledge,
since local treasure hunters immediately has sold them to international antiquities dealers before
archaeologists can properly study them. These discoveries has led to the treasure rush in
Musiriver in 2021, where locals has formed groups of treasure divers operating in some parts of
Musi river in and around Palembang.
Srivijaya archaeological park (Indonesian: Taman Purbakala Kerajaan Srivijaya), formerly
known as Karanganyar archaeological site, is the ancient remnants of a garden and habitation
area near the northern bank of Musi river within Palembang vicinity, South Sumatra, Indonesia.
Remnants of ancient man-made canals, moats, ponds and artificial islands discovered in this area
suggests the site was related with a 9th-century settlement related to the Srivijaya empire.
[2]
Several artifacts, such as Buddhist statues, beads, pottery and Chinese ceramics were found in
this area, confirming the area was once a dense human habitation.

Sr
ivijaya Archaeological Park located Southwest from Palembang city center (green). The site forming an axis
connecting Bukit Seguntang and Musi River.

The archaeological park is located in JalanSyakhyakirti, KelurahanKaranganyar,

KecamatanGandus, Palembang, on an alluvial plain of the Musi River near its junction with the
Ogan and Kramasan rivers Before the archeological excavation it was thought to be a potential
site for a Srivijayan political power center. The Karanganyar site had indeed been occupied in
Srivijayan times, mainly in the 9th-century, however the only traces left of this period are a
scatter of surface finds of contemporary artifacts e.g. Chinese ceramics, a few layers of ancient
brick wall, and possibly one ancient canal. So far, archaeologists has found nothing in the site
that can legitimately assign the Karanganyar site to the Srivijayan dynasty instead of to the
Palembang Sultanate. Other archaeological sites to Karanganyar that is related with the 7th -
15th centuries Srivijayan dynasty are the KambangUnglen, Padang Kapas, LadangSirap
and Bukit Seguntang, and still for a variety of reasons, identification of confirmed archaeological
sites of the Srivijayan period remains ambiguous.
The main pavilion in Palembang Limasan traditional architecture in the middle of Nangkaisland. The
pavilion hosts a replica of Kedukan Bukit Inscription./The Srivijaya Museum in Srivijaya Archaeological
Park// Cempaka island, an artificial island in the middle of a pond.

Aerial photographs taken in 1984 revealed the canal network span in the Karanganyar site,
confirming some ancient landscape modifications and man-made water structures. The canals
compound is located not far from the location where the Kedukan Bukit Inscription was
discovered. Moreover, the Karanganyar site is located not far from Bukit Seguntang, the highest
point of Palembang, which is also an important archaeological site containing some
archaeological fragments; inscriptions, ancient tombs, as well as an Amaravati-style statue of
Buddha.

Jambi
Some scholar argues that the centre of Srivijaya was located in Muaro Jambi, and not Palembang
as many previous writers suggested. In 2013, archaeological research led by the University of
Indonesia discovered several religious and habitation sites at the Muaro Jambi Temple
Compounds, suggesting that the initial centre of Srivijaya was located in Muaro Jambi Regency,
Jambi on the BatangHari River, rather than on the originally-proposed Musi River. The
archaeological site includes eight excavated temple sanctuaries and covers about 12 square
kilometers, and stretches 7.5 kilometers along the BatangHari River, while 80 mounds
(menapos) of temple ruins, are not yet restored. The Muaro Jambi archaeological site
was Mahayana-Vajrayana Buddhist in nature, which suggests that the site served as a Buddhist
learning center, connected to the 10th century famous Buddhist
scholar SuvarṇadvipiDharmakīrti. Chinese sources also mentioned that Srivijaya hosts thousands
of Buddhist monks.

+
Muaro Jambi Buddhist temple compound, a possible location of Srivijaya's religious center
Compared to Palembang, Muaro Jambi has richer archaeological sites, i.e. multiple red brick
temples and building structures along the BatangHaririver. On the other hand, no comparable
temple or building structure ever discovered in Palembang. The proponent of Muaro Jambi
theory as Srivijaya's capital pointing out that the descriptions written by I-Tsing and ChauJu-kua,
the description of Srivijaya realms by the Cholas, also the archaeological findings, suggests that
the Srivijaya capital fits Muaro Jambi's environs better than the marshy Palembang. The study
also compares the environs, geographical location, and the economic wealth of both cities;
arguing that Jambi, located on the mouth of BatangHari river basin with its connection to
Minangkabau hinterland was the centre of gold trade in the area,that described as the fabulous
wealth of Srivijaya.
Central Java
In the second half of the eighth century, the Srivijayan mandala seem to have been ruled by the
Sailendra dynasty of Central Java. Several Arabic sources mentioned that Zabag (the Javanese
Sailendra dynasty) ruled over Sribuza (Srivijaya), Kalah (a place in the Malay peninsula,
probably Kedah), and Ramni (a place in Sumatra, probably Lambri). However, it was unknown
whether Srivijaya's capital has moved to Java or Srivijaya simply became a subordinate of Java
Other places
Another theory suggests that DapuntaHyang came from the east coast of the Malay Peninsula,
and that the Chaiya District in SuratThani Province, Thailand, was the centre of Srivijaya. The
Srivijayan Period is referred to as the time when Srivijaya ruled over present-day southern
Thailand. In the region of Chaiya, there is clear evidence of Srivijayan influence seen in artwork
inspired by Mahayana Buddhism. Because of the large amount of remains, such as the
Ligorstele, found in this region, some scholars attempted to prove Chaiya as the capital rather
than Palembang. This period was also a time for art. The Buddhist art of the Srivijayan Kingdom
was believed to have borrowed from Indian styles like that of the Dvaravatischool of art. Some
scholars believe that Chaiya probably comes from Srivijaya. It was a regional capital in the
Srivijayaempire. Some Thai historians argue it was the capital of Srivijaya itself, but this is
generally discounted.
Formation and growth
Siddhayatra
Around the year 500, the roots of the Srivijayanempire began to develop around present-
day Palembang, Sumatra. The Kedukan Bukit inscription (683)—considered as the oldest
inscription related to the kingdom of Srivijaya, discovered on the banks of the Tatang River near
the Karanganyar site, states about the "glorious Srivijaya", a kadatuan (kingdom or polity) which
was founded by DapuntaHyang Sri Jayanasa and his retinue. He had embarked on a
sacred siddhayatra journey and led 20,000 troops and 312 people in boats with 1,312 foot
soldiers from MinangaTamwan to Jambi and Palembang. Many of this armed forces gathered
under the Srivijayan rule would have been the sea people, referred to generally as the orang laut.
In establishing its power, Srivijaya had first to consolidate its position in Southeast Sumatra,
which at that time consists of numbers of quasi-independent polities ruled by
local Datus (chieftain).
From the Old Malay inscriptions, it is notable that DapuntaHyang Sri Jayanasa launched a
maritime conquest in 684 with 20,000 men in the siddhayatra journey to acquire wealth, power,
and 'magical powers'. Under the leadership of DapuntaHyang Sri Jayanasa, the Melayu
Kingdom became the first kingdom to be integrated into Srivijaya. This possibly occurred in the
680s. Melayu, also known as Jambi, was rich in gold and held in high esteem at the time.
Srivijaya recognised that the submission of Melayu would increase its own prestige.
The empire was organised in three main zones: the estuarine capital region centred
on Palembang, the Musi River basin which served as a hinterland, and competitor estuarine areas
capable of forming competitor power centres. The areas upstream of the Musi River were rich in
various commodities valuable to Chinese traders. The capital was administered directly by the
ruler, while the hinterland remained under local datus or tribal chiefs, who were organised into a
network of alliances with the Srivijaya maharaja or king. Force was the dominant element in the
empire's relations with competitor river systems such as the BatangHari River, centred in Jambi.
The TelagaBatu inscription, discovered in Sabokingking, eastern Palembang, is also
a siddhayatra inscription, from the 7th century. This inscription was very likely used in a
ceremonial sumpah (allegiance ritual). The top of the stone is adorned with seven nāga heads,
and on the lower portion there is a type of water spout to channel liquid that was likely poured
over the stone during a ritual. The ritual included a curse upon those who commit treason against
KadatuanSrivijaya.
The TalangTuwo inscription is also a siddhayatra inscription. Discovered in Seguntang Hill,
western Palembang, tells about the establishment of the bountiful Śrīksetra garden endowed by
King Jayanasa of Srivijaya for the well-being of all creatures. It is likely that the Seguntang
Hill site was the location of the Śrīksetra garden.

Sanjaya or Sanjay Srivijayais a Sanskrit-derived name: Sailendra, Syailendra or Selen

(Sanskrit: सञ्जय, श्रीविजय, Śrīvijaya. Śrī dra) was the name of a
meaning "victory") or means "fortunate", "prosperous", or notable Indianised dynasty that
SanjayaGavalgana is an "happy" and Vijaya means emerged in 8th-century Java,
advisor from the ancient "victorious" or "excellence".The whose reign signified a cultural
Indian Hindu war epic Srivijaya Empire controlled modern- renaissance in the
Mahābhārata. In day Indonesia and much of the Malay regionTheShailendras were
Mahabharata—An ancient Archipelago from the seventh to active promoters
story of a war between the twelfth centuries. The empire traded of Mahayana Buddhism and
Pandavas and the Kauravas extensively with India and China, covered the Kedu
—the blind king incorporating Buddhist and Chinese Plain of Central Java with
Dhritarashtra is the father of political practices into their traditions. Buddhist monuments, one of
the principals of the Kaurava Srivijaya was also a religious centre in which is the
side. It means means the region. It adhered to Mahayana colossal stupa of Borobudur,
“conquering,” “triumphant,” Buddhism and soon became the now a UNESCO World
or “victory.” Sanjay name stopping point for Chinese Buddhist Heritage Site.
meaning is Victory; Lord pilgrims on their way to India. The
Shiva; Dhritarashtra's kings of Srivijaya even founded
Charioteer; Triumphant; monasteries at Negapattam (now
Caring. The dynasty Nagappattinam) in southeastern India.
promoted Hinduism on the
island.