1282 [1oct13Sl vbm] Tulisan ini mengenai bgm organisasi pemerintah ker Sriwijaya pd abad 7-8M
@Prasasti ttg Sriwijaya sangat sedikit, salah satux ditulis dlm bhs Melayu tua [dg aksara proto-malagasy & atau sanskrit?] & ada kata2 siddhayatra [siapa ini?]
we have only relatively complete inscriptions written in Old Malay, in an unknown, probably, Proto-Malagasy, &/or in Sanskrit, & some minor records consisting only of the word siddhayatra.
@Prasasti yg berhub dg organisasi pemerintah Sriwijaya adl prasasti Telaga-Batu (TB-2)
The study of Sriwijaya’s political organisation started with the publication of the Telaga-Batu inscription (hereon, TB-2) by De Casparis in 1956 ~~~~One of the most important fragments of the TB-2 inscription is the list of participants of the oath [sumpah] ceremony which included the ritual drinking of water (minum sumpah) ~~~ All of you, as many as you are, – sons of kings, … chiefs, army commanders, nyaka, pratyaya, confidants (org kepercayaan?) of the king, judges [hakim], (4) chiefs of …(?), surveyors of groups of
workmen, surveyors of low-castes, cutlers, kumrmtya, ctabhaòa, adhikaraía, … clerks, sculptors, naval captains, merchants, commanders, … and you – , (5) washermen of king & slaves of the king, – all of you will be killed by the curse [sumpah, laknat, kutukan] of (this) imprecation [kutukan, sumpah]~~~~ imprecation against all kinds of possible insurgents and traitors [kutukan thd segala macam kemungkinan pemberontak & penghianat]
In practice, the mandala (a Sanskrit term used in Indian manuals of government) represented a particular and often unstable political situation in a vaguely [samar2] definable geographic area without fixed boundaries & where smaller centres tended to look in all directions for security ~~~ In Wolters’ theory, the term mandala denotes relations within the polity, i.e. its inner structure. Without reservation [tanpa syarat/kecuali?], Wolters characterised Sriwijaya as a mandala (1982: 17, 22f.). He also did not use other terms of political vocabulary to describe Sriwijaya. But Wolters did not account for the rare usage of the word mandala in the available epigraphic data, since he did not study them
@Prasasti2 yg berhub dg SRiwijaya
The term mandala never occurred together with the name Sriwijaya.
But we find the expressions ‘kadtuan Sriwijaya’ in the inscriptions from Kedukan Bukit, Kota Kapur, Palas Pasemah and Bungkuk & ‘vanua Sriwijaya’ in the texts from Kota Kapur & Karang Brahi (Nilakanta Sastri 1949: 113–116; Sriwijaya 1992: VII). Therefore the polity of Sriwijaya cannot convincingly be defined as a mandala in Wolters’ sense of the word
Nevertheless, Wolters offered a far more interesting investigation of Chinese concepts concerning Sriwijaya. He discussed the texts of Chinese Buddhist pilgrim I-tsing, which described Sriwijaya in 671 and 689 by means of the Chinese term kuo. This term has been
interpreted as ‘country’, ‘kingdom’ and ‘state’ by Chavannes, Takakusu, and Pelliot respectively. But Wolters noted that the term kuo was also applied to Funan, a mainland Southeast Asian polity. C. Jacques has shown that Funan was a conglomerate of chiefdoms but not a state (1979: 371–379). Thus as applied to Sriwijaya, these meanings of the term kuo are probable, although not necessary
Kulke asserted [menegaskan, menyatakan] that the vanua of the inscriptions was ‘the semi-urban area of Sriwijaya’ where a Buddhist monastery, vihara, was located. The term samaryyda referred to the neighbouring region beyond the vanua Sriwijaya as it means ‘having the same boundaries’ (maryyda) (Kulke 1991: 9).
@Kekuasaan Sriwijaya as first Indonesia state masuk higga kepedalaman
According to Kulke, Sriwijaya was the first Indonesian state that succeeded in extending its direct political authority beyond its own vanua into the samaryyda hinterland and to conquer even far-off [remote]powerful chieftaincies [kepala suku] & trade emporia [toserba] (e.g. Malayu and Kedah) & to establish some sort of hegemony over these outer mandala (1991: 11). This hegemony was
ensured [memastikan, menentukan] by a ‘fairly developed staff of “administrators”, the huluntuhn’.
@Bentuk ker awal SRwijaya
Early Sriwijaya was neither an empire nor a chieftaincy but a typical Early kingdom, characterised by a strong centre & surrounded by a number of subdued [lemah, takluk]but not yet annexed [mencaplok] (or ‘provincialised’) smaller polities. The unique feature of Sriwijaya’s future development was its peculiarity [kekhasan] that it never succeeded, or perhaps even never tried, to change this structure of its bhmi polity … In fact, one may even argue that the longevity [umur panjang] and the flexible greatness of Sriwijaya was based on the very non-existence of those structural features which historians regard as a
prerequisite [prasyarat] of a genuine [asli] empire (Kulke 1993: 176) ~~~~ The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia contains two different conceptions of the political organisation of Sriwijaya. Taylor thinks Sriwijaya is a generic term for the succession
of thalassocracies [maritime kigdom?] centred in southeastern Sumatra from the seventh to the fourteenth centuries, w/ the inscriptions of the seventh century showing the origin of the Sumatran polity as a ‘pyramidal network of loyalties among Malay rulers’ (Taylor 1999: 173–174).
@Status ker Sriwijaya
She also adopts Bronson’s ‘dendritic’ model of exchange (Bronson 1977: 42f.) for her classification of states. Wisseman Christie believed that there were both one-port polities and many-port polities. She was probably elaborating on Wolters’ earlier thesis that Sriwijaya was a federation of ports. Certainly, her view has much in common with Kathirithamby-Wells’s ideas. But as Wisseman
Christie’s classification is connected with Claessen’s & Skalnik’s definition of the early state, she needs to verify the existence of the state, rather than the existence of ports or trade ~~~~ More recently Manguin describes Sriwijaya by means of the city-state concept (2000; 2002; 2004). Manguin asserts [menegaskan,menyatakan] that Bronson’s ‘dendritic’ model is a ‘schematic representation of
the hierarchic upstream–downstream organization of settlements’ (2000: 413, fig. 2). Manguin follows Kulke’s views that Sriwijaya is a bhumi polity. He rejects explicitly [dg tegas/jelas] the applicability [penerapan]of the predicate ‘empire’ to it (Manguin 2000: 411–412, fig. 1). Manguin holds that Sriwijaya contained more than one harbour-centred city-state. Thus, one may conclude that the dominant modern historiographic tradition has renounced the view of Sriwijaya as an ‘empire’, but that Hall is the exception, in that he believes Sriwijaya may be interpreted in a classical way as an ‘empire’.
1283 [3oct13K vbm]
@Di negeri asal kepercayaan tersebut, didaerah tepian dekat pertemuan Sungai Gangga dan Jamuna (Jumna) banyak didirikan
tempat-tempat pemujaan bagi para dewa Hindu maupun Buddha. Kondisi serupa dapat dilihat juga di daerah-daerah yang mendapat pengaruh dua kepercayaan tersebut seperti di daerah tepian Sungai Batang Pane dan Sungai Barumun di Tapanuli Selatan, yang juga banyak berdiri bangunan-bangunan suci bersifat Hindu-Buddha.
@Penelitian pada tahun 2001 telah disurvei permukaan situs yang diikuti dengan pembuatan lubang uji (test pit) di areal lahan pertanian milik keluarga Bapak Rabujalis. Sampai dengan kedalaman akhir penggalian yakni 50cm dari permukaan tanah telah dijumpai banyak pecahan bata yang berketebalan 8–9cm, panjang 19–20cm dan lebar 20cm, juga ditemukan sebuah fragmen batu kapur yang berbentuk
persegi dengan ketebalan 8cm.