Awal pembentukan kerajaan-kerajaan

[1syawal1434H vbm]
[1may10St vbm] Awal mula munculnya kerajaan-kerajaan (atau terbentuknya sentralisasi politik) di wilayah Asia tenggara adl setelah masuknya kebudayaan dari India yang mana Coedes (1968) menyebutnya sbg proses INDIANISASI yang membawa paham idiologi (agama Hindu & Budha) dan informasi tentang organisasi politik dan teknologi melalui para saudagar dr India (Lombard jilid 3, 2000) (p.122).

Dg dmk dapat diartikan bhw dari segi idiologi/religi masy di Asia tenggara sebelum terjadinya proses INDIANISASI masih menganut paham ANIMISME.

Kapan terjadinya proses INDIANISASI tersebut? Dalam tulisan ini (p.123) disebutkan bhw kemungkinan hal itu terjadi setelah atau pada abad ke 5 M (400-500M)). Jadi dapatlah diartikan bhw sebelum waktu tsb belum terjadi arus informasi (teknologi dll) masuk ke wilayah AsTeng.
___________________________________________________
[18-3-14Sl htl sendang sari 510 btg] 680
@MELIHAT PERKEMBANGAN EKONOMI DI SOUTH ASIA DARI EARLY HISTO sd MID PERIOD
This review examines aspects of the trajectory [lintasan, track] of economic change in South Asia, particularly the development of markets, money, commercial production, & certain specialized economic institutions, in light of the longer historical experience of posturban polities. A review of archaeological & historical evidence from the Early Historic (500 BC-AD 500) through the Middle Period (AD 500-1600) [p.87]

@BUKTI KOTA PERTAMA DI GANGETIC PLAIN YAITU PD 500BC-AD500 (EARLY HISTORIC PERIOD)
Scholarship on the Early Historic period (ca 500 BC-AD 500) has concentrated on the Gangetic plain, the region with the first evidence for cities after the end of Harappan urbanism in the second millennium BC (but see Shaffer 1986) [p.89]
JD ADA EVOLUSI DR URBANISM  KOTA [CEK UING]

@FENOMENA YG ADA PD MASA ITU YAITU PD 500BC-AD500 (EARLY HISTORIC PERIOD) DI GANGETIC PLAIN
This period also marks the advent of decipherable [yg dpt ditafsirkan] written language in South Asia, a shift w/ implications for both the period & its scholarship (Morrison1995b, pp. 206-7) [p.89]

@HSL PENGGALIAN DI SITUS URBAN USIA 200BC – AD300
Among the similarities in material culture & urban form at these sites are the presence of fortifications [benteng] & ramparts [benteng, kubu pertahanan], cast copper & punch-marked silver coins (Cribb 1985), & the increasingly common use of iron (Allchin1995). All these features set Early Historic cities apart from earlier settlements in the region & point to significant changes in political, economic, & social organization over this period. As noted below, settlements of this period also contain indicators (texts, exotic ceramics, beads, coins, glass, & sculpture) of substantial long-distance connections within and beyond the subcontinent (Lahiri 1992, Ray 1995) [p.89-90]
HIPOTESAX: ADA PERUB POLITIK, EKONOMI & ORG SOSIAL MENGIRINGI PERUB DR URBAN KE KOTA

@LANDSCAPE SBLM KOTA MUNCUL YI ADAX PEMUKIMAN2 DIANT HUTAN
The initial appearance of cities in what was previously a landscape of scattered small & medium-sized settlements separated by tracts of forest (Lal 1986, Sharma 1994) was followed by an overall expansion in both the number & size of settlements through time [p.90]

@TEMUAN2
Makkan Lal’s (1984) survey in the western & Erdosy’s (1988) in the central Gangetic plain. Lal (1984) found continuity between the earlier (but overlapping) Painted Grey Ware (PGW) (Tripathi 1976) & the later (Early Historic) NBP “horizons” NBP, or NBPW, is shorthand [steno, tulisan cepat] for Northern Black Polished Ware, a ceramic ware whose distribution is centered on the Gangetic plain but which has a wide, if thin, distribution across South Asia [p.90]

@IDE U/ DI DAGO PAKAR
This sketchy [dlm grs besar, kurang lengkap] regional archaeological picture, along with evidence from texts, suggests a landscape of variable population density, with nodal [pst] cities playing key roles as political capitals & loci [lokus, tempat] of production, exchange, & consumption (Sharma 1994) [p.90]

@DEBAT/IDE2 TTG DEF KOTA
Nevertheless, in spite of the robust archaeological & textual evidence for vibrant [giat] urban centers, a nagging [omelan, gerutuan] prejudice [prasangka, kecurigaan] against seeing Indian cities as being “really” urban, a prejudice clear from Marx onward (Morrison 1994, O’Leary 1989), persists [terus ada] in the archaeological literature. Erdosy (1988), for example, claims that Early Historic cities “never met the criteria set by Weber for truly urban settlements in spite of their transitory [sementara] magnificence [kebesaran]. Society remained correspondingly inert [tdk giat/bertenaga] in the absence of the stimulus expected from its largest congregations [jemaah, kump org] of populations” (p. 152). He goes on to claim (1988) that cities could not “free themselves [presumably he refers to people or institutions within cities] from the political powers that created them in the first place” (p. 152) [p.90]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s