Hubbry Logo
SrivijayaSrivijayaMain
Open search
Srivijaya
Community hub
Srivijaya
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Srivijaya
Srivijaya
from Wikipedia

Key Information

Srivijaya (Indonesian: Sriwijaya),[3]: 131  also spelled Sri Vijaya or Sriwijaya,[4][5] was a Malay thalassocratic[6] empire based on the island of Sumatra (in modern-day Indonesia) that influenced much of Southeast Asia.[7] Srivijaya was an important centre for the expansion of Buddhism from the 7th to 11th century AD. Srivijaya was the first polity to dominate much of western Maritime Southeast Asia. Due to its location, Srivijaya developed complex technology utilizing maritime resources. In addition, its economy became progressively reliant on the booming trade in the region, thus transforming it into a prestige goods-based economy.[8]

The earliest reference to it dates from the 7th century. A Tang dynasty Chinese monk, Yijing, wrote that he visited Srivijaya in 671 for six months.[9][10] The earliest known inscription in which the name Srivijaya appears also dates from the 7th century in the Kedukan Bukit inscription found near Palembang, Sumatra, dated 16 June 682.[11] Between the late 7th and early 11th century, Srivijaya rose to become a hegemon in Southeast Asia. It was involved in close interactions, often rivalries, with the neighbouring Mataram, Khom or Khmer Empire and Champa. Srivijaya's main foreign interest was nurturing lucrative trade agreements with China which lasted from the Tang to the Song dynasty. Srivijaya had religious, cultural and trade links with the Buddhist Pala of Bengal, as well as with the Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East.

Srivijaya is widely recognized as a powerful maritime kingdom in Southeast Asia. New research shows that while it had significant land-based elements, Srivijaya leveraged its maritime fleet not only for logistical support but also as a primary tool to project power across strategic waterways, such as the Strait of Malacca. In response to the ever-changing dynamics of Asia’s maritime economy, the kingdom developed sophisticated naval strategies to maintain its position as a regional trade hub. These strategies involved regulating trade routes and attracting merchant ships to their ports through strict control. As threats grew, Srivijaya’s fleet also transformed into an effective offensive force, used to protect trade interests while ensuring their dominance in the region.[12][13]

The kingdom may have disintegrated after 1025 CE following several major raids launched by the Chola Empire upon their ports.[14]: 110  Chinese sources continued to refer a polity named Sanfoqi thought to be Srivijaya for a few centuries, but some historians argued that Srivijaya would no longer be the appropriate name for the overlord's centre after 1025, when Sanfoqi referred to Jambi.[1] After Srivijaya fell, it was largely forgotten. It was not until 1918 that French historian George Cœdès, of the French School of the Far East, formally postulated its existence.[15]

Etymology

[edit]

Srivijaya is a Sanskrit-derived name: श्रीविजय, Śrīvijaya. Śrī[16] means "fortunate", "prosperous", or "happy" and also has some association with the divine, at least in Hinduism. Vijaya[17] means "victorious" or "excellence".[15] Thus, the combined word Srivijaya means "shining victory",[18] "splendid triumph", "prosperous victor", "radiance of excellence" or simply "glorious".

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 Kapur inscription (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.[19]

The Sundanese manuscript of Carita Parahyangan, composed around the late 16th century in West Java, mentioned 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.[i][20]

Subsequently, after studying local stone inscriptions, manuscripts and Chinese historical accounts, historians concluded that the term "Srivijaya" was in reference 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.[6]

Historiography

[edit]
Talang Tuwo inscription, discovered in Bukit Seguntang area, tells the establishment of the sacred Śrīksetra park.

Little physical evidence of Srivijaya remains.[21] 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 when the French scholar, George Cœdès, published his discoveries and interpretations in Dutch and Indonesian language newspapers.[22] Cœdès noted that the Chinese references to Sanfoqi, previously read as Sribhoja or Sribogha, and the inscriptions in Old Malay refer to the same empire.[23]

The Srivijayan historiography is based on two main sources: the Chinese historical accounts and the Southeast Asian stone inscriptions that have been discovered and deciphered in the region. The Buddhist monk 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 of the king of Zabag. It's likely that the Zabag-Khmer story was based on Javanese overlordship over Cambodia.[1]: 269, 302 

The historical records of Srivijaya were reconstructed from a number of stone inscriptions, most of them written in Old Malay using Pallava script, such as the Kedukan Bukit, Talang Tuwo, Telaga Batu and Kota Kapur inscriptions.[3]: 82–83  Srivijaya became a symbol of early Sumatran importance as a great empire to balance Java's Majapahit in the east. In the 20th century, both empires were referred to by nationalistic intellectuals to argue for an Indonesian identity within a united Indonesian state that had existed prior to the colonial state of the Dutch East Indies.[22][24]

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.[25][26] The Arabs called it Zabag or Sribuza and the Khmer called it Melayu.[25] While the Javanese called them Suvarnabhumi, Suvarnadvipa, Melayu, or Malayu. This is another reason why the discovery of Srivijaya was so difficult.[25] While some of these names are strongly reminiscent of the name of Java, there is a distinct possibility that they may have been referring to Sumatra instead.[27]

Capital

[edit]

Palembang

[edit]

According to the Kedukan Bukit inscription, dated 605 Saka (683), Srivijaya was first established in the vicinity of today's Palembang, on the banks of the Musi River. It mentions that Dapunta Hyang Sri Jayanasa came from Minanga Tamwan. The exact location of Minanga Tamwan is still a subject of discussion. The Palembang theory as the place where Srivijaya was first established was presented by Cœdes and supported by Pierre-Yves Manguin. Soekmono, on the other hand, argues that Palembang was not the capital of Srivijaya and suggests that the Kampar River system in Riau where the Muara Takus temple is located as Minanga Tamwan.[28] However, a recent study suggests that Minanga Tamwan is located by the upper Komering River in modern Minanga village, Cempaka district, East Ogan Komering Ulu Regency, South Sumatra.[29] Komering River is a tributary of the Musi River, with its confluence located in Palembang.

Floating houses in Musi River bank near Palembang in 1917. The Srivijayan capital was probably formed from a collection of floating houses like this.[30]

Other than the Kedukan Bukit inscription and other Srivijayan inscriptions, immediately to the west of modern Palembang city, a quantity of artefacts have been revealed through archaeological surveys commenced since the 20th century. Artefacts unearthed include large amounts of Chinese ceramics and Indian rouletted ware remains, also the ruins of stupa at the foot of Bukit Seguntang. Furthermore, a significant number of Hindu-Buddhist statuary has been recovered from the Musi River basin. These discoveries reinforce the suggestion that Palembang was the centre of Srivijaya.[31] Nevertheless, Palembang left little archaeological traces of ancient urban settlement. This is probably because of the nature of Palembang's environment — a low-lying plain which is frequently flooded by the Musi River. Experts suggests that the ancient Palembang settlement was formed as a collection of floating houses made from thatched materials, such as wood, bamboo and straw. Zhao Rukuo's 13th century Chinese account Zhu Fan Zhi confirmed this; "The residents of Sanfo-tsi (Srivijaya) live scattered outside the city on the water, within rafts lined with reeds." It was probably that only Kedatuan (king's court) and religious structures were built on land, while the people live in floating houses along the Musi River.[32]

Palembang and its relevance to the early Malay state were controversial in terms of its evidence build-up through the archaeological record. 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, named the kingdom of Srivijaya. As far as early state-like polities in the Malay Archipelago, the geographical location of modern Palembang was a possible candidate for the 1st-millennium kingdom settlement like Srivijaya as it is the best described and most secure in historical context, its prestige was apparent in wealth and urban characteristics, and the most unique, which no other 1st-millennium kingdom held, was its location in junction to three major rivers, the Musi River, the Komering River, and the Ogan River. The historical evidence was contrasted in 1975 with publications by Bennet Bronson and Jan Wisseman. Findings at certain major excavation sites, such as Geding Suro, Penyaringan Air Bersih, Sarang Wati, and Bukit Seguntang, conducted in the region played major roles in the negative evidence of the 1st-millennium kingdom in the same region. It was noted that the region contained no locatable settlements earlier than the middle of the second millennium.

Lack of evidence of southern settlements in the archaeological record comes from the disinterest in the archeologist and the unclear physical visibility of the settlements 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 centres. 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 centre 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 makes 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 centre 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 centres in Southeast Asia and basic postulates themselves such as regions found in the south, like Palembang, based their achievements in correlation with urbanization.[33]

Srivijaya Archaeological Park (green) located southwest from the centre of Palembang. The site forms an axis connecting Bukit Seguntang and Musi River.

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 centre 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 develop urban settlements.[34]

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 once been densely populated.[35] 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).[15] Palembang is called in Chinese: 巨港; pinyin: Jù gǎng; lit. 'Giant Harbour', this is probably a testament of its history as a once a great port.[citation needed]

In 2021 a number of treasures were found in the shallows and riverbed of the Musi River by local fishermen during a dive.[36] The treasures included coins of various periods, gold jewelries, Buddhist statues, gems, colourful beads, and Chinese ceramic fragments. However, these troves were immediately lost as local treasure hunters sold them to international antiquities dealers before archaeologists could properly study them.[37] These discoveries led to the treasure rush in the Musi River in 2021, where locals formed groups of treasure divers operating in parts of the Musi River in and around Palembang.[38] These troves seem to confirm that Palembang was indeed the commercial centre of Srivijaya.[citation needed]

Jambi

[edit]
Muaro Jambi Buddhist temple compound, a possible location of Srivijaya's religious centre

Some scholars argue that the centre of Srivijaya was located in Muaro Jambi, and not Palembang.[39] 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 the Muaro Jambi Regency, Jambi on the Batang Hari River, rather than on the originally-proposed Musi River.[40] The archaeological site includes eight excavated temple sanctuaries and covers about 12 square kilometers, and stretches 7.5 kilometers along the Batang Hari River, while 80 mounds (menapos) of temple ruins, are not yet restored.[41][42] The Muaro Jambi archaeological site was Mahayana-Vajrayana Buddhist in nature, which suggests that the site served as a Buddhist learning centre, connected to the 10th century Buddhist scholar Suvarṇadvipi Dharmakīrti. Chinese sources also mentioned that Srivijaya hosted thousands of Buddhist monks.

Compared to Palembang, Muaro Jambi has richer archaeological sites, i.e. multiple red brick temples and building structures along the Batang Hari river whilst Pelembang has no comparable temples or building structures. The proponents of the theory that Muaro Jambi was Srivijaya's capital point out that the descriptions written by Yijing and Zhao Rukuo, the description of Srivijaya realms by the Cholas and archaeological findings, suggest that Srivijaya's capital fits Muaro Jambi's environment better than the marshy Palembang.[39] The study also compares the environment, geographical location, and the economic wealth of both cities; arguing that Jambi, located on the mouth of the Batang Hari 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.[39]

Central Java

[edit]

In the second half of the eighth century, the Srivijayan mandala seems 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's unknown whether Srivijaya's capital moved to Java or Srivijaya simply became a subordinate of Java.[43]: 20–23 [44]: 8–10, 30–31 

Other places

[edit]

Another theory suggests that Dapunta Hyang came from the east coast of the Malay Peninsula, and that the Chaiya district in Surat Thani province, Thailand, was the centre of Srivijaya.[45] 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 Ligor stele, found in this region, some scholars have attempted to prove that Chaiya was the capital.[46] 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 Dvaravati school of art.[47] Some scholars believe that Chaiya probably comes from Srivijaya. It was a regional capital in Srivijaya. Some Thai historians argue it was the capital of Srivijaya itself,[48] but this is generally discounted.[citation needed]

History

[edit]

Formation and growth

[edit]

Siddhayatra

[edit]
The Kedukan Bukit inscription displayed in the National Museum of Indonesia

Around 500 CE, the roots of the Srivijayan empire began to develop around present-day Palembang, Sumatra. The Kedukan Bukit inscription (683)—considered to be the oldest inscription related to Srivijaya,[49] discovered on the banks of the Tatang River near the Karanganyar site, states about the "glorious Srivijaya",[ii] a kadatuan (kingdom or polity) which was founded by Dapunta Hyang Sri Jayanasa and his retinue. He had embarked on a sacred siddhayatra[iii] journey and led 20,000 troops and 312 people in boats with 1,312 foot soldiers from Minanga Tamwan to Jambi and Palembang. Many of these armed forces gathered under 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 consisted of multiple quasi-independent polities ruled by local Datus (chieftain).[50]: 4 

From the Old Malay inscriptions, it is known that Dapunta Hyang Sri Jayanasa launched a maritime conquest in 684 with 20,000 men in the siddhayatra journey to acquire wealth, power, and 'magical powers'.[51] Under the leadership of Dapunta Hyang 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 was held in high esteem at the time. Srivijaya recognised that the submission of Melayu would increase its own prestige.[52]

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 estuarine areas capable of forming rival power centres. The areas upstream of the Musi River were rich in various commodities valuable to Chinese traders.[53] 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 rival river systems such as the Batang Hari River, centred in Jambi.

The Telaga Batu 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 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 Kadatuan Srivijaya.

The Talang Tuwo inscription is also a siddhayatra inscription. Discovered in Seguntang Hill, western Palembang, this inscription describes the establishment of the Śrīksetra garden endowed by King Jayanasa of Srivijaya for the well-being of all creatures.[3]: 82–83  It is likely that the Seguntang Hill site was the location of the Śrīksetra garden.

Regional conquests

[edit]

According to the Kota Kapur inscription discovered on Bangka Island, the empire conquered most of southern Sumatra and the neighbouring island of Bangka as far as Palas Pasemah in Lampung. Also, according to the inscriptions, Dapunta Hyang Sri Jayanasa launched a military campaign against Java in the late 7th century, a period which coincided with the decline of Tarumanagara in West Java and the Kalingga in Central Java. The empire thus grew to control trade on the Strait of Malacca, the western side of Java Sea, and possibly the Gulf of Thailand.[54]: 390–391 

Chinese records dating to the late 7th century mention two Sumatran kingdoms and three other kingdoms on Java as being part of Srivijaya. By the end of the 8th century, many western Javanese kingdoms, such as Tarumanagara and Kalingga, were within the Srivijayan sphere of influence.[citation needed]

Golden age

[edit]
The golden Malayu-Srivijayan Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva in Rataukapastuo, Muarabulian, Jambi, Indonesia

The 7th-century Sojomerto inscription mentions that an Old Malay-speaking Shivaist family led by Dapunta Selendra had established themselves in the Batang area of the northern coast of Central Java. He was possibly the progenitor of the Sailendra family. By the early 8th century, an influential Buddhist family related to Srivijaya, the Sailendra family of Javanese ancestry,[55] dominated Central Java.[56]

Conquest of the Malay Peninsula

[edit]
Malay polities in Sumatra and Malay Peninsula. By the turn of the 8th century the states in Sumatra and Malay Peninsula were under Srivijayan domination.

During the 7th century, Langkasuka on the Malay Peninsula became part of Srivijaya.[57] Soon after this, Pan Pan and Tambralinga, north of Langkasuka, came under Srivijayan influence. These kingdoms on the peninsula were major trading nations that transported goods across the Kra Isthmus.

The Ligor inscription in Vat Sema Muang says that Maharaja Dharmasetu of Srivijaya ordered the construction of three sanctuaries dedicated to the Bodhisattvas Padmapani, Vajrapani, and Buddha in the northern Malay Peninsula.[58]

Sailendra dynasty rule

[edit]

The Sailendras of Java established a relationship with the Sumatran Srivijayan lineage, and then further established their rule and authority in the Mataram Kingdom of Central Java. It is unknown what the exact nature of their relationship was, with Arab sources mentioning that Zabag (Java) ruled over Sribuza (Srivijaya), Kalah (a place in the Malay peninsula, probably Kedah), and Ramni (a place in Sumatra, probably Lambri).[43]: 20–23 [44]: 8–10, 30–31 

In Java, Dharanindra's successor was Samaragrawira (r. 800–819), mentioned in the Nalanda inscription (dated 860) as the father of Balaputradewa, and the son of Śailendravamsatilaka (the jewel of the Śailendra family) with the stylised name Śrīviravairimathana (the slayer of a heroic enemy), which refers to Dharanindra.[3]: 92  Unlike his predecessor, the expansive and warlike Dharanindra, Samaragrawira seems to have been a pacifist, enjoying the peaceful prosperity of interior Java in the Kedu Plain and being more interested in completing the Borobudur project. It was in these years, at the beginning of the 9th century, that the Khmer prince Jayavarman II was appointed governor of Indrapura in the Mekong Delta under Sailendran rule. This decision was later proven to be a mistake, as Jayavarman II revolted, moved his capital further inland north from Tonle Sap to Mahendraparvata, severing the link to Srivijaya and proclaimed Khmer independent from Java in 802.[iv][59] Samaragrawira was mentioned as the king of Java that married Tārā, daughter of Dharmasetu.[3]: 108  He was mentioned by his other name Rakai Warak in the Mantyasih inscription.

Earlier historians, such as N. J. Krom and Cœdes, tend to equate Samaragrawira and Samaratungga as the same person.[3]: 92  However, later historians such as Slamet Muljana equate Samaratungga with Rakai Garung, mentioned in the Mantyasih inscription as the 5th monarch of the Mataram kingdom. This would mean that Samaratungga was the successor of Samaragrawira.

Dewi Tara, the daughter of Dharmasetu, married Samaratunga, a member of the Sailendra family who assumed the throne of Srivijaya around 792.[60] By the 8th century, the Srivijayan court was virtually located in Java, as the Sailendras monarch rose to become the Maharaja of Srivijaya.

After Dharmasetu, Samaratungga became the next Maharaja of Srivijaya. He reigned from 792 to 835. Unlike the expansionist Dharmasetu, Samaratungga did not indulge in military expansion but preferred to strengthen the Srivijayan hold on Java. He personally oversaw the construction of the grand monument of Borobudur; a massive stone mandala, which was completed in 825, during his reign.[61] According to Cœdès, "In the second half of the ninth century Java and Sumatra were united under the rule of a Sailendra reigning in Java... its center at Palembang."[3]: 92  Samaratungga, like Samaragrawira, seems to have been influenced by peaceful Mahayana Buddhist beliefs and strove to become a peaceful and benevolent ruler. His successor was Princess Pramodhawardhani who was betrothed to Shivaite Rakai Pikatan, son of the influential Rakai Patapan, a landlord in Central Java. The political move that seemed to be an effort to secure peace and Sailendran rule on Java by reconciling the Mahayana Buddhist with Shivaist Hindus.

Return to Palembang

[edit]
A guardian (dvarapala) statue from Muaro Jambi.

Prince Balaputra, however, opposed the rule of Pikatan and Pramodhawardhani in Central Java. The relations between Balaputra and Pramodhawardhani are interpreted differently by some historians. An older theory according to Bosch and De Casparis holds that Balaputra was the son of Samaratungga, which means he was the younger brother of Pramodhawardhani. Later historians such as Muljana, argued that Balaputra was the son of Samaragrawira and the younger brother of Samaratungga, which would make him the uncle of Pramodhawardhani.[62]

It is not known whether Balaputra was expelled from Central Java because of a succession dispute with Pikatan, or already ruled in Sumatra. Either way, it seems that Balaputra eventually ruled the Sumatran branch of Sailendra dynasty and was enthroned in the Srivijayan capital of Palembang. Historians have argued that this was because Balaputra's mother Tara, the queen consort of King Samaragrawira, was the princess of Srivijaya, making Balaputra the heir of the Srivijayan throne. Balaputra the Maharaja of Srivijaya later stated his claim as the rightful heir of the Sailendra dynasty from Java, as proclaimed in the Nalanda inscription dated 860.[3]: 108 

After a trade disruption at Canton between 820 and 850, the ruler of Jambi (Melayu Kingdom) was able to assert enough independence to send missions to China in 853 and 871.[63]: 95  The Melayu Kingdom's independence coincided with the troubled times when the Sailendran Balaputradewa was expelled from Java and later seized the throne of Srivijaya. The new maharaja was able to dispatch a tributary mission to China by 902. Two years after that, the weakening Tang dynasty conferred a title on a Srivijayan envoy.

In the first half of the 10th century, between the fall of Tang dynasty and the rise of Song, there was brisk trading between the overseas world with the Fujian kingdom of Min and the rich Guangdong kingdom of Nan Han. Srivijaya undoubtedly benefited from this. Sometime around 903, the Muslim writer Ibn Rustah was so impressed with the wealth of the Srivijayan ruler that he declared that one would not hear of a king who was richer, stronger or had more revenue. The main urban centres of Srivijaya were then at Palembang (especially the Karanganyar site near Seguntang Hill area), Muara Jambi and Kedah.

War against Java

[edit]
Ancient Javanese vessel depicted in Borobudur

In the 10th century, the rivalry between Sumatran Srivijaya and the Javanese Mataram kingdom became more intense and hostile. The animosity was probably caused by Srivijaya's effort to reclaim the Sailendra lands in Java or by Mataram's aspiration to challenge Srivijaya domination in the region. In East Java, the Anjukladang inscription dated 937 mentions an infiltration attack from Malayu — which refers to a Srivijayan attack upon the Mataram Kingdom of East Java. The villagers of Anjuk Ladang were awarded for their service and merit in assisting the king's army, under the leadership of Mpu Sindok, in repelling invading Malayu (Sumatra) forces; subsequently, a jayastambha (victory monument) was erected in their honor.

In 990, King Dharmawangsa of Java launched a naval invasion against Srivijaya and attempted to capture the capital Palembang. The news of the Javanese invasion of Srivijaya was recorded in Chinese Song period sources. In 988, a Srivijayan envoy was sent to the Chinese court in Guangzhou. After sojourning for about two years in China, the envoy learned that his country had been attacked by Java which made him unable to return home. In 992 an envoy from Java arrived in the Chinese court and explained that their country was involved in continuous war with Srivijaya. In 999 the Srivijayan envoy sailed from China to Champa in an attempt to return home, however, he received no news about the condition of his country. The Srivijayan envoy then sailed back to China and appealed to the Chinese Emperor for the protection of Srivijaya against Javanese invaders.[64]: 229 

Dharmawangsa's invasion led the Maharaja of Srivijaya, Sri Cudamani Warmadewa, to seek protection from China. Warmadewa was known as an able and astute ruler, with shrewd diplomatic skills. In the midst of the crisis brought by the Javanese invasion, he secured Chinese political support by appeasing the Chinese Emperor. In 1003, a Song historical record reported that the envoy of San-fo-qi was dispatched by the king Shi-li-zhu-luo-wu-ni-fo-ma-tiao-hua (Sri Cudamani Warmadewa). The Srivijayan envoy told the Chinese court that in their country a Buddhist temple had been erected to pray for the long life of Chinese Emperor, and asked the emperor to give the name and the bell for this temple which was built in his honor. Rejoiced, the Chinese Emperor named the temple Ch'eng-t'en-wan-shou ('ten thousand years of receiving blessing from heaven, which is China) and a bell was immediately cast and sent to Srivijaya to be installed in the temple.[64]: 6 

In 1006, Srivijaya's alliance proved its resilience by successfully repelling the Javanese invasion. This attack opened the eyes of Srivijayan Maharaja to the threat of the Javanese Mataram Kingdom, so he laid a plan to destroy his Javanese rival. Srivijaya assisted Haji (king) Wurawari of Lwaram to revolt, which led to the attack and destruction of the Mataram palace. This sudden and unexpected attack took place during the wedding ceremony of Dharmawangsa's daughter, which left the court unprepared and shocked. With the death of Dharmawangsa and the fall of the Mataram capital, Srivijaya contributed to the collapse of Mataram kingdom, leaving Eastern Java in further unrest, violence and, ultimately, desolation for several years to come.[3]: 130, 132, 141, 144 

Decline

[edit]

Chola invasion

[edit]
Candi Gumpung, a Buddhist temple at the Muaro Jambi Temple Compounds of the Melayu Kingdom, later integrated as one of Srivijaya's important urban centre

The factors in the decline of Srivijaya were foreign piracy and raids that disrupted trade and security in the region. Rajendra Chola, the Chola king from Tamil Nadu in South India, launched naval raids on ports of Srivijaya in 1025.[3]: 142–143  His navy sailed swiftly to Sumatra using monsoon winds, made a stealth attack and raided Srivijaya's 14 ports. The strike took Srivijaya by surprise and unprepared; they first ransacked the capital city of Palembang and then swiftly moved on to other ports including Kadaram (modern Kedah).[65]

The Cholas are known to have benefitted from both piracy and foreign trade. At times, the Chola's seafaring led to outright plunder and conquest as far as Southeast Asia.[66] An inscription of King Rajendra states that he had captured the King of Kadaram, Sangrama Vijayatunggavarman, son of Mara Vijayatunggavarman, and plundered many treasures including the Vidhyadara-torana, the jewelled 'war gate' of Srivijaya adorned with great splendour.

According to the 15th-century Malay Annals, Rajendra Chola I after the successful naval raid in 1025 married Onang Kiu, the daughter of Vijayottunggavarman.[67][68] This invasion forced Srivijaya to make peace with the Javanese kingdom of Kahuripan. The peace deal was brokered by the exiled daughter of Vijayottunggavarman, who managed to escape the destruction of Palembang, and came to the court of King Airlangga in East Java. She also became the queen consort of Airlangga named Dharmaprasadottungadevi and, in 1035, Airlangga constructed a Buddhist monastery named Srivijayasrama dedicated to his queen consort.[69]: 163 

The Cholas continued a series of raids and conquests against parts of Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula for the next 20 years. The expedition of Rajendra Chola I had such a lasting impression on the Malay people of the period that his name is even mentioned (as Raja Chulan) in the Malay Annals.[67][70][71][72] Even today the Chola rule is remembered in Malaysia as many Malaysian princes have names ending with Cholan or Chulan, such as the Raja of Perak, Raja Chulan.[73][74][75]

Ruins of the Wat Kaew in Chaiya, dating from Srivijayan times

Rajendra Chola's overseas expeditions against Srivijaya were unique in India's history and its otherwise peaceful relations with the states of Southeast Asia. The reasons for the naval expeditions are uncertain as the sources do not state its exact causes. Nilakanta Sastri suggests that the attacks were probably caused by Srivijaya's attempts to throw obstacles in the way of Chola's trade with the East or, more probably, a simple desire on the part of Rajendra Chola to extend his military victories to well known countries to gain prestige.[6] The new research however, suggests that the attack was a pre-emptive strike with a commercial motive. Rajendra Chola's naval strike was a geostrategic manoeuvre.[76]

The raids gravely weakened the Srivijayan hegemony and enabled the formation of regional kingdoms like Kediri, which were based on intensive agriculture rather than coastal and long-distance trade. With the passing of time, the regional trading centre shifted from the old Srivijayan capital of Palembang to another trade centre on the island of Sumatra, Jambi, which was the centre of Malayu.[75]

Under the Cholas

[edit]

Sanfoqi sent a mission to China in 1028, but this would refer to Malayu-Jambi, not Srivijaya-Palembang.[1]: 398, 405  No Srivijayan envoys arrived in China between 1028 and 1077. This indicates that the mandala of Srivijaya has faded. It is very possible that Srivijaya collapsed in 1025.[14]: 110  In the following centuries, Chinese chronicles still mentioned "Sanfoqi", but this term probably refers to the Malayu-Jambi kingdom, evidenced by the Chinese record of Sanfoqi Zhanbei guo (Jambi country of Sanfoqi). The last epigraphic evidence that mentions the word "Sriwijaya" or "Srivijaya" comes from the Tanjore inscription of the Chola kingdom in 1030 or 1031.[1]: 397, 398, 405 

Chola control over Srivijaya lasted for several decades. Chinese chronicles mentioned Sanfoqi Zhu-nian guo which means "Chola country of Sanfoqi", likely refer to Kedah. Sanfoqi Zhu-nian guo sent missions to China in 1077, 1079, 1082, 1088, and 1090. It is possible that the Cholas installed a crown prince in the Tamil-dominated area of the Malacca Strait.[1]: 398, 399, 405 

There is also evidence to suggest that Kulottunga Chola, the maternal grandson of emperor Rajendra Chola I, in his youth (1063) was in Srivijaya,[3]: 148  restoring order and maintaining Chola influence in that area. Virarajendra Chola states in his inscription, dated in the 7th year of his reign, that he conquered Kadaram (Kedah) and gave it back to its king who came and worshiped his feet.[77] These expeditions were led by Kulottunga to help the Sailendra king who had sought the help of Virarajendra Chola.[78] An inscription of Canton mentions Ti-hua-kialo as the ruler of Srivijaya. According to historians, this ruler is the same as the Chola ruler Ti-hua-kialo (identified with Kulottunga) mentioned in the Song annals and who sent an embassy to China. According to Tan Yeok Song, the editor of the Srivijayan inscription of Canton, Kulottunga stayed in Kadaram (Kedah) after the naval expedition of 1067 AD and reinstalled its king before returning to South India and ascending the throne.[79]

Tamil colonization of the Malacca Strait seems to have lasted for a century. The Cholas left several inscriptions in northern Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula. Tamil influence can be found in works of art (sculpture and temple architecture), it indicated government activity rather than commerce. Chola's grip on northern Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula receded in the 12th century — the Tamil poem Kalingatupparani of ca. 1120 CE mentioned Kulottungga's destruction of Kadaram (Kedah). After that, Kedah disappeared from Indian sources.[1]: 398, 399 

Successor state Malayu Dharmasraya

[edit]

After the fall of Shailendra dynasty in Sumatra in the 11th century, and a period of Chola involvements in the region, there are no clear records which can explain the period ensuing the fall of Srivijaya. Almost 150 years later, a new dynasty emerged in the region replacing the Sailendras. They were the Mauli dynasty that ruled the Melayu Kingdom in Jambi by the Batang Hari river valley.[80] This late 12th century Malayu Dharmasraya kingdom can be considered as the successor of Srivijaya. The oldest inscription bearing the name of Maharaja Mauli is the Grahi inscription dated 1183.

Government and economy

[edit]

Political administration

[edit]
Telaga Batu inscription adorned with seven nāga heads on top, and a waterspout on the lower part to channel the water probably poured during a ceremonial allegiance ritual

The 7th century Telaga Batu inscription, discovered in Sabokingking, Palembang, testifies to the complexity and stratified titles of the Srivijayan state officials. These titles are mentioned: rājaputra (princes, lit: sons of king), kumārāmātya (ministers), bhūpati (regional rulers), senāpati (generals), nāyaka (local community leaders), pratyaya (nobles), hāji pratyaya (lesser kings), dandanayaka (judges), tuhā an vatak (workers inspectors), vuruh (workers), addhyāksi nījavarna (lower supervisors), vāsīkarana (blacksmiths/weapon makers), cātabhata (soldiers), adhikarana (officials), kāyastha (store workers), sthāpaka (artisans), puhāvam (ship captains), vaniyāga (traders), marsī hāji (king's servants), hulun hāji (king's slaves).[81]

During its formation, the empire was organised in three main zones — the estuarine capital region centred on Palembang, the Musi River basin which served as hinterland and source of valuable goods, and rival estuarine areas capable of forming rival power centres. These rival estuarine areas, through raids and conquests, were held under Srivijayan power, such as the Batanghari estuarine (Malayu in Jambi). Several strategic ports also included places like Bangka Island (Kota Kapur), ports and kingdoms in Java (highly possible Tarumanagara and Kalingga), Kedah and Chaiya in Malay peninsula, and Lamuri and Pannai in northern Sumatra. There are also reports mentioning the Java-Srivijayan raids on Southern Cambodia (Mekong estuarine) and ports of Champa.

After its expansion to the neighbouring states, the Srivijayan empire was formed as a collection of several Kadatuans (local principalities), which swore allegiance to the central ruling powerful Kadatuan ruled by the Srivijayan Maharaja. The political relations and system relating to its realms is described as a mandala model, typical of that of classical Southeast Asian Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms. It could be described as federation of kingdoms or vassalised polity under a centre of domination, namely the central Kadatuan Srivijaya. The polity was defined by its centre rather than its boundaries and it could be composed of numerous other tributary polities without undergoing further administrative integration.[82]

The relations between the central kadatuan and its member (subscribers) kadatuans were dynamic. As such, the status would shift over generations. Minor trading ports throughout the region were controlled by local vassal rulers in place on behalf of the king. They also presided over harvesting resources from their respective regions for export. A portion of their revenue was required to be paid to the king.[83] They were not allowed to infringe upon international trade relations, but the temptation of keeping more money to themselves eventually led foreign traders and local rulers to conduct illicit trading relations of their own.[84] Other sources claim that the Champa invasion had weakened the central government significantly, forcing vassals to keep the international trade revenue for themselves.[83]

In addition to coercive methods through raids and conquests and being bound by pasumpahan (oath of allegiance), the royalties of each kadatuan often formed alliances through dynastic marriages. For example, a previously suzerained kadatuan over time might rise in prestige and power, so that eventually its ruler could lay claim to be the maharaja of the central kadatuan. The relationship between Srivijayan in Sumatra (descendants of Dapunta Hyang Sri Jayanasa) and Sailendras in Java exemplified this political dynamic.[citation needed]

Economy

[edit]

Trade agreements and commerce

[edit]
Expansion of Buddhism starting in the 5th century BCE from northern India to the rest of Asia, which followed both inland and maritime trade routes of the Silk Road. Srivijaya once served as a centre of Buddhist learning and expansion. The overland and maritime "Silk Roads" were interlinked and complementary, forming what scholars have called the "great circle of Buddhism".[85]

The main goal of Srivijayan foreign economic relations was to secure a lucrative trade agreement to serve the large Chinese market, that spanned from the Tang dynasty to the Song dynasty. In order to participate in this trade agreement, Srivijaya was involved in a tributary relation with China, in which they sent several envoys and embassies to secure the Chinese court's favour. By 1178, a Srivijayan mission to China highlighted Srivijaya's role as an intermediary to acquire Bornean products, such as plum flower-shaped Borneo camphor planks.[86]

1 masa, silver coin of Srivijaya, circa 7th – 10th century

In the world of commerce, Srivijaya rose rapidly to be a far-flung empire controlling the two passages between India and China, namely the Sunda Strait from Palembang and the Malacca Strait from Kedah. Arab accounts state that the empire of the Srivijayan Maharaja was so vast that the swiftest vessel would not have been able to travel around all its islands in two years. The islands that the accounts referred to produced camphor, aloes, sandal-wood, spices like cloves, nutmegs, cardamom and cubebs, as well as ivory, gold and tin, all of which made the wealth of the Maharaja equal to any king in Medieval India.[87]

Riverine system model

[edit]

Besides interregional trade agreements, the Srivijayan economy is also theorized to have adopted a "riverine system model", where dominance of a river-system and river-mouth centres guaranteed the kingdom's control of the flow of goods from the hinterland region upstream of the river; as well as control on trade within the Straits of Malacca and international trade routes going through the strait. Srivijaya's victory on its dominance of river-mouths centres on the Sumatra, Malaya and western Java coasts ensured Palembang's control over the region. This was accomplished through its system of: 'oath of allegiances' to local elites; its efforts on redistributions of wealth; and alliances made with local datus (chieftains) rather than on direct coercion.[88]

Items of trade and barter system

[edit]

The port of Srivijaya served as an important entrepôt in which valuable commodities from the region and beyond were collected, traded and shipped. Rice, cotton, indigo and silver from Java; aloes, resin, camphor, ivory, rhino horns, tin and gold from Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula; rattan, rare timber, camphor, gems and precious stones from Borneo; exotic birds and rare animals, iron, sappan, sandalwood, and rare spices including clove and nutmeg from the Eastern Indonesian archipelago; various spices of Southeast Asia and India including pepper, cubeb and cinnamon; also Chinese ceramics, lacquerware, brocade, fabrics, silks, and Chinese artwork were among valuable commodities being traded in Srivijayan ports. What goods were actually native to Srivijaya is currently disputed due to the volume of cargo that regularly passed through the region from India, China, and Arabia. Foreign traders stopped to trade their cargo in Srivijaya with other merchants from Southeast Asia and beyond. It was an easy location for traders from different regions to meet as opposed to visiting each other directly. This system of trade has led researchers to conjecture that the actual native products of Srivijaya were far less than what was originally recorded by Chinese and Arabic traders of the time. It may be that cargo sourced from foreign regions accumulated in Srivijaya. The accumulation of particular foreign goods that were easily accessible and in large supply might have given the impression they were products of Srivijaya. This could also work in the opposite direction with some native Srivijayan goods being mistaken as foreign commodities.[89][83]

Ceramics were a major trade commodity between Srivijaya and China with shard artefacts found along the coast of Sumatra and Java. It is assumed that China and Srivijaya may have had an exclusive ceramics trade relationship because particular ceramic shards can only be found at their point of origin, in Guangzhou, or in Indonesia, but nowhere else along the trade route.[89] There have been some discrepancies with the dating of said artifacts. Ceramic sherds found around the Geding Suro temple complex have been revealed to be much more recent than previously assumed. A statuette found in the same area did align with Srivijayan chronology, but it has been suggested that this is merely a coincidence and the product was actually brought to the region recently.[33]

The currency of the empire was gold and silver coins embossed with the image of the sandalwood flower (of which Srivijaya had a trade monopoly on) and the word "vara," or "glory," in Sanskrit.[83][90] Other items could be used to barter with, such as porcelain, silk, sugar, iron, rice, dried galangal, rhubarb, and camphor.[83] Some Arabic sources record that the profits acquired from trade ports and levies were converted into gold and hidden by the King in the royal pond.[8]

Trade relations with Arabia

[edit]

Other than fostering lucrative trade relations with India and China, Srivijaya also established commerce links with Arabia. In a highly plausible account, a messenger was sent by Maharaja Sri Indravarman to deliver a letter to Caliph Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz of the Umayyad Caliphate in 718. The messenger later returned to Srivijaya with a Zanji (a black female slave from Zanj), a gift from the Caliph to the Maharaja. Later, a Chinese chronicle made mention of Sri Indravarman and how the Maharaja of Srivijaya had sent the Chinese Emperor a ts'engchi (Chinese spelling of the Arabic Zanji) as a gift in 724.[91]

Arab writers of the 9th and 10th century, in their writings, considered the king of Al-Hind (India and to some extent might include Southeast Asia) as one of the four great kings in the world.[92][93] The reference to the kings of Al-Hind might have also included the kings of Southeast Asia; Sumatra, Java, Burma and Cambodia. They are, invariably, depicted by the Arab writers as extremely powerful and being equipped with vast armies of men, horses and having tens of thousands of elephants.[92][93] They were also said to be in possession of vast treasures of gold and silver.[92][93] Trading records from the 9th and 10th centuries mention Srivijaya, but do not expand upon regions further east, indicating that Arabic traders were not engaging with other regions in Southeast Asia, serving as further evidence of Srivijaya's important role as a link between the two regions.[89]

Thalassocratic empire

[edit]

For some periods, Srivijaya controlled the transoceanic trade in its central passage in the Strait of Malacca, as part of the Maritime Silk Road. This has led some historian to argue that the amorphous statehood of Srivijaya, which dominated a confederation of semi autonomous port cities in the Maritime Southeast Asia, was actually a Thalassocracy.[6] However, the true nature of Srivijaya naval development and maritime hegemony is still a subject of studies and disagreements among historians.

Srivijaya benefited from the lucrative maritime trade between China and India as well as trading in products such as Maluku spices within the Malay Archipelago. Serving as Southeast Asia's main entrepôt and gaining trade patronage by the Chinese court, Srivijaya was constantly managing its trade networks and, was always wary of potential rival ports of its neighbouring kingdoms. A majority of the revenue from international trade was used to finance the military which was charged with the responsibility of protecting the ports. Some records even describe the use of iron chains to prevent pirate attacks.[83]

Srivijayan settlers may have colonized some parts of Madagascar. The migration to Madagascar was estimated to have taken place around 830.[94]

7th to 11th centuries

[edit]

Previously it was assumed that Srivijaya was a maritime power that could not be separated from ethnicity and society in the Malacca Strait. The assumption that occurs is that the formation of a successful state and hegemony in the strait is directly related to the ability to participate in international maritime activities, which means that a shore-based state like this develops and maintains its power with its navy. However, a survey of the available information shows that such an assumption is incorrect. Data on maritime activity are scanty and mentions of their navy occurs only in incomplete sources. Even the material aspects of Southeast Asian navies were not known until the 15th century, scientific attention generally focused on shipbuilding techniques.[95]

In the Kedukan Bukit inscription (683 AD), it is recorded that only 312 people used boats out of a total force of 20,000 people, which also included 1312 land soldiers. The large number of ground troops shows that Srivijaya's navy only acted as a minor provider of logistical support. In the 8th century, Srivijaya's naval capabilities grew to match the proportion of its army strength, although it only played a role as logistical support.[96]

The absence of any terms denoting maritime vessel for general use and military showed that the navy was not a permanent aspect of Srivijaya. Even when neighboring powers in maritime Asia, especially Java during the 10th to 14th centuries, and the Chola Empire in the 11th century, began to develop their navies, Srivijaya's naval power was relatively weak. For example, Songshi and Wenxian Tongkao note that between 990 and 991, a Srivijayan envoy was unable to return from South China to Palembang because of the ongoing military conflict between Java and Srivijaya. However the Javanese, Arabs from the Middle East, and South Asia were able to maintain diplomatic and economic exchanges with China during this time. The Javanese navy was strong enough to seriously disrupt Srivijaya's communications with China. Despite the naval confrontation between Java and Srivijaya, communication between the coastal governments of the Indian Ocean and China continued during this time, suggesting that the conflict did not always occur on the high seas, but was more likely to be confined to the estuaries and rivers around the Srivijayan capital of Palembang, the mouth of the Musi River and the Bangka Straits.[97]

Srivijaya's response to Javanese aggression appeared to be defensive. In his account of Sanfoqi, Zhao Rugua records in Zhufanzhi (ca. 1225):

In the past, [this state] used an iron chain as a barrier to prepare against other robbing parties (arriving on vessels?). There were opportunities to release (i.e. draw) it by hand. If merchant ships arrive, it has to be released".[98][99]

The inability of the Malacca Strait states to respond to maritime threats became very clear in the early 11th century. Between 1017 and 1025, the Chola Empire raided the main Malay ports in the strait and the Gulf of Siam, including Kedah, Malay (Jambi), Lambri, Srivijaya, and Langkasuka, looted the Kedah treasury and captured Srivijayan rulers, a further indication of the incompetence of the Malacca Strait states to defend themselves from naval attacks.[97]

Until the 11th century, at least in terms of their military outlook, the kingdom was arguably land-based. Only with the changing international context from the 11th century onwards, marked initially by the Chola attacks, and then with the increasing presence of Chinese merchants directly operating in Southeast Asian waters, coupled with the emergence of new powers on the seafront, did the role and nature of these navies begin to change.[100]

12th to 13th centuries

[edit]

After the Chola attack, historians believe that Srivijaya may be no longer the appropriate name for the overlord's centre, and epigraphic references to 'Sriwijaya' also ceased after the attack. However, the Chinese term for Srivijaya, namely Sanfoqi, was still used centuries later, but after 1025 the term Sanfoqi referred to the Malayu Dharmasraya kingdom where the mandala was re-centred.[1]: 398, 405  The new records appeared in the Lingwai daida (1178 CE), written by Zhou Qufei:

This country (Sanfoqi) has no products, but its people are well trained in warfare. When they put medicine on their body, they can't be hurt. In offensive naval warfare, their attacks are unmatched. Therefore, neighboring countries are aligned with it. If foreign ships passing through the vicinity do not call in this state, [vessels] are sent to teach them a lesson and to kill. Therefore, the state is rich, with rhino horn, elephant [tusks] (ivory), pearls, aromatics and medicines.[101]

Similar information about Sanfoqi is also recorded in Zhufanzhi (c. 1225), which records:

All are excellent in maritime and land warfare. At any time that a mobilisation order is established, chieftains [are the ones who] command [the troops]. All of them prepare and equip [themselves] with soldiers, equipment, and food. Arriving at the enemy, they dare to die (i.e. are not afraid of dying). [Hence it is regarded as] the elder of the various states (i.e. first amongst equals)... This state is at the middle of the sea, controlling the choke-point through which the various foreign vessels come and go. In the past, [it] used an iron chain as a barrier... This year (i.e. presently), it is not taut (i.e. not extended) and not used, [lying in a] pile in the water... If merchant ships cross [the vicinity] and do not enter [i.e. call at the port], then ships are dispatched to do battle [with them]. They have to die (i.e. the persons onboard the merchant ships have to be killed). Hence, this state (Sanfoqi) is a great shipping centre.[102][99]

This information may refer to sea and river warfare in particular given the extensive navigation capabilities of the Musi and Batang Hari rivers where the main centres of the kingdoms around the Malacca Strait (Palembang and Jambi) were located. These records show that both the nature of the navy and the role it played in the survival of the government itself, in the late 12th and 13th centuries, became very different.[100]

At the same time, the 12th century saw the beginning of the decline of the empires around the Malacca Strait and in the eyes of its foreign partners. Kedah fell outside the influence of Sanfoqi during the 11th century. By the early 13th century, Pahang, Kuala Beranang and Kompei had established direct economic links with the Chinese port of Quanzhou.[103] Jambi became independent from Sanfoqi's influence in the early 13th century, while Ligor fell under the influence of Tambralingga in the 1230s.[104]

After Singhasari's attack on Malayu in 1275, a large number of Malay port-states emerged in the strait, each seeking to engage directly with foreign traders, with varying degrees of success. Therefore, the development of an increasingly proactive naval strategy was not only a reaction to the changing nature of interactions with major trading partners such as China and India, but also as a result of the polities' declining power.[105]

Ship types

[edit]

Textual record of Srivijayan vessels are very lacking, as Old Malay epigraphical records rarely mentioned watercraft. The Kedukan Bukit inscription (683 AD) mentioned samvau (modern Malay: Sampan). A ship type called lancang is identified as a Malay type of ship in later records, but during the Srivijaya era, the ship was mentioned in 2 inscriptions on the northern coast of Bali dated 896 and 923 AD. These inscriptions are written in the Old Balinese language, and not in Old Malay.[106]: 149–150 

Srivijayan exploration

[edit]

The core of the Srivijayan realm was concentrated in and around the Malacca and Sunda straits and in Sumatra, the Malay Peninsula and Western Java. However, between the 9th and the 12th centuries, the influence of Srivijaya seems to have extended far beyond this core. Srivijayan navigators may have reached as far as Madagascar. The migration to Madagascar was estimated to have taken place around 830 CE. According to an extensive mitochondrial DNA study, native Malagasy people today can likely trace their heritage back to 30 founding mothers who sailed from Indonesia 1,200 years ago. Malagasy contains loan words from Sanskrit, with all the local linguistic modifications via Javanese or Malay, hinting that Madagascar may have been colonised by settlers from Srivijaya.[94]

Culture and society

[edit]

Srivijaya-Palembang's significance both as a centre for trade and for the practice of Vajrayana Buddhism has been established by Arab and Chinese historical records over several centuries. Srivijaya' own historical documents, inscriptions in Old Malay, are limited to the second half of the 7th century. The inscriptions uncover the hierarchical leadership system, in which the king is served by many other high-status officials.[107] A complex, stratified, cosmopolitan and prosperous society with their tastes in art, literature and culture, with complex set of rituals, influenced by Mahayana Buddhism; blossomed in ancient Srivijayan society. Their complex social order can be seen through studies on inscriptions, foreign accounts, and in bas-reliefs of temples from this period. Their accomplished artistry was evidenced from a number of Srivijayan Mahayana Buddhist statues discovered in the region. The kingdom had developed a complex society; which was characterised by the heterogeneity of their society, inequality of social stratification, and the formation of national administrative institution in their kingdom. Some forms of metallurgy were used as jewelry, coins and as decorative status symbols.[108]

Art and culture

[edit]
Srivijayan art
A 2.77 metres tall statue of Buddha in Amaravati style, from Bukit Seguntang, Palembang, c. 7th–8th century
Avalokiteshvara Bingin Jungut, Musi Rawas, South Sumatra. Srivijayan art (c. 8th–9th century CE) resemble Central Java Sailendran art.
A bronze Maitreya statue from Komering, South Sumatra, 9th century Srivijayan art

Some art was heavily influenced by Buddhism, further spreading religion and ideologies through the trade of art. The Buddhist art and architecture of Srivijaya was influenced by the Indian art of the Gupta Empire and Pala Empire. This is evident in the Indian Amaravati style Buddha statue located in Palembang. This statue, dating back to the 7th or 8th century, is evidence of the spread of art, culture, and ideology through trade.[109][83] According to various historical sources, a complex and cosmopolitan society with a culture deeply influenced by Vajrayana Buddhism, flourished in the Srivijayan capital. The 7th century Talang Tuwo inscription described Buddhist rituals and blessings at the event of establishing a public park. This inscription allowed historians to understand the practices being held at the time, as well as their importance to the function of Srivijayan society. Talang Tuwo serves as one of the world's oldest inscriptions that talks about the environment, highlighting the centrality of nature in Buddhist religion and Srivijayan society. The Kota Kapur inscription mentions Srivijayan military dominance against Java.

The Old Malay language, the predecessor the modern Malay language, had been used since the 7th century in the Malay Archipelago as evident by inscriptions in the coastal areas of the archipelago, such as those discovered in Java. The language was spread by traders and become the lingua franca of the archipelago.[110][111][83]

Despite its economic, cultural and military advances, Srivijaya left few archaeological remains in their heartlands in Sumatra. Some Buddhist temples dated from Srivijayan era are found in Sumatra and are Muaro Jambi, Muara Takus and Biaro Bahal.

Some Buddhist sculptures, such as Buddha Vairocana, Boddhisattva Avalokiteshvara and Maitreya, were discovered at numerous sites in Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula. These archaeological findings such as the stone statue of Buddha discovered in Bukit Seguntang, Palembang,[112] Avalokiteshvara from Bingin Jungut in Musi Rawas, the bronze Maitreya statue of Komering, all discovered in South Sumatra. In Jambi, a golden statue of Avalokiteshvara was discovered in Rataukapastuo, Muarabulian.[113] In the Malay Peninsula the bronze statue of Avalokiteshvara of Bidor was discovered in Perak,[114] and Avalokiteshvara of Chaiya in Southern Thailand.[115] The difference in material, supports the spread of Buddhism through trade.[citation needed]

After the bronze and Iron Age, an influx of bronze tools and jewelry spread throughout the region. The different styles of bangles and beads represent the different regions of origin and their own specific materials and techniques used. Chinese artwork was one of the main items traded in the region, spreading art styles enveloped in ceramics, pottery, fabrics, silk, and artwork.[83]

Religion

[edit]

"...Many kings and chieftains in the islands of the Southern Ocean admire and believe (Buddhism), and their hearts are set on accumulating good actions. In the fortified city of Bhoga [Palembang, Srivijaya's capital] Buddhist priests number more than 1,000, whose minds are bent on learning and good practices. They investigate and study all the subjects that exist just as in the Middle Kingdom (Madhya-desa, India); the rules and ceremonies are not at all different. If a Chinese priest wishes to go to the West in order to hear (lectures) and read (the original), he had better stay here one or two years and practise the proper rules and then proceed to Central India."

Remnants of Buddhist shrines (stupas) near Palembang and neighboring areas aid researchers in their understanding of the Buddhism within this society. Srivijaya and its kings were instrumental in the spread of Buddhism as they established it in places they conquered like Java and Malaya.[117] People making pilgrimages were encouraged to spend time with the monks in the capital city of Palembang on their journey to India.[117]

Other than Palembang, three Srivijayan archaeological sites in Sumatra are notable for their Buddhist temple density. They are Muaro Jambi by the bank of the Batang Hari River in Jambi province; Muara Takus stupas in the Kampar River valley of Riau province; and Biaro Bahal temple compound in the Barumun and Pannai river valleys, North Sumatra province. It is highly possible that these Buddhist sites served as sangha community; the monastic Buddhist learning centres of the region.[citation needed]

Candi Tinggi, one of the temples within Muaro Jambi temple compound

In the 5th century AD, the Chinese monk Faxian visited the region. 250 years later, the monk Yijing stayed in Srivijaya for six months and studied Sanskrit. According to Yijing, within Palembang there were more than 1,000 monks studying for themselves and training traveling scholars who were going from India to China and vice versa. Most of these travelers stayed in Palembang for long periods of time to wait for Monsoon winds to help further their journey.[118]

A stronghold of Vajrayana Buddhism, Srivijaya attracted pilgrims and scholars from other parts of Asia. These included the Chinese monk Yijing, who made several lengthy visits to Sumatra on his way to study at Nalanda University in India in 671 and 695, and the 11th century Bengali Buddhist scholar Atisha, who played a major role in the development of Vajrayana Buddhism in Tibet. Yijing and other monks of his time practiced a pure version of Buddhism although the religion allowed for cultural changes to be made.[119] He is also given credit for translating Buddhist text which has the most instructions on the discipline of the religion.[120] Yijing wrote his memoir of Buddhism whilst in Srivijaya. Travellers to these islands mentioned that gold coins were in use in the coastal areas but not inland. Srivijaya drew in priests from as far away as Korea.[121]

A notable Srivijayan and revered Buddhist scholar was Dharmakirti who taught Buddhist philosophy in Srivijaya and Nalanda. The language diction of many inscriptions found near where Srivijaya once reigned incorporated Indian Tantric conceptions. This evidence makes it clear the relationship of the ruler and the concept of bodhisattva—one who was to become a Buddha. This is the first evidence seen in the archaeological record of a Southeast Asian ruler regarded as a religious leader/figure.[citation needed]

One thing researchers have found Srivijaya to be lacking is an emphasis in art and architecture. While neighboring regions have evidence of intricate architecture, Palembang lacks Buddhist stupas or sculptures.[122]

Hinduism was also practiced in Srivijaya. This is based on the discovery of the Bumiayu temple ruin, a red brick Shivaist Hindu temple compound built and used between the 8th and 13th century.[123] The Bumiayu temple site is located by the banks of the Lematang River, a tributary of the Musi River. This temple compound was probably built by a Kedatuan within Srivijaya's mandala. The fact that a Hindu temple was discovered within the area of predominantly Buddhist Srivijaya suggests that Srivijaya's two religious groups coexisted quite harmoniously.[citation needed]

According to the styles of Shiva and Agastya statues found in Bumiayu temple 1, those Hindu statues are dated from around the 9th to 10th-century. By the 12th to 13th-century it seems that the faith in Bumiayu was shifted from Hinduism to Tantric Buddhism.[124]

Relations with regional powers

[edit]

Although historical records and archaeological evidence are scarce, it appears that by the 7th century, Srivijaya had established suzerainty over large areas of Sumatra, western Java and much of the Malay Peninsula. Initially, Srivijaya dominated a confederation of semi-autonomous port cities in the region, through nurturing alliances and gaining fealty among these polities. Regarding its status as the central port of the region, it seems that Srivijaya had a unique "ritual policy" in its relations with the dominant powers of South Asia, Southeast Asia, and China.[6]

The oldest accounts of the empire come from Arabic and Chinese traders who noted in their travel logs of the importance of the empire in regional trade.[125] Its location was instrumental in developing itself as a major port which connected China, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Control of the Malacca and Sunda Straits meant it controlled both the spice route traffic as well as local trade, charging a toll on passing ships. Serving as an entrepôt for Chinese, Malay, and Indian markets, the port of Palembang, accessible from the coast by way of a river, accumulated great wealth. Instead of traveling the entire distance from the Middle East to China, which would have taken about a year with the assistance of monsoon winds, it was easier to stop at Srivijaya. It took about half a year from either direction to reach Srivijaya which was a far more effective and efficient use of manpower and resources. A round trip from one end to Srivijaya and back would take the same amount of time to go the entire distance one way. This theory has been supported by evidence found in two local shipwrecks. One off the coast of Belitung, an island east of Sumatra, and another near Cirebon, a coastal city on the nearby island of Java. Both ships carried a variety of foreign cargo and, in the case of the Belitung wreck, had foreign origins.[89]

The Melayu Kingdom was the first rival power centre absorbed into the empire, and thus began the domination of the region through trade and conquest in the 7th through the 9th centuries. The Melayu Kingdom's gold mines in the Batang Hari River hinterland were a crucial economic resource and may be the origin of the word Suvarnadvipa, the Sanskrit name for Sumatra. Srivijaya helped spread Malay culture throughout Sumatra, the Malay Peninsula, and western Borneo. Its influence waned in the 11th century.

According to Song shi, a Song dynasty chronicle, Sanfoqi sent their envoys for the last time in 1178. Then in 1225 Chau Ju-kua mentioned that Palembang (Srivijaya) was a vassal kingdom that belonged to Sanfoqi. This means that between 1178 and 1225 the Srivijayan kingdom centred in Palembang was defeated by the Malayu kingdom centred in Jambi. Thus, the seat of the empire moved to Muaro Jambi in the last centuries of the kingdom existence.[63]: 100 

Srivijaya was then in frequent conflict with, and ultimately subjugated by, the Javanese kingdoms of Singhasari and, later, Majapahit.[126] This was not the first time the Srivijayans had a conflict with the Javanese. According to historian Paul Michel Munoz, the Javanese Sanjaya dynasty was a strong rival of Srivijaya in the 8th century when the Srivijayan capital was located in Java.[citation needed]

The Khmer Empire might also have been a tributary state in its early stages. It is mentioned that the Khmer king, Jayavarman II, spent years in the court of Sailendra in Java before returning to Cambodia to rule around 790. Influenced by the Javanese culture of the Sailendran-Srivijayan mandala (and likely eager to emulate the Javanese model in his court), he proclaimed Cambodian independence from Java and ruled as devaraja, establishing Khmer Empire and starting the Angkor era.[127]

Some historians claim that Chaiya in Surat Thani province in southern Thailand was, at least temporarily, the capital of Srivijaya, but this claim is widely disputed. However, Chaiya was probably a regional centre of the kingdom.[80]

Srivijaya also maintained close relations with the Pala Empire in Bengal. The Nalanda inscription, dated 860, records that Maharaja Balaputra dedicated a monastery at the Nalanda university in Pala.[3]: 109  The relation between Srivijaya and the Chola dynasty of southern India was initially friendly during the reign of Raja Raja Chola I. In 1006, a Srivijayan Maharaja from the Sailendra dynasty, king Maravijayattungavarman, constructed the Chudamani Vihara in the port town of Nagapattinam.[128] However, during the reign of Rajendra Chola I the relationship deteriorated as the Chola dynasty started to attack Srivijayan cities.[129]

The reason for this sudden change in the relationship with the Chola kingdom is not fully known. However, as some historians suggest, that the Khmer king, Suryavarman I of the Khmer Empire, had requested aid from Emperor Rajendra Chola I of the Chola dynasty against Tambralinga.[130] After learning of Suryavarman's alliance with Rajendra Chola, the Tambralinga kingdom requested aid from the Srivijaya king, Sangrama Vijayatungavarman.[130][131] This eventually led to the Chola Empire coming into conflict with Srivijaya. The conflict ended with a victory for the Chola and heavy losses for Srivijaya and the capture of Sangramavijayottungavarman in the Chola raid in 1025.[3]: 142–143 [130][131] During the reign of Kulothunga Chola I, Srivijaya sent an embassy to the Chola dynasty.[67][132]

Legacy

[edit]
The gilded costume of South Sumatran Gending Sriwijaya dance.

Although Srivijaya left few archaeological remains and was almost forgotten in the collective memory of Maritime Southeast Asia, the rediscovery of this ancient maritime empire by Cœdès in the 1920s raised the notion that it was possible for a widespread political entity to have thrived in Southeast Asia in the past. Modern Indonesian historians have used Srivijaya as a frame of reference of how ancient globalisation, foreign relations and maritime trade, have shaped Asian civilisation.[133]

An important legacy of Srivijaya was its language. Unlike some inscriptions of Srivijayan contemporaries – Tarumanagara and other Javanese polities that use Sanskrit – Srivijayan inscriptions were written in Old Malay. This has promoted the status of local languages to the same status as Sanskrit; as the language of the elite. Sanskrit was only known in certain circles such as the brahmin and kavi, while Old Malay was a common language in the Srivijayan realm. This linguistic policy probably stemmed from the rather egalitarian nature of Mahayana Buddhism adhered to in Srivijaya, in contrast to the elitist nature of Hinduism. Unlike Hinduism, Mahayana Buddhism did not have emphasize on a caste system that limited the use and knowledge of liturgical language to the Brahmin caste.[134] For centuries, Srivijaya, through its expansion, economic power and military prowess, was responsible for the spread of Old Malay throughout the Malay Archipelago. It was the working language of traders, being used in various ports and marketplaces in the region.[135]

Gilded songket in Palembang Aesan Gede wedding costume, South Sumatra.

Today, in Indonesian artistic tradition, songket weaving art is strongly associated with Palembang,[136] and to a certain extent West Sumatra and Jambi. This has motivated Indonesian historians to trace the origin of songket and its possible link to Srivijaya. Based on an archaeological study on the Bumiayu temple complex in Penukal Abab Lematang Ilir Regency, South Sumatra, it can be seen that songket has been known by the people of South Sumatra since the 9th century.[137][138] A textile motif known today in Palembang songket as lepus can be seen on the vest worn by Figure 1 statue at the Bumiayu temple complex, which suggests that the motif that has been around since the 9th century.[137] This archaeological study has enforced the notion that songket gold thread weaving tradition originated in Srivijaya.[136]

Modern Indonesian nationalists have used the name of Srivijaya, along with Majapahit, as a source of pride.[139] Srivijaya has become the focus of national pride and regional identity, especially for the people of Palembang, South Sumatra. For the people of Palembang, Srivijaya has become a source of artistic inspiration for Gending Sriwijaya song and traditional dance.[citation needed]

The Sriwijaya Museum in Srivijaya Archaeological Park

Srivijaya is a street name in many cities in Indonesia and has become synonymous with Palembang and South Sumatra. Srivijaya University, established in 1960 in Palembang, was named after Srivijaya. Kodam Sriwijaya (a military commando area unit), PT Pupuk Sriwijaya (a fertiliser company), Sriwijaya Post (a Palembang-based newspaper), Sriwijaya Air (an airline), Gelora Sriwijaya Stadium, and Sriwijaya F.C. (Palembang football club) were also all named after Srivijaya. On 11 November 2011, during the opening ceremony of 2011 Southeast Asian Games in Gelora Sriwijaya Stadium, Palembang, a colossal dance performance titled "Srivijaya the Golden Peninsula" was performed featuring Palembang traditional dances and a life-sized replica of an ancient ship.[140][141] In popular culture, Srivijaya has become the source of inspiration for numbers of fictional feature films, novels and comic books. For example, the 2013 film Gending Sriwijaya, took place three centuries after the fall of Srivijaya, telling a story about court intrigue amidst the efforts to revive the fallen empire.[142]

List of kings

[edit]
Date Name Capital Stone inscription or embassies to China and events
683 Dapunta Hyang Sri Jayanasa Srivijaya Kedukan Bukit (683), Talang Tuwo (684), and Kota Kapur (686) inscriptions

Malayu conquest, expedition to Bhumi Jawa (result unknown)[3]: 82–83 

702 Sri Indravarman

Che-li-t'o-lo-pa-mo

Srivijaya

Shih-li-fo-shih

Chinese embassies 702, 716 and 724[3]: 83–84 

Embassies to Caliph Mu'awiya I and Caliph Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

728 Rudra Vikrama

Liu-t'eng-wei-kung

Srivijaya

Shih-li-fo-shih

Chinese embassies 728 and 742[3]: 84 
No information 742–775
775 Dharmasetu or Vishnu Unknown (under Javanese Sailendra dynasty overlordship) Nakhon Si Thammarat (Ligor),[3]: 84  Vat Sema Muang
775 Dharanindra Unknown (under Javanese Sailendra dynasty overlordship) Ligor, started to build Borobudur in 770

Conquered South Cambodia

782 Samaragrawira Unknown (under Javanese Sailendra dynasty overlordship) Ligor, Arabian text (790), continued the construction of Borobudur
792 Samaratungga Unknown (under Javanese Sailendra dynasty overlordship) Karangtengah inscription (824), 802 lost Cambodia, 825 completion of Borobudur
835 Balaputradewa Srivijaya

San-fo-ts'i

Ousted from Java

Nalanda inscription (860)

No information 835–960
960 Sri Udayadityavarman

Si-li-Hu-ta-hsia-li-tan Shih-li Wu-yeh

Srivijaya

San-fo-ts'i

Chinese embassies 960 and 962[3]: 131 
980 Haji

Hsia-ch'ih

Srivijaya

San-fo-ts'i

Chinese embassies 980 and 983[3]: 132 
988 Sri Cudamani Warmadewa

Se-li-chu-la-wu-ni-fu-ma-tian-hwa

Srivijaya

San-fo-ts'i

Chinese embassies 988, 992, 1003 and 1004[3]: 132, 141 

Javanese King Dharmawangsa attack of Srivijaya, building of a temple for the Chinese Emperor, Tanjore Inscription or Leiden Inscription (1044), building of a temple at Nagapattinam with revenue from Rajaraja Chola I

1006, 1008 Sri Maravijayottungavarman

Se-li-ma-la-pi

Srivijaya

San-fo-ts'i

Constructed the Chudamani Vihara in Nagapattinam, India in 1006.[128]

Chinese embassies 1008 and 1016[3]: 141–142 

1017 Haji Sumatrabhumi

Ha-ch'i-su-wa-ch'a-p'u

Srivijaya

San-fo-ts'i

Chinese embassy 1017
1025 Sangrama Vijayatunggavarman Srivijaya

San-fo-ts'i

Chola invasion of Srivijaya, captured by Rajendra Chola

Chola inscription on the temple of Rajaraja, Tanjore[3]: 142 

1028 Sri Deva

Shih-li Tieh-hua

Srivijaya

San-fo-ts'i

Chinese embassy 1028[3]: 142 [143]

Source:[80][144]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Srivijaya was a thalassocratic Malay polity founded in the 670s CE at in southeast , which dominated maritime trade routes across the and exerted influence over , the , and parts of and through the 7th to 13th centuries. Its economy centered on entrepôt trade in commodities such as gold, tin, spices, and resins, facilitating exchanges between , , and eastern . As a Buddhist kingdom, Srivijaya served as a hub for religious learning, sponsoring sites like Nalanda in and sending embassies to Tang and bearing sutras and tribute. The polity's early history is attested by Old Malay inscriptions in , including the of 683 CE, which records a naval expedition and first mentions the name Srivijaya, and the Talang Tuwo inscription of 684 CE, invoking Buddhist protections for a sacred site. These artifacts, found near , reveal a centralized structure demanding loyalty () from s and emphasizing maritime prowess. Srivijaya's thalassocratic model relied on naval control of chokepoints like the Malacca Strait rather than territorial conquest, enabling it to extract tolls and monopolize spice routes. Srivijaya's decline accelerated after the Chola invasion of 1025 CE, when Rajendra I's fleet sacked and over a dozen ports, capturing the ruler and looting treasures, which fragmented its system and eroded economic hegemony. By the , its political center shifted to as upstream rivals and competitors like and Tamil traders challenged its position, culminating in the polity's dissolution into successor kingdoms by the 13th century. Despite limited archaeological remains, Chinese and inscriptions confirm Srivijaya's role as a pivotal node in premodern Asian connectivity, though its grandeur is sometimes overstated due to reliance on external accounts over local evidence.

Etymology

Name Origins and Interpretations

The name Srivijaya (Sanskrit: Śrīvijayā) derives from the compound śrī-vijaya, where śrī denotes auspiciousness, radiance, , or glory, and vijaya signifies or conquest, collectively implying "auspicious " or "radiant through triumph." This etymological structure reflects the pervasive influence of , the liturgical language of Hindu-Buddhist traditions, in naming Southeast Asian polities during the early medieval period, often emphasizing divine favor and martial success to legitimize rule. The term first appears in the , dated to 1 May 683 CE and discovered near , , which records a sacred naval expedition led by Dapunta Sri Jayanasa to establish or affirm Srivijaya as a invoking Buddhist protections for prosperity and dominance over regional waters. This Old Malay text, rendered in Pallava-derived script, uses Srivijaya to designate a victorious entity centered on riverine and maritime control, aligning with the name's connotation of conquest rather than mere territorial designation. Scholarly interpretations debate whether Srivijaya denoted a centralized monarchical kingdom with unified administration or a hegemonic title over a loose of semi-autonomous cities bound by , monopolies, and naval enforcement rather than fixed borders. Proponents of the confederation model argue that the name's application across disparate inscriptions and Chinese records (as Shi-li-fo-shi) suggests a networked prioritizing maritime over land-based cohesion, evidenced by the lack of monumental capitals and reliance on fluid alliances among coastal elites. In contrast, views positing a core kingdom emphasize early inscriptions' portrayal of a singular authority in , though this is complicated by archaeological sparsity and the term's potential as a propagandistic ideal rather than a literal descriptor of state form. These interpretations hinge on epigraphic variability, with no consensus resolving whether Srivijaya evoked a specific dynastic or an aspirational overlay on polycentric networks.

Historiography

Primary Sources and Their Limitations

The primary sources for Srivijaya's history consist predominantly of external accounts and sparse local inscriptions, revealing a fragmentary evidentiary base that privileges diplomatic and religious narratives over comprehensive internal records. Chinese annals from the (618–907 CE) document the earliest references to Srivijaya, recording tribute embassies dispatched from the beginning in 670 CE and continuing intermittently until 742 CE, with missions bearing goods such as spices, , and resins that underscore its role in maritime networks. These records, preserved in official histories like the Xin Tang shu, emphasize Srivijaya's subordination to the Chinese court through ritual tribute, yet they offer minimal insight into its domestic administration, economy, or societal structure, reflecting a Sinocentric bias focused on imperial recognition rather than objective . Local epigraphic evidence, primarily Old Malay inscriptions from dated to the late , provides the core indigenous testimony but remains limited in scope and volume. The of 682 CE describes a naval expedition led by Dapunta , interpreted as a foundational conquest securing the Musi River region, while the Talang Tuwo inscription of circa 684 CE records a king's dedication of merit to for prosperity and protection against calamity. These texts, often formulaic and religiously oriented, highlight royal piety, military successes, and territorial oaths but omit detailed accounts of governance, taxation, or urban life, constraining reconstructions to inferential interpretations prone to overreach. Indian sources, such as the 9th-century Nalanda copper-plate grant issued by Balaputradeva, attest to Srivijaya's patronage of Buddhist institutions abroad, confirming cultural and diplomatic ties with the as early as the mid-7th century through analogous epigraphic parallels. However, these foreign inscriptions similarly prioritize elite religious endowments over systemic state descriptions. The overarching limitation arises from the absence of extended local chronicles or archival texts akin to those of contemporary or , forcing reliance on discontinuous, self-aggrandizing snippets that risk conflating rhetorical claims of with verifiable control, thereby engendering empirical gaps in assessing Srivijaya's cohesion, duration, and administrative depth.

Evolution of Scholarly Views

In 1918, French scholar George Coedès synthesized disparate epigraphic, Chinese, and Arab sources to reconstruct Srivijaya as a centralized thalassocratic dominating Southeast Asian maritime from its Sumatran base, emphasizing its naval expeditions and control over straits like the Malacca Strait for and commerce. This model, rooted in the Indianization paradigm, portrayed Srivijaya as a unified with bureaucratic administration and expansive , drawing on inscriptions that highlighted royal conquests and Buddhist patronage to infer a cohesive state structure extending to the and . Coedès' framework privileged elite textual evidence, often interpreting foreign accounts of missions as evidence of imperial rather than or economic . Post-World War II scholarship, particularly O.W. Wolters' analyses from the onward, reframed Srivijaya through the lens of "men of prowess," where authority derived from charismatic leaders' personal qualities and ritual efficacy rather than institutional or territorial conquest. Wolters argued that political integration occurred via fluid systems of overlapping loyalties, sustained by incentives and local alliances, critiquing earlier views for projecting anachronistic centralized models onto a region where power fluctuated with individual rulers' abilities to attract followers through prowess and wealth redistribution. This shift incorporated economic causal factors, such as control over spice and aromatic goods routes, over idealized narratives of , highlighting how Srivijaya's resilience stemmed from adaptive networks rather than rigid hierarchy. Subsequent critiques have underscored the limitations of overreliance on Sanskrit-heavy inscriptions, which reflect , Indian-influenced ideologies but obscure economic drivers and localized power contests in Old Malay contexts. Scholars noted that these texts, often formulaic in praising royal victories, may exaggerate unity to legitimize rulers amid competitive maritime polities, prompting views of Srivijaya as a of port principalities bound by mutual interests rather than a monolithic . This evolution prioritizes empirical integration of archaeological data with textual analysis, revealing causal mechanisms like naval enforcement of tolls as key to cohesion, while cautioning against uncritical acceptance of inscriptional without cross-verification from diverse sources.

Key Debates on State Nature and Extent

Scholars debate whether Srivijaya constituted a centralized thalassocratic or a polycentric polity characterized by ritual and opportunistic alliances among semi-autonomous ports. George Coedès' early 20th-century reconstruction portrayed it as a hierarchical maritime extending from across the and , but this has been critiqued for overreliance on foreign textual claims amid sparse local evidence. Oliver Wolters reframed Srivijaya as a dynamic network of overlapping influences, where a core ruler in exerted symbolic hegemony through intelligence networks and tribute extraction rather than bureaucratic administration, aligning with Southeast Asian patterns of fluid, non-territorial authority. Inscriptions provide limited insight into its cohesion, often employing hyperbolic language of conquest that implies ritual acknowledgment over direct governance. The Kedukan Bukit inscription of 683 CE records Dapunta Hyang's expedition subduing foes and securing allegiances, yet such texts emphasize sacral legitimacy and ephemeral victories consistent with a loose of riverine and coastal centers, not enduring territorial integration. Archaeological data reinforces a primarily thalassocratic orientation with strong riverine control in Sumatra's Musi basin—evidenced by sites like and Muara Jambi—but lacks substantiation for extensive land-based dominance, as wooden infrastructure and alluvial soils preserved few monumental remains. Controversies over territorial extent hinge on discrepancies between expansive foreign accounts and empirical findings. Chinese pilgrim Yijing's 671–695 CE reports describe Srivijaya commanding fifteen polities and of Melaka, yet epigraphic and evidence beyond remains fragmentary, with sites like Chaiya exhibiting stylistic affinities possibly indicative of or nominal vassalage rather than administrative oversight. Claims of over , inferred from inscriptional references to "Bhumi Java," falter without sustained archaeological corroboration of Srivijayan there, suggesting influence waned into polycentric fragmentation by the 11th century, as centers shifted to .

Recent Archaeological and Epigraphic Research

In 2024, epigraphic analysis of the Baturaja inscription, utilizing from the Srivijaya period, revealed content interpreted as a or against interference with Minanga, an early settlement or port site, providing chronological insights into proto-Srivijayan coastal activities without evidence of expansive administrative control. The inscription, first deciphered fully in recent years, complements older texts like Kedukan Bukit by highlighting localized ritual oaths tied to riverine , dated to the 7th-8th centuries based on paleographic . Archaeological surveys in the 2020s at sites such as Bumiayu and Lesung Batu have uncovered temple foundations and artifacts, including floral-motif decorations on bricks and remnants, suggesting decentralized hubs for and ceremonies in settings rather than monumental imperial centers. At Karang Agung Tengah, recent reassessments of pre-Srivijayan layers (4th-6th centuries) yielded hundreds of potsherds, remains, and goods like beads, indicating protohistoric coastal exchange networks focused on maritime access over territorial dominance. These findings, supported by 2024 artifact transfers to Indonesia's BRIN research centers, underscore adaptive, small-scale settlements with imports. Studies on Palembang's hydraulic systems, including 2024 examinations of and embankment remnants in Karanganyar, demonstrate engineered control for flood mitigation and river navigation, facilitating localized in the Musi without implying unified state infrastructure. Concurrent analyses of sculptures, such as Avalokiteshvara figures blending local and Pala-style elements, reveal ritual objects imported or cast via trade routes, evidencing cultural exchanges across and the from the 8th-13th centuries, but lacking hallmarks of centralized minting or . These artifacts, often recovered from riverine deposits, point to dynamic merchant communities rather than hierarchical polities.

Geography

Core Regions and Territorial Claims

The core territory of Srivijaya centered on the Musi River basin in southern , where a concentration of early inscriptions attests to political and ritual activities. The , dated 682 CE, describes a naval expedition originating from to consecrate a site, indicating centralized authority in this riverine hub. Similarly, the Talang Tuwo inscription of 684 CE records land grants and Buddhist rituals in the same vicinity, reinforcing the Musi valley as the foundational heartland supported by archaeological evidence of temple foundations. These Old Malay texts, clustered around , provide the primary epigraphic basis for identifying southeast —particularly province—as the polity's verifiable base, distinct from broader interpretive claims of . Extensions from this core included adjacent islands such as Bangka, where the Kota Kapur inscription of 686 CE in Old Malay script demonstrates Srivijayan administrative reach, likely tied to securing maritime approaches and exploiting local resources like tin deposits essential for production and trade. Control over of Malacca manifested through dominance of chokepoints like and Ligor (in the ), enabling toll extraction on Indian Ocean-bound shipping, as inferred from the thalassocratic imperatives in 7th-9th century inscriptions detailing expeditions to subdue rivals and protect routes. However, such influence relied on naval projection rather than contiguous land holdings, with no inscriptions mandating or direct beyond Sumatran and peninsular outposts. Evidence for integration into Java or Borneo remains circumscribed, limited to diplomatic alliances and intermittent conflicts rather than sustained territorial incorporation. Scholarly analysis of epigraphic records shows no Srivijayan-style inscriptions or administrative artifacts in Javanese heartlands, suggesting with Mataram rather than absorption, while Bornean ties appear confined to trade networks without indicators of overlordship. This restraint aligns with the polity's maritime orientation, prioritizing coastal entrepôts over inland conquests unsubstantiated by .

Proposed Capitals and Archaeological Sites

Palembang, located at the confluence of the Musi River and its tributaries in southeast , has traditionally been regarded as the foundational capital of Srivijaya since its emergence in the 670s CE, drawing on local inscriptions and foreign accounts. The , dated to 682 CE and discovered near the city, records a ritual naval expedition originating from an upstream center identified with , emphasizing military consolidation under early rulers. Similarly, the Chinese monk Yijing's 671 CE record describes Shi-li-fo-shi—equated with Srivijaya—as a harbor kingdom at hosting over 1,000 Buddhist monks, underscoring its role as a maritime and religious hub. Archaeological surveys in confirm a premodern port-settlement with artifacts including ceramics, glass beads, and Buddhist images, alongside foundations and stupas on sites like Bukit Siguntang, but the absence of extensive monumental temple complexes challenges assumptions of it as a singular, enduring capital. This paucity of durable architecture—attributed to the site's low-lying, flood-prone delta environment favoring perishable wooden structures over stone or edifices—contrasts with expectations for a thalassocratic power commanding tribute across , prompting debates on whether served primarily as an initial or administrative base rather than a continuously dominant center. Muara Jambi, situated upriver along the Batang Hari in central-east , emerges as a compelling alternative or complementary capital , featuring a vast complex of at least 84 red-brick candi (temples) spanning over 2,000 hectares, indicative of sustained Buddhist patronage and elite investment from the seventh century onward. Excavations reveal temple foundations, inscribed plates referencing monasteries like Cūḍāmaṇivarmavihāra, and goods linking it to networks, with carbon-dated samples confirming early Srivijayan-era occupation. Scholars interpret this density of religious infrastructure as evidence of a major political nucleus, potentially supplanting after disruptions like the eleventh-century Chola raids, though environmental shifts and riverine access also favored its inland positioning for defense and agriculture. Beyond these Sumatran cores, proposals extend to multi-centric models incorporating sites like Central Java's Sailendra-linked monuments (e.g., , ninth century), where linguistic and artistic affinities suggest dynastic ties or alliances, though epigraphic evidence prioritizes Sumatran primacy. Peripheral outposts include Kedah's in northwest , with over 80 Hindu-Buddhist temple remnants and smelting sites from the fifth to thirteenth centuries, and Ligor (modern ) in , yielding Srivijayan-style inscriptions and artifacts denoting vassal or trade nodes rather than central authority. These locales underscore a networked with distributed power, reliant on riverine and coastal nodes, where no single site monopolizes evidential dominance.

Environmental and Strategic Factors

Srivijaya's control over relied heavily on the island's extensive riverine networks, particularly the Musi River system centered around , which facilitated intra-island communication, resource extraction, and defense against fragmented local polities. These rivers enabled the projection of authority upstream and downstream, integrating coastal ports with hinterland settlements through seasonal flooding that enriched alluvial soils for localized wet-rice . However, the rivers' heavy loads from upland and led to progressive silting, gradually shallowing channels and restricting deep-draft vessel access to the capital over centuries, thereby undermining long-term navigational . The empire's strategic positioning at the southern entrance to the , a narrow chokepoint approximately 800 kilometers long between and the , conferred dominance over transoceanic trade routes linking the to the . This location allowed Srivijaya to enforce tolls on passing merchants and suppress piracy through naval patrols, capitalizing on the strait's indispensability for bulk spice and aromatic cargoes that could not efficiently bypass via alternative paths like the . Yet, such centrality inherently amplified vulnerabilities, as the confined waterway funneled potential aggressors toward core territories, exposing the realm to blockades or raids that disrupted maritime lifelines without requiring extensive land conquests. Sumatra's tropical equatorial climate, characterized by high rainfall exceeding 2,000 millimeters annually and pervasive humidity, supported rudimentary swidden and river-floodplain farming but imposed limits on through vectors, leaching in non-volcanic areas, and expansive lowland swamps that hindered large-scale or terrace systems. Unlike Java's volcanic enabling denser settlements, Sumatra's peat-rich and frequent inundations favored a dispersed, low-density populace oriented toward extraction of products and fisheries rather than intensive agrarian surplus, constraining Srivijaya's resilience to disruptions in trade-dependent provisioning. patterns, with northeast winds from October to March and southwest from May to September, dictated predictable shipping cycles but also introduced risks of storm damage to wooden fleets and ports, reinforcing the empire's dependence on adaptive maritime technologies over static territorial depth.

History

Formation and Initial Consolidation (7th Century)

Srivijaya coalesced as a maritime polity in Sumatra during the mid-7th century under Dapunta Hyang Sri Jayanasa, whose campaigns marked its initial expansion through military dominance over riverine and coastal territories. The Kedukan Bukit inscription, dated 683 CE, chronicles Dapunta Hyang's siddhayatra—a ritualized expedition commencing on 23 April 682 CE with a force numbering around 20,000—that targeted regions in the Malay Peninsula, subduing local rulers and securing tribute to consolidate authority. This opportunistic conquest, rather than a mythic foundation, exploited power vacuums among fragmented chieftaincies to control vital trade conduits along the Straits of Malacca. The inscription describes the journey from a base on the Musi River—traditionally identified as , though debated in favor of sites like —and its victorious return after asserting hegemony in Bhumi Malayu, underscoring naval prowess in amphibious operations. Complementing these efforts, Srivijaya dispatched its first recorded embassy to in 670 CE, presenting as Shilifoshi and conveying tribute to gain imperial investiture and access to East Asian markets, as observed by the pilgrim Yijing during his visits in 671–685 CE. Rulers like Jayanaga, active in the 680s CE, reinforced consolidation by patronizing Buddhism, which furnished ideological legitimacy through royal inscriptions in Old Malay that invoked to justify expansion and unify disparate vassals under a sacral kingship. This religious framework, drawing from networks, elevated Srivijaya's status among Southeast Asian polities without reliance on immediate dynastic alliances, paving the way for broader .

Expansion and Zenith (8th-10th Centuries)

During the 8th and 9th centuries, Srivijaya expanded its thalassocratic influence across and Peninsula, leveraging naval forces to dominate maritime trade routes connecting , , and the eastern spice islands. This period marked the empire's zenith, with control extending over the and , enabling the imposition of tolls on passing vessels and securing a near-monopoly on the routing of spices, aromatics such as and cloves, and forest products through Sumatran ports like . Srivijaya's naval dominance, supported by a reported force of 20,000 troops by the late and further strengthened in the 8th, facilitated this commercial by deterring and rivals, thereby incentivizing merchants to funnel goods via its entrepôts rather than alternative paths. Economic imperatives, particularly the high-value originating from regions like the Moluccas, drove territorial assertions into , the , and parts of , prioritizing route security over territorial conquest or religious proselytization. Under rulers like Balaputradeva in the , internal stability bolstered this peak, with administrative consolidation allowing sustained patronage of Buddhist institutions, including the construction of a monastery at , which elevated Srivijaya's prestige among international scholars and traders. This era's prosperity, evidenced by inscriptions and Chinese accounts noting rapid voyages to the capital, reflected effective governance amid trade-driven growth, though reliant on alliances and tributary relations rather than unified ideological bonds.

Maritime Conquests and Alliances

Srivijaya's maritime expansion during the 8th to 10th centuries relied on naval expeditions to assert dominance over coastal polities and trade corridors, as evidenced by key Old Malay inscriptions. The Kota Kapur inscription, dated 28 February 686 CE and discovered on , details a to dispatched by King Sri Jayanasa to suppress rebellion and maritime lawlessness, highlighting Srivijaya's operational naval capabilities extending across the . This campaign involved coordinated forces imposing oaths of loyalty, reflecting a strategy of coerced vassalage to safeguard shipping lanes. Further consolidation on the Malay Peninsula is attested in the Ligor inscription of 775 CE from Nakhon Si Thammarat in southern Thailand, which records Maharaja Dharmasetu of Srivijaya dedicating Buddhist sanctuaries while pronouncing curses on subjects defying the kingdom's authority, indicating extended administrative oversight over the Isthmus of Kra and its ports. Such epigraphic assertions of mandala control, combined with archaeological traces of Srivijayan-style artifacts at sites like Chaiya, suggest repeated amphibious operations securing tribute from peninsular entrepôts critical for transshipment between the Indian Ocean and South China Sea. Diplomatic alliances supplemented military endeavors, particularly through sustained engagement with Tang China. Srivijayan rulers dispatched over 30 tribute missions between 670 and 902 CE, as recorded in Chinese dynastic histories, obtaining imperial titles and seals that legitimized their and deterred aggression from continental rivals. These relations, rooted in shared Buddhist patronage and mutual interest in stabilizing spice and aromatic trade routes, enabled Srivijaya to monopolize tolls on vessels bound for , with envoys often requesting Chinese intervention against Javanese incursions. Limited evidence points to analogous ties with Indian polities, evidenced by Srivijayan sponsorship of Nalanda viharas around 850–860 CE, fostering cultural exchange without formal military pacts.

Integration with Sailendra Dynasty

The integration of the Sailendra dynasty with Srivijaya commenced in the late through territorial expansion and royal alliances, as evidenced by inscriptions linking the Javanese-based Śailendras to maritime domains under Srivijayan influence. The Ligor (Chaiya) inscription, dated approximately 775 CE, attributes conquests in the Thai-Malay to Mahārāja dyāḥ Pañcapaṇa kariyāna Paṇaṃkaraṇa, an early Śailendra reigning circa 746–784 CE, whose titles and actions suggest coordination or overlordship extending to Srivijaya's periphery. Dynastic intermarriage further solidified these ties, culminating in the mid-9th century when internal strife in —likely a rivalry with the lineage—prompted Śailendra prince Bālaputradewa to relocate to . As the son of King Samaratuṅga (r. circa 800–812 CE) and grandson of a Yavabhūmi () sovereign, Bālaputradewa assumed the throne of Srivijaya, merging Śailendra lineage claims with Sumatran rulership. This union is corroborated by the Nālandā copper-plate inscription of circa 860 CE, wherein Bālaputradewa, styling himself mahārāja of Suvarṇadvīpa (the Srivijayan heartland), records endowing a at Nālandā for the merit of his ancestors, explicitly invoking Śailendra heritage while operating from a Sumatran base. The document, issued under the patronage of Pāla king Devapāla, highlights the integrated dynasty's role in trans-regional Buddhist networks, with Bālaputradewa's authority spanning Java's legacy and Srivijaya's maritime expanse. The merger bolstered Srivijaya's legitimacy and cultural patronage, evidenced by subsequent Leiden plates (1006 CE, revised 1019 CE) linking later Śailendra descendants like Cūḷāmaṇivarman to rule in and Srivijaya, though epigraphic records indicate the Javanese Śailendra core waned after circa 850 CE in favor of Sumatran consolidation. Archaeological parallels, such as Buddhist architectural motifs at sites like (constructed 780–825 CE under Śailendras) and Sumatran muara temples, imply stylistic diffusion, albeit without direct material proof of mass migration.

Conflicts with Java and Regional Rivals

During the , tensions escalated between Srivijaya and the Hindu-Buddhist Mataram Kingdom (also known as Medang) centered in eastern , culminating in direct military confrontations. In 990 CE, 's King Dharmawangsa launched a naval expedition targeting Srivijaya's capital at , seeking to disrupt its dominance over maritime trade routes in the Straits of Malacca and Sunda. This aggression stemmed from Mataram's ambitions to expand eastward and challenge Srivijaya's thalassocratic control, which had previously included influence over parts of through earlier alliances with the Sailendra dynasty. Contemporary Chinese records provide key evidence of the hostilities: in 992 CE, a Javanese envoy to the imperial court reported ongoing warfare with Srivijaya, while Srivijaya's ruler, Chulamanivarman, dispatched a mission requesting Chinese intervention against Javanese incursions. Srivijaya appears to have successfully repelled the , as no territorial losses are recorded, and its envoys continued asserting regional supremacy in subsequent missions to . These clashes highlighted the fragility of prior dynastic ties—Srivijaya had once supported Sailendra rulers in via marriages and joint Buddhist patronage, such as the construction of around 800–900 CE—but Mataram's Isyana dynasty, succeeding the Sailendras after internal upheavals, pursued independent expansion. Beyond Java, Srivijaya faced persistent challenges from regional polities in Sumatra and the , requiring periodic military campaigns to enforce vassalage and secure straits critical for . In northern Sumatra, rivals such as the kingdom of Lamuri (around ) resisted integration, prompting Srivijayan forces to conduct punitive expeditions to neutralize threats to and aromatic exports. On the peninsula, entities like (possibly centered near modern or Ligor) and functioned as semi-independent trading hubs, occasionally defying Srivijaya's monopoly; by the late 8th century, Srivijaya subdued through naval raids, as evidenced by Ligor inscriptions affirming control over these areas for tribute collection in , camphor, and cloth. These operations, often framed in inscriptions as sacred undertakings blessed by , underscore Srivijaya's strategy of combining with ideological legitimacy to maintain a mandala of tributary states spanning from to .

Decline and Dissolution (11th-13th Centuries)

The authority of Srivijaya's central rulers began to erode in the amid internal divisions that undermined its ability to enforce cohesion across its loose confederation of semi-autonomous harbor polities. These divisions, rooted in the system's decentralized structure, allowed peripheral vassals to assert greater independence as central oversight weakened, fostering fragmentation rather than unified resistance to challenges. Concurrently, shifts in patterns—driven by evolving commercial links between and —diminished Srivijaya's monopoly on key , reducing toll revenues that had sustained its thalassocratic model. By the 12th century, this internal erosion manifested in the rise of competing local powers, particularly inland-oriented polities that challenged riverine dominance along 's trade corridors. Local rulers in areas like increasingly operated autonomously, transitioning Srivijaya's maritime network into fragmented entities less reliant on 's oversight. The empire's failure to adapt to these dynamics left it vulnerable, with its core reduced to a diminished kingdom by the late . In the 13th century, Srivijaya's dissolution accelerated as successor polities, such as the centered in , emerged from the remnants, marking the end of centralized thalassocratic control around 1275. This transition reflected deeper structural frailties, where internal strife and economic contraction outweighed any residual maritime influence, leading to the polity's absorption into smaller, regionally focused states by the century's close.

Chola Expeditions and Their Impact

The Chola expeditions against Srivijaya, primarily conducted by Emperor (r. 1014–1044 CE), commenced in 1025 CE with a large-scale naval raid targeting key ports and territories across the and . Rajendra's fleet sacked multiple Srivijayan holdings, including Kadaram (modern ), Pannai, and the capital at , as recorded in Chola inscriptions such as the temple dedication, which enumerates over a dozen conquered sites from the to the Isthmus of Kra. These operations were facilitated by superior Chola naval technology and logistics, enabling rapid strikes without establishing permanent garrisons, focusing instead on plunder and disruption of Srivijaya's maritime tribute network. Motivations for the raids stemmed from economic and strategic imperatives, including breaking Srivijaya's monopoly on routes for spices, aromatics, and Southeast Asian commodities, which had restricted Chola merchants' access despite prior diplomatic ties under (r. 985–1014 CE). Some analyses posit retaliatory elements, such as Srivijaya's alleged interference in Chola campaigns against or support for rival trading powers like the Javanese kingdom of Mataram, though direct evidence remains inferential from Tamil epigraphy and Chinese records. A preliminary raid may have occurred as early as 1017 CE, escalating to the 1025 offensive, which captured Srivijayan royal emblems and forced tribute, including elephants and jewels, as per contemporary Chola accounts. The immediate impacts included the deposition of Srivijaya's ruler, Sri Maravijayottunggavarman, and the installation of a Chola-aligned in Kadaram, temporarily subjecting parts of the to Chola overlordship and redirecting flows toward Tamil ports like . Srivijaya's fleet and economic infrastructure suffered severe losses, with disrupted control and toll collection weakening its thalassocratic hold over the Straits of Malacca. Longer-term, the expeditions accelerated Srivijaya's decline by eroding central authority, prompting vassal defections and internal fragmentation into entities like the Kediri and Malayu kingdoms by the mid-11th century, though Srivijaya partially recovered under subsequent rulers like Sri Vijaya Sri Maravijayottunggavarman before further erosion. Scholarly consensus attributes the raids as a pivotal but not sole factor in dissolution, alongside Javanese incursions and shifting trade patterns, ultimately diminishing Srivijaya's by the 13th century without Chola . Later Chola efforts, possibly in the 1070s under Kulothunga I, reinforced this pressure but yielded as Srivijaya's successor polities adapted.

Internal Fragmentation and Successor Polities

The Chola invasions of 1025 severely undermined Srivijaya's central authority, exacerbating existing centrifugal tendencies within its system, where vassal polities had long maintained semi-autonomous status. This external shock, combined with disruptions to maritime trade routes, prompted local rulers to prioritize regional control over loyalty to , leading to progressive fragmentation by the mid-11th century. By the late 12th century, the core of Srivijayan power had shifted to the region, where the Malayu kingdom—also known as —emerged as the principal successor state. This polity preserved elements of Srivijaya's and economic orientation, as evidenced by continued tribute missions to under the name Sanfoqi, which post-1025 likely referred to rather than . Archaeological sites at Muaro , featuring extensive temple complexes, attest to its role as a cultural and administrative hub during this period. Dharmasraya's prominence is corroborated by inscriptions, such as those referencing Mauli in the 1180s, signaling consolidated rule amid the empire's dissolution. However, internal rivalries and external threats persisted; the kingdom's autonomy waned under Javanese incursions, notably the Pamelayu expedition circa 1275, which subordinated it to East Java's rising powers. Other successor polities, including principalities in the like and Ligor, further dispersed Srivijaya's legacy, transitioning from thalassocratic overlordship to localized kingdoms by the 13th century.

Government and Administration

Centralized vs. Decentralized Authority

Srivijayan inscriptions, including the Kedukan Bukit inscription dated to 683 CE, portray rulers like Dapunta Hyang as victorious conquerors who subdued fifteen kingdoms and established sacral authority over vast territories, projecting an image of expansive centralized kingship legitimized through military and ritual prowess. These claims, however, contrast with the empire's operational reality under the mandala political model, a decentralized system prevalent in medieval Southeast Asia where the Palembang core exerted influence through suzerainty rather than direct administration, allowing vassal datu (local lords) substantial autonomy in governance and resource management while extracting periodic tribute. Tribute flows—comprising spices, resins, , and products from peripheral dependencies—relied less on bureaucratic enforcement and more on the personal charisma, diplomatic networks, and demonstrated martial success of the to compel loyalty, as weaker rulers risked vassal defection to rivals like or the Chola. This fluid dynamic meant that central authority waxed and waned with the individual ruler's ability to , evidenced by fluctuating Chinese records of Srivijayan embassies seeking validation and privileges during periods of internal strength. The lack of a permanent reinforces this decentralized character, with expeditions drawing ad hoc levies of sailors and foot soldiers from core and territories—such as the 2,000 mobilized for Dapunta Hyang's campaign—rather than sustaining a professional force for routine enforcement or territorial policing. Such reliance on episodic mobilization, without evidence of fixed garrisons beyond , highlights how Srivijaya's cohesion depended on alliances and prestige over institutionalized , enabling resilience in maritime networks but vulnerability to disruptions like the Chola raids of 1025 CE.

Administrative Mandala System

The administrative structure of Srivijaya drew from the Indian-influenced mandala model, characterized by a concentric arrangement of power radiating from a central core (rajadhani) to an outer ring of allied territories, though adapted to the archipelago's maritime dynamics rather than rigid continental hierarchies. The rajadhani, centered at on , functioned as the directly administered hub where the ruler exercised immediate authority over core elites and resources, including riverine settlements and Buddhist monasteries supported by sima land grants documented in 7th-century inscriptions like the Kedukan Bukit (dated 682 CE). Peripheral regions, forming the mandala, encompassed vassal polities across , the , and adjacent islands, bound by fluctuating oaths of allegiance rather than permanent subjugation, as evidenced by epigraphic references to tributary missions to between 670 and 742 CE. Local enforcement in the periphery relied on datu chiefs, hereditary Malay leaders who managed autonomous settlements and mediated the center's influence through personalized networks of loyalty and trade concessions. These datu, appearing frequently in Srivijayan inscriptions as administrators of oaths and land allocations—such as in the Talang Tuwo inscription of 684 CE—integrated local power structures into the broader system, ensuring compliance via economic incentives like access to strait tolls rather than centralized bureaucracy. This arrangement fostered fluid allegiances, where peripheral chiefs could shift patronage to rival centers if prestige or benefits waned, reflecting the 's inherent instability over fixed territorial sovereignty. Critics of applying the Indian mandala—originally a land-based model of agrarian tribute from Kautilya's Arthashastra—to Srivijaya highlight its thalassocratic adaptation, where power extended via sea lanes and port alliances rather than contiguous frontiers, better suiting Southeast Asia's fragmented geography and seasonal monsoons. Empirical evidence from Arab and Chinese trade records (ca. 851 CE Akbar al-Sin wa'l-Hind and annals) shows Srivijaya's influence manifested in voluntary tributary ties to control chokepoints like the Malacca Strait, prioritizing naval prestige over agrarian extraction, though this fluidity contributed to vulnerabilities when central authority weakened post-11th century. Such adaptations underscore causal realism in polity formation: maritime interdependence drove concentric expansion, but opportunistic realignments by undermined long-term cohesion absent constant demonstration of superior resources.

Role of Kingship and Legitimacy

Kings of Srivijaya derived legitimacy from a synthesis of Buddhist religious authority and demonstrated martial prowess, positioning themselves as protectors of the Dharma rather than strictly divine incarnations akin to Hindu devaraja models prevalent in contemporaneous Javanese or Khmer polities. Inscriptions such as the Kedukan Bukit stele from 682 CE portray rulers like Dapunta Hyang as leading expeditions not merely for territorial gain but to safeguard and propagate the Three Jewels—Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha—framing conquests as meritorious acts that accrued spiritual capital and reinforced political dominance. This pragmatic fusion served to attract monastic patronage and trading partners who valued a realm under Buddhist suzerainty, thereby stabilizing the thalassocratic network through ideological appeal grounded in empirical control of maritime routes. Titles borne by Srivijayan monarchs, such as "Lord of the Three Jewels" or maharajadhiraja, underscored this blend, invoking to legitimize expansions while emphasizing the ruler's role in upholding cosmic order via naval victories and temple foundations. Unlike rigid divine kingship cults, legitimacy hinged on tangible outcomes: successful defense against rivals like or maintenance of oaths, with risking deposition by capable kin or vassals. Succession eschewed in favor of selection based on proven and alliance-building capacity, allowing brothers, sons-in-law, or military successes to elevate claimants, as seen in the transition to Balaputradewa following Sailendra integration around the . Diplomatic marriages further cemented legitimacy by forging kinship ties with regional powers, ensuring loyalty and access to resources without constant coercion, thus pragmatically extending influence across , the , and beyond.

Economy

Trade Infrastructure and Routes

Srivijaya's primary trade hub was the port of on the Musi River in , which served as a critical interface between inland riverine transport and maritime routes. Settlements in featured riverbank dwellings and floating trade platforms constructed from rafts, facilitating the loading and unloading of goods from upstream regions via tributaries feeding into the Musi. This linked Sumatran hinterlands rich in forest products to international shipping lanes, with archaeological evidence from sites like indicating organized port facilities supporting high-volume exchange. Strategic dominance over the and formed the backbone of Srivijaya's trade network, enabling the collection of transit tolls on vessels navigating between the and . Control of these chokepoints, achieved through naval patrols and fortified outposts by the , directed spice route traffic through Srivijayan waters, with textual records from Chinese confirming toll exemptions granted to compliant traders. Subsidiary ports such as those at Chaiya and Ligor on the extended this network, providing relay points for ships avoiding adverse winds and enforcing Srivijayan maritime authority. Diplomatic missions to Song China in the secured formal assurances for safe passage of Srivijayan vessels, with envoys from San-fo-ch'i (Srivijaya's Chinese designation) establishing tributary relations that privileged their merchants in Chinese ports from the 960s onward. These agreements, documented in Song records, exempted Srivijayan ships from certain duties and ensured protection against in return for regular , thereby stabilizing eastern corridors amid regional volatility. Such pacts underscored the infrastructure's reliance on bilateral protocols to mitigate risks along extended sea lanes connecting to and the .

Commodities, Barter, and Monetary Systems

Srivijaya exported spices, , aloes, , horns, tin, and , primarily sourced from and adjacent islands, which were highly valued in Chinese and Middle Eastern markets. Imports included such as ware bowls and Yue green-glazed vessels, alongside silk textiles and Middle Eastern glass perfume bottles, reflecting the empire's role as a redistribution hub. The 9th-century , discovered near Srivijayan-controlled waters, yielded over 60,000 —including ewers, dishes, and jarlets—alongside lead ingots and aromatic resins, evidencing bulk mixed-cargo shipments likely destined for local loading of spices or resins before westward transit. Barter dominated exchanges, with ports like serving as entrepôts where commodities were swapped directly, minimizing reliance on abstract and leveraging the empire's control over resource flows for toll-based revenues. Coined played a subordinate role; while and silver dinars appeared in high-value trades, local systems prioritized equivalents like shells for everyday transactions, consistent with broader Southeast Asian patterns. Archaeological finds in Palembang's Musi River include , silver, and coins of local and Chinese origin, suggesting sporadic minting or adoption, but these artifacts indicate limited circulation compared to barter's flexibility in a thalassocratic .

Thalassocracy Thesis: Empirical Evidence and Skepticism

The thesis characterizes Srivijaya as a predominantly maritime that derived its authority from naval supremacy and control over sea lanes, particularly the , rather than extensive territorial holdings. Proponents cite inscriptional records of naval campaigns, such as the dated to April 23, 682 CE (Śaka 604), which details Dapunta Hyang's embarkation on a for a victorious ritual journey (jayasiddhayātra) involving combat and sacred water collection, implying organized maritime expeditions capable of projecting power. Similarly, the Ligor inscription from circa 775 CE references Srivijayan conquests by sea against regional rivals, reinforcing claims of thalassic dominance. Foreign accounts provide corroborative textual evidence; Chinese dynastic records from the Tang period (618–907 CE) portray Srivijaya (as Shilifoshi) as a hub exacting tribute from vassal ports and regulating passage through chokepoints, with over 20 embassies dispatched between 670 and 1376 CE attesting to its maritime outreach. The pilgrim I-Tsing, who resided in Srivijaya from 671 to 685 CE, described it as a thriving center for Buddhist scholarship accessible via sea routes from and , with more than 1,000 monks under royal patronage, underscoring its role in facilitating oceanic networks. These sources collectively suggest Srivijaya leveraged naval forces to secure monopolies on spices, aromatics, and forest products transiting between , , and the . ![Prasasti_Kedukan_Bukit_3.jpg][float-right] arises from the paucity of direct archaeological corroboration for a monolithic ; despite extensive surveys, no large-scale Srivijayan shipwrecks or dockyards have been unearthed, with maritime artifacts limited to indirect finds like ceramics and trade goods at port sites such as and Chaiya. Excavations reveal a polycentric configuration of semi-autonomous harbors—from Sumatra's Musi River basin to the —functioning as interdependent nodes rather than subordinates to a centralized fleet, as evidenced by contemporaneous inscriptions and temple complexes distributed across these loci without uniform imperial . Inland sites, including muara jambi's temple clusters active from the 7th to 11th centuries, indicate parallel investment in riverine and agrarian bases, challenging the primacy of . From a causal standpoint, Srivijaya's influence likely stemmed from pragmatic alliances forged by shared incentives—such as tolls on pepper and cargoes—rather than inherent naval , as rival polities like and the Chola maintained parallel routes post-Srivijayan decline without disruption. Overreliance on inscriptions and Sinocentric records, which emphasize rituals over granular , risks conflating diplomatic prestige with operational monopoly, a interpretive overreach given the era's fragmented and the persistence of pre- and post-Srivijayan patterns. Thus, while maritime elements were pivotal, Srivijaya more plausibly operated as a networked entrepôt adapting to regional flux than as an unchallenged oceanic sovereign.

Military and Naval Power

Fleet Composition and Shipbuilding

The Srivijayan fleet primarily consisted of wooden double-outrigger sailing vessels, as inferred from 8th- to 9th-century depictions in the temple bas-reliefs, which align with the maritime technologies of the period during Srivijaya's dominance from the 7th to 13th centuries. These included smaller outrigger prahus for coastal patrolling and inter-island , alongside larger -type ships equipped for ocean-going and naval operations, featuring stabilizing s and sails adapted for regional waters. Shipbuilding relied on indigenous Southeast Asian techniques, notably the lashed-lug method, where planks were joined to internal frames using dowels and plant fiber lashings for flexibility and repairability in tropical conditions, rather than rigid nailed constructions associated with Indian influences. Timber sourced from local Sumatran hardwoods, such as those abundant in the empire's riverine and forested territories, formed the hulls, emphasizing durability against and monsoonal stresses over exotic imports. Naval deployments capitalized on predictable wind patterns, allowing fleets to achieve rapid transit across the and beyond, as evidenced by accounts of swift maritime movements in regional interactions during the .

Conquest Strategies and Warfare Tactics

Srivijaya employed naval expeditions, often framed as siddhayatra combining pilgrimage and , to extend influence over coastal regions and riverine territories without establishing permanent inland occupations. These operations leveraged amphibious capabilities, with fleets navigating , rivers, and archipelagic waters to launch targeted assaults on rivals, compelling submission through demonstration of superior maritime power. The emphasized rapid mobilization of forces numbering up to 20,000 by the late , focusing on subduing key ports and extracting to sustain thalassocratic . A prime example is the 682 CE campaign detailed in the , where ruler led a fleet upstream from the Musi River base, conquering settlements in the Palembang hinterlands and advancing toward the Malayu region to consolidate control over Sumatra's eastern seaboard. By 686 CE, similar offensives targeted and polities, as evidenced by the Kota Kapur inscription on , which alludes to victories over distant foes and the imposition of loyalty oaths. These involved coastal landings to defeat local rulers, install tributary arrangements, and withdraw, avoiding the logistical burdens of sustained land campaigns in tropical interiors. To augment naval striking power, Srivijaya incorporated seafaring groups such as the , nomadic mariners with piratical tendencies, enlisting them for scouting, harassment of enemy shipping, and enforcement of blockades during expeditions. This alliance disrupted rival trade and supply lines, amplifying the empire's reach across the Straits of and beyond without expanding core administrative structures. Psychological elements complemented kinetic operations, with inscriptions invoking Buddhist s to intimidate potential adversaries and reinforce loyalty among subjects. The Kota Kapur inscription, for instance, pronounces doom upon traitors, decreeing death by divine or defeat in Srivijayan wars, thereby deterring defection and projecting an aura of inevitability in conquests. Such imprecations, disseminated via monumental stones at conquered sites, served to legitimize expansion as divinely sanctioned while eroding enemy morale through fear of karmic retribution.

Defensive Measures Against Invasions

Archaeological evidence from Srivijaya-associated sites, including the Muara Takus temple complex in , indicates the use of perimeter moats and ditches for defense, encircling key religious and administrative structures as early as the 7th century CE. These features, often integrated with surrounding swamplands and river systems, provided natural barriers against land-based incursions, though comprehensive stone walls or kuto enclosures—common in later Islamic fortifications—were absent, suggesting a strategy prioritizing fluid, riverine defenses over static land barriers. Wooden palisades at strategic river mouths, inferred from environmental adaptations in Palembang's deltaic terrain, likely supplemented these, exploiting the Musi River's geography to control access and impede naval approaches. The empire's thalassocratic structure exposed vulnerabilities in defending dispersed ports, as extended supply lines across the and proved difficult to sustain during simultaneous multi-front threats. In response to the 1025 CE Chola naval raids, which sacked and disrupted trade nodes, Srivijaya rulers implemented tribute diplomacy, dispatching golden gifts and establishing vassalage to deter further aggression without direct confrontation. This approach, evidenced by post-invasion embassies and Chola inscriptions recording Srivijayan submissions, aligned with the invaders' focus on plunder and route access rather than territorial annexation, allowing partial recovery of influence through renewed Chinese alliances. By the 11th-12th centuries, amid ongoing Javanese and regional pressures, defensive adaptations included relocation of core authority to inland strongholds like , leveraging dense Sumatran interiors for asymmetric resistance over open-sea engagements. Such shifts underscored the limits of maritime , where fragmented loyalties and logistical strains hindered unified fortifications or rapid reinforcements against invasions exploiting monsoon-dependent fleets.

Culture and Society

Religious Patronage and Syncretism

Srivijaya's ruling elite provided extensive patronage to Buddhism, embedding it within the framework of state legitimacy and international diplomacy from the . Inscriptions like the Kedukan Bukit edict of 682 CE detail royal expeditions culminating in the installation of sacred Buddhist images and rituals aimed at ensuring prosperity and protection for the kingdom's subjects. This patronage manifested in the funding of viharas across , positioning Srivijaya as a nexus for Buddhist scholarship that drew pilgrims and scholars from regions including and . By the , Srivijayan kings extended their support beyond local institutions, with Balaputradeva commissioning a at Nalanda in around 860 CE and obtaining revenue-generating land grants from Pala ruler Devapala to sustain it. Such acts underscored the rulers' emulation of the cakravartin ideal, the Buddhist universal sovereign who upholds through meritorious deeds. Later monarchs, including Maravijayottunggavarman in 1005 CE, constructed additional Buddhist temples in , reinforcing Srivijaya's prestige as a dharmic power. Tantric influences, characteristic of , emerged prominently by the 10th century, evidenced in inscriptions at sites like Muaro that reference yantras and esoteric rituals for invoking protective powers. incorporated Hindu elements, such as invocations to deities like in royal charters, alongside dominant Buddhist practices, without supplanting the latter's centrality in governance. This syncretic approach fostered tolerance toward diverse faiths, enabling Hindu, animist, and eventually Muslim merchants to operate freely within Srivijayan ports, which in turn bolstered networks by accommodating the religious needs of international participants.

Artistic and Architectural Achievements

![Avalokite%C3%A7vara%252C_Malayu_Srivijaya_style.jpg][float-right] Srivijayan architecture favored perishable wooden constructions for most buildings, limiting surviving monumental remains to stone stupas and temple bases influenced by Buddhist practices. Key sites include the Muara Takus complex in Riau province, comprising 11th-century brick structures shaped as stupas, which served as reliquary mounds and symbolic representations of enlightenment. Similarly, the Muaro Jambi temple group in Jambi features refined brick edifices from the 7th to 13th centuries, incorporating rectangular bases and stepped superstructures typical of maritime Southeast Asian adaptations of Indian prototypes. These elements reflect technological advancements in brickwork and stone masonry amid a tropical environment prone to decay. In sculpture, Srivijaya excelled in bronze casting, producing icons that fused Indian stylistic elements with local motifs, evident in depictions of bodhisattvas like Avalokitesvara. An 8th-9th century standing bronze Avalokitesvara, characterized by a slender form, elaborate jewelry, and varada gesture, exemplifies this synthesis, likely originating from Sumatran workshops and distributed via trade networks. Later 11th-12th century seated examples, often from peninsular or , display dynamic aureoles and lotus pedestals, showcasing refinements in lost-wax techniques and iconographic detail. Such works highlight exchanges across the , with patinas indicating diverse burial contexts that preserved them. Inscribed stone pillars and slabs further demonstrate artistic prowess, serving as durable status symbols etched with Old Malay script and Buddhist formulae, such as the 7th-century on a granite pillar fragment. These monuments combined epigraphic precision with decorative carving, blending textual records of royal piety and naval victories with aesthetic restraint suited to ritual contexts. Archaeological evidence from sites like underscores a shift toward over stone by the mid-period, signaling material innovations tied to metallurgical expertise acquired through commerce.

Social Hierarchy and Daily Life

Srivijayan society exhibited a stratified structure comprising four primary classes: the royal family at the apex, followed by nobles, independent freemen, and slaves at the base. Nobles, often designated as datu in contemporary inscriptions, occupied key administrative positions and likely derived authority from kinship ties to the ruler or proven service in governance and trade oversight. This elite layer interfaced closely with merchants, whose roles as vaniyâga (traders) elevated their status in a thalassocracy reliant on maritime commerce, fostering opportunities for wealth accumulation and potential upward mobility beyond rigid hereditary bounds. Slaves, including royal dependents termed hulun haji, formed the lowest stratum, performing menial labor such as washing or estate work, with some captured or traded internationally, including to by the . Freemen, encompassing artisans, small-scale traders, and agriculturalists, bridged the and servile classes, contributing to the empire's economic vitality through localized production and systems. Inscriptions from sites like Kedukan Bukit reveal a bureaucratic underlayer of officials such as customs overseers (pratisâra) and naval captains (puhávam), underscoring how elite-merchant alliances managed tolls and expeditions to sustain hierarchy. Daily existence revolved around riverine urban ports like along the Musi River, sustained by an agrarian foundation of wet-rice farming in adjacent floodplains and valleys, which supplied staples to dense populations exceeding in core settlements by the . Commoners engaged in , crafting, and porterage, while elites coordinated in spices, aromatics, and forest products, with social cohesion reinforced through communal rituals and market exchanges. Archaeological recoveries from riverbed sites, including tools, ceramics, and mirrors, imply practical routines blending local fabrication with imported goods, hinting at varied diets incorporating , , and occasional exotics for higher strata, though direct evidence remains sparse and primarily prefigures later Sumatran practices. Fluidity in status arose from profits, enabling merchants to amass resources rivaling nobles, as evidenced by the prominence of commercial functionaries in epigraphic records.

Foreign Relations

Diplomatic Ties with China and India

Srivijaya initiated formal diplomatic relations with Tang in 670 CE, when its ruler Dapunta Hyang dispatched an embassy to Emperor Gaozong shortly after consolidating power through military expeditions in and the . This mission presented tribute including local products such as spices and resins, seeking imperial recognition to bolster legitimacy and secure trade advantages in the . Subsequent embassies followed irregularly but persistently, with Chinese annals recording at least thirteen such missions to the Tang capital during 618–907 CE, emphasizing Srivijaya's role as a key supplier of exotic goods. Under the (960–1279 CE), relations continued as Sanfoqi, with multiple missions noted up to 1018 CE, often bearing gifts like elephants and aromatics to affirm tributary status. These exchanges served pragmatic ends: Srivijaya gained Chinese titles conferring prestige and implicit protection against regional threats, such as Javanese incursions, while accessed lucrative maritime trade without direct involvement, as evidenced by envoys' reports of Srivijaya's naval dominance and wealth. In contrast, Srivijaya's ties with lacked the structured embassy system seen with , manifesting instead through cultural and religious exchanges centered on . Indian influences arrived primarily via itinerant and scholars rather than state envoys or , with Srivijaya positioning itself as a hub for Buddhist learning to attract pilgrims and elevate its stature. The Chinese monk Yijing, traveling to in 671 CE, resided in Srivijaya for six months, praising its monasteries housing over 1,000 monks versed in Indian texts and discipline, which facilitated the importation of , scripts, and ritual practices. Such interactions, including student exchanges with Indian centers like Nalanda, strengthened and trade networks by embedding Indian cosmological and administrative models—such as polity concepts—without coercive imposition, as Srivijayan inscriptions reflect voluntary patronage of Buddhist institutions influenced by Pala and other Indian dynasties. This monk-mediated underscored causal priorities of prestige through and economic interdependence, with Srivijaya's rulers sponsoring viharas to host scholars en route between and , thereby securing ideological alignment and maritime goodwill.

Interactions with Islamic Traders and Arab World

geographers in the mid-9th century, including in his (c. 846–847 CE), identified the kingdom of Zabaj—scholarly consensus equates this with Srivijaya—as a pivotal entrepôt facilitating overland and maritime trade from the to , where Jewish, Persian, and merchants exchanged goods like spices, textiles, and aromatics. These accounts highlight Srivijaya's strategic control over the , compelling foreign vessels to pay tolls and procure local pilots, thereby integrating commercial networks into Southeast Asian exchange systems without altering the empire's core Buddhist polity. Archaeological evidence from northern reveals Abbasid dinars and dirhams dating to the 8th–9th centuries, indicating the adoption of Islamic coinage for transactions with traders, who supplied commodities such as glassware, metals, and ceramics in return for Southeast Asian forest products and cloves. Despite this economic , Srivijaya's rulers and populace resisted , preserving Buddhist patronage and syncretic Hindu-Buddhist institutions, as no contemporary records or inscriptions document elite adoption of the faith prior to the empire's fragmentation. merchants established transient communities in ports like , but their influence remained confined to , with religious propagation limited by Srivijaya's state-enforced and naval dominance. By the , advancements in enabled Gujarati Hindus and to establish direct routes across the , bypassing Srivijayan chokepoints and eroding the empire's intermediary profits, as shipments shifted toward ports and independent voyages to and . This competitive reconfiguration, compounded by Chola raids in 1025 CE, presaged Srivijaya's decline, as and Indian traders increasingly dealt directly with peripheral vassals, fragmenting the empire's monopoly and fostering autonomous polities amenable to later Islamic inroads.

Rivalries with Mainland and Island Powers

Srivijaya's control over the positioned it in direct competition with the expanding during the 10th century, as both sought dominance over trade entrepôts like and Ligor. Khmer incursions into peninsular territories challenged Srivijayan vassalage, leading to intermittent clashes amid Khmer southward pushes under rulers such as Jayavarman IV, who relocated the capital to Ishanapura around 928 CE and asserted influence over peripheral regions. A contemporary Arab account by Abu Zaid Hasan describes a Khmer monarch's explicit demand for the head of the Srivijayan ruler, underscoring the depth of enmity and Khmer ambitions to supplant Srivijayan authority. These peninsular rivalries remained largely coastal and proxy-based, with Srivijaya leveraging its naval superiority to contest Khmer advances without committing to sustained inland campaigns. Logistical barriers, including the Khmer's fortified riverine defenses and the difficulties of supplying maritime forces far from Sumatran bases, deterred deeper Srivijayan penetration into mainland Indochina. Such constraints fostered prolonged , where neither power achieved lasting breakthroughs, resulting in mutual exhaustion and temporary power vacuums exploited by local chieftains. Relations with Javanese island powers transitioned from symbiosis to antagonism after the Sailendra dynasty's eclipse in the late 9th to early 10th centuries. Initially intertwined through Sailendra rulers who built monuments like Borobudur and maintained ties to Palembang, the post-Sailendra Mataram kingdom under the Isana dynasty increasingly contested Srivijayan maritime hegemony. By the late 10th century, Javanese raids targeted Srivijayan outposts, driven by Mataram's consolidation under figures like Lokapala and ambitions to control eastern trade lanes. These encroachments eroded Srivijaya's archipelago-wide influence, perpetuating a cycle of naval skirmishes that weakened both without territorial consolidation, as Javanese forces mirrored Srivijaya's reluctance for overland invasions across straits.

Legacy

Enduring Cultural and Economic Influences

Srivijaya's role as a hub for Buddhism enabled the dissemination of doctrines and monastic traditions across the Malay Archipelago and Peninsula through its extensive network of monks and pilgrims. In 671 CE, the Chinese traveler Yijing documented over 1,000 Buddhist priests in , , engaged in rigorous study and adherence to discipline, underscoring the empire's capacity to sustain large-scale religious scholarship. These practitioners, often traveling via maritime routes, transmitted Esoteric Buddhist texts and practices to regions including the and western , fostering localized adaptations that persisted in sites like Chaiya and Ligor. Srivijayan envoys and scholars also interacted with Indian centers such as , integrating tantric elements that influenced subsequent Southeast Asian Buddhist complexes. Linguistic evidence reveals Srivijaya's contribution to the incorporation of Sanskrit-derived terms into Austronesian languages, particularly Malay and its variants, reflecting administrative, religious, and commercial exchanges from the 7th to 13th centuries. Terms denoting royalty (e.g., raja from rāja), divinity (dewa from deva), and ritual (puja from pūjā) entered via elite cultural transmission, as seen in Old Malay inscriptions and persisting in modern lexicon. This borrowing pattern, distinct from later Islamic influences, highlights Srivijaya's mediation of Indian cosmopolitanism without implying wholesale linguistic overhaul. Economically, Srivijaya's thalassocratic model—centered on naval dominance over chokepoints like the —provided a blueprint for later polities, including the (c. 1400–1511), which replicated toll-based systems for spices, aromatics, and textiles en route between and . By the 11th century, despite Chola disruptions, residual Srivijayan trade infrastructures in and the sustained regional commerce, enabling successor states to enforce monopolies on high-value cargoes like cloves and . This framework prioritized fluid alliances with merchant guilds over territorial rigidity, a pragmatic verifiable in navigational texts and Chinese records of post-Srivijayan voyages.

Historiographical Impact and National Narratives

In , Srivijaya has been invoked in official narratives to symbolize precolonial unity across the , with positioned as the foundational center of a purportedly cohesive maritime realm that prefigures the modern nation's territorial expanse. This interpretation, promoted through provincial branding like "Bumi Sriwijaya" in , draws on 7th-century inscriptions to construct a of centralized and cultural homogeneity, despite archaeological and textual evidence indicating a decentralized network of port-polities rather than a monolithic empire. Such framing aligns with post-independence efforts to legitimize Indonesian over diverse islands, often exaggerating Srivijaya's administrative reach beyond verifiable tribute relations and trade alliances documented in Chinese records from 671 CE onward. Malaysia has reinterpreted Srivijaya within broader Malay-centric historiography to assert historical primacy in the Nusantara region, portraying it as an ancestral Malay kingdom that unified peninsular and insular domains under indigenous leadership, thereby underpinning claims to cultural and maritime dominance predating colonial divisions. This narrative selectively emphasizes linguistic and epigraphic ties in Old Malay inscriptions while downplaying external influences, such as dependencies, to foster a sense of continuous Malay exceptionalism across modern borders. In , some regional scholarship links Srivijaya to sites like Chaiya in , proposing it as a temporary or coequal capital to bolster southern Thai heritage and continuity with Buddhist networks, based on local inscriptions and artifacts from the 8th-9th centuries. However, this view remains contested, as primary sources like the 7th-century anchor the polity's origins in without unambiguous northern relocation. Global historiographical skepticism toward these national appropriations highlights how limited indigenous records—primarily seven Old Malay inscriptions and fragmented foreign accounts—have been amplified by 20th-century nationalist agendas, often prioritizing identity construction over empirical reconstruction of Srivijaya's polycentric, trade-driven structure. Pioneering works, such as O.W. Wolters' model from the 1960s, initially accommodated such interpretations but faced revision in recent decades for underemphasizing internal fragmentation and overreliance on anachronistic state analogies, urging a return to causal analysis of economic incentives rather than retrospective empire-building myths. This caution underscores systemic biases in regional academia, where alignment with state ideologies can distort source interpretation, contrasting with international efforts to prioritize verifiable data like inscriptional geography and absence of monumental capitals.

Archaeological and Genetic Continuities

Archaeological excavations at key Sumatran sites, including and , reveal structural and artifactual evidence of settlement continuity from the through the , with Buddhist stupas, brick temples, and canal systems indicating sustained port functions despite political fragmentation after the . At , over 30 monuments, including the Candi Gumpung temple complex, show layered constructions incorporating earlier Srivijayan-style bricks and ceramics alongside later modifications, suggesting adaptive reuse by successor polities into the Majapahit-influenced era. Similarly, sites in East exhibit 14th-century settlements with trade-oriented artifacts, bridging Srivijayan maritime infrastructure to post-imperial networks. Hydraulic engineering features, such as extensive riverine canals and embankment systems documented at Palembang's archaeological park, facilitated trade and agriculture, with comparable water management artifacts persisting in Sumatran ports linked to Majapahit trade spheres by the 13th-14th centuries. Trade goods, including Indian glass beads, Chinese celadons, and Sassanid pottery shards, recovered from these sites, demonstrate unbroken Indian Ocean commerce, evolving into Majapahit-era distributions without abrupt cultural rupture. Post-2020 genetic studies of modern Southeast Asian populations, particularly in and the , identify admixture patterns reflecting ancient interactions, with elevated South Asian autosomal components in Malay groups consistent with Srivijaya's documented trade and migration hubs. For instance, analyses of Indonesian islander genomes reveal and South Asian introgression layers dating to 2,000-3,000 years ago, aligning with thalassocratic expansions, though direct Srivijayan remains scarce due to limited skeletal preservation in tropical environments. Maternal haplogroups in southern Thai maritime communities show reduced diversity indicative of founder effects from regional networks, underscoring genetic legacies of Srivijaya-like mobility into contemporary demographics.

List of Rulers

Chronology from Inscriptions

The earliest dated inscriptions providing ruler names for Srivijaya cluster in the late , revealing foundational figures amid military and ritual activities. The , dated Saka 605 (683 CE), describes Dapunta Hyang's siddhayatra—a sacred riverine expedition from Minanga Tamwan to Bhumi Srivijaya—undertaken with a fleet, signaling the polity's emergence through conquest and ritual validation. Immediately following, the Talang Tuwo inscription of Saka 606 (684 CE) attributes to Dapunta Sri Jayanasa the establishment of a cri-ksetra (sacred and facility) at the mountain's base for the welfare of all beings, invoking Buddhist protective formulas and curses against violators. This ruler's dual titles suggest continuity or coregency, though exact succession remains unclear from the texts. The Kota Kapur inscription on , dated Saka 608 (686 CE), records a to Buddhist divinities after subduing Malayu and , with imprecations against disloyalty, implying the same or a proximate ruler consolidating control over regional rivals. These three inscriptions, all in Old Malay with Pallava-derived script, form a tight sequence but leave subsequent rulers undocumented until peripheral records. Significant gaps persist through the , with the Wiang Sa inscription (c. 775 CE) affirming a Srivijayan king's authority extending to the , at , without naming the sovereign. Dynastic links to Java's Sailendras emerge in 9th-century texts; Samaratungga (r. c. 792–812 CE), referenced in the Karangtengah inscription (824 CE) for sponsoring major sanctuaries, represents this intertwined phase, potentially as overlord. The Nalanda copper-plate inscription (860 CE) identifies Balaputradeva as of Suvarnadvipa (Srivijaya's toponym), granting village revenues to a , evidencing continued royal patronage abroad. Post-10th century stone records thin further, with 12th-century Jambi-area inscriptions alluding to successor polities like under figures such as Mauli, but lacking precise Srivijayan royal sequences amid Chola disruptions and fragmentation. Overlaps and ambiguities arise from title similarities (e.g., multiple "Sri" prefixes) and relocated artifacts, underscoring inscriptional chronology's fragmentary nature.

Uncertainties in Succession and Identification

The identification of Srivijaya's rulers remains fraught with ambiguities due to the fragmentary of inscriptions, which often list multiple figures bearing overlapping titles such as or rakryan, potentially indicating co-rulers, subordinates, or rivals rather than a linear succession. For instance, the of 682 CE references alongside other officials in a context suggestive of collective authority during expeditions, but does not clarify hierarchical primacy or familial ties. Similarly, 8th-century inscriptions attributed to Jayanasa invoke curses against internal challengers, implying contested claims to power within the structure, where local chieftains could vie for dominance without explicit dynastic resolution. Further complications arise from discrepancies between local Old Malay inscriptions and foreign accounts, where Sanskritized or transliterated names resist precise matching to indigenous titles. Chinese annals, for example, record rulers like Sri Indravarman (circa 672–688 CE) and subsequent figures with phonetically rendered names that scholars have tentatively linked to Sumatran inscriptions, yet variations in transcription and titulature—such as the use of Indian-derived epithets like —obscure direct correspondences and raise questions about whether these denote the same individuals or parallel polities. The Nalanda inscription of 860 CE, commissioning a by Balaputradewa as "ruler of Srivijaya," exemplifies this issue, as its Sailendra affiliations suggest possible Java-Sumatra linkages or adoptions of foreign prestige titles, but lack corroboration from local sources to confirm succession continuity. Post-11th-century records exhibit significant gaps attributable to the disruptive Chola invasions of 1025 and 1070 CE, which captured named kings like Sangrama Vijayatunggavarman and fragmented Srivijaya's cohesion, prompting shifts in capital and tributary patterns without preserved epigraphic evidence of rulers. Chinese sources note intermittent embassies from (as ) into the 12th–13th centuries, but these omit explicit regnal lineages, leaving uncertainties about whether successors represented direct descent or opportunistic claimants amid revolts and external pressures. This evidential void underscores the challenges in reconstructing a confident , as later Malay chronicles retroject idealized narratives rather than verifiable sequences.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.