Srivijaya and Empirical Models

Srivijaya's formation can be rather precisely dated to the period between 672 and 685, its eclipse to around 1069. There is evidence that military expansion was in­volved in the empire' s rise; inscriptions clearly mention the Srivijayan army.

Wealth in Malay culture was “an unmistakable attribute of sovereignty.”^[1213] Bar­bara Andaya convincingly argues that the concept of “economy” was not relevant to Sumatran culture of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.^[1214] Instead, eco­nomic pursuits were subordinated to the kinship system of the ruling clique. This pattern may well reflect the situation in the seventh century. The expression of this concept in Srivijaya is perhaps more visible than elsewhere because of population density (low) and mobility (high). This combination of attributes (i.e., low popula­tion density and high mobility) logically leads to an extensive rather than intensive power structure.^[1215] It is impossible to be sure, but a large proportion of exchanges of rare forest products from the hinterland for basic commodities (salt, cloth, and iron) from the lowland entrepots seem to have been effected through ceremonial gift-giving or tribute, rather than in the context of buying and selling.

Srivijaya may have had the ability to project military force over 1,000 kilometers north from Palembang to Kedah or even southern Thailand and northwestern Sumatra (Barus), and several hundred kilometers southward, to Lampung, whereas Srivijaya's civil administration in even its most diffused form may only have reached 300 kilometers north and south, a territorial unit defined by the distribution of inscriptions containing oaths of loyalty to Srivijaya's ruler. It seems likely that the loyalty of the armed forces (land and sea) under Srivijaya's control was secured by emotional ties rather than purely economic considerations. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Palembang sultans still exerted control over their sea nomad adherents through their claim to descent from the mythical first Malay ruler, Sri Tri Buana. The Malay Annals record that Sri Tri Buana took an oath never to shame his subjects, and the subject swore eternal fealty to him (and by extension his descendants). No doubt the armed forces expected material as well as spiritual rewards, but these rewards were not subject to negotiation; they were anugeraha, tokens of esteem from the ruler, not salaries. This embedded economic system was sufficient to maintain control over a large area of the Malay Peninsula and east Sumatra until the last ruler in the ancient line was assassinated in 1699. Thereafter the link was broken, and the sea nomads were scattered, losing both their unity and their political power. Sea nomad groups continued to pay homage to local Malay rulers, but no single Malay ruler succeeded in acquiring the allegiance of all the sea nomads in the Riau Archipelago and the Straits of Melaka. This allegiance was expressed in the willingness to provide services such as naval action to compel mer­chant ships to stop in the port of their overlord. This type of action, which some later European observers classified as piracy, was not undertaken out of an expected payment, but the sea nomads could expect to be rewarded in proportion to the amount of taxes and fines which the unfortunate merchants could be forced to pay.

It takes 3,214 calories to move one metric ton one kilometer by portaging in trop­ical conditions, whereas transporting the same load by canoe requires only 588 calories.^[1216] If one uses sail power, the caloric requirement drops by another order of magnitude. Estimates of marching distances and ability to transport food for soldiers overland^[1217] are irrelevant to the Srivijaya example. The Phoenician case is a much more instructive comparison. Phoenicia, like Srivijaya, probably consisted of a string of ports.^[1218] Maritime empires have been generally overlooked in history and archaeology, but Darby^[1219] recognized long ago that they constitute a general category.

One might well ask whether a sea state can qualify to be termed an empire. The answer depends on several factors. Land-based empires are usually equated with control over agrarian areas with more or less well-defined borders, and centralized rule. It could be argued that Srivijaya ought to be classified as a consortium or league of ports, each of greater or lesser autonomy, in which the individual members agree to a specified division of commerce and profits. We do not possess enough data to state whether this was the case. It is possible that Srivijaya began as a port which wished to monopolize the tributary trade with Tang China, while allowing Kedah to monopolize the trade with India, and Barus to dominate the trade with the Persian Gulf and West Asia. In the ninth century the development of Srivijaya/Palembang as a supplier of West Asian goods such as Arabo-Persian glassware, perfumes, and drugs may have led to a more businesslike relationship between the ports which had previously been forced by military threats to desist from engaging in certain types of commerce. Srivijaya may have needed to offer incentives to the foreign merchants in Barus and Kedah to supply it with Indian Ocean produce, since the threat of force may simply have resulted in the disappearance of those merchants and their products from the Straits of Melaka.

Darby's main contribution to the subject was to identify the sea state as a geo­graphical concept. He did not identify any unique sociopolitical traits of this group of maritime kingdoms. The work of Karl Polanyi and others on the port-of-trade constituted the next stage in the evolution of analysis of this phenomenon.

Polanyi and his collaborators^[1220] sought to demonstrate that pre-modern long­distance trade was conducted in accordance with a very different socioeconomic model from that which is more familiar from the experience of the last 300 years, during which international trade became integrated with the system of price-fixing markets, first in Europe, and then spreading to much of the world.

Leeds^[1221] defined the port-of-trade as “a clearly defined complex of institutions and personnel,” a geopolitical entity in which trade was an affair of state, not a func­tion of the economy. It was:

I. An autonomous, specialized town, city or small state intended by policy for trade.

II. Usually a transshipment point between different ecological regions.

III. Often a deliberately neutral, buffer zone.

IV. Often no indigenous group but port officials were involved in the trading; groups of foreign merchants reside in the port. Institutional organization in­volved strict laws for the maintenance of peace, prosperity and security. It was administered by native officials and professional organizations. Traders seldom or never had the freedom of the city or markets.

Melaka in the fifteenth century seems to have conformed to this pattern. The Portuguese author Tome Pires in 1515 described Melaka's trading system in detail. Melaka had four shahbandar, one for each of the major trading areas with which Melaka had links. These shahbandar (Persian for “lord of the harbor”) would board a newly arrived ship, be given “presents” in lieu of fixed customs duties, and supervise the unloading of the ship's merchandise, which was taken to a warehouse owned by the kingdom.

The same system existed in late Ming dynasty China. “Treaty ports” were estab­lished where foreign nations could set up residential quarters (firmly segregated from the local inhabitants). Trade was largely an official activity, although private exchanges were allowed with certain designated local officials for limited periods of time.

From such a theoretical model we can make some predictions which the archae­ological study of ancient trading ports might be able to verify. We should expect to find such things as warehouse zones where imported objects were stored. Markets would exist, but they would be places where the local population would obtain daily necessities such as food, not centers of international trade.

Srivijaya shared many attributes with port cities in Europe during the fourteenth century, when towns and trade were reviving after a thousand years of relative dark­ness. Business was beginning to take on a modern form. During the preceding Middle Ages, the most powerful feudal kingdoms had been located in the midst of fertile agricultural land; the kings derived their power from controlling agricultural surplus and labor. When new cities in the form of trading ports began to arise in the Mediterranean in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, these cities were on the margins of the old kingdoms, not at their centers.

The agricultural societies of medieval Europe were militaristic and very hierar­chical; their capitals centered on fortified castles and large religious monuments (cathedrals). The new port cities (or “ports of trade”) drew much of their wealth from the import of luxury items from the Indian Ocean, including Indonesian spices.

Another perspective on early urban societies can be obtained by contrasting or­thogenetic cities/administrative centers, in which stability is emphasized, and a heterogenetic type, in which change and development are favored. Orthogenetic sites include Angkor in Cambodia, where most of the population probably was em­ployed in agriculture, and a large proportion of space and resources was allocated to royal palaces, pageantry, and religious activity. Srivijaya must have lain closer to the heterogenetic end of the scale,^[1224] in which population was dense and economic ac­tivity was complex.

Scholars remain skeptical of the modernity of the urbanity of early Southeast Asia. A respected historian noted several decades ago that literature of the early Islamic period in Indonesia never describes cities. This fact led him to conclude that

To speak of “urban life,” even if it is the life of fifteenth century Malacca or seven­teenth century Banda Aceh which one has in mind, is to endow the social environ­ment created around royal courts with an independent form and meaning which it did not have, until European conquest made kings irrelevant to the colonial func­tion and permanence of cities and their populations.^[1225]

Information on Srivijaya from Palembang and other sites within its probable in­teraction sphere suggests that their social environment was more comparable to ancient sea-states in other parts of the world than surviving literary sources suggest.

The study of “sea-states” or ports of trade contradicts the notion that at a certain stage of development, military factors replace economics as determinants of power and social organization.^[1226] Both factors exist in all societies, but in sea-states, the balance tilts toward the economy. In states where power is derived from wealth, the use of force to compel people to act in certain ways may be less puissant. A further question is whether the lack of compulsive instruments of rule in Srivijaya is due to the importance of trade, to the specific features of an aquatic adaptation and con­sequent mobility, to the relatively low population density, or to all three in relative measure.

Maisels' study of state formation espouses the idea that the development of polit­ical systems is a story of exploitation by the elite. According to Maisels' Proposition 1: “The state did not come into existence to serve the population... but to serve the interests of the rulers.” Any constructive functions the state may serve are the min­imum necessary to keep the society functioning.^[1227]

As the old saying goes, there are exceptions to all generalizations, including this one. Long before the idea of “failed states” appeared, societies in the Straits of Melaka felt the need to invite rulers from neighboring areas when their own royal lines died out.^[1228] This has been connected to the idea that Southeast Asian societies possess “centrifugal” tendencies^[1229] which local people feel could lead to chaos and loss of material prosperity if no leader is present. Sea-states such as Srivijaya display several traits which call some of these generalizations into question. It would be instructive to compare the idea of the sea-state with the notion of the Sanskrit cosmopolis, which Pollock^[1230] termed “the most complicated—and as a totality least studied—transregional cultural formation in the premodern world.” Pollock argues that “Sanskrit articulated politics not as material power... but politics as aesthetic power.”^[1231]

The idea that Srivijaya evolved from a primitive hegemon, dependent on force to maintain its commercial monopoly of the China trade in the seventh and eighth centuries, into a more cooperative partner in the ninth and tenth centuries is worth considering. Rather than being considered to represent a centrifugal tendency, the growth of new ports in the Straits ought to be considered a step in the direction of the formation of a more complex network of ports in which benefits of maritime trade were distributed on the basis of the concept of a non-zero-sum game. Military might would still be important in maintaining security against non-state groups of bandits and local rivals for the position of local port of trade, but the threat of force would recede into a position of one among a number of options in maintaining a balance of power in which military might could only be supported by ensuring a high level of peace in which foreign and local merchants could operate. Thus means of communication more sophisticated than naked displays of power would become more significant.

As influential as Sanskrit was in Srivijaya and elsewhere, one may argue that trade rather than religion or brute force was the principle source of centripetal force that held the kingdom together. Goh's “Buddhist ecumene”^[1232] is another work which identifies sociopolitical formations which do not easily fit into previous notions of “empires” or “states.” In this case, she notes the long-lived ideal (never achieved in reality) of a “transregional cultural formation” based on Buddhism rather than Sanskrit. As Pollock noted,^[1233] the modern countries in this ecumene—Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Thailand—did not form part of the Sanskrit cosmopolis.

One possible direction for future research would be to compare a Buddhist ecumene, a trail of linked ports of trade, and a Sanskrit cosmopolis. There is a high probability that each of these abstractions bears a strong resemblance to reality. One question for the future would be: How did these entities relate to each other, as well as to long-established notions of empire?

Bibliography

Allen, S. J. 1988. Trade, Transportation, and Tributaries: Exchange, Agriculture, and Settlement Distribution in Early Historic-Period Kedah, Malaysia. PhD diss., University of Hawaii.

Andaya, B. 1993. To Live as Brothers: The Cultural Economy of South and Southeast Sumatra during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Honolulu.

Andaya, L. Y. 2001. “The Search for the ‘Origins’ of Melayu.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 32, no. 3: 315-330.

Andaya, L. Y. 2008. Leaves of the Same Tree: Trade and Ethnicity in the Straits of Melaka. Honolulu. Bambang B. U. 2007. Prasasti-Prasasti Sumatra. Jakarta.

Bellina-Pryce, B., and P. Silapanth. 2006. “Weaving Cultural Identities on Trans-Asiatic Networks: Upper Thai-Malay Peninsula: an Early Socio- Political Landscape.” Bulletin de l’Ecole Franfaise d’Extreme-Orient 93:257-293.

Bielenstein, H. 2005. Diplomacy and Trade in the Chinese World 589-1276. Leiden and Boston. Bonatz, D., J. Miksic, J. D. Neidel, and M. L. T. Bonatz, eds. 2009. From Distant Tales: Archaeology and Ethnohistory in the Highlands of Sumatra. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Bosch, F. D. K. 1930. “Verslag van een Reis door Sumatra.” Oudheidkundige Verslag: 133-157. Braddell, R. 1950. “Notes on Ancient Times in Malaya. Part 6: Langkasuka and Kedah,” Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 23, no. 1: 1-36.

Bronson, B., M. S. Basoeki, and J. Wisseman. n.d., ca. 1974. Laporan Penelitian Arkeologi di Sumatra. Jakarta.

Bronson, B., and J. Wisseman. 1978. “Palembang as Srivijaya: The Lateness ofEarly Cities in Southern Southeast Asia.” Asian Perspectives 19:220-239.

Christie, J. 1983. “Raja and Rama: The Classical State in Early Java.” In L. Gesick, ed., Centers, Symbols and Hierarchies: Essays in the Classical States of Southeast Asia, 9-44. New Haven, CT.

Christie, J. 1990. “The Sanskrit Inscription Recently Discovered in Kedah, Malaysia.” Modern Quaternary Research in Southeast Asia 11: 39-54.

Coe, M. 1961. “Social Typology and the Tropical Forest Civilizations.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 4, no. 1: 65-85.

Coedes, G. 1918. “Le Royaume de Qrivijaya.” Bulletin de l’Ecole Frangaise d’Extreme-Orient 18, no. 6: 1-36.

Coedes, G. 1930. “Les Inscriptions Malaises de Qrivijaya.” Bulletin de l’Ecole Frangaise d’Extreme- Orient 30: 29-80.

Coedes, G. 1968. The Indianized States of Southeast Asia. Honolulu.

Coedes, G. 1992. “The Kingdom of Sriwijaya.” In G. Coedes and L.-C. Damais, eds., Sriwijaya: History, Religion and Language of an Early Malay Polity, 3-92. Kuala Lumpur.

Darby, H.C. 1932. “The Medieval Sea-State.” Scottish Geographical Magazine 48, no. 3: 136-149.

Day, A. 1983. “Islam and Literature in South-East Asia.” In M. B. Hooker, ed., Islam in South-East Asia, 130-159. Leiden.

De Casparis, J. G. 1956. Prasasti Indonesia II. Bandung.

Drennan, R.D. 1984. “Long-Distance Transport Costs in Pre-Hispanic America.” American Anthropologist 86, no. 1: 105-112.

Dupoizat, M.-F. 2003. “Chinese Ceramics.” In C. Guillot, ed., Barus, Vol. II. Paris.

Eka A. P. T 1992. Foreign Ceramics from the Site at the Sultan Mahmud Badaruddin Museum: An Analysis of the Results of the 1989-1990 Excavations. MA thesis, Archaeology Department, Universitas Indonesia.

Ferrand, G. 1922. “L’empire Sumatranais de Qrivijaya.” Journal Asiatique Serie 11, tome XX (Juillet-Septembre): 1-246.

Flecker, M. 2000. “A Ninth-Century AD Arab or Indian Shipwreck in Indonesian Waters.” The International Journal ofNautical Archaeology 29, no. 2: 199-217.

Fox, E. W 1971. History in Geographic Perspective. New York.

Goh, G. Y. 2014. The Wheel-Turner and His House. DeKalb.

Groeneveldt, W.P. 1960. Historical Notes on Indonesia and Malaya Compiledfrom Chinese Sources. Jakarta.

Guillot, C., ed. 1998. Histoire de Barus: Le Site de Lobu Tua. I. Etudes etDocuments. Paris.

Guillot, C., ed. 2003. Histoire de Barus II. Paris.

Hasan, M. A. 1979. “Catatan Tentang Penelitian Beberapa Situs ‘Masa’ Sriwijaya.” In S. Suleiman, R. Mulia, R. P. Soejono, S. Satari, and H. M. Ambary, eds., Pra Seminar Penelitian Sriwijaya, 7-17. Jakarta.

Hill, A. H., ed. 1960. “Hikayat Raja-Raja Pasai.” Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 33, no. 2: 1-215.

Hirth, F., and W W Rockhill 1911. Chau Ju-kua: His Work on the Chinese and Arab Trade in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, entitled Chu-fan-chi. St. Petersburg.

De Josselin de Jong, P. E. 1965. “The Dynastic Myth of Negeri Sembilan.” Bijdragen Koninklijk Instituut 131, no. 2-3:276-308.

Kamaruzaman A. R. 1985. “Summary: The Candis ofBujang Valley and an Insight into Its Chronology” Report of the Intra-ASEAN Archaeological Excavation and Conservation Project, Bujang Valley, Kedah, Malaysia, 4-27 October 1985, AppendixM: 223-225.

Karashima, N., and Y. Subbarayalu 2009. “Ancient and Medieval Tamil and Sanskrit Inscriptions Relating to Southeast Asia and China.” In H. Kulke, K. Kesavapany, and Vijay Sakhuja, eds., Nagapattinam to Suvarnadwipa. Reflections on the Chola Naval Expeditions to Southeast Asia, 271-291. Singapore.

Kulke, H. 1993. “‘Kadatuan Srivijaya’-Empire or Kraton of Srivijaya? A Reassessment of the Epigraphical Evidence.” Bulletin de l’Ecole Frangaise d’Extreme Orient 80:159-180.

Lamb, A. 1961. “Miscellaneous Papers on Early Hindu and Buddhist Settlement in Northern Malaya and Southern Thailand.” Federation Museums Journal, n.s., 6:1-90.

Latham, R. 1958. The Travels of Marco Polo. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Leeds, A. 1961. “The Port-of-Trade in Pre-European India as an Ecological and Evolutionary Type.”

In V E. Garfield, ed., Symposium: Patterns of Land Utilization and Other Papers, 26-48. Seattle. Maisels, C. 2010. The Archaeology of Politics and Power. Oxford and Oakville. Majumdar, R. C. 1986. Suvarnadvipa. Delhi.

Manguin, P.-Y. 1987. “Palembang et Sriwijaya: Anciennes Hypothèses, Recherches Nouvelles.” Bulletin de l’Ecole Franfaise d’Extreme Orient 76: 337-402.

Manguin, P.-Y. 1992. “Excavations in South Sumatra, 1988-1990: New Evidence for Sriwijayan Sites.” In I. C. Glover, ed., Southeast Asian Archaeology 1990: Proceedings of the Third Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists, 63-73. Hull.

Manguin, P.-Y. 1993. “Palembang and Sriwijaya: An Early Malay Harbour-City Rediscovered.” Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 66, no. 1: 23-46.

Manguin, P.-Y. 2000. “Welcome to Bumi Sriwijaya; or the Building of a Provincial Identity in Contemporary Indonesia.” In F. Cayrac- Blanchard, S. Dovert, and F. Durand, eds., Indonèsie: Un demi-siècle de construction nationale, 199-214. Paris and Montreal.

Mann, M. 1986. The Sources of Social Power, 2 vols. Cambridge.

Marsis, S. 1992. Laporan Survai Pendataan Arkeologi DAS Batang Hari dan Ekskavasi Candi Sungai Langsat. [Batusangkar]: Suaka Peninggalan Sejarah dan Purbakala Wilayah Provinsi Sumatera Barat dan Riau. Typescript.

Miksic, J. N. 1984. “A Comparison between Some Long-Distance Trading Institutions of the Malacca Straits Area and of the Western Pacific.” In D. T. Bayard, ed., Southeast Asian Archaeology at the XVPacific Science Congress, 235-253. Dunedin.

Miksic, J. N. 1988. “Introduction.” In F. M. Schnitger, Forgotten Kingdoms of Sumatra. Kuala Lumpur.

Miksic, J. N. 1989. “Urbanization and Social Change: The Case of Sumatra.” Archipet 37: 1-29.

Miksic, J. N. 1991. “Settlement Patterns and Sub-regions in Southeast Asian History.” Review of Indonesian and Malayan Affairs 31, no. 1: 86-144.

Miksic, J. N. 2000. “Heterogenetic Cities in Premodern Southeast Asia.” World Archaeology 32, no. 1: 106-121.

Miksic, J. N. 2004. “Fourteenth-Century Singapore: A Port of Trade.” In John N. Miksic and Cheryl- Ann Low Mei Gek, eds., Early Singapore 1300s-1819: Evidence in Maps, Text and Artefacts, 41­54. Singapore.

Miksic, J. N. 2013. Singapore and the Silk Road of the Sea. Singapore.

Naerssen, F. H. van, and R. C. de Iongh. 1977. The Economic and Administrative History of Early Indonesia. Handbuch der Orientalistik, Siebenter Band. Leiden.

Nik Hassan Shuhaimi N. A. R. 1980. “Sejarah penyelidikan arkeologi di Kedah dan Seberang Prai.” In Lembah Bujang, 18-21. Kuala Lumpur.

Nik Hassan Shuhaimi N. A. R. 1984. Art, Archaeology and the Early Kingdoms in the Malay Peninsula and Sumatra: c. 400-1400 A.D. PhD diss., School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

Nik Hassan Shuhaimi N. A. R. 1985. Country Report on Past and On-Going Research in Malaysia on Srivijaya after 1979. Appendix 7L, Final Report, Consultative Workshop on Archaeological and Environmental Studies on Srivijaya, September 1985: 323-332.

Nik Hassan Shuhaimi b. N. A. R., and O. bin Mohd Yatim. 1979. Country Report on Past or On­Going Research in Malaysia on Srivijaya, Appendix 3b, Final Report, SPAFA Workshop on Research on Srivijaya. Jakarta.

Pelliot, P. 1904. “Deux itineraires de Chine en Inde à la fin du VIIIe siècle.” Bulletin de l’Ecole Franfaise d’Extrème-Orient 4:131-413.

Perret, D., and H. Surachman, eds. 2009. Histoire de Barus III. Regards sur uneplace marchande de l’ocèan Indien (XIIe-milieu du XVIIe s.). Paris.

Polanyi, K. C., M. Arensberg, and H. W Pearson, eds. 1957. Trade and Market in the Early Empires. New York.

Pollock, S. 1996. “The Sanskrit Cosmopolis, 300-1300: Transculturation, Vernacularization, and the Question of Ideology.” In J. E. M. Houben, ed., History and Status of Sanskrit: Contributions to the History of the Sanskrit Language, 197-247. Leiden, New York, and Koln.

Rathje, W L. 1972. “Praise the Gods and Pass the Metates: A Hypothesis of the Development of Lowland Rainforest Civilizations in Mesoamerica.” In M. Leone, ed., Contemporary Archaeology, 365-392. Carbondale, IL.

Robson, S., ed. 1995. Desawarnana (Nagarakrtagama) by Mpu Pranca. Leiden.

Rockhill, WW 1914. “Notes on the Relations and Trade of China with the Eastern Archipelago and the Coast ofthe Indian Ocean During the Fourteenth Century.” ToungPao 15: Part 1, 419­447; Part 2, 61-159, 236-271, 374-392, 435-467, 604-626.

Roo de la Faille, P. de. 1929. Uit den Palembangschen Sultanstijd. Feestbundel Uitgegaven door het Koninklijk Botaviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen bij Gelegenheid von Zijn 150 Jarig Bestaan, 1778-1928, Vol. 2. Weltevreden.

Salmon, C. 2003. “A Tentative Interpretation of the Chinese Inscription (1231) Engraved on a Bronze Gong Recovered in Muara Jambi (Central Sumatra).” Archipel 66: 91-112.

Sastri, K. A. N. 1949. History of Sri Vijaya. Madras.

Sevenhoven, J. L. van. 1825. “Beschrijving van het Hoofdplaats Palembang.” Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap 9: 41-126.

Soekmono, R. 1954. “Kisah Perdjalanan ke Sumatra Selatan dan Djambi.” Amerta 3:1-50.

Stephan, N. 1998. “Le camphre dans les sources arabes et persanes. Production et usages.” In C. Guillot, Histoire de Barus: Le Site de Lobu Tua. I. Etudes et Documents, 225-241. Paris.

Subbarayalu, Y. 1998. “The Tamil Merchant-Guild Inscription at Barus: A Rediscovery.” In C. Guillot, ed., Histoire de Barus: Le Site de Lobu Tua. I. Etudes etDocuments, 25-33. Paris.

Takakusu, J., ed. 1896. A Record of the Buddhist Religion as Practised in India and the Malay Archipelago (AD 671-695) by I- Tsing. Oxford: Clarendon.

Treloar, F. E. 1968. “Chemical Analysis of Some Metal Objects from Candi Bukit Batu Pahat, Kedah: Suggested Origin and Date.” Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 41, no. 1:193-198.

Vaas, K. F., M. S., and G. Wiraatrnadja. 1953. “On the Ecology and Fisheries of Some Inland Waters along the Rivers Ogan and Komering in South-East Sumatra.” Balai Penjelidikan Perikanan Darat, Pemberitaan 3 (May): 1-32.

Vickery, M. 1998. Society, Economics, and Politics in Pre-Angkor Cambodia: The 7th-8th Centuries. Tokyo. Wallace, A. R. 1869. The Malay Archipelago. London.

Westenenk, L.C. 1923. “Boekit Segoentang en Goenoeng Mahameroe uit de Sedjarah Melajoe.” Tijdschrift voor Indische taal-, land- en volkenkunde uitgegeven door het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen 63, no. 1: 212-226.

Wheatley, P. 1961. The Golden Khersonese. Kuala Lumpur.

Wolters, O. W 1958. “Tambralinga.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 21: 587-607.

Wolters, O. W 1966. “A Note on the Capital of Srivijaya during the Eleventh Century.” Artibus Asiae I: 225-239.

Wolters, O. W 1967. Early Indonesian Commerce: A Study ofthe Origins of Srivijaya. Ithaca.

Wolters, O. W 1970. The Fall of Srivijaya in Malay History. Ithaca, NY, and London.

Wolters, O. W 1975. “Landfall on the Palembang Coast in Medieval Times.” Indonesia 20: 1-57.

Wolters, O. W 1979. “Studying Srivijaya.” Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 52, no. 2: 1-32.

Wolters, O. W 1983. “A Few and Miscellaneous Bi-chi Jottings on Early Indonesia.” Indonesia 36: 49-65.

Wolters, O. W 1986. “Restudying Some Chinese Writings on Sriwijaya.” Indonesia 42:1-41.

Wolters, O. W 1999. History, Culture, and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives. Singapore.

Wolters, O. W 2002. “Tambralinga.” In Vladimir Braginsky, ed., Classical Civilisations of Southeast Asia, 84-104. London, New York.

Woodward, H. 2004. “Esoteric Buddhism in Southeast Asia in the Light of Recent Scholarship.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 35, no. 2: 329-354.