Indonesia and the Malay World

Honorary Editor

Dr Nigel PhHlips, SOnS, Uni"""'y if London, UK

Editorial Board

Professor Peter Austin, SOliS, University oj London. UK Professor Anne Booth, SOAS, VOl"ersHJ of Landon. UK Professor Vladimir B):':).ginsky. SOAS. Unil"ersjry ~Lcn.don. UK Professor Jan Brown, SOtlS, UniVtrsi9' tfLondon. UK

Helen Cordell. SOAS, Unl~·cmlJ' 1Lond{m. UK

Dr Annabel Teh Gallop, BWi,h Libra,)', UK

Dr Angela Hobart; Goldsmtth's College, Unh"ersto/ 1LanJvn, UK Dr Russell Jones I SOilS, UmVusily if London. UK

Dr Fiona Kcrloguc. HornimGn .J-(ulcum, Lom/on, UK

Pauline. Khng ~ SOAS, Universi:y of London, UK

Professor Ulrich Kratz, SOAS, Uniw,i\y ifLo";on, UK Nicholas Milrtland, SOliS, UniVujjo/ if London. UK

Dr Elizabeth Moore, SOAS, Unil'<r'i'l if Land.n, UK

Dr Ben Murtagh, SOnS, Unimsily if London, UK

Professor john Sidel, London School oj Economtcs- and Pclitical Sdclll;e, UK

International Advisory Board

Dr Timothy Bch:rcnd1 Univcr,Siry of Auckland, Nell' Z~aJand; Dr Ian Caldwell, Unj;·e.rsilJ if Leeds. UK; Dr Henri Cham_bcrt-Loir, Ecole jranfaiSt d'ExtrcJnt;·OrIeIlt. Pal'jl, Fran(e; Dr Helen Crccsc, Unh'ersil)' .if Qyccil.~-l{lfla, Australia,' Dr Arndt Graf-,. Un-h'ersity of Hambura. G'elmany; Dr Jeffrey Hadler, Uni-;rt(sflj if Ca]!fomi{]~ B~fkdcy, USA; Dr Uti Kozok, Unh'cjSj~ of l.Jan'a~·~J USA; Dr Ycvgeni.il Kukushkina, A-t~,ow S!afo!:

Un~l'er$ity, Russian F.:dc1{J[jan.; Dr Lisbeth Littrup, Uniw!rJiJy if Copenh{Jsm. Denmark; Dr 'Villem van dcr Mo]cn, University l' Loden, The NClherlands; Dr Ian Proudfoot, Ausrralian Nadona1 Unir~rsilyJ Canberra, Au.!'tlail-a; Dr J~n van dec Puttcn, NaurmJl Unii'UJUy if SjnSQPorc, Singapolt-; Dr Hadijab Rahmat, Nan)'c1l8 Techno}oSicci Uni'l~rsiry. Sin8ap(;r~; Professor s. Faizah Soenoto Rival, IsliWtO Unfl'cnj[uric Orj~n!.a!t: Ji Napoli, Ita,,; Professor Siti Hawa Salleh, A/aiu.Y.tian National Univ~rstEJ' AtaJapia,' Dr Ampuan Haji Brahim bin Ampua.n Hj Tcngah, UIlh'erri1:J oj Brunei D.artlJmlam, Bnmej Darussalam; Dr C. W. W3.tson, UIlIi'utio/ if K::n[ ilL Canu1bury, UK; Dr I. Kuntara Wiryamartana, Sanata Dharma Unir':lsilj. lndoncsia

The purpose of this journal is to publish articles On the hmgu:Jgc-s, literatures, art, archaeology, history, geographYI religions, and anthropology of Indonesia and the Mah.y world.

Where an article or item in this journal bears the name or, or is a ttributable to. an author, the views expressed are those of the: writer and do not necessarily reflect those or the: Editoria) Board of lndonesia and !he MaJrJY World.

All editorial ccrruuunlcations should be addressed to the Editorial Board at the School of Orienta! and African Studies, University of London, Thomhaugh Street, Russell Square, London \VCl H OXG. Articles, notes, and short communications should be submitted in typescript or on disk.

=Ncte to Authors. Please make sure your contact address information is clearly visible on the outside of all packages you arc- sending (0 Editors.

Business correspondcuce, including orders and remittances relating to subscriptions, back numbers and sample copies, should be addressed to rne.publishcr: Routledge Publishing, Taylor & Francls , Customer Service.'! Department, Inform. UK Ltd, She.pen Place, Colchester, Essex C03 3LP, UK. Tel; +44 (0)20 7017 5544; Fax: +44 (0) fO 70] 75] 98,

Advertising

USA/Can.do: The Advertising Manager, PCG, 875 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 81, C.mbridge, MA 02139, USA, Tel: +! 6174976514; Fax; +1 617 3546875.

EU/Rest of World; The Advertising M,o'ger, Taylor & Francis, 4- Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire OX14 '~RN, UK. Tel: +44 (0)1235 828600; Pax: +44 (0) 1235829000,

lndontsia and rflt Malay World is subject to ;l peer review process. The journal is published three times iii yea.r (March, July and November) by Routledge Publishing, Taylor & Francis, 4- Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfcrdshirc OX14 4RN, UK, Tel: +44 (0)]235 828600; Fax: +44 (0)1235 829000. The se three issues constitute one volume. An annual volume: contC:~ts and author index is bound ~n the last Issue of each volume.

ISSN 1363·98 11

© 2006 Editors, 1ndM",;a and th. MaJa)' World

Contents

VOLUME 34

NUMBER9B-

MARCH 2006

Non-Javanese, not yet Javanese, and un-Javanese: Encounters and fissures in a civilisation,

Papers from an international symposium to commemorate the promulgation of the Sukabumi Inscription dated 25 March 804, Department of Languages and Cultures of Southeast Asia and Oceania, Leiden University, 23-25 March 2004

Edited by Jan van den Veerdonk and George Quinn

Articles

Introduction

Roy E. J erdaan

Why the Sallendras were not a Javanese dynasty

Ann Kumar

Salling up the map: a re-examination of constructs of Javaneseness in the light of new evidence

Ayu Sutarto

Becoming a true Javanese: a Javanese view of attempts at Javanisation

Veronique Degroot

The archaeological remains of Ratu Boko: from Sri Lankan Buddhism to Hinduism

Clara Brakel-Panenhurzen

Jaka Tarub, a Javanese culture hero?

Sergey I<ullanda

Nushanlara or Java?: the acquisition of the name

Madelo n Djaj adin i n!lrat-" i euwenhu is

Mangkunegoro V\l and Rabindranath Tagore: a brief meeting of like minds

Willem van der Molen

A land overflowing with milk and honey: Sastradarma's

Description of Batavia, 1867-1869 r

Notes on contributors

~.

Cover illustration; Seal of the former S\illan Abdul Jalil Saifuddin of Siak, Sumatra, dated 1225 (AD 1810/11), 28 x 2Bmm, British Library, MSS. Eur, D 742/1, j, 112.

3

23

39

55

75

91

'99

109

117

INTRODUCTION

An international symposium on the theme, Non-javanese, nat yet [avanese, and un-javancse: Encounters and fissures in a civilisation was held to commemorate, among other reasons, the promulgation of the Sukabumi Inscription dated 25 March 804, exactly 1,200 years before the closing date of the symposium. The Sukabumi Inscription is the oldest known text in the Javanese language.

Organised by the Department of Languages and Cultures of Southeast Asia and Oceania, Lciden University, the symposium was held at the university from 23 to 25 March 2004.

,

The symposium's theme took as its starting point the views the Javanese have of themselves as a people. A few words of Javanese might elucidate these views. Not much imagination is needed to recognise the meaning 'Java' in [awa, Besides being a toponym, jQlva is also an adjective, 'Javanese'. Dumng means 'not yet'. Dumng jalVa, a well-known phrase, can therefore be translated 'not yet Javanese' - implying 'mentally immature' .

Alongside durung [awa there are other expressions in Javanese suggesting that the wordjawa includes a place name, an ethnicity, and a cultural ideal. The verb njawani means 'to make a Javanese impression'. It signifies ways of doing things, especially with reference to someone who does not appear to be Javanese but nonetheless knows how to behave in an ideally Javanese way. It contrasts with ora njawani 'un-Javanese'. Ora naert; [awane means literally 'to not understand the Javanese of it' , or more idiomatically, 'not get it'. This use of the ~ord jawo is of antiquity. In an Old Javanese inscription of 1140 CE, for example, mention is made of the category of persons called tanjmva, 'non-Javanese', in the same breath as 'slaves'. Thoughjawa may differ from non-javanese, not yet Javanese, or un-javanese, it is not necessarily better; witness terms like Bula [awa ('Javanese sugar', i.e, a kind of coarse sugar made from coconut or areca palm nectar) and mati jawa (said of a cowardly rooster that has met an ingloriOUS end in a cockfight, bringing shame upon its owner).

In this small selection of words and expressions we find indications of a selfassured culture - a civilisation - which is in contact with other cultures and has been for many centuries, and which, when necessary, distinguishes itself from them in a positive or negative sense. The contact and the self-assurance are hardly remarkable when one takes into account that Java is fertile, lies on important trade routes, and has produced a language that is today spoken by 80 million people, most notably in Indonesia, Surinam and the Netherlands. The Javanese language is also, or has also been in use as a literary and religiOUS medium outside the Javanese-speaking part of Indonesia, especially as the vehicle for both HinduBuddhism and Islam. It is a language with an impressive writing tradition that goes back to the above-mentioned inscription of 25 March 804.

Indonesia and the Malay World Vol. 34, No. 98 March 2006, pp. 1-2

n Routledge ISSN 1363·9811 pr;nlfJSSN 1469·8382 online © 2006 Editors, Indonesia and the Ma/ay Worfd

l'i. 1_."""',........ http://www.tandf.co.uk/Journals 001: 10.1080/1363981C600650281

Roy E. Jordaan

2 INDONESIA AND THE MALAY WORLD

Theme

The symposium was devoted to the question of how the relations between Javanese and other cultures (non-Javanese, not yet Javanese, un-Javanese etc.) have developed in the course of history and how they vary synchronically. On the one hand this question encompasses what happens or has happened during meetings between different cultural traditions: selective adoption, synthesis, influence, rejection, adaptation, interpretation, transformation. On the other hand the question also includes cultural differentiation within what is Javanese, and even intentional separatism. This lastmentioned phenomenon is occurring at the moment in Indonesia; certain regional varieties of Javanese culture and language no longer commonly present themselves as Javanese but rather as OSing, Cirebcnese, etc. So, in brief, the symposium was devoted to the terrains of contact, fissure and separation between Javanese and a Javanese 'other'.

During the three days of the symposium, 22 papers were presented by scholars of different disciplines from Indonesia, Australia, the United States of America, England, Russia and the Netherlands. Eight articles drawn from the symposium were prepared for this special issue of Indonesia and the Malay World.

Dr Jan van den Veerdonk Lecturer in Javanese and Indonesian Literature Department of Languages and Cultures of Southeast Asia and Oceania Leiden University

Dr George Quinn Head, Southeast Asia Centre College of Asia and the Pacific Australian National University

WHY THE SAILENDRAS WERE NOT A JAVANESE DYNASTY

Archaeolooists and art historians aenerally aaree that most if the 8th- to 9th-century Buddhis~ temples in central Java were constructed by the rulers who claimed to belona to the Sailendra dynaso/. But the unsolved question pro/ina on the minds if scholars Jor marlY decades nOli' is the oriains if this dynasty. f?ralYina on a variety if arauments this study contends that the present popularity if the Sailendra o/nasty's Javanese oriain is il1Jounded, and ura.s a resumption if research into its Joreian oriains, whether in India, Sri Lanka or mainland Southeast Asia.

Genealogical, historical, and political considerations

Arab traders sailing through Southeast Asian waters during the 8th and 9th centuries (CE) reported the existence of a powerful kingdom that held sway over the islands of the Malaysian archipelago and occasionally sent off punitive expeditions against countries in mainland Southeast Asia. In Arab sources, this paramount kingdom was known by the name of Zdbaa (also transcribed as Zdba] or Zabedj), and its rulers by their title of maharaja.

Writing in 1845, and basing himself on some of these Arab reports, J.T.

Reinaud thought Zabed] to be centred in the island of Java and to have ruled over various minor kingdoms in Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula (see Reinaud 1845, I: Ixxiii-lxxv). I This representation was reversed when G. Coedes, in his classic article Le Royaume de (.:rivijaya (1918)" had ZabaB equated with Srlwijaya at Palembang, identifying its rulers with the Sailendras who took special pride in carrying the maharaja title. Endorsing Coedes's views, J. Ph. Vogel (1919) and N.J. Krom (1919) independently of each other put forward the idea that 5riwijaya had extended its hegemony over Java, basing their theories on the Kalasan inscription of 778 and the Kelurak inscription of 782. These texts mention the foundation in central Java of Buddhist temples on behalf of Sailendra rulers. In

'o.w. Walt;rs (1979: I, n.3) suggests that Reinaud explicitly mentioned the kingdom of Sarbaza, i.e, Sriwijaya, but this is not the case, at least not in the pages specified by Wolters. However, since Reinaud had Zab.dj comprising the islands of Sumatra and Java, it would of necessity have included Sriwijaya. Indeed, more recent studies of the Arab reports confirm that some authors had Sribuza (Sriwijaya) and Kald'h(-b4rj (Kedah) listed 311long the vassal kingdoms of the maharaja of Zaban (see, for instance, Tibbetts 1979: 33, 107, Ill).

n Routledge 1~~"F'~OtP.ip

Indonesia and the Malay World Vol. 34, No. 98 March 200fj, pp. 3-22

ISSN 1363·9811 printjlSSN 1469·8382 online © 2006 Editors. Indonesia and the Malay World http://www.tandf.co.ukljournals DOl: 10.1000/13639810000650711

4 INDONESIA AND THE MALAY WORLD

support of his theory, Vogel ~eferred to the Kota Kapur inscription of 686 mentioning a punitive expe~ition by Srrwijayan forces against Java, 'the land which had not yet submitted to Srtwijaya", which appeared consonant with other inscriptional information on the kingdom's expansion in Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula. Krom had the same expedition against Java linked with the report in Chinese annals about the transfer of the Javanese capital 'to the East', somewhere in the period 742-775.

However, as a consequence of the discovery, in 1921, of the Nslanda inscription (Shastri 1924), and following a spurious Dutch debate over the question of whether there had been a 'Sumatran period in Javanese history' (Krom 1919), or the opposite, namely a 'Javanese period in Sumatran history' (Stutterheim 1929), it became clear that the connection between Srrwijaya and the Sailendras was not as close as was assumed. Taking the Sailendras as scions of a northeastern Indian dynasty, R.C. Majumdar (1933) adduced inscriptional evidence to show that they had ruled over Java and over Sumatra, implying that there had been a Sailendra period in both. He also observed that the presence of the Sailendras in Sumatra could not be attested

with certainty before the 11th century. ,

W~th Coedes (1934) conceding to their separation from Srrwijaya, the position of the Sailendras in central Java became more puzzling than ever, which resulted in a welter of theories on their possible origins, ranging from various parts of India, to Cambodia, and central Java itself. This mystery has yet to be solved, although the present popularity of the theory of their Javanese origin could suggest otherwise.

It is extremely difficult to follow the erratic course of the debate, not only because of the rapid turnover of different theories but also because of the fact that almost all of the leading scholars in the field (Coedes, Stutterheim, Bosch, and De Casparis) had at one point or another revised their interpretations of the ever scarce and ambiguous inscriptional data, inducing them to switch from one theoretical position to another, sometimes even reverting to an earlier point of view (as did Bosch, for instanc,;, with respect to the interpretation of the Kalasan inscription, and the origin of the Sailendra dynasty). It is not surprising, therefore, to find modern authors, apparently not familiar with all the 'ins and outs' of the protracted debate, inadvertently putting forward ideas that have long since been rejected (e.g_ Snellgrove 2000; Hanafiah 2002; Totton 2003). Another complicating factor is that the debate has occasionally been infected by nationalistic sentiments and intellectual (selfj-censorship. Well-known is the emotional outburst of Poerbatjaraka that the theory about the subordinated role of the Javanese ruler Rakai Panangkaran in the construction of the Tara temple at Kalasan reflects a common prejudice about the compliant nature of the Javanese people.2 Another renowned Old Java hand, Soekmono, was led into the nonsensical statement that the builders of the HinduBuddhist temples in Java must have been Javanese because modern Indonesian visitors to these monuments feel an affinity witf them.3 Bambang Surnadio, for his part, while being open to the possibility that the Sailendras were of Sumatran origin, apparently

2'Mijn sentiment in dit gcval niet kunnende bedwingen roep ik uit: wat een belediging!'t Is alsof de javaan ten allen tijde tot niets anders in staat is geweest dan Om ge- "prmta" d te worden door een vreemde overhecrscr-' (Poerbatjaraka 1958: 262).

WHY THE SAILENDRAS WERE NOT A JAVANESE DYNASTY 5

found it more important that their Indonesian ancestry suits the writing of the National History of Indonesia.4 The fact that some of his compatriots were not yet convinced of their Indonesian origin, prompted the epigrapher Boechari to accuse his dissident colleagues of 'enchantment' with western theories.5 These examples show how sensitively Javanese intellectuals can react to what they perceive as an affront to their national pride and self-esteem. 6

In several publications I have argued that the current theory of the Javanese origin of the Sailendras is ill-founded, and that there is enough information, however indirect and circumstantial it still may appear, to question the Javanese or other 'Indonesian' origin (whatever is meant by this anachronistic designation). The strongest objection that can be levelled against their Javanese o~igin is that no one has as yet succeeded in identifying one of the extant names of Sailendra kings with any of the Javanese rulers listed in the Mantyasih I and Wanua Tengah III inscriptions. This finding confirms an early remark by F.D.K. Bosch (1952a: 114) that the re-interpretation of the Kalasan inscription by F.H. van Naerssen (1947), which argued for the involvement of two kings in the construction of the Tara temple, has much to commend itself as it relieves us from the impossible task of identifying the rulers from both series.

The discovery, in 1983, of the list of kings in the Wanua Tengah III inscription has opened a new epoch in the archaeology and art history of central Java, because it contains the names of all the central Javanese kings ruling in the period between the Sth-I Oth centuries, leaving no breaks and interruptions unaccounted for. In view of the 'complete' character of the enumeration, the proponents of the Single-dynasty hypothesis, who claim that the Sailendras were a nativ~ Javanese royal family, should now be held capable of identifying the names of Sailendra maharajas with rulers listed in the Wanua Tengah III inscription. This is precisely what Boechari (1989, 1990), Kusen (1988, 1994), Jan Wisseman Christie (2001), and Jeff.ey Sundberg (2003) claim to do. However, scrutiny of their work has revealed various invalidating flaws in their historical analysis, thereby underscoring - albeit

'Noteworthy is Soekmono's elaboration on the assumption 'that the modern Indonesians are directly descended from the builders of the candi, and are therefore heirs to these remains of the noble works of their ancestors. Such a conclusion is hard to disagree with: tbe candi still occupy a special place in the hearts of the Indonesian people. Their value is difficult to explicate, for it is not a rational, nonnative quality but an emotional and spiritual one, and Can only be truly felt by the heirs themselves' (1993: 51).

4Pollowing Boccharl ' s analysis of the Sojomerto inscription. Sumadio claims that it can~ot be doubted that the Selendra dignitary mentioned therein is an Indonesianisation of the name Sail endra. He continues: 'Persoalannya sekarang yalah apakah Dapunta Selendra itu asli berasal dari Jawa atau Sumatra, kemudian adanya kenyaraan bahwa yang penting penulisan Sejarah Nasional Indonesia, cukuplah untuk membuktikan bahwa ia adalah penduduk asli Indonesia, bukan pelarian atau perebut kekuasan dari luar negri' (Sumadio 1975: 81, n.28).

s'Teod tent.ng adanya dua dinasti dilancarkan oleh ahli-.hli Barat ( ••• ] scpcrti juga dalam bid.ngbidang lain para ilmuwan kit. masih terperson. oleh teori-teori bangs. asing' (Boechari 1989: 1). 6Personally, I find this reaction easier to understand than the reluctance of some western archaeologiSts and art historians to properly discuss ideas that were introduced into their field of study by relative outsiders (for particulars, see jordaan 2000, 2003b).

6 INDONESIA AND THE MALAY WDRLD

indirectly - the rival theory that the Sailendras were a foreign dynasty (see Jordaan 2003a; Jordaan and Colless 2004-).7

The other reason why I think that the Sailendras were of foreign origin and not a separate dynasty from another part of the country, is that the establishment of their rule in Java was accompanied by a number of exogenous changes. In earlier publications (jordaan 1999a, 1999b), I mentioned the introduction of a new script that in Dutch colonial times was generally known by the name of Pre.Nagari (siddhama. t!ka), the earliest issuance of the silver Sandalwood·Flower coins, bearing legends in the same script, the introduction of the maharaja title and its subsequent adoption by Javanese rulers, the transfer of the Javanese capital 'to the East' (not necessarily to East Java), and the sudden ~Iossoming of Mahayana Buddhist architectural art. In contrast, the departure of the Sailendras from Java was followed by such developments as the fall of Buddhism from royal favour as reflected in the disparaging remarks about Buddhist monks and nuns in the Old Javanese RamiiyaJ).3. as well as the halt to Buddhist temple-building activities, the change from Sanskrit to Old Javanese, the shift from ~i1ver coinage to an indigenous gold currency. In my estimation, the impact of the Sailendras' departure was so great as to be a major factor in the art-historical break that can be discerned in the temple art of Java (see Jordaan 1999b: 235-39, Jordaan 2003b).8

Similar synchronic changes occurred in other parts of the Indo-Malay archipelago, which are analysed in detail in a forthcoming book entitled The Maharajas cif [he Isles (jordaan and Colless, in press). For the present purpose, it may suffice to recall W.F. Stutterheim's (1929) analysis of the curio~s alternations in the pattern of tributary missions to China, with embassies from Srlwijaya being halted in 742 and replaced by missions from Java. However, whereas Stutterheim took this as evidence for a Javanese ~egemony over Sumatra, we are inclined to relate this to the overlordship of the Sailendras in the archipelago. One of the indications is that the missions from Java were not dispatched from She-p'o (which was the old Chinese designation for Java) but from Ho-linn (thought to be a transcription of Walaing, a toponym that is connected with the Ratu Boko plateau, which was the

7Presented at the International Conference on Indonesian Art, in New Delhi, 4-6 March 2003, my paper is due to be published in the proceedings of the conference, but copies can be obtained through the KITLV library in Leiden. The final version of the paper has been updated with a postscript in which I take account of Jeffrey Sundberg's (2003) genealogical identifications in a BKIarticle dealing with a Ratu Boko mantra. In the meantime, an enlarged version of the postscript has been published separately in the Indonesian archaeolOgical journal Berkala ArkeaIDgi (jordaan and Colless 2004).

a Architectural and stylistic changes in temple construction and the plastic arts tend to be more visible and therefore easier to trace than changes in philosophy and literature, the determination of which I must leave to experts in these particular fields. Ultimately, they will have to decide whether my remarks about a possible connection between the traumatic historical event of the eviction of the Sailendras and the comparatively early transfer of literary functions from Sanskrit to Old Javanese (see Braginsky 1993: 16) has any factual basis or nat. The same holds for my more speculative linking of this event with the growing preference of the Javanese for the Mahribharala Over the lIamdja~a, and their apparent uneasiness with the performance of Iakan from the Bharalayuddha (see C.C. Berg 1938: 53).

WHY THE SAllENDRAS WERE NOT A JAVANESE DYNASTY 7

site of a famous Buddhist monastery). In contrast, the decline of Sailendra power led to a resumption of missions from She-p'o, while the eviction of the Sailendra from Java and their settlement in the western part of the archipelago was immediately followed by a resumption of tributary missions from Sumatra, at first hailing from Chan-pc; (jambi), in 853 and 871, and thereafter from SaTl-jo-ch'i. W,; believe that this toponym was the Chinese name for the newly reconstituted Sailendra kingdom, and did not refer to Srrwijaya of old, as is commonly assumed.9 Henceforth, Java and Sumatra (the latter being ruled by scions of the Sailendra dynasty) were vying with each other for recognition by the Chinese court as the pre-eminent kingdom in the region. In the Indo-Malay archipelago itself their formerly mutually beneficial political and economic relationship gave way to hostilities and war.

Socio-cultural considerations

As a detailed discussion of the historical evidence regarding the political alliance between Java and Sumatra under the aegis of the Sailendra dynasty goes beyond the scope of this paper, I will now focus on arguments more specifically related to Javanese culture ~d society. Hopefully, these considerations will add credence to

my thesis that the Sailendras were a foreign dynasty. ,

First let me repeat the remark that both before and after the Sailendras the Javanese must have been familiar with the presence of 'stranger-kings', if we can rely on the fact that the Javanese have special terms for such persons, namely raj a sabraTl8 (kings from overseas) and kalona (a wandering adventurer of noble birth from abroad).lo Examples of stranger-kings in Java include the legendary Aji Saka and representatives of the voe. In some Javanese mythological texts, such as the Sera! Kanda [Book of Stories], the Dutch East India Company is classed as a foreign dynasty which managed to gain ascendency in Java by capturing a sick Javanese princess; a story which is strongly reminiscent of the mythical marriage of successive Javanese sovereigns with 'king-maker' Nyai Loro Kidul alias Ratu Kidul, who is still venerated by numerous present-day Javanese as the goddess of the Southern Ocean. I will return to this shortly.

91n Arab reports we can detect a similar change in nomenclature, in which the names of Jriba and Zabaa at first stood for the island of Java (as in the earliest reports by Ibn Kurdadbhih and Abu laid), but following the move of the Sailendras they came to represent Sumatra and possibly also the Malay Peninsula. It must be admitted, however, that the Arab reports are confusing, largely because of the indirect and incomplete transmission of the information which prevented Arab writers in the Middle East from keeping pace with the important political changes occurring in the 9th and 10th centuries (for further details, see Jordaan and Colless, in press).

IOLong ago, Berg (1929: 12) made the same observation, but found the claims of an Indian ancestry by some East Javanese rulers unacceptable in their present form and without further evidence. Interestingly, Dr David Henley of the Royal Netherland. Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies (KITL V) in Lciden is presently organising an international workshop specifically devoted to the position of stranger-kings, also in Indonesian history.

-'

8 INDONESIA AND THE MALAY WORLD

In the same article where I mentioned these (and other Indonesian) examples, I have argued extensively that the 'weak' version of the so-called kptriJa theory, which proceeds from the assumption of a small group of migrants, namely a ruler and his retinue, instead of mass colonisation (as in the 'strong' version of the theory), was prematurely rejected. I showed that Bosch' alternative theory about the role of native pilgrims or 'clerics' in the development of Hindu-javanese architecture is unsatisfactory in several respects. The most important shortcoming, in my opinion, is that it fails to explain how the Javanese pilgrims, to whom Bosch had attributed the formidable task of reassembling and unifying the elements from diverse Indian architectural traditions, had as individuals managed to achieve the ~rchitectural and stylistic unity in the Hindu-Buddhist monuments built under the Sailendras, Tellingly, Bosch himself deemed this a nearly unsolvable mystery (1952b: 22, 25). My comment was that by fOCUSing on the individual contribution of pilgrims Bosch's theory incurs a sociological flaw, for:

How could individuals have achieved the alleged unity in Central Javanese architecture, considering their differences in personality, background, and experience abroad? In my opinion, the only unity which an individual pilgrim would have been able to recreate from the materials he had collected in India would have been in the form of a Single temple, or perhaps a few related temples, probably of limited size and complexity. The re-creative activity of a number of pilgrims would have resulted in precisely such a mosaic as Bosch would have expected from ~arious groups of immigrants. The Hindu-Buddhist temples built under the Sailendras, on the other hand, are so close to each other in time and design (from an architectural, stylistic, and religious point of View), that they could only have been the product of a large-scale collective project.

(Jordaan 1999b: 225)

If this unity in Sailendra monumental art is more likely the product 0'£ a large-scale collective project that was initiated and implemented by the foreign Sailendras, we must keep in mind that they had access to Indian architects and specialised craftsmen. 11 Some support for this idea could be derived from the report by J. Crawfurd (1820: 221) that his Javanese informants were convinced that the Buddha images in central Javanese temples actually represented 'foreign priests' (pandita sabrano) who were adherents of Buddhism (aoama Buda). Crawfurd commented on this that 'the bare use of this word [aoama Buda], however, which is out of the question they could invent, and certainly did not borrow from any modern source, may be considered as satisfactory evidence that they were Buddhists' (1820: 221). As a matter of fact, one such foreign priest-architect, hailing from Gau.pdvipa (i.e., Cauda in Bengal), is mentioned by name in the Kelurak inscription from 782 (see Bosch 1928: 29-30). This prompts me to repeat the well-known fact that the

II Needless to say, my disputing the theory of the Sailendras' Javanese origin is not meant to detract from the tremendous and indispensable input which the JaVOUlcse had in bringing about the most gloriOUS period in their history. Simply put, without their active participation Borobudur and Prambanan could not have been built (nor, for that matter, the town-hall of Batavia or Daendels's postal road in the days of the Dutch).

WHY THE SAILENDRAS WERE NOT A JAVANESE DYNASTY 9

term zaman Buda is still widely used as a general designation for the pre-Islamic period in Java. It is quite conceivable, in my opinion, that the term zaman Buda has remained in use as a reference to the 'ancient period' precisely because of the close association between Buddhism and the evicted Sailendras. Quite a number of scholars have pointed to the survival of names and toponyms such as Saiijaya, Serayu, Praga, Mataram, from the Hindu-Buddhist period, as illustrative of how the memory of these long past times has been kept alive.

Concerning the construction of central Javanese temples, and, in particular, the Buddhist structures/monuments, brief reference must be made to the Kalasan inscription (778) which mentions the fact of the compliance of a Javanese ruler, Rakai Panangkaran, with the request of the guru of a Sailendra king (whose name is not recorded) to build the Tara temple at Kalasan, Without going into the philological arguments that led van Naerssen (1947) to his reading of the inscription (see also Bosch 1952a: 113, n.4), but which have been hotly contested by the proponents of the single dynasty thesis, I will confine myself to the question of why the building project would have needed the inv~lvement oftwo rulers in the first place, Van Naerssen observes that as foreigners the Sailendras were not entitled to dispose oflocalland and labour, the necessary assets of great works such as the construction of Candi Kalasan. To acquire these they were dependent on the indulgence of Rakai Panangkaran. Supporting this interpretation is the information provided by the bilingual charter from Karangtengah (Kayumvungan), dating to 824, which also alludes to the co-operation of two parties in the foundation of another Buddhist temple, consisting of the Sailendra king Samaratungga and his daughter Pramodavardhanl, on the one hand, and Rakai Patapan on the other (see de C;asparis 1950: 24-50, 105-9). Scholars who proceed from the assumption that the Sailendras were a native Javanese royal family are generally at a loss to explain Samaratungga's dependence on Rakai Patapan for the donation of the rice-fields for the upkeep of the foundation. For instance, Kusen (1994) speculates th~t Samaratungga was the son of Rakai Panangkaran from his alleged marriage with a Sriwijayan princess. This hypothetical marriage also provides the basis for his supposition that Samaratungga had never ruled in Java, and that this was the reason why his name is not included in the lists of kings in the Mantyasih I and Wanua Tengah III inscriptions. Instead, Samaratungga would have ruled in Sumatra. Kusen finds his theory confirmed in the Kayumvungan inscription, in which Samaratungga is interpreted as a foreigner without rights to land. He might instead have procured the land through the Javanese wife of Rakai Patapan, whom Kusen takes for a Sumatran relative. In my earlier mentioned review of Kusen's work, I have demonstrated that Kusen's theory is flawed by dubious presuppositions. An illustrative example is his decision to rob Samaratungga of his Javanese nationality in spite of his alleged descent from a Javanese king, Rakai Panangkaran, and to make him a foreigner in the land of his forebears without any legal access to the ancestral lands as a consequence of his father's supposed marriage to a Sumatran princess. More seriously, Kusen fails to adduce evidence for Rakai Panangkaran's marriage to this princess, let alone of Samaratungga being the offspring of this union.

An?ther thing that can be brought to bear on the thesis of the non-Javanese origin of the Sailendras is their eviction from Javanese soil. From what I know of the Old Javanese literature, the eviction itself seems difficult to square with what was common in Java in ancient times. In the face of an impending military defeat the

.. -

10 INDONESIA AND THE MALAY WORLD

losing kin~ basically had two options: either to fight to the death or surrender unconditionally. 2 In both cases, all his possessions, including his wives and magical objects, fell to the victor. 13 The latter was free to decide to kill his vanquished opponent, but as often as not left his opponent on his throne (presumably because ofthe existence of marital and kinship ties between various royal families), provided that the vanquished king accepted a subordinated position as vassal. Vassals had to bear witness to their inferior position by paying regular tributary visits to ,the court of the paramount king. Seen from this perspective, the eviction of the Sailendras from the island of Java is rather strange and in need of explanation. This provides yet another reason for me to think that they were foreigners.

On the other hand, some scholars have hinted at the possibility, that the eviction had something to do with religious tensions and conflict: putting the Sailendras, as ,staunch Buddhists, in opposition to the majority of the population who adhered to Saivism. However, while the religious division itself seems undeniable, the derivative explanation is not convincing given that religiOUS differences in ancient Java, in striking contrast to Europe, were far more common and tolerated, with many rulers extending liberal support to proj ects of different denominations. This was the case, for instance, with Rakai Panangkaran, who adhered to Saivism himself but also supported the Buddhist cause. With respect to religiOUS differences, Krom and other early Dutch scholars probably were biased by what was customary in their native country at the time (I. e. the period of VerzuiliIlB), leading them to falsely represent Borobudur and Prambanan as ~ival monuments. My claim is that the construction of Prambanan began when the Sailendras were still in Java and that the building took place with their support, which fits the peaceful co-existence of religions prevailing in ancient Java. If, in spite of all this, Buddhism came to lose its dominant position to Hinduism and its adherents suffer from ridicule (as in the Old Javanese Rfunayal)'l, mentioned above), this should, in my opinion, at least partly be exp!ained from the circumstance that the creed was closely associated with the foreign Sailendras, whose political influence was declining during the first half of the 9th century. Support foy this idea can be found in J.G. de Casparis' (1956: 318, n. 20) interpretation of the Sivagrha stone inscription, dated to 856, where the revival of Hinduism is represented in terms of a national liberation.

11Th ere is a possible third alternative, namely seeking safety by taking flight, but it seems to me that this WaS a way for the common people to escape from oppression rather than for royalty seeking to rebuild their power from scratch elsewhere in Java (not abroad, as did tbe Sailendras). Moreover, whether such a rare ruler on the run would succeed in the attempt would be dependent on the presence of an external party willing to extend its help and protection, as was the case with Amangkurat II who managed to involve the voe in hi. unfortunate war of succession. The fate of two Madurese princes, who in the days of Sultan Agung had fled to Palembang, was less fortunate: they were extradited and subsequently killed at Agung's court. I am indebted to David Henley for bringing Amangkurat's flight to my attention.

13Undoubtedly, the capture of the wives and daughters (hOllanD) was important because of their symbolic connection with the fertility of the realm. The magical objects (sacred daggers, rare stones, etc.), extraordinary animals and persons (including albinos, dwarfs, etc.) were also seen as a source of supernatural power (kesakt'n) of the king. Logically Or rather my tho-logically speaking, the vassal's duty to attend to the court of his overlord (jumuwng) indirectly contributed to the latter's supernatural power (see Berg 1955b: 269, n.74-).

WHY THE SAILENDRAS WERE NOT A JAVANESE DYNASTY

11

, It is interesting to see what other developments took place in Java after the Sailendras' departure from the island. Remarkable as the decline of Buddhism and the historical break in temple architecture and art was, no less remarkable was the disappearance of the name of the dynasty. To the best of my knowled~e, none of their Javanese successors has ever made a reference to the Sailendras. 4 If the Sailendras really were a Javanese royal family, it stands to reason that at least some of the central Javanese kings from the second half of the 9th century in one way or another (directly or indirectly, truthfully or fictitiously) would have tried to legitimise their position by tracing their descent from this illustrious family. In a forthcoming article, Jeffrey Sundberg writes:

It is an enormously difficult question to address how the luster of the name of this extraordinarily radiant family could have di7d out so quickly and so thoroughly after the issuance of the last known Javanese Sailendra inscription by Samaratungga's daughter in 824. How could the kings of the 830's and afterwards have failed to claim participation in the name of this dynasty, even when they built their younger, smaller, simpler temples in th; shadow of the great temples of the Sailendra? If the 'Safijaya' were truly Sailendra all along, where did their family name originate and why did the Javanese throne holders abandon it even while it persisted in Sumatra for at least two centuries?

The 'persistence" or rather the continuation of the dynastic name in Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula is a significant fact which raises a number of questions, even though some can only be ~swered tentatively. For instance, if for the sake of argument we assume that the Sailendras were a Javanese dynasty, why is it that the Javanese people in the period between February 887 and November 894, which is referred to, in the Wanua Tengah III inscription as 'leaderless' (auo/aka), did not invite the Sailendras to return to their land of origin? 1 5 It is well known that for the Javanese a situation of 'Ieaderlessness' is generally put on a par with social and political unrest and lawlessness, often leading them to look for 'str0)1g' persons whom they hope will restore public order. 16 The passing over of the Sailendras is

141n a sense, this also holds for the opposite since we know of no Sailendra ruler who has referred to himself by an indigenous Javanese title such as Taka; or ayah, as is the case with the Javanese mah"rajas listed in the Wanua Tcngah III inscription (cf. van der Meulen n.d.: 21).

ISHowever, Kusen (1988: 16) has found that during this 50-called leaderless period there were at least two rulers issuing inscriptions wherein they referred to themselves as mahar"ja. Kusen infers from this that no ruler was strong enough to hold the position of overlord, and that during this period Mataram seemingly had split into a number of smaller kingdoms.

IGFor a different view, see Anthony Reid (1998). It should be noted, however, that Javanese folktradition attests to the tenacity of this idea of power in, for instance, the popular millenarian expectations of Jay.bayo and the arrival of reru aail, a righteous king (Sartono 1984). Also relevant is Ricklefs' observation, quoted by Reid (1998: 29), that while there were dozens of kings or princes warring with each other throughout the pre-colonial period, many of the Javanese sources still felt there 'ought' to have been one king. It seems likely that this political ideal and the hegemoniC claims of the rulers of Singasari, Majapahit, and the Muslim rulers of Mataram, all find their inspiration in the gloriOUS days of the Sailendrns and their immediate Hindu Mataram successors.

{

12 INDONESIA AND THE MALAY WORLD

the more remarkable given the fact that they had left Java only recently, that is to say within living memory. Conversely, would it not have been 'logical' for the Sailendras to attempt to profit from the power vacuum on their own initiative by presenting themselves as restorers of dharma (Law), just as their Javanese opponents had done in 8561 For those who think this hypothetical scenario far fetched, I must remind them of even more speculative theories about Sailendra interventions during the east Javanese period, such as the destruction of the east Javanese capital (kraton) in 1006, and the presumed connection between the name of either the wife or eldest daughter of King Airlangga, SrI Sanggramavijaya DharmmaprasadottungadewI, with that of the 11 th-century Sailendra king, Sanggramavijayottunggavarman.17

The above brings me to the question of how the Javanese, especially those living abroad, perceive the relationship with their tempat asal, the place of birth or origin. One answer is to see what present-day Javanese migrants in southern Sumatra can teach us about this matter. Regrettably, a quick and admittedly superficial glance at the literature shows that this is a little researched subject. Relying on a recent study on spontaneous migrant settlements in Indonesia (Charras and Pain 1993), it can be inferred that the majority of Javanese spontaneous migrants in southern Sumatra succeed in adapting themselves to their new environment, seemingly without much difficulty. Undoubtedly, this is facilitated by the fact that southern Sumatra had been an immigration area from the early decades of the 20th century onwards. Quoting from this source, it seems that 'the population rose from 2.2 million in 1930, to a combined level close to 20 million today. The most sensational example is provided by the province of Lampung, where [official] transmigrants and their descendants account for a quarter of the population, spontaneous migrants 60%, and native people 15%'. Apparently, the Javanese have a strong tendency to flock together and to create for themselves 'little Javas' abroad. Still, the ties with their tempat asal are never severed, as is for instance borne out by the overcrowded train and bus-loads of Javanese who return to their villages to celebrate Lebaran (Idulfitri) or other important events. Probably, as is the case with the Madurese, many Javanese settlers abroad attempt to maintain some sort of connection with their place of origin, either by their marrying off of (grand)children to cousins or more distant kin (known in Madurese as taapolonq t01<1118, 'gathering or keeping together of the bon,es'), or by remittances and investments, and the like. Nothing is known about the Sailendras with respect to either of these two phenomena. Nevertheless, the earlier mentioned disappearance of their name in Java does suggest a break with Java that is also at odds with what is common among present-day Javanese. On the possibility of their flocking together with other Javanese refugees, there are, as far as I know, no unmistakably Javanese elements (in language and culture) in Sumatra that can be traced to the 9th or 10th century, which could be interpreted as a testimony

17Jordaan and Colless (in press) scrutinise some of these theories, and advance several new arguments in support of the presumed connection. Nevertheless, further research is needed to confirm the kinship relation between Sanggramawijay. and the Sailendra king Sanggramavijayotunggav.r_ man. This matter has also a bearing on Supomo's (1972) claim that the use of the designation 'Lord of the Mountains' in some east javanese texts should primarily be understood as a symbolic identification of a supreme king with. national mountain deity rather than as a reference to the famous dynasty of 8th century central Java, as posited hy Berg (jordaan, forthcoming).

WHY THE SAILENDRAS WERE NOT A JAVANESE DYNASTY 13

of the Javanese origin of the Sailendras. Whatever can be brought to bear on this issue is much more easily explained as a derivation from Indian culture rather than from the Javanese, as is the case with ancient toponyms such as Mataram, and royal customs such as storage of bricks of gold in a lake (see Balasubrahmanian 1935).

Conclusion and some suggestions for further research

This paper offers several new ideas with respect to the unsolved problem of the origin of the Sailendra dynasty, but the main arguments are basically the same as those put forward in other contexts, be it in a different way and for different putposes. While considering the theory of their Javanese origin unlikely, I am well aware that much remains to be investigated about the Sailendras, and that it would be foolish to think that the Wanua Tengah III inscription has solved all problems of interpretation regarding the dynastic relations during their reign in Java. Indeed, as for the Sailendras, it is not without reason that they were once referred to as an 'evasive race' (Shastri 1924: 312). The )lnsolved questions are not just about their country of origin, but also on how the Sailendras came to settle in the Indo-Malay archipelago setting themselves up as Widely respected kings for several hundreds of years, reaching the pinnacle of their reign in central Java and ending by vanishing from the scene in Sumatra. Continued research is needed on their origins: in the Indian subcontinent, Sri Lanka, and mainland Southeast Asia. Preferably this research should be supported by inscriptional evidence, including renewed readings of the known inscriptions (perhaps enhanced with the aid of new detection techniques such as laser scans). As it would not be for the first time in the study of ancient Indonesian history that a particular idea was prematurely discarded, it could even prove useful to reconsider some old and neglected hypotheses. Regarding the k~rriJ<I theory, it should noted that we no longer have to assume, as Bosch and his contemporaries used to do, that the spread of Indian influence abroad took the form ofa military conquest and territorial annexation.

As for their settlement in the Indo-Malay archipelago, I will now indicate how the Sailendras' position as 'stranger-kings' could be further clarified by comparative historical research along the lines explored by Marshall Sahlins (for the Pacific region) and David Henley (on northeastern Sulawesi). Sahlins' (1981) article is especially useful for his discussion of the complex conceptual linkages between strangerkings and the native peoples of Hawaii, Fiji and other Pacific islands, which are commonly interpreted and represented in gendered terms. As Sahlins remarks:

The [stranger.]king is an outsider, often an immigrant warrior prince whose father is a god or a king of his native land. But, exiled by his own love of power or banished for a murder, the hero is unable to succeed there. Instead, he takes power in another place, and throuoh a woman: princess of the native people whom he gains by a miraculous exploit involving feats of strength, ruse, rape, athletic prowess and/or murder of his predecessor. The heroic son-in-law from a foreign land demonstrates his divine gifts, wins the daughter, and inherits half or more of the kingdom.

(Sahlins 1981: 115, emphasis in the original)

14

INDONESIA AND THE MALAY WORLD

Those familiar with the Javanese Panji stories will recognise the similarities between these Pacific exploits and the equally miraculous prize contests in ancient Java that were known by the term sayembara. Unlike the Indonesian sayembara of today, which usually pivot round material objects and money, the ultimate prize in ancient Java invariably was a royal princess, and marrying her was a sure way to gain access to the land. Paiiji is the name of the Javanese culture hero who defeats his rivals (including several kalana kings) before marrying his true love.

In other Old Javanese stories, like the earlier mentioned Sirat Kanda, it is the VOC's capture of a sick Javanese princess that served to explain the ascendancy of the Dutch in Java. The sick princess, who either suffers from a skin disease or has a flaming womb, returns me to my early research on Nyai Lara Kidul alias Ratu Kidul (jordaan 1984, 1987, 1997), to whom - to paraphrase my late friend Han Resink - I have remained deeply attached. The sick princess, in my opinion, represents none other than the primeval fertility goddess of the Javanese, who, being a vacillating goddess, under Hindu influences came to be identified both with, the awesome goddesses like Durga and Kal, (her demonic or malevolent face) and Sri Devi or similar benevolent goddesses like Llrna, Parvati, and Laksmj (her benevolent face). 18 Without going into the complex transformations in her character and appearance, the capture or possession of the sick princess was a well-known mythological motif to explain the rise to power of her lover and/ or abductor, who as a rule is remembered as the founder of a new dynasty. 19 What matters here is that real historical events are interpreted from this indigenous mythologlcal perspective, and that historical personages are thus associated or identified with particular (semi-) divine beings. This, as Sahlins (1981: 107-9) explains, is what happened with the murder of Captain Cook by the Hawaiians in 1779. The mythological interpretation of this dramatic event found verbal expression by the islanders when they brought a piece of Cook's hindquarters to his ship, the Resolution, asking the crew when Lana, the god of agriculture with whom Cook apparently had been identified, would come back to them. As for pre-colonial Java, Berg has shown how the Javanese court poets tried to make sense of the military defeat of Sultan Agung in 1629 at the hands of the VOC by 'inventing' the story of the (temporary) capture of the sick princess. In much 0e same way, I assume, the Javanese would have explained the ascendancy of the Sailendras from a mythical marriage or a real marriage cloaked in mythological

18Gradu.lly, however, the two aspects of the autochthonous fertility goddess were loosened and separated, with the darker side of Ny.; Lara Kidul being associated with the fierce and heavily politicised Durga (thus underscoring her position of 'king.maker' and protector of the realm), while her benevolent side merged with the rather dull and heavily domesticated 'Dewi Sri' (who became the goddess of rice for the Jav.nese). Only in special circumstances do these dissoelated goddesses reveal something of the suppressed side in their characters. Given their primeval unity, Ny.i Lara Kidul and Dewi Sri are often attributed with the same chthonic attributes in folklore, such as a skin disease and/or a snake-like appearance. In this regard, C. C. Berg (I 955a: 375) was not wide of the mark in referring to Nya; Lara Kidul as 'the maritime version of Dewi Sri'.

19The better-known examples are Ken Angrok, Raden Susuruh, and Senapati, For more particulars, see Pigeaud (1927), Berg (1938), Jordaan (1984,1987,1997), and Wessing (1977., 1977b), among others.

WHY THE SAILENDRAS WERE NOT A JAVANESE DYNASTY

garb with a Javanese royal princess. Perhaps it was this marriage that resulted in a division of central Java, the faint echoes of which might have reached the Chinese records about the move of the Javanese capital to the East during the t'ien-pao period (742-755) and also the subsequent substitution of diplomatic missions of Sbe'po by those from Ho-ling, More significantly, in one of the three Ratu Boko inscriptions w~ich were issued after (and presumably in commemoration of) the defeat of the Sailendras explicit reference is being made to Laksmt 'who bears Majesty necessarily hidden in the juncture of her legs'. This strange expression, as De Casparis (1956; 266) observed, brings to mind the flaming-wombed princess Ken Dedes, whose possession enables the usurper Ken Angrok to become king of east Java and gain control over the fertility of the realm.20

Mindful of the importance of the dictum cherchcz la femme, I have often looked for evidence of a politico-religious association between the historical Tara of the Nalanda inscription, the Buddhist goddess Tara, to whom, it may be recalled, the Sailendra temple at Kalasan was dedicated, and Nyai Lara Kidul.21 As was to be expected given the scarcity of historical information, my efforts met with little success, although enough art historical data came to light to identify Vyasa- Tara as the presiding goddess of the Kalasan temple Qordaan 1997).

The extant historical information is and will remain scarce and fragmentary, forcing us to open up other sources. In this context, it needs to be remembered that there is at least one ancient literary text, namely the Ramayal)<l Kak~win, that could be tapped for additional, if indirect and veiled information on the Sailendras and, perhaps, Nyai Lara Kidul. 22 Research by W. Aichele (1969) has confirmed Poerbatjaraka's (1927) early surmise that some parts of the Old Javanese Ramayatp could

ZODe Casparis add. the following remark: 'With a view to these demonic and sensual aspects of Calvlsm, it may not be superfluous to stress that it is now beyond doubt that they were known during the greater part of Hindu-javanese history' (1956: 266). Further research is needed to establish whether the motif of the flaming womb (in contradistinction from skin disease, which seems of genuinely Austronesian origin) was derived from Tantrisrn, which must have reached Java much earlier than was generally assumed before World War II. As De Casparis notes, 'All the materia! at our disposal seems to indicate a co-existence of many different forms of religion and worship during Old Javanese history' (1956: 266, n.99).

21 Stutterheim (1929) has tried to relate the construction of the Tara temple at Kalasan with the marriage of the Sailendra king Samaragravlra to Princess Tara who is mentioned in the Nalanda inscription, but his proposal was rightly rejected as chronologically untenable (Bosch 1929). 22M Y theory is that the Sailendras were instrumental in the association of this autochtonous fertility goddess with deities from the Hindu-Buddhist pantheon and also in the transformation ofthis Javanese folk deity into a Nagl royal consort (see also Gaudes 1993, for a comparison with Cambodia). From a cultural and historical point, it is Uill1ecessary to assume, as did Robert Wessing (1977b; 326), that it was through their military raids against mainland Southeast Asia during the 8th century that the Java. nese came 'into contact with Cambodian court culture, with its tale of the ruler's nightly cohabitation with the source of his realm's prosperity'. In whatever way this process of lndianisation/ Sanskritisation took place in central Java and who was involved in it, I think that Wessing will agree that the ideas underlying these Indianised customs were known throughout monsoon Asia from time immemorial - as was for instance the case with the various forms of construction sacrifice which were the subject of our joint publication (e.g. Wessing and [ordaan 1997).

15

16

INDONESIA AND THE MALAY WORLD

date from the late central Javanese period since they contain all kinds of metaphoric hints to Rakai Pikatan (reign period 847-858) and his alleged deception by Buddhist dignitaries. Berg (1955: 253) was even inclined to assume that the text was written in commemoration of the destruction of the Sailendra dynasty, and that the Watugunung story in the Badad tonah [ow! was a folk myth that had' accompanied' the official Ramayana, Those familiar with the work of Berg and his unsurpassed talents to see through all kinds of clever Old Javanese magico-literary plots and _identifications, will be unsurprised to learn of his equating Ravarp with the Sailendras, and Hanuman (The Whit~ Monkey) with Vi~l}u. If indeed there is a mythico-historical basis for linking the Sailendras with Ravana (who after all is a raja sabrans), there is a likelihood of his meeting Swi. as a sick princess during her captivity in Lanka. A renewed and careful study of these ancient texts is therefore needed to establish the plausibility of these and other identifications. A new critical English edition of the Old Javanese Rarnayana would be meritorious in itself, quite apart from its usefulness as an alternative source of historical information.

Henley's analysis seems more useful for comparative research on the local socio~conomic and political conditions that might have facilitated the acceptance of the Sailendras' authority by the Sumatran peoples at the end of the 7th century. Briefly summarised, Henley's thesis is that the relatively easy introduction of Dutch rule in northern Sulawesi cannot be explained from an alleged Dutch superiority in military power or their cunning application of the strategy of divide and rule, but rather from the inability of the local peoples and their rulers to put an end to their ongoing internecine conflicts and warfare. As Henley demonstrates, these internal conflicts and the peoples' deep-seated mutual suspicion and jealousy, increasingly made them turn to the Dutch, who, being outsiders, were asked to act and/or intervene as arbiters and impartial judges. Henley (2002: 55) states that this tendency was not without consequences: 'The rise of the colonial state in northern Sulawesi, then, can be regarded in part as a deliberately accepted solution to problems of mutual cooperation which were perceived by indigenous actors as difficult to solve without the aid of a powerful and impartial external party'. 23 In my op,inion, a similar scenario could be envisaged with respect to the ready acceptance of Sailendra overlordship in Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula at the end of the 7th century. In the forthcoming book, referred to above, it is remarked that

If the family was as illustrious as the Sailendras themselves claimed to be, probably descending from a royal family that hailed from India, they had several

23Though Henley himself focusses on the socio-political dimension of the stranger-king phenomenon, he indicates that the mythico-religjo aspects are also present. This is evident, for instance, from the fact that VOC judgments were regarded as GodS!proken ('divine verdicts' or oracles). Also relevant is Henley's observation that royal status in northern Sulawesi was often framed in an 'idiom of strangeness', as in Gorontalo where the kings were chosen from groups who claimed descent 'from foreign inunigrants (including characters from the Bugis epic poem I La Galigo), and partly from semi-human creatures which emerged from eggs, dumps of rattan, or shafts of bamboo long after the origjnal people of the country' (Henley 2002: 64-65). It is easy to see that such information offers a possibility oflinking Henley's analysis with that ofSahlins', discussed above, which focuses on the cultural assumptions relating to the stranger-king phenomenon.

WHY THE SAILENDRAS WERE NOT A JAVANESE DYNASTY 17

things to offer: not territory, but prestige, overseas contacts in India and Sri Lanka, and knowledge. This knowledge would have covered Indian religion, military science, administration, and statecraft; N The latter, in particular, would have been a valuable asset considering Srrwijaya's problems of social control and internal political stability. These problems are indicated, for instance, in the Telaga Batu or Sabokingking inscription, which sets forth a long list of potential enemies, ranging from slaves, washermen, merchants, and naval captains to 'sons of kings' .

Following the interpretations of De Casparis (1956: 15-47), Wolters has inferred from this seemingly 'paranoid' text that 'evidently the ruler was at that time concerned with the problem of keeping under control a disturbed realm, possibly including recently conquered territories' (Wolters 1961: 17; cf, VYisseman Christie 1982: 296, 312; 1984: 55). It is hardly conceivable that the Sriwijaya kingdom could have bridged the long period of seven centuries of its presumed existence on the subtle and limited check-and-balance political mechanisms of indigenous Sumatran societies discussed in Kenneth Hall's (1976) study of early Sriwijayan inscriptions (cf. Kulke 1991: IS). In our opinion, it was the alliance with the Sailendras that saved Sriwijaya's name from oblivion Oordaan and Colless, in press).

In line with Henley's analysis, it could be argued that the divisive and unstable conditions apparently prevailing in southern Sum~tra during the 7th and 8th centuries would have contributed to the acceptance of Sailendra rule by the local communities. As stranger-kings the Sailendra were outside and above these fractious and warring communities, enabling them to act as mediators and impartial arbitrators. This need for impartiality would have been met by the religious tolerance and heterodox inclinations for which the Sailendras were known, and the ideological emphasis they put on the abstract notion of the Word as reflected in their central Javanese inscriptions. The latter resonates with the surat. cap (sealed letters) of Minangkabau royalty (Drakard 1993), who as we speculate could well have been their distant descendants.2s

Regrettably, we cannot, at the present state of knowledge, say whether similar socio-politlcal conditions prevailed in central Java that would have facilitated the

2~[n response to Wisseman Christie's (1990: 41) critical remarks against such views, We want to stress that we do not imply that some 'essential' ingredient was lacking in the south Sumatran society in question. Rather than representing a generally negative view, We would argue that the Indian contributions should be seen as 'positive', as enriching influences, quite similar to the cultural impact of the Pax Romano On the development of different West European societies.

2SNoteworthy are the remarkable (but still to be investigated) similarities between the Sailendras and the former Minangkabau royal family. For instance, they both stood apart from the surrounding society by their 'contrapuntal' descent and marriage rules, as well as by their heterodox and syncretic tendencies. Interestingly, the Minangkabau still maintain connubial relations with Negri Sembllan, on the other side of the Straits of Malacca, which brings to mind the (marital) alliance between Kedah and Malayu during the reign of the Sailendras.

18 INDONESIA AND THE MALAY WORLD

establishment of Sailendra rule in this island.26 The only extant document prior to the arrival of the Sailendras is the Canggal inscription of 732, issued by King Sanjaya in celebration of the foundation of a linsa sanctuary, but it is precisely this inscription, in conjunction with the information derived from an Old Sundanese text, the Carita Parao/anson, that has been used as evidence of the regio,nal supremacy of the Javanese, and to defend the identity of the 'Safijayas' and the Sailendras. While we can discard the Carita Parahyansan as a late and unreliable source of historical information, we would be wise to accept the integrity of the Wukir inscription concerning S,aiijaya' s stature as a great Javanese king. This would suggest that the establishment of Sailendra rule in central Java was different from that of Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula, and that it may well have taken place with Safijaya's consent or, much more likely, with that of his son, Rakai Panangkaran (reign 746-784), who was closely involved in the construction of the Tara temple at Kalasan and presumably the first Javanese king to adopt the mahduIja title. The most plausible way for this course of events to have happened was a marital alliance of the two royal families. In the absence of pertinent information, we are left to speculate how this presumed marital alliance was arranged, allOWing for the possibility that the marriage was of a rather unusual type, for instance with the two kings arranging a Sister-exchange marriage, or practising some form of polyandry (see e.g. Moens 1937: 438-43, 1939: 77-79). Comparative research on kinship and marital practices among ancient Indian dynasties could perhaps shed new light on this matter (see e.g. Singh 1978; Chakraborti 1984 ; Trautmann 1974, 1981) _ If future research does confirm the existence of a marital alliance between the Sailendras and the Javanese royal familY,ofRakai Panangkaran, this clearly will help to explain why the later eviction of the Sailendras had such a deep and long traumatic impact on the society and culture of Old Mataram, and Java as a whole.

Acknowledgements

Considering that this is my final statement about the Sailendras in central Javanese history, and haVing them tentatively linked with the Javanese goddess Nyal Lara Kidul whose mysterious character has attracted me fOT more than 20 years, I am ineVitably reminded of the intellectual and moral support received from various persons over the years. I feel especially indebted to Bert van den Hoek and Lokesh Chandra for introducing me to the study of ancient Indian history and culture, and to Han Resink , Hans Teeuw, and Willem van dcr Molen for welcoming me to 'their' field of Javanese studies. Being of Dutch-Madurese extraction and more familiar with rural Madurese people through anthropological fieldwork, [ am grateful to these scholars for

Z6According to Henley (2004: 4-7) such was the case during the days of the VOC:

The proximate reason for the vulnerability of Javanese states to hesitant or reluctant VOC intervention in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries [_ .. J was surely that too many members of the Javanese mobility always hated each other more than they hated any foreigner, so that the Company was "inexorably sucked into Javanese alTairs" (Nagtegaal 1996: 16) by opportunistic requests for support in civil conflicts until finally" stable equilibrium was reached in which the Dutch found themselves playing what Ricklefs (1974-: 420-1) explicitly calls "a mediatory role" as "ultimate arbiters of insoluble disputes" between two permanently separate Javanese kingdoms of roughly equal strength.

WHY THE SAILENDRAS WERE NOT A JAVANESE DYNASTY 19

helping me to find my way in the court cultures and literature of ancient Java. Fortunately, they showed great forbearance toward. my non/un-Javanese outspokenness and occasional fits of emotions (usually over the treatment by other Old Java specialists). Finally, I want to thank Brian Colless, David Henley, and Jeffrey Sundberg for their valuable comments On the draft of this paper.

References

Aichele, W. 1969. Vergessene Metaphern als Krlterien der Datierung des altjavanischen Ramaya~. Oriens Extremus 16: 127-67.

Balasubrahmanian, S.R. 1935. The lake of the bricks of gold. Tijdschrift voor Indische Toal-, Land- en Volkenkunde (TBG) 75: 618-19.

Berg, C.C. 1929. Hoifdlijnen der [avoanscbe liueratuurpeschiedems, Groningen/Den Haag, Weltevreden: Wolters.

Berg, C.C. 1938. Javaansche geschiedschrijving. In F.W. Stapel (ed.), Geschiedenis van

Nederlondsch' Indi£·. VoL Il. Amsterdam: Joost van den Vondel, pp. 7-148.

Berg, C.C. 1955a. De zin der tweede Babad-Tanah-Jawi. Indonesiii 8(1): 361-4(10. Berg, C.C. 1955b. Geschiedenis en geschiedschrijving van Mataram. Indonesie·8(3): 231-69. Boechari, M. 1989. Satu atau dua dinasti di kerajaan Mataram kuna? Jakarta: FSUI.

Mimeograph.

Boechari, M. 1990. Tafsiran atas prasasti Wanua Tengah III. Jakarta: FSUI. Mimeograph. Bosch, F.D.K. 1928. De inscriptie van Keloerak. Tijdschr!ft voar Indi;che Taal-, Land- en Valkenkunde 68: 1-64.

Bosch, F.D.K. 1929. Dr W.F. Stutterheim, A Javanese period in Sumatran history, Sur" akarta 1929. Tijdschr!ft voor Indische Taa]-, Land- en Valkenkund.69: 135-56_ Bosch, F.D.K. 1952a_ yrivijaya, de Cailendra- en Safijayavamca. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Valkenkunde 108: 113-23.

Bosch, F.D.K. 1952b. 'Local genius' en Oud-javaanse kunst. Mededdinaen der KoninkIijke Nederland se Akademie van Wetenschappen, AJdding Letterkunde, N.S.15-1: [-25.

Braginsky, V.1. 1993. The ~stem <if classical Malay literature, Leiden: KITLV Press.

Working Papers 11.

Charras, M. and Pain, M_ (eds), 1993_ pioneers in Southern Sumatra. Transmigrasi.

Casparis, J.G. de. 1950. Inscripties ui! de };ai!endra-tijd_ Bandung: Nix.

Casparis, J.G. de. 1956. Prosasti Indonesia l!: Selected inscriptionsfiom the 7th [0 the 9th centuries AD. Bandung: Masa Baru.

Chakraborti, Haripada. 1984_ Cross-cousin marriage in ancient India. In Rdiaion and sociery in ancient India; SudllQkar Chat[Opadhyaya commemoration volume. Calcutta:

Roy & Chowdhury, pp. 398-405. .

Coedes, G. 1918. Le royaurne de <;:rivijaya. Bulletin d. l'Ecol. Francoise d'Extreme-Orient

8:1-36.

Coedes, G. 1934_ On the origins of the Sailendras of Indonesia, journal if the Greater Indja

Sociery 1: 61 -70

Crawfurd, J. 1820. History if the Indian archipelago containing an account if the manners, arts, lanauaaes, religions, institutions, and commerce if its inhabitants. Edinburgh: Archibald Constable.

Spontaneous settlements in Indonesia; Agricultural Bondy / Jakarta: Orstom-CNRS /Departemen

{

20 INDONESIA AND THE MALAY WORLD

Drakard, J. 1993. A kingdom of words: Minangkabau sovereignty in Sumatran history.

PhD thesis. Australian National University.

Gaudes, R. J 993. Kaundinya, Preah Thaong, and the 'Nagi' Soma': Some aspects of a Cambodian Legend. Asian Folklore Studies 52: 333-58.

Hall, K.R. J 976. State and statecraft in early Srivijaya. In K.R. Hall, and J. K Whitmore, (eds) , Explorations in ear[y Southeast Asian history; The oriains ef Southeast Asian state. crcift· Ann Arbor: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan, pp. 61-105.

Hanafiah, Djohan. 2?02. Siapakah dinasti Sailendra? In 2S talmn kerjasama Pusat Penelitian Arkeoloa! dan Ecole franfaisc d'Extnfme-Orienr. Jakarta: EFEO, pp. 83-97.

Henley, D. 2002. Jealouo/ and justice. The indigenous roots ef colonial rule in northern Sulawesi.

Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij.

Henley, D. 2004. Conflict, justice, and the stranger-king; indigenous roots of colonial rule in Indonesia and elsewhere. Modem Asian Swdies 38: 85-144-

Jordaan, R.E. 1984. The mystery of Nyai Lara Kidul, Goddess of the Southern Ocean.

Archipd 28: 99-116.

Jordaan, R.E. 1987. Skin disease, female ancestry and crops. In E. Locher-Scholten and A. Niehof (eds), Indonesian "Omen inJocus. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 120-34.

Jordaan, R.E. 1997. Tara and Nyai Lara Kidul: Images of the divine feminine in Java.

Asian Folklore Swdies 56(2): 255-312.

Jordaan, R. E. 19993. The Sal/endMs in central Ja vanes. history; A sur.ey ef research from 1950 to 1999. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma.

[ordaan, R.E. 1999b. The Sailendras, the status of the ~triya-theory, and the development of Hindu-Buddhist art in [ava, Bijdraaen tot de Taal-,Land- en Volkenkunde 155(2): 210-43.

[ordaan, R.E. 2000. Consensus and variance in Indonesian archaeology; A reply to Prof.

John Miksic, Bijdraaen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 156(1): 169-75.

Jordaan, Il;.~. 2003a. The Wanua Tengah III inscription and the problem of the origin of the Sailendra dynasty. Paper presented at the International Conference of Indonesian Art, New Delhi, IGNCA, 3-6 March 2003.

jordaan, R.E. 2003h. Continuity or discontinuity in Hindu·Buddhist temple art in ancient Java? Dialoaue 5(1): 93-100.

[ordaan, R.E. Forthcoming. Who was Sri Sanggramawijaya Dharmmap;as;;dotunggadeWi? Jordaan, R.E. and Colless, B.E. 2004. The Ratu Boko mantra and the Sailendras, Berkala Arkeologi 24(1): 56-65.

[ordaan, R.E. an? Colless, B.E. In press. The Mahtif(ijas ef the isles; The Sailendras and the problem ef SriIVijaya. Leiden. Semaian.

Krom, N.]. 1919. De Sumatraansche periode der javaansche geschiedenis. Leiden: Brill.

Inaugural address.

Kulke, H. 1991. Epigraphical references to the 'city' and the 'state' in early Indonesia.

Indonesia 52: 3-22.

Kusen. 1988. Prasasti Wanua Tengah 111, 830 Saka: Studi tentang latar belakang perubahan status sawah di Wanua Tengah sejak Rake Panangkaran sampai Rake Watukura Dyah Balitung. Makalah dalam Kegiatan I1miah Arkeologi, IAAI Komisariat Yogya. karta-Jawa Tengah, Yogyakarta, 2 September 1988.

Kusen. 1994. Raja-raja Mataram Kuna dari Saiijaya sampai Balitung sebuah rekonstruksi berdasarkan prasasti Wanua Tengah Ill. Berkala Arkeoloai 14: 82-95. Special issue.

WHY THE SAILENDRAS WERE NOT A JAVANESE DYNASTY 21

{

Majumdar, R.C. 1933. Les rois Sailendra de Suvaruadvipa. Bulleut: de 1'Ecole Fran,caisc d'Extreme-Orient 33: 121-41.

Meulen, W.J. van der. n.d, Pedoman !iteraturj Sedjarah untuk memperlengkapi bahan kuliah: l. Disekitar persoalan Sailendra-vamsa. [n.p.]: IKIP Sanata DharmaDjurusan Sedjarah. Mimeograph.

Moens, J.L. 1937. yrivijaya, ¥a.va en Kataha. Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor lndische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde (rEG)77, 317 -487.

Moens, J-L.1939. Srtvijaya, Yava and Katalia. Abridged English translation by R.J. Touche. Journal efthe Malayan Branch Royal Asiatic Socie9' 17(2): 1-108.

Naerssen, F.H. van. 1947. The Cailendra interregnum. In India Antiqua. Leiden: Brill, pp.249-53.

Nagtegaal, L. 1996. Ridina the Dutell tiaer; The Dutch East Indies Company and the northeast coast ef Java, 1680-1743. Leiden: KIL TV Press. VKI 171.

Pigeaud, Th.G.Th. 1927. Alexander, Sakender en Senapati. Dj<iwa 7: 321-62. Poerbatjaraka, 1927. De dateering van het Oud- Jav. RamaYaI)3-. In Gedenkschrift uitaea •• en ter aeIeacnheid run het 75'jaria bestaan op 4 juni 1926 [KITLVj.'s-Gravenhage:

Nijhoff, pp. 265-72.

Poerbatjaraka. 1958. Grlyijaya, de Cailendra- en de Safijayavamc;:a. Bijdraaen tot de Taa/-, Land. en Volkenkunde 114: 254-64.

Reid, A. 1998. Political 'tradition' in Indonesia: the one and the many. Asian Studies Review 22: 23- 38.

Reinaud, J.T. 1845. Relations des voyaaesJai! par les Arabes et les Perscns dans I'lnde ct a la Chine. Paris: L'Imprlrnerie RoyaL 2 vols,

Ricklefs, M.C. 1974. JOBjakarta under Sultan Mangkubumi 1749- 1792; A history cf the division ef Java. London: Oxford University Press.

Sahlins, M. 1981. The stranger-king or Dumeztl among the Fijians. Journal ef Pacific History 16(3): 107-32.

Sartono Kartodirdjo, 1984. Raw Itdil. Jakarta: Sinal' Harapan.

Snellgrove, D. 2000. Asian commitment; Travels and studies in rbe Indian sub-continent and South-East Asia. Bangkok: Orchid Press.

Shastri, Hirananda. 1924. The Nalanda copper-plate of Devapaladeva. Epiaraphia Indica 17,310-27.

Singh, Sarva Daman. 1978. Polyandry in ancient India. Delhi: MO.tilal Banarsidass, .

Soekmono, R. 1993. The candi as a cultural pusaka, In H. Soebadio (ed.), Art eflndoneslO.

London: Tauris Parke, pp. 51-57.

Stutterheim, W.F. 1929. A Javanese period in Sumatran lIistory. Surakarta: De Bliksern. Sumadio, Bambang (ed.). 1975. Jaman KunG, Sejarah NasionaI Indonesia. Vol. 2. Jakarta:

Departemen Pcndidikan dan Kebudayaan. . ..

Supomo, S. 1972. 'Lord of the mountains' in the fourteenth century Kakawm. BIJdraaen tot de TaaI-, Land- en Volkenkunde 128(2/3): 281-297

Sundberg, J. 2003. A Buddhist mantra r~covered from the Ratu Baka plateau: A preliminary study of its implications for Sailendra-era Java. Bijdraaen tot de Taal-, Land- en VaIkenkunde 159(1): 163-88.

Sundberg, J. Forthcoming. The state of the state of Mataram: A review of recent efforts to clarify its history.

Tibbetts, G.R. 1979. A srudy if ti,. Arabic texts contoini"B material On South-East Asia.

Leiden: Brill.

22 INDONESIA AND THE MALAY WORLD

Totton, M-L. 2003. Narrating animals on the screen of the world. Art Bulletin 85(1): 6-25.

Trautmann, Th. R. 1974. Kinship and his,ol]' in South Asia. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Trautmann, Th, R. 1981. DraVidian kinship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vogel,l.Ph. 1919. Het koninkrijk <;:rivijaya. Bijdraocn tot d. Toal-, Land- en Volkenkund. 75: 626-37.

Wessing, R. 1977a. Nyai Roro Kidul in Puger: Local applications of a myth. Archipd 53: 97-120.

Wessing, R. 1977b. A princess from Sunda: some aspects ofNyai Roro Kidul. Asian Folklore Studies 56(2): 317-53.

Wessing, R. and Jordaan, R. E. 1997. Death at the building site: construction sacrifice in Southeast Asia. History if Relioions 37(2): 101-21.

Wissernan Christie, 1- 1982. Patterns of trade in western Indonesia: Ninth through thirteenth centuries AD. PhD thesis. School of Oriental and African Studies, UniverSity of London.

Wisseman Christie, 1- 1984. Trade and early state formation in maritime Southeast Asia:

Kedah and Srivijaya. [ebat: 13 (1984/85): 43-56.

Wisseman Christie, J. 2001. Revisiting early Mataram. In M.J. Klokke and K.R. van Kooij (eds), Fruits oi insplraticn; Studies in honour ifPrcfJ.G. d. Casparis. Groningen:

Forstcn, pp. 25-57.

Wolters, O.W. 1961. Srivijayan expansion in the seventh century. AUibu5 Asiae 24, 417-24.

Wolters, O.W. 1979. Studying Srivijaya. Journal if the Malaysian Branch RoyaJ Asiatic Soci.9' 52(2): 1- 31.

._

i ~wliilYlg_IAA""$