Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-qxsvm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-06T15:33:31.384Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The “Indianization” of Bali

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2011

J. Stephen Lansing
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In two recent review articles, I.W. Mabbett summarizes the prehistoric and historic sources bearing on the question of “Indian influence on the development of Southeast Asian societies”. Asimilar review was undertaken by Paul Wheatley in “Satyantra in Suvarnadvipa” and more recently by Ken Hall. Each of these authors make similar points: that there are essentially three major hypotheses that have been advanced over the years to account for the spread of “Indian influence” (the Brahmana, Ksatriya, and Vaisya respectively, to which we will return); and that evidence on which to decide amongst these hypotheses is lacking. After a “brief outline of the sources on ‘Indianization’ which is practically complete”, I.W. Mabbett concludes that:

It is unlikely that prolongation of the catalogue of possible sources would add much to what has already been gleaned — more Indian trade goods, more inscriptions recording the activity of pious Hindu or Buddhist rulers, more unreliable Chinese second-hand accounts of Indian priests and Indianized “kingdoms”. The purpose in extending the catalogue this far had been twofold. In the first place, it is to make quite clear that the actual process of “Indianization” is nowhere reliably portrayed; what is portrayed by the earliest evidence is the operation of kingdoms already Indianized; and therefore the various theories that have been offered are speculation. One may seem more plausible or attractive than another, but none has been established.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , September 1983 , pp. 409 - 421
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Mabbett, I.W., “The “Indianization” of Southeast Asia: Reflections on the Prehistoric Sources”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 8, 1 (Mar. 1977): 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “The ‘Indianization’ of Southeast Asia: Reflections on the Historical Sources”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 8, 2 (Sept. 1977): 143–61Google Scholar.

2 Wheatley, Paul, “Satyantra in Suvarnadvipa: From Reciprocity to Redistribution in Ancient Southeast Asia”, in Ancient Civilization and Trade, ed. Sabloff, J. A. and Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1975).Google ScholarHall, Kenneth R., “The ‘Indianization’of Funan: An Economic History of Southeast Asia's First State”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 13, 1 (03. 1982): 81–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 , Mabbett, “Historical Sources”, p. 155Google Scholar.

4 Majumdar, R.C., Ancient Indian Colonization in South-East Asia (Calcutta: Baroda, 1963)Google Scholar.

5 Leur, J.C. van, Indonesian Trade and Society: Essays in Asian Social and Economic History (Nijhoff: The Hague and Bandung, 1955), p. 98Google Scholar.

6 For recent views on this topic, see Mabbett, “Historical Sources”, and Hall, “The ‘Indianization’ of Funan”.

7 Sastri, Hirananda, Nalanda and its Epigraphic Material (Calcutta: Government of India Press, Memoirs of the Archaeology Survey of India, no. 66, 1942), pp. 101–102Google Scholar.

8 Ibid., p. 110.

9 Ibid., p. 15.

10 Sen, S. N., A Bibliography of Sanskrit Works in Astronomy and Mathematics (Calcutta: National Institute of Sciences of India, 1966). An excellent summary of Indian achievements in these fields is provided byGoogle ScholarWinter, H. J. J., “Science”, in A Cultural History ofIndia, ed. Basham, A. L. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), pp. 141–62Google Scholar.

11 Winter, “Science”, p. 157.

12 Groslier, Bernard-Phillipe, Angkor Hommes et Pierres (Paris: Arthand 1956), p. 11Google Scholar.

13 Heine-Geldern, Robert, “Conceptions of State and Kingship in Southeast Asia”, The Far Eastern Quarterly II (1942), pp. 17–18Google Scholar.

14 Quoted from Paul Mus’ transcription in Wheatley, Paul, The Pivot of the Four Quarters (Edinburgh University Press, 1971), pp. 437, 465 (n. 81), 469 (n. 116).Google Scholar

15 , Wheatley, Pivot, p. 437Google Scholar.

16 Ibid.

17 Coedes, George, “La Stele du Prah Khan d-Ankor”, Bulletin de l'Ecole Francaise d'Extreme-Orient 41 (1941): 298, stanzas XLIV-CLXVGoogle Scholar.

18 , Wheatley, Pivot, p. 265Google Scholar.

19 For a recent theoretical discussion of divine kingship in both the Hindu and Buddhist traditions, see Tambiah, S. J., World Conqueror and World Renouncer (Cambridge University Press, 1976), chapters 2–4. Early formulations are provided byCrossRefGoogle Scholar, Heine-Geldern, “Conceptions”, and Georges Coedes, Les Etats Hindouises d'Indochine et d'Indonesie (Paris, rev. ed. 1964). Interesting essays and bibliographic references are provided byGoogle ScholarHall, K. R. and Whitmore, J.K. (eds.), Explorations in Early Southeast Asian History: The Origins of Southeast Asian Statecraft (Ann Arbor: Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asian Studies No. 11, 1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 The term “late Formative” derives from Julian Steward's chronological framework for the development of states from a comparative perspective; Steward, Julian, Theory of Culture Change (University of Illinois Press, 1955), pp. 178–210. For recent studies utilizing this framework, see essays inGoogle ScholarClaesson, H. J. M. and Skalnik, P. (eds.)., the Early State (The Hague: Mouton, 1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 The major issues of prehistory in insular Southeast Asia remain unsettled, both because of lack of crucial evidence, and because of conflicting interpretations of the existing linguistic and archaeological evidence. Useful summaries of the controversies over Proto-Austronesian culture may be found in: Blust, Robert, “Austronesian Culture History”, Current Anthropology 8, 1 (1976): 19–43;Google ScholarGolson, Jack, “Both Sides of the Wallace Line”, Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania VI, 2 (1968): 124–44;Google ScholarPeacock, B. A. V., “Early Cultural Development in Southeast Asia with Special Reference to the Malay Peninsula”, Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania VI, 2 (1971): 107–23;Google ScholarChang, K. C., Grace, G. W., and Sondheim, W. G., “Movement of the Malayo-Polynesians: 1500 B.C. to A.D. 500”, Current Anthropology 5, 5 (1964): 359–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 On Dong-Son culture, see Heekeren, H.R. van, The Bronze-Iron Age of Indonesia, Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Institut, Deel XXII ('s-Gravenhage: M. Nijhoff, 1958), chapter 4. For a recent appraisal, seeGoogle ScholarSoejono, R. P., “The History of Prehistoric Research in Indonesia up to 1950”, Asian Perspectives XII (1969): 69–91.Google Scholar

23 Sources on megalithic culture in Southeast Asia include Christie, A. H., “The Megalithic Problem in Southeast Asia”, and Glover, I.C., Bronson, B., and Bayard, D.T., “Comment on ‘Megaliths’ in Southeast Asia”, both in Early Southeast Asia, ed. Smith, R.B. and Watson, W. (New York and Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1979). For an annotated bibliography, seeGoogle ScholarLoofs, H. H. E., Elements of the Megalithic Culture in Southeast Asia (Canberra: Australian National University Press, 1976)Google Scholar.

24 For discussion of early Indie sculptural traditions in Bali and the cult of kings, see Stutterheim, W. F., Indian Influences on Old Balinese Art (London: The India Society, 1935). Clay seals and other objects are on display at the archaeological museum in Pejeng. The inscriptions on seals discovered by 1953 are described inGoogle ScholarGoris, Roelof, Prasasti Bali, 2 vols. Lembaga Bahasa dan Budaya, Universitet Indonesia (Bandung: N.V. Masa Baru, 1954), vol. 1, pp. 108–15. The principal references for the inscriptions include GorisGoogle Scholar; Callenfels, P.V. van Stein, Epigraphika Balica 1, Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen LXVI (1926); and morerecently M.M. Sukarto Atmodjo's publications, published in the Seri Prasasti No. I, Lembaga Purbakala, Gianyar, BaliGoogle Scholar.

25 Goris, , Prasasti Bali, vol. 1, pp. 53–54.Google Scholar

26 For references to these terms in the Balinese inscriptions, see , Goris, Prasasti Bali, Woordregister, vol. 2, pp. 205–339Google Scholar.

27 For a discussion of these and other aspects of eleventh-century Balinese society as portrayed in the inscriptions, see Atmodjo, M. M. Sukarto, “Sukarto Pemerintah dan Masjaraket Djaman Anak Wungcu”, Panitia Penjusun Buku Standard / Sejarah Nasional Indonesia (Bali, 1972). The inscriptions themselves are found in Goris, Prasasti BaliGoogle Scholar.

28 The inscription is Sernbiran All (Goris 209) dated A.D. 1975, published in , Goris, Prasasli Bali, vol. I, pp. 77–79Google Scholar.

29 Ibid., pp. 53–54.

30 Atmodjo, M.M. Sukarto K., “Preliminary Report on the Copper-Plate Inscription of Asahduren”, Bijdragen lot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 126 (1970): pp. 221–22Google Scholar.

31 Ibid.

32 The terms “kulagotra” and “mahagotra” are still used as elevated, High Balinese words for large descent groups (commonly called soroh). The magazine Warta Dutta Warga, for example, an organ of the Pasek sorohs, refers to both mahagotra and kulagotra; see Warta Dutta Warga 15 (Mei 1975), passim.

33 Lansing, J. Stephen, Rama's Kingdoms: Language, Art and Culture in Bali (New York: Praeger, 1983)Google Scholar.

34 Behetin Inscription Al (002); 2b. 4–5 (A.D. 896), in , Goris, Prasasti Bali, vol. 1, pp. 54–55.Google Scholar

35 Callenfels, van Stein, Epigrafica Balica I, Inscription from Gurun Pai: 5a.5, A.D. 1071, pp. 14–18Google Scholar.