¹ Udovitch, A.L., Partnership and Profit in Medieval Islam (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970), pp. 171–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² Shiba, Yoshinobu, Commerce and Society in Sung China (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Center for Chinese Studies, 1970), pp. 2, 188Google Scholar; Watson, Andrew (trans.), Transport in Transition: the evolution of traditional shipping in China (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Center for Chinese Studies, 1972), pp. 16ffGoogle Scholar; Ma, Laurence J.C., Commercial Development and Urban Change in Sung China (960–1279) (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Department of Geography, 1971), pp. 29–43Google Scholar.

³ Abraham, Meera, Two Medieval Merchant Guilds of South India (Delhi: Manohar, 1988), pp. 5, 19–24, 29, 110Google Scholar; Pillai, E.P.N. Kunjan, Studies in Kerala History (Kottayam, Kerala: National Bookstall, 1970), pp. 370–77Google Scholar.

⁴ Abraham, , Two Medieval Merchant Guilds, pp. 41–42Google Scholar.

⁵ For discussions of the various associated merchant, craft and mercenary groups, see for example: Balasubrahmanian, S.R., “The Tisai Ayirattaiūṛṛuvar and the Municandai Record”, Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land-, en Volkenkunde 74 (1934): 613–18Google Scholar; Ayyar, K.R. Venkatarama, “Medieval Trade, Craft and Merchant Guilds in South India”, Journal of Indian History 25, 3 (1947): 269–80Google Scholar; Sastri, K.A. Nilakanta, The Colas, 2nd revised edition (Madras, 1955)Google Scholar; Stein, Burton, “Coromandel Trade in Medieval India”, in Merchants and Scholars: Essays in the History of Exploration and Trade, ed. Parker, J. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1965), pp. 49–62Google Scholar; Indrapala, K., “Some Medieval Mercantile Communities of South India and Ceylon”, Journal of Tamil Studies 2, 2 (1970): 25–39Google Scholar; Abraham, , Two Medieval Merchant GuildsGoogle Scholar.

⁶ Abraham, , Two Medieval Merchant Guilds, pp. 117, 162–66Google Scholar.

⁷ Barnes, Ruth, Indian Block-Printed Cotton Fragments in the Kelsey Museum, The University of Michigan (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993), pp. 30–31Google Scholar; Christie, Jan Wisseman, “Texts and Textiles in ‘Medieval’ Java”, Bulletin de l'Ecole Française d'Extrême-Orient 80, 1 (1993): 193–95Google Scholar.

⁸ Indrapala, “Some Medieval Mercantile Communities”, pp. 30–32.

⁹ Abraham, , Two Medieval Merchant Guilds, p. 135Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Heitzman, J., “State formation in South India, 850–1280”, The Indian Economic and Social History Review 24,1 (1987): 38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also the rather inflated Pandyan claims of conquest in about 1254 A.D., which included not only the Chola state, but also Kedah, Java, and China (Archaeological Dept., Southern Circle, Madras, Annual Report on Epigraphy 1911–1912, p. 65Google Scholar; 1916–17, p. 111).

¹¹ Hirth, F. and Rockhill, W.W., Chau Ju-kua: His Work on the Chinese and Arab Trade in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, entitled Chu-fan-chi (New York: Paragon, 1966 reprint of 1911 edition), pp. 87–102Google Scholar.

¹² Abraham, , Two Medieval Merchant Guilds, p. 154Google Scholar.

¹³ Sastri, K.A. Nilakanta, “Foreign trade under the Kakatiyas”, Journal of Oriental Research 8 (1934): 319Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Abraham, , Two Medieval Merchant Guilds, pp. 34–35, 51–60Google Scholar.

¹⁵ For detail, see: Christie, Jan Wisseman, “The baṇigrāma in the Indian Ocean and the Java Sea during the early Asian trade boom”, in Seafaring Communities in the Indian Ocean, 4th c. B.C.–15th c. A.D., ed. Salles, J.F. and Ray, H.P. (Brussels: Brepols, in press)Google Scholar.

¹⁶ M. Boechari, “Prasasti Kalirungan” (unpublished ms.).

¹⁷ Sarkar, H.B., Corpus of the Inscriptions of Java (Up to 928A.D.), two volumes (Calcutta: K.L. Mukhopadhyay, 1971), inscription xciiiGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ Goitein, S.D., Letters of Medieval Jewish Traders (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973), pp. 175–229Google Scholar; Goitein, S.D., “From Aden to India”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 23,1&2 (1980): 46Google Scholar; Chakravarti, R., “Merchants of Konkan”, The Indian Economic and Social History Review 23,2 (1986): 215CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ Christie, “Texts and Textiles”, pp. 193–95.

²⁰ Brandes, J.L.A., Oud-Javaansche Oorkonden, nagelaten transscripties van wijlen Dr. J.L.A. Brandes, uitgegeven door Dr. N.J. Krom (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1913), inscription lviiiGoogle Scholar.

²¹ Brandes, Oud-Javaansche Oorkonden, inscription lixGoogle Scholar. The Kaladi inscription — for which, see Jones, A.M. Barrett, Early Tenth Century Java from the Inscriptions (Dordrecht: Foris, 1984), pp. 178–94Google Scholar — from the same region, which is dated 909 A.D., but which survives only as a later reissue, preserves an anachronous list identical to those of the Cane and Pātakan inscriptions.

²² Wheatley, Paul, “Geographical Notes on some Commodities involved in Sung Maritime Trade”, Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 32,2 (1959): 59–61Google Scholar; Hirth, and Rockhill, , Chau Ju-kua, pp. 88, 92–93, 96–98Google Scholar.

²³ Christie, “Texts and Textiles”, p. 194.

²⁴ Brandes, , Oud-Javaansche Oorkonden, inscription lxivGoogle Scholar. From Truneng, in the Brantas delta region. Undated, but commissioned late in Airlangga's reign, probably in the 1040s.

²⁵ M. Boechari, “Prasasti Garamān, 1053 A.D.” (unpublished ms.).

²⁶ Christie, Jan Wisseman, “Javanese markets and the Asian sea trade boom of the tenth to thirteenth centuries A.D.”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 41,3 (1998)Google Scholar.

²⁷ Poerbatjaraka, R.Ng., “Vier oorkonden in koper”, Tijdschrift voor Taal-, Land-, en Volkenkunde 76 (1936): 378Google Scholar.

²⁸ van Aelst, A., “Majapahit picis: the currency of a ‘moneyless’ society”, Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-, en Volkenkunde 151,3 (1995): 357–93Google Scholar; Christie, Jan Wisseman, “Money and its uses in the Javanese states of the ninth to fifteenth centuries A.D.”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 39,3 (1996): 243–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁹ Pigeaud, Th.G.Th., Java in the 14th Century: A Study in Cultural History, five volumes (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1960–1963), canto 83.4Google Scholar.

³⁰ Christie, “Texts and Textiles”, p. 194; Barnes, Ruth, “From India to Egypt: The Newberry Collection and the Indian Ocean textile trade”, in Seafaring Communities in the Indian Ocean, 4th c. B.C.–15th c. A.D., ed. Salles, J.F. and Ray, H.P. (Brussels: Brepols, in press)Google Scholar.

³¹ There is, in fact, another, much earlier Tamil-language inscription, not considered here, that has been found in Southeast Asia. It comprises two words written on a small stone that was apparently used as a goldsmith's touchstone, now held in the museum at Wat Khlong Thom, Krabi, on the west coast of peninsular Thailand, about 120 km. south of Takuapa. Khlong Thom was the site of a very early port and manufacturing centre specializing in the production of beads and other jewelry. The short inscription, written in Brahmi script of the third or fourth century A.D., reads perumpatan kal, meaning, “the [touch]stone of the master goldsmith”. This was the personal property of an individual artisan, rather than an inscription set up for public attention. See Karashima, Norobu, “Indian Commercial Activities in Ancient and Medieval Southeast Asia” (Paper delivered at the Conference of the International Association of Tamil Research,1995), pp. 3–4Google Scholar.

³² Gungwu, Wang, “The Nanhai Trade”, Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 31,2 (1958): 123Google Scholar.

³³ Chinese ceramics of ninth and early tenth century date have been recovered from one of the early sites at Palembang — see Mei, Ho Chui, “Ceramics from the Palembang Excavations”, ACRO Update 2 (1995): 1Google Scholar; the Jambi site connected with that period has yet to be located.

³⁴ Wolters, O.W., Early Indonesian Commerce: A Study of the Origins of Śrīvijaya (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967), pp. 187–88Google Scholar.

³⁵ Wang, “The Nanhai Trade”, pp. 101, 104–105, 123.

³⁶ The Sanskrit inscription on the front of a stone found in a collection in Nakhom Si Thammarat — dated 775 A.D. and lauding the king of Śrīvijaya — appears to have been superseded by an undated, but palaeographically similar Sanskrit inscription on the back of the stone, lauding a king of the Śailendra family that was in power in central Java at the time. See Coedès, G., Recueil des Inscriptions du Siam, Deuxième Partie: Inscriptions de Dvāravatī, de çrīvijaya et de Lävo (Bangkok: The Siam Society, 1962), pp. 20–24Google Scholar.

³⁷ The Nālandā inscription, commissioned in about 860 A.D., concerning a Buddhist foundation funded by a Sumatran ruler, mentions a king of Suvarṇaīvīpa (Sumatra), but not the state of Śrīvijaya; this ruler's main claim to fame appears to have been the fact that he was the grandson of the Śailendra ruler of Java — Shastri, H., “The Nalanda Copper-plate of Devapaladeva”, Epigraphia Indica 17,7 (1924): 310–27Google Scholar.

³⁸ Sastri, K.A. Nilakanta, “The Takua-pa (Siam) Tamil Inscription”, Journal of Oriental Research 16 (1942): 326–27Google Scholar; see also the archaeological evidence discussed below.

³⁹ Wang, “The Nanhai Trade”, p. 123.

⁴⁰ This impression of the relative importance of Java in maritime Southeast Asia during the late eighth and ninth centuries is reinforced by Cham, Vietnamese and Cambodian sources. See Christie, Jan Wisseman, Patterns of Trade in Western Indonesia: Ninth through Thirteenth Centuries A.D. (Ph.D. diss., School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1982), pp. 30–31Google Scholar; Coedès, G., Les Inscriptions du Cambodge, eight volumes (Paris: Ecole Française d'Extrême-Orient, 1942–1966), volume I, p. 42Google Scholar; Coedès, G., The Indianized States of Southeast Asia (trans. Cowing, S.B.) (Honolulu: East-West Center Press, 1968), pp. 123, 315 n. 104Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Ferrand, G., L'Empire Sumatranais de Çrīvijaya (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1922), pp. 50–52Google Scholar; Tibbetts, G.R., A Study of the Arabic Texts Containing Material on South-East Asia (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979), pp. 25–32Google Scholar. Given the shifting political situation in maritime Southeast Asia during the centuries between the ninth century, when these Arab reports were first written, and the time of their reuse in later compilations, there remains some doubt concerning the exact identity of Zābaj. Tibbetts (Ibid., p. 112) is almost certainly correct, however, in his conclusion that the term Zābaj was first, in the ninth century, attached to Java and its economic and political sphere in the eastern islands, and that only later, after the port hierarchy of Śrīvijaya had reassembled itself, did confusion set in.

⁴² Christie, “Money and its uses”, pp. 245–47.

⁴³ Coedès, , Recueil des Inscriptions du Siam, inscription xxviGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁴ O'Connor, S.J., Hindu Gods of Peninsular Siam. supplementum to Artibus Asiae 28 (1972), figs. 28–31Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Hultzsch, E., “Note on a Tamil Inscription in Siam”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1913): 337–39Google Scholar; and “Supplementary Note on a Tamil Inscription in Siam”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1914): 397–98Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ “Takuapa and its Tamil Inscription”, Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 22, 2 (1949): 29Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Pillai, Kunjan, Studies in Kerala History, p. 371Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Balasubrahmaniam, “The Tisai Ayirattainūuvar”, p. 618; Abraham, , Two Medieval Merchant Guilds, pp. 45, 183, 248Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Bronson, Bennet, “Chinese and Middle Eastern Trade in Southern Thailand during the 9th Century A.D.”, in Ancient Trades and Cultural Contacts in Southeast Asia, ed. Srisuchat, Amara (Bangkok: Office of the National Cultural Commission, 1996), pp. 181–200Google Scholar; Lamb, H.A., “Takuapa, the probable site of a pre-Malaccan entreôt in the Malay peninsula”, in Malayan and Indonesian Studies, ed. Bastin, J. and Roolvink, R. (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1964)Google Scholar; Mei, Ho Chui, Charoenwongsa, Pisit, Bronson, Bennet, Srisuchat, Amara and Srisuchat, Tharapong, “Newly Identified Chinese Ceramic Wares from Ninth Century Trading Ports in Southern Thailand”, SPAFA Digest 11,3 (1990): 12–17Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Wheatley, “Geographical Notes”, p. 25.

⁵¹ See, for example, the reports on the upper levels at Arikamedu, near Pondicherry: Wheeler, R.E.M., Ghosh, A. and Deva, Krishna, “Arikamedu: An Indo-Roman Trading Station on the East Coast of India”, Ancient India 2 (1946): 91Google Scholar; on the site of Kanchipuram in Tamil Nadu, see Government of India, Indian Archaeology (Delhi: Government of India, 1969–1970), p. 37Google Scholar; on the tenth-eleventh century site of Madilakam, near Cranganore on the Malabar coast, see Government of India, Ibid., p. 15.

⁵² In 1005 A.D. the king of Śrīvijaya, who was also “lord of Kaṭaha (Kedah)” built in south India a Buddhist vihāra, for which the Chola ruler later granted revenues. See Aiyangar, S.K. and Sewell, R., Historical Inscriptions of Southern India (Madras, 1932), pp. 57–58Google Scholar; and Epigraphia Indica 22, no. 34Google Scholar. A decade later, in 1014–15 A.D., the ruler of Śrīvijaya presented gifts to a Hindu temple in the Chola state (Annual Report on Indian Epigraphy 1956–1957: 15, nos. 161 and 164Google Scholar). In 1018–1019 A.D., the ruler of Śrīvijaya and Kedah presented gifts of “Chinese gold” and other objects to the same Hindu temple (Annual Report of Indian Epigraphy 1956–1957: 15, no. 166Google Scholar). These inscriptions have also been discussed by Majumdar, R.C., Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East, volume 2: Suvarṇadvīpa (Calcutta, 1937)Google Scholar, and more recently by Miksic, J.N., “Hubungan sejarah antara Seriwijaya, Palembang dengan Lembah Bujang”, Tamadun Melayu 3 (1995): 894–917Google Scholar.

⁵³ Wong, Grace, A comment on the tributary trade between China and Southeast Asia, and the place of porcelain in the trade during the Song dynasty in China (Singapore: The Southeast Asian Ceramic Society, 1979), no. 15Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Wolters, O.W., “Tambralinga”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 21,3 (1958): 605Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Wong, , A comment on the tributary trade, no. 16Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Aiyangar, and Sewell, , Historical Inscriptions, pp. 65–66Google Scholar; Coedès, , The Indianized States, pp. 142–43Google Scholar; Sastri, Nilakanta, The Colas, pp. 211–20Google Scholar. Rājendra's list of conquests includes: Śrīvijaya, Paṇṇai (north Sumatra), Malaiyūr (Jambi), Māyirudingam (?), Ilangāśogam (Langkasuka), Māppappālam (Lower Burma?), Mevilimbangam (Palembang?), Valaippandūru (?), Talaittakkolam (Takuapa), Mādamālingam (Tāmbralinga), Ilāmurideśam (Lamri, Aceh), Māṇakkavāram (Nicobar Islands), Kaḍāram (Kedah). It is interesting to note that Rājendra's son later claimed on his father's behalf only the conquest of Kidāram (Kedah) (Annual Report of South Indian Epigraphy 1912–1913: 961, 26Google Scholar).

⁵⁷ Wong, , A comment on the tributary trade, no. 11Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Wheatley, “Geographical Notes”, p. 25.

⁵⁹ Wheatley, Paul, The Golden Khersonese (Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1961), p. 61Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Epigraphia Indica 25, part 6: no. 25Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Hirth, and Rockhill, , Chau Ju-kua, p. 59Google Scholar. The Sung Shih states that the Cholas were subject to Śrīvijaya, a statement which may reflect the fact that the Cholas traded with China under the aegis of Śrīvijaya, and thus may have accompanied their missions to the court. For other views on this passage in the Sung Shih, see also: Majumdar, R.C., Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East, volume 2: Suvarṇadvīpa (Calcutta, 1937), pp. 182–90Google Scholar; Seong, Tan Yeok, “The Śrīvijaya inscription of Canton (A.D. 1079)”, Journal of Southeast Asian History 5,2 (1964): 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶² Wheatley, “Geographical Notes”, p. 25. Middle Eastern missions, which continued to arrive into the second half of the twelfth century, carried ivory, rhinocerous horn, frankincense, rosewater, pearls, glassware, etc. (Wong, , A comment on the tributary trade, no. 16Google Scholar). Missions from Coromandel carried many of the same commodities (Wong, Ibid., no. 15). Both also carried such Southeast Asian produce as camphor (probably from west Sumatra) and cloves (from eastern Indonesia, but bought in ports of Java or Śrīvijaya). Missions from Śrīvijaya carried an almost identical range of goods (Wong, Ibid., no. 11), presumably to advertise its role as entrepôt for Indian Ocean commodities.

⁶³ The history behind the temple's reconstruction and the subsequent gifts of land is detailed in a Chinese-language inscription of 1079 A.D. (Tan, “The Śrīvijaya inscription”).

⁶⁴ Wong, , A comment on the tributary trade, no. 11Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ There was further Śrīvijayan activity during the 1080s in connection with Buddhist foundations in south India (Sastri, Nilakanta, The Colas, pp. 271–72Google Scholar; Epigraphia Indica 22: no. 35Google Scholar).

⁶⁶ The Javanese state involved was by this time probably the east Javanese coastal state of Janggala, created during the period of civil strife that followed the death of Airlangga, which is referred to in an inscription of king Garasakan, dated 1053 A.D. (Boechari, “Prasasti Garamān”); on the favours shown to the Javanese mission by the Chinese emperor in 1129 A.D., see Groeneveldt, W.P., Historical Notes on Indonesia and Malaya compiled from Chinese Sources (Jakarta: Bhratara, 1960), p. 19Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Wheatley, “Geographical Notes”, p. 32; Aelst, “Majapahit picis”, p. 361; Christie, “Money and its uses”, pp. 269–70.

⁶⁸ Yamamoto, T., “Reexamination of historical texts concerning Śrīvijaya” (Paper presented at the 8th biennial conference of the International Association of the Historians of Asia,Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,1980), p. 5Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ Hirth, and Rockhill, , Chau Ju-kua, pp. 23, 25Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ Hirth and Rockhill, Ibid., p. 24.

⁷¹ The inscription was first read by Hultzsch, E. — Madras Epigraphy Report (Madras: Government of India, 1892)Google Scholar — who summarized its main points, but did not publish a transcription or full translation; his comments formed the basis of studies by Sastri, K.A. Nilakanta — “A Tamil Merchant-guild in Sumatra”, Tijdschrift voor het Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 72 (1932): 314–27Google Scholar; Balasubrahmanian, “The Tisai Ayirattainūuvar”; Schnitger, F.M., The Archaeology of Hindoo Sumatra, supplement to Internationales Archiv für Ethnographie 35 (1937): 15Google Scholar; and Indrapala, “Some Medieval Mercantile Communities”. Karashima (“Indian Commercial Activities”, pp. 6–7) actually provides the first transcript and translation, made by Prof. Y. Subbarayalu of Tamil University. The version of the contents above derives from this reading.

⁷² “The Five Hundred of the Thousand Directions in All Countries”, one of the branches of the Aiññuuvar (AyyāvoỊe) merchant association. A number of inscriptions of the eleventh century in south India and Sri Lanka mention the Aiññuuvar (AyyāvoỊe) merchant association, and a few mention the Tiśaiyāyirattaiññūuva Nānādeśa group (Abraham, , Two Medieval Merchant Guilds, pp. 186–98Google Scholar).

⁷³ This term, which means “the settlement on the seashore”, also appears in the eulogy to aiññū uvar in several inscriptions in south India. These eulogies generally state that the merchant group was involved in commerce in 18 paṭṭinam, 32 vēỊāpuram, and 64 kaḍigaitāvaỊam (Karashima, “Indian Commercial Activities”, p. 8). This vēỊāpuram enclave attached to Barus seems, thus, to have been a trading settlement of secondary rank; the main port at Barus, however, appears to have been classed as a paṭṭinam, a commercial centre of first rank. This accords with the international significance at the time of Barus, as a major camphor-exporting port.

⁷⁴ The title nagara-sēnāpati also appears in the Telegu language inscription of about 1090 A.D., from Vishakhapatnam on the Andhra coast of south-eastern India, as that of the recipient, along with the padineṭṭu (18) bhūmi, of a grant from a merchant group (Abraham, , Two Medieval Merchant Guilds, p. 196Google Scholar). The term nagaram, in south India, referred to a commercial settlement dominated by merchants, but also containing artisans (Abraham, Ibid., p. 84). The term sēnāpati was derived from Sanskrit and referred to a military commander; it also appears in numerous Southeast Asian inscriptions, mostly in local languages, including several in Sumatra and a larger number in Java. The personal name or designation of this commander of the commercial settlement is of particular interest, since it appears to connect him with the Nattukottai Chettiar merchant community, who later traced their ancestry back to the AyyāvoỊe association (Abraham, Ibid., p. 5).

⁷⁵ The term marakkala-nāyan, used here, may be related to the term marakkāyar, which was attached to sea-faring Muslim merchants of both the Coromandel and Malabar coasts of south India in the fifteenth century (Karashima, “Indian Commercial Activities”, p. 8).

⁷⁶ Karashima (Ibid., p. 8) suggests that this term might refer to the ship's owner; it may, however, have carried a meaning closer to the term tuṇḍa, which appears in east Javanese inscriptions of the tenth and eleventh centuries, referring to the deck of a vessel, in connection with the classification of boats by size for tax purposes.

⁷⁷ This word was adopted into Malay and Javanese vocabularies as a term either for the musk of the musk deer (Moschus moschiferus, Linn.) or of the Malay civet (Viverra tangalunga), which was somewhat different from the Indian civet (V. zibetha, Linn.), Malabar civet (Moschothera civetina, Blyth), and the true African civet (V. civetta, Schreber), all three of which were imported by the Chinese, via Southeast Asia, during this period (Wheatley, “Geographical Notes”, p. 105). South Indian merchant associations exported both deer musk and civet (Abraham, , Two Medieval Mercantile Guilds, pp. 161, 172Google Scholar). It appears that, in the port of Barus, “entrance” fees were pegged to the value of the in-coming cargoes rather than that of the out-going cargoes of camphor.

⁷⁸ Goitein, , Letters of Medieval Jewish Traders, pp. 227–29Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Basoeki, B. Bronson, Suhadi, M. and Wisseman, J., Laporan Penelitian Arkeologi di Sumatera (Jakarta: Pusat Penelitian Arkeologi Nasional, 1973), pp. 18–19Google Scholar. Samples of the glass and ceramics are held in the offices of the Pusat Penelitian Arkeologi Nasional, in Jakarta. One fragment of the kawi inscription is held by the Museum Nasional in Jakarta, while the other remains in the village of Lobo Tuwa.

⁸⁰ Schnitger, , Archaeology of Hindoe Sumatra, p. 15Google Scholar; Wicks, R.S., Money, Markets and Trade in Early Southeast Asia: The Development of Indigenous Monetary Systems to AD 1400 (Ithaca: Cornell University Southeast Asia Program, 1992), fig. 7.3Google Scholar; Christie, “Money and its uses”, p. 246.

⁸¹ McKinnon, E.E., “Tamil Imagery in Northeast Sumatra”, Oriental Art 40, 3 (1994): 15–24Google Scholar; and “Medieval Tamil Involvement in Northern Sumatra, c11–c14 (The Gold and Resin Trade)”, Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 69, 1 (1996): 85Google Scholar.

⁸² This provisional transcription and translation has been made by L. Thyagarajan (P.Y. Manguin, personal communication, 29 Jan. 1996). Further work on the text may produce more information.

⁸³ McKinnon, “Medieval Tamil Involvement”.

⁸⁴ McKinnon, E.E. and Sinar, Luckman, “A Note on Pulau Kompei in Aru Bay, Northeastern Sumatra”, Indonesia 32 (1981): 49–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁵ McKinnon, E.E., “Research at Kota Cina, a Sung-Yuan period trading site in East Sumatra”, Archipel 14 (1977): 19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “Tamil Imagery”; Miksic, John, “Classical Archaeology in Sumatra”, Indonesia 30 (1980): 43–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁶ Schurmann, H.F., Economic Structure of the Yüan Dynasty: Translation of Chapters 93 and 94 of the Yüan shih (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1967), p. 230Google Scholar.

⁸⁷ Guy, John, “The Lost Temples of Nagapattinam and Quanzhou: A Study in Sino-Indian Relations”, Silk Road Art and Archaeology 3 (1993–1994): 300Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ Schurmann, , Economic Structure, pp. 223–25Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ Abraham, , Two Medieval Merchant Guilds, p. 150Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ Elvin, M., The Pattern of the Chinese Past: A Social and Economic Interpretation (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1973), p. 217Google Scholar.

⁹¹ Schurmann, , Economic Structure, pp. 225–27Google Scholar.

⁹² Latham, R.E. (trans.), The Travels of Marco Polo (Harmondsworfh: Penguin, 1958), p. 237Google Scholar.

⁹³ Schurmann, Ibid., p. 224.

⁹⁴ Guy, “Lost Temples”, p. 299.

⁹⁵ Coedès, , The Indianized States, pp. 198–201Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ Latham, , Marco Polo, p. 254Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ Boechari, , Prasasti Koleksi Museum Nasional, vol. 1 (Jakarta: Museum Nasional, 1985/1986), pp. 164–68Google Scholar.

⁹⁸ It was reported in Oudheidkundig Verslag 1912: 46Google Scholar, no. 39, and in Notulen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen 1911: 128Google Scholar, 14e; it was referred to by Krom, N.J., in Hindoe-Javaansch Geschiedenis (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1931), p. 410Google Scholar, but no transcription or translation has been published. See also de Casparis, J.G., “Peranan Adityawarman, Putera Melayu di Asia Tenggara”, Tamadun Melayu 3 (1995): 933–64Google Scholar; Suleiman, Satyawati, The Archaeology and History of West Sumatra (Jakarta: Research Centre of Archaeology of Indonesia, 1977) [Berita Pusat Penelitian Purbakala dan Peninggalan Nasional, no. 12, p. 5]Google Scholar.

⁹⁹ The stone is housed in the Museum Nasional in Jakarta, where it is numbered D 181, but now apparently lacks a record of its provenance. See van Stein Callenfels, P.V., “Rapport over een diensreis door een deel van Sumatra”, Oudheidkundig Verslag (1920): 70Google Scholar, for the initial report of the find and its context; see Karashima, “Indian Commercial Activities”, p. 9, for discussion of the content of the text in both languages, based partly upon a provisional reading by Atmodjo, Sukarto K.. A provisional transcription of the Old Malay/Javanese-language portion of the text is presented by Edi Sedyawati, Gaṇeśa statuary of the Kaḍiri and Singhasāri periods: A study of art history (Leiden: KITLV Press, 1994), p. 326Google Scholar, along with inscriptions on a number of Gaṇeśa statues from east Java. The translation above is based on her transcription.

¹⁰⁰ Sedyawati, Edi, Gaṇeśa statuary, p. 326Google Scholar.

¹⁰¹ Karashima, “Indian Commercial Activities”, p. 9.

¹⁰² Callenfels (“Rapport over een dienreis”, p. 70) read the date as 1167 Śaka (1245 A.D.), but Damais, L.C. later, in “Etudes d'Epigraphie Indonésienne III: Liste des Principales Inscriptions Datées de l'lndonésie”, Bulletin de l'Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient 46,1 (1952): 100Google Scholar, corrected it to 1135 Śaka (1213 A.D.); Karashima (“Indian Commercial Activities”, p. 9), using the incomplete astronomical data given in the inscription, suggests three possible dates: 1187, 1258 or 1265 A.D., but on palaeographical grounds prefers the last two.

¹⁰³ Since the term nagara appears here in the text written in Old Malay/Javanese, it may have been used in the Javanese manner (meaning “palace”) rather than the Tamil manner (meaning “commercial centre”). Both meanings were later combined in the Malay term negri, derived from nagara, which referred to the port-capital of a Malay coastal trading state and, by extension, to the state as a whole. How early this fused meaning was adopted is unclear.

¹⁰⁴ This title was the standard title accorded to kings of east Java from the eleventh century into the fourteenth century. The title is rendered as peritu śrī maharaja in the parallel Tamil text (Karashima, “Indian Commercial Activities”, p. 9).

¹⁰⁵ See Mulia, Rumbi, The Ancient Kingdom of Panai and the Ruins of Padang Lawas. (Jakarta: Research Centre of Archaeology of Indonesia, 1980)Google Scholar [Berita Pusat Penelitian Arkeologi Nasional, no. 14].

¹⁰⁶ Latham, , Marco Polo, pp. 255–56Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁷ This inscribed base was found at Padang Rotjo, upstream from Sungai Langsat on the Batang Hari river, along with other remains of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, including the giant stone Bhairava statue that has been taken to be a portrait-statue of the mid-fourteenth century Sumatran ruler Ādityavarman. The relief statue of Amoghapāśa, to which the inscribed base was originally attached, was later moved to Rambahan, not far away, thus creating some confusion over the original provenance of the two pieces. See Krom, N.J., “Een Sumatraansche Inscriptie van Koning Ktanagara”, Verslagen en Mededelingen der Koninklijk Akademie van Wetenschappen, afdeeling Letterkunde, Series 5, volume II (1916): 306–339Google Scholar; Ferrand, , L'Empire Sumatranais, pp. 179–81Google Scholar; Kempers, A.J. Bernet, Ancient Indonesian Art (Amsterdam: C.RJ. van Peet, 1959), pp. 87–88Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁸ de Casparis, J.G., Indonesian Palaeography: A history of writing in Indonesia from the beginnings to c. A.D. 1500 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1975), p. 57Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁹ Kempers, Bernet, Ancient Indonesian Art, pp. 84—88Google Scholar; Pigeaud, , Java in the 14th Century, vol. III, p. 47Google Scholar.

¹¹⁰ Coedès, , Recueil des Inscriptions du Siam, inscription xxixGoogle Scholar; Karashima, “Indian Commercial Activities”, p. 9.

¹¹¹ Karashima, “Indian Commercial Activities”, p. 9.

¹¹² O'Connor, , Hindu Gods, figs. 32–34Google Scholar.

¹¹³ Hultzsch, E., “A Vaishnava Inscription at Pagan”, Epigraphia Indica 7 (1902–1903): 197–98Google Scholar.

¹¹⁴ Abraham, , Two Medieval Merchant Guilds, pp. 232–33Google Scholar.

¹¹⁵ Filliozat, Jean, “Research in South-East Asia and the Far East”, Tamil Culture 12 (1966): 115Google Scholar; Guy, “Lost Temples”, p. 296.

¹¹⁶ Guy, “Lost Temples”, p. 298.

¹¹⁷ Subramaniam, T.N., “A Tamil Colony in Medieval China”, in South Indian Studies, ed. Nagaswamy, R. (Madras: Society for Archaeological, Historical and Epigraphical Studies, 1978), p. 8Google Scholar.

¹¹⁸ Latham, , Marco Polo, p. 237Google Scholar.

¹¹⁹ Javanese inscriptions indicate that tax farming involving mixed groups of foreign and local merchants was common in the Brantas delta by the eleventh century. None of these groups — which were labelled baṇigrāma by the Javanese courts — was exclusively south Indian in composition, and none of them acted extraterritorially. The composition of these tax-farming groups of merchants shifted over time (most significantly to include Chinese members after the twelfth century), and although Indian merchants were always included, these Javanese tax arrangements long outlasted the heyday of both the Chola empire and the south Indian merchant associations — and they outlived many individual Javanese states. See Christie, “Baṇigrāma”; and Christie, Jan Wisseman, “Javanese markets and the Asian sea trade boom of the tenth to thirteenth centuries A.D.”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 41, 3 (1998)Google Scholar.