Srivijaya, also spelled Sri Vijaya or Sriwijaya, was a Malay Buddhist thalassocratic empire based on the island of Sumatra (in modern-day Indonesia) that influenced much of Southeast Asia. Srivijaya was an important centre for the expansion of Buddhism from the 7th to 11th century. Srivijaya was the first polity to dominate much of western Maritime Southeast Asia. Its economy became progressively reliant on the booming trade in the region, thus transforming it into a prestige goods-based economy.
The earliest reference to it dates from the 7th century. A Tang dynasty Chinese monk, Yijing, wrote that he visited Srivijaya for six months in 671 AD. The earliest known inscription in which the name Srivijaya appears also dates from the 7th century in the Kedukan Bukit inscription found near Palembang, Sumatra, dated 16 June 682. Between the late 7th and early 11th century, Srivijaya rose to become a hegemon in Southeast Asia.
Srivijaya's main foreign interest was nurturing lucrative trade agreements with China which lasted from the Tang to the Song dynasty. Srivijaya had religious, cultural and trade links with the Buddhist Pala of Bengal, as well as with the Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East.
Although it was once thought of as a maritime empire, new research on available records suggests that Srivijaya was primarily a land-based polity rather than a maritime power; fleets were available but acted as logistical support to facilitate the projection of land power. In response to the change in the maritime Asian economy, and threatened by the loss of its dependencies, the kingdoms around the Strait of Malacca developed a naval strategy to delay their decline. The naval strategy was mainly punitive; this was done to coerce trading ships to be called to their port. Later, the naval strategy degenerated to raiding fleet.
The kingdom may have disintegrated after 1025 following several major raids launched by the Chola Empire upon their ports. Chinese sources continued to refer a polity named Sanfoqi thought to be Srivijaya for a few centuries, but some historians argued that Srivijaya would no longer be the appropriate name for the overlord's centre after 1025, when Sanfoqi referred to Jambi. After Srivijaya fell, it was largely forgotten. It was not until 1918 that French historian George Cœdès, of the French School of the Far East, formally postulated its existence.
Etymology
Srivijaya is a Sanskrit-derived name: श्रीविजय, Śrīvijaya. Śrī means "fortunate", "prosperous", or "happy" and also has some association with the divine, at least in Hinduism. Vijaya means "victorious" or "excellence". Thus, the combined word Srivijaya means "shining victory", "splendid triumph", "prosperous victor", "radiance of excellence" or simply "glorious".
Early 20th-century historians who studied the inscriptions of Sumatra and the neighboring islands thought that the term "Srivijaya" referred to a king's name. In 1913, H. Kern was the first epigraphist that identified the name "Srivijaya" written in a 7th-century Kota Kapur inscription (discovered in 1892). However, at that time he believed that it referred to a king named "Vijaya", with "Sri" as an honorific title for a king or ruler.
The Sundanese manuscript of Carita Parahyangan, composed around the late 16th century in West Java, mentioned the name "Sang Sri Wijaya". The manuscript describes princely hero that rose to be a king named Sanjaya that—after he secured his rule in Java—was involved in battle with the Malayu and Keling against their king Sang Sri Wijaya.
Subsequently, after studying local stone inscriptions, manuscripts and Chinese historical accounts, historians concluded that the term "Srivijaya" was in reference to a polity or kingdom. The main concern is to define Srivijaya's amorphous statehood as a thalassocracy, which dominated a confederation of semi autonomous harbour cities in Maritime Southeast Asia.
Historiography
Little physical evidence of Srivijaya remains. There had been no continuous knowledge of the history of Srivijaya even in Indonesia and Maritime Southeast Asia; its forgotten past has been resurrected by foreign scholars. Contemporary Indonesians, even those from the area of Palembang (around where the kingdom was based), had not heard of Srivijaya until the 1920s when the French scholar, George Cœdès, published his discoveries and interpretations in Dutch and Malay newspapers. Cœdès noted that the Chinese references to Sanfoqi, previously read as Sribhoja or Sribogha, and the inscriptions in Old Malay refer to the same empire.
The Srivijayan historiography is based on two main sources: the Chinese historical accounts and the Southeast Asian stone inscriptions that have been discovered and deciphered in the region. The Buddhist monk Yijing's account is especially important in describing Srivijaya, when he visited the kingdom in 671 for six months. The 7th-century siddhayatra inscriptions discovered in Palembang and Bangka Island are also vital primary historical sources.
The historical records of Srivijaya were reconstructed from a number of stone inscriptions, most of them written in Old Malay using Pallava script, such as the Kedukan Bukit, Talang Tuwo, Telaga Batu and Kota Kapur inscriptions. Srivijaya became a symbol of early Sumatran importance as a great empire to balance Java's Majapahit in the east.
In the 20th century, both empires were referred to by nationalistic intellectuals to argue for an Indonesian identity within a united Indonesian state that had existed prior to the colonial state of the Dutch East Indies.
Srivijaya, and by extension Sumatra, had been known by different names to different peoples. The Chinese called it Sanfotsi, Sanfoqi or Che-li-fo-che (Shilifoshi), and there was an even older kingdom of Kantoli, which could be considered the predecessor of Srivijaya. The Arabs called Sriwijaya as Sribuza, while the Javanese called them Suvarnabhumi and Suvarnadvipa. This is another reason why the discovery of Srivijaya was so difficult.
Capital
Palembang
According to the Kedukan Bukit inscription, dated 605 Saka (683), Srivijaya was first established in the vicinity of today's Palembang, on the banks of the Musi River. It mentions that Dapunta Hyang Sri Jayanasa came from Minanga Tamwan. The exact location of Minanga Tamwan is still a subject of discussion. The Palembang theory as the place where Srivijaya was first established was presented by Cœdes and supported by Pierre-Yves Manguin. Soekmono, on the other hand, argues that Palembang was not the capital of Srivijaya and suggests that the Kampar River system in Riau where the Muara Takus temple is located as Minanga Tamwan. However, a recent study suggests that Minanga Tamwan is located by the upper Komering River in modern Minanga village, Cempaka district, East Ogan Komering Ulu Regency, South Sumatra. Komering River is a tributary of the Musi River, with its confluence located in Palembang.
Other than the Kedukan Bukit inscription and other Srivijayan inscriptions, immediately to the west of modern Palembang city, a quantity of artefacts have been revealed through archaeological surveys commenced since the 20th century. Artefacts unearthed include large amounts of Chinese ceramics and Indian rouletted ware remains, also the ruins of stupa at the foot of Bukit Seguntang. Furthermore, a significant number of Hindu-Buddhist statuary has been recovered from the Musi River basin. These discoveries reinforce the suggestion that Palembang was the centre of Srivijaya. Nevertheless, Palembang left little archaeological traces of ancient urban settlement. This is probably because of the nature of Palembang's environment — a low-lying plain which is frequently flooded by the Musi River. Experts suggests that the ancient Palembang settlement was formed as a collection of floating houses made from thatched materials, such as wood, bamboo and straw. Zhao Rukuo's 13th century Chinese account Zhu Fan Zhi confirmed this; "The residents of Sanfo-tsi (Srivijaya) live scattered outside the city on the water, within rafts lined with reeds." It was probably that only Kedatuan (king's court) and religious structures were built on land, while the people live in floating houses along the Musi River.
Palembang and its relevance to the early Malay state were controversial in terms of its evidence build-up through the archaeological record. Strong historical evidence found in Chinese sources, speaking of city-like settlements as early as 700 AD, and later Arab travelers, who visited the region during the 10th and 11th centuries, held written proof, named the kingdom of Srivijaya. As far as early state-like polities in the Malay Archipelago, the geographical location of modern Palembang was a possible candidate for the 1st-millennium kingdom settlement like Srivijaya as it is the best described and most secure in historical context, its prestige was apparent in wealth and urban characteristics, and the most unique, which no other 1st-millennium kingdom held, was its location in junction to three major rivers, the Musi River, the Komering River, and the Ogan River. The historical evidence was contrasted in 1975 with publications by Bennet Bronson and Jan Wisseman. Findings at certain major excavation sites, such as Geding Suro, Penyaringan Air Bersih, Sarang Wati, and Bukit Seguntang, conducted in the region played major roles in the negative evidence of the 1st-millennium kingdom in the same region. It was noted that the region contained no locatable settlements earlier than the middle of the second millennium.
Lack of evidence of southern settlements in the archaeological record comes from the disinterest in the archeologist and the unclear physical visibility of the settlements themselves. Archeology of the 1920s and 1930s focused more on art and epigraphy found in the regions. Some northern urban settlements were sited due to some overlap in fitting the sinocentric model of city-state urban centres. An approach to differentiate between urban settlements in the southern regions from the northern ones of Southeast Asia was initiated by a proposition for an alternative model. Excavations showed failed signs of a complex urban centre under the lens of a sinocentric model, leading to parameters of a new proposed model. Parameters for such a model of a city-like settlement included isolation in relevance to its hinterland. No hinterland makes low archaeological visibility. The settlement must also have access to both easy transportation and major interregional trade routes, crucial in a region with few resources. Access to the former and later played a major role in the creation of an extreme economic surplus in the absence of an exploited hinterland. The urban centre must be able to organize politically without the need for ceremonial foci such as temples, monuments and inscriptions. Lastly, habitations must be impermanent, being highly probable in the region Palembang and of southern Southeast Asia. Such a model was proposed to challenge city concepts of ancient urban centres in Southeast Asia and basic postulates themselves such as regions found in the south, like Palembang, based their achievements in correlation with urbanization.
Due to the contradicting pattern found in southern regions, like Palembang, in 1977 Bennet Bronson developed a speculative model for a better understanding of coastal-oriented states in Insular Southeast Asia, such as insular and Peninsular Malaysia, the Philippines, and western Indonesia. Its main focus was the relationship of political, economic and geographical systems. The general political and economic pattern of the region seems irrelevant to other parts of the world of their time, but in correlation with their maritime trade network, it produced high levels of socio-economic complexity. He concluded, from his earlier publications in 1974 that state development in this region developed much differently than the rest of early Southeast Asia. Bronson's model was based on the dendritic patterns of a drainage basin where its opening leads out to sea. Being that historical evidence places the capital in Palembang, and in junction of three rivers, the Musi River, the Komering River, and the Ogan River, such model can be applied. For the system to function appropriately, several constraints are required. The inability for terrestrial transportation results in movements of all goods through water routes, lining up economical patterns with the dendritic patterns formed by the streams. The second being the overseas centre is economically superior to the ports found at the mouth of the rivers, having a higher population and a more productive and technologically advanced economy. Lastly, constraints on the land work against and do not develop urban settlements.
An aerial photograph taken in 1984 near Palembang (in what is now Srivijaya Archaeological Park) revealed the remnants of ancient man-made canals, moats, ponds, and artificial islands, suggesting the location of Srivijaya's urban centre. Several artefacts such as fragments of inscriptions, Buddhist statues, beads, pottery and Chinese ceramics were found, confirming that the area had once been densely populated. By 1993, Pierre-Yves Manguin had shown that the centre of Srivijaya was along the Musi River between Bukit Seguntang and Sabokingking (situated in what is now Palembang, South Sumatra, Indonesia). Palembang is called in Chinese: 巨港; pinyin: Jù gǎng; lit. 'Giant Harbour', this is probably a testament of its history as a once a great port.
In 2021 a number of treasures were found in the shallows and riverbed of the Musi River by local fishermen during a dive. The treasures included coins of various periods, gold jewelries, Buddhist statues, gems, colourful beads, and Chinese ceramic fragments. However, these troves were immediately lost as local treasure hunters sold them to international antiquities dealers before archaeologists could properly study them. These discoveries led to the treasure rush in the Musi River in 2021, where locals formed groups of treasure divers operating in parts of the Musi River in and around Palembang. These troves seem to confirm that Palembang was indeed the commercial centre of Srivijaya.