Concurrently the Funan, beginning in the first few centuries A.

D; a string of smaller coastal

polities flourished along the strait of Malacca, at the juncture of the south china sea and the
indian ocean. After the demise of the Funan, and possibly as a partial consequence of the
Funan’s renouncing the maritime share of its economy, one of these smaller polites took
precedence over the others and in the 670s its king founded the state of srivijaya in the
southern sumatra.
During the first phase of its history, which lasted until the end of the 8th century, this state grew
into a maritime power, centered in Palembang. After about 800,with its capital still in
Palembang, it maintained a key political and economic role with respect to the major maritime
trade route passing through the southeast Asia, in a form akin to that exercised by the classical
Mataram state of Java, with which it developed a symbiotic long-lasting relationship.By the end
of the 11th century, the Srivijaya capital had moved northward, to Jambi, where it remained until
the kingdom’s demise in the 13th century.
Long-held views of historical developments posited that the still-primitive population of the early
southeast asia were “indianized” rather suddenly , starting around the 3-4th century A.D; when a
package consisting of indic political and religious ideologies, architectural and iconography
agendas and distinct sanskrit language was either imposed on or willingly adopted by them.
Archaeological research carried out in the past few decades on the sites of the proto-historic
period preceding this ‘indinization’ however has radically transformed our view of the evolution
of the region. The change is now perceived as a millennium-long phase of economic,
technological and cultural exchange between the two shores of the Bay of Bengal and along the
maritime routes of the Indian ocean and south china sea, finally resulting in the so-called
indianization of the region. Early kingdoms in the region benefited from the adoption and
adaptation to local context of state ideologies imported from India and therefore played an
important role in this long-process.

Following the decline of Funan, the Chinese actively sought new Southeast Asian trade hubs to
maintain the flow of East-West commerce. Early Southeast Asian trade centers, including those
under Śrīvijaya, were highly attuned to the fluctuations of Chinese markets, which influenced
regional trade dynamics. Limited archaeological research around Palembang and its river
estuaries suggests the existence of a Śrīvijaya hinterland capable of providing manpower for its
operations. Artifacts from this era reveal that Śrīvijaya’s influence extended deep into the interior
of Sumatra and connected to various rivers leading to Palembang, other nearby ports, and
islands within its sphere. Although Śrīvijaya was renowned for exporting forest products and
aromatics, its southeastern Sumatran ports were not strategically positioned to directly access
the northern and central Sumatran sources of these goods. The trade's success implied a
systematic relationship with the hinterland, likely through tribute systems or indigenous
networks, ensuring the steady flow of commodities to coastal ports. Foreign accounts,
particularly from Arab and Chinese sources, describe the interior ambiguously, suggesting that
goods were mediated through intermediaries rather than direct trade with interior communities.

Śrīvijaya rose to prominence between 670 and 1025 CE, capitalizing on the shift in international
trade routes to the Strait of Malacca. It established dominance over the maritime region by
curbing piracy, centralizing trade, and gaining Chinese support, which further cemented its
status as a leading entrepôt. Śrīvijaya’s ports not only facilitated trade but also served as hubs
for supplies, goods storage, and accommodations for merchants during monsoons. The state’s
prestige made it a desirable trading partner in both Chinese and Indian markets, and its rulers
leveraged this reputation to consolidate an empire integrating maritime and hinterland
resources.

Śrīvijaya’s organization blended the strengths of coastal ports with the manpower of the interior,
creating a unique socio-political system that benefited local communities through religious
ceremonies, social events, public works, and economic incentives like booty from wars.
Historians initially viewed Śrīvijaya as a loosely connected network of trading ports without
defined territorial boundaries.

Two primary sources shed light on Śrīvijaya’s statecraft: Arab accounts and epigraphic
inscriptions. Arab geographers described practices like the symbolic offering of gold bars to the
sea by Śrīvijaya rulers, reflecting their dependence on maritime trade. These accounts align
with epigraphic records from the late seventh century, primarily found near Palembang.
Inscriptions like those at Kedukan Bukit and Telaga Batu detail political and religious activities,
illustrating the state’s structure and extensive reach. Additional inscriptions discovered in
surrounding regions, including the Malay Peninsula and islands in the Strait of Malacca, further
attest to Śrīvijaya’s expansive influence. The Telaga Batu inscription has been a key resource
for studying the governance of Śrīvijaya.

The ruler of Śrīvijaya can be understood as a product of Malay culture, embodying the role of a
dātu or chief. In its early history, Śrīvijaya's ruler acted as a prominent chief who forged alliances
with other Sumatran leaders to expand his state. By the seventh century, Buddhism had been
integrated into Sumatran traditions, blending local values—such as reverence for mountains,
oaths, and ancestor worship—with Buddhist religious symbols. This syncretism was
instrumental in enhancing the monarch’s legitimacy both domestically and internationally.
Buddhist ideology, infused with magical beliefs and rites, became a tool for governance and
societal cohesion.

The Kedukan Bukit inscription reflects the ruler’s dual role as a war chief and state consolidator.
During a military expedition against the rival port of Malāyu, the Śrīvijaya king allied with
neighboring chiefs to muster a substantial force, personally leading at least 2,000 soldiers. This
campaign not only established dominance over the Batang Hari River network but also
symbolized the king’s quest for siddhayātrā—a blend of supernatural Buddhist authority and
traditional war chief legitimacy. Śrīvijaya’s rulers were seen as responsible for the prosperity of
their subjects. The inscriptions, such as the Telaga Batu inscription, emphasize this connection
through metaphors like the ripening of fruit, signifying that proper conduct would lead to
collective flourishing, while disobedience would result in punishment. The inscriptions also
associate prosperity with loyalty to the king, promising rewards such as growth (vṛddhi),
prosperity (subhikṣa), perfection (siddha), and even spiritual liberation (sānti).

The Kotakapur version of the Telaga Batu inscription invokes two deities: Ulu (meaning “high” or
“mountain” in Old Malay, reflecting the holiness of mountains) and Tandru n Luah (“God of the
Waters of the Sea”), underscoring the king’s connection to both land and sea. This duality is
reflected in his titles, such as “Lord of the Mountain” and “Mahārāja of the Isles,” as reported in
Arab accounts. Śrīvijaya’s economic success relied on the king’s role as a redistributor of
wealth. He collected customs duties and trade profits from subordinate ports, as reflected in an
11th-century Cōla̤ inscription listing 13 ports under Śrīvijaya’s control. The royal treasury,
described in the Telaga Batu inscription as filled with gold and property, symbolized the state’s
stability. It was closely guarded, as its loss could enable rivals to recruit mercenaries and
destabilize the kingdom. This central treasury also served as a source of shared wealth, with
revenues distributed to loyal chiefs and subjects, cementing alliances and ensuring the smooth
operation of the trade network.

Malays, organized in small socio-economic units, required a new unifying principle to develop
the sophisticated political structure of a state. The Telaga Batu inscription provides insight into
how this transformation occurred in the early Malay riverine state. At the center of Śrīvijaya’s
governance was the king, who directly addressed the Telaga Batu inscription to his
subordinates. This contrasts with other inscriptions, such as Kotakapur, Karangbrahi, and Palas
Pasemah, which invoke divine forces to punish disloyalty. This difference suggests that near the
state’s core, the king’s authority was firmly established, while in more distant regions, his power
relied on symbolic and mythical expressions of legitimacy. The Telaga Batu inscription outlines
the hierarchy within Śrīvijaya’s central authority. The king was surrounded by key members of
the royal family, including the yuvarāja (crown prince), pratiyuvarāja (next in line), and
rājakumāra (other royal princes).

Beyond the royal family, the king was supported by high-ranking officials. The dandanāyaka, or
royal judges, exercised judicial authority on behalf of the king. Other administrators, the nāyaka
and pratyaya, managed revenues and royal lands, respectively. The pratyaya, often in close
contact with the king and referred to as hājipratyaya, played a crucial role in managing the
monarch’s economic base, which likely included landed resources. At this early stage,
Śrīvijaya’s control over the China trade was insufficient to sustain the monarchy, so the king’s
legitimacy and power drew heavily from local resources and his growing dominance over rival
centers along the Sumatran coast and the Strait of Malacca.

The inscription also classifies the population into two categories: the non-elite (hulun, or
“slaves”) and the elite (tuhan, or “lords”). The term hulun hāji refers to personal bondsmen of the
king, who were organized under local chiefs (mūrdhaka). These bondsmen owed greater loyalty
and service to the monarch than was typical in standard chief-subject relationships. This form of
“slavery” was more akin to a system of personal obligation, often stemming from debt, purchase,
alliances, or capture in war.

In times of peace, these bondsmen provided labor and shared their production with the king. In
wartime, they formed the backbone of the king’s military forces, fighting alongside professional
and mercenary troops. While the king’s bondsmen were tightly bound by personal loyalty, the
inscription’s curses specifically targeted the nonbondsmen elite, who required an abstract,
supernatural deterrent to ensure their allegiance. This system of personal and hierarchical
relationships, reinforced by material resources and symbolic authority, was fundamental to the
consolidation of Śrīvijaya’s early statehood.

he adoption of Indian cosmology and Sanskritic titles further unified and elevated Śrīvijaya’s
statecraft.

Śrīvijaya emerged by forming alliances with Malay seafarers and hinterland chiefs, strategically
surrounding and neutralizing rivals like Malāyu. Inscriptions such as Kedukan Bukit reference a
coalition of troops, with only a fraction directly under the king’s command, highlighting the
reliance on alliances where subordinate chiefs contributed forces or remained neutral. Unfaithful
subordinates were stripped of titles and power, while loyalists were rewarded with land or district
grants, as documented in the Telaga Batu inscription.

Military power was another cornerstone of Śrīvijaya's rule. Malay seafarers, known for their
mercenary services, provided a core military force in exchange for prestige and wealth
distributed from the royal treasury. The mahārāja (king) was both feared and revered, with
prestige attracting followers. Commanders like the parvvāṇḍa held significant authority,
overseeing troops and districts, and were directly accountable to the king. They were pivotal in
quelling rebellions and maintaining order in outlying areas.

Śrīvijaya’s dominance grew through strategic control of trade, leveraging its position to cut off
rival ports and gain recognition as the preferred intermediary by the Chinese court. Its system of
vassalage allowed subordinate rulers some autonomy while ensuring loyalty through rewards
and redistribution of wealth. This blend of military might, administrative hierarchy, and cultural
legitimacy defined Śrīvijaya’s rise as a powerful maritime state.

Śrīvijaya emerged as a powerful state due to its strategic organization of trade, facilitating the
exchange of Southeast Asian products for goods from China and the West. Its prosperity was
rooted in its control of trade routes, particularly around the Musi River Delta, and the
redistribution of wealth that attracted followers and allies. The Śrīvijaya monarch leveraged local
beliefs in magical legitimacy, enhanced by Buddhist prestige, to reinforce his authority. Alliances
with local chiefs, Malay seafarers, and upriver producers integrated internal economic networks
with international trade, ensuring stability and military protection, particularly in the Strait of
Malacca. However, this system relied heavily on external income and alliances, leaving the state
vulnerable. The 1025 raid by the South Indian Chola dynasty devastated Śrīvijaya’s capital and
legitimacy, leading to its decline and the rise of alternative trade centers like Java and Jambi.
Despite its fall, Śrīvijaya-Palembang remained a symbol of Malay unity and prosperity,
influencing subsequent riverine states in the region.

The Srivijayan realm, centered in Palembang, was divided into three administrative regions,
each governed differently:
 1. Core Area (Palembang): Directly ruled by the monarch and his family, Palembang was
the administrative and ceremonial hub, with officials overseeing judges, revenue
collection, and land administration. The local cultivators served as both farmers and the
nucleus of the imperial army.

2. Musi River Hinterland: Governed indirectly through alliances with local chiefs who
pledged loyalty in exchange for benefits such as redistributed trade wealth, goods, and
the prestige of association with Srivijaya. Buddhist advisers helped maintain loyalty by
organizing ceremonies and promoting royal and religious cults. Traditional oaths, often
infused with Buddhist and Malay symbolism (e.g., water oaths with snake imagery),
reinforced these alliances with threats of divine or supernatural punishment for betrayal.

3. Other River-Mouth Ports: Srivijaya employed a combination of diplomacy, material

benefits, and force to dominate rival ports. Agreements with local sea nomads—former
pirates—secured their loyalty as naval allies. These nomads patrolled waters, ensured
safe navigation, and participated in trade, but their loyalty depended on the king's ability
to sustain trade revenues and provide steady goods. A decline in Srivijaya’s resources
could lead to piracy or shifting alliances.

Srivijaya’s strategy combined force, alliances, and religion to consolidate its realm, maintain
control of trade routes, and uphold Palembang as a major international port and treasury.

Srivijaya's success stemmed from its strategic location on a major trade route, its excellent
harbor, the navigable Musi River, and the political and economic acumen of its rulers. However,
a key factor was its relationship with the Buddhist Sailendra dynasty of central Java. The
Srivijayan royal family intermarried with the Sailendras and often highlighted their Javanese
lineage for public relations, especially in India, rather than emphasizing their Sumatran roots.

This alliance was mutually beneficial. Central Java, the most productive agricultural region in the
island realm, provided essential provisions like rice for ships and travelers in Srivijayan ports,
which Palembang’s agricultural resources alone could not sustain. Srivijaya’s dominance in
international trade relied heavily on this connection, making the Sailendras and their temple-rich
domain an integral part of Srivijaya’s power and success.