Talk:Srivijaya

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Owenmolly. Peer reviewers: Gc14163.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

earlier comments

Why is there no mention of the empire's Hindu roots? Majaphit originated from this empire.--Dangerous-Boy

• Srivijaya was always Buddhist and Majapahit originated from Singhasari, not Srivijaya. Alan 07:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Paramesvara of Srivijaya was Hindu before he converted to Islam. --Dangerous-Boy 07:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Parameswara was a Hindu. But he was a Majapahit prince (the great-great-grandson of the first Emperor, the grandson of Tribhuwana Wijaya Tunggadewi) and Majapahit was a Hindu Empire. Remember, by that time Srivijaya had already fallen to the hand of Majapahit. Matahari Pagi 06:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no information on specific rulers of the Srivijaya Kingdom. How can we know when their golden age is and so much about their history without knowing a single ruler's name or anything a specific ruler has contributed? Should this be put up for articles for expansion, because this information seems small for such an influential kingdom? --Shackleton 00:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

We actually know the names of very few maharajas of Srivijaya. Records seemt o have been kept on some perishable medium and their buildings seem to have been wooden. What we know is from the extraordinarily limited inscriptions and the Chinese Annals. Remember there is no historical consciousness of this empire among the peoples of Sumatra, Malaya or Java although it ruled all or some of those islands. Its memory further afield is even thinner. For example almost every Tibetan would recognise Atisha's name but very few of them would know Atisha studied in Srivijaya or received his major initiations there. Historians concerned with medieval Bengal and South India would know about the Srivijayan endowments at Nalanda or the Chola raids on Srivijayan territory. but that's all. It would be possible to build a very partial list, but often we know little more abut individual rulers than their names. The only real personalities are Balaputra, a Sailendra who took power in the 900s and Paramesvara, a Srivijayan prince who converted to Islam and founded the Sultanate of Malacca. Alan 02:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed reversion

I propose to revert many of the most recent changes to this article. To give a few examples:

• Indianized kingdom is a more precise historical category than Malay kingdom. I am not trying to deny the ethnic origin of Srivijaya, but I'd argue assigning a contemporary ethnic category to events in the sixth century is bad encyclopaedic practice, especially when Indianized kingdom emphasizes the comonalities with other Inidinaized kingdoms in Southeast Asia in a way that 'Malay kingdom' does not.

• 'The Khmer kingdom may also had been a tributary in its early stages. Srivijaya also maintained close relations with the Pala Empire in Bengal' as against 'The Khmer kingdom may also had been a tributary in its early stages. They also maintained close relations with the Pala Empire ' The current version is ambiguous as to whether the Khmer empire or Srivijaya maintained close relations with the Palas.

• 'inscription in 860' as against 'inscription that dates 860 ' has syntactic problems. The usual way to describe the date of an inscription in English is to call it a date 'in' or 'from' not 'that dates'.

• I can see no reason at all to delink Kediri.

• I can see no reason to simply delete the late move of Srivijaya's centre to Jambi.

Please discuss. Alan 06:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

How about Indianized and Malay? Both terms completely describe the situation? __earth 16:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Indianized is rather an old-fashioned term; it's widely deprecated by today's scholars as downplaying the role of indigenous cultures in these kingdoms. Since it's still a well-known term, it should be mentioned somewhere (ideally with a discussion of how accurate it is), but not too prominently (certainly not in the first sentence). I would suggest keeping the category, and mentioning the term in the context of the extent of Indian influence. Mark¹ 17:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd contest that it's rather an old-fashioned tem although I accept the content of the term is changing radically, particularly since the work of historians like Wolters and Day. I say the place to resolve this is in the article Indianized kingdom rather than in unilaterally whipping various Indianized kingdoms in and out of the category. Certainly plain 'Malay kingdom' is not as rich an analytical term and simply perpetuates what already prevails on too too many Southeast Asian pages, a retrojection of current ethnicities and boundaries into a period where they existed in different and much more tenuous forms. For an example, see the page datu which barely even mentions that the word exists outside the Philippines. I also ask why the varous other changes like delinking Kediri were made. Alan 00:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we stick to the specifics of the article, we don't have to worry too much about Indianized kingdoms- can we agree that the category should stay, and that the extent of Indianization should be discussed in the text, but that putting the term in the first sentence would be oversimplifying (and POV)? Otherwise I agree with all your points, except that I'd say "an inscription from 860". Mark¹ 00:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Calling Sriwijaya a "Malay kingdom" is an anachronism. The language of the Kedukan Bukit inscription, dated 683, the Talang Tuo inscription, dated 684, and the Kota Kapur inscription, dated 686, has been dubbed "old Malay" because it shares many common features with the various forms of modern Malay, but are hardly intelligible for most Indonesians and Malaysians today. However, given the name "Malay" comes from that of an ancient kingdom called "Malayu", located in today's Jambi Province and distinct from Sriwijaya, it would not be appropriate to call Sriwijaya a "Malay kingdom". Sriwijaya was a city-state designated under the word kedatuan. The word derives from datu or "chief", "ruler". The ruler of Sriwijaya bore the title of "Dapunta Hyang", an expression most speakers of the Indonesian and Malay languages will not understand. Humboldt 10:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

hi

hi, i add some inscription from the founder of Srivijaya kingdom the Dapunta Hyang cri Yacanara. Also some hidden factor behind the decline of Srivijaya that is the mud sedimentation in Musi River Estuaria. It was once a port, but if you visited Palembang now, you will know that the estuaria had been sedimented deeper and it created a gap of several kilometres before the sea could be seen.Tasfan 08:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the Philippines in the Sri Vijaya Empire? Not just the article, but the map also blinds out what is present-day Philippines from the Sri Vijaya Empire. There is artifactual evidence along with primary resources out there that what is the present-day Philippines was part of the empire from at least the 9th century AD. Also, the Visayas region and Sulu archipelago of the Philippines formed at one point the seat of the empire itself. There is also that gold statue of the Golden Tara of Batuan found in Mindanao decades ago. And I believe it is presently in the Chicago Museum of Natural History (I don't know if I got the museum's name right, but I know for sure it is a museum of natural history and is located in Chicago). That is evidence of the empire's extent in the Philippine Islands. Another piece of evidence is the Laguna Copperplate transcription.

Plz. change that map because that map just doesn't look right. Include the Philippines (more specifically, at least the Visayas, Sulu, Mindanao and Palawan) in the shaded region depicting the empire. The empire's extent was definitely also in the Philippines by the end of the 12th century.

One more thing. Another spelling of Sri Vijaya is Sri Vishaya.

some text attributing to Sri Vijaya in the Philippines

"...Hence, independent Malay states, notably Sri Vishaya [Sri Vijaya] and Majhapahit empires arose through which India[n] cultural influence reached the Philippines. The Sri Vishaya empire arose in the 8th century in Sumatra which ruled over Sumatra, Ceylon, Malay Peninsula, Western Java, Celebes, Moluccas, Borneo and the Philippines. Sulu and Visayas were the center of Shri Vishaya power... (Rasul 4)" -Taken from "Agonies and Dreams: The Filipino Muslims and Other Minorities"
Citation: Rasul, Justice Jainal D. Agonies and Dreams: The Filipino Muslims and Other Minorities. Quezon City: CARE Minorities, 2003.

Page move

A user recently moved Srivijaya to Sriwijaya. I've undone the move due to the fact that the move pre-empted discussion. __earth ^(Talk) 15:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you do that? Don't you have to be an administrator to move something to an already created page (ie, Srivijaya) including moving something back? --Merbabu 07:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Merbabu, nope, you don't have too. It used to be an exclusive admin privilege but anybody could do it now, I think. __earth ^(Talk) 08:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am the one who moved Srivijaya to Sriwijaya because the latter is the spelling used by academics on Indonesia and the Malay world, for example O. W. Wolters from Cornell University for his book The Fall of Sriwijaya in Malay History, 1970, and Pierre-Yves Manguin from Ecole francaise d'Extreme-Orient in "Sriwijaya, entre texte historique et terrain archéologique : un siècle à la recherche d’un État évanescent", Bulletin de l’EFEO, 88, 2001, not mentioning of course Georges Cœdès's Sriwijaya : History, religion & language of an early Malay polity : collected studies, Monograph of the Malaysian Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, :-) Anda Djoehana 04:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sriwijaya seems to be spelled under an outdated Malay system though I admit, by Malay, I mean that used in Malaysia. It may not be the case in Indonesia. My readings seem to use Srivjaya to refer to the kingdom though I don't think I'll be able to provide the citation soon. If it's a majority the support the move, you may move it. I'm kind of sitting on the fence. __earth ^(Talk) 05:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Territorial extension

O. W. Wolters, Pierre-Yves Manguin and other historians and archaeologists have shown that basically Sriwijaya was a city-state located in modern Palembang. Based on other considerations such as agronomy and ecology, the city must have had 50,000 inhabitants at most. Sriwijaya's hinterland was made of forests that could hardly have supported a larger population. Sriwijaya's power resided in its capacity to control maritime traffic in the Malacca Strait, possibly through an alliance with the ancestors of present Orang Laut. The myth of a vast territorial control by Sriwijaya was launched in the 1930's by Moehamad Yamin, who wanted to give the Netherlands Indies's inlanders ("natives") a sense of grandeur. This myth might be needed politically and ideologically at the time, but history must be based on facts and research, not on propaganda! :-) Anda Djoehana 05:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

How about the Chinese record confirming Srivijayan presence in Java and in Chaiya in southern Thailand? I've also read that Srivijaya is really a confederation of states rather than a unity one. __earth ^(Talk) 05:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of such Chinese records and will check with Pierre-Yves Manguin, whom I know personally. As for Chaiya, what has been found there is an inscription stating that a king of Sriwijaya built a temple there as a donation. On the other side of the plate, the name "Sailendra" is written. Sailendra was the name of a dynasty that reigned in Central Java in the 8th century. Some people interpreted that this mention of "Sailendra" meant that the donator was a Sailendra king, but I hope you will admit that this is a bit too quickly inferred! :-) As for the confederation concept, there is not much evidence to support it, Anda Djoehana 05:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You do? Send me his autograph please! __earth ^(Talk) 08:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you know him personally? Cool! About Srivijaya... I'm from South Kalimantan(or Borneo)island. We believe our ancestors were Malay people who came from Sumatra, at a time of Srivijaya. In the year 520, they built a Buddhist Kingdom, Tanjungpuri, in the area now known as Tabalong. We actually have a candi (Candi Laras) which is the remnants of Tanjungpuri Kingdom. So I actually have a reason to say that Srivijaya's sphere of power was true. As you can see, the southern part of Kalimantan is highlighted as a part of the empire.Matahari Pagi 09:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Rulers

So far, one of the few written mentions of a Sriwijaya ruler is that of Dapunta Hyang Sri Yacanara in the Kedukan Bukit inscription dated 682 AD and found on Bangka island. The Nagarakertagama epic written in 1365 does not make any reference to Sriwijaya but instead to Palembang, so Parameswara, who according to legend founded Malacca around 1400 could not have been a Sriwijaya prince, :-) Anda Djoehana 05:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand why the Malaysians keep insisting that Parameswara was a Srivijayan prince when in fact at that time Srivijaya had disappeared. His religion before Islam was Hinduism, which would be very weird if he really was a Srivijayan prince (Srivijayans were Buddhists).

The reason why he was a Hindu is because he was in fact a Majapahit prince. Both article of Parameswara in English and Malay, even though they claim he was a Srivijayan prince, stated his lineage: Raden Wijaya the first king (1293-1309) of Majapahit was married to Sri Gayatri Rajapatni, a daughter of Sri Kertanegara, the last king (1268-1292) of Singhasari Kingdom, and had a daughter Tribuana Tunggadewi, the third leader/queen (1326-1350) of Majapahit. She married Kertawardana, and had a daughter: Iswari. She married Singawardana, and had a daughter: Sarawardani. She married Ranamenggala, and had a son: Parameswara who was born in 1344 during the reign of his great grandmother, Tribuana Tunggadewi, the third leader/queen of Majapahit.Matahari Pagi 09:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably because he had identified himself with the Malay instead of the Javanese. That is the reason why he ran away when the Javanese reinvaded Palembang in the late 1300s. While Srivijaya had varnished, they were several groups that tried to recreate Srivijaya (i.e. Wuni), claiming ties to Srivijaya. The fact that he was a Hindu and Srivijaya was a Buddhist kingdom does not change the fact that he had his loyalty to Palembang and Malay instead of Java. The same goes with Sultan Alauddin of Johor-Riau-Lingga. He was a Malacca prince despite the fact that Malacca no longer existed. __earth ^(Talk) 11:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That's understandable if he thought himself as a Malay rather than a Javanese, but it doesn't change the fact. The fact that his ethnicity was Javanese and there was no such thing as a Srivijayan prince anymore at that time. That'd be like trying to pass Adolf Hitler as a native German while in reality he truly was an Austrian. :D Matahari Pagi 03:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. But I have placed a request for citation for that particular point. I hope that would temporarily settle this discussion among us. __earth ^(Talk) 04:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If we want to know why Parameswara identified himself as Srivijayan lineage I think we have to check the background of his father, Ranamenggala and maybe Sailendra lineage since Srivijaya time. Majapahit Genealogical Diagram shows Sarawardani married to Bhre Pandan Salas, not Ranamenggala. We have to know also that time "forced political marriage" is part of the strategy to neutralise your enemy. Need to clarify on this. ^(ChikDin) 09:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

References

May I express some doubt about the way the references have been presented in this article? A title, once cited, in subsequent notes is repeated in its entirety. This seems to me to have two disadvantages:

• It is hard on the reader, who does not really need to take note of the ISBN, say, over and over again, but had rather concentrate on the evidence, i.e. the page number.
• It seems at odds with usual scholarly practice (as far as my experience goes).

I would therefore suggest that when a title is referred to for the second and subsequent times, the short version be used.

• Additionally there is the problem that pages 127 is not quite grammatical and might even lead to confusion. I'd like to suggest substitution by p. 127 (or, as the case may be, pp. 127-28).

Kind regards, Bessel Dekker 17:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

dear Bessel, please, be my guest. I reverted your earlier edit because there was a technical error with the citation, not because I disagree with your edit. __earth ^(Talk) 03:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of that, Earth: thank you. Regards, Bessel Dekker 22:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

update first section

Small changes in the first section. The reference nr 1. to Munoz (accidently removed before )is kept, but the unsourced info is removed, namely the reference to sri boja, the estimate of 200s and the citation needed templates. Apart from beeing unsourced, there was already a reference to ' sriboja '( with source )under the next section.A. Post-Muller (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Fact check

Hey, I read from somewhere that the daughter of Tarumanagaran Linggawarman married Jayanasa, the Srivijayan maharaja, whom is mentioned in the Bukit Kedukan inscription. The source on the Tarumanagaran event also alleges that Dharmasetu was a product of this marriage. I am trying to verify this information but would appreciate if others could shed some light on the matter. __earth ^(Talk) 03:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So much of these articles are unreferenced. People have just added what they wanted. Who knows what is reliably verifiable and what isn't? I say remove these sort of things if not verifiable. Good verified info is our goal, but no info is better than unverified info in my opinion. regards. --Merbabu (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No WP:RS or WP:V get rid of it SatuSuro 04:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, no. You guys misunderstood me. I was wondering if you know any source to verify the allegation. Would appreciate any lead (books, etc) if you have any. __earth ^(Talk) 13:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Reversion to 13:30, July 26, 2008 version

Hey SatuSuro, I reverted it because several statements backed with sources were changed. Those changes rendered the citations useless. Any new statement with new points should be backed with new sources. Unfortunately, those changes didn't provide new sources while pre-existing sources were maintain, which gave the perception that the pre-existing sources backed the new statement. I apologize for reverting it without explaining the rationale for reversion. __earth ^(Talk) 04:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine, no need to apologise - at least you came back - its the reverts that remain totally unexplained that will get - rereverted -specially when the Indian/Malay ethnocentric arguments continue the way they do - having scottish ancestry at least I try to maintain an outsiders point of view - I'd be a lot happier if the malay and indian claims were all dropped and perhaps a bit more uncertainly crept into something which has so little real evidence to go from! SatuSuro 05:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Srivijaya 200s to 13th century, Did Srivijaya really that old?

As far as I know from history book I've red back in my schooldays, Srivijaya only came to existence in early 7th century, when the inscriptions confirm its existence. Why the period of this empire written started at 200s?. Many other sources such as Britannica also confirm that "Srivijaya Empire: 7th to 13th century, The kingdom, which originated in Palembang on Sumatra, soon extended its influence and controlled the Strait of Malacca. The kingdom’s power was based on its control of international sea trade. It established trade relations not only with the states in the archipelago but also with China and India." I say we should correct the timeline especially on Indonesian History, which means Tarumanagara and Kutai are older than Srivijaya.[[Gunkarta (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)]]

Parameswara and Temasek

I quote:

Several attempts to revive Srivijaya were made by the fleeing princes of Srivijaya. In 1324, a prince of Srivijaya origin, Sri Maharaja Sang Utama Parameswara Batara Sri Tribuwana (Sang Nila Utama) founded the ancient Singapore (Temasek). He maintained control over Temasek for 48 years. Confirmed as ruler over Temasek by an envoy of the Chinese Emperor ca 1366. He was succeeded by his son Paduka Sri Pekerma Wira Diraja (1372 – 1386) and grandson, Paduka Seri Rana Wira Kerma (1386 – 1399). In 1401, his great grandson, Paduka Sri Maharaja Parameswara was expelled from Temasek by a Majapahit invasion. He later headed north and founded Sultanate of Malacca in 1402[24]. The Sultanate of Malacca succeeded Srivijaya Empire as a Malay political entity of the archipelago.[25][26]

This paragraph is in the "Decline" section. I'm not quite sure if this is accurate. To my knowledge, there was a Thai viceroy (or something like that) by the name of Temagi that ruled over Temasek. And it was Parameswara that killed Temagi, not Sri Tri Buana. I will go back to check Munoz and the Malay Annal to confirm this later. __earth ^(Talk) 06:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ on this, "Parameswara" is not the given name but a "title" confered to many rulers in the ancient southeast asian kingdoms. The whole misunderstanding on Parameswara could have been started with Tom Pire's Suma Oriental, which indicated that "Parameswara son of king Palembang, fled from Palembang, arrived in Temasek, killed the Siamese viceroy, fled (again) to Malacca and founded the Malacca" . Unfortunately, Suma Oriental became the most important source for many historians and writers on Malacca history, while the most authoritative text Sejarah Melayu, being neglected. Sejarah Melayu and Bustan Al- Salatin, derived this "Parameswara " descent from the royal house of Singapore, Bintan, and Srivijaya. According to Sejarah Melayu, Ancient Singapore was founded by Sang Nila Utama (titled Sri Maharaja Sang Utama Parameswara Batara Sri Tri Buana). See?? Sang Nila Utama also titled as "Parameswara". The so called "Parameswara" founder of Malacca (not mentioned in Sejarah Melayu) could have been Dharmaraja (Titled Sri Paduka Maharaja) son of Paduka Sri Rana Wira Kerma, Raja of Singapura (Temasek) who fled the Majapahit invasion in 1401.

I prefer the Sejarah Melayu version than Suma Oriental because Sejarah Melayu (though compiled in 1612), it containes chronicles the establishment of the Malacca Sultanate which written during the heyday of the Sultanate itself. Orhanghazi (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Manguin

The verb "prove" is unclear in the lead. Proved academically? Date published?

I modified "around 1992 or 1993" to "by 1993" because I visited the archeological museum in Palembang in mid 1992 and there was already a display of his work. Granted he may have published later than that, but if so, "by 1993" is a more accurate (though less precise) phrase. Martindo (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Contraindicating wrong informations

The decline of Srivijaya was contributed by foreign piracy and raids that disrupted the trade and security in the region. Attracted to the wealth of Srivijaya, in 1025 Rajendra Chola, the Chola king from Coromandel in South India, launched naval raids on ports of Srivijaya and conquered Kadaram (modern Kedah) from Srivijaya and occupied it for some time. The Cholas are known to benefitted from both piracy and foreign trade. Sometimes Chola seafaring led to outright plunder and conquest as far as Southeast Asia.[42] An inscription of King Rajendra states that he captured Sangrama-vijayottungga-varman, the King of Kadaram, took a large heap of treasures including the Vidhyadara-torana, the jewelled 'war gate' of Srivijaya adorned with great splendour.

The true cause of Chola attacks towards Srivijaya was not because Srivijaya was wealthy or the Cholas were attracted to conquer Srivijaya(Asians were not Europeans).The main cause of the expedition is the activities of Srivijaya itself.The Cholas were already a wealthier dynasty than the Srivijaya with more complex diplomatic relations both in inland India and overseas.The wealth of Cholas clearly portrayed through numerous grand temples and inscription of donations that the Cholas performed.While the main reason for this expedition is still obscure,main possible cause of these raids were the acts of Srivijaya who attempts to monopolise the trade with China(Tang dynasty) by stating that the Cholas were vassals of Srivijaya.(declaring themselves as Cholas and the Cholas as Srivijaya)This was done so to achieve better trade with China or in other words to steal the trade diplomatic relations from Cholas of Southern India.This resulted the true Chola envoys to China to be given less respect.This confusion were later cleared by Song dynasty.Another possibility was the act of Srivijaya to force the Arab and Chinese traders to stop at the ports of Srivijaya or the traders will be attacked by powerful Srivijaya navy.This has created a situation where the trade with China by other South and West Asian dynasties to become impossible.Other than this,there were also possibilities that Cholas attacked Srivijaya to reduce their competition to trade with mid-imperial China.(It is noted the entire South,Central and East India were conquered by Cholas most probably for the same reason)There was also possibilities for Srivijaya officials and pirates to promotes piracy which causes the Arabs and Chinese to loss their revenues which really risks the Cholas economy because the commodities imported from Arab became expensive.There were also accounts which details the Chinese help that Cholas received to overthrow Srivijaya. There were no details or inscription that were found in medieval Tamil literature or foreign Greek/Chinese accounts to prove the Cholas were involved in piracy,further in Chola navy there was a specialized team called “Kallar Anai” whose jobs is to prevent piracy. During the 10th century three empires dominated Asia,Fatimid empire of Egypt,Cholas of South India and Song dynasty of China and it is impossible for these Cholas to get involved in Piracy in Straits of Malacca which is very important for their own trade with China and Southeast Asia ,and this also will surely affect their diplomatic relations with their partners.Even in Sri Lanka where numerous strong detrimental wars occurred between Cholas and the Lankan kingdoms there were no account to state the Cholas were involved in piracy both in Sinhalese and Tamil inscription and literature.These Cholas were noted for their benovelent nature to allow the local ruler to rule despite their lose in war.This is the first time I got cross to this kind of statement.It is true that Cholas will extract tributes and took all the treasures of opponent kingdoms but this is not piracy(it is norm at that time) and stating the Cholas expeditions of Southeast Asia as a foreign piracy is totally unaccepted.It is noted that the raid of Rajendra Choladeva 1 is not sole attack in Malay/Indonesian archipelago.The raid continues until the time of later Cholas where the expeditions were often requested by local rulers to defect their enemies.The presence of Kulothungga Chola 1 and numerous other chola officials in Srivijaya to prevent any unwanted war is the prove for this statement. What do you label these expeditions?It is noted that initial emergence of Indianised kingdoms and writing systems in Southeast Asia were the products of strong Pallavas and Cholas commecial activities in Southeast Asia.Is this also interpreted as piracy?If yes you are totally wrong.

References:1.Nagapattinam and Suvarnadwipa:Reflections of Chola Naval Expeditions to Southeast Asia by Hermann Kulke,K.Kesavapany,Vijay Sakhuja,2.:K.A.Nilakanta Sastri,History of South India --Tan Meifen (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The sentences is well referenced. Chola raid on Srivijaya is historical fact, and the motivation of this raid is still in debate. Weather Chola is wealthier or not compared to Srivijaya is irrelevant. Some historian note the Chola economy was based on temple tribute system, trade, as well as raids against neighboring kingdoms (ports) accross bay of Bengal, Srivijaya fell as their "further" prey. The act is similar to piracy, which differ since the raid was kingdom sponsored. Srivijaya also did almost the same things against competing ports nearby during its formation. Srivijaya tried to maintain its position as intermediary port between China and India, by doing so, Srivijaya forced ship to visit their port and taxed the ship that passed the strait. As the result probably this disturb direct naval trade between Chola and Sung and probably add trade cost (with tax gained by Srivijaya). Read this link Nagapattinam to Suvarnadwipa: Reflections on Chola Naval Expeditions to Southeast Asia "Rajendra mighty overseas expedition against Srivijaya was a unique event in India's history and its otherwise peaceful relations with the states of Southeast Asia which had come under India's strong influence for about a millennium. The reasons of this naval expedition are still a moot point as the source are silent about its exact causes. Nilakanta Sastri concluded on his monumental works on the Cholas that "we have to assume either some attempt on the part of Srivijaya to throw obstacles in the way of the Chola trade with the East, or more probably, a simple desire on the part of Rajendra to extend his digvijaya to the countries across the sea so well known to his subject at home, and therefore add luster to his crown." It is most likely a war incited by trade, or just Chola way on raiding neighboring ports to prove the military greatness of their king (also gaining wealth through plunder).Gunkarta (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion for some extant,but your labeling statements regarding the expansion of a dynasty or expedition or war promoted by one dynasty as piracy is fully not acceptable.For example we can take Muslim conquest of India as an example.The true motivation of Islamic Turkic people and later Islamic Mongol people to invade India was not to expand Islamic ideologies or to act as a missionary.This is proven when the indigenous people still adhere to Hinduism despite almost 80% of India ruled by Muslims in late medieval and early modern period.The Muslims were fully motivated to do so because of India’s wealth and their desire to rule India.These expeditions and wars were not labeled as piracy but otherwise labeled as territorial expansion.Same goes to Gold rush period created by Spanish which completely destroyed the Inca civilization of Peru and European colonization of World and In this Cholas extent we really don’t know whether these Cholas were really attracted to Srivijaya’s wealth and it is completely irrelevant to assume that these expeditions were motivated by wealth or gold of Srivijaya and as piracy or kingdom sponsored raid for wealth.It is also wrong to state that Cholas expedition of Srivijaya as unsuccessful because the Srivijayan king were successfully captured and made tribute paying party to the Cholas.A kindom not need to be fully ceased to exist to for it to be declared as the losing party.We also cant conclude the actions of Cholas as a might showcasing act because in India despite the powerful Western Chakluyas loss almost every war they had with Cholas,Cholas only occupied only some portions of this Western Chakluyas territories and remaining portions were fully independent which fully credits the Western Chakluyas to arrange for another battle to retrieve their territories.Apart from this there are no known Indian attack on SE Asia except these Cholas to prove the might showcasing theory despite there are other strong naval power in India such as Pallavas which were connected to SE Asia both economically and culturally.It is true that these Cholas took all the treasures of opponent but there is no known planned war of Cholas to seize the wealth of neighbouring kingdoms.--Tan Meifen (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes Chola failed, they succeed to plunder but not succeed to rule the region. They failed to established permanent govt or to established Chola/Tamil colony in Srivijaya. Their naval armada just doing blitzkrieg on Srivijayan ports, plunder, and take the king as the hostage, took a large heap of treasures including the Vidhyadara-torana, the jewelled 'war gate' of Srivijaya adorned with great splendour. Because of this, many historians suggests that their main interest probably just to plunder, either driven by trade dispute or simply to raid, to prove their military might as well as wealth (as the bonus). Almost like state sponsored piracy. Yes.., they captured Srivijaya Maharaja, but other Srivijayan royal house step in and continue the Srivijayan mandala survived for several hundred years more until regional contest with Java (Singhasari).Gunkarta (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

As the Chola purpose of these raids on Srivijaya is not still clear,we just can’t state those raids as piracy,plunder,kindom organized thievery and etc.It is also unrellevant to conclude Chola raids as a destructive to peace and security in SE Asia region,the failure of Srivijaya to prevent piracy on Srivijaya shores might also be the cause.Yes it is true that even after the raid the Srivijaya royal house members continue to rule as Kings,but we must remember one thing that Sangara Vijayatungavarman was reinstalled as king by Chola officials and this clearly shows that the Cholas do not took much interest to rule Srivijaya geopolitically.It is also must noted the continous presence of Deva Kulothungga Chola 1 during the period 1063 and 1078 in Srivijaya royal court does give us some information about Cholas influence in Srivijaya(not to mention the Srivijaya were Vassal of Cholas but to express some influence the Cholas exert in Srivijaya).In 1068 there was another raid by son of Rajendra 1 which is also of unknown importance and the presence of Chola officials in Srivijaya continues until the period of Chakluya Cholas/later Cholas and(post kulothungga1).Most possible reason for this raid by Virarajendra Chola is based on one account where it is requested by indigenous rulers(but not so sure,give me time to produce appropriate reference)So to assume the raids as failed expedition is irrelevant,it is true that the expeditions doesn’t gain Cholas extra lands,but we cant be sure the intention or problems that occur between these 2 empires and these raids must not be labeled as failed attempt only because the Cholas do not impose direct rule on them,this kind of habit of letting indigenous kings to rule also can be seen in India where the prince of Pallavas were allowed to rule their regions as well as Eastern Chakluyas,Pandyas,Ays and Cheras.These defeated royalties and their succesors often recruited as Generals in Chola military.This also means that Chola does not impose their direct rule in those conquered ares but cant we say that the war that is won by Cholas with their mighty opponents is a failed attempt or failed war.It is understandable the facts about Indian dynasties regarding SE Asia could be totally felt strange by SE Asians as these dynasties were not mentioned in most of historical publications in SE Asia and the information about these dynasties is scarce.Raiding neigbouring kingdoms is not motivated by wealth but offcourse the Cholas benefitted from the funds of defeated kingdoms but once again I shall state that this was not piracy.It must be noted the presence and settlements of Tamil traders in Southeast Asia do occur both before and after these raids.--Tan Meifen (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Origin of Srivijaya?

The new User:Royal finest just recently add a huge section and make-over large parts that mainly pushes the idea that Srivijaya is centered in Malay peninsula and originally came from Peninsulan predecessor state. Sure, historians such as Coedes, Soekmono or your recently add: Suzuki, could argue about many things (such as the center or origin of Srivijaya) but please do it in civilized and graceful manner without pushing your agenda, adding your POV and flooding this article with one sided view. The contesting opinion/suggestion could be written nicely without subsection titled the "Origin of Srivijaya". I have return it to the last best version prior to your massive make-over and rewrite some parts with your additions (the contesting claim about Peninsula as the center of Srivijaya by Japanese historian?), but please discuss, you almost engage in edit war by pushing your edits and your version many times.Gunkarta (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Puppet shows

Nang Yai. Apparently there's a traditional Thai puppet show from the old Srivijaya Empire. And it's heavily Javanese-influenced. Komitsuki (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Indian: శ్రీవిజయ ... It is written in Telugu, one of the Indian languages ..

Srivijaya (also written Sri Vijaya, Indonesian: Sriwijaya, Thai: ศรีวิชัย or Ṣ̄rī wichạy , RTGS: Siwichai, Indian: శ్రీవిజయ)

Indian: శ్రీవిజయ ... is Telugu, one of the Indian languages. Could the person who wrote it originally change it please.

I do not want to change it without the original author's permission.

Saandhya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.86.191.24 (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it since it is not relevant, the Indonesian-Malay name and Thai script is justifiable since the former kingdom's territory included Indonesia, Malaysia, and Southern Thailand. However no Indian lands were part of Srivijaya, so it is irrelevant to including Indian script.Gunkarta (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

650 AD/CE

Why does the article's infobox list 650 AD/CE as the earliest date for Srivijaya when the earliest specific dates mentioned are 671 & 682? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.207.39.39 (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Relations with foreign powers

Relations with Song dynasty China.

http://books.google.com/books?id=2swhCXJVRzwC&pg=PA5&dq=Srivijaya+992&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eeVuUuq_N_aj4APnn4CwDg&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=Srivijaya%20992&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=2swhCXJVRzwC&pg=PA6#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=cLE_ToRyuLsC&pg=PA83#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=bCVyhH5VDjAC&pg=PA332&dq=Srivijaya+992&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eeVuUuq_N_aj4APnn4CwDg&ved=0CGgQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=Srivijaya%20992&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=OTDzzWjmEAwC&pg=PA29&dq=Srivijaya+992&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KuVuUuGhEofd4AP9hYDIDQ&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Srivijaya%20992&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=GBWye7c8NuYC&pg=PA413&dq=Srivijaya+992&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KuVuUuGhEofd4AP9hYDIDQ&ved=0CGQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Srivijaya%20992&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=iDyJBFTdiwoC&pg=PA142&dq=Srivijaya+992&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eeVuUuq_N_aj4APnn4CwDg&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=Srivijaya%20992&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ICnulrlyuugC&pg=PA76&dq=Srivijaya+992&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eeVuUuq_N_aj4APnn4CwDg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=Srivijaya%20992&f=false

http://www.ualberta.ca/~vmitchel/rev5.html

04:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Relations with China and the Chola Empire

http://books.google.com/books?id=fjsEn3w4TPgC&pg=PA130&dq=srivijaya+china+javanese&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RTRnUuTVCsedkQf14IDIBA&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=srivijaya%20china%20javanese&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=uLYIpjMrONEC&pg=PA106#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=pjsfAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA47&dq=Srivijaya+992&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KuVuUuGhEofd4AP9hYDIDQ&ved=0CF8Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Srivijaya%20992&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=S3nlvRJyjUEC&pg=PA24&dq=Srivijaya+992&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KuVuUuGhEofd4AP9hYDIDQ&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Srivijaya%20992&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=x3zaRttYiekC&pg=PA775&dq=Srivijaya+992&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KuVuUuGhEofd4AP9hYDIDQ&ved=0CGoQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Srivijaya%20992&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=rOw8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA174&dq=srivijaya+china+javanese&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eehuUq-fJ6-14APavYGwDA&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=srivijaya%20china%20javanese&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Z9U-FUPS3DkC&pg=PA93&dq=srivijaya+china+javanese&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eehuUq-fJ6-14APavYGwDA&ved=0CG4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=srivijaya%20china%20javanese&f=false

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Srivijaya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080205031106/http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/lcieng.htm to http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/lcieng.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141121194304/http://bibingka.com/dahon/lci/lci.htm to http://www.bibingka.com/dahon/lci/lci.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111114180033/http://www.indonesia.travel/en/news/detail/541/spectacular-opening-of-the-26th-sea-games-in-palembang to http://www.indonesia.travel/en/news/detail/541/spectacular-opening-of-the-26th-sea-games-in-palembang

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Regional conquests sources

I noticed that there was a lack of sources for the section "Regional conquests". I've went ahead and found some sources for the information in this paragraph.

1. Dapunta Hyang Sri Jayanasa's military campaign:

2. "Chinese records dating to the late 7th century mention two Sumatran kingdoms as well as three other kingdoms on Java as being part of Srivijaya":

3. "According to the Kota Kapur inscription discovered on Bangka Island, the empire conquered most of southern Sumatra and the neighbouring island of Bangka, as far as Palas Pasemah in Lampung": Gc14163 (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Suggested Deletions

A lot of the information lacks citations and thus I believe, for the sake of clarity and validity, they should be removed unless proper citations can be added. Other issues are a lack of clarity or superfluity that fail to add relevant information. The following are suggested deletions:

• "In the second half of the eighth century... in Central Java." from the Capital subheading
• "The Buddhist pilgrim Yijing's account... of the king of Zabag." from the Historiography subheading
• The variety of spellings/pronunciations of Srivijaya in the Introductory paragraph
• "Zhu fan zhi also states... and Si-lan (Cambodia or Ceylon)." under the Return subheading

Feel free to share your thoughts.Macf95 (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

New discoveries

Has this information been considered for this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Difference between Malayu, Malay, and Srivijaya

So someone kept insisting that the word "Malay" should be included in the initial description of this article. They cited Encyclopedia Britannica and Sabrizain for it. Encyclopedia Britannica calling it "The Malay kingdom of Srivijaya-Palembang" but gave no reason on why it was Malay, or whether it is the same conception of modern Malay people. Granted, the inscriptions of the 7th century used a language that has been termed in modern times as "Old Malay". Sabrizain, a Malay-focused website, of course would used the term "Malay" for this kingdom. An anonymous user recently (29 May 2022)‎ deleted the term "Malay" in the initial description, and gave the reason as "Modern Malay did not exist until the 15th century". I think I need to give some context so the dispute won't happen again in the future. The Malay culture in modern sense did not exist back in the 7th century Srivijaya. Even in the 15th century, the Malaccan Malay still in the form of a combination of various cultures such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Javanese culture, and local culture (namely Melaka strait culture). The Malay Annals/Sejarah Melayu/Sulalatus Salatin may give the impression that during the Sultanate of Malacca era, they already created a distinctive culture similar to Modern Malay, but the reality is different. To quote John N. Miksic (I quoted wholly from Singapore & the Silk Road of the Sea, 1300-1800, below):

In the fifteenth century, “Malay culture” in the modern sense did not exist yet. The word Malayu acquired its modern connotations in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (on the changing meaning of the word Malayu, see Wee 1985, Milner 1982, L. Y. Andaya 2001, T.P . Barnard 2001, Reid 2001, Shamsul A. B. 2001). In light of this, the Malay Annals was not just a reflection of Malay society; it also played an active role in shaping the evolution of Malay identity.

The oldest surviving version of the Malay Annals is known as Raffles MS 18. Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles acquired it during his residence in Southeast Asia in the early nineteenth century. This copy was written around 1612 and reflects the political situation of that time. A comparison of Raffles MS 18 with a version written in Riau around 1750 displays major changes connected with changing political circumstances. The 1750 version, known as the Shellabear Recension after Reverend William Shellabear who had it printed in Singapore in the early nineteenth century, was shaped during a period when Bugis from Sulawesi dominated Riau. It is neither a coincidence nor a mistake that Hang Tuah, the hero of Melaka, is depicted in the Shellabear Recension as being of Bugis rather than Malay ancestry. This kind of rewriting occurred frequently in the evolution of the Malay Annals and the 1612 version had no doubt undergone numerous changes compared to the hypothetical 1436 version. The Malay Annals was never intended to be taken literally, but this does not mean that it is fiction or myth. In order to achieve its goal of legitimizing the ruler, each generation for whom it was revised had to perceive it as reflecting reality. Each version of the Malay Annals can be used to reconstruct the perceptions of a particular generation of their identity in its time and place, a stage in long-term history, but is not a text which claims to be an objective record of events. <End quoting>

The term "Malayu" is different from Malay, as it refers to a historical polity (kingdom or kadatuan) based around Jambi. The polity that attacked Java was Malayu, not Srivijaya. Miksic in his book made a distinction between Malayu and Srivijaya. I'm sure other writers also made this distinction, but somehow various editor of Wikipedia kept thinking it refers to Srivijaya due to the similarity with Melayu (that is, the ethnic group, the "Malay" that was disputed here, because that ethnic group is supposed to rule Srivijaya). The Malayu kingdom sent five missions to China between 1079 and 1094, evidencing its status as an independent kingdom and active player in trading. According to Miksic "Malayu seems to have been one of the main beneficiaries of the destruction of the monopoly that Srivijaya enforced for almost four centuries." Surijeal (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

We should avoid to conflate the emic concept of "Malay" which only emerged with the modern age Sultanates (Malacca etc.), and the etic label Malay which is often retroactively used by scholars (not just by Malay primordialists!) to identify the founders of earlier polities in Sumatra which display a linguistic and cultural continuity with the modern Malays. There are good sources which label the people of Srivijaya as "Malay", e.g. Craig A. Lockard in the Berkshire Encyclopedia of World History ("The ancient Malay peoples who formed Srivijaya in southeastern Sumatra...") or Keith Taylor in The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia. Taylor explicitly discusses the emic discontinuity between ancient and modern Malays ("The Malays themselves have preserved virtually no memory of what we now call Srivijaya, a generic term for the succession of thalassocracies centred in southeastern Sumatra from the seventh to the fourteenth centuries"), but nevertheless he liberally uses the term "Malay" to denote the agents of early Sumatran and Malayan history.

I don't suggest to naively reintroduce "Malay" into the lede here, including the link to Malays (ethnic group), but clearly the matter is more complex than to say that identifying Srvijaya as Malay is wrong. –Austronesier (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

To be clear: I don't feel strongly about labeling Srivijaya a "Malay" empire in the opening sentence of the lede. However, I am strongly opposed to the removal of that label for no good reason at all in an "I don't like it"-fashion. As I have shown above, it is just wrong to say "Srivijaya was not Malay" when there are high-quality sources that do characterize Srivijaya as Malay. It takes more than OR-musings based on one statement ('“Malay culture” in the modern sense did not exist yet') to invalidate what many good sources say. –Austronesier (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Modern Malay (derived from the 18th/19th century, not the 20th century Malay post WW1) is certainly different from Melaka/Johor era Malay and would be very different from Srivijaya. But the inscriptions from Srivijaya itself never identify themselves as "Malays" (in local language: Melayu or Malayu). Sumatran kingdom that identifies themselves as Malayu would be Dharmasraya mentioned in Padang Roco inscription of 1286 CE, and Amoghapasa inscription of 1347, and even these still refer to a location rather than ethnicity. The Javanese Anjuk Ladang inscription mentioned layu which is presumed to be Malayu, but this is certainly a toponym since the inscription stated: "ri layu" (from layu).

Malayu is originally a toponym (that itself refers to Sumatra around Jambi, not Malaysia), not an ethnonym. I think this is often overlooked by Malay irredentists, and also by historians that insisted on using ethnonyms when mentioning a polity. This list should make it clear that the term refers to a location before the 15th century.

"Classical Malay" literature described Malays quite narrowly than modern irredentist interpretation. Hikayat Patani (m. 1876) for example, does not call Patani and Brunei as Malay, the term is only used for Johor. Kedah is not included as Malay in the Kedah chronicle(s). Hikayat Aceh (ca. 1625, m ca. 1675) linked Malay ethnicity with Johor, but certainly not Aceh or Deli. See.

As such, based on the historical records I mentioned, I don't think we need to include the word "Malay" before "Buddhist thalassocratic" on the page. Not only that it would incite obsessive sentiment by modern ethnic—Srivijaya themselves never recognized or admitted themselves as Malay on their inscriptions, and literature-based evidence of later eras showed that even their authors use the term only narrowly in reference to Melaka and Johor. Verosaurus (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Lockard and Taylor are "Malay irredentists"? And maybe also User:Gunkarta? That's a weird and unnecessary toxic line of reasoning. It disenfranchises Indonesian Malays of their share in the history of the Indonesian archipelago (Bhinneka Tunggal Ika holds for all peoples of Indonesia, right?). @Xcelltrasi: please say something... –Austronesier (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

If you really read my comment, nowhere in it I was referring to Lockard and Taylor and user Gunkarta, that was just your assumption. Verosaurus (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It's actually quite easy, why is there a difference between old Malay in Srivijaya era and modern Malay because Srivijaya was only a school for studying Buddhism in muara takus. Just look at the heritage inscriptions in Sriwijaya, almost all of them only contain curses and the list of kings' names is mostly taken from outside sources, it's strange right that the kingdom did not have its own king list inscription in Sumatra.

after collecting several sources about srivijaya wenri wanhar https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zb99NGK_miQ Nitekuzee (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

So because it is only a Buddhist school, culture did not develop during the Srivijaya era that is why old Malay and modern Malay have different cultures. Nitekuzee (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Farhan Curious: Discuss here AlhyarJy (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It is still debating right? I made decision to make it to the normal version. Actually it's easy to answer why Srivijaya is a Malay kingdom. The Kedukan Bukit Inscription written in Old Malay. Farhan Curious (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Has the Malay ethnicity existed since the Srivijaya era?

The ethnic Malay identity are thought to originate from the ascendancy of Melaka Sultanate in the 15th century. After the fall of Melaka in 1511, the notion of “Malay” developed in two ways: to claim lines of kingship or acknowledge descent from Srivijaya and Melaka, and to refer to a pluralistic commercial diaspora around the peripheries of the Malay world that retained the Malay language, customs and trade practices of the Melaka emporium. By the mid 20th century, an anti-Western colonialism concept of a romanticized Malayness has been an integral component of Malay nationalism. Malay nationalism had a cultural rather than a political character, discussion of 'Malay' focussed on questions of identity and distinction in terms of customs, religion, and language, rather than politics. The debate surrounding the transition centred on the question of who could be called the real Malay.

Despite its ancient origin, the term 'Melayu' did not establish itself as an ethnonym at least until the advent of the Melaka Sultanate in the 15th century. Islamisation developed an ethnoreligious identity in Melaka, with the term 'Melayu' then beginning to appear as interchangeable with Melakans, especially in describing the cultural preferences of the Melakans as compared to those of foreigner. The subjective aspect of Malay allowed a distinct plurality in the composition of the category 'Malay', since it was open to new recruits from any background, both within and outside the Malay World. From the 17th–19th centuries, the colonial administrators—first the Dutch, followed by the British—redefined the meaning of 'Malay', setting boundaries legitimized by rules of law and policies, thus elevating it to a ethnic group or nation.

Normal Version? if you want the "normal version" you should keep this version, the initial description never included Malays (ethnic groups) in the opening sentence, until an anonymous editor(?) "attacked" this article [1] [2] AlhyarJy (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Farhan Curious It is not a good idea to consider Srivijaya a Malay kingdom just because the inscriptions are written in the Old Malay language. The term "Old Malay" for the language is modern, put up by modern scholars (1910–the 1950s) because of its similarity to later Malay languages like Classical Malay. However, newer research has proven that it is not entirely true, some of the words are closer to coexisting languages such as Old Javanese, and some of the affixes do not appear in later Malay language. Suffixes are closer to the Old Javanese and can be found in the Philippine language. [3]. The relation between Old Malay and classical Malay is still debated until the present.

Furthermore, what's debated here is whether or not Srivijaya is Malay in terms of ethnicity, not language. Surijeal (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The discontinuity between Old Malay and Classical Malay is not really bigger when compared to the one between Old and Modern Javanese. There is no debate among scholars that Classical Malay emerged either directly from epigraphic Old Malay or from a closely related dialect (check what Adelaar and Waruno Mahdi have written about it in the 21th century). Btw, the suffixes of Old Malay are all still there except for irrealis -a. It's the infix -in- that's gone, but so it is in modern spoken Javanese. Until now, no one has come up with a reasonable scenario how something like koktulis 'written by you' might have developed from a documented Old Javanese construction. Yet nobody hesitates to call the builders of Borobodur Javanese (so do I too, of course).

I have cited two sources that call Srivijaya a Malay polity, and I could present more. I would be eager to see more than just one that rejects it. –Austronesier (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@AlhyarJy: Consensus, really? –Austronesier (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Battle of kedah.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)