Comments on: Discussion on Srivijaya http://www.southeastasianarchaeology.com/2007/05/17/discussion-on-srivijaya/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=discussion-on-srivijaya Archaeology news from Southeast Asia Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:51:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: SHAARI ABDULLAH http://www.southeastasianarchaeology.com/2007/05/17/discussion-on-srivijaya/#comment-181 SHAARI ABDULLAH Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:02:59 +0000 http://www.southeastasianarchaeology.com/2007/05/17/discussion-on-srivijaya/#comment-181 I think we should use method of writing Malay langguage using syankrit letter / writing system as a appreciation to the KINGDOM OF SRI VIJAYA as we know MALAY use by more than 300 million people TODAY I think we should use method of writing Malay langguage using syankrit letter / writing system as a appreciation to the KINGDOM OF SRI VIJAYA as we know MALAY use by more than 300 million people TODAY

]]> By: SHAARI http://www.southeastasianarchaeology.com/2007/05/17/discussion-on-srivijaya/#comment-180 SHAARI Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:59:11 +0000 http://www.southeastasianarchaeology.com/2007/05/17/discussion-on-srivijaya/#comment-180 WE ,THE MALAY SHOULD NOT FORGOT THE HISTORY OF SRIVIJAYA .FACTS ARE : 1.MALAY LANGGUAGE AND BROBODUR TEMPLE ARE HERITAGE LEFT BY THE SRIVIJAYA KINGDOM . 2.MALAY EMPEROR ONLY EXIST DURING SRIVIJAYA TIME WE ,THE MALAY SHOULD NOT FORGOT THE HISTORY OF SRIVIJAYA .FACTS ARE :
1.MALAY LANGGUAGE AND BROBODUR TEMPLE ARE HERITAGE LEFT BY THE SRIVIJAYA KINGDOM .
2.MALAY EMPEROR ONLY EXIST DURING SRIVIJAYA TIME

]]> By: sadhana http://www.southeastasianarchaeology.com/2007/05/17/discussion-on-srivijaya/#comment-179 sadhana Wed, 25 Jun 2008 06:54:20 +0000 http://www.southeastasianarchaeology.com/2007/05/17/discussion-on-srivijaya/#comment-179 the capital of Srivijaya may be at somewhere on the malay-thai pinnisula. there are a munber of evidents, image of buddha, ruin temple sits, ancient foreign goods excavated from the earth,in southern provinces of Thailand especially the cities at coastal areas. There are many books discussed and showed these evidents by Archeologists and their conclusion showed of lest possibility of the srivija' s capital to be located at Palembang the capital of Srivijaya may be at somewhere on the malay-thai pinnisula. there are a munber of evidents, image of buddha, ruin temple sits, ancient foreign goods excavated from the earth,in southern provinces of Thailand especially the cities at coastal areas. There are many books discussed and showed these evidents by Archeologists and their conclusion showed of lest possibility of the srivija’ s capital to be located at Palembang

]]> By: Michael Chick http://www.southeastasianarchaeology.com/2007/05/17/discussion-on-srivijaya/#comment-178 Michael Chick Sat, 12 Jan 2008 03:13:45 +0000 http://www.southeastasianarchaeology.com/2007/05/17/discussion-on-srivijaya/#comment-178 "...Was it more of a confederation? Yes, it was. Srivijaya was not a unified state in the traditional sense, but a loose confederation of coastal polities that paid allegiance to the “capital” in Palembang, Sumatra..." MC: In fact, even Malacca was similar. The part in the Sejarah Melayu which talks about "I can raise 10,000 fighting men at any time" also draws questions on the validity of the statement. For the above statement to qualify, Malacca needs to have a population of at least 400,000 people, enough to discount the women, children and the elderly. We look thus, at the sustainability of Malacca for a 400,000 population. And we find it even theoratically impossible for this to be true. There is insufficient fertile agricultural land both for neither crop nor domesticated herding to sustain a 400,000 population. Hence, it is very probable that it was "big-talk" only to scare away potential opponents. However, this is a Sejarah Melayu extract. We are even questioning the validity of Sejarah Melayu on its accuracy. Noting that it was written a full 200 years AFTER the fact. “…Was it more of a confederation?
Yes, it was. Srivijaya was not a unified state in the traditional sense, but a loose confederation of coastal polities that paid allegiance to the “capital” in Palembang, Sumatra…”
MC: In fact, even Malacca was similar. The part in the Sejarah Melayu which talks about “I can raise 10,000 fighting men at any time” also draws questions on the validity of the statement. For the above statement to qualify, Malacca needs to have a population of at least 400,000 people, enough to discount the women, children and the elderly. We look thus, at the sustainability of Malacca for a 400,000 population. And we find it even theoratically impossible for this to be true. There is insufficient fertile agricultural land both for neither crop nor domesticated herding to sustain a 400,000 population.

Hence, it is very probable that it was “big-talk” only to scare away potential opponents. However, this is a Sejarah Melayu extract. We are even questioning the validity of Sejarah Melayu on its accuracy. Noting that it was written a full 200 years AFTER the fact.

]]> By: noelbynature http://www.southeastasianarchaeology.com/2007/05/17/discussion-on-srivijaya/#comment-177 noelbynature Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:52:42 +0000 http://www.southeastasianarchaeology.com/2007/05/17/discussion-on-srivijaya/#comment-177 Hi William, > Was Srivijaya as large as the maps have it? Yes and no. Yes, it probably controlled or exerted influence over a large area in island Southeast Asia, from Sumatra, the Malacca Strait, the Malay-Thai peninsula and western Java at its height, but this power was exercised over the all-important trade route between China and India rather than a real physical presence in the modern sense. Srivijaya could probably be considered a thalassocracy as most of its key cities and ports positioned along the coast. That said, > Was it more of a confederation? Yes, it was. Srivijaya was not a unified state in the traditional sense, but a loose confederation of coastal polities that paid allegiance to the "capital" in Palembang, Sumatra. Hi William,

> Was Srivijaya as large as the maps have it?
Yes and no. Yes, it probably controlled or exerted influence over a large area in island Southeast Asia, from Sumatra, the Malacca Strait, the Malay-Thai peninsula and western Java at its height, but this power was exercised over the all-important trade route between China and India rather than a real physical presence in the modern sense. Srivijaya could probably be considered a thalassocracy as most of its key cities and ports positioned along the coast. That said,

> Was it more of a confederation?
Yes, it was. Srivijaya was not a unified state in the traditional sense, but a loose confederation of coastal polities that paid allegiance to the “capital” in Palembang, Sumatra.

]]> By: William Chen http://www.southeastasianarchaeology.com/2007/05/17/discussion-on-srivijaya/#comment-176 William Chen Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:38:23 +0000 http://www.southeastasianarchaeology.com/2007/05/17/discussion-on-srivijaya/#comment-176 Was Srivijaya as large as the maps have it? How did they communicate over such as large distance or was it more of a confederation? Was Srivijaya as large as the maps have it?
How did they communicate over such as large distance or was it more of a confederation?

]]> By: __earth http://www.southeastasianarchaeology.com/2007/05/17/discussion-on-srivijaya/#comment-175 __earth Sat, 19 May 2007 02:07:52 +0000 http://www.southeastasianarchaeology.com/2007/05/17/discussion-on-srivijaya/#comment-175 thank you for the highlight. Look forward for your post on Srivijaya. thank you for the highlight. Look forward for your post on Srivijaya.

]]>