Majapahit palace site needs to be defined

The translation on Google Translate is a little patchy, but I believe that scholars are calling for the limits Majapahit Palace site to be formally defined to determine areas of potential archaeological significance and excavation, and also since there is probably modern settlement over parts of the buried structures. This issue was brought up during a national forum on the Majapahit site in Trowulan, East Java.

Batas Keraton Majapahit Harus Segera Ditentukan
Kompas, 12 November 2009

Related Posts

Author: Noel Tan

Dr Noel Hidalgo Tan is the Senior Specialist in Archaeology at SEAMEO-SPAFA, the Southeast Asian Regional Centre for Archaelogy and Fine Arts.

2 thoughts on “Majapahit palace site needs to be defined”

  1. The notion of a real boundary for Majapahit is misplaced. There may have been real physical limits to the actual extent of the influence of the central court, but as I understand the political ideology of what Max Weber calls a “patrimonial-prebendal” system of legitimate authority and domination there is only a center (centre) and no limit recognized in official doctrines. If I am wrong I would love to hear from anyone who knows more. If I am basically correct then of course I would like to know why you think so.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *