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
Archaeologists tasked with finding the Majapahit palace
Majapahit site excavation threatened washout by rain
Villagers return thousands of Majapahit bricks
Visitor complains of poor management of Majapahit site
Excavations at Trowulan Information Centre ends
Tags: Majapahit, palace, Troqulan
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 7th, 2010 at 8:06 am
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.
March 7th, 2010 at 8:08 am
By the way, I am very grateful for the photograph and would like to know who to credit. Johannes Iemke Bakker – J. I. (Hans) Bakker