In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

82 Anton O. Zakharov Chapter 7 Epigraphy, Political History and Collective Action in Ancient Java Anton O. Zakharov Abstract This paper argues that there were many polities in the first half of the 9th century in Java. It also shows that the Javanese polities of the 8th to early 10th centuries were not collective as their commoners had few ways to influence political processes, although they could assert their rights in taxation. Introduction Early Javanese political history of the 8th to the early 10th centuries is known primarily through inscriptions (Brandes 1913; De Casparis 1950, 1956; Sarkar 1971–72). They were issued by many persons whose interrelations are far from clear. The objectives of my paper are: (a) to specify the question of dynasties in Ancient Java; (b) to examine the role of collective action in the ancient Javanese polities. Political History: Number of Polities and Dynasties The early history of Central Java has usually been depicted as dominated by the rivalry between the two dynasties: the Śailendras and the so-called Sañjaya family (De Casparis 1950; Cœdès 1968). Since the Wanua Tengah III inscription of 908 was discovered in 1983, however, this reconstruction has been challenged. Jan Wisseman Christie (2001) and Jeffrey Sundberg (2003, 2006) both hold that there was only one dynasty with two branches, though they offer different schemes of interaction between its various rulers. By contrast, Roy Jordaan and Brian Colless argue that there were at least three dynasties: the (probably self-proclaimed) descendants of Sañjaya, the Śailendras and the Śaivite line of Rakai Patapān (Jordaan and Colless 2009: 36). Unfortunately, there is insufficient data on genealogies and the family ties of kings. Therefore, the question of dynasties is left unanswered. Even the Mantyasih I (907) and Wanua Tengah III (908) inscriptions say nothing about cognate ties in their lists of rulers. But one may ask: how many polities existed in the 8th–early 10th centuries in Central Java? Contrary to scholarly convention, I suggest there were more polities than the Śailendras and the “Sañjaya” line, which is usually called Matarām. First, the Wanua Tengah III inscription issued by King Balitung in 908 tells about many rulers’ accession to the throne and their actions in relation to the sīma, i.e., the landed property made tax-free, or immunity (Barrett Jones 1984: 59–90; cf. Wisseman Christie 1985) of Wanua Tengah (Wisseman Christie 2001: 51–2). Balitung also named eight rulers as “princes of Matarām” in the Mantyasih I inscription, including Sañjaya (907, B, 8 — rakai; Sarkar 1972: 68). But this statement does not imply that Sañjaya held sway over the country of Matarām: he could be included equally in the list of “deified beings of Mĕdang” (rahyangta rumuhun ri mḍang)1 as a legendary hero of the past or ancestor or ideal monarch. Sañjaya himself stated in the Canggal inscription, dated from 732, that he ruled in the island of Java (āsīddvīpavaraṁ yavākhyam, line 13). The term Matarām occurs for the first time in the inscription of Wuatan Tija (Sarkar 1971: 253, 257 — “bhūmi i mataram”, Fragment-Resink, Verso 6). This text was 82 Connecting Empires hi res combin82 82 8/24/2012 9:46:01 PM 83 Epigraphy, Political History and Collective Action in Ancient Java issued during the reign of Lokapāla Kayuwangi, most probably, in 880. The Prambanan inscription of king Lokapāla dated from 856 states that the young prince protected the land of Java (mangrakṣa bhūmi ri jawa) and inherited the kingdom and the kĕraton of Mĕdang (rājya karatwan, maḍang kaḍatwan) from the king Jatiningrat who was probably the raka of Pikatan (De Casparis 1956: 312, 318). It allows us to assume that Lokapāla introduced the new name of his polity. There is no data on Mĕdang and Matarām earlier than the 9th century. The distinction between the Śailendras and the “Sañjaya” line seems ill-founded. The first king who claimed to be a Śailendra was the maharaja Paṇaṅkaraṇa from the Kalasan inscription dated from 778. He is also mentioned in the Wanua Tengah III and Mantyasih I charters as a prince of Paṇangkaran. Many scholars suppose that the Kalasan inscription makes a distinction between Paṇaṅkaraṇa and the Śailendra king (Vogel 1919: 634; van Naerssen 1947; Cœdès 1968: 89; Jordaan...

Share