The ancient Malay Srivijaya polity, which existed in Sumatra in the seventh and thirteenth centuries and at various times dominated many neighboring countries, was and remains one of the most mysterious societies in world history. It was almost completely forgotten even by its descendants and reconstructed only in 1918 by the French historian Georges Sedes, after which it took a full place in historical discussions and in the minds of residents of Indonesia and Malaysia (Zakharov, 2006; Manguin, 2008). Only a few inscriptions of the 7th-8th centuries and archaeological materials remained from it, which only recently became the object of serious research. This paper examines the internal structure of inscriptions and ways to interpret this structure for reconstructing the political structure of Srivijaya in the 7th century.

The corpus of Srivijaya inscriptions is small. Only nine relatively complete texts in Ancient Malay and unknown languages dating back to the seventh century are known. To this are added small inscriptions in Ancient Malay or Sanskrit, many of which are fragmentary or consist of one or two words. The Sanskrit inscription on the Ligor stele dates back to 775 AD. According to the content of the inscriptions of the seventh century, they can be divided into the following groups (Dorofeeva, 2001, p. 39): 1) The Sea victorious expedition (siddhayatra): Kedukan Bukit and Telaga Batu-1 [Coedes, 1930, p. 33-37; Coedes & Damais, 1992, p. 45-48; De Casparis, 1956, p. 11-15]; 2) Laying of the sacred Sriksetra Park: Talang Tuvo [Coedes, 1930, p. 38-44; Coedes & Damais, 1992, p. 48-52]; 3) Texts of the oath or swearing-in to the ruler of Srivijaya in the form of" drinking the oath " (minum sumpah): Sabokingking / Telaga Batu-2 (hereinafter-CCM) [De Casparis, 1956, p. 15-16]; Kota Kapoor (QC), Karang Brahi (CB) [Coedes, 1930, p. 45-50; Coedes & Damais, 1992, p. 52-56], Palace Pasemah (PP) [Boechari, 1979, p. 19-40], Karanganyar / Bungkook (KA) [Boechari, 1986, p. 33-34], Boombaru (BB) [http://history.melayuonline.com/]; 4) Labelssiddhayatra, consisting of a single word, the exact meaning of which cannot be determined by the context: it can mean both "success" and evidence of a victorious expedition or the acquisition of magical power [De Casparis, 1956,p. 1-2]; 5) Fragmentary texts of a narrative or poetic nature in Sanskrit or Ancient Malay language [De Casparis, 1956, p. 1-2]. 1956, p. 2-11].

* The work was carried out within the framework of the RGNF project "Formation of civilizational community and modern regionalism in Southeast Asia", Project N 07-01-00081a.

I am deeply grateful to Alexander Konstantinovich Ogloblin for his critical comments, which contributed to a significant improvement of the manuscript.

page 5
The Indonesian researcher Buhari was the first to draw attention to the internal structure of the" curse formula " found in the texts of the oath. He suggested that at the beginning of the formula there is an appeal to the deities, then the curse itself to the ruler who broke the oath, and, finally, wishes for the good of loyal subjects [Boechari, 1979, p. 25]. Bukhari's idea looks extremely fruitful, but needs some refinement, because, firstly, it was based only on the analysis of three texts - CC, KB and PP - and did not take into account the most complete known source of the CCM; secondly, Bukhari did not talk about the structure of the oath inscriptions as such, but only about the structure of the text of the oath. some parts of them.

The German historian Hermann Kuhlke applied structural analysis to the CCC inscription when constructing his theory of the Bhumi polity , a type of early kingdom. Srivijaya was considered by him as a classic example or even a model of such a polity. Kulke summarized his views on Srivijaya in the following passage:

"Early Srivijaya was not an empire, not a chiefdom, but a typical early kingdom, characterized by a strong center and surrounded by a certain number of subordinate, but not attached (or turned into provinces) smaller political entities. A unique feature of the future development of Srivijaya was that it did not have success, and perhaps even attempts to change the structure of its bhumi polity. In fact, we can even assume that the longevity and changing greatness of Srivijaya was based on the very non-existence of those structural features that historians consider prerequisites for a true empire " [Kulke, 1993, p. 176].

Bhumi's theory of polity is based on several arguments.

The first of them is the mentioned structural analysis of the CCM. According to H. Kulke, this inscription consists of the following parts: the content of lines 3-5 refers to kadatuan ("place of the ruler"), 5-12-to the semi-urban area of Vanua, 13-19-to the surrounding areas of Samarryad, 20-22 - to the autonomous and semi-autonomous possessions of mandalas, while lines 23-28 "have an extremely vague meaning" and, perhaps, they "do not follow" the concentric model of the "previous parts of the inscription" [Kulke, 1993, p. 170].

The second argument in favor of designating Srivijaya as bhumi is provided by two expressions of inscriptions where this term occurs: a) yarn vala Srivijaya kalivat manapik yarn bhumi jawa tida bhakti ka Srivijaya "... when the army of Srivijaya went on a campaign to the land of Java, not devoted to Srivijaya" (translated by S. V. Kullanda; KK, lines 9-10) [Kullanda, 2001, p. 252]; b) urarri di dalarrina bhumi ajhana kadatuanku " People inside the earth that is subject to my kadatuan" (translated by J. Sedes; KB, line 7; PP, line 6) [Kulke, 1993, p. 175].

The third argument of H. Kulke was the old Javanese expression bhumi Mataram, in which the first term denotes the type of polity, and the second-its name [Kulke, 1993, p. 175].

Although the largest archaeologist of the island of Southeast Asia, French researcher Pierre-Yves Mangin agrees with the theory of X. However, according to J. Kulke [Manguin, 2000; 2002; 2004], it is possible to detect some shortcomings that prevent its full adoption.

First, the name Srivijaya never occurs with the term bhumi. But the expression kadatuan Srivijaya is found in inscriptions from Kedukan Bukit, KK, PP and KA, and the phrase vanua Srivijaya is found in KK and KB. Secondly, the concept of bhumi in the passage quoted above is perfectly interpreted using its main meaning in Sanskrit, from which it was borrowed by the ancient Malay, "land, soil", namely "land under the rule of Kadatuan". There is no reason to believe that bhumi Java was considered exactly as H. Kulke thinks, i.e. as an equal rival with the same structure. Not to mention the fact that it is not entirely clear about which area

page 6
there is a speech [Dorofeeva, 2001, p. 41, approx. 11; Kullanda, 2001, p. 252, ed. 2], it should be noted that even in this case, the usual meaning of the term bhumi is quite suitable: "land of Java". It can also be pointed out that the analogy does not work here because it is not uncommon in history for neighbors to refer to a similar political structure in completely different terms. For example ,the" Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation " (Sacrum Imperium Romanum Nationis Teutonicae, or Heiliges Romisches Reich Deutscher Nation) co-existed with the Kingdom of France (Le Royaume de France) and The Kingdom of England (The Kingdom of England).

Finally, the structural analysis of the CCM undertaken by H. Kulke is also not without drawbacks: it does not take into account the initial lines of the inscription, does not explain and does not include the last lines of the source, and is based on a single text, ignoring other materials previously studied by Bukhari. Therefore, it is hardly possible to fully accept the theory of H. Kulke and it makes sense to continue to develop a structural analysis of the texts of the oath, taking into account the results of this historian and his Indonesian colleague.

Any inscription and, more generally, any text has a variety of structures: from phonetic and graphic to semantic and meaningful. Content structure refers to the sum of the semantic content of the entire text, divided into distinguishable groups, each of which has a single content that is different from the others, and has a complete character. This group may coincide with a sentence, or it may cover several sentences. It is important that the content of one group does not coincide with the content of another group, but only taken together, they ensure the unity of the content of the text as a whole. The content structure seems to be the most significant for historical analysis, since the content of the text under study, at least partially, expresses the ideas of its creator/of its creators and reflects the institutions that actually existed.

Is it possible to detect an internal content structure in the texts of the Srivijaya oath? There is reason to believe that the answer should be yes, because, firstly, all these texts, with the possible exception of the incomplete BB source, begin with an introductory formula in an unknown language (mangala), and secondly, they have a common content - an oath of allegiance to the ruler of Srivijaya and a curse to all possible perjurers, rebels, etc. traitors, as noted by Johannes G. De Casparis [De Casparis, 1956, p. 20-21]. Therefore, generalizing the ideas of Bukhari and H. It can be assumed that all inscriptions have a common structure of the following type: an introductory formula in an unknown language (mangala), an appeal to the deities or notification of subjects, a list of precedents, a blessing or a wish for the good of loyal subjects, a date (often absent).

The introductory formula in an unknown language represents the same text in all texts of the oath, excluding the BB, with minor differences:

CCM, lines 1-3: / / titam hamvan vari avai kandra. kayet nipaihumpa. an umuha ulu lavan tandrun luah makamatai tandrun luah an hakairu muah kayet nihumpa unai tunai. umentem bhakti ni ulun haraki. unai tunai //

KK and others, first lines: / / titam hamvan vari avai kandra kayet nipaihumpaan namuha ulu lavan tandrun luah makamatai tandrun luah vinunu paihumpaan hakairu muah kayet haraki unai tunai //

KA, line 4: only ...raki unai tunai can be distinguished //

BB: this part may have been lost because the source was not fully preserved.

Addressing deities or notifying subjects differs in the CCM and other texts and occupies a special place, going strictly beyond the introductory formula and up to the list of precedents.

page 7
СКК, строки 3-5: Kamu vanak=mamu rajaputra prostara bhupati senapati nayaka pratyaya hajipratyaya dandanayaka ... murddhaka tuha an vatak=vuruh addhyaksi nijavarna vasikarana kumaramatya catabhata adhikarana karmma ... kayastha sthapaka puhavani vaniyaga pratisara da ...kamumarsi haji hulun=haji vanak=mamu uratrinivunuh sumpah ("All of you, no matter how many of you, are the children of kings, leaders, military leaders, nayaks, pratyas, confidants of the king, judges... [4] murdhaka, brigadiers, lower caste overseers, knifemen, kumaramatyas, chatabhata, adhikarana... scribes, sculptors, ship captains, merchants, commanders... and you, the king's fellow countrymen and the king's servants, all of you, the people, will be killed by this oath.") [De Casparis, 1956, p. 32-33, 36-38 with corrections]1.

This part of the CCM inscription is a notification to the subjects, which follows from the opening phrase of kati vahak=mamu ("All of you, however many you are") and from the final expression vanak=mamu uram ("all of you / however many you are, people").

KK and other texts: kita savanakta devata maharddhika sannidhana maniraksa yam kadatuan Srivijaya kita tuvi tandrun luah vanakta devata mulana yam parsumpahan paravis ("All you mighty deities gathered together to defend the kadatuan of Srivijaya, and you tandrun luah, all you deities, are the first principles of every oath!") [Damais, 1968, p. 546; Coedes & Damais, 1992, p. 135; Boechari, 1979, p. 22; Kullanda, 2001, p. 252; cf.: Coedes, 1930, p. 48; Coedes & Damais, 1992, p. 55] 2.

BB: that part may have been lost.

In this case, we have an appeal or invocation to the deities. It is important to note that in the CCM, this part is replaced by the notification of subjects. It is this difference that led Hall to conclude that in the CCM rebels are punished by the king himself, and in other texts - by the deity [Hall K., 1976, p. 69]. However, there is clearly not enough data for this output. First, deities, or, more precisely, those terms in which one can see an indication of supernatural forces, namely tandrun luah, are found in the introductory formula (see above). Therefore, it is not very reasonable to exclude punitive rebels from their jurisdiction. Secondly, the CC mentions the vala Srlvijaya army, which, as the content of the Kedukan Bukit inscription suggests, could have been led by the ruler himself [Coedes, 1930, p. 34-35; Coedes & Damais, 1992, p. 46; Coedes, 1964, p. 25; Boechari, 1979, p. 19-42; 1986, p. 33-56]. In light of this, K. Hall's thesis does not look quite convincing.

The list of precedents in the texts of the oath lists a wide variety of rebels and possible rebellious acts directed against the ruler of Srivijaya.

CCM, lines 5-6: kadaci kamu tida bhakti dy=aku nivunuh kamu sumpah tuvi mulam kadaci kamu drohaka vahun luwi yam marvuddhi lavan satruhku. athava lariya ka datu paracaksu lai nivinuh kamu sumpah, etc. "If you are not loyal to me, you will be killed-

1 For translation problems, see [De Casparis, 1956, p. 15-46]. The meaning of the word prostara is not clear. The ambiguity of the term bhupati in Sanskrit does not allow us to establish its exact meaning in the context of the CCM. It could have meant a vassal, but in translation I. G. de Casparis used the term "leader" [De Casparis, 1956, p. 19, 37, p.4]. He believed that the word murddhaka denoted the leader of a certain group of people, and translated it as "chief of ..." (De Casparis, 1956, p. 19-20, 37). But this interpretation is rather doubtful, since before this term in the inscription is lacuna, and, secondly, in Sanskrit it means kshatriya [Böhtlingk, T. V, 1884, P.95]. Interpreting the word amatya as "minister" is not entirely convincing, since it rather meant an associate, a companion, as shown by D. N. Lelyukhin [Lelyukhin, 2001, p. 23-24]. J. G. de Casparis translated the phrase marsi haji as "washermen of king", but later Alexander Adelaar proposed a different one interpretation - "compatriots of the ruler" (countrymen of the ruler) based on analogies between the Salako language and (Old) Malay (Adelaar, 1992, p. 393-396; cf.: Mahdi, 2005, p. 197).

2 The expression tandrun luah seems to be related to the spirits of the waters, as L.-S. has shown. However, the researcher himself noted the hypothetical nature of any interpretation [Damais, 1968, p. 523-566; Coedes & Damais, 1992, p. 131, 135ff., 148].

page 8
you are this curse/oath. If you act like traitors / traitors, plotting with those associated with my enemies, or if you [6] go over to datu spying for the enemy, you will be killed by the oath" [De Casparis, 1956, p. 33, 38].

KK and other texts: kadaci yam uram di dalamna bhumi paravis drohaka hahun samavuddhi lavan drohaka mahujari drohaka niujari drohaka tahu dim drohaka tida ya marppadah tida ya bhakti tida ya tatvarjjava diy aku dhan di iyam nigalarku sanyasa datua dhava vuatha uram inan nivunuh ya sumpah, etc. "If ever there were people in every land [will] become malefactors, rise up (?), [those who will] be indifferent to the malefactors, speak to the malefactors, [allow] the malefactors to speak to themselves, [will] know about the malefactors, [will] not obey, [will] not be loyal, [will] not be loyal to me and to those who are not willing to do so. the initiators of these people's actions [will] be killed by a spell" [Kullanda, 2001, p. 250; cf.: Coedes & Damais, 1992, p. 54-55; Boechari, 1979, p. 22; Parnikel, 2003, p. 269 (translated by A. K. Ogloblin)] 3.

BB: ...(nieuja)ri droha(ka)... tida ya bhakti tatvarjjava diy aku dhan... (ni)vunuh ya sumpah... ("[If people] talk to intruders... they will not be loyal and loyal to me together with... they will be killed by the spell.")

Blessing, or wishing good to loyal subjects, varies from source to source.

CCM, lines 25, 26: kadaci kamu bhakti tattvarjjava diy=aku. tida marvuat kamu dosa ini tantramala pamvalyahku ... santi muah kavuatanana yam sumpah niminumamu ini ("If you are submissive, loyal (and) honest with me and do not commit these crimes, an unblemished / pure tantra will be my reward... May your deeds be blessed by this oath that you drink!") [De Casparis, 1956, p. 45-46, with corrections].

KK and other inscriptions, including BB: Kadaci iya Bhakti Tattvarjjava diy=aku dhan di yam nigalarku sanyasa datua santi Muah Kavuatandha dhan Gotrasantanana Samrddha Svastha Niroga Nirupadrava subhiksa Muahyam Vanuana Paravis ("If they are loyal to me and to those who are entrusted with the duties of datu by me, may their deeds be blessed along with their lineage-prosperity, prosperity, the absence of disease, the absence of calamity, the abundance of all their land") [Kullanda, 2001, p. 252; Coedes, 1930, p. 49; Coedes & Damais, 1992, p. 55].

CA: that part is lost.

A certain difference can be seen between the CCK and other texts: in one case, the ruler promises an unblemished tantra (in the absence of other written data about the content of this concept in the Srivijaya, one can only guess), while in others the subjects receive only a wish for benefits. But this does not make it possible to draw any conclusions of a historical nature.

Much more important is another: this fragment of the CC and other inscriptions contain an indication of the importance of tribal and family ties in Srivijaya, since the gens and progeny (gotrasantana) are mentioned, translated by S. V. Kullanda in a stable turn of the Russian language "together with the gens-tribe". Of course, this expression alone is not sufficient to draw a broader conclusion, but other evidence from the inscriptions of ancient Malay polity can be found to support it. Lines 6 and 11 of the CCM refer to " families "(kula). The 19th line of this monument contains a very revealing sentence: Talu muah kamu dhan anakmamu vinimamu santanamamu gotramamu mitramamu ("You will be punished with your children, your wives, your offspring, your clans and your friends.") The compound word kulagotramitrasantana ("families, clans, friends and offspring") is found in

3 According to Varuno Mahdi, the expression sanyasa datua means "office of regent" (Mahdi, 2005, p. 193, 195).

page 9
The 21st line of the CCM, and the next line repeats the threat: gotramamu santanamamu talu muah iya ("With your kin-tribe (literally - offspring) you will be punished"). In the 5th line of the CC, you can read: Talu muah ya dhan gotrasantanana ("They will be punished with their kin-tribe (offspring)"). Even if we see here only a formula, which may be indicated by equating friends with children and wives, we cannot fail to note the fact that the threat to kindred sounds constantly and, if written on the stone, it most likely reflects the significance of generic and family relations in Srivijaya 4.

The date appears only in two texts of the oath:

CC, line 9: Sakavarsatita 608 dim pratipada suklapaksa vulan vaisakhatkalana ("The year [era]ended Shaka 608, on the first day of the bright half of the month of Vaishakha...") [Kullanda, 2001, p. 252; Coedes, 1930, p. 49; Coedes & Damais, 1992, p. 56];

CCM, line 28: vulan asadha... ("...month of Ashadha...") [De Casparis, 1956, p. 36]. There is no indication of the year, day, or half of the month.

There is no date in other labels, as it was probably considered optional. Perhaps the oath taken was considered "eternal", so the exact date was given only when the authors of the texts for some reason wanted to indicate a military expedition (as in the case of KK, where immediately after the date we are talking about sending an army of Srivijaya against a certain "land of Java" that was not submissive to Srivijaya [Kulland, 2001, p. 252]).

Thus, we can conclude that the hypothesis of the existence of a meaningful structure of the texts of the oath is consistent with the available data.

Now I would like to consider the possible ways of interpreting the "notification of subjects" from the CCM, which is often called the "list of posts" because of the terms mentioned in the Sanskrit and Ancient Malay political dictionary (see above). This suggests two hypotheses, according to which the "notification of subjects" can be considered: 1) as a list of really existing officials and high-ranking officials, as well as those people whose position allowed them to threaten the ruler of Srivijaya in any way (this hypothesis is shared to one degree or another by all researchers [De Casparis, 1956; Hall K. 1976; Kulke, 1993; Wisseman Christie, 1995; Kullanda, 1995]); 2) as an expression of the idea of all subjects of the ruler of Srivijaya.

It is clear that both of these hypotheses suggest at least a partial reflection of reality in the list of CCM posts. But they will interpret the data in different ways: the first hypothesis assumes the existence of an administrative apparatus, and the second-the existence of ideas about what this apparatus should be and who should be part of the ruler's subjects. To find out the comparative strength of these hypotheses, we will try to prove the second one.

The second hypothesis is supported by the following arguments: the notification begins with the introductory phrase kamu vanak=mamu ("All of you, however many you are") and ends with the final expression vanak=mamu uram ("all of you/however many you are, people"); all Srivijaya inscriptions and other parts of the JCC never mention terms from the "list of posts" - instead they mention "chiefs" (datu), "commander of the army of my slaves " (neta maddasasenayah) and the phrase" with lords/masters/elders " (patibhih); terms referring to the first and second crown princes and other princes (yuvardja, pratiyuvardja, rajakumdra), although mentioned in lines 20-22 of the JCC, despite their importance for the monarchical state.

4 It is possible to see here an indication of the existence of collective responsibility, but this remains only a hypothesis, since there is no data that allows us to reject the objection that we are looking at a common formula that does not reflect reality in this particular aspect.

page 10
According to the opening and closing phrases, all the subjects of the ruler of Srivijaya are not included in the list; the Chinese pilgrim I Ching, who repeatedly visited Srivijaya in the last third of the seventh century, never mentions officials of this polity (Takakusu, 1896; Chavannes, 1894; Wolters, 1986).

Therefore, we can conclude that the second hypothesis is valid and refuse to reconstruct the bureaucratic apparatus in Srivijaya based on the CCM data. This means that if we consider the administrative apparatus to be an attribute of the state, then Srivijaya, in which it cannot be reliably reconstructed from the available data, cannot be considered a state.

But there are also some arguments against the second hypothesis: since the purpose of the inscriptions was not to provide an exhaustive description of the local bureaucracy, the list of posts includes only part of the existing apparatus or reflects it in part; these officials existed and controlled only the kadatuan of Srivijaya, outside of which they either did not exist, or their control was very weak, which explains They are mentioned in other Srivijaya texts found not in Palembang, where the SCC was found, but far away from it (see the map of epigraphic finds [Kulke, 1993, p. 161]); the crown princes in the list are called" children of the king " (rajaputra); I Ching sought to find and translate the Buddhist canonical tradition into Chinese. His testimony about Srivijaya should not be considered as an argument for or against the existence of an administrative apparatus.

Consequently, the second hypothesis cannot be considered completely convincing, and the first hypothesis remains valid. This means that Srivijaya had an administrative apparatus and was a state.

Can these arguments against the second hypothesis be refuted, or should it be discarded?

First, the opening and closing turns of the notice kamu vanak=mamu and vanak=mamu uram, regardless of the existence or absence of officials in Srivijaya, cover all persons addressed by the ruler - "all people". Combined with the reference to the ruler's slaves and countrymen, this is difficult to interpret other than referring to all of his subjects.

Second, the silence of Chinese authors (far from just pilgrim and Jing) about Srivijaya officials remains unexplained. This is all the more strange when you consider that in China, the bureaucracy was, as a rule, the most respected social group, attention to representatives of which was characteristic of any geographical description.

Third, the absence of other epigraphic monuments of Srivijaya (except those listed above and mostly dating back to the last third of the seventh century) can easily be explained by the underdevelopment of the administrative apparatus. This seems to be supported by archaeological evidence: there is no evidence of the existence of Srivijaya in the Palembang area in the second half of the eighth and early ninth centuries [Manguin, Manuscript, p. 14].

These arguments look quite strong, but they also have their own objections. The equatorial climate of Sumatra did not allow texts written on perishable media, such as palm leaves, to survive. Except for Palom's notes-

5 The fact that Srivijaya was a monarchy cannot be disputed, I think. First, all the testimonies of foreign authors-Chinese pilgrims and chroniclers, Arab travelers and geographers-agree on this. Secondly, the Srivijaya inscriptions, with the exception of Kedukan Bukit and Telaga Watu-1, are written in the first person, and in the text from Talang Tuvo (684 AD), the ruler is named by name - Sri Jayanasha (or Jayanaga) [Coedes, 1930, p. 39-42].

page 11
We do not know of any other Chinese evidence of Srivijaya dating back to the same time as the inscriptions discussed, and other texts dating back to a later time (Zhao Zhugua lived in the 13th century) cannot serve as evidence for such a remote era.

It is advisable to re-examine the nature of our proofs. Apparently, it can be assumed that instead of proving that the notification of subjects in the CCM expresses the idea of all subjects, the search for evidence and refutations of the existence of an administrative apparatus in Srivijaya has begun. What arguments really apply to the second hypothesis? Of course, this is the introductory and final turns of the notification. How do the rest of the arguments presented relate to them?

If the job titles listed in the notification reflect a previous practice, then you should look for traces of this practice in the available data. If this practice concerns the administrative apparatus, then it is necessary to look for evidence of its existence. If we find such evidence, it will support the thesis that Srivijaya was a state, and the first hypothesis, which insists that the notification list really reflects the existing social institutions. But will this disprove the second hypothesis?

Let's analyze the second hypothesis again. According to it, the CCM notification should be considered as an expression of the idea of all the subjects of the ruler of Srivijaya 6. It expresses the idea of who is among the subjects (who is the political party) and who is part of the administrative apparatus. Does this hypothesis claim that the idea of the composition of subjects is completely devoid of connections with reality?

If so, then we must conclude that the notification is entirely speculative in nature. In this case, it is easy to show the unreasonableness of such a conclusion. The notice lists, firstly, ship captains and merchants, and we know about the existence of busy sea trade routes thanks to both Chinese tradition and archeology [Wolters, 1967; 1970; Manguin, 2000; 2002; 2004; Manuscript]; secondly, the inscription mentions scribes and sculptors (see above) without which the actual appearance of the label would be impossible. This means that some of the terms used reflect reality.

Therefore, the second hypothesis cannot claim that the idea of the composition of subjects does not fully reflect reality. Then we get the following statement: the representation of the composition of subjects, at least in part, takes into account real practice, as indicated by the use of categories such as scribes, sculptors, ship captains and merchants. On this basis, it can be concluded that the second hypothesis largely coincides with the first, according to which the notification reflects the list of actual posts. Thus, the question arises: to what extent do these hypotheses overlap and what in each of them looks like an exaggeration?

To the extent that it is difficult to prove the existence of a developed administrative apparatus in Srivijaya, the first hypothesis cannot be considered reliably justified in the strictest possible formulation. A single mention of various posts in the notification, which is not confirmed by other epigraphic documents, nor by evidence from Chinese and Arabic texts, nor by archaeological research, hardly allows us to interpret them in the literal sense of the word. But the existence of some positions (or ranks) is not in doubt. First of all

6 I was prompted to analyze this possibility by an analogy with Indian epigraphy, where after the address formula, or notification, expressed by the word sarvvan ("to all"), there can be a long list of posts that have no connection with reality. See: [Alaev, 2006, p. 18].

page 12
the queue is designated by ancient Malay terminology positions, such as chiefs (datu) or brigadiers (tuha an vatak=vuruh). The second category includes concepts that are confirmed in a number of texts: for example, the military commander (senapati) from the CCM notification finds a correspondence in the" commander of the army of my slaves " (neta maddasasenayah) from the fragmentary inscription b [De Casparis, 1956, p. 6-7].

Comparing these data with the provisions of the second hypothesis, we can conclude that the CCM notification expresses the idea of all the subjects of the ruler of Srivijaya, i.e., the idea of the composition of the polity, and at least partially reflects the real social institutions indicated by the terms found in it (notification), but not all the terms included in it should be considered a reflection of the relevant institutions.

Summing up, we can assume that the texts of the Srivijaya oath have an internal content structure. In Srivijaya, tribal and family ties played a significant role. Notification of subjects from the CCM can be considered as an expression of the idea of all subjects of the ruler, and some of the terms found in it refer to actual positions and / or professions (for example, foreman and merchant). The administrative apparatus in Srivijaya was probably undeveloped.

list of literature

Alaev L. B. On the methodology of content analysis of Indian epigraphy // Theory and research methods of Eastern epigraphy. Ed. by D. D. Vasiliev, Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura Publ., 2006.

Dorofeeva T. V. Istoriya pismanogo malayskogo yazyka (VII - nachalo XX veka) [History of the written Malay language (VII-early XX century)].

Zakharov A. Political organization of the island societies of Southeast Asia in the early middle ages (V-VIII centuries): constructivist option. M.: Eastern University, 2006.

Zakharov A. O. Ocherki istorii traditsionnogo Vostoka [Essays on the History of the Traditional East]. Moscow: Vostochny University, 2007.

Kullanda S. V. Napravis ' Kota Kapur (608 g. ery shaka - 686 g.n. e.) [The inscription of Kota Kapur (608 g. ery shaka - 686 g. n. e.)]. Dorofeeva T. V. Istoriya pismanogo malayskogo yazyka (VII-nachalo XX veka) [History of the written Malay language (VII-early XX century)]. Moscow: Gumanitarii, 2001.

Kullanda S. V. Genesis of statehood among the peoples of Western Indonesia. Srivijaya. Mataram / / Istoriya Vostoka [History of the East]. The East in the Middle Ages. L. B. Alaev, K. Z. Ashrafyan, Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura Publ., 1995.

Lelyukhin D. N. Kontseptsiya idealnogo tsardva v "Arthashastra" Kautili i problema struktury drevneindiyskogo gosudarstva [The concept of an ideal kingdom in the "Arthashastra" of Kautili and the problem of the structure of the Ancient Indian state]. Moscow: Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2001.

Parnikel ' B. B. Srivijayskaya epigrafika i problema drevnemalayskoi "buddiiskoi literatury" [Srivijay epigraphy and the problem of Ancient Malay "Buddhist literature"]. N. I. Nikulin, Moscow: Institute of World Literature, 2003.

Adelaar A. The relevance of Salako for Proto-Malayic and for Old Malay epigraphy // Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde. Deel 148. Afl. 3 - 4. 1992.

Boechari. An Old Malay Inscription at Palas Pasemah (South Lampong) // Pra Seminar Penelitian Sriwijaya (Jakarta 1978). Jakarta: Puslit Arkenas, 1979.

Boechari. New Investigations on the Kedukan Bukit Inscription // Pusat Penelitian Arkeologi Nasional, Untuk Bapak Guru. Persembahan para murid untuk memperingati Usia Genap 80 Tahun Prof. Dr. A. J. Bernet Kempers. Jakarta: Puslit Arkenas, 1986.

Böhtlingk O. Sanskrit-Wörterbuch in kürzerer Fassung. T. V. St. Petersburg: Buchdruckerei der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1884.

Chavannes E. Mémoire composé à l'époque de la grande dynastie Tang sur les religieux éminents qui aller chercher la Loi dans les pays d'Occident, par I-tsing. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1894.

Coedeès G. Les Inscriptions malaises de Çrivijaya // Bulletin de l'École Française d'Extreme Orient. T. 30. 1930.

Coedès G. A Possible Interpretation of the Inscription at Kedukan Bukit (Palembang) // Malayan and Indonesian Studies. Essays presented to Sir Richard Winstedt on his 85th Birthday. Ed. by J. Bastin, & R. Roolvink. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964.

Coedès G., & L. -Ch. Damais. Sriwijaya: History, Religion & Language of an Early Malay Polity. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1992.

Damais L.-Ch. Études soumatranaises: La langue B de l'inscriptions de Çriwijaya // Bulletin de l'Ecole Française d'Extreme Orient. T. 54. Fasc. 1. 1968.

page 13
De Casparis J. G. Prasasti Indonesia. Selected Inscriptions from the 7 to the 9 century A. D. Vol. II. Bandung: Masa Baru, 1956.

Ferrand G. Quatre textes epigraphiques malayosanskrits de Sumatra et de Banka // Journal Asiatique. T. CCXXI. 1932.

Hall K. State and Statecraft in Early Srivijaya // Explorations in Early Southeast Asian History: The Origins of Southeast Asian Statecraft. Ed. by K. Hall & J. K. Whitmore. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, 1976.

Kulke H. The Early and Imperial Kingdoms in Southeast Asian History // Southeast Asia in the 9th to 14th Centuries. Ed. by D. G. Marr & A. C. Milner. Singapore: ISEAS and Australian National University, 1986.

Kulke H. Epigraphical References to the "City" and the "State" an Early Indonesia // Indonesia. Deel 52. 1991.

Kulke H. "Kadatuan Srivijaya" - Empire or Kraton of Srivijaya? A Reassessment of the Epigraphic Data // Bulletin de l'Ecole Française d'Extreme Orient. T. 80. Fasc. 1. 1993.

Mahdi W. Old Malay // The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar. Ed. by A. Adelaar, & N. P. Himmelmann. L. - N. Y.: Routledge.

Manguin P.-Y. City-States and City-State Cultures in pre-15-Century Southeast Asia // A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures. An Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polls Centre. Ed. by M. H. Hansen. Copenhagen: C. A. Reitzels Forlag, 2000.

Manguin P.-Y. The amorphous nature of coastal polities in Insular Southeast Asia: Restricted centres, extended peripheries // Moussons. Issue 5. 2002.

Manguin P.-Y. The Archaeology of the Early Maritime Polities of Southeast Asia // Southeast Asia: From Prehistory to History. Ed. by P. Bellwood, & I. C. Glover. L.: Routledge/Curzon, 2004.

Manguin P. -Y. "Welcome to bumi Sriwijaya", or the Building of a Provincial Identity in Contemporary Indonesia // Asia Research Institute Working Paper Series. N 102. February 2008, www.ari.nus.edu.sg/pub/wps.htm.

Manguin P.-Y. Southeast Sumatra in Protohistoric and Srivijaya Times: Upstream-Downstream Relations and the Settlement of the Peneplain. Manuscript.

Takakusu J. A Record of the Buddhist Religion as practiced in India and the Malay Archipelago (A. D. 671-695) by I-Tsing. Oxford: Blackwell, 1896.

Wisseman Christie J. State Formation in Early Maritime Southeast Asia. A Consideration of the Theories and the Data // Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde. Deel 151. 2e Afl. 1995.

Wolters O. W. Early Indonesian Commerce: A Study in the Origins of Srivijaya. Ithaca - N. Y.: Cornell University Press, 1967.

Wolters O. W. The Fall of Srivijaya in Malay History. Ithaca - N. Y.: Cornell University Press, 1970.

Wolters O. W. Restudying Some Chinese Writings on Sriwijaya // Indonesia. Deel 42. 1986.

http://history.melayuonline.com/

Permanent link to this publication: