Moscow: Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2012, 201 p.

A. O. Zakharov's research compares favorably with most works on similar topics by carefully analyzing local Sanskrit -, Ancient Malay-and Ancient Javanese-language sources in the original. After all, only working with sources makes the work truly scientific, and, alas, not everyone is capable of this: it is not for nothing that photographs of inscriptions in studies on the early history of Nusantara, both domestic and foreign, are published with frightening repeatability either inverted or in a mirror image.

All the more important is the publication by A. O. Zakharov of the main Sanskrit inscriptions from the territory of modern Indonesia in transcription and commented translation. By sharing their understanding of these highly complex texts, the author encourages colleagues to analyze the sources. At the same time, by inviting the reader into his research kitchen, he consciously invites the fire of criticism, which is spared from less scrupulous colleagues working with other people's translations. After all, it makes sense to argue about the subtleties of interpreting ancient texts with someone who is able to work with them, and accordingly there are more complaints about him than about the compiler, from which bribes are smooth.

The presented translations are generally well-executed and make a significant contribution to the study of the early history of the region. However, there are some inaccuracies in them that need to be corrected during further work. Thus, the author, arguing with H. B. Sarkar about the translation of the 9th stanza of the Sanskrit inscription from Changgal 732 AD, claims that the word vasad in it means "from anarchy", which the Indian researcher allegedly conveyed as "having lost his master" (pp. 106-107, note 19). In fact, H. B. Sarkar quite correctly interpreted the form vasad as "because of, due to" (English for), and the expression being bereft of her lord ("having lost its lord") conveyed the Sanskrit anatham, contrary to the opinion of A. O. Zakharov (ibid.), not lost in translation [Sarkar, 1971, p. 20]. Nor does the statement that the stanza in question "does not contain a word that could be translated as' the [very] Moon of the family ' "("the [very] Moon of the family" in Sarkar's translation) correspond to reality (p.107). There is such a word in the text: (a)nvayavidhau, where anvaya means "clan, family" (by the way, this word is also used in the Devapala inscription as part of the compound word somakulanvaya, i.e.150 of the reviewed book), and vidhu "moon" here in the locative (although vidhau can also be interpreted as a locative from vidhi "covenant", with the translation of the compound word as "[keeping] generic / family covenants").

It is also impossible to agree that "according to the law of vowel alternation, svasar - "sister" cannot have the form svasura " (pp. 107-108, note 21). The latter form is not really present in Sanskrit, but the vowel alternation is fine in this case: svasur is the correct genitive form from svasar - (for the regularities of its formation, see, for example: [Elizarenkova, 1982, p. 221; Barrow, 1979, p. 230; Herzenberg, 2010, p. 60-61]), then how -a refers, obviously, to the next word that has not been saved (hereinafter referred to as a lacuna).

There are also annoying blemishes in the translation of ancient Javanese texts: for example, rama nintap is not "father Nintap" (p. 135, ed. 44), and "father [of the child by name] Intap", from *rama ni intap, where ni is a preposition with the meaning of belonging, similar to the English of, German von, French fife, etc., with the contraction of two short vowels i into one long one according to the sandhi rule. Sometimes it is possible to argue with the interpretation of certain realities: the borrowed Sanskrit compound word kanisthamaddhamotama, which A. O. Zakharov, following P. Zutmelder, interprets as a designation of community members of lower, middle and higher status, is more likely to refer to the age of the child.-

for the use of the word ulama "supreme" in the sense of "senior in age", compare the word uttamavayasa "senior age" in Shatapatha Brahmana XII.9.1.8). After all, there is no data on stratification in the community in the sources, and the status of a community member (apac wanua) was an indicator of belonging to full members of society, from the peasants themselves to senior officials, which does not imply status differences within this social category.

Sometimes, when trying to justify his point of view, the author goes to certain, albeit unconscious, stretches. Thus, he writes that in response to the request of the elders of one of the communities to exempt it from taxes, the governor of the region transferred the right to income from the community to the corporation of three tax collectors, which is interpreted in the monograph as a failure of the elders (p.158). This understanding of the text does not correspond to reality. The inscription says that the request of the elders was granted. The word anugraha, which A. O. Zakharov perceived as a designation for the transfer of the right to income, in this case means the favor of the regional commander, transferred (doel, "lowered", umingsor) through tax officials. Not everything is smooth in translations from other languages: the Chinese "Xin Tang Shu" does not mean "Ancient", but "New History [of the dynasty] Tang"; English stamped and moulded ceramics - not "branded and molded vessels" (p. 34), but "molded ceramics with embossed ornaments"; enclosure-not "grove" (p. 105, note. 14), and "fenced area", "paddock"; Dutch de gemaal van Cri-not "master" (p. 104, note. 10), and "spouse of Sri".

The author of the reviewed work, referring to the works of L. A. Sedov and S. A. Maretina, writes that "the available evidence on the use of the concepts of Varna (? - S. K.) in the medieval societies of Southeast Asia does not give grounds for concluding that there is a Varna system" (p. 33, note 15). The early spread of the Varna system in the region is clearly demonstrated by its functioning in modern Balinese society. It is unlikely that anyone will think to say that the Balinese borrowed the Varna division in modern or modern times.

In connection with this circumstance, it is logical to move on to the question of the perception of Indian culture by the peoples of Southeast Asia. A. O. Zakharov analyzes in detail the existing theories of Indianization, noting their strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately, the views of predecessors are not always adequately conveyed by the author. Thus, he writes that "the constructions of X. Kulke, G. G. Bandilenko and S. V. Kullandy develop the main idea of Yu. V. Maretin" (p. 30), which is considered "Indianization for political reasons" (p.24) of the local elite. In the most general form, we can agree with this, although the idea of the dominant role of the local elite in the process of Indianization was expressed before Yu. V. Maretin (as A. O. Zakharov himself writes), but such a generalized and therefore inevitably simplified interpretation obscures any differences in fundamentally different concepts. After all, according to Yu. V. Maretin, only what "corresponded to the needs of the developing Indonesian society" was borrowed and became an organic part of the local culture [Maretin, 1977, p. 54].

In S. V. Kullanda's understanding, the situation was different: borrowing was intended to upset the balance of traditional culture, which blocks any innovations, by building a different culture on top of it. Since the elite of society sought to emphasize their break (although far from complete) with the previous foundations and their attachment to a higher and more prestigious culture, this culture had to be reproduced according to classical models (hence the focus on Sanskrit scholarship, and not on real practice).¹, even if some essential elements did not correspond to the realities of South-East Asian societies. The fact that such mechanical copying did not take into account the local conditions to any extent and was not adapted to them, in the situation described, was not a disadvantage, but an advantage. That is why the first epigraphic monuments of the Javanese were written in Sanskrit and were full of such concepts that were alien to Java at that time, such as "townspeople" (raiga). Indianization, mutatis mutandis, can be compared to the Westernization of Russia under Peter the Great.

A. O. Zakharov analyzes in detail all available information about the early polities of Nusantara: the kingdom of Mulavaraman in East Kalimantan, Tarum in West Java, Srivijas in Sumatra, Early Matarams (the name is conditional) in Central Java, which allows, on the one hand, to draw up a general picture of the genesis of statehood in the region, and on the other - to identify local features this process.

¹ That is why the comparison of the processes of Indianization of Southeast Asia and romanization of Southern Europe proposed by A. O. Zakharov does not work. He believes that Indianization would not have been possible without the mass presence of Indians who were among its initiators, just as "the spread of Latin is unthinkable without the physical presence of the Romans", forgetting that Sanskrit was no longer a spoken language at the time of Indianization.

The author notes that Sanskrit inscriptions from Kalimantan and West Java, left, judging by the toponymy, by the Malays, mention battles with enemies and the subjugation of other rulers, ² gifts to Brahmins, sacrifices, canal digging, but there is no data on taxation, administrative regulation, etc., which is typical for the early stage of political development, when the main event is considered to be the creation of a new state. attention is paid to the ideological justification of the supreme power.

The Srivijaya inscriptions reflect a transitional stage. They are not written in Sanskrit, but in Ancient Malay and partly in another unidentifiable Austronesian language. They also refer to military operations against recalcitrant neighbors and the construction of God-pleasing facilities, and do not mention the regulation of economic activities, but provide a list of dignitaries, officials, and representatives of professional groups.

Finally, the epigraphy of Early Mataram illustrates the evolution of the early state. First, Sanskrit inscriptions are created, mainly devoted to the foundation of temples, etc., which are replaced from the beginning of the IX century by documents on land relations in Old Javanese. According to the author of the monograph, the Sanjay state was "to a certain extent a trade and craft state", but the basis of its economy was agriculture (p. 109). A. O. Zakharov rightly asserts that "epigraphy may lag behind other social systems, and its archaic character does not indicate the archaism of the society that left it" (p. 154) However, it still reflects, albeit somewhat belatedly, specific features of the social system and political organization, including stadium ones.

The author of the monograph draws attention to the fact that the early states of Nusantara were dominated by different religious systems: Vishnuism, Shaivism, Buddhism, which he rightly considers one of the evidences of conscious selection of borrowings by recipient cultures (p.165).

The advantage of the peer-reviewed work is also a broad but correct use of archaeological data, including materials from recent excavations of the Batujai and Chibuai temple complexes in West Java and monuments in Central and Southern Sumatra in the Batanghari and Musi River valleys and on Banke Island. Archaeology not only supports epigraphic data, but also provides the researcher with valuable evidence about the economy, culture, and religion of the respective regions.

The review of the relationship between the Srivijaya state and the Shailendra dynasty, known from inscriptions from Java, the Malacca Peninsula, and India, is also very useful. The author comes to the conclusion that the Shailendras were a Javanese dynasty that in one form or another extended its power to a significant part of Western Nusantara, while at the same time emphasizing that there are still more questions than answers in their history.

The book accurately identifies the key problems of studying the genesis of statehood in the Malay Archipelago: the perception of Indian culture and the socio-political organization of early polities. The author, however, does not limit himself to the consideration of local counterverses. He boldly introduces the studied societies into the context of global processes, comparing local realities with the theoretical developments of modern cultural anthropology, in which he navigates as freely as in the subtleties of epigraphic analysis. But most importantly, A. O. Zakharov is not going to settle down on what has been achieved, which is guaranteed by his works written and published after the publication of the peer-reviewed book, which laid a reliable foundation for the further scientific work of its author and all those involved in similar problems.

list of literature

Barrow T. Sanskrit. Translated from English by N. Larina, edited and commented by T. Ya. Elizarsnkova, Moscow: Progress, 1976.

Ssrtsnbsrg L. G. Brief introduction to Indo-European Studies, St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriya, 2010.

Elizarsnkova T. Ya. Grammatika vediiskogo yazyka [Grammar of the Vedic language]. Moscow: Nauka, GRVL, 1982.

Marstin Yu. V. Indian influences and the problem of the identity of Indonesian culture (main aspects of the methodological approach) / / Malay-Indonesian Studies. Collection of articles in memory of Academician A. A. Guber, Moscow: Nauka, GRVL, 1977.

Sarkar Н.В. Corpus of the Inscriptions of Java (Corpus Inscriplionum Javanicarum) (up to 928 A.D.). Vol. I-II. Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay, 1971-1972.

² In this connection, the author notes that "in insular Southeast Asia, communal military confrontations were among the mechanisms for the formation of supracommunal institutions" (p.109).

Permanent link to this publication: