J. N. MIKSIC. HISTORICAL DICTIONARY OF ANCIENT SOUTHEAST ASIA. Lanham-Toronto-Plymouth: The Scarecrow Press, 2007. XLIX, 497 p., ill. (Historical Dictionaries of Ancient Civilizations and Historical Eras, No. 18)*

The reviewed dictionary is written by the well-known historian John Miksich, who was mainly engaged in the history of Indonesia and Singapore, but in recent years-creating "a comprehensive picture of the region (Southeast Asia-A. Z.), as far as it can be reconstructed today" (p. XLIII). The ancient history of Southeast Asia refers to the period from the appearance of the first written sources around 200 to the Portuguese conquest of Malacca in 1511.

The dictionary consists of an introduction, a main part, two appendices, a glossary and a bibliography. It is provided with magnificent maps, diagrams of architectural structures and photographs, though in black and white. It is prefixed with a foreword by the publisher John Voronov.

There are several reasons to respond to this publication. First, there is the lack of generalizing works on the history of Southeast Asia, comparable to the immortal work of Georges Sedes [Coedes, 1968], since the 1960s1, and therefore this dictionary can be considered as an attempt to synthesize the available data on all aspects of the history of the region and express the approaches that exist in modern historiography. Secondly, the desire to introduce colleagues to new foreign literature, which, for objective reasons, is unlikely to get even in the central libraries of Russia. Third, despite this peculiar genre of scientific literature, the dictionary contains a number of controversial provisions that allow it to be considered an expression of one of the modern trends in Western historiography.2
Miksich believes that history should be considered in a broader sense, rather than just as a canvas of political events: It should include reconstructing long-term social trends that involve the actions and perceptions of the general population. For this purpose, it is planned to use data collected by archaeologists, art historians and those historians who, based on texts created in Southeast Asia, restore the ways of thinking and worldviews characteristic of the population of the region for significant periods of time.

The researcher notes that the thinking of the early inhabitants of Southeast Asia was characterized by regionalism, which is expressed in the repetition of the names of certain communities over the centuries and in the belief that the regional capital is the political or moral center of the universe.

Both in the introduction and in the text of the dictionary, Miksich focuses on the key concept of the early history of Southeast Asian Indianization. In his view, it is "the view that Southeast Asian culture has been fundamentally changed by influences from India beginning about two thousand years ago, and Indian ideas of royalty, Hinduism and Buddhism, Sanskrit language, literature and mythology - in short, Indian civilization - have been transplanted to Southeast Asia" (p. 145).. Briefly mentioning the main theories of Indianization - from the classical idea of direct Indian expansion in Southeast Asia and the thesis of the predominant role of trade in the transfer of Indian culture to the position that it was an adaptation of Indian models to the requirements of local leaders who wanted to increase their symbolic power - Miksich states that now there are disputes about specific ways to transfer the impact of South Asian culture on the South-East Asian soil and the actors who carried them out. Today, the active role of Southeast Asian residents themselves in this process is more emphasized, which is not considered in the article.-

* J. R. R. Tolkien Miksich. Historical Dictionary of Ancient Southeast Asia. Lanham-Toronto-Plymouth: Skaekrow Press, 2007. XLIX, 497 p, ill. (Historical Dictionaries of Ancient Civilizations and Historical Epochs. N 18).

The book was reviewed in the framework of the RGNF project "Formation of civilizational community and modern regionalism in Southeast Asia", N 07-01-00081a.

1 The collective monograph "Southeast Asia: From Prehistory to History" (Southeast Asia..., 2004) could claim this role, but it is more devoted to the generalization of archaeological data than to the reconstruction of the historical process as a whole. In the case of the Indonesian archipelago, a similar attempt was made by P. M. Munoz (2006), but, according to the reviewer, it was not very successful (Zakharov, in print).

2 See also the review by Elizabeth Moore (2008).

page 200
It appears as a single wave or even a sequence of waves - in each individual case, the sequence of borrowings appears uniquely individual and diverse, 3 and the assimilation of Indian culture was closely connected with the strengthening of already existing social and cultural structures by the local elite.

All these propositions have long been expressed by scientists, including domestic ones [for example: Kullanda, 1992, pp. 124-127]. What is more interesting is that Miksich, unlike Oliver Walters and his followers, a leading scholar of Southeast Asian studies, retains the cognitive value of the concept of "Indianization" and does not replace it with the term "localization of Indian culture" (Wolters, 1982, p.55). At the same time, Miksich shares Walters ' theory of the mandala as a specific relationship between the supreme ruler and his subordinates within the territories of ideal or real polities.

The mandola theory, despite its popularity, is not free from flaws. One of them, and quite significant, is the fact that many polities of ancient and medieval Southeast Asia did not define their political structure by this term. An example is Srivijaya, which Miksich mistakenly writes about: "Srivijaya... in her inscriptions, she referred to herself as a mandala " (p. 239). In the inscriptions of this ancient Malay polity, its name is found only with the terms vanua and kadatuan (Zakharov, 2006, p. 85, 99). The only use of the word "mandala"in the 20th line of the Sabokingking inscription: kati mamraksdna sakalamaindalanu kadatuanku ("all of you who protect the areas of the First mandala of my kadatuan") refers to small territories (De Casparis, 1956, p. 35) .4
Another drawback of the mandala theory seems to be that it is too descriptive: the chosen term does not express the content of the concept in any way (even if the term only partially covers what is thought of in it, as in the case of "state" or "democracy"). It is not clear what generic term should be used to define the mandala. After all, if this is the name of a specific relationship between the ruler and his subordinates, as in Miksich (p.240), then we can hardly make it a designation of the type of political organization of a particular society, including the form of the state. Walters himself noted that he "used the term 'mandala' as a convenient metaphor for understanding regional history "(Wolters, 1986, p. 21).

In fact, the mandala of Walters, Mixick and their supporters forms an ideal type, similar to "Protestant ethics" or "urban economy". This certainly allows us to express some specifics of the South-East Asian political structure, but hardly contributes (at least in the current form of theory) to the development of a more general theory of political organization. Here it would be possible to talk at length about the relationship between the concepts of "mandala" and "state", but they hardly strictly correlate as a species and a genus: the state in the usual sense for us (for many expressed in the famous work of F. R. Tolkien). Engels) implies a clearly defined territory that cannot simultaneously belong to another state, even if only partially. Of course, it may be objected that this is a transfer of the realities of the Westphalian and post-Westphalian systems of international relations and state order to the entire history, but one can answer that until the XVI-XVII centuries the very concept of "state" (State, l'etat, Staat, State etc.) was not used [Hansen, 2000, p. 12].

Miksich wonders whether the history of Southeast Asia should be considered only a collection of local histories. Suggesting to compare the region under study as a historical unit with Europe, he points out that in the latter for centuries there was an idea of a supranational entity, although its specific borders changed. In Europe, the same events took place-

3 Historiographical parallels with neo-evolutionist theories about the inexhaustibility of evolutionary paths that cannot be reduced to one [Alternatives..., 2000; The Early State..., 2004; The Early State..., 2006] are suggested. In this connection, it is appropriate to recall the slogan of the neo-Kantians about the goals of historiography as a scientific discipline-the reconstruction of unique facts-and ask: isn't the idea of neo-evolutionists a kind of return to the previous stage of science development, of course, at the modern scientific level? Isn't the accumulation of historical knowledge an eternal (by human standards) dispute over the dichotomy "line-cycle" or "progress-eternal return" (keeping in mind the conventionality of these metaphors)? Without going into the discussion, I will note that, as Hegel demonstrated long ago, "only the universal is conceivable."

4 Even the assumption that we are talking about lands that recognize only symbolic dependence on the lord of Srivijaya does not give grounds for concluding that his own lands (the ruler of Srivijaya) were understood by the term "mandala".

page 201
events that affected its inhabitants, albeit in various degrees and forms: Christianization, Revival, and Enlightenment. Miksich asks: "Are there any common themes like those in Europe that give equal unity to the history of Southeast Asia?" He suggests considering the following options: the sea as a unifying factor, exposure to Indian philosophy and religion, Chinese investment and settlements (p. XLVII).

Contrary to Walters ' opinion, Miksich believes that the sea actually connected all the inhabitants of Southeast Asia through exchange relations, including trade. The appeal to Indian philosophy and religion is similar to the role of Latin and ancient culture in medieval Europe. The Chinese began to settle in Southeast Asia only in the XII or XIII century, but embassies to the court of the rulers of the Middle Kingdom began much earlier and were aimed at obtaining confirmation of the status of senders. Unfortunately, Miksich does not develop these ideas further. Nevertheless, his question is quite consistent with the current program of ASEAN integration and the desire of some researchers to prove the "original unity" of this region [Mosyakov, 2008].

An innovation compared to Sedes ' monograph is the inclusion in the dictionary text of information about ancient Vietnam and the Philippines, which did not go through the stage of Indianization (except for those provinces of Vietnam where the ancient Hinduized kingdoms were located, primarily Champa). This corresponds to current trends in historiography [Mosyakov and Tyurin, 2004; Southeast Asia..., 2004].

In general, the reviewed dictionary turned out to be detailed and informative. In most cases, Miksich reports only firmly established facts and notes discrepancies between specialists, if any. The undoubted advantages of the dictionary are its fundamental nature, ease of presentation (one of the most clearly written books in English that I have ever read), a well-chosen bibliography, excellent maps of all the historical regions of Southeast Asia, detailed diagrams and photographs of the most interesting objects.

However, there are spots on the Sun. To a certain extent, the dictionary of Miksich is characterized by selectivity. Thus, when he published an article about the Buddhist pilgrim monk Yi Jing, he does not mention another early traveler, Fa Xiang, but mentions him in an article about Java 5. There are also gaps in the bibliography. For example, Roy Jordan's historiographical work on the Shailendra problem and Purbocharoko's monograph on the Agastya deity are not mentioned (Jordaan, 1999; Poerbatjaraka, 1926). Miksich does not know Russian-language literature, which has long been the rule for foreign researchers.

The reviewed dictionary also contains erroneous or controversial provisions. In the article "Brahman", Miksich writes: "The brahmanas, who are experts in rites, could not be agents of Sanskritisation "(p. 67). This is clearly an incorrect thesis, since it was the brahmans who were the guardians of sacred knowledge and its teachers. Another thing is that in specific cases, knowledge of Sanskrit could be spread by representatives of other Varnas who know this language. The articles "Devanagari", "Kalasan" and " Kelurak "(p.108, 181-182, 190) claim that the inscriptions from Kalasan 778 and Kelurak 782 are written in this script, whereas in reality they are written in early Nagari [Sarkar, 1971, p. 34-35, 41]. In an article about the historical region of Kutei (East Kalimantan) Miksich believes that in the inscriptions of its ruler V century. Mulavarman mentions brahmans (p. 203), while only the term vipra - "priest" is found in them (Zakharov, 2006, pp. 31-39). It is incorrect to say that the word "Taruma "is Sanskrit (p.383): it is Proto - Austronesian in origin from the root *taRum - "indigo" (Kullanda, 1992, p. 46).

The title of the article "Gu" (p. 134) is an obvious typo - it should be the Sanskrit word guhlguha with the meaning "cave". The glossary (pp. 447-4), which contains Sanskrit, Arabic and Javanese words not included in the main text, would be better placed in the dictionary itself to facilitate its use. For example, the Sanskrit term "mandala" is included in the main part, while the Javanese term "kraton" is found in the glossary (p.448).

5 By the way, the transcription of Chinese names adopted in the book, meeting the requirements of the Pinyin izymu alphabet, differs significantly from those used in scientific literature. I Ching, for example, is written and as Yijing, I-ching, I-Tsing, Yiqing; sometimes hyphens are omitted and the name is written with a space. Miksich's dictionary would benefit if there was a table of discrepancies between Chinese names. The specialist is unlikely to get confused in the book, and the rest of the audience for which the dictionary is intended-students and lovers of antiquities-may be confused.

page 202
Appendix A, " Kingdoms and Rulers: Chronological charts of Southeast Asia "(pp. 431-444), for unknown reasons, does not mention the rulers of the Sanjaya dynasty: Balitunga, Daksha and Sindoka, although other members are named; the kings of Srivijaya and early Champa are omitted: they must be looked up in the dictionary by name. Therefore, the dictionary is characterized by some structural inconsistency.

Appendix B, " Southeast Asian Language Families "(p. 445-446) is mainly devoted to the Austronesian family, although the Austroasiatic, Thai, and Tibeto-Burmese families are mentioned. Miksich reports on disputes about the origin of the Austronesian family and names two main points of view: the hypothesis of I. Dayen about the origin of the proto-Austronesian language next to Western Melanesia and the hypothesis of P. Bellwood about the Taiwanese ancestral homeland; from the context, it can be assumed that the author of the dictionary prefers the latter [for details, see: Kullanda, 1992, p. 26 et al.].

Did Miksich achieve his goal of creating a "comprehensive picture" of Southeast Asia's pre-colonial past? Although the dictionary genre is not very suitable for this, it seems that its author has collected the palette of colors with which you can really draw a picture of Southeast Asian history. John Miksich's dictionary can serve as a necessary reference tool and a basis for further study of the region.

list of literature:

Alternative ways to civilization / Ed. by N. N. Kradin, A.V. Korotaev, D. M. Bondarenko, V. A. Lynshi. Moscow: Logos, 2000.

Zakharov A. O. Political organization of island societies of Southeast Asia in the Early Middle Ages (V-VIII centuries): a constructivist version. Moscow: Vostochny Universitet Publ., 2006.

Zakharov A. O. [Rets. on:] Munoz P. M. Early Kingdoms of the Indonesian Archipelago and the Malay Peninsula. Singapore: Editions Didier Millet, 2006 / / Problems of History, Philology, Culture. Moscow-Magnitogorsk-Novosibirsk (in print).

Kullanda S. V. Istoriya drevnoi Yavy [History of Ancient Java]. Moscow: Vostochny litra, 1992.

Mosyakov D. V. South-East Asia-formation of civilizational community? // East (Oriens). 2008. N 2.

Mosyakov D. V., Tyurin V. A. Istoriya Yugo-Vostochnoy Azii [History of Southeast Asia]. Moscow: Vostochny University, 2004.

The early State, its alternatives and analogues / Edited by L. E. Grinin, D. M. Bondarenko, N. N. Kradin, and A.V. Korotaev. Volgograd: Uchitel Publ., 2006.

Coedes G. The Indianized States of Southeast Asia I Ed. by W. F. Vella, transl. by S. Brown Cowing. Honolulu, Hawaii: East-West Center Press, 1968.

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

The Early State, its Alternatives and Analogues / Ed. by L. E. Grinin, R. L. Carneiro, D. M. Bondarenko, N. N. Kradin, A. V. Korotayev. Volgograd: Uchitel, 2004.

Hansen M. H. The concepts of City-State and City-State Culture // A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures. An Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre / Ed. by M. H. Hansen. Copenhagen: C. A. Reitzels Forlag, 2000.

Jordaan R. E. The Sailendras in Central J'avanese History. A Survey of Research from 1950 to 1999. Yogyakarta: Penerbitan Universitas Sanata Dharma, 1999.

Moore E. [Review of]: Miksic J. Historical Dictionary of Southeast Asia (Historical Dictionaries of Ancient Civilizations and Historical Eras). Lanham - Toronto - Plymouth: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2007 // Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. 2008. Vol. 71. Issue 1.

Munoz P. M. Early Kingdoms of the Indonesian Archipelago and the Malay Peninsula. Singapore: Editions Didier Millet, 2006.

Poerbatjaraka R. M. Ng. Agastya in den Archipel. Leiden: I.E. Brill, 1926.

Sarkar H. B. Corpus of the Inscriptions of Java (Corpus Inscriptionum Javanicarum) (up to 928 A. D.). Vol. I. Calcutta: K. L. Mukhopadhyay, 1971.

Southeast Asia. From Prehistory to History / Ed. by I. Glover & P. Bellwood. L. - N. Y.: Routledge Curzon, Taylor & Francis Group, 2004.

Wolters O. W. History, Culture, and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1982.

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

Permanent link to this publication: