O'REILLY D.J.W. EARLY CIVILIZATIONS OF SOUTHEAST ASIA. Lanham-New York-Toronto-Plymouth: Altamira Press, 2007. 238 p., ill*.

The book by Dugald O'Reilly, a Canadian-born author who lives and works in Sydney, Australia, is a generalizing essay on the history of Southeast Asian civilizations in the 1st millennium BC. However, its title may be misleading, since the content of the monograph does not concern Indonesia, let alone the Philippines. Curiously, it also excludes Vietnamese polities from consideration, limiting itself to the Hinduized societies of Champa, a historical region in central and southern Vietnam. This approach brings to mind Georges Sedes ' classic monograph "The Hinduized States of Southeast Asia" (Coedès, 1968). However, O'Reilly's book differs significantly from the latter.

The peer-reviewed publication consists of eight parts: an introduction, five chapters - "Tirkul (Pyu) and Arakan in Myanmar", "Peninsular Southeast Asia", "Proto-Mon States: Dwaravati and Myanmar", "Pre-Angkor and Angkor Polities", "Champa" - and two reviews - "Models of Political Development" and "Sociopolitical Shift (change )in Early Southeast Asia". They were preceded by a foreword by Charles Higham, a leading expert on the archaeology of mainland Southeast Asia. The monograph is completed with a thorough list of references (pp. 203-227) and an index.

A quick glance at the table of contents reveals some of the features of O'Reilly's monograph. First, there is the obvious focus on the theoretical problems of history that the last two parts of the book deal with. Secondly, it is a clear rejection of the synchronous presentation of the political history of the region adopted by Sedes and a shift towards studying individual countries.

In the introduction, O'Reilly describes the prehistory of Southeast Asia before the appearance of early civilizations and the natural, geographical and linguistic characteristics of the region. It aims to generalize the existing results of the archaeological study of Southeast Asia and use them to study its polities.

The following five chapters generally follow a general outline: a brief introduction to a particular historical area and / or people, such as the Pyu in Myanmar, religion, political and social organization, the settlement model, and the founding of cities. Sometimes separate paragraphs are added on the impact of international trade or a particular policy (for example, the impact of Srivijaya on Malacca societies, p. 59-61). Each chapter describes the main archaeological sites of the area in question. There is sometimes confusion here, because the same monument, such as Khao Sam Keo on the Malacca Peninsula, falls into different chapters (p. 53, 85).

A separate part of the reviewed monograph is a review of existing theories of political forms: the state, chiefdom, and stratified society (p. 145-176). Special attention is paid to the problem of the criterion of "social complexity".

In the last part of his work, O'Reilly expounds in detail, though rather confusingly, the existing theories of the Indianization of Southeast Asia. He seems to agree with B. Bellina and I. Glaver, who distinguish two stages in the region's relations with India (considered as a set of different traditions, and not as a single culture): between the IV century BC and the II century AD, Southeast Asia was part of the world trade system, although the Indian origin and culture were different from that of the rest of the world./ or by style, artefacts in the region are found in a non-indianized context, whereas in the II-IV centuries the context of archaeological finds is already indianized, but the variety of objects of the Indian type decreases [Bellina and Glover, 2004, p. 72-83]. In the first period, the main indicators of Indian influence are stone and glass beads and ceramics. At the second stage, a specific type of vessel appears - a kundika, or jug with a high neck and a spout extending to the base. A significant part of ceramics is formed by stamped and moulded vessels (Bellina and Glover, 2004, p. 80-81). Then it happened

O'Reilly, D. J. W. Early Civilizations of Southeast Asia. Lanham-New York-Toronto-Plymouth: Altamira Press, 2007. 238 p., fig.

The review 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.

page 207
and the perception of Indian beliefs, artistic styles, writing, and socio-political ideas.

O'Reilly believes that the agents of Indianization could equally have been brahmins, kshatriyas, and vaishyas (trading Varna), but the local leaders played a leading role in this process, looking for a way to legitimize their power. Perhaps the most radical is his conclusion that "the early states of Southeast Asia were rather complex chiefdoms than states" (p. 202). "The difference between these political forms is found in the nature of the social order, which in chiefdoms is based on kinship, while in the state the political significance of kinship is replaced by departments and institutions associated with leadership; the archaic state can be recognized by the presence of permanent armed forces under the control of a person with authority" (p. 202). A State differs from a chiefdom by the existence of political classes. This is similar to Fried's theory [Fried, 1967].

O'Reilly's concept of a non-State system in early Southeast Asia 1 is strikingly different from the vast majority of concepts of the region's historical development. As a rule, even the most radical researchers propose the theory of either the "early kingdom", as X. Kulke does, or "mandalas" (O. Walters), or "city-states" (P.-I. Mangan) [for details, see: Zakharov, 2006, pp. 79-95]. Many authors continue to talk about states and do not doubt that the region will achieve statehood [Southworth, 2004; Mosyakov and Tyurin, 2004]. The reviewer suggests that, since the result of historical judgment and inference depends on the rules of inference, the final conclusion of the study looks like this only in the light of the theory adopted for research, and therefore it should have the following form: "in the framework of the theory A, object x is or is not a" (Zakharov, 2006)2.

Unfortunately, O'Reilly's theory is not interpreted based on the materials of Southeast Asia: the researcher relies on the developments of other authors, in particular on Michael Vickery's fundamental monograph on Cambodia, and William Southworth's dissertation on Champa [Vickery, 1998; Southworth, 2001], but does not show how his theoretical propositions relate to the available sources. However, this is explained by the nature of O'Reilly's book: it is possible to create a generalizing history of the region in the 1st millennium only with the help of information from someone else's hands, because it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to be an expert in Khmer epigraphy, Burmese archaeology, and Austronesian linguistics in our century.

In comparison with the classical monograph by J. Sedesa O'Reilly's approach is characterized, first, by the preference of archaeological sources over written ones, with the exception of epigraphy; second, by the study of social institutions and processes, in particular trade and urbanization, rather than tracing the outline of historical events; third, by the already noted change in views on the nature of the political organization of Southeast Asian societies in 1-(Sedes had them as states, which is reflected in the title of his work).

O'Reilly's monograph is not free from factual inaccuracies and errors. For example, the author states that "according to the inscriptions, the ruler of [Srivijaya] undertook a military campaign upstream [of the Musi River] from Palembang in 683" (p. 60). First, the inscription Kedukan Bukit, which refers to the campaign (this can mean both the acquisition of supernatural power, or simply success), dates back to 682. Secondly, it is not clear from the texts exactly where the lord of Srivijaya went, and all the conclusions about the campaigns upstream look more like hypotheses. They could be proved by referring to the geographical distribution of the inscriptions, but not to their content. In any case, there is no reason to say that the date of any hike upstream is known.

O'Reilly states that "Srivijaya possessed an army of about 20,000 men sent on a campaign against Java" (p. 61). This thesis is also not entirely correct: the inscription Kedukan Bukit 682 mentions 20 thousand soldiers, but we read about the expedition to "Java" in another chapter-

1 It can be called "leader-like", emphasizing the peculiarity of the political organization of the societies belonging to it.

2 In fact, this was the main idea of the reviewer's monograph: since the historian constructs societies of the past (in its epistemological expression, i.e., as a representation of the objective reality that existed in the past in relation to the researcher), it is necessary to explicate the premises on the basis of which conclusions are drawn. When applied to Southeast Asia, this means that it is correct to say that "the early societies of Southeast Asia were states" only when the researcher determines what exactly he calls a state. Otherwise, the statement will be unfounded or, more precisely, biased.

page 208
pisi-Kota Kapoor is 686, and whether it is possible to conclude from the first source that the entire Srivijaya army is meant, and from the second-that the entire army is meant to be sent, is not at all clear. It is also unknown what territory the term "Java" in the second text refers to.

Some of O'Reilly's claims are simply wrong. Thus, on page 179, he writes that "the Kushans invaded India from eastern China" and that Buddhism was introduced to China in the Gupta era (IV-V centuries). First, the spread of Buddhism began earlier: already in the second century, the famous Parthian Buddhist An-Shigao arrived in China, and secondly, the Kushans never owned eastern China, and their Yuezhi ancestors came to Bactria (from where they later conquered North-Western India) from the western Chinese province of Gansu, as they did before. Sima Qian, "Han-shu" and "Hou-Han-shu" write about this.

Let's sum up the results. Here is a brief introduction to the history of mainland Southeast Asia in the 1st millennium BC. Of course, O'Reilly's book is useful as a reference for modern archaeology and historiography of the region. The ideas contained in it, if they seem controversial or need further development, encourage their own research.

list of literature

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.

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

Bellina B., Glover I. The Archaeology of Early Contact with India and the Mediterranean World, from the Fourth Century BC to the Fourth Century AD // Southeast Asia. From Prehistory to History / Ed. by I. Glover, P. Bellwood. L. -N.Y.: Routledge Curzon, Taylor & Francis Group, 2004.

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

Fried M. The Evolution of Political Society: An Essay in Political Anthropology. N.Y.: Random House, 1967.

Southworth W.A. The Origins of Campa in Central Vietnam: A Preliminary Review. A Dissertation. L.: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 2001.

Southworth W.A. The Coastal States of Campa // Southeast Asia. From Prehistory to History / Ed. by I. Glover & P. Bellwood. L. -N.Y.: Routledge Curzon, Taylor & Francis Group, 2004.

Vickery M. Society, Economics, and Politics in Pre-Angkor Cambodia: The 7th-8th Centuries. Tokyo: Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies for UNESCO, 1998.

Permanent link to this publication: