Roy-E.-Jordaan-Who-Was-Sanggramawijaya.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Roy Jordaan Who was Sri Sanggramawijaya?1 Introduction One of the most famous kings in early eastern Javanese history was Airlangga. In his relatively long life (991-c.1052), he experienced many memorable events, some of which he recorded in stone and copper-plate inscriptions. As a young man of sixteen he witnessed the destruction of the East Javanese capital, in which the reigning king, Dharmawangsa Teguh, and the nobility were killed. Airlangga himself barely managed to save his life by fleeing into the jungle and finding refuge among forest monks. Many years later he started his campaign to ascend the Javanese throne, which took him a long time, and involved much hardship and bloodshed. Considering these efforts and sacrifices for the poltical unification of Java, it is remarkable that Airlangga, at the end of his reign, di- vided his kingdom among his sons, and retired to a cloister. Crucially important to Airlangga’s successful bid for power and some of his constitutional decisions, was the role of the princess whose full name was Sri Sanggramawijaya Dharmaprasadottunggadewi (henceforth Sanggramawijaya). But who was she? Was she Airlangga’s daughter, and did the name chosen for 1 Sri Sanggramawijaya’s identification is the starting point of my research into the role of the Sailen- dras in early eastern Javanese history, the results of which will be published separately elsewhere. Thanks are due to Jeff van Exel for editing this contribution. 96 ROY JORDAAN her indicate a rapprochement between Airlangga and the Sailendra ruler of Sri- vijaya, as N.J. Krom suggested? Or was she this Sailendra ruler’s daughter and married to Airlangga, as originally proposed by C.C. Berg and later endorsed by J.G. de Casparis? Or was she a daughter of the preceding king who, like Air- langga, had survived the destruction of the capital, and whom he had married to strengthen his claims to the throne, as alleged by D.E. Weatherbee? Over time, these and other identifications were put forward by Old Java scholars, but none found universal recognition. This was due to the uncertainty as to the correct date of the assault on the capital and several other questions. In this essay I hope to resolve the issue of the identification and thereby remove a major obstacle in our understanding of ancient Javanese history, a field of study that owes so much to the versatility of Hans Teeuw who is honoured in this Liber Amicorum. Changing views on Airlangga’s relationship with the Sailendras The renowned Indologist H. Kern (1885, 1913) was the first scholar to read the paper imprints of two inscriptions found on either side of a stele from eastern Java. The stone had been moved to the Indian Museum in Calcutta during the English occupation of Java in the time of the Napoleonic wars. Hence, the name Calcutta Stone, later renamed the Pucangan Stele after the place where it proba- bly originated from. The stele, which is dated to the year 1041, is bilingual: the text inscribed on one side (A) is in Sanskrit, while the different but partially overlapping text on the other side (B) is in Old Javanese. Kern’s translations have subsequently been examined by several Old Java specialists, who pro- posed various textual emendations and more or less radical interpretative changes. For reasons of space and clarity, I can only reproduce the scholarly debate in outline and indicate some of the most pertinent issues. Let me start with the relevant dates as given by Kern, in his 1913 translation. In the Old Javanese text (side B) the date was read as 1016, mentioned in the fifth stanza in connection with Airlangga’s founding of the monastery to fulfil his vow made ‘during the great disaster in the island of Java in the Saka year 938 [= 1016 C.E.].’ In stanza 6, we are informed that many noblemen were killed, first of all the reigning King, who was deified in the temple at Wwatan, in 1017. Who was Sri Sanggramawijaya? 97 Stanza 7 reports that Airlangga was still a boy at the time, sixteen years old and not yet experienced in the use of arms. The Sanskrit text (side A) gives no date for the destruction of the capital. After an introduction that provides some information on Airlangga’s pedigree, stanza 13 informs us that Airlangga’s presence at the royal court was at the request of his relative Dharmawangsa Teguh, the King of East Java, on the occasion of his daughter’s wedding. ‘Not long afterwards’, says stanza 14, ‘the capital where for so long (?) a gaiety had prevailed as in Indra’s kingdom was burnt to ashes. Escorted by a small troop of horses, his servants, and prominent subjects, he [Airlangga] left for the forests’ (Kern 1885:11). ‘Then’, continues stanza 15, ‘in the important Saka year 932 [= 1010 C.E.]’, Airlangga was visited by Brahmans and prominent subjects, who urged him to take control over the whole of Java. His compliance with the request led to a long struggle, involving a series of battles and successfully concluded in 1037 (stanza 30). As mentioned above, on their perusal of Kern’s translation, several Old Java specialists suggested various interpretative changes. Most influential was Krom’s theory that the king who died in the 1006 (not 1016) attack could not have been Udayana, Airlangga’s father, as Kern had suggested. Instead it was Dharmawangsa Teguh. According to Krom’s interpretation of stanza 13 of the Old Javanese text it was his daughter whom Airlangga had married (Krom 1913). Thus, Krom took Airlangga for the bridegroom instead of a distinguished guest as in Kern’s translation. No explanation was offered for the change of the year 1016 into 1006, but it should be noted that in preparing the publication of his collective work, Kern adopted all these changes (Kern 1917). Cautious scholar as he was, Krom refrained from making any firm statements about the attacker, Haji Wurawari, and the possible involvement of Srivijaya and the Sailendras in the attack, as Van Stein Callenfels (1919) had done. Rely- ing on the inscription and the historical information available to him, Krom lim- ited himself to the observation that the main argument for Srivijaya’s involve- ment was ‘that the recovery of Java, which took so many years, was only accomplished when Srivijaya itself had been rendered powerless by another enemy [from abroad]’ (Krom 1931:241). The relationship with the Sailendras of Srivijaya was again considered in connection with the information that before ascending the throne Airlangga had founded a monastery with the meaningful name Srivijayasrama (‘Victorious Monastery’), which could refer either to his imminent victory or to the kingdom 98 ROY JORDAAN of Srivijaya. Also relevant are Airlangga’s edicts referring to a rakryan mahaman- tri i hino, a high dignitary of the court, whose full name was Sri Sanggramawija- ya Dharmaprasadottunggadewi. The name is strongly reminiscent of Sri Sang- gramawijayottunggavarman, the name of the Sailendra king of Srivijaya at the time. This Sailendra king would later be taken captive by the Tamil ruler Rajen- drachola during the latter’s naval expedition against the Malay Peninsula and Sumatra. Krom put forward the hypothesis that the choice of this name (and that of the monastery) probably was meant to reflect a rapprochement between the Javanese and the Sailendras. Because of the title and the absence of any indication that the dignitary in question was the King’s spouse, he believed that it concerned the crown princess, Airlangga’s eldest daughter. Relying on the inscription then considered the first extant edict mentioning this dignitary, the copper-plate of Kakurugan dated to 1023, Krom argued that a truce and entente cordiale would have been beneficial to both Airlangga and the Sailendras (Krom 1931:244-245). No longer having to deal with their former animosity and acts of aggression and reprisal, Airlangga could now devote all his attention to internal Javanese affairs and make progress in his efforts for the unification of Java, whereas the Sailendras could henceforth focus on the threat posed by Rajendra- chola’s overseas ambitions. Since then, Krom’s theory has been revised by Poerbatjaraka (1941) and Berg (1938). Poerbatjaraka offered an emended translation of the fourteenth stanza of the Sanskrit text (see below), and an integral new transcription and translation of the Old Javanese text. In the latter context he offers the reconstructed name of the mahamantri i hino whom Airlangga had ordered to mark out the fields for the future monastery, namely Sri Samarawijaya Dharmasuparna Teguh Uttang- gadewa. The appearance of the new name indicates the retirement or demise of the former incumbent, Sanggramawijaya. In contradistinction to Krom, Poerba- tjaraka’s new translation of the Old Javanese text gives the date 1017 as that of the capital’s destruction, the same year the slain king was deified in the sanctu- ary of Wwatan. No explanation is offered for the new dating. In 1938, Berg published his long essay on the Old Javanese poem Arjunawi- waha, which he claimed could be interpreted as Airlangga’s ‘life story and nuptial song’, if the text was divested of its ‘allegorical robe’. But Airlangga’s marriage to whom? Before answering this question, Berg carefully reviews Krom’s theory – by then widely accepted. Even if, in line with Krom’s theory, one assumes that Airlangga was the intended husband for the East Javanese Who was Sri Sanggramawijaya? 99 princess, Berg argues, it does not necessarily follow that the marriage was actu- ally contracted. Berg reminds the reader that the Sanskrit text refers to Airlang- ga as being ‘invited’ (ahuya) at court, and that it is quite possible that the events of 1006 had prevented the celebration of the marriage.