________________
282
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
of special interest from the point of view of this inscription, and we therefore give short details of them on the authority of the History of the Sung Dynasty.
"In the year 1003 A.D., the king Sseu-li-chu-ia-wu-ni-fo-ma-tiao-hua sent two envoys to bring tribute."
"In the year 1008 A.D., the king Sseu-li-ma-lo-p'i sent three envoys to present tribute."
Dr. Coedès was the first to point out1 that the first royal name is a Chinese rendering of ŚrīChulamanivarman, and the second is equivalent to Sri-Maravi......, the first part of the name of his successor Sri-Maravijayōttungavarman, referred to in the Larger Leiden Plates. This identification has been universally accepted, and has served to clear up the history of the Sailendras in many respects.
The Larger Plates refer to the Sailendra kings as follows:
(1) Sailendra-vamsa-sambhutēna Śrivishay-adhipatinā
[VOL. XXII.
(Sanskrit portion 11. 80-81).
(2-3) Katah-adhipati (Ibid., 11.90, 100).
(4) Kidāratt-araiyan (Tamil portion 1.6).
(5-6) Kadaratt-araiyan (Ibid., 11.13, 200).
Katah-adhipatyam=ātanvatā......
It would thus appear that the Sailendra kings are referred to as kings of Kațaha, Kaḍāra, or Kiḍāra, these three being variants of the same place-name. This place has been identified with Keddah in the Malay Peninsula.
Now, in the first passage the king is also called lord of Sri-Vishaya, which is no doubt the same as Sri-Vijaya, a kingdom in Sumatra which, as we have noted above, was included in the empire of the Sailendras. The expression immediately following viz., Katah-adhipatyam= atanvată means, in my opinion, who extended the suzerainty (i.e., the kingdom) of Katäha'. The learned Editor of the Plates has translated the passage as "who was conducting the rule of Kaṭaha". But the primary meaning of the Sanskrit root 'tan' is to spread', 'extend' etc., and I see no reason to reject it in this case.
If we accept the normal meaning of the expression, and remember that in all other cases, five in number, the king is simply referred to as king of Kaṭāha (var. Kaḍāra, Kiḍāra), no doubt remains that the Sailendras, according at least to the writers of this inscription, were originally rulers of Kataha, and then extended their suzerainty over Śrī-Vijaya.
The great importance of this point will be obvious to any one who is familiar with the current controversy about the original home-land of the Sailendras. Dr. Coedès first suggested that the Sailendras were originally rulers of Sri-Vijaya, and this view was subsequently regarded as an established fact. Some time ago I demonstrated the weakness of the reasoning on which this theory was based, and Dr. Coedès has now freely accepted my view. He states that it is impossible, according to sound methods, to affirm that before the 11th century the kings of SriVijaya belonged to the Sailendra dynasty or that they reigned at Sri-Vijaya'
1 B. E. F. E. O., Vol. XVIII, 6, p. 7.
This is the general view. Recently Dr. H. G. Quaritch Wales has suggested that Sri-Vijaya might be the name of a kingdom in Malay Peninsula itself. He has drawn attention to the fact that "one of the most important ancient sites in the northern part of the Malay Peninsula is still called C'aiya (i.e., Jaya, a shortened form of Vijaya; and not far to the south is situated Sri-Vijaya Hill)". Indian Art and Letters, Vol. IX, p. 4.
See articles mentioned in p. 281, n. 2. That the Sailendras ruled over Sri-Vijaya as early as the tenth century.A.D. is proved by Arab records, if we regard Zabag as denoting the Sailendra empire. To this extent, Dr. Coedès' statement requires modification.
