The spread of Sanskrit in Southeast Asia (original) (raw)
Related papers
Conquests of Dharma: Network Models and the Study of Ancient Polities
The Mauryan Empire, an early South Asian polity, was once presumed to have exerted control over most of the Indian subcontinent. A reexamination of both archaeological and historical evidence suggests a different interpretation of Mauryan imperialism -one that has less to do with territorial control and instead looks to a relational network perspective. This perspective allows a view of the Mauryan polity that goes beyond the political dimension to examine long-term patterns of interaction during the Early Historic period (ca. 600 B.C.E.-C.E. 600). Additionally, this model may be extended to include parallel networks of interaction that existed independently of political authority and would endure beyond the decline of various dynastic powers. [Mauryan Empire, sovereignty, territoriality, Early Historic period, South Asia]
Network Analysis of Rig-Vedic Mandalas
— The Vedas are considered to be the oldest surviving literature of India. They are preserved in an intact form through memorizing and transmission from generation to generation over centuries, thus very likely to have an unaltered, authentic record. Vedas have been extensively studied by large number of scholars from diverse disciplines for the last two centuries. They abound in poetic metaphor and allusions yet give an account of people, places and events along with the prevailing belief systems at that time. The belief systems in Vedas have commonality with Iranian and European traditions, collectively referred to as Indo-European. Many scholars have studied Vedas to find the footprints and trail of Indo-Europeans whose languages have noticeable commonality. In this paper we make use of network analysis methods to interpret Rig-Veda to get a sense of how events and beliefs have evolved over time and geographies.
12. The Spread of Sanskrit in Southeast Asia
Early Interactions between South and Southeast Asia, 2011
Sanskrit makes its first appearance in inscriptions in South Asia during the early centuries of the Common Era. It then gradually takes over and becomes the inscriptional language par excellence in the whole of the South Asian subcontinent and much of Southeast Asia. For almost a thousand years Sanskrit 'rules' in this enormous domain. Sheldon Pollock (1996, 2006) speaks for this reason of the 'Sanskrit cosmopolis', which he dates approximately between ce 300 and 1300. How do we explain the strange vicissitudes of the Sanskrit language? Was it a lingua franca for trade, international business and cultural promotion? Is the spread of Sanskrit into Southeast Asia to be explained by the same reasons that also explain its spread within the Indian subcontinent? Pollock, by using the expression 'Sanskrit cosmopolis', draws attention to the political dimension of the spread of Sanskrit. One defining feature of the Sanskrit cosmopolis, he states (1996: 197), 'is that Sanskrit became the premiere instrument of political expression in the polities that comprised it, those of most of South and much of Southeast Asia'. He rightly points out that Sanskrit was not a lingua franca: 1 Sanskrit's spread was effected by traditional intellectuals and religious professionals, often following in the train of scattered groups of traders and adventurers, and carrying with them disparate and decidedly uncanonized texts of a wide variety of competing religious orders, ® Saiva, Buddhist, Vai] s] nava, and others. [...] There is little to suggest [...] that Sanskrit was an everyday medium of communication in South let alone Southeast Asia, or that [it] ever functioned as a language-of-trade, a bridge-, link-, or koiné language or lingua franca (except among those traditional intellectuals) [...]
Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 2013
This wide-ranging volume portrays the formation of the global commercial system through the experience of the Iberian Atlantic and the Indian Ocean. The analysis proceeds through systems as well as networks, yet the chapters include ample empirical detail. This is a challenging, wellproduced, and in many ways exciting volume, which may be setting the path for multi-scale historical research. It is global history with a decidedly maritime and interdisciplinary emphasis. The authors seek to pursue the big analytical questions in their understanding ofthe global economic system and its transformations. It is analysis but stops short of imposing a synthesis; it is theoretical but also empirical. The chapters emphasize narratives and connections; some are critical ofthe contest between structure and agency. The book can be seen to result from an alliance of two groups. The first, gathered around scholars on Iberian global connections, is the Dyn-CoopNet group led by J.B. Q^^k) Owens of Idaho State University; the second, gathered around scholars on Indian global connections, is led by Rila Mukherjee of Hyderabad University' The two groups, each interdisciplinary and international, joined to pursue the line of analysis set forth by the late André Gunder Frank in his 1998 ReORJENT: Global Economy in the Asian Age? In effect, this publication reflects multi-scale historical work by an international scholarly network. Mukherjee's comprehensive vision balances Owens' conceptual focus/ analytical depth. Mukherjee's introduction to the volume, 'The Many Faces ofthe First Global Age', portrays the analytical interactions among an overall system, its shifts and transitions, the routes and commodities within it, the cooperation built through networks, the multinational participation, and the unofficial as well as official paths of commerce. She emphasizes the limits of inherited terms such as 'early modern' and 'mercantilism' because they tend to impose a European lineage on all patterns of connection. Owens' succeeding chapter describes the evolution of the DynCoopNet