The Journal of the Siam Society Vol. LXIV, Part 1-2, 1976 - Khamkoo

294 REVIEW ART!C.LES
I have never been to Sumatra. However, in this paper, pending a
better site could be agreed upon, I still followed Moens and must leave
this problem to the Indonesians to argue among themselves.
South Sumatra
'
The "Sri Vijaya-Sailendra argument" is no more. Or more specifically,
Professor Coedes' Sri Vijaya Empire is now off the menu. Palembang
was not Sri Vijaya. Palembang was Palambanpura, (Panuvasvara
Pillar Inscription from Ceylon, 893). Coedes' theory was based on the
internal evidence of four inscriptions from South Sumatra dated between
683 and 686. After his retiJJement, another inscription and some fragments
from Palembang were edited by de Casparis, and after his death, still
another was edited by Boechari.
Coedes first introduced his Sri Vijaya Empire in 1918, (LeRoyaume
de Crivijaya, BEFEO), and last wrote on the subject in 1964 (A Possible
Interpretation of the Inscription of Kedukan Bukit, OxJord). The full
list of the South Sumatran inscriptions now reads :
Inscription
1. Kedukan Buket
2. Talang Tuwo
3. Telaga Batu
4. Fragments
5. Karang Brahi
6. Kota Kapur
7. Pal as Pasemah
Date
682/3
684
686
Provenance
Palembang
Palembang
Palembang
Palembang
Jambi
Bangka Island
South Lampung
Editor
Coedes
Coedes
de Casparis
de Casparis
Coedes
Coedes
Boechari
All the inscriptions, with the exception of the one from Talang
Tuwo (Palembang) which recorded the setting up of a park called Sri
Ksetra, contain "imprecations".
Of the people who disagreed with Coedes' theory that Palembang
was the capital of Sri Vijaya, Moens, Soekmono and Boecbari thought
that Palembang was conquered· by Sri Vijaya, and the king set up
imprecations in conquered territory.
The new inscription from Palas Pasemah (South Lampung) was
found in southernmost Sumatra. It is of the same age as the other