ŚrīVijaya相關文獻中的馬來海域世界

Abstract

Śrivijaya作為通貢文獻之紀錄，出現公元七到八世紀的中國文獻中，長久以來它被認為與中國宋代文獻中的「三佛齊」是一致的。本文重新檢視所有與Śrivijaya相關的紀錄，探討公元第六世紀到第十一世紀馬來海域的政治與文化進程，藉以論辯Śrivijaya崛起於Palembang的假說是錯誤的。 主流的意見認為，Śrivijaya 是一個古王国，麻六甲海峽的帝國，該地即是義淨所居住過的同一地方，阿拉伯商旅所記錄為Serbuza這個對音。本文與此看法相異，作者認為Śrivijaya.是一個多義字，因古馬來半島諸民族曾受到印度文明影響，因此在公元六到九世紀間存在許多不同的“Vijaya”，每個Vijaya各代表著不同的地方結構與歷史局勢。 本文認為，Śrivijaya並不是一個領域型國家，義淨在695A.D所提到「室利佛誓」這個名字，與其它出現在683 A.D蘇門答臘島東南岸，如Kedukan Bukit等馬來碑文上的Śrivijaya是不同的Śrivijaya。通過對考古遺址、生態調查、與相關史料的重新檢視，Georges Cœdès所提出的室利佛示是王國假說將可能受到挑戰。

Śrivijaya as a tributary state appears in Tang China materials from the 7th to 8th centuries and has been almost unanimously identified with San-fo-ch’i (三佛齊)in Song China documents. This article reexamines all of the related Śrivijaya records, exploring the civilization process of the early political powers in Malay waters between 6th and 11th centuries, and debating that the hypothesis of Śrivijaya kingdom in Palembang is false. Prevailing opinions usually take the Śrivijaya as an ancient Kingdom “the empire of the Malacca Strait”, and consider it was the Kingdom where the pilgrim I-Tsing had lived, and the“Serbuza,”a polyphonic name, which Arab merchant recorded. In contrast to these accounts, this essay contends that the Śrivijaya was a polysemy, because the Peoples in ancient Malay peninsula had been under the impact of Indian civilization. There are various“(Śri)vijaya”in 6th to 9th centuries , and each “Vijaya”represents different local structure or history contingency. The author argues that (Śri)vijaya should not be deemed a territory state. When Shih-li-fo-shih (室利佛誓) mentioned by the pilgrim I-Tsing in AD 695, it differs from those Śrivijaya engraved on the Inscription of Kedukan Bukit and the other Malay inscriptions at south east coast of Sumatra in A.D.683. The hypothesis “Le royaume de Çrivijaya” issued by Georges Cœdès could be challenged through reexamination of related Śrivijaya records including archaeological evidences, ecological research and related history materials.