Uti: Preislamic Barus King
THEORIES OF INDIANIZATION Exemplified by Selected Case Studies from Indonesia
(Insular Southeast Asia) byAssociate Prof. Dr. Helmut Lukas (Vienna, Austria)
Austrian Academy of Sciences, Commission for Social AnthropologyUniversity of
Vienna, Department of Social and Cultural AnthropologyLudwig Boltzmann
Association, Institute for China and Southeast Asia Research, Vienna
This is a slightly revised version of a paper that appeared in:Proceedings of Papers.
"Sanskrit in Southeast Asia: The Harmonizing Factor of Cultures", International
Sanskrit Conference, May 21-23, 2001. Sanskrit Studies Centre and Department of
Oriental Languages, Silpakorn University(Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya Press):
Bangkok 2003: 82-1071.
ABSTRACT
Too preoccupied with illustrating the influence of Brahmanism, Buddhism and Sanskrit in Southeast Asia most theories of „indianization“ seem to undervalue the „recipient“ cultures and societies.
On account of amore or less marked „high culture-centrism“ Southeast Asian cultures
and religions are measured with the classical expressions of Indian religions
available in written records such as the Vedas, Upanishads, Purânas, Samhitas
etc. Owing to this „high culture-bias“, these theories of indianization are
insufficient to be able to explain the indianization of Southeast Asian
societies as creative socio-cultural adaptations. Conditio sine qua non for a
deep understanding of the dynamics, reasons and meanings of the indianization is
a sound knowledge of Indian cultures and religions as well as an intimate
knowledge of Southeast Asian societies, cultures and religions.
The „anthropological approach of indianization“ advocated in this paper is
illustrated by selected examples from Indonesia. In the center of interest,
however, is the deification of rulers under the title Singamangaraja among the
Toba-Batak, a tribal people in Sumatra, by means of adoption, transformation and
adaptation of Indian concepts, seemingly a striking antithesis to the
egalitarian structureof the kinship-based Toba-Batak society. Singamangaraja
worshipped as incarnation of Batara Guru weredivine kings going back to
different sources of indianization, but at least partly deriving from very
ancienttraditions of sacral rulers. 2.
THEORIES OF INDIANIZATION IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
Behind the concept of indianization, which a scientist – whether he may be
an indologist, researcher intoBuddhism or a historian specialized in the region
of Southeast Asia – defends, there is always a latentcorresponding theory of
cultural diffusion. Let me pass in time–lapse review some of the most important
theories developed for the indianization ofSoutheast Asia in order to be able to
judge more fairly some case studies from Indonesia in the theory-historical
context. The fact that many ethnic groups in mainland and insular Southeast Asia
had been exposed to relatively intensive Indian cultural influences (see fig. 1)
for a long time, was even noticed by early European visitorsto this region. When
the Indian poet Rabindranath Tagore paid a visit to today’s Indonesia, but Dutch
East-India (Nederlandsch Oost-Indië) at the beginning of the 20thcentury, he is
reported to have announced the words in view of the independent internalization
of the Indian culture, „Everywhere I can see India and I do not recognize it
again!” Depending on which way of transmission (armed colonization, trade,
specialization)or which mediators (warriors/kshatriya, merchants/vaishya,
Brahmans and Buddhist monks) were to play animportant part according to theory,
it was referred to as the kshatriya-, vaishya- or Brahman-hypothesis. 1
Unfortunately not sufficient evidence could be provided for the „kshatriya-hypothesis“ (immigration of Indians, war, conquest and colonization)
which was defended by Indians such as Radhakumud Mookerji and the historian R.
C. Majumdar dreaming of a „Greater India“. Consequently, it was replaced by the
„vaishya-Figure 1: Indianization which occurred in both mainland and insular
Southeast Asia hypothesis“ according to which the most important transmitters of
Indian civilization were seen as Indian traders, and a the process of
indianization was viewed as a „pénétration pacifique“ (representatives: N. J. 2
Krom, G. Coedès). An objection, however, was raised to this thesis based on the
fact that merchants of loworigin and caste had no sufficiently extensive
knowledge in order to be able to pass on the extremelycomplex expertise.
Indianization was viewed as „Brahmanization“ by the advocates of this hypothesis
(representatives: F. D. K. Bosch, J. C. van Leur). It is believed to have been
executed mainly by Brahmansand to have been operated on the initiative of the
Southeast Asian courts (Hall 1976:12-20; Bechert 1979; Kulke/Rothermund
1998:195-206; Parkin 1978:58-61). The fact that the latter thesis is equally in
need of revision will be shown by the example of the Batak of Sumatra. The
French Scientist, Georges Coedès, who gave a comprehensive survey about the
„indianized countries“of Southeast Asia in his book „Histoire ancienne des états
hindouisés d’Extrême-Orient“ published in 1944,understands by „indianization“
the peaceful propagation of the Indian culture to Southeast Asia.
It started from the 2ndcentury B.C. and developed into a noticeable dominance of the Indian culture in many parts of Southeast Asia. In the course of indianization the
„Sanskrit-culture” (that is to say, the Indian conception of state, Indian
concepts of kingship, the denominations and philosophical teachings of India,
the cosmology and mythology of Purânas and the great epics, not to mention of
Dharmasâstras, Hindu or Buddhist cults etc.) was brought to Southeast Asia by
way of Sanskrit as one of the most important medium of language (Coedès
1968:15f; Coedès 1953:348). Coedès and his adherents insofar advocated an
one-sided diffusionism, as they primarily attributed cultural change to cultural
events of transmission, and showed atotal disregard for the endogenous process
of change. On account of the access dominated by archaeology and indology, they
focused their attention on „highly civilized“ objectivations: Most of the
sources which survived were made of stone (buildings including inscriptions,
handicraft artifacts such as sculptures and thelike, iconography) and, for the
smaller part, made of metal, while the materials made of wood, bamboo, hornetc.
which continued to be preferred by the majority of Southeast Asians were highly
perishable. It is theformer that reflect the Indian influence noticeably.
The researchers focused their attention on that material „heritage”. Apart from
Buddhist recorded documentary evidence, the indianized empires left behind
onlyfew written sources. Those records, for the most part, contained both
reports on dynasties and „eventfulstories” tremendously biased towards Indian
civilization mainly dealing with the conduct of the sovereign’srelatives and
religious advisors1. In this way, Southeast Asia was only analyzed from the
Indian point of view. On the basis of that „indianizing” approach, ancient
kingdoms and cultures of Southeast Asia came to be regarded as somewhat
derivative (Christie 1985:2-4; Hagesteijn 1989:2)2.
According to Coedès, there wasa principle involved: The more centralized the system of rule, the higher the extent of indianization (Coedès 1953:353). This kind of „model of transplantation“, working on the assumption that fully developed concepts of power, kingship and state, for instance, were transferred from India to
Southeast Asia similar to a plant developing according to its local conditions,
only to be modified afterwards, became increasinglydiscredited (Kulke
1985).According to the above-mentioned theories, the „indianized kingship“ was
the most essential element of indianization. This tendency was made the focal
point of both the sources and its analyses and is thought to be representative
of the politics in Southeast Asia. Representatives of the „New Generation” among
the 1It was much later that a Historiography taking care of objective
documentation and preservation of historical eventsemerged in the indianized
Southeast Asia. The influence of the Indian philosophy manifested itself in
considerableskepticism about the deceptive reality as well as about a typically
transcendental orientation. It was not the detailed account of the empirically
conceivable reality but „the crossing to the terra firma beyond“ which attracted
immediateattention.
The „meta-empirical” thinking focused on spheres beyond the world of sensory perception. Working on the assumption that all historical manifestations are tantamount to illusions gave rise to an indifference towards therecording of those „deceptive” events which are constantly recurrent to boot,
that is to say, they are far from taking on the character of uniqueness (Weggel
1989:102ff, 200-205; cf. Coedès 1953:368). It was not until the native cultures
broke away from the Indian model, developing a more unshakable self-identity
that a keen historical awareness had been brought about. This development
reflected in the historiography resulted in the emergence of Nagarakertagama as
one of the first important historical works of the Indonesian archipelago (Wang
1971:212). Moreover, it is called forspecial care in dealing with both the
inscriptions and the manuscripts since the rulers who demanded those
documents„far more likely had in mind the projection of an image rather than the
description of historic fact.” (Higham 1989:306)2Even Coedès concedes
transformation and adaptation to the Indian culture: „The ancient civilization
of Angkor as wellas that of Java was nothing but an Indian culture transformed
and assimilated by the exceptionally talented nativepopulation” (Coedès
1953:362; translation is my wording, H. L.) 3
historians and anthropologists, however, warn against turning too much attention
in the analysis to the indianized kingship of Southeast Asia, since this
ideology inherent in this theoretical concept, notably implying the existence of
a stable monocentric political system, is liable to reproduce and to overlook
the objectively working political dynamic force as a result of it. „Despite its
overwhelming theoretical complexity, however, it would be better not to
concentrate on indianized kingship when studying early Southeast Asian politics.
Being borrowed, Indian political terminology was used by native leaders.
Tolegitimize their achieved power. ... I argue that we are not dealing with a
single position at the top of a political hierarchy (as is suggested in the
sources), but with a number of competing political leaders allstriving for
overlordship. Only when track is kept of the relations between these various
competitors can the dynamics of their attempts be observed. Focusing on the
theoretical aspects of Indianized kingship does not allow these dynamics to be
detected. It is not a case of one hereditary position from which others can
automatically be dominated, but rather a case of achieved positions, usually won
after severe competition.“ (Hagesteijn 1989:43). Concluding from this: Instead
of blindly relying on the ideology, that is, on what the sources are trying to
suggest, we are bound to address the actual functioning of the political
systems. As early as 1942 the Austrian anthropologist and indologist Robert
Heine-Geldern (b. 1885, d. 1968)underlined the selection and adaptation of
Indian cultural influences in his revolutionary article „Conceptions of State
and Kingship in Southeast Asia“ based on a political-anthropological approach.
Besides, in the light of Southeast Asian advanced civilizations (Burma, Ayudhya,
Cambodia, Java etc.), he tried to illustrate that Southeast Asia finally
succeeded in developing a comparatively independentcivilization by virtue of
syncretistic syntheses despite its more or less intensive orientation towards
theIndian model (Heine-Geldern 1963). His „high culture-centrism” (centeredness
of „advanced” civilization),however, sets limits to his latest research work
into the „tribal cultures“, in particular. According to this preconception
„higher cultures” (that is highly „sophisticated civilizations”) are regarded
mainly as theoriginators, whereas „lower” cultures (that is tribal cultures) are
considered to be primarily imitators: Despite the fact that Heine-Geldern no
longer reduced the tribal communities to entirely passive recipients from
outside, they gave him the impression – in comparison to the “high cultures” (i.
e. “advanced” civilizations) – of being the more inactive and intellectually
less capable partner after all. Within this scope the active part of those
tribal communities was mainly confined to the selection of and the adaptation to
foreign cultural elements. This hypothesis was again connected with the
frequently underlined intense constancy (persistence) of tribal communities
regarded as ethnographic museums, as it were, which are subject tochange only
due to external impulses. Heine-Geldern who never considered himself to be a
direct exponent of the (now already defunct) Vienna School of Historical
Ethnology, however, until his death clung to theextremely high
culture-centristic perspective going back to the tradition of the Vienna School
of Historical Ethnology. Concerning the adoption of the god-kingship3by
Southeast Asian tribal communities, it can be shown that Heine-Geldern adhered
to his original viewpoint, as it was, despite the sophistication of his theories
and methods. As early as 1923 he maintained in a lengthy contribution of 279
pages titled „Southeast Asia“ (German: „Südostasien“) in Buschan’s
„Illustrierter Völkerkunde“4, that „it is both (about)Singamangaraja of the
Batak in Sumatra and the Kings of Fire and Water [of the Jarai in
Vietnam]represent ancient remains of some sort of high cultures regressed to
barbarism (savagery), but as for the Singamangaraja the derivation might
positively be found among the ancient Minangkabau or Aceh empires, as for the
high priests of the Jarai it might be found in Cambodia or in ancient Champa as
well.” (Heine-Geldern 1923:904; translation, slight orthographic modifications
of names, and emphases are my wording,H. L.; cf. 903, 951). For 36 years
Heine-Geldern defended the same concept of „barbarization“ with regard to the
Batak of Northern Sumatra: „Everything we said suggests that the Singamangaraja
was a divine king of the sort one could frequently come across in the indianized
countries: namely a king who was regarded asan incarnation of Shiva [...]. In
case of the people, however, that adopted the Indian civilization merely in
3Obviously, both the Indian impact and the great cultural diversity in various
regions of Southeast Asia eventuallycreated concepts of god-kings whose
embodiment of supernatural powers appears to differ in degree and
emphasis.Consequently, McCloud (1986:94) pointed out that the „appropriate
implication of this [«god-king»] concept inSoutheast Asia remains unclear, which
has inevitably led to considerable controversy among scholars over the «degree»
of godliness vested in the king.“ 4Indeed, it was the Austrian Heine-Geldern who
coined in 1923 for the first time the scientific term „Southeast Asia“. 4
Page 6
fragments yet they had failed to appreciate its mentality; consequently this
[divine] kingship fell victim tobarbarization and it ended up being biased by
native concepts. What is more, the power of the king, which is assumed to have
been much bigger, diminished in the course of time” (Heine-Geldern 1959:380; cf.
398;Translation from French, slight orthographic modifications of names as well
as emphases are my wording,H. L.). Heine-Geldern seems to assume a basic a
inability of the tribal peoples to adopt the finishing touches of the complex
Indian civilization. Accordingly, those tribal peoples are capable of taking
over „only chunksof this civilization” (French: des bribes seulement de cette
civilization). In addition to this inadequate reception, there were those
contacts with the Indian civilization which had been either broken off or had
beendeficient in such a way that the adopted concepts had become increasingly
„batakized”, that is, barbarized in the course of time (Heine-Geldern 1959:398).
In the mid-fifties of 20thcentury the Dutchman J. C. van Leur introduced a
change of paradigm with the publication of the work „Indonesian Trade and
Society: Essays in Asian Social and Economic History“. VanLeur attempted to
establish proof of the strengthening of the Southeast Asian native civilizations
due to thecultural adoption from India. In this context he objected strongly to
the sustained prevailing view that the Indian culture in Southeast Asia is
believed to have come across a „vacuum”, as it were, and to have acted as a
„prime mover” of the cultural, political and economic development. Accordingly,
the Southeast Asians adopted only those characteristic features of Indian
cultural life intended for a necessary complement to the indigenous system. What
is more, the indigenous civilizations are thought to have given the impetus to
thecontinual development of an independent Southeast Asian history (Christie
1985:2f; Kulke/Rothermund 1998:197f). The „indianization“ no longer came to the
foreground but rather the phenomenon of the „indigenization“ or „localization“
(Kulke 1985). Coedès refused to accept this new view: From a high
culture-centristic and scripturalistic angle, he put forward a strong argument
against H. G. Quaritch Wales’ thesis of the further development of the
autochthonous civilizations in response to an Indian „stimulus”: „Legitimate
objections were raised against this theory. For my part, I already remarked that
«monuments which are so different according to plan, structure, and design such
as Borobodur and Angkor Vat (and equally different from any other monument of
India) that they can be thoroughly explained both by virtue of the Indian
mentality and Sanskrit-texts. What I find extremely difficult is to interpret
them as response ofindigenous Javanese or Khmeric mentality to a simple Indian
stimulus; for they are too deeply imbued withthe Indian way of thinking.» India
yielded much more than rice: it had produced the plant which according to the
soil that they grew on bore fruits of different taste.” (Coedès 1953:367;
translation as well as emphases are my wording, H. L.) According to this
above-mentioned exposition, the essential theories which were advocated in
relation to indianization – with the exception of the dissertation titled „Batak
Fruit of Hindu Thought“, an original work on Indian influences and its digestion
by the Batak, which Harry Parkin brought out in 1975: Starting-point of his
argumentation is the apparent influence on Dairi-, Karo- and Toba-Batak of
Northern Sumatra byTamil traders whose presence in this region of Barus (on the
Northern Westcoast of Sumatra) can be proved for the 11thand 12thcentury.
Shivaitic ideas permeated through the Batakland via these Tamils, that is, as
faras to the East-coast of the Lake Toba. From this it follows that the sharp
division claimed by van Leurbetween trade and religion, between temple and
market is not related to reality. Parkin worked on theassumption that among the
Tamils were a great many para-religious astrologers, fortune-tellers, healers
and magicians. In this connection, Parkin offers an interesting suggestion that
the recent Mantirikam-literature ofSoutheast India, which is known to be a
modern manifestation of that centuries-old popular Tamil religion, should be
quoted as a material of comparison for analysis of religious rituals and magic
or astrological practices. For, so his argument goes, „para-religious”
influences starting from the West-coast around Barus rather than scholastic
Brahmanism are more likely to have had an impact on the Batak of the
interior.Working on the observation that the magic-religious strategies and aids
of the Batak seer/shaman (TB. datu) as well as the pustaha („books of spells”
which contained knowledge and techniques of magic) not only reveal a strong
tantric influence but also bear striking resemblance to the practices of the
Mantiravati and „street-magicians” of Tamilnad as well as the Shivaism of
Mantirikam-literature and the astrologicalmanuals of Southern India. Parkin
strongly objects to a high culture-centered approach suggesting a direct
comparison of the culture and religion of the Batak with the classical forms of
Indian religions as they are5
Page 7
recorded in the Veda, Upanishads, Purânas, Samhitas etc.: „One of the
circumstances which has hindered previous studies of the possible Indian-Hindu
influence on Batak culture and religion has been the assumption that such
influence must have stemmed directly from one or other of the classical forms of
religion, such as Shaiva Siddhanta found in Hinduism. It is admitted that a
direct comparison of the Batak concepts with those set out in the Veda,
Upanishads, and even the Puranas, leads to a completely negative conclusion.“
(Parkin 1978:136) Instead of this, he suggests as I would call it, an
„anthropological approach”. A more suitable object of comparison with a view to
investigate the indianization of thecivilizations of the Batak is said to be the
„vulgar religion” of the rural and urban India, as it was mentionedabove, which
is deeply rooted in prehistoric Aryan traditions and is looked upon as the
living religion for the majority of the population. Parkin refuses to compare,
for instance, the astrological literature of the Batak with the „Brhatsamhita“
Varâhamihira`s (6thcentury) but with the vulgar texts on astrology which can be
traced back to this. The vulgar Hindu Mantirikam-literature, which is based on
the classical texts but thoseare made to „reduce“ at the same time as well as
the traditional Hindu-astrology reflected in the „Arutam“-books, according to
Parkin, are more likely to represent the Indian religion conveyed through the
cultural contact rather than the „classical“ sources normally used by
indologists. Despite the fact that theMantirikam-literature by no means dates
back to the remote past, its portrayal of the practices and the storing of
knowledge are still based on a long and ancient tradition. It is therefore
unlikely that the Batak obtained their concepts first-hand from this source of
literature. On account of his comparison, however, Parkin can conclusively prove
that many religious-magic notions and practices of the Batak are based on the
same tradition as that vulgar Hindu-religion of Southern India (Parkin 1978:39,
134-136, 257, 262f). The main advantage of such a non-„scripturalistic”,
non-high culture-centered analysis is that the notorioussearch for
correspondences between the affected cultural as well as religious conditions of
the „tribal community” on the one hand and the once affecting „high culture” on
the other hand could be dropped. Theconcluding judgments of such
„investigations”, which are a well-known fact, boil down to inevitably
superficial cultural adoptions (Warneck 1909:2-8; Tobing 1963:17-19). According
to others the borrowedfragments were intellectually incomprehensible on their
part with the result that they were distorted or „barbarized” in the course of
time (Heine-Geldern 1923:903, 951; 1959:380)5. Apart from that, Parkin provided
a model analysis of the process of indigenization among the Batak. By way of
many examples he could prove that first the „local genius” of the tribal
community (selection, modification) was given a chanceby adopting foreign
cultural elements. Moreover, a synthesis of indigenous and different foreign
influences beyond a simple addition occurred: „Consequently, there has been some
reconception of Batak religion and some interaction between the foreign elements
themselves.“ (Parkin 1978:28) In his view, Indian elementsare far from being
simply isolated by distinguishing them from exactly definable influences of
other cultures (quadrangular axe-, Dongson-, Islamic Malay or Christian
culture): „ ... the Toba-Batak reworked and indigenized the Indian influences so
that a new form was produced which within the permitted limits of Toba-Batak
tradition was Batakized Indian in form and Indianized Batak in content.“ (Parkin
1978:64) 3. EXAMPLES OF INDIANIZATION FROM INDONESIAThe Toba-Batak of Northern
Sumatra and their institution of sacral rulers, that is to say, of the “divine
king”(Singamangaraja) and of the „priestly kings” connected with the
above-mentioned god-king (i. e. Sori-mangaraja/Baligeraja, Jonggi Manaor and
Ompu Palti Raja) are the focus of my attention. The fact that the Toba-Batak
despite their really typical „tribal“ structure have the political institution
of sacral rulers, whichis in sharp contrast to the former social order, to all
appearances may (at least partly) be put down to cultural adoptions from the
indianized empires in the more immediate and distant vicinity (see fig. 2). The
question which still remains to be answered should be asked why these concepts
were completely changed and redesigned beyond recognition? Is it due to the
inability of the Toba-Batak to transform 5Parkin’s well-founded knowledge of the
religious conditions among the Tamil also imply an excusable shortcoming ofthis
study which could be described as Southern India-bias: Parkin places an
overemphasis on Shivaitic influences starting from Southern India and tends to
disregard the Javanese influences or the influences coming from PadangLawas,
Minangkabau-Pagaruyung and Malayu. 6
Page 8
concepts adopted from the „high culture”-societies in the wake of the so-called
indianization so that those were disfigured beyond recognition in the course of
time (cf. Heine-Geldern 1959)? Or do we not rather need to search for its causes
in the social structure and the world view (ideology) of the Batak themselves?
Assoon as the cultural adoptions are investigated in the light of the social
structure and the emic perspective of Figure 2: Indianized empires which are
both adjoining each other and those which are farther away from the Batak of
Sumatra 7
Page 9
the „receiving” (cf. Situmorang 1993a), the listing of Indian notions of
kingship and state will be superseded by the evidence of an active and creative
adaptation of the Indian model to the existing social order. The assumption on
which the „indigenization“ guided by social structure and ideology is based can
only beverified, providing the fundamentals of the social order of the
„receiving“ society and culture are known, as is the case with the precolonial
Toba-Batak: Working on the hypothesis that among the precolonial Toba-Batak the
kinship relations provided the basic pattern for the economic and political
organization (Lukas 1999), it is required to query if and to what extent the
concept of divine kingship deriving from a „state“- and „high culture“-context
had to be transformed due to its irreconcilability with the kinship-based social
structure of the Toba-Batak. Let us turn our attention to the institution of the
sacral rulers of the Batak. Since the 16thcentury there have been „divine kings”
among the Batak, who held the title Singamangaraja. The title of those sacral
rulersconsists of two Sanskrit-words, „Lion” (singa from Sanskr. singha) and
„great king” (mangaraja from Sanskr. maharaja) (Parkin 1978:181, 129;
Heine-Geldern 1923:951, 903f). In all probability, the Singamangaraja continued
a previously existing ancient tradition of sacral rule. According to oral
traditions of the Batak, it is assumed to have been a legendary king from the
„land of the setting sun” (TB. Hasundutan) named Raja Uti, who passed on to the
first Singamangaraja the power and authority to rule.This Raja Uti obviously
represents a pre-Islamic ruler of Barus on the Westcoast of Sumatra. Barus,
whichused to be called P’o-lu-shih6in the ancient Chinese sources and Fansur7in
the Arab accounts, was alreadyin the 2ndcentury A.D. an important export harbor
for camphor8and benzoin9. An inscription of stone dis-covered in the region of
Barus at Lobu Tua (Labu Tua) proves the presence of about 1.500 Tamil
merchants(Sastri 1932; Parkin 1978:51, 81-83, 106, 262f). From the second half
of the 7thup to the 16thcentury Barusappears to have been a Batak-kingdom, which
was indianized and shaped by the Hindu or Buddhist tra-ditions respectively. It
was governed by members of the Batak-clan (marga) Pasaribu. In those days Barus
6The toponym „P’o-lu-shih“ for the camphor export harbor Barus is a derivation
from the Chinese word for „scent“,that is, “p’o-lu“ (Drakard 1990:3). In the
Chinese texts dating back to the Liang-Dynasty (502-557) hence the camphor was
called „ointment from P’o-lu [P’o-lu-shih]“, „salve from Barus“ (Heine-Geldern
1959:384). 7Barus appears as „Fansur“ in Arab sources and in case of Marco Polo
as „Fanfur / Fransur / Fansur“ (Tibbetts 1971:490; Polo 1989:381f; Polo o.
J.:279f). This name goes back to a small place in the North of Barus, which used
to be called „Pancur“ or „Pansur“ respectively (Situmorang 1993b:59; Drakard
1990:4; Sidjabat 1983:34). Mal. (air) pancur = „cataract (with a thin jet)“
(Karow/Hilgers-Hesse 1962:277); TB. pansur = „a jet of water one may observe
coming out a bamboo cane and falling into a swimming pool below” (Warneck
1977:177). Since the 9thcentury Fansurwas considered to be a source of camphor
and benzoin.8Camphor (Lat. camphora), a product of the wild camphor tree (Lat.
Dryobalanops aromatica Gaertn.), was already known in the most distant times and
particularly appreciated by the Arab physicians outside Southeast Asia. As early
asthe 12thcentury the Arab geographer Idrisi reports that Sumatra exports
camphor (Marschall 1968:72). Two relatively early sources from people who
traveled straight through Sumatra, mentioning camphor as a typical product of
theisland, belong to the travelogue of the Venetian Nicolò di Conti (1419-1444
in Asia) and the „Kitâb al-Fawâ’id fî usûlal-bahr wa-l-qawâ’id“ (c. 1489/90) of
the Arab navigator Ahmad b. Mâjid (Hall 1976:233; Tibbetts 1971:220). The
camphor tree is to be found only in the North of Sumatra, that is, neither to
the south of the equator nor to the north of3rddegree of the northern latitude
(Marsden 1811:149f; Junghuhn 1847 I:107f; Avé/King 1986:13, 17-19). The
name„camphor” goes back to the Sanskrit-term „karpura“ (Parkin 1978:110).
Accordingly, Sumatra was probably referred to„karpuradvipa“, that is, „camphor
island” by the Indians under the reign of King Asoka (Coedès 1968:19f). The Arab
or Persian word kâfûr which the English/German word „camphor”/„Kampfer“ is
derived from, goes back to thelanguages of Sumatra, where this article was
mainly produced. The Malay term for the camphor is „kapur“; it is called hapur,
todung or haboruan by the Toba-Batak living in the inland. Once the epithet
„Barus“ is added to this word(Mal./I. kapur barus, TB. hapur barus = „camphor
(from the surroundings) of Barus”), not only the origin of the product but also
its top-quality will be expressed (Labrousse 1985:356, 495; Parkin 1978:110;
Warneck 1977:107, 44, 263; Kamus Dewan 1989:99, 531). Likewise, Barus is quoted
as a camphor harbor of Sumatra in the Arab sources. The Sumatranian names
correspond to the Arab term al-kâfûr al- fansûrî (Lat. camphora fansuriensis =
„Fansur-camphor,camphor of Fansur“, that is, Barus). Even Marco Polo refers to
canfora di Fanfur as one of the best in the world(Drakard 1990:4; Polo
1989:381f). 9Benzoin (Lat. Styrax benzoin) is an important product of collection
in the hilly country of Northwest Sumatra towhich the Pakpak- and Toba-Batak are
indigenous.8
Page 10
served as a gate for Indian influences which left conspicuous marks in the
language and the ideology of the inland Batak (Sastri 1932; Coedès 1968:158,
244; Simanjuntak 1977:76-79; Heine-Geldern 1959:385f; 393;Siahaan 1964:26f
Tideman 1936:8f; Situmorang 1993a:18, 152, 179, 181). A sort of „ritualized
trade” con-nected the inland inhabited by the Toba-Batak with Barus on the West
coast of Sumatra. The most essentialpart among the offerings, which the
Toba-Batak made to the rulers of Barus, were the so-called „horses ofthe gods”
(hoda debata), but their colors were strictly prescribed. The Island Samosir and
the surroundingsof the Lake Toba used to be included in the system of the
„ritual trade” with Barus. According to ancient traditions, the sultan of Barus
was sent an offering in the form of a white horse by Singamangaraja. The Muslim
ruler is said to send it to the sovereign of Pagaruyung (see fig. 2), that is to
say, to the King ofMinangkabau, who on his part is reported to have it sent to
Raja Uti (Heine-Geldern 1959:387f). Raja Uti, the legendary ruler in the land of
the setting sun, who was regarded as incarnation of the god of the Batak,
Mulajadinabolon, was presented a white horse of the gods. The Sultan of Barus
was given a piebaldhorse as incarnation of the Batak-god Mangalabulan. The
Singamangaraja received a black horse asincarnation of Batara Guru (see table).
Sacrificial offerings of horses made to deities of the Toba-Batak and their
incarnations respectively10Color of the horse Term for sacrificial horse Deity
to which the sacrifice isconsecrated Incarnation to which thesacrifice is
consecrated White hoda sihapas piliMulajadinabolon Raja Uti, that is, ruler of
the clans Pasaribu in pre-Islamic Barus (via Raja Hatorusan/ Sultan of Barus or
ruler of Pagaruyung) Black or white on the hips, otherwise completely black hoda
silintong or hoda sisandangderaBatara Guru SingamangarajaBrown hoda na
baraSoripada---Piebald hoda sibaganding tua Mangalabulan Sultan of Barus
(Ibrahim and his successors)Several features of the divine kingship of the Batak
both provide evidence of the indianization and of theorigin as well as of the
period of cultural influences: • Divine and holy: The Singamangaraja was
regarded as a god-like and holy being. The Batak horse sacrifice (TB. mangan
hoda debata, literally: „to eat the horse of gods”) for the
Singamangarajacorresponding to the Vedic steed sacrifice (ashvamedha) can be
rated as a particularly unmistakableevidence of its divinity. • Superhuman body
height: A superhuman height was attributed to the Singamangaraja. • Immortal:
The Singamangaraja was looked upon as a king, „who will never die, who will
never growold“ (TB. na so olo mate, na so olo matua). Singamangaraja is said to
live for ever only to disappear under mysterious circumstances11. 10According to
Ypes 1932:165; Heine-Geldern 1959:370, 386-388, 390-392, 394; Situmorang
1993a:154f, 166;Hoetagaloeng 1926:24; Lumbantobing 1967:47, 49; Parkin 1978:163;
Winkler 1925:152; Warneck 1909:26, 35; 1918:381; 1977:58, 145 11Likewise the
divine kings of Java are said to be immortal: Siliwangi, the last representative
of the Hindu dynasty ofPajajaran (Sunda, Westjava), did not suffer „physical”
death in the battle against the Islamic army in command ofBanten (1579) but
vanished into thin air. Likewise Kertajaya, the last ruler of the Eastjavanese
Empire Kediri, is said tobe not killed but to have „disappeared“. Prabu
Brawijaya, the shrouded in legend last sovereign of the Shivaitic-Buddhist
Dynasty of Majapahit, is for one thing reported to have been inferior to the
united Muslim assailants, for the other, not to have died in battle but to have
„ascended to Heaven“. According to the prevailing notion of that time, a violent
death of the ruler would have jumbled up the cosmic order (Graaf/Pigeaud
1974:53f; Moertono 1974:55;Schrieke 1955:11). 9
Page 11
• Omniscient: The Batak believed that the Singamangaraja knows everything that
is said or done. No-one dares to contradict him. In prayers the Singamangaraja
is invoked as Lord of the region Bangkara, „whose sombaon (deified spirit of the
ancestors) is Sulusulu, torch of the gods, the torch of sombaon, which is
intended to enlighten/reveal truth as well as lies” (Pleyte 1903:47f; cf.
Warneck 1909:128,Situmorang 1993a:96)12. • Exceptionally powerful sahala: The
Batak ascribed an exceptionally powerful sahala (TB.: magicforce/power) to the
Singamangaraja. Whenever he passed by people, mothers would make theirchildren’s
faces turn to him with the intention to come in for his sahala. His sahala
caused rice to growbut it could also be dangerous or even prove fatal. Showing
no respect to him could have disastrous consequences to the fields and cattle. •
Wondrous birth of Singamangaraja I.: As legend has it, the mother of the first
divine king, the wife of the chieftain of Bangkara was taking a bath and was
about to do her hair when a jambu barus-fruit dropped from the sky. As a result
of eating it, she got pregnant after a month passed. After three years had gone
by without her being delivered of a child, her husband consulted a seer/shaman
(datu) so as to find out the cause of that inconvenient miracle. This seer told
him that the child in the womb of the wife had been fathered by the god Batara
Guru by means of a divine fruit which the woman had eaten. The seer predicted
that the child would not be born until further four years had passed by. Four
years later the birth of Singamangaraja I. augured terrible thunder storms,
heavy earthquake and other portents. The village was swarming with spirits and
tigers hunting and tearing each other to pieces. According to custom, the
placenta13was buried under the house but it was struck by lightening, ascending
it toheaven. The child’s father received a book of Batara Guru, containing laws
as well as instructionsconcerning the calendar, the magic, the good and bad
days. Right at the beginning of the book BataraGuru ordered the child to be
called Singamangaraja (Pleyte 1903:5-15; Situmorang 1993a:68, 82;Lumbantobing
1967:23-31). Heine-Geldern describes those oral traditions as „a shivaitic
legend mixed up with Batak elements“ (Heine-Geldern 1959:369). The portents
boding the birth of Singamangarajaexactly correspond to Javanese notions about
the birth of a king, who is equally referred to as theincarnation of Batara Guru
(bhattâra Guru). The verification of this instance is based on a passage fromthe
Nagarakertagama14, in which the Javanese poet Prapañca describes the frightening
natural phenomena auguring the birth of the prince and the future King Hayam
Wuruk151334: „When our Kingand Lord had a rest in its mother’s womb in
Kahuripan, miraculous portents indicated that it was asupernatural being. The
earth was shaking, the steam was rising [from the volcanoes], the ash
dropped(from the sky), the thunder was rumbling, flashes of lightening tearing
the space asunder [...] This was astriking evidence of Bhatâra Girinâtha`s
readiness to become the incarnation of the ruler” (quoted fromHeine-Geldern
1959:370; translation and supplementations are my wording, H. L.). There is
anotherscientific evidence to confirm this thesis of a cultural relationship
between the Batak of Sumatra andJava, which is implied by the name of the birth
of Singamangaraja I., Manghuntal. The word manghuntal means in Toba-Batak „to
shake something, to make something quake” (cf. Situmorang1993a:68, 82f) and it
is undoubtedly linked with the unusual natural phenomena accompanying the
birthof Singamangaraja I. 12It was the sacral nature of the kingship that was
the widespread type of kingship in indianized Southeast Asia. Heine-Geldern,
however, associates distinctive features such as the superhuman body height and
the omniscience, inparticular, with an ancient Buddhist tradition dating back to
the 5thcentury (Heine-Geldern 1959:365-357).13TB. anggina, that is, literally
„younger sibling“14The Nagarakertagama (Nâgarakrtâgama, Nâgarakritâgama,
Nâgarakertâgama), „the history of the gloriousdynasty“ written by the Javanese
court poet Prapañca, a year after Gajah Mada’s death, was dedicated to the
Buddhist priest and son of the „superintendent” in charge of Buddhist affairs
(dharmâdhyaksa ring kasogatan). It is a chronicle written in verse form, which
covers the history of the Empires of Singhasari and Majapahit from the beginning
of the 13thup to the mid-14thcentury. A greater section of this work refers to
the journey of King Hayam Wuruk(Rajasanagara) through his Empire (Majapahit),
his visits he paid to holy shrines as well as an account of thearrangements and
execution of the funeral ceremony for the Queen Tribhuvanâ (Zoetmulder
1965a:266; Soekmono 1965:39; Berg 1965:105-109; Coedès 1968:187, 240f). The
Dutch „fame across” the text in the Puri (palace) of the prince of the Island of
Lombok in 1894 (Graaf 1949:68). 15Hayam Wuruk (Rajasanagara) was undoubtedly one
of the most prominent rulers of the Javanese Empire Majapahit,whose regency
extended from 1350 to 1389 (Schrieke 1957:314, fn. 14; Coedès 1953:364). 10
Page 12
• Batara Guru, the name of the divine father Singamangaraja I: Heine-Geldern can
prove that bhattâraGuru – was one of the most common names for Shiva (cf. Parkin
1978:160; Graaf 1949:23f;Koentjaraningrat 1990:337)16. From this we can draw the
conclusion that Singamangaraja I. wasrespected as a son of the god Batara Guru
(Shiva) according to the above-mentioned legend. All Singamangaraja were hence
regarded as the incarnation of Batara Guru. In fact, a further chain of evidence
is meant to support this interpretation in hand: the Batak appealed prayers to
their worshippedSingamangaraja similar to that of a god (Heine-Geldern
1959:370). Likewise, Bhatâra Girinâtha, the „Lord of the Mountain“ of whom it is
related in the above-quoted story about the miraculous eventdescribing the birth
of the Javanese King Hayam Wuruk, is only a synonym for bhattâra Guru and
Shiva17. Hayam Wuruk was considered to be the incarnation of Vishnu, the
incarnation of bhattâra Guru(Ishvara, Bhatâra Girinâtha) and the embodiment of
Buddha as well (Schrieke 1957:87, 314f, fn. 14). • Sacrifice: Offerings were
made to Singamangaraja which were also offered to him in his absence.
For,strictly speaking, god is assumed to be omnipresent. Accordingly, he is
endowed with the capacity both to make apparitions at night and to answer to the
prayers of those that sacrificed to him with the object of collecting the
offerings made to him.There is no doubt that the divine kingship goes back to
striking and quite different indianizing influences mixed up with one another at
different periods of time. Moreover, they gave rise to forming an integral part
of the existing socio-cultural organization of the Batak. It is therefore
afterwards almost impossible to find out the Buddhist and Hindu influences in
the Batak civilization, in general, and those in the divine kingship, in
particular. „Hindu“ elements of the Batak culture assumed are as follows: • The
names of three Batak gods (debata na tolu, that is, Batara Guru (Maheshvara,
Shiva), Soripada (shri Pada, i.e. Vishnu) and Mangalabulan (Mahakala)18• The
Batak sacrifice of a horse19derived from ancient-Indian ashvamedha16The
indologist Gonda equally emphasizes the similarities that exist between Bhattâra
Guru, „the highest Javanese god of a later period“, and the Indian Shiva (Gonda
1975:5). The name of the deity is a compound consisting of theSanskrit words
batara („Lord“) and guru („teacher“) and can possibly be translated as „Lord
Teacher“ (Gonda1975:21f; Heine-Geldern 1923:951). Batara Guru did not only play
an outstanding part among the Javanese, Balinese and the Batak, but was also an
exceptionally popular deity in the whole cultural area. What is more, by these
and similar names (Mahatala or Mahatara with the Dayak of Kalimantan, Betara in
Sarawak, Lahatala in Buru, Hatalla with the Olongaju in Kalimantan, Bathala with
the Tagalog of Luzon) the god was worshipped by many ethnic groups of
theArchipelago (Heine-Geldern 1923:951; Parkin 1978:153, 160, 196 fn. 97).
Moreover Gonda points out that Batara Guru ( = quotation of bhattâra Guru in
Indonesian orthography), „the typically Javanese representative of, or rather,
development from, that god“, appears in several names, for instance, as
Parameshvara (Paramesvara), Maheshvara(Mahesvara), Ishana (Isana), Sambhu
(Shambhu), Paramashiva (Paramasiva), Jagannatha, Umapati,
Nandishvara,Jagatpramana, Mahakarana or even as Rudra, that is, Bhairava, „the
cruel, the atrocious being” (Gonda 1975:3, 13, 21,22, 24, 33). Batara
(bhatâra/bhattâra) used to be in Java (and has been existent up to this day in
the so-called AgamiJawi, the „Javanese religion“) the title placed before the
name of a male deity (e. g. Batara Indra, Batara Kresna). The male batara faced
a female batari (e. g. Batari Uma) (Koentjaraningrat 1990:337). Strangely
enough, Bhatâra (Batara) used to be the commonly held title of the Kings
(Graaf/Pigeaud 1974:180, 194). Similarly in „Hikayat Hang Tuah“, the story with
its origin in Melaka (Malakka) about the Malay hero Hang Tuah, the ruler of the
Javanese Empire Majapahit is given the name „Batara“ (Overbeck 1976: 174). The
common application of the title „bhatâra“, that is, „god“, met with the kings in
power is, as I see it, a clear evidence of the widespread deification of
Javanese rulers in those days. Onthe other hand, Christie entirely disagrees to
this evidence for a divine kingship. Yet he claims that this title was
notadopted from the Javanese kings until the deification of the ancestors
brought about by the Indian influence had becomewidespread. From that reason it
can rather be viewed as a part of the indianized ancestral worship (Christie
1985:16f). 17„Sang Hyang Batara Guru is the Javanese conception of the deity
Syiwa in Hindu mythology“ (Koentjaraningrat1990:463, fn. 5; emphasis is my
wording, H. L.). Bhatâra Girinâtha is the „Lord of the Mountain“, that is, of
the Meru (ibid, 337). 18The commonly applied identification of the three Batak
gods (TB. debata na tolu) with Hindu-Trimurti up to this dayis scientifically
untenable: On account of the evident predominance of Shivaitic elements (the
major importance of Batara Guru etc.) Parkin regards the debata na tolu as a
Batak version of a Shivaitic Trimurti or Maheshvaramurti. Accordingly,
Mangalabulan is far from being identified with Brahma but rather with Mahakala,
the representative of adverse, destructive and fatal cosmic forces (Parkin
1978:157, 179-184, 187). 11
Page 13
• The prohibition to make offerings of a pig to gods of Indian origin • The
prohibition of the consumption of pork during the sacrifice of a horse • The
permanently effective prohibition on the Singamangaraja of eating pork and dog
meat Besides these intensive and manifold Hindu influences, however, there are
only a few significant archaeological Hindu relics. By contrast, archaeological
research succeeded in recovering numerousremnants of Buddhist cultures in
Sumatra20. Hindu influences might have entered the Batakland in at leasttwo
different periods as well as from two different directions: 1. Early stage of
the transmission of Hinduism (from the 2nd century21up to about the 11thor
12thcentury)over Barus located on the West coast of Sumatra, before Buddhism was
predominant in Sumatra. Thesurvival of ashvamedha among the Batak seems to refer
to it. 2. Hindu influences, which reached to Batakland from the south via
„Malayu-Minangkabau“ (i.e. theEmpire of Malayu and Pagaruyung-Minangkabau) in
the 13thand 14thcentury. Buddhist features, which survived in the traditions as
regards the Singamangaraja: • When he was young Singamangaraja I. is said to
have exhibited an exceptional kindness and charity toall of his fellow-beings.
Every time he showed his readiness to pay debts of those that were unable to
settle them; in addition, he redeemed prisoners put in chains due to their
indebtedness or crimes, andcaused them to be released. In doing so, as well as
gambling he squandered a major part of his parents’possessions with the result
that his relatives refused to support him in the end. According to
Heine-Geldern, all these acts of charity in the Batak community of the
19thcentury with its „barbaric and cruel customs“ appear to be „rather foreign
and out of place”. But added to this, it must be mentioned asfollows: There is
no doubt about the fact that kindness and charity are in odd contrast to the
values of thetribal Batak community. Much more important, however, is the fact
that Singamangaraja is granted to all without exception as opposed to the
particularistic ethics of the Batak. This obviously refers to the transmission
of the universal norms characteristic of Buddhism! In other words: Less charity
in itself is peculiar but rather the fact that the support of Singamangaraja is
neutral to kin-relations! • The Singamangaraja walked with bowed head, which is
reminiscent of the gait of Buddhist monks. • As a token of his power the first
Singamangaraja is awarded a white elephant by legendary Raja Uti. It is doubtful
whether it is a clear evidence for the Buddhist influence, as it is
Heine-Geldern’s assumption. Admittedly Heine-Geldern’s information about the
significance of the white elephant is accurate. In fact, Buddha in the shape of
the elephant descended from heaven on earth. However, the white elephant was
equally considered to be a riding animal of god Indra at the same time, who was
the supreme god inancient Hindu-Pantheon after all. Moreover, the divine white
elephant (hastiratna, „elephant-treasure“) closely bound up with the
cakravartin-conception in most of the indianized empires of Southeast Asia
–19According to Heine-Geldern, there is firm evidence for early Indian
influences as regards this horse sacrifice. 20Archaeological remnants which
support the indianization of the Batak by documentary evidence:1. A stone
inscription (Sanskr. prasasti) discovered in Lobu Tua (Labu Tua) at Barus bears
witness to the presence of a Shivaitic merchants’ guild of 1.500 Tamil men from
South India (Parkin 1978:262-264). The settlement was abandoned in the
12thcentury (Kozok 1991:14). 2. The stone Ganesha of Simangambat in South
Tapanuli (8thor 9thcentury) 56cm in height is one of the ancientShivaitic relics
of Sumatra (Parkin 1978:50, 81). 3. Equestrian statues on graves of some tribal
chiefs, which can be found from Dairi in the West as far as theWestcoast of the
Lake Toba, bear witness to Hindu influences coming from the West coast of
Sumatra (Parkin 1978:255).4. A naga sculpture was discovered by Gr. K. Sidjabat
in Batutanggang on Tuktuksiasu on the East coast of SamosirIsland (Sidjabat
1983:374). The Batak variation of (1) ashvamedha (TB. mangan hoda debata), (2)
the equestrian fancy-dress dance (TB. ranting) performed on the occasion of the
horse sacrifice as well as (3) the calendar, (4) magic and (5) oracle techniques
could be mentioned as immaterial relics of these ancient Hindu influences
(Parkin 1978:255-263). Likewise, the house andgrave-decorations of the Batak
(TB. singa ni ruma or jaga dompak), batakized forms of kirttimukha and makara,
were adopted in an early stage of indianization (Parkin 1978:255). The lack of
archaeological records, as Heine-Geldern oncementioned in passing, is certainly
due to the fact that systematic excavations had hardly ever taken place in
Sumatra (and in locations particularly in the northern part of the island). That
is still the same today (cf. Kozok 1991:14, 15). 21As early as about 150 A.D.
Barus is mentioned by Ptolemaios (Kozok 1991:14). 12
Page 14
irrespective of whether they were Buddhist, Hindu, Hindu-Buddhist22or Islamic
23- acted as the symbol of power and glory proper for a great King (Soen
1959:76, 78, 99f; Hagesteijn 1989:46; Zimmer 1973:118f, 127; Kemp 1969:54 fn.
27; Overbeck 1975:52-54, 67; 1976:174, 232, 255-262). It is therefore true that
the white elephant can by no means be described as an exceptionally Buddhist
symbol, as it is Heine-Geldern’s effort. Yet it is an obvious evidence for
cultural adoptions fromneighboring or even from more remote indianized empires
of Southeast Asia. Based on some marked details - e. g.: the white elephant; a
Batak legend according to which Raja Uti „at present” lives in Siam; the
principle of height differentiation according to which the Raja Uti was seated
up on a high place in the roof of his house, overlooking those to whom he gave
audience etc. - Heine-Geldern suggested that the Raja Uti-legend could be traced
back to the „kingdom of Siam”, that is, Ayudhya (Heine-Geldern1959:388-400).
Other scholars even went further, claiming that the name Uti is supposed to
stand for a corrupted form of Ayudhya. Whether Buddhist influences are only
confined to Theravada-Buddhist once, as Heine-Geldern assumes,has to be called
into question, since there was a predominance of Tantric Mahayana-Buddhism mixed
up with Shivaitic elements in Sumatra at the time of the advent of
Singamangaraja. The Tantric Buddhism of the indianized Empire Pannai, which was
located in Padang Lawas (southern Batak region; see fig. 2) must have had an
exceptionally marked impact on the culture of the Batak. The one-sided
concentration on early Hinayana Buddhist influences of the Northeast coast of
Sumatra ledHeine-Geldern to disregard the more recent and by far more noticeable
and tangible cultural effects coming from the South, in particular, those from
the Empire Pannai: In Padang Lawas (in Batak: Padang Bolak, „great steppe“), in
the stream region of the Pane- and Barumun River there used to be an important
Tantristic-Buddhist Bhairava-Shiva-community. The strongly Javanese-molded
empire, whoseinhabitants, for the most part, consisted of immigrants possibly
indianized Javanese, Malays of Jambi or Minangkabau, was called (according to
some authors) Pannai. The Batak-clans Hasibuan, Harahap, Siregar, Dalimunte,
Pulungan, Tambak, Nasution and Rangkuti seem to have settled in this region
rather late between the 15thand 15 century or so. Even today twenty brick towers
(vihara) overgrown with grass, which hardlyshow reliefs on the friezes to be
found in the surroundings of Gunning Tua (South Tarpaulin), as well as a few
Shivaitic temples bear witness to that empire. According to studies conducted by
Parkin, the inhabitants of this empire concerned (or at least the ruling elite!)
were made up of Vajrayana-Tantrists.24On account ofthe esoteric orientation
(observance of secrecy towards the non-initiated) and the extreme syncretism it
isdifficult to describe the religious tendencies of the empire. From this it
follows that one is likely to proceed22We may come across high esteem of the
king’s (and often „white“) elephant both in the indianized empires ofSoutheast
Asian mainland (Burmese, Thai, Lao, Khmer) and in the insular Southeast Asia
such as in Javanese Majapahit (Soen 1959:76, 78, 99f). The elephant was regarded
as the mountain of Indra in the Hindu-mythology and heis sometimes in the
possession of three heads according to myth. Triple-headed elephants have still
survived as apopular motif in the art of Thailand, Laos and Cambodia. The
depiction of the white elephant as a rain-donor coming upin jataka-stories is
recurrent in the titles of the white elephant belonging to the Siamese kings:
„Descendant of the angelof Brahmans”, „Source of strength for producing rain“
(Soen 1959:99f). There is even documentary proof of theexistence of a royal
elephant (Parkin 1978:47) for one of the first indianized empires of Indonesia,
Taruma (Westjava, ±450 A.D.). Interestingly enough, the elephants played an
important part in the coronation ceremonies of Cambodia, inwhich the king was
identified with Indra (Soen 1959:5f). Similarly, in the Lao myth about the
foundation of Lang Xang the demi-divine wise man, Khoun Borom, who is sent by
the king of Heaven, riding an elephant descends from heavenin order to rule on
earth (Hagesteijn 1989:46). 23The extremely rare white elephants were – often
associated with yellow state-umbrellas – a symbol of the king’s rulein the
already islamized but, in fact, highly indianized Melaka (Malacca) of the 15th
century. Accordingly, a whiteelephant endowed with magic forces chooses the new
leader of the empire in various Malayan Penglipur Lara-stories (e. g. in the
„Raja Muda“-tale) (Overbeck 1975:52-54, 67). This is reminiscent of ancient
Indian tales, in which elephants act as kingmakers: According to that, the one
who was chosen as ruler whom an elephant had managed to lifthim up with its
trunk and place him on its back (Hillebrandt 1923:79). Whenever the sultan sets
off on a military expedition, he will mount the white elephant with the yellow
„state-umbrella” put up, too (Overbeck 1975:76). According to the tale „Hikayat
Hang Tuah” (originating in Melaka) the sultan sends at more or less regular
intervals alegation from Melaka to Ayudhya, which asks for white elephants from
the „Phra Tschau“ (Pra pen chaou orPhrachau), the ruler of Siam (Overbeck
1976:232, 255-262). 24Vajrayana: „diamond vehicle“, vehicle of the mystical
cognitive process13
Page 15
on the assumption of the co-existence (1) of Tantric Mahayana-Buddhism
(Vajrayana), enriched with (2)Shaktism displaying Tantric features. But, quite
apart from that, this empire was known to be notorious forits Bhairava-cults.
Interestingly enough, Shiva-Bhairava, that is, Shiva-Buddha used to be
worshipped as bhattâra Guru in Shivaitic-Buddhist syncretism. Moreover, the
Buddhist Bhairava was put on a level with the Shivaitic Heruka. As is the case
of Malayu, Pagaruyung-Minangkabau, East Java (Singhasari, Majapahit), Bali, and
equally of Shivaitic communities of India (Kâpâlikas, Kâlâmukhas,
Mahâvratadharas) the esoteric teachings probably (adopted from East Java) used
to be the focus of religious interest. Bhairava, „the Terrible“, „the
Atrocious“, was reputed to be a demoniacal and destructive form of appearance
ofMaheshvara (Shiva). By the Batak the sinister and gloomy figure of Bhairava
was adopted as a baneful spirit25. Heine-Geldern is undoubtedly right when he
claims that the Theravada-Buddhism was predominant in early times (up to the
8thcentury). As early as the 9thcentury, however, Mahayana-Buddhism and Tantrism
gained predominance in Sumatra. Srivijaya in Southeast Sumatra was the first
center of Mahayana-Buddhism and Tantrism26. As time went on, the political and
religious center began to shift to the North as far as the Empire of Malayu. The
Tantric Buddhism and the Bhairava cult27flourished in the powerful Javanese
Empire of 25The Batak possibly recognized parallels in the cult of Bhairava to
their conception of Mangalabulan (Parkin1978:157, 179-184, 187) borrowed from
Maheshvaramurti as a destructive and baneful deity (Mahakala). The Batak
arebelieved to have expected all wickedness of that deity. Mangalabulan is said
to be a god thirsting for power, who sows the seed of discord with the intention
to be amused by it, gain more sacrifices. Moreover, he was accused of practicing
cannibalism. Accordingly he is looked upon as (TB.) mula ni parbadaan, jumadihon
pormusuan, that is, the „onset of the dispute which may result in armed
conflicts“. According to Ypes, however, the Batak by no means equate the
Bhairava with their deity Mangalabulan. Since the esoteric teachings and actions
(drinking of blood and diabolical laughter) bound up with the cult are likely to
remain inexplicable in the final analysis, they refrain from addressing the
Bhairava as deity but as begu (spirit) and even described this supernatural
being as „someone raving“ or „fool“ (Ypes 1944:139f). 26According to the
Buddhist monk I-Ts’ing (Yijing), coming from China, who paid three visits to
Southeast Sumatra between 671 and 689 A.D., most of the monks of about 1.500
were followers of Mûlasarvâvastivâ-school. In addition, there have been
Sammatîyas, Mahâsangikas and Sthaviravâdins. The Yogacaryabhumi sastra-teaching
of Asanga (4thcentury) was equally known in Srivijaya. In 717, after 40 years
had passed, the Tantric Vajrayâna-teaching was spreadfrom this very place by
Vajrabodhi and his disciples Amoghavajra (Chinese: Bukong) probably coming from
Sri Lanka.Inscriptions, however, indicate that representatives of the ruling
elite were already around 690 followers of Buddhism mixed with Tantric elements.
Descriptions of a rite during which a jug is filled with blood and complex
yantras are drawn, seem to be preliminary stages of the subsequently rising
Bhairava-cult (Coedès 1953:354f; Gonda 1975:5-8;Parkin 1978:48; cf. Gernet
1988:235-237; Kulke/Rothermund 1998:202). 27The Bhairava-cult linked up with
magic and esoteric practices had been in existence in East Java since the 13th
century and is the ritual manifestation of the syncretistic symbiosis of
Shivaitic Hinduism and Mahayana Buddhism. This kalachakra/vajrayana-form of
Tantric Buddhism, which took its origin in Bengal towards the end of the
Pala-period and spread from that region to Tibet, Nepal and Indonesia, reached
its peak in the form of syncretistic worship ofShiva-Bhairava in Java. The cult
of Shiva-Buddha (who devoted himself to the redemption of the souls) fell on
fertile ground in the Indonesian ancestral worship. In this Bhairavist (Tantric)
tradition attempts are made to come into powerin a Rimbaud-like dérèglement
systematique des sens – drunkenness, sexual orgies and ritual murder.
Kertanagara(1268-1292), the last sovereign of Singhasari, is believed to have
introduced Tantric Buddhism in Java, which then was still predominant in
Majapahit (Berg 1965:99; cf. Coedès 1953:360; Villiers 1965:107-110; Graaf
1949:66f; Anderson1990:25; Hall 1976:72f). King Kertanagara attained the divine
status of a Bhairava in a holy ceremony organized in1275 (Berg 1965:331, 333,
339). According to that, Kertanagara was worshipped as Shiva-Buddha (more
precisely asBuddha-Bhairava) during his life-time. What is more, he was regarded
as both the incarnation of Shiva and DhyaniBuddha Akshobhya ( = amalgamation of
Shivaitic Hinduism and Mahayana Buddhism). With the embodiment ofdemoniacal
forces founded on this incarnation, he believed that he would be in a position
to conquer hostile forces, agreat many of which were existent in this Kali-era,
and to carry out successfully his plan against the enemy’s forcesoutside his
empire. The Bhairava-rituals - during which, among other things, a sexual
intercourse between the Lord of the ring (mandala) and the yoginis - were
sufficient to give rise to the consolidation of the ruler’s power (sakti): The
yoginis were therefore chiefly considered to be representatives of magic power.
First of all, princesses of amicableempires were eligible for this powerful
position. Within the limits of the ring-rituals, Kertanagara begot four
spiritual„daughters“ on the strength of yoga of the Bhairava-cult, that is, in a
unio mystica manner. Those embodied the essence(prakerti) of four nusantaras,
territories, namely Bangli, Malayu, Madura and Tanjungpura. Furthermore
Kertanagara14
Page 16
Majapahit (1293 - ca. 1520). From Majapahit the Tantric Buddhism alongside the
Bhairava-cult spread to Malayu, Pagaruyung-Minangkabau and Padang Lawas28(see
fig. 2). In view of the clearly pronounced syncretism widespread in early
Southeast Asia it seems to be more appropriate to search for indications and
documentary evidence of processes of indianization as well as for close
correspondences with otherindianized civilizations in general: • An amazing
evidence for both Indian influences and correspondences with other indianized
civilizations of Indonesia including those of the Southeast Asian mainland are,
in my view, Raja Uti’s seven donations for the first Singamangaraja as well as
the required return gifts: Despite the only partially correspondences, the seven
insignia of royal power (knife, spear, turban, ikat-scarf, mat, jug,
whiteelephant) which Raja Uti hands over to the first Singamangaraja, are
reminiscent of the seven treasures(ratnâni, sapta ratana), which the
cakravartin, the righteous and virtuous ruler of the world, like thegreat gods
Indra, Agni, Soma, Rudra, or (in Buddhism) a Bodhisattva is obliged to possess.
These properties are as follows: a wheel ( = cakra, symbolizing that the King is
representing the hub or thecenter of the world respectively), an elephant, a
milk-colored horse29( = horse of the sun which is tocarry the monarch on its
back, inspecting the world), a precious stone ( = magic jewel cintâmani,
designed to comply with every wish expressed), a woman ( = perfect royal female
companion, ideal partner), a treasurer ( = perfect administrator), an adviser or
general (Gonda 1969:38, 60, 123-128;Zimmer 1973:124-8; Soen 1959:78). These
paraphernalia of the cakravartin are in keeping with the royal ornament, the
so-called upacara30, that is, the Javanese insignia of royal dignity, which
areintended to exert a more considerable influence, or the so-called pusaka31,
the sacred heirlooms of Indonesian kings and tribal chiefs. Those objects were
thought to be determined by intrinsic values of a special power/force passing
over to the person wearing these items, and thus enables him to perform his
royal duties in adherence to etiquette. The firm belief in that attribution even
survived the islamization. Regalia (Mal. kebesaran), which were thought to
harbor spiritual force were equally found withislamized Malays and Minangkabau.
Elephants, yellow color, state-umbrella etc. used to be exclusively the
prerogatives of the sovereign (Anderson 1990:17). The kings of Java and
Southwest Sulawesi were also in possession of living regalia, for instance,
hunchbacked people, albinos, gnomes, hermaphrodites, transsexuals (Gonda
1969:38f; Anderson 1990:27, 29). The latter is reminiscent of mythical figures
(hermaphrodite, albino, girl with huge ears, egg-laying cock, unicorn etc.)
demanded by Raja Uti and bizarre, wondrous objects which must have been seven in
number! Similar to the rulers of the Javanese,Makassarese and Buginese
(Southwest Sulawesi) the insignia of royal dignity were viewed as
genuinesubjects of the king’s power and authority. The insignia of power,
awarded to Singamangaraja I. by RajaUti are referred to as pusaha in Batak. This
Toba-Batak word undoubtedly corresponds to the Javanese and Malay/Indonesian
term pusaka. In analogy to the pusaha, the inalienable magical heirloom of a
lineage, which prove their unity and sovereignty by documentary evidence, the
pusaha of theSingamangaraja used to act as a sign for his divine sahala
(Situmorang 1993a:94) as well as a „container” of power. The use of upacara and
pusaka in Java and Sulawesi as well as of the pusaha with the Toba-Batak was
based on a widespread concept of power in Indonesia. Among other things,
thebelief associated with it was that that power may be gained or accumulated
respectively through thepossession of certain objects or people „bursting” with
magic forces. According to an ancient tradition, reinforced his political
relations with those regions in a sacral manner by copulating with those
spiritual daughters in the ring-rituals (Zoetmulder 1965b:331-333, 337; cf.
Koentjaraningrat 1990:43). 28There is every indication that in those days
Tantrism was very widespread in insular as well as in mainland Southeast Asia.
Let me just give a small example: During the Sukhothai period Tantra as part of
a syncretistic synthesis ofHinayana, Mahayana, and a belief in Hindu gods
coincides with a very similar syncretistic Tantrism in Java (Prapandvidya
1996:61). 29The milk-colored horse corresponds to the Indian model according to
which the milk-colored, the daring horse of the sun (ashvaratna = „horse
treasure”) performs the same service to cakravartin as the divine white elephant
(hastiratna= „elephant treasure”) does to cakravartin (cf. Zimmer 1973:127).
30upacara (Sanskr.): 1. insignia, sign of dignity (e. g. state-umbrella); 2.
ritual, ceremonies (similar to service orprescribed by adat); 3. rite
(Karow/Hilgers-Hesse 1962:474); (French) 1. Attributs du pouvoir, régalia; 2.
Cérémonieofficielle; 3. Hommage (Labrousse 1985:915) 31pusaka: heir, heirloom,
family possessions (Karow/Hilgers-Hesse 1962:310); (French) 1. héritage,
patrimoine; 2.object (sacré) de famille, regalia (Labrousse 1985:648) 15
Page 17
the rulers therefore strove for gathering objects and rallying people round
containing or possessing anexceptional power. Consequently they did not only
collect objects such as spears but also unusual andweird people, judging by
their outward appearances (albinos, clowns, dwarfs, fortune-tellers etc.). In
thisway they believed to be capable of absorbing their strength and of
increasing their power on the basis ofbeing in possession of those objects and
people. Conversely, the loss of those objects or people – no matter in what way
it occurred – was interpreted as an actual decrease of the royal power and was
many a time conceived as an unmistakable portent of an imminent collapse, that
is, of an unexpected decline of the royal power (Anderson 1990:27-29).Let me
bring the by far not complete listing of Indian influences of the Batak to a
close. 4. A PLEA OF AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL APPROACH IN THE STUDY OF INDIANIZATION
PROCESSESAn examination into Indian influences as well as modifications (which
occurred within the framework of the adjustment to the tribal culture) would be
fragmentary without taking into account the socio-cultural conditions of the
„receiving/integrating” societies and cultures. Beyond the discovery of the mere
process ofthe cultural transfer, it is imperative to study the selection, the
elimination, the modification and theadjustment of the transfer in reliance on
the active socio-cultural structures and on the conditions of theinterethnic
competition behind it. It follows that function and implications of features
adopted prior and afterits integration need to be carefully examined. Apart from
the diffusion, it is required to show some interest inthe „inner” work, the
self-development of a society and culture as well as the interrelation of their
elements. Only then it becomes clear that each indianization in Southeast Asia
is to represent a special case ofindigenization (due to the dependence on the
culture and society concerned) at the same time.Among the precolonial Toba-Batak
it was impossible to discern a separate political sphere or exclusivepolitical
institutions. It was the kinship, and besides that, the religious relations that
functioned as politicalrelations.
The authority system of the Toba-Batak was polycentric: Owing to the dominant role of kinship inprecolonial Toba-Batak society there was no room for the development of a central authority or supra-regional system (state organization). Even the active adoption of the foreign concept of god-kings, widespread in the indianized states of Southeast Asia, in the form of the „god-king”-institution(Singamangaraja), which could be explained as an attempt to establish authority with reference to a power source beyond the realm of kinship, failed to lead to the setting up of a monocentric authority in Toba-Batak society. Inasmuch as kinship still continued to play a dominant role in Toba-Batak society, the political authority of the god-kings as well as of the priest-kings was limited by the lineage organization as well as
by the alliance structure. Handicapped by the kinship organization the god-kings
(and the priest-kings) consequently tried to found their authority mainly on a
divine (non-kin) sahala, i. e. a spiritual legitimizing power, as manifested in
their predominantly religious articulation of authority. The fact that there
used to be a co-existence of two entirely different concepts of power among the
Batak – a(TB.) tondi-sahala32based on the genealogical ties and a divine
tondi-sahala33- could therefore be32By the term tondi the Batak understand an
impersonal, substance-like imaginary vital force inherent in man, animals and
objects; in relation to their environment and their discernible effectiveness
this force in question is referred to assahala, that could, accordingly be
translated as „useful and beneficial influence“ or „power“ respectively. Power
was by no means interpreted by the Batak as a definite relationship between
individuals or groups of people but rather as a manifestation of a supernatural
force existing independently and preceding their empirical subjects. According
to thenotion of the Toba, the power, sahala, can be traced back to the ancestors
(up to the Eponym Siraja Batak) in the finalanalysis („genealogical sahala“).
Every Batak, who is descended from the Eponym Siraja Batak and who belongs to a
lineage (TB. marga) is, according to that, in possession of tondi. With the
exception of priestly kings and ofSingamangaraja, who equally referred to a
„divine“ sahala, the „normal” sahala therefore founded on kinship relations.
33The Singamangaraja used to be worshipped as tondi sahala by the Batak in the
precolonial era.
Even the Germanmissionary Warneck (1909:59) recognized the
divine worship of the Singamangaraja „since his tondi (who with this interpreted as a clear evidence for the adoption of divine kingship from other
indianized empires in Southeast Asia. At the same time this cultural adoption
reveals the active indigenization and the adjustment of the Indian „model”
dictated by the social structure and ideology of the “receiving society”.
Supposing this hypothesis is right then the effects of indianization on the
Batak concept of power can be summed up as follows: With reference to the
tondi-sahala-concept, the adopted and differently modified Indian model by other
Southeast Asian societies only provided an additional basis of justification due
to which the indigenous theories of power were neither annulled nor modified34.
Accordingly, the co-existence of legitimizing traditions is characteristic of
the Batak society. While the local leaders continue to cling to their
autochthonous sahala-tondi-concept, the Singamangaraja imposed the concept of
divine kingship on the former going beyond the basis of kinship. In some respect
the sahala–concept of the Batak bears some resemblance to other equally „Indian“
theories of power in Southeast Asian such as the particularly well-documented
Javanese concept of power (Jav. kasektèn) (cf. Anderson 1990:17-77;
Magnis-Suseno1981:84-98)35. Merely the kinship foundation of the concept of
power turns out to be a special feature of theBatak. The most significant impact
of that adaptation of the Indian concept of power on the Batak culture is
apparent from the fact that at no moment, not even in the times of serious
menace by foreign enemies (e. g. the Islamic Padris from Minangkabau and the
Dutch), the god-king did succeed in establishing political unityamong the
Toba-Batak. Contrary to scientists who interpret the god-king institution as a
stateforming tendency, it rather represents an adoption of a foreign concept,
which was in the process modified, without, however, transforming the
polycentric authority system of the Toba-Batak as such. 5. BIBLIOGRAPHYAnderson,
Benedict R. O’G.: Language and Power. Exploring Political Cultures in Indonesia.
Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press 1990 Avé, Jan B./King, Victor T.:
Borneo: The People of the Weeping Forest. Tradition and Change in Borneo.
Leiden: National Museum of Ethnology 1986 Bechert, Heinz: Beziehungen zu
Südostasien. In: Bechert, H./Simson, G. v. (eds.): Einführung in die Indologie.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1979:261-266Berg, H. J. de: The
Javanese Picture of the Past. In: Soedjatmoko et al. (ed.): An Introduction to
IndonesianHistoriography. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press 1965:87-118
Christie, Jan Wisseman: Theatre States and Oriental Despotisms: Early Southeast
Asia in the Eyes of the West. ( =Occasional Papers no. 10) The University of
Hall: Centre for South-East Asian Studies 1985 mind is called sahala as well) is
exceedingly powerful and influential”. According to the Batak belief only a few
chosen people are in possession of a tondi awarded to them by the deity
Mulajadinabolon, that is, a divine sahala (Situmorang 1993a:79, 110). 34The real
core of the Batak-religion, the tondi-cult, was virtually spared from the
indianization (Parkin 1978:152, 186,254). 35The Indian model going back to the
sakti-concept frequently modified is widespread in most parts of Indonesia
orSoutheast Asia respectively: The Sanskrit- śakti (shakti) can be paraphrased
as „creative force of the divine“, „energy“, „power“, potency“, „virility“,
„divine activities and contributions in nature“, „world force“ or „vital force“
(Dahm 1985; Zimmer 1973:81f, 507, 513, 515, 518, 523). In Javanese language,
sekti is referred to as exceptional power/force inherent in individuals or
objects especially, however, those of the king, which imply danger and bane, as
is the case ofthe concentration of power, as soon as they get in contact with
objects or individuals that are incapable of wearing orreceiving them. This is
what the Balinese understand by the „power of the ancestors” (Gonda 1969:58; cf.
Anderson 1990:17-77). The Batak songti-concept is a case in point of the
indianization based on an adopted concept of "highcultures", only partially
identical with the sahala-model of power found with the Batak. The Toba-term
derived from Sanskrit (śakti) or from Malay (sakti) implies „dignity“,
„majesty“, „proved to be right, confirmed by virtue of oracles and information
of a datu [witch doctor, medicine man]“ (Warneck 1977:237). Likewise the
Mandailing- and Angkola-Batak living in the South associate with this term a
similar implication, that is, „evidence for the soundness of the claimof a dukun
[Mal./I. seer, medicine man]“ (Dahm 1985). The radical songti is more frequently
encountered in affixedforms such as (TB.) hasongtion („sacredness“) or in
compounds such as (TB.) raja hasongtion, „a chosen individual, a ruler invested
with divine power“.17
Selanjutnya
Mau Belajar Aksara Batak?? Klik Di sini
