 | This articlemay beconfusing or unclear to readers. In particular, links require clarification and relationship between general concepts and the article subject require clarification. Please helpclarify the article. There might be a discussion about this onthe talk page.(March 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Part ofa series on |
| Political and legal anthropology |
|---|
Basic concepts
|
Case studies
|
Major theorists
|
Journals
|
| Social andcultural anthropology |
Mandala (Sanskrit:मण्डल,romanized: maṇḍala,lit. 'circle') is a term used to describe decentralized political systems inmedieval Southeast Asia, where authority radiated from a core centre rather than being defined by fixed territorial boundaries. This model emphasizes the fluid distribution of power among networks ofMueang andKedatuan, contrasting with modern concepts of centralized nation-states.
The mandala framework was adopted by 20th-century historians to analyse traditional Southeast Asian political structures—such asfederations of kingdoms ortributary states—without imposing preconceived notions of statehood. Unlike the Chinese and European model of aterritorially defined state with rigidborders and centralizedbureaucracies, Southeast Asian polities (with the exception ofVietnam) organized power through overlapping spheres of influence. A polity's sovereignty derived from its ability to attract allegiance through cultural, economic, or military prestige, rather than through administrative control of land. These dynamic systems could incorporate multiple subordinate centres while maintaining a symbolic "centre of domination", often embodied by a ruler's court or sacred site.[1]
Within this system,tributary relationships bound peripheral rulers to a centralsuzerain, creating hierarchical but flexible alliances. While superficially analogous to Europeanfeudalism, mandalas lacked formalized feudal contracts or hereditary land tenure, instead relying on ritualized exchanges of tribute and prestige goods to maintain loyalty.
The term draws a comparison with themandala of theHindu andBuddhist cosmologies; the comparison emphasises the radiation of power from each power centre, as well as the non-physical basis of the system.[citation needed]
Othermetaphors such asS. J. Tambiah's original idea of a "galactic polity"[2] describe political patterns similar to the mandala. The historian Victor Lieberman[3] prefers the "solar polity" metaphor, referencing the gravitational pull the sun exerts over the planets.[4]
Historically, the main suzerain or overlord states were theKhmer Empire;Srivijaya ofSouth Sumatra; the successive kingdoms ofMataram,Kediri,Singhasari andMajapahit ofJava; theAyutthaya Kingdom;Champa and earlyĐại Việt.[5] China occupies a special place in that the others often in turn paidtribute to China, although in practice the obligations imposed on lesser kingdoms were minimal. The most notable tributary states werepost-Angkor Cambodia,Lan Xang (succeeded by theKingdom of Vientiane andLuang Prabang) andLanna. Cambodia in the 18th century was described by the Vietnamese emperorGia Long as "an independent country that is slave of two" (Chandler p. 119). The system was eventually ended by the arrival of the Europeans in the mid-19th century. Culturally, they introduced Western geographical practices, which assumed that every area was subject to one sovereign. Practically, the colonisation ofFrench Indochina,Dutch East Indies,British Malaya and Burma brought pressure from the colonisers for fixed boundaries between their possessions. The tributary states were then divided between the European colonies and Siam, the latter of which exercised more centralised power over a smaller area.[citation needed]
The arrival ofIslam to the archipelago saw the application of this system which is still continued in the formation of the government, such as the formation of the 18th centuryNegeri Sembilan coalition which focused onSeri Menanti as a centre flanked by four innerluak serambi and four outer districts.[6] Another example is the post-Majapahit Islamic kingdoms in Java.[citation needed]
The mandala model contrasts with modern centralized states, a distinction some scholars attribute partly to premodern Southeast Asia's lack of precisecartography, which later technologies and colonial practices emphasized.[7]O. W. Wolters, who further developed the mandala concept, described the system as:
The map of earlier Southeast Asia [...] was a patchwork of often overlapping mandalas.[8]
HistorianMartin Stuart-Fox uses the term "mandala" extensively to describe the history of the Lao kingdom of Lan Xang as a structure of loosely held togethermueang that disintegrated after Lan Xang's conquest by Thailand starting in the 18th century.[9][10]
Thai historianSunait Chutintaranond made an important contribution to study of the mandala in Southeast Asian history by demonstrating that "three assumptions responsible for the view that Ayudhya was a strong centralized state" did not hold and that "in Ayudhya thehegemony of provincial governors was never successfully eliminated."[11][12]
.JPG)
The obligations on each side of the relationship varied according to the strength of the relationship and the circumstances. In general, the tributary was obliged to paybunga mas, a regular tribute of various valuable goods and slaves, and miniature trees ofgold andsilver (bunga mas dan perak). The overlord ruler reciprocated with presents often of greater value than those supplied by the tributary. However, the tributary also had to provide men and supplies when called on, most often in time of war. The main benefit to the tributary was protection from invasion by other powers, although as South East Asia historianThongchai Winichakul notes, this was often "mafia-like protection"[13] from the threats of the overlord himself. In some cases, the overlord also controlled the succession in the tributary, but in general, interference with the tributary's domestic affairs was minimal: he would retain his own army and powers of taxation, for example. In the case of the more tenuous relationships, the "overlord" might regard it as one of tribute, while the "tributary" might consider the exchange of gifts to be purely commercial or as an expression of goodwill (Thongchai p. 87).
The emphasis on personal relationships was one of the defining characteristics of the mandala system. The tributary ruler was subordinate to the overlord ruler, rather than to the overlord state in the abstract. This had many important implications. A strong ruler could attract new tributaries, and would have strong relationships over his existing tributaries. A weaker ruler would find it harder to attract and maintain these relationships. This was put forward as one cause of the sudden rise ofSukhothai underRamkhamhaeng, for example, and for its almost equally steep decline after his death (Wyatt, 45 and 48). The tributary ruler could repudiate the relationship and seek either a different overlord or complete independence. The system was non-territorial. The overlord was owed allegiance by the tributary ruler, or at most by the tributary's main town, but not by all the people of a particular area. The tributary owner in turn had power either over tributary states further down the scale, or directly over "his" people, wherever they lived. No ruler had authority over unpopulated areas.[citation needed]
The personal relationship between overlord and subordinate rulers also defined the dynamic of relationship within a mandala. The relations betweenDharmasetu of Srivijaya andSamaratungga ofSailendra, for instance, defined the succession of this dynastic family. Dharmasetu was the Srivijayan Maharaja overlord, while the house of Sailendra in Java is suggested to be related and was subscribed to Srivijayan mandala domination. After Samaratungga married Princess Tara, the daughter of Dharmasetu, Samaratungga became his successor and the house of Sailendra was promoted to become the dynastic lineage of later Srivijayan kings, and for a century the centre of Srivijaya was shifted from Sumatra to Java.[citation needed]
The overlord-tributary relationship was not necessarily exclusive. A state in border areas might pay tribute to two or three stronger powers. The tributary ruler could then play the stronger powers against one another to minimize interference by either one, while for the major powers the tributaries served as abuffer zone to prevent direct conflict between them. For example, the Malay kingdoms inMalay Peninsula,Langkasuka andTambralinga earlier were subject to Srivijayan mandala, and in later periods contested by both Ayutthaya mandala in the north and Majapahit mandala in the south, before finally gaining its own gravity duringMalacca Sultanate.[citation needed]
Center for Southeast Asian Studies
Historians of Southeast Asia often face problems in using terms drawn from and applicable to European polities and societies to refer to non-European equivalents that do not conform to European models.
Nevertheless, the Ayudhya kings, as they are described in indigenous and foreign records, never successfully eliminated the hegemony of provincial governors.
... I am interested in the ways in which Kautilya's theory of mandala has been interpreted by historians for the purpose of studying ancient states in South and Southeast Asia.