Every merchant ship passing through the Strait of Malacca and the Sunda Strait, two mandatory gateways along what later became known as the Maritime Silk Road connecting China and India, had to stop at Srivijaya's ports and pay tribute before continuing its voyage.
Revenue from this maritime traffic, rather than agricultural harvests or land taxes, financed the kingdom from the 7th to the 13th century CE. Ironically, it was a kingdom that never possessed clearly defined territorial borders on land.
The earliest evidence of Srivijaya's existence also came not from territorial claims but from the records of foreign travelers who visited the kingdom. In 671 CE, the Chinese Buddhist monk Yijing stopped at the mouth of the Musi River in Sumatra. He stayed for six months to study Sanskrit grammar before continuing his journey to Nalanda, India.
In his writings, Yijing described the kingdom that hosted him as a thriving center of Buddhist learning. However, he never mentioned where its territorial boundaries ended because such borders had never been clearly defined.
Ruling Through Routes, Not Through Land
The earliest evidence of Srivijaya as a political power comes from the Kedukan Bukit Inscription, dated Saka 604 (682 CE), which was discovered on the banks of the Tatang River in South Sumatra.
The inscription is the oldest known text written in Old Malay. It records a sacred expedition (siddhayatra) led by Dapunta Hyang Sri Jayanasa. According to the inscription, he sailed for 25 days from Minanga Tamwan before establishing a wanua, or settlement, that became the foundation of Srivijaya.
From that point onward, Srivijaya's authority expanded not as a territory marked by fixed borders but as a network. Historian O.W. Wolters described this pattern as a mandala in his 1999 book History, Culture, and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives, published by the Cornell University Southeast Asia Program.
In this model, the ruler's authority radiated outward from the center through the loyalty of ports and local rulers. It gradually diminished with distance from the center rather than ending at a clearly defined border.
Archaeologist P.Y. Manguin presented a similar interpretation in his 2016 study on state formation and maritime strategy in the Strait of Malacca. He explained that the kingdom controlled interconnected river systems and port networks rather than a continuous expanse of land.
Tribute Collected by Former Pirates
Srivijaya's tax collection system relied on a group that had once posed a threat to maritime trade, the Orang Laut, a seafaring community that roamed the waters of the Strait of Malacca.
Srivijaya recruited them to guard shipping routes, escort merchant vessels to its ports, and intercept ships that tried to sail along the coast to avoid stopping and paying tribute.
Through this system, Srivijaya maintained control over the Strait of Malacca and the Sunda Strait without the need for garrisons stationed along hundreds of kilometers of coastline.
A network of maritime guards who knew every passage along the shipping routes was enough. Foreign merchants preferred paying tribute to risking interception.
Curses as a Tool of Tax Enforcement
The challenge was that this network of ports, spread across the region without clearly defined land borders, was difficult to oversee through conventional legal institutions. Srivijaya left behind no evidence of a prison system or courts that exercised authority over its officials and merchants.
Instead, it left behind curses.
The Telaga Batu Inscription, discovered in a pond near Sabokingking in Palembang, is believed to date from around 684 CE. Dutch epigrapher J.G. de Casparis established this date through paleographic analysis when he published its complete translation in Prasasti Indonesia II in 1956.
The inscription contains a series of oaths binding more than a dozen official positions, including puhawang (ship captains) and wanigrama (merchants), to remain loyal to the datu (king) of Srivijaya.
Rather than outlining legal penalties, it issues a warning. Anyone who betrayed their allegiance or conspired with the kingdom's enemies would die by the curse itself.
Because tribute-paying ships and merchants moved between ports scattered along maritime routes rather than remaining in a single territory under direct supervision, this spiritual threat functioned as a substitute for physical law enforcement. It was a way to secure obedience without maintaining a physical presence at every point along the trade routes.
When the Routes Fell into Other Hands
A system built entirely on controlling maritime routes also shared a fundamental weakness. Once those routes were seized by another power, the authority that depended on them began to weaken as well.
In 1025 CE, following an earlier attack in 1017, the navy of the Chola Empire from southern India under Rajendra Chola I launched an assault on Srivijaya's capital and its key ports, including Kedah, Aceh, and Barus.
Historian K.A. Nilakanta Sastri, in his 2009 book Nagapattinam to Suvarnadwipa: Reflections on the Chola Naval Expeditions to Southeast Asia, argues that the campaign was driven by the Cholas' attempt to remove Srivijaya as the intermediary in the direct trade route between southern India and Song China.
Its impact is reflected in what is absent from the historical record. After 1025, no Srivijayan envoys were recorded at the Chinese imperial court until 1077. A kingdom that had spent more than three centuries building its power through control of maritime routes and oath-bound loyalty faded once those routes slipped from its grasp.
