1.
While such friction could foster the localization of loyalties, it could equally serve as a stimulus for greater co-operation among groups as they sought to withstand attack by a predatory neighbor
•Certain sites such as the graves of ancestors might be designated as places where disputes could be settled by negotiation and discussion, with the decision sealed by an impressive oath.
•The binding medium in the creation of bonds between communities was always kinship(blood ties), usually formalized by a ceremony whereby two leaders accepted each other as brothers. The ancient custom by which two men could become brothers by together drinking each other's blood was legitimized in Theravada Buddhist society by the dhammathatlaw books.
Thus
•The cultural and geographic environment of Southeast Asia had a fundamental influence on the manner in which the polities of the region developed. Confederations of communities which saw themselves as equivalent were found in many parts of Southeast Asia
•Relations between leaders and followers mirrored the obligations of relatives.
•Like a parent, the overlord should give protection, assistance and occasionally a stern rebuke; in return, the vassal/child should return loyalty, respect and service.
•The ideal of personal and continuing reciprocity which grew out of concepts of kinship lay at the heart of the Southeast Asian polity, and it could well be argued that whatever 'structure' can be discerned in most early kingdoms was ultimately based on the bonds of family.
The typical Southeast Asian 'kingdom‘ was a coalescence of localized power centres, ideally bound together not by force but through a complex interweaving of links engendered by blood connections and obligation.
•Leadership, conceived in personal and ritual terms, required constant reaffirmation. On the death of each ruler, therefore, his successor's authority had to be reconstituted with a renewal of marriage bonds and a vow of loyalty.
•While the women surrounding a leader were an important political statement, they could also provide an abundance of potential heirs, whose claims they could work to support. As states became larger, the liminal period between the death of one king and the installation of the next could often prove to be a time of crisis.