studies on economic and administrative aspects of Majapahit, which have revealed the increasingly direct control of the king over tax revenue at the expense of local landed leaders. The strengthening of kingship, however, does not necessarily mean the king’s control of people was enforced through the increased use of coercion. On the contrary, the DW shows that there were occasions of amicable interaction between the king and common people, which are marked in the narrative by a number of royal tours and the annual court festival.The DW narrates a number of royal tours that the king initiated. Undoubtedly these tours had administrative purposes, such as “stock-taking” of resources and “weeding out” of the causes of potential unrest. However, it must be also noted that the DW indicates several moments where the king and his retinue interacted joyfully with common people. In other words, if the strengthening of kingship consolidated the society in a vertical direction, royal tours worked horizontally.Another occasion for this horizontal consolidation of the society was the annual court festival. The festival began in PhΣlguna, the last month of the traditional Javanese year, and ended in Caitra, the first month of the next year. The festival celebrated not only the beginning of a new year but also a good harvest, as the period coincides with the end of a productive rainy season. The narrative tells that the marketplace was inundated with harvested produce and other products, both domestic and imported. The festival ended with a communal feast, in which both the leaders and the common people participated, and the king also played a role in the merrymaking that followed the feast. From the DW’s descriptions, it appears that while economically the festival functioned as an occasion for gathering and distributing resources across the kingdom, socially it helped integrate people as one community.The DW clearly indicates that Majapahit had reached a higher level of social integration, to which ‘vertical’ enforcement of kingship and ‘horizontal’ interaction between the king and common people contributed. It is possible to argue that Majapahit may not be a mandala state, as defined by Wolters, where the leader’s charisma is the primary source of social integration and his or her death leads to the rapid disintegration of the kingdom. Majapahit did experience rebellions and power division, yet these instances of turmoil should not stop us from recognizing the degree of the development of social integration in Majapahit.Finally it must be noted that the description of the festival appears at the very end of the text, which indicates the poet’s intention may have been to place the festive scene as the highlight of the narrative. The festival was characterized by the abundance of goods available in Majapahit, either produced domestically or imported from outside Java. The importation of prestigious foreign goods was made possible, in part, by the existence of an international trade network, to which the DW refers specifically. The text explains that Majapahit was a major hub of the network because Java was the only country that was equal to India (Jambudv∏pa), and consequently it enjoyed the presence of religious experts of Indian origin.The DW’s narrative reveals that the legitimacy of Majapahit rested substantially on its Indic ideology and the perception of India as the center of Indic civilization. The importance of the perceived religious orientation of India may explain why Majapahit could remain “Indianized” well into the fourteenth century and then not in the following centuries. In conclusion, this paper argues that cultural factors were deeply embedded in the process of king’s political legitimization in such a way that they contributed to the kingdom’s social integration.BibliographyAoyama, Toru. “A New Interpretation of the ‘East-West Division of Java’ in the Late Fourteenth Century.” Acta Asiatica 92 (2007): 31–52.090MODERN ASIAN STUDIES REVIEW Vol.5