R. Jordaan Consensus and variance in Indonesian archaeology; A reply to John Miksic

In: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 156 (2000), no: 1, Leiden, 169-175

This PDF-file was downloaded from http://www.kitlv-journals.nl

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:10:03AM via free access Discussion

ROY JORDAAN Consensus and variance in Indonesian archaeology A reply to John Miksic

Although I am grateful to Professor John Miksic for his long and searching review of my English-language reader on the Loro Jonggrang temple com- plex (BKI 155, IV:712-23), his discussion contains a number of flaws which are so serious that I cannot let them pass in silence. Being convinced of the importance of debate in advancing our knowledge, I am writing this rejoin- der primarily in the hope that it will prove useful in the ongoing process of archaeological research and interpretation at Loro Jonggrang. My first point concerns Prof. Miksic's remark that 'some of the works seem to have been selected for inclusion not primarily on the basis of their usefulness in conveying a rounded view of the Loro Jonggrang complex, but because they tend to support certain theories of the introduction's author'. This is a serious allegation, but one that is not supported by examples. Miksic speaks only of 'certain articles not found here', without mentioning their titles. The reader carries the subtitle 'Dutch essays on the Loro Jonggrang temple complex', and the language criterion, together with the limited finan- cial means at my disposal for translation (a problem extensively described in the introduction), were more decisive for the selection than my personal pref- erences. It should be noted further that the only concrete example which Prof. Miksic gives of my alleged selectivity regarding sources is my unin- tended omission of J.G. de Casparis' one-sentence etymological explanation for the name ''. Despite Miksic's claim to the contrary (p. 716), anyone else who knows my work will testify that I cannot be suspected of having any 'tendency to neglect De Casparis' work'. Prof. Miksic observes that some of the ideas which I propagate, includihg those concerning the dating of the temple complex, 'are at variance with the consensus obtaining among scholars', indicating that the work of De Casparis (and J. Dumargay) is still decisive for this consensus. He.wrongly states that the justification for my dating of the temple complex is supported

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:10:03AM via free access 170 Discussion only by the 1993 source cited in the IIAS Newsletter. As a matter of fact, the 1993 reference is not to this newsletter at all, but to my previous publication Imagine Buddha in Prambanan, which was negatively reviewed by Prof. Miksic himself in 1994.1 may remind him that one of the conclusions of my earlier research was that the current dating of Loro Jonggrang, which ranges from 832 (Dumarcay) to 856 (De Casparis), 'seems more inspired by conjectural interpretations of inscriptional data than by architectural and stylistic con- siderations'. I supported this assertion with a lengthy discussion of the work of De Casparis, Dumarcay, and E.B. Vogler,. pointing out how these three scholars gloss over their mutual differences by making various subtle har- monizing changes in their theories, leading to a somewhat artificial consen- sus which tends to strengthen existing preconceptions (Jordaan 1993:14-22; 1996:38, note 15). What I would prefer is to focus on those differences, and attempt to resolve them in the light of new and independent research. Prof. Miksic rightly remarks that the 'main evidence' for my proposed earlier dating is not mere speculation, but a 'calculation'. My point of depar- ture is the Siwagrha inscription that was issued in 856 on the occasion of the inauguration of the temple, and which gives a description of the complex, or at least a major part of it (for instance, the main temple building, the central courtyard, the first surrounding wall). As it seems obvious to me that the construction of these parts could not possibly have been realized in the period between the expulsion of the Sailendras in 855 and 856,1 concluded that the building of the temple was started in the period during which the Sailendras were still reigning in Central . Being then confronted with an absolute absence of further information (even the length of time needed to complete Borobodur has been declared 'anyone's guess' by no less a person than J. van Lohuizen-de Leeuw), my conservative estimate was a construc- tion period of several decades. I also remarked, however, that it is 'not [...] the exact number of years by which the foundation of the temple should be pushed back in time that is at issue here, so much as the placing of the con- struction of the temple in another religio-political period, namely the so- called Sailendra interregnum' (1996:25). Instead of calling this reasoning 'circular', I think Prof. Miksic would have done better to put forward an alternative calculation, indicating how many years, in his opinion, it would have taken to complete the temple complex or the abovementioned parts of it. That he refrained from doing so corroborates my claim that the archaeologists and art historians of Hindu-Javanese an- tiquities know next to nothing about this subject, a state of affairs which com- pares unfavourably with that regarding ancient Greek, Egyptian, and South American monuments. Viewed in this light, I prefer my own tentative 'cal- culation' to the unfounded estimates given by the established figures in the field. The fact,. for instance, that Dumarcay has the construction of Loro

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:10:03AM via free access Discussion 171

Jonggrang beginning in 832 is not so much based on architectural or stylistic considerations (which one would expect to guide the judgement of an archi- tect), but rather on the circumstance that this was the (estimated) last year of the reign of , the last Sailendra king to hold power in Central Java. The construction of Prambanan is assumed to mark both the growing independence of the 'Sanjayas' from the Sailendras and the revival of Hin- duism. Instead of reckoning with the possibility of a peaceful co-existence of and Sivaism, and a balanced extension of royal favours to these religions, Dumarc,ay seems unduly concerned with the political background of the construction of the temple complex, leading him to re-emphasize the existing interpretation of Prambanan as a rival monument to Borobodur. Hence my remark that he is one of the archaeologists who allow themselves to be guided moreby De Casparis' conjectural interpretations of the Siwagrha inscription than by independent arguments (Dumarcay 1978:2-3; 1986:6, 42). Ironically, Prof. Miksic himself may be accused of 'circular reasoning' when he mentions the construction of Candi Plaosan to support his claim that a Buddhist queen, Pramodavardhani, exerted 'continuing' influence dur- ing the second half of the ninth century. The late dating of Candi Plaosan is contestable, since the last known inscription of this (probable) queen dates from 842 - not to mention the epigraphic and art historical arguments in sup- port of a date for this temple priorto 855 (De Casparis 1956:310-11; Jordaan 1999:61). As a Leiden anthropologist I have always been aware of the importance of kinship, especially as defined by actors themselves. The reason why I think that the Sailendras were a foreign dynasty is that they regarded themselves a family apart (Sailendravamsa), and none of their surviving names can be identified with any of the kings listed in the Old Javanese inscriptions. Con- trary to what Prof. Miksic suggests, there is no inscription in which the desig- nation wangsa, 'family', is used in connection with Sanjaya. The fact that his name was the first in a list of kings does not mean that the successive kings were all genealogically related to Sanjaya; some probably were, others were not. Presumably the list was intended merely to record the reigns of para- mount Javanese kings, preserving their names for posterity. The designation 'Sanjayawangsa' was coined by De Casparis, and subsequently uncritically adopted by the majority of scholars of ancient Central Java. However, fol- lowing Damais (1968), I do not think that there was a 'Sanjaya family or group'. There no evidence, furthermore, for De Casparis' theory that the political arena in early Central Java was dominated by a rivalry between only two dynasties, each adhering to a different Indian religion. In the book reviewed, I briefly mentioned Boechari's 1982 discovery that Pramodavardhani was not the queen-consort of , as Prof.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:10:03AM via free access 172 Discussion

Miksic, following De Casparis, claims, but his mother (Jordaan 1996:41, note 19; 1999:52-3). Now, assuming Pramodavardhani to have been married to Rakai Garung, who is Rakai Pikatan's immediate predecessor, I think that Rakai Garung stands a better chance of being the founder of Loro Jonggrang than does Pikatan. This new hypothesis would go a long way toward ex- plaining the Sailendra involvement in the construction of the temple com- plex, while at the same time furnishing a better argument for its dating. Rakai Garung, as we have only recently discovered, reigned from 824 to 847, which would yield a dating of the temple complex which is close enough both to the one proposed by Durmarcay and to my own. The exact founding date depends on the question of whether Loro Jonggrang was constructed to mark the occasion of Rakai Garung's ascent to the throne (824), or his mar- riage to the Sailendra princess Pramodavardhani (presumably between 824 and 842). Although the absence of dated inscriptions does not allow for definite statements in this matter, it seems likely that Candi Sambisari is one of the smaller Hindu temples that were built during the period of Sailendra rule. This is suggested both by its orientation to the east, which is so characteristic of Sailendra edifices, 'and by the discovery at this Sivaitic temple site of two bronze statuettes of figures from the Buddhist pantheon, the bodhisattva Vajarapani and the goddess Tara (Jordaan 1996:45, 78, note 53; Jordaan and Wessing 1996:62, note 15): True, this is no evidence for the Sailendra involve- ment, but it does demonstrate the peaceful co-existence of the religions. Logistics, the other problem singled out by Prof. Miksic, is not a new sub- ject of debate. Many scholars have been puzzled by the question of where the Javanese obtained the resources with which to pursue what has been called their 'temple-building mania'. For some historical sociologists, the huge building operations could only have been realized at the expense of the com- mon people. Schrieke and Wertheim, for instance, have both tried to relate the supposed suffering of the builders to the transfer of the capital (kraton) from Central to East Java, proposing that this followed in the wake of an exo- dus of the oppressed people. My present thinking leads me to look for a solu- tion to the logistical problem .in the dynastical alliance between the Sailendras and the rulers of Sriwijaya, the famous maritime kingdom of Sumatra. The proposition that these two kingdoms pooled their resources, it seems to me, could help to solve a large number of difficult questions about the early , such as why there are so few archaeological remains in , the site of the formef capital of , and why was enthroned as the first in a line of Sailendra kings in Suvarnadvipa (Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula). But this is a new line of research, or rather newly revived research, upon which I cannot elaborate in this context.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:10:03AM via free access Discussion 173

Another polemical subject is my hypothesis that Loro Jonggrang's central courtyard was designedas an artificial pool, meant to give both symbolic and physical expression to the famous Hindu myth on the Churning of the Milky Ocean. One of Prof. Miksic's objections here is that 'if a pool'were construct- ed at the top of Lara Jonggrang, then no spouts at all would have been re- quired'. This interpretation, however, deviates from my own, as I do not pro- ceed from the assumption of a permanent storage of water in the central courtyard, but only of a superfidal inundation, about 10 centimetres deep, at religious holidays when the myth was symbolically re-enacted. The periodic re-enactment, or rather 'cosmicization', I have argued, was 'very special' and 'momentous' (Jordaan 1996:54-5). The spouts, therefore, were needed for get- ting rid of the water afterwards. Regarding the technical problems of getting water to the top. of the complex, and then keeping it from seeping away through the soil, I refer the reader to the 1995IIAS Newsletter. In this publica- tion I extensively report on my rediscovery, in the older excavation reports, of an ancient water-supply channel running underneath the complex, as well as on the controversial measures taken by the Indonesian Archaeólogical Survey to improve the drainage of the central courtyard. Prof. Miksic makes it appear that I dismiss the idea that the design of Loro Jonggrang was fundamentally influenced by concepts associated with man- dala patterns. That this is not true, ho wever, is clear from his own question in connection with my assertion about Loro Jonggrang's 'underlying Buddhist conception': 'Is he [Jordaan] referring to the mandala-like layout of Lara Jonggrang?' The answer to this question can in fact be found on-page 80 of my introduction, where I explore the possibility that Loro Jonggrang, although dedicated to the Trimurti (Siva, Brahma, and Visnu), '[is] simultan- eously adopted into a greater Buddhist entity that also encompasses Candi Sewu', adding the remark that 'it is not inconceivable that the change to an- pther mandala at Sewu also had consequences for the composition and spa- tial arrangement of the Loro Jonggrang pantheon' (Jordaan 1996:84). I also urged caution, however, because I feit that the archaeologists of Hindu- Buddhist antiquities in Central Java were much too quick and firm in their assertions about the type of mandala that was followed in Candi Sewu and Loro Jonggrang; Precisely because I do not agree with such sweeping state- ments as that of Miksic to the effect that 'the architectural mandala [of Loro Jonggrang] is probably Javanese, rather than Buddhist or Hindu', I wrote that I thought it 'advisable to follow Bernet Kempers' example and suspend judgement with regard to the architectural system, while at the same time not ignoring, but rather drawing attention to the matter of appafently sirriple measurements' (Jordaan 1996:76). Obviously, I fully support Prof. Miksic's statement that the existence of the ritual deposits should be accounted for in order to determine the overall symbolism of the temple complex. But I glad-

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:10:03AM via free access 174 Discussion ly leave this research to further students of this subject. . As to the practice of human sacrifice, Prof. Miksic clearly has grave doubts about the veracity of the Javanese culik ('abduction') rumour syn- drome as discussed by Barnes. He thinks it misleading to cite these rumours as evidence, since 'Barnes does not seem to claim any basis in reality for them'. Barnes, however, writes that 'if a state or leader is potent, then pre- sumably it or he can afford to sacrifice human heads when important projects are undertaken, such as opening fields or building temples' (Barnes 1993:155, cited in Jordaan and Wessing 1996:66). Whether Barnes himself believes in the reality behind the rumours or not, I see no reason to abandon my theory that the human remains found at the temple site were part of a construction sacrifice. Various sorts of 'bloody' construction sacrifice (some including human victims) were practised throughout 'monsoon Asia' up into the twen- tieth century - see, for instance, our follow-up articles 'Death at the building- site: construction sacrifice in Southeast Asia' (1997), and 'Construction sacri- fice in India, "seen from the east'" (1999). Finally, two alleged minor errors. The first concerns the meaning of the word apit in the composite candi apit. Prof. Miksic claims that the word should have been translated as 'flanking' instead of 'wedged in' or 'hemfmed] in', but ignores the comparative example of the designation bulan apit, the Indonesian name for the Islamic month Dzukaidah which falls in between the main Islamic festivals (Jordaan 1996:193, editor's note). In essence, however, this controversy is pointless, as the designation candi apit was coined by a twentieth-century archaeologist, not by the original builders. More annoying to me was Prof. Miksic's remark that 'the author lacks some information regarding the recent phase of the restoration of Lara Jonggrang', an assertion which he supports with an explanation of the prac- tice of chiselling new stohes and of the use by the Archaeological Service of a plastic marker for new stones instead of the former small lead seal. He refers here to footnote 6 on page 18 of my 1996 publication, but carelessly fails.to call attention to the final sentence of this note, which states: 'For the past few years, the Indonesian Archaeological Service has been inserting epoxy resin into small, specially drilled holes in any new stones as a substi- tute for these lead seals'. The reason for me to look for a lead seal was that the new stone in question had been inserted during colonial days, in the early phase of the Siva temple's reconstruction. When Prof. Miksic speaks highly of the intensity and quality of the debates among pre-independence Dutch scholars, and asserts that 'such an atmosphere [of consensus] is difficult to replicate even at present times, with much more favourable tools of communication at our command', I would like to remind him of the undiminished importance of close readihgs of each other's work. Moreover, if scholarly debates are to serve any meaningful pur-

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:10:03AM via free access Discussion 175 pose, we must also be prepared to be persuaded by arguments. Still, I think the reader will agree with my conclusion that partly through our debates, Prof. Miksic and I do seem to be evolving, if not a new consensus, then at least a deeper understanding of the problems to be tackled.

References

Barnes, R.H. 1993 'Construction sacrifice, kidnapping and head-hunting rumours on Flores and elsewhere in Indonesia', Oceania 64:146-58. Boechari, M. 1982 'Aneka catatan epigrafi dan sejarah kuno Indonesia', Majalah Arkeologi 5:15- 38. Casparis, J.G. de .1956 Prasasti Indonesia II; Selected inscriptions from the 7th to the A.D. Bandung: Masa Baru. Damais, L.-Ch. .1968 , 'Bibliographie indonésienne', Bulletin de l'Écqle francaise d'Extrême-Orient 54:295-522. Dumargay, J. 1978 . Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. 1986 The temples of Java. Singapore: Oxford University Press. IIAS Newsletter . '• ;, '•' ••, . 1995 'Prambanan 1995; A hypothesis confirmed' [Report on a journey to Java by Roy E. Jordaan], 1IAS Newsletter 6:37. Jordaan, Roy E. 1993 Imagine Buddha in Prambanan; Reconsidering the Buddhist background of the Lom jonggrang temple complex. Leiden: Vakgroep Talen en Culturen van Zuidoost- Azië en Oceanië. [Semaian 7.] 1996 'An updated introduction', in Roy E. Jordaan (ed.), In praise of Prambanan; Dutch essays on the Lom Jonggrang temple complex, pp. 1-115. Leiden: KITLV Press. [Translation Series 26.] 1999 The Sailendras in Central Javanese history; a survey of research from 1950 to 1999. Yogyakarta: Penerbitan Universitas Sanata Dharma. Jordaan, Roy E., and Robert Wessing 1996 'Human sacrifice of Prambanan', Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 152:45-73. 1999 'Construction sacrifice in India, "seen from the east'", in: Jan E.M. Houben and Karel R. van Kooij (eds), Violence denied; Violence, non-violence and thé rationalization of violence in South Asian cultural history, pp. 211-49. Leiden: Brill. Miksic, John N. 1994 [Review of:] 'Roy E. Jordaan, Imagine Buddha in Prambanan, Leiden 1993', Journal ofSoutheast Asian Studies 25:442-4. Wessing, Robert, and Roy E. Jordaan, 1997 'Qeath at the building-site; Construction sacrifice in Southeast Asia', History ofReligions 37:101-21.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:10:03AM via free access