R. Jordaan the Sailendras, the Status of the Ksatriya Theory, and the Development of Hindu-Javanese Temple Architecture
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
R. Jordaan The Sailendras, the status of the Ksatriya theory, and the development of Hindu-Javanese temple architecture In: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 155 (1999), no: 2, Leiden, 210-243 This PDF-file was downloaded from http://www.kitlv-journals.nl Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 09:26:13PM via free access ROY E. JORDAAN The Sailendras, the Status of the Ksatriya Theory, and the Development of Hindu- Javanese Temple Architecture Introduction The reconstruction of the history of Java, Sumatra, and the Malay Peninsula from the eighth to the twelfth century AD1 is still greatly hampered by the unsolved problem of the origin of the Sailendra dynasty. The reference to the name Sailendra in a number of dated Central Javanese inscriptions (Kalasan 778, Kelurak 782), an undated inscription found in the Thai part of the Malay Peninsula (Ligor B, in or shortly after 775), and a few inscriptions from both North and South India (Nalanda circa 859, Charter of Leyden 1089-1090) inspired R.C. Majumdar (1933, 1934) to posit the existence of a Sailendra empire, which, at the height of its glory, in the early ninth century, suppos- edly embraced large parts of the Indo-Malay archipelago (the Malay Penin- sula, Sumatra, and parts of Java) as well as of the Southeast Asian mainland. Majumdar suggested that the Sailendras originated from Kaliriga in India and, travelling by way of Lower Burma, migrated to the northern part of the Malay Peninsula, whence they ruled over their new kingdom, which he des- ignated 'Malayasia'. In the ensuing scholarly debate, various of Majumdar's ideas were dis- puted. Not only was the alleged absorption of the South Sumatran kingdom of Srivijaya into the Sailendra empire questioned, but the Indian origin of the Sailendra dynasty itself was contested. The length and complexity of the debate preclude a detailed discussion of both these points at present. For the problem of the origin of the Sailendra dynasty, the reader is referred to L.P. Briggs (1950, 1952), who gives a concise but fairly reliable summary of the research up to 1950. In the following phase of the research, which partly over- lapped with the independence and decolonization of Indonesia, the hypo- 1 Unless otherwise stated, the dates in this article are given in the Christian era. ROY JORDAAN is a private researcher with a PhD degree in anthropology from the University of Leiden who is specializing in Indonesian archaeology, with particular interest in the position of the Buddhist Sailendra dynasty in Javanese and Sumatran history. Dr. Jordaan may be reached at Onder de Bomen 2, 6871 CH Renkum, The Netherlands. BK1155-2 (1999) Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 09:26:13PM via free access The Sailendras and Hindu-Javanese Temple Architecture 211 thesis of a Javanese origin of the Sailendra received growing attention and support (Poerbarjaraka 1952; Boechari 1966). With the publication of Boechari's preliminary analysis of an Old Malay inscription from Sojomerto, the tide seemed definitely to turn in favour of an Indonesian origin. Prominent Western scholars like O.W. Wolters and J.G. de Casparis gave their qualified approval to his hypothesis. Wolters was quite enthusiastic about the fact that the so-called Sailendra riddle, which he referred to as 'a sub- stantial and bewildering episode in Srlvijayan studies', had been reduced to sensible proportions, and that there would no longer be any doubt that the Sailendras were an Indonesian family (Wolters 1979:10). De Casparis arrived at a similar conclusion, in spite of his misgivings about Boechari's tentative dating of the Sojomerto inscription. He wrote: 'It has often been suggested - but without strong arguments - that the Sailendras were originally from Cambodia or India. It now seems more likely that they were purely Javanese [...]. The Sailendras, probably a local family from the Kedu, poss- ibly from the area just around Borobudur, carved themselves a kingdom in the fer- tile valleys [...].' (De Casparis 1990:14.) It is noteworthy that De Casparis implicitly admits here that his own decades-long support of Coedes' theory, which assumes an origin from or relationship with Funan (the Chinese name of an ancient kingdom in Cambodia), was not well founded. Equally remarkable is the fact that he has nothing to say about the theory then recently promulgated by Sarkar (1985), who tried to link the Sailendras with the Iksvakus, an ancient dynasty from Andhra Pradesh. Since then, Lokesh Chandra (1994) has advanced yet an- other theory about the Indian origins of the Sailendras. Rather than embarking upon a discussion and evaluation of the different post-war theories about the origin of the Sailendra dynasty, I propose to look at the problem from a different angle in this article by asking what arguments were used in support of the Sailendras' foreign origin and how much weight can be attached to these arguments. Majumdar had the following to say about the matter: 'The Sailendras ushered in a new epoch in more senses than one. For the first time in history Malayasia, or the greater part of it, constituted a political entity as integ- ral parts of an empire [... which] shortly rose to a height of glory and splendour unknown before. But the Sailendras did more than this. They introduced a new type of culture. The new vigour of [the] Mahayana form of Buddhism which resulted in such splendid monuments as Candi Kalasan and Borobudur in Java may be mainly attributed to their patronage. The introduction of a new kind of alphabet which has been called the Pre-Nagari script, and the adoption of a new name Kaliriga for Malayasia, at least by the foreigners, may also be traced to the same source.' (Majumdar 1934:15.) Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 09:26:13PM via free access 212 Roy E. Jordaan Recently, in a review of a book on ancient Indonesian history 0ordaan 1998), I had occasion to point to the synchrony between a number of socio-cultural changes in Java and the arrival and departure of the Sailendras there. With reference to their arrival, I mentioned among other things the introduction of the new Pre-Nagari script (also known as siddhamatrka), the earliest issue of silver Sandalwood-Flower coins, bearing legends in the same script, and the dominance of Buddhism as reflected in the sudden increase in the number of Mahayana Buddhist temples built, as well as the magnificence and beauty of these monuments. In contrast, the departure of the Sailendras was followed by such developments as the fall of Buddhism from royal favour, as may be inferred from the dramatic halt to Buddhist temple-building activities, the change from Sanskrit to Old Javanese as a literary medium (Braginsky 1993:16, 1996:13; Pollock 1996:218, 226-8), the growing preference for the Mahabharata over the Ramayana (Braginsky 1993:20), and the shift from sil- ver coinage to an indigenous gold currency (Wicks 1992:248, 259). In view of these and other changes, I argued that there was much to be said for continuing the research aimed at finding a foreign origin for the Sailendra dynasty (Jordaan 1999b). A critical review of F.D.K. Bosch's author- itative views on the so-called 'Hindu colonization'2 of Indonesia, particular- ly with respect to the origin and development of Hindu-Javanese architec- ture, in light of the results of more detailed research into the origins and the position of the Sailendras in Central Javanese history and their role as pat- rons of Mahayana Buddhism in the eighth and the first half of the ninth cen- tury would be worthwhile (Bosch 1920, 1924, 1946,1952,1961). Although the terms 'Hindu colonization' and 'Hinduization' are no longer in use, partly as a result of Bosch's own contribution, and have been substi- tuted by the politically less controversial term 'Indianization', Bosch's views on the subject appear to have had a lasting influence on the course of the research into the dates, the nature, and the intensity of the contacts between Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent. It is still regularly acknow- ledged that Bosch, whether or not he was treading in the footsteps of the Dutch historian Van Leur, contributed to the idea that indigenous rulers in Southeast Asia were anything but mere passive recipients of foreign cultural elements disseminated by warriors or knights (ksatriya) and/or merchants (vaiSya) from the subcontinent. These rulers themselves, as well as some of their subjects (in particular pilgrims), played a far more prominent, indeed 2 As is well known, the term 'Hindu' here refers to Indians in general, and not just to the adherents of a particular religion. The term 'Hindu-Javanese' is therefore also applicable to the Mahayana Buddhist monuments of the Sailendras. Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 09:26:13PM via free access The Sailendras and Hindu-Javanese Temple Architecture 213 perhaps a decisive role in this process of Indianization. I.W. Mabbett states, for instance, that 'The task of systematically refuting the ksatriya and vaiSya theories was taken up by F.D.K. Bosch1 (Mabbett 1977:144), while H. Kulke (1990:12) in the same context speaks of the 'final refutation of the "ksatriya hypothesis'". It is certainly not my intention to cast doubts on the importance of Bosch's trail-blazing work, nor to deny the fact that Southeast Asian rulers, pilgrims, and merchants exercised a considerable influence on the processes of accul- turation. My sole objection concerns Bosch's assertion (1952:25) that the Ja- vanese themselves, with negligible support from outside, re-created Indian art in a new synthesis, making it the art that was to produce Borobudur and Prambanan.