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 'Prambanan'. 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 Java. 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 Samaratungga, 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 Buddhism 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 Rakai Pikatan, 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).