Itihasa of Bharatam Janam. Hinduized States of Far East. Non-existent Samskritam cosmopolis imagined
theorization of Sheldon Pollock.
theorization of Sheldon Pollock.
George Coedes, the French epigraphist's magnum opus was titled: Histoire ancienne des États hindouisés d'Extrême-Orient, 1944? (Translation: Ancient History of Hinduised States of the Far East). Published by Imprimere d'extreme-orient, Hanoi (1944).
Professor George Coedes, 1866-1969, was the undisputed doyen of early Southeast Asian scholarship. His studies of the early history of the region embrace his rediscovery of the maritime empire of Srivijaya and numerous studies of the history of Cambodia, and in particular, the life of the great ruler Jayavarman VII.
Coedes' major work of synthesis is his study Les etats hindouises d'indochine et d'indonesie that covers the period from approximately A. D. 1 to A. D. 1500. This work has been universally acclaimed and--the surest proof of its impact--heavily relied on by all later scholars. It is the basic text for all those who seek to understand Southeast Asia--not only its ancient past but also its immediate present--for the Southeast Asia of today cannotbe understood without a knowledge of the traditional values and institutions, which remain vital and which present leaders seem increasingly to esteem as a guide to the future.
There have been arguments in academic circles about the characterization of 'hinduization' by George Coedes as contrasted with indigenous evolution of cultures.
I find a succinct and precise account of these arguments in a blog post (2012) by Do Truong Giang of Vietnam which I reproduce below; the post also contains bibliographical links to the views of RC Majumdar, Paul Mus, Van Leur, OW Walters and I. Mabbet. To this list may be added the work of Robert L. Brown.
A perspective review of Hinduized States of Far East covers more regions beyond Indonesia and Cambodia and may be seen in a map which identifies present-day states along the rim of the Indian Ocean, extending from South Africa to Tasmania, meeting the Pacific Ocean.
This inhabited universe has to be viewed in the context of sealanes for maritime trade highlighted by two major chokepoints: Strait of Hormuz and Strait of Malacca as the Indian Ocean meets the Pacific Ocean..
The inhabited universe of United Indian Ocean States extends beyond what is perceived as pre-modern Southeast Asia or Srivijaya empire, with particular reference to the lands watered by two Himalayan rivers: Irrawaddy, Mekong:
Another perspective in the narrative of the inhabited universe (ecumene) is the impoverishment of many states of the Indian Ocean Rim which were pauperized by colonial loot and colonial regimes which brought down their fair share of contributions to world GDP to abysmally low levels as documented by Angus Maddison in the following bar chart spanning 2 millennia, from 0 CE:
Historiography of the “Indianization” in Ancient Southeast Asian History
Do Truong Giang MARCH 16, 2012 9:53 AM
For those who studying the ancient history of Southeast Asia, Indianization of Southeast Asia is one of the outstanding issues and there is much controversy surrounding this subject. From the early twentieth century, researchers had deep concern about this subject and there were initial opinions. The presence of traces of Hindu temples, the distribution density of the Sanskrit inscriptions, mythological stories of Indian origin … has led researchers to the hypothesis of an Indianization era in Southeast Asia. In the general context of early Twentieth century, almost of Far East countries were colonies, the West as a civilized people, implementation of the colony, the researchers have been associated with a period in ancient history, Southeast Asia had been a colony of India, subject to invasion and rule of India dynasties. This perception has gradually changed with the appearance of new historical evidences and new insights, especially after World War II, when the Southeast Asian nations gained the independence and standing in a new position, the study of these countries also began to be re-examined.
For over a century of research, there are still many debatable issues relate to the term “Indianization” among scholars. Researchers have attempted to elucidate the nature of the so-called Indianization in Southeast Asia, whether or not there was an Indianized era in Southeast Asia? How did the relationship between India and Southeast Asia take place like? The main theme of the debates related to issues of Indianization, including: The reasons which prompted Indianization process take place in Southeast Asia?; who was the main agency and played an important role in spreading Indian culture to Southeast Asia? Are Indians (Warriors, Brahman, Merchant) had invaded and civilized the region, or the South East Asian people had played an active role in the process of spreading this culture?; the timing of Indianization in Southeast Asia; the depth of Indianization, of what level did Southeast Asian nations receive Indian culture? Did the whole Southeast Asian region become another version of the Indian world, or those influences just like a ‘thin and flaking glaze”?
In this paper, we apply the classification of V. Lieberman for Southeast Asian historiography, in which he divides into four main tendencies: 1. The externalist historiography; 2. The indigenous historiography; 3. An ‘Age of Commerce’ theses; and 4. An ‘strangle parallels’ approaching. Accordingly, the debates over the issue of the “Indianization” in ancient Southeast Asian history are usually seen in two first tendencies, which will be re-examined in the next parts of this paper
“Externalist historiography” and the issue of Indianization
The term “externalist historiography” is borrowed from V.Lieberman, to indicate the Eurocentric view of Southeast Asian history from the beginning of 20thcentury to roughly 1950s.[1] During this period, Majumdar’s series of Hindu colonies in the Far East[2], Coedes’s work named Histoire ancienne des etats hindouises d’Extreme-Orient[3], and D.G.Hall’s book A history of Southeast Asia were most influential books in the field of Southeast Asian history. In his book, G.Coedes did not pay much attention to the cultural and social aspect of the region. He, however, emphasized on the political history, the rise and falls of kingdom dynasties, and established a chronological framework of Southeast Asian history. D.G.Hall re-arranged and synthesized G.Coedes’ and previous scholars’ works in his famous book of A history of Southeast Asia.[4] These books of Majumdar, G.Coedes and D.G.Hall were representatives for Western assumption, or colonial tendency, in writing the history of Southeast Asia. A characteristic of these scholarships, as Legge figures out, was “the tendency of scholars to see that history as shaped by influences external to the region rather than as the product of an internal dynamic”.[5] In this case, Indian culture was considered as the most prominent external factor affected Southeast Asian region, as a result, Southeast Asia was examined through the Len of “Further India” or “Greater India”. This trend could be attributed to the fact that almost of colonial scholars were trained in either Indology or Sinology, “which tended to lead them to see Southeast Asia from one or other of those perspectives”, and another reason was the consequence of the availability of sources – the distribution of a large amount of Sanskrit inscriptions as well as the presence of various cultural vestiges of Indian in Southeast Asia.[6]
Majumdar, an Indian scholar was the first author considering the issues of Indianization of Southeast Asia seriously. In this series, the author position the Southeast Asian region under the influence of Indian culture, including Indochina and the Malay archipelago, known under the name Suvarnabhumi or ‘Land of Gold’, and Suvarnadvipa or ‘Island of Gold’.[7] Based on the evidence of language, Majumdar said that the most ancient people in Southeast Asia shortly before or after the beginning of Christian era, including residents of the tribal groups, or groups were at a certain level of civilization, originated from India and they represent an earlier wave of Indian colonization in the Far East in prehistoric times.[8]
Regarding the cause of Indian colonization in Southeast Asia, Majumdar stressed two main reasons: trade and emigration. Accordingly, the Indian traders were attracted by the search for wealth outside of their frontiers. The Far East, therefore, has become an attractive area for them, by the wealth of gold and precious minerals, spices. The name Suvarnabhumi or Suvarnadvipa, ‘land of gold’ was referred to the attractiveness of this region. The second factor led to the Indian Colonization, which is ‘Emigration’. The increase in population, along with the growth of trade has led to ‘a steady flow of Indian emigrants to various parts of the Far East.[9] These people arriving in new land and settled here, married local women and began to spread their ‘superior culture’ and ‘gradually Hinduised society’.[10] The co-existing between the groups of Indian migrants with the local Hinduised people led to the formation of the ‘Indian colonial Kingdoms’ in Southeast Asia.
Thus, in Majumdar’s view, before or after the beginning of Christian era, Indian expanded and colonized the Southeast Asian region. Following Majumdar, a numbers of Indian scholars consider the Indianization as the result of Indian emigration and Indian colonization in Southeast Asia. Southeast Asia, in their view, was a part of ‘Further India’ or ‘Greater India”. C.C.Berg, for instance, considered the Indianization was the result of conquest and settlement by Indian warriors. N.J.Krom saw the Indianzation process in Java was the result of the expansion of Indian trade and consequent settlement and intermarriage.[11]
Coedes George is one of the first scholars study the history of the Southeast Asian countries in a broad context in which regional countries share common characteristics, which he defined as “Indianized States”.[12] According to him, “Indianization” and “expansion of Indian Culture” is a historical fact that took place in a specific historical moment of Southeast Asia. “Indianized States”, in Coedes’ view, consist of “Indonesia, or island Southeast Asia except for the Philippines; and the Indochinese Peninsula, or India beyond the Ganges, including the Malay Peninsula”. Assam region and the Northern of Vietnam are not included.[13] In these areas nowadays still remains deep traces of Indian culture that occurred long ago, including the presence of Sanskrit elements in local languages, the influence of Indian law and administrative organizations; the presence of various ancient Hindu-Buddhist temples and monuments Southeast Asia region.[14]
Regarding to the causes of Indianization process in Southeast Asia, he proposes three hypotheses, namely: “pressure was exerted on the mass of Indian population by the invasions of the Kushans in the first century AD “; “high-caste Indian Adventurers were allowed to seek their fortunes overseas”; and commercial origin. “The Indianization”, Coedes stated, “must be understood essentially as the expansion of an organized culture that was founded upon the Indian conception of royalty, was characterized by Hinduist or Buddhist cults, the mythology of the Puranas, and the observance of the Dharmasastras, and expressed itself in the Sanskrit language. It is for this reason that we sometimes speak of ‘Sanskritization’ instead of ‘Indianization’”.[15]
The studies by Majumdar and G. Coedes have shaped a perception of a “Further India” Region as a colony of India. These authors emphasized the role of Indian, they, however, minimized the role of Southeast Asian people and initiative elements. Indianization was seen as total, and influenced comprehensively to all aspects of Southeast Asian history. The presence of Indian and the beginning of Indianization in Southeast Asia Southeast Asia was the beginning of the history of Southeast Asia, before the coming of Indian, there was no history in the region. Indian people (whether they were Warriors, Brahman or Merchant) was seen as the main factors in the process of cultural transferring, from a “superior culture” to an uncivilized society. In contrast, the role of local people was minimized and considered as “passive recipients”. To generalize the “external historiography” of Indianization, a quote from V.Lieberman’s assessment would be appropriate : “Indianization – the process whereby early Indian religious, architectural, and scriptural traditions were transferred to Southeast Asia during the first millennium C.E. – was portrayed by Hendrik Kern, N.J.Krom, G.Coedes, and other leading scholars as primarily the fruit of Indian, rather than Southeast Asian, initiatives. Either Indian traders had provided an indispensable spur, or Indian warriors had established colonies”.[16]
Indianization in “Autonomous historiography”
After World War II, the historiography of Southeast Asia shifted dramatically, in which new generation of Southeast Asian scholars questioning the works of previous scholars, as well as the demand for re-assessing the history of Southeast Asian polities. The term “autonomous history” was first used by John Smail in search for “a truly autonomous history” of Southeast Asia.[17]
If Majumdar and G. Coedes in his work has over-emphasized the role of Indian culture – an external factor, and lowered the initiative of the Southeast Asian people, the scholars such as P. Mus and Van Leur, in contrast, offered a different perspective and interpretation. Accordingly, P.Mus and Van Leur P. emphasizing the local factors and the autonomy of South East Asia, as well as certain (not total) influence of Indian culture in Southeast Asia.
Mus in his work named “Cultes indiens et indigenes au Champa” challenged the previous view of Majumdar. This book examines and studies the role of Indian culture in the early periods of Southeast Asian civilization, particularly in the case of Champa kingdom. The author firstly examines the pre-Aryan state of India, as well as discusses about the Aryan contribution and their mutual reaction. He also looks at Hinduism as the combination of the indigenous propensities with the Indo-European component. Paul Mus then examines several contemporary forms of the Cham cults, including The Kuts, cult of the lingas to understand the influence of Indian culture in Champa kingdom. By examining the earth cults in Champa, he proved the existence of a common substratum of belief and culture in both India and Southeast Asian societies before the arrival of Indian in Southeast Asia. In that sense, when Indian culture came in Southeast Asia, it was easily accepted and absorbed by local people and developed in a new land far from its origin.[18]
The view proposed by P.Mus was then shared and developed by Van Leur in his influential book namely Indonesian Trade and Society. In this work, Van leur criticized the Eurocentric view of Southeast Asia, and he drew attention away from the conventional thought of profound influence of Indian civilization in Southeast Asia. He, however, argued that Southeast Asia was actually an active agent and borrowed selectively Indian culture rather than a passive recipient of external influences.[19] In his view, Indian influence in Southeast Asia was a “thin and flaking glaze”, and the indigenous elements have continued to exist alongside the external forces.[20] He also rejected the hypothesis considering the colonization of India in Southeast Asia. According to him, the Indian influence in Southeast Asia was in fact a court matter but not a general cultural diffusion.
Both P.Mus and Van Leur contributed to the field by emphasizing on the role of local people in the process, as well as examined the depth of Indian Influence in Southeast Asia – not a total influence as seen in Majumdar or G.Coedes’ view. V.Lieberman makes a properly comment about this trend, that “[these scholars] began to explore internal life of pre-colonial societies. They commonly sought not to exclude foreign influences, but to show how local peoples had been able to absorb, translate, and re-contextualize external forces, in short, to maintain control of their environments”.[21]
Following and supporting for P.Mus and Van Leur’s pioneer thesis, a number of scholars in the field of Southeast Asian studies in the period from 1960s to 1980s dealt with the question “how local peoples had been able to absorb, translate, and re-contextualize external forces, in short, to maintain control of their environments”?[22] O.W.Wolters was among people considering the issues of Indianization in Southeast Asia most systematically, in which he supported the idea of localization or the transform by local culture, and the Indian culture was actually similar things to Southeast Asia.
O.W.Wolters in Early Indonesian Commerce, searched for nature of trade in archipelagic region before the age of Srivijaya. He argued that the expansion of trade in archipelagic region during the period of Srivijaya was an indigenous achievement rather than a result of Indian influences.[23] In another work, named History, culture, and region in Southeast Asian perspectives[24], O.W.Wolters continued to emphasize on the ‘localization’ and the role of Southeast Asian agencies in relationship with outside cultures, and, as he states, the Indian influence did not “move into a vacuum” area.[25] He rejected Coedes’ theses of “The Hinduised states of Southeast Asia” because it “diverted us from the study of the region for its own sake”, and he preferred to approach the regional history from the “region’s cultural diversity”.[26] Accordingly, the Hindu culture in different sub-regions of Southeast Asia, they were localized in different ways, in which Wolters defined as “local cultural statements”.[27] He also refused the idea that Indian influence in Southeast Asia was total, but in several specific aspects. He states “rather than assuming that Indian influences introduced an entirely new chapter in the region’s history, I prefer to see the operation of specific ‘Hindu’ and therefore religious rather than political conceptions that brought ancient and persisting indigenous beliefs into sharper focus”.[28]
Ian Mabbet also contributes to the field by discussing the agencies and the term “Indianization”. Examining previous theories on Indian Agencies, i.e. Ksatriya (Warrior) theory, Vaisya (merchant) theory and Brahman theory, he concludes that elements of all these theories did involve in the process of Indianization of Southeast Asia. According to him “because none of them can be disproved; because the analogy of the mixture of coercion, autonomous borrowing, considered policy, accident, absentmindedness, chicanery, humanitarianism, trade, politics and religion at work in the extension of later western influence in Asia makes the case for an eclectic explanation a priori strong; and because it is difficult to distinguish clearly between the various agencies of Indian influence that have been postulated”.[29] He also suggests clarifying the term “Indianization”, of which “Indian culture” is not a “monad”, but “a plurality of tradition” share historical ancestry. Consequently, Mabbett states, “It is better to divide it into many local cultures, each of which is linked historically to Indian culture in the first sense”.[30]
Above, I’ve mentioned to two main trends in research on the issue of Indianization in Southeast Asia. The research and views of Majumdar and G. Coedes has an important role in shaping perceptions of scholars on the history of Southeast Asia. However, the fact that these scholars over-emphasized the role of India, meanwhile, saw Southeast Asia as only a “passive recipient” has led to distortions and not objective. The latter researchers have questioned the hypothesis of Majumdar and G. Coedes based on new historical evidences and a new point of view, regional history from regional view, or “Indigenous history.” Influence of Indian culture in Southeast Asian history is a historical fact incontestably. However, we need an objective perspective of how did this culture influence on the region and who played a decisive role in this process. The latest research achievements have demonstrated the initiative of the Southeast Asian in contact with Indian civilization, in which Southeast Asian adapted selectively and localized Indian cultural elements. Scientists have proven that, India and Southeast Asia have a shared cultural background that helped Indian culture easily be received in Southeast Asia, and it was not a process of “superior culture” colonized and civilized the “un-civilized” region, in fact, it was a process of “Interaction”. And because “Indian” is not a unique entity but a set of diverse entities shared common ancestry, there was a parallel of transferring and adopting Hinduism in South India and Southeast Asia.
Bibliography
Coedes, George (1944). Histoire ancienne des etats hindouises d’Extreme-Orient. Translated into English as The Indianized states of Southeast Asia Ed. Walter F.Vella, translated by Susan Brown Cowing. Hawaii: East-West Center Press, 1968
Hall, D.G.E. A history of South-east Asia. London: Macmillan Limited, 1955
Legge, J.D. “The writing of Southeast Asian History”, in Nicholas Tarling et al,The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, Volume one, From early times to c.1800, Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Mabbet I.W., “The ‘Indianization’ of Southeast Asia: Reflections on the historical sources”, in Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, vol.8, No.2, Sep., 1977.
Majumdar, R.C. Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East, Vol.1 – Champa (1927); and Vol.2 - Suvarnadvipa (1937)
Mus, Paul, “Cultes indiens et indigenes au Champa”, BEFEO, 33 (1933), translated into English as Indian seen from the east – Indian and indigenous cults in Champa. Monash papers on Southeast Asia, number three, 1975.
Nicholas Tarling (Edited), The Cambridge history of Southeast Asia, Vol.1, From Early times to c.1800. Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Pollock Sheldon. “The Sanskrit Cosmopolis, 300-13000: Transculturation, Vernacularization, and the question of Ideology”, in Houben, Jan E.M. (edited) Ideology and status of Sanskrit – Contributions to the History of the Sanskrit Language. E.J.Brill, Leiden – Newyork – Koln, 1996.
Smail, John R.W. “On the possibility of an autonomous history of modern Southeast Asia”, Journal of Southeast Asian History, Vol.2, No.2, Jul., 1961.
Van Leur. Indonesian Trade and Society. The Hague: W. van Hoeve., 1955.
Wolters O.W. Early Indonesian Commerce: A study of the origins of Srivijaya. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967.
Wolters, O.W. History, Culture and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, 1999.
Wheatley, Paul. “Indian Beyond the Ganges – Desultory Reflections on the origins of Civilization in Southeast Asia”. The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol.42, No.1, Nov., 1982.
[1] Victor Lieberman. Strange Parallels: Southeast Asia in Global context, c.800-1830. Vol.1: Integration on the Mainland. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
[2] Majumdar, R.C. Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East, Vol.1 – Champa (1927); and Vol.2 - Suvarnadvipa (1937)
[3] Coedes, George (1944). Histoire ancienne des etats hindouises d’Extreme-Orient. Translated into English as The Indianized states of Southeast Asia Ed. Walter F.Vella, translated by Susan Brown Cowing. Hawaii: East-West Center Press, 1968.
[4] Hall, D.G.E. A history of South-east Asia. London: Macmillan Limited, 1955
[5] Legge, J.D. “The writing of Southeast Asian History”, in Nicholas Tarling et al, The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, Volume one, From early times to c.1800, Cambridge University Press, 1992, p.6.
[6] Legge, J.D. “The writing of Southeast Asian History”, p.6.
[7] Majumdar, Hindu colonies in the Far East. Calcutta, 1944, p.4.
[8] Ibid., p.6
[9] Ibid., p.6
[10] Ibid., p.6.
[11] Legge, J.D. “The writing of Southeast Asian History”, p.7.
[12] G.Coedes, Histoire ancienne des Etats Hindouises d’Extreme-Orient, Hanoi, Imprimerie d’Extreme-Orient, 1944. G.Coedes, The Indianized states of Southeast Asia, Edited by Walter F.Vella, translated by Susan Brown Cowing. East-west center Press, Honolulu, 1968.
[13] G.Coedes, The Indianized states. p. XV.
[14] Ibid., p.XVI
[15] Ibid., p.16.
[16] Victor Lieberman. Strange Parallels… p.7.
[17] John R.W. Smail. “On the possibility of an autonomous history of modern Southeast Asia”, Journal of Southeast Asian History, Vol.2, No.2, Jul., 1961.
[18] Paul Mus, “Cultes indiens et indigenes au Champa”, BEFEO, 33 (1933), translated into English as Indian seen from the east – Indian and indigenous cults in Champa. Monash papers on Southeast Asia, number three, 1975.
[19] Van Leur. Indonesian Trade and Society. The Hague: W. van Hoeve. 1955, p.17.
[20] Ibid., p.95
[21] Victor Lieberman. Strange Parallels…p.11.
[22] Ibid.
[23] O.W. Wolters. Early Indonesian Commerce: A study of the origins of Srivijaya. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967, p.247.
[24] O.W. Wolters. History, Culture and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1999.
[25] Ibid., p.23.
[26] Ibid., p.66.
[27] Ibid., p.67.
[28] Ibid.,, p.21.
[29] I.Mabbet. “The ‘Indianization’ of Southeast Asia: Reflections on the historical sources”, in Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, vol.8, No.2 (Sep., 1977), pp.157-158.
[30] I.Mabbet. “The ‘Indianization’ of Southeast Asia: Reflections on the historical sources”, in Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, vol.8, No.2 (Sep., 1977), p.160.
3 Comments
http://tinyurl.com/k7q6twe (Google book)
The Making of South East Asia
University of California Press, 1966
The Dvaravati Wheels of the Law and the Indianization of South East Asia (Studies in Asian Art and Archaeology February, 1996 by Brill Academic Pub. This text deals with the general theme of the relationship between Indian and South East Asian art and culture from the 7th to the 10th century AD. It analyzes how Indian art, religion and culture influenced South East Asian art, religion and culture and the way South East Asians adopted and changed the Indian influence, through a discussion of a group of stone Wheels of the Law found in Thailand. This book is intended for scholars who work on ancient South East Asia, its art, culture, history and religion.Editorial Review
'This book is a model of how art history should be written, and of a forthright and honest approach to intellectual inquiry.' John N. Miksic, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 1997. 'Brown's work should be required reading (in its entirety) for graduate students in the art history of Southeast Asia and (select parts) for those studying early Southeast Asia.' Michael Aung-Thwin, The Journal of Asian Studies, 1997. 'The volume fills a vital role as a teaching text for early South East Asian art and archaeology...[the book] brings together art historical, historical, epigraphic, and theoretical issues in a volume which will be a standard reference for many years to come.' Elizabeth H. Moore, Royal Asiatic Society, 1997.
About the Author
Robert L. Brown, Ph.D. (1981) in Indian Art History, University of California, is Associate Professor of Indian and Southeast Asian Art History at the University of California in Los Angeles. He has published many articles on various aspects of Indian and Southeast Asian Art.
http://tinyurl.com/ksztj6e (Google book)
See: http://tinyurl.com/mbvcm8s This is a review article of Pierre Dupont titled L'archeologie mone de Dvaravati (1959) translated into English by Joyanto K. Sen.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/mesaas/faculty/directory/pollock_pub/Introduction,%20Language%20of%20the%20Gods.pdf The Language of the Gods in the World of Men Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India by Sheldon Pollock, Univ. of California Press, 2006.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![Front Cover]()
http://tinyurl.com/o8lnt4p (Google book) See: Majumdar, Ramesh Chandra, 1977, Ancient India, Motilal Banarsidass Publ. "This is a comprehensive, intelligible and interesting portrait of Ancient Indian History and Civilization from a national historical point of view. The work is divided into three broad divisions of the natural course of cultural development in Ancient India: (1) From the prehistoric age to 600 B.C., (2) From 600 B.C. to 300 A.D., (3) From 300 A.D. to 1200 A.D. The work describes the political, economic, religious and cultural conditions of the country, the expansionist activities, the colonisation schemes of her rulers in the Far East. Political theories and administrative organizations are also discussed but more stress has been laid on the religious, literary and cultural aspects of Ancient India. The book is of a more advanced type. It would meet the needs not only of general readers but also of earnest students who require a thorough grasp of the essential facts and features before taking up specialized study in any branch of the subject."
See: http://tinyurl.com/mbvcm8s This is a review article of Pierre Dupont titled L'archeologie mone de Dvaravati (1959) translated into English by Joyanto K. Sen.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/mesaas/faculty/directory/pollock_pub/Introduction,%20Language%20of%20the%20Gods.pdf The Language of the Gods in the World of Men Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India by Sheldon Pollock, Univ. of California Press, 2006.
Ideology and Status of Sanskrit: Contributions to the History of the Sanskrit LanguageJan E. M. Houben BRILL, 1996 - Chapter 8. The Sanskrit Cosmopolis, 300-1300: transculturation, vernacularization, and the question of ideology by Sheldon Pollock, pp. 197-247 http://books.google.co.in/books?id=_eqr833q9qYC&source=gbs_navlinks_s (Google book) Pollock refers to the 'efforts of small groups of traders, adventurers, religious professionals. There is no evidence that large-scale state initiatives were ever at issue, or that anything remotely resembling 'colonization' took place.' (Pollock, 1996: 241). This directly contradicts his imagined categorization of the inhabited universe (ecumene) as a Sanskrit cosmopolis, just because many inscriptions and texts found in the inhabited universe of Far East had Samskritam words and thoughts from many ancient Samskritam texts. This is a classic case of a professor projecting his own imagined theories onto the reality which is far removed from the idea of 'cosmopolis'. The inhabited universe, ecumene was dotted by many cultures evident from many architectural forms and many forms of social organization consistent with their traditions. To lump these diverse facets into an imagined Sanskrit cosmopolis category is the height of hypocrisy by a western professor out only to debunk the role played by Samskritam in the cultural milieu of the people in the ecumene.  Prambanan temple complex, 17 kilometres northeast of Yogyakarta.   Borobudur. The largest Bauddham structure in the world.  The bas relief of 8th century Borobudur depict a King sitting in Maharajalilasana (king's posture or royal ease) pose, with his Queen and their subjects, the scene is based on Śailēndran royal court.     Over 93% of the Indonesian Bali Island’s 3.1 million people are Hindus.• A belief in one Supreme Being called ‘Ida Sanghyang Widi Wasa’, ‘Sang Hyang Tunggal’, or ‘Sang Hyang Cintya’. • A belief that all of the gods are manifestations of this Supreme Being. This belief holds that the different Deities are different aspects of the same Supreme Being. Lord Shiva is also worshipped in other forms such as “Batara Guru” and “Maharaja Dewa” (Mahadeva). • A belief in the Trimurti, consisting of: – Brahma, the creator – Wisnu (Vishnu), the preserver – Ciwa (Shiva), the destroyer • A belief in all of the other Hindu gods and goddesses There are many Hindu temples in Indonesia. Candi, the Javanese ancient Hindu temples Pura, the Balinese temples Kuil or Mandir, the Indian Hindu temples The Meluhha gloss in Kota language: kole.l means 'smithy' and also 'temple'.     A thousand-year old Hindu temple was discovered in 2009 on the grounds of Yogyakarta Islamic University, Java, Indonesia. Archaeologists found a statue of Ganesha, a Hindu deity, during their excavations on the campus of the Islamic University.
http://www.uii.ac.id/content/view/1303/569/  Aerial view of Angkor Wat. Built by King Suryavarman II in the early 12th century in Yaśodharapura (Khmer).  Angkor Wat, Cambodia.  The bas-relief of the Churning of the Sea of Milk, samudramanthanam, shows Vishnu in the centre, his turtle Avatar Kurma below, asuras and devas to left and right, and apsaras and Indra above, Angkor Wat. The imagined versions of cosmopolis by Sheldon Pollock should be contrasted with the following summary provided by Lawrence Palmer Briggs on George Coedes' work: http://tinyurl.com/k34kuyo Abstract. "When George Coedes writes a book on Southeast Asia, it is an event in the history of that region; for, in a lifetime spent in Indochina, he has come to be considered as one of the all-time authorities on that part of the world. His connection with l'Ecole Francaise d'Extreme-Orient has covered more than 40 years, and in his capacity as epigraphist it has been his task to decipher and translate the inscriptions of Champa and Cambodia — Sanskrit, Cham, Khmer, and Pali — and to fix the place of each in history; which inscriptions he has published, generally in the Bulletin of that institution under the title of “Etudes Cambodgiennes,” but also in other journals and in collections. During the twelve years (1918–30) when he was loaned to Siam as Secretary of the National Institute, in charge of the National Library and Museum, he collected, translated, and published the inscriptions of Siam— in Siamese, Tai, Mon, Khmer, Sanskrit, and Pali — and translated and edited important chronicles and other historical documents. He organized and classified the National Museum and founded there the Dvāravatī and Srivijaya Schools of Art. Nor has all his attention been given to French Indochina and Siam. One of his earliest tasks was to collect and publish the references to the Far East in the texts of Greek and Latin authors. While at Bangkok, he translated the inscriptions in Old Malay found within the former kingdom of Srivijaya and wrote several articles on that kingdom." (Briggs, Lawrence Palmer, 1948, The Hinduized States of Southeast Asia: A review in: The Journal of Asian Studies / Volume 7 / Issue 04 / August 1948, pp 376-393). http://tinyurl.com/o8lnt4p (Google book) See: Majumdar, Ramesh Chandra, 1977, Ancient India, Motilal Banarsidass Publ. "This is a comprehensive, intelligible and interesting portrait of Ancient Indian History and Civilization from a national historical point of view. The work is divided into three broad divisions of the natural course of cultural development in Ancient India: (1) From the prehistoric age to 600 B.C., (2) From 600 B.C. to 300 A.D., (3) From 300 A.D. to 1200 A.D. The work describes the political, economic, religious and cultural conditions of the country, the expansionist activities, the colonisation schemes of her rulers in the Far East. Political theories and administrative organizations are also discussed but more stress has been laid on the religious, literary and cultural aspects of Ancient India. The book is of a more advanced type. It would meet the needs not only of general readers but also of earnest students who require a thorough grasp of the essential facts and features before taking up specialized study in any branch of the subject." "In 7th to 15th century Maritime Southeast Asia, the thalassocracies of Srivijaya and Majapahit controlled the sea lanes in Southeast Asia and exploited the spice trade of the Spice Islands, as well as maritime trade routes between India and China." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalassocracy S. Kalyanaraman Sarasvati Research Center January 13, 2015 | ||||||
.png "Image")
.jpg "Image")
.jpg "Image")
.jpg "Image")
.jpg "Image")
Sukuh (Indonesian: Candi Sukuh Indonesian pronunciation: [ˈtʃandi ˈsukʊh]) is a 15th-century Javanese-Hindu temple (candi) that is located on the western slope of Mount Lawu (elevation 910 metres (2,990 ft)) on the border between Central and East Javaprovinces.
Sukuh temple has a distinctive thematic reliefs from other candi where life before birth and sexual education are its main theme. Its main monument is a simple pyramid structure with reliefs and statues in front of it, including three tortoises with flattened shells and a male figure grasping his penis. A giant 1.82 m (6 ft) high of lingga(phallus) with four balls, representing penile incisions,[1] was one of the statues that has been relocated to the National Museum of Indonesia.
The main monument of Sukuh temple.
Background
Sukuh is one of several temples built on the northwest slopes of Mount Lawu in the 15th century. By this time, Javanese religion and art had diverged from Indian precepts that had been so influential on temples styles during the 8th–10th centuries. This was the last significant area of temple building in Java before the island's courts were converted to Islam in the 16th century. It is difficult for historians to interpret the significance of these antiquities due to the temple's distinctiveness and the lack of records of Javanese ceremonies and beliefs of the era.[2]
The founder of Candi Sukuh thought that the slope of Mount Lawu was a sacred place for worshiping the ancestors and nature spirits and for observance of the fertility cults.[3] The monument was built around 1437, as written as a chronogram date on the western gate, meaning that the area was under the rule of the Majapahit Kingdom during its end (1293–1500). Some archaeologists believe the founder had cast the fall of Majapahit, based on the reliefs that displaying the feud between two aristocratic houses, symbolizing two internal conflicts in the kingdom.[4]
In 1815, Sir Thomas Raffles, the ruler of Java during 1811–1816, visited the temple and found it in bad condition.[5] In his account, many statues had been thrown down on the ground and most of the figures had been decapitated. Raffles also found the giant lingga statue broken into two pieces, which was then glued together. This vandalism of traditional culture (especially where sexuality is not suppressed, as in the statues) is likely to be an effect of the Islamic invasion of Java during the 16th century, based upon the identical patterns found in all other Islamic and monotheistic invasions generally.
Architecture
The central pyramid of the complex sits at the rear of the highest of three terraces. Originally, worshippers would have accessed the complex through a gateway at the western or lowest terrace. To the left of the gate is a carving of a monster eating a man, birds in a tree, and a dog, which is thought to be achronogram representing 1437 CE, the likely date of the temple's consecration. There is an obvious depiction of sexual intercourse in a relief on the floor at the entrance where it shows a paired lingam which is represented physiologically by the (phallus) and yoni, which is represented bodily by the (vagina). Genitalia are portrayed on several statues from the site, which is unique among Javanese classical monuments.
The main structure of Sukuh temple is like no other ancient edifice; it is a truncated pyramid reminiscent of a Maya monument and surrounded by monoliths and meticulously carved life-sized figures. The Sukuh temple does not follow the Hindu architecture Wastu Vidya because it was built after the Hindu religion had weakened. Temples usually have a rectangular or square shape, but Sukuh temple is a trapezium with three terraces, with one terrace higher than the others.[6] A stone stairway rises through the front side of the pyramid to its summit. It is not known what the monument's unique shape was intended to symbolize. One suggestion is that it represents a mountain. There is no evidence that the main building supported a wooden structure. The only object recovered from its summit was a 1.82-metre lingga statue bearing an inscription and it is now in the National Museum of Indonesia). The statue may once have stood on the platform over the stairway. The lingga statue has a dedicated inscription carved from top to bottom representing a veinfollowed by a chronogram date equivalent to 1440. The inscription translates "Consecration of the Holy Ganges sudhi in ... the sign of masculinity is the essence of the world."[3] Reliefs of a kris blade, an eight-pointed sun and a crescent moon decorate the statue.
The wall of the main monument has a relief portraying two men forging a weapon in a smithy with a dancing figure of Ganesha, the most important Tantric deity, having a human body and the head of an elephant. In Hindu-Java mythology, the smith is thought to possess not only the skill to alter metals, but also the key to spiritual transcendence.[5] Smiths drew their powers to forge a kris from the god of fire; and a smithy is considered as a shrine. Hindu-Javanese kingship was sometimes legitimated and empowered by the possession of a kris.
The elephant head figure with a crown in the smithy relief depicts Ganesha, the god who removes obstacles in Hinduism. The Ganesha figure, however, differs in some small respects with other usual depictions. Instead of sitting, the Ganesha figure in Candi Sukuh's relief is shown dancing and it has distinctive features including the exposed genitalia, the demonic physiognomy, the strangely awkward dancing posture, the rosary bones on its neck and holding a small animal, probably a dog. The Ganesha relief in Candi Sukuh has a similarity with the Tantric ritual found in the history of Buddhism in Tibet written by Taranatha.[5] The Tantric ritual is associated with several figures, one of whom is described as the "King of Dogs" (Sanskrit: Kukuraja), who taught his disciples by day, and by night performed Ganacakra in a burial ground or charnel ground.
The scene in bas relief The scene depicted Bhima as the blacksmith in the left forging the metal, Ganesha in the center, and Arjuna in the right operating the tube blower to pump air into the furnace.
Note: For the association of Ganesha with metalwork, see:
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2015/01/multiplex-as-metaphor-ligatures-on.html Multiplex as metaphor: ligatures on Indus Meluhha writing and Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization art forms of Bharatam Janam
Other statues in Candi Sukuh include a life-sized male figure with his hand grasping his own penis and three flattened shells oftortoises. Two large tortoise statues guard the pyramid entrance and the third one lies at some distance in front of the monument. All of their heads point to the west and their flattened shells may provide altars for purification rituals and ancestor worship.[3] In Hindu mythology, the tortoise symbolizes the base or support of the World and is an avatar of Vishnu,i.e. Kurma refer: Ocean of Milk.
References:
http://demography.anu.edu.au/G&SH/reports/Thailand-1.pdf[dead link]
1. Miksic, John (1997). Oey, Eric, ed. Java Indonesia. Singapore: Periplus. p. 223. ISBN 962-593-244-5.
2. Ann Rasmussen Kinney, Marijke J. Klokke and Lydia Kieven (2003). Worshiping Siva and Buddha: The Temple Art of East Java. University of Hawaii Press. ISBN 0-8248-2779-1.
3. Victor M Fic (2003). From Majapahit and Sukuh to Magawati Sukarnoputri: Continuity and change in pluralism of religion, culture and politics of Indonesia from the XV to the XXI century. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications. ISBN 81-7017-404-X.
4. Stanley J. O'Connor (1985). "Metallurgy and Immortality at Caṇḍi Sukuh, Central Java". Indonesia 39: 53–70.
5."Candi Sukuh, Candi Unik Berbentuk Trapesium". March 12, 2012.
Hindu states in Bharatam, Hinduized states in Far East
Why were the kingdoms in Far East referred to as Hinduized state? As far back as 500 BCE, city states and Mahajanapadas existed in Bharat and the incipient state formations were replicated in the Far East. Soma janapadas of Bharatam were: Kashi, Kosala, Anga, Magadha, Vajji (or Vriji), Malla, Chedi, Vatsa (or Vamsa), Kuru, Panchala, Matsya (or Machcha), Shurasena, Assaka, Avanti, Gandhara, and Kamboja—stretched across the Indo-Gangetic Plain from Afghanistan to Bengal and Maharastra.
The Mahajanapadas were the sixteen most powerful kingdoms and republics of the era, located mainly across the fertile Indo-Gangetic plains, there were a number of smaller kingdoms stretching the length and breadth of Ancient India.
Bharatam and Far East are controlled by Asian Winter Monsoon shown on this map. In January a strong high pressure develops over Asia and cool, dry continental air generates the dry winter monsoon. As monsoon rains wet the region, the heights above 8000 ft. in the Himalayan ranges accumulate snow and ice which make the Himalayan ranges the largest water tower in the world, yielding 5 major river systems from just one glacier source of Manasarovar: Sindhu, Brahmaputra, Yangtse, Huanghe, Irrawaddy, Salween, Mekong and Ganga emanating from Gangotri glaciers making the arable lands of Bharatam and Far East the fertile regions yielding flora and fauna of breathtaking diversity. Underlying this diversity is the unity framed by the Indian Ocean and Monsoon systems which make the region a naturally-endowed region, with over one-third of the population of the globe, a geopolitical imperative for United Indian Ocean States.
"In 7th to 15th century Maritime Southeast Asia, the thalassocracies of Srivijaya and Majapahit controlled the sea lanes in Southeast Asia and exploited the spice trade of the Spice Islands, as well as maritime trade routes between India and China."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalassocracy
S. Kalyanaraman
Sarasvati Research Center
January 13, 2015
Although Sheldon Pollock’s ‘Sanskrit Cosmopolis’ was a compulsory reading and we did discuss about this paper as well, I’m asking myself why I did not cover and discuss his/her ideas in my paper? And I tend to agree with you that this is an important work and it contributes significantly to the field.
You’ve raised an interesting point that “we should not be looking at “India” and “Southeast Asia” because there was nothing like that in the past. “India” was “Indianized” at the same time that “Southeast Asia” was “Indianized,” and “Indians” had just as much agency in “Indianization” in “India” as “Southeast Asians” did in “Southeast Asia.” Your point here, I suppose, seems similar to the vision proposed by P.Mus and Sheldon Pollock?
I’m looking forward to reading the new work of I.Mabbett and learning from his idea. One of my Prof also suggests me to read the work by Robert L.Brown, namely The Dvaravati wheels of the law and the Indianization of Southeast Asia. These mentioned works undoubtedly are important contributions to the field. It, however, is necessary to “find a new way to talk about this” in a larger context, and I wonder who would take this responsibility to fill the gap?