The Smithsonian InstitutionRegents of the University of Michigan

Barabuḍur: History and Significance of a Buddhist Monument by Luis O. Gómez; Hiram W.Woodward,Review by: Phyllis GranoffArs Orientalis, Vol. 13 (1982), pp. 191-193Published by: Freer Gallery of Art, The Smithsonian Institution and Department of the Historyof Art, University of MichiganStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4629321 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 03:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The Smithsonian Institution and Regents of the University of Michigan are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Ars Orientalis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:09:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS 191

not give us any reasons for this assertion, however. The emperor's "overweening vanity," "personal psychological makeup," and mysticism are seen as the source of an attempt to create a "literal paradise on earth." Fortunately, Dr. Begley emphasizes the tentative nature of his findings, all the evidence not yet being in.

In the single article on Indian painting, aside from Dr. Jones's contribution, Dr. Ellen Smart argues that the emperor Akbar was a dyslexic, the victim of a malady that renders one unable to transform writing into words and vice versa. Be that as it may, she proceeds to the startling assertion that the large number of pictures produced during his reign were compensation for Akbar's inability to read or write. I do not see the connection at all; one does not need to be a dyslexic in order to be fond of pictures. One may as well argue that Akbar must have been deaf, the pictures being visual compensation for an inability to hear. Even more fantastic is the assertion that the portraits painted during his reign were also due to Akbar's inability to read or write, for with their help he could, with his extraordinary memory, recall "any required information when making decisions about posting men at various positions throughout the empire" (p. 104). If he had an extraordinary memory, he would surely have been able to judge competence and character without portraits or "a file of written records." Truly, this kind of scholarship tells us more about ourselves, our assumptions, and our times than it does about Akbar, his period, and its paintings.

The various essays in the book often contain informa- tion likely to be of use to students of Indian art. Photographic documentation of objects not previously available is always welcome, even though the reproduc- tion here is often poor. The attempt, however, of many of the authors of this book to force their evidence to yield some "original" or innovative conclusion vitiates the quality of their contributions. James Burgess, writing in the opening years of the twentieth century, cautioned us against antiquaries of the "Meurice or Stukeley type, who first formed theories more fantastical than natural and then tried to make both fact and inscription support them."' It seems that the warning bears repeating. We must be on guard against ourselves and our times as well.

Notes

1. Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, extra no. for 1905, p. 133.

PRAMOD CHANDRA

Barabudur: History and Significance of a Buddhist Monument. Edited by Luis 0. Gomez and Hiram W. Woodward, Jr. Berkeley Buddhist Series, no. 2. 253 pp., 32 plates, 6 text figures, maps, plans, bibliography of textual sources, index. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1981. $20.00.

This book is a stimulating collection of essays by nine

eminent scholars of religion and art. The result of the International Conference on Borobodur, held 16-17 May 1974 at The University of Michigan, the papers are solid and scholarly, and if the variety of opinions they express inclines the reader to despair of ever reaching a definitive conclusion about the meaning of Barabudur, he can nonetheless console himself with the fact that the effort is so pleasurable and that he has learned so much from the profusion of fact and speculation these papers offer.

The volume opens with a useful introduction by the editors summarizing European knowledge of Barabudur, beginning with its discovery and concluding with sugges- tions for future research. The footnotes contain excellent bibliographical information.

The first two articles are the only ones concerned exclusively with matters that normally preoccupy the art historian, dating and style. The first, "The Dvairapala of Barabudur: New Evidence for the Date of the Foundation of the Monument," by J. E. van Lohuizen-de Leeuw, is a tightly constructed argument about the dating of the earliest work at Barabudur, based on the dating of the single extant dvarapala from the monastery (now in the National Museum, Bangkok). On the basis of stylistic comparisons, the author argues that the image dates from A.D. 765-775. Assuming that the monastery to which the dvairapala belonged must have preceded the main monu- ment, she concludes that the date of the dvarapaila is an indication of when preliminary work was begun at Barabudur. This dating is well in keeping with the chronology recently proposed by DumarSay for the various stages of construction at Barabudur.'

The second article, "The Date of Barabudur in Relation to Other Central Javanese Monuments," by Joanna Williams, is an attempt-based on a consideration of certain architectural details-to establish a relative chro- nology for a number of Javanese monuments. While specifics may not interest the general reader, the results are clearly presented in a summary table. As the author notes, they remain to be tested by other similar studies.

The remaining seven articles all deal with the religious meaning of Barabudur. For purposes of discussion it is easiest to begin with Jan Fontein's article, "Notes on the Jdtakas and Avadainas of Barabudur," because in contrast to the other articles, which concentrate on the monument as a whole, it discusses the meaning of specific relief scenes. Fontein begins with an acknowledgment of the limita- tions of any study that endeavors to relate given reliefs at Barabudur to specific texts; there always seem to be gnawing discrepancies between the written and sculptured records. Fontein argues that closer cooperation between philologists and art historians is needed. He then reviews the conclusions of P. S. Jaini (in a 1966 article) regarding one relief sequence and details his own unsuccessful efforts to locate exact written models for other reliefs. He raises two points which suggest to me another theory, namely, oral transmission-a possibility acknowledged only by Gomez among the authors of this volume (p. 194, n. 48). Fontein notes that later local texts are often useful in studying earlier monuments (p. 92) and that the repertoire

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:09:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

192 BOOK REVIEWS

of jatakas at Barabudur has parallels at other sites as distant as Ajan,ta, Qyzil, and Chula Pathon in Thailand (pp. 101, 103). Oral transmission could explain both these facts; it would also explain Fontein's observation that written and sculptured records differ, the sculptured record often appearing to draw on two different traditions in the written texts. Later written material would apply to earlier monuments because it preserves earlier oral tradition. Different sites would follow similar patterns but diverge in detail, and written and sculptured records would differ precisely because an oral corpus of stories would be far more fluid than any written document. The stories would be laid down in bold outline but would be protean in detail and submotif. The quest for the single written text-or even multiple written versions-underlying Barabudur, and the attempt to draw conclusions about the religious affiliations of the monument from such information, would be in vain. A more fruitful question would concern the process of story selection: given the large number of tales, why was only a small fraction of the total ever depicted in art?

Among the papers dealing with the overall significance of the monument, that by veteran scholar of Indonesian art A. J. Bernet Kempers is a brief discussion of the "Mystery" of the monument, of Barabudur as meeting place of the Holy with Man. The concepts expressed in the article-Barabudur as the three dhatus, as stupa, and as yantra-will be familiar to readers from G6mez and Woodward's introduction. Woodward's article, "Bara- budur as Stuipa," expands the oft-held opinion that Barabudur is a variant of the ancient stu pa. In a stimulating discussion it explores the meaning of the stupa from three viewpoints, cosmological, philosophical, and memorial, drawing on the Avatamsaka material treated in greater detail by G6mez and on some conclu- sions of Wayman in this same volume.

J. G. de Casparis, in "The Dual Nature of Barabudur," proposes yet another interpretation. The article is a restatement of ideas the author put forth in 1950, relating Barabudur to a Kamiulan i bhuimisambha-ra mentioned in an inscription of A.D. 842. He admits that the etymology bhuimisambhara-bhutdhara : Barabudur is not without problems and then goes on to connect the monument with the inscription of Ratubaka, A.D. 792. There is a problem with all of this: de Casparis is misreading the Ratubaka inscription. He asserts (p. 69) that the first verse of the inscription praises the "'Cosmic Mountain of the Perfect Buddhas' (samvuddha-sumeru)." In fact, the verse is a perfectly conventional benedictory verse involving a complex metaphor. The verse praises the Buddha, who is like Sumeru, the cosmic mountain. This error leads to others. The word dhatu does not refer to relics, and thus to a stupa, as de Casparis contends (p. 70); it refers to the mineral deposits conventionally associ- ated with mountains in Sanskrit literature. The com- pound sadvdkyadhatiiujjvalo in verse one thus means some- thing like "glowing with mineral deposits in the form of truthful pronouncements." Similarly, verses two and three are also conventional images in Sanskrit literature. That

these are common images and not specific allusions to Barabudur can be seen from comparison with Buddhist and Jain texts, in which extended metaphors in bene- dictory verses are common and the specific comparison of the Buddha or Jina to Sumeru is amply attested.2 Despite these problems, there is much in de Casparis's article that is of interest, and the possibility that the monument represents in fact the body of the Buddha as the cosmic mountain, complete with all the images de Casparis describes, remains intriguing.

Luis Gomez's article, "Observations on the Role of the Gandavyuiha in the Design of Barabudur," and Alex Wayman's "Reflections on the Theory of Barabudur as a Mandala" are both detailed accounts that rely closely on texts. Gomez is admirably restrained and aware of the limitations of his theory; at the same time he offers an explanation that is stimulating and reasoned. Wayman's article is the most complex in the volume; it is impossible to do it justice here. It offers several suggestions for identifying the mandala, pointing out the possibility of sub-mandalas as well. Wayman utilizes Vajravarman's commentary to the Sarvadurgatiparisodhanatantra. Un- fortunately, though his account is tantalizing, full details of the exact correspondences of the mandalas of that text to Barabudur are not always provided. Wayman also draws on the two Shingon mandalas of Japan, and it is not entirely clear why he chose the text he did over the texts commonly associated with Shingon and treated as relevant to Barabudur by Ryusho Hikata.3 Wayman draws on a variety of other sources, making his article a veritable encyclopedia of certain Buddhist concepts. Lewis Lancaster's article, "Literary Sources for a Study of Barabudur," suggests further texts to be explored in the quest for the meaning of Barabudur.

There is only one final comment I would make. Despite the divergence in their views, all our authors seem agreed that there is an overall conception to Barabudur and that continued search for the text that explains it will prove fruitful. They do not seem to entertain the possibility that Barabudur, constructed, as it was, in stages, is not governed by any single religious conception. This is in fact the conclusion Dumar~ay has reached, urging us to reject all hypotheses that the monument follows some pre- arranged scheme.4 DumarVay also returns to the Sang Hyang Kamahayanikan, the Javanese text that our authors reject as irrelevant but which earlier writers utilized. And so it seems we have come full circle. Barabudur remains as mysterious and provocative as ever.

Notes

1. Jacques Dumarnay, Borobudur (Kuala Lumpur, 1978), p. 4.

2. Benedictory verses in Candrakirti's commentary to the Madhyamakaidstra, Avada-nakalpalata-, v. 2; for the Jina as Sumeru, see Sthavuiradvalicarita of Hemacandra, 1.32; and Bhaktamarastotra of Manatufgasuri, v. 30.

3. Ryusho Hikata, "On the Significance of Barabudur Edifice," Journal of the Oriental Institute (Baroda) 15 (1965): 8-33.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:09:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS 193

1. Dumar-ay, Borobudur, p. 42.

PHY'LLIS GRANOFF

The Great Bronze Age of China: An Exhibition from the People's Republic of China. Edited by Wen Fong. 401 pp., 120 color plates, 130 figures in text, 10 maps, 2 tables. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1980. ?20.

This substantial catalogue is the record of a major exhibition of early Chinese art which traveled to five American cities in 1980 and 1981. Included among the bronzes and jades of extraordinarily high quality were many newly excavated pieces. The exhibition benefited particularly from its focus on a limited period of time, the Shang and Zhou dynasties, though it also incorporated significant works of the Qin and Han periods. The Shang bronzes and jades from the tomb of Fu Hao, the censer and lamp from the Han tombs at Mancheng, and the terracotta figures from the tomb of Qin Shi Huangdi are among the most important recent archaeological finds to be made in China. The catalogue not only describes these objects but. provides a valuable assessment of the contribution they have made to our understanding of the Bronze Age.

The catalogue is lavishly produced, with a color illustration for each piece and in many cases black-and- white illustrations as well (though it is. a pity that the photographs of a number of major pieces are spread across two pages). The discussion throughout the text is admirably enriched by maps, diagrams, supplementary photographs of excavation sites, and rubbings and transcriptions of inscriptions. The Metropolitan Museum must be congratulated for supporting so ample a presenta- tion of the material exhibited.

The organization and cataloguing of such a major exhibition called for contributions from a number of scholars whose collaboration is recorded in the many-sided text of The Great Bronze Age of Ch ina. Because the catalogue proper is preceded by a set of four introductory essays, the volume falls quite naturally into two separate parts. In the catalogue, descriptions of the individual items-often with useful notes on technical features-are accompanied by ten chapters introducing the correspond- ing periods. These chapters provide a valuable and in many ways original guide to the Bronze Age of China.

The four introductory essays provide a background against which the material is to be viewed. The first essay, by Ma Chengyuan, curator in charge of bronzes at the Shanghai Museum, helps to place the recent archae- ological finds in historical perspective. Combining a traditional reliance on textual sources with new archae- ological information, his approach is factual and direct. The chronological terms set forth here and employed in the remainder of the book are primarily-but not entirely-archaeologically based. The first half of the Bronze Age, formerly simply equated with the Shang dynasty, is subdivided into the Erlitou phase, the Erligang

(or Zhengzhou) phase, and the Yinxu (or Anyang) period. This division by site allows for the possibility that the Erlitou phase may correspond to the Xia dynasty. The Yinxu period is divided into four successive stages, defined in terms of the reigns of kings. As the phases rest in practice on distinctions in pottery typology, however, it is regrettable that the discussion did not more specifically address the archaeological evidence.'

In his survey of the bronze vessels, Ma Chengyuan brings up the issue of the content of their ornament, a subject discussed at several points in the volume. Referring to later texts in which such decoration is described and given a meaning, he takes a traditional position that seems to leave unresolved certain questions raised by the last few decades of excavation. Though it may well be that the motifs used on bronzes of the Anyang period at some stage acquired a religious significance, religious interpretations seem un- able to account for the emergence of the motifs from ambiguous early patterns, a process eloquently described by Robert Bagley, the author of the Shang and Western Zhou sections of the catalogue. And the view that these motifs had an important symbolic role is difficult to reconcile with the fact of their demise in the abstract patterns used in the latter half of the Western Zhou.

The question of the content of the decoration is but one aspect of the debates that took place between the 1930s and the 1960s on the nature and chronology of the bronze ornament, debates that enlivened but did not always advance the study of the subject. Surveying the contro- versies with interest and detachment, the editor of the volume, Wen Fong, seeks in the second essay to explain the different methodologies that informed the work of Bernhard Karlgren on the one hand and Ludwig Bachhofer and Max Loehr on the other.

Chang Kwang-chih's contribution is also concerned with theory. In addition to providing a brief survey of the period, Professor Chang sets out a framework of institu- tions that in his view shaped the development of society during the Bronze Age. His knowledge of anthropology endows Professor Chang's work with a perspective otherwise little represented in the catalogue. The essay also provides welcome translations from the Book of Odes.

The author of the last of the four introductory essays, Robert Thorp, meticulously describes the tombs in which many of the bronzes were found and summarizes much information pertinent to the objects in the exhibition. In the face of such a generous provision of diagrams and maps, it is perhaps churlish to express a wish that fuller plans of sites at Zhengzhou, Panlongcheng, and Anyang had been included to show the physical relationship of the burials to the city remains. The chapter offers interesting comments on the different forms of burial, describing changes that coincide with the Zhou conquest of Shang and noting the introduction of burial mounds in the Warring States period, the latter an innovation recognized by Sekino Takeshi as a borrowing from the nomads of the northern steppes.

Dr. Thorp's review of the burials leads logically into the main section of the catalogue. Here the objects have been

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:09:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions