Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East (Vol. I: Champa; Vol. II: Suvarnadvipa) v2.c21.s7: Chapter VIII. Art in Borneo
Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East (Vol. I: Champā; Vol. II: Suvarṇadvīpa) v2.c21.s7
- Language
- English
Chapter VIII. Art in Borneo
v2.c21.s7.2
No remains of old architecture have survived in Borneo, but we have a few specimens of sculpture which enable us to form a fair idea of its artistic achievements. Reference has already been made to the Mukhaliṅga of Sepauk and the sandstone image of Sanggau¹.
v2.c21.s7.3
¹ For these and other images, cf. Bk. I, Chapter VIII.
v2.c21.s7.4
The stone image of Mañjuśrī² (Pl. LXX, Fig 1) excavated between Gunung Kupang and Karang Intan, District Martapura, Residency of South and East Borneo, shows a purely Indian style. The modelling is rather rough, at least appears to be so from the present damaged condition.
v2.c21.s7.5
² O. V., 1925, Pl. 10(a).
v2.c21.s7.6
But by far the most important specimens of sculpture in Borneo are the images found in Genung Kombeng, to which reference has been made above³.
v2.c21.s7.7
³ Bk. I, Chap. VIII. For a detailed account with illustrations, cf. O. V., 1925, pp. 132ff, Pl. 29-34; also cf. "Midden-oost Borneo Expeditie, 1925, specially the concluding chapter.
v2.c21.s7.8
The images may be divided into two groups: (I) Śaiva and (II) Buddhist.
v2.c21.s7.9
I. The largest figure is that of Mahādeva⁴ (Pl. LXX, Fig. 2). The god stands on a lotus cushion and has four hands. The upper right hand holds a rosary, the lower a Triśūla, the upper left hand, a flywhisk, and the other is empty. A high mukuṭa, necklace, a heavy upavīta, a band round the upper abdomen, girdles, armlets, and anklets decorate the body. The thin transparent cloth ends just above the anklet, and its waving edges are seen on both sides. The other figures⁵ are those of Guru, Nandīśvara, Mahākāla, Kārtikeya and Gaṇeśa. It appears from analogous examples, that the temple containing these was dedicated to Śiva, whose figure occupied the shrine, and there were five niches for Guru, Gaṇeśa, Durgā (not found), Mahākāla, and Nandīśvara. The figure of Kārtikeya was probably placed in the wall. The presence of a head of Brahmā shows that there was also a temple dedicated to that god, and it is a natural inference that a Viṣṇu temple completed the group.
v2.c21.s7.10
⁴ Ibid, pl. 31-a.
v2.c21.s7.11
⁵ Ibid, pl. 31, b, c, d, 32a.
v2.c21.s7.12
II. The Buddhist figures (Pl. LXX, Figs. 3-4) are marked by a high head-dress, having the shape of a truncated cone, and resembling a stūpa or a śikhara. Among these figures only one¹, with the right hand in Varamudrā, and the left hand holding an utpala surmounted by a vajra, may be definitely identified as Vajrapāṇi. The four-armed figure² having cāmara in the right back hand, cakra in the left, the right forearm in varamudrā, the left fore-arm on the knee holding the stem of a lotus which rises high above the shoulder, decorated with armlets, bangles, heavy ear-ornaments, necklaces, girdles, and sacred cord, and seated on a double lotus cushion, is evidently a Dhyāni-Bodhisatva (Sambhoga-kāya), emanating from a Dhyāni Buddha—probably Amitābha.
v2.c21.s7.13
¹ Ibid, pl. 33-a.
v2.c21.s7.14
² Ibid, pl. 33-c.
v2.c21.s7.15
The four-armed female figure³ has both fore-hands on the knee holding lotus; the right rear-hand holds a long book; and the left rear-hand a very peculiar object—a long pole supporting a ball-like thing, crowned by an umbrella or a disc, with a knob at the top.
v2.c21.s7.16
³ Ibid, pl. 33-d.
v2.c21.s7.17
From an iconographic point of view the Buddhist figures offer a puzzle. With one exception, they differ from any example of a Buddhist deity known elsewhere. We must, therefore, suppose either (a) that they are forms of Buddhist god which by an accident have been preserved only in Borneo, or (b) that the attributes are wrongly mixed up by the artist who worked from memory or oral instructions, ill understood, or (c) that a new combination of forms and attributes was evolved in Borneo.
v2.c21.s7.18
From an artistic point of view the few images indicate a highly developed school of sculpture in Borneo. The image of Mahādeva is perhaps the best. The pose and modelling of this graceful figure, with the calm placid smiling face which combines the dispassionate abstraction and the benevolence of the great god, reminds us of the figure of the same deity at Lara-Jongrang. The same qualities mark, in a less degree, the two four-armed Buddhist gods, a male and a female, though here the features are a little heavy and less graceful. The heads of two other figures¹ are also remarkable pieces of sculpture.
v2.c21.s7.19
¹ Ibid, Pl. 33-b, 34-c.
v2.c21.s7.20
Other figures are much inferior in conception and execution. The most notable instance is that of Gaṇeśa, a lifeless figure of very poor specimen. There is hardly any doubt that the images found in the cave of mount Kombeng belong to different ages and are productions of different schools.
v2.c21.s7.21
Several other objects, excavated at Muara Kaman, now form part of the regalia belonging to the Sultanate of Kutei. Among these may be specifically mentioned a small golden figure of Viṣṇu², worn by the crown-prince on ceremonial occasions, and a golden figure of tortoise³. Viṣṇu is four-armed, holding a discus, conch-shell, and mace in three hands, while the fourth, the lower right hand, is in *vara-mudrā*. The workmanship is of primitive character.
v2.c21.s7.22
² Ibid, Pl. 35-a.
v2.c21.s7.23
³ Ibid, Pl. 35-c.
v2.c21.s7.24
The most beautiful metal-work discovered in Borneo is the fine bronze Buddha, found at Kota Bangun, near Muara Kaman. It was deposited in the Batavia Museum⁴, but perished in the disastrous fire that destroyed the Dutch pavilion in the Paris Exhibition of 1931.
v2.c21.s7.25
⁴ Ibid, Pl. 36; also, A. B. I. A., 1926, Pl. XI.
v2.c21.s7.26
The Buddha (Pl. LXXI, Fig. 3) stands erect with the right knee slightly bent forward. He wears a transparent, close-fitting dress, whose edges are seen above the anklets and then passing over the left arm fall in folds. The garment passes over the left shoulder leaving the right uncovered. There is no *uṇṇā* but the *uṣṇīṣa* is unusually high. This was perhaps due to the existence of an umbrella over his head. It has now disappeared, but there is a socket on the back for fixing it.
v2.c21.s7.27
A monk’s bowl is placed on the palm of the left hand. The right hand is in the *Vitarka-mudrā*, and on its palm are engraved several signs,—two concentric circles, and several dots and curved lines. These are usually regarded as *jāla*, one of the signs of Mahāpuruṣa. Foucher explains the term as a number of regular signs on the palm of the hand, whereas the previous explanation of the term was a net-work or spider’s web¹.
v2.c21.s7.28
¹ Foucher—L'art Greco-Bouddhique du Gandhāra Vol. II, pp. 304ff.
v2.c21.s7.29
Another characteristic feature of the palms of the figure is that something like a skin covers their entire backs up to the point where the fingers begin. In the Gandhāra sculptures, there is a similar covering up to the middle of the fingers. It was regarded as a *jāla* (spider’s web), but this interpretation is unacceptable, inasmuch as this phenomenon is observed only when the hands of a Buddha figure are outstretched, and not when they are placed on the lap or otherwise connected with the body. It is thus obvious that the covering was intended to protect the fingers from damage, as the small pointed pieces of stone could otherwise be easily broken. But this original purpose being lost sight of, it not only came to be applied to bronze statues where it was unnecessary, but was also confined to the back of the palm below the fingers where it could be of no use.
v2.c21.s7.30
The bronze Buddha of Kota Bangun is the only figure in Malayasia which shows this characteristic, and we must, therefore, suppose that the artist must have received his inspiration direct from India.
v2.c21.s7.31
Dr. Bosch traces this influence to Gandhāra, but neither the dress nor the general style are in favour of this supposition. It may be noted that an image of Buddha found at Makuwār, near Allahabad, shows the same characteristic feature¹.
v2.c21.s7.32
¹ V. A. Smith—Fine Art in India and Ceylon, fig. 119 (p. 173).
v2.c21.s7.33
From an artistic point of view the bronze Buddha must be given a very high place in the art of Malayasia. The modelling of the figure, though highly creditable, is not certainly at its very best, but the artist has succeeded in infusing into his creation an admirable expression of divine grace and pious benevolence. The inexpressible and ineffaceable smile, betokening good-will and blessings to the whole world, and the calm placidity of the face, even while the hands indicate a mood of discussion, raise this figure to a high class of art, and it deserves to be ranked with the Buddha figures of Barabuḍur with which it shows great stylistic resemblance.
v2.c21.s7.34
The relation of the art of Borneo to Indian art is obvious, and the only question for determination is whether its origin is to be traced direct to India or through Java.
v2.c21.s7.35
Discussing the figures found at Kumbeng, Dr Bosch negatives the former idea chiefly on the following grounds.
v2.c21.s7.36
1. The grouping of the Śaiva figures agrees with that frequently met with in Java, whereas in India, preference is given to other combinations (maṇḍala).
v2.c21.s7.37
2. The image of Kārtikeya possesses typically Indo-Javanese characteristics.
v2.c21.s7.38
3. The style is closely related with that of Hindu-Javanese art.
v2.c21.s7.39
At the same time Bosch points out that certain features strikingly differentiate these images from Indo-Javanese. Among these he refers specially to (1) the chiselling of the stone round the Triśūla; (2) the flat form of the Kamaṇḍalu (water-pot) of the Guru; and (3) the representation of the elephant-head of Gaṇeśa.
v2.c21.s7.40
Dr. Bosch is, therefore, unwilling to attribute the images of Kutei to Indo-Javanese artists. According to his view the people who made these images were either Indo-Javanese colonists in Borneo who had been out of touch with the motherland for a long time, or indigenous Dayaks who had imbibed the culture and civilisation of the Indo-Javanese.
v2.c21.s7.41
Any view expressed by such a competent authority as Dr. Bosch deserves a very serious consideration. At the same time we must point out that his argument about the grouping of Śaiva figures is not quite intelligible. The figures were not actually found grouped in any particular manner, and their hypothetical grouping is made on the analogy of Javanese temples. To use this as an argument for Indo-Javanese origin is, therefore, very illogical.
v2.c21.s7.42
As regards the style, there are both resemblances and differences even when we consider the Śaiva group of images. But the Buddhist figures of Kombeng are very unlike those found in Java, both from iconographic and artistic point of view. In particular we must postulate a direct Indian influence in the case of the bronze Buddha figure of Kota Bangun and the figure of Gaṇeśa at Serawak.¹ All these considerations would rather incline us to the belief that the Hindu colonists of Borneo developed independently an art which was perhaps influenced to a certain extent by the Indo-Javanese.
v2.c21.s7.43
¹ J. Str. Br. R. A. S., Vol. 85 ( 1922 ), pp. 210ff.