Ancient Indian Colonization in South-East Asia c11: Lecture V: Hindu Art in South-East Asia

Ancient Indian Colonization in South-East Asia c11

Language: English

Lecture V: Hindu Art in South-East Asia

c11.2

Next to religion and society, we find the greatest influence of Indian culture in the domain of art. Except megaliths, crude images, and primitive ornamental designs such as are commonly found in neolithic culture, we have no evidence of the development of art in these regions before the arrival of the Hindus. But the Hindu colonists brought with them not only traditions and technique of developed Indian art, but also probably actual specimens of Indian sculpture. Some of the earlier sculptures in Siam and Malay Peninsula bear so striking a resemblance to Indian prototypes that many scholars have held that they were either brought from Indian or made by Hindu craftsmen who were fresh arrivals from India. For not only the motifs and the general details but even the very technique was purely Indian, and there was hardly anything to distinguish them from Indian products. But this state of things did not continue long. Gradually local styles developed in different regions with special characteristics of their own, each of which, in its final form, showed considerable divergence from the Indian models. In many cases they equalled the best Indian examples, and in some cases, specially in architecture, they excelled, both in refinement and in massive grandeur, anything that has yet come to light in India. But whatever may be the quality or character of the colonial art in different regions, the fact remains that influence of Indian styles may be traced in all stages of its development.

c11.3

The above observations apply both to architecture and sculpture of the different colonial kingdoms, notably, Burma, Siam, Annam, Cambodia, and Java which have left quite a large number of specimens of both.

c11.4

As regards architecture, the early examples, mostly built of perishable materials, have vanished. But enough remains to indicate that the early temples, built of brick, faithfully represent the Indian prototype of a square shrine with or without projections and niches. In the latter case the bare walls are divided by pilasters. The walls stand on a base and support a cornice with arched niches or *kuḍus*. Above it rises the roof in three or four storeys of receding stages, each showing the characteristic features of the main temple in miniature.

c11.5

Such examples are furnished by Pre-Angkorean temples in Cambodia, and the temples in Champā and Central Java. While discussing the origin of these temples in Champā, Parmentier, the great French authority on Art, held that this art was not traceable in the old Indian style. This view was challenged by me in my book on Champā published in 1927. Since then there has been a great change of views in this respect. In his latest book¹ Parmentier has made a painstaking analysis of the common elements between the architecture of India and South-east Asia, and has frankly admitted that both the temples and *stupas*, in the Indian colonies derive not only their basic plan but also their general moulding and decoration from Indian models. He has even traced the influence of Hindu architecture in the temples of China, Japan, Korea and Annam. Nevertheless, Parmentier's views about this type of temples in India do not seem to be very accurate, and this question will be dealt with at length at the end of this lecture.

c11.6

¹ ' *L' Art Architectural Hindou Dans L'Inde et en Extreme Orient*' : Paris, 1948.

c11.7

But starting from the normal Indian type there was a considerable evolution of the temple architecture, particularly in Cambodia in the Angkor period. Here we find the addition of three new features, *viz* the galleries, the pyramidal construction in several stages, and high central towers, sometimes capped by four human heads facing the four cardinal directions. The gallery consists of a long narrow chamber with a vaulted roof supported by a wall on one side and a series of pillars on the other. Sometimes it has a *verandah*, with a half-vaulted roof of lower height, also supported by columns. These galleries surrounded the main shrine on all sides, leaving a vacant space between the two. As they were repeated at each higher stage, their walls furnished considerable space for decorative sculptures and were fully utilised for this purpose. These features are shown at their best in the Angkor Vat which may be regarded as the *chef d' oeuvre* of Kambuja art, though sometimes this honour is given to Bayon Temple, constructed on the same principle. An idea of the massive grandeur of these temples may be obtained from the following measurements of Angkor Vat. The moat or ditch surrounding the temple and running close to its boundary walls is more than 650 ft. wide. This is spanned by a broad stone causeway leading to a gate in the wall of enclosure. This wall, which completely surrounds the temple, has a total length of two miles and a half. The broad paved avenue which runs from the western gateway to the first gallery is 520 yds. long and raised 7 ft. above the ground. The first gallery measures 265 yds. east to west and 224 from north to south, with a total running length of nearly 1,000 yds. The central tower, on the third or highest gallery, rises to a height of more than 210 ft.

c11.8

An interesting innovation in decoration is the balustrade formed by the figures of a series of giants pulling the body of a serpent, generally regarded as representing the churning of ocean.

c11.9

The *stūpa* of Barabudur in Java is justly regarded as a wonder of the world. It really consists of a series of nine successive terraces, each receding from the one beneath it, and the whole is crowned by a bell-shaped *stūpa* at the centre of the topmost terrace. The five lower terraces have double projections on each side and are enclosed on the inner side by a wall supporting a balustrade, so that four successive galleries are formed between the back of the balustrade of one terrace and the wall of the next higher one. The three uppermost terraces are encircled by a ring of *stūpas*, each containing an image of Buddha within a perforated framework. There is no doubt that the whole structure was intended as a *stūpa*, pure and simple, but the disproportion between the actual *stūpa* on the top and the massive support in the shape of nine terraces is difficult to explain, and has given rise to a great deal of speculation. It has been viewed as a novel principle of construction, but then we have neither any precedent nor any imitation of it. Mystic meaning has been attributed to the shape of the entire structure, but it is too speculative. Perhaps the simplest and the most rational explanation is furnished by the nature of the soil. When the first terrace was constructed as the real base of the great dome, it sank considerably and showed that the soil was unable to bear the weight of a huge solid domical *stūpa* as was originally contemplated. Hence the size of the *stūpa* was considerably diminished and the addition of successive terraces was a constructional necessity rather than the introduction of a new style.

c11.10

The most striking features of Barabuḍur are the series of sculptured panels, about fifteen hundred in number, and no less than 432 images of Dhyānī Buddhas which may be regarded colonies in this region into two broad zones, western and eastern. In his view the western zone comprising Burma, Central Siam, Malay Peninsula and Sumatra shows an extreme acculturation, *i.e.* absorption or assimilation of Indian culture, with the result that the local genius was altogether destroyed, and what we find is a mere replica of Indian art. He, therefore, regards this western zone as constituting Greater India in the narrow sense, with a purely colonial imitative culture. This was never the lot of the eastern zone, comprising mainly Java, Champā and Cambodia. Although there was very definite Indianization, it was not so extreme as to destroy local genius. The result was that with the gradual waning of Indian influence the local genius moulded the Indian pattern, and at a laetr stage there was a resurgence of the pre-Indian civilization. From this is drawn the inference that the great monuments of art in Kambuja and Java owe their inspiration and execution more to the local genius than to the influence of the Indian art.

c11.11

The abstract principle on which this theory is based may be briefly explained Wales starts by asking why the art of different region affected by Hindu colonization differs in essential respects from one another—why has Indo-Javanese, Cham or Khmer art its own distinctive character which it maintains throughout? He answers it by saying that each of the communities had a 'basic personality' or 'local genius',—a phrase which is intended to convey the sum of the cultural characteristics which the vast majority of the people have in common as a result of their experiences in life, *i.e.* something which approximates to what Herodotus called "national character". This pre-Indian factor in each community was differently affected by the stimulus of Indian culture. In some cases the local genius was destroyed by extreme acculturation, while it was not the case in others, and this distinguishes what he calls the western from the eastern zone.

c11.12

Thus in the opinion of Wales the differentiation of arts in Hindu colonies of South-east Asia was due to the different local genius in each case, the constant features of which depended on the particular pre-Indian civilisation of each region. He then proceeds to analyse in detail the constituent elements of the primitive art of that civilization which, in his opinion, are primarily responsible for the development of those characteristic features which are not borrowed from Indian art and may be regarded as peculiar to it.

c11.13

I have tried to state, as far as possible in his own words, the somewhat complex and comprehensive theory which Mr. Wales has fully developed in his latest work *The Making of Greater India*. In spite of the wealth of details and the ingenuity displayed in their elaboration, one is forced to the conclusion that not only are his laborus lost, but that they were undertaken for a hopeless task. That communities differ in their reaction upon outside stimulus needs only to be stated to be accepted as historical truths. That such a difference is partly, or even largely, due to some inherent characteristics or particular environments, will not also be seriously disputed. But the moment we go further and try to fix upon some particular elements as the cause of this difference, we are carried beyond our depths. Mr. Wales seems to proceed upon the assumption that human society progresses in accordance with certain definite laws, and that it is possible to discover them. One may justly doubt whether there are any such laws, definitely fixed once for all. But even if there be any, it seems to be impossible to discover them, except in a very general way, and least of all with reference exclusively to any particular community. The most serious draw-back in the thesis of Mr. Wales is that he ignores the fact that the phenomena which he seeks to probe are universal in character, and cannot be solved by reference to any particular or concrete case. We should also remember that the problem with which Wales started cannot claim any striking novelty or special importance. The differentiation in the development or evolution of culture in the different Hindu colonies has an exact parallel in India itself. Specially in the domain of art, on which Wales lays so much stress, there are even more striking differences in different periods and between different regions of India, than are noticeable in the different Hindu colonies in South-east Asia. Taking a broad view of the culture as a whole, it would be difficult to maintain that its evolution in Hindu colonies of South-east Asia showed far greater changes during the first millennium than what we notice, for example, in South India. The influence of pre-Hindu element in one case and pre-Aryan element in the other is undeniable. But to regard these elements alone as essential and the Hindu or Aryan contribution as of minor importance, is equally open to objection.

c11.14

In addition to this objection on general grounds, some of the fundamental assumptions of Mr. Wales rest on very weak grounds. The difference between the so-called 'eastern' and 'western' zones in their relation to Indian art seems to be highly exaggerated. The Ānanda Temple at Pagan and the Prangs at Siam, as well as many sculptures in Burma, Siam, Malay Peninsula and Sumatra, show such characteristic differences from their Indian prototypes, that it would be easy to distinguish them as of exotic growth. It is thus impossible to assert that the local genius was altogether destroyed in these regions, and there was nothing but purely imitative culture. This point will be brought home by a consideration of other relevant factors or allied features of culture. Two instances may be cited, viz. palaeography and social customs. In both these respects the local developments throughout the so-called 'western zone' of Wales are so prominent that nobody, I dare say, could regard them as merely imitative. On the other hand the palaeography of Kambuja and the Buddha images of Java, both in the 'eastern zone', exhibit less differences from their Indian prototypes than those of other regions, and the Javanese literature shows a far greater dependence upon Indian than in the case in any other colony. It is, therefore, difficult to maintain the classification of Indian colonies into an eastern and western zone on their supposed differences in reaction to the parent culture of India.

c11.15

Still more open to serious objection is the attempt of Wales to trace the differences in the art of the Indian colonies to specific elements in their pre-historic culture. Nothing but very strong and positive evidence would incline us to accept the view that a particular trait in neolithic culture remains latent during more than a thousand years of Hindu influence, and then suddenly asserts itself in such a manner as to transform the whole conception of art evolved in a steady process during many centuries. There is no doubt that there came a period in most of the colonies when Indian culture became a spent force and indigenous ideas asserted themselves more and more, bringing about fundamental changes in course of time, which some may regard as degradation and others may consider as birth of a true national culture. But these indigenous ideas are themselves the products of long contact with Indian culture, and should properly be regarded as the result of a fusion of the two. In any case the new growth is too complex in character to be easily analysed into simple constituent factors. It is difficult therefore, to agree with Mr. Wales when he says that the extreme accentuation of the angles of the upper storeys of temples may probably be ascribed to the Han element in the genius of the neolithic people of Champā or that the modification of wagon roof into a saddle roof with projecting ridge was undoubtedly determined by the Dongsonian type of roof depicted on early bronze age drums. As the latter element was fairly well-known in India, and the former is a very simple modification of Indian prototype, it is hardly necessary to ascribe their origin to the very doubtful influence of the Chinese or the prehistoric Dongsonian culture of which no clear trace is avaiable in any sphere in South-east Asia during thousand years or more of Hindu influence. Thus the attempt of Mr. Wales to explain the evolution of Indo-Javanese, Cham, and Khmer arts on the basis of Megalithic and Dongsonian cultural elements does not carry the least conviction. But he seems to have exceeded all reasonable bounds when he observes that "the peculiar refinement and delicacy of Barabuḍur reliefs reflect the ability that the Javanese had acquired when their Megalithic forebears were learning to express themselves naturalistically under Han influence." Such a view can only be the result of an obsession of mind which is impervious to obvious facts and a rational interpretation of them.

c11.16

c11.17

c11.18

I have made a long digression for considering the views of Mr. Wales as these represent the latest phase of a tendency to minimise the part played by the Hindus in the cultural evolution of South-east Asia. It has led to many theories which seek to revolutionize our whole conception of the culture and civilization of South-east Asia on extremely insufficient grounds. The common factor among them is an attempt to trace the origin of the culture of South-east Asia to all possible and impossible sources, other than Indian, and the impatient search for the true home of this culture covers a wide region from China to Egypt. If an Indian opposes these views it will probably be discredited as emanating from narrow parochial views. But even at the risk of such criticism I must raise my voice of protest against this growing tendency. The prehistoric period of human culture has been sadly neglected in the past, but now the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme, and almost everything of value is traced to prehistoric culture. We must try to recover the balance before it is too late. It is true that the theories are put forward as merely provisional and tentative, but if constantly repeated without challenge, they are likely to be gradually regarded as historical truths.

c11.19

It is neither possible nor necessary to discuss at length the different features of Indian art which formed the basis of art of the Hindu colonies. As a typical example, I shall consider the evolution of the storeyed roofs of temples in the colonies from the Indian prototype. A discussion of this point is of great importance, partly because its origin has been partially traced to Han and Dongsonian elements by Mr. Wales, and partly because there is an unfounded belief, almost universal in character, about its true origin in India itself.

c11.20

There is a general tendency among the writers on the subject to ascribe South India (Pallava) origin to temples whose roofs are composed of a number of gradually receding stories or stages. This is evidently due to the fact that, to judge from the extant examples, there is a sharp difference between the architectural style of temples in North and South India, the roof of the former being a curvilinear *śikhara* divided vertically by recesses, that of the latter consisting of a number of receding horizontal stages. This has given rise to the belief that these fundamental differences are characteristic of the architecture of Northern and Southern India. Such a belief, though very generally held, seems to be erroneous. For, though there are very few actual specimens extant today, it can be demonstrated clearly with the help of sculptural representation that roofs with gradually receding horizontal stages were very familiar in North India, at least as early as the Gupta period. As this point is of particular importance in any critical discussion of the origin of temple architecture in Greater India, I make no apology for treating this topic at some length.

c11.21

The earliest representation of such temples, though in a crude form, occurs in a few sculptures such as the Kuṣāṇa railing pillar. J. 24 in the Mathura Museum and in the so-called Bodh-Gaya plaque at Patna1b But we have more definite specimens of this type of temples in a few sculptures from Sarnath and Bengal.

c11.22

1b Coomāraswāmy—*Indian and Indonesian Art*, p. 80, figs. 69-69A, 62.

c11.23

The lintel of a large doorway found among the ruins at Sarnath contains two representations of shrine and three pediments or tops of temples². The roof of each shrine consists of three gradually receding storeys, with clear recesses between the stages, crowned by an *āmalaka* finial flanked by two leographs facing opposite directions. The three pediments, which alternate with the shrines contain each two niches, one above the other, which have the form midway between a Chaitya window of horse-type and what was known as *Kuḍu* in later days in South Indian temples of the Pallava style. The upper niches which present lion's heads or *Kīrttimukhas* are flanked by lions *sejant* in two cases, and the lower ones contain human figures.

c11.24

² Sahni—*Cat. of Sarnāth Museum*, p. 233, Plates xxv-xxix.

c11.25

As these sculptures must be referred to a date not later than the fifth or sixth century A.D. the representations of shrines or pediments become of special significance as we have got here the earliest specimen of that type of stepped pyramidal roof which is regarded as a peculiarity of South India and a special feature of Dravidian style. As a matter of fact the Sarnath lintel definitely proves that the so-called Dravidian style, of which the earliest specimen is found in the Pallava temples, derived its main features from temples which prevailed at an early date in North India.

c11.26

Another North Indian example of the same type is illustrated by a relief sculpture on a bronze *stūpa* in Bengal of the 7th century A.D. It represents an image seated inside a temple the roof of which is "composed of two receding courses of sloping tiers with a recessed space in between and crowned by a peculiar finial."³ Another image found in East Bengal (now in Dacca) shows three receding courses of tiers.⁴ Several other examples show a large number of receding tiers, flat or sloped, sometimes as many as six in number. These are sometimes crowned by an *āmalaka* and the usual finials.⁵ In one case we find rampant lions at the corners of the topmost storey, just beneath the *āmalaka*. In some cases we find sculptured reliefs in front of each stage. We possess also a structural example of this type in the Nandi pavilion of a temple at Ekteswar. "It is a simple square shrine with a pyramidal roof, composed of three receding tiers, resting on four square pillars."⁶ The finial, if any, has disappeared.

c11.27

³ *History of Bengal*, Ed. R. C. Majumdar I. 497, Plate xxviii.

c11.28

⁴ *Cat. Dacca Museum*, Plate xlviii (b).

c11.29

⁵ *Hist. Bengal*, Plates xxx-xxxi. Figs. 74-77.

c11.30

⁶ *Ibid*, Plate xxxii—Fig. 80.

c11.31

Special reference should be made to one variety of this type in which the *āmalaka* is replaced by a *stūpa*, of which we find several representations in Buddhist manuscripts.⁷ In some cases there are *stūpas* at the corner of each stage.

c11.32

⁷ Foucher—*L'Iconographie Bouddhique de l'Inde*, Vol. I. Plate v. 1, iii. 6, vi. 3.

c11.33

The wide extension of this type of temples in Northern India, and its continuity even after the evolution of the curvilinear *śikhara* are proved by the representation of several temples in Bengal. One of these is the picture of a temple in Puṇḍravardhana dedicated to Triśaraṇa Buddha Bhaṭṭāraka.⁸ The roof of this temple consists of two sloping and two horizontal flat stages surmounted by a curvilinear *śikhara* supporting a *stūpa*. A second is represented in a sculptured slab containing an image of Arapacana-Mañjuśrī, found in Bengal, illustrated by Coomaraswamy,⁹ who refers it to the eleventh century A.D. The roof of this temple, like the preceding one, consists of two (or three?) horizontal receding stages crowned by a *stūpa* on a curvilinear *śikhara*, but there are, in addition, miniature replicas of the temple, including the *śikhara*, not only at the corners of each storey (or of the first storey), but also in front of the main *śikhara* at the top. A third temple of this type is represented in the background of an image of Buddha found in East Bengal and now in a private house in Dacca.¹⁰ Here the roof consists of three receding stages crowned by a curvilinear *śikhara*. In the last two cases there is a recess between the stages so that each stage has a sufficiently wide margin to serve as circumambulatory passage round the next one. Another image in Bengal shows a *śikhara* surmounted by *stūpa*.¹¹ These types of temples must have also prevailed in Bihar and Orissa, as similar shrines in Oḍra and Tīrabhukti are outlined in miniature paintings in Buddhist manuscripts, noticed by Foucher.¹²

c11.34

⁸ *Ibid*, Plate iii. 4. Also cf. Plate v. 3.

c11.35

⁹ *Op. cit.*, fig. 229.

c11.36

¹⁰ *Cat. Dacca Museum*, p. 33. Plate ix. B.

c11.37

¹¹ *ASI*, 1921-2, Plate xxix.

c11.38

¹² *Op. cit.* Plates iii. 4; v. 13: vi, 5; vii. 1.

c11.39

Now, the miniature representation of temples of this type occurs also in a number of terracotta votive tablets from Pagan, and a stone sculpture in Prome both representing ancient capitals of Hindu colonial kingdoms in Burma. These tablets in Burma may be said to be almost replicas of the pictures of temples in Eastern India. One of the votive tablets in Pagan is inscribed with the Buddhist formula '*ye dharmā*' etc. in Nāgarī character.

c11.40

A still further development of this style is depicted in the stone sculptures from Ānanda Temple in Pagan showing roofs composed of receding stages, five seven, and nine in number. There is no doubt that this type is represented in the structural examples known as Pyatthat, which continued to be built up to the 19th century by Burmese Kings.¹³ The description of Lohapāsāda in *Mahāvaṁśa* shows that similar structures with nine storeys were built in Ceylon also.

c11.41

¹³ *ASI*, 1912-3, p. 140.

c11.42

The reason why this style was popular in these Buddhist countries is perhaps furnished by the statement in the Nidāna-kathā, the preface to the Jātaka, that three palaces were built for young prince Siddhārtha; one had nine storeys, another seven, and the third, five. The passage in Jātaka thus also furnishes literary evidence for the existence, at an early date, of the temples which we find represented in paintings and sculptures of a later date.

c11.43

Bearing the above facts in mind we may now trace the influence of this type of temples in South-east Asia. Beginning with Burma, we can clearly trace it in some of the famous shrines at Pagan. These are square temples with a roof consisting of several receding stages crowned by either a *stūpa* or a curvilinear *śikhara*. As we have seen above, the miniature representations of East Indian temples, particularly those in Bengal, show exactly the same features; *viz.* a tiered roof surmounted by a crowning superstructure which is either a *stūpa* or a *śikhara*. The Abeyandana and the Patothamya temples at Pagan represent the former, while the Ānanda, the Thatbyinnyu, the Thitswada, the Tilominlo and others represent the latter type. There can be, therefore, hardly any doubt that the style of these temples might have been prossibly derived from that of no notice was taken of it. It was not till another period of ten years passed by, that Duroiselle seems to have been struck for the first time by the close resemblance between Ānanda and the miniature temples represented on a stone sculpture

c11.44

“There can be no doubt that the architects who planned and built the Ānanda were Indians. Everything in this temple from *śikhara* to basement, as well as the numerous stone sculptures found in its corridors and the terracotta plaques adorning its basement and terraces, bear the indubitable stamp of Indian genius and craftsmanship, except in one particular (namely the Mon legends). It may be here remarked *en passant*, that from 1056-57 when, after the conquest of Thaton, the extraordinary architectural, sculptural and painting activity began in Pagan, to about the beginning of the XIIIth century, practically nothing is to be found that does not bear the stamp of Indian workmanship; this may be affirmed even of such early votive tablets which bear the inscriptions in old Burmese characters and the language of which is either Pali or Burmese (these latter rather rare); everything on them…but the inscription, is Indian. In this sense, we may take it therefore, that the Ānanda, though built in the Burmese capital, is an Indian temple.”²⁰

c11.45

²⁰ *Ibid*, No. 56—Ananda Temple, p. 9.

c11.46

It is interesting to compare this with the view expressed in 1925 by the eminent French archaeologist Parmentier that the relation or filiation of Pagan with the art of India is not evident, and but for the presence of the *śikhara* it could not at all be predicated.²¹

c11.47

²¹ *Et. As.* II, 226.

c11.48

The progress of this type of temples with tiered roofs in receding stages can be traced all over Indo-China. The temples at Bayang (7th century A.D.) and Prast Prah Srei (7th century A.D.) in Kambuja with three receding stages furnish early examples. Two centuries later, we have the temple of Bakong (9th century A.D.) in the Angkor region with four or five receding stages.

c11.49

The same type dominates the temples of Champā almost from beginning to end. The famous temples at Myson, Dong Duong, Po Nagar, Pho Hai and Po Klong Gorai show developed specimens of this type, while comparatively only a few temples have a different kind of roof.

c11.50

In Java also we meet with the same type at Dieng, Kalasan, Mendut and Pavon and it has been preserved down to our own times in the island of Bali.

c11.51

It will thus be seen that the type of temples with roof composed of receding stages is a characteristic feature in all the Hindu colonies in South-east Asia. As this type was formerly known to exist only in South India, though in a modified form, it was naturally that the architectural type was carried to South-east Asia by immigrants from South India, and generally Pallava origin was ascribed to them. But in view of what has been said above, it is now necessary to reconsider the whole question. We have treated the case in Burma at some length in order to demonstrate beyond any doubt the possibility that this type was borrowed from Eastern India. There is no more valid reason to treat the all other temples in South-east Asia as derived from South Indian prototype than there was originally in the case of Burma.

c11.52

A few striking points of similarity may be noted in this connection. In the temple of Pavon in Java we find a *stūpa* as the crowning member of the roof in receding stages, exactly as we find in Burma and some miniature representations of temples in Bengal. The Chandi Bima in Dieng Plateau in Java, which forms a class by itself in this type, possesses a striking resemblance with the temple at Bhitargaon near Kanpur and the Lakṣmaṇa temple at Sirpur.²² The close resemblance of this type with the temple of Lopburi in Siam (11th century) is also obvious.

c11.53

²² *Indian and Indonesian Art*, p. 94, Brown—*Architecture*, p. 233.

c11.54

It may be further pointed out that while in the Dravidian Pallava style the super-imposed stages present a pyramidal shape with sharp angular outline, quite a large number of temple roofs in South-east Asia present an altogether different appearance which is more akin to the characteristic flat stages of Northern India of the Gupta period.

c11.55

I would like to conclude this discourse by referring to an important fact which is always ignored by the class of writers who want to minimise the influence of India upon the development of art in South-east Asia. It is a well-known fact that there was a complete collapse of artistic ideas in this region as soon as the Hindu culture was submerged by the onslaught of Islam. I may quote in this connection the following passage of Fergusson. Referring to the overthrow of the Hindu dynasty in Java, he remarks:

c11.56

"Then occurred what was, perhaps, the least-expected event in all "this strange eventful history." It is as if the masons had thrown away their tools and the chisels had dropped from the hands of the carvers. From that time forward no building was erected in Java, and no image carved, that is worth even a passing notice. At a time when the Muhammadans were adorning India with monuments of surpassing magnificence, no one in Java thought of building either a mosque, or a tomb, or a palace that would be deemed respectable in any second class state in any part of the world."²³

c11.57

²³ Fergusson—*Hist. of Ind. Architecture*, II, 421.

c11.58

Is it conceivable that such a state of things would have followed if the great art of Java was due in any special measure to the local genius of the people? For the local people continued, as before, under the Muslim regime. The only factor that was wanting is the perennial source of supply from India which had dried up, and the absence of that Hindu culture which inspired the developments in art and other aspects of civilization. This one fact alone is sufficient to indicate the vitally important part played by the Hindus in the development of culture and civilization in South-east Asia.

Ancient Indian Colonization in South-East Asia c11: Lecture V: Hindu Art in South-East Asia

Lecture V: Hindu Art in South-East Asia

Linked texts (4)