Southeast Asia and the Early Maritime Silk Road

Full text

lost kingdoms
HINDU-BUDDHIST SCULPTURE
OF EARLY SOUTHEAST ASIA
With essays by
Pierre Baptiste, Lawrence Becker, Bérénice Bellina, Robert L. Brown, Federico Carò,
Pattaratorn Chirapravati, Janet G. Douglas, Arlo Griths, Agustijanto Indradjaya, Le i Lien,
Pierre-Yves Manguin, Stephen A. Murphy, Ariel O’Connor, Peter Skilling, Janice Stargardt, Donna Strahan,
U ein Lwin, Geo Wade, U Win Kyaing, Hiram Woodward, and ierry Zéphir
John Guy
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
Distributed by Yale University Press, New Haven and London

  
sociopolitical organization on either side of the Bay of Bengal, with
only South Asia experiencing the growth of empires and kingdoms,
seemed to give full credence to the view that Southeast Asia owed
much of its civilization to the mere adaptation of Indian traits.¹
Beginning in the s, opponents of this perspective became
more vocal, especially proponents of the “internalist,” or “autono-
mist,” paradigm, which emphasized endogenous factors for cul-
tural, social, and political change in Southeast Asia.² e region
was no longer considered a passive recipient of culture but a politi-
cally independent center able to generate its own social, religious,
and political organizational structures, many of which survived,
and even thrived, when adjusting to later cultural imports. During
the s, more hybrid frameworks, such as O. W. Wolters’s “local-
ization” and Sheldon Pollock’s “vernacularization,” combined ele-
ments of previous scholarly trends, foregrounding the innovations
that resulted from local adaptations of Indian models.³ ese new
theories developed during a turning point in archaeology: its new
focus on prehistory, primarily following Ian C. Glover’s pioneering
Southeast Asia and the Early Maritime Silk Road
Bérénice Bellina
By the third to fourth century .., Hindu and Buddhist kingdoms
were beginning to emerge in the westernmost lands of Southeast
Asia. e adoption of Indic political and religious concepts and their
display through architecture, statuary, and urban configurations as
well as the use of Sanskrit and other imported writing systems rep-
resented a sweeping change, which early researchers of Southeast
Asian history characterized as the “Indianization” of the region. e
definition of this concept has shied over time, in tune with histo-
riographic paradigms, researchers’ theoretical orientations, and polit-
ical agendas. e current thinking overall takes a more systemic and
complex view of the process and integrates individuals belonging to
more diverse social groups.
Trained in Indian linguistics and history, early researchers
focused on epigraphic and monumental remains. e late prehis-
toric period, from the late centuries .. to the early centuries ..,
was lacking in both pes of evidence and consequently remained a
lacuna in their historical reconstructions. e absence of earlier data,
as well as what appeared to be a striking contrast in the levels of
Fig. . Exotic valuables found in South China Sea
 (top to bottom): Carnelian and agate ornaments, dimensions variable. Private collections, Khao Sam Kaeo, ailand
: Glass ornaments, dimensions variable. National Museum, Chumphon, ailand
: Lingling’o. Nephrite, diam. approx. ⁄ in. ( cm). Suthi Rattana Foundation, Nakhon Si ammarat, ailand
: Doubled-headed ornament. W. approx. ⁄ in. ( cm). Suthi Rattana Foundation, Nakhon Si ammarat, ailand
, : Metal vessel fragments. Suthi Rattana Foundation, Nakhon Si ammarat, ailand







       
research at Don Ta Phet in central ailand. is cemetery com-
plex yielded the first prehistoric evidence of exchange between
South and Southeast Asia, thus demonstrating the antiqui of con-
tact between the regions. Excavation of sites belonging to the late
prehistoric period increased. Multidisciplinary analysis began to be
applied in the field, with geoarchaeology and archaeobotany, and in
the laboratory, with materials science. Helping to challenge the
archaeological bias that results from the poor preservation of per-
ishable materials in tropical environments, these studies highlighted
previously invisible evidence and defined regional production and
distribution networks. eir significant reappraisals of Southeast
Asia’s sociopolitical and economic organization prior to the so-
called “Indianized” period advanced our understanding of its role
in the first global system linking the West through India to China—
the trading system known as the maritime Silk Road.
Indeed, research has shown that Southeast Asia had already
developed extensive and dynamic regional trade routes during
the Neolithic period. e importance and intensi of exchange
between the area and its East and South Asian neighbors from the
Metal Age on (since the mid-first millennium ..) have also been
reassessed. ese reevaluations benefit from increasingly thor-
ough analysis of the early industries and materials of the period,
such as glass, stone ornaments, siliceous stones, jadeite, metal,
and ceramics (fig. ). Each study highlights one facet of a preexist-
ing, prehistoric exchange network around the South China Sea,
and the results demonstrate some of the ways in which the societies
reacted when they became intertwined in exchange with neighbor-
ing populations.
From peninsular ailand to coastal Vietnam and the
Philippines, several populations developed and shared elaborate
cultural practices thanks to Neolithic networks that traded in a sim-
ilar set of exotic valuables. ese shared items included nephrite
ear pendants (lingling’o), interrupted rings, double-headed orna-
ments, and specific pes of ceramics such as those of the Sa
Huynh–Kalanay tradition (fig. ). Primarily through acknowl-
edging the connections among ceramics at various archaeological
sites dating from the end of prehistory and stretching from the
Philippines (Kalanay) to peninsular ailand (Sa Huynh), Wilhelm
Solheim was the first to recognize this tradition. Apart from some
morphological dierences, these ceramics have in common both
decorative techniques and patterns.
As soon as South Asians and Southeast Asians came into con-
tact, the latter superimposed their ideas on certain South Asian
industries, thus contributing a distinctly regional perspective to the
cultural exchange. In addition to actual commodities, the network
circulated South Asian ornamental techniques, which were applied,
probably initially by South Asian artisans, to the production of
items to suit Southeast Asian tastes. Objects designed for local pop-
ulations included carnelian and agate beads, glass ornaments, and,
probably, metal vessels and other wares not yet identified.¹ Studies
of these and other industries help to identi and explain the social
contexts that motivated the adaptation of complex knowledge and
skilled technologies while supporting the strategies of the Southeast
Asian polities in the process. ey thus contribute to a better under-
standing of the connection between political economy and cultural
transfers between South and Southeast Asia. In addition to prod-
ucts adapted for Southeast Asian tastes, imports also circulated,
including Indian fine ware (fig. ), such as the famous rouletted
ware,¹¹ seals (fig. ),¹² and Indian steatite containers (fig. ). For
example, the fragments of steatite containers found in peninsular
ailand at Phu Khao ong (Ranong province) and at Khao Sam
Kaeo (Chumphon province) are comparable to early steatite con-
tainers discovered in stupa complexes in the region of Gandhara
(present-day Pakistan), among other places, which were used, and
at times reused, as reliquaries.¹³ eir contents varied from bones
to deposits of valuable goods, such as ornaments made of ivory,
crystal, bronze, and semiprecious stones.
Fig. . Gold seal. Found in Bang Kluai Nok,
Ranong province, southern ailand.
Private collection
Fig. . Sa Huynh–Kalanay ware found
in southern ailand
Fig. . Shard of imported ceramic bearing a
Tamil-Brāhmī inscription. Found in Phu
Khao ong, Ranong province, southern
ailand. W.  in. ( cm)

  
Other evidence is indirect, such as local variations in South Asian
manufacturing techniques and products that satisfied regional and
local requirements. All told, some of these analyses grant a leading
role to artisans, who actively produced social and cultural forms,
especially in a likely context of increasing interpoli competition
to control trade and access to foreign prestige goods.² A given
leader probably had to manage his network of volatile allies and
dependents—both of whom provided jungle or maritime goods for
trade—by distributing titles and prestige goods, such as ornaments,
to build the ruler’s power and renown as well as to ensure the
wealth of his trading poli. In this scenario, artisans produced vari-
ous items representing dierent techniques, qualities, and sles as
the political currency to build this pyramidal network. But as the
study of stone-ornament industries at Khao Sam Kaeo has demon-
strated, artisans there, probably at the request of the leaders, were
asked to exceed known standards of technological excellence, push-
ing productive capacities to their limits. In this way, they would
have participated in the prestige apparatus of the elite, who used
the artisans not only to show their abili to mobilize labor but also
to control skilled labor in the arts, industry, and spiritual realms
(such as religious practices and magic).²¹
Dierent social and socioprofessional groups more or less
attached to local elites in port cities and similar transportation hubs
may thus have contributed to the ways in which complex and less
complex polities interacted as the maritime Silk Road developed.
Various ecological niches, whether forested or maritime, and the
populations exploiting them may have been linked in this early
global network.²² Overall, current research draws a more balanced
picture than was previously possible of the cultural complexi of
Southeast Asia and its contributions to the world from the late pre-
historic to the early historic period.
A better understanding of the complexi of the early networks
and of the polities structuring them has also grown out of the analy-
sis of organic materials, many of which—for example, spices, pre-
cious woods, textiles, and animals—formed a good part of the
inventory of exchanged goods. Current research in archaeobotany¹
and ancient textile studies¹ demonstrates the diversi of subsis-
tence crops and cash crops circulating in routes that originated in
various distant lands, from China to India.¹ Some goods, such
as spices and silks, were likely luxury items aimed for courts, but
others, including foods and other crops, may have accompanied
traders for their own personal use. e alleged Indianized period
definitely appears to have been preceded by sustained contacts,
contradicting the previous assumptions of intermittent interaction
and limited cultural exchange.
New interpretations of the region’s role within the networks
of the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean owe much to revi-
sions of the historical record, which now integrate a larger and
more diversified range of actors than were considered previously:
socioprofessional groups such as artisans¹ as well as “ethnic”
groups—that is, the less politically complex social units that were
part of the producing hinterlands.¹ is appreciation of a wider
social horizon has resulted from a change in theoretical orienta-
tion—including subaltern studies, ideas of a “connected” history,
and other postcolonial and globalized approaches—that assigns
greater importance to both nonelites as agents of social and politi-
cal change and to contacts among all groups beyond political
boundaries. is broader perspective has also arisen from revised
understandings of technological developments and studies of their
trajectories through time and space. While much of the evidence is
subtle, it can also be direct, as in the case of Southeast Asian ship-
building techniques or the spread of Austronesian vocabulary,
which is present in many languages around the Indian Ocean.¹
Fig. . Fragments of steatite containers found at both Phu Khao ong, Ranong province,
and Khao Sam Kaeo, Chumphon province, southern ailand

 notes to essays
“master of troops,” while Sarvādhikārin
can be rendered as “general superinten-
dent.” See Aspell , p. . Putra is
a Sanskrit term and possibly here
represents a prince; see Aspell ,
p. .
14. e Chinese text reads 獲其廟主十八
枚，皆鑄金為之，蓋其有國十八葉矣.
Sui shu, juan .
15. Wang Gungwu , p. , n. .
See also Maspéro , p. , n. .
16. Wang Gungwu , p. .
17. Golzio , pp. –. Subse-
quently, the inscription informs us,
the Cham ruler Śrī Saavarman
reestablished “a kosa with a face” in
favor of the god Īśvara (an epithet for
Śiva). is may have been similar to
the liñgakosa included in this publica-
tion (cat. ).
18. Cefu yuangui 册府元龟 (Collected
Records for Reference), juan .
19. Xin Tang shu, juan C.
20. Liu Xun 刘恂, Lingbiao luyi 嶺表
錄異 (A Record of Curious ings
beyond the Ranges), juan .
21. Sanguozhi (Records of the ree
Kingdoms), juan  (Biography of
Lü Dai). e mission sent to Funan by
Sun Quan 孫權, the first ruler of Wu
(reigned –), was led by Zhu Ying
朱應 and Kang Tai 康泰, and both
ocials wrote books about their
experiences; Liang shu, juan .
22. Li Rongxi , p. .
23. See Manguin a.
24. See Stark et al. .
25. Pelliot . Vickery , p. ,
suggests, somewhat critically, that “all
modern syntheses of Funan history are
based ultimately on Pelliot’s reading of
the Chinese sources, to which Coedès
added inferences and interpretations.”
26. Wang Gungwu , p. .
27. Writing of the fih century, the Nan
Qi shu informs us that “their ships are
eight to nine zhang [– .; – m]
long and six to seven chi [– .; .–
. m] wide. Both front and stern are
shaped like a fish.” Nan Qi shu, juan .
28. Jin shu, juan ; Nan Qi shu,
juan . For a local source, see the My
Son stele inscription of Prakāśadharma
(dated ). See Golzio , pp. –,
for Kaundinya references. Another
Sanskrit inscription (K.), of Dong ap
Muoi (known as Prasat Pram Loven in
Khmer), refers to a Prince Gunavarman,
younger son of a King Ja[yavarman],
who was “the moon of the Kaundinya
line.” See Coedès , pp. –.
29. Nan shi, juan . e Hokkien (Min)
language retains some earlier Chinese
pronunciations of characters; thus, it is
oen useful in reconstructing medieval
Chinese representations of foreign terms.
30. Possibly a Buddha seated on a nāga
(snake) throne.
31. e creation and distribution of
such miniature votive stupas, sometimes
period. A mission from Yetiao 葉調, a
possible Southeast Asian poli, arrived
in . We know nothing of these
missions other than the names of the
polities that sent them but can assert
that they sailed through Southeast Asia.
For these references, see Wang Gungwu
, pp. –. e third-century
Roman coin of Emperor Victorinus
found in ailand and discussed in this
publication (cat. ) may well be a
product of such long-distance trade
during these early centuries. e same is
true of the two coins, one of Antoninus
Pius and the other of Marcus Aurelius,
found in Oc Eo and of the many Roman
coins found along the southeast coast of
India. For a broader view of such links,
see Raschke .
3. e term kunlun was a generic
reference to peoples of the maritime
realm of Southeast Asia. e origins
of the term are unresolved. For an
overview of the occurrence and use of
the term, see Ferrand .
4. Jiu Tang shu (Old History of the Tang ),
juan ; Xin Tang shu (New History of
the Tang), juan  (Biography of Tian
Shengong 田神功).
5. e most detailed study of Linyi can
be found in Stein , while Maspéro
 places it in a longer historical
context. e Nan shi (History of the
Southern Dynasties) notes that Linyi
was  li south of Guangzhou,  li
from the southern border of Rinan, and
 li from the sea. For some background
on the archaeological vestiges of Linyi,
see Yamagata Mariko .
6. Jin shu (History of the Jin), juan .
7. is reference also accords with the
earliest attested inscription recorded
for Champa, the fih-century My Son
stele inscription of Bhadravarman I,
near the Linyi capital; see Finot .
e political ani of the Vo Canh
inscription remains moot.
8. Nan Qi shu (History of the Southern
Qi), juan .
9. is reference is repeated in the Liang
shu (History of the Liang), juan .
Soothill and Houdus , p. , notes
that the term nirgrantha refers to “devo -
tees who are free from all ties, wander
naked, and cover themselves with ashes.
Mahāvīra, one of this sect, called Jñāti
若提 aer his family, and also Nirgrantha-
jñātiputra 尼乾陀若提子, was an oppo -
nent of Śākyamuni.” Here, the reference
may simply be to Śaiva Pāśupatas.
10. e unit wei 圍 refers to the distance
between outstretched arms. Ten wei
would have been something on the
order of  feet ( m).
11. Nan Qi shu, juan ; Song Shu
(History of the Song ), juan .
12. Liang shu, juan . Title/name
reconstruction in Maspéro , p. .
13. Sui shu (History of the Sui), juan .
For example, Senāpati was equivalent to
(of the sailor or captain Brahaspati-
śarma) according to Oskar von Hinüber
and Peter Skilling. Skilling believes it may
date to the first to second century, and
von Hinüber, to the fourth century at
the latest (personal communications).
is inscription adds to the known
mahānāvika references such as the
famous Mahānāvika Buddhagupta stele,
which was found in Seberang Perai
(formerly Province Wellesley; fig. ),
Malaysia; Chhabra , p. ; Allen
, pp. –.
13. Jongeward et al. .
14. Castillo and Fuller ; Castillo
; Bellina et al. forthcoming.
15. Cameron .
16. Castillo ; Castillo in Bellina
et al. forthcoming.
17. Bellina ; Bellina ;
Bellina .
18. Junker ; Junker ; Bellina,
Epinal, and Favereau ; Morrison
and Junker .
19. Manguin a, p. xviii.
20. Bellina ; Bellina .
21. Bellina forthcoming.
22. Manguin ; Bellina ;
Bellina et al. forthcoming.
BEyond thE southErn BordErs:
southEast asia in chinEsE
tExts to thE ninth cEntury
Transliteration of Chinese in this essay
follows the Manyu Pinyin standard except
where the original name or title being
represented by the Chinese characters is
uncertain. In that case, syllables of the
represented term are separated by hyphens
to possibly facilitate identification. A juán
is a subdivision of a traditional Chinese
text. e author expresses his gratitude to
John Guy for the energy, time, and ideas he
contributed in preparing this essay for
publication.
1. “From the barriers of Rinan, or from
Xuwen and Hepu traveling by ship
for about five months, one arrives at
the country of Duyuan. From there,
traveling farther by sea for some four
months, one arrives at the country of
Yilumo. Again sailing for twen-plus
days, one reaches the country of Shenli.
en, proceeding on foot for some
ten days, one reaches the country of
Fugandulu. From Fugandulu, aer
sailing for about two months, one reaches
the country of Huangzhi.” Han shu,
juan . For further discussion, see
Wang Gungwu , p. ; Wheatley
, pp. –.
2. Missions from Tianzhu 天竺 came
to the Eastern Han court in Luoyang
in ..  and  through Jiaozhi,
located in what is today northern
Vietnam, while another claiming to be
from Daqin 大秦 (eastern part of the
Roman Empire) also arrived in this
(D). Published in de Casparis ;
Miksic , pp. –; Trigangga
, p. , fig. ..
51. Dalsheimer and Manguin ,
pp. –.
52. For a comprehensive examination
of the archaeological evidence for the
peninsular region, see Jacq-Hergoualc’h
.
53. “Larger Leiden Grant” –,
cited in Guy –, p. .
southEast asia and thE
Early maritimE silk road
1. Majumdar ; Coedès .
2. Smail ; Benda .
3. Wolters ; Pollock ;
Pollock .
4. Glover et al. ; Glover .
5. Bellwood /; Solheim ;
Bulbeck .
6. Glover ; Bellina and Glover
; Boonyarit Chaisuwan ;
Glover and Bellina ; Lam i My
Dzung .
7. For glass, see Dussubieux ;
Dussubieux and Gratuze ;
Dussubieux, Gratuze, and Blet-
Lemarquand . For stone ornaments
and siliceous stones, see eunissen,
Grave, and Bailey ; Bellina ;
Bellina ; Bellina ; eunissen
. For jadeite, see Hung et al. ;
Hung and Bellwood . For metal, see
Bennett and Glover ; Bennett ;
Murillo-Barroso et al. ; Pryce et al.
; Hendrickson, Hua, and Pryce
. For ceramics, see Prior and Glover
; Bouvet .
8. Solheim ; Bellina, Epinal, and
Favereau .
9. Flavel ; Solheim .
10. For the beads, see Bellina ;
Bellina ; Bellina .
11. Bouvet ; Bouvet . Iravatham
Mahadevan and Richard Salomon
(personal communications) tentatively
identified three letters on fig.  as part of
a fragmentary inscription in Tamil-
Brāhmī, which seems to read “tū Ra o”
and is possibly part of the Tamil word
tuŗavōn or tuŗavōr, which means “ascetic”
or “recluse” (Skt., rsi or sannyāsin), but
not of a Buddhist kind (Skt., bhiksu;
Pali, bhikkhu). Alternatively, Emmanuel
Francis (personal communication)
proposes tūŗavam, “common black
plum,” or tūŗavu, “plum recipient.”
e inscription may date to the second
century on a paleographic basis and is
the earliest Tamil inscription found
in Southeast Asia. Parallels have been
located in Egypt near the Red Sea (at
Berenike), where both Tamil-Brāhmī
and standard Brāhmī inscriptions have
been found.
12. Once transposed, the inscription on
fig .  reads brahaspatiśarmasanāvikasa