2. Interdependencias
2.3 Interdependencia normativa e institucional
The Khorat Plateau as defined in this thesis encompasses the regions of northeast Thailand and the lowland areas of Vientiane and Savannakhet provinces of Laos and to this day remains a distinct cultural and geographical region.7 Despite this fact many works on the art and archaeology of the Khorat Plateau view it not as a region in its own right, but instead as either a derivative of the Dvaravati culture based primarily in central Thailand or as an outer province of the Khmer Empire. Brown for instance (1996, 19-45) argues that the Khorat Plateau was an interface between the Khmers and Dvaravati and in doing so unintentionally reduces the region to a passive go-between caught in the middle of two ‘great civilisations’. Diskul on the other hand, looking from the viewpoint of central Thailand and not even visiting the Khorat Plateau wonders how Dvaravati culture could have even reached such a location as Muang Fa Daed (Diskul 1954). Subsequently, interpretations of the art and culture of the Khorat Plateau, and in particular sema, have been explained in terms of Dvaravati influence from central Thailand and Khmer influence from Cambodia (see chapter 3.7). However, if looked at as a region in its own right the Khorat Plateau reveals a number of distinct cultural, religious and artistic expressions, not least of all the tradition of sema stones. The prehistoric archaeological record from the early Bronze Age onwards also supports this
viewpoint and depicts a region that developed its own traditions and characteristics while also showing a certain degree of interregional variation (White 1995). The Khorat Plateau therefore, should be seen as a region that incorporated aspects of Dvaravati and Khmer culture while at the same time developing a distinct identity of its own.
As discussed in section 2.3 above the nature of Dvaravati political organisation is one that cannot be precisely defined, however, it seems clear that the polities of central Thailand did not exert any form of direct control over the Khorat Plateau and it is more plausible that as Buddhism spread into this region it brought with it the Dvaravati art style and aspects of its culture. The archaeological record from the Khorat Plateau also shows that the region adopted many of the material forms common to central Thailand, particularly in terms of pottery styles and construction materials such as finger-marked bricks. The two largest sites in the region, Muang Fa Daed and Muang Sema most likely functioned along similar political and economic lines to settlements such as Nakorn Pathom and Sri Thep. They were both located at key locations in the Chi and Mun river systems respectively and therefore, could have exerted considerable economic and political influence over these key routes of communication and surrounding settlements.
Khmer presence on the Khorat Plateau is however, less pervasive and while they left monumental stone temples which are still very visible in the landscape today, their effect on the material culture was far less pronounced than that of Dvaravati. Pre-Khmer presence comes in the form of the early state of Chenla which most scholars agree was based in the southern part of the region along the Mun River (Higham 2002;
Vallibhotama 1990). It is in this southern region that the Khmers asserted their greatest influence from the 10th century onwards. The earliest Khmer presence comes from Surin province in the form of a 6th century inscription set up near Ta Muen and temples such as Prasat Phumphon dating from the 7th century (Siribhadra & Moore 1992, 25). There is no clear sign of Khmer political control in the 8th to mid-9th centuries and no temples were built in the region during this period. It is not until the late 9th to early 10th century under the reign of Rajendravarman II (944-968 CE), that substantial control was exerted over the northeast and it was from this period onwards that the majority of temples in the Khorat Plateau were built. However, Khmer control still seemed to be primarily restricted to the Mun River region (fig. 2.19) with Phimai, for example becoming part of
the Khmer kingdom sometime in the early 10th century (Woodward 1999, 76). By circa the 12th century, a royal road had been firmly established and ran directly between Phimai and Angkor, thus strengthening the Khmer ties to the region
(www.larp.crma.ac.th). Areas such as the Chi river system and the Middle Mekong on the other hand, still exhibited strong Dvaravati cultural traits in the 10th and to a lesser extent 11th century. As is shown in chapter 4, the sema tradition flourished primarily in the area of the Chi river system from the 8th-10th centuries and seemed quite
independent of Khmer influence. By the 11th centuries and for most of the 12th the entire Khorat Plateau, and all of central Thailand for that matter, came under Khmer political control. Lopburi served as the seat of overall Khmer control with Phimai also
developing into an important regional centre. This period of Khmer domination is also reflecting in the sema tradition as from the 11th-12th centuries, Khmer style art begins to be depicted on these objects (see chapter 5).
Figure 2.19: Map showing the location of Khmer temples in the Khorat Plateau with most being located along the border with modern day Cambodia or the Mun river system.
Khmer art differs from that of Dvaravati in a variety of ways. Sculptures in the round
are shown in a dhoti. Vishnu is usually depicted with a cylindrical mitre while Buddha images seated under nagas or on lintels are usually shown with a conical crown. An incised moustache is another detail that while common in Khmer art, never appears in Dvaravati. Lintel carving is another area in which the Khmers excelled and this art form seems to have directly influenced the 11th century sema carvings of Bahn Nong Kluem and Bahn Pailom (see chapter 5). Dvaravati art did however, have some influence on the Khmer. Standing Buddha images from the 8th-9th centuries onwards show the
characteristic Dvaravati u-shaped robe, thick hair-curls and vitarka mudra. Seated Buddhas under the naga also seem to have spread to the Khmer Empire from central Thailand, via the Khorat Plateau.
Despite the competing influences of the Khmer and Dvaravati, it is shown throughout this thesis, that the Khorat Plateau developed its own aesthetic and religious culture that blended the traits of its eastern and western neighbours with its own. This is best
illustrated in a number of objects and stylistic modes discussed below.
The drápe-en-poche is a stylistic variation in the robe that was first commented on by Diskul (1954) and Wales (1969). Both saw this as a borrowing from the Khmer,
however, it is better to understand it as a trait specific to the Khorat Plateau as the form depicted in this region does not appear in Khmer art of any period. Essentially this term describes how the robe is tucked in at the waist and appears under the belt in two separate folds, forming a kind of pocket above. Another characteristic of depictions of the drápe-en-poche is that the robe flares out to the right in a triangular-shaped design (fig. 2.20). This type of robe configuration, where the folds create a pocket is never encountered in Dvaravati art of central Thailand and while it appears in Khmer art it is never accompanied by the flared robe (fig. 2.21). This form of drápe-en-poche should therefore be considered unique to the Khorat Plateau.
Another characteristic of the Khorat Plateau aesthetic is the depiction of bodhisattva with thick matted hair. This is seen on a number of depictions on sema and also from sculptures of the Prakorn Chai hoard. It is somewhat similar, but less rigidly stylised than the chignon of Shiva in Khmer art known as a jata and bodhisattvas shown with matted hair is a common motif throughout South and Southeast Asia. However, the
style of the depiction of this hairstyle in the Khorat Plateau is distinctive enough to warrant its classification as a particular stylistic trait.
Figure 2.20: Drápe-en-poche and flared robe depicted on a sema from the Khorat Plateau.
Figure 2.21: Standard depiction of a Khmer sampot.
The unearthing of the Prakorn Chai hoard in Buriram province in 1964, a group of well over 200 bronze sculptures that were quickly looted and subsequently entered the international art market, marks a significant discovery for the understanding of the art being produced on the Khorat Plateau. The find-spot was located at Plai Bat Hill, the site of two 10th century Khmer temples, Prasat Plai Bat 1 and 2 (Woodward 2005, 105).
What is interesting about these bronzes, is that they represent a fusion of Dvaravati and Khmer art. The Maitreya image from the Rockefeller collection for instance (Woodward 2005, PL. 26) has the matted hair similar to that found on some bodhisattvas on sema, the classic Khmer moustache and a sampot in the style of the Vishnu stone sculpture found at Sri Thep. The sculptures were made with a relatively high tin composition of 14-20 percent representing a high level of craftsmanship (Woodward 1997, 66-7) and some of the images probably reached over 2 metres in height as evidenced by a head of a bodhisattva in the National Museum, Bangkok. The dates of these sculptures have been hard to ascertain however, a range of between 8th-12th centuries seems possible (Chutiwongs & Patry Leidy 1994).
Interestingly, three further bronze images from Bahn Fai, a Dvaravati period site also in Buriram province are on display at the National Museum, Bangkok. One is an image of the Buddha in double vitarka mudra while the other two are depictions of the
Bodhisattva Maitreya. Stylistically, they are extremely similar to those belonging to the Prakorn Chai hoard and must therefore belong to the same tradition.
The final group of sculpture that make up part of the Khorat Plateau aesthetic are Buddha images in parinirvana posture. During the Dvaravati period these images seem particularly popular in this region and are usually found carved into hill and
mountainsides such as those at Wat Doi Thepharat temple in Sakon Nakon province (fig.
2.22) and Wat Phu Kao Poottimid temple, Bahn Soksai in Kalasin province. Also at Muang Sema an 11m Buddha in parinirvana has been sculpted in the round while at Phnom Kulen another image of this type has been carved into the rock and is most likely contemporary with the sema found approximately 5 kilometres away. In central Thailand, the Buddha in parinirvana is not usually encountered in this period and it therefore seems that the depiction of the moment of Gotama’s passing is particular to the Khorat Plateau at this time.
Finally in terms of the art on sema themselves, the Khorat Plateau aesthetic, unlike later periods of art in Thailand, did not suffer from a chronic case of horror vacui. Instead it seems quite at ease in depicting images of the Buddha, narrative art or stupa-kumbha motifs against a plain background and felt no need to embellish the stones. This then, is another key characteristic of the art of this region.
The Khorat Plateau is a region that developed its own culture, traditions, art style and religious practices vis-à-vis its two powerful neighbours. A Khorat Plateau aesthetic can be seen in motifs such as the drápe-en-poche, iconography such as the Buddha in
parinirvana, and the exceptional quality of the Prakorn Chai bronzes. Sema in particular, represent a key aspect of this region’s material, religious and artistic culture and should be analysed from this perspective. That said, the influence of Dvaravati art and culture on these objects needs to be acknowledged and the analysis of connections between the Khorat Plateau, central Thailand and to a lesser extent, southern Thailand, can prove extremely fruitful. An understanding of how Khmer culture, art and political control came to affect the region is also a necessity. What is being argued here, therefore, is a shifting of perspective away from the idea that the Khorat Plateau was a peripheral zone, to seeing it as a region in its own right. It is not an argument against seeing Dvaravati and Khmer influence within the region. This in turn allows sema to be viewed, discussed and interpreted within their geographical and cultural context.
Figure 2.22: Buddha in paranirvana from Wat Doi Thepharat temple.
2.7 Summary
This chapter has discussed the definitions and evidence for Dvaravati in order to provide the cultural, artistic, political and archaeological backdrop within which the analysis of sema takes place. The chapter has shown that politically, Dvaravati was restricted to central Thailand, and this is an important factor when considering the influences at play in the evolution of the sema tradition. The absence of the centralised Dvaravati kingdom meant that while Dvaravati culture and art spread into the Khorat Plateau via trade, economic activity and establishment of Buddhism, it was free to be appropriated and shaped in any way the local populace saw fit. Consequently the influences that helped to shape and define the sema tradition were not imposed from a central power but selected and adapted from within the Khorat Plateau environment.
It also becomes apparent that the Dvaravati political structure was one based around a mandala system. Certain power centres such as U-Thong, Sri Thep and Nakorn Pathom would have directly controlled the surrounding areas of their cities and indirectly exerted power further afield by means of vassal/tributary arrangements. These arrangements and power relations could change over time, resulting in a shifting and fluid political landscape. In the Khorat Plateau similar political structures seem also to have been in place. Large sites such as Muang Fa Daed and Muang Sema must also have had considerable political reach and influence. As will be shown in the following chapters, these centres also have considerable artistic influence particularly in regard to the sema tradition.
This chapter has also reviewed the salient features of the Dvaravati art style as this forms the basis for understanding the artwork on sema. The means by which this art style was arrived at, its main characteristics and traits have been discussed so that they can be compared to those found on sema. The chronology of the Dvaravati art style has also been outlined to aid in the understanding and analysis of dating sema.
As sema have by and large been viewed as part of a larger Dvaravati culture, a clear picture of what this is has been presented so it can subsequently be contrasted against the sema tradition. A distinctive material culture, the presence of Buddhism, the
Dvaravati art style and oblong site plans all make up parts of this phenomenon. The idea of a Dvaravati period accepted as spanning the 6th-11th centuries, a prevalent and
particularly entrenched concept in Thai scholarship, has been defined in this chapter to provide the chronological framework within which sema are placed.
In conclusion, it is argued that a shift in perspective is required for the study of sema.
These objects and the religious tradition they represent are a unique expression of the Khorat Plateau and occur in this region before any other. The tradition drew on the Dvaravati art and culture from central Thailand and the Khmer civilisation to the east.
In doing so it developed its own distinctive art style best described as a Khorat Plateau aesthetic which possesses a number of traits such as the drápe-en-poche and the matted hair styles of bodhisattva that are unique to the region. As is shown in chapter 5, these traits are characteristic features of the artwork in sema.
In order to fully understand the development, significance and aesthetic of sema we must do so from within the context in which they arose and this viewpoint is developed further in the next four chapters. In short, the Khorat Plateau is only a periphery if we chose to stand outside of it.