Suelos

The 1970s and 1980s saw the development of more systematic and thorough research into sema with the three leading scholars Srisakra Vallibhotama, Piriya Krairiksh and No Na Paknam all being Thai. Before these works were published, however, an article documenting sema on Phnom Kulen in Cambodia appeared in Arts Asiatiques which aroused considerable interest and debate which continues to this day.

In 1973, Boulbet and Dagens published ‘Les sites archeologiques de la region du Bhnam Gulen’ discussing the results of their survey of the monuments and remains located on Phnom Kulen north of Angkor. At two of the sites surveyed, Bam Gre and Tun Mas, in situ sema were discovered (1973, 43-47). In both instances, the sema were set up in pairs of eight, four pairs at the cardinal points and four pairs in between, forming a rectangle surrounding a low mound in the centre. The majority of the sema were decorated with either stupa-kumbha or dharmacakra motifs (see chapter 5.9-5.10).

In their conclusion (1973, 51-52) the authors noted that the sema from Phnom Kulen are very similar to those found at Muang Fa Daed and remark that this poses an interesting question as to how this Buddhist religious practice existed in Cambodia some 300 kilometres away (1973, 51). The sema from Phnom Kulen represent a fascinating, if somewhat problematic question which is dealt with in some detail in chapter 5 of this thesis.

The most comprehensive art historic study of sema to date was published in 1974 by Piriya Krairiksh (Krairiksh, 1974a). Entitled ‘Semas with scenes from the Mahanipata-Jatakas in the national museum at Khon Kaen’ the article sets out to identify the narrative scenes on the sema located at Khon Kaen national museum. However, before doing so Krairiksh classifies the semas into two types, the slab type and the pillar type and their variations such as the tapered pillar and octagonal pillar type (1974a, 38-40).

This classification is adopted by most, if not all, of the later literature on sema and forms the starting point for the typology proposed in this thesis (see chapter 6).

Krairiksh proceeds to identify scenes on sema from the Mahanipata-Jatakas, (Ten Great Previous Lives of the Buddha). He identifies twelve separate scenes in total

including two instances of the Maha-ummagga/Mahosadha Jataka, one instance of the Khandahala Jataka, two instances of the Vidhurapandita Jataka and one instance of the Vessantara Jataka.

While Krairiksh’s work is extremely valuable in terms of its identification of scenes on sema, like Diskul before him, his work only focuses on sema with narrative episodes.

In doing so he unintentionally misrepresents the extent of the artwork carved on sema.

The vast majority of sema at Khon Kaen museum are in fact pillar or slab type and have little or no narrative art on them. Furthermore, the sema located at Khon Kaen museum come primarily from only two sites, Muang Fa Daed and Bahn Nong Hang. Therefore, like Diskul and Seidenfaden before him, Krairiksh looks at only a comparatively small sample of sema from a very limited geographical area.

Krairiksh dates the sema on stylistic grounds, arguing that the mane-like hair worn in ringlets commonly found on the depiction of demonic characters is datable to the 9^th century, while the conical headdress which is also found in central Thailand dates to the 11^th century (1974, 57-58). He then goes on to discuss the possible connections between the sema of northeast Thailand and those found at Thaton in Lower Burma (1974a, 59-63). Both the issue of dating sema by style and possible connections with Lower Burma are dealt with in chapter 5 of this thesis.

In terms of the style of the art on the sema, Krairiksh agrees with Diskul’s analysis that there is strong influence from the Dvaravati art of central Thailand. He concludes that there is a definite connection between those who set up the sema and the Mon Dvaravati of central Thailand stating, ‘Hence, there is little doubt that the semas were created by the people who were artistically and linguistically related to the Mons in central Dvaravati’ (1974a, 37). However, Krairiksh does not discuss this in any depth

whatsoever, taking for granted it seems, the conclusions already reached by Seidenfaden and Diskul. In fact, Krairiksh’s main evidence for this link between the northeast and central Thailand is in the stylistic similarities he sees between the narrative art on sema and terracotta plaques found at the Chula Pathom Chedi in Nakorn Pathom.

Krairiksh’s classification of the sema and the episodes depicted on them is a significant piece of scholarship representing the first systematic treatment of these objects. His initial organisation of sema into types and his identification of a number of jatakas has greatly added to our understanding of the development of sema and also the nature of the Buddhism being practiced in the region. However, like Diskul before him, he is much more interested in establishing a connection with the Dvaravati art of central Thailand than seeing sema as a uniquely northeastern phenomenon. Furthermore, while his comparison with the sema from Thaton highlights some interesting similarities, his hypothesis, building on a suggestion by Wales (1947) that the Mons of northeast Thailand fled to Thaton under increasing pressure from the encroaching Khmer, lacks any substantiating evidence (see chapter 5.7).

The following year another significant piece of scholarship was published. ‘Sema Isan’

by Srisakra Vallibhotama (1975) was written in Thai language and published in the first edition of Thailand’s leading archaeological journal, Muang Boran. This article is a comprehensive survey of the locations and extent of sema throughout the northeast of Thailand. It divides sema into three areas, the Mun River system, the Chi River system and the Udon Thani-Sakon Nakon Basin. The article gives details of where the semas are located, the motifs found on them and the style of the artwork. In terms of

archaeological scholarship, it was the first work to study sema in a systematic manner and show the extent of their distribution throughout the northeast. However, after compiling a list of over thirty sites, Vallibhotama does not analyse or interpret the distribution to any great extent. Despite this, his work is an invaluable source of information on the location and extent of sema throughout the region. Being written in Thai however, this work is inaccessible and to a certain extent unknown by many

Western scholars working on this period in Southeast Asia’s history. This article formed the initial basis and database of sites surveyed in this thesis. Furthermore,

Vallibhotama’s division of sema into three geographical groups is largely confirmed by the survey work in this thesis. Modifications needed to be made to the Udon Thani-Sakon Nakon Basin group due to the discovery of sema in Laos, however, the Mun and Chi river systems form similar grouping to Vallibhotama’s with the major difference being the quantity of sites recorded.

Further archaeological analysis and attempts to understand the distribution of sema appeared in 1980 in a paper by Bernard Groslier entitled ‘Prospection des sites Khmers du Siam’. Groslier attempted to show the extent of Khmer presence in northeast

Thailand through the identification of archaeological remains, arguing that circular sites found throughout the region represent indigenous settlements (1980, 33-60). The Khmer practice of building the temples in the middle of these sites, he took as representing a statement of dominance over the local populace. Circular sites that possessed sema on the other hand, he considered as a separate civilisation, referring to it as the ‘civilisation des steles’ (stele civilisation). He argues that this culture was independent of both Khmer and Dvaravati and sees it as being centred around Kalasin, Sakon Nakhon and Muang Fa Daed in particular.

Postulating a separate independent culture purely on the practice of setting up sema and circular town plans is a somewhat problematic claim. The artwork on the sema clearly shows cultural affinities with the Dvaravati of central Thailand and the archaeological record shows that circular sites in the northeast shared a considerable degree of similarity in their material culture.

The real value of Groslier’s work, however, is that he was the first scholar to look at sema as a purely Khorat Plateau phenomenon. In doing so, he turned the attention away from seeing them as a mere derivative of central Dvaravati art and culture and put the focus squarely on the Khorat Plateau as a region and culture in its own right. By looking at sema in the wider context of settlement patterns throughout the region he attempted for the first time to contextualise the sema by correlating them to specific sites.

However, as Brown (1996, 22) points out and this thesis also confirms (chapter 4.6), one of the major weaknesses of Groslier’s work is that sema are found over a much wider geographical area than his proposed ‘civilisation des steles’.

In 1981, Thai art historian No Na Paknam published a book entitled ‘The Buddhist Boundary Markers of Thailand’ in both Thai and English. This book deals with sema from every period in Thai History starting with Dvaravati right through to the

Rattanakosin period of the 19^th and 20^th centuries. The book is somewhat light in terms of analysis and discussion, however, it does represent an excellent source of

photographic evidence for sema. In fact, the book is more a compendium of

photographs of sema from the different periods than an in-depth analysis of them.

Concerning the question of whether sema developed out of a pre-existing megalithic culture, Paknam (1981, 60-62) agrees with Wales and Vallibhotama that they evolved out of an indigenous forerunner. Apart from surveys by the Fine Arts Department in 1981 and 1982, he is the only scholar to actually give proposed locations for megaliths in the northeast, stating that in Maha Sarakham province, stone alignments are regularly found in rice fields, spaced about one hundred metres apart with some alignments continuing for over a kilometre (1981, 60). He identifies further evidence in

Chaiyapoom where he argues that menhirs were set up in a stone circle. His view on this matter is best summed up by his statement ‘…the menhir was brought to the

monastery’ (1981, 61). Fieldwork carried out for this thesis however, calls into question Paknam’s claims and at a number of the sites that he mentions no megaliths were found when visited in 2008 (see chapter 6.3).

In 1985 Srisakra Vallibhotama published a further article, again in Thai entitled ‘Sema Stone Boundary Markers from the Northeast: Survey and the Study on the Continuation of Megalithic Culture in the Region’.⁷ In this article he argues that a megalithic culture existed in the transitional period from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age, but in certain areas of the northeast this tradition lasted longer and was still active at the start of the historic period (1985, 32). He goes on to state that the practice of planting standing stones in connection with burial sites had a long tradition in the areas of the Mun and Chi river systems, and that the space for ritual activity was a mound surrounded by megaliths. As Buddhism moved into the area the practice adapted to the new religion (1985, 32-33). Vallibhotama builds his argument by showing that at various sites throughout the northeast, sema are found in association with moated sites. These moated sites, such as Muang Fa Daed and Bahn Taht Tong in Yasothon, in turn have clear evidence of inhumation burials. Vallibhotama argues therefore, that the presence of sema at these sites harkens back to their pre-Buddhist function as megaliths. While       

7 Both this and Vallibhotama’s 1975 article ‘Sema Isan’ were republished in a collection of essays in 1990 under the somewhat sensational title ‘A Northeastern Site of Civilization: new archaeological evidence to change the face of Thai History’.

Vallibhotama succeeds in highlighting the connection between sema and moated sites his work does not show a clear connection between the practice of setting up sema and inhumation burials and his argument is more conjectural than anything else. He

provides no empirical evidence to show the existence of megaliths in the prehistoric period and his evidence for megaliths at Dvaravati period sites is circumstantial. In actuality what he is basically stating is that, megaliths are associated with burials, at a later date sema are also found at sites with burials, therefore sema must have evolved from megaliths. The one clear fact that refutes this argument is that Vallibhotama cannot provide one single example of a megalith from anywhere in the northeast of Thailand. This lack of any substantiating evidence for megaliths is discussed in chapter 6.3.