Early Cham Art : Indigenous Styles and Regional Connections

LOST KINGDOMS Hindu-BuddHist sculpture of early soutHeast asia John Guy With essays by Pierre Baptiste, Lawrence Becker, Bérénice Bellina, Robert L. Brown, Federico Carò, Pattaratorn Chirapravati, Janet G. Douglas, Arlo Griiths, Agustijanto Indradjaya, Le hi Lien, Pierre-Yves Manguin, Stephen A. Murphy, Ariel O’Connor, Peter Skilling, Janice Stargardt, Donna Strahan, U hein Lwin, Geof Wade, U Win Kyaing, Hiram Woodward, and hierry Zéphir the Metropolitan Museum of art, new york distributed by yale university press, new Haven and london early cham art: indigenous styles and regional connections pierre Baptiste Fig. 58. Vo Canh inscription stele. Central Vietnam, ca. 3rd–4th century. Found in Vo Canh, Khanh Hoa province. Granite, 983⁄8 x 283⁄8 x 263⁄8 in. (250 x 72 x 67 cm). National Museum of Vietnamese History, Hanoi Since the second half of the nineteenth century, when they irst became interested in the ancient civilizations of Southeast Asia, Western historians and art historians have endeavored to understand the complex phenomena that led the region to adopt some fundamental elements of Indian culture during the early centuries A.D. he sacred languages of Sanskrit and Pali, the variey of scripts with which to write them, and the ancient religions of Brahmanism and Buddhism all contributed to the prestige and power of the local elites who had embraced those imports. hese phenomena, once known by the generic term “Indianization,” let behind material vestiges that still provide ample food for thought: a monumental architecture consisting of the ruins of brick and stone temples, usually abandoned for centuries; divine images, however fragmentary, from these sanctuaries; and inscriptions on some of the doorjambs of the monuments or on their foundation steles. Translations of the inscriptions soon allowed scholars to reconstruct the ancient history of the region. hat history still has many gaps, despite additional information from contemporary Chinese sources. Somewhat paradoxically, the oldest epigraphic evidence that attests to the force of Indianization from the third to fourth century A.D. on was found not near India, as might be expected, or on the Malay Peninsula, long a region of commercial and cultural exchange with India, but rather in coastal Vietnam, at Vo Canh, Khanh Hoa province, at the easterly limit of the Indianized world, a region well within China’s sphere of inluence (ig. 58). Written on an impressive granite monolithic stele, erected on a base of broad bricks, the Vo Canh inscription has been the subject of many scientiic studies, some very recent. he script, assigned to about the fourth century, is related to that of some second-century Sanskrit inscriptions found along the west coast of India and in Andhra Pradesh on the east coast. Nonetheless, no direct Indian model corresponds to it, as the script had already evolved from its Indian predecessors, and epigraphists have argued diferent origins for it.1 In the late nineteenth century, the Indologist Abel Bergaigne demonstrated the evolved state of the Vo Canh inscription script, and Jean Filliozat conirmed it in 1969.2 he inscription records, in the sacred language of Sanskrit, the royal deeds of a local sovereign, who bore a Sanskrit name. Whether it is to be understood in a Buddhist or, more likely, a Brahmanical context is unclear: was that local potentate a Cham, as has been long believed, or did he come from a small kingdom ailiated with Funan? His origins are not apparent from the inscription. Along the central and southern coasts of present-day Vietnam, from the early centuries A.D. at the latest, Cham populations increasingly occupied much of the narrow, cultivable plains that extend the length of the Annamite Mountains along the South China Sea. hese peoples were hardly uniied and appear to have shared part of the territory with other populations, especially the Mon-Khmer, who had settled there at an earlier time.3 Despite the many uncertainties surrounding the nature of the Cham polities, their inhabitants, and their links to the prehistoric cultures that preceded them, especially to the indigenous Sa Huynh culture, it is now generally 69 Fig. 59. Deiy seated on a multiheaded nāga (snake). Central Vietnam, 6th century. Found in temple G1, My Son, Quang Nam province. Marble or alabaster (?), h. 331⁄2 in. (85 cm). Present location unknown agreed that the Chams, originating in Austronesia, established themselves on this patchwork of coastal plains separated by mountainous capes.4 hey settled all along the coast at sites well irrigated by the largest rivers, which allowed greater communication with the lands of the interior, such as hu Bon, Quang Nam province, and Cai, Khanh Hoa province, and with Champa’s two major Śaiva sanctuaries, My Son, Quang Nam, and Po Nagar, Khanh Hoa. he predominant characteristics of the Champa territories were more or less difuse settlements in a region rich with preexisting traditions. hese were fragmented communities living in a diverse sea-andriver environment and oten in contentious relations with the bordering states—notably, the Khmer and, later, the Vietnamese. Unlike those of their rivals, the Cham territories never achieved real uniication as a single centralized state. When the term “country of Champa” appears in Cham and Khmer inscriptions of the seventh century, it was no doubt meant to denote a particular Cham poliy but not to imply that it embraced all Chams. here is no evidence of a confederation of Cham kingdoms, although each poliy was likely based on a system of extended clan allegiances and oaths of loyaly, rather than integrated into a truly centralized political state.5 Given this context, it is hardly surprising that the earliest known Champa works of art, in the ields of religious architecture and sculpture, demonstrate diverse inluences, whether Indian, Khmer, or Chinese, and relect Cham participation in the longdistance maritime trade linking China and India. hese objects, in terracotta, stone, and bronze, reveal the existence of Brahmanical and Buddhist cults in Champa, dating to the sixth or seventh 70 emerging identities century. here are only two or three known sculptures that may date to the ith century, but it is not certain whether those isolated fragments of male and female busts were cult icons or decorative architectural elements ( gavāksa or candraśālā). Many ancient Indian examples survive in the superstructures of religious monuments,6 and these architectural forms circulated during the sixth and seventh centuries to many parts of Southeast Asia, including Oc Eo, southern Vietnam, and Sambor Prei Kuk, central Cambodia.7 Not all Cham exemplars stem from this period, judging by the ornamentation of certain deities on the sculptures of the citadel site of An My, Quang Nam province, now in the Museum of Cham Sculpture, Da Nang, which hierry Zéphir has linked to ornaments dating back to the late Kusāna period (2nd–3rd century) at the earliest or, more likely, to the early Gupta era (4th–5th century).8 hese early Cham sculptures show an already-assimilated Indian inluence, and their sylistic forebears are diverse, extending from Maharashtra in western India, as seen on reliefs adorning the entryway to the great third-century caiya (stupa) of Kanheri, to Amaravati in southern India. Is it possible to associate the earliest Cham images with the inscriptions of Bhadravarman I, found in several locations in the present-day provinces of Quang Nam and Phu Yen? Although such a connection is largely hypothetical, Sanskrit inscriptions already conirm the importance of My Son and the Śaiva character of the royal foundations recorded there. he inscriptions were executed on the king’s behalf at “Bhadreśvarasvāmin” (My Son), likely honoring Śiva in the form of a linga.9 Interestingly, epigraphists also link the syle of these inscriptions to those of the Vākātaka dynasy, which ruled Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra from the third to ith century, and to the Pallava sovereigns, who reigned from Kanchipuram (Tamil Nadu) over southwestern India from the late third to the ninth century, reaching their apogee between the ith and seventh centuries. Certain Cham works from the sixth to seventh century precisely display a number of sylistic and iconographic ainities with both Vākātaka and Pallava art. Once again, these are isolated examples that may have been part of the decoration of long-vanished brick monuments. Of them, the two busts and the head fragment from Phu Ninh, Quang Nam province, held at the National Museum of Vietnamese History, Hanoi, are among the most significant. A famous bas-relief, to all appearances a depiction of a tree genie (yaksa), was brought to light by Jean-Yves Claeys in 1928 during his excavations at Tra Kieu, Quang Nam province (cat. 15). It, too, was probably part of the decoration of a brick monument. he robustly carved male igure, seated amid loral vegetation, preserves in a very original rendering its post-Gupta heritage, particularly through the large, sylized curls of hair. But is this object a true cult image? Not at all. Rather, its presence was probably intended to invoke and appease nature spirits. Cult images certainly did exist early in Champa and, as made clear in a mid-ith-century Chinese source, included large-scale images in precious metals. According to passages from the Song shu (Account of the Song Dynasy), which complement earlier writings, notably the Nan Qi shu (Account of the Southern Qi Dynasy) and the Liang shu (Account of the Liang Dynasy), “ater the temples were sacked” during the Chinese expedition of 446 against the Chams, “the statues were melted down and turned into ingots, which yielded a hundred thousand pounds of pure gold.”10 A very enigmatic sculpture, discovered by Henri Parmentier during the excavation of the group G sites in My Son but now lost, may have been one of the oldest cult images found in Champa (ig. 59). Its identiy is uncertain, however. Some have seen it as a representation of Visnu on a nāga (snake). More recently and convincingly, John Guy has related it to the cult of yaksas, secondary deities associated with the forces of nature in the Indian world.11 he iconography of that cult was probably more easily adopted in the early days of Indianization in kingdoms such as Champa, where animist beliefs had long been established.12 In any case, Jean Boisselier linked that sculpture to the lapidary traditions of Amaravati art through its manner of depicting the heads of the polycephalous nāga.13 he treatment of the ascetic’s chignon gathered at the top of the skull refers to Indian traditions that are also perceptible in Mon Dvāravatī art of the same period and in the oldest Zhenla art, such as the Śiva of Kampong Cham Kau, Stung Treng province, northern Cambodia (cat. 96).14 Contrary to Boisselier’s hypothesis, however, the small oriices on either side of the chignon were no doubt used to fasten a detachable ornament—a diadem or a crown, perhaps—following the Indian practice of deploying temple jewelry to adorn icons. Artistic vestiges, dating from the seventh century on, found in central and southern Vietnam allow for more explicit consideration of the Cham art of that period, which corresponds to the reigns of Prakāśadharma/Vikrāntavarman I (653–ca. 685) and Vikrāntavarman II (ca. 685–ca. 731). hese rulers are known through various inscriptions found in My Son and the surrounding area as well as in regions extending as far south as the sanctuary of Po Nagar.15 he marriage of Vikrāntavarman I to a daughter of the Khmer king Īśānavarman I (reigned ca. 616–ca. 635), founder of the large ciy Īśānapura (Sambor Prei Kuk), no doubt strengthened the connections between Cham and Khmer art during the same period. he syle that characterizes the era takes its name from the Śaiva temple E1 at My Son, at irst probably an open-air sanctuary or one protected merely by a lightweight structure. he pedestal of the temple was reworked at a much later date and is now fragmentary. he musicians, dancers, and ascetics shown gathered in the forest or performing pūjā to the śivaliñga in scenes carved on the four faces of the pedestal and on the stairs are among the inest ancient Cham sculptures (ig. 60). Although the foliage and loral motifs of the frieze, along with the pediments and certain details of the costumes and ornamentation, owe a great deal to Khmer art in the Sambor Prei Kuk syle, the vivaciy of the igures and their contrasting attitudes cohere into a singular aesthetic. But the Chams were also attuned to the Pallava traditions of seventh-century Mamallapuram (Tamil Nadu), a connection evident in the long, linear proportions of the anthropomorphic igures and their varied, dynamic poses, displayed with an unafected elegance. Of all the cult images surviving from this period, which saw the development of the Śaiva site of My Son, the standing Ganeśa may be the most extraordinary (cat. 100). It stands as witness to the importance of the cult as conirmed by the oldest known inscriptions. When discovered and photographed in 1903, the Ganeśa had its four arms intact, displaying an ax (paraśu), prayer beads (aksamālā), a bowl of sweets (modaka), and a branch of horseradish (mūlakakanda), conforming to prescribed Indian iconography (see igs. 61, 114). he god wears a costume and ornaments close to those that adorn the Śaiva ascetics carved on the altar platform of temple E1, My Son (ig. 60).16 he Ganeśa image, whose pedestal is Fig. 60. Altar platform. Central Vietnam, 7th century. Found in temple E1, My Son, Quang Nam province. Sandstone, w. 1071⁄2 in. (273 cm). Museum of Cham Sculpture, Da Nang, Vietnam (22.4) early cham art: indigenous styles and regional connections 71 Fig. 62. Head of Śiva. Central Vietnam, 8th century. Found in temple A4, My Son, Quang Nam province. Sandstone. Present location unknown. Photographed in 1903 Fig. 61. Ganeśa (cat. 100) as found in temple E5, My Son, Quang Nam province, central Vietnam, in 1903 decorated with moldings and includes a basin for ablutions, was discovered in the ruins of temple E5, built on the site at a later date, probably in the tenth century.17 Representations of Śiva in which the god, anthropomorphized, appears as a hieratic ascetic, dressed in a simple waistcloth, belong to the eighth century. Despite an economy of means in the treatment of the body and costume, these images are characterized by intense facial expressions, through which the sculptors concentrated their sensibilities. he inest example, of which only the body remains, was discovered in the remains of temple A4 at My Son; the missing head is known from a 1903 photograph (ig. 62). he smiling expression, oblong eyes, joined eyebrows, large nose, thick mustache, and high cheekbones all characterize this high point in Cham statuary. his apex is also relected in a small group of other works, including the large stone Śiva from temple C1, My Son, and some of the linga covers (called kosas in Cham inscriptions, from the Sanskrit for “case” or “treasure”) made of precious metal (cat. 89, ig. 111).18 Examples are in the collection of the Musée Guimet, Paris, and he Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.19 he use of these covers was more highly developed in Champa than anywhere else in Southeast Asia. he practice derived from the use of 72 emerging identities early protoypes in India, where no covers are extant before the medieval period, except in Nepal. In Champa, these linga covers, which oten display up to four or ive Śiva heads, would have been placed over a stone linga in a temple that had been founded by a predecessor, to mark a continuiy in dynastic rituals. From the same period, several fragmentary ympanums have also been found in My Son, carved in a syle that recalls the longilineal proportions of Pallava art and, to a lesser degree, the narrative verve of art from central Java. hey display various aspects of Brahmanical iconography evoking the supremacy of Śiva, whether depicted dancing, as seen in temples C1 (ig. 63) and A1, or overcoming the demon Rāvana, as at temple F1. he discovery of the foundation stele for the sanctuary of Hoa Lai, Ninh huan province, in 2006 and its translation in 2011 allow us to further clariy the evolution of Cham art throughout the eighth century and in the early ninth century, as put forward by Philippe Stern and Boisselier.20 Built by Śrī Sayavarman on behalf of Śiva Śrī Vrddheśvara in 700 on the Śaka calendar (778), the monument clearly appears to have been associated with Pānduranga, a Cham kingdom of which only a very late mention has been known until now. With regard to the second half of the eighth century, Arlo Griiths’s most recent work has shed new light on the role of one Cham sovereign, Sayavarman, who had been known primarily through several later texts on a stele at Po Nagar. hese recent studies have allowed us to better understand the connections between Cham art—as well as contemporaneous Khmer art in the Phnom Kulen syle—and the art of central Java. Michel Jacq-Hergoualc’h Fig. 63. Tympanum depicting Śiva dancing. Central Vietnam, 8th century. Found in temple C1, My Son, Quang Nam province. Sandstone, 561⁄4 x 67 x 9 in. (143 x 170 x 23 cm). My Son site museum, Vietnam (Registry of My Son Relics, ms. 293) and others have already noted the kinship between Cham art and that of the Malay Peninsula,21 and Stern and Gilberte de CoralRémusat have considered the Javanese sylistic inluence. hrough epigraphic evidence and examinations of cultural and political maritime exchanges during the eighth century, Griiths has restored Java to its proper place as a key inluence on Cham art in this period. As a result, one can better grasp the sylistic treatment accorded to the ornamentation of the monuments, whose bas-reliefs teem with details borrowed from Javanese decoration (see ig. 64). his same inluence appears in many Buddhist bronzes dating to the eighth to ninth century that have been uncovered throughout the Champa territories (cats. 169, 170).22 hese metal works anticipate the extraordinary development that the Chams would devote to other Mahāyāna Buddhist sanctuaries in the late ninth and early tenth centuries, most notably at Dong Duong in Quang Nam province (see cats. 155, 156).23 Fig. 64. Doorkeeper (dvārapāla). Central Vietnam, ca. 778. In situ in south false door to central tower of Hoa Lai temple, Ninh huan province early cham art: indigenous styles and regional connections 73 6. Salomon 2009 dates them to the irst 27. For banaspatis, see Pattaratorn installed in the Shwesandaw stupa at 42. Gordon Luce idiosyncratically to third century a.d. Some of the latest Chirapravati, “he Transformation of Pyay by 1110; Epigraphia Birmanica coined the name “triads” for such group discoveries have radiocarbon-14 dates Brahmanical and Buddhist Imagery in 1919–36, vol. 1, pt. 2 (1920), pp. 3, 6; sculptures and emphasized what he saw of the irst century B.C. and even earlier. Central hailand,” p. 223, in this volume. Epigraphia Birmanica 1919–36, vol. 3, as their links with “megalithic” art, 7. See Konow 1929, pp. 152–55, pt. 1 (1923), pp. 10, 42. which may be confusing, as no inscription lxxx. 15. A research project on ancient iron megalithic culture in the normal 8. For the example cited here and thE Pyu civilization of and ironworking in and around Śrī archaeological sense has so far been further references, see Melzer myanmar and thE city Ksetra is now being conducted by U Win found in Myanmar; ibid., vol. 1, and Sander 2006, pp. 254–56. of Śrī ks·Etra Kyaing and Dr. han Htike, Field School pp. 52–53, and vol. 2, pls. 10–15, where of Archaeology, June 2013; Hudson tweny-two “Buddhist megaliths” epithets of the Buddha. he stanza is 1. Variant ethnic names are discussed 2013, p. 6, ig. 20. are depicted. oten referred to as the Ye dharmā (Skt.) in Luce 1937; most recently, M. Aung- 16. Personal communication from 43. See Brown 2001 for an excellent or Ye dhammā (Pali) verse or, hwin and M. Aung-hwin 2012, archaeometallurgist Dr. Ni Ni Khet, discussion of the originaliy of these inaccurately, as the “Buddhist creed.” pp. 63–65, has argued against the use June 2013. groupings in Pyu Buddhist art; also note 10. heravamsa is a general name for of the name, but it is used here as the 17. Calibrated date, hence the spread the resemblance between the banded the cluster of schools that is today best-known term. of 150 years; cited in Hudson 2013, stupa forms lanking the Buddha in represented by the heravāda in South 2. Stargardt 1998. p. 6, ig. 20. ig. 57 and the small silver stupas and Southeast Asia and, increasingly, 3. his essay discusses only Halin, 18. For a diferent view, see ibid., ig. 21. discussed and illustrated in this around the world. See Skilling et al. 2012. Beikthano, and Śrī Ksetra because Hudson considers the east wall to be publication (cat. 35A, B). 11. here is some overlap with Arakan, research data on them is readily part of the oldest fortiications at Śrī which merges into the Sanskrit zone of accessible. Pyu settlements were, Ksetra, but this is unlikely, as it would India itself. however, more numerous and extended have interfered with the full functioning Early cham art: 12. For Dvāravatī, see Skilling 2003. over a wide area of Myanmar. Currently, of the irrigation system, and it would indigEnous stylEs and 13. he fragmentary texts are on the investigations are being made on a surely have been rebuilt during the rEgional connEctions spokes of a stone dharmacakra and an number of sites—Maingmaw, Binnaka, zenith of the ciy to the same high octagonal pillar, both from Chainat in Tagaung, and Dawei, among others— standard as the rest of the outer walls. 1. Filliozat 1969, especially p. 108. central hailand. See Skilling 1997c, that reveal ainities with Pyu culture. 19. Stargardt 1998. See also W. A. Southworth 2004. pp. 134–51. 4. Glass Palace Chronicle 1923, pt. 3, 20. Stargardt 2005. 2. Bergaigne 1893, p. 191. 14. Published in ibid., pp. 123–26. paragraph 102, pp. 1–6. 21. See Guy 1997 for a detailed 3. Vickery 2005, especially pp. 24–25. 15. here is one exception, the Noen 5. Also mentioned in the Bagan-period discussion of this iconography. 4. See Glover and Bellwood 2004. Sa Bua stone inscription, but the igure inscription of the great king Kyanzittha; 22. Luce 1985, vol. 1, p. 48. 5. Boisselier 1963b, p. 2. is damaged, and there are diferent Epigraphia Birmanica 1919–36, vol. 1, 23. Hudson 2013, p. 6, ig. 21. 6. See Golden Age of Classical India 2007, opinions about how it should be read. pt. 1 (1919), pp. 59–68. 24. Duroiselle 1931. pp. 166–67, nos. 19, 20, and pp. 280–83, In a century of research, there has been 6. hose mentioned in Glass Palace 25. Falk 1997, p. 89. nos. 87–89. considerable disagreement about the Chronicle 1923 are the Prome Shwesandaw 26. Ibid., pp. 53–92. 7. For the Oc Eo culture, a particularly dates of individual inscriptions, but the hamaing [Chronicle] (p. 11f.), the 27. An inventory is provided in Stargardt rich example is held at the National complex questions of dating are well Great Chronicle, the New Chronicle, the 2000, pp. 51–53, based on the original Museum of Vietnamese History, Hanoi. beyond the scope of this essay. Old Chronicle, the Tagaung Chronicle, inventory published by Duroiselle 1931. See Malleret 1959–63, vol. 1 (1959), 16. he source is the “Great Chapter” of the Arakan Chronicle, and the Bagan 28. Von Hinüber 2008, pp. 4–5 and pl. lxxi. the Vinaya, for which see Oldenberg Chronicle (pp. 5–8f.). p. 205, n. 737; Skilling 2005b, 8. Baptiste and Zéphir 2005, p. 176, no. 1. 1879, p. 2. 7. Backus 1981. pp. 388–89. 9. See Boisselier 1963b, pp. 18–20. he 17. Skilling, W. A. Southworth, and 8. Twitchett and Christie 1959; 29. Lu Pe Win 1940. inscriptions were translated into French Tran Ky Phuong 2010. For sylistic Picken 1984. 30. Stargardt 1995. by Louis Finot; see Finot 1902. comments, see Guy, “Principal Kingdoms 9. For a diferent account of the fall of 31. Especially by Professors Harry Falk 10. Boisselier 1963b, p. 22. of Early Southeast Asia,” in this volume. Śrī Ksetra, see Kala 1960, cited in Luce of the Freie Universität, Berlin, and 11. See Guy 2005b. 18. Skilling forthcoming. 1985, vol. 1, pp. 66, 87. Oskar von Hinüber of the Universität 12. See ibid., especially p. 145. See also 19. he classic source remains 10. King Kyanzittha’s three inscriptions Freiburg, together with Professor Mus 1933. de Casparis 1956, pp. 47–167. It is in the Shwesandaw stupa at Pyay Richard Gombrich of the Universiy of 13. See Boisselier 1963b, pp. 30–31. regrettable that there has been no further (Prome); Epigraphia Birmanica 1919–36, Oxford and Janice Stargardt; see Falk 14. Dalsheimer 2001, pp. 62–63, no. 14. work on these important texts and that vol. 1, pt. 2 (1920), pp. 3, 6; Epigraphia 1997; Stargardt 2000, pp. 21–29. 15. Boisselier 1963b, p. 34. photographs have never been published. Birmanica 1919–36, vol. 3, pt. 1 (1923), 32. Mahlo 2012, pp. 48–49; han Htun 16. See Okada, Mukherjee, and Cerre 20. Ibid., pp. 168–73. pp. 10, 42. 2007, pp. 83–84. 1995, pp. 20, 23, 30–31. 21. Skilling 1999. 11. Win Kyaing 2012; Pichard 2012, p. 3, 33. All depicted in Luce 1985, vol. 2, 17. See Baptiste and Zéphir 2005, 22. For the irst, discovered by H. G. provided by U hein Lwin. We follow the pls. 5–8. pp. 196–98, no. 11; Parmentier 1909–18, Quaritch Wales in 1936 or 1937, see romanization of Myanmar place-names 34. Blagden 1917. vol 1, pp. 404, 416–17, ig. 94. Jacq-Hergoualc’h 2002. used by Professor Tun Aung Chain. 35. For instance, that of Luce 1985, 18. For the recent discoveries of kosas 23. he terms in Sanskrit are bodhicitta, 12. Since the 1990s, the program of vol. 1, pp. 62–63. in Cham territories, see Guy 2000. ratnatraya, vajraśarīra, and training and excavation has intensiied, 36. San Win 2000–2001; Tun Aung 19. See Baptiste and Zéphir 2005, anuttarābhisamyaksambodhi. For the especially since the creation of the Chain 2004. pp. 192–96, nos. 9, 10. For the kosa, Talang Tuwo inscription, see Coedès Field School of Archaeology at Śrī 37. Moore 2007, p. 169. see Baptiste 2002. See also Boisselier 1930 (English trans. Coedès 1992a); Ksetra in November 2005 by Myanmar’s 38. Depicted in Luce 1985, vol. 2, pl. 22c. 1963b, pp. 38–39. Chhabra 1965, p. 38. Department of Archaeology, National 39. Example illustrated in Moore 20. Griiths and W. A. Southworth 24. Dias 1971 lists only three Pali Museum and Library, Ministry of 2007, p. 172. 2007. See also Griiths and W. A. inscriptions for the whole island. All Culture. As a result, important new 40. Guy 1999a; Brown 2001, pp. 37–38; Southworth 2011; Griiths 2013b. of them are later than our period. discoveries continue to be made. Moore 2007, chapter 5 and two steles 21. Jacq-Hergoualc’h 2001. 25. See Mudiyanse 1967, pp. 79–105. 13. Stargardt 1990, pp. 85–101; on p. 172. 22. See Boisselier 1963b, igs. 28–41. 26. For some examples, see von Stargardt, Amable, and Devereux 2012; 41. See the southern Mon ype of See also Baptiste and Zéphir 2005, Hinüber 1984, especially pp. 3–6; Stargardt and Amable forthcoming. clay molding depicted in Luce 1985, pp. 200–205, nos. 13–16. Whitield 1984, nos. 116, 117. 14. No fewer than three royal inscrip- vol. 2, pl. 17a–f. 23. See Baptiste forthcoming. 9. Both Tathāgata and Great Ascetic are tions of King Kyanzittha of Bagan were notes to essays 277