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 Griffiths, Agustijanto Indradjaya, Le Thi Lien,
Pierre-Yves Manguin, Stephen A. Murphy, Ariel O’Connor, Peter Skilling, Janice Stargardt, Donna Strahan,
U Thein Lwin, Geoff Wade, U Win Kyaing, Hiram Woodward, and Thierry 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 first
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 funda-
mental elements of Indian culture during the early centuries A.D.
The sacred languages of Sanskrit and Pali, the variety 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. These phenomena, once
known by the generic term “Indianization,” left behind material
vestiges that still provide ample food for thought: a monumental
architecture consisting of the ruins of brick and stone temples, usu-
ally 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 his-
tory of the region. That history still has many gaps, despite addi-
tional information from contemporary Chinese sources.
Somewhat paradoxically, the oldest epigraphic evidence that
attests to the force of Indianization from the third to fourth cen-
tury 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 influence (fig. 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 scien-
tific studies, some very recent. The 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 cor-
responds to it, as the script had already evolved from its Indian pre-
decessors, and epigraphists have argued different origins for it.1 In
the late nineteenth century, the Indologist Abel Bergaigne demon-
strated the evolved state of the Vo Canh inscription script, and Jean
Filliozat confirmed it in 1969.2 The 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 affiliated 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 increas-
ingly occupied much of the narrow, cultivable plains that extend the
length of the Annamite Mountains along the South China Sea.
These peoples were hardly unified 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 uncer-
tainties surrounding the nature of the Cham polities, their inhabi-
tants, and their links to the prehistoric cultures that preceded them,
especially to the indigenous Sa Huynh culture, it is now generally
69
 Fig. 59. Deity 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 moun-
tainous capes.4 They 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 Thu 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. The
predominant characteristics of the Champa territories were more or
less diffuse settlements in a region rich with preexisting traditions.
These were fragmented communities living in a diverse sea-and-
river environment and often 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 unification 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 polity
but not to imply that it embraced all Chams. There is no evidence of a
confederation of Cham kingdoms, although each polity was likely
based on a system of extended clan allegiances and oaths of loyalty,
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 fields of religious architecture
and sculpture, demonstrate diverse influences, whether Indian,
Khmer, or Chinese, and reflect Cham participation in the long-­
distance maritime trade linking China and India. These 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. There are only two or three known sculptures that may
date to the fifth 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 sev-
enth 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 orna-
mentation 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 Thierry Zéphir has linked to ornaments
dating back to the late Kusāna period (2nd–3rd century) at the ear-
liest or, more likely, to the early Gupta era (4th–5th century).8
These early Cham sculptures show an already-assimilated Indian
influence, and their stylistic forebears are diverse, extending from
Maharashtra in western India, as seen on reliefs adorning the entry-
way to the great third-century caitya (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
confirm the importance of My Son and the Śaiva character of the
royal foundations recorded there. The 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
style of these inscriptions to those of the Vākātaka dynasty, which
ruled Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra from the third to fifth cen-
tury, 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 fifth and seventh
centuries. Certain Cham works from the sixth to seventh century
precisely display a number of stylistic and iconographic affinities
with both Vākātaka and Pallava art. Once again, these are isolated
examples that may have been part of the decoration of long-van-
ished brick monuments. Of them, the two busts and the head frag-
ment from Phu Ninh, Quang Nam province, held at the National
Museum of Vietnamese History, Hanoi, are among the most signif-
icant. 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.
The robustly carved male figure, seated amid floral vegetation, pre-
serves in a very original rendering its post-Gupta heritage, particu-
larly through the large, stylized 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-fifth-century Chinese
source, included large-scale images in precious metals. According
to passages from the Song shu (Account of the Song Dynasty), which
complement earlier writings, notably the Nan Qi shu (Account of
the Southern Qi Dynasty) and the Liang shu (Account of the Liang
Dynasty), “after the temples were sacked” during the Chinese expe-
dition 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 (fig. 59). Its identity 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, second-
ary deities associated with the forces of nature in the Indian
world.11 The 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 The treatment of the ascetic’s chignon gath-
ered at the top of the skull refers to Indian traditions that are
also perceptible in Mon Dvāravatī art of the same period and in
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)
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 orifices 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 Vikrānta­
varman II (ca. 685–ca. 731). These rulers are known through vari-
ous 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
The marriage of Vikrāntavarman I to a daughter of the Khmer king
Īśānavarman I (reigned ca. 616–ca. 635), founder of the large city
Īśānapura (Sambor Prei Kuk), no doubt strengthened the connec-
tions between Cham and Khmer art during the same period. The
style that characterizes the era takes its name from the Śaiva tem-
ple E1 at My Son, at first probably an open-air sanctuary or one pro-
tected merely by a lightweight structure. The pedestal of the temple
was reworked at a much later date and is now fragmentary. The
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 finest ancient Cham
sculptures (fig. 60). Although the foliage and floral 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 style, the vivacity of the figures and their contrasting atti-
tudes 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 figures and their varied, dynamic poses,
displayed with an unaffected 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 confirmed by the oldest known inscrip-
tions. 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
figs. 61, 114). The god wears a costume and ornaments close to
those that adorn the Śaiva ascetics carved on the altar platform of
temple E1, My Son (fig. 60).16 The Ganeśa image, whose pedestal is
early cham art: indigenous styles and regional connections 71

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 treat-
ment of the body and costume, these images are characterized by
intense facial expressions, through which the sculptors concen-
trated their sensibilities. The finest 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 (fig. 62). The
smiling expression, oblong eyes, joined eyebrows, large nose, thick
mustache, and high cheekbones all characterize this high point in
Cham statuary. This apex is also reflected 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,
fig. 111).18 Examples are in the collection of the Musée Guimet,
Paris, and The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.19 The use
of these covers was more highly developed in Champa than any-
where else in Southeast Asia. The practice derived from the use of
72 emerging identities
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
early prototypes in India, where no covers are extant before the
medieval period, except in Nepal. In Champa, these linga covers,
which often display up to four or five Śiva heads, would have been
placed over a stone linga in a temple that had been founded by a
predecessor, to mark a continuity in dynastic rituals.
From the same period, several fragmentary tympanums have
also been found in My Son, carved in a style that recalls the longi-
lineal proportions of Pallava art and, to a lesser degree, the narra-
tive verve of art from central Java. They display various aspects of
Brahmanical iconography evoking the supremacy of Śiva, whether
depicted dancing, as seen in temples C1 (fig. 63) and A1, or over-
coming the demon Rāvana, as at temple F1.
The discovery of the foundation stele for the sanctuary of Hoa
Lai, Ninh Thuan province, in 2006 and its translation in 2011 allow
us to further clarify 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 Satyavarman on behalf
of Śiva Śrī Vrddheśvara in 700 on the Śaka calendar (778), the mon-
ument 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 Griffiths’s most recent work has shed new light on the role of
one Cham sovereign, Satyavarman, who had been known primarily
through several later texts on a stele at Po Nagar. These recent stud-
ies have allowed us to better understand the connections between
Cham art—as well as contemporaneous Khmer art in the Phnom
Kulen style—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 Coral-
Rémusat have considered the Javanese stylistic influence. Through
epigraphic evidence and examinations of cultural and political mar-
itime exchanges during the eighth century, Griffiths has restored
Java to its proper place as a key influence on Cham art in this period.
As a result, one can better grasp the stylistic treatment accorded to
the ornamentation of the monuments, whose bas-reliefs teem with
details borrowed from Javanese decoration (see fig. 64). This same
influence appears in many Buddhist bronzes dating to the eighth to
ninth century that have been uncovered throughout the Champa
territories (cats. 169, 170).22 These 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 Thuan province

early cham art: indigenous styles and regional connections 73

6. Salomon 2009 dates them to the first
to third century A.D. Some of the latest
discoveries have radiocarbon-14 dates
of the first century B.C. and even earlier.
7. See Konow 1929, pp. 152–55,
inscription lxxx.
8. For the example cited here and
further references, see Melzer
and Sander 2006, pp. 254–56.
9. Both Tathāgata and Great Ascetic are
epithets of the Buddha. The stanza is
often referred to as the Ye dharmā (Skt.)
or Ye dhammā (Pali) verse or,
inaccurately, as the “Buddhist creed.”
10. Theravamsa is a general name for
the cluster of schools that is today
represented by the Theravāda in South
and Southeast Asia and, increasingly,
around the world. See Skilling et al. 2012.
11. There is some overlap with Arakan,
which merges into the Sanskrit zone of
India itself.
12. For Dvāravatī, see Skilling 2003.
13. The fragmentary texts are on the
spokes of a stone dharmacakra and an
octagonal pillar, both from Chainat in
central Thailand. See Skilling 1997c,
pp. 134–51.
14. Published in ibid., pp. 123–26.
15. There is one exception, the Noen
Sa Bua stone inscription, but the figure
is damaged, and there are different
opinions about how it should be read.
In a century of research, there has been
considerable disagreement about the
dates of individual inscriptions, but the
complex questions of dating are well
beyond the scope of this essay.
16. The source is the “Great Chapter” of
the Vinaya, for which see Oldenberg
1879, p. 2.
17. Skilling, W. A. Southworth, and
Tran Ky Phuong 2010. For stylistic
comments, see Guy, “Principal Kingdoms
of Early Southeast Asia,” in this volume.
18. Skilling forthcoming.
19. The classic source remains
de Casparis 1956, pp. 47–167. It is
regrettable that there has been no further
work on these important texts and that
photographs have never been published.
20. Ibid., pp. 168–73.
21. Skilling 1999.
22. For the first, discovered by H. G.
Quaritch Wales in 1936 or 1937, see
Jacq-Hergoualc’h 2002.
23. The terms in Sanskrit are bodhicitta,
ratnatraya, vajraśarīra, and
anuttarābhisamyaksambodhi. For the
Talang Tuwo inscription, see Coedès
1930 (English trans. Coedès 1992a);
Chhabra 1965, p. 38.
24. Dias 1971 lists only three Pali
inscriptions for the whole island. All
of them are later than our period.
25. See Mudiyanse 1967, pp. 79–105.
26. For some examples, see von
Hinüber 1984, especially pp. 3–6;
Whitfield 1984, nos. 116, 117.
27. For banaspatis, see Pattaratorn
Chirapravati, “The Transformation of
Brahmanical and Buddhist Imagery in
Central Thailand,” p. 223, in this volume.
The Pyu Civilization of
Myanmar and the City
of Śrī Ks·etra
1. Variant ethnic names are discussed
in Luce 1937; most recently, M. Aung-
Thwin and M. Aung-Thwin 2012,
pp. 63–65, has argued against the use
of the name, but it is used here as the
best-known term.
2. Stargardt 1998.
3. This essay discusses only Halin,
Beikthano, and Śrī Ksetra because
research data on them is readily
accessible. Pyu settlements were,
however, more numerous and extended
over a wide area of Myanmar. Currently,
investigations are being made on a
number of sites—Maingmaw, Binnaka,
Tagaung, and Dawei, among others—
that reveal affinities with Pyu culture.
4. Glass Palace Chronicle 1923, pt. 3,
paragraph 102, pp. 1–6.
5. Also mentioned in the Bagan-period
inscription of the great king Kyanzittha;
Epigraphia Birmanica 1919–36, vol. 1,
pt. 1 (1919), pp. 59–68.
6. Those mentioned in Glass Palace
Chronicle 1923 are the Prome Shwesandaw
Thamaing [Chronicle] (p. 11ff.), the
Great Chronicle, the New Chronicle, the
Old Chronicle, the Tagaung Chronicle,
the Arakan Chronicle, and the Bagan
Chronicle (pp. 5–8ff.).
7. Backus 1981.
8. Twitchett and Christie 1959;
Picken 1984.
9. For a different account of the fall of
Śrī Ksetra, see Kala 1960, cited in Luce
1985, vol. 1, pp. 66, 87.
10. King Kyanzittha’s three inscriptions
in the Shwesandaw stupa at Pyay
(Prome); Epigraphia Birmanica 1919–36,
vol. 1, pt. 2 (1920), pp. 3, 6; Epigraphia
Birmanica 1919–36, vol. 3, pt. 1 (1923),
pp. 10, 42.
11. Win Kyaing 2012; Pichard 2012, p. 3,
provided by U Thein Lwin. We follow the
romanization of Myanmar place­-names
used by Professor Tun Aung Chain.
12. Since the 1990s, the program of
training and excavation has intensified,
especially since the creation of the
Field School of Archaeology at Śrī
Ksetra in November 2005 by Myanmar’s
Department of Archaeology, National
Museum and Library, Ministry of
Culture. As a result, important new
discoveries continue to be made.
13. Stargardt 1990, pp. 85–101;
Stargardt, Amable, and Devereux 2012;
Stargardt and Amable forthcoming.
14. No fewer than three royal inscrip­
tions of King Kyanzittha of Bagan were
installed in the Shwesandaw stupa at
Pyay by 1110; Epigraphia Birmanica
1919–36, vol. 1, pt. 2 (1920), pp. 3, 6;
Epigraphia Birmanica 1919–36, vol. 3,
pt. 1 (1923), pp. 10, 42.
15. A research project on ancient iron
and ironworking in and around Śrī
Ksetra is now being conducted by U Win
Kyaing and Dr. Than Htike, Field School
of Archaeology, June 2013; Hudson
2013, p. 6, fig. 20.
16. Personal communication from
archaeometallurgist Dr. Ni Ni Khet,
June 2013.
17. Calibrated date, hence the spread
of 150 years; cited in Hudson 2013,
p. 6, fig. 20.
18. For a different view, see ibid., fig. 21.
Hudson considers the east wall to be
part of the oldest fortifications at Śrī
Ksetra, but this is unlikely, as it would
have interfered with the full functioning
of the irrigation system, and it would
surely have been rebuilt during the
zenith of the city to the same high
standard as the rest of the outer walls.
19. Stargardt 1998.
20. Stargardt 2005.
21. See Guy 1997 for a detailed
discussion of this iconography.
22. Luce 1985, vol. 1, p. 48.
23. Hudson 2013, p. 6, fig. 21.
24. Duroiselle 1931.
25. Falk 1997, p. 89.
26. Ibid., pp. 53–92.
27. An inventory is provided in Stargardt
2000, pp. 51–53, based on the original
inventory published by Duroiselle 1931.
28. Von Hinüber 2008, pp. 4–5 and
p. 205, n. 737; Skilling 2005b,
pp. 388–89.
29. Lu Pe Win 1940.
30. Stargardt 1995.
31. Especially by Professors Harry Falk
of the Freie Universität, Berlin, and
Oskar von Hinüber of the Universität
Freiburg, together with Professor
Richard Gombrich of the University of
Oxford and Janice Stargardt; see Falk
1997; Stargardt 2000, pp. 21–29.
32. Mahlo 2012, pp. 48–49; Than Htun
2007, pp. 83–84.
33. All depicted in Luce 1985, vol. 2,
pls. 5–8.
34. Blagden 1917.
35. For instance, that of Luce 1985,
vol. 1, pp. 62–63.
36. San Win 2000–2001; Tun Aung
Chain 2004.
37. Moore 2007, p. 169.
38. Depicted in Luce 1985, vol. 2, pl. 22c.
39. Example illustrated in Moore
2007, p. 172.
40. Guy 1999a; Brown 2001, pp. 37–38;
Moore 2007, chapter 5 and two steles
on p. 172.
41. See the southern Mon type of
clay molding depicted in Luce 1985,
vol. 2, pl. 17a–f.
42. Gordon Luce idiosyncratically
coined the name “triads” for such group
sculptures and emphasized what he saw
as their links with “megalithic” art,
which may be confusing, as no
megalithic culture in the normal
archaeological sense has so far been
found in Myanmar; ibid., vol. 1,
pp. 52–53, and vol. 2, pls. 10–15, where
twenty-two “Buddhist megaliths”
are depicted.
43. See Brown 2001 for an excellent
discussion of the originality of these
groupings in Pyu Buddhist art; also note
the resemblance between the banded
stupa forms flanking the Buddha in
fig. 57 and the small silver stupas
discussed and illustrated in this
publication (cat. 35a, b).
Early Cham Art:
Indigenous Styles and
Regional Connections
1. Filliozat 1969, especially p. 108.
See also W. A. Southworth 2004.
2. Bergaigne 1893, p. 191.
3. Vickery 2005, especially pp. 24–25.
4. See Glover and Bellwood 2004.
5. Boisselier 1963b, p. 2.
6. See Golden Age of Classical India 2007,
pp. 166–67, nos. 19, 20, and pp. 280–83,
nos. 87–89.
7. For the Oc Eo culture, a particularly
rich example is held at the National
Museum of Vietnamese History, Hanoi.
See Malleret 1959–63, vol. 1 (1959),
pl. LXXI.
8. Baptiste and Zéphir 2005, p. 176, no. 1.
9. See Boisselier 1963b, pp. 18–20. The
inscriptions were translated into French
by Louis Finot; see Finot 1902.
10. Boisselier 1963b, p. 22.
11. See Guy 2005b.
12. See ibid., especially p. 145. See also
Mus 1933.
13. See Boisselier 1963b, pp. 30–31.
14. Dalsheimer 2001, pp. 62–63, no. 14.
15. Boisselier 1963b, p. 34.
16. See Okada, Mukherjee, and Cerre
1995, pp. 20, 23, 30–31.
17. See Baptiste and Zéphir 2005,
pp. 196–98, no. 11; Parmentier 1909–18,
vol 1, pp. 404, 416–17, fig. 94.
18. For the recent discoveries of kosas
in Cham territories, see Guy 2000.
19. See Baptiste and Zéphir 2005,
pp. 192–96, nos. 9, 10. For the kosa,
see Baptiste 2002. See also Boisselier
1963b, pp. 38–39.
20. Griffiths and W. A. Southworth
2007. See also Griffiths and W. A.
Southworth 2011; Griffiths 2013b.
21. Jacq-Hergoualc’h 2001.
22. See Boisselier 1963b, figs. 28–41.
See also Baptiste and Zéphir 2005,
pp. 200–205, nos. 13–16.
23. See Baptiste forthcoming.
notes to essays 277