A group of eight sculptures dated to the Majapahit period represent deified figures of kings and queens dressed in royal attire, which is evident from their high crowns, their substantial garments and the heavy ornaments on their ankles. The detailed pattern of the sinjang kawung repeating itself in slightly different variations on each sculpture indicates the reverence with which the Majapahit rulers held this particular motif. As Klokke has suggested, the presence of four arms is an unmistakably divine feature, with the attributes indicating the specific qualities of the various gods represented. The highest god is one who combines the visual characteristics of two deities to express the oneness of these gods, such as Ardhanarīśvara, the supreme concept of one god, joined as one in both male and female. They stand in a stiff, upright stance—a distinctive feature. Their eyes are downcast in deep meditation, combined with the limited mudrā of the lower two hands. Their deification led them to attain the highest spiritual knowledge (Klokke 1994, pp. 190–91). H.G. Quaritch Wales has suggested that at the foundation of the Majapahit there was a resurgence of pre- Indianized culture, which appeared to have little reference to the Indian legacy of the past. This was evident in the culture of non-Indian gods and ancestors, who appeared to reign supreme (Wales 1977, pp. 89–90).

The statues in this chapter, unlike with the previous sections, will be ordered chronologically where possible during the mid-fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, as the textile patterns all fall within two group. The first will include the ceplok patterns, and the second will consist of the different models in Java and in Sumatra.

The practice of deifying the ancestors was known at the beginning of the thirteenth century during the Kediri period and continued throughout the Singhasāri and Majapahit periods. The assumption that the images bear facial features of a certain king or queen is in contrast to ancient Indian and Southeast Asia sculptures whose features are generally without any specific character and appear to follow the convention or the style of the period. However, in East Java the sculptors did not deviate from this practice, as it would be necessary to have more than one statue bearing exactly the same features to be able to consider a statue as a portrait of a person.

Literary References: Evidence of Statue Production and Textile Terminology

In the Old Javanese language, there is a term pande, meaning “skilled worker, or smith” (Zoetmulder 1982). A goldsmith is referred to as pande-mas, and bronze or copper are referred to as tambaga. Whilst we have the knowledge of these terms, there does not appear to be any reference to the manufacture of bronze statuettes. It is most likely that a bronzesmith would have been a simple craftsman who worked in a small unit of apprentices (Lunsingh Scheurleer and Klokke 1988b, pp. 13–14). It has also been suggested, however, that the images cast in bronze far outnumber those made in gold or silver. This does not necessarily mean there was an imbalance in the numbers of different types of sculptures cast, but only that the gold and silver statues could have been used to pay local taxes and could also have been melted down. On close analysis, the quality of the statues in gold and silver often appears to be of a subtler nature to that of the bronze figures, which are often rougher in execution. The greatest achievement of the bronze caster of the Central Javanese period was in the highest artistic expression achieved in the “introspective spirituality and the nobility of expression, epitomised by the highest ideals of Buddhism, in a convincing manner such as no Indian sculptor ever achieved” (Fontein, Soekmono and Suleiman 1971, p. 41).

The majority of the bronzes were cast using the lost-wax process, whereas a number of the gold plaques were made by repoussé, with hammered patterns from the front. The smooth surface allowed the craftsmen to hammer in tiny details of the textile patterns. The stone statues, on the other hand, are of varying qualities and colours. The stone used in the thirteenth century ranged from an exceptional pale-grey stone to an almost white stone, in which detailed carvings of patterns were possible. In contrast, the stone employed in the earlier ninth and tenth centuries ranged from dark grey to black; it was rough to the touch, making intricate details such as textile patterns challenging to execute. It is quite evident that the availability and quality of stone depended on the location of the workshops in different periods in history. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any reference in the Old Javanese literature to the processes of the selection of materials or the execution of the statues.

The textile patterns appearing on Javanese free-standing sculptures is a little-known subject. These patterns came to the attention of the author after a visit as a student to the Volkenkunde, Leiden (RV) in 1998. The museum contains large andesite stone statues decorated with many different forms of dress, with each part sporting a different pattern. The carvings are so clear and precise that the sculptor had to be replicating a particular pattern, as it is unlikely he invented the complex designs himself. These patterns then presented an unanswered question: what was the inspiration for this multitude of different textile patterns, and where did it originate? Images of lotus flowers with an abundance of scrolling vines evoke Chinese sensibilities and the following of Buddhism. Perfectly cut rosette flowers appear in many different guises, highlighting the appeal of the karahana, the Tang rosette flower motif that appeared to be so popular between the end of the seventh and the first quarter of the eighth centuries. A pattern that seems to have evolved from similar designs is used in Sogdiana and Panjikent in Central Asia. This pattern later developed to be a particularly popular motif in the Malay weaving of songket—silk fabric with a supplementary weft of gold threads. Statues from the thirteenth century display a short sleeveless upper-body jacket with a pattern that is quite possibly a template for the songket patterns we see today. One statue of Gaṇeśa does not have the typical attributes of the much-loved figure from the Hindu pantheon but instead displays specific esoteric attributes and depictions of skulls and stylized kāla-heads (fig. 1) on the textile patterns carved on his trousers. What was the symbolic meaning of these textile patterns? Why were these particular East Javanese sculptures, which dated from the late thirteenth century, carved in such an explosion of designs? What was the inspiration behind the patterns and where did this inspiration come from? To answer these questions, a stylistic evaluation and a study of the textiles portrayed on all the statues is necessary.

The “stylistic evaluation” aids in the study and identification of a sculpture and furthers our understanding of the inspiration behind the textile patterns. It became apparent that the transference from Central to early East Java showed a shift in the stylistic evolution of Mahāyāna Buddhist bronze statues.

There exist numerous free-standing figurative sculptures produced in Java between the eighth and fifteenth centuries that feature dress displaying detailed textile patterns. This surviving body of sculpture, carved in stone and cast in metal, varying in both size and condition, remain in archaeological sites and museums in Indonesia and worldwide. The equatorial climate of Java has precluded any textiles from this period surviving. This book argues, therefore, that the textiles represented on these sculptures offer a unique insight into the patterned splendour of the textiles in circulation during this period. Hence, this publication will contribute to our knowledge of the textiles in circulation at that time by including the first comprehensive record of this body of sculpture, together with their textile patterns classified into a typology of styles.

Because of the limited number of inscriptions and texts from this period, it has proved necessary to conduct the research for this book by utilizing empirical methods to examine all the sculptures. The discussion of each statue is supported by photographs and original line-drawings of their textile designs. A close analysis of these drawings establishes that during a brief period in the late thirteenth century the textile patterns carved on the sculptures reached their greatest diversity and complexity.

In considering supporting evidence from Persia, India, Central Asia and China, this book explores the origins of the medieval textile patterns depicted on these sculptures. It also provides some analysis of specific motifs, such as those representing esoteric iconography. As this research necessitated a detailed analysis of all the sculptures representing textiles, it also contributes significantly to other related aspects of concurrent apparel and ornamentation. It is my intention that this catalogue of textile patterns be utilized by future students and scholars in the stylistic dating of sculptures from Java between the eighth and fifteenth centuries.

Note that this publication addresses only the repeat patterns presented on free-standing figurative sculpture that evidentially reflect pliant textiles adorning a human form in the round. The publication does not address the repeat patterns evident on stone temples or architectural features within sculptures, where the rigid patterns may be understood to represent decorative surface elements.

Archaeologists have made some progress in the study of ancient Southeast Asian textiles, but the results of this form of research are likely to remain limited to verifying the types of plants used to make the fibres and dyes, and possibly the weaving techniques employed. It seems likely that we will have to depend on indirect methods for the foreseeable future in our attempts to reconstruct the textiles used in early Southeast Asia. Historical sources contain some data, but these have serious limitations. Most surviving documents only refer to textiles in passing. Many terms used to refer to them are no longer understood. Old Javanese vocabulary concerning textiles is extensive, a sign of their interest in this topic and its importance in society, but there is scant chance that the literal meanings of these words will ever be recovered.

For several years I taught a course on traditional arts of Southeast Asia in the eighteenth through early twentieth centuries, in which I emphasized the importance of textiles in trying to understand the roles of what in the West we call art and artists. No female artists and very few male artists are mentioned in ancient inscriptions. Artists were not a separate category of people in ancient Java; as in early twentiethcentury Bali, the making of objects possessing what is now called artistic value was a common activity of children as well as adults, as were performances of music and dance. Artists were not marginal members of society, though some people were certainly recognized as more skilful than others in creating textiles or pottery, both of which were exclusively made by women. The high aesthetic and technical value of Southeast Asia textile production only came to be acknowledged in the West in the midnineteenth century. Since that time, scholars have elevated the importance of textiles as a medium of artistic expression in traditional Southeast Asia from the status of a craft to the cultural equivalent of painting and sculpture.

Textile art in precolonial Southeast Asia had great ceremonial and symbolic value. Locally made textiles commanded high economic value not only within Southeast Asian societies but also in diplomatic gift exchange with China.

Statues originating from the Central Javanese period range in date from the late eighth to the ninth century, and they vary in size from a small bronze statuette at 7.5 centimetres to a monumental stone statue at 3 metres. These, along with a few small bronzes dating from the early East Javanese period in the mid-eleventh century, are the subject of this chapter. These statues were all chosen as examples for their diversity of patterns. Their places of origin are shown in map 3.

The term “Central or early East Java Style” describes a style of sculptures made in Java but showing some similarities to an Indian type of dress. The Indian style is especially evident from Eastern and Southern India in the early years of the Chola of the mid-ninth to the thirteenth century (Huntington and Huntington 1993, p. 509) and of the Pāla dynasties of Eastern India. There are many sculptures that appear to fit more closely with this Indianized style of dress—for example, a small Śiva from Gemuruh and the male figure half of the gold plaque (fig. 26)—a style that is apparent in the apparel but not the textile patterns themselves. The sculptures clearly show the figures wearing a dhotī, worn short, pulled up between the legs and tucked in at the rear of the body. Another explicit Indian detail of the dress is the use of the many small metal girdles and belts, chains and sashes. In Java, the chains around the hips are used as girdles, and the broad band or demarcation across the upper body is a sash or seléndang. These features are depicted in a somewhat different manner in India. There are obvious similarities, however, between the Indian and Javanese styles. In some instances the kain appears to stand proud of the limbs, which is more typical of the Singhasāri period.

The textile patterns are divided into four groups based on their pattern and design type.

Group 1 is made up of four sub-groups covering statues depicting small overall textile patterns in a repeat of flowers, circles and dots. These patterns are reflected in certain Indian painted resist and mordant dyed cotton fabric, which by their very nature indicates the design has a repeat. It is reasonable therefore to suggest that some of the figures in this group are dressed in a textile replicating a painted resist and mordant dyed fabric pattern.

List of Museums

Ashmolean Museum

Assam State Museum

Bangkok National Museum

British Museum

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Vastu Sangrahalaya

China National Silk Museum (CNSM)

Cleveland Museum of Art

Colombo National Museum

Indian Museum, Kolkata

Metropolitan Museum of Art

Mpu Tantular Museum

Museum Nasional Indonesia (MNI)

Museum Sonobudoyo

National Museum, New Delhi

Prambanan Museum

Ranggawarsita Museum

Rijksmusem Amsterdam

Santa Barbara Museum

State Hermitage Museum, St Petersberg (SHM)

Tropenmuseum Amsterdam

Trowulan Museum

Volkenkunde – National Museum of Ethnography, Leiden (RV)

Chinese Terms for Geographical Regions From Yijing, 635–718 CE

Fo-shih: Bhoga is mentioned in Tang history (618–906) as being on the south shore of the Strait of Malacca.

Ho-ling: Java.

Malayu: Seems to have existed for a long time. May also have been called Bhoga (the country). Lay on the southern shore of Malacca. Malayu covered the Southeast side of Sumatra, from the southern shores of Malacca to the city of Palembang.

Mo-lo-yu: Malayu, Shih-li-fo-shih, Srîbhoga.

San-bo-tsai: Land of the southern barbarians, between Cambodia, Chênla and Java, Shê-p’o. San-fo-Ch’i, in the History of Sung (960–1279) is probably Shih-li-fo-shih or Srîbhoga. Srîbhoga disappeared and was replaced with the term “Old Port” by the time of the last Chinese conquest in 1379 CE.

Sānfóqí: Was an important trading port where the people had embraced Buddhism but were of Hindu origin. The country was rich in gold. The inhabitants wore kan-man (sarongs). Sānfóqí was in Malayu Jambi and not in Palembang, thus references to Sānfóqí in the tenth and early eleventh centuries could relate to either Palembang or Jambi (Miksic and Goh 2017, p. 396).

Sarbaza: Used by Arab travellers in the ninth century; a corruption of Yavadvîpa.

Srîbhoga: Chin-chou, San-fo-Ch’i, and Golden Isle.

Yuán Shī: The historical works of the Yüan period; also known as Yuanshi. His written records contributed to our knowledge of Śrivijaya and the kingdoms that lay on the route between China and Nālandā (I-Tsing 1998: xli–xlvi).

Chinese Terms for Geographical Regions

From Zhufanzi, Twelfth to the Thirteenth Century

Chön-la: Cambodia

Chu-lién: Coromandel Coast, Chola Domain

Hu-ch’a-la: Gujarat, India

Kién-pi: Kampar, Eastern Sumatra

Ligor: Malay Peninsula

Nan-p’i: Malabar, India

The extant sculptures have been divided into three chapters covering three periods. The first from the ninth to the early eleventh century, followed by the thirteenth century, and the last covering the fourteenth to the early fifteenth century. Within these three chapters, sub-groups have been developed that enable the categorization of the many different textile patterns into “style” groups. The data gained from the different pattern groups has enabled the subsequent research into the transmission of patterns from textiles to sculptures. With this additional factor of the textile patterns, the datings of the sculptures, where possible, have been amended from those provided by the existing literature. These patterns have then been used as a basis to propose examples that highlight the relationship between South and Southeast Asia through the interregional textile trade.

The four sculptures originating from Sumatra portray textile patterns that are contiguous with the classical period in Java and which reflect some of the Javanese designs, clearly indicating the close trading links between Java and Sumatra during this period. There is also clear evidence of the transmission of textile patterns from foreign textile sources to sculptures on both the small bronzes and large stone statues. The peak of the variety of textiles on stone sculptures appears to have been between 1269 and 1292 ce during the reign of King Kṛtanāgara, in the last phase of the Singhasāri period. During the Central and early East Java period, many more sculptures were produced with textile patterns—a crosssection of which have been discussed in this volume—but the variety of designs does not match in any way the variation seen in the Singhasāri period. Hiram Woodward has said that “a fabric recreated in stone may tell us more than would actual textile fragments or impressions, for it documents the local response to the imported object” (Woodward 1977, p. 233)—the distinctive artistic traditions can be seen, therefore, as proof of the textile tradition at the time.

I have maintained that the fabrics represented on the dress of most of the bronze, gold and stone sculptures from the classical period in Java appear to document local responses to the successive arrivals of textiles via trade, and to subsequently reflect the local interpretations of these imported items.

Many monolithic stone statues created during the Singhasāri period in the thirteenth century and some sculptures dated to the early fourteenth century were carved with a broad range of unique textile patterns. Almost all the statues were carved from a single piece of stone, either standing or seated against a backslab. This period in history gave rise to King Kṛtanāgara, the last of the Singhasāri kings. This extensive collection of statues was commissioned under his reign between 1269 and 1292 ce, the more significant part of which was placed at the Caṇḍi Singosari complex or at Caṇḍi Jago. This chapter illustrates all of the known sculptures that were carved with textile patterns. Where known, their places of origin are shown in map 4. These sculptures represent only a fraction, however, of all the sculptures made during this period—the remainder were generally of an inferior quality and exhibited no textile patterns.

There are little remains of importance from the Kediri period, from the mid-eleventh century to 1222 CE, except for the seated sculpture known as the Boro Gaṇeśa. This giant statue is arguably the sculpture that has been most frequently published in Southeast Asian textile and art history books. In my opinion, the Gaṇeśa does not fit into the Singosari style. This is evident from the position of the feet together and the rather stiff body. According to Edi Sedyawati, he fits more closely with the end of the Kediri period, or, as she puts it, “the long empty interval between the last known Kediri inscription and the first Singhasāri inscription” (1994, p. 116). This therefore is a Kediri “style” statue with a Singhasāri date, and it is categorized as “Kediri” along with the Arcā Leluhur at the MNI. The rough andesite stone of the Boro Gaṇeśa results in a cruder form of carving; this establishes that he was made in a different region at a different time to the rest of the Singosari style sculptures. In contrast, the Arcā Leluhur is carved from a smooth and beautiful white andesite stone known as tuff, and is of a very different texture and quality.

The position of East Java within the interregional trade during this period might aid in our consideration of how some of the textile patterns in this chapter arrived there.