Interpreting Javanese Images of Siwa
Siwa images from Java exist in the hundreds. By 'images' I mean both free-standing sculptures in metal or stone and relief representations of the god. For historical reasons, most of the extant free-standing images are, with a few exceptions, no longer found 'in situ'. They are either in museum collections in Java or outside Indonesia, or are kept in storage in archaeological offices throughout Java and sometimes, for security reasons, in locked sheds on major sites where images from the surrounding area are brought together. The illegal trade in antiquities is a constant threat.
*
By ALESSANDRA LOPEZ Y ROYO IYER
AMSTERDAM, PRIVATE COLLECTION
A bronze image of Siwa in a seated position, with a rare representation
of linga-yoni at the front, from Central Java, possibly tenth or eleventh
century
My research deals with the iconography of these images. It also explores issues of classification. Discussion of such issues is very relevant as in more recent years efforts have been directed towards carrying out surveys based on extensive collection of quantitative data and exhaustive measurements of images. Such investigations follow the hypothetico-deductive strategies and intensive sampling which characterize processual archaeological approaches.
My research can be summarized as follows: a study of images of the god Siwa as found in ancient Java, covering the period from (roughly) the early seventh century to the fourteenth century CE, with a classification and typology of such images. In this study, however, the making of a classification and typology is not presented as being neutral data analysis; on the contrary, the very process of classifying is seen as subjective. Typologies, classifications, and groupings are identified as being the first and foremost among the tools of the researcher who creates the types in order to rationalize his or her data. A great many people's interest in the past is focused on the products of the past rather than on the makers and users of such products. The classifications utilized by such people differ considerably from those employed by those others whose main interest lies in knowing about who made the objects.
One way of interpreting the images is to see them as signalling the presence of Siwa worship in Java. The existence of locally fashioned images of the god closely associated with temple sites and produced over a period of over seven centuries, beginning with examples going back to the early seventh century CE, seems to point to the presence of a phenomenon identifiable as Siwa worship. This reading seems to be justified when the existence of inscriptions referring to linga installation and the existence of a number of locally composed texts in Old Javanese dealing with the worship of Siwa are taken into account.
However, it would be inappropriate if, in our reading of the images, a specific meaning were assigned to each expecting it to be the only possible one. I am not simply reiterating the now fairly common view that an interpretative approach in archaeology involves multi-vocality. This diversity of perceptions existed even in ancient Java. The meaning of each image varied in relation to its immediate context and also in relation to the specific beliefs and the level of awareness of the viewer/worshipper. Because of the system of beliefs associated with Siwa images, their interpretation cannot, therefore, be completely fixed. According to Saiwa accounts of Saiwa beliefs, which can be retrieved through a number of sources, including the above-mentioned texts, a worshipper of Siwa, initiated into the practice by a guru, would read the attributes of the god differently from a non-initiate.
Outer symbols of inner realities
To a Siwa worshipper who has entered the higher world of Saiwa observances, the only reality is that of the powers that are the real essence of the deities. These powers are visualized in worship and those visualizations are matched by material representations for worship. But the forms are only technical devices for establishing awareness or control of these powers. The attributes of the deities are consequently outer symbols of inner realities. The consequence is that there is a whole framework of references, ideas, and expectations which surrounds the images themselves and which may work simultaneously and at different levels.
If the textual sources give us glimpses of the beliefs of the people who made the images, the inscriptions connected with sites where images were found can provide more information on the historical context. The study of Javanese epigraphic material is ongoing, with a number of databases, which will hopefully be more widely available soon, being prepared by those who are involved in researching this material.
The picture that emerges is of a complex relationship between texts, epigraphic records, and the images themselves and their immediate architectural context, when this is known. The wider context - religious and socio-historical - in which people, the makers and users of the images, are in focus can be interpreted by mapping out the way the different elements (images, temples, texts, inscriptions) relate to each other.
Classification:
what, why, and how
Classification and the creation of typologies are central to all art historical and archaeological analyses. It is usually assumed that dissecting the elements of the image and carrying out detailed analyses of style are paramount if provenance and dating are to be established. The implications of such attitudes are wide-ranging.
As said, information about the immediate context of the images is unfortunately far too often missing and impossible to retrieve, as the objects have by and large been removed from their original context. In most instances, no record has been kept of the original location. This lack of precision in documenting the artefacts is the legacy of their being perceived as decorative, aesthetic objects, whose socio-historical context was quite unimportant to those who first collected them, so long as their antiquity could be somehow guaranteed. This perception of the images as collectables, with associated ideas of classicism, historical authenticity, and consequent higher monetary value is still alive. It is what sustains a prosperous art market, with less obvious links to a semi-legal trade in antiquities and a lively production of fakes.
This situation gives rise to a vicious circle. The less that is known and said about the provenance and original physical context, the better, as this might lead to embarrassing allegations of theft. On the other hand, how can the authenticity of the objects be vouched for to enhance their value in hard currency? Enter the expert image dissecting based on the scientific objectivity of classifications. Provided it can be afforded, these analyses will often be accompanied by extensive laboratory testing of the materials employed by the image makers. The concern with chronology and authenticity of the artefacts is often an obsession that excludes all other views of the past.
Given this scenario, why am I engaging in yet another classification? The answer is simple: my intention is, firstly, not to separate classification from issues of context and, secondly, to show that a classification is an interpretation, by focusing on the process involved, starting with how the artefacts are described. By so doing, I am trying to go beyond the separation of the objective and subjective and to re-evaluate the imaginative side of archaeological research, informed by disciplinary rules and knowledge (Hodder, 1999:72). There is nothing particularly new in this approach. It has been central to archaeological practice at least since the 1980s. But much Indonesia-focused archaeology is still dominated by positivist thinking. My work is an attempt to question such entrenched positions.
Artificial nature of typologies
Thus, in keeping with my initial observations on the subjective nature of typologies, consistency, rather than objectivity, is what I have been striving for in creating my analytical categories. In my typology, I have the following types corresponding to what are known as aspects or manifestations of the god: Siwa Mahadewa, Siwa Guru, Agastya, Nandiswara, Mahakala, Lingga, Ardhanariswara, Hari-Hara and Trisiras. My types of Siwa images are, however, only a convenient way of arranging the data in my possession. I am not in any way presenting this classification by types as being representative of the thinking of the Javanese artists. In other words, I am comfortable in separating Agastya from Siwa Guru but it does not follow that the two were necessarily perceived as wholly distinct, as the typology would suggest. The artificial nature of typologies can be exemplified by the way Trisiras (three-headed Siwa) is interpreted. Many would be happier to describe Trisiras as Trimurti, thereby reading the image differently and creating another type.
Or take, as another example, my dividing the images into two groups: one made up of isolated sculptures and one made up of those, which are part of a group. Much of this information is accurate in the context of the present state of affairs. But images given a group membership on the basis of a number of characteristics selected for the purpose of giving them that group membership were not necessarily perceived to be part of a group by their makers.
In some recent studies of Javanese images, art style has been adopted as the unit of analysis, implying the art styles of ancient Java as stylistic types. Style is, however, a contentious issue: 'archaeologists have tended to shy away from the interpretive element in style, pretending to mask their activities within empirical description or objective theory testing. Interpretation has been separated from the identification of similarity and difference within typology' (Hodder, 1990:48). What is ultimately at stake is a whole approach to how material culture and the past are interpreted. Interpretation, as the archaeological debates of the past twenty years have shown, begins at the level of artefact description. *
References
- Hodder, Ian 'Style as Historical Quality' in Margaret W.Conkey and Christine A. Harstof (eds), The Uses of Style in Archaeology, Cambridge/New York/Port Chester/Melbourne/Sydney: Cambridge University Press (1990).
- The Archaeological Process: An introduction, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers (1990).
Dr
Alessandra Lopez y Royo Iyer, from the Institute of Archaeology,
University of Oxford, was an IIAS affiliated fellow from 15 October 2000
to15 January 2001, working on a project about Siwa images from Java. Her
research interests are the social archaeology of Indonesia and the archaeology
of performance. She also teaches at the University of Surrey-Roehampton,
London.
E-mail: alessandra.iyer@arch.ox.ac.uk or a.iyer@roehampton.ac.uk.