The Second Asia-Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art exhibition catalogue (APT2)

I move on to George Coedes (1886-1969) and his text: The lndianized States of Southeast Asia. No one scholar has stamped his presence on the study of South-East Asian history as pervasively and enduringly as Coedes; this is especially in the study of the region's earlier history (i.e. from about the fifth to the fourteenth centuries A.O.), a span of time often labelled as the period of the Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms. Coedes has been largely instrumental in shaping the lineaments of these centuries, and forming their sinews, so much so that the paternity of South-East Asia's early history is firmly laid at his feet. Coedes was a student of Indian studies at the Sorbonne; among his teachers were Alfred Foucher, Louis Finot and Sylvan Levi, who were at the forefront of Indian archaeology and art history at the beginning of this century. Their notions of Indian cultural tradition were modelled on the classicising ideals of Greek and Roman cultures; they viewed culture as a civilising force or agent, emanating from privileged centres and spreading benignly to lesser developed territories and uplifting lesser endowed peoples. It was an imperial vision, fuelling an imperial mission. Coedes was an heir to these attitudes and values. He studied Sanskrit, and this proved to be a turning point in his life, and profoundly consequential to the advancement of South-East Asian historiography. He developed an interest in Khmer epigraphy, and devoted a considerable part of his life to translating inscriptions from Cambodia and other countries in the region. For Coedes, these inscriptions in Sanskrit, Pali, Cambodian and Thai, proved to be the primary materials and stable grounds for constructing South-East Asian history; they also shaped the ideological strata for his perceptions. He was also active and influential in the realms of art and architectural history, particularly with respect to Cambodia. As the director of the Ecole Fran<;:aise d'Extr~me-Orient in Hanoi, a position he held from 1929 until after World War II, he inspired and coordinated a sustained period of archaeological restoration and interpretation that continues to be a model until today. In all these enterprises he maintained a systematic rigour that is akin to a grammarian; some of this rubbed off onto approaches in art history. In 1944 he published Les Etats hindouises d'lndochine et d'lndonesie, which has since been reissued four times, the English translation appearing in 1968. Unanimously hailed as the basic text on South-East Asian history, it continues to be a landmark reference. Through careful, controlled readings of inscriptions from within the region and Chinese records, interpreting archaeological discoveries, Coedes has provided a synthesis of these threads and produced detailed histories of individual countries; he has established genealogies of rulers, described institutions 16 ESSAYS of kingship and of power, ascertained religious establishments, as well as suggested extensive intraregional contacts and relationships. All these inaugurated fresh perspectives. My interest is in Coedes's conception of South-East Asia as a region, and the title of his text more than discloses his disposition. The establishment of states in South-East Asia, in a political and territorial sense, the consolidation of institutions of power and authority within them, the conduct of relationships between one state and another, were, according to Coedes, the outcome of the transplantation of Indian idea~ and models. Coedes provides a precise definition of lndianisation as a principle and a process. lndianization must be understood essentially as the expansion of an organized culture that was founded upon the Indian conception of royalty, was characterised by Hinduist or Buddhist cults, the mythology of the Puranas, and the observance of the Dharmasastras, and expressed in the Sanskrit language. It is for this reason that sometimes we speak of 'Sanskritization' instead of 'lndianization'. 12 By focusing on Sanskritic components and relying on reductive iconographic readings, Coedes has imposed a programmatic design of Indian influence onto South-East Asia; indeed, it is tantamount to propounding a colonial doctrine. Two motivations have fuelled his thesis. The first, which has been intimated a little earlier while describing his pupillage, arises from a view of culture as a civilising force entwined with the projection of India as embodying a tradition that is universalist, unitary and benign; in casting South-East Asia in that mould, the status of the region can only be enhanced. For that matter, South-East Asia can only be conceived from the vantage of India; 'without India', intones Coedes, 'its past would almost be unknown'. 13 While Coomaraswamy notes that there are monuments in this region whose design and meaning cannot be imagined in India and leaves the matter there as a paradox, Coedes is unfazed by such occurrences. 'We know no monuments in India resembling even remotely the Bayon of Angkor Thom or the Borobudur. And yet these monuments are pure productions of Indian genius, the deep meaning of which is apparent to the eyes of the lndianist.' 14 In one of his last pronouncements on this matter, he dispels any lingering sense of a paradox; the implications of his assertion are far-reaching. But if the conception of the ancient monuments of Southeast Asia and the inspiration of their architects were of Indian origin their execution was the work of indigenous artisans who possessed traditions from their pre-Indian past and for whom Indian mythology and cosmology expressed in the architecture and sculpture had perhaps no profound meaning. 15 That a person who had devoted his entire life immersed in materials in the region and interpreting them in order to map out the contours of South– East Asia as a region, for such a one to propose a diagnosis such as this is indeed astonishing. As in the case of Coomaraswamy, the source of such a conclusion can only be attributed to the upholding of a particular world view. I mentioned two motivations, the second has to do with the ambition to project South-East Asia as an integrated, unitary entity. For Coedes, lndianisation was a conceptual or ideological tool to generate and sustain such a vision of the region. Differences within the region were akin to those obtaining in a family and therefore expected and tolerable. He well knew that such a projection was prescriptive and exclusive; he well knew thatThe Philippines and other large sectors would be excluded from the pale of lndianisation, or disappear from the sight of one who was viewing the region with 'the eyes of the Indianist'. He was prepared to settle for such consequences as long as his vision was safeguarded. In this regard, in her detailed study of ceramics as an aid in understanding the pattern of relationship between The Philippines and South– East Asia, Roxas Aurora Lim draws an altogether different, inclusive, interactive picture. Trade in ceramics was part of broader socio-economic developments in Southeast Asia. Ceramic evidence was utilised because in the case of the Philippines, they are the most visible evidence of long distance trade. Trading activities were traced to the Late Developed Metal Age to show that there were pre– existing exchange networks within Southeast Asia and China.16 And whereas Coomaraswamy, while mentioning fabric and wayang, was not able to link them to contexts in the region, in an exhibition featuring batik in the National Museum in Singapore, the curator Lee Chor Lin was decisive. Titling the presentation 'Batik, Creating an Identity', she observes: Batik patterns are more than a form of decoration. They are also significant symbols that express various local identities for the people of Java. 17 When past conceptions of South-East Asia as a region are juxtaposed with present dispositions (which skirt the matter and treat the region as being made up of separate national entities) intriguing parallels are discernible. In their missions to stamp the region with a distinct identity, Coomaraswamy and Coedes mapped it as an appendage of India; their readings of the monuments produced by peoples of South-East Asia were primarily deter– mined by codes devised to explicate architecture and art in India. In doing so they elected to bypass, suppress, even subvert instances which according