Defining the Sema Tradition
3.6 Literature Review
3.6.3 The 1990s to the present: Continuing research on sema
Research on sema from the 1990s to the present has mainly been carried out by Arunsak Kingmanee in the form of a series of articles published in Thai language in both Muang Boran and Silpakorn journals. Kingmanee’s approach is to focus on one particular sema in each article and attempt to identify the particular jataka or Life of the Buddha scene depicted upon it. He also discusses style and derives relative dates for the sema by looking at both their iconography and stylistic traits. Essentially, he is continuing the work started by Piriya Krairiksh and his articles are an invaluable source and
contribution not only to the subject matter of sema reliefs, but also to Dvaravati art in general. The only criticism of his work is that due to his research/publication methods, he looks at sema in isolation and seldom, if ever, discusses their wider archaeological or geographical context. To date he has published twelve articles in total from 1996 to 2007.
Two other articles which take the same approach as Kingmanee have also been published in Thai language. In 1991 Suksavasti Suriyvudh published an article in Muang Boran identifying a scene from the Ramayana on a sema and in 2002 Rungroj Piromanukul also publishing in Muang Boran, identified a jataka with Mahayana and Khmer influence. It should also be noted that Rungroj Piromanukul contributed an article on sema in the recently published Dvaravati catalogue of the Musée Guimet (2009) entitled ‘Les bornes rituelles du nord-est de la Thailande’. However, while this
article is a concise summary of all research carried out to date on sema it does not contribute anything particularly new on the subject.
In the last three to four years (2005-2009) new research findings have begun to emerge from Laos as a result of a number of projects that have been initiated by Western scholars and institutions. Two publications in particular provide evidence for the extent and reach of the sema tradition into the Laotian provinces of Vientiane and
Savannakhet. These publications illustrate that the sema tradition’s boundaries are somewhat greater than was understood by previous scholarship which focused on northeast Thailand alone.
Anna Karlstrom’s 2009 PhD thesis entitled ‘Preserving Impermanence. The Creation of Heritage in Vientiane, Laos’ studies the development of the city of Vientiane from prehistory up to the modern day from a heritage management perspective. As part of her research she carried out excavations at Bahn Viengkham where a number of in situ Dvaravati period sema were discovered. Her research, while not focusing specifically on sema or the Dvaravati period, nonetheless, provides important empirical and archaeological evidence. She assigns an 8th-9th century date for the excavated sema.
The second publication of note is by Michel Lorrillard (2008) of the EFEO Vientiane entitled, ‘Pour une Géographie Historique du Bouddhisme au Laos’. This article discusses the research findings of survey work carried out by Lorrillard and the EFEO in central and southern Laos focusing on the development of Buddhism. In the first section of his article, Lorrillard documents fourteen sites in Vientiane province and three in Savannakhet province where Dvaravati period sema are found, some of which are still in situ. He also documents further evidence for Dvaravati culture in the region such as a number of Buddha images and a Mon inscription. By comparing motifs such as the stupa-kumbha which is found at a number of sites in Laos and in situ
archaeological evidence, Lorrillard concludes that the sema found throughout Vientiene and Savannakhet are part of the same tradition that existed in northeast Thailand.
Lorrillard is at present carrying out further survey work in southern Laos and is
planning to publish articles in the near future that should provide additional evidence for the spread of sema into this region.8
3.6.4 Summary
From reviewing the work published to date on sema, we can divide the literature into three categories. The first consists of looking at sema from an art historic standpoint with the main priority being the analysis of the style, iconography and content of the art on sema. In doing so important early contributions were made and it became possible to talk about a Dvaravati art style that extended beyond central Thailand. The second category consists of surveys of sema throughout the Khorat Plateau. These works, such as Vallibhotama’s 1975 article and Lorrillard’s 2008 publication provide invaluable information in regard to the location and geographical extent of sema. The third category is in regard to the origins of sema. On the one hand there are works such as Seidenfaden and Krairiksh which place sema well within the sphere of influence of central Dvaravati art. On the other hand, there are works which see sema as a uniquely northeastern phenomenon. Groslier, with his proposed ‘civilisation des steles’ and Vallibhotama’s 1990 publication, have done a lot to place sema within a Khorat Plateau context.
Furthermore, by reviewing the existing literature on sema, a number of issues arise which have helped to define and shape the research questions being asked in this thesis.
They can be expressed as four distinct points.
First, the earliest scholarship focused primarily on sema with narrative episodes and consequently to some degree misrepresents these objects, as the vast majority of stones do not have such pictorial scenes. In fact, most sema are either plain, apart from a carved band of lotus petals around the base or have a number of motifs such as an axial stupa or stupa-kumbha motif. This misrepresentation not only exists in the literature but also in the illustrations available in publications. Once again, with the exception of Paknam’s 1981 work, illustrations and photographs of sema in most publications favour sema with representations of either jataka tales or scenes from the Life of the Buddha.
8 Pers. comm. Michel Lorrillard.
Plain pillar and slab type sema on the other hand, which make up a large majority, are seldom shown. This thesis therefore readdresses the imbalance by giving substantial emphasis to sema without narrative episodes on them (see chapter 5).
Secondly, apart from Groslier’s article it is also apparent that there is little treatment of the context within which sema are found and no detailed analysis has been done in regard to their distribution throughout the Khorat Plateau. While Vallibhotama’s 1975 article is a survey of the locations of the sema throughout the northeast, he does not attempt to correlate these locations with either the motifs found on them or their relationship to Dvaravati period sites within the region. Other authors, by focusing on the artwork alone, decontextualise sema from their geographical and cultural
environment. This thesis therefore recontextualises sema by studying them within their historic landscape and analyses their distribution throughout the region (see chapter 4).
Thirdly, a prevailing idea present in the literature is that of a pre-existing megalithic cult within the region out of which sema may have developed. This proposal was first put forward by Wales (1969) but he provided little in the way of archaeological evidence to back this up. Despite the lack of evidence and the absence of any systematic or thorough research into the question of whether sema evolved out of megaliths, this view gained in popularity as the scholarship on sema developed. Apart from a brief critique and
challenge to this position by Krairiksh in 1974, this view continues to be put forward in articles.9 A key research question of this thesis, therefore, has been to test this
proposition by surveying the region and recording the evidence of megalithic culture.
Furthermore, by creating a typology, possible megaliths have been compared to the forms of the earliest sema in order to analyse their dimensions and shape and see if this evolution is in fact plausible (see chapter 6).
Fourthly, when we look at the literature on sema in the larger context of scholarship on Southeast Asia and particularly on Thailand from the 5th century CE onwards, further issues arise. In the majority of art historical and archaeological work published on Dvaravati, the Khorat Plateau in many senses is not considered as a region in itself, but
9 See for example, Piromanukul (2009).
as part of, or at times, subsidiary to central Thailand. This view colours the
interpretation of sema and as shown above, the first art historical analysis of sema did not view the art as a unique style of the northeast but as a derivative of central Dvaravati art. The sema tradition and its art therefore, became something to be explained in terms of central Thailand. In doing this, scholars overlooked the possible unique northeastern aspects of this art. For example, is there a particular Khorat Plateau aesthetic that can be identified on sema and if so would this be representative of the people who created these stones? This is another question that this thesis attempts to answer as this study aims to readdress this balance in the scholarship on sema. It therefore views sema first and foremost as an expression of early Buddhism in the Khorat Plateau, both in terms of the art produced and the culture it represented (see chapter 5).
3.7 Summary
This chapter has reviewed a variety of different types of evidence to build a definition of what sema are and how they functioned. The textual evidence provides the basis for our understanding of the need to demarcate sacred space in order to carry out certain essential rituals. It also informs us that this is to be done by the use of boundary marks (nimitta). Significantly though, it does not state exactly what these nimitta are to be.
Archaeology, however, provides an answer to this question in regard to the Khorat Plateau during the Dvaravati period. The solution was to use large carved stones, usually sandstone but sometimes also in laterite, that in Thailand became known as sema. Furthermore, in the absence of more monumental religious structures, sema could have functioned as clear markers illustrating the sacred nature of the space they
enclosed. Sema therefore, would have also have functioned as one means to define and shape the visual religious landscape of the time.
What other Buddhist communities outside of the Khorat Plateau used for nimitta during this period is uncertain, however, they could have been using a variety of methods such as natural features including trees, rocks and rivers or perishable materials such as wood.
Evidence from Vesali in western Burma and Beikthano in central Burma, suggests that
they were using fossilized wood while at Thaton in Lower Burma they appear to begin to use stone by the 11th century.
The question of the number of uses sema were put to in the Dvaravati Period has also been raised as has the issue of projecting back modern day Buddhist practice onto the past. In Thai Buddhism today, sema are used almost exclusively in sets of eight or sixteen to consecrate and demarcate a square or rectangular area around the ubosot and in doing so create a khandasima. However, archaeological evidence from a number of Dvaravati period sites shows differing usages, configurations and placements indicating that at this time the function of sema was perhaps not firmly fixed and a degree of flexibility existed. This would explain why sema are found not only around ubosots but also around stupas, Buddha images and rock-shelters and created square, rectangular and circular shaped sima. Sema may also have functioned to fix sacred space when no buildings were present or when religious structures were modest and built of perishable materials. In the absence of monumental architecture, sema with their monolithic quality perhaps fulfilled a primary role in defining the religious landscape.
Inscriptional evidence sheds light on the social and political importance that was attached to sema and the demarcation of sacred space. It appears from the limited epigraphic evidence available that the sema consecration ceremonies were sponsored by local dignitaries or rulers and that the stone was at times donated by royalty. Brahmans may have been employed to supervise the ritual while merit was accrued by those who made the dedications. It appears therefore, that sema at times acted not only as objects of religious worship but also as vehicles for social and political design.
Looking at modern worship allows us to view the continued importance of sema within Buddhist communities to this day as seen in the many examples and variations of re-use found throughout the Khorat Plataeu, reminding us that they are still potent religious objects. Just as important is the fluidity of meaning illustrated by these examples. It cautions us not to restrict our understanding of sema to a narrow definition of an object used only to create sacred space. That today they are found in a variety of other
religious contexts highlights the possibility that this may also have been the case in the past.
Reviewing the literature on sema allows us to build up a picture of how they are viewed and understood in modern scholarship and also illustrates how certain explanations, classifications and theories arose and remain present today. It provides the basis for forming a number of the research questions present in this thesis with some of the assumptions and hypotheses in the literature being challenged in the following chapters of this thesis. In particular this study challenges the viewpoint of seeing sema in terms of the Dvaravati culture of central Thailand as opposed to being a phenomenon of the Khorat Plateau, as well as the idea that sema arose from a megalithic cult and the process of decontextualising the art of sema.
In conclusion, sema arose as a specific response to a doctrinal need and while their function was to a certain extent limited by this, their varied usage throughout the Dvaravati period illustrates that the forms of Buddhism being practiced possessed a fair degree of flexibility and creativity in their praxis. This is further emphasised by the skill and expression of the artwork on many sema and their re-use to this day, which allows them to function not only as boundary markers but as objects to inspire and invoke religious piety.