Article

The ruins of Boro Budur in Java

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

The ruins of Boro Budur in Java

G. F. Hose, writing in 1880 for the Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, presented a learned account of Borobudur’s discovery, documentation, and religious character, arguing definitively that the monument is a Buddhist rather than Hindu or Jain structure. The article was delivered as an introduction to a gift of 393 lithographic plates made by the Netherlands-India Government to the Society.

Summary

Hose traces the history of European knowledge of Borobudur from Raffles’ 1814 discovery through decades of failed documentation attempts to the eventual publication of Wilsen’s drawings and Leemans’ descriptive text. He recounts how Raffles directed Lieutenant Cornelius to clear and measure the site, how photography was attempted and abandoned in 1845, and how Wilsen’s five years of drawing (1848–1853) finally produced the basis for the 393-plate series completed in 1871. The narrative is framed by the administrative history of the Dutch Government’s patronage of the project, including the difficulties with lithographer Mieling and the transfer of publication to Brill of Leyden.

The core argument concerns the religious identity of the monument. Hose marshals three lines of evidence: the building’s form as a stupa (the original Buddhist reliquary mound), the iconography of its hundreds of Buddha images which match those found in Nepalese temples, and the narrative bas-reliefs on the second gallery’s inner wall, which Wilsen identified as a pictorial representation of Sakyamuni’s early life. Hose walks the reader through a selection of these plates—Suddhodana’s honouring, Maya’s dream, the birth at Lumbini, the four encounters (old man, sick man, corpse, hermit), and the night escape—citing Rhys Davids and Bishop Bigandet’s Burmese legend to confirm Wilsen’s interpretations. He dismisses the Javanese tradition of Dewa Kasuma and the Babad chronicles as worthless, and addresses the dating question (Leemans’ 8th–9th century against Crawfurd’s 1344 A.D.) and the cause of destruction (Wilsen’s dramatic account of Muslim conquest versus Brumund’s attribution to neglect and natural decay).

Key Findings

  • Raffles directed Lieutenant Cornelius to examine the ruins in January 1814; over 200 workmen spent 45 days clearing jungle and earth before the structure was revealed (pp. 204–205).
  • The building occupies approximately 620 feet square and stands about 100 feet high, with a central dome of about 50 feet diameter in its ruined state (p. 205).
  • Wilsen’s drawings were completed in 1853; the full series of 393 plates was published in 1871, more than half a century after Raffles first conceived the project (pp. 207–208).
  • 376 of the 393 plates depict bas-reliefs; the upper line of sculptures on the inner wall of the second gallery is identified by Wilsen as a pictorial narrative of Sakyamuni’s early life (p. 212).
  • Crawfurd dated the monument to 1344 A.D.; Leemans places it in the 9th or even 8th century of the Christian era (p. 209).
  • The Javanese tradition of Prince Dewa Kasuma, who married his own daughter and was turned to stone at Chandi Mendut, is dismissed as a recent fiction with no historical value (pp. 209–210).

Conclusion

Hose’s definitive historical takeaway is that Borobudur is a Buddhist monument of the highest order, and that the building itself—its stupa form, its iconography, and its sculptural narrative—provides the only reliable evidence for its origin and purpose. All local traditions, written chronicles, and oral legends are worthless; the monument must be read through internal evidence alone. He closes by noting that the Javanese and Chinese continue to treat the site as sacred, a living testament to the religious sentiment that produced it.

Context

  • Hose held the title of Archdeacon of Singapore and was a senior colonial administrator; the article was read at a Society meeting on 14 September 1880 and framed as an introduction to a government gift of plates, reflecting the colonial administrative context in which such scholarly work was produced and distributed.
  • The photographs accompanying the article were executed by the Government Photographer at Singapore under the direction of Major McNaair, Colonial Engineer, Straits Settlements (p. 211).

References