DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.75620#0083
GANESA IN BURMA, SIAM, INDOCHINA 47
in south Siam on the banks of the Menam. It is not known what form of Buddhism
they practised; but as the Hindu emigrants were of superior culture, the process of
Indianization was more rapid than in Burma. From the sixth to the eighth centuries
they exerted a strong influence on the statuary art of the Mon ; and Grousset looks
upon this period as a transition stage between the Gupta art of India and the pre-
Angkor art of Cambodia.1
In Siam, Ganesa was as popular with the Buddhists as with the Brahmans. His
image, however, was never allowed within the precincts of the Buddhist temples,
but was tolerated within the temple grounds. Unfortunately no statue of any
interest has been found in south Siam. We only know of his popularity from the many
small images referred to above, which were probably copied and recopied by native
artisans. Not until the Ayuthian period in central Siam is a Siamese representation
of Ganesa to be found which is worthy of study.
Toward the ninth century, the Mon moved farther north and founded, in central
Siam, a second state, the kingdom of Haripuhjaya. Unlike the kingdom of south
Siam, they resisted the Khmer; but in the thirteenth century the Mon were over-
powered by warriors from the north, the Thai, and became a part of the new state
with its capital at Ayuthia. The early art of Ayuthia, although influenced by the
Indian culture of the conquered Mon, developed characteristics of its own, as will
be seen by a very fine example of Ayuthian statuary art which was formerly in the
private collection of H.R.H. Prince Damropg.2
Ganesa is represented seated in the Maharajalila pose with the right knee uphfted,
while the left is bent before him on the asana. The head, well placed on the shoulders,
is modelled with considerable skill, and the trunk is of unusual suppleness. The
eyes, as in India, are round and staring. The head is covered by a karanda-mukuta,
tiara-shaped in front, behind which rises a spiral-shaped usmsa ending in a point
and somewhat resembling the spiral head-dress of a four-headed Ganesa described
below.3 The body is erect and, like the Khmer statues in general, is not obese but is
normally modelled. He is bare to the waist and has a serpent over his shoulder in
place of the Brahmanical thread.
One of the specially interesting features of this Ayuthian bronze is the arrange-
ment of the arms, which, as far as the author knows, is unique. From the shoulders
to the elbow, there is only one arm; but at the elbow, the arm branches into two,
somewhat like the images of Hindu gods in the Orissa districts of India. Two of the
hands are lifted on a level with the shoulders, holding a lasso and an attribute
difficult to determine. The wrist of the normal hand is posed on the knee; but the
hand is raised in what may possibly be a mudrd. The normal right, which rests on
the upraised knee, holds the broken tusk. The Ayuthian sculptor, however, was
apparently not versed in Hindu iconography, for the image is possessed of both
tusks; and the broken-tusk attribute is thus without raison d'etre.
Crouching under his uplifted right leg is his vdhana, the rat, wliich we shall not
come across either in Cham or in Khmer images of Ganesa; and shall rarely meet
1 H. de TE.-O., p. 588. author by H.R.H. Prince Damrong.
2 v. Pl. 27 (a) and (b). Kindly presented to the 3 v. Pl. 27 (c).
in south Siam on the banks of the Menam. It is not known what form of Buddhism
they practised; but as the Hindu emigrants were of superior culture, the process of
Indianization was more rapid than in Burma. From the sixth to the eighth centuries
they exerted a strong influence on the statuary art of the Mon ; and Grousset looks
upon this period as a transition stage between the Gupta art of India and the pre-
Angkor art of Cambodia.1
In Siam, Ganesa was as popular with the Buddhists as with the Brahmans. His
image, however, was never allowed within the precincts of the Buddhist temples,
but was tolerated within the temple grounds. Unfortunately no statue of any
interest has been found in south Siam. We only know of his popularity from the many
small images referred to above, which were probably copied and recopied by native
artisans. Not until the Ayuthian period in central Siam is a Siamese representation
of Ganesa to be found which is worthy of study.
Toward the ninth century, the Mon moved farther north and founded, in central
Siam, a second state, the kingdom of Haripuhjaya. Unlike the kingdom of south
Siam, they resisted the Khmer; but in the thirteenth century the Mon were over-
powered by warriors from the north, the Thai, and became a part of the new state
with its capital at Ayuthia. The early art of Ayuthia, although influenced by the
Indian culture of the conquered Mon, developed characteristics of its own, as will
be seen by a very fine example of Ayuthian statuary art which was formerly in the
private collection of H.R.H. Prince Damropg.2
Ganesa is represented seated in the Maharajalila pose with the right knee uphfted,
while the left is bent before him on the asana. The head, well placed on the shoulders,
is modelled with considerable skill, and the trunk is of unusual suppleness. The
eyes, as in India, are round and staring. The head is covered by a karanda-mukuta,
tiara-shaped in front, behind which rises a spiral-shaped usmsa ending in a point
and somewhat resembling the spiral head-dress of a four-headed Ganesa described
below.3 The body is erect and, like the Khmer statues in general, is not obese but is
normally modelled. He is bare to the waist and has a serpent over his shoulder in
place of the Brahmanical thread.
One of the specially interesting features of this Ayuthian bronze is the arrange-
ment of the arms, which, as far as the author knows, is unique. From the shoulders
to the elbow, there is only one arm; but at the elbow, the arm branches into two,
somewhat like the images of Hindu gods in the Orissa districts of India. Two of the
hands are lifted on a level with the shoulders, holding a lasso and an attribute
difficult to determine. The wrist of the normal hand is posed on the knee; but the
hand is raised in what may possibly be a mudrd. The normal right, which rests on
the upraised knee, holds the broken tusk. The Ayuthian sculptor, however, was
apparently not versed in Hindu iconography, for the image is possessed of both
tusks; and the broken-tusk attribute is thus without raison d'etre.
Crouching under his uplifted right leg is his vdhana, the rat, wliich we shall not
come across either in Cham or in Khmer images of Ganesa; and shall rarely meet
1 H. de TE.-O., p. 588. author by H.R.H. Prince Damrong.
2 v. Pl. 27 (a) and (b). Kindly presented to the 3 v. Pl. 27 (c).