Berkeley Trip

We wrote our third round of reflections following a class field-trip to the South/Southeast Asia Library at UC Berkeley, where we had the opportunity to interact with a range of manuscripts from a similar context to that of our class object. Our deep thanks to Virginia Shih, Curator for Southeast Asia and Buddhist Studies Collections at UC Berkeley, for hosting us and to Stanford's Department of Religious Studies for sponsoring the trip. After a day of exploring manuscripts, we turned for our reflections to a comparison between them and our focus object in terms of their scripts, materiality, images, designs, and formats.

Carolyn

There are two manuscripts I would like to compare our class manuscript to. The first I will talk about is the one pictured on the right with animal descriptions and a spell. For simplicity, I will refer to the manuscript we have been studying and working on in class as our manuscript and the ones from the library as the library manuscripts.

Starting with the materiality, our manuscript appears to be made of thinner paper. The accordion manuscript from the library seems to be multilayered, but possibly made of the same material. My hypothesis on why the manuscript may be multilayered is because it lacks a cover like our manuscript has. This means it has more contact with its surrounding environment and less protection. Also, because of its folding-book style, the paper has to be thick enough to endure the use and wear of continuous folding.

Then looking at the images in the manuscripts, both contain images of animals. While the library manuscript had many animals and figures in it, there are a few commonalities. They both have an ox, an elephant, and a snake. One figure that our manuscript has but the library one doesn’t is the tiger figure. In both manuscripts, each animal has words next to it. In the library manuscript, the script was describing how the animals eat, whether that’s typical feed or even other animals. I wonder if our manuscript is also describing the interactions between the tiger-looking animal, the snakes, and ox-looking animal. Though, my current guess is that since the top of the cover is specifying different years, the animals depicted correspond with that lunar year's animal. I would like to verify this, but I have forgotten the corresponding years at the top, so I will confirm later in class.

I also wonder if their similarities with animals may give some hint into the script being used. In the library manuscript, the script being used to describe the animal’s actions were unidentified, but the script on the rest of the manuscript that was explaining a spell was in ~~Thai.~~ [a language of the Tai family, but is not Thai (also known as Siamese, Central Thai or Standard Thai, the national language of Thailand)]. Doing some research, the script on the cover of our manuscript looks similar to Khom Thai script.

Another manuscript that I was interested in was the second manuscript depicted on the right with several charts with words or numbers in each cell. In particular, I was wondering if there was a specific region that organizes information in this way or if this is a common practice in Southeast Asia. Looking at the middle of the manuscript, there seems to be a circle (highlighted pink) that is split into two bars (that are also cut into squares) that are perpendicular to each other and then diagonally across. I found something very similar to it on the British library archive of digitized manuscripts imaged below (right). While I am not sure what the words/numbers are in the cells, the description of the manuscript is “Divination manual for the prediction of wars and conflicts, including the interpretation of the appearances of sun, moon, planets, comets, and clouds. Contains number diagrams and mantras.” While we do not see this exact chart in our own manuscript, we currently suspect that our manuscript contains a calendar system that may involve intercalation to bring back the lunar calendar in line with other calendar systems such as the Gregorian system. To do so, they may need to use astrology to keep track of their own calendar system. Also, because we know that our manuscript is tied to Buddhist magic, the manual could also be a divination manual that explains how to interpret the sun and moon to recreate a spell for a specific purpose.

British Library: 1800-1880 “Tamra phichai songkhram ตำรา พิชัยสงคราม,” which seems to translate to “Manual on Victorious Warfare (ตำราพิชัยสงคราม tamra phichai songkhram), a military treatise.”

Hau

Materiality:

In regards to materiality, our group’s object from the Berkeley collection was made out of dried palm leaves, while the class object’s material is an unidentified type of paper or cloth. I think the dried palm leaves are an advancement of the paper material; it appears sturdier and would not be susceptible to water damage, opposed to the class object. If I had to place the group object and class object on a timeline, the class object originated before the group object because of their materiality. I would argue it may have come centuries before since stamps and prints were not introduced to southeast Asia until roughly the 19th - 20th centuries.

Format:

For the group object, the palm leaves were tied with a bright orange string. The pages of the class object, on the other hand, were grouped together like an actual book (it is unclear how these pages were bound together). In terms of the content, the class object includes a chart with dates and the moon phases and the pages of writing afterwards. The group object, on the other hand, has a structured format; the ordering of these palm leaves appears to be intentional (it makes me think it is supposed to read like a story). I speak about these intentions in the section about my interpretation of these objects’ purposes.

Language and Script:

In terms of language and script, our group’s object was in Thai, while the script in the class object was Lao, according to Professor Walker. The group object’s content is either stamped or printed. Interestingly, it includes Thai numbers, which I have circled blue in the image on page 3.

Images and Designs:

In regards to images and designs, the group object and the class object both contained the multi-headed elephant. However, the group object did not contain other notable images that are open to interpretation, compared to the class object, which illustrates a rat, ox, and an unknown figure holding a flag of the multi-headed elephant. The class object also includes a chart on dates and phases of the moon, which the group object lacks. By comparing and contrasting the image and designs of the group object and the class object, it is clear these items have two different illustrations and thus, messages they are conveying.

Interpreting the Purposes of the Group Object and Class Object:

The group object’s purpose is a lot clearer compared to the class object. The Thai numbers labeled in blue signify chapter numbers. Each piece of dried palm leaf, then, represents a chapter. One of the palm leaves, when translated, reads, “...Popular with preaching and listening in Thailand and Laos.” Although I am unsure which palm leaf in particular included this translation (thus, it was not marked in the image on page 3), this message has two implications. The first implication is that there is one person (i.e., the single preacher) of the group/community that keeps possession or holds ownership of the object. The second implication is this was used for sermons and religious purposes.

Berkeley Library Group Object,

Image Courtesy of Carolyn Ky

Front Cover of Class Object

Chart of Dates and Moon Phases

I find the last implication particularly interesting since in Barend Terwiel’s Monks and Magic, he mentioned, “The religion of the farmer is basically magico-animistic, whilst those among the elite who adhere to religion may be regarded as having organized an intellectual appreciation of Buddhism.” In other words, the elites viewed the Buddha as a philosopher, whereas the farmers interpreted the Buddha as a god-figure. Initially, I thought since the object had a sophisticated printing technique, the elite produced it for themselves. However, if this was produced within the elite context, wouldn't the producer use paper and include a cover? In other words, wouldn’t this object look like an actual book? Additionally, this object was used for religious purposes, and if we use the logic of Terwiel’s study, this implies that its dominant audience was most likely the farmers and/or the poor.

The class object’s purpose remains unclear, but it has close ties with Buddhist astrology. The rat and ox on the front cover and the chart with the systematic layout of dates and phases of the moon support this interpretation. These objects have different purposes; the group object was for religious purposes (providing non-magical sermons to the farming and/or poor community), whereas the class object had astrological and magical ties. I say the group object did not have magical ties because it did not include astrological numbers, spells, and other signals of magic that we have come to understand thus far.

Parth

One of the objects that my group focused on was the sequence of palm leaf manuscripts depicted on the left. This is a collection of twenty-something individually bound booklets. The front of each booklet appears roughly the same—it’s framed by two logos and has a title in the middle.

First we identified the script as Thai by using Google Translate and talking to Trent. After that, the title was revealed, but it didn’t make much sense to us, and Google didn’t turn up much. At the end of the day, Trent shared that the manuscript is actually a story about a character in Buddhism, and the Latinization of their name that was chosen by Google Translate wasn’t the best way to spell it in English. Googling the other name turns up more results. In another part of the manuscript, it said that it was meant for “preaching and listening.” Because there were so many copies of the same text, we inferred that this might be used in ritual practice by distributing the same manuscript to everyone in the room.

But then, we noticed an important detail that changed between the individual packets. A small character that we’d originally missed, depicted on the left (Google Translate also translated that poorly, but Trent clarified that the most accurate translation was to say that these are different chapter numbers).

We inferred that, because there are multiple chapters—each one appearing only once in the set, these packets were probably not distributed to practitioners, but rather that one monastic would preach from them.

These documents seem quite different from our focus object. Google Translate easily identified this script as Thai, but it struggles on all the pages of our manuscript. This document is also quite modern. There’s a portion of it which reads “All rights reserved” (in Thai), and by dating the emergence of the copyright system in Thailand and Laos, we can deduce that it was produced later than the 1940s. Although it’s printed on palm leaf, it’s not etched and inked like the older palm leaf manuscripts. Rather, it’s stamped. By contrast, our manuscript seems mostly hand-written.

An open question for me is whether our manuscript includes anything for preaching or listening. It seems almost like an “instruction manual” for doing magic, but if there are parts of it that are meant to communicate about religion, there might be some similarities to the object that we studied. When I’m writing English to be spoken, I use shorter sentences, more fragments, etc. I wonder if there is some linguistic structure to be understood in the focus object, and how it compares to this object.

Sean

We spent most of our time with two sets of manuscripts. The first was this object on the bottom left, which we were drawn to owing to the similarities between the materiality of the object and our class manuscript, particularly in its binding, cover, and the texture of its paper.

For comparison, note the similarities in appearance to the class manuscript - shown below on the right.

The other manuscripts with which we spent some time were in a Leporello format, pictured on the right.

We were drawn to these Leporello texts owing to the similarities between their scripts and our class manuscript. Another interesting feature we found on these (to which we’ll return later) was the presence of different styles/scripts on the same manuscript, often following immediately one after the other. This reminded us of the succession of apparently different scripts we also observed on the class manuscript.

Physical format of texts:

One thing we noted when considering the different material forms of scripts was what it might indicate about their contents and uses. The Leporello manuscripts appear more fragile, are shorter and so can contain less text, and also seem like they might be easier to produce, as they are simply a single sheet of paper folded up. The first manuscript we considered, as well as our class manuscript, comprises many pages and is bound together in a cover.

Here are a few observations about how we might understand the relationship between these two different forms of manuscript:

Bound manuscripts could be more important to their users, as the effort taken to bind them would probably make them more costly than the Leporello format, and the binding process serves as better protection (which might imply a more important text).
Bound manuscripts could be used mainly by comparatively wealthier individuals/communities, again owing to the seemingly greater effort and expense that goes into their construction.
Bound manuscripts might contain longer single texts, or be compilations of shorter texts, while the Leporello format might be used for shorter texts (which might then be compiled in a bound format).
Bound manuscripts might be used more often, and for a broader range of purposes, than the Leporello format texts, as their binding seems designed to make them more durable. This could mean that they are more important (owing to their common use). Alternatively, it could indicate instead that they are commonplace, while texts in the Leporello format might be reserved for special occasions (and so be less in need of protection and durability).
Bound manuscripts might be intended to stay in one place – say a cupboard or a desk – while the Leporello format appears more portable and lightweight. Perhaps the bound texts are a full compendium of texts, while the Leporello format is used as a portable means to carry only the essential texts.

In summary, then, considering the differing forms of text that we encountered, and how the forms might relate to one another, could be a useful way of gathering information about how our class manuscript was used, and why it was constructed as a bound manuscript instead of in a Leporello format.

Scripts of texts:

To summarize a lengthy process of investigation, we came to the conclusion that the script on many of the texts we considered (both the bound and the Leporello) appeared to be a variant of the Tham script. We also found out that there are (at least) two variants of the Tham script – Lanna Tham (which is used for Northern Thai), and Lao Tham (which appears to have a strong connection to Buddhist manuscripts). Intuitively, Lao Tham seems like the more likely candidate, owing to the presence of Lao script on the cover and table, as well as its connection to Buddhist use and manuscripts.

Another intriguing point along these lines had to do with the variations of script we observed in a number of the Leporello objects. We believe that these may be due to the fact that the Tham script was used to render another language (as opposed to Thai or Lao), and that the change in the vowels and consonants used in that language could be the reason the script appears so different. This seems like a plausible explanation for the variation in script we see in our focus object, especially when it comes to the dramatic difference in vowel diacritics across the different script appearances (see the images below for the contrast). Given that this is a Buddhist text (or we think it is at least) – our focus object could be using the Tham script to render a quotation in Sanskrit or Pali, perhaps (as it is supposedly a magical text) it could be quoting a mantra in the mantra’s original language.

The next step in determining the script would be a detailed dive into the characters present in our focus object, in an attempt to compare them to the characters of the two Tham variants and determine which variant (if any) is represented in the focus object.

Sisely

The palm leaf manuscripts above stood out to me as being different from the rest of the objects materials-wise, and were an area of focus for me on our field trip to Berkeley. The most obvious difference between them and our own manuscript that this class is focused on is the physical composition and materiality of the objects. These objects are composed of palm leaves which are cooked, dried, and etched into with a sharp object in order to inscribe the script. They are then washed over with pigment which falls into the inscription, the rest being wiped away. The leaves are stacked upon each other, correct order maintained by a piece of rope or twine fed through each individual leaf. They read top to bottom, left to right, and one flips each leaf over they progress down the stack. This layout ensures that maximum surface area of both the front and back of the palmleaves is used.

Our manuscript is read top to bottom, left to right as well but is in a much different configuration, read like pages of a book which is bound at the top. I think this top binding is interesting and something that might be related to the palm leaf manuscripts shown above. Palm leaf was used before the invention of paper and thus probably influenced the design of manuscripts to follow. Its design can be found replicated in later manuscripts composed of other materials such as bamboo which might be cut into similar shapes and arrangements. The accordion-style paper manuscripts (shown below on the right) seem like a likely next step in the progression, moving from separate pages to one continuous one which can not fall out of order but is still read in much of the same way from top to bottom.

Although our manuscript is not arranged in exactly this way with the bottom of one page connecting to the top of the next, it is still bound at the top which seems unique through our modern western lens. However, as I hope to have illustrated, it may be the next logical configuration according to the history of manuscripts like the ones shown above from South-East Asia.

Another key similarity I saw between the palm leaf manuscripts and our paper one is in the scripts utilized. Although they don’t look like the same scripts, they show a similar curved quality in the shape of the symbols used. Development of curvier scripts was probably necessary for inscription into palm leaves as jagged or harsh lines would have been more likely to fracture the leaves. Since palm leaves were some of the first materials used for the creation of manuscripts in South-East Asia, it makes sense that later paper manuscripts might show the remnants of those curvy-type script styles which might have been their script’s effective ancestor.

Sylvia

Manuscript from the library with similar binding and similarly embellished markings

Changing writing styles on the same manuscript

A number of the manuscripts at the library seemed to be written in a variant of the Tai Tham script, and we also noticed remarkable similarities between our class manuscript and these writings, particularly one book which was bound in a similar manner. This book’s front and back cover were the same brown cloth material as our manuscript, and the pages even seem to have undergone similar damage around the edges. As we noted in class, this was probably not direct water damage as the ink is not smeared. The script is also comparable to our class manuscript, particularly the later pages that feature more embellished markings, including lots of double slanted parallel lines above/below many letters.

One book written in Chinese seemed to be deciphering a Khün manuscript and possibly transcribing it into modern Khün writing. The Khün language uses a variant of the Tai Tham script. This script is also used by a number of linguistic communities which are more or less unbothered by the comparatively recent innovation of national borders. It is used for the following languages:

Lanna (also known as Northern Thai or Kam Mueang), spoken mostly in Northern Thailand, but also northwestern Laos.
Khün, spoken mostly in the Shan State of Myanmar; but also Chiang Rai, Thailand; and Yunnan, China
Tai Lu, spoken in Yunnan, China; Myanmar; Laos; and Thailand

Notably, all of these languages are genetically related and part of the broader Kra-Dai language family. They are also related to standard Thai and Laos, which each also have their own standardized writing systems. The variety of Tai Tham used to write each of these languages seems to be slightly variable. Similar to the often undefined border between language and dialect in this region of dialect continuums, entirely clear distinctions in the scripts or script varieties may not exist.

According to Wikipedia, the Tai Tham alphabet of Northern Thailand is especially closely related to Lao religious alphabets. This is of especial interest to us as we still believe that the cover page with the illustrations and the calendrical pages to be in Laos script, and we believe the manuscript to be related to religion.

Additionally, we started to consider the possibility that portions of our manuscript are written in an Indic language, namely Pali or Sanskrit. These languages include less vowels in their phonemic repertoire than many Kra-Dai languages, and thus less of the plentiful vowel diacritics of these Southeast Asian abugidas are utilized in rendering Indic languages. Less intricate embellishments (vowel diacritics) may then be present in these sections. However, other symbols such as an inherent vowel killer (which appears to be a dot under the letter in Tai Tham) may be more present, as Indic languages assume an inherent vowel in orthography whereas Southeast Asian languages generally do not. In one manuscript from the library we noticed two consecutive pages on which the style changed significantly, specifically in terms of its embellishment. Dr. Walker was helpfully able to read out the language of the first page and then point to the fact that the following pages were the same script suddenly being used to write an Indic language. Our manuscript changes styles in a similar fashion, and so I would propose that the same phenomenon is occurring.

I believe the next steps will be to continue comparing our manuscript to existing manuscripts in Tai Tham and to try to determine its exact variety. Looking for signs typical of Indic languages may also be useful. However, caution must be exercised as these scripts, including Thai, Laos, Burmese, and the various varieties of Tai Tham can have almost identical letters and even words as they are linguistically related as well.

Victor

Manuscript 1:

The final manuscript I’m analyzing is again in “fan” form and is in relatively good condition, with little wear and tear even around the edges. One interesting observation about the manuscript’s layout is that every page has two bold vertical red lines on the left and right ends of the page, almost as if a margin was intentionally built in. There are even brief notes in some of the margins, which suggest that the author(s) anticipated notations to be made.

There’s also a page where some phrases appear to be intentionally delineated from the rest of the text, and it’s unclear whether these separations are intended to be figures / diagrams or a stylistic way of emphasizing the enclosed text, in much the same way that we bold or underline titles and headings.

The manuscript also features several depictions of animals and other strange creatures, such as a wild boar, a three-headed bird, a goat, and some kind of primate. The wild boar is also accompanied by a more abstract figure of a boar, with curved lines and loops that reminded me very much of modern-day diagrams of the nervous system but might also be a flow chart of spiritual energy like chakra.

The primate creature is depicted to be either holding or consuming a human, which indicates that it might be evil in nature. Together, these drawings lead me to think that this manuscript is a guide to mythical creatures that are described in Buddhist folk tales or religious texts, and may have wielded similar symbolic weight to, say, dragons and elves in today’s society. The primate creature, for instance, could be a fabled monster or evil spirit that eats people who do bad deeds, passed down by word of mouth to incentivize children and adults alike to behave a certain way. If true, this manuscript is an interesting look into how mythical and/or important religious creatures were presented in a Buddhist context.

Manuscript 2:

This manuscript takes the form of a folded “fan”, such that it collapses into a neat rectangular shape and expands to a full-length document. It contains a few pictures, such as a boat diagram, an arrow diagram, a turtle, and a grid chart with phrases. This visual content is introduced in the first few pages of the manuscript, while the rest of the manuscript is expository and consists only of words. By looking at a few of these visual pages, it seems at first glance like the manuscript is more of a scientific manual used by engineers. This is because the diagrams present an object or animal, and different parts are labeled with singleton characters.

For instance, I’ve circled some of these characters in the diagrams. This visual structure is similar to “figures” found in scientific textbooks and research papers, as the character will often be referred to within the text, usually to help the author describe something. This diagram / character pattern also appears on other pages.

The first diagram is reminiscent of the boat from the earlier page. Furthermore, the grid chart might be used to list scientific properties or rules, or to map a particular row and column combination to such a property.

From what I’ve observed, I’d say that the manuscript might be a text explaining the fluid mechanics of everyday life, given that turtles and boats move through water and arrows fly through the air. It’s not too crazy to think that civilizations in Southeast Asia were advanced enough to study such phenomena, given that experts believe that other ancient civilizations like the Egyptians were ahead of their time technologically (i.e. how were the pyramids built?). That being said, the text was likely written for scientific scholars and is an interesting look at how academic knowledge was spread.

Manuscript #3:

The second manuscript is also in “fan” form, though looks to be in worse condition than the previous manuscript, perhaps due to older age or just poor maintenance. It’s a much longer manuscript, and similarly has various images, diagrams, and charts scattered throughout, including images of many different animals, Buddhist deities, and human positions. The many animals depicted in the first several pages reminded me of the Chinese zodiac, as well as Noah’s Ark since all the animals were drawn in pairs. This could just be my imposing my existing lens onto a completely unrelated depiction.

Religious figures are also depicted later in the manuscript, with seemingly different names associated with each one. These might be a description of some of the major Buddhist deities, and are likely referenced throughout the text.

Later on, a table of what appears to be sleeping positions of couples, with corresponding labels, also appears. What’s interesting about this table is that the two cells corresponding to the same column have the same character associated with both (in the form of a label at the top of each cell). This suggests that the sleeping positions are to be interpreted in pairs. One detail to note is that there are 15 cells in each row, for a total of 30 sleeping positions across the two rows; this 15-cell repetition is also seen in the calendar-like chart of our main manuscript. This makes me think that each sleeping position is associated with a particular day of the month.

Overall, I think this manuscript, given its length, tendency to list things, and somewhat scattered collection of different concepts, is meant to be a mini-encyclopedia of sorts, perhaps related to religious practice and representation. It was likely used by a wide variety of people, compared to the specific scientific use case for the previous manuscript. It might’ve even been a medium through which people practiced everyday magic, though that notion is contradicted if this is the only copy of the manuscript found to date, which would suggest that the manuscript is unique and was not owned by many people.

Page updated

Report abuse