2006
DOI: 10.1080/13639810600650711
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Why the Śailendras were not a Javanese dynasty

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 26 publications
(20 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…On the basis of comparisons with the surrounding archaeological sites and their documentation, the Borobudur temple is dated to 870-920 AD, to the period of the rule of the Sailendra dynasty [12], although new theories about more accurate dating are emerging [13]. To this day, the architects of this building are unknown, although the great expert on the history of Southeast Asian architecture, Hiram Woodward Jr., published an article in 2009 which presented an interesting hypothesis saying that the Javanese monk Bian-hong, who studied Tantric Buddhism in China in the 8th century, returned to Java and played a significant role in the Borobudur project [14].…”
Section: The History Of Borobudurmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the basis of comparisons with the surrounding archaeological sites and their documentation, the Borobudur temple is dated to 870-920 AD, to the period of the rule of the Sailendra dynasty [12], although new theories about more accurate dating are emerging [13]. To this day, the architects of this building are unknown, although the great expert on the history of Southeast Asian architecture, Hiram Woodward Jr., published an article in 2009 which presented an interesting hypothesis saying that the Javanese monk Bian-hong, who studied Tantric Buddhism in China in the 8th century, returned to Java and played a significant role in the Borobudur project [14].…”
Section: The History Of Borobudurmentioning
confidence: 99%