Indonesia has reopened discussions with UNESCO over the proposal to install a chattra atop the main stupa of Borobudur, the largest surviving Mahayana Buddhist site in the world. Much of the debate in the country has revolved around whether such an addition constitutes reconstruction, alteration, or restoration. Yet a critical dimension remains largely absent from public discourse in Indonesia: the fact that one of the most detailed arguments for a structured pinnacle with parasols comes not from modern speculation, but from the original field analysis written directly by Theodoor van Erp (1874–1958), a pioneering Dutch military engineer who led the first major scientific restoration of Borobudur in the early twentieth century.

This is not a secondary interpretation, nor a later academic hypothesis. It is van Erp’s own technical narrative—based on excavation, measurement, and reconstruction work conducted on site in the early 1900s. The relative obscurity of this primary source in Indonesian discussions today has contributed significantly to the perception that the chattra proposal lacks historical grounding.

In reality, van Erp’s account tells a very different story.

A first-hand archaeological record, not a later theory

When van Erp began restoring Borobudur between 1907 and 1911, he encountered a summit that had already lost almost all of its original crowning structure. He records this condition with precision: virtually nothing remained in place, and even the foundational square cushion had been partially destroyed. But instead of concluding that the form was unknowable, he turned to excavation.

What makes his testimony uniquely important is that he documents exactly what was found, where it was found, and how those findings informed reconstruction. During the clearing of the stupa terrace, he and his team uncovered a large number of stones that clearly did not belong to the dome or lower structures. These fragments—many with consistent angles, recesses, and dowel fittings—were identified as components of the missing pinnacle.

Crucially, van Erp noted that these stones were not randomly dispersed across the site. Many were recovered directly from the upper terrace area surrounding the main stupa, indicating that they had collapsed from above. This spatial context is fundamental: it confirms that the evidence for the pinnacle’s form comes from the summit itself, not from analogy alone.

Van Erp’s structural analysis: From fragments to form

From these finds, van Erp reconstructed the logic of the pinnacle step by step. He observed that many stones had slanting faces forming an octagonal geometry, immediately indicating that the central pillar was not cylindrical but octagonal and tapering. This corresponded closely to the design of the perforated stupas below, suggesting continuity of architectural language.

More revealing still were stones marked by horizontal incisions, which showed that the pillar was divided into multiple sections rather than being a single uninterrupted shaft. The presence of dowel holes on both upper and lower surfaces demonstrated that these pieces were meant to be stacked in courses—forming a tiered, articulated structure.

Van Erp did not interpret these features in isolation. He compared them with broader Buddhist architectural traditions, particularly in Nepal and Tibet, where similar tiered forms represent cosmological ascent. From this, he proposed that the horizontal divisions at Borobudur may have functioned as symbolic layers—possibly equivalent to parasols in abstracted form.

The discovery of the parasols

The most decisive evidence, however, came from a different category of finds: sector-shaped stones forming circular arcs. Because enough of these were recovered, van Erp was able to reconstruct their radius with precision. These were identified as components of a parasol (chattra).

The technical details are telling. The underside of these stones contained dowel recesses matching the diameter of the pillar head, confirming their placement directly above it. The upper surfaces showed further fittings, indicating that they supported additional elements above. This was not a decorative disc—it was part of a structural and symbolic sequence.

A second group of similar stones was also found, distinguished by being hollowed internally. This was a deliberate engineering choice to reduce weight and prevent breakage, given how far these elements projected outward. The existence of two such sets confirmed that there were at least two parasols.

Van Erp then addressed the absence of a third surviving set. Rather than dismissing it, he turned to internal and comparative evidence. Within Borobudur’s own reliefs—especially those associated with the Gaṇḍavyūha Sūtra cycle—he observed that stupas with multiple parasols consistently followed odd-numbered sequences, most commonly three. Nowhere did he find a two-parasol configuration.

He further noted the presence of octagonal “knob” elements recovered from the site, which served as separators between parasols. The repetition of these elements strongly implied a sequence that would logically include a third parasol. To end at two would disrupt both the structural rhythm and the symbolic pattern.

Thus, even in the absence of a complete third set of fragments, van Erp concluded that three parasols were most probable.

The jewel and the final form

At the very top, fragments corresponding to the terminal element were recovered and fitted together. Although the tip itself was missing, van Erp identified the form as a jewel (ratna), based on numerous parallels across Borobudur’s reliefs and architectural motifs. In some depictions, this element appears flame-like, suggesting luminosity: an important symbolic attribute in Buddhist cosmology.

What emerges from his analysis is a coherent structure:an octagonal pillar, articulated into sections, rising through symbolic divisions, crowned by multiple parasols, and by a jewel.

The discovery’s significance for today’s debate

Can Erp’s original writing is extremely critical to the present controversy. The current proposal to install a chattra, presented by Indonesia’s Minister of Culture Fadli Zon to UNESCO, has often been interpreted as lacking firm historical basis. Yet van Erp’s own documented findings—drawn from direct excavation at the summit—suggest that a parasol-based crowning structure was not only plausible, but strongly supported by archaeological evidence.

The problem, therefore, is not the absence of data, but the limited circulation of this data within contemporary Indonesian discourse. Much of van Erp’s work in Beschrijving van Barabudur samengesteld, Tweede Deel (1931) remains locked in an early twentieth-century Dutch publication, rarely cited outside specialist circles. As a result, public and even institutional debates risk proceeding without full awareness of the primary archaeological record. (see here for a complete translation of van Erp’s writing on chattra)

This does not mean that the current proposal is automatically justified. Van Erp himself emphasized the limits of certainty and ultimately dismantled parts of his own reconstruction. But it does mean that the discussion should begin from a more informed position: one that recognizes that the idea of a crowned summit with parasols is not a modern invention, but one already grounded in the earliest scientific study of Borobudur.

A dialogue across a century

In the end, the question facing Indonesia and UNESCO is not simply whether to add a chattra, but how to responsibly engage with a monument whose original form was partially lost and partially recoverable. Van Erp’s own words remind us that Borobudur was never a static ruin. It was a carefully conceived symbolic structure, shaped by traditions that prioritized cosmology and meaning over purely material considerations. To revisit his findings today is not to impose the past on the present, but to reopen a conversation that began over a century ago at the very summit of the monument itself.

The tension in Theodoor van Erp’s own account is precisely what gives it decisive relevance in today’s debate. His dismantling of the reconstructed pinnacle was not a retreat from his conclusions, but a concession to the methodological rigor of his time. The uncertainties he acknowledged were limited and technical concerning proportions, transitions, and the exact number of divisions, not the fundamental architectural idea. On the central issue, van Erp was unequivocal: the material evidence recovered from the summit itself (sector-shaped parasol stones, dowel fittings, and the articulated octagonal shaft) demonstrated that the main stupa was once crowned by a structured, multi-tiered system incorporating parasols.

What was uncertain was how precisely it was configured, not whether such a crowning system existed. The absence of a chattra today, therefore, reflects not the original design, but the outcome of a deliberately conservative restoration choice.

Seen in this light, the current proposal to install a chattra is not introducing a new hypothesis, but restoring visibility to an already established—if historically under-circulated—archaeological conclusion. As Indonesia, represented by Zon, advances the discussion within UNESCO, the issue is less about speculation than about recognition: whether the international discourse is prepared to engage with primary data that has long existed but remained marginal in public understanding.

Van Erp’s own writing makes clear that the evidence for a parasol-based pinnacle was not conjectural but empirical, grounded in finds from the summit itself. The real question, then, is no longer whether Borobudur had a crowned apex, but how contemporary conservation frameworks choose to respond to a conclusion that was already, in substance, reached over a century ago.

Related features from BDG

Bhinneka Tunggal Ika: How Prajnaparamita Shaped Indonesia’s Vision of Unity

Related news reports from BDG

Young Buddhist Association of Indonesia Joins National Dialogue on Borobudur Chattra Restoration
Indonesia to Raise Visitor Fees for Borobudur Temple
Indonesian Buddhists to Celebrate Vesak at Borobudur Temple

Related blog posts from BDG Tea House

Restoring the Crown of the Stupa: Indonesia’s Adaptive Plan to Install a Chattra Atop Borobudur