There are several misunderstandings about the true identity of the ships carved at Borobudur. One of the earliest misconceptions was that the ship depicted in the carving was an Indian ship. This opinion is supported by Indian and Dutch scholars who attribute the influence of India to the kingdoms of the
Nusantara Archipelago ("
Indianization"), so the ship depicted in the temple must have come from India. This also stems from the notion that Javanese ships are inferior to Indian ships. However, more recent scholarship holds that the Javanese were experienced navigators and built large ships as early as the first millennium CE (see
kolandiaphonta). The characteristics actually indicate
Austronesian origin: The presence of outriggers, the use of canted sails with a lower boom, the use of bipod and tripod mast, and rowing galleries. The second opinion states that this ship may be a ship from
Srivijaya or Malay. There is absolutely no evidence to support this statement. Epigraphical records of Srivijaya rarely recorded the types of watercraft, the type of Malay boat recorded is the
samvau (modern Malay:
Sampan) on the
Kedukan Bukit inscription (683 AD) in
Sumatra. Another recorded watercraft is the
lancang, from 2 inscriptions on the northern coast of Bali written in the Old Balinese language dated 896 and 923 AD. Meanwhile, the Borobudur ship is only found in the Borobudur temple, which is a Javanese heritage, not Sumatran or Malay. Lastly, and most commonly believed, is the assumption that the Borobudur ship was a Majapahit ship. In fact, historical accounts of the main ships of Majapahit mention the
jong,
malangbang, and
kelulus, all of which do not have outriggers. ==Plate renderings==