Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Manasara Series (I. A Dictionary of Hindu Architecture; II. Indian Architecture according to Manasara-Shilpashastra; III. Manasara on Architecture and Sculpture: Sanskrit Text; IV. Architecture of Manasara: Translation; V. Architecture of Manasara: Illustrations; VI. Hindu Architecture in India and Abroad; VII. An Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture) v6.c41.s17: Cambodia

Mānasāra Series (I. A Dictionary of Hindu Architecture; II. Indian Architecture according to Mānasāra-Śilpaśāstra; III. Mānasāra on Architecture and Sculpture: Sanskrit Text; IV. Architecture of Mānasāra: Translation; V. Architecture of Mānasāra: Illustrations; VI. Hindu Architecture in India and Abroad; VII. An Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture) v6.c41.s17

Language
English

Contents

Cambodia

v6.c41.s17.1

Cambodia is situated to the south of Siam. It is included in a group of countries, without natural boundaries, comprising Burma, Siam, Annam, and Cochin-China. The ruined cities, palaces, and temples of Cambodia are astonishing from an architectural point of view. The famous temple of Angkor Vat and others are in a way more imposing than even the Boro-Budur of Java. The Hindu city-plan, which is missing in other parts of Insulindia, is fortunately available in Cambodia. The civil architecture, also, is a novelty of the archaeological remains without which the Hindu influence in arts and architecture in Insulindia cannot be complete.

v6.c41.s17.2

There is a well-established tradition, which has been recognized by European authorities² also, that in 443 B.C., Preathong, a Hindu prince, son of the king of Indraprastha (the modern Delhi), emigrated with a large number of his followers and settled at Choukan, north of Angar. ‘In 125 B.C. the Chinese are said to have conquered the Cambodians. There is also a record that, in the first centuries of the Christian era, emigrants from Madras made their way into Cambodia, introducing the Brahman faith, the Sanskrit alphabet, and Indian rites and customs.’³

v6.c41.s17.3

² Dr. Bastian (Vol. I, p. 393), Tissandier (p. 17), quoted by Fergusson, *History of Indian and Eastern Architecture*, Vol. II, p. 373.

v6.c41.s17.4

³ Fergusson, *loc. cit.*, Vol. II, p. 373.

v6.c41.s17.5

The Khmer and Sanskrit epigraphic texts give details of a dynasty of seven kings who reigned from A.D. 435 to 680. From the death of the last king Jayavarman to the commencement of the ninth century there are no records. In A.D. 802, Jayavarman II, who may have been connected with the earlier dynasty, formed a new dynasty of eighteen sovereigns who ruled till A.D. 1201. To this monarch is attributed the foundation of the Cambodian kingdom, with its capital Angkor Thom. He is credited to have laid the foundations of the great city of Angkor Thom, the royal palace in its centre, the pyramid temples of Phimêanakas, the great temple of Bayon, and other structures.¹ Aymonier has correctly traced the origin to this great king of the colossal constructions which were raised during the four centuries following.² He is also of opinion that this king may have come from Java, with an acquaintance with the great temple of Boro-Budur. But there are some small earlier temples of comparatively small importance, built towards the end of the sixth or commencement of the seventh century, in which the origin of the Cambodian style may be traced. There are, however, striking similarities between the great temples of Java and Cambodia. The other kings of this long dynasty were also great builders. Thus ‘the third king, Indravarman, besides building the temples of Baku and Bakong, completed and consecrated the temple of Bayon in Angkor Thom. To the fourth king, Yaśovarman, is attributed the completion of the great capital city, also the temple of Lolei and the pyramid temple of Phimêanakas in the centre of the palace enclosures. The ninth king, Rājendravarman, built two great temples, Ta-Prom being Brahmanical, and Bānteai Kedei, Buddhist. The tenth king also built several temples, of which the most important is the pyramid temple of Bapoun, immediately south of the royal palace in Angkor Thom. The eleventh king, Sūryavarman, who reigned for nearly a half century, was a great builder, the temples of Phnom Chisor, Vāt Ek, Phnom Bāset, Prah Vihear, and Prah Khan being attributed to him. His successor continued his work and built the temples of Banteai Ta Kean, Phimai, Pre Rup, and, probably, the temple on Mount Bakheng, south of Angkor Thom. Vāt Phu may have been built in 1090–1100 by one of the three following kings.

v6.c41.s17.6

¹ Fergusson, Vol., II, pp. 373-374.

v6.c41.s17.7

² E. Aymonier, *Cambodge*, III, p. 468.

v6.c41.s17.8

The sixteenth king, Sūryavarman II, who ruled from 1112 to 1152, completed the great temple of Angkor Vāt, which is said to have been laid by his predecessor. No further temples were built during the reign of the last two sovereigns.³ Thus the actual building period in Cambodia may be placed between A.D. 802 and 1152.

v6.c41.s17.9

³ Fergusson, *loc. cit.*, Vol. I, pp. 374–375.

v6.c41.s17.10

From an architectural point of view the great temples of Cambodia have been divided into four groups.¹ Those of Ta Prohm, Kedei, and Pre Rup, possessing generally three enclosures, are built more or less on the same level. Secondly, the pyramid temples, as Phimeanakas and Bapuon, consist of a series of narrow terraces rising one above the other. Those of Angkor Vāt and Bayon combine both the enclosed and raised terrace types, where the enclosures are within the other, each raised from 15 to 20 feet above the level of that outside, making the whole look like a pyramid. The fourth group comprises all smaller temples, consisting of three to five sanctuaries placed side by side, the centre one being the most important, and the whole surrounded by a wall or moat.

v6.c41.s17.11

¹ Fergusson, *loc. cit.* Vol. II, pp. 376–380.

v6.c41.s17.12

‘The enclosures consist of a moat or stone wall. In some temples one or more of the enclosures take the form of a gallery or corridor, which is roofed over with horizontal courses of stone corbelled over till they meet at the top. In parts of the enclosures, as also in front of temples, are tanks of water with stone borders and steps round. Each enclosure is furnished with four *gopuras* or gateways ended with a tower raised from the centre of the top. The gateways on the north and south are invariably closed with imitation doors in stone. The principal entrance to the temples is, as a rule, from the east, except in cases like Angkor Vāt, which has a western entrance, the capital, Angkor Thom, being on the west.’

v6.c41.s17.13

The remarkable feature of the pyramidal and raised-terrace group is their imposing approach by causeways of considerable length and their staircases, comprising 392 steps in front of the *gopura* of Phnom Chisor temple.

v6.c41.s17.14

‘The sanctuary is always situated on the axis of the principal entrance, generally on the east. In general design it takes the form of *śikhara* or tower, the lower portion rarely higher than the width, but crowned with a series of receding stages. On the three sides are false doorways, like on the north and south of the *gopura*, which are elaborately carved. The walls are of great thickness, sometimes 5 to 6 feet, deemed necessary to carry the superstructure, built with horizontal courses of stone or brick, corbelled out internally so as to meet in the centre.’

v6.c41.s17.15

It is hardly necessary to say that all these are the common usual features of Hindu architecture applied with little alteration to Cambodian temples.

v6.c41.s17.16

The largest temples in Cambodia are those of Angkor Vāt, Bayon, and Beng Mealeā. Angkor Vāt is the best preserved, but of later date. Bayon and Mealeā were built at a period ‘when the architectural style of Cambodia had reached perhaps its highest development.’¹

v6.c41.s17.17

¹ Fergusson, *loc. cit.*, Vol. II, p. 380.

v6.c41.s17.18

‘Angkor Vāt’ means ‘the temple of the city.’ It is situated about a mile to the south of the capital city of Angkor Thom, and between it and the lake Tonlé Sap.² ‘It is almost an exact square and measures nearly an English mile each way. The walled enclosure of the temple measures 1,080 by 1,100 yards, and is surrounded by a moat 216 yards wide. The moat is crossed on the west by a splendid causeway, carried on piers on either side. This leads to the great gateway, five storeys in height, not unlike the *gopura* of a Dravidian temple, but extended by lateral galleries and towers to a façade more than 600 feet in extent. Within this a second raised causeway, 370 yards long, leads to a cruciform platform in front of the temple. On either side of this, about half way down, is a detached temple. . . . The general plan of the temple . . . consists of three enclosures, one within the other, each raised from 15 to 20 feet above the level of that outside it, so as to give the whole a pyramidal form. The outer enclosure measures 590 feet by 700 feet, and it covers, therefore, about 413,000 square feet. . . . There are three portals, adorned with towers on each face, and on either side of these are open galleries or verandahs, which, with their bas-reliefs, are probably the most remarkable features of this temple.’³

v6.c41.s17.19

² By a treaty, France obtained from Siam, in 1907, the provinces wherein Angkor Vāt and numerous other temples are situated.

v6.c41.s17.20

³ Fergusson, *loc. cit.*, Vol. II, pp. 380, 382.

v6.c41.s17.21

It looks like a pyramid ‘more than 600 feet in breadth across its shortest width north and south, and rising to 180 feet at the summit of the central tower. It is consequently larger and higher than Boro-Budur, and surpasses the latter in its ornamentation as well as in the delicacy of its carvings.’⁴

v6.c41.s17.22

⁴ Except in the matter of colonnades of the Rameswara temple, both Boro-Budur and Angkor Vāt are stated by Fergusson to be superior for architectural design and sculptural decoration.

v6.c41.s17.23

The temple⁵ proper is situated in the centre of the middle court. ‘It measures 200 feet by 213 feet, and is crowned by five towers or spires (*śikhara*), one on each angle, and one taller than the other in the centre, rising to a height of 180 feet. The central tower has four cells, one facing the central hall from each side.¹

v6.c41.s17.24

⁵ The building which resembles the innermost temple is that at Ranpur in Godwar District of the Jodhpur territory. Its dimensions are nearly the same, 200 feet by 225 feet; like this, it has five spires similarly disposed and four open courts; and at Ranpur, as here, there are a certain number of snake figures.

v6.c41.s17.25

¹ Fergusson, *loc. cit.*, II, pp. 388.

v6.c41.s17.26

The most wonderful features of the colonnades of Angkor Vāt are the sculptures that adorn their walls. 'These are distributed in eight compartments, one on each side of the four central groups of entrances, measuring each from 250 to 300 feet in length, with a height of about 6½ feet. Their aggregate length is thus at least 2,000 feet. The number of men and animals represented extends from 18,000 to 20,000. Generally speaking, the reliefs represent battle scenes of the most animated description, taken from the *Rāmāyaṇa* or the *Mahābhārata*.' There are other bas-reliefs, also, dealing with different subjects, 'one representing heaven, earth, and hell; one representing the second Avatāra of Vishṇu, the world-supporting tortoise, another dealing with the churning of the ocean with the great snake Nāga.'²

v6.c41.s17.27

² *Ibid.*, II, pp. 385, 386.

v6.c41.s17.28

'The only other temples where sculpture is used in anything like the same profusion,' declares Fergusson 'are those at Boro-Budur in Java and that at Halebid'³ in Mysore State.

v6.c41.s17.29

³ *Ibid.*, p. 386.

v6.c41.s17.30

'No trace of an arch of any description has ever been found in Cambodian architecture,' and there is no dome at Angkor Vāt. There are, however, 1,532 pillars in this single building. All these piers strikingly resemble the Roman Doric order.⁴

v6.c41.s17.31

⁴ Similar resemblance of Kashmir pillars with the Grecian Doric order has been recognized (Fergusson, *loc. cit.*, II, p. 389). It has been shown that the five Indian orders described in the *Śilpa-śāstras*, *Purāṇas*, and *Āgamas* are similar to the five Greek-Roman orders in respect of proportion and mouldings (*vide* the writer's *Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture*, under Stambha).

v6.c41.s17.32

So far as the identity of the Angkor Vāt is concerned, Fergusson and others have no doubt that it was originally a Hindu temple, probably of Nāga-Vāsuki, and that it could not be a Buddhist temple. The reasons given are convincing. 'Though the god is gone, and the Buddhists have taken possession of the temple,⁵ every angle of every roof is adorned with an image of the seven-headed snake, and there are hundreds of them; every cornice is composed of snake's heads; every convolution of the roofs, and there are thousands, terminates in a five- or seven-headed snake. The balustrades are snakes, and the ridge of every roof was apparently adorned with gilt dragons.’

v6.c41.s17.33

⁵ It is in French hands and in possession of the Siamese bowzes, who have dedicated it to the worship of Buddha.

v6.c41.s17.34

‘There is one thing more certain than another,’ emphatically declares Fergusson, ‘that Angkor Vāt was not originally erected by Buddhists or for Buddhist purposes.’ This fact is abundantly proved. ‘In the first place, there is no sign of *dagoba*, or of a *vihāra*, or of a *chaitya* hall in the whole building, nor anything that can be called a reminiscence of any feature of Buddhist architecture. More than this, there is no trace of Buddha, of any scene from his life, or from the Jātakas to be found among the sculptures.’ Referring to the Buddhist temples at Bharaut, Sanchi, Amaravati, Gandhara, and Boro-Budur, Fergusson concludes, most unhesitatingly asserting, that ‘there is not a trace of Buddhism in any of the bas-reliefs yet brought to light from Angkor Vāt, nor an integral statue of Buddha or of any Buddhist saint about the place.’¹

v6.c41.s17.35

¹ Fergusson, *loc. cit.*, Vol. II, p. 390–391.

v6.c41.s17.36

The Siamese, who are now in possession of the temple, have introduced images of Buddha into the sanctuaries and other places, and, ‘with the usual incuriousness of people of their class, assert (in Siamese records) that it was always so.’² The unfounded traditions of Asoka having sent missionaries to Cambodia and of Aśwagosha’s having visited the place, as also the account of a Chinese traveller,³ who saw the country with Buddhist spectacles, in 1295–1297, have lent colour to the Siamese records.

v6.c41.s17.37

² *Ibid.*, p. 390.

v6.c41.s17.38

³ Translation by Abel Remusat, *Nouveaux Melanges Asiatiques*, Vol. I, pp. 78, *et. seq.*

v6.c41.s17.39

The temple of Bayon is situated within the city walls of Angkor Thom. It was founded by Jayavarman II (A.D. 802–869), the first king of the dynasty, and was consecrated by Yaśovarman (889–910), the fourth king, about A.D. 900. That this long period of a hundred years was required for the construction of this great temple may be indicated by the fact that it had a double course of sculptural corridors, ‘the aggregate length of which has been calculated to be over 36,000 feet, or nearly twice that of Angkor Vāt,’ and that, while Angkor Vāt has nine towers, the temple of Bayon had fifty. Unfortunately it suffers from terrible ruin and a forest of trees has badly invaded it. Thus no general view is available. But the architects have recovered its wonderful plan. It is of a pyramidal form and belongs to the third group of Cambodian temple. ‘The principal difference between it and the Angkor Vāt is found in the second platform, and the great importance given to the sanctuary, as well as the richer and more elaborate ornamentation.’ It had great entrance porches on the north, south, and west sides, and the entrance porch vestibule and two other halls preceding the sanctuary on the east side.

v6.c41.s17.40

It appears to have been a Brahmā temple from the fact that the towers are decorated with the four great masks of Brahmā on each face. Their ‘fine modelling and expression,’ declares Fergusson, ‘are only approached by the great Egyptian Sphinx.’¹

v6.c41.s17.41

¹ Fergusson, *loc. cit.*, II, p. 392.

Beng Méaleā

v6.c41.s17.t1.1

The temple of Beng Méaleā, probably of the ninth century, is situated about twenty miles east of Angkor Thom. It belongs to the first group of Cambodian temples, all the enclosures being more or less on the same level. Its exceptional features lie in the fact that, in the first enclosure on the south or left side, are two groups of buildings ‘which are assumed to have been the palaces of the king and the queen respectively.’ The palaces are identified by the smaller corridors and great halls, with side aisles, as throne or state reception rooms. ‘The walls of the corridors are as those of Angkor Vāt and Bayon, the decoration being confined to the entrance portals and the towers.’² All the outer courts are filled with water, forming huge tanks.

v6.c41.s17.t1.2

² *Ibid.*, II, p. 396.

v6.c41.s17.t1.3

This is also in a ruined condition. Its general view is thus not available. The plan has been, however, reconstructed.³ The chief deity of the temple is missing. But it is clear from the general history of the dynasty that it was originally a Hindu temple.

v6.c41.s17.t1.4

³ Vide Fergusson, Plate no. 470; and M. L. Delaporte, *Le Cambodge*, Tome I, *Le Royaume Actuel*, par Etienne Aymonier.

Bapoun

v6.c41.s17.t2.1

The temple of Bapoun is an example of the pyramid type of Cambodian temple. It is situated immediately south of the palace in Angkor Thom. ‘It bears considerable resemblance to the temple of Bayon, but the height of its second and third platform is much greater. Moreover, the Brahmā masks were not carved on the twenty-eight towers of Bapoun, nor are the walls of the corridor enriched with the bas-relief sculpture of Bayon and Angkor Vāt.

v6.c41.s17.t2.2

But the richness in beauty of the carving is quite as fine as that of Bayon.'¹

v6.c41.s17.t2.3

¹ Fergusson, *loc. cit.*, II, p. 398.

v6.c41.s17.t2.4

This is also in a ruined condition. Its other details are thus missing.²

v6.c41.s17.t2.5

² The other examples of the pyramidal type are Phimêanakas, Bakheng, and Tā Kéo, of which also the details are missing.

City of Angkor Thom

v6.c41.s17.t3.1

The foundation of the city of Angkor Thom was laid by the first king, Jayavarman II (802–869), but not completed or occupied till the reign of Yaśovarman (889–910), the fourth king. This long period of a hundred years required for its construction is indicated by the greatness of the city, its palaces, temples, roads, and bridges. ‘The city measured close upon 10,000 feet east to west, and 9,600 feet from north to south, giving a perimeter of 7½ miles to the enclosure walls. Those walls, about 22 feet high, were surrounded by a moat, 300 feet wide, and entered through five gates, one on the north, south, and west sides, and two on the east, the most important, called the Gate of Victory, leading to the palace.’³ It was of what is called the *svastika* (cruciform) plan in the *Mānasāra* and other *Śilpa-śāstras*. It consisted of a central gateway, 52 feet square, with recessed angles and side wings. Three towers, with Brahmā masks on the four sides of each, rose above the central gateway and the side wings. The walls of the city were also of very great extent and of dimensions commensurate with its importance. Unfortunately no other details of the city proper are available.

v6.c41.s17.t3.2

³ Fergusson, *loc. cit.*, II, p. 401.

v6.c41.s17.t3.3

‘The palace enclosure, situated in the centre of the city, measured about 2,000 feet by 800 feet and was surrounded by a double wall, with moat between. In front of the palace enclosure was a great terrace over 800 feet long by 45 feet wide, and 15 feet high, the walls of which were sculptured with elephants. No traces of walls of any description have been found in front of this terrace, suggesting that it formed an open space where reviews took place before the king and his courtiers on the terrace. At the north end of this square is a cruciform (*svastika*) structure, about 30 feet wide and 60 feet long, richly decorated, with six bands of sculptured figures, and it was on the top of this that the French explorers found the supposed statue of the leprous king¹ to whom the monument was ascribed.’²

v6.c41.s17.t3.4

¹ King Yaśovarman II, the fourth monarch of the dynasty, who is credited with the completion of the capital Angkor Thom, of which the foundation was laid by the first monarch a hundred years earlier.

v6.c41.s17.t3.5

² Fergusson, *loc. cit.*, II, pp. 401–402.

v6.c41.s17.t3.6

The great temples of Angkor Vāt, Bayon, and Bapoun³ and many smaller temples were built in this capital city. Some of the numerous temples appear to have been ‘built as palaces for the king and occupied by him, his family, and courtiers.’ ‘In the outer court of Beng Méaleā are two groups of structures which have been described as the palaces of the king and the queen respectively. On the west side of Phimêanakas, and within the palace enclosure of Angkor Thom, are the foundations of buildings which are supposed to have been the residences of the king and his family, the women’s quarters occupying the whole width of the enclosure against the west wall, in which there is no entrance gate. At Vāt Phu, near Basak, on either side of the causeway leading to the temple, is a structure of about 150 feet frontage, with a rectangular court at the back and surrounded with a corridor vaulted like those in the temples, and those are considered to be palaces. Again at Phnom Chisar, on the north side of the court, the sills of the windows are 6 feet from the ground, so that the corridor they lighted may have been occupied by women.’ Concerning the accommodation necessary for a king and his retinue of thousands, Fergusson declares that only temples like Angkor Vāt, Beng Méaleā, Ta Prohm, and Prah Khan could possibly hold them. Though Bayon might have been occupied by the priests only, the series of magnificent halls in the enclosures of Angkor Vāt and Beng Méaleā ‘would seem to have been provided for the needs of a great court.’⁴

v6.c41.s17.t3.7

³ For details, *vide ibid.*, Fergusson.

v6.c41.s17.t3.8

⁴ Fergusson, *loc. cit.*, II, pp. 399–400.

v6.c41.s17.t3.9

Some of these great structures might have been used also as collegiate *maṭhas* of the Brahmans, with provision for accommodation for the numerous students and teachers.⁵ Fergusson speaks highly on the perfection of the ancient roads and bridges. ‘One great trunk road seems to have stretched for 300 miles across the country from Korat, in a south-easterly direction, to the Me-kong river. It was a raised causeway, paved throughout like a Roman Road, and every stream that it crossed was spanned by a bridge, many of which remain perfect to the present day.’¹

v6.c41.s17.t3.10

⁵ Cf. Lājonquiere *Inventaire Descriptif*, Tome II, Introduction, p. 29.

v6.c41.s17.t3.11

One of these bridges was 400 feet in length and 50 feet in breadth, richly ornamented by balustrades and cornices, and representations of snakes and the snake-king. ‘The extraordinary thing is,’ states Fergusson, ‘that it is constructed without radiating arches, but, like every structure in the place, by a system of bracketing or horizontal arches, and without cement. Yet it has withstood, for five centuries at least, the violence of the tropical torrent which it spans.’¹

v6.c41.s17.t3.12

¹ Fergusson, *loc. cit.*, I, pp. 402.

v6.c41.s17.t3.13

There can be no doubt about the sceintific skill of the architects who built the great Cambodian structures, cities, roads, and bridges. By way of an illustration, Fergusson refers to their mechanical skill employed in constructing the roofs of great structures wholly of hewn stone, without the aid either of wood or concrete or cement of any kind, and in dovetailing and joining them so beautifully that they remain watertight and perfect after at least five centuries of neglect in a tropical climate. ‘When we put all these things together,’ concludes Fergusson, ‘it is difficult to decide whether we ought most to admire the mechanical skill which the Cambodian architects displayed in construction or the largeness of conception and artistic merit which pervades every part of their design.’²

v6.c41.s17.t3.14

² *Ibid*, II, pp. 403.

v6.c41.s17.t3.15

About the Indian origin of the Cambodian art there is no doubt. ‘Indian temples were constructed with pillars almost purely classical in design, and ornamented with bas-reliefs so strangely Egyptian in character.’³ In Cambodia before the Hindu colonization there might have been a civilization and even some religion, but no art, declares Fergusson. ‘Indians seem slowly, and only to a limited extent, to have been able to modify their religion towards Hinduism, probably because it was identical, or at least sympathetic, but they certainly endowed the Cambodians with an art which we have no reason to suppose they before possessed.’⁴

v6.c41.s17.t3.16

³ It has already been pointed that what Fergusson considered to be the Greco-Roman orders are really Indian, fully described in the *Śilpa-śāstras*, *Purāṇas*, and *Āgamas*. Fergusson, like many early European scholars and historians, was obsessed by a prejudice. Whatever scientifically developed things were found in India were sought to be explained by the theory of importation instead of the natural process of indigenous origin.

v6.c41.s17.t3.17

⁴ Fergusson, *loc. cit.*, II, p. 391.

Linked texts (9)