Notes on Banteay Srei

Doubts on the age of carving of some pediments at Banteay Srei 

Old opinion

Once I wrote an article published on Aseanie June (2004: 1-46, 34 figures) I expressing some doubts on the date of the making of the western pediment of the northern library of the famous Banteay Srei temple. The age of the pediment of the western side of the northern library may have been younger than 697, official age pf the construction of the temple. In here I must review the entire situation

I did not believe it could have been carved in 967 CE. age of the building of the temple. The reliefs illustrates the story of Krishna and Balarama proceeding on chariots to the arena where a tournament was to be held to elect the most powerful man in the kingdom, on invitation of the evil King Kamsa. The terminal event is shown with great detail inside the royal palace. Around the figure of Krishna killing Kamsa, there are four palace scenes showing terrified members of the king’s harem and of courtiers.

The sculptors had confidence in visually conceiving and depicting complex emotional scenes with a refined handling of the chisel not seen until the reliefs of the corner pavilions of Angkor Wat (second half 11^th century).

I have used the title ‘Archeology of  images’ from the allegory of digging into past images to obtain new information, ideas,  assumptions and theories, just like true archeologists do into earth to find objects and artifacts allowing  progress in knowledge of the site and write its history. I use this term since 2004.  In transferring my work to Facebook I have been assisted by Yem Sothon (Admin.), who I thank greatly, as well as Facebook organization.

Revised opinion

There were 3 temples built towards the end of the first millennium in east part of the Northern Baray, all probably planned by the royal architect Kavindari-mathana during the reign of Rajendravarman. They were: Pra` Rup (consecrated in 961 CE.), East Mebon, (953CE.) and Banteay Srei in (967CE.). The latter was built by Rajendravarman’s counselors the Yahinavaraha brothers. I believe that the size and quality requested to the architect for the decoration of the temple/s required organized workshops. The combination of powerful non-royal intelligent promotors and a genial architect brought to the creation of Banteay Srei. The date given by inscriptions refer to the dedication of the temple to a god (Shiva and Vishnu) with a special ceremony of the opening the eyes of the presiding statue. It doesn’t necessarily refer to the completion of the temple that happened under the following King Yajayavarman V.

With regard to the ability to narrate story visually, my narrativity, the reliefs of Banteay Srei are the best early example.

There was, however a temple that had priority. On the unfinished lintel of the southern tower of  Pra Rup, the image of Rama on the shoulders of Hanuman (Ramayana) was intended to be carved (my Fig.3) fighting Ravana with multiple heads, to the extreme right and another evil figure (Indrajit?) to the extreme left. Regretfully the lintel is left unfinished but still in place, meaning that the lintel was carved in situ, once fixed high over high on the door. There is no space here to talk about the development of Vishnu narrative in Thai temples (Phimai, Phnom Rung) (See Roveda 2004).

Temples before Banteay Srei

To understand the decoration of this temple I had to study the iconography the temples of Preah Koh (880CE.), Lolei, (893CED.) Kulen (8-9^th century) and a few other temples.

The lintels of Preah Ko are typified by a carved makara with large mouth vomiting an arched ribbon/garland that often carry some strange features (riding soldiers, worshippers) The makara’s head is sometimes replaced by a large elephant’s body with a deity on top. The arching shape of the garland (variation on the shape of the letter M) is not diagnostic since several types may coexist in the same temple (Koh Ker’s central small shrine). The lintels of the towers in Preah Ko were deeply carved with original motifs and mythic figures. They usually have large falling pendulous elements terminate in naga’s heads, or simply in large curls of leaves. All small figures on these lintels are not involved in any narrative scheme, they are pure ornament.

In general I noticed that in the early temples Pra Koh, Lolei and Kulen, over the lintel there was a band carved with figures (deities or hermits (rishis) in small shrines (Fig.21). Often this band is lost. In the space above this lintel there is a recess reserved to the pediment (Fig.23) but initially occupied by a god’s statue. (Fig.22).The example of Kulen (my Fig27) is extraordinary because it is well preserved, with the original lintel and pediment with a small figure inside a shrine of a palace, presumably a god. I conclude that there narrative pediments are rare and unrecognizable in brick temples (Fig.21 and 22). The first real example occur on temples with pediments made of stone (sandstone).

Banteay Srei and contemporaneous temples

The temples of Pra Rup, East Mebon, and Banteay Srei were all built around the reign of king Rajendravarman. They are very revealing for the evolution of visual narrative.

According to Jacques the temple of Pre Rup was probably planned by Rajendravarman’s architect, Kavindrari-mathana, and under the council of Yahinavaraha. The temple formally dedicated in 961 and early 962 CE (Freeman and Jacques 1999: 158). The nearby temple of East Mebon was also built by Kavindrarimathana and dedicated in 953 under the rule of Rajendravarman.

Banteayi Srei was dedicated in 967 CE. just a year before the death of Rajendravarman, when Jyavarman V  was  the new  ruler. Yahinavaraha become guru of the new king.

Banteay Srei was built around the time of the construction of Pre Rup and East Mebon.

In general, in the early temples of Preah Koh, Lolei and Kulen over the lintel there was a band carved with figures (deities or hermits (rishis) encased in small shrines. Above it there was a recess reserved to the carving the emplacement of a statue; regretfully this spaces are nowadays empty. In temples made of bricks, this presumed pediment was carved in the brick with the image of a god in a room or several rooms (Fig.21).

The pediment of Kulen is special insofar it has a flat pediment with sets of carved room with a god opining the central one. It is also extraordinarily well preserved, with the original white wash and a figure inside a shrine or room of a palace with a standing figure presumably a god (Fig27).

The date 967 CE. refers to the consecration of Banteay Srei as initially built in brick, laterite and some  pink sandstone’s ornamentation. This latter was completed later in all the temple. The two libraries were possibly the last to be built and decorated.

The mystery of carved advanced Banteay Srei’s visual narrativity on the two libraries’ pediments continues with pediments of a totally different style (Fig.9,10) where the surface is occupied by few large figures carved in high relief, showing energy an emotive feelings. These two pediments contrast with the elegant style of the temple. They may have been carved to exemplify the temple’s dedication to Shiva and his consort. (Uma, Parvati, Durga).

Banteay Srei underwent reworking and elaboration by later kings and/or members the elite. In Cambodia it was common to complete temples left unfinished by previous rulers In my opinion the earliest clearly narrative are from Banteay Srei at the end of the first millennium (947CE).

Workshops

Due to the high level of decoration of architectural elements commissioned by the sponsor I am of the opinion that (on the basis of the chiseling technique and depth of carving-hand) there must have been several workshops at Banteay Srei, Pra Rup and East Mebon,

Group A to D. Several workshops in charge of carving all sort of ornament on architectural elements

(door pillars, Lintels an some pediment’s frames and pediments in secondary sites).I define the carvings as standard lintels or pediments with hieratic elements imitating archaic models. Not narrative.

Group B. workshop doing shallow carved pediments by stone-masons with gentle hand often comparatively shallow carved illustrating narrative stories, from simple to complex narrative.

Group C. Workshop in charge of deeply carved pediments. At Banteay Srei the deity represented belongs to Shiva’s pantheon, justifying the dedication of the temple to Shiva, (Shiva, Mahisadasuramardhani, Tilottama).  Hieratic figures without narrative structure.

Group D. Workshop producing large sculptural elements such as the delightful male and female guardians on Banteay Srei’s corners of the towers They are the precursors of the much later apsara from from Bapuon to Bayon, with an invasion at Angkor Wat. Also to this stone carvers of this workshop/s are the excellent statues place in front of the towers they have to protect, squatting at the side of the small staircase,

The age of these workshop and if they worked contemporaneously or at different times will remain forever source of debate amongst the prejudiced and free-minded scholars...!!!!!!!!

The  rendering of the visual narrative (narrativity)            

By narrativity I mean the action of narrating, visually in our case, a story or a meaningful part of it.

This can take place on any type of material (stone, plaster, wood, paper etc.).

In Cambodian temple-sculpture, narrativity developed by stages.  The study of the reliefs carved on the Pre-Angkorean lintels of Sambor Prei Kuk should be taken separately because  in very early temples, lintels have narrative reliefs when in sandstone, (Shiva musicians and dancers at Sambo;            procession for the anointment of the king at Prasat Eng Khna and other less known examples..

To my knowledge there is a gap in narrativity from the 8^th to the 10^th century.

The Preah Koh lintel continue the trend of  previous temples. A band  or a vegetal branch  expelled by the mouth of a makara, often with figurines over the band/branch (horse-riding soldiers, worshippers; see Bosselier 1966: 150 Fig.35,36,37 and 38).When there is a central figure of a god it is heraldic, immobile, frozen in time.

It is only on a lintel of Banteay Srei that the stone-masons attempted to narrate in detail one event a myth This is the lintel narrating the story of Shiva fighting Arjuna, both are shown standing on a pedestal with the shape of a boar.  At the top of the curved band-garland are two figures, both shooting an arrow to the boar and then arguing who killed the beast first, as in the textual myth, the Arjunakiratha (Fig 13).

Very interesting is the study of the pediments of the two Banteai Srei’s libraries.

The four pediments of the two libraries are related to the deity venerated in the temple towers., Thus the  north library, facing Vishnu’s’ tower has stories of Krishna (Fig.6 and 7) .The southern library, at a side of Shiva’s Tower has Shiva stories(Fig.4 and5).My doubts on a younger age based on the high level of narrativity suggesting a younger age than 967 may find a mild  confirmation in the opinion of Finot and Parmentier (1926) that all the three towers and two libraries had been made around the year 1300! (opinion sharply denied by modern experts).

The pediment of the southern library facing east depicts Ravana shaking mount Kailash to call Shiva and stop him flirting with Parvati (my Fig.4).The figure of Shiva holding Parvati is carved with great kindness, intimidating the hermits at his side. The mountain of Shiva is inhabited by many hermits (rihis) and some deities with animal head. All the inhabitants are shallow carved.

The pediment of the western face of the same southern library is also dedicated to Shiva (my Fig.5) in the famous myth of love, with Kama shooting an arrow of candy to Shiva who immediately reduce him to ashes. Parvati begged Shiva to allow love (Kama) to return to Earth otherwise life would be meaningless. Also in this relief, the inhabitants of Shiva’s mountain are manly bearded rishis and some others being with human body but animal’s faces. They are shallow carved.

The pediment of the northern library facing west is the one that brought me to suspect a later date due to its complexity of the visual narrative (Figh.7). It depicts three events of the story of Krishna being invited to a tournament to be killed by a champion wrestler. Krishna manages to escape and, in turn, kill the evil king Kamsa (Roveda 2004, 22-23).

            The pediments facing east depicts a story of the Burning of the Candava Forest (Roveda 2005: 349) involving Agni, Krishna and Arjuna (not the “Rain of Indra”).    

I have to examine the famous Bnteay Srei’s large pediments now in museums. No information was given on the presumed location inside the temple. The beautiful pediment resting at Phnom Penh National Museum narrates the fight of Bhima and Duryodhama (my Fig.8) with the figure of the fighting brother gently suspended in thin air unaware of the lethal blow expecting him.

The other large pediment is that of the Musée Guimet of Paris. It illustrate the myth of the apsara Tilottama (Fig 8) quite symmetric and little narrative.

The most important pediments were those part of the dedication of the temple to Shiv and his consort. The pediment with Shiva dancing (Fig.1) and Uma killing the buffalo of ignorance (Fig.2)

Conclusion

By expanding my research on Bantey Srei, I can formulate some new theories:

1       In Cambodia existed large workshops, perhaps guilds. I believe that the two libraries were completed by B-group workshop later, but I cannot specify the date apart from an unspecific 100/1020 CE.

2       Brick’s temples with stone lintels developed in time a recess over the lintel destined to become a pediment. In some cases, a sort pf primitive pediment was defined with rooms of palaces occasionally with a figure or the face of deity at the center. Pediments ere of secondary importance.

3       In the history of iconography I have noticed that-over time- lintels were made larger to accommodate more complex myths. When the lintels became insufficient, pediments were given the role to support the main mythological theme or scene. This shifting of importance seems to have taken place at Banteay Srey, around the end of the first millennium,

 ESSENTIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boisselier,Jean, Le Cambodge, Asie du Sud-Est, Manuel ‘archéologie d’Extrèeme Orient, Picard, Paris,1966

Finot, Parmentier and Goloubev, A guide to the temple of Banteay Srei at Angkor, 1926, translation

 and reprint White Lotus, 2000, Bangkok

Freeman, Michael and Jacques Claude, Ancient Angkor, River Books Guides, Asia Book, 1999

Pilgkinghorne, Martin, Artists and ateliers: Khmer decorative lintels from the nine to tenths centuries, Udaya, Numero7 and 8, Phnom P:enh, 2007

Roveda,Vittorio, Th Archeology of Khmer Images, Aséanie, No.13, 2004, Bangkok.

Bangkok, December 2016

Fig.1 – Group A. Banteay Srei.  Shiva Nataraj

Fig.2 - Group A. Banteay Srei.   Durga Mahishasauramardani

Fig.3 -- Group A. Banteay Srei.   Detail of Shiva

Fig.4 – Group B . Ravana shaking mount Kailasa to stop Shina frolicking with Parvati 

Fig.5 - Group B. Banteay Srei.  Shiva disturbed by Kama

Fig.6 –Group B. Banteay Srei.   The burning of the Kandava Forest.

Fig.7 –Group B. Banteay Srei.   Krishna killing Kamsa

Fig.8 – Group B Banteay Srei.  . Two brothers fighting for the possession of the apsara Tilottama

Fig 9 – Group B. Banteay Srei.   The Pandfava hero Bhishma jumps in the air with an heavy mace to kill

 the Kaurava Duryodama.

Fig.10 – Group C. Banteay Srei.   Rama killing Valin

Fig.11 –Group C Banteay Srei.   Pediment on the ground showing Viradha attempt to kidnap Sita.

That is wrong because when Ravana’s was kidnaping Sita,Rama and Lakshmana were miles away and could not  be on the site to fight Ravana. The two warriors at the sides and below Ravana refer to another episode (narrated belowFig.12)

Fig. 12 – Group C. Banteay Srei.   Lintel displaying Ravana kidnapping Sita. Three are to traces of Rama and Lakshmana.

Fig.13 – Group C.. Banteay Srei.  The first lintel with a sign of narrativity. At the center there are the large images of Shiva hand-fighting Arjuna standing over the large head of the contended boar,. Placed on the band/garland are the smaller images of Shiva and Arjuna armed with bow and arrow to kill the boar. The dispute was on ho kill it first, better known as the myth of Arjunakirata.

Fig.213 bis –Group A Banteay Srei, Door pillar with deep carved ornaments.

Fig.14 –Group E. Banteay Srei.   Female guardian of the temple

Fig.15 –Group E. Banteay Srei.   le guardian of the temple

Iconographic trends

Iconographic trends in Khmer Buddhist art of the12-13^th century

By Vittorio Roveda @ (Copyright text and pictures)

It is intimidating for me writing anything religious because any ideology is inextricably related to the question of meaning.

I had to think at religious matters when I was looking at Buddhist carvings in a Hindu temple. How did they concord with the main religious ideology, to the god of the temple. Which was the religious affiliation of a temple? Usually the iconographic program is superseded by the presiding image (statue) of the main deity placed in the main cella or by a dedicatory inscription.

When I was observing the iconography of Banteay Samré and study the ratio Buddhist/Hindu images, I questioned its meaning. Why there were Buddhist images in the four temples I studied: Banteay Samré, Chao Sai Tevoda, Beng Mealea, and a small temple Prasat Chrei, (2 Km to the east of Beng Mealea) built between the second half of the 12^th century and the early 13^th century when the rulers were presumably Vihnuite of Shivaite (excluding Jayavarman VII) ? They had been defined Brahmanical or Hinduist by all scholars.

In the historical context, it appears that in this period (between Suryavarman II and Jayavarman VII) at Angkor there were three important ruling figures: Yashovarman II (uncle of Jayavarman VII; c.1150-1165), Dharanindravarman II, father of Jayavarman VII  (1150-?1165) and Tribhuvanadityavarman (1167-1177). Recently Jacques (2003:15) has added a fourth personage: Harshavarman, (c.1150-1165) maternal grand-father of Jayavarman VII, ruler of the ‘kingdom’ of Preah Khan of Kampong Svay.

Concerning the iconography of this period, I re-examined four temples mentioned above to

clarify amongst Hindu image there were many Buddhist reliefs in key position. It is necessary to briefly examine the religious beliefs of that time (12-13th century).

1 - Mahayana. Mahayana’s (Large vehicle) ideology is based on the twin value of compassion and insight. The Bodhisattva devotes himself to the service of others as opposed to the Thervada (Small vehicle) monk living a monastic life in pursuit self-liberation.

Mahayana monuments have images of the Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara (named Lokeshvara in Cambodia), of infinite compassion and mercy. There are also images ew is th earthly manifestation of the eternbal Amithaba Buddha, whose gffighure ppeatrs in his hairdressof Shakyamuni (Buddha in meditation with empty hands), the Maravijaya (Buddha’s victory over Mara) and some of the oldest Jatakas such as the Vessantara, the Vidhura and probably the Temiya (if my interpretation of two strong men holding a sharp saw over the head of a smaller figure seated in meditation is correct (see Roveda 2005, Fig. 6.85 and Fig. 9.03-9.11).

It is known that some Jatakas were used also by Mahayana, as at the Indian Sanchi stupa (1. BCE), Barhut (3/2. BCE), Amaravati (1.BCE) and Ajanta (3.CE) and Borobudur (8/9. CE).

Probably the Mahayanist adopted the Jatakas from ancient Sanskrit tradition (obviously not from the Pali). In Cambodia the most common was the Vessantara and probably the Temiya, and the Mahanarada Jataka (Roveda 2005: Fig.6.87 and 6.88).

The Mahayana Buddhism of this period moved towards Tantrism. The iconography of pure Mahayana is difficult to ascertain. Perhaps it  already included images of The Bhaisajyaguru, or Buddha of medicine, showing the Buddha seated in meditation in the lotus position holding a myrabolan fruit (from a medicinal plant) on his palms (Fig.1 and 2).

At Preah Khan near the central tower there is a carving of a simple Maravijaya where the evil forces of Mara shoot arrows towards Bhaishajyaguru and not to Buddha Shakyamuni. The cult of Bhaishajyaguru became popular as that of that of the Buddha Shakyamuni. The Khmers did not perceived the need of making a visual distinction between the two Buddha. Although this may be due to iconographic negligence, I rather believe that is was due to the doctrinal belief by which the Bahishajayaguru was merely a manifestation of the wisdom of compassion of all the Buddha. The Buddhas are identical in their essential three bodies (trikaya), which are none other than the Doctrine, the ultimate truth discovered and expounded by them

2 - Tantrism or Vajrayana. Known in ancient Cambodia, although not so important as in Nepal, Tibet, and Mongolia. Tantric Buddhism was a belief that arose within Mahayana, aiming at a rapid attainment of enlightenment, often dealing with magic practices rather than spiritual steps. Its iconography is different from Theravada through mantras and tantras.

In Khmer iconography, one of the oldest Tantric icon (10^th century CE.) is the Buddha sitting in meditation protected by the expanded hood of the naga’s king Mucalinda (the Naga-enthroned Buddha).

Later in Cambodia the other essential figure was that of Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara locally known as Lokeshvara, the celestial bodhisattva crated by a ray emanating from the right eye of Amitabba in a state of contemplation.  Together with Prajnaparamita and the Buddha, the Lokeshvara compose the Triadic icon of Cambodian Tantrism.

In Cambodia, Tantrism was initially known from inscriptions, the most relevant being inscription of Wat Si Chum (953 CE) of Wat Sitor (980 CE). At Phimai (now in modern Thailand) there are many Tantric classic images which were not found in the Angkor region.

Exceptionally there is an early visual example of Tantrism at Angkor Wat  where a small group of shadus accompany an old guru (vajrin?) while playing typical vajra bells as used in tantric rituals, illustrated on the long panel of the Historic procession (Roveda,2005: 377).(Fig.3).

Tantrism was officially adopted by Jayavarman VII (1182-1219) in a strange combination with Brahmanism that he made his state religion and the end of the 12^th century.

            Probably to Tantrism can be attributed the carved pediment of Banteay Samré, where the defaced Bodhisattva overlay the Moon and the sun (respectively Chandravairocana and Suryavairocana, composing the Triad of the Buddha of medicine) (Fig. 4), worshipped by rishis (ascetics).

The cult of Bhaisajyaguru continued to be popular in the mixed Mahayana-Vajrajana of Jayavarman VII, and the specific protector of his 102 hospital chapels as mentioned in inscription K.368.

I believe that to Tantrism can be attributed the large pediment of the first eastern enclosure of Banteay Samré with a set female deities holding unusual attributes, riding monstrous animals, a representation seen nowhere else in Cambodia.(Fig.5.).  In conclusions at Banteay Samré we have Brahmanical iconography mixed with Mahayana/Theravada carved reliefs (all defaced) as well as 2 Tantric reliefs.

It would be very nice to know which king patronized this temple.

Tantrism included the eight wonderful images of Lokeshvaras (only 2 visible in situ) carved on the western gallery, south section, of the Banteay Chmar temple (Fig.6). They were identified by the early scholars when the wall was still standing. The tantric cult of Avalokiteshvara, supreme Lord of compassion, developed in Mahayana Buddhism of Tibet, Japan, and Champa, became very popular in Cambodia during the reign of Jayavarman VII in the territories of the Khmer Empire (including part of modern Thailand). The best reliefs of the multi-armed Avalokiteshvara was carved at Banteay Chmar; a synthesis has been reconstructed by Olivier Cunin in his important on line paper:

 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4212429/Banteay%20Chhmar/The%20historical%20values%20of%20Prasat%20Banteay%20Chhmar.pdf

In 2005, only two Avalokiteshvara were clearly visible in place; another two were displayed in the National Museum of Phnom Penh, and the others still missing.

3 - Theravada  is the doctrine of the elders (small vehicle) that follows what was remembered of the words and teaching of the Buddha Shakyamuni later elaborated into the Pali Canon. Its iconography is characterized by typical images of Buddha Shakyamuni touching the ground with his right arm, calling Earth to testify having reached Enlightenment. Also characteristic of Theravada are images of the Buddha sitting in meditation with empty hands and in scenes of his life: the great departure, the cutting of the hair, the Buddha subduing the Nalagiri elephant, the Paranirvana. 

Some icons such as the Maravijaya were shared with the Mahayana, together with some Jatakas.

The origin of the Jataka is quite complex. According to the Sinhalese tradition, the original Jataka books consisted of 550 birth stories each illustrating Buddhas’s previous lives, each identified by verses and commentaries.

About 430 CE. the poet Buddhagosha translated these stories from Sinhalese into Pali as the Jataka attakatha. Pali was the language resulting from the homogenization of the dialects in which the teachings of the Buddha had been orally recorded. The stories were numbered from 1 to 550 (or 547). The lower number Jataka are simple fables with a moral issue. A special importance became the much more complex Last Ten Jataka, grouped under the name of Mahanipata, some of which were put together at a later date. In Cambodia and Thailand the last ten Jatakas were named Mahachat. The representation of Jatakas is especially The Last Ten (Mahachat) is a distinguishing feature of Theravada

In ancient Cambodia, the Vessantara Jataka is identified mainly by one scene, the gift of the children as they appear on lintels of Prah Khan (Fig.7, 7 B and 7c), Ta Prohm, Beng Mealea and Bayon (see Roveda 2005: 257).  The Vidhura Jataka has not been recognized in this period of time, while only one carving of the Sama Jataka occurs at Bayon in the inner gallery of the second floor (Fig8). The presumed Temiya Jataka seems to be frequent in temples of Jayavarman VII (see below). There were also non-canonical Jataka such as the Sibi and Pidgeon Jataka. (Roveda 2005: Fig.6.70- 6.84) that in Cambodia I would include in the Theravada package.

For many years I hesitated in identifying the reliefs carved with a central figure seated (in meditation?) on a plinth, with 2 strong men menacing his head with instrument similar to swards or maces (Fig.9, 10 10 and 10a, b, c). I believe now that it represent Temiya submitted to the torture of the swards narrated in the Temiya Jataka. Unfortunately the Shivaite ‘iconoclastic reaction’ after Jayavarman VII, cause the image of the young Bodhisatta Temiya to be defaced for his similarity to the image of the Buddha Shakyamuni.

It is ascertained that Jataka’s visual representations started with the very beginning of temple building in Shri Lanka and India, and popularised with the flourishing of monasteries in mainland Southeast Asia associated with the spreading of Theravada. It has not possible to identify any Khmer temple as uniquely Theravada, because the two beliefs (Mahayana and Theravada) were aggregated, and because purely Theravadin kings are unknown in Khmer history.

The only temples that is tentatively attributed to Theravada are Preah Palilai (Fig.11, 12) and Preah Pithu X (Fig.13,14). They have many images of Buddha sitting in meditation on a lotus flower with his right arm touching the ground; they were built in the 14^th century, after the death of Jayavarman II and VIII.

In Angkorean temples Theravada iconography is quite limited, Buddhism belief being overwhelmed by traditional Brahmanical images of the cult of Vishnu and Shiva. Theravada reappeared exuberantly in the 16^th century CE., but no monuments are left, having been destroyed by time and human neglect or by wars. I can’t prove which is the oldest monastery of Cambodia; most monasteries were built in the 19^th century and a great part restored after the Khmer Rouge genocide It is assumed that in the 16^th century Buddhist Theravada monks took over Angkor Wat, removed the colossal statue of Vishnu from the top shrine and made space for 4 stone altars devoted to a Buddha (Fig.15). They also completed unfinished works by using material from other parts of the temple. A large part of a gallery was created as a repository of Buddha’s statues donated by worshippers (Preah Pean).

In Khmer temples of the 12-13^th century, the difficulty in assessing the religious affiliation of a temple with many Buddhist reliefs is hard and complex because the Khmer had accepted syncretism from many centuries. Furthermore, images were of no importance compared to religious rituals.

Khmer inscriptions speak of syncretism between Shaivism and Vaishnavism and of Shaivism with Buddhism, revealing that the kings did stay away from religious conflicts if they did not erode their absolute power. The only conflict historically known was that of the Shivaite ‘iconoclastic reaction’, of the 13^th century which eliminated all images of Budhas, immediately after the death of Jayavarman VII.

Banteay Samré, Chao S.T. and Beng Maelae’s Prasat Chrei were precursors of the temples d’étape, meaning temples arranged along an ideal line leading to the main temple, and where people could have a rest, a refuge for the night.

 In this instance they were temple leading from Angkor to Preah Khan of Kampong Sway, a large temple complex erected by a wealthy king. He dominated an area rich in iron ore smartly used by the Kuoy people to produce utensils and swards, daggers, spears, arrow and bows and tools (see Dupaigne 2016). In my interpretation this king wanted to indicate his hierarchical position, his power and material wealth to the kings of Angkor. I dare to suggest that he may have been Harshavarman (c.1150-1165), maternal grand-father of Jayavarman VII; yer was the ruler of the Kuoy-land, and he probablywAs th sp;onsor of Banteay Samré.

Based on the temples considered here, I conclude that Buddhist images, even though abundant and in privileged locations of the temple, and that seems to me to be out of context in the temples with prevailing Hindu images, such as Banteay Samré, Chao Sai Tevoda, Beng Mealea, and a Prasat Chrei, cannot be used to attribute that temple to a specific single cult. Clearly, at Angkor there are many more Buddhist image to be recognized. All my notes are based on my observations in Cambodia that ended in 2006, when for heath reason I had to return home. I am sure that a lot of progress has been done since, and hope that my notes may stimulate ideas for new scholars.

Further information can be found in my book Images of the Gods (River Books, 2005) hand in Buddhist iconography in Brahmanical temples of Angkor, in Materializing Southeast Asia’s past, papers from the 12^th International Conference EASAA, Vol.2: 56-81, Leiden 2008 where one can also find the complete bibliography.

Bangkok, April 2016

CAPTIONS

Fig.1 – Banteay Chmar. The Bhaishajyaguru or Buddha of medicine on a pillar of the southern gallery

Fig.2 – Preah Khan of Kampong Svay. Lintel with the Buddha of medicine. The first to and the left and the last on the right (5th) show an object on their hand’s palm.

Fig.3 – Angkor Wat. Gallery of the Royal Procession. Detail of priests holding the vajra bells.

Fig.4 – Banteay Same. Pediment showing the large circles of the Sun and the Moon below a destroyed image of a Lokewshvara.

Fig.5 – Banteay Samré. Pediment with a row of unidentified female deities holding unusual attributes, riding monstrous animals.

Fig.6 - Banteay Chmar. A multi-armed Avalokiteshvara on the eastern wall southern

Fig.7 – Preah Khan of Angkor. Detail of a scene of the Vessantara Jataka. Lintel on the ground at the eastern door.

Fig.7b - Banteay Samré - Central tower. Vessantara Jataka.

Fig.7c - Chau Say Tevoda – Southern gopura. Vessantara Jataka.

Fig.8 - Bayon – Inner pediment of the second level. Sama Jataka.

Fig.9 – Banteay Kdei. Defaced relief of the Temiya Jataka. Inner pediment of the central enclosure.

Fig.10 – Preah Khan of Angkor. Complete relief of the Temiya Jataka. Southern Gallery.

Fig.10a – Banteay Thom. Defaced relief of the Temiya Jataka. Pediment of the second enclosure.

Fig.10b – Wat Nokor. Defaced relief of the Temiya Jataka. Pediment of the second enclosure

Fig.10c – Wat Nokor. Defaced relief of the Temiya Jataka. Inner pediment of the main tower.

Fig.11 – Prah Palilai.  Buddha in meditation

Fig.12 – Prah Palilai.  Buddha in meditation

Fug.13 – Preah Pithu X. Buddha in meditation

Fug.14 – Preah Pithu X. Buddha in meditation

Fig.15 – Angkor Wat, top sanctuary, with  a Buddha statue of the altar standing below a corniche of Hindu reliefs (Vishnu sleeping on Ananta)

***

The Leper King

The Legend of the Leper King at Angkor Thom

 

I have always been fascinated by the legend of the Leper King as narrated in all textbooks. Now I want to investigate it:
- Why a Leper?
- Why a King?
- Who made the terrace and statue, when and why?
- History or fiction (legend)?
- How many readings are there of the murals from Room 28 (XXVIII) of the inner gallery of the second level of Bayon.

Introduction
The Terrace of the Leper King is located in Angkor Thom, in a large gateway to the north of the Royal Terrace. There is a square mound with a trench-like inner structure and walls carved with images of figures from the underworld (Yaksas and Yakshinis, both male and female, together with large nagas). At the top of the terrace an unusual sandstone statue was found, together with three smaller ones (Fig.1, Fig.2 and Fig.3) of which two have been decapitated by vandals.
The main statue represents a naked male figure (Fig.4) with athletic torso and a stylised backside but no genitals – a clear choice to avoid the concept of sexuality. His face has a mustache with two fangs emerging from his lips, like in yaks. He is shown seated at ease with his right knee raised, carrying a mace on his right shoulder, similar to Yama on his Buffalo in the Heaven and Hells panel of Angkor Wat (Roveda 2002: 47). His left arm rests on his leg. Because of intense tropical weathering, there is corrosion along with patches of lichen, giving the impression that the figure has a skin disease and due to his location, being at the northern end of the Royal Terrace, he is assumed to be of royalty. Thus the Leper King was born and the statue became popularly known as The Leper King.

Through the literature, we find various references for a leper king. Aymonier refers to a legend already known at the end of the 9th century to suggest that one of the Angkor kings was a leper. Another source is Zhou Daguan, the Chinese emissary to Angkor at the end of the 13th century (1269 CE.), who wrote that there were many lepers scattered along the roads of Angkor, a disease that he attributes to climatic conditions. However, leprosy was not considered with disdain as in neighboring countries because ‘there was a king who had contracted it’ (Pelliot, 1951:23), probably referring to an historical personage that remained in the living memory of some Cambodians.

The iconography of the statue has puzzled the wisest scholars. Moura thought it was the god Kubera, Aymonier thought it was King Yashovarman (ruled 889-c.915), while Marchal thought it was Shiva ascetic. All doubts were clarified by Coedès (1928: 83-84) translating an inscription from the 14-15th century carved on the pedestal of the statue that reads:
‘His Majesty has made an offering on a small plate to His Majesty Dharmadhipati-adhiraja. Whoever will take this offering shall be handed-over the tortures [of hell], and could the powerful Buddhas of the future not make them free’.

This indicates the offering was made by a king to the Dharmaraja Yama, and in a foot note (page 85) it is interesting to read that the offering made to Dharmadhipati, meaning Yama, was the same made to the genies of the land (Neat Tha).

On the assumption that most of the great monuments of Angkor were mausoleums or funerary temples, Coedès concluded that the terrace must have been near a crematorium and that the statue representing Dharmaraja was at its proper place on this terrace. The term “Dharmadhipati adhiraja” is equivalent to assessor of Yama, God of Death or of Judgment.

In Khmer, the statue was named ‘stec gamlan’, or simply gamlan that sounds like the epithet of Yama ganlan (or gamlang). However, in the labyrinth of Khmer vocabulary gamlan could be interpreted also as ‘leprous’ (Choulean). This was taken by scholars as yet more evidence to conclude that the statue was really that of a Leper King.

Dharmaraja is also carved at Angkor Wat on the panel of Heavens and Hells (Fig.15). He is holding a stick of command, carved with rows of kneeling personages with grimacing faces. They are the inhabitants of Yamabhupal, and multiple assessors of Yama the god of death. 

The funerary function of the terraces is undeniable, since cremations took place on it (Choulean 2005: 93), probably before the emplacement of Yama’s statue.

The inscription has a clear reference to Buddhism by citing the Buddhas of the future. On this basis, I speculate that the statue may have been made in the 14-16th century period when Theravada Buddhism acquired popularity and Buddhist cremation continued to be made on the terrace. In this period, Yama was absorbed into Buddhist mythology as the king superintended the karmic process of retribution upon death, assessing the sins of the people and condemning them to specific types of hell (see Nimi Jataka). 

By the mid-19th century, with the arrival of the French, the statue was de facto revered as a representation of the Leper King, associated to Yashovarman, the founder of Angkor City, while many other scholars identified it with Jayavarman VII. Meanwhile Chandler (1979) contested these attributions and preferred Indravarman II (c.1295-1307, a successor of Jayavarman VII), who was responsible for completing the works at Bayon, notably the royal terraces and the hospital chapels.

The statue and its history
The first illustration of the statue is that seen by Mouhot in 1873 and reproduced by an engraving (Fig. 1) in 1904. It shows the outer layer of the statue’s skin covered by white dots of liken, as if it were dead skin flakes falling off the body, as in leprosy. We cannot be sure if this was the engravers imagination or a true representation.

Mouhot found the statue sheltered in a small hut of palm-leaves, as if it was a neak ta (ancestors spirit). Aymonier said (III 1904:124) that in a previous visit of 1873 he had noticed the statue of the sdach komlong holding a thin metal tube in his left hand, probably a stick of command. Aymonier also reported that Garnier was disillusioned by the sculptural softness of the nude rendering of the statue that he had observed during his explorations of 1869-75. Aymonier concluded mentioning an almost unreadable later inscription of the words ‘bra Anga brah pada’ convincing him that the statue was of a king.

Being of very poor artistic quality, Western scholars overlooked it and never used it as an example of Khmer art ingenuity, hence it doesnt appears in academic books on Khmer sculpture. However photographs of this statue on top of the so-called Terrace of the Leper King appeared in many books published in the middle-late 20th century, though without any technical or historical new information.

Stylistically it does not have much character of the Khmer sculpture of the 13th century so we cannot be sure if it is an original of the time or a later copy.

It appears that the statue is made of some sort of soft sandstone or cement. Hang (2004: 115) mentions that the statue was made of sandstone, but no petrological analysis was made on the original that is now at the National Museum. Many copies have been made of the original to follow local religious practices and needs. All the other 5-6 available copies are made of a cement mixed with fine sand. As vandals (or thieves) commonly decapitate heads, it could be possible that the original head may have been of stone and was replaced after vandalism with cement.

In 1970-75, it is reported that a U.S. diplomat saw the statue in Phnom Penh and commented it was made of concrete and decapitated (Hang 2004: 88). When I personally saw it for the first time in 1996, it was headless, making me wonder who would steal a cement head of a poor statue. It was restored when I saw it again in October 2002 but no restoration details are available. 

A close up scientific analysis is well overdue on this important sculpture. It would also be worthwhile verifying if the white flakes on the statue could be residual whitewash, a common practice for many Angkorean sculptures. 

We ignore what happened to the true original, while well documented is the story of the other surviving copies of the modern cement statues.

The Terrace
At Angkor Thom there is a long terraces in front of the Royal Palace domain, named the Elephants’ Terrace. Close to its northern section stands the Terrace of the leper King. They both have an internal trench-like structure carved with mythological figures. It is not clear if the galleries were purposely buried to be hidden from view or created by a process of progressive enlargement of the building requiring new external walls. The inner gallery of the Leper King Terrace is now visible, with rows of figures from the underworld such as Yaksa and Yakshini, Garudas, princesses with naga’s crowns, and rows of mythic and multi-armed giants. The powerful multi-headed naga is sculpted in the lowest register, being the king of the deepest of all the underworld kingdoms. All these mythological beings lived under Mount Meru (see Roveda 2013: Fig.174-177).

On top of the terrace is the statue of the ‘Leper King’, surrounded by two other small decapitated sculptures carrying a pole on their shoulders (Fig.22); it was considered the typical site for cremation ceremonies, a sort of permanent ‘Val Men’, a pavilion erected for funeral ceremonies, supervised by Dharmaraja Yama, king of the dead. In my opinion, it may also have been the site or public punishments, amputation of limbs or decapitation.
The Terrace has a redented square plan with 3 visible lateral outer-walls of sandstone blocks carefully sculpted in high reliefs with figures on 7 registers (Fig.21) of which the top has almost entirely disappeared leaving only the top central figure (Fig.22) of a god with many arms identified as Yama for its resemblance with the Yama carved in the scene of Heavens and Hell of Angkor Wat (Fig.6). On the north wall a large multi-headed naga is carved at the central bottom register.

The Legend of the Lepers King in detail.

The legend of the Leper King has become the heritage of Jayavarman VII, but it may have roots in India. The original narrates that the King of Benares having been affected by leprosy, left the throne and retired in a forest to the north of the capital. He was cured in the shadow of a Kalan tree. He was cremated in that location.
The equivalent Khmer legend consists of a leper Khmer prince who left the throne to retire in a forest (Kulen) to the north of the capital (Angkor); Aymonier (1904: 488) concluded that the Khmer prince with leprosy could have been Yashovarman (raign.819-915 CE), thus a living man.

Leclère narrated the Cambodian version of a legend of a leper king under the name of Neang Sox-Kraaup (1983: 112) which tells the adventures of two lazy boys until they became men. At the very end of the narrative they reach a kingdom ruled by a leper king. Dressed as old bearded healers they were promised a lot of money if they could cure him. They said they could if their request was satisfied. They wanted a very small hut built in the middle of the river. On the roof of the hut a large vase full of hot water had to be suspended, in which they were going to pour a few drops of an infallible medicine. This would shower on the king and cure him. However, the king complained that he would be burned. The two brothers reassured him, mentioning that there was also cold water.

The following day, the king arrived accompanied by the two brothers disguised as healers. He went to the little hut and they entered together. The king placed himself under the shower while the two brothers went above to drop the balsam meant to cure him. When the leper king was well under the vase, they poured the shower of hot water all in one go, instantly killing the king. The brothers took off their disguise and presented themselves to the queen and with enchanting maneuvers managed to rule the city and eventually the kingdom.

A slightly different legend of the leper king is summarized by Porée and Maspero (1938: 73) without indication of the century when it took place and the name of the king.

A hypothesis was put forward by Groslier (1961:171) to explain Jayavarman VII absence from Angkor for many years, while he was living in retirement at Preah Khan of Kampong Sway (circa.1165-1180), as due to a serious illness, perhaps leprosy.
Previously, Jayavarman VII was in Champa and could not come on time at Angkor to save his father and stood away also when he could have taken his right of succession and stop a usurper. At first sight, it seems that he did not want to engage in the burden of Angkorean royalty. After being miraculously cured, the attitude of Jayavarman VII changed, continuing to be a powerful military figure and a stronger believer in Mahayana Buddhism.
He started believing himself to be the personification of the Buddha, so erected this statue in the central Bayon’s sanctuary. He also renovated his ambitious building program.
Groslier (1961: 185) was of the opinion that out of the panels of the interior gallery (including Room 28) only a few can attributed to the period of Jayavarman VII; the others are later, incomplete, now only a historical curiosity. However, 1973, B.P. Groslier believed the legend was successful in Cambodia because it had some historical basis with King Jayavarman VII, as evidenced by this legend being carved at Bayon (room 28). Groslier agreed with the hypothesis formulated by Goloubew and Coedès explaining the conversion of Jayavarman VII to Buddhism [for health reason] and, most of all, his concern for making hospital chapels (Groslier, 1973: 255) to cure his people.

Ashley Thompson (2004) presented an excellent description and detailed interpretation of the reliefs of the Leper King legend (2004: 102-108, with drawings) commenting that in her view, the Leper King is Brah Thon, the founder of Kampuchea, out of the Kôk Thlôk Island (Roveda 2013:39). After marrying the naga princess, daughter of the naga king who had forbidden his son-in-law Brah Thon to make a tower with four faces overlooking the royal city. The young Brah Thon disobeyed and when the naga king resurfaced from the underground, all his power was overcome by that of the four faces. He was forced to go to live in the central water well of Bayon, emerging at times to see his daughter and to try killing his son in law, Brah Thon. However, the latter killed him instead (patricide?); during the fight, the serpent’s venom spilled over the prince skin causing leprosy. However, he was taken into the care of some healers and miraculously brought back to normal life conditions. 

Thompson believes that the events are depicted on the reliefs. She connected the narrative reliefs of room 28 with the those carved in an adjoining, but external, wall showing a princess being liberated from a cave, symbolic of the curative force discovered by the king (Thompson 2004: 102).

Thompson concluded that the ‘Leper King’ low reliefs are a small sample of representations associated with Jayavarman VII and that combined with the ‘Leper King’ statue, the legend was associated with the reign of Jayavarman VII or shortly after. The legend, rather than suggesting the concern of the king for his people and his personal health [leprosy?], can be read as a metaphorical representation of a complex symbolism of kingship in general (Thompson 2004:105). Thompson suggested that the association of the statue with the Leper King is a “cultural memory or vestige of Jayavarman VII reign” (2004: 107); furthermore it highlights the concept of healing.

Contemporaneously to Thompson, Ang Choulean (2004: 377) added that the leper King became Brah Thon in the Kok Thlok myth of Cambodia (Roveda 2013:39), and that the epithet of Yama ‘ganlan (or gamlang) in Khmer labyrinthine vocabulary could be interpreted as ‘leprous’ and thus the inscription on the statue could refer to the “ Leper King”. 

Although I argued on the statue’s identity in another chapter, for the bas-reliefs I am going to re-read them thanks to the accurate drawing based on a full digital photographic scans of the reliefs executed by the JSA in 1994., (Figs LVIII-LXCI)

Versions of the statue
The statue of a Leper King, not Yama the real figure, were common and became a center of popular worship even if the Leper King is not a religious figure. He was worshiped by the Khmer as the representation of ‘the king’ and incarnation of today’s king, and royal family (Hang:2004:113).

Several statues exist in Cambodia:
1- Leper king, copy of Angkor Thom’s statue sent to the National Museum
2- Stec Ganlan at the National Museum of Phnom Penh
3- YayDeb in Siem Reap Town, venerated as ‘divine female ancestor’
4- Yay Deb of the National Museum garden
5- Stec Gamlan, Phnom Penh Riverfront
6- Stec Gamlan, Wat Unnnalom, Phnom Penh
7- Leper King, Siem reap Conservation office courtyard
8- Stec Gamlan (unfinished), Kok Thnot village, as part of local initiative by a local tourist agency.

All these copies were subject to the breaking and stealing of the heads, replaced by cement ones.
The worship of each of the above statues in various towns of Cambodia is seen to play a role in maintaining national political identity. The many copies of statues of Stec Gamlan represent the reestablishment of the cosmic order, the Dharma (Hang, 2004: 125).

Bayon’s the reliefs of room XXVIII (28) presumed related to the legend of the Leper King.

Another representation of the presumed Leper King is found at the Bayon. It was carved in the Inner Gallery rooms of the eastern side of the monument in what I call Room 28 (Fig.9 plan).  I reproduce below my description (Bayon 2007: 310-311) of the reliefs carved in two walls of the room 28, with some slight revisions.

Room XXVIII (28) - Eastern wall. On this wall, on the left part of the upper register, the king is shown fighting a snake (Fig12) in a courtyard filled with royal parasols. With his right hand he holds the snake by the tail while with his left foot he stamps on its neck. Next to the right (of the viewer), another royal figure (with different jewelry and crown) sits in a large palace on a slightly higher level than his courtiers. With his right hand he holds a dagger pointed towards the ground; his left is raised over a small bowing figure (Fig.14). At his right are small princesses.
On the underlying middle register are kneeling court members gesticulating in the direction of the king fighting the snake, while others sit with their arms on their chests. To the far right (of the viewer), men with javelin march towards the right (next panel’s scene). The lowest (third) register shows orderly seated soldiers holding javelins; to the extreme right of the register they are shown carrying wounded comrades before going to the attack (Fig.12).

Room XXVIII (28) - Southern facing wall. On the wall to the right, strange actions take place. On the upper register, courtiers and courtesans fill rooms of palaces with towers that are emerging from large trees. Some courtiers attend the central figure of a large royal personage that has both arms extended towards small crowned girls at his sides, as if he had his hands examined (Fig.13). Later (to the right of the observer),he is shown lying down on a bed in a palace, with an ascetic man standing at the right of the viewer (Fig.14) and the same small crowned figures to the left. On the middle register the same group of soldiers seen before harming people (civilians?) seem to be directed towards three hermitages inhabited by rishis but the relief is covered with lichens (leprosy!) and the interrelationship with the soldiers is not clear (Fig.15). On the bottom register, the usual group of soldiers seem to continue fighting in a forest, to the right of the viewer.

Room XXVIII (28) - Northern facing wall. One can assume that the northern facing wall is related to the previous events, accepting that the reading is from left to right .On the wall to the left, facing north, (Fig.16) a king is enthroned in his palace, flanked by a female figure (to the left of the viewer) and by another female figure with a low crown and a female figure (his spouses?) with a high crow to his right, plus attendants fanning him. The central and bigger figure has moustaches and wears a pointed crown (mukuta); he has one arm on his hip and the other relaxed close to stomach with the hand index-finger pointing towards the ground.
Above the palace are several palm trees over which apsaras fly.
The relief of the next scene shows, in the middle register, a terrace flanked by a balustrade terminating with the sculpture of a naga’s head (naga balustrade )where, at the center, court girls dance to the sound of an orchestra with lutes and lyre(Fig.16 lower left), while other dancing girls and courtesans wait on the side. In the lower register, various palace’s rooms are occupied by men sitting with their arms on their chests. Several figures represented frontally.

Interpretation of the reliefs of Room 28
The French scholar Victor Goloubew discovered the reading of the carved reliefs of the inner gallery of the eastern side of the second floor of Bayon (my Room 28). Goloubew was passionate about the legend of the Leper King and published various ideas in 1922, 1930, 1935 in the conviction that the Leper King was a real person, king Jayavarman VII. In 1936, Groslier (Bayon 1973: 255), despite the scanty historical evidence, also assumed that the hero of the legend was Jayavarman VII. Together with Goloubew and Coedès, Groslier shared the hypothesis of the conversion of Jayavarman VII to Buddhism and his desire for building 102 hospital chapels, presumably due to his recovery from leprosy.
The attribution to Jayavarman VII, stems from Goloubew visit to Shri Lanka where he discovered a bronze statuette of Lokeshvara, related to the healing from leprosy of Jayavarman VII in that country. It was the first mentioning of Jayavarman VII as the true Leper king despite no references or allusions to be found in inscriptions on these events.
This gave rise to a landslide of assumptions. Knowing that until he was young Jyavarman VII was a warrior and powerful hero, it was consequential that his disappearance from the scene was due to leprosy towards the end of his life. In fact, late in his reign he changed religion and ordered the construction of 102 Hospital Chapels to cure his own people.
My interpretation is written in the conclusions.

Dating on the reliefs of Room 28
Most Authors mention, without evidence, that the reliefs were carved after the death of Jayavarman VII (around 2019) or when he changed religion from Mahayana to Hinayana (Theravada). Groslier (1961: 185) was of the opinion only a few carved panels of the interior gallery (including Room 28) were original of the time of Jayavarman VII, relegating them to historical curiosities. Jacques hints that they may have been executed during the reign of Jayavarman VIII (a successor of Jayavarman VII). On the architectural ground they belong to the last phase of construction of the temple (4th phase of Cunin), the uncertainty persists and I am driven to assume that the story of the presumed ‘Leper King’ (Room 28) does not have any religious reference like most of the other reliefs of the inner gallery of the second level, that were carved later, sometime during the reign of Jayavarman VIII after a religious upheaval, or even as late as the 16th century (Roveda 2007: 27).

Personal view
In this paper, I have shown that the evidence for a real life Leper King is very tenuous: a poorly preserved ugly statue of Yama, not of a leper, and the theory that reliefs of Bayon Room 28 can explain perhaps the sickness evolution of a man (assumed to be Jayavarman VII with leprosy). That is all.

In room 28, we only see a large male royal figure hand-fighting a large snake followed by the representation of a royal male figure in a palace holding a dagger; then another royal figure, presumably a sick man taken care by ladies. Further on to the right follows the image of the same man reclining on a bed (dead or cured?) under a hierarchy of rishi. I have noticed that a hand fight in a Royal Palace of Angkor between the most powerful king and a large snake spitting leprous-venom is quite unlikely. Jumping from this data to the invention of the Leper King legend requires a lot of fantasy. 

I have shown that the literature is thin: Aymonier has a fleeting mention of a similar legend known from the 9th century while Zhou Daguan vaguely mentions leprosy, not the legend. I am of the opinion that the figure is not Jayavarman VII but a prince of lesser status, perhaps Indravarman II or Jayavarman VIII, both believed to have completed the Bayon.

In my opinion, the legend was re-invented and embellished by French scholars in late 19th century and revitalized in the 20th by the esoteric studies of modern researchers.

The idea may have been imported from India and applied to some local Cambodian figure (a king or a prince) presumed to be affected by leprosy. Fom the late 19th century the story evolved into the legend we know today, due to the wrong interpretation of the statue of the Leper King who in reality is Yama, and an ambitious wrong reading of Room 28. I do not rule out that the statue was made in the 15-16th centuries when Theravada Buddhism was expanding in Cambodia and used Yama as the king of karmic Judgments and punishments.

Later came the reading of a scratched inscription attributing the statue to king Yama. Then the name Yama was torturously connected to the Khmer word ‘Galan’ meaning leper.

Another potential leprous pretender was the hero of the myth of the origin of Cambodia, the prince Preah Thon, but he could not have a seat on the Terrace of the Leper King; he survived leprosy and killed the king of the nagas living under the Bayon. The legend would be of a later date than Bayon.
Around 1930, a French scholar [Goloubew] cherished the idea to correlate the legend of the Leper King with the story sculpted in Room 28 (see above); gradually the assumption that the leper person was Jayavarman VII began to be accepted. For me, both the statue and the reliefs are unsubstantial evidence.
I conclude by saying that despite a variety of theories, leprosy or other diseases, the story of the Leper King remains a splendid legend not based in solid evidence. I happily re-narrate it despite the criticism I have noted above because it is part of the rich cultural heritage of Cambodia.

Addenda. More reclining figures.
After noticing in Briggs (1951: Fig. 51: 228) a reproduction of a reclining figure, presumed to be Jayavarman VII at Banteay Chmar (Fig.18 in here), I have been informed by Dr. Olivier Cunin (who I thank greatly for his continuous support) that there is a similar figure at Bayon, to the right of the door of the Southern gallery-east wing. The figure of Banteay Chmar Eastern gallery southern wing is unfinished (Fig. 19) and it can be interpreted as that of a king resting in a small bedroom in his palace. The reliefs of Bayon show clearly that his harem and elegant princesses stay in different rooms. One row of them, on the lower register, may be taking care of young boys. Noticeable is the figurine of a dancing man identical to that seen at Bayon dancing in front of the royal palace where a king (or admiral) was comfortably sitting after the naval battle (see my paper on the Naval Battle).
In the context of the legend of the Leper King interpreted by previous scholars, the figure may be, as usual, that of Jayavarman VII miraculously cured from leprosy, surrounded by his entourage. I think instead it has nothing to do with the legend. At Banteay Chmar and Bayon, the figure is simply that of a commander or an important personage (the King?) resting after a great battle.
Olivier Cunin also informed me that these two figures were not carved at the same time (Banteay Chmar being possibly older than Bayon) raising the suspicion that they may represent different individuals. However the sculptors’ workshops were the same for the two temples.

ESSENTIAL BILIOGRAPHY

Ang, Choulean, In the beginning was the Bayon, in Bayon, New perspectives, edited by Joyce Clark, River Books, Bangkok 2007: 362-377
Aymonier, Etienne, Le Cambodge, Vol 3, Leroux, Paris 1903
Delaporte, Louis, Voyage au Cambodge. Ch.Delagrave, Reprint Maisonneuve, Paris 1999
Briggs, Lawrence Palmer, The Ancient Khmer Empire, White Lotus reprint, Bangkok 1951
Groslier, Bernard Philippe , INDOCHINE, Carrefour des Arts, Albin Michel, Paris 12961
Groslier, Bernard Philippe, Le Bayon, EFEO Mémoires Archéologique Vol. III-2, Maisonneuve, Paris 1973
Hang, Chan Sophea, Stec Gamlan and Yay Deb, in History, Buddhism and New religious Movements in Cambodia, by John Marston and Elizabeth Guthrie, University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu 2004: 113-126
JSA (Japanese Safeguarding Angkor), Annual report on the technical Survey of Angkor Monuments 004, Japanese International Cooperation Centre, Shinjuku, 2004
Pelliot, Paul, Memoires sur les Coutumes du Cambodge de Tcheou Ta-Kouan, Maisonneuve, Paris, 1951
Roveda, Vittorio, The reliefs of the Bayon, in Bayon, New perspectives, edited by Joyce Clark, River Books, Bangkok 2007: 284-375
Roveda, Vittorio, The World of Khmer Mythology, published by APSARA, Phnom Penh 2013
Thompson, Ashley, The Suffering King, in History, Buddhism and New religious Movements in Cambodia, by John Marston and Elizabeth Guthrie, University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu 2004: 91-111

Bangkok, June 2016

Fig.1 – The statue of the Leper King as illustrated by Mouhot in1896-98 (reprint 1999)

Fig.2-The statue of the Leper Kink protected by flimsy roof, around 1910-1930.

The ‘shrine’ I similar to those made for the spirits of nature.

Fig.3 – An early picture of the statue of the Leper King together with his assistants, now reduced to crumbling rocks. All three statues are affected by extreme leprosy as revealed by the lichen’s white crusts.

Fig.4 – Two recent photographs of the statue as it appears today.

Fig.5 – The statue of the Leper king appeared in the square of Phnom Penh, all painted white (probably except the legs).  Picture taken around 1940 (?)

Fig.6 – Internal courtyard of the National Museum with the small pavilion protecting the statue of the Leper King. (2016). This is his last destination (photo by Sopheaktra 2016)

Fig.7 – The statue as I found on a terrace a few years after Michael Freeman published this photograph in 1990: 249

Fig.8 – The statue restored and embellished as I found on the terrace in 2002

Fig.9 – Plan of Bayon’s  Room 28 (XXVIII), a small room of the outer  gallery between tower 22 and 37 (Plan by Olivier Cunin)

Fig10 (above)-A spectacular view of the terrace with the statue of the leper Jama and his two assistants at the very back of the platform which was probably used for important cremations. The picture was taken by Guy Nafilyan, probably in the 60s. 

Fig.11 -20 (below)  – Images taken in Room 28 (XXVIII) in 2003-2005 by myself

Fig.11 -20 – Images taken in room XXXVIII in 2003-2005 by myself.

Fig.21 – View of the eastern face of the Terrace, carved with the inhabitants of the underworld and the king of the nagas (bottom-center) (photo 2002)

Fig.22 – View of the same terrace central- top register carved the with the figure of Jama (decapitated) with multiple arms and flanked by his two assistants (photo 2002).