ICONOGRAPHY OF
IMAGES No.22
Visual
storytelling in Khmer reliefs
By Vittorio Roveda
(Text and
pictures copyright)
Murals are
illustrated in most scholarly books rarely explaining their position in the art
history of ancient Cambodia’s. I have tried to put some order amongst narrative
murals of various temples, to look at the beginning, development and evolution
of visual storytelling.
After almost 25
years spent studying Khmer iconography, (and publishing 7 books) I think it is
the time for me to summarize my idea about the emergence of visual narrative or
visual storytelling and its evolution of images in Khmer temple art. I did
tentatively expressed my theory of narrative evolution in my book Images of the Gods
(2005: 46).
Several decades have passed since art historians devoted their talents to the
Art History of Khmer Culture: Jean Boisselier,
Philippe Stern and Madeleine Giteau were perhaps the last of most
illustrious scholars; since their time, temple conservation and restoration
(and now extraordinary archaeological discoveries) became more important while epigraphists transformed themselves in art
historians with the publications of various articles in specialised periodical
papers (out of reach to common people) or indirectly to lush guidebooks.
Scholars of Khmerology at large have forgotten that iconography has been the
basis for the understanding the structure of Khmer Art. Narratology looks at
the organization of visual events (images) in cooperation with the date of
temple’s making.
I
must clarify what I intend for visual storytelling, or visual narrative: the
visual telling of a story which is an open ended event, with an indefinite
beginning and an indefinite end, unrolling in time (past, present, future) and
making sense. It is assumed that the viewer takes an active and creative role
in the dialogue with the artwork, to re-invent the experience that the images
communicate to him/her.
Whereas
Iconography is basically a descriptive process of identification of images,
narratology is an analysis of the organisation if images, indicating ‘how’ the
images of a story are combined to narrate as opposed to ‘what’ is narrated,
following through the system of narratology[1].
Traditional iconographic interpretation can reduce the image to a question of
treatment (style) that confuses the meaning. The power of narrating is an
integral part of visual art.
The invention of
narrative was initially motivated by the need to communicate with the divine,
but soon it assumed a variety of aspects. Visual narratives could be used to
express symbolic meanings, to visualise allegories. This may have been at the
root of the creative process when the religious-learned people needed to
express metaphysical and religious concepts. The priests and the monks wanted
to manifest the gods, to make them active in their own lives in order to
achieve their own goals. In Khmer culture, the religious community that
exercised a cultural monopoly increased their stronghold and supremacy over the
temporal power of the king (visual power)[ as in Western art].
On
his side, the king himself wanted to use visual storytelling to emphasise his
own power, to impress his people, Khmer overlords and rulers of adjacent
countries. For example, the royal performances of the Ramayana’s narratives depicting events of the life of Rama, the
most humane incarnation of Vishnu, alluded clearly to the divine nature of
kingship. The approach to the divine was important also for the king; he could
e seen as the one whose soul had achieved the closest possible relationship
with Shiva or Vishnu or Buddha by virtue of his rightful and ascetic efforts.
Brief history of visual storytelling in
Khmer art.
The first signs
of story-telling in Cambodian temple art come from the 6 to 7th
century (Sambor Prei Kuk). Strangely,
this episode was limited to the area and narrative storytelling disappeared
until the end of 9th century, with Bakong in 883 and about 100 later
at Banteay Srei (967).
The narratives
comes from monuments from the presumed capital of Zhen La, Sambor Prei Kuk (late 6th - early 7th
century). Some oldest examples have some narrative representations sculpted on sandstone
lintels (see Benisti’s 1970: Fig. 2 a )
of which one copy is deposited at the Museum of Phnom Penh (re-pained
replica?). Further examples are on the lintel of the N towers representing
Shivaite rituals or celebrations.
At Sambor P.K.,
the eastern face of tower ‘S’, has a now much eroded high lintel. Under a very
robust arch, enveloped by an undulating naga,
is the scene of 3 men (Benisti 1970) probably rishis or priests going to pay respect to Shiva with his consort
Uma. I consider narrative this lintel since it has worshipers approaching two
divinities to interact spiritually with them.
Decoding the
narrative possibility of the “flying palaces” hosting groups of figures is
harder. In the event of the figures being involved in a ceremonial or ritual
celebration, the palace’s images narrate an event. On the contrary, if the
personages are simply an heraldic (hieratic) group of static figures or
deities, then the representation on a “flying palace” is not narrative.
Always at Sambor
Prei Kuk, the figures on the first enclosure’s wall, carved inside the large
circular brick frames seem involved in violent narrative actions, as described
in texts (Ramayana, etc.).
A good example of narrative
storytelling is on the lintel of Vat Eng
Khna (c.650-700), kept at Cambodia National Museum, illustrating the origin
of the linga (Jessup & Thierry
1997: 173, fig. 20), with a procession of many figures carrying a bow
(offerings?), converging toward a shrine in which a seated king or statue (?)
is being anointed. This happens below the large image of a muchalinga, carved on the complex frame of the lintel between
Brahma and Vishnu. All the carvings of the 6-early 7th centuries
show a great influence from India, perhaps due to the influx of Indian gurus
and people of culture.
Narrative
signs can be found in the lintel of Prasat
Han Chei (Bénisti 1970: fig.87) carved with the images of sages (rishi) in hieratic style over the
central smaller figure probably of Vishnu on Garuda. Similarly, the pediment of
Neak Ta Po Noreay shows the scene of
Mahishasura-mardani (? 6th-7th
century; Bénisti 1970: 122).
Towards
the end of the 7th century, in Southern Cambodia many brick and
laterite single tower were erected, but none have narrative reliefs but only a
common lintel with large vegetal branches. Exception is Prasat Andet tower that
has a very unusual empty space at the top of the tower apparently carved with
what could be palace of the gods.
The
temples of Phnom Kulen (end 7th century), show a difficulty to have
narrative on the early pediments[2]
carved on the brick’s temples . In some Kulen temples, above the lintel there
is a central figure of a god flanked by minor goods or worshipers, thus of a
non-narrative storytelling.
I regret not to be aware of the new
discoveries done by the Australian team of Sydney University at Phnom Kulen.
What is I saw are eroded non narrative pseudo pediments
The
first evidence of narrative may by be seen on a single slab decorating the 5th
step of the stepped-pyramid of Bakong
initiated in laterite by Jayavarman III in 881 and finished later by
Indravarman I (2102-1050) (Jacques 1999: 198). If one slab has a well
identifiable group of Yakshas preparing
for war, the other ones following or
preceding this one, are difficult to identify because the rock slabs were
already of poor quality that was quickly degraded by tropical monsoons and
time.) One can perceive figures of men and rishis
in meditation, and running men. They make me to assume they may have been part
of a narrative. The original top shrine
was totally destructed and a new one added, probably during the 12th
century, by Yashovarman I, but restored in the 12th century by
Yashovarmnan II (Jacques 1999: 198). In either event, the rock used was
unsuitable.
The last temple of the Roluos area was the Lolei, initiated by Indravarman I but
completed by Yashovarman II in 893 (Jacques 1999: 202). Although it presents some of the largest and
finest lintels of Khmer art (of the hieratic type), the overlying
pseudo-pediment made of bricks, show a single palace flanked by worshipers. It
is highly eroded now, almost unrecognisable.
My
my knowledge on possible narrative developments at Koh Ker temples
(c.928-.941) is extremely poor having visited in the distant 2003 only dozen of
temples known before.
Attributed to the
date of 921 are the famous reliefs of Prasat
Kravan, showing scenes on Vaishnava mythology.
A significant change in
architectural style and construction method appears in the temples built in the
Koh Ker region by Jayavarman IV from
921 to 937. However I will express my opinion when all the contemporary dynamic
excavation and restorations will be made public. After 940 CE., the Khmer
capital was reinstated at Angkor, initially in the area of the Eastern
Baray. The East Mebon temple was built for Rajendravarman II in 953 by the
architect Kavindrari-mathana (Jacques
1999: 161); I did not recognise any narrative relief in the shrines of this
large stepped pyramid.
In the
contemporaneous Preah Rup unfinished
temple I was able to detect the first tentative sign of narrative carved on a
high lintel fallen to the ground unfinished. One of them is carved with Rama
shooting his arrow towards a much sketched Ravana. This uncertain stage will be
surprisingly replaced by the fully narrative pediments of Banteay Srei.
The dating of Banteay
Srei has been problematic since the day of its discovery in 1914. Initially
(1919) the temple was considered by Parmentier as an example of the art of
Indravarman (late 9th century).
In 1925, the same author, in association with Victor Goloubew and Louis
Finot completed a detailed monograph (published in 1926) on Ishvarapura – the
old name of Banteay Srei - and concluded, on epigraphic evidence, that the
temple had been erected in 1307.
However, this dating was definitively contested in 1929 when George
Coedès[3]
re-interpreted the inscriptions and concluded that the temple, including the 3
shrines and the two gopuras of the
first enclosure, were not later than the 10th century.1
This was dramatically confirmed in 1936 by the discovery by Henri Marchal of a
foundation stele buried in the earth by the gopura
of the 4th enclosure.3 It was soon interpreted and
publicised by George Coedès, together with three other inscriptions (1937:
143). The year of the temple
consecration recorded on the stele as 967 was thus definitively taken as the
date of the whole temple. The new attribution of Banteay Srei to 967 was widely
accepted. Little concern was expressed
about how this date could apply to various buildings of different styles and
construction techniques within the temple compound. However, some scholars were uneasy about the
mature style of the reliefs carved in the temple, particularly on the libraries
pediments, as well as an array of other advanced architectural and decorative
techniques (Parmentier 1939: 153; Glaize 1944: 228). Little or no consideration was given to the
relationship of the stele date and the dates provided by other
inscriptions. The possibility that
several patrons contributed to the completion and enhancement of Banteay Srei
over a period of time was ignored[4].
At the state-temple of Baphuon
(c.1066), the decoration
consists of images of nature (trees, wild and domestic animals) and many
mythological and epic stories of the classic Hindu literature, mainly of
Krishna. Although the narrative of individual panels can be understood
instantly, often the association with another panel has to be made to make
sense. This is network reading. This results in an extraordinary richness of
narrative stories (Roveda 2004 and 2016) and messages. At Baphuon, by
networking reading Mahabharata’s
stories becomes evident to belong to the same text used at Angkor Wat. Equally,
for the Northern face of Gopura III was devoted to Rama’s epic. Altogether the
quality of carving is extraordinary.
Copies
of the Baphuon panels are found on the Eastern gate of the Western Baray temple
and in the remote and Prasat San Kew, in a severe state of degradation. Narrative pediments became common at Pimai (1080) in modern Thailand. At
Preah Vihear a few pediment are narrative, including that of the renewed
Churning of the Ocean of Milk (my photo of 1999) that has to be combined with
the underlying lintel showing Vishnu on Ananta meditating before participating
to the Churning. I doubt to classify narrative the sandstone pediment with the story of Shiva and Uma passing by
under a marvellous tree, riding the mythological bull Nandi, because no action
is involved apart the presumed “passing by” which is a personal interpretation.
I am showing some example of networking narrative from the
photographs I have taken during Baphuon restoration works, before the final
state of today. The stories carved in reliefs have been identified in many
publications, including Maurice Glaze, 1993. Recently, in 2007, Olivier. Cunin
has made a perfect visual summary of the birth and evolution of Banteay Srei,
on behalf of the Apsara National Authority, publically displayed at the
entrance of the temple. It can’t be missed!
The
network narratives of the panels of Bapuon were not seen before in Khmer art,
or after and the mental origin remain inexplicable to me. I like to put forward
the theory that the relief’s carvers belonged to different workshops. They were
not concerned with the chronological development of the events, creating thus a
random display of images requiring network reading. At Baphuon the influence of
southern India art is considerable (K. Evans 1007, A. Dallapiccola 2010),
possibly brought in by gurus hired by
the king.
With the colossal temples of Angkor Wat visual narrative reached its
apex with the full deployment of complex narrative programs. The need to illustrate mythological and epic
events on a large surface, obliged the architects to construct long galleries
with enormous smooth walls for relief sculpture.
The construction of the temple of Angkor Wat was initiated by king Suryavarman II, who reigned from
1113 to 1145 (or 1150; the exact date is unknown), as a temple in honour of
Vishnu and as the state temple. I think
that it was conceived and planned by the royal Brahmin Divakarapandita who had served two previous kings and himself
descending from a family of illustrious brahmins (see their history on the inscription
of Sdok Kak Thom). The construction of
the temple started around 1113-15 but was probably halted after about 30-35
years, when the king died. It may be, as Mannikka suggested, that the central
sanctuary was installed in 1126, and that perhaps all decorative works
including splendid narrative reliefs were suspended after the king’s defeat by
the Chams in 1136 (?). Most
architectural elements and sculptural reliefs were left unfinished at the time
of the death of Suryavarman II in mysterious circumstances.
The overwhelming richness of themes, taken from the
classic Indian texts is not so astonishing when considering that the close
advisor of the king was Divacarapandita.
This vrah guru of the king had a
solid Indian background and a great culture. I believe that he had the ability
to conceptualise, visualise, draw and probably supervise the carving of reliefs
all over the temple.
I use the term conceptualizing for the mental process of
transforming a story narrated in a text into a visual story, or more simply to
know how everything of a textual story would look like on a carved wall, like
at Angkor Wat or Bayon
I believe that Divacarapandita was an artist comparable to the great geniuses of
the Western Renaissance. Besides full knowledge of the Puranas (especially the Bhagavata),
as well as of the Mahabharata and Ramayana, he had a structural mental
plan on where and what use for each part of Angkor Wat, obviously prioritizing
Vishnuite imagery. There has been other illustrious vrah guru, but none could achieve what Divacarapandita did, in my opinion.
He had an exceptionally fine brain to preview how a story
could be illustrated in in a defined space, its layout and quality and
technique of carving. To execute his
mental vision, Divakarapandita must
have drawn on paper his perception and then use it for “pochoir” technique (B.
Ph. Groslier 1961: 162), a sort of stencils. The Chinese traveller Zou Daguan
mentions that official documents were written on buckskin parchment dyed black,
using sticks made with something like chalk, corresponding to Thai dinsò, (pencil ; Pelliot 1992 : 27).
Manuscripts have a limited life and the maintenance of the texts they contain
need frequent recopying (introducing mistakes). The decline of writing Sanskrit
started to decrise in the 13 century and disappeared at the 16th
century.
Following
the narrativity’s theory, a simplifier view of the panel illustrating the
Historic Procession would reveal the hero, (the real protagonist of the story)
Suryavarman II, sitting on his field-throne, surrounded by his courtier,
ministers and priests, is in full control of his power. Then, after descending
Mount Shivapada and having joined the procession, he reconfirm hi position of
power (of hero) another time by standing on his elephant surrounded by
complacent subalterns, his generals (but that to all effect are soldiers) in
charge to lead a group of mercenaries (the
Siam Kuk) that in case of war will be the first to die to protect the hero
of the story (Suryavarman II).
The long reliefs of Angkor Wat have the peculiarity that the
two enemies (the hero and the villain, Krishna (Vishnu) against asuras
are never depicted face-to–face, but there are always intermediaries’ figures
between the two. In the case of the panel of the northern gallery eastern wing
(Krishna against the asura Bana. The
image of Krishna is repeated 7 times, each to reaffirm his hero position until
he get closer to the villain (Bana) that he destroys re-establishing pace and
order on earth.
In the long panel of the northern gallery western wing
(Vishnu/Krishna against the asura Kalameni), between the hero
(Vishnu/Krishna) and the villain (Kalameni) that they illustrate, there are 13
intermediate elements (gods and deities, protectors, helpers?) before Krishna
gets closer to the villain Kalameni appearing with lots of arms brandishing
swords, symbol of their un-natural destructive power.
In the battle of
Lanka panel, Rama (the hero) stands proudly on the shoulders of Hanuman,
flanked by his brother Lakshmana in a much lower position (of power). The
heroic Rama can see far away the figure of the villain (Ravana) on his chariot.
Between the two there are several cruel battles delaying the re-establishment
of equilibrium with the death of the villain Ravana.
There is no evident structural guidance for reading the
mural of the Battle of Kurukshetra
depicting two fundamental events of the Mahabaratha
The relief starts by showing an hero (the great Bishma),dying on a “bed of
harrows”, but having the time to narrate the need for all kings to cease
hostilities and remember theirs duties.
On
the relief there is no visual presence of evil but only the Kaurava infantry
attacking the Pandava infantry. The villain may be interpreted the hidden
Kaurava or visually by Arjuna (a Pandava) who was having a crisis of
conscience, being unable to kill his Kaurava cousins of the same blood to win
the battle. Arjuna is illustrated on his war chariot driven by Krishna, who
reminds him that his highest duty of a ksatryia:
accept god’s will and keep fighting (all narrated in the Bhagavad-Gita). After Arjuna understood Krishna’s spiritual
teaching, peace was restored and the real evil (ignorance) defeated. I do not
know if at that time the symbolism of ending fratricides wars was understood.
In
conclusion, the Angkor’s reliefs are tentatively dated 1115-1145, and art
historians use the term “Angkor Period’, for the period that is contemporaneous
or that follows, until the making of the Bayon reliefs.
Art
Historians did establish a “style of Khleang” as an intermediary between Angkor
Wat’s style and Bayon’s style. I do not see any iconographic reason to have
done so. I have not seen in the two Kleangs or on the Ta Keo pyramid, anything
particular apart of the rich decoration of some friezes and a damaged pediment;
certainly there were no narrative reliefs at the time of my visit in 2002.
It is not clear if the temple of Beng Mealea was built, before
or after Angkor Wat. Probably it was started a little before Angkor Wat.
To the period going ‘Suryavarman II - Jayavarman VII’ can be considered as the period in between Angkor
Wat and Bayon I place the narrative reliefs of Banteay Samrè, Thomannon, Chau Say Tevoda, and other “gites d’étape” of
Dagens (3003: 26) , having in common the
new architectural structures of mandapa
and antarala. The temples of Banteay Samré, Pimai and Phnom Rung (in
modern Thailand), both having some Tantric Vajrayana motifs mixed with Hindu
myths.
At
the extraordinary Bayon temple, the themes carved on reliefs were popularized,
involving lay people and daily life’s scenes. Already at Ta Prohm wall’edges
were carved with many topics of the life of common people: a man carrying a
bucket, a woman carrying flasks on a pole, a man laying fishing nets, mothers
holding their baby, embracing lovers and sometimes some Buddhist figures of Jatakas.
This interest in popular activities is further illustrated at Bayon in the
market scenes and other popular activities carved on the southern side of the
Outer Gallery. Another novelty is the display of cruel wars, both having dead
and wounded men.
At Bayon the desire for gigantism appears to have been
coupled with an increased need to communicate religious and secular
messages. The rapid passage from the
relatively naïf narration of the Baphuon or the severity of Angkor Wat to the
Bayon’s full-blown narratives of the Outer Gallery, is quite astonishing.
The views of Bayon’s Outer Gallery make visitors
interact with imagery mentally and physically, extending the power of the
narrative in real life. The lively interaction with life appears in some
contemporary ceremonies in Thailand and Laos.
The panels of Bayon’s Inner
Gallery are all with mythological scenes. They reveal diversity, possibly due
to different age of making or certainly different carving workshops. They are
comparatively in worst conditions due to the weathering by the humidity of the
small rooms.
Furthermore,
the reliefs suffered defacing by the iconoclastic reaction after the death of
Jayavarman VII.
According
to the theory that the Bayon is the perfect centre of Angkor Thom (which is
not), the temple functioned as Mount Mandara, and the giants at the entrance
gates were pulling the naga for
producing the elixir of happiness for the King and his nation (Dagens 2003: 32,
with figure). The king positioned at the centre of the Churning would
legitimize his position of Universal Sovereign (Chakravartin). This theory is controversial by many factors that
are behind the scope of this paper.
The focus of Bayon’s religious worship was originally
Mahayana, having images of gods brought in from all parts of the country,
dwelling in the temple’s shrines built around the circular section of the
structure, the gigantic face-towers creating an ideological message with the
heart in the Bayon, centre of the capital-city. The central image of worship
was a colossal statue of Buddha on naga
(characteristic of Mahayana Buddhism).
In
general, all complex or extravagant reliefs are narrative, with lay images on
the Outer Gallery and religious narrative in the Inner Gallery of the first
level (Roveda 2006).
It seems to me
that Khmer kings used gigantic architecture to express the position of power of
the ruling king (the hero) and his reverence to a special god (Shiva, Vishnu,
etc.).
In the Bayon, it appears that the decoration was
unplanned, executed randomly by artists of different workshops. Therefore, also
at Bayon, trying to understand the reliefs by circumambulation the temple is
meaningless, especially a systematic pradakshina
(counter-clock wise) for funerary ceremonials.
To
complete the study on visual narrative’s development in Khmer was imperative to
look at two more elements of the development of narrative: lintels and
pilasters.
On them Jean Boisselier did an extensive excellent
study of lintels in his 1966 book (Le Cambodge). In my opinion the first
lintels that I have seen with narrative scene are to be found at Phimai.
Concerning narrative sculpture on the door pilasters,
especially at their base, started to be manifested at Angkor Wat, developing at
Beng Mealea, then at Banteai Samre and all the temples of Jayavarman VII.
The progress of the
development and evolution of Khmer visual narrative (9-14th
centuries) was an exclusively Khmer success, achieved through the geniality of
the artist-designers and the indefatigable application of Cambodian
sculptors.
It appears that after Prah Palilay, visual narrative art
started to decline firstly in the carving of the reliefs, and secondly by the
ignorance of new Buddhist stories. Another example of this type is temple
No.438. No more stone-temples were built
eliminating visuals storytelling It is possible that this lacune was filled by
verbal storytelling, theatre and music.
From the 16th century with the development of
Theravada, there must have been simple wood pagodas or viharas, gradually being built with stone walls, and -much later-
decorated with painting, totally disregarding Brahmanical iconography.
Therefore I believe that Khmer art did not die with the successors of
Jayavarman VII. It was recuperated by Buddhism, with monks worshiping in
sparsely decorated (with paintings?) walls until the 18th century
when colour painting appeared. It survived only in Thailand with the Thai
murals of Wat Rajapurana of Ayutthaya (c. 1250) and the graffiti of Wat Si Chum
in Sukhothai (mid-14th century). Only in late 18th, but mainly 19th
century, both in Thailand and Cambodia, painted murals made a visual triumphant
entrance. Another art gap was produced by wars, internal strife, political and
social disorders all overdo continental Southeast Asia.
Narrative development
I have tried to explain the development and
evolution of visual narrative carved in Khmer temples.
It is
difficult because there are only few points of reference, spaced in time: the
poor reliefs of Bakong and Bakheng, the shocking beautiful Banteay Srei, the still unknown Phnom
Kulen and Koh Ker reliefs, the
extravagant Baphuon, the marvellous
classic Angkor Wat and the messy
revolutionary Bayon.
The beautiful Banteay
Srei murals have the first well-developed visual narrative on all the pediments
and lintels. There are also pediments of different making and “style”, one over
the inner pediment of the second enclosure and three others in custody of
museums. I am not surprised to see at
Banteay Srei the visual narrative was so well established, because the input of
the Brahmanical guru Yajnavaraha contributin to the erection of the temple. Its refined style was never reproduced after, or
copied by other image-makers, or visual narrative creators, for almost 100
years.
The network narrative of the murals of
Baphuon was unique in Khmer carving and
its conceptualization a total novelty. At Baphuon images unroll like that of
storytelling for children, although many of its thousands images require the
effort of network reading, just the opposite of what will be at Angkor
Wat.
Separate by around 30-40 years, are the reliefs of Angkor Wat. The long panels of the third enclosure are all of classic
narrative type with long panels full of orderly energy, expressing with clarity
the visual language.
At Angkor Wat the Khmer visual storytelling was
completed, revealing emotions to the eye of the viewer. The Vishnuite and other
Brahmanical images of Angkor Wat became the standard Hindu references for all
the temples until the Bayon. The architect and designer was the King’s guru Divakarapandita who conceptualised and
had carved the enormous panels executed with the help of Cambodian artists.
They released energy to the reliefs, followed an orderly plan, the lot supported
by the innovative spirit of Suryavarman II and his wealth.
The Buddhist king Daranindravarman II ( 1050-?1065)
successor of Suryavarman II, started to build several temples to the east of
Angkor, Beng Mealea, Banteay Samré, Thomannon, Chau Sei Tevoda and the
distant Prah Khan of Kampong Svay. Mature visual storytelling is evident in
these temples and on fragments
of pediments now preserved at the Musée Guimé, Paris.
To me, the temple
reflects disorder, either in its planning or construction (see Olivier Cunin on
Internet pages). It was built in stages, with changing iconography.
The dark Inner
Gallery has Brahmanical mythological themes, not always narrative.
The Outer Gallery has
only lay and religious narrative reliefs carved at different scale, different
techniques, certainly by different workshops (Roveda, 2006), and at different
times. All this reflects lack of planning and execution’s coordination of all
the decoration of the Bayon.
Personal
conclusions:
1.
Khmer art was new each time a new King raised to power. This renovation
demanded a change of style or a different degree of visual language.
From
the 10th century there must have been some small illustrated
manuscript on various topics circulating in Cambodia.
2.
In early Imperial Cambodia, visual narrative functioned always as a
demonstration, a visual display of the King’s a power visible from everywhere
in the great city. It satisfied the ideology of power that obsessed Khmer
kings, an ideology that- in part - materialised in monumental architecture.
3.
The development or evolution of Khmer visual narrative seems to be erratic
probably due to the lack of temples which could have reliefs. The visual
narrative that started with honour in some lintels of Sambor Prei Kuk; then it
jumps to the presumed narrative of the Bakong. Thereafter there is an
extraordinary evolutionary jump to the mature visual narrative of the
extraordinary reliefs of Banteay Srei, a fact difficult to explain in Khmer
art.
This first narrative display was followed by
the impressively extravagant Baphuon. Then we arrive to the needed classicism
of Angkor Wat, clear and creative. Many temples built around the time of Angkor
were influenced by the art of Angkor Wat, with a variety of visual narratives
carved mainly on pediments. After the structured classicism of Angkor Wat, the
narratives of Bayon seem decadent, with loss of coherence. With the 14th
century everything changed and the expanding Theravada needed Buddhist images.
Of these, few originals stone reliefs remain (Preah Pithu “X” and Mangalartha).
We
will never know when and how Hindu narratives on stone were replaced by
Buddhist visual narratives in painting because they were executed on perishable
materials, except the statue of Lord Buddha. Mural painting started to flourish
only in from the end of the 19th century.
4.
It seems to me that Khmer art, from Sambor Prey Kuk to Bayon, was based on the
freedom that the Khmer king allowed to each new sage (guru) as his personal guru, to use elements of Indian
culture. Some gurus were of Cambodian genealogy (born and raised in
Cambodia, others Indian) this imported knowledge allowed new visual narratives,
conceptualized, absorbed and localized by the Khmers artists and carved with the dedication and ability of Cambodian artists and
sculptors. I conclude in believing that Indian culture was the source of all
our storytelling.
5. In my research (2017) on the development of visual
narrative in mainland South-eastern Asia, I have provisionally reached the
conclusion that the Khmers were the first (after Borobudur and probably
Prambanan) to carve in stone visual storytelling from the end of the 10th
century, well ahead of other countries of the same region, showing a
progressive interest in the history of images. This is not surprising
considering that the Khmer was the
largest empire of Southeast Asia until the end of the 13th century
or the death of Jayavarman VII.
My comments on Myanmar are very scanty limited to the
knowledge only of some stone tablets of the Payagyi temple (18-19th
century) that have nothing in common with Khmer
temple’s reliefs. However a well-documented explosion of visual
storytelling happened with the murals of the Buddhist temples of Pagan (11-14th
centuries) and later in the 18th century caves of Powin Taung
(Munier &Aung, 2007).
Most monuments and their
reliefs were done by slaves of the king, of which hundred-thousand died in the
construction of the monuments, giving all of themselves to the King and his
ideology
All my research is based on the
chronology and kink’s genealogy established by EFEO scholar in the 20th
century. To them I am greatly indebted.
Concerning
the beauty of Angkor Wat reliefs I totally agree with what B.P. Groslier wrote
in the distant 1961 (Indochine). I give here a summary free translation from
the French at page 162.
The reliefs look more like mural paintings
(“fresques”) because we can perceive more the brush of a painter rather than
the chisel of a sculptor. The Khmer were
familiar with painting, having painted the decoration of some of their temples.
Evidently the sketches of these reliefs were made on paper, then utilised as
“pochoirs”. Furthermore, originally gold and colour were applied for the main
personages, their jewels ant setting high lightening the main pictorial effect.
The
composition or layout was also coming from drawing techniques. The perspective
is quite simplified and the layout of a disconcerting audacity, especially
thinking at the small panels of Baphuon. The composition is continue for each
panel: 49 metres long on the East and West faces and 100 m on the North and
South faces. The episode is built dynamically by the movement of the actors,
rarely driving the gaze on the main personage. This parsonage is of larger size
on his mount; duel of the heroes on the first plan; soldiers turning their head
towards the leaders, a horse raising his neck. This emphasis produces the tempo
of a majestic recitative, avoiding slow down. It is a superior art that allows
the viewers the possibility to create in their mind a personal vision, though
guiding them unconsciously.
The
making of the reliefs seems to have ben done by chiselling away successive thin
layers(“films”) of rock, evidencing again the following or directing . The
personage are firstly carved flat, then modelled on a few centimetres of
thickness, only millimetres for the vegetation. He space is defined by
semi-tones thanks the play of different carving.
BP
Groslier concluded (page 164) that there is nothing better in the world than
these narrative reliefs. Thy can be flanked to the best frescos of the Italian
Renaissance. On this basis of this alone, Angkor Wat is one of the marvels of
the world.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bénisti, Mirelle., Rapports
entre le premier art Khmer et l’art Indien, Publ. EFEO, Mem. Arch. V,
Paris, 1970
Bhattacharya, Kamal The theme
of Churning of the Ocean in Indian and Khmer art, AA, VI, 1959: 121-134
Boisselier, Jean, Asie du Sud-Est, Tome I, Le Cambodge, Picard, Paris, 1966
Coedès G. & Dupont P., Les
stèles de Sdok Kak Thom, Phnom Sandak
et Prah Vihar, BEFEO, XLIII, 1943: 56-154
Coedès, George., La
date du temple de Banteay Srei, BEFEO, 29: 289-330, 1929
Coedès, George, Les
bas-reliefs d’Angkor-Vat, Bulletin de la Commission Archéologique de
l’Indochine, Paris, 1911: 170-220
Coedès, George, La date
d’exécution des deux bas-relief tardif d’Angkor Vat, JA, II, 1962: 235-243
Cunin,Olivier, posters for
Banteay Srei, explaining the history and how to visit the temple. Project
on behalf of APSARA Authority, Siem Reap
Cunin,Olivier, The Bayon,
on Internet
Dagens, Bruno, Etude sur
l’iconographie du Bayon (Frontons et linteaux), Arts Asiatiques, XIX, 1969,
124-158
Dagens, Bruno , Les Khmeres, Les
Belle Lettres, Paris,2003
Dallapiccola, Anna, Ramayana in Southern Indian art, in Vergese
&All., Themes and variations, Art
and Archaeology, Oxford University Press, New Delhi 2010
Dehejia, Vidya., On modes of
visual narration in early Buddhist art, The Art Bulletin, LXXII/3, 1990
Dimmitt C. & van Buitenen J.A.B., Classical Hindu Mythology, Temple University Press, Philadelphia,
1978
Dufour, Henry , Le Bayon
d’Angkor Thom, Ministère de l’Instruction publique et des Baux Arts, Paris
Leroux, 1913 (Folio)
Evans Kristi, Epic narrative
in the Hoisala temples. Brill, Leiden 1997
Finot, Louis , Goloubew, Victor. & Coedes, George, Le Temple d’Angkor Vat, Publ. de l’EFEO,
Memoires Archeologiques, II, Paris, 1927-32
Finot Louis, Parmentier Henry et Goloubew V., Le temple d’Ishvarapura (Banteay Srei), Publ. de l’EFEO, Mem,oires
archaelogiques, I, Paris, 1926
Finot Louis, Les bas-reliefs
de Baphuon, Bulletin de la Commission Archéologique de l’Indochine, Paris,
1 Giteau M., & Guéret D., L’Art Khmer, Reflet des civilisations
d’Angkor, ASA Edit., Paris, 1997.
Glaize, Maurice , Le Guide
d’Angkor: les monuments du groupe d’Angkor, Paris Maisonneuve, 1963
Goloubew, Victor, Artisans
chinois à Angkor Wat, BEFEO, XXIV, 1924, 513-519
Groslier, Bernard Philippe,
L’Indochine, in L’Art dans le Monde, Edit. A.Michel, Paris, 1961
Holliday, P.J. (edit.), Narrative
and event in ancient art, Cambridge University Press, 1993
Jacques, Claude, Angkor,
River Books, Bangkok 2002
Le Bonheurm, Albert, Angkor,
temples en péril, Herscher, Paris 1989
Le Bonheur, Albert, Of Gods,
Kings, and Men, Serinda, London, 1995
Loizeau Rachel, Indic Epics
in Khmer Art, Pdf available on internet
Mannikka, Eleanor. , Angkor
Wat, Time, Space, and Kingship, University of Haway’i Press, 1996
Marchal Henry, The
temples d’Angkor, 5th edit., A.
Guillot, Paris 1955
Press, Chicago, 1987
Mitchell W.J.T., Iconology,
University of Chicago 1987
Munierm Christophe & Myint, Aung, Burmese Buddhist Murals, Vol.1, White Lotus, Bangkok 2007
Mus, Paul, Le sourire d’Angkor, Artibus Asiae, 24,
Ascona, 1961, 363-381
Parmentier Henry., L’art
khmer primitif (2 vol.), Publ. de l’EFEO, 21&22, 1927
Pelliot, Paul, The Customs oF
Cambodia, The Siam Society , Bangkok,1992
Poncar, Jaro and Maxwell,Thomas,
Of Gods ,Kings and Men, Edition
Panorama, 2006
Rodriguez, Natalie, Variation
autour d’un theme iconographique: Arjuna et le Kirata. EASAA, 6th
Internat. Conf, Leiden, 1996
Roveda, Vittorio, The use of
drawings for the making of the reliefs from Angkor Wat, in Southeast Asian
Archaeology 1998, Centre for South-East Asian Studies, University of Hull &
Ethnologishes Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Hull, 2000, 169-175
Roveda,Vittorio, The archaeology of Khmer images, ‘Aséanie’, 13, June 2004
Roveda. Vittorio., The world
of Khmer mythology, APSARA, Phnom Pewnh 2016
Stern, Philippe, Le s monuments du style du Bayon et Jayavarman
VII, Publication du Musée Guimet, P.U.F, Paris 1965
Van Nooten B.A., The
Mahabharata, Twayne Publishing, New York, 1871
Zephir, Tierry, L’art Khmer,
in L’art de l’Asie du Sud-East,
Citadelles & Mazenod, Paris 1
 |
|
– Sambor Prei Kuk.
Lintel of tower N showing a Shivaite scene below a robust naga.
Photo by M.Benisti before
1970
|
 |
|
– Sambor Prei Kuk. Pediment wit the
scene of acolits dancwe around Shiva. National Musem iof Phmnlom Penh.
(painted plastercast?) |
 |
|
– Wat Ek Khna. Procession of worshippers converging to the central shrine,
probably for the anointment of a statue or a king. On the robust band over the
scene are a Shivalinga at the center,Vishnu to its left an Brahma to its right.
Artefact
preserved at the National Museum of Phnom Penh (photo2007).
|
 |
|
- Sambor
Prei Kuk. Typical flying palace
|
 |
|
– Sambor P.K. The degraded wall of the central enclosure with
brick
wall carved with narrative figure
|
 |
|
- Kulen. Pseudo-pediment with
figure.
|
 |
|
PrasatThma Dap (Kulen). Pseudo-pedimeny with a figure in a shrine
over the lintel. All white-washed.
|
 |
|
– Bakong towers.
Traces of a human figure on an animal (Shiva on Nandi?)
Carved at the top of a proto
prdiment.
|
 |
– Bakong towers. Traces of a human figure on an animal (Shiva on Nandi?)
Carved at the top of a proto prdiment.
|
Bakong towers with a proto-pediment, the outline of a pediment with niches for
images of gods.
 |
|
– Bakong. - The only preserved panel of the
The frieze on the 15th step of the pyramid
|
 |
|
– Bakong. This northern door
of access to thy temple. It is analyzed in the paper on pediments’ evolution.
|
 |
|
Bakheng, southern pediment
of the central tower tower with figures of Shiva and Uma on the bull Nandin;
the rest of the images are obliterated.
|
 |
|
– Pr.Krvan. Vishnu making the three steps (Vishnu Trivicrama) |
 |
| – Pr.Kravan. Lakshmi in hieratic pose |
 |
|
Prasat Wat Einkosei. Top band of the large lintel sdhowing
the major Brahmanical Gods to the left. On the right the Churning is going on with
uneqal pulling powers. One of the first example of visuasl storytelling in
Khmer art.
|
 |
|
Banteay
Srei. Pediment of the northern shrine of the causeway illustrating Vishnu
in
the semblance of a lion, tearing apart the stomach of the demon Hiranhyakasipu.
|
 |
|
Lintel narrates one episode
of the Arjunakirata legend, by
which Shiva and Arjuna argued who had been the first to kill a wild boar,
represented on the lintel under their feet.
|
*It is important to notice that at Banteay
Srei also the lintels became narrative, gently and elegantly.
 |
Banteay Srei, This lintel narrates the episode of Ravana kidnapping Sita,
while Rama was far away, in the forest chasing Marica and Lakshmana also in the
forest searching Rama. The brothers are carved at the extreme edges of the lintel,
too far and too late to reach Ravana with their arrows.
|
 |
| Banteay Srei. This small pediment fallen on the ground narrates the episode of Virada attempting to kidnap Sita, but I soon killed by Rama an Lakshmana with their Arrows. |
 |
|
Banteay Srei. Also this
lintel narrates the story of Rama killing the monkey king Valin when he was
fighting with Sugriva. Rama is shown twice with bow and arrow.
|
 |
|
Detail of the previous pediment showing frighten
emotional states of Kama’ courtiers and girls of the harem.
|
 |
|
Banteay Srei. Complete pediment
illustrating the Mahabharata legend of Bihma
(Pandava) fighting Duryodhana (Kaurava)
in the presence of Krishna, Balarama and Arjuna. The duel ended with Krujisna
punishing Bhima for killing his enemy by
hitting him below the navel, an unacceptable act amongst kshatryia.
National Museum, Phnom Penh
|
 |
|
Banteay Srei. Pediment over
the gate of the Third Enclosure with the Ramayana event of Rama killing
Valin, shown dying on the ground (left corner of pediment).
|
 |
| The massacre of all the boys born the same day of Krisha |
 |
| The plot to exchange the ne-born male baby for new born female |
 |
| Khrisna swapped for the Devaki (baby girl) |
 |
| Baphuon, Mahabharata scenes |
 |
| Baphuon, Ramayana scense |
 |
| Baphuon Hanuman offering to Sita Rama's ring |
 |
| Baphuon.Yudhishtira Desolate to have lost everything (left) at a chess game |
 |
| Baphuon Vishnu Trivikrama |
ANGKOR WAT
 |
|
Angkor Wat. The Royal Procession. King
Suryavarman II is shown on the largest elephant surrounbded by parasols and
insignia. Thed narrative is fully
devloped in showing the pogressive march of th army in the fist ground, the
King in the intermediate gound and the forest in th background. (Photo
J.Pomcar)
|
 |
|
Angkor Wat.A large pediment
of the western tower of the First Enclosure showing the battle
of Rama against Ravana.
|
 |
|
A series of pediments over
the staircase
leading from the Cruciform
terrace to the north
side of the Second
Enclosure.
|
 |
|
Preah
Vihear. Pediment of the Third Level showing the Churning with the protagonist
surrounded by several holy men (Rishis), Garuda and Indra on his elephant.
It may be that this
pediment was carved after the construction works awere terminated, or during
some restoration phase, being in such an advanced stage of visual storytelling.
|
 |
|
Preah Vihear. Pediment of
the third level showing Shiva and Uma
on the bull Nandi, passing
by or resting under a large tree, interpreting thus the pediment as narrative storytelling
|
 |
|
Preah Vihear. Pediment of
the Gopura of the Third level displaying a large pediment frame, which is
polylobate and surrounded by foliage. It includes a pyramidal decoration of
flowers and laves over a Kala’s head.
Notice the deep holes for inserting
wooden posts to create a roof for
protecting a passage |
 |
|
Bayon. Two views of the
famous face-tower. I personally wander if some Khmer architect of Bayon
imagined that the faces of the towers acted as pediments of intense symbolic
meaning.
|
 |
|
Bayon.
The army is followed by provisions on a cart, followed by a soldier with his family.
The
visual storytelling has reached a stage
of realism never seen before.
|
 |
| Bayon. Soldiers at war |
 |
| Bayon. Soldiers at war |
 |
| Bayon. Men eating together using their hands |
 |
| Fig.51 – Bayon. Men playing chess |
 |
| Bayon. Boy soldiers |
 |
| – Bayon. Special soldiers carrying the Sacred Arc |
 |
| Bayon, Inner Gallery. Mythological scenes |
 |
| Bayon, Inner Gallery. Mythological scenes |
 |
| Bayon, Inner Gallery. Mythological scenes |
 |
|
– Bayon. Inner Gallery facing the sanctuary.
Panel carved with probably with a scene of the Vessantara
Jataka.
Panel carved with a scene of the Vessantara Jataka. (Photo J.Poncar)
|
 |
|
Fig.58
- Bayon. The Avalokiteshvara that allowed the
attribution of the temple
to Mahayana Buddhism.
|
 |
| Preah Palilai.Pediments with Buddha in meditation |
 |
| Preah Palilai.Pediments with Buddha in meditation |
 |
| Pra’ Pitu X. Rows of Buddhas |
 |
| Pra’ Pitu X. Rows of Buddhas |
 |
|
National Museum Phnom Penh.
Pediment allegedly coming from Tep Prahnam (Angkor Thom)
The
Buddha is enthroned over the scene of evil Mara attacking The Buddha at the
moment of enlightenment.
He
used his devil forces lead by generals on elephants. for the need to narrate
the full story.
Between the images of the 2 elephants heads
there is the figure of Preah Thorani |
[1]
Holliday P.J., Narrative and event in
ancient art, Cambridge University Press, 1993, p.8.
[2]
See my paper “Pediment’s evolution” in this series Archaeology of Images
(No.22)
[3] In his 1929 paper’s (page 163) Coedès made no comment
on the inscription of Suryavarman I at the temple of Sek Ta Tuy, a temple that
Finot used to confirm the 967 date of Banteay Srei, on the ground that the same
deity (Tribhuvanamaheshvara) was
worshipped in both temples. All different opinions were dissolved by the stele
found under the temple displaying the date 967.
Who from Khmer is willing to challenge my soon to come 20* (MUHAMMAD ALI STYLE FIGHTER PLAKAT BETTAFISH) or are you scared. 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆 HAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAA
ReplyDeleteY'all are sooo scared of my fighter plakat bettafish where's yours why are you not advertising them in here is it cause you are SCARED of mine 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆HAA HA HA HA HA HAAA
ReplyDelete