Preah Khan
SLIDESHOW + BRIEF DESCRIPTION + TRAVEL INFO + DETAILED PRESENTATION
Introduction to Preah Khan
Preah Khan is a tremendous temple, incredibly vast and complex. It seems to be an endless labyrinth of rectangle courtyards and dark aisles. Outside of Cambodia, there are no comparably large forested areas as closely packed with ruins as Preah Khan. This 12th century sanctuary is Angkor's largest flat temple (meaning: all structures are on ground level, there is no elevated step pyramid). Not in coverage but in volume, Preah Khan is even bigger than the quite similar flat temple of Ta Prohm (Angkor's famous 'jungle temple'), which is from the very same period. Concerning the building mass (weight of the stone used for the construction), the sanctuary of Preah Khan is the second largest temple in Angkor at all (or the third largest, depending on whether one considers the city walls of Angkor Thom to be the exterior enclosure wall of the Bayon temple). With respect to coverage, Preah Khan is one of the four largest temple compounds in Angkor and one of the seven vastest ancient temples in Cambodia and Southeast Asia (besides Angkor Thom, Banteay Chhmar, Prasat Bakan, Angkor Wat, Beng Melea, and Ta Prohm of Angkor).
As in the case of Ta Prohm, archaeologists decided wisely not to remove the big trees growing on the buildings, unless logging or pruning becomes unavoidable in favour of visitors' security or for the purpose of heritage conservation. Admittedly, there are less of those gigantic trees emerging from the structures of Preah Khan than in the case of the more famous jungle temple Ta Prohm. Nevertheless, Preah Khan's biggest tree covering stone architecture is not only one of the world's largest such trees in size, it's the most fascinating one, as it actually consists of two 'jungle temple trees', one of them dead and one still alive. Undisputably, this silk cotton tree towering the temple's East Gopuram III is of magical beauty beyond imagination - a poem and a fairytale and a true story. Though included in most two- or three-days Angkor tour packages (and this is to say: visited by busloads day in and day out), the Preah Khan complex is expansive enough, allowing you to find some idyllic spots just for yourself, undisturbed by noisy groups. Actually, the ruins of Preah Khan - the southern parts of the temple compound in particular - can easily turn out to be an ideal location for your Indiana Jones phantasies. The modern visitor interested in cultural history should have in mind: Preah Khan was not only a temple. It was a Buddhist monastery, an ensemble of shrines for 430 Hindu gods, a Mahayana university with over 1000 teachers, a fairground employing hundreds of professional dancers, an agricultural administration headoffice, a royal palace, and an entire city - all of that at the same time. Preah Khan covered 56 hectares and had about 100,000 inhabitants, corresponding fairly closely the size of the largest contemporary cities in Western and Central Europe. For a short period, Preah Khan was even the capital of the Khmer empire, as at the end of the 12th century King Jayavarman VII resided here, when the construction works of his future and much vaster capital, Angkor Thom, were in progress. |
Location
Preah Khan is situated just to the northeast of Angkor Thom, so close that the outer moats of both temple towns are only 250 m apart. The ruins of Preah Khan can be called the highlight of the Grand Circuit or Grand Tour of Angkor, which branches of the Small Tour in the centre of Angkor Thom and joins the Small Circuit again further east, at the tank known as Srah Srang. The car park at the western gate of Preah Khan is in 2.5 km distance from the main junction and main car park in Angkor Thom and 1.2 km to the northeast of Angkor Thom’s northern gate.
Preah Khan is situated 5 km to the north of Angkor Wat, as the crow flies, and about 1 km northeast of the northern city gate of Angkor Thom by road
The fortified temple of Preah Khan was built in the main axis of Angkor’s northern reservoir, the Jayatataka Baray, the eastern gate of the complex marking the western edge of that artificial historical lake, which is now largely a swamp. The next stop along the route called Grand Tour is the car park of the appealing island temple known as Neak Pean 2.3 km further east, whereas the temple of Ta Som, another major attraction at the Grand Tour, is situated at the opposite eastern end of the Baray. Preah Khan at the eastern boundary, Neak Pean in the centre, and Ta Som at the northwestern corner of the Baray, together with Krol Ko at the northern cardinal point, form a sacred ensemble, all of them were built in the era of Jayavarman VII.
Best Time to Visit
There are numerous things to see Preah Khan. At any given hour, you will find some of those places of interest in their specific very best sunlight – but you will not be able to see all of the attractions in their particular best light during the same daytime. This is to say: It doesn‘t matter much, which time of the day you choose for your visit of Preah Khan. However, one specific information is worth mentioning and to be highlighted: the very best time for taking a picture of the iconic couple of trees strangling the roof of the Eastern Gopuram III is definitely the hour between 10.00 and 11.00 am.
Another recommendation concerning your planning of a Preah Khan sightseeing tour is as follows: Travellers who visit Preah Khan in the morning should start their walkabout at the eastern car park near the lake and leave the complex at the western gate, where the driver can pick his clients up at the second main car park of Preah Khan. But you should be aware: This direction of traversing the Preah Khan compound is just the opposite of the normal way to walk across it, viz. from west to east. Our recommendation to do it the other way around, from east to west, would mean a complication, because Grand Tour travellers choosing the morning hours for their visit of Preah Khan will initially cross Angkor Thom and from there first arrive at the western gate of the Preah Khan temple complex. Thus for them, starting at the eastern carpark plus pick-up service at the western one would require driving additional 4.5 km altogether, up and down. Most drivers are not used to do the Grand Tour in this complicated way.
Correspondingly, visitors arriving in the afternoon, at the end of their Grand Tour, usually start at the east gate and walk across the temple area to the west gate.
You notice that in both cases, which are the normal ways of visiting Preah Khan, the sun will be in front of you. For enjoying the beauty of this immense sanctuary, it makes more sense to drive up and down for starting at the eastern gate in the morning, as said, or at the western gate in the afternoon. In both cases the sun will be shining from behind.
You can nevertheless avoid driving up and down by simply asking for drop-off and pick-up at the very same car park: east in the morning resp. west in the afternoon. In this case, you can cross the complex on the main axis and choose the roundabout route along the northern satellite temple for your return to the car park.
Alternatively, those seeking to leave the beaten path can start their walkabout at the northern gate of Preah Khan.
The best time to avoid the crowds is the very early morning, immediately upon the opening of the Angkor archaeological park. Probably, large groups will not arrive at Preah Khan before 9.00 am. There is a second chance to remain undisturbed by throngs of other visitors: Like most temples in Angkor, Preah Khan is less frequented in the early afternoon hours, as most tourists leave the archaological sites for lunch between 1.00 and 2.00 pm.
Another recommendation concerning your planning of a Preah Khan sightseeing tour is as follows: Travellers who visit Preah Khan in the morning should start their walkabout at the eastern car park near the lake and leave the complex at the western gate, where the driver can pick his clients up at the second main car park of Preah Khan. But you should be aware: This direction of traversing the Preah Khan compound is just the opposite of the normal way to walk across it, viz. from west to east. Our recommendation to do it the other way around, from east to west, would mean a complication, because Grand Tour travellers choosing the morning hours for their visit of Preah Khan will initially cross Angkor Thom and from there first arrive at the western gate of the Preah Khan temple complex. Thus for them, starting at the eastern carpark plus pick-up service at the western one would require driving additional 4.5 km altogether, up and down. Most drivers are not used to do the Grand Tour in this complicated way.
Correspondingly, visitors arriving in the afternoon, at the end of their Grand Tour, usually start at the east gate and walk across the temple area to the west gate.
You notice that in both cases, which are the normal ways of visiting Preah Khan, the sun will be in front of you. For enjoying the beauty of this immense sanctuary, it makes more sense to drive up and down for starting at the eastern gate in the morning, as said, or at the western gate in the afternoon. In both cases the sun will be shining from behind.
You can nevertheless avoid driving up and down by simply asking for drop-off and pick-up at the very same car park: east in the morning resp. west in the afternoon. In this case, you can cross the complex on the main axis and choose the roundabout route along the northern satellite temple for your return to the car park.
Alternatively, those seeking to leave the beaten path can start their walkabout at the northern gate of Preah Khan.
The best time to avoid the crowds is the very early morning, immediately upon the opening of the Angkor archaeological park. Probably, large groups will not arrive at Preah Khan before 9.00 am. There is a second chance to remain undisturbed by throngs of other visitors: Like most temples in Angkor, Preah Khan is less frequented in the early afternoon hours, as most tourists leave the archaological sites for lunch between 1.00 and 2.00 pm.
Ancient and Modern Name of 'Preah Khan'
the enigmatic two-storey building, sometimes considered to be the Sacred Sword's repository
Preah Khan's original Sanskrit name, known from the large inscription found within the temple compound in 1929, was „Nagarashrijaya“, also spelt „Nagara Jayashri. The name means „city of glorious victory", a reminder that at this place Jayavarman VII had defeated the Cham ruler of Angkor and thereby repulsed the foreign invaders. "Nagara", although originally referring to settlements of merchants in India, has become a Sanskrit term for "city" or "capital" in general. By the way, its Khmer derivation was: "Angkor". "Shri", also spelt "sri" like in „Sri Lanka“, can be translated "bright" or "shining", also "holy" or „great“. The religiously connotated term also stands for good fortune. Finally, „jaya", a short form of "vijaya", is "victory".
The modern name "Preah Khan" (with an audible "h" at the end of "Preah") means "sacred sword". "Preah", sometimes translitereated "Prah", is the modern Khmer word for the ancient Khmer "Vrah", meaning "holy". In Angkorian inscriptions "vrah" was reserved for things, persons or institutions that were of foreign Indian origins. The modern name refers to the royal sword, a kind of national palladium of the Khmer. There is a legend that the sacred sword was transferred from Jayavarman VII to his successor in a large ceremony and that the safekeeper of the sword is the legitimate ruler of Cambodia. A replica of the ancient sword is still kept in the royal palace in Phnom Penh. The Sanskrit name of the royal sword was „Jayashri“. This means, the name of Preah Khan in a way is the correct Khmer translation of the original Sanskrit name of this site. This coincidence is rare. Most names of Khmer temples now in use are modern and not equivalent to the original ones, unlike the case of Preah Khan.
The modern name "Preah Khan" (with an audible "h" at the end of "Preah") means "sacred sword". "Preah", sometimes translitereated "Prah", is the modern Khmer word for the ancient Khmer "Vrah", meaning "holy". In Angkorian inscriptions "vrah" was reserved for things, persons or institutions that were of foreign Indian origins. The modern name refers to the royal sword, a kind of national palladium of the Khmer. There is a legend that the sacred sword was transferred from Jayavarman VII to his successor in a large ceremony and that the safekeeper of the sword is the legitimate ruler of Cambodia. A replica of the ancient sword is still kept in the royal palace in Phnom Penh. The Sanskrit name of the royal sword was „Jayashri“. This means, the name of Preah Khan in a way is the correct Khmer translation of the original Sanskrit name of this site. This coincidence is rare. Most names of Khmer temples now in use are modern and not equivalent to the original ones, unlike the case of Preah Khan.
History of Preah Khan
Preah Khan plays an important role in Cambodia’s history, as it is considered to have served as the first residence of Jayavarman VII within the area of Angkor and, due to this function, to have kept the royal insignia of this famous king, maybe for about a decade. Most probably, Preah Khan was the temporary capital of Jayavarman, while he was preparing his later capital, the nearby Angkor Thom.
Jayavarman VII, besides Suryavarman II, who built Angkor Wat half a century earlier on, is considered to be one of the most powerful kings the Khmer empire ever had. Actually, he was the most prolific temple builder in Angkor’s history, as there are more stone-made structures from his reign than from all other periods of ancient Khmer history together. Jayavarman VII is best-known as the founder of Angkor Thom and its principal temple, the Bayon. Today, the latter is namegiving to the entire period of Jayavarman VII, particularly in scholarly writings about the history of Khmer art: Bayon style. Although the Bayon temple had not yet come to existence (and probably was in the planning stage) when the king resided in Preah Khan, Preah Khan like Ta Prohm and other temples from the earliest period of Jayavarman’s reign are also attributed to the style now called Bayon period.
Preah Khan in a sense represents the early stage of this king who came to the throne under quite dramatic circumstances, as the core of the Khmer land had definitely been under control of a foreigner residing in Angkor, before Jayavarman VII gained power in a decisive battle against this Cham ruler, Jaya-Indravarman IV. of Gramapura (also known under the names or transliterations Sri Jaya Indravarman Ong Vatuv and Po Klong Garai), who had previously usurped the throne in Champa.
Jayavarman VII, besides Suryavarman II, who built Angkor Wat half a century earlier on, is considered to be one of the most powerful kings the Khmer empire ever had. Actually, he was the most prolific temple builder in Angkor’s history, as there are more stone-made structures from his reign than from all other periods of ancient Khmer history together. Jayavarman VII is best-known as the founder of Angkor Thom and its principal temple, the Bayon. Today, the latter is namegiving to the entire period of Jayavarman VII, particularly in scholarly writings about the history of Khmer art: Bayon style. Although the Bayon temple had not yet come to existence (and probably was in the planning stage) when the king resided in Preah Khan, Preah Khan like Ta Prohm and other temples from the earliest period of Jayavarman’s reign are also attributed to the style now called Bayon period.
Preah Khan in a sense represents the early stage of this king who came to the throne under quite dramatic circumstances, as the core of the Khmer land had definitely been under control of a foreigner residing in Angkor, before Jayavarman VII gained power in a decisive battle against this Cham ruler, Jaya-Indravarman IV. of Gramapura (also known under the names or transliterations Sri Jaya Indravarman Ong Vatuv and Po Klong Garai), who had previously usurped the throne in Champa.
Excursus 1: Jayavarman's ancestry and struggle for power in Angkor
Like many previous Khmer rulers, Jayavarman VII had a difficult path to the throne. His relationship to the former royal line of monarchs in Angkor is not entirely clear.
Jayavarman’s father was Dharanindravarman II. It’s quite uncertain if Dharanindravarman had ever been a king in Angkor. It’s more likely he was a vassal king of a principality which is known as Jayadityapura. This homeland of his son Jayavarman most probably occupied the site now called Bakan (also known as 'Preah Khan of Kompong Svay' in today's Preah Vihear Province, not to be confused with our 'Preah Khan of Angkor' in Siem Reap Province). Dharanindravarman claims descent from the Mahidharapura family of Angkor's King Jayavarman VI (ca 1080-1107) and the Angkor-Wat-builder Suryavarman II, though Jayavarman and his father Dharanindravarman were no direct descendents of one of those Angkorian kings just mentioned.
However, the matrilineal succession too played an important role in legitimizing claims to the throne, in Khmer history as well as in other Southeastasian cultures. Accordingly, in Jayavarman’s inscriptions chief emphasis was laid on the genealogy of his mother, Sri Jayarajacudamani. She claimed to be the daughter of Harshavarman, who is often - not verifiably - identified with King Harshavarman III of Angkor (1066-80). The latter was the last ruler of his dynasty, overthrown by the said founder of the Mahidharapura dynasty, Jayavarman VI. But it’s more likely that the Harshavarman in question, the maternal grandfather of Jayavarman VII, was a local vassal ruler in Jayadityapura. His daughter then married by Jayavarman’s father Dharanindravarman, thereby allowing him to become the ruler of that principality in between Angkor and Champa. The sons of a Khmer king did not necessarily inherit their father's throne. Rather, sons of his sisters and husbands of his daughters could gain power legitimately, too. Even significant for Jayavaraman’s claim to the throne - not only in Jayadityapura but also in Angkor - appears to have been that his mother claimed to be a descendent of the mythical Khmer ancestor, Rishi Kambhu, the sage who is the namegiving patron of Kambhujadesa alias Cambodia.
In 1166, Tribhuvanadityavarman, a former court official, usurped the throne of Angkor by overthrowing and killing the legitimate king Yashovarman II. When Prince Jayavarman, then living in Champa (a mountainous coastal region corresponding today's central part of Vietnam), came to know about the rebellion, he returned to Cambodia to support King Yashovarman. But when he arrived, Yashovarman has already been killed and the usurper Tribhuvanadityavarman had firmly established his rule. Jayavarman left Angkor to live in Vijaya in Champa or in his homeland Jayadityapura.
But more than a decade later on, he saw his chance in gaining power in Angkor, after Tribhuvanadityavarman had come to death as a result of the Cham invasion in 1177. It’s not entirely clear, when exactly the decisive battle that terminated the Cham rule in Angkor took place. This depends on how much time Jayavarman had to wait after his victory before ascending the throne in 1182. It is possible, that the victorious prince had to face a period of Khmer resistance against his claims to the throne before being finally accepted as the new king.
Jayavarman’s father was Dharanindravarman II. It’s quite uncertain if Dharanindravarman had ever been a king in Angkor. It’s more likely he was a vassal king of a principality which is known as Jayadityapura. This homeland of his son Jayavarman most probably occupied the site now called Bakan (also known as 'Preah Khan of Kompong Svay' in today's Preah Vihear Province, not to be confused with our 'Preah Khan of Angkor' in Siem Reap Province). Dharanindravarman claims descent from the Mahidharapura family of Angkor's King Jayavarman VI (ca 1080-1107) and the Angkor-Wat-builder Suryavarman II, though Jayavarman and his father Dharanindravarman were no direct descendents of one of those Angkorian kings just mentioned.
However, the matrilineal succession too played an important role in legitimizing claims to the throne, in Khmer history as well as in other Southeastasian cultures. Accordingly, in Jayavarman’s inscriptions chief emphasis was laid on the genealogy of his mother, Sri Jayarajacudamani. She claimed to be the daughter of Harshavarman, who is often - not verifiably - identified with King Harshavarman III of Angkor (1066-80). The latter was the last ruler of his dynasty, overthrown by the said founder of the Mahidharapura dynasty, Jayavarman VI. But it’s more likely that the Harshavarman in question, the maternal grandfather of Jayavarman VII, was a local vassal ruler in Jayadityapura. His daughter then married by Jayavarman’s father Dharanindravarman, thereby allowing him to become the ruler of that principality in between Angkor and Champa. The sons of a Khmer king did not necessarily inherit their father's throne. Rather, sons of his sisters and husbands of his daughters could gain power legitimately, too. Even significant for Jayavaraman’s claim to the throne - not only in Jayadityapura but also in Angkor - appears to have been that his mother claimed to be a descendent of the mythical Khmer ancestor, Rishi Kambhu, the sage who is the namegiving patron of Kambhujadesa alias Cambodia.
In 1166, Tribhuvanadityavarman, a former court official, usurped the throne of Angkor by overthrowing and killing the legitimate king Yashovarman II. When Prince Jayavarman, then living in Champa (a mountainous coastal region corresponding today's central part of Vietnam), came to know about the rebellion, he returned to Cambodia to support King Yashovarman. But when he arrived, Yashovarman has already been killed and the usurper Tribhuvanadityavarman had firmly established his rule. Jayavarman left Angkor to live in Vijaya in Champa or in his homeland Jayadityapura.
But more than a decade later on, he saw his chance in gaining power in Angkor, after Tribhuvanadityavarman had come to death as a result of the Cham invasion in 1177. It’s not entirely clear, when exactly the decisive battle that terminated the Cham rule in Angkor took place. This depends on how much time Jayavarman had to wait after his victory before ascending the throne in 1182. It is possible, that the victorious prince had to face a period of Khmer resistance against his claims to the throne before being finally accepted as the new king.
Jayavarman VII and the Cham
Jayavaraman’s famous decisive battle against Jaya Indravarman, the foreign Cham ruler of Angkor, was most probably fought at the site of Preah Khan, as the dedication inscription of the temple mentions it was the place of a „sea of blood“. However, the details of the Cham invasion and of Jayavarman’s relationship to them are under dispute. The traditional view of a fight between two empires, Khmer and Cham(pa), for overlordship in Angkor, with Jayavarman as a Khmer freedom fighter against the foreign invaders, seems to be too simplicistic. There are at least two reasons to be more cautious, in order to avoid projecting modern national rivalries into that medieval period: Firstly, there was nothing what could be called a 'Cham empire' during the centuries of the Angkor empire. Rather, various competing Cham principalities existed side by side and were often involved in power struggles over the area which is now central Vietnam (and which was known as Annam during the French colonial period). Secondly, Jayavarman VII himself had Cham allies. Before gaining power in Angkor, he had spent many years in Cham territory. His position allowed him to seek help from Cham nobility in gaining the Khmer throne. Afterwards, Jayavarman obviously continued to have cordial ties with some of those Cham princes. In particular, he was allied with Vidyanandana, who later on became the famous Cham king Suryavarmadeva of Vijaya. Guidebooks and historical literature often call Jayavarman’s friend Vidyanandana a 'refugee' from the Tumprauk-Vijaya principality of the Cham, although Cham inscriptions do not mention that he had to flee from Champa to Angkor for taking refuge.
One of the pillar inscriptions of central Vietnam’s temple town My Son contains this information:
One of the pillar inscriptions of central Vietnam’s temple town My Son contains this information:
|
'In . . . 1104 saka (1182), he went to Kambujadesa. The king of Kambujadesa seeing him possessed of all the 33 marks, received him favorably and taught him like a prince all the varied branches of knowledge and instructed him in the various branches of military science. During his stay in Kambujadesa, a dependent town called Malyang, inhabited by a multitude of bad men, revolted against the king of Kambujadesa. The latter, seeing the prince well versed in arms, ordered him to lead the troops of Kambujadesa and to take the town of Malyang. He did all the king desired. The latter, pleased with his valor, conferred on him the dignity of Yuvaraja and gave him all the pleasures and the good things which could be found in the kingdom of Kambujadesa.'
cited from: Briggs, Lawrence Palmer. The ancient Khmer empire. Transactions of the Amerian Philosophical Society, N.S., 41,1. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1951. P. 210 |
A Khmer rebellion against the new Khmer king, the so-called 'Revolt of Malyang', occured in the south of today‘s Battambang Province in 1182, less than one year after Jayavarman VII had been coronated in Angkor and thus only a few years after his victory about a foreign Cham ruler at the site of Preah Khan. This rebellion of local Khmer leaders too indicates, that the assumption of a Khmer-Cham rivalry as the pivotal deviding line is insufficient to understand the power struggles in Angkor that were finally terminated shortly after the ascension of Jayavarman.
Hence, there is an alternative hypothesis, which has become more prevalent in recent years: It seems likely that prior to the reign of King Jayavarman VII, which became undisputed later on, two or more rivaling factions of Khmer leaders fought against each other for overlordship in Angkor in the 1170s. Each of them was supported by influential allies from various Cham principalities that were likewise competing with one another within the territory of Champa. Accordingly, Jayavarman too had significant Cham allies, most prominently Vidyanandana, who supported him in his combats against Cham forces and their Khmer supporters in Angkor and also against his internal Khmer rivals, which were leaders in other Cambodian provinces. Originally, Jayavarman himself had been such a provincial leader without legitimate claims to the throne in Angkor, but he was revolting successfully against the rulers of Angkor, when the city was mainly under control of one specific Cham faction - not to be confused with 'the Cham' in general. Most probably, a unified Cham kingdom - with the Khmer kingdom of Angkor as common enemy - never existed. Rather, the land of the Cham was devided into several - more or less independent or hegemonical - territorial entities similar to ancient Greece.
Hence, there is an alternative hypothesis, which has become more prevalent in recent years: It seems likely that prior to the reign of King Jayavarman VII, which became undisputed later on, two or more rivaling factions of Khmer leaders fought against each other for overlordship in Angkor in the 1170s. Each of them was supported by influential allies from various Cham principalities that were likewise competing with one another within the territory of Champa. Accordingly, Jayavarman too had significant Cham allies, most prominently Vidyanandana, who supported him in his combats against Cham forces and their Khmer supporters in Angkor and also against his internal Khmer rivals, which were leaders in other Cambodian provinces. Originally, Jayavarman himself had been such a provincial leader without legitimate claims to the throne in Angkor, but he was revolting successfully against the rulers of Angkor, when the city was mainly under control of one specific Cham faction - not to be confused with 'the Cham' in general. Most probably, a unified Cham kingdom - with the Khmer kingdom of Angkor as common enemy - never existed. Rather, the land of the Cham was devided into several - more or less independent or hegemonical - territorial entities similar to ancient Greece.
Excursus 2: Two versions of Jayavarman’s fight against Cham usurper Jaya Indravarman IV
Compare the following two quotations to see the two very divergent narratives about the period of Jayavarman’s grab for power and his early reign, the first one emphasizing conflicts along dividing lines of two nationalities:
|
'In 1177 and again in 1178, the Cham invaded Cambodia.[…] In 1177, Champa King Jaya Indravarman IV launched a surprise attack on the Khmer capital by sailing a fleet up the Mekong River, across Lake Tonlé Sap, and then up the Siem Reap River, a tributary of the Tonle Sap. The invaders pillaged the Khmer capital of Yasodharapura and put king Tribhuvanadityavarman to death. Also in 1178, Jayavarman came to historical prominence by leading a Khmer army that ousted the invaders, which included a naval battle depicted on the walls of the Bayon and Banteay Chmar.[...]:169–170 At the time, he may already have been in his 60s. Returning to the capital, he found it in disorder. He put an end to the disputes between warring factions and in 1181 was crowned king himself.'
cited from: Jayavarman VII. (n.d.) In Wikepedia. Retrieved March 9, 2018, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayavarman_VII 'Until recently it had been thought that the Chams attacked Angkor in 1177, killed the Khmer king, and sacked the capital. Reliefs on the Bayon temple depicting naval battles between Chams and Khmers were interpreted as a Cham attack by sea, river, and lake. Jayavarman, thought to have returned from Champa in an unsuccessful attempt to save Yashovarman, aparently bided his time in exile in an uncertain location until 1181. Then, it was claimed, he returned to Angkor, defeated the invaders (killing the Cham king they had installed on the throne), and restored Khmer sovereignty.
Detective work has always been necessary when seeking the facts about ancient civilizations for which most written records have been lost, and intriguing recent research, particularly in Cham inscriptions, has led to a different version of these events. As they rank among the most important in Khmer history, they merit recounting. Champa, far from being a unified country, comprised several polities, including Paduranga in the south and Vijaya in what is now central Vietnam; they vied for dominance throughout Cham history. Jayavarman was well established in Vijaya at some point in his early life and took advantage of his position to solicit help from the Chams in regaining the Khmer throne. It is now clear that both the Cham attack on Angkor and Jayavarman’s eventual resumption of power there involved factions consisting of both Khmers and Chams on each side. The date of 1177 for the Cham invasion, based on unreliable Chinese sources, is no longer certain, and Jayavarman’s victory of 1181 is now placed in 1182 owing to the corrected reading of an inscription. The alleged invasion by sea has also been discounted – the Phimeanakas inscription states that it was by land – and even the sacking of Angkor is disputed. Foreign occupation of the throne is, however, affirmed, the inscription desribing the land as "plunged in a sea of unhappiness".' cited from: Jessup, Helen Ibbitson et al. Temples of Cambodia: the heart of Angkor. New York, NY: Vendome Press, 2011. Pp. 165-166 |
The latter view has been confirmed by the renowned Angkor specialist Claude Jacques. In his introduction to 'Bayon: new perspectives', Michael Vickery recapitulates:
|
'Concerning the long, but poorly understood sojourn of Jayavarman in Champa, probably from the 1150s or 1160s, Jacque insists that both Champa and Cambodia were ‚divided into several more or less important kingdoms‘, and that conflicts involved alliances of Cham and Khmer fighting other alliances of Cham and Khmer, and ‚in such a political situation, it is wrong to affirm that the Cham were always enemies of the Khmer‘. This is a welcome innovation in the study of the difficult period. Contrary to the hitherto standard interpretation, he also argues cogently that there is no evidence of destruction and pillage at Angkor by the Cham after their victory in 1177.'
cited from: Clark, Joyce and Ang Choulean. Bayon: new perspectives. Tatien, Bangkok 10200: River Books, 2007. Pp. 24-25 |
In his said article published in 'Bayon: new perspectives' dealing with the history of Jayavarman VII, Claude Jacque confirms the assumption that Preah Khan of Angkor was the place of the decisive battle of Jayavarman against the Cham ruler of Angkor, Jaya-Indravarman of Gramapura. Referring to the 'blood' of the soil of the city and the „sea of bload“ mentioned in two sections of the Preah Khan inscription, Jaque concludes (p 37):
|
'The terrain of the city of Preah Khan, therefore, seems to have been the site of Tribhuvanadityavarmans’s palace, and the palace of Yasovarman II before him. We can even argue that it is for this reason – because there were vestiges of a palace, which could be used for a new city – that Jayavarman VII chose this location. It is there also that he probably killed the Cham king.
The latter assumption would be contradicted by a Mi Son inscription, if the Jaya Indravarman in that inscription was identical with the former Cham ruler of Angkor, as it stated that the king of Cambodia sent Jaya Indravarman to help the prince (Vidyanandana) reconquer Champa. They took Vijaya (the most important Cham town those days) and ruled over it. But when Jaya Indravarman IV fled from the Cambodians and raised a revolt in Amaravati (another Cham town) and invaded Vijaya, the prince (Vidyanandana, Jayavarman’s ally) defeated him and put him to death.' |
Building history of the Preah Khan temple
Although Preah Khan seems to be the more ancient place, which had been probably a royal city even prior to Jayavarman’s reign, the temple is not the first one that was consecrated by this king. The famous jungle temple ta Prohm, comparable in size and layout, was dedicated five years years earlier, but its exterior walls were finalized later than those of Preah Khan. All in all, both temples were constructed at about the same time, viz. during the first decade of Jayavarman’s reign. Constructions works in Preah Khan began around 1184, at least soon after Jayavarman’s coronation in 1182. According to the periodisation of Philippe Stern, who divided the Style of the Bayon into four periods, Preah Khan belongs to the first period of Jayavarman’s illustrous building activities. Besides Ta Prohm and Preah Khan, this period also includes parts of Banteay Kdei in Angkor and the entire temples Ta Prohm of Bati and Wat Nokor in far-away provinces. Architecturally, the style does not differ much from the previous style of Angkor Wat, but all of the temples are built on flat ground and without a central series of towers in quincunx order and the quality of the sandstone and the carvings can not compete with the meticulous style of Angkor Wat.
According to the Preah Khan foundation stele discovered in 1929 accidentally, the temple was maintained by 97,840 inhabitants of 5,324 villages in the surroundings, who had to deliver a toll of several tons of rice daily. Preah Khan was not only a temple for worshipping Mahayanist saviours and Hindu gods and ancestor spirits. It was inhabited by Buddhist monks and served as their university employing over 1000 teachers. Furthermore, it housed the administration of the villages attached to the temple for its maintenance and it was a fortified city. Preah Khan covered 56 hectares, that‘s as large as the size of Cologne, which was the most significant walled city in Central Europe those days.
Preah Khan was dedicated to Jayavarman VII's father in 1191. Similarly, Ta Prohm was built to venerate the new king's mother. The central statue of Preah Khan, depicting a Bodhisattva, was called "Jayavarmeshvara", which translates to "Jayavarman, Lord of the world". Jayavarman's father was worshiped as a personification of the universal Bodhisattva of compassion and loving care, Avalokiteshvara, whereas the central statue of Ta Prohm depicted the royal mother in likeness to Prajnaparamita, the female embodiment of perfect wisdom. Care and knowledge are interpreted as bipolar universal entities in Mahayanism. They are the central terms in salvation doctrines of the Mahayanist school of Buddhism, which was introduced by Jayavarman VII as the new official cult of the Khmer empire. Jayavarman’s family and his homeland Jayadityapura had been mainly Buddhist. Furthermore, he married women who were known to be learned followers of Mahayanism. His wifes are thought to have been a great inspiration to him. Though previous Angkor kings such as Suyavarman I. had been patrons of Buddhism, too, it was finally Jayavarman VII who elevated Buddhism to an official status in Angkor’s state cult that it had never achieved previously.
Remarkably, the new Khmer king did so without suppressing the formerly predominant Hindu believes, as can be seen in Preah Khan: Temples for Vishnu to the west and for Shiva to the north, accompanying the central Avalokiteshvara shrine, are integral parts of the temple layout right from the beginning. According to the temple inscription, 430 statues of Hindu deities were sheltered in Preah Khan. This method of integrating elements of Hinduism is typical of Buddhist places of worship from the Bayon period in general. Furthermore, a Hindu priest from Myanmar became a royal chaplain (hotar).
However, the inscriptions of Ta Prohm and Preah Khan do not mention the office of a Hindu high priest (purohita) any more. Particularly the worship of the state deity Devaraja, represented by the royal Linga of Lord Shiva, seems to have been terminated or it continued to be the state religion only nominally. Under Jayavarman VII, the traditional royal deity of the Khmer empire was obviously taken over by the cult of a Buddharaja, a royal Buddha.
The year 1200 is often given as the date of Jayavarman’s death, although already George Coedès assumed that the king might have reigned until 1218. Indeed, the famous king seems to have lived and reigned till that year, since a dated inscription discovered at a bowl for offerings in Preah Khan indicates that Jayavarman VII was still alive in 1217.
According to the Preah Khan foundation stele discovered in 1929 accidentally, the temple was maintained by 97,840 inhabitants of 5,324 villages in the surroundings, who had to deliver a toll of several tons of rice daily. Preah Khan was not only a temple for worshipping Mahayanist saviours and Hindu gods and ancestor spirits. It was inhabited by Buddhist monks and served as their university employing over 1000 teachers. Furthermore, it housed the administration of the villages attached to the temple for its maintenance and it was a fortified city. Preah Khan covered 56 hectares, that‘s as large as the size of Cologne, which was the most significant walled city in Central Europe those days.
Preah Khan was dedicated to Jayavarman VII's father in 1191. Similarly, Ta Prohm was built to venerate the new king's mother. The central statue of Preah Khan, depicting a Bodhisattva, was called "Jayavarmeshvara", which translates to "Jayavarman, Lord of the world". Jayavarman's father was worshiped as a personification of the universal Bodhisattva of compassion and loving care, Avalokiteshvara, whereas the central statue of Ta Prohm depicted the royal mother in likeness to Prajnaparamita, the female embodiment of perfect wisdom. Care and knowledge are interpreted as bipolar universal entities in Mahayanism. They are the central terms in salvation doctrines of the Mahayanist school of Buddhism, which was introduced by Jayavarman VII as the new official cult of the Khmer empire. Jayavarman’s family and his homeland Jayadityapura had been mainly Buddhist. Furthermore, he married women who were known to be learned followers of Mahayanism. His wifes are thought to have been a great inspiration to him. Though previous Angkor kings such as Suyavarman I. had been patrons of Buddhism, too, it was finally Jayavarman VII who elevated Buddhism to an official status in Angkor’s state cult that it had never achieved previously.
Remarkably, the new Khmer king did so without suppressing the formerly predominant Hindu believes, as can be seen in Preah Khan: Temples for Vishnu to the west and for Shiva to the north, accompanying the central Avalokiteshvara shrine, are integral parts of the temple layout right from the beginning. According to the temple inscription, 430 statues of Hindu deities were sheltered in Preah Khan. This method of integrating elements of Hinduism is typical of Buddhist places of worship from the Bayon period in general. Furthermore, a Hindu priest from Myanmar became a royal chaplain (hotar).
However, the inscriptions of Ta Prohm and Preah Khan do not mention the office of a Hindu high priest (purohita) any more. Particularly the worship of the state deity Devaraja, represented by the royal Linga of Lord Shiva, seems to have been terminated or it continued to be the state religion only nominally. Under Jayavarman VII, the traditional royal deity of the Khmer empire was obviously taken over by the cult of a Buddharaja, a royal Buddha.
The year 1200 is often given as the date of Jayavarman’s death, although already George Coedès assumed that the king might have reigned until 1218. Indeed, the famous king seems to have lived and reigned till that year, since a dated inscription discovered at a bowl for offerings in Preah Khan indicates that Jayavarman VII was still alive in 1217.
Preah Khan's decay after Jayavarman VII's reign
defaced male Buddhist sculpture in Preah Khan
As in the case of most of King Jayavarman VII's monuments, many Buddha images were vandalized in the later Hindu resurgence under Jayavarman VIII (1243-95). This is why so many male - rarely female - figures at Preah Khan are completely demolished within otherwise well-preserved carvings or defaced at the least. For instance, Buddha images were removed from the niches all along the coping of the city wall. However, one carved standing Buddha in the inner courtyard of the temple is intact and in situ.
cotton silk tree growing on the laterite walls of Preah Khan's second enclosure wall
Some of the shrines of Preah Khan were probably in use until the 17th century. But in contrast to Angkor Wat, there is not an uninterrupted line of use for ceremonies till the present day and the natural process of decay - the edifices being reconquered by the jungle - began already in the late Middle Ages. When it was finally rediscovered by French explorers, Preah Khan was almost completely overgrown. The Ecole Francaise d’Extreme Orient (EFEO) started consolidation works in 1920.
The temple of Preah Khan has partially been the subject of reconstructions work in the technique called anastylosis, which had been invented at the Borobudor on the island of Java by Dutch archaeologists.
Microbial biofilms have been found at Preah Khan, degrading the sandstone by organic acids produced by the bacteria. A dark filamentous fungus and an alga called Trentepohlia were found in Preah Khan samples.
The temple of Preah Khan has partially been the subject of reconstructions work in the technique called anastylosis, which had been invented at the Borobudor on the island of Java by Dutch archaeologists.
Microbial biofilms have been found at Preah Khan, degrading the sandstone by organic acids produced by the bacteria. A dark filamentous fungus and an alga called Trentepohlia were found in Preah Khan samples.
General Layout of the Preah Khan Compound
Preah Khan is a flat temple. A plainly horizontal plan is typical of the early Bayon period. The central sanctuary was a cruciform domed tower in sandstone, a typical Prasat, but in the early stage of the Bayon style it's of modest dimensions and not overtopping the other temple towers very much.
As in the case of Ta Prohm and Banteay Kdei in Angkor and the temple proper of Banteay Chhmar, the arrangement of the adjacent chapels and courts is somewhat confusing – partly due to later additions. There are said to be 102 Prasats altogether at Preah Khan. Not all of them are arranged along the outlines and axes of the rectangular groundplan. However, the two main axes, east-west and north-south, are clearly marked, particularly by Gopuram towers overarching the access doorways of each enclosure.
Like all Bayon-period temples, Preah Khan is decorated with innumerable narrative reliefs, which are carved on pediments, lintels and pilasters, but also as friezes on walls. They illustrate themes of both Buddhist and Hindu myths, indicating the religious syncretism of the Khmer culture. Although Buddhism became predominent in the state cult under the rule of Jayavarman VII, Buddhist carvings all in all slightly fewer Preah Khan than scenes taken from Hindu mthology. Jayavarman’s consort Jayarajadevi, though a studied Buddhist, was also a follower of Shiva and Vishnu. Most Buddhist sculptures are seated Buddhas in meditation or achieving enlightenment or they are taken from the Jataka stories, that are common in Theravada Buddhist traditions, too. The Mahayana Buddhist element is represented mainly by a few surviving depictions of the Lokeshvara, the local form of the pivotal Mahayanist saviour, Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara.
As to be mentioned several times in this article, almost all Buddhist sculptures at Preah Khan entirely defaced by the Shaivite iconoclastic reaction in the second half of the 13th century.
Devatas (Apsaras) are depicted in a slightly more tranquil fashion and less smiling than during the period of Angkor Wat.
As in the case of Ta Prohm and Banteay Kdei in Angkor and the temple proper of Banteay Chhmar, the arrangement of the adjacent chapels and courts is somewhat confusing – partly due to later additions. There are said to be 102 Prasats altogether at Preah Khan. Not all of them are arranged along the outlines and axes of the rectangular groundplan. However, the two main axes, east-west and north-south, are clearly marked, particularly by Gopuram towers overarching the access doorways of each enclosure.
Like all Bayon-period temples, Preah Khan is decorated with innumerable narrative reliefs, which are carved on pediments, lintels and pilasters, but also as friezes on walls. They illustrate themes of both Buddhist and Hindu myths, indicating the religious syncretism of the Khmer culture. Although Buddhism became predominent in the state cult under the rule of Jayavarman VII, Buddhist carvings all in all slightly fewer Preah Khan than scenes taken from Hindu mthology. Jayavarman’s consort Jayarajadevi, though a studied Buddhist, was also a follower of Shiva and Vishnu. Most Buddhist sculptures are seated Buddhas in meditation or achieving enlightenment or they are taken from the Jataka stories, that are common in Theravada Buddhist traditions, too. The Mahayana Buddhist element is represented mainly by a few surviving depictions of the Lokeshvara, the local form of the pivotal Mahayanist saviour, Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara.
As to be mentioned several times in this article, almost all Buddhist sculptures at Preah Khan entirely defaced by the Shaivite iconoclastic reaction in the second half of the 13th century.
Devatas (Apsaras) are depicted in a slightly more tranquil fashion and less smiling than during the period of Angkor Wat.
Sightseeing tour in Preah Khan
The following description will present the main attractions of Preah in the order visitors starting his walkabout at the eastern gate will see them. However, the huge compound of Preah Khan, although axially arranged, can not be explored entirely without leaving the main east-west axis. This is why subsequently some of the remaining attractions in the adjacent structures on either side are arranged in north-south order, crossing the entire temple once more starting at the car park of the northern gate.
Northern Baray (Jayatataka)
Baray of Preah Khan in Angkor seen from the temple's landing stage
|
Angkor's Northern Baray named Jayatataka
|
As in the case of earlier state temples such as Pre Rup, there was a large reservoir attached to the compound of Preah Khan, known as Angkor's Northern Baray. Similar to the arrangement of Bakong temple mountain and Western Baray, the sanctuary of Preah Khan is located in the main axis of the oblong lake. But in contrast to Bakong, the latter is situated to the west of the reservoir, not to the east. Thus the layout of Preah Khan and ist baray is similar to that of the smaller Srah Srang tank and its adjacent temple of Banteay Kdei, which is contemporary to Preah Khan.
The northern tank, which is the latest large reservoir from the period of the Angkor Empire, is also called 'Baray of Preah Khan'. But it’s still known by its original name 'Jayatataka', too. 'Jaya' is a prefix used not only in the name of the king himself, but also in the name of his place of birth and of the new temple Preah Khan (Jayashri Nagara). 'Jayatataka' translates to 'victory lake'.
The rectangular reservoir measures 3,5 km east-west and 0.9 km north-south. Like Angkor’s other large Barays, it has an island temple, a so-called Mebon. In contrast to other Mebons this island sanctuary, which is the famous Neak Pean, has a circular ground plan.
Similar to the former Eastern Baray, the Jayatataka dried out after the Angkor period. In contrast to the former, it has been partially restored and is filled with water again, except from very dry periods. Trees have not been removed from the area, thus the Northern Baray looks more like a swamp than a lake.
A small landing stage near the eastern gate of Preah Khan has been restored by the WMF recently. Originally it was a simple structure, probably built from rubble, not as elaborated as the luxuriant jetty of Srah Srang. Post holes indicate that the jetty of Preah Khan once carried a wooden pavilion.
The northern tank, which is the latest large reservoir from the period of the Angkor Empire, is also called 'Baray of Preah Khan'. But it’s still known by its original name 'Jayatataka', too. 'Jaya' is a prefix used not only in the name of the king himself, but also in the name of his place of birth and of the new temple Preah Khan (Jayashri Nagara). 'Jayatataka' translates to 'victory lake'.
The rectangular reservoir measures 3,5 km east-west and 0.9 km north-south. Like Angkor’s other large Barays, it has an island temple, a so-called Mebon. In contrast to other Mebons this island sanctuary, which is the famous Neak Pean, has a circular ground plan.
Similar to the former Eastern Baray, the Jayatataka dried out after the Angkor period. In contrast to the former, it has been partially restored and is filled with water again, except from very dry periods. Trees have not been removed from the area, thus the Northern Baray looks more like a swamp than a lake.
A small landing stage near the eastern gate of Preah Khan has been restored by the WMF recently. Originally it was a simple structure, probably built from rubble, not as elaborated as the luxuriant jetty of Srah Srang. Post holes indicate that the jetty of Preah Khan once carried a wooden pavilion.
Main Access Avenue of Preah Khan
eastern procession avenue of Preah Khan in Angkor
|
boundary stones in front of Preah Khan's east gate
|
A 200-meter (656 ft) long processional path leads from the jetty to the East Gate of Preah Khans city walls. The alley in front of the principal temple entrance is flanked by rows of stone lanterns, which serve as boundary stones. A similar access course can be seen in front of the west gate of the outer enclosure wall. But these alleys are absent at the northern and southern entrences of the compound. Besides the elongated east-west rectangular of the groundplan and the orientation towards the Baray, the lantern alleys are another indicator emphasizing the east-west direction as main axis, which is a common feature of almost all Khmer temples.
The lantern-like boundary stones are richly decorated with reversed lotus flowers and panel reliefs depicting fabulous beasts, viz. human torsos with legs of Garuda eagles and heads of lions. The slightly wider upper parts of the pillars have niches at either side that once carried carvings depicting the Buddha. Like almost all Buddhist sculptures of Preah Khan, these reliefs in the caps were disfigured by Hindu iconoclasm only one century after being constructed.
The lantern-like boundary stones are richly decorated with reversed lotus flowers and panel reliefs depicting fabulous beasts, viz. human torsos with legs of Garuda eagles and heads of lions. The slightly wider upper parts of the pillars have niches at either side that once carried carvings depicting the Buddha. Like almost all Buddhist sculptures of Preah Khan, these reliefs in the caps were disfigured by Hindu iconoclasm only one century after being constructed.
Eastern Causeway of Preah Khan
Railing representing the cosmic serpent Vasuki at Preah Khan
|
reliefs at the southern embankment of Preah Khan's eastern causeway
|
The access causeways are commonly referred as „bridges“, but this is incorrect because there is no water flowing underneath. In contrast to the comparitably large compound of Ta Prohm, the entrances at all four cardinal points of Preah Khan have causeways over the moat with Naga balustrades carried by sculptures of Devas (gods) and Ashuras (demons). Sadly, as at many other places the originally seven heads of the Nagas have been looted, some of these snake heads of Preah Khan are now on display in the Musee Guimet in Paris, which has by far the most significant collection of Khmer art outside Cambodia.
The causeways are smaller in size but similar in design to those of the future capital, Angkor Thom. That’s another hint that the city element was more significant at Preah Khan than at other Angkor temples, although having the mythological cosmic event of the Churning of the Sea od Milk represented at the causeways reinforces the divine character of Preah Khan. Angkor Wat, which has the largest causeways and longest Naga balustrades, was a city within the exterior temple walls, too.
On either side of the causeway are large panels of reliefs, they can only be seen during the dry season, when the water levels of the moats are low (see Mr. Schönlein's image above). The scenes illustrated at Preah Khan's causeways seem to depict mainly secular events. These carvings might well be the earliest representation of real-life events in the art of the Bayon style. Hence, they are prototypes of Jayavarman VII's large-scale friezes depicting daily life, the most famous of which decorate the Bayon temple. Further scenes of everyday culture of Khmer people from the Bayon period can be found at the vast and detailed reliefs of the royal terraces of Angkor Thom and the temple walls of Banteay Chhmar. All of them are about one decade younger than the earliest samples found at the giants' causeways of Preah Khan. Preah Khan's best-preserved reliefs are those visible on the southern side of the eastern causeway. They depict a set of boats, with a man at the helm and oarsmen rowing towards the east.
The causeways are smaller in size but similar in design to those of the future capital, Angkor Thom. That’s another hint that the city element was more significant at Preah Khan than at other Angkor temples, although having the mythological cosmic event of the Churning of the Sea od Milk represented at the causeways reinforces the divine character of Preah Khan. Angkor Wat, which has the largest causeways and longest Naga balustrades, was a city within the exterior temple walls, too.
On either side of the causeway are large panels of reliefs, they can only be seen during the dry season, when the water levels of the moats are low (see Mr. Schönlein's image above). The scenes illustrated at Preah Khan's causeways seem to depict mainly secular events. These carvings might well be the earliest representation of real-life events in the art of the Bayon style. Hence, they are prototypes of Jayavarman VII's large-scale friezes depicting daily life, the most famous of which decorate the Bayon temple. Further scenes of everyday culture of Khmer people from the Bayon period can be found at the vast and detailed reliefs of the royal terraces of Angkor Thom and the temple walls of Banteay Chhmar. All of them are about one decade younger than the earliest samples found at the giants' causeways of Preah Khan. Preah Khan's best-preserved reliefs are those visible on the southern side of the eastern causeway. They depict a set of boats, with a man at the helm and oarsmen rowing towards the east.
Moat and Wall of Preah Khan
eastern moat and city walls of Preah Khan in Angkor
|
giant Garuda sculpture at the exterior wall of Preah Khan
|
Surrounded by a 40 m wide moat, the exterior wall of Preah Khan measures 800 east-west and 700 m north-south. Preah Khan thus marks the beginning of fortifications made of stone during the Bayon period. Settlement areas had been protected only by bamboo-palisades previously, except from the Royal Palace and Angkor Wat, which, as mentioned above, also served as a city. In contrast to the walls, the moats of Preah Khan might well be from the pre-Bayon period. As mentioned, the compound of Preah Khan had already served as royal residence prior to the battle won by Jayavarman VII at this site.
The exterior wall running along the moat is the fourth enclosure in the case of Preah Khan. A fourth enclosure, instead of the common three of a Khmer temple, indicates that the walls with their moats served the said second purpose of Preah Khan: They were fortifications of a royal city, too. The contemporary temple Ta Prohm has also a fourth enclosure wall, but those are later additions and there is not a moat of comparable size at that famous jungle temple.
The outer enclosure wall of Preah Khan is made of laterite. It bears altogether 72 giant standing Garudas, they are placed at intervals of 50 m intervals. Each Garuda sculpture measures 5 m in height, the Garudas at the corners of the compound being even taller. The Garudas, Vishnu's sun-eagles, are depicted holding Naga snakes in their claws, a typical theme of Hindu mythology.
Like almost all Buddha images of Preah Khan, the Buddhist sculptures in the niches of the crenels above were destroyed in the anti-Buddhist reaction of Jayavarman VIII.
The exterior wall running along the moat is the fourth enclosure in the case of Preah Khan. A fourth enclosure, instead of the common three of a Khmer temple, indicates that the walls with their moats served the said second purpose of Preah Khan: They were fortifications of a royal city, too. The contemporary temple Ta Prohm has also a fourth enclosure wall, but those are later additions and there is not a moat of comparable size at that famous jungle temple.
The outer enclosure wall of Preah Khan is made of laterite. It bears altogether 72 giant standing Garudas, they are placed at intervals of 50 m intervals. Each Garuda sculpture measures 5 m in height, the Garudas at the corners of the compound being even taller. The Garudas, Vishnu's sun-eagles, are depicted holding Naga snakes in their claws, a typical theme of Hindu mythology.
Like almost all Buddha images of Preah Khan, the Buddhist sculptures in the niches of the crenels above were destroyed in the anti-Buddhist reaction of Jayavarman VIII.
Exterior East Gate (4th Eastern Gopuram)
main city gate of Preah Khan in Angkor
|
restoration works at Preah Khan's eastern gatehouse
|
Four large triple-towered Gopuram penetrate the exterior laterite walls of the fourth enclosure. A central doorway, which is high enough to be passed by chariots, is flanked by two more doorways for pedestrians. The roof of the main gate at the east has been restored in recent years. Even with modern technology, it turned out difficult to replace the keystone which is set atop the central Gopuram tower.
An extraordinarily lovely statue of a kneelling princess was found inside the eastern city gate of Preah Khan and is now exhibited in the Musee Guimet in Paris.
An extraordinarily lovely statue of a kneelling princess was found inside the eastern city gate of Preah Khan and is now exhibited in the Musee Guimet in Paris.
House of Fire (Vahnigriha)
east tower and southern nave of Preah Khan's Fire House
|
Vahnigriha of Preah Khan, mistakenly named Dharmasala
|
The 380 m long path leading straight from the gateway of the third enclosure to the large Gopuram of the third enclosure crosses the area which was once the settlement area surrounding the temple proper. No remnants indicate this former capital city, as all secular buildings were built of perishable materials.
Before arriving at the main gate of the third enclosure, there is a stone building on the righthand side, just north of the axial path. It’s one of the best preserved Vahnigrihas or Fire-houses. Similar buildings from the same Bayon period can be seen at the corresponding places at Ta Prohm and Prasat Bakan. Outside of large temples, such Houses of Fire indicate resting places along the pivotal roads of the Khmer highway. The House of Fire of Preah Khan seems to be the first such station on the roads from Angkor to Prasat Bakan resp. to Koh Ker along Beng Mealea.
The Sanskrit term 'Vahni-griha' literally translates to 'House of Fire'. In guidebooks, such structures are sometimes called Dhamasalas, a Sanskrit term that simply translates to „teaching halls“. The latter designation seems to be historically incorrect, although it is highly likely that stone structure served for religious purposes, as a kind of chapels of otherwise wooden rest house areas along the roads. The votive inscription of the foundation stele of Preah Khan mentions that the king ordered the the construction of 121 so-called Vahni-Grihas along major routes throughout his kingdom. Therefore it seems highly likely that this name refers to buildings of this specific architectural type. The term translates to „fire chamber“. In ancient India, Vahni means the sacrificial fire of Brahminic ceremonies in particular. "Vah" originally and literally means "to carry", but in several word-combinations such as Vahni-loka, the realm of fire god Agni, the fire is called Vahni, as it carries obligations to the deities in sacrificial ceremonies.
Preah Khan’s House of Fire was cleared and stabilized by the World Monument Fund (WMF). The Vahnigriha has has a longitudinal ground plan with a vestibul. Remarkably, the interior has three naves, similar to basilica the roofs of the lateral naves are lower than the roof of the central nave. A tower topped by a double lotus rises up to the western end of the structure. It could have served as a chimney, with a fireplace inside the hall indeed. This House of Fire of Preah Khan features extraordinarily thick walls. The southern wall facing the axial procession way of Preah Khan has a row of four double-balustered windows, whereas the northern wall is without openings.
Before arriving at the main gate of the third enclosure, there is a stone building on the righthand side, just north of the axial path. It’s one of the best preserved Vahnigrihas or Fire-houses. Similar buildings from the same Bayon period can be seen at the corresponding places at Ta Prohm and Prasat Bakan. Outside of large temples, such Houses of Fire indicate resting places along the pivotal roads of the Khmer highway. The House of Fire of Preah Khan seems to be the first such station on the roads from Angkor to Prasat Bakan resp. to Koh Ker along Beng Mealea.
The Sanskrit term 'Vahni-griha' literally translates to 'House of Fire'. In guidebooks, such structures are sometimes called Dhamasalas, a Sanskrit term that simply translates to „teaching halls“. The latter designation seems to be historically incorrect, although it is highly likely that stone structure served for religious purposes, as a kind of chapels of otherwise wooden rest house areas along the roads. The votive inscription of the foundation stele of Preah Khan mentions that the king ordered the the construction of 121 so-called Vahni-Grihas along major routes throughout his kingdom. Therefore it seems highly likely that this name refers to buildings of this specific architectural type. The term translates to „fire chamber“. In ancient India, Vahni means the sacrificial fire of Brahminic ceremonies in particular. "Vah" originally and literally means "to carry", but in several word-combinations such as Vahni-loka, the realm of fire god Agni, the fire is called Vahni, as it carries obligations to the deities in sacrificial ceremonies.
Preah Khan’s House of Fire was cleared and stabilized by the World Monument Fund (WMF). The Vahnigriha has has a longitudinal ground plan with a vestibul. Remarkably, the interior has three naves, similar to basilica the roofs of the lateral naves are lower than the roof of the central nave. A tower topped by a double lotus rises up to the western end of the structure. It could have served as a chimney, with a fireplace inside the hall indeed. This House of Fire of Preah Khan features extraordinarily thick walls. The southern wall facing the axial procession way of Preah Khan has a row of four double-balustered windows, whereas the northern wall is without openings.
Main Temple Gateway of Preah Khan (3rd Eastern Gopuram)
southern wing of Preah Khan's main temple gatehouse
|
the famous double silk-cotton tree towering East Gopuram 3
|
Just to the west of the House and Fire and in front of the Hall of Sancers is the East Gopuram of the third enclosure. It is remarkable for two reasons.
First of all, the East Gopuram of enclosure 3 (also simply designated East Gate 3), is by far the largest of all entrance gates at Preah Khan. It‘s exceptionally wide, measuring 106 meters from north to south. The third enclosure wall altogether measures 200 by 175 meters. Furthermore, Preah Khan’s east gate 3 is the only Gopuram in this temple compound that actually has five passages of the usual three that can be all four gates of the exterior enclosure of the entire city of Preah Khan (counted number 4) and the one or three at the other Gopurams of the enclosures of the Preah Khan temple in a more narrow sense.
Secondly, it‘s the southern wing of this Gopuram that bears the celebrated couple of giant silk-cotton trees, one of which has been dead for several decades now and its rotting left fork had to be cut off recently, whereas the other one is still alive. The species is also known as Kapok tree (Terminalia nudiflora). The tree species was nicknamed „fromagere“ by the French for their similarity to ripened brie. The twin tree of Preah Khan is probably the world’s most spectacular specimen of a jungle tree growing on an ancient temple. The contemporary „jungle temple“ Ta Prohm has several strikingly pidturesque silk-cotton and Banyan tress, of course, whereas there is only one such tree of that dimensions in Preah Khan, but the latter can be called the most impressive one at all. The trunks of this silk cotton tree in between the central and south towers of East Gopuram are both destroying the southern wing and conserving it, as by becoming a part of the gallery columns the massive roots of the tree are actually supporting the roof of this monument. Maurice Glaize, the French architect and archaeologist who served as Conservator of Angkor from 1937 to 1945, wrote about this twin silk tree, they are "resting on the vault itself of the gallery, frame its openings and brace the stones in substitute for pillars in a caprice of nature that is as fantastic as it is perilous."
A roaring lion in front of the gallery stairway protects the incredible scene of marriage of wood and stone, symbol of the power of life, in reality only for a period of time, but long enough to appear as a moment of eternity, emblematic of Angkor.
In front of the third Gopuram of Preah Khan is a cruciform terrace with Naga balustrades, similar to that of east gopuram 3 of Ta Prohm. The Naga terrace of Preah Khan measures 40 by 30 m.
The aisles of very long East Gate 3 have windows to the east, but false balustered windows at towards the the inner side of the temple.
At the large building of the Eastern Gopuram 3, the better preserved reliefs are currently to be found on the inner lintels. Some of them are exhibted on the ground in the interior.
The lintel placed on the floor of the central passageway depicts Prince Vessantara pouring water on the hands of Jujaka, confirming that he gifts his two children to him.
Another lintel show a small figure at the centre, which seems to depict Lokeshvara or otherwise Vishnu standing on two elephants (10.450). Furthermore, a Garuda flying towards a figure on the ground and a small Buddha seated in meditation over a lotus can be seen here. A lintel at the passage to the southern pavillon, still in situ, has the Buddhist female personfication of wisom, Prajnaparamita, flanked by worshippers and lions.
The third enclosure contains the sacral precinct, with libraries and a Hall of Dancers as well as several ponds and satellite temples, two to the north and south as at the contemporary temple compund of Ta Prohm, and another one to the west. The northern satelllited temple is dedicated to Shiva and the western one to Vishnu, whereas the southern one served worshipping ancestor spirits, a form of religion typical of Southeast Asian cultures. As mentioned, representations of Brahmanism and Animism within a major Buddhist sanctuary are proof of the inclusive nature of Jayavarman’s mainly Buddhist temples.
First of all, the East Gopuram of enclosure 3 (also simply designated East Gate 3), is by far the largest of all entrance gates at Preah Khan. It‘s exceptionally wide, measuring 106 meters from north to south. The third enclosure wall altogether measures 200 by 175 meters. Furthermore, Preah Khan’s east gate 3 is the only Gopuram in this temple compound that actually has five passages of the usual three that can be all four gates of the exterior enclosure of the entire city of Preah Khan (counted number 4) and the one or three at the other Gopurams of the enclosures of the Preah Khan temple in a more narrow sense.
Secondly, it‘s the southern wing of this Gopuram that bears the celebrated couple of giant silk-cotton trees, one of which has been dead for several decades now and its rotting left fork had to be cut off recently, whereas the other one is still alive. The species is also known as Kapok tree (Terminalia nudiflora). The tree species was nicknamed „fromagere“ by the French for their similarity to ripened brie. The twin tree of Preah Khan is probably the world’s most spectacular specimen of a jungle tree growing on an ancient temple. The contemporary „jungle temple“ Ta Prohm has several strikingly pidturesque silk-cotton and Banyan tress, of course, whereas there is only one such tree of that dimensions in Preah Khan, but the latter can be called the most impressive one at all. The trunks of this silk cotton tree in between the central and south towers of East Gopuram are both destroying the southern wing and conserving it, as by becoming a part of the gallery columns the massive roots of the tree are actually supporting the roof of this monument. Maurice Glaize, the French architect and archaeologist who served as Conservator of Angkor from 1937 to 1945, wrote about this twin silk tree, they are "resting on the vault itself of the gallery, frame its openings and brace the stones in substitute for pillars in a caprice of nature that is as fantastic as it is perilous."
A roaring lion in front of the gallery stairway protects the incredible scene of marriage of wood and stone, symbol of the power of life, in reality only for a period of time, but long enough to appear as a moment of eternity, emblematic of Angkor.
In front of the third Gopuram of Preah Khan is a cruciform terrace with Naga balustrades, similar to that of east gopuram 3 of Ta Prohm. The Naga terrace of Preah Khan measures 40 by 30 m.
The aisles of very long East Gate 3 have windows to the east, but false balustered windows at towards the the inner side of the temple.
At the large building of the Eastern Gopuram 3, the better preserved reliefs are currently to be found on the inner lintels. Some of them are exhibted on the ground in the interior.
The lintel placed on the floor of the central passageway depicts Prince Vessantara pouring water on the hands of Jujaka, confirming that he gifts his two children to him.
Another lintel show a small figure at the centre, which seems to depict Lokeshvara or otherwise Vishnu standing on two elephants (10.450). Furthermore, a Garuda flying towards a figure on the ground and a small Buddha seated in meditation over a lotus can be seen here. A lintel at the passage to the southern pavillon, still in situ, has the Buddhist female personfication of wisom, Prajnaparamita, flanked by worshippers and lions.
The third enclosure contains the sacral precinct, with libraries and a Hall of Dancers as well as several ponds and satellite temples, two to the north and south as at the contemporary temple compund of Ta Prohm, and another one to the west. The northern satelllited temple is dedicated to Shiva and the western one to Vishnu, whereas the southern one served worshipping ancestor spirits, a form of religion typical of Southeast Asian cultures. As mentioned, representations of Brahmanism and Animism within a major Buddhist sanctuary are proof of the inclusive nature of Jayavarman’s mainly Buddhist temples.
Hall of Dancers of Preah Khan
Hall of Dancers in Preah Khan's third enclosure
|
lintel carving depicting dancing Apsaras in Preah Khan
|
As in the case of the contemporary complex of Ta Prohm, a Hall of Dancers is situated just in front of the temple proper, to the east of the second enclosure. Preah Khan’s Hall of Dancers is in between the spectacular East Gopuram 3 and the eastern main entrance to the temple proper.
The Hall of dancers is hypostyle structure with false doors at the corners. It faces a terrace to the east. The hall measures 26 by 36 meters and has 102 pillars, it was once roofed by a corbeled vault and semi-vaults. The structure comprizes four small courtyards, each surrounded by 24 pillars. The groundplan likens a cruciform cloister.
The Hall of Dancers is named after the reliefs depicting dancing Apsaras. Indeed, this has propably been the original function of the building, it served for celebrations with music and dance that were held in front of the main sanctuary, as it is still practiced in modern Indian temples, where access to the main shrine is only permitted to priests, whereas ceremonies of lay persons are held in front of the sanctum. In classical Indian temples, such a hall for ceremonies is called Mandapa. In a sense, the Hall of Dancers of Khmer temples can be compared to those Mandapas, though the Halls of Dancers – as well as the main sanctuaries, are of much larger size and Mandapas in a more narrow sense can be found within the precincts of the temple proper, too. According to the detailed account of the famous Preah Khan inscription, there were 1000 dancers employed at Preah Khan.
The Hall of Dancers, now roofless, is famous for the said wonderful carvings depicting groups of dancing girls. Particularly female half-deities dancing are correctly named Apsaras, whereas other figures of beautiful female servants of the deities in standing posture, which can be found at Khmer temples, are called Devatas, which the more general term for female semi-deities. Apsaras are those female nymphs dancing in the lower tiers of the mythical Mount Meru for the pleasure of the deities. Carvings of Apsaras can be seen at the pillars of the Hall of Dancers. However, the most enchanting reliefs are those depicting entire rows of more than half a dozen Apsaras. These well-executed friezes are which are placed over the lintels of the main doorways of the Hall of Dancers. Formerly there must have been eight such elaborate Apsara lintels at Preah Khan. Regrettably, three of them collapsed.
As most Buddhist works of art at Preah Khan and other Bayon period temples, the Buddha images in the niches higher above the friezes of Apsaras were destroyed in the anti-Buddhist reaction under Jayavarman VIII.
The Hall of dancers is hypostyle structure with false doors at the corners. It faces a terrace to the east. The hall measures 26 by 36 meters and has 102 pillars, it was once roofed by a corbeled vault and semi-vaults. The structure comprizes four small courtyards, each surrounded by 24 pillars. The groundplan likens a cruciform cloister.
The Hall of Dancers is named after the reliefs depicting dancing Apsaras. Indeed, this has propably been the original function of the building, it served for celebrations with music and dance that were held in front of the main sanctuary, as it is still practiced in modern Indian temples, where access to the main shrine is only permitted to priests, whereas ceremonies of lay persons are held in front of the sanctum. In classical Indian temples, such a hall for ceremonies is called Mandapa. In a sense, the Hall of Dancers of Khmer temples can be compared to those Mandapas, though the Halls of Dancers – as well as the main sanctuaries, are of much larger size and Mandapas in a more narrow sense can be found within the precincts of the temple proper, too. According to the detailed account of the famous Preah Khan inscription, there were 1000 dancers employed at Preah Khan.
The Hall of Dancers, now roofless, is famous for the said wonderful carvings depicting groups of dancing girls. Particularly female half-deities dancing are correctly named Apsaras, whereas other figures of beautiful female servants of the deities in standing posture, which can be found at Khmer temples, are called Devatas, which the more general term for female semi-deities. Apsaras are those female nymphs dancing in the lower tiers of the mythical Mount Meru for the pleasure of the deities. Carvings of Apsaras can be seen at the pillars of the Hall of Dancers. However, the most enchanting reliefs are those depicting entire rows of more than half a dozen Apsaras. These well-executed friezes are which are placed over the lintels of the main doorways of the Hall of Dancers. Formerly there must have been eight such elaborate Apsara lintels at Preah Khan. Regrettably, three of them collapsed.
As most Buddhist works of art at Preah Khan and other Bayon period temples, the Buddha images in the niches higher above the friezes of Apsaras were destroyed in the anti-Buddhist reaction under Jayavarman VIII.
Libraries of Preah Khan’s third enclosure
cut silk cotton tree on the southern library building of Preah Khan
|
dancing Apsaras at the lintel of southern library
|
In between the Hall of Dancers and the Eastern Gate (Gopuram 2) of the temple proper is a spacing. Within it, there are small buildings on either side of the western entrance to the Hall of Dancers. The so-called libraries of Preah Khan are of much smaller proportions than their counterparts in other temples of the Angkor period. Typically of libraries in Khmer temples, they are facing the main sanctuary. This means, they are entered from the west, unlike most other sacred buildings, which are usually oriented towards the east Most likely, the function of such library structures was safekeeping sacrificial objects such as Holy Scriptures for ritual purposes, not for access to the public. In case there are only one or two libraries in the groundplans of Khmer temples library buildings, they are usually placed to the east of the main sanctum and facing it. This means, in contrast to most other buildings, their doors are at the western side of the building. This is why the surprisingly small structures near the Hall of Dancers areidentified as such libraries. Though not impressive in size, they are richly decorated.
The southern one ot these chapels with west-facing openings of the chapels or libraries was towered by another silk-cotton tree the roots of which cracked the walls of the library and threatened to destroy the structures, because the slanting trunk could have fallen on the Hall of Dancers. The library walls are already torned open. The tree stump can still be seen on top of the roof and strangling the entire building.
The southern one ot these chapels with west-facing openings of the chapels or libraries was towered by another silk-cotton tree the roots of which cracked the walls of the library and threatened to destroy the structures, because the slanting trunk could have fallen on the Hall of Dancers. The library walls are already torned open. The tree stump can still be seen on top of the roof and strangling the entire building.
Enigmatic two-storey monument of Preah Khan
two-storey monument in the northeastern quarter of the third enclosure
|
unique circular columns of Preah Khan's two-storey structure
|
Just north to the Hall of Dancers, there is one of Angkor‘s most unique and mysterious structures. This two-storey structure is the only one of its kind in Khmer architecture. It’s also the only Khmer monument on cylindrical columns. There is now no way to reach the upper level, but presumably there was once a flight of wooden stairs. Upper storeys, too, are a very rare phenomenon in Khmer temples. At least, no other structure of this kind has survived in Angkor, although there could be traces of similar buildings at Ta Prohm and Banteay Kdei. The otherwise well-preserved building once carried a wooden and tiled roof.
The 32 massive columns measure 3.5 m in height. The round columns, though closely spaced and consisting of thick drums by comparison, nevertheless slightly resemble classical porticos of Greek temples. Actually, Greek styles influenced the art of northern India in the wake of the cultural transfer that began with Alexander the Great. Porticos in a Greek style are known from Buddhist architecture till the Gupta period in late antiquity. Thus it may well be that such Greek-influenced Indian temple types later on also inspired Khmer architects.
The function of this eye-catching edifice is unknown. Many believe it once housed the "Sacred Sword", the palladium that is meant by the term "Preah Khan". The archaeologists and book authors Freeman and Jacques speculate that this structure may have been the granary of Preah Khan, as the temple inscriptions mentions the large amount of rice to be delivered to this temple and city annually. But it’s more likely that stone architecture did not serve purely secular purposes.
The 32 massive columns measure 3.5 m in height. The round columns, though closely spaced and consisting of thick drums by comparison, nevertheless slightly resemble classical porticos of Greek temples. Actually, Greek styles influenced the art of northern India in the wake of the cultural transfer that began with Alexander the Great. Porticos in a Greek style are known from Buddhist architecture till the Gupta period in late antiquity. Thus it may well be that such Greek-influenced Indian temple types later on also inspired Khmer architects.
The function of this eye-catching edifice is unknown. Many believe it once housed the "Sacred Sword", the palladium that is meant by the term "Preah Khan". The archaeologists and book authors Freeman and Jacques speculate that this structure may have been the granary of Preah Khan, as the temple inscriptions mentions the large amount of rice to be delivered to this temple and city annually. But it’s more likely that stone architecture did not serve purely secular purposes.
Ceremonial Terrace of the third enclosure
lion stairway of the ceremonial terrace west of the two-storey monument
|
view from the ceremonial terrace to the temple proper of Preah Khan
|
Just west of the two-storey edifice on columns, there is a laterite terrace in the same axis, which may have been a platform for public ceremonies. Some believe this was a venue for cremations, but more likely it served as a kind of royal assembly hall. Audience halls of this type – but with additional stone pillars – are known from the palaces built in the Buddhist Pollonaruwa period of art in contemporary Sri Lanka. Though wthout stone pillars, the elegant terrace probably once carried a wooden structure. That’s indicated by post holes which are still visible in the laterite plinth. The stairway is guarded over by lion sculptures.
The causeways in the courtyard in between the Hall of Dancers and the temple proper and the to-storey edifice and the terrace enclose small patios. Their deepenings may have served as reflection pools.
The causeways in the courtyard in between the Hall of Dancers and the temple proper and the to-storey edifice and the terrace enclose small patios. Their deepenings may have served as reflection pools.
Temple proper of Preah Khan (2nd enclosure)
cruciform shrine serving as eastern Gopuram of the temple proper
|
pillar carving in the eastern part of Preah Khan's temple proper
|
The (eastern) main gate of enclosure three is the so-called Cruciform Shrine. It’s named after the shape of its groundplan, which was a Greek cross originally. Later on in the 13th century, the eastern entrance of this Cruciform Shrine was expanded twice, resulting in a new layout now in the form of a Latin cross. On modern archaeological maps of Preah Khan, this Cruciform Shrine is referred to as Structure 63.
According to an inscription on the door jamb, the Cruciform Shrine was originally dedicated to Tribhuvana. The west portico of this structure once housed the extraordinarily detailed foundation stele mentioned above. One of its lines reads: "He, the king, established three gods, beginning with Lord Tribhuvana-varmeshvara in the eastern direction." The direction refers to the Cruciform Shrine, which is located to the east of the main shrine.
Apart from the clearly marked axis leading to the central main shrine, the layout of the temple proper (enclosure 2) is quite confusing. Particularly at the eastern side of the temple proper, in between the first enclosure wall (measuring 62 by 55 m) and the second enclosure wall (85 by 76 m), is a haphazard series of small buildings, plenty of chapels and aisles and other additions from a later period. At some places, they impede access to previous structures and often hide some of the original decorations.
The galleries within the enclosure walls have corbeled roofs, as usual in Khmer architecture, and they are lit by windows with the carved stone balusters, which is also typical of ancient Khmer fenestration. But many of the balusters are missing.
On the right-hand doorpost of the entrance of the Cruciform Shrine, there is another short inscription (which is known as E1). Only the first three of the original four lines are still decipharable. They confirm the information of the said verse of the foundation inscription. The first line mentions an image of the god Tribhuvana-varmeshvara, whereas the second line mentions, that it is from the king Mahaparamanirvacapada. The third line gives the name of a goddess, Mahídhararajacuthuthamaçi.
Tribhuvana-varmeshvara translates to “Protector of the Triple World”. The second line means, that he is depicted inn the sacred form of a deceased king. Paramanirvacapada was the posthumous name of Angkor Wat founder Suryavarman II. But historians believe, that more likely Mahaparamanirvaçapada refers to the father of Jayavarman VII, Dharacindravarman. The reason for this assumotion is the name given in the third line of the inscription, as it resembles that of Jayavaraman’s mother, Jaya-Rajacuthamaci, which is known from the large inscription on the Preah Khan dedication inscription mentioned above.
According to an inscription on the door jamb, the Cruciform Shrine was originally dedicated to Tribhuvana. The west portico of this structure once housed the extraordinarily detailed foundation stele mentioned above. One of its lines reads: "He, the king, established three gods, beginning with Lord Tribhuvana-varmeshvara in the eastern direction." The direction refers to the Cruciform Shrine, which is located to the east of the main shrine.
Apart from the clearly marked axis leading to the central main shrine, the layout of the temple proper (enclosure 2) is quite confusing. Particularly at the eastern side of the temple proper, in between the first enclosure wall (measuring 62 by 55 m) and the second enclosure wall (85 by 76 m), is a haphazard series of small buildings, plenty of chapels and aisles and other additions from a later period. At some places, they impede access to previous structures and often hide some of the original decorations.
The galleries within the enclosure walls have corbeled roofs, as usual in Khmer architecture, and they are lit by windows with the carved stone balusters, which is also typical of ancient Khmer fenestration. But many of the balusters are missing.
On the right-hand doorpost of the entrance of the Cruciform Shrine, there is another short inscription (which is known as E1). Only the first three of the original four lines are still decipharable. They confirm the information of the said verse of the foundation inscription. The first line mentions an image of the god Tribhuvana-varmeshvara, whereas the second line mentions, that it is from the king Mahaparamanirvacapada. The third line gives the name of a goddess, Mahídhararajacuthuthamaçi.
Tribhuvana-varmeshvara translates to “Protector of the Triple World”. The second line means, that he is depicted inn the sacred form of a deceased king. Paramanirvacapada was the posthumous name of Angkor Wat founder Suryavarman II. But historians believe, that more likely Mahaparamanirvaçapada refers to the father of Jayavarman VII, Dharacindravarman. The reason for this assumotion is the name given in the third line of the inscription, as it resembles that of Jayavaraman’s mother, Jaya-Rajacuthamaci, which is known from the large inscription on the Preah Khan dedication inscription mentioned above.
Inner courtyard of Preah Khan (1st enclosure)
southeastern quarter of Preah Khan's enclosure I
|
pedestal as an altar in the shape of a Yoni
|
The first enclosure, like the second one, is "choked with more or less ruined buildings", as Maurice Glaize wrote. The central courtyard (enclosure 1) of Preah Khan is divided into four parts by a cruciform gallery. The four sections are filled with small shrines which are later irregular additions. Fallen masonry blocks the doors to most of these small cells. They were dedicated to various obscure deities. According to short inscriptions found in these shrines, they were used by aristocratic families for private worship to gods of family spirits, which were depicted with the physiognomy of their living leaders or of their ancestors. Sponsoring such a shrine was a means for families to acquire religious merit.
The eastern gate of the first enclosure is one of the few Angkorian Gopurams with internal decorations, viz. friezes of winged females called Kinnaris and male Garudas can be seen at the corners of the cornices. Buddha figures on the columns were transformed into hermits during the period of Hindu reaction in the later 13th century.
The eastern gate of the first enclosure is one of the few Angkorian Gopurams with internal decorations, viz. friezes of winged females called Kinnaris and male Garudas can be seen at the corners of the cornices. Buddha figures on the columns were transformed into hermits during the period of Hindu reaction in the later 13th century.
Mandapa of Preah Khan
The layout of the central courtyard (enclosure 1) faces east, as the entire complex of Preah Khan does. The large hall in front of the central sanctuary corresponds the so-called Mandapa of Indian temples. The arrangement of a main temple tower with the main idol in the centre and a Mandapa hall for ceremonies to the east is the typical layout of Indian temple architecture.
The interior walls of the said two buildings as well as the adjoining galleries are covered with holes for the fixing of gilded bronze plates, which originally may have covered the outside of the sanctuary, too.
The interior walls of the said two buildings as well as the adjoining galleries are covered with holes for the fixing of gilded bronze plates, which originally may have covered the outside of the sanctuary, too.
Central Prasat of Preah Khan (Shikhara)
16th century stupa in the central shrine of Preah Khan
|
holes for the fixing of bronze plates in the central sanctuary
|
The main shrine in the very centre of Preah Khan corresponds a Shikhara, which is the main temple containing the main idol surmounted by the highest tower of an Indian temple. In contrast to former styles of Angkorian temple architecture, the main sanctuaries of the flat temples built by Jayavarman VII, are not conspicuously larger than the other shrines surrounding them. Not surprisingly, the central sanctuary is the place, where the Avalokiteshvara statue once stood. It’s lost now.
Instead of it, there can be seen a small stupa. It was built in the 16th century under a Theravada Buddhist king. This small stupa is a witness of the short period of an Angkorian renaissance during a the so-called “Dark Ages of Cambodia”, a term referring to the period between the Siege of Angkor by Thai kings from Ayyuthiya in 1431 till the establishment of a French protectorate in 1863 .
As mentioned above, the interior of the central sanctuary as well as the walls of the inner enclosure gallery are covered with holes, which once served for fixing bronze plates. 1.500 tons of bronze are claimed to have been used for Preah Khan’s decoration.
Some Buddha carvings in the central corridor have been crudely carved over with Bodhisattvas and with lotus flower and even with a Linga phallus.
Instead of it, there can be seen a small stupa. It was built in the 16th century under a Theravada Buddhist king. This small stupa is a witness of the short period of an Angkorian renaissance during a the so-called “Dark Ages of Cambodia”, a term referring to the period between the Siege of Angkor by Thai kings from Ayyuthiya in 1431 till the establishment of a French protectorate in 1863 .
As mentioned above, the interior of the central sanctuary as well as the walls of the inner enclosure gallery are covered with holes, which once served for fixing bronze plates. 1.500 tons of bronze are claimed to have been used for Preah Khan’s decoration.
Some Buddha carvings in the central corridor have been crudely carved over with Bodhisattvas and with lotus flower and even with a Linga phallus.
Northwestern courtyard of the first enclosure
column with peg in northwestern courtyard of Preah Khan's enclosure I
|
row of hermits at the facades of a chapel in enclosure I
|
As mentioned above, the first (inner) enclosure is divided into four parts by a cruciform gallery, each part almost completely filled by later irregular additional buildings from a later period. The north-western and south-western courtyards have central pillars with a peg on top, a symbol of unknown meaning.
The edifices of these two courtyards are richly decorated with patterns of leaves and volutes, and rows of hermits seated with their legs crossed. Today, the irregularly spaced small chapels, presumably dedicated to the ancestors of their donours, are the buildings with the most elaborate wall decoration. They exhaustive bas reliefs represent trees above nicheswith sculptures of rishis, Hindu saints. They could well be later supplements replacing Buddhist sculptures.
The northwestern courtyard and the southwestern courtyard each contain seven buildings. This courtyard has a wider open space than the southern one and one prominent building which is dominating the entire group
One pediment carving in the central axis, looking back to the central Prasat, depicts the scene of Rama’s triumphant return to his hometown and capital Ayodhya after freeing his wife Sita from captivity on the island of Lanka.
The edifices of these two courtyards are richly decorated with patterns of leaves and volutes, and rows of hermits seated with their legs crossed. Today, the irregularly spaced small chapels, presumably dedicated to the ancestors of their donours, are the buildings with the most elaborate wall decoration. They exhaustive bas reliefs represent trees above nicheswith sculptures of rishis, Hindu saints. They could well be later supplements replacing Buddhist sculptures.
The northwestern courtyard and the southwestern courtyard each contain seven buildings. This courtyard has a wider open space than the southern one and one prominent building which is dominating the entire group
One pediment carving in the central axis, looking back to the central Prasat, depicts the scene of Rama’s triumphant return to his hometown and capital Ayodhya after freeing his wife Sita from captivity on the island of Lanka.
Southwestern courtyard of the first enclosure
column with peg behind narrow space between supplemented chapels
|
column with peg in the southwestern courtyard of enclosure I
|
In the courtyard just to the soutwest of the main temple tower, the said ancestor chapels, which were are later additions within the temple proper of Preah Khan, are slightly more regular arranged than in there northern counterpart. In the southwestern courtyard of the first enclosure they are grouped in two rows facing each other, the four temples of the western row connected with the surrounding gallery are smaller in size. The three chapels closer to the main temple are larger and more richly decorated.
well-preserved lintel depicting the Buddhist saviour Lokeshwara
|
floral patterns of facade carvings at chapels of enclosure I
|
It is within this southwestern quarter of the first enclosure where a one of Preah Khan‘s very few not-decapitated Buddhas can be seen on a pediment, viz. at the second chapel.
Western Vestibule (2nd enclosure)
Yoni pedestal in the 2nd enclosure of Preah Khan
|
Tapestry with a floral patterns in a door jamb of the western vestibule
|
In the vestibule just west of Preah Khan’s first enclosure is a pedestal with a Linga in a Yoni. This Shivaite symbol was placed here probably during the period of the Hindu revival in the second half of the 13th century.
At the eastern gate of the central sanctuary there is a small pediment depicting the scene of Shiva appearing in the Pine Forest. The deity can be seen standing with crossed legs in the doorway of a building, one arm is on his chest and the other one raised. The god wears only a loinclotht. He is surrounded by by female figures arranged in three registers, one women almost touching Shiva’s hips with a twig.
At the eastern gate of the central sanctuary there is a small pediment depicting the scene of Shiva appearing in the Pine Forest. The deity can be seen standing with crossed legs in the doorway of a building, one arm is on his chest and the other one raised. The god wears only a loinclotht. He is surrounded by by female figures arranged in three registers, one women almost touching Shiva’s hips with a twig.
Western satellite temple of Preah Khan
Preah Khan's Vishnu temle seen from the south
|
Preah Khan's western satellite temple dedicated to Vishnu
|
The outbuildung to the west of Preah Khan’s temple proper (enclosure 2) within the third enclosure is a separate temple, which was dedicated to Vishnu right from the beginning, as Preah Khan was originally arranged for the worship of various Hindu deities and local gods, apart from being a Buddhist temple in the first place. As said, the temple dedicated to a Bodhisattva of Mahayana Buddhism, is therefore surrounded by several other shrines, the most significant of which are interconnected with the Buddhist main complexes by shared east-west and north-south axes.
The western Vishnu temple is the first part of the large stone monument of Preah Khan, the visitor will see when arriving from Angkor Thom and entering the walled city after having crossed the the western access causeway and exterior Gopuram (of enclosure 4). The western complex (within enclosure 3) has several well-preserved carvings depicting scenes from the Vishnuite and partly from Shivaite mythology, particularly in the the courtyard between the western complex and the wide gatehouse of the third enclosure, some of them are on the ground now.
Among them are the subjects of Krishna fighting his enemies by holting them at the hair; Shiva reducing the god of desire, Kama, to ashes; Krishna subduing the snake Kaliya, and Vishnu riding on the eagle Garuda.
The classical scene of Krishna raising Mount Govardhana can be seen on a small pediment facing west. As usual, the mountain is stylized in the shape of an inverted “V”, the rhombs symbolizing rock boulders. Krishna is surrounded by his older brother, Balarama, on the righthand side and several smaller figures representing shepherds under trees, which Krishna protected against the cosmical cloudburst caused by Indra by lifting the mountain of Govardhana. The bottom register of this pediment shows cattle interspersed with cowherds.
The western Vishnu temple is the first part of the large stone monument of Preah Khan, the visitor will see when arriving from Angkor Thom and entering the walled city after having crossed the the western access causeway and exterior Gopuram (of enclosure 4). The western complex (within enclosure 3) has several well-preserved carvings depicting scenes from the Vishnuite and partly from Shivaite mythology, particularly in the the courtyard between the western complex and the wide gatehouse of the third enclosure, some of them are on the ground now.
Among them are the subjects of Krishna fighting his enemies by holting them at the hair; Shiva reducing the god of desire, Kama, to ashes; Krishna subduing the snake Kaliya, and Vishnu riding on the eagle Garuda.
The classical scene of Krishna raising Mount Govardhana can be seen on a small pediment facing west. As usual, the mountain is stylized in the shape of an inverted “V”, the rhombs symbolizing rock boulders. Krishna is surrounded by his older brother, Balarama, on the righthand side and several smaller figures representing shepherds under trees, which Krishna protected against the cosmical cloudburst caused by Indra by lifting the mountain of Govardhana. The bottom register of this pediment shows cattle interspersed with cowherds.
Gatehouse of West Temple (3rd Western Gopuram)
northern wing and central doorway of West Gate III
|
gatehouse of Preah Khan's western satellite temple seen from the north
|
The third enclosure wall measures 200 by 175 metres. Its western Gopuram - giving access to the said western sattelite temple of Vishnu - has many pediment carvings on both sides, Krishna raising Mount Govardhana, and Shiva cremating Kama have already been mentioned, as they are placed in the courtyard between this Gopuram and the Vishnu temple. The battle of Lanka, depicting Rama and Ravana, can be seen on the opposite side, facing west. Ravana is easily recognizable by his ten heads and twenty arms.
The massive guardian statues in front of the gate are decapitated. Such Dvarapalas in the round on plinths are typical of the Bayon period.
The massive guardian statues in front of the gate are decapitated. Such Dvarapalas in the round on plinths are typical of the Bayon period.
Preah Khan Visitor Centre at the western axis
The 185m long western accessway between the third and fourth Gopuram again crosses those parts of the former city of Preah Khan where secular buildings, dwellings in particular, were built of perishable materials. They have therefore not survived in this area which has been reconquered by the jungle.
Halfway between the two gateway buildings there is a modern pavilion on the northern side. This so-called Preah Khan Visitor Centre is a small exhibition mainly of photos with texts. In particular, it informs about the foundation stele found within the temple proper if Preah Khan.
Halfway between the two gateway buildings there is a modern pavilion on the northern side. This so-called Preah Khan Visitor Centre is a small exhibition mainly of photos with texts. In particular, it informs about the foundation stele found within the temple proper if Preah Khan.
Western city gate of Preah Khan (4th Western Gopuram)
exterior western gatehouse of the Preah Khan compound
|
pediment carving presumably illustrating Vishnu with worshippers
|
The exterior gate at the western moat of Preah Khan (Western Gopuram 4) is of the same size as the main gate (Eastern Gopuram 4) in the very east of the walled temple city. The central doorway was high enough to be crossed by elephants or men on chariots. Its Gopuram tower has five tiers, in contrast to the three tiers of the smaller gateways at either side.
There are several carvings still in situ at the western gateway.
The east-facing pediment at the southern doorway has a four-armed main figure in standing posture. It‘s not entirely clear whether this is Bodhisattva Lokeshwara or Lord Vishnu, as the attributes are not preserved. Above him, there are two discs with figures, they presumably represent sun and moon. In the Bayon period, Lokeshvara is often depicted in a syncretistic manner, with the hair crown of Shiva and attributes of other Hindu deities. However, it’s more likely that the central figure represents Vishnu and not the Buddhist saviour, since there is a plinth and not a lotus serving as his pedestal. Furthermore, the said figure is not defaced, which indicates that Hindu iconoclasts in the 13th century identified it as a Hindu deity rather than a symbol of Buddhism.
The southern pediment of the west facade depicts two boats in the shape of a dragon, they are pulled by four oarsmen. Above them, there was once a Bodhisattva figure seated on a plinth, flanked by pairs of praying worshippers. The sky is filled with flying Apsaras and waving flags. It’s not recognizable to which canonical Jataka story this illustration refers. It may well be, that this szene represents a ceremony of Bodhisattva adoration instead of an episode of Sacred Scriptures.
The eroded pediment over the northern doorway is similar, but here the boatmen of the two dragon vessels fight against each other.
The defaced Buddha figure on the lintel of the same doorway is supported by lions. The central szene is flanked by niches with Bodhisattva. They are depicted with worshippers at their feet similar to carvings at Neak Pean, which is the island temple of the Lake of Preah Khan (northern Baray).
Placed on the ground near the northern of the three doorways, there is a standing deity, grabbing two kneeling men at their hair.
There are several carvings still in situ at the western gateway.
The east-facing pediment at the southern doorway has a four-armed main figure in standing posture. It‘s not entirely clear whether this is Bodhisattva Lokeshwara or Lord Vishnu, as the attributes are not preserved. Above him, there are two discs with figures, they presumably represent sun and moon. In the Bayon period, Lokeshvara is often depicted in a syncretistic manner, with the hair crown of Shiva and attributes of other Hindu deities. However, it’s more likely that the central figure represents Vishnu and not the Buddhist saviour, since there is a plinth and not a lotus serving as his pedestal. Furthermore, the said figure is not defaced, which indicates that Hindu iconoclasts in the 13th century identified it as a Hindu deity rather than a symbol of Buddhism.
The southern pediment of the west facade depicts two boats in the shape of a dragon, they are pulled by four oarsmen. Above them, there was once a Bodhisattva figure seated on a plinth, flanked by pairs of praying worshippers. The sky is filled with flying Apsaras and waving flags. It’s not recognizable to which canonical Jataka story this illustration refers. It may well be, that this szene represents a ceremony of Bodhisattva adoration instead of an episode of Sacred Scriptures.
The eroded pediment over the northern doorway is similar, but here the boatmen of the two dragon vessels fight against each other.
The defaced Buddha figure on the lintel of the same doorway is supported by lions. The central szene is flanked by niches with Bodhisattva. They are depicted with worshippers at their feet similar to carvings at Neak Pean, which is the island temple of the Lake of Preah Khan (northern Baray).
Placed on the ground near the northern of the three doorways, there is a standing deity, grabbing two kneeling men at their hair.
Western boundary of Preah Khan
serpent railing of the causeway in front of West Gate IV
|
boundary stones at the western procession path to Preah Khan
|
Just like their counterparts to the eastern of the Preah Khan compound, the railings of the causeways in front of the exterior gate show the famous scene of the churning of the Ocean of Milk, the body of the snake supported and hold by gods on the one and demons on the other side.
Similar to the eastern main accessway, there is an alley of boundary stones in the shape of stone lanterns along the avenue in front of the exterior western gateway (West Gopuram IV). They too are richly decorated with carvings of mytholigical flowers and beasts and carry cubics with niches for Buddha statues. The Buddhist figures, again, did not survive the Hindu iconoclasm under Jayavarman VIII.
Similar to the eastern main accessway, there is an alley of boundary stones in the shape of stone lanterns along the avenue in front of the exterior western gateway (West Gopuram IV). They too are richly decorated with carvings of mytholigical flowers and beasts and carry cubics with niches for Buddha statues. The Buddhist figures, again, did not survive the Hindu iconoclasm under Jayavarman VIII.
Visit along the north-south axis of Preah Khan
For those visitors in a hurry crossing the Preah Khan complex from east to west (or the other way around) is sufficient to see the most important places. Those travellers interested in seeing some more famous stone carvings or finding undisturbed paces, we recommend to walk along the north-south axis, too. A third main entrance of Preah Khan is at the north gate.
Northern city gate of Preah Khan (4th Northern Gopuram)
exterior north gate of the Preah Khan compound
|
pediment relief depicting worshippers, reerected on the ground
|
The exterior northern gateway (North Gopuram IV) has a causeway in front of it, but no rows of boundary stones outside the moat. When crossing the western of the three doorways, the visitor finds some large pediments with stone carvings now placed on the ground just behind the gateway now. A figure of a Bodhisattva was completely demolished by Hindu iconoclasts in the 13th century. Only the rows of adorant worshippers remained intact.
Northern temple gate of Preah Khan (3rd Northern Gopuram)
Sinha guardian and Vasuki serpent in front of Northern Gopuram III
|
Battle of Lanka at the pediment of the 3rd northern gatehouse
|
The Northern Gopuram III, giving access to the northern satellite temple of the main complex of Preah Khan, has two features worth noticing. The main pediment just above the portico of the northern door shows an episode of the Battle of Lanka, similat to the scene of the Western Gopuram III. Secondly, there is a not completely preserved pediment above the southern side of the eastern doorway, depicting a row of female figures. They wear extraordinarily high crowns known as Mukutas in Sanskrit terminology.
Northern satellite temple of Preah Khan (in enclosure 3)
courtyard of the satellite temple dedicated to Shiva
|
carvings in the eastern courtyard of Preah Khan's northern temple
|
The northern satellite temple consisting of towers, gates, galleries and courtyards, was dedicated to Shiva. An unusual reference to Shiva inside the shrine are two feet on a pedestal. Although the northern satellite temple was probably dedicated to Shiva, its rich iconography has a predominance of Vaishnava themes and also carries Buddhist images.
A remarkable carving, just opposite the reclining Vishnu (see below) in the same eastern courtyard, represents the Trimurti, the Hindu trinity of Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma. The central figure is Shiva, shown in deep meditation.
Another Shivaite carving in this northern satellite temple is at the eastern pediment of the western Gopuram, depicting the the Nataraja, Shiva dancing amongst his followers
As mentioned, most carvings in the northern sattelite temple depict scene from Vishnuite mythology, particularly from the Bhagavata Purana and the Ramayana epic.
Just a fragment of the common scene of Vishnu Trivikrama is left over the entrance of the southern Gopuram.
The flying Pushpaka chariot carrying Rama with his consort Sita and his brother Lakshmana can be seen on the northern pediment of the western side of the satellite temple. The mythylogical plane resembles a palace more than a chariot.
Krishna lifting Mount Govardhana is depicted two times in this Shiva temple. It’s carved on the western pediment of the library (building 122) in the northern part of the northern temple’s courtyard and also on the lintel of the northern door of the central shrine.
The most famous carving of Preah Khan’s Shiva temple can be find easily by simply turning eastwards. The northern satellite temple’s main gate to the east, named tower 124, has a doorway leading to the famous two-storey building. Thus tower is well-known for one of the most excellent depictions of Vishnu reclining on the serpent Ananta. The carving faces west. Hence, it can be seen within the eastern courtyard of the northern satellite temple. As usual in Khmer art, the cosmic Ananta resembles a beast with legs more than a snake and the lotus grows at the back of the god, whereas in classical Indian iconography it grows from his navel. Likewise in contrast to Indian representation of the famous mytholigical scene, the flower buds of the lotus are without a depiction of Brahma.
Anomalous depiction of the Vishnu creation myth
One of the most famous scenes from the iconography of Vishnu is his subordinate deity Brahma being born in a lotus emerging from the navel of the supreme god, who is reclining on a serpent. Brahma after his birth will create nine Rishis (sages) and with them all the formed beings of the universe. The new world just begins to evolve when Vishnu gently awakes from his yogic sleep known as ‚Yoganidra‘ in Sanskrit. This very calm and relaxed way of creation – quite the opposite of a dynamic demonstration of power by a mighty god – is also emphasized by the presence of Vishnu’s consort Lakshmi massaging his feet which lie in her lap. (In some versions, his legs are caressed by two consorts, viz. Lakshmi and Bhumidevi.)
The myth is known from classical religious Sanskrit texts called Puranas, the earliest of which were composed in India's late antiquity (Gupta period) and the subsequent early Middle Ages. Puranic and Agamic texts, unlike the earlier Brahmanic Sacred Scriptures known as Vedas, emphasize Vishnu or Shiva or Shakti as supreme beings (depending on the religious sect which compiled a text), with only little roles to play for the most prominent Vedic deities such as Indra or Varuna or Agni. Besides the two great Indian epics, viz. Mahabharata and Ramayana, the most famous Puranas, e.g. Bhagavata Purana and Vishnu Purana, and the contemporary Pancaratra Samhitas (belonging to the Agama literature) are the main scriptures of Vaishnavism (Vishnuism), scilicet those schools and sects venerating Lord Vishnu as the personal form of the absolute reality and cosmic principle, the impersonal Brahman (which is not to be confused with the deity Brahma).
In Vaishnavism, there is no creation myth comparable to the Judaic (and Christian and Muslim) belief in a single beginning of the world at an earliest point in time. Instead of this western concept of a first world period initiated by a transcendent almighty being, the Pancaratra texts present the divine creation as an ongoing process originating in Vishnu which is timeless like the supreme being himself and is still unfolding and everlasting. The so-called Vyuha theory explains how that ultimate reality, Vishnu as the Brahman, manifests into the ever-changing material form of the spatio-temporal world by means of adopting the forms of Avatars. This concept of the world's origin comes closer to emanation theories of ancient western philosophy and of gnostic beliefs than to the western religious ideas known as ‚creatio ex nihilo‘.
But what is called ‚creation‘ in context of Vishnu theology, is not that process of the manifold world originating from a single entity, as explained in the Pancaratra doctrine just mentioned. Instead of this, what is called 'creation' in the myth of 'The Birth of Brahma' means the beginning of just one cosmic period, within a chain of numerous material worlds coming to existence one after another. In this Hindu myth, creation refers to the beginning of a new world era after the destruction of an earlier one. There is a stark contrast to the beliefs of western religions concerning both the beginning and the end of our material world, as in Hindu mythology the final event at the end of our aeon is not a single event. This is to say: It’s not something occuring once and for all at the end of all times. Instead, world destruction - just like world creation - will happen again and again and it‘s likewise a past event - not only a future one. This kind of dissolution of the material world occured and will occur innumerable times. It’s not an everlasting replacement of the material world by a better one, it’s just giving birth to another material world. Hence, the famous myth called ‚The Birth of Brahma‘ is the dawn of a new world era rather than the beginning of the entire timeline of our universe.
In short: In the specific Hindu creation myth associated with the primordial ocean and the birth of creator Brahma, both destruction and new creation are meant as periodically recurring. This kind of creation event is just a change of time periods. It’s as endlessly repeated as the cycles of day and night or summer and winter. The creation by the birth of Brahma is a new morning, the sleeping Vishnu marks its dawn as well as its underlying root cause.
As said, the new cosmos is born from an earlier one. Since all formed beings from the previous universe had been dissolved into a chaotic mass, only this unformed matter was left from the previous world and will be used to form a new one. In a sense, the chaos of total desintegration symbolised by the ocean carries an element of what is required for a new creation. Hence, there is an aspect of permanence within the decay. The symbol of this aspect of continuation in the said Vaishnava creation myth is the serpent serving as Vishnu’s bed. For this reason, the name of the cosmic serpent is 'Shesha', as this term literally translates to 'residue'. Even in classic Indian mathematical treatises, the Sanskrit word ‚shesha‘ means ‚remainder‘. In general, Shesha is what remains when everything else ceases to exist. The cosmic serpent is known by other names, too. ‚Sheshanaga‘ simply uses ‚naga‘ as a suffix, this byname being the Sanskrit term for ‚snake‘. In the Puranas, the primordial snake is sometimes referred to as ‚Ananta Shesha‘ or simply ‚Ananta‘, which means ‚endless‘. Another epithet is ‚Adi Shesha‘, the ‚First Shesha‘ or ‚Original Shesha‘, referring to the cosmic serpent as part of the creation. In the Bhagavata Purana, Shesha is also called 'Sankarshana', which is the cosmic energy of Lord Vishnu.
When the cosmic snake uncoils, time moves forward and creation takes place. Likewise, Shesha coiling back means the end of time marking the end of a cosmic aeon. Moreover, Shesha is considered a servant as well as a manifestation of Vishnu. Like Vishnu, Shesha descends to earth and incarnates in human beings. The cosmic serpent does so to be a helpful hand of Vishnu. Shesha's two Avatars in human form are Lakshmana, the brother of Rama, and Balarama, the brother of Krishna (both Rama and Krishna of course being Avatars of Vishnu himself).
Vishnu as the supreme being has adopted various names, too. ‚Purusha‘ is one of the designations of the supreme being in general. Depicted on the serpent in Hindu art, Vishnu is literally called 'recumbent on Ananta‘: ‚Anantasayin‘ or ‚Anantashayin‘ or ‚Anantashayana‘. (These are only diverse Latin transliterations of the same Sanskrit term, just as ‚shesha‘ is often spelt ‚sesha‘ in English). In Sanskrit, ‚shaya‘ means ‚sleep‘ and ‚shayana‘ denotes a bed or couch. 'Anantashayin' is used in the context of Hindu iconography, whereas the most common mythological names of Vishnu are ‚Vasudeva‘ and ,Narayana‘, both indicating his philosophical function as supreme being, viz. the deity being the ‚Parabrahman‘ according to Vaishnava schools of thought. (In Shaivism, of course, the personification of Parabrahman is Shiva.) In the emanation theory of the Vaihnavite Pancaratra theology known from the early Agama literature, Vishnu is most often referred to as ‚Vasudeva‘, an eponym of Krishna. In contrast, the Pancharatra system of the 11th century philosopher Ramanuja, founder of the popular Sri Vaishnava tradition, preferred the name ‚Narayana‘ for the supreme being. Both names are already mentioned in two of the most significant Sacred Scriptures of Vaishnavism, viz. in the Mahabharata epic as well as in the Bhagavata Purana. In these two ancient narrations, Vasudeva (with a short ‚a‘) is the father of Vasudeva-Krishna (then spelt with a long ‚a‘). Already in the great epic Narayana is called supreme being. Furthermore, the Mahabharata explicitely states that from this deity Lord Brahma took his rise in the days of yore, referring to the creation of the present world. According to the Bhagavata Purana, which is the most popular Puranic text of Vaishnavism, Narayana is the ultimate soul and in control of everything by immanently pervading it. In particular, he is associated with the cosmic waters of creation. The Puranic myths, which are more detailed than those found in the earlier Mabharata epic, have become the main sourcebooks for Hindu art and its iconography during the Indian Middle Ages. But in many instances they do not coincide with one another. Just as an example: In the Kurma Purana, Narayana as supreme being is identified with Lord Brahma instead of Lord Vishnu.
The location of Vishnu on Shesha on the ocean of milk is often referred to as Vaikuntha or Vaikunthaloka. This is also the name of the celestial abode of Vishnu. According to Vaishnavism, Vaikuntha is the highest realm which can be reached by enlightened or redeemed followers of Vishnu. It‘s situated beyond the material universe and, according to Vaishnavite theology, can be neither perceived by the material senses nor realised by human logical thought. This is to say, Vaikuntha is a transcendental abode. In illustrations of Vaikuntha, Vishnu is sometimes depicted without Shesha - or he is seen standing instead of reclining. But when shown in Vaikuntha, he is almost always accompanied by goddess Lakshmi.
Surprisingly, in Hindu works of art the ‚Vishnu Anantashayin‘ theme - though indicating the said Vaishnava creation myth in which Brahma plays a subordinate but nevertheless crucial role - is not ecaxtly identical with the subject that is called ‚The Birth of Brahma‘. To be sure, most paintings depicting the recumbent Vishnu on the serpent Shesha represent the birth of Brahma indeed. Usually, from the reclining Vishnu's navel emerges a lotus stalk, on the flower of which the multi-faced Brahma can be seen. However, in some carvings Brahma is absent from the scene. One of the most famous illustrations of ‚Vishnu Anantashayin‘ - and one of the earliest large-scale rock carvings of this kind at all - is the late 7th century panel in Mamallapuram (Mahabalipuram) in southeastern India. It is carved on the southern face of the rock-cut Mahishasuramardhini cave temple, also known as Yampuri. Though this more-than-head-high carving is very detailed and a lotus can clearly be seen emerging from Vishnu’s omphalos, Brahma himself is not depicted. The reason is: In that scene illustrated in the Yampuri cave the creator, Lord Brahma, has not yet come to existence. Earlier events, leading the way to the later birth of Brahma and to the the creation of the world, are represented at the said famous South-Indian rock-carving: In this episode, two small demons attempt to distract Vishnu from initiating the creation by attacking him with a mace. But they are chased away by the cosmic serpent and the perfectly relaxed Vishnu remains unconcerned, he is even pacifying Shesha by patting this helpful snake.
In the iconography of Khmer reliefs, there is another Anantashayin variant illustrating a stage preceding the birth of Brahma. Vishnu is depicted simply lying on the cosmic serpent, without any disturbance by demons. This Khmer variant, too, represents the state of peace in which the supreme god is about to create the world. As said, what's indicated is not yet the moment of creation itself but the perfect divine ease in his Yogic sleep that is the basis of initiating the creation. Like in the Indian Yapuri cave, it is the absence of Brahma on the lotus bud that distinguishes this type of Khmer carvings. It simply refers to an earlier episode from the same creation myth, not "The Birth of Brahma" in a narrow sense, but "The sleeping ans awakening Vishnu", viz. Anantashayin.
Another conspicuous feature of at least some Khmer representations of the Vaishnavite creation (or recreation) myth is the animal on which Vishnu rests. The famous illustration in the northern satellite temple of Preah Khan actually does not include a depiction of a snake! How can this be? Sleeping on the cosmic snake without a snake? A reclining Vishnu not reclining on Shesha? But take a look have a second guess. In Hindu art, the cosmic serpent Shesha has multiple hoods forming a canopy above the god’s head. Shesha is usually shown as a five-headed or seven-headed snake. Even more numerous hoods can be seen in Indian paintings. In contrast, the animal serving as Vishnu’s bed on the Preah Khan panel has only one head and this head is not a hood of a cobra but likens much more the face of a lion. Moreover, the long body of the animal depicted at Preah Khan has legs. It’s not entirely clear, what species of animal this is meant to be.
Commonly, the beast serving as 'bed of Vishnu' at Preah Khan is identified as a dragon. And this might well be the case, as the mythological snake seen in Indian works of art is often replaced by a dragon in the art of the Far East. Thus, the enigmatic animal at Preah Khan could be a modified form of a Sesha, more resembling a dragon with a long reptile body with legs and the head of a mammal. However, there is reason to doubt that this animal seen at the famous creation myth lintel of Preah Khan represents a snake-like being at all.
Vittorio Roveda, who published the most comprehensive volume on ancient Khmer stone carvings, identifies the animal serving as Vishnu’s bed at Preah Khan as a Reachisey, an amphibian mythic being typical of Khmer art, particularly where water plays a role. But Roveda's interpretation of the Preah Khan lintel in question can't be taken for granted, either. The most notable animal depiction called Reachisey can be found at the stream bed of Kbal Spean. This obvious Reachisey is clearly identifiably as an amphibian and looks very much like a lizard. Its head does not at all resemble a lion.
Another interpretation is, that the mysterious beast below the reclining Vishnu of Preah Khan could be a Khmer variant of a Gajasimha. In Indian art, ‚Gajasimha‘ is the name of a specific animal that is a hybrid fabulous beast. The term literally translates to ‚elephant-lion‘. Indeed, the lion face of the enigmatic animal at the creation myth panel of Preah Khan has a trunk, though the trunk is not as long as in depictions of elephants. In Indian art, Gajasimhas usually have the body of a lion and the head is entirlely that of an elephant. However, Khmer variants of Gajasimhas known from the Angkor Wat period have lion-mane heads with trunks. Gajasimhas of this earlier period, characterized by a more lion-like head, can be seen displayed in the Angkor Wat within the huge panel known as the 'Churning of the Sea of Milk'. An illustration of Vishnu reclining on the primordial ocean is also depicted on a stelae commemorating Angkor Wat founder Suryavarman II, which is on display in the Musée Guimet in Paris. But again, the interpretation of the enigmatic animal forming Vishnu’s couch as a slightly modified Gajasimha is not entirely convincing, because the animal in question has scales, clearly identifying it as an aquatic being.
Another reading therefore could be that the mysterious animal on display at Preah Khan is a Khmer version of a Makara, another hybrid beast. This identification seems most likely. In Hindu and Buddhist art, Makaras are usually seen as crocodiles. But even in India and Sri Lanka, there are quite different variants of this oceanic animal, some of them without any features of a crocodile, but all of them with scales like a fish. In Indian art, Makaras typically combine features of more than only two animals. Likewise does the creature of the Preah Khan panel, it has characteristics of fish or amphibians, lion, and elephant.
Whatever kind of mythical animal may be represented in the Preah Khan depiction of the Vaishnavite creation myth – Dragon or Reachisey or Gajasimha or Makara - , the replacing of the snake by an animal with legs and a lion mane can be regarded as the most outstanding modification of Hindu iconography in Angkorean art.
In contrast to classical Hindu iconography and Indian works of art, the Khmer illustrations of Vishnu Anantashayin usually do not show the lotos stem growing from Vishnu’s umbilicus, but originating somewhere behind him, from his back or maybe even without touching his body at all. This too is a typical Khmer alteration of the original iconograpy.
The myth is known from classical religious Sanskrit texts called Puranas, the earliest of which were composed in India's late antiquity (Gupta period) and the subsequent early Middle Ages. Puranic and Agamic texts, unlike the earlier Brahmanic Sacred Scriptures known as Vedas, emphasize Vishnu or Shiva or Shakti as supreme beings (depending on the religious sect which compiled a text), with only little roles to play for the most prominent Vedic deities such as Indra or Varuna or Agni. Besides the two great Indian epics, viz. Mahabharata and Ramayana, the most famous Puranas, e.g. Bhagavata Purana and Vishnu Purana, and the contemporary Pancaratra Samhitas (belonging to the Agama literature) are the main scriptures of Vaishnavism (Vishnuism), scilicet those schools and sects venerating Lord Vishnu as the personal form of the absolute reality and cosmic principle, the impersonal Brahman (which is not to be confused with the deity Brahma).
In Vaishnavism, there is no creation myth comparable to the Judaic (and Christian and Muslim) belief in a single beginning of the world at an earliest point in time. Instead of this western concept of a first world period initiated by a transcendent almighty being, the Pancaratra texts present the divine creation as an ongoing process originating in Vishnu which is timeless like the supreme being himself and is still unfolding and everlasting. The so-called Vyuha theory explains how that ultimate reality, Vishnu as the Brahman, manifests into the ever-changing material form of the spatio-temporal world by means of adopting the forms of Avatars. This concept of the world's origin comes closer to emanation theories of ancient western philosophy and of gnostic beliefs than to the western religious ideas known as ‚creatio ex nihilo‘.
But what is called ‚creation‘ in context of Vishnu theology, is not that process of the manifold world originating from a single entity, as explained in the Pancaratra doctrine just mentioned. Instead of this, what is called 'creation' in the myth of 'The Birth of Brahma' means the beginning of just one cosmic period, within a chain of numerous material worlds coming to existence one after another. In this Hindu myth, creation refers to the beginning of a new world era after the destruction of an earlier one. There is a stark contrast to the beliefs of western religions concerning both the beginning and the end of our material world, as in Hindu mythology the final event at the end of our aeon is not a single event. This is to say: It’s not something occuring once and for all at the end of all times. Instead, world destruction - just like world creation - will happen again and again and it‘s likewise a past event - not only a future one. This kind of dissolution of the material world occured and will occur innumerable times. It’s not an everlasting replacement of the material world by a better one, it’s just giving birth to another material world. Hence, the famous myth called ‚The Birth of Brahma‘ is the dawn of a new world era rather than the beginning of the entire timeline of our universe.
In short: In the specific Hindu creation myth associated with the primordial ocean and the birth of creator Brahma, both destruction and new creation are meant as periodically recurring. This kind of creation event is just a change of time periods. It’s as endlessly repeated as the cycles of day and night or summer and winter. The creation by the birth of Brahma is a new morning, the sleeping Vishnu marks its dawn as well as its underlying root cause.
As said, the new cosmos is born from an earlier one. Since all formed beings from the previous universe had been dissolved into a chaotic mass, only this unformed matter was left from the previous world and will be used to form a new one. In a sense, the chaos of total desintegration symbolised by the ocean carries an element of what is required for a new creation. Hence, there is an aspect of permanence within the decay. The symbol of this aspect of continuation in the said Vaishnava creation myth is the serpent serving as Vishnu’s bed. For this reason, the name of the cosmic serpent is 'Shesha', as this term literally translates to 'residue'. Even in classic Indian mathematical treatises, the Sanskrit word ‚shesha‘ means ‚remainder‘. In general, Shesha is what remains when everything else ceases to exist. The cosmic serpent is known by other names, too. ‚Sheshanaga‘ simply uses ‚naga‘ as a suffix, this byname being the Sanskrit term for ‚snake‘. In the Puranas, the primordial snake is sometimes referred to as ‚Ananta Shesha‘ or simply ‚Ananta‘, which means ‚endless‘. Another epithet is ‚Adi Shesha‘, the ‚First Shesha‘ or ‚Original Shesha‘, referring to the cosmic serpent as part of the creation. In the Bhagavata Purana, Shesha is also called 'Sankarshana', which is the cosmic energy of Lord Vishnu.
When the cosmic snake uncoils, time moves forward and creation takes place. Likewise, Shesha coiling back means the end of time marking the end of a cosmic aeon. Moreover, Shesha is considered a servant as well as a manifestation of Vishnu. Like Vishnu, Shesha descends to earth and incarnates in human beings. The cosmic serpent does so to be a helpful hand of Vishnu. Shesha's two Avatars in human form are Lakshmana, the brother of Rama, and Balarama, the brother of Krishna (both Rama and Krishna of course being Avatars of Vishnu himself).
Vishnu as the supreme being has adopted various names, too. ‚Purusha‘ is one of the designations of the supreme being in general. Depicted on the serpent in Hindu art, Vishnu is literally called 'recumbent on Ananta‘: ‚Anantasayin‘ or ‚Anantashayin‘ or ‚Anantashayana‘. (These are only diverse Latin transliterations of the same Sanskrit term, just as ‚shesha‘ is often spelt ‚sesha‘ in English). In Sanskrit, ‚shaya‘ means ‚sleep‘ and ‚shayana‘ denotes a bed or couch. 'Anantashayin' is used in the context of Hindu iconography, whereas the most common mythological names of Vishnu are ‚Vasudeva‘ and ,Narayana‘, both indicating his philosophical function as supreme being, viz. the deity being the ‚Parabrahman‘ according to Vaishnava schools of thought. (In Shaivism, of course, the personification of Parabrahman is Shiva.) In the emanation theory of the Vaihnavite Pancaratra theology known from the early Agama literature, Vishnu is most often referred to as ‚Vasudeva‘, an eponym of Krishna. In contrast, the Pancharatra system of the 11th century philosopher Ramanuja, founder of the popular Sri Vaishnava tradition, preferred the name ‚Narayana‘ for the supreme being. Both names are already mentioned in two of the most significant Sacred Scriptures of Vaishnavism, viz. in the Mahabharata epic as well as in the Bhagavata Purana. In these two ancient narrations, Vasudeva (with a short ‚a‘) is the father of Vasudeva-Krishna (then spelt with a long ‚a‘). Already in the great epic Narayana is called supreme being. Furthermore, the Mahabharata explicitely states that from this deity Lord Brahma took his rise in the days of yore, referring to the creation of the present world. According to the Bhagavata Purana, which is the most popular Puranic text of Vaishnavism, Narayana is the ultimate soul and in control of everything by immanently pervading it. In particular, he is associated with the cosmic waters of creation. The Puranic myths, which are more detailed than those found in the earlier Mabharata epic, have become the main sourcebooks for Hindu art and its iconography during the Indian Middle Ages. But in many instances they do not coincide with one another. Just as an example: In the Kurma Purana, Narayana as supreme being is identified with Lord Brahma instead of Lord Vishnu.
The location of Vishnu on Shesha on the ocean of milk is often referred to as Vaikuntha or Vaikunthaloka. This is also the name of the celestial abode of Vishnu. According to Vaishnavism, Vaikuntha is the highest realm which can be reached by enlightened or redeemed followers of Vishnu. It‘s situated beyond the material universe and, according to Vaishnavite theology, can be neither perceived by the material senses nor realised by human logical thought. This is to say, Vaikuntha is a transcendental abode. In illustrations of Vaikuntha, Vishnu is sometimes depicted without Shesha - or he is seen standing instead of reclining. But when shown in Vaikuntha, he is almost always accompanied by goddess Lakshmi.
Surprisingly, in Hindu works of art the ‚Vishnu Anantashayin‘ theme - though indicating the said Vaishnava creation myth in which Brahma plays a subordinate but nevertheless crucial role - is not ecaxtly identical with the subject that is called ‚The Birth of Brahma‘. To be sure, most paintings depicting the recumbent Vishnu on the serpent Shesha represent the birth of Brahma indeed. Usually, from the reclining Vishnu's navel emerges a lotus stalk, on the flower of which the multi-faced Brahma can be seen. However, in some carvings Brahma is absent from the scene. One of the most famous illustrations of ‚Vishnu Anantashayin‘ - and one of the earliest large-scale rock carvings of this kind at all - is the late 7th century panel in Mamallapuram (Mahabalipuram) in southeastern India. It is carved on the southern face of the rock-cut Mahishasuramardhini cave temple, also known as Yampuri. Though this more-than-head-high carving is very detailed and a lotus can clearly be seen emerging from Vishnu’s omphalos, Brahma himself is not depicted. The reason is: In that scene illustrated in the Yampuri cave the creator, Lord Brahma, has not yet come to existence. Earlier events, leading the way to the later birth of Brahma and to the the creation of the world, are represented at the said famous South-Indian rock-carving: In this episode, two small demons attempt to distract Vishnu from initiating the creation by attacking him with a mace. But they are chased away by the cosmic serpent and the perfectly relaxed Vishnu remains unconcerned, he is even pacifying Shesha by patting this helpful snake.
In the iconography of Khmer reliefs, there is another Anantashayin variant illustrating a stage preceding the birth of Brahma. Vishnu is depicted simply lying on the cosmic serpent, without any disturbance by demons. This Khmer variant, too, represents the state of peace in which the supreme god is about to create the world. As said, what's indicated is not yet the moment of creation itself but the perfect divine ease in his Yogic sleep that is the basis of initiating the creation. Like in the Indian Yapuri cave, it is the absence of Brahma on the lotus bud that distinguishes this type of Khmer carvings. It simply refers to an earlier episode from the same creation myth, not "The Birth of Brahma" in a narrow sense, but "The sleeping ans awakening Vishnu", viz. Anantashayin.
Another conspicuous feature of at least some Khmer representations of the Vaishnavite creation (or recreation) myth is the animal on which Vishnu rests. The famous illustration in the northern satellite temple of Preah Khan actually does not include a depiction of a snake! How can this be? Sleeping on the cosmic snake without a snake? A reclining Vishnu not reclining on Shesha? But take a look have a second guess. In Hindu art, the cosmic serpent Shesha has multiple hoods forming a canopy above the god’s head. Shesha is usually shown as a five-headed or seven-headed snake. Even more numerous hoods can be seen in Indian paintings. In contrast, the animal serving as Vishnu’s bed on the Preah Khan panel has only one head and this head is not a hood of a cobra but likens much more the face of a lion. Moreover, the long body of the animal depicted at Preah Khan has legs. It’s not entirely clear, what species of animal this is meant to be.
Commonly, the beast serving as 'bed of Vishnu' at Preah Khan is identified as a dragon. And this might well be the case, as the mythological snake seen in Indian works of art is often replaced by a dragon in the art of the Far East. Thus, the enigmatic animal at Preah Khan could be a modified form of a Sesha, more resembling a dragon with a long reptile body with legs and the head of a mammal. However, there is reason to doubt that this animal seen at the famous creation myth lintel of Preah Khan represents a snake-like being at all.
Vittorio Roveda, who published the most comprehensive volume on ancient Khmer stone carvings, identifies the animal serving as Vishnu’s bed at Preah Khan as a Reachisey, an amphibian mythic being typical of Khmer art, particularly where water plays a role. But Roveda's interpretation of the Preah Khan lintel in question can't be taken for granted, either. The most notable animal depiction called Reachisey can be found at the stream bed of Kbal Spean. This obvious Reachisey is clearly identifiably as an amphibian and looks very much like a lizard. Its head does not at all resemble a lion.
Another interpretation is, that the mysterious beast below the reclining Vishnu of Preah Khan could be a Khmer variant of a Gajasimha. In Indian art, ‚Gajasimha‘ is the name of a specific animal that is a hybrid fabulous beast. The term literally translates to ‚elephant-lion‘. Indeed, the lion face of the enigmatic animal at the creation myth panel of Preah Khan has a trunk, though the trunk is not as long as in depictions of elephants. In Indian art, Gajasimhas usually have the body of a lion and the head is entirlely that of an elephant. However, Khmer variants of Gajasimhas known from the Angkor Wat period have lion-mane heads with trunks. Gajasimhas of this earlier period, characterized by a more lion-like head, can be seen displayed in the Angkor Wat within the huge panel known as the 'Churning of the Sea of Milk'. An illustration of Vishnu reclining on the primordial ocean is also depicted on a stelae commemorating Angkor Wat founder Suryavarman II, which is on display in the Musée Guimet in Paris. But again, the interpretation of the enigmatic animal forming Vishnu’s couch as a slightly modified Gajasimha is not entirely convincing, because the animal in question has scales, clearly identifying it as an aquatic being.
Another reading therefore could be that the mysterious animal on display at Preah Khan is a Khmer version of a Makara, another hybrid beast. This identification seems most likely. In Hindu and Buddhist art, Makaras are usually seen as crocodiles. But even in India and Sri Lanka, there are quite different variants of this oceanic animal, some of them without any features of a crocodile, but all of them with scales like a fish. In Indian art, Makaras typically combine features of more than only two animals. Likewise does the creature of the Preah Khan panel, it has characteristics of fish or amphibians, lion, and elephant.
Whatever kind of mythical animal may be represented in the Preah Khan depiction of the Vaishnavite creation myth – Dragon or Reachisey or Gajasimha or Makara - , the replacing of the snake by an animal with legs and a lion mane can be regarded as the most outstanding modification of Hindu iconography in Angkorean art.
In contrast to classical Hindu iconography and Indian works of art, the Khmer illustrations of Vishnu Anantashayin usually do not show the lotos stem growing from Vishnu’s umbilicus, but originating somewhere behind him, from his back or maybe even without touching his body at all. This too is a typical Khmer alteration of the original iconograpy.
creation myth with Vishnu reclining on a fabulous beast at Preah Khan
It's likely, that the enigmatic animal of the Preah Khan carving is not simply a variant of the cosmic snake. A depiction of Shesha, of course, is expected in a panel illustrating the said Vaishnava creation myth. But this specific expectation might well be disappointed in this case, as Preah Khan's fabulous beast instead could be an additional being coming to the forefront, but one that is not neccesarily representing the serpent Sesha. This is to say: Perhaps the Naga Sesha is not depicted here at all. This hypothesis can be strenthened by comparing the Preah Khan relief with another famous Khmer lintel carving, which on first sight seems to be quite similar.
for comparison: Phra Narai Lintel in Phanom Rung in Thailand
The most famous carving of the Khmer temple Phanom Rung in Thailand is the Phra Narai Lintel, known as ‚Thap Lang Narai Banthomsin‘ in Thai, ‚Narai‘ simply being the name of ‚Narayana‘. One reason for the fame of the lintel is politics. It had been stolen from Phanom Rung in the 1960s and was acquired by the Art Institute of Chicago in 1967, where it was described as ‚Birth of Brahma with Reclining Vishnu on a Makara‘. After massive public protests in Thailand due to the disclosure of involvement of US officials in the art theft, it was finally restored to its original position in 1988, then marking the completion of the restoration of Phanom Rung.
Thailand's famous Phra Narai Lintel depicts a mythical being serving as Vishnu’s bed which is quite similar to the carving of Preah Khan’s northern satellite temple. However, there is some significant distinction. In contrast to the Preah Khan relief, the Phra Narai Lintel of Phanom Rung depicts both the enigmatic lion-head beast and the serpent Shesha. At second glance, a typical Shesha is present at the Phra Narai Lintel, besides the main animal. Sesha's body is very thin here and therefore it can easily be overlooked. Nonetheless, the serpent's long body can be seen as a narrow rope just in between the enigmatic lion-head animal and the reclining Vishnu. It's easily identifiable as an illustration of a mythical snake due to its multiple cobra hoods. This is Shesha. Vishnu is recling on the serpent. But both Vishnu and Shesha are reclining on another animal that is much more eye-catching than Shesha in the case of Thailand's Phra Narai Lintel.
In contrast, a being with hoods is completely absent at the Preah Khan relief. Due to the lack of a depiction of a snake, the lion-mane animal is often interpreted as a Khmer variant of Shesha. But this seems to be wrong when comparing the carving in question to the Phra Narai Lintel of the great Khmer temple in Thailand, as the lion-like animal and the snake Shesha are two distinct beings in the latter representation of the very same creation myth. Hence, the mysterious dragon seen at Preah Khan should be considered to be a Khmer addition to the creation scene rather than a Khmer replacement or Khmer variant of the cosmic serpent. Just like the serpent, the enigmatic animal is a symbol of water. But the serpent is a chthonic being bringing water and fertility to the land, whereas the Makara is a mythical being living in maritime regions. Hereby, it's even more intimately connected to the ocean than the cosmic serpent Shesha.
As can be seen at almost all Angkor temples, water plays a more prominent role in Khmer art than in Indian iconography. In general, the contrast of the ocean and the land centered at the mountain of Gods is a common element of most pre-islamic religious traditions of Southeast Asia and more prevalent than in Indian art. Particularly, the creation myth of the Khmer refers to land being born from the ocean. The enigmatic fabulous beast on which Vishnu reclines in the depiction seen at Preah Khan therefore is best understood as emphasizing even stronger the significance of the element water in the origin of the earthly world - that Vishnu is about to be bring to existence by soon giving birth to creator-deity Brahma.
In contrast, a being with hoods is completely absent at the Preah Khan relief. Due to the lack of a depiction of a snake, the lion-mane animal is often interpreted as a Khmer variant of Shesha. But this seems to be wrong when comparing the carving in question to the Phra Narai Lintel of the great Khmer temple in Thailand, as the lion-like animal and the snake Shesha are two distinct beings in the latter representation of the very same creation myth. Hence, the mysterious dragon seen at Preah Khan should be considered to be a Khmer addition to the creation scene rather than a Khmer replacement or Khmer variant of the cosmic serpent. Just like the serpent, the enigmatic animal is a symbol of water. But the serpent is a chthonic being bringing water and fertility to the land, whereas the Makara is a mythical being living in maritime regions. Hereby, it's even more intimately connected to the ocean than the cosmic serpent Shesha.
As can be seen at almost all Angkor temples, water plays a more prominent role in Khmer art than in Indian iconography. In general, the contrast of the ocean and the land centered at the mountain of Gods is a common element of most pre-islamic religious traditions of Southeast Asia and more prevalent than in Indian art. Particularly, the creation myth of the Khmer refers to land being born from the ocean. The enigmatic fabulous beast on which Vishnu reclines in the depiction seen at Preah Khan therefore is best understood as emphasizing even stronger the significance of the element water in the origin of the earthly world - that Vishnu is about to be bring to existence by soon giving birth to creator-deity Brahma.
Northern part of Preah Khan‘s temple proper (2nd enclosure)
Dvarapala at 2nd Northern Gopuram of Preah Khan
|
northeastern quarter of Preah Khan's 2nd enclosure
|
In contrast to the wide square at the eastern access, containing the hall of dancers and the Cruciform Gopuram, the interspace between the northern satellite temple (within enclosure 3) and the temple proper (enclosure 2) is very narrow. It isn‘t marked by an extraordinarily large gateway tower, either. However, the northern entrance of the main temple of Preah Khan is remarkable for a different reason. The wall just to the west of the doorway has become strangled by a tree and the pilaster of the doorway has a well-preserved carving of a Dvarapala. Together, the Dvarapala in the foreground and the strangler fig in the background are one of the most picturesque sights of the entire Preah Khan temple.
More tricky to find in the collapsed northern section of the temple proper are two sublime carvings of the sisters Indradevi and Jayadevi, who both became wives of Jayavarman, one after another.
More tricky to find in the collapsed northern section of the temple proper are two sublime carvings of the sisters Indradevi and Jayadevi, who both became wives of Jayavarman, one after another.
Southern satellite temple of Preah Khan (3rd enclosure)
ancestor spirit temple in the south of Preah Khan
|
broken sculpture in the southern satellite temple of Preah Khan
|
The southern wing of Preah Khan is broken and had not been accessible for many years, but it’s reopened now. This southern satellite temple was dedicated to ancestor worship for the deceased Khmer kings. Parts are still engulfed in the forest. Several lintel and pediment carvings are placed on the ground now, just along the main north-south axis of the temple complex. This area is even less frequented than the northern satellite temple.
Gatehouse of Preah Khan’s southern temple (3rd Southern Gopuram)
Dvarapala guardian statues at the south gate of the third enclosure
|
Krishna in combat against demons at Southern Gopuram III
|
The southern Gopuram III, giving access to the said southern adjacent temple, has a well-preserved large pediment over its porch. In the upper parts, it shows an imposing two-armed figure of Krishna, the main incarnation of Vishnu, proudly standing on his chariot pulled by a horse. A crowd of warriors is depicted below them. This pediment carving does not represent a scene from the Indian epic Mahabharata but a mythic battle between the gods and demons (Devas resp. Asuras), as indicated by the presence of them at the pediment’s base: There are depictions of a demon falling from his chariot and, on the opposite side, of the fire deity Agni seated on his rhinoceros, preceded by the water god Varuna on his large goose.
Like the other gateways of enclosure III, the southern Gopuram III is flanked by two gigantic guardian figures, which are in a pretty proper state of conservation. One of the threshold guardians is depicted in the typical aggressive attitude to deter forces of evil from entering the sacred area, while its counterpart seems to be slightly more gentle and inviting.
Like the other gateways of enclosure III, the southern Gopuram III is flanked by two gigantic guardian figures, which are in a pretty proper state of conservation. One of the threshold guardians is depicted in the typical aggressive attitude to deter forces of evil from entering the sacred area, while its counterpart seems to be slightly more gentle and inviting.
Southern city gate of Preah Khan (4th Southern Gopuram)
|
|
The southern end of the Preah Khan compound is defined by the outer southern gate. Of the four gates giving access to the walled temple town of Preah Khan, the southern doorway is the least spectacular now, as it is not as well-preserved as the others and the Naga railings of the former access causeways crossing the moat are in a delapidated condition, although remnants of some of the Devas and Ashuras pulling the cosmic snake Naga are still in situ and the lotus-shaped roof of the right tower is intact.
This fourth Southern Gopuram is the only outer main gate of Preah Khan that is rarely frequented by tourists. As mentioned, travellers looking for an experience of a lost temple in the jungle are recommended to visit the rarely-visited southern parts of Preah Khan.
This fourth Southern Gopuram is the only outer main gate of Preah Khan that is rarely frequented by tourists. As mentioned, travellers looking for an experience of a lost temple in the jungle are recommended to visit the rarely-visited southern parts of Preah Khan.
