Archeology of images 2 – The Khmer naval battle !

Archeology of images 2 – The Khmer naval battle ! 🇰🇭 This is a brief commentary on a group of collated photographs of the naval battle reliefs of Banteay Chmar and of the Bayon based on available evidence, I accept that we do not know where and when and who were the commanders seen in the naval battle reliefs at either temple. Nevertheless, I propose a hypothesis of interpretation for these reliefs and even if we cannot accurately fit the naval battle into the history of Cambodia, for sure we can position these reliefs amongst the masterpieces of Khmer art of any time. The photographs are impressive for clarity and homogeneity of colour, probably taken after the restoration that removed black streaks of fungi and lichens. The picture of Bayon was given by Michel Petrochenko (Fig1) and that of Banteay Chmar by Olivier Cunin (Fig2), who I vividly thank here. Being able to see in one glance the entire 15 meters of narrative facilitate me to re-read individually in detail, and to compare them. The reliefs of the naval battle in Banteay Chmar are carved on the wall of the eastern gallery-south wing and those from Bayon on the southern gallery-east wing. The Boats - I do not have to enter general data and description of the various ships attending the battle because this was excellently done by Michel Jacq’Hergoulac’h in 1973 and in 2001. He carefully described the various types of boats, the number or rowers and the type of rowing equipment and armory. He noticed that boats were large at the center with sharp ends, low, pushed by oars and paddles, as reported that Zhou Ta-Kuan (in Pelliot 1902:172). The boats were’ monoxile’ (one piece of wood) carved into a trunk of a local tree named koki and have the general outline of the boats decorating the Dong Son drums. Jacq’Hergoulac’h observed that at Bayon and B.Chmar there are six types of boats and that in total in the two reliefs there are 29 Khmer boats and 14 Cham. The number of rowers per boat ranges from 11 to 15 men. In almost in all boats a helmsman is visible. In practice, the length of the boat (ranging from 15 to 27 meters) should be extended to accommodate so many men on the gangway. On the boats of the kings or admiral (type 5), there are comparatively lesser marines, but lots of insignia of power; they were generally pushed by rowers (not by paddlers). According to Jacq’ Hergoulac’h, the similitude of the boats of the two contenders is an indication that in the reliefs the boats were not copies of real models, implying that sculptors modified elements with their imagination. I like to make the comment that with at last 15-20 rowers and 20 marines on board, and the massive bronze or heavily decorated wood prow, the boats were too heavy for maneuverability. They certainly are not sea boat but freshwater vessels, probably ritual boats. At Bayon and Banteay Chmar, everybody can see that the boats have shallow draft and low freeboard; the shape of the hull is rounded and it does not seems to have a keel. We have a technical choice of names: canoe, pirogue, barge, and vessel. In 2014 archaeologists from Apsara Authority, excavated a boat from a site near Siem Reap (Kra Raleung village). The length of the boat is of 15 m, dug in a single log from as Koki tree, therefore not planked vessel (Veronica Walker Vadillo: 2016: 62).They concluded it was a boat similar to those used in modern Cambodia during the Water Festival, carrying rows of paddlers. The excavated boat was carbon-dated between 14th and 15th century. Most of the boats on the reliefs of Bayon and B.Chmar seems to be more robust, higher and more capacious; other similar boats are carved in Bayon’s northern inner gallery, eastern wing (Fig.3) It is clearly visible that all the boats are propelled by paddlers and by rowers probably sitting down or kneeling, protected by side walls of rattan or wood. From these protections emerge 12/15 oars. In some cases there are oars fixed to a wood panel acting as rowlock (Veronica Walker Vadillo: 2016: 62, Fig.5). Usually there is one helmsman. There are symmetrical holes for paddles and paddlers on the other side of the boat, large enough to accommodate a row of paddlers, at the least 12. On the reliefs, the number of rowers is greater than that of the holes, averaging 20 men. Each boat carry about 14 standing armed soldiers (marines).Each boat has the prow decorated with mythological animals, in the form of Garuda, Naga, and Makara. They may been carved in wood and painted, or cast in bronze. Considering these rough numbers, it appears that the boats were carrying 30 men (or 60 if double flanked rows of rowers), and boats weighting at least 2 tons (including the massive prow and bow).The weight of c.30 soldiers and rowers, averaging 60 kilos each, amounts to 1800 kilos wound be excessive for such small boats, becoming easily prey of smaller lighter boats. I believe that the sculptors had a mythical memory of the event, and enjoyed artistic freedom. On the reliefs, the Khmer’s commander, or king, leads his flotilla from left to right (West to East), while the boats with Chams are coming from the right side of the relief moving to the left (from East to West). One of this boats has an entirely Cham equipage. 1 - Left side of the naval battle relief. At Bayon and B.Chmar I have conventionally separate the carved naval battle panel in two parts; the left with the main body of the battle, and to the right side, the smaller carving of the presumed end of the battle. I deal first with the left side, illustrating the intense battle. Later I will look at the extreme right part, the conclusion of the story. At Bayon, in the main left part is clear that the boats are arranged on three registers. At Bantey Chmar they seems to be on 2 registers. In both cases it appears that the Khmers, coming from the west, have surrounded the Cham’s boats, mainly depicted in the lower registers. At the top left of the relief, a large figure is shown proudly standing on a boat, very eminent at Banteay Chmar (Fig.4), eroded and incomplete at Bayon (Fig.5). He has the status of a leader and, from comparisons with Banteay Chmar, he could be the Khmer King Jayavarman VII, even though the hairpin is not visible. Some of the Khmer marines have thrown boarding hooks to Cham boats. Many soldiers fall into the water full of fish, including giant cat fish; there are also three crocodiles and two turtles. From the acts of heroism of Khmer marines and numerical superiority it is clear that it is a victory for the Khmers. On the top left part of the relief of Bayon, the boat of the much eroded large figure of the leader, has the prow decorated with a massive naga that has inside his multiple heads the image of Krishna (from the myth of Krishna subduing the naga Kaliya, Fig.4), almost identical of that of Banteay Chmar (Fig.5). This Bayon vast composition of the naval battle is underlined by a frieze occupying the entire lower register, depicting scene of daily life at the marked, at food stall happening between palm trees. It is puzzling to see such a variety of relaxed activities going on in a village and a market on the shore of stretch of water where a cruel battle rages and people are dying. On the top crest of the relief, several blocks have palm trees carved in between soldiers. If this is correct (the block were tentatively used to cap the relief at the end of its reconstruction), it indicates that there was another shore with trees, implying that the scene happens between two shores, in a river (Tonle Sap River, Mekong?) or in a baray, moat or canal. The shallowness of the water in the carved scenes is demonstrated by the concentration of fish. In both locations there are 3 crocodiles and corpses lying on the shallow bottom; at Banteay Chmar, on the left edge of the little wall’s door, there is a scene interpreted as two fishermen setting a trap for fish. None of the daily' life scenes of Bayon appear at Banteay Chmar where the naval scene is delimited, top and bottom, by an undecorated sandstone frame. Bayon’s outer door ‘B’ marks the western end of the naval battle relief. 2 - Right side of the naval battle relief. The extreme right portion of the carved panel in both temples displays some peculiar events (at B. Chmar to the right of the door) needing special attention. At Bayon, the well preserved relief shows a large figure seated in a floating building on a floor made with reeds’ mats (a floating barge?). He has the short hairs of the Khmers and wears a heavy (gold?) necklace but the Vishnu hairpin is missing. At Banteay Chmar, to the right of the door, the entire relief is unfinished and worn out, making difficult to perceive the figure of the presumed leader/commander that we imagine was there on the basis of correlation with Bayon (and on the assumption that the battles represent the same event). At Bayon, he is seated on an ornate chair with arms with (bronze?) naga heads, inside a small pavilion with curtains and slaves keeping him cool with fan. He is larger than the surrounding figures, holds a short sward, looking at the battle. The small construction has lateral sides typical Khmer building, but the central conical dome is not seen in other Khmer architecture reliefs; perhaps it is a royal tent. At Banteay Chmar, the imposing figure is missing; it may be hidden in the highest pavilion with high roof and typical Khmer windows with turned bars, perhaps a wooden floating pavilion. The pavilion below appears to be floating over a layer of banded reeds. On it, in both temples there are seated soldiers looking at a small acrobat with one leg raised at the height of the extended arm, dancing at the music of a harpist. This acrobate has been observed on a proto-historic artifact of Oc Eo (Coe 2003:67 Fig.24-b). The relief terminates to extreme right with rows of tall rectangular shields of soldiers At Bayon, the presence in the relief of two royal figures (one on a boat and the other in a tent) raises a question. Who are the two leaders or the kings, or the same king is shown twice? If the one standing on the boat (to the left of the relief) is the Khmer King Jayavarman VII, who is sitting in a tent (Bayon) and in a wooden pavilion (B.Chmar)? Could-he be the leader of a civil rebellion, a Khmer commander with lots of Cham mercenaries fighting another Khmer commander with few Cham mercenaries? The Pandora box of interpretations opens. 3 - The Great naval battle’s interpretation. Coedès, proposed in 1921 and in 1932 that at Bayon the naval battle was that won by Jayavarman VII and that put an end to the Cham invasion of 1177. The legend persisted about a Chinese sailor-who piloted the Cham ships down the coast of Champa, then up the river (Mekong-Tonle Sap) to surprise and pillage the Cambodian capital and return with an enormous booty (Maspero 1899: 163-64). There is no epigraphic evidence for this battle (Vickery 2004: 4), apart two verses of the Phimeanakas stele write that the Chams came by carts (raha), thus by land. Therefore Jayavarman VII defeated the Cham in 1177on land, immediately after their invasion of Angkor and before becoming king. There is no relationship to our naval battle. In 1941, Coedès believed that a great victory was obtained by Jayavarman VII over the Cham at the site of the future Preah Khan (of Angkor) where the Cham King was killed. He also implied that "the sea of blood spread by the Bhārgava", meaning that "the Bhārgava the king of the Chams”. Groslier (1973,page 165) believed that, according to inscription K.485, this celebrated naval battle may have taken place before 1190 when Jayavarman VII left Angkor for conquering Vijaia and other countries (of Champa). It was a definitive victory over the Cham King Jaya-Indravarman IV of Gramapura who had previously defeated the Khmer King Tribhuvanadityavarman (Groslier 1973: 166). The site of this battle is questionable and Groslier suggested somewhere on the Mekong, perhaps Vat Nokor. In 2005, I suggested (Bayon, page 353) that instead of a real battle, the relief of Bayon represent an enactment of a mythic battle during a special event (possibly the Water Festival, like nowadays) commemorating the imaginary (but patriotic) Khmer naval definitive victory over the Chams, while on the shore of the water (lake, river, canal or moat), common Khmer people were happily attending their daily activities at the market in a festive mood. In another interpretation it is assumed that, at Bayon and B.Chmar, if the leader standing on the boat to the top left of the panel is Vidyanandana, the Cham prince adopted-son of Jayavarman VII, and not the Khmer king himself (although wearing The Vishnu pin), this panel could visually narrate another episode of Prince Vidyanandana subduing the rebellious Khmers of Malayan, a province in the area of modern Battambong. In this case, the King would be, at Bayon, the figure hiding in the floating tent of pavilion of B.Chmar, at the right end of the relief. I regret to enter the archeology of fantasy. According Dr.Olivier Cunin, outstanding expert in Khmerology, it appears that the wall decorated with murals of the naval battle at Banteay Chmar was carved before the similar one at Bayon. 4 – Conclusion. By using all this information I put forward my interpretation similar of that of 2005. The reliefs depict a re-enactment of a naval battle that by the time it was carved, had become mythical. It took place in one moat, canal or baray, or water surface large enough to support so many boats and near enough to the shore to be visible to people busy with people at the market with food stalls, or doing daily chores in a festive atmosphere (Water Festival?). Therefore, I categorially believe that the naval battle carved at Bayon and B.Chmar do not illustrate the important battle when the Khmer definitively defeated the Chams in 1177, terminating the Cham invasion of Cambodia which happened on land. Concerning the site where the battle may have happened, I can tentatively make some suggestions. Bayon was at the centre of Angkor Thom, a large town with its royal palace, defence walls and gates, sacred ponds and temples. It benefitted of an abundant and constant supply of water from a sophisticated system of canals, baray and dams. Angkor Thom had a large populations, needing generous food supply and markets. Angkor Thom was culturally connected with Angkor Wat and ancestral traditions. In the Angkor area there were enough water surfaces to celebrate the Water Festival and a commemorative naval battle. The moat of Angkor would be the ideal location, with a market and food stalls. The event of the naval battle had remained in the memory of bards or travelling storytellers and eventually be materialised in the reliefs of Banteay Chmar and soon after of Bayon. Finally in my interpretation there is one problem: what about the marines drowning or dying in the water and falling at the bottom of the basin? This question can only be answered by thinking that at the time, in the fervour of recreating the battle and using real war-arms, many were wounded and thrown into the water, drowning or dying. It was an enactment of a mythical battle, allowing artist to carve what they wanted especially frightening and lethal events like a man eaten by a crocodile. They illustrated an innumerable number of fish that should have been scared away by the turmoil and noise of the battle. Cruel entertainment was common in the Middle Age. It is certain that the same sculptors’ workshops of Banteay Chmar worked at Bayon, coping the naval battle layout to the smallest detail. At Bayon the wall was higher, allowing three registers of boats, reduced to 2 at Banteay Chmar and the illustration of the market And daily life stories. We are still in darkness about which commanders/prince/king were involved in this battle and who started. The reliefs do not elucidate if there was a compact Cham fleet, or a mixture of Khmer and Cham mercenaries. Some artists carved some rowers paddling facing forward and other backwards, still sailing in the same direction. Ancient texts do not record this important naval battle, and the story comes from the need of Western scholars to question its relevance with respect to the cultural production of meanings (including myself). Again I would like to express my gratitude to Olivier Cunin and Michel Petrochenko for having helped me in the preparation of this paper. Siem Reap 15/05/2016 BIBLIOGRAPHY Coe Michael D., Angkor and the Khmer Civilization, Thames and Hudson, London, 2003. Coedes George, Quelques suggestions sur la méthode a suivre pour l’interprétation des bas-reliefs de Banteay Chmar et de la galérie extérieure du Bayon, in Etudes Cambodgien XXVIII, BEFEO Coedes George, The Indianized States of Southeast Asia, University Press of Haway, 1968 Cunin Olivier, https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/.../The%20historical... Groslier Baptiste Pierre, Inscriptions du Bayon, in J. Dumarcay, Le Bayon, histoire architecturale du temple, Publications de l’EFEO, Mem. Archeol. 111-2, Paris, 1973 Jacq’Hergoulac’h Michel, L’armement et l’organisation de l’armée Khmère, Publication du Musée Guimet, Recherches et documents d’art et aerchéologie 12, Paris,1973 Jacq’Hergoulac’h Michel, Quelques représantations d’embarcations monoxiles en Asie du Sud-Et, Technique et Coultures , Editéur de la Maison des sciences de l’Homme, Paris 2001: 401-416 Petrochenko Michel, Focusing on the Angkor Temples, The Guidebook, Patrochenko-Amarin Press, Thailand 2011 Roveda Vittorio, Reliefs of the Bayon, in A. J .Clarke (Ed.) Bayon New Perspectives 2006: 286-361, River Books, Bangkok 2006. Vikery Michael, Champa Revisited, private manuscript in 2006 Walker Vadillo Veronica, The Boats of Angkor, Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 2016: 261-3 Article Credit by @Khmerimagery By Vittorio Roveda Admin | RTN ៚