Pram Temple (Koh Ker)

Prasat Pram, or Pram Temple, of Koh Ker is another of the must-see temples and one of the iconic photo spots of the area. It is a group of three square brick temples built on a common terrace fronted by two “library” buildings, one in brick and one in laterite. The site is surrounded by a laterite wall with an entrance on the east.

Two of the brick towers are renowned for the tree roots that have spectacularly engulfed the entire structure making for a stunning sight and as mentioned, one of the most popular spots for photography and selfies in the Koh Ker group. This is the first site along the route around the temples and it’s recommended to get here early for the morning light, and/or on your departure for the evening light, to capture the best photos. Cloud cover can also help in getting a nicely balanced photo here.

Photos from the 2021 tour

Historical Notes

It is, at the reserve of remains IK 265.2, the southernmost point and the last investigations have not extended the area of ​​the Koh Ker group in this direction, whereas they have considerably enlarged it in the three others, especially in the East and North.

The monument (fig. 13, 14, ph. XXVII, XXVIII) is 800 m. approximately to the South-West of Pr. Nãn Khmau, 3 km. 500 straight south of the SW corner. of the Rahal. It is (fig. 13) a front of three high brick towers, aligned S.-N. and oriented exactly to the East; this group is preceded by two intermediate buildings between the library and the prását, one in brick to the south, the other in laterite to the north. The whole is enclosed in a 48 m laterite enclosure. N.-S. over 44 m. E.-W., barely marked rectangle and in the unusual sense. This unique enclosure is cut to the east by a cross terrace, the base of a lightly constructed gopura which has left no other trace. To the south-east of the enclosure is a trapan.

The towers (fig. 13 and ph. XXVII A) are quite large, 6 meters per side for the central tower, 5 m. for the others, with a distance from axis to axis of approximately 8.50m. The N. tower is complete and therefore almost dark; the S. tower suffered the most. They are tall and their details are large; thus the bay of the central tower leaves a gap of 2.40m on 1.20m. We will make the description after this tower.

It rises on a square room, above a cove cornice which carried a ceiling, a vault by corbels and drums very neat. The true lintel with trunnions does not reach the interior wall; it is relieved by a very wide arch and traced in low form, so as not to come to cut the cornice. The floor of the cella must have been seriously below the threshold; this detail is clearer on the S. tower which has kept the periphery of its stone paving: it is at .63m below the upper surface of the sill (fig. 14). Only shapeless debris remains from the pedestal to the central tower. That of the S. tower is upset; only two fairly large pieces remain which show a communication between the median voids. In the central tower, a circular fragment decorated with a lotus is perhaps the remains of a small offering box.

The towers, on the outside, are united by a common terrace and are supported by sideboards, single in the side towers, doubtless double in the central tower. The basement-terrace has steps to the right of the doors on the east side. You can see the chiseled picture rail of the S. crypt of the E. porch of the central tower. The angle of this sandstone base appears at the N.-E. like a frank lotus profile in partial symmetry around a double-thickness band. The steps that stand out have simpler figures. The towers raise their bare faces between a cove base with five profiles and a cornice of the same kind which loses one of these.

The doors, of large dimensions, have their deep frame in the E.-O. direction. Its outline is a little different from the usual profile, but it is, as always. miter joints. The octagonal columns are of a beautiful composition with five elements. The lintels, which have remained in spanning, only show the escutcheon intended to provide the mass of the central motif. The pilaster has its cornice equal to the whole of the lintel and the decorative band and bears a very low inverted U-shaped pediment. The false doors, simple, repeat the same arrangement in the mass. The cut of the door to the S. tower is particular (fig. 1). The floors, at least three in number, set back slightly, are lost in the foliage.

The S. library (ph. xxvii b) has two floors above the body and despite this abnormal shape, seems to fit well into the series of buildings. It is an elongated pen in the E.-O direction. (5 m. 75 against 5 m. 53 in the N.-S. direction). It has its lateral and posterior faces bare, but its two stories show false-bays in gable, diamond-shaped holes placed in staggered rows on the large faces and in the false bays on the two stories, above the false bay S. from the second rises a gable. The W. w’ door offers more than its frame and five-piece balusters.

Building N, in laterite, is undoubtedly a sanctuary and is also equipped by an author who was given a somewhat special shape, as was also modified the library to allow a certain unity. The building is rectangular, but the difference of the sides is small 1.20m against 4.70m. It also has no false doors, but its floors are regularly decreasing and smaller than those of the neighboring library. It is likely that, as in many laterite sanctuaries, of this period, the last ended in small gables, but it is impossible to ascertain either from the inside or from the outside.

The W door has its true lintel relieved by a trefoil arch, a rare form at this point. Colonettes are of the ordinary five-element type; the lintel is bare.

The gopura E. doubtless consisted of a light building with a higher terrace, straddling the surrounding wall, extended by a lower wing to the east. Two steps are on the E.-O axis. and two others, facing east, gave access to the N. and S. arms of the gopura. The basement is in laterite and the profile is pushed into it with enough detail. The main part is treated in the lotus system, the lower projection E. in the ogee system, but in both cases around a flat band. A terrace raised this gopura; another, large and low, in the shape of a cross, received the towers, the two buildings E. and perhaps the own gopura terrace; I could not see in this case how the two terraces would have been compared together.

The laterite enclosing wall had a chaperone in the form of a roof with curved pansi, crested by a series of ovoid-terminated spikes, some of which can still be seen in its northern section.

Leaning against the S. false door of the S. tower, we found a statue of a male (ph. xxvii) in sandstone, just one meter high, standing, with four arms unfortunately lost as well as the head. The statue does not wear any jewelry, it is dressed in a vertically striped sampot, under a folded back, but where we can perhaps see the origin of the anchored sides, in a curious and delicate study of the parts of fabric falling forward. I admit to misunderstanding the element that goes over the belt, especially if it is part of it.

200m away. to the south-east of Pr. Pram lies on the ground an enormous pedestal with a monolithic linga, IK 265. 2, idol of a light sanctuary independent of the preceding one. The block is broken into several pieces and the sandstone is so decomposed that it takes some care not to confuse this piece with an ordinary rock.

L’Art khmèr classique , monuments du quadrant Nord-Est, par Henri Parmentier, 1939

Rodney Charles LHuillier

Living in Asia for over a decade and now residing in beautiful Siem Reap. Rodney Charles L'Huillier has spent over seven years in Cambodia and is the author of Ancient Cambodia (2024) and Essential Siem Reap (2017, 2019). Contact via [email protected] - more..