Wat Preah Put Nipean

Today the site of a contemporary monastery and pagoda, it was built on the site of an ancient 7th-century temple whose remains are still visible. The monastery itself has a heritage dating to the Post-Angkorian period with an inscription discovered at the site dated to the 17th century. The Post-Angkorian inscription and a 7th-century inscription were carved into the base of a linga belonging to the earlier time period. A stunning circa 7th-century statue of the standing Buddha was also discovered here.

Historical Notes

Vat Prah Nirpean. This bonzerie is built on the site of an ancient temple, the remains of which are still visible, enclosed in the vihára.

We can indeed see the ruins of two square brick sanctuaries open to the E. and aligned N.-S. The N. sanctuary measures approximately meters on a side externally. The door is formed by a frame of schistose slabs which are weathering. surmounted by a decorative lintel with an ornamental motif without figures (type V). The columns are missing from the walls on all four sides and are razed to a height of 2 meters.

Of the second of these sanctuaries, located 8 meters to the S. of the forebody (face to face), there remains only the N. face shaved to meters from the ground and part of the E. face. Face A is decorated with a false door. Blocks of bricks, arranged on the side panels of this face, were intended to be worked with chisels; all the rest of the monument was destroyed and the materials were removed. employed in the development of the modern pagoda.

The monks have in fact built a wall at support height which joins the two sanctuaries by extending their W faces. In the recess thus created between the S. face of the N. sanctuary, the N. face of the S. sanctuary and this wall of recent construction, they have built their statue of the reclining Buddha coach who gave his name to the pagoda.

M. Aymonier (Cambodia. I. 209), describing this pagoda – where the ruins of an old brick tower still stand, the rear face of which extends into a wall which returns further at right angles to shelter on three sides a large statue of the reclining Buddha, has committed an inaccuracy, which is all the more important to correct as one could, wrongly, conclude from this description that the statue of the reclining Buddha was part of the initial plan: what M. Aymonier took for a section of wall returning at a right angle to be in reality the N. face of a second sanctuary: we therefore find ourselves here in the presence of a group of two. perhaps three sanctuaries which fits into the general rule.

Large slabs of stone are placed on the ground near the pagoda: they must have been intended to form the door frame of the second sanctuary and perhaps that of the third which, in this case, would have been built to the S. of the two caves: the unfinished sanctuary of which only a section of wall remains is in fact of slightly larger dimensions than those of the sanes do N. and must, therefore, have been the central edifice.

On the altar of the vihara, are two ancient sandstone statues are beautifully crafted. One of them represents a character wearing a conical mukuta surmounting a sort of square cap like the caps of priests, it is covered with jewels: the head appears quite fine under the thick layer of lacquer and gilding which covers it. Next to it is a Buddlra preaching, of rather happy execution; standing, he lifts over his arms a sort of long cloak which falls in front and behind down to his feet. This statue is also covered in lacquer and gilding

Inventaire descriptif des monuments du Cambodge, E. Lunet de Lajonquière, 1902

We will first mention, among these new sculptures, two standing Buddhas, of primitive Khmer art, one at Vat Práḥ Nirpan, IK. 76, province of Kompon Spu, the other in Tuol Práḥ That, Khum de Rolan Čak, in the same province, and who both have their bodies entirely covered by the samghați.

The Buddha of Práh Nirpãn is almost human size (1.31m) but unfortunately lacquered and gilded (Pl. LXVIII 3); the craftsmen who thought they were beautifying the statue took the opportunity to modify the expression of the face by retouching the eyes. These, originally open, as appears to be indicated by a rim located at the upper part of the eyeballs, are today half-closed, probably by the artifice of a thick layer of lacquer. It also seems that the point ending the uşnişa is a later embellishment although this point, “strumed”, did not produce a stamp indicating an addition.

Two inscriptions are at Wat Práh Nirpan; one (Coe. K. 74) is 619 çaka; the other, modern (Coe. K. 75, from 1628 A. D.) is engraved on the octagonal shaft of a triple-section linga, of primitive art, with a small head of the ascetic Siva at the base of the fillet.

Two years later, we had the good fortune to unearth an almost identical but smaller Buddha (o m. 95) at Rolan Čak’s Tuol Práḥ That (Pl. LXVIII 2). The general appearance is the same, except for the eyes, which are open, the conical tip, which does not exist on this last piece(s), and the scarf wrapped around the left wrist which, for the Buddha of the Toul Práh That, is pushed backwards as if the Sage had just performed moment his gesture of argument. In addition, the bottom of the coat is more square in shape and the skirt only shows one fold outside the ankles instead of three on that of Práh Nirpan.

Fortunately, the statue of Tuol Práh That bears on the shoulder blades a Sanskrit inscription of four verses in two lines which the form of the writing allows us to date from the 6th or 7th century Çaka.

This image is very slightly tilted to the left but it is not certain that that of Vât Práh Nirpän offers the same particularity.

We therefore find ourselves in the presence of an almost equal number of Khmer pieces with bare right shoulder and with veiled shoulders. It should be noted that, for the group of Vat Romlok and that of our discoveries, the faces are different and that, if the statues of Vat Romlok are closer to the gupta type, those of the two Buddhas mentioned above have more the Khmer type and are more related to other primitive art statues.

As regards the Buddhas represented seated on the naga Mucilinda (second group of these Buddhas, unadorned, with curly hair and bare shoulders), we believe we should point out that the meditating Buddha, not seated on Mucilinda it is true, exists in art primitive Khmer. If we except the so-called Cap Saint Jacques statue, the origin of which remains obscure, only one Buddha of Vat Romlok was inventoried in this attitude.

We discovered four Buddhas of this art; one bears an inscription of the 6th or 6th-century Çaka (Coe. K. 755) on the edge of the half-moon base which serves as its support (Pl. LXVIII 5). This inscribed statue comes from Vat Chnáh, IK. 25, 11, Tà Kev province; Unfortunately, the head was recut at a late date, but the perfect execution of the body as well as the inscription leave no doubt as to its age.

A second sculpture in the same style but with a less perfect model is preserved at Vât Bának, IK. 150, 4, Kompon Thom province (Pl. LXVIII 7).

Here, the head, well executed, makes it possible to attribute this piece to primitive art. The third statue was discovered at Våt Tnot, IK. 28, province of Tà Kev, where the Coe inscription is located. K. 38 of the 6th century çaka. This very worn image does not offer much interest; it has, like that of Vát Bànak, hair with large hemispherical spirals, a slightly pronounced unisa and an uncovered right shoulder. The face shows the characteristics of primitive Khmer art but the legs, which are too large, are poorly designed and the Sage rests on an oval base whose inward beveled edge bears traces of lotus petals.

The fourth Buddha, tiny (12 cm high) and made of bronze, was found at Vat Phnom Sa, IK. 41, 10 kilometers north of Kompot (Pl. LXVIII 6). Its poor state of preservation does not allow it to be guaranteed as belonging to primitive art, but a certain analogy with the statues cited above could make it attributed to this period. However, the end section of the civara brought over the left shoulder in a natural pleat may cast doubt on the Khmer origin of this piece; this side is treated in a much more normal way than that which we see on the statues of Sükhót di or Cieng Sén and seems to indicate an anteriority in relation to these Siamese images.

The appearance of the seated Buddha in Cambodia could therefore be located around the 18th or 20th century AD, at the latest. It nevertheless seems certain to date that the first images of the Buddha on the näga do not date back beyond the end of the 10th century AD.

We believe, without anything very precise to support our opinion (with the reservation of the inscription Coe. K. 755 from the 5th or 5th century çaka engraved on the base of the statue of Vat Chnah), that in pre-Angkorean art the Indian-style seated Buddhas succeeded the European-style seated Buddhas, a position almost unknown to the Cambodian and ancient Khmer as demonstrated by the bas-reliefs and even the standing Buddhas of primitive art. We have, until now, no standing statue to which it is legitimate to attribute a period lower than the 6th century Çaka, unless we want to admit, an improbable fact, the existence of a school gupta art certainly older but also later and existing next to the Khmer school of the Buddhas of Prah Nirpän and Tuol Prah That.

We will also point out that a standing Buddha almost similar to that of the Guimet Museum exists in Bantay Kdei, IK. 535 (PL. LXVIII 4). It’s not quite finished except for the head; the facial expression is less sweet; the eyebrows are harder; the lips, less thick, are arched; the alpa (partially broken) is flamed; finally the central panel clearly shows its origin, above the belt.

This statue cannot be dated with certainty by the construction of the monument which shelters it and, itself, appears from two eras (close together, it seems) with its central towers on floors and its gopura of the enclosure III four-faced.

We will note, in support of this uncertainty, the two female statues found in the libraries of the first enclosure of the same monument, which are unquestionably from the first classical period, and that the Archaeological Guide to the Temples of Angkor, page 154 , gives as if still in place on their altars.

Another standing Buddha, in lacquered and gilded bronze, recently found in the Kon Pisei region, Kompon Spur province (PL. LXVIII 1) is very close to the two statues of Prah Khan and Bantay Kdei. The treatment of the face is closer to this last image: the face, fat however, shows a character of authority to which Buddhist sculptures have not accustomed us. Here too, we saw the strip panel on the coat and the flat belt of this period. The shorter samphip reveals the bottom of the sarong, pleated on the sides in the same spirit as on the statues of Prah Nirpan and Tool Prah That, and helps to understand the drape of the lower part of primitive Buddhist clothing.

Furthermore, we do not think that the Buddha of Wat Paranivesa is of a late period. This Buddha presents, it seems, much closer relationships with the two new standing statues that we pointed out at the beginning of this note than with the Buddha of Prah Khan of Ankor. We find in the Buddha of Wat Paranivesa an identical structure of the body (especially for the chest), a similar costume, apart from the central part, and a similar treatment of the head; except for the more closed eyes, the details of the face are similar to those of the Buddha of Tuol Prah Thất, whose epigraphy dates from the 7th çaka century, and the hairstyle is not stopped by a border. Only the central section of the costume separates the two statues; yet this detail is treated on the Buddha of Wat Paranivesa with rare discretion and it does not have the strip shape that it will show later on the lintel of Phimai and the statue of Prah Khan of Ankor. In addition, this pleat in the costume of the Buddha of Wat Paranivesa is also seen on one of the statues of Vât Romplök and the reproduction of the latter Buddha in Khmer Arts and Archeology, Volume 11, pl. v, clearly shows this fold between the legs. This drapery, on an incontestably ancient statue, cannot therefore be used against the Buddha of Wat Paranivesa and does not necessarily indicate a lower period than primitive Khmer art.

Perhaps we should see in the appearance of the bandeau pan a modification in the monastic costume. It should be noted in fact that on the statues of primitive Khmer art there is only a trace of a belt under the garment, whereas in the twelfth century, we see it on the coat, which is practically impossible. It is safe to assume that the Buddhist monks wore a thin langouti or a narrow sarong whose top was discernible only by its slight bulge at the waist, whereas in earlier times the dress grew in fullness and was restrained by a belt. It should be noted that the mass of the sarong currently worn by the Cambodian monks is brought back to the front and forms a hollow fold very close to that which we see on the images of the 11th century.

On the other hand, the Phimai lintel, given in R. A. A., IX, 2, PLATE XXVII-1, appears to date more recently than the beginning of the 12th century A.D.: the Buddha necklace in the form of a double brace, the pendants of the belt, the softness of the arches framing the upper body do not seem to allow us to give this lintel the date of 1108 A. D. (1031-1034 çaka, Coe. K. 397). We would be tempted to classify this work in the art of Bayon, at the earliest, but not knowing the exact location of this sculpture, we cannot conclude precisely. There is however only to see the perfect execution of the central tower of Phimai (24), to note that this temple is probably contemporary of Thommanon, IK. 490, from Cau Say Tevada, IK. 489, and that the cella of Bantay Samrè, IK. 541, very closely recalls this tower of Phimai, to be unable to admit that the lintel in question is so old. We would not be surprised if this sculpture is one of those in Tower B. This tower B, as well as its symmetrical A, were probably not originally part of the temple of Phimai and we do not think as L. de Lajonquière indicates, page 291 of Volume II of the IK., that these two towers have determined the point of intersection of the axes of the current main sanctuary in such a way that the old buildings of worship fit into the new ensemble, without compromising its symmetry.

In addition, we would like to compare images 1 and 2 of plate XXVII, R. A. A., 1935, of a striking contrast for pieces that would be contemporary, which is difficult to accept for sculpture, despite the differences of regions and artists, since this contrast does not exist between the Phimai – Bantay Samré constructions, for example.

The state of knowledge in primitive Khmer Buddhist art is still too incomplete for it to be very prudent to attempt a classification; however, it seems that we can provisionally establish the following classification: a. Buddhas from Vät Romlok, the influence gupta, and seated Buddhas, European style.

Iconographie Bouddique Khmere, R Dalet, 1936 via Gallica

Inscriptions

• K. 74
• K. 75

Hello Angkor

- more..