The Mystery “Palaces” of the Early Angkorian Empire

There is much more to the ancient Khmer Empire than just temples and viharas, for example, there are the building types including libraries, hospital chapels, stele shelters, firehouses, staging places, ashramas, and of course bridges, then, there are all the constructions made of perishable materials which we will never truly know bar attempting to visualize them from ancient records. Most of these buildings types are known from inscriptions tied in with archaeological surveys, but, there is one building type that has confounded researchers and remains a complete mystery to this day. And, there are many of them.

On touring the remote temples outside of Angkor (here, here, and here), my first encounter with one of these buildings was at a ruinous structure located beside Prasat Khnar of Kala Preas, Preah Vihear, but, being so ruinous, it didn’t really catch my attention except to think that it was something unusual. However, the next day on visiting Kuk Srei which is located at the foothill of Neak Buos temple in Preah Vihear province I’d see another similar structure in a slightly better state of preservation. Unknowingly at that time, I was visiting another “palais” as the early French researchers would label them.

Kuk Srei is quite ruinous too but its outline is quite clear and I was completely confounded by its very unique and unusual layout. Inside its outer enclosure wall is a U-shaped building fronted by a kind of peristyle whose grand pillars lay in ruin. What was it I wondered?

After scouring old French documents I’d find out, but not find out. French researchers of the early 1900s would label them “palais” (EN: palace) but they would do so with caution that they had no reason nor evidence and openly speculated on their possible purpose.

When considering the size and layout, “palace” is not what first comes to mind, at least to my eyes. Other things that first come to mind are some kind of ceremonial building or a place for meeting or paying homage to the King when he visited. Perhaps they were also complemented by wooden structures we don’t see today. In any case, it’s surely another great wonder of this massive ancient empire and on diving deeper, the early French researchers were also left to speculate on this type of building and its purpose.

The classification originates from the North and South Khleangs of Angkor Thom. Initially, Aymonier, in the very early 1900s, would propose that the Khleangs were storehouses giving the two sites their naming with the Khmer word “khleang” meaning storeroom. Jean Moura would propose that they were “palais” which was a label then used by Lunet de Lajonquière to create a typology classification for the many similar structures he would locate in his explorations.

On the naming, Henri Parmentier noted in his 1948 publication L’art architectural hindou dans l’Inde et en Extrême-Orient when discussing the Khleangs of Angkor Thom and the “palais” at Prasat Thom of Koh Ker – “Moreover, nothing proves that the word “palace” is exact and the idea of a lodging for ambassadors or provincial governors seems more probable, especially because of the duality of these buildings and the presence of the oath of fidelity that Suryavarman has engraved on their doors.”

In a publication of recent times, Volume 5 of Guide archéologique du Cambodge, Bruno Bruguier would provide a collation of the sites with layout maps and commentary on their location in relation to the temple proper and topography. He also includes the North and South Khleangs and mentions the equally mysterious and similar structure at Chau Srei Vibol temple.

Two ancient Khmer Empire temples outside of present-day Cambodia also feature these structures, Phnom Rung (of present-day Thailand) and Vat Phu (of present-day Laos). As mentioned, researchers also include the North and South Khleang of Angkor Thom in this typology and some may want to include the structure at the foothill of Chau Srei Vibol and perhaps even the annex structures inside the outer enclosure of Beng Mealea.

Interestingly, they are almost entirely built during the 10th – 11th century, more on that later, and under the reign of King Suryavarman and apart from those in Angkor and two locations in the east, all are in the north-northeast of the country with many of them in what are now quite remote places and in various states of clearance.

In the 1902 publication, Inventaire descriptif des monuments du Cambodge. Tome 2 by E. Lunet de La Jonquière, he describes “Palais or Habitations”

As for the palaces, we find two complete groups of this sort of building placed, according to the rule we have established, to the left and to the right of the access avenue: at Wat Phu (no. 339) and at Prah Vihear (No. 398). Those of this last monument, because of the configuration of the land, had to be irregularly oriented: they face the sanctuary and are almost linked to each other by the gopura built on the axis of the avenue.

Each of them is always made up of a raised main gallery, and, behind, a set of three galleries not joined to it which frame a rectangular courtyard. The front gallery contained the reception rooms, while the closed and intimate aspect of the rear galleries sufficiently indicates their character as private apartments. At Wat. Phu, the North Palace is inferior in construction and decoration to the South Palace; at Prah Vihear, the two palaces are similar. It is possible that one of these residences was reserved for the king, the other for the crown prince: this seems to be confirmed, in Siamese, by the expression vang na, lord of the palace opposite, and in Burmese that of ainshemeng, “lord of the palace of the East”, which both designate the yuvarája.

We also find palaces of this sort in the monuments of Prasat Thnal Svay North (no. 993) and Phnom Rung (no. 401), with some unimportant modifications. They are regularly placed along the access avenue, otherwise regularly oriented; but they are unique: their skeletons are lacking, either because we did not have time to build them, or because they were built in wood or paillottes, ephemeral materials of which we no longer find a trace.

Finally at Prasat Neak Bros (nº 991), at Prasat Thnal Svay Nord (nº 993), at Prasat Khna (nº 315), etc., we only see isolated galleries of honor, perhaps because the bodies of buildings posteriors were also made of temporary materials, which have completely disappeared.

In the same publication, Lunet de Lajonquière would provide one of the first layout plans of this construction typology outside of Angkor, along with an illustration of the palace recorded as Toek Chha Kuk Toch located near Preah Theat Tuk Chha Temple.

Again with another layout plan from Lunet de Lajonquière is that of Preah Theat Preah Srei, a beautiful site, where the ruinous ancient temple was elegantly converted into a contemporary vihara. The site still features the remains of the so-called palaces on either side of its eastern entrance outlined in yellow below.

Prasat Khnar of Kala Preas is another very fascinating site with very rich inscriptions and stunning remnants of ancient Khmer art in its remaining lintels and images of door guardians/deities. Immediately north of the temples outer enclosure are the remains of a palais. It’s partially standing in places and you can see remnants of artwork on the pilasters flanking the doorframes that give entry to the u-shaped gallery of the structure. The base molding, formed of sandstone also features decorative work.

The stunning and iconic Temple of Preah Vihear features palaces tightly abutting either side of the main cruciform-shaped gopura. So close, that the gopura has saved the pediment of the west palais from tumbling to the ground. As you’d expect, the palais here are the grandest and most elaborate in the empire featuring decorated pediments, pilasters, and lintels.

Another site layout map from Lunet de Lajonquière, as seen below, highlights the U-shaped buildings fronted by halls on either side of the main gopura (entrance). In Henri Parmentier’s notes, he would call the elongated building fronting the U-shaped gallery a “hall of honor” and also note the uselessness of the courtyard created by the two buildings as no steps led down to it.

To the east and on the same axis of Prasat Thom at Koh Ker there are two palais flanking what was once a grand long causeway leading to the east gopura (entrance pavilion). Today they share the name Prasat Srot. A recent study by Etsuo Uchida et al (2014) suggests that these palaces belong to the 1st stage of the construction of Prasat Thom.

On these palaces fronting Prasat Thom at Koh Ker, in The Ancient Khmer Empire, 1951, Lawrence Palmer Briggs noted

These so-called palaces deserve a special study because they seem to be the earliest found in Khmer architecture. Each of these palaces is made up of four long rectangular galleries, surrounding a long rectangular court which, however, they do not quite enclose. Each gallery is divided into three sections, slightly telescopic and some contain one or more open porches, each supported by two rows of square stone pillars. The two palaces are not exactly symmetrical. They are lighted by windows with balusters. Those perpendicular to the road are lighted on the east side; those parallel to it, on the south. The eastern pair, separated from the others by a wider space, are considered galleries of honor. Each has a porch facing that of the other across the road. The southern galleries have porches at both ends. The northern and western galleries have no porches. These galleries are of laterite, with angular roofs and gables. They are believed to be contemporary with the oldest parts of Prasat Thom.

Whether they were residences of the king is a mooted point. To this day the kings of Cambodia build their palaces out of wood. Parmentier thinks their presence at a capital, where the king had his own palace independent of any temple, seems to indicate that they were for the use of honored guests or a place of religious retreat for the king.

Update (05/22), as noted, I visted Prasat Thnal Svay whose “palais” layout differs slightly from the others in that one of the “legs” of the U stops short and in its place is a small brick construction opening to the inside “courtyard” at its other end it had a false door which seems to contradict the layout plan below, but, the site is heavily overgrown and a tad disorientating so there may be more to it. The longer leg of the U also appeared to have a door into the courtyard. The peristyle building that fronts both of these is quite ruinous but appears that it would have been quite grand.

Layout Plans of the other “palaces”

On the “Palais” of Vat Phu (located in present-day Laos), in a 1914 publication for EFEO, Le Temple de Vat Phu, Henri Parmentier noted the two palaces as being constructed in the 12-13th c.

One or two centuries later (XIIth or XIIIth) the need was felt to establish vast buildings, perhaps royal, and the two palaces were built. It is possible and even probable that the extension of the causeway to the lake, such as the development of the western part of the basin and the creation of the unfinished access terrace are also operations from the same period.

The palaces, at least their porches, had been vaulted in imitation of the ordinary nave; but the attempt was vain, and if the vaults of the galleries lasted some time, they were nevertheless soon obliged to replace them by roofs. It was the same for the upper building, the day probably close when the old sanctuary collapsed, dragging in the shock the bold vaults of the rest of the building. It was necessary to reassemble somehow the ruined cella, connect the nave to it, and cover the whole building perhaps as today in simple thatch. Time or means failed to complete the restoration of the sanctuary, and the monument passed into the hands of the Laotians who established a bonzerie there; they transformed the temple into a Buddhist pagoda using the rubble of bricks, no doubt rejected in some corner. It is in this impure form that it has come down to us. It is to be hoped that intelligent repairs will restore it in part to its primitive state and ensure the conservation of one of the most original buildings left to us by the Khmers.

Mentioned earlier, and also dating to the 10-11th century, the North and South Khleang located in Angkor Thom on either side of the causeway leading to the ancient Royal Palace offer up important inscriptions on their doorframes. The South Khleang features inscriptions (K. 466 and 467) that tie into those on the east gopura (entrance pavilion) on the Royal Palace, in this case noting an oath of loyalty to King Suryavarman by 56 dignitaries. A stele was also found here featuring a date of 1015 AD (K. 541) and some notes on an earlier king. Numerous statuary and relics came from Khleang North including a beautiful Ganesha statue, pedestal, and a stone tortoise plus two inscriptions (K. 542 and 468).

As defined by early French research, the Khleangs are also the defining monuments of an art-style category of the same name, noted for simplicity, sites in the category included the temples of Ta Keo, Phimeanakas, and themselves, the North and South Khleang.

Like many temples across the empire, and especially so in Angkor, the Khleangs have been modified over time. Researchers speculated that the tower on the North Khleang to have been added during the Bayon period based on style. This was later proven to likely be correct by testing done on the sandstone, observation of recycled stones being used, and the shape of the stone (Uchida et al. 1998, 2007).

So, when looking at the Khleangs we see today, and possibly even what was found in them, they are probably far removed from their original format which may have been more similar to the layouts we see in areas that did not witness alterations in later eras.

Perhaps even more interesting, and something all the structures have in common, is the roof. Which there isn’t. Was all this just the first floor of a much greater wooden structure? Or simply topped by wooden beams with a tiled roof? I can’t say I noticed tiles or holes for beams but it would seem I didn’t look hard enough as a paper by Royere Pascal notes notching that would have supported a wooden structure on the South Khleang. In Parmentiers notes, he provides restitution of a tiled gallery roof at Preah Vihear and an image of the wooden beamed and thatch-covered roof which was in-place at Vat Phu when he visited in the early 1900s.

Clues hidden in inscriptions?

At least three researchers (Coedes, Soutif, Sahai) connect at least two of these “palaces”, the one at Preah Vihear and one at Prasat Khnar, with being ashrama (a type of hermitage), in particular, Virashrama. Virasharma (or Viracrama) are mentioned in at least four inscriptions, all connected with King Suryavarman I.

  • K. 381 – doorframe of Preah Vihear Temple – in lines 14-17 it poetically mentions Virashrama which Coedes, the translator, connects with the palace as does Sahai – IC VI, p. 255
  • K. 290 – the stele of Tep Pranam – among many things, it also notes the foundation of a Virashrama by King Suryavarman I – IC III, p. 231
  • K. 342 – doorframe of Prasat Neak Buos – a long inscription that in one section mentions supplies to a Virashrama – IC VI, p. 236
  • K. 194 – a stele at Phnom Sandak – also mentions a Virashrama – Coedes & Dupont 1943

Conclusion

What I have provided here is a simple introduction to this lesser-known typology of the ancient Khmer Empire and we really need to eagerly await the time when archeological research can hopefully bring us more definitive answers.

The debate continues online as to whether they were storehouses, put forward by Aymonier based on locals calling them Khleangs, also labeled “palais” based on the thoughts of Moura and classification by Lanquire, which, may have originated from their apparent likeness to the “ambassadors palace” of Phnom Penh at that time (late 19th early 20th c). The name “Ambassadors Palaces” was also used to describe the Khleangs in some reports by visitors in the early 1900s, a naming that was possibly further emboldened by the nature of the inscriptions mentioned on the South Khleang. As noted earlier, Parmentier would also suggest them as a religious retreat for the King or a place for honored guests.

These “Palais” were constructed during the 10-11th century bar the suggested possible outlier of the palais at Vat Phu. While they all have a very similar layout, they are all slightly unique with characteristics that contradict any conclusions that could be made from one or the other. An example of that is the courtyard that is created and enclosed by the layout plan, which at some sites is seemingly inaccessible, while at others, accessible or otherwise very open. Some have an outer enclosure, some do not, and so on.

Perhaps interesting is the way the space would have been interacted with when considering the location of access points, steps, windows, plus the seemingly chambered sections within the U-shaped gallery. Excavating down in these chambered sections or the palais grounds may have something to reveal about purpose and function or at least how they were, if they were, consecrated, or perhaps illuminate who dwelled or visited there. For that outside of Angkor, archeological research may even reveal how long they were in use past the era of Suryavarman.

Inscriptions and the mention of ashrama, in particular Virashrama, adds another dimension with them possibly being a type of hermitage and that would seem very plausible. Ashrama’s are a lesser talked about feature of the empire and appeared to be quite important in the era of King Suryavarman at least perhaps evolving with religious changes.

Also very interesting is the lack of looting pits at some of the remote sites which may hopefully translate to fascinating discoveries in archeological excavations. In my mind at least, these structures have a lot more to reveal about understanding life in the ancient era around many major temple sites. Let’s hope.

References

  • Le Temple de Vat Phu, Henri Parmentier, 1914
  • The Ancient Khmer Empire, Lawrence Palmer Briggs, 1951
  • Construction sequence of the Koh Ker monuments in Cambodia deduced from the chemical composition and magnetic susceptibility of its laterites, Etsuo Uchida et al, 2014
  • Inventaire descriptif des monuments du Cambodge. Tome 2, E. Lunet de La Jonquière, 1902
  • Volume 5 of Guide archéologique du Cambodge, Bruno Bruguier; Juliette Lacroix, 2013
  • L’art architectural hindou dans l’Inde et en Extrême-Orient, Henri Parmentier, 1948
  • Le Khléang Sud d’Angkor Thom, quelques éléments liés à l’histoire architecturale du monument, Royère Pascal, 1997
  • Statuary photos from the Khleangs sourced from EFEO Fonds Cambodge
  • BEFEO 1913 via Persee

*Note: I’ll likely come back and update this post after visiting Kon Chen and Prasat Thnal Svay hopefully in mid-22
*Updated 05/22 to add notes on inscriptions and Prasat Thnal Svay, fixed some spelling errors, and deleted some redundant text

Hello Angkor