Angkor Wat, Siem Reap

.../>
"Of course, Angkor Wat has to be the main reason." Everyone who knew I was going to Cambodia, and actually knew where the place is, which a surprising number didn't, assumed that Angkor Wat was the prime motivation. It is, after all, the country's icon. If its shame lies in the killing fields beyond Phnom Penh, Cambodia's pride is just outside Siem Reap in the temples of Angkor, of which the biggest and grandest is Angkor Wat ...
...when the Thais thoroughly routed Angkor and the Khmers moved their capital back to Phnom Penh.


It wasn't a period of unabated glory for the Khmer however. Just like its counterparts in Europe, Cambodia spent most of the Middle Ages at war with one or more of its neighbours. In this case the combatants were Vietnam, Thailand, the Chams and Myanmar. Whilst the "temples" as we call them do have undoubted religious character, ... more

ANCIENT ANGKOR

"Of course, Angkor Wat has to be the main reason." Everyone who knew I was going to Cambodia, and actually knew where the place is, which a surprising number didn't, assumed that Angkor Wat was the prime motivation. It is, after all, the country's icon. If its shame lies in the killing fields beyond Phnom Penh, Cambodia's pride is just outside Siem Reap in the temples of Angkor, of which the biggest and grandest is Angkor Wat itself.

At it happens that wasn't the one that moved me to go. That pride of place goes to Ta Prohm, whose glories I've extolled elsewhere on this site. That is not to take anything away from the centrepiece exhibit; it is merely that what the main Wat has in grandeur, it loses in atmosphere.

Those iconic photographs that you see, taken either from the main causeway, or from the air with the temple almost lost in the trees, suggests that the Wat sits in majestic isolation, when nothing could be further from the truth.

The main site boasts some 35-40 temples and monuments in close proximity. If your time is going to be limited, therefore, it is vital to do some research before you go so that you can be sure to see whichever of the vast array of architecture and carving will speak most to you. Of course, the local guides know the hot-spots, and the best guides know when to take you to them (i.e. before everyone else gets there, or after they've left), but even on the best tour you will see what the guides thinks you should see and you may have other priorities.

Lonely Planet's "Cambodia" has a reasonably detailed section on the temples, covering the practicalities of visiting and the highlights of the main 'must-see' locations. For a more detailed historical interpretation I would also recommend "Ancient Angkor" by Michael Freeman and Claude Jacques (ISBN 9748225275). First published in 1999 in Thailand by River Books, the current version was updated and extended in 2003. Work continues on many of the sites and historical interpretation is never fixed. Not every comment in the book can therefore be said to be "accurate" by current thinking, but that is an added intrigue rather than a criticism. Freeman and Jacques give thoughtful history, suggested walking tours for each temple, and the whole is supplemented by some 350 colour illustrations.

Between these two (or with the help of your own favourite imprint) decide what you really want to see before you set out. Most of the books suggest itineraries but make your own mind up, and if you're employing a guide, ensure they understand your preferences: what you want to see, how long you want to stay, what you're prepared to miss, and why. As passionate and knowledgeable as they are, they are not fully qualified mind-readers.

BASIC HISTORY

The historical period known as Angkorian runs roughly from 802 AD (with the accession to the throne of King Jayavarman II, founder of what was to become the Khmer empire) until 1431 when the Thais thoroughly routed Angkor and the Khmers moved their capital back to Phnom Penh.

It wasn't a period of unabated glory for the Khmer however. Just like its counterparts in Europe, Cambodia spent most of the Middle Ages at war with one or more of its neighbours. In this case the combatants were Vietnam, Thailand, the Chams and Myanmar. Whilst the "temples" as we call them do have undoubted religious character, it is probable that they were also places of sanctuary and security performing the functions of walled towns as well as simple places of worship. To consider them as counterparts to cathedrals appears a little simplistic; they should been seen (I believe) as something akin to the castle keep as well.

The prolific and prodigious architecture of the Angkorian kingdom begins with Jayavarman II himself. He declared himself a devaraja (god-king), claiming to be the earthly representative of Shiva, and had constructed a temple-mountain at Phnom Kulen that was to be the prototype for all that followed.

For the next six hundred years, kings built various shrines, temples, reservoirs and mountains in homage to their ancestors and their gods, making many of them defensive in nature (perhaps knowing that even the gods go to war), culminating in Suryavarman II, who reigned for the first half of the 12th century and was responsible for Angkor Wat itself.

A century earlier, Suryavarman I, who usurped the throne by the traditional method of force & political intrigue, left little mark in the landscape, but it was his military prowess that expanded the empire in southern Thailand and much of Laos, thus initiating the prosperous 'classical age' that could afford the constructions that were to follow. Despite taking on the now expected attributes of the Hindu god-king, it's thought that Suryavarman I was by heritage a Buddhist and may have been responsible for the spread of that religion into Cambodia during his reign. Certainly, Buddhist sculpture becomes much more evident at this point. His reign was followed by a period of imperial instability, before Suryavarman II (r 112-1152) and later Jayavarman VII (r 1181-1219) produced some of the crowning glories of Hindu and Hindu-Buddhist architecture to be seen anywhere on earth.

Enough of the introduction; practicalities for the visitor are appended at the end. Let's take a look at Angkor Wat itself.

ANGKOR WAT

Approaching the Wat over the main causeway the first thing that strikes you is the scale of the place. It is huge. Then you enter the first gallery, to find that the detail is just as overwhelming.

Trying to fix the history and the religion and interpret the friezes quickly becomes impossible. It is very soon a simple case of surrendering to the awe and wondering what this place looked like to the locals of the time.

Much like a European castle of similar vintage, the walls of Angkor Wat originally enclosed a large number of buildings, dwellings, offices, shops, stables, who knows what, of which there is now no trace. Almost certainly constructed of wood, they may never have been intended to be permanent, but would be dismantled, moved, repaired, rebuilt as the need and occupation arose. What does remain is the moat, with its causeways and the temple itself – all within a rectangle of some 1.5km by 1.3km, with the temple itself taking up about 9 hectares (or 22 acres).

Entry today is via the western causeway, believed to post-date the temple by a hundred years or so. Much of this has been rebuilt to ensure stability for the huge numbers of visitors the site attracts – but alongside the squared-off slabs of the modern construction you can see parts of the crazy-paving of the original. The moat itself is a square dug ditch, lined with sandstone and laterite, though vegetation has settled into over the centuries. Levels vary with the seasons: some photographs show no more than a boggy marsh, whereas we crossed a deep, shimmering expanse of water.

Whilst the waters may have given some measure of defence in the event of attack across the wide plains, the sheer width of the causeway would have been difficult to hold. Add to this the fact that the inner egress from the waters is onto a relatively low plinth (no ramped banks or sheer sided walls), and it is clear the moat is purely symbolic.

Indeed everything about an Angkor temple is of religious significance. The moat is the mythical great circle sea which surrounds the earth in Hindu myth. The concentric galleries form the foothills surrounding Mount Meru, home of the gods, while the central tower is the mountain's peak.

Inside the main enclosure the causeway continues as a raised road, half-a-storey above ground level. The Naga-form balustrade is interrupted at intervals to allow access to the ground, from where the real scale of the buildings becomes evident.

To either side of the causeway stand the two "libraries". It is unclear where that designation comes from. Local guides tell tales of the manuscripts found within the buildings, more academic authors suggest that buildings are more likely to have been shrines rather than mere depositories. There appears to be little conclusive evidence one way or the other, but the scale and symmetry of the buildings with their tiered and domed roofs, their four doorways aligned to the cardinal points, each with its colonnaded porch, speak of a function of some reference and importance.

The causeway eventually meets a wide terrace and the entrance to the gopura of the temple proper. Galleries of carved bas reliefs extend away on either side, but leaving them for now, we walked up through the dim light to the second level and the cruciform cloister, where raised paths cross an area almost certainly one filled with water. Thence onwards and upwards towards the central shrine.

We found the final flights of steps up to the main tower roped off. Access is for the first time being restricted for safety reasons. I was grateful. The steep un-railed stairways of the temple have high steps, with shallow treads, across a wide beam; they are not for the faint-hearted or weak-limbed. In the days of pilgrimage, the symbolic ascending the mountain of the gods was played out in a truly physical way.

Even from the lower (second) level, though, the towers are an awesome sight, with their stepped faux-terraces forming the familiar, steep narrow domes of the pinnacles.

Having taken in the sheer size of everything from the floor plan, to the height of the towers, indeed the height of some of the remaining statues, you then have to come to terms with the detail.

Everywhere you look the stone is worked. Columns and lintels are decorated. Window openings are barred with huge stone blocks cut through and chiselled to resemble turned wood balusters. Apsaras, the celestial dancers, line the outer walls. In the galleries, vast friezes retell the epic Ramayana and Mahabharata legends, and elevate King Suryavarman II to the level of the gods via his own processional relief. The work is exquisitely beautiful, and is the main reason you will want to linger.

On our guided tour we were fortunate to be in the temple in the morning (most groups arrive in the afternoon) but we were sadly limited for time. Angkor Wat is not a place to be rushed. There is simply too much to absorb at a single viewing. When I return, it will be to dedicate a whole day to this single temple. To look and read and try to understand a little. Then to take a step away into shadows, or down to the ground, and simply sit and stare for a while. Then to return and try to grasp a little more of the place.

* * * * * *

LOCATION & ACCESS

The Angkorian temples are located a couple of miles north Siem Reap. Admission is by way of a pass valid for a day, three consecutive days, or a week (currently costing $20, $40 and $60 respectively). Passes are purchased at the large official entrance on the road to Angkor Wat and include a digital photograph taken on the spot. They cover all of the temples in the area and must be worn at all times. You will find officials in all the popular and remote areas of the complex and will get used to them subtly checking your picture as you pass. If your pass is not visible you will be asked to produce it.

The fees may seem expensive, by local standards, but you will quickly confirm that they are worth every cent.

The sadness is that the whole is operated as a commercial enterprise with Sokimex taking 17% of the fees for their admin and central government swallowing 73%. A mere 10% makes it into the hands of Apsara (the Authority for the Protection and Management of Angkor and the region of Siem Reap).

Guided tours can be booked at any of the local hotels or direct with the main tourist agencies. If you want to explore on your own however, negotiate with a Tuk-tuk driver for a day's hire – the going rate was about $20, but the economic downturn has hit Cambodian tourism hard and there may be better deals to be done.

FOOD, DRINK & FACILITIES

There are a number of restaurants and food stalls outside the temple, offering a full range of meals and snacks. Western-style toilets are also in good supply.

INCONVENIENCES?

None that I found.

As a World Heritage Site, it is bound to be busy, but we did not find overwhelming crowds. This may be the result of the current economic situation, as tourism in the country generally is reckoned to be down by about 50%. To avoid the crowds, tap in to the local knowledge. Guides and drivers will know which sites to see when, and avoiding the "classic" views and times, might even lead you to find something a bit more special.

Of course, you will find the usual selection of children demanding your attention. Generally they are selling rather than begging though, which I guess is a little better, though I'd rather they were in school. On the whole, whilst persistent, most of them cotton on quickly enough when there is no sale to be made and head off to more likely targets, and they were unfailingly polite and charming in their approaches.

~

© Lesley Mason
hiker@Ciao.co.uk
18.7.09
 

...less