There are a lot of words here, so if you want, you can take my word
for it that Angkor Wat was completely awesome and just jump to the
photos (and if you are really impatient, just jump to Angkor Wat). Otherwise, read on.
You really can’t talk about the
temples and ancient Khmer cities of Angkor without a little context.
So here is the cliff notes version of the cliff notes version, because
anything else would be a book.
There’s the pre-Angkor period, 100-900
AD, that included the Funan Empire (originating from India) until 600
AD, and then the Chenla Empire until 900 AD. That’s when the Khmer
empire came into its own right. For the next five hundred years,
the Khmers built temples and capital cities in northern Cambodia.
The capital was moved multiple times for short distances for various
reasons, and the really successful kings built their own temples rather
than extending the existing ones. It resulted in an area rich in
ancient ruins that covers an area the size of Los Angeles. Only
the temples remain; the royal palaces, and the cities themselves, where
constructed of wood and there is little left other than post holes.
The entire area was abandoned in 1431 (sort of, more about that in the
details section) due to constant attacks from Siamese. Then less
interesting things happened.
There’s one other component to the
story, namely Religion. The primary religion of the Khmers shifted
between Hinduism and Buddhism, flip flopping multiple times. Most
of the temples, as a result, are either dedicated to various Hindu gods,
or to the Budda. There are subtle variations in the ways the gods
(or Buddhas) are represented as well as the Hindu stories depicted in
the many bas reliefs adorning the walls.
Context recap complete.
And the non-cliff
notes personal reflections on religion. I’ll go ahead and say that I
thought Buddhism was kind of a far east version of the New Testament.
Like Hinduism would be the Old Testament wrath-of-god kind of thing and
Buddhism introduced the Buddha, who kind of like Jesus, said it would be
great if everyone could just get along and be nice to one another,
except they didn’t nail him to a cross for saying it. But they
are, in fact, completely different religions. Except for Nagas,
the seven headed snake, which is depicted EXACTLY THE SAME in both
religions, but is a water god (or water gods, there were a bunch of
named Nagas) for Hindus and an umbrella for Buddhism (it’s a very
specific story but a lot of Buddha statues have the Naga hovering over
them). Even sticking with Hinduism, there’s Bhrama, the four-faced
Hindu god of re-birth, featured on the top of the Royal Palace with
faces pointing in each of the cardinal directions, North, West, East and
South. Just like the four faces on the gateways to Angkor Thom,
except those are aspects of the Buddha because, duh. And then the
four faced bass reliefs in Angkor Wat … except, no, those are demons who
also have four heads, unless sometimes they have eight, which happens to
be the same number of heads as Vishnu when he’s dancing. And
Buddhism has no gods, only deities and demons – except maybe Indraa –
and really, what’s the difference between a god and a deity anyway?
Which is just to say, it was really hard to follow, despite our guide
who clearly knew the difference and tried to patiently explain it all.
The stories themselves are just as hard to understand. Take the
churning of the ocean of milk. The gods and the demons were trying
to create an elixir of immortality by churning the sea with the body of
a Naga for a thousand years. This caused Mount Hera (not Meru, the home of the gods,
some other mountain) to sink, depressing real estate prices, so Vishnu
reincarnated himself as a giant turtle (who is not called Vishnu by the
way) to prop it up. That’s the kindergarten school version.
As they say, you can’t make this stuff up, so it must be true, right?
It was all very, very exotic and more than a little confusing.
Before we go on, I’m also going to say that I’m presenting the temples
in chronological order, rather than the order we saw them in, because I
was particularly interested in how Angkor Wat came to be; that is, it
was so vast, so perfect in form, that it couldn’t have sprung from
nowhere. So I was interesting in the evolution of the temple
complexes and the engineering and architecture that allowed the creation
of the pinnacle of the Khmer empire, along with the massive water
management infrastructure around it. And, oddly enough, didn’t get
much information on it. Given they rival the great pyramids for
complexity (that is, of course, based on complete speculation on my
part) it was a bit surprising. The temples speak for themselves,
but as impressive were the man-made lakes and the insanely large moats
constructed as a bit of religious symbolism, a bit of defense, and a bit
of water management to even out the flood/drought cycles. And yet,
there wasn’t any indication or discussion about how they actually
channeled the water or excavated a hundred billion tons of earth
(likewise, I made that number up, but it was BIG) to create the moats
and reservoirs in the first place.
Phnom Chhnork - 600 AD
Guessing a bit about the age, and this temple is in the city of
Trapeang Pringin Kampot (south-western Cambodia), far, far away from
Angkor Wat (in the north) and Kampong Thom (in the east, see the next
ruin for details). This odd little temple was built in a cave,
using bricks (which I think our guide called “Funan bricks” which might
be something special, but they seemed like regular clay bricks to me).
It can seat maybe four people. It was kind of cool to see because,
you know, TEMPLE IN A CAVE and all, but otherwise not super impressive.
The carvings were fairly worn, but also much more simplistic that the
ones we would see later around Siem Reap. The caves were
surrounded by farms that for the most part were tended by hand.
|
|
 |
|
Sabor Prei Kuk - 700 AD
This temple complex was in the mid-west part of Cambodia, also
far removed from the general temple complex. It was a Chenla,
pre-Ankgor settlement. It has obvious similarities with the Angkor
site. It was also brick construction. As Ginevra (the World
Monument Foundation rep that gave us a tour much later) told us, brick
was a much easier building material than stone, since it didn’t require
quarrying, shaping, and transporting large blocks of sandstone and
laterite. The temples were individual structures, but they had the
standard shape (minus a lot of the decorative aspects) that dominated
the later sites. One temple was left in it's overgrown state, a
fascinating blend of ancient human ruins and the jungle. And there
were monkeys. Lots of monkeys.
|
|
Prei monti and Bakong temples – 881 AD
We did these temples via bicycle, partially because Prei Monti is
not accessible by car. Prei Monti was early 9th century, but
there's not much left of it. Bakong was more interesting, one of
the earliest temples to use multiple levels and Naga balustrades.
It’s a bit of a mix, however, as the top structure collapsed and was
rebuilt around Angkor Wat times, so it is much more modern than the rest
of the temple (modern as in only 800 years old). The main
structure was stone, with brick sub-structures around it. It’s the
only temple we saw that had Elephant statues; for reasons that are not
clear, elephants were on the corners while lions lined the staircases.
Many of the carvings have been worn away by the elements, but you can
see the sophisticated three-dimensional scroll work and representation
of the Hindu gods in smaller sizes and quantities than the later
temples.
|
Prei Monti |
|
Bakong |
|
|
Phnom Bakheng (WMF tour) – 900 AD
This was the private tour with Ginevra from the World Monument
Foundation; we toured around the construction site with hard hats, which
is normally verboten. Very cool. It’s also the first of two
temples where the original reconstruction work did a lot of harm,
because like Bakong, the temple was modified during the Khmer reign.
That wasn’t due to collapse, it was one of the religious flip-flops of
the Kings, and the original Hindu structure on the top was built over
with a giant, 16-meter-tall Buddha. Unfortunately, the Buddha was
built by scavenging blocks from other parts of the temple. It
collapsed later. The original reconstruction team, only
recognizing that the Buddha was an addition and deciding to restore the
temple to it’s initial ten century representation, threw all the stones
down the hill into a giant rock pile. Then they realized they
couldn’t find major portions of the original temple. The new team
is laboriously pulling the stones back up one by one.
It was also
the first time we realized that once you have the stone and know where
it goes, it’s a four-person team and an hour to place it properly.
It seems miraculous how much progress has been made given how labor
intensive it is. This temple was at the top of one of the few hills in
the area and was somewhere near the center of the old capital city (the
one before Angkor Thom, which was burned down by raiders). The
temple was constructed by clearing the dirt on the top of the hill and
literally carving the core of the temple into the bedrock. You
could see Angkor Wat in the distance, rising out of the jungle.
One other interesting little tidbit; we noticed that the markers on
the blocks waiting to be placed in the temple were different from other
sites,and Ginevra told us that every site uses a different nomenclature
for identifying where a block of stone or brick was found.
|
Bangeay Srie (the Citadel of Women) – 967 AD
Citadel of Women is a complete misnomer. There was some
theory that the temple was built by women because the carving was so
delicate and ornate, but it wasn’t true. This temple was a little
odd because it was so flat; the multi-tiered structures of the older
temples was missing. The carving, however, was extensive, very
three-dimensional, and stunningly detailed. In fact, I’d say it
was more ornate that what we saw at Angkor Wat; Angkor Wat was much
larger, but the carvings were much flatter and simpler.

Found this placard to be particularly interesting; it shows
different historical monuments built at the same time as some of
the Angkor complex temples, along with who was the king at the
time |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
West Mebon 1050 AD
We didn’t really get to see much of this temple,
as it is completely closed off for reconstruction. It was kind of
cool because it’s a temple on an island in a man-made lake… and it’s a
water temple with a pool in the center. We took a boat from a
Pagoda and humorously enough ran aground on a sand bar. I had to
get off and help push it free. I think the boat driver and guide
were impressed. This was one of the places that made me
wonder how all the fancy irrigation system worked. The lake
itself, like the moat around Angkor Wat (and the even larger moat around
Angkor Thom, even if it was dry), is gigantic, and it’s just hard to
imagine how they moved that much dirt with nothing but human labor, even
if it took decades. But the guide talked about how they would
sometimes flow water in, and sometimes out, to control flooding.
But no one could say how they did that, nor did we see any giant locks
or dam mechanisms, so perhaps it was just a natural consequence of the
quantity of water at any point of time. Even the Angkor National
Museum (which was awesome) didn't really describe the engineering
aspects of the temple complexes.
|
The fancy Pagoda
|
|
 |
Get out and push us off the sandbar |
|
West Mebon
 |
|
|
Kabal Spean (river of a thousand Lingas) 1050 AD
This was a little side venture and it’s unclear how it fits into
the overall picture. Hermits, or Monks, or some kind of holy men
went up a mountain that has a small river that flows into the Seim Reap
river and carved the length of it with Lingas (aka phallic symbols that
represent Shiva the Destroyer … read what you will into that). The
idea was to bless the water before it reached the river. But it
was a very small stream feeding the Siem Reap River, which is a river you can literally jump
over in places in the dry season to a football field wide raging torrent
of water in the rainy season. No matter what, it seems like a drop
in the bucket. But maybe watered down blessings are still
powerful? It was a pretty strenuous hike, particularly since I
decided to bring the Canon and 600mm telephoto lens, which are pretty
heavy, on the off chance we would see some wild life (which we did not).
The carvings themselves were mostly round circles (a simplistic
representation of a lingas), with some very worn carvings of a reclining
Buddha (which is sort of at odds with the Shiva Lingas) and other less
obvious things. Nice hike, great views, but not a temple or even man
made structure.
|
|
 |
|
 |
Angkor Wat 1125 AD
The crown jewel of the Angkor temple complex, and for good
reason. If you are like me, you envision Angkor Wat being
rediscovered as a cross between Indiana Jones and Tomb Raider, tough
explorers cutting their way through the jungle with machetes to find,
covered in lush jungle vegetation, the ancient stone work of a forgotten
temple. But, according to our guide, Angkor Wat has always been
inhabited. I read monks were still using it in the 17th century,
but I didn’t know that it had never been fully abandoned (as many of the
temples were). Maybe that’s why it is so well preserved. And
it is a blessing that it is.
Angkor Wat is stunning in its scope. It’s the largest religious
site in the world. Architecturally dazzling, the distant shots you
always see are just the tip of the iceberg (and only part of the
complex, which contains several buildings inside a gated wall). Every
column, every wall, every corner is carved with complex scenes at a
level of detail that is just stunning. You simply can’t do it
justice with photos. You need see it in person. This was the
first place we visited, and our guide did the first in what would be a
continuing set of minor miracles in keeping us ahead of (or to the side
of or behind) the crowds. It was like having the place to
ourselves most of the time.
We went over in the wee hours of the morning in order to see the sun
rise over the temple, and it was completely worth it.

|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Banteay Samre - 1150 AD
This temple, like the river of a thousand lingah, was a bit of a
one off. It was built to honor an ethnic group, the Samre, who
fought (apparently bravely) for the Khmers. As such, it was smaller than
the god-king temples, but a lot of the carvings were similar. This
temple featured a lot of scenes from the two monkey god brothers that
fought for monkey supremacy; perhaps there’s a reason for that.
Hard to say. It also had more of the highly three dimensional
carving from Bangeay Srie instead of the flatter carvings from Angkor
Wat.
|
Ta Prohm (The Jungle Temple) - 1186 AD
Also knows as the “Tomb Raider Temple” due to the iconic temple
scenes from the movie having been filmed there. The equally iconic
Kapok trees make it look like the classic picture of a lost temple
(probably why it was used for Tomb Raider). Ta Prohm was odd in
that it abandoned the multi-tier structure of many of the earlier
temples in favor of a large flat almost courtyard chock full of smaller
buildings and structures. None the less, it’s impressively large.
Per our guide, there’s some documentation (Chinese) of the temple back
in the twelfth century. It claimed the temple required 80,000
staff to maintain it, and that it had 1000 pounds of gold, 40,000
pearls, and five or six thousand gems decorating it; now there are just
holes in the walls where those use to be. I imagine in it’s
hey-day, it was a worth competitor to Angor Wat because of all that, but
today, it seems like a step backwards. None the less, leaving the
trees integrated in with the buildings gives it a atmosphere that’s hard
to beat outside of a Disneyland recreation.
|
 |
|
 |
|
Angkor Thom / Bayon Temple 1200 AD
Angkor Thom was the capital built after the old capital was
destroyed by the Champa (and there were some other moves in there due to
accessibility to resources and the like). As such, it was
protected by a moat outside a wall that stretches three kilometers
(about two miles) on each side. Most of the nine square kilometer
center is nothing but jungle now, since most of the homes and the royal
palace was built from wood, but the wall, gates, and temples remain.
Bayon temple is in the center of the city and is partially restored.
It once had fifty-one spires, representing the fifty-one providences
under Khmer rule. The downside is that it requires a lot of
columns to provide enough structural integrity to hold up that much
stone, so the inside is kind of cramped and claustrophobic, at least
compared to Angkor Wat. One thing that was kind of cool was that,
unlike the other temples, where bas reliefs were all dedicated to large
battles or Hindu legends, this one had representations of daily life for
the Khmer people, including some funny scenes like someone getting bit
in the ass by a turtle. Whereas Angkor Wat felt like a mausoleum
meant for religious ceremonies to honor a dead king, this felt like a
giant billboard advertising hitting the top 100 on the music charts.
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
A little poem about Angor Wat
Beneath the sweep
of saffron skies, Where lotus blooms
in stillness lie, A temple sleeps in
rooted grace, Time etched in every
weathered face.
The jungle stirs,
but does not wake The gods that vines
and shadows take. Their silence
speaks in sandstone lines— A hymn in
form, a prayer in signs.
The walls still
tell of kings and wars, Of apsaras in
sacred chore, Their hands like wind,
their eyes like rain, Still dancing
through the centuries’ pain.
The sun climbs
slow, and gold ignites The towers
shaped from mortal might, A stairway
carved in dream and flame, Still
reaching for a higher name.
And though the
world may crack and shift, And
forests rise and empires drift, This
temple breathes—stone, root, and sky—
A monument that will not die.
|