9

Chapter 2

How Many Face Towers in the Bayon? Olivier Cunin

Abstract

The face towers of the Bayon temple are indisputably the great plastic innovation of Khmer art and architecture from the end of the Angkorian period. The towers of the Bayon, the state temple of King Jayavarman VII (1181–c. 1218), have been the focus of much research into the identification of the deity whose face they bear and their possible symbolic significance. This paper critically reviews the current count of 49 face towers on the Bayon and five more on the surrounding gateways of Angkor Thom. A comparative study of the Bayon and Banteay Chmar temples allows us to reconstruct the original of the Bayon’s largely ruined outer gallery. By making an inventory of the crumbled carved blocks of stone stacked in piles inside and outside the Bayon, evidence can be assembled for ascertaining that the Bayon originally had up to 59 face towers with most of the additions surmounting the outer gallery. Moreover, the stones from the crumbled towers show notable differences in design from those now visible on the Bayon.

A Major Architectural Innovation

While attempting to envisage the original Bayon with its dramatic superstructure of towers with giant faces (Figure 2.1), I traveled to the large and contemporary, but little visited temple of Banteay Chmar, near the modern border with Thailand (Figure 2.2). The relatively undisturbed ruins of

Fig 2.1 Bayon face tower. Fig 2.2 Map of Khmer zone sites with face towers.

02 ISEA.indd 9 6/6/08 9:54:52 AM

10

OLIVIER CUNIN

Banteay Chmar yielded precedents and methods that allowed a breakthrough at the Bayon. Banteay Chmar and the equally remote Preah Khan of Kompong Svay are the only temple complexes outside Angkor featuring face towers, the major architectural innovation in the Bayon style. Having first created the tower with giant faces in the Bayon, Jayavarman went on to add this revolutionary feature to most of his other temples in Angkor — Ta Prohm, Banteay Kdei, Ta Som, and the gates of Angkor Thom city.

The accepted count of 49 face towers at the Bayon, established by Jacques Dumarçay (Dumarçay 1973: 23), includes a third level tower (shown as 17 on Figure 2.3) without superstructure but assumed to have borne faces, and a third level eastern entrance tower (shown as 23), which has collapsed but must have been symmetrical with the adjacent, extant, eastern entrance towers with faces (22 and 37).

The Pavilions of the Bayon Outer Gallery

The key question to resolve, in attempting a reconstruction of the temple when it first arose at the center of Jayavarman’s fortified capital of Angkor Thom in the last two decades of the twelfth century, is whether or not the outer gallery pavilions, which provide access to its multiple courtyards and sanctuaries, were surmounted with face towers. If they were, our estimate of the number of Bayon face towers must increase significantly, and we must envisage a different architectural profile for the newly-built temple as it was known to the citizens of Angkor.

Dumarçay, in the last extensive architectural study of the temple, concluded that although the Bayon’s outer gallery pavilions could potentially have supported additional face towers, the Khmer master builders must have decided against taking the risk of supporting the required weight of masonry there, because the pavilions had only four supporting pillars to hold up the roof and any superstructure (Dumarçay 1973: 26). Dumarçay had difficulty however with the alternative he proposed for the pavilions — cross-vaulted roofs. He could not find a satisfactory linkage for such structures, and as a result did not produce an elevation plan of the first level of the temple (Dumarçay 1967: 11). This

Fig 2.3 Accepted count of Bayon face towers.

02 ISEA.indd 10 6/6/08 9:54:53 AM

11

HOW MANY FACE TOWERS IN THE BAYON?

inconclusive result means the question of the superstructure of the outer gallery pavilions remains open. Furthermore, Dumarçay’s assumption about the outer gallery pavilions fails to address the fact that while there are face towers and other heavy superstructures still standing on the second and third levels of the temple (where they are supported on solid foundations), the entire superstructure of the outer gallery pavilions has collapsed onto the ground, presumably because the superstructure was too heavy for the support provided by four pillars. This collapse argues for there having been a heavy face tower-type superstructure rather than a conventional roof. If the outer gallery pavilions did bear face towers and these collapsed as a consequence of their inadequate foundations, this would be consistent with the collapsed, roofless pavilions we find today.

Early in my research into the outer gallery pavilions, I was struck by repeated findings, inside and outside the Bayon’s outer wall, of fragments of curved, crowning ornamentation structures carved with praying figures or worshippers, with their hands joined before their breasts. Such figures do not appear on the Bayon today, so where they were originally placed is a puzzle. One large and almost complete piece with this motif (Figure 2.4), lying in a pile of stones beside the ‘library’ recently restored by a Japanese government team, had earlier caught the eye of Maurice Glaize when he restored the stand-alone face tower 52 behind the eastern gopura pavilion in 1944 (Reports of the Conservation of Angkor RCA August–September 1944). Glaize thought it might have been the upper register of the somewhat unusual tower with a circle of garudas or celestial eagles, supporting weathered praying figures above the faces that he had just restored. This however only deals with one piece and does not address the significant number of carved fragments on the ground bearing the same praying figure motif. The presence of these stones raises both the question of the original number of Bayon face towers and the question of their design.

There are two main sources of information for pursuing these questions: (1) the so-called ‘Commaille piles’ of rocks stacked up inside the outer gallery walls by Jean Commaille, who supervised the first clearing of the forest from the Bayon; and (2) comparison with other Jayavarman VII temples contemporary with the Bayon, especially the relatively undisturbed complex of Banteay Chmar (Figure 2.5).

Fig 2.4 Fragment with worshipper motif.

02 ISEA.indd 11 6/6/08 9:54:54 AM

12

OLIVIER CUNIN

‘Commaille Piles’ and Field Stacks

Commaille’s clearing of the Bayon from 1908–1913, which was completed by Marchal in the 1920s, resulted in large amounts of sandstone blocks, some of them carved, being piled up inside the outer gallery wall (Figure 2.6). Similar blocks found outside the wall were stacked in the field surrounding the temple (Figure 2.7). They have since been paid little attention by researchers but they are of obvious interest to determining the original superstructure of the gallery wall that divides the two repository areas.

These piles of rocks present some problems. The 1910 edition of the official Report on the Conservation of Angkor (RCA) warned that the piles inside the walls contained a mix of stones from the walls themselves and from higher levels of the monument (RCA November 1910). Determining where particular blocks came from is therefore largely a matter of approximation. Furthermore, some Bayon blocks were reported as having been used for building the modern road around the monument, so the already difficult Bayon jigsaw puzzle in stone has many pieces missing.

Fig 2.5 Ruins of Banteay Chmar.

Fig 2.6 The ‘Commaille piles’.

02 ISEA.indd 12 6/6/08 9:54:55 AM

13

HOW MANY FACE TOWERS IN THE BAYON?

Clues from Banteay Chmar

The vast temple complex of Banteay Chmar in the province of Banteay Meanchey, some 110 km northwest of Angkor, which is also built in the distinctive style of King Jayavarman VII, has an outer gallery carved with bas-reliefs which closely resembles the celebrated gallery with military engagements and scenes from daily life at the Bayon. The remote complex also has several face towers, including one on its western side which resembles the structure of Bayon tower 52 restored by Glaize, but with multiple tiers of praying figures, instead of garudas, carved above the giant faces (Figure 2.8). Was this the model used in the now disappeared Bayon towers?

Fig 2.7 Stacks of rock fragments in the field surrounding the Bayon.

Fig 2.8 Banteay Chmar face tower with worshipper motif.

02 ISEA.indd 13 6/6/08 9:54:57 AM

14

OLIVIER CUNIN

Fig 2.9 Plan of Banteay Chmar showing eight face towers determined by Pottier.

In the most recent archaeological count of the number of face towers in the central complex of Banteay Chmar, Christophe Pottier ascertained the number of towers as eight, of which two are hypothetical reconstructions based on the symmetry of the building (Pottier 2004: 136) (Figure 2.9). My own investigations have since increased the count by four more face towers surmounting satellite temples still standing in the woods and scrub some distance outside the central complex (Figure 2.10).

Georges Groslier, who made the most substantial contribution to our knowledge of Banteay Chmar, in an article published in Illustration on 3 April 1937, maintained that the corner pavilions of the outer gallery were also topped with towers, although he did not specify the exact kind of tower (Groslier 1937: 352). Unfortunately, when Groslier wrote up his final description of the temple, he neglected to describe the corner pavilions of the outer gallery. Despite his lack of specificity about the towers, Groslier’s pointer was of great importance for my own research, because the outer gallery of Banteay Chmar, with its extensive bas-reliefs of contemporary military and other scenes, is the alter ego of the outer gallery of the Bayon. There can be little doubt that the builders and decorators of the outer galleries of the two temples were working at the same time on a very similar architectural conception. Although there are major differences in the central structures of the two temples, the outer gallery and corner pavilions of both temples are structurally virtually identical. The only small difference is that at the Bayon there is a porch leading out of the temple from two doorways in the corner pavilions (Figure 2.11).

In 2002, I attempted to establish on site an index of physical criteria to test Groslier’s claim that towers were constructed on the gallery’s corner pavilions. Since Banteay Chmar was never cleared by the early conservationists who removed the forest from the temples in Angkor, and despite the

02 ISEA.indd 14 6/6/08 9:54:58 AM

15

HOW MANY FACE TOWERS IN THE BAYON?

fact that the site has been pillaged in the course of the twentieth century, the temple presents fewer impediments to surface archaeology than the Bayon. In Banteay Chmar, the stones fallen from collapsed superstructures still lie, in virtually every case, where they first fell. Climbing over the vast piles of rock brought to light many fragments within and around ruined buildings that are incontestably traces of former face towers. There are parts of giant mouths, noses, eyes, ears and sections of crown, as well as trapezoidal blocks with carved praying figures on one of their surfaces. This last motif appears to be part of a circle of figures below the faces, as found in satellite temple IV, the only example of this kind of superstructure still standing in Banteay Chmar (Figure 2.12).

Fig 2.10 Face towers on satellite temples around Banteay Chmar.

Fig 2.11 Comparison of plans of Banteay Chmar and Bayon corner pavilions.

02 ISEA.indd 15 6/6/08 9:54:59 AM

16

OLIVIER CUNIN

In many cases G. Groslier’s proposals were substantiated on site. Three types of face tower are found — one with several registers of praying figures above the faces, others with or without a tier of praying figures below the faces, both having lotuses crowning their summits. I published an article on my research in Banteay Chmar (Cunin 2005) and returned to the site in 2006–07, which allowed me to further increase the estimate of face towers there to 45. A subsequent clearing operation conducted by the Cambodian Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts has now enabled us to establish a complete count of the original number of face towers at Banteay Chmar as 50. Figure 2.13 shows the positions of extant face towers, collapsed towers established by fallen blocks carved with face parts, and face towers restored by symmetry calculations but whose presence cannot yet be proven on the ground.

Crucial to our Bayon study were both the confirmation of Groslier’s report on Banteay Chmar having corner pavilion towers and the physical ascertaining from the blocks on the ground that these towers were carved with faces. Now as the Banteay Chmar pavilions are almost identical structures to the outer gallery pavilions of the Bayon, apart from the minor difference noted, this finding effectively obviates Dumarçay’s hypothesis that the Khmer master builders excluded face towers from outer galleries on the grounds that the gallery pavilions provided inadequate foundations. It appears most unlikely that the builders would have sanctioned the construction of face towers on the outer gallery pavilions of Banteay Chmar, while at the same time rejecting this option for identical corner pavilions in the Bayon. We may now respond to Dumarçay’s question as to whether ‘the Khmer builders [would] have committed the imprudence of supporting face tower with only four pillars?’ with a clear positive in the case of Banteay Chmar. And as a direct consequence, we must also abandon his argument against face towers being built on the outer gallery pavilions of the Bayon.

Fig 2.12 Banteay Chmar satellite tower with worshipper motif.

02 ISEA.indd 16 6/6/08 9:55:02 AM

17

HOW MANY FACE TOWERS IN THE BAYON?

Fig 2.13 New count of face towers in Banteay Chmar central complex.

Back to the Bayon

Banteay Chmar has equipped us with a valuable tool for dealing with the outer gallery of the Bayon, namely the technique of prospecting for face tower locations by searching for appropriately carved fragments distributed around the bases of ruined structures. In order to extend the Banteay Chmar search to Angkor, I divided the stacks of stones in and around the Bayon into 34 zones. A preliminary survey of these zones showed the presence of similar face tower elements as at Banteay Chmar. Twelve elements of face towers were found in the ‘Commaille piles’ and in the field surrounding the outer gallery: 1. praying figures; 2. corner/angle figures; 3. garudas; 4. necks; 5. mouths; 6. noses; 7. ears; 8. eyes; 9. crowns; 10. lotuses; 11. praying figures crowning superstructures; and 12. other crowning superstructures.

In order to overcome the confusion generated by the fact that the ‘Commaille piles’ include stones that crashed down from the two higher levels of the temple, I was obliged to conduct a rapid survey of the second and third levels of the Bayon to determine what stones may have fallen down to the first level.

Brief Inventory of the Bayon Face Towers

Based on the currently accepted count of 49 face towers, and given that some towers have 4 faces and some 3, we reach a total of 173 faces, 163 necks, 160 mouths, 160 noses, 297 ears, 311 eyes, and

02 ISEA.indd 17 6/6/08 9:55:03 AM

18

OLIVIER CUNIN

155 crowns; whereas we would expect to find, given the number of towers which have collapsed or are known only hypothetically through symmetry estimations, 187 necks, mouths, noses, and crowns, and 374 ears and eyes. Yet some of the faces in the central sanctuary remain barely sketched, so we may reduce the number of faces actually carved by nine. The final count to expect is therefore 178 necks, mouths, noses, and crowns, and 356 ears and eyes. We are therefore missing between a maximum of 15 necks, 18 mouths and noses, 59 ears, 45 eyes, and 23 crowns; and a minimum of 9 necks, 12 mouths and noses, 44 ears, 33 eyes, and 17 crowns. As concerns the lotuses on the top of the towers, there were a maximum of 50 and a minimum of 47, some of which may not have been completed. To this total we should add two possible tiers of praying figures.

Provisional Inventory of the ‘Commaille Piles’ and Surrounding Field Stacks

Among the fallen Bayon stones with carved surfaces that are today visible, there are found 17 fragments of praying figures, 13 ‘angle figures’ positioned between giant faces, 63 fragments of garudas, 2 necks, 2 fragments of mouths, 5 noses, 11 parts of ears, 7 eyes, 24 parts of crowns, 33 parts of lotuses, 9 fragments of summit praying figures, and 15 other pieces from the tops of towers (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1 Inventory of the ‘Commaille piles’ and field stacks at the Bayon: (1) Praying figures, (2) corner/angle elements, (3) garuda elements, (4) necks, (5) mouths, (6) noses, (7) ears, (8) eyes, (9) crown or foreheads, (10) lotuses, (11) praying figure crowning elements, (12) crowning elements of towers.

ID (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

BY.71 3 5 1 2Zone 1 1 1 2 2Zone 2 2 5 3Zone 3 2 1 2 2 4Zone 4 2 5 1Zone 5Zone 6 3Zone 7 1 1 2 2Zone 8 1 1Zone 9 1 11 2 2 1Zone 10Zone 11 1 4Zone 12 2 2Zone 13 1 1 1Zone 14 1 1 2 1Zone 15 2 1 1Zone 16 1Zone 17Zone 18Zone 19 1Zone 20 5 1Zone 21 1 1 2 2Zone 22 2 2 1 2 1 1Zone 23 1 5 2Zone 24 7 1 1Zone 25 1 1 1 1 1 1Zone 26 4 2 1Zone 27 1 2 9 2 2Zone 28 1 1Zone 29 1 7 2 3 1 3Zone 30 3 1Zone 31 3 4Zone 32Zone 33 2 1 2 1 1

02 ISEA.indd 18 6/6/08 9:55:04 AM

19

HOW MANY FACE TOWERS IN THE BAYON?

It should be remarked that the high number of garuda fragments should be viewed with caution because no attempt has yet been made to separate the angle garudas from the third level of the temple, where they are particularly damaged on the central sanctuary, from garudas used in face towers.

I had at first divided the praying figures into 17 larger ones carved in a broad circle and designed to be positioned below faces, as in Banteay Chmar, and nine smaller ones designed to be set above faces. But on closer inspection, the degree of curvature of all the Bayon fragments bearing more than one worshipper exceeds that of all Banteay Chmar lower tier ones. From this, we can only conclude that in the Bayon we are dealing only with registers of different sizes of praying figures set above faces. One of these fragments may have come from tower 52 restored by Glaize, and one or two more fragments may theoretically have come from the stand-alone tower 17. It is possible that others came from two hypothetical towers beside the central sanctuary, although nothing has yet suggested these hypothetical towers bore praying figures. Furthermore there are few places on the higher Bayon levels where worshipper angle figures would fit — certainly not enough spaces to account for the

Fig 2.14 Bayon face fragment find-spots.

02 ISEA.indd 19 6/6/08 9:55:08 AM

20

OLIVIER CUNIN

13 stones of the kind identified. These fragments must therefore have come from structures which have since disappeared.

It is proposed here that many of these fragments come from the superstructures of pavilions in the outer gallery with bas-reliefs. These hypothetical towers must then have borne angle praying figures as well as having crowning ornaments of praying figures. The small number of stones found with angle motifs makes it difficult to decide how they would have been distributed among the towers. Some of these fragments do however recall the angle figures in veneration posture, we find on the gopuras of the outer enclosures of Ta Prohm and Banteay Kdei, as well as on the gates of Angkor Thom, where we also find representations of Indra — and Indra may be represented among the angle figures in fragments around the Bayon. It is therefore probable that the pavilion towers of the Bayon outer gallery were a simplified variant of these gates, and the only such examples in all the art of the Bayon.

Our inventory of the actual face towers of the Bayon showed many missing pieces. The fragments found in the ‘Commaille piles’ and surrounding field would not numerically make up this deficit, and provide a residue that would prove that the outer gallery pavilions bore faces. To move beyond this conclusion we had recourse to our Banteay Chmar experience of taking the spatial distribution of face fragments as indicating the original place of face towers on the monument. This approach is straightforward in an undisturbed ruin like Banteay Chmar but we were encouraged in using it in the Bayon by the Reports of the Conservation of Angkor (RCA), which record that the stones piled up by Commaille and arranged in rows in the surrounding field were all carefully grouped in the areas in which they were first found when the forest was cleared. The ‘Commaille piles’ and the field stacks were therefore not random assortments.

From their spatial distribution, some of the face fragments in the ‘Commaille piles’ do indeed seem to have fallen from the present face towers on higher levels of the temple; but this is highly unlikely to be the case for fragments found outside the temple outer wall. For example, 17 face fragments were found outside the temple around the foot of the northeast corner pavilion of the Bayon (Figure 2.14). It is highly unlikely that these stones came from face towers on the second and third levels of the monument, as these would have fallen into the first level courtyard within the gallery wall, and would therefore have been stacked in the ‘Commaille piles’ inside the wall. It is much more likely that they fell outside the gallery wall, directly from the northeast corner pavilion, which therefore most probably bore a tower with four faces. Furthermore, the presence here of tightly curved fragments bearing carvings of praying figures suggests a tower with multiple registers of worshippers above its faces, rather than a tower with a broader ring of praying figures set below the neck of the tower faces. From the symmetry of the monument, we must then assume the other corner pavilions bore similar towers — and this appears to be confirmed by findings of several face fragments near the other corner pavilions, some of them outside the gallery wall, some inside. Furthermore, that other face fragments were found outside the central, axial pavilions in both the northern and eastern walls indicates that these pavilions too bore face towers. We must then conclude that all eight pavilions in the Bayon outer gallery were originally surmounted by faces towers, which included upper registers of praying figures.

The Original Number of Face Towers in the Bayon

Given this new evidence for the presence of face towers on the outer gallery pavilions of the Bayon, we arrive at the following summary of the original number of towers and faces erected on the Bayon and the gates of Angkor Thom city (Table 2.2). This table only accounts for fully carved, and a small number of partially carved face towers, whether still standing or hypothetically affirmed from collapsed fragments.

Paul Mus (1936) thought each tower must have been considered as bearing four faces, even if all four were not present and visible. He applied this four-face principle to the faces clustered together in the towering central sanctuary, where faces are joined as twos or threes more often than fours. The faces implied by Mus’ calculation would increase the total of faces by eight. If other towers with fewer than four actual faces are all considered to have four real or virtual faces, we then reach a new grand total for the temple of 256 faces, real and virtual.

02 ISEA.indd 20 6/6/08 9:55:09 AM

21

HOW MANY FACE TOWERS IN THE BAYON?

Table 2.2 New inventory of face towers on the Bayon and the gates of Angkor Thom city. (*Dumarçay included tower BY.17 in his ascertained total, whereas I consider it hypothetical because of the absence of directly linked face fragments.)

Location Number of

towers List of buildings

Including hypothetical

towers

List of hypothetical

towers

3rd Bayon level 18* BY.1, BY.2, BY.3, BY.4, BY.5, BY.6, BY.7, BY.8, BY.9,

BY.12, BY.13, BY.15, BY.16, BY.17*, BY.18, BY.19, BY.20, BY.21

20 BY.10, BY.11 et BY.17*

2nd Bayon level 30 BY.22, BY.23, BY.38, BY.39, BY.40, BY.25, BY.26, BY.27, BY.41, BY.42, BY.43, BY.29, BY.30, BY.31, BY.44, BY.45, BY.46, BY.33, BY.34, BY.35, BY.47, BY.48, BY.49, BY.37, BY.24, BY.28, BY.32, BY.36, BY.50, BY.51

30

1st Bayon level 1 BY.52 9 BY.55, BY.57, BY.59, BY.61, BY.63, BY.65, BY.67, BY.69

Total Bayon face towers

49 59

Angkor Thom gates

5 Victory Gate, Gate of the Dead, South Gate, West Gate, North Gate

5

Total face towers in Angkor Thom

54 64

Conclusion

The structure of the outer gallery of the Bayon, thought until now to have contained cross-vaulted pavilions (Figure 2.15), cannot account for the carved fragments fallen to the ground outside the monument (Figure 2.16). This model should therefore now be abandoned in favor of pavilions with face towers carved in a more elaborate design than those still standing in the temple. The more elaborate towers of the outer gallery pavilions were alone in having tiers of praying figures crowning their summits. On this basis I propose a new computerized remodeling of the Bayon in its pristine state (Figures 2.17 and 2.18). Many questions of detail remain open to future validation, but it can now be affirmed that this investigation has substantially increased the number of instances of Jayavarman’s face tower innovation in both Banteay Chmar and in his state temple, the Bayon of Angkor (Table 2.3).

02 ISEA.indd 21 6/6/08 9:55:09 AM

22

OLIVIER CUNIN

Fig 2.15 Computerized remodeling of Dumarçay’s version of the Bayon outer gallery and pavilions without face towers.

Fig 2.16 New model of the Bayon outer gallery and pavilions with face towers.

02 ISEA.indd 22 6/6/08 9:55:20 AM

23

HOW MANY FACE TOWERS IN THE BAYON?

Fig 2.17 New model of the original Bayon in elevation.

Fig 2.18 New model of eastern corner pavilion.

Table 2.3 Number of face towers in the Khmer zone

Monument Previous number of face towers

Number including hypothetical and

attested face towers

Ta Prohm 4(Gopura of outer enclosure) 4

Banteay Kdei 4(Gopura of outer enclosure) 4

Ta Som 2(Gopura of outer enclosure) 2

Angkor Thom 54(Bayon + gates of city) 64

Banteay Chmar 12Principal temple + satellite temples 44

Preah Khan de Kompong Svay 1(Prasat Preah Stung) 1

Total face towers 77(minimum)

119(maximum)

02 ISEA.indd 23 6/6/08 9:55:22 AM

24

OLIVIER CUNIN

References

Baku, S. and Cunin, O. 2005. The face towers at Banteay Chmar. In The Face Towers of Banteay Chmar. Tokyo: GOTO Shoin Publishing Co. Ltd, pp.105–41.

Cunin, O. 2004. De Ta Prohm au Bayon, Tome II: Contribution à l’histoire architecturale du Bayon. Thèse doctorale de l’INPL, Nancy.

Cunin, O. and Uchida, E. 2002. Contribution of the magnetic susceptibility of sandstone to the analysis of the architectural history of Bayon style monuments. Annual Report on the Technical Survey of Angkor Monument (ARTSAM) (Tokyo) pp. 205–54.

Dagens, B. 2000. The Bayon face towers and their meaning. In Fifth Symposium on the Preservation and Restoration of Bayon, Siem Reap — 11 & 12 December 2000 — Final Report. Paris: Unesco, pp. 83–120.

———. 1988. Les tours à visages du Bayon d’Angkor et le nombre 108. Bulletin d’études indiennes 6: 177–99.Delaporte, L. 1880. Voyage au Cambodge, l’architecture khmer. (Ch. Delagrave, Paris rpt. 1999.) Paris: Maisonneuve

et Larose. Dumarçay, J. 1973. Le Bayon, histoire architecturale du temple. MAEFEO No. 3. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve. ———. 1967. Le Bayon, histoire architecturale du temple: Atlas et notice des planches. MAEFEO No. 3. Paris: Adrien-

Maisonneuve. Glaize, M. 1944. Rapports de la Conservation d’Angkor (RCAI). Août-Septembre.Groslier, B.P. 1973. Le Bayon, inscriptions du Bayon. MAEFEO No. 3. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve.Groslier, G. 1937. Bantay Chmar, ville ancienne du Cambodge. L’Illustration 3(4909): 342–7. (Rpt 2004 Aséanie 13:

150–61.)———. 1935. Étude sur le temps passé à la construction d’un grand temple khmer (Bantay Chmar). Troisièmes

recherches sur les Cambodgiens. BEFEO 35 (Fasc. I): 159–76.Mus, P. 1936. Le symbolisme à Angkor-Thom: Le ‘grand miracle’ du Bayon. Académie des Inscriptions & Belles-Lettres:

Comptes rendus des séances de l’année 1936. Paris, pp. 57–68.Pottier, C. 2004. À propos du temple de Banteay Chmar. Aséanie 13: 131–49.Uchida, E., Cunin, O., Shimoda, I., Suda, C. and Nakagawa, T. 2003. The construction process of the Angkor monuments

elucidated by the magnetic susceptibility of sandstone. Archaeometry 45 (Part 2): 221–32.

02 ISEA.indd 24 6/6/08 9:55:23 AM