Thai Troops Enter Disputed Territory On Thai-cambodian Border

[Old Man River]

It is wrong to say that the present government had no option but to sign, nor to say that the former one had already declared its position. As many, including I, have noted it is sad that given the temple's fascinating history that a workable mutual management plan could not be put in place. It is also notable that no one in the political firmament wants to remind anyone about the various quid pro quo that the early 1900's agreement with the colonial power gave to Thailand, since that would be deemed even more embarrassing.

Regards

What did Thailand get in the 1900's for accepting France's map that gave the temple to French Indo China?

[Meerkat]

Meerkat, did you post the link explaining the May 22nd signing of the joint communique on this thread? I have gone back through every page and can't find it. I would very much like to see it. Please either give me the # of your post or resend it. Thanks.

Different thread, sorry. Original article was in The Nation.

[Plus]

Meerkat, you obviously ignored facts presented by Pridiyathorn.

Could you please scroll up the page and read it?

Prior to Noppadon's sacking of Thai negotiator the listing was for "Sacred site", not just the temple, and supplied maps covered disputed territories.

There's no way Cambodians would have succeded in listing on those terms without Thailand's approval.

[Meerkat]

Meerkat, you obviously ignored facts presented by Pridiyathorn.

Could you please scroll up the page and read it?

Prior to Noppadon's sacking of Thai negotiator the listing was for "Sacred site", not just the temple, and supplied maps covered disputed territories.

There's no way Cambodians would have succeded in listing on those terms without Thailand's approval.

But that's the whole point. Thailand storms out of the joint meetings (having publicly stated last year that they'd support a Cambodian listing this month) so Cambodia turns round and says sod you lot then we're going to list a smaller site that you cannot stop because it's on our soil. That's what I mean about Thailand trying to make the most of a bad situation. That's why I keep on saying it was that change in policy that was instrumental in allowing a single listing, but it was a change in Cambodian policy, not Thai. Thailand does not, nor had then, a say in what Cambodia does with Cambodian territory.

[sriracha john]

What are your resons for this kind of postings, one article is good and the other is no good, because "the guy is famous for his opinions"(witch you don't like). Are you not at all interested to know and hear of other posters and forum readers views on the matters? When I joined here I thought this was a forum for free opinions, but it seems a few here wants to make it a PAD-ofile forum, without any other opinions, very sad

Unfortunately instead of a factual discussion this clique of posters prefers character assassination (eg. 'He usually distorts facts and paints doomsday scenarios that never materialise').

Intellectually not very stimulating.

Which is about the same level as PAD argumentation, such as the 'new politics' debate.

joined at 10:00 and within 2 hours, you've sorted this all out, eh?

creating more work for the mods to delete, eh?

[tijnebijn]

Sorry to interrupt , but I very much enjoy reading the debate going on in this thread .

The personal bickering and grudge towards a specific member is not right , and is getting

to a point its gets annoying .

Please give the poster a chance and let it be SJ .

[Tod Daniels]

http://www.icj-cij.org/search/index.php?p1...p;op=&pg=11

I just went thru and read the ICJ findings from the 1962 ruling about the sovereignty issue, which was posted at the above link. Every other page has to be skipped when reading (as it's translated into French), but the English version makes for a quite interesting and short 36 page read.

While the current political factions posture, spout rhetoric, make allegations of 'disputed areas', and point fingers at one another over possible loss of thai sovereignty, there is NO border dispute. The 1962 ruling spells out in black and white the reasons for the ICJ's rulings.

You can draw your own conclusions after reading it. Given the glorious "Land 'O Thais" actions since the 1907 Franco-Siamese Boundary Treaty regarding the temple and just about the entire boundary between Cambodia and Thailand; the 1962 ICJ interpretation and ruling about the temple area was correct 100%. Unfortunately just because you as a country don't like or agree with the ICJ about an international boundary finding doesn't mean that it's not binding, or you can conveniently overlook the ruling.

I strongly suggest anyone with an interest in this political hot potato and all too conveniently now front page news read the ICJ findings and ruling.

[A_Traveller]

... It is also notable that no one in the political firmament wants to remind anyone about the various quid pro quo that the early 1900's agreement with the colonial power gave to Thailand, since that would be deemed even more embarrassing.

Regards

What did Thailand get in the 1900's for accepting France's map that gave the temple to French Indo China?

The process had been ongoing for decades, during the early 1900's there were 3 separate but associative actions, 2 in 1904 and a further one in 1907, these agreements formalised a number of issues, including ceding elements to French Indochina and also to France {Laos} itself. Under these agreements the areas of Dansai & Krat were confirmed as being within the Thai sphere of influence.

Regards

PS Apologies for this late reply, but I missed it earlier.

PPS Should mention that this process was also part of the restructuring of Thailand {administratively}.

Edited July 24, 2008 by A_Traveller

[sabaijai]

As to my assertion re access this is covered by a number of scholars in the field, for example, Vittorio Roveda, noting how the temple complex was a also a monastery the mountain being ascended because the ascent offered spiritual rewards for pilgrims and upon reaching the summit provided the solitude necessary for religious meditation, not because it afforded spectacular views from its summit. In addition, unlike many Khmer sites, this one shows clear evidence of long term occupation and development, theorised to be over some 3 centuries. Others, also note the royal connexion to the site, and there's references to the King's progress from Angkor to the site as well, at the height of the Khmer empire.

Regards

/edit typo {not invisible editing unlike some}//

Khmer art and archaeology was a focus area for my SE Asia art history major in grad school, and as far as I know it was never standard practice in Angkor architecture to build a monument so that it was approached from a cliff or very steep height.

The observation of Roveda's and others no doubt refers to the artificial complexities of moving about inside the complex, rather than to the complex. Again if you have a concrete example that is an exception, let's see it.

Neither was it the norm at Borobudur (not necessarilly a relevant comparison since it's a Javanese Buddhist stupa rather than Angkor Brahmanist site) which enjoys rather easy access from any side.

I have visited both Borobudur and KPV a number of times, as an art history student and as a tourist. The ritual access routes are quite clear in both cases, neither is partcularly difficult. Devotees must stop along the way for ablutions and prayers, so the access route is typically lengthy. Had access to KPV ever been from the cliff, the architects would had to have set the main sanctuary well away from the brink to allow for a ritual approach. We don't see that here.

Looking at the plan for KPV, it's obvious from which direction it was meant to be accessed.

Borobudur:

[Meerkat]

Prior to Noppadon's sacking of Thai negotiator the listing was for "Sacred site", not just the temple, and supplied maps covered disputed territories.

I'm going to revisit this post because it's important now that I've finally found the original articles online. Your post here and the synopsis you gave on the last page are both wrong. It would have helped had you posted links.

What the original articles actually state was that the Thai government was told on March 3/4 that the site would be reduced to just the Temple, just over a month after getting into power and more than a month before Noppadom took over. Even Pridiyathorn admits that they were caught offside with that one. That's a pretty unforgiveable mistake on behalf of the Thai negotiators, especially as they had taken such a hard line against the larger listing. It was their petulance that forced Cambodia to switch tactics and as Pridiyathorn also states, it would then allow the WHC to list the site without breaking any rules (ie without Thai endorsement). That actually makes Noppadom's sacking of the lead negotiator make much more sense. At that point Thailand had effectively lost the opportunity to force Cambodia into a joint-listing so it was time to scramble to get something out of the deal.

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3

Article 4

[A_Traveller]

^^ On balance, this isn't a thread to discuss the many disparate views by scholars, students or 'lay people' relating to the site's history, especially given that there is real doubt as to the date of its original foundation, since there's evidence to show that the temple site {along with other watersheds} had import prior to the extant temple. It has been viewed by some as a very singular element by virtue of its connexions to both Royal and, to borrow the phrase 'ancestral worship' {and yes I've visited it a number of times} within the corpus of temples.

Until real archaeological work is undertaken, which hopefully would be possible under the UNESCO banner it is difficult for any of us to be more than assumptive based on the inevitably scant historical records. I, with respect, retain my position. Who knows in 10 years or so, if this gets sorted out we may know one way or the other.

Regards

/edit add chevrons//

Edited July 24, 2008 by A_Traveller

[Plus]

What the original articles actually state was that the Thai government was told on March 3/4 that the site would be reduced to just the Temple

Yet in the next paragraph Pridiyathorn says that Thais still thought that they could bring down unilateral bid by refusing to participate in the meeting held three weeks after above mentioned announcement.

Two little things that went against them - they were initially told by Unesco that once the bid was submitted, terms could not be changed. Unesco, however, allowed Cambodians to reduce the site and supply new set of maps.

Another point is that Thais failed to formally register their objections so the committee had no record of them when considering the final bid. To that I can say that they had three months before the final decision, plenty of time to formalise their objections.

Most importantly, however, is that evidence of Thai "active support" was a necessary part of the application, and that wasn't forthcoming. Without it the bid would have been incomplete, not to mention if they had managed to formally register their opposition with World Heritage Commitee.

If Thais were consistent they would have most certainly delayed the listing.

Now, pause to consider WHY they opposed Cambodians in the first place. It's not about losing territory - it's about blatant distorition of truth and historical evidence as Thailand sees it. Come to think of it, I haven't met one single opinion that differs from Thai position - the temple belonged to the people who lived in present day Thailand, people who built it and worshipped there.

Cambodian bid completely devalues historical significance of the area. According to them the temple was build and used by people who lived under 500m cliff.

This was, is, and always will be completely unacceptable to Thailand.

[A_Traveller]

As an aside you do all know what the present King of Cambodia used to do, don't you?

He was Cambodia's representative to UNESCO in Paris from 1993 {he declined to be Ambassador} until his formal installation after his father abdicated in 2006.

Regards

PS I add this as a background note, I do take the view that the Cambodian position re listing is entirely appropriate and consistent.

Edited July 24, 2008 by A_Traveller

[Meerkat]

What the original articles actually state was that the Thai government was told on March 3/4 that the site would be reduced to just the Temple

Yet in the next paragraph Pridiyathorn says that Thais still thought that they could bring down unilateral bid by refusing to participate in the meeting held three weeks after above mentioned announcement.

Two little things that went against them - they were initially told by Unesco that once the bid was submitted, terms could not be changed. Unesco, however, allowed Cambodians to reduce the site and supply new set of maps.

Agreed that UNESCO seemed to show bias towards Cambodia's sole bid, but remember that UNESCO is only interested in preserving the site, not getting involved in diplomatic squabbles. Perhaps they believed that protecting only the temple was better than nothing, having witnessed Thailand's delaying tactics.

Another point is that Thais failed to formally register their objections so the committee had no record of them when considering the final bid. To that I can say that they had three months before the final decision, plenty of time to formalise their objections.

Most importantly, however, is that evidence of Thai "active support" was a necessary part of the application, and that wasn't forthcoming. Without it the bid would have been incomplete, not to mention if they had managed to formally register their opposition with World Heritage Commitee.

If Thais were consistent they would have most certainly delayed the listing.

Direct quote from the second article, "Cambodia could file its bid to have Preah Vihear Temple registered as a World Heritage site on its own. Moreover, the World Heritage Committee could approve such a nomination without breaking any rules."

And from the third article, "By nominating only the Preah Vihear Temple as a new World Heritage site, Cambodia had the right to file the nomination alone.

If Cambodia had stuck to the nomination of the "Sacred Site of Preah Vihear", it would not have been able to file the nomination unilaterally, as proven by the 31st meeting of the World Heritage Committee."

That reads to me that Pridiyathorn admits that Thailand wouldn't be able to stop the listing (given that the site is now solely on Cambodian soil). The 'Active Support" was only needed if the listing was to include the larger area (as stated in the 31st committee meeting). So how can you say that they could most certainly delay the listing when Pridiyathorn states that they couldn't?

In fact his articles seem to show a huge incompetence on the part of the original Thai negotiators:

They didn't forsee Cambodia's switching policy and carried on acting in an obstructive manner (effectively forcing Cambodia's hand).

Even when Cambodia switched policy, they still thought they could block the application (they were still using the old map).

They refused to attend the March conference, which may have allowed them to protest the listing (but very unlikely to block it as Pridiyathorn states that the smaller site wouldn't need Thai support).

Until Noppadom took over as head of the team, Thailand was going to get nothing out of Cambodia's listing. Is it any wonder he sacked the guy?

Now, pause to consider WHY they opposed Cambodians in the first place. It's not about losing territory - it's about blatant distorition of truth and historical evidence as Thailand sees it. Come to think of it, I haven't met one single opinion that differs from Thai position - the temple belonged to the people who lived in present day Thailand, people who built it and worshipped there.

Cambodian bid completely devalues historical significance of the area. According to them the temple was build and used by people who lived under 500m cliff.

This was, is, and always will be completely unacceptable to Thailand.

I've said before that I find the ICJ ruling bizarre, but that's just tough. It's done and there's no appeal. That the Thais haven't come to grips with this uncomfortable truth is hardly the sole fault of the present administration. I agree that the more limited area doesn't do the entire complex justice, but the Noppadom plan at least gave Thailand some co-management rights, which have now been taken away.

[Plus]

Meerkat,

Reducing/changing the proposal from "Sacred site" to "Temple" was not on the cards. Unesco told Thailand it would be impossible

from the second installment:

"Unesco officials responded that it is not possible to amend any information in a nomination file that has already been assessed"

Thais could have raised a mighty stink over exluding them as it goes against last year resolution and mutually agreed way forward that there's little chance of Unesco ignoring their opposition. Instead the bid was presented as a continuation of last year policy with sufficient evidence of Thai "active support".

>>>

Traveller,

I do take the view that the Cambodian position re listing is entirely appropriate and consistent.

Consistent - yes, they've been saying that territories and structures on Thai side have no importance or relevance to the original temple all along.

But do you really think it's "appropriate"?

It includes wild stuff like the following from PD's first installment: "...Temple plan was designed according to Buddhist geometry that involved ancient structures down below on Cambodian soil".

[A_Traveller]

To be honest I don't see it at all 'wild', indeed in the article which endeavours to suggest that foreign experts were somehow misled as to the history of the site {presumably by the trickster Khmer}, it is that which strikes me as bizarre. As I've noted there are a number of academically supported positions re this singular temple and its site. My own view, without wishing to go too far off topic is a} the site was a sacred one much earlier then the extant temple implies, b} that the temple seen today is an agglomeration of work over a number of centuries {including careful expunging of its past}, and c} the evidence is inconclusive since no really detailed archaeology has been possible there.

However, the deep historical connexion to the Khmer is unmistakable, just as is the evidence of Siam styled elements within areas of Cambodia which were held for a period by Siam. In this case, the site, the architecture, the iconography all point unmistakably to a Khmer past as the main constituent of the development of the site, which notably was not Siamised.

So did the French take the view that the cultural usurped the conventional border line, yes they, in my view rightly, did, though traditionally watersheds have been treated in this region as both sacred and 'no man's land'. Further this has been upheld by action {not just inaction} by Siam/Thailand for effectively 50 years, buffer notwithstanding, in addition the court judgement was final, and after time granted to appeal expired the matter should have been deemed resolved.

Regards

PS The tragedy is that the site is singular, and yet probably will end up as a tourist 'venue' for whomsoever ultimately resolves this, I just hope that archaeology will be given the opportunity to investigate and illuminate this fascinating place.

PPS There is a report in today's Bangkok Post about a model version on an Ranger Camp, the custodian of which notes 'The real temple was built in 1436 with a 72-metre-long staircase with 162 steps.' hm....

/edit typo//

Edited July 24, 2008 by A_Traveller

[Nampeung]

Sorry if it's been asked before but can anyone tell me about when the site in question became Thailand? As in, when you look at maps of the Khmer Empire they clearly controlled huge parts of Thailand including the disputed temple area. So when did Si Saket become part of Thailand?

[sabaijai]

However, the deep historical connexion to the Khmer is unmistakable, just as is the evidence of Siam styled elements within areas of Cambodia which were held for a period by Siam. In this case, the site, the architecture, the iconography all point unmistakably to a Khmer past as the main constituent of the development of the site, which notably was not Siamised.

Absolutely, like close to a thousand other Khmer sites in Thailand. The fact that this one is right on the border makes it obviously unique, however.

By the way Prof Smitthi Siribhadra, lecturer in Southeast Asian and Indian Art at Silapakorn University, and a renowned authority on Khmer art and architecture, will be giving a lecture on Khao Phra Wihan at the Siam Society (Soi 21, Sukhimvit) on 7 August 2008 (Thursday), 7.30 p.m.

[Plus]

Traveler, Thai objections were not connected to border demarkation - they couldn't accept that the temple was separated from the areas leading to it. Regardless of where the actual border should be, the stairs and the ponds and all other structures are part of the same temple complex.

Current Cambodian view that these were later, irrelevant additions is simply unacceptable. Regardless of when they were built - at the same time or later that the temple itself, they are the integral, inseparable part of the "Sacred site of Preah Vihear".

We can argue if Thai dimplomats should have handled it better, but their goal is clear (from DP's series) - they didn't want a listing that devalues historical value of adjacent territories. I don't know of any Thai who'd disagree with their position.

>>>

I don't think Cambodians duped French into anything, French have minds of their own, they were the first ones to "discover" this Khmer civilization anyway. "Wild stuff" is the idea that this temple to Shiva was built according to Buddhist principles. Khmers were Hindu civilization, conversion to Buddhism came several centuries later after Siamese take over.

Perhaps we are missing something here on TV - I haven't seen one single opinion in favor of separate origins of the temple and surrouning areas here.

[kat]

As to my assertion re access this is covered by a number of scholars in the field, for example, Vittorio Roveda, noting how the temple complex was a also a monastery the mountain being ascended because the ascent offered spiritual rewards for pilgrims and upon reaching the summit provided the solitude necessary for religious meditation, not because it afforded spectacular views from its summit.

Regards

/edit typo {not invisible editing unlike some}//

Yes, and I have also seen this written before about other temples, such as Borobodour, so the ascension concept is not so far-fetched or unusual.

Neither was it the norm at Borobudur (not necessarilly a relevant comparison since it's a Javanese Buddhist stupa rather than Angkor Brahmanist site) which enjoys rather easy access from any side.

Again, the idea that the height and ascension of the temple represented the ascension of the soul was not at all far-fetched in early Hindu-influenced cultures and temples, such as those which produced Borobudur and Angkor Wat. As you know, there were parallel Hindu and Buddhist empires in early SEA Kingdoms, and just as the two religions share similar roots so did the early empires and intermingled influences. Many early buddhists were Brahmins, there were concurrent Hindu and Buddhist empires in Java and early SEA, the preceding kingdom of the Khmers was the Hindu kingdom of Funan, Angkor Wat itself was first a Hindu temple before conversion to Buddhism, and there is a Hindu temple within the same compound of Borodudur (Prambanan).

So, again, my point remains: the ascension concept is not at all far-fetched and is a normative feature of Hindu/Indianized-influenced cultures, which is pretty much all of SEA, and most definitely the temples/*stupa under discussion here. I respect your degree and authority on SEA art history and Khmer archaeology, but you don't need to be an expert to understand the above history and normative points. I am also sure that you are well aware of these points, so can only conclude that you are narrowing your focus for the sake of argument on the approach to KPV. I can't really say if this same principle applies to the approach of the temple, because I don't know. I don't think anyone can conclusively say it, but perhaps some scholars could argue it based on their research and scholarly hypotheses, but again, I haven't heard it about the approach to the temples, except that their height is spiritually significant.

*added

Edited July 24, 2008 by kat

[kat]

"Wild stuff" is the idea that this temple to Shiva was built according to Buddhist principles. Khmers were Hindu civilization, conversion to Buddhism came several centuries later

Exactly, except it is my understanding that it was converted to Mahayana Buddhism first under Jayavarman, before Theravada after Siam.

[kat]

Absolutely, like close to a thousand other Khmer sites in Thailand. The fact that this one is right on the border makes it obviously unique, however.

Nice to see you recognize or agree with one of my earlier points, SJ, that you brutalized me over previously.

[kat]

"Wild stuff" is the idea that this temple to Shiva was built according to Buddhist principles. Khmers were Hindu civilization, conversion to Buddhism came several centuries later

Exactly, except it is my understanding that it was converted to Mahayana Buddhism first under Jayavarman, before Theravada after Siam.

BTW, just to clarify this point: I think Angkor had converted to Theravada before the Siam invasion.

[sabaijai]

As to my assertion re access this is covered by a number of scholars in the field, for example, Vittorio Roveda, noting how the temple complex was a also a monastery the mountain being ascended because the ascent offered spiritual rewards for pilgrims and upon reaching the summit provided the solitude necessary for religious meditation, not because it afforded spectacular views from its summit.

Regards

/edit typo {not invisible editing unlike some}//

Yes, and I have also seen this written before about other temples, such as Borobodour, so the ascension concept is not so far-fetched or unusual.

Neither was it the norm at Borobudur (not necessarilly a relevant comparison since it's a Javanese Buddhist stupa rather than Angkor Brahmanist site) which enjoys rather easy access from any side.

Again, the idea that the height and ascension of the temple represented the ascension of the soul was not at all far-fetched in early Hindu-influenced cultures and temples, such as those which produced Borobudur and Angkor Wat. As you know, there were parallel Hindu and Buddhist empires in early SEA Kingdoms, and just as the two religions share similar roots so did the early empires and intermingled influences. Many early buddhists were Brahmins, there were concurrent Hindu and Buddhist empires in Java and early SEA, the preceding kingdom of the Khmers was the Hindu kingdom of Funan, Angkor Wat itself was first a Hindu temple before conversion to Buddhism, and there is a Hindu temple within the same compound of Borodudur (Prambanan).

So, again, my point remains: the ascension concept is not at all far-fetched and is a normative feature of Hindu/Indianized-influenced cultures, which is pretty much all of SEA, and most definitely the temples/*stupa under discussion here. I respect your degree and authority on SEA art history and Khmer archaeology, but you don't need to be an expert to understand the above history and normative points. I am also sure that you are well aware of these points, so can only conclude that you are narrowing your focus for the sake of argument on the approach to KPV. I can't really say if this same principle applies to the approach of the temple, because I don't know. I don't think anyone can conclusively say it, but perhaps some scholars could argue it based on their research and scholarly hypotheses, but again, I haven't heard it about the approach to the temples, except that their height is spiritually significant.

*added

You're confusing approach to the complex with ritual navigation within the complex. The idea that the approach should be difficult is far-fetched. The notion that ritual circumambulation requires effort is not, as I explained. (Although even a complete ascent of Borobudur - which I've done more than once - is a cakewalk compared to ascending KPV from the Cambodian plains). Many temples are sited on hills and slopes, and if the approach isn't naturally convenient, then it will be made artificially so. It's a simple matter of art history, and if you can supply a single counter-example, please do.

The idea that a cliff would be chosen as the approach is absurd, as I'm sure you instinctively know but for some reason are reluctant to admit But show us one example of a Hindu-Buddhist monument in Cambodia or Thailand that is approached via a cliff or extremely steep slope, and then it's possible to say that KPV may be an exception. Even then you would have to concede that the majority of sites do not have such approaches. However I'm confident enough in my travels and ny mentors to say that I sincerely doubt that a single example exists.

Also please have another look at the illustrations, which clearly show the intended approach. Whether or not the gopuras are later additions, they would always line up with the original orientation of the main Shiva sanctuary. I've never seen the orientation of Angkor- or proto-Angkor style sanctuary turned around. Of course they might well be later additions as the tradition is to build the sanctuary first (just as in Lanna temple culture, the stupa was built first, and the rest of the complex aligned with the stupa) and then to add onto the complex for as long as funds were available. It beggars belief that anyone could visit the site itself and conclude that the temple was ever regularly accessed from behind.

So if anyone's stretching art history to carry an agenda, it wouldn't be me

Nitpicky points: You mean Brahman (referring to the religion), not Brahmin (priestly caste) - or more correctly 'Brahmanist'. Also Prambanan is not within the Borobudur compound, not even close. Prambanan, a later Brahmanist temple, is located 18km east of Yogjakarta. Borobudur, built as a Tantric Buddhist stypa and never used as anything else, is roughly 40km northwest of Yogya.

[kat]

As to my assertion re access this is covered by a number of scholars in the field, for example, Vittorio Roveda, noting how the temple complex was a also a monastery the mountain being ascended because the ascent offered spiritual rewards for pilgrims and upon reaching the summit provided the solitude necessary for religious meditation, not because it afforded spectacular views from its summit.

Regards

/edit typo {not invisible editing unlike some}//

Yes, and I have also seen this written before about other temples, such as Borobodour, so the ascension concept is not so far-fetched or unusual.

Neither was it the norm at Borobudur (not necessarilly a relevant comparison since it's a Javanese Buddhist stupa rather than Angkor Brahmanist site) which enjoys rather easy access from any side.

Again, the idea that the height and ascension of the temple represented the ascension of the soul was not at all far-fetched in early Hindu-influenced cultures and temples, such as those which produced Borobudur and Angkor Wat. As you know, there were parallel Hindu and Buddhist empires in early SEA Kingdoms, and just as the two religions share similar roots so did the early empires and intermingled influences. Many early buddhists were Brahmins, there were concurrent Hindu and Buddhist empires in Java and early SEA, the preceding kingdom of the Khmers was the Hindu kingdom of Funan, Angkor Wat itself was first a Hindu temple before conversion to Buddhism, and there is a Hindu temple within the same compound of Borodudur (Prambanan).

So, again, my point remains: the ascension concept is not at all far-fetched and is a normative feature of Hindu/Indianized-influenced cultures, which is pretty much all of SEA, and most definitely the temples/*stupa under discussion here. I respect your degree and authority on SEA art history and Khmer archaeology, but you don't need to be an expert to understand the above history and normative points. I am also sure that you are well aware of these points, so can only conclude that you are narrowing your focus for the sake of argument on the approach to KPV. I can't really say if this same principle applies to the approach of the temple, because I don't know. I don't think anyone can conclusively say it, but perhaps some scholars could argue it based on their research and scholarly hypotheses, but again, I haven't heard it about the approach to the temples, except that their height is spiritually significant.

*added

You're confusing approach to the complex with ritual navigation within the complex. The idea that the approach should be difficult is far-fetched. The notion that ritual circumambulation requires effort is not, as I explained. (Although even a complete ascent of Borobudur - which I've done more than once - is a cakewalk compared to ascending KPV from the Cambodian plains). Many temples are sited on hills and slopes, and if the approach isn't naturally convenient, then it will be made artificially so. It's a simple matter of art history, and if you can supply a single counter-example, please do.

The idea that a cliff would be chosen as the approach is absurd, as I'm sure you instinctively know but for some reason are reluctant to admit But show us one example of a Hindu-Buddhist monument in Cambodia or Thailand that is approached via a cliff or extremely steep slope, and then it's possible to say that KPV may be an exception. Even then you would have to concede that the majority of sites do not have such approaches. However I'm confident enough in my travels and ny mentors to say that I sincerely doubt that a single example exists.

Also please have another look at the illustrations, which clearly show the intended approach. Whether or not the gopuras are later additions, they would always line up with the original orientation of the main Shiva sanctuary. I've never seen the orientation of Angkor- or proto-Angkor style sanctuary turned around. Of course they might well be later additions as the tradition is to build the sanctuary first (just as in Lanna temple culture, the stupa was built first, and the rest of the complex aligned with the stupa) and then to add onto the complex for as long as funds were available. It beggars belief that anyone could visit the site itself and conclude that the temple was ever regularly accessed from behind.

So if anyone's stretching art history to carry an agenda, it wouldn't be me

Nitpicky point: You mean Brahman (referring to the religion), not Brahmin (priestly caste) - or more correctly 'Brahmanist'. Also Prambanan is not within the Borobudur compound, not even close.

No, I am most definitely not confusing the approach to the stupa/temples with ritual circumambulation, and made that perfectly clear in my last points to you. I will not bother to restate the obvious.

You are right about the location of Prambanan; I think I may have mixed up the proximity in the blur of my travels amongst each temple. If I remember correctly, I think there is one other smaller Hindu temple within the same complex as Borobudur that was undergoing refurbishment several years ago, but I can't recall the name right now (starts with a "V" I think).

At any rate, my major point stands: Hindu and Buddhist temples in the regions were parallel and overlapping, as my previous comments illustrate, and as the very example of Prambanan and Borobudur illustrate in Central Java; so there!

And thanks for your nitpicky comment; I don't mind, but I meant what I said the first time, and I can illustrate my original point with one of the more famous examples of a "Brahminist" Buddhist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Buddhism_in_India

Main article: Siddhartha Gautama

Siddhārtha Gautama was the historical founder of Buddhism. Siddhartha Gautama was born as a Kshatriya prince in ancient India. [2] His particular family of SakyThe a Kshatiryas were of Brahmin lineage as per their family name "Gautama". XIX c. scholars like Dr. Eitel connected it to the Brahmin Rishi Gautama.[3] Lord Buddha is said to be a descendant of Brahmin Sage Angirasa in many Buddhist texts.[4] For example, "In the Pali Mahavagga "Angirasa" (in Pali Angirasa} occurs as a name of Buddha Gautama who evidently belonged to the Angirasa tribe..."[5]. Scholar Edward J. Thomas too connected Buddha with sages Gautama and Angirasa.[6]

The Ashoka Chakra is an ancient Indian depiction of the Dharmachakra (used also by Hinduism). Illustration of the Ashoka Chakra, as depicted on the National flag of the Republic of India.

*edit - double postings on quoted material.

Edited July 24, 2008 by kat

[sabaijai]

Absolutely, like close to a thousand other Khmer sites in Thailand. The fact that this one is right on the border makes it obviously unique, however.

Nice to see you recognize or agree with one of my earlier points, SJ, that you brutalized me over previously.

I don't recall brutalising you over that point. All the other points but that one! As I see it the two points in Cambodia's favor are 1) the border location, and 2) the French maps. Neither is a dealbreaker for me, however, as other factors override these points in my book. The mapping point is weak as the bilateral commission that was supposed to delineate that border never did, so the French went off and did it on their own, unsupervised. The ICJ recognises this in its report, but doesn't find it compelling. ICJ's counter-argument basically says, if you read between the lines, 'The French are Europeans, so we trust them.'

The ICJ decision completely ignores the de facto control that Thailand enjoyed before, during and after the French era. It's only binding insofar as the countries cited decide to follow the decision. There is no penalty provided for as far as I know, and many countries disregard ICJ decisions (the USA most prominently).

I have no personal stake in the outcome of the current fracas, I just hope it ends peacefully. As a rhetorical issue, I would continue to argue that that the escarpment should be part of Thailand, but that the temple should be co-administered by both countries. Ultimately I and most Thais can live without either the bluff or the temple. It is primarily the Cambodians who have made it an issue, and it's their making it an issue that has inflamed some Thais. But to me it's academic.

One additional point no one has yet brought up. If Cambodia were to gain sole administration of the temple, they might hand it over to Sokimex, the petrol-and-military-supplies company that now manages most of the other Angkor sites in Cambodia. That company collects substantial entrance fees, of which an estimated 80% is pocketed by the owners of corporation, the rest divided between local baksheesh and temple maintenance. More on the Angkor Wat fees scandal:

http://friskodude.blogspot.com/2008/01/ang...ee-scandal.html

[sabaijai]

As to my assertion re access this is covered by a number of scholars in the field, for example, Vittorio Roveda, noting how the temple complex was a also a monastery the mountain being ascended because the ascent offered spiritual rewards for pilgrims and upon reaching the summit provided the solitude necessary for religious meditation, not because it afforded spectacular views from its summit.

Regards

/edit typo {not invisible editing unlike some}//

Yes, and I have also seen this written before about other temples, such as Borobodour, so the ascension concept is not so far-fetched or unusual.

Neither was it the norm at Borobudur (not necessarilly a relevant comparison since it's a Javanese Buddhist stupa rather than Angkor Brahmanist site) which enjoys rather easy access from any side.

Again, the idea that the height and ascension of the temple represented the ascension of the soul was not at all far-fetched in early Hindu-influenced cultures and temples, such as those which produced Borobudur and Angkor Wat. As you know, there were parallel Hindu and Buddhist empires in early SEA Kingdoms, and just as the two religions share similar roots so did the early empires and intermingled influences. Many early buddhists were Brahmins, there were concurrent Hindu and Buddhist empires in Java and early SEA, the preceding kingdom of the Khmers was the Hindu kingdom of Funan, Angkor Wat itself was first a Hindu temple before conversion to Buddhism, and there is a Hindu temple within the same compound of Borodudur (Prambanan).

So, again, my point remains: the ascension concept is not at all far-fetched and is a normative feature of Hindu/Indianized-influenced cultures, which is pretty much all of SEA, and most definitely the temples/*stupa under discussion here. I respect your degree and authority on SEA art history and Khmer archaeology, but you don't need to be an expert to understand the above history and normative points. I am also sure that you are well aware of these points, so can only conclude that you are narrowing your focus for the sake of argument on the approach to KPV. I can't really say if this same principle applies to the approach of the temple, because I don't know. I don't think anyone can conclusively say it, but perhaps some scholars could argue it based on their research and scholarly hypotheses, but again, I haven't heard it about the approach to the temples, except that their height is spiritually significant.

*added

You're confusing approach to the complex with ritual navigation within the complex. The idea that the approach should be difficult is far-fetched. The notion that ritual circumambulation requires effort is not, as I explained. (Although even a complete ascent of Borobudur - which I've done more than once - is a cakewalk compared to ascending KPV from the Cambodian plains). Many temples are sited on hills and slopes, and if the approach isn't naturally convenient, then it will be made artificially so. It's a simple matter of art history, and if you can supply a single counter-example, please do.

The idea that a cliff would be chosen as the approach is absurd, as I'm sure you instinctively know but for some reason are reluctant to admit But show us one example of a Hindu-Buddhist monument in Cambodia or Thailand that is approached via a cliff or extremely steep slope, and then it's possible to say that KPV may be an exception. Even then you would have to concede that the majority of sites do not have such approaches. However I'm confident enough in my travels and ny mentors to say that I sincerely doubt that a single example exists.

Also please have another look at the illustrations, which clearly show the intended approach. Whether or not the gopuras are later additions, they would always line up with the original orientation of the main Shiva sanctuary. I've never seen the orientation of Angkor- or proto-Angkor style sanctuary turned around. Of course they might well be later additions as the tradition is to build the sanctuary first (just as in Lanna temple culture, the stupa was built first, and the rest of the complex aligned with the stupa) and then to add onto the complex for as long as funds were available. It beggars belief that anyone could visit the site itself and conclude that the temple was ever regularly accessed from behind.

So if anyone's stretching art history to carry an agenda, it wouldn't be me

Nitpicky point: You mean Brahman (referring to the religion), not Brahmin (priestly caste) - or more correctly 'Brahmanist'. Also Prambanan is not within the Borobudur compound, not even close.

No, I am most definitely not confusing the approach to the stupa/temples with ritual circumambulation, and made that perfectly clear in my last points to you. I will not bother to restate the obvious.

You are right about the location of Prambanan; I think I may have mixed up the proximity in the blur of my travels amongst each temple. If I remember correctly, I think there is one other smaller Hindu temple within the same complex as Borobudur that was undergoing refurbishment several years ago, but I can't recall the name right now (starts with a "V" I think).

At any rate, my major point stands: Hindu and Buddhist temples in the regions were parallel and overlapping, as my previous comments illustrate, and as the very example of Prambanan and Borobudur illustrate in Central Java; so there!

And thanks for your nitpicky comment; I don't mind, but I meant what I said the first time, and I can illustrate my original point with one of the more famous examples of a "Brahminist" Buddhist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Buddhism_in_India

Main article: Siddhartha Gautama

The Ashoka Chakra is an ancient Indian depiction of the Dharmachakra (used also by Hinduism). Illustration of the Ashoka Chakra, as depicted on the National flag of the Republic of India.

The Ashoka Chakra is an ancient Indian depiction of the Dharmachakra (used also by Hinduism). Illustration of the Ashoka Chakra, as depicted on the National flag of the Republic of India.

Siddhārtha Gautama was the historical founder of Buddhism. Siddhartha Gautama was born as a Kshatriya prince in ancient India. [2] His particular family of Sakya Kshatiryas were of Brahmin lineage as per their family name "Gautama". XIX c. scholars like Dr. Eitel connected it to the Brahmin Rishi Gautama.[3] Lord Buddha is said to be a descendant of Brahmin Sage Angirasa in many Buddhist texts.[4] For example, "In the Pali Mahavagga "Angirasa" (in Pali Angirasa} occurs as a name of Buddha Gautama who evidently belonged to the Angirasa tribe..."[5]. Scholar Edward J. Thomas too connected Buddha with sages Gautama and Angirasa.[6]

Sorry your point still relates to the monuments themselves, not to the natural approach. Still looking for a single example from Cambodia or Thailand. Your pet theory means nothing without at least one example, Kat And I don't see anything relevant to your misuse of 'Brahmin' in the text above. The cited text refers to caste; your earlier reference did not. Or if you meant Brahmin caste than it was also misused because if there were any SE Asian Buddhists that once belonged to the Brahmin caste, they would have been very few as by the time Buddhism was established in Cambodia and Thailand there were only a handfule of Brahmin priests still around. And none of them were Buddhists, as becoming Buddhist would have automatically made them non-caste, ie, outcast.

[kat]

As to my assertion re access this is covered by a number of scholars in the field, for example, Vittorio Roveda, noting how the temple complex was a also a monastery the mountain being ascended because the ascent offered spiritual rewards for pilgrims and upon reaching the summit provided the solitude necessary for religious meditation, not because it afforded spectacular views from its summit.

Regards

/edit typo {not invisible editing unlike some}//

Yes, and I have also seen this written before about other temples, such as Borobodour, so the ascension concept is not so far-fetched or unusual.

Neither was it the norm at Borobudur (not necessarilly a relevant comparison since it's a Javanese Buddhist stupa rather than Angkor Brahmanist site) which enjoys rather easy access from any side.

Again, the idea that the height and ascension of the temple represented the ascension of the soul was not at all far-fetched in early Hindu-influenced cultures and temples, such as those which produced Borobudur and Angkor Wat. As you know, there were parallel Hindu and Buddhist empires in early SEA Kingdoms, and just as the two religions share similar roots so did the early empires and intermingled influences. Many early buddhists were Brahmins, there were concurrent Hindu and Buddhist empires in Java and early SEA, the preceding kingdom of the Khmers was the Hindu kingdom of Funan, Angkor Wat itself was first a Hindu temple before conversion to Buddhism, and there is a Hindu temple within the same compound of Borodudur (Prambanan).

So, again, my point remains: the ascension concept is not at all far-fetched and is a normative feature of Hindu/Indianized-influenced cultures, which is pretty much all of SEA, and most definitely the temples/*stupa under discussion here. I respect your degree and authority on SEA art history and Khmer archaeology, but you don't need to be an expert to understand the above history and normative points. I am also sure that you are well aware of these points, so can only conclude that you are narrowing your focus for the sake of argument on the approach to KPV. I can't really say if this same principle applies to the approach of the temple, because I don't know. I don't think anyone can conclusively say it, but perhaps some scholars could argue it based on their research and scholarly hypotheses, but again, I haven't heard it about the approach to the temples, except that their height is spiritually significant.

*added

You're confusing approach to the complex with ritual navigation within the complex. The idea that the approach should be difficult is far-fetched. The notion that ritual circumambulation requires effort is not, as I explained. (Although even a complete ascent of Borobudur - which I've done more than once - is a cakewalk compared to ascending KPV from the Cambodian plains). Many temples are sited on hills and slopes, and if the approach isn't naturally convenient, then it will be made artificially so. It's a simple matter of art history, and if you can supply a single counter-example, please do.

The idea that a cliff would be chosen as the approach is absurd, as I'm sure you instinctively know but for some reason are reluctant to admit But show us one example of a Hindu-Buddhist monument in Cambodia or Thailand that is approached via a cliff or extremely steep slope, and then it's possible to say that KPV may be an exception. Even then you would have to concede that the majority of sites do not have such approaches. However I'm confident enough in my travels and ny mentors to say that I sincerely doubt that a single example exists.

Also please have another look at the illustrations, which clearly show the intended approach. Whether or not the gopuras are later additions, they would always line up with the original orientation of the main Shiva sanctuary. I've never seen the orientation of Angkor- or proto-Angkor style sanctuary turned around. Of course they might well be later additions as the tradition is to build the sanctuary first (just as in Lanna temple culture, the stupa was built first, and the rest of the complex aligned with the stupa) and then to add onto the complex for as long as funds were available. It beggars belief that anyone could visit the site itself and conclude that the temple was ever regularly accessed from behind.

So if anyone's stretching art history to carry an agenda, it wouldn't be me

Nitpicky point: You mean Brahman (referring to the religion), not Brahmin (priestly caste) - or more correctly 'Brahmanist'. Also Prambanan is not within the Borobudur compound, not even close.

No, I am most definitely not confusing the approach to the stupa/temples with ritual circumambulation, and made that perfectly clear in my last points to you. I will not bother to restate the obvious.

You are right about the location of Prambanan; I think I may have mixed up the proximity in the blur of my travels amongst each temple. If I remember correctly, I think there is one other smaller Hindu temple within the same complex as Borobudur that was undergoing refurbishment several years ago, but I can't recall the name right now (starts with a "V" I think).

At any rate, my major point stands: Hindu and Buddhist temples in the regions were parallel and overlapping, as my previous comments illustrate, and as the very example of Prambanan and Borobudur illustrate in Central Java; so there!

And thanks for your nitpicky comment; I don't mind, but I meant what I said the first time, and I can illustrate my original point with one of the more famous examples of a "Brahminist" Buddhist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Buddhism_in_India

Main article: Siddhartha Gautama

The Ashoka Chakra is an ancient Indian depiction of the Dharmachakra (used also by Hinduism). Illustration of the Ashoka Chakra, as depicted on the National flag of the Republic of India.

The Ashoka Chakra is an ancient Indian depiction of the Dharmachakra (used also by Hinduism). Illustration of the Ashoka Chakra, as depicted on the National flag of the Republic of India.

Siddhārtha Gautama was the historical founder of Buddhism. Siddhartha Gautama was born as a Kshatriya prince in ancient India. [2] His particular family of Sakya Kshatiryas were of Brahmin lineage as per their family name "Gautama". XIX c. scholars like Dr. Eitel connected it to the Brahmin Rishi Gautama.[3] Lord Buddha is said to be a descendant of Brahmin Sage Angirasa in many Buddhist texts.[4] For example, "In the Pali Mahavagga "Angirasa" (in Pali Angirasa} occurs as a name of Buddha Gautama who evidently belonged to the Angirasa tribe..."[5]. Scholar Edward J. Thomas too connected Buddha with sages Gautama and Angirasa.[6]

Sorry your point still relates to the monuments themselves, not to the natural approach. Still looking for a single example from Cambodia or Thailand. Your pet theory means nothing without at least one example, Kat And I don't see anything relevant to your misuse of 'Brahmin' in the text above. The cited text refers to caste; your earlier reference did not. Or if you meant Brahmin caste than it was also misused because if there were any SE Asian Buddhists that once belonged to the Brahmin caste, they would have been very few as by the time Buddhism was established in Cambodia and Thailand there were only a handfule of Brahmin priests still around. And none of them were Buddhists, as becoming Buddhist would have automatically made them non-caste, ie, outcast.

Again, you are using what seems to be your favored tactics of choice in argument: constructing a strawman of an opposition to attack an argument that was not made, at least not by me (in terms of approach vs. ritual; I was merely arguing that the ascension as a normative concept is not far-fetched, which is absolutely true), and secondly, to distract with minutiae that is not directly relevant, or necessarily more substantive than the point it is attempting to discount.

So, on the first point, it was not my point.

On the second point:

I appreciate your reminder of the differences between "Brahman" and "Brahminist", but it was not one that I needed, as I understand the differences, the common points of confusion, and I did not misuse it, as I showed in my reference link. BTW, either term could be true in my prior example anyway, which is why this is another diversionary tactic.

But, to stay on point, my original reference was intentional and correct, to show the overlap and influences between both early Hinduism and Buddhism, and the shared roots including early converts of Brahminist priests, cultures, and parallel empires, shared normative customs, temples, and influences.

[Nampeung]

Very interesting but aren't you two tired now

This is a nice simple bit of info from 2005

http://andybrouwer.blogspot.com/2007/06/un...ar-listing.html

[kat]

Hi Nampeung. Someone needs to give him a run for his money - geez. I think I am a natural choice since I am a quadruple Gemini with Virgo in mars. So yes, this seems permanent or until SJ can concede or acknowledge obvious points in the course of routine discussion.