When, in March 1994, the central tower of Angkor Wat was struck lightning, Cambodia's co-premier flew to the site to preside over a religious ceremony. There had been little physical damage to the 800-year-old temple, but the natural phenomenon was taken as a bad omen, demanding propitiatory rites if misfortune were to be averted. 

Angkor is a symbol of power, of greatness, of immortality. Angkor Wat and the other stone temples of the ancient capital of the Khmer we built by god-kings to link the human and the divine in life and to allow the two to merge in death. As such, Angkor's monuments legitimize sovereignty and served as palladia of the nation. 

The symbolic essence of such power is as potent today as it was a thousand years ago when the Khmer nation was founded, and the passage of time through Angkor is marked as much by am etaphorical continuity as by physical change. It is no coincidence that during the civil  war of the 1970s and '80s opposing factions chose Angkor Wat as the central motif for their different national flags.  More recently, a 1993 UNESCO publication noted: "The importance of the site makes its long-term preservation both a national desire and a symbol of the reconciliation and rehabilitation of Cambodian society."

One of the first beneficiaries of Indianization was the Kingdom of Funan, Angkor's earliest forerunner. Centred on the Mekong delta in what is  now southernmost Vietnam and probably inhabited mostly by people     of the Mon-Khmer group, Funan is thought to have been founded sometime during the first century AD, though evidence is scant and the only historical accounts are Chinese chronicles, the earliest of which mentions Funan in the second century.

The word "Funan" is in fact the Chinese pronunciation, or mispronunciation, of bnam (phnom in modern Khmer) meaning "mountain".  Funan was not the name of the country, which is unknown, but rather the title taken by its rulers, kurung bnam, "King of the Mountain". This suggests associations with the Hindu god Siva and clearly hints at Indian influence.  

The extent of Funan's power is unclear. Twentieth-century excavations at 0-Keo (thought to be the kingdom's main port, located on the Mekong delta's west coast) suggest a seafaring people engaged in extensive trade. Moreover, the sites of hundreds of Funanese settlements, along with traces of ancient irrigation canals, were revealed by aerial photographs taken in the 1930s.  

From a cultural and social perspective, Funan's particular importance lay in its construction of an extensive irrigation and drainage system which transformed much of the Mekong delta from swamp into productive agricultural land. It was an accomplishment of great ingenuity and organization which would set an example for others to follow.

Funan eventually lost its pre-eminence. How it came to perish is uncertain, but its place in history is assured.  "As for Funan, which           at times played the role of a true empire," writes historian Georges Coedes, "the civilization that it developed in the valley of the Mekong prepared the soil for the efflorescence of Khmer civilization, one of        the most beautiful flowers that Indian influence has produced in India beyond the Ganges."Angkor was that "efflorescence of Khmer civilization", but the culmination which has been described elsewhere      as "that final climax at Angkor" was first heralded by the kingdom of Chenla. Originally based on the Mekong near the river's junction with   the Mun tributary, Chenla was probably initially a vassal of Funan.

It then steadily extended its sphere of influence until finally achieving independence in the seventh century, absorbing its predecessor and inheriting its Indianized culture. Few facts are known about   Chenla's history, but eighth-century Chinese sources differentiate between "Chenla of the Sea" and "Chenla of the Land".  The former occupied the old nucleus of Funan along the coast and in the Mekong delta, while the "Chenla of the Land" was located upriver with its capital perhaps at Champasak in what is now southern Laos, close to the border with Cambodia.

These were turbulent times. Internal rifts weakened Chenla, particularly "Chenla of the Sea", which towards the end of the eighth century became a vassal of Java, an island empire which had recently emerged as a major regional power.  

Java's subjugation of the coastal area prompted a shift away from sea trade, Funan's original source of wealth, and triggered a fresh focus on agriculture and the mobilization of manwer, the one dependent on the other. Gradually the centre of the pre-Angkor Khmer world changed and the location of artworks and architectural monuments suggests an alignment and consolidation westward, finally settling on the plain between the Tonle Sap and the Dangrek mountains.  

In the forefront of this newly emerging power centre was the Khmer king Jayavarman II who, as a prince, had probably spent some time at the court of Java; certainly the Javanese had some years earlier carried out a pre-emptive strike against the Chenla dynasty. Towards the end of the eighth century, however, Jayavarman II returned to his native land and established a capital in the Kulen Hills, north of what was to become the Angkor complex. Here, in 802, he was proclaimed a "universal monarch" in a ritual which instituted the cult of the deva-raj, or "god-king". This was originally an Indian concept of divine kingship and was adopted by the Khmer probably to justify their sovereignty and assert their independence from Java. As a reflection of omnipotence, the king's name took the suffix -varman, meaning protection.

 And so the Angkorian empire was founded. For the next six centuries Khmer civilization was to dominate mainland Southeast Asia. Basing its highly developed institutions on advanced Indian cultural concepts, Angkor evolved as a rich and complex civilization, its art and architecture of an accomplishment comparable to that of ancient Egypt and Greece. At the greatest extent of its influence in the twelfth century, Angkor's control extended south to the Mekong delta in present-day Vietnam, north into Laos and west over large tracts of what is now Thailand.

It is not known exactly why Jayavarman II chose to move from the coast or from the banks of the Mekong river, where Chenla and Funan had their power centres, but it was probably for strategic reasons. Java had attacked Chenla via the sea, and the Mekong was obviously exposed to such danger. Jayavarman II did not ignore the Mekong's importance as a source of fish, means of irrigation and transport conduit. On the contrary, he maximized the benefits of the river system while at the same time minimizing its potential as an invasion route.  

In establishing a power base on the north shore of the Great Lake, Jayavarman II had access to the outside world via the Tonle Sap tributary and the Mekong. At the same time, by being at the uppermost navigable point, he was reasonably though not totally - secure from river-borne attack. Moreover, the Great Lake and the phenomenon of its annual floods were to become crucial to the material development of Angkor and the Khmer Empire.  

The name "Angkor" is derived from the Sanskrit word nagara, meaning "city" or "capital", and from Jayavarman II onwards, Khmer kings, legitimized and symbolized their power by building a temple-mountain at the heart of their capital.  

The precise limits of that capital were changed under various monarchs and the Angkor complex seen today comprises the remains of several successive cities, while the very earliest capitals stood a short distance away.

Towards the end of his reign, Jayavarman II created a new city, which he called Hariharalaya, at present-day Roluos, a little way southeast of Siem Reap.  The next two kings, Jayavarman III (850-877) and Indravarman I (877-889) remained at Roluos, but the fourth Angkorian monarch, Yasovarman I (889-900) moved his capital a few kilometres northwest and centred it on the hill of Bakheng in the area of Angkor proper. Yasovarman also dug a huge reservoir - the now dry East Baray, measuring so seven by two kilometres and thus commenced the complex and sophisticated water system on which the future strength and prosperity of Angkor would depend

Yasovarman's capital was maintained by his two successors but, in 921, Jayavarman IV abandoned the region and established his power centre at Koh Ker, north of the Kulen Hills.  In a subsequent reign, however, Rajendravarman II (944-9.68) returned the capital to Angkor where it remained until it was finally deserted in 1431, following repeated invasions by the Thai.

Over nearly three centuries, from the reign of Rajendravarman II up to that of the last great builder-king, Jayavarman VII (1181-1219), Angkor grew as successive monarchs built monuments to their lasting power and glory.  Rajendravarman himself was responsible for two notable temples, the lovely pyramid temple of Eastern Mebon and the brick-and-laterite Pre Rup. His son, Jayavarman V (968-1001), built Ta Keo as well as the minute but exquisite Banteay Srei, located some 25 kilometres from Angkor's main temple complex.  Udayadityavarman II (1050-1066), the second monarch of a new dynasty founded after a brief power struggle, was the builder of the Baphuon, a once grand temple mountain but poorly preserved, and the Western Baray, another enormous reservoir which, unlike the Eastern Baray, is still in use today.  

In 1080 a new dynasty was established which was to rule until the fourteenth century. Third in line was Suryavarman II (c I 11 3-1150), one of the Khmer's greatest kings and the builder of Angkor's largest, most magnificent temple, Angkor Wat.  The Khmer Empire was now at the height of its power, and the initial impact of Angkor Wat is as a symbolic expression of that power; almost incidentally it is also the most perfect expression of the civilization's aesthetic.  The effect was noted by Somerset Maugham. "It is an impressive rather than a beautiful building," he wrote in 1930, "and it needs the glow of sunset or the white brilliance of the moon to give it a loveliness that touches the heart."

After Suryavarman II, the Khmer faced in creasingly troubled times. A succession of major and minor upsets culminated with the defeat of Angkor in 1177 by the Khmer's traditional enemies, the Cham, who won a decisive naval battle on the Tonle Sap.  Ironically, out of this disaster was to rise Angkor's last great monarch, Jayavarman VII (1181-1219). A man of remarkable ability, he succeeded in expelling the Cham and not only reconstructed Angkor, but also embarked on an empire-wide construction programme far more ambitious than anything undertaken by his predecessors. At Angkor, Jayavarman created a new city, Angkor Thorn, centred on the Bayon, as well as building numerous other temples, notably Preah Kahn and Ta Prohm.

Although Angkor remained the centre of a viable empire for another two centuries, the death of Jayavarman VII was the beginning of the end. There was no more major building (or none that has survived) and in spite of continuing prosperity, Angkor was effectively in decline. Increasingly, the Khmer were threatened by the emergent kingdom of the Thai to the west. Finally in 1431, the Thai sacked Angkor, the Khmer retreated and the city was abandoned.  

The Khmer court did re-establish itself on the banks of the Mekong, some 240 kilometres southeast on the site of Cambodia's present-day capital, Phnom Penh, but it never again achieved the power and influence it had known at Angkor.

The memory of past glory lived on, however. Towards the end of the sixteenth century the Cambodian monarch King Satha considered moving back to the fmer capital and even made a short-lived attempt at restoring some buildings. When this failed, Angkor was still not forgotten. Its temples retained regional fame as places of pilgrimage, and were known, albeit for the most part by vague reputation, to European missionaries.

Angkor has remained in the memory essentially because of its temples, and it is these massive stone monuments that constitute the civilization's greatest legacy.  Lawrence Palmer Briggs makes the point in his book The Ancient Khmer Empire. "The Khmers," he wrote, "left the world no systems of administration, education or ethics like those of the Chinese; no literatures, religions or systems of philosophy like those of India; but here oriental architecture and decoration reached its culminating point."

It would require a much longer and more searching introduction than this to describe fully the complex development and characteristic periods of Khmer architecture. Essentially, as the civilization reached its full flowering the temple form evolved from a single tower to a multi-towered structure. Moreover, while early shrines stood at ground level, later temples were grandiosely raised on terraced pyramids. Vaulted galleries were introduced to link individual sanctuaries into a single, intricate temple complex. Materials also evolved, from wood for the earliest prototypes to brick, late rite and finally sandstone, the last lending itself to the relief carving which defines Angkor's finest temples almost as distinctively as the architect itself. These and other changes reached a climax Angkor Wat.

The Khmer master builders clearly erected the most magnificent structures Southeast Asia ever seen, but as remarkable as the architect although less obvious, was Angkor's mastery over water on which the strength of the civilization ultimately rested. Developing hydraulic engineering techniques inherited from the earlier kingdoms of Chenla and Funan, the Khmer of Angkor constructed an extensive and highly advanced system of irrigation canals and huge reservoirs.

In so mastering the annual cycle of floods and drought brought about by the alternating m soon seasons, the ancient Khmer were able to harvest two and even three rice crops a year.  From this rich agricultural base Angkor built up its power. Bountiful crop production not only sustained a huge population - perhaps as high as one million - it also freed large numbers of peasants from agricultural work. Manpower was thus available for extending and securing the boundaries of the empire and for building the massive stone temples of the god-kings.

The architectural brilliance of Angkor was not divorced from its engineering genius. As Coedes has commented, there is a vital connection between the regal powÃŒer symbolized in the temple-mountain and the practical mastery of water.  "The fact is well known," the historian wrote in Angkor: An Introduction, "that a rice-growing country is dependent upon a regulated system of irrigation which in turn is dependent on a strong and stable central authority. If the control breaks down, the water ceases to work its benefits, and abundance gives way to misery."

While control and efficient use of water served as Angkor's economic base, the Khmer's inherited Indian influence - in religion, philosophy and political beliefs - provided a cultural framework. The two combined to form the foundations on which a vast empire - and what was essentially a new civilization could be sustained.  

Central to the civilization was the belief in a god-king. With a religious practice that was essentially Hindu, particularly Siva worsh, although also bound up with elements of animism and Buddhism, the ancient Khmer saw religion as all embracing and as possessing a political function. Accordingly, it was the manifestation and endorsement of the idea of the god-king, effected primarily through a detailed and highly complex interpretation of Hindu religious symbolism, which gave form to Angkor.

Whoever ruled Angkor was a god on earth, the divine representative of Indra, and the god's capital was to take the form of the universe in miniature, with the cosmic mountain, Mount Meru, at its centre. This cosmology was expressed in Angkor's city planning which centred on the temple-mountain, an architectural representation of the universe which, on the death of the king, became his funerary monument.

That is a very bald description of the meaning behind Khmer temple architecture, and the details are intricate in the extreme. But, remembering the vast majority of the Khmer population were peasants, Angkor's impact must have been immediate and not dependent on intellectual appreciation. To quote Coedes again: "Notwithstanding its symbolism, the great success of Khmer architecture is its appeal to the uninformed as well as to the initiated . . . Although Khmer architecture is better understood by a comprehension of its symbolism, no explanations are needed to reveal its originality and power."

Of all the Khmer architectural wonders the finest is Angkor Wat, the world's largest religious building. Taking 37 years to complete and involving the labour of an estimated 50,000 artisans, workers and slaves, the temple forms a rectangular enclosure measuring 1,500 metres by 1,300 metres and surrounded by a moat 200 metres wide. Inside the outer walls, the structure is built up over three levels rising to a central core topped by five distinctive towers, the tallest reaching 65 metres.  The proportions alone are dramatic, while the long galleries feature walls decorated with low-relief scenes of epic legends, war and courtly life. Virtually every surface in a labyrinth of chambers and courtyards is richly decorated and carvings of nearly 2,000 apsaras, or celestial dancers, appear like a visual refrain of an exquisite melody.

Angkor Wat is but the most impressive and most perfectly constructed of numerous temples whose extensive ruins survive to form one of the world's largest historical sites. Spread over a core area of some 200 square kilometres are more than 70 major archaeological monuments and numerous lesser remains.  Although Angkor Wat is the most famous of the sites, it is not necessarily the most emotive.  

More startling, even haunting, is the Bayon, lying a short distance to the north.  An imposing stone pile of 54 towers, each carved with four enigmatic faces of the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara, the Bayon was built by Jayavarman VII and although it is much smaller and more crudely constructed than Angkor Wat, it has an equal if not greater impact on the imagination.

Known best for its mysterious faces, the Bayon does nonetheless possess at least equal interest in the bas-reliefs which cover its outer walls. The artistry is far less refined than that seen in the reliefs at Angkor Wat, but the depiction of historical events and cameos of daily life is more lively and more vital than Angkor Wat's somewhat static and formal renderings of classical legend. The Bayon stands at the centre of Angkor Thom (literally "Great City"), which forms the core of the ancient site as it survives today.  This inner city, as it were, is surrounded by a moat and approached at the four cardinal points via massive stone gates and causeways flanked by statues of gods and giants.  Encompassed within this central area are a number of notable monuments in addition to the Bayon. These include the Baphuon, a pyramidal representation of Mount Meru constructed in the eleventh century at what was then Angkor's centre - a fact which may account for the building's look of extraordinary self-assurance.

Two of the most outstanding monuments beyond Angkor Wat and Angkor Thom are Preah Kahn and Ta Prohm. Lying to the north of Angkor Thom, Preah Kahn is an intricate and well-preserved late twelfth-century temple complex, built by Jayavarman VII in memory of his father. Although often unfairly overlooked by visitors, the temple is completely absorbing in its veritable labyrinth of pavilions, halls and chapels.

Ta Prohm is located to the east of Angkor Thom. Quite apart from any architectural interest, its fascination stems from the ruins having been intentionally left just as they were when first rediscovered. With massive tree roots reaching out as tentacles, the temple is held like Laocöon in the convoluted grip of monstrous nature.  The effect is almost surreal, the seemingly melting form of fallen and distorted stonework a Dali-esque metaphor for the persistence of memory.

All these monuments lie comparatively close to each other. Standing in splendid isolation some 25 kilometres from the main complex is Banteay Srei, an architectural jewel of carved red sandstone.  Constructed in the tenth century, the monument is characterized by the smallness of its collective edifices, yet its perfection of design and decorative detail create a stunning impression quite disproportionate to its size.

Unsurpassed beauty, grace and symmetry typify not just Angkor's temples but the entire civilization. If contemporary accounts are to be believed, the city was to some a paradise on earth, and the sensual world of apsaras existed in more than just stone.  "Chinese sailors coming to the country note with pleasure that it is not necessary to wear clothes, and, since rice is easily had, women easily persuaded, houses easily run, furniture easily come by, and trade easily carried on, a great many sailors desert to take up permanent residence." So commented Chinese diplomat Chou Ta-kuan, who wrote a detailed account of life at Angkor in the thirteenth century.

Chou Ta-kuan seems to have been a man of marked curiosity, and his observations range widely from accounts of royal pageantry to descriptions of childbirth. His record is important for us today because, unlike the ruins, it serves as a vivid reminder that not only was Angkor a living city, but its daily life was not so far removed from that seen today.

As a living city Angkor would have extended well beyond its stone walls and would have included many wooden buildings, both sumptuous dwellings for the social elite and lowly peasants' huts.  While these fragile structures have long sin been destroyed by time, the little wood-and-that houses of the villages which surround Angk today cannot be that dissimilar from those of t farmers who worked the land a thousand ye ago.  Nor is village life all that different.  "Each v lage has its temple, or at least a pagoda," wr Chou Ta-kuan.  "No matter how small the villa it has a mandarin.  Market is held every day fr six o'clock till noon.  There are no shops in whi the merchants live; instead, they display th goods on a matting spread upon the ground."

The Khmer world today is much the sa both in life and, tragically, in death.  "Only rece ly, during the war with Siam, wholvillages ha been laid waste," reported Chou Ta-kuan.  In m ern times the enemy has changed but not the mise When Henri Mouhot "rediscovered" Ang in the mid-nineteenth century he was both aw and dismayed.  Although he thought the ruins the ancient Khmer capital to be "grander than a thing left by Greece or Rome", he also noted t 4 4 unluckily the scourge of war,  aided by time, great destroyer, has fallen heavily on the greater part of the monuments." Today, decay continues in spite of considerable gains since Mouhot's journals first I sparked European interest in Angkor.

The best preserved and now most famous temples - notably Angkor Wat and the Bayon were first restored by the French, who established an Angkor Conservancy in 1908. Archaeological activities continued uninterrupted until 1972 when escalating war in Cambodia forced out the last foreign experts and brought a veritable army of archaeologists and assistants to an abrupt halt.

Surprisingly, while the people of Cambodia suffered terribly during the tragic decades of their country's recent history, the major monuments of Angkor were little damaged by war. When armed conflict raged throughout the 1970s and '80s two decades when the only halt in fighting came with  the Khmer Rouge reign of terror from 1975 to '79 - the temples received amazingly few direct hits from bullets, shells or mortars. Vibration from nearby heavy artillery, which shook the foundations    of some temples, was the only real harm that can be attributed directly to war. But if war itself has destroyed little at Angkor, man's preoccupation with war has resulted in extreme neglect which has left the ruins unprotected against the ravages of nature. Particularly damaging are the effects of tree roots and water, both of which can undermine foundations and threaten the structural stability of the monuments.

Although nature presents the greatest threat to Angkor's ancient buildings as a whole, man's greed has led to the plunder of statuary and decorative artworks. The problem is not new - thieves were stealing gold leaf and jewels commonly buried with holy relies virtually as soon as the temples were completed. The difference today is wholesale plundering, with thieves operating on an increasingly ambitious scale. Now the very fabric of the monuments is being attacked as carved stone heads and other statuary are being systematically removed. In just one week of 1993 five stone heads vanished from one of the causeways to Angkor Thorn. Artifacts have even been stolen from the comparative security of the Angkor Conservation Office.

With Khmer art currently fetching anywhere between US$30,000 and US$300,000 a piece, theft has become big business and so highly organized that even huge pieces of sculpture which cannot    be lifted by hand are disappearing.  Villagers describing one incident in the early 1990s told how    four or five thieves had come with a truck and set up camp for a few days. They had even brought their own cook.

The police are mostly powerless to handle the situation, lacking much necessary legal authority, as well as being severely out-gunned by the robbers.  UNESCO, the international organization which    is a major player in moves to coordinate the conservation of Angkor, has been able to offer some assistance, helping formulate legislation against the theft of artworks, and showing police how to patrol monuments.  Even so, perhaps as much as 40 percent of Angkor's finest artwork has been lost, whisked out of Cambodia and into the private museums of vanity collectors, or into bank vaults where it is used as long-term collateral.

In terms of restoratn, the only undertaking of any significance since the Khmer Rouge upheaval has been a six-year cleaning and partial restoration project at Angkor Wat, undertaken in 1986 by an Indian archaeological team.  The work has, however, been criticized by some experts being poorly executed.  It is worth noting nonetheless that when, in the midst of civil war in the early 1980s, the then Phnom Penh government made an appeal for Angkor, India was the only country prepared to answer the call.

A decade later there was a marked change. As Cambodia's storm clouds receded in the 1990s and, following UN-sponsored elections, the country became more politically acceptable in the eyes of a fickle world community, governments a NG0s of various ilks began vying with each other in bidding for what have come to be seen as prestigious restoration projects.

Such rivalry is both encouraging and disconcerting. On the one hand assistance is needed but it is a potential recipe for archaeological disaster if donor countries are to dictate what restoration is to be done to which monument This is especially worrying when certain temple are popularly viewed as being more prestigious and hence more likely to attract restoration projects - than others, regardless of the archaeological considerations.

Of course, Cambodia holds sovereign jurisdiction over Angkor and is ultimately responsible for its preservation. Although in dire need of outside financial and technical assistance, Cambodia has indicated high-level commitment to a comprehensive programme for the restoration, conservation  and management of its greatest cultural asset.  This follows the acceptance in 1992 of Cambodia as  a signatory to the World Heritage Convention, the most widely recognized international legal instrument for the protection of sites and monuments of exceptional cultural and historical significance.

Unquestionably, Angkor requires protection if its immense cultural significance is to be preserved,  but the exact nature of the threats to the monuments' immediate and long-term security tends to be clouded by alarmist tales. Claims that the magnificent temples are crumbling unless the world - and    a few million dollars - comes to their rescue may make good newspaper headlines but they bear little relation to the facts.

UNESCO dismisses ideas of imminent loss.  "With the exception of one or two of the oldest brick monuments, none of the temples are in danger of total collapse," commented one expert. "The ruins were very well restored by the French and that restoration is holding."

Recognizing multiple dangers to Angkor's security, UNESCO argues that only a comprehensive, coordinated approach and not piecemeal restoration will ensure proper preservation.  Accordingly, the organization has proposed a "Zoning and Environmental Management Plan" which seeks to    offer not only structural protection for the major monuments within an Angkor Archaeological Park, but also protection of the entire site through the creation of a surrounding Angkor Culture Reserve, covering some 5,000 square kilometres from the Great Lake in the south to the Kulen Hills in the north.

As Mouhot observed a century ago, time is the great destroyer and, ironically, it is perhaps progress rather than theft or the ravages of nature which threatens most.

"Possibly the biggest danger to the preservation of Angkor is unplanned, headlong development," remarked a UNESCO spokesman in 1993.

"The tourist industry, uncoordinated prestige restoration projects, huge development of Siem Reap   as a provincial centre - all these things could, in a very short time, become overwhelming and make restoration impossible.  Angkor is an enormous cultural landscape, not just isolated monuments. Unless that whole landscape is conserved in some suitable way we will end up with a few monuments scattered through a tremendous urban sprawl."

This is a daunting yet refreshing view, one that encourages us today to take a passage through Angkor, appreciating it in its entirety, not as the scattered remains of a long dead city but as a vital design in the cultural fabric of the Khmer world.

Passage Through Angkor
Mark Standen
Introduction by John Hoskin

• Windfall for oudong 
• Meeting focuses
• Cambodian Artifacts 
• Lost and Found 

• Ancient Temple 
• Hun Sen Says
• French Group Urges
• Cambodia's Last Polio 

• Odong Land Protected

• New Smakers

• Minister of Cabinet
• Introduction