lost kingdoms

Hindu-Buddhist Sculpture
of Early Southeast Asia

John Guy

With essays by

Pierre Baptiste, Lawrence Becker, Bérénice Bellina, Robert L. Brown, Federico Carò,
Pattaratorn Chirapravati, Janet G. Douglas, Arlo Griffiths, Agustijanto Indradjaya, Le Thi Lien,
Pierre-Yves Manguin, Stephen A. Murphy, Ariel O’Connor, Peter Skilling, Janice Stargardt, Donna Strahan,
U Thein Lwin, Geoff Wade, U Win Kyaing, Hiram Woodward, and Thierry Zéphir

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Distributed by Yale University Press, New Haven and London
 Buddhist Architecture and Ritual Space in Thailand,
Seventh to Ninth Century
Stephen A. Murphy
The arrival of Buddhism in Southeast Asia had a transformative
effect on the cultures it encountered and within which it developed.
New forms of religious worship arose, as did a new social class
known as the sañgha (Buddhist monkhood). As the religion
evolved, its associated art and architecture did as well. In northeast-
ern Thailand, evidence of monastic architecture is most plentiful at
Muang Fa Daed in Kalasin province and Muang Sema in Nakhon
Ratchasima province. At both of these early moated urban settle-
ments, the two essential monastic buildings—the ubosot (Thai,
ordination hall) and the vihāra (Skt., assembly hall)—are present by
about the seventh century. In Buddhist monasteries, the vihāra
tended to be larger than the ubosot, as the lay community gathered
in the former to pray or hear sermons. The ubosot had only to
accommodate the monks as they performed prescribed rites and rit-
uals. However, for certain essential rituals, such as the ordination
ceremony and recitation of the rules of the order (Pali, ­patimokkha),1
to be properly performed, the ubosot needed to be surrounded by a
clearly defined boundary.
In northeastern Thailand of the seventh to ninth century, these
boundaries were created by markers known as sema stones, usually
in sets of eight or sixteen.2 The stones could stand anywhere
between three and ten feet (1–3 m) tall and were usually carved
with a central stupa motif on one or both sides (fig. 124). In situ
Fig. 124. Sema stone with stupa motif. Northeastern Thailand,
8th–9th century. Found in Ubon Ratchathani province.
Sandstone, 67 x 297⁄8 x 85⁄8 in. (170 x 76 x 22 cm). National
Museum, Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand
194 state art
examples can be seen at both Muang Fa Daed and Muang Sema,
with semas sometimes also used to demarcate stupas. Some exam-
ples from Muang Fa Daed and some from the sites of Ban Nong
Hang in Kalasin province and Ban Kut Nong in Chaiyaphum
province are richly decorated in relief with scenes from the life of
the Buddha or episodes from one of his numerous past lives
( jātaka tales).
One sema from Muang Fa Daed appears to illustrate both a
jātaka and a scene from the life of the Buddha (fig. 125). The
Buddha is depicted sitting under the bodhi tree (tree of enlighten-
ment) at the center of the composition, flanked by royal fans and
flags. Four figures are seated before him, possibly a king, a queen,
and their attendants. Were the composition to end there, a number
of possible interpretations could be proposed, such as the Buddha
preaching to King Bimbisāra or to his own father, King Śuddhodana.
However, three other figures appear at the bottom. Two are armed
with bows and arrows, while the one in the center leaps upward
with a weapon in his upraised right hand. This section has been
identified as a scene from the Sarabhañga Jātaka.3 In the tale, the
bodhisattva Jyotipāla defends himself against four archers by block-
ing their arrows with his own iron arrow. This possible conflation of
a jātaka and a scene from the life of the Buddha is unique in the
known sema tradition of the Khorat Plateau.
Fig. 125. Sema stone depicting the Sarabhañga Jātaka.
Northeastern Thailand, 8th–9th century. Found at Muang
Fa Daed, Kalasin province. Sandstone, 649⁄16 x 35 x 51⁄2 in.
(164 x 89 x 14 cm). Housed in temple at Muang Fa Daed

Fig. 126. Fragmentary sema stone possibly depicting episode from
life of the Buddha. Northeastern Thailand, 8th–9th century. Found
at Ban Nong Hang, Kalasin province. Sandstone, 235⁄8 x 321⁄4 x
31⁄2 in. (60 x 82 x 9 cm). National Museum, Khon Kaen, Thailand
A number of other episodes from the life of the Buddha exist on
sema stones, some of which are fragmentary. An example from Ban
Nong Hang (fig. 126), for instance, appears to represent Añgulimālā’s
attempt to kill the Buddha. The son of a Brahman priest, Añgulimālā
was studying with a guru when he caused offense by supposedly
seducing the guru’s wife; his punishment was to collect one thousand
human fingers. Upon encountering the Buddha, he decided to make
him his one thousandth victim. Añgulimālā ran after the Buddha
with sword drawn, fully intending to kill him. However, unable to
catch or defeat him, the murderer asked to receive his teachings
instead and subsequently converted to Buddhism and became a
monk. This sema shows the Buddha on the right of the composition,
identifiable by his robes and hand gesture. To the left is a figure with
a sword and raised shield, who has been identified as Añgulimālā;
however, this identification is provisional, as he lacks the necklace of
human fingers described in the text. There are numerous episodes in
the life of the Buddha in which he is either attacked or accosted by
ogres, so other interpretations are possible.
With the establishment of Buddhism in northeastern Thailand,
changes began to occur in urban organization, as seen at numerous
sites across early mainland Southeast Asia,4 including Muang Fa
Daed and Muang Sema. At the former, in addition to evidence
for an ubosot, there are fourteen extant stupa foundations, seven
of which were placed directly outside the moat—in effect, ringing
the settlement.5 This is an important cognitive shift in the way the
Fig. 127. Buddha in mahāparinirvāna. Northeastern Thailand, 8th–9th century. In situ at Muang Sema,
Nakhon Ratchasima province. Sandstone, l. over 36 feet (11 m)
buddhist architecture and ritual space in thailand, seventh to ninth century
urban landscape was constructed and viewed; not until around
the seventh century were areas outside the moat incorporated
into settlements.
Muang Sema exhibits a similar form of urban planning.
Perhaps the best-known archaeological feature from this site is the
over-36-foot-long (11 m) sandstone Buddha image lying in mahā­
parinirvāna posture (fig. 127; two smaller replicas have been placed
in front to allow worshippers to perform the Buddhist ritual of
applying gold leaf to a sacred image). The site is also well known for
the discovery of a Wheel of the Law (dharmacakra) in close proxim-
ity to the Buddha image. Excavations carried out by Thailand’s Fine
Arts Department and the National Museum, Bangkok, in 1980
focused on the area surrounding the Buddha image, situated about
a third of a mile (500 m) beyond the moat.6 The excavations
revealed foundations of a large building, about 21 by 85 feet (6.5 x
26 m) in area, which once housed the Buddha image. Nine more
monuments were excavated in 1999, seven of them within the moat.
The largest structure (monument 1) is situated roughly in the center
of the settlement. It measures about 147 by 165 feet (45 x 50 m),
most likely represents a vihāra, and therefore marks the location of
a monastery. A nearby structure (monument 4) surrounded by sema
stones can be identified as an ubosot.7 The seven monuments located
within the moat lie very close together, none farther than 325 feet
(100 m) from any other. The presence of a vihāra, an ubosot, and
numerous stupas near the center of the urban site clearly indicates
both that a monastic community was firmly situated within the set-
tlement framework of Muang Sema and that the relationship
between the sañgha and the lay community was a close one.
A number of conclusions can be drawn from these archaeo­
logical findings. Located at the very heart of urban settlements,
Buddhist monasteries played a key role in the religious and urban
life of emerging early polities and states in northeastern Thailand.
Substantial patronage must have been available, as the material
and human resources required to provide for the sañgha and to
complete construction projects on this scale would have been
untenable without the support of wealthy patrons and the ruling
elite. As the early Buddhist states of Thailand grew and developed
in and around various moated settlements, so, too, did the associ-
ated monastic architecture and sculpture. Elaborately carved sema
stones demarcating ritual spaces, vihāras housing Buddha images,
and stupas punctuating the skyline all contributed to the creation of
a new sacred landscape. Buddhism, therefore, was pivotal not only
in the development of monumental architecture and perceptions
of religious space but also in the spiritual and political evolution of
northeastern Thailand.
195
29. Begley 1973, figs. 3, 4; Biswas and
Jha 1985, pl. viii, 12a, b, d; pl. ix, 13a, b.
30. Le Thi Lien 2006b, figs. 60, 74, 77, 78.
31. Ibid., figs. 168–70, 179.
Stylistic Trends in Mainland
Southeast Asia, 600–800
1. The author’s own views have been
put forward in Woodward 2003 and
Woodward 2010b. They appear here
with some modifications. Recent studies
that address pre-Angkorian Cambodia
include Bunker and Latchford 2004;
Baptiste and Zéphir 2008; Bunker and
Latchford 2011; Dalsheimer 2011;
Dowling 2011. Revisions to the dating of
pre-Angkorian Cambodian sculpture
will doubtless occur when the objects on
view in the Angkor National Museum,
Siem Reap, are studied and published.
2. Woodward 2003. More recent
publications are Baptiste and Zéphir
2009; Piriya Krairiksh 2012.
3. The Laksmī lintel comes from
Sambor on the Mekong, Kratie province.
The provenance is stated erroneously
in Giteau 1966, pp. 38–39, and in
Dalsheimer 2001, pp. 185–86. Giteau’s
dating is “fin du style du Sambor Prei
Kuk, VIIème siècle.” Giteau identified
the figure in the medallion as the sun
god, Sūrya, who also holds a pair of
lotuses in his hands.
4. Dhar 2010, pp. 216–17, 219.
5. The inscription of Prasat Phum
Prasat, numbered K.145, is published in
Coedès 1937–64, vol. 6 (1954), p. 72.
6. Dhar 2010, p. 47.
7. The borrowing vs. evolution debate
was carried out in two articles: Boisselier
1968; Bénisti 1971. For a brief
discussion, see Woodward 2010b.
8. For illustrations of Khu Bua terracotta
ornament, see Baptiste and Zéphir
2009, pp. 198–99.
9. Dalsheimer and Manguin 1998;
Jacq-Hergoualc’h 2002, pp. 116–28;
de Havenon 2006–7.
10. For references to delta lintels at
Ashram Maha Rosei, Ba The, and Tuol
Kuhea, see Woodward 2010b, p. 94.
11. For the belts, see Le Bonheur 1989.
12. Woodward 2009.
13. Such guilds were predecessors of the
Arab shippers who influenced the design
of Thai ceramics in the fifteenth century,
of the Dutch East Indies Company in
the seventeenth century, and of today’s
international corporations.
14. Scholars disagree about the date
of this object; it is catalogued in this
publication as mid-seventh century.
15. Illustrated in Woodward 2003,
pl. 10; Baptiste and Zéphir 2009, p. 186.
16. Maitreya, shrine door, cave 6, Ellora
(Malandra 1993, p. 28 and figs. 21, 35).
For a Vajrapāni with a vajra (thunderbolt)
in the left hand in cave 10 at Ellora, see
American Institute of Indian Studies
photo archive, accessed August 5, 2013,
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/images/aiis/aiis
_search.html?depth=large&id=44230;
compare the Khu Bua Vajrapāni (Piriya
Krairiksh 2012, p. 86, fig. 1.76). An
identification of cat. 146 as Maitreya has
been proposed; see H. Tan et al. 2012,
p. 77, no. 10.
17. The object is catalogued in this
publication as first quarter of the
ninth century.
18. Woodward 2010b.
19. Bunker 2002; Bunker and Latchford
2011, pp. 82–93.
20. See Murphy, “Buddhist Architecture
and Ritual Space in Thailand, Seventh
to Ninth Century,” in this volume.
21. Taking a stone Harihara in the
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (29.929),
in which the chignon has a comparable
number of tiers of looped tresses, to
be no later than mid-eighth century;
Museum of Fine Arts website,
Collections, accessed August 5, 2013.
22. Régnier 1966; Zéphir 1998,
p. 497, fig. 429.
23. For an exploration, see Woodward
2003, pp. 92–98.
24. The left hand can be raised above
the lap (cat. 110), rest in the lap
(cat. 126), be placed on or above the left
knee (cats. 23, 108), or hold the robe
(cat. 109). For China and Southeast
Asia, see Rhie 1988, “Postscript,”
pp. 41–44; Woodward 1988; Tingley
2009, p. 148 (role of the pilgrim
Xuanzang); Shibai 2011; Revire 2012b;
Nara National Museum 1993, pp. 104–
5, no. 80 (“Shaka Nyorai Preaching,”
embroidered tapestry, Nara period,
National Treasure).
25. Sundberg 2011, p. 139. The
author’s understanding (pp. 151–53)
of Vajrabodhi’s stay in Southeast
Asia differs from mine.
26. Woodward 1988. For the Nalanda
sculpture, see Asher 1980, pl. 163. For a
more traditional dating of cat. 157 (early
ninth century) and a survey of images,
see Nandana Chutiwongs 2010.
27. For My Son site F1 and Wat Kaeo,
see Jacq-Hergoualc’h 2002, pp. 302–5
and figs. 95–102. For the dating of Hoa
Lai, see Griffiths and W. A. Southworth
2011. For Damrei Krap, see Stern 1942.
28. Lunsingh Scheurleer and
Klokke 1988.
29. For migrations, see Vickery
1998, p. 396.
30. Baptiste and Zéphir 2005,
pp. 192–96.
IV. state art
Dvāravatī Sculpture
1. Smitthi Siribhadra 2009, p. 21.
2. Li Rongxi 1995, p. 110; Li Rongxi
1996, p. 302; Li Rongxi 2000, pp. 12, 120.
3. Yamamoto Tatsuro 1979, p. 1147.
See also Wade, “Beyond the Southern
Borders,” in this volume; Luce 1960,
p. 281; Wheatley 1983, pp. 224–25.
4. Boeles 1964. For a list of sites where
medals have been found, see Skilling
2003, p. 95. A rather different
compilation is published by Phasuk
Indrawooth 2003, p. 248.
5. Skilling 2003, p. 97.
6. Ibid.
7. Kannika Wimonkasem and Chirapat
Prapandvidya 1999. The 550–650 date is
given in the Thai-language version of
the article. The English summary uses a
fifth-century date, but I assume the
latter is an error.
8. It was prepared for publication
by Dupont’s wife, who assembled the
text from her husband’s doctoral
dissertation; personal communication
from Natasha Eilenberg.
9. Some categories were represented
by a single sculpture.
10. Dupont 1959a, pp. 177–85.
11. It should be noted that the hand
gestures of fig. 118 are conjectural
reconstructions.
12. Griswold dated the imported
Amaravati and Sri Lankan images (such
as his figs. 5 and 8) to the fifth century,
whereas they are sixth- to seventh-
century (von Schroeder 1990, pls. 43d,
43f, 44a). Thus, Griswold’s placement
of his so-called Amaravati sculptures
before the Gupta-period Buddhas
is incorrect. There are very few, if any,
fifth-century metal Buddhas from
Sri Lanka. Von Schroeder sets the
earliest metal images in the sixth to
seventh century (von Schroeder 1990,
p. 176).
13. Griswold 1966.
14. Brown 2011a.
15. Ibid., pp. 323–25.
16. M. C. Joshi says that he has
identified thirty-two metal images
dating to the fifth to sixth century
(Joshi 2007, p. 55).
17. Nonetheless, the creation of metal
images allowed the movement, in the
Gupta period, of Indian artistic styles to
Southeast Asia, and this was also the
means by which Chinese Buddha styles
(which had existed since the Han
period) underwent major changes at that
time; see Brown 2011a.
18. The Northern Wei dynasty ruled
from 386 to 534.
19. It is not known when the work
entered the National Museum’s collection
or whence it came; see Dvaravati Art
2009, p. 41, ill. no. 20.
20. Brown 1996.
21. Brown 1984a.
22. See Zéphir, “Cakra,” in this volume.
23. Brown 1996. I first proposed this
point in my unpublished 1981
doctoral dissertation.
24. Brown 1996, pp. 99–114.
25. Brown 2011b.
26. Brown 1984b. For a Southeast Asian
telling of the sky lecture, see Bigandet
1979, pp. 218–19.
27. For sema stones with jātakas
depicted, see Murphy, “Buddhist
Architecture and Ritual Space in
Thailand, Seventh to Ninth Century,”
in this volume.
28. Piriya Krairiksh 1974a.
29. Skilling 2003, p. 102; Baptiste
2009a, p. 215. Skilling writes: “Art
history gives Dvaravati a longer life, up
to the tenth or even the eleventh
century, as noted above. But what is the
relation between the art and the state
or kingdom of Dvaravati, which seems
to have flourished for little more than
a century? And precisely what, and
where, is the corpus of Dvaravati art
and architecture of the ninth and tenth
or eleventh centuries? There is not
much at all on the ground. The life of
Dvaravati as an art style and as a period
of Thai history seems to have been
extended simply to fill an awkward gap,
to offer a sense of continuity rather
than disjuncture. It strikes me that the
periodisation serves only to conceal our
ignorance to create the false impression
that the problems of history have been
solved. On the contrary, many questions
need to be asked. What happened to
Dvaravati? What happened in central
Siam during the eighth to tenth
centuries?” (Skilling 2003, p. 102).
30. Jacques 2009, pp. 27–29.
Cakra: Quintessential Symbol
of the Buddha’s Law
1. Phasuk Indrawooth 2008a, pp. 4–5.
2. Sivaramamurti 1942/1977,
pl. xxxiii, 1.
3. Przyluski 1920; Okada 1991, ill. p. 42.
4. Brown 1996; Phasuk Indrawooth
2008a.
5. Joshi 1997–98.
6. For that reason, in this paragraph
on the sermon, I prefer to use the
Pali terminology: for example,
dukkha (Skt., duhkha), dhammacakka
(Skt., dharmacakra), and so on. For
the Pali canon, see Guide to the
Tipitaka 1993.
7. Coedès 1956b; Boisselier 1961; Brown
1996, pp. 96–120; Phasuk Indrawooth
2008a, pp. 24–29.
Buddhist Architecture and
Ritual Space in Thailand,
Seventh to Ninth Century
1. This ceremony is performed twice a
month, on the full and new moon, and
once a year at the end of the rainy
season, on the pavarana day; see Horner
1962, pp. 6–13, 137–46.
2. Semas are also referred to as bai semas
(Thai) and sīmās (Pali) in the scholarly
notes to essays 279
literature. For a detailed discussion of
these objects, see Piriya Krairiksh 1974b;
Murphy 2010. For an overview of their
distribution throughout northeastern
Thailand and central Laos, see Murphy
2013. For examples from early Cambodia,
see Boulbet and Dagens 1973.
3. Phonpha Laosirinat and Suthilak
Chaisot 1974, p. 383. See also
Woodward 2003, pp. 108–12, pl. 27.
4. For a fuller discussion of this
phenomenon in northeastern Thailand,
see Murphy forthcoming.
5. Phasuk Indrawooth 2001, p. 104.
6. Khemica Wangsuk 2000, pp. 42–43.
7. Ibid., p. 45, defines this as a vihāra;
however, because of the presence of
sema stones, I argue that it is, in fact, an
ubosot; see Murphy forthcoming.
v. savior cults
The Transformation of
Brahmanical and Buddhist
Imagery in Central Thailand,
600–800
1. In katakamudrā, the index finger and
thumb form a ring shape, and the other
three fingers fold downward. This hand
gesture is also known in Sanskrit as
āhūyavaradamudrā or āhūyamudrā.
2. Because this region was badly affected
by malaria, high officials from Bangkok
avoided travel to Phetchabun. As minister
of the interior, Prince Damrong
Rajanubhab was curious about the region
and visited it on February 4, returning
to Bangkok on February 25, 1904.
3. For more information on Si Thep,
see Fine Arts Department 2007b.
4. No report of this excavation has been
published. The archaeological mound
was looted in the late 1960s, and it is
believed that a large stone Buddha now
in the Norton Simon Museum, Pasadena,
came from this area.
5. Woodward 2010b, p. 91.
6. Santi Leksukhum 2009, pp. 130–31.
7. H. G. Quaritch Wales believed that Si
Thep was part of the “imperial trade
route” that linked the Chao Phraya River
valley (Lavapura) in mainland Thailand
with the Khong River (Khong Chiam) in
the peninsula. H. G. Quaritch Wales
1969, p. 81.
8. For more information, see Chaem
Kaewkhlai 1981; Brown 1996, p. 37;
Pattaratorn Chirapravati 1994, p. 377.
9. Damrong Rajanubhab 1974, pp. 145–
73. This Sūrya is the only image that
seems to be in high relief rather than
fully in the round. This feature may
280 notes to essays
indicate that it was attached to or placed
on a wall or niche in the original structure.
10. During excavations at Si Thep in
January 2013, a recovered fragmentary
stone image of a male torso, h. 311⁄2
inches (80 cm), was identified by the
Fine Arts Department, Thailand, as
Visnu. Bangkok Post, March 30, 2013.
11. Skilling 2009c, p. 460.
12. Fine Arts Department 2007b,
pp. 145–59.
13. Begley 1973; K. Bhattacharya
1961b, p. 22.
14. H. G. Quaritch Wales 1969, p. 82.
15. Sph 3/K.964; see Skilling
2003, p. 105.
16. For more information, see
Skilling 2011.
17. Buddhas at Si Thep also range
from 55 to 99 inches (140–250 cm).
18. Skilling 2009c, p. 460; Pal
2004a, p. 112.
19. Banejia 1985, p. 440, n. 3.
20. For more on Dvāravatī art, see Brown,
“Dvāravatī Sculpture,” in this volume.
21. Piriya Krairiksh interprets these
figures as Vāmana, an incarnation of
Visnu; see Piriya Krairiksh 2012,
pp. 109–10. However, similar depictions
of dwarfs are common motifs adorning
the bases of Buddhist monuments, such
as those at Si Thep and Khu Bua.
22. For more information on
dharmacakras, see Brown 1996.
23. For more information on this
subject, see Nandana Chutiwongs 2002,
pp. 208–10; Rungrot Thammrungrueag
2009, pp. 83–87.
24. Brown 2011b, p. 23.
25. Brown 2011b.
26. Banejia 1985, p. 432.
27. Brown 1996, p. 171.
28. The double vitarkamudrā commonly
appears on standing Buddha images
from the eighth century in the Dvāravatī
region. Ibid., p. 83.
29. Woodward 1997, p. 48.
30. Woodward 2003, p. 69.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid., p. 71.
33. Ibid., p. 94.
34. Fine Arts Department 2009, pp. 46,
48. In Sri Lanka, bodhisattva images
also hold their hands in this gesture.
35. Prematilleke 1995, pp. 156–59.
36. For more information, see
Pattaratorn Chirapravati 2012.
37. Skilling 2009, p. 111.
38. Woodward 2003, pp. 105–6.
39. Khao Thamorat differs from other
Dvāravatī caves in central Thailand,
such as Khao Ngu, Ratchaburi province,
and Tham Phra Phothisat, Saraburi
province, where the main Buddha
images are portrayed in a pendant-
legged position with hands in the
teaching gesture.
40. Pattaratorn Chirapravati 2012.
Appendices
Stone Types and Sculptural
Practices in Pre-Angkorian
Southeast Asia
1. To date, only three examples of well-
provenanced pre-Angkorian sculptures
have been determined to be carved from
the same stone used for building pur-
­poses. One of them, the Harihara from
Ashram Maha Rosei now at the Musée
Guimet, was analyzed by Christian
Fischer, as reported in Douglas, Carò,
and Fischer 2008. The remaining two,
both in the collection of the National
Museum of Cambodia, are illustrated in
this publication (cats. 83, 96).
2. Delvert 1963.
3. See, for instance, the work on Indian
stone sculptures in Newman 1984
and the review of stone materials of
ancient Egypt in R. Klemm and D. D.
Klemm 2008.
4. There are only a few known
sculptures in materials other than
sandstone, such as shale (sedimentary)
and slate (metamorphic); these rocks
were usually employed for doorjambs,
sills, and steles because they are easily
split into slabs and can be incised in
great detail. Basalt and microgranite
were also occasionally used for
architectural elements.
5. Workman 1977.
6. Jessup and Zéphir 1997.
7. A petrographic thin section is a slice
of rock about 30 μm thick mounted on
a glass slide, which may be analyzed by
means of a petrographic microscope.
Because the rock is sliced so thin,
light can be transmitted through its
constituent minerals and will interact
with them, thus permitting their
identification on the basis of characteristic
optical properties such as relief, color,
pleochroism, and birefringence. The
petrographic study of sedimentary rocks,
such as sandstone, includes evaluation
of the mineralogy and abundance of the
constituent grains; description of
textural features such as grain shape,
size, and spatial arrangement; and
identification of the natural cementing
material that binds the grains.
8. Saurin 1954; Delvert 1963; Uchida
Etsuo, Ogawa Yoshinori, and Nakagawa
Takeshi 1998; Kučera et al. 2008;
André et al. 2011.
9. Baptiste et al. 2001; Douglas 2004;
Douglas, Carò, and Fischer 2008.
10. Newman 1997; Douglas and
Sorensen 2007; Carò and Douglas 2013.
11. A sandstone is said to be immature
when the deposition of its constituent
grains occurred quite rapidly and
relatively near the parent rock source.
These poorly sorted sandstones, often
rich in unstable minerals and lithic
fragments of variable size, are also called
by the generic designation “graywacke.”
12. Newman 1997; Douglas, Carò,
and Fischer 2008.
13. Sorting is the measure of the
dispersion of the sandstone grain size
around the average. A sandstone with
grains of uniform size is said to be well
sorted, while it is poorly sorted when
their size is extremely variable.
14. Saurin 1954; Delvert 1963;
Contri 1973.
15. Dottin 1972; Dottin 1973.
16. Contri 1972.
17. Douglas, Carò, and Fischer 2008.
18. Christian Fischer, personal
communication, 2012.
19. These sandstones vary in composition
from quartz arenite to feldspathic arenite
and are thought to belong to the Terrain
Rouge (Lower–Middle Jurassic) and
Grès Supérieurs (Upper Jurassic–
Cretaceous) formations of Cambodia.
See notes 8–10 for related bibliography.
20. The authors are particularly grateful
to Oun Phalline, former director of the
National Museum of Cambodia,
Phnom Penh; to H. E. Hab Touch,
director general for Museums,
Antiquities and Monuments, Ministry
of Culture and Fine Arts of Cambodia;
and to Chhay Visoth, National Museum
of Cambodia, for the generous help and
valuable support that made this study
possible. We are also indebted to
Bertrand Porte, sculpture conservator,
École Française d’Extrême-Orient
(EFEO), for providing the samples
collected from pre-Angkorian sculptures
at the National Museum of Cambodia
and for sharing information about the
sculptures included in this study. We
thank Tran Thi Thuy Phuong, former
director of the National Museum of
Vietnamese History, Ho Chi Minh City,
for allowing us to study pre-Angkorian
sculptures from southern Vietnam.
Christian Fischer, research associate at
the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology,
University of California, Los Angeles,
kindly shared the results of his ongoing
scientific research on pre-Angkorian
stone sculpture and provided insights
into the current state of knowledge
regarding early Khmer stone traditions.