Reviews 339 de-emphasizing its Lao and Khmer Studies on the Art of Ancient Cambodia: antecedents. Therefore, this book Ten Articles by Jean Boisselier, tr. & comes as a very rare treat. Identifying ed. by Natasha Eilenberg & Robert a forgotten artistry that is quickly lost L. Brown (Phnom Penh: Reyum in assimilation, it gives lavish insight Publishing, 2008). isbn 978 999 5055 and celebrates the sensational artistic 38 7 (soft) expression of the Isan people. The dominating indigo and its various shades Jean Boisselier (b. Paris 1912 – d. and tones illustrate the creativity of a Paris 1996) was arguably the 20th cen- community restricted to natural pigments tury’s preeminent scholar of mainland but yet seemingly unfettered. The Southeast Asia art history. Over the startling sense of liberation portrayed course of a long career that consisted by the ever-present sensuality will of various institutional affiliations, captivate the reader. Tempting them to including the Phnom Penh Museum scrutinize these erotic scenes invites (now the National Museum of Cam- the understanding of a community that bodia), the École française d’Extrême openly embraces their desires. Above Orient (EFEO), the Centre national all, the amalgamation of royals, deities de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), and peasants in one composition is a rare Silpakorn University, and the Univer- sight— impossible to be found in such sity of Paris-III, Boisselier generated a small compass anywhere in Thailand, prodigious body of erudite scholarship thus conveying the unique democratic predominantly on the art histories of lifestyle of the Isan heartland. Cambodia, Thailand, and the Cham of Even though the book design leaves Vietnam, much of which continues to much to be desired, the intention to set the standard today. With this book, highlight a declining form of art is art historians Natasha Eilenberg (an commendable. The substance of the independent scholar) and Robert Brown subject is so rich and bewitching it (University of California, Los Ange- bursts out of the pages. If only the les) have gathered ten of Boisselier’s composition of the book had been given most important articles on Khmer art, more thought, the book would be singing all originally published in French, and in soprano! But then as the old English provided painstaking English-language proverb goes, ‘Don’t judge a book by translations with helpful annotations and its cover!’ insightful introductions to each essay. Students and scholars of early Khmer Tulaya Pornpiriyakulchai art and culture, and of early Southeast Asia in general, will find it to be a very important and useful publication. Nearly twenty years in the making, Studies on the Art of Ancient Cambodia represents the third of Natasha Eilen-

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 99, 2011 340 Reviews berg’s published projects intended to of SPAFA Digest. Some of his work honor Boisselier (her teacher and friend) on Mon/Dvaravati, Thai, and Cham art and to bring his scholarship and legacy history has already appeared in English. greater exposure among English-reading Most of these citations are included in audiences. It was preceded first by an the convenient “Selected Bibliography expanded English edition of Boisselier’s of Jean Boisselier” placed at the begin- Tendances de l’art khmèr, originally pub- ning of Studies on the Art of Ancient lished in 1956 (Boisselier 1989). Next Cambodia. Published previously in there appeared a festschrift co-edited with Living a Life in Accord with Dhamma Brown and M. C. Subhadradis Diskul, (and elsewhere), it was compiled by Living a Life in Accord with Dhamma, Madeleine Giteau, another of the most with diverse contributions from scholars distinguished French art historians of worldwide that reflected the immense Cambodia who sadly is no longer with scope of both Boisselier’s influence and us. Suffice it to say that Studies on the interests (Eilenberg et al 1997). Art of Ancient Cambodia was sanctioned Eilenberg and Elliott’s Trends in by the author himself and appears to Khmer Art received high praise from have been a collaborative labor of love Boisselier himself and plans thereafter by scholars who knew the man and his ensued to publish English translations work quite well. of several of his articles as well. Thus This Boisselier compilation joins Studies on the Art of Ancient Cambodia other recent English-language transla- opens with a copy of a letter, written by tions of seminal French scholarship Boisselier to Brown and Eilenberg in Oc- on Southeast Asian art history by tober 1990, authorizing them to proceed Mireille Benisti and Pierre Dupont. and stipulating that the choice of articles These three scholars, continuing the would be decided by mutual consent. pioneering work of Philippe Stern and Given Boisselier’s initial involvement Gilberte de Coral Remusat, developed with the project, one can hardly quibble an art historical method for sculpture with the resultant contents of this book. and architecture that remains respon- It is worth mentioning, however, that sible for much of what we know about they are the tip of an iceberg, and there Khmer art history, particularly in terms are many other worthy candidates that of chronology and stylistic categories. do not appear here, including important They also did much to advance the study studies of Preangkorian lintels, ancient and theory of the concept of “style” for Khmer bronzes, and the development the discipline of art history as a whole, of the diadem in Angkorian period although their contributions often go sculpture. For the interested reader, it unrecognized by art historians working may also be helpful to note that several outside of Southeast Asia. While new of Boisselier’s other articles, but none evidence and new ways of thinking have of the aforementioned, were previously led some scholars to question some of translated into English in various issues their arguments, it is nevertheless the

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 99, 2011 Reviews 341 case that their work is the foundation and are best read together. Through upon which all subsequent research on intricate formal analysis, they establish early Khmer art rests and with which the relative chronology of temples and new theories must reckon. As Brown statuary spanning the period from the writes of Boisselier in his introduction, end of the Baphuon to the beginning “...it remains that only by knowing what of the Bayon style, or from ca. 1080- he has argued can we make any clear 1180 CE. Related to these is the much judgments regarding where our scholar- shorter article translated as ch. 8 [(“A ship should lead.” (p. vii). Khmer Torso in the Oriental Museum of The methodology developed by these Venice” (1960)], which brings precision scholars posits an internal logic to the to the beginning of the Baphuon style “evolution” of artistic motifs. By orient- of sculpture (as well as the preceding ing analysis around relatively securely style of Banteay Srei) by focusing on dated monuments, the stylistic sequence the peculiarities and dating of a single of undated sculpture and architecture lesser-known image. Bĕṅ Mãlã (more can be ascertained through minute commonly spelled today as Beng Mea- analysis of their constituent parts, in lea), a major temple complex that has sculpture primarily through details of thus far yielded no inscriptions, proved coiffure, costume, and jewelry and, in particularly susceptible to art histori- architecture, through elements like lin- cal methods. Boisselier’s comparative tels, colonnettes, pediments, pilasters, analysis of the architectural layout, ele- etc. Boisselier’s masterful application ments, and decoration—as well as the of this approach is on full display in sculpture from the site—is significant Studies on the Art of Ancient Cambodia’s for demonstrating that it is a temple ten essays, which are organized accord- contemporary with Angkor Wat rather ing to the original dates of publication than an earlier monument as scholars (covering the period 1951-1991). had previously thought. The first three essays (ch. 1-3), to- “Garuḍa in Khmer Art” (ch. 1) in- gether constituting over half of the entire corporates analysis of iconography as book, are particularly strong and thor- well as style in order to demonstrate the ough examples of Boisselier’s method- typology, developmental chronology, ology: “Garuḍa in Khmer Art” (1951), and innovations of Garuḍa images in “Bĕṅ Mãlã and the Chronology of the Khmer sculpture from the 7th-13th/14th Monuments of the Aṅkor [Angkor] Wat centuries. The study is particularly no- Style” (1952), and “A Definition of the table for demonstrating the adaptations Aṅkor Wat Sculptural Style” (1952). that Garuḍa underwent after his initial These essays remain the definitive word appearance in Preangkorian Khmer art on each of these topics. The two 1952 (pre-9th cent. CE) in what Boisselier essays are companion pieces that were calls the “traditional” and “Indianized” published back-to-back in the Bulletin role as adversary of the nāgas. This de l’École française d’Extrême Orient role continued in the Angkorian period,

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 99, 2011 342 Reviews but then Garuḍa also began to appear as “all of the important early female sculp- an independent divinity and as Viṣṇu’s ture known up until that time,” as the vāhana. Finally, during the 12th-13th editors state in their introduction. This centuries, Garuḍa was re-envisioned, depends on what is meant by “early;” apparently in a specifically and exclu- for the corpus of Preangkorian female sively Khmer manner, from a Vaiṣṇava sculpture known then, one also needs to to a Mahayana Buddhist divinity and consult Pierre Dupont, La statuaire pré- protector of the Buddha and some nāgas. angkorienne, published the same year as This essay is most usefully read along- Boisselier’s article (Dupont 1955). In side Boisselier’s numerous studies of ch. 6, “The Art of Champa and of Prang- art and architecture during the period of korian Cambodia: The Date of Mi-s’on the Bayon style (ca. 1180-1230 CE) and [sic] E-1” (1956), Boisselier analyzes the reign of Jayavarman VII (ca. 1182/3- several Khmer and Cham lintels (and a 1218 CE), including ch. 9 of the present Cham tympanum) that depict “Viṣṇu’s volume, “Identification of Some Khmer sleep and the birth of Brahmā” in order Images of Avalokiteśvara: The Bantãy to demonstrate stylistic and political Chmàr Bas-Reliefs” (1965), which relationships between the Khmer and convincingly argues that a Mahayana Cham in the mid-seventh century CE. Buddhist text, the Kāraṇḍavyūha sūtra, Rounding out the collection are two was the source for several of the reliefs. essays (ch. 7 and 10) that cast a wider The remaining five articles inStudies net to include material from Peninsular on the Art of Ancient Cambodia include Thailand and Indonesia in addition to varying degrees of analysis of both style Cambodia and Vietnam: “The Viṣṇu and iconography to tackle particular from Tjibuaja (Western Java) and art historical problems involving one Southeast Asian Sculpture” (1959) and particular sculpture or a small group of “A Preangkorian Wood Buddha and Its closely related images. Chapter 4, “The Indonesian Affinities” (1991). Both of Harihara from Bàkoṅ” (1952) examines these articles raise fascinating questions the transformation of the cylindrical about the interconnections of Southeast miter so common in statuary of the Asian art, and both were innovative in Preangkorian period and Kulen style assembling groups of related sculptures to the polygonal tiered arrangement of from far-flung regions that continue to the headdress that first appears in the arouse controversy and debate. That Preah Ko style (which, in the editorial this should be so is primarily due to notes that precede the essay, is misla- the fact that, for different reasons and beled as the “Bàkoṅ style”). Chapter 5, subsequent to Boisselier’s work, many “An Unpublished Female Statue of the of the images discussed in these articles Sambor Style” (1955) assembles all the have been argued to be among the ear- then-known female statuary that can be liest Hindu-Buddhist sculpture in all related to the Sambor Prei Kuk style (ex- Southeast Asia. actly four images), but not necessarily In “The Viṣṇu from Tjibuaja” (or

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 99, 2011 Reviews 343

“Cibuaya”), Boisselier groups together Mahayana Buddhism via Śrīvijaya. An iconographically varied and geographi- 8th century dating is not inconceivable, cally dispersed images that, to him, but stylistic considerations not dis- suggest an 8th-century CE date based on cussed by Boisselier, as well as recent “aberrant” aesthetic qualities and what C14 analysis of this and related wood he characterizes as a regressive sculpt- Buddha images from the Mekong Delta ing technique. His argument is partially region, suggest that a late 6th – 7th century based on the assumption that certain ele- date is much more likely (for C14 dates, ments found in Vaiṣṇava images, namely see Vo Si Khai 2003, 85). In light of the conch-on-hip hand position and the recent revisionist scholarship regarding faceted mace with a bulbous and ribbed Mahayana Buddhism and Buddhist mo- head, did not appear in Indian art before nastic lineages, it is doubtful that many the 8th century. Both assumptions have scholars today would accept Boisselier’s subsequently been proven to be false, implication that the mode of drapery on and scholars have been unanimous in re- a Buddha image indicates a scholastic/ jecting Boisselier’s dates for the conch- sectarian affiliation for the artists or on-hip images in favor of earlier dates, culture that produced it. but there remains a lack of consensus These rare instances in which Boisse- over whether the earliest of these images lier’s interpretations have not held up so should be dated to ca. 400 at the latest well are nonetheless evidence of his bold or to ca. 500 CE (the latter of which this and inquisitive spirit. And even when he reviewer, among others, has advocated). is making points with which we might Later in his career, Boisselier recanted disagree, his scholarship is consistently his dating of some of these sculptures, thought-provoking and rewarding. It is but his continued insistence that their therefore unfortunate that his work is technique represented stages of “deg- not better known and his contributions radation” remains open to doubt (a full more adequately acknowledged. Brown discussion of all of these issues can be attributes the fact that Boisselier “has found in Lavy 2004, ch. 6). not been widely read” to “in part…the “A Preangkorian Wood Buddha” also difficulty of the French originals” (vii). relies on comparative analysis, this time Indeed his writing is “often ambiguous to identify an aspect of Buddhist ico- and sometimes convoluted” (v) and, nography that is unusual in Southeast if Boisselier’s prose seems tedious at Asia (an identification that, in fact, had times, it is because his arguments are been made earlier and independently so thorough. by Brown himself) and to suggest an The erudition of Boisselier (and Du- 8th-century CE date for a wood Buddha pont, Benisti, etc.) combined with the from Bình Hoà (Long An province, often difficult manner in which these Southern Vietnam). These arguments ideas were originally communicated were based in part on style and in part has perhaps created a barrier between on associations with the expansion of the scholarship and subsequent gen-

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 99, 2011 344 Reviews erations of students outside of France, selier’s original texts or to outright principally in Southeast Asia and in the misspellings. Among these (and other United States, and has perhaps hindered examples could be produced as well), the further growth of the discipline. “Phimai” is spelled “Phĭmai” in the orig- This scholarship is, nevertheless, so inal source text for chapter 2, however, fundamental that anyone who reads it appears several times here (in error) anything about Khmer and Cham art as “Ph mai.” In chapter 6 “My Son” (or history is invariably being steeped in Mỹ Sơn) is variably spelled “Mi-s’on” ideas developed by Boisselier, but too [sic] and “Mi-so’n.” The editors have often filtered through the work of other added convenient lists of abbreviations scholars rather than through the original at the end of many chapters to clarify publications with all their depth and Boisselier’s bibliographic citations, nuance. Eilenberg and Brown aim to but, in addition to some inconsisten- help correct this problem. Recogniz- cies, there are occasional omissions that ing a lamentable but very real “lack of could make following up his footnotes reading ability in French among many difficult. Readers unfamiliar with the people today who are interested in the art numbering system of the Inventaire and architecture of Southeast Asia,” they des monuments du Cambodge, first de- have directed their book particularly to veloped by Lunet de Lajonquière in the “Southeast Asian readers, and specifi- early 20th century, might be perplexed cally the students” who might benefit by Boisselier’s references (in ch. 2) most from English translations of some to the two temples called Preah Khan, of Boisselier’s most challenging essays sometimes by location and sometimes (v). It must be admitted, however, that by inventory number. One is located at Boisselier can be difficult to read in any Angkor (IK.522) and the other, known language. as “Preah Khan of Kompong Svay” or To maintain the integrity of the origi- “Prasat Bakan” (IK.173) is located in nal publications, Eilenberg and Brown what is today Preah Vihear province. have produced faithful, accurate transla- Standardization and simplification of tions and have even retained Boisselier’s some of these minor problems in Studies spelling conventions and citation style, on the Art of Ancient Cambodia would which they acknowledge, are inconsis- have yielded a more user-friendly final tent from one essay to the next. The product without compromising any of results may be somewhat confusing, the substance of the writing or argu- particularly to those readers unfamiliar ments therein. with the subject or who may be attuned With this book, not only do Eilenberg to more recent spelling conventions. and Brown provide very good English The extensive use of diacritical marks language translations of important seems even to have encumbered the French scholarship that are true to the printing process, and in some cases led spirit and the letter of the originals; to unintended deviations from Bois- but also, thanks to their introductory

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 99, 2011 Reviews 345 material and editorial notes, they help References to clarify and explain difficult passages and to situate the essays in appropriate Benisti, Mireille, 2003. Stylistics of Early Khmer critical and historiographical context. Art, 2 vols., trans. by K. Thanikaimony. New Quality translation of older, now classic, Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts and Aryan Books International. scholarship can be an arduous, underap- Boisselier, Jean, 1989. Trends in Khmer Art, trans. preciated task that brings little reward to by N. Eilenberg and M. Elliott. Ithaca, NY: translators, and may hover somewhat SEAP, Cornell University (originally pub- beneath the radar of academia, par- lished as Tendances de l’art khmèr in 1956). ticularly when issued by a lesser-known Dupont, Pierre, 1955. La statuaire préangkori- regional publisher. It would be a shame enne. Artibus Asiae Supplementum XV. if such a fate were to befall Studies on Ascona: Imprimerie Artibus Asiae. ———, 2006. The archaeology of the Mons of the Art of Ancient Cambodia. This is Dvaravatī, 2 vols., trans. and updated by outstanding scholarship that deserves Joyanto K. Sen. Bangkok: White Lotus to be read; and, to the credit of Eilen- (originally published as L’archéologie berg and Brown, it is now more widely mône de Dvaravatī in 1959). accessible. Eilenberg, Natasha, M. C. Subhadradis Diskul, and Studies on the Art of Ancient Cambo- Robert L. Brown (eds.), 1997. Living a Life in Accord with Dhamma: Papers in Honor dia is a fitting final testament to Natasha of Professor Jean Boisselier on his Eightieth Eilenberg’s long-time devotion to the Birthday. Bangkok: Silpakorn University. study of Khmer art history and a spirit Lavy, Paul A., 2004. Viṣṇu and Harihara in the of generosity that can otherwise be wit- Art and Politics of Early Historic South- nessed in the numerous gifts of Khmer east Asia, Ph.D. dissertation (unpubl.). sculpture that she made to museums Department of Art History, University of throughout the United States. These California, Los Angeles. Vo Si Khai, 2003. “The Kingdom of Fu Nan and include two palanquin hooks adorned the Culture of Oc Eo,” in Khoo, James C. M. with images of Garuḍa that were given (ed.) Art and Archaeology of Fu Nan-Pre- to the Walters Art Museum (Baltimore, Khmer Kingdom of Lower Mekong Valley. Maryland) in 2000, in memory of Jean Bangkok: Orchid Press, pp. 35-85. Boisselier (Accession Nos. 54.2959 and 54.2960). Paul A. Lavy

Ed. Note—Natasha Eilenberg passed away in February 2012, after this review had been submitted for publication in these pages.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 99, 2011