Tuesday February 19, 2008
Bangkok Post
11th century temple in a bad state
Not only the people's fate is hanging in the balance, but also the fate of the Preah Vihear temple itself. Preah Vihear was built over a steep cliff on the Dangrek Range during the 11th century. It comprises a succession of courtyards and key buildings including gopuras, or gateway towers, connecting each building by stairways and pavements.
The innermost group of buildings, surrounded by galleries, is where the prasat is located to keep a sacred lingam for worshipping the god Shiva.
Being situated on the top of a high cliff, the temple's sandstone-based buildings have long been exposed to the sun, monsoon rains and wind, causing much damage.
Archaeologists from various agencies such as the Office of Archaeology, the SPAFA, a regional archeological umbrella organisation under the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organisation, and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (Icomos), have inspected the site and found that most of the temple's main buildings remain intact.
But its outermost gopura has only some parts of the walls and columns left, while the prasat has virtually collapsed. The decorations of Hindu art have been eroded with some details unrecognisable. Some lintels and columns have fallen out and are scattered.
According to Icomos, conservation work has rarely been done at the site, partly because of adjacent minefields left by the wars in Cambodia. A comprehensive conservation programme is urgently needed to help preserve the site, the agency noted.
The Thai Archaeology Office's director Tharapong Srisuchart said it may not be necessary to reconstruct all the damaged parts, except for the prasat, which may require anastylosis - removing all the parts and putting them back together as they once were.
This can be done only when Cambodia gives its consent because the site is under its sovereignty, he said. Mr Tharapong also voiced his concern about the boundary problem that has hampered preservation work at the site.
''In the field of arts and culture, we all know that the work has no frontier because the site belongs to humanity,'' said Mr Tharapong.
At the temple site, there are red ropes hung around some stones to prevent visitors disturbing the unstable structure.
The inscriptions of the Kings like Suriyavarman I telling important stories, including the installation of a God representing the lingam on some door frames, are fading away. The only thing that can be clearly seen is a small blue sign that reads ''Don't touch'' on them.
The innermost group of buildings, surrounded by galleries, is where the prasat is located to keep a sacred lingam for worshipping the god Shiva.
Being situated on the top of a high cliff, the temple's sandstone-based buildings have long been exposed to the sun, monsoon rains and wind, causing much damage.
Archaeologists from various agencies such as the Office of Archaeology, the SPAFA, a regional archeological umbrella organisation under the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organisation, and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (Icomos), have inspected the site and found that most of the temple's main buildings remain intact.
But its outermost gopura has only some parts of the walls and columns left, while the prasat has virtually collapsed. The decorations of Hindu art have been eroded with some details unrecognisable. Some lintels and columns have fallen out and are scattered.
According to Icomos, conservation work has rarely been done at the site, partly because of adjacent minefields left by the wars in Cambodia. A comprehensive conservation programme is urgently needed to help preserve the site, the agency noted.
The Thai Archaeology Office's director Tharapong Srisuchart said it may not be necessary to reconstruct all the damaged parts, except for the prasat, which may require anastylosis - removing all the parts and putting them back together as they once were.
This can be done only when Cambodia gives its consent because the site is under its sovereignty, he said. Mr Tharapong also voiced his concern about the boundary problem that has hampered preservation work at the site.
''In the field of arts and culture, we all know that the work has no frontier because the site belongs to humanity,'' said Mr Tharapong.
At the temple site, there are red ropes hung around some stones to prevent visitors disturbing the unstable structure.
The inscriptions of the Kings like Suriyavarman I telling important stories, including the installation of a God representing the lingam on some door frames, are fading away. The only thing that can be clearly seen is a small blue sign that reads ''Don't touch'' on them.
13 comments:
Fuck all the Thaicong and their blind ambition!
This is nothing more than a constant harassment meant to irritate the Khmers in general. Much like the so called "white zones" along the Khmer Thai border that they are able to create and the Khmers can do nothing but "respect" it as a legitimate zone under the dispute between the Khmer and the Thai. I'll tell you this: When the Thai can push Khmer back ward and the Khmer retreat, they will step forward and do it again. Why? Because they are able to. It's the thing they love to do to the Khmers. Go ahead and burn their embassy one last time and cancel all diplomatic relation with them. I really have strong resentment for the Thai. But sometimes I would think the Khmers themselves are stupid in many ways. And that's why they remain dirt poor and weak, very weak, and subject to being mistreated by the evil neighbors from left and right. The Khmers even turn around and hurt their own poor citizens by means of robbery of their land. How will the Khmers, the x-Khmer Rouge, build the strength and protect their vulnerable society? Who is leading who in that country? Shit to be a Khmer.
only idiot have no sense of value and class! The only thing they know best is cheat,lies, and steal.
same for the vietnam communist government.
stay calm. our government will resolve this peacefully. No need to add oil to fire.
Look likes Thailand wish to acknowledge our cultural influence and shared heritage now. Lets not deny them that. They have been refusing to accept that for a while, its just a taste of their own bitter denial.
Be proud to be Khmer, main stream Thais don't know it because it has be taught to them to look down on Khmer, but it seems the tides are turning with the fame of Preah Vihear.
Khmer is getting the credit we deserve and the Thai are accepting the truth of their cultural linked to Khmer.
Aren't you proud to be Khmer in times like this?
Kon Khmer Forever
ឳអាសៀមអើយ...កុំថ្កើងពេក
ប្រាសាទល្អឯកឲ្យខ្មែរទៅ បើឯងសុខ ចង់ត្រឹមត្រូវ
មិនបាច់ង៉ូវៗដូចឆ្កែប្រកាច់...
ប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារ ជាកេរខ្មែរ បើហែងពូកែ
ទៅឆ្ងាយឲ្យដាច់ ទុកព្រះវិហារ ឲ្យខ្មែរអ្នកសម្រេច!
ហែងចុយគូទអាចន៏ ស្តេចហែងតូវ!!!
ពីល្បងចូច
ឳអាសៀមអើយ...កុំថ្កើងពេក
ប្រាសាទល្អឯកឲ្យខ្មែរទៅ បើឯងចង់សុខ ចង់ត្រឹមត្រូវ
មិនបាច់ង៉ូវៗដូចឆ្កែប្រកាច់...
ប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារ ជាកេរខ្មែរ បើហែងពូកែ
ទៅឆ្ងាយឲ្យដាច់ ទុកព្រះវិហារ ឲ្យខ្មែរសម្រេច!
ហែងចុយគូទអាចន៏ ស្តេចហែងតូវ!!!
ពីល្បងចូច
ឳអាសៀមអើយ...កុំថ្កើងពេក
ប្រាសាទល្អឯកផោះខ្មែរទេពៅ បើចង់បានសុខ ចង់ត្រឹមត្រូវ
មិនបាច់ង៉ូវៗដូចឆ្កែប្រកាច់...
ប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារ ជាកេរខ្មែរ បើហែងពូកែ
មិនបាច់ប្រកាច់ ទុកព្រះវិហារ ឲ្យខ្មែរសម្រេច!
ហែងចុយគូទអាចន៏ ស្តេចហែងតូវ!!!
ពីល្បងចូច
Summary of the Judgment of 15 June 1962
CASE CONCERNING THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR
(MERITS)
Judgment of 15 June 1962
Proceedings in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, between Cambodia and Thailand, were instituted on 6 October 1959 by an Application of the Government of Cambodia; the Government of Thailand having raised two preliminary objections, the Court, by its Judgment of 26 May 1961, found that it had jurisdiction.
In its Judgment on the merits the Court, by nine votes to three, found that the Temple of Preah Vihear was situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia and, in consequence, that Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory.
By seven votes to five, the Court found that Thailand was under an obligation to restore to Cambodia any sculptures, stelae, fragments of monuments, sandstone model and ancient pottery which might, since the date of the occupation of the Temple by Thailand in 1954, have been removed from the Temple or the Temple area by the Thai authorities.
Judge Tanaka and Judge Morelli appended to the Judgment a Joint Declaration. Vice-President Alfaro and Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice appended Separate Opinions; Judges Moreno Quintana, Wellington Koo and Sir Percy Spender appended Dissenting Opinions.
*
* *
In its Judgment, the Court found that the subject of the dispute was sovereignty over the region of the Temple of Preah Vihear. This ancient sanctuary, partially in ruins, stood on a promontory of the Dangrek range of mountains which constituted the boundary between Cambodia and Thailand. The dispute had its fons et origo in the boundary settlements made in the period 1904-1908 between France, then conducting the foreign relations of Indo-China, and Siam. The application of the Treaty of 13 February 1904 was, in particular, involved. That Treaty established the general character of the frontier the exact boundary of which was to be delimited by a Franco-Siamese Mixed Commission
In the eastern sector of the Dangrek range, in which Preah Vihear was situated, the frontier was to follow the watershed line. For the purpose of delimiting that frontier, it was agreed, at a meeting held on 2 December 1906, that the Mixed Commission should travel along the Dangrek range carrying out all the necessary reconnaissance, and that a survey officer of the French section of the Commission should survey the whole of the eastern part of the range. It had not been contested that the Presidents of the French and Siamese sections duly made this journey, in the course of which they visited the Temple of Preah Vihear. In January-February 1907, the President of the French section had reported to his Government that the frontier-line had been definitely established. It therefore seemed clear that a frontier had been surveyed and fixed, although there was no record of any decision and no reference to the Dangrek region in any minutes of the meetings of the Commission after 2 December 1906. Moreover, at the time when the Commission might have met for the purpose of winding up its work, attention was directed towards the conclusion of a further Franco-Siamese boundary treaty, the Treaty of 23 March 1907.
The final stage of the delimitation was the preparation of maps. The Siamese Government, which did not dispose of adequate technical means, had requested that French officers should map the frontier region. These maps were completed in the autumn of 1907 by a team of French officers, some of whom had been members of the Mixed Commission, and they were communicated to the Siamese Government in 1908. Amongst them was a map of the Dangrek range showing Preah Vihear on the Cambodian side. It was on that map (filed as Annex I to its Memorial) that Cambodia had principally relied in support of her claim to sovereignty over the Temple. Thailand, on the other hand, had contended that the map, not being the work of the Mixed Commission, had no binding character; that the frontier indicated on it was not the true watershed line and that the true watershed line would place the Temple in Thailand, that the map had never been accepted by Thailand or, alternatively, that if Thailand had accepted it she had done so only because of a mistaken belief that the frontier indicated corresponded with the watershed line.
The Annex I map was never formally approved by the Mixed Commission, which had ceased to function some months before its production. While there could be no reasonable doubt that it was based on the work of the surveying officers in the Dangrek sector, the Court nevertheless concluded that, in its inception, it had no binding character. It was clear from the record, however, that the maps were communicated to the Siamese Government as purporting to represent the outcome of the work of delimitation; since there was no reaction on the part of the Siamese authorities, either then or for many years, they must be held to have acquiesced. The maps were moreover communicated to the Siamese members of the Mixed Commission, who said nothing. to the Siamese Minister of the Interior, Prince Damrong, who thanked the French Minister in Bangkok for them, and to the Siamese provincial governors, some of whom knew of Preah Vihear. If the Siamese authorities accepted the Annex I map without investigation, they could not now plead any error vitiating the reality of their consent.
The Siamese Government and later the Thai Government had raised no query about the Annex I map prior to its negotiations with Cambodia in Bangkok in 1958. But in 1934-1935 a survey had established a divergence between the map line and the true line of the watershed, and other maps had been produced showing the Temple as being in Thailand: Thailand had nevertheless continued also to use and indeed to publish maps showing Preah Vihear as lying in Cambodia. Moreover, in the course of the negotiations for the 1925 and 1937 Franco-Siamese Treaties, which confirmed the existing frontiers, and in 1947 in Washington before the Franco-Siamese Conciliation Commission, it would have been natural for Thailand to raise the matter: she did not do so. The natural inference was that she had accepted the frontier at Preah Vihear as it was drawn on the map, irrespective of its correspondence with the watershed line. Thailand had stated that having been, at all material times, in possession of Preah Vihear, she had had no need to raise the matter; she had indeed instanced the acts of her administrative authorities on the ground as evidence that she had never accepted the Annex I line at Preah Vihear. But the Court found it difficult to regard such local acts as negativing the consistent attitude of the central authorities. Moreover, when in 1930 Prince Damrong, on a visit to the Temple, was officially received there by the French Resident for the adjoining Cambodian province, Siam failed to react.
From these facts, the court concluded that Thailand had accepted the Annex I map. Even if there were any doubt in this connection, Thailand was not precluded from asserting that she had not accepted it since France and Cambodia had relied upon her acceptance and she had for fifty years enjoyed such benefits as the Treaty of 1904 has conferred on her. Furthermore, the acceptance of the Annex I map caused it to enter the treaty settlement; the Parties had at that time adopted an interpretation of that settlement which caused the map line to prevail over the provisions of the Treaty and, as there was no reason to think that the Parties had attached any special importance to the line of the watershed as such, as compared with the overriding importance of a final regulation of their own frontiers, the Court considered that the interpretation to be given now would be the same.
The Court therefore felt bound to pronounce in favour of the frontier indicated on the Annex I map in the disputed area and it became unnecessary to consider whether the line as mapped did in fact correspond to the true watershed line.
For these reasons, the Court upheld the submissions of Cambodia concerning sovereignty over Preah Vihear.
If Preah Vihear does not belong to Thailand. Thailand should respect that. Cambodia won the case because based on the old French map of 1907, the temple of Preah Vihear is entirely within Cambodian territory. There is a Thai magazine called 'Korat' which attempted to show current Thai boundary right at the edge of the Temple, that is ludicrous. Repeat, there is no such thing as "white zone". Please respect what is rendered in 1962. The same reasoning can be applied to the island of Phu Quoc, in Khmer it is called Koh Tral. The French drew the Brevie line encompassing the entire island to Vietnam. Up to now, Cambodia is not successful in claiming the island back. In comparison, I admire His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej decision for the Thai government to obey the world court's verdict of June 15, 1962. I think the current Thai government should respect the verdict of 1962 as well. Cambodia should build a fence along the border similar to the USA-Mexican border. That way, it is clearly defined--no confusion. All tourist must enter from the Cambodian side. I strongly believe the royal government of Cambodia should create a national park adjacent to it--and call it Preah Vihear National Park with elevators that can take the tourists up to the Temple site.
As a respectable newspaper, the Bangkok Post should stop printing nonsense that leads to Thai general bias feelings toward Khmer people.
Please be happy for what Thailand now has. Sukhothai, Phitsanulok, Ayutthya, Bangkok, Nakhon Ratchasima, Surin, Lopburi, Buriram, Sri Saket, Prachinburi, Trat and countless more that used to be Khmer land...now in Thailand. Millions of Cambodian over the past 800 years became Thais--that's why we are so similar.
This is most rediculous ever!!! They can come and "repair" it because humanity has no boundary??? This director must be under-educated or illiterate!!!
Please Hun Sen or RGC never accept any of the Thai's offer for help in anything related to our cutlure and religion. I truly belive this is not (and will never likely be!) genuine, but ill-will! As KI says, just PLEASE DON'T TOUCH OUR TEMPLE!!!
I just want to laugh when the Thaicong experts start preaching and behaving more like an owner of Khmer Phrea Vihear temple than the Khmer government!
Go ahead the Thaicong can bring more of their so called experts to shine some light on the Khmer culture but they are so blind to see their own Thaicong culture is a carbon copy of Khmer culture! This is fucken ridiculous!
Tell Thai leader when he comes to Cambodia, we don't have kapik for him. Leave Prasat Preah vihear alone for us Khmer to deal with. We can do without their help. Cambodians had live without Thailand helps in economically for years. We don't need them.
I am with you 11:04; I share you frustration of the Cambodian government. While I acknowledge they are trying but they are also too soft, too lose and too short sighted about issues in the country. I hope the Cambodian leaders to say it's time for the country.
thai or siem, this is not a way to make friends with cambodia. preah vihear temple is a cambodian temple, meaning it belongs to cambodian people and gov't; and cambodia don't have to ask siem or their permission to list it as UNESCO world heritage site. don't forget, cambodia do have national interest about it. so stay out of it and leave it separate from the other bilateral development issues on the border areas, but most definitely don't even approach cambodia with your request to jointly fixed preah vihear as cambodia do no need your help with renovating our temple, unless we ask for your help. cambodia is not in the position to ask for your help with our preah vihear temple. i am a khmer person, and i'm not so fond of thai or siem making such request even after the fact we said no already. give it up or we'll see you in court again for the final and permanent resolution with the world as our witness. try it, you;ll be sorry and lose more than you bargain for!!!
Post a Comment