THE DANANG MUSEUM OF CHAM SCULPTURE

(Huynh Thi Duoc)

Central Vietnam was the cradle of the culture of the Champa, whose radiance (hào quang) is still seen in ruined temples and extant (hiện còn) sculpture. In the final years of the 19^th century, French archaeologists started to collect the Cham sculptures that had been discovered in scattered localities of central Vietnam. These sculpturs, which were originally parts of the mysterious Cham temples, included altars, statues of gods and goddeses, from inside or the front of the temples, and stele with engraved (khắc) Sanskrit dedicated to deities.

These unique sculptures were put on display in the Musée Cham de Tourane. The orginal museum was constructed in 1915 on a bank of the Han river of Danang city. It was designed by two French architects, M. Delaval & M. Auclair. Motifs from Cham temples were used on building and helped earn it the title of the most beautiful museum in Southeast Asia at that time. The building was in harmony with the works of art displayed, whose inspiration came from local beliefs, Buddhism and acient Hinduism, which were popular in many Southeast Asian countries.

After two big archaeological excavations in 1927-1928 at Tra Kieu (Quang Nam province) and in in 1934 at Thap Mam (Binh Dinh province), the museum was expanded to display the newly collected artefacts (di chỉ). Archeaological work was interrupted during war time and only restarted from1975. the collection of the museum has been added to with many valuable items. One of them is the bronze statue of Tara which was discovered in Dong Duong, dating from the 9^th–10^th centuries. It is regarded as a masterpiece of Cham sculpture art.

In 2002, the museum was enlarged with an annex (chái nhà, phần phụ thêm) funded by Danang city. This provided more room for exhibition, a workshop, storage and staff. The Danang Museum of Cham Sculpture, the official name of the museum today, is proud of its abundant (phong phú) collection, of which 400 pieces are on display.

Indian mythology had a strong influence on Cham sculpture and many Indian deities are represented in statue, busts (tượng bán thân), reliefs (phú điêu). The most popular are the images of Brahma, Shiva & Vishnu. But many other Indian deities, including Buddhas, and various forms of Bodhisattvas, can be seen in Cham works, such as Avalokiteshvara, Krishna, Indra, Laksmi, Ganesa, Nadin, Garuda, Shesha & Naga. We can recognie the deities by the characteristics attributed (quy cho) to them in Indian myths.

The works in the Museum are from various periods b/w the 5^th & 15^th centuries with different styles. Visitors can see the flexible and lively images on the reliefs of altar from My Son E1 temple and the graceful carved tympanum (tai giữa) depicting (mô tả) a mythological theme of the birth of Brahma. They can share the feeling of meditation when looking at the thoughtful motifs on the decorative patternes of the latar of Dong Duong monastery (phật viện) or they might enjoy the sophisticated & sensuous (nhạy cảm) gestures of the dancing apsaras in the Tra Kieu style, and be startled (làm giật mình) by magnificient and strong appearance of the round statues of Gajashimha in Thap Mam style. Each exhibit is a work of art, and the viewer cannot but help admire the talented hands and the sensitive minds of the Cham sculptors.

HISTORY OF THE MUSEUM

From the Henri Parmentier Museum to the Museum of Cham Sculpture

The Danang museum of Cham Sculpture is a graceful building in picturesque surroundings by Han river, a name which was at one time that of the town itself. In 1892 Charles Lemire, brought an initial group of some fifty sculptures to the “Tourane Garden”, and soon the number of items increased to 90. in 1894, his description of the brick temples of Tra Kieu & Binh Dinh was published in the journal Le Tour du Monde (Around the world). It mentioned the sandstone sculptures hlf-buried in the ground; guardians figures, sacred birds, elephants & lions, strewn (nằm rải rắc) acros fields planted with ground-nut. After Lemire, Camille Paris, a former postal worker, discovered ruined towers in the plantations (đồn điền) of Phong Le & Tourane, with sculptures which he brought home in order to save them from destruction. In 1908 the French government decided to transfer these important cultureal relics to Hanoi, but local dignitaries firmly refused to allow hthis. In 1908 Henri Parmentier produced a report which denounced (tố cáo) the scattering & neglect of the Cham sculptures at the Saigon police headquarters, in the public gardens and at the Colonial Residence in Tourane. In it, he set out three principles which were to be basis of the constitution (sự thành lập) of the Museum:

1. Any object found away from its original site must without fail be taken to the museum. The same holds for individual sculptures when the original building has disappeared, provided they are of sufficient archaeological interest and not under active worship, and for inwcribed stelae unless they are part of a surviving monument.

2. Items found in excavations which are part of a recognisable building, the study of which can help to interpret (làm sáng tỏ) the building, should be left where they are, unless they are in a condition or of a nature which does not allow them to be conserved at the fine-spot, for example the carved tympana of My Son which are broken into numerous fragments.

3. The worship of certain items should be respected, as farmers believe they can intercede (can thiệp giùm) effectively in times of drought.

Parmentier’ inventory lists “some 300 sculptures & 70 inscriptions”, and states that the ideal location for future museum is Quang Nam – Danang. The province indeed is home to such famous rellics of old Champa as the capital cities of Tra Kieu & Dong Duong, and the sacred site of My Son which inspired the old colloquial (thông dụng) name of “Province of the Cham Towers”.

The museum’s main building was built in 1915, and completed and officially opened in 1919. designed by French architects Delaval & Auclair on plans drawn up by Parmentier, it is modelled in a simple and original style on characteristic Cham architectural motifs. It was initially rectangular in shape, and by 1918, according to Parmentier’s catalogue of the following year, housed 160 sculptures which provided a significant overview of Cham artistic achievement. 21 of the sculptures were from My Son, 42 from Tra Kieu, 12 from Khuong My, 10 from Phong Le, 11 from Ha Trung, 13 from Binh Dinh, 10 from Da Nghi, and the others from various sites including Chanh Lo, all within the general area of Quang Nam-Binh Dinh. Four more sculptures were added in 1919. In 1927, the EFEO achitect J.Y Claeys proposed an expansion of the museum to include a patio with surrounding buildings, but the project failed to materialise. In 1928, following major excavations at Tra Kieu, 17 more sculptures were added. Claeys conducted forther excavations at Thap Mam (Nghia Binh) resulting in 94 new acquisitions (hiện vật thu được), mostly in the Binh Dinh style. The main building was extended by the addition of two lateral (ở bên) wings, and the newly enlarged museum ws opened on 11^th march 1936 in the presence of Parmentier, receiving the name of “Musée Henri Parmentier”. Its various sections were as follows: the My Son, Tra Kieu, Dong Duong and Thap Mam rooms, the Quang Tri pavilion, and the Quang Nam, Quang Ngai, Kontum, Quang Binh and Binh Dinh galleries. In addition, there was an archaeological depository (kho- [nghĩa đen & bóng]) and a library.

In 1937 there were 4,519 visitors , and in September of that year, the orientalist scholars Dupont And Manikus took up residence to repare a new catalogue, which in fact was never completed. On 19^th December 1946, at the very beginning of the first Indochina War, while French troops stationed (đóng quân) at Danang were endeavoring (cố gắng) to free the besieged town, there appears to have been a skirmish (cuộc đụng độ) at the Museum which resulted in the local inhabitants’ seizing (tịch biên, chiếm lấy, cướp) the opportunity afforded (có thể) by the absence of the museums’ guards, and engaging in wholesale (hàng loạt) looting (cướp bóc) of library and the artefacts. It was not until 1948 that the latter were retrieved (thu hồi) piecemeal (dần dần) (mỏe than 150 works of art) from individual residences, from the Engineering Officers’ mess, from the airfield, and even from as far away as Savannakhet in Laos, by Manikus, who had been sent on a 4-month special mission by the EFEO for this purpose. Unfortunately, all the Cham sculpture held by the Khai Dinh museum in Hue disappeared without trace at the same time. Later, in 1954, the Henri Parmentier museum was to provide shelter to 300 refugees.

The museum was renamed in 1963 as the “Musée de Danang” and its keeper was Nguyen Xuan Dong, a former topographer for EFEO, who had assisted Parmentier with his research and inventory (kiểm kê) projects and, in 1930, participated in the My Son site restoration. He made the drawings for Carl Heffley’s 1972 catalogue and rebuilt the library. On his retirement in the same year, his successor was Nguyen Khon Lieu.

Since 1975, the museum has been administered by the Directorate of Culture & Information of Quang Nam-Danang. At present, it houses a unique collection of 294 works of art, charting Cham artistic achievement in uninterrupted sequence from the 7^th to the 15^th centuries AD,. Most of sculptures are of sanstone, with a few in terracotta. Unfortunately, several pieces were stolen in the late 1980s. from 1992-1996 the museum was repaired and restored, to keep pace with the growth of cultural awarenessamong an everincreasing number of visitors.

(Tran Thi Thuy Diem)

Sculptures unearthed (khai quật) from Museum garden.

In 1996 the Museum personnel retrieved (tìm lại được) some 157 fragments which had been buried in the Museum garden grounds. Among them were several works which had long been published, such as the tympanum of the main tower at Dong Duong 1, of which Parmentier had made a drawing in 1909 (Parmentier 1909: 467, fig. 103) and which is very worn (mòn, hỏng). Another item is a fragment of the base of the so-called “dancers” pedestal from Tra Kieu (Boisselier 1963: 98), together with another fragment from the same pedestal showing a vina (Đàn Vina : đàn Ấn độ có 4 dây) musician (Boisselier 1963: fig. 100). It might be concluded either that the pedestal displayed inside the Museum is incomplete, or that there were originally not one but two pedestals. Similarly, the discovery of monumental feet and very large bust (tượng bán thân) fragments would indicate that there were two rather than one Thap Mam style dvarapala. These sculptures are to be displayed in new wing of the museum. (E.G)

1969-1971: Philippe Stern’s mediation (sự điều đình) for the safe-keeping of the monuments and the Museum.

The museum was not sheilded from misfortune during the Vietnam war. At the time of the battle of Hue during the Tet offensive of 1968 it was requisitioned (trưng dụng) as an assembly point for the Saigon government troops, and subsequently served as billets (đồn trú) for the soldiers who slung their hammocks b/w the statues. In 1969, however, the American army donated a Dong Duong dvarapala to the museum, which placed it in the entrance alley [9.15]. following srious damage to the sites of Dong Duong & My Son, Philippe Stern, the former Chief Keeper of the Guimet Museum, and a historian of Cham art, made a vigorous (hùng hồn) approaches (sự tiếp cận) to the American authorities. In 1969 he presented a detailed report to the US Consul in Danang, who passed it to Lieutenant (trung úy) General H. Nickerson. As the situation deteriorated (làm hư hỏng) still further, Stern wrote to President Nixon to express his deep anxiety for the archaelogical sites & the museum.

In January 1971, Ambassador John Gunther Dean, who was in charge of some one thousand civilian and military counsellers assigned (chỉ thị) to the South Vietnam authorities in Military Zone 1, received a message from the State Department informing him of Stern’s request to the President, and of the latter’s instructions to attend to the safe-keeping of Cham archaelogical sites and of the Danang Museum, which was thenceforth (thenceforward: từ đó) put under pernament round-the-clock guard. One of the counsellers assigned to theDanang town hall, Carl Heffley, was put in charge of these matters, as a result of which he developed a passion for Cham art and wrote the 1972 catalogue mentioned above. (Jean Pierre Ducrest, Administrator, AFAO).

THE HISTORY OF CHAMPA

Po Dharma

The combined evidence of the epigraphic record, the Chinese & Vietnamese annals (biên niên sử), the Cham language manuscripts (bản thảo) and the accounts (bản báo cáo, miêu tả) of Western & Arab seafarers provides the historical information on Champa, a highly civilised country which existed in the central part of present-day Vietnam from the end of the second to the beginning of the nineteenth centuries AD. It was long believed that Champa was confined (bị hạn chế) to the seaboard plains of the South China Sea, but it is known that it also included the high plateaux (cao nguyên) to the west of this region. Its population ws composed not only of Cham living near the coast, but also of a wide variety of ethnic commities, including hill people speaking languages of the Austronesian group (Jorai, Cru, Ede and Raglai) as well as those who spoke Austroasiatic tongues (Ma, Sre & Stieng). The list is not exhaustive. Cham itself is an Austronesian language.

The history of Champa is dominated by the wars it fought with the Vietnamese kingdom across their common border to the north. Faced with emergence (sự nổi lên) of Dai Viet power, with its rapid population growth which by the 14^th century had tilted (nghiêng) the balance of power to its advangtage, Champa was gradually obliged to retreat southwards until it finally disappeared in 1832. its history had witnessed the development of two major civilisations. Until 1471, when its capital, Vijaya, fell under the onslaught (cuộc chinh phạt) of the Dai Viet king Le Thanh Tong, it had been a Hinduised state with a Sanskrit culture. At this crossrads in its history, Champa turned away from its Hinduist heritage and set off in a new direction, adopting the religious practices, cosmology, theory of kingship and social order preserved in native traditions which had continued to flourish in the southern principalities. From 1471to 1832 the his tory of Champa was destined (dành cho, đi đến) to be a long struggle, as the Chams attempted to resist Vietnamese expansion, keep their independence and save their identity. (sự đồng nhất, bản sắc)

The beginnings of Champa

It is not known when Champa first appeared on the map of the Indochina peninsula. The Chinese annals of the late second century (the putative (được coi là) date being 192 AD) refer to living in the south of the Je Nan commandery, the region in which present-day Hue situated, who revolted against the Chinese and founded a country which the text “Lin Yi” and whose people spoke an Autronesian language. Lin Yi first expanded northwards as far as “the Gate of An nam” (Hoanh Son), then engulfed (nhận chìm) the Hinduised principalities to the south.

While the emergence of Lin Yi is thus attested (chứng thực), and “(as Stern has conclusely demonstrated (chứng minh) in the basis of history, linguistics and ethnography (dân tộc học)) certainly bacame affiliated (=filiate: liên kết) with Champa b/w the late second and the late sixth centuries, it is still uncertain as to when Lin Yi & Champa can reliably be considered as one and the same”. The intervening (xảy ra ở giữa) four centuries are sparse (thưa thớt) in historical data, and it is not known whether the original population of Lin Yin was in fact Hinduist, nor even the date at which any organised, Austronesian - of this Hinduised kingdom – depended on the court, which was composed of an aristocratic elite (dòng dõi quý tộc) imbued (=imbrue: thấm nhuần) with Sanskrit culture.

The end of the tenth century: a turning-point.

After an initial perod of calm, Champa had to face several crises (=crisis). The first was a Khmer invasion in 950 in the south, which it repelled (đẩy lùi), and then in 982 came a Vietnamese attack from the north which “cost the life of the Cham king resulted in the destruction of the capital”. The irruption (sự xâm nhập) of the Vietnamese into the east Indochina political arena (vũ trường) wa a major event in the history of the region at the endd of the tenth century. They had scarcely shaken off the domination of the Chinese and set up an independent kingdom stretching from the Red river delta and Thanh Hoa to the Gate of Annam, when they set about (begin something) transforming their previous relationship with Champa into a trial of strength. After many military campaigns by both sides, the king of Champa was forced in 1000 AD to abandon Indrapura, as it was too close to Vietnamese territory, and mive his capital much further south, to Vijara (Binh Dinh).

From the 11^th century onwards Champa was subjected to (chịu) relentless pressure by the Dai Viet. It was attacked in 1021 and again in 1026. a further onslaught occurred in 1044 when the Vietnamese king, on the pretext of purnishing Champa for a maritime raid (tấn công) on its shores, attacked, seized and pillaged (cướp phá) Vijara, killing monarch. This defeat seems to sparked off (khuấy động) unrest in the south of the country, requiring the despatch of an army to quell (dập tắt) a revolt in Panduranga.

Some years later, in 1068, the Cham king Rudravarman III mounted an assault (cuộc đột kích) on the Vietnamese, who counter-attack immediately. Their king took command of a fleet, attacked Vijara and defeated Cham army, capturing the king and taking him to Red River delta, where in 1069, in exchange for his freedom, he ceded (nhượng lại) the region stretching from the Gate of Annam to the district around the mountain pass of Lao Bao, to the Vietnamese Ly Thanh Tong. The Dai Viet authorities proceeded (bắt đầu) to transform these lands into new provinces named Dia Ly, Ma Linh, Bo Chinh. From then onwards, the northern border of Champa was more or less fixed at Lao Bao pass, as the Chams failed in their attempts in 1103 and 1104 to regain the lost territory.

The last 30 years of the 11^th century were marked by internal unrest, including a renewal (sự khôi phục) attempt by Panduranga to gain autonomy. There were also 2 wars against Cambodia, which was conquerred in 1074 & in 1080. in addition, there were internal power struggles, and the requirement to send regular tribute to China and to the Vietnamese king.

The following century was no less disturbed. After assisting the Khmers with their assault on the Vietnamese, Champa became reconciled (hòa giải) with the latter, and in turn was attacked by the army of the Khmer king, who in 1145 captured Vijara and began the occupation (thôn tính) the entire northern region of Champa. It was liberated in 1149 by the king of Panduranga who had installed himself in the throne of Vijara, but had to struggle for the remainder (thời gian còn lại) of this reign against internal adversaries (đối thủ, đối phương), and against the principalities of Amarvatti and Panduranga itself, which resented his consecration (sự phong thánh) as “king of kings” at Vijara.

Folowing the king’s death, his successor decided to mount a surprise attack on Cambodia. He assembled (thu thập) a powerful flet an sailed up to the Mekong and Tonlé Sap rivers to the Great Lake. Angker was captured and pillaged, and its king killed.

The Khmer kingdom could well have succumbed (ngừng chống cự) to thí catastrophe (tai biến), but istead it was saved by a prince who, some years later, was to be crowned Khmer king with name of Jayaverman VII. He proceeded (bắt đầu) to rout (sự thất bại thảm hại) of the Cham army of occupation in a series of battles, including the naval encounter (cuộc chạm trán) which is commemorated (tưởng niệm) on the relief friezes (trụ gạch) of Bayon & Banteay Chmar. Continuing his revenge, he took Vijaya in 1190, captured its king, installed his own brother-in-law on the throne, and awarded the throne of Panduranga to one of its princes. Champa was thus split in two, but in a revolt in 1192, the king of Panduranga killed the king of Vijaya, and assumed both crowns. Palace revolutions ensued (xảy ra sau đó), and in 1203, Angkor re-asserted (đòi lại) its tutelage (sự giám hộ) over Champa, which was to keep its status as Khmer province until 1220. the date marks the end of a century of fratricidal strife (huynh đệ tương tàn) b/w the two Hinduised kingdoms, which were from then on to develop good-neighbourly relations.

In 1283 Champa experienced the invasion of the Mogolls and its king was forced to retreat with his troops to the Annam Cordillera. As Marco Polo records, Champa avoided open combat and left the coastal plains to invaders who, 2 years later, were forced to evacuate (rút lui).

The fourteenth century: the exploits of Chê Bông Nga.

Champa had endured (chịu đựng) 17 years of Khmer occupation and 2 years of occupation by the Mogols, plus Vietnamese assault, without giving up an inch of land, but at the beginning of the 14^th century it was to suffer the loss of ots northern region. This misfortune occurred at the whim (niềm đam mê nhất thời) of its monarch Jaya Simhavarman III (Chê Man) who in 1386, according to the Vietnamese chronicles (sử ký), offered the Dai Viet king the 2 administrative regions of O & Ly – the territory b/w the Lao Bao pass & The Pass of Clouds – in exchange for the hand of his daughter, Princess Huyên Trân. Fate decreed that the king was to die within a yeat of arrival of the princess at the court of Vijaya. She promptly returned to her home country. This sudden change of fortune led the king’s successors to make repeated attempts to recover these lands, in 1311-12, 1317-18, once again in 1326 and finally in 1353, but all in vain.

At this point a Cham king whose political finesse (mưu kế) matched by his cunning (khéo léo) as a strategist (nhà chiến lược), Chê Bông Nga, appeared on the scene(có mặt). he should not be confused with the Po Binasur mentioned in the Royal Chronicles of Panduranga (mistake made by all scholars over the last century). Chê Bông Nga appears to have ascended the throne around the year 1360. taking advantage of the benevolent neutrality of the first emperor of the newly established Ming dynasty in China, he threw himself into a series of campaigns against the Dai Viet, beginning in 1361, each one of which ended in victory. In 1361 he sacked the port of Di Ly, and in 1362 and in 1365 it was the turn of Hoa district. He defeated the Vietnamese army at Chiem Dong in 1368 and in 1370 he invaded the Red River Delta, taking Thang Long, the Vietnamese capital. In 1376 he again invaded Hoa, and in 1377 he routed (đánh tan tác) the Dai Viet army as it marched on Vijaya, killing king Trân Duê Tông, ít commander. In the same year he invaded the Red River delta and once more overwhelmed (áp đảo) the royal army which had attempted to halt (ngăn chặn) his advance, capturing and pillaging the capital for a second time. In 1380 he pillaged the Vietnamese provinces of Nghê An, Diên Châu, and Thanh Hoa, returning to wreak (tiến hành[sự trả thù]) further havoc (sự tàn phá) in Thanh Hoa in 1382. he mounted another attack on the delta region in 1383 inflicting (giáng [một đòn]) a further defeat on the royal army.

He thrust (đẩy mạnh) into Thanh Hoa once more in 1389, defeating the army sent to confront (đương đầu) him. But in 1390 he was betrayed by a minor mandarin in his entourage (đoàn tùy tùng) and was killed by soldiers of Dai Viet.

His most prominent (xuất chúng) general named in the Vietnamese annals (sử biên niên) á La ngai succeeded him under the name of Jaya Simharman Sri Harijati. During hí reign which lasted until 1400, Champa was to relinquish (từ bỏ) to the Dai Viet all the lands north of the Pass of the Clouds reconquered by Chê Bông Nga.

In Maspero’s 1928 book Le Royaume du Champa (The King of Champa), the author characterises the period in 1360-1390 as the zenith of the kingdom. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. The reign of Chê Bông Nga was merely a brilliant (nổi bật, sáng chói) hiatus (chỗ gián đoạn), temporarily casting a veil over the moribund state (trạng thái) into which Hinduised Champa had sunk towards the end of the 14^th century. Its civilisation had for many years been in decline, due to the impoverishment (sự kiệt quệ) of the Sanskrit culture which had underpinned (củng cố, làm cơ sở) the country’s Hinduism & Mahayana Buddhism, and had provided the bedrock (nền móng) for Cham political and social structure. “The latest Sanskrit inscription so far discovered is dated 1252, and Champa’s cultural decline was partly a result of the Muslim invasions of the late 12^th century in India, severing its links with Indochina and thus strangling (kìm hãm) the cultural contact which had over the centuries breathed new life into the civilisation ò Hinduised Champa. The latter was also in decline because the country’s defeats in warfare (cuộc chiến tranh) during the 13^th century at the hands of the Khmers, the Vietnamese and the Chinese, had damaged the credibility (sự tín nhiệm) of the Hinduist order, which was held to have been ordained by the gods themselves. The people gradually lost their faith in it, and the spiritual values on which Hinduised Champa had depended were undermined (xói mòn), thú contributing still further to the country’s destabilization (việc làm mất ổn định) in the 13^th century”. This explains why the heroic exploits of Chê Bông Nga were destined (đi đến) to be of no avail (không mang lại lợi ích gì cả).

The 17^th century to 1471: the demise of Hinduised Champa

No sooner had Jaya Simhavarman Sri Harjatti’s son assumed power than the royal Vietnamese army attacked Champa. The Chams were forced to yield the principality of Amaravati which corresponded (tương ứng) approximately to the southern part of today’s Quang Nam province plus the northern part of Quang Ngai. The Ming Chinese assault on the Dai Viet in 1407 and the revolt led by Le Loi to regain Vietnamese independence offered a respite (thời gian trì hoãn) to the Chams, who temporarily reasserted control over Amaravati. But the conflict b/w the 2 states was reignited in 1445 and led to the capture of Vijaya by the Dai Viet.

From then on, Champa’s decline gathered pace (tiến lên). It suffered incessant (không ngừng) raids (cuộc cướp bóc) at the hands of the Dai Viet, and also internecine (gây ra sự tàn phá cho cả 2 bên) strife, with 5 monarchs in succession ascending the throne in a mere 30 years. The final blow (cú đòn) came in 1471. In retaliation (trả đũa) for an attack by the Cham king, the Vietnamese king Lê Thánh Tông mounted a carefully-prepared 2-pronged (gọng kìm) attack by land and sea, putting the Cham army yo flight. He captured Vijaya and razed (san bằng) it to be ground, beheading more than 40 thousand people, and deporting more than 30 thousand others. He then embarked (=imbark) on (bắt tay vào) the systematic destruction of everything connected with Hinduised Cham culture, thus wiping it out completely.

The ultimate capture of Vijaya marked “the end of a long struggle, lasting half a millenium, which had pitted (đào mồ) the Hinduist civilization of Champa against the China-orientated civilisation of the ethnic Vietnamese, as they pushed inexorably southwards. For both protagonists (người giữ vai trò chủ đạo) the struggle was a matter of their very survival, and from the final year of the 10^th century it witnessed the progressive retreat (sự rút lui) of the Chams in the face of overwhelming (tràn ngập) Vietnamese demographic (thuộc nhân khẩu) pressure. 1471 is therefore the date of the definitive victory of a culture of Chinese origin, over a Hinduised society which had, from the 4^th century AD, held sway (sự thống trị) over the eastern part of peninsular Indochina” . after this terminal destruction of Vijaya, the victor king Lê Thánh Tông sent troops to Thach Bi hill, at the tip of Cape Varella, where erected (xây dựng) a boundary stone to mark the new southern frontier of the Dai Viet. But in fact the king’s zone of occupation did not extend further south than the Cu Mong pass, leaving the region b/w it and Thach Bi as a sort of no-ma’s land b/w the 2 countries.

It might have been expected that after such an overwhelming victory the Dai Viet would annex the whole territory of Champa. Indeed this was the erroneous (sai lầm) view of many scholars during the first three-quarters of 20^th century, who maintained that Champa disappeared with the fial capture of Vijaya. But the Vietnamese annals relate that king Lê Thánh Tông relinquished (nhượng lại) his southern territories to one of Vijaya’s military commander, Bo Tri Tri, who had taken refuge in Panduranga and asked to placed under Dai Viet suzerainty (quyền bá chủ). Such an act of magnanimity (tính khoan dung độ lượng) on the king’s part might seem surprising until one recalls that after each conquest, the Dai Viet authorities would invariably (lúc nào cũng vậy) spend a number of years consolidating their gains with the help of colonies of soldiers-turned-farmers whose task was to make them viable (có thể tồn tại) and defend them against attempts by their former owners to repossess their lost territiry. These colonists were also required to repopulate (khôi phục lại dân số) the land with exiles, vagabonds (phiêu bạt) and the destitute (nghèo túng). It should furthermore be recognised that in the second half of the 15^th century the Dai Viet had neither the human nor material resources to control the whole of ancient Champa. The king therefore showed great foresight (bởi vậy) in limiting his annexation to the part of it which was nearest to his own domain, and which his army had devastated (tàn phá) and depopulated. He knew that he could integrate (hợp nhất) it into his kingdom with little difficulty.

1471-1653: the loss of Kauthara.

When the Vietnamese ceded (nhượng lại) the lands of Kauthara, Panduranga and the highlands to west to Bo Tri Tri, they were in fact allowing him to rebuild a kingdom, which he duly (đúng đắn) formalised by gaining the investiture (lễ phong chức) of the Chinese emperor, just before his death in 1478. he dad two direct successors, if the Chinese sources can be trusted, although the latter only give their names in the Chinese language and only omit any mention of the dates of their reigns. The royal chronicles of Panduranga, written in the Cham language, speak of the following monarchs: Po Kabih (1494-1530), Po Karutdrak (1530-1536), Po Mha Sarak (1536-1541), PO Kunarai (1541-1553) and Po At (1553-1579). The kingdom which Bo Tri Tro asnd his successors established in the southern part of former Champa kept its own name, attested both in the Cham documents and the Vietnamese annals, but “must be distinguished from preceding kingdom in its adoptation of novel spiritual values and a new social structure quite alien from those which had been the basis of Hinduised Champa”. The “new” Champa drew on a mixture of ideas from the old native beliefs of the south, from lements of Indian culture which had been to some ectent assimilated by the people of that region, and (from the 17^th century onwards) from various Muslim concepts which had become available after the arrival of Islam in the ports and cities of Panduranga and Kauthara.

The death of Lê Thánh Tông in 1497 sparked off a power struggle among the Dai Viet which led to the decay (tình trạng suy sụp) of the monarchy and 3 centuriesof armed hostility (chiến tranh, thái độ thù địch) b/w Trinh lords who governed the north of the country, and the Nguyen who had established their capital near present-day Hue. The latter took it upon themselves to resume the Vietnamese thrust against Kauthara and Panduranga, in an attempt to move their border ever further southwards. They encounter resistance from the sovereigns of the “new” Champa who in 1578 even managed to send an expeditionary force to the north, as far as present-day Phu Yen, to reoccupy a citadel which Nguyen had captured.

At the end of 16^th century, new Champa’s nothern border extended as far as the Cu Mong pass, and its rulers were confident enough to send troops overseas. In 1594 the king, who apparently had been converted to Islam, sent help to the Sultan of Johore in far south of Malay peninsula to support his struggle against the Portuguese of Malaca. This new confidence in Cham power was probably what impelled (thúc đẩy) king Po Nit (1603-1613) to make forays (sự đánh phá) into Quang Nam, the territory of the Nguyen. These provoked (làm xẩy ra, kích động) a violent reaction from Nguyen ruler who mounted a lightning (chớp nhoáng, nhanh như cắt) campaign in 1611, capturing the nothern part of Kauthara from Cu Mong pass to mount Thach Bi & Cape Varella. He turned the territory into a new frontier province, Trấn Biên, and installed 30.000 Vietnamese captives (tù binh), former partisans (nghĩa quân) of Trinh, to populate (đồn trú, định cư) it.

The defeat did not diminish (giảm bớt) the Cham rulers for warfare, and from 1620 onwards they resumed their harassment (sự quấy rối) of the Nguyên-dominated population who had settled in the south of Trân Biên (Phú Yên today). In 1653, king Po Nraup was preparing an attack to recapture the lands that had been lost in 1611, when Nguyen ruler attacked him first, defeated and seized him, and locked him into an iron cage, in which the king then committed suicide. Although in that war the Nguyen army had advanced as far south as the Phan Rang river, the eventual frontier was established further north in the district of Cam Ranh. The Nguyen had thus seized the remaining territory of Kauthara, which thereafter became the provinces of Thai Kang & Dien Khanh. At the end of 1653, the only remaining land belonging to Champa was Panduranga.

1653-1771: the disintegration (sự tan rã) of Panduranga.

Five years after annexing Kauthara, the Nguyen took advantage ò internal strife in Cambodia to seize ít easternmost teritory, the region now known as Biên Hoa. This “presented a new challenge for Panduranga, since they now had Vietnamese to the south as well as the north. The powerful Nguyen could not endure (cam chịu) this de facto splitting of their territory indefinitely (không biết lúc nào)”. This explains why, in 1692, when king Po Saut of Panduranga-Champa attempted to reconquer the former Kauthara, the Nguyen ruler sent 3 armies to confront him, seize his kingdom, and annex it to the southern Vietnamese lordship. The latter changed the name of Chiêm Thành, andsubtituted Trấn (boundary) of Thuận Thành, placing it under the administration of the 3 military madarins who had conquered it. Once month later the Nguyen ruler transformed it into a prefecture (quận) which he called Bình Thuận, placing it under the administration of the deposed (phế truất) king’s brother, on whom he conferred (trao, tặng) a Vietnamese mandartin title. Thus at the end of 1692, Panduranga, the last vestige of old Champa, had ceased to exist as an independent country.

Despite their overwhelming defeat and their occupatin by the Nguyen army, the people of Paduranga revolted in 1693. Realising that it would not be easy to put down this popular uprising, the Nguyen ruler decided in 1694 to annul (bãi bỏ, thủ tiêu) his annexation. He abolished the Bình Thuận prefecture, re-established Panduranga (which Vietnamese annals once more referred to as Thuận Thành) within its former borders, and restored the monarchy (Vương Hiệu). he then granted investiture (phong chức, trao quyền) to Po Saktiraydaputih (the former governor of Binh Thuan, and brother of king Po Saut who had been captured in 1692), who pledged to pay him annual tribute.

However, despite the lifting of its annexation of Panduranga, the Nguyen court decided to remain in control of all the Vietnamese who had settled there, thus allowing them to keep watch on this community, composed mainly of [compose of: bao gồm] ragamuffins (người vô gia cư) and poverty-stricken (nghèo rớt mồng tơi) people, and to manipulate (thao túng) it. To accomplish this, the Nguyen ruler established a very unusual prefecture in 1697, to which he restored the name of the former prefecture of Binh Thuan. The administrative documents it issued, both Chinese and Cham, “bear witness to the fact tha from 1702 there was a Vietnamese administration inside Panduranga’s frontiers whose sole purpose was to regulate (quy định, chỉnh đốn) the lives of the Vietnamese living there. Thenceforth [=thenceforward: từ đó] they were no longer subject to the Panduranga ruler but to the Vietnamese madarins attached to the prefecture, who in addition were entitled to intervene (can thiệp) with the ruler to defend any Vietnamese in dispute with the Paduranga administration or with its Cham inhabitants”.

This state of affairs gave rise to numerous disputes b/w the native population and the Vietnaese, the more so as the latter gained control of more and more territory, through prchase, or forfeiture (sự tước mất) of properties pawned (đem cầm) by the Chams or through new immigrants settling in areas of fallow (bỏ hoang) land. From then on Panduranga was no longer a definable (có thể định rõ) geographic unit, but a patchwork (sự chắp vá) scattered with expatriate (kiều dân) Nguyen land-holding.

1771-1832: the death-throes (sự giẩy chết) of Champa.

The popular uprising of the Tay Son people against Nguyen tyranny (sự bạo ngược, chuyên chế) broke out in 1771, and spread rapidly over all the Nguyen territory, forcing them to abandon Hue and take refuge in the Mokong delta, where they planned to reconquer their throne. Trapped against its will b/w the Tay Son and the Nguyen armies, Panduranga-Champa found itself it the midst of a conflict b/w Vietnamese factions (bè phái) from which it could never gain any conceivable (có thể tưởng tượng được) advantage. Indeed, if the Vietnamese annals are to be trusted, one of the main objectives of either side was to occupy Panduranga and thus gain a strategic advantage over the other. Panduranga thus found itself caught in the middle of a battlefield for the whole duration of the war. From then on, to all items and purposes, its chances of survival as a free country could be rated as almost zero.

In 1802 the Nguyen Emperor Gia Long defeated the Tay Son and began building his new empire. b/w Cam Ranh bay, the region of Ba Ria and the highlands of Donnai (Đồng Nai), he set up an autonomous zone, extending over the approximate area of the Panduranga of the 1770s, placing those parts of it that had not been integrated into the province of Binh Thuan under the ruler of a former grand dignitary (quan chức) of Panduranga-Champa. This governo’s name was Po Sau Nun Can, of Cham ancestry (dòng họ), who had been an erstwhile (xưa kia) campanion of Gia Long during the war against the Tay Son. He was granted absolute power over all the non-Vietnamese inhabitants of the zone, and the right to recruit a small army under his sole (độc tôn) authority, as well as to levy taxes on (thuế thân) his subjects.

Set up along “protectorate” lines, Panduranga-Champa seems to have been reconstituted by the Nguyen emperor “more as a sort of fief [=feoff: thái ấp] to reward hí companion’s faithful services than á a genune attempt to rebuild Paduranga as a country”. Whatever the motive, these lands enjoyed a very considerable degree of autonomy throughout the reign of Gia Long, under the emperor’s own protection and that of the viceroy (tổng trấn) Gia Định Thành, Lê Văn Duyệt. This situtation was not to outlast (tồn tại lâu hơn) the death of Gia Long in 1820 and the accession to the throne of his son Ming Mang, as the latter became embroilled (lôi kéo)in a struggle for ascendency (uy thế) with the viceroy. Panduranga-Champa was to bear the brunt (gánh nặng chủ yếu) of the conflict as each side strove (cố gắng) to subjugate (chinh phục, nô dịch hóa) it, and consequently control the province of Bình Thuận whose lands were intermingled (trộn lẫn) with those of Panduranga. After the death of Po Sau Nun Can in 1822, Ming Mang blocked the promotion of the Cham dignitary who ought by right ot have been his successor, and substituted another more to his liking. A crisis ensued, followed by an armed insurrection (cuộc khởi nghĩa) which broke out in Gia Định Thành but spread to encompass (bao gồm, bao quanh) such a large area that Minh Mang reversed (đảo ngược) his decision an reinstated the original dignitary as governor of Paduranga-Champa.

On the latter’s death in 1828, Panduranga became once more the pawn (con tốt) of a political struggle b/w the emperor and the viceroy of Gia Định Thành. Ming Mang nominated á governor a Cham who enjoyed his confidence, but Lê Văn Duyệt had him replaced by the son of Po Sau Nun Can who was completely in his thrall (người nô lệ), as proved by the fact that thenceforth he paid the taxes normally due to the empeor, to Gia Định Thành instead. It can thus be said that 1828 marks a turning-point in relations b/w the land of Vietnamese and Panduranga. Whilst from 1822-1828 the latter was “subject solely to the court of Hue, it was from then on to become tributary (chư hầu) to Gia Định Thành”. That fate of Panduranga-Champa was thus bound to that of Le Van Duyet.

The latter died in 1832, and Ming Mang seized the opportunity to retake the whole Panduranga-Champa, punishing not only the officials who had opted for the viceroy of Gia Định Thành, but also the people, whose paddy-fields were confiscated (tịch thu, sung công) and who were subjected to forced labor. As to Panduranga-Champa itself, Ming Mangdecided to wipe it off the map altogether, and divided its lands by attaching them and their inhabitants to the two administrative regions of An Phuoc and Hoa Da in Binh Thuan province. By the end of 1832, Champa had finally ceased to exist.

1833-1835: the final uprisings.

The mandarins sent by Minh Mang to punish the foemer partisans of Le Van Duyet, namely the inhabitants of Gia Dinh Thanh and Panduranga, imposed (áp đặt) harsh (nghiêm khắc, gay gắt) measures which unleashed (gây ra (chiến tranh)) a wave of uprisings throughout the south from 1833 onwards. In former Panduranga the rebellion, which had its roots in the misery of a people reduced (biến đổi) to despair, was diverted (làm trệch hướng) by its instigator [=instigant: kẻ chủ mưu], Katip Sumat, to advance the cause of Islam. A Muslim religious official, he turned the revolt into what became in effect a jihab or holy war. It was a major uprising. The chronicles record that as well as the troops despatched to suppress it, the Vietnamese of the province of Binh Thuan were called in to ensure [=insure: bảo đảm] victory, achieved b/w the end of 1833 and the beginning of 1834.

While this insurrection (cuộc khởi nghĩa) takes up little space in Vietnamese historigraphy (lịch sử địa lý), the reverse (điều trái ngược, sự bất hạnh) is true of its successor in 1834-1835, which discarded (bỏ, thải hồi) the guise (chiêu bài) of a classical revolt and asumed that of a “war of liberation”. Its instigator was Ja Thak Va whose sole aim was to free his country from the domination of Minh Mang and restore all that had been destroyed under his rule. His first step was to begin rebuilding the organs of a “state”. In a mountainous region where the troops of the Hue court did not dare venture, he convoked (triệu tập) an assembly which appointed a king, an heir (người thừa kế) to the throne and a commander-in-chief. Next he assembled the hill-tribes of high plateaux and the Chams of the coastal plain, launching two attacks on Minh Mang’s army and gaining the freedom of almost all the lands of old Panduranga. Despite repeated attempts by the Hue court to entice (cám dỗ) the insurgents (người nổi dậy, khởi nghĩa) to capitulate (đầu hàng), the conflict went on until mid-1835, when Ja Thak Va was killed, not long after the king he had had crowned had suffered the same fate. Although the deaths of these 2 leaders of the revolt did not immediately cause it to collapse, they had dealt it a mortal (chết chóc) blow (tai họa).

The ensuing (tiếp theo) repression (sự đàn áp) of Ja Thak Va’s adherents (môn đồ, đảng viên, người trung thành) was ferocious (tàn bạo, dã man). Minh Mang’s troops seized their assets (tài sản), hunted them dơn, starved them, deported them, killed them, burned their villages and desecrated (báng bổ, mạo phạm) their cemeteries. For good measure and to ensure no further uprisings, the Hue court split up the survivors’ villages into hamlets which it then scattered among Vietnamese villages. “The result was the dispersion (sự giải tán, phân tán) of the hill-tribes people around the territory, and the destruction of the framework of Cham culture and of its society, both of which had been rooted in Champa’s ancestral lands”.

The Cham kingdom, which gradually declined under the onslaught of the Vietnamese as they expanded southwards, has left only its archaeological remains and 2 definable human communities. Firstly, some 300,000 people live on the high plateaux of central Vietnam. They comprise hill-tribes whose languages belong to the Austronesian language family, including the Jörai, the Edê, the Cru and the Raglai, and other ethnic group who speak languages of the Austroasiatic group, including the Ma, the Sré and the Stieng. The second community is the Chams, with some 80,000 people living in the central Vietnam provinces of Binh Thuan and Ninh Thuan, 15,000 in the Chau Doc region and Ho Chi Minh city in south Vietnam, and about 15,000 who have settled in Cambodia, where their forebears (tổ tiên) had been migrants fom Kauthara and Panduranga in the 17^th century and in subsequent (theo sau) time.

THE ART OF CHAMPA: BROAD OUTLINES

If one acknowledges (thừa nhận rằng) that a counrty’s history has a direct a influence on its artistic development, then Cham art stands out [stand out:kiên trì chống cự, nổi bật lên] among all the artistic traditions of SEA as one which bears the deep imprint (vết hằn, ảnh hưởng sâu sắc) of Champa’s chequered (ba đào, sóng gió) history, yet succeeds in maintaining a unique and forceful pesonality. It has, however, suffered more than most harsh (khắc nghiệt) treatment over centuries. The effects of the Vietnamese conquest, the ravages of the Vietnam war, and even that of the priority quite naturally given to the archaeology of Cambodia over that of Champa in the decades preceding the 1^st World War, have all cobined to result in relentless damage to the monuments both through war and through neglect. Too often nowadays, we are reduced to studying Cham art from photographs taken in early 20^th century which, with Parmentier’s precious surveys and drawings published in 1909 and 1918, are the only remaining evidence for buildings which have disappeared for ever. A further consequence of this state of affairs is our chronic (thường xuyên, kinh niên) lack of knowledge of all that is not architecture or sculpture. Goldwork and bronze, whose inportance is not often attested in the Chinese records and Cham epigraphy, are only known from a few items, mostly chance discaveries, for whole of the classical period. All the evidence suggests that ceramics were just as important, but nothing is known of them, nor of the wood sculpture or the mural paintings. Wer have some knowledge of recent goldwork, but study has yet to be carried out on weavings and embroidery, though these arts are still very much alive among the Cham minorities who still live in their ancestral lands or who are the descendants of early 19^th-century migrants. In these circumstances it should be emphasised that Cham art, orginal though it is, can only bo known now and henceforth through its sculpture and architecture, althogh even of these a considerable proportion has vanished.

The art of Champa is, of course, essentially religious in inspiration. The cult of Shiva is preponderant, and expresses itself in quite original ways, as the kings appear not to have sought, or not to have known how to exploit, the rituals such as those which developed in Cambodia from the beginning of the 19^th century, leading to the building of the remarkable groups of monuments known as “temple-mountains”. In contrast to Angkor’s strongly centralised (tập trung) civilisation, a sort of dualism (thuyết nhị nguyên) prevailed (phổ biến, lan khắp) in Champa while the political situation allowed, giving local importance in Po Nagar (Nha Trang) to the worshipped of the goddess Bhagavati, as protectress of the southern provinces, while Bhadresvara (The Auspicious lord) was the form of Shiva worshipped at My Son, the most holy place of the kingdom. Compared with the cult of Shiva, Vishnuism played a distinctly secondary and episodic role, but not without its own artistic significance. Mahayana Buddhism in the tantric tradition was more significant, and was indeed, in at least two cases, the religion of the king. Thus it s Bhuddism which in the last quarter of the 9^th century inspired Champa’s most ambitious architectural achievement. After the 11^th century however, the Bhuddist inclinations (sự nghiêng) of the reigning Cham dynasties were to fuel the quarrels with Cambodia which were to have such dire (thảm khốc) consequnces for Champa.

Cham art is distinguished in general both by its profound (sâu sắc, uyên thâm) and vigorous (đầy sinh lực, mạnh mẽ) originality (tính độc đáo), and by its openness (tính cởi mở, rộng rãi) to outside influences. Although these traits (nét tiêu biểu) might seem to contradict (mâu thuẫn với) each other, in fact they find their expression in different ways. The architecture, in its shapes and its construction methods, remains surprisingly uniform from the most ancient extant (hiện còn) monuments of the 8^th century to the most recent, probably built in the 16^th century. Its sculpture, on the contrary, both as an element of the architectural decór, and even more strikingly (nổi bật) with regard to the statues, displays a marked tendency to absorb elements borrowed form foreign traditions, at least during the centuries when Champa was able to sustain (kéo dài, chịu đựng) its links with India and the other Hinduised states of the region. Whilst these borrowings occur so frequently that they seem to have been actively sought after (=look after), they never degenerate (suy thoái) into pastiche (=pasticcio: tác phẩm cóp nhặt) Cham art borowed but đi not copy. Its originality is always clearly visible, not only in the attire (quần áo) and jewellery of the personages (nhân vật quan trọng), which naturally reflect local custom, but above all from a purely aesthetic (thẩm mỹ) viewpoint. Champa appears to have developed a very specific vision of the human and divine world s, real or imagined. This vision can vary widely according to the scene depicted, and occasionaly shifts radically (triệt để) in a short space of time, e.g the contrast b/w the sculptures of Đồng Dương and those of My Son or Tra Kieu. But it is always highly individualistic and can occasionally produce an indisputable (không thẻ bàn cãi) masterpiece.

ARCHITECTURE.

The architecture of Champa is characterised neither by large-scale groups of buildings, nor by strict adherence (sự tôn trọng triệt để) to a pre-conceived (hình thành) plan. The only ecception to the general tendency is the Mahayanist temple of Đồng Dương (875 AD). Hilltops were the preferred sites for the shrines, but they were never the object of elaborate (tinh vi, công phu) preparatory works. The Cham architects only occationally went to the trouble of carving out a hilltop into a stepped shape. This was confined (bị hạn chế) to buildings of approximately 12^th century date, such as the Silver Towers, and reflects Khmer influence. But these reather roughly executed works have nothing in common with those of Angkor. In fact the major temples quite often consist of only three shrines in a general north-south alignment, the central one being not necessarily the most important.

Almost all the buildings are of high quality brick and joined with mortar of a type probably similar to the one used by Khmers. Stone was sparingly (thanh đạm, sơ sài) used, in the form of structural monoliths (đá nguyên khối) (door post, crwonings for shrines, ect), or for decorative purposes (tympana, accents, ect). Three main types of building predominate: the tower-shrine, or kalan, with a more or less pronounced (rõ ràng, dứt khoát) forepart (phần trước), quite often in the shape of a reduced-scale tower-shrine, false doors, and stepped roof on a small number of geneally well-defined levels; the “library” of uneven quadrilateral (tứ giác) shape, with two halls and a cradle-vaulted (vòm) roof b/w gabled (có đầu hồi, hình đầu hồi) walls, and the rarer grand hall, consist of a single nave (gian giữa), or of seveal naves divided by rows of pillars, with roofing of tilework, or even occasionally of thatch (tranh, rạ). The gopura , or entrance-pavillions and the mandapa, open to the four cardinal (bốn phương) points, and various miniature (thu nhỏ lại) temples, all dirive more or less directly from the kalan. The terrace and the foundation-mass do not figure prominently in Champa, in sharp contrast to their major role in Khmer and Javanese temples.

The Chams were conservative in their choice of architectural shapes and sober (trở nên nghiêm túc & chín chắn) in their use of its accompanying décor, usually executed in brick to a limited extent, so as to emphasise the pattern of broad plain areas, regularly spaced b/w pilasters (trụ bổ tường, trụ cửa) which often occur in pairs, alternating with panels, strengthened by the bold projection of the forepart and the false doors. The emphasis of the vertical lines which rise uninterrupted from the foundation-mass, itself enlivened with carved panels and recesses of applied ornament, to the most characteristic decorative elements show a continuous pattern of development, thus allowing Stern to establish the dates of the monument. The shape and composition (bố cục) of the rampart arches (uốn cong, xây khung vòm ở trên) of the pediments (trán tường) above the doors and false doors are particularly instructive (để truyền kiến thức) in this context, as they are repeated in the reduced-scale false doors of the stepped roof structure, and also, more or less accurately, on the arcature(?) of the niches (hốc tường) in the foundation-mass and the main buildings. At the angles of each level, the roofs feature large hewn (đẽo) and sculpted accents and miniature (thu nhỏ, bức tiểu họa) buildings called “angle amortizement (di sản)”. The accents are occasionally in openwork and highlight the angles. They could be termed the most regular characteristic of Cham architecture, since they occur right up to the final phase and are even to be seen on roofs of lightweight materials. The angle amortizements are reduced scale models of kaln, initially very realistic but gradually becoming more schematic (dưới dạng biểu đồ). Most of the elements of the Khmer prasat are present, although their interpretation (sự thể hiện, sự làm sáng rõ) and development proceed along markedly different lines. Whenever the architects attempted to copy Khmer models, such as at the twelfth-century Silver Towers, or even more so at Hung Thanh, the ssults were disappoiting, as Khmer perspective (tranh phối cảnh) was alien to (trái ngược với) them.

SCULPTURE: GENERAL INTRODUCTION

The starting-point of any discussion of Cham sculpture must be the pedestals and altars on which it figures so abundantly (nhiều). They are the essential link b/w the deity and the shrine, and in the art off Champa they take on an importance which is not seen elswhere, both in their dimensions and in the themes they illustrate. Their sculptural décor, whether of animated (có sinh khí, đầy sức sống) scenes or of pure ornament, is generally agreed to be among the finest achievements of Cham art. But in sharp contrast to the unity of the architecture, Cham sculpture is distinguished by a continuous process of renewal and by tendencies which can often seem contradictory (mâu thuẫn). None of this, however, hinders it from being consistently (kiên định) and strikingly (nổi bật) original. Each work has its own appeal as it reflects the ups & downs of the country’s history, and while the quality is often uneven (không đều), the Cham sculpors produced some of the authentic (đích thực) masterpieces of South-East Asian art as well as some of its most degenerate (thoái hóa, suy đồi) portrayals (bức chân dung) of the gods.

The sculptures of the divinities are generally rather small in scale, and rarely apart from those dating from the earliest times-sculpted in the round. It seems that the later artists were more at home with the relief technique, often executed in the very high relief in which they excelled (nổi trội). It is not easy to account for this preference; the reasons behind it are complex. On the one hand it is the gods who first appear in high relief with their backs forming a stele, while on the other, the later guardian figures of the shrines and other Dvarapala are sculpted in the round in dynamic pose, bearing witness both to their sculptors’ considerable technical mastery and to their knowledge of the raw material which they carved. It might be imagined that the sacred images of the gods which were so often vulnerable in times of war. But it could also be asserted that Indonesian iconographic (sự mô tả bằng hình tượng) influence could have played just as significant a role, given that it was exerted (đưa kỹ xảo vào sử dụng) at precisely (chính xác, đúng) the same time. Whatever the real reason, the decision to portray the gods in high relief had a decisive influence on the development of Cham aesthetics (mỹ học), sacrificing realism, and opting (chọn) instead for carving the images against a supporting stele. The sculptors of the early period were not attracted by low relief techinque, and carved the divinities’ arms in anatomically impossible positions into stele.

(To be continued)

Vietnamtourguide

Tuesday, 9 March 2010

My Son

Saturday, 28 November 2009

Hilltribe ladies

Thursday, 2 July 2009

Spectacular limestone caves rediscovered in Quang Binh

Wednesday, 6 May 2009

World’s largest grotto unveiled in Vietnam

Monday, 27 April 2009

CHAM SCULPTURE & INDIAN MYTHOLOGY