The Architecture of The Temple-Towers of
The Architecture of The Temple-Towers of
The Architecture of The Temple-Towers of
CHAPTER 6
Trần Kỳ Phương
Yama (Death) has given (us) the residence on earth. Yama indeed rules
over the earth and it is he who grants the sacrificer a residence on
this earth.
— Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, VII. I. 1.32
T
he temple-towers of ancient Champa discussed in this essay were,
for the most part, religious buildings used for the practice of
Hinduism and Buddhism.3 They were built with fired bricks, and
stand in various parts of the coastal plain region of central Vietnam, in
the area that extends from Ngang pass (Quảng Bình) in the north as far
south as the province of Bình Thuận; there are also a few temples in the
Tây Nguyên highland region. Their dates cover a continuous period from
the seventh/eighth centuries to the seventeenth/eighteenth centuries.
Inscriptions on steles inform us that the majority of the temple-
towers built before the seventh/eighth centuries were made of wood.
These temples were subsequently consumed by fire, and it was only
around the seventh/eighth centuries that temples started to be built of
fired brick, and later of fired brick combined with sandstone. The only
buildings made of brick and stone were temple-towers dedicated to the
worship of Champa’s gods. Other structures — including accommodation
155
architecture as the most highly perfected in Southeast Asia, and gave rise
to many impressive architectural edifices, especially those built between
the late ninth and thirteenth centuries.
Fig. 1. The royal liṅga Bhadreśvara of Mỹ Sơn Sanctuary enshrined at the main
temple of Mỹ Sơn B1 (Photograph Trần Kỳ Phương, 1993).
base was used to drain off the holy water used during the ceremony of
bathing the icon. During ceremonies, the liṅga was concealed inside a
covering sheath (kośa) made of metal alloy — gold/silver —onto which
an image of the head of Śiva (mukhaliṅga) was attached. Several such
metal-alloy heads of Śiva have been discovered in recent years: they
are masterpieces of Champa artistic creation.10 A mukhaliṅga made of
sandstone is still worshipped today at the sanctum of the Pô Klaung Garai
temple. During ceremonies, stone objects of Śiva worship in the sanctum
were also adorned with precious metals: a set of decorative dress made
of gold — including a crown, earrings, a necklace, and chest, arm- and
leg-adornments — was found at Mỹ Sơn in the small C7 temple, situated
beside the main C1 temple where Śiva was worshipped in a standing
position; this is a good example of this practice.11
The sanctum also contains a square trench directly below the altar,
for the draining of the holy water used during ceremonies. Examples exist
in the Mỹ Sơn B1 and Mỹ Sơn F1 kalans. In some temples, a water-
spout was made for the holy water to be drained (called a soma-sūtra), as
may be found in the Pô Nagar Nha Trang kalan, the Mỹ Sơn A1 kalan,
Mỹ Sơn C7, Chiên Đàn. Regarding the altar, a narrow space around it
allowed passage in a clockwise direction during ceremonies (pradakṣiṇa-
patha). Alternatively, in Buddhist temples such as the Buddhist foundation
at Đồng Dương, the altar was set against the sanctum’s western wall, in
front of which the faithful performed their rituals.
A canopy was usually placed in the sanctum. Made of wood, and
supported on four posts, it completely concealed the altar. Such canopies
may still be seen in the Pô Klaung Garai and Pô Rame kalans; elsewhere,
there remain only its four square stone bases, as in the Mỹ Sơn C7 tower.
Today, Cham people call this wooden canopy janùk (Fig. 2).12
The sanctum is a closed space, very dark and without windows; on
three of the walls, as a result, there are small triangular niches where lamps
(or ceremonial objects?) were set. Its interior walls were sometimes built
unevenly — closing in here, opening out there — to give the impression
of a cave, the preferred habitat of the god; remains of this uneven walling
may be seen in the kalans at Khương Mỹ, Chiên Đàn, Bằng An, Bình
Lâm, Thốc Lốc, Cánh Tiên, Dương Long and Hưng Thạnh.
The sanctum opened through a doorway, consisting of a stone door-
frame and a set of thick doors made of ironwood. Today, such wooden
doors may still be seen in the Pô Nagar Nha Trang, Pô Klaung Garai and
Pô Ramê kalans. At other sites, the doors have been lost, and all that
Fig. 2. The wooden canopy inside the temple (janùk), a reconstruction of Mỹ Sơn
E1 altar/temple (Trần Kỳ Phương, Oyama Akiko & Shine Toshihiko (eds.), Nhà Trưng
Bày Mỹ Sơn, Việt Nam [Mỹ Sơn site museum, Vietnam], p. 18).
remains are the round holes in the stone doorframe on which the hinges
turned, as at the Mỹ Sơn C1, Dương Long and Hưng Thạnh temples.
A long narrow vestibule connects the sanctum with the temple’s
main door. Here, a pair of nandi sacred bulls was placed, lying in atten-
dance on the sanctum, as may be seen today in the Pô Klaung Garai
and Pô Ramê kalans. This gloomy vestibule leading into the sanctum
symbolised the passageway into the cave, a transition from light into
darkness, into the divinity’s place of residence. In other words, it was
through the confined space of the vestibule that the faithful were led from
their world of complexity into a place of simplicity. Thus was facilitated
the purification of the self, before it was joined with the divinity during
the ceremony.13
Two elaborately carved sandstone doorposts were placed at the
vestibule’s entrance. These posts bear round, octagonal or quadrilateral
shapes, carved with intricate motifs, which varied according to the
artistic period and prevailing style. The different royal courts of Champa
traditionally engraved inscriptions on these doorposts, as may still be
seen at Mỹ Sơn, Pô Nagar Nha Trang, Pô Klaung Garai and Hà Trung.
Stone steps lead up to the entrance, and on either side of these there
is a wall, the exterior side of which is decorated with different shapes.
A half-moon shaped flagstone — or moonstone — is always set below
the steps, carved with lotus petals.
Above the doorposts, a lintel is decorated with further motifs (Fig. 3).
Above the lintel, an oval tympanum made of sandstone bears a representa-
tion of the god worshiped in the kalan. Almost all the extant tympana are
complete works of sculpture of great artistic value; one of the preferred
themes for representation on tympana was the image of Śiva performing
his cosmic dance named Tāṇḍava. The image of Śiva in his destructive
form was set on the main door to help maintain the temple’s purity, to
ward corporeal and incorporeal defilement away from the sacred place.
Sandstone decorative features, such as doorposts, tympana and lintels,
tended to be painted red to match the colour of the temple’s bricks;
vestiges of this red paint are still preserved on doorposts at Mỹ Sơn.
The kalan was built according to a fairly basic model. It had a square
body,14 and its roof rose to a summit through three tiers, culminating in
a pinnacle-piece made of sandstone. Comparison with other Southeast
Asian artistic styles shows that this structure was characteristic of Cham
art.
Seen in the terms of the architectural concepts of Hinduism, the
Champa kalan is composed of three distinct parts:
Spatial Structure
Cham temple-tower groups generally respect the following spatial
arrangements:
The kalan is at the centre. A gate-tower (gopura) stands opposite the
kalan, with its two gates aligned east-west. In front of the gate-tower,
there is a maṇḍapa, a type of long house with a tiled roof, multiple
windows and two main doors to the east and west: this served as a
preparatory hall where the faithful quietened their minds, prayed and
prepared offerings and sacred songs and dances before proceeding,
purified, into the kalan for the ritual.17
In Champa architecture there are three types of maṇḍapa: (1) one
without enclosing walls, which relies instead on large brick or stone
Fig. 4. The fire-tower (kosagrha) of Mỹ Sơn B5, the sanctuary’s treasure house
(Photograph Trần Kỳ Phương, 1994).
Fig. 6. The ground-plan and section of Mỹ Sơn B, C and D Groups (Shige-eda Yutaka and
Momoki Shiro (eds.), Artifacts and culture of the Champà Kingdom (Catalogue), Tokyo: The
Toyota Foundation, 1994, p. 15).
(these shrines are now known as the A2–A7 towers). Each guardian
deity was represented seated on his own particular vehicle (vāhana) such
as a bull, horse, rhinoceros or swan, exclusive to that deity (Fig. 7). In
Mỹ Sơn B group, seven stars (saptagrahas) were worshipped in seven
shrines (B7–B13): these were the gods of the Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury,
Jupiter, Venus and Saturn. They protected the main B1 temple from the
different directions around it.20
Apart from the major complexes at Mỹ Sơn, Đồng Dương and Pô
Nagar Nha Trang, and the distinct groups of towers such as Bánh Ít/
Tháp Bạc, Cánh Tiên, Pô Klaung Garai and Pô Ramê, in Champa
architecture there are several groups which contain three kalan built
alongside one another, as at Hoà Lai, Khương Mỹ, Chiên Đàn, Hưng
Thạnh/Tháp Đôi and Dương Long. Of the 24 groups of towers extant
today, there are only 5 with 3 kalan. All five were built on flat ground
or low earthy knolls.
Their construction often lasted several decades. For example,
construction of the Hoà Lai group started at the end of the eighth century
and was completed around the middle of the ninth; work on the Khương
Mỹ group started in the early tenth century and was completed in the
eleventh; the Chiên Đàn group was built from the late eleventh to the
mid twelfth centuries; the Hưng Thạnh group was built in the late twelfth
century; the Dương Long group was built in the late twelfth and thirteenth
centuries, and perhaps improved up to the end of the fifteenth century
(before 1471).
Although three-kalan groups were built up to the thirteenth century,
construction on only two of them — Hưng Thạnh and Dương Long
— commenced at the same time. This suggests that, up to the end of the
twelfth century, Champa temple-tower groups were made up of a single
kalan and a number of subsiduary temples; after that date, the three-kalan
group model evolved out of this.
This development is demonstrated by the temples built before the
appearance of the three-kalan group model, whereby smaller temples
were usually constructed beside a single main temple, as we can clearly
see at Mỹ Sơn A, B and C groups. These groups are of two types: (1)
one with smaller subsiduary temples built right beside the main temple;
(2) one with the smaller subsiduary temples built parallel with the main
temple. The dimensions of these subsiduary structures gradually grew
until they were built of a size equivalent to that of the main temple:
hence the appearance of the three-kalan group.
The towers were repaired and improved continuously over the cen-
turies. The rulers of Champa, after ascending the throne, often extended
or improved an old temple built by their predecessors, expressing thereby
reverence for their forefathers and the deities of the realm: such restora-
tion work is often mentioned in Champa inscriptions on steles.
They generally restored only the exterior walls of the temples,
while the interior was maintained in its original state. At several groups
of towers, construction and improvement work was carried out over a
period of several decades. When improving an old temple, the original
decorative features were reproduced: many decorative motifs were thus
reused from century to century, undergoing little modification in the
process. On the other hand, construction techniques changed greatly from
one century to the next. When restoring an old temple, the people of
Champa traditionally reused materials from earlier structures, especially
those made of sandstone.24
In the religious architecture of Champa, there was no tradition of
construction using exclusively sandstone materials, by contrast with
neighbouring architectural traditions. Champa technology is notable for
its use of brick, while Khmer and Java technology stand out for their use
of stone, as evidenced in Angkor Wat or Angkor Bayon (in Cambodia)
and Borobodur or Prambanam (in Indonesia). This difference in building
materials implied differences in construction technique, as well as differ-
ences in the application of human resources to the construction project.
The difference between these two tendencies — architectural tech-
nology using bricks or stone — can explained principally in terms of
the specific economic forms adopted by the respective ancient Southeast
Asian civilisations.
Khmer and Java technologies were the technologies of agricultural
societies,25 situated as they were in wide deltas (as in Cambodia) or on
plains with andesite (mineral-rich) soils (as on Java).26 In these agricul-
tural societies, kings, lords or chiefs could easily mobilise an abundant
workforce for long periods of time: the workforce could be used to build
temples made of sandstone or other stone materials, according to the
wishes of the ruler.
The people of Champa, by contrast, were inclined to overseas com-
merce. In commercial societies, the capacity for mobilisation of the human
resources necessary for the construction of important religious buildings
was more limited.
Fig. 8. Dương Long temple-towers, one of the highest brick temples in Southeast
Asia’s ancient religious architecture (Photograph Trần Kỳ Phương, 1995).
blocks, is relatively monotonous, while the Khmer and Java models are
more fully developed and comprise a variety of different shapes. The
different spatial arrangements and architectural models reflect differences
of artistic consciousness, products of the specific ‘collective intelligence’
of each ethnic group and society in Southeast Asia.29
Considerations of Terrain
According to the Brhat Samhita scriptures of Hinduism, “The gods
always play where groves are near, rivers, mountains and springs and in
towns with pleasure gardens.”30 On the basis of this concept, sites for
the construction of Cham temples were chosen in the following types
of place: (1) in closed valleys, such as at Mỹ Sơn; (2) on plains, as at
Đồng Dương; (3) on flat land beside great rivers, like the towers of
Bằng An, Khương Mỹ, Bình Lâm and Thủ Thiện; (4) on hills beside
estuaries and sea channels, as at Pô Nagar Nha Trang, Phú Hài and
Linh Thái; (5) on hills beside rivers, like the Bánh Ít/Tháp Bạc (Fig. 9)
and Tháp Nhạn groups; (6) on isolated hills in the middle of plains, like
Fig. 9. Tháp Bạc group of temple-towers in Vijaya (Bình Định) (Photograph Trần
Kỳ Phương, 1995).
Thốc Lốc, Pô Klaung Garai and Pô Ramê; (7) on mountain ridges, like
the Pô Dam/Pô Tằm group; (8) on the sea shore, as at Mỹ Khánh; (9)
on the top of mountains, like Hòn Chuông/Hòn Bà tower; (10) in caves,
like Động Phong Nha (Quảng Bình province), Động Tàng Chơn (Non
Nước, Ngũ Hành Sơn, Đà Nẵng city).
For almost all the Cham temple-towers, the terrain was chosen on
the basis of its association with a particular local legend, within the
beliefs of Hinduism. These might involve a warning conveyed by a god
in a dream, or a divinity’s birth, or the expression of gratitude to a local
deity, or the marking of the site of a victory over an enemy and so on.
However, in the choice of site, the presence of a spring of sacred
water, for use in rituals and sacrifices, was important: sites beside rivers
and streams were often privileged. The flow of sacred water symbolised
the goddess Ganga/Mahānadi, wife of the god Śiva.31 In addition, the
great rivers and estuaries of today’s central Vietnam — such as Thạch
Hãn (Quảng Trị), Thu Bồn (Quảng Nam), Trà Khúc (Quảng Ngãi), Sông
Côn (Bình Định), Sông Ba (Phú Yên), Sông Cái (Khánh Hoà), Sông
Dinh (Ninh Thuận), Sông Cà Ty (Bình Thuận) — all played an important
Fig. 10. The holy mountain of Mahāparvata or Núi Răng Mèo (centre), and the
holy river of Mahānadi or Thu Bồn river of Amarāvatī (Quảng Nam) (foreground)
(Photograph Trần Kỳ Phương, 1993).
Architectural Evolution
In its evolution over time, Cham temple-tower architecture passed
through four characteristic stages:
1. The first period, in the seventh to eighth centuries, was that of Hinduist
architecture, mainly in the northern part of Champa. Epigraphical
evidence suggests that bricks were used for building at Mỹ Sơn in
around the seventh to eighth centuries. However, we also know that
the Mỹ Sơn E1 temple was built with very low brick walls, and had
four square stone pillar-bases supporting the wooden pillars set at
the four corners of the tower; this temple did not have high closed
surrounding wall, so there were no false doors; at the main door, two
round pillars made of sandstone supported a sandstone pediment;
the roof frame was made of wood, and covered with terracotta tiles
or wood. Roof construction with corbel technology may not have
been used during this period. Mỹ Sơn E1 temple is important, as
it has preserved for us the most ancient style of wooden religious
architecture, which dates from this first period and is mentioned
many times in Cham epigraphy;33
2. The second period, from the late eighth to mid ninth centuries.
During this period, modest Hinduist buildings of brick with low
roofs were built with corbel technology in many places throughout
both the northern and southern parts of Champa, up to the end of the
eighth century. We may cite, by way of example, the main temple
in the Phú Hài tower group, with its round brick pilasters similar to
the two stone door pillars of Mỹ Sơn E1. False doors first appeared
on the tower walls during this period. In particular, the buildings at
Mỹ Sơn started to take on more impressive proportions, suited to
the site’s dignity as the sacred capital of the royal authority in the
northern part of Champa: temples such as A’1, A’3, F1, F3 and C7,
as well as the important C1 temple before it was restored in later
centuries. In the south, we may mention the temples at Phú Hài,
Pô Đam/Pô Tằm and Hoà Lai: of these, the group of three towers at
Hoà Lai were impressive and elaborately carved brick constructions
of great size. During this period, most buildings were made of brick,
while sandstone was used to a modest extent in some sections,
mainly for decorative purposes. Artistic influence from Funan and
Chenla/pre-Angkor (Cambodia) appeared on some decorative features,
especially on towers in the south;34
3. The third period, which lasted from the mid ninth century to the
end of the tenth century, during the Indrapura dynasty. Hinduist and
Buddhist buildings were built. During this period, there were relations
between Champa and Java, especially in the form of pilgrimages
to Java (Yavadvīpapura) made by high-ranking mandarins of the
Indrapura court in the northern part of Champa, around the years
911–912.35 In particular, also in the north, many impressive Buddhist
and Hinduist buildings were built in new styles. Buildings with
surrounding walls and a square ground plan were widely preferred.
More attention was paid to the use of sandstone, particularly for
supporting weight. This was a period during which many outside
factors — from Java and from the Khmer — influenced Champa
architecture’s artistic evolution. The Mỹ Sơn A1 temple, built in the
first half of the tenth century, was a masterpiece of architecture, both
in terms of decorative art and building technology, on which this
period — the high point of Champa’s artistic development — left its
mark;36
4. The fourth period, from around the eleventh to the sixteenth centu-
ries, is distinguished by the conservation of older styles and a certain
stagnation of artistic creativity. During this period, the Hinduist and
Buddhist courts wanted to display their authority through the con-
struction of monumental buildings. These buildings, however, were
often architecturally monotonous. Temples tended to be built on high
hills, to enhance impression the impression they left on those who
saw them. The architectural style integrated multiple outside ele-
ments into its decorative features and construction technology, and
temples were built taller and larger than during the previous periods.
Many towers were decorated with larger pilasters — but these were
left bare of carved decorations — and larger arcatures consisting of
multiple layers of patterns. The use of sandstone was more highly
esteemed and widely used, for both decorative and structurally
supportive purposes, revealing a construction technology of great
skill and sophistication in the combination of two types of material
— brick and stone, which have very different supportive capacities
and durabilities — in the same edifice. Most of the temple-towers
were built around the commercial ports, centres of international com-
merce and cultural exchange. The influence of Khmer art appeared
on buildings raised during the late twelfth and thirteenth centu-
ries, especially those of the Dương Long and Hưng Thạnh groups
(Bình Định).
After the year 1471, when the capital at Vijaya fell,37 the kingdom of
Champa went into decline; its religious architecture, no longer supported
by royal families, degenerated; the people of Champa were only able to
build small simple structures, like the Pô Ramê and Yang Prong towers.
During the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries, brick temples conti-
nued to be built on hills, but they were of more modest size, less ela-
borately decorated, and stand as evidence of the degeneration of Champa’s
architecture, faithfully reflecting its decline, and especially so from the
seventeenth century.
In general, Cham temple-tower architecture, right from the start,
developed in relatively different ways in the two parts of the country.
Despite this, through the entire period of its existence and evolution,
it received influences — both direct and indirect — from neighbouring
architectural traditions in Southeast Asia — both continental and insular
— including Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam (Đại Việt), Thailand (Môn-
Dvaravati), Java and beyond, even Burma and Yunnan.38
Conclusion
The rich religious and architectural heritage of ancient Champa contri-
butes tangible evidence to our comprehension of the past of Southeast
Asian states. These Hindu and Buddhist architectural sites vividly reflect
Champa’s socio-economic structure and cultural concepts over a long
period of history. They offer superlative examples for use in comparative
studies of the relationships of art, architecture and religion in the region.
The Champa sites’ intrinsic historical and architectural values led,
in December 1999, to Mỹ Sơn Sanctuary’s listing as a World Cultural
Mỹ Sơn/Principality Mỹ Sơn A1 Early 10th C. (before 892/3) Duy Phú, Duy Xuyên,
of Amarāvatī Quảng Nam
Mỹ Sơn A10 Mid 9th C. (ca. 875)
Mỹ Sơn A13 Early 9th C. (before 875)
Mỹ Sơn B1 Late 11th C. (ca. 1074/81)
and 13th C. (ca. 1234/35)
Mỹ Sơn B2 Late 11th–12th C.
Mỹ Sơn B3 Mid 10th C. (before 982/3)
Mỹ Sơn B4 Mid 9th C. (ca. 875)
Mỹ Sơn B5 Early 10th C. (before 982/3)
Mỹ Sơn B7 Mid 10th C.
Mỹ Sơn C1 Late 8th C. and late 11th C.
Mỹ Sơn C2 Late 11th–12th C.
Mỹ Sơn C3 Late 11th–12th C.
Mỹ Sơn C4 Late 11th–12th C.
Mỹ Sơn C5 Mid 10th C.
Mỹ Sơn C6 Mid 9th C.
Mỹ Sơn C7 Early 8th C. and improved later
Mỹ Sơn D1 Early 10th C. (before 982/3)
Mỹ Sơn E1 Early 8th C. and improved later
Mỹ Sơn F1 Late 8th C. and improved later
Mỹ Sơn F2 Mid 10th C.
Mỹ Sơn G Mid 12th C. (ca. 1157/58)
Mỹ Sơn H Early 13th C. (ca. 1234/35)
Mỹ Sơn B14 Mid 7th C. (?) (ca. 658?)
Qủang Nam/ Đồng Dương Late 9th C. (ca. 875) Bình Định, Thăng Bình,
Amarāvatī Quảng Nam
Khương Mỹ Early 10th C. (before 892/3) Tam Xuân, Núi Thành,
and improved/restored later Quảng Nam
(ca. late 11th C. and mid 12th C.)
Chiên Đàn Late 11th – mid 12th C. Tam An, Tam Kỳ,
(ca. 1074/81 and ca. 1157/58) Quảng Nam
Bằng An Ca.12th C. Điện An, Điện Bàn,
Quảng Nam
Table 1. Continued.
Pô Nagar NhaTrang/ Pô Nagar Nha Trang Mid 10th C. Xóm Bóng, Nha Trang,
Kauṭhāra (Northwest Tower) Khánh Hoà
Pô Nagar Nha Trang Mid 11th C.
(Main Tower) (ca. 1050–12th C.)
Pô Nagar Nha Trang 12th–13th C.
(Southern Tower)
Tháp Nhạn Ca. 11th C. Tuy Hoà, Phú Yên
Phú Hài Group/ Phú Hài Mid 8th–early 9th C. Phú Hài, Phan Thiết,
Pāṇḍuraṅga Bình Thuận
Hoà Lai Late 8th–early 9th C. Tân Hải, Ninh Hải,
Ninh Thuận
Pô Đam/Pô Tằm During 8th C. Phong Phú, Tuy
Phong, Bình Thuận
Heritage Site. The justification for this move was explained in the UNESCO
rationale for the site’s inscription as world heritage:
Criterion (ii): The Mỹ Sơn Sanctuary is an exceptional example of cultural
interchange, with the introduction of the Hindu architecture of the Indian
sub-continent into South-East Asia;
Criterion (iii): The Champa Kingdom was an important phenomenon in
the political and cultural history of South-East Asia, vividly illustrated
by the ruins of Mỹ Sơn.44
In-depth research on Cham architecture allows fuller understanding
of Champa’s outstanding role in linking ancient Southeast Asian states
with the two great cultures of India and China.
Notes
1
Translation by Andrew Hardy.
2
Stella Kramrisch, The Hindu Temple, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers,
1976, p. 2.
3
I am deeply indebted to the Toyota Foundation and to the Southeast Asian
Studies Regional Exchange Program Foundation (SEASREP Foundation) for
their generous grants, thanks to which I was able to conduct fieldwork on
all the Cham temple ruins in central Vietnam during 1993–97, and on other
historical architectural sites in Southeast Asia during 2005–7.
4
Inscription C.72. Karl-Heinz Golzio (ed.), Inscriptions of Campà, Aachen:
Shaker Verlag, 2004, pp. 2–4.
5
Đào Duy Anh, “Sự thành lập nước Lâm Ấp” [The formation of the country
of Lin Yi] in Lịch sử Việt Nam, từ nguồn gốc đến thế kỷ XIX, quyển
Thượng [History of Vietnam from the origins to the nineteenth century, first
volume], Hanoi: Nhà Xuất Bản Văn Hóa, 1957, p. 128; Charles Higham,
The Archaeology of Mainland Southeast Asia, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1989, p. 300.
6
Inscriptions C.31, C.2. Golzio, Inscriptions of Campà, pp. 52–4.
7
Henri Parmentier, L’Art architectural Hindou dans l’Inde et en Extrême-
Orient, Paris: Van Oest, 1948, pp. 58–75.
8
Trần Kỳ Phương, Vestiges of Champa Civilization, Hanoi: Thế Giới Publishers,
2004, pp. 115–6.
9
The yoni’s channel (snāna-droṇī ) always faces to the north, even if the
temple faces east or west. This is because, according to Indian philosophy,
each direction of the universe belongs to one of the five constituent elements
of the cosmos: earth, fire, water, wind and ether. According to this concept,
the centre of the universe belongs to ether; the east to wind; the west to
earth; the south to fire; the north to water. Therefore the snāna-droṇī should
face north, the direction of the element water. Wibke Lobo, Palast der
Gotter (Katalog), Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin–Museum fur Indische
Kunst, 1992, pp. 178–9; Gerd Kreisel, Linden-Museum Stuttgart, Sudasien-
Abteilung (Katalog), Stuttgart: Linden-Museum Stuttgart, 1987, pp. 46–7;
Stella Kramrisch, The Presence of S’iva, New Jersey: Princeton University
Press, 1981, p. 183.
10
Pierre-Bernard Lafont, “Mythologie du Champa: les Dieux du Champa”,
in L’âme du Viêt Nam, Paris: Éditions Cercle d’Art, 1996, p. 49; Hồ Xuân
Tịnh, “Découverte d’une tête en or au Quảng Nam”, in Lettre de la Société
de Amis du Champa ancien, No. 4, Paris: Société des amis du Champa
ancien, 1998, p. 10; Wibke Lobo, “«Liṅga» et «Kośa» au Champa, culte et
iconographie”, in Trésors d’art du Vietnam: la sculpture du Champa, V e–XV e
siècles, ed. Pierre Baptiste and Thierry Zephir, Paris: Musée Guimet, 2005,
pp. 88–95.
11
Jean Boisselier, La Statuaire du Champà: recherches sur les cultes et
l’iconograpghie, Paris: EFEO (Publication de l’École française d’Extrême-
Orient 54), 1963, pp. 138–9; Pierre Baptiste and Thierry Zephir, Trésors
d’art, pp. 195–6.
12
Trần Kỳ Phương, Oyama Akiko & Shine Toshihiko (eds.), Nhà Trưng Bày
Mỹ Sơn, Việt Nam [Mỹ Sơn Site Museum, Vietnam], Tokyo, Product of Open
Research Center Project, Nihon University, 2005, pp. 18–9.
13
George Michell, The Hindu Temple, An Introduction to its Meaning and
Forms, Chicago & London: Chicago University Press, 1988, pp. 69–71.
14
According to the concepts of Hinduism, the square of the temple’s ground
plan symbolises the perfect measure of the universe and man. The square
composition of the ground plan of the temple represents the maṇḍala of
the cosmic man (mahāpuruṣa): the distance from the root of the hair on his
forehead to the sole of his feet is equal to the width of his arms stretched
out horizontally, from the tip of the middle finger of the right to the tip of
the finger of the left; this is the standard of his proportion. Kramrisch, The
Hindu Temple, pp. 40–3.
15
Michell, The Hindu Temple, pp. 66–8.
16
Michell, The Hindu Temple, pp. 69–71.
17
Prasanna K. Acharya, Hindu architecture in India and Abroad, New Delhi:
Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1996, pp. 258–9.
18
Trần Kỳ Phương, Vestiges of Champa Civilization, p. 17.
19
Trần Kỳ Phương and Shige-eda Yutaka, Khu di tích Mỹ Sơn, p. 4.
20
Trần Kỳ Phương, Vestiges of Champa Civilization, pp. 42–5.
21
Shige-eda Yutaka, “Champa kenchiku-shi jo-setsu” [A brief introduction
to Champa architectural history] in Champa: rekishi, matsuson, kenchiku
34
Trần Kỳ Phương, Vestiges of Champa Civilization, pp. 115–22.
35
George Cœdès, The Indianized States of Southeast Asia, Honolulu, East-West
Center (tr. Sue Brown Cowing, ed., Walter F. Villa), 1968, p. 123.
36
Trần Kỳ Phương and Shige-eda Yutaka, Khu di tích Mỹ Sơn, pp. 10–3.
37
Georges Maspero, Le Royaume de Champa, Paris: École française d’Extrême-
Orient, 1988, pp. 235–41; Po Dharma, “Survol de l’histoire du Campa”, in
Le Musée de Sculpture Cam de Da Nang, Association française des amis de
l’Orient (AFAO)/École française d’Extrême-Orient (EFEO), Paris: Éditions
de l’AFAO, 1997, pp. 45–7.
38
Shige-eda Yutaka, “Betonamu no Kenchiku” [Vietnamese Architecture],
in New History of World Art, Vol. 12, Toonan Asia, ed. Takashi Koezuka,
Tokyo: Shogakukan, 2001, pp. 100–7.
39
Henri Parmentier, Inventaire descriptif des monuments Cams de l’Annam,
Paris: Leroux, 1909, 1918.
40
Philippe Stern, L’art du Champà.
41
Trần Kỳ Phương, Mỹ Sơn trong lịch sử nghệ thuật Chăm [Mỹ Sơn in the
history of Cham art], Đà Nẵng, Nxb Đà Nẵng, 1988; Ngô Văn Doanh, Tháp
cổ Chămpa, sự thật và huyền thoại [Ancient towers of Champa, truth and
legend], Hanoi: Nxb Văn hóa–Thông tin, 1994 ; Nguyễn Hồng Kiên, “Đền
tháp Champà” [Champa Temple Towers] Kiến Trúc [Architecture] 4 (84),
Hội Kiến Trúc Sư Việt Nam, 2000, pp. 49–52.
42
Shige-eda Yutaka and Momoki Shiro (eds.), Artifacts and culture of the
Champà Kingdom (Catalogue), Tokyo: The Toyota Foundation, 1994, pp.
99–100; Shige-eda Yutaka, “Champa kenchiku-shi jo-setsu”, pp. 167–9.
43
Trần Kỳ Phương, Oyama Akiko & Shine Toshihiko (eds.), Nhà Trưng Bày
Mỹ Sơn, pp. 7–8.
44
UNESCO: <http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/949>.