Cleveland, the Metropolitan Museum in New York and Brooklyn in the USA, Museum Rietberg in Switzerland, Guimet in Paris, and Labit in Toulouse.
4. Vo-Canh Inscription, standing in front of the Vietnam History Museum (Hanoi). (detail).
5. Cham archeological Thâp-Mam digs, 1933.
6. Portrait of Philippe Stern, 1953.
Not only epigraphists, architects, archaeologists, and translators but also hobbyists have provided knowledge of the Cham civilisation, its temples and, in particular, its sculpture. Below, category by category, these illustrious innovators are listed with a brief overview of their contributions.
The first group to recall is that of epigraphists: specialists whose science concerns the study and knowledge of inscriptions. Firstly, it must be noted the following learned men all contributed significantly to the current understanding of this ancient culture. However, there are limitations that this science has in the identification and dating of Cham art:
Auguste Barth (1834–1916), trained as an expert on India and wrote the founding charter of the FEEL in 1901; Georges Maspero (1872–1942), was an administrator in Indochina but is often confused with his brilliant brother, the linguist Henri (1883–1945); Louis Finot (1864–1935), archivist and palaeographer, Sanskrit expert, and director of the EFEO; Paul Pelliot (1878–1945); Henri Parmentier (1871–1949); Georges Coedes (1886–1969), who published his first article on epigraphy in the EFEO bulletin at the age of eighteen in 1904, and who had perfect mastery, in addition to Cham, of Sanskrit and Khmer among other languages; Paul Mus (1909–1960), an expert on India, specialist on the spread of Hinduism throughout India and South-East Asia, and who was interested above all in the natural, and beneficial, confrontation of Hindu and indigenous elements in the elaboration of the Cham religion.
Unfortunately, all the work of collecting and translating inscriptions is of little help in the study and the dating of Cham sculptures. If there are, today, about 230 officially tallied inscriptions from the fourth to the fifteenth centuries, in Sanskrit, ancient Cham, or in both languages, only about one hundred of these inscriptions have truly been studied. Mainly inscribed on stelae, they contain information concerning boundaries or religious events, but are of little use in dating the temples. Firstly, stelae may have been moved from one temple to another, and, secondly, it is not always easy to know whether the date on the stelae is that of the temple’s inauguration or of the start of its construction which, given the length of time that building could take, limits the precision of possible dating.
Architect Henri Parmentier, notably in this category as well, was a graduate of the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris and hired by the EFEO at its creation. Between 1902 and 1908, he uncovered the main Cham sites (though not all, as is too often believed), publishing the related findings in his majestic two-volume book Descriptive Inventory of the Cham Monuments of Annam in 1909 and 1918.
7. Frieze of monkeys, Bas-relief, Sandstone, length 64 cm, Thâp-Mam style, 11th – 12th Century (detail).
He uncovered the monuments of My Son and Dong Duong in 1902 and 1903, those of Po Klaung Garai in 1908 and the Po Nagar in Nha Trang between 1906 and 1909. We owe the creation, in 1918, of the Cham Museum in Da Nang (formerly Tourane) to him; the museum was given his name after its enlargement in 1936. Jean-Yves Claeys (1896–1979), was another architect who graduated from the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris as well as the Ecole des Arts Decoratifs in Nice. An employee of the Public Works administration in Indochina, he became a member of the EFEO in 1927, then curator of the monuments of Annam. He dedicated his work not only to Cham architecture but also to archaeology, notably to uncovering the Thâp-Mam site in 1934-35 after working on Tra Kieu in 1920.
Parmentier and Claeys not only uncovered monuments buried in vegetation but also drew up precise lists that catalogued, for the purpose of protection, statues and inscriptions for the museums of the EFEO and carried out several digs in the immediate surroundings of the main monuments.
It was common to amalgamate the responsibilities of the archaeologist and museum curator into a single role during the first half of the twentieth century
Philippe Stern (1875–1979), was the director of the Guimet Museum in Paris, and corresponding member of the EFEO as of 1930. Putting observation before theorisation, he set out a method of dating that became the reference: He “based…his analyses on a rigorous and comparative study of the evolution of specific motifs that decorated arcatures, pilasters, friezes, small columns, pièces d’accent and other architectural elements.”
In 1936, with his protégé Gilberte de Coral-Rémusat, in the course of his single mission to Asia, he visited – in addition to Cambodia, of course – the most important monuments of Champa. Following his providential re-dating of the Bayon in Angkor, which he made younger by taking it out of the ninth century and placing it in the twelfth, against the authorised and authoritarian opinion of the Finot-Parmentier-Goloubew trio, he proposed, first for Cham architecture and then for its sculpture, dating that created a solid precedent, even if it was to be subsequently completed and modified.
Jean Boisselier (1912–1996) took up the task later. After his studies at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts and at the Ecole du Louvre in Paris, he joined the EFEO in 1949. Having been made scientific head as of 1953 of the conservation work at Angkor, this formidable erudite analyst stimulated research for dozens of years, as much for Thai or Cham art as for that of the Khmer. His work in the analysis, identification and dating of Cham sculpture remains completely fundamental. This is true even if the master showed a certain reticence at the end of his life toward certain discoveries or rediscoveries. For example, he denied the discoveries at An My in 1982, despite their importance in allowing the confirmation of the existence of an early style of sculpture.
The contemporary Vietnamese school has, in recent years, brought a great deal to the knowledge of art from Champa. Ngo Van Doanh, Tran Ky Phuong and Pham Thuy Hop have, through their knowledge of the field, their immediate and renewed access to new archaeological discoveries, and their familiarity with Vietnamese sociology, also contributed to the renaissance of knowledge of Cham art. Po Dharma and Pierre-Bernard Lafont, in France, also participate in this process.
8. Frieze of monkeys, Bas-relief, Sandstone, length 64 cm, Thâp-Mam style, 11th – 12th Century.
Finally, there are those who, though strictly amateurs, collected more than they studied, and were often the source of great rivers of knowledge. Charles Lemire (1839–1912), French resident of Quang Nam, compiled a collection between 1886 and 1892, which he kept in the “Cham Garden” in Da Nang (Tourane) until 1891–1892. Camille Paris, postal agent in Indochina first, then colonist, Father Cadière and Father Durand, Prosper d’Odend’hal, and Doctor Albert Sallet all efficiently contributed to the composition of a collection in the Cham museum in Da Nang (Tourane), not to forget Doctor Morice, who is discussed in more detail later. The Vietnamese collector Vu Kim Loc from Ho Chi Minh City is part of the process today. His collection, patiently assembled and mainly devoted to Cham metals, primarily jewellery and religious artefacts, is described in a very interesting book (see bibliography) written in collaboration with the eminent Vietnamese archaeologist Le Xuan Diem. The study of Cham art in general and Cham sculpture in particular needs such renewed initiatives to make headway.
The above piece comes from the collection of Doctor Claude-Albert Morice (1845–1877) who, after graduating from the Military School of Health in Lyons, became a doctor in the French Navy and spent his first period in Vietnam from 1872 to 1874
