เพื่อนได้แนะนำให้ผมได้มีโอกาสร่วมทานอาหารเย็นกับนักโบราณคดีผู้มีชื่อเสียงก้องโลกชาวต่างประเทศท่านหนึ่ง (ท่านเขียนหนังสือเกี่ยวกับนครวัดหลายเล่ม) ผมได้เสนอทฤษฎีที่ว่าคนสยามเป็นผู้สร้างนครวัด และพระเจ้าอู่ทองอพยพมาจากนครวัดกับท่าน ชักเหตุผลต่างๆตามที่ผมเคยอ้างเสมอมา
ท่านยอมรับว่ามันสมเหตุผลและฟังขึ้นมากเลย (ท่านเป็นคนตรงไปตรงมามาก ตามประสานักวิชาการฝรั่ง คงไม่เพียงพูดเพื่อเอาใจผมเท่านั้นหรอก) และอยากให้ผมนำเสนอต่อที่ประชุมนักวิชาการทั่วโลก แต่ผมบอกท่านว่าลำพังผมนำเสนอคงยากที่จะมีใครฟัง อยากให้ท่านร่วมเป็น co-author ด้วย โดยผมจะเขียนเป็นร่างบทความขึ้นมาให้ท่านพิจารณาก่อน
และแล้วด้วยภาษาอังกฤษอันกระท่อนกระแท่น ผมก็ร่างมันขึ้นมา ดังที่แนบมาด้วยนี้
เพื่อเพิ่มประโยชน์ในการนี้ ผมเลยถือโอกาสส่งมาให้ทุกท่าน หากท่านมีเครือข่ายเป็นนักวิชาการต่างประเทศที่สนใจด้านนี้ โปรดช่วยผมแพร่กระจายไปยังท่านเหล่านั้นด้วย จักขอบพระคุณยิ่ง
ทวิช
—————–
The killing field in a sweet-melon plantation
A most intriguing and most mysterious event in World’s history is the disappearance of the Varman Dynasty from a greatest Khmer empire at Angkor, nowadays in Cambodia. Many theories for its destruction have been proposed — ranging from warfare, famine, disease and environmental deterioration. Here, I will try to shed some new lights onto it in a point-by-point narrative style:
1) The Varman dynasty had been ruling the magnificent Angkor Empire for around 500 years (since around 900 AD.) but it had disappeared abruptly in 1336 AD.
2) The new king after that was “Trosok Pream” which in Cambodian means “sweet melon.” The traditional suffix “Varman” has never appeared in Cambodian kings’ names again ever since.
3) A most accepted theory for the disappearance of Angkor has been that of its sacking by the invading Siamese Army. Little is known that the spiritual destruction of Angkor had preceded its physical destruction long before that — and it began in 1336 AD. , the year of the killing field in a sweet melon plantation. This article will propose a new theory and will propose further that Cambodians are not the same group of people as the Khmer who built Angkor.
4) According to the first Chronicle of Cambodia, authored by one of the greatest kings of Cambodia “Nak-ong-Eng” or Narairacha 4 (around 1800 AD) –purely Cambodian in his conduct –without as yet any influence of France–Cambodia’s ancestors are this King Sweet-Melon and his son named Nippean-bot.
5) King Sweet-Melon, according to the Chronicle, was formerly a farmer in the royal palace. He grew such a sweet melon that the king gave him a sacred spear in order to fend off thieves who might come to steal the precious melon. One night, the king had been so craving for the melon that he walked onto the melon field to pick one for himself. Mr. Sweet-melon mistook the king for a thief and speared him to death. After that, he took the princess as his wife and ascended the throne.
6) Later Chronicles that were influenced by the ruling French Colony had extended the Cambodian origin up to that of the Varman itself, the Varman whom the Cambodian legendary forefather had erased from the face of Angkor’s history. The extensions were of interest to the French colonialism which was expanding to take more and more territory from Siam, by claiming that these lands were historically linked to the Khmer-Varman empire.
7) Meanwhile sometime later than 1336 AD. at SriAyodhya, along the rim of the Chaophraya river in nowadays Thailand, King U-thong had been busying building his capital from scratches. This city would later become one of the greatest cities on earth, superseding Angkor and even Paris and London, at least in terms of numbers of population.
8. There had been numerous theories proposing the origin of this legendary King of nowadays Thailand. Among others are: He was a son of a Chinese Emperor, He was a rich Chinese merchant from Petchaburi province (Van Vlit’s Chronicles), He was a son of a king from ChiangSaen, A Sultan from Malaya, etc. In this article I am proposing yet another theory that: He was the leader of the Siamese people who were fleeing the “killing field” at Angkor. The killing field ensued from a revolt by the slaves who formed a huge majority at Angkor. And the leader of the slaves was Trosok Pream.
9) The city of Angkor has long been referred to by the Cambodians as “Seamreab”, meaning “annihilation of the Siamese people”. (Seam = siam, reab = flat, no more in existence) This insult ironically and indirectly becomes a strong evidence that the Siamese must have once heavily populated Angkor. ..they were killed and/or expelled away by the dominant slaves in 1336 AD., led by King Sweet Melon, in accordance with the 1st Cambodian Chronicle.
10) According to the record of the now-famous Zhou Da Guan, a China’s commercial envoy member, in 1296 AD., only 40 year before the killing field incident, the city of Angkor was dominated by “slaves”. ……“Most families have more than 100 slaves, some have 20, only the poorest families have none” , he writes. It is not hard to estimate then that, out of about 1 million population of Angkor, 7 out of 10 were slaves. The rest of them were the King and his royal families, nobles, officials and their families, soldiers and their families, priests, Chinese merchants.
11) SriAyodhya was completed in 1350 AD., 14 years after the killing field incident. This was a very reasonable time span to build a city to accommodate around 2-300 thousand population. (This number was estimated by numerous scholars from various historical evidences and IMO is credible on historical contexts, for example in 1352 AD., only 2 years afterward, U-thong invaded Angkor; he must have had a large population base to form his army to fight the huge Cambodian army back then.)
12) The most relevant question to be asked is that: where did these 2-300 thousands come from? The most popular theory which held that they migrated from the nearby city of U-thong has now proved to be flawed since the city had been voided 2-300 hundred years before that. Even if so, U-thong city would have been too small to accommodate 300,000 population. In fact there was no other cities in the vicinity of 300 kilometers of SriAyodhya to have such number of population, except Angkor.
13) Zhou Da Guan writes further that the local people speak a “different language” from those of officials and scholars; …their skins are very dark but you can find people whose skins are as white as jade among the nobles; …they don’t know how to produce silk; ..nor do they know how to stitch and darn with a needle and thread.
14) Let’s pause and think — How could the majority of people who did not know how to weave elaborated clothing with a loom, did not know how to stitch and darn with a needle and thread, would know how to dig, move and carve immense stones to erect the magnificent Angkor? The only logical answer is that the stone temple of Angkor was designed and managed by another tribe of people who held more advanced technology. And within the vicinity around Angkor there were only the Chamese and the Siamese.
15) I am now proposing a new theory that: the people who conceived, designed and managed all the building of the stone temples of Angkor was the Siamese (who had been blamed by most western scholars as the one who demolished the greatness of Angkor.)
16) But these Siamese then were not totally the same people as the present day Thai. In fact they were referred to by the northern Thais as Khom. But apparently the Cambodian people of Ankor back then called them by the name of Siam (pronounced as seam in single syllable).
17) Zhou Da Guan, continued on his record: “The Siamese women did know how to weave silk with loom as well as stitch and darn with a needle. They brought silk worms and mulberry trees from the land of Siam.”
18) The Siamese had not been well known to be keen on mercantilism . But why did they appear at Angkor in such a number, so many so that Zhou had noticed their weaving capability? The answer is perhaps that they went there to accompany their families who were the ruling elites of Angkor, officials, scholars, soldiers and perhaps even some merchants. Some of them were also ‘as white as jade’ since the Siamese, then as is now, were of mixed races.
19) The connections of the ruling elites at Angkor and the Siamese are numerous, indicating that Lopburi, Pimai and Angkor were related not only by interests but also by blood. To mention just a few:
20.1 Suryavarman I is believed to be a Buddhist . Where did he get Buddhism idea from, other than Lopburi? His origin was unknown either. Was it possible that Lopburi, who was predominantly buddhist, sent an armed forces to establish him as a king?
20.2 Suryavarman II is confirmed to have come from Lopburi. His name and suffix “II” should not be just a random pick from a tossing of a coin but indicating some relations to S-I, perhaps this is a Lopburi connection. The fact that he is the only Varman king to worship Vishnu rather than Brahman is still a puzzle to historians. IMO this, too, could be linked to the influence of Lopburi’s Buddhism. S-I had testified before him that Buddhism would not work out well in the predominantly hindu society, so S-II learned from S-I’s mistakes and employed a new subtle tactic. One should realize that the Buddha was also believed by the Hindu to be the 9th reincarnation of Vishnu. So by adopting Vishnu S-II could win over the minds of both beliefs and that was what making him one of Angkor’s greatest kings, second to perhaps only Chayavarman VII.
20.3 Chayavarman VI is now widely accepted as coming from the Korat plateau’s city of Pimai. He built a 220 kilometer super-highway which linked Pimai and Angkor. He also finished the building of Pimai stone temple which was initiated by S-I.
20.4 Most important thing in connection with C-6 is that he claimed to have descended from his mythical father named “Kambhu Svayambhuva” and a mother named “Mera.” These two wordings, one was his first name and the second was his second name, had perhaps been transformed into two of the most confusing words, namely, those of Kambhuja and Syam (Siam)
20.5 Svayambhuva, was in fact another name for Bhraman. Morever this name had appeared in Pallava, Sanskrit, Pali -stone inscriptions all over the “Land Zhenla” area from wat Pu to Ubonrajatani to Srithep since about the 6th AD. I am thus inclined to believe that C-6 had ascended the throne with the help of Pimai’s army. His troops must remain in Angkor for a long time to assure stability, so much so that families members from Pimai came to accompany them, bringing silk weaving technology along with them (Pimai has been famous for her supreme silk weaving technology until now.) To accommodate the extreme hardship of family migrations then C-6 ordered the building of the super-highway. The Pimai soldiers and their families were then honorably referred to by the local people as the “Swayam” (descendants of Swayambhuva) which later shortened to “Syam” and later as “Seam” to suit the tongues of the local Cambodians.
20.6 Some analyst even conclude that C-6 spent most of his time at Pimai, not at Angkor.
20) Here comes accounts of the greatest king of them all—Chayavarman VII. Inscriptions about his origin were vague. Some speculated that he spent his early life in Champa; but I beg to be different for I think that he was from Pimai. The evidences for this are numerous, mostly contextual:
21.1 He came from nowhere to expel away the Cham invaders who had occupied Angkor for 4 years. Had he come from Champa, where would he recruit his huge army to recapture Angkor in 4 years?; from the Cham itself?
21.2 Only logical answer is : he came from Pimai. As in the case of C-6, Pimai , again, helped him to expel Champa , most likely with a friendly collaboration of Lopburi, who had long been a Buddhist allied city under the Dhvaravadi umbrella, as is evident by the bas relief on Angkor walls, depicting Lopburi and “Syam Kuk” soldiers side by side.
21.3 C-7 became a most devout Buddhist. Whose influence was that?, Champa? No way. Because Champa’s culture back then was dominantly hinduistic with some initial Islamic influences. It was impossible for C-7 to have been nurtured in such environments and later became a devout Buddhist.
21.4 After his ascent to greatness, he rewarded Pimai with a renovation of the super-highway, several hundreds of mini-hospitals and rest areas (arokaya-sala) were erected along the highway. His stone monuments were found deep under grounds, not surprisingly in both Angkor and Pimai. These renovations were to facilitate the migration of the Svayamese from Pimai to reunite with their relatives (soldiers, officers, nobles) in Angkor.
21.5 All of the mentioned evidences point to the fact that C-7 was from Pimai. He was also a grand son of the great forefather “Svayam”.
22) One of the most amazing thing that have been hitherto looked over is that the Cambodian people today still count their numbers the same way as recorded by Zhou Da Guan: They count only to 5. For 6 they pronounce it as 5-1, 7 as 5-2 and so on. Counting system and its pronunciation, in my opinion, is the strongest evidence of a cultural linkage. The fact that the ancient Varman and the U-thong people of Ayodhaya used the same counting system and the alphabets from 1-10 were exactly the same, based on a base 10 numerals, at least confirms that they were of different tribes from the Cambodian.
23) The Dhevaraja (God-King) concept is the most prominent feature of the Varman dynasty. King Sweet-Melon , being ascended from a slave class by killing off the Varman, certainly wouldn’t dare claim to be one of such a highly prestigious origin. Turning a crisis into an opportunity, he established himself as a new truly Cambodian king who is “in touch” with the people. That was why he was highly regarded as the legendary forefather of the Cambodia race, as later chronicled by King Nag-Ong-Eng.
24) The dhevaraja traditions, however, had been long rooted in Khmer culture and should not be as easily abolished by a mere spearing of a Varman king. Its seed had been brought to and sprouted again at SriAyodhya. The royal name for King U-Thong is “Rama-I” who was “King of Ayodhya”. According to the Ramayana Epic of India, Rama was none other than the 8th reincarnation of Vishnu, a mythical king of a mythical heavenly city named Ayodhya.
25) Raja-supth (The royal language) is required for any Thai to address their King. This tradition has not been changed much since the time of early SriAyodhya. The language is very refined: mostly a mixture of Sanskrit and Khom (ancient Khmer ). This is another strong evidence that king U-Thong was from Angkor. He was a Khom (ancient khmer), what other languages would we expect him to speak to his people? So he spoke Khom to them. Later, the language was used by the court as the sacred language of the dhevaraja; this was a good strategy in governing the kingdom.
26) Early SriAyudhya literatures had been recorded with a mixture of Thai, Khom, Pali, Sanskrit. These are evident in the books of “Ong-karn-Chaeng-Nam” and the “Li-lit-yuan-paii”, for examples. These are additional evidences that the early Ayodhayians were originally from Angkor but later mixed with the affluence of the Thai- (and mon-, and laos-) speaking people and transform into the present-day Thai people.
27) The first Westerner to discover the ruin of Angkor were not the French, but the Portuguese, in around 1600 AD. They recorded that the local people testified that Angkor had been built by foreigners and the Portuguese concluded that these foreigners were the ones who built SriAyodhya.
28) The naming of the various Prasats at Angkor are very interesting for they are very Siamese; signifying that the kings who named them must have had strong links with the Siamese or perhaps the Siamese themselves.
a. First of all Angkor Wat: Angkor is a variation of Nakara in Sanskrit but Wat is simply “temple” in Siamese. Angkor Wat is then “temple city.”
b. Angkor Thom: most scholars translate Thom as ‘big’; but I think Thom here is rather a variation of Tham, a siamese rendition of Dhamma in Pali. So Angkor Thom is really “the city of Dhamma.” It is unthinkable that a Dhammic king like C-7 who built such a magnificent city would have named his city by a ‘little’ name such as ‘big city.” Moreover, the spelling of Thom is also exactly the same spelling of Tham in Pali. (note that only the Siamese used Pali.)
c. NeakPean (NakPan in Siamese) : It means “coiled by Naka (a mythical snake)” The shortening of Sanskrit words such as Naka into “Nak” was a typical Siamese style founded all over in their language. (Raja= Raj, Rama=Ram, Kasatriya=Kasat, Parama= Borom, etc.)
d. PhimeanAkas: (PimanAkas in Siamese ) the word Piman was a pali rendition of Vimana in Sanskrit. Akas was also a shortening of a formerly longer word (perhaps Akasa : thin air, heaven ). The change of V in Sanskrit to P was also unique in Siamese—a Pali influence.
e. Prea….. (Phra… in Siamese): Here again the word Phra is uniquely very Siamese: a prefix for something sacred. This was a Siamese rendition of Vra in Sanskrit. There are so many prasarts beginning with Phra such as PreaKand, PreaPalilay, PreaRup – some are understood readily in Siamese.
f. Ta…(Ancestor, or Eye) : such as TaProm, TaKeaw
g. PakSiJamKrong: (Bird in cage) : Paksi is bird in Sanskrit but JamKrong is Siamese.
h. TepPanom (Respecting Angel): very Siamese, especially Tep is a siamese rendition of Teva in Sanskrit. Here we have both the shortening style and the P in place of V style.
i. ChauSayTevada (Linage of angel): all Siamese
j. Even Bayon might be related since Ba is Learned One in Isan-siamese and Yon is Looking. So Bayon could mean LearnedOne Looking. LearnedOne here is the Buddha whose 216 giant stone faces are Looking all over.
k. Most names of the prasarts at Angkor wat and Angkor thom are very related to Siamese language. Only a few are not readily discernable; like panom-bakeng, Thomanon.
There are still several more evidences in recorded history, contexts, archaeological artifacts, arts, cultures, languages as well as plain common senses to help us to conclude that the ancient Khmer people who built the great Angkor stone temples are not of the same tribe as the present day Cambodians (2011 AD). Quite to the opposite, these mysterious group of people were evidently exterminated by the revolting slaves who formed the majority in Angkor population by a margin of 7:3. I am certain that there would be many more evidences to support my proposed theory coming forth in the future as our minds are no longer blocked by a pre-conceived curtain.
I am also well aware that it is difficult to accept this new theory about Angkor’s past because the French scholastic machine, sponsored by her colonial wealth, had planted quite a strong scholastic root that already grew so deep.
As to the Cambodian people I do not mean to insult their pride; but historical facts sometimes are hard to swallow. We should learn from it constructively in order to not repeating its past cruelty in our present time.
…Tawit Chitsomboon (Feb. 20th , 2011)
tawi...@gmail.com
อจ. และผู้บริหารมลัยไทยจำนวนหนึ่งมีมันสมองดีพอใช้ แต่จิตวิญญาณไม่ค่อยดีนัก เพราะมัวแต่ไปคิดทำอะไรที่เลิศลอยเกินกว่าที่จะนำมาใช้ประโยชน์ได้ทันกาลต่อสังคมไทย หรืออีกนัยหนึ่งไปทำงานรับใช้สังคมฝรั่งเสียจนลืมนึกถึงสังคมตนเอง เห่อเหิมไปตามกระแส “ชนชั้นสูง” ในโลก แถมยังไปเหนี่ยวนำให้นักการเมืองขี้เห่อ โยนเงินมาให้ถลุงกันเพลินมืออีกด้วย ด้วยการขู่ทางวิชาการว่าถ้าไม่ทำแบบนั้นชาติไทยจะขายขี้หน้าชาวโลกเขา เพราะไม่มีผลงานตีพิมพ์ ดังนั้นมลัยควรต้องสังวรณ์และปรับทัศนคติเสียใหม่ ว่าควรยอม “ขายหน้าเพื่อเอาผ้ารอด” ไว้ก่อน อย่ามัวแต่หน้าบางจนคิดแต่ “ขายผ้าเอาหน้ารอด” กันมานานแล้ว สักวันจะไม่มีผ้าใส่ ต้องลอยหน้าขาวๆไปขายตัวให้ต่างชาติแบบถูกๆ (วันนี้ก็ทำแบบนี้อยู่แล้วด้วย)