Get documents about "SOUTHEAST ASIAN HISTORY
Description
The main important role of history is as a National Identity that can become a magnet of national consolidation to protect and develop the country. Most countries around the world always consider their history as an important element in order to attract or manipulate the patriotism and nationalism. Especially while most countries become plural societies by various immigrant accelerations and new ethnic group arrivals, the local government needs to use more and more historical facts for preventing and solving the conflict between the indegenious and new arrival people.
Document Sample
ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF PHNOM PENH
INSTITUTE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
SOUTHEAST ASIAN HISTORY
A READING BOOK FOR FOUNDATION YEAR STUDENTS
Written by Prof. MICHAEL VICKERY
Edited by VONG SOTHEARA
Lecturer of History Department
Phnom Penh—2009
2
CONTENTS
*********
Lesson 1: INTRODUCTION: IMPORTANCE AND IMPACT OF HISTORY EDUCATION
TO CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY 1
I- DEFINITIONS 1
II- THE ROLE OF HISTORY 2
III- IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY EDUCATION TO CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY ..2
III-A- CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION 2
III-B- PEACE CULTURE EDUCATION 3
III-C- STRENGTHENING PATRIOTIC SENSE 5
IV- IMPACTS OF HISTORY EDUCATION TO CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY 7
IV-A- HISTORY KNOWLEDGE USAGE 7
IV-B- HISTORICAL TEXTBOOK 10
IV-B-1-Rewriting American History 10
IV-B-2-Revising Iraqi History Book 11
IV-B-3-Indian Attempts at Rewriting History Books 11
IV-B-4- Controversial textbooks to be revised in six Arabian Gulf states 12
IV-B-5- Kuwaiiti PMs Oppose Change in Textbook 12
IV-B-6- Japanese and Russian History Textbooks 12
IV-B-7- Rewriting History in Textbook of Jewish 12
IV-B-8- Writing and Rewriting History in the Context of Balkan Nationalisms 13
Lesson 2: WHAT IS REGIONAL HISTORY? 14
I- WHAT IS SOUTHEAST ASIA (REGION)? 14
II- LANGUAGE GROUPS & THE POPULATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIA 15
II-A- THEORY 15
II-B- SOUTHEAST ASIA 17
B.1. Mon-Khmer and Austroasiatic 17
B.2. Austronesian 18
B.3. Thai 19
B.4. Tibeto-Burma 19
B.5. Papuan-Australian-Melanesian 19
Lesson 3: PRE-HISTORY OF SEA AND CAMBODIA 21
I- THE FIRST HUMANS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA 21
II- CULTURE OF CAMBODIAN PRE-HISTORICAL PERIOD 22
II-A- PRE-HISTORICAL SITES-sSanIy_buerRbvtþisa®sþ 24
II-B- DISCOVERED MATERIALS -«bkrN_eRbIRás´RbcaMéf¶ 24
II-C- LIVINGS -CIvPaBmnusßExμr 24
II-D- BELIEFS -CMenOrbs´mnusßExμr 24
II-E- MENTAL DEVELOPMENT-karvivtþn_énpñt´KMnit 24
II-F- CONCLUSION-esckþIsnñidæan 25
III- LATE PREHISTORY AND THE TRANSITION TO HISTORY 27
IV- HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS 28
Lesson 4: INDIAN AND CHINESE INFLUENCES IN S.E.A. 29
I. INDIA 29
II. CHINA 31
II-A- CHINESE CONTACTS WITH THE INDO-CHINA COAST AND FUNAN 31
II-B- CHINESE CONTACTS WITH INDONESIA 32
Lesson 5: THE PROTO-HISTORICAL PERIOD AND THE FIRST LOCAL WRITTEN
RECORDS 35
I- FUNAN AND PROTO-HISTORY 35
II- THE MON COUNTRY 36
II-A- DVARAVATI AT THE WEST OF CAMBODIA--SIAM 36
II-B- PYU IN THE AREA OF BURMA 37
III- VIETNAM 38
IV- LIN-YI AND CHAMPA 39
V- INDONESIA 40
V-A- SUMATRA FROM 7TH-9TH CENTURIES 40
V-B- JAVA AND FIRST LOCAL SOURCES 42
Lesson 6: SOUTHEAST ASIA FROM 7TH-13TH CENTURIES 45
I- CAMBODIA 45
I-A- CHENLA 45
I-B- FROM JAYAVARMAN II TO SURVARMAN I (10TH CENTURY) 47
II- CHAMPA 49
II-A- RELATION BETWEEN CHENLA AND CHAMPA 50
II-B- RELATION BETWEEN CHAMPA AND VIETNAM 51
II-C- VIETNAM-CHAMPA-CAMBODIA FROM 11th-13th CENTURIES 52
III- INDONESIA: SUMATRA AND JAVA FROM THE 9TH CENTURY TO THE
MONGOL INVASION 54
IV- BURMA 55
Lesson 7: CHINESE POLICY AND INFLUENCE IN SOUTHEAST ASIA 57
I. CHINESE POLICY 57
II. NORTH COAST CITIES IN JAVA 60
III. SUMATRA 60
IV- MELAKA / MALACCA 61
V. SIAM AND THE THAI, SIAM / AYUTTHAYA / THAILAND 61
VI. THE EARLY HISTORY OF LAOS 65
Lesson 8: THE 15TH-16TH CENTURIES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA 68
I- CAMBODIA 68
II- THAILAND (AYUTTHAYA) 69
III- VIETNAM 70
IV- THE FIRST EUROPEANS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA IN XV-XVI CNEURIES 71
Lesson 9: THE 16TH-18TH CENTURIES IN SEA 73
I- BURMA 73
A. Northern Burma—Pagan and Aver 73
B. Southern Burma: The Mon and Pegu 73
C. The Toungoo/Taungu Period 74
D. Burma in the 17th Century: A New North/South Division 74
II- AYUTTHAYA 74
III- VIETNAM 76
IV- CAMBODIA 77
V- INDONESIA 79
Lesson 10: SOUTHEAST ASIAN MAINLAND UNTIL THE FIRST HALF OF THE 19TH
ii
CENTURY 82
I- BURMA 82
II- VIETNAM 83
III- THAILAND 84
IV- CAMBODIA 86
Lesson 11: THE END OF THE 19TH CENTURY ON THE MAINLAND; AND THE 19TH
CENTURY IN INDONESIA AND MALAYA 89
TH
I- MAINLAND OF SEA IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 19 CENTURY 89
A. Burma 89
B. Viet Nam 89
C. Cambodia 90
D. Thailand 91
II- REACTION TO THE CHANGES OF THE 1880s 92
A. Cambodia 92
B. Thailand 92
C. Laos 93
III- FRENCH INDOCHINA 94
IV- INDONESIA 94
A. Java 94
B. The Outer Islands 96
V- MALAYA 96
Lesson 12: MAINLAND SOUTHEAST ASIA-EUROPEAN RULE AND NATIONALISM
BEFORE 1940 98
I- ECONOMIC CHANGE 98
II- EDUCATION AND NEW POLITICAL CLASSES 99
III- POLOTICAL CHANGE 100
IV- NATIONALIST MOVEMENT 100
A- Vietnam 100
B- Burma 101
C- Thailand 101
D- Cambodia 102
E- Indonesia in the 20th Century 104
NATIONALISM 105
Lesson 13: WORLD WAR II AND ITS EFFECT IN SOUTHEAST ASIA 106
I- SUPERPOWER IN SEA 106
II- INDONESIA 107
III- BURMA 107
IV- VIETNAM 108
V- CAMBODIA 108
VI- THAILAND 109
Lesson 14: SOUTHEAST ASIA AFTER WORLD WAR II 110
I- BURMA 110
II- VIETNAM 110
III- INDONESIA 111
IV- THAILAND 111
V- CAMBODIA AND ANTI-FRENCH MOVEMENT 111
iii
Lesson 15: INDEPENDENCE AND SANGKUM REASTR NIYUM 113
I- ROYAL CRUSADE 113
II- THE GENEVA CONFERENCE IN 1954 114
III- CREATION OF SANGKUM REASTR NIYUM 114
III-A- TRIUMPH OF SAMDECH SIHANOUK 118
III-B- GOLDEN AGE OF 20TH CENTURY 118
III-C- NON-ALIGN STATE POLICY 119
IV- ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL CRISES 120
IV-A- THE ECOMIC CRISIS 120
IV-B- POLITICAL CRISIS 121
Lesson 16: THE KHMER REPUBLIC 123
I- THE COUP D’ETAT 123
II- THE RIVALS 123
III- THE WAR 123
IV- THE REASONS OF COLLAPSE 124
Lesson 17: HISTORY OF DEMOCRATIC KAMPUCHEA 126
I- STRUCTURE OF DK 126
I-A- COMMUNISM PARTY—ANGKAR 126
I-B- GOVERNMENT 126
I-C- ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISIONS 127
I-D- LOCAL AUTHORITIES 128
I-E- SECURITY UNIT 128
II- COLLECTIVES 129
II-A- EVACUATION 129
II-B- COLLECTIVE FORMATION 129
II-C- PEOPLE CATEGORIZATION 130
II-D- WORKS 130
II-E- EATING 130
III- THE COLLAPSE 130
III-A- SERIOUS ENFORCEMENT WORKS/ A WEAKENED POPULACE 130
III-B- RADICAL KILLING AND PURGE 131
III-B-1- DISCRIMINATION AND DECENTRALIZED EMPOWERMENT 131
III-B-2- PURGE 131
III-D- CLASHES WITH VIETNAM 131
III-E- NATIONAL LIBERATION FRONT OF CPP AND VIETNAMESE SUPPORT 132
iv
Note to readers:
Most parts of this course is a collection of lecture notes that Prof. Michael Vickery delivering
students in the Preparatory Class of the Faculty of Archaeology in the Royal University of
Fine Arts during 2002-3.
v
Lesson 1: INTRODUCTION: IMPORTANCE AND IMPACT OF HISTORY
EDUCATION TO CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY
By Prof. Dr. Sorn Samnang1
I- DEFINITIONS
1.1- Noah Webster, in his 1828 dictionary defined "history" as: An account of facts
respecting nations or states; a narrative of events in the order in which they happened with
their causes and effects. History differs from Annals. Annals relate simply the facts and
events of each year, in direct chronological order, without any observations of the annalist2.
1.2- Webster’s 1913 Dictionary: History is a systematic, written account of events,
particularly of those affecting a nation, institution, science, or art, and usually connected with
a philosophical explanation of their causes; a true story, as distinguished from a romance; -
distinguished also from annals, which relate simply the facts and events of each year, in strict
chronological order; from biography, which is the record of an individual's life; and from
memoir, which is history composed from personal experience, observation, and memory3.
1.3- Prof. Michael Vickery accept that the term 'history' has two meanings. In a loose
sense history is any purportedly true story about the human past. However, history in the
sense of an academic discipline is the scientific study of the human past based on written
sources. Study of the human past before written sources is pre-history, studied through the
techniques of archaeology, that is, study of the material remains left by humans in their
activities.
1.4- In simplest terms, history is the story of the human experience. While history
teaching originally focused on the facts of political history such as wars and dynasties,
contemporary history education has assumed a more integrative approach offering students
an expanded view of historical knowledge that includes aspects of geography, religion,
anthropology, philosophy, economics, technology, art and society. This wider embrace is
reflected in the vague but ubiquitous term, "social studies"4.
Chronological Notice:
- Pre-History = No written document
= The study bases on the interpretation of found materials
= The work of Archaeologist
- Proto-History = History is written bases on foreign sources that were
recorded about
- History = Starts from the existence of written document, the work of historian
= the cotemporarily written document could be survived when it was
lettered on the durable material.
1
The author of this article was the President of Royal Academy of Cambodia. He had
delivered this paper to the National Consultative Workshop on History and Philosophy
Education at RUPP2, 22-23 April 2005 and then the article was edited by me, VONG
SOTHEARA, Lecturer of History Department, RUPP2.
2
The definition of history according to Noah Webster ...www.christianparents.com/histdef.htm
3
HISTORY - Meaning and Definition of the Word - www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/history
4
Learning and thinking - World History/Geography- www.studentsfriend.com/onhist/learning.html
II- THE ROLE OF HISTORY
The main important role of history is as a National Identity that can become a magnet
of national consolidation to protect and develop the country. Most countries around the world
always consider their history as an important element in order to attract or manipulate the
patriotism and nationalism. Especially while most countries become plural societies by
various immigrant accelerations and new ethnic group arrivals, the local government needs to
use more and more historical facts for preventing and solving the conflict between the
indegenious and new arrival people.
However, we can narrow our focus to the special role played by history within the
educational scheme. Over the course of the twentieth century, schools developed a structure
that addresses five broad and fundamental realms of knowledge:
History : understanding the human world
Science : understanding the physical world
Mathematics : understanding the world quantitatively
Language : communicating about the world
Arts : expressing human creativity
The first two realms, history and science, are essentially knowledge-based disciplines
while the remaining three, language, mathematics and the arts, are essentially skill-based
disciplines. Of course, each discipline involves elements of both knowledge and skills, but
when a student has completed a history or science course, we generally expect the student to
have a broader understanding of the world. History is the highest order of school knowledge
because it considers how humans have dealt with, and shall continue to deal with, the
consequences of all areas of learning and activity.
Carlyle said “Histories are as perfect as the historian is wise, and is gifted with an
eye and a soul”.
The great historian Burckhardt said “historical knowledge is not only to make us
cleverer the next time, but wiser for all time”5.
III- IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY EDUCATION TO CONTEMPORARY
SOCIETY
III-A- CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION
In England, concepts of citizenship were analyzed in the 1950s and received
acknowledgment in the 1988 Education Reform Act. 1998 saw a government
recommendation that citizenship becomes a statutory subject on the curriculum: from 2002
this will occur. The British government’s 1988 Educational Reform Act recognized the
central role schooling plays in shaping social values, making it a statutory requirement of
schools to promote “the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils
5
Learning and thinking - World History/Geography- www.studentsfriend.com/onhist/learning.html
2
and of society”. Citizenship education should be education “for” not “about” citizenship, not
just thinking like a good citizen, but acting like one as well.
In the past, history has been used explicitly in various societies to inculcate children
with certain attitudes and values. For example, in Britain in the early twentieth century,
history was part of developing particular qualities of patriotism and loyalty to the Empire. At
the present, we see history as “performing social functions, assisting the promotion of a
student’s well-being as an autonomous person within a liberal democratic community
enabling more effective participation”. History enables children to understand the present
better in its historical context. History offers ample opportunities to educate to become active
and reflective citizens by developing a range of critical thinking skills needed throughout
life6.
III-B- PEACE CULTURE EDUCATION
III-B-1- An Intercultural Education based on the ethic of recognition has to show the
contingence, the possibilities and the variabilities of a specific moral standpoint. It means that
the pluralism of morals may be enrichment in the person’s learning process of morals.
According to a study of the German Commission of UNESCO from 1977, the education
should try to work out a model of moral learning, which is based on a process to a more
common, more reflexive and more differentiated form of interchangeable recognition.
For example, a project implemented in 1986, under the framework of the European
Council (“The education and the cultural development of migrants”, directed by Louis
Porcher), defines four elements of the intercultural approach:
a. our societies are becoming more and more multicultural societies;
b. every culture has its own respectable specificities;
c. the multiculturalism is potentially a treasure;
d. it is a need to instate an inter-penetration between all cultures without erasing the
specific identity of each of them; to put the multicultural in motion, in order to
transform it in an intercultural factor (cf. Council of Europe: Allemann-Ghionda,
1992)7.
III-B-2- The Peace Education is aimed to contribute to the cognitive enrichment, to
build practical skills and attitudes of pupils. Using a summary provided by Benyamin
Chetkow-Yanoov, the specific learning goals should include:
• increasing objective knowledge about the diversity of people, view points, ideologies
and the tensions between them;
• helping pupils and students to understand the influence of attitudes and feelings on
human behavior in situations of enmity and co-operation;
• analyzing the concept of peace as both a state of being and an active process;
• teaching the dynamics of power, conflict and their patterns of escalation, helping
pupils to take part in simulations and other participatory learning situations, in order
to master some skills and techniques in conflict resolution;
6
Cf. Carley Dalvarez (University of Hetfordshire, England), The Contribution of History to Citizenship
Education, (1994), p. 1-6 - www.ex.ac.uk/historyresource/journal2/dalvarez.pdf
7
WHITE PAPER - National Histories in South-Eastern Europe and History of a United Europe ...
Writing and Rewriting History in the Context of Balkan ...www.houseofeurope.ro/paper.htm
3
• bringing about constructive and encounter meetings, in order to challenge stereotypes,
develop trust-relationship, self-awareness and search for projects of mutual benefit8.
III-B-3- Tolerance Education: History must be used as the tool to make people
become ‘tolerent’ in order to keep ‘peace’. In Cairo, Egyptian Authorities have decided to
teach School Children about Tolerance of other Cultures but Denied the decision was a
response to US pressure for reform, a government newspaper reported Tuesday. Education
Minister Hussain Kamal Baha al-Din told Al-Ahram newspaper that a subject on ethics,
which "stresses the values of progress, cooperation, sincerity and acceptance of others", has
been introduced into elementary school textbooks. "Seven years ago, Egypt adopted
principles of human rights and tolerance in its school books and that was well before
September 11, 2001," he said.
Since the September 11 attacks on the United States, Washington has stepped up calls
for political, economic and educational reform in Arab countries.
Egypt government fires 1000s of Islamist teachers. Thousands of Islamist teachers
have been removed from their jobs in Egypt, according to Egyptian Education Minister
Hussain Kamal Baha al-Din, (Aljazeera.Net, 09-03-2004 <Reuters>). Teachers suspected of
being Islamists have been dismissed asked, by the Saudi-owned daily, Al-sharq al-Awsat,
how the government dealt with Islamist teachers in Egyptian schools, Baha al-Din on
Tuesday replied: "Thousands of extremist teachers were removed." The minister said his
decision to remove them was based on reports from the security services and from
supervisors in his ministry as well as on complaints from students' parents. On 1 March, Baha
al-Din said Egypt would take lessons from no one over reforming its school books in a bid to
promote religious tolerance and stamp out sources of terror.
The comments published by the government newspaper Al-Missa appeared as the
United States has stepped up its campaign for reform in Arab countries, including calls to
amend school textbooks deemed intolerant.
III-B-4- Reconciliation, Mutual Understanding And Tolerance Education: At the
Seminar on "How history teaching can strengthen reconciliation, mutual understanding and
tolerance in present-day society." Nalchik, Republic of Kabardino-Balkarya, Russian
Federation, 5 - 6 October 2001, Mr Ben Walsh, Head of the Historical Association Secondary
Education Committee, United Kingdom outlined the challenges facing history teachers in the
United Kingdom. He said that for the last 25 years, a number of concerns have taxed history
educators generally in the United Kingdom. The continuing terrorist conflict in Northern
Ireland showed the dangers of a lack of tolerance and mutual understanding.
In terms of responses to such challenges, teachers in the United Kingdom had
developed a number of approaches. The first was planning their work based around key
questions. This meant that, instead of seeing an historical topic in terms of a body of
knowledge to be delivered or learned, historical topics were seen as enquiries or
investigations. This encouraged young people to work in a way which focused on evidence,
which assessed differing interpretations and which was judgmental in an academic sense
rather than a political or polemical sense. Thus, history teachers in the United Kingdom were
8
WHITE PAPER - National Histories in South-Eastern Europe and History of a United Europe ...
www.houseofeurope.ro/paper.htm
4
using questions like “Why do historians disagree about who caused the Cold War?” rather
than “Who caused the Cold War”?9
III-C- STRENGTHENING PATRIOTIC SENSE
III-C-1- Cultural Value Training: To be reminded that an unknown newspaper editor
wrote, “this country (United States of America) was founded by the bold and cannot be
maintained by the timid.”10 This short sentence is very important and really strengthened the
position and consciousness of next generations of Americans becoming strongly eternal
commitment for devoting to their country. As for Cambodia, the country was also founded by
groups of great people and whose blood was the civilized nation.
Therefore, Khmer people must be proud positively with their birth to be the Khmer.
This pride helps to remind the all Khmer people having conscience again and recommitment
for hard working in order to stop the meaningless conflict between Khmer different
ideologies and focus on restoration and development of our country if we want our children’s
future becoming prosperity and long-life nation.
III-C-2- The National Pride Education: To attract young generation becoming proud
with their ancestors’ achievement, history is very important subject in uncovering all
positively proud accounts of facts. Actually, Khmer history has been recorded many
appreciate accounts to be the sample of pride encouragement for young Khmer people. We
can provide some evidences of the proud history as below.
elak.hßg´.Eb‘Na(Jean Bernard)énbNÐitsPaáraMgánsresresovePA²elahit.nig
RbvtþisaRsþ ³ (LE SANG ET L'HISTOIRE) Edl enAkñúg ena¼ man GtSbTmYy man cMNg eCIg fa
sm&y Gg:r . nigCati eKalika RkhmBiess RbePT E (Les temps d'Angkor et l'hémoglobine
11
E) . elak án sresr fa . Cati eKalika Rkhm Biess . RbePT .E KWBit Ca Cati eKalika Rkhm
rbs´CnCatiExμr>
elakánbnþfa.½ enAstvtßTI12.nigTI13 .RB¼mhakßRtExμr.taMgxøÜnRB¼Gg:CaGFiraC
cRkvaL.enAsm¥a¼cRkPBrbs´RB¼Gg:manTwkdIy¨agFMTUlay.EdlRKbdNþb´elIvalTMnab
nigdIsNþTenøemKg:/elIRbeTsLavrhUtdl´Rkugevogc&nÞ/elIGaNaextþxagekIténRbeTséf/elI
TwkdImYyPaKénRbeTsm¨aeLsuI/.nigRbeTsevotNambc©úb,nñ>.
rC¢kalrbs´ RB¼Gg: man eQμa¼ l,Il,aj . edaysar karsg´ RásaT CaeRcIn ehIy RásaT
mYycMnYnsSitenAkñúgcMeNamsñaédÉkénsil,£Exμr.cm,aMgnanarbs´RB¼Gg: .ánBRgIk}T§iBl én
sil,£ExμreTAelIPUmiPaKGasuIGaeKñy_.>l>.
9
Mr Ben Walsh, Teaching history in present day secondary schools for reconciliation, mutual understanding
and tolerance: the example of the United Kingdom, in Seminar on "How history teaching can strengthen
reconciliation, mutual understanding and tolerance in present-day society", Russian Academy of Education,
Moscow: New concepts in history education in secondary Education
www.coe.int/T/F/Coop%E9ration_culturelle/education/
10
Max J. Herzberg, 1950. This is America. Pocket Books, New York.
11
Jean Bernard, Le sang et l’histoire, Editions Buchet/Chastel, Paris, 1983, p. 46-49.
5
elak .hßg´ .Eb‘Na án eFIV esckþI snñidæan fa ½ ²vtþman én buraN RásaT Ca sñaéd sSabtü
kmμ Exμr .enA kñúg éRB RBwkßa .nig vtþman enAkñúg elahit rbs´ Exμr bc©úb,nñ .nUv Cati eKalika Rkhm
Biess RbePT E (Hemoglobin E) Edl án bnþ mk CMnan´ eRkay @ Gs´ eBl RáMbYn stvtßr_ mk
ehIy ena¼ . Ca skçIPaB Cak´Esþg én GriyFm’ mYy rbs´ RbCaCn mYy . Edlcg´ enAman CIvitKg´vgß
CaerogrhUt³>.
RbCaCati Exμr BUEk TaMg RáCJa Blkmμ . nig htS Blkmμ / . tam elak Bernard-Philippe
Groslier án sresr fa .½ kñúg cMeNam KuNsm,tþi .EdlExμrman RáCJa BMuEmn Gn´Cag eK ena¼ eLIy
ehIyKYbpßMnwgkarbuinRbsb´xaghtSBlkmμ.EdlKμanBIr (Une habileté manuelle hors de pair)
enA sm&y mYy ena¼. Exμr án køay Ca RbCaCati xøaMg BUEk bMput enA GasuIGaeKñy_en¼ .> 12 . Exμr man
saklviTüal&y taMgBI stvtßr_ TI 11 .nig man cMeN¼dwg y¨ag TUlM TUlayTaMg Epñk GkßrsaRsþ .
nigTsßnviC¢a> . eyIg man silacarwk CaeRcIn .Edl sresr TaMg Pasa Exμr buraN / .sMRs;wt
.nigálIy¨agsÞat´ CMnaj > . elIs BIen¼eTot ExμreyIg ec¼ eRbI TsßnviC¢a .edayán eRbI KMnit
y¨agévqøat mk eFVIkar bRgYbbRgYm Cati >. Cak´Esþg enA edIm sm&y Gg:r RB¼áT C&yvm’TI2 . áneRbI
lT§ieTvraC mk bRgYbbRgYm Cati TaMgmUl . ehIy rhUtmk dl´ raCü RB¼áTC&yvm’TI7 . eyIg k¾ eXIj
RTg´eRbInUvKMnity¨agévqøatrbs´RTg´mkeFVIkarbRgYbbRgYmCatiEdr>.CaskçIkmμ.eyIgeXIjRásaT
áy&n Edl bBa¢ak´ nUv RáCJa y¨agQøasév rbs´ RTg´ . kñúgkareFV I[ man ÉkPaB enAkñúg RbeTs rvag
Gñkkan´sasnaxus@Kña>.
kñúg bT GnþraKmn_munen¼ . elakbNÐit. ent . ár¨um . ándak´ sMNYr fa. etI TsßnviC¢aExμr .
manEdr¦Gt´ ? .xJMúsUmbBa¢ak´fa.ExμrBitCamanTsßnviC¢arbs´xøÜny¨ageRcIn. EtxJMúKμaneBl eRcIn.
EdlnwgGacbgHajCUnánenAeBlen¼>.
elak.Adhémard Leclère ánbkERbGtSbTc,ab´ExertCaeRcIneTACaPasaáraMg.nigeá¼
Bum< pßay enAqñaM 1898 . eday dak´cMNg eCIg fa “Les codes cambodgiens”> . elak án [ témø
y¨agx<s´fa.RbeTskm<úCaFøab´CaRbeTsnItirdæmYy .Edl Føab´ manc,ab´y¨agsm,ÚN’ sRmab´RKb´
RKgtaMgBImnusßrhUtdl´stV.dUcCa.Rkmes¼/.RkmdMrI.¦RkmcRkI>
enAkñúg buBVkfa . elak án sresr CaGaT# fa ½. km<úCa Føab´ Ca RbCaCati mYy d¾FM . eyIg ekat
sresIrcMeBa¼GVIEdleKáneFIVkñúgGtItkal (Le Cambodge.. une nation qui fut un grand peuple
13
et qui mérite et notre admiration pour ce qu’elle a fait dans le passé...) .>
12
Cf. Bernard-Philippe Groslier, Angkor, Hommes et Pierres, Arthaud, Paris, 1965,
p.12-13 : “Les Khmers: psychologie et mentalité”.
13
Cf. Adhémard Leclère, Les Codes cambodgiens, Paris, Ernest Leroux, Ed. 1898, Préface, p. VIII.
6
m®nþIraCkar Exμr BImun . man ²RkmTRmg´ s&kþi ³sRmab´ ENnaM [ man vin& y kñúgkargar . nigman
esckþIéføfñÚr/.fñak´eRkamec¼eKarBfñak´elI /.Éfñak´elIec¼eKarBfñak´eRkam>. emerond¾sMxan´Edl
eyIg Gac dk Rsg´ BIbT BiesaFn_ GtItkal ena¼ KWkar ec¼ eRbI Pasa Rbkb eday esckþIéføfñÚr enARKb´
TIkEnøg.nigviC¢aCIv£[ánskþismnwgkitþiys.nigtYnaTIerog@xøÜn>.kñúgkrNIGñkNamñak´eRbIxus.
nwgRtUvTTYlkarpakBin&yCaRák´.EdlmanEcgBIcMnYnRsbtamGg:BhUs&kþi>
bTBiesaFn_fμI@en¼eTot.eyIgeXIjenAkñúgkMNt´RtaráykarN_mYyrbs´GñkdwknaMáraMg
mYyrUb fa ½ .²sisß Exμr eron BUEk Cag eK .enA kñúg cMeNam sisß cRmu¼Cati enA kUsaMgsuIn ³> . enAkñúg
sm&yGaNaBüaáláraMg.ral´eBlRbLgykmFümsikßab&RtenAkUsaMgsuIn.sisßExμrEtgQñ¼
sisß evotNam .nig sisß áraMgCanic© (Ce sont les élèves cambodgiens qui, régulièrement,
tiennent la tête aux examens du baccalauréat en Cochinchine devant les Annamites et les
Français)14 >
IV- IMPACTS OF HISTORY EDUCATION TO CONTEMPORARY
SOCIETY
“When historical knowledge is used in a right way, it will be helpful, yet it will be
useless if they use it in a wrong way”
IV-A- HISTORY KNOWLEDGE USAGE
For the realization of the above-mentioned educational scheme, the rewriting or
revising of history has been done or started or debated in a number of countries around the
world. Let us take some examples.
IV-A-1- Positive Impact
Persons who have known the glorious history of Cambodia have always done every
thing positively such as contributing in protection of nationally historical and cultural
heritage for eternal evidences and existence and reviving the glorious evidences of the
historical past to compatriots.
For example, a group of Khmer patriots attacked secretly on Thai labors that were ordered by
Thai King intended to take off the stone equipment of Taprom temple.
“The admiration of the Thai ruling classes for things Khmer-Khoum remained in
evidence even into the Ratanakosin (Bangkok) period. King Rama IV, or King
Mongkut (r.1851-1868), for instance, ordered a Khmer stone temple disassembled
and reconstructed on Thai soil, but “Phra Suphanphisan, after a trip to the ancient
Khmer capital at Angkor, informed the King that all the stone were too enormous to
be taken apart and transported to Siam. Hearing this, the King ordered that Prasat Ta
14
Bulletin Mensuel du Comité de l’Asie Française, 31ème année, No. 286, Janvier 1931, p. 25.
7
Prohm, a relatively smaller temple, be relocated instead. Four groups of 500 men
each were dispatched…to deconstruct the prasat on the ninth day of the sixth lunar
month.”
“The account of this event, which appears in “The Royal Chronicles of King Rama
IV” by Chao Phraya Thipakorawong, occurred in 1860, before the Siamese ceded
“sovereignty” over Cambodia to the French in 1867.
“It is unclear to us precisely why King Mongkut wished to have an enormous
Khmer temple reconstructed in Siam at a time when the French were gradually
extending their control over much of Indochina. What is interesting, however, is that
the attempt to move the temple structure failed when ‘some 300 Khmers came out of
the forest and attacked the men who had come to disassemble the temple, killing
Phra Suphanphisan, Phra Wang and one of Phra Suphanphisan’s sons. Phra
Mahatthai was stabbed, and Phra Yokkrabat was injured. The phrai commoners,
however, escaped injury by fleeing into the forest.’”
Source: Thai historian Charnvit Kasetsiri, “Thailand-Cambodia: Love-Hate
Relationship” Reprint/March 2003, available at: http://kyotoreview.cseas.kyoto -
u.ac.jp/issue/issue2/index.html , a senior advisor to the Southeast Asia Studies
Program at Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand. This article was translated
by Michael Crabtree, with assistance from Somjit Jirananthiporn.
Royal Ablution, the King Father is giving a bath of holy water from Phnom Kulen
Jayavarman II established the cult of Devarāja—
Kamrateń Jagat ta Rāja
River of Thousand Lińga
Painting portrays the priest anointing the symbol of
the Hindu god Siva in rites sanctifying Jayavarman
II as Devaraja, or god-king
8
The event of the oath of the second mandate of Khmer National Assemply in 1998 in
front of Angkor Wat temple is the evidence that the organizer was persons who knowing the
glorious history of Cambodia. Then they wanted to remind all national assembly members
remembering and taking in their account about their role and obligation for the prosperity of
Cambodia. Another event is about the recent coronation of the King, Norodom Sihanumy in
October 2004. In the occasion, they use the sacred or holy water from Phnom Kulen for
celebrating the Royal Ablution to the new King. Why they need to use water from Phnom
Kulen to taking bath on the new King? Because they believe that the cult of Devaraja of the
King Jayavarman II in 802 AD is still effectively, at least this activity can remind all
Cambodian people especially the King himself about the hopeful departure of Angkor
civilization. The organizer could intend to make the new King become success, fortune, bon
heur, victory and happiness and heading Cambodia to prosperity and great country like
previous Angkor empire.
IV-A-2- Negative Impact
Above: Pre-Angkor historical site at Phum
Snay, Banteay Mean Chey, anarchic looted
pits and fields
Left: Looters in actions
Source: Heritage Watch
9
Left: Headless Apsara at Preah Khan of
Kompong Svay, Cambodia
Right: Destruction at Preah Khan of
Kompong Svay, Cambodia
Persons who do not know history always do not love and value historical and cultural
heritage. For instance, Heritage Watch has reported about people who looted valuable
artifacts and heritage that left by ancestors.
IV-B- HISTORICAL TEXTBOOK
Historical book is different from religious scripture. It can be rewritten again and again by
basis on the collected evidences or sources. The more collected document, the more precise
work is written. Most historical events that are interpreted and studied clearly or not are
depended on time, prolonged or shortened, and a number of relevant documents collected.
So, all discussions and conclusions in the presently historical textbook are just temporary
work. They can be rejected immediately if new evidences are discovered. All historical text
books can be modified and rewritten if historians and politician need to do that for certain
purposes.
Because the last historical textbooks are affected more negatively, many countries’
historians and politicians around the world rethink of the modification of new books of
history.
For example, a well-known ancient city of Funan called Vyadhapura was assumed by Mr.
George Cœdès to be probably located at Baphnom in Prey Veng province. But now, after
detail studying on Angkor Borei site by archaeological excavation and aerial photograph, the
Vyadhapura should be corresponded with Angkor Borei rather than Baphnom site. So, most
contemporary historians think that this last assumption is adaptable for this conclusion.
However, we do not know exactly about the possibility of future exploration that Vyadhapura
would be relocated to other historical sites because of the new-coming evidences.
IV-B-1-Rewriting American History
In the USA, non-white school children have traditionally suffered from lower grades
than white children, which are now believed to be a result of the Eurocentric education
10
system in America. When their histories are omitted or misrepresented in history textbooks,
non-white children do not enjoy learning and suffer from low self-esteem, which leads to
lower achievement levels in school. Educators are now realizing the importance of a
multicultural education in order for education to benefit the multitude of ethnic backgrounds
of America's school children15. So there is a need to rewrite American history.
IV-B-2-Revising Iraqi History Book16
BAGHDAD - For 15 years, high school history teacher Abtsam Jassom has dutifully taught
20th-century history according to the Baath Party. In it, America was the greedy invader,
every Iraqi war was justified and victorious, and Zionists were the cause of world suffering.
Now, however, with the ouster of former President Saddam Hussein, US officials say
teachers will finally be free to teach a more factual account of historical events. But the
question is: Whose account will that be?
The first indicator of what a Saddam-free education will look like is arriving this
month, as millions of newly revised textbooks roll off the printing presses to be distributed to
Iraq's 5.5 million schoolchildren in 16,000 schools. All 563 texts were heavily edited and
revised over the summer by a team of US-appointed Iraqi educators. Every image of Saddam
and the Baath Party has been removed.
However, a mile away at Baghdad University's College of Education for Women,
Entedher al-Bable, who is studying to be a history teacher, says she will instruct students that
Iraq has a long history of being invaded by the US.
In 1973, Saddam ordered all textbooks to be rewritten from the Baath Party point of
view, so lessons were intertwined with Baath Party ideology and promilitary examples.
IV-B-3-Indian Attempts at Rewriting History Books
Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee (in January 2003) took the Opposition to task
for opposing the Government’s attempts at rewriting history books. "For years they have
misinterpreted history and when we attempt to place history in the right perspective, they
accuse us", he said17.
The 64th session of the Indian History Congress in Mysore in January 2004 took note
of the widening gap between historical research and its popular presentation, particularly in
school textbooks.
HISTORY is a robust and growing academic discipline in India despite the political
and ideological pressures that it has been under in the last few years. The energies that drive
the discipline of history are as active and determined as they have ever been. Suvira Jaiswal,
formerly Professor of History at the Jawaharlal Nehru University said: "I think the message
that has emerged from this congress is that history should be left to historians and should not
be politicised. Nevertheless, I don't see any reason for pessimism. Historians continue to be
active in continuing the tradition of scientific exploration despite their concerns at the way
history is being officially commissioned".
(By PARVATHI MENON in Mysore - Frontline Volume 21 - Issue 02, January 17 - 30, 2004
India's National Magazine from the publishers of THE HINDU)
15
Rewriting American History - nativenet.uthscsa.edu/alison-thesis/chap2.html
16
By Christina Asquith, The Christian Science Monitor (11-8-03).
17
“PM frowns on criticism over rewriting of history”: By IndiaExpress Bureau (6th Jan 2003)
www.indiaexpress.com/news/national/20030106-0.html
11
IV-B-4- Controversial textbooks to be revised in six Arabian Gulf states
Gulf Arab leaders meeting in Kuwait have agreed to revise school textbooks which
Washington claims fuel anti-Christian and anti-Jewish sentiments. Leaders from six Arabian
Gulf states attended the summit. The announcement came at the end of an annual meeting on
Monday of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) - a political and military alliance grouping
heavyweight Saudi Arabia with Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.
The GCC has come under pressure from Washington since the 11 September 2001 attacks to
reform school curricula. The educational reforms, stated in a treaty adopted by the leaders
pledging to combat "terrorism", include removal from school textbooks of materials
describing followers of other religions as infidels and enemies of Islam18.
IV-B-5- Kuwaiiti PMs Oppose Change in Textbook
From AFP on 31 December 2003, KUWAIT CITY on December 30, Kuwaiti lawmakers
warned the government on Tuesday against bowing to US and Western pressure to change
school textbooks to omit references seen as promoting terror and extremism , and insisted
they would not accept the "Americanization" of education.
IV-B-6- Japanese and Russian History Textbooks
At the Seminar on "How history teaching can strengthen reconciliation, mutual
understanding and tolerance in present-day society" Nalchik, Republic of Kabardino-
Balkarya, Russian Federation, 5 - 6 October 2001, Mr Sokhorov (Deputy Head of the
Government of Kabardino – Balkarya) argued that history can be a force to unite people as
well as divide them. The terrible events of 11 September in the USA showed more than ever
the fragility of peace and the need to develop understanding and tolerance.
Ms Alison Cardwell, Administrator, Council of Europe, argued that history teachers
face many new challenges and opportunities in the 21st Century. In recent years, there had
been meetings between Russian and Japanese historians comparing their interpretations of
their respective histories. Participants in a seminar in Vladivostock were asked to consider
how Russians and Japanese would like to be seen in their neighbor's history textbooks. The
Japanese wanted Russian pupils to examine Japan's economic achievements. The Russians
wanted Japanese pupils to know more about Russian cultural achievements19.
Dr Alim Tetuev, Deputy Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of
Kabardino-Balkarya said history must examine multiple perspectives, but must do so
rigorously. Thus, while regional history teaching was designed to assert and reinforce local
and regional cultural identity, the purpose of this was to give young people a strong sense of
self which was positive and not at the expense of any others. With such self-confidence, the
young people of the region would be able to embrace diversity, democracy and a position in
the wider world without being overwhelmed by the wider world.
IV-B-7- Rewriting History in Textbook of Jewish
Mitchell G. Bard wrote that for the last several years publishers have been pressured
to revise textbooks to better reflect multicultural values. As in the political correctness
debate, in general, Jews have stayed mostly on the sidelines. The result is that distortions of
Jewish history have become a feature of some of the most widely used textbooks and little
effort has been made to monitor or rectify the situation.20
18
News ARAB WORLD, 24 December 2003.
19
Seminar on "How history teaching can strengthen reconciliation, mutual understanding and tolerance in
present-day society", Russian Academy of Education, Moscow: New concepts in history education in secondary
Education www.coe.int/T/F/Coop%E9ration_culturelle/education/
20
Mitchell G. Bard, Rewriting History in Textbooks, www.us-israel.org/jsource/anti-semitism/texts
12
IV-B-8- Writing and Rewriting History in the Context of Balkan Nationalisms
Panayote Elias Dimitras wrote that to mold national consciousness, historians and
other intellectuals in each modern European nation-state have composed an official history
that insisted on the historical continuity of the corresponding nation since “time immemorial”
meaning at least the Middle Ages if not antiquity. In that way, new nationalims almost
immediately began to imagine themselves as “awakening from sleep”. Such an approach was
necessary to define the confines of each new nation, as opposed to all other ones:
“Nationalist movement, therefore, are two folds in nature. First they define and reject a
national other, and then they define and create a national self”.
More recent events are the subject of much distorted historical writing: “Dans les
Balkans, les historiographies chauvines s’affrontent. Quand on lit des oeuvres sur un même
sujet (par exemple les guerres balkaniques ou la seconde guerre mondiale) mais d’auteurs de
différents pays, on est surpris de voir que les mêmes faits peuvent avoir des interpretations
aussi différentes, toujours subjectives et partielles, glorifiantes pour soi-même et déprécatives
voire insultantes pour l’autre”.
Official histories in each nation-state had thus to be “censored” if not outright
distorted versions of often unpleasant reality... “Patriotically oriented historians” are in the
Balkans more popular and more influential than the scientific scholars whose much more
objective historical writings have only a marginal impact. In most Balkan countries, the
guidelines of history teaching are hardly different from those spelled out in Serbia: “We
cannot educate children in the spirit of cosmopolitanism, but in the spirit of patriotism and
love of the homeland. We must plant this great ideology in those little heads”. (Minister of
Education Danilo Z. Markovic, 1993)
Panayote Elias Dimitras wrote in conclusion that the various military conflicts that
have ravaged the Balkans in the last two centuries may have been partly unavoidable, given
the specific historical development of the region’s nationalisms, with so many competing
claims...
This means that history needs to be rewritten once again, but this time, in ways that
will become almost common to all these nations, and will dwell also on so many positive
elements of coexistence among the Balkan nations in peaceful times. Moreover, the media
will have to undertake the role of reeducating the publics in the same constructive way,
rather than fuel hatred.21
21
Cf. Panayote Elias Dimitras, Writing and Rewriting History in the Context of Balkan Nationalisms,
Southeast European Politics, Vol. 1, No. 1, October 2000, p. 41-59.
13
Lesson 2: WHAT IS REGIONAL HISTORY?
I- WHAT IS SOUTHEAST ASIA (REGION)?
The regional history, in term of comparison to Cambodia location, logically refers to
the history of countries in Southeast Asia. Before identifying, the countries that are studying
on, we firstly must understand the term of the region of Southeast Asia. Today they define
Southeast Asia as, from West to East, Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam on the
mainland; together with the Philippine islands, and the islands of Indonesia. This is only a
geographical definition, which does not consider linguistic, cultural, or religious, similarities
and differences. It just includes those modern countries, which are east of India and south of
China, all of which could be called 'Indochina' by Malte Brun in 1852 because they received
strong influences from both India and China in the past. Be noted that before this region was
identified as ‘South-East Asia’ by an American General in 1945, ancient Indian during 3rd
century BC called it as ‘Suvarnnabhumi’ and then Chinese used to call as ‘Kun Lun’ during
their first contacts.
That is not enough to define an area for historical study. We must look for some signs
of objective unity in the area, and explain why certain other places, although geographically
close, are excluded.
For example, if we considered language relationships, we would have to include part
of northeast India, the Khasi area, and perhaps other places in North and Central India where
Munda languages are spoken, parts of southeast China where Thai languages are spoken, and
Taiwan, where the native pre-Chinese languages are related to Austronesian/ Indonesian (see
below on languages)
Some historians have suggested that Ceylon/Sri Lanka should be included in
Southeast Asia, because its most important religion, Theravada Buddhism, is the same
religion as in Burma, Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia. On the contrary, the large island of
Papua-New Guinea (Indonesian Iran Java) is usually excluded from studies of Southeast
Asia, even though is appears geographically close, because of differences in its languages,
economy, culture, and ethnic history (see below)
In prehistoric times, before the beginning of the 1st century AD, most of what is now
South China, south of the Yangtze River, was also culturally and linguistically Southeast
Asia. The original home of the Chinese, and the center of ancient Chinese culture was north
of the Yangtze, and the Chinese did not occupy the region south of the Yangtze until around
1-200 years before AD, and the native languages south of the Yangtze belonged to the
language groups of Southeast Asia, Thai, Austronesian, Mon-Khmer, and Tibeto-Burman
(see below on languages) There are also many groups of people in southern China today who
still speak languages belonging to the Tai and Tibeto-Burman groups. Although there are no
Austronesian or Mon-Khmer speakers in China today, there are some words in Chinese
which were borrowed by Chinese in prehistoric times, proving that perhaps 2-3000 years ago
there were also Mon-Khmer speakers in China south of the Yangtze River.
There are also important geographical connections between South China and
Southeast Asia. Before modern times, when people moved or traded goods with other places,
the best way to travel was by water, either along rivers, or by sea. Roads were much more
14
difficult, and did not replace rivers as the most important routes until the 20th century. There
are many large rivers which connect China to Southeast Asia: (1) The Red (Hong) River from
South China to North Vietnam, (2) the Mekong River from central China through Thailand
Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam; and the northern end of the Mekong is not far from the
Yangtze; (3) the Salween and the Irrawaddy Rivers from South China to Burma. In addition
to the rivers, the spread of the Austronesian languages shows the importance of sea
connections from South China and Taiwan through the islands of Southeast Asia.
The development of travel by sea and navigation technology in prehistoric times by
Southeast Asians, especially the Austronesians, is also different from the Chinese and most
peoples of India. The Chinese were originally an inland people, and did not develop their
own ocean ships until very late, after they began active contact with Southeast Asia.
There were also signs of economic unity between the area of modern Southeast Asia,
and what is now southern China, south of the Yangtze River. It is now believed that wet-rice
cultivation began among those peoples south of the Yangtze who were the linguistic
ancestors of the Austronesians, Mon-Khmer, Tibeto-Burman, and Tai peoples who now
occupy the modern countries of Southeast Asia. This was different from the type of
agriculture of the Chinese north of the Yangtze, who cultivated millet, not rice. That type of
agriculture meant that animals, such as water buffalo, were domesticated, and the increased
production of food caused a growth in population.
An important cultural difference between the peoples of Southeast Asia and the
Chinese is the importance of women in Southeast Asian societies, in which very often
property and rank was inherited through women, not through men, as in Chinese society.
Thus, Southeast Asia may be defined as a large region in which wet-rice agriculture
and sea navigation developed in ancient pre-historic times, and in which the languages, for at
least 5000 years, have been Mon-Khmer, Austronesian, Tibeto-Burman, and Tai. Before
2000 years ago Southeast Asia included China south of the Yangtze River, and perhaps part
of East India (see below on languages) Before 2000-3000 years ago we may say that it did
not include the islands of Indonesia, which were occupied by a different type of people called
Australo-Melanesian, who did not have rice agriculture, but lived by hunting and gathering.
Those islands, except Papua-New Guinea became part of our Southeast Asia after ~hey were
occupied by the people speaking Austronesian languages who moved.-from Taiwan through
the Philippines to the islands of Indonesia, sometime between 3000-2000 B.C.
II- LANGUAGE GROUPS & THE POPULATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIA
II-A- THEORY
All languages change over time. After many centuries a language changes so much
that it would no longer be understood by the original speakers. In fact, it would be a different
language. If different groups of people speaking the original language move apart and live in
different places, their languages will change in different ways, and after several centuries
their languages will be different from the original and different from one another.
Such languages are called members of the same language group, or language family.
This theory developed in Europe in the 19th century where it was easy to compare
living languages with ancient written languages which were no longer spoken, such as Latin,
the spoken language of Italy from several centuries before A.D. to a few centuries after A.D.,
15
and also the official language of the- Roman Empire, and from which many written texts still
exist.
Thus it was easy to understand that French, Spanish, and Italian, for example, had
developed from Latin. Before the 51h-6th centuries A.D. there were no French, Spanish, or
Italian languages, only different kinds of Latin in different provinces of the Roman Empire.
Gradually each dialect of Latin changed to become the new French, Spanish, and Italian
languages. In Europe each stage of the change can be shown in documents from those times.
Latin
Spanish Italian French
The same type of change may be seen if English, German, and Swedish, which
developed from an ancient type of German, called Gothic. The Slavic languages, Russian,
Polish, Czech, Serbian, changed in the same way from ancient Slavic.
When the languages have changed very much from the original language, the
similarities which prove descent from a common ancestor language are found in comparison
of basic vocabulary and grammatical structure.
When the English and French began their involvement in India in the 18th century,
they saw that Sanskrit showed many similarities in vocabulary and grammar with old
European languages such as Latin, Old Slavic and old Greek. This led to a larger theory about
a very ancient language family which is called ‘Indo-European’, including Sanskrit, other old
Indian languages such as Prakrit and Pali, the modern languages of North India, Persian,
Slavic, Germanic, Romance (languages from Latin), and many others. The original ‘Indo-
European’ language must have been spoken many thousand years ago. It is believed that
Indo-European speakers entered India from the Northwest some centuries before A.D.
Thus, it is important to understand that the Indian languages which have influenced
the languages of Southeast Asia such as Khmer, Cham, Javanese, Malay, Thai, and Burmese,
do not have any linguistic relationship to those Southeast Asian languages. Sanskrit, Prakrit,
and Pali are related to the languages of Europe, not to the languages of Asia. The languages
of Southeast Asia have only borrowed many words from Sanskrit.
Indo-European
Sanskrit Prakrit Pali Ancient Greek Latin Old Slavic Old German
Hindi Bengali Urdu Modern Greek Russian, Polish, Czech, German, English
Singhalese (Sri Lanka)
French, Italian, Spanish
It is important to note that there was a time when the people speaking Indo-European
languages had not yet arrived in India, perhaps 3000-4000 years ago. The Indo-Europeans
came from the Northwest, the region of Afghanistan today. Before they arrived India was
16
inhabited by people speaking language of two groups which are still found in India today, the
Dravidians in South India, and the Munda languages, now spoken by small groups of people
in northern, eastern, and central India.
All of the important languages in South India today are Dravidian. Probably the
Dravidians also lived in part of North India before the Indo-Europeans arrived. There are
several Dravidian languages, of 'which the most important, now and in ancient times, is
Tamil. These languages are very different from Sanskrit, and from the languages of Southeast
Asia. We believe that they were the main languages of India before people speaking Sanskrit
entered India. There is very little influence of Dravidian in Southeast Asian languages, in fact
almost none, which is surprising because it is believed that most of the Indian influence in
other fields, such as art, politics, and culture, came from South India. This will be discussed
again when we study ‘Indianization’.
Ancient Dravidian
Tamil Telegu Kanada Malayalam
Southeast Asian languages are not related to the Chinese language family. Chinese,
however, has had very must influence on one Mon-Khmer language, Vietnamese, to the
extent that a very large part of modern Vietnamese vocabulary has been borrowed from
Chinese. This is similar to the borrowing of Sanskrit by other Southeast Asian languages, but
the influence of Chinese in Vietnam was much stronger.
II-B- SOUTHEAST ASIA
The same theory of language families may be applied to Southeast Asia but
comparison is more difficult because there are very few ancient written records.
B.1. Mon-Khmer and Austroasiatic
Perhaps the first recognized language family in Southeast Asia is Mon-Khmer, named
for the two languages which have some old written records, Mon (inscriptions from the 6th
century A.D. in Burma and Thailand) and Khmer (inscriptions from the 7th century A.D.)
When linguists began comparing vocabulary and grammar from Mon, Khmer, and many
languages which are not written, they decided that this family included, in addition to Mon
and Khmer, Vietnamese, many minority languages in Cambodia (pear, Samre, Kuy.
Tampuon. Brao), Laos (Katu, Bru, Khmu), Vietnam (Bahnar, Stieng, Mnong), northern
Thailand, northern Burma (Palaung), Malaysia (Aslian), and Khasi in Northeast India.
Because of the spread of the languages today, and the first inscriptions in Mon and Khmer,
we believe that before about 1000 A.D. people speaking Mon-Khmer languages lived all over
mainland Southeast Asia, and were the main population in southern Burma, central and
southern Thailand, in addition to Cambodia.
Old Mon-Khmer
Khmer Mon Viet Bahnar Kuy Por Khmu Aslia Khasi
Because the languages of the Mon-Khmer family are very different today, they must
17
have begun to split from one another very long ago, perhaps -1000-5000 years ago. And
today it is impossible for a person from one of these groups to understand someone from
another. There is another group of languages in India which are related to Mon-Khmer like
distant cousins. This group of language is called Munda. Mon-Khmer and Munda together
are included in a language family called ‘Austroasiatic’.
Austroasiatic
Mon-Khmer Munda
Probably in ancient times, before the Indo-Europeans arrived in India, the Munda
languages were more important. Thus, the Munda part of India could be considered then as
included in 'Southeast Asia'.
B.2. Austronesian
Already in prehistoric times the Indonesian islands (except New Guinea) were settled
by speakers of Austronesian languages, who beginning 2-3000 years earlier had spread from
the southeast China coast to Taiwan, the Philippines, the Polynesian islands of the Pacific
Ocean, and Madagascar, in addition to Indonesia. Some of them, the Cham, had moved from
Borneo to the Vietnam coast, perhaps around the 1st century A.D.; and later others, the
Malays moved, probably from Sumatra to the Malay Peninsula.
Another important language family is Austronesian. Another name is Malayo-
Polynesian. Comparison of vocabulary and language shows that this family includes (1) all
the languages of Indonesia, (2) all the languages of the Philippines, (3) many languages of the
Polynesian languages in the Pacific Ocean, (4) the languages of the island of Madagascar
near the east coast of Africa, (5) some minority languages on the island of Taiwan, (6) Malay,
(7) Cham.
This spread of the Austronesian languages is evidence of a high level of sea
technology, both construction of ships and navigation among these peoples before there was
any contact with India. If they could sail to the Pacific and to Madagascar, they could
certainly sail to India, and they were probably the leaders of the contact with India which
resulted in the introduction of elements of Indian culture to Southeast Asia. In his explanation
of the development of early Indonesian commerce, O.W. Wolters accepts that Indonesia had
sea contacts, with India before they began trading with China.
Most of these languages have no old writing and the relations among them are based
on comparisons of vocabulary and grammar in the modern languages. According to the
comparisons of these languages, linguists say that about 4500 years ago the people who
spoke Old Austronesian moved from the south China coast to Taiwan. Then around 3500
years ago some of them moved farther to the Philippines, and beginning around 2000 years
ago groups of them moved to the Pacific islands, Indonesia, and much later to Madagascar,
Champa (the coast of Vietnam), and the Malay peninsula. The Chams probably came to
Vietnam around 1000 B.C. Two minority languages which developed from Cham are Jarai
and Rhade in Ratanakiri, Modulkiri and southern Vietnam.
Because all these languages, except Cham and Malay, are on islands, and at great
distances, such as Madagascar and the Pacific Ocean, we may believe that the Austronesians
had very well developed technology is sailing and navigating. If they could sail to
18
Madagascar and the Pacific islands, they could easily sail to Indian and China. This is
important in order to understand the problem of influence from India in Southeast Asia (next
lesson).
Note that there are no Mon-Khmer languages on the islands, and no Austronesian
languages on the mainland except Cham and Malay, near the coast, and which probably came
late.
B.3. Thai
The third important language family in Southeast Asia is Thai, which includes
perhaps 300 languages and dialects. Different from Mon-Khmer there is a high level of
comprehension among the Thai languages, which means they began to split later than the
Mon-Khmer languages. Thai languages are the official modern languages of Thailand, and
Laos, other dialects in Thailand, especially in the North, some languages in Northwest
Vietnam, southern China, and the Shan states in northeast Burma.
Linguists today believe that the original Thai language was spoken in an area which is
now in northern Vietnam and Southeast China. About 2000 years ago groups of people from
this area began to move in different directions, into Laos, northern Thailand, Burma, India,
and farther into South China. As they moved their languages changed, becoming the modern
Thai languages.
Probably Thai speakers reached what is now central Thailand around 1000 A.D., and
then slowly moved farther South, into places inhabited by Mon and Khmer. Eventually Thai
replaced Mon and Khmer in most of Thailand.
B.4. Tibeto-Burma
This language family is not very important in studying the history of Cambodia.
It includes Burmese, Tibetan, and many small minority languages in northern Burma,
northern Thailand, and southern China.
B.5. Papuan-Australian-Melanesian
These are the languages of Papua-New Guinea (Indonesian Iran Java), some other
islands near New Guinea, and the Australian peoples who lived there about 40,000 years
before Europeans arrived. These languages are not all one family, but they are very different
from the Southeast Asian language groups, and they are one reason why New Guinea is not
usually studied as part of Southeast Asia.
Probably people speaking these languages lived on some of the Indonesian islands
before the Austronesians arrived. After the Austronesians arrived most of the Papuan-
Melanesian people disappeared because of intermarriage and assimilation, or because they
moved away, for example to New Guinea. There are still a few Papuan languages in the
eastern islands of Indonesia, for example, on Timor.
It must be understood that all of these names, and this theory of languages families,
only refer to languages. They do not mean races, nor ethnic groups defined by physical
appearance, or culture.
In the old history books about Southeast Asia, it is said that several different types of
people, defined by physical appearance, one by one moved out of South China, through
19
Mainland Southeast Asia to the Indonesian islands, and then on to Australia. Thus the first
group was the Australoids, who now live in Australia, but have disappeared from Southeast
Asia. Then they became Indonesians, who went through the mainland to the island and
pushed the Australoids out. Some of the Indonesians remained on the mainland as the Cham
and Malays. After that the Mon-Khmer arrived. They occupied the mainland, and pushed
most of the Indonesians to the islands. Finally the Thai came after the Mon-Khmer.
This old theory was not based on comparison of languages, but on a belief that each
of these peoples was a different ethnic group.
The most important difference between the ethnic theory and the theory of language
groups concerns the Austronesians or Indonesians. According to language comparison, the
Austronesians, including the Indonesians, moved by sea, and probably reached the
Indonesian islands when the Mon-Khmer already occupied the mainland. Then the Chams
came by sea from one of the islands, perhaps Borneo, to the coast of Vietnam, where Mon-
Khmer people were living. But according to the ethnic theory the Austronesians came
overland from South China, to what is now Thailand, Vietnam, and Cambodia, and then went
on to the islands.
For scholars today the language theory is more accepted than the ethnic group theory.
20
Lesson 3: PRE-HISTORY OF SEA AND CAMBODIA
I- THE FIRST HUMANS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
Note that the explanations of population movements, ethnic groups and languages
found in most textbooks, such as George Coedes, The Indianized States of Southeast Asia, are
obsolete, because much new archaeological and linguistic research has been done in the last
30 years. On these subjects you should not pay attention to Coedes or to other old books, or
to writings based on Coedes.
A new summary of these subjects, which I have used for these notes, is Peter
Bellwood, “Southeast Asia Before History”, in The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia.
Certainly there were people in Southeast Asia before there was Mon-Khmer or
Austronesians. No one thinks that the islands of Indonesia were empty, with no people,
before the Austronesians arrived.
The first human beings evolved in Africa between 1 and 2 million years ago, and they
spread from Africa to other parts of the world. The first humans arrived in Southeast Asia
about 1 million years ago. There were two different types of humans who came to Southeast
Asia, (1) Homo [‘man’] Erectus [‘standing up’], and (2) Homo Sapiens [‘know’]. All people
in the world today are Homo Sapiens.
Archaeologists working in Indonesia and China many years ago discovered bones
which looked like humans but were many hundred thousand years old, they thought. Some of
these bones belonged to a creature which was different from modern humans. They were
Homo Erectus, and they spread into many parts of Asia before real humans. There are two
theories about what happened next: (1) each of those groups of pre-human" Homo Erectus
developed into humans (Homo Sapiens), (2) real humans appeared in Africa and then spread,
to the rest of the world, and the pre-humans disappeared. The first real settlements of humans
discovered by archeologists in Southeast Asia are about 40,000 years old and the skeletons
and skulls found there show that they were Homo Sapiens.
Those first people did not look like modern Southeast Asians. They were a different
physical ethnic group, or race. Prehistorians call them Australo-Melanesians, and believe that
they looked like the people who today live in Papua-New Guinea, and the natives of
Australia. These people have very dark skin and curly hair, and the shape of their faces is
very different from modern Southeast Asians. Perhaps between 20,000-40,000 years ago they
lived in all of what is now Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Indonesia before the
ancestors of the modern people arrived. From Southeast Asia some of them went to Australia
at that time. Their languages were probably the ancestor languages of the languages of Papua
and Irian Java, or to the native languages of Australia.
It is believed that these ancient Australo-Melanesians did not know agriculture, but
lived by hunting and gathering wild fruit and plants in the forests. Thus, there populations
would have been small, and much of the territory in which they lived would have been empty
of people.
21
At that time, between 20,000 and 40,000 years ago, the level of the ocean was much
lower than now, and there was land which connected Thailand, Cambodia and Malaysia with
some of the islands of Indonesia; and there was also land, connecting New Guinea with
Australia, and very short sea distances from Java to other islands in the East. This land is
called the Sunda Shelf. Thus we believe that the native people of Australia could have easily
traveled from Southeast Asia to Australia, mostly by land between 20,000 and 40,000 years
ago.
After 18,000 years ago the sea level began to rise, and for the last 7,000 years the sea
level has been just as it is now.
Most people in Southeast Asia now belong to a second race of physical group which
pre-historians call ‘Southern Mongoloid’. Thus, most Burmese, Thai, Khmer, Cham,
Indonesians, and Vietnamese look very much alike, and it is impossible to distinguish them
only by physical appearance. Prehistorians believe that the Southern Mongoloid race
developed in southern China, south of the Yangtze River, that is, the part of China where the
people speaking ancestor languages of Austronesian, Mon-Khmer, Thai, and Tibeto-Burman
lived many thousand years ago.
After the Southern Mongoloid peoples developed rice agriculture, they began to
expand their territory southwards. Agriculture produces more food than hunting and
gathering, and after ancient people learned agriculture, their populations increased. The
growing populations meant that they could expand and occupy new territory. When they
reached the lands occupied by the Australo-Melanesians, they may have assimilated them
through intermarriage, which was easy because the numbers of Australo-Melanesians was
much smaller. Finally, the Southern Mongoloids occupied all of what is now Southeast Asia,
and the Australo-Melanesians are only found in Papuan-New Guinea.
Perhaps one reason that the Austronesians could not occupy New Guinea was because
the Papuans there had developed their own type of agriculture around 6000 years ago, not
based on rice, but on taro, sugar cane and bananas. Thus the population was too large to be
dominated by the Austronesians.
II- CULTURE OF CAMBODIAN PRE-HISTORICAL PERIOD
No one knows for certain how long people have lived in what is now Cambodia,
where they came from, or what languages they spoke before writing was introduced, using an
Indian-style alphabet, around the third century A.D.Carbon-14 dates from a cave at Laang
Spean in northwestern Cambodia, however, suggest that people who knew how to make pots
lived in the cave as early as 4290 B.C. Another cave, near the ocean, was inhabited about a
thousand years later. Presumably the first Cambodians arrived long before either of these
dates; evidence of a more primitive, pebble-working culture has been found in the eastern
parts of the country. Skulls and human bones found at Samrong Sen, inhabited since around
1500 B.C. suggest that these prehistoric Cambodians resembled Cambodians today, after
account is made for recent infusions of Chinese and Vietnamese blood.
Whether the early people came originally from China, India, or island Southeast Asia
is still debated by scholars, and so are theories about waves of different peoples moving
through the region in prehistoric times. But recent finds suggest that mainland Southeast Asia
had a comparatively sophisticated culture in the prehistoric era; some scholars even attribute
22
the first cultivation of rice and the first bronze-casting to the region. In any case, it is likely
that by the beginning of the Christian era the inhabitants of Cambodia spoke languages
related to present-day Cambodian, or Khmer. Languages belonging to the Mon-Khmer family
are found widely scattered over mainland Southeast Asia, as well as in some of the islands
and in parts of India. Modern Vietnamese, although heavily influenced by Chinese, is a
distant cousin. It is impossible to say when these languages split off from one another; some
linguists believe that the split took place several thousand years ago. Unlike the other national
languages of Southeast Asia, then aside from Vietnamese-Khmer is not a newcomer to the
area. This continuity is one of many that strike students of Cambodia's past. What is
interesting about the cave at Laang Spean is not merely that it was inhabited, on and off, for
so long—the most recent carbon-14 date from the cave is from the ninth century A.D. but that
the methods used to make pottery found at the earliest level, and the patterns incised on them,
have remained unchanged for perhaps six thousand years.
The "changelessness" of Cambodian history was often singled out by the French, who
in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw themselves as introducing change and
civilization to the region. Ironically, this theme was picked up by Pol Pot's revolutionary
regime, which claimed that Cambodians were asleep or enslaved for two thousand years.
Both points of view ignore a great deal of evidence; arguably, the revolution of the 1970s was
the fifth Cambodia has undergone since prehistoric times. But pre-revolutionary Cambodians
were less contemptuous of tradition. “Don't choose a straight path,” a Cambodian proverb
tells us. “And don't reject a winding one. Choose the path your ancestors have trod.” Part of
this conservatism, perhaps, is characteristic of a subsistence-oriented society, in which
experimentation can lead to famine and in which techniques of getting enough to eat are
passed from one generation to the next.
We know very little about the daily lives of Cambodians in prehistoric times; we do
know that their diet, like the diet of Cambodians today, included a good deal of fish. It seems
likely that their houses, from an early date, were raised above the ground and made accessible
by means of ladders. Clothing was not especially important; early Chinese accounts refer to
the Cambodians as "naked." After about 1000 B.C., perhaps, they lived in fortified villages,
often circular in form, similar to those inhabited nowadays by some tribal peoples in
Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. The Cambodians, like other early inhabitants of the region,
had domesticated pigs and water buffalo fairly early, and they grew varieties of rice and root-
crops by the so-called slash-and-burn method, common throughout the tropics as well as in
medieval Europe. These early people probably passed on many of their customs and beliefs
to later inhabitants of the region, although we cannot be sure of this, for there are dangers of
reading back into prehistoric and early Cambodia what we can see among so-called primitive
tribes or twentieth-century peasants. We cannot be sure that these modern customs have not
changed over time. Hairstyles, for example, changed dramatically in Cambodia as recently as
the early eighteenth century, and in the 1970s they were changed again by the revolutionary
regime.
All the same, it is unlikely that certain elements of Cambodian life and thinking, especially in
the countryside, have changed a great deal since Angkorean times (ninth to mid-fifteenth
centuries) or even over the last few thousand years. These elements might include the village
games played at the lunar new year; the' association of ancestor spirits (nak ta) with stones,
the calendar, and the soil; the belief in water spirits, or dragons; the idea that tattoos protect
the wearer; and the custom of chewing betel, to name a few. (David Chandler 2003: 1-10)
23
II-A- PRE-HISTORICAL SITES -sSanIy_buerRbvtþisa®sþ
-lðags<an–át´dMbg-4290.BC
-PMñk,alrmas–kMBt-3420.BC
-ERBkqøÚg–PUmimUl–1500BC .Rkec¼/.kMBg´cam
-sMeragEsn–kMBg´qñaMg1280 BC
-møÚéRB–RB¼vihar-300 BC
-ERss,Úv–Rkec¼-500000 BC
II-B- DISCOVERED MATERIALS -«bkrN_eRbIRás´RbcaMéf¶
eKrkeXIjmanrbs´rbrCaeRcIndUcCa.½.BUefA/.dwg(FatuCaeRcIn)/.fU/.PaCn_/.qñaMg/.
kaMbiT/lMEBg/.EpøkeNÐóv/keBa¢I/.c,Úk/.sñ/.EpøsnÞÚc/.Bum<sμiteFVIBIelahFaturwg/.BnøÜjRsYc.
nig BnøÜj man egog / .Rtl´/ .Rksal´/ .FüÚg / . sMNl´ pÞ¼áy/ .nig sMbk xüg RKMu . CaedIm .(enA
sMeragEsn)>
II-C- LIVINGS -CIvPaBmnusßExμr
mnusßbuerRbvtþiec¼eFVIERsvsßa/.ensaT/.bráj´stV/.pßaMgstV.nigeRbIRás´/.daMáy
hUb/.t,ajsMBt´sRmab´esøók/.lmðkayedayeRKOgGlg;ar/.ec¼eRbITUk.nigRbKMut®nþI
II-D- BELIEFS -CMenOrbs´mnusßExμr
-CIvclniym--Animism .edaysareKkb´sB.edaymandak´tgVayepßg@mankðm.¦BYc .vtSú
eRbI Rás´ /.nig Esn k,al RCUk .ehIy man dak´ kak´mas mYy snøwk enA kñúg mat´ . nig bMBak´ eRKOg
Glg;ar [exμac> . sB xø¼ . RtUv kb´ eday dak´ kñúg kþarmÄÚs / .kñúg reNþA sB xø¼ . bgHaj BI kar eKarB
lig:.nigRBlwgdUnta.nigkareKarBcMeBa¼rUgPMñ.¦Kuha>
II-E- MENTAL DEVELOPMENT-karvivtþn_énpñt´KMnit
eKec¼KUrKMnUr lmðedayeRbIBN’/.enAelIkulalPaCn_.nigrUgPMñ/.ykrUgPMñCalMenA—enA
lðags<an/.PMñk,alrmas–eRkaymkpøas´eTArs´enAtMbn´valTMnab—møÚéRB/.sMeragEsn--sg´
pÞ¼elIkCnÞl´/.pßaMgstV.nigkardaMdu¼.edIm,Irkßaes,ógbRmugTuk>
eKec¼eFVIERsvsßaedaymanKMniteFVIneyaáyTwk--sñamERBkCIkbrmburaN/.ec¼eRbIeKa
RkbI . sRmab´ CYy CakmøaMg GUs Taj / . ec¼ eRbITUk eFVI navacrN_ enA tMbn´ TMnab lic Twk . nig ec¼ sø
24
elahFatueFVI«bkrN_sRmab´eRbIRás´>
II-F- CONCLUSION-esckþIsnñidæan
-enAelITwkdIen¼.manvtþmanCnCatiedImmkrs´enAtaMgBIyUryarNas´mkehIy.EdlmanGayu
y¨agehac4290qñaMmunK¿s¿>.ebIEpðktamCMenO/.RbéBNITMenomTmøab´.nigpñt´KMnit/.rYmTaMgkar
G¼Gagrbs´GñkRáCJáraMg.fa ²sg:mExμrkñúgry£eBlrab´Ban´qñaMrhUtdl´karmkdl´rbs´ áraMg.
mankarpøas´bþÚr.¦ERbRbYltictYcNas´³>.emø¨a¼ehIyCnCatiedImTaMgena¼.KYrEtCabuBVbursrbs´
CnCatiExμrsBVéf¶en¼>.GriyFm’edImen¼.manlkçN£RsedogKñanwgGriyFm’rbs´CnCatiedImenA
kñúgtMbn´GasuIGaeKñy_dIeKak.nigdIeka¼TaMgmUl>
25
RbPB ½.RtaeN/ .mIEsl .(1996)/ .Rbvtþisa®sþ km<úCa .BI buBV sm&y dl´ stvtßTI 8/ .PMñeBj/
.eragBum<dMrIs>
BISHOP, Paul; PENNY, Dan; STARK, Miriam and SCOTT, Marian (2003) “Record of
Paleoenvironments and Human Occupation at Angkor Borei, Mekong Delta,” Southern
Cambodia, Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, Vol. 18, No. 3, 359–39 (2003), Wiley
Periodicals Inc., Published online in Wiley Interscience.
26
III- LATE PREHISTORY AND THE TRANSITION TO HISTORY
The best new archaeological work in Southeast Asia has been done in Thailand,
Vietnam, the Malay Peninsula and Indonesia. We must give attention to some of the best-
known sites, where it is possible to make connections between archaeology, languages, and
the true historical period.
In Northeast Thailand archaeologists have found the remains of ancient settlements
showing rice agriculture, good pottery, and metal, especially bronze. The best-known place is
called Ban Chiang, where excavations show settlement from about 3000 B.C. until after A.D.
Probably, the people living there spoke Mon-Khmer or Austroasitic languages, because the
Thai did not arrive until after 1000 A.D.
In Vietnam there are two prehistoric cultures which you should know, (1) Dong Son
in the North, and Sa Huynh along the coast of central Vietnam. Dong-Son is famous for its
large bronze drums, which they began to make around 600 B.C. It is now certain that the
Dong-Son culture developed from earlier societies in the same place, and was not brought
into Vietnam by foreigners, as the first European historians believed. Besides drums, the
Dong-Son people made many weapons and tools of bronze, and the drums were exported as
far as Indonesia until at least the 3rd century A.D. In that time period, 600 B.C. to 300 A.D. it
is certain that the people in area of Dong-Son in northern Vietnam spoke Mon-Khmer or Tai
languages.
The Sa-Huynh culture of central Vietnam is famous for large pottery jars which were
used for burials between about 600 B.C. and 500 A.D. The Sa-Huynh pottery shows some
similarity with pottery in the Philippines, and it is almost certain that the Sa-Huynh people
were Cham, with an Austronesian language, which originally came from some place in
Indonesia.
27
In several places in prehistoric Southeast Asia they knew how to build with stone,
long before any influence from India. This means that when the first Hindu and Buddhist
temples were built, they could have been made by Southeast Asians, who had learned Indian
ideas. They were not necessarily made by Indians. There are many of these stone buildings in
Sumatra, in Java and in Bali. Most of them were stone rooms or buildings made for burials of
the dead, that is, they were a type of religious architecture, like the temple built later under
Indian influence.
IV- HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS
There are two main types of written source documents, true historical documents
which are more or less contemporary with the time and place being studied, written by people
of that place. In most of Southeast Asia this means inscriptions on stone or on metal plates.
Another type of document, which is generally called proto-historical, is writings more or less
contemporary with the place and events being studied, but written by people from some other
place according to what they saw while visiting the place under study, or heard about it
indirectly. This type of source is very important for much of Southeast Asia, and generally
consists of Chinese reports about, or histories of various places in Southeast Asia, during
times when there are no, or few, good local sources. Later, in the 16th—19th centuries writing
by the first Europeans that visit Southeast Asia serve the same purpose.
A third type of written source, which is usually called historical, although it is
Second-degree historical, is evidence in later writings in a certain place, about the distant past
of that place. An example is the references to pre-Angkor Cambodia (6th—8th centuries)
found in Angkor-period inscriptions (l0th _13th centuries). One more type of written source
which is widespread in Southeast Asia are chronicles written on perishable material (palm
leaves or paper), and which, because of the climate and poor preservation techniques, do not
last more than 200 years, and must be recopied. Such chronicles for Cambodia and Thailand
pretend to begin with the history of their countries in the 14th century, but almost all existing
editions were written in the 19th century, or late 18th century, and for the time between the
14th and 16th centuries do not seem to be reliable. For the period in which they were last
written or recopied, and for 1-200 years before that, they may be considered true historical
sources, but for earlier periods they may record only unreliable legends.
For the early history of Cambodia, the hierarchy of written sources, from most to least
reliable is (1) contemporary inscriptions in Khmer, (2) contemporary inscriptions in Sanskrit,
(3) contemporary Chinese and European writings about Cambodia, (4) non-contemporary
local inscriptions (Angkor-period inscriptions referring to earlier periods), (5) post-
Angkorean chronicles.
28
Lesson 4: INDIAN AND CHINESE INFLUENCES IN S.E.A.
I. INDIA
Since the first Europeans began to visit Southeast Asia several different theories have
been offered to explain the Indian influences, which were easily visible in the Hindu and
Buddhist and examples of Indian script in the inscriptions, even before those inscriptions
could be read. After the inscriptions were studied, more Indian influence was seen in the use
of Sanskrit by itself, and of specialized Sanskrit vocabulary in the inscriptions in Southeast
Asian languages. Indian influence is thus found in script (all the written Southeast Asian
languages except Vietnamese), language, religion, sculpture, and architecture.
It should be noted that there was no current, coherent, Southeast Asian explanation for
the Indian influence. There were the ancient traditions about a prince from overseas who
arrived and married a (local) princess many centuries before there is any historical evidence,
but even if that particular story were true, it would not explain the types of Indian influence
which exist. There are also several old Southeast Asian versions of a story that King Asoka,
some 300 years B.C., sent Buddhist missionaries to Southeast Asia (Suvarnabhumi). That
story too, even if true, which most historians now doubt, would not explain the existing
evidence of Indian influence, most of which is not Buddhist. Neither was there any traditional
explanation from India. No records in India describe either conquest or settlement of Indians
in Southeast Asia.
The first European theories concerned conquests in Southeast Asia by Indians, either
(1) by a group of Indians led by their ruler, who, defeated in war with a rival, decided to
resettle overseas, or (2) Indians led by a prince or king looking for adventure and riches
overseas, who took many of his people to establish a colony in Southeast
Asia.
Two Dutch scholars of Indonesia who pointed out the weaknesses of these theories
were: F.K.D. Bosch, "The Problem of Hindu Colonization of Indonesia", published in 1961,
and J.C. Van Leur, Indonesian Trade and Society, written in the 1930s.
The weaknesses of the colonization theories are (1) most of them concerned events in
India several centuries before the first signs of Indian influence in Southeast Asia. That is,
they imply that Indians came to Southeast Asia and established Indian type societies which
did not leave any remains for several centuries; (2) If there had been a real colonization, there
should be some record of it in an inscription; (3) if real Indian colonies had been established
over Southeast Asian societies, we would expect that the Indian caste system would have
been established, but no Southeast Asian society adopted that caste system, (4) the only
Indian language which left its influence in Southeast Asia is Sanskrit, and even in the last
centuries before A.D. Sanskrit was not a general spoken language in India, but a written
language known only to religious specialists. If an Indian society had been established in
Southeast Asia, we would see the influence of Indian spoken languages, such as Old Tamil
from the South, or Prakrit from the North.
The next theories about Indian influence attributed it to Indian traders who sailed to
Southeast Asia, established trading settlements, married local women, and spread Indian
cultural influence through the mixed society which developed. This theory was accepted by
George Cœdes in his book, The Indianized States of Southeast Asia, and it is found in most of
29
the modern histories which have followed Cœdès. The weaknesses of this theory were shown
especially by Van Leur. First is the question of language. Indian merchants would not have
known Sanskrit, and if they had started a mixed society, their Indian spoken languages would
have spread in Southeast Asia, not Sanskrit. Neither did merchants know how to build Hindu
or sculpt images, which are the clearest signs of Indian influence. Furthermore, trading
settlements were established near seaports, while all of the great centers with Indian-type and
many inscriptions are inland, where foreign traders would not have settled. And in the
important Southeast Asian states which are believed to have flourished by trade, such as
Funan in Cambodia and Srivijaya in Sumatra, there are very few remains of inscriptions or
temples.
According to Van Leur, the only group of Indians who could have introduced those
specific influences was the Brahmans, the religious specialists.
Then arises the question, why did Indian Brahmans come to Southeast Asia? Some
people suggested that the Brahmans were brought by the Indian traders who needed them to
carry out Hindu rituals. Van Leur rejected this idea, again noting that the great centers of
obvious Indian influence are not in the ports, but inland.
Van Leur proposed that Indian brahmans came to Southeast Asia on the invitation of
Southeast Asian kings, prince~ or other leaders. The Southeast Asian leaders would have
heard of brahmans from traders, who said that the brahmaris possessed powerful rituals and
magic. So the Southeast Asian kings invited Brahmans to their courts to carry out rituals to
increase the power of the local king, and to enhance his city with Indian decor. Thus the
brahmans taught Sanskrit, and instructed local craftsmen in Indian sculpture and architecture.
There are also weaknesses in van Leur's theory. First, all the Southeast Asia Hindu
and Buddhist are constructed differently from Indian , and mix style from different places in
India, as well as styles which are not at all Indian and must correspond to old Southeast Asian
styles of construction. Indian brahmans would have insisted to doing everything as in India.
Second, van Leur's idea, like all previous theories, assumed that it was Indians who
were the important actors, as navigators, traders, and initiators of all contacts. Pre-historians
now, however, doubt that there was any important Indian navigation and sea contact with
Southeast Asia before the Chola period (9th_13th centuries A.D.), and most of the Chinese
reports of trade and religious contact with Southeast Asia during the 3rd-12th centuries
emphasize that the ships and sailors were from Southeast Asia, not from India or China. As I
emphasized in the lecture on languages, the spread of the Austronesian languages proves that
those peoples had a high level of sea technology in pre-historic times, and we must now
assume that they led the sea contacts with India from before the time of the first written
records and the first signs of Indian influence.
Thus the Southeast Asian rulers may have invited some Indian brahmans, but they
knew about India from their own sailors who went there, probably taking members of the
Southeast Asian ruling groups who were curious about India. Some of these people stayed to
learn Sanskrit, observed the construction of and images, and when they returned home, they
applied and adapted what they had learned in India to their own conceptions. This accounts
for the non-Indian ways in which Indian traits were adapted and mixed in Southeast Asia.
30
II. CHINA
Maritime networks, based on Chinese desire for imports, determined development and
decline of several Southeast Asian states. Important modern histories are wirtten by:
- Wang Gungwu, The Nanhai Trade
- O.W. Wolters, Early Indonesian Commerce and The Fall of Srivijaya in Malay History
II-A- CHINESE CONTACTS WITH THE INDO-CHINA COAST AND FUNAN
Given Southeast Asians, especially the Austronesian speakers were already in contact
by sea with all of Southeast Asia, the Pacific, Madagascar, and presumably India since
prehistoric times.
- Elements of Chinese history:
Chinese origins were in the far north, and inland, beyond the Yangtze River;
economically and culturally agrarian. They had very early writing (from 2000 B.C.), on
oracle bones, bronzes, then paper and books; much is well presented.
Dynastic histories: Each new dynasty wrote up the history of their immediate
predecessors, including various subjects based on various reports included in the old
histories, such as foreign affairs. Sometimes there are repetitions and misplaced stories, and
insertions of legends and rumors, especially about those places the Chinese considered exotic.
Thus the story of Funan origins is repeated several times.
South of the Yangtze was not Chinese until the 2-1 centuries BC. People were
Southeast Asian, Tai, still now, in the South and Southeast; Tibeto-Burman in the Southwest;
Mon-Khmer, and Austronesian. The Chinese called those along the coast and in the Southeast
'Yueh=Viet', but this does not mean that they were the ancestors of the Vietnamese. The Yueh
areas now have Tai as the main minority population. There were several kinds of Yueh
according to the Chinese. Tongking (North Vietnam) was Lac/Lo Yueh, and along the central
coast were Min Yueh. The Yueh were famous as coastal sailing and trading people, going
along the coast northward to Chinese areas (like Southeast Asian voyages to India).
The first unification of the South with the north was in the 2nd-3rd centuries B.E. to
1st century A.D. under the Ch'in and Han dynasties. The Chinese did not try to go beyond
what is now North Vietnam. They wanted southern luxuries, ivory, rhino horns, pearls, rare
wood, forest resins, and other things which they knew from previous overland trade with
India and the Middle East.
The Han period ended in the 1st c. A.D. and in the 3rd century China was divided into
three large kingdoms. The southern/southeastern kingdom, Wu, needed increasing trade via
sea, because they were cut off from all the old overland routes westward. This was the time
'when the Chinese made their first contact with Funan; and wrote the first extant reports about
Funan.
The main route was along the coasts from Canton via Giao-Chi, Lin-yi, Champa,
Funan, then across the Gulf of Siam to the peninsula (Tun-sun) The Chinese themselves did
not go beyond Giao-Chi. for the rest they relied on Southeast Asian shipping. Some of the
Southeast Asian people involved 'were known as Kun-Lun. Gungwu, p. 65, says that Kun-
Lun people from the south were used as interpreters when the Chinese went to Taiwan. Thus
they were probably Austronesians.
31
In the 5th century a direct route from Indonesia to China began to be used. This is
mentioned in the book of a Chinese Buddhist monk, Fa-Hsien, who wrote of returning from
India and sailing directly from Indonesia to China. He said there were no Chinese in Ceylon
or Indonesia, and the ships were not Chinese. Still in the 5th-6th century the Funan route was
the more important. It went from Funan to the peninsula and across, not through the straits.
In the 7th century another route by-passing Funan was reported from Ch'ih-T'u, near
Lang-ya hsü, probably near Songkhla and its Tale Sap; and at the same time the direct route
from Indonesia to China became most important, and from mid-7th century there are no more
Chinese references to Funan.
Gungwu (p. 114-5), on the negligible impact of China on Southeast Asian culture, he
says, because of the passive role of the Chinese and the active role of the Southeast Asians.
He thought this was contrary to the active role of the Indians in Southeast Asia; but Southeast
Asians were active there too, more than Indians. The reason for lack of Chinese impact is
more likely because Southeast Asians were in contact with India from a time when Chinese
had not crossed the Yangtze, and their cultural borrowing habits were already set. Moreover,
the Chinese were also interested in receiving from India. There was an ‘Indianization’ of
China in religion; but less sign of it because the Chinese already had their own writing, they
translated Sanskrit rather than adapting it.
Giao-Chi was the only part of Southeast Asia to be Sinicized. It was the most
important province in the South, more important than Canton. It was heavily settled by both
ordinary and elite Chinese from the North. It was a mixed society, with heavy Chinese
influence, writing, and language (different from Indic Southeast Asia).
II-B- CHINESE CONTACTS WITH INDONESIA
The first records are from the 5th century, naming such places as Ho-lo-tan, Ko-Ying,
then later Ho-Ling, Kan-T'o-Li, etc. After the early 7th century the direct route from
Indonesia to China replaced the Funan route. Gungwu said two reasons, disturbances in
Funan and better sailing technology. This is unlikely. The Austronesians had adequate
technology from prehistoric times, and disturbance in Funan, if any, were probably because
of economic disturbances caused by the decline in trade.
O.W. Wolters has explained the development of Chinese-Indonesian contact in Early
Indonesian Commerce. He says Indonesia had its own contacts with India from pre-historic
times (remember the Austronesians going as far as Madagascar), before much contact with
China. There were certain products from the Middle East which the Chinese knew as Po-sseu
(persia) The Indonesians first began sending them to China, then discovered that many of
these products, or acceptable substitutes could be Coundin Indonesia, and their trade
developed with this substitution of phony Po-sseu. (Gungwu also says some Po-sseu goods
must have come from Southeast Asia), and the Chinese continued to call them Po-sseu. In the
5th - 6th centuries many Indonesians places are named by the Chinese: Ho-Io-tan, Ko-Ying,
Kan-T'o-li, Tan-tan, Lang-ya-su, P'an-P'an, Chih-Tu, Mo-lo-yu. But by the end of the 7th
century, Ho-Ling dominated in Java and Shih-li-fo-shih (Srivijaya) in Sumatra.
In general, during this first period of reported Chinese trade contact with Southeast
Asia, shipping and trading were dominated by non-Chinese, probably Southeast Asians, and
this was preferred by Chinese governments, who did not encourage Chinese involvement
overseas. In such a situation the Chinese also preferred to deal with a single overseas center.
32
This encouraged consolidation in Southeast Asia after periods of competition among
Southeast Asian polities, especially in Indonesia. Funan was the first known preferred center,
from the 3rd to 6th century; then there was competition among numerous Indonesian polities
as the direct route developed, and different ports competed in sending envoys to gain favor in
China for their trade. By the 7th century most of those ports disappeared from Chinese
records, while a major port each in Sumatra and Java remained dominant in the Chinese
trade.
Modern historians have usually called the major Sumatran port state Srivijaya, but in
fact that name only appears in Chinese records in the 670s, and again in 742, and in local
inscriptions in Sumatra at the same time. Later, other names, apparently in Sumatra appear in
Chinese records, such as Mo-lo-yu, and from early 10th century to end of the 12th century,
San-fo-chi. Nevertheless, the ports of Sumatra collectively represented a single trading state
for the Chinese from the 7th to the 13th century.
In Sumatra during this time the main religion was Buddhism; and Chinese monks
were advised to study there for some time before going on to India.
Sumatra not only had close relations with China, but also with India, including with
the Chola kingdom in South India which became important as a new sea power from the 9th
to 13th century; although the Chola fleet was perhaps powerful only between India and the
peninsula, while Southeast Asian ships dominated east of the peninsula and in the China Sea.
In Wolters' second book, The Decline of Śrivijaya, he presents an explanation of
development and decline of Southeast Asian states according to changes in Chinese policy.
Above we have noted the change of route from Funan to Indonesia, and the consolidation of
Indonesian ports between the 5th and 7th centuries.
In the 12th century the preferred Chinese system broke down when the Mongols
conquered North China in 1127, during the Sung Dynasty which had unified all China. South
China remained under the Southern Sung until 1279. During that time the Southern Sung
country which was very rich, desired even more foreign products after being cut off from all
overland routes westward.
Thus the Southern Sung broke with tradition and for the first time encouraged active
Chinese shipping and foreign trading. The new Chinese maritime fleet sailed into Southeast
Asia, ignoring the central ports which had dominated trade with China, going anywhere that
desired products were available at the best prices. Thus competition increased among
Southeast Asian ports. When the Mongols conquered the Southern Sung in 1279 they
continued the same policy until the) were overthrown in 1368. The economy of the central
Sumatran port declined as others developed. For example new names in Chinese records
during this time include ‘Sien’, the future Ayutthaya in Thailand, several ports on the
Javanese coast, while the main Sumatran port declined. This is also the time of Chou Ta-
kuan’s mission to Angkor (1290s), as a representative of the Mongol government, sent
especially to develop trade. The Mongol period was also the first period of Chinese
aggression farther South than North Vietnam. They sent armies to Champa, and a fleet with
soldiers to Java. These Mongol attacks were defeated, but they remained active in trade.
In 1368 a new Chinese dynasty, the Ming, replaced the Mongols. The first Ming
emperor intended to revive the old system, that is, insist on all trade being carried by
foreigners in foreign ships, with Chinese forbidden, and development of a central Southeast
33
Asian port recognized by China. This encouraged more competition as Southeast Asian ports
competed to become the favorite port of China. Srivijaya was already gone, and the main
competitors were Sien on the Gulf of Thailand, Malacca in Malaysia, and one or more ports
in Java. Malacca won, and in 1403-4 the last great Chinese fleet, under Admiral Cheng Ho
sailed to Southeast Asia and recognized Malacca as China's main trading partner.
Change in Cambodia is also observable during this period, especially after the
beginning of the Ming government. There was a slow movement of economic center toward
the South. Between 1370 and 1420 there were many missions recorded from Cambodia to
China, probably coming from ports on the Mekong south of Phnom Penh; and between 1431
and 1445 the political center of Cambodia also left Angkor and moved to new places in
southern Cambodia.
34
Lesson 5: THE PROTO-HISTORICAL PERIOD AND THE FIRST LOCAL
WRITTEN RECORDS
The purpose of this topic is to provide brief outline proto-histories of the countries
surrounding Cambodia up to approximately 1000 A.D., the early Angkor period, in order
that, where necessary, some comparison may be made with them when studying Cambodia in
more detail.
I- FUNAN AND PROTO-HISTORY
In the 3rd century, the Wu government in China needed more sea contact with
Southeast Asia to get valuable foreign products because the old land route to India was
blocked by two other states in the West and North. The first contact with Funan was in 230-
240, when two Chinese officials were sent to look for ports in Southeast Asia.
The name 'Funan is found only in Chinese, not in Cambodian inscriptions. The French
historians translated ‘Funan’ as ‘mountain’ (=Phnom), Modern Khmer ‘P’(Phnom) replaced
or derived from ‘V’ in Old Khmer (Vnam).
At that time Funan was not yet in contact with India, but Funan had ships and
controlled many ports around the coast of Champa, Cambodia, and the Malay peninsula. At
that time the Chinese did not have their own large ships for ocean travel, and they used
Southeast Asian ships which they called kun-lun ships. Kun-lun was a word which meant in
general Southeast Asia, although we do not know whether it meant a geographical area or a
group of people.
Funan’s first contact with India was at the same time as the arrival of the Chinese
officials.
The Chinese officials heard about the traditional history of Funan, perhaps 200-300
years earlier, that there had been a queen named Liu-ye. Then a foreigner named Hun-Chen,
or Hun Houei, or Hun Tien, came in a ship, married Liu-ye and established the first royal
family. After several generations of Hun kings, a new royal family became powerful. There
title was Fan, like the titles of the first kings in Lin-yi. Some historians say that the first Hun
was really Kaundinya from India, but when we read the Chinese reports carefully we can
understand that this is not true. There was not yet any contact with India.
After about 200 years of contact with India, in the 5th century, the first Sanskrit royal
names, ending in varman appear, both in Chinese reports and in a few inscriptions. Then it is
clear that the Funanese had taken much influence from India. Some Funan monks were very
well educated in Sanskrit and Buddhism, and they were invited to China to teach.
The important places which we know in Funan are the port city, now called Oc- Eo,
near the coast of Vietnam and the border of Cambodia; the old city of Angkor Borei, and
perhaps Ba Phnom, although no archeological research has been done in Ba Phnom which
shows that it was important before the 7th century.
In the 5th and 6th centuries there was a new sea trade route from Indonesia to China,
35
and Funan was less important for China. Therefore the Chinese stopped writing about Funan,
and we may say there was an economic crisis in Funan in the 6th century. The end of Funan in
Chinese history is in the 7th century.
II- THE MON COUNTRY
One of the Chinese reports about Funan says that there was a country called Tun Sun,
with 5 cities and 5 kings, and the language was a little different from the language of Funan.
That name, Tun Sun means 'city'-'five' in Mon, and this is the first evidence about the Mon
country. Tun Sun must have been on the northern part of the Malay peninsula, now partly in
Thailand and partly in Burma.
One more Chinese report, written by a Chinese monk who studied in India in the 7th
century, says that east of India was the cit), of Sriksetra (central Burma), then Dvaravati
(central Thailand), then Ishanapura (Sambor Prei Kuk, Cambodia), and then Champa.
There are no more Chinese reports about the coast of Thailand and Burma until the 13th
century.
II-A- DVARAVATI AT THE WEST OF CAMBODIA--SIAM
Probably before the 10th century there were no Thai people (people speaking Thai
languages) in the country which we call Thailand today. The original area of Thai people was
in northern Vietnam and southern China; and they began moving slowly into what is now
Thailand sometime in the first 10 centuries A.D. The first written record of Thai language is
in inscriptions in North Thailand, the city of Sukhothai, written in the 14th century. But
center and south of Thailand was still Mon and Khmer until the 15th century.
The first record about South Thailand is in one of the Chinese reports about Funan in the
late 2nd or early 3rd century. The Chinese wrote about King Fan-Che-Man of Funan who took
his ships across the sea to a country named 'Tun Sun' where there were 5 kings. We now
understand that the name ‘Tun Sun’ is Mon language. ‘Tun’ means ‘town’ or ‘city’, or
²Rsuk³ and ‘sun’ means 5. Thus Tun Sun was probably in the northern part of the Thai
peninsula where there are still Mon people today.
Archaeology shows that the coastal areas of the Thai peninsula and the towns in south
central Thailand had a culture similar to Funan and probably there was much sea contact then
between Funan in southern Cambodia and southern and central Thailand.
In the 7th century a Chinese Buddhist monk studying in India wrote a book in which he
said that to the East of India there were several important cities or countries, Srikşetra,
Dvāravati, Īśānapura, and Champa. Now we know from old inscriptions that Sriksetra was in
Burma and Dvāravati was in central Thailand. Beginning in the 6th century in central
Thailand there are short inscriptions in the Mon language, and some of them contain the
name 'Dvāravati'. There are also inscriptions in Pali with quotations from the Buddhist
religious books. All of the inscriptions are very short and we do not know anything about
kings or government. We only know that the people of Dvāravati were Mon, they were
Buddhist, and they built large towns which were round, with walls, and with brick viharas
and chedis. The end of this Dvāravati period was in the 10th-11th centuries.
36
We do not know if the towns of Dvāravati were united in a single state or kingdom, or if
they were all independent, only with the same language, religion, and culture, and with
connections among them by land, not by sea. We do not know if there was a political center,
or 'capital'. Dvāravati in the 6th to 10th century was a very different from Cambodia (Chenla
and Angkor).
Thus after Funan Chenla (Cambodia) and Dvāravati (Mon, now Thailand) developed in
very different ways.
There was another Mon area in the North of Thailand, around the modern towns of
Lampun and Chiang Mai. It was not part of Dvāravati, because the remains of art and
architecture are very different from Dvaravati. There are also long Mon inscriptions from the
12th century with the name of a king, which shows a different organization from Dvāravati,
but this northern Mon kingdom was also Buddhist.
After Dvāravati there was a Khmer period in central Thailand, shown by Khmer
inscriptions in central and northeast Thailand beginning in the 8th century. One Sanskrit
inscription in central Thailand from the 7th century shows a connection with Chenla. This
inscription was written by a King Harshavarman who said he was a grandson of King
Ishanavarman, who was probably the king in Ishanapura/Sambor Prei Kuk.
II-B- PYU IN THE AREA OF BURMA
Above said, a Chinese monk in India mentioned Sriksetra as the first of several cities
east of India. Now, we know that Sriksetra was the ancient name of the modern city of
Prome.
We also know that the Mon were an important population in Burma, especially eastern
and central Burma, although there are no Mon inscriptions in Burma until the 10th century.
The first inscriptions in Burma were in a Tibeto-Burman language which we call 'Pyu',
and which the Chinese called 'Piao'. Their own name for themselves was 'Tirchul" and they
left inscriptions from about the 5th to the 11th century. The first Pyu city discovered by
archaeology was near Prome/Śrikşetra. I was a round city, and very large, with stonewalls
and large Buddhist temples built of stone and brick. Inscriptions in the Tirchul language and
in Pali prove that they were Buddhist, and from their inscriptions we know a few names of
their kings, which end in --varma, just like the old kings of Cambodia. There were Pyu cities
all over central and northern Burma and some of them had overland contact with China. In
the 8th century the Chinese wrote about war between the country of Nan-Chao in southern
China and the country of the 'Piao', and there were diplomatic relations between the Piao and
China in the 9th century.
The last Tirchul/Pyu inscription is from the 11th century, and after that the Mon were
more important until the Burmese became dominant from the 11th-12th century. The Tirchul
inscriptions were written in a type of Indian alphabet which was different from the Indian
alphabet used in Champa and Cambodia and Dvaravati. The Tirchul borrowed an alphabet
from North India, but other countries of Southeast Asia took a South Indian alphabet. Pyu
architecture was also more influenced by north Indian architecture. This shows different
paths of Indian influence in different parts of Southeast Asia, and supports the idea that
Indian influence was brought by Southeast Asians who had seen India, not only by Indians.
37
III- VIETNAM
In histories of Southeast Asia, especially concerning Vietnam, there is often reference
to Chinese dynasties. Until the 11th century, 'Vietnam' means the territory now know as
'North Vietnam.'
(Map: language spread; Viet-mu'o'ng, other Mon-Khmer, Cham)
Archaeology shows development in place for over 10,000 years; that is no evidence of
strong immigration.
Dong-so'n prehistoric culture aged from a few centuries B.C. to just after A.D.
Famous for bronzes, tools and large drums, scenes on drums of boats. The Chinese proto-
history of the Dong-so'n period calls it Lac (Lo) Viet. According to Vietnamese traditional
history there was a kingdom named Van-Lang from the 7th century B.C. to the 1st century
A.D., and a ruling family of kings whose family name was Hung. This is generally accepted
as first information about ancient Vietnamese. Although some linguists say Thai were then
more important in that area.
Best published book, Keith Taylor, The Birth of Vietnam, in the 3rd century Chinese
conquest, loose Chinese administration in Giao-Chi. Then after the overthrow of the Han
dynasty in 1st century A.D, large Han Chinese emigrated to Giao-Chi. About 40 A.D. there
was a rebellion of Trung sisters because of Chinese repression under General Ma Yuan. A
new Chinese province of Giao-Chi was streched as far as Hue.
First notice of Lin-yi in 2nd Century A.D. (190s) when Lin-yi attacked Chinese where
was apparently within Giao-Chi.
There was Indian influence in Giao-Chi via Lin-yi and Champa; and Giao-Chi was a
center of Buddhist influence into China, together with another line of Indian Buddhist
influence overland from India.
NOTE: the Southeast Asian initiative. From this angle Giao-Chi was partly Indianized in the
1st-3rd centuries A.D. Buddhist images of that time in northern Vietnam and in southern China
look like Javanese images.
During these first A.D. centuries a new ruling class developed from mixed Chinese
immigrants and native chiefs. One of these new types of rulers, Ly Bon tried to establish his
own kingdom in 540, called himself 'Maharaja Nam-Viet', and he and his son ruled until 602.
They were Sinicized, but politically independent.
Then there was another Chinese conquest by the T'ang, Chinese greatest dynasty,
after 618 (note Chenla) the Chinese devised a new name, 'Protectorate of Annam in the 7th
century. Annam was very important as a port, and the principal embarkation for Chinese
monks going to Southeast Asia and India.
In the 9th century, when the T'ang state became weak, new leaders became powerful.
Annam ended in 866, and the new local leaders declared independence in 905. In 966 the
local king took the title 'Maharaja Dai Co Viet'. But the Chinese still only called him ‘King of
the Province of Giao-Chi’.
To be noted that written sources on Vietnam were entirely in Chinese, even when
38
written by Vietnamese, until the 12th century. First surviving Vietnamese writing was in
Chinese characters, from that time. The indigenous population was probably mixed Mon-
Khmer (including Vietnamese), other Mon-Khmer, and Thai.
IV- LIN-YI AND CHAMPA
Archaeological Sources, Sa Huynh Culture occupied on the coast of south central
Vietnam, much pottery, big jars. It appears at just the time when linguistic evidence indicates
the Cham were arriving on the coast. North of Hue there is different archaeological remains.
Lin-yi: Chinese reports of wars, trade, envoys, with all names of Lin-yi persons in Chinese
characters. The names of Lin-yi rulers began with the word ‘fan’, probably a title, until 645,
except for two names, in which the Chinese characters may be read as ‘Vijayavarman’,
around 526-77; and ‘Rudravarman’, about 530-72 (NOTE: similar names, approximate same
time, in Funan) The last Chinese mention of the name 'Lin-yi' is from 793.
Champa Inscriptions from the late 4th century, one in Cham language, in Quang Nam,
Phi Yen, Mi-so'n, and Talkie. Inscriptions in those places with royal names in -varman
continued until the late 7th century. There were also much great architecture, both Buddhist
and Hindu.
In 749 a Chinese report on Lin-yi gives the local ruler's name as ‘Rudravarman’. At
that time, in mid-8th century, there is a break in the inscriptions from the northern Cham
center, and a new center of inscriptions appears in the South, named Pandering (Pham Rang)
and Kithara. Chinese use a new name, ‘Human Wang’, and soon after is the last mention of
Lin-yi. In this southern center are inscriptions with varman names until mid-9th century,
about 100 years. First recorded king was Pŗthivindravarman; whose second successor and
second son was Indravarman that latter was still king in 801. Last records in inscriptions from
South dated in 854 AD.
Then, from 875 the Cham center of inscriptions is again in the North, Quang-Nam
(Indrapura), with a new Chinese name, Chan-Ch'eng (Chiem Thanh), 'Cham city'; and
frequent contacts with Champa thereafter. First Cham kings's name is Indravarman, as at
Roluos/Chenla. This Indravarman named his grandfather as Rudravarman, just like
Indravarman of Roluos. Cham Indrayarman was Mahayana Buddhist and built a great
Buddhist temple.
The standard historical treatment is that of Maspero who considered that everything
about Lin-yi was part of the history of Champa. He was followed by Cœdès, and they
suggested identities of some of the fan names with the varman names known from
inscriptions.
Being noted that impossibly saying the fan was a Chinese way of writing “varman”
because Fan always precedes the name, while varman always at the end. When Chinese
wished to write varman, they wrote pa-mo, and placed it after the rest of the name. In general
fan names cannot be interpreted in Sanskrit, while pa-mo names usually can.
Then Stein showed that the Chinese records of Lin-yi seemed to be about an area north
of the Cham centers, and he did not think it-was possible to identify fan names with those
ending in varman. Thus Stein proposed that Lin-yi; at least until the 5th century was a
39
different country with a different language from Champa.
Boisselier agreed, and thought that Lin-Yi and Champa might not have been unified
until the 7th century. This will be emphasized again in the discussion of Funan, where I will
show that Lin-yi should be related to Funan, although probably by the 6th-7th centuries Cham
and Vietnamese expansion had ended any Lin-yi independence. The Lin-yi king
Rudravarman of 749 A.D. may perhaps show the unification of Lin-yi with Champa.
Note that throughout the early records of Lin-yi and Champa written by the Chinese,
those two countries appear very aggressive, attacking northward against Giao-Chi. Only after
the 10th century was there a gradual retreat of Champa under Vietnamese pressure.
The geography of Lin-yi and Champa shows that both lacked land; must have made
their living from the sea, either trading or piracy, and would have been pressing to win the
fertile plains of the far North and South.22
V- INDONESIA
The first real states in Java were known only from Chinese reports, not from local
records. In the first Chinese reports about Indonesia, in the 5th-6th centuries, there are many
names which we cannot identify completely today. There was Kan-to-li (probably in
Sumatra), Ko-ying (Java or Sumatra), Ho-lo-tan (probably Java), Ho-ling (Java), Lang-ya-si
(Malay Peninsula, in Malay Lankasuka), Chi-tu (Malay Peninsula), Mo-lo-yu (=Malayu), but
then in Sumatra.
Around 640 the Chinese knew of a place on Java called Ho-Ling, and envoys from
Ho-Ling went to China until 840. Then the Chinese name for Java changed to ‘Java’ (She-
po). Their locations are unknown. The Chinese described Ho-Ling/Java as a trading center, a
stop on the way to India, and a center for studying Buddhism. The first great architecture on
Java is from the end of the 8th century and early 9th century, the Borobudur (Buddhist),
Prambanan (Hindu) and other buildings for both religions.
By the end of the 7th century the Chinese only wrote about two places, Ho-ling in
Java and Shih-li-fo-shih (= Srivijaya) in Sumatra. Srivijaya was famous both for sea trade and
as a center of study for Buddhism and Sanskrit. Apparently, Sumatra had been in contact with
India for a long time before there was contact with China.
V-A- SUMATRA FROM 7TH-9TH CENTURIES
In the earlier lesson about Chinese influence in Southeast Asia, I mentioned that in the
5th-6th centuries, the Indonesians began to open a new direct sea route from Java and
Sumatra to China, and that this route replaced the Funan route and led to the economic
decline of Funan. This was because Indonesia had better contact with India, and because
some of the products which China wanted from India could also be found in Indonesia, and
the Indonesians took advantage of this to open a new route, and take the place of Funan in
relations with China. In the 5th-6th centuries the Chinese records mention many names of
places in Java and Sumatra, but we do not know exactly where most of those places were.
22
Cf., George Maspero, Le royaume de Champa; R.A. (Rolf) Stein, Le Lin-yi; Jean Boisselier, La statuaire de
Champa.
40
Before 1918 no one had heard the name Śrivijaya for hundreds of years, and scholars did
not understand the Chinese writings about Shih-li-fo-shih. Then George Cœdès studied some
Old Malay inscriptions from South Sumatra near the port of Palembang, and found the name
Śrivijaya, which he connected to Chinese reports about a place called Shih-li-fo-shih, which
modern historians had not understood. Then Cœdès wrote an article about the Empire of
Srivijaya which had controlled trade through the straits between India and China for 6-700
years.
In 1918 the French scholar of Southeast Asia, George Cœdès, began to study some
inscriptions found in South Sumatra. They were in the Old Malay language with a mixture of
Sanskrit words, and some of them had dates from the end of the 7th century. These
inscriptions had the name of a king, Javanese, and they also contained the name of a place,
'written 'Srivijaya' in Sanskrit. Cœdès showed that this name 'Srivijaya' was the name the
Chinese wrote as Shih-li-fo-shih.
There is a problem with this idea. After the end of the 7th century there are no more
inscriptions about Śrivijaya in Sumatra, and the Chinese stopped writing about Shih-li-fo-shih
in the middle of the 8th century. An important record of the 7th century is the book of I Ching,
a Chinese Buddhist monk who stopped in Srivijaya on his way to India to study Buddhism,
and praised the high level of Buddhist and Sanskrit knowledge in Sumatra. He also said that
Srivijaya dominated many other ports on the coast of Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula,
including one named ‘Mo-lo-yu’ (Malayu), which was then in Sumatra.
After 742 there are no more Chinese reports which can be connected to Sumatra until
around 960 when the Chinese began using a new name ‘San-fo-chi’, perhaps meaning ‘Three
Vijaya’. Perhaps during this period Java was dominant. Because of the lack of records, we do
not know the names of any kings in Sumatra after the inscriptions of the 670s until 1003.
Although it is certain that the port cities of Sumatra were very important, after the 7th
century there are no more inscriptions in Sumatra until the 13th and 14th centuries; and there
are very few remains of architecture.
In the 7th century the center of Srivijaya was near the modern town of Palembang,
which is a good port on a large river. Srivijaya controlled the trade of many ports on the coast
of Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula, and had relations with India and China. The inscriptions
show that the religion 'was Buddhism, but not the same Theravada Buddhism of the Mon, the
Pyu/Tirchul, and modern Thai and Cambodians. Srivijaya Buddhism was a type of
Mahayana; the religious language was Sanskrit, not Pali, and there was a very large mixture
of local customs mind with Buddhism.
One famous Chinese book about Srivijaya was written around 670 by a Chinese
Buddhist monk who described Srivijaya as a good place to study Buddhism and Sanskrit
before traveling to India. He also described traveling by ship along the coast of Sumatra, to
the Malay Peninsula, and then to India, and he said that the important ships belonged to the
king and the merchants of Srivijaya. One place he mentioned was (in Chinese) 'Mo-lo-yu',
that is, Malaya, which then was in Sumatra, not on the peninsula. After the end of the 7th
century there are no more inscriptions from Srivijaya for a long time, and we do not know
much about kings or government. This is like Funan, which also had very few inscriptions. In
general, in early Southeast Asia, the countries with an economy based on agriculture wrote
many inscriptions, but the countries with sea trade economies did not write many
inscriptions.
41
The last Chinese record with the name Shih-li-fo-shih/Srivijaya was in 742, and for about
200 years there is not much information about Sumatra. Perhaps Java had become more
important for China. Then around 960 the Chinese began writing again about Sumatra, but
with a new name, 'San-fo-shih'. The meaning of this name is not certain. ‘San’ means 3, and
perhaps the Chinese meant ‘Three Vijaya’ that is three ports which were united. In any case
San-fo-shih continued to control trade in Indonesia for a long time after that.
A very important period as the San-fo-chi period between 960 and the end of the 12th
century. The greatest number of missions were sent to China and recorded there, perhaps
because of competition with Java after the kings moved to East Java. San-fo-chi also had
active relations with the Chola state in South India, which was an important trading state.
Among scholars today, there is an opinion that there was never an ‘Empire’ of Śrivijaya.
There were at least two, perhaps three, important ports on the east coast of Sumatra,
Palembang, Jambi, and perhaps another, which alternated at the dominant center, and all
competed with Java. There was no solid state government for more than one century in any
port, but altogether they made the coast of Sumatra dominant in international trade.
Near the end of the 12th century Śrivijaya began to decline for reasons connected with
Chinese trade policy, as explained earlier. There is indication that in the 13th century Java
became dominant over much of Sumatra. At the end of the 13th century the Chinese began to
use the name Mo-lo-yu for both Sumatra and the Malay coast, and they reported wars
between Siem and Mo-lo-yu, showing the new competitions resulting from changes in
Chinese policy. By 1404 Malacca had replaced Sumatran ports in officiat trade with China.
But beginning in the 7th century the Chinese wrote much about a place called in
Chinese writing Shih-li-fo-shih which they said was an important place for sea trade and was
also a center of Buddhism where Chinese monks went to study Buddhism and Sanskrit before
going to India.
From Chinese records we know that the ports of Java competed with Sumatra /
Srivijaya, and there were sometimes wars between the two places.
V-B- JAVA AND FIRST LOCAL SOURCES
The earliest written evidence of Indian influence in Indonesia is in East Borneo, some
Sanskrit inscriptions without dates, but which look like 5th-century script. They cannot be
connected to any kingdom or state, but they record a person named Mūlavarman who called
himself king, who was son of Aśvavarman, and grandson of Kuņduńga (an Indonesian, not
Sanskrit name). This shows a family of local chiefs who gradually took Sanskrit names to
enhance their prestige. They were certainly not from India.
At about the same time there are a few Sanskrit inscriptions on the north coast of Java,
near Jakarta, with the name of a Raja Purnavarman and his domain, called Tarumanagara.
Three of the inscriptions are written on stones in the bed of a river, and all of them are in a
location which archaeologists say was a sacred place of local beliefs before any Indian
influence. Neither is Taruma an Indian name. Thus they are evidence of local chiefs adapting
elements of Indian culture rather than evidence of the presence of any Indians. There is no
more record of either Tarumanagara or a kingdom in Borneo, which shows that these local
chiefs were at that time unable to develop into states, in spite of having some Indian culture.
42
There are also more inscriptions, in Sanskrit and Javanese, from the same time. Most are
on copper plates, not on stone, different from Cambodia or Champa. The political structure
which they describe is very complex, and has not been understood by modern historians. Just
as in Cambodia, where the first inscriptions show official and royal titles in Khmer, the
inscriptions in Java show many official and royal titles in the local language, Javanese. This
shows that Cambodia and Java took Indian influence in different ways, and it supports the
theory that reception of Indian influence was the work of Southeast Asians, not Indians. If
Indians had been responsible, we would see the same things in all Southeast Asian countries.
There seem to have been two dynasties, one Buddhist and one Hindu. The first called
themselves the Sailendra (‘mountain king’) family, although the name Sailendra relates to
Siva and the name of the central Javanese kingdom was Mataram. With respect to Indian
influence, we should note that a more recently discovered inscription shows that the origin of
the name Śailendra in Java was from an Austronesian word selendra which the local chief
changed into Sanskrit. The Javanese inscriptions in addition to names of kings, give names of
local officials, some details about the economic connections of temples and different from
Cambodian inscriptions show that inland Central Java had a regular system of local markets.
They do not say much about foreign trade at this time, which suggests that Mataram may
have been different from the sea trading place called Ho-Ling by the Chinese. That is the
local records and the Chinese reports are not talking about the same places.
Another difference from Cambodia is that there are no remains of cities in central Java
from the time of the inscriptions in the 8th-9th centuries. Because both Java and Sumatra were
trading with China, there seems to have been competition, and in 684 the Chinese report that
Srivijaya had attacked Java. Also, because there are no clear records about Sumatra from
mid-8th century until after 960, Java may have dominated Sumatra during that period.
Although the Chinese writing about Java mentions more than one port, in the 5th-9th
centuries we do not know exactly where those ports were. In the 8th and 9th centuries, in the
interior of Java, far from the sea, the Javanese began to build large templea like the temples
of Angkor in Cambodia. They worshipped both Buddhist and Hindu religions. The most
important Buddhist temple is named 'Borobodur', and the most famous Hindu temple is
‘Prambanan’. In Java the religion was a mixture of Mahayana Buddhism and Sivaism. They
are near the modern cities of Jogyakarta and Surakarta. The old name of that country then
was 'Mataram'. The inscriptions are in Old Javanese with a mixture of Sanskrit, like the
Cambodian inscriptions with a mixture of Khmer and Sanskrit.
The first inscription which names a king is dated 732, and names a King Sañjaya. After
that there are not many inscriptions until the 9th century. Then there are very many. One
more inscription in 907 mentions King Sañjaya as the first king of the Mataram dynasty.
Like the Cambodian inscriptions, the inscriptions of Java show many names of kings,
officials, different classes of society, and the economic organization. Different from
Cambodia, there were regular markets in Java, and there is much detail about markets in the
inscriptions. Another difference from Cambodia is that there are many large temples from the
7th-12th centuries in Java, but no remains of large cities like Sambor Prei Kuk.
Note also that most of the Javanese inscriptions are written on plates of copper, not on
stone. This shows a different type of influence from India, and supports the idea that Indian
influence came to different parts of Southeast Asia separately and in different ways because
of the activity of Southeast Asian people, not because of Indians who came to Southeast Asia
43
from India.
An important change occurred in Java during the first half of the 10th century, and it
shows the influence of commerce on politics. The political center of Java, the kingdom of
Mataram, between 900 and 930 moved from the center of Java, far from the sea to the
seacoast of East Java.
Before the year 900 almost all inscriptions and architecture were in Central Java.
Between 900 and 928 four kings, one after another began to set up inscriptions both in
Central Java and in East Java. Then after 928 all inscriptions and architecture for the next 500
years are in East Java, but nothing in Central Java. Most modern historians consider that
during 30 years the political center moved because of the importance of trade in the ports of
East Java. The Chinese reports say nothing about this change, and continue to use the same
name for Java. Perhaps the Chinese had always been writing about the East Java ports,
separate from the kingdom of Mataram in Central Java, and in the 10th century the kings
moved and took control of the ports.
The East Java inscriptions say much about international trade, and foreigners who came
to Java, including Kmir, Cāmpa, and several different groups of Indians.
East Java remained a strong state with international trading connections until the 15th
century. They were attacked by the Mongols in 1293, but defeated the Mongols. The most
powerful East Java period was Majapahit, founded after the Mongol attack and which lasted
until the 15th century.
44
Lesson 6: SOUTHEAST ASIA FROM 7TH-13TH CENTURIES
Some of the details of these subjects have been mentioned in the previous lessons
about Chinese influence and the first written records. Here they are repeated in relation to the
first organized societies or states.
I- CAMBODIA
I-A- CHENLA
In Cambodia there was an important economic and political change from the Funan
period (2nd-3rd centuries--6th-7th centuries) to the Chenla period beginning in the first years of
the 7th century and continuing until the 9th century. The name 'Chenla', like the name Funan
is only known from Chinese writing about Cambodia. We do not know the name 'Chenla'
from local inscriptions, and We do not know what 'Chenla' means. It was probably a local
Khmer name which the Chinese heard and wrote with two Chinese characters which are now
pronounced 'Chen-'La'. In Old Chinese the pronunciation was 'Chen-lap' or 'Cham-lap'.
The first reason for the change from Funan to Chenla was a failure in the Funan
economy when the most important trade route from Southeast Asia to China changed from a
route along the coast through Cambodia to a new route directly from Indonesia (Java and
Sumatra) across the ocean to China without stopping in the ports of the Cambodian coast.
After the new sea route became important the Chinese stopped writing very much
about Cambodia, and began to write very much about Indonesia. The Chinese began to
mention a new name for Cambodia, 'Chenla' in the first years of the 7th century, and last
Chinese records of Funan are from the years 620-630. Because the Chinese were not so much
interested in Chenla, their reports are not very detailed about Cambodia in the 7th-8th
centuries. But beginning from the year 612 there are many inscriptions in Cambodia, over
200 in the 7th century, both in Khmer and Sanskrit. In the Funan period there are very few
inscriptions, and they do not have many important details. The Khmer inscriptions are most
important for understanding politics, economics, administration, and the names of kings,
officials, and the names of people of all classes.
In the 7th century we can make a list of the important kings. Their names come first
from an inscription, number K.53, found near Ba Phnom, and also from other inscriptions
such as K.506 and K.1150. These names of kings are:
Rudravarman, a king of Funan in the early 6th century.
Bhavavarman I, perhaps a grandson of Rudravarman, in the late 6th century
Mahendravarman-Citrasena, brother of Bhavayarman, (around 600-610)
the both, son of Viravarman
Iśānavarman, son of Mahendravarman (about 616-637)
Bhavavarman II, son of Iśānavarman (about 637-652*/655)
Jayavarman I, great-grandson of Iśānavarman (about 652-681)
We do not know where all of these kings had their administrative center, or capital.
Most historians think that the center of Funan was either Angkor Borei or Ba Phnom, and that
would have been the center of Rudravarman’s government. All of the inscriptions about
Bhavavarman I are in the north of Cambodia or north of the Dangrek Mountains but his
45
political center is not certain. Probably Mahendravarman began to build the center of Sambor
Prei Kuk, and it is certain that the city there, named Iśānapura, was the capital of
Iśānavarman. Probably his son Bhavavarman II continued to rule in the same place with a
new name, 'Bhavapura'.
We do not know any local Khmer name for the entire country of Chenla. No inscription
in the 7th century has the name 'Kambuja'. But there are at least 30 names of -pura, which
usually means 'city’, but may also mean the whole area ruled by a city. Besides Iśānapura and
Bhavapura, some of the other important places were Indrapura, Sambhupura, Tamrapura,
Tamandarapura, Adhyapura, etc.
During this time it is not certain that Cambodia-Chenla was unified in a single state
under the central king. Many inscriptions show that chiefs of provinces or their own -pura
may have been more or less independent. We can also see that there were 2 or 3 levels of men
calling themselves 'king', but inferior to a supreme king. For example, one inscription, K.151,
was written by a 'King of Indrapura', who said he served under the higher kings Bhavavarman
I, Mahendravarman, and Iśānavarman.
Jayavarman I, however, began to unify the -pura under central control more than the
kings before him.
After Jayavarman I there are no inscriptions with names of kings for over 30 years, and
we do not know anything about the situation in Cambodia. Then around the year 713 there
are two inscriptions near Angkor which name a queen Javadevi, a daughter of Jayavarman I,
but we do not know what happened during the 30 years before 713. We also do not know
much about what happened after 713 until the end of the 8th century. In 770, 780, 790, and
after 802 there are inscriptions about Jayavarman II, who we think began to establish the new
kingdom of Angkor, near where the inscriptions of Javadevi were found.
There is one Chinese report concerning this period which said that in the beginning of
the 8th century (700-710) Chenla split into two kingdoms, 'Water Chenla' and 'Land Chenla',
and many historians have believed that this division continued until the time when those two
divisions were unified in Angkor after Jayavarman II.
Some historians have written that Chenla was never a single unified kingdom, and in
the 8th century it was divided into 5-6 little kingdoms, not just two.
I think there were at least two divisions, but not because Chenla divided. The reason
was that there were two different areas which had developed separately from the early 7th
century. In Sambhupura (Sambor-Kratie), there were many inscriptions throughout the 7th
century, but none of them referred to a king, as though the chiefs of Sambhupura were
independent. And in the 8th century we know that Sambhupura had its own royal family and
must have been independent from the kings of central Cambodia. This Sambhupura royal
family is seen in inscriptions K.124, dated 803, which shows four generations of Sambhupura
rulers, one kings, followed by three queens. Four generations means about 80-100 years in
which there was a separate kingdom of Sambhupura, which was probably one of the two
divisions of Chenla understood by the Chinese. But the reason was not a division of old
Chenla, but separate development of two areas, central Cambodia, and the northeast under
Sambhupura.
Now we must take a look at Champa, because relations between Cambodia and
46
Champa were very important in the Funan and Chenla periods.
I-B- FROM JAYAVARMAN II TO SURVARMAN I (10TH CENTURY)
- From Chenla to Angkor; Jayavarman II
The period of transition from Chenla to Angkor is one of the most unknown periods
in early Cambodian history. From 713, the date of the inscription of Queen Javadevi until 770
there are no inscriptions with important information, or names of important people. In fact
there are very few inscriptions at all. Neither is there much information from foreign sources,
such as Chinese reports--only one Chinese record which says that in the beginning of the 8th
century Chenla split into two countries, 'Land Chenla' and Water Chenla'. Then in 770 and
781 there are two inscriptions in Sanskrit with the name of a king Jayavarman, number K.103
in Tbaung Khmum and number K.134 near Kratie (ancient Sambhupura) After that there is
inscription K.124 from Sambor near Kratie showing a royal family of four generations,
including three queens who must have ruled in Sambhupura for most of the 8th century. It is
dated 803, one year after traditional history says Jayavarman II became king in Angkor. After
that there are no more inscriptions at all until 877, the time of King Indravarman, when there
are many inscriptions, especially Khmer inscriptions in Roluos.
This means that for the beginning of Angkor history, the time of Jayavarman II and
Jayavarman III (802—877 AD) we do not have any direct contemporary information at all.
Everything written about the history of Jayavarman II comes from much later inscriptions,
such as K.235 from Sdok Kak Thom (date 1052), now across the northwest Cambodian
border in Thailand. The Sdok Kak Thom inscription says Jayavarman II came from Java, and
in Cambodia went to Indrapura, then to Hariharālaya (Roluos), then to other places, including
Phnom Kulen (Mahendraparvata in the inscription), where he performed special ceremonies
to keep Cambodia free from Java and to establish the kamrateń jagat ta rāj ( kRmetg CKt
traC), which European writers have called the devarāja.
Because the Sdok Kak Thom inscriptions say Jayavarman II came from Java, modern
historians have invented a story that there must have been a Javanese invasion in the 8th
century which took some of the Cambodian royalty back to the island of Java in Indonesia,
and that Jayavarman later returned to Cambodia. The date 802 is not in the Sdok Kak Thom
inscription. It is found in other inscriptions from the 10th-11th centuries which refer to
Jayavarman II, but it is not certain in those inscriptions if 802 was meant as the date when he
came from 'Java', or the date when he became king of Angkor, or the date when he went to
Phnom Kulen to arrange some special ceremonies. And because of this date 802, historians
thought that the Jayavarman of K. l03 and K.134 could not have been Jayavarman II, and
they called him Jayavarman Ibis (sÞÜn)¿
New research shows that the traditional story is probably wrong. In inscription K.583
it says that in 790 Jayavarman II was already king and he and his son fought with Champa.
Because of that, historians now agree that K.103 and K.134 probably belong to Jayavarman II
when he was very young, and when he was only king of a small part of Cambodia in the
Southeast. This means he was born around 750 and died in 834. Tbaung Khmum was
probably his home area, and K.134 shows that he had moved to Sambhupura which joined
with him before he moved to the region of Angkor.
This new interpretation makes it difficult to believe that he came back to Cambodia
47
from the Indonesian island of Java, and the name 'Java' in the Sdok Kak Thom inscription
must refer to some other place, perhaps the southern part of Champa (CVa) as I said in the last
lesson. In fact, some records from China and Vietnam at that time call the island of Java
'Yavadvipa', and refer to ‘Java’, or Jva (CVa) as some place in Indochina, probably part of
Champa.
- From Jayavarman II to Suryavarman I
There is almost no information for the time 800 to 877, no inscriptions, and not much
architecture. On Phnom Kulen there are some temples which are believed to be from the time
of Jayavarman II, and they show Cham influence in their architecture. There is also one tower
at Sambor Prei Kuk, which may be from the time of Jayavarman II. What we know from
those years, the times of Jayavarman II and Jayavarman III comes from later inscriptions
written by important officials who said that their families had begun to serve Jayavarman II,
and that they owned land and held high positions given to them by the first kings of Angkor.
Starting in 877 in Roluos there are many inscriptions by Indravarman I and his son
Yashovarman, and the famous temple of Preah Ko, Bakong and Lolei which they built. The
inscriptions show that by the time of Indravarman, he ruled over most of Cambodia, and
Yashovarman moved his capital from Roluos to begin building the city of Angkor. All of the
inscriptions from that time are royal inscriptions, written by the kings.
After Yashovarman, two of his sons became kings for a very short time; and then
Jayavarman IV moved the capital from Angkor to Koh Ker where he and his son ruled from
about 928-944. Because Jayavarman IV moved his capital, most historians have said that he
was an usurper from outside the royal family, not the legitimate king, and that he overthrew
the son of Yashovarman.
First, we do not know what the rules were for succession to the throne in ancient
Cambodia. We do not have to believe that a king should be followed by his oldest son, as in
Europe. And most kings of Angkor were not sons of earlier kings. Many inscriptions show
that Jayavarman IV belonged to the royal family and was closely related to Yashovarman
before him and to Rajendravarman who followed him. There is no reason to call him an
usurper. We do not know, however, why he built a new city at Angkor. It was a very large
city, with very large buildings. There are many inscriptions from Koh Ker which show that
Jayavarman IV had power over most of Cambodia. The inscriptions give lists of cities and
sroks from which he organized thousand of people to work.
In 944 Rajendravarman, a brother of Jayavarman IV, moved the capital back to
Angkor. He was followed by another important king, Jayavarman V. Altogether those two
kings ruled until the year 1001. They built many important temples and many inscriptions
were written. At that time, however, most of the inscriptions were not royal inscriptions,
written by the kings. Most of the inscriptions were written by officials, and they were claims
to land and official positions, and control over people. That is, as Angkor developed, the
government needed more officials, and this new class grew very fast in the 10th century.
Perhaps the class of officials was becoming stronger than the royalty, and perhaps there were
conflicts among different groups of the officials.
The growth of the new official class and its conflicts can explain the next important
event at Angkor, a civil war between to persons who were not from the old royal family, but
48
who claimed to be kings. One was Suryavarman I and the other was Javaviravarman. The war
started in 1002, and by 1006 Suryavarman had won, and he was king until about 1050.
The first important French historian, George Cœdès, thought that Suryavarman was a
foreigner who came from Malaysia through Thailand to Cambodia. This was because
Suryavarman used a new word in his titles, kamtvan, which Cœdès thought was the Malay
title ‘tuan’ (=master), and because he thought Suryavarman was Buddhist, and Buddhism was
an important religion in the Malay peninsula at that time. Now we know that the title kamtvan
comes from the Khmer word (ton, tvan = modern Khmer dUn), and means that there was some
kind of family connection through women. We also now know that Suryavarman was not
more Buddhist than the other kings of his time. Also, the first inscriptions about Suryavarman
I are from eastern Cambodia (Kratie, Kompong Thom), and it is certain that he came from
some important official family.
Perhaps because he was not from the old royal family, and fought a war to become
king, Suryavarman I had special inscriptions written with names of hundreds of provincial
officials who promised to be faithful to him. No other king of Angkor made inscriptions like
this. He also built important temples, and probably expanded the influence of Angkor toward
the West, into the area now known as 'Thailand', because one of his inscriptions has been
found in the city of Lopburi in central Thailand. We do not know from the inscriptions at
Angkor whether Suryavarman had any important contacts with Champa.
After Suryavarman I his two sons were kings until 1080. Their reigns were a time of
much trouble. There were rebellions and civil wars because of opposition by high officials,
perhaps because those officials did not accept the new dynasty which began with
Suryavarman. After one of these rebellions and civil war, the leader of the rebellion escaped
to Champa.
II- CHAMPA
During the Funan and Chenla periods the coast of what is now Central and Southern
Vietnam was not yet Vietnam. It was Champa, and the Cham language was an Austro-nesian
language like Malay and Javanese, different from the Mon-Khmer languages like Cambodia.
At that time the area where Vietnamese people lived was in the North (North Vietnam
today), and it was governed by China as a Chinese province, named Giao-Chi, until the 10th
century. As I mentioned in an earlier lesson, in the 2nd century the Chinese began to write
about an area, or a people, called 'Lin-yi', south of Giao-Chi, and they continued to write
about Lin-yi until the 8th century (they stopped using the name Lin-yi in 749) In general the
Chinese considered that Lin-yi was aggressive, always trying to attack Giao-Chi to the north.
Most historians have understood the name 'Lin-yi' to mean Champa, but if that is true, it
probably meant only one northern province of Champa.
The entire area of Champa, although it had the same population and language, was not
unified. The coast of Champa (now Vietnam) has only a very narrow strip of flat land good
for agriculture along the coast. Behind this land on the west are mountains and the mountains
cut the flat land of the coast into small areas at the mouths of rivers. Because of this
geography it was very difficult to unify Champa, and Champa did not have enough good land
for an agricultural economy. Champa had many good sea ports and the Chams were famous
49
as sailors. Perhaps Lin-yi/Champa tried to attack Giao-Chi in order to get more good
agricultural land in the North.
South of Lin-yi Champa was divided into several areas with their own chiefs. The most
important, near the modern city of Hue, was named Amaravati, or Indrapura, farther south
was Vijaya, and in the far south were Kauthara and Panduranga (see the map) The first local
records, that is, inscriptions, are from the 4th century, written both in Cham and Sanskrit.
They, and most of the first Cham architecture, are found in the north (Indrapura/Amaravati).
The first king named in an inscription was Bhadravarman, and this name became important
for many rulers later on. There was also an early king named Rudravarman, about the same
time as Rudravarman of Funan. Inscriptions and construction of continued in the north of
Champa until the middle of the 8th century, but there is not enough information to write a
clear history. The Chinese continued to write about Lin-yi, but it is not certain that Lin-yi was
the same place as the center of the inscriptions and architecture.
Before the 10th century there was no direct contact between Champa and Vietnam,
because the Vietnamese area was under Chinese control. The Chinese, however, continued to
write about attacks by Lin-yi against Giao-Chi.
In the 8th century there was an important change in Champa, just like the change in
Chenla at about the same time. For over 100 years, from about 750 to 860, the southern
province of Panduranga developed as the most important part of Champa and during that time
there are no inscriptions or new in the north. Panduranga must have been important as a port
on the sea route between China and Indonesia. During that time of 100 years the Chinese
stopped writing about 'Lin-yi'. They wrote about 'Pen-to-lang' (=Panduranga), and also used a
new name for all of Champa, 'Huan-Wang', which historians so far do not understand.
After 860 the north part of Champa became important again, with inscriptions and , and
the Chinese began to use a new name, 'Chan/Cham-Cheng', which means ‘Cham city’ or
Champapura, a name found in Cham inscriptions. North Champa continued from that time to
be the most important part of Champa until wars with the Vietnamese in the 10th-11th
centuries.
II-A- RELATION BETWEEN CHENLA AND CHAMPA
Probably in the Funan period the coast of southern Champa was in close relations with
the coast of Cambodia which 'we believe to be the location of the ports known to the Chinese
as Funan. But there are no written records about this. The Chinese records about Funan and
Lin-yi do have reports about political connections between Funan and Lin-yi, indicating that
Funan and Lin-yi sometimes were at war and at other times were allied against the Chinese in
Giao-Chi, but it is difficult to interpret these records because the location of Lin-yi is
uncertain.
The first certain written records about contacts between Cambodia and Champa are from
the Chenla period. Inscription K.53 dated 667 A.D. and found near Ba Phnom says that King
Mahendravarman sent a man as ambassador to Champa. This must have occurred around 600
when Mahendravarman would have been king. Then a Cham inscription says that later in the
7th century a Cham prince went to the city of 'Bhava' and married a daughter of King
Iśānavarman named Śarvani. This probably means that it was soon after the death of
Iśānavarman when his son Bhavavarman II was the king and the name of the capital city had
changed from Iśānapura to Bhavapura.
50
Because at the time of Mahendravarman the most important part of Champa was in the
north, we assume that it was the part of Champa where the Cambodian ambassador was sent.
That is also the location of the Cham inscription about the marriage between a Cham prince
and a Cambodian princess. These two records show that in the 7th century relations were
friendly between the part of Chenla which had its center near Sambor Prei Kuk and the
northern part of Champa.
Later, when the southern part of Champa, Panduranga, became important in the 8th
century, the Cham inscriptions show that the two countries were at war, probably because
they were geographical neighbors and were competing for control of the seacoast with its
ports which were important on the trade route between China and Indonesia. If we look at the
map we see that Panduranga was very close to south and central Cambodia.
Possibly the bad relations between Panduranga and Cambodia had an important
influence on two new developments in Cambodia in the 8th century. In the last half of the 8th
century inscriptions show that Jayavarman II began to move toward the North from southern
and central Cambodia, and at the end he established the foundations of Angkor at Roluos and
on the Kulen mountains. The inscriptions about Jayavarman are dated 770, in Thbaung
Khmum, 781 near Kratie (old Sambhupura), and then many referring to him after 802 all
around Angkor. 'We may suppose that the reason for developing a new political center in
north Cambodia was because of the danger from Panduranga in the South. And perhaps the
inscription which says that Jayavarman II came from 'Java' and wanted to make Cambodia
independent of Java (K.235, Sdok Kak Thom) really refers to the 'Chvea' in south Champa. In
CVa
Khmer writing we now read the word ( ) as 'Chvea', but in Old Khmer it was 'Java'.
I think the change in Champa from the North to Panduranga in the 8th century also
influenced the development of Sambhupura (near Kratie) where, as I said about, inscription
K.124 shows a local royal family with three queens all through the 8th century. If North
Champa was weak while Panduranga was powerful, Sambhupura could control the rivers
from North Champa to the Mekong and get valuable products to send down the Mekong
River for trade with other countries; and Panduranga was too far away to control that region
in northeast Cambodia and North Champa.
II-B- RELATION BETWEEN CHAMPA AND VIETNAM
From the 1st century to the 10th century, the country of the Vietnamese people was in
what we now call North Vietnam; and it was a province of China named Giao-Chi. The
language of the Vietnamese was very different from the Cham language. Old Vietnamese was
a Mon-Khmer language, but after Giao-Chi had been under Chinese domination for 1000
years many Chinese words were taken into Vietnamese until it looks more like Chinese than
like other Mon-Khmer languages.
In addition to the change in language, 1000 years of Chinese domination meant that a
new mixed society developed with Chinese administration and Chinese laws mixed together
with old Vietnamese Mon-Khmer customs. The rulers and upper class, even if they were
Vietnamese, used Chinese as the official language, while ordinary people spoke Vietnamese
and did not know Chinese.
The Chinese records about Giao-Chi show that from the 2nd to the 8th century there was
51
much trouble between Giao-Chi and Lin-yi, usually because Lin-yi attacked Giao-Chi.
Perhaps Lin-yi was the north part of Champa, but this is not certain.
In the 7th century, Chinese government in Giao-Chi was very strong under the powerful
T'ang dynasty in China. At that time the Chinese gave Vietnam a new name, 'Protectorate of
Annam'. In the Chinese word ‘Annam’, ‘Nam’ means ‘South’, and ‘An’ means peaceful.
But the T'ang period was the end of Chinese domination. In the 9th century the T'ang
government in China became weak and in 905 the Chinese government collapsed. Then the
Vietnamese formed their own new government and became independent. The first
independent Vietnamese king was named Ngo Quyen, but among the Vietnamese there was
much fighting between different chiefs. Ngo Quyen was overthrown by a man named Dinh,
and because he was followed as king by his son, historians speak of the 'Dinh Dynasty' as the
first Vietnamese dynasty. In 966 the first Dinh king called himself 'Maharaja Dai Co Viet'.
Both the words 'Dai' (Chinese) and 'Co' (Old Vietnamese) mean 'big'. Although China had to
accept Vietnamese independence, they did not accept the Dinh king as 'Mahārāja', and only
called him 'King of Giao-Chi'.
At that time, in addition to the central Dinh kings, Vietnam was divided into at least 12
districts under chiefs who fought with each other and with the Dinh kings. In 980 one of these
chiefs went to Champa and persuaded the Cham king to support him in his fight to become
king in Vietnam. This is the first certain record of a war between Vietnam and Champa. The
Vietnamese chief and his Champa allies were defeated, and many prisoners were kept in
Vietnam. Then there was a new dynasty in Vietnam called the 'First Lê Dynasty' (980-1009
AD). They invaded Champa in 982 and the Cham king and government ran away to the
south. From 986 to about 1000 war continued between Champa and Vietnam, and the center
of Cham government moved to Vijaya in central Champa. But the Northern provinces still
remained part of Champa.
II-C- VIETNAM-CHAMPA-CAMBODIA FROM 11th-13th CENTURIES
We must study these three countries together, because after the 11th century they were
often involved in wars with each other. It is important to realize that the history of Champa
was not only Vietnamese conquest toward the South. There were many times when Champa
attacked Vietnam, and there also wars between Cambodia and Champa, usually started by
Cambodia, and the Cambodian Wars may have done more damage to Champa than the wars
with Vietnam.
In an earlier lesson I explained that until the end of the 10th century there was no
independent country ‘Vietnam’. The area where the Vietnamese people lived, in what is
North Vietnam today, was a province of China for about 1000 years. It was called Giao Chi,
and in the 7th century was named Annam by the Chinese. South of Giao Chi was a country
called Lin-yi, which may have been northern Champa, and the Chinese histories say they
often fought with Lin-yi, usually because Lin-yi attacked toward the North. After about 750
the name 'Lin-yi' disappeared.
After Vietnam became independent the first war with Champa was in the period 989-
1000; and as a result the Chams in the north moved their capital from the region of the
modern city of Hue to Vijaya, now in central Vietnam. The Northern provinces, however,
were not yet taken by Vietnam, and remained part of Champa.
52
In Vietnam there was a new royal dynasty, called Ly, from 1009-1225, and they gave
their country a new name, 'Dai Viet', which means 'Great Viet'. During this time there were
many conflicts. in some of the conflicts the Chams tried to use groups of Vietnamese against
the Ly kings, and sometimes groups of Chams supported the Vietnamese who attacked.
Champa itself was not united. In particular southern Champa, Panduranga, which bordered on
Cambodia in the South, separated from northern Champa and did not help in the wars with
Vietnam.
There were also long periods of peace. During 1050-1068 the Cham kings in Vijaya
had good relations with both the Ly kings of Vietnam and with China. Then in 1068 the
Chams started another war by attacking the Ly. The Ly won and occupied the Cham capital
of Vijaya, and the Cham king fled to Cambodia. After that war Vietnam took three provinces
in North Champa.
Remember that this was during the time of the sons of Suryavarman I when there
were also civil wars in Cambodia and one rebel fled to Champa.
After that war a Cham inscription in 1069 says that Champa was divided among 10
kings, although their locations are not named. After 1074 a new king was able to unify
Champa again, in 1075 they defeated the Vietnamese, and the Cham inscriptions say they
invaded Cambodia and occupied the city of Sambhupura (near Kratie). Remember again that
this was a time of rebellion and civil war in Cambodia.
After 1080 Champa was again at peace with Vietnam, and the new Cham kings tried
to get control over South Champa, Panduranga. Peace with Vietnam lasted until the 1130s
when Champa, together with Cambodia started a new war with Vietnam.
In Cambodia the period 1080 to the 1130s was another violent change. A new group
of princes from north of the Dangrek mountains moved into Angkor and established a new
dynasty, beginning with Jayavarman VI, Dharanindravarman I, and the most important
Suryavarman II (about 1113-1150). This new dynasty is called the Mahidharapura dynasty,
from the name of there home north of the Dangrek Mountains. They change the royal
traditions at Angkor. Their inscriptions do not mention Jayavarman II, and probably most of
the old official families lost their positions. The kings of this dynasty, especially
Suryavarman II and Jayavarman VII were very interested in Champa and Vietnam.
In the years 1131-1136 Suryavarman attacked Vietnam with the help of Champa.
Later, around 1143, Suryavarman occupied the Cham capital of Vijaya and for several years
Cambodia ruled over north and central Champa. That is, the Cambodian occupation was
stronger that earlier Vietnamese attacks on Champa. At the same time Suryavarman began to
send envoys to China, after a long time, since Chenla, when Cambodia did not have much
official contact with China. Probably Suryavarman wanted to bring Cambodia into a new
international sea trade network which was being developed by China, and that was his reason
for occupying the coast of Champa where there were good seaports.
After Suryavarman II died around 1150 Cambodia lost control of Champa, and there
was again a time of trouble and civil war in Cambodia for almost 30 years. During this time
there are not many inscriptions, and we do not know much detail about the conflicts in
Cambodia. In Champa this was another long period of peace with Vietnam, with probably
much cultural contact, because Vietnamese architecture of that time shows Cham influence.
In 1177 Champa invaded Cambodia and occupied the city of Angkor; and in 1181
53
Jayavarman VII defeated the Chams and began to rebuild Angkor. There is much uncertainty
about these events. We do not know which part of Champa invaded Angkor; and we know
that when one group of Chams invaded Angkor, Jayavarman VII himself was in Champa, in
the capital of Vijaya. Probably the invasion of Cambodia was made by South Champa,
Panduranga, while Vijaya had good relations with Cambodia.
At least we know that when Jayavarman returned he was supported by a Cham army
led by Cham princes who helped him for many years while he reunified Cambodia. After
Jayavarman VII had restored control in Cambodia, he attacked Champa in 1190, and then
from 1203-about 1220, all of Champa, both north and south was occupied by Cambodia, and
Jayavarman VII appointed Cham princes who were loyal to him to rule for him in Vijaya and
in Panduranga. During all this time of conflict between Cambodia and Champa Vietnam was
neutral and did not support either side.
Thus we see that from the l130s to around 1220, almost 100 years Champa's political
problems were with Cambodia, not with Vietnam. After Jayavarman VII died in 1220,
Cambodia stopped trying to conquer other countries, and Champa became independent again.
There was still peace with Vietnam until 1252, when attacks on the Vietnamese coast by
Cham pirates were answered by another Vietnamese invasion. During this time a new
dynasty had become rulers of Vietnam, the Tran dynasty (1225-1400 AD).
After 1252 there was another long peace between Champa and Vietnam, and during
the 1260s-1270s, the Chams of Vijaya were busy trying to control Panduranga in the South.
At the end of that time, in the 1270s, there was a new foreign dynasty, the Mongols in China.
They were not Chinese, but foreigners from the North, and their policy toward Southeast Asia
was different. They tried to conquer many countries in Southeast Asia, but failed. For several
years they sent armies against both Vietnam and Champa, and during this time The
Vietnamese and Chams cooperated against the Mongols until the Mongols were defeated in
1285.
III- INDONESIA: SUMATRA AND JAVA FROM THE 9TH CENTURY TO
THE MONGOL INVASION
Now let us look at Java to see if it was probable that Java could have invaded
Cambodia in the 8th century and taken some of Cambodian royalty to Java. In the 8th century
the information about Java indicates that Java was probably not yet an important sea power.
In the interior of central Java, far from the sea, the Javanese were just starting to build the
great temples which are famous. There are Chinese reports referring to ports on the Javanese
coast, but none of them says that Java was a great sea power. Thus the evidence is that Java
could not have invaded Cambodia in the 8th century.
But some historians have written that perhaps the name Java really meant Sumatra,
where we know that there was an important state with many ships, a great sea power, that is,
Srivijaya. Perhaps Srivijaya could have sent ships to Cambodia, but there would have been no
interest in fighting with Cambodia then. The policy of Srivijaya was to control the sea trade
routes to China and among the islands of Indonesia. There was no interest in attacking
Cambodia, going up the Mekong River to the Cambodian political centers at Ba Phnom or
Sambor Prei Kuk or near Angkor.
54
In conclusion we must reject the traditional story about Jayavarman II, and the
traditional interpretation of Sdok Kak Thom.
During this time very little is known about conditions in Sumatra. In the Chinese
records there is a new name, San-fo-Chi, which may mean '3 Vijayas'. Perhaps Sumatra at
this time was less powerful than Java, but it was still considered important by the Chinese.
We do not know anything about names of kings or internal conditions.
In the last lesson I described the development of the first Javanese Kingdom of
Mataram in the interior of the island in the 7th-9th centuries, with many temples and
inscriptions, similar to Chenla and Angkor in Cambodia.
Beginning in 900 the center of power changed in Java from Mataram to the east coast.
We can see this change in the location of the inscriptions and architecture. Before 900 almost
all inscriptions and architecture was in the center. Then between 900 and 928 four kings, one
after the other left inscriptions both in the center and in the east. In each reign period there
were more in the east and fewer in the center. After 900 all inscriptions and architecture was
in the east for about 500 years.
Why was there this change? Probably because the Javanese kings saw the new
development of international sea trade under Chinese influence, and they wanted their capital
to be near the ports. In the inscriptions in the east there is much information about trade,
international relations, construction of ports, and mention of foreigners who came to Java,
including Khmers. During this eastern period of Javanese history in the 10th-13th centuries,
there are not many inscriptions, and the details of political history are not clear. We know that
there were at least two regions of the east which were often in conflict. The period of highest
development was in the 1260s-1292; and perhaps at that time Sumatra was under the control.
It is certain that at that time Java had become a great sea power, different from the situation
in the 7th-8th centuries.
In 1292 the Mongols in China sent ships with soldiers to try to conquer Java. Just as
in Vietnam and Champa, the Mongol invasion failed, but because of the war, there was a
political change in Java. The old royal dynasty was destroyed and a new family of kings built
a new capital city, also in the East, and began a new and very powerful period in Java, called
Majapahit.
IV- BURMA
Beginning in the 11th century hundreds of temples with many inscriptions were built
in northern Burma in a city named Pagan. Burmese legend says Pagan was built in the 9th
century, but this name is first found in Chinese records in 1004, in a Cham inscription in
1050, in a Mon inscription in southern Burma in 1093.
Just as in Cambodia after Angkor, there is disagreement in Burma between inscript-
ions and chronicles.
According to Burmese chronicles, Pagan was built in the 9th century. In the middle of
the 11th century there was a great Buddhist king named Anuruddha. On 1044 he heard that
the Mons in the South, in the city of Thaton, had the Buddhist scriptures, the Tripitaka. He
asked the Mon king to give him a copy, but the Mon king refused. Then Anuruddha invaded
55
Thaton and took the Tripitaka, the Mon royal family, and many skilled people (writers,
architects) to Pagan. After Anuruddha, the next great king according to the chronicles was
named Kyanzittha (1084-1111), the time of Jayavarman VI in Cambodia.
If we look at the Pagan inscriptions we do not find the name Anuruddha. The first
inscriptions in the 11th century are in Mon language, not Burmese, and they were written by
king named Tribhuvanādityavarman, who corresponds to the Kyanzittha of the chronicles.
Inscriptions in the Burmese language begin only after his time.
Probably the reason for the story about Thaton in the chronicles is because the first
inscriptions are in Mon and the first temples are built in Mon style. The writers of the
chronicles later did not believe that Pagan had been built first by the Mon, so they invented
these stories; but we must assume that the first period of Pagan history was Mon.
Pagan is in a good geographic situation near the place where two big rivers meet; and
there is a good river route for ships to the sea. Although Pagan looks like Angkor with many
temples but the two places were very different. Pagan was always Buddhist, and the sangha
(Buddhist monks) were very powerful. Many of the large temples were built because people
gave gifts to the religion, not only built by kings and officials as in Cambodia.
From Kyanzittha to the end of the 13th century there were 10 kings. Then there was a
time of political trouble. In the 1270s the Mon people in southern Burma revolted; and in
1283-87 there was also a Mongol invasion in Burma. Although the Mongols failed to conquer
Pagan, the war, just as in Java, caused a change in royal dynasty and after a few years a
change in the capital.
56
Lesson 7: CHINESE POLICY AND INFLUENCE IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
I. CHINESE POLICY
In the last lesson I described the history of the Southeast Asian countries up to the
attempts by the new Mongol dynasty 1279-1368 in China to impose direct Chinese control in
Vietnam, Champa, Java and Burma. This Mongol policy was contrary to the policy of all
previous Chinese dynasties toward Southeast Asia. In another way, however, the Mongols
followed an earlier policy begun by the Sung Dynasty (1127-1279). This was a new policy in
international trade, which was different from the Chinese policy before the Sung.
Let us look at these changes in Chinese policy in order to understand their effects on
Southeast Asia.
As I wrote in an earlier lesson, in general, during this first period of reported Chinese
trade contact with Southeast Asia, shipping and trading were dominated by non-Chinese,
probably Southeast Asians, and this was preferred by Chinese governments, why did not
encourage Chinese involvement overseas. In such a situation, the Chinese also preferred to
deal with a single overseas center. This encouraged consolidation in Southeast Asia after
periods of competition among Southeast Asian polities, especially in Indonesia. Funan was
the first known preferred center, from the 3rd to 6th centuries; then there was competition
among numerous Indonesian polities as the direct route developed, and different ports
competed in sending envoys to gain favor in China for their trade. By the 7th century most of
those ports disappeared from Chinese records, while a major port each in Sumatra and Java
remained dominant in the Chinese trade.
In the 12th century, the preferred Chinese system broke down when the Mongols
conquered North China in 1127, during the Sung Dynasty, which had unified all China. South
China remained under the Southern Sung until 1279. During that time the Southern Sung
country, which was very rich, desired even more foreign products after being cut off from all
overland routes westward.
Thus the Southern Sung broke with tradition, and for the first time encouraged active
Chinese shipping and foreign trading. The new Chinese maritime fleet sailed into Southeast
Asia, ignoring the central ports, which had dominated trade with China, going anywhere that
desired products were available at the best prices. Thus competition increased among
Southeast Asian ports. When the' Mongols conquered the Southern Sung in 1279 they
continued the same policy until they were overthrown in 1368. The economy of the central
Sumatran port declined as others developed.
For example (1) new names in Chinese records during this time include ‘Sien’, the
future Ayutthaya in Thailand, (2) several ports on the Javanese coast, while the main
Sumatran port declined. This is also the time of Chou Ta-kuan’s mission to Angkor (1290s),
as a representative of the Mongol government, sent especially to develop trade. The Mongol
period was also the first period of Chinese aggression farther South than North Vietnam.
They sent armies to Champa and a fleet with soldiers to Java. These Mongol attacks were
defeated, but they remained active in trade.
In 1368 a new Chinese dynasty, the Ming, replaced the Mongols. The first Ming
57
emperor intended to revive the old system, that is, insist on all trade being carried by
foreigners in foreign ships, with Chinese forbidden, and development of a central Southeast
Asian port recognized by China. This encouraged more competition as Southeast Asian ports
competed to become the favorite port of China. Srivijaya was already gone, and the main
competitors were Sien on the Gulf of Thailand, Malacca in Malaysia, and one or more ports
in Java. Malacca won, and in 1403-4 the last great Chinese fleet, under Admiral Cheng Ho
sailed to Southeast Asia and recognized Malacca as China's main trading partner.
Change in Cambodia is also observable during this period, especially after the
beginning of the Ming government. There was a slow movement of economic center toward
the South. Between 1370 and 1420 there were many missions recorded from Cambodia to
China, probably coming from ports on the Mekong south of Phnom Penh; and between 1431
and l445 the political center of Cambodia also left Angkor and moved to new places in
southern Cambodia.
The trade policy of the Sung and Mongols encouraged more Chinese trade in
Southeast Asia, and active trade by Chinese and Chinese shipping. Because the Chinese
traders could go anywhere with their ships, many new ports developed to sell products to
them, and some of the old ports declined because of the new competition. In Cambodia the
first signs of this were in the times of King Suryavarman II (1113-1150) and Jayavarman VII
(1181-1220). Both of them invaded Champa, probably to control the ports on the Champa
coast; and Suryavarman began to send envoys to China after a long time when there was not
very much contact between China and Cambodia. Chinese contact with Cambodia increased
in the l3th century, and from that time (1296) there is a famous report by a Chinese named
Chou Ta-kuan who came with a diplomatic mission from the Mongol government.
Still later there were more changes in Cambodia connected with the changes in
Chinese especially after the beginning of the Ming government. There was a slow movement
of economic center toward the South. .Between 1370 and 1420 there were many missions
recorded from Cambodia to China, probably coming from ports on the Mekong south of
Phnom Penh; and between 1431 and 1445 the political center of Cambodia also left Angkor
and moved to new places in southern Cambodia.
A new Southeast Asian port which is first mentioned during the period of change in
Chinese policy is Sien/Siam/Syam/Hsien, which the Chinese first mention in the 1280s. The
name, of course, is the same as the modern name 'Siam', used for Thailand, but, as I shall
explain below, it did not mean Thai people at that time. The Sien which the Chinese knew
beginning in the 13th century was one or more port cities near the coast, which began rapid
development with the new Chinese policy, a development which continues in that area
(Ayutthaya, Bangkok) until modern times.
In Java the Mongol invasion was not successful in giving the Mongols any political
control in Java, but the war caused a political change in Java. The old kingdoms were
destroyed, and a new kingdom named Majapahit was formed in east Java. It was also famous
for trading and international contact, but was eventually replaced by other ports on the north
coast of Java. They developed in the same way as Sien, and the new capitals in southern
Cambodia, because of interest in trade with China.
Srivijaya in Sumatra is an example of an old port state which suffered and declined
because of the new competition which started with the new Chinese policy of the Sung and
Mongols. In the 13th century the old port of Srivijaya lost importance, and by 1400 Malacca,
58
a new port on the west coast of the Malay peninsula replaced the Sumatran ports as the most
important port in Southeast Asia.
First I shall give some more detail about Indonesia, Java, Sumatra, and Malacca.
When the Mongols attacked East Java in 1292, two old political centers of East Java,
Singosari and Kediri were involved in the war. They fought against the Mongols, but also
were rivals with each other. Both of them were destroyed politically by the war, and one
prince of Singosari established a new capital city farther inland. This was Majapahit.
The family of the first king of Majapahit continued to rule for a long time. The most
famous period in its history was 1351-1389 under a king named Hayam Wuruk, a grandson
of the first king, and his Chief Minister named Gajah Mada.
Different from Cambodia and the earlier stated of Java, the sources for the history of
Majapahit are not inscriptions on stone or on metal. There are very few during that time. But
we have two books written in Majapahit, and other books written later in Java about that
period. The first European to travel in Java 'was a Catholic priest who was there in 1321, and
wrote that in Java there was one chief king and seven other kings below him.
Like East Java since the 10th century, Majapahit continued the same sea trade policy,
and became famous as an international trade center. However, as the changes in Chinese
policy encouraged the growth of new ports on the North coast of Java, Majapahit suffered
some economic decline. But because East Java also had good agricultural (rice land), it could
continue to live well even when trade was not prosperous, unlike Srivijaya in Sumatra, which
did not have good rice land.
The books which were written in Majapahit and which we still have today do not say
very much about the economy or about trade with other countries. Those books are about the
royal family, religion (a mixture of Mahayana Buddhism and Hindu Sivaism), construction of
, and the land owned by important families. These books describe several classes of people in
the society: the royalty, nobles, big landowners, poor peasant, and slaves. There is nothing
about the society of the port cities. What we know about trade comes from the Chinese
reports, because the Chinese still considered Java a very important place in the international
sea trade network.
However, the Majapahit books do describe the international connections of Majapahit,
but not in relation to trade, only as a description of Majapahit's power over other countries.
For example the most important book says that Majapahit ruled over 25 places in Sumatra, 23
in Kalimantan, 15 in Malaysia, including 6 modern names (Pahang, Kelantan, Trengganu,
Kelang, Kedah), and Tumasik, the old name for the location of Singapore. According to this
source Majapahit also ruled all the eastern islands, including Maluku (the spice islands) and
Timor.
It is possible to believe that these claims are true. However, when the same book says
that Majapahit also had control over Siam, Ayodhya, Martaban (coast of Burma), Champa,
and 'Kambodja', historians cannot accept that as true, and the conclusion is that Majapahit
only had trade and diplomatic relations with them.
It appears that Majapahit in this respect was like China in exaggerating its control
over countries which had relations with it. The Chinese also considered that every country
who sent an ambassador or trade products to China was therefore a subordinate under China.
59
These lists of possessions of Majapahit have been very important for modern
Indonesian nationalists who have said that every thing which belonged to Majapahit must be
under Indonesian rule.
At least these names of countries connected with Majapahit prove that Majapahit was
very active in foreign trade, even of the books which were written to not say anything about
trade.
After about 1389 Majapahit gradually declined as new port cities on Java's north coast
developed. These cities had a better situation for sea trade and for good relations with China.
The port cities were also different in religion. Most of them from the beginning were Islamic.
That religion was spreading over the international trade routes from Arabia, Iran, and India,
to Southeast Asia, especially Indonesia. There is also evidence that in the l4th-15th centuries
Islam was also being adopted by some of the important people in Majapahit. This evidence is
Islamic grave stones near the location of the old palace. In the 15th century Majapahit was no
longer very important. It had declined like Srivijaya, Angkor, and Pagan, as new cities with
better connections to the sea developed. The end of Majapahit was in 1527 when it was
conquered by the Islamic port cities of the North Coast.
II. NORTH COAST CITIES IN JAVA
The important cities on the north coast of Java were Demak, Japara, Gresik, Tuban,
and Surabaya. All together they became more important than Majapahit in the 15th century,
but they were never united in a single state. Each of these ports had its own government, and
they often competed among themselves, even when they all were against Majapahit. In their
competition they made alliances with other powers, including foreigners. For example, in
1532 Gresik made an alliance with the Portuguese against other cities. Each of the cities
controlled some other places in Indonesia. Demak ruled over West Java (Sunda); Japara"
ruled over Palembang in Sumatra, the ancient city of Srivijaya; Tuban ruled over some of the
spice islands, such as Ambon and Banda, and part of Kalimantan.
These cities were strongest in the 15th-16th centuries. Then near the end of the 16th
century a new kingdom of Central Java, in the area of old Mataram, began to develop and
gradually conquered the coastal cities. This will be described in another lesson.
III. SUMATRA
When Chinese policy changed in the 12th-13th centuries the important port cities of
Sumatra, old Srivijaya, located near Palembang, and another port at Jambi, sometimes called
Malayu, could not resist the competition from new ports and they declined. Because they did
not have much good rice land like East Java, decline in trade meant that the population left
and the governments disappeared. During that time the Chinese reports said that other cities
in Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula were more and more free from the center which the
Chinese then called 'San-fo-chi'. Important Chinese reports about this were written in 1178
and 1225. They said that there was much piracy near Sumatra and Malaysia, and that the king
of San-fo-chi tried to force ships to use his port.
By the end of the 13th century Java was more powerful than Sumatra. The Chinese
stopped writing about San-fo-chi, and said the most important place in Sumatra was 'Mo-lo-
60
yu' = Malayan. In 1295 the Chinese wrote that there was a war between Sien and Malaya.
Both of them were new ports which were competing for trade with China. There were more
envoys from Malayu to China, in 1281, 1299, 1301.
At the end of the l4th century, for the area of Sumatra and the peninsula, the Chinese
only reported about ports in Tumasik (Singapore), Trengganu, Pahang, Tambralinga. They
called Palembang, former Srivijaya, 'Old Harbor' and said that it was a center for pirates.
IV- MELAKA / MALACCA
The next new important port in that region was Melaka. It probably began to develop
near the end of the 11th century under a prince from Sumatra. The Chinese began to take an
interest in Melaka around 1400. The Chinese admiral Cheng Ho Southeast Asia many times
between 1403 and 1427. On these trips he visited Melaka; and in 1404 China, under the new
Ming policy, recognized Melaka as the central port in Southeast Asia for trade with China.
That meant in principle that other places had to send their products to Melaka and from there
they would go to China. Melaka sent many envoys to China, and two or three times the king
of Melaka also visited China.
Like the ports of North Java the kings of Melaka began to become Islamic in the early
15th century. In the beginning there was much competition with Sien, and several wars. The
last wars with Sien Ayutthaya were in 1445 and 1456.
The economy of Melaka was pure trade, like old Srivijaya. Most of the trade was with
products which came to Melaka from different countries to be re-exported to other countries,
especially China. One important local product exported from the Malay peninsula was tin.
Melaka did not grow its own rice, but imported rice from Siam and Java. The ports of
Sumatra, which were earlier under Srivijaya and San-fo-chi were controlled by Melaka.
Melaka remained as an independent Malay kingdom and the center of Southeast Asian
trade until it was conquered by Portugal in 1511. After that Melaka was still important, but
other Asian centers developed to compete with the Portuguese in Melaka.
V. SIAM AND THE THAI, SIAM / AYUTTHAYA / THAILAND
As I said in one of the first lessons, Thai is one of the fours important language families
in Southeast Asia. Altogether there are perhaps 300 Thai languages and dialects. Thai
languages are the official modern languages of Thailand, and Laos, other dialects in Thailand,
especially in the North, some languages in Northwest Vietnam White Tai, Black Tai, Red
Tai, and others), southern China (Chuang), and the Shan states in Northeast Burma. Different
from Mon-Khmer there is a high level of comprehension among the Thai languages, which
means they began to split later than the Mon-Khmer languages. That is, today a Khmer
cannot understand a Môn or a Kuy, but a Thai from Bangkok can understand most of the
language spoken in Laos, and about 50% of White Tai in Northern Vietnam or the Shan of
Northern Burma.
Linguists today believe that the original Thai language was spoken in an area which is
now in northern Vietnam and Southeast China. About 2000 years ago groups of people from
this area began to move in different directions, into Laos, Northern Thailand, Burma, India,
and farther into South China. As they moved their languages changed, becoming the modern
61
Thai languages.
Probably Thai speakers reached what is now central Thailand around 1000 A.D., and
then slowly moved farther South, into places inhabited by Mon and Khmer. Eventually Thai
replaced Mon and Khmer in most of Thailand.
There is not much to say about this area at that time. However, we do know that the
area which is now central and southern Thailand was mostly Khmer in language, with some
Mon population also.
The history of this area is very important in the history of Cambodia. As mentioned in
the lecture on languages, a population speak in Thai probably did not enter central, north-
eastern, and southern Thailand before the 10th century, and those areas were probably
populated by Khmer, Mon, and speakers of other Mon-Khmer languages. The situation in
North Thailand is uncertain, but there was also a Mon population with a city and kings until
the 13th century, and also settlements of other Mon-Khmer peoples.
There was an old theory among Europeans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that
the Thai lived originally in an ancient state called Nan-Chao in Yunnan in southwest China,
and they had come from Yunnan to Thailand when the Mongols conquered Nan-Chao in the
13th century. This theory is no longer accepted. We know now that the people of Nan-Chao
did not speak Thai. They spoke Tibeto-Burman languages.
It is known from surviving written records that the part of the peninsula where Nakhorn
Sri Thammarat, Surat Thani, and Patthalung are located had a Khmer population until the 17th
century. Before the 15th century all the inscriptions in south central Thailand (Ayutthaya-
Bangkok) are in Mon or Khmer, although there are not many, and in the Northeast there are
both Mon and Khmer inscriptions.
The first inscriptions are Mon in about the 6th century. They are very short, and show
nothing more than that the local population was Mon, Buddhist, and that there was a more or
less unified area in central and northeast Thailand known as Dvaravati. Most characteristic of
Dvaravati is its Buddhist art, by which the area of Dvaravati may be outlined. Dvaravati art
and related Mon inscriptions continued until about the 10th century. There are also many
remains of Dvaravati Buddhist architecture, mostly badly damaged. We do not know
anything about social or political organization in Dvaravati nor the names of any kings or
other persons. It is possible that Dvāravati was not a state, but several large settlements, or
cities with the same language, Mon, Buddhist religion, and a characteristic style of sculpture
and architecture. The early Khmer inscriptions are in the Northeast, along the Mun river,
from around the 8th century, but no important political center can be identified in Khmer
Thailand at that time.
The first Chinese records concern ‘Sien/Hsien = Siam’. They are from the Mongol period
in China in the 1280s when new ports were developing in many places. The Chinese records
of Sien indicate that it was on either the Menam river near where Bangkok or Ayutthaya later
develope, or on the Ta Chin river to the West.
From that time on there was regular contact between these ports and China, even after
Malacca became the central Southeast Asian port for trade with China. The Chinese
continued to use the name ‘Sien’ to mean the area of Thailand from Ayutthaya to the mouth
of the Menam River, as the name for the state centered on Ayutthaya and Bangkok until this
62
century. This is just like they used ‘Chenla’ to mean Cambodia until modern times.
For the 14th century Thailand, like Cambodia, has chronicles written much later which
pretend to tell the story of the past from around 1350. They say Ayutthaya was founded in
1351. It is better, however, to suppose that Ayutthaya continued from the ‘Sien’ known to the
Chinese. Of course there may have been a new name for the city in 1351. The name ‘Sien’
does not at that time means ‘Thai’. Traditionally this name was only used by foreigners, not
by Thai, and the Thai just called themselves ‘Thai’. Only in the 19th century King Mongkut
began to use this foreign name as the name of his kingdom when he wrote in English. The
origin of ‘Sien/Siam’ is not known. It probably meant some other ethnic group who have
disappeared, or was the name of an area.
For the Chinese there was no change from Sien to Ayutthaya
There are very few local inscriptions from the Ayutthaya area. One 7th-century Sanskrit
inscription found southwest of Ayutthaya records a King Harshavarman, grandson of King
Iśānavarman. If this was the same Iśānavarman as in central Cambodia, it means that another
branch of his family was established in Thailand in the area of the future Sien and Ayutthaya.
If so, perhaps the first kings of Ayutthaya recorded in the Thai chronicles until the 15th
century was from this family, and were related to the royalty in Cambodia. At least the early
Ayutthayan kings called Angkor ‘the capital’ (Nagara hluań in Thai), and until the 15th
century some official Ayutthaya writings were in Khmer. Thus the war with ‘Sien’ mentioned
by Chou Ta-kuan in 1296 was not between Cambodia and the Thais, but between groups of
Khmer.
The first records of the Thai language are much farther north, in Sukhothai, from the
th
13 century, and Sukhothai was the first real Thai kingdom. Even there kings occasionally
wrote inscriptions in Khmer.
The first western scholars who study ancient Thailand thought that ‘Sien’ in the
Chinese writings meant Sukhothai, because ‘Sien’ was Siam / Thailand, and they knew that
the only Thai state in the 13th-early 14th century was in Sukhothai. Later it was discovered
that the Chinese knew Sukhothai as a different place from Siam, and there are Chinese
records which name both Sien and Su-ku-tai as different places.
The Thai people had not yet arrived (this will be explained in the next lesson).
Suryavarman’s inscription in Lopburi does not mean that there must have been a war and
conquest. It may only mean peaceful contacts and influence from Angkor to other areas
where the population was also Khmer.
There are inscriptions in central, southern, and northeastern Thailand which show that
the population before 1200-1300 A.D. was certainly Mon and Khmer, mostly Khmer. And
Khmer inscriptions were still written in Ayutthaya, the capital of Thailand, in the middle of
the 15th century.
The first written records in Thai come from Sukhothai in North Thailand from the
beginning of the l4th century. At that time the Thai had probably been in North Thailand for
200-300 years; and they had made a new alphabet for their language. That alphabet is the
ancestor of the Thai alphabet today. It was based on the Khmer alphabet, but there are many
differences.
A population speaking Thai probably did not enter central, northeastern, and southern
63
Thailand before the 10th century, and those areas were probably populated by Khmer, Mon,
and speakers of other Mon-Khmer languages. The situation in North Thailand is uncertain,
but there was also a Mon population with a city and kings until the 13th century, and also
settlements of other Mon-Khmer peoples.
It is known from surviving written records that the part of the peninsula where Nakhorn
Sri Thammarat, Surat Thani, and Patthalung are located had a Khmer population until the
17th century. Before the 15th century all the inscriptions in south central Thailand
(Ayutthaya-Bangkok) are in Mon or Khmer, although there are not many, and in the
Northeast there are both Mon and Khmer inscriptions.
The first inscriptions are Mon in about the 6th century. They are very short, and show
nothing more than that the local population was Mon, Buddhist, and that there was a more or
less unified area in central and northeast Thailand known as Dvaravati. Most characteristic of
Dvaravati is its Buddhist art, by which the area of Dvaravati may be outlined. Dvaravati art
and related Mon inscriptions continued until about the 10th century. There are also many
remains of Dvaravati Buddhist architecture, mostly badly damaged. We do not now anything
about social or political organization in Dvaravati, nor the names of any kings or other
persons. It is possible that Dvaravati was not a state, but several large settlements, or cities
with the same language, Mon, Buddhist religion, and a characteristic style of sculpture and
architecture.
The early Khmer inscriptions are in the Northeast, along the Mun River, from around
the 8th century, but no important political center can be identified in Khmer Thailand at that
time.
The first Chinese records concern 'Sien/Hsien = Siam'. They are from the Mongol
period in China in the 1280s when new ports were developing in many places. The Chinese
records of Sien indicate that it was on either the Menam River near where Bangkok or
Ayutthaya later developed, or on the Ta Chin River to the west. From that time on there was
regular contact between these ports and China, eyen after Malacca became the central
Southeast Asian port for trade with China. The Chinese continued to use the name ‘Sien’ to
mean the area of Thailand from Ayutthaya to the mouth of the Menam River, as the name for
the state centered on Ayutthaya and Bangkok until this century. This is just like they used
'Chenla' to mean Cambodia until modern times.
For the 14th century Thailand, like Cambodia, has chronicles written much later
which pretend to tell the story of the past from around 1350. They say Ayutthaya was
founded in 1351. It is better, however, to suppose that Ayutthaya continued from the ‘Sien’
known to the Chinese. Of course there may have been a new name for the city in 1351. The
name ‘Sien’ does not at that time means 'Thai'. Traditionally this name was only used by
foreigners, not by Thai, and the Thai just called themselves 'Thai'. Only in the 19th century
King Mongkut began to use this foreign name as the name of his kingdom when he wrote in
English. The origin of 'Sien/Siam' is not known. It probably meant some other ethnic group
who have disappeared, or was the name of an area.
For the Chinese there was no change from Sien to Ayutthaya.
There are very few local inscriptions from the Ayutthaya area. One 7th-century
Sanskrit inscription found southwest of Ayutthaya records a King Harshavarman, grandson of
King Ishanavarman. If this was the same Ishanavarman as in central Cambodia, it means that
another branch of his family was established in Thailand in the area of the future Sien and
64
Ayutthaya. If so, perhaps the first kings of Ayutthaya recorded in the Thai chronicles until the
15th century was from this family, and were related to the royalty in Cambodia. At least the
early Ayutthayan kings called Angkor 'the capital' (Nagara Hluang in Thai), and until the
15th century some official Ayutthaya writings were in Khmer. Thus the war with ‘Sien’
mentioned by Chou Ta-kuan in 1296 was not between Cambodia and the Thais, but between
two groups of Khmer.
The first records of the Thai language are much farther north, in Sukhothai, from the
13th century and Sukhothai was the first real Thai kingdom. Even there kings occasionally
wrote inscriptions in Khmer. The first western scholars to study ancient Thailand thought that
‘Sien’ in the Chinese writings meant Sukhothai, because ‘Sien’ was Siam/Thailand, and they
knew that the only Thai state in the 13th-early l4th century was in Sukhothai. Later it was
discovered that the Chinese knew Sukhothai as a different place from Sien/Siam, and there
are Chinese records which name both Sien and Su-ku-tai as different places.
Chou Ta-kuan said that ‘Sien’ was southwest of Angkor, which means that it was in
that part of Thailand near the Gulf, the area today of Bangkok, Ayutthaya, Suphanburi,
Petchaburi, Chanthaburi.
The words ‘Sien’/ ‘Siam’ are not known in any Thai language as names for the Thai
peoples themselves. ‘Sien’/'Siam' have always been words in foreign languages; and the first
reports by the Chinese indicate that at first ‘Sien’/'Siam' meant a territory, a region, near the
Gulf coast of what is now Thailand. Those names did not mean a certain people of language.
Probably the syam shown in a bas-relief at Angkor Wat were not Thai, but Mon-Khmer
people from south central Thailand.
The modern history of Southeast Asian languages shows that the Thai language did
not become important in central Thailand until after 1000 AD. Existing records also show
that the kings of Ayutthaya used Khmer as an official language until the middle of the 15th
century. Then for about 100 years, until after 1569, Ayutthaya began to write Thai language,
but used the Khmer alphabet, not the Thai alphabet which was developed in Sukhothai in the
North.
This means that the war between ‘Sien’ and Angkor reported by Chou-Ta-kuan in
1296 and the wars between Ayutthaya and Angkor recorded in the chronicles in the l4th-15th
centuries were not between Siamese (Thai) and Khmer, but between two Khmer societies,
one centered in Ayutthaya, and one centered in Angkor. Both considered that Angkor was
their ancient capital, and this idea continued into Thai. In Thai, even in the 20th century,
Angkor was called 'Nakhorn Hluang' (nagara of the king), the highest-ranking capital city.
Ayutthaya really became Thai after the Burmese invasion in 1569. This war destroyed
the old royalty of Ayutthaya, and the old royal family of Sukhothai in the North, who were
really Thai, helped the Burmese, and became rulers in Ayutthaya. After that all official
writing in Ayutthaya was in Thai, with the Thai alphabet from Sukhothai. The war by the
Thai king Naresuon, against Cambodia/Lovek in 1593-1594, was really a war between Thai
and Cambodia.
VI. THE EARLY HISTORY OF LAOS
The Lao ethnic group and the Lao language are one branch of the Thai. The Lao
65
dialects of Luang Prabang, Vientiane, and the south of Laos are 70-80% understandable for
people who know standard Bangkok Thai; and the native dialect of most of the population of
northeast Thailand is Lao, not standard Thai.
In Laos today, however, around half of the population is not Lao, but several groups of
people who speak Mon-Khmer languages and in the North Hmong and Yao languages. This
means that there are more people who speak the Lao dialects in Thailand than in Laos. This
situation is very old. When the Lao moved into Laos several hundred or over one thousand
years ago, they settled in the river valleys where it was easy to grow rice, while the Mon-
Khmer who had lived there earlier remained in the mountains and forests. As I have said in
earlier lessons on Southeast Asian languages, language specialists today believe that the
original home of the Thai languages, including Lao, was in the area which is now northern
Vietnam and Southeast China.
There are several examples of old Khmer and Mon presence in Laos. The most famous
is ‘Vat Phu’, an Angkor-period temple on a mountain in southern Laos, not far from the
Cambodian border. Archaeological excavation there shows that there was construction in the
pre-Angkor period, perhaps on a prehistoric base. Then there is the long Sanskrit inscription
of Say Fong near Vientiane, a record from the time of Jayavarman VII. There are also in
some of the towns along the Mekong, near Sawannakhet and near Thakhek, which look like
pre-Angkor Khmer towers with Lao style decoration added later. Near Vientiane a few very
old Mon inscriptions have been found, and some sculptures of Buddha which seems to show
an art style similar to that of the Mon in "Thailand."
Lao history begins with legendary chronicles which tell of the origins of the Lao
people. The most famous such story is the story of Khun Bulom, said to be the founder of
Laos. ‘Khun’ is a high-ranking title, and 'Bulom' was his name. It is interesting that this
legend agrees with the conclusion of modern linguists that the Lao came from the Northeast,
from a place in northern Vietnam today. It is also interesting that the name 'Bulom' derives
from Sanskrit Parameśvara, the name given to the founder of Angkor, Jayavarman II, after
he died.
In the chronicle of Khun Bulom, and in other old Lao chronicles, there are no certain
dates for the ancient periods; and after Khun Bulom there are long lists of names of rulers
until the 11th century when most historians have considered that real history begins.
However, there may still be very much legend in the stories of the 14th century.
The important hero in the 14th century is named 'Fa Ngum" who is believed to have
been born around 1310-1320. The important details about his life are that he was sent to
Angkor where he remained many years; then he returned to Luang Prabang in northern Laos
with an Angkor princess as his wife, a Cambodian army in support, and Cambodian-style
Theravada Buddhism which was established as a new official religion in Laos. After his
return he established the Lao kingdom of Lan Sang (‘one million [lan] elephants [san]’) with
its capital at Luang Prabang.
There are different stories about the reason why he was sent to Angkor. One chronicle
says that he was born with 33 teeth, which was unlucky. So he was put on a raft in the
Mekong River and floated down to Cambodia. Another story says that he was sent down the
river after he was an adult because he had done something bad; and a third story says that his
father did something bad, and they were both put on a raft and sent down the river when Fa
Ngum was still a child.
66
Probably these stories are all legends, not true history. These stories call Angkor
'Inthapatnokor', which means the 'city' [nagara] of Indra ['Intha']. This name was only given
to Angkor in the 17th-18th centuries when Cambodians had forgotten the true origins of
Angkor and thought that Angkor had been built by the gods. And historians of Lao Buddhism
do not believe that it came from Angkor, or was the same as the Buddhism in Cambodia at
that time. Probably the stories of Fa Ngum are not true.
But it is possible to believe that beginning in the l4th or 15th century there was a large
Lao country including all of modern Laos and the area which is now northeast Thailand, with
its capital in Luang Prabang, and its name 'Lan Sang', even if we do not really know the
names of the first kings.
The country of Lan Sang remained unified during the 16th-17th centuries and was very
important. It had many valuable products which Vietnam and Ayutthaya and the Europeans
wanted. One of the important European reports about Lan Sang was written by a Dutch
merchant named Van Wuystoff who led a group up the Mekong River from Cambodia to
Luang Prabang in 1641-1642.
After that Lan Sang began to decline. The last great king (1638-1695) was named
Suriyavongsa. When he died Laos split into three kingdoms; (1) Lan Sang in the north, (2)
Vientiane in the center, and (3) after 1713 Champassak in the South. Each of these three
kingdoms was weaker than its neighbors, such as Ayutthaya and Vietnam, and in the 18th
and 19th centuries the Lao kingdoms were forced to send tribute to all their neighbors. Lan
Sang (Luang Prabang) in the North was sometimes forced to give tribute to Ayutthaya,
Vietnam, China, and Burma.
67
Lesson 8: THE 15TH-16TH CENTURIES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
I- CAMBODIA
In earlier lessons I described how Cambodia revived from an Ayutthayan invasion of
Angkor and occupation of Angkor during 1431-1445. Then a new leader, Ponhea Yat, moved
the capital south to Phnom Penh, and Angkor never again became a political center. The
reason for the move was probably that Cambodian rulers wished to get involved in the
growing international sea trade which was important in all of Southeast Asia, and Angkor
was too far from the sea. However, we do not know very much of the details of the 14th-16th
centuries, because after the beginning of the 13th century there are no more detailed
inscriptions, and the chronicles which have been written about that time in the 18th-19th
centuries are not accurate before the middle of the 16th century.
In the middle of the 16th century there is some good information, in chronicles and
inscriptions, about a king named Ang Chan. He was probably born late in the 15th century,
and died in 1566. He began his military and political activity around 1520 when there was a
very serious revolt against his brother who was king. In the chronicles this is called the revolt
of esþckn ('Sdech Kan'), a slave who became a military officer because the king married his
sister. There is much legend in the stories of Kan, but we can be certain that there was a
rebellion because later, during the reign of Ang Chan, a Portuguese missionary, Gaspar da
Cruz, wrote that Ang Chan became king when a rebellion of the people forced his brother to
abdicate (the chronicles say that Kan killed the king who was Ang Chan’s brother).
Ang Chan was involved with Ayutthaya. During the rebellion of Kan he fled to
Ayutthaya for several years, then returned with support from Ayutthaya to defeat Kan. Later
Ang Chan also defeated an attack on Cambodia from Ayutthaya. According to the chronicles
Ang Chan was the first king to have his capital at Lovek! Banteay Longvek.
During the time he was fighting with Ayutthaya he spent some time at Angkor, and
repaired and rebuilt parts of some of the . On two of the walls of Angkor Wat there are short
inscriptions dated in 1546 and 1564 saying that the Cambodian king had the carvings on
those walls finished because they had not been finished in the time of Vishnuloka (the old
name of Angkor Wat when it was built by Suryavarman II) Those inscriptions do not use the
name 'Ang Chan’, but show his official titles as king.
1546 - brah pāda stac brah rājaońkāra parmmarājādhirāja rāmādhipati paramma
cakrabartt[i]rāja. RB¼áTsþcRB¼raC{g;arbrmμraCaFiraCramaFibtIbrmcRkBtþiraC
1564 - brah pāda samtec brah rājaońkāra parmmarājādhirāja ta parammapavitra
RB¼áTsMetcRB¼raC{g;arbrmμraCaFiraCtbrmμbviRt
These royal titles show influence from Ayutthaya in the titles 'Parammarājādhirāja',
'Rāmādhipati', and 'Parammacakrabartti', which were not used at Angkor. These inscriptions
also prove that in the 16th century Cambodians still had some true information about Angkor
Wat.
There are also several large Buddha images which are believed to be the work of Ang
68
Chan: one in Udong, one at Wat Tralaeng Keng in Lovek, a sleeping Buddha built on one
side of the Angkor temple Baphuon, and some of the construction added to the Angkor period
temple of Wat Nokor in Kompong Cham.
After the death of Ang Chan in 1566 the chronicles are not very useful until the very
end of the 16th century. The different chronicle texts have different dates, and little important
detail. They show that different writers had different ideas about those years, and it is
impossible to know what the most accurate details are until the time of an invasion of the
Cambodian capital Lovek by Ayutthaya in 1593-94.
II- THAILAND (AYUTTHAYA)
Let us now look at Ayutthaya in the same period. As I described in earlier lessons, we
should consider that the history of Ayutthaya begins with Sien/Siam which the Chinese began
to write about around 1280. Because the Chinese reports describe Sien as an area close to the
sea, it must have been on the coast of the Gulf of Thailand, not far from Bangkok today. The
Chinese diplomat Chou Ta-Kuan, who visited Angkor in 1296, wrote that Sien was southwest
of Angkor, which also means on the Gulf Coast. According to the Chinese reports Sien joined
with Lo-hu (Lavo in Angkor inscriptions, Lopburi today) in 1349, and after that the Chinese
name for the country was Sien-lo.
The Thai chronicles say that the city of Ayutthaya was built in 1351, which means that
it continued the development of Sien, and the Chinese always called Ayutthaya 'Sien-lo'. The
chronicles also say that Ayutthaya joined with Lopburi in 1352, and this is very much like the
Chinese report.
There are not many inscriptions from the area of Ayutthaya, but all of them which have
been found are written in Mon and Khmer before the end of the 15th century. This means that
Sien and Ayutthaya in the beginning were probably not Thai, but Mon-Khmer.
At the same time there was another important kingdom in north-central Thailand named
Sukhothai. Sukhothai may have existed since the 11th century, and it is important as the first
place where there are records of writing in the Thai language, many Thai stone inscriptions in
the 14th-16th centuries.
In the 14th-15th centuries Ayutthaya began to expand its power toward the North and
East. In 1438 Ayutthaya got control over Sukhothai, but left the Sukhothai royal family in
place as governors. After this time there was gradual Thai language influence in Ayutthaya,
although there are still some inscriptions from the king in Khmer between 1440—1460. In
the 16th century there are some inscriptions of Ayutthaya written in Thai, but with the Khmer
alphabet, not with the Thai alphabet of Sukhothai.
Sien and Ayutthaya developed as centers of international sea trade, and in this they
competed with Burma and Cambodia. As I mentioned above, there was an Ayutthayan war
against Angkor in 1431-1445. This was probably not a war between Thai and Khmer, but a
war between two Khmer kingdoms, one in Ayutthaya and one in Angkor and the reason for
the Ayutthayan attack was to get control of the ancient city which they believed to be their
traditional capital too.
The big change in Ayutthaya from Mon-Khmer to Thai came in 1569. Burma was then
69
under a new strong royal dynasty based in the seaport of Pegu in the South; and they wished
to conquer all of the land which is now Thailand. When the Burmese army reached
Sukhothai, the Sukhothai royalty, who were probably angry with the Ayutthayan conquest in
1438, joined the Burmese and followed them to Ayutthaya. The old Ayutthayan royal family
was destroyed, and Burma put a prince of Sukhothai on the throne of Ayutthaya as the new
king.
The second king of the new Sukhothai dynasty in Ayutthaya was named Naresuon. He
was a very successful military hero. First he forced the Burmese to leave Ayutthaya. Then in
1593 he led his army to Cambodia and conquered the capital, Lovek. Note that Naresuon did
not occupy Angkor. Because he was a Thai from Sukhothai he had no interest in the old
Ayutthayan traditions about Angkor as their own ancient capital. He was interested in the
new capital Lovek, and control of the river running south to the sea. Lovek was a rival with
Ayutthaya in the international sea trade.
III- VIETNAM
In an earlier lesson I described how Vietnam and Champa cooperated to defeat the
Mongol invasions of their countries in 1285. After that there was a time of peace and small
conflicts until the period 1360-1390. In those 30 years Champa invaded Vietnam, and almost
conquered all of Vietnam. The invasions by Champa were led by a prince named Che Bong
Nga; but just before he was able to take the Vietnamese capital he was killed in battle in
1390, and the Cham rulers after him did not continue his efforts.
Perhaps became Vietnam was weak from this war of 30 years, there was a change of
royal dynasty in 1400, from the Tran to the Ho. But the Ho only ruled until 1407 when China
(Ming dynasty) invaded and ruled in Vietnam again until 1428. During this period there were
no 'wars between Vietnam and Champa because Chinese policy toward Champa was friendly.
Then a new Vietnamese dynasty named Le forced the Chinese out of Vietnam in 1428
and Vietnam was independent again. Wars began again with Champa, often started by Cham
attacks. The result was a successful Vietnamese invasion in 1471which conquered all of
Champa in what is now central Vietnam (see map).
Not long after this victory Vietnam began to split into rival ruling families. First,
around 1527 a family named Mac revolted against the Le kings and got independent control
of some of the northern provinces on the border with China. The Mac wanted more Chinese
influence in Vietnam. During this rebellion by the Mac, the Lê kings were supported by two
other families named Trinh and Nguyên. The base of the Lê, Trinh, and Nguyên was in
Thanh Hoa, south of Hanoi (see map).
Then around 1570 the Trinh and Nguyên began to fight each other; and the Nguyên
moved south to the land of former Champa and made their capital in the region of the modern
city of Hué. After that Vietnam was divided into two kingdoms until after 1770, the North
under the Trinh and the South under the Nguyên.
During 1620-1670 there was always war between the North and the South. This is
important to understand in connection with Cambodian history, because Cambodian relations
with Vietnam (the Nguyên in the South) began just before 1620.
70
IV- THE FIRST EUROPEANS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA IN XV-XVI
CNEURIES
The first interest of the Europeans in Southeast Asia was to get spices from the so-
called 'Spice Islands' in Indonesia. The Spice Islands were the Molucca Islands, especially
Banda, Ternate, and Tidore (see map). The two spices which were most important then were
cloves (p;akøaMBU) and nutmeg (cnÞn_-RkwsÑa), which grew only in those islands.
No doubt the Austronesian sailors began taking those spices to the West, to Java,
Sumatra, and India, in prehistoric times; and we know that the spices reached Europe in
Roman times, over 2000 years ago. Later we know that the spices reached the Arab countries
by sea, and then went by land to Turkey, and to Italy, especially the city of Venice. This route
over land and in the Mediterranean Sea was controlled by Arabs and, Turks, and Egyptians.
Beginning about 1400 the city of Malacca (on the west coast of Malaysia today) was
the most important port in Southeast Asia. Spices went there from the spice islands, then to
India and to Europe.
Note that the mainland of Southeast Asia, the area of Burma, Thailand, and Cambodia
today, was not involved in this trade. The important spices did not grow there, and those
areas were not on the sea route to Europe.
Near the end of the 15th century Western Europeans began to try to get involved with
this profitable trade. First the Portuguese sailed around Africa and reached India in 1498. In
1511 the Portuguese conquered the port of Malacca, and this broke up the old Southeast
Asian trade network. The Portuguese began to force local traders to sell them the spices to
carry to Europe. Soon after they conquered Malacca the Portuguese also went to the spice
islands in 1512, and made agreements, sometimes by force to collect the spices at their
source.
A few years later Magellan, sailing around the world from Spain reached the
Philippines. His goal was also the spice islands, but he was too late, for the Portuguese were
already there. The Spaniards began to develop their colony in the Philippines from that time.
The Portuguese never had complete control over the spice islands. Later in the 16th
century both the English and the Dutch established trade centers there, and the Dutch began
to establish control after 1596. In fact, the first Dutch center in Indonesia was on Banda,
although by 1619 they decided to move to Batavia (now Jakarta) on Java. In the 1620s the
Portuguese and English were forced out of the spice islands, which were then entirely under
Dutch control.
In the 15th-16th, and early 17th centuries there was not much European interest in the
mainland of Southeast Asia, because the valuable spices were not produced there. The sea
trade of the mainland countries was mostly connected to China and Japan.
However, after the Portuguese conquered Malacca in 1511, they began to take
advantage of the old Southeast Asian sea trade network. Except for a few important ports,
such as Malacca, they did not establish colonies in Southeast Asia, but worked within the
local international system. They began to make contact with the mainland countries,
Ayutthaya, Pegu (southern Burma), Vietnam, and In the 1580s Cambodia. Many Portuguese
71
went to those countries as soldiers to serve in the local armies. They knew more about guns,
and were considered as valuable experts by all the Southeast Asian kings. In the wars
between Burma and Ayutthaya and between Ayutthaya and Cambodia there were Portuguese
on both sides.
In Cambodia there were Portuguese and Spaniards in the 1580s who worked for King
Sattha. Two of them whose names are famous were Diego Velloso and Blas Ruiz. In 1592,
just before the war with Naresuon, King Sattha sent them to Manila to ask for military help
from the Spaniards in the Philippines. The Spanish governor refused to give military aid, but
offered a treaty of friendship. Belloso returned to Cambodia from Manila in 1595. He was
captured by the Thais and taken to Ayutthaya. Then Naresuon sent him to Manila as a Thai
representative, and he returned from there to Cambodia in 1595. Because of the reports
written by these Portuguese and Spaniards, we have much information about what happened
in Cambodia in the end of the 16th century and beginning of the 17th century.
Later in the 17th century the English and Dutch became interested in the mainland
countries. They went first to Patani (now on the east coast of the Thai peninsula) and then
established trading offices in Ayutthaya. in the 1620s the first Dutch came to Cambodia, and
they were very important as traders in Cambodia in the middle of the 17th century.
..
72
Lesson 9: THE 16TH-18TH CENTURIES IN SEA
I- BURMA
In the last lesson I was not able to cover Burma in the 14th-15th centuries, so I shall
begin with Burma in this lesson. The history of Burma in this period is relevant for
Cambodia, because of the two conquests of Ayutthaya by Burma, in 1569 and in 1767. After
each War with Burma there was a revolution in Ayutthaya, and each time had the new royal
dynasty in Ayutthaya. After the revolution, they began to attempt invasions of Cambodia.
After 1569, King Naresuon of Ayutthaya invaded and destroyed Lovek in 1593, which set off
a series of political changes in Cambodia After 1767, as I shall describe below, the new
royalty in Thonbury-Bangkok also attempted to invade and subdue Cambodia several times.
Let us start briefly in Burma with the Mongol invasion of northern Burma and its
capital Pagan in 1287. Just like the Mongol attacks on Vietnam, Champa, and Java, this
attack on Pagan was not successful. The Mongols did not occupy Pagan, and they were soon
forced to retreat to China. But the attack, together with political troubles in Burma, resulted in
a change of royal dynasty a new political organization within Burma. The political troubles
within Burma were (1) the growth of a new group of Burmese official in the north who were
becoming stronger than the royal family of Pagan, and (2) a rebellion of the Mon people in
southern Burma.
A. Northern Burma—Pagan and Aver
When the Mongols attacked Pagan they were defeated by a new group of Burmese
leaders who came from a region East and Northeast of Pagan, and who controlled the rich
rice-producing region of Krause (see map) The Pagan royal family was very weak, and not
capable of defending the city. After the Mongols were defeated, the new leaders gradually
moved the center of political power to their home area and established a new capital and
royal dynasty in Aver. This change took a long time. The first official move from Pagan to
Aver was in 1312, and Aver did not completely replace Pagan as the capital until 1365.
During those years the old royal family of Pagan still lived in Pagan, but they did not have
very much political power. After 1365 the Burmese kingdom was the kingdom of Ava, under
a new dynasty, which existed until 1555. This Ava period is famous for great development in
Burmese language and literature. Ava was far from the sea, and was not involved much in
international trade, but it had a very rich rice area in Kyaukse, and could support its
population, and provide wealth for construction of , palaces, and support for scholars.
B. Southern Burma: The Mon and Pegu
The Mon area was developing as a region of port cities involved in international sea
trade. It was becoming very rich with its own capital at Pegu. Probably because of the
Mongol attack in the North and the conflicts among groups of officials, the Mon was able to
maintain independence and form a separate kingdom in the South from the 1280s until 1539.
The Mon country and its capital Pegu were similar to the area of Sien/Ayutthaya. Pegu also
began as a port city, and became very rich because of foreign trade. It had good trade
relations with China, and with ports in Indonesia; and the first Europeans who visited Pegu at
the end of the 14th century and the beginning of the 15th century thought that Pegu was the
most beautiful city they had seen. Pegu exported teak wood, and built ships for sale to China
73
and Java. Rice was also exported to Malacca.
In the years 1385-1423 there was a long war between Mon Pegu and the Burmese
kingdom in the North. The Mon almost won, but in the end they had to remain a separate
state in the South.
C. The Toungoo/Taungu Period
The division of Burma into a Burmese North and a Mon South lasted until the 16th
century. Then a new center of power had developed in the center of Burma, in the town of
Toungoo, and in the 1530s the chiefs of Toungoo began a war to conquer both the Mon South
and Burmese Ava. Toungoo itself was Burmese, but near the border With the Mon country.
By the middle of the 16th century Toungoo had conquered the Mon South and Pegu
(1539) and the Burmese kingdom of Ava (1555) Burma was again united under a new
dynasty. However, although they were Burmese, the Toungoo kings made their capital in
Pegu, used Mon as an official language, and maintained Mon customs. Thus, in fact, Burma
was united under the Mon South, and the old Pegu policy of sea trade as an economic base
was maintained. This new kingdom of Pegu was named Hangsavati, a traditional Mon name.
Hangsavati and its capital Pegu were in strong competition with Ayutthaya in
international sea trade; and the new kings of Pegu tried to conquer all of the Thai and
Ayutthayan kingdoms. Between the 1560s and 1580s they attacked Chiang Mai in northern
Thailand, northern Laos, and in 1567 Sukhothai and Ayutthaya. In this war Sukhothai
supported Hangsavati, and the princes of Sukhothai became kings in Ayutthaya after 1569. It
was this new Thai dynasty in Ayutthaya which attacked Lovek in 1593.
Chiang Mai in the far North of Thailand remained under Burmese domination until the
end of the 18th century.
D. Burma in the 17th Century: A New North/South Division
The unity of Hangsavati lasted less than 100 years. By 1635 there were conflicts within
the royal family, and a new division between the Burmese North and the Mon South. Ava
was again the capital of Burma in the North, under a new Burmese dynasty. The Hangsavati
royal family lost power, and there were new rulers in the South. In the South Pegu was losing
importance as a port, and there were many conflicts among royal groups. In the middle of the
18th century there was another long war between the Burmese and the Mon, and in 1751 the
Mon almost occupied all of Burma, and its capital Ava. Then the Burmese united under a
new king. They invaded the South and destroyed the power of the Mon. All of Burma was
again united under a new Burmese dynasty between 1750 and 1760. It was these new kings
who invaded and conquered Ayutthaya in 1767.
II- AYUTTHAYA
The second king of the new Thai Sukhothai dynasty in Ayutthaya after 1569 was
Naresuon, who attacked Lovek in Cambodia in 1593. He died in 1605. The dynasty
continued until 1688, when it was removed by a revolution.
During that time Ayutthaya was famous as a rich center of international trade. All of the
74
kings welcomed relations with foreign countries; and exports from Ayutthaya, such as
valuable wood, animal skins, ivory, went to Japan, China, Europe, and to the Dutch
possessions in Indonesia. During this time there were many Europeans in Ayutthaya,
especially Dutch from the 1620s to the 1640s; and then French in the last half of the 17th
century. The last Thai king of this dynasty, named Naray, was very interested in European
science and culture, and he welcomed French scholars, engineers, and missionaries. Many
buildings were built for King Naray by the French.
The French, however, were attempting to get too much influence in Ayutthayan politics,
and some of the French thought they could convert King Naray to the Catholic religion,
which would make French influence dominant. When King Naray became sick and died in
1688 a group of officials killed his son and other supporters, also killed many of the French
and forced the others to leave Ayutthaya, and a new dynasty began to rule. Its first king was a
former military officer of Naray.
Because of the anti-European reaction in 1688, very few Europeans remained in
Ayutthaya, and trade contact with Europe declined. Ayutthaya still depended on foreign sea
trade for its economic development, but in the 18th century most trade was with Asian
countries, especially China.
In the 18th century Ayutthaya was still very rich, and foreigners who visited thought it
was a very great, city with beautiful buildings. It is true that there was very much wealth from
its foreign trade, but within the ruling group there was much conflict which was making the
state weak politically and in its military force. Just as in Cambodia at the same time, the royal
family and the high officials were divided into groups which competed and fought with each
other. When a king died, and this happened three times in the 18th century, there was always
a small civil war before another king was chosen. There was no law on succession to the
throne, and there were always several candidates who wished to become king.
In 1767, when Ayutthaya was very weak politically, Burma attacked again. Ayutthaya
was destroyed, and a new dynasty began to rule. This new dynasty was led by a man who had
not been a prince or high official. He was a common person, half Chinese, who was a middle-
level official. His name was Taksin. After the Burmese took Ayutthaya, Thailand broke up
into many provinces under local governors. Taksin began to build a new army in the coastal
provinces where there were many Chinese. He was successful in developing a new army.
First he forced the Burmese to leave Thailand. Then he forced other Thai provinces to accept
his rule. He moved the capital from Ayutthaya south to Thonburi, across the river from
Bangkok. This was probably because Thonburi-Bangkok was better as a seaport than
Ayutthaya.
Taksin also attacked Cambodia, first in 1769. Probably he wished to get control of the
south coast which was under the Mac, and where there were good ports. He was not
successful in that attack. He sent armies to Cambodia again in 1781, but then his officials
rebelled against him, saying he was crazy. The general leading the Thai army in Cambodia
quickly returned to Thonburi; and in 1782 he was made king in place of Taksin. The usual
title now of this new king, who began a new dynasty, is Rama I; and the king in Thailand
today is his descendent, Rama IX. Rama I died in 1809; and it was during his reign that two
Cambodian kings, Ang Eng and Ang Chan, were crowned in Bangkok before returning to
Cambodia (see below). From this time until the French period, Thai influence was very
strong in Cambodia, both politically and culturally.
75
III- VIETNAM
As I described in the last lesson, Vietnam was divided into two kingdoms after 1570,
the Trinh in the North and the Nguyên in the South, and they were at war from about 1620 to
1670. After that for about 100 years the two Vietnamese kingdoms were not at war, but they
were not united. And in the 1770s there was a revolution which destroyed almost all of the
Vietnamese royalty.
Contact between Cambodia and Vietnam (South Vietnam of the Nguyên) began
between 1613 and 1620, just when the two Vietnamese kingdoms began their war. The first
official contact was a request from Vietnam for war elephants from Cambodia to fight against
the Trinh in the North. In exchange the Nguyên king sent a Vietnamese princess to marry the
Cambodian King. She married King Jay Jettha, son of King Suriyopear who abdicated in
1618.
The Cambodians have different stories about this marriage, but there was really a
marriage between Jay Jettha and a Vietnamese woman, because it was known to many
foreigners who wrote about it. Some of the chronicles, however, are wrong in writing that
Cambodia began to give away land in Kampuchea Krom at this time. The best history of
Cambodia in the 17th century, Mak Phoeun, Histoire du Cambodge de la fin du XVIe siècle
au début du XVIIIe siècle, shows that Vietnam did not begin to take land in Kampuchea
Krom until after 1690.
It is true that after the war in Vietnam ended in 1670, the Nguyên in South Vietnam
were able to begin more attention to Cambodia, and to put more pressure on Cambodia at a
time when Cambodia was very weak because of conflicts among Cambodian princes and
officials. In the first half of the 18th century Vietnam was active in supporting some
Cambodian princes against other princes, and as a result of this intervention Vietnam step-by-
step got control of all the provinces of Kampuchea Krom. After 1750, however, there were
conflicts within the Nguyên state of South Vietnam, and in the 1770s a great rebellion against
all royalty led by three brothers in central Vietnam who came from the ordinary population,
not nobility or royalty. This is called the Tây So’n (‘Western mountain’) revolution.
The Tây-So’n brothers first conquered South Vietnam of the Nguyên, and then the
North of the Trinh, and by 1788 they had united Vietnam under their rule. This was the first
time there had been a single Vietnamese kingdom since the early 16th century. Of course, in
the 16th century united Vietnam was only what now north and central Vietnam is.
In the South a few members of the Nguyên royal family escaped. One of them, named
Nguyên Anh, fled to the Cambodian coast which was under the Chinese Mac in 1777, and
there he met a French missionary who wanted to get French help for him. The missionary
took Nguyên Anh's son to France, and later returned with many French military experts. In
1784 Nguyên Anh went to Bangkok and joined Rama I. He served in the Thai army in battles
against Burma, and became a good friend of the Thai king.
In 1787 Nguyên Anh returned to the south coast of Vietnam with some Thai supporters,
and in 1788 the French military experts arrived. Nguyên Anh began to fight against the Tây
So'n. By 1792 he had reconquested the South, and in 1802 the North. Vietnam remained
united under the old Nguyên dynasty of the South, and they kept their capital at Hué in the
center of Vietnam. After he won the war, Nguyên Anh took the royal title Gia-Long.
76
During the reign of Gia-Long from 1802 to 1820, relations were very good between
Vietnam and Thailand, especially until the death of Rama I in 1809. For this reason, war
between Thailand and Vietnam in Cambodia did not begin until after the death of Gia-Long.
After that the kings of Vietnam and Thailand did not know one another personally, and
relations between the two countries became worse.
IV- CAMBODIA
After King Naresuon invaded Lovek in 1593, Cambodia was broken up into provinces
under local chiefs competing for power. The Cambodian king Sattha and his family had fled
from Lovek to Laos (Vientiane), and his brother Suriyopear with his family had been taken to
Ayutthaya by Naresuon.
The most powerful of the local chiefs, or governors, was a man who ruled in the
province of Choeung Prei. He is known in the chronicles and in the European reports as
‘Ream Choeng Prei’. After the Thai army left Lovek in 1594 he was able to unify a large part
of Cambodia and he became king. Then in 1596 the Europeans (Portuguese and Spaniards)
who had worked with King Sattha before the Thai invasion in 1593 returned to Cambodia
from Manila and Malacca. They killed Ream Choeng Prei and then went to Laos to bring
King Sattha back. In Laos they learned that Sattha was dead, but one son was alive. They
brought the son back and helped him become King (King Ang Tan) in Cambodia in 1597;
and two of the Europeans were appointed as ministers in his government.
Then in 1599 a group of Cham and Malays rebelled and killed King Ang Tan and
almost all of the Europeans. The Cham and Malays were Islamic, and hated the Europeans
who had invaded the islands of Indonesia and Malaysia which were also ruled by Malay and
Javanese Islamic kings.
After this, Cambodia was again broken into separate provinces under local governors all
fighting against each other. Finally some of the remaining Cambodian royalty and officials
wrote to King Naresuon in Ayutthaya and asked him to allow Suriyopear to return to become
king. Naresuon agreed and Suriyopear returned with Thai support in 1601/1602. He was king
until he abdicated in 1618 for his son Jay Jettha. The capital was in Udong. Suriyopear was
successful in reuniting Cambodia and making it a prosperous and strong kingdom. All of the
sources, both chronicles and foreign reports, agree that the reign of Suriyopear and his son
was a good period. Cambodia was important in international sea trade, and competed with
Ayutthaya. Evidence for Cambodian strength is that in 1622 Ayutthaya sent an army and
navy to attack Cambodia but they were defeated. Cambodia had become the equal of
Ayutthaya in military force.
It was at the end of the reign of Suriyopear that the Vietnamese first made contact to get
war elephants from Cambodia and to give a Vietnamese princess in exchange. She married
Jay Jettha. As I said above, the Vietnamese did not get any land in Kampuchea Krom at that
time, and because of the war in Vietnam they could not interfere in Cambodian affairs.
King Jay Jettha was king until 1628. After he died Cambodian royalty and officials
began to divide into different groups fighting with each other, and this led to the destruction
of Cambodia at the end of the 17th century and in the 18th century. First was the division
between the king and another prince who had the title «PeyaraC . When Jay Jettha died in
1628 his son became king, but the new king was not the most powerful person. Jay Jettha's
77
brother, named Uday, became Ubhayorāj ( «PeyaraC), and was more powerful than the new
king. The Europeans who came to Cambodia called Uday the “Old King”. This title of
«PeyaraC is not completely understood in Cambodian history. It is not known in the Angkor
inscriptions, nor is it known in Ayutthaya either in Khmer or Thai-language documents. In
Sanskrit it means "double king", or perhaps "double of the king", that is "second king". Some
historians of Cambodia say it was the title of a king who had abdicated for someone else. A
good example is King Suriyopear after he abdicated for his son Jay Jettha, and in the stories
of Ponhea Yat it is said that he became «PeyaraC when he abdicated for his son Naray.
Uday, however, had never been king. This title is given to several other princes in the 17th-
18th centuries, and not all of them had ever been king. They were usually more powerful than
the real kings. Thus «PeyaraC was a special institution in 17
th
-18th century Cambodia which
is not completely understood.
During the 17th century, from the time of Uday, most foreigners believed that Cambodia
had two kings, one in Udong, and one in the area of Kampuchea Krom where Saigon is
today.
During the time of Uday many foreigners came to trade in Cambodia, and the Dutch
were the most important Europeans after 1620. One of the Dutch, named Van Wuystoff,
traveled up the Mekong river from Phnom Penh to Vientiane in Laos in 1641-2 and wrote a
long report about his trip.
Because of the importance of international trade and the importance of Indonesians and
Malays in the international trade, they had much influence in Cambodia. In 1642 «PeyaraC
Uday and his son were killed by another prince named Chan, or Ramadhipati, who was king
from 1642-1658, and who changed his religion to Islam. The chronicles all say he changed
his religion because he was in love with a Cham or Malay girl, but we should think that the
real reason he changed his religion was to bring Cambodia more closely into the international
sea trade network in which Malays, Chams and Indonesians were important. In Cambodian
history he is called RB¼ramecalsasn_ .
Of course, many of the Cambodian royalty and officials did not like to have an Islamic
king; and in 1658 they decided to overthrow him. They asked for help from Vietnam, and this
was the first time that a Vietnamese army was sent to Cambodia—in order to remove the
Islamic king in favor of Cambodian Buddhist royalty; King Chan/Rāmādhipati was taken to
Vietnam, then released, but he died before he could return to Cambodia.
Probably because of this Malay-Indonesian influence nearly all of the Dutch in
Cambodia were killed in 1644.
After this there were continuing wars between Cambodian princes and officials; and
usually one side tried to get Vietnamese help against the other side. There were two more
princes with the title «PeyaraC, and they always asked for help from Vietnam. After the war
in Vietnam ended in 1670, the Nguyên in South Vietnam could more easily intervene in
Cambodia, and there were two or three more Vietnamese invasions in the 1670s, 1680s, and
1690s. Probably at that time the Nguyên wanted the ports on the south coast, not land for
78
agriculture. Another group of foreigners who took land in Cambodia in the 17th-18th centuries
were Chinese who arrived in Hatien around 1680, and controlled most of the south coast,
including Hatien, Kampot, and Kompong Som, nearly until the French period in the 1860s.
These Chinese came because of a revolution in China. In 1644 the old Chinese Ming
dynasty had been replaced by the Manchu, a non-Chinese people related to the Mongols who
came to China from the North. Many Chinese, especially in South China, did not wish to live
under the Manchu, and some of them came to Vietnam and Cambodia. The most important
group who came to Cambodia settled in Hatien under a family named Mac (not the Mac
family in North Vietnam in the 16th century). So the first piece of Kampuchea Krom lost to
foreigners was the southern coast lost to the Mac.
In the 18th century the same problems of fighting among princes and officials continued.
There is no good book on this period, and it is not useful to try to learn the names of the
kings. If you wish to read about it, look at the book in Khmer by Rtwg . ga .(Tru’ng Ngea).
For this period it is as good as any of the French books written about the 18th century.
In the 18th century many Cambodian princes fled to Bangkok and there was more Thai
influence and military intervention in Cambodia than in the 17th century. The first half of the
18th century was also the time when Vietnam took Kampuchea Krom when Cambodian
princes asked for Vietnamese help. Among the reasons for the wars in Cambodia were the
lack of any rule for succession to the position of king after a king had died, and because the
king, or central government, did not control many important provinces directly. Some
provinces were under control of government ministers, and other provinces were under super
governors called esþc Rtaj´ (Sdech Tranh); and in their own provinces they were probably
more powerful than the king. All of these people, princes, ministers, and governors, competed
for power and control of rich provinces.
At the end of the 18th century the last two rival kings were killed by some officials in
1775. Those officials decided that the next king should be the son of one of the murdered
kings. This prince was named Ang Eng, but he was only 7 years old, too young to be king.
Ang Eng was taken to Bangkok by one of the officials, named Pok; and there was no king in
Cambodia until 1794. During this time Cambodia was ruled by ministers and provincial
governors. Finally Ang Eng was crowned as king in Bangkok and was brought back to
Cambodia by Ben in 1794. At that time Ben took personal control of all of northwest
Cambodia—Battambang, Siemreap, Mongkolborei, and what is now Banteay Mean Chey.
This large area became his personal property, and was taken away from Cambodia. Ben was
loyal to Bangkok, and he sent taxes and workers there. This area remained the property of
Ben’s family until 1907 when the French were able to take it away from Bangkok.
King Ang Eng died in 1796; and again there was no king until 1806, because Ang Eng's
sons were too young. The oldest of them was finally crowned in 1806. His name was Ang
Chan. This period from 1781 to 1806 was during the reign of Rama I in Thailand and in
Vietnam Gia-Long had defeated the Tây-So'n in the South in 1792, and had reconquered all
of Vietnam in 1802.
V- INDONESIA
In the last lesson about Indonesia I described the formation of the kingdom of
Majapahit in East Java after the Mongol invasion in 1293. From that date until the end of the
79
15th century or the early 16th century (the records are not clear) Majapahit was the dominant
state in the Indonesian islands. Majapahit had two types of economic base, Very good rice
land, and good seaports. Majapahit controlled the important islands of eastern Indonesia, the
spice islands, east and central Java (but probably not all of west Java), the important ports of
Sumatra, and perhaps some places in the Malay peninsula. Majapahit was also in contact with
Ayutthaya, Cambodia, Champa, and China.
After 1400 a new city on the Malay peninsula, Malacca/Melaka, began to grow as a
port, and became a rival of Majapahit, especially when Malacca, between 1409 and the
1420s, became a special port for trade with China. Malacca was founded by people from
southern Sumatra, the area of ancient Srivijaya, and Malacca continued the tradition of
Shrivijaya as the leading port in that part of Southeast Asia.
By 1500 other ports on the north coast of Java developed, and gradually became more
important than Majapahit. The rulers of the new ports, including Malacca, were Islamic,
which made it possible for them to have good relations with other ports in India, Iran, the
Arab countries, and Turkey. The most important of the ports in Java was Demak. Other North
Coast ports were Japara, Tuban, Surabaya, and Gresik. These ports never united in a single
state. Sometimes they cooperated, but sometimes they fought; but all together they dominated
the sea trade of Java in the 16th century, while Majapahit disappeared. During this time these
ports controlled the spices from the spice islands in eastern Indonesia.
Besides these ports, other important places in Indonesia were (1) the southern part of
the island of Sulawesi (see map), the home of the Bugis and Makassar peoples, who were
famous as sailors, traders, and fighters, (2) the northern part of Sumatra where Acheh
developed as an important state in the 15th-16th centuries, and (3) Banten on the far west end
of Java, which was an important port and which also had control of the pepper-growing
region in south Sumatra.
At the end of the 16th century (1580s-1590s) a new state began to develop in the center
of Java, where the first Javanese civilization appeared in the 7th-10th centuries. Historians
call this new state 'new Mataram', after the name 'Mataram' of the ancient kingdom. New
Mataram developed around two cities, now named Surakarta and Yogyakarta. The most
important king of new Mataram was Sultan Agung (1613-1645). He conquered the north
coast ports, and most of east and central Java.
The period of the north Java ports and the period of new Mataram under Sultan Agung
was the time of the first arrival of European traders and soldiers in Indonesia. In 1511 the
Portuguese arrived and conquered Malacca, and in 1512 they arrived in the spice islands. The
Portuguese did not occupy much territory. Except for Malacca, which they maintained as an
important port for trade, they were more interested in making agreements with local rulers to
buy the spices and other products they wanted. In fact, the Portuguese generally acted just
like the different Indonesian local rulers.
After the Portuguese took Malacca in 1511, the royal family of Malacca went to Johore,
another port in Malaysia, which they developed as a new capital and port city. During the 16th
century there were many wars among Portuguese Malacca, Johore, Acheh, and the Javanese
ports. But the Indonesian Islamic cities did not always unite against the Portuguese.
Sometimes Johore cooperated with Malacca against Acheh, and there were always changing
alliances among the Indonesian states and Portuguese Malacca.
80
In 1599 the Dutch arrived in Indonesia. They first made their center in the spice islands,
but in 1619 they moved their center to the place which is now Jakarta, the capital of
Indonesia. The Dutch name for that place was Batavia. We should remember that these Dutch
did not represent the Dutch state in Europe. They were a private company, not a government
organization. Historians refer to the company as the VOC, which in Dutch means unified
company for East India' ('East India' was the Dutch name for Indonesia).
The Dutch forced the Portuguese and other Europeans out of the spice islands, and got
complete control there. After they moved to Java, their first policy toward Sultan Agung and
Mataram was not conquest, but peaceful trade. They needed rice and wood from central Java
for the new city they were building. There was often fighting, however, when the trade
contracts were not followed. There were also conflicts because of wars between Javanese
princes, with one side asking for Dutch support. Therefore, the Dutch gradually took larger
areas of Java in the 17th-18th centuries. In 1682 the Dutch occupied Banten, which had been
an independent kingdom, never occupied by Sultan Agung. In 1669 they conquered south
Sulawesi, where the Bugis and Makassar peoples had competed with the Dutch for control of
the spice trade. And in 1641 the Dutch took Malacca from the Portuguese. That is, by the end
of the 17th century the Dutch controlled all of the important Indonesian port states except
Acheh in north Sumatra.
After more wars among Javanese princes, the Dutch had control over most of Java in
the middle of the 18th century. However, there was still an independent state of Mataram in
central Java, but it was divided between two royal families, one in Surakarta, and one in
Yogyakarta. Almost all of Sumatra was still independent.
In the 18th century spices from the eastern islands of Ambon, Maluku, Banda, Ternate
and Tidore were not so important, because the prices had gone down in Europe. Some of
those islands, especially Ambon, were the most loyal Dutch colonies, and they had become
Christian since the 16th century. Local soldiers from Ambon were always important in the
Dutch army when the Dutch fought with other Indonesian states. The important products
which the Dutch wanted from Indonesia in the 18th century were pepper from south Sumatra,
which they had taken along with Banten (see map), and coffee, which the Dutch began to
plant in west Java, south of Batavia/Jakarta.
Because of the decline in the spice trade, and -the many wars in Java, and also because
of corruption in the VOC, the company was bankrupt at the end of the 18th century. In Europe
the Dutch country, the Netherlands, was conquered by France under Napoleon in 1795, and
in 1808 France sent a new French administration to Indonesia. This French administration
increased European control over Mataram. Then the English, also because of wars in Europe
against France, began to occupy parts of Indonesia. First, in 1795 they took the port of
Padang on the west coast of Sumatra, and Malacca. In 1796 the English took Ambon in the
spice islands. And in 1811 they took Batavia, and kept control over the old Dutch territories
in Indonesia until 1816. Under the English direct European control over Java was increased.
After 1816 the English gave Indonesia back to the Dutch; and the new Dutch
administration was under the Dutch government, not a private company.
81
Lesson 10: SOUTHEAST ASIAN MAINLAND UNTIL THE FIRST HALF
OF THE 19TH CENTURY
I- BURMA
After 1752 Burma was ruled by a new dynasty, called the Konbaung dynasty that had
reunified the country under the northern capital of Ava-Mandalay following a long period of
war between the Burmese North and Mon South.
In 1767 Burma invaded and conquered the Thai capital Ayutthaya, causing a revolution
in that country. At the same time, in the 1760s they had to defend themselves against Chinese
invasions, which may have prevented more victories against Thailand. Although Burma
attacked Thailand several more times at the end of the 18th and early 19th centuries, they
were never again successful.
One of the most powerful kings of the new dynasty was named Bodawpaya (1782-
1819) and when he became king he followed a new policy of killing almost all of his male
relatives, and other persons whom he believed to be rebels. This policy of killing male
relatives was followed by all kings of this dynasty, in order to prevent other princes from
leading revolts, as often occurred in Thailand and Cambodia.
In 1784 Burma conquered Arakan on its western border. Although Arakan was also
Burmese in language, it had usually been independent under its own kings. This conquest of
Arakan led to troubles along the border with eastern India which was already occupied by the
British, with their political center in Calcutta. That is, Arakanese who fought against Burmese
rule ran across the border to British India. Then the Burmese army pursued them or
demanded that the British send them back.
The British were also worried about possible French influence in Burma, which might
give the French a base against the British in Burma.
In 1795 the British in Calcutta sent a mission to the Burmese capital to try to solve the
problems and sign a treaty. The Burmese king was willing to let the British have a trade
representative in Rangoon, but they refused the British request to exclude the French from
Burma. The trouble along the Arakan border continued, and in 1817-1819 The Burmese
invaded Assam which the British considered to be part of British India.
Therefore, in 1824 the British declared war on Burma; and in 1826, after the British had
defeated the Burmese army, the two sides signed a treaty which is named the ‘Yandabo
Treaty’. According to this treaty Burma gave two large territories, Arakan in the West and
Tenasserim in the Southeast, to the British in India. The Burmese also had to agree that
Assam and Manipur in the Northeast of India belonged to British India.
However, there were still many problems between Burma and British India. Some of
the problems were still the same conflicts along the western border. But private British
merchants in India were unhappy with Burmese restrictions on free trade, and these
merchants encouraged the British authorities to intervene in Burma.
In 1852 there was a second war, and the British conquered south central Burma, the
territory of Pegu, the old Mon area. This meant that the British controlled a continuous
82
territory from west to east across Arakan, Pegu, and Tenasserim. At first the three conquered
territories were under separate British administrations, but in 1862 they were united to
become British Burma (see map).
After the second war the Burmese capital in the North did not have a free route to the
sea. Their traditional route to the sea and to Southeast Asia was blocked by British territory.
In 1853 there was a new, more progressive Burmese king named King Minden who tried to
reform the Burmese administration to avoid further war with the British.
II- VIETNAM
As we saw in the last lesson, Prince Nguyên Anh escaped from the Tây-So'n rebellion,
met a French missionary who helped him to get help from France, and then went to Bangkok
and served in the Thai army under King Rama I. With French and Thai help Nguyên Anh
defeated the Tay-So'n and united all of Vietnam under his rule beginning in 1802. Then he
became Emperor Gia-Long.
Because of the help he had received from French and Thai Gia-Long maintained good
relations with them. Some of the French military experts who helped him in his war with the
Tay-So'n continued to serve in his government as officers and advisers, and until Rama I
died, relations were good between Vietnam and Thailand. Gia-Long was also tolerant of
Christians, both French missionaries, and Vietnamese who became Christians.
In Kampuchea Krom there was a special administration under a governor, Le van
Duyet, who had fought with Gia-Long against the Tay-So'n, and had known the French, and
was also tolerant of Christians. Gia-Long died in 1820, and his son Minh-Mang became king.
Minh Mang had different policies from his father. He had not had the same close relations
with the Thai and the French, and he forced the old French officers of his father to leave
Vietnam. Minh-Mang also disliked the Christian religion, and he began a policy of
oppression against French missionaries and Vietnamese Christians.
Concerning Cambodia, Minh-Mang was also aggressive. He wished to make Cambodia
a province under Vietnam, with an administration in Vietnamese style. During the reign of
Minh-Mang (1820-1841) there was much warfare in Cambodia, both because of Cambodian
rebellions against the Vietnamese policies, and also between Thai and Vietnamese armies.
Both Thailand and Vietnam considered that Cambodia should be under their control. Some
princes in the Cambodian royal family were supported by Thailand against King Ang Chan
who was supported by Vietnam (see below).
It was not only Cambodia which was unhappy with Minh Mang. The Vietnamese
administration of Kampuchea Krom also opposed his policies; and in 1832, when Le Van
Duyet died, his son led a rebellion against Minh Mang but was defeated.
Vietnamese policy toward Cambodia began to change when Minh-Mang was replaced
as king by his son Thieu-Tri during 1841-1847. Thieu-Tri did not agree with his father's
policy in Cambodia, and he gradually began discussions with Thailand in order to make
peace and withdraw Vietnamese soldiers from Cambodia. By 1847 Thailand and Vietnam
had agreed to stop fighting in Cambodia and to support a new Cambodian king (see below).
However, Thieu-Tri continued the same policies as his father against Christians. He
oppressed Vietnamese Christians and French priests, and this led to trouble and war with
83
France.
War between France and Vietnam began during the reign of Thieu-Tri's son Tu'-Du'c
(1848-1883). In 1859 French ships attacked the port city of Tourane/Danang. The reasons to
attack there were (1) it was a good port, (2) the Treaty of 1787 between France and Gia-Long
gave France the right to control the port as a trade center, and (3) there were many Christians
in central Vietnam. The French attack on Danang was not successful because the Vietnamese
defense was too strong, and because too many French soldiers died of sickness. Then the
French moved South and attacked Saigon. By 1862 the French had conquered the three
eastern provinces of Kampuchea Krom, and there was a treaty with Vietnam which gave
these provinces to France. Five years later in 1867 the French conquered the three western
provinces. Then all of Kampuchea Krom became a French colony called 'Basse Cochinchine'
in French, 'Lower Cochinchina' in English. The reason why the French called Kampuchea
Krom 'Lower Cochinchina' was because for Europeans since the 16th century 'Cochinchina'
was central Vietnam, the kingdom of the Nguyên.
III- THAILAND
The Burmese destruction of the old capital of Ayutthaya in 1767 caused a revolution in
Thailand. The old royal dynasty was destroyed; and the new men who took political
leadership, were not interested in the surviving princes of the old dynasty.
First a middle ranking official named Taksin organized a new army, forced the Burmese
to leave Ayutthaya, and in a few years reunified the provinces which had been under
Ayutthaya. He also successfully began to bring the far North with its city Chiang Mai under
his control, and attacked both Laos and Cambodia. Taksin was half-Chinese, and spoke both
Chinese and Vietnamese. His base of power was among the Chinese merchant society of
central and south Thailand. One of the goals of his policy was to develop again an economic
base of sea trade with China and Southeast Asia.
Along with this policy he moved the capital from old Ayutthaya to a place called
Thonburi, across the river from Bangkok, a place which was a very good port for ships from
foreign countries (Thonburi is on the West side of the river, Bangkok on the East side).
In 1781 Taksin was overthrown by a group of his high officials and military officers.
One of them was at the time leading an army in Cambodia. He returned home and became
king in 1782, and was the founder of the Bangkok dynasty which is still the royal family in
Thailand. Historians writing in English and French usually call these kings Rama I -Rama IX
(the present king). Do not forget, however, that these Rama names were not the real names of
these kings, and in Thai writing the Rama names are not used. The Rama names were
invented by the sixth king of the dynasty (Rama VI, 1910-1925). The real Thai names are
long titles which we do not need to learn now.
Rama I (1782-1809) moved his capital to Bangkok. He followed Taksin's policies of
developing sea trade, and expanding his kingdom to the North, into Cambodia, and into Laos.
During his time there were still some small wars with Burma, which Thailand won, relations
with Vietnam were good because of the old personal friendship between Rama I and Cia-
Long, and he considered that Cambodia should be under the authority of Bangkok, although
in his time there was not much fighting in Cambodia. However, Both King Ang Eng-
(1779/1794) and Ang Chan (1806-1834) were crowned as kings of Cambodia by Rama I in
84
Bangkok.
After Rama I, the kings of Bangkok in the 19th century became weaker, while the class
of officials and ministers became stronger, until in the middle of the 19th century, the time of
Rama IV/Mongkut, the officials and ministers were much stronger than the kings. The most
powerful official families were the Bunnag family. Two brothers from this family were
ministers under Rama I, and their sons and grandsons held most of the important ministries
until the end of the 19th century.
In fact, after Rama II, the choice of each new king among the many princes of the royal
family depended on approval by the Bunnag leaders. The Bunnags, and the kings, especially
Rama III (1824-1851) and his younger brother Rama IV/ Mongkut (1851-1868) were
interested in sea trade, ships, western technology, and good relations with China and with
western countries, especially England. England was important because the British already
controlled most of India, after 1825 they were in Burma, and they wanted more permission to
trade in Thailand.
In 1826 and in 1855 the Thai kings Rama III and Rama IV agreed to sign treaties with
the British which lowered taxes on import and export products, and made it easier for the
British to trade in Thailand. These treaties are called the Burney Treaty (1826) and the
Bowring Treaty (1855). After the Bowring Treaty other European countries made similar
treaties with Thailand.
These treaties which gave privileges to Europeans prevented wars such as occurred in
Burma and Vietnam and helped preserve Thai independence. During the 19th century foreign
trade developed, many European traders, missionaries, teachers, and doctors settled in
Thailand. Different from Vietnam, in Thailand there was no restriction against Christianity,
and therefore no reason for the Europeans to complain.
With respect to Laos and Cambodia, Rama III (1824-1851) was most aggressive, and
this was the time of Minh-Mang in Vietnam. Rama IV whose reign began after Thailand and
Vietnam had agreed to peace in Cambodia was not aggressive, and he was a friend of the
Cambodian King Ang Duong (1847-1859).
In 1826 there was a war between Bangkok and Vientiane in Laos. This war destroyed
the city of Vientiane and its royal family. After that Vientiane was under governors and
usually subordinate to Bangkok.
When Rama IV/ Mongkut died in 1868 his son Chulalongkorn, only 15 years old, was
chosen as new king with Bunnag approval. This was the time when the royal family was
weakest and the Bunnag family strongest, but later Chulalongkorn/ Rama V was able to
change the situation in favor of the royalty.
By the middle of the 19th century Thailand was officially independent, but in fact only
semi-independent because they had given so many special privileges to Europeans. The
territory fully controlled by Bangkok was only central Thailand and the South. Chiang Mai in
the North, and large areas of the Northeast were still semi-independent under local chiefs.
85
IV- CAMBODIA
At the end of the 18th century the last two rival kings were killed by some officials in
1775. Those officials decided that the next king should be the son of one of the murdered
kings. This prince was named Ang Eng, but he was only 7 years old, too young to be king.
Ang Eng was taken to Bangkok by one of the officials, named Pen/Ben; and there was no
king in Cambodia until 1794. During this time Cambodia was ruled by ministers and
provincial governors. Finally Ang Eng was crowned as king in Bangkok and was brought
back to Cambodia by Ben in 1794. At that time Ben took personal control of all of northwest
Cambodia-Battambang, Siemreap, Mongkolborei, and what is now Banteay Meanchey. This
large area became his personal property, and was taken away from Cambodia. Ben was loyal
to Bangkok, and he sent taxes and workers there. This area remained the property of Ben's
family until 1907 when the French were able to take it away from Bangkok.
King Ang Eng died in 1796; and again there was no king until 1806, because Ang Eng's
sons were too young. The oldest of them was finally crowned in 1806. This period from 1775
to 1806 was during the reign of Rama I in Thailand, and in Vietnam Gia-Long had defeated
the Tay-So'n in the South in 1792, and had reconquered all of Vietnam in 1802.
In 1806 Ang Chan was crowned in Bangkok and returned to Cambodia, to Cdong.
Rama I did not let all of Ang Chan's family return to Cambodia, only his mother and one
daughter. His brothers, Phim, Snguon, Im and Duong, were kept in Bangkok.
When Rama I died in 1809 Chan refused to go to Bangkok for his funeral, perhaps
because he was already angry with the Thai. Then Rama II appointed Chan's brothers Snguon
and Im as «PeyaraC (Ubhayorāj) and «braC (Uparāj), without asking Ang Chan. Then they
came to Cambodia. Perhaps Chan was angry about this. Soon Ang Snguon fled from Udong
to Pursat. Chan was afraid he would start a rebellion, and he asked for Vietnamese soldiers
for protection. This may have been the beginning of Ang Chan's pro-Vietnamese policy,
which continued throughout his reign.
However, in 1811 Ang Chan organized a very important commission to rewrite the RB¼
éRt bitk (Tripitaka). This shows that he was still interested in the joint religious culture of
Cambodia and Thailand. Soon after that there was an invasion from Thailand. Chan took his
family and fled to Vietnam; and his brothers 1m and Duong returned to Bangkok with the
Thai army. Then Gia-Long sent Chan back to Udong with Vietnamese protection. Although
Chan relied on Vietnamese support, he still sent tribute to Bangkok. Obviously, he still hoped
to maintain good relations with both sides. Remember also, that until 1809 there were good
personal relations between Gia-Long and Rama I, and this probably meant that there was less
conflict over Cambodia.
In 1814, probably in connection with their moves into the Northeast and Laos, the Thai
took the northern Khmer provinces of Mlu Prei, Tonle Repou, and Stung Treng. Some
sources say that the governor of Kompong Svay, named Mu'ng, told Bangkok that the people
of those provinces did not like Ang Chan, and preferred to be under Bangkok administration.
In 1815 many Cambodians were forced to help the Vietnamese dig the canal of Vinh-Te
/ Hatien, which now runs close to the border between Vietnam and Cambodia. Conditions
were very bad, and many died. This caused bad relations between Cambodians and
86
Vietnamese. Five years later there was a rebellion against Vietnamese in Ba Phnom. It was
led by a monk. Ang Chan had the leaders of the rebellion executed.
In 1832 there was a Thai invasion, and Ang Chan fled again to Vietnam. The Thai
general (named Bodin, who had also fought in Laos) brought Chan’s brothers Im and Duong
to Phnom Penh; and the Thai army continued on to fight the Vietnamese in Chaudoc. But
when general Bodin tried to go farther into Vietnam he was defeated. Then the Thai army
returned to Bangkok, and Ang 1m and Ang Duong stayed in Battambang. The Vietnamese
then brought Ang Chan back to Phnom Penh.
In 1832, at the time of the Thai invasion, and continuing into 1833-34, there was a big
revolt in Kampuchea Krom. It was led by the son of Le van Duyet, the Vietnamese governor
of all of Kampuchea Krom, who died in 1832. Le Van Duyet was a friend of Gia-Long, and
he had been appointed by Gia-Long as governor over Kampuchea Krom. Under Gia-Long
Kampuchea Krom had a special administration, different from the usual administration in the
rest of Vietnam. Le van Duyet had known the French officers who helped Gia-Long, and he
was tolerant of the Christians. Probably he did not like the aggressive policies of Minh Mang,
who became King of Vietnam in 1820.
In 1834 Ang Chan died, and his brothers were not acceptable to Minh Mang because of
their close connections with Thailand. So Minh Mang appointed Chan's daughter Ang My to
rule in Cambodia, although she was under control of Vietnamese officials, and did not have
real authority. After this Minh Mang tried to carry out a policy of real Vietnamization in
Cambodia. Provinces were organized as in Vietnam and Vietnamese officials were appointed.
In reaction there were rebellions all over Cambodia.
In 1840 the Vietnamese tried to persuade Ang Im and Ang Duong, one after the other,
to come to Phnom Penh and be king. Im believed them and went. He was taken to Vietnam
where he died. The Thai caught Ang Duong and took him back to Bangkok.
In Vietnam King Minh-Mang died in 1841 arid his son Thieu Tri became king until
1847. His ideas about Cambodia were different from the policies of his father. He wished to
stop fighting in Cambodia, and he was less interested in making Cambodia a province of
Vietnam. Negotiations began between Vietnam and Thailand, and by 1847 they agreed to
stop fighting in Cambodia and to remove their armies from Cambodia.
Then Cambodian officials requested that the Thai send Duong back to become king;
and Duong was brought back with General Bodin.
The result was that in 1847 the Thai and Vietnamese agreed to make Ang Duong king,
and to withdraw foreign troops from Cambodia. This does not mean that Cambodia was
totally independent. According to the international rules of that time, Cambodia was a
protectorate under both Thailand and Vietnam. Ang Duong had to send tribute to Vietnam
every three years and to Thailand every year. He was not able to take back any of the territory
which had been lost to Thailand or to Vietnam.
In 1854 Ang Duong began to try to make contact with France to balance the influence
of Thailand and Vietnam. He sent a letter to France through a catholic missionary and
through Singapore. In return France sent a diplomat named Montigny to meet Ang Duong in
1855. However, Montigny stopped first in Bangkok and told the Thai what his mission was.
The Thai were angry and told Ang Duong that he should not meet the French envoy. So when
87
Montigny stopped at Kampot Ang Duong did not go to meet him, and Montigny did not try to
go to meet the king in Udong.
At that time the sons of Ang Duong were still in Bangkok, probably as insurance that
Ang Duong would remain loyal to Thailand. In 1856 Ang Duong asked the Thai king
(Mongkut) for permission to appoint Ang Vodei/Norodom as Maha Uparaj / mha«braC, and
RB¼EkvhV¨a, and to let them return to
his second son, the future King Sisowath as preah keofa /
Cambodia. King Mongkut agreed. Note that there was no Ubhayoraj («PeyaraC ). Probably
Ang Duong wanted to get rid of that position which had caused so much trouble in earlier
times.
In 1858 Ang Duong tried to contact the French again when they were starting to
intervene in Vietnam to help the Christians.
In that same year there was a big rebellion in Thbaung Khmum by Chams and Chvea.
The leaders were named Tuon Him, Tuon Si, and Tuon It. Ang Duong defeated them, and
killed one of the leaders, and the others fled into Vietnam. The Cambodians invaded
Kampuchea Krom to pursue the Cham rebels, and almost all of the Cham left Cambodia at
that time.
Probably the Vietnamese army in Kampuchea Krom was weak at that time because the
French had started to attack Tourane/Danang in the North.
The reign of Ang Duong is important as the first time of peace within the country under
a unified government since the early 17th century; and it was the first time without direct
foreign threats since the middle of the 17th century. Although Ang Duong still was forced to
accept some degree of political inferiority to Vietnam and Thailand, within the country he
could act independently.
Ang Duong tried to develop foreign trade again, with Kampot as the main port. Kampot
was developed to some extent and a road was built from Udong to Kampot. Cambodian
money in the form of coins was issued. There was some centralization. The number of
provinces was reduced and the governors were more closely attached to the king's
administration. The samrap ( sRm¨ab-sRmab´ ) of the Ubhayoraj («PeyaraC ) was abolished.
Ang Duong is also famous for producing several works of literature, some of them taken
from Thai literature.
..
88
Lesson 11: THE END OF THE 19TH CENTURY ON THE MAINLAND;
AND THE 19TH CENTURY IN INDONESIA AND MALAYA
I- MAINLAND OF SEA IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 19TH
CENTURY
In the second half of the 19th century the British completed their conquest of Burma,
the French completed their conquest of Vietnam, and brought Laos under their control; and
forced Cambodia to sign a new treaty which gave them almost complete control over the
politics and economy of Cambodia. In Thailand King Chulalongkorn followed the model of
the colonial states and carried out a sort of revolution from the top which completely changed
the administration of Thailand. We could say that King Chulalongnkorn's policy was a kind
of local Bangkok colonialism over the rest of the country.
Before French and British colonialism and the reforms of Chulalongkorn in Thailand,
the conditions of the societies in all these countries had been similar. Land was not private
property. It was officially the property of the kings or the states. Many people were slaves,
either slaves of the king, or of , or of private owners. Even the so-called free population was
not free in the modern sense. They also had to serve either the king or other officials when
service was demanded. Free people also had to pay taxes, but slaves did not pay taxes.
Government officials did not receive salaries, but could keep a part of whatever
products or money they collected for the state; and there were many different treasuries and
finance offices under the kings and in different ministries. The Europeans in Burma and
Indochina and King Chulalongkorn in Thailand washed to abolish slavery, make land private
property, centralize finance, give officials salaries to prevent corruption, and increase the
power of the central government over provincial and local leaders.
A. Burma
In the first two wars between the British and Burma, discussed in the last lesson, in
1826 and 1855, Burma lost all of the South and much of central Burma (Arakan, Tenasserim,
Pegu). Although a new Burmese king, named Mindon, and his brother, were well-educated
and progressive, and desired reforms which would make Burma stronger and make relations
with the British easier, they were opposed within the Burmese government by other officials
and royalty, and Mindon died in 1878. Conflicts continued between the Burmese government
and British businessmen who wished to exploit valuable products in north Burma, such as
wood and precious stones. These conflicts led to the third war in 1884 which forced Burma to
surrender to British control.
After this war the monarchy was abolished, and the British began to establish a new
system of administration according to European political and economic ideas.
B. Viet Nam
After the French had occupied all of Kampuchea Krom in 1867, and made it their
colony of Cochinchina, the rest of Vietnam, then called the Kingdom of Annam with its
capital in Hue, remained independent under a Vietnamese king. After the French discovered
in 1866-67 that the Mekong River from Cambodia was not a good route to China, they
89
became more interested in northern Vietnam where the Red River could be used as a route
from Hanoi to the interior of China.
In 1873-74 a private expedition attacked Hanoi and tried to force the Vietnamese to
give them freedom to use the Redriver, but the French government did not support them.
Finally in 1884 the French government decided to attack and occupy northern Vietnam. After
a short war the French won and all of Vietnam came under French control.
Vietnam under the French was divided into three parts. In the South was the colony of
Cochinchina. Central Vietnam became a protectorate named Annam, and the North was also
called a protectorate, named Tongking. In Annam there were still Vietnamese kings until the
end of French rule in the 20th century but they had no power outside of their palace. Both
Tongking and Annam were ruled by French officials.
The most important difference between the colony of Cochinchina and the protectorates
of Tongking, Annam, and Cambodia was that the colony was considered a part of France, and
was governed in principle according to French laws. Later, when nationalist groups became
active, they had more freedom to publish newspapers than in the protectorates, and in
Cochinchina in the 20th century there were local assemblies and elections in which
Vietnamese nationalists could participate.
C. Cambodia
The last lesson ended with a discussion of the reign of King Ang Duong who died in
1859. At the time of his death his choice of successor was his eldest son Ang Vodei, later
King Norodom. The coronation, however, could not be done immediately, because the sacred
objects necessary for the ceremony, for example the Sacred Sword ( RB¼x&n) were in Bangkok.
Others difficulties in the 1860s were several rebellions. Soon after Ang Duong's death
one of Norodom's younger brothers, Sivotha, began a rebellion in northern Cambodia which
lasted 30 years until his death in 1891. Neither the French nor the Cambodian royal forces
were able to defeat him. In eastern Cambodia a man named Pukombo, who claimed to be a
grandson of one of Ang Duong's brothers, led a rebellion. His rebellion ended in 1867 when
he was caught and killed by people in Kompong Thom. A third important rebellion in those
years was in the South, Baphnom, Treang and along the border with Vietnam. The leader was
a man named Achar Sva, A-Sva or Sua. He also claimed to be from the royal family. Finally
the French caught him and exiled him from Cambodia.
Because of the rebellions Norodom first fled to Bangkok in 1861, then he was brought
back by the Thai in 1862. The Thai were delaying the coronation because they wanted to be
sure that Cambodia would remain under their control, and because they had not decided
whether Norodom or his brother Sisowath was the best choice for king. In 1863 the French
began to intervene in Cambodia, after they had conquered the eastern half of Kampuchea
Krom (Cochinchina). The French interest in Cambodia at that time was (1) food supplies-they
bought all of the beef they needed in Cochinchina from Cambodia, (2) Cambodia as a base to
explore the Mekong River, and (3) they believed that after they had defeated Vietnam in the
South they could take over Vietnam's claim to control over Cambodia and make Cambodia a
protectorate under France.
Norodom, like his father Ang Duong, was also interested in contact with the French for
protection against Thailand and Vietnam. Thus, in August 1863 Norodom and French officers
90
from Cochinchina signed a treaty which is generally called the Protectorate Treaty, but which
was officially a “Treaty of Friendship and Trade”.
Most of the articles of the treaty were about free trade for the French in Cambodia; and
they promised to help protect Cambodia against enemies. This treaty did not give the French
rights to intervene politically in Cambodia's internal affairs. Note that in this treaty Norodom
was not yet called king, but only Maha Uparaj. After signing the treaty Norodom was afraid
of the Thai reaction, so in December 1863 he signed a secret treaty with the Thai saying that
the French had forced him to sign their treaty, but he wished to remain loyal to Thailand
After this the French worked to persuade the Thai to allow Norodom to be crowned, and in
1864 his coronation took place under supervision of representatives from both Thailand and
France.
The next step in the negotiations among France, Thailand, and Cambodia was in 1867
when the French government in Paris signed a treaty with Thailand in which the Thai
promised to give up their claim to a protectorate in Cambodia and to leave Cambodia to
France. In exchange France agreed to let Thailand keep the northwestern provinces of
Cambodia (Battambang and Siemreap) which had been taken away from Cambodia at the end
of the 18th century.
This treaty made both King Norodom and the French in Cambodia and Cochinchina
very unhappy, because they had wanted Franch to help Cambodia get those provinces back
from Thailand.
Laos to China
They had believed that the Mekong could be used as a route for ships to trade with the
interior of China. They discovered that the Mekong was not a good route for ships beyond
Stung Treng. After that there was less French political or business interest in Cambodia until
the next period of French intervention. In 1866-67 a group of French officers explored the
Mekong river from Cambodia through in Indochina in the 1880s.
The year 1884 was also a time of change in Cambodia. For 20 years the French had tried
to persuade King Norodom to make the changes which they desired. That is, abolish slavery,
make land private property, centralize finances and reorganize taxes. But King Norodom
resisted, saying such changes were against tradition and would cause trouble.
In 1884 the Governor of Cochinchina came to Phnom Penh in a navy ship. Then he went
to the palace at night -and forced King Norodom to sign a new treaty with France. That treaty
gave the French the right to force all the changes, which they wished.
D. Thailand
In the last lesson I said that in Thailand the kings were becoming weaker in the 19th
century, and the class which really controlled the government was the high-ranking officials,
who may be called the nobility. When King Mongkut died in 1868 his son Chulalongkorn
was only 15 years old, and although the nobility agreed that he should be king, he had no
power at all, and was weaker than all previous kings.
However, like his father, he had learned English and knew a lot about Europe, and he
wished to make Thailand more modern. Slowly, within the palace, he made plans with his
brothers to change the government, and began to train a group of young men as soldiers. He
91
tried to order reforms in the government in 1873-7, but failed, because the officials who
opposed his ideas were too strong.
Then, between 1882 and 1888, most of Chulalongkorn's enemies died and he replaced
them as ministers and provincial governors with his own brothers, sons, and cousins. By 1893
the king and his family were in full control of the government, and the power of the official
families had been destroyed. After that Chulalongkorn began to change the administration of
Thailand according to the models of the European colonies in Asia, especially following the
examples of the British in Burma and India, and the Dutch in Java.
Although Thailand was officially independent, and was adopting European policies,
they did not have full control over the economy, and they were weaker militarily than the
European powers. The two treaties which Thailand had signed with Britain in 1826 (Burney
Treaty) and 1855 (Bowring Treaty) had set very low limits on taxes in Thailand. This meant
that the Thai government could not raise more taxes for economic development, and this
made Thailand weak politically too. Those treaties were not changed until the 1930s.
II- REACTION TO THE CHANGES OF THE 1880s
In all of these countries there were more or less long periods of rebellion and civil war
in the 1880s and 1890s. In Burma and Vietnam, the British and French had to fight against
rebels for 10-12 years before peace was made.
If we compare the new governments at the end of the 19th century, we see that the
monarchy and traditional official class in Burma was destroyed, and a new official class was
being developed by the British. In Vietnam, there was still a king, but he had lost all authority
in Tongking and Cochinchina, and even in Annam he had very little authority outside his
palace. In Cambodia the kings and traditional government remained stronger than in
Vietnam. The king still appointed ministers, governors, and other officials, although there
was a parallel French administration which became stronger all the time. Nevertheless, the
traditional Cambodian structure remained in place. In Thailand the changes were different.
The king and royal family became the strongest group in the government and administration,
but they became strong by imitating the policies of the Europeans in their colonies. They also
destroyed the power of traditional officials, and developed a new state structure and a new
official class.
A. Cambodia
In Cambodia there was civil war in 1884-1886, the French lost thousands of soldiers,
and were unable to defeat the Cambodian rebels. The rebellion united both Cambodian
officials and ordinary people in the provinces against the French. Finally the French
understood that the Cambodian population supported King Norodom's opposition to French
reforms, and they asked the king to help end the rebellion. They said they would not
immediately try to use all the authority given them in the treaty of 1884. The king agreed to
help them, and the rebellion ended. After that the French decided to work more slowly until
King Norodom died. They knew that his brother Sisowath was pro-French, and that if he
became king after Norodom's death he would agree to all the French reforms.
B. Thailand
In Thailand also there were some rebellions against Chulalongkorn's reforms. When he
first tried to make changes in 1873, his cousin, the Deputy-King, together with some of the
officials, tried to make a coup d'état. This failed, but Chulalongkorn had to delay any more
92
changes for 10 years.
Then, after 1893, there were rebellion in some of the provinces when the new central
government increased its authority over distant provinces. The most important rebellions
were in the North, where there were still five small states with their own royal families, and
in the Northeast on the border with Laos, where the local governors had always been very
independent from Bangkok, and felt closer to Laos than to the Thai in Bangkok. That was
dangerous for Thailand, because at that time Laos was being occupied by the French (see
below). There was also opposition to Chulalongkorn's reforms in some of the southern
provinces of Thailand where the population was Malay and Islamic, under their own
traditional leaders.
C. Laos
In the 19th century, the situation of Laos was similar to that of Cambodia. Both
Vietnam and Thailand were trying to push their authority into Laos. In addition, northern
Laos was threatened by Burma and China. Laos at that time, since early in the 18th century,
was divided into three kingdoms, Luang Prabang in the North, Vientiane in the center, and
Champassak in the South. Another province, Xieng Khouang, northeast of Vientiane and on
the border with Vietnam, had its own royal family, and their relations with Vietnam were
often close.
When Burma attacked Ayutthaya in 1767, they also occupied Luang Prabang, and when
the new Thai king, Taksin, sent an army against northern Laos, both Luang Prabang and
Vientiane wanted Burmese help against Bangkok.
In 1779 Taksin conquered all three Lao kingdoms, and when Rama I became king in
Bangkok in 1782, all of Laos near the Mekong River was considered under Thai control. In
the province of Xieng Khouang the Thai and Vietnamese were rivals for influence. This
situation continued until a Prince of Vientiane, Chao Anou/Anu whom the Thai government
thought was a friend, suddenly invaded Thailand and took his army as far as Nakorn
Ratchasima/Korat before he was defeated. Then the Thais destroyed the city of Vientiane and
removed the royal family. Then there were only two Lao kingdoms, Luang Prabang and
Champassak; and the area of Vientiane was coming under Vietnamese influence. In the 1830s
there was much fighting in Laos between Thais and Vietnamese, just as in Cambodia.
In 1847, at the same time when Vietnam and Thailand were negotiating over Cambodia,
they made a treaty concerning Laos. They agreed to joint suzerainty over Xieng Khouang,
with Xieng Khouang also sending tribute to Luang Prabang. Luang Prabang would send
tribute to both Bangkok and Vietnam; and Bangkok would have more influence in Vientiane
and Champassak.
The first French contacts with Laos were in the 1860s.First Henri Mouhot, a scientist
and explorer went to Luang Prabang, where he became a friend of the Luang Prabang king.
Then in 1866-67 the officers of the Mekong expedition also established good relations with
the king of Luang Prabang.
In the 1870s and 1880s the Thais invaded Laos again when Vietnam was weak because
of conflict with the French. After the French conquered northern Vietnam in 1887, they were
more interested in Laos. A French consul, Auguste Pavie was sent to Luang Prabang in 1887,
and he also became a friend of the king.
93
The French claimed that they had inherited the authority of Vietnam in Laos, and that
most of Laos should become a French protectorate. This put them in conflict with Bangkok,
because the Thai also claimed a protectorate over Laos. There were border conflicts between
the French and Bangkok, and in 1893 French navy ships went up the river to Bangkok, and
the Thai were forced to sign a treaty with France which gave all of Laos on the east side of
the Mekong River to France.
Under the French there were still two kingdoms in Laos, Luang Prabang and
Champassak, and a family of princes as governors in Xieng Khouang. At least half of the
population were not Lao, with a Thai language, but peoples with Mon-Khmer, Austronesian,
or other different languages. The real Lao lived along the rivers where they could place rice.
Most of the other peoples lived in the mountains and forests.
III- FRENCH INDOCHINA
As we have seen, France first occupied the southern provinces of Vietnam which we
call Kampuchea Krom, in 1862-1967, and created the colony of Cochinchina. During that
time, in 1863 a Treaty of Friendship and Commerce was signed with Cambodia, which began
the French Protectorate over Cambodia. In 1884 France conquered all the rest of Vietnam,
and divided Vietnam into three parts, the protectorates of Tongking and Annam, and the
colony of Cochinchina. Also in 1884 a new treaty was signed with Cambodia which gave the
French much more power there. The last territory occupied by France was Laos in 1893.At
that time there were five different French territories in Indochina with different types of
administration and under different ministries in Paris. They were unified under a single
administration of French Indochina in 1897. After that the capital of French Indochina was in
Hanoi under a Governor-General. There was a Lieutenant-Governor in Cochinchina, and
residents in the three protectorates. They were all together then under the same ministry in
Paris.
IV- INDONESIA
A. Java
Before the 19th century the Dutch authorities in Indonesia were not from the Dutch
government, but officers of a private Dutch business company called the VOC, an
abbreviation for a Dutch name which means 'United East India Company'. First, from the
16th-17th centuries, they were interested in the spice islands in eastern Indonesia, and were
not much interested in Java, except for the port of Batavia/Jakarta where they made their
capital after 1619.
Because they were a private company they were most interested in profit from trade,
especially profit from selling valuable Indonesian products in Europe. They were not
interested in controlling large territories or in making reforms in Indonesian society, except
for what was necessary in order to get the products which they wanted to send to Europe.
They hoped to control only the important ports and the islands where spices grew.
That means that they wanted a system of indirect rule. The top level of government,
which usually means foreigners, does not try to occupy all the official positions. They try to
rule through the traditional local kings, governors, nobility, and officials. They let the local
officials exploit the local populations as much as they wish, as long as the local officials
94
deliver the products which the foreigners want.
In Indonesia, as in Cambodia and Thailand, land was not private property, but belonged
to the kings, or to the whole society, and ordinary people had to pay taxes or give products to
officials and rulers, or work on their land.
That was the Dutch system in Indonesia from the end of the 16th to the end of the 18th
century. Then, because of war in Europe, in which the Dutch lost to France, and France was
then defeated by England, Indonesia was under a French government from 1808 to 1811, and
then under an English government from 1811 to 1816. This period also ended the private
VOC Company. When the Dutch returned in 1816 it was the Dutch government in control.
The French and English tried to reform the government in Java, and to rule more
directly. They tried to end the independence of the Javanese aristocrats and make them
officials under the European administration. For a long time the new policy was not
successful because of resistance by the Javanese. After the Dutch returned in 1816 they had
to fight often with the Indonesians, especially a difficult war in Java in 1825-1830. The result
was that the Dutch conquered nearly all of Java, except for the two royal cities of Surakarta
and Yogyakarta. There had been two royal families in Java for a long time, and after the
19th-century wars with the Dutch each family 'was divided into two branches, because some
of the royalty had cooperated with the Dutch while others had resisted. Thus after the Java
War there were four royal families, two in Surakarta, and two in Yogyakarta.
The new Dutch government in Indonesia was more interested in Java than before. In the
16th-17th centuries Java had not been profitable. There were not yet many valuable products,
and there was much expense for fighting. However, in the 19th century spices were not so
profitable as before, and coffee and pepper in West Java were more interesting for Dutch
business. Therefore the 19th century is the time of Dutch expansion in Java and into some of
the other islands, such as Sumatra and Borneo where they had not been very active before.
The new Dutch economic policy in Java was called the 'Cultivation Policy'. Peasants
had always been forced to give some of their product to the Javanese rulers, even before the
Dutch came. It was the same kind of traditional tax as in Cambodia. Since most peasants
grew rice, they gave some of their rice to the king's officials. The Dutch kept this tax system,
just as the French kept the traditional taxes in Cambodia, but organized it better, so that the
state received more.
The Dutch ordered that for payment of their land tax the peasants must plant part of
their rice land with export crops, usually sugar cane and coffee in Java, which they were
forced to give to the Dutch, or sell at very low prices, for export. This system was very
profitable for the Dutch, and the profits made Holland a rich country in Europe. It was also
profitable for the Javanese aristocracy, because controlled large areas of land and collected
the sugar cane and coffee from the peasants for the Dutch. However, the common people
suffered when too much rice land had to be planted with sugar and coffee, and there was not
enough food.
Before 1870 all of the economy was controlled by the Dutch government in Java. It was
not private capitalism. A new policy of private capitalist enterprise began in 1870. The
government stopped forcing peasants to grow sugar and coffee directly for the government.
Dutch private capitalists leased large areas of land from the government, and hired Javanese
to work on the land, planting sugar and coffee. The common people still suffered because
95
they were not paid enough and still had to pay taxes to the government. The population was
growing, but there was not enough rice land on Java.
Also at the end of the 19th century the Dutch, when Javanese peasants were hired by
private capitalists, the Dutch government did not need to rely so much on the Javanese
aristocrats to collect taxes and produce from the peasants. The traditional aristocrats lost their
old privileges, and a new class of educated Javanese, with Dutch education, became officials.
This new class became more nationalist than the aristocrats, and some of them were leaders
of anti-Dutch independence movements in the 20th century.
B. The Outer Islands
Outside of the spice islands and Java Dutch control in the Indonesian islands was not
very strong before the 19th century. During 1890-19l0 they conquered the islands near the
eastern end of Java, Bali, Lombok, and South Sulawesi. At the same time they also began to
take control of the port towns of Kalimantan (Borneo). The most important island
economically was Sumatra. In south Sumatra and the island of Bangka near Sumatra there
was tin and pepper. In the first half of the 19th century the Dutch gradually conquered south
Sumatra, the cities of Palembang and Jambi, and the area of Minangkabau west of Palembang
and Jambi. The language of these areas was Malay. Then between 1850 and 1895, after a
long war, they conquered the Batak areas in central Sumatra. The Batak people have their
own language different from Javanese and Malay, and at that time had their own religion,
different from Islam, or Buddhism, or Christianity.
Finally after another long war the Dutch conquered the northern end of Sumatra, the
state of Acheh, which has its own language, and is very strongly Islamic. Acheh had been a
strong independent kingdom since the 16th century, and was very important in international
trade, both in Southeast Asia and with the West, especially the Islamic countries such as Iran,
Arabia, and Turkey. Many American and British ships also visited Acheh. In the 1870s
Acheh produced over half of the world's pepper, and thus competed with the Dutch pepper
trade in Java and south Sumatra. In the middle of the 19th century, when the Dutch were
moving north in Sumatra, Acheh was extending its power to the South, and a conflict was
inevitable. The war was very long and violent, from 1873 to 1903, and in fact, it is possible to
say that war in Acheh never ended. Even now Acheh is trying to become independent from
Indonesia.
V- MALAYA
The country, which we call 'Malaya' or now 'Malaysia', has always consisted of many
states. Even now when it is united, there are still 11 states, and nine of them still have royalty.
The states with royal families now are Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan, Trengganu, Pahang, Perak,
Selangor, Negri Sembilan, and Johore (see map). Every five years the nine kings of the
separate states, rotate to become supreme king in the national capital of Kuala Lumpur. The
two states which do not have royalty are Penang, an island near the northwest coast, and
Malacca, on the southwest coast. Before the 19th century Thai influence had been strong in
the northern Malay states of Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan and Trangganu, and sometimes they
were considered to be under Thai political domination. As I noted above the Thai states
across the border from Malaysia also have a population which is Malay and Islamic.
The most important ancient state in Malaya was the port city of Malacca on the west
coast. It was founded about l400 when prince from south Sumatra (old Srivijaya) moved to
Malaya. This was a time when the Chinese were very active in shipping and trade in
96
Southeast Asia. China and Malacca established close relations, and the Chinese considered
Malacca the most important port for trade with China.
In 1511 the Portuguese conquered Malacca, and maintained it as an important port.
Then the old royalty of Malacca moved to Johore, where they developed another good port.
In the 16th century Malacca, Johore and Acheh competed for sea trade in the area.
In 1641 the Dutch conquered Malacca, and began to make contact with local Malay
rulers in Perak and Kedah where there was tin. The Dutch in Malacca also competed with
Acheh and Johore.
In the 18th century, after the Dutch had won a war with the Bugis people in south
Sulawesi, many Bugis took there ships to Malaya where they established their own state in
Selangor. The Selangor royalty descends from those Bugis. Another new state in Malaya was
founded near Malacca by Malay immigrants from Sumatra. This state is called Negri
Sembilan ('9 nagara') because their society is divided into nine important groups.
The British began to be interested in Malaya at the end of the 18th century. First they
took the island of Penang in 1786 because it was a good port for trade and for a naval base. In
1819 they began to build the city of Singapore on an island in the South of the peninsula; and
in 1824 a treaty between the Dutch and the British established the boundary between Dutch
Indonesia and British Malaya. The Dutch left Malacca and their bases in the tin states, and
the British left some places which they had occupied in Sumatra.
Then the three port cities under the British, Penang, Malacca and Singapore were united
under a direct British government called 'Straits Settlements'. Because there were no local
ruling families it was easy for the British to rule directly.
Then, because of their interest in the tin in Malaya, there was increasing British
pressure on the Malay rulers in other states. The tin was owned by the Malay chiefs, and the
mines were worked by Chinese immigrant laborers. Very often there was fighting between
Malays and Chinese, and among different groups of Chinese. In 1874 the British signed a
treaty with Perak called the 'Pangkor Treaty, which gave the British the right to send a
resident to Perak to advise the king. Then the same agreement was signed with Selangor and
Negeri Sembilan, and in 1888 with Pahang. In 1896 these states were organized under
indirect British administration as the 'Federated Malay States'.
The other states, Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan, Trengganu and Johore remained more
independent and were called the 'Unfederated States'. They had British advisers, but the
advisers did not have compulsory power. Kelantan and Trengganu also had special
relationships with Thailand and advisers appointed by Bangkok. Thus, until the war in
1940 Malaya was divided into three different types of government, (1) ST raits
Settlements, (2) Federated States, (3) Unfederated States.
97
Lesson 12: MAINLAND SOUTHEAST ASIA-EUROPEAN RULE AND
NATIONALISM BEFORE 1940
As I discussed in the last lesson, by the end of the 19th century all the old
governments on the mainland had been destroyed, and replaced by new types of
administration, 'whether by European conquest, or by their own royalty in independent
Thailand. In Burma the old monarchy was abolished, in Vietnam the monarchy was reduced
to the city of Hue, in Cambodia the king was forced to give almost complete control of the
economy to the French, and in Thailand, the royal family was able to take power away from
aristocratic official families and reform Thailand according to European colonial models.
Outside of central Thailand which had always been under Ayutthaya and Bangkok, King
Chulalongkorn’s policies were a kind of colonialism.
The first results of these usually violent changes were rebellions for several years
until the new administrations could be established. Then the new governments centralized
their administrations, placing all the old provinces under control of central officials-in Burma
in 1895, in Indochina in 1897, and in Thailand after 1893. In all of the new administrations
slavery was abolished, land became private property, and finances were centralized, that is,
all taxes had to be sent to the central treasury, and only the central government could order
people to do work as a type of tax.
One result of these changes was the development of new classes of people, some of
whom later became leaders of nationalist and revolutionary movements against the
governments established at the end of the 19th century.
In the old societies, most people of the dominant ethnic group (Burmese, Thai,
Khmer, etc.) were either peasants or officials. Most of the business people in the towns 'were
foreigners, Indians in Burma, and Chinese in Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam.
In Burma, a large part of the population was not Burmese-the Thai Shans in the
Northeast, divided into over 20 small states with their own kings, the Karen along the
mountain borders with Thailand, and the Mon in the South. The British continued to let the
Shans have their own traditional administration. In Thailand too, most of the North and
Northeast had never been completely under control of Ayutthaya and Bangkok. The North
had its own Thai language and its own kings, and in the Northeast most of the population was
Lao, not the same Thai as in Bangkok. In the South of Thailand there were also powerful
local leaders, and in the provinces on the border with Malaya they were also Malay and
Islamic. These differences made unification difficult and encouraged separatism when central
governments were weak.
I- ECONOMIC CHANGE
The European interest in all of Southeast Asia was first economic, to make profits from
local products. Near the end of the 19th century they decided that rice would be most
profitable, and all the new governments encouraged the development of rice production for
export. The greatest investment was by the British in Burma, who built roads, canals, etc. to
improve the land for cultivation, and who encouraged the peasant by dividing the land into
small private plots which families could have as their own property. In Burma the best land
98
was in the South, the area of old Pegu, which had been destroyed and lost most of its
population in wars between Burmese and Mons in the 17th-18th centuries. Therefore British
policy encouraged immigration of Burmese rice farmers from the North.
In Thailand the best rice area was in the central provinces which had always been under
Ayutthaya and Bangkok and where most of the population was already living. Therefore,
immigration was not needed, and when the Thais were freed from slavery or compulsory
work, they received cheap private land and began to grow rice for the market. The Thai
government did not invest so much as the British in infrastructure. In Cochinchina the
French, like the British in Burma, also had to build many canals for drainage and transport,
because much of Cochinchina had too much water for good cultivation. The French policy
was different from the British, however.
Instead of encouraging many small farmers with their own private land, the French gave
large areas of land to the rich, both French and Vietnamese, who then rented the land to poor
workers. In all three countries the export of rice increased very rapidly. In Burma rice
production and export increased four times between 1860 and 1900; and in Thailand and
Cochinchina it doubled. Together these three countries exported 70% of the world's rice.
Thailand and Vietnam depended on rice as their most important source of income, but Burma
had other valuable products, such as oil, wood, and jewels.
For the ordinary farmers the situation was best in Burma, and worst in Cochinchina. A
long with the economic change there were new foreign populations in all of these countries.
In Burma, many Indians came as money lenders. That is, they brought capital from India, and
loaned money to farmers to buy land. Later, if the farmers could not repay the loans the
lenders could take the land. There were also many poor Indians who came as workers in the
cities. In Thailand there were many Chinese as business people and workers. Some of them
also lent money, but most Thai farmers borrowed from rich Thais. In Cochinchina the new
landowners were already rich and could borrow from banks, or use their own money for
investment. Foreigners were not so important in the rice economy there, although there were
many Chinese in the towns as merchants.
II- EDUCATION AND NEW POLITICAL CLASSES
In Burma the British policy was to have few British officials, and to depend on
Burmese, even in rather high positions. Thus, the British had to provide schools and training.
They tried to develop primary schools in Buddhist Wats, but the Burmese monks refused to
teach new modern subjects. Other schools had to be developed, and in 1920 there was a
university in Rangoon.
In Vietnam, there were very many French officials, even at low levels, such as
policemen on the streets, and very few Vietnamese officials in the French administration.
However, the French did build some school, and opened a university in Hanoi in 1908,
although it was soon closed for political reasons, and reopened in 1917. In Cambodia the
French neglected education. There were some primary schools in wats, but no high
school/lycee until 1936, and no university until after independence. Because Cambodia was a
true protectorate, not a colony, there were many Cambodian officials at all levels, but also a
parallel French administration with many French officials.
In Thailand there were monks' schools for common people, but some good schools for
99
the elite, and no university until 1917. The royal government policy was to keep the
administration in the hands of the upper classes as much as possible, although finally they
had to give more education to everyone in order to have enough officials.
In the 1930s about 2% of the population had gone to school, in Burma 3%, and in
Thailand 9%.
III- POLOTICAL CHANGE
The French policy in Vietnam was to preserve strict French government control. There
were no plans to develop a constitution, or parliament with elections. Thailand was the same.
King Chulalongkorn and his supporters did not like democracy, and wished to run the
country directly through central state officials. Thailand was a royal dictatorship until the
revolution in 1932.
In Burma, however, the British began to develop representative institutions in the 19th
century, although very slowly. They established a Legislative Council in 1897 with 9
members, although non of them was Burmese. In 1909 they added four Burmese to the
Council, and 2 members were elected. By 1905 there were 30 members, and in 1923 103
members, 80 elected; and there were elections regularly every three years. At that time there
were even some Burmese ministers; and in 1936-37 Burma got a constitution, with a
parliament and regular elections.
World War I (1914-1918) did not have much effect in Southeast Asia. About 8000
Burmese joined the British as soldiers, but they were not sent to battle. In Vietnam, however,
there was forced conscription and about 100,000 Vietnamese were sent to France as soldiers.
The French in Cambodia asked for volunteers, and found some, including 6 princes, two of
whom died in France.
The Thai king at that time (King Vajiravuth/Rama VI, 1910-1925) had studied in
England, and was pro-British, but many of his army officers had studied in Germany and
were pro-German. The king decided to join the English in the war, and Thailand was able to
confiscate very much German shipping and businesses in Bangkok. The decision to help
England was good in another way. Later, -in the 1930s, it helped the Thai to persuade
England to change the old treaties which prevented Thailand from raising taxes.
IV- NATIONALIST MOVEMENT
A- Vietnam
There was strong resistance to the French in Vietnam from the 1880s. In 1885 the
resistance was led by the new, young king. He and his ministers and some soldiers ran away
to the mountains to make a base to resist the French. After 1900 there were two different
nationalist tendencies. One wanted to fight the French and drive them out of Vietnam. They
hoped to find a nationalist prince to lead the movement, and to get military help from Japan.
The second tendency did not think it was possible to immediately defeat the French, and they
were anti-royalist. They wished to get rid of Vietnamese kings too. They thought the best
way was to improve modern education so that Vietnamese would become equal to the
French; and they tried to develop private schools.
100
Both of these types of activity were suppressed by the French, and in 1908 the private
school swere closed.
In 1916 there were revolts in the North and in Cochinchina, perhaps connected with
conscription of soldiers for the war; and in that year another young king tried to start a
royalist rebellion against the French.
In Cochinchina, because of the French legal system in that colony, there were
newspapers, a Vietnamese political party named the 'Constitutionalist' party, and elections for
a Saigon City Council and a Colonial Council. In Annam at that time some Vietnamese
intellectuals tried to cooperate with the French to get more equality for Vietnamese, but they
failed.
After the failure of all of the moderate nationalist movements, even those which
would cooperate with the French, two revolutionary groups developed in the 1930s. One was
the Communist Party of Ho Chi Minh, and the other is known as the VNQDD party. They
wanted to fight the French, but were also anti-communist. The revolutionary movements
began to become powerful during the Second World War which began in 1940.
B- Burma
After the end of the fighting in the 1880s and 1890s the situation in Burma was
generally peaceful. One group who are considered early nationalists at the beginning of the
20th century was the YMBA (Young Men’s Buddhist Association). They were very peaceful,
and wanted to develop more education in cooperation with the British. Later, however, in the
1920s, they were joined by monks who were more radical, and their movement demanded
lower taxes, separation of Burma from India, and more independence.
When the university was established in 1920 there were several strikes by students,
some political, and some concerning university administration. In 1930 there was a very
violent revolutionary civil war led by a former monk named Saya San. He and his supporters
were opposed to modernization, and wished to return to traditional Burmese government.
After that Burma was peaceful until the war in 1940. Then some of the men who had
been student leaders in the 1920s and 1930s became new military leaders with Japanese
training, and led the fight for independence from England.
C- Thailand
After King Chulalongkorn began his reforms of government, there were some revolts
in the old kingdoms in the North and in the Northeast in 1902; and in 1905 there was
opposition to conscription for the new army. Some young men ran away to British Burma to
avoid the Thai army. In 1912 a group of young army officers with modern education planned
to revolt against the absolute monarchy, which they considered dictatorial and corrupt. Their
plans were discovered and they were arrested. In 1916 there was another military plot against
the king, which also failed. Then Thailand was quiet until the revolution of 1932.
THE 1932 REVOLUTION IN THAILAND
This event, which completely changed the government of Thailand came at the same
time as the British were building a constitutional government in Burma, and new
revolutionary parties were forming in Vietnam, because the French refused any progress
toward a constitutional; system or more equality for Vietnamese.
101
Although King Chulalongkorn had hoped to govern with the royal family and
traditional high-ranking families, his political and economic reforms required large numbers
of new officials and it was necessary to choose young men from commoner families, give
them education, and give them positions as high officials. Some of these young men were
educated for civilian positions in government, and some were trained to be military officers.
At the highest levels they were sent to Europe for education. In Europe they observed the
governments of England, France, and Germany, all of which were more democratic than
Thailand, and they wished to change Thai government to some kind of constitutional system.
They did not like the absolute monarchy which Chulalongkorn had established. The desires
for change were especially strong after Chulalongkorn died, because his son King Vajiravuth
(1910-1925) was not very competent, and the next king Prajadhipok/Rama VII (1925-1935)
was very weak.
Plans for the revolution began among Thai students in Europe, especially those in
France. Two of the first young leaders of the group were Pridi Panomyong, a civilian and
Phibul Songgram, a military officer. When they returned to Thailand they organized a large
group of civilian officials and military officers, and during one night and day in June 1932
quickly seized the important offices and military bases in Bangkok and forced the king to
sign an agreement to have a constitution and elections.
There were elections in 1933, 1937, and 1938, but the army gradually became
dominant and there was no real democracy. Phibul Songgram ruled almost as a dictator after
1937; and when war began in 1940 he made an agreement with Japan to allow Japan to use
Thailand during the war. Thus, during the Second World War from 1940 to 1945 Thailand
was allied with Japan against England and the United States and Russia; and within Thailand
the army controlled the government.
D- Cambodia
In Cambodia, there was very little nationalist movement before 1936 and no political
changes until 1945.
During the first years of the 20th century, the French government reports show that
there was much banditry in Cambodia but the dissatisfaction was not organized politically.
Then in 1916 tens of thousand of peasants from the central provinces, first Khsach Kandal
and Kompong Cham, and then other provinces, came to Phnom Penh to protest to the king
about injustice by provincial officials.
The reason for this was conscription of labor for new roads, which the French were
building. Like all the other Southeast Asian countries, there had always been a labor tax.
Common people had to work 60-90 days a year for the king, or for other high officials. The
French kept this tax, and organized it more efficiently. According to the law, a person could
avoid working if he paid a certain amount of money. In 1916 it was 3 piastres (the money of
French Indochina). The officials who organized this labor tax for the French were Cambodian
governors and srok chiefs; and they were forcing the people to pay more, 10, 15, 20 piastres.
They could then hire free Chinese workers for 5-10 piastres and keep the rest for themselves.
This was the reason the people demonstrated in Phnom Penh in 1916. The demonstration was
not directly against the French, but against corrupt Cambodian officials. The king promised
to stop the corruption, and several governors and other officials were punished. The French
102
also arrested over 400 leaders of the demonstrators.
The next sign of rebellion was in 1925 when the French Resident in Kompong
Chhnang, named Bardez, was killed with his interpreter and a soldier when he tried to force
the people of the village of Krang Leav to pay taxes when they did not have enough money.
This was the first time a French official had been killed while doing official work. Some of
the people were arrested, and sent to prison, but all observers recognized that the trial was not
fair. The king supported the French and ordered that the name of the village be changed to
PUmitircäan (Phum Tirchhan—monster village). One of the men from this village was still alive
in 1980 and he spoke about the events to an Australian historian. Real modern nationalism
began at the end of the 1930s. In 1936 a group of young men who wanted political change
started to publish a newspaper named nKrvtþ, which in French and English is usually written
Nagaravatta. The three most important persons were Pach Chhoeun, who was the official
editor of the newspaper, Sim Var, and So'n Ngoc Thanh. So'n Ngoc Thanh was from
Kampuchea Krom, as were many of the active nationalists in the 1930s and 1940s.
Of course, the men who published this newspapers wanted independence from
France, but they could not demand independence directly. That would have been against the
law. Their newspaper wrote inequality between French and Cambodians, said there should be
more education, more Cambodian officials, and salaries should be equal between French and
Cambodians.
In addition to the newspaper they were organizing other nationalist activities; and
So'n Ngoc Thanh was especially active. He was from a rich official family in Kampuchea
Krom and had received good education in Saigon and France. He had a Baccalaureat from
Paris and had studied law for one year there. When he returned to Cambodia he worked first
in the Justice Ministry and then the French appointed him to work in the Buddhist Institute
( BuT§ sasn bNÐitü ). There, he worked with many monks who also wanted political change,
such as Chuon Nath and Hem Chiev. The French had established the Buddhist Institute to
give high-level education to monks without Thai influence. Since the time of Kings Ang
Duong and Norodom, there had been two different groups of monks in Cambodia, the
traditional Mahanikaya and the Thommayuth, which Ang Duong and Norodom brought from
Thailand. There had been many disagreements between the two groups of monks, which
worried the French, and they were worried about Thai influence in Cambodian Buddhism.
When the Second World War began in 1940 So'n Ngoc Thanh and Hem Chiev, and
other monks, began to organize anti-French propaganda among Cambodian soldiers who
were under French command.
The Second World War was very important for Cambodia, and for all of Indochina.
The war began in Europe between England and France on one side and Germany on the other
side. In Asia Japan supported Germany, and wished to use the war to force the Europeans
colonialists to leave Asia. In 1940 France was defeated by Germany, which left a small pro-
Geman French administration in Vichy in southern France. In Indochina the French
administration accepted Vichy. Then the Japanese demanded to send troops to Indochina, and
to use airfields, railways, and roads for their troops, and to get food at cheap prices. The
French agreed, and were able to keep their administration in Indochina as long as they gaH
the Japanese what they needed. Thus, Indochina had the same type of agreement with Japan
as Thailand.
103
The new arrangement was good for the Cambodian nationalists, because their goal—
to get rid of the French—was the same as Japanese policy. They made contacts with the
Japanese officials in Cambodia, and the Japanese gave them encouragement.
In July 1942 the French arrested Hem Chiev because of his propaganda among
Cambodian soldiers. Then there was a very big demonstration in Phnom Penh, led by Pach
Choeun and So'n Ngoc Thanh, with many monks, to demand the release of Hem Chiev.
Instead the French arrested many of the demonstrators. Hem Chiev and Pach Chhoeun, and
many others were sent to Koh Tralach, where Hem Chiev died. So’n Ngoc Thanh escaped to
Battambang, then to Bangkok, and the Japanese took him to Tokyo until 1945. That was the
end of the newspaper nKrvtþ, and the end of the first Cambodian nationalist movement.
The next important change was in 1945, near the end of the war. In March the
Japanese took over the administration from the French, and then offered independence to
Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos. In Cambodia King Sihanouk accepted the Japanese offer,
abolished all the old treaties with the French, and proclaimed independence. So'n Ngoc
Thanh was sent back from Tokyo and appointed as Minister for Foreign Affairs. In August a
group of young men who were supporters of So'n Ngoc Thanh went into the palace with guns
and forced the king to appoint Thanh as Prime Minister. During the few months Thanh was in
the government, he began to take measures which were intended to guarantee independence
from France, and were also intended to weaken the royalty. Probably Thanh wanted
Cambodia to become a Republic.
This first Cambodian independence did not last long. At the end of September 1945
British soldiers who were helping the French to restore their administration came from
Saigon to Phnom Penh, arrested Thanh and took him to Saigon. Then he was sent to France
and not allowed to return to Cambodia until 1951. Soon the French protectorate was restored,
and King Sihanouk appointed ministers who had been loyal to him before.
E- Indonesia in the 20th Century
Under Dutch government supervision since the beginning of the 19th century, Indonesia
became a rich capitalist economy in which the most important investors were Dutch who
exported their profits to The Netherlands. The important products were sugar, coffee, oil, and
rubber, most of which came from the outer islands, not from Java, although Java had the
largest population, and was the center of the Dutch administration. Note that rice was not an
important export, a situation different from the mainland countries of Burma, Thailand, and
Vietnam where rice was the most important export crop.
Although Java had the most population, and the poorest economy, the rich outer islands,
such as Sumatra, were not taxed to help Java, and the Javanese were the most exploited of the
Indonesian populations. It is important to remember that Indonesia had many ethnic groups
with different languages, and different religions. There was not a single Indonesian
population. The religion of Java, with its own language, was a mixture of Islam, Hinduism,
Buddhism, and popular beliefs which did not belong to any of these religions. Bali was
Hindu, and has its own language. A large part of Sumatra, the Malay areas of south and
central Sumatra, and Acheh in the north were very strongly Islamic. Some of the eastern
islands had large Christian populations; and all of these outer islands had their own
languages.
Primary and secondary education was more developed than in the mainland European
104
colonies. There were schools for administration, medicine, technical subjects, and some
special schools for women. A few students were sent to universities in the Netherlands, but
university-level education was established in Java in 1920 for technical subjects, 1920 for
law, and 1927 for medicine. In the 1930s about 40% of children had received some primary
education, but only a very small percent continued to higher education.
NATIONALISM
There were several different political movements among Indonesians, especially
Javanese. Not all of them can be called nationalist, but they did awaken Indonesians to
political activity, which later became nationalist. For example, early in the 20th century there
was a group of upper-class Javanese who wanted to increase education for Indonesians, with
an emphasis on traditional culture, but they were not opposed to the Dutch. One very
important Indonesian political and economic movement, started in 1911, was named Sarekat
Islam (‘Islamic Association’). It was started by Javanese business men who were Islamic, in
competition with Chinese business. It had very great popular support, and tried to develop
political influence. It controlled the local administration in many places.
In 1914 there was a peasant rebellion in Java, although it did not have wide influence;
and in many islands there were local ethnic organizations who wanted more autonomy for
their own groups against both Dutch and Javanese officials working for the Dutch.
Already in the period 1911-1914 there were real leftist political organizations, that is,
Communist and Socialist groups. They were strongest in Java, and the leaders were often
men who were from mixed Indonesian-Dutch families, or Dutch communists who went to
Indonesia. An Indonesian Communist Parti, called PKI, was formed in 1924 and in 1925 this
party led a rebellion against the Dutch which was not successful.
That was the time when the most important Indonesian nationalist, Sukarno, began his
career. He had a good education in the technical university. He first started his political
activity in the Sarekat Islam, but then he became less Islamic and more nationalist, and in
1928 he formed the Indonesian Nationalist Party (PNI). The political ideas of this party were
a mixture of nationalism, Marxism, and Islam, but Nationalism was most important, and
Islam least important. In 1929 Sukarno was arrested, put in prison in 1930, then released in
1931, but in 1933 arrested again and sent to one of the eastern islands.
During the 1930s there was much political activity, political books, newspapers, and
political organizations which wanted independence. In reaction the Dutch regime was very
oppressive.
This situation of tension and conflict continued until 1940 when the Second World
War began in Europe, and the important islands of Indonesia were occupied by the Japanese
in 1942.
105
Lesson 13: WORLD WAR II AND ITS EFFECT IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
I- SUPERPOWER IN SEA
World War II began in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland, and France and England
began to fight against Germany. In 1940 France was defeated by Germany, which left a small
pro-German French administration in Vichy in southern France. In Asia Japan supported
Germany, and wished to use the war to force the European colonialists to leave Asia. Japan
had already been at war with China since the 1930s. Japan hoped to replace the European
colonists as the dominant power in Asia. In Indochina the French administration accepted
Vichy. Then the Japanese demanded to send troops to Indochina, and to use airfields,
railways, and roads for their troops, and to get food at cheap prices. The French agreed, and
were able to keep their administration in Indochina as long as they gave the Japanese what
they needed. The same thing happened in Thailand where the Thai government, controlled by
the army, agreed to become an ally of Japan. The local governments in Thailand and
Indochina remained in place as allies of Japan. The Japanese arrived in Cambodia in 1941,
and they did not intervene directly with the Cambodian population. It was still the French
who held the administration.
In the rest of Southeast Asia, in Burma, Malaya, Singapore, and Indonesia, the Japanese
had to fight; and they occupied Southeast Asia between December 1941 and April 1945.
This was the first time that all of Southeast Asia was under a single central political
authority. The Japanese called Southeast Asia under their control "Greater East Asia Co-
Prosperity Sphere". During the war, in addition to the use of airfields, railroads, roads,
communications, the Japanese took valuable food and industrial products at low prices.
Usually they did not pay with real money or with Japanese products in exchange, and by the
end of the war in 1945, this led to an economic crisis in all of Southeast Asia.
Politically the Japanese encouraged Southeast Asian nationalism, as long as it was not
against Japan. They wished to use anti-European nationalism. Most Southeast Asian
nationalist leaders cooperated with Japan. Japanese administration was different in different
countries, depending on the local political situation.
As noted above, the Thai government and the French administration in Indochina were
allies of Japan during the war. In Burma there had been nationalists who were pro-Japan
before the war, they began to cooperate with Japan as soon as the war started, and Japan gave
formal independence to Burma in 1943.
In Malaysia and Singapore, Japan had to fight against the British, and Japanese
administration was very harsh, especially against the Chinese, because of the war between
Japan and China. In Malaysia there was an anti-Japanese guerrilla movement, which was
mostly Chinese. In general the Malays cooperated with Japan.
After Japan defeated the Dutch in Indonesia, Indonesia was divided into three parts
under Japanese administration: (1) Sumatra, (2) Java and Madura, (3) the eastern islands.
106
II- INDONESIA
Before the Japanese arrived in Indonesia, when the Indonesian nationalists realized
that Dutch rule would end, they began a social revolution against some of the old ruling
classes who had supported the Dutch. The .Japanese stopped this revolution, because they
needed the experienced Indonesian administrators. But they tried to organize the nationalist
intellectuals to support Japan. For example the Japanese wanted to work with Sukarno, and in
general the Indonesian nationalists cooperated with Japan. However, beginning in 1943 many
Indonesians were unhappy with Japanese activities, and they began to work against Japan.
Sukarno was taken to Japan for discussions, and in 1944 Japan promised independence to
Indonesia.
In June-July 1944 Indonesian nationalists met and wrote their first Constitution, in
which they claimed Malaya as part of Indonesia. On 17 August 1945 Sukarno proclaimed
'independence, two days after Japan admitted defeat in the World War II and officially
surrendered.
The independence declaration of 1944 was before any Dutch or allied military forces
could return to Indonesia. The Dutch, of course, like France in Indochina, expected to return
and re-establish their old colonies and protectorates.
III- BURMA
When the Japanese began to enter Burma they had to fight against the British colonial
government and army. The British were defeated and retreated through north Burma to India.
There were already young Burmese nationalists who had been active in politics since the
1930s who were sympathetic to Japan. This group called themselves thanking ('master') and
they had begun to have contacts with Japan before the war. One of them, Aunt San, had gone
to Japan, and he returned to recruit his friends to go to Japan for military training. In March
1941 he took 30 of them to Japan, and in December 1941 they returned to Thailand to recruit
Burmese in Thailand for a new Burmese army. They quickly gathered 1000 men in a new
Burma Independence Army. When the Japanese invaded Burma in Tenasserim, from
Thailand, the Burma Independence Army went with them, and they soon increased to 30,000.
They moved north with the Japanese army against the British. The old Burmese officials
retreated to India with the British.
This new Burma Independence Army was the first national army in Southeast Asia. It
was in fact a revolutionary organization. We should note that in Burma the British, like most
colonial governments, did not try to build a local national army. In Burma, where large areas
had non-Burmese populations, especially the Shan and Karen regions, the British had
developed Karen armed forces to use against the Burmese. This led to conflict between
Burmese and Karen after the war.
When the Burma Independence Army occupied the country along with the Japanese,
they began to set up a new administration. By August 1942 the Burmese administered the
country, and in August 1943 Burma became officially independent. The Japanese worried
that they were becoming too independent, and tried to form a new Burmese army. Then .the
Burmese leaders began to think that the Japanese were betraying them, and would not give
them real independence.
Two of the important Burmese leaders were Aung San, Minister of Defense, and Ne
107
Win, Chief of Staff of the Burma army. There was also the beginning of a Communist faction
who was anti-Japanese.
By 1944, when it was certain that Japan Would lose the war, all Burmese factions
turned against Japan, and they formed a new nationalist organization called ‘Anti-Fascist
Organization’. They wanted to preserve Burmese independence against both Japan and
Britain.
In 1945 the British army and administration began to return; and the Burmese army
joined the British against the Japanese. The war ended in March 1945; and the Burmese
controlled Rangoon before the British arrived there.
IV- VIETNAM
During the war, from 1941, Vietnam, like Cambodia was still under the French
administration loyal to Vichy and allied with Japan. During this time both a communist
organization under Ho Chi Minh and a non-Communist organization developed. By 1943 the
Communists were strong in North Vietnam, and in 1944 they began to fight against the
French.
V- CAMBODIA
The Second World War was very important for Cambodia. The French administration
was allied with Japanese, and was able to govern Indochina as long as they gave the Japanese
what they needed. The Japanese arrived in Cambodia in 1941, and they did not intervene
directly with the Cambodian population. It was still the French who held the administration.
Another important event for Cambodia in 1940 was a border war between Thailand
and the French in Laos and Cambodia. The result was that Battambang and Siem Reap, but
not Angkor, were given again to Thailand, and not returned to Cambodia until 1946.
The French decided they should choose a prince who was half Norodom and half
Sisowath; and they chose Norodom Sihanouk, whose mother was a daughter of King
Sisowath Monivong. Perhaps they chose Sihanouk because he was very young, only 18, and
they thought he would be easy to govern.
In July 1942 the French arrested Achar Hem Chiev, an important monk, because of
his propaganda among Cambodian soldiers. Then there was a very big demonstration in
Phnom Penh, led by Pach Choeun and So'n Ngoc Thanh, with many monks, to demand the
release of Hem Chiev. Instead the French arrested many of the demonstrators. Hem Chiev
and Pach Chhoeun, and many others were sent to Koh Tralach, where Hem Chiev died. So'n
Ngoc Thanh escaped to Battambang, then to Bangkok, and the Japanese took him to Tokyo
until 1945. That was the end of the newspaper nKr vtþ , and the end of the first Cambodian
nationalist movement.
The next important change was in 1945, near the end of the war. In March the
Japanese took over the administration from the French, and then offered independence to
Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos. In Cambodia King Sihanouk accepted the Japanese offer,
108
abolished all the old treaties with the French, and proclaimed independence. So'n Ngoc
Thanh was sent back from Tokyo and appointed as Minister for Foreign Affairs.
This first Cambodian independence did not last long. At the end of September 1945
British soldiers who were helping the French to restore their administration came from
Saigon to Phnom Penh, arrested Thanh and took him to Saigon. Then he was sent to France
and not allowed to return to Cambodia until 1951.
VI- THAILAND
The Japanese occupation of Thailand was similar to the situation in Indochina. At the
end of the 1930s, the Thai government was controlled by the army who were sympathetic to
Germany and Japan. The leader of this Thai government was General Phibul Songgram. They
allowed Japan to use Thailand as a base for military operations against Burma, Malaya and
Indonesia.
There were also Thai civilian political leaders who did not approve of this policy and
who were sympathetic to England, France and the United States. They were led in Thailand
by Pridi Panomyang, a former Prime Minister. In Thailand they organized a secret group
against the Japanese. It was called 'Free Thai'. There were also other 'Free Thai' groups in
England and the United States. In 1943 all these Free Thai groups were able to make contact
and the groups in England and America sent agents to Thailand.
When everyone understood in 1944 that Japan would lose the war, Phibul resigned
from the government, and a new civilian government was appointed. The Prime Minister was
Khuang Aphaivong, from the family, which had governed Battambang and Siem Reap for the
Thai in the 18th-19th centuries (until 1907). The most influential person, however, was Pridi
Panomyang, and the new Thai government began to make friends with Britain and the United
States.
109
Lesson 14: SOUTHEAST ASIA AFTER WORLD WAR II
When the war ended in 1945 all of Southeast Asia was formally independent, but this
independence was not recognized by England, France, the Netherlands and the United States
except in Thailand, which had already been independent before the war. In all the other
countries the European colonial powers wished to return. However, their methods were
different.
I- BURMA
When the first British military and administrators returned Rangoon was already
under control of the Burmese. The British first proposed to reestablish the old colonial system
for three years until 1948, and then to discuss changes. The Burmese nationalists, led by
Aung San, refused to cooperate with this British plan. The British did not fight, but continued
to negotiate; and in 1946 they accepted Burmese dominance in the new Burma government.
Aung San became Minister of Defense, Foreign Minister, and Prime Minister. An election
was held in April 1947, and was won by the nationalists. A new constitution was written in
September 1947, and in January 1948, the British accepted Burmese independence.
However, in July 1947 Aung San and eight other Burmese ministers were killed by
another group of Burmese politicians. This led to continuing splits among Burmese political
factions. There were Socialists, Communists, the army, all of whom had different economic
policies, and different policies toward non-Burmese minorities, such as the Shan and the
Karen.
After 1948 there was a real civil war in Burma, just as in Vietnam. The difference
between the two wars was that in Burma the old colonial power, the British, were not
involved, and the war was only among different local groups. It did not become
internationalized, and was therefore less violent than the war in Vietnam.
There were still elections in Burma under the 1947 constitution in 1951 and 1956. The
head of the government was U Nu, an old friend of Aung San, but not a military leader. In
1958, because of the civil war, U Nu gave power to General Ne Win, who governed until
1960 when he returned the government to U Nu. Then in 1962 the army under Ne Win took
power again, and they have ruled Burma since that time.
II- VIETNAM
When World War II ended, the Communists under Ho Chi Minh controlled part of
North Vietnam and they declared independence in August and September 1945. In Hue, the
old royal capital, there was still an emperor, named Bao Dai. He also said he wanted
independence. When the French began to return at the end of 1945 the Vietnamese resisted.
In March 1946 the French offered a new 'Preliminary Treaty' for relations between Vietnam
and France. It said that there could be a Republic of Vietnam with a parliament, army, and its
own finances, but under a Federation of Indochina, and the French Union. Ho Chi Minh
refused, there were more discussions and disagreements, and a real war began in December
1946, and continued until the Geneva Conference in 1954.
110
III- INDONESIA
Although the Indonesian nationalists under Sukarno had declared independence in
1944, the Dutch returned and tried to impose their colonial government again. From 1945-
1950 there was a war against the Dutch and a revolution among Indonesian political factions.
At the beginning of the war Australian and British troops arrived to help the Dutch; and they
reorganized Japanese troops against the Indonesians. During the war there were different
Indonesian groups with different political ideas. Some were Socialists or Communists; some
were Democrats who wanted peaceful relations with the Dutch; and some were only
nationalists who had no interest in Democracy. Gradually, a new Communist party, the PKI
(Partai Kommunis Indonesia) became very strong. The most important individual Indonesian
political leader was Sukarno; who belonged to the non-Communist nationalist group.
By December 1949 the Dutch had to admit defeat, and there was strong international
intervention against the Dutch policy in Indonesia. In August 1950 Indonesia was
independent and united.
After that Indonesian politics went through different stages. From 1950-1957, they tried
parliamentary democracy with elections; but this led to serious divisions and instability. Then
in 1957 to 1965 there was ‘Guided Democracy’ under Sukarno, when Sukarno had more
power than parliament. In 1965 there was a coup by the army, who killed between 500,000
and 1,000,000 people whom they said were communists, and Suharto became dictator until
1999.
IV- THAILAND
Because Thailand had always been independent, there was no return of a colonial
power, and no war for independence. The military, who had controlled the country at the end
of the 1930s, lost influence after Japan was defeated, and from 1945-1947 there was a
democratic government in which Pridi Panomyang was the most influential person. After
1947 the army gradually became strong again, and this led to coups and non-democratic
constitutions which gave power to the military. After 1949, when China became a
Communist country, western countries, especially the United States, supported the Thai
military, because they were against Communism. From 1958 to 1968 there was no
constitution and no elections. Thailand was ruled by a military dictator, General Sarit
Thanarat from 1958 to 1963 when Sarit died. In 1968 the military permitted a new
constitution, and the public demanded more democracy until in 1973 there was a great
demonstration against the military by students. This demonstration forced the king to ask the
three most important military leaders to leave the country. Then there were three years of full
democracy, 1973-1976, when the military again took power. That new military regime lasted
until the election of 1988, when the leader of the winning civilian party became Prime
Minister. Since then there have been regular elections, and the governments have been
controlled by civilians, except for a short time of military control in 1992.
V- CAMBODIA AND ANTI-FRENCH MOVEMENT
After Sơn Ngoc Thanh had been taken away by the French and British, the
Cambodian royalists easily accepted the return of the French and the Protectorate. There was
not much resistance like that in Vietnam. The Independence Proclamation, the Constitutional
Law, and other decrees related to independence were abolished, and the old agreements with
France were reinstated. Prince Monireth, son of King Monivong, was appointed as the new
111
Prime Minister.
The French had decided on some changes, however. During the war the Free French
under General De Gaulle, who did not accept the Vichy regime, had agreed that if French
authority could be reestablished in the colonies, some kind of increase in autonomy had to be
permitted. For the three countries of Indochina this meant new agreements with the French
called Modus Vivendi, a Latin expression which means approximately ‘way of living’, that is,
the way in the French and Cambodians would exist together. This agreement, signed in
January 1946, gave Cambodia autonomy in internal administration that is appointment of
officials, and regulations concerning local affairs. There would still be French advisers at all
levels, but they would have less authorify than before. France would still control Defense,
Foreign Affairs, and Finance. This was not a very big change, but it was important that the
word 'autonomy' had been used officially.
More important was that the new agreement provided for a constitution, and a
constitution meant some limits on the authority of both the French and the king.
Another important event in 1946, in November, was the return to Cambodia of
Battambang and Siem Reap, which had been taken by Thailand in 1941. After a new
constitution was written there were free elections in 1947, 1948, and 1951. They were all won
by a new political party called the Democrat Party ( RbCaFibetyü), led by Prince(GñkGg:m©as´)
Sisowath Yuthevong. They wanted independence, and some of them wanted to make
Cambodia a republic. During those years there were also independence fighters in rural areas
who fought against the French, and sometimes against the royal government. They were
}sßr£). Some of them were Communists and some were not.
called Issarak (
Because of the pressure of the Democrat Party and the }sßr£, and because they were
losing the war in Vietnam, the French offered Cambodia a new agreement in 1949, which
gave Cambodia about 50% independence. After that King Sihanouk began to work actively
for independence, and in November 1953 France gave Cambodia almost complete
independence. However, the war still continued in Vietnam, and it affected security in
Cambodia where there were still groups of }sßr£.fighting against the royal government.
112
Lesson 15: INDEPENDENCE AND SANGKUM REASTR NIYUM
clnatsU‘/.raCbUCnIykic©/.karbeg;Itsg:mra®sþniym/.eCaKC&yrbs´semþcsIhnu/.yuKsm&ymas/.
eKalneyaáymincUlbkßsm<&n§/.vibtþiesdækic©-neyaáy
I- ROYAL CRUSADE
As far as internal national policy was concerned, King Sihanouk had personally
assumed the responsibility of the government from 16th June 1952, pledging to the nation that
he would bring full independence to the country within three years. He had fulfilled his
promise six months in advance. The King needed some popular support to set aside, if not
eliminate, Democratic Party and its republican components that he saw “as an obstacle to his
ambition.23
The king was very in tune to the wish of the Khmer population, which was to obtain full
independence from France. To avoid the situation in Cambodia from deteriorating further,
King Sihanouk decided in March 1953 to go to France and asked the French President to
grant complete independence to Cambodia. The French government turned a deaf ear to
King Sihanouk's demand and accused the king of being too alarmist. Additionally, the French
were threatening to replace the king if he continued to be in an uncooperative mood.
Khmer Democrats and Khmer Issarak had made the Khmer independence a national
issue, but King Sihanouk took it a step farther. After the French refusal to King Sihanouk's
demand on Khmer independence, he decided to elevate the Khmer struggle against the
French to the international level. King Sihanouk decided to risk his future as king of
Cambodia by campaigning against the French. The meeting with the French government was
a failure. Therefore, instead of going home directly from France, the king made a brilliant
political decision by stopping in the United States, Canada, and Japan to publicize his "royal
crusade for independence." It was a bold move by the king, because his action could trigger
the French to replace him as king of Cambodia with another prince.
To put the French in a corner, in June 1953, the king declared that he would take a self-
imposed exile in Thailand and would not return to Phnom Penh unless the French granted full
independence to Cambodia. The Thai government did not cooperate with the king and did not
welcome his stay in Bangkok. Why did the Thai government that supported the Khmer
Issarak refused to also support King Norodom Sihanouk for the same cause, which was to
restore Cambodia to full independence from the French? The Thai probably thought they had
the Khmer Issaraks under their allegiance but could not extract the same thing from King
Norodom Sihanouk. Since the king was not welcomed in Thailand, he decided to establish his
headquarters in the autonomous zone in Siemreap. It was at this time that the bond between
King Norodom Sihanouk and Lieutenant Colonel Lon Nol was formed. Lon Nol commanded
the autonomous zone of Siemreap, established in 1949 by the French agreement.
The whole Indochina was in turmoil. From their base in Siemreap, King Sihanouk and Lon
Nol resisted and fought the French. The Khmer Issaraks were also giving the French a lot of
troubles. Finally, on 3 July 1953, the French declared they were ready to discuss the full
23
David Chandler, 1991. The Tragedy of Cambodian History, (TCH), Yale Universoy Press: New Haven, p. 75.
113
independence status of Cambodia. The king insisted on his own terms, demanding total
control of Cambodia in four main areas: National Defense, Police, Judiciary, and Finance.
The French agreed to the demands and King Sihanouk returned to Phnom Penh with great
triumph. The Khmer Independence Day was proclaimed on November 9, 1953.
There is no denial that everybody played a part for Khmer independence, but King Norodom
Sihanouk must be hailed as the main architect who obtained Khmer independence from
France. The king was a brilliant and daring politician in his maneuvers with the French
government. The king was undaunted in his pursuit of Khmer independence. The road to
Khmer independence was a tumultuous one and it must not be forgotten. As we celebrate our
50th Anniversary of Independence, we must renew our faith to keep Cambodia independent
and free from any foreign influence into our national affairs. The title proclaiming
“Norodom Sihanouk as Father of Khmer Independence” is very appropriate and well
deserving for our aging monarch.24
II- THE GENEVA CONFERENCE IN 1954
All the fighting ended in Indochina in 1954. The French army had been defeated by the
Vietnamese, and they had been forced to give independence to Cambodia. They agreed to
give independence to all three Indochina countries, and the Geneva conference was organized
for that purpose. The important international countries who participated were England,
France, the United States, Russia, and China; and there were independent delegations from
Cambodia and the North Vietnamese Communist government. There were also delegations
from Laos and from non-Communist South Vietnam; but they were under French supervision
because they were not yet independent.
The Geneva agreements provided for independence, for Indochina, the withdrawal of
the French army, and elections in all countries under existing constitutions. The election in
Vietnam was supposed to be held in 1956, and it would unify Vietnam, either under Ho Chi
Minh's communists, or the South Vietnamese leaders, according to the wishes of the voters.
However, the election was never held, and a new war between the Communist North and the
American-supported South started in 1959 and continued until 1975. In Cambodia the
election would be held in 1955, under the old constitution, that is, with the same parties as
before.
In Laos the communist army was given two Northern provinces for themselves, but in
Cambodia the communists and Issarak were not given any special area. They had to stop
fighting and live as ordinary citizens. But according to the Geneva Agreement they could not
be punished, and could form political parties for the next election.
III- CREATION OF SANGKUM REASTR NIYUM
When the young monarch went on a private visit to De Gaulle at his home in Eastern
France in 1946, he was by then a private individual after his resignation on 20th January
1946. He could have been impressed by the General’s rejection of what he called the
“exclusive regime of parties” who was to create the Rassemblement du Peuple Français
(RPF) on 7th April 1947, as Sihanouk himself was to do in 1955 with the create of Sangkum.
24
THE ROAD TO KHMER INDEPENDENCE, by Kenneth T. So, (In collaboration with Monireak Keo), 7
pages (electronique text distribution), 2004.
114
Because of the victorious independent demand and the desire in power rather than
being constitutional King, the King needed to find the way to keep these by recourse to a
referendum for his popularity among Khmer people. The question was simply: “Was the
royal mission fulfilled to our people’s satisfation?” The answer was, not surprisingly, an
overwhelming 99% “Yes”: 925,812 ‘Yes’ votes to 1,824 ‘No’ votes, according to the memoir
of Nhiek Tioulong while the result was indicated as 925,667 ‘Yes’ to 1,834 ‘No’ by Chandler
and Osborne. Tioulong admitted that in actual fact the real question amounted to “Was the
royal crusade fulfilled to the people’s satisfaction?” During the electoral compaign, a low-
flying plane dropped thousands of leaflets that read: “This is how you should vote. If you
love the King use a white ballot; if you don’t love the King, use a black ballot. You must
believe this. Don’t believe anyone who says differently”.25 It is clear in reality the referendum
was an outright plebiscite in order to reinforce the King’s hand in his fight against the
dominant Democration Party that was being transformed from inside by young radicals.
Those, like Keng Vannak (1925-), Prince Norodom Phurissara (1919-1976), Thioun Mumm
(1925-), used the tactic of ‘entryism’26. The King must have been deeply aware that the elite
could have considered him as a usurper, since, on the one hand, he was a late comer in the
struggle for independence, and, on the other, the legitimate successor to King Monivong was
Prince Sisowath Monireth who had been groomed for the part. Everyone – mainly the
military – expected him to be the next King in 1941. This is why the King needed to establish
firmly, one that he was legitinmate successor of Monivong, with overwhelming popular
support, two that he was the Father of Independence and the only one.
In this respect, he could never tolerate anyone to suggest the contrary. This is why,
after his triumph in the plebiscite, he ordered “the arrest of the editors of several Khmer
language newspapers, including Saloth Sar’s elder brother, Saloth Chhay, the editor of
Sammaki (Solidarity)... These papers had taken issue with the King’s claim that he had won
Cambodia’s independence single-handedly.”27
After Penn Nuth resigned from his premier and government on 25th January 1955, on
the same day, Leng Nheth, a magistrate and the King’s private counsellor, formed a new
government in chage of organizing the next general elections. But the King was thinking of a
constitutional reform to avoid the instability of the first Cambodian democratically elected
governments.
After having organized for peasant delegations from the provinces to come to the
capital and implore the King to personally conduct the politics of the kingdom, on 19th
February, he delivered a three-hour speech on the necessity of transforming the “regime of
parties”. He spoke in front of the deplomatic corps, the International Control Commission
(Canada, Poland and India), ministers and Crown Counsellors. In his speech, the King
proposed that those who stood for elections would not be allowed to use party labels,
although parties would still be allowed to exist. He also offered to grant women the right to
vote too. But the main point was that the government and the Ministers would exclusively be
responsible to the King and no longer to the National Assembly.
Such a reform would have nullified the very substance of a constitutional monarchy
and constituted the first step towards the re-establishment of the absolute monarchy—all the
25
David Chandler, 1991. The Tragedy of Cambodian History, (TCH), Yale Universoy Press: New Haven, p. 77.
26
Entryism is the practice of joining a political party in order to transform its ideas and plans from inside.
27
Chandler, op. cit., p.77.
115
more so since by then the kingdom was independent and sovereign.28 Finally, the King
proposed that “unsatisfaction” representative could be removed by electorates.29 Similarly,
the King proposed that provincial assemblies would be elected, with their own budgets, that
would be in a position to dismiss provincial governors. The King also suggested that there
would be a second consultative chamber whose members would be all nominated by himself.
Osborne indicates that these proposal were drafted initially by Sam Sary and Yem Sambaur”.
30
However, the both men would soon fall from the King’s grace, falling foul of him and
becoming his “enemies”.
In front of the icy reactions to those suggestions of the international community that
advised him to proceed the national elections, on 27th February, Samdech Sihanouk
suddenly dropped all his plans and brooded by himself over what the best course for him to
take. He later claimed he was not following anybody’s advice, not even his parents’.
Chandler in his note (n. 77, p.330), found some evidence in the papers from the American
embassy that “it is possible that Samdech was maneuvered into the abdication by advisers
like Sam Sary who convinced him that the decision would consolidate his political power”.
On 2nd March 1955, Radio-Phnom Penh received a recorded tape in Khmer and in
French, in a sealed box, that was to broadcast at news time. The Khmer version was
broadcast first in the early morning, and the French version at noon. He announced that he
abdicated in favour of his parents and that he merely become “citizen Sihanouk”.31 He also
vowed that, under no circumstance, he would ever return to the throne. In actual fact he
wished to be called “Samdech Euv”, “Monsignor Papa,” of “Father of Independence”, as for
him etiquette was of paramount importance. The full title was “Samdech Upayuvareach”,
“the Prince who had been a young King”. Osborne (p.92) also added, “So far as status and
respect were concerned, he remained King in all but name”.
In his argument for his abdication32, he said he wishes to be rid of the pomp and
privileges of the office of King to be nearer to the “Little People” or his “children”, as he has
always called ordinary citizens, the farming communities in particular, people he was always
to treat as minors who were to be granted the small presents he liberally distributed in all his
journeys throughout the country, rather than the social justice –the aim of all modern and
democratic States. In a speech he would also attack “ politicians, the rich, the educated who
are accustomed to using their knowledge to deceive others and to place innumerable
obstacles in the path on which I must lead the people.33
Opponents to Samdech Sihanouk—among the republican camp in particular –would
later claim that Samdech “in fact abdicated in order to impose his dictatorship thanks to one
Party State – his”.34 But Tioulong, the royalist friend of the King, suggested that Samdech
Sihanouk wanted, once and for all, to get rid of the kind of original sin that was his selection
by the totally discredited Vichy regime of Marshal Pétain. He was to be the leading politician
of Cambodia on his own merit and because of his own achievements and not because an 18-
year old adolescent prince had been selected by Admiral Jean Decoux, “In front of the two
28
Tong, p. 75.
29
Chandler, op. cit., p. 77.
30
Osborne, Prince of Light , Prince of Darkness, p. 89
31
Osborne, op. cit., p. 91.
32
John Armstrong, Sihanouk Speeches, pp. 44-8.
33
Chandler, op. cit., p.78.
34
Tong, (Ung Tong Heung), p. 76
116
branches of the royal family, the Norodoms and the Sisowaths, he was gnawed by an inward
sentiment of illegitimacy and even usurpation.35
That abrupt decision was a bombshell in public opinion, as no one was expecting this
at all. Obviously also, to the role of constitutional monarch, Samdech preferred that of Prime
Minister. By using the modern method of universal suffrage, he could launch into a new
political career and become a self-made politician. For that, he needed a party and that was to
be the Sangkum Reastr Niyum.
As President, founder, with the title of “Supreme Counsellor”, Samdech Norodom
Sihanouk signed the statute of the organization on 22nd March 1954. He had launched the
“Socialist People’s Community” on 16th March, just before his journey to India where he
went to return Nehru’s visit in October 1954. The numbers were called Sahachivin
(Companions), as this was not to be a political party, but an association of free citizens above
all parties. In 1958, General de Gaulle whom Samdech Sihanouk admired so much and was
to do the same with his “Rassemblement du Peuple Français” (RPF). But in France, the
democratic system had long been established and a system of checcks and balances ensured
that the so-called “Party above all parties” just became one odinary party among others.
Samdech Sihanouk was to be called Samdech Sahachevin or “Prince Companion”. What to
be considered about the statute is the article 4 in the Chapter II specified that “our community
is not a political party”, while, in total contradiction, Chapter III, article 1 specified that to be
admitted into the community, “every Cambodian must belong to no political party”.
Another important article is the one that described the role of the “Supreme Counsellor”:
Chapter V, Section 1, “Central Committee”, Article 14, “The Supreme Counsellor, who is by
definition a personality who has rendered eminent and undeniable services to Cambodia and
is acknowledged as a veritable national hero, has the duty to constantly guarantee the
cohesion between the Members of the Community and to inspire, if need be, the national
action of the Community.”
It was obvious that the idea of the Sangkum was born of Samdech Sihanouk’s deep
distrust of political parties, as was to be later the similar action of Charles De Gaulle. In his
opinion, the Sangkum must be a wide federation that was meant to absorb all other political
parties. Except for the Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and the Procheachon, all the
smaller parties dissolved into the Sangkum. That was the case of National Democracy of
Oum Chheang Sun, Khmer Renovation of Colonel Lon Nol, the People’s Party of Sam
Nhean. Shortly after the great success of the referendum, many of the upper civil servant –the
same as those that had voted for the Democratic Party in the earlier elections –joined the
Community, all the more easily since subscription was required. At a later stage, those same
civil servants were made to pay into organization coffer a “voluntary contribution”that was in
fact a compulsory deduction from their salary.
The Sangkum was organized at the local level too, in the khet, srok and khum. The
provincial committees would choose candidates for the national election that must be
approved by the Central Committee of the Sangkum.
Before the September elections, Samdech Sihanouk led a delegation to the first Afro-
Asian conference of Bandung on 16th April 1955. After the success of Geneva, this
catapulted the Prince on to the international stage. Shortly after, in May, Samdech also signed
35
Usurpation means the action that having grabbed the throne illegally.
117
a military aid agreement with the United States,36 that seemed in contradictions with the
principles proclaimed at Bandung. Samdech Sihanouk’s alliance with the United States
infuriated the Democratic Party and in particular its Secretary, Prince Norodom Phurissara.
He thought, for such an important move, the National Assembly should have been consulted.
III-A- TRIUMPH OF SAMDECH SIHANOUK
The result of the 11th September 1955 elections was three-fold. Firstly, Sangkum was
cemented in power with a resounding popular mandate. Secondly, the Democrats were
destroyed as a political force, with its members drifting slowly but inexorably into Sangkum.
Lastly popular communist opposition to Samdesch Sihanouk was impossible. Not only were
unable to achieve success at the ballot box, but also they saw that the Government was
willing to tolerate as much intimidation as they were prepared to commit, with the result that
the communist movement ceased to be an urban-based radical grouping, but tended towards
reliance on armed struggle from the jungles as their only possible method to take power.
Samdech Sihanouk was, understandably, happy with the results of his victory, which
he took, rightly, as a sign of personal triumph for having delivered independence. He called a
‘National Congress’ of the Sangkum in Phnom Penh where party members voted to
enfranchise women and create provincial assemblies. These meetings were repeated twice a
year. Thus ‘a nine year old political game was over, a new game, drawing on millennia of
Royal authority, and a new sense of public relations, had begun.’37 One author naoted:
“[Samdech Sihanouk] was certainly closer to the people than any Cambodian monarch had
ever been before... Even when he moved among his people, Samdech Sihanouk remained
above, or to one side of his corrupt, incompetent government officials. He was personally
honest – an official remarked in 1955 that he was probably the only honest member of the
Sangkum – but he did little to discourage corruption...38
On April 3rd, 1960 King Suramarit died after reigning for five years and making the
prestage of the throne to be natably augmented. Because Sandech had foresworn the throne,
and he did not decide to select new successors among the descendants of King Ang Duong as
mentioned in the constitution, a Constitional crisis began in 1960. But the problem was
solved cleverly by him. Firstly, he kept his mother, the Queen Kossomak as a symbolic
power of the throne. Then he asked Mr. Chuop Hell who became the interim Head of State
to organize the referendum by selecting between him and Son Ngoc Thanh, who was already
sentenced to death in absentia. He received a stunning 2,020,349 votes while Thanh and the
Communists got only 133 each.39 Lastly, he took on the mantle of an elected Head-of-State to
replace the role of Ex-King, Preah Upakyuvareaj.
III-B- GOLDEN AGE OF 20TH CENTURY
Although the factions and cliques soon re-appeared within Sangkum, the National
Assembly managed to bring into force new legislation to develop the country together with a
huge inscrease in the education budget. Samdech Sihanouk went on foreign visit to the
Philippines, China, Poland, Czechoslovakia and the USSR in 1956. In China, Prince
Sihanouk was impressed with developments there, and became a friend of Zhou Enlai. On his
return, the prince broke diplomatic relations with nationalist China and recognised
communist China.
36
Chandler, op. cit., p. 80.
37
Chandler, ibid., p.84.
38
Ibid, pp. 88-90.
39
Sihanouk – Souvenirs Doux et Amers, op. cit. p.258; RC, 22/7/1960, pl. 2 & 4; Cambodian Commentary 9
(June-July 1960), p.4; Khieu Samphan – ‘Results Provisoire du Referendum du 1960 à la Date du 7 Juin’,
L’Observateur 10/6/1960, p.8 (2 031342; 133; 130 and 93 respectively , with 55 void).
118
Samdech Sihanouk was displeased by the first US Ambassador but liked the French
Ambassador, Pierre Gorce. During this time foreign aid poured into Cambodia from France,
the Sino-Soviet Bloc, and also the United States, each eager not to be outdone by the others.
With this money Samdech Sihanouk had hospital erected, roads built to villages and towns, a
deep-water-port constructed, and hundreds of thousands of children and adults going to
school.40 This was to be the golden age of 20th century Cambodia – a nation at pease,
prosperous with the injections of foreign aid, and with villagers, previously illiterate, being
able to read and write. All the credit was heaped on Samdech Sihanouk, who was the driving
force behind these developments. Cambodians still look beack on this period with affection.
(Justin Corfield, 1994: 20-1)
III-C- NON-ALIGN STATE POLICY
In 1954 and 1955, while Prince Sihanouk was still the King, he had drawn much of
his inspiration for his foreign policy from Jawaharlal Nehru. He was the major intellectual
source of “neutralism”, what was referred to in India as “pañchasila”: the Five Principles of
Peaceful Co-Existence, including respect of territorial integrity and national sovereignty, non-
agression, mutual non-interference, mutual benefits, and peaceful co-existence. These
principles were presented by the five members of the so-called Colombo group (India,
Indonesia, Burma, Pakistan and Sri-Lanka) at Bandung. Nehru had visited Cambodia in 1954,
before Bandung, and Prince Sihanoukhad reciprocated the visit also before Bandung. The
Prince considered the Indian leader as his guru, having been initiated by him to the virtues of
neutrality, or as “an older brother from whom I had much to learn”. However, Prince
Sihanouk had reservations about Nehru’s insistence on non-violence, like his master Gandhi.
He also found some inspiration with the pious Theravada Buddhist U Nu, then Prime
Minister of Burma, before the democratic regime was overthrown by the military.
After independence and the Sangkum—not to forget the Chinses revolution in 1949 –
Samdech Sihanouk was urged to choose his camp in the Cold War as Ho Chi Minh had
clearly chosen his – the Soviet. John Foster Dulles came especially to Phnom Penh on 28th
February 1955 to convince the King to make his country join SEATO that had been created
in September 1954. But Samdech was “in no mood to compromise”.41
18th-24th April 1955, Prince Sihanouk led a delegation to Bandung in Indonesia and
the first so-called Third World Conference that proclaimed the principle of neutrality at the
time of the climax of the Cold War that saw the confrontation mainly between the Soviet
Union and the United State—the two so-called Super Great. The star of the meeting of
mainly countries of the South from Asia, Africa and South America, were the Chinese
Communist Chou En-lai, Tito from Yougoslavia—a communist State also, Nehru from India,
Nasser from Egypt and, of course the host, Sukarno from Indonesia. All those would adopt
the 5 principles of peaceful coexistence put forward first by Nehru and then adopted by the
so-called Colombo group of Burma, Ceylon, India, Indonesia and Pakistan.
Nhiek Tioulong in his Chroniques Khmères mentioned that Samdech Sihanouk
attended the Bandung Conference and became friendly with Sukarno, Nasser and Zhou Ei-lai.
In actual fact, the Conference reinforced him in his conviction of the importance of a nutrality
position in the then intense confrontation between East and West at the time of Cold War. In
40
Han Suyin, Feb. 1964. Why Cambodia rejected aid, in Eastern Horizon, pp. 10-15.
41
Milton Osborne, 1994. Prince of Light, Prince of Darkness, p. 94.
119
particular, as Charles Meyer pointed out, his first meeting with “the Chinese statesman will
have a capital importance for the political future of Cambodia”. 42
Still, just after Bandung, perhaps in contradiction to the principles proclaimed in Java,
Samdech Sihanouk signed an agreement on 16th May 1955 with the USA for direct military
aid that was extremely significant in equipping the country’s army. “For the moment,
Samdech Sihanouk was able to have nutral foreign policy cake, while happily eating the
benefit of generous American aid” .43 He also received the aid from USAID, while the social
and cultural services of the Asia Foundation opened an office in Phnom Penh. Similarly, in
December 1955, Samdech went on an official visit to Japan where he was received by
Emperor Hirohito (1901-1989), Emperor of Japan from 1926-1989), He signed a friendship
treaty with Japan and renounced war damages (=maney paid for losses in Cambodia during
the Japanese occupation). In return, Japan granted Cambodia 100 M Yens of aid to
Cambodia. He thereby inaugurated his policy of getting aid from the competition between
both sides of the Cold War. Still, the official slogan proclaimed in the Prince’s rhetoric was
invariably “Cambodia help itself”. As we saw, this was only implemented in colonial days,
as the Cambodian taxpayers paid for the cost of the administration and public investments –
even for the salaries of colonial administrators –and therefore received no foreign aid.
IV- ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL CRISES
IV-A- THE ECOMIC CRISIS
On April 1960, the 15th Sangkum Government in five years was sworn in with Lon Nol as
Defence Minister. However, it collapsed under allegations of corruption. Although corruption
plagued the economy, the mysterious death of the last French member of the Cambodian
Administration led to accusations that he had stolen US$ 2 million from the state funds
(Corfield, 32).
Because of the narrower relations between Cambodia and United States, the economic
and military aid of US to Cambodia was deducted to US$ 9.8 million in 1963. So the Prince
Sihanouk decided to reject all American aid in early November 1963. Immediately, he
launched a policy of economic nationalization. At the meantime, Cambodia advertised to ‘be
help itself’ for developing the country by using their own means and assets. All government
business institutions got significant profit only at a few beginning years after that they all
bankrupted because of huge amount of debt of compradoors and buyers and laziness of
government sale agents. Along with the imbalance of government businesses, smugglings
were largely happened and involved with high rank officials in both, legislative and executive
institution.
So soon after the execution of Preap In (on 20 Jan 1964), there was a further
downturn in public morale when Songsakd Kitchpanich, Director of the Bank of Phnom Penh
(the biggest bank in Cambodia), flew to Saigon with US$ 4 million from the bank in a
suitcase. He asked for political asylum, and began funding the Khmer Serei.44 He then moved
to Bangkok where he bought a shopping plaza. The Songsakd Affair led to many losing their
money and Samdech Sihanouk denounced him as a CIA agent, and an embezzaler. A
committee was assembled to investigate the matter, but apparently only met once.45 The 16th
National Congress that followed ended with Prince Sihanouk appointing friends, Khek Vandy
42
Charles Meyer, 1971. Derrière le sourire khmer, p. 229.
43
Osborn, op. cit., p. 96.
44
Samniant Khannachawana – ‘A Thought on the News’, Siam Rath 30/6/1970, translation with notes added by
Laura Summers, pp. 5; TCH—Tregedy of Cambodian History, op. cit. p. 137.
45
La Dépêche 22/5/1964 – 10/9/1964, p. 3 which shows submissions to it.
120
and Phuong Margain to run profitable state interprises. This led to antagonism with the pro-
Western elite championed by Prince Sirikmatak and Long Boret.
At this stage, the Cambodian Governement took a pragmatic decision. They came to
an understanding with the NFL (National Front for Liberation of South Vietnam) who wanted
to use the jungles of Cambodia for bases to infiltrate South Vietnam. The Cambodian
Government agreed to allow Chinese aid through their country to the NFL in return for
retaining 10%, as well as levying charges for transportation and warehousing. Initially this
was paid into consolidated revenue, but was later embezzled by several politicians including
Lon Nol.46 By 1967 arrangement to transport the arms and supplies were finalised in written
agreement.47 These made the Prince rely more heavily on China and the pro-Chinese duties
were able to renew their communist contacts openly. How much the renunciation of aid
actually hurt Cambodia is a point of dispute. Phlek Chhat, the Director-General of the
Ministry of Planing said that the aid was ‘conditional, poorly adapted to our needs, and gave
rise to large-scale commercial speculation.’48
To fight with corruption, the Prince opened a bulletin called Para-Ratthabhipal from
1966 in order to investige the shadow affairs of government officials. They see many articles
that were issued about smuggling activities.
In 1966, the government decided to print more money for expenses. One year later,
when the Defence Minister needed to strengthen the capacities and competences of and
equipped Khmer armed forces the uptodate weapons, the national bank did not response for
the request because of the shortage national budget. The measurement for economic recover
were set up step by step. First of all, the creation of state film productions. For the first few
films were very success because the state gathered the profit over ten millions riels. But late
films became inbalance of produced cost. The next mesurement in 1967-8 was focussed on
benefiting from Casino interest and commission. At the beginning, there were only state
casinoes. To enlarge the state income, all revels of state instutions and offices were allowed
to open Casinoes. When scoial crisis appeared throughout the country because of gampling
addiction of people, many Khmer families had internal dispute, became poor and lost
property. Finally, the government decided to close all kind of gambling and casino in late
1968.
IV-B- POLITICAL CRISIS
The first well-known story was the scandal of Mr. Sam Sary who was the first Khmer
Ambassador in London. He was removed from the position within 24 hours after being
accused to torture a woman in 1957. The latest disagreement of former Issarak forces in the
national integration was resulted by another plot of Dap Chhuon in 1958-9. His unborn child
coup d’etat was discovered in March in 1959. It was involved with CIA in Cambodia, Free
Khmer movement led by Mr. Son Ngoc Thanh and Sam Sary and South Vietnam
administration. Then, the Prince was attacked in August 31st by a boobed package sent from
Hong Kong through a military base in South Vietnam. The assacinated attempt was
reportedly involved with Khmer Serei movement especially, Sam Sary (Sihanouk, Mon
Guèrre contre le c.i.a.).
46
Mme Suon Kaset, interview, Paris (June 1991). Lon Nol said ‘the re-unification of Vietnam ... is the event
that he fear the most’. When asked whether it was in Cambodia’s interests to keep the Vietnam War going, Lon
Nol ‘smiled and agreed emphatically’, Gordon – The Dimension, op. cit. p. 58. Also Thomas Powers – the Man
Who Kept Secret, Knopf: New York 1979, pp. 215-17.
47
Documents sur l’Agression Vietcong et Nord-Vietnamienne Contre le Cambodge (1970), Ministry of
Information: Phnom Penh 1970, pp. 2-7.
48
Phlek Chhat – La conquête de l’independance économique du Cambodge, report presented to the Peking
Symposium, Ministry of Information: Phnom Penh 1964, p. 10, cited in Keith Buchanan – ‘Cambodia between
Paris and Peking’, op. cit. p. 141.
121
The governments always faced with the imcompass and the nature of instability, to try
to resolve the problems, the elections to an enlarged National Assembly were held on June
1962. These elections were similar to those in 1958 with Sangkum nominating a single
candidate for each constituency. This time there were no opposition. Why was there a rival?
Because since April 1960 in Neak Cheat Niyum, the Prince illustrated in a document that
made it clear that the Procheachun was infiltrating Sangkum. In May 1962, just before the
polls, some 14 communists were sentenced to death in Phnom Penh for subvertion.49
The Assembly was enlarged from 61 to 77 members, only 27 of the previous deputies
remaining in place. There was thus an influx of new members, three of whom were able to be
involved in the eventual dismissal of the Prince Sihanouk. One was Op Kim Ang from ‘the
first generation of state high ranking officials who came to politics after Independence’. The
second was Douc Rasy, from the traditional elite, was a brother-in-law of Pach Chhoeun.
Ung Mong, the last of the three, was born in 1933 who had a law degree from the Royal
University, Phnom Penh, as well as a PhD from France. His wife was also active in politics.
The future communist leader, Khieu Samphan, also entered the national Assembly in 1962
(Corfield, 32).
While Prince Sihanouk was visiting China in February 1963, demonstrations,
demonstrations broke out in Siem Reap. Hostility between high school students and the
police had been brewing for months after a policeman harrassed them for riding their bicycles
on the pavements at night. A boy was beaten to death and violence broke out. A local teacher
later said that over 2000 students stormed the police station with several being killed before
soldiers were brought into the area. Douc Rasy’s Phnom Penh Press then printed a rumour
that Samdech Sihanouk might resign, which he refused to do. The Government offered to
resign, the National Assembly rejected this, as further demonstrations broke out in Battam-
bang and Phnom Penh. In 1967 and 1970 similar demonstrations were to take place when
Sihanouk was abroad, the latter mones culminating in his overthrow (Corfield, 33).
In 1963, Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam was killed by a coup d’etat that
led by his General advisor under the support of US. Of course, Diem could make a coup
d’etat against King Bao Dai in 1954 by US support but at this time US abandoned him. By
seeing this lesson, the Prince must be careful with US relations.
With this climate, in January 1964, demonstrators, with Government approval,
marched around the British and American Embassies. It was one of the early staged
demonstrations which various Cambodian Governments were to use to help their foreign
policy stances. In this instance, as in later ones, demonstrators were transported into the
capital with soldiers in civilian clothes placed around to keep order, with offices and schools
closed for the day to encourage larger attendence.50 These demonstrations, after several
hours, resulted in the wrecking of embassy cars, and some damage to the buildings
themselves, Samdech Sihanouk argued that these demonstrations were spontaneous, but was
unnerved by the ferocity of them, and soon afterwards Lon Nol asked several students from
Sisowath high school to desist from further activity.51
Mr. Justin Coffield illustrates that the political crisis of SRK should be commenced
from the executions of Free Khmer movement in 1964. So soon after the execution of Preap
In (on 20 Jan 1964), there was a further
49
Brian Crozier, (1966). South-East Asia in Turmoil, Pelican: Middx, p. 144.
50
New York Times [henceforth NYT] 21/1/1964, p.6.
51
Oeur Hunly, interview, Melbourne (Dec 1989)
122
Lesson 16: THE KHMER REPUBLIC
I- THE COUP D’ETAT
On March 1970, Prince Norodom Sihanouk, Cambodia’s Head of State, whilst
abroad, was dismissed by his own National Assembly. Just over a month later he was tried in
absentia by the government he had left in charge of the country and was sentenced to death
for treason. On 9 October, a Khmer Republic was established which sought to build a new
democratic Cambodia, free from the strictures of the past, and independent of French cultural
domination. Created with patriotic enthusiasm and with democratic ideals, the Khmer
Republic was a terrible failure. Its opponents, principally Prince Sihanouk, his supporters and
the communists, mustered their forces in the jungles to oppose the Republic. They formed a
‘National United Front’ and their government-in-exile ‘GRUNK’ (Royal Government of
National Union of Cambodia), backed by China. This disparate coalition somehow managed
to stay together and eventually overcame its opponent – the Government of the Khmer
Republic. To understand recent Cambodian history, it is important to know how and why the
Khmer Republic failed. The period from 1970 to 1975 is the subject of this work.
II- THE RIVALS
The five years that followed Samdech Sihanouk’s dismissal, politically, were not a
clean break from the past. Lon Nol who controlled political events in the country, firstly as
Prime Minister then as President, had risen to power during the Samdech Sihanouk period,
having actually been appointed Premier by Samdech Sihanouk, seven months before the
moved against the Prince. But once in power himself, he used, and continued to exercise, the
same patronage links that he had manipulated throughout the 1950s and 1970s.
What makes the period 1970-75 deifferent to the rest of contemporary Cambodian
history was the creeping internal war gradually enveloping the country at the same time as
Cambodia sought to come to terms with, and ally itself to, both of its major neighbours:
Thailand and South Vietnam. The stability this might have brought in peaceful times was
shattered by unparalelled disunity within the political nation, and the fierce fighting on the
battlefields in both arenas.
to successfully switch to independence after such a long period of dependence would
have been a task on its own, bearing in mind that the French did nothing to prepare Cambodia
or its people for such a future.
III- THE WAR
Cambodia’s internal war, it would be inaccurate to call it simply a civil war, was
partly a reflection of differing opinions on the achievement and implementation of
independence, partly the countryside against the metropolitan areas, partly the East-West
struggle, and partly concerned with the geographical proximity of and perceived threat from
Vietnam.
One aspect of this was the importance of Phnom Penh. For the first time in modern
Cambodian history, in the early 1970s the political nation of Cambodia was entirely based in
Phnom Penh, although Battambang and Kandal, two of the more populous provinces of the
country remained under Government control for most of the war. The politicians in the
capital, however, remained generally safe, which explains the great importance of Phnom
Penh during Khmer Republic. It would not be possible for the new leaders to make provincial
123
tours as Samdech Sihanouk had done during the whole 1950s and 1960s, and there could be
no repeat of destabilising provincial demonstrations, as in Siem Reap in 1963 or Svay Rieng
in early 1970.
Apart from a few incidents,52 despite the war raging around it, Phnom Penh was not a
violent city. True there were instances of soldiers hurling hand grenades into crowds, and in
early 1975 rockets did rain down on Phnom Penh, but for the elite, compared to their
counterparts in Vietnam, which was also at war, there was no comparison. This could be
judged to have misled politicians in Phnom Penh into feeling generally secure and therefore
not aware of the drift towards chaos, perhap for no more complex reason than the fact their
friends did not see disaster coming, and their enemies were certainly not going to warn them.
Whilst opponents of the Government were routinely beatten up and killed in Hanoi
and Saigonby thugs and policemen associated with the regimes of both North and South
Vietnam: the difference in the heavy-handed treatment meted out on Tran Ngoc Chau, who
languished for years in jail in Saigon; and Douc Rasy, who was posted abroad, or even Keo
Ann, both of whom irritated their respective Governments, reveals much about the character
of the Phnom Penh establishment.53 This was also the period in which the several score
families that had dominated Cambodia’s administrative and political classes since
independence were seriously challenged, and lost their power. These were very significant
changes. The events that they precipitated led to the horror years of the Khmer Rouge, but
there have been few studies of this ‘gestation’ period.
IV- THE REASONS OF COLLAPSE
Any history of the Khmer Republic is overshadowed by the hindsight that it collap-
sed totally in 1975, and that this failure was essentially a political one. The Republic failed
because it was devided politically, and this disunity led to defeat on the battlefield. The
soldiers’ moral was low, money and salaries were syphoned off by corrupt officers and whilst
unversity students remained exempt from military services throughout the entire war,
children of poorer family were being drafted into the army in large number. Throughout this
period, conspicious corruption plagued the economy, the military, society and politics.
It can be argued that the reason for the defeat of the republic was a mainly military
one, the instability within the Cambodian Government from 1970 to 1975 hindered the
Republic’s war effort and prvented the full prosecution of the war. Abdul-Gaffar Peang Meth,
a noted Cambodian political scientist, who later served in the armed forces of the KPNLF
wrote:
It has been the concensus of many foreign observers that the troops of Cambodia’s
Republican armed forces were excellent soldiers who fought well, aggressively and
tenaciously. The military deteriorationhas been said to have been caused by poor,
incompetent, and dishonest leadership.54
Thus the public lost the civil war rather then their opponents, GRUNK, winning it.
The reasons for failure were several. Many, like Douc Rasy, blame it on the incompetence of
52
Only four major political identities died violently in Phnom Penh during the Khmer Republic. Of these, the
death of Princes Norinractevong and Rathasa were almost certainly due to non-political motives. The other two
who were assassinated were Dr Keo Sangkim and Lt-Col Thach Chea, who were killed together in 1974.
Certainly there were many attempts to kill politicians: Sovannareth lost both his arms and legs during an attack
in 1972; Son Ngoc Thanh survived unscathed after an attempt on his life in 1972; and Tep Khunnah was able to
foil an attempt to kill him in 1973.
53
The manner in which the Lon Nol Government sought to compromise with Koy Pech in April 1972 is another
case in point.
54
Abdul-Gaffar Peang Meth – Cambodia and the United Nations. PhD Thesis, Univ of Michigan 1980, p.13.
124
the Government, and others on their being far less ruthless than their opposition. Peang Meth
again mentioned:
It has not been uncommon in modern Cambodian history for an individual to profess
‘loyalty’ to another, and to concoct a plot against that person before he reaches the
next corner. Whether to term these political leaders skillful strategists or or mere
oppotunists is open to debate; what is not in question is that few of these political
figures have held tightly to their political beliefs, philosophy, and personal alliances
when confronted with an apparent opportunity for individual gain.55
Whilst it is possible that the collapse of both Samdech Sihanouk’s Cambodia and the
Khmer Republic can be ascribed to these reasons, it is impossible to view the history of
Cambodia in total isolution from other countries in the region or to what had preceded the
Khmer Republic: the French period and the Samdech Sihanouk years.
French language and culture continued to dominate Cambodia during the early 1970s,
this was only natural as most of the leading figures of the Khmer Republic were French-
educated. There were many attempts to remove this influence. Despite such attempts, the the
tune of ‘Khmers Stand Up’ the National Anthem of the Khmer Republic, itself was based on
a nineteenth-century French Operatta,56 and comparisons between developments in modern
Cambodian history and those of France in the late eighteenth century have often been made.
Many Cambodians have drawn similarities between the events of 1789 in Paris, and those of
March 1970 in Phnom Penh.57 But twentieth-century Cambodia was not eighteenth-century
France, and such paralells are simplistic, and more importantly deny the roles played by
many people who wielded influence and power during Cambodia’s recent history.
Its experienced leaders, emotionally and intellectually dependent on French laws,
values, style and advice got little help from France in these transitional years. This was one
tremendous handicap, but the harder one was the communist proposition then attracting much
of Asia’s intellectual fraternity, that the quicker and ‘better’ road to independence was that
paved by Marx, Stalin and/or Mao Zedong, in this confrontation Cambodia was to become a
‘sideshow’, used and misused to suit the larger agendas of the Cold War protagonists. That
furnace of intrigue and duplicity had burnt up many larger, more sophisticated nations than
Cambodia, together with vast numbers of politicians, good, bad and indifferent.
55
ibid. p.10.
56
Henry Kamm – ‘War Seems Far Away as Cambodia becomes Republic,’ New York Times 10/10/1970.
57
eg. Prof. Keo Ann, correspondence (1989-90) and Douc Rasy, interview, Paris (June 1991). Even Samdech
Sahanouk saw these parallels being drawn, sevral times denying that he was a ‘Louis XVI’. If this comparison is
in anyway valid, Sirikmatak would be the Duke of Orleans, Pol Pot would have to be Robespierre, and Heng
Samrin’s supports would be the Thermidoreans.
125
Lesson 17: HISTORY OF DEMOCRATIC KAMPUCHEA
I- STRUCTURE OF DK
In the period of Khmer Rouge regime, there was a common word, ‘Angkar’ for calling
the authority, government and the communist party. Actually Angkar should correspond to
only ‘the Central Committee of Communism Party of Kampuchea’ but practically, it was
manipulated to belong to both, CPK and DK’s leaders of all levels by all of their officials
because for example, if those officials wanted some materials from people, we always heard
they told the owner that Angkar had asked those materials even they needed to take it for
personal use. Generally, in communist world, the real powerful group that ruling the country
is ‘the party’s leader groups.’
I-A- COMMUNISM PARTY—ANGKAR
Although the Khmer Rouge had fought against Lon Nol’s Khmer Republic for five
years, vey little was known about movement and its leaders. The CPK maintained this
cecrecy for most of the time that it ruled Cambodia.
Angkar Pakdevat, ‘the revolutionary organization,’ was made up of men and women
who were members of the Communist Party of Kampuchea. They were led from the shadow
by Pol Pot. In September 1975, the CPK’s Central Committee comprised Pol Pot, Nuon
Chea, So Phim, Ieng Sary, Son Sen, Ta Mok, and Vorn Vet. In 1977, three other members
(Nhim Ros, Khieu Samphan and Ke Pauk) were added to this committee. Pol Pot, Ieng Sary,
Son Sen, and Khieu Samphan were educated in France, while Nuon Chea was educated in
Thailand ans VietnamThe other members of the Central Committee, although literate, had
less education.
Pol Pot
Secretary
Nuon Chea Ke Pauk
Deputy Secretary
Khieu
So Phim Ieng Sary Son Sen Ta Mok Vorn Vet Samphan
Nhim Ros
Historically, the CPK was founded base on the Khmer People’s Revolutionary Party
or Kanakcheat Muttakeaha in 1951 but Pol Pot refused this fact by changing the party’s
anniversary in March 1976. The Central Committee decided to set the date of CPK’s birth to
1960 rather than 1951. The leaders decided that anyone who joined the party before 1960
would no longer be considered as a party member. They did not admit the importance of
Vietnamese guidance before 1960. They wanted to deny Vietnam’s influence on the party
and to break any links with Vietnam.
I-B- GOVERNMENT
Until the end of 1975, the Khmer Rouge called itself the Royal Government of the
Nation Union of Kampuchea (Gouvernement Royal de l’Unis National de Kampuchea-
126
GRUNK) that had been founded in Beijing in 1970 with Prince Norodom Sihanouk as head
of state. As the head of state, the prince came to know his powerless position in the
government when he was presiding a meeting in his cabinet because he was not allowed to
speak on behalf of the state presidum. This meeting took place after his first return to Phnom
Penh in September 1995. He said his returns did not mean to agree with Red Khmer’s
behaviour but he gave the honor to Chinese leaders who had requested. So after his second
return to Phnom Penh, he decided to resign from being the state presidum in March 1976.
Immediately, on March 11, the CPK’s Standing Committee held a discussion and approved
his resignation and in early April, the Kampuchean People’s Representative Assembly
opened its only first meeting to to be unanimously agreed to the prince’s retirement request.
To replace the free position, Khieu Samphan was then appointed. The prince and his family
were kept under house arrest in the Royal Palace compound until January 1979.
The name ‘Democratic Kampuchea’ of Khmer Rouge started to use officially from
April 1976. The only active organization in Democratic Kampuchea was the concealed
Communist Party of Kampuchea. The ministers with high volumes of work established in
Phnom Penh included the Ministry of Foreign Affairs headed by Ieng Sary, the Ministry of
Defense under Son Sen, the Ministry of Industry led by Cheng An, and the Ministry of
Economy chaired by Vorn Vet. The only committee that had the authority to make decisions
and government policies and statutes was the CPK’s Standing Committee, with Pol Pot as the
secretary and Nuon Chea his deputy. The CPK leaders never paid attention to the constitution
or regulations that they themselves had adopted. Members of the Standing Committee and
Central Committee also had ministerial resposibilities.
KHIEU SAMPHAN
President of State Presidum
(Head of State)
NUON CHEA POL POT
President of People’s Prime Minister
Representative Assembly
IENG SARY VORN VET SON SEN
Deputy Priminister and Deputy Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister of Foreign Affairs Minister of Economy & Finance Minister of Defence
I-C- ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISIONS
In 1976, the CPK divided Democratic Kampuchea into six geographical zones. The
zones incorporated two or more old provinces or parts of old provinces. The CPK then
divided the zones into 32 regions, and gave all the zones and regions numbers. Below the
regions were districts, sub-districts, and cooperatives.
East Zone (Zone 203): So Phim was the secretary of this zone; he committed suicide
in May 1978. The East Zone consisted of Prey Veng and Svay Rieng provinces, part of
Kampong Cham east of the Mekong River, one district from Kratie province (Chhlong) and
some parts of Kandal province (Khsach Kandal, Lvea Em, and Muk Kampoul). The zone was
divided into five regions: Regions 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24.
Southwest Zone (Zone 405): Chhit Choeun aka Ta Mok was its secretary. This zone
held Takeo and Kampot provinces, two districts of Kampong Speu (Kong Pisey and Samrong
127
Tong), and five districts of Kandal (Kandal Stung, Sa-ang, Koh Thom, Kean Svay, and Leuk
Dek). Its regions were Regions 13,33, 35 and 25.
North Zone (Zone 303): Koy Thuon alias Thuch was the zone's secretary from 1970
to early 1976. After he was arrested and executed at Tuol Sleng in 1976, Ke Pauk became the
secretary until 1977, when he was assigned to the newly established Central Zone. At that
time, Kang Chap became the North Zone secretary. This zone consisted of Kampong Thom
province, part of Kampong Cham west of the Mekong River, and one district of Kratie (Prek
Prasap). Its regions were 41, 42, and 43.
Northwest Zone (Zone 560): Nhim Ros was this zone's secretary. The zone
comprised Pursat and Battambang provinces, and had seven regions: 1,2,3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
West Zone (Zone 401): Chuo Chet was its secretary. It consisted of Koh Kong and
Kampong Chhnang provinces, and parts of Kampong Speu province. Its five regions were
31,32, 37,15,and 11.
Northeast Zone (Zone 108): This zone's secretary, Ney Sarann aka Ya, was purged in
1976. It comprised Rattanak Kiri and Mondul Kiri provinces, parts of Stung Treng west of
the Mekong River, and part of Kratie province. Its six regions were 101,102, 104, lOS, 107,
and 505.
In 1976, DK also created two autonomous regions, which reported directly to the
Central Committee, not through a zone: Siem Reap-Oddar Meanchey Region (Region 106)
and Preah Vihear Region (Region 103).
Kampong Soam (now Preah Sihanoukville) was organized separately from the zones.
The Central Zone was established in 1977. It occupied the former North Zone, while
the new North Zone was moved to the Siem Reap-Oddar Meanchey and Preah Vihear
regions. At the meantime, Kratie Region (Region 505) and Mondul Kiri Region (Region 105)
were taken from the Northeast Zone and made autonomous regions. (Dy 2007: 23-5)
I-D- LOCAL AUTHORITIES
Local authorities comprised District leaders—District Secretary, District Police Chief,
and others; Commune Leaders—President of Commune Collective, Commune Youth Chief,
and others, Village Collective Heads with Youth chiefs. These agents of Angkor had powers
to send people to their district police office, killing fields or execute by themselves. They
could olso order young cadres in their village and commune to take action against people.
I-E- SECURITY UNIT
I-E-1- Police Office or the Prison
Although the East Zone purges in 1978 were the most severe in DK, hundreds of
thousands of people were arrested in other parts of the country and in many cases were killed.
The Khmer Rouge security system, with its nearly 200 prisons, was set up virtually
everywhere. The Khmer Rouge called these prisons ‘security offices’ or ‘security centers’
rather than ‘prisons.’ (But as far as I have seen the remained document of confessions from
Krang Ta Chan killingfield, the prison was called as Munti Nokorbal Sruk 105--‘Police’s
Office’ of District 105).
The security centers in DK were organized into five levels. These prisons were used
for detention, interrogation, and execution. Most of the prisoners in the lowest three levels
(regional, district and sub-district) were former soldiers or civil servants of the Lon Nol
government; the remainder were people accused of stealing, desertion, or speaking ill of
Angkar. At the zone level, security centers held a thousand or more prisoners. These centers
were generally used to hold Khmer Rouge soldiers and their families, and those accused of
committing offenses in the zone. The highest level was the central security in Phnom Penh
withe code name of S-21. Almost all of its prisoners were Khmer Rouge cadres and soldiers
accused of betraying the revolution.
128
At the lower levels, punishments were not severe, for prisoners were usually transferred
from security centers to labor camps. There, they were made to build houses, plant
vegetables, or cook. Many of the prisoners held at these security centers were released
before 1976. But after that, almost none of the prisoners at the district and region levels were
released. Very few prisoners survived S-21.
Enemies of Angkars can be included internal enemies—the new people or 17 April
people, higher social clacsses and officials of previous regimes, minority groups, indigenous
highlanders, Cham muslims, Vietnamese, ethnic Chinese, intellectuals, alleged traitors, and
external ennemies—spies of CIA, KGB, Hanoi’s government that were accused.(Dy
Khamboly, pp.41-6)
I-E-2- Cadre Roles
There were a lot of cadres in the Democratic Kampuchea. These forces played very
important roles in maintaining internal security and controling people throughout the country.
- Control, observe and investigate all local people’s hehavors
- Arrest and imprison alleged people
- interrogate and torture the so-called prisoners
- execute them cruelly and sauvagely
II- COLLECTIVES
II-A- EVACUATION
Since April 17th, 1975, Khmer Rouge leaders decided to evacuate all towners to live
at rural area throughout the country. The cause of evacuation was explained temporarily to be
avoinded the arial boob of American ari forces. Then, Khieu Samphan (2000) mentioned in
his book that Pol Pot decided absplutely to relocate the population because Angkar didn’t
have sufficient food for towners. In fact, Khmer Rouge leaders needed to convert all people
to become peasants and workers. They did not need city, market, currency and social
organization. First of all, towners were forced to return home land after that they were
relocated again and again to the place where existing less population. Some times, they were
sent to live in remote area where threstened by malaria and other disceasees. By evacuation,
there were a lot of people were killed and died due to protest with cadres, to be recognized as
former officials and soldiers, to be ill and to starvate a long the roads.
II-B- COLLECTIVE FORMATION
During the 1970-1975 civil war, most of people living in the areas liberated by the
Khmer Rouge were organized into “mutual aid teams” of 10 to 30 families. However, starting
in 1973 and especially after the 1975 victory, mutual aid teams were organized into “low-
level cooperatives,” which consisted of several hundred people or an entire village. By 1977,
low-level cooperatives were reorganized into “high-level cooperatives,” which consisted of
about 1,000 families each or an entire sub-district.
The CPK’s leaders established cooperatives or collectives as part of their move to
abolish private owership and capitalism, and to strengthen the status of workers and peasants.
To the Khmer Rouge, a cooperative meant that people were supposed to live together, work
together, eat together, and share each other’s leisure activities. This resulted in severe
restrictions on family life. Cambodian families had eaten together for thousands of years, so
eating in collectives, especially when food was so scarce, was unpleasant and cruel. In
addition, eveyone in a cooperative had to give all of their property, which was their important
means of production, to be used collectively. Such property included tools, cattle, plows,
rakes, seed rice, plantation and land.
129
The cooperatives were designed to be as self-sufficient as possible. The Khmer Rouge
leaders described cooperatives as “great forces” for building up the country and as “strong
walls” for protectine democratic Kampuchea against its enemies.
II-C- PEOPLE CATEGORIZATION
Most well known categorizations of Khmer people during DK regime were two
classes, ‘Based people’ and ’17-April people’. Based people referred to people who lived in
the rural areas where the bases of the revolutionary were. Those people were regarded to join
revolution in and on time. 17-April people referred to all people who were liberated from
cities on April 17th, 1975. This group of people was considered as ‘New people’ or people
that did not participate the revolution on time. Some time, they were kept as ‘diposited
people’ or ‘war prisoners’. So between the above two groups, ‘Based people’ was prioritized
to be the supperior and to have more privilage in doing anything than the ’17-April’ people.
Practically, Khmer Rouge officials always devided population into other different
ways according to the revolutionary progresses and the living background of people. Base on
the revolution progresses, they identified a few kinds of categorization for their convenient
controls. The first one was ‘the basic people’ who lived in the place of revolution before
1973. The second was the ‘73-74 people’ whom they considered to join with revolution on
time. The late one was 75-people whom they referred to 17-April people. This latest group
was the ‘war prisoners’ whom the Angkar allowed to be alive for temporary instance. In the
case they could not be trained to work hard as well like ordinary peasants, the Angkar would
sent them to killing field. Among these three, they tried to categorize the background of the
population as poorest peasant, medium peasants, ordinary peasants, semi-capitalists,
capitalists, government employees-soldiers, officers-officials, intellectuals, Cham Muslim
ethnic, Kampuchea Krom, Vietnamese, Ministers-dangerous internal enemies.
II-D- WORKS
Collectively works during DK period were devided according the age of people.
Those working groups were the plowing and bollock cart conducter forces, the palm-sugar
producer forces for married men, the transplantor forces for married women, the district
mobile-men forces, the district mobile-women forces for adolescents, the 1st mobile-kid
forces for boys and girls, the 2nd common mobile-kid forces, the fishery forces and the cook
forces. Beyond the seasons of rice transplanting and harvest and other plantings, all people
were collectively assigned to work in digging resevoirs, cannal, road and mainternent and
fertilize the rice fields.
II-E- EATING
Dr. Henri Locard compared the way of communal eatings under the Khmer Rouge to
the eating tradition of Catholic churches in Europe while Dr. Philip Short tends to draw this
relatively with the eating regulation of Buddhist monk in Cambodia. Each village throughout
the country had a common kitchen hall for the entire villagers.
III- THE COLLAPSE
III-A- SERIOUS ENFORCEMENT WORKS/ A WEAKENED POPULACE
DK’s four-year plan specified that the country would produce a yield of three tons of
rice per hectare. This figure was double the pre-revolutionary yield. When production
quotas could not be met, cadres throughout the country falsified their product reports. They
then sent as much rice as possible to the party center, forcing people to go hungry.
130
Because the entire country depended on secrecy, the plan to harvest three tons per
hectare became impossible to implement. Regions were not allowed to share information or
to see what was going on. Rarely did anyone from the party center come to see how people
lived or to plan the work of the cadres under their supervision. The senior leaders seemed to
believe what their subordinates reported to them, while the cadres were terrified to report any
bad news. The CPK officials believed that the party never made mistakes and could never be
wrong. All bad things were the fault of foreigners or traitors. As living conditions grew worse
during the regime, hundreds of thousands died from overwork and malnutritrition. (Dy
Khamboly 2007:58-9)
III-B- RADICAL KILLING AND PURGE
There are many causes discovered leading to the radical massacre during Democratic
Kampuchea regime.
III-B-1- DISCRIMINATION AND DECENTRALIZED EMPOWERMENT
- Descrimination enforcement by categorizing populaion; Equipped social-class anger
and discrimination; Where there are ‘17 April people,’ no development is possible;
the ‘17 April people’ are parasitic plants; the ‘New People’bring nothing but
stomachs full of shit, and bladders bursting with urine; the ‘17 April’ are the
vanquished and prisoners of war; the ‘17 April’ are slothful, spineless, sluggist and
lazy; The Angkar only favors those who are indefatigable [Henri pp.183-7]
- Empowerment of ignorant local authority: from cadres to commune official levels can
decide to execute people without sentencing.
- Indirect killing by relocating people at possible malarial areas
III-B-2- PURGE
- Killng policy for all old government employee
- Paranoa, kill all suspected betryers/ennemies, KGB, CIA and Hanoi agents
- Kill their own supported worriors
- Sweeping kill all Eastern zone officers (Vietnamese head, Cambodian body)
- When pulling out weeds, must remove them roots and all [Locard p.77] (><Your hair
is always on your head/Where your head is, only your own hair can grow[Locard
p.81])
In mid-1976 many key members of the CPK were purged. From then on Pol Pot and
his colleagues believed that the rebellion against the leadership of the party was always being
hatched. They believed that their anemy were everywhere (Paranoa). Many chiefs of zones,
regions and military commands were arrested and executed. The situation were grew worse
since 1977 when Pol Pot ordered the assasination of the cadres of the East Zone and then
purged almost all of the people in the zone. After the Vietnamese invasion in late 1977, the
remaining people in the East Zone were thought to have joined the Vietnamese and were
lebeled “Cambodian bodies with Vietnamese minds.” So, the party center sent troops to
attack the East Zone, leaving tens of thousands of its residents dead. Hundreds of men flet to
Vietnam, where the Vietnamese helped them form a military unit. (Dy Kamboly, Ibid.)
III-D- CLASHES WITH VIETNAM
- Let us violently attack and scartter the Vietnamese vermin; Beware of the enemy from
Vietnam, who takes Khmer heads as trophies and ingradients for supporting the giant
131
pot in which he boils water for his master’s tea once again; Vietnamese head,
Cambodian body; (Locard pp. 178-81)
- Military clashes along the border Khmer-Vietnam since 1976
- Cross boder attack of Khmer Rouge troop into Vietnam in 1977?
- The refuse of Pol Pot in signing on the longterm cooperation treaty with Hanoi
Government in 1978 (Ponchaud, 2007?)
- UN plan to overthrow DK in the soon future
This was the most definitive cause of DK’s demise. In 1975, DK began initiating its
sporadic attacks on Vietnam. High-profile attacks broke out in the middle of 1977 when the
Khmer Rouge shelled Chaudoc, Hatien and other Vietnamese provinces, causing many
casulties among civilians and unprepared militia. Thousands of Vietname fled into the
interior of Vietnam. Within a few days of the attack about 1,000 Vietnamese civilians were
injured or dead.
In December 1977, Vietnam used warplanes and artillery to launch a major attack on
DK, capturing the territory known as the parrot’s Beak area in Svay Rieng province.
Vietnamese forces penetrated more than 20 kilometers inside DK, reaching the city of Svay
Rieng. As a result, DK broke diplomatic relations with Vietnam and ordered Vitnamese
diplomats to leave the country. The Khmer Rouge agreed to negociate the border dispute only
when all Vietnamese troops had widrawn from DK territory. Soon afterwards, Vietnam
withdrew its troops, bring with them thousands of prisoners as well as civilians. No
negociations ever took place.
Instead Vietnam accused the Khmer Rouge of attacking all eight provinces along its
boder with Cambodia.Vietnam decided to encourage the opponents of the Khmer Rouge to
revolt against them. They also began training Cambodians in Vietnam to take part in military
operations and to forms the nucleus of a new regime. The two countries were at war
throughout 1978. (Dy Khamboly, 2007:59-60)
III-E- NATIONAL LIBERATION FRONT OF CPP AND VIETNAMESE SUPPORT
- Regroup of Khmer civilan and military refugee in Viatnam
- Formation of the United Front for National Solidarity and Salvation of Kampuchea in
Snuol District on December 2nd, 1978
On April 3, 1978, Radio Hanoi broadcast in Khmer language an appeal to the people
of Cambodia to stand up and resist Democratic Kampuchea. Vietnam selected some
Cambodians who had fled to Vietnam to serve in military units under Vietnamese guidance.
Most of them were East Zone cadres, soldiers, and residents. By this time, part of the zone
was under Vietnamese control and the rest was controlled by a rebel group opposed to the
Khmer Rouge.
On December 3, 1978, Radio Hanoi announced the establishment of the United Front
for the National Salvation of Kampuchea. The Front was led by Comrade Heng Samrin, who
had fled to Vietnam in late 1978. Vietnamese General Van Tien Dung launched a major
assault on Democratic Kampuchea on December 25, 1978. His troops occupied Kratie
province within five days and Kampong Cham in a week. Then, on January 7, 1979,
Vietnamese soldiers and soldiers of the United Front for the National Salvation of
Kampuchea captured the capital city of Phnom Penh and soon afterward occupied nearly the
entire country. They quickly organised a conference to create the Kampuchean People’s
Revolutionary Council as Cambodia’s provisional government under the leadership of the
Comrade Heng Samrin. (Dy Khamboly, 2007:60-1).
132
