1 Bradley, Cornelius Beach, “The oldest known writing in Siamese,” Journal of the Siam Society, 6 pt. 1 (1909);Google ScholarCoedès, George, Recueil des inscriptions du Siam: (1) Les inscriptions de Sukhodaya Bangkok, 1924, 44–48.Google Scholar

2 Pelliot, Paul, “Mémoirs sur les coutumes du Cambodge par Tcheou Ta-kouan,” Bulletin de I'Ecole Française d'Extrême-Orient (BEFEO), 2 (1902, 123.Google Scholar

3 Inscription of Srei, Banteay (a.d. 1304), in Le temple d'Içvarapura: les inscriptions et I'histoire (Mémoires archéologique, publiés par 1'Ecole Françhise d'Extreme-Orient) (Paris, 1926), 89.Google Scholar

4 Briggs, Lawrence Palmer, “Dvāravatī, the most ancient kingdom of Siam”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 65 (April–June 1945). 98–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Rajanubhab, Prince Damrong, “Siamese history prior to the founding of Ayuthia,” Journal of the Siam Society, 13 pt. 2 (1919), 35–36.Google Scholar

6 Coedès, George, Histoire ancienne des itats hindouisis d'Extrime-Orient (Hanoi, 1944; Paris, 1947) 286;Google ScholarWood, W. A. R. in A history of Siam (Bangkok, 1926 [London, 1926]), 58, 63–64, says they conquered Tenasserim and other territory formerly belonging to Sukhothai and Chantabun region from Cambodia; but, as will be seen, the Chantabun region was still in dispute.Google Scholar

7 Coedès, George, “The treaty of March 23, 1907 between France and Siam and the return of Battambang and Angkor to Cambodia,” Far Eastern quarterly, 5 (Aug, 1946), 440–41.Google Scholar

8 Coedès, George, “Etudes cambodgiennes, XVI. Essai de classification des documents historiques cambodgiens conservés à la bibliothèque de l'Ecole Française d'Extreme-Orient” BEFEO, 18 no. 9 (1918), 26–27Google Scholar.

9 Coedès, George, Histoire ancienne, 230.Google Scholar

10 Coedès, has recently shown that there were Khmer settlements in the lower Menam valley in the early part of the tenth century in “Une nouvelle inscription d'Ayuthya,” Journal of the Thai Research Society, 35, pt. 1 (Feb. 1944).Google Scholar

11 Damrong, Prince thinks the new Singhalese cult had reached the Mon settlements in the Menam valley by the middle of the thirteenth century (“Histoire du Buddhisme au Siam,” Extrime-Asie, 4 [1927], 28).Google Scholar

12 Of the 5 monks – probably mostly Talamg (Burmese Mon) – who went from Ceylon to Pagan in 1190 and organized there the first chapters of the new Singhalese sect in Indochina, one was a son of the king of Cambodia (Harvey, G. E., History of Burma [London, 1925], 56).Google Scholar

13 Correspondent [Rev. Jones, J. Taylor], “Siamese history,” Chinese repository, 5 (1836–37), 55–61 105–08, 160–64, 537–41; 6 (1837–38), 179–84, 268–71, 321–26, 396–400; 7 (1838–39), 50–54, 543–48. The partial, version here given covers the years 1350–51 to 1638–39.Google Scholar

14 Wood, , 23–24Google Scholar

15 Mgr. [Pallegoix, J. B., Description du royaume thai, ou Siam (Paris, 1854).Google Scholar

16 Bowring, Sir John, The kingdom and people of Siam (London, 1857), 1:35–61.Google Scholar

17 Coedès, G. in BEFEO, 14 no. 3 (1914), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Jones, T., Chinese repository, 5 (June 1836), 56–57.Google Scholar

19 Ibid., 59 By Cochinchinese, Jones here certainly meant Chams, who at that time occupied what is now central and southern Annam.

20 Ibid., 60.

21 Ibid., 107–08.

22 Pallegoix, 2:74–79.

23 Bowring, 1:43, 44, 45.

24 Coedès, thinks Nong had access to the Annals of Ayuthia, prepared in 1795 (BEFEO, 18, no. 9 [1918], 18).Google Scholar

25 Villemereuil, A. de, Explorations et missions de Doudart de Lagrée… extrait de ses manuscrits (Paris, 1883).Google Scholar

26 Villemereuil, 21–80.

27 Called “King snang” in the Royal chronicle.

28 Gamier, Francis, “Chronique royale due Cambodge,” Journal asiatique, ser. 6, 18 (Oct.–Dec. 1871), 336–85, especially 341–44.Google Scholar

29 Garnier follows the Doudart de Lagrée recension, except for his (Garnier's) errors of chronology.

30 Gamier, F., Voyage d'exploraiion en Indochine (Paris, 1873).Google Scholar

31 Garnier here apparently means Annamites and not Chams (see footnote 19), but he places their interference more than two centuries too early.

32 Garnier, , Voyage, 1:139–40.Google Scholar

33 Moura, after a couple of unimportant interims, succeeded Doudart de Lagree as resident superior of Cambodia in 1868.

34 Moura, J., La royaume du Cambodge (Paris, 1883), 2:3–4.Google Scholar

35 Ibid., 2:36–39.

36 Abel-Rémusat, J. P., “Description du royaume de Cambodge,” Nouveaux mélanges asiatiques (Paris, 1829), 1:89–97.Google Scholar

37 This does not mean that he was the same king as the one who came to the throne in 1405. The names given by the Chinese are purely titles.

38 Aymonier, Etienne, Le Cambodge (Paris, 1900, 1901, 1904), 3:735.Google Scholar

39 Ibid., 3:738–44.

40 Maspero, Georges, L' empire Khmèr (Phnom Penh, 1904), 54–55.Google Scholar

41 Ibid., 55.

42 Ibid., 54–60.

43 Leclère, A., Histoire du Cambodge (Paris, 1914).Google Scholar

44 He says Nipean-bat was the son of the king of the cucumber-garden legend common to all Southeast Asia, which in Indochina has been ascribed to Indravarman III, 1297–1307 (Ibid., 195).

45 The capture of Angkor, which on all three occasions he says took place after a siege of seven months, he extends here over a period of ten years (Ibid., 199–207, 211–15).

46 Ibid., 216–22.

47 The comparison of his dates with Moura's are shown in Table 3. This matter will be taken up later (see p. 31).

48 Coedès was secretary of the Royal Institute of Siam and director of the National Library, Bangkok, from 1918 to 1930.

49 , Coedès, “Etudes Cambodgiennes, XVI,” BEFEO, 18, no. 9 (1918), 15–28.Google ScholarIt was published in Siamese in 1915 under the title Phŏngsávădan Lavèk in vol. 4 of Pra: xǔm Phŏngsávădan (Bangkok: Poranagati, 1915).Google Scholar

50 The dates given in parentheses in the account to follow have been supplied by the author, based on the length of reigns.

51 This question will arise later, see p. 19.

52 This is possibly the source of the statements of Garnier (in his Voyage), Moura, and Leclère.

53 Coedès, , “Etude cambodgiennes, XVI,” 25, note 4.Google Scholar

54 Probably Malays, who from early times were associated with the Chams. At this time, both were Mohammedan.

55 It is probably significant that the new Tai capital, Ayuthia, was in the old Mon kingdom of Louvo. The defection of the ministers and bonzes of Angkor may be more readily understood when it is recalled that their conquerors were not the Thai of Sukhothai, but partly their kinsmen — Mons and probably even Khmers — of Ayuthia, who brought with them the consolation of the mild Singhalese sect of Hinayanist Buddhism to replace their old Brahmanism and Mahayanist Buddhism with their monuments which had become a burden to them.

56 Frankfurter, O., “Events in Ayuddhya, from Chulacakaraj 686 to 966 (a translation),” Journal of the Siam Society, 6 pt. 3 (1909).Google Scholar

57 Ibid., 3–5.

58 Coedès, George, “Un recension palie des annales d'Ayuthya,” BEFEO, 14, no. 3 (1914), 1–31, especially 1–2, 18, 21–22. It is contained in Part 7 of a religious work called the Sangitivamsa written in 1789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59 Wood, 62, 65, 76, 81.

60 BEFEO, 13, no. 7 (1913), 105–06.Google Scholar

61 Coedès, George, “Supplement à l'inventaire des inscriptions,” BEFEO, 15, no. 2 (1915), 179.Google Scholar

62 Coedès, G., “Etudes cambodgiennes, XXII. La date d'avènement de Jayavarma parameçvara,” BEFEO, 28 (1928), 145–46Google Scholar. See also Coedès, , Les états hindouisés d'Indochine et d'lndonésie (Paris: Boccard, 1948), 379.Google Scholar

63 Bergaigne, A., “Inscriptions sanscrites du Cambodge, no. 65: Angkor Vat,” Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: notices et extraits des manuscrits (Paris, 1885), 560–88.Google Scholar

64 This is not decisive, however, as all through Cambodian history, Mahayanist kings made foundations to Brahmanic gods and Buddhist and Vishnuite kings maintained the state-cult of the Sivaic devaraja.

65 Boulanger, P. Le, Histoire du Laos français (Paris, 1931), 41–51.Google Scholar

66 G. Coedès, Histoire ancienne, 294, and Coedès, Etats hindouisès, 372–73, 380.

67 Pelliot, Paul, “Deux itinéraires de Chine en Inde à la fin du vm siècle,” BEFEO, 4 (1904), 240, note 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

68 Maspero, Henri, “Etudes d'histoire d'Annam, VI: La frontiére d'Annam et du Cambodge du 8 au 14 siècle,” BEFEO, 18, no. 3 (1918), 35.Google Scholar

69 Muang Swa had been tributary to Sukhothai since before 1292 but Sukhothai seems to have been made tributary to the king of Ayuthia in 1349 (see p. 4).

70 Le Boulanger, 49–50; Coedès, , Histoire ancienne, 289;Google ScholarCoedès, , Ètats hindouisés, 373.Google Scholar

71 Coedès, , Histoire ancienne, 288;Google ScholarCoedès, , Ètats hindouisés, 374.Google Scholar

72 Le Boulanger, 50–51; Coedès, Ibid., 290, and Ibid., 375.

73 Coedès sometimes calls him Jayavarmadiparemeçvara, but Bergaigne says that the infix adi is superfluous (Bergaigne, 585, note 3).

74 Damrong, Prince, “The foundation of Ayuthia,” Journal of the Siam Society, 11 (1914), 7–10;Google ScholarCoedès, , Histoire ancienne, 285–87;Google ScholarCoedès, , Ètats hindouisés, 364–70.Google Scholar

75 Coedès, G., “Le fondation de Phom Pén au xve siècle d'après la chronique Cambodgienne,” BEFEO, 13, no. 6 (1913), 6–11.Google Scholar

76 Preah Ko = Nandin, the sacred bull.

77 Leclère, 214.

80 This seems to be the origin of the error that Siam captured Angkor on this date.

79 Wood says that, according to “Cambodian history” (whatever that means), this invasion took place in 1357, but that he placed it in 1393 on the authority of Prince Damrong (Wood, 76, note 3). This was a good idea so far as the date of the invasion is concerned, but he should have left the 90,000 at the earlier date to agree with other authorities.

80 Wood, 76.

81 See p. 18.

82 Rémusat, 97.

83 Majumdar, R. C., Ancient Indian colonies in the Far East, vol. 1, Champa (Lahore, 1927), pt. 3, 224.Google Scholar

84 This Gamkhat seems to have died in 1427–28 and his defeat of the Chams probably occurred not very long before that date. The Chams probably did not hold the delta for a very long time, for that would have halted the embassies to the Chinese court. No embassy is specifically mentioned after 1419, although they seem to have come with some regularity until 1426, when they became very irregular. It was probably about this date (1426) that the Chams made their last invasion of the delta, which led to their defeat at Catur Mukha.

85 See p. 13.

86 Moura, 2:39, note 1.