As we saw in an earlier post, there is a chronology for fourteenth-century Cambodian history that is recorded in a group of chronicles that we can call the Nong texts.
As we also saw, the Ming shilu, a Chinese historical source that contains information from the fourteenth century, contains a record about a king (Da-ma-lai-sha-na-a-zhe 怛麻來沙那阿者) that matches the name and date of a king in the Nong texts, a king by the name of Thommeasokareach (Dhammāśokarāja).
Unfortunately, the Nong texts do not contain much information beyond the names of kings and how long they ruled. However, there are other fragments of texts that provide more detailed information about this period.
One is known as the Ang Eng Fragment, and I will refer to the other as the 2/K.125 Fragment. Both of these texts are written in Thai (or Siamese). The Ang Eng Fragment is part of a Cambodian text that was granted to the Siamese king in 1796 and then translated into Siamese, while the 2/K.125 Fragment is part of a Siamese text that may have been compiled as early as the fifteenth century.
There are problems with the dates in these fragments, however, what I propose to do is to put those questions aside and just to see what we can possibly learn from the contents of these texts.
The contents of these two fragments add information to the basic chronology of the reigns of kings in the Nong texts. More specifically, the Ang Eng Fragment contains information about events in Cambodia prior to the second Siamese attack on, and capture of, Angkor in 1372-73, while the 2/K.125 Fragment contains details about events after the second Siamese capture of Angkor.
In particular, the 2/K.125 Fragment contains information about the unsuccessful efforts of a man known as Cau Ponhea Yat to recapture Angkor.
What interests me, however, is a certain detail that appears in both of these texts, and that is a reference to foreigners.
The Ang Eng Fragment records that at some point prior to the second Siamese attack on Angkor, the Phnom Penh region was attacked by “Chams and Khaek,” and that these people then tried to attack Angkor but were defeated.
The term “Khaek” แขก is now a colloquial (and somewhat derogatory) reference to Indians, and more broadly, to people from South Asia and the Middle East. In the Ayutthayan period, however, this term was used much more widely to refer to many different peoples, including people from island Southeast Asia, such as Malays and Javanese.
So, the Ang Eng Fragment mentions Chams and Khaek attacking the region before the second Siamese capture of Angkor. The 2/K.125 Fragment then mentions the presence of some non-Khmer peoples in the region in the years after Angkor was captured. These people are referred to as “phak” พรรค.
In the aftermath of the second Siamese capture of Angkor, the 2/K.125 Fragment talks about the Siamese attempting to defeat the “mahaphak” มหาพรรด, a term that we can translate as “great phak,” along the route between Angkor and Phnom Penh, which in those days must have meant the water route across the Tonle Sap and down to the Mekong.
The 2/K.125 Fragment also records that Cau Ponhea Yat gained support in his effort to regain control of Angkor from a man called “Maharang-kaek of the phak tribe.”
Here the phak is referred to as a “phao” เผ้า, a term which means something like “tribe” or even “race.” The 2/K.125 Fragment also mentions the “great phak tribe,” or “phao maha phak” เผ้ามหาพรรด.
The use of this term led Michael Vickery to conclude that the phak were an ethnic group, and he presented an elaborate scenario in which chroniclers had misunderstood this term and misrepresented it, but that it originally had referred to the Pear, an ethnic group that inhabits an area of northwestern Cambodia.
While I find Vickery’s explanation implausible, he fails to explain why this ethnic group was spread along the water route from Angkor to Phnom Penh, and that weakens his argument as well.
Finally, if we look at the Royal Chronicles of Ayutthaya, we find that it also contains information about foreigners attacking Cambodia. This information comes from an undated passage, which is placed in a section on King Ramesuan’s second reign, which the chronicles date as 1388-95.
There is nothing in this passage that enables us to date the information, and therefore there is no way to conclude that it occurred between 1388-95. Instead, the passage appears to record the same information about an attack on Cambodia that the Nong texts place in the late 1360s or early 1370s right before the second Siamese attack on Angkor.
Nonetheless, again, we are not going to worry about the dates, but will just consider the content.
The Royal Chronicles of Ayutthaya record that the “Yuan,” a name we will discuss momentarily, attacked Angkor, and that at first the inhabitants were able to resist, but that when the “Yuan” attacked in greater numbers, the people of Cambodia struggled to defend themselves.
The term, “Yuan” ญวน, has been translated by scholars as “Vietnamese” or “Cochinchinese” because this is a term that is present in the Thai and Khmer languages today, as a somewhat derogatory referent for the Vietnamese.
The presence of this term in a text recording information about the fourteenth century has confused scholars, as there is no evidence of Siamese and Vietnamese contact before this point that could have led the Siamese to have already developed this name for the Vietnamese. As such, Vickery wrote that “this was too early for Vietnamese intervention in Cambodian affairs and shows that the passage is corrupt.” (306)
In making this declaration, Vickery essentially “threw the baby out with the bath water,” in that he did not consider this issue any further.
However, if we put aside the problem with these terms, and just look at the most basic elements that we have here, what we can see is that we have three texts that all record something about foreigners attacking Cambodia.
Further, these three texts appear to all be referring to the same attack, and/or the same people. Yes, they use different names for those foreigners, and yes, the term “Yuan” may have been added later to replace some other term, and thus constitutes a “corruption” of a text, but. . .
. . . we have three texts all mentioning foreigners attacking Cambodia.
I think we should take that information seriously. So, let’s take a look at the Ming shilu accounts of Sanfoqi to see if they can reveal anything about who these foreigners may have been.
There are problems with the dates in these fragments, however, what I propose to do is to put those questions aside and just to see what we can possibly learn from the contents of these texts.
The contents of these two fragments add information to the basic chronology of the reigns of kings in the Nong texts. More specifically, the Ang Eng Fragment contains information about events in Cambodia prior to the second Siamese attack on, and capture of, Angkor in 1372-73, while the 2/K.125 Fragment contains details about events after the second Siamese capture of Angkor.
In particular, the 2/K.125 Fragment contains information about the unsuccessful efforts of a man known as Cau Ponhea Yat to recapture Angkor.
What interests me, however, is a certain detail that appears in both of these texts, and that is a reference to foreigners.
The Ang Eng Fragment records that at some point prior to the second Siamese attack on Angkor, the Phnom Penh region was attacked by u201cChams and Khaek,u201d and that these people then tried to attack Angkor but were defeated.
The term u201cKhaeku201d u0e41u0e02u0e01 is now a colloquial (and somewhat derogatory) reference to Indians, and more broadly, to people from South Asia and the Middle East. In the Ayutthayan period, however, this term was used much more widely to refer to many different peoples, including people from island Southeast Asia, such as Malays and Javanese.
So, the Ang Eng Fragment mentions Chams and Khaek attacking the region before the second Siamese capture of Angkor. The 2/K.125 Fragment then mentions the presence of some non-Khmer peoples in the region in the years after Angkor was captured. These people are referred to as u201cphaku201d u0e1eu0e23u0e23u0e04.
In the aftermath of the second Siamese capture of Angkor, the 2/K.125 Fragment talks about the Siamese attempting to defeat the u201cmahaphaku201d u0e21u0e2bu0e32u0e1eu0e23u0e23u0e14, a term that we can translate as u201cgreat phak,u201d along the route between Angkor and Phnom Penh, which in those days must have meant the water route across the Tonle Sap and down to the Mekong.
The 2/K.125 Fragment also records that Cau Ponhea Yat gained support in his effort to regain control of Angkor from a man called u201cMaharang-kaek of the phak tribe.u201d
Here the phak is referred to as a u201cphaou201d u0e40u0e1cu0e49u0e32, a term which means something like u201ctribeu201d or even u201crace.u201d The 2/K.125 Fragment also mentions the u201cgreat phak tribe,u201d or u201cphao maha phaku201d u0e40u0e1cu0e49u0e32u0e21u0e2bu0e32u0e1eu0e23u0e23u0e14.
The use of this term led Michael Vickery to conclude that the phak were an ethnic group, and he presented an elaborate scenario in which chroniclers had misunderstood this term and misrepresented it, but that it originally had referred to the Pear, an ethnic group that inhabits an area of northwestern Cambodia.
While I find Vickeryu2019s explanation implausible, he fails to explain why this ethnic group was spread along the water route from Angkor to Phnom Penh, and that weakens his argument as well.
Finally, if we look at the Royal Chronicles of Ayutthaya, we find that it also contains information about foreigners attacking Cambodia. This information comes from an undated passage, which is placed in a section on King Ramesuanu2019s second reign, which the chronicles date as 1388-95.
There is nothing in this passage that enables us to date the information, and therefore there is no way to conclude that it occurred between 1388-95. Instead, the passage appears to record the same information about an attack on Cambodia that the Nong texts place in the late 1360s or early 1370s right before the second Siamese attack on Angkor.
Nonetheless, again, we are not going to worry about the dates, but will just consider the content.
The Royal Chronicles of Ayutthaya record that the u201cYuan,u201d a name we will discuss momentarily, attacked Angkor, and that at first the inhabitants were able to resist, but that when the u201cYuanu201d attacked in greater numbers, the people of Cambodia struggled to defend themselves.
The term, u201cYuanu201d u0e0du0e27u0e19, has been translated by scholars as u201cVietnameseu201d or u201cCochinchineseu201d because this is a term that is present in the Thai and Khmer languages today, as a somewhat derogatory referent for the Vietnamese.
The presence of this term in a text recording information about the fourteenth century has confused scholars, as there is no evidence of Siamese and Vietnamese contact before this point that could have led the Siamese to have already developed this name for the Vietnamese. As such, Vickery wrote that u201cthis was too early for Vietnamese intervention in Cambodian affairs and shows that the passage is corrupt.u201d (306)
In making this declaration, Vickery essentially u201cthrew the baby out with the bath water,u201d in that he did not consider this issue any further.
However, if we put aside the problem with these terms, and just look at the most basic elements that we have here, what we can see is that we have three texts that all record something about foreigners attacking Cambodia.
Further, these three texts appear to all be referring to the same attack, and/or the same people. Yes, they use different names for those foreigners, and yes, the term u201cYuanu201d may have been added later to replace some other term, and thus constitutes a u201ccorruptionu201d of a text, but. . .
. . . we have three texts all mentioning foreigners attacking Cambodia.
I think we should take that information seriously. So, letu2019s take a look at the Ming shilu accounts of Sanfoqi to see if they can reveal anything about who these foreigners may have been.
I was currently reading about Ayutthaya and the 2k125 fragment. I always think Ayutthaya was split into two factions. The first is Mon-Khmer and the second would be Khmer-Pearic. In 2.k125, Baña Keav and Baña Dai, I believe were Pearic rulers from Angkor that were brought to Ayutthaya together with all the inhabitants and statues. According to the information, the people of Angkor were used as soldiers and guardians in Ayutthaya. They didn’t become loyal to their new monarchy in Ayutthaya and tried to conspire against the king with other officials. They were caught and executed. It seems their execution triggered the Pearic people of Western Cambodia. The Khmer and Pearic do have a long history with each other since Pre-Angkorian period.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!! I’m assuming then that you think we should see the “Phak” or “Maha Phak” in that text as indicating these Pearic peoples? If so, this is what I’ve come to think about that issue.
1) As a colleague pointed out to me, it’s not common to use the term “Maha” for some neighboring ethnic group. I can’t think of any case where that term was used in that way. I think the only way that I could be convinced that such a term was used by Khmer for Pearic peoples was if I saw some evidence of those Pearic peoples being a major political power that the Khmer had to contend with, and whom they were even inferior to.
2) Through various sources, and as explained in some of the “Srivijaya 2.0” posts, I’m 100% confident that there were Javanese in the (Lower) Mekong region and that they “conquered” places. I think they were a definite threat to the Khmer at Angkor, and were thus a group that could have been referred to as “Maha.”
3) While the narrative of the 2k125 fragment can be difficult to follow at times, there are certain places where we see the movement of peoples, and those places make more sense to me if we see the Phak as being in the Lower Mekong or even on the coast (whereas Vickery, for instance, equated them with the Pearic peoples living to the West of Angkor. For instance, I think the Ayutthayan king orders his son to lead a campaign against the Phak “all the way to Chatamurka” (Phnom Penh area). Then I think there is another instance where the Siamese attack the Phak, then retreat to Chatamurka, and then go back to Angkor. In neither of these cases does it make sense to think of the Phak as being to the west of Angkor. Further, in the second instance, it would make good sense if the Phak/Javanese (and probably Cham and others under their authority) were east of Phnom Penh, which is where I suspect they were.
So this is where my thinking at the moment is on this, and I’m trying to tie together bits of information from different sources from the same period. That said, I’d be curious to know more about the long history of Pearic-Khmer relations, and how we know about that (i.e., where we can get a sense of that). Thanks again!!
I was reading “The Descendants of Kambu: The Political Imagination of Angkorian Cambodia” By Ian Nathaniel Lowman. I believe on pages 32 to 35 he talked about the Pearic from the west and an area called Malen or Malyang. The area of Malen or Kingdom of Malyang which it says to be located in Southern Battambang was suppressed twice. Malen or Malyang have appeared in the Khmer inscription- K. 78, K. 789, k. 449, k.451, k.693.
Thanks for pointing this out!! I’m familiar with that dissertation (and like it a lot!!). I should have thought of looking there for information about this, as I consulted it earlier when I was doing research on this topic. I read the passage you pointed out, and when I get some more time I’ll follow up on looking at the inscriptions.
For now though, in reading what Lowman wrote, I’ve become even more convinced that the “Phak” or “Maha Phak” cannot be these Pearic peoples, as 1) there is an extant name for them – Malen (so why would the term “Phak” be used to label them?), and 2) if Lowman is correct, then these people were weaker than the Khmer, and that doesn’t describe the power relations between Angkor and the Maha Phak that we see in the sources. And again, it makes it very odd to think that these people would be called “Maha” (great).
So, again, thank you very much for pointing out that passage. It’s really helpful, and I’ll be sure to check the inscriptions as well.