Souvannakhomkham
Rik Ponne
Okay, as promised, I am starting a thread on Souvannakhomkham, the archaeological site on the bank of the Mekong in Ton Pheung District, Bokeo province, just across from Chieng Saen in Thailand. Yesterday I visited the site for the fourth time. My first visit was in 2004. The third time I visited was in 2006 as a member of a UNESCO mission.
Recently, a Chinese company was granted a concession for a banana plantation covering large parts of Tonpheung District, including the Souvannakhomkham area. During my visit yesterday the site looked totally different. Turning south from the road to Ton Pheung entering the Souvannakhomkham area there are banana trees as far as the eye can reach (see attached photo IMG_0309). Roads previously winding through vast sweeping landscapes now cut narrowly through tall banana forests blocking the view and making orientation very difficult. I did not have my gps with the coordinates of the various remains with me, as I remembered it not being too difficult to find them, this time I was only able to spot a couple of them amidst the banana trees. Apparently, the company has been instructed to keep clear from the monuments, as the ones I was able to find were sitting in a clearing. Since I was unable to find all remains, I can’t say if they have done this for all 40 or so recorded features. The area along the Mekong in which the largest and best known Buddha image is located, alongside the visitor sala, has been kept clear of bananas as well, although other crops are being planted there, such as pumpkin and watermelon ((see attached photo IMG_0316). I also managed to find the rectangular moated site (see notes below and attached aerial photo for details). Unfortunately, the part south of the road that cuts through this moated site has been completely flattened for the banana plantation, leaving no trace of the moat or rampart (see attached photo IMG_0428, taken from the road where it cuts through the western rampart – moat and rampart are no longer visible). The moats and ramparts north of the road appear to remain largely intact, although banana trees are also covering parts of this part of the moated site. (perhaps we should rename the site Souvannapakuay, and the district Meuang Ton Kuay)
According to my sources in the Department of Heritage of the Ministry of Information, Culture and Tourism, the site has no yet been included in any heritage register (i.e. national or provincial). Clearly, this important heritage site is under threat. I have started the process of nominating it for inclusion in the 2014 World Monuments Fund Watch List of 100 Most Endangered Sites. If any of you have any information on the site or corrections to any of the information in this email (history, past research reports, info on the banana plantation concession etc.), please share this so that I can reference this in the nomination file. Finally, if there is anyone interested to work with me on preparing the file, that would also be very much appreciated.
Below is an extract from the notes I prepared following the mission (note that these are my personal notes, not an official UNESCO report).
The area referred to by the Ministry of Information, Culture and Tourism as Souvannakhomkham or Muang Souvannakhomkham (Town of Souvannakhomkham) is located in the southern part of Tonpheung District of Bokeo Province. The area, measuring around 35 hectares, is enclosed by the Mekong, which makes a u-shaped bend here, on the west, south and east and extends north up to the road from Ban Simuangngam to Ban Tonpheung.
Surveys undertaken by the Ministry and Provincial Department of Information and Culture on the site since 1994 have identified more than 40 sites with remains of Buddhist structures in this area, primarily located along the eastern and southern banks of the Mekong. A mission undertaken by UNESCO in February 2006 (in which I participated) investigated seven of the identified sites. Among the sites investigated, most consisted of a that and a sim, the latter occasionally featuring the remains of a brick Buddha statue. Some sites featured additional brick structures, the location of which suggest they could have been ho tai and, at some sites, bai sema were also encountered. All of the sites visited have been looted.
In addition to the Buddhist monasteries, the mission also identified a rectangular site, located right opposite the historic site of Chiang Saen Noi across the Mekong in present day Thailand. The site, measuring approximately 1.5 by 0.6 km, is enclosed on the two short sides and one long side by an earth rampart and a moat. The south side is open to the Mekong. At present the river is flowing approximately 500 meters away from the site, but it is assumed, based on the presence of a steep slope along the southern boundary of the site, that the course of the river in the past was much nearer. On top of a hill that forms the north-western corner of the site, the remains of a temple were found.
While inside the walled area remains of Buddhist monasteries were found, there does not seem to be a correlation between the walled site and the locations of the temples, which may suggest they are from different periods.
Since no systematic archaeological investigation has yet taken place, all that is published about the history of the area referred to as Souvannakhomkham is based primarily on chronicles. These chronicles were written long after the events they describe and incorporate both historical “facts” and folklore. Two chronicles that refer to the early history of the Kok River valley are the Mueang Suwankhomkham and the Chieng Saen (Singhanawatikuman or Singhonti) chronicles. According to these chronicles, when the Tai people migrated into the Kok River valley, located in modern day Chiang Rai Province, Thailand, they established a settlement called Wiang Yonok, which was possibly located in Chiang Saen district. “Forty-five kings of the Singthoni dynasty ruled Wiang Yonok until it disintegrated into swamp in about the eleventh century.”
According to the Chiang Saen Chronicle, it was the king of Mueang Yonok who sent his son Chainarai to found a new town on the site of the old Mueang Suwankhomkham which he named Vieng Chainarai Mueang Mun. Mueang Suvankhomkham was “originally home to the Krom (Khom or Khmer, whose center was in present day Cambodia), who had expanded along the Mekong River to found the town at ‘a location that was an island with a sandbank next to the mouth of the Ram River, the body of water to the west.’ (Souvannakhomkham Chronicle) This suggests that the Krom settlement referred to as Mueng Souvannakhomkham was located east of the mouth of the Kok River. Although this description does not provide a definite answer on the question on which side of the Mekong the site was located, researcher Ongsakul and Lorriard agree that it was most likely on the Lao side. Aerial photos revealing the old course of the Mekong in the Lao territories support this theory.
The Souvannakhomkham Chronicle refers to the Krom also as founder of another town, U-mongkha Sela, believed to be located near the mouth of the Kok River. The Krom presence along the Mekong possibly extended until the border of Yunnan Provice in China as has been reported in Chinese records from the 8th century CE mentioning the expansion of Upper Chenla. Archaeological research will need to be undertaken in order to verify the existence and determine the location of Krom settlements in the area. The rectangular moated site located diagonally opposite the mouth of the Kok River and the former island that was reportedly the site of the Krom settlement of Suwankhomkham and later became Wiang Chainarai Mueang Mun would be obvious starting points for such an investigation.
The history of the Vieng Chainarai Mueang Mun (Souvannakhomkham area) during the Lan Na Kingdom (1296–1558), Burmese rule (1558-1774) and the Lan Na period when it was a tributary state to Siam (1774-1899) has yet to be researched. Style similarities between the remains of the Buddhist monasteries that are currently the most visible vestiges of the area’s history and the remains of Buddhist monasteries in Chiang Sean and Chiang Saen Noi suggest that the history of the area is closely correlated with history of these sites.
Attached are:
1. Aerial photograph of he Souvannakomkham area – moated site marked in red
2. Interpretation panel on Souvannakhomkham (prepared by Tourism Development Department, Ministry of Information, Culture and Tourism)
Published sources that mention Souvannakhomkham other than the chronicles include:
Rattanavong, Humphan, Souvannkhomkham, an Ancient City of Laos, Ministry of Information and Culture
Lorrillard, M 2000, Souvanna Khom Kham ou Chiang Saen rive gauche?, Aséanie 5, pp. 57-68.
Ongsakul, S 2005, The History of Lanna, Silkworm Books, Chiang Mai.
Selection of online sources that mention Souvannakhomkham:
http://www.asianventure.com/laos/history/mon_and_khmer_kingdoms.html
http://www.tourismlaos.info/laos/bokeo/Historic_Souvannakhomkham.html
http://www.komcome.com/vichakarn/detail.php?pw_vichakarn_id=40
Rik
Eisel Mazard
Did you send this material to Volker Grabowsky?
I expect that he would have both a very precisely awareness of the chronicles, and also of the local geography.
I spent a lot of time in Bokeo province (and even in Ton Peung) but never visited the site of Suvanna Khom Kam.
Based on the reading that I did at that time (in preparing for a possible trip to the site) it seemed to me that "the usual" conditions in Laos prevailed: everything above ground level was much, much more recent than anyone wanted to admit, and the more ancient remains (below ground level) remained largely a matter of speculation due to lack of archaeology. Cf. the entire packaged experience of Luang Phabang, based on the premise that you can tell white tourists that they're looking at a 500 year old temple, when they're staring at a structure entirely constructed out of "rebar" concrete (i.e., poured concrete, over reinforced steel) --sometimes complete with a (20th century) date of construction painted on one side.
The "ancient" temple in Xieng Khouang (transliterated as Wat Pia Wat) is a similar story: absolutely nothing that can be seen above ground level is ancient in any way --and yet the story is perpetuated. In the end, this type of game discredits all of the players.
With all that having been said, even 20th century ruins are of real interest, and I'm certainly willing to believe that ruins from one century may be built on top of ruins from another century (an exceedingly common scenario). However, the whole region also has a nasty habit of re-building walled cities just a few kilometers away from their former location (everywhere from Jinghong to Korat) --resulting in many local legends about (e.g.) the remains of brick walls that are just a few kilometers off the mark.
Eisel Mazard
Ironically, the place is (thus) much better off than tourist many attractions like Luang Phabang, etc.
E.M.
Rik Ponne
Hi Eisel,
Thanks. Yes, the ruins at the Souvannakhomkham site date from that period. Since the site was abandoned after the last destruction, visitors are able to see remains from that era. In Luang Prabang, the site has been continuously in use, and temple structures rebuilt over and over again in good Buddhist practice. The problem with interpretation is that guides often refer to the date a temple was first established as the “construction date”. It’s a question about the source of authenticity. For locals the source is in the use, while for westerners it’s usually in material.
Rik
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lao Cultural Heritage Forum" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/laochf/-/mI3hZDgfa1AJ.
To post to this group, send email to lao...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to laochf+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/laochf?hl=en.
David Lempert
|
Dear Rik;
Good to see a discussion on protecting Souvannakhomkham and your long e-mail. Please discuss your strategy for protecting Souvannakhomkham and why you think the World Monuments Fund list will make a difference, given the mixed results of even UNESCO recognition elsewhere and the general cynicism that many on the list seem to share about previous approaches. Which experts do you intend to rely on and with what interests and how will your approach be significantly different from what you and others have done in the area before?
Our project for popularizing and protecting
heritage has also investigated what we can achieve in Souvannakhomkham and you
probably saw our letter in the Vientiane Times in January, (though it
wasn’t reprinted on the listserve) in which we called for collaboration with
the different governments with interests in the area. Our approach is to offer popular historical
maps, children’s books and bicycle tour materials in multiple languages, and
signage, to increase the pride in the area history among the Lao (and the
Chinese whose history is also a part of the site) that you suggest in your
e-mail is what is missing. We are trying to directly build
constituencies for protection as well as to directly contact the different
governments with interests (something you didn’t mention) to participate in
building this pride and taking responsibility along with others. We would be a natural partner to work with
you on this if you are planning anything beyond recognition or if you are just
focusing on the archaeology, research, architecture and legal protections, that
in themselves probably also won’t protect the site. This is an important site in Laos because it may even be “Lawa” or the Pan Na Chiang Lao, (that you didn’t mention) before being Tai Yuan and linked with Umangasela that may also be Lawa (some place that site near the source of the Ping River, though it may be on the Kok). You mention the sema stones you saw but didn’t note whether you thought they might be Mon Dvaravati and you didn’t note the linga-yoni and speculations on whether that is why you are making a link to the Khmer.
To make sure that limited resources are targeted strategically, we also need to be candid about what appear to be failures of recent attempts in the area. For example, in the same province (Bokeo), the ADB is apparently spending $175,000 (maybe more) just to “restore” Fort Carnot that is a single, known site. When we were there, the ancient trees had already been destroyed and the “restoration” looked more like a charmless reconstruction. No attention was paid to the endangered history of Houay Xay and its many lesser known sites.
In visiting Souvannakhomkham, we contacted the Provincial offices to try to get a map or list of those 40+ sites at Souvannakhomkham. If it exists, we have no idea who has it. Projects have spent money on a tourist office in Houay Xay that has irregular hours and nothing beyond some informative posters on the walls. At the Souvannakhomkham site, itself, some project built a tourist center that is not staffed and has been left to crumble. The ADB’s project with the LNTA has recently produced a booklet that probably no one will be able to find after its initial distribution, and that offers careless directions to the site (based on time, spent on a motorbike), with maps and directions that seemed more designed to advertise local eateries than to offer tourist information. There is at least one tour booklet to the area that you didn’t mention, from the National Geographic Society (1999/1991) probably because it has also disappeared. If there was once an attempt to place signs in the area, the one or two we saw (we don’t know who paid for them), are already unreadable.
We hope the smaller Vieng Phouka citadel site and its ruins won’t be a model. Rather than offer on the Internet or at some other accessible location, a map of that ancient citadel and its interesting ruins, or even place trail markers, an ADB project has produced a “tea caravan” booklet directing tourists to some “sacred pond” in Vieng Phouka that has been filled with concrete and to a local tour monopoly for everything else. Money has also gone for construction of a tourist and handicraft center that will probably shut before it ever opens. Incidentally, we were robbed visiting the actual historical site and still await return of our stolen objects after identifying them clearly to the tourist police as well as identifying the suspect.
So, who will actually run this project and what, concretely, (or let’s hope, not in concrete) would you plan to do?
David Lempert, Lao Country Representative, Global Village Foundation Popularizing Lao History Project with LASS --- On Fri, 11/16/12, Rik Ponne <rikp...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
|
Eisel Mazard
> In Luang Prabang, the site has been continuously in use, and temple structures rebuilt over and over again in good Buddhist practice.
However, there are also aspects of intentional misrepresentation in Laos (both in the supposed history of particular buildings, and in the supposed history of particular stone inscriptions, and so on).
In reply to David Lempert: "…given the mixed results of even UNESCO recognition elsewhere…".
The UNESCO sites in Yunnan (immediately north) are another surreal contrast (i.e., don't just consider Luang Phabang in the comparison).
Re: "(and the Chinese whose history is also a part of the site)"
I think you'll have a hard time promoting anything in Bokeo as Chinese heritage (and you'll have a cold reception from both the Lao and the Chinese). In related news, the Thais are not exactly eager to market Chiang Mai as Burmese heritage (would you like to propose to the Thai government, perhaps, a new museum glorifying the 300 years of Burmese rule over Chiang Mai as a "golden age"?). Politically, it is difficult even to speak of Cambodian heritage in Southern Laos or Southern Isan (although you're often dealing with art and objects that are blatantly Cambodian in origin).
Each of the Thai national museums handling (pre-Thai) Dvaravati collections finds a different way of obscuring the obvious facts of local history (that the objects in question are not Thai… and were made by a civilization that inhabited the area prior to the Thais).
When I was a younger man, incidentally, I was employed in "the museum industry" (in Thailand, and also in large-scale, government museum projects in Hong Kong and Taiwan). Within the Thai government, I was not employed by the museum service, but by the Thaksin-era mega-projects (that were, in effect, competing against the government museum service, at that time).
Incidentally, your experience in visiting the site, D.L., is a mixture of the tragic and the comic. As is so often the case in Laos, one is left asking afterwards, "should we laugh or cry"?
E.M.
marion ravenscroft
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lao Cultural Heritage Forum" group.
Eisel Mazard
I was quoting myself, oddly: the image of the volcano (destroying and yet also preserving cultural remains) appeared in an essay that I wrote years ago…
…but it is STILL in peer-review with the E.F.E.O.…
…and I don't know how many more months (or years) I'll wait before I learn if they've resolved to publish it.
The one thing that's nice about the E.F.E.O. review process is that a huge number of people ("officers" of the E.F.E.O.) read the essay while it is being reviewed: more people read it before publication than after publication. So it goes.
E.M.