In the years 1870, the author was still in the process of deciphering Khmer inscriptions with his Cambodian, Laotian and Cham assistants, collecting geographic, linguistic and textual evidence in preparation of his magnus opus, Le Cambodge, to be published some three decades later (1900 to 1904).
The Kingdom of Cambodia he outlined here was still amputated from the major provinces of Siem Reap and Battambang, its population largely unaware of the French Protectorate officially promulgated in 1863. As a relentless field explorer, aware of the situation at the new Royal Palace of Phnom Penh but less prone to deal with the Palace insiders than Adhémard Leclère, he based his conclusions mostly on the collection of oral traditions. Long before the EFEO researchers would define a Westernized history of Cambodia based on epigraphy and dynastic datations, this is a kingdom of legends that emerges from this short essay. Some of these traditions have been replaced by the EFEO historiography, some have survived in religious and popular tales.
The Kam before the Khmer?
Dans cette terre en formation, appelée dès les temps les plus reculés la terre des Thelok (Kouk Thelôk), du nom d’un arbre très-commun, au fruit nutritif, le Cambodgien éleva sa case sur pilotis, sur le bord de son fleuve, près de son grand Lac, dans les forêts aux fruits délicieux (Les forêts au nord d’Angkor ont cette réputation.) Il était répandu également dans la partie montagneuse qui s’étend au sud entre le fleuve et la mer, partie, paraît-il, appelée plus spécialement Kampouchéa, mot que l’on peut décomposer en race ou tribu de Kâm. Il reste un vestige de cette appellation dans Kâmpôt, le port actuel du Cambodge. La tribu de Kâm était peut-être l’une des tribus primitives habitant depuis longtemps déjà ce pays. Favorisée, elle aurait pris une grande extension en recevant la civilisation indoue bien avant l’introduction du bouddhisme, et son état primitif pourrait, en partie, être étudié aujourd’hui sur ses frères peu connus les Kouys et les Sâmrè, encore fixés sur les hauteurs au nord et au sud du grand Lac. Quant au nom de Khmêr, il aurait été apporté par les civilisateurs et, selon les Cambodgiens les plus compétents (si tant est qu’il y en ait), l’expression de Khmêr d’om (khmêr de l’origine) né désignerait pas une tribu quelconque, de nos jours, à demi sauvage, mais le peuple inconnu et éloigné d’où sortirent ces civilisateurs.
Son initiation à cette antique civilisation donna au peuple de Kâmpouchéa une expansion inouïe, un haut développement artistique attesté par les magnifiques ruines qui couvrent le sol Khmêr, et par de vagues traditions sur les principaux personnages de cette épopée inconnue : Bâutumo Saurivong (le Lotus fils du soleil), le fondateur d’Angkor; Sângka Chahk (le Disque de l’assemblée); Prèa ket Méaléa (le divin éclat de l’Or); le favori d’lndra (Préa En), auquel la tradition attribue la construction d’Angkor Vâht; Sdach Komlong (le roi lépreux). [p 9 – 10]
“In this land in formation, called from the most ancient times the Land of the Thelok (Kouk Thelok), after a very common tree with nutritious fruit, the Cambodians built their stilt houses on the banks of their river, near their great lake, in the forests laden with delicious fruit (the forests north of Angkor have this reputation). They were also widespread in the mountainous region extending south between the river and the sea, a region apparently more specifically called Kampuchea, a word that can be broken down into the race or tribe of Kam. A vestige of this name remains in Kampot, the present-day port of Cambodia. The Kam tribe was perhaps one of the ancient tribes that had long inhabited this land. Favored by favorable conditions, it is believed to have expanded considerably by absorbing Hindu civilization well before the introduction of Buddhism, and its primitive state could, in part, bestudied today from its lesser-known brethren, the Kuys and the Samre, still settled in the highlands north and south of the great lake. As for the name Khmer, it is said to have been brought by the civilizers, and according to the most knowledgeable Cambodians (if such a thing exists), the phrase Khmer d’om (Khmer of origin) does not refer to some tribe, now semi-savage, but to the unknown and remote people from whom these civilizers emerged.
His initiation into this ancient civilization gave the people of Kampusha an unprecedented expansion, a high level of artistic development attested by the magnificent ruins that cover the Khmer soil, and by vague traditions about the main figures of this unknown epic: Bautumo Saurivong (the Lotus, son of the sun), the founder of Angkor; Sangka Shahk (the Assembly Disk); Prea Ket Mealea (the divine radiance of gold); Indra’s favorite (Prea En), to whom tradition attributes the construction of Angkor Wat; and Sdach Komlong (the leper king). [p. 9 – 10]
About the Leper King
At that stage of his research, the author didn’t speculate into the real identity of the Leper King ស្តេចគម្លង់ (Sdech Kumlong), with his statue enigmatically surveying the terraces and esplanade of Angkor Thom Royal Palace. It has been speculated that the statue, with the moss growth discoloration evoking some skin disease, was a representation of Yama, the god of death alluded to as the Dharmaraja (Dhammaraj), the lord of destiny, mentioned in a 15th-century inscription.
Some time after this publication, the favored theory would hold that the ‘Leper King’ had been Yasovarman I ព្រះបាទយសោវរ្ម័នទី១, who reigned 889 – 910CE in Angkor. The legend reproduced below stated that Sdech Kumlong came “way after Preah Ket Mealea”, name often attributed to Suryavarman II, so it couldn’t have been Yasovarman I, although legends and chronology are usually not fast allies…
Longtemps après Prea Kêt Méaléa, régnait un roi qui, devenu lépreux, fut surnommé Sdach Komlong (le roi lépreux). Un Mâha Rosey (mâha rischis, le grand Anachorète), plein de vertu, en eut pitié, et envoya un de ses disciples pour le soigner et le guérir. Ce disciple, après avoir vu le roi, jugea la cure difficile et s’exprima ainsi : «Si le roi veut guérir, redevenir beau et plein de santé, il faut qu’il se laisse ressusciter par moi. » Et, le roi né le croyant pas, il ajouta qu’il allait faire l’essai de sa puissance à l’instant. Il fit chauffer de l’eau dans une grande cuve, y jeta un chien tout vivant qu’il fit cuire jusqu’à complète désagrégation; et, jetant certaines poudres dans la cuve, il fit reparaître le chien beau et plein de vie. Il invita ensuite le:roi à descendre dans la cuve, l’assurant qu’il en sortirait de même beau et plein de santé. Le roi répondit qu’il né pouvait s’y résoudre, n’étant pas encore convaincu. Alors le disciple proposa d’y descendre lui-même, et remit au roi trois espèces de poudres en disant : « Cette poudre-ci, vous la jetterez quand la coction sera achevée; elle aura pour effet de me rendre la forme humaine. Ensuite vous jetterez cette autre qui me donnera la beauté, et finalement la troisième me rendra l’intelligence et la vie. »
Puis il descendit dans la cuve. Mais le roi, au lieu de suivre l’ordre prescrit, lanca les trois poudres à la fois. Le disciple du Mâha Rosey fut changé dans la cuve en une statue de pierre que le roi lépreux fit jeter sur la montagne voisine. Cette statue avait une attitude chrâkréng (bras et jambes repliés et écartés). Et depuis cette époque la montagne conserva le nom de Phnôm Bakêng. Le Mâha Rosêy, qui avait fixé un délai de sept jours à son disciple, né le voyant pas revenir, craignit un malheur et se rendit au palais. Apprenant ce qui s’était passé, dans sa sainte colère, il prit une baguette avec laquelle il sillonna une pierre dans la cour du palais, maudissant le royaume du Sdach Komlong, le vouant au malheur et à la décadence et terminant ainsi: « Puisse ce royaume né redevenir prospère que le jour où cette pierre parviendra d’elle-même à niveler son sillon. » Il se rendit ensuite sur le mont Bakêng, ressuscita son disciple et le reconduisit dans la forêt Hêm Baupéen (hêm, hima, froid, hiver). Quoi qu’il en soit de cette terrible malédiction, il est de fait qu’aucun peuple né présente un contraste aussi frappant que le Khmêr dégénéré de nos jours avec le Khmêr d’un passé tel que k révèlent ces ruines grandioses.
“Long after Prea Ket Mealea, there reigned a king who, having become leprous, was nicknamed Sdach Komlong (the Leper King). A Maha Rosey (Maha Rishi, the Great Anchorite), full of virtue, took pity on him and sent one of his disciples to care for and cure him. This disciple, after seeing the king, judged the cure difficult and said: “If the king wishes to be healed, to become handsome and healthy again, he must allow himself to be resurrected by me.” And, the king not believing him, he added that he would test his power at that very moment. He heated water in a large vat, threw in a live dog, and cooked it until it completely disintegrated; and, throwing certain powders into the vat, he made the dog reappear, handsome and full of life. He then invited the king to descend into the vat, assuring him that he would emerge just as handsome and healthy. The king replied that he could not bring himself to do so, not yet being convinced. Then the disciple offered to descend himself and gave the king three kinds of powder, saying, “This powder, you will throw in when the concoction is complete; it will restore my human form. Then you will throw in this other, which will give me beauty, and finally the third will restore my intelligence and life.”
Then he descended into the vat. But the king, instead of following the prescribed order, threw in all three powders at once. The disciple of Maha Rosey was transformed in the vat into a stone statue, which the leper king had thrown onto the nearby mountain. This statue had a chrâkréng pose (arms and legs folded and spread apart). And from that time on, the mountain retained the name Phnôm Bakêng. Maha Rosey, who had given his disciple seven days to return, feared misfortune and went to the palace. Upon learning what had happened, in his righteous anger, he took a staff and furrowed a stone in the palace courtyard, cursing the kingdom of Sdach Komlong, condemning it to misfortune and decadence, and concluding: “May this kingdom not prosper again until this stone manages to level its furrow of its own accord.” He then went to Mount Bakeng, resurrected his disciple, and led him back to the Hêm Baupéen forest (hêm, hima, cold, winter). Whatever the truth of this terrible curse, it remains true that no people presents such a striking contrast as the degenerate Khmer of today with the Khmer of a past such as these magnificent ruins reveal.” [p 12 – 3]
Étienne François Aymonier (26 Feb 1844, Le Chatelard, France – 21 Jan 1929, Paris), French naval officer, colonial administrator, linguist and explorer, a “field Orientalist” and the first scientist to extensively survey the ruins and inscriptions of the Khmer empire in today’s Cambodia, Thailand, Laos and southern Vietnam, as well as the Cham civilization. Le Cambodge (three volumes published from 1900 to 1904), remains to these days an important source for geographers, historians and epigraphists.
First director of the École Coloniale — where he also taught Khmer language since his retirement in 1905 -, he assembled a large collection of Khmer sculpture later housed in the Guimet Museum, Paris. They were major artworks that completed his stampings of Khmer and Cham inscriptions, yet in 1910 George Coedès complained they had not been properly labeled and sourced.
Author of a Dictionary of Cham-French (with Antoine Cabaton), a Khmer-French Lexicon and a Dictionary of Khmer, as well as a collection of Khmer texts, Textes khmers (1885), he was recognized as one of the first epigraphists working intensively in Cambodia, relying for the Sanskrit parts to the expertise of his friends Abel Bergaigne, Auguste Barth and Sylvain Lévi. In 1878, he transcribed the “Poem of Angkor Wat” (ល្បើកអង្គរវត្ត Lpoek Angkor Vat) in modern Khmer.
Fresh from St. Cyr Army School, he started as sublieutenant in Cochinchina in 1869 and, as adjunct to French Protectorate Representative Paul-Louis-Félix Philastre, prospected Kompong Thom province for his first officious exploration in 1876. While perfecting his knowledge of the Khmer language, he replaced Jean Moura as Protectorate plenipotenriary representative from 1 Jan 1879 to 10 May 1881, a function first occupied by Ernest Doudart de Lagree from April 1863 to July 1866. Indefatigable traveler, he crisscrossed Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, from 1881 to 1885, gathering essential information.
Aymonier trained numerous local experts (Cambodian, Cham, Laotian and Vietnamese) in mastering archaeological and epigraphic techniques, and acknowleged their contribution in his writings — paying homage to “a collaborator named An, in particular” (Introduction to Le Camboge, I, 1901). Mathieu Guérin has initiated biographical research on these collaborators, mentioned with a simple first name or a moniker [see Mathieu Guérin, “Tup, un lettré aventurier au service de l’orientaliste Etienne Aymonier, Journal Asiatique305 – 1, 2017: 111 – 118].
However, he somehow remained a maverick in the field of Khmer and Cham studies. According to Cristina Cramerotti (trad. Jennifer Donnelly), author of Collectionneurs, collecteurs et marchands d’art asiatique en France 1700 – 1939INHA), “neither the “field” scientist nor the administrator enjoyed unanimous support whether in academic circles or the hierarchy. While he contributed to bringing the future École française d’Extrême-Orient to the baptismal font, a bitter controversy over Funan pitted him against Paul Pelliot (1878−1945) who reproached him for his dangerous individualism in scientific matters [see details of their confrontation in the latter’s ADB biographical note]. His self-taught side bothered scholars: his candidacy as a free member of the Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, which had once praised him, was refused twice. He developed some resentment. In addition, his character, sometimes described as “rough”, his independence of mind, and the proposals for reform of the colonial administration, expressed in a rather abrupt way, ended up doing him a disservice.”
C’est l’un de ces articles [Aymonier’s] relatif au Fou-nan qui déclencha une polémique dont le résultat le plus triste fut d’aliéner à l’Ecole Française la sympathie d’un homme qui aurait eu tant de raisons de travailler en étroite collaboration avec elle, et qui, dans l’introduction de son Cambodge, saluait «la création de cette Ecole d’Extrême-Orient qui est un résultat très direct de ma mission archéologique qu’elle doit continuer dans des conditions infiniment plus favorables à tous les points de vue». Il avait commis l’imprudence, lui, qui n’avait aucune connaissance sinologique, de s’en prendre aux sinologues: genus irritabile ! La riposte de M. Pelliot lui causa une blessure d’amour-propre qui empoisonna les vingt-cinq dernières années de sa vie. et qu’il ressentait encore à la veille de sa mort. Sous le prétexte de mettre l’histoire ancienne du Cambodge à la portés de tous, ses deux derniers opuscules, oeuvres séniles sur lesquelles il serait cruel d’insister, n’eurent d’autre objet que de défendre une cause depuis longtemps perdue et classée. Heureusement, le travail de collaboration entre lui et M. Cabaton, qui devait aboutir en 1906 à la publication du Dictionnaire cam-français, était déjà presque terminé en 1904, et l’Ecole Française d’Extrême-Orient a ainsi la satisfaction de pouvoir inscrire le nom d’Aymonier parmi ceux de ses collaborateurs. Lorsque le progrès des études aura relégué ses travaux au nombre des ouvrages qui n’ont plus qu’un intérêt bibliographique, l’oeuvre accomplie pendant sa mission de 1882 – 1885 qui fonda l’épigraphie khmère sur une base solide et ressuscita les Chams ignorés avant lui, cette oeuvre subsistera comme un témoignage de son labeur et de son dévouement à la science, et suffira à assurer à son nom une place éminente dans l’histoire des études indochinoises.
[It was one of these articles [Aymonier’s] relating to Fou-nan which triggered a controversy whose saddest result was to alienate from the French School the sympathy of a man who would have had so many reasons to work in close collaboration with the School, and who, in the introduction to his Cambodia, welcomed “the creation of this Far Eastern School, a very direct result of my archaeological mission which it must continue in infinitely more favorable conditions from all points of view”. He, who had no sinological knowledge, had been imprudent in attacking the sinologists: genus irritabile! Mr. Pelliot’s response caused an injury to his self-esteem which poisoned the last twenty-five years of his life, and which he still felt on the eve of his death. Under the pretext of making the ancient history of Cambodia accessible to all, his last two pamphlets [Un aperçu de l’histoire du Cambodge, Paris, 1918, and Histoire de l’ancien Cambodge, Strasbourg, nd] senile works on which it would be cruel to dwell, had no other purpose than to defend a cause long lost and cold. Fortunately, the collaborative work between him and Mr. Cabaton, which was to lead in 1906 to the publication of the Dictionnaire cam-français, was already almost finished in 1904, and EFEO thus has the satisfaction of being able to include the name of Aymonier among those of his collaborators. When the progress of studies will have relegated his works to the number of works which no longer have more than a bibliographical interest, the work accomplished during his mission of 1882 – 1885, which founded Khmer epigraphy on a solid basis and resurrected the ignored Chams before him, this work will remain as a testimony to his work and his dedication to science, and will be enough to ensure his name an eminent place in the history of Indochinese studies.
Numerous pieces brought from Cambodia by Aymonier were exhibited at Musée Guimet “Exposition des résultats des voyages et explorations scientifiques en Asie : Religions, arts, archéologie et ethnographie”, Paris, opening 8 April 1893. Art from Cambodia was showcased through Aymonier’s collection along with other items exhibited by Delaporte and Fournereau in the same room, while the Laffitte, Gouin, Harmand, Hubert and Brau de St-Pol Lias’s collections were on the first floor. [see catalogue, via gallica.bnf.fr]
The Catalogue des collections indochinoises edited in 1934 by Pierre Dupont and Jeannine Auboyer mentioned a grouping of Khmer sculptures brought back by Aymonier set up by Guimet curator Joseph Hackin in 1921, including “the Harihara of Maha-Rošei” and “a very beautiful Buddhist head”. They were also “twelve stelae” dating back from the 7 to 11th century, with stampings made by Aymonier’s team kept at BNF and Société Asiatique.
In 2006, Christophe Pottier started a register of Aymonier’s personal papers kept at the library of Société Asiatique, Paris.
Publications
[based on George Coedès, “Etienne-François Aymonier (1844−1929)”, BEFEO29, 1929: 542 – 548.]
Vocabulaire cambodgien-français, Saigon, Collège des administrateurs stagiaires, 1874, 164 p.
Dictionnaire français-cambodgien, précédé d’une notice sur le Cambodge et d’un aperçu de l’écriture et de la langue cambodgiennes, Saigon, Collège des administrateurs stagiaires, 1874, 242 p.
Notice sur le Cambodge, Paris, E. Leroux, 1875, 63 p.
“Excursion dans le Cambodge central”, Bulletin de la Société de géographie (BSG), 1882, pp. 656 – 663.
“Critique du “Royaume du Cambodge” de M. Moura”, Excursions et Reconnaissances (E&R), XVI, 1883, pp. 207 – 220.
“Exploration au Cambodge, lettre de Saigon du 11 août 1883”, compte-rendu des séances de la SG, 9 Nov. 1883, pp. 486 – 490.
“Notes sur les coutumes et croyances superstitieuses des Cambodgiens”, E&R, XVI, 1883, pp. 133 – 206.
“Quelques notions sur les inscriptions en vieux khmer”, Journal Asiatique (JA), 1883 (1), pp 441 – 505; (2), pp. 199 – 228.
“L’épigraphie kambodjienne”, E&R, XX, 1884, pp. 253 – 296.
“Lettre sur son voyage au Binh-Thuan, adressée à M. le Gouverneur de la Cochinchine. E&R, XXII, 1885, pp. 247 – 254.
“Les Chams”, Revue d’ethnographie (RE), IV, 1885, pp. 158 – 160.
“Notes sur le Laos. Région du Sud-Est, détails géographiques”, E&R, XX, 1884, pp. 35 – 386; XXI, 1885, pp. 5 – 130; XXII, 1885, pp. 255 – 347.
“Notes sur l’Annam. I. Le Binh-Thuan. II, Le Khanh-Hoa”, E&R, XXIV, 1885, pp, 199 – 340; XXVI, 1886, pp. 179 – 218; XXVII, 1886, pp. 5 – 29.
“Nos transcriptions. Étude sur les systèmes d’écriture en caractères européens adoptés en Cochinchine française”, E&R, XXVII, 1886, pp. 31 – 89.
“Grammaire de la langue chame”, E&R, XXXI, 1889, pp. 5 – 92.
“Annam et Tonkin. Colonies françaises et Pays de protectorat à l’Exposition uni. de 1889”, Guide, pp. 27 – 37.
“Légendes historiques des Chames”, E&R, XXXII, 1890, pp. 145 – 206.
La langue française et l’enseignement en Indo-Chine, Paris, 1890, in‑8°.
“La langue française en Indo-Chine”, Revue scientifique (RS)., 1891.
“Les Tchames et leurs religions”, Revue d’histoire des religions (RHR), 1891, XXIV, pp. 187 – 237; 261 – 315.
“Première étude sur les inscriptions tchames”, JA, 1891 (1), p. 5 – 186.
Communication sur la fondation de la dynastie cambodgienne, compte-rendu Academie des Inscriptions et belles lettres (AIBL), 1891, p. 429 – 430.
“Une mission en Indo-Chine. Relation sommaire”, BSG, 1892, pp. 216 – 249, ЗЗ9 – 374.
“The history of Tchampa (The Cyamba of Marco Polo, now Annam or Cochin-China)”, publication of the 9t International Congress of Orientalists, London., VI, 1893, p. 140 and 365.
“Sommaire des travaux relatifs à l’Inio-Chine pendant la période 1886 – 1891, ibid, 1893.
“Découvertes or héologiques de M. Camille Paris dans la province de Quang-nam. Inscriptions découvertes par M. C. Paris au Tchampa”, Bulletin de Géographie, Histoire et Descriptions (BGHD), 1896, pp. 92 – 95; pp 329 – 330.
“Rapport sommaire sur les inscriptions du Tchampa, découvertes et estampées par les soins de M. Camille Paris”, JA., 1896 (1), pp. 146 – 151.
“Note sur les derniers envois de M. C. Paris, chargé d’une mission en Annam. BGHD, 1897, pp. 389 – 390.
“Rapport sur le dernier mémoire de M. Camille Paris”, BGHD, 1898, pp. 247 – 249.
Mission Etienne Aymonier: Voyage dans le Laos, Annuaire Musée Guimet, Bibliotheque d’études, V‑VI. Paris, Ernest Leroux, 1895 – 1897, 2 vol. in‑8°.
“Le Cambodge et ses monuments. La province de Ba Phnom”, JA, 1897 (1), pp. 185 – 222.
“Le Cambodge et ses monuments. Koh Kêr, Phnom Sandak, Phnom Prah Vihear”, RHR, XXXVI, 1897, pp. 20 – 54.
“Découvertes épigraphiques de M. C[amille] Paris, JA., 1898 (2), pp. 359 – 360.
“Le roi Yašovarman”,Actes du XIe Congres international des orientalistes, 2e section (langues et archéologie de l’Extreme-Orient, p. 191. Paris, 1898.
“Communication sur une inscription chame trouvée par le P. Durand à Kon Tra”, JA, 1899 (2), pp. 544 – 545.
“Les inscriptions du Preah Peân (Angkor Vat)”, JA, 1899 (2), pp. 493 – 529.
“Les inscriptions du Bakan et la grande inscription d’Angkor Vat”, JA,1900 (1), pp. 143 – 175.
Le Cambodge, 3 vol., I, II&III, I‑Le royaume actuel; II-Les provinces Siamoises; III-Le groupe d’Angkor et l’Histoire, Paris, Ernest Leroux, 1900 – 1904. [Vol II, ENG:] Etienne Aymonier,Khmer heritage in the Old Siamese Provinces of Cambodia: With special emphasis on temples, inscriptions, and etymology, translated by Walter E.J. Tips, Bangkok, White Lotus Press.
“La stèle de Sdok Kâk Thom”, JA, 1901 (1), pp. 5 – 52.
In Cambodia, Yama (kh យមរាជ) is theking of the Dead, son of Surya reigning over the subterranean world. According to ethnologist Ang Choulean, Vraḥ Yamarāj or ‘King Yama’ is "the God closest to the Khmers", the one to these days invoked in "annual Pchum Ben (Fortnight of the Dead) and mortuary rituals. Yama astride his buffalo looms large in Angkorian lintels across the centuries as the god of death and justice and as the subject in imprecations aimed at transgressors and temple vandals." Prof. Ang Choulean remarked that in Cambodia, Yama's representations and altars, originally facing south like in Indian traditions, started to be oriented in the northeast direction from the 13th-14th centuries, emphasizing the promise of reincarnation over physical death.
