During my stay in Thailand between 1971 and 1972, I found thirty three pieces of Dvaravati's Dharmacakras. Some of them are complete and some are broken. They are now preserved in the National Museums of Nakorn Pathom, U-T'ong and Bangkok, and also in Silpakorn University, etc.
My main Purpose in this paper is to date these Dharmacakras. According to the differences of decorative motifs on the rim of these Dharmacakras, they can be classified into six groups: Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and a non-ornamental group (fig. 4). The decorative motifs of Group I have significant resemblances to those found in Indian art, belonging to the period between 6th and 8th centuries. A more detailed examination of group one enables us to distinguish two types (which may be called type A [fig. 6, up] and type B). Type B, moreover, may be further subdivided, i. e. into type BI and type BII (fig. 6, middle and down). With regard to type A, it should be noted that the decorative motif bears a strong resemblance to those depicted on the pedestals of Sambor Prei Kuk (N. 10, S. I and group South). The latter, which are equally close to their Indian prototypes, can be dated back to the 7th century A. D. It may therefore be concluded that the Dharmacakras bearing type A decoration also date back to the 7th century A. D. Those pieces are No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 in my catalogue (fig. 3).
The decorative motif of type B is really a degeneration of type A's motif, i. e. that of the alternating lozenge and lotus flower motifs on the wide ornamantal band on the rim. It is possible to trace the development from the original pattern of type A into the debased form of type B. In the latter there is a very definite row of beading on both sides of this band. The pieces pertaining to this type are: Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in my catalogue (fig. 3). These are likely to be later than type A and probably date back to the 8th century A. D.
Secondly, I analyzed the Dharmacakras I had collected and proceeded to prepare sketches of the four parts which constitute the structure of the Dharmacakra (fig. 8, 9, 10 and 11). I then collated all the diagrams of each part respectively, and by this process of comparison attempted to ascertain the relationship between the different elements of types A and B. As a result of this analysis, I was able to conclude that all the Dharmacakras found in Thailand can be divided into two main periods: the earlier ones, i. e. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 11, and 12: and the later ones, i. e. Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31 and 32 (fig. 3). The earlier ones may be dated to the 7th century and the later ones to the 8th century A. D.
The inscription on Dharmacakra No. 2, although pertaining to type A, is 8th century, judging from the style of the script. Of course it is possible the Dharmacakra was produced in the 7th century and the inscription added later, in the 8th century.
Finally, Several stone deer images were found with Dharmacakras in the compound of Pra Fathom Chei (fig. 1) at Nakorn Pathom. The finding of these fully confirmed that the texts of inscription No. 2 are concerned with the setting in motion of the Wheel of the Law dy the Buddha in his first sermon in the Benares deer park, which occasion the Dharmacakra symbolizes. This setting up of many Dharmacakras may be related to the legendary story of King As'oka's mission to Suvarnabhumi, which can be seen in Dipavamsa and Samantapasadika.

View full abstract

In this article, the author analyses the dia ba, or land of twenty-seven villages in Nam Dinh province, which were drawn up between 1804 and 1889. Here he gives some insights into the fundamental structure of landownership in Vietnamese villages before the French occupation.
First, he explains the form of the land rolls in detail.
Secondly, regarding the percentage relationship of công diên, or communal land, to the total land area of each village, he distinguishes various types. For example, while four villages had no communal land, in two other villages, 70-80 percent of the land was communal. Therefore, the role of communal land in the Vietnamese village system differed according to village. Furthermore, according to the land rolls of three villages which had a high percentage communal land, it may be seen that these were often concentrated in certain areas which usually faced a big river. And that tù'diên, or private land, was located behind these. There one postulates that the location of communal land might be related to the land policy of Lê dynasty.
Thirdly, the size of a given plot of the private land differed widely from villages where one plot was smaller, the peasants who collected many small plots became big owners. In others, where one plot was larger, the big owners had only one or two large plots. He considers these differences might be related to the particular origins of each village.
Fourthly, he discovered in these rolls the fact that many detached plots of the communal and private land were dispersed in other villages, concluding that in Vietnamese village of the nineteenth century landownership was open to members of other villages.
In conclusion, he found it difficult to classify the Vietnamese village under only one type. His task at hand, therefore, it to collect and analyse data from many other land rolls. Upon closing he acknowledged his indebtedness to l'Ecole Francaise d'Extrême-Orient for permission to consult its invaluable manuscrpts preserved on microfilm in the Toyo Bunko.

View full abstract

From the end of the eighteenth century to the early nineteenth century, there occurred a rapid development of pepper cultivation in Acheh's Westcoast. In the beginning, the main area of production was the southern part of the Westcoast from Susuh to Trumon. From 1793, when the American trading ships first arrived, Susuh became the main trading port of this area. Most of the pepper produced in this region was purchased by American traders. In 1802, for example, twenty-one American merchantmen came to this port. During the first half of the nineteenth century, the area of pepper cultivation extended to the north, including such places as Meulabuh, Paté and Rigaih.
In the course of the expansion of pepper cultivation mentioned above, a number of new nanggru (areas governed by an uleebalang) were formed in the region of Susuh and, in the northern region, such places as Kuala Batee, Lho “Pawoh Utara, Manggeng, Pate, Rigaih and Lho” Kluet.
At that time, almost all of the west coast of Acheh was uninhabited. The whole of the territory was divided into the nanggru of Meulabuh, Susuh, Labohan haji, Meuké Topatuan, etc. These nanggru were formed by Malays who immigrated from Sumatra's Westcoast at the end of the seventeenth century, while the pepper cultivation in this uninhabited region was developed by the immigrants from Banda Acheh and Pidie. These immigrants formed a number of small groups, each led by an entrepreneur, who obtained a licence for the cultivation of pepper from the uleebalang concerned, on condition that he paid a certain amount of wase uleebalang or pepper export tax. These entrepreneurs were usually designated as peuteuha pangkai or capital holders, who gave an advance payment to the aneuk seuneubo-immigrant pepper laborers. When the pepper plantation was opened, this entrepreneur became the peuteuha seuneubo or the manager of the pepper plantation which he financed. This does not mean, however, that he was the owner of plantation. In the beginning, the relationship between the peuteuha seunenbo and his aneuk was paternalistic, but as the number of aneuk increased and his plantation business prospered, his position gradually changed from that of manager to that of a chief, who finally became an independent uleebalang, free of the uleebalang to whom he was originally subject. This process is partly a result of the fact that he was at the same time the peuteuha pangkai and therefore he had the right to monopolize the pepper produced by the seuneubo to whom he gave advance money, and also the right to collect the adat pangkai or rent from them.
Through this pepper trade, a great deal of silver was acquired in Acheh, but this silver flowed out of the country through the opium trade run by the British and Indian country traders.

View full abstract