Dvaravati, Si Thep, and Wendan.
The aim of this article is to better define the historical position of Wendan (Land Zhenla), an 8th-century kingdom known from Chinese sources, which had a capital in northeastern Thailand. The material evidence from Thailand, primarily in the form of Buddhist boundary stones, will not yield a coherent story until it is studied more deeply, with careful attention to issues of chronology. Architectural ruins in the Angkor region show that temple building (in contrast to what some have previously thought) fell off dramatically in about the second quarter of the 8th century, consistent with the hypothesis that the area fell under the domination of Wendan. For evidence that Angkor-region craftsmen were taken north by Wendan, it is necessary to look at sculpture and monumental remains taken from or remaining in Si Thep, a city likely to have stood west of Wendan’s political center. Evidence from the Delta region (“Water Zhenla”), finally, dating from the second half of the 8th century, reveals contact with Si Thep in this period and also indicates that at least some of the craftsmen who worked on Mt. Kulen (probably beginning prior to Jayavarman II’s coronation in 802) were likely to have been brought from this region.
Pierre Dupont's L'archéologie mône de Dvāravatī and Its English Translation by Joyanto K. Sen, In Relation with Continuing Research
This article reviews the English edition of L'archeologie mone de Dvāravatī, originally written by Pierre Dupont and published posthumously in 1959. The English translation was done by Joyanto K. Sen and published by White Lotus Press in 2006. The present Review Article is intended to show, for the record, the extent to which the translation does not follow the content of the original work. First of all, the translation presents factual errors to new scholars who may be unable to check or read the text in French. Secondly, there are also several problems with the additional and partial updates meant to highlight the tremendous amount of work and extent of excavations conducted in central Thailand over the past 50 years.
PLEASURE, POWER, AND THE PURSUIT OF COMMUNISM: SOVIET YOUTH AND STATE-SPONSORED POPULAR CULTURE DURING THE EARLY COLD WAR, 1945-1968
art, with certain students accused of “showing political immaturity, failing to understand the Party’s positions on art.” This episode constituted part of a broader crackdown on abstract art by the Khrushchev administration from late 1962, precipitated the the Soviet leader’s derision of such art forms in December 1962 at the Manege exhibit. Such instances demonstrate the limitations of the top-level promotion of youth grassroots initiative, as the Khrushchev leadership reigned in youth autonomy when it threatened to go beyond the boundaries of the permissible. The dates cited above have particular resonance, since both 1957-58 and 1962-63 represent two periods when those at the top of the Party hierarchy moved away from pursuing a more pluralistic, tolerant policy course, due to anxiety inspired by both sharpening Cold War hostilities and domestic developments. In these periods, official rhetoric censured what it labeled as 639 TsAOPIM, f. 635, op. 13, d. 546, ll. 56-57. This is likely related to criticism of the Party associated with the fallout from the Secret Speech and the Hungary invasion. For more, see Polly Jones, “From the Secret Speech to the Burial of Stalin: Real and Ideal Responses to De-Stalinization,” in Jones ed., The Dilemmas, 41-63. 640 TsAOPIM, f. 6083, op. 1, d. 52, ll. 166-67. 641 Susan E. Reid, “In the Name of the People: The Manege Affair Revisited,” Kritika 6.4 (Fall 2005): 673716. 642 On these anxieties, see Dobson, Khrushchev’s Cold Summer, 156-88.