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.
Origin of prehistoric cattle excavated from four archaeological sites in central and northeastern Thailand
Abstract Cattle have been domesticated in Southeast Asia, including Thailand, for thousands of years, but the history of cattle domestication in the region remains unclear. To date, only genetic studies of modern Thai cattle DNA have been reported. To gain some insight into cattle domestication in the country, a total of 56 cattle remains excavated from four archaeological sites (dated to between 3550 and 1700 years before present (YBP)) in northeastern and central Thailand were analysed in this study. Of 56, the 157-bp D-loop fragment was successfully generated from 26 samples, all of which belonged to Bos taurus in haplogroup T/T3. One haplotype contained 19 members from all four archaeological sites and clustered with the ancient B. taurus from Iran, Turkey and China. Other haplotypes have not shared haplotype with B. taurus from other countries but they showed close relationship to those from China. This represents the first genetic evidence that B. taurus was domesticated in Thailand between 3550 and 1700 YBP. In addition, the close relationship among ancient Thai, Iranian and Chinese taurines suggests that cattle from the Near East were introduced into North China, and were subsequently brought into Thailand thousands of years ago.
Italian Influence on the Development of Calvinist Scholasticism
THIS ARTICLE TRIES to show that the rise of Calvinist scholasticism, which was the most important development in Calvinist theology during the second half of the sixteenth century, stemmed largely from several converging Italian influences, particularly from the writings of Peter Martyr Vermigli and Jerome Zanchi. Here Calvinist theology refers not only to the personal thought of John Calvin but also to the teachings of the founders of the Reformed or Calvinist tradition as it spread out from Geneva and Switzerland to France, Germany, England, Scotland, Poland, and the Low Countries. In this context Calvin emerges as the brightest star in a galaxy of Reformed theologians which includes Heinrich Bullinger, Pierre Viret, Theodore Beza and Wolfgang Musculus as well as Martyr, Zanchi and others. These theologians were often more influential than Calvin himself at a given place or time or on a given point of doctrine. Bullinger, Martyr, and Martin Bucer were all more important for spreading Calvinist ideas to Edwardian England than was John Calvin. Early Elizabethan Protestantism looked more to Zurich than to Geneva, as did early Polish Calvinism. German Calvinism owed more to Heidelberg than to Geneva.' These leaders developed their theologies sometimes in mutual dependence, sometimes with surprising independence. By no means was their relation to Calvin simply that of disciple to master, for each gave a personal nuance to his style of Calvinism. Thus the sixteenth century Jesuit Cornelius Schulting states on the opening page of his five volume polemic against Calvin and Peter Martyr that Martyr was clearer and far more learned than Calvin.2 Recently John Bray has pointed out that research in seventeenth century Calvinism leads "to the conclusion that the impact of Calvin upon the Calvinistic movement has been greatly over-rated. It may well be that some of