The Journal of the Siam Society Vol. XXIX, Part 1-2, 1936 - Khamkoo

PT. II] LuANG BoRIBAL BuRIPHAND 167
The bnilding of the chedi called Wat Kukut at Nakhon Lamphun
is not a proof of the influence of Lavo but rather of direct influence
from Ceylon, as this monument is a copy of the famous Sat Mahal
Prasada, as already shown by Prof. G. Credes in his DOI .. "iL?nenf8 .rnur
l'histoire polit·ique et 1·elig'ieuse d1~ LcwB occidentnlY)
The author mentions the various famous chaussees built by the
Khmer in order to keep up communications with the distant parts of
their farfiung empire. The first is the route from Angkhor Thom
(Yasodharapnra) to Phimai; the second, the author says, ran through
Ohantaburi to Lophburi. This is certainly a mistake: This second
route pr·obably ran westwards from Angkhor Thorn through the
Prachin Province, thereafter turning north-westwards to Lophburi.
Remains of this route have been found and the writer hopes one day
to be abfe to trace it up in its entire length. This route is no other
than the legendary 'rhang Phra Ruang soai nam.
'rhe route said to have run from Lophburi through the Sak valley
up to Pitsanuloke and Sukothai is unknown to the writer.
'rhe author's hypothesis that there also were roads connecting
Lophburi with Mu'ang Uthong, Nakhon Pathom, Rajaburi and Petchaburi
is interesting and we1l worth taking up for a closer examination
in the field.
The author is speaking about a Lophburi school of art and architecture,
but he is certainly too sweeping when he includes in thiR
school all the Khmer temples of Inner, WeRtern, North-Eastern and .j ..'
Eastern Sillm. We do not see the reason why he should do so, as
these temples are all built in the true Khmer style. It would be
interesting to hear -.,vhat the real difference is between the Khmer
and the so-called Lophburi style. With regard to the imageR, however,
one may speak of a Lophburi Khmer and a Lophbur·i Khmer-
Thai style.
The author RayR that the difference between the stone sanctuarieA
constructed in honour of the Brahmanic gods and of the Buddha consisted
in the former being built on an eminence while in the case of
the latter their :floors were level with the surrounding ground. ThiA
is not correct with regard to the Phimai temple, which is a Mahayanistic
one and is approached by steps.
The author also says that the Phanom Rung temple was Brahmanic
(because of its sculptures). 'rhe writer agreed with him formerly,
(l) l3EFEOt val, :XXV, 1925.No, 1-2, p. 83.