 First of all, I would like to welcome you to the first lecture for this year's seminar series jointly held by the Center for Southeast Asian Studies and Southeast Asian Art Academic Program at SOAS. This series was started last year and is co-organized by a group of PhD graduates and candidates affiliated with the Southeast Asian Art Academic Program, including Heritan, Udom Lukun Trakul, Kipat Kratje Jun, Sokasiang, and myself. And I will be moderating the talk for today. And it is my honor to introduce today's speaker, Thera Thun. Thera is a program-specific assistant professor at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies Kyoto University in Japan. He received his PhD in History from the National University of Singapore or NUS in 2018 under a joint doctoral scholarship program between the Harvard Yanjing Institute and NUS. His research interests lie in the fields of encounters between Southeast Asian societies and the West for a grounding intellectual history, manuscript studies, trans-regional culture and politics, ethnic identity and Cambodian or Southeast Asian studies. Today he will deliver a very interesting lecture titled The Epistemological Shift from Palace Chronicles to Scholarly Square historiography under France's colonial rule, with six to highlight the transition in which the traditional perception of the past initially shifted to the newer history scholarship published and promoted by the colonial regimes. As usual, attendees are welcome to pose their question during or after the lecture in the Q&A box and we will respond to them after the presentation by Thera. So without further ado, I will hand the screen over to Thera to present his lecture. Thera, over to you. Thank you so much, Bankers. First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to the Southeast Asian Arts Academic Program for the kind invitation. I thank Mr. Sukhasian, he's not here, I think, and Professor Ashley Thompson, my old professor for the kind invitation and Bankers for the arrangement today. So as Bankers kindly introduced me earlier, so let me try to, as Bankers kindly introduced me earlier, so I'm honored to present my ongoing research. It's ongoing because it's part of the larger project, which I'm going to explain later. So the title is The Epistemological Shift from Palace Chronicles to Scholarly Square historiography and the French Collin rules. So basically, this particular topic is part of my larger book project, which I've been working on. So it's actually a chapter. So as you can see, I look basically on a larger time frame from the 19th century until the 1970s. And there are many other aspects concerning Cambodian and Southeast Asian historiography that I explored in the larger book project. So feel free to ask questions on this particular topic or on the book itself. So an earlier version of this chapter of presentation was also published as a journal article in the Journal of Southeast Asian Studies last year. So feel free to email me if you want to copy or you can just go to the website of the journal and download the article by yourself. So when we talk about historiography, intellectual history of Southeast Asia, it's also important to highlight that throughout the region, meaning across Southeast Asia, there are a legionous way of writing about the past. So I use the term pre-colonial historical thought and practice. As you can see, like the Burmese palace class chronicle, you have the chronicle in Chiang Mai, Bangkok chronicle, chronicle in Laos, chronicle in Cambodia, the Hikaya in Malay world. So there are indigenous writings on their collective past throughout Southeast Asia before the arrival of Western colonialism, Western colonial historiography. So in terms of earlier scholarships on indigenous way of writing about the past, they also relatively reach in terms of scholarship on this aspect. For example, in Thailand, you have a very good book by Professor Niti entitled Pen and Cell. So he looks at early Bangkok period from a literally perspective, including many chronicle texts written in Thai. Talk about pre-colonial historiography of Southeast Asia. We cannot miss the very important work of Professor Michael Vigri, the late Professor Michael Vigri. He compares chronicle manuscripts of Cambodia and Thailand, so in a very extensive exploration of the pre-colonial historiography between the two countries. More specifically on Cambodia, we have work by Cambodian scholars such as Mok Puen, Ken Sock, who also used the chronicle to study post-oncol Cambodian history. So just now I mentioned scholarship on pre-colonial Southeast Asia. We also have quite a number of publications on modern historiography of Southeast Asia. For example, a very good book by Professor Patricia Pehli, who explores post-colonial Vietnamese historical writing. A very big book edited by Professor Anthony Reed and David Ma, trying to understand Southeast Asian historical writing from the perception of indigenous writers. So there is a large collection of essays with very good quality in this book. So what I'm trying to explain here is that both pre-colonial and pre-modern and modern scholarships on this intellectual history of Southeast Asia has been quite well-established. There are quite a number of scholars who have explored these themes of scholarship. But not many of them actually try to explore the notion of transition. By transition here, I mean there was a strong establishment of scholarship before the arrival of Western colonial historiography. Then you have the new, completely new notion of writing about the past came in during the colonial era. So what were the transitions from the indigenous way to a more contemporary way? So my presentation today is looking at this particular point in time. So basically try to ask the question, how traditional way of writing? What happened to the traditional way of writing when the new colonial historiography came in? So how did they transform from this particular point to the new one? So by asking this question more specifically, so the text I show here is actually one of Cambodian chronicles of Pung Savada. It was written in the mid-18th century. So I'm trying to see how this notion of chronicle writing changed to the colonial era historical consciousness. Why is it important? Because this new historical consciousness actually plays an important role, becoming a very important source for collective cultures and nationally thought. They become key elements for formalizing new ways of looking at their collective society. So here I'm trying to find who took part in the local scholar who actually stepped away from the traditional way of writing about the past. What are their roles in facilitating this epistemological shift? So these are the two major questions that I would like to explore in the following of my presentations. So let me start with some example concerning, I call it an early iteration with Franklin scholarship. So when we talk about an early iteration, try to explore, you know, a publication written by an indigenous scholar. What were the content? How does it look like? What did they write about their collective past during the early 1900s? Then I discovered this important person who is very powerful. He's actually the most powerful Cambodian official during the colonial period. So his name is Tuen, perhaps the best example representing a type of scholar who lived through the moment when modern perceptions toward the past began to take shape in Cambodia. Tuen, he belonged to a Sino-Kamai businessman born during the 1860s. And he worked as a translator interpreter between Khmer and French during the 1880s. Because of this job as a translator, he later on became minister of the palace and finance in 1902. A few years later, he obtained another key position as minister of fine arts. So he's basically in charge of three important ministerial palaces, finance and finance. Very influential. So working as a collaborator between the local government, between the local elites and the French, Tuen also spent some time to write, to publish some books, some articles. So one of the most important ones was published in 1930. So the book was actually trying to explain some special characteristics of Cambodian dance. So the title is basically in French, it's written in French. So it can be translated as like Cambodian dance. So in the book, we actually find a type of discussion that makes the chronicle narrative and convention and the chronicle narrative convention with the colonial historical discourse. Tuen is actually trying to establish a historical discourse that associated Khmer cordoned with the reign of an uncle king, Jay Yavaraman II. And the king was identified by French scholars as the founder of the uncle era, basically from the 9th to the 15th century. But he didn't find any information that was recounted in French historical quarry, both mentioning. Instead, Tuen adopted the chronicle narrative, specifically the story of a legendary king by the name Gait Melia, and turn it into evidence to support his claim about the origin of cordons. So just to highlight the story of king Gait Melia or King Melia, he was understood by the local people in the traditional chronicle text and many other indigenous texts as a human born prince who in his previous life was the son of Indra, the king of heavens. And it was this king who ordered the construction of the uncle temples. So that means in the indigenous perspective, those ancient Hindu temple was actually built by God, by Indra. So what is, I mean the interesting part about the book is that the writing display a co-existent of indigenous historical thought and more recent colonial era historiography. This co-existing historical narrative, the close view, a sign of an epistemological transition between the chronicle and the colonial historical way of viewing Cambodian's past. So to give you a better sense of how actually this early sign of transition took place, let me give you another example. Tuen's, his narrative actually resembles that of another prominent Cambodian scholars by the name N. He actually has a long name here but I just simply call him N. So N was, was so well grounded in Buddhism and, and the Yarmish language because he actually spent seven, six years studying in Bangkok during the 1880s. So he wrote a poem, a poem which is still quite popular until now entitled Neresna Govat or Drava to Angkor Wat. It was written during Cambodian King Sissawa's visit to Angkor in 1909. So when I read the poems, so interestingly Indra tried to reject the long-held view recounted in the pre-20th century text that claimed that it was the God of Heaven who the one who built, I mean who was the one who construct these Angkor temples. But similar to Tuen even he rejected the old notion, the old perception. But similar to Tuen and still believed that the founding of the Angkor dynasty and its glory was under the reign of King Birket Malir, the king that was locally believed as the builders, as, as, as the person who behind the construction of the Angkor temples. More than that, he even believed that these legendary rulers had his portrait curved on the bus relief of the southern gallery of Angkor Wat. So this, this particular gallery, so because this particular gallery is actually identified by French scholars in 1904 by Imonie asking, sorry Yava Raman II. So, but ends assertion actually contradicted by French scholars, Imonie who in 1904 study has identified the portrait as King Sogyava Raman II. So meaning he still holds some perception based on the local understanding of these temples. So while to some extent holding on to what has been traditionally assumed about the ancient temple ends poem at the same time conveys ideas that portray that partially denied this long existing understanding. But the case that and Tuen display instances of an early form of epistemological transition in the interpretation of the kingdom's past, a form which involved adaptation, resistant conflicts and co-existent of understandings. So let me move from example of these two important scholars to another one. But they didn't write this particular local scholar, he translated, he did a lot of translation. So, but before moving to talk about his case, let me try to highlight this particular aspect that during the early 1900s, between the 1920s and 1930s, there was some the establishment of important academic institution in the modern sense. For example, the Royal Library, Khmer Royal Library was founded in 1925. The Buddhist Institute. This image was taken by me several years ago when there was some construction before the initial. So this important institution also very important. It was founded in 1930. So the person who was who played a very key role behind this, the establishment of this institution has a French lady by the name, Suzanne Capellis. So this beautiful image was I found it in Twitter by Professor Goodman. So Suzanne Capellis played quite an important role because she didn't just help organize the library around the Buddhist institutions. She also initiated the creation of a very important scholarly magazine by the name Campbell Jackson. So the Campbell Jackson, we can say this is the most popular influential longest Cambodian scholarly magazine. We was founded in 1926. So the translation of this name is Cambodian Sun. So during the early issues of the publication of these texts, I identified a very important person who in charge of editing and publishing his text by the name Jumao. So I wrote his name here. So I'm going to talk about the role of Jumao in facilitating facilitating the so-called epistemological transition during that particular point in time. So Jumao because I couldn't find his image. So I basically don't know how does how did he look like. But I knew that he was born in 1900 and passed away in 1944, quite young. So Jumao was well-grounded experience in chameleon linguistics because he took part with some dictionary commissions during those times. And he also had deep knowledge of French. He was in child publishing the Campbell Jackson story between 1926 and 1935. Then he moved out to do some other job. Jumao actually participated in translating major texts from French into Khmer, especially those related to the uncle temples. So this is an example of the text that he actually did the translation and then published in Khmer, for example in 1927. He published an important piece written by Louis Finneau which thought an answer for the mysteries surrounding the construction of the uncle tomb and the Bayon temple, which I will talk more later on. And he also published other piece which also recounted the discovery of this temple by the French, the text that embodies the discovery and potential of uncle temple by the French government. So it's quite broad to the colonial government. So he did many other translation texts, but I just would like to highlight a few here in order to draw some discussion related to the topic, the larger topic that I'm talking about here. 1934 he published a translation of the EFAO director Sedes lecture. So the lecture was originally given in French in the Louis Finneau Museum in Hanoi in March 1933. So the contents of the lecture is basically about Khmer monument in relation to history, king, religions, information about how large the Khmer empire during those years. Sedes also confirmed that the builders of those temple was the ancestor of current Khmer people. And Sedes also rejected indigenous view, they claimed those temple was built as the work of God Indra. He confirmed that it was human who built it, it was not Indra. At the same time, Sedes also rejected all previous ideas and explanation of his French colleagues about the Bayon temple. He asserted that it was king, because earlier French scholars believe that it was king, it was other king who built the Bayon temple. But Sedes said no, it was not, it was not, I think it's not Roman, I think. Louis Finneau believed it was other king. But Sedes said it was king, JR among the seven who actually built the Angkor Thom and the Bayon temple. So some reflection of the translation here. So the ideas that Thumaf trying to show here is that his translation contain ideas and information that give an impression of the vastness of the ancient national territory as well as the glorious civilization of Angkor. The points which has never been especially mentioned by the chronicle. So all these important aspects was not mentioned clearly in the chronicles. Thumaf's translation and publication also conveyed ideas that display contestation and debates among scholars as well. So not just about information about Cambodia's past, about Angkor, but also about conflicts among French scholars as well. He did many other translation work. I would like to highlight two more. So he translated it in 1936. He translated another important book on King JR of the seven. So among Cambodian, modern Cambodian nation, this particular king is considered the most celebrated king for the entire history. So in the text, Thumaf tried to emphasize great successes of this king in stabilizing the kingdom from wars, enlightening the kingdom's size, establishing a strong administrative structures and build religious public administration, blah, blah, blah. So there are many, many good points, many good points about the king. But Thumaf didn't stop there. He voiced a strong critique by blaming this king for living a destructive legacy after his reign because his successful programs of building broad destructions to the whole Cambodian history. So Thudeus also blamed this king, not just talk about, I mean, good thing about him. Just to highlight that the translation that Thumaf did during the 1930s is actually remained popular until now. So there are some reproductions of the text, as you can see in this photo newly published for high school students. So the translation actually didn't just for those years. It has been important until nowadays. Thumaf also did the translation of another important book by a very influential French scholar, Henri Marsal. Henri Marsal spent a lot of time, for many years in Angkor, to do the restoration conservation works there. Marshal wrote some articles about buildings, because I think he's an engineer. So he talks about Angkor Wat. He talked about Bayon. And then Thumaf translated those types into Khmer. So basically, Marshal regarded the Angkor Wat as one of the greatest building, not only in Cambodia, but also in the whole world. I mean, some of you have visited Angkor Wat, you know it. At the same time, Marsal also criticized the construction style of the Bayon. So to picture right here, one of the most important temples of King Jayavarman VII. So by claiming that this temple was built out of the drunken imagination of this king, that signifies the gradual downfall of Khmer temple construction skills from then onward. So he basically blamed this particular king, the king that most Cambodia considers the greatest king ever in Cambodian history. Some reflection here. So throughout the second part here, I only talk about translation. So it's the translation of a particular figure by the name Chumau. So through his translation is actually provide understanding about the greatness of the ancient Cambodian monarchs and temples. Chumau through his translation and publication also helps to accelerate the flow of colonial production of knowledge to the Cambodian audience. So you need to understand that most publications were in French and circulated outside Cambodia. So this translation is very important to not just distribute it, but actually promote it among the local readers. His translation essentially gives evidence of how this French scholarship has taken root inside the country. At the same time, if you look from a local perspective, what he did reveals that translation was a kind of engagement with colonial knowledge that could be carried out among local scholars. So instead of not only just writing, but you also engage with the colonial scholarship through translation. The emergence of individual like Chumau significantly helped to explain the process bear by French colonial era. Historical writings were brought into conflict at the local level with long-held colonial scholarship and later on assumed the dominant role. So let me move to the last part of my presentation. So just now I talk about translation. Now I'm talking about somebody who started writing the real history text. So I use a term for this section is formulating a new Provodicis. Provodicis is a Cambodian term. So the meaning can be equivalent to history, narrative with nationalistic use. So the person who actually engaged in writing historical account in a western style among the Cambodian scholars and individual by the name Grosame. Grosame I was trying to search for his background, but I couldn't find any evidence which indicates about his educational background, his family, but I know that he was very active. He was very active in Cambodia between the 1920s and the early 1950s. He's in my view perhaps the only historian, the only local historian throughout the colonial period. Grosame, similar to Choumang, he also engaged in the work of translation, but he didn't engage in the scholarship of French. So he's mainly engaged in the scholarship written in Siamese in Thai. So he did some translation of Siamese scholarships. I asked the one on the Mahapirata epic, the Prince Damerong, a very influential historian of Northern Thailand. So Prince Damerong gave a talk on Siamese Buddhism and Grosame translated this transcript and then turned it into Khmer circulated among Khmer readers. He also translated some of the works written by the Desk. So the Desk written in French and then somebody translates the Desk work into Thai and then Grosame translated it from Thai into Khmer. So you can see three ways of knowledge circulation between Khmer French and Siamese during the time. These translated works, I asked the Mahapirata Grosame, he explicitly mentioned that he was actually asked by the Buddhist interview director Kapeles who requested him to make the epic available in Khmer. Grosame's affinity with Siamese scholarship revealed another influence on Khmer scholars' cultural and intellectual orientation which was not restricted to French scholarship, meaning there are many Cambodian scholars actually look toward the Siamese scholarship in order to turn them into something useful in Cambodia. And how many other examples but Grosame's example is a very good one. I mentioned earlier N was also a monk and study in Bangkok during the late 19th century. So these are the examples of how Grosame's translation looked like. So all this translation was published in the Cambodia Soraya magazine between the late 1920s and the early 1930s. And then after engaging in these translation works, he began to write his own historical writing. So he wrote an important piece in 1932 entitled Satsnaap Award. So the translation can be history or religions. He finished the text in 1932 and published in the magazine between 1930s and 1936. He explicitly said that he undertook this work because when he was a tour guide in Angkor between 1926 and 1927, the French Protectorate Administration has asked him to write an explanation of different religions associated with these temples. So it was actually initiated by the French colonial government who asked him to write these texts. So interestingly when reading his text, he often referred to scholars on ancient history such as Prince Lamrong of Thailand. He also referred to Sudesh whenever he makes any claim. He also cited these two important scholars to support his idea. His account detailed narrative on Buddhism and Hinduism, how the two religions came to Cambodia and became established until the contemporary period. Rosem also embedded in his text a lengthy account of the history of ancient Cambodian king together with the temples. So he also wrote about history of Cambodia beside these two religions. So when he touched on the issue of Khmer history, so he basically adopted the colonial framework by basically summary what the friend wrote about Cambodian history. So all those three uncle, uncle, all the major kings who built those temples, he basically adopted them. So and he did it without giving any reference to the chronicles because the chronicle represents indigenous knowledge before the arrival, before the establishment of Franklin scholarship. Rosem actually adopted the colonial scholars to replace those written in the chronicle as a new framework to understand about Cambodia. So his book incorporated information about the title of the kings, years of their reign, religion, key temples that those kings built, not just that. He also, you know, mentioned something that quite nationalistic in content. For example, for the king Jay Yavaraman II, which has been believed as the founder of the uncle, Ura, so has been portrayed as a successfully liberating Cambodia from foreign invasions during the early 1800s. He also depicted King Jay Yavaraman II, the builder of Uncle Wat as a warrior who had defeated both internal and external enemies. He stated that it was this king who had built the temple of Uncle Wat and all the curfewings of his battle against the Cham king and his own portrait on the best relief of the temple. You remember, I mean, this particular portrait, many local scholars, including I believe that it was King Prakhetokmelir, but when Rosem wrote his take, he said it was King Surya Yavaraman II. So this means the colonial scholarship now become more established by the time that he engaged in this kind of scholarship. Rosem's religious history, particularly in the early session, he frequently also provided a reference to what the palace colonial government has mentioned about early Cambodian rulers like Prahtal. The colonial court believed that Prahtal was actually the first founding king of Cambodia and Rosem did not abandon completely King Prakhetokmelir. He still mentioned this king somewhere else in his takes. So at this point, although the author appeared to favor colonial era history scholarship, his historical writings were formulated to fit with and draw on the convention of the chronic calls as well. So this category of knowledge that Rosem promoted during this year, besides drawing on many new meanings from different aspects of the collective past, it conveys its narrative through a co-existent of knowledge between the chronic calls and the more recent colonial era historiography. So this Rosem case here, so let me draw up points for the conclusion and then we can go for the Q&A sessions. So basically my presentation here I'm trying to understand how the colonial scholarship we were partly practiced during the 19th century have been abandoned and then have been abandoned by local scholars in favor of a more recent scholarship promoted by the French colonial government. So that is basically the whole framework of my presentation so far. So I basically try to understand this phenomenon by three examples. In other words, example of three Cambodian individuals, Chuen, Chumau, and Kasem. So it's important to note that the rise of these Cambodian intellectuals also coincided with other South Asian prominent scholars, such as in Myanmar, we have a very important historian in Myanmar during the first half of the 20th century. And of course in Thailand, in Siam, we have Prince Amrong Rajanopap, very influential Thai historian during those years as well. So it's not unique in Cambodia alone, it's actually happened in many parts of the region. So my presentation actually tried to explain that Chuen was one of the earliest intellectuals who struggled the divide between the colonial course and the colonial historiography. The contents that Chuen's wrote his book reveals an early form of the changes in the perception that was significantly influenced by French colonial historical writings. So after the story of Chuen, I moved to the story of Chumau. So basically deal with the notion of translation. So Chumau translating French text into Khmer and published them in the local magazine by the name the Gambochak Sorya. Chumau's story suggests that translation was another way of engaging and adapting French colonial historical writing. After the story of Chumau, I moved to the case of Khmer. His works appear to be among the earliest original historical writings in Khmer produced by a local intellectual during the colonial years. His lengthy text, Satsangapap, which I discussed earlier, Khmer actually integrated his skills and ideas into his writing, which demonstrated another level of co-existence between the chronicles and more recent historiography of Cambodia. All these three scholars came to office due to the colonial condition and initiation. While Chuen earned his three ministerial posts, mainly while his competent in French through his collaboration with the colonial regime, Chumau obtained his positions in the Royal Library largely because of the directorship of a very important French scholar, Susanca Pélez. The colonial project actually provided these scholars with platforms for not only reproducing and circulating more recent scholarship to the Khmer audience, but also for showcasing their own skills and ideas. Correspondent sponsor Interstitutions, such as the Royal Library and the Buddhist Institute, provided the platform for this new form of scholarship in local vernacular to emerge, which employed a different epistemological category of thinking about and a new way of looking at the national past. This new form of scholarship was to play a hegemonic role in shaping Cambodia national imagination and the construction of collective identity and culture for the remaining years of the colonial period and after. So I would like to stop here and we'll be very happy to answer questions. Thank you so much. So thank you, Tara, for very interesting presentations. And yeah, for those attending the lectures, I would like to remind you again that if you have any comments and questions, do post them in the Q&A box and I will read them to Tara for to respond as well. And we already have one question in the Q&A box actually from Samsul Iduha Adha. The question is why the local chronicles of Cambodia deliver some historical details differently rather than the western archaeological research, such as the case of the legend of Nagisoma and the reign of Jewarman II as the founder of Hongkong War Dynasty. So it's probably the origin of the local chronicles, Tara. Thank you. Thank you very much for the question. So I actually discussed this for one chapter. This is about the notion of historical practice, the differences of historical practices between western historical writing and South Asian historical writing. So basically in the construction of the chronicles, they didn't incorporate different sources. So basically it depends mainly on overall history. It does not distinguish between facts and fiction. It doesn't incorporate different ideas and understanding or interpretation. So it basically tried to narrate different stories basically in more in all and overall forms. So unlike the 19th century Burmese chronicle, which incorporated some epigraphic sources, meaning inscriptions. There are all those available written accounts during the earlier century. The Cambodian chronicle did not have the practice of doing that. So basically the account that was written about King, for example, Jewarman II, so right out the chronicle did not use them, did not incorporate them. So only when French scholar came in and then they applied the idea of studying ancient epigraphy, then they uncovered those information. So because the reign of King Jewarman II is like the early 9th century, the chronicle was written in the 19th century. So the gap is like almost a thousand year different. So if you base on memory, there would be no way that they can remember such name. So many uncle Kings was not remembered or even or remembered in a different way by writer of the chronicles. So that is the reason. So my short answer is that because the perception of writing about the past between the chronicle way and the colonial way were very distinct too. Yeah, that's very interesting actually because you mentioned about oral history and then the writing practice as well. And I would like to also while waiting for other questions to come in as well, if I may ask another question relating to your answers, how do you see this relation between oral history and writing tradition? I mean, whether do you see that the palace chronicle was started by the oral history and then written into text or there is a more elaborate connection between the two? So they are very closely connected to one another because what we found in inscriptions, and I mean there's some earlier transcription which also in a similar form of the chronicle. But for many 19th century chronicles, so most of the chronicle were actually written in the 19th century. So the contents of 19th century chronicle it has a written version and also have the oral version. So they actually coexisted between the two. But most often the chronicle when the palace re-produced the chronicle, the palace actually incorporated many oral stories into the contents. But what the palace recounted into, you know, because when the palace adopted this particular oral story into their manuscript, so this local story, these oral stories actually belong to a particular locality, a particular temple, for instance. But when the palace adopted that story, it becomes a collective story. It becomes a story for the court, for the king. And this story later on has been produced into novels, films, classical dance, even songs, you know. So it has a very important intertwine between the two which somehow is very difficult to distinguish. Is it from the chronicle or is it from the oral form? It's very hard to explain but they both play a very important role throughout the colonial period and after. So in my book I actually wrote a chapter on how the chronicle was still important during the post-colonial period. How this local story actually more attractive to the local people than the French scholarship because French so concerned about scientific knowledge. Pure fact. When the local story is more about collective belief, moral action, religion, so I think they are more applicable to local society. That's why they are still important even now. Interesting. So you observe as well that this chronicle that may be sourced from oral history still has importance in the local community in Cambodia as well. And today how then they interact with the fast knowledge of archaeological research that already done in Angkor and also in other ancient temple in Cambodia. How then people they call these two different stories today. So it's a bit of I answer the question very quickly and then we can pick up another question. So I just want to share you that I wrote another article on how a story in the chronicle is still applicable and influential in the contemporary context. In the case there was a story that was adopted by the government to have some political involvement during the early 2000s. And the whole story about this particular legendary king because I don't think he exists in reality has been promoted across the country even now. So these are examples to show that the chronicle has a long long lasting influence on Cambodian and Southeast Asian society even now. As important as western colonial western historical thought. Okay, interesting. Yeah, we have another question coming in from Hedy Pan. She would like to thank Tiara for the interesting webinar. The question would be were there any other key custodians of local knowledge and the chronicles who are perhaps well known but not documented. Is there perhaps a parallel oral history project to be done to claim knowledge of these custodians and their ideas today? So a very important question. They're always local local scholar who impress the chronicle scholarship. In Cambodia it happens through even now. So I give you an example in 1969. So 1969 is like about 10 years after the colonial period. So it's quite contemporary to nowadays. So in 1969 there was an individual by the name Ainsot. So Ainsot is an important scholar who promoted the scholarship of the chronicle. He combined different versions of the chronicles and then published them into a long series of Khmer texts. And apparently his publication was very popular. So we requested the government to get them published for 2,500 copies. So 2,500 copies during those years you don't have books that can be sold for that many copies. So this particular individual promoted the chronicle scholarship. He hasn't been studied. I actually studied him in my book manuscript. So and then the Khmeru came. The Khmeru came. Nobody talks about the scholarship. But after the Khmeru was over, even the Ministry of Education now republished his book and then used it in high school. So there's a story of local scholars who actually engaged in the transformative version of the chronicle. So he I'm not saying that the chronicle remain the same. No, they also change over time. But their body of scholarship has remained very important throughout the post-colonial period. And there are some local individuals who engage directly in the reproduction of the chronicle scholarship. I mean remind me if I don't answer the question completely. Yeah. Yeah, I think you already answered some of the question as well. We have another question from Tom Patterson. Were the chronicles written in first in the Singhala course of Sri Lanka and many others in South Asia? Chronicles were written in first and this allowed the composer to promote the king, monks, courtiers, and so on. In particular ways that would benefit the way they were seen and thought about. The way that the chronicles depict its figures had practical indication for the public imagination, making it difficult to distinguish between fact and fiction. You already mentioned about this as well in your previous answer. So could any of these also be said of the chronicles you consider here? The answer is yes. The answer is yes, let me quickly share my earlier publications. This is based on promoting my work. So this and I mean you can download this particular take for free. So I wrote one particular manuscript written in verse. It was a take that returned during the 1840s, so mid 19th century. And this particular take is very, very influential because of the nature of this structure. Because in poems it's not about events, it's not about the story of particular king. When it's written in verse it's actually contained in motion. The feeling of romanticization, story of sadness, something that deep inside people's mind. You lost someone and then the wife feels so miserable, missed the dead husband, the deceased husband, things like that. Yes, in Cambodia there are chronicles written in verse and we use the term robust, meaning royal lineage. And because of this particular poetic take it accounts story about how Vietnamese and Thai abused Cambodia. So can you imagine this kind of nationalistic takes was adopted by later government tried to, when they came to conflict with Vietnam, when they came to conflict with Thailand, they came to that take, that account and then reproduce them, try to show that oh the neighboring country has done bad thing in the past, now we need to mobilize, fight against them, things like that. So poetic takes, I find them very attractive, very popular and because the meaning is so deep, it contains so much emotion that makes it even more special compared to Western historical writing. Western historical writing never able to deliver such an emotion, deep thought, feeling as compared to the local chronicles. Right, let's come back to the question of translation then. You mentioned in the in the presentation you mentioned about to my own that translate France historical scholarships to Khmer and I just wonder whether this also work on the opposite directions from Khmer to France actually and whether this translation to France actually have some important in the in the development of colonial scholarship as well. I think that this very important question is one of the cause of the presentation today, translation. Joomar didn't do the other direction, he basically just engaged in the translation of texts from French into Khmer into the local language, but there are other local scholars who do this, but before talking about local scholar you need to also understand that the way in which French scholars study Cambodia, they actually translated many local texts into French as well. Right, so the first generation is that the French came in with the help of local officials, local translators, a French scholar by the name Declare, he's a very active person who engaged in the translation of many texts dealing with religion, Buddhism, code of conducts or don't think, one of our very influential French scholars on Cambodia. I also mentioned an individual by the name Joomar, you see his text was written in French, he's a local Cambodian, but he published his text in French, not just this text, he actually wanted to publish several other texts on Buddhism, on paintings of the palace, there was some moral paintings of the Cambodian palace, so Joomar was in charge of those paintings, so those paintings was actually written in Khmer, but he wanted to share these beautiful paintings to French audience, so he spent his own time doing some translation of this Khmer text into French, and then he asked a French publisher to publish, but the French say, oh no, not so interesting, I don't think this Khmer text would be of any interest of French readers, so better have it in Khmer, so he tried several projects but failed, now, but he did many other because his minister, you know, for example, when he accompanied the king to Paris, so there must be many programs, many agendas that the king supposed to do in Paris should be translated from the local language to French as well, so I would say Joomar would be a very good example to see how knowledge was, I mean, try to bridge the gap between different languages, between French and Khmer, and the nature of his position, he was also an interpreter, he was, he originally was a translator that brought him to this important position, so I would say the study of colonial Southeast Asia should emphasize on the notion of translation, we have, we have very strong scholarship in the Philippines, but on the mainland Southeast Asia, I think there would be more interesting to look at the interaction between colonial powers and the locals through translation. Right, yeah, it is a very interesting question about the translation, because it's contained interaction between the local and colonial knowledge as well. Maybe one last question before we end these lectures, because I don't see any question coming in. Regarding, going back to Joomar again, regarding his works on translating French into Khmer books, I just wonder whether his translation is kind of, can we consider his works as faithful translation or he kind of edited or revised the French works into. So the notion of translation here is not literally translation, they're always selective, you don't translate the reference of the text, for example, so because in French historical writing they inserted different sources, put a lot of food notes, so the Khmer version didn't have that food note. The preface of the original writer was never be translated, so there are always ideas of the translator himself, Joomar himself tried to write something that all this take is important in this way, in that way, so they're always selective, the so-called translation politics going on in there, there never be a pure translation translation, so that's why I don't try to explore so much about the accuracy of the text, because I think the accuracy of the text is another aspect of studying these indigenous sources, so my concern here is that how ideas will transform into the local vernacular and how these ideas went into conflict with the local perceptions, how this idea was gradually replacing, so what I'm trying to highlight is the some early stages that how western style historiography was adapted at the local level, how they interacted and later on replaced it, so I have another chapter talking about this epistemological transition, but it is more like a more dominant from the western historical writing style, so my presentation today is a highlight several examples of the early stages of this interaction between the two. Okay, so thank you very much for Oleg to thank Tara for his very interesting lecture, also for agreeing to share his part of his research here at SOAS as well, very much looking forward to actually read the books when it came out, because it looks from your presentation, from the discussion we had, it looks very interesting to actually study them and also like you said to actually study the colonial scholarship through this translation, through the notion of translation, so thank you very much for that. And I would like to remind the attendees that we're going to have a couple other lectures for the seminar series this year, so do stay tuned to the center website, we will update them accordingly on when and who will be speaking for us at the seminar series. Thank you so much for your participation and thank you, Tara, as well and thank you, Anna for organizing this webinar as well in the background and see you all in the next lectures. Good bye. All right, thank you Pangas and everyone stay safe, hope to see you guys in person anytime in the future. See you. Bye.