It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

who really built Angkor Wat?

page: 1
14

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   


Angkor Wat. Mainstream archaeologist say it was built by the Khmer King Suryavarmen in the 12th Century and it took 30 years to construct it.

But here's the problem, there are no sources that support King Suryavarmen constructed Angkor Wat.

So why mainstream archaeologist say it was built by him? Because of carbon dating tracing back to King Suryavarmen time era. which was around the 12th century A D.

BUT there are other sources that claim Angkor Wat was built by someone name Preah Pisnouka, matter of fact there are 3 different sources claim it was built by Preah Pisnouka.

1 - Khmer legend. Angkor Wat was built around the year 544 B C by Preah Pisnouka because the Khmer King son went to Heaven and saw this beautiful temple and want a replica of it on Earth.So Lord Indra order Preah Pisnouka the Heaven famous Architecture to construct it for the Khmer King son.
From the book Asiatic Mythology page 194

angkorsr.blogspot.com...

2 - The WRITING on Angkor Wat pillar stated that this temple was built by Preah Pisnouka! and not King Suryavarmen


3 - Documents by a Chinese visitor name Zhou Daguan, who visit Angkor in 1296 when it was inhabit with millions of people. Zhou Dagaun ask the local who built Angkor Wat and the local told him Preah Pisnouka! Zhou Daguan wrote in his journal that Angkor Wat was built in a single night by Lu Ban. *Lu Ban is a Chinese word for Heavenly Architecture. Preah Pisnouka is a Heavenly Architecture
(Time Length 0:22 to 0:57)


So why mainstream archaeologist ignore all these 3 sources that point to Preah Pisnouka being the builder? Because archaeologist say Preah Pisnouka is just a myth.

We could say Khmer legend is a myth but what about the writing on the pillar and the Chinese visitor journal can we ignore them too?

If King Suryavarmen built Angkor Wat why he didn't put his name on the Pillar? why put someone else name? Doesn't make sense. If you built one of the world largest religious temple with your sweat and tear with no modern day tool, would you give credit to someone else?

Now the Chinese Journal, King Suryavamen died in the year 1150 and the Chinese visit Angkor in 1296 so it only been 146 years since King Suryvamen death. So I'm sure the local Khmer in 1296 still have fresh memories of who built it but when the Chinese ask, they didn't mention the king name they mention Preah Pisnouka the Heavenly Architecture!

Mainstream archaeologist ignore the Khmer legend and the Chinese journal saying is a myth but they didn't ignore the writing on the pillar and they came up with a idea that the name Preah Pisnouka on the pillar of Angkor really mean King Suryvarmen. Yup that right Mainstream archaeologist claim that King Suryvamen change his name, which explain the writing on the pillar
Video of archaeologist claiming Preah Pisnouka is King Suryvamen (Time length 1:18 to 1:25)


There no sources claiming the khmer king change his name and matter of fact Preah Pisnouka is well known in Khmer folklore, he also known for building older Khmer temple way before King Suryvamen was even born.

and of course History channel Ancient Alien even talk about it


***NOTE*** during the show they only mention Preah making you think that his first name but they are wrong Pisnouka is his first name, Preah just mean Lord in the Khmer language. Preah Pisnouka = Lord Pisnouka. someone didn't do their homework




posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   

edit on 3-9-2011 by BadBoYeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by BadBoYeed
excellent thread



and by the way, i have built it many times




posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Typical hidebound archeologists. An answer for everything, even if it makes absolutely no sense....



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Have you come across Charles Higham?

He might be a useful addition; worth looking at his work, at least!

Higham Angkor Google

Also this, use the titles unless you're subscribed



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Could this not be a simple case of the building being dedicated to the mythical character? I'm not disagreeing with you, just playing devil's advocate.

A temple complex in Egypt might be built in honour of Osiris say, and the myth may be he built it, or he was buried there etc - maybe this is a similar situation?



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by PoorGrammar
 


You know what??

I said what not Wat.

S & F

For the willingness to post your theory or questions.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
But what about Wikipedia's explanation that 'Preah Pisnoluk' is actually a variation on Suryavarman II's posthumous title of 'Paramavishnuloka'(He Who Has Entered the Heavenly World of Vishnu)?

Angkor Wat wiki
Death and Succession of Suryavarman II

ETA-Just noticed that Charles Bigham is listed as a source for those two articles. Perhaps aorAki, Byrd or someone more knowledgable about him can tell us if he is a legitimate source.
edit on 9/3/2011 by Mad Simian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Yep, he's legitimate.

Charles Higham

Charles Higham Wiki link

His son

[as an aside]His son played guitar in a great student band from Dunedin: The Torquemadas. That was in the '80s[/aside]



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Mad Simian
 


Usualy Khmer kings had 4 names, odd they only specifically mention his death name and none for his successors. And they dont seem to source much of there information anyway, so meh, id take wikipedia with a pinch of salt.
edit on 3-9-2011 by Johnze because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by aorAki
 


Well, if anyone would know what they are talking about when it comes to the Khmer empire, it'd be him
especially considering what can be seen of "The Civilization of Angkor" on Google Books. If you don't mind me asking, do you own the book yourself and, if so, is it worth buying?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Johnze
 


I always do.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Mad Simian
 


I don't own the book, sadly, but I did do 1st year Anthro under him...(that was all I did, which is a whole 'nother story, no fault of his!).



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by PoorGrammar
 


Angor Wat has always amazed me.

I am planning on visiting there in the future. S&F for you!



new topics

top topics



 
14

log in

join