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
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)
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?
The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of AboveTopSecret.com.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.