In the Indo-Chinese Peninsula and the Eastern Islands a variety of kingdoms and dynasties were expanding and contracting, of which we have at best but dim and shifting glimpses.  That they were advanced in wealth and art, far beyond what the present state of those regions would suggest, is attested by vast and magnificent remains of Architecture, nearly all dating, so far as dates can be ascertained, from the 12th to the 14th centuries (that epoch during which an architectural afflatus seems to have descended on the human race), and which are found at intervals over both the Indo-Chinese continent and the Islands, as at Pagan in Burma, at Ayuthia in Siam, at Angkor in Kamboja, at Borobodor and Brambanan in Java.  All these remains are deeply marked by Hindu influence, and, at the same time, by strong peculiarities, both generic and individual.

[Illustration:  Autograph of Hayton, King of Armenia, circa A.D. 1243.

“... e por so qui cestes lettres soient fermes e establis ci avuns escrit l’escrit de notre main vermoil e sayele de notre ceau pendant....”]

[1] See Heyd, Le Colonie Commerciali degli Italiani, etc., passim.

[2] We endeavour to preserve throughout the book the distinction that was
    made in the age of the Mongol Empire between Khan and Kaan
    ([Arabic] and [Arabic] as written by Arabic and Persian authors).  The
    former may be rendered Lord, and was applied generally to Tartar
    chiefs whether sovereign or not; it has since become in Persia, and
    especially in Afghanistan, a sort of “Esq.,” and in India is now a
    common affix in the names of (Musulman) Hindustanis of all classes;
    in Turkey alone it has been reserved for the Sultan. Kaan, again,
    appears to be a form of Khakan, the [Greek:  Chaganos] of the
    Byzantine historians, and was the peculiar title of the supreme
    sovereign of the Mongols; the Mongol princes of Persia, Chaghatai,
    etc., were entitled only to the former affix (Khan), though Kaan and
    Khakan are sometimes applied to them in adulation.  Polo always
    writes Kaan as applied to the Great Khan, and does not, I think, use
    Khan in any form, styling the subordinate princes by their name
    only, as Argon, Alau, etc. Ilkhan was a special title assumed by
    Hulaku and his successors in Persia; it is said to be compounded from
    a word Il, signifying tribe or nation.  The relation between Khan
    and Khakan seems to be probably that the latter signifies “Khan of
    Khans” Lord of Lords.  Chinghiz, it is said, did not take the higher
    title; it was first assumed by his son Okkodai.  But there are doubts
    about this. (See Quatremere’s Rashid, pp. 10 seqq. and Pavet de
    Courteille, Dict.  Turk-Oriental.) The tendency of swelling titles is
    always to degenerate, and when the value of Khan had sunk, a new form,
    Khan-khanan, was devised at the Court of Delhi, and applied to one
    of the high officers of state.