Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T03:48:41.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Reign of Sūryavarman I and Royal Factionalism at Angkor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2011

Michael Vickery
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As the title implies, this paper deals with two questions which I believe may be related to one another in significant ways. The first is the rise to power of Sūryavarman I (1002–49), to which the present study is principally devoted; and the second is the dynamics of state and political development in Angkorean Cambodia, which will be illuminated by the discussion of Sūryavarman.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , September 1985 , pp. 226 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 G. Coedès, “Documents sur l'histoire politique et religieuse du Laos occidental”, Bulletin del'Ecole Francaise d'Extrême-Orient (BEFEO), XXV: 24–26; Coedés, , Les Etats Hindouisés d'Indochine et d'Indonésie (1948)Google Scholar; Lawrence Palmer Briggs, The Ancient Khmer Empire, p. 166; Briggs, , “The Genealogy and Successors of Siváchárya”, BEFEO XLVI (1952–1954): 181.Google Scholar

2 G. Coedes, “Ta Kev: III, Epigraphie”, BEFEO XXXIV: 424–25.

3 Briggs, Empire, p. 144.

4 Coedès, G. et Dupont, P., “Les steles de Sdok Kak Thorn, Phnom Sandak et Prah Vihar”, BEFEO XLIII (1943–1946): 72.Google Scholar

5 Coedès, G., Inscriptions du Cambodge (Textes) (IC), VII, pp. 168–71; and Etats (1964), p. 252.Google Scholar As a counter argument on Jayaviravarman's origins we should note Coedès' judgement in another context, that “titles were often transmitted from father to son”, and that in A.D.921 an older Jayaviravarman, with a title indicating he was probably a prince, was among the founders of Prāsāt Kravān at Angkor (“Inscriptions de Prāsāt Kravān”, IC, IV, p. 68).

6 See Vickery, , “Cambodia after Angkor: the Chronicular Evidence for the Fourteenth to Sixteenth Centuries” (Ph.D. thesis, Yale, 1977), pp. 369–77Google Scholar; and Vickery, review of Vliet, Jeremias van, The Short History of the Kings of Siam, Journal of the Siam Society (JSS), LXIV, 2 (July, 1976): 228–29Google Scholar for the evidence and further bibliography. Although the discussions there turned around 14th-century events, the crucial point is that “Kamboja” meant Siam, not Cambodia, which was “Kambujā”.

7 Bourg, Hubert de Mestier du, “La première moitié du XIè siècle au Cambodge: Sūryavarman I, sa vie, et quelques aspects des institutions à son époque”, Journal Asiatique (JA), CCLVIII, 2 (1970): 283–84.Google Scholar

8 Ibid., pp. 293–94.

9 Ibid., p. 290.

10 Jacques, Claude, “Épigraphie de l'lnde et de l'Asie du Sud-Est I. Épigraphie khmère: la prise du pouvoir parleroi Sūryavarman Ier”, typescript 1982–1983Google Scholar, no pagination (cited further as Jacques, “Sūryavarman”).

11 Vickery, Michael, “The Reign of Sūryavarman I and the Dynamics of Angkorean Development”, paper presented to the Eighth Conference, International Association of Historians of Asia,Kuala Lumpur,25–29 August 1980, unpublished.Google Scholar

12 Jacques, “Sūryavarman”, [5].

13 For some discussion of the problem of succession at Angkor see Vickery, Michael, “Some Remarks on Early State Formation in Cambodia”, Symposium on Southeast Asia, 9th to 14th Centuries, Australian National University, Canberra, 9–12 May 1984, publication forthcoming.Google Scholar

14 Briggs, “Genealogy”.

15 Stern, Philippe, “Diversite et rythme des fondations royales khmères”, BEFEO XLIV, 2 (1951):649–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Sachchidanand Sahai, Les Institutions poltiiques et l'organisation administrative du Cambodge ancien (VI-XII siècles), Publications de 1'Ecole Francaise d'Extrême-Orient, Vol. LXXV.

17 Briggs, Empire, pp. 90–91, 94–95,98,105,114,123–24,134,145,149; Sahai, op. cit., pp. 60–70. There were also many other high officials with various types of functions and often unspecific titles, but the present study is concerned only with those who fit a certain pattern which helps to explain the reign of Sūryavarman.

18 Citations from Romila Thapar, A History of India, Vol. 1 (Penguin), pp. 82, 200.

19 See respectively inscriptions K. 923, K. 256, K. 809, K. 937. All inscriptions will be cited by number only. Their locations and bibliography can be found in G. Coedès, Inscriptions du Cambodge VIII, “Liste générale”.

20 See respectively K. 832, K. 687, K. 686, K. 853.

21 Coèdes, G., “Le véritable fondateur du culte de la royauté divine au Cambodge” in Majumdar, R. C. Felicitation Volume, ed. Sarkar, H.B. (Calcutta, 1970), pp. 56–66.Google Scholar For SKT seen n. 4, A more recent interpretation of kamrateṅ jagat, previously considered to be ‘the god who is the royalty’, and which demonstrates that there was a simultaneous plurality of kamrateṅ jagat, is Claude Jacques, “Les kamrateṅ jagat dan l'ancien Cambodge”, unpublished ms., a version of which was presented to the thirty-first International Congress of Human Sciences in Asia and North Africa, 1983, Tokyo, 31 Aug. -7 Sept. 1983. See proceedings of the conference, pp. 1025–27.

22 See K. 682, K. 189, K. 186, K. 834, and discussion of the last below. Rudrācārya, named in one of the recarved, and suspect, sections of K. 834 as purohita of Jayavarman IV, was certainly a high dignitary under Rājendravarman, and thus this section of K. 834 is at least plausible.

23 Coedès, , Etats (1964), p. 217.Google Scholar

24 See K. 532, K. 180, K.70. K. 266–68. Śivācārya is also named with Khmer titles in K. 265, K. 348–49. Pace Briggs, Empire,. p. 124, Rudrācārya was not named guru and Śivasoma was not the same person as Ātmaśiva. On Jayendravarman see Coedès, , BEFEO XIII 1(1913): 26, n.l.Google Scholar

25 See K. 842, K. 558, K. 579, K. 617–18.

26 For example, see K. 53 of AD. 667.

27 Inscriptions K. 91 (A.D. 1073), K. 92 (1028), K. 136 (1066–80), K. 158 (1003), K. 253 (1005), K. 275, K. 278 (1007), K. 289 (1066), K. 449 (1069), K. 598 (1006), K. 661 (1060), K. 693 (1003), K. 717 (1005), K. 814 (1004), K. 834 (reign of Sūryavarman), K. 998 (1008), SKT/K. 235 (1052).

28 Sedov, L.A., Angkorskaia imperiia (in Russian) (Moscow, 1967), p. 153.Google Scholar

29 Coedès, “Le véritable fondateur”; and see Jacques, “Les kamrateṅ jagat”.

30 Coedès, “Le véritable fondateur”; Kulke, Herman, “Der Devarāja-Kult”, Saeculum, XXV, Heft 1 (1974): 24–55Google Scholar; and Jacques, “Les kamrateṅ jagat”.

31 Inscription K. 834. Quotation in IC, V, 249. See also discussion of Jayavarman IV above.

32 Briggs, “Genealogy”.

33 Inscription K. 136, and see discussion of it below.

34 Inscription K. 989.

35 The date 834 is from Jacques, Claude, “La carrière de Jayavarman II”, BEFEO LIX (1972): 217; my conclusions are not affected by that modification of the reign of Jayavarman III.Google Scholar

36 See K. 956, K. 289, K. 449.

37 Coedès, “Le véritable fondateur”, 62. Jacques, “Les kamrateṅ jagat”, even while drastically revising the concept of kamrateṅ jagat/devarāja, accepts the authenticity of SKT and seems to believe that the term ‘kamrateṅ jagat’ must have been in use in the time of Jayavarman II, and even earlier, long before it is attested in the epigraphy. I disagree, and consider that although the institution was part of ancient Khmer culture, the term ‘kamrateṅ jagat’ was not devised until the 10th century when it first appears in inscriptions.

38 Briggs, “Genealogy”, Dupont, Pierre, “Les débuts de la royauté angkorienne”, BEFEO XLVI (1952–1954): 119–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Dupont, “Débuts”, 145; and on the importance of multiple royal wives, see Jacques, Claud,”Nouvelles orientations pour l'étude de l'histoire dul pays khmer”, Asie du Sud-est et Monde Insulindien, Cambodge I, Vol. XIII, 1–4 (1982): 39–58.Google Scholar

40 Dupont, “Débuts”, 158. The four claimants were Śivakaivalya (K. 235/SKT), Vrāhmanadatta (K. 989), Madhusūdana (K. 289) and Keśavabhaṭṭa (k. 534).

41 Śikhasiva (K. 253) and Śikhāśānti (K. 382).

42 Yogiśvarapandita (K. 275). For Yajñavarāha see above on Jayavarman V.

43 Rājapurohita: Sadāśiva (SKT), Nārāyana (K. 598), Śankara (K. 136); Guru: Yogīśvarapandita (K. 275), Kavīśvarapandita (K. 91); Hotar: Bhūpatīhdravallabha (K. 834), Śaṅkara (K. 136).

44 The truth or falsity of any particular 9th-10th century claim is not of concern here, only the fact of rivalry; but the details of those conflicts may affect interpretations of the first reigns of Angkor.

45 See respectively K. 253, K. 275–78, Dupont, “Débuts”, pp. 139–44.

46 See Jacques, “Sūryavarman”, [4].

47 The inscriptions which mention Jayaviravarman, in order of date, where dated, are: K. 143, K. 158 (Kompong Thom), K. 693 (Battambang), K. 944 (Siemreap), K. 196 (Kompong Thom), K. 216 (Battambang), K. 717 (Siemreap, Roluos), K. 468 (Angkor), K. 542 (Angkor), K. 598 (Siemreap), K. 856 (Siemreap), K. 989 (Battambang). Sūryavarman's inscriptions in the same period (1001–1008 A.D.) are: K. 153 (Kompong Thom), K. 89 (Kompong Cham), K. 161 (Kompong Thom), K. 542 (Angkor), K. 278 (Siemreap), K. 342 (Kompong Thom), K. 989 (Battambang). Sūryavarman's K. 290 at Angkor is dated 927 śaka (1005 A.D.) in Coedès’ “Liste générate”, but in his publication of it in IC III, 231–33, he noted that the ‘2’ of the date could be a ‘3’, giving 937 (1015) which is more likely in view of the evidence for Jayaviravarman's occupation of Angkor in 927 (1005).

48 The first dated section of K. 216, 927 śaka, names Jayaviravarman.

49 Jacques, “Sūryavarman”, [5].

50 Ibid., cites K. 542 of 928 śaka as Sūryavarman's first record in the capital. There is thus a consensus to place K. 290, which Coedès first dated with some hesitation in 927, ten years later in 937, no doubt because the earlier date conflicts with what is now known about the reign of Jayaviravarman. The figures ‘2’ and ‘3’ in texts of that period are sometimes difficult to distinguish. K. 989, dated 930, and from Battambang, is the first record of Sūryavarman west of the capital.

51 Ibid., [1–2].

52 Although the meaning of these terms is of no relevance in establishing their patterns, it may be of interest. ”Vrah” indicates whatever is royal or sacred, and it may be translated as ‘god’, ‘holy’, ‘sacred’, ‘august’, ‘royal’. ”Dhūli vraḥ pāda” is ‘dust of the royal feet’ and ”dhūli jeṅ”, ‘dust of the feet', with Khmer ”jeṅ”, ‘feet’ instead of Sanskrit ”pāda” Vraḥ kamrateṅ añ and kamrateṅ añ” are “His Majesty', of which the former is more prestigious. ”Paramapavitra” is ‘great’ + ‘pure’; “karuna”, ‘gracious’ and ”prasāda” ‘clear’, ‘gracious’ and, particularly in Angkorean usage, ‘grant’. ”Kamtvan” indicates matrilineal descent and ”svey vraḥ dharmarājya” means ‘ruling a just realm’.

53 “Kaṃtvan” is also found in one retrospective reference to Yaśovarman in an inscription of Jayaviravarman, K. 158.

54 No other inscription of either Sūryavarman or Jayaviravarman shows the phrase ”svey vraḥ dharmarājya”, which is found in K. 444 of their predecessor, Jayavarman V; but, given the date of K. 817, it must be of either Sūryavarman or Jayaviravarman.

55 Jacques ignored K. 153 with its early date, a year before the date which Sūryavarman subsequently recorded as the official beginning of his reign. The official date of 924 śaka, however, does not mean that K. 153 should be rejected, since it is an inscription of an official, not of Sūryavarman, recording an establishment of the official on land given to him by Sūryavarman. Particularly if Suryavarman was not an usurper, as Jacques emphasized, he might well have been reluctant to date his reign within the reign period of Udayādityavarman, whose name (‘rising sun’ + varman) indicates that he and Sūryavarman (‘sun’ + varman) may have been relatives rather than rivals. (See further below.) Neither is K. 153 one of those inscriptions in which confusion of the figures for ‘2’ and ‘3’ might suggest dating it ten years later (933 rather than 923). Coedès, gave full attention to this problem in his “Épigraphie” of the Ta Kev (BEFEO) XXXIV [1934]): 417–27, where he accepted 923 and where his photographic reproductions of dates from the texts in question indicate that K. 153 really is dated in 923, or if there is any doubt at all, it is between 923 and 922. In fact, the date of K. 153 is clearer than that of K. 125 which no one has called into question, and in Coedes' publication of K. 153 (IC V, 194–97), he remarked that it is “carefully engraved and well preserved”. Moreover, the figure ‘2’ occurs at least four times in the text, in addition to the date, for quantities of offerings, and not only did Coedès not express doubt about its clarity, but in one case the expression ‘2 guṇa ’ (‘double’) is duplicated in writing, guṇa vyar. (See lines 9–10.) Coedès' question mark after the date 923 in his “Liste générale des inscriptions du Cambodge”, IC VIII, must refer, not to the clarity of the date within the inscription, but to the problem of an inscription referring to Sūryavarman before the official date of his reign. Given its location in Kompong Thom and content I do not consider this a problem, and in this respect, its unusual spelling, with ‘b’ instead of ‘v in certain contexts, suggests provincial usage in an area not yet under control of the capital. Finally, this inscription, written after the event, may have back-dated it, either inadvertently or by design.Google Scholar

56 Jacques, “Sūyavarman”, [2].

57 These kings are named by their posthumous titles and damage to the text prevents complete identification of the third posthumous title recorded there.

58 There is no record of a posthumous title of Jayaviravarman.

59 K. 125, like K. 153, is also authored by an official, not by the king himself.

60 Jacques' alternative suggestion about Sūryavarman's origins, after attributing K. 125 and K. 720 to Udayādityavarman, was that Sūryavarman might have come from the south, since he left inscriptions at Phnom Chisor in Takeo province. They, however, are in 1017 and 1019, well after he had established his authority at Angkor, in contrast to his pre-reign inscriptions in the northeast, and Phnom Chisor appears to have been important as one of the four cardinal points of his realm, where he simultaneously, in 1018, established lingas in his name, Sūryavarmeśvara, which means that Phnom Chisor, no more than the other three locations, can be given any special consideration as his place of origin. (See Jacques, “Sūryavarman”, [5] and K. 380.) Moreover, with respect to Jacques' comments, it was not only Indravarman (Phnom Bayang) and Sūryavarman I (Phnom Chisor) who erected foundations in the south. Rājendravarman and Yaśovarman also left inscriptions at Phnom Bayang. There is thus no real evidence to place Sūryavarman's home in the south.

61 Coedès, “Ta Kev:IH, Epigraphie”, p.424;and see K. 196 for Jayaviravarman's warning. Sūryavarman's first inscription at Angkor was K. 542 dated 928/1006 A.D.

62 Coedès et Dupont, “Les stèles de Sdok Kak Thom, etc.”, 121; Du Bourg, op. cit., 288 and K. 196.

63 This rather obvious connection must have been ignored by Coedès and Briggs because of their conviction that Sūryavarman was a foreign invader. ‘Udaya’ is more precisely ‘rising sun’.

64 The less precise Sanskrit text is K. 253, which refers to Sūryavarman as “moon of this ocean of milk which is the maternal family of Śrī Indravarman” (retranslated from the French of Coedès). The other, Khmer, inscription is K. 380, from one of Sūryavarman's own foundations at Preah Vihear.

65 The inscription of 803 is K. 124 at Sambor. Coedès noted the connection in his publication of it.

66 Jacques' explanation is in a personal communication dated 31 March 1983.

67 Dupont, “Débuts”, pp. 149–50. Briggs, Empire, p. 177 seems to have been overly speculative in identifying Dviradadeśa with the region of Lovek.

68 See Kulke, op. cit., p. 43, for the evidence in favour of a hypothesis for a “functional proximity” of the devarāja and the sacred fire.

69 Udayādityavarman's inscription at Prasat Khnā is K. 356.

70 Inscription K. 661.

71 Inscription K. 289; see verses 17, 18, 20, 32, 35, B4.

72 Dupont, “Débuts”, 147, n. 102.

73 Inscription K. 91.

74 Coedès, IC II, 128; inscription K. 136, verses 10–11, K. 91, lines 19–21. Sūryaparvata is Phnom Chisor.

75 The modern name, in transliteration ”jo'ṅ brei”, “foot [of the] forest”, probably derives from a name in the inscription, ”jeṅ chdiṅ kaṃluṅ vrai”, “foot [of the] river within the forest”. For the Hyaṅ Pavitra family, see K. 278 and Dupont, “Débuts”, p. 145.

76 Dupont, “Débuts”, 150.

77 Inscription K. 289; Dupont, “Débuts”, pp. 147–48.

78 Inscription K. 91.

79 Vickery, “Some Remarks on Early State Formation in Cambodia”. For the concept ‘conical clan’, see Kirchhoff, Paul, “The Principles of Clanship in Human Society”, in Readings in Anthropology II, Cultural Anthropology, ed. Morton H. Fried, (1959) pp. 259–70Google Scholar; on the possibilities of conical clan organization in state formation see Friedman, Jonathan, System, Structure and Contradiction: The Evolution of Asiatic Social Formations (Copenhagen, 1979).Google Scholar Since my presentation of the above paper some anthropologist colleagues have objected to my use of ‘clan’ for the type of hierarchical structure found at Angkor, thus I must emphasize that whatever the validity of ‘conical clan’ for anthropology in general, I am simply using the term as it was coined by Kirchhoff and developed by Friedman as a tool for describing the royal genealogies of the Angkor records.

80 Note the evidence that one of Sūryavarman's ancestors may have been ‘only a minister during the reign of Yaśovarman’, and that Sūryavarman may have built his palace at the site of the family temple. Claude Jacques, Études d'épigraphie cambodgienne X (BEFEO). “Autour de quelques toponymes de l'inscription du Prasat Trapán Ruṅ K. 598: la capitate angkorienne, de Yaśovarman Ier à Sūryavarnam Ier”, p. 314.

81 Jacques, “Sūryavarman”, [5].

82 Dupont, P., “La dislocation du Tchen-la et la formation du Cambodge angkorien (VIIe-IXe siécle)” BEFEO XLIII (1943–1946): 17–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

83 See Vickery, “Some Remarks on Early State Formation in Cambodia”.

84 See above, note 5.