Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T14:26:01.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jayavarman II's Military Power: The Territorial Foundation of the Angkor Empire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

O. W. Wolters
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Jayavarman II is the famous Khmer ruler who, in the first half of the 9th century and after a hundred years when Khmer overlordship had been in abeyance, was consecrated on Mount Mahendra “to ensure that the country of the Kambujas would no longer be dependent on Java and that there would be no more than one sovereign who was cakravartin”. His inscriptions have never been recovered, but Khmers in later times remembered his reign as the time when their ancestors, his supporters, were rewarded with estates. Historians are today tending to regard the reign as a somewhat less significant period in Khmer history than earlier generations of historians had supposed. Its conventionally accepted length (802–850) is no longer taken for granted. The king's cult, inaugurated on Mount Mahendra, may not have been as innovative as was originally believed. Even the extent of the king's temporal power has been revised. In 1952 Dupont, clarifying the king's chronology, came to the conclusion that his territorial authority had been exaggerated and that his bid for overlordship had failed.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 105 , Issue 1 , January 1973 , pp. 21 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1973

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 Cœdès, G., The Indianised states of Southeast Asia, Honolulu, 1968, 99Google Scholar.

2 Jacques, C., “Sur les données chronologiques de la stèle de Tuol Ta Pec”, BEFEO, LVIII, 1971, 165–166Google Scholar.

3 The literature on Jayavarman II's cult is surveyed in Hubert de Mestier du Bourg, “A propos du culte du dieu-roi (devarāja) au Cambodge”, Cahiers d'histoire mondiale, 11, 1968–69, 499–516. On the same subject also see Mabbett, I. W., “Devarāja”, Journal of Southeast Asian history, X, 2, 1969, 204–209Google Scholar, and Sahai, Sachchidanand, Les institutions politiques et l'organisation administrative du Cambodge ancien, Paris, 1970, 40–46Google Scholar.

4 Dupont, P., “Les débuts de la royauté angkorienne”, BEFEO, XLVI, 1, 1952, 168–169Google Scholar. Professor Sahai has followed Dupont's reconstruction of Jayavarman II's territorial authority: S. Sahai, op. cit., 141.

5 Cœdès, G. and Dupont, P., “Les stèles de Sdok Kak Thom …”, BEFEO, XLIII, 1943–1946, 56–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Cœdès, G., “La stèle de Palhal”, BEFEO, XIII, 6, 1913, 33Google Scholar; Dupont, op. cit., 148. Indrapura's location is discussed by Cœdès in The Indianised states …, 98.

7 Cœdèes, G., Les inscriptions du Cambodge (IC), VII, Paris, 1964, 133Google Scholar.

8 ibid., 129. The significance of “Javā” in this context is still unknown. The country in question must surely have been in the archipelago or on the Malay Peninsula. Cœdès discusses the problem in Indianised states, 92–3. Professor Boechari, in conversation with the author, has said that a recently discovered inscription from southern Sumatra persuades him that the bhūmi Jāva, mentioned in the Kota Kapur inscription of Śrāvijaya, dated 686, refers to an area in the extreme south of Sumatra. On the latter inscription see Cœdès, The Indianised states …, 83.

9 Professor Boisselier has noted this implication of the Vat Samrong inscription: Boisselier, J., “Les linteaux khmers…”, Artibus Asiae, 30, 2/3, 1968, 141Google Scholar.

10 IC, II, 144. A 10th-century legal dispute in the Ba Phnom area seems to have had its origins in Jayavarman's reign: IC, VII, 24–5.

11 IC, VI, 137–38; II, 109.

12 Dupont, op. cit., 148–49, quoting the Palhal inscription.

13 Cœdès, “La stèle de Palhal”, 34. Members of this family were favourites of Jayavarman III.

14 Ts‘ê-fu yüan-kuei (1642 edition published in Peking in 1960), 972, 11417b. The text has been checked in the Southern Sung woodblock print at the Seikado Bunko, Tokyo. For TFYK's consistent use of the term “Chên-la” to refer to southern Cambodia, see the author's “North-western Cambodia in the 7th century” in a forthcoming issue of the BSOAS.

15 Cham raids on southern Cambodia may have been one reason. On these raids see Cœdès, The Indianised states … 104.

16 TFYK, 970, 11404a. A southern mission may have come in 750: Pelliot, P., BEFEO, IV, 1–2, 1904, 212, n. 2Google Scholar.

17 Dupont, op. cit., 148–49, quoting the Palhal inscription. Dupont has corrected Cœdès's date to read “816”.

18 Cœdès, “La stèle de Palhal”, 33.

19 The evidence is discussed in the author's “North-Western Cambodia in the 7th century”.

20 IC, I, 30.

21 Cœdès, “La stèle de Palhal”, 33.

22 ibid., 34.

23 Cœdès, and Dupont, , BEFEO, XLIII, 1943–1946, 62Google Scholar.

24 IC, VI, 85.

25 Seidenfaden, E., “Complèment …”, BEFEO, XXII, 1922, 62–63Google Scholar.

26 For the revision of the length of Yaśovarman I's reign, see Jacques, C., “Sur les donnèes chronologiques de la stèle de Tuol Ta Pec”, BEFEO, LVIII, 1971, 167–168Google Scholar.

27 Barth, A. and Bergaigne, A., Inscriptions du Cambodge et du Champa (ISCC), Paris, 1885, 377Google Scholar.

28 IC, I, 53. Vīrendra is located in IC, VII, 154.

29 One need not doubt that Khmer chiefs remembered earlier conquerors. In 668 Rudravarman, of the first half of the 6th century, was compared with Visnu: ISCC, 68.

30 Dupont, “Les dèbuts …”, 159.

31 ibid., 161. Dupont believed that Amarendrapura was in the north: ibid., 126.

32 See Jacques, C., BEFEO, LVIII, 1971, 165–166Google Scholar, for a discussion of the ambiguous evidence concerning the accession date of Jayavarman's successor, Jayavarman III.

33 For this location see Cœdès, , BEFEO, XXVIII, 1–2, 1928, 133Google Scholar.

34 ISCC, 369. Jayavarman's parents seem to have been connected with Sambor on the Mekong, north of Indrapura, but nothing is known of the part they played in the king's career: Cœdès, , BEFEO, XXVIII, 1–2, 1928, 132Google Scholar.

35 Cœdès, and Dupont, , BEFEO, XLIII, 1943–1946, 104Google Scholar.

36 IC, VII, 182.

37 IC, V, 233. Another example is in Finot, , “Nouvelles inscriptions …”, BEFEO, XXVIII, 1928, 71Google Scholar.

38 See Cœdès, The Indianised states …, 67. Professor Lèvy suggests that a distinction should be made between this Bhavapura and the capital of Bhavavarman I, which he associates with Stung Treng on the Mekong: Lèvy, P., JA, CCLVIII, 1–2, 1970, 122Google Scholar.

39 IC, VII, 132. The brahman remembered as teaching the devarāja ritual on Mount Mahendra belonged to the royal family of Bhavapura: IC, VI, 104–05.

40 ISCC, 109. On this site, apparently close to the future Angkor site, see Dupont, “Les dèbuts …”, 159.

41 Cœdès, and Dupont, , BEFEO, XXXVII, 2, 1937, 392Google Scholar. On the identification of this site with the Vat Phu area see Cœdès, The Indianised states …, 66. The supporter in question was a scholar.

42 Dupont suggested that the art of Kulen (Mount Mahendra) reflected traditions as heterogeneous as the areas from which the king's supporters came: “Les dèbuts…”, 165.

43 IC, VII, 133; Cœdès, “La stèle de Palhal”, 33.

44 IC, V, 233.

45 IC, VII, 182–83.

46 ISCC, 112.

47 IC, VII, 132.

48 ISCC, 108–09. Yet another wife is mentioned in IC, V, 140.

49 ISCC, 539.

50 IC, VII, 133.

51 Cœdès, “La stèle de Palhal”, 33–4.

52 Early in Jayavarman's reign a Cham inscription refers to the “country of the Kambujas”: ISCC, 269.

53 The identification is based on the queen's name in Jayavarman II's sanctuary at Prah Ko, built by Indravarman I later in the 9th century: Dupont, P., “La dislocation de Tchen-la …”, BEFEO, XLIII, 1943–1946, 20, 35Google Scholar.

54 ISCC, 370, v. 10, gives Jayavarman III's princely name of Jayavardhana. Dharmavardhana is mentioned in ISCC, 541, v. 9. The queen Nrpendradevī had a son called Iśvarajña: Cœdès, “La stèle de Palhal”, 34, v. 27. The prince Śrī Indrāyudha, another son by an unknown mother, is mentioned below.

55 ISCC, 370, v. 10 (an inscription of Yaśovarman I's reign); IC, V, 168, v. 5 (an inscription of the second half of the 10th century).

56 Rājendravarman II's dates are based on Jacques, C., BEFEO, LVIII, 1971, 175Google Scholar.

57 IC, I, 75.

58 IC, I, 107.

59 ISCC, 370, v. 11.

60 IC, IV, 98, v. 24. Also see IC, IV, 86; V, 168.

61 ISCC, 134.

62 Dupont suggests that the marriage took place on Mount Mahendra: “Les débuts…”, 162.

63 Dupont, op. cit., 133, 159.

64 ibid., 166–69.

65 It is unknown where these lands were; on this subject see Dupont, “Les débuts…”, 149–150. Indravarman I married Indradevī, who, in terms of disclosed genealogy, was the most famous bride of the 9th century. Her ancestors included Puṣkara of Aninditapura and, through the latter's son or grandson, Rājendravarman I of Sambor, they were linked by marriage connexions with the ancient overlords (Adhirāja) of Vyādhapura: ISCC, 369. But the date of Indradevī's marriage is unknown. If it had taken place before the king's residence on Mount Mahendra, Dharaṇīndradevī's family may have developed a substantial network of family alliances.

66 Dupont notes the possibility of an expedition against rebels towards the end of Jayavarman II's reign: “Les débuts…”, 162.

67 The Palhal inscription states that Garyāk, given to the Angkor Borei brothers, had a tirtha, presumably in the possession of the previous occupants of the land: Cœdès, “La stèle de Palhal”, 33.

68 For example, in the 7th century a chief was confirmed in his title of mratāñ by three successive kings: IC, IV, 30. During the same three reigns Indrapura was the seat of a hereditary chief, whose position was probably similarly confirmed: Cœdès, , BEFEO, XLIII, 1943–1946, 7Google Scholar.

69 See Dupont's “Dislocation …”, 36, for his reservation concerning Rudravarman as a ruler. In “Les débuts …”, 150, 162, Dupont refers to the “royal” clan, of which Dharaṇīndradevī was a member.

70 Dupont, “La dislocation…”, 54.

71 ISCC, 365, v. 11.

72 ISCC, 134, v. 12.

73 Jayavarman III seems to have been well-educated; see Chhieng, Au, JA, CCLIV, 1, 1966, 161Google Scholar. There is also a reference to his guru, a protégé of Jayavarman II: Cœdès, and Dupont, , BEFEO, XXXVII, 2, 1937, 392Google Scholar. But, in view of the uncertainty about the year when Jayavarman III was born, this evidence cannot be interpreted as meaning that he was given a suitably royal education during his father's lifetime.

74 The doubt concerning the date of Jayavarman III's accession is discussed by ProfessorJacques, in BEFEO, LVIII 1971, 165–166Google Scholar.

75 If we assume that his age is according to Khmer reckoning, he was fifteen years old in 850 and was born in 835. If the ambiguous evidence is construed to refer to the length of his reign in 850, his reign began in 834.

76 This is the single instance when TFYK uses the term “Water Chên-la”, but it appears in a communication from an official in Vietnam, who was probably identifying the area in Cambodia which had launched the attack. “Water Chên-la” is a geographical and not a political expression. On the usage of “Land” and “Water” Chên-la see the author's “North-western Cambodia in the 7th century.”

77 TFYK, 995, 11688a.

78 The numerous raids and revolts in the first half of the 9th century are listed by Schafer, E. H., The vermillion bird, University of California, 1967, 64–67Google Scholar.

79 The An-nam chí-lu-óc (Viện Dni Húê edition, 1961), 101, relates the response of Vietnamese to this enlightened governor. In 838, the year of his report of the Khmer invasion of Champa, he was advising the T‘ang court to encourage local loyalty by raising a certain region to the status of châu: E. H. Schafer, The vermillion bird, 71.

80 Cœdès, The Indianised states…, 104.

81 ibid., 104.

82 IC, VII, 87.

83 Maspero, H., “La frontière de l'Annam et du Cambodge …”, BEFEO, XVIII, 3, 1918, 29Google Scholar. If the Khmers had attacked Champa from the south, they would have had to pursue them through the entire length of Champa.

84 i.e. Wên-tan, inaccurately referred to as “ Land Chên-la”.

85 Jayavarman I, whose military career in the 7th century parallels Jayavarman II's, left an inscription at Vat Phu and appointed a brahman's son as chief at Śreṣṭhapura.

86 An inscription of Yaśovarman I asserts that “kingship should be honoured by those who enjoy good works”: Cœdès, , BEFEO, XXXII, 1, 1932, 94, v. 27Google Scholar.

87 Jayavarman II did not shed his earlier relatives on Mount Mahendra. Śrī Pṛthivīnarendra's kinsmen received additional land when he was there: Dupont, “Les débuts…”, 161–62.

88 In this connexion one should bear in mind Professor Filliozat's argument that devarāja, the name of Jayavarman II's cult on Mount Mahendra ascribed to him by the Sdok Kak Thom inscription of 1052, should be understood to mean “king of the gods”, or Śiva: Filliozat, J., “New researches on the relations between India and Cambodia”, Indica, 3, 1966, 100–102Google Scholar.