Chenla

Origins

Most of the Chinese records of Chenla, including that of Chenla conquering Funan, have been contested since the 1970s as they are generally based on single remarks in the Chinese annals.^[17] The History of the Chinese Sui dynasty contains entries of a state called Chenla, a vassal of the Kingdom of Funan, which had sent an embassy to China in 616 or 617,^[18] yet under its ruler, Citrasena Mahendravarman, conquered Funan after Chenla had gained independence.^[19] Inscriptions record him setting up Śiva-liṅgas and the bull as symbols of his conquest across the territory. By 2016 four further inscriptions of his had been found in Thailand, Laos and Cambodia and numbered K. 1338 to K. 1341, bringing the known total to twenty.^[12]: 410 Chaowanee Lekkla's survey of the material found outside Cambodia lists twenty-four Sanskrit and Khmer inscriptions from southern Laos and from northeastern, eastern and central Thailand. Eighteen name Citrasena, seven Bhavavarman I, three Īśānavarman, two Bhavavarman II and one Jayavarman I, and the stones are dated in that survey by the reigns of the kings they name.^{[13]: 89–95, 99} Measured from Sambor Prei Kuk, the find-spots run from 240 km at Champasak to 600 km at Ban Wang Phai near Si Thep, most of them on the Mekong or its tributaries; the sites in Sa Kaeo and at Phaniat, also called Mueang Kawai, in Chanthaburi province are reached overland.^{[13]: 95, 97} Four of the twenty-four have no secure provenance.^{[13]: 87, 93, 95} Excavation at four of the sites has recovered associated material, including a brick shrine base and a well with four bricks inscribed with the Pallava letters la, ja, pa and ya at Don Khum Ngoen in Roi Et province, and a moated site holding a stone Nandi and a liṅga at Wat Si Mueang Aem in Khon Kaen province.^{[13]: 81, 91}

Like its superior Funan, Chenla occupied a strategic position where the maritime trade routes of the Indosphere and the East Asian cultural sphere converged, resulting in prolonged socio-economic and cultural influence and the adoption of the epigraphic system of the south Indian Pallava dynasty and Chalukya dynasty.^[20][21]

The origins of Chenla's aristocracy, whom author Michael Vickery called the "Dângrêk Chieftains", are obscure.^[22] These were local principalities north and south of the Dângrêk Mountains, who left behind the oldest known stone epigraphs in the region, bearing genealogical records that suggest increasing political dominance. The first known princes are mentioned in some early inscriptions. The Sanskrit inscription of Vãl Kantél, Stung Treng province^[23] names a ruler Vīravarman, who as his name suggests (his father's name was Sārvabhauma) had adopted the idea of divine kingship and deployed the concept of Harihara, a Hindu "god that embodied multiple conceptions of power". His successors continued this tradition, thus conveying the idea of a correlation between political and religious authority.^[24]

The New Book of Tang asserts that shortly after 706, the country was split into Land Chenla and Water Chenla [km]. The names signify a northern and a southern half, which may conveniently be referred to as Upper (northern) and Lower (southern) Chenla.^[25] By the late 8th century Water Chenla had become dependent on the thalassocratic Shailendra dynasty on Java and the Srivijaya city-state on Sumatra. The last of Water Chenla's kings seems to have been killed and the polity incorporated into the Javanese monarchy around the year 790. Land Chenla maintained its integrity under Jayavarman II, who proclaimed the Khmer Empire in 802.^[26]

Originally one of the regional centers of Funan with an unknown degree of sovereignty, Chenla was recognized by a foreign power as a separate political entity at the end of the sixth century, Bhavavarman I its independent ruler. Considerable scholarly discord prevails regarding the exact geographic origin, the extent, dynamic and chronology of territorial expansion and in particular, the religious and political center of Chenla and whether or not it consisted of a unified people under a single leader.^[27][28]

Late 20th century scholars "began cautiously to move away from the established historiographical framework" which had been laid out mainly by George Cœdès, who relies on external sources, specifically the Chinese annals, for its reconstruction.^[29] Michael Vickery suggests that ancient authors allocated the name "Chenla" to numerous small principalities and bundled them up as one singular entity in order to classify a larger number of people under the same characteristics, omitting distinctions between individual states. This approach explains why there was a noticeable increase in stone inscriptions during the seventh century. Multiple independent territories would produce their own recordings and written regulations, whereas in one polity only a tiny elite would be allowed access to such tasks. Lekkla draws a comparable distinction from the archaeology, separating the states that followed Zhenla's Śaiva practice from independent ones that combined Hindu and Theravāda forms. She puts Dong Mueang Toei in Yasothon province, whose inscription names the town Śaṅkhapura, in the second group: it was contemporary with Sambor Prei Kuk, about 400 km away by the Chi, worked its own iron, and on her reading the evidence is not sufficient to place it within Zhenla's political influence. She treats Si Thep in the Pa Sak valley the same way. The Ban Wang Phai inscription names Bhavavarman but records nothing of him, and Buddhist remains at the town outnumber Hindu ones.^{[13]: 80, 103}

Before historians had begun to analyse and use epigraphic sources in great numbers, all available evidence supported the idea that the center of the Chenla principality must be located at Mount Phu Kao - Lingaparvata (the mountain of the linga) in Champasak Province, Laos once belonging to the Khmer civilization. The local Vat Phou stele mentions the name of King Devanika (Fan Chen-ch'eng), king of kings - yet researchers do not relate the monarch to the "Dangrek Chieftains".^[30][31] Contrary to the academic conclusions, Cambodian legend tells that "the origin of the kings of Cambodia goes back to the union of the hermit Kambu Svayambhuva, an eponymic ancestor of the Kambujas, with the celestial nymph Mera, who was given to him by Siva." The king Srutavarman was born of this couple, who was followed by his son, king Sreshthavarman. This king gave his name to Sreshthapura - believed to be Vat Phou.^[32] At the end of the sixth century, Bhavavarman and Citrasena (royal title: Mahendravarman) attacked Funan together and subdued it around 627–649.^[31]

That Funan and Chenla are "vague concepts" not applying to a tribe, a nation or a people is at odds with the Cambodian legends of origin. Folklore follows an unflinching narrative like that of a single ruler such as King Devanika - the reconsecrated maharajadhiraja (king of kings) of Mount Phu Kao where "the people that lived in the region along with the people who came with Devanika, became the forerunners of the prosperous Khmer people".^[33][34]

Land and Water Chenla

The Tang histories mentioned that after the end of the reign of shénlóng (神龍) (i.e. after 6 February 707) Zhēnlà came to be divided into two realms, Lùzhēnlà (陸真臘) ("Land Chenla", also called Wèndān (文單) or Pólòu (婆鏤)) and Shuīzhēnlà (水真臘) ("Water Chenla [km]"), and returned to the anarchic state that had existed before it was unified under the kings of Funan and the first kings of Chenla. On the other hand, Water Chenla was associated with the Mekong Delta and had access to the river and its benefits, but this advantage had its downfalls as it made Water Chenla more susceptible to attacks.^[29]

Late in the 8th century AD, it faced war from Javanese pirates that ultimately took over the Mekong Delta and then later took over Chenla. However author Michael Vickery asserts that these categories of Water and Land Chenla created by the Chinese are misleading and meaningless because the best evidence shows that until 802 AD, there was no single, great state in the land of ancient Cambodia, but a number of smaller ones.^[29] In his later work Vickery read the eighth century as a period of consolidation for Chenla, following a seventh century of many small semi-independent units under local rulers, or poñ. Revire sets that reading against Pierre Dupont's study of 1943, which treated the same period as the breaking apart of Chenla into its Land and Water halves.^[12]: 397

Both parts sent tribute to China in 717, and Land Chenla continued to do so for most of the century: a prince of Wendan with twenty-six accompanying officers was received at the Tang court in 753, an embassy including eleven trained elephants arrived in 771, and the last recorded mission was in 798.^{[35]: 87, 93}

In the view of the historian Sujit Wongthes, Land Chenla is located in Isan (northeast Thailand), while Water Chenla is situated on the Tonlé Sap area in Cambodia. Tatsuo Hoshino placed Wendan's outer capital at Mueang Fa Daet Song Yang in Kalasin province and its inner capital at Kantharawichai in Maha Sarakham province, an identification Hiram Woodward accepts while rejecting as tendentious Hoshino's further claim that the people of Wendan spoke a Tai language.^{[35]: 87 [36]}

Decline

The number of inscriptions declined sharply during the eighth century. Woodward dates the change to about the 720s and notes that it extends to monumental construction as well, across almost the whole of Cambodia, a pattern he reads as consistent with warfare and depleted resources though also with a change of ideological outlook. He proposes that the Angkor region fell under the domination of Wendan during this period, and that Wendan was in turn defeated by Jayavarman II, citing the coincidence of its last embassy in 798 with Jayavarman II's accession in 802; he presents the reconstruction as a hypothesis.^{[35]: 87, 90, 93} However, some theorists, who have examined the Chinese transcripts, claim that Chenla started falling during the 700s as a result of both internal divisions and external attacks by the Shailendra dynasty of Java, who eventually took over and joined under the Angkor kingdom of Jayavarman II. According to the Sdok Kak Thom inscription (1053), Jayavarman II and his son Indrayudha defeated a Cham army in 790, then moved to north of the Tonle Sap, established the city of Hariharalaya, 15 kilometers south of Angkor.^[37]

Individually, historians reject a classical decline scenario, arguing there was no Chenla to begin with, rather a geographic region had been subject to prolonged periods of contested rule, with turbulent successions and an obvious incapability to establish a lasting centre of gravity. Historiography ends this era of nameless upheaval only in the year 802, when Jayavarman II established the appropriately named Khmer Empire.

Capital

According to George Cœdès, Champasak was the origin of the ruling dynasty of Chenla and Vat Phou its spiritual center. Coedès and contemporary scholars refer to the historical annals of the Sui dynasty, which mention Chenla and identify its royal residence to be near a mountain named Ling-jia-bo-po or Lingaparvata, a temple was constructed on its summit. Vat Phou is an enormously impressive Khmer Hindu temple located at the base of Mount Phu Kao in Laos, which leads theorists to speculate that Phu Kao is the mountain that is referenced in the passage and that Wat Phou could be the temple mentioned; however this view is not accepted by modern scholarship.^[28]

Authors Claude Jacques and Michael Vickery question the identification of Phu Kao as Lingjiabopo/Lingaparvata because there are a number of hills in Cambodia that apply to the vague descriptions. Thus, the debate remains and the existence of Chenla as a unitary state or a capital at Vat Phou is questionable. Since there is not much evidence or writings from the time period, not much can be said about the region. The Chinese annals are one of the very few sources scholars can analyze and derive information from.^[28]

The people of Chenla, whose base was Champassak in about 550, established their capital city at Isanapura (Sambhupura) by about 600.^[38]

According to Paul Pelliot, Sambhupura (Isanapura) was the capital of Land Chenla (Upper Chenla) and Vyadhapura was the capital of Water Chenla [km] (Lower Chenla),^[1] but, according to George Coedès, Baladityapura (Aninditapura) was the capital of Water Chenla and Wen Tan (Wen Dan) was Land Chenla.^[39]

Rulers

Traditionally leaders were chosen based on their merit in battle and their ability to attract a large following; however, as rulers gained more power moving away from the commoners horizon, a shift from measure of capability towards patrilineal descent occurred. Adoption of the idea of the Hindu state with its consecrated military leader, the "Varman"—protector king was the ideological basis for control and supremacy.^[16]

All essential elements of Bhavavarman's life and most of his descendants are known only through epigraphy. Interpreted as to be Vīravarman's successor and after gaining independence ("he has conquered his throne at the tip of his sword") ruler of the eastern portions of his father's realm, he "built a temple in 598 during his reign in [...] the center of the kingdom of Bhavapura".^[40] Mahendravarman is, according to epigraphy, also Vīravarman's son and attributed as to be the conqueror of Funan.^[41]

Succession is unclear, because "this at the same time eliminates his son Bhavavarman I of the royal function" Historian Michael Vickery resolves: "Bhavavarman and...Citrasena [Mahendravarman's given name] attacked Funan" [together].^[41] Īśānavarman is the founder of a new capital - Isanapura north of the Tonlé Sap (the archaeological site of Sambor Prei Kuk). His son Bhavavarman II - is mentioned only once in an inscription in the year 644.^[42] Jayavarman I is the last ruler of a united Chenla. He is the son and successor of the obscure Candravarman.^[43]

Religion

Religious structures

By the close of the century,^[which?] the Chenla region was dotted with temples and shrines to the Hindu Gods. Many commoners were involved in the upkeep of these religious complexes and citizens of Chenla were expected to donate land, goods, and slaves to them. The great temple foundations consisted of their own holdings of land and people, functioning as powerful corporations; even minor temples had establishments and collected taxes.^[46] While kings had established these temples as a means to increase their power, in reality, these structures might have been taking away valuable land and citizens from the empire; the taxes collected by the temples could have meant more wealth for the leader.^{[citation needed]}

However, these structures may also have been a factor that stabilised the kingdom and allowed the king to expand and attract more civilians who followed Hindu beliefs as Hinduism served as a reason for people to follow the king's rule. Also, incorporation of these establishments could appeal to foreigners who would bring their trade, business, and goods to the area, making it more economically efficient.^{[citation needed]}

Architecture

The design of the temples and shrines was greatly influenced by the prosperous Gupta state of northern and central India. The temple complexes were brick and stone based with a protruding statue representing a Hindu God or Buddha as the central focus of the building. Sandstone was the prominent material utilized for more important temples and was derived from the Kulen Mountains. Because of its heavy weight, it required a lot of manpower, which usually involved slaves.^[53]

Cremation burials lined with bricks were also discovered. These structures are supposed to be devoted to the veneration of members of the Brahmin caste since the burials had been carried out according to Hindu practice.^[54]

Social hierarchy

Social status was determined based on one's knowledge of language, primarily Khmer or Sanskrit. Sanskrit was the language of the Gods, thus it was considered more valuable; the division between who worked the fields and who completed more worthy tasks was based on how well they knew Sanskrit. People who succeeded in educating themselves earned higher ranks such as being an official or even royal servant.^[55] However the majority of residents who lacked the ability to gain Sanskrit names spent their lives producing a surplus for the benefit of temples and ancestral Gods.^[56] Sheldon Pollock dates the shift that gave the language that standing. By the fifth century it was no longer only a sacred language, and in the political and royal sphere it served chiefly to eulogise rulers.^[52]: 336

Charles Higham derives the ranks themselves from the Late Iron Age. On his reading the local leaders who emerged in the Mun valley of northeast Thailand became the poñ, the title borne by regional landowners in the pre-Angkorian inscriptions.^[52]: 338 He traces their rise to iron working, to ploughed and perhaps irrigated rice fields by the fifth century CE, and to the control of salt.^{[52]: 336, 338} Piphal Heng argues from Thala Borivat on the Mekong that small proto-historic settlements were absorbed into larger ones between the fourth and seventh centuries, the larger then becoming pre-Angkorian centres.^[52]: 339 Both derive the poñ and the mratan from Late Iron Age elites.^[52]: 340

Although a social hierarchy existed, there was no discrimination between genders. Women were not considered second class citizens rather many women played central roles in rituals, specialized in crafts, and were given ranks as high officials.^[57] This may be because until recently families followed matrilineal descent instead of a patriarchal society, thus some aspects of the earlier society were retained.^[54]

Economy

The wealth of Chenla and its surrounding territories was derived from wet-rice agriculture and from the mobilization of manpower rather than from subsistence farming such as in the past.^[60] Productive lands were donated to temples where slaves worked the fields and helped the temples generate revenue.^[46] The kingdom sustained an extensive irrigation system which manufactured rice surpluses that formed the bulk of their trade. International trade is believed to have been essential to the kingdom. But by the time of early 7th century, Cambodian society was shifting from a trading economy to an agrarian one. Trading centers near the coast of Funan period were collapsing, while inland agrarian centers emerged.^[61]

In the remains of the main port, Oc Eo, (now in Vietnam) materials from Rome, Greece and Persia have been found, as well as artifacts from India and neighboring states. Indian influences might have been so alluring because Indian merchants who traded with early Cambodians had wealth and were prosperous, qualities to strive for, therefore there was little to no hesitance in adopting the religion of another culture.^{[citation needed]}