Chenla

Chenla enters history through Chinese records describing the receipt of an embassy in AD 616 or 617. Subsequent assessments of this polity, which evidently flourished from about AD 550 to 800, have been heavily influenced by the The History of the Sui Dynasty, which noted that Chenla was originally a vassal of Funan, but under its ruler Citrasena, conquered Funan and achieved independence. The impression that Chenla was a unified state under a king has been largely set aside by more recent research.

Michael Vickery has stressed that the proper analysis of Chenla can only be undertaken on the basis of the original inscriptions. Most of these texts, written in Sanskrit often with a subsidiary text in old Khmer, recorded the affairs of the temples that clearly dominated the ancient landscape. Some surviving inscriptions refer to kings, place names, the titles and status of temple patrons, the extent of temple property, and the names and duties of those assigned to maintain the foundation. One of these from the temple of Kdei Ang, dating to AD 667, names members of an elite family that straddled the transition from Funan to Chenla. Other inscriptions describe a dynasty of rulers with fine Sanskrit names. The first ruler, Mahendravarman, claimed victories in the Mun Valley to the north. A successor, Ishanavarman, was widely recognized for his authority, and his capital has been identified at the large site of Ishanapura. An inscription from this site describes the valor and military prowess of Ishanavarman, a king ‘‘who extended the territory of his parents.’’

He was succeeded by his son Bhavavarman II, about whom little is known, save that he continued from the region of Ishanapura to maintain control over most, if not all, his father’s fiefs. Jayavarman I (about AD 635-680) was the great grandson of Ishanavarman. His inscriptions indicate the tightening of central power and control over a considerable area, the creation of new titles and administrators, and the availability of an army, the means of defense and destruction. A text described how King Jayavar-man’s commands were obeyed by ‘‘innumerable vassal kings.’’ Jayavarman also strengthened the legal code: ‘‘those who levy an annual tax, those who seize carts, boats, slaves, cattle, buffaloes, those who contest the kings orders, will be punished.’’ New titles were accorded to highly ranked retainers who fulfilled important posts in government. One lineage held the priestly position of hotar. Another functionary was a samantagajapadi, chief of the royal elephants, a military leader, while the dhanyakarapati would have controlled the grain stores. The king also appointed mratan and pon to a sabha, or council of state. Another inscription prescribes the quantities of salt to be distributed by barge to various foundations, and prohibits any tax on the vessels going up or down river. Thus, Jayavarman I intensified royal control over dependent fiefs begun by his great grandfather, Ishanavarman. Thereafter, this dynasty loses visibility, although the king’s daughter Jayadevi ruled from a center in the vicinity of Angkor.

There were, however, other dynasties of rulers in their own, independent centers. A succession of three queens ruled at Sambhupura, and controlled traffic up and down the Mekong River, and there was a line of kings with names ending in aditya, or rising sun, who ruled during the eighth century. There was also a local dynasty ruling the state of Canasapura in the upper Mun Valley under a King Bhagadatta.

Archaeologically, the kingdoms that fall under the umbrella of the Chinese term Chenla are recognized from their brick temples, encircling walls, and associated reservoirs. Ishanapura is dominated by three-walled precincts containing single-chambered temples. The doorways incorporate sandstone lintels and columns decorated with a range of motifs which drew upon India for their inspiration. One lintel from Wat En Khna shows a king in his throne chamber, surrounded by members of his court. The facades of the temples are also decorated in shaped bricks which include representations of palaces. These reveal aspects of richly ornamented wooden structures which have not survived.

The Chenla states were essentially agrarian, and their economy revolved round the temple. Temples were more than centers for devotion and worship, for they played a vital economic role in the management and deployment of agricultural surpluses. Most inscriptions from this period are concerned with their temples, and the provision of resources to maintain the personnel. Men of high status with the title pon are often mentioned for their role in temple management. Inscriptions indicate that they could donate communal land to the temple and organize their kin to produces surpluses. This system involved the accumulation of wealth in the form of rice, cloth, and land. Donations to the temple, which housed ancestral spirits, resulted in the accumulation of the merit necessary for a harmonious reincarnation.

Stored assets were also a form of tradable wealth. Surviving texts suggest that rice, cloth, or ironware could be traded, thus allowing pon to indulge in trade not only for basic food and cloth, but also bankable assets, such as gold and silver. Land could be mortgaged to a temple in return for silver or cloth, and the product of the land was assigned as a form of interest payment. A donor might gift products to the temple, but receive other goods in return, or deposit goods against which to make a later claim. The temple, then, performed a key role in the appropriation of a community asset into a medium for the creation and exchange of wealth items among the elite. The more successful could accumulate sufficient capital in this way to buy further land, or they could combine assets through marriage alliances and gain sufficient wealth to increase their power and status to such an extent as to control considerable areas. The established kings, therefore, were concerned with such wealth creation for it might encourage rivals, and their permission was often described as being necessary in the amalgamation of temples, and the rights to land ownership.

Many observers have cited Indianization as the key to understanding the rise of Chenla states, wherein the inspiration to increasing social hierarchies was due to Indian visitors introducing new ideas. This view has been criticized by underestimating the strong and continuing contribution of indigenous Khmer culture. Thus, Vickery has summarized the many references in the inscriptions to local gods worshipped in Chenla temples. The local matrilineal descent system continued, and the Khmer language took its place alongside Sanskrit in the inscriptions. He prefers the notion of an Indic veneer, wherein the elites in society selectively adopted those Indian traits that suited their objectives. These included the Sanskrit language for personal and place names, the Indian script, and architectural styles. They contributed to the increasingly strong divisions in society which signal the formation of states, but the essential characteristics of the Chenla kingdoms were Khmer.

During the eighth century, the number of inscriptions fell markedly, and the historic record became thin. This does not necessarily imply cultural decline. On the contrary, it was during this period that such large sites as Banteay Prei Nokor were occupied. The latter was probably the base of a ruler known as Jayavarman II, and it was he who founded the kingdom of Angkor.