Le Minh Khai's SEAsian History Blog (+ More)

For Cambodian history, there are various chronicles that record information, and the main chronicles begin by discussing events in the fourteenth century. However, the current versions of these chronicles were compiled much more recently, starting in the early nineteenth century.

In particular, in the early nineteenth century there was a Cambodian official by the name of Nong who produced a chronicle, undoubtedly based on earlier works. That text is no longer extant, but there are various chronicles that were later produced based on the Nong chronicle that are still extant and which scholars have consulted.

These chronicles are all quite similar to one another, and can be collectively referred to as the “Nong texts,” as they all derive from the Nong chronicle.

That said, there is another text, a list of kings, that also dates from the nineteenth century and which contains dates that different from those in the Nong texts. This has led to a lot of scholarly debate over the years. Further, one of the reasons why there has been so much debate about the dates in the Cambodian chronicles is that scholars have not been able to find evidence in external sources that corroborates information in the Nong texts for periods such as the fourteenth century.

What I have found, however, is that a Chinese text called the Ming shilu 明實錄 (Ming Veritable Records) does in fact confirm information in the Cambodian chronicles. The reason why scholars have not recognized this is because they have thought that only Chinese information about a place called “Zhenla” is about Cambodia, whereas what I have discovered is that Chinese information about a place called “Sanfoqi” is also about Cambodia, and more specifically, that Sanfoqi refers to Angkor (Kambuja) whereas Zhenla referred to the area of the lower Mekong (please see the previous posts for details).

Let us now take a look at what the Ming shilu confirms.

The above image summarizes the information about the fourteenth century in the Nong texts.

The names in white over a dark background are Khmer monarchs. The names in black over a tan background are the sons of Ayutthayan kings who ascended the throne after Angkor was captured by the Siamese.

According to the Nong chronicles, there were two times when the Siamese captured Angkor, once in 1353 and once in 1373.

Finally, the last monarch mentioned, Cau Ponhea Yat, is listed in the Nong texts as having ruled for a very long time. In actuality, there are details about that man’s reign which indicate that this was a period of instability. For instance, Cau Ponhea Yat was supposedly not officially crowned as king until many years after he came to power, and he moved to different places, such as a place called Pasan as well as Phnom Penh.

Our friend Michael Vickery (see the earlier post) declared that the information for the fourteenth century in the Cambodian chronicles was “fiction,” and he did so in large part because he could not find any external evidence for the above information.

In fact, there is evidence. After the Ming Dynasty came to power in 1368, envoys were sent to make contact with kingdoms in Southeast Asia. On 5 February 1374, an envoy arrived from Sanfoqi/Angkor representing a king named Da-ma-lai-sha-na-a-zhe 怛麻來沙那阿者, a name that is later recorded in the same text as Da-ma-sha-na-a-zhe 怛麻沙那阿者.

This directly corresponds with the rule of a king mentioned in the Nong chronicles as Thommeasokareach (Dhammāśokarāja). “Thommeasokareach” is how this man’s name would be pronounced in Khmer today, whereas Dhammāśokarāja more closely captures what the Indic script used to write Khmer actually records.

We do not know how exactly such a name would have been transferred into Chinese, but it is clear that the Chinese characters here are reproducing Dhammāśokarāja.

This king was said to rule from 1370-73, but in the Buddhist calendar that was employed in Cambodia, the final year of this monarch’s rule would have extended to March 1374. Therefore, the arrival of an envoy on 5 February 1374 representing Thommeasokareach (Dhammāśokarāja) falls right within this king’

So, in other words, with Thommeasokareach (Dhammāśokarāja) not only do we have external corroboration of information in the Nong texts, we also have confirmation for one of the dates in the fourteenth century as well.

From this starting point, let us now look around to see what other chronicles have to say, as well as to look at what further information the Ming shilu contains.