Update: No, I’m wrong in this post. I didn’t realize people can cover so much distance in a month. To get from Champa to say Sambor Prei Kuk in that time period looks like one would have to cover like 50 kilometers a day. I didn’t think that was possible, but apparently it is.
I never delete my mistakes, so I’ll leave this, but I’ll write an update soon.
Zhenla is the name of a premodern polity that everyone I know of thinks refers to “Cambodia.”
It doesn’t, at least not for most of its history.
I have long sensed this, but now I’ve finally figured out where it was most likely located. In particular, I’ve long felt that it was somewhere near the eastern coast of what is now southern Vietnam, and indeed, that is where we can find it.
There is geographic information that clearly places it in that area.
However, before we look at that information, there are two main issues that we need to understand, one regards the information in Chinese historical sources and the other is about Southeast Asian history in general.
Scholars like George Cœdès tried to locate Zhenla someplace far inland around what is now southern Laos.
Here is where we need to understand a key point regarding Chinese historical sources, and that is that they do not contain information about places so far inland. They contain information about the coasts, and places that were connected to the coasts, and southern Laos was far too distant from a coast to be recorded in Chinese sources.
Polities in premodern Southeast Asia tended to be a certain distance inland from the coast. The landscape of the coast was constantly changing, and it was a dangerous location because it was susceptible to attack. So, it was common for a polity to be based up a river from the coast. However, such polities still would have a trading base on or closer to the coast, an “access point,” as trade was a key source of wealth, and it was dangerous to allow foreigners to come right into your polity.
Regarding those trading bases or access points closer to the coast, this is where we need to understand a key point about Southeast Asian history that has been overlooked, and that is that there was intense competition for those trading bases, and some of the people who competed fiercely to control those trading bases were foreigners, both people from outside the region (think South Asia) and people from other polities within the region (think the Cham). And at times, those foreigners succeeded in getting control of trading bases.
Let’s now return to Zhenla.
The most helpful information that I have been able to find about Zhenla’s location comes from a passage in the Draft Institutional History of the Song (Song huiyao jigao 宋會要輯稿). In a record from 1119 AD, an envoy from Champa explained where his kingdom was located in relation to neighboring polities. This is what he said,
本國東抵大洋海，發船去諸國。南抵真臘國，計一月日程，別無水路。南抵真臘國港十八日程。西北抵交州四十日程，並是山路，水路只可一十七程。
To the east of the kingdom, one reaches the Great Ocean, from where ships depart to various kingdoms. To the south, one reaches the kingdom of Zhenla, a journey of about one month, with no alternative water route.
To the south, one reaches the port of Zhenla, a journey of eighteen days.
To the northwest, one reaches Jiaozhou [i.e., northern Vietnam], a journey of forty days overland through mountainous terrain. If traveling by water, it is a journey of only seventeen days.
Ok, so what we see here is information about how to get to Zhenla and northern Vietnam from Champa.
In the case of northern Vietnam, it clearly indicates two different ways to get there, one by land and one by sea.
In the case of Zhenla, it’s not quite as clear. The expression “with no alternative water route” (bie wu shuilu 別無水路), could mean that there was not a water route that could be used as an alternative to the one-month (implied overland) journey. Or it could mean that there was no (better) alternative water route than the one-month water route.
I think that it is the first case, and there is supporting evidence for that below, but either interpretation still works fine for what I will argue, because if Zhenla’s port was 18 days from Champa, then that would mean that one would still have to travel upriver from that port for at least another 12 days to reach the kingdom.
Ok, so where could this be describing?
I think that the most obvious location that this is describing is somewhere up the Saigon and Dong Nai rivers. The Dong Nai River begins in the central highlands and flows to the sea. Geographically, this was a prime location for trade and for a kingdom to be based.
And yet if we follow the extant historical scholarship, this region has “no history” until the second millennium AD. . . That makes no sense.
Today, there is a dam on the Dong Nai River, the Tri An Dam, which looks to me like the most probable location for a capital of Zhenla.
1) It appears to be a place where rivers and mountain trails converged and early French maps show overland routes to Cham areas. There was certainly a clear route to what is now Binh Thuan.
And interestingly, in early French maps there is an island up the Dong Nai river called “Culao Tho” using the Austronesian term for an island.
2) The earliest account of Zhenla, in the History of the Sui (646), mentions a mountain, and from that area of the Dong Nai River, the second tallest mountain in southern Vietnam, Chứa Chan Mountain, is visible.
3) It was protected from the coast, but there was also a great place for a port for engaging in trade in the area of what is now Saigon.
I recently translated the section on Zhenla in the History of the Sui and made the point that it appears to be describing a South Asia ruling elite. It also indicates that Zhenla conquered Funan, a place that was likely located in the area of what is now Cambodia.
Let us now look at how Zhenla was described in a later history, the Old History of the Tang (945).
真臘國，在林邑西北，本扶南之屬國，「崑崙」之類。在京師南二萬七百里，北至愛州六十日行。其王姓剎利氏。有大城三十餘所，王都伊奢那城。
風俗被服與林邑同。地饒瘴癘毒。海中大魚有時半出，望之如山。每五六月中，毒氣流行，即以牛豕祠之，不者則五穀不登。其俗東向開戶，以東為上。有戰象五千頭，尤好者飼以飯肉。
與鄰國戰，則象隊在前，於背上以木作樓，上有四人，皆持弓箭。國尚佛道及天神，天神為大，佛道次之。
武德六年，遣使貢方物。貞觀二年，又與林邑國俱來朝獻。太宗嘉其陸海疲勞，錫賚甚厚。
The kingdom of Zhenla is located to the northwest of Linyi and was originally a vassal state of Funan, of the “Kunlun” type. It lies 27,000 leagues south of the capital [Chang’an], and it takes sixty days of travel northward to reach Aizhou [in central Vietnam].
The king’s clan name is Kṣatriya [Chali shi 剎利氏]. There are more than thirty large cities, and the royal capital is Iśāna Citadel [Yishena cheng 伊奢那城].
Customs and clothing are the same as in Linyi. The land is filled with miasmic illnesses and poisonous vapors. At times, huge sea creatures emerge halfway from the water and look like mountains from afar. Each year in the fifth and sixth lunar months, pestilential vapors become widespread; in response, people offer sacrifices of oxen and pigs. If this is not done, the five grains will not ripen.
According to custom, houses open toward the east, and east is regarded as the most honored direction.
The kingdom possesses 5,000 war elephants. The best ones are fed with rice and meat. When the kingdom goes to war with neighboring states, elephants form the vanguard. Wooden towers are mounted on their backs, with four men in each tower, all armed with bows and arrows.
The kingdom reveres Buddhism and heavenly deities, with the deities ranked above and Buddhism just below.
In the sixth year of the Wude era [623 AD], an envoy was sent to present local products in tribute. In the second year of Zhenguan [628 CE], the kingdom again came together with Linyi to offer tribute at court. Emperor Taizong, impressed by their weariness from land and sea travel, bestowed generous gifts.
It is significant here that an overland route to Aizhou is mentioned. That would fit nicely with the location of Zhenla on the Dong Nai River, and would support the idea that the 30-day journey mentioned in the Draft Institutional History of the Song was indeed a reference to an overland journey between Champa and Zhenla.
The Old History of the Tang then talks about the division of Zhenla into two parts, Land Zhenla and Water Zhenla.
南方人謂真臘國為吉蔑國。自神龍以後，真臘分為二：半以南近海多陂澤處，謂之水真臘；半以北多山阜，謂之陸真臘 ，亦謂之文單國。高宗、則天、玄宗朝，並遣使朝貢。
水真臘國，其境東西南北約員八百里，東至奔陀浪州，西至墮羅鉢底國，南至小海，北即陸真臘。其王所居城號婆羅提拔。國之東界有小城，皆謂之國。其國多象。元和八年，遣李摩那等來朝。
People in the southern lands [nanfang ren 南方人] call the kingdom of Zhenla the kingdom of “Jimie” 吉蔑 [i.e., probably “Khmer”]. After the Shenlong era [705-707 CE], Zhenla split into two parts.
The southern half, near the sea and rich in marshes and lakes, is called Water Zhenla [Shui Zhenla 水真臘]. The northern half, mountainous and rugged, is called Land Zhenla [Lu Zhena 陸真臘], also known as the kingdom of Wendan 文單.
During the reigns of Gaozong, Empress Wu Zetian, and Xuanzong, envoys were regularly dispatched to the Tang court to present tribute.
Water Zhenla has a territory roughly 800 leagues in each direction. To the east it reaches Bantulang Prefecture [Panduranga], to the west it reaches the Tuoluobadi 墮羅鉢底 kingdom [Dvaravati], to the south it reaches the Small Sea [Xiaohai 小海), and to its north is Land Zhenla.
The city where the king resides is called Poluotiba Citadel [Puluotiba cheng 婆羅提拔城, Puradeva]. In the eastern frontier of the kingdom are many small citadels, each also called a “kingdom.” The country possesses many elephants.
In the eighth year of Yuanhe (813 CE), the envoy, Li Mona 李摩那 and others came to the court.
The earlier History of the Sui stated that “the kingdom of Zhenla is located to the southwest of Linyi” (i.e., the Cham area), and that it conquered Funan (i.e., the Cambodian area).
The Old History of the Tang, meanwhile, describes Water Zhenla as covering the lower Mekong and Cambodia. However, it records very little information about any interactions between Water Zhenla and the Chinese court.
Finally, later works, like the History of the Song, likewise describe Zhenla as covering a large area: “Its kingdom is to the south of Champa. To the east it borders the sea, to the west it connects with Bagan, and to the south it reaches Jialuohi [Chaiya]” (其國在占城之南，東際海，西接蒲甘，南抵加羅希。)
However, here again, these later Chinese sources also contain extremely limited information about interactions between Zhenla and the Chinese court.
As such, if we see Zhenla as “Cambodia,” then this makes absolutely no sense. Right when “Cambodia” was at its peak during the Angkorian period, there is virtually no information recorded about it in Chinese sources. . .
As I’ve said a billion times by now, what you see in Chines sources is that right at the time that Angkor emerges, there is a new term that appears, Sanfoqi (“Sam-fu-tse/tsai”) that is literally the name “Kambuja,” and I have provided tons of evidence to demonstrate that this.
But putting that aside, how do we explain this confusing information about “Zhenla”?
Let’s recall the points made above. In premodern Southeast Asia, 1) polities tended to be located inland from a trading port and that 2) there was intense rivalry for control of those trading ports.
When we look at early Chinese sources, we can see that Funan was an important point of trade, as was Champa. Where was the Funan port? I think it was on the southern coast of the Indochinese Peninsula (there is lots of evidence for that), but even if you want to imagine that people were sailing up the Mekong, you can do that for the purpose of what I’m saying here.
In between was the Saigon and Dong Nai rivers, also a wonderful site for engaging in trade, albeit a little bit further inland, and perhaps that is why that area did not develop as a trading base as early as Funan and Champa.
The Saigon River area was also a perfect site for interrupting and taking over the trade from those neighboring places. . .
This is what I think “the rise of Zhenla” and its conquest of Funan was all about. Who did that? From the information in the History of the Sui, it certainly doesn’t look like it was Southeast Asians who were in charge. . .
That said, it also doesn’t look like this effort to control the trade and the region lasted all that long either. And in the end, Zhenla went back to being what it originally had been, an inland kingdom with a port, albeit a port that was a bit out of the way to fully benefit from international trade.
Ok, so we see Zhenla suddenly appear in the History of the Sui and conquer Funan. Then in the Old History of the Tang we see a Water Zhenla that seems to control the former Funan area, but there seems to be little trade or contact.
Was there any other place at that time in the region that was engaging in trade and contact with the Chinese? Or is this lack of information something that we find across the board in Tang-era sources.
There was indeed a place that a lot of information was recorded about, and it was Cambodia’s #1 rival – Shepo (also known during the Tang period as Heling).
I have also said a billion times by now that this Shepo was not island Java, as most people think, but was the area right across the Gulf of Thailand from Cambodia in the area of the trans-peninsular crossing between Lake Songkhla and Kedah/Trang.
In the Old History of the Tang, the same text that has little information about Zhenla, we find Shepo BOOMING.
What follows is an AI translation that I’m too tired right now to check closely, but it should be ok.
訶陵，亦曰社婆，曰闍婆 ，在南海中。東距婆利，西墮婆登，南瀕海，北真臘。木為城，雖大屋亦覆以栟櫚。象牙為牀若席。出瑇瑁、黃白金、犀、象，國最富。有穴自湧鹽。以柳花、椰子為酒，飲之輒醉，宿昔壞。有文字，知星曆。食無匕筯。有毒女，與接輒苦瘡，人死尸不腐。王居 闍婆城。其祖吉延東遷於婆露伽斯城，旁小國二十八，莫不臣服。其官有三十二大夫，而大坐敢兄為最貴。山上有郎卑野州，王常登以望海。夏至立八尺表，景在表南二尺四寸。貞觀中，與墮和羅、墮婆登皆遣使者入貢，太宗以璽詔優答。墮和羅丐良馬，帝與之。至上元間，國人推女子為王，號「悉莫」，威令整肅，道不舉遺。大食君聞之，齎金一囊置其郊，行者輒避，如是三年。太子過，以足躪金，悉莫怒，將斬之，羣臣固請，悉莫曰：「而罪實本於足，可斷趾。」羣臣復為請，乃斬指以徇。大食聞而畏之，不敢加兵。大曆中，訶陵使者三至。元和八年，獻僧祇奴四、五色鸚鵡、頻伽鳥等。憲宗拜內四門府左果毅，使者讓其弟，帝嘉美，並官之。訖大和，再朝貢。咸通中，遣使獻女樂。
Ho-ling 訶, also known as Shepo 社婆) and Shepo 闍婆, lies within the South Sea 南海. To the east, it borders Poli 婆利; to the west, it meets Duopodeng 墮婆登; to the south, it is bounded by the sea; and to the north, it borders Zhenla 真臘.
The citadel walls are made of wood, and even large buildings are roofed with palm leaves. Ivory is used to make beds and mats. The region produces tortoiseshell, yellow and white gold, rhinoceros horn, and elephants, and is among the wealthiest of lands. There is a natural salt spring that bubbles up from underground.
Alcohol is made from willow flowers and coconuts, which is intoxicating and can leave people disoriented for a full day and night. The people have writing, and knowledge of astronomy and calendars. They eat without spoons or chopsticks.
There are poison women in the country—anyone who has contact with them suffers from festering sores and dies; the corpse does not decay [Yikes!!].
The king resides in Shepo Citadel 闍婆城. His ancestor Jiyan 吉延 had migrated east to Poluojiasi Citadel 婆露伽斯城. The area is surrounded by twenty-eight smaller kingdoms, all of which have submitted to his rule.
There are thirty-two ministers, the highest-ranking of whom is titled “Dazuo Ganxiong” 大坐敢兄.
On a mountain lies the region of Langbiyezhou 郎卑野州, where the king often climbs to gaze out at the sea. During the summer solstice, they erect an eight-foot pole, and the shadow falls 2 feet 4 inches to the south, indicating knowledge of solar observation.
During the Zhenguan era [627–649], Heling, along with Duoheluo 墮和羅 and Duopodeng 墮婆登, all sent envoys to present tribute. Emperor Taizong responded favorably and granted them imperial decrees and seals. Duoheluo requested fine horses, which the emperor granted.
Around the Shangyuan era [674–676], the people of the country chose a woman as their ruler, known as Simuo 悉莫. She ruled with strict laws and clear authority, such that lost items were not picked up on the roads.
The Dashi 大食 ruler heard of her fame and placed a bag of gold at the edge of her territory. People passing by always avoided it, and this continued for three years. However, when the crown prince passed by, he stepped on the gold with his foot. Simuo was enraged and intended to execute him, but the ministers pleaded with her. She said:
“The offence lies with his foot—his toe may be severed.”
After further pleading, she agreed to cut off just a finger as punishment and had it publicly displayed. When the Arabs heard of this, they were awed and did not dare to attack.
During the Dali era [766–779], Heling sent envoys three times. In the eighth year of Yuanhe [813], they presented four monks, multicolored parrots, and birds like the kalaviṅka [pinqie niao 頻伽鳥]. Emperor Xianzong appointed the envoy as Left Guard of the Inner Four Gates, and the envoy ceded the honor to his younger brother. The emperor praised him for his humility and appointed both with official titles.
Until the Dahe era [827–835], they continued to present tribute. During the Xiantong era [860–874], they sent envoys to offer female musicians.
Now THAT is the type of information that I would expect to find recorded about a Southeast Asian trading center. Why then was there no such information recorded during the Tang period about Cambodia?
If I were to create a broad overview of the possible events that transpired, this is what it would look like:
1) In the early centuries AD, the main trans-peninsular routes were the ones around Chumpon, Chaiya and Surat Thani, and the kingdom of Funan conquered these areas and directed that trade through its port.
2) During this time period, the trans-peninsular crossing from the Lake Songkhla to Kedah/Trang gradually developed. This is the place that Chinese referred to as Shepo (Jaba), and it is the term that we find in Arabic accounts too (and the story of the female ruler is in an Arabic account as well). This was actually a superior place to cross the peninsula, given the extensive waterways, but it seems to have developed a bit later perhaps because early travelers followed the northern route around the Bay of Bengal and then crossed over at the closest sites.
3) Somewhere around 600 AD, a group of South Asian people, with their ruler claiming to be a Kṣatriya, established themselves in the Saigon area and launched an effort from there to conquer Funan and control the lucrative trade routes. Did they initially take control of both the port and the inland capital up the Dong Nai river? That’s not clear, but it is possible.
4) They were swiftly defeated by someone, and for the next couple centuries, Shepo dominated the trade in the area. How did they prevent the trade from passing through Cambodia? Did Shepo send armies to defeat Zhenla?
5) As for Land Zhenla and Water Zhenla, this seems to describe the situation after Zhenla’s initial attempt to conquer Funan failed or was challenged. Land Zhenla seems unproblematic to me. It is the base in the mountainous area in the upper reaches of the Dong Nai River. Weather or not it also included the port in this period is not clear, but it definitely did in later centuries.
As for Water Zhenla, this appears to be the area that Zhenla originally conquered, the former area of Funan. Given that there is so little information about it, my guess would be that it was somehow cut off from the regional trade networks (was Shepo involved?).
6) In 802, Jayavarman II established a new kingdom and “declared independence” from “Java,” that is, “Shepo.” This has to be related to whatever was going on in “Water Zhenla,” and why it was cut off from the trade networks while Shepo was booming.
7) Then in the tenth and eleventh centuries, we see from Chinese sources that there was a major rivalry between Sanfoqi/Kambuja and Shepo.
8) In the midst of that, the area of the trans-peninsular crossing from Lake Songkhla to Kedah/Trang was attacked by the Chola kingdom in the early eleventh century, probably not unlike the events that transpired in 600 in Zhenla .
Again, there was an ongoing story in early Southeast Asia that was about trade ports and the efforts of people, including foreigners, to control those ports.
Zhenla was also part of that history. Zhenla was not “Cambodia.” It tried to be, or someone there tried to get it to be, but that did not last very long.
From this understanding, I would say that later statements in Chinese sources about Zhenla’s expanse are holdovers from earlier times. After the Sui, the Chinese had very little information about Zhenla, and probably just added such statements as filler.
And yes, I know that someone will wonder, what about Zhou Daguan’s thirteenth-century Record of the Customs of Zhenla, a work that describes a journey to Angkor? As I’ve said before, that work only mentions “Zhenla” in its title and in a preface that was compiled later. We have no evidence that Zhou Daguan himself actually thought that he was in a place called “Zhenla.”
The place where Zhou Daguan entered the region was in the area of the eastern edge of the Mekong delta, where Zhenla’s port was (hence, I think, the reason for the name of the text, whoever came up with it), and then he passed through various other polities, some of which he names, until he reached Angkor.
Postscript: Some kind readers pointed me to the Cát Tiên archaeological site. That is a bit further up the Dong Nai River than I was imagining Zhenla would be, but it would explain why there was so little contact between Zhenla and China.
There is clear evidence of Indic culture.
One of the things that Zhenla definitely had a lot of was elephants, and that location would make sense.
Finally, it would also make sense that the Central Highlands would be involved in international trade. I’m sure the Cham brought things down and exported them, and Zhenla and Champa fought a lot, so it would make sense that they would be in competition, and perhaps Zhenla brought products from the Highlands down the Dong Nai River to avoid Champa.
You should read Peter Harris “The Empire Looks South: Chinese Perceptions of Cambodia before and during the Kingdom of Angkor” . https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Looks-South-Perceptions-Cambodia/dp/6162151964 . It could confirms or challenge what you looking for in the Chinese sources. It had a compilations of translated Chinese sources about Funan and Zhenla, (not Sanfoqi of course). Harris is a Sinologist who can’t read the inscriptions which is similar to your background. He synthesized his own translations of Chinese sources with the works of epigraphists like Coedes, Vickery and Claude Jacques.
Zhenla was either Wat Phu or Sambor Prei Kuk, wasn’t based entirely of Chinese texts. In your translation “The king’s clan name is Kṣatriya [Chali shi 剎利氏]. There are more than thirty large cities, and the royal capital is Iśāna Citadel [Yishena cheng 伊奢那城].”
Isanapura is Sambor Prei Kuk. Isanvaraman had his both inscriptions in Wat Phu and Angkor Borei declaring his dominion. Sambor Prei Kuk was also likely the largest city in Mainland Southeast Asia in the 7th century. Vickery believed that it is the site of the Zhenla that displaced Angkor Borei (Funan) as the most major Khmer mandala. They certainly would have the means to. The temple complex in Sambor is the largest Khmer state temple before the Angkorian era. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=106797
The Chinese records of Zhenla and Funan being full of misconceptions are something that are already accepted. In his 2006-2007 lectures translated in Khmer by Mam Vannary, Vickery believed that Zhenla are a product of Chinese mis-identification in the beginning. He considered “Land Zhenla” to be “Sambor Prei Kuk”, while “Water Zhela” is based on another “Sambor” in the present-day Kratie west of the Mekong. Coedes believing that Champassak, being the site of Zhenla is not exactly based on lack of evidence either. The city and the mountain range that Wat Phu is on, is also a major archealogical site, and home to old Khmer worships. https://publications.dainst.org/journals/joga/article/view/3968
In either case, Zhenla in their opinion, is kind of shorthand for the most powerful Khmer polity after Funan and before Angkor. There are a lot more synthesization in Harris book, and their own works, which are based on their own readings of the inscriptions rather than Chinese records. Would have been interesting to see how you compare it with the records of Sanfoqi.
In either case of Funan and Zhenla, it is mostly archaeology that provided the most information.
Thanks for sharing this. I’m going to look into it.
There are a couple of things that I can say in the meantime.
1) I completely disagree with this: “The Chinese records of Zhenla and Funan being full of misconceptions are something that are already accepted.” The reason I disagree with is because:
2) Michael Vickery was literally bat-shit crazy when it came to the things he said about Chinese sources. And it’s people like him who declared that the Chinese sources are filled with misconceptions. . .
3) I need to track down exactly which inscription(s) mentions Isanapura (if there is/are such inscription[s]) and I need to verify that it/they is/are unquestionably referring to Sambor Prei Kuk. If you know of it/them off the top of your head, I’d love to know.
One of the things that Coedes/Vickery et al. would do is to find an inscription in one place that mentions a certain ruler [or a sobriquet that might or might not refer to a certain ruler], and then say, “oh, this must be his capital, and the Chinese say the capital was called X, so this must be X.” We can’t assume that, and I want to make sure that this is not a case of that. So far, I haven’t succeeded. In their writings I see them declaring that Sambor Prei Kuk was Isanapura, but I don’t see them citing an inscription that shows this. If the evidence is only coming from the Chinese side, I would be hesitant to make that conclusion.
When I wrote the above post, I had forgotten that the Zhu fan zhi (1225) lists the capital of Zhenla as Lovek. . .
Update: I didn’t realize that you could travel overland from Champa to say the area of Sambor Prei Kuk in a month (at least I don’t think I could), but apparently it is possible (50k a day?). So, yea, that’s the Dong Nai River theory down the drain.
So, this still fits what I have long thought: by the Song, there were two access points to the Cambodian world: Sanfoqi (from the south coast, probably through Ha Tien) and Zhenla (from the east, probably through Saigon, but possibly up the Mekong).
But what I still struggle to understand and explain, however, is why Zhenla is so insignificant in the Chinese sources (this is why the Dong Nai River theory made sense). Sanfoqi was extremely active, while Zhenla was not. If Zhenla was a strip that connected the east coast with Sambor Prei Kuk and other places in the inland, then it is strange that there is so little evidence of trade and tribute, unless it was all going to the south. In which case what were the rare tribute missions from Zhenla? Zhenla’s insignificance at a time when Cambodia was at its peak has to be explained.
Ultimately, the information in Chinese sources is a view from the coast. Contrary to many crazy ideas that Vickery expressed, Chinese did not know what was going on in the interior, but that is essential for knowing how Zhenla and Sanfoqi relate. Finally, I don’t think either of those places were Angkor, which makes me wonder what Angkor’s economic relations with places like Sambor Prei Kuk, Lovek, and Angkor Borei were.
I don’t know how to format the paragraphs in this website, so excuse me for all the ugly format. I guessed comments with links disappeared until approved.
1) I can’t read the primary sources directly, as an amateur, excuse my mistakes and my citation is crap. I do read the people who read them directly and a few things are common.
2) the reasons the Chinese records can give misconceptions, is that they are often just abridged, or hearsays, and need to be taken critically. There can be lost-in-translation passages. Zhou Daquan said that there are no bows or horse saddles, but in the bas reliefs of the temples, there really are plenty of bows and horse saddles. The records even contradict each others. And as you suggested that Zhenla in the Zhou Daguan records might be a later addition.
3) In 2006, Vickery believed that there are many Khmer mandalas, and the Chinese called them all Funan or Zhenla, because accuracy isn’t as rigorous and their visits (of the record writers) are not frequent. His alternate view is that “the Chinese records in the 8th century are wrong ” and that there were two at least two major independent “Zhenla” states along with more minor polities. One is in Sambor Prei Kuk, Kampong Thom, and the others is in Sambor, Kratie along the Mekong. The one in Kratie might be where Water Zhenla, where the travel from Champa is from, and Samborpura (Kratie) is a major trading port. Cham arts are seen in Laos in this time, as in the recent PBS documentary “Lost Treasures of Angkor: Ancient Laos Revealed”.
Right or wrong, I’m no position to judge, it is nearly twenty year old. On the other hand, Harris or one others, raised the possibility that “Zhenla” derived from “Tonle” the Khmer words for “Rivers”. I think it is accurate etymology. Zhenla could be any polity up the river.
4. In that same lectures series, Vickery stated that there are about 7 inscriptions about Isanavarman I in Sambor Prei Kuk or nearby. There is one K.438 where a mratan (official) married his daughter. There are others inscription all around the south. But Vickery believed that while he may be the most powerful king in the time, his main power is concentrated in Kampong Thom. It made sense that the city Isanapura is named after him. Similar to Yashodharapura (Angkor) is named after Yashovarman.
In Paul Levy 2003 paper “As in Heaven, So on Earth: The Politics of Vishnu, Siva and Harihara Images in Preangkorian Khmer Civilisation” which you can googled. He stated ” The identification of Sambor Prei Kuk with Isanavarman’s
capital, Isanapura- a name that appears in various forms in both Chinese texts and local inscriptions – is based on several inscriptions found on the site that mention Isanavarman in conjunction with extravagant dedications made there.” I think Isanapura might be from inscriptions not in Sambor Prei Kuk, but mentioning it as where Isanavarman reigned from.
5. In Harris book, he cited multiple historians believed that “the three hundred years freeze between Zhenla and China” is due to agriculture being their main economy of Angkor with international trade being low in their priority. They did not figured Sanfoqi as Cambodia, of course, which would change the dynamic.
6. The current linkage of Funan, Zhenla and Angkor came from the works of epigraphists who studied the genealogy rather than the Chinese records. I might wrote the passage in Harris book later and see what you think of it.
Thank you very much for these notes.
Yes, I found K.438. Ok, if that’s the best we have then I understand, but my goodness that is weak evidence. Isanapura appears after a passage which Coedes glosses as “(suite une liste de pays)” but if you look up the terms, many of them are unknown, and appear to be more topographical. And then the inscription is about the establishment of something which is also unknown, “cala tnah.”
Then Isanapura also appears in K.436 where there are is clear mention of places like Lingapura, Cambhupura, and then it says that a guy [did something in/to/at (missing text)] Isanapura, after which Coedes has “Il a donnée ici des buffles,” but the Sanskit section has “tatra” meaning the donation was done “there” instead of “here.” Maybe that is just how the terminology was used in Sanskrit, I’m not sure, but ok, yes, the term Isanapura existed, but there is very little to go on here beyond that.
As for the 300 year freeze, I’m assuming that means the ~10th-12th centuries? Sanfoqi was booming then. However, almost nothing there seems to have anything to do with Angkor, accept for a couple of references to the Jambi Kingdom, which, following the information in the History of the Song that “the king is called Jambi [modern pronunciation],” I think was samdaech. And the fact that this had to be mentioned (that the tribute was coming from the Samdaech’s kingdom) is a sign to me that the involvement of Angkor in tribute missions was limited.
Trade was possible at Sanfoqi on the coast, but the actual place was inland somewhere, however, I see no evidence that it was as far away as Angkor. As such, I get a sense that there were two Cambodian worlds: a world of international trade in the lower Mekong, and an. . . agricultural society? hydraulic society? (I’m not sure what the best term to use is) around Angkor.
Finally, you had two entry points (the south coast and the east coast). I think that the south coast entry point is what Chinese called Sanfoqi, and the east coast entry point was what they called Zhenla. In terms of tribute and trade, Zhenla seems to have been very inactive throughout the entire period. How do we explain that? My only guess is that one had to travel too far inland and perhaps it was too dangerous to do so. With Sanfoqi, you could trade at the coast.
Oh, and on the topic of genealogies. . . I came across this paragraph by Vickery:
“A more forceful policy of centralization was instituted by Jayavarman I (6577-681?), who may also, through his mother, have been in a line of descent from Isanavarman, and who does not appear to have been of the Adhyapura family, although he was in a way adopted by them retrospectively, meaning that he probably married into their group. A genealogy which may possibly be his suggests that his father was one type of traditional ritual specialist, a stac, who probably also descended from the main line of kings, and was thus a cousin of Jayavarman’s mother, strengthening the latter’s claim to kingship over other members of his generation.”
Do scholars today really have confidence that the genealogical information created by Coedes, Jacques, Vickery etc. is solid? Because this paragraph is complete mush. What can anyone do with it? I have the same issue with Coedes, but maybe people in the field think differently?
Thanks for the info. I typed a page and a half from Harris, it disappeared. The inscription is K.53 and was discussed in Peter Harris” The Empire Look South” page 116-117 regarding the “Lineage Linkage between Zhenla and Funan” preceded with his translation of the Book of Sui.
I am an amateur, I can’t read the inscriptions, much less pre-Angkorian inscriptions which still used the Pallavan script. Afaik, Vickery was the main scholar of pre-Angkorian period. However on this paragraph, which I don’t know where it is from, I think Vickery seem to believe that Jayavarman I came to the throne via his mother line or became a the head of Adhyapura family by marriage. Having already a strong claim with his father and his mother, along with marriage to another strong branch, he became the king.
This is common with the royal Khmer succession system that can came from the female line or marriage as attested by the first recorded king of Funan. In fact, probably Vickery most cited contribution to history that the Khmer royal family followed a “conical structure” which is much better explained in a graph. In his paper, “The Reign of Sūryavarman I and Royal Factionalism at Angkor”
“my proposal here about the Angkor succession system makes such questions of legitimacy nearly irrelevant.81 All descendants of the dynastic founder, real or mythical, have some claim to the throne, and with each generation the ranking becomes more complex and subject to reinterpretation. The most ‘illegitimate’ among the pre-llth century Angkor kings would have been the sons of Yasovarman, Harsavarman I and Isanavarman II, and Harsavarman III, son of Jayavarman IV, all three of whom, significantly, enjoyed only brief ephemeral reigns.”
“The succession of kings in the first two centuries of Angkor, rather than indicating parallel dynasties,82 or cases of simple usurpation, suggests such a rotation of kingship among lineage branches, marred by attempts at ‘usurpation’ when Yasovarman and Jayavarman IV attempted to secure succession for their sons rather than allowing the throne to pass to brothers or cousins or nephews. In these cases, then, the definition of ‘usurper’ and ‘legitimate successor’ is the opposite of the conventional view. In particular, Jayavarman IV, long viewed by modern scholars as the Angkorean usurper par excellence, now appears as legitimate successor to Yasovarman, and the seemingly conflicting statements about his family position are only made coherent, as I have shown, by the hypothesis that he was grandson of Indravarman via Mahendradevi.”
“Thus in the factional conflicts of the early 11th century, Suryavarman and his supporters were legitimate heirs of Indravarman’s branch of the extended royal family”
Basically, the throne did not always passed from father to son. Jayavarman II was succeed by his son Jayavarman III. But Jayavarman III wasn’t succeeded by his son but by his nephew, Indravarman who got it from his maternal line and married Jaya III daughter. That explained why Jaya IV, being a grandson of Indravarman via his mother, was able to be crowned king despite the throne previously went to his uncle, Yashovarman, son of Indravarman. Yashovarman also claimed it via his mother lineage instead of his father, the legitimate king.
In the paragraph you bring up. Jaya I got the throne via his claims of his maternal, paternal and matrimonial lineage.
Thanks for the comments. Have you read this? It discusses some of the issues we’ve been talking about:
https://storage.knaw.nl/2024-01/K%C4%81lid%C4%81sas-Kingship-among-the-Khmers-Goodall-web.pdf
I find it to be extremely lucid and logical. And I completely agree with the author’s approach, which is to put aside the secondary scholarship and just look at the primary sources anew.
Thanks for the PDF. I thought that was “looking at primary sources anew” was already a long-standing trend particularly with Western historians of the region (at least in Cambodia anyway), because Vickery, Jacque, Soverus and others kept finding issues and mistakes with Coedes interpretations. The reasons why “secondary sources” are used, are because it is hard to master all the skills and knowledge needed.
Vickery kept bemoaning in multiple papers that the scholarship of Cambodian historical society slowed down because it came to be dominated by Coedes and other Indologists/Sanskritist, instead of Mon-Khmer linguists like Pou Soveros and Ayomenier. Coedes did not have much understanding of Khmer indigenous practices like Soveros, so his constructions of the Angkorian society is based on his knowledge of India. In your pdf, Goodall is an Sanskrit specialist and he gave an inscriptions from his knowledge of Indian religious beliefs, while he probably cannot or is not comfortable enough to write about the Khmer indigenous practices.
You may be interested in this. In his phd thesis, and these two lectures from Hunter Watson, an Old Mon specialist. He already described major mistakes of Coedes and subsequent scholarships misconceptions, about “Dvaravati cultural sphere” and several mis-identification of inscriptions as being Mons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyApgkop11k and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtEmeQeyVBo . In Ian Lowman dissertation, about the Descendants of Kambu, he hold the beliefs that the Khorat Plateau and Lavopura was originally dominated by Mons (still could be) because it is unlikely he able to master Old Mon epigraphy to check it.