Chenla
Chenla or Zhenla is the Chinese designation for the vassal of the kingdom of Funan preceding the Khmer Empire that existed from around the late 6th to the early 9th century in Indochina. The name was still used in the 13th century by the Chinese envoy Zhou Daguan, author of The Customs of Cambodia. It appears on the Mao Kun map. However, modern historiography applies the name exclusively to the period from the late 6th to the early 9th century. This period of Cambodian history is known by historians as the Pre-Angkor period. It is doubted whether Chenla ever existed as a unitary kingdom, or if this is a misconception by Chinese chroniclers. Most modern historians assert that "Chenla" was in fact just a series of loose and temporary confederations of principalities in the pre-Angkor period.
Etymology
"Chenla" or "Zhenla" was the name given in Chinese accounts of an entity that sent tributes to Chinese emperors. The word "Chenla" or "Zhenla" and likewise Funan are unknown in the Old Khmer language. Folk etymology attempts to link Chenla to a translation of its Chinese name as "Pure Beeswax", which was one of its regional commodities mentioned in Chinese annals. It has been suggested that the name means "Defeated Siam" as Zhenla has been reconstructed to Tsienliäp in Tang dynasty pronunciation, which is similar in sound to the Cambodian town Siem Reap whose name is often taken to mean "Flattened Siam". However, it has been pointed out that this derivation is problematic as conflicts between Siam and Cambodia occurred centuries after the name was first used. Therefore, although the names Chenla and Siem Reap could perhaps be related, Michael Vickery argued that the original meanings of both names are unknown.Similar explanation however may apply to a later variant form Zhanla ; according to author Peter Harris: "It very likely means 'Defeated Chams' since Zhan is the word in Chinese for Cham." He also noted the explanation given in Mingshi: "During the qingyuan reign period of the Song dynasty, Cambodia wiped out Champa and took over its land. Because of this, the country changed its name to Zhanla. But during the Yuan dynasty it went on being called Zhenla."
Chen La may have been known through several other names such as Wen Dan or according to Tatsuo Hoshino Po-Lou, Wen Dan being its capital.
Following Hindu god king tradition the king chose the Sanskrit name of a patron deity or an avatar, followed by the suffix –varman, meaning 'protected by', obeying the code of conduct Manusmṛti, the Laws of Manu for the Kshatriya warrior caste.
History
Origins
Most of the Chinese recordings on 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. 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, yet under its ruler, Citrasena Mahendravarman, conquered Funan after Chenla had gained independence.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.
The origins of Chenla's aristocracy, whom author Michael Vickery called the "Dângrêk Chieftains", are obscure. 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 names a ruler Vīravarman, who as his name suggests 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.
The New Book of Tang asserts that shortly after 706, the country was split into Land Chenla and. The names signify a northern and a southern half, which may conveniently be referred to as Upper and Lower Chenla. 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.
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.
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. 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.
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 in Champasak Province, Laos once belonging to the Khmer civilization. The local Vat Phou stele mentions the name of King Devanika, king of kings - yet researchers do not relate the monarch to the "Dangrek Chieftains". 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. At the end of the sixth century, Bhavavarman and Chitrasena attacked Funan together and subdued it around 627–649.
The obvious fact that Funan and Chenla are "vague concepts" that do not apply 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 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".
Land and Water Chenla
The Tang histories mentioned that after the end of the reign of shénlóng Zhēnlà came to be divided in two realms, Lùzhēnlà or Pólòu ) and Shuīzhēnlà 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.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.
In the view of the historian Sujit Wongthes, Land Chenla is located in Isan, while Water Chenla is situated on the Tonlé Sap area in Cambodia.
Decline
The number of inscriptions declined sharply during the eighth century. 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, 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.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.
Society
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.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.
The people of Chenla, whose base was Champassak in about 550, established their capital city at Isanapura by about 600.
According to Paul Pelliot, Sambhupura was the capital of Land Chenla and Vyadhapura was the capital of , but, according to George Coedès, Baladityapura was the capital of Water Chenla and Wen Tan was Land Chenla.