The Reign of Suryavarman I and Royal Factionalism at Angkor
by Michael Vickery
Usurper or legitimate continuator of the Indravarman dynasty in the 11th century? The case for Suryavarman I.
Publication: Journal of Southeast Asian Studies , Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 226-244 | Cambridge University Press on behalf of Department of History, National University of Singapore
Published: 2006
Author: Michael Vickery
Pages: 19
Language : English
pdf 459.3 KB
Was Suryavarman I (1002−49) (សូរ្យវរ្ម័នទី១, posthumously known as Nirvanapada) of Malay origin (from Tambranlinga), inclined to tie privileged relations with the Chola Kingdom (Tamilnadu, South India), or a legitimate heir to the founders of Angkor? In this fascinating essay, author Michael Vickery takes us back to the two first centuries of the Angkorean Kingdom, revisiting scriptuary and written sources, as well as assertions made by illustrious Khmerologists such as G. Coedès, L.P. Briggs or P. Stern.
The author brings up some important insights about the passation of power in early Angkor, noting: ‘The succession of kings in the first two centuries of Angkor, rather than indicating parallel dynasties, 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 modem 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 by the hypothesis that he was grandson of Indravarman via Mahendradevi.’
He goes on:‘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, Jayaviravarman represented another branch now lost from the records but possibly apparent in the earlier Jayaviravarman of Prasat Kravan, and the aristocratic families opposed to Suryavarman and claiming descent from Jayavarman II were of still another branch which had been relegated to non-royal bureaucratic status ever since the throne passed from Jayavarman III to Indravarman.’
The author also remarks that Suryavarman I more or less followed ‘the rather cyclical pattern of development (recognized by Philippe Stern), a regular order of priorities in the construction activities of four of the great Angkor reigns — Indravarman (877−89), Yasovarman (889−900), Rajendravarman (944−68) and Jayavarman VII. Each of these reigns began with some kind of public works, usually large reservoirs (Indravarman, Yasovarman, Jayavarman), or the rehabilitation of the capital, including its waterworks (Rajendravarman). Then they built ancestral temples in honour of their immediate ancestors, and finally a temple mountain for the worship of the central state cult.’
Photo: The Baphuon Temple near Angkor, the construction of which has been attributed to King Suryavarman I (Source: SEAArch)
Tags: Chola, Jayavarman V, Preah Vihear, Indravarman I, Khmer Kings , Chenla, Java
About the Author
Michael Vickery
Michael Vickery (April 1 1931, Billings, Montana, June 29 2017, Battambang, Cambodia) was an American historian and lecturer with a passion for Cambodia.
In the preface to Cambodia: 1975 – 1982 (1984), he summarized his personal involvment with the country with the following:
I first arrived in Cambodia in July 1960 to begin work as an English language teacher in local high schools under one of the U.S. government aid programs to that country. In that capacity I spent nearly four years in Cambodia, the first two in Kompong Thorn, then a year in Siemreap, and a fourth academic year in Phnom Penh, cut short in March 1964 as a result of Sihanouk’s termination of all U.S. aid projects.
During that time I acquired fluency in Kluner, began studying, through examination of old newspaper files and conversations with friends, the post-1945 political history of Cambodia, and decided to make the country the
main focus of academic research which I intended to undertake.In March 1964 I was transferred to a similar position in Vientiane, Laos, where I remained for three more years and during which I was able to make regular extended visits to Cambodia. Then, after spending three years (1967−70) at Yale University, I returned to Cambodia in late 1970 for nearly two years of dissertation research there and in Thailand; and except for one more brief visit in 1974 I was then cut off from direct contact with the country until 1981, when I was able to travel there for three weeks.
Although my original interest in Cambodia was in the contemporary period, I kept pushing further back into the country’s history until I produced a dissertation and other writings on the 14th-16th centuries, something which occupied most of my research time from 1970 through 1977; and after 1973 I virtually ceased collecting o’r organizing material on the contemporary situation.
The turn taken by the revolution after April 1975 surprised me as it did nearly everyone else, but I found the first wave of atrocity stories over the next year suspect and felt that given the squalid record of our own country
in Indochina, Americans who could not view the new developments with at least qualified optimism should shut up.
His doctoral thesis research in Cambodia, Thailand and Malaysia lasted from 1970 to 1977, when he completed it under the title Cambodia After Angkor: The Chronicular Evidence for the Fourteenth to Sixteenth Centuries. That same year, Vickery received the academic title of Doctor of Philosophy in history from Yale University.
Known for his liberal views, he later specialized in history of modern Cambodia, contributed numerous columns for the Phnom Penh Post from 1992 to 2007. He also taught Ancient History at the Royal University of Fine Arts (RUFA) in Phnom Penh.