THESIS FOR THE AWARD OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN ARTS _________ DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY ____________ POWER AND PRAGMATISM IN THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF ANGKOR EILEEN LUSTIG _________ UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY 2009 Figure 1 Location map 1 Abstract The relationship between the Angkorian Empire and its capital is important for understanding how this state was sustained. The empire’s political economy is studied by analysing data from Pre-Angkorian and Angkorian period inscriptions in aggregated form, in contrast to previous studies which relied mainly on detailed reading of the texts. The study is necessarily broad to overcome the constraints of having relatively few inscriptions which relate to a selected range of topics, and are partial in viewpoint. The success of the pre-modern Khmer state depended on: its long-established communication and trade links; mutual support of rulers and regional elites; decentralised administration through regional centres; its ability to produce or acquire a surplus of resources; and a network of temples as an ideological vehicle for state integration. The claim that there was a centrally controlled command economy or significant redistribution of resources, as for archaic, moneyless societies is difficult to justify. The mode of control varied between the core area and peripheral areas. Even though Angkor did not have money, it used a unit of account. Despite being an inland agrarian polity, the Khmer actively pursued foreign trade. There are indications of a structure, perhaps hierarchical, of linked deities and religious foundations helping to disseminate the state’s ideology. The establishment of these foundations was encouraged by gifts and privileges granted to elite supporters of the rulers. Contrary to some views, Angkor was not excessively rigid or unusually hierarchical and autocratic when compared with contemporary analogous states. Its political economy is marked by three simultaneous cycles indicative of changing power relationships: cycles of royal inscriptions; of non-royal inscriptions; and fluctuating control over peripheral territories. Its processes and strategies were sufficiently flexible for it to endure as an empire for approximately six centuries, despite internal and external disturbances. 2 Acknowledgments This thesis had its beginnings in the decision to do something I had been advised against many years ago, on the grounds that women in the field of archaeology had few opportunities for employment. The relevance of this piece of logic had now passed. For encouragement to commence in the undergraduate program, I’d like to thank both Terry and my supervisor for this thesis, Roland Fletcher, who convinced me that enrolling was a better option than sitting in on classes. Over the years, Roland has assisted in many ways – in sharing his understanding of Southeast Asia and theory of archaeology, suggesting directions for my research and pointing out ‘glitches’ in my arguments. The Greater Angkor Project, which was Roland’s baby, became the umbrella under which I first visited Cambodia and subsequently returned for some of my research. I would like to thank Roland. I have received friendship and considerable assistance from within the University of Sydney and I would first like to thank my three generous research colleagues, Damian Evans, Mitch Hendrickson and Martin Polkinghorne, who were always willing to share ideas, make suggestions, and provide data or technical assistance. The perspectives from their disciplines were directly and indirectly relevant to my research. I would also like to thank Aedeen Cremin and Gaby Ewington for showing me their papers which were not yet published and Aedeen for seeking out data in Bangkok, Canberra and elsewhere. I would not have been able to make use of the Khmer texts without the assistance I received on many occasions from Michael Vickery, whose knowledge of the inscriptions and of the Khmer world I tapped for linguistic, historical and cultural issues — not always receiving an answer that simplified my task, indeed sometimes the opposite. I wish to thank Michael. I also wish to acknowledge two sources of enormous assistance, developed through the dedicated efforts of Doug Cooper of the SEAlang Project: the digitised Corpus of Khmer Inscriptions and Philip Jenner’s Dictionary of Old Khmer. I was able to consult both while they were still in the development stage. Thank you too to Philip Jenner for clarifying the meaning of some Khmer expressions. I am particularly grateful for Gerard Diffloth’s encouragement early in the study to question interpretations of an imperfectly understood language. This had a distinct bearing on my subsequent approach to the texts. University staff who provided advice or technical data for which I am grateful were: Pam Gutman, Dan Penny, Bob Hudson, Peter White and Ian Johnson. Special thanks go to Gavan Butler who spent time on background reading to be able to discuss economic issues for medieval Angkor. I would also like to thank the staff of Fisher Library, in particular Rena McGrogan and the very helpful Interlibrary Loan people; and the Archaeological Computing 3 Laboratory, Ian Johnson and Martin King for advice and the use of its facilities for the production of some of my database and graphics. Despite overcoming some of the obstacles encountered with non-English texts, I required the help of experts. Thank you to Narelle Fletcher and Aedeen Cremin (for the French), John Clark (for the Chinese) and Marina Goddess (for the Russian) for their intelligent translations of the unusual material. Christophe Pottier was most supportive in directing me to sources of data and in his willingness to share his knowledge and experience of Angkor and beyond. I would also like to thank Dominique Soutif for sharing his knowledge of ritual objects and showing me some of his unpublished translations; Gerdi Gerschheimer and Chris Eade, for discussing their ideas on the determination of equivalent values for Khmer units of measurement; and Chris for explaining his high-tech method of dating inscriptions from astronomical data. Several other researchers responded helpfully to my queries and these I would like to thank as well: John Miksic (economics); Bin Yang (Chinese trade routes); Dick Richards and Wong Wai Yee (ceramics), Gillian Green (textiles); Michael Aung-Thwin (Pagan economics); Rethy Chhem (Khmer medicine); Pierre Manguin (archaeology), Jacques Melitz (economics); Barend Jan Terwiel (Thai and Sukhothai trade); Thomas Maxwell (deities); Geoff Wade (Chinese trade) and Nicholas Hardwick (coinages). Kenneth Hall allowed me to have a copy of an English translation for O. W. Wolters of a 1963 paper by Leonard Sedov, and Bob Wicks sent me all the photocopied research material for his 1992 book Money, Markets and Trade in Early Southeast Asia. All these documents proved invaluable. I am especially indebted to Ngaire Richards, who designed my database and found the time to make the several alterations it required, to Peter Barker for his technical assistance in database operations, as well as to Damian Evans and Mitch Hendrickson for their help with GIS and Matthew Ciolek and OWTRAD for data on Silk Road trade routes. Terry Lustig has given much time to assist with statistical analysis and graphical and GIS representations. Thank you to Mitch Hendrickson, Martin Polkinghorne, Terry Lustig, Aedeen Cremin, Colleen Lustig and Kate Lustig who provided insightful comments on drafts of the thesis and to Judy Foster for assistance with data entry. I would also like to thank my other colleagues and friends, Wayne Johnson, Leonard Cox, Marnie Feneley, Edna Wong, Leon Shih, Alexandra Rosen and Donald Cooney who were around for much of my journey and were generous in many ways, and Terry, Kate, Colleen, Tyson, Aiden and Felix for their forbearance… Finally, I wish to acknowledge the financial assistance of the Sydney University Postgraduate Award, the Sydney University PhD Research Travel Grant Scheme, the Sydney University Postgraduate Research Support Scheme and the Carlyle Greenwell Fund during my candidature. 4 For Terry Table of Contents 1 The political economy of the Khmer Empire: an introduction 14 1.1 Introduction 14 1.2 Angkor: city and empire 16 1.2.1 Angkor the city 16 1.2.2 Angkor’s empire 19 1.3 Research agendas 21 1.3.1 Indianisation and colonisation 21 1.3.2 Indigenous innovation 24 1.3.3 Value of the epigraphic data for studying Angkor’s political economy 25 1.4 Power and early states 26 1.4.1 The exercise of power 26 1.4.2 Models of early states 28 1.5 Aim of research and thesis questions 29 1.5.1 Political processes 31 1.5.2 Economic processes 32 1.5.3 Ideological processes – the state and the religious foundations 32 1.6 Structure of thesis 33 1.7 Conclusion 36 2 Debates about political economies: empires and large states 37 2.1 Introduction 37 2.2 The study of empires 38 2.3 Models of empires and large states pertinent to Angkor 39 2.3.1 Asiatic Mode of Production 40 2.3.2 Core-periphery and world systems 41 2.3.3 Loosely integrated polities 43 2.3.4 Networks 46 2.3.5 Territorial-Hegemonic model 47 2.4 Models specific to Angkor 48 2.4.1 Processual model 49 2.4.2 The Temple Hierarchy model 52 2.5 Conclusion 54 3 The resources and economic basis of the Khmer empire 57 3.1 Introduction 57 3.2 Physical and biological resources 58 3.2.1 Land 58 3.2.2 Biological resources 59 6 3.2.3 Mineral resources 61 3.3 Infrastructure 61 3.3.1 Communication networks 62 3.3.2 Formation of the Angkor state: