The Descendants of Kambu: The Political Imagination of Angkorian Cambodia By Ian Nathaniel Lowman A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in South and Southeast Asian Studies in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Penelope Edwards, Chair Professor Jeffrey Hadler Professor Peter Zinoman Professor Patricia Berger Fall 2011 The Descendants of Kambu: The Political Imagination of Angkorian Cambodia Copyright 2011 by Ian Nathaniel Lowman Abstract The Descendants of Kambu: The Political Imagination of Angkorian Cambodia by Ian Nathaniel Lowman Doctor of Philosophy in South and Southeast Asian Studies University of California, Berkeley Professor Penelope Edwards, Chair In the 9th century CE, a vast polity centered on the region of Angkor was taking shape in what is today Cambodia and Northeast Thailand. At this time the polity’s inhabitants, the Khmers, began to see themselves as members of a community of territorial integrity and shared ethnic identity. This sense of belonging, enshrined in the polity’s name, Kambujadeśa (i.e., Cambodia) or “the land of the descendants of Kambu,” represents one of the most remarkable local cultural innovations in Southeast Asian history. However, the history and implications of early Cambodian identity have thus far been largely overlooked. In this study I use the evidence from the Old Khmer and Sanskrit inscriptions to argue that Angkorian Cambodia (9th-15th centuries CE) was at its conceptual core an ethnic polity or a “nation”—an analytic category signifying, in Steven Grosby’s words, an extensive “territorial community of nativity.” The inscriptions of Cambodia’s provincial elite suggest that the polity’s autonomy and its people’s common descent were widely disseminated ideals, celebrated in polity-wide myths and perpetuated in representations of the polity’s foreign antagonists. I contend that this culture of territorial nativity contradicts the prevailing cosmological model of pre-modern politics in Southeast Asian studies, which assumes that polities before the 19th century were characterized by exaggerated royal claims to universal power and the absence of felt communities beyond extended family and religion. At the same time I seek to problematize standard historical accounts of the nation which fail to observe the affinity between territoriality and fictive kinship in select political cultures before the era of ideological nationalism. 1 Table of Contents Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………………..………………….. ii Dedication................………………………………………………………………………………………………..v Chapter One. Introduction.…………………………………………………………………………………….1 Chapter Two. An Ethnic Polity……………………………………………………………………………..26 Chapter Three. The Western Frontier………………………………………………………………….51 Chapter Four. The Elephant Hunt Myth……………………………………………………………….76 Chapter Five. The Myth of Independence from Javā………………………………………….116 Chapter Six. The Buddhist Community……………………………………………………………….136 Chapter Seven. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………….161 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………………...167 i Acknowledgments One of the many advantages of writing a dissertation is that it affords me the opportunity early in my career to publicly thank those who have so far contributed to my research and overall education. I count myself fortunate to have had two extraordinary mentors. My advisor, Penny Edwards, has guided me through every step of the dissertation process with energy and good humor, giving me small but crucial incentives to keep me from faltering under the weight of the greater goal. When Penny arrived in Spring 2007, I was preparing to research a relatively modern topic about which I knew something. After taking her course entitled “Placing Nation, History, and Memory in Southeast Asia,” and having discovered a possible angle with which to pursue my latent interest in Angkorian Cambodia, I made a last minute decision to switch to a discipline, epigraphy, about which I knew next to nothing. I would not have done so without her enthusiastic consent. Though I have much to learn and improve upon as an early Cambodian historian, I have Penny to thank for letting me take the plunge and seek out my true intellectual vocation. The identity of my second, unofficial mentor will be no surprise to anyone involved in Khmer studies. David Chandler took an interest in my work long before it was worthy of interest, checking in frequently to request new drafts, providing honest and encouraging assessments, writing recommendations, and introducing me to other members of the field. The many young scholars who have received similar assistance can attest that he gives it with a sincere and selfless desire to enrich the field and motivate the next generation. It has truly been an honor to witness his example of tireless academic service even in retirement. Several individuals have played a formative role in my graduate experience in the Department of South and Southeast Asian Studies at UC Berkeley. I appreciate Ashley Thompson for originally encouraging me to select the department and for inspiring me with her ability to read obscure texts from the remote past creatively and without cynicism. Jeff Hadler, a consummate teacher, has been my primary guide to the historiography of Southeast Asia. He has also been a constant source of practical advice, a valuable reader, and a good friend. I thank Peter Zinoman for serving as my mentor during my floating years and for championing my academic goals even when—and especially when—they were only half- formed. In seminars and in our personal communication, Peter has modeled the lost art of lucid, even-handed argumentation; the introduction to this dissertation is my imperfect attempt to emulate his example. Joanna Williams also mentored me temporarily, and I benefitted greatly from her art history course. I am very grateful to Patricia Berger for generously serving as the outside member of my committee and to the many people who recommended her to me. I thank my department’s superb graduate advisor Lee Amazonas for ii answering all my logistical questions, however silly and inconvenient, with a patience and tact that I never deserved. Sarah Maxim at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies has been consistently resourceful, particularly in helping guide me through Berkeley’s funding maze. In the process of becoming a Southeast Asian historian, I have had the chance to study several languages. If the cumulative effect of this training has proved to be inadequate, it has not been for the lack of talented language instructors. I wish to thank my Khmer teachers in the Missionary Training Center (MTC) in Provo, my senior missionary companions, and the teachers in the Advanced Study of Khmer (ASK) program in Phnom Penh. Most of all, I want to single out Frank Smith who instilled in me and my peers at the Southeast Asian Studies Summer Institute (SEASSI) a love for Khmer language and culture. I was fortunate at Berkeley to take two years of Thai with Susan Kepner. I am especially indebted to Sally Goldman and Kristi Wiley for introducing me to Sanskrit. Despite my deficiencies, Sally cheerfully agreed to advise me in my independent study of Cambodian Sanskrit inscriptions (alongside fellow graduate student Sophearith Siyonn). Our sessions peering at photocopied rubbings in Sally’s office were perhaps the most enjoyable moments of my graduate education. Over the past five years I have benefitted from conversations with several established scholars of early Cambodian epigraphy and history. Michael Vickery very generously read over Chapter Four and led me to make significant improvements. Of course, Vickery’s authority in matters related to epigraphy and history is felt throughout this dissertation. The Sanskritist Gerdi Gerschheimer introduced me to the elephant hunt inscription K. 1258, which inspired me to write Chapter Four. M. Gerschheimer also kindly sent me a transcription and a pointed critique of my attempted translation. Dominic Goodall subsequently sent me a complete translation, which I follow nearly verbatim; his additional critique was invaluable. Kamaleswar Bhattacharya likewise offered me a transcription, while Sally Goldman helped me improve my notes and analysis. Arlo Griffiths sent me his translation of some fascinating Sanskrit verses about the Mons (Rāmanya) in K. 1198. Michel Antelme has been a reassuring presence during my visits to Paris and a great resource for talking through various linguistic problems in the Old Khmer inscriptions. I wish to thank Julia Estève for sharing with me her recent thesis on early Cambodian religious syncretism. I wrote Chapter Six before becoming aware of her work on the deity called Kamrateṅ Jagat Chpār Ransi, and I became immediately self-conscious of the fact that her analysis was far more thorough, professional, and linguistically informed than my own. While I have made some changes to the chapter since then, I feel obliged to refer the reader to her work for the now standard account of this deity. While conducting my research in Cambodia it was a pleasure to get to know and receive generous assistance from archaeologists such as Damian Evans of the Greater Angkor Project (GAP) and Christophe Pottier of the École Française d’Extrême-Orient (EFEO). I have had many iii stimulating conversations with Mitch Hendrickson whose pathbreaking work on Angkorian roads and networks of exchange gave me the incentive to write