Queens among men

 

Queens among men

Political authority, although not irrefutable proof of the level of power enjoyed by an individual or group, is nonetheless a fairly good indicator in most cultures. The Cambodian concept of omnaich is most evident in the political sphere. Certain queens in the Cambodian past were autonomous wielders of the ultimate political authority in the land. The first of these queens dates from the early sixth century, in a location that corresponds to the geo graphical area comprising Funan. An inscription calls upon Vishnu to protect Nagini Kulaprabhavati, 'the great queen, principal spouse of King Jayavarman Kaudinya The ‘Jayavarman' referred to is one of the few early Cambodian kings for whom epigraphical and Chinese records coincide. The History of the Liang states that in 514 Jayavarman, king of Funan, died, and 'the son of a concubine, Rudravarman, killed his younger brother, son of the legitimate wife, and ascended the throne?" The name of this younger brother is not given in the text, but Jayavarman did have another son, Gunavarman, who, during the reign of his father, had been placed in charge of a community dedicated to the god Vishnu. As the inscriptions relating to both Nagini Kulaprabhavati and Gunavarman are Vaishnavite, it is tempting to infer that the latter was the son of Jayavarman and Kulaprabhavati, and that Rudravarman killed him in order to ascend the throne. On the other hand, it is extremely unlikely that Jayavarman Kaudinya would have had only two sons, given that the usual practice of the elite throughout Southeast Asia until very recent times was to have a number of principal and lesser wives, all of whom could potentially bear children.

Three years elapsed between the death of Jayavarman Kaudinya in 514 and the arrival of the first of Rudravarman's emissaries in China, during which it seems that the throne was contested. Rudravarman himself lamented that there were other elites who did not favour his accession. It is possible that there was a religious dimension to the succession dispute. While the inscriptions

of Nagini Kulaprabhavati and Gunavarman are Vaishnavite, Rudravarman appears from his name to have been a follower of Siva. He also took an interest in Buddhism; having found 'Buddha, dharma, the sangha, each with all their virtues, excellent ... [he] fulfilled all the acts of an upasaka [lay follower of precepts] The History of the Liang also records that Rudravarman boasted of possessing a hair of the Buddha. Nagini Kulaprabhavati's donation to a Vaishnavite community can be construed as an attempt to secure support from Vaishnavite elite families by demonstrating her own adherence to Vishnu. It is unfortunate that there are not more extant examples of Rudravarman's inscriptions; as it is, we must assume that ultimately his supporters, probably Buddhist and Shaivite, were more powerful than those of Nagini Kulaprabhavati. In any event, it seems more than likely that upon the death of Jayavarman Kaudinya in 514 there was a three-year struggle for succession between Nagini Kulaprabhavati and Rudravarman before the latter succeeded in taking the throne. The Chinese did not record her as having acceded after Jayavarman probably because the Chinese them selves had no tradition of female sovereigns until Empress Wu of the Tang dynasty, nearly two centuries after Nagini Kulaprabhavati. Furthermore, emissaries of Rudravarman dispatched to the Chinese court in 517 would not have men tioned their king's difficulty in acceding.

Queen Jayadevi (c. 685-c. 720) is the next queen for whom evidence exists to support an 'autonomous' reign. Her father Jayavarman I (r. c. 657-c. 685) was a very powerful sovereign in preclassical Cambodia. His capital, Purandarapura, was probably to the southeast of the Tonle Sap. He control led the territory once ruled by his great-grandfather Isanavarman, including the polities of both Iśanapura and Vyadhapura, within the area delineated by 'Funan. His personal conquests extended his territory along the southern side of the Tonle Sap to the modern province of Battambang. Initially it was believed that Jayadevi was Jayavarman I's widow, forced to act as regent while a male heir to the throne was found or reached an age where he could govern alone. Historians now largely accept that Jayadevi succeeded her father, with a brief period in which the queen reigned in conjunction with her husband, the king Nrpaditya, also known as Nrpatindravarman, who was originally from the polity of Aninditapura. After the death of Jayavarman I, Nrpaditya and Jayadevi reigned over an extensive combined kingdom, comprised of the territory of Jayavarman I and the polity of Aninditapura. This explains how an inscription located in the southern polity of Vyadhapura

could refer to Nrpaditya as the king. When Nrpaditya died, Jayadevi continued ruling alone.

This differs from the usual treatment of the period after Jayavarman I, informed by the theories of George Cœdès and Lawrence Palmer Briggs, who believed that the death of Jayavarman I resulted in civil war."

The implication was that a female sovereign was unacceptable to some differents clan and royal houses and they revolted against her. These scholars have tended to perceive the period immediately following Jayavarman I's last inscription in 681 as anarchistic. A number of factors have contributed to this perception. First, there is a general dearth of inscriptions that contain a king's name after 681; those that are mentioned do not appear in classical genealogies. Moreover, Chinese records assert that the country split into 'Land Zhenla' and 'Water Zhenla' after 707. Finally, there not appear in classical genealogies. Moreover, Chinese records assert that the country split into 'Land Zhenla' and 'Water Zhenla' after 707. Finally, there is the evidence of an inscription dated 716, which was believed to record the appearance of a king called Pushkaraksha at Sambhupura. The last known inscription of Jayadevi, is dated 713. In the old conceptualisation of early Cambodian political organisation, it would have been inconceivable for two sovereigns to rule simultaneously. The assumption, therefore, was that Pushkaraksha was a contending king who ultimately won out in a struggle for power with Jayadevi because, as a female ruler, she was unable to draw upon sufficient legitimising factors. None of these arguments is borne out by the epigraphic evidence. Whilst it is true that few inscriptions of the eighth century name a sovereign, a sub stantial number of dated inscriptions from the late seventh and early eighth centuries do, eleven between 681 (the last known date of Jayavarman I) and 713, the date of Jayadevi's K. 904 inscription. The contents of these eleven inscriptions are interesting when one considers the traditional representation of anarchy and discontinuity that Cambodia was supposedly subject to during this time. Each inscription records either the consecration of a new image in honour of a deity or the donation of slaves or goods to ones already established. It is difficult, therefore, to perceive the years after Jayavarman I as a period of civil war and factional struggles, unless it was one that nonethe less allowed time and resources for patrons to donate to sanctuaries in what would have been elaborate ceremonies.

The division of preclassical Cambodia into 'Land Zhenla' and 'Water Zhenla' after 707, observed by the Chinese in eighth-century histories, was, until very recently, accepted by historians as proof that Cambodia during this period was subject to internal struggles for power. This does not appear to have been the case. As early as 1943 Pierre Dupont concluded that there were many realms within the areas designated Land Zhenla and Water Zhenla, a belief shared by Claude Jacques and Michael Vickery among others. Again, the epigraphic record belies the notion of a major division in preclassical Cambodian political geography. The divisions were already inherent in the geopolitical arrangements of early Cambodian polities.

The appearance of Pushkaraksha at Sambhupura in 716 provided historians, on the basis of an incorrectly translated inscription, with evidence for a chaotic eighth century. A king or a god named Pushkaraksha does appear in two other eighth-century inscriptions. Both are from the Thap-muoi area in Vietnam, which would once have been part of 'Funan. The earlier of the two records either the establishment of a sanctuary or an image, bearing the name Pushkaraksha, by 'kamratan an Sambh[u]varman. The later inscription refers to donations made to the god Pushpavatasvami, to be shared 'in common with the vrah kamratan an Pushkaraksha. Genealogies of the classical period unequivocally refer to Pushkaraksha as a king- and furthermore as the son of another king, Nrpatindravarman, identified above as Nrpaditya, the husband of Jayadevi and ruler of Aninditapura. The conclusion, therefore, must be that there was a king named Pushkaraksha in the eighth century, but far from be ing a potential rival of Jayadevi, he was her son, who ruled from Sambhupura while his mother remained at Aninditapura with his sister Narendradevi (for this and subsequent genealogical discussion).

Jayadevi was not the only queen to rule an eighth-century Cambodian polity; the royal women of Sambhupura seem to have done so for generations. Briggs referred to a mysterious woman 'presumed to have been a daughter of the suppositious Sambhuvarman' as the first ruler of Sambhupura'. He derived this statement from an inscription dated 803 from Sambor in the modern Cambodian province of Kratie. In the inscription, a queen named Jyestha, 'the elder daughter of kanhen kamratan an Sri Jayendra[valla]bha, granddaughter of kanhen kamratan an Sri Nrpendradevi, great-granddaughter of vrah kamratan an Sri Indraloka' made a donation of slaves. The title kan hen kamratan an was used exclusively to denote royal status for women. The inference, therefore, is that these women were princesses or queens. What indicates that Jyeshtha was a queen as opposed to a princess is the title rajni that also appears in the inscription. This does not preclude the husband of Jyeshtha – or, indeed, any of the women named in the inscription – from be ing an important member of the political elite, as Michael Vickery cautions. The important factor is that the women of Sambhupura were designated the important quality in terms of demonstrating genealogical affiliations and legitimacy.

Pushkaraksha, son of Jayadevi, was also known as Indraloka, a post humous name meaning 'the king who has gone to the realm of Indra. The inscriptions say that he acquired the throne of Sambhupura through his mar riage to the heiress of that polity. A later king, Indravarman I (r. 877-889), erected a statue of 'the queen of Indraloka, Indrani', at the Bakong monu ment in 881. We can deduce that Pushkaraksha and Indrani were ruling Sambhupura in the middle of the eighth century. They had at least two children, a son named Sambhuvarman, and a daughter, Nrpendradevi (also known in later inscriptions as Nrpatindradevi). Sambhuvarman was sent to the polity of Vyadhapura in order to marry a descendant of Jayavarman I through the female line. The best candidate for this Vyadhapuran princess is Narendradevi, Sambhuvarman's cousin. In a later inscription, a princess Prthivindradevi from Vyadhapura is described as having been 'born into a family where sovereigns succeeded each other, daughter of Rudravarman and daughter of the daughter of Nrpatindravarman.

There are explanations that account for this seeming contradiction in the two names given to Narendradevi's consort. Sambhu and Rudra are names of similar aspects of Siva.

Reference; Trudy Jacobsen

Lost Goddesses: The Denial of Female Power in Cambodian History