Classical Angkor

Inhabitants. ’At its peak, Angkor sprawled over nearly 1000 km2 [1] and may have housed more than three quarters of a million people [2,3].’ ^[1] ’With a fluctuating but persistent political dominance that extended from the ninth to the fourteenth centuries, it is hardly surprising that Angkor could built a temple enclosure (Angkor Wat) the size of central Tikal (Figure 11.11) and create a low-density urban complex with a water management network that spread across nearly 1,000 km^2 of intermeshed urban-rural landscape. That landscape could have fed between 300,000 and 750,000 human beings (see Fletcher et al. 2003:117 for assessment by Lustig).’ ^[2] ’Angkor. It is now clear that the temple complex was the centre of an enormous dispersed city, home to up to one million inhabitants, making it the largest city of antiquity. ’ ^[3] ’Although it is likely that Groslier’s original population estimate was too high, Angkor was probably the largest pre-industrial city in the world. The most recent archaeological work indicates that one million is a reasonable estimate of the city’s size.’ ^[4] ’Acker has given detailed consideration to the area that could have been irrigated, the water requirement, likely yields, and the location of the barays relative to one another and the land below them. His calculations were based on Groslier’s estimate of a population at Angkor in the vicinity of 1,900,000 people, of whom 600,000 were supported by 86,000 hectares (215,000 acres) of irrigated rice fields. In the dry season, a hectare would require 15,000 cubic meters (525,000 cu. ft.) of water. Assuming all the major barays at Angkor were full to a depth of three meters (9.9 ft.), they could have supplied 7,000 hectares (17,500 acres). If they yielded 1.46 tons of rice per hectare and annual consumption was 220 kilograms (484 lbs.) of rice per capita, the dry season yield would have maintained about 44,500 people, about 2.5 percent of the estimated population. This calculation is based only on the amount of water available when the barays were three meters deep. It does not take into account the possibility that the barays were constantly replenished with water from the Siem Reap River throughout the dry season. There is also the possibility that the reservoirs were used to supplement water supplies to the fields when there was insufficient rainfall during the wet sea- son. If so, then a further 9,000 metric tons (9,900 tons) over and above anticipated wet-season production could have been obtained, making the total irrigated yield 19,200 tons, sufficient to feed nearly 100,000 people.’ ^[5] ’At its peak, the population of the impe- rial core may have exceeded 1.5 million.’ ^[6] ’At its height, Angkor was the largest premodern settlement in the world, a city of more than 700,000 spread over a larger area than modern Los Angeles. Its crowning achievement was Angkor Wat, built at the kingdom’s height in the early twelfth century. Topped by five towers, arranged in an “X” pattern like the dots on a die, Angkor Wat was designed as a microcosmic representation of Mount Meru, the center of the universe in Hindu and Buddhist cosmology. This vast complex, still the largest religious building in the world, remains a powerful representation of Angkor’s military, artistic, and economic might, as well as the absolute rule of the God Kings, who were said to “eat their kingdom,” ruling with an iron fist.’ ^[7]

[1]: (Penny et al 2014, p. e84252)

[2]: (Fletcher 2012, pp.300-302)

[3]: (Tully 2005, p. 33)

[4]: (Tully 2005, p. 44)

[5]: (Higham 2004, p. 162)

[6]: (Lieberman 2003, p. 219)

[7]: (Strangio 2014, pp. 3-4)

in squared kilometers. ’Angkor, largest of all the agrarian low-density urban sites, controlled a core area of 70,00-100,000 km^2 under Suryavarman I (Early eleventh century), Suryavarman II (early twelfth century), and Jayavarman VII (late twelfth to early thirteenth centuries) (Hendrickson 2010) and periodically laid claim to an empire that extended into modern Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam with an area as great as 420,000 km^2.’ ^[1]

[1]: (Fletcher 2012, p.300)

People. ‘The “Great Lake” supplied the water for irrigated rice cultivation and the fish protein to sustain the Khmer Empire’s population of more than 1 million.’ ^[1] ’Finally, during the late 1200s and 1300s Upper Burma, Angkor, and Dai Viet all suffered internal disorders and external attacks that eventually culminated in the sack of each capital and the collapse of central administration.40 These disorders derived from locally specific combinations of: a) eco- logical constraints, including shortages of quality land, which in turn reflected the combined effects of regional desiccation and a shift to more marginal lands after 200-300 years of sustained population growth; b) increased maritime trade that strengthened coastal principalities at the expense of the imperial heartlands in Upper Burma, Angkor, and Dong Kinh; c) Mongol incursions and more especially, large-scale Tai migrations; d) institutional features that conferred an excessive auton- omy on local power-holders. So severe was the ensuing fragmentation that by 1340, as noted, at least 23 mainland kingdoms were independent in the sense that they paid no regular tribute to other Southeast Asian rulers (see Figure 1.4).41 Most would survive into the 16th century.’ ^[2]

[1]: (Engelhardt 2005, p.20)

[2]: (Lieberman 2003, p. 25)

levels. E.g., (6) Yasodharapura (monumental structures, theatre, market, hospital, central government buildings) (5) Former capital cities (monumental structures, market, theatre), (4) Major centres a day’s journey or less than 25km from Angkor (market, administrative buildings), (3) Regional centres approximately 150km from Angkor (administrative buildings, storehouse)), (2) Village centres less than 350km from Angkor (taxation office, shrine), and (1) Hamlet (residential only). ’At any rate, administrative divisions were standardized. On one widely shared interpretation the designation of many territories as visa where previously there had been praam indicated that formerly autonomous princely fiefs were integrated as provinces. It appears that the former was primarily a geographical term, while the latter came to refer to a specific administrative division, possibly equivalent to a province.’ In the thirteenth century, Chou Ta-kuan writes that there were over ninety provinces, each with a fortified citadel. At the level of the locality, there officials whom he called maichiech in the villages, possibly equivalent to me grok, custodians of settlements. Village elders, gramavrddha, are mentioned in the epigraphy, and appear to have had official responsibilities such as delivering criminals, suitably caged, into the custody of royal officials.’ ^[1] ’With distance from Angkor, the inscriptions appear to diminish in number in two stages, consistent with three decreasing levels of influence. Frequencies remain fairly constant up to about 150 km. Beyond this distance, there are fewer inscriptions to 350 km, and after that there are almost none.108 The shapes of the curves may also be a function of the pattern of settlement. For example, the dip in the 25-50 km interval may be related to the proximity of the Tonle Sap Lake, the associated swamps and the Kulen Hills, where there are few temples, while at 150 km the Dangrek Mountains could have affected settlement patterns. It may also be partly due to the existence of modern political boundaries and a potential for Khmer sites and inscriptions in Laos, Vietnam and Thailand to be less frequently recorded or published than those inside Cambodia.’ ^[2] See also Lustig’s (2009) six classes of inscription ’density’ ^[3]

[1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.167)

[2]: (Lustig 2009, p. 133)

[3]: (Lustig 2009, pp. 147-148)

levels.
(1) purohita (chief priest of the king)(2) royal hotar (sacrificer)(3) religious functionaries who received the Sanskrit title of acharya, a learned priest who acted as teacher and spiritual guide; or pandit, someone versed in sacred lore; or of upadhyaya, a teacher and preceptor learned in the vedas(4) local priests
’Because all the Classic inscriptions deal with matters that are fundamentally religious in nature [...] we have much information on the central religious hierarchy, but little about the secular one. [...] The religious authorities and functionaries in the royal court were certainly almost entirely Brahmin caste [Level 2], although some priests in the provinces and villages [Level 1] may not have been so. Most of them may have received the honorific Khmer title of sten an, reserved for learned men. We already run across the purohita [Level 4]. In peninsular India, this Sanskrit word indicated a family priest or chaplain; in Classic Angkor, this important individual was the chaplain and chief priest of the king and, at least according to the self-serving Sdok Kak Thom stela, was a hereditary officer charged with maintaining the cult of the devajara. The Sanskrit title of hotar or ’sacrificer’ occurs frequently in the texts; this is also supposed to indicate ’royal chaplain’ - but the exact scope of the term is unclear since while the royal purohita of the devaraja was a hotar, there were other hotars [Level 3]. Most of these may have had important administrative roles. There were many religious functionaries who received the Sanskrit title of acharya, a learned priest who acted as teacher and spiritual guide; or pandit, someone versed in sacred lore; or of upadhyaya, a teacher and preceptor learned in the vedas [Level 2]. As with many Classic Khmer titles, there is little information on whether these were or were not interchangeable.’ ^[1]

[1]: (Coe 2003, 144)

levels. King (level 1), leaders of military divisions and mercenary chief (level 2), captains of militia (level 3), member of elephant corps (level 4), member of calvary (level 5), units farmer-builder-soldier class (level 6). According to David Chandler, ’Though the king, who led his country into battle, sometimes engaged his chief enemy in single combat, Khmer military strength rested on the junior officers, the captains of militia. These men commanded the loyalty of peasant groups in their particular locality. If the king conquered a region, a new captain of militia would be enrolled and put under an oath of allegiance. The captains were simply headmen of the outlying regions, but their connection with the king enhanced their status. In time of war they were expected to conscript the peasants in their district and to lead them to Angkor to join the Khmer army. If the captains disobeyed the king they were put to death. The vast majority of the Khmer population were of the farmer-builder-soldier class.’ ^[1] ’One major feature of the ’imperial state’ was its maintenance of a large court and a corps of officials. Angkor has a sizeable bureaucracy staffed by officials of many sorts. Like so much about the Khmer kingdom in ancient times, the structure of government and the categories of the civil service are known to us through temple inscriptions, which frequently name various types of official or local dignitary in listing those present to witness the formal demarcation of land bestowed upon religious foundations; they mention a variety of grades and titles, some of them obscure. The khlon rajakarya was responsible for the administration of ’royal work’, probably corvee among other things. The tamrvac was an inspector; the officials who swore allegiance to Suryavarman I had this title, for example. The gunadosadarsin (assessor of virtues and defects) was concerned with temple property. A variety of functionaries were called khlon (inspector) and had responsibilities in various areas such as grain, temple dues, management of religious foundations and several aspects of court proceedings. Revenue was usually in kind, being paid in grain, but some special districts paid in other commodities such as honey and wax. There is evidence that some of the categories in which officials were placed were not types of professional specialisation but divisions of the government service placed under the patronage of particular chiefs belonging to the royal family, a system that was indeed known in later centuries. Some of the groups of dignitaries named in named in the inscriptions, again, appear to have been the bearers of hereditary privileges in the royal household; the term varna, for example, designates any of a number of orders of dignity, which have such official functions as religious teachers, performers of rites, door guardians, garden keepers, palace servants, bearers of flywhisks, and artists.’ ^[2] ’At Angkor Wat at the head of the "historic" march past, appears a foreign contingent identified by an epigraphic inscription as the chief of the Siamese and his troops. Is this mercenary chief in the service of Suryavarman II, part of the king’s own Siamese guard, similar to the Japanese and even Portuguese guards which some post-Angkorean rulers possessed, or a military contingent from a Siamese principality then a vassal of Cambodia, as S. Shai suggests? We cannot decide.’ ^[3]

[1]: (Ross 1990)

[2]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, pp.166-167)

[3]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 98)

levels.
(1) the overall ruler (raja),(2) leaders of regional power bases (terms vary),(3) provincial (visaya) leaders,(4) officials of the settlement (maichiech),(5) village elders (gramavrddha).
’At any rate, administrative divisions were standardized. On one widely shared interpretation the designation of many territories as visa where previously there had been praam indicated that formerly autonomous princely fiefs were integrated as provinces. It appears that the former was primarily a geographical term, while the latter came to refer to a specific administrative division, possibly equivalent to a province.’ In the thirteenth century, Chou Ta-kuan writes that there were over ninety provinces, each with a fortified citadel. At the level of the locality, there officials whom he called maichiech in the villages, possibly equivalent to me grok, custodians of settlements. Village elders, gramavrddha, are mentioned in the epigraphy, and appear to have had official responsibilities such as delivering criminals, suitably caged, into the custody of royal officials.’ ^[1] ’Classic Angkor was the centre of an empire, the huge territory of which was divided into provinces. [...] There are two words for ’province’: probably both synonyms. Each of these was in turn divided into villages (souk or drama). At every level there were mandarin bureaucrats (khlon, chiefs) representing the central administration, and who ensured that revenues (rice, goods, corvee labour, and the like) flowed smoothly upwards through the system.’ [...] The khlon visa was the provincial chief, overseeing the fiscal officers responsible for tax collections, as well as pretor transactions and the fixing of boundaries. Each village had its headman (khlon souk), in reality a royal agent; the actual representatives of the Cambodian village were the gramavrddha, the village elders, who acted as a link between the local and central administrations.’ ^[2]

[1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.167)

[2]: (Coe 2003, p. 141)

’It was everyone’s ambition to be "rescued from the mud", but very few were. Most of those were placed, in Angkorean times, into various varna, or caste groupings, which made up perhaps a tenth of society as a whole. These people included clerks, artisans, concubines, artists, high officials, and priests, as well as royal servants, relatives, and soldiers.’ ^[1] ’The ordinary Khmer soldiers as well as officers might carry a lance; or a bow, with the arrows being held in a quiver; or sabres of different length; or various sizes of knives and daggers; or a kind of halberd known as a phka’h. The latter was basically an iron axe mounted on a long handle curved at one end. At Angkor Wat, the phka’k is held in the hands of high-ranking warriors mounted on elephants or horses; it is still in use in the twentieth century for hunting or work in the forest. Crossbows were known, but are extremely rare in the reliefs.’ ^[2]

[1]: (Chandler 2008, pp. 28-29)

[2]: (Coe 2003, p. 185)

’Tens of thousands of priests and other officiants were sustained in order to fulfill temple rites.’ ^[1] ’The bestowal of usufruct could bring tax benefits to a landowner; the orders of scholar-priests dwelling within them offered careers to the sons of great families; the sacramental power of their holy offices ensured rewards in the lives to come for their pious benefactors.’ ^[2] ’Gifts made to temples included all that was needed to support the cycle of rituals and its attendant priesthood: beans, sesame, beeswax, ginger, honey, syrup, clarified butter made from the milk of specially maintained herds, perfume specially ground for temple use.’ ^[2] ’It was everyone’s ambition to be "rescued from the mud", but very few were. Most of those were placed, in Angkorean times, into various varna, or caste groupings, which made up perhaps a tenth of society as a whole. These people included clerks, artisans, concubines, artists, high officials, and priests, as well as royal servants, relatives, and soldiers.’ ^[3] ’Temple building and maintenance of monuments, large numbers of state-supported Buddhist clergy, and punitive wars, coupled with the more egalitarian characteristics of THERAVADA BUDDHISM and the rise of the T’AIS, contributed to the decline of ANGKOR.’ ^[4] ’Evidence permits only a few observations about the economic, social, and political organization of the Angkorean polity. It is certain that the economy was based upon wet-rice agriculture, that temples were promi- nent custodians of land and peasants, and that royal authority was expressed through a relatively well-developed hierarchy that included priests and religious sanctions.’ ^[5] ’There was a caste of hereditary priests (a remnant of the broader Indian caste system, perhaps) who purported to trace their ancestry back to those who had served Jayavarman II.’ ^[6] ’In its heyday, the temple {Ta Prohm] was administered by 18 high priests and 2,740 officials. There were 2,202 assistants and 615 female dancers. In all, 12,640 are listed as serving the temple, of which perhaps 1,000-2,000 were entitled to live within its walls. 66,625 people from rural villages were assigned to supply the temple, which involved mosquito nets, fine cloth, rice, honey, molasses, millet, beans, butter, milt, salt and vegetables.’ ^[7]

[1]: (Higham 2011, p. 479)

[2]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.115)

[3]: (Chandler 2008, pp. 28-29)

[4]: (Ooi 2004, p. 12)

[5]: (Taylor 2008, p. 160)

[6]: (Tully 2005, p. 39)

[7]: (Higham 2014b, p. 388)

’We have glimpses of Khmer warfare, once scene showing Jayasinhavarman, general of the troops of Lopburi, seated on the back of a great war elephant.’ ^[1] ’Thus, units from Lavo are commanded by Prince Sri Jayasmhavarman, and at the right-end of the parade we see a Thai contingent. Significantly, they are represented as a motley, ill-drilled bunch, marking out of step in contrast to the nearby Khmers.’ ^[2] ’The ordinary Khmer soldiers as well as officers might carry a lance; or a bow, with the arrows being held in a quiver; or sabres of different length; or various sizes of knives and daggers; or a kind of halberd known as a phka’h. The latter was basically an iron axe mounted on a long handle curved at one end. At Angkor Wat, the phka’k is held in the hands of high-ranking warriors mounted on elephants or horses; it is still in use in the twentieth century for hunting or work in the forest. Crossbows were known, but are extremely rare in the reliefs.’ ^[3]

[1]: (Higham 2014b, p. 379)

[2]: (Mabbet and Chandler 1995, p. 105)

[3]: (Coe 2003, p. 185)

The religious education centre of Ta Prohm. ’One of the major temples of Jayavarman VII - in fact, a temple-monastery - Ta Phrom features a set of concentric galleries with corner towers and gopuras, but with many additional buildings and enclosures. [...] Ta Phrom’s original name was Rajavihara, ’the royal monastery’. In the initial plan for Ta Prohm, 260 divinities were called for; many more were added later.’ ^[1] .

[1]: (Freeman and Jacques 1999, p. 136)

Many positions appear to have been hereditary. ’In this country there are ministers, generals, astronomers, and other officials, and, below them, all kinds of minor employees; only their names differ from ours. Mostly princes are designated for [official] positions; in other cases those selected offer their daughters as royal concubine.’ ^[1] ’Administrative officials were classified in four divisions, apparently horizontally arranged, which may have had a geographical basis, but about which little is known (Sahai 1978: 18). At least some administrative posts were hereditary, especially in the Angkorian period. For example, the purohita and the yājaka usually seem to have been hereditary officials and a single family was said to have been in charge of the devarāja cult for a period of 250 years (ibid., 24-25). A number of positions close to the kings (purohita, hotar, guru, ācārya and guṇadośadarśi) are referred to in Angkorian period inscriptions written by officials. These tend to be Sanskrit terms which had religious connotations, but as Vickery (2002: 93) points out, some of these became secular, as in India, and perhaps were so in Cambodia from the start. Researchers are not in agreement on issues such as whether certain roles and titles had to be held by Brahmins, could be held by women or were hereditary (Mabbett 1978: 33; Sahai 1978: 28; Chakravarti 1980: 53).’ ^[2]

[1]: (Zhou and Smithies 2001, p. 27)

[2]: (Lustig 2009, p. 74)

’One major feature of the ’imperial state’ was its maintenance of a large court and a corps of officials. Angkor has a sizeable bureaucracy staffed by officials of many sorts. Like so much about the Khmer kingdom in ancient times, the structure of government and the categories of the civil service are known to us through temple inscriptions, which frequently name various types of official or local dignitary in listing those present to witness the formal demarcation of land bestowed upon religious foundations; they mention a variety of grades and titles, some of them obscure. The khlon rajakarya was responsible for the administration of ’royal work’, probably corvee among other things. The tamrvac was an inspector; the officials who swore allegiance to Suryavarman I had this title, for example. The gunadosadarsin (assessor of virtues and defects) was concerned with temple property. A variety of functionaries were called khlon (inspector) and had responsibilities in various areas such as grain, temple dues, management of religious foundations and several aspects of court proceedings. Revenue was usually in kind, being paid in grain, but some special districts paid in other commodities such as honey and wax. There is evidence that some of the categories in which officials were placed were not types of professional specialisation but divisions of the government service placed under the patronage of particular chiefs belonging to the royal family, a system that was indeed known in later centuries. Some of the groups of dignitaries in named in the inscriptions, again, appear to have been the bearers of hereditary privileges in the royal household; the term varna, for example, designates any of a number of orders of dignity, which have such official functions as religious teachers, performers of rites, door guardians, garden keepers, palace servants, bearers of flywhisks, and artists.’ ^[1] ’In its heyday, the temple {Ta Prohm] was administered by 18 high priests and 2,740 officials. There were 2,202 assistants and 615 female dancers. In all, 12,640 are listed as serving the temple, of which perhaps 1,000-2,000 were entitled to live within its walls. 66,625 people from rural villages were assigned to supply the temple, which involved mosquito nets, fine cloth, rice, honey, molasses, millet, beans, butter, milt, salt and vegetables.’ ^[2]

[1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, pp.166-167)

[2]: (Higham 2014b, p. 388)

"In general, those who take on these positions(officials) are teh king’s relatives. If they are not, they give him a daughter as a concubine as well." ^[1] This reference by Zhou Daguan, suggests that there was no official examination system (RA).

[1]: (Zhou Daguan 2007, p. 51)

’The king was recognised as the final court of appeal and final authority in law. Before a case reached the king, it might go through various lower courts; inscriptions frequently mention officials who appear to have functions connected with courts of law. There is no way of measuring the extent of discrimination and corruption in the administration of justice. The ideal of fairness to all was certainly recognized; one judge, or [sic] example, is declared to have been appointed on the strength of his impartiality’ ^{[1] [1]} ’Persons accused of crimes were taken before examining magistrates called sabhachara; these were peripatetic investigators of the court. Witnesses were called, testimony sworn, and written depositions taken. Often, fines were assessed, but punishments for serious infractions of the law was severe.’ ^[2] ’Within the village were local judicial courts (rah sabha), and there was always a keeper of records - an office that continued down to the nineteenth century.’ ^[3] ’Yang (2004) following Xia (1981) using the Shuofu A text, points to an inexactitude in Pelliot, whose text maintained the contrary, that scrivener’s shops did exist.’ ^[4]

[1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, pp.167-168)

[2]: (Coe 2003, p. 144)

[3]: (Coe 2003, p. 142)

[4]: (Zhou and Smithies 2001, p. 45)

’Persons accused of crimes were taken before examining magistrates called sabhachara; these were peripatetic investigators of the court. Witnesses were called, testimony sworn, and written depositions taken. Often, fines were assessed, but punishments for serious infractions of the law was severe.’ ^[1] ’The king was recognised as the final court of appeal and final authority in law. Before a case reached the king, it might go through various lower courts; inscriptions frequently mention officials who appear to have functions connected with courts of law. There is no way of measuring the extent of discrimination and corruption in the administration of justice. The ideal of fairness to all was certainly recognized; one judge, or [sic] example, is declared to have been appointed on the strength of his impartiality’ ^{[2] [2]}

[1]: (Coe 2003, p. 144)

[2]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, pp.167-168)

’Justice was administered according to principles about which we have little detailed information, though certainly such Indian texts as the Manusmrti lowboy were known. The king was recognised as the final court of appeal and final authority in law. Before a case reached the king, it might go through various lower courts; inscriptions frequently mention officials who appear to have functions connected with courts of law.’ ^[1] ’The Sanskrit poems proclaim the grandeur of kings; the Khmer inscriptions exhibit the precision with which jurisdictional squabbles were prosecuted and slaves registered.’ ^[2] ’As in the rest of the Indic world, the Angkor state and empire were government by rules laid down in the Code of Manu, a great compendium of Brahmanic law probably composed around the 4th century BC. [...] Every judicial act was theoretically inscribed on stone as well as on plaques of gold, silver or copper. The Khmer king was the defender of the law and order in Cambodia. His law courts, present on every administrative level right down tot he village, instituted criminal proceedings against transgressors and guaranteed the integrity of landholdings and the settling of boundary problems. Not even religious institutions such as temples were immune, sine they as well as private individuals could be sued over land.’ ^[3] ’Indian notions of kingship, which included the erection of commemorative stelae, architectural and art styles, the legal code, the use of a script, and the Hindu religion were selectively and skillfully woven into the emerging state-like polities of Cambodia.’ ^[4] ’The contents of Khmer temple libraries which may have been reproduced over the centuries, and the Khmer language royal chronicles, for which we have some evidence, are no longer extant (Jacques and Dumont [1990]1999: 17-18). This situation contrasts with that in some other parts of tropical Southeast Asia, where non-temple documents produced several hundred years ago still exist, having either been written on lasting materials such as copper plate or continuously reproduced (e.g. Wisseman 1977: 198-199; Aung Thwin 1985: 8-12; Wisseman Christie 1993: 180-181). These are sometimes able to provide alternative views of the society in which they were produced and can be compared with the temple inscription texts. In Burma, for example, the availability of a variety of historical text types (government archives, law codes, histories and administrative records, civil codes and chronicles giving narrative accounts) represent contemporary Burmese society somewhat more comprehensively (Aung Thwin 1983: 48; 1985: 8-12).’ ^[5]

[1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, pp.167-168)

[2]: (Chandler 2008, p. 37)

[3]: (Coe 2003, p. 144)

[4]: (Hingham 2012, p. 184)

[5]: (Lustig 2009, p. 109)

’One major feature of the ’imperial state’ was its maintenance of a large court and a corps of officials. Angkor has a sizeable bureaucracy staffed by officials of many sorts. Like so much about the Khmer kingdom in ancient times, the structure of government and the categories of the civil service are known to us through temple inscriptions, which frequently name various types of official or local dignitary in listing those present to witness the formal demarcation of land bestowed upon religious foundations; they mention a variety of grades and titles, some of them obscure. The khlon rajakarya was responsible for the administration of ’royal work’, probably corvee among other things. The tamrvac was an inspector; the officials who swore allegiance to Suryavarman I had this title, for example. The gunadosadarsin (assessor of virtues and defects) was concerned with temple property. A variety of functionaries were called khlon (inspector) and had responsibilities in various areas such as grain, temple dues, management of religious foundations and several aspects of court proceedings. Revenue was usually in kind, being paid in grain, but some special districts paid in other commodities such as honey and wax. There is evidence that some of the categories in which officials were placed were not types of professional specialisation but divisions of the government service placed under the patronage of particular chiefs belonging to the royal family, a system that was indeed known in later centuries. Some of the groups of dignitaries named in named in the inscriptions, again, appear to have been the bearers of hereditary privileges in the royal household; the term varna, for example, designates any of a number of orders of dignity, which have such official functions as religious teachers, performers of rites, door guardians, garden keepers, palace servants, bearers of flywhisks, and artists.’ ^[1] ’As in the rest of the Indic world, the Angkor state and empire were government by rules laid down in the Code of Manu, a great compendium of Brahmanic law probably composed around the 4th century BC. [...] Every judicial act was theoretically inscribed on stone as well as on plaques of gold, silver or copper. The Khmer king was the defender of the law and order in Cambodia. His law courts, present on every administrative level right down tot he village, instituted criminal proceedings against transgressors and guaranteed the integrity of landholdings and the settling of boundary problems. Not even religious institutions such as temples were immune, sine they as well as private individuals could be sued over land.’ ^[2]

[1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, pp.166-167)

[2]: (Coe 2003, p. 144)

’In other scenes, wrestling palace guards amuse themselves by tying one another into knots; and, in the marketplace, pedlars grapple with baskets, hung from the shoulder-yole, that are still a familiar sight in monsoon Asia.’ ^[1] ’Fish, probably from the Great Lake, is sold in the market, a scene daily repeated in the area today. The Bayon.’ ^[2] According to Zhou Daguan, ’"In Cambodia it is the women who take charge of trade... Market is held every day from six o’clock until noon. There are no shops in which merchants live; instead, they display goods on a matting spread upon the ground".’ ^[3]

[1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.127).

[2]: (Higham 2014b, p. 388)

[3]: (Freeman and Jacques 1999, p. 36)

’Recent work at Angkor by the EFEO and the Greater Angkor Project has mapped a vast water management network extending across approximately 1000 sq km. From the new map an outline can be provide of the development of the network between the 8th-9th and the 14th centuries. Each large extension of the network tapped water from a succession of natural rivers flowing from NE to SW. Each river was further north and was tapped further to the west. The network had five major components - E-W embankments that trapped water flowing from the north and northeast; N-S channels that eventually delivered water to large reservoirs (baray); the baray and the large temple moats; embankments and channels oriented from NW to SE that could distribute water back from west to east across the slope of the land; and channels oriented towards the southwest which could dispose of water rapidly to the lake, the Tonle Sap. Significantly the later major channels, such as the Angkor Wat canal and the canal that pre-dated the current Siem Reap river, were drains that served to dispose of water into the lake.’ ^[1] ’[T]he Khmer practised water management on a scale dwarfing that of the Maya and most other regions of the world. Angkor’s surrounds were converted into an artificial landscape criss-crossed with canals, embankments, reservoirs, dams and other massive engineering works to redirect river flows, store water for the dry season and avert floods by disposing of excess water during monsoons. The Khmer struggled for centuries to maintain their hydraulic landscape until it became overwhelmed by climate change, producing floods that broke embankments and canals filled with sediments from eroded terrains’ ^{[2] [3]} ‘Retention and storage of surplus water during the rainy and flood seasons for use during the rest of the year was, along with the buildings of religious monuments, the major preoccupation of Khmer engineers throughout the long history of the empire.’ ^[4] ’Aside from the destructive effects of recurrent wars, Khmer kings constructively made it a priority to build reservoirs and canals, all necessary for collective irrigation. Some kings built rest houses along roads; others built hospitals.’ ^[5] ’Tikal featured constructed reservoirs in the centre among the main monuments and around the periphery of the central area that could hold about 568,000 m^3 of water at one time and more than 900,000 m^3 during the course of a year (Scarborough and Galloping 1991:661). By contrast, the West Baray at Angkor could hold more than 50 million m^3 of water at one time and covered 16 km^2 (Fletcher et al. 2008).’ ^[6]

[1]: (Fletcher et al. 2008, p. 57)

[2]: (Diamond 2009, p.480).

[3]: (Fletcher et al 2008, 658)

[4]: (Engelhardt 1995, p.22)

[5]: (Mannikka 1996, p.4)

[6]: (Fletcher 2012, p.300)

’State temples linked by river and road to the capital not only promulgated the royal cult, but also served as repositories for the surpluses of rice, oil, medicines, and all the other products necessary to sustain the the social system.’ ^[1] ’Chou Ta-kuan was in Cambodia less than a century after the reign of Jayavarman VII, who founded 102 medical institutions in all parts of the kingdom. Inscriptions list in detail the provisions that had to be made for the upkeep of these institutions, which required a huge investment in food, furnishing, and medicinal herbs. They are usually called ’hospitals’, though it is not clear whether they had any in-patients. It is more likely that they were warehouses and dispensaries for medicines.’ ^[2]

[1]: (Higham 2011, p. 272)

[2]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, pp.128-129)

‘The importance of preserving this watershed as a source of water for the rice paddies and to fill the city’s transportation canals and municipal water system was clearly understood by the earliest inhabitants of the area’ ^[1] ‘Each water-based feature fulfilled several functions. Barays provided agricultural and domestic water, and fish and plant foods. Canals channeled water for public sanitation, and transport arteries. Embankments and dikes were usually oriented east-west following the contours and acted both as levees ti control floods and elevated causeways for roads. Moats surrounding temples, monuments, and inhabited areas also fulfilled several functions: they served as sacred boundaries, they were a source of domestic water and food, and they provided fill for foundations to raise the level of the terrain for drainage and protection. Access to domestic water was provided by tanks and basins dug into the water table.’ ^[2] ’More recently, a similar pattern was identified in the spacing of rectangular water tanks (trapeang) at four or five kilometre intervals along most of the Angkorian roads (Hendrickson 2004). This combined information points to an elaborate road network with a centrally-planned infrastructure to support the regular movement of people across a region’ ^[3]
’As the population in chiefly urban centers grew, so steps had to be taken to conserve and reticulate water. This was achieved by digging circular moats around settlements and allowing water to flow into the rice fields beyond. It is likely that such a system was used only to maintain the absence of wet season rains, and the moats would have also supplied the populace with water, defines, and aquatic food.’ ^[4]

[1]: (Engelhardt 1995, p.19)

[2]: (Engelhardt 1995, p.25)

[3]: (Hendrickson 2012, p.86)

[4]: (Hingham 2012, p. 184)

‘Each water-based feature fulfilled several functions. Barays provided agricultural and domestic water, and fish and plant foods. Canals channeled water for public sanitation, and transport arteries. Embankments and dikes were usually oriented east-west following the contours and acted both as levees ti control floods and elevated causeways for roads. Moats surrounding temples, monuments, and inhabited areas also fulfilled several functions: they served as sacred boundaries, they were a source of domestic water and food, and they provided fill for foundations to raise the level of the terrain for drainage and protection. Access to domestic water was provided by tanks and basins dug into the water table.’ ^[1] ’In spite of a century of Angkorian research, the study of the great system of highways that tied together the provinces of the Classic Khmer Empire has hardly begun.’ ^[2] ’[Jayavarman VII] saw to the construction of many other buildings across his empire, including roads with guesthouses every 9.3 miles (15 km) that linked Angkor with viceregal centers such as Phimai.’ ^[3] ’Highways were built—straight, stone-paved roads running across hundreds of kilometers, raised above the flood level, with stone bridges across rivers and lined with rest houses every 15 kilometers.’ ^[4] ’In the 1200s, if not earlier, a system of raised highways linked Angkor to Phimai and other key towns.’ ^[5]

[1]: (Engelhardt 1995, p.25)

[2]: (Coe 2003, p. 151)

[3]: (Higham 2012, p. 186)

[4]: (Vickery 2004b, p. 696)

[5]: (Lieberman 2003, p. 230)

Though the seat of power during Angkor moves to the Tonle Sap, it remains attached to the shorelines of the Mekong and its tributaries. Inscriptions make reference to transport by boat. ^[1] Ports were undoubtedly used, but unlike the monumental ports of the Mediterranean, the structures in Cambodia must have been more modest if we look at how port areas are organized nowadays in the Mekong. The drastic water level changes prevents the construction of fixed structures, therefore the ports may have been composed of stilted buildings, floating platforms and elevated trackways from the platforms to the shore or from boats to the shore. (RA’s doctoral fieldwork observations). Perhaps the largest ports were built by the state, but smaller transit points for riverine trade would have probably been organized by local communities, as they wouldn’t require great investments. ^[2] . Other researchers have suggested that there were no ports: ’[...] Cambodia had no deep-water port of its own until the 1950s’ ^[3] ’Given the location of Angkor in relation to Chinese or Cham ports, some or much of the reported trade was probably overland rather than via coastal ports.’ ^[4] It could be argued that the type of boats used in Cambodia do not require deep ports, but larger boats are documented in the bas-reliefs of Angkor ^[5] . Even though there may not have ventured into the Tonle Sap lake, the large planked vessel represented in the Bayon indicates that large vessels arrived in Angkorian ports. Similarly, ethnographic data shows an extensive use of boats for transport, so even if the coastal trade may have been limited, as Lusting suggests, trade using inland waters must have been necessarily conducted. (RA’s doctoral fieldwork observations).

[1]: (Higham 2001, p. 41-42)

[2]: pers. comm. Daniel Mullins

[3]: (Chandler 2008, p.10)

[4]: (Lustig 2009, p. 98)

[5]: (Roveda 2007, p.320)

‘The importance of preserving this watershed as a source of water for the rice paddies and to fill the city’s transportation canals and municipal water system was clearly understood by the earliest inhabitants of the area’ ^[1] ‘The Rolous River, along which the first capital city of Angkor, Hariharalaya, was founded in the 9th century A.D. Note how the river bed was wide and straightened in ancient times to increase capacity and facilitate transport.’ ^[2]

[1]: (Engelhardt 1995, p.19)

[2]: (Engelhardt 1995, p.21)

‘Arched remains of the Angkor period bridge, Spean Thma, which went over the Siem Reap River at the main approach to Angkor Thom, the last capital of the Khmer Empire. The original bridge consisted of a total of 14 arches.’ ^[1] ’[Jayavarman VII] saw to the construction of many other buildings across his empire, including roads with guesthouses every 9.3 miles (15 km) that linked Angkor with viceregal centers such as Phimai. He built bridges, hospitals, and mausolea for his parents and son.’ ^[2] ’The main entrance is on the west. The entire complex is surrounded by a wall on the inner side of the moat. To reach the shrine, one crosses the western moat via a bridge of laterite surfaced with sandstone, leading to a sandstone gate with main entrances for pedestrians and side entrances that would have been accessible by carts and other wheeled vehicles. Since no other major temples were constructed during this period, it seems likely that most of the kingdom’s man- power and other resources were devoted to this single project.’ ^[3] ’The principal shrine is located at the eastern end of the square en- closure. To reach the main temple, visitors have to follow an axial pathway in the form of a stone bridge half a kilometer (1,600 feet) in length, reminiscent of the layout of Beijing’s Forbidden City. This pathway is fringed with balustrades in the form of a giant serpent and is flanked by rectangular baray. Branches off the main walkway lead to pools, stone structures called libraries, and other now-vanished structures.’ ^[3]

[1]: (Engelhardt 1995, p.23)

[2]: (Hingham 2012, p. 186)

[3]: (Miksic 2007, p. 23)

’Angkor Wat was built without the use of mortar or the arch. Two types of sandstone were employed in the construction: medium-grained for the walls and finer-grained for the elaborately carved gallery walls. Both were quarried at Mount Kulen, 45 km (28 miles) to the northeast, and the blocks were probably rafted down the Siem Reap river and brought to the site by networks of canals.’ ^[1] ’Temple construction also required the quarrying and transporting of vast quantities of sandstone. Uchida and Shimoda (2013) have not only identified the individual quarries on the lower eastern slopes of the Kulen upland, but also through different degrees of magnetic susceptibility, linked individual quarries with different temples.’ ^[2] The LiDAR archaeological survey by Evans (2016) and others provides an incredibly detailed illustration of the large-scale quarrying that was carried out near Phnom Kulen and elsewhere. ^[3]

[1]: (Scarre 1999, p.83)

[2]: (Higham 2014b, p. 398)

[3]: (Evans 2016)

According to Miriam Stark, ’[i]ndividuals increased their karma for the next life by establishing temples or making donations to extant temple (see also Hagesteijn 1996:189, passim). Entrenched and aspiring elite members recorded their temple offerings in stone. Such activity is clear in the earliest dated Khmer inscription (K. 600) from Angkor Borei in southern Cambodia. This inscription lists donations to the temple/foundation by two elite individuals: nine males, nine females, two children, eighty head of cattle, two buffalo, ten goats, forty coconut trees, and two rice fields (Vickery 1998:227)’, ^[1] and ’most indigenous inscriptions record the beneficence of aspiring elite individuals’ ^[2]

[1]: (Stark, Miriam 2006, p.160-161)

[2]: (Stark, Miriam 2010, p. 144)

’From the mid first millennium AD onward, Khmers constructed brick, stone, and laterite monuments with dedicatory stelae bearing Khmer, Sanskrit, or Khmer and Sanskrit inscriptions; these constitute the primary indigenous documentary source.’ ^[1] ’The first dated Khmer-language inscription from Cambodia was incised in 611, and the earliest Sanskrit inscription was carved two years later. ^[2] ’No one knows for certain how long people have lived in what is now Cambodia, where they came from, or what languages they spoke before writing was introduced, using an Indian-style alphabet, around the third century CE.’ ^[3] ’This ascendance has important implications when considering the inscriptions of Southeast Asia. The earli- est of these, from VO CANH in southern coastal Vietnam, was written in Sanskrit, as were those of the coastal state of FUNAN. Indeed, Sanskrit was the preferred language of all the major inscriptions of CHENLA and the kingdom of ANGKOR, in Cambodia, although Old KHMER was also used in subsidiary texts on many occasions. The quality of the Sanskrit employed was admirable, as seen in the long dedicatory inscriptions of the temples of the PRE RUP, PREAH KHAN, and TA PROHM at Angkor.’ ^[4]

[1]: (Stark, Miriam 2010, p. 144)

[2]: (Chandler 2008, p. 27)

[3]: (Chandler 2008, p. 13)

[4]: (Higham 2004, p. 294)

‘The signally used in the Khmer language is and Indic-based script which dates back about 1500 years. It was used in inscription as far back as the sixth century and remains in use throughout Cambodia. The system is highly complex. Much of the complexity is due to its long history, since the phonology of the language has changed radically while the writing system has remained fairly constant. The writing system is alphasyllabic […] and written from left to right. The primary graphic graphic element represents a consonant, with vowels indicated by symbols on either side of the consonant or hovering above or below. The consonant is written first, and then the vowel is added, even if the vowel sign is written to the left of the consonant. The space below the primary consonant is used for secondary consonants. Diacritics which affect the interpretation of the consonant appear both above and below the consonant, sometimes shifting position depending on the shape of the consonant.’ […] Khmer was originally carved in stone and written on palm leaves.’ ^[1] ’No one knows for certain how long people have lived in what is now Cambodia, where they came from, or what languages they spoke before writing was introduced, using an Indian-style alphabet, around the third century CE.’ ^[2]

[1]: (Schiller 1996, p.467)

[2]: (Chandler 2008, p. 13)

Coe (2003) provides a image of a ’Bronze official seal in the shape of a squirrel. Classic period, twelfth to thirteenth centuries [...].’ ^[1]

[1]: (Coe 2003, p. 142)

’Each year the mandarin chooses a day in the month which corresponds to the fourth Chinese month and notifies all the country. Each family with a daughter subject to chen-t’an notifies the mandarin. The mandarin sends a candle on which a mark is made. At nightfall of the appointed day, the candle is lighted and when it burns up to the mark, the moment of chen-t’an has arrived.’ ^[1]

[1]: (Briggs 1951, p. 246)

’During the first five hundred years or so of the current era, India provided Cambodia with a writing system, a pantheon, meters for poetry, a language (Sanskrit) to write it in, a vocabulary of social hierarchies (not the same as a caste system), Buddhism, the idea of universal kingship, and new ways a looking at politics, sociology, architecture, iconography, astronomy, and aesthetics.’ ^[1]

[1]: (Chandler 2008, p. 17)

’Most of the subjects are drawn from the Indian epics and sacred books—Ramayana, Mahabarata, Harivamsa, Puranas—and portray legendary scenes from the lives of Rama and Krishna, avatars of Vishnu. They begin less than a meter from the floor and cover more than two meters in height. Owing to their extent, their accessibility, and their perfect lighting, these bas-reliefs are among the most striking specimens of Khmer art and among those longest remembered.’ ^[1]

[1]: (Briggs 1951, p. 200)

’This means that the sources available to us consist mainly of those that were inscribed on stone. The stone inscriptions were normally composed as records of endowments to temples, and they were overwhelmingly skewed to the affairs of religious institutions.’ ^[1] ’For several hundred years, Sanskrit was used in inscriptions that supposedly addressed the gods. Khmer, on the other hand, was the predominant language of Cambodian men and women, those who were protected by the gods and descended, as gods did not, from their ancestors and the highly localised nak ta.’ ^[2] ’This section also includes a discussion of the Riemker, which is the Khmer version of the great Indian epic, the Ramayana, and how they differ. He identifies indigenous additions and changes and notes similarities between later versions of the Riemker and scenes depicted on the bas-reliefs at Angkor Wat.’ ^[3]

[1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.125)

[2]: (Chandler 2008, p. 27)

[3]: (Rooney 2004, p. 161)

’More recently, the reconstruction of the interior plan has led Gaucher (2004) to identify its features with Indian texts on the ideal layout of a city, particularly those of Kautilya, an Indian minister who wrote the Arthasastra, a Sanskrit treatise on statescraft, under the reignt of the Mauryan king Candragupta Maurya (about 325-297 BCE). It provides an appreciation of the philosophical and organisational basis for a state that identified seven vital elements: the king, the territorial boundaries, a fortified capital, taxation and the accumulation of surpluses, control of the means of defense and destruction, the maintenance of alliances and bureaucracy. His prescriptions for the fortified city capital are in many ways, replicated at Angkor Thom [...].’ ^[1] ’The Indian combat manual Kautiliya Arthashastra gives an idea of the ideal battle array, specifying ’three combat foot-soldiers per horsemen, fifteen per chariot (which in fact were not in combat use in Cambodia) or for an elephant plus five horse.’ The same proportions applied to the ’foot-guards’ who were probably grooms attending to the animals. So the ideal combat unit consisted of sixty warriors for an elephant and five calvary. [...] The same Indian military manual relates that on the eve of a battle the chaplain would make offerings to the Fire.’ ^[2] ’

[1]: (Higham 2014b, p. 386)

[2]: (Jacques and Lafond 2007, p. 34)

’During the first five hundred years or so of the current era, India provided Cambodia with a writing system, a pantheon, meters for poetry, a language (Sanskrit) to write it in, a vocabulary of social hierarchies (not the same as a caste system), Buddhism, the idea of universal kingship, and new ways a looking at politics, sociology, architecture, iconography, astronomy, and aesthetics.’ ^[1]

[1]: (Chandler 2008, p. 17)

According to Miriam Stark, ’[i]ndividuals increased their karma for the next life by establishing temples or making donations to extant temple (see also Hagesteijn 1996:189, passim). Entrenched and aspiring elite members recorded their temple offerings in stone. Such activity is clear in the earliest dated Khmer inscription (K. 600) from Angkor Borei in southern Cambodia. This inscription lists donations to the temple/foundation by two elite individuals: nine males, nine females, two children, eighty head of cattle, two buffalo, ten goats, forty coconut trees, and two rice fields (Vickery 1998:227)’, ^[1] and ’most indigenous inscriptions record the beneficence of aspiring elite individuals’ ^[2] , and ’[g]enealogies frequently appear in royal inscriptions [...]’ ^[3] ’Exceptions are several important Sanskrit inscriptions, which include lists of gifts or temple supplies (e.g., inscriptions of the Jayavarman VII period - the hospital stelae; K. 273/ 1186, K. 908/1191 and K. 180/ 948; and the bilingual inscriptions, K. 254/1126 and K. 235/1052. In a few instances, Khmer authors use Sanskrit in the opening formulae of texts. In Pre- Angkorian texts, there may be short imprecatory passages, usually at the end, which are all or partly in Sanskrit.’ ^[4]

[1]: (Stark, Miriam 2006, p.160-161)

[2]: (Stark, Miriam 2010, p. 144)

[3]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.161)

[4]: (Lustig 2009, p. 107)

’Sanskrit inspirit, in verse, praise the actions of kings and the elite, such as building Hindu temples, sponsoring Buddhist monasteries, winning wars, and offering gifts to monks and brahmans. Some of the speakers trace or doctor their genealogies, as is to cash in on or invent ancestral merit; many praise brahmans at the expense of other segments of society; and all are fulsome in praise of those in power, who have, after all, allowed the temples to be built and the stone inscriptions to be incised.’ ^[1] ’From now on [1327] the only sources of information are the Royal Chronicles of Cambodia, known in several recensions, but generally regarded as unreliable; they are supposed to date from 1346 and were drawn up as lists of kings with details of the main events of each king’s reign. However written on perishable palm-leaf, they were often rewritten and re-edited to suit later reigns.’ ^[2]

[1]: (Chandler 2008, p. 27)

[2]: (Snellgrove 2004, pp. 182-183)

Religious dramas and their derivations dominate the popular literature.

’At Angkor Wat [...] the measurements of both parts and whole contain calendrically and cosmologically significant totals. As an illustration of the part/whole relationship, the circumference of the fourth (outer) enclosure at Angkor Wat measures 1 lunar year expressed as 354.36 units. (There are 354.36 days in 12 lunar months). The circumference also includes a 28-unit ritual path through the triad of eastern, northern, and southern entrances. One lunar month is often expressed as 28 days of length and is a subdivision the lunar year. IN other words, the 28-unit path is contained within the 354.36-unit circumference, and the 28-day month is contained within the 354-day year. The part-whole relationship in architecture parallels the part/whole relationship in the calendar.’ ^[1] ’In Khmer astronomy, the positions of the planets and stars can be determined without using trigonometry. Nevertheless, at some point between the second and fifth centuries A.D., Indian astronomy adopted the trigonometric calculations of the Greeks and Romans. These methods may have been introduced into Cambodia by the fifth or sixth centuries. When solar and lunar alignments were found at Angkor Wat in 1976, it was clear that the angles between the towers, the moon or sun, and the observation points were carefully calculated, further suggesting that a knowledge of trigonometry was current when the temple was constructed. ^[2] ’Calendrical values were part of a living cultural context and invariably emerge in Khmer inscriptions. In this simple one-sentence inscription, two or three words were enough to say that a Siva gingham was set up (read:in a temple constructed for that purpose), but it took several lines to explain when that happened. The planets’ positions in the 12 zodiac signs or in the 27/28 naksatra, the light or dark half of the lunar month, the solar month, the day of the week, and the year come first by custom-before the main statement. According to tradition, the era date is given ’backwards,’ with the smallest year first and the century last, and spelled out through numerical symbols.’ ^[3] Attested as present during Angkorean times by David Chandler ^[4] . The central administration in Angkor must have had fairly detailed information for the purposes of taxation and core labour of all the empire’s inhabitants, for according to Zhou a census was taken during the ninth Cambodian month, where everyone (or, more likely, all heads of families) was called to the capital, and passed in review before the Royal Palace. Such census registers were kept in Aymonier’s day, and revised every three years.’ ^[5]

[1]: (Mannikka 1996, p.3)

[2]: (Mannikka 1996, p.4)

[3]: (Mannikka 1996, p.261)

[4]: (Chandler 2008, p. 15)

[5]: (Coe 2003, p. 145)

’The Khmer empire never developed a standardized currency, instead using exchange equivalents in gold, silver, rice, cloth, cattle, butter and slaves (Sedov 1978:125), and remained a marginal player in the China-Southeast Asia trade network.’ ^[1]

[1]: (Stark, Miriam 2010, p. 161)

’The Khmer empire never developed a standardized currency, instead using exchange equivalents in gold, silver, rice, cloth, cattle, butter and slaves (Sedov 1978:125), and remained a marginal player in the China-Southeast Asia trade network.’ ^[1]

[1]: (Stark, Miriam 2010, p. 161)

’The Khmer empire never developed a standardized currency, instead using exchange equivalents in gold, silver, rice, cloth, cattle, butter and slaves (Sedov 1978:125), and remained a marginal player in the China-Southeast Asia trade network.’ ^[1] ’The economy of Angkor, now receiving detailed scholarly attention is somewhat peculiar because, unlike most neighbouring states, the empire never used money of any kind.’ ^[2]

[1]: (Stark, Miriam 2010, p. 161)

[2]: (Chandler 2008, p.9)

’In China’s Song dynasty (AD 960-1279), contemporaneous with the period most closely associated with that height of the Khmer empire, records of Khmer tributary missions are scare compared to missions reported for neighbouring polities including Champa (central Vietnam) and southern Sumatra (Wong 1979). During this era, polities in Java and Sumatra developed multiple shipping ports, hosted foreign merchants, and established coinage (Christie 1999). The Khmer empire never developed a standardized currency, instead using exchange equivalents in gold, silver, rice, cloth, cattle, butter and slaves (Sedov 1978:125), and remained a marginal player in the China-Southeast Asia trade network.’ ^[1] ’The economy of Angkor, now receiving detailed scholarly attention is somewhat peculiar because, unlike most neighbouring states, the empire never used money of any kind.’ ^[2]

[1]: (Stark, Miriam 2010, p. 161)

[2]: (Chandler 2008, p.9)

’The economy of Angkor, now receiving detailed scholarly attention is somewhat peculiar because, unlike most neighbouring states, the empire never used money of any kind.’ ^[1] ’During this era, polities in Java and Sumatra developed multiple shipping ports, hosted foreign merchants, and established coinage (Christie 1999). The Khmer empire never developed a standardized currency, instead using exchange equivalents in gold, silver, rice, cloth, cattle, butter and slaves (Sedov 1978:125), and remained a marginal player in the China-Southeast Asia trade network.’ ^[2]

[1]: (Chandler 2008, p.9)

[2]: (Stark, Miriam 2010, p. 161)

’The Khmer empire never developed a standardized currency, instead using exchange equivalents in gold, silver, rice, cloth, cattle, butter and slaves (Sedov 1978:125), and remained a marginal player in the China-Southeast Asia trade network.’ ^[1] ’Revenue was usually in kind, being paid in grain, but some special districts paid in other commodities such as honey and wax.’ ^[2]

[1]: (Stark, Miriam 2010, p. 161)

[2]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, pp.166-167)

Temple clusters functioned as postal stations. ’The findings challenge a few currently held views (e.g. that transactions were conducted without a unit of account), corroborate others (e.g. that officials based in regional areas acted in multiple roles, including the collection of levies), and provide some additional insights into the political economy of the Khmer state (e.g. that there were clusters of temple sites of long duration together forming communication corridors).’ ^[1]

[1]: (Lustig 2009, p. 30)

Administrative and trade communication was widespread, but their is no evidence of private communication channels.

Coe (2003), citing Mabbett, states, ’Inevitably, a ruler lived spider-like at the centre of a huge web of activities, surrounded by an army of clerks, cleaners, attendants, cooks, porters, messengers, carters, valets, maintenance workers, engineers, and so forth.’ ^[1] ’Suryavarman II is famed as a great concjueror. For several years his soldiers dominated the northern Chams, whom he recruited as allies in a series of unsuccessful invasions of Dai Viet. The Khmers communicated with the northern Cham territories through mountain passes from the Mekong Valley, and, interestingly, the southern Cham territories appear not to have felt the power of Suryavarman II.’ ^[2]
’Indeed, the survival of the state itself turned on an efficient transport and communication system, and the roads of Jayavarman VII must have followed time-honoured routes. As Hendrickson (2007) has stressed, strategic resources were often confined to specific parts of the Kingdom: Phaimai supplied salt, Banteay Chhmar gold, and Preah Khan of Kompong Svay, iron.’ ^[3]

[1]: (Coe 2003, p. 139)

[2]: (Taylor 2008, p. 161)

[3]: (Higham 2014b, pp. 389-390)

’The enclosure of Banteay Prei Nokor is the largest and most formidable of which we have any knowledge in pre-Angkorian Cambodia. It was surrounded by a large earthen rampart, probably surmounted by a wooden palisade. The rampart is about 2.50 kilometers square. A moat, about 100 meters wide, surrounded the rampart [...].’ ^[1] ’This was the greatest blow Cambodia had suffered since its conquest by the Malays. The Cham fleet sailed up the Tonle Sap and probably the Siemreap river to Yasodharapura (576, 164). The wooden palisades offered no adequate defense. The wooden residences and public buildings and many temples with their gilded spires and idols of gold were sacked or burned.’ ^[2]

[1]: (Briggs 1951, pg. 76)

[2]: (Briggs 1951, p. 207)

’The wall [of Angkor Thom] is entirely made of superimposed blocks of stone; it is about two [sic] fathoms high. The bonding of the stones is very compact and solid, and no weeds are found there. There is no crenellation.’ On the ramparts, in certain places gangling [kuang-lang, kouang-lang] trees have been planted. At regular distances are found empty casemates. The inner side of the wall is like a ramp wider than ten fathoms. On top of each ramp are huge doors, closed at night, and open in the morning. There are also guards at the gates.’ ^[1] ’From the remains and traces, it seems that their religious edifices were also mostly of wood, with brick foundation and wandaf’a (p. 33), and with stone slabs sometimes used for frames of doors and windows; although, as will be seen, in the latter part of this period, brick edifices were not uncommon and even stone structures were probably not unknown. Even to the end of its architectural greatness, except for walls, gates, towers, etc., Cambodia used stone and brick for religious constructions only. This was because their architects did not know the principle of the true arch and used the "false arch," also known as overlapping or corbelling: i.e., from opposite sides, each succeeding pair of bricks or stones projected over the opening to be vaulted until the gap was small enough to be closed by a single brick or stone.’ ^[2] ’This royal city [Angkor Thom] probably resembled the Forbidden City of Beijing: a walled complex contain- ing religious and administrative officials and religious sanctuaries. The wall, 3 kilometers (1.8 miles) on each side and 8 meters (26.5 feet) high, is bordered by a moat 100 meters (330 feet) wide. Angkor Thom is an exact square, the sides of which run exactly north-south and east-west. Each wall has a gate in the middle, entered by a bridge over the moat.’ ^[3]

[1]: (Zhou and Smithies 2001, p. 19)

[2]: (Briggs 1951, p. 32)

[3]: (Miksic 2007, p. 20)

’The wall [of Angkor Thom] is entirely made of superimposed blocks of stone; it is about two [sic] fathoms high. The bonding of the stones is very compact and solid, and no weeds are found there. There is no crenellation.’ On the ramparts, in certain places gangling [kuang-lang, kouang-lang] trees have been planted. At regular distances are found empty casemates. The inner side of the wall is like a ramp wider than ten fathoms. On top of each ramp are huge doors, closed at night, and open in the morning. There are also guards at the gates.’ ^[1]

[1]: (Zhou and Smithies 2001, p. 19)

’King Jayavarman II’s restlessness did not end when he moved his court to the Great Lake region. During his reign he would build three capitals, abandoning each before he made his final choice at Roluos. Regarding his move to Angkor, Michael Vickery has suggested that it resulted from military and political pressure from the hostile kingdom of Champa. Angkor was also remote from the coast of the South China Sea—and seaborne enemies such as the Javanese—with access hindered by the numerous sandbars and treacherous currents of the Mekong delta.’ ^[1] ’Military campaings were probably conducted in the Post-Classic period as they had been during the Classic Era, but on a lesser scale: it is doubtful if any king of Lovek or Udong could muster the armies that were fielded by rulers like Suryavarman II. There was no standing army - in times of war, the patron was expected to muster a force of his clients, and place himself or an officer designated by the king at the head. The arms that they bore were substantially like those wielded by Classic warriors, with the addition of firearms and canon (after 1600). Again the principle of five ruled, as there were five corps: the vanguard, the rear guard, the right flank, the left flank, and the central corps or main body of the army, where the king kept himself with his war elephants. These animals were strengthened magically from time to time by bring sprayed with water mixed with human bile (or so say our sources); magical ideas also led the warriors to cover themselves with protective amulets. The king would be surrounded by Brahmins who conducted ritual ablutions, and by soothsayers who were consulted on the placement of military camps and for auspicious days for military operations.’ ^[2] ’As the population in chiefly urban centers grew, so steps had to be taken to conserve and reticulate water. This was achieved by digging circular moats around settlements and allowing water to flow into the rice fields beyond. It is likely that such a system was used only to maintain the absence of wet season rains, and the moats would have also supplied the populace with water, defines, and aquatic food.’ ^[3] ’Groslier (1998[1986]: 262) argues that Jayavarman VII built Vat Nokor and Ta Prohm of Bati (in the Vat Bati cluster), both west of the Mekong, to establish a borderland and military bases against the Cham, with whom the Khmer were engaged in numerous conflicts in the south (Hendrickson 2007: 250).’ ^[4]

[1]: (Tully 2005, p. 21)

[2]: (Coe 2003, p. 219)

[3]: (Hingham 2012, p. 184)

[4]: (Lustig 2009, p. 148)

The walls of Angkor Thom, one of the Khmer Empire’s most advanced fortifications formed ’a very regular square, and on each side is a stone tower.’ ^[1]

[1]: (Zhou and Smithies 2001, p. 19)

’The enclosure of Banteay Prei Nokor is the largest and most formidable of which we have any knowledge in pre-Angkorian Cambodia. It was surrounded by a large earthen rampart, probably surmounted by a wooden palisade. The rampart is about 2.50 kilometers square. A moat, about 100 meters wide, surrounded the rampart [...].’ ^[1] ’Angkor Wat (see diagram 1 and map 5) was built over a period of 28 years (1122-1150), though some decorations were never com- pleted. Like several earlier Khmer temples, Angkor Wat is sur- rounded by a moat; in this case the moat is 200 meters (660 feet) wide. Digging this moat involved removing 1,500,000 cubic meters of earth; this could have been done by 5,000 men in 10 years.’ ^[2]

[1]: (Briggs 1951, pg. 76)

[2]: (Miksic 2007, p. 23)

’The wall [of Angkor Thom] is entirely made of superimposed blocks of stone; it is about two [sic] fathoms high. The bonding of the stones is very compact and solid, and no weeds are found there. There is no crenellation.’ On the ramparts, in certain places gangling [kuang-lang, kouang-lang] trees have been planted. At regular distances are found empty casemates. The inner side of the wall is like a ramp wider than ten fathoms. On top of each ramp are huge doors, closed at night, and open in the morning. There are also guards at the gates.’ ^[1]

[1]: (Zhou and Smithies 2001, p. 19)

’The enclosure of Banteay Prei Nokor is the largest and most formidable of which we have any knowledge in pre-Angkorian Cambodia. It was surrounded by a large earthen rampart, probably surmounted by a wooden palisade. The rampart is about 2.50 kilometers square. A moat, about 100 meters wide, surrounded the rampart [...].’ ^[1]

[1]: (Briggs 1951, pg. 76)

’The first city conformed with the classic form of Khmer capital with certain fundamental elements: a defensive bank and ditch with a state temple at its centre, built from brick or stone, and a wooden palace. There would also have been many secular buildings, constructed almost entirely of wood, in and around the enceinte. The state temple at Roluos, the Bakong, and the temple built in memory of the royal ancestors, Preah Ko, were erected around 880. Another essential feature of a Khmer capital, a large reservoir, was added a decade later, with in its centre a third temple built to the north-west of Roluos, around the hill of Phnom Bakeng, now known as the Eastern Baray.’ ^[1]

[1]: (UNESCO ’Angkor’ World Heritage Site Long Description http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/668)

’The wall [of Angkor Thom] is entirely made of superimposed blocks of stone; it is about two [sic] fathoms high. The bonding of the stones is very compact and solid, and no weeds are found there. There is no crenellation.’ On the ramparts, in certain places gangling [kuang-lang, kouang-lang] trees have been planted. At regular distances are found empty casemates. The inner side of the wall is like a ramp wider than ten fathoms. On top of each ramp are huge doors, closed at night, and open in the morning. There are also guards at the gates.’ ^[1] Inside the outer, city walls, were additional layers of concentric walls, ultimately surrounding ’the golden tower’ [the Bayon], which Zhou Daguan calls "the centre of the kingdom.’ ^[1]

[1]: (Zhou and Smithies 2001, p. 19)

’From all this, we can bear in mind that Khmer breastplates, as we have described them, possibly used the materials cited by Bezacier: buffalo skins, tree bark, and bronze, even if this metal was replaced with iron at the period we are discussing, if indeed metal was used in making this armour. This was the case of the king, if we can believe Zhou Daguan, who in the thirteenth century AD indicates that the sovereign "had his body class in iron, so that even knives and arrows, striking his body, could not harm him".’ ^[1] Polity expert Charles Higham "I dont think there was ever a transition to steel but will ask the iron expert, Oliver Pryce for his view." (pers. comm. with Harvey Whitehouse 04/08/2017)

[1]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, pp. 20-21)

’For personal defence, there were two kinds of shields: round ones ornamented with vegetal or flower motifs, and long ones ornamented on the top border. The latter could be grouped together to form a kind of rampart. Both were probably of wood and hide, with metal plaques. Although most warriors wore only a kind of short-sleeved jacket (sometimes resembling the quilted ’armour’ in use in Mesoamerica), many were protected by a cylindrical cuirass, often with one or two knives lashed over it for close combat.’ ^[1] ’From all this, we can bear in mind that Khmer breastplates, as we have described them, possibly used the materials cited by Bezacier: buffalo skins, tree bark, and bronze, even if this metal was replaced with iron at the period we are discussing.’ ^[2]

[1]: (Coe 2003, pp. 185-186)

[2]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 20)

Bronze armor have been found and copper is needed to make bronze, so it seems reasonable to assume that copper weapons were probably used too.

’From all this, we can bear in mind that Khmer breastplates, as we have described them, possibly used the materials cited by Bezacier: buffalo skins, tree bark, and bronze, even if this metal was replaced with iron at the period we are discussing, if indeed metal was used in making this armour. This was the case of the king, if we can believe Zhou Daguan, who in the thirteenth century AD indicates that the sovereign "had his body class in iron, so that even knives and arrows, striking his body, could not harm him".’ ^[1]

[1]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, pp. 20-21)

The ballista. ’One type of contrivance, probably a ballista, is illustrated in the relief culture. Carried on elephant back or mounted on wheels, it is portrayed in the art of the Bayon and Banteay Chmar; it appears to be a double bow, operated by pulling back the rear bow.’ ^[1]
’This includes a ballista, mounted either on elephant back or on a wheeled vehicle that could be rolled onto the field of battle; it consisted of two opposed bows, worked by two men, and shot arrows with tremendous force. Michel Jacq-Hergoulac’h, the leading authority on Khmer warfare, believes it may have been of Chinese origin. Shield ’ramparts’ mounted on wheels are another innovation of Kayavarman’s VII’s reign.’ ^[2] ’But before we do this, to avoid repetition, we shall consider what was the technological level of this army, that is, what were the weapons it used, for, of course, contrary to what Zhou Daguan affirms, namely that the use of bows, arrows, ballistae, and breastplates was unknown to the Khmer army, it did in fact have these arms.’ ^[3] ’The rather later reliefs from banteay Chhmar and the Bayon show ballistae mounted on the backs of elephants. One man guided the elephant, and it took two to arm and fire the nallista. This technique was probably an innovation of the reign of Jayavarman VII and was, according to Mus (1929), derived from China through Cham intermediaries.’ ^[4] See Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies (2007) pages 27 to 35 for a detailed description. ^[5] Catapults ’The permanent guard maintained at the capital was probably better. Relief sculpture portrays guards wearing helmets wrought with elaborate motifs; door guards wearing helmets wrought with elaborate motifs; door guardians carrying ceremonial weapons, their points protected by covers; sentinels carry lances, swords and shields. Ordinary soldiers carried lances in their right hands and shields in their left. The arsenal included sabres, swords, shields, broadswords, daggers, catapults and other contrivances.’ ^[1]

[1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.157)

[2]: (Coe 2003, p. 186)

[3]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 13)

[4]: (Higham 2014b, pp. 396-397)

[5]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, pp. 27-35)

Catapults were not gravity powered.

Jacq-Hergoualc’h’s in-depth and authoritative analysis of Khmer weaponry includes no mention of slings. ^[1]

[1]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007)

The date of the inscription of Baset—the only inscription that got away from the Mekong and its path to the sea—hints that it may have been carved before Jayavarman I was really settled on the throne. The inscriptions seem to indicate that after long campaigns he pacified the country; but the location of his inscriptions hint that he may have made a mistake in abandoning his bow and arrows. During his later years at least he does not seem to have had all Chenla under his control; for, in a reign of perhaps more than 40 years, with more inscriptions than any other king before Yasovarman I, the inscriptions of his reign seem but once or twice to get away from the immediate region of the Mekong and its route to its port.’ ^[1] According to Coe (2003), iron was used in weaponry, including knives, spears and arrowheads since Iron Age chiefdoms (c. 500 BC to c. 200-500 CE). ’Iron was used not only for axes (for land clearance) and digging implements, but also for weaponry, principally knives, spears and arrowheads; in fact, weapons are often found in burials’ ^[2] ’But before we do this, to avoid repetition, we shall consider what was the technological level of this army, that is, what were the weapons it used, for, of course, contrary to what Zhou Daguan affirms, namely that the use of bows, arrows, ballistae, and breastplates was unknown to the Khmer army, it did in fact have these arms.’ ^[3] ’After the lance, the bow, at least at Angkor Wat, is the most common weapon.’ ^[4]

[1]: (Briggs 1951, p. 57)

[2]: (Coe 2003, p. 49)

[3]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h 2007, p. 13)

[4]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 21)

Jacq-Hergoualc’h’s in-depth and authoritative analysis of Khmer weaponry includes no mention of javelins. ^[1]

[1]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007)

’Military campaings were probably conducted in the Post-Classic period as they had been during the Classic Era, but on a lesser scale: it is doubtful if any king of Lovek or Udong could muster the armies that were fielded by rulers like Suryavarman II. There was no standing army - in times of war, the patron was expected to muster a force of his clients, and place himself or an officer designated by the king at the head. The arms that they bore were substantially like those wielded by Classic warriors, with the addition of firearms and canon (after 1600). Again the principle of five ruled, as there were five corps: the vanguard, the rear guard, the right flank, the left flank, and the central corps or main body of the army, where the king kept himself with his war elephants. These animals were strengthened magically from time to time by bring sprayed with water mixed with human bile (or so say our sources); magical ideas also led the warriors to cover themselves with protective amulets. The king would be surrounded by Brahmins who conducted ritual ablutions, and by soothsayers who were consulted on the placement of military camps and for auspicious days for military operations.’ ^[1] ’The only major novelty is the appearance at the Bayon and Banteay Chmar of war machines which put the army a step up the ladder of technical prowess. But we are still far from the appearance of firearms.’ ^[2]

[1]: (Coe 2003, p. 219)

[2]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 37)

’Military campaings were probably conducted in the Post-Classic period as they had been during the Classic Era, but on a lesser scale: it is doubtful if any king of Lovek or Udong could muster the armies that were fielded by rulers like Suryavarman II. There was no standing army - in times of war, the patron was expected to muster a force of his clients, and place himself or an officer designated by the king at the head. The arms that they bore were substantially like those wielded by Classic warriors, with the addition of firearms and canon (after 1600). Again the principle of five ruled, as there were five corps: the vanguard, the rear guard, the right flank, the left flank, and the central corps or main body of the army, where the king kept himself with his war elephants. These animals were strengthened magically from time to time by bring sprayed with water mixed with human bile (or so say our sources); magical ideas also led the warriors to cover themselves with protective amulets. The king would be surrounded by Brahmins who conducted ritual ablutions, and by soothsayers who were consulted on the placement of military camps and for auspicious days for military operations.’ ^[1]

[1]: (Coe 2003, p. 219)

’The ordinary Khmer soldiers as well as officers might carry a lance; or a bow, with the arrows being held in a quiver; or sabres of different length; or various sizes of knives and daggers; or a kind of halberd known as a phka’h. The latter was basically an iron axe mounted on a long handle curved at one end. At Angkor Wat, the phka’k is held in the hands of high-ranking warriors mounted on elephants or horses; it is still in use in the twentieth century for hunting or work in the forest. Crossbows were known, but are extremely rare in the reliefs.’ ^[1] ’Others, equally rare, carry an arbalest. This weapon (Fig 12.5), very poorly reproduced, seems to consist of a bow and a grooved guide. G. Groslier suggests it is a wooden trigger holding taught the bowstring; this seems possible but we have found nothing like it.’ ^[2]

[1]: (Coe 2003, p. 185)

[2]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 23)

Jacq-Hergoualc’h’s in-depth and authoritative analysis of Khmer weaponry includes no mention of compound bows. ’They hold their bows almost vertically, left arm taut, the thumb on the inside of the flexed bow, the end of the arrow being upheld by the hand, with the right hand drawing back the bowstring as far as the chin, and holding the base of the arrow.’ ^[1]

[1]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 22)

New World weapon

Jacq-Hergoualc’h’s in-depth and authoritative analysis of Khmer weaponry includes no mention of war clubs. ^[1]

[1]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007)

’Inscriptional eulogies as a matter of routine describe kings as carrying swords red with the blood of their enemies, felling foes with vibrant blades, and cleaving the bodies of their enemies.’ ^[1]

[1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.156)

According to Coe (2003), iron was used in weaponry, including knives, spears and arrowheads since Iron Age chiefdoms (c. 500 BC to c. 200-500 CE). ’Iron was used not only for axes (for land clearance) and digging implements, but also for weaponry, principally knives, spears and arrowheads; in fact, weapons are often found in burials’ ^[1] ’The Khmer and Cham navies are locked in hand-to-hand combat. One of the Chams has been grabbed round the throat and is about to be speared. Banteay Chhmar.’ ^[2]

[1]: (Coe 2003, p. 49)

[2]: (Higham 2014b, p. 385)

’The ordinary Khmer soldiers as well as officers might carry a lance; or a bow, with the arrows being held in a quiver; or sabres of different length; or various sizes of knives and daggers; or a kind of halberd known as a phka’h. The latter was basically an iron axe mounted on a long handle curved at one end. At Angkor Wat, the phka’k is held in the hands of high-ranking warriors mounted on elephants or horses; it is still in use in the twentieth century for hunting or work in the forest. Crossbows were known, but are extremely rare in the reliefs.’ ^[1] ’Remaining to be studied is a weapon, the phkn’h, a kind of axe (which in this translation will be termed the Khmer axe) which, like the knives and cutlasses, remains the same in form from generation to generation until the present.’ ^[2]

[1]: (Coe 2003, p. 185)

[2]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 24)

’The permanent guard maintained at the capital was probably better. Relief sculpture portrays guards wearing helmets wrought with elaborate motifs; door guards wearing helmets wrought with elaborate motifs; door guardians carrying ceremonial weapons, their points protected by covers; sentinels carry lances, swords and shields. Ordinary soldiers carried lances in their right hands and shields in their left. The arsenal included sabres, swords, shields, broadswords, daggers, catapults and other contrivances.’ ^[1]

[1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.157)

’The ordinary Khmer soldiers as well as officers might carry a lance; or a bow, with the arrows being held in a quiver; or sabres of different length; or various sizes of knives and daggers; or a kind of halberd known as a phka’h. The latter was basically an iron axe mounted on a long handle curved at one end. At Angkor Wat, the phka’k is held in the hands of high-ranking warriors mounted on elephants or horses; it is still in use in the twentieth century for hunting or work in the forest. Crossbows were known, but are extremely rare in the reliefs.’ ^[1] According to Jacq-Hergoualc’h (2007), ’typical axes, or phka’ks’ were present. ^[2]

[1]: (Coe 2003, p. 185)

[2]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 14)

’Armies did not consist of permanent standing armies but were raised ad hoc for particular campaigns by the great men of their provinces, who were responsible for supplying troops for royal service. Often enough, huge armies could be raised this way; Chau Ju-kua claims that the Khmers in his time had 200,000 elephants and many horses (albeit small ones). It is difficult to trust such figures. No doubt there could be enormous hordes of cheaply maintained foot soldiers - Chou Ta-kuan says that there had been universal conscription for a recent exhausting war against the Siamese - though the levies might be ill-trained and poorly equipped. Chou tells us that the Khmer soldiers were unclothed and barefoot; they lacked discipline and were poorly led’. ^[1] ’The ordinary Khmer soldiers as well as officers might carry a lance; or a bow, with the arrows being held in a quiver; or sabres of different length; or various sizes of knives and daggers; or a kind of halberd known as a phka’h. The latter was basically an iron axe mounted on a long handle curved at one end. At Angkor Wat, the phka’k is held in the hands of high-ranking warriors mounted on elephants or horses; it is still in use in the twentieth century for hunting or work in the forest. Crossbows were known, but are extremely rare in the reliefs.’ ^[2] ’Calvary horses were ridden without saddle or stirrups, and during combat the mounted knights often stood on their steeds’ backs. [...] War chariots were very similar to nags-decorated carts, but were roofless, and drawn by a pair of horses.’ ^[3] ’Seen in profile, as is most often the case, the chariot appears like a kind of cart drawn by two horses, the second animal often merging with the first and being very unclear.’ ^[4] ’We will close this section on the calvary with a few words about the arms carried by the horsemen. At Angkor Watt [sic], these arms are above all offensive; the lance is common, as are also the sabre and the Khmer axe (Fig 44.1). The only weapon they never carry is the bow.’ ^[5] ’The acquisition of a calvary raised many more problems: horses had to be imported, perhaps from India-like those of the embassy of the Funan, Fan Zhan, received as a gift from the court of the Murundas around AD 230-240, most likely from China via Vietnam. This difficulty must always have acted as a restraint on the development of this corps. ^[6] ’There is some correlation between centers of horse breeding and core regions of classical empires, suggesting that easy access to horses contributed to the military might of Pagan, Angkor, Champa, and Majapahit. This is most strikingly illustrated by well-preserved bas- reliefs of prancing Khmer horses. An elite cul- ture of horsemanship diffused from India in the course of the first millennium C.E., reflected in Sanskrit words embedded in many Southeast Asian languages, with China as another influen- tial model. Numerous Indian and Chinese texts relating to horses were available, but the mili- tary technology and court rituals of Southeast Asia remained distinct.To a greater extent than in India, horses were subordinate to elephants, for both war and prestige. Mounted infantry was more common than cavalry proper, and the technique of the mounted archer was scarcely employed.’ ^[7] ’Horses by contrast [to elephants], do not appear to have been so significant, and were probably used by officers in charge of infantry rather than in massed engagements.’ ^[8]

[1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.156)

[2]: (Coe 2003, p. 185)

[3]: (Coe 2003, p. 186)

[4]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 41)

[5]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, pp. 59-60)

[6]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 173)

[7]: (Clarence-Smith 2004, p. 610)

[8]: (Higham 2014b, p. 397)

’Armies did not consist of permanent standing armies but were raised ad hoc for particular campaigns by the great men of their provinces, who were responsible for supplying troops for royal service. Often enough, huge armies could be raised this way; Chau Ju-kua claims that the Khmers in his time had 200,000 elephants and many horses (albeit small ones). It is difficult to trust such figures. No doubt there could be enormous hordes of cheaply maintained foot soldiers - Chou Ta-kuan says that there had been universal conscription for a recent exhausting war against the Siamese - though the levies might be ill-trained and poorly equipped. Chou tells us that the Khmer soldiers were unclothed and barefoot; they lacked discipline and were poorly led’. ^[1] ’The ordinary Khmer soldiers as well as officers might carry a lance; or a bow, with the arrows being held in a quiver; or sabres of different length; or various sizes of knives and daggers; or a kind of halberd known as a phka’h. The latter was basically an iron axe mounted on a long handle curved at one end. At Angkor Wat, the phka’k is held in the hands of high-ranking warriors mounted on elephants or horses; it is still in use in the twentieth century for hunting or work in the forest. Crossbows were known, but are extremely rare in the reliefs.’ ^[2] ’The elephant was harnessed very simply, to judge by the few models found in the outer gallery of the Bayon (Fig. 17). It has a breast strap, a saddle girth, and a crupper of a special type, these three ropes being interlinked. To these should be added a headpiece and small bell around the back, attached to the breast strap.’ ^[3] ’The elephant was most clearly recorded during the Khmer empire dating from roughly 809 C.E. to 1431 C.E. During this time, the great temple of Angkor Wat and the Bayon were built.The frequent wars against theThais and Chams involved use of large “tuskers,” or superior male elephants, as well as elephants that carried men and goods. Elephants were important in moving the stones that built the temples, the logs that built the palaces, and the rice and other foods produced by the popu- lace to feed the royalty and the priests.The war elephants are wonderfully illustrated in the reliefs on the gallery walls of Angkor Wat. Similarly, many elephants are found among the carvings on the walls of Borobudur, the great Javanese Hindu-Buddhist temple dating to about 800 C.E.’ ^[4]

[1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.156)

[2]: (Coe 2003, p. 185)

[3]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 27)

[4]: (Griffin 2004, p. 486)

Jacq-Hergoualc’h’ (2007) exhaustive discussion of the military structure and weaponry of the Khmers makes no mention of the use of camels, dogs, or donkeys. ^[1]

[1]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007)

Dogs are not held in high esteem and fighting with them would be disgraceful. Jacq-Hergoualc’h’ (2007) exhaustive discussion of the military structure and weaponry of the Khmers makes no mention of the use of camels, dogs, or donkeys. ^[1] ’Only dogs are forbidden entry through the gates [of Angkor Thom]. ’The wall is a very regular square, and on each side is a stone tower. Criminals who have had their toes cut are also forbidden entry.’ ^[2]

[1]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007)

[2]: (Zhou and Smithies 2001, p. 19)

Jacq-Hergoualc’h’ (2007) exhaustive discussion of the military structure and weaponry of the Khmers makes no mention of the use of camels, dogs, or donkeys. ^[1]

[1]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007)

’For personal defence, there were two kinds of shields: round ones ornamented with vegetal or flower motifs, and long ones ornamented on the top border. The latter could be grouped together to form a kind of rampart. Both were probably of wood and hide, with metal plaques. Although most warriors wore only a kind of short-sleeved jacket (sometimes resembling the quilted ’armour’ in use in Mesoamerica), many were protected by a cylindrical cuirass, often with one or two knives lashed over it for close combat.’ ^[1] ’The warrior could always extend his buckler with an addition (Fig 8.3) which might have been made of finely-woven rattan, as is clearly seen in type 10.’ ^[2]

[1]: (Coe 2003, pp. 185-186)

[2]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h 2007, p. 17)

’The permanent guard maintained at the capital was probably better. Relief sculpture portrays guards wearing helmets wrought with elaborate motifs; door guards wearing helmets wrought with elaborate motifs; door guardians carrying ceremonial weapons, their points protected by covers; sentinels carry lances, swords and shields. Ordinary soldiers carried lances in their right hands and shields in their left. The arsenal included sabres, swords, shields, broadswords, daggers, catapults and other contrivances.’ ^[1] ’For personal defence, there were two kinds of shields: round ones ornamented with vegetal or flower motifs, and long ones ornamented on the top border. The latter could be grouped together to form a kind of rampart. Both were probably of wood and hide, with metal plaques. Although most warriors wore only a kind of short-sleeved jacket (sometimes resembling the quilted ’armour’ in use in Mesoamerica), many were protected by a cylindrical cuirass, often with one or two knives lashed over it for close combat.’ ^[2] ’This includes a ballista, mounted either on elephant back or on a wheeled vehicle that could be rolled onto the field of battle; it consisted of two opposed bows, worked by two men, and shot arrows with tremendous force. Michel Jacq-Hergoulac’h, the leading authority on Khmer warfare, believes it may have been of Chinese origin. Shield ’ramparts’ mounted on wheels are another innovation of Kayavarman’s VII’s reign.’ ^[3]

[1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.157)

[2]: (Coe 2003, pp. 185-186)

[3]: (Coe 2003, p. 186)

Jacq-Hergoualc’h’s (2007) in-depth and exhausting examination of Khmer armor discusses breastplates, rattan, resin-coated rattan, and thickly-braided cotton protective wear, but makes no mention of scaled armour, laminar armour, or plate armour. ^[1]

[1]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, Chapter 2)

Jacq-Hergoualc’h’s (2007) in-depth and exhausting examination of Khmer armor discusses breastplates, rattan, resin-coated rattan, and thickly-braided cotton protective wear, but makes no mention of scaled armour, laminar armour, or plate armour. ^[1]

[1]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, Chapter 2)

’Most of the breastplates show on their lower edge a flounce which is not, in spite of its appearance, to be confused with the end of the short jacket the soldiers wear underneath: this is always confirmed by its short sleeves.’ ^[1]

[1]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 19)

’From all this, we can bear in mind that Khmer breastplates, as we have described them, possibly used the materials cited by Bezacier: buffalo skins, tree bark, and bronze, even if this metal was replaced with iron at the period we are discussing, if indeed metal was used in making this armour. This was the case of the king, if we can believe Zhou Daguan, who in the thirteenth century AD indicates that the sovereign "had his body class in iron, so that even knives and arrows, striking his body, could not harm him".’ ^[1]

[1]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, pp. 20-21)

Jacq-Hergoualc’h’s (2007) in-depth and exhausting examination of Khmer armor discusses breastplates, rattan, resin-coated rattan, and thickly-braided cotton protective wear, but makes no mention of scaled armour, laminar armour, or plate armour. ^[1]

[1]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, Chapter 2)

’The permanent guard maintained at the capital was probably better. Relief sculpture portrays guards wearing helmets wrought with elaborate motifs; door guards wearing helmets wrought with elaborate motifs; door guardians carrying ceremonial weapons, their points protected by covers; sentinels carry lances, swords and shields. Ordinary soldiers carried lances in their right hands and shields in their left. The arsenal included sabres, swords, shields, broadswords, daggers, catapults and other contrivances.’ ^[1] ’The warriors are nearly always bear-headed. In the outer gallery at the Bayon there is one example in a poor condition of a dealers (Fig. 58E). [...] The head and nape of the neck seem to be covered by a kind of helmet with three protuberances: the central one is highest, and all three are embossed with regular concentric circles.’ ^[2]

[1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.157)

[2]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 74)

As we have seen, Indravarman married the daughter of Jayavarman VIII, forced the abdication of that monarch, disposed of the legitimate claimant and began to reign himself, at the end of 1295 or early in 1296. Chou Ta-kuan speaks of him as a soldier and a vigorous young ruler. The only inscription of his reign which gives much information about him speaks as if he reorganized a disunited country. It contains a panegyric in which he congratulates his subjects on replacing an old king by a young one: "If the land, sustained by an ancient king, experienced ordinarily the inconveniences of a superabundance of enemies, now, guarded by a young king, it does not experience the least inconvenience" (392, st. 12). This new king, covered with mail, ventured on the streets, which the old king had not dared to do. Chou Ta-kuan says that, during the year he spent at Angkor, he saw the king set out from the palace four or five times.’ ^[1]

[1]: (Briggs 1951, p. 251)

’For personal defence, there were two kinds of shields: round ones ornamented with vegetal or flower motifs, and long ones ornamented on the top border. The latter could be grouped together to form a kind of rampart. Both were probably of wood and hide, with metal plaques. Although most warriors wore only a kind of short=sleeved jacket (sometimes resembling the quilted ’armour’ in use in Mesoamerica), many were protected by a cylindrical cuirass, often with one or two knives lashed over it for close combat.’ ^[1] ’But before we do this, to avoid repetition, we shall consider what was the technological level of this army, that is, what were the weapons it used, for, of course, contrary to what Zhou Daguan affirms, namely that the use of bows, arrows, ballistae, and breastplates was unknown to the Khmer army, it did in fact have these arms.’ ^[2] ’At Angkor Wat, breastplates were mostly worn by soldiers of higher rank riding elephants and horses rather than by foot soldiers. The breastplates have a special wrap-around form which encloses the chest, leaving the arms and neck free.’ ^[3] ’Some soldiers also wore a sort of breast plate in two pieces bound togather across the chest with twine. Their use seems to have been discontinued dueing the reign of Jayavarman VII.’ ^[4]

[1]: (Coe 2003, pp. 185-186)

[2]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 13)

[3]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 18)

[4]: (Jacques and Lafond 2007, p. 34)

’The Khmer sources for this Cham victory refer to a surprise naval attack, sending a fleet up the Tonle Sap to the Great Lake. This illustrates the importance of shipping, for naval warfare as well as commerce; the Khmers, long accustomed to navigation on the Lake and the great waterways that seamed their territory, were not backward when it came to war at sea, and in the twelfth-century war against the Vietnamese it was claimed that they sent a fleet of 700 vessels round the coast.’ ^[1] ’Elsewhere we see a land battle (with the Cham enemies wearing their characteristic head-dress with floral crests), and a naval battle, in which fierce-prosed longboats are crowded by standing warriors who wield spears above their heads, while shoals of fish below them suggest the otherwise invisible water.’ ^[2] ’Great naval battles with the Cham appear on the Bayon and at Banteay Chhmar, both sides employing essentially identical ships embellished with garudas on the prow and nagas on the stern. Each vessel had 20 to 42 rowers plus a steersman, and must have been enormous. The bloody engagements on the waters of the Great Lake included the use of grappling hooks.’ ^[3] ’The representation of naval craft used in war, on their own or taking part in a battle, is found twice in the Khmer bas-reliefs we are studying: once at Bayon on the end wall of the other gallery, S side, E wing (Fig. 111), a scene whose portrayals or naval vessels can be linked to those in the same wing but farther west (Fig. 110), and the on some panels on the south-east corner of the same gallery. The other is found at Banteay Chmar where another naval battle fills a panel on the outer east gallery, south wing (Fig. 112).’, ^[4] ’According to Maspero (2002[1928]: 75; see also Cœdès 1968[1964]: 159-160), Sūryavarman had his own fleet which might not have been confined to the Mekong and other river systems, since later Vietnam sources report Khmer attacks in 1128 by over 700 ships to loot the coasts of Thanh-hoa. In 1147, the Chinese resumed diplomatic relations with the Khmer by honouring the (Chenla) king, and negotiated a commercial agreement (Cœdès 1968[1964]: 162; Briggs 1999[1951]: 189).’ ^[5]

[1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.157)

[2]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.127).

[3]: (Coe 2003, p. 187)

[4]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 127)

[5]: (Lustig 2009, p. 101)

’The Khmer sources for this Cham victory refer to a surprise naval attack, sending a fleet up the Tonle Sap to the Great Lake. This illustrates the importance of shipping, for naval warfare as well as commerce; the Khmers, long accustomed to navigation on the Lake and the great waterways that seamed their territory, were not backward when it came to war at sea, and in the twelfth-century war against the Vietnamese it was claimed that they sent a fleet of 700 vessels round the coast.’ ^[1]

[1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.157)

Jacq-Hergoualc’h’s in-depth and exhaustive examination of Khmer naval history does not produce any evidence of the use of merchant ships in military affairs. ^[1]

[1]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 127)