South East Asia

By the time the Sa Huỳnh culture of central and southern Vietnam was fading, around the beginning of the third century AD, coastal areas of South-East Asia had already emerged into the early historical record. Kingdoms such as Annam and Nam Viet had been ended by a phase of Han Chinese dominance, but the kings of a renewed Nam Viet took Vietnam out of the fading Iron Age and into the medieval period.

To the south of the Sa Huỳnh, the Óc Eo culture flourished as the archaeological expression of the kingdom of Funan. The preceding Dong Nai culture recorded the proto-Funan period in this southerly territory. The history of this early state is extremely patchy but in its late stages - in the early sixth century AD - its dominance was confirmed in the provinces of the middle Mekong, territory into which it had no doubt expanded in previous centuries.

It may have been the usurpation of the Funanese throne by Rudravarman in AD 514 which resulted in discontent in the provinces becoming apparent. A movement was directed by one Bhavavarman, seemingly a noble in the middle Mekong region, but perhaps related to some extent to the king himself via the latter's mother. Bhavavarman and his successor and fellow movement leader, Chitrasena (Chenla), managed to form a principality of their own, removing their territory from Funan's control.

The Chinese name of Chen-La (alternatively shown as Chenla or even Zhenla) may have originated from that second leader, Chitrasena, or he may have borne it as an appellation due to his influential role in his state's creation. The cause of the movement is not clear. Two main options are available to explain it: either it was a reaction to Rudravarman's usurpation or, perhaps more probably, it was a form of defence against the rightful line of rulers attempting to reclaim their throne. This they may have done in 550, but by then it was too late.

The New History of the Tang continued to mention embassies from Funan in the first half of the seventh century, but it also indicated that a great change had already taken place in the country: 'The king had his capital in the city T'e-mu. Suddenly his city was subjugated by Chen-La (to the north-west of Funan's core territory on the Mekong delta), and he had to migrate south to the city of Nafuna (Na-fu-na, location unknown but possibly Angkor Borei)'.

The last vestiges of Funan were removed in 627 during this pre-Angkor period of South-East Asian history. North-eastern Funan territory was gradually absorbed into the growing Cham domains. The remainder was absorbed into Chen-La and then the Khmer empire. For a long time after its fall, Funan retained much prestige in the memories of subsequent generations. The kings of Chen-La adopted its dynastic legend, with the later rulers at Angkor striving to relate their origins to the Indianised kings of Funan and the Javanese and Sumatran sovereigns of the eighth century AD.

The oldest text to mention Chen-La is the Sui history: 'The kingdom of Chenla is to the south-west of Lin-yi (Lâm Ấp). It was originally a vassal kingdom of Funan... The king's family name was Ch'a-li [Kshatriya], while his personal name was She-to-ssu-na [Chitrasena]. His ancestors had gradually increased the power of the country, [but it was] Chitrasena [who] seized Funan and subdued it'.

The name Chen-La which is used consistently by the Chinese to designate what would in time become Cambodia, remains unexplained: no known Sanskrit or Khmer word corresponds to its ancient pronunciation of tsien-lap. The state's centre can be located to the middle Mekong, in the region of Champasak (Bassac) which must have come under the domination of the Cham states by the end of the fifth century. This is confirmed by the presence of a stele which bears the name of Lâm Ấp's King Devanika in Sanskrit (created during his reign between 446 and about 480).

Various minor states in the region are known about to a limited extent. They largely seemed to have been formed as city states within Chen-La's overall territory and undoubtedly their little-known rulers paid homage to Chen-La's kings. Their number included Ampil Rolum, Aninditapura, Canasapura, and Vyadhapura.

Possibly - as has been proposed by one or two twenty-first century scholars - Chen-La was never a unified kingdom at all, instead being made up of a series of polities which perhaps acknowledged the most powerful of their number as a kind of high king.

Later in its relatively short history, Chen-La was for a time divided in two, with an Upper Chen-La inland and a Lower Chen-La commanding the coastal region (possibly another sign of the fragmented nature of Chen-La from the beginning?). One or other of these rulers was likely the aforementioned most powerful ruler in the region. The numbering of kings was continued by the Khmer empire, with the origins of that numbering being included here.

Far East Kingdoms

South East Asia

Images and text copyright © all contributors mentioned on this page. An original king list page for the History Files.