There is a major problem that plagues the scholarship on premodern Southeast Asian history, and I call it the “one king – one country” problem.
When European scholars during the colonial period first examined Southeast Asian history and tried to develop political chronologies for the various polities in the region, they did so by assuming that every “country” or “kingdom” had one “king.”
Similarly, when historians of Chinese history, or of China-Southeast Asia interactions, wrote about the past, they largely assumed that all tribute coming from the same place in Southeast Asia was from the one king of that one country.
In the post-colonial era, there were scholars who promoted the idea that kingdoms in Southeast Asia in the past were based on a “mandala” model, meaning that they did not have clear borders and consisted instead of powerful “centers” surrounded by subordinate vassals. However, the idea that each “mandala” only had one “king” persisted, and as such, the “one country – one king” view of the past continues today.
We can see the colonial-era version of this problem clearly in the work of our good friend, French scholar George Cœdès, a scholar who spent his entire career trying to create political histories for polities in premodern Southeast Asia that showed clear progressions from one king to another (“one country – one king”).
In many cases, Cœdès had no evidence for such clear progressions, and yet he still made the case.
Take the case of the Khmer ruler Udayadityavarman. On page 118 of his The Indianized States of Southeast Asia, Cœdès states that “Javavarman V died in 1001. . . He was succeeded by his nephew Udayadityavarman I, who reigned only a few months.”
Then on page 134, he states that “The Khmer epigraphy of the first ten years of the eleventh century shows three kings reigning simultaneously. The relationship between these kings is not clear, but they seem to have been antagonists.”
Cœdès then continues by stating that, “The nephew of Jayavarman V, Udayadityavarman I, whose only two known inscriptions come from Koh Ker and Mlu Prei, came to the throne in 1001.”
What we can see here is that for this period in the early eleventh century, there appear to have been multiple “kings” in “Cambodia,” however, we can also see that Cœdès was determined to demarcate “one” line, an “official” line of kings. That official line went from Jayavarman V to Udayadityavarman I.
Cœdès cites for “proof” of his statements two articles that he wrote himself. Neither of these articles clearly document that Udayadityavarman succeeded Jayavarman V or that he only ruled for less than one year.
This is the “one country – one king” problem. Even though Cœdès was confronted with information that did not show this, he still “interpreted” (I would say “distorted/fabricated”) the information to create a history of the past where there was always “one (legitimate) king” ruling over “one country.”
This problem is prevalent in the works that have attempted to determine the political history of premodern Southeast Asia. It is also prevalent in works that look at the tribute missions from Southeast Asian polities to the Chinese court in the past.
The various “Chinese” dynasties from the Tang to the Qing all had certain categories that they used to record the arrival of tribute missions. Modern scholars have equated these categories with “countries” and have seen the tribute that comes from these countries as coming from a single “king” in each of those countries.
Therefore, if tribute arrived from Zhenla or Sanfoqi or Shepo, then historians have largely interpreted this to mean that it arrived from the “king” of the “country” of Zhenla or Sanfoqi or Shepo.
However, it was probably not the case that every king had his own fleet of ships. Meanwhile, the prosperous port polities had communities of sea-faring foreigners who could provide their services. Such people could take advantage of that position to manipulate relations with “China.”
As such, when we see that tribute arrived from Zhenla or Sanfoqi or Shepo, it did not always arrive from the “king” of the “country” of Zhenla or Sanfoqi or Shepo.
We will see evidence of this in the next post: Srivijaya 3.0 (03): Angkor as an International Entrepôt.
