chakravarti-mother-right in ancient cambodia

Social Scientist

Mother-Right in Ancient CambodiaAuthor(s): Adhir ChakravartiSource: Social Scientist, Vol. 4, No. 7 (Feb., 1976), pp. 20-40Published by: Social ScientistStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516515Accessed: 01/09/2010 16:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=socialscien.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Social Scientist is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Scientist.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=socialscien

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516515?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=socialscien

ADHIR CHAKRAVARTI

Mother-right in Ancient Cambodia

THE DIFFERENT primitive tribes inhabiting the mountainous and

jungled regions of Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam are known to

possess a social structure which is indicative of strong matrilineal affilia- tions. Among the Me, family property is inherited by daughters only and of these the eldest is the favourite since it is she who is entitled to perform the funerary rites. The Rhades also recognize the right to property to girls only . But among the Sedang, Jarai, Stieng and Bahnar, family property is divided equally amongst the sons and daughters.l Indeed Eve Poree- Maspero has observed that if among some of these tribes succession is determined strictly in the female line, there is on the contrary none in which succession passes exclusively through the males.2 Side by side w-ith this pre-eminence of womenfolk, there is found among some of these peoples like the Rhade and Bahnar another institution, moitie, that is division of society into two exogamous groups opposed to each other which unite for matrimonial purposes8.

On an analogy of the socio-economic organization of these tribes it has been suggested that Cambodian society in pre-Indian times was also matrilineal. This receives confirmation from the earliest Chinese notice of the state of Fou-nan left by the envoys K'ang T'ai and Tchou Ying in the first half of A D fourth century.4 According to K'angT'ai, Houen-

MOTHER-RIGHT IN ANCIENT CAMBODIA

tien (Kaundinya),the first Indian adventurer in the country, met the resistance of the queen of Lieou-ye (coconut or willow5 leaves) who came to plunder his ship but was defeated. Houen-tien, the Chinese tells us, married her and started the first dynasty of Fou-nan. Incidentally, the Chinese report throws light on the material civilization of the country at the time when it states that Houen-tien was displeased to find the queen completely naked and he got a piece of cloth with plis which he put over her. From the above account it is evident that at the time of the advent of the Indians Founanese society was totemic and matriarchal and material civilization was in the state of early barbarism.

As it is only to be expected, the Indians brought with them patriarchal ideas of the Dharmasastras. At the head of their polity was an absolute despot who claimed divine origin and transmitted his authority in the male line. Their socio-economic structure was also largely determined by the varnadramadharma, which was pronouncedly against any freedom to be accorded to womenfolk. It therefore appears that when traditional Khmer society with its matrilineal social structure met the challenge of the materially superior and politically more consoli- dated Indian civilization, there ensued a period of tussle and turmoil in the course of which the traditional indigenous society had to concede defeat but did not at any epoch completely capitulate before the aggressive Indian culture. Further, it was a particularly slow process. Indianization remained confined to the elite society which included the nobility, admini- trative and military, and the high clergy of the court and other adminis- strative headquarters. It did not penetrate much beyond the large towns and for long left the commonalty including free labourers as also slaves unaffected. The material condition of life and social structure of these latter classes of people are very little reflected in inscriptions which have mostly aristocrats, lay and ecclesiastical, as their authors. But these remain, nevertheless, our most important source of information. In the course of the present paper an attempt will be made to show that matrilineal principles either predominated or considerably modified the working of patriarchal institutions among the court nobility. In fact, social equilibrium was hardly achieved even in the heyday of the classical Ankor civilization dating from A D 800 to 1300.

MATERNAL LINEAGE For a better appreciation of our problem it may be recapitulated

that in a matrilineal society (i) lineage, (ii) place of residence of the married couple, (iii) succession to office or status, rank and dignity, (iv) inheritance of property, and (v) authority over the group are determined through the female members of the group.

Though the Cambodian inscriptions, written both in Sanskrit and Khmer, recognize bilateral kinship, references to ma.trvamsa or maternal family are more numerous. There is a keen controversy amorgst scholars as to the raison d'etre of matrvamsa. As early as 1885 in his introductory

21

SOCIAL SCIENTIST

note to the inscription, Lovek Barth has observed that in the Saptadeva- kulas relationship (anvaya) is traced from maternal uncle to nephew or grandnephew (bhagineya, bhagineylja). He expressed wonder at the constant exclusion of descendants in the direct line, in spite of the fact that the large majority of these people did not live an ascetic life and at least one of these, Kavisvara, has been categorically stated to have got married. Thus he came to the conclusion that "the matrvamsa was an institution of ancient Khmer society and it had nothing to do with the celibacy of priests."6 A few years later in 1901 Barth seems to have reversed his opinion, evidently being overwhelmed by the explicit reference to the defrocking of Sadasiva in the Sdok Kak Thom (SKT) inscription which gives the history of the maternal family of Sivakaivalya which pretended to enjoy a monopoly right of officiating in the service of the Devaraja, the official cult of the state.7 Reckoning descent from maternal uncle to nephew (in Sanskrit bhagineya, svasriya; in Khmer K2aumrav) or grandnephew (in Sanskrit bhaginisuta-sunu; in Khmer cazu)Barth now likes to explain as due to a vow of celibacy resulting in the non-occurrence of

progeny of their own.8 Recently the argument has been espoused by Coedes and Dupont.9 But Finot points out that in the Sdok Kak Thom inscription the marriage of Sadasiva did not debar him from acting either as the priest of Devaraja or as head of the family. In the presence of numerous examples of matrvamsa he considers this not as a custom peculiar to a family (kulacara) but as an element of civil law.10 We, on our part, have endeavoured to show that the presumed defrocking of Sad;s va

really refers to his transformation from the student's life to that of the householder.' 1 Further, the inscription of Prasat Roluh (AD 1050) conclusively shows that he continued to act as the head of the family.12 Whether in inscriptions the term occurs or not, mat rvamsa is the usual form of reckoning descent in all sections of society, sacerdotal and non- sacerdotal. But it will be seen that most of these suffered from the incursions of patrilineal principle.

Priestly Families To take a few examples of sacerdotal matrilineal families:

(i) In the pre-Afikorian period the Vat Ph'u inscriptions mention four or five generations of a matrilineal Brahmana family. 1

(ii) In the Afikorian period the family of Pini Svan-gramavati or of Kusasthali14 was matrilineal but nevertheless the genealogy shows two

generations in the paternal line, Adhyapaka Rajendrapandita and

Nagapala. (iii) Bhagavata Kavi grinivasakavi Prthivindrapandita, the pre-

ceptor (gurusasta) of king Jayavarman III (AD 850-877) was born in a maternal family (samprapta matrvamsodayo bhavat.) 5 From the genealogical table which may be drawn up by comparing the inscriptions on the sanc-

tuary B, door-pillar II, 11. 1-22, door-pillar III, 11. 1-22 and door-pillar II, 11. 23-38, of Prasat Kok Po it appears that Sri Nivasakavi was

22


succeeded by his great-grandnephew Amrtagarbha. The latter is followed by his two nephews Kesava and Amrta. But afterwards authority of the family passed on to Visiuvara Prthivindrapandita II,another great-grandnephew of Sri Nivasakavi.

(iv) Yogisvarapandita I, the guru of Suryavarman I (AD 1002- 1050) was born of the eldest daughter of the son of Bhassvamini, an agramahipi of Jayavarman II (A D 802-850)16 Here may be witnessed a silent struggle between the opposing principles of patrilineal and matrilineal relationship. In the first generation after Jayavarman II, descent is traced through the son. But then the family reverts to the earlier custom. Even Yogisvarapanditaltakes his nephew Uddhataviravarman-Narendravarman in order to erect the Paicasula on the Mountain of Gold (Hemagiri) and the Samrofi inscription mentions Yogisvarapandita II as his grandson in the maternal line (matranvaye napta).17

(v) The history of the matrvamsa of givakaivalya is traced for about ten generations from Sivakaivalya coming up to Sadagiva-Jayendra- pandita-varman and covering the reigns of kings from Jayavarman II (AD 802-850) to Udayadityavarman II (AD 1050- c.1066). But here also it will be noted that not only kinship in the paternal line of Sadagiva recognized (ja pitrpakda) but he is known to have performed karmadharma, that is funerary rites of Vagindrapandita who stood in the relation of father to him (gurvartha). It may be recalled that possibly one predecessor of this Vagindrapandita who also bore the same title was an agramailtrii (chief counsellor) of iganavarman II (c. AD 925) and was born in a matrilineal family (matrvamsobhavas ca). 8 The mutation of two matrilineal families is worth noting.

(vi) The family of Pranavatman, hotar of Jayavarman II, was matrvams'a. But Coedes'9 and following him Briggs20 have suggested that givacarya, the nephew of gaikara of this family is identical with his namesake of the SKT who was the maternal grandnephew (son of sister's daughter). They think that gaikara and the mother of givacarya were consanguine brother and sister. This, they believe, explains why in the person of Sivacarya, the functions exclusive in the two respective families became united. If this be so, here is a sure proof of an infraction of the principle of matrilineal descent and inheritance since Sivacarya would derive his claim through his father who in his turn would have a claim through his wife.

(vii) In the inscription of Ta Keo, B, the genealogy starts from the union of Hyai Pavitra with Jayavarman II. In the third generation for the first time mention is made of a son, Paramacarya, the issue of Hyani Karpura and Divyantara. Henceforth appear male descendants in the alternate generations and are simply characterized as napta2'

(viii) The genealogy of Tilaka-Bhagavati of Kusasthali is given as follows in the Ban That inscription:

23

SOCIAL SCIENTIST

tanmatrvamsatilakan tilaka bhidhana

dauhitrika matimato vijayondrasureh su nuh ksitindravidupo gunaratnasindhor yya srlkavisvarakaver duhitus ca naptri22

Finot understands the stanza as signifying that Tilaka was the granddaughter (daughter's daughter) of the daughter of Kavisvara, daughter's

daughter of Vijayendrasuri and the daughter of Gunaratnasindhu. It wll be noted that the genealogy starts with a male person. This does not augur well for matrilineal lineage. However, if the reading sunuh be emended into sunoh and not as sunu as seems to have been done by Finot the genealogical table will be radically different as indicated below:

Vijayendrasiiri Gu naratnasindhu

d. = Kavisvarakavi

Tilaka She will be a dauhitrika (daughter's daughter) of Vijayendrasuri and Gunaratnasindhu's naptri which placed in opposition to dauhitrika would rather signify son's daughter.

It will thus be clear that though the family of Tilaka is expressly declared as a matrvamnsa, descent is traced simultaneously from paterna and maternal sides. Indeed this may be truly a period of transition since in the later history of the family the patrilineal character is beyond any doubt. The successors of Tilaka are indicated in the Pra,at Tor2 inscription as follows:

Tilaka= Namassivaya

I Subhadra - Murdhaliva = Bhagavaii (Bhiipendrapandita I)

Bhpe dita II

Bhuipendrapandita II X x= X (Rajendrapandita, (musician) Suryapandita) Bhiipendrapandita II

The instituton of tracing descent through females in priestly families was definitely dying towards the close of AD eleventh century. To let them die seems to be a deliberate governmental policy pursued by Surya- varman II (AD 1113-1145) for how else can one explain the fact that while Vagisvarapandita, the elder brother of Divakarapandita, the chaplain of the three rulers Jayavarman VI, Dharanindravarman I and Suryavarman II mentions all his ancestors in the maternal line (aji tayein

24


even when they did not hold any sacerdotal function,24 Divakarapandita is completely silent on the subject.25 The Lords Temporal

We may now turn our attention to the matrvamsa as it functioned among the non-sacerdotal aristocracy. For the pre-Ankorian period we have no information in this regard. During the Ankorian period notice

may be taken of the following: (i) The family of givakaivalya and givavinduka mentioned in the

inscription26of Palhal was a matrvamga but its different co-lateral branches lived at different places, though they maintained contact with one another. Thus when givakaivalya and ivavinduka, both residing at

Garyak saw Kanthapasa and Brahmarasika from a distance they cried out: "Do they not belong to our maternal family?" (matrto me kulam nviti?) At a certain point the history of this family becomes fused with that of Sangrama, the celebrated general of Udayadityavarman II. The

genealogy of this family is ve(ry badly preserved in the Prhh Pgouk inscrip- tion27 but from whatever remains of it, Barth concludes that it was

perhaps given entirely in the maternal line. Sri Prthivinarendra was a son-in-law of the family. He may be identical with his namesake mentioned in the inscription of the grand stele of Vat Samro 28 which equally gives the history of another non-sacerdoral matrilineal family. If the identity of the two Sri Prthivinarendra be accepted, it would follow that he first married a daughter of the Saiigrama family under whose roof he lived for some time and then left. Next he married two sisters, Tei Indranin and Ten Vasudevi and possibly died while living with them.

Descent in the maternal line was also traced in such lay families as those of Kamsten Sri Rajapativarman29 and Ksetrajna.3 Certain members of the latter family are also met in the genealogical lists contained in the inscription of Prasat Befi where the family of Thpvaf Rmami

though nominally entrusted with phjuh (whatever it may mean) of lKamratei Jagat Kadef, occupied itself more with humbler mundane duties and as such really belonged to the laity. Again, Devaparakrama- vira was the grandnephew of the grandnephew in the maternal line of

Padma, the brother of Sarasvati, a wife of Jayavarman II.8 Here genea-

logy is traced in the maternal line and if the branch reckoned a male member as its progenitor, he is nevertheless introduced with reference to his sister.

From the above discussion it will be evident that in ancient Cambodia priestly families as also lay aristocracy recognized the principle of matrilineal lineage, though it was under constant pressure from the

opposing principle of patrilineal affiliation. Of the large majority of the country, the ordinary freemen and slaves, we know very little. The

long lists of free labour and slaves which the inscriptions contain show that there was a certain convergence between them in respect of work schedule and organization but whether it was so in the social level also is

25

SOCIAL SCIENTIST

doubtful. Slaves are often introduced as descendants of this or that aji tai, that is female slave, indicating thereby a matrilineal social structure but it may be argued that purely from a juridical point of view there was nothing called a legitimate family of slaves and as such there could be no question of matrilineal or patrilineal lineage for them. This definitely cannot be asserted for free individuals with whom marriage was a recognized institution. In default of anything better we go by analogy and think that in the social structure and organization prevailing amongst the primitive mountain tribes of the vicinity we have an idea of ancient KhmBr society, which then would certainly be matrilineal.

Royal Succession The question which now confronts us is whether at all or to what

extent descent was reckoned through females in royal families. It has got to b- repeated that kingship as it flourished in the historical period in Cambodia was an institution of Indian origin and retained all the ideas and ideals connected with it in the Dharmasastras. Therefore it is only to be expected that since kingship in India was generally hereditary in the paternal line, it was not otherwise in Cambodia as well. In this respect the extreme positions are taken by Finot and Eve Poree-Maspero. Accords ing to the former, the principle of matriiineal succession was never applied to the devolution of the crown.82 Eve Poree-Maspero, on the other hand, believes that the Cambodian royalty was divided into two exogamous races called solar and lunar which were opposed to each other but united for matrimonial purpose. Right to the throne was transmitted in the female line which represented the original rights of Nagi Soma for the lunar dynasty and apsaras Mera for the solar race.83 She has accused the Chinese annalists recording the early history of the country to have practised a fraud with regard to royal succession in ancient Fou-nan. She says that since hereditary succession in the paternal line was the rule in China, they regarded only this form of succession as legitimate and as such falsified the history of Fou-nan by making its early rulers appear at succeeding one another in this order while the facts were really otherwise. As against her thesis Coedes has three objections. First, she has not always subiected her sources to a critical consideration; secondly, she has imagined the existence of the two races borrowed from Indian mythology even for the Founanese period though the first mention of the descendants of the couple Kambu-Mera occurs in a tenth century inscription84, and thirdly, she has been dogmatically selective in choosing only those facts which sui- her thesis and ignored all others. On his part, Coedes takes a more flexible attitude. He does not contest that the traditional indigenous society was based on mother-right but with regard to the royalty he observes:

Either, succession was effected, as Mrs Poree-Maspero likes it in the feminine line following an indigenous custom which was, however, less strictly observed than in the sacerdotal families...but in a good number of cases the sovereigns were able to get their sons accepted as

26


their inheritors and successors. Or, following the Indian tradition, succession was in the male line but certain princes, in default of a male successor of their predecessor or to justify the seizure of power (with or without violence) made use of the indigenous custom by invoking relationship in the female line with their predecessor or by marrying a princess of their family85

Two Rules Co-exist This is not the place to study the king-lists of ancient Cambodia

and examine closely the simultaneous operation of the opposing principles of royal succession. Suffice it to say that in respect of its determination malaise was great. Neither of the two principles triumphed over the other for any considerable period of time. There is hardly any evidence to show that even in Afkorian times the throne ever passed from father to son or

through the male line generally, for more than three generations. Indeed it is interesting to note that many Afikorian kings are characterized either as ,amtntuan or as garbheWvara. As a matter of fact, the former appellation has been found in connection with some pre-Afkorian rulers also under the form kamton.38 Coedes at first took the expression as a derivative of old

Malay tuan (master) but since Malay or old Javanese influence is not otherwise traceable in pre-Ankorian Cambodia, Coedes has revised his

opinion. He now thinks Khmer tvan (don, grandmother in current usage) as the base-word and kaamtvan refer to a descendant in the female line.87 It may be stated here that the title has been attributed to Jayavarman II whose genealogy is traced in the digraphic inscriptions of Yasovarman in the maternal line. King Puskaraksa of Sambhupura is said to have been the maternal uncle of the maternal uncle of the mother (matrmatualmatula) of Jayavarman II.38 Even Yasovarman who actually succeeded his father Indravarman to the throne has been given this appellation. It has been

suggested that through his mother's side his ancestry, and consequently claim to the throne, may be traced back, however dubiously, to Puskara- ksa of Sambhupura but in the paternal line his claim does not go beyond his father Indravarman whose father was a commoner. For similar reasons the title has been consistently applied to Sfryavarman I ( AD 1002-1050) This attribute does not occur with regard to either Jayavarman VI or Dharanindravarman I but let us note that queen Vijayendralaksmi was at first married to theyuvaraja, their youngest brother. On his death, the elder brother married her. Finally, on the demise of the latter the eldest brother Dharanindravarman I took her89. This is said to have been done out of devotion for the family (kulanuraga). It is hardly to be doubted that Jayavarman VI and Dharanindravarman I held their right to the kingdom through this queen.

The other title garbhesvara is taken to signify a king whose father was a ruler or was actually ruling at the time of his birth. It will be seen that it has been used to designate Jayavardhana-Jayavarman III (AD 850-877), Rajendravarman (AD 944-968) an Jayavarman V (AD 968-

27

SOCIAL SCIENTIST

1000). The first and last of these kings were respectively the sons of Jaya- varman II and Rajendravarman. But as regards Rajendravarman him-

self, there is som-e doubt as to his royal lineage on the paternal side and this in spite of his protestation that his father Mahendravarman was a ruler. The Pre Rup inscription which mentions his father as such lays greater emphasis on his maternal relations through whom he was connected with Baladitva ofAninditapura.40 So it appears that Rijendravarman derived his claim to the throne from paternal as well as maternal side. This compromise formula evidently did not work for most rulers and they chose their preferences according to their convenience. The final victory of the principle of succession in the paternal line is clear from the story related by Tcheou Ta-kouan, the Chinese envoy who visited the country during AD 1295-96. He states that the daughter of the king (Jayavar- man VIII) stole the gold sword, symbol of sovereignty and handed it over to her husband. The king then abdicated in favour of his son-in-law, thus

depriving his own son of the throne.'4 This account leaves no doubt that at the time of the Chinese envoy's visit, normally the son used to succeed his father to the throne. Nevertheless, the memory of Nagi Soma, the

original proprietress of the country and consequently of matrilineal succession to the throne were very much alive till at least the close of the thirteenth century. Thus, Tcheou Ta-kouan himself records that every night the Khmer king ceremonially united with a nine-hooded serpent, that is a

Nagi in a Tower of Gold Phimanakas.4 2

MARRIAGE IN HIGH SOCIETY A matrilineal society is marked by a certain pre-eminence of women-

folk over their male partners. This is generally evidenced from the greater freedom they enjoy in the matter of choice of the husband and residence after marriage. A study of the Cambodian inscriptions shows that polygamy was limited essentially to the royalty which was highlv influenced by the ideas and ideals borrowed from the DharmaBastras. Thus, we know of six or seven wives of the first Aikorian king. Jayavarman II (AD 802- 850). They resided at different places.4' In all likelihood, they were married to the king successively but not after the death or repudiation of the earlier one. One exception to this may have been the case of Bhassvamini and Tefi Hyafi Pavitra each mentioned in one Ta Keo inscription as the

agramahizi, chief queen, of Jayavarman II. Again, we know of Indralak- smi as the chief queen (svamini ta agrani) oi Indravarman (AD, 877-

889)44. This implies that he had other queens as well. Indeed the mother of Yasovarman (AD 889-900), Indradevi, may have been different from Indralakrmi mentioned above. Some inscriptions actually speak of numerous wives of some Cambodian rulers. Two instances may be cited in this respect. First, Rajendravarman (AD 944-968) is said to have taken more than one hundred wives'5. Secondly, his son Jayavarman V (AD 968-1000) claims to have received one thousand princesses from different countries46. These may, however, be regarded as royal rodomontade

28


but polygamy practised by Khmer kings has been well attested to by the Chinese envoy Tcheou Ta-kouan who visited the country in AD 1295-96. He states that the kings used to take five wives: one for the principal apart- ment and one for each of the four cardinal directions.47 These ladies were doomed to pass their days in the isolation of the harem called avaro- dha or antahpura4 8 and as the hyperbole goes, even to hide themselves from the sun49. (asuryampasyam). The intellectual and philanthropic activities

indulged in by the two queens of Jayavarman VII (AD 1183-1220) were

happy exceptions to be explained as due to the emancipating forces of

Buddhism which became popular once more at that time50.

Polygamy The polygamous Khmer kings often contracted marriages, to use an

Indian category, in the pratiloma order. These rulers considered themselves as ksatra5 '-belonging to the Ksatriya caste-but they took wives from Brahmana families adwell. Thus, Jayavarman II married in two sacerdotal families, those of Bhassvamini and Hyafi Pavitra; Indradevi, the wife of Jayavarman VII and the elder sister of Jayarajadevi. has been called

dvijottama5 2 and Jayamahapradhana, the chaplain of Jayavarman VIII, gave his two daughters in marriage with his sovereign. But this is really pointless in the determination of the position of women in ancient Cam- bodian society since the caste distinctions afcer the Indian pattern really meant little or nothing in the country of its importation. What is of interest to us is the fact that the manners and customs of the royalty were

regulated by Indian norms as enshrined in the Dharmapastras or in the classical Sanskrit literature.

It should be also be noted in this connection that along with the

kings some of their highest dignitaries, lay and ecclesiastical, practised polygamy, sometimes even in the pratiloma order. The case af Sri Prthivi-

narendra, the reputed general of Jayavarman II is a pointer. He married two girls, Tei Indrani and Tei Vasudevi of a matrlineal non-Brahmana

family related to king Indravarman53 and another belonging to the

family of Sangrama, the general who suppressed two rebellions during the

reign of Udayadityavarman II (AD 1050-1066)54. Though the heads of the sacerdotal families of either Sivakaivalya or Pranavatman did not themselves practise polygamy, they seem nevertheless to have entertained

consanguine relationship, since Sivacarya is described as the son of the

daughter of the sister (bhagineyi-suta) of Atmadiva of the family of Siva-

kaivalvya6 and also as the nephew (bhaginyatmaja) of anikara and

Narayana of the family of Pranavatman 6. This is possible if we admit two

hypotheses. First, Sivacarya of the two inscriptions are identical, which is likely. Secondly, the mother of Sivacarya was a consanguine sister of the brothers Saikara and Narayana. If this be so, it is likely that the father of SaAkara and Narayana really practised polygarmy, rather than

marrying two girls belonging to two families successively. It will not be otherwise if the Brahmana Gafigahara was really the husband of the

29

SOCIAL SCIENTIST

female members of that section of the family which givakaivalya had settled at Kuti under the charge of the Brahmana57. It must, however, be admitted that the vice of polygamy never became generalized in the Khmer society.

Polyandry On the contrary, polyandry was also not favoured. Surely no serious

conclusion should be drawn from the statement of the panegyrist that after getting Jayaviravarman as her lord, the Earth laughed at Draupadi5 8

which simply proves the poet's acquaintance with the story of the Mahabharata. More noteworty is the statement contained in the Ban That

inscription to the effect that having two lords is a calamity and from such a miserable condition the Earth was delivered by Suiryavarman II. 9 The

inscriptions, however, sometimes refer to women who seem to have more than one husband but it is not clear whether they had them successively or simultaneously. Some examples may be cited. First, Bhavavarman I

(AD 598-c. 617), the first ruler of Tchen-la (Kambuja) and Citrasena- Mahendravarman were born of the same mother but by different fathers. While Pra(Pr)thivindravarman is said to have been the father cf

Bhavavarman,6" Mahendravarman and his sister Satyavati had Viravar- man as their father.6 1 Secondly, Rajendravarman is consistently described as the younger brother (anuja) of Harsavarman II.62 But thefather of

Rajendravarman was known as Mahendravarman, while that of the latter was the celebrated AAkorian kingJayavarman IV (AD 921-942). For a time it was believed that they had one and the same mother. However, after the discovery of the Pre Rup inscription it is definitely known that Mahendradevi and Jayadevi were two sisters and respectively the mother of Rajendravarman and Harsavarman II.63 Thirdly, Suryavarman II is stated to have been at the same time the grandson (napta) of Hiranyavarma and born of the daughter's daughter of Hiranyalaksmi to king Ksitindra- ditya. Now, Hiranyavarma and Hiranyalaksmi are stated as related to each other as husband and wife.e4 In the inscription the use of naptd as

opposed to the term sutasuta (daughter's daughter) seems to indicate son of the son. The genealogical table for Siiryavarnan II will be either of the

following:

i) x = Hiranyavarma = Hiranyalaksmi - X

4- 4 son daughter

~~~4- ~ ~4.

Ksitllidraditya = daughter

Siiryavarman II

30


ii) Hiranyavarma = Hiranyalaksmi

I I son daughter

I I Ksitindraditya = daughter

Suiryavarman II

The non-mention of Ksitindraditya as in any way connected with the

queen Hiranyalaksmi would tend to show that the first table is more probable. In that case it has to be admitted that queen Hiranyalaksmi had two husbands either simultaneously or successively. Thus here is an example of polyandry or remarriage of womenfolk. On the other hand, if the second table is admitted, the prevalence of cross-cousin marriage will be established.

Fourthly in connection with polyandry or remarriage or both of

princely women, mention should also be made ofNrpatindralaksmi who was successively the queen of Jayaviravarman and Siryavarman I.66

Finally, Vijayendralaksmi is known to have been successively married to three brothers beginning with the youngest, the Yuvaraja, Jayavarman VI, and Dharanindravarman I. All this is out of affection for the family (Kulanuraga).66 What the latter expression really means we do not know It may be a special family custom which in the light of other instances cited above does not seem very probable. What is more likely is that the claim of these kings to the throne passed through Vijayendralaksmi and to secure the throne in the family the deceased husband's elder brother married her.

Contradictions Regarding polyandry or successive marriage practised by the

womenfolk of the sacerdotal families little is known from epigraphy. One

probable case may be mentioned. Sten Vrau or Stefi Pit Vrau bore to Jayavarman IV a son named Narapatindravarman and by another husband (Rajendravarman ?) she had a daughter Nrpatindralak$mi6 7 who became, successively, as seen above, the queen of Jayaviravarman and

Siiryavarman I. From the above discussion a contradiction becomes apparent. On

the one hand, kings followed by the highest aristocracy, lay and ecclesias-

tical, practised polygamy and kept their wives in seclusion of the harem. On the other hand, even among the royalty and the nobility womenfolk

enjoyed much freedom. If not polyandry, at least remarriage of women in such high society was not a rarity or looked down upon with contempt. As has been already indicated, this contradiction stems from the resistance the indigenous natrilineal society offered to the aggressive patriarchal civilization of the Dharmasastras.

31

SOCIAL SCIENTIST

A similar contradiction is found in the matter of choice of the partner and residence after marriage. In the folklore current among the Cambodians of Cochin China, girls often offer themselves for marriage to desirable persons.68 In the inscriptions also there are sometimes such poetic statements as the virgins of the cardinal directions offered themselves to the king (svayamh datta-karabhavat) .9 Famous episodes of smayamvara from the classical Sanskrit literature are also mentioned in the inscriptions. But refcrences of this kind from actual life are rare. In a large number of cases marriage, particularly of the girl, was arranged by their guardians. Not to speak of their own daughters, kings are known to have arranged the marriage of their wards as well. Thus Harsavarman I gave in marriage HyaA Karpura, the granddaughter of Jayavarman II by Hyain Pavitra7 0 and Suryavarman I gave a younger sister of his agramahiSi Viralaksmi to Sadasiva of the family of givakaivalya.7 ' Again, Jayavar- man VI arranged the marriage of his niece Rajendralaksrni.72 TIte same

practice prevailed among the elite society. Thus we know that Manassiva gave his niece Prana to Rajendravarmaii73 and YogiSvarapandita I gave his disciple Janapada in marriage to the Brahmana Kesava.74 According to the Ban That inscription, since Tilaka came of age (yamyaurane sati, III, III), her father was on the lookout for a bridegroom.75 The inscription also shows that the Brahmanical belief of marriage of individuals

being a predestined affair took deep root in the Indianized society of Cambodia.

Place of Cohabitation But side by side with it we have the case of Me Sok, a grand-

daughter of Miatani Sarvadhikara who approached the author of the

inscription of Prasat Ta Kam and asked him to become the master of the

household, that is to marry her. Only later on the Mratan appeared on

the scene and formally delivered her to him. 6 In this instance the husband of Me Sok no doubt settled down at her place. Indeed, when we consider that the heads of sacerdotal families are often stated to have reclaimed

forests,established villages,made religious foundations and left some of their womenfolk along with their descendants in these settlements,7 7 it seems

likely that they had to take care of the female members of their tamilies even after their marriage. This in real terms would mean that they continued to stay in their natal families for ever.

There are also instances to show that the boys of the different sacerdotal families went to live in the residence of their wives after

marriage. A concrete proof of this is furnished by the inscription of

Trapaii Ruf which draws with insistence a distinction between the families of the father and of the son (pitryahcapi kulam, st. LVII; kule anak neh ta vyar, B,1 1. 58-59). 8 In the context of the early Cambodian society, it is not possible to think of individual families after the modern industrial West. So such distinction between the family of the father and that of the son can be explained on the supposition that after marriage sons

32


completely alienated themselves from their paternal families and became integrated with those of their affines. The extreme devotion of the sons-in- law of the family of Pin svan-Gramavati or Kusasthali beginning from Krsnapala-Kesavabhatta in the matter of acquistion of property for the family of their wives makes the point clear. There is at least one instance of matrilocal polygamous marriages. Sri Prthivinarendra is known to have lived with the families of General Sangrama and of Tenini Indranifi and Tei Vasudevi.

But even with sacerdotal families marriage was not universally matrilocal or euxorilocal. The family of Sivakaivalya seems to have followed a mixed custom. While after the marriage of any of its girls, it received the son-in-law in its fold, it did not send out in return its boys after their marriage to the families of their affines. The SKT

inscription and more particularly that of Prasat Roluh7 show that Sada-

Biva-Javendrapandita continued to look after the affairs of his maternal family long after he had been married to the younger sister of the queen Viralaksmi. In the story of Tilaka as told in the inscription of Bhn That already referred to, it is not clear whether the maternal uncle (matula) of Tilaka was included in the family circle before which the prophecy regarding the future husband of Tilaka was made by the muni (purastad upasthi- tanam kulama7.dalanam). If he was not included in it, it may mean either he settled down in the family of his wife after marriage or the paternal family of Tilaka though matrilineal, was not matrilocal.

It is needless to say that with regard to the royalty, marriage was not matrilocal. Thus, none of the sons-in-law of kings whom we know from inscriptions or from Chinese annals beginning from the Brahmana Soma?arman down to the son-in-law of king Jayavarman VIII who later

usurped the throne is ever known to have resided with the king in the

palace. However, there is one very dubious example to the contrary. In the inscription of Palhal, Upendra, son of Jayavarman V by Dhi of the

family of Sivakaivalya, who was evidently different from the priest of the

Devaraja, married a princess (rajakulastri). This latter is said to have her residence in the royal palace (rajendrasamsthd).8 Thus, it seems that

Upendra came to live with his wife in the royal palace. In respect of marriage the position may thus be summed up: Poly-

gamy was practised by the kings and the highest aristocracy, lay and priestly. But polyandry or rather successive marriages of women were not uncommon even in the highest society. So far as the choice of the partners is concerned, initiative was left to the parents or natural guardians but

inscriptions as well as folklore testify to girls offering themselves to sui-

table grooms of their own. Marriage in the royal families was definitely virilocal but there are numerous examples of priestly families where it was matrilocal or euxorilocal. It is therefore apparent that in the face of resistane from the indigenous substratum for a long time the Indian mode of marriage and structuring of family could not make much

33

SOCIAL SCIENTIST

headway in ancient Cambodia.

SUCCESSION, INHERITANCE AND AUTHORITY

A statement of a very general nature may be made at the outset. Certain purely Indian socio-political institutions were imported to Cam- bodia. These were generally very thinly superimposed on Khmer society. With regard to their functioning, transmission or continued existence, the indigenous social structure had little or no role to play. But with a

pre-Indian basis, only reinforced by Indian ideas and models, the matrilineal structure of society continued to assert itself in their working and transmission.

Thus the concept of status derived from holding an office or rank was non-existent in Khmer society in pre-Indian days. As such, matrilineal lineage had nothing to do with succession to office or rank. This view is diametrically opposed to that propounded by Finot81. Indeed, from the instances of exclusive priestly charges entrusted to such families as those of Sivakaivalya (Sdok Kak Thom inscription), Pranavatman (Vat Thipdei),Visnuvara-Prthivindrapandita II (Pra6at Kok Po), givacarya (Ta Keo, B), Tilaka-Bhagavati (Ban That), it will at first seem that Finot was fully justified in holding such a view. However, with due respect to the savant it may be pointed out that even in the Sdok Kak Thom inscription what the family of Sivakaivalya received was not any particular status but only the exclusive privilege of worshipping the Devaraja which entitled them to the exploitation of the property which belonged to the

god or conjointly to the god and the family of Sivakaivalya.82 Asa matter of fact, while the Sanskrit text calls all the different heads of the

family hotar, the Khmer text brings out in precision that they enjoyed different statuses like purohita, rajapurohita, vrah guru, upadhyya or acarya- pradhana. From the Khmer text it also appears that each incumbent held his post either for life or for the regnal period of the appointing king. On the death of a king a re-investiture by his successor was necessary. This

appears to be the sense of the investiture of Sadasiva-Jayendrapandita during the reign of Udayadityavarman II. Under Suryavarman I he held the offices of rajapurohita and khlof karmantara eka but under his successor he was evidently promoted to the rank of vrah guru.88 Lords Spiritual

Further, we have a good number of instances of priestly families in which members in the same or different generations undertook different

jobs some of which like the fan-carrying (vyajanadhara) were in the least connected with any worship. Thus, an analysis of the situations held by the members of the family of Pii svan-Gramavati shows that before

ManaBiva the family had no priestly occupation. He was appointed chief of the fan-carriers by Jayavarman II. Rajendravarman appointed two of his nephews to the service of Rajendrctvara. Next Jayavarm an V employed them asyajakas of Hemarnfigesa. Their successor Kaviivara was at first a

fire-priest (nyayujyatagnikaryyeSu) and finally Suryavarman named him

34

MOTHER-RIGHT IN ANCIENT CAM,'BODIA 3

yajaka of gambhuliflga but his nephew gafikarapandIita held the office of royal hotar and later became guru of Udaya-dityavarman II and Harla- varmian III. Under Udaya-dityavarman II he held the additional post of

yajaka of Trailokyatilaka (probably Baphfion)84. Again, the matrilinteal descendants of Yogihvarapanoita I, the guru of Sfiryavarman I are known from the inscriptions of T'a Keo, A"' Samprofi86 and Nom Vafi.'.8 These show that Uddhataviravarman, the nephew of YogiAvarapandlita I never occupied any religious office while Yogi?varapari4ita II, a maternal grandson- (matranvaye napta) of Yogi?varapan dita I acted successively as liotar of Hi-sr avarmnan III and ~jayavarmnan VI who appointed hiim also to tend the Sacred fire (devagniparicaraka), ro-japurohitendra arid the guru of the

queen jayadevi. The story is not otherwise withi regard to the family of Vdagsvarapandita and Diva-karapandlita, the celebrated chaplain who officiated in the coronation of the three successive kings jayavarman VI, Dharanrindravarman I and Stiryavarmain II. For the first three or four generations which covered the reginal pe-riods of Ya~ovarman to j ayavarman V, the family hiad no priestly function. The first member to hold any such office was Ravi~varapandlita who became theguirut and mantri but neithier of the posts was occupied by his nephewv, Chhlofi Govinda, Vdgi?varapandIita, the maternal grandson of Kavis?arapand~it a became tht chiief liotar and g(uru of Har?alak~mi, the queen of Harsavarman III.

Lay Nobility If among the priestly matrilineal families sacerdotal offices did not

pass automatically from maternal uncle to nephew or grandnephew, it was all the more so among the lay nobility. Even a cursory glance over the

history of the family of Thpvafi Rmiirn88 started by Steii Pit Vrau makes the point clear. As has already been observed, it is true that the faimily had nominally the ~charge of performiing phjuhz to kamratef'i Jagat Kadexn buit once mentioned everything, was forgotten aLbout it and the members of the family in all the different generations occupied themselves withi absolutely mundane affairs. Thus it can be taken as representing a lay family altogether. The functions held by different members of the famnily in the same or different generations varied widely.Some were assigrned to th-e royal bath-room (vrah krala srofi); others acted as barbers (vrah~ k6or,a), superintendents of young servants and even as generals of the army. Thecre wvas thus really no question of transmitting a charge. In fact, in the whiole range of Cambodian epigrraphy, there is onlv one clear and indisput- a4Le example of' hereditary transmis-sion of a chargre. True, in pre- Aiikrian timnes the function of hotar was hiereditary in the patrilineal fam-ily of LDharmasv~imin"9 and in the Ankorian period the familv of Pr~anava-tman also made the same claim (Vat Thipdir inscription). But, as lhas been indicated above fromn the Saniskrit text of thie S K T, hotar did not sigrnify any concrete office. in ancient Cambodia. But it is not so xvith regard to the offle_ of fan-carrier which rermairied hereditary in a family fo r ten genierations covering, the reigns of thirteeri king-t from Jay'avarmnan

35

SOCIAL SCIENTIST

II to Suryavarman I 0 but it is not known whether the family was matrilineal or not. Lastly, there is only one instance of a title becoming hereditary in the maternal line. Thus according to the inscription of Prasat Sralau the title of Narapatindravarman was hereditary (santanika) in the family of Vrai Kanlofi 1 and the author of the inscription was the nephew (kanmvay) of the earlier Narapatindravarman. But one single exception only proves the general rule that succession to rank or office was not hereditary in the matrilineal order.

Private Property If the concept of status as determined by rank or office was not

known in Cambodia in pre-Indian days, it was not so with regard to private property. Hence in the matter of devolution of real estates and other kinds of property it was to be expected that pre-Indian customs would come into conflict with the DharmaAastra principles of patrilineal rights of inheritance. Indeed numerous inscriptions of the Aikorian period show that any particular godhead was endowed with wealth like precious metals, landed property, beasts and slaves. Its enjoyment was reserved by the founder to his descendants in the matrilineal line on condition of per- petuating the cult of the god. According to the Sdok Kak Thorm inscription, the gods and the maternal family of Sivakaivalya had co-parcenary right in the properties acquired by its members at different times. It should also be noted that while VamaSiva and his younger brother Hiranyaruci could with impunity exclude three of their nieces born of the same mother along with their descendants settled at Bhadrapattana and Stuk Ransi (Vamsa- hrada) from the worship of the Devaraja, they could not dispense with their right to enjoyment of the family property and accordingly had to make arrangements for their subsistence from the family property kulopaya.9 TeA Indrdai and TeA Vasudevi received two villages from their husband, Sri Prthivinarendra, the general ofJayavarman II. These were later, surely after the departure and possibly also after the death of Sri Prthivinarendra, incorporated in the maternal family of the two wives.98 In the Palhal inscription, properties acquired by the two uncles were inherited by two nephews born of two different sisters.9 '

It will thus be apparent that the corporate right of the maternal family as a unit was breaking down as a result of incursions of individual proprietory right.Further, the principle of patrilineal hereditary succession to real property was fast making headway. In the grand stele inscription of SamroA mentioned above a royal decree was issued prohibiting the appropriation of the two villages by the paternal relations of gri Prthivi- narendra. Such was the condition during the reign of Indravarman (A D 877-889). The progress of the principle of patrilineal hereditary succession will be clear from two inscriptions of the reign of Jayaviravarman (c. A D 1001-1007). In the inscription of Tuol Prasat Vap Sah (Sahadeva) inherited a piece of land from his maternal grandfather (matamaha) Virendra- vira who in his turn had received it from his maternal uncle Gavya. The

36


inheritance by Vap Sah (Sahadeva) was challenged by Ke, the son Virendravira. In the lawsuit which followed, Vap Sah won9 5 but the point of interest is the fact that the right to inheritance by the nephew is challenged by the son. In the second inscription, that from Prasat Trapafi Runi the father Mratan Khloi Pancagavya-Kavindrapandita gave his family and that of his son Mratafi Narayana-gri Kavindravijaya equal rights in the matter of his foundations and wished that it should be maintained by his son:

"tena devakulam rakSyam sa-dasa-kpetra-pasavam pitryai capi kulam sarvam it pitra prakalpitam"9 6

In this case the right of the son is acknowledged, if only rather falteringly. An intermediate stage may be found in the inscription of Vat Baset

which seems to indicate that Vigvakarman accorded a part of family property to each of his eight children three of whom were daughters.97 The process reached its climax in AD thirteenth century. Thus according to the inscription of Mafigalartha at Afikor Thom, women could officiate in the service of the god (and consequently enjoy the property attached to him) only in default of a male descendant 8.

So far as the question of authority is concerned, it was seldom in the hands of women. In the political sphere after the legendary queen of coconut (or willow) leaves who had been defeated by Hiuen-tien (Kaundinya) only Jayadevi and Jye$tharya ruled in their own right. On the social level, however, the head of the family was always a male member, though an inscription uses the term svamiy (master) to signify Teni Hyafi the wife of one called Lofi Las.99 This is a casual reference and need not be taken seriously. It may therefore be said that there was no question of matriarchy in ancient Cambodia.

Transition to Patrilineal System From the survey made above it is evident that the matrilineal prin-

ciple of inheritance to property suffered a setback in AD eleventh century. In the latter half of the twelfth century, a sacerdotal family, that of Tilaka-Bhagavati, switched over from matrilineal to patrilineal reckoning of descent. Towards the close of the thirteenth century, Tcheou Ta-kouan records the final triumph of the right of the son to succeed his father on the throne. Thus the three centuries of mature Ankorian civilization witnessed great social upheavals. During this period kings grew in power in virtue of political aggrandizement and stability, which resulted in large- scale economic upliftment through extensive colonization of forest lands and development of foreign trade, particularly with China and India. They turned themselves into absolute despots and considered themselves as god on earth, being the actual representation of the Devaraja. Thus the Dharma?astra ideal of kingship suited them eminently and as a matter of state policy they undertook the operation of restructuring the indigenous society after the pattern of Varnasrama.100 It is only natural that corres- ponding to the changes occurring in the character of kingship, the head

37

of the family, now having more wealth at his disposal, would feel tempted to emulate the king and adopt the patrilineal order of descent, inheritance and succession to the detriment of the opposing principle. Mother-right finally gave way to the patriarchal system of polity, society, and economy but only after a resistance lasting for nearly a thousand years since the introduction of Indian culture in Indochina.

1 P Guilleminet, "La Tribu Bahnar du Kontum", Bulletin de 1' Ecole Francaise d' Extreme-Orient (BEFEO), vol XLV, fasc 2, p 772; Theophile Gerber, Coutumier Stieng, ch V, sec 2-4, 6, 7 etc., BEFEO vol XLV fasc 1, p 266. Among the Rhad6s the headman of the village is always the son-in-law of his predecessor in the office (Albert Maurice, "Trois fetes agraires RhadV", BEFEO, vol XLV fasc 1 p 201

2 Etude sur les rites agraires des Cambodgiens, vol 1, p 162, n3. 3 Y-Bih-Nie-Kdam, "Notice sommaire sur le Darlac," Education, Saigon, no 16,

July-August 1949, pp 31-33. 4 P Pelliot, "Le Fou-nan", BEFEO vol III, p 303; "Quelques textes chinois concernat

l'Indochine hindouis6e", Etudes Asiatiques, vol II, p 243. 5 R Stein, "Le Lin-yi", Bulletin du Centre d' Etude sinologique de 1' Universite de Pekin (Han-

hiue), vol II, 1947, p 245, n 2. There are, however, some indications which suggest the development of private ownership over land and other means of production as also the use of slave labour in production in Fou-nan in pre-Indian days.

6 Inscriptions sankrites de Chamba et du Cambodge (ISCC), no XVII, pp 124-25. 7 This inscription (abbr SKT) has already been twice edited and translated in the

BEFEO, first by L Finot in vol XV, 2, pp 53-107 and then by Coedes and Dupont in vol XLIII, pp 56-134. Our references are to this latter edition.

8 Journal des Savants, 1901, p 449. 9 BEFEO, vol XLIII, p 66.

10 BEFEO, vol XV, 2 p 57. 1The Sdok Kak Thom Inscription Part I: A Study in Indo-Khmer Civilization, Government

Sanskrit College Research Series, (in the Press). 12 Prasat Roluh, Coedes, Inscriptions du Cambodge (abbr. IC), vol VII, pp 45-46.

3 IC, vol V, p 11. 14 Ta Keo, BEFEO, vol XXV, pp 297-304, Phnom Prah Vihar, ISCC vol LXI, pp

525-544. 15 PrhsAt Kok P6, door-pillar II, sts VI and VII, BEFEO, vol XXXVII p 389. 16 ISCC no XV, A, sts II and IIl, p 10 . 17 stlV,IC, vol IV, p 185. 18 Inscription of unknown origin, IC, vol VII, pp 30-51. 19 Coedes, "Les deux inscriptions de Vkt Thipdei"Melanges d'Indianisme, offerts par ses

eleves d Sylvain Levi, p 230. 20 "The Successors of givacirya", BEFEO vol XLVI, I, p 178. 21 ISCC, no XV, pp 106-07. 22 Ban That inscription sarga III, st I. Finot, Notes d' Epigraphie, p 210. In the text

quoted above the reading sunuh seems to have been corrected by Finot as sunu which from the point of view of palaeography is atrocious. The text should better be emended or read (?) as sunoh.

23 Prasdt Tor inscription, sts XI,VI-LXI, IC, vol I, pp 236-38. 24 ICvol II, pp 129-130: Kuk Trapaii Srok inscription. 55 Phnom Sandak/Prat Vihar Srok inscriptions, BEFEO. vol XLIII, pp 141-44. 26 BEFEO., vol XIII, 6, p 27; Majumdar, Inscriptions of KambujadeSa, pp 412-16. 27 ISCC, no XVIII, p 142. 28 1C, vol VII, p 130. 29 Prasat Car inscription, IC vol IV, p 142; Prasat Khns (Mlu Prei) inscription,

38 SOCIAL SCIENTIST


BEFEO, vol Xi, pp 400 if.; Majumdar, op. cit., p 304. 30 Kuk Slh k6t inscription, IC, vol V, pp 120-22. 31 Kuk Prii CruA, IC, vol V, pp 230-31. 32 Review of Groselier's Recherches sur les Cambodgiens, BEFEO, vol XXTI, fasc 1 p 192;

"Jamais la succession par la lignee f6minine ne s'est appliqu6e d la dbvo1ution de la couronne; nous n' avon3 la preuve de cette coutume que pour les sacerdoces; mais ce pouvait une rdgle de droit priv6".

3 "Nouvelle etude sur la NMgi Soma", Journal Asiatique 1947, pp 337 f.; Etude sur les rites agraires des Cambodgiens, vol I, pp 178-79.

3 Baks6i Camkrofi inscription, sts XI-XII, IC vol IV, p 90. 35 " Les regles de la succession royale dans 1' ancien Cambodge", Bulletin de ia societek d'

Etude Indochinzoise, vol XXVI, no 2, p 129. 36 Vat Tnot, IC, vol 11, p 46; IC, vol VII, pp 168-69. 31 BEFEO, vol XXV, p 25; ICvol VII, p 169. 38 Pras BAt ISCC., no XLIV, St II, p 364; also cf. Pre Rup, st IX, IC vol I, p 78. 3 Phnogi Sandak, sts XXXI-XXXII, IC, vol VI, p 304. 40 Mc. Cit., StS IX-XVII, pp 78-79. 41 P Pelliot, Memoires sur les coutumes du Cambodge, de Tcheou T'a-kouan, Oeuvres posthflomes,

vol III, p 31. 42 ibid., p 12. 43 Tk Keo, A and B, ISCC, no XV, pp 103-107; P'alhal, BEFEO, vol XIII, pp 27-36;

Prah Vihar, 18CC, no LXI, A, st V, p 534; IC, vol V, p 230 (Kuk Prifi Crun. sts

IX-X); Vat Samrofi, 1.9, IC, vol VII, p 130; Prhsht BeaA, B, 1. 14, ibid., p 176. 4 Kuk Trapiin Srok, IC, vol II, p 12 9. 45 "bbIztvii tu bhuiyo bhuviyo dhikagrzh

konydi'atam bhzir adhiketi nakat"-st L, Pre Rup, IC vol 1, p 82. 46 "rajanyakanya bibhavopanita-

laksmisamas santi sahasrasamzkhy&h anyonyadesocita'kilpabheda- vesaii rusa yas sadrgda vabhuavuh -st XXIX, Pra'sat Tor, IC vol 1, 234.

47 op. cit., p 16. 48 Tep Pranam, B, st LI, Journal Assiatique, 1908, p 211. 49 Mkhon, st CLXXXV, BEFEO, vol XXV, pp 328-29. 50 Grand stele inscription of Phimgnakks, IC, vol II, pp 163-173. 51 Prd Rup, st, XVI. IC, vol 1. p 79. 52

Phiman~ikas, st C, IC, vol II, p 173. 5 Grand stele of SamroA, loc. cit. 54 ISCC, no XVIII, sts IX and X, p 142. 55 SKT, st LIX, BEFEO, vol XLIII, p81. 56 Vat Thipdbi, B, st XIV, loc. cit. 57 The text gives oy kule ta Braihrnana (4.59, p 87). The use of oy to to signify marriage

is attested to by such inscriptions as those of the grand stele of Samrofi and Pris't BeA,already referred to.

58 "Dharmajiiamn valinarn suramp krtavidyam priyamvadam "vnam prapyaikapatin2 prthro jahJdra Drupadatjinajam"- st. XXXIV, Trapan Ruii, BEFEO, vol XXVIII, p 23.

59 Ban That, sarga tI , st XXXI, Notes d' Zhlgraphie, p 314. 60 Si Tep, 1. 9- 1, IC, vol VII p 158. 61 Beal Kantal, st I ISCC., no IV, p 30. 62 Pre Rup, st CCLXXXI, IC, vol 1 p. 103; Baksei Camkrof, st XL, IC, vol IV, p 93. 63 Pre Rup, sts XI and CCLXXX-CCLXXXJ, loc cit., pp 78 and 103. .4 Phnom Rufi, sts II, IV and VI, p IC, vol V 299. 65 Prhsat BeaA, St XXVI and B, 1 31, IC, vol VII, pp 174 and 176. 66 Phnom Sandak, st XXXI I, IC, vol VI p 304.

39

SOCIAL SCIENTIST

67 Prasat BeA inscription; Coedes, introduction, IC, volVII, p. 170, n 1. 68 L Mallaret, Traditions legendaires des Cambodgiens de Cochinchine relevant d'une interpreta-

tion ethno-sociologique, Institut Indochinois pour 1' Etude d' Homme, vol IV, fasc I and 2, 1941, pp 169ff.

69 Parlt K6, st XXIV, IC, vol I,p 21. 70 Ta Keo, A, st IV, loc. cit. 71 SKT, loc. cit. 72 Kuk Yay Hom, IC, vol V, p 284. 78 Lovek, A, st XXII, ISCC, no XVII, p 129. 74 Ta Keo, A, st XVI, loc. cit. 75 Ban That, III, st VI, Notes d' Epigraphie, p 211.

"drstva samasaditayauvanan tan tato varndvesanasambhramobhut"...

76 Prasat Ta Kam, IC, vol III, p 92. 77 Apart from the references contained .in the SKT,notice may be made of the following:

K6k Rosei, IC, vol V, pp 175-7o; Prasat Car, southern doorpillar, IC, vol IV, pp 142-43; Prasa't Khna. BEFEO, vol XI, pp 400 ff;Nak Ta chi K6, IC, vol VI pp 273- 74 etc.

78 BEFEO, vol XXVII, pp 66, 74. 79 Ioc.cit. 80 Majumdar, op. cit., p 415 st XLIV. 8 I Notes d'Epigraphie, p 278. 82 BEFEO vol XLIII, pp 83-84. In our work The Sdok Kak Thomr Inscription Part I: A

Study in Jndo-Khmer Civilization we have endeavoured to show that there were also other families who occupied themselves with the worship of the Devaraja.

88 SKT, 4.45, st XCII=4.65. 84 Lovek, sts A XV, XXI, XXVII; B XXVI, ISCC, no XVII, pp 128-132. 88 loc. cit. 86 loc. cit. 87 ICvol VI, p 298. In this inscription of gaka 1004 (AD 1082) YogiUvarapanditafi

is described as a adhyapaka (professor) and performing the function of Bhagavan Purohita for the bright fortnight. But nothing is said about his lineage, though from the data given in the inscription, there is little doubt as to his identity with Yogis- varapandita II.

88 loc. cit. 89 Tan Kraf, IC, vol I, pp 8-12. 90 Prasat Tor, st D, CXXI, loc cit, 91 Prasat Sralau, st XII and 1. 8 of the Khmer text, ICvol I, pp 223-224. 92 SKT, loc. cit. 4.28. 98 loc. cit. 94 st. LV, Majumdar, op. cit., p 416:

"Nariyihakhyah garyyaknama khlon kanmyaof varah

mrtayostayorupayau vah-chhmar-putragatau tada." 95 Tfol Prasat sts XI-XXVIII, IC, vol II, pp 100-101. 96 st LVII, BEFEO, vol XXVIII, pp 63-64. 97 This interpretation is somewhat conjectural. St V mentions the eight children

while st X refers to eight portions of family property. Coedes believes that these

belonged to the eight children (IC, vol III, p 10, 3) 98 st XXXV BEFEO, vol XXV, p 399:

"...-ani karyydni pumso bhave py andgate

kale...strikula.m yogya-pujdakriti yo vadat" 99 Inscription of Prasat Cak, southern door-pillar of the southern tower, 1. 10, IC, vol

IV, p 168. 00o cf. our article entitled "Caste in Ancient Cambodia", Journal of Ancient Indian History,

Calcutta University, vol IV, pp 14-59.

40

chakravarti-mother-right in ancient cambodia

Documents