Chenla Kingdom (6th century – 802)

Main article: Chenla Kingdom

The History of the Chinese Sui dynasty contains records that a state called Chenlasent an embassy to China in 616 or 617 C.E. It says, that Chenla was a vassal of Funan, but under its ruler Citrasena Mahendravarman conquered Funan and gained independence.

Most of the Chinese recordings on Chenla, including that of Chenla conquering Funan, have been contested since the 1970s as they are generally based on single remarks in the Chinese annals, as author Claude Jacques emphasised the very vague character of the Chinese terms 'Funan' and 'Chenla', while more domestic epigraphic sources become available. Claude Jacques summarises: "Very basic historical mistakes have been made" because "the history of pre-Angkorean Cambodia was reconstructed much more on the basis of Chinese records than on that of [Cambodian] inscriptions" and as new inscriptions were discovered, researchers "preferred to adjust the newly discovered facts to the initial outline rather than to call the Chinese reports into question".

The notion of Chenla's centre being in modern Laos has also been contested. "All that is required is that it be inland from Funan. The most important political record of pre-Angkor Cambodia, the inscription K53 from Ba Phnom, dated AD 667 does not indicate any political discontinuity, either in royal succession of kings Rudravarman, Bhavavarman I, Mahendravarman [Citrasena], Īśānavarman, and Jayavarman I or in the status of the family of officials who produced the inscription. Another inscription of a few years later, K44, 674 AD, commemorating a foundation in Kampot province under the patronage of Jayavarman I, refers to an earlier foundation in the time of King Raudravarma, presumably Rudravarman of Funan, and again there is no suggestion of political discontinuity.

The History of the T'ang asserts that shortly after 706 the country was split into Land Chenla and Water Chenla. The names signify a northern and a southern half, which may conveniently be referred to as Upper and Lower Chenla.

By the late 8th century Water Chenla had become a vassal of the Sailendra dynasty of Java - the last of its kings was killed and the polity incorporated into the Javanese monarchy around AD 790. Land Chenla acquired independence under Jayavarman II in 802 C.E.

The Khmers, vassals of Funan, reached the Mekong river from the northern Menam River via the Mun River Valley. Chenla, their first independent state developed out of Funanese influence.

Ancient Chinese records mention two kings, Shrutavarman and Shreshthavarman who ruled at the capital Shreshthapura located in modern day southern Laos. The immense influence on the identity of Cambodia to come was wrought by the Khmer Kingdom of Bhavapura, in the modern day Cambodian city of Kampong Thom. Its legacy was its most important sovereign, Ishanavarman who completely conquered the kingdom of Funan during 612-628. He chose his new capital at the Sambor Prei Kuk, naming it Ishanapura.

Khmer History Funan Kingdom (1st century – 550)

Main article: Kingdom of Funan

Map of Funan at around the 3rd century.

Chinese annals contain detailed records of the first known organized polity, the Thalassocratic Kingdom of Funan, on Cambodian and Vietnamese territory characterized by "high population and urban centers, the production of surplus food...socio-political stratification [and] legitimized by Indian religious ideologies". Centered around the lower Mekong and Bassac rivers from the first to sixth century C.E. with walled and moated cities such as Angkor Borei in Takeo Province and Óc Eo in modern An Giang Province, Vietnam.

Early Funan was composed of loose communities, each with its own ruler, linked by a common culture and a shared economy of rice farming people in the hinterland and traders in the coastal towns, who were economically interdependent, as surplus rice production found its way to the ports. 

By the second century C.E. Funan controlled the strategic coastline of Indochina and the maritime trade routes. Cultural and religious ideas reached Funan via the Indian Ocean trade route. Trade with India had commenced well before 500 BC as Sanskrit hadn't yet replaced Pali. Indian author Dr. Pragya Mishra observes: "Funan Was One of the Colonies Established by Indians within Cambodia...sic]" in his essay "Cultural History of Indian Diaspora in Cambodia". Funans language has been determined as to have been an early form of Khmer and its written form was Sanskrit.

The territories of Eastern Wu (in green), 262 C.E.

Roman trade with India according to the Periplus Maris Erythraei, 1st century CE.

In the period 245-250 C.E. dignitaries of the Chinese Kingdom of Wu visited the Funan city Vyadharapura. Envoys Kang Tai and Zhu Ying defined Funan as to be a distinct Hindu culture. Trade with China had begun after the southward expansion of the Han Dynasty, around the 2nd century B.C. Effectively Funan controlled strategic land routes in addition to coastal areas and occupied a prominent position as an "economic and administrative hub" between The Indian ocean trade network and China, collectively known as the Maritime Silk Road. Trade routes that eventually ended in distant Rome are corroborated by Roman and Persian coins and artefacts, unearthed at archaeological sites of 2nd and 3rd century settlements. 

Funan is associated with myths, such as the Kattigara legend and the Khmer founding legend in which an Indian Brahman or prince named Preah Thaong in Khmer, Kaundinya in Sanskrit and Hun-t’ien in Chinese records marries the local ruler, a princess named Nagi Soma (Lieu-Ye in Chinese records), thus establishing the first Cambodian royal dynasty. 

Scholars debate as to how deep the narrative is rooted in actual events and on Kaundinya's origin and status. A Chinese document, that underwent 4 alterationsand a 3rd-century epigraphic inscription of Champa are the contemporary sources. Some scholars consider the story to be simply an allegory for the diffusion of Indic Hindu and Buddhist beliefs into ancient local cosmology and culture whereas some historians dismiss it chronologically. 

Chinese annals report that Funan reached its territorial climax in the early 3rd century under the rule of king Fan Shih-man, extending as far south as Malaysia and as far west as Burma. A system of mercantilism in commercial monopolies was established. Exports ranged from forest products to precious metals and commodities such as gold, elephants, ivory, rhinoceros horn, and kingfisher feathers, wild spices like cardamom, lacquer, hides and aromatic wood. Under Fan Shih-man Funan maintained a formidable fleet and was administered by an advanced bureaucracy, based on a "tribute-based economy, that produced a surplus which was used to support foreign traders along its coasts and ostensibly to launch expansionist missions to the west and south".

Historians maintain contradicting ideas about Funan's political status and integrity. Miriam T. Stark calls it simply Funan: [The]"notion of Fu Nan as an early "state"...has been built largely by historians using documentary and historical evidence" and Michael Vickery remarks: "Nevertheless, it is...unlikely that the several ports constituted a unified state, much less an 'empire'. Other sources though, imply imperial status: "Vassal kingdoms spread to southern Vietnam in the east and to the Malay peninsula in the west" and "Here we will look at two empires of this period...Funan and Srivijaya".

The question of how Funan came to an end is in the face of almost universal scholarly conflict impossible to pin down. Chenla is the name of Funan's successor in Chinese annals, first appearing in 616/617 C.E.

...the fall of Funan was not the result of the shifting of maritime trade route from the Malay Peninsula route to the Strait of Malacca starting from the 5th century CE; rather, it suggests that the conquest of Funan by Zhenla was the exact reason for the shifting of maritime trade route in the 7th century CE.... 

"As Funan was indeed in decline caused by shifts in Southeast Asian maritime trade routes, rulers had to seek new sources of wealth inland. 

"By the end of the fifth century, international trade through southeast Asia was almost entirely directed through the Strait of Malacca. Funan, from the point of view of this trade, had outlived its usefulness. 

"Nothing in the epigraphically record authorizes such interpretations; and the inscriptions which retrospectively bridge the so- called Funan-Chenla transition do not indicate a political break at all. 

The archaeological approach to and interpretation of the entire early historic period is considered to be a decisive supplement for future research. The "Lower Mekong Archaeological Project" focuses on the development of political complexity in this region during the early historic period. LOMAP survey results of 2003 to 2005, for example, have helped to determine that "...the region’s importance continued unabated throughout the pre-Angkorian period...and that at least three surveyed areas bear Angkorian-period dates and suggest the continued importance of the delta.