Kingship and Social Integration in AngkorMATSUURA Fumiaki(JSPS Research Fellow, Sophia University)The purpose of this presentation is to discuss the concepts of the territory of the state, domination, kingship, and its evolution or change in the history of Cambodia in the Pre-Angkor (5th to 8th century) and the Angkor (9th to 14th century) period.The inscriptions, which are the principal documents for research of ancient Cambodia (Kambujades´a), have an elitist bias, and that is why we have to seek information on “social integration” in Angkor only through the ideal that was commemorated by kings and other elites in these inscriptions. In that ideal, the king was seen as the lord of the whole world and gave himself enough authority to be comparable with the gods. We should not take such statements at face value without recognizing what sorts of power were exercised and how. However, we unfortunately do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that the king’s political power extended over the whole length and breadth of the country. This brings us to the first subject of this presentation, which has to do with the various meanings of the word “social Integration.” It is well known that the so-called Khmer style of art and architecture is found widely distributed in the mainland of Southeast Asia. Would this mean the wide-spread political domination of the “Khmer empire”? There is a great difference between the broad distribution of a similar style of architecture and the expansion of political control from the capital of Angkor. On the other hand, some Chinese documents mention the “subordinate states” of Zhen-la (真臘). When viewed from the Chinese standpoint, Zhen-la was located in the south of ChampΣ (South Vietnam), east of Pagan (Burma), and north of the Malay Peninsula, and the eastern part of Zhen-la faced the sea. In addition, from the 12th century onwards, certain Chinese writers provided more concrete information concerning this polity, such as the name of its “subordinate states” and the items used for mutual maritime trade. Although it is difficult to identify the place of these “subordinate states,” it probably included the country placed in the middle of the Malay Peninsula and even Pagan. According to S. Fukami (1997), the author of Ling-wai-dai-da (嶺外代答, 1178CE) describes a number of countries such as ChampΣ, Java, Zhen-la, and San-fo-qi (Straits of Malacca region), as “general mart,” and in Zhu-fan-zhi (諸蕃志, 1225CE) also, we can trace the economic relationship (not political domination) between the “general mart” and “subordinate states.” From these, it can be supposed that the territory of Angkor was a multi-layered space composed of political, religious, cultural, and economic integration, in other words, “social integration” based on self/other recognition. These concepts of state integration are comparable with pre-modern states of South and Southeast Asia, and there have been many studies under the terms “segmentary states,” “galactic polity,” or “man.d.ala,” among others. Needless to say, in order to understand the “social integration” in Angkor, synthetic examination is needed. As time is limited, I will concentrate on the concept of kingship in Angkor for the rest of this presentation. Because of the tendency of inscriptions, as mentioned above, kingship will be considered, comparatively and in Figure Phnom Chisor (11th Century, 50km South of of Phnom Penh, Cambodia), So Called Southern Edge of Sπryavarman’s Territory.086MODERN ASIAN STUDIES REVIEW Vol.5