Indravarman I
| Indravarman I | |
|---|---|
| King | |
| Predecessor | Pṛthivīndravarman |
| Successor | Yaśovarman I |
| Father | Pṛthivīndravarman |
| Mother | Pṛthivīndradevī |
Indravarman I (Khmer: ឥន្រ្ទវរ្ម័នទី១) was a ruler of Khmer Empire who reigned from Hariharalaya between 877/78 and 889/890 AD.
According to the inscriptions of the Práḥ Kô temple, consecrated on Monday, 25 January 880 AD (Foundation stele K. 713 a three pairs of temple towers for three deceased kings and their queens were built by him as a kind of "memorial temple", as can be seen by the inscriptions on the door frames of the towers: The central towers were dedicated to Jayavarman II under his posthumous name Parameśvara and his queen Dharaṇīndradevī (K. 320a), the northern ones for Rudravarman (consecrated as Rudreśvara) and Rajendradevī (K. 318a), his mother's parents, and the southern towers for Pṛthivīndravarman (consecrated as Pṛthivīndreśvara) and Pṛthivīndradevī (K. 315 a) and K. 713 b).
Indravarman I's wife, Indradevi, was a descendant of the royal families of Sambhupura, Vyadhapura, and Aninditapura (Funan).
Actually the classical succession of kings in the 9th century was disputed by some epigraphists such as Kamaleswar Bhattacharya and Karl-Heinz Golzio. Since the poor activity and records of Jayavarman III, and the presence of the dedicated towers of Preah Ko, they had interpreted some Sanskrit inscriptions at Roluos as proof of existence of two kings between him and Indravarman: Rudravarman and Pṛthivīndravarman.
According to the Lolei inscription K. 324 of Indravarman's successor Yaśovarman I, dated 8 July 893 AD, Rudravarman was the younger brother of the mother of 'Dharaṇīndradevī, the queen consort of Jayavarman II and mother of Jayavarman III (whom Indravarman mentioned under his posthumous name Viṣṇuloka in his Bakong inscription K. 826 stanza XXX, dated 881/82 AD.
Although Michael Vickery, has pointed out that they are not mentioned in later times and that these "-varman" ancestors of Indravarman may easily be explained as posthumous upgrading of the king’s parents, which perhaps already occurred within their lifetimes, the following facts should be taken into account: 1) The inscriptions of the 9th century gave an account of events, i.e. genealogies and relative chronologies, referring to that century itself; 2) One should have great doubts concerning the reliability of later inscriptions that record wrong reign dates and stories about family connections never heard of before, which was pointed out especially by Vickery; 3) later inscriptions omitted very often not only these two kings, but also other important kings (Jayavarman IV mentioned only his three predecessors; Rājendravarman II, the founder of a new dynasty, has omitted in his Bàksĕi Čaṃkrŏṅ inscription K. 286, dated 23 February 948, all his predecessors with the exception of Jayavarman II and Jayavarman III); 4) In the 9th century the "-varman"-title was exclusively reserved for kings (by the way, Rudravarman was no father of a king); 5) It is surprising that later inscriptions were considered more trustworthy than contemporary ones, thus twisting things instead of following a historio-critical method.
...
Wikipedia