In many of the historical studies mentioned above, we note that most of the history books of Cambodia are divided into major periods, pre-Angkorian and post-Angkorian. This division has become commonplace in writing essays and history books in general. However, in an Angkorian period, it can be divided into three main parts, including the early stages from the late 8th century to the 10th century, the glorious stages from the early 11th century to the 13th century. Last from the 13th century to the middle of the 14th century.
Since the reign of King Sovarman I, he became famous through the construction of the capital, which became the main power base of the Khmer Empire from the 9th to the 15th century. The capital was later called the capital of Yasodharapura, with Phnom Bakheng as its core. In a simple description, Russian researchers noted the city's growing agricultural land in the area:
Eventually, the capital of Yasothon Bora became the center of a large, densely populated agricultural area and became a source of water sharing for large agricultural areas. This was accomplished by the construction of huge artificial river lakes, such as Yasodhara Lake, Tadak, Teuk Thla Baray, as well as 800 other lakes and ponds, as well as a large number of canals and canals.
However, after the reign of King Yasovarman, the capital experienced internal crises until a new city was established by a king. Researchers suspect that the cause of the crisis was a religious conflict between King Hasavarman, who converted from Isu to Vishnu. Jayavarman IV, on the other hand, practiced the religion of Iso through the presence of a number of temples in the Koh Ker area. The conflict has sparked political controversy and two separate power bases. After all, religious conflicts seem to have become part of many generations of conflicts between the dynasties, as they did in the late Funan period. But studies, including the ones mentioned above, are still vague. We might ask, 'Is religion the cause or the instrument of conflict?'
It is noteworthy that many scholars attribute the year 900 as the date of the death of King Yasovarman I to the reign of his son Hasavarman I. But this date does not seem to be correct. Evidence from the Inscription (K.1051) shows that Hasavarman I had been on the throne since 899, during the reign of Yasovarman. The above evidence suggests that Yasovarman may have handed over the throne to his son, King Hasavarman I, before his death. And the reason for the abdication may be related to many events that continued until Jayavarman IV left Angkor to set up the capital on Koh Ker.
At the time of his death, Yasovarman had a posthumous name, Vishnu, and little was known about the reign of his two sons. The eldest son was named Hasavarman I, who continued to live in the capital Yasodharapura, the builder of the temple of Baksey Chamkrong at the foot of Phnom Bakheng. He remained on the throne until 922 and died after the death of Rutr Lok. The king who succeeded King Hasavarman I, his younger brother, was named Isanavarman II, who reigned in 925. This king left very few inscriptions. The inscription of the bird guarding the city praised King Hasavarman as a hero who was successful in the Dharma and wrote on King Isanavarman that he was rich in love and art. However, Professor Vong Sotheara states that an 11th-century inscription described King Hasavarman as a king who rarely succeeded in fighting the enemy by military force.The author raises the question: Can he be a fighting partner with Jayavarman IV? . King Isanvarman II died in 928 and was later named Preah Boromrut Lok, meaning a guest of Preah Borom Rutra. It was not until the death of Isanvarman II that Jayavarman IV became a full-fledged emperor.
The view of the decline of the power of the capital of Yasodharapura during the reign of King Isanvarman is such that the Marxist-style historian Y.Y. Miheev noted that during the reign of Indravarman, there were significant changes in socio-economic conditions at that time. He noticed that there was a beginning to share land with us. In addition, the slave class has evolved into a working class of peasants. Could this view be due to the mobilization of supporters from the parties to the royal conflict in the early 10th century?
