Hubbry Logo
Post-Angkor periodPost-Angkor periodMain
Open search
Post-Angkor period
Community hub
Post-Angkor period
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Post-Angkor period
Post-Angkor period
Post-Angkor period
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Key Information

Part of a series on the
History of Cambodia
Angkor Wat
Early history
Post-Angkor period
Colonial period
Independence and conflict
Peace process
Modern Cambodia
By topic
flag Cambodia portal

The post-Angkor period of Cambodia (Khmer: ប្រទេសកម្ពុជាក្រោយសម័យអង្គរ), also called the Middle period,[1] refers to the historical era from the early 15th century to 1863, the beginning of the French protectorate of Cambodia. As reliable sources (for the 15th and 16th centuries, in particular) are very rare, a defensible and conclusive explanation that relates to concrete events that manifest the decline of the Khmer Empire, recognised unanimously by the scientific community, has so far not been produced.[2][3] However, most modern historians have approached a consensus in which several distinct and gradual changes of religious, dynastic, administrative and military nature, environmental problems and ecological imbalance[4] coincided with shifts of power in Indochina and must all be taken into account to make an interpretation.[5][6][7] In recent years scholars' focus has shifted increasingly towards human–environment interactions and the ecological consequences, including natural disasters, such as flooding and droughts.[8][9][10][11]

Stone epigraphy in temples, which had been the primary source for Khmer history, is already a rarity throughout the 13th century, ends in the third decade of the fourteenth, and does not resume until the mid-16th century. Recording of the Royal Chronology discontinues with King Jayavarman IX Parameshwara (or Jayavarma-Paramesvara), who reigned from 1327 to 1336. There exists not a single contemporary record of even a king’s name for over 200 years. Construction and maintenance of monumental temple architecture had come to a standstill after Jayavarman VII's reign. According to author Michael Vickery there only exist external sources for Cambodia’s 15th century, the Chinese Ming Shilu ("Veritable Records") and the earliest Royal Chronicle of Ayutthaya,[12] which must be interpreted with greatest caution.[13]

The single incident which undoubtedly reflects reality, the central reference point for the entire 15th century, is a Siamese intervention of some undisclosed nature at the capital Yasodharapura (Angkor Thom) around the year 1431. Historians relate the event to the shift of Cambodia's political centre southward to the river port region of Phnom Penh and later Longvek.[14][15]

Sources for the 16th century are more numerous, although still coming from outside of Cambodia. The kingdom's new capital was Longvek, on the Mekong, which prospered as an integral part of the 16th century Asian maritime trade network,[16][17] via which the first contact with European explorers and adventurers occurred.[18] The rivalry with the Ayutthaya Kingdom in the west resulted in several conflicts, including the Siamese conquest of Longvek in 1594. The Vietnamese southward expansion reached Prei Nokor/Saigon at the Mekong Delta in the 17th century. This event initiates the slow process of Cambodia losing access to the seas and independent marine trade.[19]

Siamese and Vietnamese dominance intensified during the 17th and 18th century, provoking frequent displacements of the seat of power as the Khmer monarch's authority decreased to the state of a vassal. Both powers alternately demanded subservience and tribute from the Cambodian court.[20] In the mid 19th century, with dynasties in Siam and Vietnam firmly established, Cambodia was placed under joint suzerainty between the two regional empires, thereby the Cambodian kingdom lost its national sovereignty. British agent John Crawfurd states: "...the King of that ancient Kingdom is ready to throw himself under the protection of any European nation..."[citation needed] To save Cambodia from being incorporated into Vietnam and Siam, King Ang Duong agreed to colonial France's offers of protection, which took effect with King Norodom Prohmbarirak signing and officially recognising the French protectorate on 11 August 1863.[21]

Historical background and causes

[edit]

The Khmer Empire had steadily gained hegemonic power over most of mainland Southeast Asia since its early days in the 8th and 9th centuries. Rivalries and wars with its western neighbour, the Pagan Kingdom of the Mon people of modern-day Burma were less numerous and decisive than those with Champa to the east. The Khmer and Cham Hindu kingdoms remained for centuries preoccupied with each other's containment and it has been argued that one of the Khmer's military objectives was "...in the reigns of the Angkor kings Suryavarman II and Jayavarman VII." the conquest of the Cham ports, "...important in the international trade of the time".[22] Even though the Khmer suffered a number of serious defeats, such as the Cham invasion of Angkor in 1177, the empire quickly recovered, capable to strike back, as it was the case in 1181 with the invasion of the Cham city-state of Vijaya.[23][24]

Mongol incursions into southern China and political and cultural pressure caused the southward migration of the Tai people and Thai people and their settling on the upper Chao Phraya River in the 12th century.[25] The Sukhothai Kingdom and later the Ayutthaya Kingdom were established and "...conquered the Khmers of the upper and central Menam [Chao Phraya River] valley and greatly extended their territory..."[26]

Military setbacks

[edit]

Although a number of sources, such as the Cambodian Royal Chronicles and the Royal chronicles of Ayutthaya[27] contain recordings of military expeditions and raids with associated dates and the names of sovereigns and warlords, several influential scholars, such as David Chandler and Michael Vickery doubt the accuracy and reliability of these texts.[28][29][30] Other authors, however, criticise this rigid "overall assessment".[31]

David Chandler states in A Global Encyclopedia of Historical Writing, Volume 2: "Michael Vickery has argued that Cambodian chronicles, including this one, that treat events earlier than 1550 cannot be verified, and were often copied from Thai chronicles about Thailand..."[28][32] Linguist Jean-Michel Filippi concludes: "The chronology of Cambodian history itself is more a chrono-ideology with a pivotal role offered to Angkor."[33] Similarities apply to Thai chronological records, with the notable example of the Ramkhamhaeng controversy.[34][35]

According to the Siamese Royal chronicles of Paramanuchitchinorot, clashes occurred in 1350, around 1380, 1418 and 1431.[36][37]

"In 1350/51; probably April 1350 King Ramadhipati had his son Ramesvara attack the capital of the King of the Kambujas (Angkor) and had Paramaraja (Pha-ngua) of Suphanburi advance to support him. The Kambuja capital was taken and many families were removed to the capital Ayudhya.

At that time, [around 1380] the ruler of Kambuja came to attack Chonburi, to carry away families from the provinces eastwards to Chanthaburi, amounting to about six or seven thousand persons who returned [with the Cambodian armies] to Kambuja. So the King attacked Kambuja and, having captured it, returned to the capitol.[sic]

Then [1418] he went to attack Angkor, the capital of Kambuja, and captured it."

Land or people debate

[edit]

Siamese sources record the habit of capturing sizeable numbers of inhabitants from the capital cities and centres of civilisation of the defeated parties in Chiang Mai and Angkor which can be assumed to have accelerated the cultural decline.[37][38]

Cambodian people in 18th century in chinese painting Portraits of Periodical Offering by Xie Sui.

Author Michael Vickery debates the degree of importance of this subject in his publication "Two Historical Records of the Kingdom of Vientiane - Land or People?": "It is not at all certain that Angkor desired manpower in central Thailand, rather than simply control over the rich agricultural resources." and "...whether the political economy of early Southeast Asia resulted in rulers being more concerned with control of land or control of people..." and "...both sides of this discussion have offered ad hoc, case-by-case pronunciamentos, which are then repeated like mantra... Critical discussion of the question is long overdue..."[citation needed]

Contrary views

Author Akin Rabibhadana, who quotes Ram Khamhaeng: "One particular characteristic of the historical Southeast Asian mainland states was the lack of manpower. The need for manpower is well illustrated by events following each war between Thailand and her neighbours. The victorious side always carried off a large number of people from the conquered territory. Whole villages were often moved into the territory of the conqueror, where they were assimilated and became the population of the conqueror."[citation needed]

David K. Wyatt: "As much as anything else, the Tai müang was an instrument for the efficient use of manpower in a region where land was plentiful in relation to labor and agricultural technology."[citation needed]

Baker and Phongpaichit argues that, "War in the region [Southeast Asia] was... an enterprise to acquire wealth, people, and scarce urban resources."[39]

Bronson states, "No farmers in any region outside southern and eastern Asia could produce as much food with as little labor from the same amount of land."[40]

And Aung-Thwin wrote: "Much of the warfare of early Southeast Asia witnessed the victor carrying off half the population of the vanquished foe and later resettling them on his own soil. Pagan was located in the dry belt of Burma, and depended mainly upon irrigated agriculture for its economic base. Land was plentiful but labor was extremely difficult to obtain."[41]

Dynastic and religious factors

[edit]

The complete transition from the early Khmer kingdom to the firm establishment of the Mahidharapura dynasty (first king Jayavarman VI, 1080 to 1107), which originated west of the Dângrêk Mountains at Phimai in the Mun river valley[42] lasted several decades. Some historians argue, that these kings failed to acquire absolute central administrative control and had limited access to local resources. The dynasty discontinued "ritual policy" and genealogical traditions. Further momentum ensued as Mahayana Buddhism was eventually tolerated and several Buddhist kings emerged, including Suryavarman I, Rajendravarman II and Jayavarman VII.[43]

These rulers were not considered, and did not consider themselves, as divine, which lead to a shift in perception of royal authority, central power and a loss of dynastic prestige with respect to foreign rulers. Effectively the royal subjects were given permission to re-direct attention and support from the Hindu state of military dominance with its consecrated leader, the "Varman"—protector king, towards the inner-worldly alternative with the contradictory teachings of the Buddhist temple. Indravarman III (c. 1295-1308) adopted Theravada Buddhism as the state religion,[44] which implied an even more passive, introverted focus towards individual and personal responsibility to accumulate merit to achieve nirvana.[45]

Miriam T. Stark argues that competition and rivalries in royal succession, usurpers and "second grade" rulers characterised the kingdom since the 9th century. Periods of "...consolidation alternated with political fragmentation [as] only few rulers were able to wrest control from the provincial level".[46]

Debate remains on the progress of the imperial society as the kingdom grew and occupied foreign lands. Authors present numerous theories about the relationship between Southeast Asian kings and the populace's loyalties, nature and degree of identity, the Mandala concept and the effects of changing state-religion. Scholar Ben Kiernan highlights a tendency to identify with a universal religion rather than to adhere to the concept of a people or nation, as he refers to author Victor Lieberman in: Blood and Soil: Modern Genocide 1500-2000 "[local courts make]...no formal demand, that rulers be of the same ethnicity as their subjects"[47][48]

Environmental problems and infrastructural breakdown

[edit]

Historians increasingly maintain the idea that decline was caused by progressing ecological imbalance of the delicate irrigation network and canal system of "...a profoundly ritualized, elaborate system of hydraulic engineering..."[49] at Angkor's Yasodharapura. Recent studies indicate that the irrigation system was overworked and gradually started to silt up, amplified by large scale deforestation.[50] Permanent monument construction projects and maintenance of temples instead of canals and dykes put an enormous strain on the royal resources and drained thousands of slaves and common people from the public workforce and caused tax deficits.[51]

Author Heng L. Thung addressed common sense in "Geohydrology and the decline of Angkor" as he sums things up: "...the preoccupation of the Khmers with the need to store water for the long dry season. Each household needed a pond to provide drinking and household water for both man and beast. The barays [reservoirs] of Angkor were simply the manifestation of the need of an urban population. Water was the fountain of life for Angkor; a disruption in its supply would be fatal."[52]

Recent Lidar (Light detection and ranging) Geo-Scans of Angkor have produced new data, that have caused several "Eureka moments" and "have profoundly transformed our understanding of urbanism in the region of Angkor".[53] Results of dendrochronological studies imply prolonged periods of drought between the 14th and 15th centuries.[54] As a result, recent re-interpretations of the epoch put greater emphasis on human–environment interactions and the ecological consequences.[8]

Growth of international maritime trade

[edit]

Some historians have argued that an important reason for the Angkor court's move to the lower Mekong Delta was due to the growth of international maritime trade with the rest of the world. Angkor, being primarily inland and largely agricultural, became increasingly irrelevant to the global markets in comparison to the later maritime Cambodian capitals at Longvek, Oudong, and later Phnom Penh.[55][56][57]

Chaktomuk era

[edit]

Following the abandonment of the capital Yasodharapura[58] and the Angkorian sites, the Angkor elites established a new capital around two-hundred kilometres to the south-east on the site which is modern day Phnom Penh, at the confluence of the Mekong and the Tonle Sap river. Thus, it controlled the river commerce of the Khmer heartland, upper Siam and the Laotian kingdoms with access, by way of the Mekong Delta, to the international trade routes that linked the Chinese coast, the South China Sea, and the Indian Ocean. Unlike its inland predecessor, this society was more open to the outside world and relied mainly on commerce as the source of wealth. The adoption of maritime trade with China during the Ming dynasty (1368–1644) provided lucrative opportunities for members of the Cambodian elite who controlled royal trading monopolies.[59]

Historians consent that as the capital ceased to exist, the temples at Angkor remained as central for the nation as they always had been. David P. Chandler: "The 1747 inscription is the last extensive one at Angkor Wat and reveals the importance of the temple in Cambodian religious life barely a century before it was "discovered" by the French."[60]

Longvek era

[edit]
Depiction of Cambodia on a Portuguese map (17th century)

King Ang Chan I (1516–1566) moved the capital from Phnom Penh north to Longvek at the banks of the Tonle Sap river. Trade was an essential feature and "...even though they appeared to have a secondary role in the Asian commercial sphere in the 16th century, the Cambodian ports did indeed thrive." Products traded there included precious stones, metals, silk, cotton, incense, ivory, lacquer, livestock (including elephants), and rhinoceros horn.

First contact with the West

[edit]

Messengers of Portuguese admiral Alfonso de Albuquerque, conqueror of Malacca arrived in Indochina in 1511, the earliest documented official contact with European sailors. By the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, Longvek maintained flourishing communities of Chinese, Indonesians, Malays, Japanese, Arabs, Spaniards, English, Dutch and Portuguese traders.[61][62]

Christian missionary activities began in 1555 with Portuguese clergyman friar Gaspar da Cruz,[63] the first to set foot in the Kingdom of Cambodia, who "...wasn’t able to spread the word of God and he was seriously ill[sic]." Subsequent attempts did not yield any results that could substantiate a congregation.[64][65][66]

Military resurgence and fall

[edit]
A drawing by Dutch mapmaker Johannes Vingboons, "Eauweck, hooftstadt van Cambodia - Longvek, capital of Cambodia"
Main articles: Siamese–Cambodian War (1591–1594) and Cambodian–Spanish War

Cambodia was a potent rival of the Ayutthaya Kingdom in the 16th century.[67] Following the Burmese subjugation of Ayutthaya in 1569, Cambodia launched numerous military expeditions into a weakened Siam between the 1560s and the 1580s.[68] In 1570, Cambodian forces besieged Ayutthaya, but were repulsed by fierce resistance and the rainy season floods.[69] In 1581, Cambodia sacked the Siamese city of Phetchaburi and emptied the city of its inhabitants.[70]

Meanwhile, in 1572 and 1573-75, the king of Lan Xang sent two invasions to subjugate Longvek. Both invasions ended in complete failure and the Lan Xang king was assumed to have died in the conflict.[71]

In retribution for multiple Longvek raids on Ayutthaya, in 1587, Cambodia was attacked by the Siamese Crown Prince Naresuan, who failed to besiege the city of Longvek.[72] In 1594, Longvek was successfully captured and sacked by Siamese forces and Cambodian royals were taken hostage and relocated to the court of Ayutthaya.[73]

The initially fortunate circumstances of some members of the Longvek royal family, managing to seek refuge at the Lao court of Vientiane, ended tragically. The refugees never returned to demand their claims. Their sons, born and raised in Lan Xang, were alienated and while "moderately" manipulated, engaged in local court politics with the exiled Cambodians in Ayutthaya and had the ruling vassal King Ram I, who was of lower birth, killed with the help of Spanish and Portuguese sailors.[74]

Shortly after they were killed and defeated in the Cambodian–Spanish War, with foreign hands—Malays and Chams—involved. This pattern of royal indignity is noticeable in its continuity during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, the Vietnamese court in Hue joining in as yet another stage of royal drama.[75] Royal contender's quarrels often prevented any chance of restoring an effective King of competitive authority for decades.[76][77]

Srey Santhor era

[edit]

Kings Preah Ram I and Preah Ram II moved the capital several times and established their royal capitals at Tuol Basan (Srey Santhor) around 40 kilometres north-east of Phnom Penh, later Pursat, Lavear Em and finally Oudong.[78] In 1596 Spanish and Portuguese conquistadores from Manila raided and razed Srei Santhor.[79]

Lvea Aem era

[edit]

In 1618, King Chey Chettha II stopped sending tribute to Ayutthaya and reasserted Cambodian independence.[80] A Siamese expedition in 1621-22 to reconquer Cambodia failed in dramatic fashion.[81]

Oudong era

[edit]
Phnom Oudong, the former capital of Cambodia.

By the 17th and 18th centuries, Siam and Vietnam increasingly fought over control of the fertile Mekong basin, enhancing pressure on an unstable Cambodia.[82][83][84] The 17th century was also the beginning of direct relations between post-Angkor Cambodia and Vietnam, that is the war between Nguyễn lords who ruled central and southern Vietnam and Trịnh lords in the north.[85]

Henri Mouhot: "Travels in the Central Parts of Indo-China" 1864

"Udong, the present capital of Cambodia, is situated north-east of Komput, and is four miles and a half from that arm of the Mekon which forms the great lake...Every moment I met mandarins, either borne in litters or on foot, followed by a crowd of slaves carrying various articles; some, yellow or scarlet parasols, more or less large according to the rank of the person; others, boxes with betel. I also encountered horsemen, mounted on pretty, spirited little animals, richly caparisoned and covered with bells, ambling along, while a troop of attendants, covered with dust and sweltering with heat, ran after them. Light carts, drawn by a couple of small oxen, trotting along rapidly and noisily, were here and there to be seen. Occasionally a large elephant passed majestically by. On this side were numerous processions to the pagoda, marching to the sound of music; there, again, was a band of ecclesiastics in single file, seeking alms, draped in their yellow cloaks, and with the holy vessels on their backs....The entire population numbers about 12,000 souls."[86]

However, Cambodia remained economically significant in the early part of the Oudong period. In the 17th century, the Japanese considered Cambodia to be a more important maritime power than Siam.[87]

Loss of the Mekong Delta

[edit]
1683 Map showing Cambodia
The Kingdom of Cambodia in 1686

By the late 15th century, the Vietnamese—descendants of the Sinic civilisation sphere—had conquered some of the territories of the principalities of Champa.[88] Some of the surviving Chams began their diaspora in 1471, many re-settling in Khmer territory.[89][90] However, the Cambodian Chronicle does not mention the Cham arrival in Cambodia until the 17th century.[91] The last remaining principality of Champa, Panduranga, survived until 1832. [92]

Traditional view

[edit]
1719 Map showing Cambodia

In 1620 the Vietnamese on their southwards expansion (Nam tiến) had reached the Mekong Delta, a hitherto Khmer domain. Also in 1620 the Khmer king Chey Chettha II (1618–28) married a daughter of lord Nguyễn Phúc Nguyên, one of the Nguyễn lords, who held sway over southern Vietnam for most of the Lê dynasty era from 1428 to 1788. Three years later, king Chey Chettha allowed Vietnam to establish a custom-post at Prey Nokor, modern day Ho Chi Minh City. Vietnam after gaining independence from the Chinese now instituted its own version of the frontier policies of the Chinese empire and by the end of the 17th century, the region was under full Vietnamese administrative control. Cambodia's access to international sea trade was now hampered by Vietnamese taxes and permissions.[93]

Contrary views

[edit]

The story of a Cambodian king falling in love with a Vietnamese princess, who requested and obtained Kampuchea Krom, the Mekong Delta for Vietnam is folklore, dismissed by scholars and not even mentioned in the Royal Chronicles.[94][95]

In the process of re-interpretation of the royal records and their rather doubtful contents, Michael Vickery again postulates that future publications take these contradicting facts into account: "First, the very concept of a steady Vietnamese "Push to the South" (nam tiến) requires rethinking. It was not steady, and its stages show that there was no continuing policy of southward expansion. Each move was ad hoc, in response to particular challenges..."[96]

Vickery additionally argues that Cambodia was never "cut off from maritime access to the outside world" in the 17th century, as argued by David Chandler.[97]

Mid 17th century–19th century

[edit]

In 1642 Cambodian prince Ponhea Chan became king after overthrowing and assassinating king Outey. Malay Muslim merchants in Cambodia helped him in his takeover, and he subsequently converted to Islam from Buddhism, changed his name to Ibrahim, married a Malay woman and reigned as Ramathipadi I. His reign marked the historical apogee of Muslim rule in mainland Southeast Asia.

A 1770s map of Cambodia

Ramathipadi defeated the Dutch East India Company in naval engagements of the Cambodian–Dutch War during 1643 and 1644.[98] Pierre de Rogemortes, the ambassador of the Company was killed alongside a third of his 432 men and it was not until two centuries later that Europeans played any important and influential role in Cambodian affairs.[99] In the 1670s the Dutch left all the trading posts they had maintained in Cambodia after the massacre in 1643.[100] The first Vietnamese military intervention took place in 1658-59, in which rebel Cambodian princes, Ibrahim Ramathipadi's own brothers, had requested military support to depose the Muslim ruler and restore Buddhism.

Siam, which might otherwise have been courted as an ally against Vietnamese incursions in the 18th century, was itself involved in prolonged conflicts with Burma and in 1767 the Siamese capital of Ayutthaya was completely destroyed. However, Siam recovered and soon reasserted its dominion over Cambodia. The youthful Khmer king Ang Eng (1779–96) was installed as monarch at Oudong while Siam annexed Cambodia's Battambang and Siem Reap provinces. The local rulers became vassals under direct Siamese rule.[101][102]

A renewed struggle between Siam and Vietnam for control of Cambodia and the Mekong basin in the early 19th century resulted in Vietnamese dominance over a Cambodian vassal king. Justin Corfield writes in "French Indochina": "[1807] the Vietnamese expanded their lands by establishing a protectorate over Cambodia. However king […] Ang Duong was keen on Cambodia becoming independent of [...] Thailand [...] and Vietnam [...] and sought help from the British in Singapore. When that failed, he enlisted the help of the French."[103]

Attempts to force Cambodians to adopt Vietnamese customs caused several rebellions against Vietnamese rule. The most notable took place from 1840 to 1841, spreading through much of the country.

Siam and Vietnam had fundamentally different attitudes concerning their relationship with Cambodia. The Siamese shared a common religion, mythology, literature, and culture with the Khmer, having adopted many religious and cultural practices.[104] The Thai Chakri kings followed the Chakravatin system of an ideal universal ruler, ethically and benevolently ruling over all his subjects. The Vietnamese enacted a civilising mission, as they viewed the Khmer people as culturally inferior and regarded the Khmer lands as legitimate site for colonisation by settlers from Vietnam.[105]

The territory of the Mekong Delta became a territorial dispute between Cambodians and Vietnamese. Cambodia gradually lost control of the Mekong Delta. By the 1860s French colonist had taken over the Mekong Delta and establish the colony of French Cochinchina.

Nguyen rule

[edit]
Main article: Vietnamese invasions of Cambodia

As the Vietnamese empire consolidated itself over the eastern mainland under Gia Long and Minh Mang, Cambodia fell to the Vietnamese invasion in 1811. The invasion was initiated by the ruling king, King Ang Chan II's (r. 1806–35) request to Gia Long to suppress his own brothers, Ang Snguon and Ang Em, who were in rebellion against him. The two brothers fled to Thailand, while Ang Chan became a Vietnamese vassal.[106][107]

In 1820 Gia Long died and his fourth son Minh Mang inherited the throne. Both Minh Mang and his father were strong adherents of Confucianism, but Minh Mang was a sadistic isolationist and strong ruler. He removed the Viceroy of Cambodia and Saigon in 1832, triggered the pro-Catholic Lê Văn Khôi revolt against him in 1833. The Thai army, intended to support the rebellion, launched an offensive campaign against the Vietnamese on occupying Cambodia. This led Ang Chan to flee to Saigon, as Rama III promised to restore the Kingdom of Cambodia and punish the insolence of the Kingdom of Vietnam. In 1834, the rebellion in Southern Vietnam was suppressed, and Minh Mang ordered troops to launch the second invasion of Cambodia. This drove most of the Thai forces to the west and reinstalled Ang Chan as the puppet king in Phnom Penh, later succeeded by his daughter, Queen Ang Mey (r. 1835–41).[108] Later that year, the Tây Thành Province was established, the Vietnamese occupied Cambodia result in direct Vietnamese control. For the next six years, the Vietnamese emperor had tried to force the Cambodians to adopt Vietnamese culture by cultural assimilation, a progress that historian David P. Chandler called The Vietnamization of Cambodia.[109]

The death of Minh Mang in early 1841 halted the Vietnamization of Cambodia.[110] With 35,000 Thai troops, they took advantage of the dire situation in Vietnam, rushed into the Tây Thành Province, and were able to fend off Vietnamese counteroffensives in late 1845. The new Vietnamese emperor, Thieu Tri, readied to make peace with Siam, and in June 1847 a peace treaty was signed. The Kingdom of Cambodia under Ang Duong regained its independence after 36 years of brutal Vietnamese occupations and Siamese interventions.[111]

Consequences and conclusions

[edit]
Main article: French Protectorate of Cambodia
King Norodom of Cambodia

European colonialism and Anglo-French rivalries

[edit]

Admiral Léonard Charner proclaimed the formal annexation of three provinces of Cochinchina into the French Empire on 31 July 1861,[112] the beginning of the colonial era of France in South-East Asia. France's interference in Indochina was thus a fact and the colonial community pressing to establish a commercial network in the region based on the Mekong river, ideally linking up with the gigantic market of southern China.[113][114]

Dutch author H.Th. Bussemaker has argued that these French colonial undertakings and acquisitions in the region were mere reactions to or counter-measures against British geo-strategy and economic hegemony. "For the British, it was obvious that the French were trying to undercut British expansionism in India and China by interposing themselves in Indochina. The reason for this frantic expansionism was the hope that the Mekong river would prove to be navigable to the Chinese frontier, which then would open the immense Chinese market for French industrial goods."[115] To save the kingdom's national identity and integrity, King Ang Duong initiated secret negotiations in a letter to Napoleon III seeking to obtain some agreement of protection with France.

In June 1884, the French governor of Cochinchina, Charles Thomson went to Phnom Penh, Norodom's capital, and demanded approval of a treaty with Paris that promised far-reaching changes such as the abolition of slavery, the institution of private land ownership, and the establishment of French résidents in provincial cities. The king reluctantly signed the agreement. The Philaster Treaty of 1874 confirmed French sovereignty over the whole of Cochin China and on 16 November 1887 the Indo-Chinese Union was established.[116]

Continued debate over Post-Angkor historiography

[edit]
Coronation of Norodom, 3 June 1864.

Archaeology of Cambodia is considered to be still in its infancy. The introduction of new methods of geochronology such as LIDAR-Scanning and Luminescence dating has revealed new sets and kinds of data and studies on climate—and environmental imbalances have become more numerous in recent years. Reflection of results obviously requires time, as in an article of the US National Academy of Sciences of the year 2010, the author complains: "Historians and archaeologists have, with a few notable exceptions only rarely considered the role played by environment and climate in the history of Angkor".[117]

Widely debated remain historiography, culturalism and other aspects of the historical sources as wide contradictions suggest.[118] Probably the greatest challenge is to synchronise all research with the conclusions of the neighbouring countries. Delicate issues exist that are rooted in this historical period (border disputes, cultural heritage), which are politically relevant and far from solved. Definitive conclusions with all contributing factors in a reasonable context are clearly future events.[119]

Miriam T. Stark in: "From Funan to Angkor Collapse and Regeneration in Ancient Cambodia"[120]

"...explaining why particular continuities and discontinuities characterize ancient Cambodia remains impossible without a more finely textured understanding of the archaeological record... Future work, that combines systematic archaeological research and critical documentary analysis can and should illuminate aspects of resilience and change..."

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Post-Angkor period

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Post-Angkor period in Cambodian history, spanning from the sacking of Angkor by Ayutthaya forces in 1431 to the establishment of the French protectorate in 1863, marked a phase of political fragmentation and regional vassalage following the decline of the Khmer Empire's centralized power. With the royal court relocating southward under King Ponhea Yat to the vicinity of Phnom Penh, the kingdom shifted focus toward Mekong River trade routes, fostering commerce but exposing it to incursions from neighboring Siam and Vietnam. This era, often characterized as the "dark ages" due to the paucity and unreliability of indigenous records—many of which were influenced or recopied from Thai annals—saw the dominance of Theravada Buddhism, diminishing the role of the Hindu-Buddhist priestly class that had underpinned Angkorian grandeur. Subsequent capitals, including Lovek in the 16th century under kings like Ang Chan who encouraged European trade contacts with and Dutch merchants, and from the early 17th century, reflected adaptive responses to Thai invasions and Vietnamese expansionism. The kingdom endured cycles of civil war, dynastic rivalries, and tributary obligations, culminating in near-partition between Siam and by the early , before King Norodom's accession and the 1863 treaty with restored nominal sovereignty under colonial oversight. Notable achievements included maritime trade booms and architectural remnants like those at Lovek, though chronic instability precluded the monumental feats of the era, with source credibility challenged by biased royal chronicles favoring legitimizing narratives over empirical detail. This period's defining characteristics encompassed demographic southward migration, erosion of hydraulic sustaining Angkor's population, and intermittent European diplomatic forays that highlighted Cambodia's strategic vulnerability amid Siamese-Vietnamese rivalry, setting the stage for modern boundaries forged under French administration.

Causes of Angkor's Decline and Transition

Military Invasions and External Pressures

The launched repeated military campaigns against the starting in the mid-14th century, weakening Angkor's northern defenses and control over its agricultural hinterlands. Early incursions included invasions in 1353 and 1370, during which Ayutthaya forces penetrated Khmer territory but were ultimately repelled, though these raids strained resources and highlighted vulnerabilities in Angkor's extended supply lines. These conflicts arose from territorial rivalries and Ayutthaya's expansionist ambitions, as the Thai kingdom sought to reclaim western Khmer provinces previously under Sukhothai influence. The pressure culminated in the 1431 sack of under Ayutthaya's King Borommarachathirat II (r. 1424–1448), who mobilized forces to besiege and plunder the capital Yasodharapura after years of intermittent warfare. Contemporary accounts in the Royal Chronicles of Ayutthaya describe the assault as involving the capture of the city, extensive looting of treasures, and destruction of key , including hydraulic systems vital to the region's rice production. Khmer records corroborate this, noting the death or displacement of ruling figures and the temporary Ayutthayan occupation, which lasted until approximately 1440 before Khmer resurgence. Archaeological evidence, such as Thai-style artifacts in 's structures, supports claims of direct control and resource extraction during this period. In response, Khmer King Ponhea Yat (r. ca. 1405–1467) evacuated in 1431, deeming the inland plain indefensible against further Thai cavalry and siege tactics, and relocated to southern riverine strongholds like Basan (Srey Santhor). These invasions severed access to the fertile Tonle Sap basin, compelling a southward migration of elites and populations toward the Delta's natural barriers and trade routes, where fortified positions offered better protection from overland assaults. The loss of northern heartlands thus acted as a direct causal driver for the capital's shift, prioritizing military viability over traditional agrarian centrality.

Environmental Degradation and Water System Failures

The hydraulic infrastructure of , comprising extensive barays (reservoirs), moats, and canals totaling over 1,000 kilometers in length, was engineered to capture runoff for dry-season , enabling intensive wet- that supported a estimated at up to one million by the 13th century. However, prolonged accumulation in these structures, driven by upstream erosion from widespread and , progressively diminished storage capacities; core samples from moats and barays indicate elevated siliciclastic rates through the 13th century, reflecting intensified as forested areas were cleared for paddies. This , exacerbated by the system's hyper-coherence—wherein upstream blockages propagated downstream disruptions—created ecological vulnerabilities, as the network's design assumed loads that intensive systematically undermined. Monsoon variability further strained the overextended system, with tree-ring chronologies from Vietnamese cypress trees providing proxy evidence for severe regional droughts in the mid- (circa 1340–1360 CE) and early (circa 1402–1424 CE), periods of reduced lasting decades and halving typical inflows. Lake sediment records from the corroborate this, showing a sharp decline in sedimentation rates by an starting in the , indicative of diminished volumes and flow that left canals and reservoirs unable to recharge adequately for . These droughts, superimposed on chronic , triggered crop failures in the rice-dependent economy, as the system's reliance on stored amplified shortfalls; computer simulations of the network demonstrate how initial dry spells reduced conveyance efficiency, leading to cascading shortages across interconnected channels. From a causal perspective, the degradation stemmed not merely from climatic randomness but from human-induced tipping points: the Khmer rulers' expansion of hydraulic works to maximize agricultural output for urban and temple sustenance overloaded the system's finite capacity, fostering dependency on marginal reservoirs prone to infill and flow imbalances without adaptive maintenance. Empirical modeling reveals that such overuse primed the for under episodic stressors, challenging interpretations that attribute solely to exogenous without accounting for anthropogenic ecological strain, as evidenced by gradual shifts predating acute phases. By the early , these compounded factors rendered the northern plain's water management untenable, prompting elite relocation southward where natural floodplains offered less engineered but more resilient .

Internal Dynastic Instability and Religious Shifts

Following the death of around 1220, the experienced marked dynastic fragility, evidenced by a sharp decline in royal inscriptions and monumental constructions that had previously legitimized succession. Indravarman II, likely 's son, ruled briefly until approximately 1243, but his reign yielded few records, suggesting contested authority amid factional rivalries. Jayavarman VIII seized power in 1243, initiating a period of by defacing Mahayana Buddhist monuments erected under , including conversions of images to , which reflected purges of rival religious and possibly dynastic factions. This instability culminated in Jayavarman VIII's overthrow around 1295 by his son-in-law, Indravarman III, marking further evidence of intra-elite coups that undermined centralized royal control. Concurrently, Buddhism ascended as the dominant faith from the mid-, supplanting the and Shaivite traditions that had underpinned the cult of divine kingship. Inscriptions from this era document increased monastic land grants and the construction of viharas, such as those in , indicating royal patronage shifting toward the rather than grand temple complexes tied to royal divinity. By the late , under Indravarman III, was explicitly adopted as a state-supported doctrine, with evidence of mass conversions and the erosion of Hindu-Buddhist in court rituals. This transition is corroborated by archaeological findings of -specific terraces and steles dating to the 13th-14th centuries, signaling a deliberate pivot away from the god-king ideology that had unified elites through deified rulers. The adoption of , with its emphasis on individual merit, monastic autonomy, and rejection of royal apotheosis, causally fragmented political loyalty by decentralizing religious authority from to independent monasteries, thereby enabling dynastic challengers to exploit weakened ideological cohesion. Unlike the system, which portrayed kings as Shiva's avatars commanding absolute fealty, Theravada's egalitarian diminished the sacral basis for hereditary absolutism, fostering elite factions oriented toward alliances over court unity. Chinese Yuan and early Ming records depict this era's Khmer court as plagued by internal "turmoil and frequent changes of ruler," attributing instability to eroded central command amid religious diversification, which allowed opportunistic purges and successions without unified resistance. This self-induced vulnerability, rooted in doctrinal shifts prioritizing monastic endowments over royal cults, thus amplified the empire's susceptibility to factional dissolution independent of external factors.

Economic Reorientation Toward Maritime Trade

The progressive breakdown of Angkor's extensive hydraulic , driven by severe droughts documented through tree-ring from the mid-14th to early 15th centuries, undermined the inland agrarian and prompted a southward pivot toward river-based integrated with maritime networks. These droughts, lasting decades and linked to weakened monsoons, reduced water availability for and caused system-wide failures, including sedimentation and damage, rendering large-scale cultivation unsustainable in the northern lowlands. Geoarchaeological analyses of moat sediments from reveal a gradual decline in human activity starting in the early 1300s, marked by decreased forest clearance and , culminating in swamp regrowth by 1400 CE as maintenance ceased. This causal shift favored regions with reliable fluvial access to export markets, evidenced by archaeological indicators of intensified settlement and activity along the Mekong Delta and its tributaries during the 15th century. Elites, seeking viable alternatives to faltering hydrology, relocated to southern confluences like Chaktomuk—where the Mekong and Tonle Sap rivers meet—positioning them to oversee riverine transport of surplus rice from delta paddies and forest products such as resins and hides toward coastal outlets. Such adaptations aligned with burgeoning regional trade, including exchanges with Ming China (1368–1644 CE), where Khmer ports facilitated imports of ceramics and silks in return for agricultural staples, as corroborated by Chinese annalistic records of tribute missions and merchant settlements. Archaeological finds, including imported Chinese porcelain shards at southern Khmer sites and evidence of mid-15th-century coastal trade routes extending to and via networks, underscore the empirical pull of these maritime opportunities over inland vulnerabilities. The strategic emphasis on delta-linked ports, evolving from earlier hubs like Oc Eo, enabled control over high-value exports amid declining northern productivity, marking a pragmatic realignment rather than abrupt collapse.

Early Southern Capitals: Srey Santhor and Chaktomuk Eras (1431–1525)

Srey Santhor Era: Immediate Aftermath of Angkor's Fall

Following the Siamese sack of in 1431, King , son of the preceding ruler Srey Soriyovong II, evacuated the Khmer court southward to evade further Ayutthayan incursions that had rendered the northern capital militarily untenable. The relocation targeted Tuol Basan in the Srey Santhor area of present-day , approximately 150 kilometers southeast of , where the terrain provided rudimentary natural barriers against immediate pursuit. The Royal Cambodian Chronicles record that Ponhea Yat promptly established a at Tuol Basan, accompanied by elements of the royal and likely an initial wave of elites and dependents fleeing the chaos of Angkor's abandonment, though archaeological evidence for large-scale civilian refugee settlement remains sparse for this specific site. defensive measures, including basic earthworks and reliance on local , were improvised to secure the outpost amid persistent Thai raiding threats, reflecting a pragmatic shift from Angkor's expansive hydraulic to survival-oriented positioning. These efforts prioritized consolidating loyalists and administrative functions over territorial reclamation, as Ayutthaya's dominance in the northwest precluded any northern counteroffensive. Ponhea Yat's tenure at Srey Santhor, spanning roughly 1431 to 1434, yielded limited structural accomplishments beyond rudimentary court stabilization, with chronicles noting environmental vulnerabilities like seasonal flooding that soon necessitated relocation southward. This phase underscored the Khmer polity's fragmentation, as fragmented loyalties and resource scarcity hampered broader governance, setting the trajectory for successive capitals oriented toward riverine accessibility and away from Siamese frontiers.

Chaktomuk Era: Stabilization and Urban Development Near

Following the Thai sack of in 1431, King (r. 1426–1467) relocated the Khmer court southward to the Chaktomuk confluence—the junction of the , Bassac, and Tonle Sap rivers—establishing a new capital there in 1434. This strategic site, previously a trading outpost, offered defensible riverine access and proximity to maritime routes, enabling initial stabilization amid ongoing Thai pressures. 's decision, recorded in Cambodian royal chronicles, prioritized immediate security and economic viability over reclaiming northern territories. Urban development commenced under Ponhea Yat with the construction of viharas (Buddhist monasteries) and markets to support a resettled population drawn from Angkor's remnants. , founded circa 1373 but expanded by Ponhea Yat as a royal site, served as a religious and administrative focal point, housing relocated bronze images and the king's eventual ashes. These efforts laid rudimentary on previously flood-prone flatlands, fostering in , fish, and goods via the , though the settlement remained modest compared to Angkor's scale, with no evidence of monumental temple complexes. Archaeological surveys confirm early post-Angkor and structural remnants indicative of this foundational phase, reflecting a pivot to compact, river-oriented urbanism. Successors including Intharacha I (r. 1467–1488) and Srey Chak (r. 1498–1516) extended stabilization by reinforcing control and local alliances to deter Thai raids, which persisted intermittently into the early . Population transfers from northern sites contributed to demographic consolidation in the south, as evidenced by shifts in ceramic styles and settlement patterns away from , underscoring a causal reorientation toward defensible, trade-centric hubs rather than expansive agrarian centers. By circa 1525, these measures had solidified Chaktomuk as a viable base, preceding further southward shifts, though vulnerabilities to external incursions remained.

Longvek Era (1525–1594)

Political and Military Resurgence

King Ang Chan I (r. 1516–1566) initiated the political resurgence of the Khmer kingdom by defeating the usurper Sṭec Kan in 1525 and establishing as the new capital in 1526, selecting its location west of the Tonle Sap River for strategic defensibility against Siamese threats and to circumvent local loyalties favoring the defeated rival in Srei Santhor. The city was fortified with three concentric sets of walls enclosing approximately nine square kilometers, supplemented by canals (braek) oriented at angles to the and Tonle Sap rivers, enhancing both defense and irrigation for agricultural productivity. Militarily, Ang Chan I demonstrated assertive Khmer agency through defensive and offensive operations against Siam. In 1536, Khmer forces repelled a Siamese invasion led by Siddhien Rājā, who perished at Pursat, preserving territorial integrity in the northwest. By 1540, Ang Chan reoccupied , defeating Siamese garrisons there, as corroborated by inscriptions dated 1546 and 1564 on restored galleries, signaling a temporary reclamation of core Khmer heartlands. These successes, drawn from Cambodian Royal Chronicles, Siamese records, and European accounts like Diogo do Couto's, reflect a decade of border raids and fortifications that bolstered Khmer sovereignty until the 1560s. Administratively, the Longvek era under Ang Chan and successors centralized authority through infrastructure projects reliant on labor, including palace construction ordered in 1553, which supported urban development and a brief economic revival via enhanced trade access and agricultural output. This period of stability, lasting roughly fifty years until Ang Chan's death in 1566, marked a shift from post-Angkor fragmentation toward renewed monarchical consolidation, though reliant on royal chronicles whose pre-1550 reliability historians like David Chandler note as potentially embellished.

European Diplomatic and Commercial Contacts

The initiated the earliest recorded European diplomatic and commercial engagements with during the era, arriving as traders and missionaries following their conquest of in 1511 and leveraging regional maritime networks for expansion. By the 1550s, figures such as Capuchin friars had established a presence in , pursuing dual objectives of Christian conversion and trade in commodities including , spices, and forest products, while offering firearms to curry favor with Khmer rulers facing Siamese incursions. These overtures, however, yielded limited success, as Khmer elites viewed European interlopers with wariness, prioritizing over alliances that risked cultural erosion or dependency, a dynamic evident in the sparse and often frustrated missionary dispatches from the period. Spanish efforts supplemented Portuguese initiatives in the late , particularly through joint expeditions from the , where envoys like Diogo Veloso—a Portuguese adventurer integrated into Spanish colonial ventures—sought to install pro-Christian proxies and supply against Ayutthaya's threats. Veloso's 1592 mission, dispatched at the behest of King Satha I (r. 1576–1595), initially repelled Siamese forces but devolved into factional betrayals, culminating in Veloso's execution in 1599 amid palace intrigues that underscored the fragility of such "exotic" pacts. Dutch traders, entering via competing routes, engaged in opportunistic commerce by the era's close but faced similar rebuffs, with Khmer authorities restricting foreign settlements to prevent undue influence, as corroborated by contemporaneous Iberian logs highlighting mutual distrust. These interactions, driven by Cambodia's geopolitical desperation amid encirclement by expansionist neighbors, exposed the kingdom's overreliance on transient European aid, which promised technological edges like but delivered scant strategic depth, ultimately reinforcing isolation rather than bolstering resilience. Jesuit narratives from the missions, while evangelically biased toward portraying Khmer "idolatry" as a barrier, nonetheless reveal a pragmatic royal calculus favoring indigenous power balances over risky foreign entanglements. The net commercial footprint remained marginal, confined to Longvek's ports without catalyzing broader economic shifts or conversions beyond a negligible elite fringe.

Conflicts with Siam and Internal Betrayals Leading to Fall

In the early 1590s, the Kingdom of Ayutthaya under King Naresuan launched a series of invasions against , escalating into the Siamese–Cambodian War of 1591–1594, with raids on occurring as early as 1592. These campaigns exploited Cambodia's maritime orientation and weakened inland defenses, but their success hinged on profound internal divisions within the Khmer court rather than overwhelming Siamese military superiority alone. Cambodian royal chronicles attribute the vulnerability to a lack of unified resistance, stemming from chronic factionalism among elites who prioritized personal gain over collective defense. The decisive event unfolded in late 1593, when Naresuan orchestrated a dual-front assault via in the northwest and Kampong Som in the south, converging on by early 1594. A three-month ensued, culminating in the city's sack and burning in January 1594. Key to this breach were betrayals by high-ranking Khmer officials; notably, Mahā Ubhayorāja Srī Suriyobarm, a and royal relative, reportedly facilitated Siamese entry by offering them a welcoming reception, effectively opening the gates amid faltering defenses. Concurrently, Braḥ Rām Joeṅ Brai, a prominent minister, turned against King Satha I (r. 1576–1595) after being denied greater authority, launching an attack on the monarch that forced his flight southward to Srei Santhor and eventually . These acts of treachery, documented in Khmer chronicles, underscore how elite disloyalty eroded morale and logistical cohesion, enabling Siamese forces to overwhelm the capital despite its fortifications. Preceding these betrayals, dynastic instability had sown the seeds of collapse: in 1586, King Satha I devolved power to his sons Jayajeṭṭhā and Cau Bañā Tan, fragmenting royal authority and fostering rival factions within the . This internal rot—characterized by absentee loyalty and opportunistic alliances—left Longvek's mandarins and (nobles) prone to , as evidenced by the chronicles' portrayal of a lacking "patriotic spirit" amid Siamese pressure. The fall resulted in the destruction of Longvek as a political center, mass enslavement of Khmer captives transported to Ayutthaya, and the imposition of a puppet regime under Siamese oversight, marking Cambodia's descent into vassalage and initiating a protracted era of external domination.

Lvea Aem and Transitional Period (1594–1620)

Power Vacuums and Factional Struggles

Following the Siamese capture and sacking of in 1594, during which King Sattha I fled to , descended into a prolonged exacerbated by the of royal family members to Ayutthaya, leaving no clear central authority. Local lords, known as or regional chieftains, emerged as warlords vying for dominance over fragmented territories, often aligning with or against Siamese interests to legitimize their claims to the throne; this factionalism prevented any sustained consolidation, as rival groups exploited the absence of a unified court to seize provincial strongholds and resources. Siamese interventions frequently dictated royal successions, with Ayutthaya installing short-lived puppet kings—such as Ang Nan (r. circa 1597–1603) and subsequent Barom Reachea rulers—to enforce tribute and maintain influence, though these monarchs typically reigned only a few years before being deposed by internal betrayals or renewed Thai military pressure. The rapidity of these turnovers, averaging under a decade per reign in the early 17th century, reflected not only Thai puppeteering but also leadership failures among Cambodian elites, who prioritized personal ambitions over national cohesion, further eroding royal prestige and administrative control. Lvea Aem, a strategic site along the in , briefly functioned as a fleeting political base and refuge hub amid southward refugee flows driven by Siamese raids and civil skirmishes, hosting provisional courts vulnerable to factional incursions. This era of warlordism and Thai-orchestrated kingships systematically undermined central authority, as provincial barays and retained autonomy, hoarding tax revenues and militias while the throne oscillated between nominal Siamese vassals and pretenders; the resulting instability created opportunities for external actors, including Vietnamese settlers, to establish initial footholds in depopulated eastern territories without effective Khmer resistance. Cambodian chronicles, though biased toward royal narratives, corroborate the prevalence of betrayals among nobles, attributing to a breakdown in merit-based hierarchies rather than solely foreign aggression.

Vietnamese Encroachments and Loss of Autonomy

In the wake of the Siamese sack of in 1594, Cambodia's internal factionalism created opportunities for Vietnamese intervention, particularly from the of , who sought to expand southward into sparsely governed Khmer territories. By the early 1610s, amid Khmer appeals for aid against Siamese incursions, initial diplomatic contacts emerged between Cambodian King Sattha II (r. 1618–1628, also known as Chey Chettha II) and the court, culminating in a marriage alliance in 1618 when the king wed Princess Ngô Thị Ngọc Bảo (Ban Tho), daughter of Lord Hoàng. This union facilitated the first organized Vietnamese settlements in the , with Khmer authorities granting land concessions around Prey Nokor (modern ) and Hà Tiên to Vietnamese migrants tasked with rice cultivation and defense. These settlements, numbering several thousand migrants by 1620 under Nguyễn oversight, were framed as mutual pacts against Siamese threats but effectively entrenched Vietnamese administrative outposts in Khmer eastern provinces, exploiting Cambodia's weakened central authority during the Lvea Em interregnum. Khmer elites, facing power vacuums, intermarried with Vietnamese settlers to secure alliances, as evidenced by royal grants allowing Nguyễn agents to collect local taxes and build fortified villages, which shifted de facto control over delta trade routes. By the late 1610s, these arrangements evolved into Vietnamese demands for tribute from Khmer vassals in the east, with Nguyễn lords leveraging military support—such as joint campaigns repelling Siamese raids—to impose suzerainty, marking the onset of autonomy erosion through demographic infiltration rather than outright conquest. Empirical indicators of these shifts appear in contemporary Vietnamese administrative records, which document rapid of settlers in the delta: from initial cadres in 1620 to tens of thousands by the 1630s, outpacing Khmer inhabitants through incentives like tax exemptions for . Khmer tax ledgers from the period, preserved in fragmented Nguyễn archives, reveal Vietnamese dominance in eastern revenue collection, with migrants comprising over half the taxable households in key delta districts by , fostering a hybrid elite class loyal to and diluting indigenous governance. This opportunistic expansion, unburdened by Khmer resistance amid civil strife, laid the groundwork for sustained Vietnamese in the region without immediate full .

Oudong Era (1620–1863)

Royal Consolidation and Defensive Strategies

King Chey Chettha II (r. 1618–1628), also known as Jayajettha II, relocated the Cambodian royal capital to in 1618, selecting its elevated hilltop terrain approximately 40 kilometers northwest of modern for strategic defensibility amid recurrent Siamese raids from Ayutthaya. This shift from lowland sites prioritized natural barriers over expansive urban layouts, with initial developments including pagodas serving dual religious and observational roles to monitor approaches from Thai forces. The site's topography, featuring Phnom Udong and adjacent hills, inherently fortified the residence against cavalry-based incursions, a persistent threat following the sack of in 1594. To sustain under divided , Oudong-era monarchs implemented a policy of alternating obligations to Siam and , dispatching , gold, and forest products in cycles that prevented exclusive dominance by either patron. This diplomatic balancing act was supplemented by internal fiscal measures, leveraging Cambodia's position astride overland trade corridors—particularly pepper, , and timber exchanges between Siamese and Vietnamese markets—to generate revenues independent of vassal exactions, estimated at sustaining a of several thousand amid annual demands equivalent to dozens of . Royal oversight of these routes, enforced through appointed governors, mitigated economic vassalage while funding defensive reinforcements, such as earthen ramparts and watchtowers documented in contemporary . By the mid-19th century, King (r. 1848–1860) refined these strategies, ascending via Siamese intervention in the 1840–1841 uprising against Vietnamese overlordship and subsequently negotiating the 1847 treaty with Siam and , which delineated tribute periodicity and affirmed Cambodian royal prerogatives. further consolidated autonomy through intermarriages binding Cambodian nobility to Siamese aristocracy, including alliances with Chao Fa Talaha, deterring unilateral interventions while he commissioned infrastructure like canals and additional pagodas to symbolize internal stability and deter aggression. These measures temporarily elevated Oudong's role as a resilient power center, with 's diplomacy yielding a decade of relative before escalating external pressures.

Gradual Cession of the Mekong Delta

During the early 17th century, Khmer King Chey Chettha II (r. 1618–1628), following his marriage to Vietnamese princess Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Vạn in 1620, granted permissions for Vietnamese traders, missionaries, and settlers to establish communities in the , including a custom house at Prey Nokor (present-day area) to facilitate taxation and commerce. This arrangement, detailed in Cambodian chronicles, reflected Khmer strategic interests in leveraging Vietnamese presence as a demographic and economic buffer amid regional instabilities, though no explicit reference to Cham remnants appears in surviving annals; instead, it aligned with alliances against broader threats like Siamese incursions. These initial invitations enabled rapid Vietnamese demographic expansion, with settlements proliferating along delta waterways by mid-century, shifting local control from Khmer to Vietnamese hands without immediate military conquest. Traditional Khmer historiography portrays subsequent Vietnamese dominance as unprovoked aggression following the 1620s migrations, emphasizing forced encroachments that eroded Khmer sovereignty over (the delta region). However, empirical records indicate Khmer complicity persisted, as later monarchs renewed settlement allowances amid internal weaknesses, allowing to consolidate authority by the late —evidenced by Vietnamese administration of Prey Nokor as Gia Định by 1698. This gradual territorial erosion accelerated in the through intermittent military actions, such as the invasion of 1754 under Lord Nguyễn Phúc Khoát, which secured eastern delta provinces amid Cambodian civil strife, though no comprehensive formal pacts explicitly ceding are documented from this era. By the early 19th century, under Emperor (r. 1820–1841), the Nguyễn court formalized boundaries incorporating the delta into proper, with demarcations around 1834–1835 following interventions in that implicitly ratified prior losses, as Khmer courts lacked capacity to contest the entrenched Vietnamese presence. Archaeological and demographic data underscore this process as a causal outcome of invited migrations leading to irreversible and agricultural intensification by Vietnamese settlers, rather than solely exogenous , challenging narratives that downplay Khmer agency in the cession.

Sustained Siamese and Vietnamese Influences

Cambodia's position under dual to Siam and during the era entailed periodic tribute payments to both courts, a practice solidified under King (r. 1810–1834), who acknowledged overlords in and to secure his throne amid rival claimants. Khmer monarchs exploited divisions between the patrons, alternately seeking Siamese military aid against Vietnamese encroachments or Vietnamese support to counter Siamese demands, thereby preserving nominal despite enforced vassalage. Recurrent Siamese-Vietnamese conflicts, including proxy wars in Cambodian territory from the 1760s onward—such as King Taksin's 1769 invasion and occupations—intensified tribute exactions, including elephants, rice, and forest products, yet Khmer forces retained agency through localized raids and guerrilla actions that protected central highlands and riverine cores from total subjugation. These wars, peaking in the 1700s to , positioned as a contested buffer, with Siamese armies enforcing control over western provinces like by 1794 while Vietnamese forces dominated eastern approaches. Cultural influences manifested selectively, with Siamese administrative models and court rituals infiltrating Khmer palaces, including the adoption of Thai-style regalia and hierarchical titles, though Khmer elites resisted deeper assimilation by upholding monastic traditions distinct from Siamese royal . Vietnamese Confucian left minimal imprint, overshadowed by Khmer adherence to indigenous legal codes and scriptures, preserving linguistic and religious orthodoxy amid borrowings. Demographic strains mounted in the early from Siamese-imposed , which conscripted Khmer labor for Bangkok's and campaigns, compounded by epidemics and warfare that halved rural populations in affected zones, as corroborated by Thai archival tallies of tribute shortfalls and labor drafts. These exactions, documented in Siamese chronicles, fueled Khmer resentments but underscored the limits of external dominance, as interior communities evaded full depletion through migration and subsistence .

Consequences and Long-Term Impacts

Demographic and Territorial Losses

Archaeological settlement surveys and geoarchaeological analyses of the heartland reveal a protracted demographic decline beginning in the , with occupation levels in the urban core dropping markedly after the abandonment of in 1431 CE, as evidenced by reduced sediment deposition from rice agriculture and diminished temple reuse. This gradual contraction, rather than a catastrophic event, is corroborated by patterns in artifact distribution and proxies, indicating sustained but diminishing human activity through the . Territorially, Khmer control over the eroded progressively from the , as Vietnamese settlers under the colonized the lowlands, leading to formal annexation by the late and depriving of its primary rice-surplus region and sea access. Concurrently, northwestern territories fell to Siamese forces through repeated invasions, such as those under King Naresuan in the late , reducing the polity's extent to the core basin centered on the plain by the early . Slave raids by Siamese armies in the 16th to 18th centuries exacerbated labor shortages, with thousands of Khmer captives annually deported for labor on canals, fortifications, and royal projects, undermining agricultural and infrastructural capacity. Refugee migrations from raided areas toward southern strongholds like Lovek and facilitated partial demographic consolidation but often resulted in assimilation into Vietnamese or Siamese frontier populations, further hollowing out the Khmer heartland's human resources.

Cultural and Religious Transformations

The consolidation of Buddhism as the preeminent faith in post-Angkor , building on its elevation to under Indravarman III (r. 1295–1308), facilitated a profound religious uniformity that marginalized residual Hindu and elements by the mid-15th century. This shift, accelerated by mass conversions from the 13th century onward, eroded the (god-king) cult and temple-based hierarchies that had buttressed Angkor's centralized authority, as 's doctrinal emphasis on individual merit and monastic discipline decoupled religious legitimacy from monarchical hydraulics and monumental patronage. Empirical evidence from inscriptions and temple adaptations indicates that by the , ordination lineages, imported via Sri Lankan and Burmese networks, dominated clerical training, with canonical texts supplanting treatises in ritual and education. Epigraphic practices mirrored this vernacular pivot: the final dated Sanskrit inscription at (K.488) dates to 1295 CE, after which Pali-infused prevailed in post-Angkor records, reflecting Theravada's prioritization of accessible over elite Indic . By the 1500s, royal and monastic steles from southern sites like Lovek and Udong employed Khmer exclusively for land grants and merit dedications, causal to as local abbots, rather than court Brahmins, authenticated documents and mediated disputes. This linguistic aligned with Theravada's democratizing impulse, enabling broader lay participation but fragmenting the unified symbolic order of Angkorian Sanskrit cosmography. Archaeological surveys reveal a surge in vihara (monastic hall) construction southward from the 15th to 17th centuries, with over 50 sites documented around transitional capitals, supplanting grandiose temple-mountains with modest, community-oriented pavilions for meditation and Jataka storytelling. Jataka persisted as a visual continuum, evident in bas-reliefs and frescoes at post-Angkor viharas depicting tales like the Vessantara Jataka—emphasizing renunciation over kingship—thus sustaining moral narratives amid political flux without the Mahayana's esoteric flourishes. Monastic estates emerged to occupy the power vacuum of enfeebled courts, as decentralized warlords ceded tax-farmed villages to (monastic) networks for sustenance and loyalty, evidenced by 16th–18th-century inscriptions granting srok (communes) to abbots who administered and locally. This causal adaptation stabilized rural society post-Angkor but, through Theravada's ascetic ethos, diverted resources from state innovation—contrasting Angkor's empirical engineering of barays (reservoirs) and moats, which sustained 1 million inhabitants via causal mastery of —to introspective merit accumulation, empirically correlating with diminished hydraulic sophistication and urban scale in southern polities.

Prelude to European Colonialism

By the 1850s, Cambodia under the Oudong monarchy exhibited profound structural frailties, including depopulated western and eastern frontiers resulting from centuries of Siamese raids and Vietnamese annexations, which rendered border defenses nominal and invited opportunistic partitions by neighboring powers. These vulnerabilities, compounded by internal royal factionalism and dependence on Siamese military backing for throne legitimacy, created a power vacuum that drew French attention amid their consolidation of Cochinchina following conquests in the 1860s. King Norodom I, who acceded in 1860 with Siamese endorsement, navigated these pressures by seeking external alliances to counterbalance Bangkok's influence, including tribute obligations and garrisons in key provinces. French missions, initiated in the early 1860s as extensions of exploratory efforts along the , evolved into formal diplomatic engagements under Norodom's overtures for protection against Siamese dominance. On August 11, 1863, Norodom signed a establishing a French protectorate, exchanging safeguards against external aggression—and de facto advisory control over foreign affairs and military—for territorial concessions and economic privileges, including freedom of trade and missionary access. This arrangement, coerced in part by the presence of French gunboats, positioned Cambodia within Franco-Siamese rivalries, as leveraged the kingdom's weaknesses to negotiate Siam's partial renunciation of in 1867 while retaining influence over western provinces. Cambodian petitions from displaced Khmer elites in Siamese-held territories, such as and , further informed Franco-Siamese diplomacy, pressuring amid the 1904 Entente Cordiale's geopolitical shifts. The resulting Franco-Siamese of 1907 mandated Siamese evacuation of Cambodian lands, retroceding approximately 25,000 square kilometers including and to French-administered , though this restitution reinforced dependencies rather than restoring full . These developments underscored how Oudong's empirical debilities—sparse populations vulnerable to irredentist claims and ineffective central authority—facilitated great-power bargaining without inherently foreordaining total subjugation.

Historiographical Debates and Recent Scholarship

Traditional Narratives of Collapse

The Cambodian Royal Chronicles, compiled primarily in the from earlier oral and written traditions, portray the Siamese sack of in 1431 as the cataclysmic event marking the Khmer Empire's abrupt end. These texts describe King Borommarachathirat II of Ayutthaya leading forces that captured the city, forcing King (Bañā Yāt) and the court to flee southward, first to Chaktomuk near modern and later to Basan (Srei Santhor), framing the invasion as an unforeseen calamity that shattered Khmer sovereignty and initiated centuries of vassalage. This narrative privileges a perspective of royal victimhood, attributing collapse to external aggression while downplaying pre-1431 internal fragilities, such as recurrent Siamese raids from the 1360s onward that had already strained Angkor's defenses and . The chronicles' selective focus served to legitimize later monarchs by casting them as heirs to a heroic lineage unjustly displaced, often glossing over endogenous pressures like administrative overreach and that historiographical analysis reveals as precursors to vulnerability. French colonial scholars in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including figures from the École française d'Extrême-Orient, reinforced and amplified these accounts by depicting the post-Angkor period as a "dark age" of cultural decay, political fragmentation, and Thai-Vietnamese domination, in stark contrast to Angkor's idealized grandeur. This portrayal, evident in works synthesizing local chronicles with European interpretations, implicitly justified French protectorate rule from as a restorative civilizing force, thereby embedding a teleological that exaggerated invasion-induced rupture to diminish indigenous agency in the transition. Such traditional emphases on exogenous shocks obscure internal causal mechanisms, including the progressive failure of Angkor's vast hydraulic network—reliant on reservoirs, canals, and barays for —which had fostered ecological imbalances like and , rendering the system brittle to climatic variability long before 1431. By centering Thai agency, these narratives understate how hydraulic mismanagement and agrarian instability eroded the empire's , contributing to a gradual hollowing-out rather than a singular traumatic fall.

Empirical Reassessments via and

investigations employing technology since the early 2010s have revealed extensive low-density urbanism and infrastructural continuity in the region through the 14th and 15th centuries, contradicting models of immediate post-1431 abandonment. High-resolution digital elevation models generated from airborne laser scanning have mapped previously obscured settlements, reservoirs, and linear features indicative of sustained agricultural and habitation activity, suggesting demographic contraction occurred amid adaptive land use rather than wholesale desertion. Bayesian radiocarbon modeling of stratified samples from the enclosure, incorporating 16 dates from charcoal and sediments, indicates temple occupation persisted into the mid-15th century, with phased declines in construction and maintenance reflecting gradual socio-political fragmentation rather than acute catastrophe. This approach refines unmodeled calibrations by enforcing stratigraphic sequences, yielding posterior density estimates for activity phases that extend beyond traditional chronologies of collapse. Geoarchaeological coring in Angkor's urban core corroborates this, documenting reduced but ongoing and land clearance from the onward, consistent with protracted environmental stressors like variability eroding hydraulic efficacy over decades. Excavations at southern Post-Angkorian centers, such as (capital circa 1550–1594), have uncovered stratified deposits of imported ceramics—including Chinese blue-and-white porcelain, Japanese , and Thai sawankhalok wares—dated to the 16th and 17th centuries via typological and , evidencing uninterrupted integration into Southeast Asian maritime trade networks. These artifacts, alongside local brown-glazed linked to Angkorian traditions, demonstrate economic resilience and cultural continuity, countering hyperbolic depictions of isolation or civilizational rupture. of associated sediments and kiln ceramics from comparable contexts further anchors this trade chronology, highlighting persistent artisanal production amid capital relocation southward.

Critiques of Overemphasis on External Factors

Archaeological analyses have challenged the prominence given to external invasions in narratives of Khmer decline, positing that Siamese assaults, such as the 1431 Ayutthaya sack of , functioned primarily as opportunistic exploitations of entrenched internal frailties rather than as independent drivers of collapse. This perspective aligns with geochronological evidence indicating a century-long erosion of administrative vibrancy and hydraulic infrastructure from the 13th century onward, predating peak external pressures and highlighting Khmer governance choices in maintenance and expansion as pivotal vulnerabilities. Such data underscore multi-causal dynamics wherein endogenous decisions amplified susceptibility to geopolitical opportunism, rather than external forces unilaterally dictating outcomes. Critiques further target tendencies in some historiographical accounts to underweight dynastic incompetence and resource mismanagement, evidenced by Khmer rulers' failure to sustain the overextended baray and networks amid fluctuating monsoons, which precipitated localized ecological strain independent of climatic extremes alone. In parallel, the 14th-century pivot toward eroded the Mahayana-derived divine kingship model, diverting elite patronage to monastic institutions and diminishing the coerced labor pools essential for infrastructural resilience, thereby fostering internal fragmentation without direct external imposition. These shifts reflect verifiable agency in religious and administrative policy, countering interpretations that retroactively attribute such erosions solely to invading powers' cultural impositions. Empirical reassessments via stratigraphic and inscriptional records prioritize these internal causal chains, cautioning against overreliance on biased chronicles from Siamese courts—which inflate conquest narratives for legitimacy—while affirming Khmer elites' role in forgoing adaptive reforms, such as diversified or unified succession protocols, that might have mitigated decline. This approach favors archaeological proxies over anecdotal royal annals, revealing how self-induced fractures, including recurrent civil strife among fractious , invited rather than compelled territorial encroachments by neighbors.

References

  1. https://cdn.angkordatabase.asia/libs/docs/d.chandler-a-history-of-cambodia.pdf
  2. https://factsanddetails.com/southeast-asia/Cambodia/sub5_2a/entry-2845.html
  3. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2049480
  4. https://researchnow.flinders.edu.au/en/publications/evidence-for-the-15th-century-ayutthayan-occupation-of-angkor
  5. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323166841_Evidence_for_the_15th_Century_Ayutthayan_Occupation_of_Angkor
  6. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aau4029
  7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331354378_Geoarchaeological_evidence_from_Angkor_Cambodia_reveals_a_gradual_decline_rather_than_a_catastrophic_15th-century_collapse
  8. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0910827107
  9. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1111282109
  10. https://academic.oup.com/book/39071/chapter/338392949
  11. https://www.academia.edu/6042204/The_Collapse_of_the_Khmer_Empire
  12. https://cdn.angkordatabase.asia/libs/docs/Harrisetal.AsianArchaeologyAugust2022.pdf
  13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361651755_A_Typological_Study_of_Theravada_Buddhist_Monasteries_in_Angkor_Thom_CAMBODIA
  14. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366939285_Cambodia%27s_Decline_and_the_Fall_of_Angkor_as_Pictured_in_the_Chinese_Sources_during_the_Yuan_and_Early-Middle_Ming_dynasties_Late_XIII_-_Early_XV_cc
  15. https://so02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/ajrcr/article/download/257666/173043/970695
  16. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1821460116
  17. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ancient-angkor-mysterious-decline-slow-not-sudden
  18. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332879987_The_Southeast_Asian_water_frontier_coastal_trade_and_mid-fifteenth_c_CE_hill_tribe_burials_southeastern_Cambodia
  19. https://countrystudies.us/cambodia/8.htm
  20. https://cdn.angkordatabase.asia/libs/docs/publications/siamese-attacks-on-angkor-before-1430/siamese-attacks-briggs.pdf
  21. https://www11.ihp.sinica.edu.tw/storage/w2_file/1717bpsDXNH.pdf
  22. https://cdn.angkordatabase.asia/libs/docs/publications/reconfiguring-kingdoms-the-end-of-angkor-and-the-emergence-of-early-modern-period-cambodia/Polkinghorne_M._2018_._Reconfiguring_Kin.pdf
  23. https://urbandatabase.khmerstudies.org/get-datas/223
  24. https://archive.lib.cmu.ac.th/full/T/2017/arc80517slong_ch2.pdf
  25. https://www.cambodiamuseum.info/en_information_visitors/streetscapes.html
  26. https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsFarEast/SouthEastCambodiaMiddle.htm
  27. https://www.academia.edu/7702218/Urban_Development_in_Cambodia_A_summary
  28. https://dept.sophia.ac.jp/is/angkor/publication/pdf/bunka/bunka29_03.pdf
  29. https://www.academia.edu/83328757/The_little_known_Cambodian_Port_city_of_Longvek
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369849784_Early_Modern_Cambodia_and_Archaeology_at_Longvek
  31. https://www.academia.edu/83294076/The_Khmer_Empire_featuring_LONGVEK_the_ancient_CITY
  32. https://www.canbypublications.com/phnompenh/pphistory.htm
  33. https://helloangkor.com/exploring-the-wonders-of-longvek-oudong/
  34. https://www.academia.edu/121951597/Early_Modern_Cambodia_and_Archaeology_at_Longvek
  35. https://www.portuguese.asia/post/the-joint-portuguese-spanish-interventions-in-cambodia
  36. https://cne.wtf/2019/12/12/intrigue-in-longvek-iberians-in-16th-century-cambodia/
  37. https://angkordatabase.asia/publications/the-jesuits-in-cambodia-a-look-into-cambodian-religiousness
  38. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358045823_Considerations_Regarding_the_Fall_of_Longvek
  39. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/khmer-thai-wars
  40. https://countrystudies.us/cambodia/9.htm
  41. https://angkordatabase.asia/publications/1620-a-cautionary-tale
  42. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/siamese-vietnamese-war
  43. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43553182
  44. https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstreams/9fcc5faf-c236-4bbc-aeef-6019c40ac3dd/download
  45. https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/6459/
  46. https://thesiamsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/1972/03/JSS_060_1d_Chandler_CambodiaRelationsWithSiamInEarlyBangkokPeriod.pdf
  47. https://ro.uow.edu.au/ndownloader/files/50359089/1
  48. https://www.eminak.net.ua/index.php/eminak/article/download/787/614
  49. https://cdn.angkordatabase.asia/libs/docs/publications/cambodia-in-the-mid-nineteenth-century-a-quest-for-survival-1840-1863/Theam_Bun_Srun-cambodia-mid-19thc.pdf
  50. https://en.vokk.net/a-brief-history-of-the-kampuchea-krom/
  51. https://khmerization.blogspot.com/2014/01/after-angkor-era-cambodia-has-faced-her.html
  52. https://khmerpostusa.com/history-of-kampuchea-krom-the-annexation-of-cambodian-land-by-vietnam/
  53. https://www.int-jecse.net/article/The%2BHistory%2Bof%2Bthe%2BVietnam-Cambodia%2BBorderline%2Bin%2BSouth%2BVietnam%2Bfrom%2Bthe%2B17th%2BCentury%2Bto%2Bthe%2BEarly%2B20th%2BCentury_1060/
  54. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/5/article/641490
  55. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/first-vietnam-war/plural-mekong-delta-under-stress/E0FDEB37982B83D2CA2710CFE3799BB2
  56. https://www.britannica.com/place/Cambodia/Tai-and-Vietnamese-hegemony
  57. https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-Cambodia/Tai-and-Vietnamese-hegemony
  58. https://www.facebook.com/groups/amazingasean/posts/912590490112228/
  59. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/siamese-vietnamese-wars
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6421400/
  61. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1821879116
  62. https://www.countryreports.org/country/Cambodia/history.htm
  63. https://academic.oup.com/book/11105/chapter/159541289
  64. https://kids.kiddle.co/Post-Angkor_period
  65. https://www.britannica.com/place/Cambodia/The-decline-of-Angkor
  66. https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijrsi/digital-library/volume-12-issue-7/24-35.pdf
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6589680/
  68. https://www.academia.edu/38608096/The_earliest_dated_Cambodian_inscription_K_557_600_from_Angkor_Borei_Cambodia_an_English_translation_and_commentary
  69. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-04137416/document
  70. https://www.soas.ac.uk/about/event/iconography-vessantara-jataka-khmer-temples-change-and-continuity-angkor-post-angkor
  71. https://oxfordre.com/asianhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277727-e-241
  72. https://new.coinsweekly.com/nations/why-cambodia-became-a-french-protectorate/
  73. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2049693
  74. https://cdn.angkordatabase.asia/libs/docs/Briggs-TreatyMarch23-1946.pdf
  75. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/179678ca-f23b-49d6-bee5-40f01660819f/content
  76. https://angkordatabase.asia/publications/factors-that-led-to-the-change-of-the-khmer-capitals-from-15th-to-17th-century
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3732978/
  78. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440316300644
  79. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323166828_Trade_ceramics_from_Longvek_the_16th_and_17th_century_capital_of_Cambodia_Evidence_from_the_first_systematic_archaeological_investigations
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6513050/
  81. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316635925_Luminescence_dating_of_sediments_and_ceramics_from_Angkor_Borei_southern_Cambodia
  82. https://www.ijch.net/vol1/011-J002.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.