Kingdom of Cambodia | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1431–1863 | |||||||||||||
.svg) Flag | |||||||||||||
 Cambodia and its neighbours, 1540 | |||||||||||||
| Capital |
| ||||||||||||
| Common languages |
| ||||||||||||
| Religion | Theravada Buddhism | ||||||||||||
| Demonyms | |||||||||||||
| Government | Absolute monarchy | ||||||||||||
| Monarch | |||||||||||||
• 1431–1463 (first) | Ponhea Yat | ||||||||||||
• 1516–1566 | Ang Chan I | ||||||||||||
• 1566–1576 | Barom Reachea I | ||||||||||||
• 1602–1618 | Srei Soriyopear | ||||||||||||
• 1618–1628 | Chey Chettha II | ||||||||||||
• 1848–1860 | Ang Duong | ||||||||||||
• 1860–1863 (last) | Ang Voddey | ||||||||||||
| Historical era | Early modern era | ||||||||||||
| 1431 | |||||||||||||
| 1591–1594 | |||||||||||||
| 1593–1597 | |||||||||||||
| 1594 | |||||||||||||
• Vietnamese settlement of theMekong Delta | 17th century | ||||||||||||
• Oudong era | 1620 | ||||||||||||
| 1643–1644 | |||||||||||||
| 1795 | |||||||||||||
| 1834–1847 | |||||||||||||
| 11 August 1863 | |||||||||||||
| Population | |||||||||||||
• 1500 | 1,224,000 | ||||||||||||
• 1600 | 1,419,000 | ||||||||||||
• 1700 | 1,650,000 | ||||||||||||
• 1800 | 2,090,000 | ||||||||||||
| Currency | Cambodian tical | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Today part of | |||||||||||||
Part ofa series on the |
|---|
| History ofCambodia |
 |
| Early history |
| Post-Angkor period |
| Colonial period |
| Independence and conflict |
| Peace process |
| Modern Cambodia |
| By topic |
 Cambodia portal |
Thepost-Angkor period of Cambodia (Khmer:ប្រទេសកម្ពុជាក្រោយសម័យអង្គរ), also called theMiddle period,[1] refers to the historical era from the early 15th century to 1863, the beginning of theFrench 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 theKhmer 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]
Stoneepigraphy intemples, 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 theRoyal 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 afterJayavarman VII's reign. According to authorMichael Vickery there only exist external sources for Cambodia’s 15th century, the ChineseMing Shilu ("Veritable Records") and the earliest Royal Chronicle ofAyutthaya,[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 aSiamese intervention of some undisclosed nature at the capitalYasodharapura (Angkor Thom) around the year 1431. Historians relate the event to the shift of Cambodia's political centre southward to the river port region ofPhnom Penh and laterLongvek.[14][15]
Sources for the 16th century are more numerous, although still coming from outside of Cambodia. The kingdom's new capital wasLongvek, on theMekong, which prospered as an integral part of the 16th centuryAsian maritime trade network,[16][17] via which the first contact withEuropean explorers and adventurers occurred.[18] The rivalry with theAyutthaya Kingdom in the west resulted in several conflicts, including the Siamese conquest ofLongvek in 1594. TheVietnamese southward expansion reached Prei Nokor/Saigon at theMekong 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 jointsuzerainty between the two regional empires, thereby the Cambodian kingdom lost its national sovereignty.British agentJohn 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, KingAng Duong agreed tocolonial France's offers ofprotection, which took effect with KingNorodom Prohmbarirak signing and officially recognising the French protectorate on 11 August 1863.[21]
TheKhmer Empire had steadily gained hegemonic power over most ofmainlandSoutheast Asia since its early days in the 8th and 9th centuries. Rivalries and wars with its western neighbour, thePagan Kingdom of theMon people of modern-dayBurma were less numerous and decisive than those withChampa to the east. The Khmer andChamHindu 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 ofVijaya.[23][24]
Mongol incursions into southernChina and political and cultural pressure caused the southwardmigration of theTai people andThai people and their settling on the upperChao Phraya River in the 12th century.[25] TheSukhothai Kingdom and later theAyutthaya Kingdom were established and "...conquered the Khmers of the upper and central Menam [Chao Phraya River] valley and greatly extended their territory..."[26]
Although a number of sources, such as theCambodian Royal Chronicles and the Royal chronicles ofAyutthaya[27] contain recordings of military expeditions and raids with associated dates and the names of sovereigns and warlords, several influential scholars, such asDavid Chandler andMichael Vickery doubt the accuracy and reliability of these texts.[28][29][30] Other authors, however, criticise this rigid "overall assessment".[31]
David Chandler states inA 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 theRamkhamhaeng controversy.[34][35]
According to the Siamese Royal chronicles ofParamanuchitchinorot, clashes occurred in 1350, around 1380, 1418 and 1431.[36][37]
"In 1350/51; probably April 1350 KingRamadhipati 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."
Siamese sources record the habit of capturing sizeable numbers of inhabitants from the capital cities and centres of civilisation of the defeated parties inChiang Mai and Angkor which can be assumed to have accelerated the cultural decline.[37][38]
_1759_Xie_Sui.png)
AuthorMichael 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]
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 Taimüang 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]
The complete transition from the early Khmer kingdom to the firm establishment of theMahidharapura dynasty (first kingJayavarman VI, 1080 to 1107), which originated west of theDângrêk Mountains atPhimai in theMun 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 asMahayanaBuddhism was eventually tolerated and several Buddhist kings emerged, includingSuryavarman I,Rajendravarman II andJayavarman 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 itsconsecrated leader, the"Varman"—protector king, towards the inner-worldly alternative with the contradictory teachings of the Buddhist temple.Indravarman III (c. 1295-1308) adoptedTheravada Buddhism as the state religion,[44] which implied an even more passive, introverted focus towards individual and personal responsibility to accumulate merit to achievenirvana.[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, theMandala concept and the effects of changing state-religion. ScholarBen 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]
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'sYasodharapura. 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]
RecentLidar (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 ofdendrochronological 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]
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]
Following the abandonment of the capitalYasodharapura[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 dayPhnom Penh, at the confluence of theMekong and theTonle Sap river. Thus, it controlled the river commerce of the Khmer heartland, upper Siam and theLaotian kingdoms with access, by way of theMekong Delta, to the internationaltrade routes that linked the Chinese coast, theSouth China Sea, and theIndian 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 theMing 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]
King Ang Chan I (1516–1566) moved the capital from Phnom Penh north toLongvek at the banks of theTonle Sap river. Trade was an essential feature and "...even though they appeared to have a secondary role in theAsian commercial sphere in the 16th century, the Cambodian ports did indeed thrive." Products traded there includedprecious stones,metals,silk,cotton,incense,ivory,lacquer,livestock (includingelephants), andrhinoceros horn.
Messengers ofPortugueseadmiralAlfonso de Albuquerque, conqueror ofMalacca arrived inIndochina in 1511, the earliest documented official contact with Europeansailors. By the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, Longvek maintained flourishing communities ofChinese,Indonesians,Malays,Japanese,Arabs,Spaniards,English,Dutch andPortuguese traders.[61][62]
Christian missionary activities began in 1555 with Portuguese clergymanfriarGaspar 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 acongregation.[64][65][66]
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 ofPhetchaburi and emptied the city of its inhabitants.[70]
Meanwhile, in 1572 and 1573-75, the king ofLan 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 PrinceNaresuan, 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 ofVientiane, 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 KingRam I, who was of lower birth, killed with the help of Spanish and Portuguese sailors.[74]
Shortly after they were killed and defeated in theCambodian–Spanish War, with foreign hands—Malays andChams—involved. This pattern of royal indignity is noticeable in its continuity during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, theVietnamese 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]
Kings Preah Ram I andPreah Ram II moved the capital several times and established their royal capitals atTuol Basan (Srey Santhor) around 40 kilometres north-east of Phnom Penh, laterPursat,Lavear Em and finally Oudong.[78] In 1596 Spanish and Portuguese conquistadores fromManila raided and razed Srei Santhor.[79]
In 1618, KingChey 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]
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 betweenNguyễn lords who ruled central and southern Vietnam andTrịnh 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]
By the late 15th century, the Vietnamese—descendants of theSinic civilisation sphere—had conquered some of the territories of the principalities ofChampa.[88] Some of the survivingChams began theirdiaspora in 1471, many re-settling inKhmer 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]
In 1620 the Vietnamese on theirsouthwards expansion (Nam tiến) had reached theMekong Delta, a hitherto Khmer domain. Also in 1620 theKhmer king Chey Chettha II (1618–28) married a daughter of lordNguyễn Phúc Nguyên, one of theNguyễn lords, who held sway over southern Vietnam for most of theLê dynasty era from 1428 to 1788. Three years later, king Chey Chettha allowed Vietnam to establish a custom-post atPrey Nokor, modern dayHo 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]
The story of a Cambodian king falling in love with a Vietnamese princess, who requested and obtainedKampuchea Krom, theMekong Delta for Vietnam isfolklore, dismissed by scholars and not even mentioned in theRoyal 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 byDavid Chandler.[97]
In 1642 Cambodian princePonhea 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 toIbrahim, married a Malay woman and reigned as Ramathipadi I. His reign marked the historicalapogee ofMuslim rule in mainlandSoutheast Asia.
.jpg)
Ramathipadi defeated theDutch East India Company in naval engagements of theCambodian–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 ofAyutthaya was completely destroyed. However, Siam recovered and soon reasserted its dominion over Cambodia. The youthful Khmer kingAng Eng (1779–96) was installed as monarch at Oudong while Siam annexed Cambodia'sBattambang andSiem 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 theBritish inSingapore. 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 ThaiChakri kings followed theChakravatin 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 theMekong Delta became aterritorial 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 ofFrench Cochinchina.
As the Vietnamese empire consolidated itself over the eastern mainland underGia Long andMinh Mang, Cambodia fell to the Vietnamese invasion in 1811. The invasion was initiated by the ruling king, KingAng Chan II's (r. 1806–35) request to Gia Long to suppress his own brothers,Ang Snguon andAng Em, who were inrebellion 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-CatholicLê 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, asRama 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, QueenAng Mey (r. 1835–41).[108] Later that year, theTây 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 historianDavid P. Chandler calledThe 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 underAng Duong regained its independence after 36 years of brutal Vietnamese occupations and Siamese interventions.[111]
AdmiralLéonard Charner proclaimed the formal annexation of three provinces of Cochinchina into theFrench 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, KingAng 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 ofCochinchina,Charles Thomson went toPhnom 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 theIndo-Chinese Union was established.[116]
Archaeology of Cambodia is considered to be still in its infancy. The introduction of new methods ofgeochronology 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 USNational 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 remainhistoriography,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..."
The capital moved from Angkor to the Phnom Penh region, probably...in connection with the growth of international maritime trade.
...the subsequent effective transfer of the capital to the more commercially viable site of Phnom Penh marked the eclipse of pro-Angkor elements within the Khmer elite.
The shift of the capital from Angkor...may reflect...Cambodia's transition to a "trading kingdom" with increasing involvement with the outside world.
After the Khmer armies had been driven out of the Menam valley, they seem to have abandoned the upper and middle Mekong to the Laotians and to have withdrawn to the territory which was predominantly Khmer-with the Se Mun valley and Korat-Jolburi-Chantabun as a frontier. For two cen- turies, they fought Siam successfully for these frontiers. Once-in 1430-31 -the Siamese captured Angkor and seated a Siamese puppet on the throne. But the Cambodians reconquered their capital the next year; and, although they moved the capital to Phnom Penh, they did not abandon their old frontiers, but continued to fight for them during the sixteenth century, some- times in alliance with the Burmese, who twice sacked the Siamese capital.
{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help){{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)
Definitions from Wiktionary
Media from Commons
News from Wikinews
Quotations from Wikiquote
Texts from Wikisource
Textbooks from Wikibooks
Resources from Wikiversity
Travel information from Wikivoyage