A History of Cambodia

by David P. Chandler

This clear and concise volume provides a timely overview of Cambodia, a small but increasingly visible Southeast Asian nation. Hailed by the Journal of Asian Studies as an "original contribution, superior to any other existing work," the third edition of this acclaimed text has been completely revised and updated to include all-new material examining the death of Pol Pot and the collapse of the Khmer Rouge. In addition, Chandler examines the unstable but influential career of Prince Norodom Sihanouk, the bloody reign of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, and the relative calm that followed the Vietnamese invasion of 1979. This comprehensive general description and analysis of Cambodia will illuminate—for specialists and general readers alike—the history and contemporary politics of a country long misunderstood.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Asia, Travel, Research, School

312 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 1983

About the author

David P. Chandler is an American historian and one of the foremost western scholars of Cambodia's modern history.

Reviews

[Jan-Maat]

As a slim so much so that I lost it behind a radiator at one point, one volume histories spanning several thousand years go, I thought this was not bad, pretty good even. Naturally as I believe Howl of Minerva described a similarly wide ranging history, the structure of this book is cone shaped, with more space devoted to the recent past and least space given over to the more distant periods. Although in this case it is the 16th and 17th centuries that are briefly passed over, the early times of Angkor Wat's construction and flourishing get more attention than perhaps the evidence can sustain.

In Chandler's account the ancient Kymer at the point of emergence into the dim light of history are a mess of rice producing agriculturalists headed up by micro kings who are associated with Shiva (or occasionally Indra) and perform ceremonies to ensure good harvests, this to some extent a grand Indian inspired superstructure sitting on top of local ancestor worship (and with that close association and identification with their native region) somehow these micro-kingships conglomerate and produce a top king, or a notion of top kingship- these people we know about from inscriptions - chiefly in Sanskrit that itself evidence that Cambodia was part of an Indian cultural zone kingship rarely seems to have descended from father to child, instead frequently successors may claim to be related to a previous ruler via their wife's family, however in that time and place this was acceptable and reasonable. Part of the king's duties required building symbolic replicas of Mount Meru, hence the reservoirs and temple complexes. Occasionally these Cambodian polities were big and influential enough to pop up in Chinese writings, for instance as Funan. Chandler's discussion of this period is careful and interesting, but it is plain that a lot of delicate thought rest on slender evidence - inscriptions on temples and to some extent physical remains of building complexes.

This comes to a head in the discussion of 13th century monarch Jayavarman VII who breaks with the association of earlier kings with Vedic religion in favour of Mahayana Buddhism. This expressed itself in a wide ranging building program with the construction of roads, wayhouses, reservoirs, and hospitals with substantial numbers of people gifted to support and supply these institutions. With reference to his buildings Chandler says There were so many of them in fact, that workmanship was often sloppy, and by the end of his reign local supplies of sandstone and limestone for use at Angkor had run out(p60). What is interesting is that Mahayana Buddhism doesn't take off, but Theravada Buddhism without any explicit royal promotion does, without any indication of pressure from above or without, but presumably due to missionary work from neighbouring Theravada Buddhists, this without big temples or massive stone consuming construction work strikes a cord and overtime becomes the dominant religion in the region. This is plainly pretty important as far as culture and society are concerned but the nature of historical knowledge about Cambodia means that we only can infer that it did happen and not how, why, or even precisely when. This mediaeval period based around Angkor Wat comes to an end, Chandler suggests one reason may have been the spread of malaria as mosquitoes thrived in the periodically stagnant waters of the canals and reservoirs.

Another serious problem was the rise of neighbouring powerful kingdoms of Thailand and Vietnam.
By the eighteenth century this reached the point that both agreed that Thailand was the father and Vietnam the mother of child-like Cambodia, a hopelessly wayward and backwards child whose hair required vigorous brushing, collar straightening, tie to be retied, while it's shoes were unbelievably scuffed. Kings were crowned in Thailand and received seals of office from the Vietnamese. The country was largely rural, trade was dominated by the Chinese, cattle herding by Muslims from Malaya, while descendants of the Portuguese were responsible for the royal artillery. Come the 19th century Cambodian kings imagine they can get out from under the guiding hands of the Thais and the Vietnamese by appealing to the French the French were quite content to continue a notion of the Cambodians as children in need of a firm parental figure who could shape them to an adult exploitation of teak, and a properly grown up establishment of rubber farms , who imagine the kingdom to be wealthy but poorly managed, eventually they take over, providing the king with an annual dole of high grade opium in a beautiful box to help take his mind off things. Colonial history is really quite incredible.

The final part of the book deals with the colonial period, independence, the Khymer Rouge (in the spirit of our times they made use of child soldiers), and the post Khymer Rouge period. Chandler uses the language of political theatre several times in his last few chapters and I am sorry to say the notion rather took over my imagination. First imagining Prince Sihanouk as a Louis XIV - star of his own ballet taking theatrical illnesses for political reasons, but then also shadow puppet theatre with the French, Thais, Vietnamese,and eventually Chinese and Americans all attempting to manipulate the drama, some times behind the scenes, sometimes on stage, finally the Khymer Rouge as a masked ball, the participants hidden behind pseudonyms, their aims and objectives, even the party's existence apparently kept secret to be revealed only at a sufficiently dramatic momentsome of their leadership were in China at the beginning of the Cultural revolution, which with Mao swimming the Yangtze river provided a master class in politics as the purest form of theatre or vice versa.

The thing about theatre is one needs to remember the audience, dancing for yourself I imagine to be quite different to dancing before a nation of some millions of people. Political language in Cambodia had long described the king as consuming his followers and in turn those aristocrats consumed their slaves, Chandler relates that Sihanouk in his memoirs casually relates that he was told that tens of thousands died, disassociating those deaths from his own policy decisions, while a conservative estimate puts the number of deaths under the Khymer Rouge at one in seven of the population. One can see this as a continuation of colonial attitudes - that the people are children and have to be dragged around for their own good, equally perhaps as theatre with extreme audience participation with death only illustrating the beauty and sublimity of the performance - at least from the point of view of the producers, a perennial national favourite was a variant of the Ramayana and many demons have to die before the hero can be reunited with his wife.

In an almost final theatrical twist because the Khymer Rouge were overthrown by the ungrateful Vietnamese they were supported in exile by strange bedfellows - the Americans and the Chinese.
The future doesn't look bright, apparently Thailand is the place to go to get concessions to fell Cambodian timber, it is hard to get away from the image of a child buffeted about by larger children who take its pocket-money and packed lunch, but as Chandler's story show metaphors like that, however benevolently meant, are part of the problem.

Illustrate with a couple of small maps over which I strained my eyes and some grainy black and white reproductions of photographs.

[Irene · Rating 3 out of 5]

Other than the genocide of the era of Poh Pot, I know little of Cambodia’s history. So, this survey of 2,000 years of Cambodia was interesting for me.

[Vanna · Rating 5 out of 5]

After decades of civil war and isolation, Cambodia almost lost her identity and history. There are only few scholars devoting to study Cambodian history. David Chandler is one of the most prominent experts on Cambodia. His book on "A history of Cambodia" provides a comprehensive and insightful analysis and narratives on Cambodian history from the pre and post Angkor period until modern Cambodia. It is the basic textbook for school/university.

[Anne · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm glad I chose Cambodia to report on for my Asian history class. Ever since I saw the Angkor Wat I've been in love with the country, and reading this book fueled my desire to visit Cambodia even more. I skimmed through the first few pages, as well as the last chapters. However, I pored over the period of the Thai and Vietnamese intervention; and of course, to the period of the French protectorate, and the years extending after the country acquired its independence in 1953. A History of Cambodia is perfectly understandable and an easy read. If only I had the time I would have read the whole thing. I think I'm quite well-equipped already with this nation's history, though. And if I were to visit the country I definitely would have more appreciation of the place.

[Zoran Zeković · Rating 2 out of 5]

It isn't the best account of the history of Cambodia in the world for two reasons.

Firstly, the author's attitude towards the existence of the kingdom of Chenla does not appear to be based upon any firm basis. He thinks that the kingdom of Chenla did NOT exist at all.

Chandler wrote:

"Until quite recently, scholars sought to consolidate this assortment of small kingdoms under the name "Chenla", given to one of them by the Chinese and preserved in nineteenth-century Vietnamese as a name for Cambodia. The Chinese, in fact, distinguished between two "Chenlas," one associated with the Mekong delta (and known as "water Chenla"), the other ("land Chenla") apparently located somewhere on the upper reaches of the Mekong, perhaps near present-day Vat Ph´u in southern Laos. The Chinese were not averse to exaggerating the importance of the "barbarian" states from which they received tribute. European scholars in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, perhaps forgetting the multinational Africa, also chose to see Chenla as a centralized successor state to Funan, thus making a neat progression from the earliest of these "mighty" kingdoms to the one concentrated at Angkor."

David Chandler: A History of Cambodia , third edition, Westview Press, Boulder Colorado, 2000,
page 26.

Some arguments could be used against him. A logical analysis of his line of thinking should be carried out. It can shake the foundations of his statement. As a matter of fact, his argument is based upon a superficial comparison. According to Chandler some European scholars forgot "multinational Africa" and inclined to see " Chenla as a centralised successor state to Funan."
(the same quote p.26)He wrote(ibid.):"European scholars in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, perhaps forgetting the multinational Africa, also chose to see Chenla as a centralized successor state to Funan..."

It is clear that he has committed the fallacy of false analogy. The concept of "multinational Africa" does not appear to bear any essential and important similarity to the concept of "the early indianised states of SE Asia"(e.g. Chenla ,Funan). At best, there can be found some inessential similarities, or worse, some misleading similarities. In other words, the degree of important similarity isn't staggeringly high and that of dissimilarity isn't to be rejected so easily. He applies concepts and facts from one situation to another situation but the situations are more or less different(Africa -SE ASia). That is why his conclusion cannot be seen as a matter of logical necessity. Stated differently, Chenla might be seen as a centralised successor state to Funan.

Secondly, the author does not seem to be perfectly familiar with Sanskrit. (He has omitted all the Sanskrit language epigraphical texts of Cambodia). It is likely that he is a very good khmerologist, but a question has arisen spontaneously: Is he a very good sanskritist?

[Bob Newman · Rating 5 out of 5]

peering through the fog


Many scholars write histories of countries not their own. Whether such histories are accepted in those second countries is another question. If you travel to Cambodia, you will see David P. Chandler's history of that country on every (English language) bookshelf, in stores and kiosks in every town. This may speak louder than my review as to the value placed on his book by the Cambodians themselves.
Cambodians, mostly by dint of their country's climate, did not leave a vast archive of records behind. Of the libraries that once graced Angkor's various sublime complexes, nothing remains. Palm leaf or paper soon rotted and disintegrated in the tropical weather. The only records we have are 1) what was written in stone, 2) the pictorial record on buildings like the Bayon, also carved in stone, and 3) very occasional records written by Chinese ambassadors or travellers. During the time when Khmer civilization was at its height, we do have a certain modicum of knowledge from these sources. As the Khmers weakened vis-à-vis their neighbors, the record peters out. So, reconstructing Cambodian history, from ancient times to the late 18th century, is like peering through a thick fog where figures come and go, a few lines are spoken but we are not sure of the context, and then the fog swirls once more. To write a coherent history, without over-speculation or exaggeration, sticking to what is known, but using geography, architecture, Indian and other Southeast Asian political examples, and language as supports for argument, is no easy task. It seems to me that Chandler succeeded brilliantly and the widespread presence of his book in Cambodia means that the Cambodians feel the same.
While information exists from the period of Khmer glory, after the decline began, around the 14th century, there is little to nothing available. Chandler does what he can. When Cambodia returns to recorded history---with European accounts and Vietnamese or Siamese records of their invasions and attempts to "straighten out" the Cambodians---the book becomes extremely interesting. The machinations of the various courts and the Vietnamese desire for "order" in a society where Chinese-style bureaucracy and administration was unknown underline themes that continued into the 20th century and indeed, into our own time. "Eating the peasants" has not really died out ! We can get the basic tenor of the French colonial rule, roughly 1863-1953, but discussion of this period left me wanting more. The connections between colonial rule, the renewed Cambodian monarchy, and the dissidents who partly turned into Khmer Rouge and partly into those who booted Sihanouk out in 1970, only to flee for their lives a few years later, were not as clear and incisive as the earlier chapters. Still, for a concise, interesting history of Cambodia, one which is no doubt the pre-eminent book in its field, you must read A HISTORY OF CAMBODIA.

P.S. I read the earliest edition which (as I should disclose) was signed by the author who was a friend and colleague back in the 1970s and '80s in Melbourne.

[Dennis Richards · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked the book not for the entire presentation but for its detailed components that enabled me to pick and choose different time periods.

In some places, the names of officials and groups confused me. My solution was to skim for time periods where I was most curious and to sort through for activities in specific parts of the country. The book remains as a resource for future reference.

[Walt · Rating 3 out of 5]

Chandler offers a thin overview of Cambodian History. It appears to be designed for college students. The scope and size of the book mean that a lot of detail is omitted. However, there is a rich works cited section and hints that there is more to the story than what is covered in the book. Writing as a scholar, Chandler does a marvelous job at keeping the narrative going. This may be because the subject matter is so unusual. This reader tends to skim scholarly works to obtain a basic framework rather than synthesize every factoid. It is difficult to use that tactic with the present book because the reader can easily miss something.

Cambodian History appears to begin with strong Indian influence. Chandler introduces the reader to the founding myth of the Kingdom of Kambuja, the marriage between a rural backwards prince and a sophisticated water princess, whose father drains the land for the happy couple. Chandler argues that the symbolism may have been based on actual events - in Southern India. Vedic traditions planted on top of rural ancestor worship appear to have guided Cambodian History forward for many centuries. The locals appears to have supported Shiva as the deity of choice, although Angkor Wat was dedicated to Indra.

There is not much of a written record for Cambodian History. There are temple inscriptions and some commemorations, the temple complexes appears to be a dual purpose of copying a Holy Mountain and offering a resting place for the royal family. Therefore, reconstructing Cambodian History is like reconstructing American History from obituaries and commemoration plaques. Chandler uses foreign sources where he thinks they are accurate; but he notes that they are biased and possibly inaccurate.

A good third of the book tries to focus on the strong Khmer Kingdom of the 8th - 14th Centuries. There was a lot of construction - temples, roads, reservoirs, canals, etc. There were military campaigns. The kingdom extended into modern-day Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam. Then, it all cam crashing down. Chandler speculates at the causes - war, disease, etc. Nothing is known for certain. However, he does note that one of the last of the great kings - Jayavarman VII - converted to a branch of Buddhism. He notes that much of the country also turned to Buddhism, but a different version. The religious conversion does coincide with the rapid decline of Khmer. Between the 15th and 19th Centuries, there is little known about the country. He calls the period the Dark Ages. It appears that the empire collapsed so thoroughly, that an educated elite was no longer present, possibly carted off to enemy nations. Cambodia remained a backwater between the growing might of Thailand and Vietnam.

Most readers probably have some knowledge of the vicious regime of Pol Pot in the 1970s. The few years they ruled the country made them infamous for history. Chandler notes dryly that people are more familiar with Pol Pot than they are with Angkor Wat. Nearly 2/3 of the book focuses on the events leading up to the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea (DK). The colonial period is one of the more difficult sections of the book because it appears to be way more detailed....and boring. Seemingly every nation viewed the barbarians of Cambodia as requiring civilizing up through the 1990s when the second edition of the book ends.

Much of the story revolves around King Sihanouk, who thought of himself as a puppet master. The world was his stage. Chandler takes a more conservative look at Sihanouk as something between a megalomaniac and a benevolent dictator who tried to preserve Cambodia's independence, hold onto his own power, and avoid the Vietnam War. Whatever his strengths, the nation's political situation became so complex that he could no longer control it. Factions controlled by Americans, Thais, Vietnamese, Chinese, Soviets, French, and others undermined his ability to rule. A coup in 1970 led to a civil war that lasted through the early 1990s.

Chandler spends surprisingly little on The DK. The chapter is one of the shortest in the book. He does not want to give attention to that regime, even though the DK remains a political power in the country after the Vietnamese departed in 1989. The horrors of the regime have only passing mention in the book and are quickly overwhelmed by the complexity of the various factions jockeying for power ca. 1990.

Overall, I am surprised at how much I liked the book. I picked it up for casual interest in Angkor Wat and ended up fascinated with the rest of the story. Again, whether that is due to Chandler or the subject is another matter. I did struggle to read through the chapters on colonial rule, the very chapters based off of Chandler's dissertation. He introduces readers to a wide array of people who may or may not have significant roles later on. At times it is overpowering. There are precious few maps or illustrations to orient the reader. I fretted over the map of the country several times looking for Udong before I googled it. Chandler clearly assumes the reader has more familiarity with the subject, or it is intended as supplemental material.

[Kevin O'Connell · Rating 1 out of 5]

I only got a third of the way through---perhaps the rest of the thing is better:

I tore up the book and tossed it in the garbage. Glad I bought it used, and I don't want anyone wasting money on this thing again.

I wanted a history. What I got was a bibliographical essay mixed in with whining on the paucity of sources. Chandler is part of a rich tradition of dumping steaming piles of unsorted information while making no useful whole and calling it significant. For examples: there are many accounts of kings building the same things over and over with very little notice that this kind of building was common in many Indian states of the time as a matter of legitimacy. Sounds also like the first kings were possibly using the horse sacrifice, but this isn't explained. Or, can one have a proper discussion of Oc-Eo and Funan without more information about the Indochinese trade across the Kra Isthmus? Apparently so. Many succession crises are mentioned, but hardly anything about the politics behind them. Invasions are breezily noted without any discussion of anything - they happened. It's a lot of "one damned thing after another."

Also, the thing is poorly organized.

[Kris · Rating 2 out of 5]

I give this book 2 stars only because of the clear bias that Chandler shows. This book is absolutely great for a contextual study of Cambodia. But, with any significant study, one quickly realizes that Chandler leaves out details that - in my opinion - are incredibly important to Cambodia's modern history.

[Phoury · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not an informative one, but more of analytic.

[Michele · Rating 2 out of 5]

Informative but the delivery is weak. I wish Chandler would have explained the larger picture of events and their causes and consequences better.

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars. Filled with information, probably the definitive overview of Cambodia's history from Angkor to today. A frustrating read at times, as (particularly in the middle chapters re: the 19th - early 20th century) he goes into detailed account of the numerous back-and-forth negotiations and dealings with Vietnam and Thailand without sufficiently clarifying the larger picture: that Cambodia saved itself from being eaten up by either of the larger regional powers by prostituting itself out to the French. Instead, readers must follow tedious blow-by-blows and summarize things for themselves. One does wish Chandler would get a better editor, or take a writing class.

[Jackson Walsh]

Picked this one up because I'm in Phnom Penh doing NGO work for the next few months and wanted to educate myself on the main contours of Cambodian history. This book is essentially summarizing 2,000 years of Cambodian history in 300 pages, which make it unsurprisingly brief in it's documentation of the country's major eras (for example, the Khmer Rouge era lasts about 20 pages). It reads more or less like an extended version of the Wikipedia article for Cambodia, which is fine, because it gives me a broad overview which I will use as a foundation to build off of with subsequent books and in-person experiences.

[Wes Schierenbeck · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very fun! Pretty readable! Actually kind of glosses over the 20th century I thought? I feel like I learned a lot more about Angkor kings, which is what I came here for but found myself wanting a bit more re: modern.
Sucks that there's so much lost record keeping and secrecy in history, so not a lot of hard data, but Chandler does a great job contextualizing this and reminding us of the blindspots in the history.
Super interesting!

[Tommy Polden · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well-written account of Cambodian history from prehistoric times to the 2000s. Heavy on the imperial details of Angkor and later colonial eras; light on the details of daily Khmer lifestyles, culture, and history since WWII. But to condense the country’s story into 300 pages is an inherently formidable task.

[Watto Nick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Drew from what seemed random points of Cambodian history rather than starting at a specific time moving toward the end.

Although the pre angkorean period right through to the post angkorean was extremely thorough.

[Nirmal · Rating 4 out of 5]

well written introductory book on cambodia. Due to lack of information on ancient history, the author is not able to put much information, but on whatever is available, he has provide good explanation. Everything is chronological, so readers wont get lost in the middle.

[Ingrid Seyer-Ochi · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this last minute while we were in Siem Riep. Grateful for the context it provided; most grateful for the strength of the Cambodian people.

[Millie W · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent scholarly rigour. Sometimes above my pay grade or assumed a level of knowledge beyond that of an introductory book.

[Eugenia Montiel Aceti · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read some of the chapters of this book in order to write an undergraduate university paper.

[Kai Hetherington · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written good facts and full of information from the early days up until the present.

[Try Lee · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is my second book by David Chandler after "Brother Number One: A politic biography of Pol Pot".
The book examines roughly two thousand years of Khmer history. The effect on Cambodia politic and society of the country location between Thailand and Vietnam.
Kings during Angkor period (802-1431): Jayavarman II (802-), Jayavarman III (-877), Indravarman (877-889), Yasovarman (889-901), Jayavarman IV (928-942), Rajendravarman II (944-968), Jayavarman V (968-1001), Suryavarman I (1003-1050), Utyadityavarman II (1050-60), Jayavarman VI, Dharanindravarman I, Suryavarman II, Yasovarman II, Jayavarman VII (1182-), Indravarman II, Indravarman III (1296-1308),...
From Funan, Chenla, to Angkor he wrote a little, we can learn more our history books in secondary to high school. But from France colony Cambodia 1863, he wrote more than our formal history books especially after king Norodom Sihaknu 1941 because some parts our history books couldn't write to those people are still alive.

[Tomislav · Rating 4 out of 5]

I bought my copy at Monument Books in Phnom Penh, where the clerk recommended it to me from among the several histories of Cambodia available. It is the SE Asian edition, printed by Silkworm Books in Thailand.

This book would be suitable for use within an undergraduate Southeast Asian history class, offering a comprehensive coverage of about 2000 years from pre-Angkor times to the beginning of the 21st century of Cambodia. But it's also readable as a series of chapters, each dealing with logically divided periods of time. Chandler gives coverage to source documentation without becoming overly academic. It contains a handful of photographs, although it could have used a few more maps and some figures like timelines. It was an enjoyable read for me, interspersed between my fiction reads.

When I reached the 20th century, I began to consider the events along the timeline of my own life, imagining myself as a Cambodian of the same age as myself (born in 1955). Um, a lot happened during those years, and a lot of men my age have been killed one way or another - I had noticed the relative absense of men my age while there. I also considered how few of these events were known to me at the time, here in the US.

[King Haddock · Rating 4 out of 5]

Maybe more like 3.5 stars than 4.

This book was highly enjoyable, a quick read, and informative without, in most cases, being TOO informative. I especially ate up the first chapters describing the start of Cambodian civilization and its Angkor period. Between Angkor's fall and the coming of the French, Chandler was a bit slow and didn't have much important or interesting to say. When the French came, interest resumed, along with a LOT more detail than the other chapters gave.

I found this good for an overview and for learning basic concepts and trends throughout Cambodian history. At times, however, it was frustrating that Chandler did not clearly outline his chronology (a problem in the earlier chapters, not the later). For example, he would mention a monarch such as Chan without any background, talking as though he had already introduced the historical figure, when in fact I had no context by which to understand him. This occurred also with several concepts, though in general Chandler did a good job explaining. I enjoyed when he stepped back and talked about traditions in addition to the politics and main historical events.

[Tinea · Rating 3 out of 5]

I only read the last 4 chapters in full (independence to present day), and skimmed the two French colonialism chapters.

This is a readable political history of Cambodia that concisely disaggregates a dizzying array of political parties and leaders over many centuries. There is very little culture or economics in here, but Chandler does a good job sketching out the big picture with analysis that felt trustworthy (also perhaps a factor of getting half a dozen recommendations for this book) and frequent discussion of the merits of his different sources. The main takeaway I understood was the complexity of elite political machinations over the past 50 years and the gulf between these and the majority of Cambodian people, except in terms of consequences on their livelihoods and lives. In that sense, though I appreciated this as a historical reference and who's who of Cambodian despots, it really is lacking in 'people's history,' providing statistics about starvation and landmines but little engagement with poor rural people's experiences.

[Abhaga · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good introductory read for Cambodia's history. Trouble with Cambodian history is the lack of sources - the primary sources of Khamer empire are the inscriptions left behind by them and bass reliefs in Angkor temples. We are talking of 9th to 12th century here! As a result, there is little solid ground to walk on, and a lot of educated guess and deductions. In such a case, individual biases become all the more important.

The book expands more time in the modern times and manages to remain engaging till the end. There are tons of references and an expensive bibliography at the end.

[Kristan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Decent history of Cambodia from it's beginnings to modern times. It doesn't cover much of modern times though.

[Jordan Magnuson · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decent concise history.

[Cheryl · Rating 4 out of 5]

Compelling and moving read.