Was Angkor Ever Lost? The Myth of French “Discovery”

The medieval capital of the Khmer Empire, commonly known as “Angkor,” is often described in terms of a “lost” city. The general idea is that it was suddenly abandoned in the 1400s, vanished into the jungles of Cambodia, and was eventually “discovered” by an intrepid European explorer in the mid-1800s. However, the notions that Angkor was lost, that it required rediscovery, or indeed that it was hastily abandoned in the first place are simply untrue.

Angkor, located in the northwest of Cambodia near the modern-day city of Siem Reap, is the former seat of the Khmer Empire. This civilization, which arose around the 9th century, for a time, dominated much of mainland Southeast Asia. Yasodharapura, the name the Khmer gave this city, is renowned for its grandiose temples and the development of a sophisticated water management and canal system that supported up to one million residents at its height. The Khmer kings, known as Devaraja, spent centuries on the construction of various “temple mountains,” causeways, and other impressive stone structures to project their power and authority.

However, the golden age in which many of these impressive monuments were built did not last forever. Over a period of centuries, a combination of societal and economic changes produced a transformation in what the Khmer civilization would become. The growing importance of maritime trade with China, as well as the shift from Hinduism to Theravada Buddhism, have been pointed to as potential causes. There was also increased military pressure from the powerful rising kingdom that would become Siam. More recently, archaeologists have suggested that climatic changes and the effects of extended periods of drought and flooding were responsible. They claim this may have caused the intricate water management and canal system that supported the city to cease functioning. It is fair to say that some combination of these factors led to an extended period of change for the Khmer civilization. The effect was a depopulation of Angkor and a gravitation southeast toward the banks of the Mekong River. This was in the vicinity of the modern-day capital of Phnom Penh and occurred by the early 1500s.

Angkor was subjected to successive invasions and periods of administration by the Siamese. There were Khmer campaigns to win back the city over several decades. However, once the center of power had shifted toward Phnom Penh, it would never return to the old capital. Angkor would only be sparsely populated, and with its water management system left inoperable, by around 1560, it ceased to be the city it had once been. The wooden and thatch housing that supported the hundreds and thousands of former inhabitants was eroded by the hot and wet conditions of the region. The stone temples, roads, and walls remained to stand the test of the climate, but the jungle encroached upon it over the subsequent centuries. However, Angkor’s history is not about endless decline and collapse or a city forgotten and then found, but about a continuum of transformation and change.

Despite this, a “lost city” narrative about the old Khmer capital emerged and was popularized after European colonization of the region. This version of the story is still prominent today and will casually be shared in documentaries, news articles, and popular history websites. This romantic version of events carries connotations of Western civilization having found what the native population had naively “lost.” This was also used to legitimize the colonial projects which followed. It is a misleading and patronizing understanding of Khmer history that needs to be challenged. Doing so requires knowledge of how this common trope about Angkor was created and about the transformation the Khmer civilization went through.

The French naturalist Henri Mouhot had been in the kingdom of Cambodia for more than a year by 1859. He had met the king and visited the royal capital of Oudong and the market city of Phnom Penh. He had studied the region’s flora and fauna and hunted big game, like tigers, monkeys, and elephants. At the time, France was engaged in a war to colonize neighboring Vietnam, and Mouhot would write about how, if Cambodia could also be possessed, it would add “a magnificent jewel to her crown.” He felt that Cambodia had fallen into a “deplorable” state, and he worried for the country’s future. However, he also compared the current condition to a glorious past when it was a “powerful and populous country.” The evidence for this, he wrote, “is testified by the splendid ruins which are to be met with in the provinces … and which I intend on visiting.”

The ruins he was planning to visit were the vast complex of stone temples and pyramids of Angkor. Mouhot was taken there in January of 1860 by a French missionary, Abbe E. Silvestre, whom he singled out for thanks in his diary for the courtesy and energy displayed when guiding him through the forest to the destination. The descriptions that Mouhot wrote of what he saw at Angkor do well to capture the overwhelming beauty of what remains of the medieval city. The most praise is given to Angkor Wat, the sprawling temple surrounded by a moat and perhaps the pinnacle of Khmer architecture and design. He describes it as “the most beautiful and best preserved of all the remains … making him forget all the fatigues of the journey, filling him with admiration and delight, such as would be experienced on finding a verdant oasis in the sandy desert.”

Mouhot would die in the year after his expedition to Cambodia and Angkor, succumbing to malaria while exploring Laos. However, the diary he kept on his journeys was translated and published posthumously soon after. It included plenty of detailed descriptions and drawings of Angkor, and these vivid depictions caused a sensation in Europe. Outside of his chapters on Angkor, his diary also represents a valuable source for historians studying pre-modern Cambodia and a snapshot of life in various parts of the country prior to the French Colonial Period, which began in 1863.

Mouhot was imbued with a colonialist spirit and a belief that Western civilization could cure Cambodia’s problems. He was a man of his time, but his diary does illustrate someone passionate about his explorations. His writings reveal a genuine curiosity and desire to learn more, albeit mixed with derisory comments common to the time. In his own words, he stated that it was not his desire to impose his opinions on anyone, but “simply to disclose the existence of these monuments.” His writings also show that he himself didn’t think the Khmer had lost these ruins, noting how important they were to locals. His diary also contains no claims or suggestions that he had “discovered” Angkor. However, this legend spread after his death, stuck, and has been repeated to the present day.

European Claims of Angkor’s Discovery

Refuting the idea that Angkor was “rediscovered” in this era by Europeans is more than just an example of historical nitpicking. Even from a Eurocentric viewpoint, the story that emphasizes Mouhot’s being given the sole credit for “discovering” Angkor is clearly false. While his work played a crucial role in bringing knowledge of the city to a Western audience, this does not necessitate his being viewed as having “rediscovered” the medieval city. From the diary he kept, notice that he had been told months prior about the “splendid ruins” that he would visit, meaning he didn’t find them by accident. Likewise, he was guided there by a missionary familiar with their location. These facts indicate that the temple complex was a known quantity even to foreigners in the country and contradict any idea that Mouhot found Angkor single handedly or through his own exploration.

Similarly, claiming that it was Mouhot who, from a Western point of view, “found Angkor” ignores the many Westerners who had visited Angkor before him. Aside from the French missionaries who had been established in the region for decades, the Portuguese friar Antonio Da Magdalena can stake a claim to being the first European who visited the temple in the late 1500s. There was also interest in the site from non-European travellers in Asia and the regions surrounding Cambodia. Japanese pilgrims had sketched the layout of Angkor Wat, which had become a kind of pilgrimage site for Buddhists.

The idea that Mouhot “discovered” Angkor would be the modern equivalent of a social media influencer “discovering” a restaurant while on holiday in some exotic location. The restaurant was already being used regularly by locals or those visiting but not looking to share their experience with millions of people online. A more accurate term would be “popularized,” which would require the caveat of being popularized among a particular overseas audience. Little would change for the regular patrons. But this clearly highlights the problem at the heart of saying that Angkor was “discovered” or “rediscovered” at all — it ignores local populations and the civilization that had built it in the first place.

Perhaps the most critical challenge to the idea that Angkor was “rediscovered” by Europeans is the fact that the Khmer themselves had never lost their old capital city. As established, the city was subjected to numerous invasions and the slow collapse of the water management system that supported most of its population. While it is true that over a period of centuries it was depopulated and ceased to be a functioning, living city, this does not mean that it was suddenly abandoned in some cataclysmic event and then forgotten. The city and area of Angkor were used as a staging ground for Khmer military campaigns against Siam and, therefore, remained important. Recent archaeological work also provides evidence from ceramic finds that the greater Angkor region was in continuous habitation after the supposed collapse of the city.

Also, remember that Angkor Wat, separate to the larger city, was never ‘abandoned’ and remained in use by religious adherents. It was and is a fundamental cultural feature of the Khmer civilization, even in the wake of the shift away from using the area as the capital city. Khmer folklore tells the story of a king who returned to Angkor within a century of its supposed abandonment. Inscriptions on Angkor Wat and partial restorations of it and other temples confirm this reconnection of power and authority with the site. Subsequently, there were frequent expeditions made by various royal families to Angkor Wat as further inscriptions and renovations were made in the late 16th and 18th centuries. When French colonial archaeological and conservation efforts were undertaken in the 19th century, there were still monks living within the perimeter of Angkor Wat.

All of this proves that Angkor Wat, specifically, and the greater region of Angkor generally, should not be considered in the simplistic terms of a “lost city.” Cataclysmic sudden collapse or destruction never occurred, the area was known to Khmer royalty and remained inhabited by local populations, and temples like Angkor Wat were maintained and inhabited physically and spiritually by adherents.

Perpetuating the idea that Angkor or other similar locations were lost imposes a Western-centric and simplistic view of history. Aside from it being proven false and indulging in tropes more appropriate for the realm of fiction, it legitimizes colonialist visions of the world that are far outdated. The Khmer civilization did not disappear; their empire underwent changes and transformations over many centuries. This process is not as exciting as the clichéd idea of the lost city myth, but it is the historical reality. Today, perpetuating the French colonial myth of “discovering” Angkor is unlikely done knowingly or with ill intent. Instead, it persists via an ignorance of history, a willingness to lean on catchy headlines, or a reliance on poor sources.

Sources and Further Reading

David Chandler, A History of Cambodia, 2008.

Henri Mouhot, Travels in the Central Parts of Indochina, Siam, Cambodia and Laos, 1858-1860. Volume I and II, 1864.

The Virtual Angkor Project, Monash University (https://www.virtualangkor.com/)

University of Oregon Southeast Asia Archaeology Lab Blog (By Dr Allison Carter

https://blogs.uoregon.edu/acarter4/)

The Greater Angkor Project, University of Sydney (https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2015/12/09/new-discoveries-redefine-angkor-wat-s-history.html)

In the Shadows of Utopia Podcast (www.shadowsofutopia.com)