to live amongst the dead: an ethnographic exploration of mass graves in cambodia caroline

Kent Academic RepositoryFull text document (pdf)

Copyright & reuse

Content in the Kent Academic Repository is made available for research purposes. Unless otherwise stated all

content is protected by copyright and in the absence of an open licence (eg Creative Commons), permissions

for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher, author or other copyright holder.

Versions of research

The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version.

Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the

published version of record.

Enquiries

For any further enquiries regarding the licence status of this document, please contact:

[email protected]

If you believe this document infringes copyright then please contact the KAR admin team with the take-down

information provided at http://kar.kent.ac.uk/contact.html

Citation for published version

Bennett, Caroline (2015) To Live Amongst the Dead: an Ethnographic Exploration of Mass Gravesin Cambodia. Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) thesis, University of Kent,.

DOI

Link to record in KAR

https://kar.kent.ac.uk/53561/

Document Version

UNSPECIFIED

1

Toliveamongstthedead:anethnographicexplorationofmassgravesinCambodia

CarolineBennett

PhDinSocialAnthropology

September2015

94,989words

SchoolofAnthropologyandConservationUniversityofKent

CanterburyKent,UK

2

Abstract

Thisthesisusesmassgravesasalensthroughwhichtoexaminehowpeoplein

contemporaryCambodiausetheKhmerRougeperiod(1975–1979)to

reconstituteandre-imaginetheworldtheylivein.Basedonsixteenmonthsof

multisitedethnographicfieldwork,thisthesiswillarguethattheKhmerRouge

regimewasacriticalevent(Das1997)inCambodianlife,andassuchhastriggered

are-shapingofrelationshipsbetweenlocalandthenational,andthenationaland

theglobal,leadingtonewformsofsocialandcommunitylifeandactioninpost

KhmerRougeCambodia.Asphysicalmarkersofviolenceandpoliticalinstability,

massgravesareinherentlypoliticalandarticulatethesere-imaginationsonthe

state,community,andindividuallevel.TheCambodianstateexercisesand

legitimatesitsauthoritybyconstructingmodernhistoryinreferencetoanarrative

ofliberationfromtheKhmerRouge,andthe‘innocentsuffering’ofCambodiaand

itspeople,whilelocalcommunitiesuseBuddhismandanimismtonarrateand

conceptualisetheperiod,bringingitintoexpectedandunderstandableevents

withinKhmerBuddhistcosmology.Theseapproachesarenotnecessarilyin

oppositiontooneanother,butratherrepresenttheoverlappingpluralityof

connectionswithmassgraves.

Thisthesisprovidesauniqueexplorationofsocialrelationshipstomassgravesin

Cambodiacontributingtodebateswithintheanthropologyofpolitics,violence

andcollectivememorybyexamininghowmomentsofnationalmassviolencere-

shapethestateandrelationshipswithinit,andhowdestructiveperiodsof

violencenonethelesscreatenewfieldsfortheimaginationofthepolitical,the

religious,andthesocial.ItalsocontributestotheemergingfieldofCambodian

ethnographythatcombineslocalconsiderationswithwidernationalandgeo-

politicaldiscoursesandhowtheseareplayedoutatthelocallevel.

Allworkinthisthesis,andallphotographspresented,aremyown,exceptwhere

otherwisestated.

Bennett(2015):Toliveamongstthedead 3

Acknowledgements

ThisPhDwassupportedbyfundingfromtheEconomicandSocialResearch

CouncilSoutheastDoctoralTrainingCentre(grantnumberES/J500148/1),for

whichIamverygrateful.

ThankyoutomysupervisorsGlennBowmanandMikePoltorak,tomythirdpanel

memberJudithBovensiepen,andtothoseintheSchoolofAnthropologyand

ConservationattheUniversityofKentwhotookextratimeoutoftheir

enormouslybusyschedulestohelpandsupportmethroughoutthisprocess,in

particularDavidHenig,butalsoDanielaPelusoandMiguelAlexiades.

ToalltheKhmercommunitiesIvisited,workedandlivedin,inparticularthe

peopleofChoeungEkGenocidalCenter,KohSop,andPhnomGrahom-bygiving

generouslyofyourtimeandstoriesyougavemethisthesisforwhichIcannot

expressenoughgratitude.Andforthosewhohelpedmakeitpossible,in

particularMinaBuiJonesandJeanLucandSerenaTemman,thankyou.Iam

eternallygratefultomyresearchassistants-UmSompoah,ResPhasy,Sann

Kalyan,ButhSereibunnwath,andToemSavorn;withoutyouIcouldneverhave

navigatedKhmerlife.AndthankyoutothemanyCambodianscholarswhotook

interestinmyworkandgavevaluableinputalongtheway,mostespecially

ProfessorDavidChandler,HenriLocard,HelenJarvis,IanHarris,ErikDavis,the

VenerableKhySovanratana,CraigEtcheson,andJamesTyner.Thankyoualsoto

theNordicInstituteofAsianStudiesattheUniversityofCopenhagen,and

DORISEAatDepartmentforSocialandCulturalAnthropology,Universityof

Göttingenfortheirsupport.

MyPhDcolleaguesintheUKandCambodiadeserveaspecialacknowledgement

forkeepingmeontrack,sharingideas,andfortheongoingfunwehavetogether.

PaulChristensen,TallynGray,ColleenMcGinn,MariaPazPeirano,NataliaGarcia

Bonet,andCarinTunåker;thanksforhelpingmesurvive.Ilookforwardtoour

futureworktogether.

Tomyfamily:myparents,brothersandsisters,theirhusbandsandwives,andall

thelittleBennettsandTokgözs:thanksforbeingthere,makingmetakebreaks,

andlisteningtomyrants.

Andfinallytomypartner,SteveHull.Yougotmethroughthis.Thankyou.


TableofContents

Abstract..............................................................................................................2

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................3

ListofFigures......................................................................................................7

ListofAbbreviations...........................................................................................8

Terminology .......................................................................................................9

CambodianMaps..............................................................................................10

SectionOne:SettingtheScene .........................................................................11

Introduction .....................................................................................................11TheKhmerRougeandtheirdead ...........................................................................................................14Motivations ....................................................................................................................................................17Literaturereview ..........................................................................................................................................19Theoreticalframework ...............................................................................................................................33Whatisamassgrave? ................................................................................................................................37Thesisoutline.................................................................................................................................................41

Sectionone:settingthescene ............................................................................................................... 41Sectiontwo:diggingupthedead ........................................................................................................ 42Sectionthree:graveconcerns................................................................................................................ 44

Chapterone:Fieldsofdeath,sitesoflife-fieldsitesandmethods ....................46ChoeungEk .....................................................................................................................................................46

Makingthekillingfield ............................................................................................................................. 49AfterDemocraticKampuchea ............................................................................................................... 54ChoeungEktoday....................................................................................................................................... 60ResearchingatChoeungEk .................................................................................................................... 61

KohSop ............................................................................................................................................................66DuringDemocraticKampuchea ............................................................................................................ 68After1979...................................................................................................................................................... 70KohSoptoday .............................................................................................................................................. 73ResearchingatKohSop............................................................................................................................ 76

Othersitesandparticularmethods .......................................................................................................80Myposition ................................................................................................................................................... 82Visualmethods ............................................................................................................................................ 83Interviews ...................................................................................................................................................... 86Languageandtheuseofresearchassistants.................................................................................. 89Anoteonwriting ........................................................................................................................................ 92What’sinaname? ..................................................................................................................................... 93


SectionTwo:DigginguptheDead.....................................................................95

Chaptertwo:Spiritualremains-caringforthedead .........................................95BuddhismandanimismincontemporaryCambodia.......................................................................97Thegrievousdead .....................................................................................................................................102CareofthosekilledundertheKhmerRouge...................................................................................108

Careforthephysicalremains ..............................................................................................................108Annualritualcare .....................................................................................................................................115

Ritualresilience..........................................................................................................................................120Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................124

Chapterthree:Helpfuldead,frighteningghosts-relationshipsbetweenthelivingandthedead .........................................................................................126Theoreticalbackground ..........................................................................................................................128GhostsandspiritsinCambodia ............................................................................................................134Ethnographiccasestudies......................................................................................................................138

Rebuildinglives:thedeadatKohSop ..............................................................................................139Rebuildingthecountry:thedeadatChoeungEk.........................................................................148

Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................153Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................161

Chapterfour:Karmaandreincarnationinthekillingfields .............................164Theoreticalbackground ..........................................................................................................................166ReincarnationandkarmainKhmerBuddhism ...............................................................................169

Ethnographiccasestudies......................................................................................................................175Reintegratingthenamelessdead ......................................................................................................175Repairingrupturedrelations ................................................................................................................181Thejusticeofkarmaandreincarnation ...........................................................................................185


SectionThree:GraveConcerns .......................................................................201

Chapterfive:Pastpresent,presentpast–politicsinCambodia ......................201PoliticsincontemporaryCambodia ....................................................................................................203Raisingthedead:politicalusesofthedeadandtheirgraves....................................................209

Memorialisingviolence,forgettingnames .....................................................................................212Resurginginterest:theExtraordinaryChambersintheCourtsofCambodia ...................217Hierarchiesofdeathinthewrittenrecord .....................................................................................221

Violentbodiesandaffectiveremains .................................................................................................223Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................230

Chaptersix:Hauntingthefuture-tourismatChoeungEk...............................234Theoreticalbackground ..........................................................................................................................236ChoeungEkinCambodianTourism ....................................................................................................241

Ethnographiccasestudies......................................................................................................................247Displayingdeath,ensuringlife ............................................................................................................248‘Ifweforgetaboutit,historywillbeerased’.................................................................................253Buildingafuturebyusingthepast ....................................................................................................256



Chapterseven:Deadoftoday,ghostsoftomorrow-electionsandthespectralKhmerRouge..................................................................................................270Theoreticalbackground ..........................................................................................................................272ElectionsinCambodia–abriefoverview .........................................................................................276EthnographicCaseStudies .....................................................................................................................278

Spiritsofthepast:the‘heroes’ofthenation ................................................................................278Spiritsofthepresent:rallyingagainsttheopposition ...............................................................284Spiritsofthefuture:fearandrumour ..............................................................................................290


Conclusion:NowistheTimefortheLiving......................................................308

References......................................................................................................319

Appendixone:DC-CamListofMassGraves ....................................................341


ListofFigures

Figureone:provincialboundaries(UN2015).........................................................10

Figuretwo:killingfielddistribution(CGP2011) .....................................................10

Figurethree:ChoeungEkstupaanddisplayedremains(source:theauthor)........59

Figurefour:KohSopp’teahkhmouch(source:theauthor) ...................................73

Figurefive:farmatKohSop.Aftertheregimebodiescoveredtheland(source:

theauthor)......................................................................................................75

Figuresix:KhmerRougeremainsandurnsofthepoorattwodifferentpagoda

(source:theauthor)......................................................................................112

Figureseven:depictionofPchumBenhatWatKampongTralach(source:the

author) ..........................................................................................................116

Figureeight:PoTonlestupawithremnantsofChengMengdecorations(souce:

theauthor)....................................................................................................120

Figurenine:NeakTaonthemainroadintoBattambang ....................................135

Figureten:ChoeungEkkillingtree(source:theauthor)......................................246

Figureeleven:humanremainsemergingatChoeungEk(source:theauthor) ....251

Figuretwelve:KhmerRougetourismatPhnomSampeau(source:theauthor)..264

Figurethirteen:KhmerRougere-enactmentatChoeungEkremembranceevent

(souce:theauthor) .......................................................................................281

Figurefourteen:protestorsatrallyagainstKemSokha,June2013(source:the

author) ..........................................................................................................288

Figurefifteen:Protestorslistentospeechesinfrontofthecheddeiofremains

(source:theauthor)......................................................................................290


ListofAbbreviations

CGDK: CoalitionPartyofDemocraticKampuchea

CNRP: CambodiaNationalRescueParty

CPK: CommunistPartyofKampuchea,colloquiallyknownastheKhmer

Rouge

CPP: CambodianPeoplesParty

DC-Cam: TheDocumentationCentreofCambodia

DK: DemocraticKampuchea(1976–1979)

ECCC: TheExtraordinaryChambersintheCourtsofCambodia

(theKhmerRougeTrials/Tribunal)

FUNCINPEC: Front Uni National Pour Un Cambodge Indepéndent, Neutre,

Pacifique,etCoopératif

FUNSK: FrontUniNationalpourleSalutdeKampuchéa(inEnglishUFNSK)

KR: KhmerRouge

NGO: Non-GovernmentalOrganization

PRK: People’sRepublicofKampuchea(1979–1989)

S-21: Security Centre 21, which included Tuol Sleng, Prey Sar and

Takhmaoprisons,andthekillingsiteofChoeungEk(nowadaysS-21

is used almost exclusively to refer to Tuol Sleng Prison in Phnom

Penh)

SOC: StateofCambodia(1989–1993)

UN: UnitedNations

UNTAC: UnitedNationsTransitionalAuthority

US: UnitedStatesofAmerica


Terminology

Ângkar: ‘TheOrganisation.’ÂngkarwasthetermtheKhmerRougegavetothemselves,andbywhichtheyarestillknownbymanypeople.

aPot: ‘ThePolPots.’ThecolloquialnameusedinCambodiatorefertomembersoftheKhmerRouge.

DemocraticKampuchea: ThenamegiventoCambodiabytheCommunistPartyofKampucheafrom1976–1979.Althoughitformallyonlyincludesthetimeperiodabove,IusetheterminthisthesistorefertotheentireperiodoftheKhmerRougerule(April17th1975–January7th1979).

Khmer: TheCambodianwordforCambodianlanguage,butalsousedtorefertoallthingsCambodian(i.e.Khmerpeople,Khmerhistoryandsoon).Throughoutthisthesis,KhmerandCambodianareusedinterchangeably.

KhmerRouge: MembersoftheCommunistPartyofKampuchea(CPK).ThenamewasfirstgiventocomradesoftheCPKbytheCambodianHeadofState,KingNorodomSihanouk,butwasquicklyadoptedbytheinternationalcommunityofCambodiaandexportedaspeoplebeganleavingCambodiaintheearly1970s.TheKhmerRougeisoftenusedinterchangeablywithDemocraticKampucheatorefertotheirwholeperiodofrule.

KillingSite: Anareawhereexecutionswereconducted–duringDemocraticKampucheathesewerealwaysconcomitantwithgravesitesandusuallyveryclosetosecuritycentres.Mostcontainmultiplemassgravepitsandlargenumbersofdead.

MassGrave: Sitesinwhichmultiplegravesexist,allresultingfromthepoliciesandpracticesoftheKhmerRougeregime.

SamayaPot: ‘TheTimeofPolPot.’AcolloquialKhmernameforDemocraticKampuchea.

YearZero: 1975,asrenamedbytheKhmerRougetoasserttheirre-inventionofCambodia.


CambodianMaps

Figureone:provincialboundaries(UN2015)

Figuretwo:killingfielddistribution(CGP2011)

11

SectionOne:SettingtheScene

Introduction

Thedead,wedon’tevenknowwheretheywerekilled.Therearesomany

oftheminthecountryside.Everywhere.Uncountable.Nowallwecanseeisa

mountainofbones.

-Ta,onthosekilledbytheKhmerRouge

********

MassgraveslitterCambodia’slandscape.MaterialtracesofthebrutalMaoist

KhmerRougeregimethatruledfrom1975to1979,theyareremaindersofits

violencenowinscribedonthelandscape.No-oneknowsexactlyhowmany

peopledied,norhowmanymassgravesexist,anditisunlikelythatprecise

numberswilleverbedetermined.Withsomanyyearsgoneby,manyofthe

graveshavebeenre-integratedintothelandscape;yearsoffarminghave

destroyedmanybodies;thoseexposedhavedisintegratedorbeenlost;those

lyinginunpopulatedordifficulttoaccessareasmayneverbeuncovered1.Most

authorssettleonafigureof1.7milliondead,andover19,000massgraves,but

therealitycouldbefarmoreextensiveormuchreduced.Whatisclear,however,

isthatthedeathanddevastationcausedbytheregimewasstaggering,andthat

itsimpactcontinues.Asmaterialmarkersoftheregime,massgravesmakevisible

thewaynarrativesoftheKhmerRougeregimearebeingusedtoshape

1Inaddition,theCambodiansoilishighlyacidic,andbodiesarethereforelikelytodecomposemorerapidlythaninotherlocations(BlairandBlair2014).


contemporaryCambodia,providingalensthroughwhichtoexaminehowthe

violenceofthatregimeisnegotiated,andhowtheperiodisbeingusedto‘re-

make’thecountrytoday.

ThisthesisexamineshowpeopleincontemporaryCambodiausetheKhmer

Rougeperiod,andparticularlythespaceofmassgraves,toinformandshapetheir

livestoday.StartingfromKatherineVerdery’s(1996,2000)argumentthatdead

bodiesareinherentlypolitical,Iwillextendthistoincludethespacestheyinhabit

-thelandscapes,gravesandmemorialsinwhichtheylie-examininghowthe

massgravesareusedincontemporarydiscourse(locally,nationallyand

internationally)andthroughthat,howtheatrocitiesoftheKhmerRougeperiod

areexperiencedinthepresent.Thisapproachissupportedbyaconsiderationof

JonathanSpencer’s(2007)conceptof‘thepolitical,’whicharguesthatthereisan

irreduciblypoliticaldimensiontoeverydaylife,particularlyinthere-imagination

oflifeandcommunityafterconflict,andVeenaDas’s(1997)theoryof‘critical

events,’throughwhichIwillexaminehowtheKhmerRougeregimehastriggered

are-shapingofrelationshipsbetweenthelocalandthenational,andthenational

andtheglobal,leadingtonewformsofsocialandcommunitylifeandactionin

postKhmerRougeCambodia.Thisprovokesare-imaginingandredefinitionof

traditionalcategoriesandunderstandingsofsociallife,whichgivesnewwaysof

imaginingandcreatingthestateanditspeople.Asphysicalmarkersofviolence

andpoliticalinstability,massgravesarticulateandmakevisiblethesere-

imaginationsonthestate,community,andindividuallevel.InthisthesisIexplore

thesedifferingpresentations,examininghowalthoughstate,local,andindividual

connectionsandusesofthesitesareintertwined,thedifferingneedsforeach

leadstoapluralityofconnectionswiththegraves.TheCambodianstateexercises

andlegitimatesitsauthoritybyconstructingmodernhistoryinreferencetoa


narrativeofliberationfromtheKhmerRouge,andthe‘innocentsuffering’of

Cambodiaanditspeople.Contrarytostatepresentationsaboutthelossoflife

duringthisperiod,however,IshowhowmostKhmerhavetodayreintegrated

thosekilledundertheregimethroughencounterswithghostsandspirits,andvia

reincarnation.Encounterswiththemassgravesandtheirdeadmakevisiblehow

everydayCambodianscurrentlynarrateandunderstandtheKhmerRougeregime

intermsofBuddhistcosmology,throughtheuseofconceptssuchas

reincarnationandkarma.

Basedonsixteenmonthsfieldwork,withtwomainfieldsites(ChoeungEk

GenocidalCenter,amassgraveofupto17,000people-nowanationalmemorial

andinternationaltouristsite,andasiteIcallKohSop,thekillingandgravesiteof

upto7,000people-nowaruralfarmingvillage)andwithmulti-sitedresearchat

fifteenothersitesinCambodia,myresearchcontributestodebateswithinthe

anthropologyofpolitics,violenceandcollectivememorybyexamininghow

momentsofnationalmassviolencere-shapethestateandrelationshipswithinit,

andhowdestructiveperiodsofviolencenonethelesscreatenewfieldsforthe

imaginationofthepolitical,thereligious,andthesocial.Italsocontributestothe

emergingfieldofCambodianethnographythatcombineslocalconsiderations

withwidernationalandgeo-politicaldiscoursesandhowtheseareplayedoutat

thelocallevel.

ThisintroductionwillbrieflyintroducetheKhmerRougeregime,beforemoving

ontodiscussmymotivationsforthisproject.Therelevantliteratureonwhichthis

thesisdrawswillbeconsidered,beforemovingontooutlineingreaterdetailthe

overalltheoreticalapproachforthethesis.Iwillexaminewhatconstitutesamass


graveinCambodia,beforefinallypresentingtheoverallthesisstructureand

chapterdescriptions.

TheKhmerRougeandtheirdead

LetmestartfromamomentthatchangedthecourseofCambodianlife;April

17th,1975.Onthatday,afteryearsoffightingintheforestsandmountainsof

ruralCambodia,theCommunistPartyofCambodia(nicknamedtheKhmerRouge,

acorruptionoftheFrenchKhmersRouges,atitlegiventothembyCambodia’s

formerruler,PrinceNorodomSihanouk)tookcontrolofthecountry.Muchofthe

populationwelcomedthemastheymarchedintothecapitalPhnomPenh

(Chandler2008b)becausetheysignaledapotentialendtoyearsofsufferingand

conflict:decadesofstruggleagainstcolonization;violentcivilstruggles

throughoutthe1960sand70s;LonNol’saggressiveregimefollowingthemilitary

coupthathadoverthrownSihanoukin19702inwhichupto600,000died

(ChomskyandHerman1979);andextensiveUSbombingbetween1965and1973

inwhichover2.7milliontonnesofbombsweredroppedandunknownnumbers

ofCambodianskilled3(OwenandKiernan2006).Theclockwasre-set;theyear

1975wasnowknownasYearZero,andin1976thecountrywasrenamed

DemocraticKampuchea.

TheKhmerRougeregimedevastatedthecountry.TheirMaoistrevolution,aimed

atcreatinganewCambodia-self-sufficientandindependentofexternalpowers-

includedurbanevacuation,collectivization,thedestructionofnearlyallstate

2TheLonNolregimewassponsoredandsupportedbytheU.S,whosentmilitaryaidtothecountryduringitsfiveyearsinpower,includingabombingoffensivefromFebruarytoAugust1973inwhichoverhalfamilliontonnesofmunitionsweredropped(OwenandKiernan2006).

3Togivesomescaletothis,thisismorebombsthantheAlliesdroppedduringtheentireSecond

WorldWar,includingthenuclearbombsatNagaskaiandHiroshima,whichweighed20,000and15,000tonnesrespectively(ibid.:67).


institutions,andcompleterepressionofthepopulation.Followingtheirvictory

theyimmediatelyemptiedthecities,sendingpeopleintothecountrysidetowork

onmassiveprojectsdesignedtobringaboutanidealisedagrariannation4:to

makewayforthistheydisbandedtheoldlife,destroying(thoughnotannihilating)

customaryformsoffamilylife,religion,education,healthcareandlaw.Intheir

placetheyinstalledanewlife:communallivingandeating;forced,arranged

marriages;noreligionorritual;nohealthcare;andeducationthroughwork.

Nobodyknowsexactlyhowmanypeoplediedinthethreeyears,eightmonths

andtwentydaystheKhmerRougeruledCambodia,norhowmanyofthosewho

perishedwereexecutedratherthandyingfromdiseaseorstarvation.Thedeath

tollhasprovokedmuchdebateovertheyears,withestimatesrangingfromthe

mostconservative740,800(Vickery1984),tothemostliberal3.4million

(Heuveline1998).5Mostauthorsnowsettleonafigurearound1.7million(DC-

Cam2012;Guillou2013;Hinton2005;Kiernan2003),reportingittobearound

onethirdofthepopulationatthetime.Becauseofthecontinuinguncertaintyof

thedata,Idonotuseaspecificnumberinthisthesis.Whatiscertainisthatthe

deathtollwashuge,andtheeffectdevastating.

Thebodiesofthosewhoperishedwereburiedorabandonedinmassgraves

acrossthecountry;manythousandsofmassgravesinmanyhundredsof

4SomehavearguedthattheKhmerRougewereanti-progress(Chirot1994,Salter2000),aimingtoreturnCambodiatobelikeAngkor:apre-industrialerabetweenthe9

thand15

thcenturies.

However,whilsttheyusedAngkorasanexample,itwastheirproductionlevelstheywantedtosimulate:AngkorwasCambodia’sgoldenagewhenCambodiawasinfluentialacrosstheregion.TheKhmerRouge,however,wereheavilyindustrialized.AsJamesTyner(2014)argues,theprojectstheyconductedindicatelarge-scaleindustrialisationandextensiveadministration.Intheshortperiodtheyruledtheymanagedtheconstructionofhugedams,extensivecanalsystems,airports,andlarge-scale,meticulouslyplanned,farmingregimes.Not,itwouldseem,aregimewishingtoreturntopre-industrialisation.

5AgoodcritiqueoftheprimaryattemptstocalculatethedeathtollisgivenbyBruceSharp’s

articleCountingHell(Sharp2008).


locations.6Themethodsofdisposalwerevaried:insomelocationstheKhmer

Rougeusedalreadyexitingfeaturessuchascaves,rivers,andwellstodisposeof

thebodies.Insomeareaspitsweredugandcorpsesburied,inotherstheywere

leftscatteredacrossthesurfaceofthefieldsandforestsinwhichtheywerekilled

-itwasthissightthatledjournalistDithPrantocointheterm‘theKillingFields’to

describehisencounteronhisescapeacrossCambodiatoThailand(Schanberg

1985).7Inmostareasthegravesweresimplyameanstodisposeoftheincreasing

numbersofdead,butinsomethedeadwereputtowork:fertilisingricefieldsor

coconutgroves.8WhenVietnaminvadedCambodiainDecember1978toputan

endtotheregime,theyfoundatrailofdeathastheymovedthroughthecountry.

Theyquicklyputthephysicalevidenceofthedevastationoftheregimetowork,

collectingthedeadthatlayonthesurface,diggingupothers,anderecting

memorialsdisplayingthedead.Localpeople,meanwhile,lootedthegraves

searchingforvaluables.Beyondtheseinitialdisturbances,however,themajority

ofthegraveshaveneverbeenexcavated,andthedeadremainintheground

6Estimatesexistbutarewidelyvariableforthenumberofgravesandkillingsitesacross

Cambodia.EvenoverallfiguresgivenbyresearchersandreportsfromtheDocumentationCenterofCambodia(DC-Cam)/CambodianGenocideProgramatYaleUniversity(CGP),whichmappedthegravesinatenyearproject,donotagree.CGP(2012)lists309killingsites,CraigEtcheson(oneofthefoundersoftheproject)reports432(2005:111),whilsttheinventoryofmassgravesproducedbyDC-Cam,lastupdatedin2008,lists390locations(DC-Cam2005).Thesameappliestonumberofmassgravepits:CGPlistsanestimated19,000,CraigEtcheson20,492,andtheDC-Caminventorydoesnotactuallyprovideatotalfigure,becauseatsomesitesthenumberswereinestimable,althoughthewebsitehostingthelistreports19,733.

7Thistermissoevocativeoftheextentofviolentkilling,anddisregardofthedeadthatitisnow

usedcontemporaneouslyandretrospectivelytodescribegenocideandcrimesagainsthumanityinlocationsandeventsacrosstheglobe,includingBiafra(Oguibe1998),SriLanka(Arunatilake,JayasuriyaandKelegama2001),Indonesia(Lemelson2009),andIraq(Scheer2006)tonamebutafew.

8Theadvantagesofhavingdecomposingbodiesinthesoilwerenotedlongafterthedownfallof

DemocraticKampuchea.OnchattingabouttheexperienceoflivingontopofgravesinthevillagewhereIworked,OmYayandOmSreylaughedaboutthebenefitsithadgiven:‘[theland]becameluckierbecause[it]isveryfertile:whateverwegrew,allwasgood.’Atanothersiteafarmer,whosericefieldlayacrossseveralburialpits,lamentedthatnowhehadtobuyfertilizer,whichisexpensive,whereasinthepastthericegrewwellbecauseofthe‘natural’fertilizerinthesoil(thehumanremains).


acrossCambodia.Thegraveshavebeenreturnedtoeverydaylivingspace:

houses,farms,markets,shops,androads,allbuiltontopofmassgraves.Very

fewmemorialsexist;thosebuiltundertheVietnameseadministrationhave

largelybeenneglected,andthefewnewonesthatexistaremostlyfundedby

internationallybackedNGOSorhigh-rankingbusinesspeopleandgovernment

officials.Thisthesisexaminesthesemassgravesandrelationshipstothedead

thatliewithinthem.

BythetimeIgottoCambodiain2012,theDemocraticKampucheawas33years

behindus,andtheKhmerRougeregime,althoughstillpresentintheimaginaryof

Cambodia,hadnotbeenactivefor15years.Theirviolence,however,remainsto

date,notleastinthenumbersofthosewhodiedduringtheregime;notoncedidI

meetanyonewhohadnotlostone,ifnotseveral,membersoftheirfamily,

friendsandcolleagues.Eventhosebornaftertheregimeweresubjecttothe

rupturesinkinnetworksthatthedeathofnearlyathirdofthepopulationcauses.

Theviolenceanditseffectshowever,nolongerrage;theyaresporadic,episodic,

andrelatedtospecificprovocations,asthisthesiswillshow.

Motivations

Peoplehaveoftenaskedmewhatbroughtmetothisresearch.Whygraves,and

massonesatthat?Ihavenopersonalknowledgecomparabletothatexperienced

bymyinformantswholivedthroughtheKhmerRougeregimeandthetroubled

yearsthatenvelopedit,orthatcomparestothestructuralandsymbolicviolence

sufferedbymanyKhmerpeopleincontemporaryCambodia.Ihave,however,

beenamidstmassdeathandmassgravesformanyyears.PriortomyPhDI

workedasaforensicanthropologistspecialisingintheidentificationofhuman


remainsfrommassgraves,firstinBosnia-Herzegovinawithremainsofthe

Srebrenicamassacreof1995,andtheninIraqongravesresultingfromSaddam

Hussein’sBa’athistregime.Itwasthislatterpositionthatbroughtmetothis

thesis.MyexperiencesinIraqledtoquestiontheethicsandefficacyof

internationalinterventions,andtheuseandmanipulationofmassgravesinthe

geo-politicalsphereandintheformationofstates.Thispracticalworkwiththe

graves,whichIhadenteredwide-eyedandidealistic,completewithethno-centric

notionsofjusticeandhealing,ledmetoquestionwhatmassgravesare:whothey

serveandforwhatpurpose.Itbecameclearthatthegravesandthedeadbelong

tothosewhoclaimthemtheloudest,whichvariesonthepoliticsoftheday.

InBosnia-HerzegovinagraveswereinitiallyunearthedtofindevidenceforICTY–

theInternationalCriminalTribunalfortheFormerYugoslavia.Thesebodieswere

usedtoprovideevidenceofviolencebutnot,initially,identified.Foryearsafter

thetribunaltheyremainedstackedinbodybagswithnofurtherattention.

Familieswereseekingtheirmissing,however,andovertheyears,pressurebuilt

untilidentification,notevidence,becametheorderoftheday.Butlikeallbodies

resultingfromviolenceordisaster,thesebodiesremainedsitesofpoliticalpower;

theirunearthingasymbolofsolidarity,butalsoasignifier(andsometimesa

catalyst)ofongoingtension.InIraqthegraveswereunearthedbythenew

government,trainedbyUSfundedaidprogrammes.Eachsoughtevidenceof

atrocitiestovalidatetheirposition;thecoalition’s‘intervention;’thenew

government’ssuccession.Bothweresupportedbyongoingmediapresentations

oftheterrorofSaddamHussein.

IwenttoCambodiatryingtocomparethewaygraveswereviewedandtreated

theretomyexperiencesofgravesinBosnia-HerzegovinaandIraq.Whydidmost


gravesremainunearthedinCambodia?Didfamiliesseektheremainsoftheirlost

kin?Ifnot,whynot?Howwasitthatthesesites,whichinlivingmemorysaw

suchatrocitiesandholditsresults,fromwhichskeletalremainsstillemerge,have

apparentlybecomebenign?These,andmanymorequestionsbesides,ledmeto

Cambodiaanditsgraves;Iwantedtoaddress,aswell,widerquestionsabout

massgravesandtheiruseinpolitics.Ifoundmanysimilaritiesbetweentheuses

ofthegravesinCambodiaandelsewhere:inthepoliticalappropriationofsites;in

theuseoftheanonymousdeadinnarrativemanipulation;intheaestheticsof

deaththatareusedforvariouspoliticalendeavours.ButIalsofoundmany

differences,akeyonebeinghowthedeadareinvolvedinthelivesoftheliving

andtheplacethatsocio-religiouspracticesenabledthenarrationofthepastin

thepresent.

Literaturereview

Therelevantliteratureforeachchapterisreviewedthere;however,inorderto

situatethethesiswithinthewideracademy,thissectionprovidesabriefoverview

ofanthropologicalliteratureonmassgraves,massdeath,andCambodia.

Massgraveslendthemselvestoapoliticalconsideration,particularlythose

resultingfromconflictandviolence.Theresultofpoliticalaction,theyarealso

opentopoliticalmanipulationandtheharnessingforpoliticalendsoncetheir

constructioniscomplete.However,untilrecentlytheirconsiderationwithin

academicliteraturehasmostlyconcentratedonthepracticalaspectsoftheir

investigation;howtoovercomeparticulardifficultiespresentedbythemand

approachestoinvestigationandidentificationindifferentcontexts(forexample

AdamsandByrd2008;BlauandUbelaker2008;Coxetal.2007;Cox2003;Komar


andBuikstra2007).Thispracticalfocuspayslittleattentiontothesocio-cultural

aspectsofmassgraves,despitetheircapacitytoactashighlypoliticizedlocations

ofsocialmemory,as‘powerfulreservoir[s]oftraumaticmemory’(Denich1994:

367),aslocationsofidentityformationandconsolidation(ParkerPearson1999),

aspotentialsitesofconflictandtensionstagnation(Bax1997),orproducersof

socialrelations(FerrandizandBaer2008).

Workthathasstartedtoemergeonmassgravesinthesocio-culturalliterature

primarilycentresontheirunearthingandtheirrelationshipto‘themissing.’The

missingofCyprus,PaulSantCassia(2005)asserts,epitomiseatime-oldthemein

Westernliteratureandculture:theunburieddead(bothliterallyand

metaphorically)whoseliminalstatusleavesthemopenforpoliticisationand

contestedcontrolbetweenthestateandtheindividual;and,ultimately,by

researchers,astheytrytoapproachanunderstandingoftheirrealities,because

everypersonis‘engagedinthetheatricsandsecretsofpower’and‘weare

inevitablycomplicitintherealitieswearetryingtodescribe’(2005:224–225).

Butratherthananoppositionbetweenthedehumanised,collectivegazeofthe

state,andthepersonalandindividualgazeofthecommunity,controlofthedead

maybedonebyboth(Verdery1999,2002).Moderntechnologycanunitethe

two,andbringtheglobalintothemixaswell.WhenconsideringtheuseofDNA-

technologyintheidentificationofthemissingfromSrebrenica’s1995massacre

SarahWagner(2008)showsthatthefateofthemissingisanegotiationbetween

individuals,communities,andthestate,anditsadministration,thoughcontested,

maybeunifying.Identifyingthedeadsendsthemhometotheirkin.Italso,

however,bringsthemback‘intotheembraceofthestate’(ibid:255),whilst

simultaneouslyprovidingtheopportunityfor‘socialreconstruction’byWestern


governments(ibid:8);asiteatwhichtheycanrebuildpost-conflictBalkans.9DNA,

Wagnerwrites,offersatechnologyofrepair,butonly,shepointsout,forthose

deemedworthyofsuch;thosewithlives(orratherdeaths)worthknowingfor

politicalends(biopoliticsforthedead;thosewithgrievablelives(Butler2010)).

ThemissinginSpain,Jerez-FarránandAmago(2010:1)assertare‘living

mementoesofthepowerofthedeadtospeakbeyondlanguageastheymutely

remindthenationofthecrimesperpetrated.’Throughthedead,andtheir

graves,theSpanishcivilwarintrudesonthepresent,andtheirexhumationsbreak

the‘screenofsilence[that]hassurroundedSpain’smassgraves’(ibid:307).But

thissilence,LaylaRenshawcontends(2011:31)isapact,notaconspiracyas

Jerez-FarránandAmagosuggest;itis‘bothaself-andmutuallyenforced

conditionofcensorshipacrossthepoliticalspectrum.’Thedeadandtheirgraves

materialisethepastinthepresent,butthismaterialisationisshapedbythe

indicesofthedeadbeforetheyareexposed.Thisbearsmuchresonancewith

contemporaryCambodia,andIappreciatethewayRenshawengageswiththe

differentframesofreferencethatcollideatexcavation.Butsheessentialises

traumaandnormalisesitastheaffectiveresultofencounterswithFranco's

regime,aswellasassumingthenecessityofindividualidentification10.Shealso

assertsthattheorganisationexhumingthedead,theAHRM11,doesnothavea

coherentapproachtothepoliticalcontentofcommemorationbecausethey

9And(IalwaysfeltwhenIwasthere)theunearthingofgravesandidentificationofremains,paidformostlybywesterngovernments,providedameansbywhichtheycouldsymbolicallyatonefortheneglectofthatsmallenclaveofSrebrenica,aneglectwhichledtotheexecutionofnearly9,000menandboys;therapeofhundredsofwomen.

10Whenolderpeoplesheinterviewedtoldhertheyfeltnoneedforindividualidentificationor

burialbeyondthecollectiveshecomments‘theexplanatorymeetingandthereburialceremonyseemedhighlyeffectiveinovercomingthisresistancetothenecessityofindividualisingthebody’(Renshaw2011:128,myitalics).

11AsociaciónparalaRecuperacióndelaMemoriaHistorica.


devolveittothefamilies(ibid:231),overlookingthatthisinitselfisapolitical

manoeuvre,onethatlegitimateskinoverstateastheownersofthedead.

Butthemissingisaparticularcategoryofperson,definedentirelybyabsence,and

restingonanassumptionthattheycan(andshould)bereturned,bothphysically

andmetaphorically,tothestateandkinfromwhichtheycome.Theyare

‘undead’andthereforeathreat;achallenge;anentityinneedofrepatriation,of

reconciliation,ofreparation.Norarethemissingsilent.Theyare,rather,multi-

vocal.Evenbeforetheyarelocatedandunearthedtheyspeakfortheirkin;their

country;orwhoeverelseclaimsthem:theinternationalorganisationsthat

unearthandrepatriatetheirbodies;thegovernmentsthatfundsearches,

identifications,memorials;otherswhousethemasmetaphorstomaterialise

otherviolencesintheworld.ThedeadinthegravesthatlitterCambodiaarenot,

however,missing.Thoughidentitiesareabsentfromthephysicalremains,and

thoughsomepeoplestilllookfortheir(living)relatives;thesedeadarepresent–

physicallyandimaginatively–ineverydayencountersandpoliticalrealities.They

mayneverdiebecauseofthis.Theyarenotsilent,thoughtheirvoicesmaybe

muffled.AndlikethemissingofSpain,manyaremorealivethandeadthoughfor

differingreasons.

Theanthropologicalrecordshowsushowinmanysocialsystemsthedeadcan

onlybeproperlyre-integratedintothelivesofthelivingthroughstructuredrituals

ofdeathandmourning.VanGennep’s(1960[1908]:160)classicstudyonritesof

passageshowshowthosethatarenotproperlyintegratedbecometheunhappy

dead:troubledandtroublesomeuntiltheycanbeappropriatelyreintegrated.

AcrossmuchofAsiatheunhappydeadbecomemalevolentspirits,causing

misfortune,illnessanddeath(Bertrand2001;Bovensiepen2009;Chouléan1986;


Dernbach2005;Formoso1996).InareasofEasternEuropevampiresare

consideredtoresultfromsuchdead(duBoulay1982).InpartsofEuro-America

‘theyareapttobecomehauntingghoststrappedonthehumanplane’(Bennett

2014:243).GabrielleSchwab(2010:78)sumsitupinherexplorationoftrans-

generationaltrauma,statingthat:

Thedeadwhoweredeniedtheriteofburial,whodiedanunnaturaldeath,who

committedorwerethevictimofacrime,orwhosufferedanunbearablejustice

comebacktohaunttheliving.

Socialstability,therefore,restsuponappropriatetreatmentofthedead,managed

throughrituals,whichfunctionascatalystsofprocessesthatenablethere-

imaginingofsocialnetworksandre-establishmentofstabilityfollowingthe

rupturethatdeathcauses(Rosaldo1989).However,itisnotonlysocialstability,

butalsothecontinuationoflifethatthemanagementofdeathenables,as

illustratedinBlochandParry’svolumeDeathandtheRegenerationofLife(1982).

Deathisoftenintrinsicallylinkedwithfertility,asBlochandParry’svolumeshows,

butfuneralritualsusedtocontrolthedeadalsocontrolthesymbolisminherentin

thecreationoftheestablishedsocialorder.Deathrupturesthesocialfabricthat

lifeisbasedon,Hertz(1960)asserts(beingoneofthefirsttoarguethatdeathis

notonlybiological,butalsoasocialprocess),andBlochandParryarguethat

thesetearscanonlyberepairedwithsociallysanctionedandappropriaterituals

andmannersofbehaviour.Thesocialcontroloverdeathviamortuaryrituals

bringsitsarbitrarinessintocorrectorderandallowsfor‘rebirth’:notonlyof

peopleandplants,butalsoofsociety.Baddeaththreatensthisorder,notonly

becauseofthepotentialintrusionintothelivesofthelivingbythedead,butalso

becauseofthisthreattolife.


Butwhodealswithdeathswhentheyarenotindividualbutcollectiveandthe

resultofsocietalviolence?Whocanreintegratethemintosociallifeandhowis

thismanaged?Istheirintegrationdependentonunearthingandidentification?

Doestheirdeathwithoutceremonycausesocialunrestwithaneedforreprisal?

HeonikKwon,whohasworkedextensivelyonthelegacyofconflictinKorea

(KwonandChung2014)andVietnam(2006,2008a,2008b),focusesspecificallyon

howpeopleusethephysicalandspiritualremainsofbothto(re)constructlife

afterwards.Hisworkaskssuchquestionsaswhoownsthedeadandwhocan

claimthem?Howdospiritsandghostsallowpeopletonarratetheirsociallives

andaspirations,andthespecifichistoricalperiodsfromwhichtheyderive?Are

spiritualencountersaboutmoralityormemory?

InVietnam,Kwonargues(2006)thereisa‘bi-polarity’ofdeath:amoral

dichotomybetweendifferenttypesofdeathandthedeadthatdiffersbetween

thestate,individuals,andeventransnationalforcesthatareinterestedinthem,

andwhichisthespaceofcontestedvaluesystems.Thiscausesproblemsinthe

post-conflictworld,wheredifferentvoicestrytoclaimtheirauthorityand

ownershipofthedead,whotranscendtheusualboundariesofancestor,ghost

andherobybelongingtoseveralcategories;sometimescontemporaneously;

sometimesatdifferenttimes.Themeaningascribedtothesedead,andthe

modesofacknowledgingthemhaschangedovertime,andremainsflexibletoday.

ThisispartlybecausethedeathssufferedduringtheconflictsinVietnamrequired

arefashioningoftraditionalfamilyritualstobringthedeadintotheembraceof

thehomeandthefamily,andthustheircorrecttime.Understandinghowthese

dead,mostparticularlytheghosts,areencounteredandconceptualisedisintegral

tounderstandingthepoliticalsituationoftheliving,Kwon(2008)asserts,because


associallysalientbeings,theyareintegraltohowsociallifeisconstructedin

contemporaryVietnam.

InKoreameanwhile,thoseburiedinmassgravesresultingfromSouthKorean

stateviolenceagainstitsownpeople(inanattempttoerasethosedeemed

communistsympathizersorpotentialcollaboratorswithNorthKorea),highlight

howthedead,entwinedbothphysicallyandmetaphorically,unitefamiliesintheir

attemptstorestoretheirmorallegitimacythroughproperreburialasancestors,

andbydoingso,provideameansforthelivingtore-asserttheirownmoral

status,becausetheyarerelatedtothedeadthroughaconsiderationof

‘associativeguilt’(Kwon2015).Constructingcommunalgravesitesand

gravestonestocommemoratethem,Kwonargues(2015:87),isaneffort,

therefore,notonlytowardscareofthedead,butalsointhehopetofurthercivil

andhumanrightsinwidersociety.

Aremassgravesrecordsofaviolentandtraumatichistory(tobothindividualsand

thenation)thatcontinuetohavenegativeeffectsonthepopulationin

contemporarytimes?Discoursesonpainfulmemory,whichhaveheldrecent

fascinationformanyanthropologistsworkinginareasofconflict,violence,human

rightsabuses,ordisaster(Das,KleinmanandLock1997;Dasetal.2000;Dasetal.

2001),mightassumeso.Thisisbecause‘overthelast25years,traumahas

becomeestablishedasauniquewayofappropriatingthetracesofhistoryand

oneofthedominantmodesofrepresentingourrelationshipwiththepast’(Fassin

andRechtman2009:15).Theassumptionthateventssuchaswaranddisaster

arebothindividuallyandcollectivelytraumatic,andthatbothindividualsand

wholesocietiesexperiencingsucheventsareautomaticallyvictims,‘scarred’both

mentallyandphysically,iscentraltothesediscourses.Thesetraumasareargued


toconnectpeopleandsocietiestoparticularhistories,andprovideparticular

framesforthathistory;and‘victimsoftrauma’havebecome‘thevery

embodimentofourcommonhumanity’(Fassin&Rechtman2009:23):people

whorepresenttheuniversalexperienceofsuffering(LeCapra2001).12The

universalapplicabilityandunderstandingoftheseconceptsis,however,

contestable;recentliterature(forexampleFassin2008;Fassinandd'Halluin2007;

FassinandRechtman2009;Rechtman2000;Rechtman2006;Summerfield1999;

Summerfield2001)showshowtheseconceptsevolvedinparticularsocio-historic

circumstancesofthepastcentury,withinhistoriesofhierarchyandinequality.

Theassumptionsbehindtheirapplicationshouldbeexaminedcarefullybefore

beingappliedoutsidetheEuro-Americanzone,where,Summerfield(2001)

argues,theycanbecomeaformofWesterndomination.

However,thesediscoursesremainstucktomassgravesandtheirinvestigation.

‘Exhumations,’forensicanthropologistWilliamHaglund(2001)wrote,‘reconfirm

thedignityofthevictimsandthevalueofhumanrights.’‘Nottobringthedead

intothesanctuaryoftruth-memory-justiceistoannihilatethemasecondtime’

WilliamBooth(2001:691)agreed.Justicedoesnotnecessarilyequateto

excavation,althoughusuallythisisimplied.Someauthorssuggestjusticeisadded

bytheirexpositionoftheremainsandthedocumentationofexhumations.Dark

istheRoomWhereWeSleep(BourkeandTorres2007)forexample,a

12Contemporaneously,thetermPost-traumaticStressDisorderhasbecomevirtuallysynonymouswithsurvivalincasesofpublicviolenceanddisaster;Summerfield(2001:95)goessofarastoconsiderittobe‘totemic’:inmuchthesamewayasbodieswithinamassgraveareoftenusedasevidenceofhumanrightsatrocities,thediagnosisofPTSDisnowusedasanemblemofinvisible,ongoingdamagetothesocialfabric.ThisisillustratedbystudiessuchasBreslau(2000)onglobaliseddiscoursesofsufferinginJapanfollowingtheKobeearthquakeof1995,whereascarcityofPTSDdiagnoseswerearguedbypsychologicalprofessionalstoindicateapsychologicallyimmaturecultureratherthanadifferenceinculturalunderstandingsandapplicationsofpsychiatry,andDeJongetal.(2000)whosestudyofadultsinFreetown,SierraLeone,diagnosedanastonishing99%oftheirsampleof245randomlyselectedadultstohavePTSD.


collaborationbetweenanthropologyandphotography(thephotography

documentingtheprocessofexcavation,theanthropologycollectingoralhistories

fromrelativesandfriends)seeksjusticebymakingvisibleSpanishmassgraves

andthevoicestheycontain.TheGraves(Peress,StoverandGoldstone1998)

doesthesamefortheunearthingofremainsatVukovarandSrebrenica:theresult

ofconflict,andgeopoliticalactionandinactionintheBalkans.Photographsof

twistedcorpsesandshatteredpeopleinterspersedwithquotesthatshowthe

devastationspeak,apparently,inthenameofjustice:‘Forgettingisunthinkable’

Peressetal.write(1998:328)because‘itwouldbeadishonor[sic]tothedead

andtheirmemory.’

Butwhoclassifieswhathonourandmemoryare?Doesexhibitingtheir

photographsandotherevidenceofatrocities(suchasthehumanremainsthat

theyresultedin)achieveanythingbeyondvoyeurism?InrelationtoCambodia,

MichelleCaswell(2014),RachelHughes(2008),andSusanLinfield(2010)claim

thatthephotographicexhibitionsofthosetorturedandsentencedtoexecution

duringtheKhmerRougeregimeatTuolSlengmuseuminPhnomPenh,andthe

remainsdisplayedatChoeungEk,achievefarmore.Thosevisitingthem,Caswell

argues,becomewitnessestothehorrorandsuffering.Peopleattendingsuch

displays,Hughes(2008:327)asserts,areableto‘participateinglobal

humanitarianism’.By‘witnessing’Linfield(2010)writes,weprovidejusticetothe

dead,totheirfamilies,totheirnations.ButtheseclaimsareManicheanandfull

ofpowerandprivilege.Severalauthorscritiqueregimesthatusethedeadto

legitimatetheirrule,orasmodesofpropagandatomaterialiseparticular

narratives(Caplan2007;Guyer2009;O'Sullivan2001),butdosuchdepictionsof

thedeadintextnotdothesame?


ArecentpublicationworthyofconsiderationisFerrándizandRobben’s(2015)

editedvolumeNecropolitics:massgravesandexhumationsintheAgeofHuman

Rights.Thisbookexploresthepoliticalandsocialimplicationsofmassgrave

investigation,coveringexhumationsfromLatinAmerica,Asia,andEurope.InChile

andArgentina,Robben(2015)argues,exhumationsperform‘counter-visuality’–in

uncoveringthedisappearedtheynotonlyreturnidentitiestothemissing,identities

stolenbythestate,butindoingsoexposethevisualityoflifeanddeath

manipulatedbyeachauthoritariansovereignty’snecropoliticalandterritorial

power.Ferrándiz(2015:115)conceivesofa‘transnationaldignifyingroute’of

commemoration,createdthroughtheinteractionofdifferentpeopleatexcavations

inSpain:relatives,publicauthorities,andinternationalagenciesareinvolved,

enablingthecreationofsocialrelationsandnetworksofsupportthatrelatestothe

globalexpansionofhumanrightsdiscoursesandpractice.

Theeffectofviolentconflictlingersfordecades,SarahWagnerwrites,and‘binds

generationsindegreesofgrief’(2015:134).Communalburialscomplicatefamilial

obligations,whichmustbere-imaginedintheaftermathofwar.InKoreaKwon

(2015)argues,thesere-imaginedlinksperformcivilandhumanrights(seeabove).

Theyalsoenableresistancetohegemonicsilence(StefatosandKovras2015),anda

potentialavenueforreconciliation(Rojas-Perez2015).However,onceexhumed,

humanremainsresultingfromconflictoftenstillbelongtothestateandareusedin

assertionofpoliticalrule,aswellasstrugglestomanagememory.Lesley(2015)

exploresthisinrelationtoCambodiaandRwanda,arguingthatthedisplayof

remainsinbothlocations,andindividual’sincorporationofstatenarrativesrelated

tothisdisplaysattemptstobuildnationalnarratives,andthusstability,wheresocial

lifewasruptured.


Theseapproachestomassgravesandthemassdeadprovidemuchfoodfor

thought,however,noneseemedentirelyappropriateasameanstoapproachthose

inCambodia.TheKhmerpeopleIencountereddidnotpresentthemselvesas

victimsoftrauma.TheKhmerRougeperiodwasseenasaterriblehistory,butas

onebelongingtoaparticulartimeandcontext,exceptwhereitisusefullyharnessed

inthepresentoritsmemoryprovokedbysomeevent.Thegravesarenottraumatic

spaces,northeremainstheycontainentitiesofhorror(thoughtheyareof

violence).

Althoughthegravesweresubjecttoanextensivemappingprojectbythe

CambodianGenocideProjectwithDC-Cam(Etcheson2000;DC-Cam2005;CGP

2010)(themethodologyandfindingsofwhicharedeeplyflawed13),themapping

wasinordertocollateevidenceoftheextentofDemocraticKampuchea’sviolence,

anduntilrecentlythemassgraveshavereceivedrelativelyscantotherattention.

13Estimatesofnumberofgravepitsandnumberofvictimsreliedonwitnessreporting,dependingonmemoryandestimatedfigures,someover20yearsaftertheevent.ReportswerecorroboratedbyotherscompiledduringthePRK(largelyconsideredinaccurate–peopleweredoublecountedandintheirambitionofprovinggenocidalmassacres,over-reportingwascommon(FawthropandJarvis2004))orbyvisitstothesiteswhenresearcherslookedatthesiteandguestimatednumberofpitsandbodieswithinthem.Notallsiteswerevisited:somefiguresreliedonlyonwitnessstatements,whichweretakenasfact.Notesttrenchesweredugtoconfirmthepresenceofhumanremains.Eachresearchtriplastedonlyafewdaysduringwhichseveralsiteswerevisited,leavinglittletimeforindepthresearch.Researcherspresumeduniformitytothegravesthatevidencedoesnotsupport.Theprojectomittedmanygraves,includingthosecreatedbefore1975andafter1979,gravesfromhospitals,andgravesofcontemporarypoliticalvalue.Notalldistrictsweremapped.Somesitesappearonregionalreportsbutnotonthefinalreport.Thefinalreportduplicatesothers.Reportsbyresearchersaboutthefindingsdonotagreewithoneanotheronnumberofpitsordead(CGP2011;DC-Cam2012;Etcheson2000,2005).Aquickglanceatwitnessstatementsshowsthegeneralnatureoftheirestimates:‘hetestifiedthatoneeveningat7:00pmhewatchedas20thousandpeopleweretied,shackled,andcarriedaway…HesaidthevictimshadbeentoldthattheywerebeingcarriedtoThailandbutinfacttheywerealltakentobekilled.So,thesiteofkillingatChamkarKhnol,WatChamkarKhnolwaspresumedtocontainmorethan20,000victims(approximately25,000);’‘Thepitsfarfromthehumpcouldnotbecountedbecausetherearetoomanytocount.Itisestimatedthattherearefrom500to1,000pits.’Onegravewasreportedasbeing200mlong;anothersiteapparentlyexecutedmorethan500,000people(13%oftheKhmerpopulationatthetime).Despitetheseissues,somehowCraigEtchesondeterminedtheoutrageouslypreciseestimationof1,112,829victimsofexecutionand20,492massgravepits(Etcheson2005).Totryandclearupsomeoftheissueswiththedata,Irequestedaccesstotheoriginalreports,butwastoldtheycouldnotbefound,ormaybenolongerexisted,andtheonlyinformationremainingfromtheseextensivetripsaretheshortsummariesavailableonline.


AnexceptioninanthropologyisAnneYvonneGuillou,whohaspublishedseveral

articlesaboutboth(Guillou2012a,2012b,2013),andIwillreturntoherworkinthe

appropriatechapters.However,toapproachthegravesfromonlyan

anthropologicalperspectiveissomewhatlimiting,particularlyasthemajorityof

workcomesfromoutsidethediscipline.TuolSlengandChoeungEkhavereceiveda

greatdealofliteraryattention,thoughprimarilyfromtheirpositionsashistorical

archivesandtouristsites(Chandler2008c;Ledgerwood1997;Violi2012;Williams

2004;Bickford2009;Sion2011;Hughes2005).Thepositionofthesetwositesas

touristdestinations(chaptersix)aswellasmemorialsitesinactiveusebythestate,

makesthemattractivesitesforresearch,however,thisfocusedattentionhasthe

effectofrenderinginvisibleothermassgraveandkillingsites,particularlythosethat

providecontestationstothestate-sponsorednarrativesthesetwositesperform.

Tyneretal.(2012)addressthegapincoveragebyexaminingtwounmarkedsites:

SreLieumassgraveatKohSlaDam,andtheKampongChhnangAirfield.Thatpaper

isanextensionofotherworkbyJamesTyner(2012a;2012b),whoexaminesthe

politicaluseofspaceincontrollingimaginedandpresentednarrativesoftheKhmer

RougeinCambodia,arguingthatmemoryandknowledgeoftheregimeistightly

controlledbythecurrentgovernmentanditsinternationalsupporters,partly

throughselectivenationalmemorialisationofspecificmassgravesacrosstheentire

country.

ThelackofsocialconsiderationofthegravesisnotextendedtotheKhmerRouge

regimeitself.TheCambodianGenocideProject(2010),theworkofChandler(1999;

2008),Etcheson(2005),Hinton(1996;1998;2005;2011),Kiernan(2003;2006;

2007;2008),Locard(1993,2004),Vickery(1984),andothersbesides,seeknotonly

tomaptheeventsandoutcomesofthegenocide,butalsotoofferexplanationsof

thedynamicsandparticularcircumstancesthatenabledthedeathstooccur.These


worksprovidecomprehensivedebatestothecausesoftheregimeandlifeduringit,

however,Tegelberg(2009:496)arguesthatthiscausesasimplisticrenderingof

Khmersubjectsasvictimsorperpetratorsoftheperiod,ratherthanacknowledging

thecomplexityofthesituationandwithlittlefocusuntilrecentlyoncontemporary

Cambodia,lackingarenarrativesgivingvoicetopeople’severydaylives,whichhas

thedirecteffectofrenderingtheseinvisible(Guillou2013;Tegelberg2009).

Thisevolves,primarily,fromthescarcityofethnographicstudiesofCambodia.Prior

totheconflictfewanthropologistsworkedinCambodia,andeventoday,the

numberislimited14.OneexceptionisMayEbihara(1968),whosedoctoralthesis,

Svay:AKhmerVillageinCambodia,isheldasanexemplarofruralKhmer

ethnography.15Alsoresearchingtherebefore1975wasFrenchethnologistFrancois

Bizot,whoworkedontheruralpracticeofBuddhism16(1973,1976,1981)and

Porée-Maspero(1962)whostudiedritualpracticeandtraditionacrossthecountry.

AftertheexpulsionofforeignersfromCambodiabytheKhmerRougein1975,

anthropologistsdidnotreturntoCambodiauntilthe1990s.Atthattimeinterest

largelyfocusedontheregimeanditsaffects.AlexanderLabanHinton(2005)

workedwithKhmerRougeperpetrators,askingWhyDidTheyKill?andhas

continuedhisworkovertheyearsfocusingonviolenceandgenocidebytheregime

(Hinton1998,2002,2008,2011).EbiharareturnedtoCambodiawithherstudent

JudyLedgerwood,andexaminedtheimpactoftheregimeonthevillageshehad

14AsIundertookfieldworkinCambodiaonlytwootherstudentscamefromanthropology:TallynGray,whosethesisexplorestransitionaljustice(2014),andPaulChristensenwhoprovidesarareexceptioninKhmerethnography:hisresearchcentresonthesocialdynamicsofspiritmediumsandtheirspiritsacrosscontemporaryCambodiawithlittlefocusontheKhmerRouge.

15Ebiharaisoneofthefewscholarstohaveworkedlong-terminCambodiabeforeandaftertheKhmerRouge,andherlaterworkprovidesinterestingcomparativesbecauseofthat.

16In1971whilestudyingBuddhistpracticeinruralCambodia,BizotwasimprisonedbytheKhmer

Rouge.HewastheonlyknownWesternercapturedbytheregimetohavesurvived.FollowingtheKhmerRougeexpulsionofforeignersin1975heleftCambodia,andreturnedonlytotestifyatthetrialofDuchintheECCC.


firstconductedresearch(EbiharaandLedgerwood2002;Ebihara2002).

LedgerwoodcontinuedherinterestinCambodia,givingsomeattentiontothe

regime(LedgerwoodandUn2003;Ledgerwood1997),butalsoexploringwider

anthropologicaltopics,suchasrurallife,ritualandreligion(Ledgerwood1995,

1998,2008).PeggyLeVine(2010)examinedweddingsandbirthsduringDemocratic

Kampuchea,coiningtheterm‘ritualcide’todescribetheKhmerRouge’sattemptsto

destroytheunderlyingsocialandreligioussecurityofthepopulationbydestruction

ofrituals.JohnMarston’sinterestisinreligionandcommunity(Marston2011;

Marston2006),whileAlexandraKentexaminesreligion’splaceintherebuildingof

Cambodiaandthere-establishmentofthe‘moralorder’(Kent2003,2006,2011;

KentandChandler2008).EveZucker(2009,2011,2013)alsobasesherworkinthe

moraleconomy;examiningmoralitiesofremembranceinUplandCambodia.17

BycontinuallyfocusingontheKhmerRouge,thenarrativeofCambodianhistoryis

limitedtothatparticularperiod,obliteratingothereventsandperiods,and

threatening‘erasureofthemorenuanced,multi-facetedculturalnarrativesthat

characterizetheregion’svasthistory’(Tegelberg2009:499).TheKhmerRouge

wasnottheonlyviolentregimetoruleCambodia.AsEricDavis(2008:132)

succinctlynotes:‘warshaveplowedthroughCambodia’slasttwohundred

years….’Despitethis,relativelylittleattentionispaidtoothereras.18This

reificationofthegenocideastheonlyperiodofhistoryworthconsideringnotonly

17

Someattentionhasbeenpaidtoothertopics,butitisrelativelyrareintheanthropologicalsphere.AngChouléanfocusesonspiritsandthespiritworldinCambodiaratherthantheKhmerRouge(1986,1988,1990,2000).OvensenandTrankell(2010)lookedatdoctor-patientrelationships,andmorerecentlyatricefarming.Astimegoeson,othertopicsareemerging.

18Thisispartlyaneffectoftheregime:oncomingtopowerthenationalarchivewasappropriated

bypig-keepers,andthedocumentsandbooksitheldneglectedandmanyruined–usedforfiresandasotherresources.Followingitsdepositionmuchoftheremainingarchivewasmismanaged,sodestroyingmuchofthehistoricalrecord(Clymer1995).DavidChandler’s(2008)AHistoryofCambodia,however,providesacomprehensiveintroductiontoearliereras.


dominatescontemporaryimaginingsofCambodia,butalsoriskscolonizingfuture

definitionsofthecountry.

Thismaybeunavoidable;whileitdidnotnecessarilyinvadethemindsofmy

informantsconstantly,theKhmerRougeregimedidruptureCambodia,both

sociallyandphysically.Itwasacriticaleventafterwhichthecountryneedednot

onlyrebuilding,butalsore-imagining.ItiswithinthiscontextthatIapproachthe

regimeanditsconsequencesintheformofmassgravesthroughoutthisthesis,as

explainedbelow.

Theoreticalframework

‘Socialmemoryisshapedandreshapedbythetreatmentofcorpses’Katherine

Verderywrote(1996:233).Thetreatmentofdeadbodiesmakevisiblesocial

relations,politicalhierarchies,religioussystems,andwidercosmological

understandingsofwhatitmeanstobehumaninaparticularplaceataparticular

time.Becauseofthis,Verderyasserts,theirtreatmentmakevisible

transformationsintheworldviewofparticularplaces.Thoughherarguments

relatespecificallytothedead(theircorpsesandtheirspirits),inthisthesisI

extendthisargumenttoincludemassgravesasthespacesthatthedeadinhabit

orareimaginativelylinkedto:spaceswheretheyoncelay;spaceswherethey

werekilled;spaceswheretheyarenowdisplayed.Itisoftenthecasethatspaces

remainneutraluntiltheybecomepoliticallyuseful:itisatthistimethatpeoplere-

forgeaninterestandownershipofthespaceanditscontents.If,asVerdery

(2000)argues,bodiesareinherentlypolitical,thenthespacescontainingthem

becomepoliticalbyproxy.Thiscanbeseenthroughoutthisthesis,asparticular


attentionordismissalofmassgravesandtheirdeadchangedthroughtime,for

boththestateandlocalcommunities,inrelationtodifferingcontextsandneeds.

Sowhyaredeadbodiessopolitical?Acrosstheglobeandfarbackintimedead

bodieshavebeenusedinpolitics.Theiruseisbasedontwothings:their

physicalityandtheirsilence.Throughboththesecharacteristicstheybecome

powerfulpoliticalsymbols,opentomanipulationandharnessingforparticular

ends.Corpsesarematerialobjects,anditisthismaterialitythatiscentraltotheir

efficacy;‘adeadbodyismeaningfulnotinitselfbutthroughculturallyestablished

relationstodeathandthroughthewayaspecificdeadperson’simportanceis

(variously)construed’(Verdery1999:28).Theirvalueassymbolicentitiesrestson

‘theirambiguity,theirmultivocalityorpolysemy.Remainsareconcrete,yet

protean;theydonothaveasinglemeaningbutareopentomanydifferent

readings’(ibid).Itisthisambiguitythatenablestheirpoliticallives,whichismade

visiblethroughtheirchangingstatusasobjectsofattentioninvariousdifferent

times.WewillseeinthisthesishowinCambodiathetreatmentofthedeadfrom

theKhmerRouge,andthegravesinwhichtheylay,haschangedsincethedemise

oftheregimedependingontherealpolitikofthetime;thatgoesasmuchfor

ordinary,everydayinteractionswiththedeadasstateappropriationsandcareof

theremains.

Butitisnotjusttheirsilencethatinvitestheiruse;itisalsotheirhumanity.

Verderyarguesthattwotypesofdeadbodiesbecomepoliticalsymbols:corpses

ofthefamousandanonymousremains.ThedeadofthemassgravesinCambodia

belongtothesecondcategoryandtheirpowerliesintheirabilitytostandfor

‘entiresocialcategories’(ibid.20)whilstalsobelongingtocertainindividualsand

thereforeparticularnetworksofkinandbelonging.Wherefamouscorpses


remindpeopleoftheirpreviouspowerandposition,andthereforewhoandwhat

theystoodfor,anonymousremainsrepresentagroup,usuallywrongedinone

wayoranother.Themassdeadandtheirgravesprovidepowerfullocatorsof

socialidentitiesforapluralityofvoices;someofwhichmayagree,somewhich

maybecontested.Whenmassgravesaboundthebodiesthemselvesneednotbe

uncoveredandthespacesthemselvescometostandfortheseabuses.And

althoughtheyareusedforanumberofthings,theycomeinpeople’sminds,to

representone:‘becausetheyhaveasinglenameandasinglebody,theypresent

anillusionofhavingonlyonesignificance’(Verdery1999:29,italicsoriginal).That

significancechangesdependingoncontextandwhoismakinguseofthe

narration;itisoftenasignificancethatvariesbetweenthestateandtheeveryday

people,thoughsometimesthesecollide.

Verderyusespoliticstodescribeactionsbetweensocialactors,withacertainaim

inmind,butthisaim,shecontends,shouldhavea‘public’issue.Politics,she

explains,isnotonlyaboutstatebuildingandnationalism,butalsoaboutkinship,

thedeadandtheliving,andhowthesearemaintainedoralteredtosuitparticular

needs.ThisissimilartoJonathanSpencer’s(2007)conceptof‘thepolitical,’

whicharguesthatthereisanirreduciblypoliticaldimensiontoeverydaylife,

particularlyinthere-imaginationoflifeandcommunityafterconflict.Insuch

scenarios,politicsandcultureareviewedastwoanalyticalperspectives‘ona

singledynamicprocess’(ibid.:17)andtheunboundednatureofthepoliticalis

performativeandexpressiveaswellasinstrumental,andnotonlydestructivebut

alsoproductive(asanexampleSpencerexplainshowwhilstviolenceis

destructive,itopensthespaceforneworchangedstatesofsubjectivityand/or

solidarity(ibid.)).Dead-bodypolitics,Verderywrites,areaboutre-writinghistory

andbydoingthat,re-orderingthemeaningfuluniverse(ibid.:26).Itisherewhere


KatherineVerdery’sworkcollideswiththatofVeenaDastheoryofcriticalevents,

andprovidestheframeworkforthisthesis.

TheKhmerRougeregimeproducedacataclysmicruptureinCambodianlife.The

worldthatpeoplelivedinbefore,thoughfarfrompeaceful,hadelementsof

routinethatpeopleknewandtrusted.DemocraticKampucheaattemptedtorip

awaythepreviouslifeandstartanewone.Thecountrywasnolongerthatwhich

anyoneknew.ItsnamewaschangedtoDemocraticKampuchea.Theyearwasno

longer1975,butYearZero,asifrestartingthecalendarcouldrestartthenation.

Familiesweretornapart.Law,religionandeducationweredemolishedandthe

normalsocialorderwasreversed:rural,uneducatedpeoplebecametopofthe

hierarchy;thewealthyandeducatedfelltothebottom.Childrenruledover

adults;thepoorovertherich;theuneducatedoverthereligiousandpolitical

leaders.Thoughitsshortlifespanpreventeditscompletesuccess,thefractures

causedbytheKhmerRougeregimeweredevastating,andeveryelementofthe

countryneededrebuilding,asiffromscratch,followingitsfall:politicalstability,

moralorder,socialrelationships.

Criticalevents,Das(1997)contends,createaspaceinwhichworldsarereshaped

andreimagined.Actsofviolence,andtheirsubsequentimaginings,sheargues,

areoftenusedtoillustratethetensionbetweenthestateandthecommunityor

theindividual,wherethestaterepresentstheimpersonalanddehumanisingand

thecommunitythepersonalandhuman.19Thismaybethecase,however,they

arenotnecessarilyopposed,andeachisliabletoshapetheother,particularly

19‘Thetheoriesofcommunityintheliteratureofthesocialsciencesandpoliticalphilosophy’shewrites‘arepremisedupontheideathatthecommunityistherealmofface-to-facerelations.Itisthereforevalorizedasaresourceforchallengingtheimpersonal,dehumanizingstructuresofthemodernstate’(Das1997:17).


followingeventsofnationalimportancesuchasconflictordisaster.Aftersuch

eventsnewmodesofactioncomeintobeingthatredefinetraditionalcategories

andwaysofunderstandingtheworld.Theycreate‘transformationsinspaceby

whichpeople’sliveshavebeenpropelledintonewandunpredictedterrains’(ibid:

5).Theseeventsneednotbeofacataclysmicscale(althoughtheKhmerRouge

regimewasformany,thoughnotall),butthroughtheirdisruptionofexpected

norms,theygivenewagencytodifferentgroupsandpeople,andnewwaysof

conceptualizingpreviouslyexistingones.Bydoingsotheyalterunderstandingsof

thestateandfamily–unitingthemordividingtheminunexpectedways.They

confuseordisruptdefinitionsofpowerandlegitimacyandfromthis,new

formationsofcommunityandcultureemerge(ibid:10–12).

ThecriticaleventofthisthesisistheKhmerRougeregime,andmassgravesand

thedeadtheycontainarethelensthroughwhichIviewthewayitisusedin

contemporaryCambodiatoreconstituteandre-imaginetheworld.Soletusfirst

lookatwhatImeanbyamassgraveinthecaseofCambodia.

Whatisamassgrave?

Forthisthesis,whichdealswiththedeadasmuchaswiththeirspacesofdisposal,I

considerCambodianmassgravesitesfromDemocraticKampucheatobesitesin

whichmultiplegravesarecontainedallresultingfromthepoliciesandpracticesof

theKhmerRougeregime,bothexecutionanddeathbyattrition.Mostoftheseare

commingledgravepits,however,insomelocationsmultiplesingleburialclusters

areincluded.Foreaseofunderstanding,Iusethetermgravetodenoteanyplace

whereacorpsewasdisposedofduringthistime.Thetermkillingsitedenotesan

areawhereexecutionswereconducted–duringDemocraticKampucheathesewere


alwaysconcomitantwithgravesitesandusuallyveryclosetosecuritycentres20.

Mostcontainmultiplemassgravepitsandlargenumbersofdead.

ThisvariesfromotherdescriptionsinCambodia(andacrosstheworld).Definitions

ofmassgravesvarydependingontheauthor’sinterest:practitioners(suchas

Haglund2002;Mant1987;andSkinner1987)21tendtobasetheirdefinitiononthe

physicalconstitutionofspace-thenumbersofbodiescontainedinonepit,orthe

proximityofbodiestooneanotherforexample.Theoreticallymindedacademics

(forexampleSchmidt2002)focusonthesocio-historicaspectsoftheircreationsuch

asthecauseandmannerofdeathofthosewithin.TheWileyEncyclopediaof

ForensicScienceproposesthatamassgraveshouldcontainfourormorebodies

buriedatthesametime,becausethat‘isconsistentwiththedefinitionofmass

murder’(Connor2012)22.Thecommonthreadofthesedefinitionsisoneburialpit

containingmultiplecorpses,orpartialhumanremainsfrommultipleindividuals.

ThegravesfromDemocraticKampuchea,however,presentmultiplescenarios:

killingsiteswithpitscontainingseveralbodies;locationswherehundreds,ifnot

thousands,ofpeoplewereburiedunceremoniously,butinindividualpits;others

wherenoburialsoccurred,butbodieswerelefttorotorpiledinaheap,orthrown

20TheKhmerRougeranasystemofapproximately200securitycentresdistributedacrossthezonesofDemocraticKampuchea,themostfamousofwhichisS-21:thesuitethatincludedTuolSlengprisonanditskillingsiteChoeungEk.

21Skinner(1987)contendsthatamassgraveshouldcontainsixormoreindividuals;Mant(1987)

suggeststwobodiesareenoughprovidedtheytoucheachother,whilst(Haglund2002)choosesfour.Meanwhile,theUnitedNations,whoseguidelinesmanyorganisationsworkingwithmassgravesfollow,donotusetheterm‘massgrave’,butinsteaddifferentiatebetween‘individual’and‘commingled’burial,withcommingledburialsbeingconstitutedofthreeormoreindividualsburiedtogether.

22Thislastdefinitionpointstooneofthecharacteristicsoftheterm‘massgrave’inmost

circumstances:itimpliesanextrajudicialaspecttoitscreation.Whilstmanymassgravesmaybeofforensic(i.e.medico-legal)interest,thisdoesnotnecessarilymeancriminal:massgraveshavebeenusedthroughouthistoryforofficialburialsaswellasthosecreatedclandestinely.Thiscontinuestodate.FollowingtheAsianTsunamiof2004,manybodiesweretaggedandburiedinmassgravestopreventthousandsofrottingcorpseslyingonthesurfacewhilstidentificationeffortscontinued.Likewisefollowingthe2010earthquakeinHaitiadecisionwasmadetoburythevictimsinmassgravesbecausetheprioritywastodealwiththelivingandrebuildthecountryside(Klauser2012).


inaditchoraholeorawell.AlthoughtheCambodianGenocideProgramofYale

University(whichundertookanextensivemappingprojectofmassgravesacross

Cambodia)definedamassgraveasanyincludingmorethanonebody(Etcheson

2014),Ibelievethesituationneedsamoreinclusivedefinition,tofullyconveythe

extentanddevastationofthegravesinCambodia.

MuchoftheresearchpreviouslyconductedonthedeadoftheKhmerRouge

concernsitselfwiththeissueof‘violentdeaths:’deathscausedbyexecutionoras

theresultoftorture,ratherthandeathsoccurringfromdiseaseorstarvation.The

underlyingpremiseofthisisthatthesearethedeathsthatprovetheextentofthe

KhmerRouge’shorror.Certainlythethoughtofaregimeexecutingarounda

millionofitsownpopulationishorrifying,butsoistheideathattheywouldcause

thestarvationanddeathfromdiseaseofasmany,ifnotmorepeople.23Theloss

ofthesepeoplewasasmuchapartoftheoveralldevastationofCambodiaas

thoseexecuted,andIconsiderthesedeathstobeevidenceofviolenceaswellas

thosewhoweredeliberatelyexecuted.Thisdifferstopreviousresearch

conductedonthesubject.AsCraigEtcheson,whobeganthemappingprojectof

themassgravesconductedbytheCambodianGenocideProgramandDC-Cam,

informedme(2014,myhighlights):

thepurposeofthemassgravemappingprojectwastoidentifyvictimsof

violence.Thus,ifweidentifiedamassgravethatwasadjacenttoaknownKhmer

Rougehospitalormedicalfacility,thatwouldnotbeincludedinthemassgrave

list,asitwasassumedthatitcontainedvictimsoftheDK’s[sic]hopelessly

23

ScholarsagreethatthemajorityofthosewhoperishedduringtheKhmerRougediedfromdiseaseorstarvation:demographerMarekSliwinskiestimated60%ofthosewhodieddidsofromcausesotherthanexecutionwith49%fromdiseaseorstarvation(Sliwinski1995:82),whilstMiltonOsbournesuggestedexecutionscountforonly31%ofthosewhodied(Etcheson2000).


incompetenthealthcaresystem,ratherthanvictimsofstate-sponsoredviolence

perse.

Whilsttheremaybeaforensicpurposeindifferentiatingthemannerofdeath,

thisseparationofdeathcausedbystarvationordiseasefrom‘violent’deathsis

misleadinginanoverallcontextualisationofthebrutalityoftheregimeandI

considerthosewhodiedfromdiseaseandstarvationasrelevanttomyresearch

asthosewhowereexecutedordiedfromtorture.Violencedoesnotexclusively

denotephysicalattacks;thereisviolenceinthestarvationanddiseasethat

occurredasadirectresultofthepoliciesoftheKhmerRouge-policiesthat

expelledorexecutedthemedicalcorps;policiesthatforciblymovedpeoplefrom

theirhomesanddrovethemmarchingforthousandsofmiles;policiesthat

reducedthedailyamountoffoodperpersontoonecupofwateryricesoup24;

policiesthat,inshort,causedmassivedeath.HelenFein(1997:10)arguesthat

deathsfromdiseaseandstarvationare‘genocidebyattrition’which:

occurswhenagroupisstrippedofitshumanrights,political,civilandeconomic.

Thisleadstodeprivationofconditionsessentialformaintaininghealth,thereby

producingmassdeath.

Inthatcase,thosewhodiedofstarvationordiseasewereasmuchvictimsof

state-sponsoredviolence25asthosetorturedorexecuted.

24Oneinformantdescribeddeathfromstarvationveryvividlytome:‘duringPolPotpeoplebecameweakerandweaker.Itwaslikeanoillampthatwasrunningoutofoilandthelightbecamelessandlessbright.Thenitwasgone.’

25ThroughoutthisthesisIuseJohanGaltung’sclassificationsofviolence(1969;1990):structural,culturalanddirect,wherestructuralisaviolencebywhichsomestructurepreventscertainpeoplesfrommeetingtheirbasicneeds;culturalviolenceiswheredemanourslearnedinchildhoodandthroughoutourupbringingreinforcethesupposedneedforviolence;anddirectviolenceisa(physical/verbal/psychological)inflictionofviolenceonapersonorpersons.InGaltung’stheories,structuralandculturalviolenceleadtodirectviolence,anddirectviolence


Thesisoutline

Thisfinalsectionoutlinestheorganisationofthethesis.Theoveralltextissplit

intothreesections.Thefirst(theintroductionandchapterone)providesthe

contextforthestudyandtheresearchinwhichIengaged.Sectionstwoandthree

providetheethnographicencounterswithmysubject,dividedintotwomain

conceptualdistinctions:‘thedead’and‘thegraves.’Sectiontwo(chapterstwoto

four)engageswiththedead:exploringtheeverydayinteractionswiththosewho

diedduringtheregimeviaBuddhismandanimism.Thethirdsection(chapters

fivetoseven)analysesnationalandinternationalrelationshipstothedeadand

thegraves,whichareusedtopresentpoliticalsalientnarrativesoftheregime

thatdirectactiontoparticularends.Thefinalchapter,NowistheTimeforthe

Living,bringsallthedifferentelementstogether,drawingthethesistoits

conclusion.

Sectionone:settingthescene

Thisintroductionhasprovidedacontexttotheresearchaswellasitsaimsand

motivations.Itsituatesthethesistheoreticallyandprovidesaframeworkfrom

whichtoapproachtheethnographicmaterialencountered.

Buttheseencountersarenotself-contained,andtheirintricacieslieinthe

complexitiesofthepastfromwhichtheyhaveemerged.Throughthe

introductionofmymainfieldsites(ChoeungEkGenocidalCenter,closetoPhnom

Penh,andanislandIcallKohSopintheBassacRiver),chapteroneofferssome

reinforcestheothers.Thesetheoriessuggestthatviolencecanbeembeddedwithinthelocal,national,regionalandevenglobalsocialstructuresthatsocietiesandtheirpopulationsinhabit,meaningthatsystematicviolencecanbeboththebehaviouralresponsetoconflictanditscause.Iconsiderpolitical,economic,bureaucraticandinstitutionalviolencetobeformsofstructuralviolence,whichmayresultinactionsofdirectviolence.


historicalcontexttothemassgraves,introducinghowtheyweremade

(metaphoricallyandphysically);whotheyhouse(d);theirunearthinginthe1980s;

andsubsequenttreatment.Byintroducingthegravesatthesesitesitsituatesthe

ethnographicanddiscursiveaspectsofthethesis.Thischapteralsodiscussesthe

methodsused,andconsiderstheethicsinvolvedintacklingthecomplexsubject

ofmassgravesincontemporaryCambodia.

Sectiontwo:diggingupthedead

ChaptertwooutlinesthespecificitiesofBuddhismandanimisminCambodia,

examininghowthesewereaffected(ornot)bytheKhmerRougeregime,andthe

importanceofparticularaspectsoftheirpracticetorelationshipstothedead,

particularlyfuneraryritualsandannualceremoniessuchasNewYear,Cheng

Meng,andPchumBenh.Thischapterprovidesthefoundationforchaptersfour

andfive,exploringwhatitisaboutKhmerBuddhismandanimismthatenables

peopletodrawonthemtodaytounderstandandnarratetheKhmerRouge

periodandreintegratethedeadwithincontemporarysociety.

Thoughrelationstothedeadaremanagedinspecificreligiousandsocialcontexts,

chapterthreeexploreshowtheserelationshipscantransformovertime

dependingonthesocialandpoliticalstatusofthelivingandthecountry.Ghosts

andspiritsarenotimaginarybeingsinCambodia,butsocialbeingsthatinhabit

theworldalongsidetheliving,interactinginwaysthatshaperelationshipstothe

past.FollowingHeonikKwon’s(2008)thesisthatghostscanbecentralto

understandingexperiencesoftheliving,particularlythewaysociallivesofthe

deadmirrorpoliticallivesoftheliving,thischapterexploresthechangingstatusof

thedeadfromDemocraticKampuchea,illustratingtheirtransitionfrom


frightenedandfrighteningentitiesofhaunting,tobenevolentalliesinthe

reconstructionofpost-DKCambodia,topowerlessbeingswhohavesincediedor

lefttheareawheretheywerekilled.BycomparingrelationshipsatChoeungEk

andKohSopitwillshowthattheirsupportandinteractionsarelocallysituated;in

KohSoptheinteractionsarelocalandindividual;atChoeungEktheyarenational

andcollective.

Movingonfromrelationswiththedead,chapterfourexploreshowthemass

deathcausedbytheKhmerRougeregimeisnarratedusingtheBuddhistconcepts

ofreincarnationandkarma.Formanyofmyinformants,thislifeissimplyoneofa

cycleoflivesleading(eventually)tonirvana(Pali:nibbana).UsingLambek’s

(2013)conceptofthecontinuousanddiscontinuouspersonthatconnects

historicalperiodsaswellaspersons,IarguethattheBuddhistconceptsofkarma

andreincarnationaremeansbywhichmanyKhmerpeoplecometounderstand

andnarratethe‘tragedyofCambodianhistory’(Chandler1993),andinsodoing,

tonormaliseandintegratemassdeathintoanexpectedaspectoflifeand

cosmology.DeathsfromtheKhmerRougeperiodareoftenexplained,through

karma,asresultantofmisdeedsinapreviouslife,andthemajorityofthosewho

diedarealreadyconsideredtohavebeenreborn.Inthisway,theviolenceofthe

regimeisincorporatedintotoday’slife,andratherthanbeingremindersof

terribleviolence,thegravesitresultedincanbeintegratedintoeverydayliving

space.Theexplorationofkarmaandreincarnationinthiswayallowsforan

explorationbeyondmemory,tothesocialincorporationofthedeadinto

contemporaryCambodia.


Sectionthree:graveconcerns

Sectionthreemovesawayfromeverydayencounterswiththedeadtoexamine

extra-ordinaryrelationshipswiththem;specificallythroughthetheatreofpolitics

incontemporaryCambodiaandtheinternationalencounterswiththemandtheir

gravesencouragedbytourism.

Chapterfiveintroducesthepoliticalsphere,describinghowtherulingparty(the

CambodianPeople’sParty)cametopower,andtheirveryparticularrelationship

totheKhmerRougeregime.Thischapterlaysthefoundationsforchapterssix

andseven,exploringwhatitisaboutthegravesandtheirdeadthatenablethem

tobeusedpoliticallyandhowthisaffectsthecreationandmaintenanceof

collectivenarrativesoftheregimeanditsdemise.Itdoesthisbyexamininghow

thegraveshavebeenmemorialisedsince1979,andthevariousmachinationsthat

haveinfluencedwhichsitesreceiveattentionandwhicharerenderedinvisible.

Bydoingthis,itwillshowhowthegravesandtheirdeadhavebeenusedinthe

creationofthenew,post-KhmerRouge,Cambodianstate,andhowthishas

changedintheyearssinceliberation.

AnintegralpartofCambodia’snationalstrategyistheencouragementoftourism

asamodeofdevelopment.ChaptersixusesSchwenkel’s(2006)conceptof

recombinanthistory(wherethemeaningofhistoricalsitesarenegotiatedand

reconstitutedinglobalspheresofimaginationforeconomicprosperity)toshow

howthematerialityofdeathatChoeungEk(preservedmassgravepitsandthe

displayofhumanremains)isexploitedtoappealtothetouristappetiteforsitesof

violence,inordertoimproveeconomicprosperityandsocialdevelopment,aswell

astofuturepeaceandstabilitybyconnectingittoawiderglobalnetwork.By


comingtothesite,touristsareconsideredtoengageinreciprocalrelationships

withCambodia,supportingitwhilstbenefittingfromit.Consequentlywhilstthe

transformationsinherentinsuchcommodificationsalterandadjustcollective

narrationsofthepast,theydothisinanticipationofthefuture.

Chaptersevenbringsusbacktocriticaleventsbyexaminingthe2013general

elections.UsingDerrida’s(1994)conceptofhauntology(wherespectersof

particularpastsinhabitthepresentandshapethefuture)thischapterarguesthat

althoughcontemporarypoliticsisformedinoppositiontotheKhmerRouge

regime,withthemainpartiesclaimingtoexorciseitfromCambodia,itre-enacts

thesphereofpoliticalviolenceanddistrustbywhichtheyruled.Themain

politicalpartiesrevitalisetheterroroftheKhmerRougeintheircampaigningand

maintainitssymbolicpowerbydoingso.Theactivehusbandryofthesespirits,

madeviablethroughdirectandstructuralviolenceinCambodia(andatelection

timesthroughtheuseofparticularmassgravememorials),notonlyreminds

peopleoftheregimebutalsorevivesitsexistenceasaviablethreat,andinso

doing,consolidatesthepoliticalpowerandhegemonyoftherulingparty.

Theconcludingchapter,NowistheTimefortheLiving,bringstogetherthe

differentnarrativesofeachchapter.Itreturnstomyinitialthesis:thattheKhmer

RougeregimewasacriticaleventinCambodia’spastthathasleadtoare-

imaginingandredefinitionoftraditionalcategoriesandunderstandingsofsocial

life,whichmassgravesarticulateandmakevisibleonindividual,localandstate

levels.Itwillargue,however,thatwhilestateandindividualarticulationsmay

appeartobeinoppositiontoeachother,theyareintrinsicallylinked,and

encounterswiththesespacesthusmakevisibletheoverlappingpluralityof

connectionswithmassgraves.

46

Chapterone:Fieldsofdeath,sitesoflife-fieldsitesandmethods

Thoughthisfieldworkwasconductedacrossmanysites,twoprimarylocations

formedthebasisofthework.Thischapterintroducesthesefieldsites,putting

themintohistoricalcontextoftheKhmerRougeperiodandtheerassurrounding

it.IndoingsoitintroducesthemassgravesofCambodia-theircreation,the

bodieswithinthemand,briefly,someoftheirtreatmentsafterthedemiseofthe

regime.Researchmethodsthatwereparticulartoeachsitearealsodiscussed,as

wellasoverallmethodologicalconsiderations.

ChoeungEk

17kilometresfromtheurbansprawlofCambodia’scapitalcityPhnomPenh,

downdusty,pot-holedroads,pastnewlybuiltgarmentfactoriesandemptyfields

boundedbyfences,andnexttothestinkingmunicipaldump,liesChoeungEk

GenocidalCenter.Unlikeitsname,thesiteispeaceful.Thesoundofchildren

fromthenearbyschoolflowsthroughthetreesandflowersthatpuncturethe

landscape.Dogsandchickensroamaroundthesite,searchingforfoodand

attention.Andeveryday,hundredsofpeoplecomethroughthegatesto

encounteritshorrors.IcametoChoeungEkbecauseofitspast–akillingsiteof

morethan14,000people,butalsobecauseofitspresent–ahighlyvisitedtourist

destinationandnationalmemorial.ChoeungEkishometothemost

internationallyfamous‘killingfield’ofCambodiaanduntilMarch2015,whenTuol

Slengprisoninaugurateditsmemorial,theonlyofficialnationalmemorialtothe


KhmerRougeperiodinCambodia.DuringtheDemocraticKampucheaperiod,the

sitewasbothakillingandburialsite,mostlyofprisonersfromTuolSlengprisonin

centralPhnomPenh:aprisonusedprimarilyasatortureandretentioncentrefor

KhmerRougecadreandtheirfamilies(Chandler1999:139).

Butletusfirstreturntoitspast.BeforeDemocraticKampuchea,ChoeungEkwas

apeacefulplace.Sittingatthejunctionofthreevillages,thesitewasborderedby

ricefieldsandanorchardoflongantreesbelongingtoalocallandowner,whose

relativesstillliveinthearea.Asmalllaketotheeastfloodedintherainyseason,

mergingwiththelargerlakesbehindittoformamassiveareaofwetland,filling

thepaddies,andbringingfishandwaterplantssuchasmorningglory(trawkoon),

whichlocalpeopleharvestedtoeatandsell.

Thesettingwastranquil,andafengshuiexpertassessedthesiteandpronounced

itanideallocationforthedead:ifburiedtheretheywouldbehappyandhelp

theirfamilies:‘itwassaidtobeagoodplacewherethechildrenwoulddowell[in

theirfuturebusinesses]’YayChan,anelderlywomanwhosefamilyhaslivedinthe

villagebehindChoeungEkforgenerations,toldme.26Thesitewasperfect:

tranquilcountryside,withenoughspaceforconcretegravesthatcouldbe

elaboratelydecoratedduringtheannualChinesegrave-sweepingfestivalofCheng

Meng.OneofthevillageshadanumberofChinese-Khmerfamiliesand,even

beforeCambodiagainedindependencefromFrancein1953,thesitewasusedas

aChinesecemetery.WhentheKhmerRougetookover,rowsofChinese-Khmer

wereburiedthere.

26EvenbeforetheChinesecamethedeadinhabitedthearea:thesitehasbeenusedasaburialsitesincetheIronAge(Latinis2011).


TheremnantsofmanyChinesegravescanstillbeseenatthesite,juttingthrough

theedgesofthemassgravepits,thoughfewpeoplenoticethemastheywalk

aroundthesite,immersedintheaudiotourthatguidestheirsightandsenses,or

directedbytourguideswhopointoutonlyoneortwogravesthatcannotbe

obscuredonthepatharoundthesite.Thesite,andliteraturewrittenonChoeung

Ekclaimsit‘usedtobeaChinesegraveyard.’Inrealityitstillis:whilstmost

familiesmovedtheirdeadinthe1980s27,afewlocalfamilieslefttheirrelatives

wheretheylay.TheycontinuetopracticetheannualChengMengfestival(see

chaptertwo)andareloathtomovetheirgraves;theirrelativesarehappyhere;

thegravesaresafeandpeoplevisitthem.BongChann(whosefatherisburiedat

ChoeungEk)explainedthatthedeadshowtheirappreciationbyhelpingkeep

theirrelativesinworkandfreefromseriousillness:

Heiswithhisgroupofpeople.Ifeelluckythatweburiedhimdownthere.…It’sa

touristsite-it’sahappyplaceforhim;therearealotofvisitors.It’snottoo

quietforhim.He’sbeenhereforalongtime.He’sbeenhappyandhashelped

usbehappyandrich.

Thesitewasquiet,andlifeinthevillagesarounditwassteady.Aswasusualfor

Khmervillages,manyoftheinhabitantswererelated(Ebihara1968)and

marriagesbetweenthevillageswererelativelycommon.Whilstafewpeople

travelledtoworkinnearbyPhnomPenh,mostlyasconstructionworkers,most

nevertravelledfarfromhome.Dayswerespentworking;freetimevisiting

other’shomes.‘Mostlywewerefarmersandfishermen’TaTa,anelderlyman

27Storiesvariedastowhytheyweremoved.Afewpeopletoldmetherelativeshadmovedthemintheinitialyearsafterliberationbecausethesitewaschaoticandtheydidnotwantthemtobeinvolvedwiththemassdead,however,theChinese-KhmerfamiliesIinterviewedwhostillhavetheirrelativesgravesthereconsideredthemselvesluckythatthegravesoftheirrelativeswereontheoutskirtsofthesitebecausetheyhadnotbeentoldtomovethemasothershad.


fromthevillage,toldme.Duringthecivilconflictsofthelate1960sandearly

1970sthesiteanditssurroundingsremainedrelativelypeaceful.Wetlandand

Chinesegraveyardshadlittleinteresttoanyofthefightingpartiesatthetime.

Makingthekillingfield

EveninthefirstfewmonthsofDemocraticKampuchea,ChoeungEkandthe

villagesarounditremainedquiet.AlthoughputtoworkforÂngkar(‘the

organisation’astheKhmerRougecalledthemselves),atfirstpeopleremainedin

theirhomeswiththeirfamiliesbecause,beingaruralsite,itwasalready

contributingtoÂngkar’sagrarianideal.In1976,however,everythingchanged.

FromthebeginningoftheKhmerRougerevolutioninApril1975,highprofile

prisonersoftheregimewereimprisonedinavillainPhnomPenhbelongingtoan

uncleofPrinceSihanouk28.Other‘enemiesoftheparty’weredetainedandkilled

atTakhmaomentalhealthhospitalinKandalprovince,whichwasturnedintoa

prisonundertheleadershipofInLon(nommedeguerre,ComradeNath).In

October1975,undertheordersofSonSen,KaingGuekEav(ComradeDuch),

movedfromTakhmaoprisontobecomecommandantatTuolSlengPrison(partof

28NorodomSihanoukwasacontroversialpoliticalfigure.Kingfrom1941to1955,andagainfrom1993–2004,heledCambodia’sindependencefromFrancein1953.In1955heabdicatedandwaselectedPrimeMinister;whentheKingdiedin1960hepassedalawdeclaringhimselfHeadofState.In1970hewasoverthrowninacoupledbyGeneralLonNol.Between1970and1991,andafterhissecondabdicationin2004,SihanoukmostlylivedinexileinChinaandNorthKorea,apartfromabriefre-entrytoCambodiaduringDemocraticKampuchea.In1975SihanoukwasdeclaredHeadofStateforDemocraticKampuchea;heresignedin1976andwasputunderhousearrest.Fiveofhischildrenwereexecutedduringtheregime,andafterbeingdeportedin1979SihanoukdenouncedtheKhmerRougeattheUNSecurityCouncil.However,in1982,inoppositiontotheVietnamese-backedPRK,heenteredacoalitionwiththem,formingtheCambodianGovernmentDemocraticParty(theCGDP).TheCGDPretainedCambodia’sseatintheUNuntil1993.Followingelectionsin1993SihanoukwasonceagaindeclaredHeadofState,andwasKinguntilheabdicatedin2004.HediedinChinain2012andhisbodywasreturnedtoCambodiashortlyafterwards.


theS-21securityfacility29)incentralPhnomPenh.Fromthenon,allnew

prisonersoftheareabecametheresponsibilityofDuchatTuolSleng.30Nath

remainedatTakhmao.DuchtookoverfullcommandofS-21inMarch1976and

inJune1976alltheprisonersatTahkhmaowereexecuted,andburiedinthelands

aroundthehospital31.

TuolSlengwastobecomeDemocraticKampuchea’smostnotoriousprison,

thoughbynomeansitslargest.Itsdistinctionlayinthetypeofprisonersheld

there–initiallyhighprofileprisonersandthosedeemedparticularlydangerousto

therevolution(monks,doctors,intellectuals),thenasparanoiastartedtospread

throughtheregimeitbecamethemainprisonusedforKhmerRougecadreand

theirfamilies.FewpeoplesurvivedTuolSleng;onceapersonarrivedtheywere

alreadycondemned.‘Ifsomeonecametoprison,theyhadtobekilled,’Duchtold

mewhenIinterviewedhiminKandalprovincialprison,whereheisservingalife

sentenceforhisroleascommandantoftheprison.‘Itwasthepoliticalpathway

oftheKhmerRouge;wehadtodestroytheenemy.’DavidChandler(1999:6),a

historianwhohaswrittenextensivelyontheprison,explained:

Torturedorthreatenedwithtorture,fewprisonersmaintainedtheirinnocence

forlong.Consideredguiltyfromthemomenttheyarrived—thetraditional

Cambodianphraseforprisoner,neakthos,translatesliterallyas“guiltyperson”—

29S-21includedPreySarandTuolSlengprisonsinPhnomPenh,ChoeungEkkillingsite17kmaway,andTakhmaoprisonandkillingsite,inKandalprovince.

30Duchwasalreadyanexperiencedcommandant:between1970and1973heranM-13,asecurityofficeinKampongSpeuprovince,whereheperfectedhistortureandinterrogationtechniques.FrenchethnologistFrancoisBizotwascapturedandheldthere,alongwithhisKhmerresearchassistantswhowerelaterkilled.HisbookTheGate(2004)isacompellingaccountofthatexperienceandtheinitialstagesoftheKhmerRougeregime.

31Whenthehospitalwasreturnedtoitsformerfunctionin1977,Duchreturnedandunearthed,thenburnt,allthebodies.‘Asahospital,itshouldbeahospital’hetoldme.‘Itdidn'tneedthosebodies.’


thousandsofthesemenandwomenwereexpectedtoconfesstheirguiltin

writingbeforetheyweretakenofftobekilled.

ManywerekilledatTuolSlengitself,particularlyintheearlydays,however,as

purgesofKhmerRougecadreincreased,itquicklyfilled,andbytheendof1976a

separatekillinglocationbecamenecessary.‘Idon’tknowwhenwestartedkilling

atChoeungEk,butitwasearly’Duchsaid.‘[Comrade]Ho32tooktheprisoners

there.Heknewthesitefrombefore;Ithinkitwasakillingsiteofhis.’

InpreparationforthetransformationofChoeungEk,lifeinthevillages

surroundingitchanged.Inlate1975orsometimein1976(thefewpeople

remaininginthevillageswhorecalltheperiodcouldnotrememberexactlywhen)

peoplewereevacuatedfromthevillages,joiningthemillionsofpeoplealready

displacedbytheregime.InonevillageadormitorywasbuiltforChinese

economicexpertswhocametoCambodiatoadvisetheregime(Chandler1999),

closebyweresleepingquartersandkitchensfortheguardswhoworkedatthe

site.Toproduceakillingsite,zincwallswereerectedaroundthesiteand

electricityprovided‘toilluminatetheexecutionsandtoallowtheguardsfromthe

prisontoreadandsigntherostersthataccompaniedprisoners’(ibid.:139).

TheroleofChoeungEkwasaheavilyguardedsecret.Peoplefromthelocalco-

operativeknewthatitwasaKhmerRougefacility,butonlythoserelatedtothe

regimeknewwhatwentoninside.‘Atnightwesawtrucksdrivingdowntheroads

tothesite’afarmerfromanearbyvillagetoldme.‘Wethoughtitwasanarmy

trainingground.’

32

AlthoughDuchwascommandantofS-21,andthereforeinoverallcommandofbothTuolSlengandChoeungEk,KhimVat,aliasHo,washisdeputy,andanequallyfearsomedisciplinarian(Chandler1999:23).‘Howasresponsibleforthekilling’Duchtoldme.‘Iwasinchargeofinterrogations.’


Everytwotothreeweeks,trucksofprisonersfromTuolSlengarrivedatthesite,

drivenbyaspecialcorpsofcadre,manyofwhomalsoworkedastorturersand

executioners.Unloadedattheentrance,theprisonersstood,awaitingtheir

deaths.Theydidnotwaitlong.Duringtheday,guardsbasedatthesitedug

gravesinanticipationofthenextshipment;oncedarkhadfallen,andthetrucks

arrived,thekillingsbegan.Toconserveammunition,themethodswerebrutal:

serratedpalmleavesdrawnacrossthroats;shovelssmashedoverpeople’sheads,

collapsingthemintothegraves;childrenheldbytheirfeet,theirskullsswung

againsttrees.HimHuy,oneofthetruckdrivers,andaregularexecutioneratthe

site,hasdescribedthekillingsinvariousinterviewssincetheregime:

Theywereorderedtokneeldownattheedgeofthehole.Theirhandsweretied

behindthem.Theywerebeatenontheneckwithanironox-cartaxle,sometimes

withoneblow,sometimeswithtwo....Hoinspectedthekillings,andIrecorded

thenames.WetookthenamesbacktoSuosThi[Headofthedocumentation

sectionatTuolSleng].Therecouldnotbeanymissingnames(HimHuyquotedin

Chandler1999:140).

Musicblaredoutofspeakershungfromatree,disguisingthesoundsofkilling.33

Onceapitwasfilledwithbodiestheguardscovereditinsoilandmovedontothe

next.Thenumberkilledeachtripvariedfromafewdozentooverthreehundred

(ibid.).Escapewasimpossible.

No-oneknowsexactlyhowmanywerekilledatthesite.Scholars’bestestimates

rangebetween14and17,000people,althoughresearchersfortheExtraordinary

ChambersintheCourtsofCambodia(theECCC–otherwiseknownastheKhmer

33

Afterthefalloftheregimetheloudspeakerswereappropriatedbyalocalfamilytoprovidemusicforpartiesandfuturecelebrations.


RougeTrials)couldonlyfindproofbeyondreasonabledoubtfor12,273people34.

MostwerefromTuolSleng,butalocalvillager,whoprovidedfoodfortheKhmer

Rougecadre,toldmethatpeopleworkinginthecommuneclosesttothesite

werealsobroughtheretobekilled.Hisbrother,sister,acousinandtheirchildren

wereallexecutedatthesite:‘iftheywantedto“educate”people,theytookthem

toPhnomTaleong,andiftheydidn’tchange,theywouldcomehere[tobekilled]’

hetoldme.

Unceremoniousburialfollowedtheexecutions.Somebodieswerestripped

beforebeinginterredbutmostwereleftastheywere.Manygraveswerefilled

haphazardly,otherswerehighlyorganised;somestackedneatlyontopofeach

othertomakethemostefficientuseofthespace,othersdividedbytypeof

person:onegravecontainedonlycorpsesdressedintheuniformsoftheLonNol

military,allwithoutheads;anotherhadonlythebodiesofwomenandchildren.

ThechoiceofChoeungEkasakillingsiteisstillunexplained.Atotherlocations

executionswereusuallywithinafewhundredmetresoftheprisonitself.WhenI

interviewedhim,DuchclaimedthatHoselectedit.OmTa,oneofthecaretakers

atthesite,tookitschoiceasevidenceofthemillenarianambitionsoftheKhmer

Rouge,andtheirdisregardfortheoldCambodia:

34AlthoughmeticulousrecordswerekeptatTuolSleng,FrenchhistorianHenriLocardtoldmethatintheperiodimmediatelyafterDemocraticKampuchea,somerecordsweretamperedwithorremovedbyofficialsofthenewregime(Locard2013).Verifiableevidenceofthedetention,torture,andkillingof12,273peopleisknown,however,therewerealmostcertainlymore,bothfromTuolSlengandtheareassurroundingChoeungEk.


thePolPots35,theynevervaluedwhatwealreadyhad.Theynevercared…they

destroyedculture....theywantedtodestroyeverythingalreadyexisting

completely.That’showitwas.Theynevercaredaboutancestors’spiritsatall.

TaTathoughtthesecretliesinitshistory;‘therewerealreadymanybodieshere.

MaybetheycouldconfusethemwiththeChinese.’Certainlyitisnotuncommon

formassgravestobelocatedinestablishedcemeteries;wherebettertohide

bodiesthanamongstthedead?36

AfterDemocraticKampuchea

ChoeungEk’semploymentasakillingsite,thoughdevastating,wasbrief.On7th

January1979,heavilyarmouredVietnamesetroopssucceededinremovingthe

KhmerRougefrompower.Tiredoftheongoingwarbetweenthemselvesandthe

KhmerRouge,theyhadinvadedCambodia14daysearlier.TheKhmerRougefled

theirbases,leavingchaosanddeathbehindthem–inmanyareasthey

slaughteredprisonersbeforetheyleft,buttherapidityoftheadvancegavelittle

timeforcareandattention,andmanyofthesebodiesweresimplyabandoned

wheretheywerekilled,leavingapathofdeathanddestructiontogreetthe

Vietnamese.

35

ThePolPotsisthenamebywhichmanyKhmerpeoplerefertotheKhmerRouge.Thesubsumationoftheregimeintooneidentifiablefigure(PolPot)isdiscussedinchapterfive.

36Ioftenwondered,bothduringmyfieldworkandafterwards,howmuchthelocationalsorelatedtothefactthatthosekilledtherewereprimarilyKhmerRouge,severalofthemcadrepreviouslyknowntothetorturersatTuolSlengandtheexecutionersatChoeungEk(KeKhimKhourt(Duch’sjuniorhighschoolteacherandKhmerRougecadre)andVornVet(DeputyPrimeMinisterofDemocraticKampucheauntil1978)forexample).Perhaps,Ithought,buryingtheminanestablishedgraveyardwasasubconsciousmodeofreducingtheburdenofboththeirdeathsanddisposal.ChoeungEkisoneoftheonlykillingsitesacrossCambodiathatwashidden,wheresecuritywassotight,andwhereitwasmostlyKhmerRougewhodugthegraves:inmostothersexistingfeaturesofthelandscapewereused,bodieswereabandonedwheretheywerekilled.Whengravesweredug,itwasusuallybytheprisonersthemselves,orvillagersintheworkcamps.Thecadrerarelyundertookthisgrimtask.


Whilstsomevillagers,fearingtheVietnamesewouldkillthem,fledwiththe

KhmerRouge37,otherstookadvantageoftheinvasion,anddespiteheavyaerial

bombardment,startedthelongjourneyshome.38Peoplebeganreturningtothe

villagesaroundChoeungEkalmostimmediately.TaTawasoneofthefirstto

arrive-duringtheregimehehadbeenevacuatedonlyafewkilometresaway,so

hisjourneybackwasswift.Hesoondiscoveredthathishousehadbeen

demolishedandthematerialsusedtobuildfacilitiesfortheKhmerRougecadre

stationedatChoeungEk:fourorfivelongwoodenhalls,roofedwithzinc–a

kitchen,sleepingquartersandstorageroomshethought.Rabbits,bredforfood,

werekeptinrowsofcagesbeyondthehalls.39

Thehallsinthevillages,andshelterswithinthesiteitselfwereinitiallyusedas

shelterforthosereturningandothersontheirlongwalkshome,butoverthenext

fewmonths,TaTaexplained,peopletookthematerialstorebuildthelivesof

thosereturning:

Thosewhosehouseshadbeendestroyedsharedthematerialsinordertorebuild

theirownhousestolive….Myhousewashere.Thenthey[theKhmerRouge]

came,andImovedtotheSouth.WhenIreturned,myhousewasdestroyed.So

wesharedthehallsandlivedon.

37

‘TheytoldustheVietnamesewouldkillus,sowekeptrunning.Atthattime,wewerenotsurewhichweregoodorbad[oftheVietnameseandKhmerRouge],sowekeptfollowingthem[theKhmerRouge]’oneinformanttoldme.

38AnelderlycoupleIinterviewedinKandalprovincevividlydescribedthistome:‘Weranback

hereinashowerofbombsdroppedbytheVietnamese.Itwasasifriceseedswerebeingspread….Butweweregladtobeabletocomebacktoourvillageagain….Wewalkedalltheway.Wewalkedsofarthatourlegsandhandsbecamenumb.’39

Victimsoftherapidabandonment,therabbitstoohadsuccumbedtostarvation.‘Theyweredeadinthecages.Somany;somanyrabbits.Allwhite.Somanycages,’TaTatoldme.


ThegrislypurposeofChoeungEkhowever,remainedconcealed;thegraveswere

covered,andpeoplepaidlittleattentiontoanythingbeyondsurvival.Ghosts

hauntedthosewhostayedthere,andTaTasaidatnighttheywouldhearchildren

crying,orchainsbeingdragged.Thoughtheysupposeditmustmeanthedead

werenearby,thiswastobeexpectedfollowingDemocraticKampuchea.Itwas

onlywhenthefirstgraveswereunearthedandthesmellofdeathand

decompositionspreadtothevillagesthatlocalpeoplerealisedwhatthesitewas:

after[myreturntothevillage],quiteawhilelater,abouttwomonths,theplace

wasdug.ItwaspossiblyDecember-itwascoldandwindy,andthesmellwas

terrible.I’mnotsureifitwasNovemberorDecember,butIknowitwasthe

monthwhenthewindwasblowingfromtheNorth;thatwaswhenweknewthat

peoplehadbeenkilledthere.Notuntilthegravesweredug.Thesmellwasso

terriblethatwecouldhardlyeatourmeals.

Afterinvasion,DemocraticKampucheawasquicklyreplacedwiththePeople’s

RepublicofKampuchea(PRK),andacohortofKhmerdefectorstoVietnamwas

putintogovernment.Intheireffortstowardsstabilisationandtheassertionof

theirpower,theVietnamesebackedgovernmentquicklybegantoexploit

evidencethatcouldbeusedtolegitimateboththeirinvasionintoCambodiaand

theircontinuedrule,viewedbysomeasinvasiveoccupation,throughoutthe

1980s.40Acrossthecountrytherewasnoshortageofphysicalevidence;

DemocraticKampucheahadnothiddenthedamageithadwrought-the

40Massgravesareoftenusedinthiswaytoday.In2004,forexample,TonyBlairdeclaredthatover400,000bodieshadbeenfoundinmassgravesacrossIraq(USAID2004),usingthisasevidenceforthenecessityofthecoalition’sinvasionintoIraqin2003.Helaterhadtoretractthisstatement,whichwasacompletefabrication(Beaumont2004);evenbythetimeIworkedinIraqin2009onlyafewthousandbodieshadbeenfoundinahandfulofgraves.


populationwasemaciated,starving,andrifewithdisease;thedeadlitteredthe

landscape.

TuolSlengandChoeungEkbecameimportanttoolsinthislegitimation.Within

daysofbeinglocated,TuolSlengprisonwasturnedintoamuseumforforeign

journalistsandvisitingdignitariesunderthedirectionofMaiLam,acolonelofthe

VietnamesearmywhodesignedtheMuseumofAmericanWarCrimesinHoChi

MinhCity(Chandler1999,2008;Tyner,BrinidisAlvarezandColucci2012).

ChoeungEk,itssistersite,providedacompellingformofevidencewiththe

thousandsofdeaditcontained.Butthedeadwereburied,andneeded

unearthing.Thegovernmentsentateamtoexcavate,underthedirectionofMai

Lam.

However,beforethegovernmentworkerscame,anothergrouparrived;‘those

relatedtotheregime’accordingtotwoformerdirectorsofthesite,bothofwhom

werepresentatthetime.Thisinitialgrouparrivedwithahand-drawnplanof

ChoeungEk,andproceededtounearthitemsthathadbeenhastilyhiddenin

someofthegravespriortotheretreatofthecadre:‘theyknewexactly[whatthey

werelookingfor].Whentheyfirstcametheysaidtheywantedtodigthe

children’sgravewheretheyhadburiedhammocks,raincoatsandotherthings’

oneformerdirectortoldme.‘Theymusthavehadbloodstainsontheirhands.’

Smellingthedeath,andseeingthisgroupdigandrecovervaluableitemsled

peoplefromthelocalvillagerstosearchthesiteformore.Followingthisinitial

excavation,inwhichequipment,butnotbodies,wasunearthed,governmentand

localpeoplealikedugthegraves:thegovernmenttoextractbodiesrelatedtothe


regime,andlocalvillagerslookingforgoldandjewels.BuSoth,whohasworked

atthesitesincetheearly1980s,toldmeaboutjoininginthelooting:

Whenitwasfirstunearthedvillagerspassedbythesiteandfoundgold.Itspread

fromonepersontoanother,andIheardaboutit,soIgatheredanothersixteen

peopleanddecidedtodigoneofthemassgravestoseeifwecouldfindanygold.

Wedugthatonethathad166bodies,allheadless.That’showIjoinedthe

digging…

Hisgrouphadnotuncoveredanyvaluables,sotheyhadgivenup.Butother

villagerscontinuedsearching,somefindinggoldandjewels,otherswatchesand

clothing.Beforeallthegraveshadbeenexcavated,however,thegovernment

bannedpeoplefromdigginganymoreandputguardsonthesite.Mostofthe

peoplearoundChoeungEkwerenotsureexactlyofthereason,althoughBuSoth

believeditwasduetothecholerathatwasspreading.41Itwasmorelikely,

howevertobeduetoa1982directiveorderinglocalgovernmentofficialsto

preventpeopledisturbinganymoreofthephysicalevidenceremainingfromthe

regimeinanattempttotryandstopthedeletionoftheregime’smaterial

presencebydismantlingthebuildingsandotherevidence(seechapterfive).

Afterbeingdugup,thebodiessatonthegravesidesformonths(orpossiblyyears

-no-onecanreallyremembertheexacttimescale)beforeawoodenp’teah

khmouch,(asmallhutthatliterallytranslatesashouseforthedead,orghost

house)wasbuiltforthem.Thoughconceivedintheearlyyears,thememorial

41Althoughthedeaddonotusuallyposea(physical)healthrisk,itispossiblethatifnotcholera,someotherdiseasewasspreadingaroundthearea.ChoeungEkisawetlandareathatfloodseveryyear.Rottingcorpsescouldwellhavespreaddiseaseandbacteriaintothewaterthatfedthericefieldsandriversinthesurroundingvillages.


stupa42thatcontainstheskeletalremainsofthoseunearthedanddominatesthe

sitetoday(seefigurethree)wasnotcompleteduntil1988;nineyearsafterthe

bodiesbegantobeexcavated.43ItsofficiallyinaugurationonMay20th1988(the

newlydesignatedannual‘DayofAnger’–seechapterfive)coincidedwith

ChoeungEk’sofficialopeningasamuseum(TheNationalCentreforthe

PreservationoftheAtrocitiesCommittedbytheKhmerRouge)however,from

1980onwards,governmentofficialshadbroughtinternationaljournalistsand

otherforeigndignitariestothesiteseveraltimesayear.

Figurethree:ChoeungEkstupaanddisplayedremains(source:theauthor)

42

Astupa(fromtheSanskritstüpa,meaningheap)isaBuddhiststructurefortheremainsofthedead.Mostarebuiltwithinpagodagroundsbutsomefamiliesbuildthemathome.Ideallyeachstupaholdstheremainsofonepersonbutsomepagodashavecommunalstupatointerthecremainsofpeoplewhosefamiliescannotaffordtheirown,orwhohavenoknownrelatives.

43ChoeungEkwasnottheonlyplacewithatimedelaybetweenbodiesbeingexcavatedandthen

rehoused.InPoTonleinKandalprovince,severalfamilieslivedforseveralyearsinoneoftheprisonbuildingsconstructedundertheKhmerRouge.Duringthattimethegraveswereexcavated,andthebodiespiledontotheroofofthishut,wheretheyremainedforseveralmonthsbeforealocalmanbuiltap’teahkhmouch.Atnightallthatseparatedthedeadfromthelivingwasathinwoodenroof.‘Thedeadwerenicethough,’oneofthevillagerscommented:‘theyneverhauntedus.’


AsthepoliticalsituationinCambodiastabilisedandvisitornumbersincreased,

ChoeungEkgrewinpopularityasatouristsite.EasilyaccessiblefromPhnom

Penh,withdramaticphysicalevidenceintheformofskeletalremainsand

numerousvisiblegravepits,thesiteiscompelling.Bythelate1990sitsawa

regularinfluxofforeignvisitors,andin2005thesitewasprivatized,anda30-year

leasegiventoaprivatecompany,JCRoyal&Co,withanaimtoincreasetourist

revenuefromthesite.44

ChoeungEktoday

TodayChoeungEkisprimarilyatouristsite,thoughitsmulti-functionality(as

nationalmemorialandeducationaltool)ishighlightedbythose,suchasits

directors,wishingtorefutecriticismfollowingitsprivatisation.Asmoreandmore

touristsvisit,ChoeungEkandtheareaarounditarechanging.In2012thesite

wasgrantedA1statusasatouristsiteandwasa2014Traveller’sChoiceaward

winnerfromTripadvisor;thedevelopmentssurroundingitreflectthecentralityof

thisroleinitsconstitution.Onceawildandraggedsite(‘itwasstarkandopen.I

rememberthewindcomingthroughthetrees.AndsometimesIwonder,should

webedoingthis;thismakingitintoapark?’aformermanageratthesite

commented),theconcreteandbrickdevelopmentsareencroaching,withnew

onesappearingalmostweekly.Theroadthatleadsuptothesiteisnowcovered

inrestaurants.Brickandconcretepathscovermuchofthelandinsidethegates.

Shopsflankthecarpark;concretewallsborderthegraves.

44

Seechaptersix.


Butaswellasatouristsite,itisalsoaworkplaceandhome.Duringmyfieldwork

45peopleworkedatChoeungEk:cleaners,guides,caretakers,management,

shopkeepers.Whilstthemanagementworksonlyfivedaysaweek,mostofthe

employeesworksixorsevendaysandChoeungEkhasbecomeanextensionof

theirhome.SreySreycooksherlunchanddinnerthere,andherchildrencometo

dotheirhomeworkatthesite.Vannaliveswithhiswifeanddaughteronthesite,

asdotwoothercaretakersandtheirfamilies.SreyPichworkspart-timeonthe

audioguidesbutvisitsonherdaysoff.Herbrother,sisterandfatherallworkat

thesitetoo.VisitorstoChoeungEkareintroducedtoitasaplaceofdeath;

destruction;deletion,andthisistheoverwhelmingimpressionmostleavewith.

ButIexperiencedasiteofvibrancyandlife:childrenrunaroundthegrounds

laughingandplaying;dogsandchickensroamthegrounds;treesandflowers

abound;smallpatchesofvegetablesaregrownbythefamilieslivingonsite;the

lakethatbordersitisusedforbathing,swimming,andwaterforcooking.ANeak

Ta(guardianspirit)inhabitsatreenexttothelakeandvillagerscometogivehim

offerings,askingforprotectionandluckforthemselvesandtheirfarms.He

usuallyobliges.

ResearchingatChoeungEk

GainingaccesstoresearchatChoeungEktooksometime.Iattemptedtolocate

JCRoyalandCo(thecompanythatleasesthesite),butcouldfindnocontact

details.Ispoketostaffbutno-oneseemedtoknowwhotheyworkedfor.WhenI

asked,theysimplysaid‘Ângkar’:‘theorganisation’45.Iaskedwhohademployed

45

Thisconfusedmeatfirst:duringDemocraticKampucheamanyordinarypeoplehadnotknownoftheKhmerRouge;forthefirsttwoyearsofrule,theCommunistPartyofCambodia(CPK)hadkepttheiridentitysecret,simplyreferringtothemselvesas‘Ângkar.’EvenafterPolPotannounceditsexistenceandhisleadershipin1977,thenewsdidnotfilterdowntomanypeople,


themandwasdirectedtoOmTy,thedirector.OmTytoldmetoaskCityHall:

‘theymayormaynotgiveyoupermission’hesaid.

Itwasaserendipitousencounterthatfinallybroughtmeaccess.AtanImpunity

WatchrunconferenceonmemorialisationinSeptember2012ImetMinaBui

Jones,thecountrydirectoroftheAustralianbasedNarrowcasters-thecompany

thatmadetheaudiotoursforChoeungEk.Afterrequestingherhelpin

identifyingwhototalkto,shetookmetothesiteandarrangedameetingwith

oneofthedirectors.Consideringmyapplication,andMina’ssupport,Iwas

grantedaccesstoconducttheresearchIwished,providedInotdisturbthestaff

toomuch.ThereisnodoubtinmymindthatwithoutMina’shelpgetting

permissionwouldhavebeenmoredifficultandtheaccessIwasgivenmore

limited.

WhilstworkingatthesiteIlivedinPhnomPenh,travellingtoandfrowithmy

researchassistantbytuktukormoto.Thesiteopensfrom08:00to17:00;visiting

inthiswaymirroredthemovementsofthestaff.Mostoftheresearchat

ChoeungEkwasconductedonsite,butIalsovisitedthevillagesbehindittosee

thefamiliesofpeopleworkingthereandtoconductinterviewswithpeopleliving

locallybutnotemployedthere.Thisenabledmetoexplorelocalrelationshipsto

ChoeungEkanditsuseasatouristsite,includingwithseveralfamiliesofChinese

descentwhoserelativeswereburiedtherebeforeDemocraticKampuchea,and

whoremainburiedtheretodate.

whocontinuedtorefertoitasÂngkarthroughoutitsruleandafterwards.TheliteratureimpliesthatÂngkarrefersonlytotheKhmerRouge,however,throughoutmyfieldworkpeopleusedthetermtorefertoanyfacelessauthority:thecompanytheyworkfor,orthecurrentgovernmentforexample.


Iworkedprimarilywiththestaff;keyinformantsatthesitewereBongLa,Srey

Srey,andOmTa.SreySreyhadworkedasacleaneratChoeungEkforseveral

yearswhenIarrived.SreySreyfeelsluckytohaveherjob:thesiteisconvenient–

onlyafewhundredmetresfromherhome-andthemanagementwelcoming,so

whilstshecannotbeathomeduringtheday,herchildrencometothesitetodo

theirhomeworkorplaywiththeotherchildrenwholivethere.Inherearly

thirties,sheisacheerful,friendlywoman,whoboostsherincomebycollecting

plasticbottlesleftbytourists:foreverysixshecollectsshereceivesfivecents

fromlocalrecyclers;withthehundredsoftouriststhatpassthroughthesite

everyday,shecaneasilyaccumulatebottles,andsheusesherextraincometopay

forherchildren’sschoolbooksandtreatswhentheyhaveworkedhard.We

wouldsitchattingduringtheday,andsometimesIwouldplaywithherchildrenin

theirbreaksfromschool.Herhusbandwouldpassusbyonoccasions,and

occasionallyhersisterjoinedforlunchinherbreaksfromworkcloseby.

BongLawasmyfirstfriendatChoeungEk.Inhisearlythirties,married,with

threechildren,BongLalivesinPhnomPenh,commutingdailybymotorbike.He

wasinterestedintheresearchIwasconducting,andondayswhenIdidnotvisit,

wouldmakeamentalnoteofanythinginterestingthathappenedtotellme.After

finishingschoolinthelate1990shetrainedtobeatourguideinPhnomPenh,

andlaterdecidedtobasehimselfatChoeungEk;hespeaksexcellentEnglish,and

goodmoneywastobemadefromtheincreasingnumberoftourists.Whenthe

audiotourguidesarrivedin2010,he,likemostoftheguides,transferredtothat.

Althoughheappreciatesthiswork,BongLamisseshistimeasatourguide:heis

interestedintheworldanditspeople,andisachatty,friendlymanwhoenjoyed

meetingnewandvariedpeople.


OmTa,anelderlymanwhoworksatthesite,livedthroughtheKhmerRouge.

BornandraisedclosetoChoeungEk,hewasevacuatedduringDemocratic

Kampuchea,todistantprovinces.Helostmanymembersofhisfamilyduringthe

regimeincluding,bothparents,hisauntandherfamily,onesisterandtwo

brothers.Followingthedeposaloftheregimein1979hereturnedtohishome

village,wherehehaslivedeversince.Firstcomingtothesitewithothervillagers

tolootitsgraves,hewassubsequentlyemployedasacaretaker,aroleheretains

today.OmTawasoneofthehardestworkingpeopleatChoeungEk,alwaysin

movementpayingattentiontoonethingoranother,stoppingtocollectdebris,or

movingaroundtoolsforthevariousconstructionworkerswhoalwaysseemedto

bechangingsomething.

Thoughtheseweremymaininformants,Ispenttimewithseveralothermembers

ofstaff.OmTy,thesite’sdirectoralwaysmadetimetochatwithmeandanswer

anyquestionsIhad.BongBroh,acaretaker,wouldtellmegossipaboutthetour

guidesfromPhnomPenhashecarriedouthiswork.Ispentmostofmyother

timewiththeguideswhorantheaudiotours.Theymannedastationarypointat

theentranceofthesiteandIwouldsit,sometimesforhours,andchatwith

peopleastheyworked.PriortotheintroductionofaudioguidesatChoeungEkin

2011,thesemenhadbeentourguides.Theywerepersonableandmostly

enjoyedinteractionswithdifferentpeople;severalcommentedthatwasthe

reasontheyhadbecomeguidesandthattheymissedthisaspectintheirnewjob

(whichinvolvedsimplyhandingoutandtakingbackaudio-players).I,therefore,

offeredtheopportunitytochatandinteractwithanoutsiderthattheynolonger

hadintheirday-to-dayemployment.


ThoughIworkedprimarilywiththestaff,Ialsospentsometimewithvisitorsto

thesite:whenthecoachesfromtheECCCarrivedmyresearchassistantandI

wouldjoinagrouparoundthesite,chattingwiththemaswewentandI

participatedinanyeventsheldatthesite,chattingwithotherparticipantsalso

attendees.Iinterviewedseveraltourists,althoughallbutoneoftheseinterviews

(withaloquaciousanti-abortioncampaignermoreinterestedinpersuadingmeof

hiscausethanengagingwithmyquestions)wereshort–around20to30

minutes.

ChoeungEkpresentedtheopportunitytoresearchtheonlystate-sponsoredmass

gravememorialinCambodia46,amemorialthatremainsanimportantsitefor

local,national,andinternationalencounterswiththeperiod.Thoughthepublic

presentationofmassgravesinCambodiaalmostexclusivelyfocusesonChoeung

Ek,encouragingatunnelledvisionthatthisstudyhopestohelpcounteract,itwas

animportantsitetoconsider,particularlyregardingthepoliticalforcesactingon

thegraves.However,inordertocounterbalancethistunnelvisioning,another

primaryfieldsitewasselected;anislandIcallKohSop.

46AlthoughTuolSlengalsofunctionsasastatememorial,themassgravestherearefewandIwouldthereforenotclassifyitasamassgravememorial.


KohSop

KohSopisoneofastringofislandsintheBassacriverthatwereusedasprisons

andkillingsitesduringDemocraticKampuchea;theperfectmaterialisationofthe

regime’s‘kuketchonhcheang’:prisonwithoutwalls.Smallandunlabelledon

manymaps,itisnowadaysarelativelyunknownsite,excepttothosewholivedin

theareaduringitsregime.

BeforeDemocraticKampucheaKohSopwashometofamiliesfromvarious

nations,wholivedpeacefullyside-by-side:thechildrenlearnedeachother’s

languagesandthefamiliessocialisedtogether.Thesoilwasfertileandprovided

theideallocationfororchardsoffruittrees:guava,orangesandlamot47were

grownalongsiderice-fieldsandfamilyvegetablegardens.Somefamilieshadbeen

thereforseveralgenerations,othersmoveddowninthe1950sand60sfrom

neighbouringislandsrunningoutofspace.Alongwiththoselivingontheisland,

peoplefromacrosstheriverhadfarmlandthere,travellingdailytotendtheir

fieldsandorchards.

Theislandwastoosmallforapagoda,butasmallchurchwasbuiltinthemiddle

ofthelandforthosewhopractisedChristianityandapreachervisitedregularly

fromthemainland.SeveralNeakTa(guardianspirits)inhabitedtheland–the

KhmerNeakTaremain,butthosebelongingtoothernationsleftwhentheydidin

the1970s.48TheKhmerfamiliesalsohadNeakTa,butweremostlyBuddhist;

47Asicklysweetkiwi-lookingfruitwithatexturesomewhatlikecrystallisedhoney.

48NeakTaaretheKhmerguardianspiritsofthelandandwater(seechaptertwo).Bong,amanofaround50yearsoldwhohadgrownupontheislanddidnotknowthenameoftheforeignspirits,buttoldmetheirreligion‘wasliketheChinesereligion,withaNeakTa.’


theytravelledacrosstherivertovisitthepagoda,formostonlyonritual

occasionssuchasPchumBenh(theannualfestivalforthedeadinOctober)and

KhmerNewYearinApril.Bong,whowasachildontheislandbeforetheregime,

remembereditbeingapleasantplacetolive.Theonlyschoolwasacrosstheriver

ontheWesternsideoftheisland,andbeforethecivilconflictintheearly1970s,

thechildrentookaboatbackandfortheachday,untilitbecametoodangerousto

travel.LikemanyacrossCambodia,theireducationwasinterrupted;manynever

wentback.Peopleearnedtheirlivingthroughfarmingandafterharvestand

beforethenextsetofplanting,additionalsmalljobs.Bong’sfather,forexample,

workedasapru-laan:ahustlerforthesharedtaxisthatranbackandforthfrom

PhnomPenh,whilehismothertookcareofotherpeople’scows.

EventhroughtheUSbombingsandthecivilconflictsofthe1960s,lifewasmostly

quiet.Bytheearly1970s,however,thisbegantochange.Evenbeforetheir

victoryin1975,theKhmerRougewoncontrolofsomeareasofCambodia.

BecauseitsurroundedPhnomPenh,Kandalprovincewasahotlycontestedarea

betweenthesoldiersofLonNolandtheKhmerRougeandrightfromthe

beginningoftheLonNolregime(1970–1975),theareawascoveredinconflict.

LonNolsoldierswerepositionedontheWesternsideoftheisland,whilstthe

KhmerRougesoldiershadabaseontheEasternside.In1973,theKhmerRouge

woncontroloftheEasternsideandtheisland(theWesternsideremained

conflicted).Takingitasabasetheyevacuatedtheinhabitantsdownriver.49

49Somemovedonlyoneortwokilometres,whilstothersmovedtowardstheVietnameseborder;therewasadegreeofflexibilityatthistimeandsomechoicelefttothefamiliesleaving.Somewalkedtotheirnewhomes;othersloadedox-cartswithgoodsandtookthemwiththem.Oncetheygottotheirnewhomes,lifewasnormalforatime:peoplefarmedandraisedanimalsandlivedintheirownhouses.Mostoftheforeignfamilieshadfledintheearly1970s,fearingthepogromsoftheLonNolarmy.


DuringDemocraticKampuchea

Followingtheevacuationsin1973,theislandwasusedexclusivelybytheKhmer

Rouge;initiallyasabarracks,andthenasaprisonandkillingsite.Byearly1975,

theKhmerRougehadwoncompletecontrolofthearea,andwiththefighting

ended,somelocalinhabitantsinthevillagesacrosstheriverreturnedtotheir

homesthere.Thosefromtheislandwerepermittedtothearea,buthadtolive

acrosstheriver.Theirlifewasnotsohard;‘Wewereoldpeople(brâcheachon

chas)’anelderlymanfromonevillagetoldme,‘sowecouldstaywherewe

were.’50

Fewpeopleaccessedtheislandduringtheregime,butSok,wholivesinanearby

village,wasimprisonedthereforashorttime,anddescribedthelifetomeone

afternoonwhilewesatintheshadeatthefrontofhishouse,wherehehaslived

sinceliberation.Althoughhehadbeenasoldierbeforetheregime,onceitcame

topowerhedisguisedhispastandwasputtoworkwiththeKhmerRougeyouth

group.Oneafternoonhewascapturedtryingtosneakawaytovisithismother.

Hewasheldforseveralhours,beforebeingbroughtbyboattotheisland.On

discoveringhewouldbesenttoKohSophewasterriblyafraid.‘Iknewitwas

hopeless’hetoldme,‘becauseIheardthatifyougottoKohSoptherewasno

wayback.’

50ManyofthepeopleIspoketointhesevillageshadarelativelybearableexperienceduringDemocraticKampuchea:thecommandersinthisareaallowedmostfamiliestostaytogether,andalthoughtheyweresubjecttothesameregulationsenforcedacrossthecountry(suchascommunaleating,noownershipofindividualproperty,andreducedrations)thepeopleherehadalwaysbeenfarmersandwereusedtohardworkandlonghours.Unlikethoseevacuatedfromthecities,therefore,theywerebetterabletocopewiththedemandsoftheregime,andfaredrelativelybetterinhealthandlossesthanelsewhere.


OnarrivalatKohSop,prisonersweresubjecttointerrogation,andmanywere

torturedtodrawuppersonalbiographiesthatcouldbeusedtojustifytheir

execution(forbeingtraitorsorenemiesoftheregime).Sokhadagood

education,asdidhisparents,butheliedtoprotecthimself:

Theyaskedournames,whereweusedtostudy,whatgrade[weachieved],our

parents’names…likethat.Andtheyaskedourparents’profession….IliedbutI

liedverywellandIsaidIwasatgradethree,gradethreenationalmodern51.And

theyaskedwhatIdid;IsaidIhelpedmyparentsfarmingandtheybelievedme.

Duringthedaytheprisoners,mostlyyoungmen,workedontheisland,diggingup

treerootstoclearlandforfarming.Followingtheirdailylabourtheyweretaken

towashinasmallinlandlake.Atnighttheywereshackledtogetherinalarge

woodenhall.AtSok’sheadwasawoodenbucketusedasaurinal;whenusedthe

urinesplashedhisface.Iftheydidanythingtodispleasetheguards(notcoming

quicklyenoughfrombathing,ornotworkinghardenoughduringthedayfor

example)theywereshotorbeatentodeath.Someweretakentothebamboo

grovesattheendoftheislandtobeexecuted,otherskilledwheretheywere.The

bodieswereleftscatteredacrosstheland:

[thebodieswereleft]likerubbish,wheretheydied;theywereleftwherethey

wereput.Sometimestheydugsomedirttocoverthem.Manyofthemwere

killedandtheyleftthebodieshereandthere.Theclothes,theblood,thehair

werestillfresh.Theykilledpeopleallovertheland.

Besidestheprisoners,theonlypeoplelivingonthesiteweretheKhmerRouge

soldiersrunningthesite:allyoungcadreoflateteensorearlytwenties.Its

51EquivalenttoUKyearthree;ageeightornineyearsold.


functionwaswellknown;peopleacrosstheriversometimessawtheprisoners

working(‘theyusedpeopleinsteadofcowstodotheploughing’anelderly

womanfromavillageacrosstherivertoldme),anditbecamewellknownthatif

youwenttoKohSopyoudidnotreturn.Thoseworkingdownriverreported

seeingbodiesfloatinginthewater:thoughtheywantedtoretrievethem,they

couldnotleavetheirworkstations,andthebodiesweresoonwashedalong.

After1979

NooneremembersexactlywhentheKhmerRougelefttheislandandtheareas

aroundit,butinallprobabilityitwasshortlybeforethefallofDemocratic

Kampucheaon7thJanuary1979;thesiteisenroutetoPhnomPenhfrom

Vietnam.Bong’sfatherwasthefirsttoreturntotheisland;whenhedidhemeta

terriblesight.Thelandwascoveredwithrottingcadaversandthetimewithout

farminghadletthewildnessencroachontheland.‘Itwasalljungle’hetoldme.

Thelandwascoveredinfreshlyduggravesandpilesofdead;corpseslitteredthe

shallowstreamsrunningthelengthoftheisland.Thehousesthathadstood

beforehadbeendismantled-likeChoeungEkthematerialswereusedto

constructKhmerRougebuildings:prisonhallsanddwellingsforthecadre.

Bongandhisfamilylivedacrosstheriverduringtheregimeandwereeagerto

comehome.Otherswereafraidtoreturn-KhmerandVietnamesemilitary

stationedthemselvesontheisland,andmanyfromtheEasternsidereported

seeinglightsflyingaroundatnight,asuresignofhauntingghosts.Asthemonths

passedafewfamiliesbegantoclearthelandandre-establishtheirfarming,but

manydidnotreturntoliveforquitesometime.Evenwhenpeoplereturnedto

theirhomes,somecouldnotreclaimtheiroldland;inthePRK,asystemofland


distributionwasinitiatedthatapportionedlandaccordingtothenumberof

peopleinyourfamily:‘ifyouhadfourpeople,yougotfourhectares;ifyouwere

twopeople,yougottwohectares’Bongexplained.

AsatChoeungEk,thedeadatKohSopprovedusefulinthenewgovernment’s

politicallegitimation.Underthesamedirectivethatguidedcollectionselsewhere,

thebodiesthatlayonthesurfaceweregatheredandpiledhighunderaquinine

treeinthecentreoftheisland.Atfirstthepitswerenotdisturbed,butlooters

sooncametodig.Peopleinmanylocationstoldmethatgroupsofpeople

travelledfromsitetositesearchingforvaluablesamongstthedead;Bongandhis

wifeSreyexplainedthisiswhathappenedatKohSop.Agroupofmen,travelling

fromBattambang(aprovinceontheothersideofthecountry),arrivedsoonafter

liberationandstayedforseveralmonths,campingontheislandwhilsttheydug:

[Srey]: Theycametofindthebodiestofindgold.Forexample:gold

teethorothergoldthatwasonthebody.

[Bong]: Sometimesthebodieshadgoldteeth,goldnecklaces…

[Srey]: Sometimes[thosekilled]hadsewngoldintotheirclothes…

[Bong]: Sometimestheyjustputgoldintheirclothes.

[Caroline]: Whichclothes?

[Srey]: Theyputthegoldintheirbras.

[Bong]: Theysewedapocketandputtheirgoldthere.

[Srey]: Andwhenthesepeoplewerekilledtheyhitthemandthebody

felldown,but[theKhmerRouge]didnotlookforanything.

[Bong]: Aftertheyfinishedfindinggoldheretheytravelledtoanother

place.


Amongstthegroupwasagoldsmith;heaskedBongandotherstoworkforhim,

butBongrefused.‘Iwastoodisgusted’hesaid.Othersfromthevillagehad

joinedinandwhenpeoplefoundgoldthegoldsmithboughtitfromthem.

Astheydugtheypiledthebodiesonthesurfaceinonebigheap,arranging‘leg

accordingtolegandheadaccordingtohead.’Thep’teahkhmouchinwhichthe

remainswerelaterhousedwasbuiltatalaterdate,andtheareawherethe

gravesweredugisnowcoveredinhouses.Notallthebodiesweredug.Some

remained,andwhenothersmovedtotheareatheycoveredthemwithsoiland

builtontop.Intheearlyyearsthegroundmovedwiththedead:risingand

crackingasthebodiesbloatedwithdecomposition;sinkingwhentherainscame

andcompressedtheland.Thegroundhasmostlysettlednow,butsometimes

afterheavyraindepressionsstillappear;thelandunderOmYay’shousestill

movesandherdogoccasionallytriestodigupthegraves.Intheearlyyearsafter

liberationbodieswouldoftensurfaceintheriversorponds,orinthegroundas

peopleploughedforfarming.Nowadaysitisrare,butstilloccasionallyhappens.

AfewmonthsbeforeIarrivedsomebonesweredugupinthefieldofTaChas,an

elderlymanwholivesintheancestralvillageoftheisland:heputtheminaplastic

bagandthrewthemintothep’teahkhmouch(figurefour),nowemptyexceptfor

afewbonesleftbehindfromwhentheremainsweremovedinthe1990s.


Figurefour:KohSopp’teahkhmouch(source:theauthor)

Sometimeinthelate1990s,ortheearly2000s,theremainswithinKohSop’s

p’teahkhmouchweremovedfromtheislandtocheddei(stupa)atlocalpagodas.

Thoughthreepagodastookremainsthemajoritywenttothewat(pagoda)

closesttothedistrictoffice.Theyremaintheretoday,lockedinasmall,

unassumingcheddei,onlyopenedatritualoccasionsandontherequestof

visitors.

KohSoptoday

Nowadaystheislandissplit,bothgeographicallyandsociallyintotwohalves:the

endoftheisland-hometofamilieswholivedonthesitebeforeDemocratic

Kampucheaorwhocomefromacrosstheriverandhavefarmedlandtherefor

morethanonegeneration,andtheheadoftheisland–threevillagesthatbegan

withNGOrehousingprojectsofthe1990s.


Theislandishometo93housesandafluctuatingnumberofinhabitants

(averagingaround300people).Theendoftheislandischaracterisedby

traditionalwoodenhouses,andafewconcreteones,spacedapartfromeach

otherwithfarmlandin-between.Theotherhalf,wheremostofthegraveslay,is

splitintothreevillages,eachmadeupofarowofhousescrammedtogether.The

housesaremostlyoneroomwoodenorpalm-leafstiltedhouses,withoneortwo

brickhousesforthosefamilieswhosechildrenworkinthecitiesandsendmoney

home.Severalsmallstreamsandvariouspondscoverthelandandintherainy

seasonofferwelcomefishingopportunitiesformanyinhabitants.

TherearenoroadsonKohSop,onlydirtpaths.Mostpeoplewalkwhereverthey

aregoing,althoughsomepeoplehavebicyclesandoneortwoofthewealthier

families,motorbikes.Asmallferryconnectstheislandtothemainlandonthe

Westernside;ontheEasternsidealandbridgeconnectstheislandinthedry

seasonandinthewetseasonpeopletravelbyboat.WhenIwastheremains

electricityhadnotarrivedontheisland;thosewithelectricitypoweredfrom

batterieschargednightlyattheNGO-runschoolfromthesolarpanelsonitsroof.

Wateralsorunsonlyattheschool:thoughmosthouseshavewellsduginthe

1980s,thewatercomingfromthemhashighlevelsofarsenic,somostpeopleuse

rainwatercollectedinlargeurnsbesidestheirhouses,orfilterriverwater.Toilets

arescare:adultsusethefieldsandtheriver;childrenseemtogowherever.

Thoselivingontheendoftheislandmostlyrunfarms,growingsa’om,mangoes,

guavaandcorn.Mostfamilieshavecows,usedforfarmingandbreeding;afew

havechickensandonehassheep.Attheheadoftheislandmanypeopledonot

work.AfewfamilieshaveplotsinanNGO-ledagriculturalproject,whichrunsin


thegroundsoftheformerprison.Oneortwotendcowsforpeopleacrossthe

river:thegrassisgoodontheislandandidealforraisingcalves.52Afewmen

workconstruction,travellingtothenearbytownsandcities,andsomeofthe

daughtersworkinthegarmentfactories,cominghomeattheweekends.Manyof

thefamiliesrelyonaid,withoutwhichtheycouldnotsurvive.Landinsecurityis

highatthisendoftheisland:thelocalNeakThom[importantperson-literally

translatingatbigperson]isslowlytakingthelandontheisland,metrebymetre,

throughappropriationanddebt-collectionhousingswaps.

Figurefive:farmatKohSop.Aftertheregimebodiescoveredtheland(source:theauthor)

52

CowsarehugelyvaluableinCambodiaandareusedprimarilyforworkandbreeding.Becauseoftheircost(whenIwasthereawell-bredcalfwouldsellforbetween$500and$1,000)manypeoplecannotaffordtobuytheirown.SeveralpeopleIknewthereforeengagedinasystemofcow-sharing;thepoorerpersontendsacowownedbysomeoneelse,andeachyearthecowgivesbirththecalfisgivenalternatelytotheownerandthepersontendingthecow.Inthiswaypoorerpeoplecanreceivetheirowncow,andthepeopleowningthecowshavesomeonetolookafterandraisethem,andalsoreceivemeritforhelpingothers.


ThereisaKhmerrunchurch,asmallprimaryschool,andacoupleofsmallshops

forbuyingtheessentials.Foreverythingelsepeopletravelacrosstheriver,where

asmall,bustlingmarketrunsdailyoutsidethelocalpagoda.Mostpeopleatthe

endoftheislandpracticeBuddhism;attheheadChristianity,thoughmanystill

attendpagoda,andgiveofferingstoNeakTa(localguardianspirits),ofwhich

thereareseveralontheislandandintheriveraroundit.

ResearchingatKohSop

IchoseKohSopforanumberofreasons.InmyfirstfewmonthsinCambodiaI

visitedseveralofislandslistedasmassgravesbyDC-Cam,butwhenIasked

peopleintheareaformoreinformationtheywoulddirectmetoKohSop,telling

meitwasthelargestandmostbrutalprisoninthearea.This,itsreturnto

everydaylandusedforhousingandfarming,anditssmallsizeandlowpopulation

madeitanidealplaceforresearch:withonly93housesIcouldeasilytalktomost

families,though,ofcourse,Ispentmostofmytimewithonlyafew.

AsmallNGOrunstheisland’sschool,andaftercontactingthem,theyoffered

supportandaroomattheschool,whichmyresearchassistantandIshared

throughoutourtimethere.Theschoolanditspatronsareviewedveryfavourably

ontheisland,andbeingassociatedwiththemgavemeaccessquicklytothe

villagesandtheirinhabitants.ItaughtEnglishthreemorningsaweekfrom07:00

to10:30,andduringtheschoolsummerbreakranartsessionsforthechildren.

Duetoperceivedsecurityissuesinthevillage,wewereundercurfewandhadto

returntotheschoolbydarkness,wherewewerelockedinwiththeschool

caretakerandthetwoschooldogs,however,duringthedayIspentmostofmy

timeinthevillage.Weateourdinnereverydayatthehouseofonefamily,which


offeredawonderfulopportunityforobservingthevillage,particularlyintheinitial

stages.Italsoprovidedmyfirstkeyinformantontheisland,asOmSrey,whose

houseitwas,wouldsitandchatwithus,fillingusinonallthegossip.The

repeatedwalktoandfromOmSrey’shousealsoprovidedanidealopportunityfor

gettingtoknowpeopleandwatchingthedynamicsoftheisland.AlthoughI

remainedalmostentirelyontheisland,Ioccasionallytravelledacrosstheriverto

interviewpeopleinthevillagessurroundingit.

OtherthanOmSrey,Ispentthemajorityofmytimewiththewomenandchildren

ontheisland,notnecessarilyoutofgenderbias,butbecausetheyweretheones

whowerehomeduringtheday.OmYay,MingYay,SreySabbay,andherhusband

Bu,befriendedmeassoonasImovedtoKohSop.SreySabbayinparticular

wouldspendtimewithmeandmyresearchassistant,Phasy,andwouldgiveus

eelsshehadcaughtorfruitfromhergarden.WhenIwantedtolearnhowtofish,

itwasshewhotookthetimetoteachthisbumblingforeignertowadethelakes

totraptheeelsandcrabsthathidamongsttherootsofthefloatingplants.When

myresearchassistantandIwerelatereturningtoourroom,sheandherhusband

walkedushometomakesurewearrivedsafely.Thesewomenwouldshoutand

invitemeinasIwalkedpasttheirhouses,andifIwassittingchattinginone

person’shouse,otherswouldoftenjoinus.Mosthadlivedontheislandfor

years.SreySabbayandherhusbandBuweresomeofthefirsttoarrive,moving

therein1981whenBugotajobguardinggovernmentlandontheisland.OmYay

andOmSreyarrivedshortlyafterwards,andMingYayarrivedlastofthegroup,

cominginthelate80s.


Aswellasthesewomen,childrenwereoftenmyresearchallies.Somemight

considerthatonissuessuchasthesechildrenshouldnotbeinvolved,butthe

childrenatmyresearchsiteswerelivingtheirownversionsofthishistory,andI

foundtheirinputsometimesinteresting,oftenuseful.Theyoftentookpartinthe

interviews,encouragingtheadultstotalkopenlyaboutvariousissues.Onseveral

occasionswhenanadultwasholdingback,achildwouldpitchin:‘youshouldtell

hereverything,’or‘tellheraboutsuchandsuch.’Theadultsinvariablydid.The

fewmenIworkedwithoccurredprimarilyattheweekends.Theheadmasterof

thelocalschoolwasanimportantinformant,andIspenttimewithhimbothat

schoolandathishome.WithboththeheadmasterandthewomenIworkedwith

Icouldjoinintheebbandflowofeverydaylifeandparticipatingineveryday

activitiessuchasteaching,fishing,harvesting,preparingfoodforsaleatmarketor

ceremonies,andothercommunalactivities,encouragedtrustandenabledmeto

buildrelationshipswithkeyinformants.

Theyalsoofferedrichopportunitiesfordatacollectionasitwasduringthese

activitiesthatpeoplegossiped;Ireceivedmuchinformationonrelationshipsand

theworkingsofthevillageduringsuchencounters(asexplainedbyGluckman

(1963:308),gossipis‘theverybloodtissueof[community]life’).IfeltIhad

achievedalevelofacceptancewhenIwasacceptedinthesecircles,andafter

sometimeInoticedmypresencebeingtakenforgranted53wheninformants

stoppedalteringtheirinteractionsinmypresence;Iwasinordinatelypleased,for

example,whenoneofmyinformantsfeltcomfortableenoughinmypresenceto

53LikeOakley(2012:81),Iconsideritafallacythatanthropologistscanbecomeinvisible,althoughaftertimeandeffortourpresenceandparticipationcanbeacceptedandthentakenforgranted,offeringacertainamountofinconspicuousness.


shoutinsultsatanotherwalkingby.Throughlivingandworkingwithmy

informantsonadailybasis,participatingintheirdailyactivitiesIhadaccesstoan

‘intimacyofdetail’(LindisfarneinOkley2012:87)andthisenabledmetoexplore

howthegravesareconstituted‘intheongoingindeterminacyandfluxof…life’

(Csordas1990:40).

Thoughthesedailyencountersenabledmetomodifymypositionasacomplete

outsider,therelationshipsIdevelopedinKohSopweresometimesfractious.The

foreignerswhohadvisitedtheislandbeforemewereinvolvedwithcharitable

projects,andthisassociationremainedinthemindsofmanyofthevillagers,

particularlythoseattheheadoftheislandwhoregularlyreceivedsuchaid.Itwas

almostimpossibleformetogooutwithoutsomeoneaskingformoney,ortopay

forthings,rangingfromthemodestpurchasingofmedicine,totheextravagant

fundingofagranddaughter’suniversityeducation.Iagreedtosomeofthese

requests,suchasbuyingmedicineforfamiliesIknowareverypoor,butmostI

refused.Thisaffectedsomerelationships:althoughsomepeoplejustshrugged

offmyrefusal,othersrefusedtotalktome,someforafewdays,acoupleformy

entirefieldwork.Theseconstantapplicationsmademefeeluncomfortableand

resentful:Ifeltexploitedbythosewhoaskedforthingsrepeatedly.I

misinterpretedsomerelationships,consideringfriendshipsbeingbuilt,whilst

somepeopleviewedmeinamuchmorepracticalway.Myfeelingswerearesult

ofignorance;areflectionofmyownconstructionsof,andaspirationsfor,

relationshipsinthefield,buttheyalsoreflectedthedifferentsocio-economic

statusofKohSopcomparedtomostofmyotherfieldsites–thecommunitythere

werethepoorestIworkedamongst,manylivingonlessthan$1perday.OnceI


acceptedtheserequestsaspartandparceloflifeontheisland,relationships,

becamemucheasier.

Othersitesandparticularmethods

Thoughthosesitesweremyprimaryfield-sites,Ivisitedsixteenothermass

gravesitesacrossseveraldifferentprovinces54.Ichosemulti-sitedresearchfor

tworeasons:firstlyitprovidedameanstoexplorelinks,commonalitiesand

disjuncturesbetweendifferentsites,enablinga‘cross-fertilisationofsites’which

providedinspirationtomyethnographicperspective(Gallo2009:90;Cook,

LaidlawandMair2009:58).SecondlyIaimedtoprovideacounterbalancetothe

publicpresentationofmassgravesinCambodia,whichalmostexclusivelyfocus

ononesite:ChoeungEk,encouragingatunnelledvisionofthegravesthatthis

studyhopestohelpcounteract.AsCook,LaidlawandMair(2012:68)state‘a

validethnographicfieldneednotcorrespondtoaspatialentityofanykind,and

neednotbeaholisticentity“outthere”tobediscovered’;thefieldofthisstudy

wasconstructedthroughoutthefieldwork,dataanalysisandwriting,demarcated

bymyattemptstoexplorerelationshipsandusesofmassgravesinCambodia,

ratherthanatonespecificsite.55

54Thesesitesare:Banan,WatSamrong,WatSampeauandWatEkPhnominBattambangprovince;ChongPrasat,KhsachSa,ORusseiandKampongChhnangAirportinKampongChhnangprovince;WatKampongTralach,PhnomKampongTrachandasiteIcallPhnomGrahominKampotprovince;KohTmeiandPoTonleinKandalprovince;TuolSlenginPhnomPenh,andTonleBatiandKraingTaChaninTakeoprovince.

55Howeverthisresearchprojectisnotperipatetic.Thatisnottosaythateachsitesisexaminedasifadiscrete,boundedentity(althoughIrecogniseCandea’s(2007)argumentthatallanthropologicalresearchrequiressomeelementofbounding,butthattheseboundsarearbitraryandselectedbytheresearcher,andapplyequallytotheoreticalconsiderationsasmuchastogeographicalspaces),norisittosuggestthattheplacesandpeoplewithwhomthisresearchinteractsarecomplete,consistent,orthattheyrepresentanythingotherthanthemselvesandtheirownexperiencesandunderstandingsofmassgraves.Ratherthatwhilegatheringdatafromarangeoflocations,Isituatedmyselfinspecificlocales.WhilstChoeungEkwasselectedforits


ThesitesforthisstudywereidentifiedfromDC-Cam’s56listofmassgravesites

(appendixone)andadvicefromlocalpeopleonaccessibility,bothphysicaland

otherwise.InKampot,forexample,IwasadvisednottoresearchinAngkorChey,

anareawithalargenumberofex-KhmerRougecadre,whommylocalassistant

consideredhostiletosuchresearch.ThoughIcouldhavefoundmodesofworking

there,Ifollowedtheadviceofmyassistant,andwasabletoidentifyanothersite,

thatIcallPhnomGrahom,whichwasanideallocationforworkingwithex-cadre.

Myvisitstothesesiteswerepartlytoassesspotentialfieldsites,however,I

conductedpreliminaryresearchatall:collectingstoriesofthegraves,their

construction,people’smemoriesoftheregime,andlocaltreatmentsofthegraves

intheyearssincetheendoftheregime.Ireturnedoverthecourseofmy

fieldworktosomesites,andIspentvaryingamountsoftimesateach,thelongest

beingthreeweeksatPhnomGrahominKampotprovince.AsaKhmerRouge

settlementitprovidedanideallocationforexploringtheviewsofex-Khmer

Rougeonthegravesandthedead.

Whileethnographicresearchtraditionallybringstomindlong-term

embeddednessinonelocation,thisprojectprovidesamulti-sitedethnographyin

bothliteralandconceptualterms.Aswellasthephysicallocalities,inexamining

therelationshipbetweeninternalandexternaldiscourses57onmassgraves,the

positionasanationalmemorial,thesecondandsubsidiarysitescouldhavebeensubstitutedwithmanyothersfromacrossCambodia.56

DC-Cam(DocumentationCenterofCambodia)isaresearchorganisationbasedinPhnomPenhthatcollectsandpublishesdataandresearchontheKhmerRougeregime.TheyweresetupasthefieldbranchofYaleUniversity’sCambodianGenocideProgramin1995,butbecameindependentin1997.

57IusediscourseintheFoucauldiansensetoreferto‘systemsofthoughtscomposedofideas,

attitudes,coursesofaction,beliefsandpracticesthatsystematicallyconstructthesubjectsandtheworldsofwhichtheyspeak,’(Lessa2006:3);thediscursiverulesinwhichknowledgeisproducedandreproduced(Hook2001:523).


discoursesthemselves,whichareboth‘ultimatelymobileandmultiplysituated’

(Marcus1995:102),becameanobjectofstudy.Discoursesonmassgravesare

inevitablyglobalinthattheirimaginedmeaningsexistthroughouttheworld,

particularlyinlightofseveralfactors:filmssuchasTheKillingFields(Joffe1984),

ChoeungEk’spresenceasamajortouristsite,andtheongoingUN-backedtrialsof

theKhmerRougeleaders–theExtraordinaryChambersintheCourtsofCambodia

(ECCC)–whichareinternationaltrialsofextremeimportanceincontemporary

internationalcriminaljusticesystems,beingthefirsthybridcourtsbroughtagainst

perpetratorsofcrimesagainsthumanity(Gray2014).58Thisthesistherefore

examinesthemulti-sitednessofbothmyresearchandthemeaningsattributedto

themasobjectsofstudy.

Myposition

AsaforeignfemaleIhadakindofliminalgenderthatenabledmetoaccessboth

menandwomen,andasaforeignerIenjoyedaleveloffreedomnotavailableto

mostKhmer.Inaddition,asanoutsidersomepeoplelikedtogossipwithme,and

fillmeinondetailsofsocialdynamics,orteachmeaboutKhmerhistoryand

culture,placingthemselvesinthepositionofculturalexperts.Thiswas

particularlyusefulformeintheinitialstages,allowingmetoseehowthese

informantswantedCambodiaandtheKhmerRougeperiodtobepresentedtoan

external,foreignaudience.Forsome,italsoofferedachancetohavetheirstory

heard;thiswasparticularlysalientinruralsites.

58Inaddition,mypresenceasanexternalresearcherinevitablytransformedthisresearchintoamulti-sitedproject,asIbecameaninterlocutorinthesociallyconstitutedlivedspaceofthemassgraves.


Themostdifficultaspectofthis,however,wastheknowledge,powerandaccess

toauthoritiesthatmanypeoplepresumedIhad.SometimesIcouldassistpeople;

helpingthemunderstandtheirprescriptionsandmedicationlabelsforexample,

orsignpostingthemtoauthoritiesandNGOswhomightbeabletohelpthem.

However,thereweremanysubjectsinwhichIwasimpotent,andwasleftfeeling

notonlyhelpless,butalsolikealetdowntothosewhohadaskedforhelp.One

youngman,forexample,askedmetopersuadethepolicetoopenan

investigationintothedeathofhisfatherwhohadbeenkilledinacarcrasha

coupleofyearsbeforeandthepolicehadrefusedtoinvestigate.Nomatterwhat

Itoldhim,hewasconvincedIcouldgetthecaseopenedandafairinvestigation

conducted.

Visualmethods

Inadditiontoparticipant-observation,attheoutsetofthisresearchIintendedto

usevisualmethodsasaprimarymodeofdatacollection,andinparticularhad

plannedtomakeacollaborativefilmbasedonparticipatorymethods.However,

onceinthefielditquicklybecameapparentthatmakingacollaborativeor

participatoryfilmwasnotappropriateineitherofmymainsites–atChoeungEk

peopleweretoobusywiththeirworkandhadlittlefreetimetobeinvolved(most

workedsixorsevendaysaweek),andatKohSop,thereexistedmanyrivalries

betweentheinhabitants.Toselectafewpeopletoworkwith(evenifthey

selectedthemselves)wouldhaveaffectedmyrelationshipswithotherpeople,a

riskIwasnotwillingtotake.

Visualmethodsdid,however,continuetofeatureinmyfieldwork.Iusedthemas

aresearchtool,astoolsofenquiry,andassocialenablersasgifts.IusedGPS


mappingtochartmyruralfieldsiteandwheregraveslieincomparisontopeople’s

houses,schoolsandplacesofworkasaninitialmeansofunderstandingthe

landscapeofthesites.Makingthismapprovedtobeagreatfacilitatorinthe

village–thoughafewpeoplewere,atfirstseemedsuspiciousofmymotivesfor

mapping,sometookituponthemselvestobemyguide,offeringadviceand

directions:thisofferedaninterestinginsightintothesightsthepeopleonthe

islanddeemednecessarytorecord,andthosetheyomitted.Ialsomapped

ChoeungEk.Themappingherehadthreefunctions:toseehowthetourist

interestsfittedaroundthegraves,toseehowthealreadyexcavatedgraveslayin

relationtotheunexcavatedones,andtoassesswhereallthemassgraveswere

situatedinrelationtotheChinesegraveswhichhadbeeninthecemeterybefore

itbecameakillingandburialsitefortheKhmerRouge.

Ifilmedsomeofeverydaylifeinthevillageatmyruralsiteasanaidememoir,59

butphotographywasmymostimportantvisualtool.Icarriedsometypeof

cameraeverywhere,andphotographybecamean‘ethnographicpassport’

(Marion2010),bothinthefieldandbeyondit,providingameansofentranceto

someinformants,facilitatingsocialrapportinthefield,andextendingbeyondthe

fieldworkintomyanalysisandresearchpresentation.Itwasparticularlyusefulas

asocialenablerinKohSop.ManyCambodianshaveacollectionofofficial

portraitsofthemselvesandtheirfamily,whichareeitherdisplayedaroundthe

home,orkeptsafelystored.Ideally,thesephotographsarestudioportraitstaken

byaprofessionalphotographer,however,thisisexpensive,andmanyofthe

59Ialsoattemptedtoorganisesomeparticipatoryvideoworkshops,however,despiteseveralefforts,noadultswereinterestedinparticipatinginthese,althoughIspentafunandfascinatingdaywithagroupofsmallchildrenusingparticipatorymethodstomakeafilmcalled‘TherevengeofNdat’inwhichamurderedwomanrisesfromthedeadtotakerevengeonherkillersbyslaughteringthem.


peopleIworkedwithcouldnotaffordit.Ithereforeorganisedafternoonsoffree

portraitshootingattheschool.Ialsophotographedvoraciouslythroughoutmy

fieldwork,andwherepossibleprintedcopiestodistribute.Thisfacilitatedmy

fieldwork,easingmyinitialcontactandsocialrapportbycreatingsocialrelations

withmyinformants.Italsogavemearolewithinthevillagebeyondresearcher

andteacherofferinganotheravenueofentrancetothesite.

Photoelicitationwasausefulresearchmethodforparticulartopics,especiallythe

displayofhumanremainsacrossthecountry.Apowerfulresearchtool,photo

elicitationhasthepotentialtoprovokevisceral,involuntarymemoriesand

embodiedexperiences(Harper2002).Thisisusefulinthisproject,mirroring,asit

does,theBuddhistmethodofunderstanding-contemplationandmeditationby

closeandrepeatedobservation,withoutdirectinterference(notwithstandingthe

effectoftheresearcher)(Klima2008).Thepublicpresentationofthedeadfrom

theKhmerRougeisdesignedtobevisuallyperformative:theirremainsarepiled

invastnumbersatsitesusedduringpoliticalcampaigningandotherceremonial

occasions(seechaptersfivetoseven).Iphotographedmemorialstupasatthe

sitesIvisitedacrossCambodia,andincertaininterviewsusedthesedisplaysto

explorethisvisualnatureofthepresentationoftheKhmerRougedead.These

providedrichinsightintoperceptionsofthebody,thedead,andtheuseofthe

deadoftheKhmerRougeforpoliticalandpersonalends.

Iusephotographsthroughoutthistexttoprovidevisualrepresentationof

elementsdiscussedandtoillustrateaspectsthatmaybeunknowntothereader.


Interviews

InadditiontothesetechniquesIconductedopen-ended,interviewswith52

individualsthroughoutmyfieldwork.SomewerewithkeyinformantswhoI

interviewedtorecordpreciselyspecificrecollections;otherswereoneoff

interviewswithpeoplepreviouslyunknowntome.Exceptinafew,sensitive

cases,allformalinterviewswererecorded,andtheinterviewstranscribedand

translatedintoEnglishforlateranalysis.Wherepeoplewereuncomfortablewith

beingrecorded,extensivenoteswerewrittenduringtheinterview,whichwere

typedupimmediatelyafterwards.60Iinterviewedpeopleatleasttwicewhere

possible:lettingthemtaketheleadinthefirstinterviewandtellmethestorythey

wantedmetohear,thengoingbackwithfollowupquestionsandspecific

enquirieslater.Withsomeofficialsonlysinglemeetingswerepossible,andfor

theseIconductedmorestructuredinterviews,withsetthemes.Iwascarefulto

firstapproachvillagechiefsorotherofficialsforpermissiontoresearchbefore

proceedingtoworkwithotherpeople.InidentifyingintervieweesIprimarilyused

thesnowballmethod,usingthesocialnetworksofinformantsalreadycontacted

toaccessotherswhocouldpotentiallycontributetothisresearch(Macketal.

2005:5).Inmanyinstancesitwastheinformantsthemselveswhoidentified

others.Sometimestheywouldcallthepersondirectorgoandcollectthemand

bringthemtometointerview.OccasionallyIknewthiswashappening;on

occasionanewpersonwouldsimplyarriveandbepresentedtometointerview.

60Mostpeoplewerehappytoberecorded;however,someex-KhmerRougewerealittlenervous.Giventhis,adecisionwasmadebeforeresearchinginPhnomGrahomnottorecordinterviewsthere,buttotranscribeinstead.


Interviewswerealmostneverone-to-oneorinprivatespaces.Usuallyconducted

outside,intheshadyareasunderpeople’shouses,orinsomecommunalspace

wherewecouldsitandescapethesun,IspentmytimeinCambodiasurrounded

bypeopleandcoveredinchildren,dogs,catsandmosquitoes.Aswetalked,

otherpeoplewouldjoinus,sometimesjustwatching,butmoreoftenthannot

interjectingandparticipatingintheinterview.Sometimesthiswashelpful:people

wereabletosupporteachother,ordebateparticularquestionsamongst

themselves,providingthought-provokinginsights.However,itoftenaddeda

performativeelementtothesituation.

AsIexperiencedincreasingencounterswithBuddhismandanimism,Isoughtout

peopletoexplaintheirunderstandingoftheconceptstomealongwithother

preceptsandpracticesthatareinfluentialinthelivesofthepeopleIlivedand

workedamongst,attemptingtoobtainthemeaningsofthesecontainedwithin

theDhamma-theuniversalteachingsofBuddha61,andthedifferencebetween

thisofficialdoctrineandthatbeingnarratedtomebylayinformants.Isoughtout

andinterviewedmonksofvaryinglevels:novicesandordainedmonksinboth

ruralandurbanpagodasandformermonkswhohadlefttheSangha(the

Buddhistmonasticcommunityofmonksandnuns).Ispentawonderfully

informativeafternoonwithaVenerableProfessoratthePreahSihanoukRaja

BuddhistUniversity,andalthoughTepVong62,thePatriarchofCambodian

61

LaiddownforTheravadaBuddhismintheTipitaka–thePaliCanon.

62TepVong,officiallytitledSamdechPreahAggaMahāSangharājādhipatiTepVong-ForemostGreatSupremePatriarchLeaderTepVong,isonetheJanuary7thmonks–thesevenmonksreinstatedundertheVietnameserulein1980asleadersofthere-established(althoughstilltightlycontrolled)BuddhistSanghafollowingitsdestructionundertheKhmerRouge.TepVongisasomewhatcontroversialfigure.HeremainstightlyentwinedwiththepoliticsofCambodia’srulingparty,andhas,inthepast,condonedtheuseofviolencebytheCambodiangovernment,arguingthatitisallowedunderBuddhism(Harris2001).


Buddhismwasalwaystoobusytomeetwithme,hissecretary,amonkofmany

yearsexperience,gavemetwointerviews.

InadditiontothemembersoftheSangha,Ispentmuchtimewithlay-experts:I

interviewedapoetandadvisorwithintheMinistryofCultandReligion,several

âchar(layBuddhistpriests)andacoupleoflecturersfromtheBuddhistuniversity.

IalsointerviewedseveralMuslimKhmerattheTuoltompongMosque;I

attemptedtointerviewImamsinPhnomPenh,butallappointmentswere

cancelledatthelastminutesoadūcha(teacherofIslam)spokewithmeinstead.

ToaccessotherreligionsIwasluckyinmyresearchassistants:mythreeprimary

assistants(whoeachworkedwithmeforseveralmonths)wereChristian,Muslim

andBuddhist.ThereisnotoneleaderfortheChristianfollowersinCambodia,but

IinterviewedaKhmerpriestfrommyruralsiteandSompoah,myfirstresearch

assistantwasChristian,soIalsoaccessedherknowledge.

Afterconflictmuchismadeofthe‘victims’63,andanoftensimplistic

dichotomizationofsufferingpresentedofinnocentvictimsandevilperpetrators.

Totryandavoidthis,aswellasresearchingwithpeoplewhoclassifythemselves

as‘victims’Iwasconscioustoworkwithformercadre.Thisprovedtobeeasier

thanIexpected:alevelofimpunityexistswithinCambodiathatnotonlyenables

ex-KhmerRougecadretolivefreelyinthecommunity,butalsomeansthat

severalofficialsinthecountryareex-KhmerRouge,andthatpeoplecanspeak,

63Ifindtheterm‘victim’highlyproblematic,beingsovalueloadedandinfluentialinpeople’sreactions.Themoraldichotomyimpliedbythetermsperpetratorsandvictimssuggestsadistinctionnotonlybetweenpeople,butbetweenbadandgood;guiltandinnocence;deciteandhonesty;distrustandreliability.Havingworkedinmassgraveinvestigations,IamhighlyconsciousofthefactthataftersucharegimeastheKhmerRouge,peoplequicklyre-labelthemselves,andeveryonebecomesavictimandadoptstherhetoricofsufferingthataccompaniesit.WhilstalevelofimpunityexistsinCambodiathatallowspeopletoacknowledgetheirmembershipintheregimewithlittleconsequence,mostofthepeopleIencounteredwerehighlyawareofthepoliticalnatureofpresentations.


thoughusuallyinguardedterms,abouttheirtimeasacadre(seechapterfive).I

knewbeforehandthatsomeofthepeopleIinteractedwithwereex-Khmer

Rouge;othersIfoundoutaboutlater.Somewouldtellmeimmediately,using

euphemismstodescribetheiraffiliation,rangingfromtheopaque‘Ifoughtinthe

forest,’tothetransparent‘IwasasoldierofKhieuSamphan’(Presidentduring

DemocraticKampuchea,andoneofthethreeKhmerRougeleaderstriedatthe

ExtraordinaryChambersintheCourtsofCambodia–theECCC).Withothersit

becameclearasinterviewsorinteractionswenton:somementionofaslogan

theywouldsing,oradiscussionoftheirworkduringtheregimewouldmakeit

cleartheyhadbeencadre.Althoughusuallyuncalculated,Ihadthedistinct

impressionthatsometimesthisuseofeuphemismsordisclosuresduring

conversationwasdonetotestme:bothmyknowledge(didIknowwhatthe

euphemismmeant?)andmyreaction(wouldIjudgetheinterviewee?).Itriednot

tojudge;thedistanceintimesincetheseeventsmadethatsomewhateasier.64

Thoughheappearsinfrequentlyinthisthesis,Iwasgrantedaccesstoconductan

interviewwithComradeDuch(KaingGuekEav):formercommandantofTuol

Slengprison,atKandalprovincialprison,whereheisservingalifesentencefor

crimesagainsthumanity,torture,andmassmurder.

Languageandtheuseofresearchassistants

Theroleofresearchassistantsisoftenobscuredinanthropologicaltexts,

obfuscatedundertermssuchasculturalmediator,keyinformant,orenablers

(MiddletonandCons2014).Borchgrevink(2004)arguesthatamythexistswithin

anthropologythat‘true’anthropologicalresearchcanonlybeobtainedbythose

64Inaddition,manyoftheex-cadreIcametoknowwereverykindandopentome:thevillageIwasmadethemostwelcomeinandatwhichIfeltthemostsecureandtheleastexploitedwasaKhmerRougere-settlementvillage.


withfluency,andwhilstmanyanthropologistsuseresearchassistants,their

obscuringistheresultofafearofcriticism.Gupta(2014:394)statesthat:

‘successfulethnographicworkdependsuponawiderangeofcollaborations,’a

centraloneofwhichisoftentheresearchassistant.Consideredcollaborations

withmyresearchassistantsenabledtheresearchIconducted.

ThelanguageofCambodiaisKhmer,alanguagederivedfromamixtureof

SanskritandPali.PriortoleavingforthefieldItookKhmerlessonsatSOAS,and

onarrivalIenrolledinanintensivecourseattheRoyalUniversityofPhnomPenh.

ForthreemonthsIwenteverymorningtotheUniversity.IalsotookKhmer

conversationallessonsonceaweekwithagroupofothernewex-pats.We

learnedthebasics,andIwouldpracticeinmydailylife.Makingadealwitha

motodrivertotakemedailytotheuniversityprovidedagreatopportunity:Bu

Motowaspatientandallowedmetopracticeonourdailycommute.Afterthis

initialphase,IcontinuedwithlessonsthroughoutmytimeinCambodia.OnceI

movedtothefieldmyresearchassistantstaughtmeaspectsofthelanguage,and

IwouldhaveformallessonswheneverIwasbackinthecapital.Manyinterviews

weretranscribedtogether,andIlearnedalotthroughthis,andofcourse,through

thedailyresearch.

ThroughoutmytimeinCambodiaIhadtwoprimaryresearchassistants,

Sompoah,agraduateofUniversityinThailand,whoIworkedwithfromJanuary–

June2013,andPhasy,agraduateoftheAsianWomen’sUniversityinBangladesh,

whoIworkedwithfromJuly–December2013.Ialsoworkedfrequentlywith

Bunnwath,whowasworkingonanundergraduatedegreeinsocialsciencesandis

himselfsomewhatofanexpertinspiritsandthedeadhavingpreviouslyworked


alongsidemycolleaguePaulChristensenresearchingspiritmediumsacrossthe

country.Inaddition,whenworkingatdifferentlocations,Iendeavouredtowork

withsomeonelocalorwithpriorconnectionstothesite,becausetheir

establishedlinksandnetworksoftrustweregreatfacilitatorsingainingaccessto

informantsandprovidinglocallyparticularknowledge.Thiswasespeciallytrue

whenworkinginPhnomGrahom,atwhichattemptingresearchwithoutalocal

gate-keeperwouldhavebeenimpossible,duetothenatureofthevillage-a

KhmerRougere-settlementvillage-andthetimingoftheresearch-justbefore

thegeneralelections,whenthehorrorsoftheKhmerRougeperiodwerehighly

visibleduetoelectioncampaigning(seechapterseven)andthreatswerebeing

madetoprosecuteallformerKhmerRougeofficers.

Iworkedcloselywithmyresearchassistants,whoweretrainedbyme,andwith

whomIhadagoodleveloftrust65.Encounterswereusuallythree-way,between

myinformants,myresearchassistant,andme.AsMiddletonandCons(2014)

note,researchassistantsaremorethan‘mereciphers’ofknowledge;theyprovide

anextrasetofeyesandearsinthefield:mylocalassistantsprovidedlocal

knowledgeandinsight,andallwereagreatresourceformetocheck

assumptions,testdata,andtocorrectandteachmeonmodesofinteraction.66In

KohSop,havingaresearchassistantwithmeatalltimesalsoprovidedanelement

ofsecurityinalocationwhereviolenceagainstwomen,includingrape,was

65Madeexplicitinamyriadofways,butmosttellingly,when,onarrivalinKohSop,Phasy,whohadbeenchattingwiththeschool’sHeadmaster,toldmethathehadtoldhernottotellmeanythingnegativethatsheover-heard:Ishouldonlybetoldthepositivestories.Phasyneveradheredtothisrequest,andnor,afterawhile,didtheHeadmaster.

66Onapurelypersonalnote,Phasy,myassistantinKohSop,alsoprovidedcompanionshipandsecurityinthesomewhatunstablelocationwewerestayingin.Shewasalsoafirst-classcockroachhunter,whichhelpednoendwhenonemanagedtocrawlunderourmosquitonettonibbleonmytoesinthenight:asIpanickedandtriedtosqueezemyselfintoacornerPhasycalmlypickeduptheroachesandtookthemoutside,whereshesquashedthem.InreturnIprotectedherfromtheoverrambunctiouspuppiesanddogsinthevillageofwhichshewascautious.


consideredathreat.Thedatacollectedforthisthesis,therefore,andthe‘field’

withinwhichIworked,emergedthroughthethree-waydynamicofmyassistants,

myinformants,andmyownencountersateachsite.Myresearchassistantsare

‘partandparcelofthesocialontologyofthefield’(ibid:282),whichwas

‘constitutedbythenetworkofconnectionsandlinkagesforgedindoingfieldwork’

(Gupta2014:399).

Anoteonwriting

Mydataanalysiswasacontinual,ongoingprocessthroughoutandpostfieldwork

because‘fieldworkiscontinuouslyanalyticincharacter,asfieldnotesarealways

productsofpriorinterpretiveandconceptualdecisions,and,hence,areripewith

meaningsandanalyticimplications’(Emerson,FretzandShaw2011:198).While

transcribinginterviewsandgoingovernotesinthefieldInoticedemerging

themes,whichhelpeddirectsubsequentresearch.Onreturningfromthefield,

andpriortowriting,Iundertookfurtheranalysisofmydata.Ire-assessedall

recordedmaterial,and,organiseditintoprimarythemes.Sometopicswere

madeapparentbykeyevents,someappearedintheminutiaeofeveryday

encounterswithinmyfieldnotes,andotherscamefromanalysisofmytranscribed

interviews.IusedNvivo67toorganisethetranscribedmaterialanddosomebasic

coding,whichwasausefulinitialorganiser,however,itcannotexplore

connectionsanddisjuncturesbetweendata,andtendstogeneraliseindividuals

andspecificencounterswhichmaybeethnographicallyvital(Emerson,Fretzand

Shaw2011:216);Iuseditprimarilytorevisitandreacquaintmyselfwiththedata,

someofwhichhadbeencollectedmorethaneighteenmonthspreviously.

67Qualitativedataanalysissoftware.


Thisdissertationisanethnographicthesis,andassuchitisacraftedstory

developedtomyownends,whereeventsaremademeaningfulthroughmy

interpretation(Geertz1973a;Emerson,FretzandShaw2011:199).Itdeveloped

outoffieldwork,whichwasasmuchembodiedasitwasinformedbynarrative,

however,beingtextual,thethesisultimatelyreliesonnarrativestructuresto

communicateitsfindings.Thispresentsatensioninthattheexperiential

elementsofstudycanlittlebepresentedthroughtherhetoricaldevicesavailable

inwriting(Atkinson1992)andmustbewrestledintosomeintelligiblestory

communicablethroughtext.Thewritingofthisthesis,therefore,isasmuchofa

methodasthefieldworkwas.

What’sinaname?

Recentworkinthesocialscienceshasquestionedthepracticeofmaking

informantsanonymous,arguingittobeaformofneo-colonialistpractice,ade-

humanisingconventionthatreducespeopletodata(AbsolonandWillett2005;

TuhiwaiSmith2012).PartoftheviolenceoftheKhmerRougeregimewasto

renderallpeopleanonymous,classifyingthemintoclasseswithnoindividual

recognition(Gray2014:66).However,Cambodiaisacountrystillrifewith

violence,notleastpoliticalviolenceagainstdissentersandmanyofmyinformants

wereafraidtotalkaboutissuestheydeemedpolitical.Therefore,whilstI

recognisetheabovearguments,Iconsidertheneedforprotectiontobe

imperativeandhavethereforefollowedtheanthropologicalconventionofonly

namingthoserequestingtobenamed.Allothershavebeenrenamedwitheither

genericnamesinplaceoftheirown(suchasLōkOm-atermofrespectusedto

addressoldermen,orBongSreymeaningoldersisterforexample),orcommon


Khmernames(suchasSoth,Samnang,orChanforexample).Othershavebeen

namedbytheirrole(Monk,Âcharandsoon).Asafurtherattempttodisguise

identities,somepeoplehavebeenmergedtocreatecompositecharacters,whilst

othershavebeensplittoproducemultiplepersons.IhavenotrenamedChoeung

Ek,however,theothersitesvisitedhavebeenretitled,andtheirlocations

obscuredasfaraspossiblewithoutcompletelyremovingintegralfeatures.

95

SectionTwo:DigginguptheDead

Chaptertwo:Spiritualremains-caringforthedead

IfIthinkaboutthosewhodiedintheforest,theyareintheheat,scratchingabout

everywhere.IwalkedtomanyprovinceswhereIwasevictedtofromJanuaryfirsttill

Junefirst.Isawthedeadeverywhere.Thesedeadwecollected;itisluckyforthem.

-TaTa,onthehousingofremainsinstatesponsoredstupa

********

Thedeadarevitalbeingsthatinteractwiththelivingandhelpregulatesociety

andmaintainmoralorderinpost-conflictCambodia.Hundredsofthousandsof

deadlieinthemassgravescausedbytheKhmerRouge;aswesawinprevious

chapters,themajorityoftheseremainwheretheywereburied,andthespacesof

theirdeathhavebeenre-appropriatedintoeverydaylife.Livingwiththedeadis

acceptedaspartofeverydaylifeacrossmuchofCambodia;overtimetheyhave

changedinstatusfrombeingdangerousentitiesoffeartoharmlessbeings.

Thenextthreechaptersconcernthesedead,examiningtheirtreatmentandhow

relationshipswiththemhavechanged,andexploringhowthemassdeadkilled

duringtheregimehavebeenre-integratedintosocietythroughinformalusesof

thereligiousandritualsystemsofanimismandBuddhism.Bydescribingthe

everydayinteractionsbetweenthosekilledandtheliving,thesethreechapters

willshowhow,inoppositiontothegovernment’scommodificationofthedeadas


instrumentsinstatepoliticsandthebuildingofa‘new’Cambodia,localpeople

havereintegratedthedeadintothesocialsystem,andbydoingso,havefound

theirownwaysofrememberingandre-connectingwiththem,waysthatprovide

comfort,stabilityandsecurity,andwaysthatenablethemtoresistthestate

appropriationofthedeadasnamelessentities.

TheintertwinedsystemsofBuddhismandanimismareintegralinthisre-

integrationofthedead.Thischapterexaminesthese,discussingthefeatures

withineachthatenablepeopletousethemtodaytounderstand,narrate,and

dealwiththeKhmerRougeperiodanditsongoinglegacy.Itexplainsthewaysin

whichthosekilledundertheKhmerRougeregimeare(orwere)caredfor,

examiningtheirritualtreatment,anddescribinghowthishasnowbeen

integratedintotheKhmerannualcycle.Bydoingsoitlaysthegroundworkforthe

nexttwochapterswhichexaminespecificwaysinwhichthedeadandtheliving

relatedtoeachother,andhowtheyhavebeenreincorporatedintosociallife

today,firstbylookingatthechangingrelationshipsbetweenghosts(khmouch)of

thosekilledandtheliving(chapterthree),andthenexaminingthespecific

conceptsofreincarnationandkarma(chapterfour).

Inordertodothis,thischapterwillfirstprovideabriefoverviewoftheplaceof

BuddhismandanimisminCambodia,andhowthesewereaffected(ornot)by

DemocraticKampuchea.Itwillnextdescribefuneralritesandotherrituals

relatedtothedeadthatattendtothosekilledundertheregime,before

consideringthedifferencebetweenthosekilledundertheregime,andthose

killednow.Itwillshowhowtheresponsibilityofcaringforskeletalremainsofthe


dead(whichnolongerrepresenttheindividual)hasbeendelegatedtothestate,

whilstpeoplecarefortheirrelativesspirituallythroughtheannualcycleofrituals.

BuddhismandanimismincontemporaryCambodia

SincetheThirteenthCenturythestatereligionofCambodiahasbeenTheravada

Buddhism.WhilstIammindfuloftheseductiveappealofdepictionsofitasbeing

allencompassing(eitherbeforeorafterDemocraticKampuchea),Buddhismis

significanttomanyKhmerpeople’slives,aswellastocommunitylifeingeneral.

95%ofthepopulationself-identifyasBuddhist(NIS2012),andexceptinatiny

minorityoflocations,theBuddhistpagodaisacentralelementofmostvillages

andiswheremostcommunalandcommunityeventsoccur,suchasvoting,village

meetings,ritualandfamily-basedceremonies.TheKhmerannualcalendar

revolvesaroundtheBuddhistritualcycle,andmanyofthepracticesofBuddhism

infusetheeverydaylifeoftheKhmerpopulation,eventhosefollowingother

religions.Myresearchassistant,aChveaMuslim68,recountedvisitingthepagoda

everyyearasachildatNewYearandsometimesotherritualdays.Shetoldme

thatitiscommon(inhervillageatleast),forMuslimfuneralceremoniestobe

heldonthefirst,seventhand100thday,apracticeinheritedfromBuddhism.In

KohSop,severalpeoplehadconvertedtoChristianityintheyearssince

DemocraticKampuchea:moststill,however,visitthepagodaonritualoccasions;

‘wedon’tburnincense,soit’sok’,oneofmyinformantstoldme.Anothersaid

‘theBiblesaidthatifwebelieveinGod,weareallowedtocelebrateany

ceremoniesaslongaswedonotburntheincense.’

68ManypeopleautomaticallyassumeallMuslimKhmerareCham–anethnicminorityfromSoutheastAsia,whomakeuparound1.6%oftheKhmerpopulation(NIS2008),wheninfacttheyareamixtureofChamandChveaMuslims.


Buddhismisintertwinedwithanimism;thetwoareinterdependentandcannotbe

disconnectedAsAlexandraKent(2003:12),whohasworkedextensivelyonthe

subject,explains:‘themonkssharethecosmologyoflocalpeople:an

understandingofthepathogenicimplicationsofneglectingancestorsorbreaking

codesofconduct,thepowersofthevariouskindsofspirits…’69TheNeakTa,the

guardianspiritswhoformitscore,areascentraltosocialandcommunitylifefor

manycommunitiesasthepagodasare;indeed,manypagodashaveaNeakTa

thatlooksoverthem(O'Lemmon2014).In1988AngChouléannotedthat

Buddhismwassuperimposedontoapre-existinganimistbackground,populated

byanassortmentofspiritbeings(Chouléan1988)andinexaminingtherevivalof

BuddhismafterDemocraticKampuchea,AlexandraKentexplainsthat‘thetwo

systemsoperatesymbioticallyinthepopularmilieu’(Kent2003:13).Myown

fieldworkfoundthisstilltobethecase,perhapsevenmoresonowadays.Witha

widespreaddistrustofgovernmentandstateinstitutions,therehasbeena

resurgenceofritualsfortheguardianspiritsthatweredifficulttoconductwhilst

thecountrywasstillinconflictinthe1980sand1990s(Zucker2006;O'Lemmon

2014),andnewspiritmediums(Kruboramey)andceremoniesforthemhave

beenestablished(Christensen2014).Formanyofmyinformants,attending

pagodaandengaginginBuddhistpracticeswasimportantonparticularritual

occasions(suchasNewYearandPchumBenh)70,however,moreimportantin

theireverydayliveswasmaintainingpositiverelationshipswiththelocalNeakTa;

ascustodiansofthelandandwateritistheywhoinfluencethewell-beingand

stabilityofeverydaylife.

69

Thetwosystemsaresointertwinedthattermsusedtoaddresstheeldersineachareidentical–LōkTaforexample,isaformofaddressusedtorefertoVenerablemonks;itisalsothetermusedtonamemanyofthetutelaryspirits(alsoknownasNeakTa).

70Theseceremonieswillbediscussedlaterinthischapter.


DuringtheKhmerRougeregime,an(almostsuccessful)attemptwasmadeto

eradicateBuddhism.Viewedasaforeigncorruption,whoseleaderswerehighly

influentialintheircommunities,andvocalintheirpoliticalaffiliations,itposeda

threattotheneworder(Harris2001)andtheKhmerRougemadeeveryeffortto

dismantleit.Monksweredisrobed,exiled,orkilled,andpagodasappropriatedas

holdingandkillingsites.Ritualswereforbidden,Buddhisticonsdestroyed71and

peoplefoundpracticingBuddhism,oranysemblanceofit,wereexecutedfor

disobeyingÂngkar.

Perhapsbecauseitisnotentrenchedininstitutions,butsituatedinthelandscape

itself,animismsufferednosuchpersecution.72Althoughritualswereforbidden

(andasaconsequenceafewNeakTagrewhungryanddied),animismwas

tolerated.SomeKhmerRougecadrecontinuedtoseekadvicefromspirit

mediums73andprotectionfromtheNeakTa.Sometimesthistooktheformof

humansacrifices:inhermemoir,SithaNaorecallsalocalKrubeingcalledonfor

adviceaboutbuildingadam–withnoconstructionexperts,thedamkept

collapsing,andmanypeoplediedduringitsconstruction.TheKrudetermined

71

HeadswerechoppedoffstatuesoftheBuddha,andotherssmashedinreligioussitesacrossthecountry.Theremnantsremaininmanylocationsandhavebecomeobjectsofworshiponceagainused;theheadlessremainseerieremindersoftheattempttodestroyoldCambodia.

72AlthoughnowadaysitisheavilyimplicatedinpoliticalaffairswiththeKingandimportantpoliticiansconsultingKru(spiritmediums)toconsulttheNeakTaonaffairsofstateaswellaspersonalmatters.

73SpiritmediumshavemanynamesinCambodia.Theover-archingtermforallmediumsisKruboramey;Krutranslatestomaster/teacher,andborameyreferstothespiritualpowerpāramī(boramey)thattheyaccess.AKrucanbeateacher,amedium,aswellasthespiritthatpossessesaparticularmedium.ThetypeofmediummyinformantsusuallyspokeaboutwereKrujoalrūb–joalrūbtranslatesas‘entersthebody;’thesemediumsarepossessedbyspecificNeakTawhopassknowledgefromthespiritworldontotheirmediums.Becauseofthat,KrujoalrūbareusuallyalsoKruNeakTa.Theyshouldnot,however,beconfusedwithKruKhmer(traditionalhealers)orKruTiey(astrologers/fortunetellers)neitherofwhichusuallyaccessthespirits.PaulChristensen,whoworksonKhmermediumsalsocameacrossothertypesofKru,includingKrukhmouch,KruarakandKrubeysat,allofwhichaccessthespiritsbutarenotpossessedbythem(Christensen2015),however,myinformantsneverspokeofthese.


thattheNeakTa(acrocodilespirit)owningtheriverrequiredthesacrificeof

threepregnantwomen:threewereselectedandthrowntotheirdeathsamongst

thecrocodiles(Nao2013:84-86).Inherethnographyofthere-orderingofmoral

lifeincontemporaryCambodia,EveZucker(2013)reportspeoplebeingburiedin

thefoundationsofadaminKampongSpeuforsimilarreasons.CadreI

interviewedtalkedaboutaskingthelocalNeakTaforprotectionandreceiving

medicinesandamuletsfromthelocalKru–severalexplainedthisiswhytheyhad

survivedinthejungleforsolong.ManyoftheNeakTasurvivedbecauseofthis

patronage,butalsobecausethereisnowaytodestroythem:theyown(andare

partof)theland,mountains,riversandoceans,andrepresentnoexternal

authority.

Aspreviouslymentioned,theanthropologicalrecordshowsusthatthedeadare

usuallyre-integratedintothelivesofthelivingthroughstructuredritualsofdeath

andmourning.ThebanningofritualsandotherBuddhistpracticescouldbe

assumedtohavecausedmuchdistresstothosesurvivingtheKhmerRouge,

particularlybecauseofthehugenumbersofdeadleftaroundthecountry.Inhis

classicstudyontheritesofpassage,vanGennep(1960[1908]:160)statesthat

thosedeadwhohavenothaveappropriateritualsconductedforthemare

miserable:

Likechildrenwhohavenotbeenbaptised,named,orinitiated,personsforwhom

funeralritesarenotperformedarecondemnedtoapitiableexistence,sincethey

areneverabletoentertheworldofthedeadortobeincorporatedintothe

societyestablishedthere.Thesearethemostdangerousdead.Theywouldlike

tobereincorporatedintotheworldoftheliving,andsincetheycannotbe,they

actlikehostilestrangerstowardsit.Theylackthemeansofsubsistencewhich


theotherdeadfindintheirownworldandconsequentlymustobtainthematthe

expenseoftheliving.

Ritualsarecatalystsofprocessesthatenablethere-imaginingofsocialnetworks

andre-establishmentofstabilityfollowingtherupturethatdeathcauses(Rosaldo

1989).Theyareusedtoensurecontinuityinsocialsystemsthroughmanaging

processesthatremakekinship,reconfigurehierarchiesandestablishneworder.

Periodsofwar,orothersocialcatastrophessuchasdisastercausedeathsoutside

thesesocialsystems,producing‘unhappydead’;beingsstuckin‘perpetual

liminality’(vanGennep1960[1908])whoareforcedtoexistincontinualsuffering

becausetheycannotmoveontotheircorrectplaneofexistence.Itisonlywith

properritualcarethattheirsufferingcanbealleviated.InVietnam,followingthe

massacresatMyLaiandHaMy,forexample,manylivingpeoplesufferedpain

andshamebecausetheyhadbeenunabletocarefortheirdeadrelatives

properly:thosekilledwereinitiallyburiedinmassgravesinfarmland,and

followingtheendofthewar,werehastilyreburiedintheforestsandsanddunes,

becausetheancestralfamilyburialgroundsweredestroyedduringtheconflict

(Kwon2006:47-50).ForothersurvivorsoftheVietnamWar,theburialof

relativesinwar-heromonumentscausedon-goinganguishtotheliving,because,

beinginstatesponsoredtombsofmartyrs;theywereunabletofulfilltheir

obligationstothedeadbyfeedingthem(Kwon2008b).InEastTimor,theforcible

relocationofpeoplefollowingthemilitaryinvasionbyIndonesiain1975meant

thatpeoplewereunabletoattendproperlytothespiritswhoresideinthe

landscape.Inadditiontheyearsofcivilconflictensuingthereafterresultedin

hugenumbersofdeadwhocouldnotbeproperlyburied.Thisledtoalandscape

ofdanger–filledwithaspiritualpotencyknownaslulik.Afterbeingableto


returntotheirhomelandsinthe1990s,peoplewereeagertore-establishpositive

relationshipswiththelandspiritstoprovideprotectionfromthosespirits

saturatingthelandscapeandincreasingthedangeroflulik(Bovensiepen2009).

Thegrievousdead

Thisisbecausethosewhodieinsuchviolentcircumstancesusuallybecome

grievousdead.Thegrievousdeadarethecauseofmuchsocialunrest.Their

liminalstatuscausesthemtointerjectintothelivesoftheliving,sometimesin

extremelydisruptiveways:bringingbadfortune,illness,evendeath.InAfterthe

Massacre(2006),Kwondescribesthespiritsofpeoplewhohavesuffereda

‘grievousdeath’inVietnam,asbeing‘stuck’:asghostsnotspirits;betweenthe

insidedominionofthehouseortombandtheoutsidedomainofthestreetorthe

world;betweenthisworldandthenext.Thisisparticularlythecaseforthose

buriedenmasse,thephysicalconfusionofwhichtrapsthedead.Theunhappy

ghostsaresourcesofstressforthelocalpeople–survivorssufferguiltandshame

intheempathyandshametheyfeelattheirimproperburialandunhappystateof

thedead.Onepersoncommented(Kwon2006:121):

That’snotaproperlife;that’snotalifeatall….Onceinawhile,particularlythe

firstlunarmonth,theshamecamebackandinducedterriblepaininme.’

Inordertofreethesedeadfromtheirsuffering,peopleacrossVietnamstartedto

reburythem;atHaMyandMyLai,movingthemfromhastilydugmassgravesto

communalburials74,andinotherlocationsacrossVietnamfromthemassive

74Wherethose‘grievousdead’aretheresultofamassacre(asoccurredinHaMyandMyLai)reburialisoftentoacommunalmemorialsite,however,unlikeincaseswhereacollectivememorialsiteservestoprovidecollectiveidentity(particularlyofvictimhood)thatmaybe


heroescemeteriestoindividualfamilytombs.Thesemovementsfreedthedead

becausetheyprovidedaproperburial,andenabledthelivingtogivepropercare

andattentiontothedeadinawaythatwasnotpossibleineithermassgravesor

thestatewarmemorials.InThailand,annualritualsbyChineseimmigrant

populationsdedicatedtorelieving‘restlessghosts’–thosespiritsofthe

‘unfortunatedead’(Formoso1996:218)-arecommonplace,andboththe

immigrantChineseandlocalThaipopulationstakepart.75Ifnotlaidtorest,the

unfortunatedead‘becomerestlessghostswhohauntthehumanworldand

threatenthesocialorderaswellasindividual’(ibid:220).Thisparallelsthecase

inTimorLeste,wheremanyofthespiritsofthosewhokilledinconflictswith

Indonesiaremainrestlessintheland,particularlywheretheywerenotproperly

buried(Bovensiepen2009:336).Insomecasesthedeadarelonely,inothers

hungry,inothersvindictiveandangry,andseekingrevenge.

InCambodiatheunhappydead(khmouchdtaihong–literallymeaningcorpsesof

violence)arethosewhohavediedunexpectedly,usuallyintragiccircumstances

forwhichneitherthey,northeirlovedones,wereprepared:acarcrashora

murderforexample.Theseareliabletobecomeeithermalevolentspiritsof

mischiefandmayhem(preay),whodisruptthesocialorderandcauseproblemsto

bothindividualsandgroups,orghosts(khmouch)whoaretrappedwaitingfor

theirrebirth(Chouléan1988).Thesespirits,accordingtoAngChouléan,canbe

calmed,butarerarelycompletelyplacated,andannualceremoniesarerequired

welcomedbyrelatives,friends,andotherinterestedparites(PotočariinBosnia-Herzegovinaforexample),inVietnamthecommunalsiteservedapurelystatefunctionthatstoodincontestationtoeverydaypeople’sneedsanddesires.

75AlthoughFormosoarguesthatsomeThaipeopletakepartinordertoweighdowntheimmigrantChinesepopulationwiththemalevolentghostsoftheirunfortunatedead.!


tomanagethem,preventingtheminterferinginpeople’slives,causingillness,

misfortuneandevendeathinextremecases.

OnewouldexpectthedeadfromtheKhmerRougetofallintothiscategory.

Thoseexecutedortorturedsufferedsuddenandviolentdeaths.Althoughthe

deathsofthosedyingofdiseaseand/orstarvationwereoftenslowand

torturous,theytoodied‘khmouchchikkei’(likedogs-literallytranslatedas‘dead

dogs)-withoutceremony.Indeed,someresearchershaveassertedthatthe

spiritsofthosewhodiedduringtheregimefallintosuchcategories,andare

thereforefrighteningandthreateningentitiestolivingKhmer.RachelHughes

(2005:276),whoundertookresearchatChoeungEk,declaredthat:

Incasesofviolentoraccidentaldeathitiswidelybelievedthatthespiritofthe

deceasedremainsintheplaceofdeathasaspiritorghost,insteadofmovingon

totherealmofre-birth.Ghostsmayharmthelivingbycausinggreatsickness

andmisfortune.Inlightofthisbelief,manyCambodiansconsiderChoeungEka

highlydangerousplaceandrefusetovisittheMemorial.

ThisassertionpresumesthatthedeadofthosewhodiedduringtheKhmerRouge

regimeareviewedinthesameway,andhavethesamepowers,asthosewhodie

now,andarethereforesubjecttothesameemotions,actions,andrituals,

becausethesedeadhaveremainedstaticintheirdispositionandidentity.

However,thisisnotthecase;whilstthedeadwereinitiallyfrightenedand

threateningtotheliving,therelationshipshavechangedovertimeandtheyhave

longsincebeenpowerless,orhavemovedontotheirnextlives(seechapters

threeandfour).TounderstandrelationshipswiththeKhmerRougedead,we

mustfirstexaminethedifferencebetweenthemandthosewhohaverecently


died,becauseitisinthesedistinctionswheretheiremploymentasentitiesof

politicalpowerandsocialactionbecomespossible.Thisisbestintroducedwitha

shortstoryfrommyfieldwork.

WhenIhadbeeninthecountryaboutsixmonths,Soth,afriend’scolleague,went

missingfromPhnomPenh.Heavilyindebt,peopleatfirstpresumedhehadrun

awayorevenkilledhimself,toavoidtheloansharkstowhomheowedalarge

amountofmoney.Whenhisbodywasdiscoveredacoupleofdayslaterit

becameclearthathehadbeenmurdered.Hisfamily,havinglittlemoneytopay

foraninvestigation76andthereforenolegalrequirementtokeepthebody,had

himcrematedonthedayhewasfound.WhenIaskedwhythecremationhad

takenplacesoquickly,myfriendtoldmethattheywereafraidofthe

consequencesofallowinghisspirittowanderbecausehewaskhmouchdtaihong,

andthereforeliabletobecomeadangerousspiritthatcouldharmthefamily.

UsuallysevendaysofritualsfollowthedeathofapersoninCambodia.

Sometimesthisperiodmaybeextended(particularlyinthecaseofprestigious

andpowerfulpeople),butthroughoutit,thecorpseisverycarefullycaredforand

particularritualsconductedtofreethespiritfromthecorpseandenableitto

moveontoitsnextlife,whichoccursontheseventhdaywhenthecorpseis

76ThepoliceforceinCambodiaishighlycorrupt.Unlessthereisahighlevelofinternationalinterest,investigationsoftenonlyoccurifthefamilyorotherinterestedpartiescanpay.Themoremoneygiven,thebetterqualityinvestigationisconducted(oratleastthemorefindingsoccur).Oneofmyinformantstoldmethatthelowestamountofmoneyacceptedis$50,butusuallythepoliceexpectmore.Inacountrywheretheminimumwagewas$76pcmwhenIwasthere,thisiscompletelyunaffordable,andmanycrimes,evenextremelyviolentcrimesgouninvestigated.Forexample,threeyearsbeforeIarrivedinmyvillage,aseven-year-oldgirlwasraped.Sheknewtheteenagerswhorapedher,buthermothercouldnotaffordtopaythepolicetocomeandinvestigate.Sheborrowed$100andattemptedtosuethefamilywhosesonwasinvolved,however,theyrefusedtogotothecourt.Onapproachingthevillageanddistrictchiefstheytoldhertherewasnothingtheycoulddo.Threeyearsonsheisstillpayingoffthedebt,andherdaughterhastoliveontheislandwiththeboyswhorapedher.Unfortunatelythisisnotanuncommontypeofstory.


appropriatelydisposedof–usuallyviacremation(Davis2009).Intheseven-day

periodbetweendeathanddisposal,thespiritposesathreatbecauseitdoesnot

realiseitisdead,andthereforemaytrytoreturntoitshomeandfamily.The

strictritualspreventthisthreatbeingplayedout.Ifsomeonediessuddenlyina

violentmanner,however,theirspiritisnotonlyconfused,butthereisthe

additionalriskthatthespiritmaybecomeapreayorotherkindofmalevolent

spiritthatstaysclosetotheliving.Inthiscase,itispreferabletocremateorbury

thepersonassoonaspossible,andconducttheritualsafterthecremation,so

thatthespiritcanmovequicklyawayfromthefamilyandhousehold.WhenSoth

wasfoundtohavebeenmurdered,thefamilywasafraidhisspiritwouldposea

threattothem;theythereforehadhimcrematedassoonastheycould,whilststill

performingtheritualsthatwouldnormallybeundertakenoverthesevendaysin

ordertoprovideproperritualcare.

ThedeadfromtheKhmerRouge,however,areadifferentstory.Althoughmost

diedviolently-khmouchdtaihong–andwithoutproperceremony-khmouch

chikkei-theyaresolongdeadthattheylongagobecamepowerless:theyaresap

(literallytasteless)-powerless,andunabletohaunt.Arecentlydeceasedspirit

onlyremainsdangeroustothefamilyandhouseholdinthesevendaysfollowing

itsdeath,intheperiodwhenitdoesnotrealiseitisdeadandthereforetriesto

comehome.77Aswewillseeinchapterthree,mostofthosewhodiedunderthe

KhmerRougedidnotbecomemalevolentspirits,andalthoughsomewere

disruptiveintheyearsimmediatelyaftertheregime,theyweresoonreintegrated

intoreciprocalrelationshipswiththeliving,andhavelongsincebecome

77Arecenttrend,particularlyinNorthernCambodia,istheconstructionofscarecrowstofrightenawaybadspirits.Thesescarecrowsareprimarilyforbadspiritswhoexistinthelandscape,however,theycanalsobeusedasanextrapreventativemeasureinthesevendaysafterdeathtoprotectahouseorvillage.


powerlessordiedandbeenreborn.TheincredulityofmyinformantswheneverI

askedaboutthedangersoftheKhmerRougedeadwasobvious;oneexplained:

‘I’mscaredofthepeoplewhodienow.Bones(ch-ang)havebeendeadforalong

time.I’mnotscaredofthem.Butkhmouch78justdied.Theothersarebones-

whyshouldwebescaredofthem?’ThisispartlybecausethedeadoftheKhmer

Rougewerenotconsideredinthesamewayascontemporarydead,butmorelike

NeakTaintheirinhabitationofthelandscapeandreciprocalrelationswiththe

living,andpartlybecauseoftheflexiblenatureofKhmerBuddhism,which

enabledritualstoresurgeandreformtodealwiththerupturesoftheKhmer

Rougeregimeafteritsdemise.

TheravadaBuddhismallowsfuneralritestobeconductedwithoutthecorporeal

presenceofthecorpse,andtherearefouracceptablemodesofdisposalofthe

dead:abandonmentintheforest,abandonmentinwater,cremation,andburial

(Davis2009:80).79Whilstcremationandburialarepreferredincontemporary

Cambodia(cremationbyKhmerSot:pureKhmer,burialbyKhmer-Chen:Khmer-

Chinese),theotherformsremainvalidwherenecessary.Thedeadofthemass

graves,manyofwhomarewithinforestsand/orwater(manybodieswere

dumpedinwells,ponds,orirrigationcanals),arenotnecessarilytrappedin

inappropriateburials.Therewas,therefore,notthesameurgencytolocatethe

deadasinVietnamorEastTimorfollowingtheirconflicts,andnoneedtorebury

thedead.

78

Seechapterthreefordiscussionsonkhmouch.

79ReadersseekingamoredetaileddescriptionandanalysisoffuneralritesincontemporaryCambodiashouldrefertoErikDavis’s(2009)thesis,TreasuresoftheBuddha:ImaginingDeathandLifeinContemporaryCambodia.


CareofthosekilledundertheKhmerRouge

Duringtheregimeformalritualsforthedeadwereimpossible.Evenimmediately

aftertheregimeduringthePeople’sRepublicofKampuchea(PRK)although

attentionwaspaidtore-establishingpagodas,Buddhismwasstillstrictly

controlled.Thenumbersofmonkswerelimited80andfewformalceremonies

occurred.Thesevenmonksreordainedintheperiodimmediatelyafterthe

regime’sdemisetoleadKhmerBuddhismwerethosewithallegiancestoVietnam,

andalthoughsomemonksreturnedtoCambodia,novitiateswerebanneduntil

thelate1980s.Althoughthedeadcausedsomedisturbanceinpost-DK

Cambodia,nostate-ledritualswereconducted,andwhileafewinformal,local

ceremonieswereorganised,inthemajorityoflocationsnoneoccurred.Astime

movedon,thedeadbecamecalmer,andtheirrelationshipswiththeliving

changed.NowadayscareforthephysicalremainsofthosekilledundertheKhmer

Rougehasbeendevolvedtothestate,andspiritualcarehasbeensubsumedinto

theBuddhistannualritualcalendar.

Careforthephysicalremains

Aswesawinchaptersoneandtwo,intheyearsimmediatelyfollowingthe

regime,manyoftheskeletalremainsscatteredacrossthesurfaceofthefieldsand

forestswerecollected,andsomemassgravesexcavated.Onceamassed,the

skeletalremains(khmouchcha’ang;literallythebonesofthedead)werehoused

inwoodenp’teahkhmouch–housesforthedeadbuiltundertheordersofthe

80

Forexample,nomalesundertheageoffiftycouldapplytobeordained,andqualificationsfromoutsideCambodiawerenotacceptedasproofofBuddhistlearning,thuslimitingthenumberofpeoplewhocouldbecomemonks.IanHarrisarguesthattheserestrictionswereinordertomaximiseproductionforcesinpost-DKCambodia(Harris2008:194).


PRK.Thesecabin-likestructuresheldtheremainsformanyyears,andwhilst

manyhavenowbeenabandonedanddismantled,insomesites(suchasKohSop),

theyremainasevidenceofthepresenceofkillingfieldsatthesite.

AfterVietnamwithdrewfromCambodiain1989,thep’teahkhmouchwere

neglectedandabandoned;stateofficialsnolongermaintainedthem,andthey

heldlittleresonanceforpeopleinthelocalcommunities.AnneYvonneGuillou,

theonlyanthropologisttodoworkfocusingspecificallyonthedeadoftheKhmer

Rouge,statesthat‘thesememorialswereseenasstate-sponsored

commemorationdevicesandassuch[people]didnotfeelconcernedbythem’

(Guillou2012a:12).IntheareasIvisited,peoplesaiditwasnottheirbusinessto

lookafterthembecausethedeadwithinthem‘arenotourdead’(thisview

relatesnowadaystothecremationoftheremains,asdiscussedbelow).Thehuts

wereneglected,andfloods,animals,andtime,destroyedthebonesmany

contained.Followingacoupin1997,inwhichHunSen(thecurrentPrime

Minister)tookcontrolofCambodia,thepoliticalimportanceoftheremainswas

reinstated(seechaptersfive–seven),andthoseremainingweremovedfromthe

remoterurallocationstonewlybuiltconcretestupahousedwithpagoda

complexesinmoreeasilyaccessibleareas,oftengeographicallycloseorpolitically

affiliatedtoadistrictoffice.81

Oneoftheconcernsofthedeadisthetreatmentoftheirremains,andthisoften

relatestothelonelinesstheyfeelwhentheyarenotembracedwithinthefamily

orpagodacomplex.Althoughstate-ledformalritualswerenotconducted,and

81Theremainswereoftencollatedfromp’teahkhmouchinseveraldifferentareas,althoughoccasionallysomanyremainsexistedthatseveralpagodascouldcollectremains.InKohSop,theremainsweresplitbetweenthreepagodas,althoughthepagodawheredistricteventsareheldreceivedthemajorityofthebones.


evenlocal,informaloneswererare,collectingthedeadandstoringthemtogether

enabledthemtobecaredfor,andtoberemovedfromthelonelinessand

sufferingthatthoseleftinthewildendured.

IntheliteratureonCambodiamuchismadeofthedistinctionbetweentheforest

[prei]andthetown[srok]assymbolsoftwodifferentperceptionsofmoralorder

(Davis2008;Lim2013;Zucker2013).BeforeIleftforthefieldIwashighly

dubiousthatthisdichotomywassoapparent:itseemedtoostructured,tooneat,

toodichotomous.EvenafterIhadbeeninthecountryforsometime,itseemed

anexaggeration.However,whenpeoplestartedtotalktomeaboutthedead

fromtheKhmerRouge,theydidindeedusetheselocationstosymbolisecontrol

andorderforthem.‘AftertheKhmerRouge,’Yaytoldme,‘lotsofthem[the

dead]werelostintheforest.’

Whilesrokrepresentsdomestic,controlled,andcivil,theforestrepresents

wildness,destructionanddisorder.Itis‘allthatischaotic,barbarian,untamed

andlawless’(Zucker2013:114).Theforestisusedtodescribethingsoutside

propercontrolandsocialorder-theKhmerRouge,forexample,wholivedand

fought‘intheforest.’82Inadditiontheforestistheplaceforthedead,particularly

thosewhohadunhappydeaths,ordidnotreceiveappropriatecare.Theforestis

frighteningforthelivingbecauseofitswildness,andbecauseofthisareasofland

thathadbeenkillingfields,andthereforeheldmanyghostswerecalledPrei

khmouch(forestofthedead,orforestofghosts)bysomeofmyinformants.

82ThiswasaeuphemismmanycadreusedwhenIfirstknewthemtoindicatetheirmembershipwiththeparty.


Forthedead,therefore,whowerelostintheforest,lifewasfrightening,and

lonely,myinformantstoldme.Beingcollectedandcontainedwithinp’teah

khmouchprovidedawayofbringingthedeadinfromthewildandbackintothe

embraceofthestate.Thisrelateseventotheirdisplayinstupaintouristsites.

Yayyaytoldmethatbeingsomewherewithsomanypeoplealleviatestheir

loneliness,andbringsthembackintosociallife:

[beingondisplay]doesn’tbotherthem.Thereshouldbepeoplearoundtocalm

themdownratherthan leavingthemintheforest…. ithelpsa littlebittohave

peoplearound,haveelectricity,andbecrowded.Itislikereducing10%oftheir

loneliness.

Althoughmostofmyinformantsacknowledgedthepoliticalmotivationsbehind

themovementoftheremainsinthe1990s,theyconsideredthenewlybuiltstupa

tobeappropriateplacesforthedead.Whentheywereinwoodenp’teah

khmouchcowsandotheranimalsscavengedthebonesandweatherdegraded

them.OmTa,acaretakerwhoworksatChoeungEkfeltthattheconcretestupais

amuchbetterplaceforthedead:

It’sbetterthanbeforewhenweonlyhadawoodenbuilding.Nowwehavea

properplacewithshelvestostorethemon,andwecleantheskeletonsfromtime

totime.Beforeweonlyhadawoodenbuildinglikeanoldschoolbuildingand

theywerepiledupontopofeachother.Someofthemfelldown,andthedogs

wouldchewandcarrythebonesaround.Nowwehaveabetterplacetostore

them,whichreallyshowsrespecttothedead.

Inadditiontobeingpreferabletothefrangiblewoodenstructures,theconcrete

stupaalsoreplicatethecheddeithatmostremainsarekeptinfollowing


cremation.Cheddeiarestupabuiltspecificallytohousethecremainsofthedead.

Mostlybuiltbyfamilymembers,theyareusuallyconstructedwithinpagoda

complexes(becauseitisthemonkswhobestcontrolthedead(Davis2009)),

however,somepeoplehavethembuiltathome.Whilstinanidealscenariothe

remainsofeachindividualhastheirowncheddei,thisisonlyarealityfor

wealthierKhmer.Formany,thecostofthefuneralitselfiscrippling,andthe

buildingofacheddei(whichcancostseveralthousanddollars)beyondtheir

means.Becauseofthis,manypagodashaveacommunalstupa83fortheremains

ofthepoor.InseveralpagodasIvisitedthiscommunalstupaalsohousesthe

remainsofthosekilledundertheKhmerRougethuscaringforallofthosewhose

familiescannot(seefiguresix).

Figuresix:KhmerRougeremainsandurnsofthepoorattwodifferentpagoda(source:theauthor)

83Communalstupaareoftenpaidforbywealthypeopleasameansofgainingmerittoaccumulatekarma.


AsamonkIspentseveralhoursinterviewingonBuddhistpracticesandteachings

explainedtome,evenwhenusedastouristattractions,suchasatChoeungEk,

stupaprovideappropriatestorageforthedead:

Youcansaythatbonesaredisplayed[inthesestupa].However,bonesarekept

inurnssothatfamilycanlookaftertheirparentsorrelative’sbone.Somebones

areputintheurnandkeptinthepagodaandsomebonesareputintheurnand

keptinastupainfrontofpeople’shomes.ThesebonesarekeptatChoeungEk

becausetheydonothaveanyrelatives,sotheyputthemallatoneplacesothat

otherpeoplewhocouldnotfindtheirrelativeswillcelebratebangskolandpass

themerittothosedeadpeople.

HisstatementhighlightsanotherimportantaspectofthecareoftheKhmerRouge

dead;thattheyarekeptincommunalstupabecausethey‘donothaverelatives.’

Bythishedoesnotmeanthatliterallynokinremains(althoughthisisthecasefor

some),butthatitisimpossibletodistinguishonesetofremainsfromanotherand

thatitcannotbeascertainedforcertainwhoserelativeseachsetofremainsis.It

isthereforepreferablethattheyremaininonelocationwhereanyonewhowants

tovisitcanaccessthem,thanbedistributedincorrectly.

Thisalsorelatestocremationoftheremains.Althoughcremationisthemost

commonmodeofcorpsedisposalinCambodia,itisnottheonlymeans,anditis

deemedunnecessary(andevendetrimental)fortheremainsoftheKhmerRouge

dead.Firstly,thedeadwhosebonestheyarehavealreadybeenreincarnatedinto

theirnextlife(seechapterfour).Assuchalthoughmaterialremnantsofthe

person,skeletalremainsarenolongerconnectedtothem;‘thosewhodiedcanbe

comparedtoapieceofwood,whichisworthless,’SreySreytoldme.Theiruseby


thegovernmentasmaterialsymbolsoftheregimeisthereforeacceptable,even

tothosewhoconsidertheirrelativestobeamongstthosedisplayed(seechapter

six).Secondly,cremationisarituallycontrolledactarrangedbyrelativesofthose

whohavedied.Oneofitspurposesistoreducethebodytoastateinwhichitcan

becollectedandstoredbytheliving(eitherathomeoratapagoda);‘wecremate

ourparentssothatwecanpickupsomebonesandkeepthem,’themonk

explained.84Thisisbothamarkerofrespecttothedead,butalsoholdssome

purpose:oncecrematedtheremainsareconsideredtoholdsomeaspectof

powerthatenablesprotectiontobegiventolivingkin(providedthedeadare

respectedwithofferingsonritualoccasions).Asthemonktoldme,thebonesleft

bytheKhmerRouge‘havenorelatives’;theyaremuddled,andwhilethisdoes

notcausedistresstoeitherthelivingorthedead,itdoesmeanthatcremationis

asimpossibleasitisunnecessary;‘Wedon’tknowthem.Wedon’tknowwhose

uncles,aunties,orrelativestheseare,’OmYaysaidwhenIaskedaboutit.YayDa,

whowaswithusaswewereconversing,elaborated:

Whenweseetheboneswedon’tknowwhichbonesaremyrelativesandwhich

onesarenot….Theydidn’tburnthebonesbecausenormallywhenwecremate

thebonestherehastobeafamilymembertorepresenteachfamilyandtakethe

ashtoputinanurnforrespect.However,inthiscasewedon’tknowwhich

bonesbelongtowhom.

Tocrematetheremains,therefore,wouldnotonlybeunnecessary(becausethe

deadhavebeenreincarnatedandtheirbonesarelikewood),butalsoimpossible

becausenobodyknowswhichremainsbelongtowhom.Thisrelatestotheearlier

84

FollowingKingFatherSihanouk’scremationinFebruary2013,thecurrentKing(NorodomSihamoni)andhismothersiftedthroughthecremainstoremovepiecesofbone:thiswasbroadcastacrossallTVstations,asthefuneralwastheonlythingbeingshownonKhmertelevisionthatevening.


pointmadethatthedeadare‘notourdead.’Notonlydotheyholdnoritual

responsibilityforthem,butneithercantheyassumethisresponsibility;itisseen

asastateissue,andthereforeconsideredbetterthatthegovernmenttakescare

oftheminthecommunalstupas,whereatleasttwiceannually(atPchumBenh

andNewYear)theyreceivevisitorsandofferingsandhavemeritpassedtothem.

Annualritualcare

OfparticularimportanceinthecareofthosekilledundertheKhmerRougeare

PchumBenh-theannualfestivalforthedead,KhmerNewYear,andforChinese-

Khmer,thegrave-sweepingfestivalofChengMeng.Whilstcorporealremains

soonbecamepowerlessandrelativelyunimportanttomostpeople,thespiritsof

thosewhodiedneededcarefulcareandconsideration.Themostimportant

aspectinthecareofthosekilledundertheKhmerRougeisthepassingofmerit

fromthelivingtothedead.Thisenablesthedeadtoaccumulatekarma,which

willhelptheirnextreincarnation.PchumBenh,NewYearandChengMengall

enablemerittobesenttothedeadcollectively,andbecausetheyadequately

careforthedead,thereisnoneedforindividualfunerals,specialistceremonies,

orotherspecificactionsrelatedtothosekilledundertheregime.

PchumBenh,afifteendayritualheldannuallyinSeptemberorOctober(according

tothelunarcalendar),enablespeopletomakeofferingstosevengenerationof

deadkintolessentheir(thedead’s)suffering.JamesCliffordHoltarguesthat

PchumBenhisthemostimportantandpopularritualincontemporaryCambodia;

itis,hewrites,‘amajorcelebrationofthefamilyonanationalscale,and

somethingofacelebrationofthenationonafamilyscale’(Holt2012:12).Itis

becauseoftheturbulentdecadesofconflictandunrest,heargues,thatthisritual


hasbecomesoimportant.85PchumBenhisacollectiveritualdirectedtoany

whosedeathwas‘undesirable’(i.e.whodidnothaveapeacefuldeatheither

physicallyormorally);assuch,itincludesallowancesforthosewhodiedduring

DemocraticKampuchea.

Figureseven:depictionofPchumBenhatWatKampongTralach(source:theauthor)

Duringthefifteendays,preta(hungryghosts–thosewhohavediedinviolentand

unpredictedmanners),whohavebeentrappedintanarout–theKhmer

underworld-arefreed,andreturntoearthtofeed.86Peoplevisitsevenpagodas

85AmorecynicalpersonmightarguethatincontemporaryCambodia,where65%ofthepopulationneverexperiencedtheregime,orthedecadesofconflictsurroundingit,itspopularityderivesasmuchfromtheextendingnationalholidaythataccompaniesitasfromitsreligious,familial,ornationalmeanings.Certainlyamongstmanyofmyinformants,theholidaywastakenasanopportunitytorestandseefamilyandfriends,withmanynotevengoingtothepagodaonce,letaloneoneverydayofthefestival,asrituallymandated.

86Bunnwathtoldmetherearethreetypesofpreta:oneswhocaneatwhateverisoffered;ones

whocaneat,butonlyaftermonkshaverecitedthedhamma(Buddhistteachings)forthem;andoneswhosekarmaissobad,thatevenwhenfamilygiveofferingsandfood,theycannoteat.


totransfermerittosevengenerationsofrelatives87;whichhelpsthem

accumulatekarmaandthusspeeduptheirreincarnation,andmakethenextlife

easier.88Meritispassedbytheperformanceofspecificchantsbythemonks;

duringPchumBenhthishappensearlyeachmorning.Inmostpagodasalonger

ceremonyisperformedonthefinaldayofthefestival;formanyofmyinformants

thiswastheonlydaytheyattendedpagoda.

ThePchumBenhceremonyreplicatesbangskol–genericritualsforthedeadthat

canbeconductedonanyoccasion(‘theprayersarethesame,itisjustthatoneis

calledBangskolceremony,onceiscalledPchumBenhceremony’amonktoldme).

Offeringsaregiventothemonks,whothenrecitespecificprayersthatpassmerit

tothedead.Aswithfuneralrituals,thepresenceofcorporealremainsisnot

necessary,however,thosewhosenamesarecalledandthereforeknowtocome

toreceiveitmoreeasilyreceivemerit.Thismakesnothavingcorporealremains

acceptablefortheliving;theyknowthataslongasthenameofyourdead

relativesiscalled,theywillreceivethemerityousendthem.

Unlikethephysicalremains,whichno-onehasresponsibilityfor,everyoneis

responsibleforthespiritsbecausetheyinterjectinthelivesofallliving,notonly

theirrelatives.ManyofthosewhodiedduringtheKhmerRougelostalltheir

family.IncontemporaryCambodia,therefore,peopleareacutelyawarethat

somedeadmayhaveno-onetopassthemmerit.Inaddition,themassive

displacementsandrupturesoftraditionallivingpatterns,wherevillagesmoreor

lessequatedtofamilies(Ebihara1968),meansthatmanypeopledonotknowfor

87HoltsuggeststhatthesevengenerationsderivesfrommedievalChina,whereittooksevengenerationstobereincarnatedbackintothefamily(Holt2012:18).

88Reincarnationasoneofthemodesinwhichthedeadhavebeenre-incorporatedintoKhmersocietyisdiscussedinchapterfour.


certainwhichoftheirrelativesdied.AnimportantaspectofPchumBenh

therefore,istosendmerittoalltheanonymousdead.BuSoth,whoworksat

ChoeungEkmakessuretopassmeriteveryyeartothosewhodiedatthesite:

Ihavesomemoney,soIgiveofferingstothemonksandIsharethatwiththe

dead,the8985peoplewhodiedhere-bothmenandwomen,maytheycometo

receivethemeritIdo(tveabon).

Thisisnotasaltruisticasitmayappear;asmentionedabove,PchumBenhiswhen

themalevolentpretacometoroamtheearth;givingthemofferingsandpassing

themmeritisnotonlyanactofcompassion,butalsoanactofprotectionforthe

living.

PchumBenhisnottheonlyceremonytoattendtotheKhmerRougedead.Before

KhmerNewYearinApril,mostKhmertveabon(dogooddeeds/makemerit-

literally‘doingceremonies’)byattendingapagodatobangskol.Forthemajority

ofmyinformants,theseceremonieswerebestperformedattheirlocalpagodas;

becausemeritcouldreachthedeadwherevertheyare,thereisnoneedtovisit

theirdeathsite,oreventhepagodaclosesttoit,eveniftheyknowwhereitis.

SomepagodasopenthestupathatcontaintheKhmerRougedeadduringthese

ceremonies,butmostofmyinformantstoldmetheydidnotgotoseethedead;

theydidnotneedtobecausetheyhadalreadyattendedtotheirspiritsbydoing

bangskol.

Chinese-KhmeralsogiveofferingsduringChengMeng89.ChengMengisthe

annualgrave-sweepingceremonyoccurringusuallyatthebeginningofApril.

89AlsospeltQingMingorChingMing.


Duringthefestival,peoplevisittheirrelatives’gravesandcleananddecorate

them,beforegivingofferingsoffood.Animportantpartoftheceremonyis

passingitemsofcomforttothedead–clothes,money,cars:thisisusuallydone

byburningeffigiesoftheseitems,withabeliefthatoncerituallyburnedthese

itemswillreachthedeadintheafterlifeandhelpthembecomfortable.Ifthey

arelookedafterinthisway,theyaremorelikelytohelpandsupporttheirliving

relatives,forexamplebykeepingthemhealthy,orhelpingthembecome

successfulinbusiness.ChengMengalsoprovidesanopportunityforpeopleto

careforthosetheylostduringDemocraticKampuchea–insomeareassmall

ceremoniesareheldatthepagodascontainingremainsoftheKhmerRougedead;

theirstupasarecleanedanddecoratedwithbrightlycolouredpaper(seefigure

eight),offeringsmade,effigiesburned,andfeastsheld.90Unlikethetreatment

duringBangskol,whichprovideshelpsthedeadwiththeirnextlife,ChengMeng

providescomforttothelivinginthislife–passingtheseitemstothedead

providesthemcomfort,encouragingthemtohelptheliving;providingwealthand

goodhealth.

90SeveralyearsagotheâcharatthepagodawheremanyoftheremainsfromKohSoparekept,installedakilnforburningsucheffigiesinthestupacontainingthedead,becausemanyofthelocalChinese-KhmercommunitybelievethatmostofthepeoplekilledonKohSopwereChinese.


Figureeight:PoTonlestupawithremnantsofChengMengdecorations(souce:theauthor)

AllofthesefactorsenablethosekilledundertheKhmerRougetobeembraced

withinthesystemwhetherornottraditionalceremoniesandritualswere

practicedduringtheregime.Thisisonlypossiblebecauseoftheflexibilityand

resilienceofKhmerBuddhismandanimism,whichenabledthemtopersist

despiteeffortstodestroythem,andtoresurfaceaftertheregime,withprovision

madetodealwiththerupturesandchaoscausedbytheregime.

Ritualresilience

SomescholarshavesuggestedthattheKhmerRougedestroyedtheCambodian

ritualsystem(LeVine2010;Ovensen,TrankellandOjendal1996).Inherexploration

ofbirthandweddingsitesofDemocraticKampuchea,LeVine(2010:14)declared

thattheKhmerRougeperformedRitualcide,andbydoingso‘generatedacosmic


betrayal.’However,theattemptsatritualcidewereunsuccessful.Mostreligious

andspiritualsystemsareadaptable,andpeopleareusuallypragmaticaboutthese

systems,adaptingthemtosuitindividualneedsandlifestyles(Kawano2004).

Ignoringthisadaptabilityisamajorflawinmuchoftheanthropologicalliteratureon

post-DKCambodia,whicheitherinsistsonvirtuallyidenticalritualspreandpost

DemocraticKampuchea,arguingthatCambodianssimply‘layerover’thepastinthe

present(forexample:EbiharaandLedgerwood2002;Ebihara2002),orgoestothe

oppositeextremeofpositingacompletedestructionoftraditionalrituals(for

exampleLeVine2010;Ovensen,TrankellandOjendal1996).Inthisscenario

alterationsmadeareimpliedtobesimplecompromisesordestructions.Thisisa

particularlydevastatingviewofCambodianBuddhism,andonenotreflectedin

practice.

Whilstdestructionofreligionwastheintention,andsocialcontroloverthe

populationmeantritualscouldnotoccur(LeVine2010;Ngor2003),evenduringthe

regimesomepeoplefoundwaysofadaptingcustomstotheircircumstances,for

examplebyutteringtheirownblessingstothedead,hidingfoodtogiveofferings

forthosedeparted,sneakingawayatnighttoburypeople,andburyingpeople

underparticularlyspiritualaspectsofthelandscape,suchastamarindtrees(which

areafavouredhousingoftheNeakTa).91Formany,simplybeingabletoburytheir

relativesthemselveswasseenasfortunate,asLōkChan,wholostmostmembersof

hisfamily,toldme:

91LeVine(2010)providesagoodoverviewandanalysisoftheseadaptationsinherbookLoveandDreadinCambodia:Weddings,BirthsandRitualHarmundertheKhmerRouge.


InthePolPotera,wedidn’ttalkaboutceremoniesoranythingelse;ifwegotto

bury[thedead]ourselvesitwasluckyenough…Wegottobury[mybrother]

withourownhands.Iwastheonewhodugthesoil.

Inaddition,manyoftheconceptsofBuddhismexistedthroughouttheregime,and

modesof‘thinking,feeling,speaking,moving,’thatwerelearnedaschildrenand

‘embodiedashabitus’(Ledgerwood2008:148)continuedtobeimportantdespite

(orperhapsbecauseof)attemptstodestroythem.Reincarnationandkarmaare

twoofthese,andwillbediscussedinchapterfour.

Thepre-existingBuddhist/animistframeworkofpre-DemocraticKampuchea

remained,inmodifiedform,throughouttheregime,andresurgedfollowingits

fall.Mostdead,thereforewereencompassedwithinthesocialstructureshortly

afteritsdemise.Thatisnottosaythatpeopledidnotgrieve,northatthemass

deaththatoccurredduringtheregimewasnotemotionallydevastating.Itwas.A

fewofmyinformantstriedtolocatetheirdeadrelatives,butwithsomanydead

scatteredacrossthecountryitwasalmostimpossible.Mostneverattemptedto

lookbecauseofthisandinsteadcaredforthemthroughBuddhistannual

ceremonies,evenintheveryearlyyears.Thustheissueofreburialorcremation

andtheinabilitytoconduct‘proper’funeralritesdidnothavethedevastating

effectithasinotherlocations,suchasVietnam.ThefluidityofKhmerBuddhism

offersresiliencetodevastation:

Khmerculture,then,maynotbecharacterisedsomuchbyweaknessand

fragmentationbutbyasurprisinglyresilientsocialfluidity–afluiditythathas

longbeenheldtogetherbytheunifyingandstructuringforceofKhmer

Buddhism.Despiteallthetraumaandupheavalsofwarandthelackoftight


corporatesocialstructures,manyCambodianstodayseemstilltonurturea

strongsenseoftheircommonheritageanddestiny(Kent2003:10)

AfterthedemiseofDemocraticKampuchea,Cambodiahasseenaresurgenceand

regenerationofBuddhistandanimistpractices,bothamonglocalpeopleand

throughgovernmentinitiatives.Oneofthefirstthingspeopleattendedtoafter

theregimewastheNeakTa.Theircarewassalient,andmoreimportantthanany

otheraspectofspiritualcare,includingthecareforthethousandsofdeadwho

initiallyhauntedtheland.MingYaywhoreturnedtoherhomelandundertheveil

ofVietnamesebombingin1979toldmethatalthoughtheyinvitedmonkstopray

forthedead,theyfirstcelebratedaceremonyfortheNeakTa,becauseitisthe

NeakTathatensureshealthandwellbeingintheirlocality:

Wesworethatwheneverwecouldreturntothevillage,wewoulddoaceremony

tothespiritsofthehostwhoprotectstheland[theNeakTa]

Althoughformalritualstooksometimetobere-established,overtheyears

almostalloftheritualsthathadbeenbannedwerere-instated(Zucker2006;

LeVine2010;Ledgerwood2008;Davis2009;RithyMen2002),andBuddhismin

particularisbeingre-imaginedandre-inventedinrelationtocontemporaryissues

andpoliticalneeds(Kent2003;Ledgerwood2008;Zucker2006,2013).Its

regenerationoffersacontinuancebetweenthepast–theerabeforetheconflicts

(particularlytheKhmerRouge,whowereknownasNeakKmeanSasanea–the

peopleofnoreligion)-andnow.AsMingYaytoldme,‘thisisourreligion.Then

[duringKhmerRouge]theyhadnoreligion’92.Reinstatingtheseritualsbrought

92WhenIfirstarrivedinCambodiamanypeoplepresumedIwasChristian.Inanswertoquestionsaboutreligion,IwouldtellpeopleIhadnoreligion.AfterafewweeksmyresearchassistanttookmeasideandadvisedthatperhapsIshouldnottellpeoplethis;manyCambodiansassociate


securityandstabilitytomanypeople.Guillou(2012:17)wrotethatthere-

establishmentofPchumBenhinthe1990shelpedcomfortthelivingbecauseit

providedanopportunityforcollectivecareforthedeadbothknownand

unknown:

Imyselfwitnessedahugereliefamongthepopulationinthedaysfollowingthe

firstfestival,asiftheatmospherewassuddenlylighterandquieter.

Conclusion

Ithasbecomeacommontropeamongstwesternobserversthatdisplayingthe

remainsofthedeadandnotcrematingthemishighlydisrespectfultoKhmer

Buddhists(Hughes2005;Jarvis2013;Becker2013:107).93Thesestatements

objecttotheuseofskeletalremainstoreifypoliticalnarrativesoftheregimeand

itsliberation(seechaptersfive–seven),andtothelackofappropriateritualthey

assumetohavebeenconductedforthedead.Thischapterhasshown,however,

thatthisisnotthecase.Careforthephysicalremainsofthosekilledduringthe

regimeisappropriatelydevolvedtothepagodasinwhichtheyremain,andcare

forthespiritsisencompassedintheannualritualcycles.Themostimportant

aspectofthisisthepassingofmerittothedead.InCambodia,nomatterwhere

youare,themeritwillreachthosedeadpeople.InBuddhism,withbonesor

withoutbones,nearorfar,themeritcanalwaysbepassedtoyourrelatives.

havingnoreligionwiththeKhmerRouge,shetoldme,andshedidnotthinkitwasdoingmeanyfavoursinbuildingrelationships.

93IthasalsobecomeasiteofpoliticalcontestationbetweenthelateKingFatherNorodomSihanouk,andPrimeMinisterHunSen,aswillbediscussedinchapterfive.


TheKhmerRougedeadincontemporaryCambodiaareencompassedwithinthe

annualritualcycle,andindividualceremoniessolelyforthedeadoftheKhmer

Rougewaslargelyunnecessaryeitherthenornow.Thereareamultitudeof

ways,bothpublicandprivate,bywhichthedeadarereintegratedintosociallife,

manyofwhichrelyonconnectionsandcontinuanceaswaysofdealingwith

disruption.Thisisparticularlysalientinsuchcontextsaswar,conflict,famine,and

othercausesofmassdeath.Theyprovidecontinuanceandassurancethatthese

periods(andtheirimpacts)arebothtemporaryand,likethecycleofdeathand

rebirthwithinwhichmostKhmerlive,inescapable.Thenextchapterwillshow

howrelationshipswiththedeadchangedovertimetoenablethemtobe

incorporatedintotheseacceptableaspectsofsociallife,whilechapterfivewill

explorethewaysinwhichkarmaandreincarnationprovideameansof

reincorporatingthedeadintothelivesoftheliving,andcontinuingafunctioning

socialsystemdespitethemassrupturesoftheKhmerRougeregime.

126

Chapterthree:Helpfuldead,frighteningghosts-relationships

betweenthelivingandthedead

ThoseyoungKhmershouldthankthespirits.Theyarereceivingbenefits

fromtheirdeath.

-SreySrey,onthebenevolenceofthosekilledbytheKhmerRouge

********

ThedeadroamedCambodiaintheyearsimmediatelyafterthefallofDemocratic

Kampuchea,hauntingpeopleintheirattemptstoalleviatetheirlonelinessandre-

connectwiththeliving.AtChoeungEk,theywreakedhavoc.Theystopped

peopleshelteringatthesiteandkeptothersawakewiththeircrying.Achildwas

killedwhenaghostspookedtheoxpullingthecarthewasin,causingittotopple

andrunoverhim.Butintheearly1980s,theghostsstoppedhauntingandthe

areabecamesafeforthepeopleinandaroundit.Thedeadbegantohelpthe

countrytoregainpeace,andovertimemostwerereborn.

InKohSopasimilarscenarioensued.Immediatelyafterliberationpeopleacross

theriversawlightsmovingacrossthespaceandthendisappearing–asuresignof

ghosts.Thosemovingtothesitewerehaunted.Theghoststriedtotrickthem;

disguisingthemselvesasshadowsorpeopletheyknew,onlytodisappearwhen

theyturnedaround.Thedeadpermeatedtheearth:fruitgrownontheislandwas

fullofblood;fishandcrabs,gorgingonthecorpses,fulloffat.Astimemovedon,


however,andmorepeoplemovedtotheisland,theghostsstoppedhaunting.

Peoplebegantoconnectwiththedead,whohelpedthelivingrestarttheirlives.

Overtimethedeadlosttheirpower,andnowadays,theghostsfromthosekilled

undertheKhmerRougehaveallbutdisappeared.

GhostsandspiritsarenotimaginarybeingsinCambodia.Theyaresocialentities,

inhabitingtheworldalongsidelivingpeopleandinteractinginwaysthatshape

socialactionandrelationshipstothepast.Liketheliving,thedeadaresubjectto

changeandtransitiondependingonthesocialcircumstancestheyencounter.

ThischapterexaminesinteractionsbetweenthelivingandthedeadofDemocratic

Kampuchea.FollowingHeonikKwon’s(2006,2008)thesisthatghostscanbe

centraltounderstandingthesocialidentityandexperiencesoftheliving,

particularlythewaythatthesociallivesofthedeadmirrorthepoliticallivesofthe

living,thischapterexploresthechangingstatusofthedeadfromDemocratic

Kampuchea,examiningtheirchangefromfrightenedandfrighteningentitiesof

haunting,tobenevolentalliesinthereconstructionofpost-DKCambodia,to

powerlessbeingswhohavesincediedorlefttheirspace.

Todothis,itwillfirstexaminethetheoreticalframeworkofthechapter,before

introducingmorefullythedeadandtheirvariousincarnationsaswellasthe

relevantliteraturefromCambodia.Twoethnographicexamplesofthis

transformationwillbepresented:thefirstfromKohSop,thesecondfrom

ChoeungEk.Thesetwoencounterswillillustratehow,whilethedeadunderwent

similarpatternsoftransformationindemeanourandstatus,theirsupportand

interactionsarelocallysituated;atKohSoptheyarelocalandindividual;at

ChoeungEknationalandcollective.


Whilstthischapterfocuseslargelyonghosts,thereisanelementofslippagein

everydaylanguagerelatedtothedeadinCambodia,andtherefore,Iwillusethe

‘thedead’todescribethespiritualincarnationsofthosekilledduringDemocratic

Kampucheaingeneral,usingonlytheirspecificformonlywhenitwasmade

explicitbymyinformants.

Theoreticalbackground

Theconceptsofghostsandhauntingarecommontropesinthepost-conflict

literature.AsHeonikKwonpointsoutinGhostsofWarinVietnam(2008),both

provideusefulhistoricalmetaphor,particularlyforeventscontemporaneously

deemedasnegative.Assuchtheyareusedasrhetoricaldevicestoexplorehow

contemporaryhistoryisinfluencedbythepast(theghostofthecoldwarthat

hauntstheWestforexample).However,asKwonpointsout,thepositionof

ghostsasvalidandvitalsocialbeingshasbeenlargelyignored,and,becauseof

theirassumedpositionbetweentherealmsofthelivingandthedeadwith

(accordingtoearlysocialtheoristssuchasDurkheim)noclearlydefinedsocial

functions,theyhavesatoutsidemuchsocialtheory(Kwon2008b:23).Kwon

questionsthisexclusionbyusingSimmel’smodelofthestrangertoshowhow

ghostsinVietnamareanintegralelementintheconstructionofsocialidentity;by

theirveryexclusion,theyareaspectsofwhatformsidentitiesandrelationships

withotherbeings,particularlythewidelyregardedancestralentities:

Thesocietyofancestors,aswithothermoresecularsocieties,hasforeign

relationsaswellasdomesticpolitics.Wemaynotignoretheseexternalrelations

inpaintingasocialorder…thenegativecultofghostsismutuallyconstitutiveof

thepositivecultofancestorsandwecannotimaginethesymbolicrealmof


ancestorswithoutplacingtheminawiderrelationalstructurewiththoseof

ghosts’(ibid.).

InthischapterIfollowKwon’sexample,examiningthedeadasvitalbeingswho

livealongsidetheliving,andwhoaffectsociallifebeyondbeingsimplyremnants

ofmemoryorimprintsofthepast.InCambodia,asinVietnam,thedeadare

sociallyactivebeings,whointeractwiththelivingonaregularbasis.Assuchthey

mustbeexaminednotasmetaphororallegory,butassociallysalientbeings.I

particularlydrawonKwon’sassertionthatthesociallivesofghostsreflectthe

politicallivesoftheliving(Kwon2006:178).Idonotmeantodiminishthemto

simplyallegoryormetaphor,butinsharingsocialworlds,thedeadexperiencethe

samedisjuncturesandchaosthatthelivingdoandthereforetheirexperiences

andstatusparallelthoseoftheliving.Becauseofthis,theirexperiencescanhelp

makevisiblethestatusoftheliving,becauseitsocloselyresemblestheirown.

OtherthanKwon’swork,whereghostsandotherspiritsresultingfromviolence

appearintheanthropologicalliteraturetheyareoftendistinguishedfromother,

more‘positive’spiritualmanifestations(suchasancestorsandguardianspirits),

insteadappearingassignsofsufferingand/orsocialmarginalizationmade

materialthroughspiritinteractions:possessions,hauntings,andother,usually

malevolent,encounters.Thisisparticularlythecaseinplaceswherehistorical

violencehascausedanexcessofspiritualbeings.SasankaPerera(2001),for

example,arguesthatduringtheintensificationofpoliticalviolencefollowingthe

JanataVimuktiPeramuna-leadviolentinsurrectionandstateledcounter

insurgencyinSriLanka(1988to1991),possessionbywanderingspiritsbecamea

modeofdealingwiththeterrorcausedbyenforceddisappearances,torturesand

killings.Possessions,andotherspiritinteractionsenabledpeopletogivesymbolic


meaningtotheeventsandsoprovidedameansofcopingwithfearaswellas

rememberingthepast.ThesustainedpoliticalviolenceinSriLankahaderoded

trustinsecularsystemsofcopingandhealingandnewmodestherefore

developedfromwithinalreadyexisting,easilyaccessibleaspectsofthesocial

sphere(i.e.ghostsandspirits),thatenabledpeopletodealwiththepastwithout

guiltorfurthersuffering.94

JudithBovensiepen(2009),meanwhile,explainshowthelandscapeofTimorLeste

becamemoredangerousforpeoplereturningtotheirhomesafterthemilitary

invasionsandforcedresettlementsofthe1970sand1980s,becauseanexcessof

spiritsofthosekilledbutnotproperlyburiedsaturatedthelandscape.This

saturationcausedariseinthenumberoflandspiritsandanincreaseoflulik-a

spiritualpotencythatinhabitstheland-makingitdangerousforthosereturning

tothearea.Inordertoregainsaferelationshipswiththeland,thosereturning

hadtore-establishreciprocalrelationshipswiththespiritualrealm,however,its

potencyremainedhighthroughoutherfieldwork;aphysicalandmetaphysical

reminderofthedisjuncturesinsociallifebroughtaboutbytheconflicts.

MostoftheliteratureonthedeadinCambodiaexaminestheritualsthat

encompassthem,ratherthanthedeadthemselves(forexampleDavis2009;

Ledgerwood2008;O'Lemmon2014;Zucker2006).Afewexceptionsexist.The

mostauthoritativevoiceonKhmerspiritsisCambodiananthropologistAng

94UnlikePerera’sfindingsinSriLanka,justiceandrevengearenotcentralcharacteristicsofencounterswiththedeadfromtheKhmerRouge,althoughstoriesinfolklorefollowthistheme,andrecentevents,suchasmassfaintingoffactoryworkers,indicateaformofresistanceplayedoutthroughpossession(Wallace2014).Onesimilaritybetweenthetwocountries,however,isinthedeclineoftrustinsecularjusticesystemsfollowingongoingpoliticalviolence,whichcouldbeindicatedinCambodiabytheriseinpeoplevisitingspiritmediumstoaskforguidancefromtheNeakTapost-DemocraticKampuchea(O'Lemmon2014).


Chouléan,whosedoctoralthesisLesètressupernaturaldanslareligionpopulaire

khmère(1986)outlinedthedifferentspiritstobefoundacrossthecountry.This

workfocusedprimarilyonclassifyingspirits;individualspiritsaremissingfromthe

analysis,astheyarefromhissubsequentwork,which,althoughoftenconcerning

spirits,focuseslargelyonmyth,ritualandtheover-archingrelationshipsbetween

animismandBuddhisminCambodia(Chouléan1986,1988,1990,2004).Didier

Bertrandspentseveralyearscollectingdataontheboramey–thespiritsthat

possessspiritmediumsacrossCambodia,butlikeChouléan,heconcentratedon

classifyingtypesofborameyratherthanpresentingindividualencounterswith

specificdead(Bertrand2001).Inhisthesisondeathritualsincontemporary

Cambodia,ErikDavis(2009)paidattentiontopreta(hungryghosts),humans

rebornintotanarout–theKhmerunderworld,usuallybecauseofsinsconducted

throughouttheirlives.Pretanotonlyrepresentaliteralincarnation,butisalso

usedincontemporaryCambodiaasamodeofderidingthesocialcontradictions

anddisruptiontofamilyandvillagelifethatmigrantworkcauses.95

OneilluminatingworkregardinginteractionswiththedeadisConsolingGhosts:

StoriesofMedicineandMourningofSoutheastAsiansinExilebyJeanLangford

(2013).BasedonconversationwithKhmerandLaosemigrantstotheUS,

Langfordusestheirstoriesofghosts,haunting,andcareforthedead,toexamine

biopoliticsintheWestandquestionassumptionsandethicswithinmedicinein

theUS,particularlyexaminingtheconflictsthatariseininteractionswithstate

agencies.Whilsttherearesomeissueswiththisbook(forexampleshe

95Theotherplaceghostsandspiritsoccurisinthepsychologicalliterature,inarticlesexaminingtheongoingsufferingofKhmersurvivorsandrefugeesoftheKhmerRouge,primarilyinFranceandtheUS(Becker2000,Rechtman2000,2006).Thesepapers,however,tendtodismissthespirits(whooftenvisittheirrelativesindreams),classifyingthemaspsychologicalimprintsofongoingsufferingratherthanviablebeingswithwhomthelivingneedtointeract.


intentionallyblurstheboundariesbetweenCambodiaandLaos,suggesting

SoutheastAsiatobeahomogenousterritorywhereexperience,relationshipsand

interactionsaresynonymousineachlocation),Ilikethisbookbecauseofits

engagementwithrecenteventsinthenarrators’lives,beyondthewarsand

conflicts,anditsunderstandingofthevitalrolethedeadplayinthese

interactions.Itthereforeenablesthereadertocomprehendthatwarandconflict

arenottheonlyeventsaffectingpeoplefromthesecountries,preventing

stagnationoftheseeventsinpeople’slifestories.

SomeoftheonlyworkthatfocusesspecificallyonthedeadfromtheKhmer

RougeisthatofFrenchanthropologistAnneYvonneGuillou(2012;2013),who

engageswithAlainForest’s(2000),authoritativebookonNeakTa(thelocal

guardianspirits),byexamininghowthedeadinherfieldsiteinPursatprovinceare

takingoncharacteristicsofNeakTabyprovidingprotectionandmoralorderingto

theliving.Throughthecirculationofpāramī,(akindofcirculatingspiritualpower)

thedeadoftheKhmerRougeimbuesomekindofpowertothemassgravesthat

theyinhabit,andlikeNeakTaare‘touchy’and‘illtempered’anddemand

respectfulbehaviorofthosewhopassthroughtheirspace(Guillou2012b:221).96

Guillou’sarticleisilluminating,particularlyinitsanalysisofthebiopoliticsofthe

UN-backedKhmerRougetrial(whichsheconvincinglyargues,bearslittle

resonancetomostKhmerpeople,andisinsteadentirelynationallyand

internationallyfocused),however,whileIagreewithGuillou’sassertionthatsome

ofthecharacteristicsofthedeadfromDemocraticKampucheaseemedNeakTa

likeintheirabilitiestomakepeoplesick,andpeopleusedthemodesoftalking

96ThisishappeningmostcontroversiallytothespiritofPolPot,whoistransformingintoapowerfulguardianspiritinthevillageofChoam,inAnlongVengprovince,wherehiscremainsareburied.


aboutthekhmouchtobesimilartothewaytheywouldabouttheNeakTa(i.e.

testyandgrumpy),Ithinkthereisaconflationherebetweenlanguageand

characteristicsthatmyresearchdoesnotsupport.AtthesitesIvisitedthe

khmouchfromtheKhmerRougedidatfirstmakepeoplesick,anddisturbedmany

throughtheirhaunting.However,myinformantstoldmethiswasbecausethey

themselveswerefrightenedandconfusedanddidnotwanttobedisturbed.Neak

Ta,ontheotherhand,arenotconfused–theymakepeoplesickbecausethey

ownthelandandthewater,andpeoplehavedisrespectedthis.Theypunish

peopleandthereforeorderbehaviour,whereastheDKdeadsimplywantedtobe

leftalone.BesidesthisinmostplacesIvisitedtherearenohauntingghostsor

spiritsfromthedeadoftheKhmerRouge.Guillouherselfcommentsthatghosts

orotherspiritualincarnationsofthosekilledundertheKhmerRougearealmost

nonexistent;mosthaveleftthegravesandthesespaceshavebecomebenign,

andwhereghostshaunt,theyarekhmouchfromrecentdeaths.Thedeadofthe

KhmerRougehavenowbeenreborn,andassuchallthatremainsaretheir

skeletons,whichare‘likewood.’

ThecharacteristicsofthedeadkilledbytheKhmerRougehavechangedalongside

thecountry.Theydonotfunctionasameansofsuppressedvoicesbeingheard,

butparallelthelivingintheiraffectsandstatus.Thisisnotsurprising.Spirits

belongtotheacceptedrealmsofexistencethatbeingscanberebornintoand

manyoftheserealmsofexistencesharetheworldwithhumans.Thatthedead

paralleltheemotionsofthelivingdoesnotmakethemmetaphoricaldepictions

(althoughsometimestheyareusedinthisway,reflectingtheirliminality);they

aresubjecttothesamedisjunctures,chaosanddisorderasthelivingbecause


theyexistalongsidethemandareemotionalandvitalentitieswhoneedcareand

attention.

GhostsandspiritsinCambodia

EncounterswiththedeadarecommonplaceinCambodia,anditishometoa

plethoraofghostsandspirits,allofwhicharesociallyactiveentities-mostspirits

interactwith,andmakedemandsof,humansandanimalsaspartofeveryday

life97.Muchoftheannualritualcycleisstructuredaroundritualsproviding

communicationandconciliationtovariousspirits(LeVine2010;Nou2012),and

theirimportanceinthelivesofthelivingishighlightedintheplethoraoffolktales

andfablesthatcentreonthespiritsofthedead,andthenumberofmyths

circulatedacrossCambodiainwhichtheNeakTa(thelocalguardianspirits)are

fundamental.

Liketheliving,thedeadareorganizedintohierarchiesofpowerandbelonging,at

thetopofwhicharetheboramey:powerfulspiritsusuallyassociatedwith

mythicalandhistoricalbeingswhopossessspiritmediumsandgivethemaccess

toknowledge(Bertrand2001)98.Mostinfluentialinmyinformants’everyday

lives,however,arethelocalguardianspirits:theNeakTa(translatingliterallyas

‘maleoldperson’,orcolloquially‘Grandfatherperson’).Residinginsignificant

featuresofthelandscapesuchasparticulartreesorrocks,and,morerecently

97SocommontoeverydaylifearethedeadthatanEnglishconversationbookIboughtshortlyafterarrivinginCambodia,hadanentiresectiononghostsandhowtoconverseaboutthem,includingquestionssuchas‘Haveyouevermetaghost?’‘Haveyoueverbeenhauntedbyaghost?’‘Wheredoestheghostlive?’

98DidierBertrand,whoconductedresearchwithspiritmediums(Kru)acrossCambodiaforseveral

yearsinthelate1990s,wastoldthatover10,000borameyexist,however,inhisyearsofresearchhecollectedthenamesofonly300(Bertrand2001).


architecturallandmarksofcitiesandtowns(seefigurenine),theyownandgovern

thelandscapeofCambodia.Byengaginginreciprocalrelationswiththehumans

inhabitingorusingtheirspace,theydemandrespectfortheirpropertyand,in

return,offerprotectionandgoodfortuneforthosewhoprovideforthem.Failure

togiverespect(byaskingpermissiontousethelandandgivingofferings)canbe

harmful-misfortune,illnessandevendeathareusedtopunishthoseproving

disrespectful99.

Figurenine:NeakTaonthemainroadintoBattambang

InadditiontotheNeakTaandtheboramey,bothofwhichhelporderKhmerlife

byprovidingmoralandspiritualguidancetopeopleintheireverydayactionsand

interactions,othertypesofthedeadinteractwiththeliving.Ancestors(kruba

cheay)mayappearintheguiseofabuffalooracowtoremindtheirrelativesto

continuerespectingthem.MalevolentspiritssuchasPreayorbrāyandarak(the

99

In2013theformervillagechiefofKohSopwaskilledbyoneoftheisland’sNeakTa(addressedasLōkTa)becausehecutdownalargeandancientquininetreewithoutpermission.


spiritsofthosewhohavediedviolentdeaths)100andbai-sach(cruelspiritsfrom

ancienttimes)101wreakhavocuponthehumansthatencounterthem,causing

illnessorevendeath.Preta(hungryghosts;thosewhohavediedviolentdeaths,

orwhosekarmafrompreviousmisdeedsleadsthemtoberebornintotanarout–

theKhmerunderworld)needfeeding,especiallyatPchumBenh,otherwisethey

willbecomemischievous,andiftheyarehungrywillvisitpeopleintheirdreams

todemandfood.Thereexistothers,andreadersaredirectedtoAngChouléan’s

workforacomprehensivelist.102

However,thecategoryIammostinterestedinforthischapterarekhmouch.

Khmoucharetheghostsoftherecentlydeceasedandthereforeallpeople

becomekhmouch.Academicallyadifferenceexistsbetweenghosts(khmouch)–

remnantsofthosewhohaverecentlydied-andspirits(vinheankhan)–beings

thathaunt-however,thereisslippageineverydayparlancebetweendifferent

beings,andtheyarenoteasilyextractedfromeachother.Vinheankhanwas

neverusedbymyinformants,whilstkhmouchwasusedtorefertoghosts,spirits

thathaunt(khmouchloung),andvariousotherincarnationsofthedeadthat

interactwiththeliving.Thewordkhmouchisitselfsomewhatambiguous–itcan

100

Theseareusuallyfemalespirits.Arak(themalevolentspiritsofwomenwhohavediedviolentdeaths,usuallyasaresultofchildbirth)areparticularlytroublesome.Althoughtheycanbecalmed,theyneverbecomebenevolentandareliabletobecomemaliciousagainwithoutwarning.

101Bai-sacharetheonlyKhmerentitiesthatcannotbereborn:evolvingfromancienttimes,they

arefullofevilandwanttokilleachotherandhumanstheyencounter.OneofthemonksIinterviewedtoldmethatanancientKhmerprophecysaysthatthebai-sachwillcomefromtheforestclaimingtobeNeakTa,findkru(spiritmediums)tocommunicatethrough,andcausechaostothecountrybygivingbadadvice.Somemonks,hetoldme,considerthistimetobenow:thebai-sachhaveenteredhumanityandcausechaosbyencouragingpeopletocriticizethegovernment,killothersfortheirowngain,grablandfromothersandengageinothersociallyunacceptablebehaviour.

102AlthoughthespiritsthatChouléandescribesarebecomingrarer,particularlyinurbanareas,

andspiritsincontemporaryCambodiaarebeginningtoresemblethosefromcontemporaryfictionandfilmmorethanthoseofKhmerfolklore.


refertoarecentlydeceasedperson,corpsesoftherecentlydeceased,oraghost.

ThisreflectsthenatureofthedeadinCambodia:immediatelyafterdeaththey

arebothacorpseandaspirit-ittakesuptosevendaysforthedeadto

comprehendtheirdeathandmovetotheirnextlife,andtopreventhauntingand

confusion,thecorpseisusuallynotdisposedofuntilthosesevendaysareover

(withtheoccasionalexceptionofcontemporaryviolentdeaths–seechaptertwo).

Thereisthereforesomeambiguityinpeople’sdiscussionsaboutthedead,

becausetheycanbereferringtoallthreemodesofexistencecontemporaneously.

Itisforthisreasonthatkhmouchareviewedasparticularlypowerfuland/or

dangerous,becausetheyinhabitanambiguousexistencenotyetsettledontheir

finaloutcome.

Khmouchoftenliveintheforestsorinotherwild,uninhabitedareas(prei).They

canbenervousoftheliving,however,theyalsocravetheircompany,anditisthis

thatcausesthemtohaunt.Whilstmanyofthespiritshauntinspecificways(for

exampleaaps103movefromhousetohouseknockingondoorsandwailing),

khmouchcanchangeformandoftendosoinordertotrickpeopleintofollowing

them,orconversingwiththem.Theymaydisguisethemselvesassomeoneyou

know,orreplicateeverydaypracticestofoolpeople,asYayexplainedtomewhen

IaskedherwhetherthosewhodiedundertheKhmerRougemanifested

themselvesinparticularways:

Khmoucharethesame;whentheyhaunt,theyhaunt.It’sjustsomeghostshave

onewayofhauntingandotherghostshaveotherwaysofhaunting.Duringthe

correctionera[PRK]somepeoplehadchildrenandalotofpeoplewereweaving,

sowhentheyhauntedustheymadethesoundofweaving-theyhittheloom.At

103Beingswhodetachtheirheadandintestinesfromtheirbodiesatnightandgohaunting.


thattimepeoplehadkids,sowhensomehauntedustheyalsomadeasoundlike

theyweresingingalullaby.

Intheperiodaftertheirdeathskhmouchmayvisitpeopleintheirdreamstoplace

demandsonthatpersonorcommunity(usuallyaskingforcertainofferings,orfor

particulartreatmentoftheirremains).Althoughtheyhauntandcanmakepeople

sick,theyareusuallynotmalevolent,andaswillbeillustratedinthischapter,the

hauntingisoftenaresultoftheirownconfusedemotionalstate.

ThedeadoftheKhmerRougewereusuallyreferredtobymyinformantsas

khmouch,althoughdistinctionsweremadebetweenthosewhohavedied

recently,andthosewhodiedduringDemocraticKampuchea,whohavemostly

beenreincarnatedandwhoseremainsthereforeareonlyskeletal.Aspreviously

mentioned,althoughintheyearsimmediatelyaftertheregime,theysaturated

thelandscape,physicallyandspiritually,hauntingthosewhocametolivewhere

theydid,nowadaysalmostnoghostsremainfromtheKhmerRougeregime,at

leastnotinanyofthesitesIconductedresearchin.Andineachareathedead

hadundergonesimilarchanges:fromfrightenedandfrighteningentitiesthat

haunted,tobenevolentdeadhelpingtheliving,topowerlessspiritswaitingtobe

reborn,toreincarnatedbeingsnowinhabitingCambodia.

Ethnographiccasestudies

Havingcoveredtherelevantliteratureandexplainedtheplaceofkhmouch,Iwill

nowpresentethnographiccasestudiesthathighlightthewayrelationships

betweenthedeadandthelivinghaveevolvedintheyearsafterDemocratic

Kampuchea,fromhauntingghosts,tobenevolentdead,whohavesubsequently


beenreborn.Thefollowingethnographicencountersshowhowtheinteractions

anddispositionsofthedead,whilstfollowingthesameoverallpattern,arelocally

specific,andrelatedtothesitetheyinhabit.Thetwoethnographiesarecompiled

fromnarrativestoldoverseveralmonths–fromOmYay;OmSrey;MingYay;Yay;

SreySabbay;andherhusbandBuatKohSop,andSreyChanandherhusband

Samnang,OmTa,BongBroh,BuSoth,andBongLaatChoeungEk.

Rebuildinglives:thedeadatKohSop

WhenSreySabbayandBuarrivedonKohSopintheearly1980s,bodiesstill

coveredmuchofthelandandlayrottinginthelakesandstreams:theyhadto

clearthemfromthelandtobuildtheirhouses,sometimesburningthem,but

usuallyjustpilingthemwiththeothersunderthequininetree.Somepeopledid

notbothertoclearthem,theysimplypiledsoilontopofthemandbuiltontop.

Indescribingthebodiesshesaid‘theylookedlikefermentedfish.’OmYaytold

methattheysmelled‘mahes,’aKhmertermthatdescribesadamp,mouldykind

ofsmellofsomethingnotproperlydried,likeawettowel.OmSreydescribedthe

smellas‘sticky’104-togetridofthesmellfromtheirskin,peoplewashedtheir

handswithripeguavaor,iftheycouldgetit,pineapple.Theysquashedthefruit

overtheirhandsandtheacidfromthefruitcutthroughthesmellandprevented

itfromsticking.

Encounterswiththedead,bothphysicalandspiritual,wereinevitableatthistime.

Itwasafrighteningplacetothoselivingnearby.‘WhenIfirstcame’SreySabbay

toldme,‘peopledidnotdaretocomehere.TheyaskedmeifIwasscaredliving

104Irecognisethisdescriptionfrommyownexperienceofworkingwithcorpses–thereissomethingaboutthesmellthatseemstostickinyournose,onyourclothes,inyourhair,andstayswithyoulongafterdealingwithdeath.


here.Peopleontheotherside[oftheriver]sawlightsflyingabout–likefar.’Far

arelightsthatmoveacrossthespace,fadingastheytravel.Theyareacertain

indicatorofthepresenceofghosts.Atfirstthedeadhadhauntedpeople,causing

insecurityandfearforsomevillagers.OmSreyhadneverbeenhaunted,butOm

Yaytoldmehowtheghostscausedtroubleintheearlydaystoherandothersin

thevillage,recountinganincidentoneafternoonwhenshewastransplanting

youngricefrompaddytopaddy:

OmYay: Atfirst,theycausedtroubletous.Theyhauntedus.Iwas

unconsciousfromonetofivepm.

OmSrey: Shehadthefrightenedfeelingwithherthat’swhy.

OmYay: No,itwasn’tlikethat.Inthemorning,whiletransplantingthe

paddies,Ifoundpiecesofclothinginthesoil.Itwasaround1pm

whentheystartedtoaffectme,andthenIfainted.Allmy

childrenwerecrying….IfeltdizzyandIsawthefanwasmoving

fastandthenIfainted.Myjawwasverytight.

OmSrey: Youweresicktooatthattimemaybe;wewereverytiredafter

work.

OmYay: Nosister.IsawthousandsofhandscatchingmylegsandI

couldn’tmove;Ifeltlikethekhmouch(dead)werealloverme….

OmYayreturnedhomeandlaydown,wheretheghostspressedhertothebed,

causinghertofallunconscious.Thekhmouchleftafterafewhours,andthough

theyhavenotbotheredhersince,othersinthevillagehadbeenhaunted.Even

aftertheKhmerRougehadleft,peoplefromacrosstheriverreportedseeing

soldierswalkingallovertheisland,andsomenights,ataroundeighto’clock,the


villageinhabitantswouldhearthemdancingunderthemangotreetothesound

ofbeatingdrums.‘Theywerenotscaredofus’OmSreyreported.

Yaywasalsohaunted.Shearrivedontheislandintheearly1980s,whentheland

wasstillcoveredinforestandfewpeoplelivedthere.Shecaughtglimpsesof

peoplewalkingaround,orsawshadowsinthecornerofhereye,butwhenshe

lookedtheydisappeared.Ononeoccasionsheheardthesoundofsomeone

jumpingintoapondneartoherhouse,butwhenshecheckedthepondwasstill.

Thelandwasstillwildwhenshefirstcame:theclearanceofpeoplebeforeand

duringDemocraticKampucheahadallowedmuchofittobecomeovergrown,and

thebambooforestthatcoveredtheheadoftheislandhadrunrampage.During

theregimethishadprovedconvenient:someexecutionsoccurredinthecoverof

thebamboo,althoughotherswerekilledwherevertheystoodandleftrotting

acrossthesurfaceoftheland.Whenshetoldherhusbandaboutthehaunting,he

toldhernottobesoscared;ghostswouldonlyhauntthosewhowerefrightened.

IaskedOmYayandOmSreywhytheythoughttheghostshauntedintheearly

days.OmYayconsideredittobebecausetheyhadlosttheirfamilies:

Theywereroamingaroundbecausetheywereworriedaboutus….theywere

worriedabouttheirchildren,becausewewereverysmall.Idon’tknowwhere

theywouldgo,buttheywereroamingaround.

Aretheystillroamingaroundnow?

Ithinktheyarereincarnatedalready,becauseitisalmost30yearsagoalready.

Itwasnotonlybyhauntingthatthedeadinhabitedthelandscape;theysaturated

thelandandpermeatedtheplantsandanimalsthatgrewamongthem.‘The


mangoeswerefulloffat,’SreySabbaytoldme.Bu(SreySabbay’shusband)told

methatthefruitwashuge,andwhenthestemswereremoved,wouldoozewith

fat.WhenIaskedaboutthistheybothreplieditwas‘thefatofthedeadpeople.’

Itwasnotjustthemangoes.OmYaytoldmeoftheprintree105:‘whenitfirst

gavefruit,itwasfullofblood.’Afterfeastingonthefleshofthecorpses,the

crabsandthefishwereenormous.Busaidtheywerecoveredinalgaeandwhen

theytookthefishorfruittomarket,noonewouldbuythem.SreySabbayand

Bu,andotherpeopleontheisland,however,atethefruitandthefish.Theyhad

nochoice–theywerehungry,foodwasscarce,andmoneywastight.And‘aftera

yearortwo,[thedead]weren’tinthefruitanymore’Butoldme.

Intheirpresenceinthelandscape,andthroughtheirhaunting,thedeaddisturbed

theliving,andmadeitdifficultforthemtosurvive.Peoplewereafraid,theycould

notsleep,andsomebecamesick.MingYayhadtodismantleandrelocateher

house106becauseitwasbuiltontopofthegravesandthoseinthemhauntedthe

family;sometimesatnightthehousewouldspin,andthechildrenstartedsleep-

walking.AFengShuiexpertcametoassessthehouse:‘hetoldmethatwewould

notbeabletolivesafely(soks’roal107)becausewelivedonothers,’shesaid.‘All

ofthislandwasfullofkhmouch.Iwasscaredtowalkatnoon108.’

105Atypeofplum.

106HousesinruralCambodiaareusuallyone-roomwood,orwoodandpalm-leaf,stiltedhouses.Theycanbeeasilydismantledandmovedasnecessary.

107Soks’roalcanbetranslatedassafelyorpeacefully,orcanmeanboth.

108Itwasexplainedtomethatnoonwastensetimefortworeasons.Firstly,mostpeopletakeanaparoundthistime,sothevillageisquietanddangerousentitiesthereforemorelikelytocomeout.Secondly,ghostscandisguisethemselvesaspeople,buttheydonothaveshadows-atnoonwhenthesunisatitshighestpointandshadowsareshortitcanbedifficulttotellthelivingfromthedead.


ThoselivingonKohSopacceptedtheghostsasafactoflifeintheearlydays.Like

thelivingtheywerescaredandconfused;mostofthemhadbeenkilledfaraway

fromhomeandhadlosttheirfamiliesandtheirdisplacementcausedthemmuch

anguish.Butinordertosurviveandliveinrelativepeace,thosemovingtothe

siteneededtomakepeacewiththedeadandcometoanarrangement:thatboth

partieswouldleavetheotheralonetoexistundisturbed.Aftermovingherhouse,

MingYaytoldtheghoststheywouldnottouchthemanymore,andsincethen,has

hadnotrouble:

ifwetouchthemordoanyharmtothem,theywillharmusback.Theymight

causeusdeath….Soweburntincensesticks109andsaidthat[wewouldnottouch

themanymore]andaskedthemnottomakeussick.Whenweasklikethat,they

willgo;theywillnotharmusanymore.

OmYay’shousewasdirectlybehindthep’teahkhmouch(houseofthedead,or

ghosthouse),where,afterbeingdugupduringthelooting,thedecomposing

remainsofthedeadwerestoredforseveralyears.Atfirstshehadnotwantedto

livethere,becauseitwassoclosetothebodies,however,bythetimeshearrived

ontheislandnootherspacewasavailable.Despiteherlocation,however,and

othersseeingghostsallaroundherhouse(intheformoflights),thedeadlefther

aloneandshehadremainedfreefromhaunting,becauseshehadmadean

agreementwiththeghosts:

109

Incenseisburnttoletthespiritsknowthelivingarecallingthem.Oneinformanttoldmethatwhensomeonehasdiedinanaccident,aceremonyisheldforthespiritofthedead.Beforetheceremonyisheld,however,incenseislitandanofferingoffoodisleftatthesiteofthedeath.‘Theincenseistoletthespiritknowwearecallingthem’sheexplained.‘ThefoodisfortheNeakTa,sohewillletthespiritbefree.’


Isaid‘Let’sbefriends.Iwon’tdoanyharmtoyouandyoudon’tdoanyharmto

me….’Ijustsaiditlikethat….Isaid:‘Don’tcometostayhere;thisplaceisfor

thelivingpeople.Theliving.’Isaiditthroughthewind(niyeaytamveayor)110.

IftherewereanyspiritstheywouldhearwhatIsaid.

Overtime,andfollowingtheagreementsmadebetweenthem,thelivingandthe

deadstartedtohaveamoreharmoniousrelationship,andthedeadstartedto

helptheliving.Asintheearlystages,thisphasewasmarkedbybothphysicaland

spiritualrelationships.Thoselivingontheislandusedthebonestomake

medicine111;otherstooktheirskullsasamuletstoprotecttheirhouseandthose

withinit112,andaspeoplestartedtogrowcropsagain,ratherthanpermeating

themandmakingtheminedible,thedeadfertilizedthelandandenabledthe

cropstogrow.

However,itwasnotonlybyusingtheirremainsthatthedeadsupportedthe

living.Theyalsohelpedthemrebuildtheirlivesbyprovidingluckandmaterial

support,leadingpeopletofindgoldandothervaluablesburiedintheground;

allowingpeopletoloottheirgravesandtheirbodies.Whenthebodieswere

uncovered,severalpeoplejoinedinthelootingandfoundvaluablestoselland

otheritemstouseforthemselves.BongSrey,forexample,usedclothingfromthe

dead:110Becausethedeadcannotbephysicallypresent,thelivingspeaktothemthroughthewind(niyeaytamveayororniyeaytamkhyorl).

111Theskeletalremains(cha-engkhmouch–bonesofthethedead)wereusedtomakevariousmedicinalremedies.Usuallybeingburnedandthengroundintoapowder,theyweremixedwithvariousotheringredientsandthendrunkasatonic.Sometimestheyweresimplyboiledinwaterandthewaterdrunk.Theywere,accordingtoSreySabbay,particularlygoodfortreatinghighfeversandrubellainchildren.

112Thispracticewascommoninotherareas,wheretheskullsweretakenfromsomeofthemassgravesitesandusedtoprovideprotectiontothosewhotookthem,andtodetertrespassersfromtheland.OneinformantinKeptoldmethattheywereparticularlyeffectiveagainsttheVietnamese.


WhenIwasyoungItooktheclothestomakeintoaskirttogotoschoolbecauseI

didn’thaveanyclothestowear.

Theclothes?

Theclothesofthedeadpeople.Itookthem,washedthemwithwashingpowder

andmadeaskirtforschool.AtthattimeIdidn’thaveanyclothestowear

becausemyfatherwaspoor.

Sheexplainedthatthedeadhelpedher,takingpityonherbecauseshewaspoor;

‘theyalwayslookedafterme’shesaid.Aswellasallowinghertotaketheir

clothes,wheneverfoodwaslow,thekhmouchwouldhelpherfindgoldintheir

graves:

TheyknewwhenIdidn’thaveanythingtoeat;theymademefindgold.Ionly

foundalittlebitofgold,sevenoreighthonoronechi113,butIoftenfoundsome.

Theexchangewasnotaltruistic.Thoughthedeadtookpityonher,andhelped

herout,italsobenefittedthem;assistingthelivinggavethemmerit,whichwould

helpthemintheirnextrebirth(seechapterfour):

WhenItooktheclothestowearlikethat,theyalsogotmerit,sotheyhelpedme.

Manypeoplejoinedinthelootingofthegraves,butthedeadnevermadethem

sick,showing,Yayexplained,thattheyapprovedandwantedtohelptheliving.

Somewerevisitedintheirsleepbythoseinthegravesleadingthemtogoldin

exchangeforofferingsandmeritpassedonatthepagoda.Onemorning

sometimeinthe80s,Yayfoundagoldtoothwhileshewastendingherturmeric

113

InCambodiagoldissoldbythechianddamlung.Adamlungistenchi,andweighs37.5gmetric.Onehonisonetenthofonechi.


patch.Afterfindingitthekhmouchwhosetoothitwasvisitedherinadream,and

toldherofmorefortunetobefound:

Thosekhmouch…gavemeadream(aoyyulsop)114.Thatone[whovisitedher]

wasveryhandsome.Helookedlikeabusinessman;hecamewithhisbodyguard

togivemeadream.Ifeltwehadafortunateconnection(nissai),that’swhyI

foundhistooth.Ifoundagoldentooth.Itwasmadeofrealgold.Iwasgrowing

tumericandIfoundasetoffalseteeth.WhenIsawthemIsawsomethingand

whenIaskedpeopleifit’sgold,Igotmorethanonechiofgold.Ifoundthegold

duringtheday,andthatnighthecameinmydreambecausewehadnissaiwith

eachother.

Thedreamwasveryvivid–tothisdayYaycanrememberclearlywhatthe

khmouchlookedlikeandhowheshowedherwherethetreasurewas:

Hewashandsomeandwearingproperclothes.Hisshirtwastuckedinsidehis

trousers.Hewaswearingahatandhewasholdingasilverandgoldwalking

stick.Hehadhisbodyguardbehindhim;hisshirtwasalsotuckedinsidehis

trousers,buthisbellywasalittlebitbigger.Butthatmandidn’thaveabigbelly.

Hesaidhewasafive-starsoldier[awartimerankabovethelevelofGeneral].

ThesoldiertoldYaythathehadbeenkilledduringtheKhmerRouge.On

reflection,shethoughtshemustberelatedtohim,becausealthoughkhmouch

hauntwhoeveriscloseby,myinformantstoldmethatthedeadthatvisitpeople

114

Itiscommonforthedeadtovisitthelivingindreams:calledaoyyulsop–literallythedeadwhogivedreams-theyusuallyvisitrelativesorfriendstomakedemands,whichthelivingmustacton.Theirdemandsusuallyrelatetotheircomfort,askingforfoodorshelter,forexample.Thesevisitsareusuallypositive,andareviewedverydifferentlyfromhaunting(loung).Thoughitwasrare,somedeadfromtheKhmerRougecontactedtheirrelativesandaskedthemtocollecttheirbones,directingthemtotheexactlocationoftheirgrave.Inmostexamples,however,likeYaythedeaddirectedthemtowardsgoldorothertreasure.


intheirdreamsareusuallyconnectedtotheminsomeway;kin,friends,orsome

sharedexperiencefromapreviouslife.Yayrememberedanuncleofhermother’s

whohadbeenrichduringtheLonNolperiodandthoughtitcouldbehim:

Ithinkhe’smostlikelytobemyfleshandblood(sach-chheam)becausemy

relativeswerekilledthereinapitjustbesidesmyhouse,butIdon’tknowwhere.

Helookedsimilartomymother.Hewasverybigandtall.Hisfacewassimilarto

mymothers.Andhesaidthatwewereconnectedbyfate-that’swhyhegave

thegoldtome.

InexchangeforgivingherhistooththekhmouchmadedemandsofYay.Heasked

hertotakesomefoodtothepagodaandofferittopassmerittohimtohelphim

bereborn.Yaydidthis,andforalongtimeshekeptthetooth,onlysellingit

whenshehadtopayformedicalbillsforherdaughtermanyyearslater.

Thehauntingsandthenhelpfromthedeadhadcontinuedforsometime.Even

whilethedeadwerehelpingsomepeople,otherswerebeinghaunted.Butover

timebothbegantowane.Itisusuallyonlythosewhohaverecentlydiedthatvisit

peopleintheirdream;onlyjustafterdeatharetheystrongenoughtoremain

connectedtotheliving.Inaddition,thedeadneedfeedingtostaystrong.Those

whoreceivedhelpfromthedeadgaveofferingstothemandthusimprovedtheir

merithelpingthemtoberebornquicker.OmYaytoldmethattheotherghosts

haddied:fearingtheirpoweriftheyremainedstrong,peoplehadrefusedtofeed

them,andtheyhadgrownweakandpowerless,andeventuallydied:

wedidn’tgiveanyofferingstothem.IfwegaveofferingstothemIthinkthe

spiritswouldbestronger.Butwedidn’tgiveanyofferingstothem.


Withtheirpowerdiminished,theghostshadbecomepowerless-saproleap(sap

translatesliterallyastasteless),thelandfreefromhaunting,andpeoplesafeand

secure(soksabbay).WhenIaskedMingYayaboutit,shetoldmethatthedead

werenotscaredanymore:

peoplegrewcropsonthemanditbecameavillageandahometownthat’swhy

theywerenotscaredanymore.

Mosthavenowdiedandbeenreborn:someasaconsequenceofnotbeingfed,

mostsimplybecausethetimepassedsincetheregimefellhasbeensolong,and

throughreciprocalrelationshipswiththeliving,theyhavebeenabletorebuild

theirkarmaandbereborn.Thefewspiritsthatremainwaitingtoberebornare

powerlessasYayexplained:

Theywouldnotbeabletoharmanyonebecausetheydon’thaveanything[any

power].

Rebuildingthecountry:thedeadatChoeungEk

LikeKohSop,therelationshipsbetweenthelivingandthedeadatChoeungEk

wentthroughtransformationsovertime,followingasimilarpatterntothat

describedabove,althoughwithsubtledifferences.AtKohSopthebenevolence

ofthedeadwasalmostentirelymaterialsupporttoindividuals:helpingpeople

findgold;lettingpeopleunearththeirremainsandusewhatevertheyfound;

providingameansofsurvivalandsubsistence.Thiskindofsupportoccurredat

ChoeungEkforsomepeople,however,thesupportgivenbythedeadherewas

moremetaphysicalandnationallyfacedthanatKohSopandothersitesIvisited.


‘Achilddiedbecauseoftheghosts,’YayChantoldmeaswesatoutsideherhouse

onahot,Augustafternoon.Hersisasmallhutbuiltfromscavengedwoodand

corrugatedmetal,oneofelevensimilarhutsdirectlybehindChoeungEk,

borderingthesmallcanalthatdividesonevillagefromitsneighbour.Thecanalis

stinkingwithfetidrubbishandthechemicalsthatrunofffromthePhnomPenh

municipaltip;toopoortoliveelsewherethesehousesrepresentsecuritytothe

peoplewholiveinthem;thepoorqualityofthelandmeansitisunlikelytobe

desirableforlandgrabbing.Theylivedinrelativepeacenow,thoughsoonafter

theliberationthesituationhadbeendifferentandthedeadmadelifedifficult.‘I

sawthisalongtimeago’shesaid:

threepeoplecamewithanoxcarttocollectwood,butsomethinghappened.We

didn’tknowwhy,butthecowsgotveryspooked.Ishoutedto[thedriver]‘Uncle,

catchyourcows!’ThenwhenIturnedaround,Isawablackshadowanditseyes

werehuge.Ilookedatitanditlookedatme.Ikeptshoutingattheuncleto

catchhiscowsproperly.Suddenly,it[theghost]wentpast,andthecows

abruptlystartedgalloping,sothechilddied[byfallingfromthecart].Igotvery

angrywiththeman;Ikepttellinghimtoholdthecowsproperly,buthedidn’t

listen.

Herhusbandelaborated:

Inthecart,therewasonlyachild.Therewerethreepeople,butonewalked

aheadandonewasdrivingthecows.Butthecowssawsomethinglikethat;they

wereafraidsotheygallopedabruptly.[Thedriver]couldnotcontrolthecows,so

hischildfelldown.Thecartwheelwentoverhimandhedied.


Thedriverofthecartbeathiscowstodeathaftertheincident,butYayChanknew

itwasnottheirfault:‘theysawsomethingovertherethat’swhytheygot

surprised’shesaid.Iaskedherwhatshehadseen.‘Itlookedhuman’shereplied,

‘butaftertheincident,itdisappeared.’Shehadonlyseenitthatonetime,and

hadnotherselfbeenhaunted,butmanyotherpeoplehadbeen.LikeKohSop,

thelandaroundChoeungEkhadgrownwildduringDemocraticKampuchea,and

muchofithadreturnedtoforest(prei).Ghostsstalkedthearea,hauntingnot

onlythesitewherepeoplewerekilled,butalsotheroadsaroundit.Somepeople

makingthelongtreksbacktotheirhomestriedtorestthenightinthebuildings

remainingatChoeungEk,butthenoiseoftheghostswailingandcryingdrove

themout.

ThelootingofChoeungEk’sgravesbegansoonafterliberation,andalthough

governmentled,manyofthepeoplefromthevillagessurroundingthesitecame

toseektheirfortunes.AsinKohSop,somewereluckierthanothers.BuSoth

searchedseveralgraves,butfoundnothing.ThedeadhelpedthefamilyofBong

Brohmeanwhile,allowingmanyofthemtofindsmallamountsofgoldthatthey

wereabletoexchangeforfoodwhentimesgottough.Hefoundanearring,his

youngersisteranecklace,andhismotherfoundgoldonseveraloccasions.

Initiallythefamilywasconcernedthatthedeadwouldcomeanddemandthem

back.Buttheyboughtofferingsanddedicatedthemtothosewhohadgiventhem

thegoldandhelpedthemsurvive:chicken,fruitandothersnacks.

I gave an offering to the khmouch who allowed me to find the gold. I burnt

incenseandsaidthankyousomuchforhelpingmetofindthis:“NowIputrice,

snacks,alcoholandfoodandboiledchickenforyou.”


Havingdonesothedeadwereappeasedandneverreturned,excepttohelp.

Seeingthewaysthedeadwerehelpingsomeofthosereturningtothesite,others

soughttheiraid.Hopingtomakeaconnectionbetweenherselfandthedead,

Dara,wholivesclosetothesite,wenttohandlethebones;‘Itouchedthebones

incasetheyhadsomefortune,’shetoldme.Itseemedtowork;althoughshedid

notfindanygold,theghostsneverhauntedher,andherfamilyremainedwell.

In1983TepVong,oneofthemonksinitiallyinauguratedfollowingthePRK,

broughtadelegationofmonksandforeigndignitariestothesite.‘Hebought

peoplefromIndia,Japanandelsewhere’OmTa,whohasworkedatthesitefor

manyyears,toldme.‘Theforeignvisitorsbroughttheirownmonks.’Thecorpses

werestillstackedaroundtheedgesofthegravesatthispoint;itwasseveral

monthsbeforeap’teahkhmouchwasbuilttohousethem,andinthemeantime

theyremainedexposedonthesurface.‘Theylookedwhitelikemushrooms.’

LikeTuolSleng,ChoeungEkwasanimportantpartofthepoliticalconstructionof

theregimeanditsliberation(seechapterfive).ThevisitofTepVongwasasmuch

anopportunitytoshowthesitetothesedignitariesasitwastoperformany

rituals,however,itenabledthedeadtobebroughtbackintotheappropriate

ritualcontrol,andthereforecalmedthemdown.Althoughtheyhadbeenhelping

certainindividuals,thiscalmingunitedthedeadandallowedthemtostarthelping

thesiteasawhole.‘Before,theycouldnotrest.Butafterweinvitedthemonks,

whoprayedanddedicatedmanygoodthingstothem,theykindofcalmeddown’

OmTaexplained.

FollowingTepVong’svisitthesiteopenedtovisitors.Asteadytrickleoftourists

anddignitariesbegantovisit,andovertheyearsthenumberssteadilyincreased,


duringthehighseasonwhenIwasthereupto1,000peoplevisitedperday.

Althoughghostsareusuallyfrightenedoftheliving,aswehavealreadyseen,

althoughscared,thedeadfromtheKhmerRougewerealsolonelyandseeking

theirfamilies.Thesteadystreamofvisitorsmadethedeadhappybecausethey

werenotlonelyanymore.Italsoenabledthemtofurtherestablishtheir

relationshipswiththeliving,andinreturnforallowingthemtovisitandthesiteto

bedevelopedthedeadreceivedmeritandcouldbereborn.Onlythreefamilies

(thoseoftheguards)liveatChoeungEk,sothebuildingofrelationshipshadless

urgencyandwerelessindividuallybasedthaninKohSop,wherethelivingneeded

tonegotiatewiththedeadinordertoreachagreementtolivealongsidethem.At

ChoeungEkthenegotiationwasnotforlivingspace,butforworkingspace,andto

enablethesitetobeusedasatouristsiteandstatememorial.

BuSothtoldmethatthoughheagreeswithsomepeoplewhocriticizethesitefor

makingmoney‘onthebackofdeadpeople,’maybethedeaddonotmind,

becausetheyrarelyvisitpeopleintheirdreamsanymore,andsincethe

developmentofthesite,theonlypersontobecomesickdidsobecausehe

angeredtheNeakTawholivesbythelake.Thedevelopmentofthesiteis

permittedbythedead,whoallowtheirgravestobedisplayed,theirremainstobe

exhibited,andtheirclothingtobecollected,becausetheywanttheircountryto

develop,partofwhichtheyenable:

TheyfindpeacebecausetheyareKhmer.Theywanttodevelopthecountry.

Theywantthenextgenerationtoprosper.ThatiswhyIthinktheirdeaths…their

lives….theyhelpuswhoarestillalive….Onlythebonesarehere[now],butifthe

spiritswereheretheywouldfeelwarmbecausetheirdeathsarevaluable

already.


Thevalueoftheirdeathsliesinthedevelopmentofthesiteandthecountryasa

whole.BongLa,whoworksasaguideatthesite,andwhoregularlyinteractswith

spiritsofthedead,consideredthistobeintegraltowhythedeadatChoeungEk

havelongsincebeenatpeace,andhavebeenabletomoveonintheir

incarnations.Byreceivingmeritfromthosetheyhelp(individuallyand

collectively),theyhaveaccumulatedkarma,andmosthavebeenreborn(aswe

willseeinthenextchapter):

acoupleofyearsago,inmydream,IsawfiveVietnamese,fourorfive

Vietnamese,gotomyhomeinPhnomPenh.Youknowwhattheysaid?They

said‘Don’tworry–Iamfreenow!Iampeacefulnow!’Theywerewearingnice

shirtsandthen…theyweregone!Soit’sjustlikethatnow;theyhaveanewlife.

It’sjustlike,Itoldmyself–itseemsliketheyweretellingmethattheyhaveanew

lifenow.Andnowtheyhavegonetoagoodplaceorsomewhereelse,Idon’t

know….Theyaredoingwell.

Discussion

Theseethnographicdescriptionsdetailthechangingrelationshipsbetweenthe

livingandthosewhowerekilledbytheKhmerRouge.Fuelledwithfear,

confusion,andmassivedisplacement,theserelationshipsinitiallyconsistedof

distrustfulandfearfulinteractions,however,overtime,reciprocalrelationsbegan

tobere-established,withthedeadinKohSophelpingthelivingrebuildtheirlives

andsurviveinthechaoticanddifficultpost-conflictenvironment,andthosein

ChoeungEkhelpingenabledevelopmenttothecountryandthushelpingthe

Khmerpeoplesurviveintheglobalmarket.Thesereciprocalrelationshelpedthe

deadreceivemerit,whichenabledthemtorebuildtheirkarma,andinboth


locations,mosthavenowbeenreborn.Onlythosewithparticularlybadkarma

(seechapterfour)remain,butthesearepowerlessandsimplywaitingtobe

reborn.

OnemorningasIsatwithLōkOm,anelderymanwholivesintheSouthof

Cambodia,ourconversationturnedtoghosts.Iwashavingdifficulty

understandingthemanywaysinwhichthelivingareconnectedtothedead,soto

explainwhythedeadcontinueexistinginCambodia,hetoldmeanoldKhmer

folktale:

Oncetherelivedafarmer.Everydayhetendedhisricefield,andbecauseitwas

farfromthevillage,andveryquiet,heoftensleptthere,aloneinasmallcottage.

Onedayabeautifulspiritsawhimsleepingalone.Shecametoplaywithhim

everynight,andthetwofellinlove.Thefarmerwasnotsimplyanordinaryman

–hewasaKruwhoknewsomemagic,whichheusedtocallthespirittoliveina

deadbody.Sheenteredthroughthehead,andhetrappedherinside,usinga

tick115tosealthehole.TheKruandhisspiritwifehadahappylifeandovertime

sheforgotshewasaspiritandgavebirthtoachild.Onedayshewaswalkingin

theforestwithherchildandherheadwasveryitchywherethetickwas.She

scratched,buttheitchingwouldn’tstop,sosheaskedherchildtokillthetickfor

her.Thechildpulledthetickout,andthespiritescapedthebody,leavingadead

bodyastheparentofthechild.Sothisiswhythespiritsmuststaywiththeliving

nowadays.

Heusedthisstorytoshowmehowthelivingandthedeadareinterdependent

anditisonlywiththerecognitionofeachother,andmutualsupport,thateither

cansurvive.Ittookmesometimetocomprehendthisnotion,anditwasonly

115

Insomeversionsofthestorythefarmerknocksanailintotheheadtosealthehole.


throughtheexaminationofthechangingstatusofthosekilledundertheKhmer

RougethatIfullygraspeditsmeaning.

Withintheliterature,discussionsofghosts,spirits,andothermanifestationsof

thedeadoftenconfinesthemtoonecategory,suggestingthatalongsidetheir

liminalstatus,thereisapermanenceofdemeanouranddispositionofthedeadin

whicheverformtheytake.Thisisparticularlythecaseforghosts,who,as

discussedearlier,haveprimarilybeenviewedasliminalbeingswhoareunableto

escapetheirdeathsandthereforeexistoutsidethesocialstructure.Indiscussing

thenotionofmemoryasamoralpractice,MichaelLambek(1996:241)argues

thateverytimespiritsappear,theyprovidenewwaysofconceivingandrevising

narrativesofthepast:

Centraltospiritsaretheirnarrativeandperformativefunctions.Spiritsare

vehiclesformemoryratherthanthefrozenremnantsofmemory.

ItcouldbearguedthatthisishownarrativesofthedeadfromtheKhmerRouge

areutilized.However,toseethemonlyasvehiclesfornarrationandevolving

understandingsissomewhatlimitinginCambodia,wherethedeadareas

constitutiveofcontemporarysocialorderandstabilityastheliving.AsLangford

(2009:682)states,inherexaminationoftheghostsencounteredbyKhmer

diaspora,thedeadinCambodiaare‘tangibleparticipantsin[the]violated

socialitiesoflivinganddead.’Aswehaveseeninthischapter,theghostsofthose

killedundertheKhmerRougewereneitherliminalnormetaphorical,butsocially

salientbeings,whosestatusandemotionschangedalongsidethoseoftheliving,

andnowadayshaveallbutdisappeared.


AsOmYaytoldme,thosekilledbytheKhmerRougewereconsideredtohave

diedlikedogs(khmouchchikkei),andtobekhmouchdtaihong–sufferersofa

violentdeath,whohaddiedwithoutceremony.Assuchtheirplaceintheworld

wasconfused,andtheywouldnotaseasilybeabletomoveontotheirnextlife.

Displacedfromtheirfamiliestheybecameanonymous,wanderingdead,andthe

fearandlonelinessthisinducedcausedthemtohaunttheliving.Inorderfor

themtoaccumulatekarmatoassistintheirrebirth,theyneededtoreceivemerit

fromtheliving;todothistheyneededtoengageinreciprocalrelationshipsof

supportwiththeliving116,somethingthatwasonlypossibleiftheybecame

recognised,individualised(evenwithoutnames)andtherebyincorporatedinto

thesocialworldoftheliving.KwonnotesthatinVietnamtheliberationofthe

ghostsfromgrievousdeathisatwowayprocess,inwhichtheghostshavea

responsibilitytoworktowardstheirfreedombyshowingtheirwillandengagingin

ritualintimacywiththeliving(Kwon2008b:164).Thesamecanbesaidforthe

deadoftheKhmerRougeinCambodia,althoughtheirrelationshipswerenot

madeexplicitthroughritual,butthrougheverydayinteractionsofsupport.

RemainingforamomentwithKwon,heshowsushowperformingthecorrect

ritualsforthedead(i.e.beingabletofeedonesrelatives),andbeingableto

reburytheminappropriatesitesandengageinappropriatecaretransactions

(beingabletofeedthemagain),allowedthedeadtobebroughtinfromthe

streets(duong)tothehome(nha).InCambodiathedistinctionisnotbetween

thehomeandthestreets,butbetweenthetownorhomeland(srok)andthe

forest(prei):ghostswhoareconfused,wandering,andlonely,liveintheforests,

116InthiswaytheyresembletheNeakTa,whorequirereciprocalrelationshipstosurvive,andthelandspiritsofTimorLeste,whohadtobere-animatedfollowingpeople’sreturntotheirlandinordertoregainstability(Bovensiepen2009).


whilstthosewhohavebeenproperlyintegratedintosociallifebelongtothesrok.

AstheritualsinVietnambroughtthedeadinfromthestreetstothehome,the

changingrelationshipsbetweenthedeadandthelivinginCambodiaovertime

allowedthelivingtobringthedeadinfromtheforest.Insodoingtheyhelped

alleviatetheirloneliness,whichstoppedthedeadfromhaunting.Italsoenabled

thedeadtomakerelationshipswiththeliving,byhelpingthemmakeconnections

withpeoplewhowouldgiveofferingsforthem.Byhelpingthemthedeadwould

gainmerit,andsoaccumulatekarmatohelptheirrebirth.

DuringtheKhmerRougeregimethemostsuccessfultoolofkillingwasthe

propagandathatenabledthecadretodehumanisethelivinginordertowork

themtodeath,starvethemoflife,andforthosewhoworkedasexecutioners,to

murderpeoplethenabandonthebodies(Hinton2005).117Aftertheregimethe

dehumanisationcontinued,firstintheinternationalcommunity’sdisinterestin

theconsequencesoftheregime,andtheninthestate’sappropriationofthedead

intheirwritingofhistory(seechaptersfivetoseven).Fromasuperficialglance,

thelootingofthegravesthatoccurredintheperiodimmediatelyaftertheregime

couldbeconsideredacontinuationofthisdehumanisation,andifitwerenotfor

theghosts,perhapsitwouldbe.However,unlikeinJewishPoland,where

ZuzannaDziuban(2014)arguesthatthelootingofthegravesofHolocaustvictims

wasaresultoftheculturalframingofcertaindead,wherememorypolitics

framedtheminsuchawaythattheJewishdeadwerenotonlydehumanised,but

renderedinvisibleandthereforeopentolooting,inCambodialootingthegraves

wasnotacontinuationofthedehumanizationofthosekilledundertheKhmer

117Cambodiaisnotuniqueinthis:NaziGermany;SovietRussia;Mao’sChina–allenforcedregimesthatperpetuatedthedehumanisationofthepopulationtoachievetheirgoals.


Rougebecauseitcouldonlyoccurifthedeadallowedit;assuchtheywerevital

beingsinthenegotiationofthisactivity.

Thelootingwasanaspectofreciprocalrelationsbetweenthelivingandthedead:

byunearthingthem,andthereforeallowingtheirremainstobecollectedand

storedtogether,thelivingwerebringingthedead‘infromtheforest.’Bygiving

offeringstothemtheyhelpedsendthemmerit.Thedeadprovidedsupportto

thelivingbyallowingtheirteethtoberemoved,ortheirclothestakenwithout

punishingthosewhodidit.Thosewhodisrespectedthedeadbecameill,orwere

visitedintheirdreamsandtoldhowtorectifythesituation.Theserelationships

enabledthedeadtobeenfoldedintothelifeoftheliving,whichhelpedthembe

reborn.Thiswasnotnecessarilyaneasytransactionforeitherthelivingorthe

dead,butonethatwasnecessaryandunderstood,asoneofmyinformants

explained:

OnceIfoundanoillampthathadsomegoldandthreewatchesinit.Iliftedup

andIshookitandfoundallthatinside.Istartedcrying;Ijustfeltsosorryfor

them.Ithoughttomyself,“BothyouandIloveourbelongings.Butnowyou

havedied,leavingyourbelongings.”IfounditbutIsoldittofeedmychildren.

Wedidn’thaveanythingaftertheliberation.IcriedsohardbecauseIfeltso

sorryforthem[thedead].Butthethingdidn’tlastforlongbecauseIkeptselling

piecesofittobuyriceandfoodformychildren.Istillfeelverythankfultothe

owner.Evennow,whenIprayathome,Ithinkoftheowner.Ithinkabouthow

theyhadsavedourlives.Isurvivedfromthat,sopleasebeblessedandbereborn

inasafeplace.Icanneverforgetwhattheydidforus.

Itwasthroughtheserelationshipsthatthedeadcouldbere-humanised,brought

infromtheforestandbacktothehomeland,andthereforeabletotransition


frombeingfrightenedbeingsthathaunt,todeadengagedinrelationshipswith

theliving.InherbookConsolingGhosts(2013)JeanLangfordarguesthatthe

deadoftheKhmerRougecouldnevertransitiontobebenevolentancestors,

arguingthatthesedeadareforeverstuckaspretaorkhmouch,andcannot

transformtodifferentstatesofbeing.However,atbothKohSopandChoeungEk

thedeadwereabletomakethistransition.Thiswasonlypossiblebecauseofthe

negotiationsbetweenthelivingandthedead,whichwereonlypossiblebecause

ofthecosmologicalorderofKhmersociety.

Asexploredinthepreviouschapter,allincarnationsofthedead,includingghosts,

existwithintheacceptedBuddhistrealmsofexistence.Assuchtheyaresubject

tosomekindofmetaphysicalbirthanddeath,andaresubjecttoreincarnationin

thewaythatanimalsandhumansare.WhileinVietnamghosts(cobac)belong

neithertotheworldofthelivingnortheworldofthedead(Kwon2008b)in

Cambodia,khmouchbelongtoboth-theyarebothrecentlydeceasedcorpsesand

ghostsofthosewhohaverecentlydied.Anyonecanbecomeakhmouch,and

everyonewill(althoughnoteveryonewillbecomeakhmouchloung-haunting

ghost).Thekhmouchthatpeopleencounterareoftenknowntothem,andghosts

thereforearerelativesofsomeone.Iftheyarenotknown,thensomesortof

relationshipisconsideredtoexistofwhichthelivingisunaware:aconnection

fromapreviouslifeforexample,aswesawinthecaseofYayandthekhmouch

whosetoothshefound.Inadditiontobeingconnected,khmouchalsorepresent

beingsthathumansmaybecomethroughre-incarnationanddeathevents.

Thedifferenceinthedirectionalityofthehelpandsupportgivenbythedead

illustrateshowthedeadreplicatethepoliticallivesoftheliving.Thoselivingand


workingatChoeungEkarehighlyconsciousofitsuseinbuildingtheimageof

contemporaryCambodiaintheeyesoftheforeignerswhomakeupthemajority

ofitsvisitors.TheyarealsoawarethatCambodiadependsheavilyonforeignaid

foritscontinuedeconomicgrowth,andthatitisforeignaidagencieswhosupport

thepoorestandmostvulnerableofthenation.Attheendofeveryformal

interviewIwouldasktheintervieweeiftherewasanythingelsetheythoughtit

wasimportantformetoknow.Theanswersfocusedononetheme:thatwhenI

returnedhomeIshouldtellpeopleaboutCambodia;itsterriblehistoryandhow

poorthepeoplearenow,andbydoingsobringhelptothenation.Sitessuchas

ChoeungEkandTuolSlengwereconsideredimportantinthismissionbymanyof

myinformants(seechaptersix).

ThedeadofChoeungEkalsorecognizedtheoutwardlyfacingaspectofthesite,

andthough,likeKohSop,theygavesomeindividualsupport,theiraidtotheliving

wasmostlynationallyfaced.WhilstinVietnamworshipoftheghostsofwarwas

bannedbythegovernment(becauseitwasseenasevidenceofanundeveloped

nation(Kwon2008b:11),inCambodia,politiciansincorporatedthedeadfromthe

KhmerRougeintotheircampaigns.Payingattentiontothedeadintheunstable

yearsafterliberationwasanimportantpartofpoliticalcontrolfortheruling

party.Annualeventsheldatmassgravesitesincludebangskolceremoniesand

theleadingpoliticiansensuredthatnotonlydidtheyreassurethepublic,butalso

thedead.118

118

HunSenisparticularlyawareofthepoliticalpowerofrelationswiththedead,andoftenusesitinhispropaganda.AfterlightingSihanouk’sfuneralpyreheclaimedthespiritofthelateKingwaswaitingforhim,becausetheyhaveaspecialconnection(Meas2013).Whilecampaigningbeforethe2013generalelections,heclaimedthatashootingstarwasviewedintheskythenighthiseldestsonwasborn,suggestingheisthereincarnationofapowerfulNeakTawithconnectionstoCambodia’screation(Vannarin2013b).Inthepasthehasclaimedtobethereincarnationof


ThecalmingoftheghoststhatoccurredwhenTepVongledadelegationto

ChoeungEkwasnotonlyaboutre-establishingtherelationshipsneededforthe

survivalofboththelivingandthedead;italsoenabledthecountrytostart

rebuildingitselfinthepost-conflictera.ThedeadatChoeungEkplayedacentral

roleinthisandcontinuetodosotodate;itisbecausetheysupportpeaceand

developmentthatthebonesofthedeadcanbedisplayedandtheirgraves

exploited.InKohSop,thedeadhelpedthelivingthroughindividualrelationships

ofmaterialsupport.Thistooreplicatedthepoliticalpositioningoftheliving

there,who,distantfromthenationalandinternationalambitionsofthe

government,struggledindividuallytoregainstabilityandsecurityinpost-KR

Cambodia.

Conclusion

Thedeadinpost-KRCambodiawerechaoticandterrifyingtotheliving.Butthis

wasnotbecauseofanymalevolentintent;itwasahostilitybasedinfearand

insecurity.IfwereferbacktoVanGennep’sstatementsabouttheimportanceof

funeralrites,hecommentsthatthedeadwhohavenotreceivedproper

treatmentarehostilebecausetheycannotgainaccesstoeithertheworldofthe

livingorthedead(vanGennep1960[1908]:160).Therelationshipsre-

establishedinCambodiaineachlocalitywereanimportantaspectofre-asserting

controlandorderinthepost-conflictchaos.Theirdemiseovertimehasparalled

thepoliticalstabilityofthecountryanditspeople.Intheyearsimmediatelyafter

SdechKan,asixteenthcenturyfighterwhotooktheKhmerthroneafterkillingasupposedlycorruptking(Noren-Nillson2013).Byusingsuchnarratives,HunSenconnectshimselfandhisfamilybothdirectlytoroyalty,butmoreimportantlytothepowerfulspiritualworldthatordersKhmersociety.


theliberation,thecountrywasstillwild:fullofforestthatneededtamingand

controlling;fullofdeadthatneededthesame.

KingFatherNorodomSihnaouk,Cambodia’sformerleader,oncesaidthatif

Cambodiawasmoderniseditsghostswoulddisappear.Asthepopulationhas

grown,andthecountryhasbecomemoreandmoreurbanised,thedeadofthe

KhmerRougehavediminishedintheirpower.However,thisisnotsomucha

reflectionofmodernityasitisaboutstabilityandsecurity.Themodernisationof

Cambodiahasledtothewild‘forests’ofCambodiabeingbroughtundercontrol,

whicheliminatestheelementsthatledtoinsecurity–theKhmerRougefor

example,wholivedandfoughtintheforests(inarecentboutofpolitical

posturing,HunSen,thecurrentPrimeMinisterthreatenedareturntotheforests

ifmorecadreweretobechargedbytheKhmerRougetrials,astatement

suggestingwarandtheresurgenceoftheKhmerRougeincontemporary

Cambodia).

Controllingandeliminatingthe‘forest’notonlycreatesaspacewherethedead

cannotlive,butitalsoallowsthemtobebroughtbackintoacceptablesociety;

althoughtheymayhavelosttheirkin,andthereforethosewhowouldusuallycare

forthem,theestablishmentofnewrelationsthroughassistingthelivingenabled

newnetworkstobecreated,whichboththelivingandthedeadcouldbenefit

from.Bringingtheminfromtheforestenabledthedeadtotransitionto

benevolentbeings,whicheventuallyhelpedthemaccumulatekarmatobe

reborn.UnlikeTimorLeste,where‘pastconflictshavesaturatedthelandscape

withthespiritsofpeoplewhowerekilled,someofwhomwerenotproperly

buried’(Bovensiepen2009:336),Cambodia’sdangercomesnotfromthedead,


butfromtheliving,because,asthischaptershows,thosekilledundertheregime

havenowbecomeharmless,or,inthemajorityofcases,havebeenreborn,asthe

nextchapterwillexplore.

164

Chapterfour:Karmaandreincarnationinthekillingfields

Sreyisreincarnated.KilledbytheKhmerRougeasayoungboyinVietnam,her

spirithadtowaitforover20yearstobereborn.Whenitwas,itwaswithLōkOm,

aformerKhmerRougecadreinhismid-40swholivesinSouthernCambodia.

Despitethelongwaitingperiod,Srey’skarmawasgood:shewasrebornintothe

humanrealm,andintoarelativelyprosperousfamily.Alsokilledasachild,Lōk

Om’sson,Broh,hasalsobeenreborn.Heisnowpartofanotherfamilyinthe

village,butLōkOmseeshimoccasionally,oftengivingmoneyandgiftstohim

whenhedoes.

MostKhmerare,toborrowObeyesekere’sphrase(2002:176),‘karma-bound

beings’.Theirlivesareenmeshedintheoriesofkarmaandreincarnation,andin

thepresenceoftheverysociallyactivespiritswhoimbuethelandscape.

Followingdeath,rebirthalwayshappens,andkarmadeemswhenandwhereit

willbe.Alongwithmoralordering,andextendingandelaboratingnetworksof

kinships,reincarnationandkarmaalsorelatetoconceptsofjusticeandtothe

waysthedeadarereintegratedintothelivesoftheliving;itistheseaspectsthat

willbediscussedinthischapter.HereIaminterestedinkarmaandreincarnation

associalpracticesandconceptsthat,althoughcomingfromBuddhismcanon,are

playedoutineverydaylife.Reincarnationandkarmawerenotinitialresearch

interests,however,Iheardstoriesofrebirthfrommassgravesalmostfromthe

firstdayIwasinCambodia,andmanypeopleinvokedtheBuddhistnotionof

karmatoexplainthemassdeathanddestructionwroughtbytheKhmerRouge,

andtheirownsurvivalagainsttheodds.Itsoonbecameclearthattheseare


importantaspectsofhowKhmerpeopletodaynarrateandnormalisethemass

deaththatoccurredduringtheregime.

ThischapterconsiderstheplacethatBuddhismplaysinthenegotiationofthe

rupturesthatfollowthemassdeathanddisruptioncausedbytheKhmerRougein

Cambodia.Itisaboutimaginedandregeneratedcontinuities–betweenthepast

andthepresent,betweenthelivingandthedead-andtheintegralplacethat

Buddhismplaysinthis.Butbyconsideringhowthedislocationsand

discontinuitiescausedbytheKhmerRougeregimearenarratedandnormalisedin

contemporaryCambodiaitisalsoabouthowaspectsofBuddhismworktohelp

maintainstabilityandsomekindofpeaceinpost-KhmerRougeCambodiathrough

imaginedconnectionsandlinkagesbetweenthepastandthepresent.

UsingLambek’s(2013)conceptofthecontinuousanddiscontinuouspersonthat

connectshistoricalperiodsaswellaspersons,IwillarguethattheBuddhist

conceptsofkarmaandreincarnationaremeansbywhichmanyKhmerpeople

cometounderstandandnarratethe‘tragedyofCambodianhistory’(Chandler

1993),andinsodoing,tonormaliseandintegratemassdeathintoanexpected

aspectoflife,onethatcanbetalkedaboutandrelatedtothewidercosmologyof

Khmerlife.Iwillexplorehowdifferentincarnationsenableacontinuityand

connectionbetweendifferenthistoricaleras,particularlytheperiodsofpeace

beforetheregimeandnow,andenabletheextensionofsocialnetworksanda

formofre-incorporativekinship.Thejusticeprovidedbythenotionofkarmawill

beexplored,beforeexamininghow,inCambodia,thestabilityofbothBuddhism

andanimismenabledthosewhodiedduringtheKhmerRougetobeswiftlyre-

incorporatedintoeverydaylifefollowingtheregime’sdemise.



Inrecentyears,anthropologistshaveusedreincarnation(andtoalesserextent,

karma)asaconceptualtooltoexplorevariousaspectsofsociallifeinthe

communitiesinwhichitexists.AnneBennett(2006)examinesreincarnation

amongsttheDruze-anIslamicsectintheLevantineMiddleEast-where

reincarnationisacommon,thoughcontested,belief.Shearguesthat

reincarnationenhancessectunityandidentityamongsttheDruze,somethingof

extremesocialsignificanceforthismarginalandexcludedcommunity.Anya

Bernstein(2012)examineshowconceptsofreincarnationareusedpoliticallyby

BuryatsinSiberiaasameansofreinforcingorcontestingRussianpoliticalruleof

thearea119,whileinherstudyoftheWariofWesternBrazil,BethConklin(2001)

notesthatabeliefthattheirancestorswererebornaspeccariesbroughtgreat

comforttotheliving,becauseitofferedthemthechancetomeettheirrelatives

againafterdeath.

Otheranthropologistshaveusedreincarnationasalensthroughwhichto

examinetheculturalspecificityofconceptsofpersonhoodandtheformationof

beings.Robertson(2011)discussesrebirthasachallengetotheCartesiangap,

arguingthatreincarnatedbeingssubverttheCartesianseparationbetweenmind

andbody,andthatratherthandiscretephenomena,mindandbodyare

‘emergentpropertiesof…theprocessofbecoming,’whichoccursbetween

peopleandwhere‘personalidentitiesmaytemporarilymerge’(Robertson2011:

585).AkhilGupta(2002)usesreincarnationasatheoreticaltooltoexplore

conceptsofchildhoodandkinship,illustratingthe‘culturalspecificityof

119BringingtomindtherecentDalaiLama’sthreatnottoreincarnateifTibetremainsunderChinesecontrolandthecontroversythishascaused(Kazi2015).


constructionsofthelifecourse’(Gupta2002:42).LikeGupta,AlmaGottlieb

(2004)exploresalternativeconceptualisationsofchildhoodaswellascultural

differencesinchild-rearingpracticesbetweenNorthAmericaandherresearch

communityoftheBenginCôted’Ivoire,wherechildrenarerebornfromwrugbe–

spiritvillageswherethedeadresidebetweenlives.Shearguesforan

anthropologyofinfancythatconsidersinfants’lives‘textstoberead’(Gottlieb

2004:53)sothatwemightbetterappreciateboththeculturalconstructionsof

childhoodandassumptionsrelatedtoitwithinanthropologicalpractice.120

AmongstKhmerscholars,whereBuddhismanditsplaceinthereconfigurationof

post-KhmerRougeCambodiahasbeenextensivelyexplored(manywithinKent

andChandler’s(2008)editedvolumePeopleofVirtue:ReconfiguringReligion,

PowerandMoralOrderinCambodiaToday),littleattentionispaidtothese

concepts,despiteseveralauthorstouchinguponaspectsofBuddhismrelating

directlytothem.JudyLedgerwood(2008)examinesmeritmakinginruralKandal

province(theprimaryaimofwhichistoaccumulatekarmatoimprovethenext

life),butdoesnotdiscussitsimplicationsforrebirth.EveZucker(2013)discusses

therebuildingofmoralityinpost-DKCambodia,butdespitekarmaand

reincarnationbeinginfluentialfactorsinthis,paysthemlittleattention.Inhis

discussionofthepoliticsofmemoryinpost-KhmerRougeCambodia,Alexander

Hintonconsidersthenotionsof‘karma,meritandaction’(Hinton2008:76),

120ReadersinterestedindiscussionsoftheoriginsofreincarnationbeliefsystemsshouldturntoObeyesekere’sbookImaginingKarma(2002).InthishecomparestheoriesofreincarnationinseveralWestAfrican,MelanesianandAmerindiancommunitiestotherebirththeoriesofclassicalGreekphilosophersandBuddhistscripture.Indoingsoheprovidesanargumentforthe‘ethicization’ofreincarnation,suggestingthatethicizedformsofreincarnation(‘karmiceschetologies’),whereethicalbehaviourcontrolsyourfortuneinthenextlife,evolvedoutofnon-ethicisedforms(‘rebirtheschatologies’)wherepeoplearesimplyreborninanendlesscycle.Osbourne(2007)arguesthatitistheotherwayaround,whilstBurley(2013)conteststhenotionofanykindoforderingorprioritytothedevelopmentofdifferentforms.


however,thesediscussionsarebrief,andreincarnationreceivesnoattention

beyondafleetingmention.OneexceptionisErikDavies(2008),whodiscussesthe

continuinglivesof‘MissYaan,’usingherrecollectionsofpastlives,andtheways

inwhichsheusesthemtoextendherkinshipnetworks,asamodeofexploring

howmoralorderingisarticulatedineverydaylife.Hearguesthatinremembering

herpastlives,MissYaanenactsmanyoftheculturaltensionsexperiencedby

Cambodianpeopletoday,andfindssociallyacceptedwaystonegotiatethese.

Ofmostresonancetothischapter,however,isLambek’s(2013)article‘The

ContinuousandDiscontinuousPerson:TwoDimensionsofEthicalLife.’Inthis

Lambeksuggeststwoperceptionsoftheperson:continuous(whichhelabels

forensic)anddiscontinuous(mimeticinhisterminology).Forensicpersonsare

continuousbecause,whilstbeingunique,theiridentityisconsistentovertimeand

they‘carrymoralresponsibilityforpastandfuturedeeds’:theyarethe

‘cumulativeproductoftheactsinwhichshehasengagedorbeenengagedandfor

whichsheholdsherselfaccountable’(Lambek2013:838).Mimeticpersonsare

discontinuousbeingswho‘drawfromasetofnamedpersonnagesordramatis

personaethatthey‘become’,‘inhabit’,‘play’,‘personify’,‘imitate’,or

‘impersonate’alternatelyanddiscontinuously,orpossiblysuccessivelyor

simultaneously’(ibid).

Ratherthanconcentratingonthesedifferentaspectsofpersonhood,Iwantto

pickupLambek’sconnectionbetweenreincarnatedpersonsandtemporality.Ina

briefsectionofhispaper,LambekextendsGeertz’sassertioninPerson,Time,and

ConductinBali(1973)thatpersonhoodandhistoricityareintrinsicallylinked.

Reincarnatedpersonshavecharacteristicsoftheirformerincarnationthatenable


themtobecome‘‘characters’inapoiesisofhistorywhoexemplifyapastepoch’

(Lambek2013:847).Hereferstothesepeopleas‘dramatispersonnae’;aswith

actorsinplays,thosereincarnatedfromapreviouseracandistancethemselves

fromeverydaylifeandconnectthemselves,andothers,toaprevioustime.By

doingso,theyenable‘imaginativeandretrospectiveidentificationsand

connectionsbetweenhistoricalperiods’(Lambek2013:847).

WithinthesphereofreincarnationandkarmarelatedtotheKhmerRougeregime

inCambodia,theseidentificationsandconnectionsperformseveralfunctions:

theyprovideameanswithwhichthedeadcanbereincorporatedintosociallife

viaconnectionswiththeliving;theyprovidestabilityinthecontinuancetheyoffer

betweentheperiodbeforetheKhmerRougeandthepresent,andinthe

assurancethat,despitetheireffortstodestroyit,Buddhismanditscentral

tenantssurvivedandcontinuetoorderlivesincontemporaryCambodia.In

additiontheyprovideaformofjustice:thosewhodieddidsobecauseoftheir

karma;thosewithgoodkarmahavebeenreborn,andthosewithbadkarma(such

astheKhmerRougecadre)willsufferinsuccessivelivestocome.

ReincarnationandkarmainKhmerBuddhism

Reincarnation(kakertloengvinh-literally,birthagain-orkakertm’dongteat-

birthoncemore)andkarma(kamm)arecentraltenantsofBuddhistdoctrine.

Buddhahimselfcycledthroughmanylivesbeforehereachedenlightenment,and

allbeings,livinganddead,existinsamsara,theeternalcycleofdeathandrebirth,

dyingandbeingrebornindifferentrealmsofexistenceincontinueddukkha

(suffering)accordingtotheirkarma.MeritmakingisatthecoreofBuddhist

practiceinCambodia(Ledgerwood2008);theaimofmeritmakingistoimprove


one’skarmaorthekarmaofarelativeorfriend,sothatrebirthmightbequicker

andtoanimprovedstatus.Reincarnationandkarma,therefore,formthecentral

drivingforceofBuddhistactioninCambodia,andassuch,theirinfluenceonthe

livesofmyinformantswasprofound.

WithBuddhismforbiddenduringDemocraticKampuchea,formalritualscouldnot

beconductedforthepilesofdeadthatbegantomount;whiletheylayrotting

acrossthecountryorunceremoniouslydumpedinmassgraves,publicdisplaysof

griefandmourningwerealsoforbidden.OmYay,anelderlywomanwhosold

vegetablesintheshopclosetomyhouse,explainedthistomeoneeveningaswe

satchatting.Lateintheregimeherhusbandwastakentobe‘educated,’a

commoneuphemismforexecution.Sheknewhehadbeenkilled,butbecause

publicgrievingwasnotallowed,remainedsilent.Atnightthelocalcadrewould

cometothehomethatshesharedwithhermother,listeningtoseeiftheywere

crying.Theywouldaskher‘doyoumissyourhusband?’Knowingtheywere

lookingforotherstokill,shewouldanswerno;‘iftheysawuscryingtheywould

takeustoo’shetoldme.121Alltheycoulddowasgiveofferingstothespirits,and

begherhusbandtocomebacktothem:

Mymothersaidifyouarereincarnated,pleasecametobereincarnatedwith

yourfamily,andplease,yourspiritbehappy.

Regardlessofitspublicbanning,manyofthecosmologicalconceptsofBuddhism

continuedtoexistthroughouttheregime,andevensomeritualswerepracticed,

thoughinmediatedandadaptedforms(seeLeVine(2010)foracomprehensive

explorationoftheseadaptations).AsJudyLedgerwood(2008:148)explainsina

121

Thisenforcedmutenessisexploredinchapterseven.


paperoncontemporaryBuddhistpracticeinruralCambodia,Buddhistmodesof

‘thinking,feeling,speaking,moving,’werelearnedaschildrenand‘embodiedas

habitus;’theycontinuedtobeimportantdespite(orperhapsbecauseof)

attemptstodestroythem.Buddhistreligiousconceptsofferedamodeof

narratingandnormalisingtheeventsoccurringandcouldnotbedestroyed

preciselybecauseoftheirmetaphysicalnature.Reincarnationandkarmabecame

particularlysalientduetothemassivenumberofdeadcreatedbytheregime;

evenaspeopleweredying,thosearoundthemexplaineditaskarma,andwaited

forthemtobereborn.

Aswesawinchapterthree,evenintheyearsimmediatelyafterDemocratic

Kampuchea,whentheKhmerRougerulewasreplacedwiththePeople’sRepublic

ofKampuchea(PRK),publicmourningforthoselostduringDemocratic

Kampucheawasscarcelypossibleduetothetightcontrolofreligionandthe

parityofmonks.Manyritualsthereforeremainedunpractiseduntilthelate1980s

andearly1990saspeoplestruggledtorebuildtheirlives.

Inthisperiod,mostofthedeadremainedintheirgraves;thosescatteredacross

thefieldswereeithergatheredupandmovedtoanearbypagoda,or,as

happenedinmyruralfieldsites,simplycoveredoverwithsoil.Thosethatwere

unearthedwerequicklysubsumedasvehiclesofthenewstate’slegitimationand

politicalpropaganda(seechaptersoneandfive).However,evenonceBuddhist

ritualswerere-established,fewoccurredforthedead,eitherindividuallyor

collectively.Theydidnotneedtobe,becausethedeadwouldbereborn,withor

withoutceremonies,asexplainedtomeoneafternoonbyaVenerablemonkfrom

theBuddhistUniversityofPhnomPenh:


Eveniftherearenomonks,deadpeoplewillstillbereincarnated.Theonesthat

havegoodkarmawillbereincarnatedfasterthantheonewhohavebadkarma….

Allthespiritshavesoughttheirworldalready.

‘Imagineawormmoving,’hesaid.‘Asitpullsitsbackup,itsfrontispushed

forwards-itisinconstantmovement.That’showwemovethroughourlives–

beforeleavingourcurrentlifewearealreadytouchingthefutureone;deathin

thislifepushesusintothenext.Itis‘judtipadisanti’inPali:passingawayand

rebirth.’

IhadcometoaskhimtoexplainthePaliCanon122relatedtokarmaand

reincarnation,becauseIwastryingtobetterunderstandtheseconcepts.‘Our

teachingisalittlebitdeviatedfrompopularbeliefnow’hesaid.‘Manypeople

believethatapersondies,butdoesnotnecessarilytakeuptheirnewexistenceor

newlifeimmediately.Itcantakedays,months,orevenyears.’Thissupported

thestoriesIhadheardsofar:manypeoplefrommyfieldsiteshadtoldmethat

thetimeofrebirthrelatedtoyourkarma:goodkarmaleadstoaquickrebirth;

withbadkarmaitcouldtakealong,longtime.Whentheytalkedaboutdeaths

duringtheKhmerRougeperiod,myinformantsusedthistodistinguishbetween

thedeathsoftheKhmerRougecadre(thePolPots),andtheseemingly‘innocent’

victims:thevictims(usuallytherelativesorfriendsofthepersontalking)had

beenrebornquickly,becauseeventhoughtheirkarmacausedtheiruntimely

deathduringDemocraticKampuchea,itsmannerhadbeenatthehandsofothers.

122ThePaliCanon(Tipitaka)isacollectionofscriptureswritteninPali,whichrecordtheTheravadaBuddhism’sDhamma–theofficialteachingsanddoctrineofTheravadaBuddhism.ThemonkinformedmethatitistheoldestoftheBuddhistCanons,andtheonlyonestillexistinginitsoriginallanguage.


Thecadre,meanwhile,tookalongtimetobereborn.Someofthemarestill

waiting.

‘Mostpeoplethinkwhenthey[thedead]canbereborngoesalongwiththe

actionsoftheirfamily–theyhavetotveabon(domeritousdeeds–literally‘doing

ceremonies’)thatcanbetransferredtothedead,’theVenerablemonktoldme.

‘Theypassthemkarma.’Thesedeedsarenotonlyabouthelpingthedeadtobe

reborninsamsara–thecontinualcycleofdeathandrebirththatBuddhistslivein.

Theyalsohelpthedeadtoprogressinthatcycletowardsnibbana(Sanskrit:

nirvana)–thequalityofcompletenothingnessthatendsthesufferinginherentin

thecycleofsamsara,aslaidoutinthePalicanon:

Thisispeace,thisisexquisite—theresolutionofallfabrications,the

relinquishmentofallacquisitions,theendingofcraving;dispassion;cessation;

Nibbana.(AccesstoInsight2013:Anada3.32)

Inordertoreachnibbana,peoplemustaccumulatekarma,whichprovidesthe

forcetoaffecttherealmsofexistenceintowhichtheyareborn.Karmaisaction,

andisaccumulatedthroughlife.‘Youknow,karmaisnotineverythingyoudo’

themonkexplained.‘Itisonlyinintentionalaction,youknow-somethingyoudo

withwill.’Unintentionalactivitiesdonotaffectyourkarma:akarmicactisone

whereanintentiontoactisthencarriedout.‘Anactofkilling’hesaid‘hasmany

factors.Butitistheintentiontokillandthenenactingitthatmakesitkarma.’

Theseactsaccumulateandaffectyournextincarnation:thekarmicforce

determinesintowhichofthesixrealmsofsamsara123youwillbereborn:asan

123Withinthesixrealmsarethirty-oneplanesofexistence,eachinastricthierarchyofbeing.


avatar(anincarnatedgod),abodhisattva(aBuddhatobe-someonewhohas

reachedenlightenment,butrefrainsfromenteringnibbanatohelpothers);a

human;animal;spirit;orintotanarout-theKhmerunderworld.Reincarnationis

inevitableforallbeings(includingthedead),butwhere,when,andwithwhom

rebirthoccurs,isaffectedbykarma,whichisaccumulatedthroughthis,and

previouslives.Whilstkarmacannotbedeleted,meritousactsenablethe

accumulationofgoodkarma,whichaddskarmicforcetothetransitioninthenext

life.Inthisway,historicalandcontemporaryactionsaffectthelifecycleofthose

insamsaraandfuturepositioningintheworld.

Oneofthewaysinwhichkarmacanaffectyourrebirthisbyaffectingthefamily

intowhichyouareborn.Thebondsofaffectionthattiepeopletoeachotherin

thislifecrosstheboundariesoflifeanddeath,andcanensuretherebirthofthe

deadwiththeirkin,particularlyiftheirkarmaisgood.Theassuranceof

reincarnationinCambodiaallowsforthepossibilityofreunionatsomepoint–if

notinthislife,perhapsinthenextone.Thisistrueforthedeadasmuchasitis

fortheliving:thedeadwanttobeamongstpeopletheyknowandtrust(‘theyare

lonely,andworriedaboutus’OmYayexplained).124Buttheplaceofthedeadis

atthesiteoftheirdeath–itishardforthemtoleaveandtravel(intimeorspace)

unlesstheforceoftheirkarmaisparticularlystrong.Distanceintimefadesthe

memoryofthedead,andtheybecomemorelikelytoberebornamongstthose

livingclosetotheplaceatwhichtheydied.Sometimesitissimplyaquestionof

timing–apregnancyhastocoincidewiththetimewhenthedeadarereadytobe

reborn,whichdependsupontheirkarma.

124ThetiesofaffectioninCambodiaarenotrestrictedtothoserebornwithinthehumanspherebutcanextendintodifferentrealmsofexistenceaswell:thecousinofoneofmyinformantsremembersapreviousincarnationwhere,followingherdeathasahuman,shewasrebornasacow,butwithinhersamefamily.


ThoughIusetheminthischapterasconceptstoexploremeansbywhichpeople

incontemporaryCambodianormalisethemassdeathsthatoccurredduringthe

KhmerRougeregime,itisimportanttonotethatreincarnationandkarma,unlike

otheraspectsofBuddhistdoctrine,areconcretephenomenaofeverydaylifein

Cambodia.Theyareneitheridiomsnorsymbolicexpressionsofrelationshipsand

theconsequencesofaction.Assuch,theymaterialiseconnectionsbetween

periodsoftime,peopleandplaces,andmakeevidenttheeffectsofmoral

(dis)order.


HavingoutlinedtheplaceofreincarnationandkarmawithinKhmerBuddhism,I

willnowprovidethreeethnographicexamplesthatillustratehowtheseconcepts

areusedtounderstand,narrateandnormalisethemassdeathsthatoccurred

duringtheKhmerRougeregime,explainthesurvivalofmanyagainsttheodds,

andprovideameansofembodiedjustice.Thefirst,fromChoeungEkGenocidal

Center,showshownamelessdeadarereintegratedintosociallifebybeingreborn

amongstthoselivingandworkingatthesite.Thesecondexamineshow

relationshipsrupturedduringtheregimearerebuiltinthepresent,andnew

connectionsareforgedandextendedacrossfamilygroupsanddisparate

communities.Thefinalexampleexploreshowjusticeisunderstoodthroughthe

notionofkarmaandreincarnation.

Reintegratingthenamelessdead

DawasintroducedtomeonemorningbytheTaTa,anelderlymanwhosefamily

homewasinthevillagebehindthecenter.KnowingIwasinterestedinthegraves


andthosewithconnectionstothem,headvisedmetospeaktoDa:‘shegot

pregnantfromthegraves,’hetoldme.Da’ssonisthereincarnationofsomeone

buriedinthemassgravesatChoeungEk:hisspiritcametoherwhensheclimbed

intoapittolootitintheearly1980s.

ItwasChineseNewYear,andthevillagewasquiet;mostofthefamiliesonthe

streetareKhmer-Chineseandhadgonetovisitfamily,orwerevisitinglocal

pagodastoaskforfortuneforthecomingyear.Daandherfamily,however,

considerthemselvesKhmersoth–pureKhmer–andsowereathome.Theday

wascoolbyCambodianstandardsanditwasapleasantwalkthroughthedusty

village.AsmyresearchassistantandIwalkedalongthestreetIcouldhear

cricketschirpinginthefields,andthedistantsoundofcarsontheroadthat

passedthecenter.Dainvitedusintoherhometochat.Wesatonthebamboo

platformunderthestiltsofherwoodenhouse.Chickensscratchedthefloor

aroundus,sometimesjumpingupontotheplatformonlytobeshooedawayby

Da.

DuringtheregimeDahadbeenevacuatedonlyafewkilometresaway.She

returnedhomesoonafterliberation,butlikeothersinthevillage,wasunawareof

thegravesatChoeungEkuntilgovernmentemployeesstartedunearthingthem,

andthestenchofrottingfleshspreadaroundthecountryside(seechapterone).

Wordsoonreachedthevillagethatvaluableshadbeenfoundinthegraves,and

peoplestartedgoingtoseewhattheycouldfind:‘otherpeoplefoundgold,soI

wantedit,too,’Datoldme.‘Somefoundnecklacesandrings,andIevensaw

somediamonds.’Visitingthesiteoneafternoon,sheclimbedintoagravefullof

bodies,andimmediatelystartedvomiting.Climbingoutofthepit,shecrawled


home;althoughherhousewasonly500mawayittookherhourstomakethe

journey.

Shecontinuedbeingillforsomeweeks,anddespitevisitingadoctor,could

receivenorespite;‘Icouldn’tstopvomiting,’shesaid;‘IwassoweakandI

becamesoskinnythatIhadtositonapillow.’Elderstoldherthatshemusthave

angeredthelocalNeakTa–theguardianspiritofthearea.Otherstoldhershe

haddisrespectedherancestors.Butdespiteprayingandgivingofferingstoboth,

shewasstillsick:

Theysaid[thesickness]wasbecauseofwrongdoingstotheancestors,soIgave

offeringstotheancestors.AndwhentheysaiditwastheNeakTa,Igave

offeringstotheNeakTa.Whateveritwas,Ioffered.Ialsowenttothedoctorfor

injections.Itdidn’thelp.SoIstoppeddoinganythingandjustsatonthepillow.

Myhusbandcarriedmeupanddown.

Notknowingwhereelsetoturn,shevisitedaKruchoalrūp125(spiritmedium)who

toldhershehadnotangeredthespirits,butwaspregnantwiththereincarnation

ofsomeonefromChoeungEk.Sherecoveredfromhersicknessoncehersonwas

bornafewmonthslater.

ThereareseveralreasonsDaiscertainthathersonisreincarnatedfromthe

graves.Thesicknessstartedassoonassheclimbedintothegrave,andrather

thanwaningovertime,itcontinuedallthewaythroughherpregnancy,only

stoppingonceshedeliveredthebaby:

125Seechaptertwo,footnote74foranexplanationofthedifferenttypesofspiritmedium.


Itwasn’tanormalmorningsickness:itwasterribleuntilIgavebirth.Ihad

morningsicknessuntilIdelivered,andassoonasIdelivered,Ifeltsorelieved.I

nolongerthrewuporanything.Assoonashecameout,Ifeltsowell;I

recovered.

Aswellasthesickness,theKruhadtoldheritwasaspirit.Butthesignthatgives

hercompletecertaintyofhisoriginsisherson’sintelligence:‘he’ssosmart,so

intelligent;today,he’sanurse.’Da’sfamilyismodest,andneithershenorher

husbandareeducated,makingDareflectonthekarmaleadingtoherson’s

reincarnation:

Ifeelsorryformyson.I’mnotsureifitwashisbadkarmaorsomething,ifthat

waswhyhebecameso,andwhyhisdestiny(upanisaya)wastobewithme.

Dafeelssorryforhersonnotbecausehewasreborn-forthatsheishappy-but

because(shebelieves)hiskarmahasledtohimbeingreborninalowersocial

classthanthatheleft.ThosekilledatChoeungEkwerealmostentirelybrought

fromTuolSlengprisoninPhnomPenh-theprisonwherehighprofileprisoners

weretaken,includingthosewhoposedthehighestthreattotheregime:lawyers,

doctors,andtheintelligentsia.Inexplaininghowhiskarmahadledtohisrebirth

withher,Dasaid:

there’ssinandgooddeeds(bāp/bon).AccordingtoBuddhism,ifyoudogood

things,youwillberebornsoon.Ifyouhavealotofsin,it’snoteasytobereborn.

Ifyoukillanyoneoranything,youwillnotberebornsoon.Ifyouhavegood

karma,youcanberebornwiththoseyouknow.


Daconsideredherson’sdeathatChoeungEk,andhisrebirthintoamodest,

uneducatedfamily,tobetheresultofhiskarma;althoughstillhuman,she

consideredhisstatustobelowered.126Inaddition,hecouldnotfindhisoriginal

family,andsohadtobebornwithstrangers.Thosewhodied,shetoldme,were

lonelybecausetheycouldnotfindtheirfamilies.Butthosereadytobereborn

neededaplace,andwithoutbeingabletolocatetheirfriendsorrelatives(which

isonlypossibleforthosewithgoodkarma),theyhadtoreincarnatewiththose

closetotheirgraves.Thatiswhyhersonhadcometoher.

Da’ssonisnottheonlypersonrebornfromthegravesatChoeungEk.Afewdays

afterhearingthisstoryIwassittingchattingwithBongLa(whowemetinchapter

one).Hewasnarratingadreamfromafewdaysearlier,inwhichseveral

VietnamesepeoplevisitedhishomeinPhnomPenhandtoldhimtheywerefree

andheshouldn’tworryaboutthem.Herealiseditwaspeoplefromthegraves

tellinghimtheyhadbeenrebornandthattheyareatpeace.

IaskedhimwhythosekilledatChoeungEkhadvisitedhim?‘Ifeellikemyspirit

wasrelatedtothosepeople,or,maybe,I’moneofthosepersonsbutIcameback

nowtotellthestory,’hesaid.‘Andnotjustme’hecontinued,‘mysonstoo.’He

toldmethatbothhissonsarereincarnatedfrompeopleinthemassgravesatthe

site.HisyoungestsonisthereincarnationofanAustralianmankilledthere–he

knowsthisbecauseinadreamhemetanAustralianman,wholeftacaninetooth

nearatreeatChoeungEk,whichhepickedupandheldinhisrighthand.Another

126Aswesawinchapterone,whilstmanyofthoseimprisonedatTuolSlengandkilledatChoeungEkdidcomefromhighsocialclasses,particularlyintheearlydaysoftheregime,astimeprogressedandparanoiastartedtospread,thesitesbecamethefinallocationsformanyKhmerRougecadreandtheirfamilies.Althoughofhighstatuswithintheregimesomewerefromlowerstatusoriginswithlittleornoeducation.


dreamtoldhimthathiseldestsonwasalsoreincarnatedfromthemassgraves–

inthedreamhesawatooth127markedwithBuddhistinscriptions,whichhe

pickedupandhelditinhislefthand.ToBongLathisclearlyindicatestheleft-

handedwritingofhisfirstson.Otheraspectsoflifenowconfirmhisreincarnated

status:

Irealizedwhyheonlyeatsporridge(Borbor)128now.BecauseduringPolPot

timeyou[he]ateporridgealot,sonowyou[he]seemtolikeeatingporridge….

ThoughlifeduringtheKhmerRougewasdifficult,itisthelastmemoryofthose

whodiedduringtheregime,andmemoriesorbehavioursfromthatlifeare

thereforecarriedwiththereincarnatedpeopletothislife,particularlyiftheydied

youngandthereforehavelittleornorecollectionoflifebeforetheregimeto

drawon.ForBongLa’sson,therefore,likingporridgeisabehaviourfromhis

previouslifethatisinherenttohispersona:aformofhabitusthatcannotbe

removed.ThisisoneofthediscontinuitiesthatLambek(2013)referstowhenhe

considersthediscontinuousnatureofreincarnatedbeings(thoughsomemight

arguethesetobecontinuitiesfromthelifebefore):whilsthehasnorecollection

ofhislifebefore,BongLa’ssonembodiesbothhispersonanow,andaspectsof

hislifebefore.Inaddition,hischoiceoffoodbringsimaginarylinkstothatperiod

ofhistory,whenfoodwasscarceandporridgetherationthatmostsurvivedon.

127TeethhaveparticularsignificanceinBuddhistliteraturebecause,beingtheonlyskeletalelementthatarevisibleinlife,theyaredeemedtorepresent‘whatthebodyisandwillbecome,andsoserveasremindersofimpermanencethathelptobridgethedividebetweenlifeanddeath’(Strong2004:180).Buddha’sownteetharepartoftherelicsdistributedacrossAsiafollowinghisdeath.

128Cambodianporridge(Borbor)isusuallymadefromchickenbrothfilledwithmeatorfishandvegetables.DuringtheKhmerRouge,however,rationswereminute,andtheporridgetypicallyconsistedofaspoonfulofriceinsaltedwater.


Repairingrupturedrelations

Thesecondethnographicencounterrelatestotherepairofrelationshipsruptured

duringtheregime.InthissectionwemeetLōkOm,whosetwochildrenare

reincarnated:hisdaughterisreincarnatedfromaVietnameseboykilledduring

theregime,whilsthisson,alsokilledduringtheregime,hasbeenreborntoa

differentfamilyinthevillage.

Amanofaroundforty-five,LōkOmisaformercadreoftheKhmerRouge,only

leavingthemovementinthe1990swhenhiscommander(nowvillagechief)

agreedtopeaceterms.Onapreviousvisitasanasidetoadiscussionaboutthe

peacenegotiationsLōkOmtoldmethattheKhmerRougeshothisdaughter,Srey.

AlthoughtheyhadlostcontrolofCambodiain1979,theKhmerRougehad

remainedactiveanddangerousuntilthelate1990swhenpeacewasfinally

assured,andatfirstIthoughttheshootingmusthaveoccurredduringthislatter

period.Iaskedhimwhathadhappened.

‘Theycapturedherandshother,’hetoldme.HecalledSreyoverandpulling

downtheneckofhert-shirt,showedmearoundpuckeredareaofskinonher

shoulder,justbelowherneck.Iwasshocked.LōkOmsentSreyofftoplay,andI

triedtofindoutwhathadhappened.Ittookmeawhiletofullyunderstandwhy

LōkOmhadlaughedatmyshock:Sreyhadnotbeenshotinthislife,butinher

previousone.Thatdaytheconversationmovedon,butthisparticularmorningI

hadgonebackspecificallytotalkaboutSrey’sreincarnation.

ItwasrainingwhenIgottoLōkOm’shouseandhewastakingadvantageofthe

softeningtheraingavetothebakedsoiltoploughthericefieldnexttohishouse


inpreparationforplantinginthefollowingweeks.WhenIarrivedhestopped

ploughing,releasinghiscowtograze,andwemovedtositunderthesala:a

roofedbambooshelterbeneaththetreesinhisfrontyard,enjoyingthereliefthe

rainbroughttothestiflinghumidityofCambodiainJune.Aswetalked,Sreyran

aroundtheyard,playingintherain.

DuringtheKhmerRougeregimeSreyhadbeenayoungVietnameseboyfromthe

borderzoneofVietnamandCambodia,closetoLōkOm’shouse.TheKhmer

Rougewereparticularlyactiveinthatarea:inthelatterpartsofDemocratic

Kampucheatherehadbeenregularborder-raidsintoVietnam;fightingwas

frequentandmanycasualtiesoccurredasaresultofoffensesonbothsides129.In

onesuchborderraid,theKhmerRougehadcapturedtheboyandshothim.

YearslaterLōkOm’swife,Yay-yay,wastakinganafternoonnapinthehammock

swingingundertheirhouse.Asshedozedshestartedtodream.Shewaswalking

alongabeachwhenshesawaNeakdtienehchai–aspiritwaitingtobereborn–

collectingrocks.Asshewalkedpastthespirithedroppedtherocksandfollowed

her.Shetoldhimtoleave,butherefused,tellingher‘I’mcomingwithyounow.’

Whenshewokefromthedream130Yay-yayknewshewaspregnantandthatit

wasthisboy.WhenSreywasbornshehadmarksonherarmsfromtheligatures

shehadbeentiedinbytheKhmerRougeandtwobirthmarkswhereshehadbeen

shot:oneonherbacksideandoneonhershoulder-themarkthatLōkOmhad

129Areportfrom1977ontheconflictrecordedover1,000VietnameseciviliansbeingkilledorwoundedintheareabetweenSeptemberandNovember1977(Kiernan2007:312).Asaresultofsuchactions,thereare,accordingtosomeofmyinformantsfromthearea,massgravescontainingKhmervictimsexistinginVietnam.Iwasnotabletocorroboratethisduringthisresearch,butitcouldprovideaninterestingpointforfuturework.

130Thistypeofpregnancydream,whereaspiritvisitsthemothertobeor,occasionally,aclose

relativeofthemother,isrelativelycommon,andiscalledSuBenKor.


showedme.Unlikesomechildren,Sreydidnotrememberherpreviouslife,nor

hadanyoneelserecognizedher.ItwasYay-yay’sdreamthathadtoldthem.

Srey’skarmahadobviouslybeengood,LōkOmtoldme,becausewhenshewas

reborn,itwasasahuman,andshehadbeenabletochangeherlifecircumstances

forthebetter,progressingfrombeing‘Yuan’(aderogatorytermusedbymany

KhmerforVietnamesepeople)tobeingKhmer.Aftertellingmethis,LōkOm

added:‘mysonisalsoreborn.’

Hisson,Broh,alsodiedandhadnowbeenreborntoanotherfamilyinthevillage.

‘He’sabouttwoyearsold’Sreyinterjected.Brohlooksnothinglikehedidinhis

previouslife,buttheyknowitishimbecauseduringhismotherconsidered

terminatingthepregnancy,buttheboy’sspiritvisitedherandaskedhernotto.

KnowingLōkOm,shefeltshecouldnotabortthefoetus.ItoldthefamilyIwas

sorrytohearabouttheboy’sdeath.LōkOmtoldmenottoworry–everyonelost

people,hewasnotalone.‘Anyway,’hetoldme‘itwashiskarma.’

LōkOmregularlyseeshisson;hehelpshisnewfamilysupporthimbygivingthe

childmoneyandgifts.Sometimeshepaysforhisschoolbooks.Hisobligations

towardsBroh’snewincarnationresemblethoseofagodparent:thereisnodirect

responsibility,butitisexpectedthatlinkswillbemadeandsupportcanbecalled

onintimesofneed.

BothSreyandBroh’sreincarnationswereannouncedbyspiritsvisitingtheir

mothersindreams,andforthisreasonbothfamiliesacceptthenewincarnation,

andtherelationshiptotheoldone.ThisismadeeasierbecauseLōkOmgets

alongwithBroh’snewfamily,andSreydoesnotrememberherpreviouslife,so


doesnothavethedualpersonalities(anddesiresthatgoalongsideit)ofher

incarnations.However,sometimesthespiritdoesnotvisit,anditisthechildthat

rememberstheirpastlife.Thiscancauseconflicts,particularlyifthechildisborn

intoanunknownfamily:somechildrendemandtovisittheirpreviousfamily,and

inthesecasesitiscommonforthemtoreplicaterelationshipsthatexistedintheir

previousincarnation131:unlike‘new’children,reincarnatedchildrenarealready

fullyformedsocialbeingswithcompleteidentitiesfromtheirpreviouslivesthat

maycontradicttheirnewplaceinthesocialhierarchyaswellasintheirown

particularfamily.132Newparentswilloftengivethechildmedicinetohelpthem

forgettheirlives,fearingthatthechildwillwanttoreturntotheirpreviouslife.

Oncefamiliesmeet,however,andthereincarnationisaccepted,theybecome

linkedinanextensionofthekinnetworksthatexistedbefore,asisthecasewith

LōkOmandBroh.

WecanhereseehowLambek’sconceptofthelinkingbetweentimesandpeople

worksinthisscenario.WhilstSreydoesnotrememberherpastlife,thespirit’s

visitandthebirthmarksshehasclearlyindicateherreincarnationtoherparents.

Cambodia’srelationshipwithVietnamwasoftenhostileduringtheKhmerRouge,

withfrequentfightinginthearea,andCambodia’srelationshiptoVietnamhas

131

Oneofmyinformant’sgrandmothershasbeenrebornasherdaughter.Atagethreeshechosetoleavehernewbirthfamilyandmoveinwithheraunt,whowas,inherpreviousincarnation,herfavouritechild.Becausethefamiliesliveclosetoeachother,andaredirectkin,thismovewasallowed,becausemyinformantalsorelatedtoherdaughterasherpreviousincarnation;‘Icallhergrandmotherandmyself‘Agn’[aninformalformof‘I’usedinself-addresswhentalkingtosomeoneolderorofhighersocialstatusthanyourself]….Weknowthatshe’sourgrandmother.It’simpossibletoaddressher‘Ahmeng’[aformofyouusedtoaddressyoungerpeopleorthoseofinferiorsocialstatus]’shetoldme.

132ItisthiselementofreincarnationthatGuptaargueschallengesWesternunderstandingsof

childrenasbeings-in-process:childrenthatareincarnatesofpreviousbeings(particularlyhuman)are‘inhabitedbytheir(adult)thoughtsandgestures’andtherefore‘havetobeconceptualizedasmorecomplexbeingsthanisallowedbythestandardnarrativeofchildhoodwhichpositsanewbeingwhoslowlyfindshisorherwayintheworld’(Gupta2002:1).


remainedfragilesincetheregime.ThevillagewhereLōkOmlivesisonly20

kilometresfromtheVietnameseborder,andpeopleoftenvisitthebordertowns

totrade.Inaddition,manyVietnamesemigrantworkersliveandworkintherice

fieldsoftheareaalongsidetheKhmerlivingthere.Reincarnatedfroma

VietnameseboykilledclosetoLōkOm’shome,Sreynotonlyoffersameansof

reintegratingthenamelessdeadintocontemporarylife,butalsooffersamodeof

repairingrelationshipsandprovidingabridgebetweenclashingnationsand

communitieswhofoughtviciouslyduringtheregime,butnowlive,workand

tradetogether.

Broh,meanwhile,embodiesseveralotheraspectsofLambek’sproposition.As

boththenewchild,and,concurrently,LōkOm’sson,hereunitesparentsand

child,repairingtherelationshiprupturedbytheregime.Healsoreconnectsthe

periodbeforetheregimewiththepresent,offeringabridgebetweenthetwo;

andbybeingbornintoadifferentfamily,presentingameansofextending

relationshipsandnetworksacrossdifferentfamilies,withtheassociated

obligationsandsupportsystems.

Thejusticeofkarmaandreincarnation

Thefinalencounterconsidersthewaykarmaandreincarnationareconnectedin

thenarrativesofmyinformantstoconceptsofjustice.HereIaminterestedin

justiceasitismaterialisedthroughsociallifeandembodiedexperiences,rather

thaninitsjudicialstatus.Oneencounterispresentedinthissection:OmPich,

wholostovertwentymembersofherfamily,butwhodespitebeingdisabled,and

beingtakenfor‘re-education’(afateusuallyendingindeath),survivedthe

regime.


OmPichwasoftenill,sufferingfromhighbloodpressureandthefrequentbouts

ofdizzinessthataccompaniedit,soshedidnotleavethehousemuch.Wewould

sitinthehammocksunderherhouse,oronchairsinthegrassyareabehindit,

andasIswattedthemosquitoesthatconstantlyplaguedme,shespokeabouther

lifeduringandaftertheKhmerRouge.Shewantedmetotakethestorieshome

sopeopleinBritainwouldknowhowterriblelifehadbeeninCambodia:how

manypeoplehaddied,howmuchpeoplehadsuffered.

OmPichlostmanymembersofherfamilyduringDemocraticKampuchea.She

missedthemdaily,shetoldme.Heraunt,uncleandsisterwerekilled.Bothher

parentsdiedattheruralworkcampinKampongThomprovincewheretheywere

evacuated.Herbrotherwaskilledbythecadre:

Myfamily,onmymother’sside;threedied.Butonmyfather’sside,therewere

more:sevenpeople.Allgone.

HerAuntandUncle’sfamiliesfaredevenworse;thewholefamilywaskilled

duringtheregime-fifteenintotal.‘Nobodyisleftinthosetwofamilies’shetold

me.However,despitethegrief,OmPichexplainedtomethatforpeopletohave

sufferedsomuchandexperiencesuchterribledeathswasbecauseoftheirkarma

frompreviouslives.DuringtheKhmerRouge,shesaid,peoplewere´forcedto

die.’WhenIaskedhertoexplain,sheelaborated:

Iftheydidn’thavekarma,theywouldnotdie.Itmustbethattheycommitted

baddeeds;that’swhytheywerekilledlikethis.

Aswehavealreadyseeninthisthesis,theKhmerRougewereruthlessand

inclusiveintheirkilling.OmPich’sAuntandUncle’sfamilieswerekilledbecause


herUnclehadbeenaLonNolsoldierbeforetheregime,fightingagainstthe

KhmerRougeguerrillasintheearly70s.Herbrotherwasexecutedbecausehe

displeasedoneoftheKhmerRougeofficersinhisworkgroup.Herparentsdiedof

starvationandfatigue;hersisterofdisease.Butsomehow,OmPich,although

disabledbeforetheregime,survived.Thiswasnotonlyunusualinthecontextof

herfamily,butalsobecauseofherdisability:mostdisabledpeoplewere

slaughteredbytheregime,whoneededfit,ablepeopletotakepartinthe

massiveprojectsthatwouldconstructthenewCambodia-disabledpeoplewere

simplyadditionalmouthstofeed.OmPich,however,survivedandhadbeenable

toliveandworkthroughoutDemocraticKampucheaalongsideothervillagers

fromherhometowninKandalprovince.

DuringtheregimeOmPichhadworkedintheyouthsectionofamassiverural

workcamp.Shehadcomeclosetolosingherlifeonmorethanoneoccasion,but

somehowhadsurvived.Atonestageshewasimprisonedbythelocalcadreand

takentobe‘builtup’(kāsang).IncontemporaryKhmerkāsangliterallytranslates

as‘tobuild’.However,duringtheKhmerRougeregime,thewordtookonadual

meaningwhere‘tobuild’alsomeanttodestroyorteardowninordertostart

buildingfromscratch:akindofdeathandrebirthofparticularinstitutions,or,

morecommonly,ofindividualswhoweretakento‘kāsang’(Harris2008:186).

Shedescribedittome:

Oh…Oun133…thattime,theycapturedusjustbecausewescreamedbecauseof

hunger.TheycalledusNeaytunSakadePhum134.Wecouldn’tevensayaloud

133

Ounisatermusedtoaddressthoseyounger,oroflessersocialstatus,thanyourself.

134VillageLeader’sChild-aphraseusedtodescribechildrenwhocomplainalot.


thatwedidn’tgetenoughrice.I,myself,wasattheTuolKrosangdam135,ohmy

god,Iatesixbananasthesizeofthetoesinsteadofrice,andthemorningglory

soupwascookedsometimeswithrootsandsmallfish.Weateitjustforthesake

ofeating.Iftherewasacameraatthattime,you’dseehowthinIwas.Just

steppingovergrassIwouldtripandfall.Duringtheregime…letmetellyou,so

manydied.Somediedofsickness,somediedbecausetheycomplained,like:‘I

wishwehadthisorthatfood’or‘I’mnotfull….’Theywouldtakeustobuildus

up(kāsang)becausetheydidn’twantustothinkofthepast.Itwassodifficult….

ButaccordingtoBuddhism,Ihadgoodkarma.That’showIsurvived.

OmPichconsideredkarmatobetheonlyadequateexplanationastowhyshe,a

disabledperson,hadsurvivedwhilstother,non-disabledpeoplehaddied:

Allofthesedeadpeoplemusthavehadbadkarmainthereligion.Yes,nowyou

thinkaboutit-theywerestrongandphysicallyhealthy.Whataboutme?How

couldIsurvive?ImetaDonChee(laynun),achiefmonk,anâchar(laypriest).

Thechiefmonkwasdisrobedandhadtocarryagun.Hetoldmeso.Buthow

comeIstayedalive?

Oneofthosewhohaddiedwasherbrother.Aftertheregime,shehadrunintoan

oldneighbourwhohadworkedinhiscommune:

Hetoldme‘Iworkedwithyourbrother.Whenwefinishedcarryingsoil,he

showered,andthenhisnamewascalledout.Theykilledhim.

TheneighbourtoldOmPichwhohaddonethekilling,thathewasstillalive,and

toldherwherehelived.

135

OneofthemanydamsbuiltundertheKhmerRougerule.


IthoughtIwantedrevenge.ButthenIthoughtabouttheBuddhistteaching-

thatitwasprobablyhisbadkarmafromapastlife,soitwaslikethat.

Thoughherbrotherwasonlyayoungmanwhenhewaskilled,hisdeathwasa

consequenceofactionsfromapreviouslife.OmPich,therefore,didnotneedto

seekrevenge;hisdeathwasinevitable.Thoughthereisanelementoffatalismin

thiskindofthinking,itdoesnotmeanthatactionsinthislifearemeaninglessand

havenoeffect.Quitethecontrary:thekarmicforceofevildeedsissostrongthat

itwillpotentiallyaffectpeopleformanylivestocomeandallsubsequentactions

arethereforeimportant.

Discussion

InLambek’sconsiderationofcontinuousanddiscontinuouspeoplehearguesthat

discontinuouspersons(i.e.thosereincarnatedwhoaresimultaneously

themselvesandanother)presentameansbywhichhistoricalperiods,andpeople

withinthem,canbeconnectedthroughretrospectiveandimaginarybridges

betweentime.ForLambek,thosereincarnated(orpossessedbyspirits)

materialisethepast,andthereforeenabletheseimaginativeconnectionstobe

made.

InCambodiathosereincarnatedarerarelyfiguresfromthedistantpast(ancestors

andpowerfulhistoricalfigureshaveinsteadbecomepowerfulboromeyspirits

whopossessspiritmediumsandprovidethemaccesstoknowledge).Insteadthey

arereincarnatedfromrecenthistory,andratherthanparticularepochs,embody

relationships.Thatsaid,thosereincarnatedarenotalwaysknowntothosethey

cometo,andparticularlyinthecaseofthosereincarnatedfrompeoplekilled


duringtheKhmerRougeregime,theconnectionbetweenpeopleofferedby

reincarnationprovidesameansofreintegratingthemassdeadintocontemporary

life.

AswesawinthecasesofDaandBongLaandhissons,thosewhodiedduringthe

regimehavenotbeenforgotten,nordotheyremainnameless,despitemost

remaininginmassgravesandneverhavinghadfuneralceremoniesperformedfor

them.Thoughritualsdonotoccur,peoplecanbereborn:thisoffershopeand

reassurancetomany.AsErikDavisnotesinhisdiscussionofMissYaan’s

continuinglives,itisintheeverydaylivesofpeoplethattheculturaldesiderataof

orderandjusticeisenacted(Davis2008:129);implicitinthereincarnationofDa’s

son,BongLa’schildren,andBongLahimself,isthedesireforanewlifebeing

offeredtothosefromwhomitwastornduringtheregime.

LōkOm’ssonBroh,meanwhile,exemplifieshowreincarnationprovidesameans

ofrepairing,orcontinuing,rupturedrelationships.Inaddition,itenablesnew

connectionsandrelationshipstobemadeamongststrangersandneighbours.

Beingtiedthroughreincarnationofferspotentialbenefitsforbothsides:in

additiontoprovidingcomforttotheoriginalfamily(throughknowingwhoand

wheretheirlovedoneshavebeenreborn),itreinforcesorextendsthenetworks

ofkinandsupport,sometimesacrossvastswathesofland.AsDavisnotes(2008:

133):

TheCambodianfamilymapslargerCambodiansocietymoreflexiblythandoes

thetraditionalWesternfamily.Familyboundariesappearloose,andvarious

typesofadoption,god-parenting,andotherformsof‘fictivekinship’havebeen

created….Thisnetworkoffamilymembersdefinesanddelimitstheboundaries


ofthesocialworld,thelandonemaysafelytravel,thepeopleonemaytrustand

uponwhomonemayrely,andthenetworksandintimaciesthatcomposeour

emotionalgeographies,thosespaceswherewerecognizetheemotional

landmarksandwherewecannavigatewithmoreexperienceandconfidencethan

withstrangers.

Reincarnationprovidesoneofthemanymodesofmakingconnectionsand

strengtheningandextendingkinshipnetworksinthefragilepost-conflictworldof

Cambodia.Thisisavitalelementofprovidingstabilityinacountrystillfraught

withdifficultiesandongoingstructuralanddirectviolencebythegovernment

againstitspeople,wheretrust,destroyedduringtheregime(whenchildrenkilled

parents,loversbetrayedeachother,andfriendsbecamebitterenemies)remains

elusive.

Therelationshipsformedthroughreincarnationnotonlyprovideacontinuance

betweenthelivingandthedead,butalsobetweenthepastandpresenteras.

Peopledonotend;andwhilsttheymayhavebothforensicandmimetic

propertiesofpersonhood(Lambek2013),manytransformintootherbeings.This

metamorphosis,asGupta(2002:49)callsit,providesstabilityandreassurance

becauseofthecontinuityallowedbythetranspositionofsomeessentialqualities

ofthepersonthathappenswithreincarnation:alook,awayofspeaking,marks

onabody(aswesawwithSreyandherbirthmarks):

Insteadofemployinganideaofgrowth,withitscorollaryofteleological

directionality,weneedtodrawuponanotionofmetamorphosisor

transformation.Metamorphosisemphasizescontinuityandsurvival;itinvolves

nottheobliterationorannihilationoftheselfasitsfinalstagebutatransposition

ofsomeofitsessentialqualities.Inthefluxandflowofhumanpropertiesacross


bodilyinscriptions,reincarnationstressescontinuitywhereideasofgrowthcould

onlyseediscontinuity.

Thedifferenttemporalitiesthatexistwithinreincarnationarenotonlyabout

linkingpeople,theyalsolinkdifferentperiods:reincarnatedbeingsarecomplexes

ofhistoricalerasandsopresentcontinuationbetweenthoseeras,mostsaliently,

betweenthetimebeforechaosdescendedonCambodiaintheformofcivil

conflictandtheKhmerRougeregime,andthemorestableexistencefeltbymany

today.

ThisrelatestoBuddhistnotionsofthecircularityoftimeinitswidestsense,made

explicitwithinBuddhistpropheciessuchasthePutTumneay136.Theseprophecies

(whichsomeofmyinformantscalledbunaatasaa-‘curses’)dictateanexistence

incontinualfluxbetweenperiodsofprosperityandperiodsofdevastation.Most

ofthepropheciesarehighlymetaphorical,however,theyarere-examinedinlight

ofwhathappens.Ashootingstarin1969,forexample,wasasignofwarforan

employeeattheMinistryofCultandReligionIinterviewed,whoalsousedan

ancientpredictiontoshowmehowancientBuddhistphilosophershadpredicted

theoverthrowingofSihanoukbyGeneralLonNolin1970:

Amythicalbirdleavesitsnest,fliestocatchanotherbird,butwhenahunter

comes,thebirdleavesthemythicalbird.Canyoutranslatethis?Thisprediction

hadexistedsincealongtimeago.Butifyouthinkaboutthecoupd’étatin1970,

you’llseethatitmatchedtheprediction.

136PuthTumneaytranslatesas‘ThePredictionsofPuth’.TheseareancientpredictionswithinKhmerBuddhism,manyofwhicharepassedbetweenpeoplebywordofmouth.IheardseveralvariationsthroughoutmytimeinCambodia,butthepredictionmostcommonlyrelatedtometoexplaintheKhmerRougeregimewas:‘Bangkokro'lum;PhnomPenhro'leay;Battambangkmchatkmchay;sabbaiAngkorWat’–‘Bangkokwillcollapse;PhnomPenhwillbedestroyed;Battambangwillbescattered;happinesswillreturntoAngkorWat.’


Othersputitmoreplainly.OmPichtoldme‘ithadtohappen.’‘Therewillalways

betimesofdeath:itisthecurseofBuddhism.’Thesecurses,however,donot

affecteveryoneequally:therearenotionsofjusticeboundupintheir

interpretationthatrelatetokarma.

ThecaseofOmPichandherfamily,particularlyherbrother,illustratehowkarma

isusedtoinvokenotionsofjustice.OmPichsurvived,whenmanyothersdidnot,

becauseofherkarma.Herfamily,friends,andthousandsofothersaroundher,

sufferedanddiedbecauseoftheirs.Likewise,whenLōkOmspokeofhissonwho

haddiedandthedaughterhenowhas,hepronouncedtheirdeathstobetheir

‘karma’.Ashe,andseveralotherstoldme:‘webelieveinbon/baap:goodand

evil-ifyoudogood,youwillreceivegood,ifyoudoevil,youwillreceiveevil.’

Theyhadtodiebecauseactsinpreviousliveshadgiventhem‘bad’karma.

Thenotionofjusticeisnotlimitedtopeople’stimeofdeath.Thekarmicforceof

theactscommitted(inthislifetimeandpreviousones)determinesintowhichof

therealmsofsamsarayouwillbereborn.AsHintonexplains(2008:78),

Buddhismoffers‘asortofontologicaljusticeforthevictims’inCambodia,

providingasystemofrewardandpunishment,regardlessofhowcontemporary

societydealswithpasttransgressions.Justiceisalsoplayedoutinrelationto

whereandwhenpeoplearereincarnated.LōkOm’ssonBrohhadgoodkarma:he

wasthereforeborntoalocalfamilyclosetoLōkOm.Sreylikewisehadgood

karmahetoldme–madeevidentbyherprogressionfromVietnamesetoKhmer.

ThekarmaofDa’sson,however,wasnotsogood,sohewasreborntostrangers

ofalowersocialclassthanwherehecamefrom.Justiceisthusmaterialisedby


theplaceandtimeofbirth,aswellaswithintheassurancethatperpetratorswill

suffercosmologicalpunishment.

TiedinwithBuddhistnotionsofforgivenessandlettinggoofanger(Hinton2008:

76),karmaprovidesawayofacceptingthemillionsofdeathscausedbythe

KhmerRouge;ultimatelyeachindividualisresponsiblefortheirownkarma,inthis

andotherlives.Adherencetothisconceptenablespeopletolivein

contemporaryCambodia,whereKhmerRougeperpetratorsliveopenlyinthe

populationwithoutseekingrevenge.Thiscanbere-assuringinacountrywherea

cultureofimpunitycondonesviolencepastandpresent,wheremanyex-Khmer

Rougecadreholdpositionsofauthority,andwhereithasbeendeclaredthatonly

fiveperpetratorswilleverbeprosecutedintheUN-backedKhmerRougetrials-a

movearguedtoensurethePrimeMinisterandotherinfluentialpoliticianswill

remainuntouched(Sperling2009:137).

Inaddition,itoffersanavenueofpotentialreconciliationforCambodianpeople–

knowingthattheirkarmawillensureKhmerRougecadrearepunishedbytheir

rebirthintotherealmsoftanarout(theunderworld)oraspreta(hungryghosts)

andunderstandingthatpeople’sdeathswereduetotheirownkarma,prevents

peopleseekingrevenge,asOmPichexplained.ItisthiscertaintythatledKok

ThayEng,aseniorresearcherattheDocumentationCenterofCambodia,a

researchfacilitywhoseaimisto‘helpCambodianshealthewoundsofthepastby

documenting,researching,andsharingthehistoryoftheKhmerRouge’(DC-Cam

2012),tousekarmaandreincarnationasapleaforforgivenessandreconciliation

withintheKhmerpopulation,inanewspaperarticlepublishedin2010:


TheenormityofthecrimescommittedbyleadersoftheKhmerRougecould

makethemtheworstbret137(lostorwanderingghostswhohavecommitted

serioussinsduringtheirlifetimesandcannotbereborn)ofall,whowouldalways

behungryandwanderingwithoutdestination.Iftheycanbeforgivenby

survivors,theirprospectforlifeafterdeathcouldbeimproved(Eng2010).138

Somebelievethisisalreadyhappening.Realmsofexistencearenotonly

ontologicalrealities,butalsometaphoricalmaterialisations.Anadvisoratthe

MinistryofCultandReligionsummarisedthiswhenwemetoneafternooninan

officeattheBuddhistUniversity.Theendemiccorruptionandviolencein

contemporaryCambodia,hetoldme,isduetothesereincarnatedKhmerRouge

stalkingthecountryaspreta;hungryghostswhopreyontheliving:

Thespiritsthatwebelievedwerehauntingwereactuallymorethanjust

haunting.Theyarethespiritsofmorethantwomillionwhodiedwithoutcare.

Thesespiritscamebackintohumanbodiesandcausedthemtokilloneanother,

likedrinkingeachother’sbloodforthosespirits.Khmer[people]usedtorespect

eachother,respecttheirparents,respectteachersandleaders.Theyusedto

loveandhelpeachother.Nowtheydon’tloveandhelpeachotheranymore.

Childrendon’tknowtheirparents.Andtheyfightwitheachother.Thismeans

theyhaunteachother.Inthepast,ghostshauntedindifferentways...Butnow

theyhauntinaformofmurdering,hauntingbyputtinghumanbeingagainst

humanbeing.Peoplearelosingtheirmorality.Andoncetheylosetheirmorality

andwhentheyaresousedtoseeingthekilling,theyfollowthat.Theykilleach

other.Whentheyseecorruption,theyfollowit….Thelawsaysthis;theydo

137Althoughtranscribedhereasbret,theKhmerwordforhungryghostsisusuallytranscribedaspretorpreta.

138ItisnotonlyforKhmerRougecadrethatformsofincarnationprovideatypeofcosmicjustice;someconsidertransgendermalestohavebeenfemalesinapreviouslifewhostolethehusbandorpartnerofanother(Drennan2013).


that.Forexample,thelawdoesn’tallowdeforestation,buttheycutdownthe

trees.Thelawdoesn’tallowmurder,buttheykilleachother.Thelawdoesn’t

allowrobbery,buttheyrob.

Theadvisorwasnotreferringtothepossessionofhumansbymalevolentspirits;

hewasusingpretaasbothmetaphorfortheendemiccorruptionofcontemporary

Cambodia,andasanexplanationforwhyitisoccurring:reincarnationin

Buddhismcanleadtosomebeingreincarnatedasspirits,andpowerfulspiritscan

sometimestaketheformofhumans.Pretacanonlybereleasedfromtheir

suffering(andCambodiafromtheirsinisterpresence)oncetheyarereborn.For

thattheyneedtoaccumulatemerit,somethinghardtodoifyouareapreta.

However,itcanbedone.Thepopulationhasfundedmostofthepagodasthat

havebeenrebuiltsincethedemiseoftheregime,withthelargestdonationsoften

comingfrompoliticiansorbusinessmenandwomenasamodeofmerit-making.

Thesameistrueoftheconcretecheddei(stupasforthedead)thathavebeen

builtinrecentyearstoreplacethewoodenp’teahkhmouch(houseofthedead)

thatusetocontaintheremainsofthosewhodiedduringtheKhmerRouge.Some

ex-KhmerRougecadrehavebecomeâchar(layBuddhistpriests),donchee(nuns),

orelderswholiveinpagodasandtakecareofthemonks.Theseareallgreat

sourcesofgainingmerit,whichcanbeaccumulatedtocounteractthekarma

alreadycollected.MeritisalsopassedtothedeadatBuddhistceremoniesthat

occuronregularoccasions.Althoughoccasionallyorganisedspecificallyfordead

relatives,thisformofmeritmaking(tveabon)hasbeenincorporatedintothe

annualritualcycle,andprimarilyoccursduringPchumBenh,andatKhmerNew

YearinApril,aswesawinchaptertwo.


Conclusion

JudyLedgerwood,whohasspentmanyyearsworkingacrossruralCambodia,

wrotethatpost-DemocraticKampuchea,manyBuddhistpracticeshavebecome

embodiedactsofrememberingtheperiodbeforetheKhmerRouge,recreating

sensesofplaceandbelonging(Ledgerwood2008:159).Indoingsotheyprovide

comfortandstability,particularlytotheelders,becausetheypresentamarkerof

continuancebetweenthenandnow,somehowlesseningthechaosthatthe

KhmerRougeperiodthrewthecountryinto:

IfyouaskruralKhmeraboutBuddhismtodayyouarelikelytogetthereplythat

Buddhismismuchthesameasitwasbeforewarandrevolutiondevastatedtheir

country.Whatisdifferenttoday,theywillsay,isthemoralityofthepeople,their

inabilitytoliveaccordingtothetenetsofBuddhism.Thisthemeisconsistent

withastandarddiscourseofcrisisandreformationinBuddhisthistory–timeis

cyclicalwithperiodsofglory,prosperityandlonglifethatalternatewithperiods

ofdeath,destructionanddespair(Ledgerwood2008:147).

Thischapterhasshownhowreincarnationandkarmaactinthesamewayforthe

peoplewhodiedduringtheperiod(and,ofcourse,whodienow).AsLambek

asserts,theyprovideacontinuity,bothwiththepersonthemselves,andwiththe

erabeforethewars.Theyofferameansofmakingsenseoftheperiod,and

narratingittoday.Theyenablethenarrationofthechaoticandterrifyingperiod

ofDemocraticKampuchea,intoanormalisedandunderstandablecosmological

contextbywhichthedeadcanbereintegratedintosociety.


Thisisonlypossiblebecauseoftheself-containedsystemsofBuddhismand

animismexistinginCambodia,whichwhilstflexibleandendlesslymalleable,

nevertheless,remainresistantintheirenduringpresence:

TheBuddhistcosmosisoverwhelminglyverticalandhierarchicalinitslogicof

organization,canonicinitsselfknowledge,everythinginitsrightfulplace,fully

continuouswithinitself,carefullycontrollingeverybeingwithinitself,through

itself.Thiscosmosisheldtogetherfromwithinitself(HandelmanandLindquist

2011:11).

ElementswithinBuddhismwereabletoexistthroughoutDemocraticKampuchea

andhavecontinuedintothenewCambodia,despitetheattemptatdestructionof

thereligion.Karmaandreincarnationaretwosuchelements.Whilstritualsorder

thepracticeofBuddhism,andtheSangha(themonasticorderofnunsandmonks)

organiseitsplacewithinthewidersociety,ultimatelyallpeoplecontinuetolivein

samsara,cyclingthroughrealmsofexistence,dyingandbeingrebornincontinued

dukkha(suffering)accordingtotheirkarma.Whetherritualsareconductedornot,

allwillbereborn.

Thedifferenttemporalitiesenabledbyreincarnationprovideconnectionsand

continuities:betweenthelivingandthedead,betweenpeopleandplaces,and

betweenhistoricalperiods.Inallowingpeopletomeetagainitconnectspeople

acrosstimeandspace,providingameansofextendingnetworksoftrustand

kinship.Thejusticeprovidedbykarmaprovidesasenseofredressand

retribution,aswellasareleasefromresponsibilityofsurvivors;withindividuals

beingultimatelyresponsiblefortheirownkarma,whichinfluencestheirdeaths,

thosewhosurvivedcanexplaintheirownsurvivalwhilstothersdied.Karma


explainsdeath,butalsooffersamodeofembodiedjustice;thosewhodieddidso

becauseoftheirkarma;thosewithgoodkarmaarerebornwithfamilyorfriends;

thosewithbadkarmawithstrangers;KhmerRougecadrearereincarnatedas

pretaorintotanarout,orinsomeextremecases,arestillwaitingtobereborn.

Theexplorationofkarmaandreincarnationinthischapterallowsforan

explorationbeyondmemory,tothesocialincorporationofthedeadinto

contemporaryCambodia.Initsmoststraight-forwardinterpretation,

reincarnationallowsforcontinuedattachmenttothedeadandthepossibilityof

meetingagain,andkarmaprovidesamodebywhichpeoplecanunderstandand

narratethechaosraineddownbytheKhmerRouge.Karmaalsoprovides

opportunitiesforcosmologicaljusticeandaresistancetothepervasivepolitical

impunityinCambodia.Reincarnationmeanwhile,enablesformsof

reincorporativekinshipthatextendssupportnetworksandrelationshipsoftrust

incontemporaryCambodia.Bothprovideimaginedcontinuancesbetweenthe

periodsbeforetheregimeandnow,andindoingso,allowfortherupturesand

disjuncturescausedbytheregimetobenarratedinthepresent.

Finallytheconceptsofreincarnationandkarma,aswellasotherBuddhist

conceptssuchasthecircularityoftime,offeranelementofstabilitytolifein

Cambodia.Theydonotimplythatnothingchanges,butthatchaosand

destruction,aswroughtbytheKhmerRouge,areelementsofBuddhistlife,andas

such,arebothinevitableandtransient.Regardlessofwhathappens,peoplewill

continuetoexistinsamsara,movingthroughcyclesofdeathandrebirth.Itis

thatinevitability,asmuchasthephysicalreincarnationofthosewholivedbefore

it,whichconnectsthe(relatively)peacefulerasbeforetheregimeandthe


present:noamountofkilling,noamountofritualdestruction,noamountof

devastation,canpreventrebirth–‘weareborn,wedie,wearebornagain.It’s

likethat’OmPichexplained.


SectionThree:GraveConcerns

Chapterfive:Pastpresent,presentpast–politicsinCambodia

Thegovernmenttakesoutthebonestoscarepeople:

–thiswastheKhmerRouge.

-OmTa,onthedisplayofremainsatmemorialsites.

********

Whilethedeadaresociallysalientbeingswhointeractwiththelivingandthus

affectthewaytheyareconceivedandrelatedto,theirspacesofdeathandburial

areopentointerpretationandappropriationforstateandinternationalpolitics,

aswellasindividualneeds.Aswith(most)massgravesandtheirmemorialsites,

politicsrendershowthosefromtheKhmerRougeregimearepresentedand

experienced.InCambodia,thosethatare‘remembered’publicallyarehighly

politicizedsitescentraltothere-workingofnarrativesoftheregime.The

selectionofwhichsitesarecommemoratedandwhicharenotisapolitical

statement,makingvisiblethecontainedculpabilityofonlyafewnamedKhmer

Rougeleaders,andtherebyrenderinginnocentthehundreds(ifnotthousands)of

lowergradecommanderswhowereactuallyresponsibleforthemajorityofthe

killing,manyofwhomstillholdpositionsofpowerinregionalandlocal

governmentsacrossCambodia.Sitesthatare‘forgotten’meanwhilenegatethese

simplisticnarrationsandprovideothercontestednarrativestostateand

internationalnarrativesontheregime.


Movingonfromconsiderationsoftheeverydayinteractionsandindividual

relationshipsbetweenthelivingandthedeadthatwereexploredinthelast

section,thenextthreechaptersallconcernnationalpoliticalusesforthemass

graves,showinghowthegovernmenthascommodifiedthedeadandtheirgraves

asinstrumentsofstatepoliticsandthebuildingofa‘new’Cambodia–in

developmentandtheretentionofpower.Itwilldothisbyconsideringstate

relationshipstothosekilledthroughthespacesoftheirgraves,examininghow

politicscontrolsknowledgeaboutthem(whichcanbeknownandwhichare

forgotten),andhowthegravesandtheirdeadareputtoworkforparticular

politicalendsthroughtheuseofspecificmemorialsitesthatdisplaytheskeletal

remainsofthosewhodied.

Thischapterexaminesthepoliticallandscape,discussinghowitcameintoplace,

howsuccessivegovernmentshavenarratedtheKhmerRougeperiod,andthe

placeofthegravesandtheirdeadinthis.Acentralaspectofthisisa

considerationofthegravesandmemorialsthatareintegraltothispolitical

manoeuvring,forwhichthosekilledaremostusefulasanonymouspilesofdead,

allowingtheirrecognitionasamasscollectiveratherthanasindividualliveslost.

ItwillfirstexplaincontemporaryKhmerpolitics,introducingtherulingparty(the

CambodianPeople’sParty)andtheirrisetopower,beforelookingatthewaysthe

deadandthegraveshavebeenusedpoliticallysince1979,exploringtheselective

memorialisationoftheperiod,thechoiceanddismissalofsitesinofficialrecords,

and,thewaythedead’s‘stagedbodies’(Feldman1991:8)areputtoworkas

agentsofviolenceindisplayofhumanremains.


Bydoingsoitlaysthegroundworkforthenexttwochapterswhichexamine

specificwaysinwhichthegravesareusedpolitically,bylookingattheuseof

ChoeungEkfortourismasameansofeconomicdevelopment,politicalstability,

andfuturesocialimprovement(chaptersix),andthemaintenanceofpower

throughtheharnessingofthespectralpresenceoftheKhmerRougeinpolitical

campaigning(chapterseven).

PoliticsincontemporaryCambodia

Officiallyaconstitutionaldemocracy,contemporaryCambodiais,inreality,a

countryofauthoritarianrulewithadomineeringPrimeMinister(HunSen),whois

notadversetoviolenceandextremeviolationofhumanrights139.Hisparty,the

CambodianPeople’sParty(CPP),remainsincontroltodaythroughamixtureof

force,intimidation,corruption,andadroitpoliticalmanipulation,inwhichthe

KhmerRougeperiod,itsdead,andtheirgraves,arevital.Thoughtheyhave

fluctuatedinimportanceinpoliticaldiscoursewithsuccessivegovernments,being

demonisedduringthePRK,and‘buried’inthelate1990sandearly-mid2000s

(Chandler2008),theyhaverecentlyresurgedassitesofpoliticalpower.This

resurgencemostlikelyrelatestotheestablishmentofthetheExtraordinary

ChambersintheCourtsofCambodiain2006(theECCC,akatheKhmerRouge

TrialsorKhmerRougeTribunal),atwhichpointitbecamemostusefulforthe

governmenttore-harnesstheregimeanditshorrificviolence.

139

HunSenhasoneoftheworsthumanrightsrecordsforany‘democratic’leader.ThelistofviolationsundertheCPPisextensive,including:politicalkillings;torture;extrajudicialdetention;arbitraryarrests;summarytrials;censorship;bansonassembly;violentrepressionofprotests;anationalnetworkofspiesandinformantsusedtofrightenandintimidatethepublicintosubmission;theobstructionoftheKhmerRougetrials;andimpunitytotheendemiccorruptionthroughoutthegovernmentandcivilsociety(HumanRightsWatch2015a).


TheCPPhaseffectivelyruledCambodiainoneformoranothersincethedeposing

oftheKhmerRouge,withthecurrentPrimeMinister,HunSen,atitshelmsince

1985140.AtitscoreareseveralformerKhmerRougecadrewhodefectedto

Vietnamin1977and1978,andwhohaveformedpartofeverygovernmentsince

1979,includingthePrimeMinisterHunSen,partyChairmanHengSamrin,andthe

formerpartyandSenatePresident,thelateCheaSim141.FollowingVietnam’s

invasionofCambodiainDecember1978,thesedefectorsformedFUNSK(Front

d'UnionNationalepourleSalutduKampuchéa-KampucheanUnitedFrontfor

NationalSalvation):asmallpartywhichwasbackedbytheVietnamese

administrationandputintogovernmentduringthePeople’sRepublicof

Kampuchea(PRK:1979–1993)astheKampucheanPeople’sRevolutionary

Party142.FollowingtheVietnamesewithdrawalfromCambodiain1989,theparty

continuedtorule,changingitsnametotheCPPin1991inpreparationforthe

1993UNTAC143managedelections,whichweretoheraldthebeginningofa‘fully

140

Nowthesixthlongestrunningleaderofanycountryintheworld,HumanRightsWatch(2015)reportthatHunSenhasbeenabletojoin‘anexclusiveclubofmennowinpowerwho,throughpoliticallymotivatedviolence,controlofthesecurityforces,manipulatedelections,massivecorruption,andthetacitsupportofforeignpowers,havebeenabletoremaininpowerwellbeyondthetimeanyleaderinagenuinelydemocraticpoliticalsystemhaseverserved.’

141HunSenjoinedtheKhmerRougein1968,wasacommanderintheEasternZoneduringDK;

foreignministerinthePRKfrom1979–1985;andPrimeMinistersincethen.HengSamrinwasaKhmerRougearmydivisioncommander;PrimeMinisterinthePRKfrom1979–1981;andisnowPresidentoftheNationalAssemblyandCPPChairman.CheaSimwasaKhmerRougecommanderofEasternZone20;MinisteroftheInteriorinthePRKfrom1979–1981;PresidentoftheNationalAssemblyfrom1981–1998;andPresidentofthepartyfrom1991,andtheSenatefrom1999,untilhisdeathinJune2015.HunSendefectedin1977,andHengSamrinandCheaSimin1978followingafailedrevoltbydissidents(includingthemselves)againstPolPot,whichledtothemostbloodypurgesoftheregime(BartropandJacobs2015).AlthoughinsufficientevidencehasbeenfoundtoindictHunSenforhisactionsduringDK(Peou2013),in2006evidencerelatedtoHengSamrinandCheaSimwaspresentedtotheECCCforinvestigation,however,thesewerenotpursued,allegedlyduetopoliticalcontrolofthecourtsbyHunSen(HumanRightsWatch2015b).

142AtthistimetheyweretheonlylegalpartyofCambodia.

143TheUnitedNationsTransitionalAuthorityinCambodia(UN-TAC)administeredCambodiafrom

1992–1993andmanagedthe1993electionsaspartofthe1991ParisPeaceAccordsorganizedtoendtheconflictsinCambodia.Thepeaceaccordsmandatedthedisarmamentoffightingfactions,mineclearance,theimplementationofanewdemocraticconstitutionaldemocracyandimprovedhumanrightsamongotherthings(USIP2015).


realisedpluralistliberaldemocracy’inCambodia(Gray2014:56)somethingthey

categoricallyfailedtodo.Despitelosingtheelections,bythreatofviolenceHun

Senforcedacoalitionwiththemajoritywinners,FUNCINPEC144,beforetaking

completecontrolaftercivilconflictsin1997145.SincethattimetheCPPhaswon

everyelectionwithasubstantialmajority(until2013,seechapterseven).An

employeeattheMinistryofCultandReligionsummeditupformeaswechatted

oneafternoon:

TheelectionorganizedbyUNTACwasjustandfair.FUNCINPECwon.Butafter

that,inelectionswithoutinternationalmonitors,[they]neverwonagain.

MuchofthelongevityoftheCPPisconsideredtobetheresultoffear,

intimidation,andwidespreadcorruption:electioncampaignsaretingedwith

violenceandrepression,andpoliticalviolenceisrife,includingtheassassination

ofpoliticalrivalsandcritics,violentintimidationofvoters,andextensive

bureaucraticviolence.

Centraltotherulingparty’sdiscourseisaconstructednarrativeinwhichthe

party,withHunSenatthehelm,emancipatedCambodiafromtheKhmerRouge,

144SetupbyPrinceSihanouk,FUNCINPECstandsfortheFrontUniNationalpourunCambodgeIndépendant,Neutre,Pacifique,etCoopératif-the‘NationalUnitedFrontforanIndependent,Neutral,Peaceful,andCooperativeCambodia.’FUNCINPECwaspartoftheCoalitionGovernmentofDemocraticKampuchea(1982–1993)–agovernmentformedinexilebutexertingsomecontroloverthecountry-thatincludedtheKhmerRougeaswellasRoyalistfactions.

145ThereissomedebateastohowpowerwaswrestedfromthecoalitiontotheCPP.ThepressandinternationalorganisationssuchasHumanRightsWatchcontenditwasabloodycoupbyHunSen(Adams2007;Efron1997;GarellaandPape2005;HumanRightsWatch2015);whileothersargueforamorenuancedanalysis(bothoftheeventandthevalue-ladenterm‘coup’)duetothehistoricalcomplexityandresultingoutcomesofpoliticalstability(Kevin1999;Ledgerwood2010).Oppositionparties,however,haveusedthedateofthiseventintheirpoliticalpropaganda:in2002,FUNCINPECmovedtheiranniversarycelebrationstothedateoftheclashes(July5-6)(althoughtheylaterstoppedthis),andin2014and2015,themainoppositionparty(theCNRP)heldcommemorationservicesinPhnomPenhfortheevent.PoliticalcommentatorsagreethatthemainpurposeofsucheventsistoremindthepublicoftheviolenceandterrorcausedbytheCPP(Meas2014;Vong2015).


andbywhichonlyheandhispartycanmaintainorderandpeace,withoutwhich,

theregimewillriseonceagain.ThedeadoftheKhmerRouge,aswellasthe

spectralpresenceoftheregime,arecentraltothemanipulationofCambodia’s

collectivenarrationofitsliberation.Thisisparticularlystrikingbecauseofwho

theleaders,andanumberoftheCPPofficialsacrossthecountry,are-former

cadre,manyofwhomheldpositionsofrankduringtheKhmerRougeregime.

WhilecentralgovernmentofficialssuchasHunSen,HengSamrin,andCheaSim

areamongstthese,therearemanyothersbesides;OmJah,whoIworkedwithin

Kep,isaparticularexample.Nowaquiet,elderlyman,heisawell-respected

memberofthelocalcommunecouncilforasmallvillageatthefoothillsof

PhnomGrahom.OmJahwaswarmandwelcoming,andwassurroundedby

peoplewheneverIsawhim.Helavishedlovingattentiononhismany

grandchildren,andwasviewedaskindandgenerousbythecommunity.The

villagehelivesinispeacefulandrelativelyprosperous,afactormanylocalpeople

attributedtoreliableandconsistentleadership,includinghis(Hull2013).

ThroughouttheKhmerRougeregime,however,hislifewasverydifferent.One

ofthreehighrankingcommandersinthearea,heledacohortofcadrerenowned

forviolenceanddisruption(‘theyusedtosay,‘ifyouwanttofight,comewithme

toPhnomGrahom,’hetoldme).Intheearly1970s,disillusionedwiththe

government,andangryabouttheUSbombingthatdevastatedthecountry,he

hadjoinedtheguerrillaKhmerRougearmyintheforestsofKep,andwassoon

promotedtocaptain.Althoughhesupportedtheiraims,itwasadifficulttime:

thereweresomanyproblemsfrombombs;weaponslikeIdon’tunderstand.So

manyordinarypeoplewerekilled,someburned,somecremated;wholefamilies


gone.ItmadethepeopleveryangrywiththeUSandthegovernment[ofLon

Nol].Peoplediedintheforestandwereeatenbyanimals;thesmellwasterrible.

Itwasaterribletime.

OncetheKhmerRougetookcontrolofthecountry,theareabecamehometotwo

prisonsandseveralkillingfields,andalthoughthecadrecoulddescendfromthe

forests,itremainedwildanduntamed.‘Theforestsarefullofskeletons’the

districtchieftoldmewhenIfirstarrivedinthearea.AfterthedemiseofDK,when

VietnamesetroopsforcedtheKhmerRougetowithdraw,manycadre,including

OmJah,wentbacktotheforest,anditremainedoneofthelaststrongholdsofthe

KhmerRouge,wheretheysurviveduntilthelate1990s.146

PeacewasfinallybrokeredundertheWin-winpolicyofthelate1990s.Attributed

toHunSen,thewin-winpolicygaveamnestyandaparallelpositionwithinthe

newgovernmenttoKhmerRougecommanderswholaiddowntheirarmsand

defected.147Bythemid1990smanycadreweretiredoffightingandtheconstant

struggleoflifeintheforests.InPhnomGrahom,thoughlocalvillagerssupported

thembybringingfoodandmedicalsupplies,manybecamesickanddied.During

thetransitionalperiodbeforethe1993elections,UNTACsoldierscametoKampot

totryandbrokerpeace.Althoughtheydidnotenterthearea(itwasdeemedtoo

dangerous),severaloftheKhmerRougecommanders,includingOmJah,went

downtomeetthem.

146TheKhmerRougeretainedcontrolofsomeareasinKepandAnlongVeng,andfrequently

raidedvillagesacrossthecountryforsupplies.TheyalsoransomeoftherefugeecampsattheThai-Cambodianborder,fundingtheirexistencethroughgemandtimbersmuggling,andviaassistancefromChinaandThailand(Lischer2006;Pear1988).147

Thiswasnotthefirstinstanceofamnestybeingoffered.In1979,inpartnershipwiththe‘showtrail’ofPolPotandIengSary,immunitywasofferedbytheVietnamesetoanyformerKhmerRougememberswillingtoworkagainstDemocraticKampuchea(HederandTittimore2001:7).


ThiswasthebeginningofthepeaceprocessforPhnomGrahom.Theseinitial

talksopenedthepossibilityofofficialnegotiationsbetweenthegovernmentand

theKhmerRouge.148‘TheKhmerRougewerelikebamboo’OmJahexplained:‘to

bendityouneedtodoitlittlebylittle.’Oncethepossibilityofcompromisewas

conceded,andtheKhmerRougeofficersinagreement,defectionbecamea

conceivablefuturethattooklittletimetoenable.

Althoughacontroversialpolicy,becauseoftheimpunityitgavetoformerKhmer

Rouge,thewin-winpolicyis,arguably,theonlywaypeacecouldhavebeenmade

inCambodiaatthetime;itwastheonlywayhigh-rankingKhmerRougeofficials

suchasKhieuSamphan(HeadofStatefortheKhmerRouge)andNuonChea

(BrotherNumberTwo)couldmakepeacewithoutlosingface149,andthis,

alongsideitscriticaltiming(whenmostcadrewerewearyoffighting,butneeded

awaytobeabletolaydownarms),madeitremarkablysuccessful(Hull2013).

HunSenandtheCPPhavetakenthissuccessandturneditintoacentralnarrative

supportingtheircurrentpositionasleadersofthecountry.Theyhavecombined

itwiththeirpresenceintheinitialVietnamese-backedgovernmentofpost-Khmer

RougeCambodiatocreateanarrativethattheysavedCambodia,andthatonly

theycanmaintainpeaceandpreventtheKhmerRougerisingagain(seechapter

seven).

148

Althoughofficiallyonoppositesides,thegovernmentandKhmerRougesoldiersinPhnomGrahomhadbeenworkingtogetherforyears.ItwasthegovernmentsoldierswhotoldtheKhmerRougewhenatrainwascoming,andtheysharedthespoilsaftereachambush.‘Itwaslikeagame,’aformercadreintheareacommented:‘wefoughtinthedayanddranktogetheratnight.’

149InAugust2014KhieuSamphanandNuonCheabothreceivedlifesentencesforCrimesAgainst

HumanityinCase002oftheECCC.Theirindictmentsin2007causedsomeresentmentandnervousnessamongstformercadre–OmJahtoldmethatmanypeoplefeltangryaboutthis,notbecausetheydidnotfeelliketheyhadcommittedterriblecrimes,orthatCambodianeededsomeformofjustice,butbecausetheyhadbeenpromisedimpunitywhentheydefected.HefeltHunSenhadgonebackonhisword,whichwasmakingsomeex-cadrenervouswhileIwasthere.Becauseofthis,wheneverIworkedwithex-cadre,Ihadtobesuretoemphasisetheanonymityofmyresearch.


However,thisrenewedinterestintheregimeisrelativelyrecent,andanexample

ofthefluctuatingdiscoursesandnarrativesregardingthattime,something

illustratedbythetreatmentofremains,andthefluctuatingprivilegingand

selectivememorialisationofthegravesandthedead.

Raisingthedead:politicalusesofthedeadandtheirgraves

Aswehavealreadyseen,whilemanylocalpeoplelootedthegravesforvaluables,

theinitialattentionpaidtothemassgravesbythestatewasasevidenceof

atrocityasamodeofpoliticallegitimation150.Aswehavealreadyseen,the

VietnamesebackedgovernmentofthePRKexploitedanyevidencethatcouldbe

usedtosupporttheirruleandembedtheirnarrativesofpower.TheKhmerRouge

weredemonisedRouge,labelledas‘‘genocidal’and‘facist’toencourage

comparisonswithHitler’sGermanyandtodownplayDK’ssocialistcredentials’

(Chandler2008a:360).DemocraticKampucheabecameknownas‘samayaPot’-

thetimeofPolPot,andtheblameforallitscrimeslaidatthefeetof‘the

genocidalcliqueofPolPot,IengSaryandKhieuSamphan.’Thedeadandtheir

gravesbecamecentralcomponentsinthis.

Therewasnoshortageofphysicalevidence.DemocraticKampucheadidnothide

thedamageitwrought.Thepopulationwasemaciated,starving,andrifewith

disease.Thedeadlitteredthelandscape.Withindaysofbeinglocated,TuolSleng

prisonwasturnedintoamuseumforforeignjournalistsandvisitingdignitaries

(Chandler2008c;Tyner2012a).Althoughitwasnotofficiallyturnedintoamuseum

150Itiscommonformassgravestobeexploitedinsuchwayswhennewgovernmentstakeoverfrompreviouslybrutalregimes.Theyofferameansofdifferentiatingthemselvesfromtheoldregimeandsecuringtheirstatusassavioursoftheirnation;thiscanbeseenregularlyinthemedia,mostrecentlyinSyria,LibyaandIraq(Al-Jazeera2011;BBC2012;Crossley2014;Hassin2011;Mezzofiore2015).


until1988,in1980guardswereputatChoeungEk,andofficialsbroughtforeign

visitorstothesiteseveraltimesayear.Othergravesandtheirdeadbecamepartof

thislegitimation:AnneGuilloureportsthatfollowingtheVietnameseinvasion,many

localcommuneswereorderedtocollectbodiesfromthelocalfieldsandre-house

theminvillagememorialstupas(Guillou2012a,2012b).Inmanyareasgraveswere

notexcavatedforthis.Theydidnotneedtobe;therewereenoughbonesscattered

acrossthesurfaceofCambodiaanditwaseasytocollectthousandsofremainsfrom

these.Twoelderlyâchar(laypriests)fromavillageacrosstheriverfromKohSop,

BuMuoyandBuBpii,hadbeeninvolvedinthiscollection:

[BuMuoy]: Atthattime,theboneswerescatteredallovertheplace.That’s

whytheyaskedpeopletogotheretocollectthebones.They

werescatteredallovertheplace;somewerenearthepitsand

somewereneartheforest.Sowecollectedthem.

[BuBpii]: Theboneswerecollectedtoputindifferentpagodas:this

pagoda,thatpagoda…

[BuMuoy]: Theboneswerecollected.Whenitwasnew[immediatelyafter

liberation]theboneswerescatteredallovertheplaceandsome

hadthefleshattachedtothem.Thenthefleshgotrottenand

theboneswereallovertheplace,andwewenttocollectthe

bonestokeepinoneplace.ThatwasduringPRKafterthe

liberationofDemocraticKampuchea.

Whenyouwenttocollectthebones,werethebonesonthetop[thesurface]?

[BuMuoy]: Yes,theywereonthetop.

[BuBpii]: Yes,theywerenotburied.


In1982thePRKissuedadecreeorderingthatthephysicalevidenceof‘the

genocidalcliqueofPolPot,IengSeryandKhieuSamphan’shouldbepreserved.

Thesedecreesandordershavebeentakenasevidencethatthisiswhythegraves

wereexhumed;FawthropandJarvis(2004:217)statethat‘graveswereexcavated

bytheCambodiangovernmentintheearly1980s….’andCraigEtcheson(2005:

125)notesthata‘significantproportionofthemassgraveshasbeenexhumed

overtheyearsbyCambodiangovernmentauthorities….’Certainlythedeadwere

exploitedforthispurpose,althoughwhetherthemajoritywerefirstexcavatedby

governmentdecree,orbylocalslootingthemforvaluablesisdebatable:the

bodiesatallthesitesIvisitedduringmyresearch(sixteenlocationsacrossseven

provinces),exceptChoeungEk,wereinitiallyunearthedastheresultoflocal

interventions-peoplelootingthegravesforvaluables.Theseuneartheddead

werethencollectedtodisplayinp’teahkhmouch(builtundertheordersofthe

government)alongsidethosewhohadlaidonthesurface.151FawthropandJarvis

notethatMinKhin,oneoftheeightpeopleformingthePeople’sRevolutionary

CouncilofKampucheawhichfunctionedasthecabinetuntil1981,recallssending

adirectiveout‘throughthegovernmentalapparatustovillagelevelaskingthe

peoplenottotouchtheremainingphysicalordocumentaryevidence’ofthe

regime(2004:41).Thisdirectivewasanattempttotryandstopthedeletionof

theregime’smaterialpresenceintheformofbuildings,whichweretorndown

(usuallyformaterialsbutsometimesoutofanger)aswellasmassgraves,which

werebeinglooted.

151

DC-Cam’smappingdatasupportsthishypothesis.Ofthe47caseswheretheexcavation

methodisrecorded,onlyninereportbeingorderedbygovernmentdecree.35werereportedasbeingdugupbypeoplesearchingforvaluables,onebyfamilymemberslookingforrelatives(thiswasrare),andtheotherthreearenotmadeclear.FawthropandJarvis(2004),Etcheson(2005),andDC-Cam(2005)allacknowledgetheactionsofthosesearchingforvaluablesinthegraves;however,theyarenotattributedtobeingresponsibleforexhumingthebodies,orofbeingtheinitialmotivatorsforopeningthegravesinmanylocations,aspeopleoftentoldme.


Memorialisingviolence,forgettingnames

Whicheverthecase,theremainsbecameimportantevidenceofmassviolence

andusefulpoliticaltools;acrossthecountrytheboneswerecollected,cleaned,

lefttodry,andeventuallydisplayedinthewoodenp’teahkhmouchbuiltineach

districtundergovernmentorders.Thesecametoserveasmemorialsofthe

regime;DC-Camrecordsovereightyofthesehutsservingas‘local’152memorials,

withTuolSlengandChoeungEkfunctioningasnationalones.Memorials153

provideidealsitesfortheembeddingofnationalconstructionsofhistorical

narratives;warmemorialsinparticulararesitesatwhichthenationisconstructed

andreified(Mosse1991),because,asJennyEdkins(2003:16–17)assertsinher

bookTraumaandtheMemoryofPolitics,‘inthemostpart,memorialisationof

warisapracticethatreproducesstoriesofnationalgloryandheroism.It

produceslineartime,thetimeofthestate[which]caninscribethenationalmyth

ortheimaginedcommunity.’154Thisworksparticularlywellinthecaseof‘event-

centredframesformemory’(suchastheKhmerRougeregime)becausetheseare

‘amenabletonarrativeanddramaturgicalmodesofrepresentation’(White2006:

293).Insuchacase,thememorialisedeventorpeoplebecomeasymbolof

152

Thereferencetothesememorialsas‘local’memorialsissomewhatmisleading,implyingthatthesewereinitiatedbylaypeople,notthattheywereameansofdisplayingtheconsequencesoftheregimeacrossthenation,thusembeddingitsviolentremindersnomatterhowfarfromPhnomPenhyouare.

153Iusememorialstorefertomonumentsbuiltorpreservedtocommemorateeventsofthepast.

Eventscanalsobememorialised,ofcoursethroughliterature,art,dance,theatreandotherperformances.Thompson(2013)providesanexcellentexplorationofmemorialisationthroughartinCambodia,highlightingthetensionbetweenartisticexpressionandconsumptionandnationalconstructionsof‘truths’abouttheKhmerRouge,managedthroughtheDocumentationCentreofCambodia,whichcontrolsamonopolyonknowledgeandmemoryincontemporaryCambodia.

154Herbookillustrates,however,thatalthoughoftenseparated,personalmourningandthe

impositionofnationalmytharenotnecessarilyopposed,using,asanexample,thepartHolocaustmemorialsandcommemorationsinIsraelhaveplayedintheconstructionofanarrativethatsupportsthemilitarisationofthestate.


solidarityviaanemotionalpresentationofhistorythatisapowerfulenablerof

nationalsubjectivitybyrendering‘thecontextofviolenceoneofnational

sufferingandsacrifice’(ibid:296),andtherebypresentingthesubjectsofthe

memorialastheembodimentofnationalidentity.155

Theserepresentationsenableunified,politicallysalientstoriestobepresented

(‘rehearsedmemories’asCarolineWinter(2009)labelstheminherexamination

ofsocialmemoryofWW1inAustralia),andthroughtheirpresentationinthis

form,thesenarrativesbecomereiteratedinbothnationalandinternational

collectivememoryandfixedasstatichistoricalpresentations.Thisisarguablythe

caseinCambodia,whereitsturbulenthistoryhasbeenconsolidatedinpopular

internationaldiscourseintooneevent:destructionbytheKhmerRouge.Thishas

partlybeenachievedthroughtheamalgamationofnamelessdeadintostate

memorials,wheretheyhavecometorepresentCambodianswhosuffered,notat

thehandsofhundreds,possiblyeventhousands,oftheircountrymen,butbya

selectfew‘evil’KhmerRouge.JamesHolt(2012)arguesthatthePRKmemorials

directedstatesponsorednarrativesthatputthedeadtoworkinthenameofthe

newlyconstructedstate,tellingastoryofliberationandfreedomthatarguably

thePRKregimedidnotfullyepitomise;whileallowingpeopletoreturnhomeand

beginfarmingandworkingagain,thePRKstillstrictlycontrolledCambodia,

restrictingpeople’smovementandcontrollingreligionandlandownership.

Violencewasstillrife,extrajudicialimprisonmentscommon,andhundredsof

155

Thepremierexampleofthisis9/11memorialisations,wherethe‘greatsacrifices’ofthedeadareusedtojustifydevastatingmilitaryinterventionsacrosstheglobe.AmorerecentexampleistheshootingofholidaymakersinTunisia,whichhasbeenmanipulatedbythegovernmenttoexhibitthedeadasmartyrsinthe‘war’againstterrorism.


thousandsofpeopledied,fromdiseaseandstarvationintheinitialyears,and

fromtheK5plan156inthelatter(Slocomb2004).

WhilethePRKemphasisedthegenocidalactionsofDemocraticKampuchea,

followingVietnam’swithdrawalfromCambodiain1989andamovetowards

democraticruleintheStateofCambodia(1989–1993),duringthe1990s

‘amnesia[became]theorderoftheday’(Chandler2008a:363).Aspeacewas

brokeredbetweentheongoingfightingfactions,widespreadimpunityforKhmer

Rougecadreandtheircollaboratorsbecamethenorm,andrankingcadrewere

enfoldedintotheranksofthegovernment(theaforementionedwin-winpolicy).

ThoughChandlerdiscussesthisamnesiainrelationtoCambodianpoliticsinthe

1990s,aninternationalamnesiaprecededthis.The1991ParisPeaceAccords157,

drawnupinanattempttoendtheongoingconflictinCambodia,notonlyinsisted

thattheKhmerRougebeincludedintheinterimgovernmentofCambodia(which

theCPPresisted),butalsoensuredanymentionofkillings,torture,orother

sufferingenduredundertheKhmerRougewasomittedfromtheinternational

lexiconandtheword‘genocide’removedfromdiscussions,insteadreferringto

‘thepoliciesandpracticesofthepast’(Chandler2008:364).Partlythiswas

relatedtothe1993elections(internationaladvisorsconsideredthatelections

couldnotbefreeandfairifonepartywasabletoaccusetheotherofgenocide),

156

AlsoknownastheBambooCurtain,theK5planranfrom1984–1989andwasanattemptbythePRKtocutoffKhmerRougeaccesstoCambodia.Uptoonemillionpeople(mostlymen)wereforciblyconscriptedtothisprogramme(HumanRightsWatch2015a)inwhichthousandsofacresofforestwerefelled,wirefenceserected,trenchesdug,andsomewherebetween4and25millionmineslaidalongalmosttheentire750kilometreborder-thedifferenceliesbetweenofficialandunofficialreceiptsofmunitionsatthetime;amilitaryveteranreportedthatforeveryofficialshipmentrecorded,6or7unofficialshipmentsalsoarrived(Roberts2011).Thousandsofpeoplediedfrommalaria(Gottesman(2003)estimatesupto25,000althoughitcouldwellbemore)andtheminesmaimedorkilledmanythousandsmore,andremainathreattoday.

157SignedbytheStateofCambodia,theKhmerRouge,theKhmerPeople’sLiberationFront,and

FUNCINPEC.


butitalsoresultedfromColdwarpolitics:aroundtheglobeVietnam’s

interventioninthecountryin1979wasseenasanaggressiveactofinvasion,and

itsongoingpresenceinthecountrythroughoutthe1980sasillegaloccupation

(Martini2007).AsaresulttheKhmerRouge(incoalitionwithtwoothersmall

parties)heldtheUNseatforCambodiauntil1993,whenitwasconceded

followingtheelections.158

AsHunSen’srulebecameembeddedwithouttheinternationallyfrownedupon

Vietnameseassistance,andasmoreandmorecadredefectedtothegovernment,

theKhmerRougeregimebecameweakerandweaker.AstheCPPtriedtobroker

peacewiththoseremaining,highlightingtheevidenceoftheatrocitiescommitted

duringDemocraticKampucheabecameilladvised,asdidsinglingoutKhieu

SamphanandNuonCheaasleadersofagenocidalregime(thisistheamnesia

Chandlerrefersto).Atthistime,allresponsibilityforthecrimesoftheregime

waslaidatthefeetofPolPotandafewloyalfollowerssuchasTaMok159.

AlthoughTuolSlengandChoeungEkcontinuedtobeimportant,thep’teah

khmouchthatstoodacrossthecountrybecamelesspoliticallyimportant;astime

wentontheywereneglectedandmanyfellintodisrepair.Remainsdecayed,

animalsateortrampledonthebones,andinsomeareasfloodsandbadweather

destroyedwhatremained.Localpeoplehadonlyevermaintainedthemunder

governmentorders,andwithcentralcontrolbeing(violently)assured,these

formsofevidencebecamelessimportant.AnneYvonneGuillou(2012a;2012b)

158

Not,sadly,inrelationtotheatrocitiescommittedbytheKhmerRouge,whichhadlongbeenknownbytheinternationalcommunity.

159TaMok(nicknamedthebutcherbecauseofhisreputationforbrutality)wasaleadingKhmer

Rougecommander,andaccordingtoHinton(2006)oneofthekeyarchitectsoftheKhmerRougegenocide.In1977hebecamechiefoftheKhmerRougearmyandoversawallinternalpurgesoftheregime.TaMokwastheonlyKhmerRougeofficial,exceptPolPot,torefusetodefecttotheCPP.In1999hewasarrestedandchargedwithgenocideandcrimesagainsthumanity;hediedinprisonin2006(ibid.).


andRachelHughes(2005)reportthatthisneglectwasaresultofdisinterestfrom

localpeople,whosawnouseforthesememorials,andforwhomtheybearlittle

resonance.160

ThedefectionsbytheKhmerRougecontinuedthroughoutthe1990s,until1998,

whenNuonChea(BrotherNumberTwo)andKhieuSamphan(Presidentof

DemocraticKampuchea)cameovertothegovernment.Thegovernment’smode

fordealingwiththeregimeatthispointbecameburial.Atthepressconference

thatwelcomedthetwoovertothegovernment,HunSenentreatedpeopleto‘dig

aholeandburythepast’(Chandler2008:356).Teachingabouttheregime,which

hadbeenstoppedintherunuptothe1993elections(becauseofitsinsistenceon

genocide)remainedabsentfromtheschoolcurriculum.161However,the

devastationcausedbytheregimecouldnotbecompletelydismissed,andafter

decadesofnegotiation,intheearly2000s,thepossibilityofaKhmerRouge

tribunal162becameinevitable,andinterestintheregimeanditshistoryresurged.

160

GuillouarguesthattheruralpopulationofCambodiahavetheirownmethodsofcommemoratingthedeadwhich,ratherthanbeingchronologicalandrelatedtoparticularsites,worksina‘switchon,switchoff’fashion,wherethedeadinterjectintothelivesofthelivinginsomeperiods,andatothertimesareforgottenaseverydaylifeprogressed.Thisismostlikelytrueregardingtheiruseasmemorials,however,aswesawinchaptertwo,thesep’teahkhmouchwerenot,accordingtomyinformants,completelyalienorunnecessarybutprovidedaplaceforthedeadtobebroughtinfromtheforest,andbehousedappropriately,whiletheircarewasmanagedspirituallybytheirfamilies.

161BongLatoldmehehadneverlearntabouttheKhmerRougeatschool,andalthoughhisparentshadtoldhimsomestories,mostofwhatheknowshetaughthimselfwhenhebecameatourguideatChoeungEk.‘Actually,nowIknowmorethanmyparentsaboutit,eventhoughtheylivedthroughtheregime,’hetoldme,‘becauseIworkhere,andeverydayIlearnmoreandmore.’

162FawthropandJarvis(2004)provideagoodsummaryoftheupsanddownsofgettingthe

tribunalstarted.Readersshouldbeaware,however,oftheheavybiasinthisbooktowardsHunSenandtheCPP.


Resurginginterest:theExtraordinaryChambersintheCourtsofCambodia

Followingtheircompleteseizureofpowerin1997,theCPPsoughttolimitits

symbolsoflegitimationtocertainsites(primarilyTuolSlengandChoeungEk),but

asinterestintheregimeresurfacedintheearly2000s,givenhis,andmanyofthe

CPPmembers’pasts,thehistorystillneededmanaging,andHunSenonceagain

soughtcontroloftheremains.InDecember2001,shortlybeforelegislationwas

signedoffonthecreationoftheECCC,HunSenissuedthefollowingdirective

(RGC2001,myhighlights):

Followingtheliberationof7January1979,numerousgraveswereleftbehind

throughouttheentireterritoryofCambodiaasphysicaltestimonyofthecrimes

committedagainsttheinnocentCambodianpeoplebythegenocidalPolPot

regime.Rightaway,theauthoritiesandcitizensmadeeffortstotaketheremains

ofvictimsandtopreservethemcarefully,someinstupas,andsomeinother

formsofappropriatememorial.However,thegovernmenthasobservedthat

sincethattime,thesememorialshavenotbeenproperlymaintained.

Inordertopreservetheremainsasevidenceofthehistoriccrimes…alllocal

authoritiesatprovinceandmunicipallevelshallcooperatewithrelevantexpert

institutionsintheirareastoexamine,restoreandmaintainexistingmemorials,

andtoexamineandresearchotherremaininggravesites,sothatallsuchplaces

maybetransformedintomemorials….163

Thisdirectivemakesitclearthatthepersonnowblamedforthecrimes

committedwassingular:PolPot(incontrasttoduringthePRK,whenithadbeen

163

ThisdirectivealsoorderedthepreparationfortourismofAnlongVeng,thebaseoftheKhmerRougeleadership,andburialsiteofPolPot’scremains.


PolPot,IengSaryandKhieuSamphan)furtherobfuscatingthenamesand

numbersofothersinvolved,thewidergeo-politicalcircumstancesthatledtothe

regime,andtheongoingviolencethatbroughtthecurrentgovernmenttorule.

Ataroundthissametime,skeletalremainsstartedtomovearoundthecountry

fromtheruralp’teahkhmouchtoconcretecheddei(stupa)withinparticular

pagodasites.ADistrictChiefinKandalprovincetoldmethatthereasongivenfor

movementwastomakethingseasierfortherelativestovisit,butinpracticemost

weremovedundergovernmentdirectivesoftheearly2000ssothateach

provincialmemorialwouldhavemoreremains.AtKohSop,theremainswere

splitbetweenthreepagodas164,however,themajorityoftheremainswenttoa

pagodacomplexwithinahundredmetresoftheCommuneOfficeandclosetothe

DistrictandProvincialOffices.InKep,remainsweremovedfromseverallocations

toWatKampongTralach,againthepagodamostcloselyassociatedwiththelocal

districtandprovincialoffice.InBattambangitwastoWatSamrongKnong.The

sitestheymovedtowerenotonlyselectedfortheirgeographicallocationor

politicalaffiliation.Mosthadalsobeenkillingandmassgravesites.Theessence

ofKhmerRougekillingtherefore,remainsinthesespaces.Itisatthesecentral

pagodasthatmanypoliticaleventsnowoccur;fortherulingparty;forthe

opposition;andforotherorganisationsandindividualswishingtomakevisible

perceivedviolencesintheworld(seechapterseven).

164

Althoughdrivenbythegovernment,thesemovementswerenotunwelcomedbythoserunningthepagodasandsomeactivelysoughttheremains;onemonktoldmethatceremoniesarethemainmeanspagodashavetoraisefunds,andbecausememorialceremoniesforthedeadoftheKhmerRougeonlyoccurwherethereareremains,somepagodastookbonesfromlocalp’teahkhmouchinordertoencouragepeopletovisitduringPchumBenhandNewYear,duringwhichtimetheywouldprovidegenerousdonationstothepagoda.


Contemporaneouslytheannualremembranceceremonyfortheregime,TheDay

ofAnger,wasrevivedatthesecentralisedsites.In1984,commemoratingthe

datein1976thattheKhmerRougefirstinstigatedcollectivization,thePRK

nominatedMay20thasT'veerChongKamhaeng:theDayofTyingAnger(orthe

DayofMaintainingRage(FawthropandJarvis2004:73)).Onthisday,ceremonial

eventswereheldacrossthecountry,usuallyatpagodasorotherpublicspaces

suchasschools.Theseeventsservedtwopurposes:legitimisingthenewPRK

regime,andkeepingthehatredaliveagainsttheKhmerRouge,whostillposeda

threatacrossmuchofCambodia.‘WemadestatuesofPolPotandthrewstones

atthemanddestroyedthem.Theytaughtthechildrenthataction’BongLatold

me.Hatredattheseeventswasnotonlyaimedattheregime,butbecauseof

theircontinuedsupportoftheKhmerRouge,alsodirectedtowardstheUSand

China,bothofwhombearsomeresponsibilityfortheriseandsuccessofthe

KhmerRouge(Kiernan2004),bothofwhichenforcedatradeembargoon

CambodiafollowingitsliberationbytheVietnamesein1979(FawthropandJarvis

2004),andbothofwhich(alongsidemostotherpowers)opposedbringingthe

KhmerRougetojustice,andensuredtheirretentionoftheUNseatforCambodia

until1993(Marks1994).

T'veerChongKamhaengwassuspendedduringtheUNTACperiod(1992–1993),

butin2001theCPPrevivedtheevent,renamingitT’ngaiRomluk(Dayof

Remembrance).Priortothemovementofremainstocentralisedsites,‘anyplace

thathad‘witnessed’killing,torture,burialorforcedlabourduringtheDemocratic

Kampucheaperiod(1975-1979)wasconsideredanappropriatedplaceforthe

May20thcommemoration’(Hughes2000:40).Nowhowever,itoccursonlyat

thesecentralisedsites.Itsrevivalservesanequallyusefulpoliticalfunctionasits


creationduringthePRK,helpingsolidifynarrativesrelatedtotheparty’sliberation

ofCambodia’sfromtheKhmerRouge,whilstsimultaneouslyremindingthe

populationoftheterrorandviolencetheregimeengendered.Atmostpagodas,

theeventisunderstatedandalthoughmostlygovernmentemployeesattending,

somelocalpeopledotoo.AtChoeungEk,however,theeventismuchmore

formalized,andthecentralelementisagraphicre-enactmentofthebrutalityof

theregimeanditseventualdemiseatthehandsoftheCPP(seechapterseven).

Notonlyhasthiseventbeenrevivied.Aspartoftheproposedreparationsbythe

ECCC,fivenewmemorialswillbecreated.165Thesememorialswillbeatsitesthat

canbedirectlylinkedtothefiveperpetratorstriedbytheECCC:KaingGuevEav

(ComradeDuch);NounChea;IengSary;KhieuSamphanandIengThirith.James

Tyner(2014)arguesthatthisselectivememorialisationfunctionsinthesameway

JamesHolt(2012)arguedVietnamesememorialisationdid:asameansof

controllingthehistoricalnarrativesandsettingtheCPPapartfromtheKhmer

Rougeasperpetratorsofnationalviolence,inordertoconsolidatetheirposition

aspatronsofCambodia.ThefirstmemorialwasinauguratedatTuolSlengin

February2015.Itsplanningtookmuchtime,andcausedmuchcontroversy

becauseamongsttherecommendationswerethelistingofthenamesof‘victims’

torturedatTuolSlengandChoeungEk.Thecontroversyarosenotonlybecause

namingpeopleonamemorialisnotaKhmertradition,andwasviewedasa

foreignimpositionbytheinternationaladvisors(McPherson2014),butalso

becauseastheonlysitenamingthedead,itwouldbemostlyKhmerRougecadre

165

AlmostallconceivedofbyinternationaladvisorsandPhnomPenhbasedNGOsfundedbyinternationalfunding.In2012IattendedoneofthemeetingsheldbytheECCC’sVictimSupportServicediscussingwhatkindofreparationsshouldbegiven.ThemeetingwasheldintheInterContinentalhotelinPhnomPenh,andofthe20+peopleattendingthemeeting,onlytwoorthreewereKhmer,allemployedinPhnomPenhbasedorganisations.


whobecamememorialized,thusinscribingtheirnamesasvictimsofKhmer

historywhilstallothersremainnamelessandthereforedeletedfromthe

record.166

Inaddition,anewwaveof‘local’memorialshavebeenrecentlyconstructedbya

PhnomPenhbasedNGO,fundedwithforeignmoney.Thesememorials(hidden

awayatthebackofthesitestheymemorialise)donotmentionthedead.Instead

theyrepresenttheKhmerRouge.TheyarestatuesofKhmerRougesoldiers(asin

WatEkPhnominBattambangprovince);depictionsofslavelabourintherice

fields(asinKapmotProvince);paintingsoftheregime(asinKraingTaChanin

TakeoProvince).Thesememorialsaremuchmoreaboutrememberingviolence

thantheyarecommemoratingthedead,alinemuchfavouredbytherulingparty,

whichusesthistoitspoliticalandsocialadvantage.

Hierarchiesofdeathinthewrittenrecord

Itisnotonlythelocationofmemorialsandeventsoccurringthatcontrolmemory

thisway.Thelistingofmassgravesalsoaffectsthesitesthatarerecordedin

historyandthosewhichareforgotten,excludingthosewhichdonotsuitthe

politicalrhetoricofoneguiltyleader,withahandfulofloyalfollowers,andan

otherwisebenignandmalignedfollowing.

MuchoftheinformationcurrentlyexistingonthemassgravesinCambodiacomes

fromatenyearmassgravemappingprojectundertakenbytheCambodian

GenocideProjectatYaleUniversity,inpartnershipwithDC-Cam.Thisproject166

Interestingly,thememorial,likemuchofthememory-workbeingdoneinCambodia,wasfundedthroughtheGermanyaidagencyGIZ.Muchofthememory-workreplicatesthatdoneinGermanyfollowingtheHolocaust.ItsappropriatenessforCambodia,andGermany’splaceaspatronsofremembering,is,perhaps,aninterestingtopicforfurtherresearch.


attemptedto‘mapthegenocide’bymappingthesecuritycentresandkillingfield

sitesacrossCambodia,andputtingsomefiguresonthescaleofthekillingsby

recordingestimatednumbersofbodiescontainedwithingravesatthesesites.

Althoughthemappingprojecthasmajorflaws(seeintroduction,footnote13),itis

theonlysuchattemptthathasbeenundertakenandisthereforethestarting

pointofanyresearchonmassgravesinCambodia.Indeed,itisfromtheirlistthat

IdiscoveredmanyofthesitesthatIvisitedinCambodia167.

Theinclusionsandexclusionsinthismapping,however,provideaskewedviewof

themassgravedistributionandcontents,whichisfurthercontrolledviathe

nationalmemorialisation.Omittedfromthelistaregravescreatedbefore1975or

after1979168,gravesfromknown(orsuspected)hospitalsandfieldclinics,sites

wheretheresearchersfelttheycouldnotestimateafigure(evenifseveral

witnessesandnowcourtproceedingsreportedthepresenceofgraves,suchasin

theareassurroundingTuolSlengprisoninPhnomPenh),andsitescomposingof

singlegraves,evenwherehundredsorthousandsofsinglegravesresultedfromthe

policiesoftheregimerenderingthemsitesofkillinganddeath(seeintroduction).

167

Thislistcausedsomepeopletoviewmewithsuspicionuponfirstmeetingme:askingmewhohadgivenittomeandwhatdidIneeditfor?

168AlthoughtheKhmerRougeonlyruledCambodiabetween1975and1979,asmentionedin

chapterone,theyhadcontroloversomeareasofCambodiaintheearly1970s,andhadalreadystartedtheirsystemofsecuritycentresbeforetheycametopower.Despitefindingevidenceforseveralgravesfrompre-1975,onlyoneappearsonDC-Cam’slist:M-13,aprisonfacilityinThpongdistrictofKampongSpeuprovince.M-13waswhereKaingGuekEav(ComradeDuch)perfectedhiscraftofextractingconfessionsthroughtorture.Asthedataforthemappingprojectwasbeingcollected,itwasalreadyclearthatDuch(whohadbeeninprisonsincegivinghimselfupin1999)wouldpotentiallybethetrialcasefortheECCC,andevidencefromM-13wasimportantinhisconviction.Inaddition,althoughtheterribleyearsofDemocraticKampucheawerethemostbrutal,thedecadesbetween1960and2000sawmassiveperiodsofcivilunrest,duringwhichmanypeoplelosttheirlives.Althoughoccurringinperiodswheretraditionalfuneralritualswereenabled,someofthesebodiesareburiedinmassgraves:TaVengdistrictinRatanakiriprovince,forexample,hasatleasttwocommunalgravesforthosewhodiedasaresultoftheUSbombing(DC-Cam2000),andaninformantwhohadbeeninK5toldmethisoccurredelsewhere,particularlyinthoseareasheavilyaffectedbythebombingsandothercivilunrest.


Researchersdidnotvisitsomeareas(suchastheheavilyforestedareasof

Ratanakiri,orareaswheretheKhmerRougewerestillatlarge,suchastheborder

regionsofThailand),gravesinothercountries(suchasVietnam),orthoseof

contemporarypoliticalinterest169.Itisnoteventhatsuchgravesappearlisted

elsewhere;theyaresimplyrenderedinvisible(andthereforenon-existent)through

theirexclusion.

Omissionstoitslistofgravesconstructsahierarchyofthedead:onlythosewho

wereexecutedduringApril1975–January1979,andthosewholieatsitesnot

consideredpoliticallychallenginghavebecomeworthyofrecording,andtherefore

rememberedas‘victims’oftheregime.Thisparallelsthereductionofthose

responsibleforthedeathsanddestruction,bothofferingapoliticallycontrolled

narrativeofblame,aswellasofviolentdeathandgenocide.

Violentbodiesandaffectiveremains

ThisfinalsectionwilluseFeldman’s(1991)argumentthatthebodyinjuredin

terrorbecomesitselfanagentofthatterror,togivespecificconsiderationtothe

displayofhumanremainsacrossCambodia.Thesedisplays,alongsidethecontrol

ofinformationandnarrativesoftheregime,exemplifyhowtheCambodian

169KampongChhnangairportisonesuchexample.Onlyafewkilomtersfromtheprovincial

capital,theairportiseasilyaccesseddownwell-builtconcreteroads.Thesitestandsneglected,withoneortwoguardslookingoverit.Upto10,000peopleworkedonthesiteatthepeakofitsconstruction,andmanymorepassedthrough.NearlyallwereRAK(RevolutionaryArmyofKampuchea)soldiers–menandwomenfrominsideDKranksaccusedofbeingtraitors(ECCC2015b).Hundreds,ifnotthousands,ofpeoplediedthroughexhaustionandothersdisappearedintheevenings.Althoughmanyweremovedtoothersitestobeexecuted,thoseIspoketowholivedontheapproachroadtotheairport,andaguardwhohadbeenworkingatthesitesince1979,toldmethatwhentheyreturnedin1979thesurroundingfieldswerefullofbodiesandtheairaroundthesitewasfetid.DC-Camneverdeployedaresearchteamtothishighlyaccessiblesite,notevenafteritbecameasiteofsignificantinterestincase002and003attheECCC.In2012,itwasannouncedthattodivertsomeofthetrafficfromPochentonginPhnomPenh,theairportwillbeexpandedtobecomeCambodia’ssecondmajorinternationalairport.


governmentismanipulatingtheinherentsymbolicpowerofdeadbodiesto

furthertheirpoliticalaims.Aswehaveseen,itisthematerialityofdeadbodies

thatiscentraltotheirefficacyassymbolsbecause,asVerdery(1999:28)asserts,

theyaremademeaningfulthrough‘culturallyestablishedrelationstodeathand

throughthewayaspecificdeadperson’simportanceis(variously)construed.’

ThedeadoftheKhmerRougearepowerfulnotbecauseofwhotheyare,but

becauseofwhatthey:anonymouspilesofskeletalremainsthatbecauseoftheir

pastarebothemblematicandagentsoftheviolencethatcreatedthem.

HunSenhasoftenstatedthattheremainsofthosekilledduringDemocratic

Kampucheawillnotbecrematedbecausetheyremaintheonlyevidenceofthe

KhmerRougeregime.170Myinformantsfeltthesame.Chan,ateacherwholives

behindChoeungEkandusesitasasiteofeducationforherpupilstoldmethatin

heropinion,theremainsshouldbekeptforaslongastheycould:

theyshouldbekeptasevidencefortheyoungerKhmergenerationtoshowthem

itwasreal:thattherewastheKhmerRouge,thatKhmerkilledKhmer.Itwasnot

alegend.Becausesometimeselderlydolietous,forinstance,theywouldtellus

toeatthefishesfin,sothatwecouldswim,andeattheendofsugarcanesothat

wecouldswimaswell.Actuallythosethingswerenottasty,theyjustwantedus

toeatthem.Ifwejusttoldpeoplethroughwordofmouth,theywouldnot

170

ThispreservationwasasiteofcontestationbetweenhimandSihanoukwhenhewasalivewhowantedtheremainstobecremated.OmJahwasconvincedhewantedtodestroytheevidenceoftheregime,whichhe,andmanyothers,heldSihanoukresponsiblefor:‘itwashimwhocalledustotheforests’hetoldme(awidelyacceptedview:BenKiernan,ahistorianwhohasundertakenextensiveresearchintotheregime’srisetopower,arguesthatwithoutSihanouk’ssupport,theKhmerRougeareunlikelytohavereceivedthelevelofsupporttheyneededtotakeCambodiain1975(Kiernan2004).PhilipGourevitch(2012)putitmoreprosaically:‘HisnamebecametheKhmerRouge’sgreatestrecruitmenttool,andthemostextremeCommunistmovementinhistoryswepttopoweronroyalcoattails.’HunSen,meanwhile,hassopersuasivelyre-workedthehistoricalnarratives,thateventhisworksinhisfavour:astheonewhowantstokeeptheremainshepresentshimselfasonewhocannotbearforthehorrorsofthepasttobeforgottenandwilldefenditsattempteddeletion,whilstatthesametimecontrollingnarrativestosuithisownends.


remember.Heretheycanseethetruth,becausethebonesarepiledup.WhenI

camehere,Irealised,eventhoughIwasnotborninthatera,thiseventobviously

happenedinKhmerSociety…KhmerkilledKhmer.

Itwasacommontropethatwithouttheskeletalremainsitwouldbeharderfor

people,especiallyyoungergenerationswhohadnotlivedthroughtheregime,to

believethatithadhappened.171OneofthedirectorsatChoeungEkfeltit

importanttobeopenaboutthepast,becauseonlythenwouldyoungerpeople

believetheveracityofthetalestoldtothem.

thisisatruestory.Wecan’thideatruestory.Weshouldn’thideitfromthenext

generationatall.Weshouldkeepalltruestories,whethergoodorbad,as

evidenceforthenextgenerationsotheycanuseit.Letusshowbothgoodand

badfromthepastsothatitisknownwhatthereasonswereandits

consequences.Sodefinitely,wemustknowthetruthfromthepast.Thenext

generationmustknow.Wemustnothide.Yes,wemustnothide.Sowemust

keepeverythingforthemtosee,becauseeverythingistrue.Itisnotfake.Itis

true.

Itwasnotjustabouteducatingtheyoung.Foreignerswouldalsobebetter

convinced,Iwastold,iftheycouldseepilesofhumanremains.172

171

SomeofmyyoungerinformantsalsotoldmethattheKhmerRougeislikeabogey-mantomany:itisusedbysomeparentsasathreattoencouragegoodbehaviour,inthemodeof‘ifyouhadrefusedyourfoodduringthePolPots,youwouldhavebeenkilled’.This,alongwiththelackofeducationabouttheregime,encouragesamythificationoftheKhmerRouge.

172Theneedforforeignersinparticulartoseethisphysicalevidencewasexplainedtomeoneday

byanoldmanIwasinterviewing.Hewasadamantthatiftheinternationalcommunityhadknownwhatwashappeningtheywouldhavecometotheiraid.Hewasshocked,andIfelttheinheritedguilt,whenItoldhimthattheyhadbeenaware,buthadchosennottointervene.


OnecouldassumethattheevidencetheyrefertoisfortheongoingKhmerRouge

trial.Humanremainshavebeencentraltootherwarcrimetribunalssuchasthe

InternationalCriminalTribunalfortheFormerYugoslavia(ICTY)andthe

InternationalCriminalTribunalforRwanda(ICTR).However,noskeletalremains

havebeenusedintheECCC.Noforensicexpertshavebeencalledtoexamine

eitherthecorporealremainsoranygravesites(Jarvis2013).173Rather,the

evidencereferredtoistoprovetheexistenceoftheKhmerRougeregimeandfor

thegovernmenttoreifytheCPP’snarrativethattheysavedCambodiaandonly

theycankeepitfromsafefromaresurgenceoftheregime(seechapterseven).

Ofcoursethisisnotthecase:thereisplentyofotherevidenceofthehorrorsof

theregimeanditsdevastatingeffect.However,skeletalremainsholdaclaimto

authenticitythatfewotherartefactscanapproachandthereforeprovide

compellingevidence.AsRenshew(2011:32)explains,inherexaminationofmass

gravesfromtheFrancoregimeinSpain:

Thedeadbodyaswitnessholdsapowerthatlittleelsecanmatchbecauseofits

authenticity;thematerialityofdeadbodies‘enablerepresentationsofthepastto

bemadewithoutapparentauthorshipormediation.

Assuchtheyoftenholdprecedenceoverotherartefactsandtestimony;incases

ofabusesofhumanrightstheyhavebecomeoneoftheonlyformsofevidence

173

AsaforensicanthropologistitwascleartomethatthereasonforthiswasthatbecauseoftheKhmerRougekillingmechanismsthemajorityoftheremainswillbearlittleornoskeletaltraumathatwouldbeusefulasevidence.Additionally,theremainswereexcavatedsolongago,andmanyhavebeenmovedaround,thatitisimpossiblefortheirprovidencetobeproven;allamassivepileofbonesprovesisamassivepileofdead–whereandwhenthesecamefromisdifficulttodetermineunlessforensicprotocolsarefollowedfromthefirstdayofinvestigation.Mostofthemassgraves,meanwhile,havelongagobeenre-appropriatedintoeverydaylivingspace.Remainswithinthemarelikelytohavebeendestroyedfromyearsoffarming:theyhavebeenhumanfertilizerformanyyearsnow.Assuchitwouldbedifficulttolocateagravewithenoughintegritytobeusefullyexcavatedforevidence.


thatistrusted.Theauthorityofbodiesisonethatnootherdocumentorartefact

canclaim:theyoncewerepeople.Wetoohaveskeletons,andthiscouldbeus.

ThehumanremainsdisplayedthroughoutCambodia,therefore,havesymbolic

credibility,despitethehumanmediationthathasgoneintotheirarrangement

anddisplay.Thoughcuratedobjects,thesebodiesappearnottobe‘histories

after-images’(Young2000:3);theyarenotsimplyrepresentationsoftheevent

leftbehindthatmustbemediatedinordertopresentaparticularnarrative(at

leastintheviewer’seyeswhenseeingthem);theyAREthehistory:theyarethe

deadandthereforetherealstory.However,theyarealsoexhibitionartefacts,

collatedandcuratedinorderto‘‘preserve’thepast’(Hoskins2003:13).The

corporealremainsthereforematerializetheKhmerRougeperiodinawayno

otherartefactcould.174

However,asSaraGuyer(2009:159)arguesinherdiscussionofmemorialsitesin

Rwanda,allbodiesmakebones,andthosedisplayedatChoeungEkandother

sitesacrossthecountrycouldbeanydead.Todisplaytheremainsinsuchaway-

piledontopofeachother,arrangedbyskeletalelementratherthanindividual

people;dirty;dusty;disorganised–enablestheirusenotasarepresentationof

individualslost,butinsteadacollective:thosewhodied:

torememberthedeadthroughthesheeranonymityofthesebonesmeansthat

nooneisorcanberemembered.Apileofunrelatedbonesorashelfwithrows

ofcarefullyarrangedskullsdoesnotcommemorateaperson.175

174

Sodisregardedisotherevidence,thatwhentheschoolheadmasteronKohSopdiscoveredshacklesandotheritemsleftoverfromtheKhmerRougeprisonnearhishome,hethrewthemintheriver.‘They’renotusefulforanyone’hetoldme.

175Guyerarguesthatsuchdisplaysrepresentadehumanisationofthosekilled,andbydoingso

engendersafurtherpoliticalviolenceonthosedisplayed.Asimilarargumenthasbeenmadefor


Thecollectiveidentityrenderedbytheirun-namedstatusenablestheiruseas

objectsofconstructednarratives.AsGuyerstates(2009:172),suchmonuments

servenotasremindersofwhathappened,butaslessonsofwhatwemustsee:

‘what[suchdisplays]showsusisnottheholocaustaswemightrememberit,but

rathertheHolocaustaswemustlearntoseeitforthefirsttime.’Genocide

rendersagroupofpeopleasone:onethatcanbedeletedfromlife.These

anonymousdisplaysdothesameinthepresent:thesebones,theseseemingly

unrealbones,rendertheremainsasone:‘evenasthememorialpreserves

individualbodies,itturnsthesebodiesintomerepartsofasingleanonymous

form’(ibid:173).Buttheyareaparticulardead–theyarevictimsofabrutal,

genocidalregime.Assuchtheirsymbolicpowergoesbeyondthemanipulability

renderedbytheiranonymity.Theyarealsoinstrumentsoftheterrorinstilledby

theKhmerRouge,anditisthisthatgivesthemtheirstatusinCambodia.

Inhis1991examinationofterrorinNorthernIreland,AllenFeldmanarguedthat

powerisembeddedinthebody.Onceinscribedwithviolence,heargues,bodies

becomeasmuchpoliticalagentsasthosewhoauthoredtheviolence,because

theycannotbeextricatedfromthatviolence;‘thebodymarkedbyviolence

encapsulatescertainpoliticalpurposes,mediations,andtransformations’

(Feldman1991:70).Thisgoesasmuch,ifnotmoreso,fordeadbodies,because

oftheirinherentmanipulability.Theskeletalremains,andthemassgravesin

whichtheywereburied,cannotberemovedfromtheviolenceinflictedonthem

bytheKhmerRouge,andbecauseofthistheywillforeverrepresentthepower

thattheregimeheld,apowerinstilledbyterror.Theyareagentsofthatpower:

thephotographicdisplaysatTuolSlengprisonandexhibitionsrelatedtoit(Sontag2003),andtheremainsatChoeungEk(Hughes2005)although,aswehaveseeninpreviouschapters,thisisaparticularlyethno-centricwaytoviewtheremains,althoughitisanargumentthatcouldbevalidwhenconsideringinternationaltourists’encounterswiththeremains.


thedeadmaintainelementsoftheterrorwithwhichtheKhmerRougeruled,and

itisthiselementofthemthatenablestheirusebythecurrentgovernmentin

theirpedagogyofterror(seechapterseven).Therealityofdomination,Feldman

(ibid.:8)writes‘isorganizedthroughthelogicofmythicinstantiation,andthe

bodyisacentralmediumofthepoliticalinstant.’Everytimethebodiesareused

incontemporaryCambodia,theirinscribedterrorworksagain,evenonthosewho

didnotlivethroughtheregime,butwholivetheconsequencesofiteveryday.It

isbecauseofthisterrorthatmanyofmyinformantswantedtokeeptheremains;

sothatthey,andothers,maynotforgetthehorrorsofthepast.Thebones,Ta

Chasinformedme,wereimportantforeveryone,notonlytheyoungerpeople

whohadnotexperiencedthehorrors,ortheforeignerswhocametolearn,but

alsothosewho,likehimself,hadlivedthroughtheregime:

Theywillmakemerememberitformywholelife.Evenmychildrenand

grandchildrenwillrememberit.Thereweresomanypeoplekilledhere.Soitisa

placetoremember:theKhmerRougekilledus.

Thesesites,therefore,actnotassitesofcommemorationofthedead(aswesaw

inchapterstwotofour)butinsteadasremindersoftheKhmerRougeasa

mythologised‘phantasmororic‘genocidalclique’(Chandler2008a:363).Intheir

repeatedpresentationofviolenceanddeath,theyevoketheviolenceof

dehumanisationandmassbrutalitybyreproducingthesamewiththebonesthat

remainondisplayandtheglutofhorrortheyrepresent.Tocommitgenocide,to

maim,totorture,tostarveanddebasethousandsofpeopleanelementof

dehumanisationisrequired.ThiswasintegraltotheKhmerRougecadre’s

abilitiestoslaughter(Hinton2005).Theunnameableremainspiledhighatthese

memorialseffectsthesameaction,andindoingsosignifiesagaintheviolence


thatthesepeoplesufferedandtheregimethatbroughtitabout.Askeletonisnot

aperson.Theyareeasilyremovedfromourunderstanding:anobjectofinterest,

ofstudy,offascination,maybe.Butnotaperson.176Buttheyareagentsof

violencebecauseofthelinktoittheyhold.Andthisiswhatmakestheiruseso

powerful.

Conclusion

In2006,thejudgesweresworninandcasesbeganintheKhmerRougetribunal–

theExtraordinaryChambersintheCourtsofCambodia177.Theconsequencehas

beenaresurgenceofinterestintheKhmerRougeperiod.Theresultofthisisa

revitalisationoftheKhmerRougebythecurrentgovernment.Thememorialsites

haveonceagainbecomeusefulsitesofpoliticalpowerandtheanonymousdead,

thatarethemselvessitesoffluctuatingprivilegeandattention,areagainuseful

silententitiestowhichothersputvoicesandnarratives.

InCambodiaimportantcorpses,suchasmonksorKings,arepreservedbecause

someelementoftheconnectionbetweenspiritandbodyremains,alongwiththe

associatedkinandcommunityrelationships(Marston2006:494).Itisbecauseof

theirsocialimportancethattheseparticularbodiesarepreserved.Thedeadfrom

theKhmerRougearepreservedforthesamereason.Asanonymousdeadthey

maintainelementsofpowerfulassociationwiththeregimeanditsviolence.In

thesamewaythatotherexhibitionsofmasskilling,suchastheHolocaust

176

TheyalsorefertoBuddhistideology;whenwedie,wearereborn;wetravelthroughacontinualcycleofdeathandrebirth.Ateverydeaththebodythatheldusinthislifebecomesasifdrywood:itreturnstotheearthandthushelpsformthenewlife.

177ReadersinterestedintheestablishmentandworkingsoftheECCCshouldrefertoClaussen

(2008),Gray(2014),andthecourt’swebsite(ECCC2014).


exhibitionattheImperialWarMuseum,usetheexhibitionofphysicalartefactsto

narratehistory(Hoskins2003:14),inCambodiaitistheskeletalremainsthatdo

this.

OnemightthinkitstrangethatapartysoimplicatedintheKhmerRougeregime

wouldworksohardatmakingitsconsequencesvisiblebydisplayingthedeadand

holdingcommemorativeeventsthatre-enacttheviolenceanddevestation.

Ordinarilyonewouldexpectittobeanalternativeregimethatemploysthe

powerofthedeadasamodeofpoliticallegitimation–asawayofdistancing

itselffromtheregimethatcausedthedeaths.178Themanipulabilityofthedead

enablestheirharnessingforalmostanynarrative.Italsoenablestheobfuscation

ofothernarrativesand‘truths’thatmayexist.This,infact,makestheKhmer

Rougedead,andtheirmassgravesites,idealforusebytherulingparty,which

havestrictlycontrolledpresentationsoftheregime,andusesofthedeadand

theirgravesinmultifariouswayssincethedepositionoftheKhmerRougein1979.

Itisoftenthecasethatspacesremainneutraluntiltheybecomepoliticallyuseful:

itisatthistimethatpeoplere-forgeaninterestandownershipofthespaceand

itscontents.Springer(2008)proposesthatpublicspacesinCambodiaarespaces

ofcontestation–theyaresitesofprotest-andcontrolofthepopulationisoften

practisedthroughthembycontrollingaccessandlegalactivitywithinthese

spaces.AsIhavearguedearlier,massgravesareeminentlypoliticalbecauseof

thebodiestheycontain(ed)andthekillingtheyborewitnessto.Thiscanbeseen

178

Massgravesareparticularlyusefulinthisregard.Malaki’sgovernmentinIraqhasbeenexcavatingmassgravesfromSaddamHussein’sregimesince2009–everytimetheyfindanewgrave,orbeginworkonolderones,newsstoriesarereleasedandphotographersinvitedtorecordthegrave.ThroughoutthecontemporarycivilwarinSyriastoriesthenewsregularlypublishstoriesofrebelcausedmassgravesandfollowingtheoverthrowofGaddafiinLibyamassgravesofthosekilledunderGaddafi’srulestartedappearinginthemedia.!!!!!!


inthecaseofmemorialisationofmassgravesitesinCambodiainthe1980s,their

neglectinthe1990s,andtheresurgedinterestbutevenmoredirectedfocusin

thelate2000s.Itcanalsobeseenintherecordingoromissionofsitesfrom

‘official’informationontheperiod.

Thecontrolofmemorializationandthedisplayofthedeadwithinthosesites

createsahierarchyofthedeadandmassgravesitesanderasesfromhistoryand

memorythosenotincluded.Bydoingsoitalsoallowsaparticularstoryofthe

pasttobetoldandreinforcedthroughthelandscape:thatofasmallnumberof

perpetratorsinanotherwiseneutrallandscape.Therealityis,ofcourse,very

different:hundreds(ifnotthousands)ofpeopleweremembersoftheKhmer

Rougeandcommittedatrocities,andeventhosewhowerenotcadreoftenco-

operatedtoensuretheirownsurvival,frequentlyattheexpenseofothers(Ngor

2003).ThroughoutCambodia,victimsandperpetratorslivesidebyside,andthe

landisfilled(physicallyandmetaphysically)withevidenceofthisviolentpast.But

the‘preservation’oftheKhmerRougestoryhasbecomesolelyfocusedonthe

tortureandkillingsthatoccurredwithinit,duringaspecificperiod(Democratic

Kampuchea)atparticularsites,omittingmuchelsefromthenarrative.This

provesincrediblyusefulinthetwomainwaysitisputtowork:nationallyasa

modeofmaintainingfear,andinternationally,asameansofengenderingpityand

sorrow.AsElaineScarry(1985:109)comments,‘whatis“remembered”inthe

bodyiswellremembered.’

InhisdiscussionofthedifferingpresentationsoftheKhmerRougeregimeby

successivegovernments,DavidChandler(2008:356)wrotethatHunSen’sover-

ridingconcernsinthelate1990sandearly2000swere‘todevelopCambodiaand


tomaintainhimselfinpower.’Atthattime,thisinvolvedinstigating‘induced

amnesia’abouttheregime.FollowingtheestablishmentoftheKhmerRouge

trials,however,thisamnesiaisnolongerfeasible.Itismuchmoreuseful,

therefore,forHunSentoonceagainharnesstheregimetowardsthe

achievementsofhisgoals.ChaptersixwillexplorehowtourismatChoeungEk

(andbyextensionothersitesrelatedtotheKhmerRougeregime)workstowards

thefirstaim(thedevelopmentofCambodia),whilechaptersevenwillexamine

thesecond(hismaintenanceofpower)bylookingatpoliticalcampaigningduring

the2013generalelectionsinCambodia.

234

Chaptersix:Hauntingthefuture-tourismatChoeungEk

AshewalksaroundChoeungEkcarryingouthisdutiesasacaretaker,OmTa

carriesasmallplasticbag.Initheplacesthesmallbonesandteethhefinds

emergingfromthesoil.Oncehehasafew,hetakesthemtoaglasscasewhere

newlyunearthedremainsandbitsofclothingaredisplayed.Thedisplaysare

integralpartofthetouristencounterwiththesite,andwithoutthetourists,the

sitewouldbeneglected.‘Myjobisimportant,’hetoldme‘becauseit’slikewe’re

helpingournation.’

TourisminCambodiaisagrowingtrade.In20144.5millioninternationalvisitors

arrivedinthecountry,contributing$2.8billiontoitseconomy(ADB2014;Ministry

ofTourism2015).Intheattempttoattractincreasingtouristrevenue,Cambodia

hascommoditisedtheKhmerRougeregimeandspecificsitesofsufferingand

deathrelatedtoit.ChoeungEkisoneofthese.Althoughthesitehasmany

functions,itsprimaryfocusistourism.In2014over210,000foreignersand

50,000Khmervisitedthesite.

WhilemostscholarshaveconcentratedonChoeungEk’splaceinCambodia’s

circuitofdarktourism,oritsuseinthepoliticalnarrationoftheKhmerRouge

regime,thischapterexaminesitsplace,notasasitefacedtowardsa

concretisationofthepast,buttowardsthecreationofthefuture.Offeringa

companiontoRachelHughes’(2009)conceptofthe‘dutifultourist’(onewho

aftervisitingsitesofhorrorfeelscompelledtosupportthenationwherethey

occurred),thischapterwillshowhowsuchhorror,pityanddesireisharnessedby


myinformantsatChoeungEk,andhowintheexploitationofsuchsites,the

ambitionsofthestate,localcommunities,andthetouristunite,albeit

temporarily.ItwillalsodrawonChristinaSchwenkel’s(2006)theoryof

‘recombinanthistory’(wherethemeaningofsitesofmemoryarenegotiated,

recycled,andreconstitutedinneo-globalspheresofimaginationforeconomic

development)toarguethatinthecaseofChoeungEk,itscentralrolein

Cambodiantourismisdirectlylinkedintheimaginationsofthestaffandthestate

toeconomicprosperityandsocialdevelopment,aswellastofuturepeaceand

stability.

Thesearefacilitatedbyinternationaltourists,whobycomingtothesite,engage

inreciprocalrelationshipswithCambodia,supportingitastheysimultaneously

learnfromit.AstheyengageinthesereciprocalrelationsCambodiabecomes

connectedtoawiderglobalnetworkandprovideameansofimaginingamore

positivefuture,sowhilstthetransformationsinherentinthecommodificationof

sitesofconflictfortourismalterandadjustcollectivenarrationsofthepast,they

dothisinanticipationofthefuture.Suchcommodificationtherefore,andthe

transformationsitbothrequiresandengenders,areasmuchabouthopeand

changeastheyareaboutreificationandmanipulation.

Inordertoexplorethesetopics,Iwillfirstexaminethetheoreticalframeworkof

thechapter,beforeofferinganintroductiontotourisminCambodiaanditsplace

inthewiderdevelopmentplansforthenation.Thetouristencounterwith

ChoeungEkisdesignedtoengenderanoverwhelmingsensoryencounterwiththe

site’shistory,adescriptionofwhichwillprefacetheethnographicsectionofthe

chapterwhichillustratestheroleoftouristsandthesiteinthefutureof


Cambodia,asimaginedbySreySrey,OmTa,BongLaandTaSann.The

ethnographyforthischapterisbasedentirelyinChoeungEkas(untilrecently)the

onlyofficialmassgravememorialforthecountry179whoseprimaryaimistourist

incomegeneration.


ThepopularityofChoeungEkasatouristdestinationispartofawidelyreported

trendofincreasingglobalcommodificationofsitesofsufferinganddeaththatput

collectiveviolenthistoriestoworkinthedevelopmentofnationalidentityand

economicprosperity-socalled‘dark’or‘thanatourism’180(ibid;Strangeand

Kempa2003).Forthosedirectlyconnectedtothesite(bytheirown,arelative’s

orfriend’sexperience)suchplacescanofferameansofconnectingand

understandingpersonalexperiencesinthepastandpresent(Kangetal.2012;

LennonandFoley1999,2000).Forpeoplewithnoconnectiontothesite,the

motivationsofsuchtourismaremanifold:adesireforhistoricallearning(Kanget

al.2012);anopportunityforexistentialcontemplationondeathanddying(Seaton

1996)181;orthefeelingofamoralimperativetovisit(Caswell2014;Hughes2008;

Linfield2010),forexample.

179

AlthoughTuolSlenghassomemassgravesitisprimarilyconsideredasadetentionandtorturecenterandispresentedfirstlyasamuseumandsecondlyasamemorial.

180Darktourismrefersto‘adiverserangeofsites,attractionsandexhibitionsthatareassociatedwithdeathandthemacabre’(Stone2006:145),whilethanatourismisrelatedspecificallytositesassociatedwithviolentdeaths.

181Fewwriteonthevoyeurisminvolvedinsuchencounters,althoughEmilyGodbey(2006)writesof

the‘thrillofencounteringtheauthenticandthereal’indiscussingthe‘rubberneckers’oftheJohnstownfloodof1889.Perhapsagreatdistanceintimeisneededtobeabletoconfrontoradmittothisaspectofhumanencounters.


Theprimaryattractionofsitesofdeathandsufferingistheirmateriality:they

offeratangiblelinktoahistory182thatcannotbegainedfromremotesources;as

suchtheyengenderafeelingofconnectionandembodiedknowledgetothe

visitor(Huyssen1995:255).MeganBest(2007)arguesthatsuchsitesaresitesof

emotiondesignedtoprovideembodiedandaffectiveencounterswiththepast.

Violi(2012:36)assertsthatsuch‘traumasites’‘existfactuallyasmaterial

testimoniesoftheviolenceandhorrorthattookplacethere.’Thattheyare

preservedassitesoftourismdisplayschoicebythepost-conflictsociety‘about

whatpoliticsofmemorytoadoptineachcase,’ofwhichshemakesaninteresting

discussion,butheracceptanceofthe‘truth’presentedbythesesitesishighly

problematic.Bickford(2009)arguesthatpublicmemorialsare‘primarilytoolsof

humanrightseducation’andassuch‘ChoeungEkandsimilarsitesthroughout

Cambodiacouldbecomeimportantplacesoftruth-tellingabouttheKhmerRouge

period.’183PaulWilliams(2004)meanwhile,arguesthatbothTuolSlengand

ChoeungEkareeffectivevehiclesforcommemoration,arguingthattheyarevital

asremindersoftheregimeinacountrywherelittlejusticeagainstthe

perpetratorsprevails.Whiletheremightbesomevaliditytothesearguments,

theyfailtoquestionnotionsof‘truth’and‘fact’,thehumaninterventionrequired

topreserveanddisplaysuchsites,andthepoliticsbehindtheconservationof

certainsitesandthedismissalofothers.

182

Iusehistoryheretorefertoeventsthathappenedinthepast,whichmayhavemultipleandchangeablereadingsandpresentations.

183Themultifariousissueswiththisreportaretooextensivetolisthere,buttheyinclude:

normativeassessmentsoftheconceptsofhumanrights,justice,democracyandcitizenship;ethnocentricnotionsofhealing;theproblematicideathatmemorialsprovideanykindof‘truth’(andtheideathatthereisonetruthofthepast);andalackofdiscussiononthepoliticalinfluenceonmemorialsandtheirpresentation.


JensMeierhenrich(2009)addressesthisfluctuatingprivileginganddismissalof

memorialsitesbyexaminingtheNyabarongoriverinRwandaasasiteof

‘underprivilegedmemory,’chartingitstransformationfrom‘anotoriouskilling

sitetoasanitisedbuildingsite’(2009:15,italicsoriginal).Bydoingthishe

discussestherelationshipbetweenmemorialisationandmodernisation.The

river’stransformationresultsfromtheconflictingforcesofmemorialisationand

modernisation,wherecentralisedprojectsofeconomicandpoliticalreform

marginaliseorevendestroydecentralisedeffortsofmemorialisationthatdonot

perfectlysuitthestaterhetoric.Thislinkstotwomajormotivationsformany

statesinthecommoditisationofsuchsites:controlofmemorytosupportstate

rhetoric,andeconomicdevelopment,forwhichaparticularnarrativethatappeals

totouristsmustbeconstructed.Wood(2006:181-182)assertsseveralnegative

consequencesof‘puttingthecountry’shistoryofsufferingattheserviceof

attractingrevenue’,including:

Asingularversionofhistoryatoddswithandattheexpenseoflocalparticipation;

amemorializationapparatusthatreproducesandextendsexistinghierarchiesand

linesofcontrol;andanintensifiedcommodificationofhistoricalsitesandlandthat

generatesgreatereconomicvulnerabilityandsocialtension.

Tegelberg(2009:499)concurs,arguingthatthecommodificationofKhmerRouge

sitesfortourism‘threatenserasureofthemorenuanced,multi-facetedcultural

narrativesthatcharacterizetheregion’svasthistory.’

However,tourismisnotonlyabouteconomicprosperity.Italsoofferstoolsfor

politicalstabilitythroughitspartinwiderregionalandglobalnetworks(Telfer

2002),andasSkinner(2006)notes,itisalsoausefultoolinthecreation,


embedding,andmaintenanceofnationalidentitiesandideologies,aspeoplecreate

andperformparticularnarrativesofthepast.Assuchitisa‘highlypolitical

phenomenon’(Richter1989:2).Severalpreviousscholars(Hinton2008;Hughes

2005,2008;Ledgerwood1997)havefocusedonsuchpoliticsofmemory,exploring

theuseofKhmerRougesitesinthecreationofstatenarrativesthatcontrolthe

historyoftheregime,andcertainlythisisacentralfeatureoftheuseofChoeungEk

today.However,suchargumentsoftenfailtoengagewiththeconceptthatwhile

beingeconomicallyandpoliticallydriven(oftenbeingadeliberatemanoeuvreby

thestatetoraiseawareness,engendersympathyforvariousends,attracttourist

revenue(onwhichmanymayrely),andassertapresenceinthegeo-political

sphere),theaimsofsuchcommodificationarenotnecessarilyatoddswiththe

ambitionsoflocalpeople,whomayjustasopenlyexploitsuchhistories(andtheir

own)totheirownends,andtherebydirectittowardsthefuture.

RachelHughes’(2008)article‘DutifulTourism’examinesthemotivations(orat

leastretrospectivenarrations)oftouristsvisitingTuolSleng,however,someofits

argumentscanbeequallyappliedtoChoeungEk.Shesuggests(ibid.:328)that

peoplevisitthesitebecausethey‘desiretobehaunted;’throughthishaunting

theycanshowcompassion,sympathyandrecognitionofthesufferingundergone

inthis,andotherregimes.Aftervisiting,sheargues,theyarecompelledto

become‘dutifultourists’:

ThedecisionsofcontemporaryvisitorsatTuolSlengarerefiguringsoftheworld

fromwithinvariousdiscoursesofmorality.They(re)constructmoralgeographies

whichbringeventsofthepastintoproximity,allowpoliticalconcernstotravel

alongwiththemandactinways(albeitminor)thattheybelievewillimprovethe

livesofthoseintheplacestheyvisit.Theirvisitinginvolvesreturningtoamoral


terraininwhichmasspoliticalviolenceanditsongoingsocialand(geo)political

effectsareapproachedthroughdutifulexposure.

The‘Battlefieldtourist’Schwenkel(2006:4)asserts‘isdrivenbythedesiretosee,

experience,andunderstandmassdestructionandviolenceinthemodernera.’

ManycountriessuchasCambodia,andVietnam(whereSchwenkelworks)have

takenadvantageofthisincreasingtrendtocommodifysitesofconflictand

disasterasameansofpromotingeconomicdevelopment.Asthesesitesare

recycledandreproduced,Schewenkelargues,thememoriestheymaterialiseare

rearticulatedinincreasinglytransnationalarenasinfusedwithcapitalistvalues.

Thisisnotnecessarilynegative:the‘new’memoriescreatedviathis

commodificationdonotdisplaceotherunderstandings,butratherareconstituted

throughaprocess‘ofencounterandcontestation’whichaddlayersofmeaning

andunderstandingtothesites.Thisshelabels‘recombinanthistory,’suggesting

‘theinterweavingoftransnationalmemories,knowledgeformations,andlogicsof

formations’(ibid.:5)

TheaspectofSchwenkel’sargumentthatIwishtoengagewithisthatthe

narrativesattachedtosuchsites,therefore,arecontinuallychanging,andthere-

imaginingsandre-creationsrequiredfortourismarenotnecessarilynegative,nor

subsumeothermemories,butareseenasworkingforthebenefitofindividuals

andcommunitiesaswellasthestate.InVietnamtheindividualbenefitisthe

veteransofthewar,someofwhomworkastourguidesandtowhomitprovides

anopportunitytosharealternativehistoriestothestate’s,particularlyimportant

inacountrythat‘attemptedtoimposehistoricalamnesiaonthe“losing”side’

(ibid.:20).Likewise,inthecaseofChoeungEkmemoriesandhistorical

presentationsareworkedandre-workedinrelationtothetouristmarket,a


negotiationthatwhilstrequiringacompliancewithonemodeofnarration,is

imaginedtomyinformantsasprovidingbenefitstothemselves,their

communities,andthestate.

ChoeungEkinCambodianTourism

Sincerelativepeacewasmadeinthelate1990s,tourismtoCambodiahas

increasedsteadilyatarateofapproximately20%peryear(MinistryofTourism

2015).In2014,4.5millioninternationalvisitorsarrivedinthecountry,90%of

whichweretourists,andtourismwasthesecondlargestincomegenerator,and

thethirdlargestsectorafteragricultureandtextiles,contributing$2.8billion

dollarstotheeconomy(17%oftheGDP)(ibid.).ItsimportancetoCambodiais

illustratedbyitsplaceinthenationalinvestmentandplanningstrategies:

between2006and2011,54%ofinvestmentfromtheCambodianInvestment

Boardwenttotourism(ADB2014)184,anditisoneofthefivenationalprioritiesin

Cambodia’sNationalStrategicPlan(RGC2014).Thisfocusispartofachangein

nationalstrategyfrompoliticalstabilityto(neoliberal)development,asexplained

intheNSP:

Inthefirstdecadeuntilthe2000s,thehighestpriorityoftheRGC185was

rebuildingthesociety,theeconomyandtheinfrastructure.Inthesecond

decade,thecountrybeganpursuingplanneddevelopmentinamarket

framework.

184

Resultingin,amongotherthings,itsbrandingas‘TheKingdomofWonder.’

185RoyalGovernmentofCambodia.


HunSenhasregularlyemphasisedtheimportanceoftourisminCambodia’s

development,botheconomicallyandstrategicallyintheregion,andasChheang

(2009:69)pointsout,inacountryembeddedinapatronagesystemwithatop

downdecisionmakingprocess,thewordsofthepremierinevitablyequateto

nationalpolicy.Tourismisrepeatedlyreferredtoas‘greengold’inministerial

speeches(ADB2014;Samouth2013;PPS2013),beingviewedasameansof

economicgrowthandpovertyreductionthroughincomegenerationandjob

creation,andpoliticalstabilityandco-operationthroughthenegotiationand

maintenanceofregionalallegiancesinSoutheastAsia(particularlythroughthe

ASEAN186network).

Tourismisalsooneofthewaysthestatepromotesapositiveimageofthe

countrytoothernations;thisaspectwasviewedasespeciallyimportantformy

informantsbecauseofitsunstablepast,particularlytheviolenceoftheKhmer

Rouge,whichexistswithinlivingmemoryformanypeoplevisiting.Forthis

reason,neitherChoeungEknorTuolSlengappearonofficialgovernmenttourism

information,despitetheattentionandinvestmentthathasgoneintobothover

theyearsandtheirstatusaskeytouristsites.Althoughitsnumbersaresmall

comparedtoAngkorWat(approximately260,000visitorsin2014,comparedto

AngkorWat’stwomillion),itreceivesover25%ofPhnomPenh’stourists(Ministry

ofTourism2015)andChoeungEkisthusintegraltotourisminthearea.

Itsuseasatouristsiteisnotnew.Sinceitsdiscoveryasasiteofkillingin1979it

hasalwaysbeenoutwardlyfacing;likeTuolSlengitwasquicklyharnessedasa

showcaseofevidenceoftheatrocitiesoftheKhmerRougeandduringtheearly

186

AssociationofSoutheastAsianNations.Memberstatesare:BruneiDarrusalam;Cambodia,LaoPeople’sDemocraticRepublic;Malaysia;Myanmar;Philippines;Singapore;ThailandandVietnam.


daysofthePRK,thosevisitingthesitewerealmostexclusivelybroughtby

governmentofficialsastheyuseditintheirpost-depositionpropaganda(Chandler

1999,2008;Tyner2012a).Overtimehowever,thetypeofvisitorsbeganto

change.Between1992and1993,whenUNTACruledCambodiaforeignsoldiers

becameregularvisitorsandslowlyasmorevisitorscameoftheirownvolition,

family-runbusinessesstartedtoopen.187AsthesituationinCambodiastabilised

andvisitornumbersincreased,ChoeungEkgrewinpopularityasatouristsite.

EasilyaccessiblefromPhnomPenh,withdramaticphysicalevidenceintheformof

skeletalremainsandvisiblegravepits,thesiteiscompelling.Bythelate1990sit

sawaregularinfluxofforeignvisitors,andsometourguidesfromPhnomPenh

begantosituatethemselvesatthesite.BongLa,wasoneofthese;initially

comingin2000undertheadviceofhisaunt(whoworkedintheMinistryof

CultureandFineArtswhichhadjurisdictionofthesiteatthetime),hehasstayed

eversince.

In2005thesitewasprivatized,anda30-yearleasegiventoaprivatecompany,JC

Royal&Co:aJapanese-Khmerco-operativecompanythatcomesundertherule

ofPhnomPenhmunicipality.188Theaimofthisleasewastoincreasetourist

revenue,andthisprivatisationhascomeundermuchcriticismfrombothnational

andinternationalmedia,whodeemitdisrespectfulandaccuseitofcorruption

187

Thefirststallwasrunbyoneofthedirectorsofthetime.Itwasnothisidea:arepresentativefromCocaColabroughtthedirectoreightcasesofsoftdrinksandofferedthemtohimforfree.Hefoundtherewasgoodmoneytobemade,andasthenumbersgrewandtypeofvisitorchanged,itbecamealucrativebusiness.

188ThoughreportedtobeaJapanesecompany,thedirectorsatthesitetoldmeitisapartnership:

theJCinthetitle,theytoldme,standsforJapanese-Cambodian,andtheJapaneseprovidedoverallplansofimprovementofthesiteandcapacitybuildingskills,forwhichtheyreceivesomerevenue(reportedly$15,000perannum).


(Doyle2005;KinetzandKuch2008;Mydans2005;Sokha2010;Yimsut2005).189

Criticscontendthatitisabusivebecauseoftheforeignoriginsofthemanaging

companyandtheexploitationofthehumanremainsitdisplays(Becker2013;

Hughes2005).ButsinceDemocraticKampucheaChoeungEkhasneverbeen

aboutrememberingthedead.Itwasfirstlyabouterasingthem,thenabout

showcasingthem.

Theprivatisationhasledtochangesinitslayoutandpresentation,andaddedto

thefacilitiesavailableatthesite.Asmallmuseumwaserected,newtoiletsbuilt,

andwhenIwasthereapavedfootwaywasbeinglaidalongthepaths.Flowers

andbusheshavebeenplanted,andbenchesputuparoundthesite;amanager

theretoldmeitspresentationischangingfromaraggedexhibitionofconflicttoa

peacefulparkofmemory(‘Ihavemixedfeelingsaboutthat,’shecommented‘I

canalsoseethevalueoftryingtopreserveaplacethat,ofcoursewillalwaysbe

politicized,butdon’twewanttobeabletoshowpeoplethisiswhatpeoplecan

dotoeachother–thisiswhatthey’vedonehere.SoI’malsonotsurethatit

shouldbemadenice’).Aspartofthecompany’sleaseacharitablefoundation

wassetup:the‘SunFoundation.’Throughthissomeproceedsgotocharitable

work;thesitefundsseveraluniversitystudents190andgivesmoneytoelderly

peopleinthelocalcommune–eighteenfamiliesreceived$10and15kgofriceper

monthwhenIwasthere.Andeventhoughtherestofthemoneygoestothe

municipality,thosewhoworkthere,particularlythosewithexperiencefrom

before,viewitsprivatisationpositively.‘Before,’BongLareported‘itwasonly

189

Oneparticularlydamningarticleclaimedthatthousandsofdollarsinrevenuehavegonemissing.‘Theynevercameintothesiteandinterviewedus,andgaveusachancetoexplain’thesite’sdirectortoldmewhenIaskedheraboutit.

190Thenumberisunclear–onepersontoldmetentotwelvestudentsaresupportedannually,

anothertoldmethattheyhavesupported550since2005.


underthegovernment,andwehadnoideawhathappenedtothemoneythey

madeatthegate.Nowit’sbetterbecausetheyhavetotelluswhereitwent.’

Thetourist191encounteratChoeungEkisahighlychoreographedandheavily

mediatedexperiencedesignedtoteachthevisitorabouttheKhmerRougeregime

whileengenderingsympathyandempathybyengagingtheminanimmersive

sensoryexperience.Passingthroughthegatesofthesite,visitorsaredirected

firsttotheticketcounter,andthentotheaudioguidestationimmediatelynextto

it.Almostnonerefusetheaudiotourandithasnowbecometheprimarywayby

whichtouristsengagewiththesite;moreorlesstheonlypeoplenottakingit

arrivedwithaguidefromPhnomPenh,andnowadaysevensomeofthose

encouragetheirclientstotakethemselvesroundwiththeaudiotour.Itis,of

course,ahighlydesignedtourofthespace,andprovidesdirectedreadingsto

boththeencounteranditsinterpretation.Thatisitsjob:toguidethosewhotake

itonwhattopayattentionto,bothvisuallyandimaginatively.Andasaprovoker

ofemotion,andconnectionwiththesite,itisbothpowerfulandsuccessful.

Thetourfollowsapatternmostwesternmuseum-goersarefamiliarwith.

NarratedbyaKhmer‘survivor’192itleadsyouaroundtonotifiedstops,ateach

directingattentiontospecificaspectsofthesite:theareawhereprisonerswere

heldbeforebeingtakentotheirdeaths;achainedoffareawherebonesare

emerging;the‘Magictree’fromthebranchesofwhichhungspeakersthatblasted

musictodisguisethesoundofkilling.Asitmovesalongthepaththatwinds

aroundthesiteittellsthestoryoftheKhmerRougeandofChoeungEkin

191

Iusetouristheretomeaninternationalvisitors,becausetheencounterforKhmervisitorsisverydifferentandmuchlessmediatedanddesigned,aswillbeexploredlater.

192Manyofthevoicesontherecordingareactors.


particular.Thelimitedsignagetellsofterriblethings:thebodiesofonegravehad

noheads;anothercontainedonlywomenandchildren.Rowsofpitscoverthe

land,separatedonlybyasmallwindingpaththatthetouristswalkdown.Inthe

pathundertheirfeet,remainsareemerging;shardsofbone:fragmentsofpeople.

Likeanygoodstorythehorrorandtensionisbuilt–itsclimaxatthecentreisstop

fifteen-thetreewherebabies,heldbytheirfeet,hadtheirskullssmashedagainst

thetrunk(figureten).Reachingthisclimax,itcalmsthemood,movingonto

discussCambodia’sfuture,andtheplaceofChoeungEkasamemorialtomass

death.Itendsdrawingconnectionstootherglobalsitesofgenocide:Germany,

Poland,Rwanda,andothers.

Figureten:ChoeungEkkillingtree(source:theauthor)

Thefinallocationisthecentralstupa.Atmorethan30metreshighitdominates

thesite,whichrevolvesaroundit.Insidearepiledtheskeletalremainsofover


8,000people193excavatedfromthesiteintheearly1980s(seechapterone,figure

four).Thesedustyremainsarestackedinsideonshelvesbehindglassdoors.

Theirarrangementamplifiestheirimpact;skullsseparatedfromlongbones;long

bonesfromshortbones-thedeadrupturedfromtheirlivingselvesnotonlyby

massburialbutalsobyskeletaldismemberment.Clothingpilesonthebottom

shelf,thenextsevenfilledwithskulls,allfacingoutwards,sonomatterifyouare

childoradult,whereveryoulookhundreds,thousands,ofskullsateverylevel

meetyoueyetoeye.Abovetheskulls,theotherbones;theshelvessohighthat

whenItriedtophotographitsheightmycameracouldnotcaptureit.Thespace

issmall;theconfinementphysicallyforcingyoueye-to-eyeandbody-to-bodywith

theremains.Insideishumidandslightlyfetidandtingedwiththefaintbut

distinctivesmellofdecomposingbone;sweatandbonedusttangledtogether:

scentsofthelivingbutalsothedead.


HavingintroducedtheplaceoftourisminCambodia,andtourismatsitesofwar

anddeath,thissectionwillnowmoveontopresentthreeethnographic

encountersatChoeungEk,illustratinghowmyinformantsviewthedesignofthe

siteanditsuseintourism.Bydoingsoitwillshowhowmyinformantsconceive

tangibleandabstractbenefitsfromitsuse,asthetouristsbecomeengagedin

reciprocalrelationswiththesiteandcountry.Threestoriesarepresented.The

firstshowshowSreySreyandOmTaviewtheuseofhumanremainsasavital

elementofthetouristexperienceatChoeungEk,whichtheyviewassignificantto

193

Theexactnumberofpeoplerepresentedbytheremainsinthestupaisunknown:thesitereportsitis8,995,butthatseemsverypreciseandbasedonmyexperienceofotherforensiceffortsinCambodia,unlikelytobecompletelyaccurate.Iprefer,therefore,togiveanestimatedfigure.


thelocalcommunity’swellbeinganddevelopment.InthesecondwemeetTa

Chann,amanlivinglocallytoChoeungEk,whosesister,cousin,theirhusbands

andchildren,werekilledatthesite.Thisencounterdemonstrateshow,evenfor

thosewhosedeadareatthesite,itsplaceasalocationofhistoricaleducationis

viewedascrucial,butalsohowsuchdisplaysrelatetoideasofinternationalaid

andawareness.ThefinalencounteriswithBongLa,whoviewstouristsas

integraltofuturepoliticalstabilityandsocialdevelopmentofCambodia.

Displayingdeath,ensuringlife

OmTawasprobablyoneofthehardestworkingpeopleatChoeungEk.Herarely

tookarest,movingconstantlyaroundthesite,keepinganeyeopenforjobsthat

neededtobedone,peoplethatneededhelping,oranimalsthatneededtending.

‘Myjobisimportant’hetoldmeonedayasIaccompaniedhimaroundthesite.

‘It’slikewe’rehelpingournation.ThereasonIsaysoisthatitisthegovernment.

Thegovernmentisthecountry.It’slikeI’mhelpingthecountry.EventhoughI

can’thelpmuch,asacleaner,Iamhelping.’

AsheworksOmTacarriesasmallplasticbag,tuckedintoapocketofhisshirtor

trousers.Asweweretalkingonedayhepulledthebagoutofhispockettoshow

mewhatitheld.Thereinhishandwasagrislycollection:teethandshardsof

bone,splinteredfromlargerones.WalkingaroundthesiteOmTakeepshiseyes

alertfortheseremains.Ifheseestheminthegravepitsheleavesthemalone,

butanyheseesinthepathsthatwindaroundthesitehelifts,addingthemtothe

baginhispocket.Oncehehasasmallcollectionhetakesthemtothecasewith

theotherremains.


Collectingtheremainswasimportantfortworeasons,hetoldme.Firstly,putting

themallinonelocationtogetherisameansofrespectingthosewhohavedied.

Butsecondlytheyareanimportantpartofwhytouristscometoseethesite.The

useoftheremainsinsuchawayisnotnew,heexplained;ithasbeensosincethe

sitewasfirstdiscovered.OmTahasmuchexperienceoftheremains:hisfirst

encounterwithChoeungEkwasintheearly1980swhenhecametolootthe

graveswithhisfather;hefoundawatchandhisfatherfoundalongmilitarycoat

whichheusedforyearsbeforeitworeout.Hewasemployedsoonafterthisasa

guardatthesite,andwatchedastheremainswereunearthedandpreparedfor

display–allclothing,ligatures,andblindfoldswereremovedandtheflesh

detachedfromthebones.Afterseveralmonthsofdryingtheyweremovedtothe

woodenp’teahkhmouch,andcarefullyarrangedtomakethemostimpacton

thosevisitingthesite.Whentheycameacrossaskulltheybelievedtobeof

foreignorigintheworkersmadesuretodisplayitatthefront:

Weweretoldtobringtheskullsandbonesandputthemthere.Isawagrave

underthetree.Isawalong,bigskull.Itwasstrange.Thensomepeoplesaid

theywantedtoplacethatinthefront.Weplaceditintheveryfront;weworked

onthatarrangement.Itmusthavebeenaforeigner—eitheranAustralianor

American194.

Itsarrangementatthefrontofthestupawas,OmTaconfided,aimedatthe

foreignersalreadystartingtovisitthesite.Thisconsiderationcontinuedafterthe

centralstupawasbuilt;beforethebonesweremovedexpertscamefrom

Vietnamtoconductsomebasicskeletalanalysisontheskulls,organisingthemin

194

Over500foreignerswerekilledatChoeungEkandTuolSleng.MostwereVietnamese,butahandfulofothernationalitiesalsosuffered(EaandSim2001).


thestupabysexandage.Thisanalysisneverhadanyforensicuse:‘itmakesit

betterforthevisitorsiftheyknowsomethingaboutthem’OmTaexplained.

Theselabelscanstillbeseenonthestupashelvesbuttheskullsarenow

confused;aboutayearbeforemyfieldworkstartedtheremainshadbeentaken

outofthestupaforcleaning,andduringtheprocesshadbecomemuddledand

somebroken.Thosebrokenwereputtothebackandtheonesintactarrangedat

thefront,allwiththeirfacesfacingoutwards.

SreySreyparticipatedinthiscleaning.SreySreytakesgreatprideinherwork.

Workingsevendaysaweek,ChoeungEkhasbecomeanextensionofherhome,

andsheviewshercolleaguesasextendedkin.Amongstherdutiesasacleaneris

themaintenanceofthegraves,andthecleaningofremains.Everydayataround

2pmagroupofcleanersandcaretakersgathertosweepleavesandotherdebris

fromthemassgravepits,andtocollectbonesandclothingemergingfromthe

soil.Inthedryseasonlittleemerges,butduringtherainyseason(Mayto

October)therainwashesawaythesoilanderodestheedgesofthegraves,andas

theseasonadvancesandfootfallaidsthesoildispersion,skeletalremainsand

clothingareslowlyuncovered(seefigureeleven).


Figureeleven:humanremainsemergingatChoeungEk(source:theauthor)

LikeOmTa,SreySreycollectsremainsandfreesbitsofclothingfromthesoilas

shecleans.Notalltheremainsarecollectedthough;somearemovedand

displayedindifferentareasto‘improve’thetouristexperience.195Aswellas

remainsbeingmovedaround,SreySreyconfided,otherswereleftinthepaths

thatpeoplewalkedon,toimprovetheattractionofthesitetointernational

visitors;‘oneoftheguyssaid:“Ifweclearallthebonesfromtheground,whatwe

goingtosee?Wewillhavenothingtosee.”’‘Somewanttoshowthemas

evidenceforchildren,’sheexplained,‘butsomewanttoattractmorevisitorsto

seetheCambodianhistoryandimproveCambodianeconomics.’Atfirst,Srey

Sreytoldme,shewasshockedbythisattitude,butfromwatchingthetourists

interactwiththeremainsshesoonrecognisedtheirimpact:‘Theycomehereto

195Ilookedoutforthesemediationswithinterest.Ononedayapairoftheblackrubbersandals

similartothoseusedbytheKhmerRougeappearedunderaphotographshowingtheexcavatedremainsstackedhighintheearly1980s.Theyhadnotbeentherethedaybefore.Onanotherdayafragmentedfemurlayfullyexposedinachainedoffareathatthedaybeforehadbeenemptyexceptforleavesanddirt.


seetheseskeletons,toseewhowaskilled,’shecommented,‘andwhenvisitors

cometheycantellothersthatCambodiahasaplacewheretheykeepthebodies

ofthedeadfromthePolPotregime.’

Bypayingmoneytoenterthesite,thetouristsaredirectlyinputtingtothesite

andthewell-beingofthecommunitysurroundingit,SreySreytoldme,because

notonlydoesitprovidesafe,wellpaid,employmentformanypeople,butsince

thecompanytookoveritsmanagement,infrastructurehasimprovedandmoney

isgivenascharitablecontributionsinthesurroundingareas:

Theysupportorphansandgivescholarshipsto[university]students.Ithink

they’renotwastingthemoney.[Theygivemoneyto]olderpeople….Whenthe

companycame,Iexpectedthatitwasgoingtobehard.Butwhentheyactually

camein,itwasreallygood….It’sbetterthanbefore.Theyhaveclearobjectives

thatareacceptable[and]itimprovesourlives.It’smuchbetternow.

Despitetheseadvantages,SreySreysometimesfeltconflictedaboutthe

mediationofthesite’sexperienceforthetourists;‘they[tourists]worksohardat

homeandtheycomeherejustforfreedom,butsometimes,wealsohave

propaganda,’shecommented.Butoverallshebelievedtheworkofthesiteis

good,andtheuseoftheremainsacceptable.Peoplewanttoseethedead,and

theyarewillingtopaytodoso.Afterseeingthistheyreturntotheircountryand,

shehopes,tellpeopleaboutCambodia;aboutitspast,but,moreimportantly,

aboutitspresentandfuture;‘thevisitorshelpCambodians.Whenthe

internationalvisitorshelpCambodians,itmakesmehappy.SoIthinkwhatthe

governmentdoestodayisright.’


OmTahadnosuchconflictions.HeconsidersChoeungEktobeintegralto

developmentofCambodia,andbyinference,hisjobtoo.‘Maybethisplacedoes

businessusingtheskeletons,’hecommented.‘Buttheyareimportant….Ithink

somepeoplearemaybejealousthatwegetmoney[fromthesite]….Itisgoodfor

peoplewholivearoundhereandforpeoplewhoworkinthisplace.‘It’slike

we’rehelpingournation.’

‘Ifweforgetaboutit,historywillbeerased’

TaSannisanelderlymanwhohaslivedclosetoChoeungEkforallhislife.He

wasintroducedtomebyoneofthemanagersonthesite.Theyhadbeen

acquaintancesforalongtime,becauseTaSannhadbeenoneoftheonlypeople

beyondtheguardsworkingatthesitewhoknewitsfunctionduringtheregime

andassuchhadbeeninvolvedwithmanyresearchprojectsatChoeungEkas

peopletriedtopindownitspast.Beforetheregimetookpowerhesupported

theirsoldiers,dealingfoodandmedicalsuppliestothem,andafterpowerhe

remainedintheareawithhisfamily.HewasamemberoftheMinistryofSocial

Affairs,workingasafarmerinthelocalco-operativethatmanagedfood

distributioninthearea.

TaSannwasoneofthemanythousandlowrankingKhmerRougecadrewho,

althoughworkinginandsupportingtheregime,werealsothemselvesvictimsof

thepurges,socialcontrolandexecutionoffamilymembersandfriends.Towards

theendoftheregime,hissisterwastakenfromtheircommuneoneafternoonas

theyworked.Thiswasfairlycommon,andthosearoundthemknewthatonce

taken,theywouldnotreturn.Someonerantohim,shoutingthathissisterhad

beentakentotheEast.Heknewthisprobablymeantherdemise:


IthoughtiftheyhadtakenhertotheEast,itmusthavebeentothisplace.I

knewthatPreySarprisonwaswheretheyeducatedpeople,andthatTaleong

villagewaswheretheyre-educated[kāsang]them,andiftheycamehere,they

hadtodie.

Hedreadedtheconsequenceofthisnews,andwantedtocheckforhimself.So

heborrowedabike,androdetothesite,wherehesawthetrucksunloadingthe

passengers.‘Ihadaccesstothesite’hesaid,‘becauseIworkedforsocialaffairs.’

Therehesawhissister,herhusbandandtheirten-year-oldchild.‘Isawtheir

faces,andIturnedaroundbecauseIwasafraidthatIwouldcry.ThenIleft’he

toldme.Laterintheregimehisbrother,cousinandcousin’swifewerealsotaken

tothesite,alongwithhisformerboss,whofirstwasprocessedbyTuolSleng.‘I

wenttoseehisphotograph[afterwards].Theypulledouthistoenailsandstuff.’

TaSannisapoliticalpragmatist,whowasnotalwaysasupporteroftheKhmer

Rouge.WhentheLonNolregimewasinpower,hecollaboratedwiththem;when

theylostpowerheturnedtotheKhmerRouge.Followingthefallofthatregime,

heturnedhisallegiancetothecurrentgovernment(‘Theywereallrelated,’he

commentedwhenIaskedhimaboutthis.‘Somedidn’tfollow[politics]closely

likeIdid.Ifolloweditverycloselyineachregime.IlearnedsinceIwasyoung’).

Nowadays,recognisingthelackofsocialbenefittobeingassociatedwiththe

KhmerRouge,hetellsfewpeopleofhisinvolvementintheregime,claiming

insteadthatheknewaboutthesitefromothers.

Followingtheregime’scollapse,hereturnedtothesite,beingemployedtoguard

thoseexcavatingthegraves.Heworkedalongsideothers,countingtheskullsthat

wereunearthed,andassistingtheirarrangementfordisplay.Amongstthebones


ofthosedisplayedarepotentiallythoseofsixfamilymembers-hisbrother,sister,

herhusband,hisniece,cousinandcousin’swife-andatleastoneformer

colleague.Wetalkedaboutthisatsomelength.Hetoldmehecameregularlyto

thesite,andwaspleasedwiththewayithadbeenmanagedovertheyears,

particularlytheuseofthehumanremainsasatoolofeducation.Thatticketsare

chargedisnotaproblem,becauseitisahistoricalsite,andhistoricalsitesallsell

tickets–hehadheard,hetoldme,thatatAngkorWattheticketswere$20or

more,andstilltouristswent.‘Foreignerswanttovisithistoricalplaces,’he

commented,beforecontinuing:

Notonlyforeignerswanttovisit,someCambodiansalsodon’tknowanything

aboutChoeungEk.Everyonewantstoknow,wantstolearnthishistory.Ifthey

knowthatthereisaplace,thereisevidence,showingthekillingduringthe

regime,everyonewouldwanttoseeit,bothforeignerandKhmer,especiallythe

youngergeneration….Itisimportant.Ittellsmorefromwhatweseeherethanif

weonlyhearthestoryfrommouthtomouth.Peoplewerekilledwithoutreason.

Sowelearnaboutitbyseeingthisplace.

Thepreservationoftheremainsisintegralinthis.‘Ifeelproud’hetoldmewhenI

askedhimabouthisfamiliesremainsbeingdisplayedatthesite.‘Iftheyknock

thisplacedown,Iwouldbedisappointed….[Theregime]isover.’ChoeungEkisa

place,TaSannfelt,wherethosewhodiedcouldbehonouredandremembered,

andthestupaholdingtheirremainsgaveaplaceforthegovernmenttolookafter

them.Butmostimportantly,heexplained,itpresentsKhmerhistorytoyoung

Cambodiansandforeigners.

[iftheremainswerecremated],itwoulddisappear,andtheyoungergeneration

willnotrememberit.Ifit’shere,theycouldsayohthat’swheremymother,my


fatherwerekilled.Bonesbecameamountain.Thisismyidea.Ithinkit’sgoodin

thehistory.It’sbettertokeepthem,toletKhmerandforeignersknow.It’san

importantthing.Weneedtoletforeignersknow.Somanypeoplewerekilled

becauseforeignersdidn’tknow.

Buildingafuturebyusingthepast

ThefinalethnographytellsthestoryofBongLa,andrelatestosomeofthemore

abstractbenefitsoftheChoeungEkuseasatouristsite.OnedayasBongLaandI

satchattinghestartedtellingmeabouthischildren.ItwaslateJanuaryanda

breezewasblowingacrossthesite,makingthedaycoolbyCambodianstandards.

Afewtouristswerewanderingaround,butitwasstillearly,sowehadtimetosit

andenjoythetime.

BongLa’stwoboysweresevenandten,andweregettingtotheagewherethey

werebecomingmoreindependent,listeninglesstotheirparentsandmoreto

theirfriendsandpeopleatschool.ThisworriedBongLa.Thoughheloves

Cambodiaandisgenerallyhappyinhislifethere,heisconcernedaboutthemoral

economyofthecountry;thedisregardpeoplehaveforeachotherandthe

environment,andtheendemiccorruptionofgovernmentandotherauthorities.

‘TheKhmerarealloppressednow’heconfidedoneafternoon;‘wecanonlyhope

forinternationalhelp.’

Thishelpcouldcomeinmanyforms.Butonewayofgettingitwasthroughthe

workofChoeungEk,andbyinteractingandlearningfromthetouristswhocome

tovisitit.Heoftenbringshischildrentothesitenottoteachthemaboutthe


KhmerRougeanditsresults,buttoshowthemthebehaviorofthetourists,

particularlytheirrespectfortheenvironment:

Iteachthembyexample.Youknowalongtheroad,peopledrinkteaor

somethingandthentheyjustthrow[litter]onthestreet.Ifonepersondoesit,

thechildrenwillfollow.Sowhathappenstenyearslater?Thisplacecouldbea

fieldofrubbish.SoIwanttoteachthemthis,andIlearntalotaboutitfrom

visitors,alotabouthygiene.Liketheplasticfromaroundthetopofabottleof

water–theyevenputthatinthebin–it’sverynice;Ilikethataction;it’sgood

thattheyalwayscleanthearea.SoIbringmykidshereandsay‘lookatwhat

thatmandoes,[throwingaway]hisdrinklikethat.’Soit’sgoodyeah.Ihopethat

Cambodians,wholostalotofhistory,willstartlookingatothercountriestohelp

Cambodia.Notthebadthings,thegoodthings.

BongLahasastrongaffectionforthetouristsatChoeungEk.Hehasalways

enjoyedlearningfromotherpeople,particularlythosefromothernations;itwas

thisthatinfluencedhisdecisiontobecomeatourguideinthelate1990s.We

oftensatwatchingthetouristsarriving,chattingaboutthemandtheiractions.

WhenIfirststartedworkingatChoeungEkIwouldoftenfeeloffendedbywhatI

viewedastheinappropriateanddisrespectfulclothingthatmanytouristswore.

Onedayayoungwomanarrivedwithherboyfriend.Sheworeminutedenim

shortsandatopthathunglooseattheside,exposingherbra.AsIrantedtoBong

Laaboutthisattire,helaughedandsaid‘itdoesn’tmatter:wedon’tmind.At

leastshehascomeandwillseeandlearn.’Laterheexplained‘whentheycome

here,theylearnaboutCambodia’hetoldme.‘SometimesIfeelsadseeing[the

dead]allstackeduplikethat’hesaidcommentingontheremains,‘butIdon’t

knowtoohowtokeepthestoryineveryone’smind….manyofthemtheyreally


sharetheseexperienceswithothers,becausetheyknowabout[Cambodia’spast]

onlyfromChoeungEkKillingFields.’Thissharingcouldonlybepositivehetold

me,becauseastheyshared,otherswouldwanttovisit,andthisbroughtpeople

whocouldhelpCambodiadevelop.

Thatisnottosaythatheisnaïveaboutthepotentialrisksoftourism,andwehad

manydiscussionsaboutsomeofthemoreseriousissuesCambodiafacesrelated

tothis,suchassextraffickingandpaedophilia.Butheviewedtheseasminimal

comparedtotheoverallbenefitsthathepersonallyengagedin,andthattourism

broughttothecountry.Althoughthemoneyraisedbythesitewasusefulin

generalforCambodia’seconomicdevelopment,itwasthescholarshipsgivento

universitystudentsthatBongLathoughtmostimportant:

Thereasonweareprovidingmoneyisbecausewewantthestudentsto

concentrateontheirstudies,notanythingelse,sothattherewillbemorehuman

resources[inCambodia].Becauseinthepast,itwasalackofhumanresources

thatledtokillingwithoutanyconsideration.Ithinkthatwhentherearen’t

enoughhumanresources,thecountrycan’tdevelop.Forexample,HongKong

candevelopbecausetherehavealotofhumanresources.

TheKhmerRouge’spropagandaisconsideredbymanytohavebeensosuccessful

becausetheyeliminatedtheintelligentsia,andinsteadreliedonpoorlyeducated

ruralfarmers,childrenandyoungpeopletorunthecampsandenforcetheirlaws.

Improvingeducationtherefore,isviewedasawaytopreventmovementsofthis

typeandscaleinthefuture.Thetourists’moneyatthesitehelpsenablethis

throughthecharitablelegaciesinwhichtheyengage.


AswetalkedIaskedBongLaaboutthenegativeperceptionsofthesite’s

privatisation.‘Yes,’hereplied,‘thisisdifficult.Iknowthisisdifficultbecausethis

siteisnotonlyhistorical,itisalsopolitical.’Hefoundithardtoexplainthe

advantagesofprivatemanagementtoforeignvisitors,aswellasthebenefitsof

thesite,buthesummedituptome:

thiscompanyismuchbetterthanbeforebecausewehaveamanagement

system;it’smuchbetterthanthestate–theCambodianState–butforeign

visitors,youknow,whentheyaskme‘Iheardthatthisisprivatecompany,isthis

aprivatecompany?’sometimesIcannotexplaineverything;actuallythey’re

Cambodian,butthenameisjustwrittenlikethat.Sometimesit’sreallyhard.All

ofthemfeeltheywanttocomeandhelp,andtopreservethissite,notjustfor

business,buttohelpfindjustice.ButithelpsCambodiansdevelopthemselves,

becauseatthattimewelostalotofteachers,alotoflife….

Overall,heexplained,‘[thecompany’s]workislikemeritforCambodia.’The

meritcomesfromitsplaceintheeducationoftouristsabouttheregimeandthe

country,aswellasinthemoneyitraisedthatgoes,notonlytothePhnomPenh

municipality,butalsotothelocalcommunity.Thisisbecausemattersleftonlyto

Cambodians,hebelieved,werecorrupt:

IthinkthatifwehopeontheKhmer,there’snohopeatall.Wecanonlydepend

ontheinternationalcommunity.

Discussion

Invokinghistorytogenerateincomeandthecommodificationofsitesoftragedyis

neitheranewnorunusualphenomenon.AsVenbrux(2010:44)writes,


‘throughoutourcontact[withotherpeople]death-tourismhasbeenaprominent

modeofcross-culturalinteraction.’Whatisnewinrecentdecades,however,is

theglobalizedaspectofsuchtourism,andtheincreasingstateharnessingofthis

ineconomicdevelopmentandregionalstrategy.Inthisglobal,increasingly

neoliberaleconomy,Schwenkel(2006:5)arguesthattheuseofsuchiconsofwar

entwinethepastandthefuture,byrecyclingandreimaginingsuchsitesin‘a

transnationaleconomyofmemoryforthesakeofprosperityanddevelopment.’

Thiseconomyisfluidandflexible,andisusedandmanipulatednotonlybythe

state,butalsobyeverydaypeopleinvolvedinthesesites.Aswesawinthecases

ofSreySreyandOmTa,theuseofsuchsitesintourismhavetangiblebenefitsfor

thepeoplewholivethere.Butbeyondthattheyexertinfluenceonthewider

localcommunity,andCambodiaasawhole,andsomeofmyinformants,suchas

BongLasawthemascontributingtofuturestabilityofthenationandtheregion.

Thedesiretoexplore‘war-torn’historiesdrivesexoticismbyinternationalvisitors

whoactivelyseektoviewandexperienceitstragicpast(Schwenkel2006).Indoing

soitappearstoreifysomeoftheimagesandnarrativesbeingpresented.Asmy

informantsconstruct,reconstructandperformthesenarrativeseveryday,they

becomefurtherentrenchedas‘truth’inthemindsofthoseconsumingthem.But

thesenarrativescanhavepositive,futureorientedresults,asarguedbyHughes

(2009)withregardto‘dutifultourists,’whoaftervisitingsuchsitesfeelanobligation

toprovideaidofoneformoranothertoCambodia.ThemarketingofChoeungEkis

notsimplyamatterofpresentingitasis.Itrequiresanunderstandingaboutthe

globalperceptionoftheKhmerRouge,andknowledgeofwhatattractsinternational


visitors.Althoughthishasbeenfacilitatedrecentlybycollaborationwithforeign

stakeholders196,myinformantswerealreadyskilledatthis.

ThepowerofChoeungEkisinitsphysicality,itsmaterialityandtheembodied

connectionitgivesthevisitortoCambodiaandthisperiodofitspast.Thesensory

immersionofferedbythechoreographedtourmomentarilycollapsestemporal

distance.Thedeliberateexposureofhumanremainsandpreservationofthe

graves197inparticularprovideanotionofauthenticityandrealismtothesite.On

wartourisminVietnam,Schwenkel(2006:8)notedthattouristsfeltthat‘warwas

moretangibleinCambodia,’itwas‘morereal’thaninVietnambecauseofthese

humanremainsandtheirlocationinaplacewherevisibletracesoftheirdeathand

massburialisstillevident.TouristsIwatchedvisiblyslumpedastheyreachedthe

graveofwomenandchildren.Peoplecriedastheyroundedthelakeatthebackof

thesite,listeningtocommemorativemusic.‘TheKillingFields’were‘raw’onetold

meafterwards.Afriendcomingbackfromvisitingthecountrytoldmehefelt

‘ashamed;soashamed;’another‘weleftthekillingfieldsfeelingveryheavy.’But

thisauthenticityisframedandperformed,andthedisplaywithinitheavily

mediated.Theaudiotourdirectsattention198;employeesatthesitearrangethe

196

TheJapanesearmofJCRoyal&Coproducedthedevelopmentplansaimingtoimproveitsappealtointernationaltourists,andtheAustralianbasedNarrowcastersthatdevelopedtheaudiotour(whichwaswrittenbyanAmericanscriptwriterinEnglishfirstsoastoappealtoanaudienceusedtomuseumtoursandparticularwaysofseeing).

197Astheyearspassthemassgravepitsarestartingtoerodeanddisappear.Somepitshave

merged;othersbecomeshallower.Thisisworryingthesite’smanagement.‘Iwantedthegovernmenttobuildglasscoversoverthegraves,becausetheyweren’tthisshallow[before]…therainerodesthemandfillsthemin.’onetoldme.

198Beingsodirectedmanymissmuchofthesitetheyarelookingat.Theywalkonbonesand

clothingwithoutnoticingitundertheirfeet,becauseearlierinthetourtheyhavebeendirectedtopayattentiontothosecomingthroughtheearthinchainedoffareas.TheywalkorsitonChinesegravestones,notnoticingtheyaregraves,ornotcaringbecausetheyarethewrongsortofdead:theydonotrepresentthehorrorthesevisitorshavecometosee.Theywerenottossedinpitsandpiledontopofeachother.Thatthisisagravesiteofappropriate,familialburials,aswellasmassgraves,becomesirrelevant-onlyonetypeofdeadistobenoticed:thosekilledduringtheKhmer


artifacts;andbydoingsotheyembraceandharnessthetouristgaze.Myolder

informants,suchasOmTa,seemedparticularlyadeptandcomfortablewiththis.

Thisisnotsimplypredatorycommodificationinsearchofeconomicprosperity,

althoughsometimesitmightappearthatway.Norisitnecessarilyexploitativeof

thedeadandtheirremains.Aswesawinchaptertwo,thoughpolitically

motivated,thedisplayofhumanremainsandtheuseofmassgraveswasnot

viewednegativelybymyinformants,andeventhosewhoobjectedpersonally(for

exampleBuSothwhothoughtno-oneshouldmakemoneyfromthedead),

thoughtperhapsthedeaddidnotmind;theydidnothauntandhadnevermade

peoplesick.ThecaseofTaSannshowsthateventhosewhoserelativeswere

killedatthesite,andwhoseremainsmaythereforebeamongstthosedisplayed,

sawthemasplayingapositiveroleinthefuturedevelopmentofCambodia.Chan,

ateacherfromtheschoolclosetothesitecommented:

Theincometheycollect…theirsufferings,gaveus…givesusall…givesme…

providesbenefitstoallthepeople…providesabenefittosociety,whichistolive

comfortably/safely(soks’roal),becauseoftheirhorrificdeaths.SoIthinkthat

theirsufferingdeathisvaluableforthenextgeneration,likemyself.

Byengagingwithimaginedvisitormotivationsinthedesignandperformanceof

ChoeungEkmyinformantsperceivedbothtangibleandabstractbenefitsto

themselves,Cambodia,anditsfuture.Thesitegivesthemajob,SreySreytold

me,andsupportsthelocalcommunity.OmTacommentedthathewashelping

thecountrybyworkingtherebecauseofitsplaceinCambodia’seconomic

Rouge.Itisnotthetourists’faultperse:alltheliteratureclaimsthatthesite‘usedtobeaChinesegravesite,’eliminatingfromconcernthefewChinesegravesthatremain.


development.BongLasawpersonal,nationalandglobaladvantages:intheways

hecouldteachhischildrenabouttheenvironment,andtheuseofincomefrom

thesiteinfundingscholarshipsthatwouldhelpensureamoresecureandstable

future.ThishasimplicationsforthefutureofCambodia:BongLalikenedits

potentialtoHongKong,Singapore,andJapan,andindoingsoillustratedthe

promiseofdevelopment.Andasitimproves,liketveabonandbangskol

ceremonies,ChoeungEkishelpingthecountryasawholetogainmerit,and

improvingitskarmaasitdoesso.Itswork(theirwork)isrelatedtothemoral

economyofCambodia;somethingmanyIinterviewedconsideredlackingandin

needofsupport.

Thisisnot,however,aunilateralrelationship.Insteaditwasviewedasareciprocal

relationshipbetweenthesiteanditsvisitors.MoststaffatChoeungEkusedthe

termvisitor(neaktossna)orguest(phngeav),ratherthantourist(neaktesschor–

literallypersonwhomakesatour)torefertothosewhocometothesite,whether

foreignorlocal.Impliedtherefore,inthetouristencounter,isanelementof

hospitalityandahost-guestrelationship.Hospitalityactsinthemodeofagift,and

althoughTesart(1998)insiststhatagiftoughtnotbereciprocated,Iagreewith

Mauss’s(2002[1950])assertionthatthereremainsanobligation,andan

expectationofreturn.AtKhmerRougesitesthisreturnisbothtangibleand

abstract,andimaginedbybothsides:thetouristandthoseworkingatthesite.The

site’scentralroleinCambodiantourismisdirectlylinkedintheimaginationsofthe

staffandthestatetoeconomicprosperityandinternationalassistance,andthe

reciprocatedrelationship,therefore,iswiththetouristswhohelpdevelopthe

country.Myinformantsembracedtourism,andthereciprocationitimplied.


ItisnotonlyChoeungEkthatusesthepastinsuchaway.Thep’teahkhmouchat

KohSophasbeenpreservedandthepastorfromtheisland’schurchregularlybrings

foreignvisitorstoseeit.AghoulishpaintingclosetotheentranceofPhnom

SampeauinBattambangindicatesitsformeruse;therelocalguidestaketouristson

thebackoftheirmotorbikestoseewherepeoplewerethrownfromthetopofthe

mountainintoacavebelow,beforeguidingthemtothespotwheretheirbodies

weresmashedandtheremainsnowsit,piledhighinaconcretecheddei(figure

twelve).199InAnlongVengTaMok’shouse,theallegedsiteofPolPot’sfuneral

pyre,andtheburialsiteofhiscremains,haveallbeenturnedintotouristsites,

renamedas‘TheCulturalSiteoftheKhmerRouge.’MarketsellersinPhnomPenh

haveembracedthisinterest,producingacrylicTinTincoversfeaturingtheKhmer

Rouge,andsellingreplicapropagandapostersfromtheVietnamesewar.

Figuretwelve:KhmerRougetourismatPhnomSampeau(source:theauthor)

199

AtBananinBattambangprovince,however,wherethemaintouristattractionisanAngkoriantemple,thebodiesonthesurfacewerecollectedandcremated,orcoveredwithsoil,becausepeoplereturningafterDemocraticKampucheathoughttouristswouldnotliketoseesuchbodieswhentheyhavecometoseeanancientsite.


NeitherisitonlyKhmerRougesitesthatarehoninginonthissideoftourism.

ThereisanincreasingmarketforsitesofsympathythroughoutCambodia.

OppositeChoeungEkarestaurantrunbythe‘Cambodianhandicapassociation’is

alwaysbustling,butnodisabledpeopleareemployedthere,theyarenotallowed

insidetherestaurant,andthemoneyraisedgoesalmostentirelytothefamily

whorunit.InPhnomPenhandSiemReapcafesandshopsadvertisetheir

employmentoftraffickedwomen,ex-prostitutes,orphansanddisabledpeople.

AstouristsmovearoundCambodiatheyareimmersedinanimageofacountry

thatnotonlysufferedfromaterriblepast,butcontinuestoneedhelp.The

resultingimpressionleftontouristsvisitingthesesitesisoneofoverwhelming

sufferingandongoingproblemsthatcannotberecoveredfrom.Asonetourist

toldme,‘IgottheimpressionCambodiaisawholenationwithPTSD.’

Ofcoursenotalltouristsconsumethesiteinthesameway,andalthoughtheaudio

guidesprovidesadirectednarrationthereisnotahomogenousreceptiontothe

site.Evenwhentheirconsumptionisdesignedandchoreographed,landscapesare

notstatic.Theyarecontested,negotiated,politicalanddynamic(Bender1993:2-

3),theirmeaningbeingworkedandreworkedthroughdifferentpeople’s

engagementswiththem.Theyaremulti-layered,andtheinterestsinthemand

meaningsinscribedwithinanduponthemmove,overlap,collideand,sometimes,

clash.ChoeungEkandotherKhmerRougesitesareinternationallandscapesthat

speaktoaglobalimaginaryofmassdeathandviolence.HenceChoeungEk’s

transformationfromamemorialintoamuseum,madeintelligibletothethousands

oftouristswhopassthroughitsgateseverydaybyaguidedaudiotour:onethat

directsthemwheretolook,whattosee,howtofeel.Atthemoment,my

informantsviewitsuseasatouristsiteprimarilypositively,withtangibleand


abstractadvantages.Butaswesawinchapterfive,theusesandnarrativesrelated

tosuchsites,whileappearingstaticarefluid,particularlytothosewhoproduce

them.200

WherefrustrationagainsttourismexistedamongstmyinformantsatChoeungEk,

itwasnotdirectedatthetourists201,butatthegovernment’scontinued

corruption.CriticismagainstChoeungEkwasturnedintoapoliticalmatter–a

desiretoerasetheviolentpast.‘Thepeoplewhosaidthismaybedon’twantthis

placetoexist,’OmTacommented.‘Ifthisplacedidn’texist,wewouldforgetall

thepainfulstories.’Beforethecompanytookover,BongLatoldme,amanhad

arrivedfromtheMinistryofDefence.ThoughhewasKhmeranddidnothaveto

pay,hetooktwodollarsoutinfrontoftheticketbooth.‘$1forSihanouk;$1for

HunSen’hesaid.ForthisreasonOmTa,BongLa,andotherbesides,preferred

thesitesmanagementbyaprivatecompanywhichhadtomakepublicits

accounts,andwhosepoliciesofsocialresponsibilitywerevisibleinthelocal

community,tosoledirectionbythegovernment.Touristswereseenaspotential

alliesintheendeavouragainstthis;themorepeoplewhocametoCambodia,and

themorewidelyitwasknownabout,BongLacommented,thelessablethe

governmentwouldbetocontrolthemsostrongly.202‘Thisisforthebenefitof

humanity’hecommented.

200

Althoughperhapstherewasmoreflexibilitybeforetheaudioguides,becausetheknowledgebeingsharedreliedonatripartiteencounterbetweentourguidesandtourists,andthephysicalencounterwiththesite.

201ThismightbepartlybecauseofChoeungEk’ssegregationfromthehomelivesofthosewho

workthere:thesiteisfencedoffandclosedat17:00,soeventhosefewfamilieswholiveonthesitehavespaceawayfromthetourists.

202Myinformantswerenot,however,naïveaboutthepoliticalnatureofChoeungEk.Thedirector

toldmethatthemunicipalityistheirparent,andtheyatChoeungEkarethetechniciansofthegovernment’svision.Oneoftheotherguidesrefusedtocommentonthesiteanditsuses;‘if


Conclusion

WhenIfirstarrivedatChoeungEkoneofthemanagersaskedmeifIhadever

beentoanyoftheHolocaustmemorialssuchasAuschwitzorDachau.‘Howdoes

thissitecompare?’heaskedme;‘howcanwemakeitmorelikethose?’Another

askedmetoconductbasicskeletalanalysisontheskulls:providingsexandage

categories‘becauseitwillmakeitbetterforthevisitors.’203Althoughprivatizedin

2005thesitehasalwaysbeenexternallyfocused;fromdayonethisrequireda

shapingofthenarrativeaboutthesesiteswhichwhilsttargetedtoattractan

internationalaudience,whichhasmostlikelyaffectedlocalunderstandingsas

well,particularlygiventhelackofotherhistoricalnarrativesontheperioduntil

veryrecently(Latinis2011;Tyner2012a).Khmervisitorsreceiveaverydifferent

site.Thoughseveralthousandvisitperyear,mostcomeaspartoftheECCC

sponsoredvisits;theirtripsarebrief(usuallyaroundtenminutes),theyreceive

littleguidance,andmostsimplywanderinandwanderoutagainwithlittleideaof

whattheyareseeing.ThefewsignsthatexistareinEnglish,andevenwhen

‘remembrance’ceremonies(suchasPchumBenhandNewYear)areheld,they

takeplaceatthesideofthesitesoasnottodisturbthetouristpathsaroundthe

site.

someonebreastfeedsyou,youshouldbreastfeedthemback’hesaid,aKhmeridiomequivalentto‘I’llscratchyourbackifyouscratchmine.’WhenIfirstknewSreySreysherefusedtodiscusssuchtopics,sayingitwasnotherplacetocomment.‘IknowthatthetouristsjustcometovisitCambodia.Sometimes,theyvisitheretolearnaboutthelivingconditionsinCambodia.SomepeoplejustcometoseewhatCambodiaislike…’shetoldme.‘It’sdifficultformetotalkaboutit;thisispolitics.’Overtime,however,shestartedtotalkmorefreelyandcoulddiscussherviewsontheuseofremains.

203Ineverdiddoanyanalysis,althoughwhenIleftCambodiathemanagementwasstillplanning

tohaveitdoneatsomestage.


Thiscommoditisationfortheinternationalmarkethasbeencriticisedbymany,

however,asthischapterhasshown,itwasnotdeemedoffensiveordisrespectful

bymyinformants,butratherembracedandengagedwithasameansofproviding

futurebenefits.Supportingmanipulationsandtransformationsofthepastare

embracedbecausetheyprovidesecurityinthepresent,andofferfuture

potentialsforpositivechangeforCambodiaanditspeople.

ChoeungEkrepresentssomethingslightlydifferenttomostCambodiantourism,

wherethebenefitsoftheincomedonottrickledowntoordinarypeople.The

impactofthemoneyisevidentinthesupportofthelocalcommunityandthe

scholarshipsgiventostudents.Thebenefitofthetouristsisvisibleintheroads

thesitehasbuilt,theimprovementstothesite,thenewjobsandsocial

relationshipsithascreated.TourismatChoeungEkwasviewedbymyinformants

notasmanipulativeandexploitative,butaspositiveandsupporting.Touristshelp

thecountry,bothnowandforthefuture,andbyworkingforthesite,theydotoo.

Ofcoursethefuturemightnotturnoutthewaymyinformantsimagine,

particularlyifthecurrentgovernmentremainsinpower.Anumberofissuesare

alreadyapparentinCambodiantourism.Someofthese,suchassextrafficking

anddrugs,werediscussedbymyinformants,butmanyotherswereomitted:the

stressoninfrastructurecausedbyincreasingdemand(Becker2013),orthe

increasinglandinsecurityaspeopleareforciblyevictedfromlandthatisthen

developed.Butwhetherthefuturearrivesintheformimaginedisnotreallythe

point.Inusingthesite,BongLa,OmTa,SreySreyandTaChannallamodeof

assertingtheirplaceinCambodia’sfuture,andbydoingsoprovidingmeritfor

themselvesandtheirnation.


Oneafternoon,aswewalkedaroundthesite,myresearchassistant,Bunnwath,

turnedtome.‘Youknow,’hesaid‘PolPotdidsometerriblethings.Butitleftalot

ofsitesthatarereallygoodfortourism.’Thiscomment,madewithahitofirony,

wasanobservationontheuseofChoeungEk,andthevoraciousappetiteofforeign

touristsforsuchsitesofdeath.Butsuchastatementcanalsosuggestaconnection

betweentheviolenceoftheKhmerRougeregime,andthepoliticalsphereof

contemporaryCambodia,athemethatwillbeexploredinthenextchapter.

270

Chapterseven:Deadoftoday,ghostsoftomorrow-electionsand

thespectralKhmerRouge

Fear,thearbitratorofpower–invisible,indeterminate,andsilent.

-LindaGreen1994:227

********

The2013generalelectionsinCambodiawereatenseaffair.OmSreywas

nervous;‘IremembertheKhmerRouge’shetoldmeaswesatchattingafter

dinneroneevening.‘IwillkeepvotingforHunSenbecausehesavedusfrom

them.’OurchatcameasIplannedtoreturntoPhnomPenhforameetingafew

daysbeforetheelection.‘Areyoureallygoing?’sheaskedme,‘aren’tyou

scared?’

ThepoliticalsphereinCambodiaisfraughtwithviolence,particularlyaround

elections.In2012and2013,tensionwashigh,becauseforthefirsttimeinnearly

30years,itseemedthattherulingCambodianPeople’sParty(CPP)faceda

genuinechallengefromthemainoppositionparty,theCambodianNational

RescueParty(CNRP).Therulingparty’smodeofdealingwiththiswastwofold:

reinforcingthethreatofdirectandstructuralviolence(particularlytoopposition

voters)thathelpsmaintaintheirrule,andbeginningasmearcampaignagainst

theoppositionparty.Forbothends,theyharnessedthesymbolicpowerofthe


KhmerRougeandtheirdead;raisingthespectralpresenceoftheregimeandits

violence.TheCPPwerenotaloneinthis.TheoppositionCNRPalsousedthe

KhmerRougeandtheirgravesitesintheirpoliticalpropaganda,butforthemit

wastoremindthepopulousoftheformerstatusofthePrimeMinisterandother

CPPofficialsasKhmerRougecadre.Bothpartiesusedrhetoricsofviolence

throughouttheircampaigningthatmanifestedthreatsonindividual,community

andnationallevels.

Thischapterexploresthe2013electiontimeinCambodia,asalocusthatmakes

visibletheviolencepervadingKhmerpolitics.UsingDerrida’s(1994)conceptof

hauntology-thespectersofapastthatinhabitthepresentandshapethefuture;

thehauntingbyspiritstowhichallexperiencesareconnected–Iwillarguethat

contemporarypoliticsinCambodiaisanewmanifestationoftheviolencethathas

scourgedCambodia’spast,particularlytheKhmerRougeregime,which

contemporarypoliticswasformedinoppositionto,butwhichhasbeenpoliticized

toreinforceviolentnarrativesthatmaintainitsspectralpresenceasaconstant

threatwithintheKhmerimaginary,reinforcingpoliticalinsecurityamongstthe

population.

Toexploretheseconcepts,Iwillfirstexaminethetheoreticalframeworkforthis

chapter,beforebrieflydescribingelectionsinCambodia.Thiswillprovidethe

frameworkfortheethnographicsection,whichwillfirstdescribetheannual

remembranceceremonyheldbytheCPPatChoeungEk,nextapoliticalrally

organizedbytherulingpartyagainsttheoppositionshortlybeforetheelections,

beforediscussingtheelectiontimeasexperiencedbymyinformantsandmyself

inKohSop.TheseexampleswillhighlighthowtheKhmerRougeregimewas


revitalizedbythe2013elections,heighteningtheinsecurityandfearalready

inherentinthepoliticalsphere.ThediscussionwillreturntoDerrida,butalso

considerLindaGreenandAllenFeldman’sexplorationsoffearandinsecurity,to

showhowtheactivehusbandryoftheKhmerRougespectersnotonlyreminds

peopleoftheirviolence,butalsoreimaginesandrecreatesapoliticalspherein

whichviolentdiscoursesarethenormandauthoritarian,violentruleis

maintainedundertheguiseofliberaldemocracy.


InSpectersofMarx,Derrida(1994)createdthetermhauntologytodescribethe

continuedpresenceofMarxisminthepost-Marxistworld.Whilehaunting

expressestheongoingpresenceofsomethingpast(orinthecaseofdeceased

beings,passed),hauntologyderivesfromtheFrenchhantise,andincludesmore

nuancedexpressions,including‘obsession,aconstantfear,afixedidea,ora

naggingmemory’(Derrida1994:177,noteXX).204Derridausedthisconceptto

arguethat,despitesomeacademicsargumentsthatitwasnolongersignificant

followingthefalloftheBerlinwallandtheassociatedendofcommunism,

Marxismwas,in1993,morerelevantthanever.Itisbothimpossible,heargued,

andunjust,toclaimtoexistintheworldwithoutreferencetoMarxbecause

contemporarydeconstructionsofMarxismactuallyservetocreatenew

conceptions,basedon,andevolvingoutof,preciselythosedeconstructions.In

thischapterIwillusethisconcepttoexplorecontemporaryKhmerpolitics,which

204Althoughthetranslator,PeggyKamuf,continuestotranslatethetermashauntingthroughoutthebook,itisundoubtedlythispluralityofmeaningsthatattractedDerridatotheterm,becauseitsconception,heinformsus,beganashecontemplatedthehauntingobsessionthat,heargued,organizeddominantdiscoursetoday(Derrida1994:37).


isnotonlyhauntedbytheKhmerRougeregime,butwhichwouldnotexist

withoutthemandisformedinrelationtothem.

Thespecters205ofthepastnotonlyinhabitthepresent,butcomefromthefuture:

lineartemporalityiscollapsedbythesespectersbecausetheirmostdominant

characteristicistheirimminence:‘Itisthefutureitself,itcomesfromthere.The

futureisitsmemory’(ibid.).Thiscanbeinterpretedinmultipleways:thatifthere

isanyfuture,itwillbethisone,orthatintheiterationofthespectralpast,its

revivalbecomesnotonlyimagined,butpossible:inre-enteringthepopular

imaginaryitagaintakeslife,andintakinglife,itisbothre-enactedandre-

constructed.

ForDerrida,thereweremultiplespecters–notonlyMarxhimself,butalsothe

ghoststhathauntedMarx’swork,andthosethathauntsubsequentsocieties

(Macherey1999:18).ThesamecanbesaidofCambodia.TheKhmerRouge

hauntitspresent,butconceptionsoftheKhmerRougearethemselveshaunted

bythoseregimesandconditionsthatprecededandfollowedthem:theUS

bombingcampaignofthe1960s,theLonNolgovernmentof1970–1975;thePRK

of1979–1993;evenactionsofthecurrentregime,whoseruleofdirectand

structuralviolencemaintainsthesespecterswithinthepresent,andtakesthemto

thefuture.‘TounderstandtheKhmerRouge’OmTacommented,‘wehaveto

understandthesituationalittlebitbeforeandafterKhmerRouge’:

205Derridausestheterm‘specter’preferentiallyto‘spirit’or‘ghost’becauseunlikePlato’sphantasma-thesimulacrumofaparticularsomething-aspecterisbothintangibleandtangible;itisamemory,arecreation,animprint,ashadow,butitisonethataffectstheformandactionsofthoseithaunts(Derrida1994:7).


thestoryofCambodiawasnotjustfrom1975to1979,therewasmorethanthat.

ThiswastheeffectoftheColdWar.Itwasnotjustthoseyears.Before1975

whathadhappened?After‘79whatwouldhappen?

Thespecterscannotberationalisedaway–theyhauntthehistoricizedpresent

andshapeitsfuture.TheyarethereforeintegraltocontemporaryCambodia,

extendingVeenaDas’s(1997)criticalevents–itisnotonlythatDemocratic

KampucheademarcatesaparadigmshiftinCambodianlife,butthatitformsthe

basisofeveryreimaginingandreconstructionofsocial,politicalandreligiouslife

inCambodia.The2013electionshighlightedthis.

‘Asthecoreofdemocracy’Coles(2004:553)wrote‘electionsareacultural

practiceaswellasapoliticalone.’Theirculturalperformanceisarguably

ritualistic,and,therefore,performativeaswellassymbolic.Althoughdemocracy

‘wieldshegemonicauthority’throughitsapparentdistinctionfromsocietyand

subjectivity(ibid.),itisasociallyembeddedconstruct,constitutedandperformed

locallythroughitsattendantritualssuchaselections.Bydrawingonlocal

discourse,electionscreateandperformthelocalarticulationofdemocracyasa

setofpracticesandartifactsthatreifyconsolidatefeelingsofcommunityand

belongingandstateideologiespurportingfreedomandhumanrights.Democracy

exists,therefore,asaplurality;thelocalarticulationofwhichishighlightedduring

elections.206

206ThepluralityofdemocracyishighlightedbyBjörkman’s(2014)explorationoftheflowofmoneyduringthe2012electionsinMumbai,inwhichsheilluminateshowcontestedissuesofmodernity(suchastheneo-liberalandpoliticallandscapes)arenegotiatedinrelationtotraditionalformsofpatronageandexchangesystemsthatexistineverydayIndiathroughouttheyear.Inthiscase,moneyworksnotasamediumofpurchase,butasagiftexchangedforalliancesandsocialaffiliations.


However,whileseeminglyidealperformancesofliberalismanddemocracy,

electionscanbefraughtaffairssurroundedbydiscordandviolence,andtheir

practiceisoftenasmuchaboutgeo-politicsasitisgenuinelocaldesires.Thisis

exemplifiedbytheviolencethatoftensurroundsthem,particularlyinstatesthat

haveonlyrecentlyadopteddemocracyasthepoliticallandscape.Butthis

violenceisnotnecessarilycompletelydestructive,andcanbesocially

advantageousaswellaspoliticallyuseful.The1994electionsinMexico,for

example,providedasiteofuprisingforindigenouspeople,highlightingeconomic

andsocialinequalities,whichopenedthedoorforpoliticalreformandnewsites

ofpoliticalinclusionacrossthesocialspectrum(Fiederlein1996).Jonathan

Spencer(1990)meanwhileshowsthatin1980sSinhala,SriLanka,socialdisputes

andriftswereexpressedaspoliticaldifferences,andelectionsthereforeprovided

theopportunityfortheexpressionofordinarilyrepressedemotions.Election

times,therefore,althoughsitesofacrimonyandexcitement,providedaspacefor

therenegotiationofsocialdifferences;notonlyintheselectionofrepresentatives

togovern,butmorewidelyinsocialnetworksandrelationships

Uprisingsandcontestationscanonlyoccur,however,whenpeoplenolongerfear

theconsequencesofthesecontestations.Stateengenderedviolencesurrounding

electionsusuallyrelatestotheconsolidationandsolidificationofpoliticalpower

oftherulingelite,throughterrorandviolencethatmaintainsauthoritythrough

fearandtension.Theviolenceismostcommonwhentherulingpowerfeels

threatened(Hafner-Burton,HydeandJablonski2014),aswasthecaseforthe

2013electionsinCambodia.Inthe2002presidentialelectionsinZimbabwe,for

example,RobertMugabeusedrhetoricsofracialdivision(focusingonthe

unilaterallandownershipbywhitepeople)toinciteviolenceagainstthe


oppositionbyyoung,blackpeople,whoposedthegreatestthreattohischances

ofre-election(Lindgren2003).Plotsoflandfromfarmstheyoccupiedrewarded

theirviolence,andtheirsupportforMugabewasconsolidated,whilstre-visiting

theethnicdivisionsandpoliticalviolenceofthe1980s,whendistinctionsbetween

differentgroupingsofpeopleweremanipulatedtogarnersupportthroughfear,

violenceandrhetoricsofoppression.

ElectionsinCambodia–abriefoverview

ElectionsarearecentintroductiontoCambodianpolitics;thefirstnationalones

wereheldin1993underthesupervisionoftheUnitedNationsTransitional

Authority(UNTAC),aspartofthearrangementsofthe1991ParisPeaceAccords,

whichaimedtobringpeacetotheregionandanendtotheongoingconflict

betweentheKhmerRougeandthePRK.Theseelectionsweredeemedasuccess

bytheUNandmanyothercommentators(Findlay1993;McCargo2005;

SandersonandMaley1998)207andreportedlymarkedatransitionalpointin

Khmerpoliticsfromauthoritarianrule,toneo-liberaldemocracy(somethingthat

manyofmyinformantsnoted).However,despitetheirseemingsuccess,

(FUNCINPECreceivedamajority)theresultswereoverturnedfollowingpressure

fromHunSenandacoalitionpartyformedinstead.Everyelectionsincehasbeen

subjecttoviolenceandsurroundedbyaccusationsofcorruption(HRW2015).

SandersonandMaley(1998)arguedthatthe1998elections(whichfollowedthe

1997coup)remainedacontestbetweenliberaldemocracyandauthoritarianrule

–acontestwonbytheauthoritarianruleoftheCambodianPeople’sParty.My

experienceinCambodiaindicatedthesame:therulingparty,usingthreatsand

207McCargo(2005:99)notesoneofthesuccessesbeingthat‘veryfewpeoplelosttheirlives’!


actualviolence,governedwithauthoritarianruleundertheguiseofliberal

democracy,anillusionsupportedbyinternationalgovernmentsandbusiness.

WesawinchapterfivehowtheCPPandHunSencametopowerfollowingthe

1979depositionoftheKhmerRouge,andhowtheirrulehascontinuedeversince.

2013wasthefirstyearsincetheUNTACelectionsof1993thattheCPPfaceda

genuinechallengefromthemainoppositionparty,theCambodianNational

RescueParty(CNRP).Formedin2012bymergingtheSamRainsyParty(led,

unsurprisingly,bySamRainsy)andtheHumanRightsParty(ledbyKemSokha),

theCNRPwasgainingmomentumandsupportintherun-uptothe2013general

election,particularlyamongtheincreasinglydisillusionedyouthofCambodia.In

previousyearsthishadnotbeensuchathreattotherulingregime;themajority

ofvotershadlivedthroughtheKhmerRougeregime,andassuch,werenotonly

gratefultotheCPPformakingpeacewiththeKhmerRougeandrulingarelatively

peacefulcountry,butalsolivedinfearoftheregimes’revival.In2013,however,

approximately1.5millionyoungpeoplebecameeligibletovote(Hughes2015),

andoveronethirdofthevoterswereagedbetween18and25years(Lohmanand

Enos2014).Manyweredisillusionedwiththegovernmentanditsmodeofruling

andwereseekingchange,offeredbythenewlyformedCNRP.Thisyouthdidnot

deterthepoliticalpartiesfromusingtheregimeintheirpropaganda,however;by

doingsotheyaimedtomanipulatetheoldergeneration,andremindthemofthe

violence.However,itwasnotonlythroughremindersandre-vitalisationthat

KhmerpoliticsrevivedthespectersoftheKhmerRouge,themainparties

themselvesre-enactedtheviolenceanddominationoftheregimethroughthe

useoffearandtension,usingterrorasamechanismofpowertogarnersupport

andfostersuspicion.


EthnographicCaseStudies

Havingoutlinedthetheoreticalbackgroundforthischapter,thissectionwill

provideanethnographicexplorationoftheKhmerRougehauntology,made

explicitbythe2013elections.CoveringeventsoccurringbetweenMayand

September2013,itwillshowhowinmyfieldsites,tensionandfearwerebuilt

incrementallybyiterationsofviolenceandremindersoftheKhmerRougethatre-

animatedboththeregimeanditsotherviolenceandinsecurity,reachingaclimax

atthetimesurroundingtheelections.FirstIwilldescribetheMay20thmemorial

eventheldbytheCPPatChoeungEkGenocidalCenter,wheretheviolenceofthe

regimeisre-enactedingrotesquerealismannually.Iwillmoveontodiscussa

politicalrallyheldbytherulingpartyagainsttheCNRPinJune2013inKep

provinceofSouthernCambodia,andfinally,Iwillexploretheincreasingfearand

tensionthatgrewaroundelectiontimeasexperiencedbymyinformantsand

myselfinJulyandAugustinKohSop.

Spiritsofthepast:the‘heroes’ofthenation

May20th2013.Bodieslaystrewnacrossthegrass:women;children;men.AsI

lookedon,aKhmerRougesoldierdressedinblack,witharedandwhitekrama208

knottedaroundherneck,tookapalmleafanddrewitacrossaprisoner’sthroat.

Anothertookthebuttofhisgunandsmasheditontothebackofaman’shead,

knockinghimtotheground.Amalesoldiergrabbedawoman,and,draggingher

byherhair,pulledhertothefloor,wherehethrusthisbodyagainsthers,asifto

rapeher.Thecarnagecontinuedforalmostfifteenminutes.Thesoundof

208AtraditionalKhmeritem,thekramaisalargepieceofstrongmaterial,ofteninachequeredpattern,usedforalmosteverything:headscarf,sarong,dishcloth,baby’shammock,handkerchiefandmoreorlessanythingelsealargepieceofmaterialmightbehandyfor.


gunfire,screamingandbeatingfilledtheair,alongsideanothersound:the

murmurofchatteraspeoplelookedon.

Thisterriblespectaclewasanact:partofaremembranceceremonyheldannually

atChoeungEkbytheCPP.Beforethekillingstarted,wewatchedastheKhmer

RougetookoverCambodiatocheersandjubilation.Wesawpeoplebeingdriven

fromtheirhomesintothecountryside,beforebeingputtowork,fromwhich

manycollapsedandneverrose.Wewitnessedpeoplestarving,dyingfrom

disease,andcountlessexecutions.The3years,8monthsand20daysof

DemocraticKampucheawasenactedinexcruciatingrealismtousspectators;all

Khmerexceptformeandonemediacameraman.

Sompoah,myresearchassistant,andIhadarrivedatChoeungEkaround8.30am,

catchingaliftfromPhnomPenhwithoneofthemanagersfromthesite.After

thecoolofherair-conditionedcar209,theheatwasalreadyoverwhelmingaswe

madeourwaytothecentralstupa,wheretheeventhadalreadystarted.Crowds

circledthegreenthathadbeentheholdingsiteofthosearrivingatChoeungEk

forexecution–nowadaysanemptyspaceofgrass.Threesideswereboundedby

colourfulmarquees,offeringshadefortheimportantguests:overahundred

saffron-robedmonksononeside;theothertwocrammedfullofofficialinvitees,

primarilymembersoftheCPP-localofficialsandgovernmentemployees

conspicuousintheirblacktrousersandwhiteshirts.Therestofusstoodunder

theblisteringheat,crowdingtogetabetterview.SompoahandImadeourway

upthestepsofthestupa:fromthetoplevelwecouldlookdownovertheheads

andwatchtheproceedings.

209AluxuryforSompoahandI,whousuallymadeourwaydownthepot-holedanddustyroadbytuktukormotodop.


Aswemadeourwayupthestepswelistenedtothespeechesbeingbroadcast

overloudspeakers.‘Wecomeheretoremembertheheroeswhosaved

Cambodia,thepartywhoareheroesofournation,whodidsuchgood’the

compère,anâcharfromapagodainPhnomPenh,announced.‘Weallthankyou’

hecontinued,‘andwewishyoualltheluckintheupcomingelections.Wepray

youaresuccessful.’Thenextspeaker,arepresentativeoftheKhmerCham

community210wasnolesseffusive:‘Thankyou[CPP]fororganizingthisevent,and

thankyouSamdechHunSen211forallowingustopracticeourreligionfreely.’

There-enactmentsweregraphic;womenwerebeaten,childrentornfromtheir

parents,peopleexecuted.Thecrowdcrammedtoseeovereachother’sheads;

childrenpushedtheirwaytothefront;onemanliftedhisson,aboyoftwoor

threeyearsold,ontohisshoulderstogetabetterview.Whenthefieldwas

litteredwithbodies(figurethirteen),thetroopscameintosaveCambodia.

210Cham(anethnicgroupinSoutheastAsiawholiveprimarilyacrossCambodiaandVietnamandfollowIslam)weretargetedbytheKhmerRougeasagroupforextermination,particularlyunderHunSen,andHengSamrin’sdirectionsintheEasternzone(HumanRightsWatch2015a).

211 Samdechisanhonorifictitlemeaningprincelyorlordly,usuallygiventothoseprovidinggreat

servicetothenation. HunSenhasrecentlygivenhimselfthetitleSamdechAkkaMohaSenaPedeiTecho:PrincelyExaltedSupremeGreatCommanderofGloriouslyVictoriousTroops.


Figurethirteen:KhmerRougere-enactmentatChoeungEkremembranceevent(souce:theauthor)

Tomuchheralding,soldiersinthemilitaryuniformsofthegovernmentmarched

in,holdinghighthreeflags:theblueflagoftheNationalFront212,theredand

yellowflagofthePeople’sRepublicofKampuchea(PRK),andtheblueflagofthe

CambodianPeople’sParty(CPP),butnoticeablymissingtheVietnameseflag.If

themessagehadbeenobtusebefore,thesefinalflagsmadeitexplicit:theCPP

savedCambodiafromtheKhmerRouge.Asthere-enactmentsended,andaftera

fewshortchantstosendmerittothedead,theattendantmonksstoodtocollect

offeringsfromtheattendees.Astheyrose,theâcharonceagaintookthe

microphone:‘Don’tforgettovoteforthe[CambodianPeople’s]Partyinthe

electionsinJuly.’

ThoughincludingtheBuddhistchantsthatenablemerittobesenttothedead,

thiswasneitherareligiousceremony,noraneventofremembranceofthosewho

212TheKhmerUnitedFrontforNationalSalvation(nottobeconfusedwiththeopposingKhmerPeople’sLiberationFront),usuallyshortenedsimplyto‘TheFront’or‘TheNationalFront’,consistedofopponentstotheKhmerRougeregime,andformedthecoreofthePRK.


haddiedduringtheregime.213Itwasinstead,agraphicreminderoftheKhmer

Rouge,reifiedasahomogenous,evilentityofterrorandchaos,removedfrom

powerbytheheroicCPP.Speakingwithattendeesafterwards,no-onementioned

thedead.InsteaditwastheKhmerRougethatwastheobjectof

commemoration:‘itisimportantforusnottoforgettheKhmerRouge’one

womantoldme‘otherwiseitmighthappenagain.’

OnceallhadfinishedIwanderedtomyusualspotatthefrontofChoeungEkwith

theaudio-guideteam.BongLawastakingheadphonesandaudioplayersfrom

touristsastheyleftthesiteandIjoinedhim,helpingpreparetheplayersforthe

nextpeople.AsweworkedIaskedhimabouttheevent.‘It’sreallyhard’hesaid.

‘I’musedtoitnow,butatfirstIfounditfrightening,anditshockedme.’BongLa,

aged32,didnotexperienceDemocraticKampuchea,buthisparentslivedthrough

itandtoldhimmanystories.BongLahimselfgrewupinKampongCham,andhad

vividmemoriesofthelatteryearsofKhmerRougeviolence:inthelate1980sand

throughouttheearly1990shisvillagehadbeensubjecttomanyraidsbythe

regime.‘Whentheywerecomingthecommuneleaderwouldhitabell,andwe

wouldhear:“PolPot,PolPot;PolPot’scomingagain!PolPot’scomingagain!”

Wewouldrunandhide.Sometimestheystolethings.Sometimestheyburned

thehouses.Onetimetheykilledsomepeople.’

There-enactmentsinitiallyremindedhimoftheseraids,andofthestorieshis

parentshadtoldhimoftheirsuffering.Bynow,havingworkedatthesitefor

213Thepresenceofthemonksservedprimarilytolegitimatetheculturalandmorallegitimacyoftheevent(Gray2014):themonk’spresencealsoprovidedameansbywhichpeoplecouldimprovetheirownkarmathroughtheactionoftveabon–makingmeritbygivingofferingstothemonksandthepagodatheycamefrom.


manyyears,hewasusedtoit,andhadnoticedsomechangesinrecentyears:

‘thereusedtobemanymorepeople’hetoldme,‘buteveryyearitgetslessand

less.Theyoungpeopledon’tcome.Butstilltheyusethesamestoryaboutthe

KhmerRouge.’

‘Theotherparty,theoppositionparty,theyalsohavearemembrancedayhere’

hetoldme.Ihadbeenawayatthetime,andhadnotknownabouttheevent,

anduntilthispointMay20thwastheonlyremembranceeventdatethatIknew

of.‘Dotheycomeonthesameday?’Iasked.‘No’hereplied,laughing,‘different

days.SamRainsy’spartycomeson17thApril.’In2013theCNRPeventat

ChoeungEkwassmall,onlyattendedbyaround200people.SamRainsy,the

leaderoftheoppositionparty,wasinself-imposedexileinParisatthetime,

avoidingan11-yearsentencethatwas,reportedly,politicallymotivated.

However,oppositionpartymembersarrivedfromPhnomPenh,andthedeputy

leaderandactingpresident,KemSokha,ledasmallceremonyduringwhicha

videolinkwasestablishedwithParisthroughwhichSamRainsyspoke.Atthis

event,Rainsy(quotedinMeas2012,myhighlights)stated:

ThenewgenerationofKhmerRouge,puppetsofVietnam,havekilledpeople

littlebylittle….BothPolPotandHunSenhavealwayscelebratedApril17

becausetheyregarditastheirvictoryday.

April17thisthedayin1975thattheKhmerRougemarchedintoPhnomPenhand

tookpower.

Occurringsoclosetotheelections,the2013eventsprovidedaplacewherethe

violenceoftheKhmerRougecouldbereiterated,butalsoprovidedoccasionfor


linkstobemadebetweentherespectivepoliticalpartiesandtheregime.The

parallelsdrawnweremoreconvincingandbetteranimatedbecauseofthe

connectiontothedeadandtheirviolentdeathsofthoseatChoeungEk(see

chapterfive).However,remembrancedaysbythemselveswerenotenough;

althoughtheywereusefultoolsofpoliticalpropaganda,toreallyinstillfearand

insecurity,andtheviablethreatoftheKhmerRouge,continualreferenceand

reanimationwasrequired.Thishappenedincrementallythroughoutthe

campaignperiod,withstatementsmadeeitheralludingtotheKhmerRouge,or

explicitlythreateningtheirpresence.InresponsetoSamRainsy’scommentsat

ChoeungEk,HunSenthreatenedCambodiawith‘internalwar,akintotheKhmer

Rougeperiod’iftheoppositionweretowin(Naren2013).Earlierinthe

campaigninghehadlikenedtheCNRPthemselvestotheregime(quotedin

Vannarin2013a,myhighlights):

Theyhavesaidbothopenlyandinwhispersthatoncetheyareelectedtheywill

eliminateeveryone’sdebt….ThisiswhatImean;theKhmerRougehasreturned.

Suchstatementshowever,neededreiteratingtobecomeagenuinethreatin

people’simaginations,somethinghelpedalongonlyafewweekslaterbya

politicalrallyledbytherulingpartyagainsttheopposition.

Spiritsofthepresent:rallyingagainsttheopposition

InJuneIvisitedPhnomGrahominKep,aKhmerRougere-settlementvillagebuilt

inthe1990saspartofthewin-winpolicy.Oneofthelaststrongholdsofthe

KhmerRouge,theareaaroundthevillageishometoseveralmassgraves,andthe

mountainsandforestsbehinditwerewitnesstomanybattlesandmuchdeath,


bothduringandafterDemocraticKampuchea.Thelocalvillagechiefsandseveral

ofthecommunecouncilwereformercadre;somehadbeenresponsibleformuch

ofthehorrorsthathadoccurredinthearea.AllweremembersoftheCPP.

MylocalassistantwasSoth,areservedmanofaroundthirtywhohadgrownupin

thevillage.Afterfinishingworkeachdaywewouldplanthenextday’svisits:

wherewewouldgo,whowewouldsee.Appointmentswerenevermadeinthe

Cambodianvillages–wesimplyarrivedatpeople’shomesorworkplacesand

askedtotalk.Ifpeoplewerenotthere,orweretoobusytochat,wereturned

anotherday.Sometimesittookseveralvisitstosecureameeting,butusually

peoplewouldstoptogiveustime.OneeveningIaskedtoreturnthenextdayto

speaktoTaThom,oneofthevillagechiefs.Iwantedtoaskabouthisexperiences

immediatelyafterthefallofDemocraticKampucheaintheearly1980s.‘It’snot

possible’Sothtoldme,‘hewillbeattherally.’

Fourweeksearlieramediastormhadbrokenloosewhenarecordingwas

releasedinwhichKemSokha,deputyleaderandactingpresidentoftheCNRP,

allegedlydeniedtheveracityofTuolSlengasaprisonandkillingsiteduringthe

KhmerRouge.Duringtherecording,KemSokha(quotedinMenglengand

Zsombar2013)canbeheardsuggestingtheVietnamesestagedtheprisonasa

siteofpoliticalpropaganda:

TheVietnamesecreatedthisplacewithpictures[ofthevictims].Ifthisplaceis

trulyKhmerRougetheywouldhaveknockeditdownbeforetheyleft…ifthe

KhmerRougekilledpeople,wouldtheykeepittoshowtoeveryone?Ifthey

knewtheykilledmanypeople,whywouldtheykeepthisplace?


Therecording,releasedonMay26th,twomonthsbeforethe2013general

elections,provokedoutrage.Thedayafteritwasreleased,ChumMey214,a

survivorofTuolSlengheldapressconferenceatthesite,atwhichhethreatened

tosueKemSokhaifhedidnotretracthiscomments.Withinaweekthe

CambodiangovernmentbegandiscussinglegislationagainstdenialoftheKhmer

Rouge;followingthebanningof27oppositionlawmakersfromparliament,the

anti-genocidedeniallegislation(the‘LawagainstNon-RecognitionoftheCrimes

CommittedduringDemocraticKampuchea’)wasrushedthroughparliamentand

passedintolawonJune7th,12daysaftertheinitialreleaseoftherecording.

Althoughtheystatedthatitwouldnotbeusedretrospectively,thiswaslargely

heldtobeapoliticalmovebytheCPPintherun-uptotheelections.215Putting

thislegislationinplacewhileKemSokha’sallegeddenialwasstillfreshinpeople’s

mindsservedtwopurposes:itinstilledtheideathatKemSokhawasagenocide

denierand,therefore,acriminal;notsomeoneyouwouldtrustleadingyour

country.Atthesametimeitremindedthecountryofthesufferingcausedbythe

KhmerRouge,andreiteratedthenarrativethatonlytherulingpartycouldensure

Cambodia’scontinuedprotectionfromsucharegime–theoppositionobviously

couldnotbetrustedtosafeguardCambodiaiftheydeniedtheveracityofits

violenthistory.ThiswasmadeallthemorevividbythelocationKemSokhahad

214

ChumMeyisasurvivorofTuolSlengwhohaswrittenabookabouthisexperiences(Mey2012).ChumMeyhascommoditisedhissurvival;hemakesalivingatTuolSleng,wherehehasasmallboothatwhichhesellshisbooktotouristsandhashispicturetakenwiththem.BouMeng,anothersurvivor,alsosellshisownbiography(Vannak2010)atthesite.BothareofficersofKseanKmey,anassociationthatworkswiththeECCCtocollectvicimnarrativesforthecourtproceedings.AlthoughcommonlyreportedthatonlysevenpeoplesurvivingTuolSlengprison,morethan100peoplehavenowbeenidentifiedashavingpassedthroughtheprisonduringtheregime(Eng2013),however,onlyChumMeyandBouMengmaketheirlivingatthesite.

215InadditiontheArticle19LawProgrammeattheFreeWordCentreinLondonexaminedthislaw

andfoundittobeinviolationofinternationalhumanrightsonfreedomofexpression,andlabelledthelegislativeprocessbywhichitwaspassed‘deeplyflawed’(Article192013).


allegedlydenied:TuolSleng;tortureanddetentioncentre,killingsite,massgrave,

andinternationalsymboloftheviolenceoftheregime.

WhilstthemediaconcentratedontherallyoccurringinPhnomPenh,protests

tookplaceacrossthecountry.BeinginKepatthetime,Iattendedtherallyat

WatKampongTralach,alongwithasomewhatreluctantSoth(whowasanxious

nottobeassociatedwiththeCPP),andmypartner,whowasalsoconducting

researchintheareaatthetime.

LikemanypagodasacrossCambodia,WatKampongTralachhadbeenusedasa

detentioncentreandkillingsiteduringDemocraticKampuchea.Followingitsfall

theKhmerRougeabandonedthesitebutleftitlitteredwiththecorpsesofthose

whodiedthere;‘therewerekhmouch(recentlydeceasedbodies)alloverthe

place.Theywereeverywhereinthepagoda,’aneldertoldmethefirsttimeI

visitedthesite).Aswithmanysites,afterthefallofDemocraticKampuchealocal

peoplehadcollectedthebodiesandpiledtheminap’teahkhmouchreplacedin

lateryearsbyaconcretecheddei.Thisconcretestupanowhousestheskeletal

remains,stackedneatlyontwoshelves.Thecheddeistandsatthebackofthe

pagodaandappearsasanyothermodeststupawithinthetemplegroundsifyou

donotknowwhattolookfor.Forsomeofthemonksatthepagoda,itis

relativelyunimportant.Itis‘somewheretolookafterthebonesofthosewho

havenorelatives’anelderlymonkcommented,butitwas,inhisopinion,no

differenttoanyoftheotherstupaacrossthewatcomplex.However,whenevera

politicalcampaigntakesplacethecheddei,ormorespecificallytheskeletal

remainswithinit,becamesignificant;inthiscaseitwastherallyagainstKem

Sokha.


Attherally,overseventytrucks-officialgovernmentvehicles-eachjammedfull

ofpeople,drovethroughthedistrict,blastingdenunciationsofKemSokhafrom

loudspeakers.ArrivingatWatKampongTralach,peopleunloadedandmarched

tositinfrontoftheKhmerRougecheddei.Manyoftheteenagers,andsomeof

theadults,carriedplacardsbearingreactionaryslogans(figurefourteen):‘Wewill

rememberfortherestofourlivesthePolPotsoldiers’brutalactsonourvillage,’

‘KemSokhaisfightingagainsttheKhmerRougeTrial,’and‘KemSokhaismore

cowardlythanDuch216’.Theplacardshadidenticallettering,andthesame

statementsrepeatedoverandoveragain.217Asmypartnerlaterwrote:‘ithad

theappearanceandfeelofaregimentedspectacle’(Hull2013).

Figurefourteen:protestorsatrallyagainstKemSokha,June2013(source:theauthor)

216Thisplacardisparticularlyinteresting.DuchwascommandantofTuolSlengprisonduringDemocraticKampucheawho,afterbeinglocatedworkingforanAmericancharityinNorthernCambodiain1997,surrenderedhimselfuptothegovernmentforimprisonment.HistrialwasthefirstattheECCC,andin2010hewasconvictedofcrimesagainsthumanity,torture,andmurderandimprisonedforlife.ThenameDuchhasbecomeasymbolformanyoftheterrorandviolenceoftheKhmerRouge.

217SubsequentnewspaperarticlescoveringtherallyinPhnomPenhshowedthesameslogansrepeatedthere,againcarriedbytheCPPYouth(ChansyandZsombor2013)


Oncetheyarrivedinfrontofthecheddei,localCPPofficialsmadespeeches

condemningKemSokhaandtheCNRP.Thecheddeidoorsstoodopen,displaying

thebonesinside;thosespeakingstoodinitsdoorway,backedbytheskeletal

remainsofthosewhohaddiedduringtheKhmerRougeregime(figurefifteen).

Thestupahadbeencleanedanddecoratedinblackandwhite,asusuallydenotes

mourningorafuneral.Iaskedacaretakerwhetherthishappenedoften.‘Only

whenÂngkar(theorganization–meaningthegovernment)tellsus’hereplied.

Acoupleofthousandpeopleattendedtherally,andthenumbersimpliedthat

peoplewereangryandhurtbyKemSokha’sallegeddenialoftheKhmerRouge

actionsatTuolSleng(andbyinferencetherefore,acrossCambodia).Peoplein

thevillage,however,toldadifferentstory.Eachlocalvillagechief,allCPP

membershad,afewdayspreviously,beenorderedbythedistrictofficetosendat

least50villagerstotheprotest.Whenaskedwhatwouldhappeniftheydidnot

comply,onereplied‘it’snotachoice.’Thecommune,Sothtoldme,organisedthe

rally.TheteenagersattendingwerefromthelocalCPPYouth.ACPPofficialfrom

thelocaldistrictofficespokeattheevent;‘KemSokhamustbemadetoanswer

forhiscrimes’hesaid.‘HunSenhassavedthecountry.Wemustcontinueto

supporthim.’


Figurefifteen:Protestorslistentospeechesinfrontofthecheddeiofremains(source:theauthor)

LiketheremembranceceremoniesatChoeungEk,therallywasaneventseeking

toreanimatetheKhmerRouge,butalsoevidenceofhowpoliticsinCambodiais

performedinspheresofdistrust,violence,corruptionandmanipulation.

Spiritsofthefuture:fearandrumour

AtthestartofJulyImovedfromPhnomGrahomtoKohSop.LikeWatKampong

Tralach,KohSophadbeenthesiteofaprisonandkillingsiteduringDemocratic

Kampuchea;asanislanditwasanideallocationforcontainingpeople.Arrivingso

closetotheelections,manypeopleatfirstdidnottrustme;severalmembersof

thecommunityhadoriginallybeensuspiciousofme,supposingIwasworkingfor

thegovernment,recordinginformationaboutthevillagetoreportback.Forsome

ofthemorewarypeopleithadtakenseveralweeksbeforetheywouldtalktome

beyondsayinghello.


Astheelectionsneared,tensionandfearbecamepalpableinthevillage.Afew

daysbeforetheeventIhadameetinginPhnomPenh.Thecitywascloseenough

thatIcouldtravelfortheday,andPhasy(myresearchassistant)decidedtocome

withmetovisitherfriendsinthecapital.WhenwearrivedatOmSrey’shouse

fordinnerthenightbeforewewent,themessagethatweweretravellingto

PhnomPenhhadreachedher.Asusual,afterdinnerwesatchattingonthe

bambooplatformatthefrontofherhouseasshesatonthestepsleadingupto

herhouse.‘AreyoureallygoingtoPhnomPenh?’sheaskedme;‘aren’tyou

scared?’

Theviolentdiscourseofthepre-electionscampaignswasstartlinglyeffectivein

raisingthetensionthataccompaniedKhmerelections.Rumoursstartedto

circulate,amongstbothKhmerandinternationalcommunitiesofimpending

violenceandchaos.InKohSopstoriesreachedusthroughrelativesworkingin

thecapital:thatthearmyhadbeendeployedtoPhnomPenh;thattherewere

tanksonthestreets218;thatHunSen’spersonalguard219hadbeenexpanded;that

oppositionsupporterswerebeingbeatenorkilled.OnestorywasthatDeputy

PrimeMinister,SokAn,wasthreateningtooverthrowHunSen,whichwould

undoubtedlyleadtohorrificviolence,andwar;itwas,afterall,theoverthrowof

anotherleader(LonNol)thathadmarkedthebeginningoftheKhmerRouge

regime.ThetensionwasheightenedbecauseofSamRainsy’sarrivalbackin

218Followingtheelections,withrumoursofelectoralcorruptionanddissatisfactionabouttheresultsmakingprotestsathreat,themediareportedthedeploymentoftanksinPhnomPenhonAugust9

th(CrothersandDara2013)andagainonAugust16

th(AsiaSentinel2013).Friendsin

PhnomPenhatthetimeneversawany,andIamuncertainwhetherthisstorywassimplyare-iterationofthestillcirculatingrumours.Simons(1995:53),whenwritingabouttheviolenceinMogadishuinthelate1980s,wrotethatrumoursbecomeknowledgeintheabsenceofotherinformationthatcouldbesubstantiated.Theremaybeanelementofthis.Nowreportedinthemedia,itappearstanksweredeployedinPhnomPenh.

219HunSenhasaunitof5–10,000personalbodyguardswithintheCambodianmilitarythathavebeenimplicatedinmanyviolentclashesoccurringovertheyears.


Cambodia.TheleaderoftheCNRPpartyhadbeeninself-imposedexileinParis,

avoidinganeleven-yearprisonsentencethatmostcommentatorsagreedwas

politicallymotivated(Curley2014;Karbaum2012;Peou2011).Followingaroyal

pardon,hereturnedlessthantwoweeksbeforetheelectionandpromptlyset

aboutharnessingthedissatisfactionalreadyrifeamongstmanyKhmeryouth.

Theinsecuritypeoplefeltwasmanifestedinanumberofways.Manyofmy

informantswereafraidtodiscussmanyissues,particularlythosetheyconsidered

nottobethebusinessof‘ordinarypeople.’HunSenreportedlykeepsanetwork

ofspiesacrossCambodia.Ontherunuptotheelectionpeoplewerevisiblyafraid

oftheconsequencesofopposing,orbeingdeemedtooppose,therulingparty.

NeakSrey,ayoungwomanwhoworkedinthecity,wasanoppositionsupporter,

butastheelectionnearedshehunglargeCPPpostersacrossthefrontofher

house.HerCNRPstickerswerehiddenfromviewontheinsideofthelegs

supportingherhouse,displayedwhereonlytrustedfriendsandfamilywouldsee.

ApproachingtheoutskirtsofPhnomPenhinlateJune,thedriverofourtaxileant

overtotheglovecompartmentandwithdrewabaseballcapwiththeCPPlogo

embroideredonthefrontofit.Heplaceditinhiswindscreenprominently

displayinghisapparentallegiancetotheparty.Sothlaterexplainedthatpeople

wereafraid,notonlyofviolence,butalsoofthestructuralviolenceopposition

couldresultin.‘Theremightbeviolence,’heexplained,‘butitcanalsobeabout

administration.Iftheyvotefortheopposition,andthenwanttogetapassport,

ormaybesomepaperstheyneedforthehospital,itwillbeimpossible.Whatever

theywanttodointhefuturetheycan’t.’Thisanxietyexistedinsomeofmy

informants,whoclammedupiftheythoughtthesubjecthadgottoopolitical.Om


Yay,forexample,refusedtotalkabouttheretentionoftheskeletalremainsof

thosewhodiedundertheKhmerRouge:

It’shardformetotalkaboutthisbecausetheparty[theCPP]mightthreatenusif

wesaysomethingwrong.It’sdifficulttospeakoutnow….IfIsaysomething,

theremightbeaspy.IfIsaysomethingisnotgood,theymightarrestmeand

imprisonmeinPreySarprison220.It’shard.SoIdon’treallywanttotalkaboutit.

I’mscared.

Alocalshopownerexpressedsimilarsentiments:

I’mafraidtotalkaboutthisissue.Irefusetotalkaboutit.

Everythingisconfidential….

I’mjustafraidthatthisrecordmightbeusedforsomekindofpoliticalissue.

Thesilenceextendsimpunity,engenderingfurtherpoliticalviolence,bothlocally

andnationally.However,mostofmyolderinformantscontinuedtovoteforthe

CPP.‘IremembertheKhmerRouge’OmSreytoldme.‘IwillkeepvotingforHun

Senbecausehekeepsussafefromthem.’ThememoriesofDemocratic

Kampucheamadethefearofthecountrydescendingintowarstrongerthanthe

fearofpoliticalviolence.HoweverbadHunSenandtherulingCPPwere,theyhad

‘saved’Cambodiaand,subsequently,developedthecountryandkeptitstable.

OmSreytoldmethatHunSenbuilttheroads,theschools,thehospitals.Whena

fireburntdownherhouseinthe1990s,itwas,shesaid,HunSenwhogavehera

220PreySarprisoninPhnomPenhisCambodia’slargestprison.Ithousesaround500inmates,(mostlymen)however,itisalsohometoseveralhighprofileandextrajudicialprisoners,includingseveralforeigninmates.ConditionsatPreySararenotoriouslypoor,withovercrowding,littlefoodordrinkprovision,highlevelsofcorruption,andpoorsanitation(LICADHO2015).


tenttostayinandfoodtosurvivewith.HunSenandtheCPPdeservedtheir

support,sheexplained,becausetheyhadrescuedthem:

thepeoplewhorescuedthecountry[theCPP];weallsaidsolongastheyrescued

us,wewoulddoanything[forthem].

Inthedaysfollowingtheelectiontensionremainedhigh,particularlyasthe

resultsweredelayed.Rumourscontinuedtoaboundbutthistimeofelectoral

corruption:theindelibleinkthatmarkedvoter’sfingerswas,apparently,

washable,andsomepeoplevotedtwice.Insomeareas,doubleballotpapers

wereprinted.Inotherspeople(mostlyoppositionvoters)arrivedtovote,onlyto

discovertheywerenotregistered.Theresult,whichwasexpectedon1stAugust,

wasdelayed.Asthedayswentonweallwaitedanxiously:someinhope,somein

fear.OmBrohwasoneofthefewvillagerswitharadio,andheandothermen

fromthevillagewouldsitlisteningtoitintheevenings.Walkingpasthishouseon

ourwayhomefromdinnerwewouldstoptofindoutiftheresulthadbeen

announcedyet.Theycamelessthantwoweekslater,on12thAugust,butthat

twoweeksfeltinterminable.

ThoughthenumberofseatsheldbytheCPPdroppeddramatically(from90to

68),therulingpartyreportedthattheyhadwonthemajorityinallbutfourofthe

25Cambodianprovinces(CNRPwontheotherfourprovinces,and55seatsinthe

senate).221ItwastheCPP’sworstresultsinceelectionshadbegun,heightening

theanxietyalreadyfeltamongstmyinformants.Forweeksaftertheelectionsthe

circulatingrumourssparkedstoriesofpastviolences,maintainingtheever-

presentfearatalevelbubblingjustbelowthesurface.ThedistrictwhereKohSop221TheNationalElectionCommission,asupposedlyindependentagency,consistingentirelyofCPPmembers,subsequentlyinvestigatedtheelectionresults.Unsurprisingly,theresultheld.


issituatedhadbeenwonbytheCNRP,andthismadepeoplenervous:‘wedon’t

knowwhatwillhappennow’anelderlymanexplainedwhenwechattedabout

this.Hisanxietyprovedtobegroundedinreality.Inthecapitalviolentclashes

occurredinaspeopleprotestedtheresult(HumanRightsWatch2014).Afterthe

floodsofAugustandSeptembermyresearchassistant,Phasy,returnedtoher

homeinBattambangprovinceforafewdaystohelpherfamily.Thereshe

discoveredthatwhenthefloodsdisplacedthousandsofpeople,aidfromthe

CambodiaRedCross(runbyBunRany,HunSen’swife)hadonlybeendistributed

tothosewhohadvotedfortheCPP.Administrativeviolencewasasthreatening

andcoerciveasdirectviolenceformanypeople.

Discussion

Derrida’sdiscussionofhauntologyrevolvesaroundcontemporarysystemsof

neoliberalism,anillusionofwhichisthatitsomehowexorcisesthespirits

hauntingitscreation(inthiscaseMarxism).TheKhmerRougefunctionssimilarly

incontemporaryKhmerpolitics,witheachpartyconstructingamyththattheyare

theonlyoneswhocanexorciseitspast.Derridashows,however,thatspecters

arenotsimplyhauntingpasts,butpaststhatformthepresent.‘Haunting’he

wrote(1994:34)‘belongstothestructureofeveryhegemony.’Khmerpolitical

hegemonyiscertainlybuiltonthebackofDemocraticKampuchea,andtheKhmer

Rougeandtheirviolencearepreciselythiskindofspecter.Toomitthemfrom

anykindofinteractionwithcontemporaryCambodiaisnotonlyimpossible,but,if

adheringtoDerrida’smoralargument,unjust.Theymustbeengagedwith,

becausetheyformtherealityinwhichweexistandcreatethatwhichwewill

enterinthefuture.Derrida(1994:13)wrote:


NotwithoutMarx,nofuturewithoutMarx,withoutthememoryandthe

inheritanceofMarx;inanycaseofacertainMarx.

ThesewordscouldjustaseasilyapplytocontemporaryCambodia,bysimply

replacingthewordMarx,with‘theKhmerRouge’:

NotwithouttheKhmerRouge,nofuturewithouttheKhmerRouge,withoutthe

memoryandinheritanceoftheKhmerRouge;inanycaseofacertainKhmer

Rouge.

ThecertainKhmerRougeisthatwhichcontemporarypoliticsandsociallifehas

created.‘Timecontinuestostretchmeaningsaswellassignificance,’Simons

(1995:57)wroteofthe1988-1989violenceinMogadishu.InCambodiathe

meaningsassociatedwiththeKhmerRougearecontinuallyreinterpreted.Forthe

CPP,theyremainusefulspiritswithwhichtomaintainpoweroperatedbyfear.In

theshadowoftheUN-backedtrials,thesespiritsarereshapedbytheCNRPto

demonstratethepushforjusticeandhumanrightsthattheydeemonlytheycan

produce.Whilstdoingsobothperforminpoliticalcirclesformedinthewakeof

theregimethatthereforerelyonitspresencefortheirveryexistence.

Derrida’sspectersexistwithorwithoutattentionbecausetheyarethebasisofall

imaginingsofcontemporaryandfuturewaysofliving.InCambodia,however,the

spectersarecaredfor,maintained,madestronger,manipulated,used,and

abusedbythoseadoptingthem.TallynGray,inhisthesisontransitionaljusticein

Cambodia,notesthatHunSenwinsvotesthroughthenarrativeof‘notbeingPol

Pot’(Gray2014:191).DavidChandlerhasarguedthatHunSen’semphasisofthe

termgenocideinhisdiscourseservestogivefascistimaginingstotheKhmer

Rougeregime(Chandler2008a:360).Indoingso,itprovidesaperfectopposition


tohis(supposedly)democraticrule.InthebookCambodia’sCurse:TheModern

HistoryofaTroubledLand(2011)JoelBrinkleyarguesthatthelegacyofthe

KhmerRougeservestolowernationalandinternationalexpectationsof

conditionsinCambodia,enablingHunSenandtheCPPtogovernwithimpunity

despitehorrifichumanrightsabuse,andhighlevelsofongoingdirectand

structuralviolence.ButtheKhmerRougeisnotsimplyalegacy.Spiritsin

Cambodiaaresocialbeingswhointeractinbothpositiveandnegativewaysto

engendersocialaction.ThespectersoftheKhmerRougeareequallyviablein

contemporaryCambodia,andthroughouttheelectioncampaignsbecamevisible

astheywerecontinuallyreanimatedandrevivedbythemainparties.Butthey

werenotonlyviablespecters;theregimehauntsinthewaycontemporaryKhmer

politicsisformedinrelationtoit,andperformsnewformsofpoliticalviolenceon

thepopulation.

Insecuritybubblesbelowthesurfaceofdailylivesformanyofmyinformants.

Memories(lived,imaginedandnarrated)ofpain,terror,tortureanddeath,of

violentrepressionsandpoliticalhorrorshavepermeatedthesocialmemoryof

manypeople,particularlythosewholivedthroughthedecadesofconflictinthe

1960s,70s,80sand90s.Throughoutthe1990s,MayEbiharaandJudy

Ledgerwood,anthropologistsfromtheUS,visitedSvay,thevillagewhereEbihara

hadundertakenheroriginalfieldworkinthe1960s.Writingofthesevisitsin

2002,theycommented‘Cambodianstodayhavea…generalizedfearabout

violencewithintheirmidst’(EbiharaandLedgerwood2002:283).Atthetimeit

wasfocusedonmilitarypersonnelstillpresentinthearea.Duringmyfieldwork

thisfearwasnolongerdirectedatmilitaryindividuals,buttothewiderpolitical

sphere.


ItwasnotonlytheCPPwhoexecuteviolence.TheCNRP’selectioncampaigning

focusesonrhetoricsofhatredagainsttheVietnamese–theirleaderSamRainsy

regularlyreferstothescourgeofYuan(aderogatorynameforVietnamese),and

everyelectionpromisestoejectthemfromthecountry.Afterthe2013elections,

SamRainsycalledmassivestreetprotestsinresponsetotheelectionresults,and

implicitlythreatenedviolenceandpublicinsecurity,butstateditwouldbeHun

Sen’sfaultifsuchviolenceerupted(Vandenbrink2013).TheCNRPselection

campaigninggarneredanxietyamongstsomeofmyinformants,asdidthefact

thattheyhadneverruled.Myresearchassistanttoldmesheandotherswere

afraidoftheCNRPgettingpower:‘theCPPhavehadpowerforsuchalongtime,

theyalreadytookalot’shesaid.‘ButtheCNRPhaveneverhadpower.Maybe

they’llbeworsebecausetheywanttogetrichandrulethecountry.’

WritingaboutthefearthatherinformantsinGuatemalalivedwithdaily,Linda

Green(1994)commentedthatmanywomenspokefreelyabouttheirbrutalpasts,

butremainedsilentabouttheirpresent.Amongstmyolderinformantsasimilar

self-censorshipexisted:theywoulddiscusstheKhmerRougeperiod;thesuffering

theyendured,thepeopletheylost,wheretheyhadbeen,whattheyhaddone.

Theywouldspeakoftheirterror,andhowitresurfacedatremindersofthe

regime.Butindiscussingthecontemporarypoliticalsituationtheywereguarded.

Afewspokeofcertaindissatisfactions:thelandgrabsthatmanyhadbeensubject

toforexample,butmostattributedtheseactionstolocal,greedypoliticians

ratherthanexamplesofendemiccorruption.222Thissilenceremainsasyet

222Afewpeoplerecognizedthatsuchpoliticianscouldonlysucceedwithsupportoftheparty,by

payingintothepatronagesystem.Oneinformanttoldme:‘peoplewhoclimbtreestopickits

fruit;ifyougivethemthefruits,you’reOK.Ifnot,theywilldragyouoffthetree.Ifyoucanfindbenefitsforthem,theywillletyouclimbhigherandhigherupthattree.’


anotherspecter.DuringDemocraticKampucheano-oneknewwhocouldbe

trusted:childrenbetrayedparents,husbandsbetrayedwives,siblingsandfriends

betrayedeachother.Peoplelearnedtokeepsilent.TheKhmeridiomthat

developedduringtheregime,daumdorkoh–toplantamute[koh]tree–refers

tothissilencing:offear,ofobjections,ofpain,ofsorrow.‘Whateverwesaw,we

didn’ttalkaboutit.Whentheydidsomethingtous,westayedsilent,’OmSrey

toldme.‘ItwaslikethestoryofthebaldKing’OmBroh,anelderlyneighbour,

explained:

Thepeopleduringthattime,therewerenosmilesontheirfaces;wecouldnot

laughorsmileateachother.Husbandsandwivesonlyspokeafewwordsto

eachother.Why?Becausetherewerespiesunderourhouses,listeningtous,in

casewesaidsomethingbad,thatwehatedÂngkar.Thefeelingsofgrieffilledmy

chest.ItwasjustlikeinthestoryoftheBaldKing.Haveyouheardaboutthis

story?

No.

TheKinghadaconfidant.Sincethisconfidantcametoworkforhim,theKinghad

nevertakenoffhishat.Heevenworeitwhenhewassleeping.Theconfidant

wasverycuriousaboutthis.Oneday,whenthekingwasbathing,theconfidant

triedtoseehishead.HesawthattherewasnohairontheKing’shead;itwas

completelybald.Afterwards,theconfidantknewwhatwasunderneaththe

King’shat.Hefeltverytroubled,soheranuntilhesawaRangtreewithaholein

it.Theconfidantwenttoit,andshouted‘TheKingisbald!’Heshoutedintothe

hole.WhatIwanttosayisthatwefeltcompletelytrappedinourchestsbecause

wecouldnotsayanything.


Thismutenessremains.Notknowinghowpeopleareconnectedmaintainsalevel

ofdistrustamongstneighboursandfriendsthatishardtobreak.Thisextendsto

localaffairs,aswellaspoliticalconnections.Oneeveningtwoofthemenfrom

KohSopgotintoadrunkenfight.TaSimtookanaxe,andusingitasaclub,

attackedTaSok.Hebeathimbadlyandbrokehisleg.Everyoneinthevillage

knewwhathadhappened;manyhadwatchedit.Whenthepolicecameto

investigate,however,peopleremainedsilent;‘Wedon’tgetinvolvedinother

people’sbusiness’OmSreytoldme.‘Itoldmychildren,whateveryousaw,don’t

tellanyone.TheymightknowNeakThom[importantpeople].’Thissilence,

evolvingoutoffear,extendsdistrust,whichprovokesfurtherviolenceofmany

villages.

ForpeoplesuchasOmSrey,OmBrohandothers,insecurityinthepoliticalsphere

existshiddenjustbeneaththesurfaceofeverydaylife,notassomething

continuallyterrifyingbutasubcutaneousanxietythatneedsonlyatinypinprickto

makeitburstforth.AviolentpoliticalspherethatmaintainstheKhmerRouge-

throughspokenrhetoricandembodiedpractice-hasbecomeaformofterrorand

amodeofpoliticalrepression.Therevitalizationoftheregimeisallthestronger

becauseofwherecampaigningoccurs:onmassgraves;materialmarkersofthe

violenceandterror;repositoriesofthedead.RemindersoftheKhmerRougeacts

asvisceraltransportersbacktotheregime,notbecausetheytakethemindback

totheperiod,butbecausetheregimeneverdied;eitherphysicallyor

metaphorically.Itspresencehasbeenmaintainedthroughouttheyears,as

articulatedbyoneofmyinformants:

EverytimetheycelebrateBon[aceremony],theyremembertheKhmerRouge.

EradicatetheKhmerRouge?How?Howcanwe?


ThiswaswhatwesawattheremembranceceremonyatChoeungEk,andthe

politicalralliesagainstKemSokha.Attheremembrancedaystheviolencewasre-

enactedatthekillingsite,infrontofthemassgraves,andinfrontofthestupa

holdingtheremainsofthousandsofthosetorturedandexecuted.Thedays

selected-17thApril(markingthedaytheKhmerRougemarchedintoPhnomPenh

andtookoverCambodia)and20thMay(commemoratingthedatein1976when

collectivisationbecamethedefactolifestyleinDemocraticKampuchea)–are

themselvesremindersofviolence,notliberationorpeace.223Talkingoftherallies

againstKemSokha,YoukChhang(MenglengandZsombar2013),directorofDC-

Cam,wasquotedassaying:

His[KemSokha’s]statementsremindmethatthingscanbeforgottenifwedon’t

keepremindingthepublic.

Thiswaswhattheralliesensured.

Therumoursweheardfunctioneddifferentlydependingontheroutesof

circulation.Amongstmyexpatcolleaguestheycirculatedthroughtheglobal

socialmediaspheres,providingaformofsocialcapitaltothosespreadingthem

(lookhowexcitingIam,livinginsuchadangerousplace).FormanyofmyKhmer

informants,however,therumoursreflectedfeelingsofgenuinethreatbecause

theyconsistedofthere-tellingofactionsandexperiencesfromthenottoo

distantpast.Indiscussingthe1988–1989violenceinMogadishu,Simons(1995:

57)wrote:

223December25

th,whenVietnaminvadedDemocraticKampuchea(in1978),andJanuary7

th,the

datewhentheyovercametheKhmerRouge(in1979),meanwhile,havenoceremoniesassociatedwiththemtoday(althoughJanuary7

thismarkedontheKhmercalendar).


itispreciselythisfeltknowledge,thisexperiential,terrifying,time-warping,

never-completesenseofwhatwashappeningthenthathistorywillneverrecord

andthefuturecontextswilllack.

Whilethehistoricalrecordmaynotrecordsuchfeelings,thememoriesofOm

Sreyandothersdid.WhenremindedoftheperiodtheyrecalledDemocratic

KampucheainvisceraldetailasBuBrohexplained:

Iremembermypast.Irememberthesadnessandtheagony.Iremember,andI

amfrightened.

Thisfeltknowledgeissolidifiedbecausetheviolenceneverended.Thecurrent

regimeisbrutal.Theoppositionisracist.Politicallymotivatedkillings,

imprisonments,andexile,iscommon.Domesticabuseisrife.Conflictbetween

rivalgangsisfrequent.LifeinKohSopwhenIwastherewasfuelledwithalcohol

andviolence.

Rumoursoftenco-existwithpoliticalviolenceasformsofnarrativebywhich

peopleattempttowrestlecontroloffrighteningsituationsandassertauthority:

overthemselves;overtheirlives;overknowledge.Althoughtheyexistonthe

‘edgeofsilence’(Feldman1995),theyprovideameansforliftingthatsilenceand

gainingsomeformofempowerment.AsFeldman(1995:230)asserts,rumours

emergewhenpeoplearedisempowered,uniformed,and,often,frightened.224

Theyfunctionbeyondstory-tellingmythandlegendonlywithincirclesofviability,

andthatviabilityexistswherepriorexperienceremainsvibrantandvisible,

particularlyinthecollectivesphere:

224Theycanalsooccurasmodesofgainingsocialcapital:aspeoplecreate,narrate,andreiteratestories,theyassertthemselvesastheholdersofknowledge.


Rumorisprognostic,notintermsofactualprediction,butintermsofaculturally

mediatedsenseofpossibility,structuralpredilection,politicaltendency,and

symbolicprojection.Itprovidesapreviewofhowhistoricaleventswillbe

culturallyandideologicallynegotiated,distorted,transformed,recollected,and

renderedintoallegory.

Thetensionwaspervasive,andinvadedmyownexperience.Onthetripto

PhnomPenhthatOmSreyandIdiscussedItriedtoaccessmyfacebookaccount,

butitwasdown.OtherinternetsitesIcheckedwereworking.InmyfieldnotesI

wrote:

I’mstartingtogetabitparanoidaboutsurveillanceetc.Facebookisdown;Ican’t

gettomypage.Foundmyselfwonderingifit’sbecauseIwaswritingtoafriend

criticizingthegovernment.ButIdeletedit.Surelytheycan’tfindit…?ThenI

startedtoworryaboutmyvisa.WhatwouldhappenifIwasthrownout?Worse:

whatifIwassetupandendupinsomejailwithasentencenoonecan

overthrow?

WritingofhisfieldworkinNorthernIrelandduringthetroubles,AllenFeldman

(1995:248)commentedonthewayhisperceptionswerealteredbyandthrough

theperceptionsofhisinterlocutors:

MyperceptionwasnolongermyownwhenIceasedtohavetelephone

conversationsthatlastedmorethanthirtyseconds,whenIneverusedpeople’s

namesoverthetelephone,whenthebackofmyscalpitchedasIfeltthe

patrollingBritishsoldierstrackingmymovementswiththebarrelsoftheir

automaticrifles,whenIleapedoffthefrontparlorcouchalongwithmyhostsata

carbackfiringinthenight,whenIabruptlyterminatedconversationsbecause


policevehicleswerecirclingtheneighbourhoodstreetswithmorefrequency

sinceIarrived…

Idonotknowhowmuchofmyownfearandtensionreflectedthatofmy

informants,buttheheightenedtensionandincreasedviolencecertainlyhadsome

impact.

Thepervasiveviolenceofthepoliticalspherecontinuestoday.InFebruary2015,

HunSenagainthreatenedthereturnoftheKhmerRougewhenthescopeofthe

ECCCwasexpandedbeyondthefivepeoplealreadyunderjurisdiction,

commenting:‘[Thecourt]expandsitsscope,nearlymakingpeoplefleebackinto

theforest225’(Naren2015).PoliticsinCambodiaischaracterizedbybrutality,

chaosandviolencebuiltfromtheashesofamercilessregimethatformedevery

subsequentimaginingandperformanceofpoliticsinpost-Democratic

Kampuchea.TheKhmerRougeisblamedforissuesasfarreachingasthe

crumblingoftrustincommunities(EbiharaandLedgerwood2002),sextrafficking

andotherhumanrightsabuses(Leakhena2012),theendemiccorruptionacross

thecountry(Brinkley2011),andthepooreducationalattainmentinthenation

(deWalque2004).Butitdoesmorethanjusthaunt:theKhmerRougeisthebasis

onwhichaction,interactionandanalysisareformedincontemporaryCambodia,

anditisreformedthroughcontinuedviolencewithinthepoliticalsphere.

225Theforest(prei)isnotonlyametaphorforthewild,untamedanduncontrollable,butwasalsoacommonmetaphorfortheKhmerRouge,whoinitiallyspentmanyyearsasguerillafightersintheforestsofCambodia.Whenworkingwithex-cadre,theywouldoftenalludetotheirKhmerRougemembershipbysaying‘Ifoughtintheforests.’


Conclusion

Takingsomerespiteoneweekend,mypartnerandItookatriptoSiemReapto

visitthetemplesofAngkor.Stretchingovermanykilometers,thetemple

complexesaretrulymagnificentfeatsofarchitecturebuiltbetweenthe9thand

13thcenturies.Attemptingtoavoidthecrowdsoneevening,wetookatuktuk

awayfromthemainsitestovisitthemoreremotesiteofPhnomKrom–asmall

andcrumblingruinontopofahillwithadramaticviewovertheplainstothe

TonleSapriver.Aswesatbreathingintheview,ayoungKhmermanapproached

us.Atfirstwetriedtolimittheconversation-wewereenjoyingthepeaceand

thesolitude-however,hepersisted.Theplatitudessoondiminishedandhis

reasonforapproachingusemerged.Cheawasaveryangryanddisillusioned

man;upsetwiththecurrentgovernmentofCambodiaandthewayhefeltitwas

ruiningthecountry.‘Cambodiausedtobeagreatnation’hetoldus.Thetemples

werehisproofofthat.Everydayhecycledthetwenty-oddkilometresfromhis

homejustnorthofSiemReaptovisitPhnomKromtemplewherehecould

contemplatethegreatnessofAngkorandwishforitsreturn.Cheaspoketousin

English:itwasonlybyapproachingforeignersinasecludedlocationthathecould

freelyventhisangerandfrustrationatcontemporarypolitics–ifhespokein

Khmerhecouldnotbecertainthathiscommentswouldnotbereported,even

amongstfriends.

PoliticsinCambodiaremainsrifewithcorruptionandviolence.Bothmajor

politicalpartiesuseviolentnarrativestomanipulatethepopulous,andthe

generalpopulationneithertrust,norfeelsafewithinthepoliticalsphere.Several

massgravesinCambodia,suchasChoeungEk,andWatKampongTralach,have


cometoservespecificallypoliticalpurposes,highlightedduringmyfieldworkby

politicalcampaigningoccurringonthemintherunuptothegeneralelection.As

markersofviolenceanddeath,reinforcedthroughthedisplayofhumanremains,

thesegravesitesenablethosewhoappropriatethemtoreanimatethespectersof

theKhmerRouge,revivingtheirviolence,andtheterrorwroughtwithinpeopleat

theirpresence.Thesearenotsimplymemories:theirimaginedpresenceholds

realviability,madeallthemoreconvincingbecauseoftheaffectivepowerof

maintainingthesespirits.Themoreoftenthecurrentgovernmenttellstheir

mythicaltale,themoredeeplyentrencheditbecomesinthecollectivenarratives

ofthepopulation:thattheKhmerRougecouldre-appearatanymoment,and

thatonlytheycankeepthemsafe.Everytimetheviolenceisre-presented,re-

enacted,orrepeated,peopleareremindedofthepainandsufferingcaused.

Everytimethepoliticalpartiesenactnewviolencestheyensureinsecuritywithin

thepoliticalsphere.ThisistheKhmerRougehauntology.

In1998,havingfinallypersuadedKhieuSamphanandNuonCheatomakepeace

anddefecttothegovernment,HunSenmadeastatementtothepressdeclaring

that:

Weshoulddigaholeandburythepastandlookaheadtothe21stcenturywitha

cleanslate(Mydans1998)

Hehimself,however,hasfailedtodothis.UsingtheKhmerRougeregularlyinhis

narrativessince1979,hehasmaintainedthemasagenuinethreatinpeople’s

imagination.Spectres,Derridaexplains(1994:39),arethreateningbecausethey

collapsetimeintoitself:thebordersoftimeandexperiencebecomeblurred,or

completelyobliterated,asthepastbecomesarealpresenceinthepresentand


future.Thepastdoesnotjustpaveapathtothefuture:itbecomesthefuture.If

youdonotvoteforme,HunSenargues,theKhmerRougewillreturn.Politicians

havehijackedtheKhmerRougeasatooltocreateaclimatewheresupporters

rallybehindthemfor‘protection’.Basedontheaffectivedimensionofreal,lived

experience,thisfearismadeallthemoreexplicitbecauseofwheremuchofthis

campaigningoccurs:onthespacesofdeath-thekillingfieldsofCambodia,the

massgravesandthedeadtheycontain.Buttheregimeneverreallyended;itwas

alwayspresent,shapingtheformofpoliticsinCambodiatoday.


Conclusion:NowistheTimefortheLiving

Inheranalysisofdeadbodypolitics,KatherineVerderyassertedthatinthe

creationofnationsthesilentmanipulabilityofcorpsesarepoliticallyharnessedto

createnewcosmologies,cosmologiesthatnotonlyrelatetotheconstructionof

nationalidentities,butalsoworkonunderstandingsofkinship,relationshipsto

ancestors,religion,ritual,spaceandtime(Verdery1999:96).Usingmassgraves

asthelensthroughwhichtoviewit,thisthesisshowshowthesecosmologiesare

beingre-imaginedandre-constitutedtocreatea‘new’Cambodiafollowingthe

devestatingruleoftheKhmerRouge,andtoimagineitsfuture.Thishasinvolved

exploringlocalconnectionstothedeadaswellasstatelevelusesofthemand

theirgraves.

ByexaminingthesetwodifferentaspectsoflifeamongstthegravesinCambodia,

thisthesishasshownthatitisnotonlythedeadthatarepolitical,butalsotheir

spacesoftorture,pain,death,burial,anddisposal.Ithasalsoillustratedhowin

Cambodiaindividualrelationshipsandeverydayinteractionswiththedeadare

equallypoliticaltoextraordinaryandstateusesofthem,becausebothenable

socialrelationshipsandactiontobenarratedandperformedinmultipleand

overlappingways,andfollowingtheKhmerRougeregime,tobereconstitutedin

newandinnovativeways,waysthatnotonlyenablepeopletodealwiththepast,

butalsotocreateanewfuture.

Becauseofthis,theKhmerRougeregimehascreatednewspacesforimagining

lifeandcommunityincontemporaryCambodia,andhastriggeredare-imagining

ofcategoriesofsociallife,includingrelationshipswiththedead,kinship,religion,


andrelationshipsbetweenthestateanditspeople,aswellasbetweenCambodia

andthewiderglobalcommunity.Massgraves,andthedeadtheycontain,are

centralcomponentsinthesereimaginingsbecauseasVerderyargues,social

relations,politicalhierarchies,religioussystemsandwiderunderstandingsof

whatitmeanstobeinaparticularplaceataparticulartimearemadevisibleby

changingrelationshipswithboth.

ThedeadhavebeenintegralintherebuildingofCambodia–inthesupportthey

gavetopeopleintheearlydays,inthesupporttheynowgivetothenationinits

economicdevelopmentandfuturestability,andintheimprintinthemindsof

thosewhoseethemthattheyleave,teachingtheworldaboutCambodia,itspast

andpresent,thatcausesthemtoengagewiththecountryanditspeople.Aswe

sawinthefirstsectionofthisthesis,thedeadinCambodiamakevisiblethe

politicalsituationoftheliving,notbecausetheyareareflectionofit,butbecause

theytooexperienceit.InCambodiathedeadaresociallysalientbeingswhose

livesparallelthoseoftheliving,andtheyaresubjecttomanyofthesamestresses

andtensionsthatthelivingendure.LifeafterDemocraticKampucheawaschaotic

andunstable;theinstabilitywaspartlynegotiatedbymanagingrelationswiththe

deadandneogitatingwaysinwhichthelivingandthedeadcouldnotonlyco-exit,

butsupporteachotherintherebuildingofCambodia.Thisnecessitatedfindinga

waybywhichthehundredsofthousandsofdeadcausedbytheKhmerRouge

regimecouldbecalmedandreintegratedintosociallife,butratherthanthrough

ritual,itwasprimarilythroughrelationshipsofsupport.Neogitatingreciprocal

relationshipswiththedead,thelivingwereabletoengagetheirhelp,andasthe

deadhelpedtheliving,thelivinghelpedthedead,wholikethemhadbeen

disconnectedfromtheirkinandtossedintochaosandconfusionbythemassive


displacementsthatoccurredduringtheregime.Asthelivingandthedeadbegan

tonegotiate,bothwereabletostartrebuildingtheirlives,theirsocialstatuses,

andtheircountry.Thedemiseofthedeadovertimehasparalleledthepolitical

stabilityofthecountryanditspeopleasithastransitionedfromawildand

chaoticcountrytoarelativelycalmandorderedsociety.

Religionisoftenacentralcomponentinthere-assertionofsocial,political,and

moraleconomiesfollowingwarandconflict.InCambodia,Buddhismand

animismhavebeencrucialinthis.Offeringameansbywhichpeoplecould

explainandnarratethechaos,deathanddestruction,Buddhisminparticularwas

centraltothewaymyinformantsrelatedtothedevastationwroughtbythe

regime.Forsomeitenabledthemtorepairtherupturesinkinandsociallifethat

thelossofuptoathirdofthepopulationcaused,forothersitgavethemwaysto

discussandenfoldtheeventsintotheKhmercosmology,becominganexpected

eventwithintheBuddhistcosmiccycleandconnectingtheperiodbeforethe

regimetothatfollowingit.Forothersitprovidedamodeofcosmicjustice,not

onlytotheperpetrators,butalsotothosewhodied.Inthisway,theviolenceof

theregimehasbeenincorporatedintotoday’slife,andratherthanbeing

remindersofterribleviolence,thegravesitresultedincanbeintegratedinto

everydaylivingspace.

Movingonfromrelationshipsbetweenindividuallivinganddead,thesecond

sectionofthisthesisexaminedhowthesymbolicpowerofthemassgravesand

theirdeadisharnessedinthewiderpoliticalsphere.Therulingpartyhastwo

primaryconcernsincontemporaryCambodia:developmentofthecountryand


retentionofpoliticalauthorityandpower.Thegraveshavebecomesignificant

toolsinachievingtheseaims.

Insomecountriesitisthedeadofthenamedandfamousthatperformpolitical

power(thecorpsesofLeninorMaoZedongforexample),butinlocationswhere

genocide,civilconflict,andwarhaveoccurreditisthemass,nameless,deadthat

performthemostusefulpoliticalfunctions.ThisisthecaseinCambodia,where

thosewhodiedduringtheKhmerRougearemostusefultothestateas

anonymousdeadwhocanbeharnessedasacollective:‘thedead,’‘thevictimsof

theKhmerRouge.’Controllingthelocationofthephysicalremainsofthedead,

andthestructureofnarrativesbehindthecreationofthesedeadandtheirgraves,

theCambodianstatelegitimatesandassertsitsauthority,presentingapolitically

salientnarrationoftheperiod:oneofinnocentCambodianvictims,ofanevil

perpetratedbyamythifiedcollective'theKhmerRouge.’Thisnarrativeincludesa

re-tellingofthestate’sroleintheemancipationofCambodiafromtheKhmer

Rouge,andthemaintenanceofrelativepeaceandstability,andbydoingso

assertsthePrimeMinister,HunSen’s,positionaspatronandprotectorofthe

country.Italsoreducestheculpabilityoftheregimetoahandfulofguilty

perpetrators,obsfuscatingthecomplexitiesbehindtheregime’srisetopower,the

placeofkeymembersofgovernment(includingthePrimeMinisterandParty

Chairman)intheregime,andtheongoingstructuralanddirectviolenceaffecting

Cambodiatoday.

Contemporaneously,DemocraticKampucheahasbeenpoliticizedin

contemporaryCambodia,andthoughmostofthegraveshavebeenreturnedto

everydaylivingspace,somehavecometoservepublicpoliticalfunctionsthatare


usedinthedualaimsofensuringeconomicdevelopmentinCambodiaand

ensuringtheongoingpoliticalhegemonybytheCambodianPeople’sPartyand

theirleaderHunSen.Throughthecommodificationofcertainsitesofdeath,in

particularChoeungEkandTuolSleng,theCambodianstatehasembracedthe

growingtrendofdarktourismtoitsadvantage.Itisnotonlythestatewho

exploitsthis.ThecentralroleofsuchsitesinCambodiantourismisdirectlylinked

intheimaginationsofthestaffandthestatetoeconomicprosperityand

internationalassistancetoCambodia.Astouristsvisittheyengageinreciprocal

relationshipswithCambodia,supportingitevenastheycausechangesinit.

ChoeungEk,andothermemorialsdisplayingthedead,havelargelybeenviewed

asexternallyfacedandthereforecontestedandconflictualspaces,however,as

thisthesishasshown,itwasnotviewedasabusivebymyinformants:neither

thosewhoserelativesandfriendswerekilled,buried,andarepossiblydisplayed

there,northosewhointeractwiththemdaily,athomeandforwork.Thiscomes

fromthefactthattheannonymousremainsareeveryone’sandno-one’sandrely,

therefore,onstatecareratherthanindividual.Withno-oneknowingwhosedead

werewhich,thecareofthephysicalremainswasdevolvedtothestate.Eventhe

deadareagreeblewithit–theygetvisitorsandareamongsttheirfellows;they

havebeenbroughtinfromtheforest.

ThepoliticallandscapeinCambodiaremainsasphereofviolence,hauntedby

DemocraticKampuchea.Powerisgainedandmaintainedthroughdirect,

structural,threatenedandrememberedviolence.Atthesametimeasmarketing

KhmerRougesitesfortourism,politicalpartiesusetheminthere-animationof

theregime.RemembranceinCambodiadoesnotmemorialisethosewhodied,


exceptinthewidest,mostabstractsense.Mostlymemorialsaretotheviolence

andterroroftheregime.Asmarkersofviolenceanddeath,reinforcedthrough

thedisplayofhumanremains,thesegravesitesenablethosewhoappropriate

themtoreanimatethespectresoftheKhmerRouge,revivingtheirviolence,and

theterrorwroughtwithinpeopleattheirpresence.Thesearenotsimply

memories:theirimaginedpresenceholdsrealviability,madeallthemore

convincingbecauseoftheaffectivepowerofmaintainingthesespirits.Whilst

claimingauthorityto‘exorcise’theKhmerRougeregimefromCambodia,both

mainpoliticalpartiesactuallymaintainthem.ThehauntingoftheKhmerRougeis

notonlythroughthismaintenance:itisinthewaypoliticstodayisformedoutof

theregime,andrecreatesandreinforcesapoliticalsphereimbuedwithfearand

distrust,inwhichviolentdiscoursesarethenormandauthoritarianruleis

maintainedundertheguiseofliberaldemocracy.

Thestructureofthisthesissuggeststhatthereisastraightforwarddichotomy

betweenthepoliticaluseofmassgraves(wherethedeadarereducedtoa

collectivemass,andsubsequentlyusedinpoliticalmanipulationforeconomic

prosperityandmaintenanceofpower)andindividualrelationshipstothese

spacesandthedeadwithinthem(wherethosewhodiedareremembered

throughindividualinteractionsandrelationshipswiththem).Thisfitswiththe

internationaldiscourseonmassviolence,whichisoneofenduringsufferinganda

contestationbetweenstateandindividualpolitics.Thismightbesoinsome

cases,butitisnotalways,andusuallyisnotclearcut,andevenwherethestate

andindividualsusethegravesfordifferentthings,theyarenotnecessarilyin

opposition.Oftenthesituationismessyandremainsinflux–nowseemingly

steady,itcouldre-emergeatanytime.Thetwoethnographicsectionsofthis


thesisareinextricablylinked,andmanyofthethemesofthisthesisoverlapand

influenceeachother.InCambodiapoliticsofthedeadisnotonlyrelatedtothe

waythedeadareusedbythestate,butalsohowtheythemselvesareintegrated

orexcludedfromthesociallifeoftheliving.Massgravesarenotonlyexploited

bythestate,butalsobyindividualsandlocalcommunities.Comparingchapters

fourandsixforexample,wecanseehowboththedeadandthelivingaresubject

tothewiderpoliticalspherewithinwhichtheyexist,andworktowardsfuture

aims.Chapterstwoandfive,meanwhile,showthattheoftencriticiseddisplayof

humanremainsaroundthecountryalsoservesasameanstocareforthedead

whohavenorelatives,orwhoserelativescannotrecognisetheirremains.

Onlyrecentlyhasmuchattentionbeenpaidtosocio-culturalrelationshipswith

massgraves,andthisthesisaimstocontributetothisgrowingbodyofwork.

Muchworkthatdoesexistconcernsthemissing,andessentialisesmassgravesin

whichtheirbodieslieasnegativeandtraumatic,becausethedeadtheycontain

almostinvariablyresultfromsomedreadfulevent,whetheritbeconflict,

violence,anendemic,ordisaster.Thesymbolicpowerofthedeadmeansthat

theyretainconnectionstotheseterribleeventslongaftertheresultshave

stoppedbeingvisibleelsewhere.Andbecauseoftheconnectionstheyretain,

attentionpaidtomassgravessomehowreviatlisestheeventfromwhichthey

died.Thisis,ofcourse,oftenthecase.Aroundtheglobeweseeanguishand

despairwheremassgravesabound,andmoreandmorecountriesaroundthe

worldarebeginningtoinvestigatethesegraves;returninglonglostremainstothe

kinandcountryfromwhichtheycome.


ButthemassgravesinCambodiaaresomewhatdifferenttothoseofother

conflictssuchasBosnia-HerzegovinaorRwandabecausetheywerecausedby

KhmeronKhmer.Therewasnoeasilyidentifiableforeignothertolaytheblame

atthefeetof,andthosecausingthegravesaremostlystillatlarge,manyin

positionsofresponsibilityinthelocal,regional,andnationalgovernment.There

isnopoliticalmotivation(nationalorlocal)forexcavatingthegraves.The

governmenthaveasmanyremainsastheyneedtotellataleofvictimhoodand

theirsaving.Thereisnosocialuseforvictimidentityrelatedtothedeadofthe

KhmerRouge–everyoneisavictimoftheKhmerRougeinthisnewlynarrated

storyofblameandthesubsumationofblameunderPolPot.Eventhosetriedat

theECCC,withreamsandreamsofevidenceagainstthem,usedthisnarrative.

Neitherdothegravesneedunearthingtodisclosepoliticalviolences;theywere

neverclandestine,neverdenied226,andthedeaddidnotneedunearthing

becausetheycouldbeproperlycaredforandmoveontotheirnextlifewithoutit.

Theunearthingofmassgravesisoftenusedintheformationofanewstate–

gravesmarkthelandandtheirunearthing,bybringingthedeadbackintothe

embraceofthestate,dividesthosewhomadethegravesandthosewhodisclose

them.Assuchtheyoftenreconfiguretime–creatinganeweraandlifewithinit.

AlthoughtheCPPworkedhardtopresentanewtemporality,formostofmy

informants,ratherthananewera,theconnectionsallowedbyBuddhismand

animismcollapsedtemporaldistinctionsandallowedconnectionstobemade

betweentheperiodsbeforetheregimeandthatwhichcameafterit.Viewedasa

periodofdestructionthathadtohappenduetocyclicaltime,theKhmerRouge

regimebecameanexplainableeventofKhmerBuddhistcosmology.Becauseof

226ExceptbrieflybytheKhmerRougeinthe1980s(FawthropandJarvis2005).


this,mostoftheKhmerpeopleIencountereddidnotpresentthemselvesas

victimsoftrauma.TheKhmerRougeperiodwasseenasaterriblehistory,butas

onebelongingtoaparticulartimeandcontext,exceptwhereitwasusefully

harnessedinthepresentoritsmemoryprovokedbysomeevent.However,itis

integraltocontemporaryCambodia,notonlyasaterriblehistoricalperiod,but

becauseallimaginingsandrelationshipswithinthenewKhmerstateareformed

fromit.ThefracturesitcausedinallaspectsofKhmerlifeweredevastating,and

neededrebuildingfollowingitsfall:politicalstability,moralorder,social

relationships,religiousunderstanding.Thishasbeencriticaltothebuildingofa

newCambodia,creatingspacesfornewimaginingsofCambodianlife,kinship,

religion,ritual,politicsandCambodia’splaceintheglobalsphere.

WhilesomescholarshavearguedthatprivilegingtheKhmerRougeperiodin

academicconsiderationlimitsdiscoursesonCambodia,andreifiesparticular

presentationsofthecountryanditspast,thisthesishasshownthatthisisnotthe

case.NorhasthepoliticisationofDemocraticKampuchea,itsdead,andtheir

graves,providedastagnatednarrative.Whilethedeadappeartoonlymeanone

thing,asthisthesisshows,theyareplurivocalandsignificant(andsymbolic)ina

multitudeofways.Theirsignificanceistemporallyandcontextuallyvariable,and

althoughitoftenvariesbetweenthegovernmentandeverydaypeople,their

narrationsandtheworktowhichtheyputthem,sometimesthesecollide.

Thoughthisthesiscentresontwomainfieldsitesitwasfedanddeveloped

throughresearchatfifteenothers.Assuch,althoughitcannotclaimtobea

holisiticstudyofmassgravesinCambodia,itcandrawsomegeneralthemes,as

havebeenexploredherein.However,mytimeatsitesbeyondthesecentralones


wasshort,andfurtherresearchatotherlocationsoutsideChoeungEkandTuol

SlengwouldbenefittheunderstandingofmassgravesinCambodia.Oneofthe

largestomissionsfromalmostallconsiderationsofthemassgravesinCambodiais

thenumberofcadrecontainedwithinthem.Whileitistruethatallwhosebodies

liewithinthegravesarevictimsoftheregime’sviolenceanddestruction,many

KhmerRougecadrehaveaveryparticularrelationshiptothemassgraves,having

beentheircreators,aswellaspotentiallyhavingkinwithinthem.Thiswouldbe

aninterestingavenueoffurtherexplorationthatmayenablefurther

problematisationofthesimplisticdichotomiesbetweenperpetratorandvictim

thatareoftenpresentedwithregardtoDemocraticKampuchea.Inaddition,in

myresearchIworkedmostlywithKhmerpeopleofCambodianancestry.

Relationshipsbetweenthedeadandthelivingareconsiderablydifferentforthe

Khmer-Chinesecommunity,andwouldproveastimulatingavenueoffurther

exploration.Finally,comparativeworkbetweenthegravesinCambodiaand

othercommunistregimes,boththoseinAsiaandbeyond,wouldprovidean

interestingavenueofstudyformoregeneral,widerstatementstobemade.

Thestorytoldinthisthesis,emphasisingmassgravesandthedeadoftheKhmer

Rouge,evolved,ofcourse,frommyowninterestsandresearchagenda.Its

emphasisonthesesubjectsimpliestheyarecentralandomnipresentinpeople’s

dailylivesandimaginations,asiftheseareatopicofcontinualthought,reflection

andconversation.Thisisnotthedaily,livedrealityformostofmyinformants,

althoughithasbeenmylivedrealityforthelastfouryears.Duringfieldwork

thesetopicsappearedonlysporadicallyineverydaylife,however,these

occasionalappearanceswereindicativeoftheongoingimaginedpresenceofthe

KhmerRougeandtheimprintoftheirviolenceincontemporaryCambodia.As


suchamultitudeofotherencountershavebeenlostintheether;Ihopeoneday

theyre-emerge.Thosethatremaindosomething,Ihope,towardsilluminating

theencounterswithmassgravesandthosewhodiedundertheKhmerRouge

regimeofmyinformantsandmyselfincontemporaryCambodia.Cambodiahas

manyghosts,butlifecontinueschanging,andtheymaynothauntitforever.As

SreySreysaidtothedeadonedayaswewalkedaroundChoeungEk:‘youhave

alreadydied.Nowisthetimefortheliving.’


References

Absolon,K.andWillett,C.(2005).PuttingOurselvesForward:LocationinAboriginalResearch.In:Brown,L.andStrega,S.eds.ResearchasResistance,Critical,Indigenous

andAnti-OppressiveApproaches.Toronto:CanadianScholar'sPress,pp.108.

AccesstoInsight(2013).Tipitaka:ThePaliCanon.Tipitaka:ThePaliCanon[Online].Lastupdated:30November2013.Availablefrom:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/[Accessed16December2014].

Adams,B.andByrd,J.(2008).Recovery,AnalysisandIdentificationofCommingled

Remains.NewJersey:HumanaPress.

Adams,B.(2007).July1997:ShockandAftermath.ThePhnomPenhPost,27July2007.

ADB(2014).Cambodia:DiversifyingBeyondGarmentsandTourism.PDF.Mandaluyong

City:AsianDevelopmentBank,EconomicsandResearchDepartment.

Al-Jazeera(2011).MassGraveofLibyanPrisonersFound.AlJazeeraNews:Africa[Online].Lastupdated:25September2011.Availablefrom:http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2011/09/20119251823889148.html

[Accessed15February2015].

Article19(2013).Cambodia:LawontheNon-RecognitionoftheCrimesCommittedduring

DemocraticKampucheaLegalAnalysis.PDF.London:FreeWordCentre.

Arunatilake,N.,Jayasuriya,S.andKelegama,S.(2001).TheEconomicCostoftheWarin

SriLanka.WorldDevelopment,29(9),1483-1500.

AsiaSentinel(2013).TanksPourIntoPhnomPenhasOppositionLeaderReturns.Asia

Sentinel,16August2013.

Atkinson,P.(1992).UnderstandingEthnographicTexts.QualitativeResearchMethods.

London:SagePublicationsLtd.

Bartrop,P.andJacobs,S.L.eds.(2015).ModernGenocide:TheDefinitiveResourceandDocumentCollection-ArmenianGenocide,BosnianGenocide,CambodianGenocide.

SantaBarbara:ABC-CLIO,LLC.

Bax,M.(1997).MassGraves,StagnatingIdentification,andViolence:ACaseStudyintheLocalSourcesof“TheWar”inBosnia-Herzegovina.AnthropologicalQuarterly,70(1),

11-19.

BBC(2012).LibyansStrugglewithSecretsofMassGraves.BBCNewsAfrica[Online].Lastupdated:19March2012.Availablefrom:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-

17429113[Accessed15February2015].

Beaumont,P.(2004).PMAdmitsGraveClaim'Untrue'.TheObserver,18July2004.


Becker,E.(2013).Overbooked:TheExplodingBusinessofTravelandTourism.NewYork:

SimonandSchuster.

Becker,G.,Beyene,Y.andKen,P.(2000).Memory,TraumaandEmbodiedDistress:TheManagementofDisruptionintheStoriesofCambodiansinExile.Ethos,28(3),320-

345.

Bender,B.(1993).Landscapes:PoliticsandPerspectives[ExplorationsinAnthropology].

Oxford:Berg.

Bennett,C.(2014).WhoKnowsWhoWeAre?QuetionningtheuseofDNAAnalysisin

DisasterVictimIdentification.NewGeneticsandSociety,33(3),239-256.

Bernstein,A.(2012).MoreAlivethanAlltheLiving:SovereignBodiesandCosmicPolitics

inBuddhistSiberia.CulturalAnthropology,27(2),261-285.

Bertrand,D.(2001).TheNamesandIdentitiesoftheBorameySpiritsPossessing

CambodianMediums.AsianFolkloreStudies,60(1),31-47.

Best,M.(2007).NorfolkIsland:Thanatourism,History,andVisitorEmotions.Shima:The

InternationalJournalofResearchintoIslandCultures,1(2),30-48.

Bickford,L.(2009).TransformingaLegacyofGenocide:PedagogyandTourismattheKillingFieldsofChoeungEk.PDF.Memory,Memorials,andMuseums(MMM)

Program.NewYork:InternationalCenterforTransitionalJustice.

Bizot,F.(2004).TheGate[LePortail].Trans.Cameron,E.London:VintageBooks:Random

House.

Bizot,F.(1981).LeDonDeSoi-Même.RecherchesSurLeBouddhismeKhmerIII.Paris:

EFEO.

Bizot,F.(1976).LeFiguierÀCinqBranches.RecherchesSurLeBouddhismeKhmerI.

Paris:EFEO.

Bizot,F.(1973).HistoireDuReamker.PhnomPenh:EFEO.

Bjorkman,L.(2014)."YouCan'tBuyaVote":MeaningsofMoneyinaMumbaiElection.

AmericanEthnologist,41(4),617-634.

Blair,G.andBlair,N.(2014).<br/>NutrientStatusofCambodianSoils,RationalisationofFertiliserRecommendationsandtheChallengesAheadforCambodianSoilScience.

CurrentAgricultureResearchJournal,2(1),5-13.

Blau,S.andUbelaker,D.(2008).HandbookofForensicArchaeologyandAnthropology.

WorldArchaeologicalCongressHandbooks.California:LeftCoastPress.

Bloch,M.andParry,J.eds.(1982).DeathandtheRegenerationofLife.Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress.


Booth,W.J.(2001).Theunforgotten:memoriesofjustice.AmericanPoliticalScience

Review,95(4),777-791.

Borchgrevink,A.(2003).SilencingLanguageofAnthropologistsandInterpreters<br/>.

Ethnography,4(1),95-121.

Bourke,J.andTorres,F.(2007).DarkistheRoomWhereweSleep.Bilingualedn.

Barcelona:Actar.

Bovensiepen,J.(2009).SpiritualLandscapesofLifeandDeathintheCentralHighlandsofEastTimor.AnthropologicalForum,19(3),323-338.

Breslau,J.(2000).GlobalizingDisasterTrauma:Psychiatry,Science,andCultureafterthe

KobeEarthquake.Ethos,28(2),174-197.

Brinkley,J.(2011).Cambodia'sCurse:TheModernHistoryofaTroubledLand.NewYork:

PublicAffairs.

Burley,M.(2013).ReincarnationandEthics.JournaloftheAmericanAcademyofReligion,

81(1),162-187.

Butler,J.(2010).FramesofWar:WhenisLifeGrievable?.London:Verso.

Candea,M.(2007).Arbitrarylocations:indefenceoftheboundedfield-site.Journalofthe

RoyalAnthropologicalInstitute,13,167-184.

Caplan,P.(2007).'NeverAgain':GenocideMemorialsinRwanda.AnthropologyToday,

23(1),20-22.

Cassia,P.S.(2005).BodiesofEvidence:Burial,MemoryandtheRecoveryofMissingPersonsinCyprus.NewDirectionsinAnthropology.20edn.NewYorkandOxford:

BerghanBooks.

Caswell,M.(2014).ArchivingtheUnspeakable:Silence,Memory,andthePhotographic

RecordinCambodia.Wisconsin:UniversityofWisconsinPress.

CGP(2011).InteractiveGeographicDatabase(CGEO).CambodianGenocideProgram,YaleUniversity[Online].Availablefrom:http://www.yale.edu/cgp/maplicity.html

[Accessed7April2012].

CGP(2010).CambodianGenocideProgram.CambodianGenocideProgram,YaleUniversity[Online].Availablefrom:http://www.yale.edu/cgp/index.html[Accessed

29April2012].

Chandler,D.(2008a).CambodiaDealswithitsPast:CollectiveMemory,DemonisationandInducedAmnesia.TotalitarianMovementsandPoliticalReligions,9(2-3),355-

369.

Chandler,D.(2008b).AHistoryofCambodia.Fourthedn.Colorado:WestviewPress.


Chandler,D.(2008c).TuolSlengandChoeungEk.SearchingfortheTruth,SpecialEnglish

Edition(FirstQuarter),34.

Chandler,D.(1999).VoicesfromS-21:TerrorandHistoryinPolPot'sSecretPrison.

London:UniversityofCaliforniaPressLimited.

Chandler,D.(1993).TheTragedyofCambodianHistory:Politics,WarandRevolutionsince

1945.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.

Chansy,C.andZsombor,P.(2013).ThousandsRallyAgainstCommentsMadebyKemSokha.TheCambodiaDaily,10June2013.

Chheang,V.(2009).StateandTourismPlanning:ACaseStudyofCambodia.Tourismos:

AnInternationalMultidisciplinaryJournalofTourism,4(1),63-82.

Chirot,D.(1994).ModernTyrants:ThePowerandPrevalenceofEvilinourAge.New

Jersey:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Chomsky,N.andHerman,E.S.(1979).AftertheCataclysm:PostwarIndochinaandtheReconstructionofImperialIdeology.PoliticalEconomyofHumanRights.Cambridge,

MA:SouthEndPress.

Chouléan,A.(2004).BrahLing.PhnomPenh:ReyumPublications.

Chouléan,A.(1990).LaCommunautéRuraleKhmèreduPointduVueduSacré.Journal

Asiatique,278(1),135-154.

Chouléan,A.(1988).ThePlaceofAnnimismwithPopularBuddhisminCambodia:the

ExampleoftheMonastery.AsianFolkloreStudies,47(1),35-41.

Chouléan,A.(1986).LesÊtresSurnaturelsDansLaReligionPopulaireKhmère.Paris:

Cedorek.

Christensen,P.,toCarolineBennett,EmailDiscussionaboutDifferentTypesofKhmer

SpiritMedium.[].

Christensen,P.,toBennett,C.,EmailExchangesaboutSpiritMediumsinCambodia.[5

December2014].

Claussen,K.(2008).RecentDevelopments:UptotheBar?DesigningtheHybridKhmer

RougeTribunalinCambodia.TheYaleJournalofInternationalLaw,33,253-274.

Clymer,K.(1995).TheCambodianNationalArchives.ColdWarInternationalHistory

ProjectBulletin(TheColdWarinAsia),260-265.

Coles,K.(2004).ElectionDay:theConstructionofDemocracyThroughTechnique.

CulturalAnthropology,19(4),551-580.

Conklin,B.(2001).ConsumingGrief:CompassionateCannibalisminanAmazonianSociety.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress.


Connor,M.A.(2012).MassGraveInvestigation.WileyEncyclopediaofForensicScience[Online].Availablefrom:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470061589.fsa615.pub2/abstract

[Accessed18September2014].

Cook,J.,Laidlaw,J.andMair,J.(2009).WhatifThereisNoElephant?TowardsaConceptionofanUn-sitedField.In:Falzon,M.andHall,C.eds.Multi-SitedEthnography:Theory,PraxisandLocalityinContemporaryResearch.Farnham:

Ashgate,pp.47-72.

Cox,M.,etal.ed.(2007).TheScientificInvestigationofMassGraves:TowardsProtocols

andStandardOperatingProcedures.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Cox,M.(2003).Amultidisciplinaryapproachtotheinvestigationofcrimesagainsthumanity,warcrimesandgenocide:TheInforceFoundation.ScienceandJustice-

JournaloftheForensicScienceSociety,43(4),225-227.

Crossley,L.(2014).MassGraveof230BodiesUncoveredinSyriaafterISISSlaughteredMembersofaTrobethatTriedtoFightBack.TheMailOnline,17December2014.

Crothers,L.andDara,M.(2013).FearofUnrestAfterArmoredVehiclesMobilized.

CambodiaDaily,10August2013.

Csordas,T.J.(1990).Embodimentasaparadigmforanthropology.Ethos,18(1),5-47.

Curley,M.(2014).DevelopmentsinCambodianDemocracy:DemocraticConsolidationorAuthoritarianDurability?.In:Fung,E.andDrakeley,S.eds.DemocracyinEasternAsia:Issues,ProblemsandChallengesinaRegionofDiversity.PoliticsinAsia.

Routledge,pp.138-157.

Das,V.,Kleinman,A.andLock,M.eds.(1997).SocialSuffering.Berkley:Universityof

CaliforniaPress.

Das,V.,etal.ed.(2001).RemakingaWorld:Violence,SocialSufferingandRecovery.

Berkley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Das,V.,etal.ed.(2000).ViolenceandSubjectivity.Berkley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Das,V.(1997).CriticalEvents:AnAnthropologicalPerspectiveonContemporaryIndia.

OxfordIndiaPaperbacks.Newedn.NewDelhi:OUPIndia.

Davis,E.W.(2009).TreasuresoftheBuddha:ImaginingDeathandLifeinContemporary

Cambodia.PhDedn.UniversityofChicago.

Davis,E.W.(2008).BetweenForestsandFamilies:ARememberedPastLife.In:Kent,A.andChandler,D.eds.PeopleofVirtue:ReconfiguringReligion,PowerandMoralOrderinCambodiaToday.Copenhagen:NIASPress,pp.128-144.

DC-Cam(2012).DocumentationCenterofCambodia[Online].Availablefrom:

http://www.dccam.org/[Accessed10April2012].


DC-Cam(2005).ListofDemocraticKampucheaBurials.PDF.PhnomPenh:Documentation

CentreofCambodia.

DC-Cam(2000).MassGraveMappingReport-Ratanakiri2000.PDF.PhnomPenh:DC-

Cam.

deJong,K.,etal.(2000).TheTraumaofWarinSierraLeone.TheLancet,355,2067-2068.

deWalque,D.(2004).TheLong-TermLegacyoftheKhmerRougePeriodinCambodia.PDF.WorldBankPolicyResearchWorkingPaper.WashingtonDC:TheWorldBank.Reportnumber:3446.

Denich,B.(1994).DismemberingYugoslavia:NationalistIdeologiesandtheSymbolic

RevivalofGenocide.AmericanEthnologist,21(2),367-390.

Dernbach,K.B.(2005).SpiritsoftheHereafter:Death,FuneraryPossession,andthe

AfterlifeinChuuk,Micronesia.Ethnology,44(2),99-123.

Derrida,J.(1994).SpectersofMarx:TheStateoftheDebt,theWorkofMourning,andtheNewInternational[SpectresdeMarx:l'étatdeladette,letravaildudeuiletla

nouvelleInternationale].Trans.PeggyKamuf.London:Routledge.

Doyle,K.(2005).Cambodia:PrivatizingtheRevenueFields.Time,11April2005.

Drennan,J.(2013).TransgenderIdentityCrisis.PhnomPenhPost,10April2013.

duBoulay,J.(1982).TheGreekVampire:AStudyofCyclicalSymbolisminMarriageand

Death.Man:NewSeries,17(2),219-238.

Dziuban,Z.(2014).PolishLandscapesofMemoryattheSitesofExtermination:The

PoliticsofFraming.[Pre-submissionArticle].

Ea,M.andSim,S.(2001).VictimsOrPerpetrators?TestimoniesofYoungKhmerRouge

Comrades.PhnomPenh:DC-Cam.

Ebihara,M.andLedgerwood,J.(2002).Aftermathsofgenocide:Cambodianvillagers.In:Hinton,A.L.ed.AnnihilatingDifference:TheAnthropologyofGenocide.CaliforniaSeriesinPublicAnthropology.BerkleyandLondon:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,pp.

272-291.

Ebihara,M.(2002).MemoriesofthePolPoterainaCambodianVillage.In:Ledgerwood,J.ed.CambodiaEmergesfromitsPast.DeKald,illinois:NorthernIllinoisUniversity

CenterforSoutheastAsianStudies,pp.91-108.

Ebihara,M.M.(1968).Svay,aKhmervillageinCambodia.PhDedn.ColumbiaUniversity.

ECCC(2015a).ExtraordinaryChambersintheCourtsofCambodia(ECCC).ExtraordinaryChambersintheCourtsofCambodia(ECCC)[Online].Availablefrom:

http://www.eccc.gov.kh/en[Accessed15June2015].


ECCC(2015b).KampongChhnangAirportConstructionSite.TheExtraordinaryChambersintheCourtsofCambodia[Online].Availablefrom:http://www.eccc.gov.kh/en/crime-sites/kampong-chhnang-airport-construction-site


Efron,S.(1997).40ReportedExecutedsinceCambodiaCoup.LosAngelesTimes,16July

1997.

Emerson,R.,M.,Fretz,R.,I.andShaw,L.,L.(2011).WritingEthnographicFieldnotes.

Secondedn.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Eng,K.T.,ConversationabouttheNumberofSurvivorsfromTuolSleng<br/>.[].

Eng,K.T.(2010).Analysis:Canmurderersbeforgiven?.PhnomPenhPost,14October

2010.

Etcheson,C.,toBennett,C.,EmailDiscussionsaboutDC-CamMassGraveMapping

Project.[MappingProject:].

Etcheson,C.(2005).AftertheKillingFields:LessonsfromtheCambodianGenocide.

Westport:PraegerPublishers.

Etcheson,C.(2000).MappingProject1999:TheAnalysis."theNumber":QuantifyingCrimesAgainstHumanityinCambodia[Online].Availablefrom:http://www.d.dccam.org/Projects/Maps/Mass_Graves_Study.htm[Accessed20June

2014].

Fassin,D.(2008).TheHumanitarianPoliticsofTestimony:SubjectificationthroughTraumaintheIsraeli-PalestinianConflict.CulturalAnthropology,23(3),531-558.

Fassin,D.andd'Halluin,E.(2007).CriticalEvidence:ThePoliticsofTraumainFrench

AsylumPolicies.Ethos,35(3),300-329.

Fassin,D.andRechtman,R.(2009).TheEmpireofTrauma:AnInquiryintotheConditionofVictimhood[L'empiredutraumatisme:Enquetesurlaconditiondevictime].Trans.

Gomme,R.PrincetonandOxford:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Fawthrop,T.andJarvis,H.(2004).GettingAwaywithGenocide?ElusiveJusticeandthe

KhmerRougeTribunal.London:PlutoPress.

Fein,H.(1997).GenocidebyAttrition1939-1993:TheWarsawGhetto,Cambodia,andSudan:LinksbetweenHumanRights,Health,andMassDeath.HealthandHuman

Rights,2(2),10-45.

Feldman,A.(1995).EthnographicStatesofEmergency.In:Robben,A.andNordstrom,C.eds.FieldworkUnderFire:ContemporaryStudiesofViolenceandSurvival.LondonandBerkley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,pp.224-252.

Feldman,A.(1991).FormationsofViolence:TheNarrativeoftheBodyandPokiticalTerror

inNorthernIreland.ChicagoandLondon:UniversityofChicagoPress.


Ferrandiz,F.(2015).MassGraves,LandscapesofTerror:ASpanishTale.In:Ferrandiz,F.andRobben,Antonius,C.G.M,eds.Necropolitics:MassGraveExhumationsinthe

AgeofHumanRights.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,pp.92-118.

Ferrandiz,F.andBaer,A.(2008).DigitalMemory:TheVisualRecordingofMassGraveExhumationsinContemporarySpain.Forum:QualitativeSocialResearch[Online],9(3),4February2011.Availablefrom:http://www.qualitative-

research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1152/2578.

Fiederlein,S.(1996).The1994ElectionsinMexico:TheCaseofChiapas.MexicanStudies,

12(1),107-130.

Findlay,T.(1993).Cambodia:TheLegacyandLessonsofUNTAC.Stockholm:Stockholm

InternationalPeaceResearchInstituteandOxfordUniversityPress.

Forest,A.(2000).LeCulteDesgéniesProtecteursAuCambodge:AnalyseEtTraduction

D'UnCorpusDeTextesSurLesNeakTa.Paris:EditionsL'Harmattan.

Formoso,B.(1996).Hsiu-Kou-Ku:TheRitualRefiningofRestlessGhostsamongthe

ChineseofThailand.TheJournaloftheRoyalAnthropologicalInstitute,2(2),217-234.

Gallo,E.(2009).IntheRightPlaceattheRightTime?ReflectionsonMulti-sitedEthnographyintheAgeofMigration.In:Falzon,M.ed.Multi-SitedEthnography:Theory,PraxisandLocalityinContemporaryResearch.Farnham:AshgatePublishing

Limited,pp.87-102.

Galtung,J.(1990).CulturalViolence.JournalofPeaceResearch,27(3),291-305.

Galtung,J.(1969).Violence,Peace,andPeaceResearch.JournalofPeaceResearch,6(3),

167-191.

Garella,R.andPape,E.(2005).ATragedyonnoImportance.15April2005.MotherJones[Online].Availablefrom:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/04/cambodia-

war-khmer-sam-rainsy[Accessed6August2015].

Geertz,C.(1973a).TheInterpretationofCultures:SelectedEssays.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Geertz,C.(1973b).Person,Time,andConductinBali.In:TheInterpretationofCultures:

SelectedEssays.NewYork:BasicBooksInc,pp.360-411.

Gluckman,M.(1963).GossipandScandal.CurrentAnthropology,4(3),307-316.

Godbey,E.(2006).DisasterTourismandtheMelodramaofAuthenticity:Revisitingthe1889JohnstownFlood.PennsylvaniaHistory:AJournalofMid-AtlanticStudies,73(3),

273-315.

Gottesman,E.R.(2003).CambodiaAftertheKhmerRouge:InsidethePoliticsofNation

Building.Chelsea:SheridanBooks.

Gourevitch,P.(2012).TheFantasyofKingSihanouk.TheNewYorker,15October2012.


Gray,T.(2014).JusticeandTransitioninCambodia1979-2014:Process,Meaningand

Narrative.PhDedn.UniversityofWestminster.

Green,L.(1994).FearasaWayofLife.CulturalAnthropology,9(2),227-256.

Guillou,A.Y.(2013).TemporalitéetdefinitionsdescorpsaprèslegenocideKhmerRouge.

.Corps,numerospecial:Corpsetviolencesdemasse.

Guillou,A.Y.(2012a).AnalternativememoryoftheKhmerRougegenocide:thedeadofthemassgravesandthelandguardianspirits(neakta).SoutheastAsiaReview(SpecialIssue:SoutheastAsianResponsestoMassiveDestruction).

Guillou,A.Y.(2012b).TheLivingArchaeologyofapainfulheritage:thefirstandsecondlifeoftheKhmerRougemassgraves.In:Falser,M.andJuneja,M.eds.“Archaeologizing”Heritage?TransculturalEntanglementsbetweenLocalSocial

PracticesandGlobalVirtualRealities?.Heidelberg&NewYork:Springer.

Gupta,A.(2014).Authorship,ResearchAssistantsandtheEthnographicField.

Ethnography,15(3),394-400.

Gupta,A.(2002).RelivingChildhood?TheTemporalityofChildhoodNarrativesof

Reincarnation.Ethnos:JournalofAnthropology,67(1),33-55.

Guyer,S.(2009).Rwanda'sBones.Boundary2,36(2),155-175.

Hafner-Burton,E.,Hyde,S.andJablonski,R.(2014).WhendoGovernmentsResortto

ElectoralViolence?.BritishJournalofPoliticalScience,44(1),149-179.

Haglund,W.D.(2002).RecentMassGraves,anIntroduction.In:Haglund,W.D.andSorg,M.H.eds.AdvancesinForensicTaphonomy:Method,Theory,andArchaeological

Perspectives.BocaRaton:CRCPress,pp.243-262.

Handelman,D.andLindquist,G.(2011).Religion,Politics,andGlobalization:TheLongPastForegroundingtheShortPresent-PrologueandIntroduction.In:Religion,PoliticsandGlobalization:AnthropologicalApproaches.NewYork:BerghanBooks,

pp.1-66.

Harper,D.(2002).Talkingaboutpictures:acaseforphotoelicitation.VisualStudies,

17(1),13-26.

Harris,I.(2008).CambodianBuddhism:HistoryandPractice.Honolulu:Universityof

Hawai'iPress.

Harris,I.(2001).SanghaGroupingsinCambodia.BuddhistStudiesReview,18(1),65-72.

Hassan,N.(2011).SyrianMassGraveFoundNearDera'a,ResidentsSay.TheGuardian,17

May2011.


Heder,S.andTittemore,B.(2001).SevenCandidatesforProsecution:AccountabilityfortheCrimesoftheKhmerRouge.PDF.Washington:WarCrimesResearch

Office/CoalitionforInternationalJustice.

Heuveline,P.(1998).BetweenOneandThreeMillion':TowardstheDemographicReconstructionofaDecadeofCambodianHistory(1970-79).PopulationStudies,

52(1),49-65.

Hinton,A.L.(2008).Truth,RepresentationandthePoliticsofMemoryafterGenocide.In:Kent,A.andChandler,D.eds.PeopleofVirtue:ReconfiguringReligion,Powerand

MoralOrderinCambodiaToday.Copenhagen:NIASPress,pp.62-81.

Hinton,A.L.(2006).WeCan'tLettheKhmerRougeEscape.TheWashingtonPost,4

August2006.

Hinton,A.L.(2005).WhydidtheyKill?CambodiaintheShadowofGenocide.California

SeriesinPublicAnthropology.London:UniversityofCaliforniaPressLimited.

Hinton,A.L.ed.(2002).AnnihilatingDifference:TheAnthropologyofGenocide.California

SeriesinPublicAnthropology.London:UniversityofCaliforniaPressLimited.

Hinton,A.L.(1998).Aheadforaneye:RevengeintheCambodiangenocide.American

Ethnologist,25(3),352-377.

Hinton,A.(2011).Genocide,categoricalcertainty,andthetruth:Questionsfromthe

KhmerRougeTribunal.JournalofAnalyticalPsychology,56(3),390-396.

Holt,J.C.(2012).CaringforthedeadrituallyinCambodia.SoutheastAsianStudies,1(1),3-75.

Hook,D.(2001).Discourse,knowledge,materiality,history:Foucaultanddiscourse

analysis.TheoryandPsychology,11(4),521-547.

Hoskins,A.(2003).SignsoftheHolocaust:exhibitingmemoryinamediatedage.Media

CultureSociety,25(1),7-22.

Hughes,C.(2015).UnderstandingtheElectionsinCambodia2013.AGLOS:JournalofArea

BasedGlobalStudies,SpecialIssue(WorkshopandSymposium1-20).

Hughes,R.(2008).Dutifultourism:encounteringtheCambodianGenocide.AsiaPacific

Viewpoint,49(3),318-330.

Hughes,R.(2005).MemoryandSovereigntyinPost-1979Cambodia:ChoeungEkandLocalGenocideMemorials.In:Cook,S.ed.GenocideinCambodiaandRwanda:New

Perspectives.USA:TransactionPublishers,pp.269-292.

Hughes,R.(2000).RememberingMay20-DayofAnger.SearchingfortheTruth,12,39-

43.


Hull,S.(2013).Win-winatChamcarBei?The1994PeaceSettlementofKhmerRougeatPhnomVoaranditsLong-termResults.MAinSecurityandTerrorismedn.University

ofKent.

HumanRightsWatch(2015a).30YearsofHunSen:Violence,Repression,andCorruption

inCambodia.PDF.NewYork:HumanRightsWatch.

HumanRightsWatch(2015b).Cambodia:CheaSimDeathshowsFailingFoKhmerRougeCourt.HumanRightsWatch[Online].Lastupdated:8June2015.Availablefrom:https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/06/08/cambodia-chea-sim-death-shows-failings-

khmer-rouge-court[Accessed1September2015].

HumanRightsWatch(2014).WorldReport2014:Cambodia.Online.NewYork:Human

RightsWatch.

Huyssen,A.(1995).TwilightMemories:MarkingTimeinaCultureofAmnesia.London:

Routledge.

Jarvis,H.,toBennett,C.,MeetingabouttheMassGravesandtheECCC.[].

Joffe,R.(1984).TheKillingFields.[DVD].JohnMalkovich,HaingS.NgorandSam

Waterston.London:OptimumReleasing.

Kang,E.,etal.(2012).BenefitesofVisitinga'DarkTourismSite':TheCaseoftheJejuApril

3rdPeacePark,Korea.TourismManagement,33(2),257-265.

Karbaum,M.(2012).Cambodia'sFacadeDemocracyandEuropeanAssistance.Journalof

CurrentSoutheastAsianAffairs,3(4),111-143.

Kawano,S.(2004).ScatteringtheAshesoftheFamilyDead:MemorialActivityamongthe

BereavedinContemporaryJapan.Ethnology,43(3),233-248.

Kazi,M.(2015).TibetanGovernmentonDalaiLama'sDesireNottoReincarnate:'It'sNot

HisDecision'.TheScienceTimes,16March2015.

Kent,A.(2003).SeriesNo8.RecoveryoftheCollectiveSpirit:TheRoleoftheRevivalofBuddhisminCambodia.PDF.LegacyofWarandViolence-WorkingPaper.Goteborg:

Socialantropologiskainstitutionen,GoteborgUniversity.

Kent,A.andChandler,D.eds.(2008).PeopleofVirtue:ReconfiguringReligion,PowerandMoralOrderinCambodiaToday.StudiesinAsianTopics,no.43.Copenhagen:Nordic

InstituteofAsianStudies.

Kent,A.(2011).Globalchangeandmoraluncertainty:Whydocambodianwomenseek

refugeinBuddhism?.GlobalChange,PeaceandSecurity,23(3),405-419.

Kent,A.(2006).Reconfiguringsecurity:BuddhismandmorallegitimacyinCambodia.

SecurityDialogue,37(3),343-361.


Kevin,T.(1999).CambodiaandSoutheastAsia:LectureattheCambodianInstitutionfor

CooperationandPeace.

Kiernan,B.(2007).GenocideandResistanceinSoutheastAsia:Documentation,Denial

andJusticeinCambodiaandEastTimor.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.

Kiernan,B.(2004).HowPolPotCametoPower.London:YaleUniversityPress.

Kiernan,B.(2003).TheDemographyofGenocideinSoutheastAsia:TheDeathTollsin

Cambodia,1975-79,andEastTimor,1975-80.CriticalAsianStudies,35(4),585-597.

Kinetz,E.andKuch,N.(2008).ProgressQuestionned3YearsAfterKRSiteLease.The

CambodiaDaily,18April2008.

Klauser,A.,toCarolineBennett,ConversationsaboutForensicTreatmentofHuman

RemainsFollowingtheHaitiEarthquake.[].

Klima,A.(2008).CorporeObscuro:MeditationontheDeadinThailand.In:Edwards,E.

andBhaumik,K.eds.VisualSense:ACulturalReader.Oxford:Berg,pp.63-68.

Komar,D.andBuikstra,J.(2007).ForensicAnthropology:ContemporaryTheoryandPractice.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPressUSA.

Kwon,H.(2015).KoreanWarMassGraves.In:Ferrandiz,F.andRobben,Antonius,C.G.M,eds.Necropolitics:MassGravesandExhumationsintheAgeofHumanRights.

Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,pp.76-91.

Kwon,H.(2008a).TheGhostsoftheAmericanWarinVietnam.TheAsia-PacificJournal:

JapanFocus.

Kwon,H.(2008b).GhostsofWarinVietnam.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Kwon,H.(2006).AftertheMassacre:CommemorationandConsolationinHaMyandMyLai.Asia:LocalStudies/GlobalThemes.BerkleyandLosAngeles:Universityof

CaliforniaPress.

Kwon,H.andChung,B.(2014).NorthKorea:BeyondCharismaticPolitics.

Asia/Pacific/Perspectives.WashingtonDC:Rowman&LittlefieldPublishers.

Lambek,M.(2013).Thecontinuousanddiscontinuousperson:twodimensionsofethical

life.JournaloftheRoyalAnthropologicalInstitute,19(4),837-858.

Lambek,M.(1996).ThePastImperfect:RememberingasMoralPractice.In:Antze,P.andLambek,M.eds.TensePast:CulturalEssaysinTraumaandMemory.London:

Routledge,pp.235-254.

Langford,J.M.(2013).ConsolingGhosts:StoriesofMedicineandMourningfrom

SoutheastAsiansinExile.Minnesota:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.


Langford,J.M.(2009).GiftsIntercepted:BiopoliticsandSpiritDebt.Cultural

Anthropology,24(4),681-711.

Latinis,D.,toBennett,C.,EmailregardingProposedResearch.[22February2011].

Leakhena,N.(2012).ProsecutingthePerpetrators(theKhmerRougeGenocidePart3).15October2012.EngagingPeace[Online].Availablefrom:

http://engagingpeace.com/?p=5162[Accessed6August2015].

LeCapra,D.(2001).WritingHistory,WritingTrauma.BaltimoreandLondon:JohnHopkinsUniversityPress.

Ledgerwood,J.(1998).RuralDevelopmentinCambodia:TheViewfromtheVillage.In:Brown,F.andTimberman,D.eds.CambodiaandtheInternationalCommunity:TheQuestforPeace,Development,andDemocracy.NewYork:NY:AsiaSociety,pp.127-

147.

Ledgerwood,J.(1997).TheCambodianTuolSlengMuseumofGenocidalCrimes:National

Narrative.MuseumAnthropology,21(1),82-98.

Ledgerwood,J.(1995).TheMatriliny/MatriarchyMyth.AnthropologicalResearch,51(3),

247-261.

Ledgerwood,J.(2008).BuddhistPracticeinRuralKandalProvince1960and2003:AnEssayinHonorofMayEbihara.In:Chandler,D.andKent,A.eds.PeopleofVirtue:ReconfiguringReligion,PowerandMoralOrderinCambodiaToday.NIASStudiesinAsianTopicsno.43.Copenhagen:NordicInstituteofAsianStudiesPress,pp.147-

168.

Ledgerwood,J.andUn,K.(2003).GlobalConceptsandLocalMeaning:HumanRightsand

BuddhisminCambodia.JournalofHumanRights,2(4),531-549.

Ledgerwood,J.(2010).TheJuly5-61997"Events":WhenisaCoupNotaCoup?[Online].Availablefrom:http://www.seasite.niu.edu/khmer/ledgerwood/july_56_1997_events.htm

[Accessed6August2015].

Lemelson,R.40YearsofSilence:AnIndonesianTragedy(2009).[DVD].LosAngeles:

ElementalProduction.

Lennon,J.andFoley,M.(2000).DarkTourism:TheAttractionofDeathandDisaster.New

York:Continuum.

Lennon,J.andFoley,M.(1999).InterpretationoftheUnimaginable:theUSHolocaust

MemorialMusuem,WashingtonDC.JournalofTravelResearch,38(1),46-50.

Lesley,E.(2015).DeathonDisplay:BonesandBodiesinCambodiaandRwanda.In:Ferrandiz,F.andRobben,Antonius,C.G.M,eds.Necropolitics:MassGraveExhumationsintheAgeofHumanRights.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvania

Press,pp.213-239.


Lessa,I.(2006).Discursivestruggleswithinsocialwelfare:Restagingteenmotherhood.

BritishJournalofSocialWork,36(2),238-298.

LeVine,P.(2010).LoveandDreadinCambodia:Weddings,BirthsandRitualHarmUnder

theKhmerRouge.Singapore:NationalUniversityofSingaporePress.

LICADHO(2015).RightsataPrice:LifeInsideCambodia'sPrisons.PDF.PhnomPenh:

CambodianLeagueforthePromotionandDefenseofHumanRights.

Lim,A.C.(2013).CambodiaandthePoliticsofAesthetics.RoutledgeContemporarySoutheastAsia.London:Routledge.

Lindgren,B.(2003).TheGreenBombersofSalisbury:ElectionsandPoliticalViolencein

Zimbabwe.AnthropologyToday,19(2),6-10.

Linfield,S.(2010).TheCruelRadiance:PhotographyandPoliticalViolence.Chicagoand

London:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Lischer,S.K.(2006).DangerousSanctuaries:RefugeeCamps,CivilWar,andtheDilemmas

ofHumanitarianAid.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress.

Locard,H.,toBennett,C.,ConversationsabouttheKhmerRougeRegimeanditsPrison

System.[].

Locard,H.(2004).PolPot'sLittleRedBook:TheSayingsofAngkar.ChiangMai:Silkworm

Books.

Locard,H.andMoeng,S.(1993).PrisonnierDeL'Angkar:LesEnfantsDeFleuve.Paris:

Fayard.

Lohman,W.andEnos,O.(2014).PromotingTrueDemocraticTransitioninCambodia.PDF.TheBackgrounder.WashingtonDC:AsianStudiesCenter,TheHeritage

Foundation.Reportnumber:2898.

Macherey,P.(1999).MarxDematerialized,ortheSpiritofDerrida.In:Sprinker,M.ed.GhostlyDemarcations:ASymposiumonJacqueDerrida'sSpectersofMarx.London:

Verso,pp.17-25.

Mack,N.,etal.(2005).QualitativeResearchMethods:ADataCollector'sFieldGuide.ResearchTrianglePark:FamilyHealthInternational.

Mant,A.K.(1987).KnowledgeAcquiredfromPost-warExhumations.In:Boddington,A.andGarland,A.N.eds.Death,Decay,andReconstruction:ApproachestoArchaeologyandForensicScience.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress,pp.65-

80.

Marcus,G.E.(1995).Ethnographyin/oftheworldsystem:TheEmergenceofMulti-sited

Ethnography.AnnualReviewofAnthropology,24,95-117.


Marion,J.S.(2010).PhotographyasEthnographicPassport.VisualAnthropologyReview,

26(1),25-31.

Marks,S.P.(1994).Forgetting"ThePoliciesandPracticesofthePast":Impunityin

Cambodia.FletcherForumofWorldAffairs,Summer/Fall,17-43.

Marston,J.ed.(2011).AnthropologyandCommunityinCambodia:Reflectionsonthe

WorkofmayEbihara.Caulfield:MonashUniversityPress.

Marston,J.(2006).Death,MemoryandBuilding:TheNon-cremationofaCambodianMonk.JournalofSoutheastAsianStudies,37(3),491-505.

Martini,E.(2007).InvisibleEnemies:TheAmericanWaronVietnam,1975-2000.

Amherst,MA:UniversityofMassachusettsPress.

Mauss,M.(2002[1950]).TheGift:TheFormandReasonforExchangeinArchaic

Societies.Trans.Halls,W.D.London:Routledge.

McCargo,D.(2005).Cambodia:GettingAwaywithAuthoritarianism?.Journalof

Democracy,16(4),98-112.

McPherson,P.(2014).MemorialPlanPromptsDebateAboutVictimsandPerpetratorsof

Genocide.PhnomPenhPost,9May2014.

Meas,S.(2014).CNRPExploitingCoupAnniversary:Royalist.PhnomPenhPost,7July

2014.

Meas,S.(2013).'Miracle'Cremation:PMHunSen.PhnomPenhPost,15February2013.

Meierhenrich,J.(2009).Thetransformationoflieuxdememoire:TheNyabarongoRiverin

Rwanda,1992-2009.AnthropologyToday,25(5),13-19.

Mengleng,E.andZsombar,P.(2013).KemSokhaSaysS-21wasVietnameseConspiracy.

CambodiaDaily,27May2013.

Mey,C.(2012).Survivor:TheTriumphofanOrdinaryManintheKhmerRougeRegime.

Trans.Kimsroy,S.andSim,S.PhnomPenh:DC-Cam.

Mezzofiore,G.(2015).Isis:YazidiMassGravewithBodiesofChildren,WomenandMen

FoundinIraq.InternationalBusinessTimes,2February2015.

Middleton,T.andCons,J.(2014).ComingtoTerms:ReinsertingResearchAssistantsinto

Ethnography'sPastandPresent.Ethnography,15(3),279-290.

MinistryofTourism(2015).ExecutiveSummary.Cambodia:TourismStatisticsReportJune2015.PDF.PhnomPenh:MinistryofTourismStatisticsandTourismInformation

Department.

Mydans,S.(2005).CambodiaProfitsfromKillingFieldsandOtherSymbols.TheNewYorkTimes,(AsiaPacific)6November2005.


Mydans,S.(1998).CambodianLeaderResistsPunishingTopKhmerRouge.TheNewYork

Times,(World)29December1998.

Nao,S.(2013).GrowingUpinthe'KillingFields'andSurvivingtheKhmerRouge:The

PersonalReflectionsofSithaNao.XLIBRIS.

Naren,K.(2015).HunSenWarnsofCivilWarifECCCGoesBeyond'Limit.TheCambodia

Daily,27February2015.

Naren,K.(2013).AfterRainsy'sRemarks,HunSenWarnsof'InternalWar'.TheCambodiaDaily,21April2013.

Ngor,H.S.(2003).SurvivalintheKillingFields.London:ConstableandRobinsonLimited.

NIS(2012).CambodiaGeneralPopulationCensus2008.NationalInstituteofStatisticsofCambodia[Online].Availablefrom:

http://celade.cepal.org/khmnis/census/khm2008/[Accessed26April2012].

Noren-Nillson,A.(2013).Performanceas(Re)incarnation:TheSdechKanNarrative.

JournalofSoutheastAsianStudies,44,4-23.

Nou,V.,DiscussionsontheMassGravesinCambodia.[].

Obeyesekere,G.(2002).ImaginingKarma:EthicalTransformationinAmerindian,

Buddhist,andGreekRebirth.Oakland:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Oguibe,O.(1998).LessonsfromtheKillingFields:RememberingBiafra.Transition,77,86-

99.

O'Lemmon,M.(2014).SpiritCultsandBuddhistPracticeinKepProvince.Journalof

SoutheastAsianStudies,45(1),25-49.

Osbourne,C.(2007).DumbBeastsandDeadPhilosophers.Oxford:OxfordUniversity

Press.

O'Sullivan,J.(2001).EthicsandtheArchaeologyofHumanRemains.TheJournalofIrish

Archaeology,10,121-151.

Ovensen,J.andTrankell,I.(2010).CambodiansandtheirDoctors:AMedical

AnthropologyofColonialandPost-ColonialCambodia.Copenhagen:NIASPress.

Ovensen,J.,Trankell,I.andOjendal,J.(1996).WhenEveryHouseholdisanIsland:SocialOrganizationandPowerStructuresinRuralCambodia.Stockholm,Sweden:Upsala

University.

Owen,T.andKiernan,B.(2006).BombsoverCambodia.TheWalrus,,62-69.

ParkerPearson,M.(1999).TheArchaeologyofDeathandBurial.Stroud:Sutton

PublishingLimited.


Pear,R.(1988).U.S.AssailsKhmerRougeoverRefugeeTreatment.TheNewYorkTimes,

23October1988.

Peou,S.(2013).MassAtrocitiesinCambodiaundertheKhmerRougeReignofTerror.In:Ganesan,N.andKim,S.C.eds.StateViolenceinEastAsia.Lexington:University

PressofKentucky,pp.129-158.

Peou,S.(2011).TheChallengeforHumanRightsinCambodia.In:Davis,T.andGalligan,B.eds.HumanRightsinAsia.Cheltenham:EdwardElgarPublishingLimited,pp.123-

143.

Perera,S.(2001).SpiritPossessionandAvengingGhosts:StoriesofSupernaturalActivitiesasNarrativesofTerrorandMechanismsofCopingandRemembering.In:Das,V.,etal.ed.RemakingaWorld:Violence,SocialSufferingandRecovery.Berkley:University

ofCaliforniaPress,pp.157-200.

Peress,G.,Stover,E.andGoldstone,J.R.J.(1998).TheGraves:ForensicEffortsat

SrebrenicaandVukovar.Zurich:Scalo.

PPS(2013).TourismSectorinCambodia:ResearchPaper.PDF.PhnomPenh:PhnomPenh

SecuritiesPlc.

Rechtman,R.(2006).Thesurvivor'sparadox:PsychologicalconsequencesoftheKhmer

rougerhetoricofextermination.AnthropologyandMedicine,13(1),1-11.

Rechtman,R.(2000).Storiesoftraumaandidiomsofdistress:Fromculturalnarrativesto

clinicalassessment.TransculturalPsychiatry,37(3),403-415.

Renshaw,L.(2011).ExhumingLoss:Memory,MaterialityandMassGravesoftheSpanish

CivilWar.WalnutCreek:LeftCoastPressInc.

RGC(2014).NationalStrategicDevelopmentPlan2014-2018.PDF.PhnomPenh:Royal

GovernmentofCambodia.

RGC(2001).CircularConcerningPreservationofRemainsoftheVictimsoftheGenocideCommittedDuringtheRegimeofDemocraticKampuchea(1975-1978),andpreparationofAnlongVengtoBecomeaRegionforHistoricalTourism-Unofficial

Translation.PhonmPenh:ECCC.

Richter,L.(1989).ThePoliticsofTourisminAsia.Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress.

RithyMen,C.(2002).TheChangingReligiousBeliefsandRitualPracticesamong

CambodianinDiaspora.JournalofRefugeeStudies,15(2),222-233.

Robben,Antonius,C.G.M,(2015).Exhumations,Territoriality,andNecropoliticsinChileandArgentina.In:Ferrandiz,F.andRobben,Antonius,C.G.M,eds.Necropolitics:MassGraveExhumationsintheAgeofHumanRights.Philadelphia:Universityof

PennsylvaniaPress,pp.53-75.

Roberts,W.C.(2011).LandminesinCambodia.NewYork:CambriaPress.


Robertson,A.F.(2011).HowCanLukohoBeHisOwnGrandfather?BeingandBecoming

intheCartesianGap.JournaloftheRoyalAnthropologicalInstitute,17(3),585-603.

Rojas-Perez,I.(2015).DeathinTransition:TheTruthCommissionandthePoliticsofReburialinPostconflictPeru.In:Ferrandiz,F.andRobben,Antonius,C.G.M,eds.Necropolitics:MassGraveExhumationsintheAgeofHumanRights.Philadelphia:

UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,pp.185-212.

Rosaldo,R.(1989).Introduction:GriefandaHeadhunter'sRage:.In:CultureandTruth:

TheRemakingofSocialAnalysis.London:Taylor&Francis,pp.1-24.

Salter,R.,C(2000).Time,Authority,andEthicsintheKhmerRouge:ElementsoftheMillenialVisioninYearZero.In:Wessinger,C.ed.Millennialism,Persecutionand

Violence:HistoricalCases.NewYork:SyracuseUniversityPress,pp.281-298.

Samouth,N.(2013).Cambodia'sEndeavourinGreenTourism.PDF.

Sanderson,J.andMaley,M.(1998).ElectionsandLiberalDemocracyinCambodia.

AustralianJournalofInternationalAffairs,52(3),241-253.

Scarry,E.(1985).TheBodyinPain:TheMakingandUnmakingoftheWorld.Oxford:

OxfordUniversityPress.

Schanberg,S.(1985).TheDeathandLifeofDithPran.OpenMarketEditionedn.London:

Penguin.

Scheer,R.(2006).TheKillingFieldsofIraq.TheNation,18October2006.

Schmidt,S.(2002).MassGravesandtheCollectionofForensicEvidence:Genocide,WarCrimesandCrimesAgainstHumanity.In:Haglund,W.D.andSorg,M.eds.AdvancesinForensicTaphonomy:Method,TheoryandArchaeologicalPerspectives.Boca

Raton:CRCPress,pp.277-292.

Schwab,G.(2010).HauntingLegacies:ViolentHistoriesandTransgenerationalTrauma.

NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Schwenkel,C.(2006).RecombinantHistory:TransnationalPracticesofMemoryand

KnowledgeProductioninContemporaryVietnam.CulturalAnthropology,21(1),3-30.

Seaton,A.V.(1996).GuidedbytheDark:FromThanatopsistoThantourism.International

JournalofHeritageStudies,2(4),234-244.

Sharp,B.(2008).CountingHell.09January2008.Mekong.Net[Online].Availablefrom:

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/deaths.htm[Accessed02September2014].

Simons,A.(1995).TheBeginningoftheEnd.In:Robben,A.andNordstrom,C.eds.

FieldworkUnderFire:ContemporaryStudiesofViolenceandSurvival.,pp.42-61.


Sion,B.(2011).ConflictingSitesofMemoryinPost-GenocideCambodia.Humanity:AnInternationalJournalofHumanRights,HumanitarianismandDevelopment,2(1),1-

21.

Skinner,J.(2006).ModernistAnthropology,EthnicTourismandNationalIdentity:TheContestfortheCommodificationandConsumptionofStPatrick'sDay,Montserrat.In:Meethan,K.,Anderson,A.andMiles,S.eds.TourismConsumptionandRepresentation:NarrativesofPlaceandSelf.Wallingford:CABIPublishing,pp.253-

271.

Skinner,M.(1987).PlanningtheArchaeologicalRecoveryofEvidencefromMassGraves.

ForensicScienceInternational,34,267-287.

Sliwinski,M.(1995).LeGénocideKhmerRouge:UneAnalyseDémographique.Paris:

L’Harmattan.

Slocomb,M.(2004).ThePeople'sRepublicofKampuchea,1979-1989:TheRevolution

AfterPolPot.ChiangMai:SilkwormBooks.

Sokha,C.(2010).ChoeungEktobeRefurbished.ThePhnomPenhPost,6August2010.

Sontag,S.,1933-2004.(2003).RegardingthePainofOthers.London:HamishHamilton.

Spencer,J.(2007).Anthropology,Politics,andtheState:DemocracyandViolenceinSouth

Asia.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Spencer,J.(1990).ASinhalaVillageinaTimeofTrouble.OxfordUniversitySouthAsian

StudiesSeries.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Sperling,V.(2009).AlteredStates:GlobalizationandLiberalStateBuilding.Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress.

Stefatos,K.andKovras,I.(2015).BuriedSilencesoftheGreekCivilWar.In:Ferrandiz,F.andRobben,Antonius,C.G.M,eds.Necropolitics:MassGraveExhumationsinthe

AgeofHumanRights.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,pp.161-184.

Stone,P.R.(2006).ADarkTourismSpectrum:TowardsaTypologyofDeathandMacabreRelatedTouristSites,AttractionsandExhibitions.Tourism,54(2(SpecialIssueon

SpiritualityandMeaningfulExperiencesinTourism),145-160.

Strange,C.andKempa,M.(2003).ShadesofDarkTourism:AlcatrazandRobbenIsland.

AnnalsofTourismResearch,30(2),386-405.

Strong,J.S.(2004).RelicsoftheBuddha.NewJersey:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Summerfield,D.(2001).TheInventionofPost-traumaticStressDisorderandtheSocial

UsefulnessofaPsychiatricCategory.BritishMedicalJournal,322,95-98.

Summerfield,D.(1999).Acritiqueofsevenassumptionsbehindpsychologicaltrauma

programmesinwar-affectedareas.SocialScienceandMedicine,48(1),449-462.


Tegelberg,M.(2009).Hiddensights:Tourism,representationandLonelyPlanet

Cambodia.InternationalJournalofCulturalStudies,13(5),491-509.

Telfer,D.J.(2002).TourismandRegionalDevelopmentIssues.In:Sharpley,R.andTelfer,D.J.eds.TourismandDevelopment:ConceptsandIssues.AspectsofTourism.

Clevedon:ChannelViewPublications,pp.112-148.

Tesart,A.(1998).Uncertaintiesofthe'obligationtoreciprocate':acritiqueofMauss.In:James,W.andAllen,N.J.eds.MarcelMauss:ACentenaryTribute.Methodologyand

HistoryinAnthropology,VolumeOne.Oxford:BerghanBooks,pp.97-110.

Thompson,A.(2013).ForgettingtoRemeber,Again:OnCuratorialPracticeand

"CambodianArt"intheWakeofGenocide.Diacretics,41(2),82-109.

TuhiwaiSmith,L.(2012).DecolonizingMethodologies:ResearchandIndigenousPeoples.

Secondedn.London:ZedBooksLtd.

Tyner,J.(2014a).Deadlabor,landscapesandmassgraves:Administrativeviolenceduring

theCambodiangenocide.Geoforum,52,70-77.

Tyner,J.(2014b).KhmerRougeMemorialisationinCambodia.[Conferencepresentation].

Tyner,J.,toBennett,C.,ConversationsaboutMassGravesinCambodia.[].

Tyner,J.(2012a).ViolentErasuresandErasingViolence:MakingtheCambodianGenocide

VisibleSpatialitiesofException,ViolenceandMemory.Madrid:.

Tyner,J.,BrinidisAlvarez,G.andColucci,A.R.(2012).Memoryandtheeverydaylandscapeofviolenceinpost-genocideCambodia.SocialandCulturalGeography,

13(8),853-871.

UN(2015).CambodianMap.UnitedNationsGeospatialInformationSection[Online].Availablefrom:http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/cambodia.pdf


USAID(2004).Iraq'sLegacyofTerror:MassGraves.PDF.NewYork:USAID.

USIP(2015).PeaceAgreements:Cambodia.UnitedStatesInstituteofPeace[Online].Availablefrom:http://www.usip.org/publications/peace-agreements-cambodia[Accessed19May2015].

vanGennep,A.(1960[1908]).TheRitesofPassage.Trans.Vizedom,M.B.andCaffee,G.

L.London:Routledge.

Vandenbrink,R.(2013).SamRainseyWarnedof'Consequences'ifProtestsTurnViolent.

RadioFreeAsia,8August2013.

Vannak,H.(2010).BouMeng:ASurvivorfromKhmerRougePrisonS-21,Justiceforthe

FutureNotjusttheVicitims.PhnomPenh:DC-Cam.


Vannarin,N.(2013a).HunSenComparesOppositionCNRPtotheKhmerRouge.

CambodiaDaily,23May2013.

Vannarin,N.(2013b).HunSenTellsofEldestSon'sSupernaturalArrival.CambodiaDaily,

3May2013.

Venbrux,E.(2010).CemeteryTourism:ComingtoTermswithDeath?.LaRicercaFolklorica,61(Indigenoustourism,performance,andcross-culturalunderstandingin

thepacific),41-49.

Verdery,K.(1999).ThePoliticalLivesofDeadBodies.NewYork:ColombiaUniversity

Press.

Verdery,K.(2002).DeadBodiesAnimatetheStudyofPolitics.In:Robben,A.ed.Death,

Mourning,andBurial:ACrossCulturalReader.Oxford:Blackwell,pp.303-310.

Vickery,M.(1984).Cambodia1975-1982.Boston:SouthEndPress.

Violi,P.(2012).TraumaSiteMuseumsandPoliticsofMemory:TuolSleng,VillaGrimaldi,

andtheBolognaUsticaMuseum.Theory,CultureandSociety,29(1),36-75.

Wagner,S.(2008).ToKnowWhereHeLies:DNATechnologyandtheSearchfor

Srebrenica'sMissing.Berkley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Wallace,J.(2014).WorkersoftheWorld,Faint!.TheNewYorkTimes,(Op-ed)17January

2014.

White,G.(2006).Epilogue:MemoryMoments.Ethos,34(2),325-341.

White,G.(2004).Nationalsubjects:September11andPearlHarbour.American

Ethnologist,31(3),293-310.

Williams,P.(2004).WitnessingGenocide:VigilanceandRemembranceatTuolSlengand

ChoeungEk.HolocaustandGenocideStudies,18(2),234-254.

Winter,C.(2009).Tourism,SocialMemoryandtheGreatWar.AnnalsofTourism

Research,36(4),607-626.

Wood,T.D.(2006).TouringMemoriesoftheKhmerRouge(AnlongVeng).In:Ollier,L.andWinter,T.eds.ExpressionsofCambodia:ThePoliticsofTradition,Identityand

Change.London:Routledge,pp.181-192.

Yimsut,R.(2005).ChoeungEkSaleisSimplyandPlainlyanInsulttoallKhmer.TalesofAsia[Online].Availablefrom:http://www.talesofasia.com/rs-73-choeungek.htm

[Accessed4August2015].

Young,J.(2000).AtMemory'sEdge:After-ImagesoftheHolocaustinContemporaryArt

andArchitecture.London:YaleUniversityPress.


Zucker,E.(2013).ForestofStruggle:MoralitiesofRemembranceinUplandCambodia.

Honolulu:UniversityofHawai'iPress.

Zucker,E.(2009).MattersofMorality:TheCaseofaFormerKhmerRougeVillageChief.

AnthropologyandHumanism,34(1),31-40.

Zucker,E.(2006).TranscendingTimeandTerror;TheRe-emergenceofBonDalienafterPolPotandthirtyYearsofCivilWar.JournalofSoutheasternAsianStudies,37(3),

527-546.


Appendixone:DC-CamListofMassGraves

http://www.d.dccam.org/Projects/Maps/Mapping.htm

to live amongst the dead: an ethnographic exploration of mass graves in cambodia caroline

Documents