There is a blank period of contemporary historical materials between the Angkor and the post-Angkor periods. The well-known history of this period, from the 14th century to the 16th century, had been edited from the Dynasty Chronicles compiled after the end of the 18th century, inscriptions of the early 14th century and the late 16th century, and Portuguese or Spanish records. The parts not described in those texts have been filled with imagination. In this paper, we reexamine the inscriptions from the 14th to the 17th century and the earlier versions of the Dynasty Chronicles, to ascertain which data were cast aside, which story was derived from guesses when constructing the accepted Cambodian history, and to identify what is definitely written in the above historical materials. The results. 1) The fact that the Angkor Kings do not appear in the Dynasty Chronicles or modern inscriptions suggests the possibility that historical records were not inherited through the blank period. 2) In the late 16th-century inscriptions, the Angkorian sites are given the qualifier “of old Cambodia.” In addition, the King’s inscription refers to the builders of those foundations as “the ancestors of the King,” indicating a recognition that his own royalty was to be traced back to that era. The statements that many “old” statues and buildings were “restored” and that recovering “the old prosperity” through the spread of Buddhism was desirable suggest that there might have been major destruction and confusion, or there might have been a time when Buddhist statues were left unattended. 3) In modern inscriptions, the title of kamrateṅ was not attached to the King’s name but put after the words symbolizing Buddhism. Moreover, a 16th-century inscription contains the word varman in the King’s name. These suggest the possibility that classical knowledge had been handed down to the society’s upper class. 4) The lack of donations of lands and personnel, which were seen in inscriptions up to the 14th century, and the fact that the words prefixed to people’s names to indicate their sex and social status had changed before the 16th century, suggest the structure of society and the economy transformed during the interim period. However, as the gap period lasts as long as two centuries, rapid changes should not necessarily be assumed.