Residential patterning at Angkor Wat.

Stark, Miriam T. ; Evans, Damian ; Rachna, Chhay 等

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Introduction

Angkor Wat, as with most Angkorian temples, stood at the centre of a large walled enclosure. Abundant scholarship exists on the art history and architectural details of Angkorian temples, but little attention has focused on the structure and function of the large rectilinear spaces that surround them (Fletcher et al. 2015: 1390). Consequently, historians' models of Angkorian temple enclosures as 'sacred cities' or 'temple-cities' (e.g. Coedes 1941; Stern 1951; Coe 1957: 410; Jacques 1997: 138-42; cf. Pottier 2000; Evans 2007: 24-27 for historical reviews) have not been tested. Archaeological work is needed for such research (Higham 2000: 357) and forms the subject of this study.

Most of the Angkorian states largest temple monuments were dedicated to specific Hindu gods; Angkor Wat was dedicated to Vishnu (Fletcher et al. 2015: 1389). It was built during a time when Saivism predominated and Angkorian Khmers absorbed Brahmanic and Buddhist ideologies into their ritual practices (Briggs 1951: 194). Temples such as Angkor Wat hosted ritual performances, collective and individual, for the benefit of the deities enshrined within their walls. Priests, ritual specialists, pilgrims, ascetics and devotees performed puja (or prayer rituals) to worship deities in temple ceremonies, festivals and events. These activities required space and resources. Ritual specialists, attendants and musicians organised ceremonies. Guards staffed the enclosure gates; gardeners cultivated floral and spice offerings; cowherds provided milk and butter from their herd for rituals; and the temple manager and accountants organised finances. Cooks, tailors, carpenters, weavers, washermen, masons, architects and labourers also supported the temple's infrastructure.

Identifying where these people lived and worked requires archaeological research in forested settings with light surface artefact patterning. Evidence for use of the areas within Angkorian temple enclosures has remained largely obscure. The Greater Angkor Project (hereafter GAP) methodology combines analysis of remotely sensed data with field-based archaeological investigations to explore Angkorian settlement patterns. This paper explores residential planning during the Angkorian period (twelfth century AD) and the early part of the post-Angkorian period (fifteenth through seventeenth centuries AD).

We couple GAP research with data from the Lower Mekong Archaeological Project (hereafter LOMAP), whose 2003-2009 research investigated pre-Angkorian settlement patterns (sixth to eighth centuries AD) in southern Cambodia. Both projects are located in Cambodia's lowlands, from which shared writing and art styles emerged by the sixth century AD (Stark 2004, 2006a, 2006b; Heng 2013). This work, and research in neighbouring north-east Thailand, suggests continuity across space and through time in basal and Khmer settlement units (Welch 1997; Evans 2007). Tracing the long-term development of Khmer settlement-forms offers insights into Angkorian residential planning within and near temple enclosures.

Khmer settlement patterns

Researchers have studied Angkorian settlement and urbanism for nearly a century (e.g. Coe 1957; Groslier 1974; Pottier 2000, 2012; Gaucher 2004; Evans et al. 2007), and growing evidence from the pre-Angkorian period indicates that Khmer socio-political organisation extends back 200 years before the founding of Angkor (e.g. Vickery 1998). Figure 1 locates Angkor Wat, Greater Angkor and the LOMAP survey area. Few researchers have documented Angkorian residential space (e.g. Gaucher 2003; Baty 2005); none have studied households as an analytical unit. As archaeologists define 'household' differently (Pluckhahn 2010: 338-39), we focus on co-residential groups that used occupation surfaces, features and artefact assemblages associated with dwellings that stood on some or most mounds visible throughout the outer enclosure (e.g. Nash 2009: 224).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

We use the term 'settlement configuration' to describe clusters of archaeological features that recur across the landscape and circumscribe larger social arrangements (see also Evans 2007:154-58). Settlement configurations are surface phenomena, measurable using ground-survey techniques and airborne and spaceborne remote-sensing technologies. We readily acknowledge that our conceptual framework overlooks both short-term and long-term spatial activities described previously in the literature (e.g. Johnstone 2004; Stark 2006b).

At its height, the Angkorian state comprised a complex network of settlements, craft-production centres, transportation linkages and resource areas whose landscape stretched into modern-day Vietnam, Laos and Thailand (e.g. Groslier 1973; Pottier 1999; Stark 2006b; Fletcher 2009; Hendrickson 2010). From the ninth century AD onwards, most Khmer urban space was characterised by a dispersed, low-density spatial structure that created the sprawling urban complex of Greater Angkor (e.g. Fletcher 2012; Evans et al. 2013; Hawken 2013).

Traditional Khmer settlement was agrarian and rural in nature (Delvert 1961); archaeological work in southern Cambodia indicates it may have substantial time-depth (Figure 2). Four field seasons of survey by LOMAP covered 35km2 and identified three modal settlement configurations for the pre-Angkorian period. The first involved small clusters of mounds with associated ponds and moated mounds--or "moat-and-mound temple-centred" configurations (Evans 2007: 24-26). These could be hamlets and conform to the phum (village-level) administrative, settlement and work unit found today across Cambodia (Delvert 1961). LOMAP also mapped large sites with multiple moated mounds or mound-and-pond complexes (which we interpreted as phum or Villages'). A third settlement form involved a series of dispersed moated mounds. Figure 3 illustrates examples of pre-Angkorian settlement units from the Mekong delta and Angkorian settlement units from the Tonle Sap area. All three modal forms include mounds and ponds (the modern Khmer equivalent for pond is trapeang), around which several households lived to access fresh water during the prolonged annual dry season, and which characterise rural Khmer settlement today.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

These early to mid-first millennium AD LOMAP settlement patterns contain features that pre-Angkorian inscriptions describe, such as residential areas, water tanks, paths/roads/causeways, groves and plantations, and moated temples (orprasat) (Jacob 1979: 413). Epigraphic data indicate some variability in dispersed settlement form; for example, some villages were attached to particular rulers or temples (Sahai 1977: 47), while others may have been more autonomous. Archaeological research in north-west Cambodia suggests settlement pattern continuity into the Angkorian period (Evans 2007: 184).

Angkorian period urbanisation produced new settlement configurations: the orthogonal grid, and perhaps also linear settlement along rivers, canals and roads (Pottier 2012). Some relatively early temples in the Angkor region (e.g. Prei Monti, Preah Ko and Bakong) are also surrounded by multiple outer enclosures, but these may have primarily served non-habitation functions. For example, the eighth- or ninth-century Bakong temple functioned as a largely monastic (not residential) complex during its primary occupation, with residential mound clusters distributed for some distance outside its moats in a low-density, dispersed pattern. Other key ninth- to mid-eleventh-century temples that may have had associated residential areas lacked 'city' enclosures (e.g. Bakheng, Ta Keo and Baphuon) (Pottier 2000, 2012: 21).

Twelfth-century Angkorian kings constructed a series of temple enclosures on large-scale orthogonal grids (e.g. Gaucher 2003, 2004; Pottier 2012; Evans et al. 2013). Within its moated and walled enclosure, the Angkor Wat orthogonal grid pattern divides the space into blocks, each of which are further systematically divided into mounds and depressions that functioned as ponds. Twentieth-century surface modifications to the enclosure have obscured parts of the patterning, but we estimate that the Angkor Wat enclosure contained approximately 283 mounds and 250-300 ponds. Field-based investigations during 2010 and 2013 examined the nature and time-depth of this Khmer grid-structured settlement configuration from the twelfth century onwards.

The Angkor Wat 2010 and 2013 excavations

Excavations were undertaken at Angkor Wat from June to August 2010, and from June to July 2013 in collaboration with the APSARA (Autorite pour la Protection du Site et l'Amenagement de la Region d'Angkor) Authority. The 2010 work involved ground-verifying GPS prospection patterns in the enclosure's western section (Sonnemann et al. 2015: 1420). Work also focused on the less disturbed eastern enclosure and areas immediately adjacent to Angkor Wat's eastern moat, presented here as grid maps superimposed on a LiDAR digital terrain model (Figure 4). The primary research objective was to characterise the nature and dating of residential use through topographic and sketch mapping, systematic coring and stratigraphic excavations.

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

Fieldwork

Mapping in 2010 began in the north-east quadrant with a 40 X 40m grid, which revealed a system of mounds and depressions. Few surface artefacts were visible, with the exception of a few laterite masonry fragments near unit 7. Subsequent acquisition, processing and use of LiDAR data for GAP 2013 fieldwork in the Angkor Wat enclosure confirmed this 2010 field-based mapping. The 2010 coring transects using east-west and north-south profiles of the eastern enclosure helped identify intact archaeological deposits and build an area-wide stratigraphic sequence. The 2013 coring of depressions was ground-truthing for evidence of long-term standing water that would support the classification of these depressions as ponds. Every depression visible in the LiDAR and DTM projection of the south-east quadrant was sampled.

Fieldwork also included stratigraphic excavations of 25 trenches (6 in 2010; 19 in 2013) on mounds, along mound slopes, in depressions and adjacent to walls; 11 trenches sampled the tops of mounds. In 2013, three trenches were also excavated east of the outer wall and moat, where LiDAR imagery revealed a rectangular enclosure. Figures 5 and 6 identify trench locations in the north-east and south-east quadrants within the walled enclosure, and Figure 4 identifies trench locations in this outer eastern enclosure.

Stratigraphy

Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the four layers that characterised most trenches across the eastern enclosure. Layer 1, an organic ar.d loamy topsoil, whose basal section contained some cultural materials; layer 2, a cultural r atrix that contained ceramics (earthenware, stoneware and high-fired Chinese trade wares , some postholes, flat-lying stones or pot breaks in one or two sub-layers that represent surfaces; layer 3, a thick cultural lens of sandy clay with manganese inclusions; and layer 4, the natural substrate, which is even sandier clay. Trenches closest to the temple contained sandstone-chip construction-related debris as part of layer 2; trenches abutting the enclosure wall had the lowest artefact densities in layer 2. Layer 3 appears to represent the initial construction of the mound-pond grid structure and is associated with the temple's construction. Layer 2 is associated with the reign of Suryavarman II and use of his Vishnu temple. No pre-Angkorian signature was identified through the extensive coring and trench excavations in the eastern temple enclosure.

Accordingly, layers 2 and 3 are the focus of this discussion. Layer 2 in many trenches contained charcoal flecks, ceramics and recycled architectural stone, and possibly recycled architectural ceramics. Trench 3 yielded an earthenware stove (or brazier (Cremin 2009: 81)) fragment. Most earthenware sherds (except a single stove fragment) derived from utilitarian vessels such as cooking pots and water jars; some sherds that showed evidence of wear or sooting were probably cooking pots. Stoneware sherds derived from jars, baluster and pedestal vases, are associated with Angkorian-period occupation and are also illustrated in the bas-reliefs of the twelfth-century Bayon temple. Khmer glazed stonewares were recovered across the Angkorian landscape, and include storage jars, boxes, bowls and bottles (Guy 1997: 55-58; Cort 2000: 98-108; Chhay etal. 2009, 2013; Ea 2010).

Small fragments of high-fired Chinese tradeware' ceramics were also recovered during the excavations. Chinese tradewares recovered from archaeological sites across Greater Angkor date primarily from the Northern Song (AD 960-1279) through to the Ming (AD 1368-1644) dynasties (Ea 2005; Cremin 2006). Some particular Chinese production centres, such as the Guangdong kilns, manufacture goods that probably served as diplomatic trade products (Wong 1979), and have been recovered in elite and non-elite contexts throughout the Angkorian realm (Wong 2010). Lower quality Chinese bowls, boxes and globular vases are also associated with residential sites in the Angkor region (Groslier 1981: 230-31).

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]

Age of the habitation deposits

Khmer people used the Angkor Wat enclosure during and after the Angkorian period. Angkor, including Angkor Wat, housed Buddhist sanctuaries that attracted pilgrims from various parts of Asia during the post-Angkorian or 'middle Khmer' period (Loureiro 2005: 218; Sonnemann 2011: 44). One of several sixteenth- to eighteenth-century inscriptions found on walls and pillars at Angkor Wat, dating to 1579, calls the temple Visnuloka and records the restoration of the temple's walls and roof (Lewitz 1972: 109). The identification of a seventeenth-century Japanese map of the Angkor Wat temple, and other post-fourteenth-century remains, underscores Angkor Wat's centrality as a religious centre for centuries after the Angkorian capital moved south-east (Thompson 1997: 28-32; Sonnemann 2011: 137-38).

The 2010 and 2013 excavations produced both Angkorian and post-Angkorian materials in most trenches; the trenches along the enclosure's wall contained more post-Angkorian material. Two trends are clear in Figure 9, which presents radiocarbon dates from the 2010 excavations to characterise the occupation history of the Angkor Wat enclosure. First, locations near the temple and in the central north-east quadrant (i.e. unit 7) were used during the twelfth-century AD construction and initial use of the Angkor Wat temple. This pattern, coupled with LiDAR evidence for contemporaneous use of areas beyond the enclosure's eastern moat (Fletcher et al. 2015: 1393), defines the broad area that included Angkor Wat and its environs. Secondly, post-Angkorian Khmers also lived in the enclosure, as evidenced by radiometric dates (trenches 5, 6 & 8) and the recovery of Ming period tradewares. The fifteenth-century political transformation of the Angkorian state did not therefore entail an abandonment of the Angkor Wat temple area, as often assumed (see also Brotherson 2015).

Discussion

Angkorian Khmers laid their grid before or during the construction of the Angkor Wat temple, and this grid structured residences, and land-use, within the walled enclosure around the temple. Most sampled mounds produced archaeological evidence of residential activities such as cooking and house construction. Multiple population-modelling methods, including those using ethnographically based estimates of median Khmer house and household size (Delvert 1961:186), produce similar numbers; thirteenth-century Chinese reports of Angkorian Cambodia also described multi-household use of ponds (Zhou trans. 2007: 80; Hanus etal. in press). At its peak, the enclosure may have housed between c. 3000 and 4300 residents, and occupation at Angkor Wat continued well into the post-Angkorian period.

No significant variation was found in ceramic assemblages from different mounds to suggest social stratification; little stratigraphic variability across the cultural layers and sparse organic debris (such as faunal remains) indicates rather light habitation. This pattern contrasts markedly with deep deposits from earlier residential sites, as with the protohistoric and pre-Angkorian settlement of Angkor Borei in southern Cambodia (e.g. Stark et al. 1999; Stark 2000; Stark & Bong 2001). If the enclosures served largely ritual functions, then residence within their walls may have been restricted to elites (perhaps the royal court) and a range of full-time temple personnel: Brahmins and priests, temple administrators, temple attendants and support population tasked with maintenance (Coe 1957: 410).

[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]

Alternatively, the Angkor Wat enclosure could have housed both full-time temple personnel and also temporary staff, who resided at Angkor Wat for two weeks each month in the 'fortnight-on', 'fortnight-off pattern of work recorded in numerous Angkorian period inscriptions from smaller temples. Time is reckoned according to the waxing and waning of the moon in three separate inscriptions: K. 218 (Coedes 1937: 45-53), K. 254 (Coedes 1937: 180-93) and K. 809 (Coedes 1927: 37-46; also see Sahai 2012: 239-42). Working parties, if at a state temple, lived in villages outside the enclosure and alternated their use of the temple residential areas, producing a light habitation pattern. This pattern was practised at some pre-Angkorian temple complexes (described in K. 582 (Coedes 1927: 200-201), whose lodgings are labelled with a Sanskrit-Khmer compound term avasa kfium (Sahai 2012: 238).

In one scenario, only a portion of the staff lived within the Angkor Wat enclosure, either continuously or by rotation, and most staff lived elsewhere. The Angkor Wat system would then resemble that described for Ta Prohm, where only some of the 12 640 staff resided within the enclosure (e.g. Coedes 1906), which is more than six times the number of staff than residential features identified in the Ta Prohm enclosure by LiDAR survey (Evans & Fletcher 2015). No twelfth-century epigraphic evidence for workgroups or enclosure use is available for the Angkor Wat temple enclosure, so the fortnightly work programmes could already have ceased by then.

GAP research indicates that residential patterning associated with Angkor Wat extends to areas beyond the temple enclosure walls to the east: excavations in 2013 produced similar stratigraphic and artefact patterning to that obtained from trenches within the temple's eastern enclosure. A series of interlocking archaeological features that cover a 35[km.sup.2] area south of the temple enclosure may also be associated with residential patterning within the enclosure (Evans et al. 2013: 2; Evans & Fletcher 2015: 1411-14).

Conclusions

GAP research at Angkor Wat has produced three main findings. First, the temple enclosure area was systematically subdivided into an orthogonal grid; each 'block' contained a formal array of occupation mounds and ponds throughout the enclosure, except for the area flanking the western causeway from the West Gopura to the western edge of the main temple (Sonnemann et al. 2015). Second, this mound-pond residential pattern, in slightly varying forms, emerged at least as early as the sixth century, and finds parallels in other pre-industrial, low-density agro-urban landscapes (Isendahl 2012; Isendahl & Smith 2013). Finally, light residential patterning characterises excavated portions of this orthogonal grid.

Our findings have significant implications for understanding the structure and chronology of Angkor Wat's occupation. No evidence exists for exclusive elite occupation of Angkor Wat's temple enclosure, whether political-economic or religious (priests or Brahmins). In contrast, our work supports a model in which temple personnel of modest material wealth occupied relatively insubstantial, perishable structures located on mounds in the immediate vicinity of the temple. Excavations also indicate that the Angkorian occupation occurred in three phases before the sixteenth-century Khmer royalty returned to Angkor Wat. These were: during the temple's construction phase; throughout the reign of Suryavarman II; and in the post-Angkorian period (albeit with a much reduced post-fifteenth-century population).

Our collective research suggests that the formally planned mound-pond system within the Angkor Wat enclosure did not appear sui generis, but is instead the outcome of a long-term residential logic, and its initial structure existed, in one form or another, by the sixth century and through to the eighth century AD. Even as this gradual formalisation of the structure of the built environment was taking place in Angkor from the eleventh to twelfth centuries, the antecedent pattern--of clusters of mounds and ponds scattered across the wider landscape, often centred on a local shrine (or prasat)--persisted across Greater Angkor. Use of airborne laser-scanning data, together with archaeological excavation, has allowed us to elucidate long-term patterns of continuity and change in the development of Khmer residence patterns, encompassing multiple scales from that of the broader landscape right down to the level of the individual household. It has also redefined the use of residential space within the outer enclosure of Angkor Wat.

Acknowledgements

Gracious thanks are extended to the APSARA Authority for permission to undertake field investigations in the Angkor Wat enclosure, including HE Bun Narith, HE Ros Borath and An Sopheap, which were undertaken under ARC grant DP 1092663. We thank So Malay and Martin King for administrative support, and GAP 2010 and 2013 crew members, whose labour produced this research. Damian Evans drafted Figures 1-5. Martin King and Alex Morrison provided additional graphical expertise; conversations with Christophe Pottier, Roland Fletcher, Ea Darith, Ian Lowman, David Brotherson and Paul Lavy were exceptionally helpful. Thanks also to Li Baoping, John Miksic and Louise Cort for identifications of Chinese tradewares in the 2010 excavated materials. We thank the PT McElhanney, Indonesia, company for its contribution to the LiDAR acquisition, which was funded by eight institutions in the Khmer Archaeology LiDAR Consortium; APSARA Authority, the University of Sydney, l'ficole franjaise d'Extreme-Orient, Societe Concessionaire d'Aeroport, the Hungarian Southeast Asian Research Institute, Japan-APSARA Safeguarding Angkor, the Archaeology and Development Foundation and the World Monuments Fund. All mistakes are the responsibility of the principal author.

References

BATY, P. 2005. Extension de l'Aeroport de Siem Reap. Rapport de diagnostic archeologique. Trapeang Thlok--Prasat Trapeang Ropou. Rapport de fouille archeologique. Trapeang Thlok--Sanctuaire et Habitat. France; Base INRAP de Poitiers.

BRIGGS, L. 1951. The ancient Khmer empire (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 41). Philadelphia (PA): American Philosophical Society.

BROTHERSON, D. 2015. The fortification of Angkor Wat. Antiquity 89: 1456-72.

CHHAY RACHNA, HENG PIPHAL & CHHAY VISOTH. 2009. Thnal Mrech Kiln Site, Phnom Kulen, Cambodia (in Khmer). Siem Reap: Department of Conservation of the Monuments in the Angkor Park and Preventive Archaeology, APSARA Authority, internal report.

--2013. Khmer ceramic technology: a case study from Thnal Mrech Kiln Site, Phnom Kulen, in M.J. Klokke & V. Degroot (ed.) Materializing Southeast Asia's past: seleaed papers from the 12th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists (volume 2): 179-95. Singapore: NUS.

COE, M. 1957. The Khmer settlement pattern: a possible analogy with that of the Maya. American Antiquity 22: 409-410. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/276143

CCEDES G. 1906. La sfole de Ta-Prohm. Bulletin de I'Ecole franfaise d'Extreme-Orient 6: 44-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/befeo. 1906.4251

--1927. Inscriptions du Camhodge (volume I). Paris: E. de Boccard.

--1937. Inscriptions du Cambodge (volume III). Paris: E. de Boccard.

--1941. La sfole du Prah Khan d'Ankor. Bulletin de l'Ecolefrangaise d'Extreme-Orient 41: 255-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/befeo. 1941.5711

CORT, L.A. 2000. Khmer stoneware ceramics, in L. A. Cort, M. Farhad & A.C. Gunter (ed.) Asian traditions in clay: the Haugegifts: 91-150. Washington, D.C.: Freer Gallery of Art & Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution.

CREMIN, A. 2006. Chinese ceramics at Angkor. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 26: 121-23.

--2009. Image and reality: ceramics on Angkorian temple reliefs in Cambodia. Australasian Historical Archaeology 27: 79-86.

DELVERT, J. 1961. Lepaysan cambodgien. Paris and The Hague: Mouton.

EA, DARITH. 2005. The relationship between China and Cambodia: evidence from manuscripts, ceramics, and bas-reliefs, in Cheng Pei-Kai, Guo Li & Chui Ki Wan (ed.) Proceedings: Chinese export ceramics and maritime trade, 12"-15'" centuries: 267-79. Hong Kong: Chinese Civilisation Centre, City University of Hong Kong & City University of Hong Kong Interdisciplinary Research Project.

--2010. Angkorian stoneware ceramics: the evolution of kiln structure and ceramic typology. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Osaka Ohtani University.

EVANS, D. 2007. Putting Angkor on the map: a new survey of a Khmer 'hydraulic city' in historical and theoretical context. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Sydney.

EVANS, D. & R.J. FLETCHER. 2015. The landscape of Angkor Wat redefined. Antiquity 89: 1402-19.

EVANS, D., C. POTTIER, R. FLETCHER, S. HENSLEY, I. TAPLEY, A. MILNE & M. BARBETTI. 2007. A comprehensive archaeological map of the world's largest preindustrial settlement complex at Angkor, Cambodia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 104: 14277-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702525104

EVANS, D.H., R.J. FLETCHER, C. POTTIER, J.-B. CHEVANCE, D. SOUTIF, TAN BOUN SUY, IM SOKRITHY, EA DARITH, TIN TINA, KIM SAMNANG, C. CROMARTY, S. DE GREEF, K. HANUS, P. BATY, R. KUSZINGER, I. SHIMODA & G. BOORNAZIAN. 2013. Uncovering archaeological landscapes at Angkor using LiDAR. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 110: 12595-600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas. 1306539110

FLETCHER, R. 2009. Low-density, agrarian-based urbanism: a comparative view. Institute of Advanced Studies Insights 2: 2-19.

--2012. Low-density, agrarian-based urbanism: scale, power, and ecology, in M.E. Smith (ed.) The comparative archaeology of complex societies: 285-320. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

FLETCHER, R.J., D. EVANS, C. POTTIER & CHHAY RACHNA. 2015. Angkor Wat: an introduction. Antiquity 89: 1388-1401.

GAUCHER, J. 2003. New archaeological data on the urban space of the capital city of Angkor Thom, in A. Karlstrom & A. Kallen (ed.) Fishbones and glittering emblems: Southeast Asian archaeology 2002: 233-42. Stockholm: Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities.

--2004. Angkor Thom, une utopie realisee? Structuration de l'espace et modelc indien d'urbanisme dans le Cambodge ancient. Arts asiatiques 59: 58-86.

GROSLIER, B.P. 1973. Pour une geographie historique du Cambodge. Les Cahiers d'Outre-Mer 104: 337-79.

--1974. Agriculture et religion dans l'Empire angkorien. E'tudes rurales 53-56: 95-117.

--1981. La ceramique chinoise en Asie du Sud-Est: quelques points de methode. ArchipellX: 93-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/arch. 1981.1639

GUY, J. 1997. A reassessment of Khmer ceramics. Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society 61: 39-63.

HANUS, K., A. MICKIEWICZ & D. EVANS. In press. Imaging the waters of Angkor: a method for automated pond extraction from LiDAR data. Archaeological Prospection.

HAWKEN, S. 2013. Designs of kings and farmers: landscape systems of the Greater Angkor urban complex. Asian Perspectives 52: 347-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/asi.2013.0010

HENDRICKSON, M. 2010. Historic routes to Angkor: development of the Khmer road system (9th to 13th centuries AD) in mainland Southeast Asia. Antiquity 84: 480-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00066722

HENG, PIPHAL. 2013. Speculation on land use in and around Sambor Prei Kuk, in A. Haendel (ed.) Old myths, new approaches: interpreting ancient religious sites in Southeast Asia: 180-98. Clayton: Monash University Press.

HIGHAM, C. 2000. The symbolism of the Angkorian city. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10: 327-65.

ISENDAHL, C. 2012. Agro-urban landscapes: the examples of Maya lowland cities. Antiquity 86: 1112-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00048286

ISENDAHL, C. & M.E. SMITH. 2013. Sustainable agrarian urbanism: the low-density cities of the Mayas and Aztecs. Cities 31: 132-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.07.012

JACOB, J.M. 1979. Pre-Angkor Cambodia: evidence from the inscriptions concerning the common people and their environment, in R.B. Smith & W. Watson (ed.) Early Southeast Asia: 406-24. New York: Oxford University Press.

JACQUES, C. 1997. Angkor: cities and temples. London: Thames & Hudson.

JOHNSTONE, K.J. 2004. The 'invisible' Maya: minimally mounded residential settlement at Itzdn, Peten, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 15: 145-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4141552

LEWITZ, S. 1972. Les inscriptions modernes d'Angkor Vat. JournalAsiatique 260: 107-29.

LOUREIRO, V. 2005. The Jesuits in Cambodia: a look upon Cambodian religiousness (second half of the 16* century to the first quarter of the 18* century). Bulletin of Portuguese/Japanese Studies 10-11: 193-222.

NASH, D. 2009. Household archaeology in the Andes. Journal of Archaeological Research 17: 205-61.

PLUCKHAHN, T.J. 2010. Household archaeology in the southeastern United States: history, trends, and challenges. Journal of Archaeological Research 18: 331-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s 10814-010-9040-z

POTTIER, C. 1999. Carte archeologique de la region d'Angkor Zone Sud. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University Paris III--Sorbonne Nouvelle.

--2000. A la recherche de Goloupura. Bulletin de l'Ecole francaise d'Extreme-Orient 87: 79-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/befeo.2000.3471

--2012. Beyond the temples: Angkor and its territory, in A. Haendel (ed.) Old myths and new approaches: interpreting ancient religious sites in Southeast Asia: 12-27. Clayton: Monash University.

SAHAI, S. 1977. Territorial administration in ancient Cambodia. The South East Asian Review 1: 35-50.

--2012. The Hindu temples in Southeast Asia: their role in social, economic, and political formations. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study.

SONNEMANN, T. 2011. Angkor underground: applying GPR to analyse the diachronic structure of a great urban complex. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Sydney.

SONNEMANN, T., M. SAUERBIER, F. REMONDINO & G. SCHLOTTER. 2006. Reality-based 3D modelling of Angkor temples using aerial images, in S. Campana & M. Forte (ed.) From space to place: 2nd International Conference on Remote Sensing in Archaeology: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop, CNR, Rome, Italy, December 2-4, 2006 (British Archaeological Reports International series 1568): 573-79. Oxford: Archaeopress.

SONNEMANN, T., D. O'REILLY, CHHAY RACHNA, R.J. FLETCHER & C. POTTIER. 2015. The buried 'towers' of Angkor Wat. Antiquity 89: 1420-38.

STARK, M.T. 2000. Pre-Angkor earthenware ceramics from Cambodia's Mekong Delta. Udaya 1: 69-80.

--2004. Pre-Angkorian and Angkorian Cambodia, in P. Bellwood & I. Glover (ed.) Southeast Asia: from prehistory to history. 89-119. New York: Routledge Curzon.

--2006a. From Funan to Angkor: collapse and regeneration in ancient Cambodia, in G. Schwartz & J. Nichols (ed.) After collapse: the regeneration of complex societies: 144-67. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

--2006b. Pre-Angkorian settlement trends in Cambodia's Mekong delta and the Lower Mekong Archaeological Project. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 26: 98-109.

STARK, M.T. & S. Bong. 2001. Recent research on emergent complexity in Cambodia's Mekong. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 21: 85-98.

STARK, M.T., P.B. GRIFFIN, CHUCH PHOEURN, J. LEDGERWOOD, M. DEGA, C. MORTLAND, N. DOWLING, J. BAYMAN, BONG SOVATH, TEA VAN, CHHAN CHAMROEUN & D.K. LATINIS. 1999. Results of the 1995-1996 archaeological field investigations at Angkor Borei, Cambodia. Asian Perspectives 38: 7-36.

STERN, P. 1951. Diversity et rythme des fondations royales khmyres. Bulletin de l'Ecole francaise d'Extreme-Orient 44: 649-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/befeo. 1951.5191

THOMPSON, A. 1997. Changing perspectives: Cambodia after Angkor, in FI. Jessup & T. Zephir (ed.) Millennium of glory: sculpture of Angkor and ancient Cambodia: 22-32. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art.

VICKERY, M. 1998. Society, economics, and politics in pre-Angkor Cambodia. Tokyo: The Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies for Unesco, The Toyo Bunko.

WELCH, D. 1997. Archaeology of northeast Thailand in relation to the pre-Khmer and Khmer historical records. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 2: 205-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1027320309113

WONG, G. 1979. A comment on the tributary trade between China and Southeast Asia, and the place of porcelain in this trade, during the period of the Song Dynasty in China, in Chinese celadons and other wares in Southeast Asia (The Southeast Asian Ceramic Society, Transactions 7): 73-100. Singapore: Arts Orientalis.

Wong, W.Y. 2010. A preliminary study of some economic activities of the Khmer Empire: examining the relationship between the Khmer and Guangdong ceramic industries during the 9th to 14th centuries. Unpublished PhD dissertation, National University of Singapore.

Zhou, DAGUAN Trans. 2007. A record of Cambodia: the land and its people. Translated by R. Harris. Chiang Mai: Silkworm.

Received: 18 March 2015; Accepted: 10 June 2015; Revised: 13 July 2015

Miriam T. Stark (1), Damian Evans (2), Chhay Rachna (3), Heng Piphal (1) & Alison Carter (4)

(1) Department of Anthropology, University of Hawai'i-Manoa, 2424 Maile Way, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA (Email: miriams@hawaii.edu; hengpiphal@gmail.com)

(2) The Siem Reap Centre, Tfcole franfaise d'Extreme-Orient, Boeung Don Pa, Slorkram, Siem Reap, Cambodia (Email: damian.evans@efeo.net)

(3) Angkor International Centre of Research and Documentation, APSARA National Authority, Cambodia (Email: chhayrachna @gmail. com)

(4) Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 109 Davenport Hall MC-148, 607 South Mathews Avenue #109, Urbana, 61801IL, USA (Email: alisonkrya@gmail.com)

doi: 10.15184/aqy.2015-159