The landscape of Angkor Wat redefined.
Evans, Damian ; Fletcher, Roland
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Introduction
Over the previous 20 years, successive remote-sensing projects have
offered crucial new insights into the archaeological landscape of
medieval Angkor. Angkor is increasingly understood both as a collection
of religious monuments and walled enclosures, and as a sprawling,
low-density settlement complex, connected to a more densely populated
urban core by a vast network of infrastructure (Pottier 1999; Evans
2007; Evans et al. 2013b; Fletcher et al. 2015: 1396-97) (Figure 1). The
problem is that Angkorian period residential structures were largely
constructed of lightweight, non-durable organic materials, and the
ephemeral housing rotted away many centuries ago (Fletcher & Pottier
2002). The aerial perspective afforded by remote sensing, however, has
enabled identification of fundamental elements of those lived-in
spaces--ponds, occupation mounds, earthen roadways and canals--traces of
which remain inscribed into the landscape. Over the last two decades,
systematic and comprehensive topographical surveys have been undertaken
using a range of different platforms and sensors. This work has
transformed archaeological maps of the Greater Angkor area from the
basic, schematic renderings common until the 1990s (Figure 2), into the
richly detailed depictions of the archaeological landscape that are now
a familiar sight in publications on Angkor (Pottier 2006). This work has
provided an empirical basis for moving beyond culturally specific
'sacred geographies', rethinking the nature of enclosures and
twelfth-century AD temples, and working towards a more consistent and
rigorous spatio-temporal analysis of urban morphology. Perhaps most
importantly, it has laid the groundwork for a renewed focus on broader
human-environment interactions in medieval urban landscapes across
southern Asia and beyond (Fletcher 2012; Lieberman & Buckley 2012),
and for comparisons with urban landscapes in other tropical forests; for
example, the surveys of Caracol in Belize (Chase et al. 2011, 2014).
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
All of these maps of Angkor have, until now, suffered from one
major shortcoming however: the lack of precision regarding
archaeological topography obscured by dense vegetation cover. This has
been a particularly vexing problem in the central monumental zone, in
which the urban epicentre of medieval Angkor is now enshrouded by the
protected forests of the Angkor Archaeological Park. In 2012, in an
effort to remedy this situation, we initiated an airborne
laser-scanning, or 'LiDAR', campaign with the Khmer
Archaeology LiDAR Consortium over central Greater Angkor, which has
allowed the virtual removal of vegetation cover and revealed the
underlying spatial structure (Evans et al. 2013a, 2013b, 2015). The 2012
LiDAR data of Angkor Wat provide several remarkable and surprising new
insights into the temple and its surroundings. The settlement pattern
can be mapped with great precision and clarity, revealing, for the first
time, the spatial layout of a twelfth-century AD Khmer temple enclosure
(Figure 3). This, in turn, allows preliminary analyses of population
distribution and density, and modelling of the spatial and chronological
trajectory of landscape engineering in and around Angkor Wat. The
results cast further doubt on the traditional view of Angkor as a
succession of formally planned, neatly bounded 'temple
cities', indicating that the conventional model of urbanism in
terms of compact and delimited rectilinear spaces is no longer
compatible with the archaeological evidence.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
Outcomes
LiDAR redefines the landscape of Angkor Wat at multiple scales, not
only contextualising the temple within its urban and infrastructural
context, but also clarifying various elements within the moated area and
revealing micro-topographic patterns at a household scale that have
never before been observed.
Vicinity of Angkor Wat
Numerous temples, oriented east-north-east, surround Angkor Wat
(Figure 3), with the majority conforming, at least roughly, to the
moated mound of smaller Angkorian temple sites (Stark et al. 2015:
1442-44). Their orientation is different to that of Angkor Wat, with a
distinct shift towards the north-east, suggesting that they date from a
different period. In addition to this peripheral band of shrines, there
is an extensive archaeological topography around the mountain-temple of
Phnom Bakheng that extends to the south-east, wrapping around the
northern and eastern sides of the moat of Angkor Wat. This topography
again has a different orientation from Angkor Wat, being almost
precisely cardinally aligned, and it is the third distinctive system of
alignments in the area. Notable features of this system include the
causeway emanating eastwards from the foot of Phnom Bakheng, and the
'checkerboard' pattern of occupation mounds along the northern
side of Angkor Wat, partially mapped by Pottier two decades ago (1999,
2000). This appears to be part of an older residential pattern, probably
contemporary with Phnom Bakheng and therefore dating from the late ninth
to early tenth centuries AD. Although the chronology remains imprecise
at this point, it seems probable that the Angkor Wat complex was
partially imposed upon a well-established, urban network with multiple
stages of development.
The current inlet to the moat, in the north-east corner, brings
water from the Siem Reap River. Archival research into the Journaux de
Fouilles of l'Ecole francaise d'Extreme-Orient reveals that
this structure was constructed in 1916. In the past, however, Angkor Wat
was associated with four inlets and one major outlet canal. The
south-west outlet (often referred to as the 'Angkor Wat
Canal') that flows to the lake has long been recognised, and was
mapped in detail by Pottier (1999) (Figures 2 & 3). Along the north
bank are three inlet canals, one of which connects to the Angkor Thom
moat. In the north-east, a canal has long been known that runs
north-east to south-west; it was originally thought to flow into the
Siem Reap River and date from the late twelfth century AD. A possible
reading of the LiDAR data, however, is that the line of the canal
crosses the Siem Reap river channel and is cut by the river (Figure 4).
On the west bank of the Siem Reap River, the canal can be seen to go
around the northern, western and eastern edges of Angkor Wat's
eastern residential extension (see below for a discussion of this
feature) and terminate near the eastern axial road, flowing into the
moat of Angkor Wat. Marchal and Trouve arrived at a similar conclusion
in the 1930s, based on their survey work, and noted the existence of a
possible inlet to the moat exactly at this point (Figure 4). The eastern
causeway that divides the moat into northern and southern halves has
been a source of uncertainty for many years (Christophe Pottier pers.
comm). A canal runs along its length that now debouches into both halves
of the moat. Whether this was originally the case is unknown, but we now
need to consider that the causeway canal was somehow related to the
large feeder canal from the north-east. What is very striking is that
the LiDAR data show both that the Siem Reap River cuts through numerous
features east of Angkor Wat and also that the old canal was cut off and
blocked (Figures 4 & 5). The Siem Reap River channel clearly
postdates the initial layout of Angkor Wat and its original water
supply, and it cannot therefore be considered as an original feature of
the arrangement of central Angkor. Instead, the river channel becomes an
addition, as a major drainage canal, after the early-to-mid twelfth
century AD. How much later is not immediately apparent from the LiDAR.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
Grid and pond residences
Within the moated enclosure, it is now apparent that the initial
indications of a pattern of ponds and occupation mounds previously
analysed in the north-east corner in the 2010 field season (see Stark et
al. 2015: 1447-48) stretched across all four quadrants of the fourth
enclosure in the original design (Figure 6). The only open space within
the moat appears to flank the western causeway, where the two
'libraries' stand. Close to the cruciform entrance pavilion
(or gopura) to the west is an area with a complex sequence of successive
structures dating from the twelfth-century construction of Angkor Wat to
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries AD (see Sonnemann et al. 2015:
1425 & 1429), a situation that is complicated by a network of
roadways installed in the 1950s and 1960s. Otherwise, traces of the
original grid are apparent almost everywhere; the initial pattern
emerges even within the north-west corner, despite extensive recent
modifications to the ground surface in this area. A series of causeways
at Angkor Wat were already inferred from the positioning of gopura,
gates and cruciform terraces. Now it is clear however that there is a
smaller grid of narrower pathways forming rectangular spaces or
'blocks', within which is a consistent pattern of ponds. The
blocks are generally square, with dimensions of 100 X 100m, with most
blocks containing four occupation mounds and an excavated pond
immediately to the north-east of each of those mounds. The overall
pattern of blocks is far better preserved in Beng Mealea (Figure 7),
another temple of approximately the same period as Angkor Wat, although
the pattern of mounds and ponds within each block at Beng Mealea is more
varied than at Angkor Wat.
Given the remarkable consistency of this intramural grid, a
calculation of the number of ponds can be made, even if parts of the
pattern are obscured. This is of great significance for estimating the
relative and, potentially, the absolute size of the populations that
lived within the enclosures of each of the major temples of Angkor. Ta
Prohm and Beng Mealea, for example, had about half as many ponds as
Angkor Wat, although of more varied sizes (Evans et al. 2013b). Even a
maximum estimate of the Ta Prohm residential population is only
1800-2000, based on its 125-130 ponds and Zhou Daguan's observation
that one to three "families" (estimated at five people each)
shared a pond in central Angkor (Zhou trans. 2007: 80). This figure is
roughly equivalent to the total population of teaching staff and
students associated with the shrine or some portion of its
administrative staff, as detailed in the Ta Prohm inscription (Coedes
1906) and consistent with the associated statement that the work force
of 12 640 people included those who live within the enclosure (Kapur
& Sahai 2007: 21)--in other words, it did not contain all of them,
contrary to numerous comments and repetitions (see Glaize 1993: 183).
Some estimate of the relative size of the staff of Angkor Wat can now be
made, as the orderly grid of the main enclosure of Angkor Wat allows an
estimate of about 250-300 ponds, representing residential facilities for
more than twice as many people as in Ta Prohm--a maximum of 4500 people.
If the ratio of the number of residents to the total number of staff in
the enclosure remained roughly consistent throughout the twelfth
century, then the total work force of Angkor Wat was more than twice
that of Ta Prohm--that is to say, about 25 000 people in total. The Ta
Prohm inscription also tells us that 66 625 people in an extended
economic catchment were engaged in supplying the temple, i.e. an
approximately 5:1 ratio between 'suppliers' in the countryside
and 'staff engaged directly in service. Again assuming a roughly
consistent ratio, the inference is that Angkor Wat required a support
population of more than 125 000 people. Until greater clarity can be
brought to bear on the issue of exactly how many people lived on mounds
next to ponds through a process of household archaeology (see Stark et
al. 2015: 1446-47), these figures must remain very preliminary in
nature. These calculations illustrate, however, how LiDAR not only helps
to clarify the tremendous scale of the Angkor Wat complex, but also
reinforces the point that these temples were part of an immense economic
machine.
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
Abutting the eastern side of the moat of Angkor Wat, there is
another distinct enclosure bisected by the temple's eastern axial
road, containing rows of ponds and mounds (Figures 3 & 4). The
north-south dimensions of that external enclosure are almost the same as
the north-south dimensions of the area enclosed by the moat, and both
share the same idiosyncratic off-cardinal orientation, suggesting that
the external, eastern enclosure was part of the basic design of the
Angkor Wat complex. There are traces of a formal grid within the eastern
external enclosure; the spatial patterning of the northern half
corresponds roughly with the mound-and-pond grid inside the moated
precinct, while the southern half consists of an ordered arrangement of
mounds without ponds but perhaps in a 'block' formation. The
eastern external enclosure is rather different from the layout within
the moated precinct, suggesting a different function or perhaps a
different residential demographic, and discussed in the paper by Stark
et al. (2015: 1445 & 1450-51). As Trouve and Marchal proposed in the
1930s (Figure 5), the eastern side of the northern half of that
enclosure may be the feeder canal to the moat, turning south from its
north-east to south-west course. There is more structured archaeological
topography to the south but the overall pattern is obscure. In the area
to the south-east of the south-east corner of the Angkor Wat moat, the
early twelfth-century AD configuration has been dramatically altered by
subsequent hydraulic engineering (see below).
Unique features
The most striking LiDAR-related discovery associated with Angkor
Wat--perhaps within the whole 2012 LiDAR survey--is a remarkable
topography immediately to the south of the moat. For want of a better
term, these features are referred to as 'rectilinear spirals'
or 'rectilinear coils'. In the original configuration there
may have been four major blocks within this ensemble, each subdivided
into four minor sectors containing distinctive geometric patterns. The
two most intact, in the north-east, vaguely resemble rectilinear,
orthogonal coils (Figure 8). Here again, the idiosyncratic off-cardinal
orientation and precise alignment with the moat strongly indicate that
the overall ensemble is of early twelfth-century AD origin and
contemporaneous with the main temple. The LiDAR data also make clear
that the large, L-shaped canal commencing outside the south-east corner
of the West Baray--designated CP807 by Pottier (2000) and identified by
him as later than Angkor Wat--destroyed the central part of this
landscape.
Modern housing development is beginning to encroach on these
features in both the north-west and south-east corners, and has partly
obscured them (Figure 3). Nonetheless, it is possible to reconstruct the
pattern of 'spirals', except where they have been destroyed by
the CP807 canal. Generally, the features are composed of linear banks
18m in width, separated by 12m-wide channels. Several ponds ol 100 x 60m
appear within the pattern, including in the centre of each major sector
(and therefore at the nexus of four 'spirals'). The pattern of
the northern 'spirals' is distinctly different from that of
the southernmost block, which seems to be less 'coil-like' and
resembles an array of smaller banks.
[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]
A comprehensive pedestrian survey of the spiral features was
undertaken in the dry season of 2012-2013--The undulations indicated by
the LiDAR were clearly visible on the surface. In such a heavily
engineered environment it is difficult to ascertain exactly the
'natural' ground surface, but the difference in height between
the highest point of a given bank and the lowest point of an adjacent
channel is lm, i.e. if the water in the channel was 0.5m in depth then
the banks would be 0.5m in height above water level. The survey revealed
that the 'spirals' are featureless and archaeologically
sterile banks of sand (Figure 9). Even where there has been deep
disturbance of the features in a roadside drainage ditch, no evidence
for stone debris or ceramic material was apparent. This is highly
unusual for any residential, artisanal or industrial context at Angkor,
and suggests that the spirals were not used for any of these purposes.
Quite how the spirals functioned is not at all clear. Although the
existence of ponds suggest an association with water, which could
theoretically have flowed through the system according to the natural
north-east to south-west gradient of the area, the exact pattern of
water distribution has yet to be clarified, akin to much else about
these extraordinary structures. Most of the spirals, however, suggest a
kind of closed system, in which water would not logically have flowed
into, or around, the system of banks. Note also that the features in the
area that are designed specifically for water flow or storage (e.g. the
ponds), are far deeper than the 'channels' within the spirals.
For the most part, although the channels would have seen a measure of
internal flow during periods of heavy rainfall and initial flooding, and
would have captured enough rainfall to form shallow bodies of standing
water, the current evidence does not therefore seem to indicate a
hydraulic system designed for the effective distribution of water. Yet
an east-west canal, whose gradient could have carried water into the
northernmost channel of the northern block of spirals can be seen that
connects from near the south-east corner of the moat to the line of the
river off to the east; the west end is obscured by a later bank. The
east end is problematic as it connects to the current line of the Siem
Reap River, which postdates Angkor Wat and its associated constructions.
The indication is that at least one stretch of the current Siem Reap
River may have been a functioning channel--perhaps an overspill channel
for the north-east supply canal of Angkor Wat--well before the
construction of the current Siem Reap River channel.
[FIGURE 10 OMITTED]
What can be said is that the scale, morphology and geometry of the
coiled features are analogous in some respects to raised-field systems
in pre-Columbian landscapes of the Americas, including systems that have
been documented directly within urban contexts (Janusek & Kolata
2004; Erickson 2008; Beach et al. 2009; McKey et al. 2010; Lombardo et
al. 2011; Renard et al. 2012; Rojas 2012; Isendahl & Smith 2013) and
to similar fields that can be seen around Bangkok (Figure 10). One
option is that they served to provide organics needed for temple ritual
such as lotus (from the channels) and aromatics such as sandalwood trees
(on the mounds). The raised-field proposition will have to await further
investigations similar to those that have helped to clarify the nature
of raised-field systems in the Americas (e.g. Turner & Harrison
2012). Another hypothesis, not entirely incompatible with the
raised-field theory, is that the features are the remains of formal
gardens, perhaps with some symbolic or ritual aspects to the patterning
of space. If so, this would be one of the largest and most elaborate
such designs in the world prior to the great palace gardens of
eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Europe--bigger even than the palace
gardens of China and the Islamic world (Carroll 2003).
Worth noting also is that this feature may only have been
functional for a very brief period of time, if at all. It was cut
through by the huge L-shaped dyke (CP807) that connected to the West
Baray, a major water storage device until the late twelfth or perhaps
thirteenth century AD (Penny et al. 2007; Day et al. 2012),
unequivocally supporting Pottier's (2000) hypothesis that CP807 was
built after the Angkor Wat period, although it does not add any further
insight into the precise date of construction. Given that CP807 is
aligned on Angkor Thom and therefore dates to the same period, and
considering that Angkor Wat was constructed throughout the first half of
the twelfth century AD, the spiral features would only have been
functional for a brief period during the mid-to-late twelfth century AD,
an obscure and apparently tumultuous period in the history of Angkor
(Jacques & Lafond 2007: 237). The spirals may never have been
completed, and might never have become operational. The issue may
therefore be with what the features were intended for, rather than their
actual purpose.
Discussion
The LiDAR survey reveals that, in the Angkor area, the formal
division of enclosed space into urban grids first occurs unambiguously
at the temples of Angkor Wat and Beng Mealea (Figures 6 & 7),
although we can identify a possible prototype for the grid system at the
slightly earlier temple of Chau Srei Vibol (Evans et al. 2013b). The
road-grid pattern therefore precedes, by at least half a century, the
reorganisation within Angkor Thom. Furthermore, the LiDAR survey reveals
that the grid pattern extends far beyond the 9[km.sup.2] enclosed by the
walls of Angkor Thom (Figure 11). This extended pattern beyond Angkor
Thom is therefore from an earlier period because very few of the linear
features in the extramural grid line up precisely with the linear
features of the Jayavarman VII era inside Angkor Thom. The implication
of the grid within Angkor Wat, therefore, is that this rigidly geometric
patterning of space became a defining feature of the urban areas around
the major temples sometime in the early twelfth century AD and is
strongly associated with the reign of Suryavarman II, who was originally
from the area around Phimai in present day Thailand. Was the grid
pattern of Phimai a provincial Khmer settlement pattern that was
introduced to the capital? Or was it a central metropolitan development
that was exported to the provinces? The date of the grid in Phimai is
crucial. The question of Indian influence in the layout of Angkor Thom
needs to be pursued further, as the grid could have been originally a
borrowing from the 'Indian' tradition in the early first
millennium AD and then become entirely Khmer, or perhaps also had an
additional phase of input from the Indian tradition in the twelfth
century AD. Given that the narrow blocks of the grid within Angkor Thom
also resemble the blocks in Chinese towns such as Suzhou, as can be seen
in the famous Pingjiang map of AD 1229 (Skinner & Baker 1977; Xu
2000), the issue becomes very complex.
The results also reaffirm that LiDAR data, although limited to the
surface of the landscape, provide a significant amount of chronological
information, both relative (e.g. by illuminating the super-positioning
of features) and absolute (by being able to link certain features
logically and functionally to well-dated structures such as temples).
For example, what can be inferred with a great deal of certainty is that
the twelfth-century spiral features to the south of Angkor Wat
originally consisted of multiple rows (probably four), one or more of
which was subsequently destroyed by the construction of the feature
known as CP807 that, until recently, was believed to be a late
ninth-century AD 'city wall'. The complex web of relative
chronological and spatial relationships revealed by LiDAR can be
anchored in time, both to absolute dates provided by inscriptions and
scientific dating techniques, and also to narrow date ranges defined by
art historical and architectural styles, thereby allowing us to develop
more sophisticated models of the spatio-temporal development of Greater
Angkor.
[FIGURE 11 OMITTED]
The other profound implication is that the Angkor Wat complex was
far larger than has been envisaged during a century of investigation and
research. The complex has three major components: the main moated
enclosure; an eastern extension that was probably residential; and a
southern extension whose form and pattern currently elude explanation.
What is striking is that having recognised this overall pattern, an
analogous pattern can be seen repeated, on a much larger scale some
decades later, during the reign of Jayavarman VII: a central moated,
enclosed area with a system of city blocks (Angkor Thom); an eastern
urban extension (stretching to and beyond Ta Prohm); and a southern
extension that incorporates an array of elements such as CP807 and
Angkor Wat itself.
Conclusions
The 2012 LiDAR campaign unequivocally established the value of
airborne laser scanning as a vital method of archaeological prospection,
both locally and globally. The survey provides dramatic evidence of the
ability of LiDAR to illuminate trace archaeological features across a
diverse range of tropical environments, from dense forest to open rice
fields. What should now seriously be envisaged throughout Southeast Asia
is that vegetation must conceal significant amounts of detail in a large
number of important cultural landscapes, including around monumental
complexes that have been intensively studied for a century or more--a
lesson we are also learning from sites such as Caracol in Central
America. The lesson from Angkor Wat is that in heavily vegetated
landscapes, archaeologists must be very cautious about what conclusions
can be drawn in the absence of LiDAR data. Even within the remainder of
the Greater Angkor area, beyond the LiDAR survey area, the conclusions
must remain, for the time being, qualified. Many years of new research
opportunities in Angkorian archaeology have been opened up as a result
of the research planning of the 2012 campaign. In particular, given the
wealth of new data on surface archaeology that is now available, the
nature of Angkor Wat and its vicinity is due for a substantial
reappraisal using ground-based methods. One of the great benefits of
LiDAR data (and indeed remote sensing in general) in a vast cultural
landscape such as Angkor is the ability to identify critically important
nodes in the urban network where limited ground-based resources can be
deployed to maximise the archaeological return on investment. Overall,
the findings highlight the extraordinary capacity of technologies such
as LiDAR to provide new insights into archaeological sites that have
been the focus of intensive scholarly study for more than a century,
suggesting that other conventional ideas about the spatial and temporal
development of Angkor might be usefully reappraised.
Acknowledgements
Our sincere thanks go to the University of Sydney, and in
particular to Martin King in Sydney and So Malay in Siem Reap; thanks
are also due to the EFEO for support and assistance over many years. The
authors extend their gratitude to the staff of P.T. McElhanney Indonesia
for their contribution to the 2012 LiDAR acquisition, and acknowledge
support and funding from the eight institutions of the Khmer Archaeology
LiDAR Consortium; the APSARA National Authority, the University of
Sydney, l'Ecole francaise 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. We would like to
thank Kasper Hanus for preparing preliminary images, Tim Thida for
assistance in survey and mapping, and teams led by Miriam Stark and
Chhay Rachna for undertaking ground verification, excavation and coring
work in and around Angkor Wat. The work described here was generously
supported by the Australian Research Council--ARC Discovery Grant DP
1092663, the National Geographic Research Committee, the Wenner-Gren
Foundation and the Robert Christie Research Centre of the University of
Sydney.
References
BEACH, T., S. LUZZADDER-BEACH, N. DUNNING, J. JONES, J. LOHSE, T.
GUDERJAN, S. BOZARTH, S. MILLSPAUGH & T. BHATTACHARYA. 2009. A
review of human and natural changes in Maya Lowland wetlands over the
Holocene. Quaternary Science Reviews 28: 1710-24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2009.02.004
BOISSELIER, J. 1966. Le Cambodge. Paris: Picard.
CARROLL, M. 2003. Earthly paradises: ancient gardens in history and
archaeology. London: British Museum.
CHASE, A.F., D.Z. CHASE, J.J. AWE, J.F. WEISHAMPEL, G. IANNONE, H.
MOYES, J. YAEGER, M.K. BROWN, R.L. SHRESTHA & W.E. CARTER. 2011.
Airborne LiDAR, archaeology, and the ancient Maya landscape at Caracol,
Belize. Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 387-98.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.09.018
--2014. Ancient Maya regional settlement and inter-site analysis:
the 2013 west-central Belize LiDAR Survey. Remote Sensing 6: 8671-95.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs6098671
CCEDES, G. 1906. La stele de Ta-Prohm. Bulletin de l'Ecole
francaise d'Extreme-Orient 6: 44-86.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/befeo.1906.4251
DAY, M.B., D.A. HODELL, M. BRENNER, H.J. CHAPMAN, J.H. CURTIS, W.F.
KENNEY, A.L. KOLATA & L.C. PETERSON. 2012. Paleoenvironmental
history of the West Baray, Angkor (Cambodia). Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the USA 109: 1046-51.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1111282109
ERICKSON, C.L. 2008. Amazonia: the historical ecology of a
domesticated landscape, in H. Silverman & W.H. Isbell (ed.) The
handbook of South American archaeology. 157-83. New York: Springer.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74907-5_11
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 & TAN BONN SUY. 2013a. Acquisition
d'images LiDAR 2012 des sites d'Angkor, du Phnom Kulen et de
Koh Ker. Patrimoine Mondial 68: 60-63.
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. 2013b. 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
EVANS, D., K. HANUS & R.J. FLETCHER. 2015. The story beneath
the canopy: an airborne LiDAR survey over Angkor, Phnom Kulen and Koh
Ker, northwestern Cambodia, in A. Traviglia (ed.) Across space and time.
Papers from the 41st conference on Computer Applications and
Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Perth, 25-28 March 2013: 38-46.
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
FLETCHER, R. 2012. Low-density, agrarian-based urbanism: scale,
power and ecology, in M.E. Smith (ed.) The comparative archaeology of
complex societies: 285-320. New York: Cambridge University Press.
FLETCHER, R. & C. POTTIER. 2002. The gossamer city: a new
inquiry. Museum International 54: 23-27.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0033.00360
FLETCHER, R.J., D. EVANS, C. POTTIER & CHHAY RACHNA. 2015.
Angkor Wat: an introduction. Antiquity 89: 1388-1401.
GLAIZE, M. 1993. Les monuments du groupe d'Angkor. Paris: J.
Maisonneuve.
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
JACQUES, C. & P. LAFOND. 2007. The Khmer Empire: cities and
sanctuaries, fifth to thirteenth century. Bangkok: River.
JANUSEK, J.W. & A.L. KOLATA. 2004. Top-down or bottom-up: rural
settlement and raised-field agriculture in the Lake Titicaca Basin,
Bolivia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23: 404-30.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2004.08.001
KAPUR, P.K. & S. SAHAI. 2007. Ta Prohm: a glorious era in
Angkor civilization. Bangkok: White Lotus.
l'Ecole francaise d'Extreme-Orient, Aviation Militaire
& Service Geographique. 1939. Carte archeologique de la region
d'Angkor: d'apres les travaux de l'Ecole francaise
d'Extreme-Orient de l'Aviation militaire et du Service
geographique. Map, 1:40,000 scale.
LIEBERMAN, V. & B. BUCKLEY. 2012. The impact of climate on
Southeast Asia, circa 950-1820: new findings. Modern Asian Studies 46:
1049-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X12000091
LOMBARDO, U., E. CANAL-BEEBY, S. FEHR & H. VEIT. 2011. Raised
fields in the Bolivian Amazonia: a prehistoric green revolution or a
flood-risk mitigation strategy? Journal of Archaeological Science 38:
502-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.09.022
LUNET DE LAJONQUIERE, E. 1911. Inventaire descriptif des monuments
du Cambodge: tome troisieme. Paris: Ernest Leroux.
MCKEY, D., S. ROSTAIN, J. IRIARTE, B. GLASER, J.J. BIRK, I. HOLST
& D. RENARD. 2010. Pre-Columbian agricultural landscapes, ecosystem
engineers, and self-organized patchiness in Amazonia. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the USA 107: 7823-28.
PENNY, D., C. POTTIER, M. KUMMU, R.J. FLETCHER, U. ZOPPI & Tous
SOMANEATH. 2007. Hydrological history of the West Baray, Angkor,
revealed through palynological analysis of sediments from the West
Mebon. Bulletin de Tficole francaise d'Extreme-Orient 92: 497-521.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/befeo.2005.5994
POTTIER, C. 1999. Carte archeologique de la region dAngkor, Zone
Sud. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Universite 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
--2006. Angkor et ses cartes, in B. Dagens & H. Chambert-Loir
(ed.) Anamorphoses. Hommage a Jacques Dumarcay-. 427-442. Paris: Les
Indes Savantes.
POTTIER, C. & J. DUMARCAY. 1993. Documents topographiques de la
conservation des monuments d'Angkor. Paris: l'Ecole francaise
d'Extreme-Orient.
RENARD, D., J. IRIARTE, J. BIRK, S. ROSTAIN, B. GLASER & D.
MCKEY. 2012. Ecological engineers ahead of their time: the functioning
of pre-Columbian raised-field agriculture and its potential
contributions to sustainability today. Ecological Engineering45:30-44.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2011.03.007
ROJAS, J.L.D. 2012. Tenochtitlan: capital of the Aztec empire.
Gainesville: University Press of Florida,
http://dx.doi.org/10.5744/florida/ 9780813042206.001.0001
SKINNER, G.W. & H.D. BAKER. 1977. The city in late imperial
China. Palo Alto (CA): Stanford University Press.
SONNEMANN, T.F., D. O'REILLY, CHHAY RACHNA, R. FLETCHER &
C. POTTIER. 2015. The buried 'towers' of Angkor Wat. Antiquity
89: 1420-38.
STARK, M., D. EVANS, CHHAY RACHNA, HENG PIPHAL & A. CARTER.
2015. Residential patterning in Angkor Wat. Antiquity 89: 1439-55.
TURNER, B.L. & P.D. HARRISON. 2012. Pulltrouser Swamp: ancient
Maya habitat, agriculture, and settlement in northern Belize. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Xu, Y. 2000. The Chinese city in space and time: the development of
urban form in Suzhou. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
ZHOU, DAGUAN. 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
Damian Evans (1) & Roland Fletcher (2)
(1) The Siem Reap Centre, l'Ecole francaise
d'Extreme-Orient, Boeung Don Pa, Slorkram, Siem Reap, Cambodia
(Email: damian.evans@efeo.net)
(2) Department of Archaeology, University of Sydney, Quadrangle
Building A14, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia (Email:
roland.fletcher@sydney.edu.au)
doi: 10.15184/aqy.2015.157