Regional Economics and the Dissipation of Angkor - June 2019 - - PDF document

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333999093

Regional Economics and the Dissipation of Angkor - June 2019 SPAFACON Presentation V8 - D Kyle Latinis

Presentation · June 2019

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33389.64488

CITATIONS READS

50

1 author: Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Evolution and Anthropology View project Angkorian Hospitals - Tonle Snguot View project David Kyle Latinis ISEAS - Yusof Ishak Institute

74 PUBLICATIONS 399 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by David Kyle Latinis on 25 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

REGIONAL ECONOMICS AND THE DISSIPATION OF ANGKOR

• D. Kyle La8nis

June 2019: SPAFA Conference, Bangkok

david.kyle.la8nis@gmail.com +65 9075 4072 (WA) researchgate.net: hYps://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_La8nis

Historical Ecology and Economics: So What? (RELEVANCE)

• I frequently give a similar lecture to CEOs and high level government officials at the Lee

Kuan Yew School of Public Policy ExecuLve EducaLon Programme, NaLonal University of Singapore, Singapore.

• Several concepts to consider.
• For example, how many managers, craRsmen, service personnel, laborers, soldiers, etc. always

had “one foot on the farm [and fisheries]” as a safety net through their extended families – much as garments factory workers, brick makers, teachers, poZery manufacturers, civil servants,

• etc. do today? Did an economic deficit and collapse simply result in most people basically

returning to the family farm?

• What major commodiLes trade would leave no to limited archaeological footprints (i.e., we

know Cambodia likely traded a considerable amount of foodstuffs)? Thus, is our use of ceramics and other durable archaeological evidence necessarily a complete and representaLve proxy variable.

• How does the historic data compare with the archaeological (e.g., historic evidence of major

warfare, but very limited weapons and armor in archaeological record compared to South, Central and East Asia: i.e., are the bas reliefs and few inscripLons coupled with oral tradiLons even remotely accurate to the size, nature and types of armies and actual engagements that

• ccur [e.g., Chou Ta Kuan even menLons army of farmers]
• Did the Khmer elite entrepreneurs and related workforce simply move to or reside in AyuZhaya

(most of early AyuZhaya is Khmer); while the central Angkor “conservaLve” capital remain in Siem Reap? Was there tension that led to conflict?

Personal Interests and Research: Historical Ecology and Economics:

• Ethnographic data

+ Environment: List of things and condiLons...

• Economic data

(geographic, physical, biological, and social scales/boundaries)

• Historic data

+ Ecology: RelaLons...

• Archaeological data

+ Historical: Varying temporal scales of analysis

• Environmental data

(short-, medium-, long-, very long-term trends) * Evolu8onary * Economic

Assess long-term socio-economic relaLons between humans (social groups) and their environments and resources: different trends at different social, physical and temporal scales. Trajectories: Understand the past and present; beYer decisions and prepara8on for the future! Note: Behavioral Economics (humans not always ra8onal... similari8es with evolu8onary theory and muta8on); Species-Genera Ra8o Modifica8ons; Environmental/Ecological Transforma8ons

• Fitness
• Effec8veness
• Efficiency (MAX/MIN)
• Things that work, s8ck
• Long-term experimenta8on
• Culturally encoded

Historical Ecology and Economics: So What? (RELEVANCE)

• Provides an informaLve but fun background; historic and cultural (also dealing with

urbanizaLon, urbanism, ciLes, networks of ciLes and kingdoms, infrastructure, industries, various scales of value chains – local to inter-regional trans-Asian).

• Assess long-term socio-economic relaLons between humans (social groups) and their

environments and resources

• Different trends at different social, physical and temporal scales
• Short-term, medium-term, and long-term paZerns are different; paZerns within paZerns
• Successful and sustainable ideas, beliefs, iniLaLves, pracLces, industries (manufacturing,

services, etc.) endure; bad ones fail...

• However, each have different life spans... condiLons change...
• Lessons learned oRen culturally encoded in “rules of thumb” (heurisLcs), beliefs, tradiLons,

supersLLons, religions, official/unofficial cultural rules... someLmes lessons are not learned

• r are un-learnable through tradiLonal analyses...
• ExperimentaLon, tesLng, science is oRen at the core (but not expressed in scienLfic terms)
• UlLmately: Assessing and understanding trajectories: Understand the past and present;

know which direc8on we are going; make beYer decisions and prepara8on for the future!

Trends and Socio-Temporal Scales of Analysis:

Short-term: quarterly, annual, 3-5 year... Mid-term: decades, 1-2 generaLons, 5-25 years... Long-term: mulLple generaLons, centuries, millennia...

• 1. Bronze/Iron Age – Funan:

Increasing regional and inter-regional engagement (interacLon), networks, and value chains

• 2. Chenla (pre-Ankgor):

Decreasing socio-economic regionalism and extra- regionalism; increased insularity and heavier investment in domesLc economy; sophisLcated industries, technologies, services, management, engineering, etc.

• 3. Angkor:

Highly reduced socio-economic regionalism and extra- regionalism. Heavy insularity; massive domesLc producLon, distribuLon, consumpLon; but, significant regional trade deficit by terminal dissipaLon of Angkor (shipwreck data; regional archaeological data; historic data...) ca. mid to terminal 13th century and 14th century. Nothing being massively pushed out (exported) except maybe some food products... These are factors correlated to the decline of Angkor as a regionally “dominant appearing” power. They are not inter-regionally or extra-domesLcally engaged (entrepreneurs may have gravitated to Ayuythhya, but apparently not elsewhere (no migrant/trans-migrant communiLes, etc.) Lacked regional and extra-regional entrepreneurship (products, networks, business culture, etc.); and/or out- competed or simply surpassed by various neighboring poliLes. CementaLon of various cultural traits: conservaLsm, insular focus, etc. (sLll prevalent; cultural heurisLcs; posiLve, neutral, negaLve...)

• 4. Decline/Collapse of Angkor: (many models – combo)

1. 2. 3. 5. 7. 4. 6. 8.

Rise and Demise of Civiliza8ons: Economic & Socio-Poli8cal Founda8ons

KEY POINTS: Since Neolithic, Bronze, and Iron Ages....

Increasing:

• Surplus and storable/exchangeable food

produc8on (e.g., starch, vegetables, fruits, palm sugar, agroforestry, fish, livestock, etc.)

• Water, land, resource control, technology and

management

• Popula8on sizes
• Surplus 8me and labor poten8al
• Specializa8on in crans, goods, commodi8es, etc.

produc8on and economic efficiency (increased technologies in metals, ceramics, etc.)

• Socio-poli8cal and socio-economic complexity and

system efficiency

• Socio-economic network and engagement

complexity (nested and overlapping: local, domes8c, inter-regional and extra-regional)

• ... And so on and so forth
• There are points of diminishing returns, plateaus

and even decreasing efficiency in several cases...

O'Reilly, D., Shewan, L., A report on the 2011–2012 excava8on of Lovea: An Iron Age, moated seYlement in Cambodia, Archaeological Research in Asia (2015), hYp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2015.02.001

Since Funan, Chenla, Angkor...

• Increasing expansion and focus on domes8c economy and external

import.

• Compara8ve decreasing interest in intra-regional and extra-regional

export (i.e., nothing Angkorian being pushed out to inter-regional and extra-regional economies).

• Massive regional and extra-regional trade deficit - unlike many

neighbors, regional powers, networks, etc. from 12th-15th centuries

• nwards (AyuYhaya, Vietnamese, Cham, Chinese, several others).
• The industrial, technological, and produc8on capacity and poten8al

was there; culture of entrepreneurship was not.

• Unsustainable. Not regionally or extra-regionally compe88ve (socio-

poli8cal-economic... networks included...).

• No collapse per se, but no compara8ve growth.
• Eventually surpassed and len behind.
• Other factors involved in seeming dissolu8on, dissipa8on and/or

downsizing of Angkorian economies and power (environmental factors: mega-droughts, mega-floods, degrada8on; ‘big-system’ hydraulic failures, poli8cal factors including war, corrup8on, bureaucra8c overload, fac8onalism/split; state religion factors; Jayavarman VII finally “blew the bank” [burst the bubble... perhaps with added help from predecessors], others).

• The massive scale construc8on, infrastructure, maintenance and

service industries as well as networks dissolved aner Jayavarman VII: appeared as a collapse.

DATA Sources:

• Overall archaeology and material records
• Environmental/ecological
• Monuments, infrastructure, urban sites, industrial sites,

art/architecture, inscrip8ons – need to be careful as it dominates and skews our understanding of Angkor; e.g., limited research on household sites and neighborhoods,

• r peripheral, smaller seYlements
• Shipwrecks
• Terrestrial Sites
• Ports
• Urban centers
• Hinterland sites
• Historic records
• Inscrip8ons
• An8qui8es vendors

DATA Loca8ons:

• Local
• Regional
• Extra-regional

QUESTION: Was “it” ever as socio-poli8cal-economically as big and

increasingly expansive as we want to believe? It looks that way from the monuments, art/architecture, urban sites and networks, infrastructure, technological and industrial sophis8ca8on, etc.... but, how big was the compara8ve economy (e.g., was it bigger, the same,

• r smaller than Sriivijaya, any of the Cham poli8es, the Vietnamese,

various island SEA poli8es, etc.? Large but different?)

Agriculture, Agroforestry, Livestock, Hun8ng, Fisheries... Tonle Sap Lake, Mekong River, Tributaries and Floodplain = very produc8ve and fer8le systems (especially with enhanced engineering and control mechanisms) Construc8on, Management, Services and Maintenance:

End to End (e.g., landscape engineering, mining, manufacture, transport, design/engineering, architecture, water management, cransmanship: bricks, roof 8les, stone, laterite, masonry, carvings, statuary...)

• Bronze/Iron Age (1500/500 BCE): moated & mounded sites; larger seYlements; water control
• Funan (1st-6th centuries): incipient large-scale urbaniza8on and urban networks,, large-scale

environmental, ecological and landscape manipula8on and management, canals, water control systems

• Chenla (7th-8th centuries): urbaniza8on and construc8on boom of monuments
• Angkor (9th-14/15th centuries): pinnacle of monument building, urban planning (to include networks
• f urban sites), infrastructure development, construc8on, all other industries, various technologies,

management, services, religious and other knowledge, medical, etc.

• Post Angkor: seeming cessa8on of large-scale everything as if everyone just “went back to the

family farms” – most people likely had one foot in business, industry, military, management, etc. and one foot on the farm through extended family networks... very similar to today (e.g., Kampong Chhnang poYery villages, brick-makers, garment factory workers, soldiers...); but... things s8ll happening at different scale, manifesta8on, etc... (look for Yuni Sato et al paper and Mar8n Polkinghorne’s research at Longvek)

• Note: a lot of overlap archaeologically: the 8me periods are generally defined by historians and art historians

Environment, Geography, Landscape:

Primary/Central:

• Tropical, SEA, Sunda, Monsoon
• Hydrology: rivers, natural and ar8ficial

lakes, canals (fisheries, transport)

• Floodplains and lowlands (farm)
• Hills and mountains (forest)
• Coast (ports and fishing villages)
• Forests (decreasing)
• Farms, paddies, dry fields, house-gardens
• Planta8ons

Key & Unique Ecosystems

• Tonle Sap Lake & River
• Mekong River
• Tributaries and other river systems
• Northwest and southeast floodplains
• Cardamom Mountains
• Dangreak Mountains (tectonic plate crack)
• Northeast Mountains
• Coast

Landscape Engineering and Manipula8ons of Species-Genera Ra8os and Distribu8ons: very long history since Neolithic

In the summer: the Sun cooks Asia, melts snow, and causes a heat

• vacuum. This also pulls air with lots
• f water into SEA. Winds also

circulate because of the earth’s

• spin. Thus, the Monsoon.

Cambodia is low lying and mostly flat – collec8ng water in rivers, lakes, and floodplains.

Tonle Sap: The Mekong Rises, water floods back into the Tonle Sap, and Cambodia becomes a big lake; lots of fish and soil enrichment. When waters recede in the winter, it becomes prime agricultural land. This is the produc8ve core of agriculture and fisheries. Overall, it is large-scale and central.

Monsoon systems and topography create predictable annual water regime and food produc8on cycles. The Tonle Sap River reverses flow in the wet

• season. The lake expands and then retracts in the dry season. This creates
• ne of the most unique and produc8ve ecosystems in the region – forming

a base for Angkor’s agricultural, fisheries and transporta8on capaci8es. Other river systems and floodplains form a produc8ve belt from the north and northwest to the southeast lower Mekong delta.

Environment, Geography, Landscape:

Environment and Ecology: the wet and the dry...

Funan:

• 1st-6th Centuries CE (historians)
• 300 BCE (iron/bronze ages) to post-6th century

(archaeology); many sites have Chenla, Angkor and post-Angkor assemblages

• Early urbaniza8on; water control; massive

landscape modifica8ons...

• Global trade; services; industries with wider

distribu8on (?)

• Major shins in socio-poli8cal organiza8on
• Buddhism & Hinduism; wri8ng; 8tle shins;

elephants...

• “Demise” may be related to rise of Srivijaya

(economic compe88on; Funan no longer central in trade network; absorbed by Chenla and Angkor...)

• Compe88on from other prominent areas; Funan no

longer as relevant internally

Chenla: 7th-8th Centuries CE (historians)

• Two Chenlas (land, water)
• Limited dirt archaeology related to seYlement

paYern, industry, etc.

• Major temple building begins
• Increased urbaniza8on

Post-Angkor/Longvek: Aner 14th century to Colonial period...

Brief Historic Overview:

Angkor: 9th-13/14th Centuries CE (historians)

• Previous dense seYlement of area
• 4 million +; Angkor Wat

500,000-1,000,000 (low density, dispersed)

• Major temple & city building
• Kulen thought to be first city (802 CE):

Jayavarman II (before Yasodharapura)

• Angkor Demise: previous models – conquest
• Environmental, ecological & economic models now prevailing
• My guess: economic and global network compe88on and

entrepreneurship - major factors (La8nis 2017)

• Khmer not engaged regionally; eventually out-competed by

neighbors; tradi8onal internal produc8on, distribu8on and consump8on model no longer sustainable; excluded from new regional networks (possible self exclusion); over-conserva8sm countered innova8on and entrepreneurship...

• Shipwreck evidence (Thai, Vietnamese, Chinese ceramics... no Khmer)
• Terrestrial site data throughout region: similar paYern
• Technology considera8ons...
• Power-Economic split between Khmer in west vs Angkor capital

“Paleolithic –Neolithic”: Laang Spean; Banteay Kou Sites (e.g., Memot)

O'Reilly, D., Shewan, L., A report on the 2011–2012 excava8on of Lovea: An Iron Age, moated seYlement in Cambodia, Archaeological Research in Asia (2015), hYp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2015.02.001

Bronze/Iron Ages (e.g., Lovea Site; several in Thailand...)

Funan (e.g., Angkor Borei, Oc Eo, many others)

Angkor Borei, Phnom Da, Phnom Borei, Asram Maha Russei

Reminder: PoZery Industries are Important Data Set as Proxy Variable

Phnom Chisor

Phnom Chisor has been fixed temporally by historians and art historians as a Suryavarman I early 11th century temple site. However, the landscape archaeology, surface scaZers, and compromised archaeological sites yield a much lengthier and more interesLng narraLve. There are major Funan, Iron Age, and Bronze Age aspects in surrounding sites, material culture and landscape features. Also, numerous surface remains of Song-Yuan, Thai, Vietnamese, Cham and Ming trade wares from 12th-16th/ 17th centuries.

Kamplong and numerous mound sites

ParLcularly numerous and dense from Phnom Penh through lower Mekong and deltaic region – Funan homeland Many with material culture ranging from Iron/Bronze Ages through 12th-17th century surface scaZers containing imported Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese and Cham ceramics

Kamplong (near Phnom Penh on east side of Mekong River)

PoZery, beads, bone, bricks, stone tools ranging from late Neolithic to 16th/16th century exoLc trade wares

Kamplong

Note several brick structural remains – probably 7th/8th century

Kamplong

Currently destroyed to mine soil/fill for house and building development CauLon: UXOs sLll present in site (I uncovered a mortar round in 2013)

Chenla/Zhenla/Pre-Angkor

(quite possible the separate Chenlas – Water Chenla and Land Chenla – were simply different river systems; Stung Sen and Mekong)

Sambor Prei Kuk:

Isanapura Chenla Capital 7th-8th centuries

Compare:

Green forested area in satellite image above with LiDAR image below.

Photo: Ea Darith Photo: D. Kyle La8nis Photo: D. Kyle La8nis

Sambor Prei Kuk: 7th-8th century capital (Chenla): note increased forest cover at sites – aerials/satellite less effecLve: LIDAR soluLon

Angkor

• Key points: Significant labor input = substan8al organiza8on, management, specialists, design & planning.
• Ditches & drainage features + ponds = water control importance
• Terracing = eleva8on importance; use of natural slope, likely symbolic, par8ally func8onal
• Es8mates allow for compara8ve analysis with other complexes; eventually can be translated to labor hours/

work/energy & ‘management-organiza8on complexity’ proxies

• Note: relaLons & implicaLons vis-a-vis kiln sites, quarries, other sites & industries discussed elsewhere

Ambiguous cluster of features. Ambiguous cluster of features and/or natural features? Linear features (embankments, terraces, ponds, ditches, etc. Total length: 7 km.

• 7000 x 3.0 x 1.0-2.0 m = 20,000 – 40,000 m3 of excavated, moved, or piled earth

(minimum es8mates; numerous features and superstructures not included)

• Upper terrace = 125 x 125 x 1.0-2.0 m = es8mated 15,000 -30,000 m3 of

buYressed fill (minimum es8mates)

Cursory analysis:

• LIDAR features
• coarse esLmates
• ground truthing
• accuracy limited
• basic comparison

Banteay site loca8on on LIDAR image.

Banteay, Palace, 9th Century, Phnom Kulen:

Peam Kre & Don Meas Sema Stone Sites, Phnom Kulen:

• MulLcultural, mulL-religious, mulL-kingdom, etc.
• Economic and security alliances; salt trade (sLll exists 1200 years later); road networks and

infrastructure (logisLcs, value chain, etc.).

• Industries: agriculture, agroforestry, water, quarries, kilns (ceramics), construcLon, etc.

Bakong; early Angkor; 9th century

(first pyramid mountain temple; large baray/reservoir: begins trend for increased monuments, monument sizes, landscape feature frequencies and sizes, infrastructure development, etc. with subsequent rulers and ruling families un8l Jayavarman VII - 13th century)

Koh Ker: 10th century

(as with most other sites, the enLre life span of the seZlement is far lengthier; Koh Ker ranging from at least 7th/8th century to 19th century)

Dam Features Rahal Prasat Thom Research Area

LIDAR images of Koh Ker

Map: Khmer Archaeological LIDAR Consor8um 2012; Courtesy of APSARA.

Oblique Google Earth Image (top); Site loca8ons on LIDAR image (boYom)

Map: Khmer Archaeological LIDAR Consor8um 2012; Courtesy of APSARA.

• Pre-Ankgor to post-Angkor: local and exo8c wares (glazed and unglazed stoneware, earthenware, others)
• Although an abundance of roof 8les and Khmer ceramics are noted in the palace area (red outline – far len image), there are

few pre-Angkor, Song-Yuan, and later period ceramics – unlike adjacent areas. This may relate to long-term disuse or restricted use of the palace area following abandonment (e.g., taboos following death or disempowerment of royalty; we noted a similar paYern at Banteay, Phnom Kulen. Jayavarman II’s palace (La8nis 2015).

• The area to the south of the palace seems to have a compara8vely high density of Khmer brown-glazed poYery – perhaps

indica8ve of specialized ac8vity areas in a unique urban quarter at a later date (func8onal; social; temporal); socio-economic spa8al differences in seYlement; sampling; etc. (images from Tho et al 2015/2016).

• Other unique paYerns at Koh Ker: high/low density areas; assemblage variability (types, forms, etc.).

Surface Sampling Results (Tho et al 2015/2016):

KK 1 + KK 2 + KK 3 * 24,291 pcs; 217 kg Ceramics 93% (pcs) 83% (mass) KK3 1207 pcs; 27kg; roof 8les KK 1 + KK 2 ** Earthenware (includes diagnos8c): 19,950 pcs; 93% 127 kg; 80% Diagnos8c Earthenware: 3,423 pcs; 16% 43 kg; 27% Stoneware: *** 1485 pcs; 7% 29 kg; 19% Khmer Green Glazed: 315 pcs; 1.5% 2.1 kg; 1.3% Khmer Brown Glazed: 325 pcs; 1.5% 8.8 kg; 5.6% (1 vessel/jar = 25% of stoneware) Exo8c Glazed (mostly Chinese): 94 pcs; 0.4% 1.0 kg; 0.7%

* % of en8re assemblage ** % of KK 1 + KK 2 ceramics *** includes glazed and unglazed

Koh Ker Ceramics

Koh Ker Analysis & Results: Brown glazed (Khmer)

Khmer brown-glazed wares likely post-da8ng 10th century Possibly Buriram on lower len

Koh Ker Analysis & Results: Khmer green glazed (leR); Chinese Qingbai covered box lid (right) Khmer green glazed (9th/10th century); exo8c wares (9th-16th centuries and later)

Type Khmer Brown Glazed Khmer Green Glazed Exotic Site KK1 KK2 KK1 KK2 KK1 KK2 Unit J28 J30 P47 Q49 S50 J28 J30 P47 Q49 S50 J28 J30 P47 Q49 S50 Level 0 N/A + + N/A N/A N/A + + N/A N/A N/A + + N/A N/A Level 1 + + + + + +

• +
• +

+ + + + + Level 2

• +

+ + + + +

• +

+

• +

+ + + Level 3

• +

+ +

• +

+ + +

• +

+ +

• Level 4
• +
• +

+ + +

• +
• +
• Level 5
• +

+ + + +

• +

+

• Level 6
• +
• +

+

• +

+

• Level 7
• +
• +

+ + +

• +
• Level 8
• +

+

• +
• +
• Level 9
• Base
• +

+

Base

• +
• Base
• Level 10
• Base

+ + +

Base

• Base

Level 11

• Base
• +

Base

+

• Base

Level 12

• +

+

• Level 13
• +
• Level 14
• +
• Level 15
• +
• Level 16
• Level 17
• Base
• Base

+ *

Base

Level 18

Base Base Base

Counts of occurrences by combined levels (levels combined by stratigraphic thirds) Upper 1/3 1 4 3 3 2 5 6 2 2 2 4 4 3 2 2 Middle 1/3 1 2 4 6 3 2 2 3 1 3 1 Lower 1/3 1 1 2 2 3 1 1

This slide highlights the representa8on of: 1) Khmer Green Glazed (ca 9th century), 2) Khmer Brown Glazed (ca 11th/ 12th century and later, while green glaze falls out: HOWEVER, read Mariner et al 2018 for an excellent review that I cannot summarize here), and 3) generally exo8c Chinese Song-Yuan poYery (probably 12th-14th century). The second excava8on at KK2 has similar results. Later finds are only found on surfaces (14th/15th century – 17th/18th century). Sites are eroding so that is expected. Aberrant representa8ons are usually near intrusive pits. It is reminded that only 496 (11.5kg) Brown Glazed and 515 (37kg) Green Glazed Khmer ceramics were recovered. Most the Brown Glazed was from a broken surface jar. The numbers are far less than we predicted but sufficient to help da8ng; and, has interes8ng implica8ons for value chains.

KK1 KK2 Ceramic Category Count Percent Column Mass (g) Percent Column Count Percent Column Mass (g) Percent Column Earthenware 9630 93.54% 67832 83.40% 10322 92.83% 58036 79.56% Stoneware 633 6.15% 12746 15.67% 776 6.98% 14826 20.32% Exotic 32 0.31% 758 0.93% 21 0.19% 87 0.12% Totals 10295 100.00% 81336 100.00% 11119 100.00% 72949 100.00% Adjusted: Large Brown-Glazed Jar in KK1 Removed Earthenware 9630 95.94% 67832 92.02% 10322 92.83% 58036 79.56% Stoneware 376 3.75% 5126 6.95% 776 6.98% 14826 20.32% Exotic 32 0.32% 758 1.03% 21 0.19% 87 0.12% Totals 10038 100.00% 73716 100.00% 11119 100.00% 72949 100.00%

The 2015 Excava8on at KK1 and KK2 yielded 23,095 ar8facts (193kg); 21,414 (93%) were ceramics (154.3kg; 80% by mass) in 25.6m3. The 2016 Excava8on at KK2 yielded 17,510 ar8facts (120kg); 14,988 (86%) were ceramics (101.4kg; 85% by mass). However, there were over 1600 faunal remains from the 2016 KK2 excava8on. Not surprisingly, a large number of cooking pots were recovered in the area close to the large cooking feature.

KK2-2016 Ceramic Category Count Percent Colum Mass (g) Percent Column Earthenware 13825 92.24% 84604 83.41% Stoneware 1135 7.57% 16668 16.43% Exo8c 28 0.19% 161 0.16% Totals 14988 100.00% 101433 100.00%

KK1 and KK2 Ceramics: Earthenware, Stoneware, and ExoLc (Stoneware includes Khmer Green and Brown Glazed)

The exo8c ceramics were almost exclusively Chinese Song-Yuan Celadon, Dehua, and Qingbai Covered Boxes. Two fragments of 9th century Persian blue glazed ware in separate units (and reported in the area previously).

Angkor Wat: 12th century

Angkor Wat; Beng Mealea; Preah Khan of Kampong Svay; Preah Khan of Angkor; Ta Prom; Banteay Chhmar; Evans 2016

Angkor Wat: 12th century

Photo: Chan Wai Peng

Angkor Thom: 12th/13th centuries

Kilns and ceramic industries

• Green glazed – earlier (9th – 10th/11th centuries)
• Brown glazed – later (10/11th – 14th/15th centuries)
• Kiln size and technology increases during brown-glaze produc8on
• Green glazed wares s8ll produced; brown glazed wares become dominant
• None of them exported

Anlong Thom kilns, Phnom Kulen Torp Chey: Complex Brown Glazed Kilns (Ea Darith)

Hendrickson 2010 Slide from Im 2017

• Most hospitals and rest houses are

located in/near ac8ve J-VII period urban complexes e.g., (Angkor Thom; Banteay Chhmar; Phimai; Koh Ker) and connec8ng road networks.

• Distribu8on
• Roads: 40 km apart (1 day)

(2 rest houses between)

• Urban complexes

(cardinal gates; other loca8ons)

Angkorian Medical Industries and Infrastructure (lessons learned):

Angkorian Medical Industries (lessons learned):

Tonle Snguot: Hospital (102 total hospitals): Physical, Mental, Spiritual Treatment; Public, State Supported

Lessons Learned:

1) Good iniLaLve; originally successful; numerous pracLcal, poliLcal, logisLcs, health, socio-economic, etc. benefits 2) Probably should have parLally/fully privaLzed and commercialized 3) Poor Lming vis-a-vis overall economic trends

Photo: Chan Wai Peng

Tonle Snguot Hospital Site (outside north gate at Angkor Thom; 2017 NSC-EAS Field School)

Post-Angkor: Longvek and Phnom Udong (Yuni Sato et al this session)

Imports: Inter-Regionally and Extra-Regionally

• Metals (eventually developed own industries): bronze, iron, precious – gold, silver
• Glass, beads... (developed local industries-?)
• Ceramics (Some Tang and Persian; more abundant Song-Yuan: Celadon, Qingbai, Whitewares, early

Blue and White, Thai, Vietnamese, Cham): developed comparable industries by 9th century (Khmer green; Khmer brown glazed wares), but never pushed out – i.e., consumed internally

• Organized World Religions (Hinduism [mainly Saivite]; Buddhism): soon developed their own styles

and altered ideologies/prac8ces (combined, syncre8zed, fused, altered...)

• Exports: ?
• Foodstuffs and some products for shipping/transshipping industries in late Iron Age through

Funan? A few missions to China... some elephants, etc...

• Then what? Compara8vely fewer and less frequent missions anywhere, except perhaps Champa
• Moves to Stung Sen River area and Mekong (Chenla[s]); Moves to Siem Reap...
• By late 13th century... descrip8ons by Chou Ta Kuan (Zhou Daguan)...
• Archaeological evidence – consuming increasing amounts of Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese goods
• Tome Pires in early 16th century: Siam and others busy with trading everything everywhere

(Champa men8oned as dealing with Siam; Siam refusing interac8on with Melaka at that 8me... but Cambodia, mainly food products, and, one of the smallest albeit “present” entries)

• 15th-17th centuries – elephants, deerskin, but main entrepreneurs in AyuYhaya (Nagasama)

History

By 12th-14th centuries: Chinese ceramics everywhere throughout Southeast Asia (urban and remote hinterland sites – celadon, Qingbai, white wares, some early blue and white); by 14-16th centuries, Thai and Vietnamese ceramics everywhere; Cham fairly dispersed... others (e.g., Burmese, Japanese, etc.)... even increasingly consumed in Cambodia despite Cambodia sLll having acLve industries (e.g., metals, ceramics, ag, others at least unLl 14th/15th centuries)...

12th-15th/16th century Chinese, Thai and Vietnamese trade wares in remote, east Indonesian sites.

Mid and small level anLquity stores display shipwreck, mariLme and terrestrial site arLfacts. These are useful proxy data

• sets. They oRen represenLng many trade wares in circulaLon. Some are fakes - usually high value items at more posh

anLque stores. Most are real arLfacts from looted sites. I’ve been tracking many stores in several countries for 25 years.

Economics and the demise/dissipiaLon of Angkor (earlier model)

Blue: represents domes8c produc8on and consump8on – likely the most robust sector of the economy; self-sustaining; growth for centuries and millennia; probably taxed and par8ally state controlled/managed (although the total centraliza8on of Angkor is ques8onable; perhaps a more federated or confederated system). Red: represents importa8on of material goods and other non-material culture, influence, etc. (e.g., religions and power structures that may have been opportunis8cally injected vis-a-vis the internal evolu8on of social complexity as seen in the adop8on of foreign 8tles, rituals, power symbols, wealth items...); state controlled and managed to a degree. Yellow: represents smaller import/export economy (e.g., exo8c goods going out; exo8c ‘wealth’ and other items coming in); likely very limited state control and taxa8on; more coming in [imported] than going out [exported]; not many Khmer people, products, or cultural influence going outwards except in tradi8onal Khmer sectors (Thais are a par8al excep8on-discussed elsewhere). Ques8on: How long is/was this sustainable, and how sustainable was it vis-a-vis changing regional and global economies by the 13th-15th centuries and the dawn of colonialism? It probably was not sustainable at that 8me (with added factors such as environmental/resource degrada8on (Buckley et al 2010), poli8cal fragmenta8on (Vickery – pers comm), administra8ve overburden and inefficiency, conflicts, natural catastrophes, etc.). Socio-cultural-economic factors related to a lack of export produc8on entrepreneurship was perhaps based on strongly developed and reinforced internal produc8on and consump8on conserva8sm (e.g., outcompeted by Thai, Vietnamese and Chinese for export produc8on of ceramics; i.e., the Khmer were not regionally entrepreneurial with export produc8on and networks).

Thank You! QuesLons?

Name:

• Dr. D. Kyle LaLnis (just KYLE )

Contact: david.kyle.laLnis@gmail.com; (+65) 9075-4072

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Monsoon Plant Plant & Transplant Plant & Transplant Transplant Transplant Harvest 80% Dry Season Harvest Harvest Plant 15% Floating Harvest Plant Plant Harvest 5% Tonle Sap, etc. Fishing Open Commercial Open Commercial Open Commercial Open Commercial Open Commercial Restricted Commercial Restricted Commercial Restricted Commercial Restricted Commercial Restricted Commercial

• Southern

Areas Open Commercial Open Commercial

Austro-Asiatic languages

Vietic Monic Munda Khasic Bahnaric Aslian Katuic Khmuic Palaungic Pearic Vietic Nicobarese Khmer Pakanic

• Proto-Mon-Khmer; Proto-Austroasia8c
• Widespread 2000 BCE-1000 CE; to include

Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam...

• Mekong Homeland (4000+ years ago)
• Austronesians (Cham, Indo-Malay... 2000-2500 years ago)
• Chinese (probably numerous migra8ons; larger in historic periods)
• Thai in modern Thailand and Vietnamese in Mekong Delta (late migra8on/invasion, e.g., 11th/12th c. and later)

images from Wikipedia

Ethno-LinguisLc Geography and History:

Wikipedia references/images (basic; more nuanced and differing models available in professional historical linguis8cs discourse)

View publication stats View publication stats