<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Trajectories of Urbanism in the Angkorian World

Damian Evans, Roland Fletcher, Sarah Klassen, Christophe Pottier, Pelle Wijker

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Damian Evans, Roland Fletcher, Sarah Klassen, Christophe Pottier, Pelle Wijker. Trajectories of Urbanism in the Angkorian World. The Angkorian World, pp.173-194, 2023, 9780815355953. hal-04109006

HAL Id: hal-04109006

https://hal.science/hal-04109006

Submitted on 29 May 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

THE
ANGKORIAN
WORLD

Edited by MITCH HENDRICKSON,
MIRIAM T. STARK and DAMIAN EVANS
THE ANGKORIAN WORLD

*The Angkorian World* explores the history of Southeast Asia's largest ancient state from the first to mid-second millennium CE. Chapters by leading scholars combine evidence from archaeology, texts, and the natural sciences to introduce the Angkorian state, describe its structure, and explain its persistence over more than six centuries.

Comprehensive and accessible, this book will be an indispensable resource for anyone studying premodern Asia. The volume's first of six sections provides historical and environmental contexts and discusses data sources and the nature of knowledge production. The next three sections examine the anthropogenic landscapes of Angkor (agrarian, urban, and hydraulic), the state institutions that shaped the Angkorian state, and the economic foundations on which Angkor operated. Part V explores Angkorian ideologies and realities, from religion and nation to identity. The volume's last part reviews political and aesthetic Angkorian legacies in an effort to explain why the idea of Angkor remains central to its Cambodian descendants. Maps, graphics, and photographs guide readers through the content of each chapter. Chapters in this volume synthesise more than a century of work at Angkor and in the regions it influenced.

*The Angkorian World* will satisfy students, researchers, academics, and the knowledgeable layperson who seeks to understand how this great Angkorian Empire arose and functioned in the premodern world.

Mitch Hendrickson is Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, USA. He worked as an archaeologist in northwest Mexico, the Canadian Plains, and High Arctic before shifting his focus to Cambodia in 2001. His initial research on the establishment and role of the Angkorian road system enabled him to develop two ongoing projects in collaboration with the Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts on the technological transformation that enabled expansions of the Khmer Empire and understanding religious transition at the site of Preah Khan of Kompong Svay.

Miriam T. Stark is Professor of Anthropology and Director of the Center for Southeast Asian Studies at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, USA. Her 40-year career includes fieldwork in North America, the Near East, and Southeast Asia; she launched her first field project in Cambodia in 1996. Her Cambodian research, through multiple projects in collaboration with Cambodia's Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts, focuses on protohistoric to Angkorian period urbanism, early state formation, and political economy.

Damian Evans is Senior Research Fellow at the École française d'Extrême-Orient in Paris and an Honorary Associate in the Department of History, School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry at the University of Sydney. He is involved in a diverse array of projects across Southeast Asia encompassing archaeology, heritage, and the earth sciences, and he has initiated and overseen archaeological projects in Cambodia since the late 1990s. His work focuses on using earth observation technologies such as satellite imagery, radar and lidar to understand the relationship between humans and their environments from the deep past to the present day.
ROUTLEDGE WORLDS

The Routledge Worlds are magisterial surveys of key historical epochs, edited and written by world-renowned experts. Giving unprecedented breadth and depth of coverage, they are the works against which all future books on their subjects will be judged and are essential reading for anyone with a serious interest in the subject.

THE ANGKORIAN WORLD

*Edited by Mitch Hendrickson, Miriam T. Stark and Damian Evans*
THE ANGKORIAN WORLD

*Edited by Mitch Hendrickson, Miriam T. Stark*
*and Damian Evans*

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Routledge

Taylor & Francis Group

LONDON AND NEW YORK
Cover image: Erika Piñeros

First published 2023
by Routledge

4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

and by Routledge

605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158

*Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business*

© 2023 selection and editorial matter, Mitch Hendrickson, Miriam T. Stark and Damian Evans; individual chapters, the contributors

The right of Mitch Hendrickson, Miriam T. Stark and Damian Evans to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

*Trademark notice:* Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

*British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data*

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

*Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data*

Names: Hendrickson, Mitch, editor, author. | Stark, Miriam T., editor, author. | Evans, Damian, editor, author.

Title: The Angkorian World / edited by Mitch Hendrickson, Miriam T. Stark and Damian Evans.

Description: New York : Routledge, 2023. | Series: Routledge Worlds | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2022058733 (print) | LCCN 2022058734 (ebook) |

ISBN 9780815355953 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032439266 (paperback) | ISBN 9781351128940 (ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: Angkor (Extinct city)—History. | Angkor (Extinct city)—Civilization. | Cambodia—Antiquities.

Classification: LCC DS554.98.A5 A545 2023 (print) | LCC DS554.98.A5 (ebook) | DDC 959.6/01—dc23/eng/20221214

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022058733

LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022058734

ISBN: 978-0-8153-5595-3 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-032-43926-6 (pbk)

ISBN: 978-1-351-12894-0 (ebk)

DOI: 10.4324/9781351128940

Typeset in Bembo

by Apex CoVantage, LLC
# CONTENTS

<table><tr><td>List of Figures</td><td>ix</td></tr><tr><td>List of Tables</td><td>xiv</td></tr><tr><td>List of Contributors</td><td>xv</td></tr><tr><td>Acknowledgements</td><td>xix</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>0 Prologue: An Introduction to the Angkorian World</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Mitch Hendrickson, Miriam T. Stark, Damian Evans</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>with Roland Fletcher</td><td></td></tr></table>

## PART I

<table><tr><td>Contexts</td><td>15</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>1 An Environmental History of Angkor: Beginning and End</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Dan Penny and Tégan Hall</td><td></td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>2 Texts and Objects: Exploiting the Literary Sources of Medieval Cambodia</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Dominique Soutif and Julia Estève</td><td></td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>3 ‘Invisible Cambodians’: Knowledge Production in the History of Angkorian Archaeology</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>Heng Piphal, Seng Sonetra and Nhìm Sotheavin</td><td></td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>4 The Mekong Delta before the Angkorian World</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>Miriam T. Stark and Pierre-Yves Manguin</td><td></td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>5 The Early Capitals of Angkor</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td>Jean-Baptiste Chevance and Christophe Pottier</td><td></td></tr></table>
Contents

6 Angkor's Multiple Southeast Asia Overland Connections
Kenneth R. Hall
97

7 Angkor and China: 9th–15th Centuries
Miriam T. Stark and Aedeen Cremin
112

PART II

Landscapes
133

8 Forests, Palms, and Paddy Fields: The Plant Ecology of Angkor
Tegan Hall and Dan Penny
135

9 Angkor and the Mekong River: Settlement, Resources, Mobility and Power
Heng Piphal
154

10 Trajectories of Urbanism in the Angkorian World
Damian Evans, Roland Fletcher, Sarah Klassen, Christophe Pottier and Pelle Wijker
173

11 Angkor's Temple Communities and the Logic of its Urban Landscape
Scott Hawken and Sarah Klassen
195

12 Angkor as a 'Cité Hydraulique'?
Terry Lustig, Jean-Baptiste Chevance and Wayne Johnson
216

PART III

State Institutions
235

13 Angkorian Law and Land
Tess Davis and Eileen Lustig
237

14 Warfare and Defensive Architecture in the Angkorian World
David Brotherson
254

15 Ásramas, Shrines, and Royal Power
Chea Socheat, Julia Estève, Dominique Soutif and Edward Swenson
272

16 Education and Medicine at Angkor
Chhem Rethy, Damian Evans, Chhom Kunthea, Phlong Pisith and Peter D. Sharrock
287
Contents

PART IV

Economies 307

17 Angkor's Economy: Implications of the Transfer of Wealth 309
Eileen Lustig, Aedeen Cremin and Terry Lustig

18 The Temple Economy of Angkor 327
Heng Piphal and Sachchidanand Sahai

19 Angkor's Agrarian Economy: A Socio-Ecological Mosaic 338
Scott Hawken and Cristina Cobo Castillo

20 From Quarries to Temples: Stone Procurement, Materiality, and Spirituality in the Angkorian World 360
Christian Fischer, Federico Carò and Martin Polkinghorne

21 Crafting with Fire: Stoneware and Iron Pyrotechnologies in the Angkorian World 385
Mitch Hendrickson, Ea Darith, Chhay Rachna, Yukitsugu Tabata, Phon Kaseka, Stéphanie Leroy, Yuni Sato and Armand Desbat

22 Food, Craft, and Ritual: Plants from the Angkorian World 401
Cristina Cobo Castillo

PART V

Ideologies and Realities 421

23 Gods and Temples: The Nature(s) of Angkorian Religion 423
Julia Estève

24 Bodies of Glory: The Statuary of Angkor 435
Paul A. Lavy and Martin Polkinghorne

25 'Of Cattle and Kings': Bovines in the Angkorian World 459
Mitch Hendrickson, Eileen Lustig and Siyonn Sophearith

26 An Angkor Nation? Identifying the Core of the Khmer Empire 479
Ian Lowman, Chhom Kunthea and Mitch Hendrickson

27 The Angkorian House 494
Alison K. Carter, Miriam T. Stark, Heng Piphal and Chhay Rachna
Contents

28 Vogue at Angkor: Dress, Décor, and Narrative Drama
*Gillian Green* 508

29 Gender, Status, and Hierarchy in the Age of Angkor
*Trude Jacobsen Gidaszewski* 525

PART VI

**After Angkor** **539**

30 Perspectives on the ‘Collapse’ of Angkor and the Khmer Empire
*Damian Evans, Martin Polkinghorne, Roland Fletcher, David Brotherson, Tegan Hall, Sarah Klassen and Pelle Wijker* 541

31 Uthong and Angkor: Material Legacies in the Chao Phraya Basin, Thailand
*Pipad Krajaejun* 554

32 Mainland Southeast Asia After Angkor: On the Legacies of Jayavarman VII
*Ashley Thompson* 574

33 Early Modern Cambodia and Archaeology at Longvek
*Martin Polkinghorne and Yuni Sato* 592

34 Yama, the God Closest to the Khmers
*Ang Choulean* 614

35 Inarguably Angkor
*Penny Edwards* 629

*Appendix A* 645

*Glossary* 647

*Index* 653
FIGURES

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>0.1</td>
      <td>Timeline of the Angkorian World.</td>
      <td>7</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>0.2</td>
      <td>South and Southeast Asia, showing key sites.</td>
      <td>8</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>0.3</td>
      <td>Southeast Asia, showing key sites.</td>
      <td>9</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>0.4</td>
      <td>Heartland of the Khmer Empire, showing key sites and extent of the Angkorian road system.</td>
      <td>10</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>0.5</td>
      <td>Greater Angkor, showing major temple sites and the extent of infrastructure.</td>
      <td>11</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>0.6</td>
      <td>Capital region of Yaśodharapura, highlighting the urban layout in and around Angkor Thom and Angkor Wat.</td>
      <td>12</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>0.7</td>
      <td>Capital region of Hariharālaya (Roluos).</td>
      <td>13</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.1</td>
      <td>Silver vase with inscription (K. 1294).</td>
      <td>28</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.2</td>
      <td>Śivakumbha prepared for a dīkṣā (initiation) in Cuddalore, India.</td>
      <td>32</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.3</td>
      <td>Grinding stone with inscription (K. 1215).</td>
      <td>34</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.4</td>
      <td>Prasat towers σ, ρ, π, and τ in Preah Khan of Kompong Svay.</td>
      <td>36</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.5</td>
      <td>K. 1335, detail of the lower part of the southern door jamb.</td>
      <td>37</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.6</td>
      <td>Detail of vertical 'bayonet-cut' joints in the corbelled vault from prasat tower ρ in Preah Khan of Kompong Svay.</td>
      <td>38</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.1</td>
      <td>Henri Marchal, a pioneer of the anastylosis method in Angkor, with his Khmer assistant, Chan, and workmen at Banteay Srei temple restoration in 1934.</td>
      <td>46</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.2</td>
      <td>Henri Marchal and an unnamed Khmer assistant at the restoration of Banteay Srei (Damdek) in 1952.</td>
      <td>53</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>4.1</td>
      <td>The Mekong Delta and the Angkorian World before Angkor.</td>
      <td>65</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5.1</td>
      <td>Aerial view of Trapeang Phong.</td>
      <td>83</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5.2</td>
      <td>Archaeological map of the Roluos region.</td>
      <td>84</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5.3</td>
      <td>Rong Chen temple-mountain.</td>
      <td>86</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5.4</td>
      <td>Banteay, the Royal Palace of Mahendraparvata.</td>
      <td>87</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5.5</td>
      <td>Archaeological map of the Kulen plateau highlighting the urban layout of Mahendraparvata.</td>
      <td>88</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5.6</td>
      <td>Newly identified buildings and enclosures within the West Baray.</td>
      <td>91</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5.7</td>
      <td>Archaeological map of the West Baray area.</td>
      <td>92</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>6.1</td>
      <td>Potential 12th century communication networks connecting to Angkor.</td>
      <td>102</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
Figures

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>6.2</td>
      <td>Pre-1500 Champa coastline ports-of-trade and hypothesised Western overland connections contesting the Malay Peninsula.</td>
      <td>105</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>7.1</td>
      <td>Cambodia and China in premodern Southeast Asia.</td>
      <td>116</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>7.2</td>
      <td>Cavalry officer leading Cham men into battle.</td>
      <td>122</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>7.3</td>
      <td>Musicians in a military procession.</td>
      <td>123</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>7.4</td>
      <td>Recent examples of draped images in Angkor Wat.</td>
      <td>125</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>8.1</td>
      <td>Land use maps in Southeast Asia and the Greater Angkor region.</td>
      <td>136</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>8.2</td>
      <td>Select Angkor monuments and sediment coring sites from which palaeoecological records were obtained.</td>
      <td>141</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>8.3</td>
      <td>Summary of palynological records for the four sites across Angkor.</td>
      <td>144</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>8.4</td>
      <td>Ecological group data plotted as z-scores and compared across the four sites.</td>
      <td>147</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>9.1</td>
      <td>Location of inscriptions used in this chapter.</td>
      <td>155</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>9.2</td>
      <td>The Lower Mekong River region.</td>
      <td>156</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>9.3</td>
      <td>Angkorian centres along the Mekong and state-sponsored temples.</td>
      <td>157</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>10.1</td>
      <td>Archaeological map of the intramural area of Angkor Thom.</td>
      <td>177</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>10.2</td>
      <td>Archaeological map of the Greater Angkor region.</td>
      <td>178</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>10.3</td>
      <td>Map of Óc Eo.</td>
      <td>180</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>10.4</td>
      <td>Archaeological map of Sambor Prei Kuk.</td>
      <td>181</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>10.5</td>
      <td>Lidar renderings of gridded urban areas of the Angkor Period.</td>
      <td>184</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>11.1</td>
      <td>Comparison of local community temples versus state and other temples within the civic ceremonial centre and suburban centres of Greater Angkor.</td>
      <td>196</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>11.2</td>
      <td>Reconstruction of a mediaeval settlement and village shrine in the south of Angkor.</td>
      <td>202</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>11.3</td>
      <td>Range of variations in local temple sites and their associated community settlements.</td>
      <td>204</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>11.4</td>
      <td>Density of local community temples per square kilometre in Greater Angkor.</td>
      <td>206</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>11.5</td>
      <td>Shift in community temple construction within Greater Angkor between the 8th and 13th centuries.</td>
      <td>209</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>12.1</td>
      <td>Angkor's complex hydraulic network.</td>
      <td>217</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>12.2</td>
      <td>Water flowing out from a reservoir during rainfall, when irrigation not needed.</td>
      <td>219</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>12.3</td>
      <td>Water infrastructure associated with Mahendraparvata.</td>
      <td>220</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>12.4</td>
      <td>Inferred layout of stoplog sluice gates along the outlet from Thnal Thom reservoir at Mahendraparvata.</td>
      <td>221</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>12.5</td>
      <td>West Baray and surrounding water infrastructures and possible proto-baray.</td>
      <td>221</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>12.6</td>
      <td>Zig-zag outlet of the Rahal (baray) at Koh Ker.</td>
      <td>222</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>12.7</td>
      <td>Main reservoir at Koh Ker showing existing and former rivers.</td>
      <td>223</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>12.8</td>
      <td>West Mebon inside West Baray.</td>
      <td>227</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>12.9</td>
      <td>Two rock carvings of Vișņu in Anantaśayin mode, Kbal Spean River, Phnom Kulen.</td>
      <td>228</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>13.1</td>
      <td>The statue of Duryodhana now returned to Cambodia, June 3, 2014.</td>
      <td>238</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>14.1</td>
      <td>Narrative scenes of warfare from bas-reliefs on Angkor Period temples.</td>
      <td>255</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>14.2</td>
      <td>Defensive features of the Angkor Thom gopura.</td>
      <td>264</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>14.3</td>
      <td>Lidar elevation model of central Angkor with highlights of landscape features and embankment extensions in the 12th century.</td>
      <td>266</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>14.4</td>
      <td>Horizontal and vertical holes in upper masonry blocks of the external enclosure wall of Angkor Wat.</td>
      <td>267</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>14.5</td>
      <td>'Gateway gap' masonry fill in the external enclosure wall of Angkor Wat.</td>
      <td>268</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
Figures

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>14.6</td>
      <td>Hypothetical reconstruction of defensive structure built along the external enclosure walls of Angkor Wat.</td>
      <td>268</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>15.1</td>
      <td>Location of known Yaśodharāśramas, Vīrāśramas, resthouses, and hospitals of Jayavarman VII.</td>
      <td>274</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>15.2</td>
      <td>Examples of a typical hospital chapel and fire shrine resthouse.</td>
      <td>275</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>15.3</td>
      <td>Lidar image of Prasat Komnap South.</td>
      <td>276</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>15.4</td>
      <td>Examples of stela shelters.</td>
      <td>277</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>15.5</td>
      <td>Reconstruction of the 'Long Building'.</td>
      <td>278</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>15.6</td>
      <td>Plan of Prasat Neak Buos illustrating the location of the potential Yaśodharāśrama and Vīrāśrama.</td>
      <td>280</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>15.7</td>
      <td>Plan of Prasat Khna illustrating the location of the potential Yaśodharāśrama and Vīrāśrama.</td>
      <td>284</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>16.1</td>
      <td>Distribution of Jayavarman VII hospital chapels.</td>
      <td>298</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>16.2</td>
      <td>Organisation of Jayavarman VII hospital chapels.</td>
      <td>299</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>17.1</td>
      <td>Distribution of inscriptions and rice land in Cambodia.</td>
      <td>311</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>17.2</td>
      <td>Purchase of land by increasingly high-ranking officials.</td>
      <td>312</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>19.1</td>
      <td>Agrarian patches identified within Greater Angkor.</td>
      <td>346</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>19.2</td>
      <td>The Pre Rup matrix.</td>
      <td>347</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>19.3</td>
      <td>The Phnom Bok matrix.</td>
      <td>349</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>19.4</td>
      <td>Lidar relief maps of Angkor Wat and Ta Prohm.</td>
      <td>352</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>19.5</td>
      <td>Lidar map of Angkor Thom.</td>
      <td>353</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>19.6</td>
      <td>Archaeobotanical remains from some of Angkor's major temples.</td>
      <td>355</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>20.1</td>
      <td>Range of materials used in Khmer temple construction.</td>
      <td>361</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>20.2</td>
      <td>Distribution of sandstone formations and location of major archaeological sites and ancient quarries.</td>
      <td>363</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>20.3</td>
      <td>Examples of Terrain Rouge sandstone usage in the Angkor Period.</td>
      <td>365</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>20.4</td>
      <td>Examples of 'Grès Supérieurs' series sandstone usage in the Angkor Period.</td>
      <td>366</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>20.5</td>
      <td>Examples of Terrain Rouge (a, b, c, e, g, h, i) and Triassic (d, e, f) sandstone usage at Hariharālaya.</td>
      <td>368</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>20.6</td>
      <td>Texture and petrography of the Triassic sandstone.</td>
      <td>369</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>20.7</td>
      <td>Incomplete sculptures from stone workshops in Greater Angkor.</td>
      <td>371</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>20.8</td>
      <td>Evidence of quarries.</td>
      <td>373</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>20.9</td>
      <td>Various types of sandstone used in a decorative wall at Banteay Chhmar.</td>
      <td>374</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>20.10</td>
      <td>Triassic sandstone quarries.</td>
      <td>375</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>20.11</td>
      <td>Triassic sandstone with a characteristic mottled texture.</td>
      <td>377</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>21.1</td>
      <td>Angkorian stonewares types and vessel forms.</td>
      <td>386</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>21.2</td>
      <td>Iron objects produced during the Angkor Period.</td>
      <td>387</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>21.3</td>
      <td>Pryotechnological production sites in Cambodia and northeast Thailand, stoneware (crosses) and iron (circles).</td>
      <td>388</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>21.4</td>
      <td>Kiln morphologies in the Angkor Period.</td>
      <td>390</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>21.5</td>
      <td>Characteristics of Angkorian iron smelting sites.</td>
      <td>391</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>22.1</td>
      <td>Examples of archaeobotanical remains recovered from five Angkor Period sites.</td>
      <td>404</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>22.2</td>
      <td>Summary of the archaeobotanical results from five Angkor Period sites.</td>
      <td>406</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>22.3</td>
      <td>Proportions of economic crops found in Ta Prohm over time.</td>
      <td>407</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>22.4</td>
      <td>Proportion of <i>indica</i> and <i>japonica</i> rice.</td>
      <td>416</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>22.5</td>
      <td>Number of economic taxa identified in each of the sites.</td>
      <td>417</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>24.1</td>
      <td>Relief sculptures depicting deity-images in worship.</td>
      <td>437</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
Figures

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>24.2</td>
      <td>Brahmanical (Hindu) deities.</td>
      <td>441</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>24.3</td>
      <td>Personalisation of images during the reign of Jayavarman VII.</td>
      <td>444</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>24.4</td>
      <td>Sculptural innovation, archaism, and transformation.</td>
      <td>446</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>24.5</td>
      <td>Types of Buddha images from the late Angkor and Middle Periods.</td>
      <td>449</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>24.6</td>
      <td>Angkorian statuary venerated in the present.</td>
      <td>450</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>25.1</td>
      <td>Sandstone Nandin statues.</td>
      <td>461</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>25.2</td>
      <td>Depiction of cows in Angkorian bas-relief.</td>
      <td>464</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>25.3</td>
      <td>Buffalo images from the Pre-Angkor and Angkor Period.</td>
      <td>465</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>25.4</td>
      <td>Milk churning imagery.</td>
      <td>468</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>25.5</td>
      <td>Scene depicting Brahmins milking a cow and drinking milk from Ta Prohm.</td>
      <td>469</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>25.6</td>
      <td>Trapeang in the Angkorian World.</td>
      <td>471</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>25.7</td>
      <td>Comparison of modern cattle densities, Angkorian trapeang and temples.</td>
      <td>472</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>26.1</td>
      <td>Distribution of Angkor Period temples and inscriptions including the maximum limit of control as defined by B.-P. Groslier.</td>
      <td>481</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>26.2</td>
      <td>Proposed extent of the Angkorian heartland.</td>
      <td>483</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>26.3</td>
      <td>Communication corridors of the major Angkorian kings.</td>
      <td>484</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>26.4</td>
      <td>State-level infrastructures used by Khmer kings to assert influence within the Angkorian heartland.</td>
      <td>485</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>27.1</td>
      <td>Everyday life in Cambodia, past and present.</td>
      <td>497</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>27.2</td>
      <td>Possible fence posts identified in an excavated wall profile at Angkor Wat.</td>
      <td>498</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>27.3</td>
      <td>Overhead view of excavation trenches at Angkor Wat showing flat-lying sandstone pieces.</td>
      <td>499</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>27.4</td>
      <td>Possible hearth from excavations within the Angkor Wat enclosure.</td>
      <td>500</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>27.5</td>
      <td>Trash pit from excavations within the Ta Prohm enclosure.</td>
      <td>501</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>27.6</td>
      <td>Chinese water dropper in the shape of a chicken found in an excavation at Angkor Wat.</td>
      <td>502</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>28.1</td>
      <td>Examples of Angkorian individuals wearing sampot.</td>
      <td>509</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>28.2</td>
      <td>Śiva wearing a pleated sampot worn high at the waist, Baphuon style, 11th–12th century.</td>
      <td>510</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>28.3</td>
      <td>Devatas wearing double-layer sampot ensembles, Angkor Wat, 12th century.</td>
      <td>511</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>28.4</td>
      <td>Examples of short sampot chong kben.</td>
      <td>512</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>28.5</td>
      <td>Variations in window blind decorations.</td>
      <td>516</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>28.6</td>
      <td>Tapestry medallion with paired phoenix, Angkor Wat, 12th century.</td>
      <td>518</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>28.7</td>
      <td>Specific motifs found in narrative tapestries.</td>
      <td>519</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>28.8</td>
      <td>Clay model of Maitreya from Sum Tsek temple, Alchi, Ladakh, mid-10th to 11th century.</td>
      <td>521</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>29.1</td>
      <td>Key sites discussed in the text.</td>
      <td>526</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>29.2</td>
      <td>Relationships between Pre-Angkorian and Angkorian elite, 7th–11th centuries.</td>
      <td>529</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>29.3</td>
      <td>Mahidharapura-Angkor marriage relationships.</td>
      <td>530</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>31.1</td>
      <td>Sequence of Uthong Art style based on classification by Griswold and Buriphan (1952).</td>
      <td>558</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>31.2</td>
      <td>Examples of Buddha statues with traits of Style B and C.</td>
      <td>561</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>31.3</td>
      <td>Comparison of Style B Uthong and post-Bayon Buddhas.</td>
      <td>563</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>31.4</td>
      <td>Post-Bayon Buddha frieze inside Prasat Ta Tuot, Angkor.</td>
      <td>564</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>31.5</td>
      <td>Distribution of Uthong Style A, B, and C Buddha statues on the central plain of Thailand.</td>
      <td>566</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>31.6</td>
      <td>Four bronze miniature stūpas typical of the Pre-Ayutthaya and Ayutthaya Periods.</td>
      <td>568</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
Figures

<table><tr><td>32.1</td><td>12th–18th c. mainland Southeast Asian sites mentioned in the text.</td><td>575</td></tr><tr><td>32.2</td><td>Jayavarman VII period imagery.</td><td>582</td></tr><tr><td>32.3</td><td>Bronze tricephalous elephant statue from the Jayavarman VII period.</td><td>587</td></tr><tr><td>33.1</td><td>Overview map of major Early Modern sites in Cambodia.</td><td>594</td></tr><tr><td>33.2</td><td>Stūpa and sculptures from Wat Sithor.</td><td>597</td></tr><tr><td>33.3</td><td>Archaeological map of Longvek.</td><td>598</td></tr><tr><td>33.4</td><td>Distribution and relative quantities of trade ceramics and types from surface collections (n = 34,385 registered sherds).</td><td>602</td></tr><tr><td>33.5</td><td>Details of infrastructure and excavations at Longvek and the site of Tuol Bay Ka-ek.</td><td>603</td></tr><tr><td>33.6</td><td>Selection of imported ceramic types from Longvek surface collections.</td><td>604</td></tr><tr><td>33.7</td><td>High-value trade ceramics from central occupation mound, Trench 28.</td><td>605</td></tr><tr><td>33.8</td><td>Aerial view from Tonle Sap River looking south.</td><td>606</td></tr><tr><td>33.9</td><td>Selection of brown-glaze storage jars from Longvek ordered by country of manufacture.</td><td>607</td></tr><tr><td>34.1</td><td>Yama judging souls to hell on the bas-reliefs of Angkor Wat.</td><td>616</td></tr><tr><td>34.2</td><td>Statue of Yama, Angkor Period.</td><td>617</td></tr><tr><td>34.3</td><td>Schematic layout of cremation area typical in rural Khmer villages.</td><td>620</td></tr><tr><td>34.4</td><td>Altar dedicated to Yama (far left) placed within the northeast corner of cremation area.</td><td>621</td></tr><tr><td>34.5</td><td>Schematic layout of area for rice cultivation ritual at Thlork village.</td><td>623</td></tr><tr><td>34.6</td><td>Five sand mounds and Yama altar erected for rice cultivation ritual, Thlork village.</td><td>624</td></tr><tr><td>34.7</td><td>Female medium performing dance to Yama before rice cultivation ritual.</td><td>625</td></tr><tr><td>34.8</td><td>Rice stacked between the Yama altar and shelter.</td><td>626</td></tr></table>
TABLES

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>7.1</td>
      <td>Cross-chronology of Chinese dynasties and Cambodian time periods.</td>
      <td>114</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>7.2</td>
      <td>Desirable products of Cambodia and China, listed by Zhao Rugua and Zhou Daguan, with botanical names, comments, and variant translations added where appropriate.</td>
      <td>115</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>8.1</td>
      <td>Details, including characteristic plant species, relevant to each of the three WWF-recognised ecoregions of the Greater Angkor region.</td>
      <td>137</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>8.2</td>
      <td>Vegetation regions surveyed in Ashwell (1993) and the corresponding JICA (2002) land-use type (where possible, based on spatial and/or descriptive correlation).</td>
      <td>137</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>8.3</td>
      <td>The array of pollen types identified in the palaeoecological records analysed and the ecological groups to which they were assigned.</td>
      <td>142</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>11.1</td>
      <td>Epigraphic territorial terms and their definitions.</td>
      <td>202</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>13.1</td>
      <td>Social status and associated fines from K. 323 (889 CE, sts. 78–82).</td>
      <td>248</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>14.1</td>
      <td>Epigraphic sources for warfare in the Angkor Period.</td>
      <td>256</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>14.2</td>
      <td>Dimensions of temple enclosure walls in the Pre-Angkor and Angkor Periods.</td>
      <td>261</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>19.1</td>
      <td>Distribution of recovered plants across the three study sites.</td>
      <td>354</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>20.1</td>
      <td>Main characteristics of the different sandstone lithotypes used during the Angkor Period.</td>
      <td>364</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>22.1</td>
      <td>Summary statistics of the five sites.</td>
      <td>403</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>22.2</td>
      <td>Presence and absence of economic crops in the five study sites.</td>
      <td>408</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>22.3</td>
      <td>Charred rice plant parts found in the five sites.</td>
      <td>415</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>24.1</td>
      <td>Epigraphic references for the emplacement of pratimā (likenesses) of Hindu deities and Buddha statues.</td>
      <td>440</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>25.1</td>
      <td>Pre-Angkorian and Angkorian inscription data on bovines.</td>
      <td>466</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>25.2</td>
      <td>Cow products in the Khmer inscriptions.</td>
      <td>467</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>31.1</td>
      <td>Thermoluminescence dating results from this study.</td>
      <td>560</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>31.2</td>
      <td>Uthong sites identified in each river basin and city in Thailand based on 2018–2019 surveys.</td>
      <td>565</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>33.1</td>
      <td>Types of ceramics recovered from surface collection and excavation at Longvek.</td>
      <td>601</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
CONTRIBUTORS

**Ang Choulean** is Emeritus Professor of Anthropology at the Royal University of Fine Arts (CAM).

**David Brotherson** is an honorary associate, Department of Archaeology, University of Sydney (AUS).

**Federico Carò** is Research Scientist in the Department of Scientific Research of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (USA).

**Alison K. Carter** is Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Oregon (USA).

**Cristina Cobo Castillo** is Honorary Researcher at UCL Institute of Archaeology (UK).

**Chea Socheat** is an archeologist of the Authority for the Protection and Safeguarding of Angkor and the Region of Angkor and a research associate of the École française d'Extrême-Orient centre in Siem Reap (CAM).

**Jean-Baptiste Chevance** is an archaeologist and the Program Director for the Archaeology & Development Foundation—Phnom Kulen Program, Siem Reap (CAM).

**Chhay Rachna** is Head of the Ceramic Study Office in the Angkor International Centre of Research and Documentation, APSARA National Authority, Siem Reap (CAM).

**Chhem Rethy** is a distinguished professor of technology and humanities at the Cambodia University of Technology and Science (CamTech) (CAM).

**Chhom Kunthea** is an epigrapher and researcher in Apsara National Authority (CAM).

**Aedeen Cremin** is an independent scholar (AUS).
## Contributors

**Tess Davis** is a lawyer and archaeologist and is currently Executive Director of the Antiquities Coalition and teaches cultural property law at Johns Hopkins University (USA).

**Ea Darith** is Director of the Department of Conservation and Archaeology for the National Authority for Preah Vihear (CAM).

**Armand Desbat** is Emeritus research director at CNRS (FRA).

**Penny Edwards** is Professor of Southeast Asian Studies in the Department of South and Southeast Asian Studies at the University of California, Berkeley (USA).

**Julia Estève** is Lecturer in Department of Global Buddhism, UTK, Institute of Science Innovation and Culture, Bangkok (THA).

**Damian Evans** is Senior Research Fellow at the École française d'Extrême-Orient in Paris (FRA) and an Honorary Associate in the Department of History, School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, at the University of Sydney (AUS).

**Christian Fischer** is an independent scholar and Co-Director of the Molecular and Nano Archaeology Lab & Archaeomaterials Group at UCLA (USA).

**Roland Fletcher** is Professor of Theoretical and World Archaeology at the University of Sydney (AUS).

**Gillian Green** is an independent scholar. She is immediate past president of the Asian Arts Society of Australia and formerly Honorary Associate in the Department of Art History (AUS).

**Kenneth R. Hall** is Professor of History at Ball State University (USA).

**Tegan Hall** is a landscape architect and Lecturer at the Australian Catholic University and the Queensland University of Technology (AUS).

**Scott Hawken** is Director of the Landscape Architecture and Urban Design Program at the University of Adelaide (AUS).

**Mitch Hendrickson** is Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Illinois at Chicago (USA).

**Heng Piphal** is Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA (USA).

**Trude Jacobsen Gidaszewski** is Professor of South and Southeast Asian History and faculty associate in the Center for Southeast Asian Studies, a Title VI National Resource Center, at Northern Illinois University (USA).

**Wayne Johnson** is Senior Archaeologist with Place Management NSW (Australia) and Archaeological Field Director for Sydney University's Greater Angkor Project (AUS).
## Contributors

**Sarah Klassen** is Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellow in the Digital Archaeology department at Leiden University (NLD).

**Pipad Krajaejun** is Assistant Professor in the Department of History, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Thammasat University (THA) and a PhD candidate at SOAS, University of London (UK).

**Paul A. Lavy** is Associate Professor of Art History at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa (USA).

**Stéphanie Leroy** is Senior Researcher in archaeometallurgy at the French National Research Center (FRA).

**Ian Lowman** is an independent scholar based in Aberdeen, North Carolina (USA).

**Eileen Lustig** is an independent scholar based in Sydney (AUS).

**Terry Lustig** is an independent scholar based in Sydney (AUS).

**Pierre-Yves Manguin** is Emeritus Professor at the École française d'Extrême-Orient, Paris (FRA).

**Dan Penny** is Associate Professor in the School of Geosciences at the University of Sydney and Co-Director of the Angkor Research Program at the University of Sydney (AUS).

**Phlong Pisith** is Lecturer at the Faculty of Archaeology, Royal University of Fine Arts, Phnom Penh (CAM).

**Phon Kaseka** is Director General of the Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, Royal Academy of Cambodia, Phnom Penh (CAM).

**Martin Polkinghorne** is a Senior Lecturer in archaeology at Flinders University, Adelaide (AUS).

**Christophe Pottier** is Associate Professor at the École française d'Extrême-Orient, Paris (FRA).

**Sachchidanand Sahai** is Resident Scholar at the ASPARA National Authority, Siem Reap (CAM).

**Yuni Sato** is a researcher at the Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (JPN).

**Seng Sonetra** is a PhD candidate at the Department of History of Art and Archaeology, SOAS-University of London (UK).

**Peter D. Sharrock** is a Senior Teaching Fellow in the Department of the History of Art and Archaeology, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London (UK).
## Contributors

**Siyonn Sophearith** is Lecturer of Cambodian history at the Royal U of Fine Arts and a government official of the Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts, Phnom Penh (CAM).

**Nhim Sotheavin** is a researcher at the Sophia Asia Center for Research and Human Development, Sophia University, Japan (JPN)

**Dominique Soutif** is Lecturer of Southeast Asian archeology at the École française d'Extrême-Orient (FRA).

**Miriam T. Stark** is Professor of Anthropology and Director of the Center for Southeast Asian Studies at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa (USA).

**Edward Swenson** is Professor of Anthropology and the Director of the Archaeology Centre at the University of Toronto (CAN).

**Yukitsugu Tabata** is Professor in the Faculty of Letters, Arts and Sciences at Waseda University, Tokyo (JPN).

**Ashley Thompson** is Hiram W. Woodward Chair in Southeast Art and Professor in the Department of the History of Art and Archaeology at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London (UK).

**Pelle Wijker** is a doctoral student at Université Paris-1 Panthéon-Sorbonne and the École française d'Extrême-Orient (FRA).
# ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

## Chapter 1—Penny & Hall

The authors acknowledge the Cambodian National Authority for the Protection of the Site and the Management of the Region of Angkor (APSARA) for their long-standing support and collaboration. This research is funded by the Australian Research Council and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation.

## Chapter 2—Soutif & Estève

The research program Corpus des Inscriptions Khmères is a collaboration between the École française d'Extrême-Orient (EFEO), the Cambodian National Authority for the Protection of the Site and Management of the Region of Angkor (APSARA), UTK Krungthep, and the Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts of Cambodia. This research has benefited from the financial support of the EFEO and the Dharma project, which has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.

## Chapter 4—Stark & Manguin

The authors would like to thank their host institutions for supporting their Mekong Delta-based research in Cambodia (Stark) and Vietnam (Manguin). Cambodia's Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts and its Archaeology Faculty of the Royal University of Fine Arts were invaluable throughout the 1996–2009 Lower Mekong Archaeological Project field investigations. Vietnam's Southern Institute of Social Sciences (Ho Chi Minh City) was EFEO's research partner during the work at Óc Eo and surrounding areas. All mistakes remain the authors' responsibility.

## Chapter 5—Chevance & Pottier

The authors would like to thank Damian Evans for his careful proofreading; Lionel Courty for the translation; and H.E. Hang Peou, Director-General of the APSARA National Authority, for the unwavering support of APSARA and its departments. The Franco-Khmer Archaeological Mission on the Development of the Angkorian Territory (MAFKATA) is directed by
Acknowledgements

Christophe Pottier and operates in cooperation with APSARA. MAFKATA takes place under the auspices of the French Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs through its *Commission des fouilles* and is co-financed by the French School of Asian Studies (EFEO). The Fondation Simone et Cino Del Duca has also supported MAFKATA. The Archaeology and Development Foundation (ADF) is directed by Jean-Baptiste Chevance in partnership with the APSARA National Authority. This research has been partly supported by the Mohamed S. Farsi Foundation.

**Chapter 7—Stark & Cremin**

Our thanks go to Cambodia's Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts and to APSARA National Authority for supporting our work in Cambodia since 1996, some of which enabled us to produce the scholarship in the chapter.

**Chapter 8—Hall & Penny**

The authors acknowledge the Cambodian National Authority for the Protection of the Site and the Management of the Region of Angkor (APSARA) for their long-standing support and collaboration. This research is funded by the Australian Research Council and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation.

**Chapter 10—Evans et al.**

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Cambodian Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts and its various agencies, as well as the members of the Khmer Archaeology LiDAR Consortium. The contribution of D.E. and P.W. is funded by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme. The contribution of M.P. is funded by the Australian Research Council.

**Chapter 11—Hawken & Klassen**

The authors acknowledge the Cambodian National Authority for the Protection of the Site and the Management of the Region of Angkor (APSARA) as well as the EFEO, Paris, and UCL, London, for supporting residencies for Dr. Scott Hawken in June and July of 2019. Thanks also to the School of the Built Environment, UNSW, Sydney, for supporting Dr. Scott Hawken's sabbatical. Additionally, the authors acknowledge the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Postdoctoral Fellowship and for supporting residencies for Dr. Sarah Klassen at the University of British Columbia in 2019 and 2020 Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (Mellon Initiative in Urban Landscape Studies) for supporting a residency in 2018. The authors are particularly grateful to Dr. Eileen Lustig for her thoughtful feedback on an initial draft of the chapter. The authors would also like to thank the editors for their detailed feedback on the various drafts of the chapter.

**Chapter 12—Lustig et al.**

The authors would like to thank Aedeen Cremin, John Downey, Damian Evans, Marnie Feneley, Nina Hofer, Eileen Lustig, Dan Penny, Sam Player, Martin Polkinghorne, Christophe Pottier, Sakhoeun Sakada, the Royal Angkor Foundation, and Chandana
Withannachchi for their comments, criticisms, and readiness to provide us with the benefits of their specialised knowledge.

Chapter 13—Davis & Lustig

The authors would like to acknowledge the late Philip Jenner for the translations of the Khmer inscriptions that are available online through his Pre-Angkorian and Angkorian dictionaries. In addition, the authors would like to thank the US Department of Homeland Security (ICE) for the ability to reprint the image of the Duryodhana sculpture.

Chapter 14—Brotherson

The author wishes to thank the APSARA National Authority and the Greater Angkor Project. Research was funded by the Australian Research Council, the Australian Postgraduate Award, the Carlyle Greenwell Research Fund, and the Endeavour Fellowship. Thanks also to Michael Charney for comments on an early draft of this chapter.

Chapter 15—Chea et al.

The research program Yaśodharāśrama is a collaboration between the École française d'Extrême-Orient (EFEO), the University of Toronto, the Cambodian National Authority for the Protection of the Site and Management of the Region of Angkor (APSARA), UTK Krungthep, and the Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts of Cambodia. This research has benefited from the financial support of the EFEO; the Commission des fouilles of the French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs; the Dharma project, which has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme; and the Hal Jackman Foundation.

Chapter 16—Chhem et al.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the *Canadian Journal of Buddhist Studies*, who gave us permission to adapt parts of Chhem (2007), from which sections of our text were drawn. Funding for this contribution derives in part from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.

Chapter 17—Lustig et al.

The authors would like to acknowledge the late Philip Jenner for the translations of the Khmer inscriptions that are available online through his Pre-Angkorian and Angkorian dictionaries.

Chapter 19—Hawken & Castillo

The authors would like to thank the Cambodian National Authority for the Protection of the Site and Management of the Region of Angkor (APSARA) and Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts for their support. In addition, we thank Dr Eileen Lustig, Sarah Klassen, and the editors of the book for helpful feedback to improve the chapter. Scott Hawken would like to acknowledge both Damian Evans and Christophe Pottier of the EFEO for hosting his stay in Paris during the writing of the chapter and Dorian Fuller, who hosted him at the Institute of Archaeology at
UCL in London. This chapter was written with the support of the Faculty of the Built Envi-
ronment, UNSW Sydney.

**Chapter 20—Fischer et al.**

We thank the Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts of Cambodia, the APSARA National Authority, the National Museum of Cambodia, and the École française d'Extrême-Orient. Special thanks go to Dominique Soutif and Bertrand Porte (EFEO) and to the Cambodian team of the stone workshop at the National Museum of Cambodia. Part of this research was supported through grants from the Robert H.N. Ho Family Foundation, the PSL/Scripta and the Corpus des inscriptions khmères projects, the University of California Los Angeles, and by fellowships from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the E.W. Forbes Fund at the Freer Gallery of Art.

**Chapter 21—Hendrickson et al.**

The authors wish to thank the Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts and the APSARA Authority for their long-standing support and continued collaborations. Thanks also to Dominique Soutif at the École française d'Extrême-Orient and the University of Sydney Robert Christie Research Centre, particularly So Malay, in Siem Reap. Funding for this work was provided in part by the National Science Foundation, Agence Nationale de la Recherche, and Robert H.N. Ho Family Foundation Program in Buddhist Studies. Finally, thanks to the National Museum of Cambodia for permission to include the effigy vessel image from their collection.

**Chapter 22—Castillo**

Thanks to the Cambodian National Authority for the Protection of the Site and Management
of the Region of Angkor (APSARA) for their continued support. I would like to thank my
colleague and friend Mitch Hendrickson, who continued to push me to finish this chapter and
had faith in my work through some difficult times. I would also like to thank my many collabo-
rators: Miriam T. Stark, Alison K. Carter, Martin Polkinghorne, Heng Piphal, Rachna Chhay,
and the GAP and INDAP teams.

**Chapter 23—Estève**

This chapter is part of the Corpus des Inscriptions Khmères research program (https://cik.efeo.fr/), in charge of the inventory of ‘K. numbers’ initiated by George Cœdès (IC VIII) and continued by Claude Jacques (1971). It is part of the project Dharma that has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.

**Chapter 25—Hendrickson et al.**

The authors would like to acknowledge the late Philip Jenner for the translations of the Khmer
inscriptions that are available online through his Pre-Angkorian and Angkorian dictionaries.
The authors wish to thank the National Museum of Cambodia in Phnom Penh for permission
to publish the image of the buffalo cistern from their collection.
**Chapter 27—Carter et al.**

The authors wish to thank the APSARA Authority for their cooperation and collaboration in undertaking this research. We also thank Dr. Roland Fletcher for his guidance and support of our project. We extend our deepest gratitude to So Malay and Martin King for administrative support and the University of Sydney Robert Christie Research Centre. We also thank the Greater Angkor Project field crews from 2010–2015. This work was supported by the Austral-ian Research Council, National Geographic Society Committee for Research and Exploration, and Dumbarton Oaks.

**Chapter 30—Evans et al.**

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Cambodian Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts and its various agencies. The contribution of D.E. and P.W. is funded by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme. The contribution of M.P. is funded by the Australian Research Council.

**Chapter 33—Polkinghorne & Sato**

Archaeological data in this chapter were collected with the permission of the Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts, Royal Government of Cam-bodia. Special thanks to H.E. Minister Dr Phoeurng Sackona, Secretary of State H.E. Chuch Phoeurn, Secretary of State H.E. Prak Sonnara, H.E. Ok Sokha, and Mr Voeun Vuthy. Fund-ing was provided by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award and an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant. The authors recognise the contributions of fieldwork teams (2015–2019) and advisors. We acknowledge the community of Ukna Bang Village, Kompong Chhnang Province, for their generosity in the field. Martin Polkinghorne is an honorary research fellow of the University of Sydney.

**Chapter 35—Edwards**

Thanks to Ben Bartu for his editorial eye, David Chandler for his comments on an earlier draft, and Heng Chhun Oeurn and Chap Prem for research assistance in Phnom Penh on a related project. I would also like to thank Sor Sokny at the Buddhist Institute for permission to reproduce verses from *Niras Nokor Wat*. Draft fragments of this chapter were presented at the Northern Illinois University Graduate Student Colloquium on Southeast Asian Studies, May 2015, and at the Department of South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Cali-fornia, Berkeley, February 2006. Conversations with Dr. Thibodi Buakamsri and Dr. Trent Walker, during a directed study on Suttantaprija Ind's poem *Niras Nokor Wat* in 2012, deepened my understanding of that poem and the *niras/nirat* genre in general.
Damian Evans, Roland Fletcher, Sarah Klassen,
Christophe Pottier and Pelle Wijker

Since the first accounts of 19th-century explorers, structures like Angkor Wat have been con-
sidered the focal point of ‘temple-cities,’ but the size, structure, and population of those cities
have, until recently, been topics of debate and disagreement. The core problem is that urban
complexes of the Angkorian World were made almost entirely of perishable materials that dis-
appeared centuries ago, leaving behind the religious monuments of stone and brick that have
engaged most of the public and scholarly attention.

Nonetheless, archaeologists have been taking to the skies over Angkor for nearly a century to document the traces of urban and agricultural elements that remain inscribed into the surface of the landscape. In the last ten years, lidar technology has helped to fill in the remaining lacunae in our cartography of these landscapes, and after a century and a half of survey and mapping, we have arrived at a series of archaeological maps of Angkorian settlement complexes that are unlikely to change substantially in the future. Very extensive and systematic ground-based surveys have complemented aerial perspectives to document time-diagnostic material such as ceramics, and all of this information has been federated within massive geospatial databases. Our newly comprehensive spatial awareness of places like Angkor has been used to more effectively target excavations and other research initiatives on the ground, adding time depth and granular detail in key locations.

For perhaps the first time, therefore, archaeologists are well positioned to trace the devel-
opment of Khmer settlement complexes across time and space, from prehistory through the
Angkor Period and into the contemporary world. In this chapter, we re-evaluate conventional
theories of urban development in the Khmer milieu, which typically define a neat transition
between moated prehistoric sites and well-planned, rectilinear, and cardinally oriented settle-
ments and gridded ‘hydraulic cities’ that define the Angkor Period. Instead, we identify multiple
pathways to urban and agricultural complexity that produced a diverse range of settlement pat-
terns across the Khmer Empire. Moated prehistoric sites are, in fact, exceedingly rare in north-
west Cambodia; furthermore, the early urban complexes of the Angkor Period are, in many
cases, not rigidly planned or enclosed spaces and are better characterised as ‘open cities.’ At the
height of the Angkor Period, it is possible to identify formally planned and gridded urban areas
which accord with long-standing views about ‘temple-cities’; however, these typically turn out
to be the epicentres of extended, lower-density urban landscapes that were patchworks of open
spaces, agricultural systems, and residential areas (see Hawken and Klassen 2023, this volume).
In this chapter, we trace the history of archaeological approaches to Khmer urbanism and assess the current state of knowledge about the development of Khmer urbanism over the past two millennia. We then use spatial analytics to offer preliminary assessments of the area, population, and density of settlements and how those changed over time and space. We argue that the new data provide important insights into the historical trajectory of the Khmer Empire and that, more broadly, the scale and structure of Angkorian settlement patterns challenge us to think differently about the nature of early urbanism in tropical environments Worldwide.

## Evolving Perspectives From the 19th to 21st Centuries

### Epigraphy

As detailed elsewhere in this volume (see e.g. contributions by Soutif, Estève, Goodall, and Lustig), the inscriptional record of the Angkorian World has been the focus of intensive study since the very beginning of scholarship in the 19th century and has long been the cornerstone for our understanding of the Angkorian World. The corpus of inscriptions offers us a wide array of toponyms describing lived-in spaces at various scales (see Table 11.1 in Hawken and Klassen 2023, this volume). However, the nature and size of settlements described by categories in the Sanskrit and Old Khmer languages such as *pura* (typically translated as ‘cities’) are open to interpretation and debate (Lewitz 1967), with each category likely encompassing habitation areas that varied widely in terms of population, morphology, and spatial extent. It is also likely that these categories had considerable overlap between them and that their meanings were not fixed or standardised but varied significantly over space and time.

It is, therefore, very difficult to infer or reconstruct indigenous conceptions of ‘urban’ and ‘non-urban’ space from the inscriptional record, and linguists have tended to rely on apparent links between words in Old Khmer and their present-day equivalents. An example of the ambiguity that arises from this is seen in the Ta Prohm inscription (Cœdès 1906), which refers to donations to the temple from 3140 ‘*grama*’, a word almost universally interpreted in the literature on Angkor as a ‘village’ (see e.g. Higham 2001, 271), implying some kind of discrete urban settlement which, presumably, ought to be identifiable in the archaeological record.

However, a closer review of the literature reveals that the word *grama* is, in fact, rather ambiguous and has no precise correlate in Khmer (Lewitz 1967, 404). The simple working assumption is that it is equivalent to the Khmer word *sruk*, meaning village, although here, too, there is some uncertainty about the meaning of that word in the ancient context (Lewitz 1967, 404–46). Suppose we adopt Mabbett’s (1978, 23) interpretation that *sruk* defines a division of territory where a religious foundation is set up and a community grows. In that case, we may expect—as in present-day Cambodia—an extremely broad spectrum of real-world correlates in the geography of Angkorian urbanism, from multiple overlapping *sruk* in dense urban areas on the one hand to remote and isolated village outposts on the other. Therefore, it is difficult to reliably reconstruct urban geography or demography using inscriptions, and, as Maxwell (2007, 67) has noted in relation to the Preah Khan inscription, attempts to do so can result in confusing, improbable outcomes.

Given the uncertainty and imprecision within the contemporary historical record of the Angkorian World, researchers have relied instead on material remains for evidence of habitation, but this too presents a series of problems, above all the fact that houses of stone were reserved by and large for divinities and that the vast majority of the material used for other kinds of dwellings was non-durable and has not survived to the present day (Coe and Evans 2018). This is true across essentially all of Southeast Asia (Higham 2014), and therefore domestic
contexts are very rarely discovered in the region, including in the Angkorian World (see Carter et al. 2023, this volume). Nonetheless, recent work has emphasised that traces of neighbourhoods stretching between and beyond the temples do remain (Fletcher and Pottier 2002). It is worth briefly surveying how urban form at Angkor and beyond has ‘emerged’ from scholarship over the last 150 years as theoretical perspectives have changed and as innovations in flight and imaging technologies have gradually enabled more detailed views of urban form.

## The Earliest Work: Temples and Enclosures

Among the defining features of colonialism was a competition between great powers for possession of exceptional historical monuments, and present-day territorial claims were strengthened through systematic inventorisation and study of heritage sites across the widest possible range of time and space. In Southeast Asia, as elsewhere, an explicitly ‘scientific’ approach to the study of monuments, artefacts, and inscriptions had emerged and become institutionalised by the beginning of the 20th century (Edwards 2005, 2008; Evans 2007; Falser 2019; Pottier 2006). This work was also essential for establishing the basic framework of Khmer society, including the chronology of its kings and temples, the periodisation of architectural and art historical styles, and the broad contours of its religious and political history within a regional and global context. As Carter et al. (2018) note, there is an assumption throughout this scholarship that the areas within enclosure walls comprise ‘temple-cities’, despite an absence of compelling evidence.

This focus on the more durable remains of elites continues to predominate in the study of Angkor today, but in early 20th-century scholarship, it was the lens through which almost all new information on Angkor was considered. With the advent of flight, for example, the discipline of aerial archaeology emerged after World War I, and scholars began to trace the subtle traces of human activity inscribed into the surface of the landscape that could only be clearly seen from above (Barber 2017). By the 1930s, scholars associated with the EFEO were regularly flying over Angkor and noting previously undocumented traces of habitation between and beyond the temples, such as depressions and mounds, which were mapped in significant detail (Evans 2007). Ultimately, however, work in this era remained relentlessly focused on defining the footprints of temples and their associated enclosures. The maps that were produced were not published until more than half a century later (Pottier 2006; Pottier and Dumarçay 1993), and an emerging tradition of aerial archaeology in Southeast Asia failed to gain traction or achieve the recognition of kindred traditions in Europe and the Middle East (Evans 2007, 66–67).

## The Mid-20th Century: Subsistence, Environment, and Landscape

By the mid-20th century, new perspectives in anthropology—in particular the rise of environmental and landscape archaeology, in which long-term human-environment interactions became a core focus of research—began to impact Angkorian studies with the work of Malleret, Groslier, and others at the EFEO. In addition to ad hoc collections of aerial images collected by Williams-Hunt and others (Moore 2009), researchers for the first time had access to comprehensive and systematic aerial coverage of the landscape thanks to missions undertaken by the French *Institut géographique national* (IGN). Alongside these technical innovations, in the newly emerging discipline of ‘settlement archaeology’, they had the rudiments of a theoretical agenda in which the study of residential and agricultural activity within and beyond the temples not only made sense but was critically important. On the ground, this work was pioneered by Bernard-Philippe Groslier, who explicitly acknowledged the need to refocus on networks of habitation, assisted by aerial remote sensing (1952).
Groslier set in motion an ambitious program of archaeological research to fulfil this potential but was forced to abandon the project in the early 1970s with the rise of civil war in Cambodia. Although he had very clearly identified what we now recognise as the building blocks of Angkorian urbanism—occupation mounds, communal ponds, linear traces such as roads and canals, community temple foundations—his work on this subject remained mostly unpublished until long after his death (Groslier 1998). Having fled Cambodia for France, he focused his later work on the development of a theoretical approach that continues to resonate in present-day studies of Khmer urbanism and has attracted much controversy: the ‘hydraulic city’ hypothesis (Groslier 1979).

## Urban Infrastructure: Functional or Symbolic?

Although the ‘hydraulic city’ thesis is most closely associated with a definitive 1979 paper on the subject, its origins can be traced back to work by Goloubew (1941), and Groslier spent nearly three decades elaborating the theory over a series of publications (Evans 2007). Ironically, despite the name, the theory has relatively little to say about the nature of Angkorian urbanism, focusing instead on the role of irrigated rice agriculture and multi-cropping as the source of Angkor’s wealth and, thanks to its environmental impacts, a factor in the weakening of the Khmer state and its capitulation to a Siamese invasion in the 15th century. Other chapters deal sufficiently with the ‘hydraulic city’ thesis and its discontents (see Lustig et al. 2023 and Hawken and Castillo 2023, this volume), but in terms of the development of ideas about urbanism, it embodies two major developments. The first was the idea that Angkor is more than just a ritual-ceremonial landscape consisting of monuments and enclosures—the ‘temple-cities’ that have remained a staple of the literature on Angkor since the 1800s—but includes an extended network of infrastructure that remained deeply embedded in the urban fabric for many centuries (Groslier 1956, 1958).

The second point that both Goloubew and Groslier were keen to reinforce was that the hydraulic infrastructure had a ‘double aspect’. Although it was clearly part of a sacred geography that embodied specific magico-religious ideals, it also served practical and utilitarian purposes, such as providing arteries for movement and communication and ameliorating the sharp seasonality of water supply in the urban context (Evans 2007). This nuance has often been lost in subsequent scholarship, much of which seeks to discredit the ‘hydraulic city’ hypothesis on the grounds that the water network was ritual and symbolic in nature and therefore not functional (see Evans 2007 for a summary of this debate). Such criticisms present us with a false dichotomy and can be dismissed *a priori* on logical grounds, but it is nonetheless worthwhile considering the ways in which Angkor’s urban space may be ordered according to ‘ritual’ imperatives.

For the last two decades, Gaucher (2002, 2003a, 2004, 2017) has been a leading proponent of the idea that the urban layout of Angkor is structured according to ideals and principles derived from Indian traditions of urban planning, in much the same way as the temples of Angkor themselves represent a specific vision of the Hindu-Buddhist cosmos rendered in earth, water, and stone. Following many years of painstaking ground survey in the central walled enclosure of Angkor Thom beginning in 2000, Gaucher’s team was able to identify elements of an urban grid, and cartographic work by his team filled out earlier, schematic maps by Groslier and others (Groslier 1956, 1958) with extraordinary detail.

According to Gaucher (2004, 83), the grid network of the Angkor Thom enclosure (Figure 10.1) conforms sufficiently to ideal models of urban planning laid out in Indian literature such as the *Śāstra* that we may consider it as a ‘genuine city’, elaborated according to a master plan based on ancient principles. In that respect, Gaucher’s approach echoes ideas presented
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10.1 Archaeological map of the intramural area of Angkor Thom.</figcaption></figure>

*Source:* (Based on Gaucher and Husi 2013).

decades earlier by Wheatley (1983), who argued that urban planning in Southeast Asia was based on idealised models described in Indian and Chinese treatises—a theory that, perhaps surprisingly, has not been particularly influential on studies of Khmer urban form. It is also a natural evolution of the original idea of ‘temple-cities’ since, in this vision of Angkor, the Bayon temple remains the focus of an extended enclosure which neatly delimits and defines the true urban space: Angkor Thom, in this view, is essentially a temple-city writ large.

There are a number of potential problems with this, some of which Gaucher anticipates and deals with in his text (2004). To begin with, models of Indian urban form found in ancient treatises were rarely, if ever, achieved in physical reality; rather, the ideals form an abstract model of urban space in which ‘the city is an experiential shape only loosely associated with the physical shape’ (Srinivasan 1993). On the other hand, the grid is also highly evocative of the ideal layout of Chinese cities, as Gaucher and others have pointed out (Evans and Fletcher 2015; Gaucher 2004). Historically in China, these geometric plans *were* frequently fully realised in physical space, and more obvious elements of Indian tradition frequently overshadow the influence of Chinese cultural traditions in Angkorian society. There also remains the obvious point that grids are a natural and fundamental layout of urban designs everywhere throughout history and that since the inscriptional corpus of Cambodia is silent on such questions of urban planning, there is no particular way of testing or refuting the theory of Indian inspiration one way or the other. Finally, Gaucher’s work excluded the broader grid that had already been identified by Groslier and others (Pottier 2006) and took as its starting point the notion that the walls of Angkor Thom enclosed more or less the totality of the grid pattern of central Angkor—an assumption that was later challenged by the advent of airborne lidar mapping, as we will see.
Landscape Approaches and the Advent of Lidar

With the re-opening of Cambodia to archaeological work in the early 1990s, Pottier (1993, 1999) resumed mapping the urban fabric of Angkor (see Hawken and Klassen 2023, this volume), a process that had been set in motion on a piecemeal basis in the 1930s and which later formed a core component of Groslier’s unfinished research agenda. The inventory of temples at Angkor was expanded by several hundred sites in Pottier’s work, which consolidated archival material and maps produced over the course of a century and a half as a basis for the new cartography (Pottier 2006). Many thousands of community ponds or *trapeang*, occupation mounds, and other features were identified in the new maps, which were systematically verified on the ground over the course of the 1990s. Connecting these features was a vast and intricate web of infrastructure consisting of embankments, canals, and a network of field systems. Pottier and colleagues began to use the spatial logic of the network to address long-standing issues about the development of Angkor and its urban and agricultural systems (Pottier 2000a, 2000b; Pottier and Bolle 2009).

The new maps of the central and southern areas of Angkor (Figure 10.2) finally allowed researchers to move beyond schematic maps of lines and point locations towards richly detailed depictions and interpretations of archaeological topography. The mapping, survey, and interpretive work completed in the 1990s also established a template for numerous projects that followed at Angkor and beyond. In 1999 and 2000, Pottier’s maps were digitised into a geographic information system (GIS). Within the framework of the Greater Angkor Project (GAP), the cartography was then extended into the further northern, eastern, and western reaches of Angkor that were inaccessible to researchers in the 1990s due to conflict (Evans et al. 2007). By

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10.2 Archaeological map of the Greater Angkor region.</figcaption></figure>

Source: (Map by the authors, with contributions from N. Hofer and J.-B. Chevance).
2007, researchers were confident that a more or less comprehensive overview of the Greater Angkor archaeological landscape had been achieved, even if lacunae remained in some areas and ground verification had not yet been completed (Evans et al. 2007).

Elsewhere in Cambodia, other archaeological mapping projects developed in parallel and added similar detail for other urban areas. A project led by Shimoda at the Pre-Angkorian capital of Sambor Prei Kuk used aerial photographs and satellite imagery to document a similar pattern of pond- and mound-based, temple-centric habitation dating from the 5th to the 9th centuries CE (Shimoda 2010), while the LOMAP program led by Stark and colleagues was able to identify even earlier antecedents for this form of settlement organisation dating from the early first millennium CE in the Mekong Delta (Stark 2006; Stark et al. 2015). Other teams across Cambodia were able to replicate these findings and identify patterns of residence and urbanism at places such as Banteay Chhmar and Koh Ker (Evans and Moylan 2013; Evans and Traviglia 2012) and also Preah Khan of Kompong Svay (Hendrickson and Evans 2015), where previously there had existed only schematic maps consisting of points and lines delineating the largest infrastructural elements. Unlike in neighbouring countries, Cambodia had decades of conflict that preserved the heritage landscape from processes of urbanisation and mechanised agriculture. As a result, we can trace the topographic legacy of centuries of urban development in detail on the Earth's surface.

This work, however, suffered from one major shortcoming: in many areas, vegetation cover obscured the subtle topographic traces that researchers were identifying in aerial imagery and using to map elements of Angkorian urban form. A solution to this problem arrived in 2012 with the first deployment of airborne lidar in the Angkor region, and at Koh Ker (Evans et al. 2013), as part of the Khmer Archaeology LiDAR Consortium. Researchers were able to leverage the unique capability to map fine-grained topographic relief even under dense forest canopy to fill in important lacunae in the maps of Angkor and Koh Ker (Evans 2010; Evans et al. 2013; Evans and Fletcher 2015), as well as reproducing and validating the mapping work already completed by Gaucher in Angkor Thom. Within the framework of the Cambodian Archaeological Lidar Initiative in 2015, the 2012 lidar work at Angkor was extended to include most other major temple complexes within the borders of present-day Cambodia, including Banteay Chhmar, Preah Khan of Kompong Svay, the Pre-Angkorian capital of Sambor Prei Kuk, and the Post-Angkorian capital region of Longvek and Oudong (Evans 2016). Since then, these acquisitions of aerial data have been complemented by years-long projects of survey, mapping, and excavation, usually within the framework of broad multi-disciplinary projects involving multiple international teams working in concert with Cambodian researchers. In some areas, ground verification work continues, and analysis of the results will preoccupy researchers for many years to come. Nonetheless, we have recently arrived at what may be considered definitive, final archaeological maps of all of these places, including Angkor, which allows us to make some basic observations about the development of urban form over space and time in the Angkorian World.

## Khmer Urban Patterns Over Time

The paradigm of settlement and landscape archaeology continues to inform most of the archaeological work done in Cambodia outside of temple contexts, and this is reflected in many of the contributions to this volume, some of which go into considerable detail on elements of Khmer urbanism in different areas and in different periods (see Heng 2023; Chevance and Pottier 2023; Hawken and Klassen 2023; Hawken and Castillo 2023; Carter et al. 2023; Polkinghorne and Sato 2023). Therefore, the purpose of this section is to offer a broad synthesis
of this work to trace the contours of urban development from prehistory to the present day,
incorporating the latest results from lidar-derived mapping work.

Early Capitals Beyond Angkor

There are at least four major centres beyond Angkor for which we have sufficient amounts of
archaeological data to make assessments of early urbanism.

At Óc Eo, a major trading port of the polity known from Chinese sources as *Funan* (Malleret
1959; Manguin and Khải 2000; Manguin and Tingley 2009; Manguin and Vallerin 1997), we
find perhaps the first example of an urban centre in mainland Southeast Asia organised according
to an orthogonal plan, with occupation areas and temple remains organised over an area of more
than 400 ha. Located on a floodplain without the presence of large, elevated mounds, Óc Eo was
structured along either side of the main axis and was home perhaps to several thousand people.
Dating from the first few centuries BCE to the first few centuries CE, it represents a very early
integration of monumental architecture and residential occupation within a coherent urban design
apparently elaborated according to an overall plan (Bourdonneau 2007) (Figure 10.3).

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10.3 Map of Óc Eo.</figcaption></figure>

Source: (Based on Coe and Evans (2018, 91).)
Further inland, legacy forms of occupation on large irregular mounds persisted. The site of Angkor Borei in southern Cambodia, perhaps the capital of Funan and linked to Óc Eo by a great canal, has evidence for occupation dating from at least the 4th century CE scattered across 35 km² (Stark 2006; Stark et al. 2015). Some of this occupation is located on very large and irregular mounds containing scatters of ponds and temple sites, while other ponds, temples, and smaller occupation mounds are distributed across the surrounding landscape, reflecting a diversity of settlement forms that do not adhere to any obvious grid or plan.

At the site of Sambor Prei Kuk, new maps created from lidar imaging in 2015 (Figure 10.4) add considerable detail to the enclosed Pre-Angkorian city mapped in detail by Shimoda (2010), which includes a vast array of ponds and numerous small shrines in its intramural and extramural spaces, much of it apparently reflecting a rather chaotic and disordered development. Most of the development at Sambor Prei Kuk, including its main group of shrines, appears to coincide with the apparent lifespan of the ‘Chenla’ polity from the 6th to 8th centuries, but here, too, there is evidence for occupation dating back to Prehistoric Period (Shimoda et al. 2015).

A defining feature of Sambor Prei Kuk has always been its imposing earthen enclosure, stretching 2 km on three sides, with the other side bordered by the river. In addition to this piece of infrastructure, we can now add an internal system of water management, consisting of a series of canals around the main temple sites. Another network of intramural canals revealed by lidar appears to be the remnants of an interior grid, which seems to conform to the orientation of the exterior wall and is connected to it. Sambor Prei Kuk may therefore represent the earliest evidence of a city grid enclosed within an outer wall.

The nature of occupation at Sambor Prei Kuk partly evokes that of Angkor Borei, with massive mounds dotted with temple sites and ponds but a much greater density of smaller ponds and

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10.4 Archaeological map of Sambor Prei Kuk.</figcaption></figure>

Source: (Map by the authors, with contributions from Kong L. and A. Loyless).
mounds scattered across the landscape, and with a network of large-scale infrastructure imposed upon it. Importantly, the many thousands of occupation mounds and ponds at Sambor Prei Kuk, along with many of its temple sites, stretch far into the extra-mural spaces; the ‘enclosure’ encloses little aside from the principal shrines.

The fourth Pre-Angkorian urban complex for which we have detailed mapping is the ancient city associated with Wat Phou, in present-day Laos (Santoni et al. 1997; Santoni and Hawixbrock 1998; Santoni and Souksavatdy 1996), dating from around the 5th to 8th centuries. Like Sambor Prei Kuk, it sits on the floodplain astride a major river—the Mekong, in this case—with three walls of approximately 2 km on the other three sides forming an enclosure. Evidence for occupation is relatively sparse with a light scatter of occupation mounds, ponds, and temples, and although there is no evidence of a formally planned grid interior, there seem to have been multiple phases of wall construction, with three concentric wall systems radiating out from the river’s edge. Later phases of occupation from the Pre-Angkor and Angkor Periods consisting of a scattering of temples, ponds, and mounds lay further inland from the river and seem to reflect growing confidence in the construction of settlements further away from major water sources, in tandem with the development of more sophisticated techniques for water management (Lorrillard 2010).

## Urbanism at Angkor

As detailed by Chevance and Pottier (2023, this volume), urban development in the early centuries of the Angkor Period also experimented—perhaps not always successfully—with major centres located in highland areas further away from the flooded lowland areas that were traditionally the locus of Khmer settlements, in a trend that we can also identify in other parts of the Angkorian World (see Heng 2023, this volume). The Angkor plain is dotted with well over a thousand local temple sites from the Pre-Angkor and Angkor Period consisting of moated temple-mounds surrounded by ponds and occupation mounds (Evans et al. 2007), and Pottier (2017) makes a convincing case that one cluster, in particular, centred on the temple-mountain of Ak Yum, emerged as the first major capital of the area during the Pre-Angkor Period (see Chevance and Pottier 2023, this volume). Alongside this, Pottier proposes that this city, named Bhavapura, emerged in the 6th century and was characterised by a cardinally aligned grid system, as well as a prototype of the giant reservoir or *baray* that would come to characterise later stages of Angkor's development. Both of these would represent major innovations in urban planning, predating by centuries the development of analogous infrastructure on Phnom Kulen in the 8th to 9th centuries (Chevance et al. 2019). This view directly challenges the conventional view that large-scale urbanism and ‘capital cities’ developed in areas distant from Angkor and instead traces the origins of Angkorian urbanism back several centuries within Angkor itself. However, the precise structure of Bhavapura is partly obscured and confused by subsequent urban developments, and further work will be required to fully disentangle the palimpsest in this area.

With the establishment of Mahendraparvata as capital on the Phnom Kulen massif at the turn of the 8th to 9th centuries CE, we see the earliest and clearest example of the disengagement of Khmer habitation from flooded lowlands, as part of a project of city-building that seems to have been planned and executed by the Angkorian state within a relatively brief period of time (Chevance et al. 2019). Apparently drawing on previous elements from Bhavapura, the king, Jayavarman II, unsuccessfully attempted the construction of a baray—which were typically fashioned of earth—by quarrying deep into raw stone atop the plateau. Although there is evidence of residential enclosures and habitation on the plateau, there are few or no occupation mounds,
since there is no need to keep residence above the floodwaters; no evidence for flooded rice field systems; and, instead of excavated ponds, usually small earthen dams. Like Bhavapura, it lacks the enclosures that were characteristic of Khmer cities outside of Angkor from the 6th to 8th centuries. Mahendraparvata thus represents a sharp departure from classical forms of Khmer urbanism. The experiment was short lived, with the capital returning within a few decades to the plains of Angkor, where it would stay for most of the next five or six centuries (Chevance et al. 2019).

The capital of Hariharālaya, built atop several thousand years of continuous occupation, marks a return to a more organic urban form that took advantage of the legacy of the previous habitation on mounds at the edge of the floodplain of the great lake, the Tonle Sap. Although partly formalised and structured into a kind of sacred geography in some areas and containing some infrastructural elements that offer axes in the urban space, Hariharālaya has no grid system, and it also has no overall enclosure. It consists of a central nucleus of monuments, comprising a well-organised space out of which radiates a sprawl of ponds, mounds, and community temples. It is, therefore, characteristic of the ‘open cities’ that we see in Angkor for the first several centuries of its existence as the capital of the Khmer Empire (Pottier 2012). This pattern was repeated in the initial stages of Yaśodharapura at Angkor from the 9th to 11th centuries and also in the city of the East Baray built by king Rajendravarman in the 10th century.

A brief exception to this model of lowland capital cities comes in the form of Koh Ker, some 100 km to the east of Angkor, in which we can identify an attempt to take the defining elements of the open, unstructured urban layouts of the Angkor floodplain and reproduce them in the gently rolling hills of present-day Preah Vihear province (Evans 2010). As with Mahendraparvata, there are few occupation mounds here, most of the monumental remains date from a single period, and ill-conceived infrastructural projects may have contributed to its ephemeral tenure as the capital of the Khmer Empire (Lustig et al. 2018).

## Urban Development in the 11th to 13th Centuries

By the 11th century, the open city model at Angkor had developed to the point where densely inhabited nuclei—in particular forming around current and former capital city locations—punctuated a broad, landscape-scale fabric of community temples, ponds, and occupation areas, which began to expand and become tied together with the urban core at Yaśodharapura by significant amounts of infrastructure (Carter et al. 2018; Evans 2016; Evans et al. 2007, 2013; Gaucher 2017; Klassen et al. 2021). By the 11th to 12th centuries, the open cities of Angkor came to be replaced, at least in part, by the development of the colossal walls of Angkor Thom (Gaucher 2017). Angkor Thom had reached more or less its final (and current) form by the 13th century, but it was elaborated in stages over centuries. Around the time of the reign of Jayavarman VII, Angkor achieved more or less the morphology that we see depicted on maps of the Greater Angkor region today. It consisted of a densely inhabited, formally planned urban core of around 40 km² with many thousands of ponds organised along an urban grid that extended far into extramural areas beyond Angkor Thom. This civic-ceremonial core was surrounded by a vast, low-density network of mixed residential and agricultural space, punctuated here and there by nodes of high-density occupation such as at Beng Mealea and tied together into a coherent system by a pervasive network of canal and embankment infrastructure (Carter et al. 2021; Klassen et al. 2021).

Meanwhile, at a smaller scale than that of the settlement complex, the development of true ‘temple-cities’ from the 11th to 13th centuries can be defined using lidar data, as the increasing amount of space between ever-larger monuments and their enclosure walls becomes organised
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>*Figure 10.5* Lidar renderings of gridded urban areas of the Angkor Period: a) Angkor Wat; b) Beng Mealea; c) Preah Khan of Kompong Svay; d) Preah Khan of Angkor; e) Ta Prohm; f) Banteay Chhmar. Data from KALC 2012 and CALI 2015. All images are the same scale.</figcaption></figure>

into systematic grid patterns of mounds and ponds (Figure 10.5) (Evans 2016). Sometimes, as with Beng Mealea, these ‘temple-cities’ form nodes within the extended agro-urban complex; in other cases, as with Ta Prohm, for example, they are firmly embedded in the occupational matrix of the urban core. Recent excavations have provided proof of habitation within these temple precincts, including at Ta Prohm and Angkor Wat (Carter et al. 2018; Stark et al. 2015). Overall, at its height in the 13th century, the region of Greater Angkor was likely home to around 700,000 people (Klassen et al. 2021).
## Angkorian Urbanism Beyond Angkor

In 2015, airborne lidar data were acquired over the 11th- to 13th-century temple complex of Preah Khan of Kompong Svay, a provincial industrial centre located 100 km to the east of Angkor, where many years of study using conventional sensors and ground survey had led to the conclusion that the area inside its enclosure wall—at 5 km on each side, the largest in Southeast Asia—was very sparsely inhabited (Hendrickson and Evans 2015), presenting us with something of an anomaly in the history of Khmer urbanism until that point. However, the lidar data clearly revealed an urban layout within the central moat of the site that is analogous to the early 12th-century grids of Angkor Wat and Beng Mealea—complete with the enigmatic ‘coiled’ embankments. Surrounding the main temple moat is an extended, less-organised urban grid that resembles the late-Angkorian urban centres of Jayavarman VII. Excavations completed at Preah Khan in 2016 led by Mitch Hendrickson and colleagues confirm the accuracy of interpretations of archaeological topography visible within the lidar data. While it remains true that Preah Khan’s enclosure seems less densely populated than large enclosures such as Angkor Thom, the evidence for occupation is nonetheless rich and unequivocal, with spatial patterning that fits neatly within schemes of urban development in the Angkorian World.

The same cannot be said of Banteay Chhmar, a provincial centre of the 12th to 13th centuries, located in an arid zone that shows evidence of an extensive water management system (Evans et al. 2011). The new lidar data essentially confirm previous mapping work and do not significantly change the overall interpretation of the archaeological topography. Among all the 11th- to 13th century CE temples of the Khmer, Banteay Chhmar is the only one so far mapped with lidar that shows almost no evidence of a formal urban grid extending throughout any of its successive enclosures and represents a (so far) unique exception to the model of urban development we propose here for the Angkor Period, in which ‘open cities’ gradually evolve into urban complexes with formally planned urban cores by the 12th to 13th centuries CE. The reasons for this are unclear: was Banteay Chhmar a ‘city’, or was it a ‘garrison-temple’ on the fringes of the empire that was inhabited ephemerally or episodically (Sharrock 2015)?

## After Angkor

In order to arrive at a relatively complete and consistent view of the development of Khmer urbanism over the course of two millennia or more, airborne lidar data were also acquired over the Post-Angkorian capital regions of Longvek and Oudong, far to the south of Angkor near present-day Phnom Penh (Evans 2016). From the 15th century onwards, this region was the location of the Cambodian capitals of the Early Modern Period. The issue of settlement size and structure in the capitals that came after Angkor is also relevant to the study of the demise of Angkor as the capital of the Khmer Empire and its gradual depopulation up until the 19th century: the tempo of Angkor’s decline is a matter of ongoing research interest (Carter et al. 2019; Hall et al. 2021; Lucero et al. 2015; Penny et al. 2019), and understanding Early Modern settlement patterns may offer important insight into patterns of migration from Angkor (Evans 2016). Our understanding of this area has been considerably enhanced by further remote sensing, survey, and excavation work that is described elsewhere in this collection (see Polkinghorne and Sato 2023, this volume), so only a brief summary is warranted here.

Essentially, the mapping work at Middle Period capitals reveals only sparse evidence for occupation in the form of subtle topographic traces within spaces that are either bounded (as in the case of Longvek) or open (as in the case of all other capitals). Traces that we associate with ‘classic’ Khmer urbanism from the middle of the first millennium CE onward, such as the
remains of ponds, occupation mounds, and moated-mound community temples, are poorly represented in this landscape. Polkinghorne et al. (2018) nonetheless argue for substantial populations in these areas, even if the configuration of the built environment differed substantially from that of the Angkor Period and has less visibility in the archaeological record—a conclusion that would be consistent with other important shifts in material culture in the Early Modern Period.

## Discussion

Our survey of the literature on Angkorian settlement patterns reveals the extraordinary progress that has been made since the 1990s, when Cambodia began to emerge from decades of conflict, setting the stage for systematic exploration and analysis of archaeological landscapes at scale using aerial photography in concert with innovative and emerging technologies such as GPS, GIS, airborne radar and lidar, and very-high-resolution satellite imagery. Before this work began, maps of Angkorian settlement complexes were largely schematic in nature, consisting of a scatter of points around large infrastructural elements and the major temple complexes. Twenty years ago, arguments that Angkor was an 'orthogenetic' ceremonial centre that was sparsely populated and dedicated largely to ritual and administrative functions (Miksic 2000), or that the walls of Angkor Thom in the 12th to 13th centuries fully enclosed the only 'true' urban context at Angkor (Gaucher 2002, 2003b), were reasonable and tenable positions held by widely respected scholars. Today, it is difficult to see how these perspectives might survive the evidence.

Nonetheless, there are a number of broad lacunae in our understanding of the lived-in spaces of the Angkorian World and some significant issues with definitions and terminology that hinder our ability to draw broad and meaningful conclusions from the data, alongside a range of other methodological and theoretical problems that must be acknowledged to allow a full and fair appraisal of the results and set the stage for future research directions. Some of these issues are by now well known, and researchers have begun to address them in detail. For example, it is relatively difficult to draw chronological information from remotely sensed data, and systematic efforts are being made to link map datasets to related datasets from art history, architecture, and epigraphy that offer finer-grained chronological data and set the stage for mapping the development of urban spaces over space and time (Klassen et al. 2018, 2021). Others are more obscure and are worth discussing here.

## Low-Density Urbanism and Cities: Scale and Definitions

Probably the most significant and far-reaching consequence of the last three decades of landscape archaeology in the Angkorian World has been to inspire a broad re-appraisal of lived-in spaces in early Southeast Asia, which in turn has informed emerging perspectives on diverse trajectories of urbanism Worldwide, especially in the tropics (Graham and Isendahl 2018). In particular, we now recognise that the conventional definitions of 'cities' that derive from other archaeological traditions—such as studies of the Classical World and the Near East, in which 'urban' spaces are clearly delineated and differentiated from the 'non-urban' or 'rural' spaces that lay beyond—are entirely inadequate for describing Khmer residential patterning (Fletcher 2020). The survey of the state of the art that we have provided shows that, although enclosures bound parts of Khmer settlements, the formally planned urban spaces in these intra-mural spaces frequently spill beyond the 'enclosing' walls and go on to merge gradually and imperceptibly into low-density residential landscapes incorporating fields and gardens.
Research work produced by the Greater Angkor Project has generally avoided using the term 'cities' to describe this patterning of lived-in space since the word 'city' conjures up images of the walled cities of classical antiquity. Instead, scholarship in recent years typically defines Khmer habitation zones as 'settlement complexes' characterised by 'low-density agrarian-based urbanism,' in which a central, densely populated civic-ceremonial centre is surrounded by an extended hinterland of diffuse urban and agricultural spaces containing occasional nodes of high-density occupation (Fletcher 2009, 2012). In general, a system of infrastructure such as roads and canals radiates out from the centre, permeating the low-density sprawl and lending functional and material coherence to the settlement complex as a whole (Evans et al. 2007).

Although this approach to categorisation neatly elides the problematic category of a 'city', there remains a good deal of confusion and imprecision about the distinction between 'urban' and 'rural' in the archaeological literature, which has given rise to an extensive body of work discussing whether the kind of diffuse residential patterning we see in the homelands of the Maya and Khmer is 'urban' or 'rural' by definition (Michelet and Nondédéo 2019), where and when 'hinterland' (Klassen et al. 2021) or 'peri-urban' (Evans et al. 2013) areas begin, and whether we should describe those in terms of 'low-density urbanism' or 'high-density ruralism' (Scarborough et al. 2012); whether labels such as 'garden cities' or even 'forest gardens' may be more appropriate (Isendahl 2012); whether terms such as 'agro-urban landscapes' should be adopted to accommodate new perspectives on residential patterning in the tropical world (Graham and Isendahl 2018); or whether we may simply settle on 'low-density cities' for some places while divorcing the concept of 'density' from 'urbanism' altogether (Graham and Isendahl 2018).

Notable throughout much of this literature is the absence of precise and uniform criteria against which we may reliably define a given part of the landscape as belonging to one category or another. Michelet and Nondédéo (2019) characterise much of this work as 'fake feuds' about urbanism deriving from confusion and imprecision in the definitions of 'urban' and 'rural', and, as Fletcher (2020) has observed, 'it is now clear that definitions of urbanism are regionally specific and that global definitions have become tenuous and increasingly decoupled from material actuality'. In rare cases, authors have attempted to systematise their classification using quantitative approaches drawn from material culture (e.g. Canuto et al. 2018), but these are based on criteria specific to the local archaeological record (stucco remains in the case of the Maya World) and may not be broadly applicable to other archaeological contexts such as the Angkorian World. Many archaeologists make a compelling case that studies of urbanism from the deep past to the present day are important for understanding the resilience and vulnerability of the sprawling low-density cities which increasingly define present-day urbanism (Hawken and Fletcher 2021; Ortman et al. 2020; Smith et al. 2021), but the categories upon which archaeologists have long relied for classifying lived-in spaces clearly provide us with a poor foundation for this kind of work.

Instead, research on urbanism in the Angkorian World brings into sharp relief some of the challenges and opportunities with this broader comparative project. The first major challenge is that the comparative frameworks proposed by Smith and others still require arbitrary and specific definitions of lived-in spaces at various scales of space and time, in order, for example, to define 'a settlement' or 'a neighbourhood' and its trajectory of growth and decline (Smith et al. 2021; Smith 2020). The 'messy' archaeological landscapes of the Khmer, frequently lacking distinct boundaries between different types of spaces, underscore the need to move beyond these kinds of arbitrary categories and focus instead on continuous fields of density of occupation across the landscape, moving seamlessly through multiple spatial scales without pre-supposing an 'appropriate' or 'natural' scale for the study of lived-in spaces of one category or another (Hawken and Fletcher 2021). This kind of approach offers the possibility of undertaking truly
global comparative studies and segues neatly into new perspectives offered by settlement scaling theory (Ortman et al. 2020), which has already begun to make an impact on the study of Khmer urbanism by offering insights into how population densities at different scales contributed to specific kinds of social, political and agricultural organisation (Klassen et al. 2021).

## Missing Pieces of the Puzzle

These kinds of quantitative studies of population density across time and space underpin many of the most recent studies of Angkor and inform our latest perspectives on the overall demography and morphology of the agro-urban landscape (Carter et al. 2018, 2019, 2021; Klassen et al. 2018, 2021). The calculation of population density, however, rests on a number of assumptions drawn from household archaeology (see Carter et al. 2023, this volume) and from the study of traces that remain on the surface in the present day. It is important to acknowledge these assumptions here, since it will help us to appraise the precision of the work that has been published and point to a number of useful future directions for research.

One of the core assumptions in this recent work is that the existence of a religious shrine, relatively modest in size in comparison to the better-known temples of Angkor and characterised as ‘local temples’ or ‘community temples’ (Carter et al. 2021), lay at the centre of substantial communities of sedentary agriculturalists during the Angkor Period and that the size of those communities can be inferred from the spatial coverage of occupation mounds and ponds associated with that particular temple foundation (Klassen et al. 2018, 2021). For now, this is a working assumption, and although it is a reasonable assumption given the range of epigraphic and archaeological evidence for habitation around some of those temples (Bâty 2005; Klassen et al. 2021), it should be acknowledged that we so far have an extremely limited number of excavations to draw from in inferring population densities outside of the urban core of Angkor and that much of our thinking about the role of ‘community temples’ in the Angkorian World draws from ethnographic analogy with the role of Theravada Buddhist pagodas in contemporary village contexts across mainland Southeast Asia.

Beyond the pioneering work done by Bâty and colleagues, the nature of occupation around community temple sites is a question that will need to be solved by wide-area archaeological excavations across a wide selection of sites, in much the same way as Stark, Carter, and colleagues have pioneered household archaeology in the urban centres of Angkor (Carter et al. 2018, 2019; Stark et al. 2015). The lack of sustained archaeological investigation into the nature of residence alongside roads and canals, and atop other elements of infrastructure in the Angkorian World such as the banks of reservoirs and ponds, is also a matter of concern: by and large, for the time being, habitation in those areas is simply assumed. Moving forward, the study of occupation density based on ceramic material and other durable remains such as macrobotanicals may be complemented by other techniques for estimating population density, such as seeking biochemical markers like faecal stanols, as has been done, for example, in the Maya World (Keenan et al. 2021).

Another major concern derives from our use of durable components of the archaeological record—patterned mounds and depressions that remain inscribed on the landscape—as a proxy for certain kinds of residential and agricultural activity. As pointed out by Hawken in this volume (Hawken and Castillo 2023), based on many years of observations on the ground working alongside rice farmers, a substantial amount of Angkor's population was likely seasonally mobile, living among rice fields during periods of intensive agricultural activity. It is certain that tens of thousands of people would have migrated on a seasonal basis to the urban core for work on infrastructural projects. To what extent, then, may our estimates of Angkor's
population be inflated by ‘double-counting’ residential infrastructure that was used seasonally by the same population? In a similar vein, the lack of obvious surface evidence for certain kinds of rice agriculture (e.g., swidden cultivation and retreating flood rice agriculture) may also be further muddying our perception of the complex mosaic of habitation and agricultural spaces in the Angkorian World. Methods from biogeochemistry—analysing soil chemistry and sampling environmental DNA, for example—may help to elucidate certain patterns of activity that have been obscured by a focus on macro remains (and offer perhaps our only pathway to solving the perennial debate about irrigation and multi-cropping in the ‘hydraulic city’ of Angkor).

A further issue related to transience and visibility in the archaeological record relates to those living on the margins and peripheries of Angkorian settlement complexes and of the Angkorian World as a whole. Mainland Southeast Asia during the time of Angkor, as today, contains a great deal of ethnolinguistic variation and diverse material cultures, many of which are likely to be poorly represented in the surface archaeological record. The work of Hendrickson et al., for example, shows that the Kuay people played an outsized role in the industry of Angkor, well represented in terms of material remains—and yet their patterns of habitation are poorly understood in the archaeological record, which has likely contributed to some long-standing confusion about the nature of occupation at Preah Khan of Kompong Svay and beyond (Hendrickson and Evans 2015; Pryce et al. 2014). Zhou Daguan mentions highland people on the forested periphery of Angkor who were engaged in the provision of valued goods for the city centre (Zhou 2007[1297]). We know that the ‘urban’ and ‘agricultural’ areas of Angkor sprawled into those areas, that increasing contact took place during the Angkor Period (see Heng 2023, this volume), and that major centres such as Mahendraparvata were located in highland regions (Chevance et al. 2019). How might these populations, otherwise largely absent from the discourse on Angkor, be identified and incorporated into our models of socio-ecological dynamics?

Conclusion

Our survey highlights the tremendous progress that has been made in recent years in understanding the diverse trajectories of urbanism in the early Khmer world while underscoring specific areas of work where further research is required. The pattern that emerges is of gradual and continuous development and experimentation with different forms of urbanism over time, for example, as the enclosed cities of the Pre-Angkor Period gave way to the open cities of the early Angkor Period, followed by a time of extremely intense infrastructural development and innovation in the 11th to 13th centuries characterised by rigidly formalised city grids and the imposition of giant walled enclosures in pre-existing urban spaces. Urban agglomerations located in the traditional homeland of the Khmer—seasonally inundated floodplains—persisted for several centuries, supported by elaborate and successful hydraulic works, while urban complexes that emerged in highland areas such as Koh Ker and Mahendraparvata, on the other hand, were short lived and beset by engineering problems. Between and beyond these centres, a vast, diffuse mosaic of community temples and walled rice fields permeated the flooded lowlands of the Angkorian World.

It is difficult, for now, to draw definitive conclusions about the implications for Khmer society from the spatial patterns of these layouts. It is clear that anthropological approaches used in similar contexts Worldwide, such as the use of Gini coefficients to explore wealth inequality, are not applicable in the Angkorian World, since we lack the granular data on residential patterning that are necessary for such approaches. On the other hand, new approaches such as settlement scaling theory offer us promising opportunities for exploring the articulation between urban
morphologies and socio-economic developments. These kinds of theoretical approaches pro-
vide an overarching rationale for the kind of comparative approaches between 'tropical forest
civilisations' proposed by Michael D. Coe more than half a century ago (1957, 1961). Further-
more, the arrival of consistent and comparable datasets in the form of lidar has set the stage for
rigorous, systematic, and quantitative studies that move beyond anecdotal observations about
the similarities of settlement complexes in different parts of the world and between cities past
and present.

Eventually, this work may live up to the promise that the archaeological record of urban
environments in the Angkorian World has important insights to offer us in terms of contem-
porary urbanism and urban futures. So far, efforts to draw relevance have landed on some fairly
straightforward observations that reflect core principles in the design of sustainable urban sys-
tems: that we ought to have green space and biodiversity, that infrastructural systems should have
multiple points of redundancy, and that massive infrastructural works are inertial and impose
unforeseen costs and consequences on future generations. What we can see for the time being,
therefore, is not so much the study of archaeology informing urban futures but rather con-
temporary urban studies providing a window through which we can understand the successes
and failures of past urban models. However, as the study of urbanism in the Angkorian World
moves past old debates about 'hydraulic cities'; better acknowledges its current shortcomings;
and adopts more rigorous, systematic, and quantitative approaches to the data now available, we
should expect that research on Khmer settlement patterns will be more broadly impactful in
terms of understanding trajectories of urbanism from the deep past to the present.

Funding

*Funding for this contribution derives in part from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreements 639828 and 866454).*

References

Barber, M., 2017. *A History of Aerial Photography and Archaeology: Mata Hari's Glass Eye and Other Stories.* London: Historic England Publishing.

Baty, P., 2005. *Extension de l'aéroport de Siem Reap 2004: Rapport de Fouille Archéologique.* Siem Reap—Paris: APSARA—INRAP.

Bourdonneau, E., 2007. Réhabiliter le Funan. Óc Eo ou la première Angkor. *Bulletin de l'École française d'Extrême-Orient* 94, 111–57.

Canuto, M.A., F. Estrada-Belli, T.G. Garrison, S.D. Houston, M.J. Acuña, M. Kováč, D. Marken, P. Nondédéo, L. Auld-Thomas, C. Castanet, D. Chatelain, C.R. Chiriboga, T. Drápela, T. Lieskovský, A. Tokovinine, A. Velasquez, J.C. Fernández-Díaz & R. Shrestha, 2018. Ancient lowland Maya complexity as revealed by airborne laser scanning of northern Guatemala. *Science* 361(6409), eaau0137.

Carter, A., M.T. Stark, P. Heng & R. Chhay, 2023. The Angkorian house, in *The Angkorian World*, eds. M. Hendrickson, M.T. Stark & D. Evans. New York: Routledge, 494–507.

Carter, A., P. Heng, M. Stark, R. Chhay & D. Evans, 2018. Urbanism and residential patterning in Angkor. *Journal of Field Archaeology* 43(6), 492–506.

Carter, A.K., M.T. Stark, S. Quintus, Y. Zhuang, H. Wang, P. Heng & R. Chhay, 2019. Temple occupation and the tempo of collapse at Angkor Wat, Cambodia. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 116(25), 12226–31.

Carter, A.K., S. Klassen, M.T. Stark, M. Polkinghorne, P. Heng, D. Evans & R. Chhay, 2021. The evolution of agro-urbanism: a case study from Angkor, Cambodia. *Journal of Anthropological Archaeology* 63, 101323.

Chevance, J.-B. & C. Pottier, 2023. The early Angkor capitals, in *The Angkorian World*, eds. M. Hendrickson, M.T. Stark & D. Evans. New York: Routledge, 80–96.
Chevance, J.-B., D. Evans, N. Hofer, S. Sakhoeun & R. Chhean, 2019. Mahendraparvata: an early Angkor-period capital defined through airborne laser scanning at Phnom Kulen. *Antiquity* 93(371), 1303–21.

Coe, M., 1957. The Khmer settlement pattern: a possible analogy with that of the Maya. *American Antiquity* 22, 409–10.

Coe, M., 1961. Social typology and the tropical forest civilisations. *Comparative Studies in Society and History* 4, 65–85.

Coe, M. & D. Evans, 2018. *Angkor and the Khmer Civilization*. London: Thames & Hudson.

Cœdès, G., 1906. La stèle de Ta-Prohm. *Bulletin de l'École française d'Extrême-Orient* 6(1), 44–86.

Edwards, P., 2005. Taj Angkor: Enshrining l'Inde in le Cambodge, in *France and 'Indochina': Cultural Representations*, eds. K. Robson & J. Yee. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 13–27.

Edwards, P., 2008. *Cambodge: The Cultivation of a Nation, 1860–1945*. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.

Evans, D., 2007. Putting Angkor on the map: a new survey of a Khmer 'Hydraulic City' in historical and theoretical context. PhD dissertation. Sydney: The University of Sydney.

Evans, D., 2010. The archaeological landscape of Koh Ker, Northwest Cambodia. *Bulletin de l'École française d'Extrême-Orient* 97–98, 91–150.

Evans, D., 2016. Airborne laser scanning as a method for exploring long-term socio-ecological dynamics in Cambodia. *Journal of Archaeological Science* 74, 164–75.

Evans, D. & A. Traviglia, 2012. Uncovering Angkor: integrated remote sensing applications in the archaeology of early Cambodia, in *Satellite Remote Sensing: A New Tool for Archaeology*, eds. R. Lasaponara & N. Masini. New York: Springer, 197–230.

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* 104(36), 14277–82.

Evans, D. & E. Moylan, 2013. Pixels, ponds and people: mapping cultural and archaeological landscapes in Cambodia using historical aerial imagery, in *Archaeology from Historical Aerial and Satellite Archives*, eds. W. Hanson & I. Oltean. New York: Springer, 291–313.

Evans, D., J. Goodman, J. Sanday & R. Mey, 2011. *The Hydraulic System of Banteay Chhmar*. Siem Reap: Global Heritage Fund.

Evans, D. & R. Fletcher, 2015. The landscape of Angkor Wat redefined. *Antiquity* 89(348), 1402–19.

Evans, D., R.J. Fletcher, C. Pottier, J.-B. Chevance, D. Soutif, B.S. Tan, S. Im, D. Ea, T. Tin, S. Kim, C. Cromarty, S. De Greef, K. Hanus, P. Bäty, R. Kuszinger, I. Shimoda & G. Boornazian, 2013. Uncovering archaeological landscapes at Angkor using lidar. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America* 110(31), 12595–600.

Falser, M., 2019. *Angkor Wat—A Transcultural History of Heritage: volume 1: Angkor in France. From Plaster Casts to Exhibition Pavilions*. New York: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.

Fletcher, R. & C. Pottier, 2002. The gossamer city: a new inquiry. *Museum International* 54(1–2), 23–7.

Fletcher, R., 2009. Low-density, agrarian-based urbanism: a comparative view. *Insights* 2(4), 1–19.

Fletcher, R., 2012. Low-density, agrarian-based urbanism: scale, power and ecology, in *The Archaeology of Complex Societies*, ed. M.E. Smith. New York: Cambridge University Press, 285–320.

Fletcher, R., 2020. Urban labels and settlement trajectories. *Journal of Urban Archaeology* 1, 31–48.

Gaucher, J. & P. Husi, 2013. L'archéologie urbaine appliquée à un site archéologique: l'exemple d'Angkor Thom (Cambodge), capitale du royaume khmer angkorien, in *Archéologie de l'espace urbain*, eds. E. Lorans & X. Rodier. Tours: Presses universitaires François-Rabelais, 122–31

Gaucher, J., 2002. The 'city' of Angkor. What is it?, *Museum International* 54(1–2), 28–36.

Gaucher, J., 2003a. New archaeological data on the urban space of the capital city of Angkor Thom, in *Fishbones and Glittering Emblems: Southeast Asian Archaeology* 2002, eds. A. Karlström & A. Källén. Stockholm: Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, 233–42.

Gaucher, J., 2003b. Premiers Aperçus Sur Des Éleménts De Planification Urbaine À Angkor Thom. *Udaya, Journal of Khmer Studies* 4, 41–52.

Gaucher, J., 2004. Angkor Thom, une utopie réalisée? *Structuration de l'espace et modèle indien d'urbanisme dans le Cambodge ancien, Arts Asiatiques* 59, 58–86.

Gaucher, J., 2017. L'enceinte d'Angkor Thom: Archéologie d'une forme, chronologie d'une ville, in *Deux Décennies de Coopération Archéologique Franco-Cambodgienne à Angkor*, eds. A. Beschaouch, F. Verellen & M. Zink. Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 27–41.

Goloubew, V., 1941. L'hydraulique urbaine et agricole à l'époque des rois d'Angkor. *Bulletin Économique de l'Indochine* 1, 9–18.
Graham, E. & C. Isendahl, 2018. Neotropical cities as agro-urban landscapes: revisiting 'low-density, agrarian-based urbanism', in *The Resilience of Heritage: Cultivating a Future of the Past*. Essays in Honour of Professor Paul J.J. Sinclair, eds. A. Ekblom, C. Isendahl & K.-J. Lindholm, 165–80.

Groslier, B.-P., 1952. L'avion et l'archéologie indochinoise. *Forces aériennes françaises* 67, 51–83.

Groslier, B.-P., 1956. *Angkor, Hommes et Pierres*. Paris: Arthaud.

Groslier, B.-P., 1958. *Angkor et Le Cambodge Au XVIe Siècle d'après Les Sources Portugaises et Espagnoles*. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

Groslier, B.-P., 1979. La cité hydraulique angkorienne: exploitation ou surexploitation du sol? *Bulletin de l'École française d'Extrême-Orient* 66, 161–202.

Groslier, B.-P., 1998. *Mélanges Sur l'archéologie du Cambodge (1949–1986); Textes Réunis et Présentés Par Jacques Dumarçay*. Paris: École française d'Extrême-Orient.

Hall, T., D. Penny, B. Vincent & M. Polkinghorne, 2021. An integrated palaeoenvironmental record of Early Modern occupancy and land use within Angkor Thom, Angkor. *Quaternary Science Reviews* 251, 106710.

Hawken, S. & C.C. Castillo, 2023. Angkor's agrarian economy: a socio-ecological mosaic, in *The Angkorian World*, eds. M. Hendrickson, M.T. Stark & D. Evans. New York: Routledge, 195–215.

Hawken, S. & R. Fletcher, 2021. A long-term archaeological reappraisal of low-density urbanism: implications for contemporary cities. *Journal of Urban Archaeology* 3, 29–50.

Hawken, S. & S. Klassen, 2023. Angkor's temple communities and the logic of its urban landscape, in *The Angkorian World*, eds. M. Hendrickson, M.T. Stark & D. Evans. New York: Routledge, 195–215.

Hendrickson, M. & D. Evans, 2015. Reimagining the city of fire and iron: a landscape archaeology of the Angkor-Period industrial complex of Preah Khan of Kompong Svay, Cambodia (ca. 9th to 13th centuries A.D.). *Journal of Field Archaeology* 40(6), 644–64.

Heng, P., 2023. Angkor and the Mekong River: settlement, resources, mobility, and power, in *The Angkorian World*, eds. M. Hendrickson, M.T. Stark & D. Evans. New York: Routledge, 154–72.

Higham, C., 2001. *The Civilisation of Angkor*. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Higham, C., 2014. *Early Mainland Southeast Asia: From First Humans to Angkor*. Bangkok: River Books.

Isendahl, C., 2012. Agro-urban landscapes: the example of Maya lowland cities. *Antiquity* 86(334), 1112–25.

Keenan, B., A. Imfeld, K. Johnston, A. Breckenridge, Y. Gélinas & P.M.J. Douglas, 2021. Molecular evidence for human population change associated with climate events in the Maya lowlands. *Quaternary Science Reviews* 258, 106904.

Klassen, S., A.K. Carter, D.H. Evans, S. Ortman, M.T. Stark, A.A. Loyless, M. Polkinghorne, P. Heng, M. Hill & P. Wijker, 2021. Diachronic modeling of the population within the medieval Greater Angkor region settlement complex. *Science Advances* 7(19), eabf8441.

Klassen, S., J. Weed & D. Evans, 2018. Semi-supervised machine learning approaches for predicting the chronology of archaeological sites: a case study of temples from medieval Angkor, Cambodia, (ed.) Petraglia, M.D. *PLoS One* 13(11), e0205649.

Lewitz, S., 1967. La toponymie khmère. *Bulletin de l'École française d'Extrême-Orient* 53(2), 375–451.

Lorrillard, M., 2010. Par-delà Vat Phu. Données nouvelles sur l'expansion des espaces khmer et môn anciens au Laos. *Bulletin de l'École française d'Extrême-Orient* 97(1), 205–70.

Lucero, L.J., R. Fletcher & R. Coningham, 2015. From 'collapse' to urban diaspora: the transformation of low-density, dispersed agrarian urbanism. *Antiquity* 89(347), 1139–54.

Lustig, T., J.-B. Chevance & W. Johnson, 2023. Angkor as a “ cité hydraulique” ?, in *The Angkorian World*, eds. M. Hendrickson, M.T. Stark & D. Evans. New York: Routledge.

Lustig, T., S. Klassen, D. Evans, R. French & I. Moffat, 2018. Evidence for the breakdown of an Angkorian hydraulic system, and its historical implications for understanding the Khmer Empire. *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports* 17, 195–211.

Mabbett, I., 1978. Kingship in Angkor. *Journal of the Siam Society* 66(2), 1–58.

Malleret, L., 1959. *L'Archéologie Du Delta Du Mékong. Tome Premier: L'Exploration Archéologique et Les Fouilles d'Óc-Èo*. Paris: École française d'Extrême-Orient.

Manguin, P.-Y. & M. Vallerin, 1997. La mission "Archéologie du delta du Mékong". *Bulletin de l'École française d'Extrême-Orient* 84, 408–14.

Manguin, P.-Y. & N. Tingley, 2009. The archaeology of Funan in the Mekong River Delta: the Óc Eo culture of Vietnam, in *Arts of Ancient Vietnam: From River Plain to Open Sea*. New Haven: Yale University Press, 100–18.

Manguin, P.-Y. & V.S. Khăi, 2000. Excavations at the Ba Thê/Óc Eo complex (Viet Nam): a preliminary report on the 1998 campaign, in *Southeast Asian Archaeology 1998: Proceedings of the 7th International*
Trajectories of Urbanism in the Angkorian World

Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists, Berlin, 31 August-4 September 1998,
107-22.

Maxwell, T.S., 2007. The Stele Inscription of Preah Khan, Angkor with Translation and Commentary. *Udaya, Journal of Khmer Studies* 8, 1–114.

Michelet, D. & P. Nondédéo, 2019. Ancient Maya lowlands: from fake feuds about “urbanism” to renewed studies of settlement patterns. *Origini* 41(2), 249–68.

Miksic, J.N., 2000. Heterogenetic cities in Premodern Southeast Asia. *World Archaeology* 32(1), 106–20.

Moore, E.H., 2009. The Williams-Hunt collection: aerial photographs and cultural landscapes in Malaysia and Southeast Asia. *Sari—International Journal of the Malay World and Civilisation* 27(2), 265–84.

Ortman, S.G., M.E. Smith, J. Lobo & L.M.A. Bettencourt, 2020. Why archaeology is necessary for a theory of urbanization. *Journal of Urban Archaeology* 1, 151–67.

Penny, D., T. Hall, D. Evans & M. Polkinghorne, 2019. Geoarchaeological evidence from Angkor, Cambodia, reveals a gradual decline rather than a catastrophic 15th-century collapse. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 116(11), 4871–76.

Polkinghorne, M. & Y. Sato, 2023. Early Modern Cambodia and archaeology at Longvek, in *The Angkorian World*, eds. M. Hendrickson, M.T. Stark & D. Evans. New York: Routledge, 592–613.

Polkinghorne, M., 2018. Reconfiguring kingdoms: the end of Angkor and the emergence of early modern period Cambodia, in *Angkor: Exploring Cambodia's Sacred City*, eds. T. McCullough, S.A. Murphy, P. Baptiste & T. Zéphir. Singapore: Asian Civilisations Museum, 255–69.

Pottier, C. & A. Bolle, 2009. Le Prasat Trapeang Phong à Hariharâlaya: histoire d'un temple et archéologie d'un site. *Aséanie* 24, 61–90.

Pottier, C. & J. Dumarçay, 1993. *Documents Topographiques de La Conservation Des Monuments d'Angkor*. Paris: École française d'Extrême-Orient.

Pottier, C., 1993. *Préparation d'une Carte Archéologique de La Région d'Angkor*. Paris: Université Paris III—Sorbonne Nouvelle.

Pottier, C., 1999. *Carte Archéologique de La Région d'Angkor. Zone Sud*. PhD dissertation. Paris: Université Paris III—Sorbonne Nouvelle.

Pottier, C., 2000a. À la recherche de Goloupura. *Bulletin de l'École française d'Extrême-Orient* 87, 79–107.

Pottier, C., 2000b. Some evidence of an inter-relationship between hydraulic features and rice field patterns at Angkor during ancient times. *Journal of Sophia Asian Studies* 18, 99–120.

Pottier, C., 2006. Angkor et ses cartes, in *Anamorphoses. Hommage à Jacques Dumarçay*, eds. B. Dagens & H. Chambert-Loir. Paris: Les Indes Savantes, 427–42.

Pottier, C., 2012. Beyond the temples: Angkor and its territory, in *Old Myths and New Approaches: Interpret- ing Ancient Religious Sites in Southeast Asia*, ed. A. Haendel. Clayton: Monash University Publishing, 12–27.

Pottier, C., 2017. Nouvelles données sur les premières cités angkoriennes, in *Deux décennies de coopération archéologique franco-cambodgienne à Angkor*, eds. A. Beschaouch, F. Verellen & M. Zink. Paris: Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, 43–79.

Pryce, T.O., M. Hendrickson, K. Phon, C. Sovichetra, M.F. Charlton, S. Leroy, P. Dillmann & Q. Hua, 2014. The Iron Kuay of Cambodia: tracing the role of peripheral populations in Angkorian to colonial Cambodia via a 1200 year old industrial landscape. *Journal of Archaeological Science* 47, 142–63.

Santoni, M. & C. Hawixbrock, 1998. Laos. Fouilles et prospections dans la région de Vat Phu (province de Champassak, sud du Laos). *Bulletin de l'École française d'Extrême-Orient* 85(1), 387–405.

Santoni, M. & V. Souksavatdy, 1996. Fouilles sur le Site de Vat Phou-Champassak, in *Laos: Restaurer et préserver le patrimoine national*. Vientiane: Éditions des Cahiers de France, 167–200.

Santoni, M., V. Souksavatdy, D. Defente, C. Hawixbrock & J.-C. Liger, 1997. Excavations at Champassak and Wat Phu (Southern Laos), in *South-East Asian Archaeology 1992: Proceedings of the Fourth Interna- tional Conference of the European Association of South-East Asian Archaeologists. Rome, 28th September–4th October 1992*, eds. R Ciarla & F. Rispoli. Rome: L'Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente, 234–63.

Scarborough, V.L., A.F. Chase & D.Z. Chase, 2012. Low density urbanism, sustainability, and IHOPE-Maya: can the past provide more than history?, *UGEC Viewpoints* 8, 20.

Sharrock, P., 2015. *Banteay Chhmar: Garrison-Temple of the Khmer Empire*. London: River Books.

Shimoda, I., 2010. *Study on the Ancient Khmer city Isanapura*. PhD dissertation. Tokyo: Waseda University.

Shimoda, I., Y. Sugasawa, H. Yonenobu & T. Yukitsigu, 2015. Research on the active habitation period of the ancient Khmer city Isanapura. *Journal of Southeast Asian Archaeology* 35, 1–14.

Smith, M.E., 2020. Definitions and comparisons in urban archaeology. *Journal of Urban Archaeology* 1, 15–30.
Smith, M.E., J. Lobo, M.A. Peeples, A.M. York, B.W. Stanley, K.A. Crawford, N. Gauthier & A.C. Huster, 2021. The persistence of ancient settlements and urban sustainability. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America* 118(20), e2018155118.

Srinivasan, D.M., 1993. Introduction: Multiple Meanings of Space and Place, in *Urban Form and Meaning in South Asia: The Shaping of Cities from Prehistoric to Precolonial Times*, eds. H. Spodek & D.M. Srinivasan. Washington: National Gallery of Art, 11–22.

Stark, M.T., 2006. 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., D. Evans, R. Chhay, P. Heng & A. Carter, 2015. Residential patterning at Angkor Wat. *Antiquity* 89(348), 1439–55.

Wheatley, P., 1983. *Nagara and Commandery. Origins of the Southeast Asian Urban Traditions*. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Zhou, D., 2007[1297]. *A Record of Cambodia: The Land and Its People*, trans. P. Harris. Chiang Mai: Silk-worm Books.