The Social and Ecological Trajectory of Prehistoric Cambodian Earthworks

Abstract

This article moves discussion of prehistoric earthworks in Cambodia from normative archaeology into an ecological landscape structure, based on archaeological data sets. Discussions provide a synthesis of archaeological and newly borne-out ecological explanations for original site construction, occupation, landscape use, sustainability of occupation for the earthwork culture over a 2000-year period and terminal use of the sites. A model is presented to assess site abandonment and post-earthwork region settlement patterns.

Building from the Ground Up: The Archaeology of Residential Spaces and Communities in Southeast Asia

“…Most earthworks are approximately 5 ha in diameter, with a large earthen wall encircling a depression, interior platform, and entrance causeways (Dega 2002). The sites themselves are located on hills in a transitional zone between upland terraces and lowland floodplains (Dega and Latinis 2013).…”

“…In a study of ceramics from multiple Cambodian moated Memotian sites, similarities in vessel form and design point to frequent communication between sites, but there was little evidence for trade or interaction with communities in the lowland floodplains (Dega and Latinis 2012). Dega and Latinis (2013) argue that the swidden agriculture subsistence economy, involving forest clearance and the keeping of domestic animals and house gardens, was ultimately a successful adaptation to the local environment due to the presence of virtually unchanged earthworks sites for approximately 2000 years. Scholars have also observed similarities between these sites and ethnographically documented circular village sites of Mon-Khmer-speaking ethnic minority groups in the upland regions of Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam (Kojo and Pheng 1998).…”

“…For these reasons, it is reasonable that alternative hypotheses be considered. In one such analysis, Boyd and Chang (2010) take a similar view as Dega and Latinis (2013), that the more than 2000-year habitation at mounded sites in northeast Thailand reflect long-term sociocultural adaptation to the environment. In this context, the construction of moats during the late Iron Age is not presented as a new innovation by an aggrandizing elite but as an adaptation to an increasingly challenging environment meant to allow these communities to maintain their previous lifestyle.…”