Current Projects:

From the point of view of archaeology, the Cambodian Middle Period is the least well-known and archaeological investigation into the Middle Period is virtually non-existent.  No comprehensive surveys have been made of the major Middle Period capitals—Srei Santhor, Lovek, Oudong and Phnom Penh, let alone the ephemeral capitals—, and Middle Period art forms, particularly sculpture, are known only from a survey undertaken by Madeleine Giteau in the 1970s.  The paucity of research into this period, as well as seeing history as the preferred source, has encouraged acceptance of the Cambodian chronicle accounts as givens, but as these have rarely been cross-checked with different types of evidence, very little of what has been accepted as the history of this period is secure.  The view we have of Middle Period Cambodia from interpretations of the chronicles is flawed and leads to misrepresentation and underestimation of many facets of the history of this period.  A way must now be found to incorporate other types of evidence into a more meaningful synthesis of the Middle Period Khmer experience to fill the many gaps in our understanding.  According to William Southworth, a better understanding of the Middle Period through its remains is axiomatic to an understanding of the processes of cultural change, and of the particular historic, cognitive and environmental factors involved, which provided the link between the glories of Angkor and the everyday life of modern Cambodia.

My research will focus on assembling archaeological evidence from the Middle Period royal centres and use this evidence, in conjunction with the documentary evidence, to establish royal use of the sites, and settlement extent and importance, more securely. The research will encompass not just the accepted Middle Period capitals (Srei Santhor, Phnom Penh, Lovek and Oudong) but also the other sites which, according to the chronicles, had a marked royal presence (Babaur, Pursat, Lovea Em, Koh Klok, and Koh Slaket).  A more accurate picture will be formed when the information in the texts is looked at in conjunction with and in contrast to information from archaeology.  The systematic collection and synthesis of chronological and settlement archaeological data is required not only to confirm historically derived events and dates but also to further our understanding of the Middle Period capitals and how they functioned in the Khmer world.  Each site will be surveyed and remote sensing will be used to reveal subsurface archaeological features and the extent of settlement around each site, indicating its importance. Ceramic analysis will be used to indicate major periods of commercial activity for the sites.  The detection of access routes, whether roads or canals, could indicate how centres operated in connection with each other and with the hinterland sources of raw materials for trade.  The research will also analyse trade markers, mainly ceramics, to establish a chronology of the commercial activity of each centre and suggest trade routes particularly to and from the west via the south of the Lake.  Archaeological data are invaluable indicators of the directionality and intensity of domestic and international trade networks, and archaeological research can inform us about key processes like urbanization and political centralization. 

The relationship between Angkor and these royal centres will also be examined to further illuminate the so-called abandonment of Angkor in the fifteenth century.  There is now strong evidence to suggest that Angkor as an urban centre was not abandoned until well into the sixteenth century and that some monuments such as Angkor Wat have never been abandoned but continued operating as significant sites of pilgrimage.

My interest in this area comes from my Archaeology Honours research which investigated the considerable ambiguity which has surrounded the transition from Angkorian Cambodia to Middle Period Cambodia in the fifteenth century.  Central to the history of this period is the relationship between the various relocations of the capitals of the Khmer state to several sites in the vicinity of Phnom Penh in central Cambodia.   This period has been seen as one of rupture, signalled by the so-called abandonment of Angkor and perceived subsequent decline of the Khmer polity.  However, an investigation into the nature of Khmer rulers’ mobile use of capitals indicates that the Middle Period should more properly be seen as one of transition with marked continuities in many facets of the Khmer world providing the “missing link” between medieval and modern Cambodia.  The post-Angkorian world was still an Angkorian world, though one transposed and transformed. 

The investigation of the Middle Period calls for a new kind of archaeology for Cambodia, the archaeology of occupation sites rather than monuments, of towns and cities rather than temples as the primary focus.  Systematic archaeological investigation of the Middle Period capital sites would help to establish a secure chronology for each site and, with ceramic analysis, indicate major periods of activity.  As Miriam Stark has noted for pre-Angkorian Cambodia, better strategies must be found for combining research from archaeological and historical perspectives without leaving all the work of interpretation to historians.  Only in this way can the threads of Khmer continuity be found and followed.  The whole story may never be revealed but a new approach may illuminate aspects of this period in the Khmer world which would affirm continuity in the Khmer experience and establish that the Middle Period was indeed the inheritor of Angkor.