UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Earthenware Ceramic Technologies of Angkor Borei, Cambodia
EARTHENWARE CERAMIC TECHNOLOGIES
OF ANGKOR BOREI, CAMBODIA1
Miriam T. STARK & Shawn FEHRENBACH
University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, PaleoWest Consulting
•
INTRODUCTION
The period from 500 BCE – 500 CE witnessed the emergence of urbanism and state
formation throughout the region (Carter 2015; Stark and Allen 1998). Increasingly complex trade
networks connected island archipelagoes and peninsular regions to the upper reaches of major
river systems into what is now Laos and central Myanmar through rivers and artificial canals (e.g.,
Bourdonneau 2003; Calo et al. 2015; Sanderson et al. 2003). Early urban forms emerged by the
end of this period, with residents organized into socially stratified systems that scholars frequently
equate with states (Stark 2006a; Stark and Bong 2001). Organizational changes accompanied the
shift from prehistoric to protohistoric time periods across most of mainland Southeast Asia, as
localized technological traditions emerged (e.g., Eyre 2011) and populations aggregated into large
administrative complexes (Evans et al. 2016; Lorillard 2014; Stark 2006a).
Growing evidence also exists, however, for biological and material continuity through time
in the Lower Mekong basin and neighboring riverine systems to the west (e.g., Heng 2016: Figure
2 & 6; Lertcharnwit 2014; Matsumura et al. 2011; Murphy 2016; Murphy and Stark 2016; Reinecke
2012; Rispoli et al. 2013). The Mekong and its tributaries increasingly served as communication
routes that connected discrete regional traditions during the first millennium CE (Bourdonneau
1 This paper is an outgrowth of Shawn Fehrenbach’s (2009) unpublished Master’s thesis in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa (Fehrenbach 2009). S. Jane Allen, James Bayman and Heng Piphal
offered insights on the study. Our sincere thanks go to Cambodia’s Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts, the Royal University of Fine Arts, and the Lower Mekong Archaeological Project at the University of Hawai’i for making the Angkor
Borei ceramics available for analysis. Compositional analyses reported in this paper were undertaken on an internship
at the University of Missouri Research Reactor Archaeometry Lab, supported in part by their NSF Grant #BCS0504015 and with thanks to Michael Glascock and Jeff Ferguson. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the
19th IPPA Congress in Hanoi in December 2009 (Fehrenbach) and at the 5th Annual COSTIKS in Siem Reap in December 2014 (Stark). We thank an anonymous reviewer of this manuscript, and take full responsibility for its contents.
109
Miriam T. STARK & Shawn FEHRENBACH
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
2003; Domett and O’Reilly 2009:75; Heng 2016; Lorillard 2014:204); subsequent polities used
these routes to unite and defeat neighboring states for the next 1500 years. Local political and
environmental conditions varied across the region. Bioarchaeological analysis of populations in
areas flanking the Dangrek Mountains offers ample evidence of conflict (e.g., Domett et al. 2011),
for example, while residents further south in the Delta were healthy and bore few little evidence of
violence (Krais et al. 2012; Pietrusewsky et al. 2006).
Whether Mekong Delta sites comprised an early first millennium CE Funan kingdom
remains a matter of discussion, as does its scale and scope (Le Thi Lien 2011, 2015; Manguin 2009;
Pelliot 1903; Stark 1998; 2003). Growing archaeological evidence suggests, however, that Mekong
Delta populations played critical political and economic roles from 500 BCE to 500 CE. The
delta’s coastal ports moved goods and people from the South China Sea network to the Southeast
Asian mainland. The delta’s fertile alluvial plains yielded abundant harvests that supported large
populations and underwrote commodity trade that linked settlements throughout the Mekong
River basin and its tributaries. Archaeologists frequently rely on artifact patterning as proxies
for studying broader-scale change. Patterning in earthenware ceramics from Cambodia’s largest
protohistoric settlement, Angkor Borei (Figure 1), enriches our understanding of continuity and
change during this millennium-long period of time. This paper describes ceramic wares at Angkor
Borei, their interrelationships, and the ways in which they reflect social developments among
potting communities.
Figure 1. Location of
Angkor Borei (reprinted
from Quaternary
Geochronology 2, Sanderson
et al., Luminescence Dating
of Canal Sediments from
Angkor Borei, Mekong
Delta, Southern Cambodia,
Figure 1, p. 323, 2007,
with permission from
Elsevier).
110
Etienne Aymonier (1900:197-201) was the first colonial scholar to recognize the historical
significance of Angkor Borei, a current district and commune in Takeo Province (southern
Cambodia). The site’s importance lies not only in its proximity to the Phnom Da hill (type-site for
a pre-Angkorian art tradition) and its provenance for the earliest-dated Khmer language inscription:
the 4.5-meter-deep archaeological deposits that lie beneath the town’s contemporary surface extend
the site’s history back more than a millennium. Research at Angkor Borei by the Lower Mekong
Archaeological Project took place between 1996 and 2009, and has been described in detail elsewhere
(e.g., Stark 1998, 2001; Stark and Bong 2001; Stark et al. 1999). Fragments of a brick-faced corerubble 4-meter tall perimeter wall still surround 300 hectares of the site’s epicenter; its construction
dates correlate with a settlement-wide brick monumental building program documented also in
the Vat Komnou mound (e.g., Stark et al 2006: Table 2; Stark 2001: Table 1). Once settled, Angkor
Borei may never have been abandoned: pre-Angkorian and Angkorian artifacts and features dot the
site and its environs. Angkor Borei reached its political and economic apex during the protohistoric
period (c. 500 BCE – 500 CE), when Chinese emissaries visited the Mekong Delta and described
the Funan kingdom. Vietnamese archaeological research to the south has identified dozens of “Oc
Eo” culture sites (e.g., Le Thi Lien 2011, 2015; Lê Xuân Diệm and Ðào Linh Côn 1995; Lê Xuân
Diệm et al. 1995; Manguin 2009) whose occupation began a few centuries after Angkor Borei’s
establishment. It is likely that Angkor Borei was one of the delta’s northernmost political centers
during both the protohistoric and pre-Angkorian periods.
The site’s intact, deep deposits contain a well-documented stratigraphic sequence with clear
ceramic groups associated with stratigraphic layers (Stark et al. 1999: 16-20, Table 1). Figure 2
presents frequencies of key Angkor Borei ware groups from excavation unit 3 (AB3), described
in a previous publication (Stark et al. 1999:16-17). This radiometric-linked ceramic chronology,
Sample type
Burnished
Earthenware (BE)
Fine Orangeware
(FOW)
Fine Buffware (BFW)
Cord-marked
Earthenware (CME)
Orange-Slipped
Finewares/Vat
Komnou (VK)
Clay Anvils
TOTAL
Count
16
15
16
18
24
9
95
Table 1. NAA Sample Sizes by
Ware Groups.
Figure 2. Frequencies of Diagnostic
Wares in Angkor Borei Unit 3 by level.
111
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Earthenware Ceramic Technologies of Angkor Borei, Cambodia
Miriam T. STARK & Shawn FEHRENBACH
presented in Figure 3, provides the basis for relative dating sites throughout the Takeo drainage
system on the 2003-2009 Lower Mekong Archaeological Project survey (Stark 2006b). Analysis of
these ceramics also offers information on patterns of technological continuity and change through
time, and offers insights regarding the changing patterns of nature of intra- and interregional
interaction during the protohistoric period throughout the Lower Mekong basin.
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Figure 3. Angkor Borei Ceramic Chronology by phase.
Our discussion is organized into three sections. We begin by explaining the conceptual
assumptions that underlie our technological approach. Next we describe the technological and
contextual distinctions that define the key ware groups at Angkor Borei, building on previous
research (Bong 2003; Stark 2000). We then examine dimensions of technological continuity that
unite these ware groups within multifaceted and dynamic traditions of local ceramic manufacture
at the site. The third and final section examines the distribution of ceramics that have technological
similarities to the Angkor Borei assemblages throughout Southeast Asia, and proposes hypotheses
to explain these distributions in terms of inter-regional ceramic horizons and localized traditions
of manufacture. This allows for consideration of the ways in which material differences and
similarities in archaeological ceramics from Angkor Borei inform on technological traditions of
ceramic manufacture at that site through time, and placement of these traditions within a broader
inter-regional perspective that contributes to our understanding of state development processes
across mainland Southeast Asia.
A TECHNOLOGICAL APPROACH TO ANGKOR BOREI CERAMICS
Ceramic analysis is essential for identifying and tracking changes in past social boundaries,
and the technologie approach pays particular attention to manufacturing steps in the production
process (e.g., Lemonnier 1986; Stark 1999; Stark et al. 2008). Artisans using different media,
from ceramics to metal to stone, transmit these technological traditions inter-generationally
112
(Dietler and Herbich 1998; Gosselain 1998; Lechtman 1977:15; Stark 2003b). Formal variability
in manufactured goods thus reflects local traditions (culinary and otherwise), technofunctional
considerations, and environmental constraints. Each step in the ceramic manufacturing process
(or châine opératoire) represents one or more technological choices, and many steps leave material
traces in archaeological ceramics. Southeast Asian archaeologists have begun to embrace this
approach to understand artisans involved in bead manufacture (Bellina 2003), Neolithic potters’
‘mental templates’ (Sarjeant 2014a:387-412; 2014b), the emergence of regional subtraditions by
the first millennium BCE (Eyre 2011), and to track fluctuations in the scale and directionality of
interactional networks that emerged no later than c. 500 BCE (e.g., Favereau and Bellina 2016).
Most Angkor Borei ceramics were manufactured using locally available alluvial clays, and
all pre-8th-century ceramics are earthenwares (Stark 2003a). Yet one’s first impression is of striking
diversity within the assemblages (for detailed descriptions, see Bong 2003:191-233; Fehrenbach
2009:25-47). We privilege technological aspects of the assemblage to highlight both similarities
and diversities within assemblages (and through time) by concentrating on four chronologically
diagnostic earthenware ceramic groups (Figure 4). Chronological boundaries were determined by
stratigraphic changes, radiometric dates (e.g., Stark 2001: 27, Figure 7; Stark et al. 1999:13-14, Table
1), and frequency seriations in the ware groups (for the latter, see Fehrenbach 2009: 161, Table
A-2).
Figure 4.
Representative sherds
and approximate
timeline of relevant
Angkor Borei
ceramic ware groups.
113
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Earthenware Ceramic Technologies of Angkor Borei, Cambodia
Miriam T. STARK & Shawn FEHRENBACH
Technology and Temporal Placement of Angkor Borei Ceramic Wares
Angkor Borei potters manufactured four chronologically diagnostic earthenware groups
between the mid-first millennium BCE and c.300 CE. Detailed descriptions of these ware groups
can be found in other publications (Bong 2003; Fehrenbach 2009; Stark 2003a; Stark et al. 1999)
and are only briefly described here, along with variations and developments in naming conventions.
These four ware groups (i.e., Burnished Earthenwares, Fine Orangewares, Orange-Slipped
Finewares [or Vat Komnou wares], Fine Buffwares) all exhibit evidence of hand-built manufacturing
techniques, irrespective of ware group. Angkor Borei potters smoothed, and in some cases
burnished, the visible of their vessels: bowl interiors and jar exteriors are uniformly smoothed.
Some jar interiors exhibit dimpling from the
use of an anvil, coil scars or light stria that
suggest both coil-and-scrape and paddleand-anvil techniques, and the use of a slow
wheel or tournette. No production facilities
(workshops, kilns) nor potters’ wheels
were recovered during excavations. Sixteen
anvils of varying size were recovered from
excavations, and were particularly abundant
in Phase II (Ibid. 150; Fehrenbach 2009:35).
Figure 5 illustrates two clay anvils from
Angkor Borei. This use of paddle-andanvil construction techniques resembles
techniques described in ethnographic
research by Cort and Lefferts (2000; see
Figure 5. Characteristic examples of anvils excavated at
also Moure 1986).
Angkor Borei (from Fehrenbach 2009: 46, Figure 3.9).
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Burnished Earthenwares
The Burnished Earthenware group is diagnostic of Phase I (c. 400 BCE – 200 BCE) in the
Angkor Borei ceramic chronology, and persists in fair abundance into Phase II (c. 200 BCE – CE
300). The most distinctive characteristic of this ware group is the black, dark gray, or brown surface
color, indicating firing in a reduced or incompletely oxidizing atmosphere. The wares generally have
a burnished surface treatment. Two forms of decoration are common on Burnished Earthenware
vessels. The first is geometric incised patterns. Typically, these are found on the shoulders or rims
of jar forms. Incising is also common, if not universal, on the pedestals of a tall pedestal dish
form (Figure 6). The second commonly seen decoration is pattern-burnishing, often found on the
interiors of a shorter pedestal dish form, which is described below. The group is diverse in terms
of vessel forms represented. The Burnished Earthenwares may also be referred to as “Reduced
Wares,” particularly when discussed in regional perspective.
114
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Earthenware Ceramic Technologies of Angkor Borei, Cambodia
Figure 6. Illustration of
a typical pedestal dish
form found in Burnished
Earthenware, Orange-Slipped
Fineware, and Fine Buffware
groups at Angkor Borei.
Fine Orangewares
Stark (2000:76-77) describes Fine Orangewares from Angkor Borei, which have very fine
paste and few recognizable mineral inclusions. These are found only in a small cylindrical cup-like
vessel form; their interiors often show small radial striae and dimpling from the use of a small anvil.
They are fired in oxidizing atmospheres and have a consistent orange paste color. Many sherds
bore evidence of some organic liquid (perhaps a slip) on either their interior or exterior surface,
producing a somewhat mottled appearance. The vessels can be cord-marked or smoothed in
exterior surface treatment. Cord-marking is generally around the base of the vessel, when present.
Fine Orangewares are spatially restricted to and extremely abundant within Angkor Borei and a few
very nearby sites (Stark 2000:77). Temporally restricted to Angkor Borei’s Phase II (200 BCE - CE
300), these wares were encountered in thick lenses during excavation and comprised approximately
30% of the matrix in some layers (Stark et al. 1999). The spatial and temporal restriction of these
wares, combined with their abundance and high degree of morphological uniformity, distinguish
them clearly from other wares at Angkor Borei.
Orange-Slipped Finewares (or Vat Komnou wares)
The Orange-Slipped Finewares comprise the vast majority (91.4%) of the reconstructable
ceramic mortuary assemblage recovered from test unit AB7 (at the Vat Komnou temple) at Angkor
Borei. This mortuary component dates within Phase II of the ceramic chronology (c. 200 BCE –
CE 300), and nicely parallels the “red and buff-to-orange wares” documented for Iron Age 2 (200
BC – 200 CE) in central Thailand (Rispoli et al. 2013:143). Orange-Slipped Finewares were also
recovered from non-mortuary contexts at the site; however, they are not as abundant as other ware
groups discussed here. Vessels of this ware group have very fine pastes, with few inclusions. The
vessels are generally well fired, with carbon cores appearing in only 13.1% of the vessels in the
mortuary assemblage for which this variable could be measured. The paste ranges from a cream
to reddish-orange color, and the vast majority are slipped red or orange on both their interior and
exterior surfaces. Despite the continuity in paste characteristics, several vessel forms are apparent
115
Miriam T. STARK & Shawn FEHRENBACH
in the VK ware group, including small pots with or without ring bases, pedestal dishes, and small
flare rimmed cups (Fehrenbach 2009:87-125).
Archaeologists have used several names for this ceramic ware. At Angkor Borei, they were
originally recorded as “Fine Orangeware” (Stark 2000, 2003a), but after further laboratory analyses,
it was deemed that these wares should be distinguished from small cylindrical vessels of the Fine
Orangeware group found in abundance at that site (see Bong 2003). Based on their high association
with mortuary contexts, they became known as “Vat Komnou Wares”, after the wat where the
cemetery excavations were located (see Fehrenbach 2009). At Prohear, similar vessels associated
with burials have been called “Orangewares” (Reinecke et al. 2009). Efforts are currently under way
to standardize the naming of these wares using the term “Orange-Slipped Finewares.”
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Fine Buffwares
Stark (2000:77-78) describes Fine Buffwares from Angkor Borei, which exhibit some
variability in temper (from no visible temper or fine sand-temper to rice chaff-temper). Buffwares
frequently have well-defined gray carbon cores that might reflect dense fabric texture rather than
lower firing temperatures [e.g., Rice 1987:88-90]). Vessel surface treatment is always smoothed;
slip is rare; no cord-marking was observed. Some buffware vessels were decorated with geometric
incising or simple red-painted designs, most commonly thin banding around the central body and/
or a simple design on the shoulder. Buffware vessels at Angkor Borei were made in two basic forms:
the kendi (spouted globular) form with ring base and flared neck, and the small pedestaled dish.
Dates from Angkor Borei suggest only that Phase III post-dates 300 CE (Stark 2001; Stark et al.
1999), but comparative analyses of kendis with similar characteristics found at other archaeological
sites in the region suggest that this ware group may date later, in the mid to late 1st millennium CE.
Technological variability in the various production sequences provide the basis for
constructing ware groups for Angkor Borei (see Bong 2003; Stark 2000). The following section
will track similarities between the ware groups in an effort to argue that all belong to a dynamic, but
continuous local tradition of ceramic manufacture. In the final section, the Angkor Borei ceramics
are compared with similar traditions from other sites, in an effort to extend a very coarse-grained
ceramic chronology to broader regions of Southeast Asia, and to develop hypotheses that might
explain patterns of variability in the Angkor Borei ceramics and the distributions of the broader
inter-regional traditions.
Compositional Patterning
Scholars have consistently characterized Funan (and Angkor Borei as one ancient capital)
as a maritime state, and international maritime trade may have been one catalyst for the polity’s
emergence. Might the high diversity in Angkor Borei’s ceramic assemblage then represent a variety
of production localities? Or does it instead reflect a relatively cosmopolitan artisan community, with
producers who employed distinctive technological styles? We hoped that chemical compositional
analyses would shed light on production source variability. Stark and Bentley’s (1999) pilot ICP116
MS study suggested that significant differences characterized Fine Orangeware and Fine Buffware
samples, although Ruth Prior’s 2001 pilot petrographic study of 30 fine-paste sherds did not yield
sufficiently large enough inclusion to merit further study (Fehrenbach 2009:53-55).
Shawn Fehrenbach submitted 95 Angkor Borei ceramic samples for Instrumental Neutron
Activation Analysis (INAA) in 2008 to the University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR)
Archaeometry Laboratory (Table 1). Most samples derived from sherds or partially reconstructible
vessels, but six anvil samples were also included as a control (reasoning that potters made anvils out
of locally available clays). A detailed rationale for this sampling program and description of sample
preparation and analysis methods is available in Shawn Fehrenbach’s thesis (2009:56-81).
Figure 7 presents graphic results of the first two components of a Principal Components
Analysis (PCA) of the 95 NAA samples. The overlap of ellipses for parts (and in some cases, all) of
each compositional group suggests that almost no compositional differences were found to parallel
other distinctions between the ware groups outlined above. The lone ceramic form (the carinated
cord-marked cooking pot, excluded from Figure 7) with a distinct compositional signature was also
sand-tempered, affects its chemical signal in INAA studies. Despite this homogeneity, some ware
groups do show differences in the relative degrees of compositional standardization, i.e., greater or
lesser “spreads” of compositional variability around a roughly common center. These differences
in spread are interpreted to represent greater or lesser standardization in the recipes of clays and
tempers used in the production of the different ware groups.
Figure 7. Chemical compositional (INAA) data of relevant ware groups from Angkor
Borei displayed in the first two principal components with 90% confidence ellipses.
117
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Earthenware Ceramic Technologies of Angkor Borei, Cambodia
Miriam T. STARK & Shawn FEHRENBACH
Angkor Borei potters used similar Mekong basin alluvial clay sources and/or similar clay
preparation methods to manufacture a wide range of vessels through time. The high level of
homogeneity recorded amongst most of the Angkor Borei ceramics may thus indicate localized
production at or near Angkor Borei, both through time and across mortuary and non-mortuary
depositional contexts. A recent follow-up pilot compositional analysis including similar ceramic
wares from additional sites in the Mekong Delta identified chemical variability in archaeological
ceramics from various sites across different parts of the Mekong Delta (Fehrenbach 2010), lending
support to the interpretation of localized production for Angkor Borei throughout the excavated
ceramic sequence. More specifically, compositional patterning in the Angkor Borei assemblages
speaks to consistency in the procurement and preparation of raw materials through time and
between contexts at the site.
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Technological Continuity in Angkor Borei Ceramics
Understanding compositional homogeneity and ware variability within and between Angkor
Borei ceramic groups requires attention to several steps in the manufacturing sequence, from clay
preparation to vessel forming. Using this strategy identifies threads of technological continuity that
unite the assemblages into coherent contextual and chronological relationships. Take, for example,
vessel form: although vessel form diversity increases through time in the assemblage, generations
of potters manufactured some basic forms for more than a millennium. One is the pedestal dish,
is seen in the Burnished Earthenwares (Phase I), Orange-Slipped Finewares (Phase II), and Fine
Buffwares (Phase III). This particular vessel morphology is defined as a small hemispherical bowl,
situated on a flaring pedestal base. A tapered rim form and squared base end-point form are
diagnostic features (see Figure 4). These vessels share very fine-paste characteristics, even in the
Burnished Earthenware ware group where paste textures are more variable. Though the texture
and morphology are quite consistent, other attributes vary between the ware groups. The color of
the paste of these vessels changes from black or gray to orange to buff, depending on the ware
group and associated chronological phase. Also, a streak-burnishing pattern seen on the interior
of the dish is common in the Burnished Earthenware vessels, rare in the Fine-Slipped Orangeware
vessels, and unknown in the Fine Buffware dishes. The pedestal dish vessel form links ware groups
that are diagnostic of each of the three chronological phases at Angkor Borei, providing one line
of technological continuity.
118
TEMPORAL AND SCALAR ISSUES IN TECHNOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Previous sections have documented dimensions of technological variability and homogeneity
within the Angkor Borei ceramic assemblages. Each tradition shares suites of morphological, paste,
decorative, and other technological attributes that suggest cultural transmission within the broader
region: from the protohistoric period (AB Phase I) to that preceding the pre-Angkorian period
(AB Phase III). Comparison of published ceramic assemblages from 16 Lower Mekong region
site with occupational spans that overlap Angkor Borei’s sequence provide a basis for comparison,
provide a basis for comparison. Figure 8a identifies archaeological sites with published ceramic
assemblages from Lower Mekong basin sites whose occupational sequence overlaps with Angkor
Borei. Comparison of these ceramic assemblages with the Angkor Borei earthenware traditions
illustrates the approximate boundaries of three of these technological traditions. Previous scholars
have emphasized the emergence of pan-regional interactional networks in Southeast Asia shortly
after 500 BCE (see review in Bellina et al. 2012:7-10; Hung et al. 2013), or more specifically within
Figure 8a (top). Regional map with locations of sites
whose published ceramic assemblages overlap with
Angkor Borei’s occupational sequence.
Figure 8b (bottom). Approximate spatial distributions
of ceramic horizons and ware groups discussed. Note
that the Orange-Slipped Fineware ellipse represents
the core area of this ware type, as some vessel forms
are distributed more widely. The distribution of Fine
Buffwares here focuses on the kendi vessel form, and their
distribution in Island Southeast Asia is not considered.
119
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Earthenware Ceramic Technologies of Angkor Borei, Cambodia
Miriam T. STARK & Shawn FEHRENBACH
the Mekong River basin with its tributaries (Carter 2015; Stark 2006a). Technological aspects of the
Angkor Borei ceramic manufacturing tradition, we believe, mirror some of these trends.
Two ceramic horizons in the Angkor Borei ceramic assemblage are particularly noteworthy.
First is the Reduced Ceramic Horizon, which subsumes the Burnished Earthenwares of Angkor
Borei’s Phase I and several late-prehistoric (“Iron Age”) to protohistoric traditions of reduced
ceramic manufacture found elsewhere in the Lower Mekong Basin. Ceramics in Angkor Borei’s
Phase II appear to belong to a more regionally focused tradition within the Mekong Delta, with
possible linkages along the Mekong River. Fine-paste buffware ceramics appear in Phase III
deposits (c. fourth century CE), suggesting the use of similar clays and manufacturing steps that
protohistoric potters used throughout mainland Southeast Asia by the mid-first millennium CE
(Indrawooth 1985:61-66; Murphy 2016:372; Rispoli et al. 2013:148-149). That these shared ceramic
manufacturing traditions reflect pan-regional changes (and perhaps the emergence of global
cultures [Carter and Kim 2017]) underscores the importance of fine-grained technical studies in
archaeological research.
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Angkor Borei Phase I: The Reduced Ceramic Horizon
Burnished earthenwares associated with Phase I at Angkor Borei have a distinctive black or
dark gray surface color, which firing in reducing (low oxygen) atmospheres produces. The second
most important attribute is a burnished or polished surface treatment, which gives the vessels a
characteristic lustrous appearance. Decoration, in the form of pattern-burnishing or incising, is the
third and final attribute that can be used to define the Reduced Ceramic Horizon in Southeast Asia,
but is not present in all traditions assigned to this horizon. Pattern-burnishing may be found on
the interior surfaces of unrestricted vessels or the exterior surfaces of restricted vessels. Incising
on these vessels is generally in geometric patterns of squares and triangles. These three variables
(color, surface treatment, and decoration) can be used to hypothesize a Reduced Ceramic Horizon,
which is defined by black or dark gray surface and paste color, polished or burnished surface
treatment, and commonly pattern-burnished or incised decorations.
The Burnished Earthenwares, the Phimai tradition of northeastern Thailand, other
traditions in northeastern and central Thailand, and traditions in northern Cambodia define the
spatial distribution of the Reduced Ceramic Horizon. The distribution of ceramics similar to Angkor
Borei’s Burnished Earthenwares is wide within the Delta. The Phimai ceramic tradition, including
the particularly well-known Phimai Black wares, was originally defined by Solheim (1965) and is
described in detail in several subsequent publications (Solheim and Ayres 1979:66-73; Talbot and
Janthed 2001: 188-189; Welch and McNeill 2004:527-529). In general terms, Phimai tradition wares
are chaff tempered, with a platy texture. The vessels are generally fired in a reducing atmosphere
rendering their surfaces black in color. Pattern-burnishing, generally in geometric designs, is the
characteristic decoration of the Phimai Black ware group. The distribution of Phimai Black wares
has been reported elsewhere (e.g., Talbot and Janthed 2001:189; Welch and McNeill 2004: Table
2), but their production and primary distribution appears to have taken place within the upper
120
Mun River valley (NE Thailand), and derive from deposits dating from roughly 200BCE – CE 600
(McNeill 1997:169).
Similar traditions that are not strictly considered Phimai Black wares and that are consistent
with the proposed Reduced Ceramic Horizon have been reported more broadly in Thailand. Similar
reduced-ware traditions with pattern-burnished decorations are found at sites such as Ban Chiang
Hian, the Roi Et sites, and Non Chai (Welch 1985:355). Bronson (1976) reports black patternburnished sherds from Chansen in central Thailand, some of which he interprets as imports
of Phimai black and others as a locally produced tradition. Lertrit (2003) has reported a black
burnished ware dating between 200 BCE and CE 200 for the site of Chaibadan in eastern-central
Thailand. These reports suggest a broad trend of reduced burnished or pattern-burnished wares in
late prehistoric central and northeastern Thailand.
More recently, Phimai Black style vessels (O’Reilly 2004) and a variety of black polished
vessels (Yasuda and Chuch 2008) have been reported from Phum Snay in northern Cambodia.
While additional parallels to ceramic assemblages from northeast Thailand, including red slipped
wares and various vessel morphologies, do suggest some relation between the two areas, the ubiquity
of the reduced-fired vessels may suggest some degree of localized production. This hypothesis has
yet to be tested and more work to understand the relationships between these two regions at this
time is important and underway.
We associate this Reduced Ceramic Horizon dates with what archaeologists working on the
Khorat Plateau describe as the Iron Age (e.g., Domett and O’Reilly 2009; O’Reilly 2004, O’Reilly
and Scott 2015:10) and archaeologists working elsewhere in the region (e.g., Heng 2016; Murphy
and Stark 2016) describe as the Protohistoric period in Southeast Asia, particularly the later portions
of this period, and to the transition to and beginnings of the Early Historic period. Though these
chronologies are dependent upon cultural landmarks that are to some degree variable between
different areas in the region, an approximate range from the mid-first millennium BCE to the
mid-first millennium CE can be given for the relevant temporal distribution of the horizon. The
temporal distribution of this horizon in Southeast Asia spans Phases I-III of the Angkor Borei
ceramic chronology, but at Angkor Borei itself, only the Burnished Earthenwares (diagnostic of
Phase I and also present in Phase II) are consistent with the horizon. In other words, this tradition
appears to persist into slightly later periods in other regions where it is found than it does in Angkor
Borei, though it may also start later in these regions.
The diversity in vessel forms and paste characteristics that have been assigned to this
horizon is interpreted to indicate many localized production centers for the ceramics. Phimai Black
wares have been used to argue for centralized production as one indicator of increasing dimensions
of social complexity in the upper Mun River Valley (Evans et al. 2016; Welch 1985). Indeed, the
same may apply to other wares included in the horizon, particularly Burnished Earthenwares. The
Reduced Ceramic Horizon is not, however, meant to suggest only a few centers of production for
these ceramics or the necessary inclusion of the vessels in vast distributional networks. Rather,
it seems that a very general aesthetic was spread over a large region, indicating some degree of
interaction, though not necessarily trade in black, burnished ceramic vessels. This broad interaction
121
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Earthenware Ceramic Technologies of Angkor Borei, Cambodia
Miriam T. STARK & Shawn FEHRENBACH
is also consistent with increasing social and political complexity as interpreted from the distribution
of more restricted ware groups within the horizon, such as the Phimai Black and Burnished
Earthenwares. For now, the temporal and spatial distributions of this ceramic horizon remain
only tentatively defined here. As ceramic assemblages from more sites are excavated, analyzed, and
reported, these distributions are likely to be refined or altered.
A final group of widely known, contemporaneous ceramics elsewhere in the region may
have been producing using similar firing techniques to those associated with the Reduced Ceramic
Horizon. Darkened, burnished bowls with impressed circular patterns, known as Rouletted wares,
have been found at sites in Bali, Java, and Vietnam, dating roughly to the early centuries of the first
millennium CE, and possibly the last few centuries of the first millennium BCE (Bellina and Glover
2004:78). These wares are also found in many sites across the Indian subcontinent. Compositional
and stylistic analyses strongly suggest that Rouletted wares originate in South Asia (Ardika and
Bellwood 1991; Schenk 2006). Additionally, Rouletted wares immediately post-date the Northern
Black Polished ware (NBP) culture in South Asia dating to the latter half of the first millennium
BCE (Allchin 1995; Magee 2010). As of yet, the evidence is not sufficient to suggest that these
South Asian wares and the Reduced Ceramic Horizon of Southeast Asia could form a broader
interactional horizon, but potential relationships between these wares could be a productive avenue
for future investigation.
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Angkor Borei Phase II: Regionalism in the Mekong Delta
For Angkor Borei’s Phase II ceramics, including Fine Orangewares and Orange-Slipped
Finewares, fewer productive comparisons can be drawn outside of the Mekong Delta region, and
thus these appear to be more regional in character. However, at least two vessel forms from this
ware group are distributed beyond the Mekong Delta. The first such vessel class includes various
forms of lids (see Figure 9). Lids similar to Angkor Borei’s Orange-Slipped Fineware lids have
been reported throughout the Mekong
Delta, including from Tra Kieu, Go Tu
Tram, and Oc Eo (Glover and Yamagata
1994:90; Hirano 2005:175; Malleret 1960:
Pl. XL). The central conical knob, which
is present in only a portion of these lid
forms, may bear affinities to vessel forms
from South Asia. Several sites in central
and western Thailand, most notably Ban
Don Ta Phet, have produced bronze
bowls with a central cone in the interior
of the bottom of the dish. These bowls
have been related to a variety of vessels Figure 9. Two typical lid forms from Angkor Borei’s Orangewith central cones recovered from across
Slipped Finewares
122
the South Asian subcontinent dating to the late centuries of the first millennium BCE (Bellina and
Glover 2004:75-77). This vessel form is known to have been produced in pottery, stone, bronze,
and silver in South Asia. Though the lids at Angkor Borei are not bowls, the similarities in the
central conical knob could reflect a shared technological tradition of ceramic manufacture.
In addition to the knobbed lids, a single Orange-Slipped Fineware vessel from Angkor
Borei’s Vat Komnou mortuary assemblage bears characteristics of a widely discussed Southeast
Asian form with relationships to South Asian vessels. This is a globular vessel with a flaring neck.
It has a ring base and a spout, but no handle (see Figure 10). These are the characteristics of the
Southeast Asian vessel form known as the kendi. Gupta- and Post-Gupta period parallel forms
have been documented in South Asia (Aussavamas 2011:5), and this vessel form was widespread
by the early second millennium CE (Adhyatman 2004; Khoo 2003). The Vat Komnou vessel is
one of the earliest securely dated archaeologically recovered kendis in Southeast Asia. A strikingly
similar vessel to the Vat Komnou kendi has recently been recovered from excavations at Phum
Snay (Yasuda and Chuch 2008:33), sharing basic morphology, shoulder decoration, and surface
treatment characteristics (though this vessel is not slipped), and dating to 160±85 CE calibrated.
This is roughly contemporaneous with the later end of dates for the Vat Komnou cemetery at
Angkor Borei (see Stark 2001). . Malleret illustrated a similar vessel form (1960:163, Type 46) these
vessels come from undated contexts.
Figure 10. Orange-Slipped Fineware kendi from Angkor Borei
These kendi vessels are nearly identical in form, decoration, production technique, texture,
and firing characteristics to two other vessels in the Vat Komnou assemblage, where the addition of
the spout to the kendi is the only major difference between these vessels. Kendi spouts demonstrate
great but consistent temporal and geographic variation across much of Southeast Asia, and merit
comparative study. If the addition of spouts to vessels in order to form these early kendis was
inspired by South Asian forms such as the kundika, this small addition appears to have been
incorporated into local traditions of pottery making to produce a novel vessel form which later
came to characterize ceramic traditions in Southeast Asia (Stark 2000:79; 2003:220).
Apart from the kendi and the lids, all vessels directly comparable to Angkor Borei’s Orange123
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Earthenware Ceramic Technologies of Angkor Borei, Cambodia
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Miriam T. STARK & Shawn FEHRENBACH
Slipped Fineware vessels come from within the Mekong Delta or nearby surrounding regions.
Small globular and ring-footed jar forms that are the most common Orange-Slipped Fineware
vessel forms at Angkor Borei have also been described at the site of Prohear in the province of
Prei Veng, Cambodia (Reinecke et al. 2009) and at Oc Eo (Malleret 1960:158-159). These vessels
share general morphological characteristics, firing characteristics, and the smoothed/obliterated
cord-marking surface treatments. The pedestal dish form described above as seen in the OrangeSlipped Finewares, Burnished Earthenwares, and Fine Buffwares at Angkor Borei is also widely
distributed throughout the Mekong Delta. This particular form, sometimes called “stemcup”, has
been reported at Oc Eo (Malleret 1960:167-168, Pls. XXXIX, LIII, LXV, and LXVI), Go Tu Tram
(Hirano 2005:175), Nen Chua, Canh Den, and Go Hang (Tan 2003:111). At Oc Eo, this vessel
form is also reported to vary from black or gray to reddish or “ochre” color (Malleret 1960:167168), suggesting possible parallels with the variation seen between Burnished Earthenware and
Orange-Slipped Fineware pedestal dishes in the Angkor Borei assemblages. Mourer (1986:110, Pl.
20) illustrates a similar form from the site of Samrong Sen, though the provenience and thus the
dating of these vessels at this site remains uncertain due to the excavation and reporting methods
of archaeologists who excavated the site in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Finally, one more
vessel form in the Orange-Slipped Fineware group at Angkor Borei, a large hemispherical bowl
with deep radial striae around its body, appears to be nearly identical to vessels recorded at Oc Eo
(Malleret 1960:140-141, Pl. XXIII) and Go Tu Tram (Hirano 2005:175).
The other ware group diagnostic of Angkor Borei’s Phase II, the Fine Orangewares, appear
to be primarily restricted to Angkor Borei. Fine Orangeware vessels have been recovered only at
Angkor Borei and in surface collections at a few sites within approximately 5 km (including Phnom
Borei, Phon 2004). These wares are highly standardized in terms of morphology, color, texture,
and surface treatment. They occur in very large quantities, but only in Phase II of the Angkor Borei
ceramic chronology. It is likely that they were produced locally, or very nearby, and employed for
a particular purpose at Angkor Borei, possibly ritual or industrial, though their specific function
remains unclear. They do not relate to other ceramics within or outside of Angkor Borei.
An overall pattern of the distribution of wares found in Angkor Borei’s Phase II assemblages
can be summarized as follows. The distribution of potentially South Asian inspired forms, including
knobbed lids and kendis, extends well outside of the Mekong Delta. The distribution of other
Phase II ceramic forms, however, is restricted either to the region of the Mekong Delta or to the
immediate vicinity of Angkor Borei. This pattern suggests a strong local ceramic tradition within
the Delta at a time when broad interregional interaction spheres were developing.
The Fine Buffware Horizon
The Fine Buffware group represents the diagnostic ware group for Angkor Borei’s Phase
III. These fine-paste, buff colored ceramics are documented in two primary forms at Angkor
Borei, pedestaled dishes and kendis. The Fine Buffware pedestal dishes are identical in form to
the small pedestal dishes found in Burnished Earthenware and Orange-Slipped Fineware groups,
124
as discussed above. Only a few Fine Buffware pedestal dish fragments were recovered during
excavations at Angkor Borei, but these sherds are consistent with that form. Also, unprovenienced
specimens of Fine Buffware vessels in this pedestal dish form are housed in the Angkor Borei
museum (Stark 2000:79). Based on the predominance of the kendi form in sherds with Fine
Buffware paste characteristics from Angkor Borei, the remainder of this discussion focuses on
these vessels.
The origins of the kendi form are considered in the previous section. The consideration
of kendis here concerns the distribution of fine-paste, light colored spouted vessels during the mid
to late first millennium CE in mainland Southeast Asia. The kendi is found in relative abundance
at sites in the Mekong Delta during the later half of the first millennium CE (Malleret 1960), and
is also found more broadly at Late-Early Historic and Historic period sites throughout Southeast
Asia (Bellina and Glover 2004:80). Very similar buff-colored, fine-paste kendi vessels are widely
distributed in present-day central Thailand, Cambodia, and southern and central Vietnam. Nearly
identical vessels are reported from Oc Eo (Malleret 1960:163-164, Pls. XXXVI-XXXVIII, LXV),
Choeng Ek (Phon Kaseka, pers. comm., Feb. 2009), and Banteay Meanchey (Phum Snay [Yasuda
and Chuch 2008]). Unprovenienced examples from various sites are also reported from the
Vietnamese side of the Mekong Delta (Tan 2003:109-111). At Chansen, Bronson (1976:519, 521)
reports several fine-paste spouts with gray carbon cores, fading to buff at the surface.
This shift away from reduced firing conditions and toward fine-pasted buff ceramics is
evident throughout Thailand. Evans et al. (2016:447) documents an Upper Mun River Valley
settlement shift from the Iron Age to a “post-Iron Age” in which Iron Age Phimai ceramics are
replaced by fine paste ceramics that closely resemble the Mekong Delta tradition (op.cit. Figure 4,
p. 449) but occurred several centuries later. Lertrit (2003: 29-31) illustrates a similar trajectory in the
Pa Sak River Valley that leads into the slightly later Dvaravati period ceramic tradition (Indrawooth
1985:61-66). Several similar, though not identical, buff-colored kendis are reported from Tra Kieu,
from both archaeological and unprovenienced contexts (Glover and Yamagata 1994:89). These kendi
are all sufficiently similar to suggest a limited number of production centers and broad economic
distributions, or other interactional factors that could account for high degrees of standardization
in techniques employed in the production process for the vessels.
Miksic and Yap (1990) have summarized the distribution of similar fine-paste ceramics from
sites across island Southeast Asia, including Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia (Borneo, Java, Sumatra)
and the Philippines. For Kota Cina (Sumatra) at least, the similarities between these wares and those
from Angkor Borei and other sites in Cambodia and the Mekong Delta include the predominance
of the kendi form and even similar red stripes often found painted around the shoulder of these
vessels. Miksic and Yap (1990, 1992) have proposed the possibility that these wares may represent
a commodity that was widely distributed in a regional trade network, indigenous to Southeast Asia.
Two potential production locales in south Thailand and east Java have been identified by Miksic
and Yap through compositional analyses.
The Mekong Delta or nearby regions are likely to have been additional production localities
for the wares, based on the compositional evidence for localized production of these vessels at
125
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Earthenware Ceramic Technologies of Angkor Borei, Cambodia
Miriam T. STARK & Shawn FEHRENBACH
Angkor Borei. Additionally, an earthenware kiln with dense concentrations of similar fine-paste buffcolored spouts, rims, and other sherds consistent with this form, as well as a complete fine-paste,
buff-colored kendi, has been excavated at the archaeological site of Choeng Ek near Phnom Penh,
Cambodia (Phon Kaseka, pers. comm., Feb. 2009). The Delta would represent an early production
site relative to the sites sampled by Miksic and Yap, and the peninsular kiln site described by
Srisuchat (2003). Further sampling of fine-paste kendis in Southeast Asia for compositional analysis
will help to illuminate the role of Southern Cambodia and the Mekong Delta in the production of
these vessels, and the extent of their distribution from various production localities.
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
CONCLUSIONS
Archaeologists use ceramic patterning as proxies to track a range of processes, and
technological approaches have provided some of the most useful ceramic studies of interactional
systems. Ceramic evidence presented here, like bead compositional patterning reported previously
(Carter 2010, 2015), suggests that Phase I Angkor Borei residents interacted with populations
across the Mekong Delta; they also had relationships with populations throughout the Mekong
basin at least as far north as the Upper Mun River valley. Such interaction persisted into Phase II,
when for the first time we see ceramic evidence for growing involvement in South China Sea trade
networks to the south, off the coast of present-day Vietnam.
Interestingly, this geographic extension in interactional networks took place concurrently
with greater localization involved in Phase II ceramic technologies at Angkor Borei. Emulation of
certain South Asian manufacturing techniques that add to, but do not fundamentally alter, local
technological traditions. The Phase II scale of production for Phase II wares may have increased
relative to Phase I (based on standardized attributes of some wares, such as the Fine Orangewares).
By the fourth century CE (Phase III), homogeneity in certain ceramic forms like the kendi and
in buff-colored fine pastes suggests the florescence of an inter-regional interaction sphere that
linked communities from the Bay of Bengal to most of Southeast Asia that began during the
protohistoric period (Favereau and Bellina 2016).
In short, evidence exists for the development of broad interactional networks and clear
intensification of these through time, while local traditions of ceramic manufacture also remain
pronounced. That early state formation in the delta involved, in part, efforts to assert control
over increasing involvement in maritime trade networks seems clear (see Allen 1997), and the
ceramic evidence for Angkor Borei is consistent with this trajectory if Angkor Borei was an inland
component of a Delta coastal polity. Yet identifying the settlement’s involvement in maritime trade
networks does not undermine the importance of inland interactional relationships within mainland
Southeast Asia. Nor must such interaction entail the weakening of local ceramic technological
traditions. Rather, these local traditions seem to have become entrenched through time as potters
126
defined their repertoires and borrowed selectively from South Asian models.
This paper has identified patterns in technical choices through time that are consistent with
a continuous but complex and dynamic community-based local potting tradition over the period
studied. There is no indication of any large-scale introduction of foreign potters or foreign ceramic
products into Angkor Borei from any place beyond the Mekong Delta throughout this period. In
Phases II and III, specialized groups of ceramic producers likely made some wares (almost certainly
for Fine Orangeware vessels and possibly for Fine Buffware kendis as well) and there were relatively
strict social prescriptions for technical choices in the production of others (the Orange-Slipped
Fineware mortuary vessels), as indicated by greater standardization in technical choices. Increasing
standardization in potting communities was likely influenced by a multiplicity of interrelated
factors concerning the development of sociopolitical complexity at the time, including expanding
economic markets, the assertion of political control and religious authority, and intensification of
prestige goods production.
Traditions of ceramic technology at Angkor Borei reflect the dynamic social environment
of state development in the Mekong Delta. Technical choices in the production of these ceramics
were made with pragmatic attention to established conventions, introduced forms, and innovative
practices. These choices are nested within and thus reflect dimensions of social complexity. Rather
than monolithic trajectories, the social approach to technology adopted here illustrates how the
analysis of quotidian artifacts like ceramics reveals nuances of social and political complexity
involved in state development across mainland Southeast Asia.
References Cited
Adhyatman, Sumarah. 2004. Kendi: Wadah Air Minum Tradisional (Traditional Drinking Water Container).
2nd edition. Jakarta: Himpunan Keramik Indonesia.
Allchin, F. Raymond. 1995. The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Allen, S. Jane. 1997. “Inland Angkor, Coastal Kedah: Landscapes, Subsistence Systems, and State
Development in Early Southeast Asia.” Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 16:79-87.
Ardika, I. 1991. Wayan and Peter Bellwood. “Sembiran: The Beginnings of Indian Contact with
Bali.” Antiquity 65:221–232.
Aussavamas, Duangkamol. 2011. “Technology of Dvāravatī Pottery: A View from Petrographic
Analysis.” Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 31: 4-16.
127
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Earthenware Ceramic Technologies of Angkor Borei, Cambodia
Miriam T. STARK & Shawn FEHRENBACH
Aymonier, Etienne. 1900. Le Cambodge: Le Royaume Actuel. Ernest Leroux, Paris.
Bellina, Bérénice. 2003. “Beads, Social Change and Interaction between India and South-East
Asia,” Antiquity 77: 285-297.
Bellina, Bérénice, Guillaume Epinal and Aude Favereau. 2012. “Caractérisation preliminaire des
poteries marqueur d’échanges en mer de Chine méridionale à la fin de la préhistoire.
Archipel 84: 7-33.
Bellina, Bérénice and Ian Glover. 2004. “The Archaeology of Early Contact with India and
the Mediterranean World, from the Fourth Century BC to the Fourth Century AD.” In
Southeast Asia: From Prehistory to History, edited by Ian Glover and Peter Bellwood. New
York: RoutledgeCurzon: 68-88.
Bong Sovath. 2003. The Ceramic Chronology of Angkor Borei, Takeo Province, Southern Cambodia.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Hawai‘i at
Mānoa, Honolulu.
Bourdonneau, Eric. 2003. “The Ancient Canal System of the Mekong Delta: Preliminary Report.”
In Fishbones and Glittering Emblems: Southeast Asian Archaeology 2002, edited by Anna Karlström
and Anna Källén. Stockholm: Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities: 257-270.
Bronson, Bennet. 1976. Excavations at Chansen and the Cultural Chronology of Protohistoric Central
Thailand. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Calo, Ambro., Prasetyo, Bagyo, Peter Bellwood, James W. Lankton, Bernard Gratuze, T. Oliver
Pryce, Andreas Reinecke, Verena Leusch, Heidrun Schenk, Rachel Wood, Rochtri A. Bawono,
I Dewa Kompiang Gede, Ni L. K. Ciths Yuliatai, Jack Fenner, Christian Reepmeyer, Cristina
Castillo & Alison K. Carter. 2015. “Sembiran and Pacung on the North Coast of Bali: a
Strategic Crossroads for Early Trans-Asiatic Exchange.” Antiquity 89: 378-396.
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Carter, Alison. 2010. “Trade and Exchange Networks in Iron Age Cambodia: Preliminary Results
from a Compositional Analysis of Glass Beads.” Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association
30: 178-188.
Carter, Alison. 2015. “Beads, Exchange Networks and Emerging Complexity: A Case Study from
Cambodia and Thailand (500 bce – ce 500).” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 25: 733-757.
Carter, Alison. K. and Nam C. Kim. 2017. “Globalization at the Dawn of History: The Emergence
of Global Cultures in the Mekong and Red River Deltas.” In The Routledge Handbook of
Archaeology and Globalization, edited by Tamar Hodos. London and New York: Routledge:
730-750.
Cort, Louise Allison and Leedom Lefferts. 2000. “Khmer Earthenware in Southeast Asia: An
Approach through Production.” Udaya: Journal of Khmer Studies 1: 49-68.
128
Dietler, Michael and Ingrid Herbich. (?). “Habitus, Techniques, Style: An Integrated Approach to the
Social Understanding of Material Culture and Boundaries.” In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries,
edited by Miriam T. Stark,.Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press: 232-263.
Domett, Kate. M., Dougald J. W. O’Reilly and Hallie. R. Buckley. 2011. “Bioarchaeological Evidence
for Conflict in Iron Age North-West Cambodia.” Antiquity 85: 441-458.
Evans, Caitlin., Nigel Chang and Naho Shimizu. 2016. “Sites, Survey, and Ceramics: Settlement
Patterns of the First to Ninth Centuries CE in the Upper Mun River Valley, Northeast
Thailand.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 47: 438-467.
Eyre, Chereekamol O. 2011. “Social Variation and Dynamics in Metal Age and Protohistoric
Central Thailand; A Regional Perspective.” Asian Perspectives 49: 43-84.
Favereau, Aude. and Bérénice Bellina. 2016. Thai-Malay Peninsula and South China Sea Networks
(500 BC – 200), Based on a Reappraisal of “Sa Huynh-Kalanay”-Related Ceramics.”
Quaternary International 416: 218-227.
Fehrenbach, Shawn. 2009. Traditions of Ceramic Technology: An Analysis of the Assemblages from Angkor
Borei, Cambodia. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of
Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Honolulu.
Fehrenbach, Shawn. 2010. Compositional Analysis of 35 Ceramic Sherds from Phum Snay, Prohear,
Choeung Ek, and Village 10.8, Kingdom of Cambodia, using Instrumental Neutron
Activation Analysis. Unpublished technical report, on file with the Ministry of Culture and
Fine Arts, Cambodia, Phnom Penh.
Glover, Ian C. and Mariko Yamagata. 1994. “Excavations at Tra Kieu, Vietnam 1993: Sa Huynh,
Cham, and Chinese Influences.” In Southeast Asian Archaeology 1994: Proceedings of the 5th
International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists, Paris, 24th28th October 1994, edited by Pierre-Yves Manguin, 75-93. Hull: Centre for Southeast Asian
Studies, University of Hull.
Gosselain, Olivier P. 1998. “Social and Technical Identity in a Clay Crystal Ball.” In The Archaeology
of Social Boundaries, edited by Miriam T. Stark. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution
Press: 77-106.
Heng, Piphal. 2016. “Transition to the Pre-Angkorian Period (300-500 CE) Thala Borivat and a
Regional Perspectives.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 47: 484-505.
Hirano, Yuko. 2005. “Earthenware in Mekong Delta, South Vietnam: Mainly in Spouted Vessels
and Roof Tiles (in Japanese with English abstract).” Jo chi Agia-gaku 23: 161-178.
Hung, Hsiao-Chun., Kim Dun Nguyen, Peter Bellwood, and Michael T. Carson. 2013. “Coastal
Connectivity: Long-Term Trading Networks Across the South China Sea.” Journal of Island
& Coastal Archaeology 8: 384-404.
129
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Earthenware Ceramic Technologies of Angkor Borei, Cambodia
Miriam T. STARK & Shawn FEHRENBACH
Indrawooth, Prasook. 1985. Index Pottery of Dvāravati Period. Bangkok: Department of Archaeology,
Silpakorn University.
Krais, Simone, Andreas Reinecke, Seng Sonetra and Vin Laychour. 2012. “The Bioanthropology fo
the Early Iron Age Site of Prohear (Cambodia).” In Zeitschrift Für Archäologie Aussereuropäischer
Kulturen, Band 4. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag: 103-126.
Lapteff, S. V. 2013. “Early Iron Age Burial Practices of the Ancient Khmer People: The Phum Snay
Necropolis, Northwestern Cambodia.” Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 41:
137-145.
Le Thi Lien. 2011. “Hindu Deities in Southern Vietnam: Images on Small Archaeological
Artefacts.” In Early Interactions between South and Southeast Asia: Reflections on Cross-Cultural
Exchange, edited by Pierre-Yves Manguin, A. Mani and Geoff Wade. Singapore: Institute
of Southeast Asian Studies, National University of Singapore: 407-431.
Le Thi Lien. 2015. “Hindu Beliefs and the Maritime Network in Southern Vietnam during the
Early Common Era.” Journal of Indo-Pacific Archaeology 39: 1-17.
Lê Xuân Diệm, Ðào Linh Côn and Võ Sĩ Khãi. 1995. Văn Óc Eo: những khám phá mới [The Oc Eo
Culture: New Discoveries]. Hà Nội: Nhà xuất bản khoa học xã hội.
Lê Xuân Diệm and Ðào Linh Côn. 1995. “A propos de la culture Oc Eo: les découvertes après
1975.” In 90 ans de recherches sur la culture et l’histoire du Viet Nam. Ha Nôi: EFEO, CNSSH
(Bibliothèque orientaliste): 302-310.
Lechtman, Heather. (?). “Style in Technology--Some Early Thoughts.” In Material Culture: Styles,
Organization, and Dynamics of Technology, edited by H. Lechtman and R. Merrill. New York:
West Publishing: 3-20.
Lemonnier, Pierre. 1986. “The Study of Material Culture Today: Towards an Anthropology of
Technical Systems,’ Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5: 147-186.
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Lertcharnrit, Thanik. 2014. “Phromthin Tai: An Archaeological Perspective on its Societal
Transition.” In Before Siam: Essays in Art and Archaeology, edited by Nicolas Revire and
Stephen A. Murphy. Bangkok: River Books: 118-131.
Lertrit, Sawang. 2003. “Ceramic Vessels from Chaibadan, Lopburi, and the Later Prehistory of
Central Thailand.” Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 23: 27-33.
Lorillard, Michel. 2014. “Pre-Angkorian Communities in the Middle Mekong Valley (Laos and
Adjacent Areas).” In Before Siam: Essays in Art and Archaeology, edited by Nicolas Revire and
Stephen Murphy. Bangkok: River Books: 187-215.
Magee, Peter. 2010. “Revisiting Indian Rouletted Ware and the Impact of Indian Ocean Trade in
Early Historic South Asia.” Antiquity 84:1043-1054.
130
Malleret, Louis. 1960. L’archéologie du Delta du Mékong. 2. La Civilisation matérielle d’Oc-Èo. Paris :
École Française d’Extrême-Orient.
Manguin, Pierre-Yves. 2009. “The Archaeology of Funan in the Mekong River Delta: the Oc Eo
Culture of Vietnam.” In Arts of Ancient Vietnam: From River Plain to Open Sea, edited by Nancy
Tingley. New York and Houston: Asia Society, Museum of Fine Arts and Yale University
Press: 100-118.
Matsumura, Hirofumi, Kate M. Domett, and Dougald J. W. O’Reilly. 2011. “On the Origin of PreAngkorian Peoples: Perspectives from Cranial and Dental Affinity of the Human Remains
from Iron Age Phum Snay, Cambodia,” Anthropological Science 119: 67-79.
McNeill, Judith R. 1997. “Muang Phet: Quaritch Wales’ Moated Site Excavations Re-appraised.”
Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 15: 167-175.
Miksic, John, and C. T. Yap. 1990. “Fine-Bodied White Earthenwares of Southeast Asia: Some
X-Ray Fluorescence Tests.” Asian Perspectives 28: 45-60.
Miksic, John, and C. T. Yap. 1992. “Compositional Analysis of Pottery from Kota Cina, North
Sumatra: Implications for Regional Trade during the Twelfth to Fourteenth Centuries
A.D.” Asian Perspectives 31: 57-76.
Mourer, Roland. 1986. La Poterie au Cambodge: Histoire et Dévelopement, Essai d’Ethnoarchéologie.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales.
Murphy, Stephen A.2016. “The Case for Proto-Dvāravatī: A Review of the Art Historical and
Archaeological Evidence.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 47: 366-392.
Murphy, Stephen. A. and Miriam T. Stark. 2016. “Introduction: Transitions from Late Prehistory to
Early Historic Periods in mainland Southeast Asia, c. Early to Mid-First Millennium CE.”
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 47: 333-340.
O’Reilly, Dougald J. W. 2004. “A Preliminary Report on the Excavation of a Late Prehistoric Cemetery
in Northwest Cambodia.” Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 24: 129-132.
O’Reilly, Dougald J. W. and Glen Scott. 2015. “Moated Sites of the Iron Age in the Mun River Valley,
Thailand: New Discoveries Using Google Earth.” Archaeological Research in Asia 3: 9-18.
Pelliot, Paul. 1903. “Le Fou-nan.” Bulletin de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient 3: 248-303.
Pietrusewsky, Michael and Rona Ikehara-Quebral. 2006. “The Bioarchaeology of the Vat Komnou
Cemetery, Angkor Borei, Cambodia.” Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 26: 86-97.
Phon Kaseka. 2004. Phnom Borei and its Relationship to Angkor Borei: Report on 2004 Excavations
at Phnom Borei. Unpublished report, Royal Academy of Cambodia, Phnom Penh.
Reinecke, Andreas. 2012. “The Prehistoric Occupation and Cultural Characteristics of the Mekong
Delta during the Pre-Funan Periods.” In Crossing Borders: Selected Papers from the 13th International
131
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Earthenware Ceramic Technologies of Angkor Borei, Cambodia
Miriam T. STARK & Shawn FEHRENBACH
Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists, Volume 1, edited by MaiLin.Tjoa-Bonatz, Andreas Reinecke & Dominik Bonatz: Singapore: NUS Press: 239-256.
Reinecke, Andreas, Vin Lychour, and Seng Sonetra. 2009. The First Golden Age of Cambodia: Excavation
at Prohear. Bonn: German Foreign Office.
Rice, Prudence. M. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rispoli, Fiorella, Roberto Ciarla and Vincent C. Pigott. 2003. “Establishing the Prehistoric Cultural
Sequence for the Lopburi Region, Central Thailand.” Journal of World Prehistory 26: 101–71.
Sanderson, David C.W., Paul M. Bishop, Miriam T. Stark, and Janet W. Spencer. 2003. “Luminescence
Dating of Anthropogenically Reset Canal Sediments from Angkor Borei, Mekong Delta,
Cambodia.” Quaternary Science Reviews 22: 1111-1121.
Sarjeant, Carmen. 2014a. Contextualizing the Neolithic Occupation of Southern Vietnam: The Role of Ceramics
and Potters at An Son. Terra Australis 42. Canberra: Australian National University Press.
Sarjeant, Carmen. 2014b. “Mental Templates and Ceramic Manufacture at Neolithic An Son,
Southern Vietnam.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 24: 269-288.
Schenk, Heidrun. 2006. “The Dating and Historical Value of Rouletted Ware.” Zeitschrift für
Archäologie Außereuropäischer Kulturen 1:123-152.
Solheim, Wilhelm G. 1965. “A Preliminary Report on a New Pottery Complex in Northeastern
Thailand.” In Felicitation Volumes of Southeast-Asian Studies, Vol. 2. The Siam Society, Bangkok:
249-254.
Solheim, Wilhelm G. and Marti Ayres. 1979. “The Late Prehistoric and Early Historic Pottery
of the Khorat Plateau, with Special Reference to Phimai.” In Early Southeast Asia: Essays
in Archaeology, History and Historical Geography, edited by Ralph Bernard Smith and William
Watson. New York: Oxford University Press: 63-77.
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Srisuchat, Amara. 2003. “Earthenware from Archaeological Sites in Southern Thailand: The First
Century BC to the Twelfth Century AD.” In Earthenware in Southeast Asia, edited by John
Miksic. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press: 249-260.
Stark, Miriam T. 1998. “The Transition to History in the Mekong Delta: A View from Cambodia.”
International Journal of Historical Archaeology 2: 175-203.
Stark, Miriam T. 1999. “Social Dimensions of Technical Choice in Kalinga Ceramic Traditions.”
Material Meanings: Critical Approaches to Interpreting Material Culture, edited by Elizabeth
Chilton. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press: 24-43.
Stark, Miriam T. 2000. “Pre-Angkor Earthenware Ceramics from Cambodia’s Mekong Delta.”
Udaya: Journal of Khmer Studies 1: 69-90.
132
Stark, Miriam T. 2001. “Some Preliminary Results of the 1999-2000 Archaeological Field
Investigations at Angkor Borei, Takeo Province.” Udaya: Journal of Khmer Studies 2: 19-35.
Stark Miriam T. 2003a. “The Chronology, Technology, and Contexts of Earthenware Ceramics
in Cambodia.” In Earthenware in Southeast Asia, edited by John Miksic. Singapore: National
University of Singapore Press: 208-229.
Stark, Miriam T. 2003b. “Current Issues in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology.” Journal of Archaeological
Research 11: 1111-1121.
Stark, Miriam T. 2006a. “Early Mainland Southeast Asian Landscapes in the First Millennium AD.” Annual
Review of Anthropology 35: 407-432.
Stark, Miriam T. 2006b. “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, Miriam T. and S. Jane Allen. 1998. “The Transition to History in Southeast Asia: An
Introduction,” International Journal of Historical Archaeology 2: 163-175.
Stark, Miriam T. and Sovath Bong. 2001. “Recent Research on the Emergence of Early Historic States
in Cambodia’s Lower Mekong Delta.” Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 21: 85-98.
Stark, Miriam T., Brenda J. Bowser and Lee Horne. 2008. “Why Breaking Down Boundaries
Matters for Archaeological Research on Learning and Cultural Transmission.” In Cultural
Transmission and Material Culture: Breaking Down Boundaries, edited by Miriam T. Stark, Brenda
J. Bowser, and Lee Horne. Tucson: University of Arizona Press: 1-16.
Stark, Miriam T., P. Bion Griffin, Chuch Phoeurn, Judy Ledgerwood, Michael Dega, Carol Mortland,
Nancy Dowling, James M. Bayman, Bong Sovath., Tea Van, Chhan Chamroeun, and David
K. Latinis. 1999. “Results of the 1995 – 1996 Archaeological Field Investigations at Angkor
Borei, Cambodia.” Asian Perspectives 38: 7-36.
Talbot, Sarah and Chutima Janthed. 2001. “Northeast Thailand before Angkor: Evidence from an
Archaeological Excavation at the Prasat Hin Phimai.” Asian Perspectives 40: 179-194.
Tan, Heidi. 2003. “Remarks on the Pottery of Oc Eo.” In J. Khoo (ed.), Art and Archaeology of
Funan.Orchid Press. Bangkok: 107-118.
Welch, David J. and Judith R. McNeill. 2004. “The Original Phimai Black Site: A New Look at Ban
Suai, Phimai, Thailand.” In Southeast Asian Archaeology: Wilhelm G. Solheim II Festschrift, edited
by Victor Paz. Quezon City, Manila: University of the Philippines Press: 522-543.
Yasuda, Yoshinori. and Chuch Phoeurn. (eds.) 2008. Preliminary Report for the Excavation in Phum Snay
2007. Kyoto: International Research Center for Japanese Studies.
133
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Earthenware Ceramic Technologies of Angkor Borei, Cambodia
Miriam T. STARK & Shawn FEHRENBACH
សង្ខេប ៖
Earthenware Ceramic Technologies of Angkor Borei, Cambodia
Miriam T. STARK & Shawn FEHRENBACH
អត្ថបទនេះនិយាយពីបច្ចេកវិជ្ជាក្នុងការផលិតកុលាលភាជនៅស្ថានីយអង្គរបុរី។ កំណាយនៅទីនោះធ្វើនៅ
ឆ្នាំ១៩៩៦-២០០០ ក្នុងកម្មវិធី
Lower Mekong Archaeological Project ហើយបង្ហាញលទ្ធផលថាជទីផលិតនៅ
ចនោ្លោះឆ្នា៥
ំ ០០មុនគ.ស.ដល់គ.ស.២០០។ យើងបានពិនត
ិ យេ សជថ្មន
ី វូ បច្ចក
េ ទេសនានាដេលគេបើេ ជពិសស
េ
ពិនិតេយសមសធាតុគីមីនេដីឥដ្ឋធ្វើភាជនៅរណ្តៅខាងតេបូងនេទួលឡវត្តគំនូរ
ក្នុងកេុមឡសេទាប់កេមប៉េក
កណា្តៅល។ យើងបេប
ើ ច្ចក
េ ទេសហៅថា technologie ក្នង
ុ ការសេវជេវនេះ។ ក្នង
ុ ករណីខះ
្ល បច្ចក
េ ទេសដេលបេក
ើ ង
ុ្ន
ការផលិតកុលាលភាជនៅអង្គរបុរី
បង្ហាញថាមានទំនាក់ទំនងជមួយបច្ចេកទេសដេលគេស្គាល់នៅទីដទេ
ទៀតក្នុងតំបន់បាតខ្ទះទន្លេមេកុងប៉េកខាងកេំនិងប៉េកកណា្តៅល។
វិញទៅមក។
មានន័យថាមានការជះឥទ្ធិពលគ្នាទៅ
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Abstract
Earthenware Ceramic Technologies of Angkor Borei, Cambodia
Miriam T. STARK & Shawn FEHRENBACH
This paper explores the technology of earthenware ceramic traditions from the archaeological site
of Angkor Borei (Takeo Province, Cambodia). Excavations at the Angkor Borei site from 19962000 by the Lower Mekong Archaeological Project produced a well-dated chronological sequence
of locally-manufactured earthenware ceramics that spans the period from c. 5 00 BCE – 200
CE. Here we review the range of earthenware technological traditions reflected in the excavated
archaeological, and focus in detail on the technology and geochemistry ceramics recovered from
an excavation trench into the southern edge of the Vat Komnou mound, located in the central
section of the community’s lower segment. We use a technologie approach to contrast a localized
geochemical signature in the Angkor Borei ceramic assemblage with particular morphological and
production-related characteristics that reveal broader technological traditions through cultural
transmission. In some cases, and at some points in the sequence, aspects of the Angkor Borei
earthenware ceramic assemblage echo technological traditions encompass much of the Lower and
Middle Mekong regions in which protohistoric populations interacted.
Résumé
Earthenware Ceramic Technologies of Angkor Borei, Cambodia
Miriam T. STARK & Shawn FEHRENBACH
Le présent article examine la technologie de la céramique en terre cuite provenant du site
134
archéologique d’Angkor Borei (province de Takeo, Cambodge). Les fouilles entreprises de 1996
à 2000 par le Lower Mekong Archaeological Project révèlent une séquence chronologique de
production locale de la céramique en terre cuite partant de vers -500 à 200 AD. Ici on reconsidère
la gamme des techniques mises en œuvre, se concentrant sur la technologie et la géo-chimie telles
qu’elles ressortent d’une tranchée pratiquée vers la bordure sud de la butte du Vat Komnou,
située dans la section centrale de la partie inférieure de l’ensemble. Nous adoptons l’approche
dite technologie pour mettre en relief la signature géo-chimique locale du groupement céramique
d’Angkor Borei caractérisée par certains traits morphologiques ainsi que d’autres traits provenant
des processus de production, mais qui, en même temps, révèlent une transmission culturelle des
traditions technologiques au sens le plus large.
Dans certains cas, à certains points de la séquence, différents aspects de la céramique d’Angkor
Borei trouvent des échos dans les traditions technologiques des régions du bas et du moyen Mekong
où évoluaient des populations préhistoriques.
135
UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies No. 14, 2019
Earthenware Ceramic Technologies of Angkor Borei, Cambodia