International Journal of Historical Archaeology, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1998

The Transition to History in the MekongDelta: A View from Cambodia

Miriam T. Stark1

This article discusses methodological issues associated with the use ofdocumentary and archaeological data to interpret the early historic period ofsouthern Cambodia. Developments in the Lower Mekong region are used asa case study, and where the polity of "Funan" reputedly flourished from thesecond to the sixth centuries A.D. A variety of data sources available to usnow—Chinese historical accounts, inscriptions, local oral traditions, andarchaeological materials—suggests that this early historic polity was a uniquemixture of ritual, economic, and political activity. Discussion concentrates onthe site of Angkor Borei (Takeo Province, Cambodia), where the LowerMekong Archaeological Project (LOMAP) has undertaken research since1995.

KEY WORDS: early historic period; early states; Mekong Delta; Cambodia.

INTRODUCTION

Some of the most compelling questions concerning the early historyof mainland Southeast Asia focus on the Mekong Delta, which containslarge moated sites with abundant brick structures, elaborate sculpturalimages, and deep archaeological deposits (Coedes, 1968; Hall, 1985; Jac-ques, 1979; Mabbett, 1977a, b; Vickery, 1986; Wheatley, 1983; Wolters,1982). To the Vietnamese, this area housed earlier Austronesian speak-ers, including the Chams of Centra! Vietnam. To the Cambodians, thisregion was the cradle of Khmer civilization. The earliest history of theLower Mekong region is both important and controversial in theoretical

'Department of Anthropology, University of Hawai'i, 2424 Maile Way, Social Sciences 346,Honolulu, Hawai'i 96822.

175

1092-7697/98/0900-0175$15.00/0 6 1998 Plenum Publishing Corporation

176 Stark

and nationalistic arguments over origins and state development (Gaudes,1993; Ledgerwood, 1996; Reynolds, 1995). To archaeologists, however,the Mekong Delta looks very different: we see a relatively blank slatethus far, and our attempts to develop a chronometrically anchored re-gional sequence have just begun (e.g., Ha Van Tan, 1986; Le Xuan Diemet al., 1995).

To many scholars, the settlement history and dynastic sequence ofthe Mekong Delta has already been written through the use of docu-ments, iconography, and imagination. In part because of historical acci-dent, archaeologists who study Southeast Asia have rarely approachedthe archaeological record of this period with the range of problem-ori-ented questions that they have used to undertake prehistoric research inthe region (see Miksic, 1995). For nearly a century, archaeological re-search in Cambodia and Thailand on this transitional period has beendominated by scholars whose primary interest lies in art history or history,rather than in anthropological archaeology (see, e.g., Brown, 1996;O'Connor, 1986; Vallibhotama, 1986, 1992). Archaeological investigationsin such research often produce the objects or inscriptions that form thebasis of historical interpretations, with little attention paid to the archae-ological context of these findings. In mainland Southeast Asia, historianshave built the models, and archaeologists dig for them (for exception,see Bronson, 1977, 1978, 1992). This division is common in the world'sregions that contain documentary and archaeological evidence (e.g., Gal-loway, 1991; Houston, 1989, pp. 4-6; Leone and Potter, 1988, pp. 11-12).However, nowhere is this division of labor more evident than in the Mek-ong Delta of southern Cambodia, where balance is sorely needed betweenhistorical and archaeological interpretations of the period that began atsome point after 500 B.C. and continued through much of the first mil-lennium A.D.

This article focuses on one small portion of the archaeology of Cam-bodia, a country in which scholars have traditionally privileged monumentrestoration, art history, and epigraphy over systematic archaeological ex-cavations. The Lower Mekong Archaeological Project (LOMAP), intro-duced here, currently focuses its attention in southern Cambodia (TakeoProvince) at the early historic period site of Angkor Borei. Discussionof work at Angkor Borei provides a basis for exploring methodologicalchallenges that archaeologists confront in explaining changes associatedwith the transition to history. We begin by discussing the period thatbrackets the transition to history in the Mekong Delta.

Transition to History in the Mekong Delta 177

THE TRANSITION TO HISTORY IN THE MEKONG DELTA

This transition to history in mainland Southeast Asia took place atvarious points from the midfirst millennium B.C. to ca. A.D. 500.2 Thebeginning point of this period is marked by evidence for contact with theWest (particularly India) or the East (China). Maritime trade networksfrom India to China linked the intermediate coastal principalities fromBurma to Vietnam (Glover, 1996; Hall, 1982; Higham, 1989a, pp. 239-254).Archaeologists elsewhere in the world use the appearance of an indigenouswriting system as the starting point for the historic period; we see this de-velopment in Cambodia during the latter part of the "pre-Angkorian" pe-riod (that is, before A.D. 802). The uneven tempo of change was decidedlymore rapid for coastal and central valley regions than it was further inland;what we know of the archaeological record today suggests that some inlandregions of mainland Southeast Asia did not undergo substantial sociopoli-tical transformations until the sixth or seventh century A.D. (also see Bron-son and White 1992, p. 499; Higham, 1989a, pp. 233-238).

In what is now southern Cambodia, a combination of relative and ab-solute dating techniques brackets the early historic period between approxi-mately 500 B.C. and A.D. 600. Paleographers assign a third century A.D.date to the Vo Canh inscription in the Nha-trang district of Vietnam (e.g.,Coedes, 1968, p. 40, n. 38; de Casparis, 1979, p. 382). The Indian docu-mentary evidence is sparse. Numismatic evidence from excavations at OcEo includes Roman coins that date to the second and third centuries A.D.(Malleret, 1959-1962). This is a critical period in both mainland and mari-time Southeast Asia, with the beginning of Indian (and, ostensibly, Chinese)contact. Goods, ideas, and people moved between these areas as early asthe midfirst millennium B.C. (Christie, 1995; Glover, 1996).

Several reasons account for the fact that most of what we know of thisplace and time comes from documentary, rather than archaeological, evi-dence. One reason lies in the political conflicts that made certain countriesin the region inaccessible to foreign (and particularly Western) archaeolo-gists for several decades. Another reason is the recent emphasis on prehis-toric archaeological research in Southeast Asia since the 1960s (e.g.,Higham, 1989a, pp. 27-28, 1996, pp. 36-38; Miksic, 1995). Efforts expended

2Previous researchers working in mainland Southeast Asia have different terms for this sameperiod. Higham (1989a) calls this General Period C (and begins General Period D after A.D.200). Bronson and White (1992, p. 499) use the term "Protohistoric" period in Burma,Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam. Wheatley (1983, pp. 56-72) describes this period as the"Immediately Pre-Urban Period."

178 Stark

on historical archaeology have focused largely on conservation and historicpreservation, rather than on pure research (Miksic, 1995). A third, and com-pelling, reason lies in the relative wealth of documentary evidence availablefor different points during the early historic period, which describe the re-gion during the early and middle centuries of the first millennium A.D.

Several types of documentary materials have proven useful to scholarsconcerned with the early historic and historic periods of ancient Cambodia:Sanskrit and Khmer inscriptions bas-relief carvings, oral traditions, and out-siders' accounts. Iconographic representations, either in portable goods (ce-ramics and sculpture) or in nonportable media (temple murals), are also animportant (albeit underutilized) source of information for the Angkorian pe-riod (Bronson, 1978; Coedes, 1941). Oral traditions that describe the found-ing of Khmer civilization are contained in versions of the Kaundinya or NagiSoma story (for recent discussions, see Gaudes, 1993; Ledgerwood, 1996).Another potential source of information lies in Indian materials, which in-cludes documents and artifacts. The documentary record is sparse: Indianoutsiders' references to the region consist largely of incidental allusions inSanskrit verse or Tamil court poetry (Wheatley, 1983, p. 63). Research onearly Sanskrit and Pali literature by Ray (1989, 1994) and others providesadditional insights regarding maritime connections between India and theMekong Delta. For this time and place, however, most interpretations haverelied either on epigraphic materials or Chinese documentary accounts.

Epigraphic materials are commonly inscribed on schist slabs in eitherSanskrit or Khmer. These inscriptions constitute an important source ofdescriptive material and describe the latter portion of the early historicperiod. Most of the pre-Angkorian (i.e., preninth century A.D.) inscriptionsare in Sanskrit, except for those at the very end of the sequence (Briggs,1951, p. 15). Many of these early inscriptions are fragmentary, and Coedes'painstaking translations of Sanskrit inscriptions during his career providesa wealth of information that commonly includes dates. Most Sanskrit poeminscriptions recovered from early historic period sites generally offerprayers to divinities of Indian origin that mention the temple's deity, thedate of the building's consecration, and names of rulers; such inscriptionsrarely contain economic or political information (Jacques, 1986, p. 328).Sanskrit inscriptions also contain information on royal edicts, rulers'achievements, and transfers of property to individuals, Brahmins, and in-stitutions (Sharan, 1974, p. 42).

Khmer inscriptions appear at the end of the pre-Angkorian sequence,beginning in ca. A.D. 611 (Jenner, 1980a, b). Stelae on which inscriptionswere engraved often contain dual inscriptions (Sanskrit and Khmer) afterthis point in time. Some Khmer inscriptions focus on the works of kings,nobles and other dignitaries, often mentioning the giving of property (land,

Transition to History in the Mekong Delta 179

goods, slaves) to the temple (e.g., Ricklefs, 1967). Other inscriptions de-scribe legal matters, and still others inform on dynastic sequences (e.g.,Jacob, 1979; Vickery, 1986, 1994). Hidden in these inscriptions is valuableinformation regarding plants, animals, and agricultural practices (e.g., Ja-cob, 1978, 1979; Jacques, 1986). Many inscriptions are incomplete (broken,partly illegible), however, and many lack dates; sometimes, the date wasgiven in an accompanying Sanskrit inscription.

The tradition of Khmer inscriptions that first appears during the earlyhistoric period continues throughout the historical period. For this earliestperiod, however, we suffer from a paucity of Khmer epigraphic data. Inwhat may be the most exhaustive study of pre-Angkorian Khmer inscrip-tions, Jenner (1980b, pp. 1-2) lists 41 internally dated inscriptions; withinthese inscriptions, more than 40% of the words are proper nouns that in-clude personal names, toponyms, and calendrical terms (Jenner, 1981). In-terpretations of pre-Angkorian Khmer inscriptions have focused on topicslike political structure and dynastic sequences (e.g., Vickery, 1986, 1994,1996), economy and ecology (Jacobs, 1978, 1979), and religion (Wolters,1979).

Current disagreement exists over the relative importance of Khmer vs.Sanskrit inscriptions for stelae that contain both forms. Some, like Vickery(1996, p. 389), believe that Khmer texts are more comprehensive than San-skrit and thus are a more important documentary source. Khmer and San-skrit texts were likely intended for different audiences and served differentagendas. Like inscriptions elsewhere in the world, however, these inscrip-tions are politically charged documents that focus on a restricted range oftopics (self-validation, glorification of a particular ruler, and dedication)and refer to a narrow audience of political and ritual elites (Jacques, 1979;Wheatley, 1983, pp. 56-72).

Chinese documentary sources (e.g., histories, encyclopedias, and to-pographies) have been the most influential source materials in the inter-pretation of this period. One reason for this interpretive hegemony is thatChinese visitors' accounts are the only documentary source for the MekongDelta before A.D. 611. Although historians differ slightly on dates for theearliest Chinese contact with populations in the Mekong Delta, it is clearthat Chinese emissaries visited the "Kingdom of Funan"—and repre-sentatives of that "kingdom" visited the Chinese court—repeatedly betweenthe third and the seventh centuries A.D. The most extensive accounts de-rive from third-century visitors Kangtai and Zhuying, who were sent togather information about the polities and resources of Southeast Asia be-tween A.D. 228 and A.D. 243. Kangtai published a book containing infor-mation on more than 100 kingdoms of which he had heard. His companion,Zhuying, recorded this diplomatic mission in the San-kuo chih; this book

180 Stark

contains the first mention of Funan. Although the original books have beenlost, they have been quoted by most Chinese dynastic histories after theirdates (e.g., Briggs, 1951, pp. 21-22; Coedes, 1968; Hall, 1982, 1985, pp.48-77; Li, 1979, pp. 4-5, 24-30; Pelliot, 1903).

In the sixth century A.D., two monks from Funan visited Liang dynastyChina and translated the work of Buddhist scriptures during their visit;their workshop was apparently called the "Funan House" (Ishizawa, 1996,p. 17). By the late seventh century (A.D. 671-695), the Chinese Buddhistmonk Yi Jing (I-Tsing) learned of "Poh-nan" on his trip to India and de-scribes the development and disappearance of Buddhism in "Fu-nan" (I-Tsing, 1966, p. 12). These documentary sources have provided abundant,but problematic, information concerning formal chronologies, political or-ganization, and place names for most of the first millennium A.D. It is nowonder that so many recent chronicles of the early historic period havealready been written that rely solely on the documentary record. And it isprecisely this abundant documentary tradition for the region that threatensto fog our vision as we begin to investigate the archaeology of Cambodia'sMekong Delta.

DOCUMENTARY SOURCES, ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA, AND THECHALLENGE OF INTERPRETATION

Several problems plague our use of documentary evidence as thesole—or even primary—source of information for reconstructing MekongDelta economy and politics during the early historic period. One set ofproblems concerns the discontinuous nature of this evidence caused by his-torical changes in India and China. These changes were unrelated to localevents in mainland Southeast Asia, but likely affected the tempo and in-tensity of foreign contact at different points in time. With the establishmentof the Gupta dynasty, after A.D. 320 in India came the first long-livedpolitical organization on the Indian subcontinent; this development mayhave accelerated trade expeditions. Traffic between China and SoutheastAsia accelerated after 111 B.C., when the Chinese Han took over NorthVietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin and probed points further south for in-formation and resources (also see Ray, 1989, p. 54). The documentary re-cord is closely linked to changes in the observers' countries but bears norelationship to changes in the region that they described.

Another set of problems concerns the differential preservation ofKhmer inscriptional evidence, in which inscribed (stone) stelae contain theonly indigenous written records that have survived in a tropical environ-ment. The written record may have included other media that did not pre-

Transition to History in the Mekong Delta 181

serve in the archaeological record, like palm leaf inscriptions. TraditionalKhmer texts by the Angkorian period were often inscribed on palm leavesas well as in stone, and clear evidence for palm-leaf texts in Southeast Asiaderives from the eighth- to ninth-century monument of Borobodur, wherebas-reliefs depict palm-leaf texts (Guy, 1982, p. 11). Chinese visitors to Fu-nan in the third century A.D. also described history books and "libraries"in the Funan capital (Ma, 1883; Pelliot, 1903). Such repositories could, con-ceivably, have housed such documents; if such libraries ever existed, how-ever, their contents disappeared long ago.

Similar problems surely affected Chinese documentary records that de-scribe the Mekong Delta in the early historic period. These records werealso written on perishable materials and were thus recopied periodically.This recopying process may well have introduced mistakes in transcription,which may account for the seemingly contradictory nature of some of thetexts regarding the people and their practices (e.g., Coedes, 1968, p. 37;Li, 1979, pp. 11-13; Ma, 1883, pp. 436-441; Wheatley, 1983, p. 120). Whileindigenous texts may have disappeared through natural causes, Chinesetexts may have changed through human error.

Problems introduced by human error and poor preservation are onlytwo challenges that we face in using documentary materials. A more gen-eral problem that scholars encounter worldwide in using the documentaryrecord is the problem of bias: in the writers of these accounts, and in theway that we interpret them (e.g., Galloway, 1991; Larsen, 1989; Lightfoot,1995, pp. 204-206; Vickery, 1986, p. 95; Wood, 1989). Indigenous docu-ments often focus on the social elite sector and provide one version of apolitical history. We can only wonder whether early historic period chron-icles bear any resemblance to those several centuries later. Michael Vick-ery's analysis of 14th- to 16th-century Khmer chronicles led him to concludethat, for these chroniclers, "The past was something to be manipulated,that there were in fact no true records, and that the pattern of events mayhave been artificially composed" (Vickery, 1979, p. 138; also see Malleret,1961, pp. 302-305).

As Wood (1989) and others note, foreigners' accounts may be writtenwith an alternative audience in mind. When this audience is a potentialcolonial power, the accounts may be sculpted to meet particular commercialor political interests. These are also problems in understanding the MekongDelta. Early Chinese visitors interpreted the polities they observed as king-doms, modeled after their own notion of political structure; these earlieststates did not parallel "empires" in the Indian or Chinese sense of theterm (Jacques, 1979, pp. 375-377; Kulke, 1986, 1990). In the most prob-lematic of cases, inscriptions and outsiders' accounts describe "kingdoms"and 12 polities from this period in mainland Southeast Asia—like Dvaravati

182 Stark

(Brown, 1996)—whose geographic and settlement centers largely elude ar-chaeological identification.

There are problems, too, in the lack of critical attention paid to thebasic historical framework that Pelliot (1903) and others established usingChinese documentary sources, even though these translations are nearly acentury old (Jacques, 1979), In addition, much early Indochinese historywas interpreted by scholars who worked in India first and Southeast Asianext (e.g., R. C. Majumdar). Some of the most important historians whosucceeded this first cohort (e.g., G. Coedes) focused on Indian languagematerials (Kulke, 1990, pp. 8-16; Wolters, 1982, pp. 95-96). The fact thattheir perspectives were colored by an India filter at the time of writing isunderstandable, but we must transcend these earlier interpretations withmore balanced perspectives on the past. Southeast Asian scholars who workwith materials from Vietnam (Taylor, 1992, pp. 153-155) to Indonesia(Christie, 1993, p. 5), and Cambodia in between (Vickery, 1986, p. 113,note 13), share a common frustration with the fragmentary and incompletenature of the documentary record, which typically provides only clues(rather than a full narrative) for understanding ancient social and economichistory.

Patricia Galloway (1991, p. 453) notes that "documentary evidence isseldom what it seems," and one of our most pressing problems in studyingthe early historic period in Southeast Asia lies in our uncritical acceptanceof documentary materials as sources of information. If we rely on docu-mentary data to understand the developmental sequence of the MekongDelta, then the interpretive task is nearly complete. We archaeologists areexpected to play a strictly confirming role: we are expected to "find" ma-terial correlates of the kingdom of Funan, to "find" evidence for the firstJayavarman, and (above all) to "find" the earliest Khmer speakers in thearchaeological record. How can we reconcile the presumed accuracy ofWestern historical interpretation and oral tradition with results producedfrom systematic fieldwork and careful analysis? What should be the roleof archaeological research in the early historic period of Southeast Asia(see also Hutterer, 1982)? Shall we use archaeological approaches primarilyto test hypotheses from historical accounts? To do so unquestioningly com-pounds archaeological and historical problems of interpretation.

ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE TRANSITION TO HISTORY

We now have increasing archaeological evidence for material and cul-tural continuity from the late prehistoric period to the early historic periodthroughout mainland Southeast Asia (Glover, 1990, 1996; Higham, 1989a,

Transition to History in the Mekong Delta 183

b). Our knowledge of the material record of late prehistoric-early historicperiod settlement systems continues to grow, particularly for key areas ofThailand and Cambodia. Several of these areas (e.g., Irawaddy, ChaoPhraya, and Red River valleys) witnessed the emergence of early statesseveral centuries prior to the florescence of Classical civilizations. Equallyimportant has been the documentation of intensified agriculture and of in-digenous metallurgy (Funan bronze and iron) prior to Indian contact duringthe first millennium B.C. Funan (see Higham, 1989a, b, pp. 190-320, 1996,for reviews).

Archaeological research in the last two decades now reveals that manysettlements were continuously occupied from the prehistoric to early his-toric periods. In well-dated sites from this period, surrounding moats andassociated walls were often constructed during the mid- to late-first mil-lennium B.C. In some cases (e.g., Oc Eo region), clusters of prehistoricsettlements were replaced by one or more urban centers by the early his-toric period. Evidence for the development of long-distance contacts and,ostensibly, trade, has also been dated to the late first millennium B.C. Ob-jects obtained through long-distance trade networks included beads (Basaet al., 1991), coins, ceramics, and other media. Local craft goods and locallyprocured resources were then exported to source areas for these foreigninfluences (Glover, 1989; Ha Van Tan, 1986).

Although few archaeologists have sought to explain the developmentof state formation during the period between 500 B.C. and A.D. 500, somebolder prehistorians (Bayard, 1992; Higham, 1989a, 1996; Kennedy, 1977;Macdonald, 1977; Welch, 1989; White, 1995; White and Pigott, 1996) haveoffered models that might be extended to this transitional period. Some ofthe more prominent historians have used Chinese documentary evidenceto study the Indian influences on local populations (Coedes, 1968) and em-phasize the growth of urbanization and acceleration in commercial activity(e.g., Hall, 1982, 1985; Wheatley, 1983) and the development of mandalaforms of political organization (Wolters, 1982). Some archaeologists haveexamined the development of traffic in preciosities that were presumablycontrolled by an emergent elite, which generated surplus and facilitatedcontrol over agricultural production (Higham, 1989a). Glover's (1989) com-parative analysis uses a related model that emphasizes the role of interna-tional maritime commerce and models of peer-polity interaction. Glover'suse of a broad geographic scale is unusual among archaeologists and meritsfurther research to fill out patterns that Glover has sketched.

Archaeologists and historians alike (e.g., Higham, 1989a; Kathirithamby-Wells, 1995; Stargardt, 1986; van Liere, 1980; Welch, 1989) have suggestedthat environmental shifts and the introduction of new ecological adaptationsprofoundly shaped the evolution of early historic period states. The archae-

184 Stark

ological record of late prehistoric-early historic Southeast Asia suggests long-term continuity, with a periodic introduction of new goods and ideas fromforeign lands. Historical accounts, described previously, suggest a pattern ofselective indigenous adoption of foreign ideas and institutions (contra Coedes,1968). Let us now turn to the Mekong Delta to study the relationship betweendocumentary and archaeological evidence in reconstructions of the early his-toric period.

THE EARLY HISTORIC PERIOD IN CAMBODIA'S MEKONG DELTA

Historians have relied on Chinese sources to "reconstruct" the dynastichistory of "Funan" or "B'iu-ndm," an entity that has been associated withsouthern Cambodia and the trans-Bassac region at least as early as 1911by Louis Finot (Jacques, 1979, pp. 374-377). Chinese emissaries were sentto the area in the third and sixth centuries to learn about a southern traderoute to India (see Pelliot, 1903). In all, Chinese annals record at least 25embassies from Funan to the Chinese court from ca. A.D. 226 to A.D. 649(Wheatley, 1983, p. 153, n.ll; Ishizawa, 1996, p. 17). Unfortunately, docu-mentary records do not tell us the precise location of Funan. Epigraphicdata from this region are intriguing, but enigmatic, on this point: severalinscriptions are fragmentary and poorly dated, and none of them makesdirect reference to an entity called Funan. Most scholars agree with Coedesin his assessment that at its apogee Funan "must have encompassed south-ern Vietnam, the central Mekong, and a large part of the Menam Valleyand the Malay peninsula" (Coedes, 1968, p. 36).

Chinese annals recount that envoys from the Mekong Delta sent peo-ple and gifts to the Chinese court as tribute during the third through sixthcenturies. Many prestige goods offered as tribute to the Chinese court dur-ing these missions may have been procured in the Lower Mekong region;these included gold, silver, copper, tin, gharuwood, ivory, peafowl, king-fishers, multicolored parakeets, elephants, and at least one rhinoceros (thelast in A.D. 539). Sugarcane, bananas, and turtles were also offered to theChinese court by Funan emissaries (Wheatley, 1983, p. 111, n.147); onemission during the late seventh century also offered the Chinese emperortwo royal individuals from a neighboring polity west of Funan (Ma, 1883,p. 441). Chinese annals describe these missions in terms of tribute and sub-mission by Southeast Asians to their northern neighbors. The fact that in-digenous inscriptions rarely mention Chinese visitors, however, may suggestthat Chinese contact was sporadic and perhaps even peripheral to the op-eration of daily life during this period (e.g., Brown, 1996, p. 17).

Transition to History in the Mekong Delta 185

Chinese documentary materials have served as the foundation for his-torians' models of the early historic period, in part because of the richnessof their descriptions of the area. In the core area of the Funan "state,"historical records describe at least a dozen urban centers which may havebeen capitals throughout this polity's rule. The precise location of the Fu-nan capital (or capitals) is a source of contention; some historians preferBa Phnom, in Prey Veng Province (Jacques, 1979); others offer BanteayPrey Nokor, in Kampong Cham Province (Vickery, 1986). The archaeologi-cal site of Angkor Borei (Takeo Province), however, has consistently beensuggested as one of Funan's major capitals (Jacques, 1986, p. 62, cited byVickery, 1996, p. 391). Coedes (1968), for example, believed that AngkorBorei was also the capital of Rudravarman, the last "king" of Funan, inthe sixth century A.D. Indigenous accounts provide glimpses of dynastichistory from the founding of this polity to its demise in the sixth-seventhcenturies A.D. (Jacques, 1979; Vickery, 1986, 1994). If the distribution ofdated Khmer inscriptions is any indication of settlement trends, then wefind that seventh century populations were most dense in central and south-ern Cambodia (Vickery, 1996; Wheatley, 1983).

Like all documentary sources, accounts of the early historic period forthe Lower Mekong region are plagued by cultural and political biases thatare difficult to decipher. Difficulties in translation from Khmer to Chinesemay have affected the nature of the Chinese reports. Chinese place namesin these accounts do not accord with Khmer place names, so that descrip-tions cannot be linked directly to ancient settlements. Efforts to link ar-chaeological sites to Chinese place names for Funan and Chenla inCambodia have been roundly criticized (e.g., Jacques, 1979; Vickery, 1994).Khmer and Sanskrit inscriptions concern economic transactions betweenelite donors and particular temples but say nothing about the general eco-nomic and political organization of the society.

From these sources, historians have crafted an economic history of Fu-nan which rests largely on documentary evidence rather than on archae-ological evidence. In the standard scenario (e.g., Briggs, 1951; Coedes,1968; Hall, 1982, 1985; Ishizawa, 1996; Mabbett, 1977a), densely populatedinland centers produced agricultural surpluses for exchange in coastal portcities: "these kingdoms controlled dense agrarian populations fairly closelyknit by a web of political and commercial interdependence, a web intowhich the newcomers were easily drawn, and through which new institutionswere readily transmitted" (Mabbett, 1977a, p. 14).

What accounts for transformations that occurred between 500 B.C. andA.D. 500, and how did these processes take place? Kenneth Hall statesthat "the entrepreneurial activities of traders of various cultures, utilizingMalay ships to enter Southeast Asian waters, induced the emergence of

186 Stark

new Indianized patterns. Funan 's chieftains mediated these initial commer-cial transactions as the instigators and organizers of Funan's port and itsMalay population" (Hall, 1982, pp. 85-86).

The story continues, built on documentary evidence, and concentrateson dynastic histories and the nature of economic systems. These are allinteresting scenarios, built on a range of documentary sources, but theycan be considered plausible only about life during the transition to history.As O. W. Wolters (1982, p. 13) notes, the Chinese viewed Funan througha Chinese political lens: the unstable collection of polities that they calleda "state" or "kingdom" probably contrasted starkly with Chinese politicalstructures of that time.

These historical reviews clearly demonstrate the interpretive limits be-yond which we cannot go until we understand the archaeological recordof the early historic period in the Mekong Delta. We cannot completelyreconstruct the economy without information on subsistence systems, craftproduction, and patterns of commodity distribution. We cannot reconstructthe political structure without information on differential access to a varietyof goods. And we cannot chronicle the rise and fall of this polity until weobtain chronometric dates that we can associate with construction se-quences and changes in the stratigraphic record of early historic periodsites.

Little of what we know about Angkor Borei and the early historic pe-riod in the Lower Mekong region, then, derives from archaeological evi-dence. For political and intellectual reasons, LOMAP researchers mustevaluate (and perhaps reconcile) the documentary and archaeological ma-terials that have been associated with this region and period. In the spiritof Vickery (1994), we must ask what was Funan? Where was it located?How was it organized? And can we ever hope to link historical descriptionsof this polity with settlement hierarchies on the ground? Finding answersto these questions is not simply an academic exercise; it is also a politicalchallenge. Archaeological research contributes to a more balanced perspec-tive for studying this transition to history.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE TRANSITION TOHISTORY

Only recently have increasing numbers of Southeast Asian archaeolo-gists turned their attention to this early historic period in areas surroundingthe Mekong Delta. Several research projects in mainland Southeast Asiahave focused on issues associated with early state formation (for reviews,see Aung-Thwin, 1982-1983; Higham, 1989a, b; Vallibhotama, 1986). Site

Transicion to History in the Mekong Delta 187

reports and literature reviews on moated settlements have proliferated inthe last two decades.3 From one end of mainland Southeast Asia to theother, we see a recurrent settlement pattern by the late first millenniumB.C.: nucleated populations in moated walled settlements, the appearanceof nonlocal goods (such as ceramics, metals, glass) whose origin lies to thewest, and qualitative changes in sociopolitical organization that we com-monly associate with state formation. Polities, or what historians likeWolters have called mandalas, emerged in river valleys from central Viet-nam to Burma during this time (Bayard, 1992; Bentley, 1986; Higham,1989a, b; Kennedy, 1977; MacDonald, 1977; Vallibhotama, 1992), althoughthe configuration of coastal polities (particularly along the Malay penin-sula) differs from that found to the north (Allen, 1997; Stark and Allen,this issue).

Most of the Euroamerican literature on the archaeology of the earlyhistoric period comes from Thailand. So little is known about Cambodianarchaeology that, as of 1992, only 10 radiocarbon dates were available fromexcavated contexts in Cambodian sites; a handful of additional dates areavailable from surface materials or from architectural elements in Angk-orian temples (see Bronson and White, 1992, pp. 482-483). By expandingour geographic focus to encompass the entire Mekong Delta, we may alsouse findings from Malleret's excavations at Oc Eo (Vietnam) during the1940s. Malleret's field investigations at Oc Eo in the 1940s have been criti-cized from various angles; one of the biggest problems with his fieldworkwas the lack of well-provenienced artifacts (even, perhaps, the second- tothird-century Roman coins that helped him to date his site). Vietnameseresearch at Oc Eo and in the general area since 1975 has revealed dozensof sites that date to the early historic period. To date, however, most oftheir field reports are published only in Vietnamese (e.g., Le Xuan Diemet al., 1995). Manguin's (1996) recent review of maritime archaeology inSoutheast Asia suggests that Southeast Asians themselves were movingthemselves and trade cargo around the region by the third-fifth centuriesA.D. Ongoing research in southern Cambodia, at the site of Angkor Borei,should help us better understand the transition to history in the MekongDelta.

The Lower Mekong Archaeological Project (LOMAP) was initiated in1995 as part of the larger University of Hawai'i/East-West Center/RoyalUniversity of Fine Arts/Northern Illinois University Cambodia Project. Aspart of the larger Cambodia project, we undertake fieldwork in conjunction

3See, for example, Bronson (1979); Bronson and Dales (1972); Kijngam et al. (1980); Maleipan(1979); Moore (1989, 1990, 1992); Stargardt (1990); Ha Van Tan (1986); and Welch andMcNeill (1988-1989). Higham (1989a) summarizes this period in his survey of archaeologicalwork in mainland Southeast Asia (see, especially, pp. 190-320).

188 Stark

with field training for Cambodian students (see Griffin et al., 1996). The1995 field season at Angkor Borei (Takeo Province) concentrated on infieldtraining for Cambodian graduates of the Royal University of Fine Arts, onsite reconnaissance, and on mapping. We conducted a 5-week field seasonin 1996 at Angkor Borei, and analysis of materials recovered during thisfield season is still in progress. Chronometric information is discussed inthe following section to explore relationships between archaeological anddocumentary data.

The site and contemporary town of Angkor Borei lies at the westernedge of the Mekong Delta in Takeo Province (Fig. 1), between the Gulfof Thailand and the Bassac River. The Transbassac, as the French describeit, straddles the Mekong Delta region (to the southeast) and the better-drained Cambodian lowlands (to the northwest). Except for foothills thatare scattered throughout the region, the elevation rarely exceeds 3 m abovesea level. The area floods each year between July and November, and thelevel of inundation varies from 1 to 3 m (Lind, 1981). To the south of theVietnam and Cambodian border, the Transbassac is covered by an intricateweb of canals built by the French to open the area to settlement and torender the land arable (Brocheux, 1995). The Cambodian side of the borderlacks this network of canals, and land-use practices may reflect "traditional"(i.e., precolonial) land-use systems that once characterized most of thedelta.

The site of Angkor Borei consists of a walled and moated elevatedarea (Fig. 2); this ancient settlement of Angkor Borei is covered by a con-temporary eponymous settlement of farmers, fishermen, and merchants.The French colonial administration was familiar with Angkor Borei quiteearly in its governance, because temples and grottoes in nearby areas likePhnom Da yielded sculptures that were collected and curated in museumslike the National Museum (Phnom Penh) and the Musee Guimet (Paris).Etienne Aymonier, who visited the Mekong Delta nearly a century ago,collected several alternative names for "Angkor Baurei" that he derivedfrom local inhabitants and from ancient Khmer inscriptions (italicized here)and Sanskrit (underlined). These names included, but were not limited to,Phum Nokor (Bhurn nagar, or "royal hamlet"), Nokor thupedei (Nagara dhi-pati, or "sovereign city"), and Brai Krapas Nagara dhipati (or "forest ofcotton plants/royal sovereign city") (Aymonier, 1900, p. 197). He argued,in his survey of the country, that Angkor Borei might well have been Cam-bodia's most ancient capital and noted its accessibility by water during therainy season.

Angkor Borei was one of the largest ancient sites the French identifiedin Cambodia's Mekong Delta. It was not until 1935, however, that BernardGroslier reported on a visit to the walled site itself. It was during this visit

Transition to History in the Mekong Delta 189

Fig. 1. Location of Angkor Borei (and Ba Phnom) in southern Cambodia (adapted fromHall, 1985; Map 3).

that the French recovered the earliest dated Khmer inscription in Cambodia(K. 557 and K. 600), which date to A.D. 611 (Groslier, 1935; Jenner, 1981).

190 Stark

Fig. 2. Preliminary site map, based on field mapping during 1995 and 1996 (map projectdirected by Michael Dega).

What attracted French notice was the massive brick wall that surroundsAngkor Borei. The ancient city's wall has a brick core that is approximately2 m wide; at some points, the wall contains up to 18 courses of bricks andreaches a height of 4.2 m. The city wall has a perimeter of ca. 6 km and

Transition to History in the Mekong Delta 191

encloses an area of more than 300 ha. The inner and outer moats are ap-proximately 22 m wide and several meters deep; parts of the moat utilizenatural drainage systems, while other parts of the moat appear to have beenexcavated. Field mapping and analysis of aerial photographs suggest thatthe ancient hydraulic system also included water control features (primarilyreservoirs) of varying shapes and sizes; it is also likely that ancient inhabi-tants of Angkor Borei altered or excavated some waterways in the city'senvirons.

While the 1995 field season concentrated on student training, the 1996field season used test excavations and stripping techniques to investigateaspects of this ancient site. One primary goal during 1996 was to obtainchronometric samples that could bracket the site's occupational sequence.Excavations at Angkor Borei have yielded vast quantities of ceramic ma-terial, and faunal remains and limited amounts of metal, glass beads, andother materials. The site has experienced extensive looting for an interna-tional antiquities market since at least 1992. Such illicit excavations haveyielded a far richer range of material culture that parallels goods found atOc Eo: crystal amulets, stone adzes, inscribed gold leaf, metal coinage,stone statuary, and gold jewelry. Test excavation units from the 1996 fieldseason revealed a complex stratigraphic sequence that extends nearly 5 min depth (Fig. 3).

Field mapping during 1995 and 1996 identified at least 13 documentedbrick masonry structures within Angkor Borei's walls. At least 12 additionalmounds were mapped (some in conjunction with water control features)that are likely the remains of brick structures as well. Monumental archi-tecture that predates the seventh century was unknown in the MekongDelta until recently (Briggs, 1951, p. 34). Parmentier (1933) recorded brickstructures at the seventh century site of Sambor Prei Kuk (Kampong Thornprovince); sites in Vietnam's Mekong Delta also contain brick architecture(Le Xuan Diem et al., 1995) but few chronometric data are available forthese structures. The abundance of such structures at Angkor Borei andglimpses of their construction [revealed through deep (2- to 5-m), illicitshafts that villagers have sunk in nearly every mapped structure on thesite] prompted us to explore these brick monuments. The reason for theseillicit soundings became clear through interviews with villagers, who de-scribed caches of gold leaf, amulets, and other precious materials from thebases of these structures. Caches of precious goods are traditionally asso-ciated with the foundation of new temples in Khmer culture, and we won-der whether these brick structures served a religious function.

We focused some of our attention during the 1996 field season onuncovering portions of one brick structure (AB-5) to study its morphologyand construction techniques and to obtain a thermoluminescence sample.

192 Stark

Fig. 3. Stratigraphic profile from Test Unit 4 ("AB-4"), a 1 x 2-m test unit that was exca-vated during the 1996 field season.

Transition to History in the Mekong Delta 193

We sampled another brick structure which had been partially destroyedthrough bulldozing during March 1996; bulldozing activities had uncoveredtwo sculptures that are now housed at the National Museum in PhnomPenh. A brick from each of these sampled structures was submitted to theUniversity of Washington Thermoluminescence Laboratory; the TL samplefrom the cleared structure (AB-5) produced a poor reading, but the TLsample from the bulldozed structure produced a TL date of 965 +/- 116A.D. The recovered sculptures corroborate an eighth- or ninth-century date(N. Dowling, personal communication), which postdates the early historicperiod and what has been called the "Funan" period,

Of the numerous radiocarbon samples collected from two excavationunits during 1996, nine were submitted for analysis (Table I). These sam-ples, acquired from two 1 x 2-m test units (AB-3 and AB-4), producedtwo series of dates that range from the fourth century B.C. to the seventhcentury A.D. Test excavations at these units revealed deep and complexstratigraphic sequences that reflect cultural and natural depositional proc-esses. The upper 100 cm of AB-3 exhibits some signs of postdepositionaldisturbance, which may explain the discrepancy/multiple date for Sample5312. What is most important in AB-3 are the lowermost dates, particularlySample 5315, which was taken from the interface between cultural and ster-ile soil (490 cm below the surface) and yields a fourth- to third-centuryB.C. date. Likewise, the general pattern of AB-4 resembles that of AB-3,and has as its earliest point a date into the fourth century B.C.

Contextual details regarding these radiocarbon dates are provided else-where (Stark et al., 1998). Despite the preliminary nature of the LOMAPfield program, these dates already change our view of the occupational se-quence in southern Cambodia. Angkor Borei was first settled in the latecenturies B.C., and the beginning of its occupational sequence parallelsthose of moated sites in Mun and Chi river valleys of Thailand like BanChiang Hian, Non Chai, and Non Dua (Higham, 1989a, pp. 210-216), pos-sibly Ban Tahkhong (Moore, 1992, pp. 36-37), and Ban Tamyae (Welch andMcNeill, 1988-1989). The sequence also mirrors that of sites in the ChaoPhraya valley like Chansen (Bronson, 1979; Bronson and Dales, 1972) and,possibly, Ban Don Ta Phet (Glover, 1990, 1996). If Funan was a polity andits capital was located in the Mekong Delta, then the dates from AngkorBorei tell us that the story of its origins is more complex than historianspreviously imagined. The site may have been occupied for more than halfa millennium before the Chinese first visited the region.

These dates, from preliminary fieldwork at Angkor Borei, offer aspringboard for future field investigations and for careful considerationof how we might use documentary evidence to interpret the early historicperiod. Chronometric information from the 1996 season suggest that

194 Stark

Transition to History in the Mekong Delta 195

Angkor Borei was occupied for centuries before the recognition of Funanand that populations did not abandon it after the sixth century. The politycalled Funan (even as a vassal state) disappears from the documentaryrecords soon after A.D. 627 (Briggs, 1951, p. 31). If indeed there wassuch a polity during the first-sixth centuries A.D., then perhaps archae-ological work at some of these large sites will suggest a pattern of shiftingcapitals through time.

Archaeological research in both southern Vietnam and southern Cam-bodia has begun to identify at least one multisettlement system across theregion that likely included coastal and inland centers. Pelliot's (1903) trans-lation of the Chinese accounts suggests that the Chinese visitors to Funantraveled 500 //' inland from the sea to the inland capital of Funan (whichmay have been Angkor Borei), although alternative translations of this sec-tion are possible. Did they spend most of their time at the coastal centers(ostensibly Oc Eo was one of them), as was common in other parts ofSoutheast Asia during this time? And how was what they saw differentfrom what one might see at the inland center of such a system? Chineseemissaries Kangtai and Zhuying describe this situation during the midthirdcentury A.D.

There are walled villages, palaces and dwellings . . .[the people] . . .go about nakedand barefoot. Their nature is simple and they are not at all inclined toward thievery.They devote themselves to agriculture. They sow one year and harvest for three.4

Moreover, they like to engrave ornaments and to chisel [inscriptions]. Most of theireating utensils are silver. Taxes are paid in gold, silver, pearls, and perfumes. Thereare books and depositories of archives and other things. Their characters for writingresemble those of the Hu [a people of Central Asia using a script of Indian origin].[Coedes, 1968, p. 42 (after Pelliot, 1903)]

The early historic period provides a unique vantage point for under-standing processes of state formation. Despite impressive advances in ar-chaeological field and analytical techniques during the last twenty years,our ability to reconcile documentary and archaeological data remainsweak. We need a clear understanding of the roles that these separatelines of evidence can play to develop comprehensive interpretations ofstate formation during the early historic period. We must, accordingly,consult a variety of source materials (epigraphy, travelers' accounts,sculpture and iconography, archaeological material), while acknowledgingthat the nature of these source materials varies from one region to thenext.

4Wheatley (1983, p. 113, note 164) notes that this translation of the Chinese is ungrammaticaland, thus, likely incorrect.

196 Stark

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

The preceding discussion highlighted the limitations of our currentknowledge for the early historic period in Cambodia's Mekong Delta. Somehistorians have chronicled the origins, rise, and collapse of ancient politiesin the region through developing its economic and political histories. Oth-ers, such as Paul Wheatley (1983, p. 56), recognize that the fragmentarystate of our knowledge for this period that can only be remedied througharchaeological research. Why has documentary evidence influenced inter-pretations of this place and period much more than has archaeological evi-dence? The answer lies both in the availability of data and in ourperceptions of archaeology's role in understanding the early historic period.Archaeological data can fill several gaps in our understanding and can pro-vide an independent line of evidence to ferret out biases in the documen-tary record. We can use artifact distributional patterns to reconstructcoastal-interior relationships; we can use site distributions to infer thechanging nature of inland political organization; and we can study noneliteinteractions and the subsistence economy by combining excavation datawith detailed geomorphological and ethnobotanical studies.

There is another untapped role for archaeological approaches to theearly historic period, and this lies in the realm of interpretation. Some pre-vious models for understanding the late prehistoric period (Bayard, 1992;Kennedy, 1977) are not appropriate for explaining the scalar transforma-tions that accompanied the transition to history because of differences inscale and external contact. Other previously proposed models are very use-ful for understanding coastal maritime states (e.g., Bronson, 1977; Junker,1993; Junker et al., 1994) but do not work well in the flat, deltaic environ-ment of the Mekong Delta (see also Allen, 1997). Still other models areintriguing (see especially Wolters, 1982) but apply to the more mature statestructures that emerge see during the Classical period (ca. 9th-15th cen-turies A.D.). What we still need are models for early state formation inareas that may have relied on both maritime trade and a robust subsistenceeconomy; no extant model captures the complexity of this economic system.

Developing an understanding of the early historic period requires sev-eral kinds of future research. First, we need systematic archaeological re-search that collects chronological and settlement information for the regionthat does not restrict its aims to confirmation of historically derived eventsand dates [for excellent examples, see Welch (1997, this issue)]. Test exca-vations and reconnaissance work in the region should refine our extant ce-ramic chronology and help us to attain this goal. Second, we must look forarchaeological evidence of agricultural intensification, of port cities, and ofcanal systems that connected the coast to inland centers. Paris' (1931, 1941)

Transition to History in the Mekong Delta 197

initial studies of aerial photographs from the region are intriguing but re-quire verification by a geomorphologist. This work requires us to date sitesin the region through the use of surface artifacts. We also need to studythe configuration and function of early centers like Angkor Borei. Werethese largely ceremonial centers that were surrounded by secular farmingcommunities? Or were these political and trade centers that moved goodsand people across the landscape? Previous researchers (e.g., Lind, 1981;Malleret, 1959-1962; van Liere, 1980) began the process of analyzing aerialphotography throughout the Mekong Delta; remote sensing techniques of-fer us an even wider range of spatial data now than was previously avail-able. Only through a combination of archaeological excavation and surveycan we understand the relationship between cities and hinterland.

CONCLUSION

Several years ago, an Egyptologist grappling with parallel problemswrote that "archaeology and writing complement each other's silences"(Baines, 1989, p. 209). One goal of this article has been to demonstrate thatboth documentary and archaeological sources are essential to understandingthe early historic period in the Mekong Delta of southern Cambodia. Onlyarchaeological work can study threads of continuity from the latest prehis-toric period into the historic period in the Mekong Delta. Archaeologicaldata are invaluable indicators of the directionality and intensity of domesticand international trade networks, and archaeological research informs onkey processes during the early historic period, like urbanization and politicalcentralization. On this point, many archaeologists, art historians, and histo-rians agree: a knowledge gained only through studying artworks and archi-tecture is woefully incomplete (O'Connor, 1986, p. 2), and a knowledgebased largely on documentary data is problematic at best.

Some critical questions can be addressed only through the analysis ofdocumentary data, including specific dynastic sequences, the circulation ofperishable materials to distant courts, key political relationships, and con-ceivably, even aspects of kinship and social organization. Another area ofmystery to most archaeologists would include the pre-seventh-century spo-ken language. Although Vickery (1994, p. 205; cf. Jacques, 1979) and othersuse linguistic clues to argue that Khmer was the language of central andsouthern Cambodia for centuries, this is an area where the archaeologicalrecord is mute. Questions concerning ideology and power are also notori-ously difficult for most archaeologists to answer conclusively before the ad-vent of writing. Yet even in these cases, historians and art historians aresometimes dependent upon archaeologists to recover documentary records

198 Stark

through excavations. Archaeological strategies are equally crucial and pro-vide complementary types of information that should influence historians'interpretations as well.

Both theoretical and interpretive questions confront those of us whowork on the early historic period. We must find better strategies for com-bining research from archaeological and historical perspectives withoutleaving the interpreting to the historians. Anthropological archaeologistshave a unique perspective that allows us to expand narrow historical inter-pretations into more holistic explanations of key transformations during thisimportant period in the Mekong Delta and elsewhere in ancient SoutheastAsia.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funding for the Lower Mekong Archaeological Project to date hasbeen provided by the East West Center Indochina Initiative and the Uni-versity of Hawai'i. Archaeological fieldwork was undertaken with permis-sion of His Excellency Nouth Narang and the Ministry of Culture, withguidance from the National Committee for Research on Cultural Heritage.Special thanks are extended to colleagues who codirected or otherwise as-sisted in the 1996 fieldwork (in alphabetical order): James Bayman, ChuchPhoeurn, Nancy Dowling, Bion Griffin, Judy Ledgerwood, and Carol Mort-land. I am also grateful to American and Cambodian students who assistedwith fieldwork at Angkor Borei: Michael Dega directed the 1995-1996Mapping Project and drafted the initial map which is the basis for Fig. 2.Bong Sovath, Tea Van, Chhan Chamroeun, Kou Vet, Chhan Kanha,Chheang Serei Vuthy, Chan To, Chan Nak, and Kim Sedara also providedcrucial field assistance during the 1996 field season. Timothy Rieth pro-vided graphics support for illustrations in this study. This manuscript hasbenefitted from thoughtful comments by Jane Allen, James Bayman, andJudy Ledgerwood; I alone am responsible for its final form.

REFERENCES CITED

Allen, J. (1997). Inland Angkor, coastal Kedah: Landscapes, subsistence systems, and statedevelopment in early Southeast Asia. Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Bulletin 16: 79-87.

Aung-Thwin, M. (1982-1983). Burma before Pagan: The status of archaeology today. AsianPerspectives 25: 1-22.

Aymonier, E. (1900). Le Cambodge, Ernest Leroux, Paris.Baines, J. (1989). Literacy, social organization, and the archaeological record: The case of

early Egypt. In Gledhill, J., Bender, B., and Larsen, M. T (eds.). State and Society: The

Transition to History in the Mekong Delta 199

Emergence and Development of Social Hierarchy and Political Centralization, UnwinHyman, London, pp. 192-214.

Basa, K. K., Glover, I. C. and Henderson, J. (1991). The relationship between early SoutheastAsian and Indian glass. Indo-Paciflc Prehistory Association Bulletin 10: 366-385.

Bayard, D. (1992). Models, scenarios, variables and suppositions: Approaches to the rise ofsocial complexity in mainland Southeast Asia, 700 B.C.-500 A.D. In Glover, I. C.,Suchitta, R, and Villiers, J. (eds.), Early Metallurgy, Trade and Urban Centres in Thailandand Southeast Asia, White Lotus, Bangkok, pp. 13-38.

Briggs, L. R (1951). The ancient Khmer Empire. Transactions of the American PhilosophicalSociety: New Series 41(1): 1-295 (Philadelphia, PA).

Brocheux, P. (1995). The Mekong Delta: Ecology, Economy, and Revolution, 1860-1960,University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Southeast Asian Studies MonographNumber 12, Madison.

Bronson, B. (1977). Exchange at the upstream and downstream ends: Notes toward afunctional model of the coastal state in Southeast Asia. In Hutterer, K. (ed.), EconomicExchange and Social Interaction in Southeast Asia: Perspectives from Prehistory, History, andEthnography, Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asia No. 13, Center for Southand Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp. 39-52.

Bronson, B. (1978). Angkor, Anuradhapura, Prambanan and Tikal: Maya subsistence in anAsian perspective. In Harrison, P. D., and Turner, B. L. (eds.), Pre-Hispanic MayaAgriculture, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 255-300.

Bronson, B. (1979). The late prehistory and early history of central Thailand with specialreference to Chansen. In Smith, R. B., and Watson, W. (eds.), Early South East Asia,Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 315-336.

Bronson, B., and Dales, G. (1972). Excavations at Chansen, Thailand, 1968, 1969: Apreliminary report. Asian Perspectives 15: 15-46.

Bronson, B., and White, J. C. (1992). Radiocarbon and chronology in Southeast Asia. InEnrich, R. W. (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, Vol. 1, 3rd ed., University ofChicago Press, Chicago, pp. 491-503.

Brown, R. L. (1996). The Dvaravati Wheels of the Law and the Indianization of South EastAsia, E. J. Brill, Leiden.

Christie, J. W. (1993). Trade and value in Pre-Majapahit Java. Indonesian Circle 59-60: 3-17.Christie, J. W. (1995). State formation and early maritime Southeast Asia: A consideration of

the theories and the data. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land, en Volkenkunde 151: 235-288.Coedes, G. (1931). Deux Inscriptions Sanskrites de Founan. Bulletin de I'Ecole Frangaise

d'Extreme Orient 31:1-23.Coedes, G. (1941). Lassistance medicale au Cambodge a la fin du Xllme siecle. Rtvue

Medicate Frangaise d'Extreme-Orient 19: 405-415.Coedes, G. (1968). The Indianized States of Southeast Asia, Vella, W.F. (ed.)., Cowing, S. B.

(trans). University of Hawai'i Press, Honolulu,de Casparis, J. G. (1979). Paleography as an auxiliary discipline in research on early South

East Asia. In Smith, R. B., and Watson, W. (eds.), Early South East Asia, Oxford UniversityPress, New York., pp. 380-394.

Finot, L. (1911). Sur quelques traditions Indochinoises, In Melanges d'lndianisme offerts parses (lives a M. Sylvain Levi, LEcole Franchise d'Extreme Orient, Paris.

Galloway, P. (1991). The archaeology of ethnohistorical narrative. In Thomas, D. H. (ed.),Columbian Consequences, Vol. 3. The Spanish Borderlands in Pan-American Perspective,Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 453-470.

Gaudes, R. (1993). Kaundinya, Preah Thaong, and the "Nagi Soma": Some aspects of aCambodian legend. Asian Folklore Studies 52: 333-358.

Glover, I. C. (1989). Early Trade between Indian and Southeast Asia, 2nd ed., Center forSouth-East Asian Studies, Hull.

Glover, I. C. (1996). Recent archaeological evidence for early maritime contacts between Indiaand Southeast Asia. In Ray, H. P., and Salles, J.-F. (eds.), Tradition and Archaeology: EarlyMaritime Contacts in the Indian Ocean, Manohar, New Delhi, pp. 129-150.

200 Stark

Griffin, P. B., Ledgerwood, J., and Stark, M. T. (1996). Research, education, and culturalresource management at Angkor Borei, Cambodia. CRM 19: 37-41.

Groslier, B. (1935). Ankor Borei. Bulletin de I'Ecole Francaise d'Extreme-Orient 35: 491.Guy, J. (1982). Palm-Leaf and Paper: Illustrated Manuscripts of India and Southeast Asia,

National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.Ha Van Tan (1986). Oc Eo: Endogenous and exogenous elements. Vietnam Social Sciences

1-2(7-8): 91-101.Hall, K. (1982). The "Indianization" of Funan: An economic history of Southeast Asia's first

state. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 13: 81-106.Hall, K. (1985). Maritime Trade and State Development in Early Southeast Asia, University of

Hawai'i Press, Honolulu.Higham, C. (1989a). The Archaeology of Mainland Southeast Asia, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.Higham, C. (1989b). The later prehistory of Mainland Southeast Asia. Journal of World

Prehistory 3: 235-282.Higham, C. (1996). The Bronze Age of Southeast Asia, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Higham, C., and Kijngam, A. (1982). Irregular earthworks in northeast Thailand: New insight.

Antiquity 56: 102-110.Houston, S. D. (1989). Archaeology and Maya writing. Journal of World Prehistory 3: 1-32.Hutterer, K. (1982). Early Southeast Asia: Old wine in new skins? A review article. Journal

of Asian Studies 41: 559-570.Ishizawa, Y. (1996). Chinese Chronicles of lst-5th Century A.D. Funan, Southern Cambodia.

In Scott, R., and Guy, J. (eds.), South East Asia and China: Art Interaction and Commerce,Colloquies on Art and Archaeology in Asia No. 17, University of London Percival DavidFoundation of Chinese Art, London, pp. 11-31.

I-Tsing (1966). A Record of the Buddhist Religion as Practised in India and the Malay Archipelago(A.D. 671-695), Takakusu, J. (trans.), Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi.

Jacob, J. (1978). The ecology of Angkor: Evidence from the Khmer inscriptions. In Stott, P.A. (ed.), Nature and Man in South East Asia, School of Oriental and African Studies,London, pp. 109-127.

Jacob, J. (1979). Pre-Angkor Cambodia: Evidence from the inscriptions concerning thecommon people and their environment. In Smith, R. B., and Watson, W (eds.), EarlySouth East Asia, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 406-424.

Jacques, C. (1979). 'Funan,' 'Zhenla': The reality concealed by these Chinese views ofIndochina. In Smith, R. B., and Watson, W. (eds.), Early South East Asia, OxfordUniversity Press, New York, pp. 371-379.

Jacques, C. (1986). Sources on economic activities in Khmer and Cham lands. In Marr, D.G., and Milner, A. C. (eds.), Southeast Asia in the 9th to 14th Centuries, Institute ofSoutheast Asian Studies, Singapore and the Research School of Pacific Studies, AustralianNational University, Canberra, pp. 327-334.

Jenner, P. N. (1980a). A Chrestomathy of Pre-Angkorian Khmer: Dated Inscriptions from theSeventh and Eighth Centuries (A.D. 611-781), Southeast Asia Paper No. 20, Part I, Centerfor Southeast Asian Studies, University of Hawai'i, Honolulu.

Jenner, R N. (1980b). A Chronological Inventory of the Inscriptions of Cambodia. SoutheastAsia Paper No. 19, Southeast Asian Studies, Asian Studies Program, University ofHawai'i, Honolulu.

Jenner, R N. (1981). A Chrestomathy of Pre-Angkorian Khmer: Lexicon of the Dated Inscriptions,Southeast Asia Paper No. 20, Southeast Asian Studies, Asian Studies Program, Universityof Hawai'i, Honolulu.

Junker, L. (1993). Craft goods specialization and prestige goods exchange in Philippinechiefdoms of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Asian Perspectives 32: 1-36.

Junker, L., Mudar, K., and Schwaller, M. (1994). Social stratification, household wealth andcompetitive feasting in 15th-16th century Philippine chiefdoms. Research in EconomicAnthropology 15: 307-358.

Transition to History in the Mekong Delta 201

Kathirithamby-Wells, J. (1995). Socio-political structures and the Southeast Asian ecosystem.In Bruun, O., and Kalland, A. (eds.), Asian Perceptions of Nature: A Critical Approach,Curzon Press, Surrey, England, pp. 25-46.

Kennedy, J. (1977). From stage to development in prehistoric Thailand: An exploration ofthe origins of growth, exchange, and variability in Southeast Asia. In Hutterer, K. (ed.),Economic Exchange and Social Interaction in Southeast Asia: Perspectives from Prehistory,History, and Ethnography, Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asia No. 13, Centerfor South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp. 23-38.

Kulke, H. (1986). The early and imperial kingdom in Southeast Asian History. In Marr, D.G., and Milner, A. C. (eds.), Southeast Asia in the 9th to 14th Centuries, Institute ofSoutheast Asian Studies, Singapore, pp. 1-23.

Kulke, H. (1990). Indian colonies, Indianization or cultural convergence? Reflections on thechanging image of India's role in South-East Asia. In Nordholt, H. (ed.), Onderzoek inZuidoost-Azie, Valgroep Talen en C u l t u r e n van Zuidoost -Asie en Oceanic ,Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden, Netherlands, pp. 8-32.

Larsen, M. T (1989). Introduction: Literacy and social complexity. In Gledhill, J., Bender, B.,and Larsen, M. T. (eds.), Stale and Society: The Emergence and Development of SocialHierarchy and Political Centralization, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 173-191.

Le Xuan Diem, Dao Linh Con, and Vo Si Khai (1995). Van H6a Oc Eo, Nha Xuat Ban KhoaHoc Xa Hoi (Social Sciences Publishing House), Hanoi.

Ledgerwood, J. (1996). Myth/history and the study of Angkor Borei. Paper delivered at theKhmer Studies Conference, Monash University, Australia.

Leone, M. R, and Potter, P. B., Jr. (1988). Introduction: Issues in historical archaeology. InLeone, M. R, and Potter, R B. (eds.). The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archaeology inthe Eastern United States, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 1-22.

Li, H.-L. (1979). Introduction. In Han, C. (ed.), Nan-Fang Ts'ao-mu Chuang: A Fourth CenturyFlora of Southeast Asia, Chinese University Press, Hong Kong.

Lightfoot, K. G. (1995). Culture contact studies: Redefining the relationship betweenprehistoric and historical archaeology. American Antiquity 60: 199-217.

Lind, A. (1981). Applications of aircraft and satellite data for the study of archaeology andenvironment in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Proceedings of the Fifteenth InternationalSymposium on Remote Sensing of Environment, Ann Arbor, Ml.

Ma, T.-L. (1883). Ethnographic des peuples etrangers a la Chine, De Saint-Denys, D. (trans.),Ernest Leroux, Paris.

Mabbett, I. (1977a). The Indianization of Southeast Asia: Reflections on the historic sources.Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 8: 143-161.

Mabbett, I. (I977b). The Indianization of Southeast Asia: Reflections on the prehistoricsources. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 8: 1-14.

Mabbett, I. (1983). Some remarks on the present state of knowledge about slavery in Angkor.In Reid, A. (ed.), Slavery, Bondage and Dependency in Southeast Asia, St. Martin's Press,New York, pp. 44-63.

MacDonald, W K. (1980). Some Implications of Societal Complexity: Organizational Variabilityat Non Nok Tha, Thailand (2000-0 B.C.), Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University ofMichigan, Ann Arbor.

Maleipan, V (1979). The excavation at Sab Champa. In Smith, R. B., and Watson, W. (eds.),Early South East Asia, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 337-341.

Malleret, L. (1961). The position of historical studies in the countries for former FrenchIndo-China in 1956. In Hall, D. G. E. (ed.), Historians of South East Asia, OxfordUniversity Press, London, pp. 301-312.

Malleret, L. (1959-1963). L'Archtologie du Delta du Mekong, Publication de I'Ecole Franchised'Extreme-Orient, Paris.

Manguin, P.-Y. (1996). Southeast Asian shipping in the Indian Ocean during the firstmillennium A.D. In Ray, H. P, and Salles, J.-F. (eds.), Tradition and Archaeology: EarlyMaritime Contacts in the Indian Ocean, Manohar, New Delhi, pp. 181-196.

Miksic, J. N. (1995). Evolving archaeological perspectives on Southeast Asia, 1970-95. Journalof Southeast Asian Studies 26: 46-62.

202 Stark

Moore, E. H. (1989). Water management in Cambodia: Evidence from aerial photography.Geographical Journal 155: 204-214.

Moore, E. H. (1990). Moated settlement in the Mun Basin, northeast Thailand. In Glover,I. C, and Glover, E. (eds.), Southeast Asian Archaeology 1986: Proceeding of the FirstConference of the Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe, BARInternational Series 561, Oxford, pp. 201-212.

Moore, E. H. (1992). Water enclosed sites: Links between Ban Takhong, northeast Thailandand Cambodia. In Rigg, J. (ed.), The Gift of Water: Water Management. Cosmology andthe State in Southeast Asia. School of Oriental and African Studies, London, pp. 26-46.

O'Connor, S. J. (1986). Introduction. In The Archaeology of Peninsular Siam, Siam Society,Bangkok, pp. 1-10.

Paris, P. (1931). Anciene canaux reconnus sur photographies aetiennes dans les provinces doTa-Kev et de Chauc-Doc. Bulletin de I'Ecole Francaise d'Extreme Orient 31: 221-224.

Paris, P. (1941). Notes et melanges: Ancienes canaux reconnus sur photographies aetienneset les provinces de Ta-Keo, Chau-Doc, Long Xuyen et Rach-Gia. Bulletin de I'EcoleFranfaise d'Extreme Orient 41: 365-370.

Parmentier, H. (1933). Lart presume' du Fou-nan. Bulletin de I'Ecole Francaise d'Extreme-Orient32: 183-189.

Pelliot, R (1903). Le Fou-nan. Bulletin de I'Ecole Francaise d'Extreme Orient 3: 248-303.Ray, H. R (1989). Early maritime contacts between South and Southeast Asia. Journal of

Southeast Asian Studies 10: 42-54.Ray, H. P. (1994). The Winds of Change: Buddhism and the Maritime Links of Early South

Asia, Oxford University Press, Delhi.Reynolds, C. J. (1995). A new look at old Southeast Asia. Journal of Asian Studies 54: 419-446.Ricklefs, M. C. (1967). Land and law in the epigraphy of tenth century Cambodia. Journal

of Asian Studies 26: 411-420.Sharan, M. K. (1974). Studies in Sanskrit Inscriptions in Ancient Cambodia, Abhinav, New

Delhi.Stargardt, J. (1986). Hydraulic works and Southeast Asian polities. In Marr, D. G., and Milner,

A. C. (eds.), Southeast Asia in the 9th to 14th Centuries, Research School of Pacific Studies,Australian National University, Canberra, and Institute of Southeast Asian Studies,Singapore, pp. 24-48.

Stargardt, J. (1990). The Ancient Pyu of Burma, Vol. I. Early Pyu Cities in a Man-MadeLandscape, PACSEA Cambridge, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.

Stark, M., Griffin, P. B., Dega, M., Chuch, P., Bong, S., and Ledgerwood, J. (1998). Resultsof the 1995-1996 field investigations at Angkor Borei, Cambodia. Manuscript on file,Department of Anthropology, University of Hawai'i.

Taylor, K. (1992). The early kingdoms. In Tarling, N. (ed.), The Cambridge History of SoutheastAsia, Vol. One, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 137-182.

Vallibhotama, S. (1986). Political and cultural continuities at Dvaravati sites. In Marr, D. G.,and Milner, A. C. (eds.), Southeast Asia in the 9th to 14th Centuries, Institute of SoutheastAsian Studies, Singapore, and Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian NationalUniversity, pp. 229-238.

Vallibhotama, S. (1992). Early urban centres in the Chao Phraya Valley of Central Thailand.In Glover, I. C., Suchitta, P., and Villiers, J. (eds.), Early Metallurgy. Trade and UrbanCentres in Thailand and Southeast Asia, White Lotus, Bangkok, pp. 123-129.

van Liere, W J. (1980). Traditional water management in the lower Mekong Basin. WorldArchaeology 11: 265-280.

Vickery, M. (1979) The composition and transmission of the Ayudhya and Cambodianchronicles. In Reid, A., and Marr, D. (eds.), Perceptions of the Past in Southeast Asia,Heinemann Educational Books (Asia), Kuala Lumpur, pp. 130-154.

Vickery, M. (1986). Some remarks on early state formation in Cambodia. In Marr, D. G.,and Milner, A. C. (eds.), Southeast Asia in the 9th to 14th Centuries, Institute of SoutheastAsian Studies, Singapore, pp. 95-115.

Vickery, M. (1994). Where and what was Chenla? In Bizot, F. (ed.), Recherches Nouvelles surle Cambodge. L'Ecole Franchise d'Extre'me-Orient, Paris, pp. 197-212.

Transition to History in the Mekong Delta 203

Vickery, M. (1996). Review article: What to do about The Khmers. Journal of Southeast AsianStudies 27: 389-404.

Welch, D. J. (1989). Late prehistoric and early historic exchange patterns in the PhimaiRegion, Thailand. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 10: 11-26.

Welch, D. J. (1997). Archaeological evidence of Khmer state political and economicorganization. Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Bulletin 16(3): 69-78.

Welch, D. J., and McNeill, J. R. (1988-1989). Excavations at Ban Tamyae and Non Bam Kham,Phimai Region, northeast Thailand. Asian Perspectives 28: 99-124.

Wheatley, P. (1983). Nagara and Commandery: Origins of the Southeast Asian Urban Traditions,Research Papers Nos. 207-208, Department of Geography, University of Chicago,Chicago.

White, J. C. (1995). Incorporating heterarchy into theory on socio-political development: Thecase from Southeast Asia. In Ehrenreich, R. B., Crumley, C. L., and Levy, J. E. (eds.),Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies, Archeological Papers of the AmericanAnthropological Association No. 6, American Anthropological Association, Washington,DC, pp. 101-124.

White, J. C., and Pigott, V C. (1996). From community craft to regional specialization:Intensification of copper production in pre-state Thailand. In Wailes, B. (ed.), CraftSpecialization and Social Evolution: In Memory of V Gordon Childe, University MuseumSymposium Series, Vol. VI, University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology,University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 151-175.

Wolters, O. W. (1982). History, Culture, and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives, Institutefor Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.

Wood, W. R. (1989). Ethnohistory and historical method. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.),Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 2, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 81-109.