Moated Sites: a Political Economy Approach

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 297–309

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate/ jaa

Increasing complexity and the political economy model; a considerationof Iron Age moated sites in Thailand

E-mail address: dougald.oreilly@anu.edu.au

Dougald J.W. O’ReillySchool of Archaeology and Anthropology, The Australian National University, 0200 Canberra, ACT, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 6 June 2013Revision received 17 June 2014Available online 19 July 2014

Keywords:Political economyThailandArchaeologyMoated sitesIron Age

a b s t r a c t

The evolution of increasingly hierarchical societies in Northeast Thailand has been discussed in the pastbut the motivating factors for this transformation remain elusive. This paper presents an examination ofdata from the Bronze and Iron Ages of Northeast Thailand with special reference to sites surrounded bychannels and embankments. There continues to be considerable debate over the function of these chan-nels, with defense, flood control, aquaculture, symbolism, and water storage for agricultural purposes allbeing presented as potential objectives. The author argues that the channels were constructed under thedirection of emergent elites and were utilized as water storage devices. It is demonstrated that the chan-nels retain sufficient water to irrigate rice fields during times of environmental stress to feed the esti-mated prehistoric populations of these sites. The author goes on to argue that the channels wereinstrumental in the elite’s establishment of enduring hierarchies in the region and that they were usedto leverage the populace to produce a surplus to support the elite’s retinue and served to entrench hier-archical order through the Iron Age and beyond.

With water you can grow rice, with rice you can make war.

Introduction

Since the middle of last century the presence of numerousmounds encircled by channels and what appear to be embank-ments have been noted in the catchments of the Mun and Chi riv-ers in Northeast Thailand. These sites were first recognized byWilliams-Hunt (1950) and they have continued to draw attention(Higham and Kijngam, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013; Higham et al.,2007; Higham and Thosarat, 1998; Kijngam et al., 1980; Moore,1985, 1986, 1988b,c, 1990, 1992; Nitta, 1997; O’Reilly, 1998;Thomas, 1997; Vallibhotama, 1984; Welch and McNeill, 1988-9;Wilen, 1982-3). Excavations since their discovery indicate thatthe so-called ‘moated sites’ date to the Iron Age of Southeast Asia,c. 500 BC – AD 500 although many of the sites were occupied priorto the Iron Age, some as early as the Neolithic (Higham andKijngam, 2010). The florescence of sites of this type seems to coin-cide with developments in the complexity of social organization(Higham, 2002, 2004b; O’Reilly, 2000, 2008; Onsuwan Eyre,2010; White, 1995). The apparent shift from less developed or

perhaps heterarchical social organization during the Bronze Age(c. 1050–500 BC) (O’Reilly, 2003) to a more hierarchical society isof interest but, to date, few attempts to identify the causative fac-tors of this shift have been made. In this paper the development ofsocial complexity in the Khorat Basin is examined from a politicaleconomy perspective. During the Bronze Age in the region it isapparent, based on present evidence, that no strong hierarchyexisted with evidence that a wealth-finance system was in opera-tion. In such a system the control of production and distribution ofmaterial can lead to the creation of unstable, short-lived hierar-chies (Johnson and Earle, 1987:208). As time progressed, however,it is apparent that the socio-political situation evolved. Thereappears to have been a shift away from wealth-finance systemstoward a system of staple-finance and strengthening hierarchyoccurring during the Iron Age. The staple-finance system sees elitescollect agricultural surplus from the population and use it toentrench their positions and entourage. It is argued here that dur-ing the Iron Age in Northeast Thailand, that elites gained powerover populations through control over access to water. AsJohnson and Earle (1987:247) note ‘‘capital-intensive technologyis perhaps the most common basis for the developing politicaleconomy of states . . . irrigation systems even on a fairly small scalepermit economic control by elites.’’

It is proposed that elites moved away from a wealth-finance toa staple-finance system of dominance over the population as

298 D.J.W. O’Reilly / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 297–309

channels were dug around settlements to store water. Water, in anenvironment prone to drought, became the crucial means of con-trol over the populations and as time progressed this was extendedto control over access to land. It is stressed that this paper presentsa theoretical possibility to explain apparent increasing socio-polit-ical complexity and the creation of channels around many sites inNortheast Thailand based on the interpretation of the availableevidence.

Political economy

Political economy is a theory which sees elites in a society max-imize resources in a way that ensures they continue to hold power(Johnson and Earle, 1987). The elite, it is proposed, employed twostrategies to motivate the producers in their societies to becomecompliant to their wishes; wealth-finance and staple-finance(D’Altroy and Earle, 1985; Johnson and Earle, 1987).Wealth-finance systems involve controlling the production and/or distribution of prestige goods (Johnson and Earle, 1987) whilestaple-finance sees elites collecting surplus agricultural goods fromthe population through a variety of strategies (i.e. tax, tribute, rentetc.). The difficulty for the elite is to find ways in which to leveragethe majority of the population which they seek to dominate to pro-duce a surplus and, most importantly, to provide a portion or all ofthat surplus to the elite so that they may support retainers, crafts-men and warriors. This is a dynamic model that overcomes the sta-tus quo in which subsistence farming is supplanted by surplusproduction.

This staple finance strategy is clearly predicated on the abilityto motivate labor to produce surplus. However, elites often face aproblem in implementing a staple finance system. Research under-taken in the 1920s by Chayanov (1966) indicated that peasanthouseholds organized by kinship do not tend to produce an agri-cultural surplus. This phenomenon was labeled ‘‘Chayanov’s rule,’’by Sahlins (1971) and has received further support through subse-quent research (Boserup, 1965; Chibnik, 1984; Durrenberger,1984). The question that Chayanov’s research begs is what moti-vated the production of surplus, seen as crucial in the rise andmaintenance of hierarchies, in early societies?

Earle (1991) has proposed ten political strategies that may beused to gain and extend power in the past. These include;

(1) Encouraging circumscription.(2) Outright force applied internally.(3) Forging external ties.(4) Expanding the size of the dependent population.(5) Seizing control of existing principles of legitimacy (the past,

supernatural, and natural).(6) Creating or appropriating new principles of legitimacy.(7) Seizing control of internal wealth production and

distribution.(8) Seizing control of external wealth procurement.(9) Giving (inflicting debt), feasting, and prestations.

(10) Improving infrastructure of subsistence production.

In the available archaeological data from Northeast Thailand wehave little evidence of circumscription, the application of internalforce or expansion of dependent populations. These strategieswould involve the elite engaging in conquest and the formationof external alliances that would be most clearly expressed in termsof strong evidence for militarization. Although some weapons havebeen found in mortuary contexts, with some indication of traumaamong the human remains, this is not presently strongly repre-sented in the archaeological assemblage from the region this paperis exploring. There are indications of involvement in trade or

exchange but whether these represent the elite forging externalties is difficult to prove.

Were the elites seizing control of existing principles of legiti-macy or forging new principles it would suggest that the archaeo-logical record would provide evidence for connecting the leaderswith the past to enhance lineage or through evidence of an ideol-ogy for which we have no evidence at present.

A model of the evolution of hierarchical power in the Iron Agecontext in the Mun River Valley is proposed here employing Earle’snotions of inflicting debt and improving infrastructure of subsis-tence production as they provide compelling explanations for thechanges represented in the archaeological assemblage. Earle(1991:5) writes that ‘‘strategies and leaders attempt to seize eco-nomic power derived from control over the means of productionand/or distribution. To the degree that a people’s subsistence iscontrolled, options of refusing to abide by central decisions arevery limited. This control may result in a system of staple financein which the surplus generated as rent was used to support a non-producing sector of the population.’’ It is important to stress thatthe argument here is not one for the establishment of enduringcontrol over an irrigation system from the first but a debt-inflictionstrategy involving water that could be used for irrigation purposes.

Geographic setting

The geographical focus of this paper is the Khorat Basin ofNortheast Thailand. This up-raised area covers over 170,000 sq. kmand is bounded on the west by the Petchabun mountains whichseparate the Khorat Plateau from the Chao Phraya river basin.The Petchabun reach a maximum height of 1820 m and form aminor natural impediment. To the south run the Dangrek moun-tains which separate modern Thailand from Cambodia. These hillsreach a maximum height of 753 m. The major rivers on the KhoratPlateau comprise the Mun and its tributary the Chi River whichflow eastward into the Mekong River (Fig. 1).

Although there is evidence of farming communities being pres-ent on the Khorat Plateau since the Neolithic period (c. 18th cen-tury BCE) the region may be characterized as being agriculturallymarginal. Donner (1978) contends that only one third of the areais moderately suitable for rice cultivation, the other areas beinglargely infertile due to laterite, salinity, acidity or slope.

The region has a monsoonal climate with rains occurring, usu-ally, from May through September but these only deposit c.1400 mm. Drought conditions are common through the long dryseason and may, at times, extend into what is normally the rainyseason with ‘‘often disastrous consequences for rice-farming inparticular’’ (Parnwell, 1988).

Over the last two millennia the region has undergone signifi-cant environmental change. According to Boyd et al. (Boyd et al.,1999a,b; Boyd and McGrath, 2001a,b; McGrath and Boyd, 2001)pollen cores demonstrate that c. post-500 BC the dominant forestof the region began to be cleared, being replaced by grasslandsand probably being developed for the cultivation of rice, Oryza sati-va japonica (Castillo, 2011). Preliminary evidence suggests that inthe Bronze Age in the Mun Basin the rice was a rain-fed, dry-landvariety (Castillo, 2013). The riverine environment in which thesedevelopments took place is considerably different to that of thepresent. During the period under consideration in this paper thedrainage of the Mun Valley appears to have comprised broad andmeandering multistring or anastomizing channels (Boyd et al.,1999a). One element of the climate regime that has not changedis that the Khorat Plateau was susceptible, as it is today, to periodsof enduring drought (Grandstaff et al., 2008). The clearance of for-est (there is little evidence to suggest a burn-off) is coincident withevidence for a population increase in the region. In parts of

Fig. 1. Map of the Mun River Valley showing archaeological sites (dots) surrounded by channels including (1) Noen U-Loke, (2) Ban Non Wat and (3) Ban Non Jak, three sitesdiscussed in the text.

D.J.W. O’Reilly / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 297–309 299

Northeast Thailand, site density is remarkable (Wilen, 1987:107-110). Sites such as Non Chai and Ban Chiang Hian were sizeableand would have been home to 1000 and 2000 people respectively(Higham, 1989:219). Furthermore, population pressure is sug-gested by the appearance of sites in agriculturally marginal landin the Mun River Valley (Moore, 1986; Welch and McNeill,1991). Welch’s (1984:184) analysis of settlement pattern in thePhimai region indicates that social organization was probably atthe level of complex chiefdom at the time these sites were occu-pied, although there is a considerable lack of resolution in his find-ings given the Iron Age spans one thousand years.

Archaeological background and evidence of social change

The Bronze Age

Prior to the excavation of Ban Non Wat (Higham and Kijngam,2012) in Nakhon Ratchasima Province on the Khorat Plateau,impressions of social organization and subsistence during theBronze Age were based upon data from four sites; Non Nok Tha,Ban Chiang, Ban Na Di and Ban Lum Khao.

Non Nok Tha, located in the Chi River Basin, contained 217 mor-tuary contexts (Bayard, 1984) while Ban Na Di, located in the PaoRiver Valley, contained 60 burials (Higham et al., 1984). Resultsindicate that Ban Chiang, located in the upper reaches of the Song-khram Valley, contained many burials from the Bronze and IronAges (Gorman and Charoenwongsa, 1976; White, 1986). Ban LumKhao in Nakhon Ratchasima Province revealed the remains of110 individuals of the Bronze Age component of the mortuary data(Higham and Thosarat, 2004). These sites harbor similarities, mostnotably the lack of evidence for an entrenched hierarchical order orsignificant differences in grave wealth. The similarities are alsonoted at other Bronze Age sites outside the Khorat Plateau(O’Reilly, 2000, 2003).

Higham et al.’s (Higham, 2004a; Higham and Kijngam, 2009,2010; Higham and Kijngam, 2012; Higham and Thosarat, 2006)excavations at Ban Non Wat have served to form a differing modelto the previously conceived ‘egalitarian’ distribution of modestwealth in Bronze Age cemeteries. Ban Non Wat is located in theupper catchment of the Mun River basin, a position which theexcavator states ‘‘gives easy communication and exchange . . . tothe Khao Wong Prachan Valley, a major centre of prehistoric cop-per mining’’ (Higham and Higham, 2009:126). This site is the mostextensively excavated in all of Southeast Asia. Over 650 burialshave so far been uncovered of which approximately 224 are dated

to the Bronze Age. Some of the individuals found in Bronze Agecontexts were adorned with considerable wealth and Higham(Higham and Higham, 2009:131) writes; ‘‘By any comparativemeasure, these individuals can be termed elite, even princely.’’There are, however, only hints of differential wealth, burials ofthe same period in excavated Area Y are considerably poorer, butmost of the burials so far found being well-appointed (Highamand Kijngam, 2012:518) (Fig. 2).

There is still no evidence from the Bronze Age for regional cen-ters or large settlements in a hegemonous relationship with satel-lite sites. This continues to suggest a mosaic of Bronze Agesettlements that were, largely autonomous (Higham, 1989). Also,there is little evidence for military paraphernalia at any of theBronze Age sites in Northeast Thailand nor has other evidence ofconflict been identified. There are no destruction layers at any ofthe sites and none appear to have been fortified and there is noosteological evidence for warfare in this period (Domett andTayles, 2007). Higham et al.’s research indicate that for a periodof c. 200 years the central part of the cemetery at Ban Non Watwas used to inter individuals of fabulous wealth (Higham,2011a). It may be that the ‘elite’ of Ban Non Wat founded theirpositions on a wealth-based system of finance, perhaps controllingaccess to exotic shell or to the sources of copper in the Khao WongPrachan Valley for which, as Higham et al. (Higham and Kijngam,2012:531) note, the site is well positioned. Through temporarycontrol over access to resources these fledgling elites were able,in death, to demonstrate their wealth. Higham also demonstratesa decline in wealth of these individuals in the later phases of theBronze Age at Ban Non Wat (Higham, 2011a).

To summarize the environmental context in the Bronze Agebased on the evidence at hand it would appear that there was aconsiderable amount of agricultural land available although prob-ably under forest cover. While the people of the Bronze Age didengage in long-distance exchange (Chang, 1998) as evidenced byexotic marine materials in some burials there is no evidence forexchange with South Asia or Chinese polities. Ceramics, based onthe widespread presence of clay anvils, were made in the BronzeAge villages and sources of copper ore, while not widespread, wereavailable and probably somewhat difficult to secure in perpetuity.In other words there were few opportunities to leverage control ina sustained manner in this milieu. This is a point which is under-scored by Higham (2012) who paints a picture in which rank andsocial position in Bronze Age Ban Non Wat was fragile. He quotesClark and Blake (1994:19) who write ‘‘The conversion of externalresources into social leverage locally requires (near) exclusive

Fig. 2. Plan view of excavated area at Ban Non Wat’s Bronze Age cemetery. Wealthy male burial shown inset. Image courtesy Charles Higham.

access to outside goods, material or information.’’ Higham(2012:531) goes on to stress that ‘‘the failure to maintain exclusiveaccess to wealth, and the provision of opulent ceremonials . . . cannegate many years . . . of social endeavour.’’ Obtaining sustained,exclusive access to the exotic resources available was, in all likeli-hood, difficult. Land was likely readily available (Boyd andMcGrath, 2001b), ceramics were produced locally and salt wasabundant. Copper, marble and marine shell were, perhaps, in thecase of Ban Non Wat, the source of power, prestige and wealth,at least for a period of several generations. Other than copper orpossibly tin, there were no apparent substantial bottlenecks (asidepossibly than marble or trochus shell, found in bangles) that couldbe exploited to elevate one’s social, economic or political positionin Bronze Age society.

The Iron Age

The available evidence, based on several excavations at sitesdating to the Iron Age, indicate that there were profound changesin the socio-political and economic structure of society in

Northeast Thailand. This period sees the apparent introduction ofincreasingly hierarchically structured social systems (Higham andKijngam, 2012:531).

During the Iron Age there are a number of indicators to supportthe suggestion of increasing hierarchisation and attendant socialstress. The structure and content of cemeteries seems to havealtered during the Iron Age, with stronger evidence of groupingof burials (Pautreau and Mornais, 1998; Sørensen, 1973) althoughit must be noted that a degree of burial grouping was encounteredin Bronze Age contexts at Ban Non Wat (Higham, 2011a). This clus-tering may reflect an increase in importance of consanguine rela-tionships. Hierarchically organized entities often stress theimportance of kinship and this dimension can be reflected in mor-tuary patterns where groups of wealthy graves are found to cluster(Wason, 1994:48). There is an increase in differentiation of individ-ual mortuary contexts and the range of grave goods is increased,with a wider variety of materials being used. These include glassand semiprecious stones such as agate and carnelian, probablyintroduced from South Asia (Carter, 2013), iron, and bi-metallicjewelry, combining iron and bronze (Higham, 1998:140; Higham

et al., 2007; O’Reilly, 1999; Talbot, 2007). Military paraphernalia isalso seen in graves of the Iron Age in the Mun River Valley and a‘‘surge in mortuary display [and] undoubted evidence for conflict’’(Higham, 2012). There is, notably, more weaponry included inburials of the period compared to the preceding Bronze Age withburials including lances, projectile points, swords and spear headsat some sites (Higham, 1998, 2004a; Higham and Kijngam, 2009;Higham et al., 2007; Higham and Thosarat, 2006; O’Reilly, 1999).

The very extensive and careful excavations undertaken by Hig-ham and Thosarat at various sites in Northeast Thailand haveallowed for the periodization of the Iron Age into four phases(Higham and Kijngam, 2013). Higham et al. place the beginningof the Iron Age to c. 420 BC and the earliest phase, Iron Age I, ter-minates c. 150 BC. This phase is characterized by a continuation ofceramic styles found in late Bronze Age burials in the area. Most ofthe pottery, which is the predominant grave offering, seems relatedto the display or serving of food. Indeed, pig is a common offeringas are cattle and water buffalo, the bones of these animals oftenbeing found in articulation in graves. The most common food offer-ing is fish, usually placed inside pots. Another continuation fromthe Bronze Age is the placement of bi-valve shells in the graveand red ochre although this latter, in the Iron Age, is found in pel-lets rather than as powder. Some of the items common in BronzeAge mortuary contexts become rare during the Iron Age I phaseincluding a decline in the amount of bronze, a trend beginning inthe late Bronze Age, although some individuals were buried withtorcs and had bangles and socketed spears placed with them. Shelljewellery is less commonly found in burials than in the Bronze Age.Iron is, of course, found during this phase but is relatively rare andoften is present in the form of ornaments although tools and weap-ons such as spears are present as well. Higham notes the presenceof socketed hoes as well. Exotic items, not found during the BronzeAge, include glass, agate and carnelian beads and some glass earornaments. It is believed that the dead were interred in hollowedtrees, based on the position of the skeletons. The distribution ofburials is of interest as well in that there is evidence of tight nucle-ation of graves yet no solid evidence of entrenched hierarchy.

The second phase of the Iron Age which is thought to datebetween 150 BC and AD 200 is less well defined as many of the tra-ditions of the preceding period seem to continue but with theintroduction of a new mortuary ritual. Many of the burials of IronAge II contain rice chaff which may indicate whole unhusked ricewas buried with the dead. Another distinction is an apparentincrease in overall mortuary wealth in this phase.

Iron Age III, which begins c. AD 200 and terminates c. AD 400 isdefined by the appearance, in Northeast Thailand, of distinctive,burnished pottery known as Phimai black ware. The tradition ofinterring the dead with rice continues but the graves are notablydeeper and many are lined with clay and some have clay caps.Grave goods include a proliferation of bronzes in the form of earspirals, bangles, finger and toe rings, ear plugs and belts. Also foundare gold and silver finger and toe rings and bimetallic rings and, ofcourse, glass, agate and carnelian beads.

The nucleation of burials continues and overall the wealth ofburials increases. There have, in some sites, been distinctions inthe wealth between the groups of burials and in some of thewealthier groups one or more outstandingly wealthy burials arefound (Higham and Kijngam, 2013).

At Ban Non Wat and Noen U-Loke, sites with the largest samplesizes, there is evidence of varied mortuary placement with somegroups placing the deceased’s head inside a ceramic vessel andothers having a bowl placed over the face.

The final phase of the Iron Age as defined by Higham (Highamand Kijngam, 2013) is phase IV beginning c. AD 400 and lastingto AD 600. In this phase the tradition of filling the grave with ricecontinues and the grave goods remain much the same as in the

preceding phase although it appears the burials are, generally,poorer with the extreme wealth of individuals noted in the preced-ing phase no longer present. Higham (Higham and Kijngam, 2013)notes an increase in the number of iron artefacts, especially spearsand sickles. The spatial patterning of graves also seems to changewith a move away from tight nucleation of burials although groupsare still discernable.

Recent research on the glass and stone beads from varied sitesin Mainland Southeast Asia has also indicated an apparent changein trade patterns during the Iron Age (Carter, 2013). According toCarter, during the early Iron Age (Higham’s Iron Age I) potash glassbeads and a range of diverse shapes of high quality agate and car-nelian beads were exchanged through pre-existing coastalexchange networks with the beads all likely having a source inSouth Asia. As the Iron Age progresses Carter posits that the glassbeads arriving in Southeast Asia changed from potash beads to atype with high alumina content and poorer quality agate and car-nelian beads begin to proliferate. In this second phase thereappears to be more material from South Asia but less diversityand simpler shapes dominate.

Iron Age sites on the Khorat Plateau are easily identifiable fromaerial and satellite imagery. One or multiple channels and embank-ments separating them surround the mounds which are up to fivem in height. The amount of effort that was put into creating thesefeatures is difficult to ascertain. Boyd and McGrath, (2001b) haveshown that the sites were likely situated near or on the anastomiz-ing rivers mentioned above. Channels were excavated, presumablyby the prehistoric inhabitants of these mounds, so that the riverssurrounded the site. Research at another multi-valate site, NonBan Jak, indicates that an initial surrounding channel was dug andthen subsequently, at a later date, another added around the exist-ing channel (Higham and Kijngam, 2013:365). Boyd et al.’s work insectioning these channels indicates clearly that these were flat bot-tomed and the embankments that separate the channels were cre-ated using the earth removed from the channels with the apparentaim of capturing river water (Boyd and Chang, 2010; Boyd andHabberfield-Short, 2007; Boyd et al., 1999a,b; Boyd and McGrath,2001a; Habberfield-Short and Boyd, 2007).

The purpose of capturing this water has long been debated withsuggestions ranging from military defense (Nitta, 1991; O’Reilly,1998), prestige/display (O’Reilly, 2008), defense against flooding(McGrath et al., 2008; O’Reilly, 1999), aquaculture (Higham,2011b) or riziculture (Higham pers. comm.), perhaps as a sourceof material to be used in competitive feasting, cosmic modeling(O’Reilly, 1999) or, as is posited here, water storage.

Recent research indicates that there is a strong possibility thatsignificant environmental change occurred beginning in the lateBronze Age and through the Iron Age in Northeast Thailand (Kinget al., 2013). Oxygen isotope results from human skeletal remainsat Ban Non Wat correlate with data from wider paleoclimatic stud-ies in Asia (c.f. Maher, 2008; Wang et al., 2005) and studies of for-aminfera (Lückge et al., 2001). There are indications that themonsoon in the region weakened and the amount of rainfall hasdecreased by nearly 50% over the last 9000 years (King et al.,2013). Of interest is the fact that the period between 2000 BCand AD 1 is characterized at Ban Non Wat by an increase in d18Owhich should indicate decreasing rainfall (c.f. Dansgaard, 1964)and more so between 200 BC and AD 500 indicating a greaterdegree of environmental stress in Northeast Thailand (King et al.,2013).

Pathways to power: the possibilities

The reasons for the apparent increasing social complexity nearthe dawn of the Iron Age are difficult to assess but there are a

number of alternative strategies that emergent elites could haveleveraged to entrench their positions.

Control of exchange

One explanation, or at least a contributing factor, in the devel-opment of hierarchical structures may be found in an examinationof control of exchange routes or export commodities. This strategy,perhaps, was beginning in the Bronze Age at Ban Non Wat as wesee wealthy burials at a site well-positioned at a ‘bottle-neck’ inthe transport of copper between two valleys. During the Iron Agethere is a notable increase in the amount of exotic material culturein the Mun River Valley. The location of settlements on river sys-tems may have been crucial to control up and downstream interac-tion. Competition over access to exotic exchange items may havedeveloped during the Iron Age, evidenced by the increase in mili-tary paraphernalia found in interments (Higham, 1998; Pautreauand Mornais, 1998; Sørensen, 1973; Wilen, 1987). Long distancetrade appears to increase during this period (Higham andKijngam, 2012:530), as a wide range of exotic stones and metalsare found in burials. Certainly, Indian traders and perhaps crafts-men seeking aromatic woods and fragrant resins were lured tothe region at a time when these sites would have been occupiedthus increasing competition among the indigenous population(Bellina-Pryce and Silapanth, 2008).

Control of resources

Commodities such as salt or ores, including copper and iron,present opportunities for elites to leverage power but iron ore inparticular may have been too widely available and easily accessible(Coedès, 1968:19) to have represented an enduring strategy forpower control. Further, these commodities are not a necessity oflife. As Bellwood (2007:286) notes; ‘‘iron working was a processthat could be carried out easily by small, local communities andthat knowledge of its manufacture spread rapidly . . . as the supe-rior economic potential and easier availability of this metal—com-pared to bronze—was realised’’. Bronson (1992:66) has also notedthat iron ore may have been locally sourced by most prehistoricsettlements although this has been brought into question byPryce and Natapintu (2010). This renders control over ore sourceslittle more than an avenue of wealth generation (as opposed to apathway to political power). The strategy of trying to maintainwealth-finance is, at best, tenuous and not given to sustainedhierarchies.

The proliferation of small mounds in Northeast Thailand, cre-ated in the extraction of salt, is testament to the importance of thisresource in the Mun River Valley (Rivett, 1999). Salt is crucial as apreservative in tropical climates and is widely used in modernSoutheast Asia to preserve fish. This resource is far more readilyavailable in Northeast Thailand and establishing control over saltbeds would be a near impossibility.

Control of land

Similar to the preceding Bronze Age in the Mun River Valley,land, during the Iron Age, was not in short supply. It is apparentthat there was a substantial degree of land clearance beginningin the Iron Age but it is likely that huge swathes of land remainedunoccupied and unfarmed (c.f. Boyd and McGrath, 2001b; Pryceand Natapintu, 2010) which would make this a resource that wasdifficult to monopolize. In any case as rice agriculture was wellestablished (Castillo, 2011), the critical element in the growth ofrice is water. This is not to say, however, that control of land didnot develop in the ensuing period once power was entrenched bythe nascent Iron Age elite (see below).

Control of water

White (1995:112) has suggested that the shift toward hierar-chical society occurred as a response to stressful environmentalvariability, an idea also advanced by Welch and McNeil (1988-9).Stressful environmental variability is an attractive proposition ifone considers the evidence of massive weather disturbances pro-posed by Nutalaya et al. (1988) and the evidence put forth byKing et al. (2013). The present paper advances a model which pos-its social change being set in train by drought conditions and theneed for a consistent supply of water for agricultural purposes.

Drought has a profound effect on life and the regional economyin Northeast Thailand (Mongkolsawat et al., 2001). This regionendures long dry seasons, making it one of the least productiveagricultural areas in present-day Thailand (Parry, 1992). Boundedon the west and south by low hills, the Khorat Plateau is more sus-ceptible to drought as these hills affect monsoon period airstreamscausing them to shed water before they reach the interior regions(Moreno-Black and Somnasang, 2010). The current climate pat-terns of extremely strong seasonality, with periods of very littleprecipitation and a strong risk of drought is broadly analogous toclimate in the area over the past three thousand years (c.f. Cookand Jones, 2012; Kealhofer and Penny, 1998, Penny pers. comm.;White et al., 2004). An analysis of palaeoenvironmental data inthe Mun Valley identified six phases of change (Habberfield-Short and Boyd, 2007). The fifth phase equates to the late BronzeAge (c. end of the fifth century BC) and the Iron Age being dividedinto sub-phases 5A, 5B and 5C. The data indicate a period ofreduced rainfall beginning in phase 5A. A further decline in rainfallis detected in phase 5C (c. 200 BC – AD 500). Higham et al. (Highamand Kijngam, 2013:363) notes that ‘‘phase 5C represents the laterIron Age when from 200–500 AD, when a decline in rainfall stim-ulated human management of water through the construction ofbanks round the settlement that filled with water fed by streaminflows’’.

Assuming the channels surrounding the Iron Age sites were dugover a short period of time the effort would have required a sub-stantial work force. It may be argued that the direction and controlnecessary to construct these channels was a catalyst or at least asymptom of hierarchical social systems. The available evidenceindicates that the channels were constructed between AD 200and 600 (Higham, 2011b; Higham and Kijngam, 2013).

An increase in the number of agricultural tools including sicklesfound in mortuary contexts in Thailand may be indicative ofchanges in agricultural practice during the Iron Age. Evidence ofan agricultural surplus is difficult to establish but the abundanceof rice in many interments at sites including Non Muang Kao,Ban Non Wat, Noen U-Loke and Non Ban Jak dating to the later IronAge may indicate that such a surplus existed (Higham, 1998;O’Reilly, 1999).

Water: a pathway to power?

One of the benefits of water, as noted by Scarborough(1991:103) is the ability, based on its fluidity and the forces ofgravity, ‘‘to divert or abruptly cut the supply of water to a con-sumer. Diversion dams and conventional reservoirs with sluicegates permit individuals or a small group of users to treat wateras a commodity in negotiating with other users’’. It is proposedhere that hierarchy became entrenched during the Iron Age inthe Mun River Valley as individuals took control, first of access towater and later, into the historic period (post-AD 500), of land. Itis possible that nascent elites, such as those seen in the cemeteryat Ban Non Wat, who controlled a system of wealth-finance, mayhave been in a position to command labor to undertake large-scale

construction projects such as the excavation of channels aroundhabitation sites during the Iron Age.

Given that rain-fed rice agriculture was likely the methodemployed in prehistory (Castillo, 2011), as it is today, the rice cropsof the Mun Valley would have been susceptible to drought. If, as isoften the case in the region, the rains failed, farmers would haverequired a dependable supply of water to fill their fields to produceenough food for their families. It is this need for food for survivalthat may have led to an increased mastery by elites over the pop-ulation. Having control over water stored in the circular channelsaround the habitation sites would place the elite in a position ofsupremacy over the population. Once farmers were required toaccess the stocked water that was under the authority of nascentchiefs they would become indebted to the chief. One way the debtcould have been paid was in surplus production, thus becomingthe catalyst to overcome Chayanov’s rule. It would require onlyone catastrophic dry season drought to make water the most valu-able commodity. If one drought necessitated the use of storedwater under a chief’s dominion, the debt most likely have to berepaid in agricultural output; probably in perpetuity.

Water control: feasibility

It is well-established that many of the Iron Age habitation sitesinvestigated were situated near former river systems and that the‘‘sites have some functional relationship with the palaeohydrologyof the region’’ (Boyd et al., 1999a:692). Critical to the argumentthat control of water contributed to the development ofentrenched hierarchies is whether the water contained in thechannels around these sites was sufficient for use in agriculturalpurposes. The efficacy of this argument is predicated upon howmany people likely lived at the sites under investigation, the watercapacity of the channels surrounding the sites, how much landcould be irrigated using this amount of water, how much rice couldbe produced by this irrigated land and lastly, how many peoplecould be fed by the product of that irrigated land. It is argued herethat, the final calculation of the amount of rice possibly producedcome closes to or exceeds the amount that would be needed to sus-tain the estimated population of these sites. It is therefore possiblethat the channels were used as stores for the emergency irrigationof surrounding rice fields and possibly was a catalyst in the devel-opment of hierarchies during the Iron Age in the Mun Valley.

Rice cultivation requires 6,020,000 l of water per hectare (Wani,2009). In modern contexts the average yield of 115 rice producingcountries was 4.49 ton/ha (Chapagain and Hoekstra, 2010). Aver-age historical yields for Thailand dating between 1931 and 1940were 1.56 mt/ha (Barker et al., 1985:47). For the sake of estimatingprehistoric production in Thailand 1.56 mt/ha production orroughly 1560 kg/ha of husked rice is estimated. Modern rice con-sumption in Asia ranges between 40 and 160 kg per year(Juliano, 1993) and historic data from Thailand indicates thatannual per capita availability of rice was 140 kg (Booth,2007:137). This paper employs the latter amount in calculations.

In order to estimate the water capacity of the channels aroundthe Iron Age habitation mounds it is necessary to determine theradius of the mound (center to edge), represented as r1 and theradius of the channel (outer edge to center of the mound) repre-sented as r2. These figures are then multiplied by p such that thevolume (V) of the channels equals pr2

2 minus pr21 times the depth

(V ¼ ðpr22 � pr2

1Þ � D).Higham et al. (1984) has estimated populations at prehistoric

sites in Thailand to have been circa 50 people per hectare and mod-ern villages of 30 ha are home to about 1500–2000 people (Bayard,1992). According to Moore (1988b) the moated sites range in sizefrom under 20–68 ha. She divides the sites into three size groups;0–20 ha, 21–40 ha and 40–68 ha. Forty-seven percent of the sites

identified by Moore fall into the first group, 30 percent into thesecond and 22 percent the largest size group.

Noen U-Loke

The site of Noen U-Loke (15�15037.1600N, 102�15021.2800E),investigated by Wichakana (1991) and Higham et al. (2007) is sur-rounded by multiple channels (Fig. 3). Following the formulaabove, the area of the channels at Noen U-Loke is 121,922 m2 basedon the fact that the radius of the mound is 197 m and the radius ofthe channels is 315 m. To calculate the volume of the moat wemultiply that by the depth, which appears to average 2 m at themoated sites investigated by Boyd et al. (1999b) giving a figureof 379,605 m3 or 379,604,924 l. Given that rice requires6,020,000 l of water per hectare (Wani, 2009) 63 ha could be irri-gated using the amount of water contained in the channels aroundNoen U-Loke. If there was no inflow of water into these channels(which there may have been) due to drought conditions, evapo-transpiration must be considered. In Northeast Thailand thisranges between 163 and 211 mm monthly (Phien et al., 1980). Thisrate of evapotranspiration would equate to between 41,576 and53,929 cubic metres of water per month or between 5 and 7 hathat would not be irrigated. Taking all of these factors into consid-eration 56 ha could be irrigated using the water in the channels.

With a conservative production of 1560 kg per ha, 87,360 kg ofrice would be produced using transplanting and ploughing tech-nology, probable given recent finds of ploughs at Non Ban Jak (Hig-ham pers. comm.). If we assume each individual consumed 140 kgof rice annually then this amount of rice would feed 624 peopleover a year, just over the estimated population of 610 people.

Ban Non Wat

The site of Ban Non Wat (15�1602.9400N, 102�16036.1300E), 2.3 kmto the east of Noen U-Loke is another site surrounded by multiplechannels (Fig. 4). This site has been extensively excavated by Hig-ham et al. (Higham and Kijngam, 2009, 2010; Higham andKijngam, 2012; Higham and Thosarat, 2006) and has revealed along occupation stretching back to the Neolithic.

The mound at Ban Non Wat covers approximately 6 ha and itsmultiple channels could hold about 238,761,041 l of water enoughto irrigate 40 ha accounting for evapotranspiration. This accountsfor enough water to irrigate fields that could produce enough riceto feed 445 people for a year. Given the size of the mound therewould be an estimated population of 308 people. As at Noen U-Loke, a surplus of rice could be produced.

Moore (1988b) identified 91 irregular moated sites on theKhorat Plateau and this has been expanded to 227 sites by theauthor using Google Earth. In order to statistically verify the valid-ity of the concept that the channels around these sites could haveheld enough water to irrigate sufficient rice fields to feed the pop-ulation a sample was selected. To obtain a confidence rate of 95%,68 sites were selected at random. The same formula as that usedfor Noen U-Loke and Ban Non Wat was applied to the sample setof 68 sites. Thirty-three of the 68 sites (48%) had channels largeenough to feed their estimated populations. This figure is dramat-ically increased however if one reduces the average amount of riceconsumed per person at the sites. Rations in Democratic Kampu-chea (1975–1979) were 91 kg per person per year (Jackson,1978). This amount of rice may be used as an absolute minimumfigure for survival which is analogous to a drought situation in pre-history. If we assume an annual per person ration of 100 kg in oursample of 68 sites, enough rice to survive on, we find that 49 of the68 sampled sites, 72%, had channels large enough to feed the esti-mated populations.

Fig. 3. Noen U-Loke, Thailand (Map data Google, CNES/Atrium 2014).

Fig. 4. Ban Non Wat, Thailand (Map data Google/CNES/Atrium 2014).

The examples of Noen U-Loke and Ban Non Wat adequatelydemonstrate that the channels around the Iron Age sites in theMun River Valley could hold enough water to irrigate rice fieldsin times of environmental stress. The sample of sites also lendssupport to the notion that the channels may have been used to irri-gate rice fields in times of environmental stress.

From water to land: evolution of control?

The evolution of water management strategies of NortheastThailand was noted by Moore (1988a:115-116) who elucidatedthree phases of hydraulic control; the first phase is characterizedby channels encircling villages, following the contour of the villageand in some cases having multiple channels. Moore saw the addi-tion of more channels as a way for the village to conserve water,increase the defensive perimeter and augment the aquatic foodsupply. The second phase sees a structural change in the contourof the channels. They no longer derive their shape from the shape

of the occupation mound. The moat around sites in Phase two sur-rounds a much larger area, encompassing the older channels.Moore’s third phase of development is characterized by two typesof rectangular water management methods, reservoirs or barayand moats around temples and cities. This later stage is importantas ritualized cleansing using water associated with the seat of cer-emonial and administrative activity in South Asia, which heavilyinfluenced Southeast Asia cannot be understated. This last phaserepresents the sacralization of water as it is fully incorporated intothe ideology of the right of the elite to rule. To quote Scarborough(1991:106); ‘‘access to ritualized bathing in part conferred statuson an elite’’. The importance of water to the elite in Cambodia,known as pon, is further attested in texts of the Chenla period (c.AD 500–802). Inscriptions indicate that these leaders oversawwater reservoirs and controlled the distribution of surplus riceand other products through religious foundations (Vickery, 1998).

The development of site morphology noted by Moore may besymptomatic of a shift in control patterns by the elite, from water

to land. The obligation by those under the power of the elite to sup-ply surplus in order to repay the debt of water may, at some pointduring the prehistoric or historic period, have evolved into controlby the elite over land. Land may likely have become the real sourceof power for the chiefly class from the Iron Age. As populationsincreased (seen in the spread of settlements in the Iron Age ontoupper river terraces) demand for land would have increased(Moore, 1988b:152). Those holding it controlled political power.This power may have extended to access to prestige goods and spe-cialist craftspeople. During the Bronze Age land was plentiful socontrolling land was not an efficient strategy to gain power, morecould always be cleared (Boyd and Habberfield-Short, 2007).Water, however, was necessary to make that land productive- rainwater is readily available but this is not always the case and it onlytakes one season of drought to bring about a dependency situationif one individual or a group controls a supply of stored water. Debtmay have been repaid in coming years through supply of surplusrice or land possibly creating an indentured servitude. Accordingto Boyd and Chang (2010) ‘‘regionally significant climatic shiftmay have provided a critical change at the end of the Iron Agearound AD 600 . . . adapting gradually to long-term environmental(climatic, ecological and hydrological) change, using sophisticatedwater engineering linked to agricultural change.’’

Nevertheless, the control over water, perhaps established inprehistoric times, seems to continue into the Angkor period. Thehydraulic features at Angkor are all too apparent with several largereservoirs (baray), numerous ponds (trapeang) and evidence formultiple canals (Fig. 5). The function of the largest of these fea-tures, the baray, was long debated. Two camps formed, thosewho supported the idea that the larger reservoirs served a function(Dumarçay, 1997; Groslier, 1979; Pym, 1968) and those whobelieved they were symbolic, playing a political and religious role.The latter argued the baray held insufficient water to irrigate rice

Fig. 5. Map showing hydraulic network – linear features

land as had been suggested by those in the first camp (Acker,1998; Bronson, 1978; Garami and Kertai, 1993; van Liere, 1980).

It has become apparent over the last decade that there wasenough water in the baray to minimize the risk of famine at Angkor(Lustig, 2009). The discovery of inlets and outlets on the greatbaray has also countered the argument that they did not existand could not have functioned as water storage facilities for agri-culture (Evans, 2007; Fletcher et al., 2004; Lustig et al., 2008;Pottier, 1999).

Boyd and Chang (2010) posit that the regional environmentalsituation in the late Iron Age became so dire that drastic changeswere necessary lest ‘‘a social and population crash and landscapeemptying’’ occur. It is possible that these changing conditionsresulted in a change in water management strategies as well.Across the landscape of Northeast Thailand and Northwest Cambo-dia proto-baray are apparent. These anthropogenic hydrologicalfeatures comprise two banks constructed to retain large amountsof water. The first major baray at Angkor, the Indratataka, is con-structed in this way, designed to collect the water from the RoluosRiver in a reservoir that was c. 3700 � 750 m in dimension.

There is robust evidence in Southeast Asia for land being thesource of wealth and power as dominion over land meant controlover agricultural production and the people who worked the land(Ricklefs, 1967). The idea of ownership however, is a different mat-ter and it would appear that in post-Iron Age (post-500 AD), Pre-Angkorian Cambodia (a period dating perhaps as early as the thirdcentury AD to 802 AD) land was under the authority of chiefly lin-eages (O’Reilly, 2007; Vickery, 1998:299). During the later Angkorperiod (802 -1432 AD) land was often described as belonging to theking and the kings of Angkor held huge swathes of land. The issueof control over land becomes increasingly complex in the Angkori-an period as has been detailed by Lustig (2009) who states, basedon an examination of contemporaneous inscriptions, that by the

representing canals – at Angkor (Evans et al., 2007).

10th century there was a system of land and property rights. Inmany cases the elite gifted their land and its laborers to a localHindu or Buddhist temple but retained a percentage of the harvestreaped from the donated lands. This system gave the prevailingreligious institutions increasing power but the king was closelyintegrated into religious life and, in any case, retained ownershipof all unused or unallocated lands and was able to influence own-ership rights in all parts of the empire (Falvey, 2000).

Although it seems that the land was not legally owned by indi-viduals (read; it belonged to the crown) these people had exclusiverights over property. There is also some evidence of land being heldcommunally by clan lineages or elites (varna) professional groups(varga) and for trade in lands. Dominion over land does seem tohave been extremely important given the number of inscriptionsgiven over to land disputes, donations and management of prop-erty as well as the apparently seemingly high prices recorded forland purchases (Lustig, 2009:59).

There is also evidence for continued control over the produce ofthe land in Angkorian Cambodia. Members of the elite establishedsmall temples to honor the monarch. It seems these elite and theirfamilies were functionaries in these small temples, acting as Brah-man priests. Upon its foundation the temple was ‘given’ land andworkers and the sacrificial rice from the fields attached to the tem-ple was divided among the elite and to the state unless they werefreed from this obligation by royal decree and the workers of theland (Sedov, 1963).

Ownership of all land in Cambodia in fact was recognized upuntil the country became a Protectorate of France. The Conventionbetween France and Cambodia (1884) states that ‘in Cambodia todate, all land belonged ‘‘exclusively’’ to the crown and wasinalienable.’

Discussion

The concept of the relationship between water and power inscholarly terms can be traced to Steward’s (1949, 1955) theorieson the development of complex polities in arid locales includingMesoamerica, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and elsewhere. The politiesthat developed in these regions, Steward argued, were economi-cally based upon the control of water-management. As the irriga-tion systems were large and complex they required equallycomplex political structure for their maintenance. Later Wittfogel(1956, 1957, 1971) argued that political elites were necessary forthe organization of irrigation systems and ultimately led to thedevelopment of the state in certain societies. While these theoriesgenerated strong debate they have, largely, been dismissed(Butzer, 1976; Lanning, 1967; Leach, 1959; Rowe, 1963) and arenot applicable to the data from the Mun River Valley.

Mitchell (1973:533) attacks Steward’s original hypothesis ontwo grounds; that irrigation absolutely preceded political com-plexity, and that irrigation systems require the organizational abil-ities of centralized bureaucracies. Erickson (2006) has been criticalof the reappearance of arguments that link agriculture and the sup-posed need for a top-down management system, in other words,arguments that follow the model proposed by Wittfogel (1957).There is evidence that to suggest that small scale farmers are ableto organize and operate complex irrigation schemes without thebenefit of state level bureaucracies and that, in many cases, theseoutperform state organized systems (Mabry and Cleveland, 1996;Stanish, 1994). Erickson (2006) is also skeptical of the argumentthat farmers will not produce a surplus unless forced to do so byhigher authority as suggested by Chayanov’s research.

While it has been demonstrated that in some circumstances theconcept of using the control of water to leverage power has beenshown to be erroneous it should not be dismissed outright (c.f.

Stanish, 1994:313). This paper has sought to demonstrate the pos-sibility that control of water may, at least in part, explain thedevelopment of intensified hierarchies clearly identified in North-east Thailand. I have sought to identify a possible catalyst for thishierarchization. I am not presenting this argument as a need fortop-down management systems predicating this process, rather Iargue that the emergent elite (perhaps functioning in a wealth-finance milieu) may have seen an opportunity to direct their fragilepower base into the creation of a permanent hierarchical structure.They may have done this by constructing channels around the sitesat which they lived. These channels, which were filled with waterfrom the nearby rivers, then became a controllable resource. Giventhe unpredictable nature of rainfall in the region it was only a mat-ter of time before the value of the water in these channelsincreased exponentially when the first drought, after their con-struction, occurred. It is possible that the under-producing agri-culturalists were motivated by need for water to feed theirfamilies to use the water in the channels controlled by the elite.This, then, would have set in motion a cycle of debt and repaymentwith the elite demanding a surplus be produced to support them-selves and their retinue creating, in short, a system of staple-finance which was to be enduring. It is not beyond reason, giventhe size and complexity of the water management system appar-ent at Angkor that state control over the administration of waterdid, eventually evolve. As Falvey (2000) has noted the water man-agement system required considerable infrastructure and its sizeand complexity proscribed small private agricultural producers,who would have been inconsistent with the evolving political sys-tem. Inscriptions throughout the Angkor period declare the King asboth creator and director of public works which irrigated an esti-mated five million hectares (van Liere, 1980), as well as supplyingwater for domestic and religious purposes (Falvey, 2000).

The work of Lansing (1987) and Geertz (1980) seems to demon-strate the weakness in earlier theories regarding water and power.Lansing’s findings that local level farmer’s collectives (subaks) andregional networks of water-temples controlled the movement ofirrigation water in Bali is illuminating. One may be tempted todraw comparisons between this historical Balinese model andwhat may have been occurring in the Khorat basin in prehistory.However, the mechanics, geography and climate of these two areasare completely different. Bali receives more rainfall and does notsuffer the long droughts that are common in northeast Thailandwhere even in during the normal dry season rain fall is nil (Phienet al., 1980). Balinese farmers, as Lansing (1987:327) himself notes,‘‘do not use storage devices’’ and so the dynamic is completely dif-ferent for the scenario argued here. Furthermore the subak systemhas its origins in the ninth century CE and is closely related to Bali-nese Hinduism (UNESCO, 2012).

Conclusion

It has been argued here that the development of social complex-ity in the Khorat Basin may be explained through a political econ-omy perspective. During the Bronze Age on the Khorat Basin thereis no strong evidence for an enduring hierarchy. The wealth andsocial differentiation that did exist is akin to that found inwealth-finance systems of unstable, short-lived hierarchies. Thearchaeological evidence at present indicates a move away fromwealth-finance systems toward a system of staple-finance andincreasingly hierarchical societies during the Iron Age. In the sta-ple-finance system elites collect subsistence surplus from the pop-ulation and use the surplus to maintain their positions andentourage. It has been shown that in a majority of cases the chan-nels that surround archaeological sites on the Khorat Basin werelarge enough to contain sufficient water to irrigate rice fields and

produce enough rice to feed the estimated populations of the sites.It has been argued here that the motivation for the populace toprovide a surplus to the elite was the need for water brought aboutby drought conditions, a state that is, and was not, uncommon inthe region. The emergent elites gained control over access to waterthrough the construction of channels around habitation sites thatwould collect riverine flow. This water would then have been usedin drought conditions to irrigate crops that were usually fed byrainwater. In this way the populace or producers of staples becamebeholden to the elite and were obliged to provide a surplus asrepayment for access to the water reserves held in the channels.It is possible that this relationship developed and evolved in itscomplexity, reaching its zenith in the Angkorian state where powerover water and land rested, in large part, with the kings of Angkor.Clearly the implications are far-reaching and not only applicable toSoutheast Asia but are, likely, globally applicable.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to extend his gratitude to Mr Paul Rivettand Dr Dan Penny for their insights on hydrology and environmentrespectively and to Professor Timothy Earle for inspiring me to lookat these data in a different way. Also thanks to Ms Emma White forher assistance in editing and Dr Tim Winter for acting as areviewer. Thanks to the Australian Research Council. All mistakesremain my own.

References

Acker, R., 1998. New geographical tests of the hydraulic thesis at angkor. South EastAsia 6, 5–47.

Barker, R., Herdt, R., Rose, B., 1985. The Rice Economy of Asia. Rescources for theFuture Inc., Washington, DC.

Bayard, D., 1984. Agriculture, metallurgy and state formation in Mainland SoutheastAsia. Curr. Anthrop. 25 (1), 103–105.

Bayard, D.T., 1992. Models, Scenarios, Variables and Suppositions: Approaches tothe Rise of Social Complexity in Mainland Southeast Asia, 700 BC – AD 500. In:Glover, I.C., Suchitta, P., Villiers, J. (Eds.), Early Metallurgy, Trade and UrbanCentres in Thailand and Southeast Asia. White Lotus, Bangkok, pp. 13–38.

Bellina-Pryce, B., Silapanth, P., 2008. Weaving Cultural Identities on Trans-AsiaticNetworks: Upper Thai-Malay Peninsula – an early socio-political landscape.Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient 93, 257–293.

Bellwood, P., 2007. Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. University ofHawai‘i Press, Honolulu.

Booth, A.E., 2007. Colonial Legacies. University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu.Boserup, E., 1965. The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of

Agrarian Change Under Population Pressure. Aldine Press, Chicago.Boyd, W., Chang, N., 2010. Integrating social and environmental change in

prehistory: a discussion of the role of landscape as a heuristic in definingprehistoric possibilities in NE Thailand. In: Haberle, S., Stevenson, J., Prebble, M.(Eds.), Terra Australis: 32: Altered Ecologies – Fire, Climate and HumanInfluence on Terrestrial Landscapes. ANU E Press, Canberra, pp. 273–297.

Boyd, W., Habberfield-Short, J., 2007. Geoarchaeological landscape model of theIron Age settlements of the upper Mun River Floodplain. In: Higham, C.F.W.,Kijngam, A., Talbot, S. (Eds.), The Origins of the Civilisation of Angkor. TheExcavation of Noen U-Loke and Non Muang Kao, vol. Two. Fine ArtsDepartment, Bangkok, pp. 1–27.

Boyd, W., McGrath, R., 2001a. The geoarchaeology of the prehistoric ditched sites ofthe upper Mae Nam Mun Valley, NE Thailand, III: late holocene vegetationhistory. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 171, 307–328.

Boyd, W., McGrath, R., 2001b. Iron Age vegetation dynamics and human impacts onthe vegetation of Upper Mun River Floodplain, N.E Thailand. NZ Geographer 57,21–32.

Boyd, W., Higham, C., McGrath, R., 1999a. The geoarchaeology of Iron Age ‘‘Moated’’Sites of the Upper Mae Nam Mun Valley, N.E. Thailand I: palaeodrainage, site-landscape relationships and the origins of the ‘‘Moats’’. Geoarchaeol.: Int. J. 14,675–716.

Boyd, W., McGrath, R., Higham, C., 1999b. The geoarchaeology of the prehistoricditched sites of the Upper Mae Nam Mun Valley, NE Thailand, II: stratigraphyand morphological sections of the encircling earthworks. Bull. Indo PacificPrehist. Assoc. 18, 169–179.

Bronson, B., 1978. Angkor, Anuradhapura, Prambanan, Tikal: Maya Subsistence inan Asian Perspective. In: Harrison, B., Turner, P. (Eds.), Pre-Hispanic MayaAgriculture. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 255–300.

Bronson, B., 1992. Patterns in the Early Southeast Asian Metals Trade. In: Glover, I.,Suchitta, P., Villiers, J. (Eds.), Early Metallurgy, Trade and Urban Centres inThailand and Southeast Asia. White Lotus, Bangkok.

Butzer, K., 1976. Early Hydraulic Civilization in Egypt. University of Chicago Press,Chicago.

Carter, A.K., 2013. Trade, Exchange, and, Sociopolitical Development in Iron Age(500 BC – AD 500) Mainland Southeast Asia: An Examination of Stone and GlassBeads from Cambodia and Thailand, Anthropology. Uinversity of Wisconsin,Madison.

Castillo, C., 2011. Rice in Thailand: the archaeobotanical contribution. Rice 4, 114–120.Castillo, C., 2013. The Archaeobotany of Khao Sam Kaeo and Phu Khao Thong: the

Agriculture of Late Prehistoric Southern Thailand, Archaeology. UniversityCollege, London.

Chang, N., 1998. The personal ornaments. In: Higham, C.F.W., Thosarat, R. (Eds.), TheExcavation of Nong Nor a Prehistoric Site in Central Thailand. AnthropologyDepartment, University of Otago, pp. 265–303.

Chapagain, A.K., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2010. The Green, Blue and Grey Water Footprint ofRice from Both a Production and Consumption Perspective, Value of WaterResearch Report Series No. 40. UNESCO-IHI (Institute for Water Education),Enschede, Netherlands.

Chayanov, A.V., 1966. The Theory of Peasant Economy. Richard D. Irwin,Homewood, Ill.

Chibnik, M., 1984. A cross-cultural examination of Chayanov’s Theory. Curr.Anthropol. 25, 335–340.

Clark, J.E., Blake, M., 1994. The power of prestige: competitive generosity and theemergence of rank societies in Lowland Mesoamerica. In: Brumfiel, E., Fox, J.(Eds.), Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 17–30.

Coedès, G., 1968. The Indianized States of Southeast Asia. East-West Centre Press,Honolulu.

Cook, C., Jones, R., 2012. Palaeoclimate dynamics in continental southeast Asia overthe last �30,000 Cal yrs BP. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 339–341,1–11.

D’Altroy, T., Earle, T., 1985. Staple finance, wealth finance and storage in the incapolitical economy. Curr. Anthropol. 26, 187–206.

Dansgaard, W., 1964. Stable isotopes in precipitation. Tellus 16.Domett, K., Tayles, N., 2007. Population health from the bronze to the Iron Age in

the Mun River Valley, Northeastern Thailand. In: Smith P., L.K., H. (Eds.), AncientHealth: Skeletal Indicators of Agricultural and Economic Intensification.University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA, pp. 286–299.

Donner, W., 1978. The Five Faces of Thailand: An Economic Geography. C. Hurst andCo., London.

Dumarçay, J., 1997. L’hydraulique Khmère, Angkor et Dix Siècles d’art Khmer.Réunion des Musées Nationaux, Paris.

Durrenberger, E.P., 1984. Chayanov, Peasants, and Economic Anthropology.Academic Press, Orlando.

Earle, T., 1991. Chiefdoms: Power, Economy and Ideology. Cambridge UniveristyPress, Cambridge.

Erickson, C., 2006. Intensification, Political Economy, and the Farming Community;In Defense Of A Bottom-Up Perspective Of The Past. In: Marcus, J., Stanish, C.(Eds.), Agricultural Strategies. Cotsen Institute, Los Angeles, pp. 233–265.

Evans, D., 2007. Putting Angkor on the Map: A New Survey of a Khmer ‘HydraulicCity’ in Historical and Theoretical Context, Department of Archaeology.University of Sydney, Sydney.

Evans, D., Pottier, C., Fletcher, R., Hensley, S., Tapley, I., Milne, A., Barbetti, M., 2007. Acomprehensive archaeological map of the world’s largest preindustrial settlementcomplex at Angkor, Cambodia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 14277–14282.

Falvey, L., 2000. Thai Agriculture: Golden Cradle of Millennia. Kasetsart UniversityPress, Bangkok.

Fletcher, R., Evans, D., Tapley, I., Milne, A., 2004. Angkor: extent, settlement patternand ecology. preliminary results of an AIRSAR survey in September 2000. Bull.Indo-Pacific Prehist. Assoc. 24, 130–138.

Convention entre la France et le Cambodge, le 17 Juin 1884, pour Régler lesRapports Respectifs des Deux Pays, Cambodia.

Garami, F., Kertai, I., 1993. Water Management in the Angkor Area. AngkorFoundation, Budapest.

Geertz, C., 1980. Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth Century Bali. PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton.

Gorman, C., Chanroenwongsa, P., 1976. Ban Chiang: a mosaic of impressions fromthe first two years. Expedition 18 (4), 14–26.

Grandstaff, T., Grandstaff, Somluckrat, Limpinuntana, Viriya, Suphanchaimat,Nongluck, 2008. Rainfed Revolution in Northeast Thailand. Southeast AsianStudies 46, 289–376.

Groslier, B., 1979. La Cité Hydraulique Angkorienne. Exploitation ou Surexploitationdu Sol? Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême Orient 66, 161–202.

Habberfield-Short, J., Boyd, W., 2007. The Geoarchaeology of Noen U-Loke and NonMuang Kao. In: Higham, C.F.W., Kijngam, A., Talbot, S. (Eds.), The Origins of theCivilisation of Angkor. The Excavation of Noen U-Loke and Non Muang Kao, vol.Two. Fine Arts Department, Bangkok, pp. 29–53.

Higham, C., 1989. The Archaeology of Mainland Southeast Asia. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Higham, C., 1998. Noen U-Loke and the Implications for the Origins of Early States,Paper presented at the 16th Congress of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association.Unpublished, Melaka, Malaysia.

Higham, C., 2002. Early Cultures of Mainland Southeast Asia. River Books, Bangkok.

Higham, C., 2004a. Ban Non Wat: lessons from the field. In: Paz, V. (Ed.), SoutheastAsian archaeology: Wilhelm G. Solheim II Festschrift. University of PhilippinesPress, Quezon City, pp. 491–503.

Higham, C., 2004b. Mainland Souteast Asia from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. In:Glover, I., Bellwood, P. (Eds.), Southeast Asia fromPrehistory to History.RoutledgeCurzon, London, pp. 41–67.

Higham, C., 2011a. The Bronze Age of Southeast Asia: New Insight on Social Changefrom Ban Non Wat. Camb. Archaeol. J. 21, 365–389.

Higham, C., 2011b. The Iron Age of the Mun Valley, Thailand. Antiq. J. 91, 1–44.Higham, C., 2012. Conclusions. In: Higham, C.F.W., Kijngam, A. (Eds.), The

Excavation of Ban Non Wat: The Bronze Age. The Thai Fine Arts Department,Bangkok, pp. 505–536.

Higham, C., Higham, T., 2009. A New Chronological Framework for PrehistoricSoutheast Asia, Based on a Bayesian Model from Ban Non Wat. Antiquity 83,125–144.

Higham, C., Kijngam, A., 2009. The Excavation of Ban Non Wat: Introduction, TheOrigins of the Civilisation of Angkor, vol. III. The Thai Fine Arts Department,Bangkok.

Higham, C., Kijngam, A., 2010. The Excavation of Ban Non Wat: The NeolithicOccupation. The Thai Fine Arts Department, Bangkok.

Higham, C., Kijngam, A., 2012. The Excavation of Ban Non Wat: The Bronze Age. TheThai Fine Arts Department, Bangkok.

Higham, C., Kijngam, A., 2013. The Excavation of Ban Non Wat: The Iron Age. TheThai Fine Arts Department, Bangkok.

Higham, C., Thosarat, R., 1998. Prehistoric Thailand: From Early Settlement toSukhothai. River Books, Bangkok.

Higham, C., Thosarat, R., 2004. The Origins of the Civilisation of Angkor. Excavationof Ban Lum Khao, vol. One. Fine Arts Department, Bangkok.

Higham, C., Thosarat, R., 2006. Ban Non Wat: the first three seasons, UncoveringSoutheast Asia’s Past. In: Selected Papers from the 10th InternationalConference of the European Association of Southeast Asian ArchaeologistsUniversity of Singapore Press, Singapore, pp. 98–104.

Higham, C., Kijngam, A., Chantaratiyakarn, P., 1984. Prehistoric Investigations inNortheast Thailand: Excavations at Ban Na Di, Ban Chiang Hian, Ban MuangPruk, Ban Sangui, Non Noi and Ban Kho Noi., British Archaeological Reports(International Series) no. 231 (i–iii), 231 ed. Oxford, p. 960.

Higham, C., Kijngam, A., Talbot, S., 2007. The Excavation of Non Muang Kao andNoen U-Loke. Fine Arts Department, Bangkok.

Jackson, K., 1978. Cambodia 1977: Gone to Pot. Asian Surv. 18, 76–90.Johnson, A., Earle, T., 1987. The Evolution of Human Societies. Stanford University

Press, Stanford.Juliano, B.O., 1993. Rice in Human Nutrition. The International Rice Research

Institute and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,Rome.

Kealhofer, L., Penny, D., 1998. A combined pollen and phytolith record for fourteenthousand years of vegetation change in northeastern Thailand. Rev. Palaeobot.Palynol. 103, 83–93.

Kijngam, A., Higham, C.F.W., Wiriyaromp, W., 1980. Prehistoric Settlement Patternsin Northeast Thailand, vol. 15. University of Otago Studies in PrehistoricAnthropology, Dunedin.

King, C., Bentley, A., Tayles, N., Viðarsdóttir, U.S., Nowell, G., Macpherson, C., 2013.Moving peoples, changing diets: isotopic differences highlight migration andsubsistence changes in the Upper Mun River Valley, Thailand. J. Archaeol. Sci.40, 1681–1688.

Lanning, E., 1967. Peru Before the Incas. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Lansing, S., 1987. Balinese ‘Water Temples’ and the management of irrigation. Am.

Antiq. 82, 326–341.Leach, E.R., 1959. Hydraulic society in ceylon. Past Present 15, 2–26.Locard, H., 2004. Pol Pot’s Little Red Book. Silkworm Books, Chiang Mai.Lückge, A., Doose-Rolinski, H., Khan, A.A., Schulz, H., von Rad, U., 2001. Monsoonal

variability in the northeastern Arabian Seaduring the past 5000 years:geochemical evidence from laminated sediments. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol.Palaeoecol. 167, 273–286.

Lustig, E., 2009. Power and Pragmatism in the Political Economy of Angkor,Department of Archaeology. University of Sydney, Sydney.

Lustig, T., Fletcher, R., Kummu, M., Pottier, C., Penny, D., 2008. Did TraditionalCultures Live In Harmony With Nature? University of Technology, Water &Development Publications, Helsinki.

Mabry, J., Cleveland, D., 1996. The relevance of indigenous irrigation: a comparativeanalysis of sustainability. In: Mabry, J. (Ed.), Canals and Communities: SmallScale Irrigation Systems. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 237–260.

Maher, B.A., 2008. Holocene variability of the East Asian summer monsoon fromChinese cave records: a re-assessment. Holocene 18, 861–866.

McGrath, R., Boyd, W., 2001. The chronology of the Iron Age ‘Moats’ of NortheastThailand. Antiquity 75, 349–360.

McGrath, R.J., Boyd, W.E., Bush, R.T., 2008. The paleohydrological context of the IronAge floodplain sites of the Mun River Valley, Northeast Thailand1. Geoarchaeol.:Int. J. 23, 151–172.

Mitchell, J., 1973. The hydraulic hypothesis: a reappraisal. Curr. Anthropol. 14, 532–534.

Mongkolsawat, C., Thirangoon, P., Suwanwerakamtorn, R., Karladee, N., Paiboonsak,S., Champathet, P., 2001. An evaluation of drought risk area in northeastThailand using remotely sensed data and GIS. Asian J. Geoinformatics 1, 33–44.

Moore, E., 1985. Survey of irregular moated sites in Northeast Thailand. SoutheastAsian Stud. Newslett. 21, 1–2.

Moore, E., 1986. The Moated Mu’ang of the Mun River Basin. University of London.Moore, E., 1988a. The Development of Water Mangement Techniques in Norhteast

Thailand Before 1500 AD. In: Premier Symposium Franco-Thai: La Thailande desDebuts de Son Histoire Jusqu’ Au XVe Siecle. École Francais de Extreme Orient.Silapakorn University, pp. 115–150.

Moore, E., 1988b. Moated Sites in Early North East Thailand. British ArchaeologicalReports International Series 400, Oxford.

Moore, E., 1988c. Notes on two types of moated settlement in North East Thailand.JSS 76, 275–287.

Moore, E., 1990. Moated settlement in the Mun Basin, northeast Thailand. In:Glover, I.C., Glover, E. (Eds.), Southeast Asian Archaeology 1986: Proceedings ofthe First Conference of the Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists inWestern Europe. BAR International Series 561, Oxford, pp. 201–212.

Moore, E., 1992. Water enclosed sites: links between Ban-Takhong, NortheastThailand and Cambodia. In: Rigg, J. (Ed.), The Gift of Water: Water ManagementCosmology and the State in Southeast Asia. School of Oriental and AfricanStudies, London, pp. 26–46.

Moreno-Black, G., Somnasang, P., 2010. In times of plenty and times of scarcity:nondomesticated food in northeastern Thailand. Ecol. Food Nutr. 38, 563–586.

Nitta, E., 1991. Archaeological study on the ancient iron-smelting and salt-makingindustries in the Northeast of Thailand. preliminary report on the excavations ofNon Yang and Ban Don Phlong. J. Southeast Asian Archaeol. 11, 1–46.

Nitta, E., 1997. Iron smelting and salt-making industies in Northeast Thailand. Bull.Indo-Pacific Prehist. Assoc. 16 (3), 153–160.

Nutalaya, P., Sophonsakularat, W., Sonsuk, M., Wattanachai, N., 1988. Catastrophicflooding – an agent for landform development of the Khorat Plateau: A WorkingHypothesis. In: Thiramongkol, N. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop onCorrelation of Quatenary Succesions in South, East and Southeast Asia. UNESCO,Bangkok.

Onsuwan Eyre, C., 2010. Social variation and dynamics in metal age and protohistoriccentral Thailand: a regional perspective. Asian Perspect. 49, 43–84.

O’Reilly, D.J.W., 1998. The discovery of clay-lined floors at an Iron Age Site inThailand; preliminary observations from Non Muang Kao, Nakon RatchasimaProvince. JSS 85, 1–14.

O’Reilly, D.J.W., 1999. A diachronic Analysis of Social Organisation in the Mun RiverValley. Department of Anthropology. University of Otago, Dunedin, p. 324.

O’Reilly, D.J.W., 2000. From the Bronze Age to the Iron Age in Thailand: applying theheterarchical approach. Asian Perspect. 39, 1–19.

O’Reilly, D.J.W., 2003. Further evidence of heterarchy in Bronze Age Thailand. Curr.Anthropol. 44, 300–306.

O’Reilly, D.J.W., 2007. Early Civilizations of Southeast Asia. Alta Mira Press, Chicago.O’Reilly, D.J.W., 2008. Multivallate sites and socio-economic change: Thailand and

Britain in their Iron Ages. Antiquity 82, 377–389.Parnwell, M.J.G., 1988. Rural poverty, development and the environment: the case

of north-east Thailand. J. Biogeogr. 15, 199–208.Parry, J., 1992. The investigative role of landsat-TM in the examination of pre- and

proto-historic water management sites in Northeast Thailand. Geocarto Int. 4, 5–24.

Pautreau, J.-P., Mornais, P., 1998. Ban Wang Hi (Thailande) Travaux 1998, JourneePrehistorique et Protohistorique de Bretagne. Unpublished paper, Université deRennes 1.

Phien, H.N., Arbhabhirama, A., Sunchindah, A., 1980. Distribution of monthly rainfallin northeast Thailand. Southeast Asian Stud. 18, 110–123.

Pottier, C., 1999. Carte Archéologique de la Région d’Angkor. Zone Sud, UFR Orient etMonde Arabe. Universite Paris III – Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris.

Pryce, T.O., Natapintu, S., 2010. Smelthing iron from laterite: technical possibility orethnographic aberration? Asian Perspect. 48, 249–264.

Pym, C., 1968. The Ancient Civilisation of Angkor. Mentor, New York.Ricklefs, M.C., 1967. Land and law in the epigraphy of tenth-century Cambodia. J.

Asiatic Soc. 26, 411–420.Rivett, P., 1999. Community Landscapes in Northeast Thailand. Department of

Anthropology. Universityof Otago, Dunedin, p. 142.Rowe, J., 1963. Urban settlements in ancient peru. Ñawpa Pacha 1, 1–27.Sahlins, M., 1971. The intensity of domestic production in primitive societies: social

inflections on the Chayanov slope. In: Dalton, G. (Ed.), Studies in EconomicAnthropology. American Anthropological Association, Washington, pp. 31–51.

Scarborough, V., 1991. Water management adaptations in non-industrial complexsocieties: an archaeological perspective. In: Schiffer, M.B. (Ed.), Advances inArchaeological Method and Theory. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon, pp. 101–154.

Sedov, L.A., 1963. On the problem of the economic system in Angkor, Cambodia inthe IX–XII centuries. Narody AsiiI Afriki, Istoria, Ekonomika, Kultura 6, 73–81.

Sørensen, P., 1973. Prehistoric iron implements from Thailand. Asian Perspect. 16,134–173.

Stanish, C., 1994. The hydraulic hypothesis revisited: lake titicaca basin raised fieldsin theoretical perspective. Latin Am. Antiq. 5, 312–332.

Steward, J., 1949. Cultural causality and law. Am. Anthropol. 51, 1–27.Steward, J., 1955. Some implications of the symposium. In: Steward, J., Adams, R.M.,

Collier, D., Palerm, A., Wittfogel, K.A., Beals, R.L. (Eds.), Irrigation Civilizations: AComparative Study. Pan-American Union, Washington, DC.

Talbot, S., 2007. The analysis of the mortuary record. In: Higham, C.F.W., Kijngam,A., Talbot, S. (Eds.), The Origins of the Civilisation of Angkor. The Excavation ofNoen U-Loke and Non Muang Kao, vol. Two. Fine Arts Department, Bangkok.

Thomas, R., 1997. Land, kinship relations and the rise of enclosed settlement in firstMillenium B.C. Britain. Oxford J. Archaeol. 16, 211–218.

Unesco, W.H.C., 2012. Cultural Landscape of Bali Province: the Subak System as aManifestation of the Tri Hita Karana Philosophy. United Nations, Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Paris.

Vallibhotama, S., 1984. The Relevance of Moated Settlements to the Formation ofStates in Thailand. In: Bayard, D. (Ed.), Southeast Asian Archaeology at the XVPacific Science Congress. University of Otago Studies in PrehistoricAnthropology 16, Dunedin, pp. 123–128.

van Liere, W.J., 1980. Traditional water management in the lower mekong basin.World Archaeol. 11, 265–280.

Vickery, M., 1998. Society, Economics and Politics in Pre-Angkor Cambodia. TheCentre for East Asian Cultural Studies for Unesco, the Toyo Bunko, Honkomagome, Tokyo.

Wang, Y., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., He, Y., Kong, X., An, Z., Wu, J., Kelly, M.J., Dykoski,C.A., Li, X., 2005. The holocene Asian monsoon: links to solar changes and NorthAtlantic climate. Science 308, 854–857.

Wani, G. Mohyuddin, 2009. Water Requirements of Different Crops and Animals.National Rainfed Area Authority, New Delhi.

Wason, P., 1994. The Archaeology of Rank. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Welch, D., 1984. Settlement pattern as an indicator of socio-political complexity in

the Phimai Region, Thailand. In: Bayard, D. (Ed.), Southeast Asian Archaeology atthe XV Pacific Science Congress. University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, pp.129–152.

Welch, D., McNeill, J., 1991. Settlement, Agriculture and Population Changes in thePhimai Region, Thailand. BIPPA 11, 210–228.

Welch, D., McNeill, J., 1988-9. Excavations at Ban Tamyae and Non Ban Kham,Phimai Region, Northeast Thailand. Asian Perspect. 28, 99–123.

White, J.C., 1986. A Revision of the Chronology of Ban Chiang and its Implicationsfor the Prehistory of Northeast, Thailand. University of Pennsylvania.

White, J., 1995. Incorporating heterarchy into theory on socio-politicaldevelopment: the case from Southeast Asia. In: Ehrenreich, R., Crumley, C.,Levy, J. (Eds.), Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies: Comments.American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 101–123.

White, J., Penny, D., Kealhofer, L., Maloney, B.K., 2004. Vegetation changes from thelate Pleistocene through the Holocene from three areas of archaeologicalsignificance in Thailand. Quatern. Int. 113, 111–132.

Wichakana, M., 1991. Prehistoric sacrifices at Noen-U-Loke (in Thai). Muang Boran16, 69–79.

Wilen, R., 1982-3. Prehistoric settlement patterns in Northeast Thailand: a criticalreview. Asian Perspect. 25, 63–81.

Wilen, R., 1987. Excavation and site survey in the Huay Sai Khao basin, NortheasternThailand. Bull. Indo-Pacific Prehist. Assoc. 7, 94–117.

Williams-Hunt, P.D.R., 1950. Irregular earthworks in eastern siam: an air survey.Antiquity XXIV, 30–36.

Wittfogel, K., 1956. The Hydraulic Civilizations. In: Thomas, W. (Ed.), Man’s Role inChanging the Face of the Earth. Wnner-Gren Foundation, Chicago,pp. 152–164.

Wittfogel, K., 1957. Oriental Despotism. A Study of Total Power. Yale UniversityPress, New Haven.

Wittfogel, K., 1971. Developmental Aspects of Hydraulic Societies. In: Struever, S.(Ed.), Prehistoric Agriculutre. The Natural History Press, Garden City, New York.

Moated Sites: a Political Economy Approach

Documents

The Political Economy of Armaments

BOOK REVIEW POLITICAL ECONOMY OF COMMUNICATION

POLITICAL ECONOMY AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Evolutionary Political Economy in Crisis Mode

The Political Economy of Education and Development in an Open Economy

THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF THE BRICS - Hdl.handle.net

Political Economy and Democratic Governance in Nepal

On the political economy of school deregulation

Liberalism, socialism, and robust political economy

A political economy model of road pricing

The New Comparative Political Economy

probings in the political economy of - Balagopal

The Political Economy of Global Transformation

The Political Economy of Regional Peacemaking

Subjective political economy

Introduction: Neoliberalism as Struggle from Political Economy to Political Action

The Political Economy of Decentralization Reforms

Robust political economy and the Federal Reserve

The Political Economy of a Divided Ireland

The Political Economy of the Image