Differentiating Khmer Stoneware Production: An NAA Pilot Study from Siem Reap Province, Cambodia

DIFFERENTIAT ING KHMER STONEWARE PRODUCTION :AN NAA P ILOT STUDY FROM SIEM REAP PROVINCE ,

CAMBODIA*

P. GRAVE,1† M. STARK,2 D. EA,3 L. KEALHOFER,4

B. S. TAN3 and T. TIN3

1Archaeology/Archaeomaterials Science Hub, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia2Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii at Mānoa, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA

3International Centre of Research and Documentation of Angkor, APSARA National Authority, Siem Reap, Cambodia4Anthropology/Environmental Studies & Sciences, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA 95053, USA

We report analytical results for stoneware samples from four excavated Angkor-periodkilns in the Greater Angkor area. Previous work has suggested that establishing distinctchemical signatures for kiln complexes in this region is problematic. The current studyhighlights the effectiveness of neutron activation analysis (NAA) for differentiating theproducts of Angkorian kiln complexes; it also confirms the viability of a larger-scale re-search programme to understand the relationship between Khmer stoneware productionand patterns of distribution across the wider Angkorian territory. Evidence of ceramicsexcavated at kiln sites but produced elsewhere highlights the complexity of consumptionpatterns during the Angkorian period.

KEYWORDS: GEOCHEMISTRY, PROVENANCE, CERAMICS, SOUTH-EAST ASIA, NEUTRONACTIVATION ANALYSIS, NAA

INTRODUCTION

Khmer elites living in the Greater Angkor region (9th–15th centuries ce) competed to control oneof South-East Asia’s largest and longest-lived premodern agrarian states. The identity, durationand succession of Khmer rulers over this period are known primarily through the historical record(e.g., Briggs 1951; Jacques and Lafond 2007). Archaeological investigations, on the other hand,have largely focused on the functioning of the polity’s epicentre in the Greater Angkor region,(e.g., Evans et al. 2007; Lustig 2009; Hawken 2013; see review in Pottier 2012). Over the past15 years, however, archaeological field investigations at Angkorian sites elsewhere in Cambodia,north-east Thailand and southern Lao PDR, have shifted attention to the broader character ofKhmer core–hinterland relationships (e.g., Stark 2004; Stark et al. 2006; Hendrickson 2010).

Angkorian sites are identified by the presence of Khmer stoneware ceramics, Angkorian-styletemples, inscribed stelae and statuary. A large number of extant kiln complexes both withinGreater Angkor and regionally (supported by a growing number of kiln excavations), indicatea high level of Khmer investment in stoneware production. Exclusively produced for domesticconsumption, the wide regional dispersal of Khmer stonewares raises questions about the rela-tionship between stoneware production and distribution, and about what role successiveAngkorian elites may have played in production. The ability to discriminate between the

*Received 10 April 2015; accepted 15 September 2015†Corresponding author: email [email protected]

Archaeometry ••, •• (2015) ••–•• doi: 10.1111/arcm.12220

© 2015 University of Oxford

bs_bs_banner

products of different kiln complexes by characterizing their compositional ‘signatures’ is a fun-damental first step in addressing these issues.

Our long-term project focuses on understanding the organization of the production and dis-tribution of utilitarian goods, specifically Khmer stoneware ceramics, as one means to evaluatethe role of the Khmer state in this aspect of the economic system. Tracking stonewareeconomics—the production, distribution and consumption of Khmer stonewares—through timehas the potential for an exceptionally fine-grained perspective on the nature and dynamics ofcentralized political control in the Angkorian state. After nearly 20 years’ of kiln researchand substantial archaeological excavation and survey in different parts of Cambodia by a rangeof international teams, this is now possible.

To assess the viability of using compositional analysis for a larger study of Khmer stonewareproduction and exchange, we initiated a pilot project in 2012. The goal of the study was to de-termine the extent to which kiln complexes could be geochemically ‘fingerprinted’. Here, we re-port on the results of neutron activation analysis (hereafter NAA) characterization of stonewaresfrom four kiln complexes within the Greater Angkor region in Siem Reap Province. These kilnlocations were specifically chosen based on their geological differences as a baseline for geo-chemical proveniencing. Our results successfully identify unique and diagnostic kiln geochem-ical fingerprints, making it possible to move forward to analyse the distribution of goods inconsumption sites.

BACKGROUND

Most ancient states depended on centralized administrative control, evident in the urban capi-tals that archaeologists routinely investigate (e.g., Sinopoli and Morrison 1995; Earle 2011; seereview in Smith 2014, 312–15). Some states accessed utilitarian goods through tribute andtaxes, while others standardized and controlled the production and circulation of essentialand emblemic items in the state’s urban and rural sectors (Smith and Berdan 1992). Such pat-terns varied through time, and provide one measure for understanding political trajectories ofancient states. A key theoretical aspect of these trajectories is the extent to which ancient statesconsolidated economic power through control over the production and/or distribution of goods.As yet, substantive support for this largely theoretical feature typically remains poorly articu-lated (Hirth 1996). A comparable situation exists for the material correlates of how empires in-tegrated the political core and provincial settlements (e.g., Jennings and Alvarez 2001; Parker2003, 525–6; Parkinson et al. 2013).

The Khmer state consolidated its economic and political power in the late 12th and early13th centuries CE. Lustig’s (2009) lexicostatistical analysis of inscriptions suggests thatmanufactured goods—and perhaps craft specialization more generally—gained importance inthe Angkorian period (see also Lustig et al. 2007, 25 et passim). Archaeologists are also begin-ning to explore the material support for epigraphic claims that the Khmer state exerted controlthrough a tax/tribute and corvée labour system (Sahai 1978), in addition to state-sponsored spe-cialist production. The production of emblemic items in Angkorian temples involved standard-ized materials, manufacturing techniques and skilled tradesmen. For example, multiple Kulensandstone quarries supplied architects in the urban epicentre with their construction materials(e.g., Uchida et al. 2007; Carò and Im 2012), and artisan carvers worked in ateliers throughoutGreater Angkor from the ninth century onwards, perhaps in craft guilds (Polkinghorne 2007,2008, 2013; see also Sinopoli 1988 for medieval India). Angkor-based specialistsmanufactured Bayon-style statuary that circulated through the provinces (Carò and Douglas

2 P. Grave et al.

© 2015 University of Oxford, Archaeometry ••, •• (2015) ••–••

2013), and some Greater Angkor architectural stone was shipped to the northernmost parts ofthe Khmer world for use in building Wat Phu and Hong Nan Sida, Lao PDR (Uchida et al.2010). However, beyond the production of emblemic items, the evidence for the organizationof Angkorian production of utilitarian goods, and the degree to which this production was statecontrolled, remains sparse.

Stonewares provide one ubiquitous type of utilitarian good. Despite knowledge of Khmerkilns in the Greater Angkor region since the late 19th century (Aymonier 1901), the first sys-tematic study of Khmer stoneware kiln complexes was in north-east Thailand during the 1970s(when Cambodia was inaccessible because of civil war). This offered insights on the scale anddiversity of 9th–14th century Angkorian ceramic production in what had been the north-western provinces of the Angkorian state (e.g., Brown et al. 1974; Chandavij 1990). By themid-1990s, archaeologists had begun study of Khmer stoneware kiln complexes in GreaterAngkor (Sophia University Angkor International Mission 2000; Ea et al. 2005; Aoyagi andSaskai 2007). Since then, Khmer stoneware ceramics have emerged as a focal point ofAngkorian period research. Most work has concentrated on either the origin and dating ofKhmer stoneware technology (e.g., Hein 2008; Tabata 2010) or on kiln construction tech-niques (Tin 2003; Ea et al. 2005; Tabata and Chhay 2007; Tabata 2008; Chhay et al. 2009;Miksic et al. 2009; Osaka Ohtani University Museum 2009; Ea 2013; reviewed in Ea 2010,42–114; Wong 2010, 77–82). Other important work has revised Groslier’s (1981) originalstoneware chronology, based on radiocarbon dates from excavated deposits with stonewares(Desbat 2011; see also Programme CERANGKOR 2010, 2011, 2012). Compositional studieshave focused on specific kiln complexes or consumption sites (e.g., ProgrammeCERANGKOR 2008, 2011; Ea 2010, 211–16). This work highlights the need for a larger-scale, regionally based compositional study of stonewares found across the 9th–15th centuryAngkorian polity.

GEOCHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF KILN PRODUCTION

Several previous stoneware geochemical studies (summarized in Ea 2010) offer insights for thedesign of the present study, including work on variability in Khmer stoneware composition(Programme CERANGKOR 2010, 2011, 2012; Ea 2010), vessel form variability (Miksic et al.2009) and kiln construction (Aoyagi et al. 2000; Sophia University Angkor International Mission2000; Tin 2003; Aoyagi and Sasaki 2007; Ea et al. 2008; Chhay et al. 2009; Miksic et al. 2009;Osaka Ohtani University Museum 2009; Tabata 2005, 2008).

Assuming local clay use for production, ceramic samples from Angkorian kilns could beexpected to have distinct elemental profiles that directly reflect variability in geology/claychemistry from locale to locale. Previous analyses of Angkorian stoneware production haveused a range of techniques (i.e. X-ray fluorescence (XRF), petrographic analysis, scanningelectron microscopy (SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD) and electron microprobe—see reviewin Ea 2010, 211–20), coupled with vessel morphological research, to distinguish betweenmajor kiln groups. However, issues remain in resolving different kiln complexes. Recentcompositional work suggests that geochemical discrimination of the output of differentKhmer ceramic kiln complexes from geologically similar contexts in the floodplain aroundAngkor may be problematic (Programme CERANGKOR 2010, 2012), comparable to thedifficulties in discriminating between Kulen and Koh Ker sandstone sources (Carò andIm 2012).

Differentiating Khmer stoneware production 3


NAA is a well-established elemental technique for ceramic provenience studies. As an alter-native to XRF, NAA provides accurate and precise measurement for a large number of ele-ments with higher sensitivity and precision (Bishop et al. 1990). It also requires relativelysmall samples (<1 g, compared with up to 15 g for XRF). As a nuclear reactor-based technique,NAA also offers unparalleled stability for results that are comparable not only over the longterm (years to decades) but also between facilities. These characteristics make NAA an excel-lent reference technique (see Grave et al. 2008, Table 1: experimental NAA compared to resultsfor three NIST standards).

NAA therefore provides an alternative analytical method for geochemical characterizationwith the sensitivity, precision and accuracy to identify even small differences in geochemical re-lationships between local sediment types and local ceramic production (e.g., Glascock 1992;Stark et al. 2000; Grave et al. 2008, 2014). These measurement characteristics enable us to de-termine whether the lack of geochemical discrimination reflects the resolving power of instru-mentation employed by previous studies or, alternatively, reflects the effects of a widerdistribution of compositionally indistinguishable sediments.

The sample

Two hundred sherds (2–3 g each) of stoneware bowl and jar sherds from four previouslyexcavated kiln sites east of Angkor were sampled for this pilot project (see Fig. 1; kilnsat Bangkong, Tani A6, Thnal Mrech (Anlong Thom) and Torp Chey). These four kilns wereselected to represent both geological diversity (across three geologically distinct regions) aswell as similarity (the Bangkong and Tani A6 kilns). Chronologically, these kilns cover theperiod between the 9th and 13th centuries—that is, Bangkong, 9th–10th centuries (Wong2010); Tani A6, 11th–12th centuries (Aoyagi and Sasaki 2007); Thnal Mrech, early tomiddle 11th century ce (Chhay et al. 2009); and Torp Chey, predominantly 13th century(Ea 2013).

To try to ensure sampling uniformity, 50 excavated sherds from each kiln assemblage wereselected for analysis. Samples were exported to the University of New England, where theywere prepared and submitted for NAA. The stonewares from Thnal Mrech (AnlongThom/Kulen Hills) have a white matrix and are green glazed or unglazed. Vessel forms aretypically small, lidded bowls (see classification in Chhay et al. 2013). Stonewares from theother three kilns are predominantly larger jars with a red to grey matrix and are either brownglazed or unglazed (see Ea 2010).

Geological context

All four kiln groups lie within the Greater Angkor region, but they are located in different geo-logical and sediment settings (Fig. 1, right). The Bangkong and Tani kilns are located close toeach other on red/yellow podzolic soils; these are acidic, zonal soils that have a leached, light-coloured surface layer, and overlay a subsoil of clay and oxides of aluminium and iron. TheThnal Mrech kilns are located in a very different environmental setting in the Kulen Hills, onsoils characterized as white acid lithosols; these are thin/shallow, unweathered and rocky sedi-ments that are usually found on slopes. The Torp Chey kilns are the most distant from Angkor,and are located on plinthite podzols—iron-rich, humus-poor mixtures of clay with quartz andother minerals.

4 P. Grave et al.


Table1

Asummaryof

theNAAresults

forgroups

andoutliersby

average(Avg.)andcoefficiento

fvariatio

n(C.V.).T

hegroupsummarieson

theleftcharacterize

theproductio

nof

thefour

know

nkilnsin

oursample(BK,Bangkong;

TN6,

Tani;TMB,Thnal

Mrech;TC2,

TorpChey);theoutlyingresultfrom

TorpCheyisgivenin

thecentre

column;

the

groupsummarieson

therightareforthefour

positedunknow

nkilns(?1–?4).Resultsarereported

asppm

unless

otherw

iseindicated

BK(n

=56)

TC2(n

=49)

TMB2(n

=43)

TN6(n

=32)

TC2

?1(n

=6)

?2(n

=3)

?3(n

=4)

?4(n

=3)

Avg.

C.V.

Avg.

C.V.

Avg.

C.V.

Avg.

C.V.

SEA19

Avg.

C.V.

Avg.

C.V.

Avg.

C.V.

Avg.

C.V.

As

2.16

71.01

5.57

47.63

0.95

107.14

9.66

24.05

18.67

42.34

––

––

1.67

91.60

Ba

198.36

54.19

253.47

25.31

234.02

44.70

415.00

20.54

580

508.33

49.13

443.33

18.23

365.00

20.68

630.00

11.45

Ca%

––

––

––

––

0.5

––

––

––

––

Ce

69.98

36.53

76.94

32.29

99.84

24.61

92.75

28.95

70101.17

21.63

284.67

25.78

171.50

18.03

149.00

11.45

Co

10.57

34.50

8.27

39.65

3.60

55.86

19.00

51.67

513.17

78.26

12.67

92.52

7.75

71.75

4.33

93.26

Cr

72.91

11.23

93.31

7.28

64.28

13.85

78.03

6.68

3698.50

9.32

83.00

4.17

83.50

4.21

71.00

8.45

Cs

6.10

49.79

7.86

14.66

10.06

33.12

9.93

13.51

1117.67

5.85

12.67

9.12

10.18

10.72

11.33

10.19

Eu

1.08

34.67

0.90

42.49

1.37

36.49

1.33

16.68

3.2

1.32

21.17

7.23

21.32

3.73

11.68

2.43

6.28

Fe%

2.55

26.82

5.07

14.03

1.18

46.61

4.66

9.03

3.52

5.59

35.11

1.13

10.53

1.32

15.32

1.13

29.36

Hf

8.24

9.77

6.41

11.05

10.40

15.58

6.70

7.83

6.8

6.13

16.36

8.70

8.05

8.50

6.15

7.30

9.88

K%

0.62

58.81

1.45

27.6

71.34

32.71

1.78

21.2

71.4

2.68

13.8

31.27

22.79

1.18

67.0

91.20

92.73

La

33.59

38.89

41.11

28.53

50.26

19.85

41.34

9.33

29.7

53.87

20.61

119.70

24.67

74.10

17.24

72.53

13.67

Lu

0.40

25.5

70.37

15.95

0.64

29.92

0.50

5.60

10.53

8.03

1.56

26.89

1.07

12.03

0.70

48.38

Na%

––

0.11

23.55

––

0.20

43.56

0.13

0.07

10.50

0.06

9.12

0.04

64.90

0.06

9.12

Nd

29.13

25.91

25.78

34.57

35.88

29.99

33.69

12.28

3435.33

13.94

135.67

27.05

72.50

19.72

57.00

13.70

Rb

56.95

51.67

84.02

24.73

90.70

33.03

116.88

16.85

56176.67

10.54

123.33

12.39

100.50

12.31

120.00

22.05

Sb

0.89

18.11

0.81

15.74

1.20

19.59

1.38

10.12

0.3

2.00

35.64

1.27

12.06

1.10

7.42

1.20

22.05

Sc

12.77

15.13

15.28

6.22

9.76

13.27

14.94

7.65

27.71

6.75

12.36

13.53

6.20

12.90

5.90

13.27

7.44

Sm

5.44

35.38

4.57

41.43

7.27

32.47

6.86

11.52

10.4

6.90

22.34

37.80

25.27

18.43

14.51

12.47

6.73

Ta

1.78

22.71

1.08

23.09

1.58

18.82

1.08

20.77

0.9

1.27

26.73

1.43

16.11

1.45

21.44

1.43

22.43

Tb

0.66

57.88

0.40

100.79

0.99

40.59

0.83

23.29

1.7

0.97

25.90

4.23

30.10

2.43

8.50

1.57

35.15

Th

18.54

10.93

14.16

6.00

19.83

9.29

15.22

6.19

4.3

21.15

7.47

20.23

2.00

19.25

2.60

18.07

10.23

U3.57

15.37

3.28

18.08

3.88

19.13

3.86

17.57

1.7

3.65

22.24

4.57

9.12

4.78

18.13

3.77

29.24

Yb

2.56

28.03

2.35

16.85

4.14

31.41

3.21

5.82

6.6

3.53

8.33

10.83

25.35

6.95

10.28

4.57

48.09

Zn

5.43

212.18

9.06

159.11

2.84

403.48

47.34

24.37

�7.00

244.91

––

––

20.67

173.20



METHODS

Sample preparation

Minimal sample preparation is required for NAA (see Glascock et al. 2004, 97). For this study,stoneware samples were prepared for NAA by removing glaze and old surfaces with a tungstencarbide high-speed burr. The cleaned sample was then wrapped in a tough plastic envelope andcrushed in a hydraulic press. One gram of the crushed sample is loaded into a numbered vial tosubmit for NAA.

NAA involves sample irradiation in a high neutron flux research reactor, but does not destroythe sample. However, as a result of irradiation, samples become radioactive, pose a health riskand require long-term storage in an approved radiation-shielded facility. Because of this, weinitially remove about twice the sample size that NAA requires, as an uncrushed portion of eachsample is retained for further reference or analysis.

Multivariate interpretation

A goal of our analyses is to identify compositional signatures for the output of each kiln complexand evaluate the geochemically uniqueness of each complex. Because of the size and complexityof the NAA data set (200 samples × 25 elements), we use a combination of multivariate data re-duction techniques. This includes unsupervised multivariate classification (principal componentsanalysis, PCA) and hierarchical clustering to establish preliminary group membership. These ini-tial groups are verified or adjusted using a supervised technique (canonical variates analysis,CVA). The finalized groups are then compared with other contextual data such as kiln originand geological setting.

RESULTS

Of the 200 samples, three samples were not submitted for analysis because they were under-weight (one from Tani; two from Thanl Mrech); in addition, the NAA result for a sample fromTorp Chey was removed from subsequent analysis as a compositional outlier. Of the remainder,168 were found to be compositionally distinct and consistent with their respective kiln origins.Both the Bangkong and Torp Chey samples were compositionally exclusive (Fig. 2 (a) and

Figure 1 Left: a map of Cambodia and surrounds and the position of sampling region (kiln locations indicated by smallsquares). Right: a detail of the sampling region, showing the locations of kilns in relation to soil types (BK, Bangkong;TN6, Tani; TMB, Thnal Mrech; TC2, Torp Chey). For a colour version of this figure, see the online publication.

6 P. Grave et al.


Tables 1 and 2). A total of 28 samples did not match with the elemental signature of theirassociated kiln.

Fig. 2 illustrates the compositional groups (also see Table 1) identified in the data set and theirrelationships in multivariate space; Torp Chey and Tani are the most geochemically similar,while Thanl Mrech is the most distinct, and Bangkong ceramics are compositionally intermediate.The main elements that differentiate these groups are antimony (Sb) and iron (Fe) (Fig. 2 (b)), acorrelation that may reflect the major role of ferric hydroxides as a substrate for Sb sequestration(Ritchie et al. 2013).

For our study area, iron content closely corresponds to major soil types. Thnal Mrech is on anacid lithosol, derived from weathered sandstone from which iron is almost completely leached.Iron and clay leached from the Thnal Mrech upland soils accumulate in the Torp Chey soil at

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 2 Three-dimensional projections of results for the kiln group compositional types (BK, Bangkong; TN6, Tani;TMB, Thnal Mrech; TC2, Torp Chey) by: (a) the first three principal components for the subset of kiln group matchesusing all NAA elements; (b) the three elements identified by stepwise discriminant function analysis that best define thekilns group subset [sodium (Na), iron (Fe) and antimony (Sb)]; and (c) the first three principal components for the fulldata set (minus the outlier) for all NAA elements, showing the positions of the groups posited to be from four unknownkiln complexes (?1–?4) relative to the known kiln groups of the sample.



the foot of the mountains. As a result, the plinthic oxisols (locally termed plinthite podzols)around Torp Chey, with the highest concentrations of iron in the region, are typically associatedwith laterite formation. Tani and Bangkong are located in cultural hydromorphic soils that oc-cupy a low topographic position, where an intermediate concentration of mobilized clay and ironhas been deposited from upslope run-off water.

DISCUSSION

The elemental differentiation of each ceramic group parallels the parent geology of the kiln loca-tions, confirming the use of highly local clay sources. For example, the Torp Chey ceramics havethe highest iron content, as expected of a local source in iron-rich plinthite podzols. The ThnalMrechceramics are low in iron, consistent with a local origin in white acid lithosols, and the Bangkong andTani ceramics are intermediate situated in the acidic zonal soils of these two kiln sites.

Somewhat less expected, or currently less explicable, is the role of sodium (Na) as one of thekey elements for differentiating between the Thnal Mrech ceramics (lowest) and the Tani ce-ramics (highest) (Fig. 2 (b)). If the ceramics were earthenwares, we would be concerned thatthe sodium was absorbed post-depositionally from mobilized salts. However, this is unlikelyfor the glassy, impervious matrices of the stonewares of our sample, and therefore probably re-flects the relatively high sodium content of the parent materials used.

For several of the 28 ‘confusors’, not produced at the sites where they were excavated, we cansuggest production at other kiln complexes represented in our sample (in the Tani sample, fivematch Bangkong and four match Thnal Mrech; for Thnal Mrech, one is a match with Bangkongand two match with Tani). Assuming that the kiln-specific character of compositional groupsholds for other kiln complexes, the remaining 16 samples (10 from Tani and six from ThnalMrech) appear to come from at least four other kiln complexes not represented in the pilot sample(Fig. 2 (c) and Table 2).

The NAA results demonstrate that stonewares produced at the four kiln complexes can be dis-tinguished compositionally. Previous XRF work (Programme CERANGKOR 2011) distin-guished ceramics from the Anlong Thom kilns of Phnom Kulen (represented in our study bythe ceramic sample from Thnal Mrech) from ceramics produced elsewhere on the Angkorianplain, but could not clearly differentiate ceramics from different complexes within the plain. Inthe present study, in addition to the Thnal Mrech samples, we have also been able to distinguishthree further compositionally discrete production complexes in the Angkorian plain.

Table 2 A summary of kiln group membership (BK, Bangkong; TN6, Tani; TMB, Thnal Mrech; TC2, Torp Chey) bysample origin (x-axis) and sample allocation (y-axis)

Kiln BK TC2 TMB2 TN6 Σ

Kiln allocation BK 50 – 1 5 56TC2 – 49 – – 49TMB2 – – 39 4 43TN6 – – 2 30 32?1 – – 5 1 6?2 – – 1 2 3?3 – – – 4 4?4 – – – 3 3Σ 50 49 48 49

8 P. Grave et al.


In general, each kiln sample of this study produced large groups that were predominantly kilnspecific (Tani and Thnal Mrech) or exclusive (Bangkong and Torp Chey). The presence of non-locally produced ceramics at two of the kiln complexes suggests that these kiln complexes areconsumption sites as well as production sites. This flags the necessity for caution in interpretingresults of ceramics from production sites as purely local, and the advantage of large sample sizesfor understanding the patterns of production and consumption at these sites. Future analyses ofthe formal characteristics of the ceramics will also help clarify consumption and production pat-terns, as will the direct analysis of stonewares from consumption sites.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot NAA study demonstrates that the output of kiln complexes in the Greater Angkor re-gion can be differentiated at a higher level of precision than is possible with previous XRF-basedarchaeometric studies. As expected, results can be readily interpreted in relation to different geo-logical facies found across the study area. The results of this study confirm that we can geochem-ically differentiate the four production centres studied here. Based on these results, we will moveon with the next stage of the project, collecting a larger sample of ceramics from these kiln sites,along with expanding ceramic sampling and analysis to all known Khmer kiln sites in the region.This will include sampling previously collected materials housed in museums. Subsequent stepswill include sampling Khmer stonewares in consumption sites, through collaboration with cur-rent survey and excavation projects.

The NAA methodology outlined here demonstrates its viability, and the likelihood of produc-ing significant new insights into Angkorian stoneware production.

Our more comprehensive substantive goal now is to understand the economic relationships,and their dynamics, between the surrounding region and the core. The next step in studying theseregional dynamics is the analysis of an appropriately scaled sample of stoneware sherd andsediment samples from Khmer stoneware kilns and from consumption sites across mainlandSouth-East Asia. All data generated by this project will be made publicly available through thearchaeological data sharing portal Open Context.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was funded by an internal University of New England Grant (A12/2069), and a morecomprehensive project is now supported by the Australian Research Council (DP 140103194; pro-ject URL: www.kpx.org.au). Thanks are extended to the APSARA Research office for permissionto export the stoneware samples to Australia, to Damian Evans (Director, University of SydneyRobert Christie Research Centre) and Malay So (Administrator, Robert Christie Research Centre)for assistance in shipping samples to Australia, and to Kimberlee Newman for drafting Fig. 1. Wealso thank two anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions and points for clarification.

REFERENCES

Aoyagi, Y., and Sasaki, T. (eds.), 2007, The Tani kiln site in Cambodia, Rengo, Tokyo.Aoyagi, Y., Sasaki, T., Tanaka, K., Nogami, T., Marui, M., and Sumida, T., 2000, Excavation of a Khmer ceramic kiln

site: report of the investigation of Kiln B1 Tani Kiln Complex, Udaya, 1, 235–53.Aymonier, E., 1901, Le Cambodge II: les provinces siamoises, Ernest Leroux, Paris.Bishop, R. L., Canouts, V., Crown, P. L., and De Atley, S. P., 1990, Sensitivity, precision, and accuracy: their roles in

ceramic compositional data bases, American Antiquity, 55(3), 537–46.



http://www.kpx.org.au

Briggs, L. P., 1951, The ancient Khmer Empire, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, Volume 41, Part 1,American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA.

Brown, R., Childress, V., and Gluckman,M., 1974, AKhmer kiln site—Surin Province, Journal of the Siam Society, 62(2),239–52.

Carò, F., and Douglas, J. G., 2013, Nature and provenance of the sandstone used for Bayon style sculptures producedduring the reign of Jayavarman VII, Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 723–34.

Carò, F., and Im, S., 2012, Khmer sandstone quarries of Kulen Mountain and Koh Ker: a petrographic and geochemicalstudy, Journal of Archaeological Science, 39, 1455–66.

Chandavij, N., 1990, Ancient kiln sites in Buriram Province, northeastern Thailand, in Ancient ceramic kiln technology inAsia (ed. H. Chuimei), 230–44, ed., Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong.

Chhay, R., Heng, P., and Chhay, V., 2013, Khmer ceramic technology: a case study from Thnal Mrech kiln site, PhnomKulen, in Materializing Southeast Asia’s past: selected papers from the 12th International Conference of theEuropean Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists (eds. M. J. Klokke and V. Degroot), 179–95, Vol. 2 eds.vol.,NUS Press, Singapore.

Chhay, V., Chhay, R., San, K., Sok, H. L., and Tabata, Y., 2009, Preliminary results of the Anlong Thom kiln excavationon Phnom Kulen in Angkor: a case study of ALK01, in The Fourth Forbes Symposium at the Freer Gallery of Art:studies of historic Asian ceramics using scientific methods (eds. B. McCarthy, E. S. Chase, L. A. Cort, J. G. Douglas,and P. Jett), 215–44, eds., Freer Gallery of Art Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Desbat, A., 2011, Pour une révision de la chronologie des grès khmers, Aséanie, 27, 11–34.Ea D., 2010, Angkorian stoneware ceramics: the evolution of kiln structure and ceramic typology, PhD dissertation,

Osaka Ohtani University.Ea, D., 2013, Angkorian stoneware ceramics along the East Road from Angkor to Bakan at Torp Chey Village, Udaya,

11, 59–98.Ea, D., Chhay, V., Lam, S., Loeung, R., Sok, K. S., and Em, S., 2005, New information and brief introduction of Khmer

kiln sites, in Tani Kilns A6 kiln excavation research report—monograph on Angkor cultural properties preservationcollaboration research (ed. Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties), 85–100, ed., Nara NationalResearch Institute for Cultural Properties, Nara.

Ea, D., Chhay, V., Chap, S., Lam, S., Loeung, R., Sok, K. S., and Em, S., 2008, New data on Khmer kiln sites, inInterpreting Southeast Asia’s past monument, image and text: selected papers from the 10th International Conferenceof the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists (eds. E. A. Bacus, I. C. Glover, and P. D. Sharrock),275–85, eds., NUS Press, Singapore.

Earle, T., 2011, Redistribution and the political economy: the evolution of an idea, American Journal of Archaeology,115, 237–44.

Evans, D., Pottier, C., Fletcher, R., Hensley, S., Tapley, I., Milne, A., and Barbetti, M., 2007, A comprehensive archae-ological map of the world’s largest preindustrial settlement complex at Angkor, Cambodia, Proceedings of the Na-tional Academy of Sciences, 104(36), 14 277–82.

Glascock, M., 1992, Characterization of archaeological ceramics at MURR by neutron activation analysis and multivar-iate statistics, in Chemical characterization of ceramic pastes in archaeology (ed. H. Neff), 11–26, ed., PrehistoryPress, Madison, WI.

Glascock, M. D., Neff, H., and Vaughn, K. J., 2004, Instrumental neutron activation analysis and multivariate statistics forpottery provenance, Hyperfine Interactions, 154, 95–105.

Grave, P., Kealhofer, L., Marsh, B., and Gates, M.-H., 2008, Using neutron activation analysis to identify scales of inter-action at Kinet Höyük, Turkey, Journal of Archaeological Science, 35(7), 1974–92.

Grave, P., Kealhofer, L., Marsh, B., Schoop, U.-D., Seeher, J., Bennett, J. W., and Stopic, A., 2014, Ceramics, trade, pro-venience and geology: Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age, Antiquity, 88(342), 1180–200.

Groslier, B. P., 1981, Introduction to the ceramics wares of Angkor, in Khmer ceramics, 9th–14th century (ed. D. Stock),9–40, Southeast Asian Ceramic Society, Singapore.

Hawken, S., 2013, Designs of kings and farmers: landscape systems of the Greater Angkor urban complex, Asian Per-spectives, 52(2), 347–67.

Hein, D., 2008, Ceramic kiln lineages in Mainland Southeast Asia, Ceramics in Mainland Southeast Asia; Collec-tions in the Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery; http://SEAsian Ceramics.asia.si.edu (accessed 2October 2015).

Hendrickson, M., 2010, Historic routes to Angkor: development of the Khmer road system (ninth to thirteenth centuriesAD) in Mainland Southeast Asia, Antiquity, 84, 480–96.

Hirth, K., 1996, Political economy and archaeology: perspectives on exchange and production, Journal of ArchaeologicalResearch, 4(3), 203–39.

10 P. Grave et al.


Jacques, C., and Lafond, P., 2007, The Khmer Empire: cities and sanctuaries, fifth to the thirteenth centuries, RiverBooks, Bangkok.

Jennings, J., and Alvarez, W. Y., 2001, Architecture, local elites, and imperial entanglements: the Wari Empire and theCotahuasi Valley of Peru, Journal of Field Archaeology, 28(1/2), 143–59.

Lustig, E., 2009, Power and pragmatism in the political economy of Angkor, PhD dissertation, University of Sydney.Lustig, E., Evans, D., and Richards, N., 2007, Words across space and time: an analysis of lexical items in Khmer inscrip-

tions, sixth–fourteenth centuries CE, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 38(1), 1–26.Miksic, J., Chhay Rachna, Heng Piphal and Chhay Visoth, 2009, Archaeological report on the Thnal Mrech kiln site

(TMK 02), Anlong Thom, Phnom Kulen, Cambodia, Asia Research Institute Working Paper Series No. 126, NationalUniversity of Singapore.

Museum, O. O. U. (eds.), 2009, Khnar Po Bi kiln site excavation report, Vol. 55vol., Osaka Ohtani University Museum,Osaka.

Parker, B. J., 2003, Archaeological manifestations of empire: Assyria’s imprint on southeastern Anatolia, AmericanJournal of Archaeology, 107, 525–57.

Parkinson, W. A., Nakassis, D., and Galaty, M. L., 2013, Crafts, specialists, and markets in Mycenaean Greece: introduc-tion, American Journal of Archaeology, 117, 413–22.

Polkinghorne, M., 2007, Artists and ateliers: Khmer decorative lintels of the ninth and tenth centuries, Udaya, 8,219–41.

Polkinghorne, M., 2008, Khmer decorative lintels and the allocation of artistic labor, Arts Asiatiques, 63, 21–35.Polkinghorne, M., 2013, Decorative lintels and ateliers at Mahendraparvata and Hariharālaya, in Materializing Southeast

Asia’s past: selected papers from the 12th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast AsianArchaeologists, vol. 2 (eds. M. J. Klokke and V. Degroot), 205–17, NUS Press, Singapore.

Pottier, C., 2012, Beyond the temples: Angkor and its territory, in Old myths and new approaches: interpreting ancientreligious sites in Southeast Asia (ed. A. Haendel), 12–27, ed., Monash University, Melbourne.

Programme CERANGKOR., 2008, Recherches sur les ateliers de potiers angkoriens: rapport 2008, École Françaised’Extrême Orient.




Ritchie, V. J., Ilgen, A. G., Mueller, S. H., Trainor, T. P., and Goldfarb, R. J., 2013, Mobility and chemical fate of anti-mony and arsenic in historic mining environments of the Kantishna Hills district, Denali National Park and Preserve,Alaska, Chemical Geology, 335, 172–88.

Sahai, S., 1978, Central administration in ancient Cambodia, The South East Asian Review, 3(1), 17–40.Sinopoli, C. M., 1988, The organization of craft production at Vijayanagara, South India, American Anthropologist, 90(3),

580–97.Sinopoli, C. M., and Morrison, K. D., 1995, Dimensions of imperial control: the Vijayanagara capital, American Anthro-

pologist, 97(1), 83–96.Smith, M. E., and Berdan, F. F., 1992, Archaeology and the Aztec Empire, World Archaeology, 23(3), 353–67.Smith, M. L., 2014, The archaeology of urban landscapes, Annual Review of Anthropology, 43, 307–23.Sophia University Angkor International Mission, 2000, Excavation of a Khmer ceramic kiln site: report of the Investiga-

tion of Kiln B1, Tani Kiln Complex, Udaya, 1, 235–53.Stark, M. T., 2004, Pre-Angkorian and Angkorian Cambodia, in Southeast Asia: From Prehistory to History (eds. P.

Bellwood and I. Glover), 89–119, eds., Routledge Curzon Press, New York.Stark, M. T., Bishop, R., and Miksa, E., 2000, Ceramic technology and social boundaries: cultural practices in Kalinga

clay selection and use, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 7(4), 295–331.Stark, M. T., Sanderson, D. C. W., and Bingham, R. B., 2006, Monumentality in the Mekong Delta: luminescence dating

and implications, Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association, 26, 110–20.Tabata, Y., 2005, Stoneware ceramics production in the Angkor area in Cambodia: A comparative study of artifacts from

the Tani Anglong Thom and Sar Sai kilns, The Journal of Sophia Asian Studies, 23, 7–36.Tabata, Y., 2008, Some aspects of the Anglong Thom kiln Cambodia, Journal of Southeast Asian Archaeology, 28,

61–74.Tabata, Y., 2010, Essays on the origin and the end of Khmer stoneware ceramics, The Journal of Sophia Asian Studies,

28, 103–11(in Japanese).



Tabata, Y., and Chhay, V., 2007, Preliminary report on the excavation of the Anglong Thom kiln site, Cambodia, TōnanAjia kōkogaku [Journal of Southeast Asian Archaeology] (Journal of the Japan Society of Southeast AsianArchaeology), 27, 63–9.

Tin, T., 2003, Khmer ceramics: a case study of the ceramics from the Sarsey Kiln Complex in the Angkor area, Masterthesis, Department of Foreign Studies, Graduate Program in Area StudiesSophia University, Tokyo.

Uchida, E., Ito, K., and Shimizu, N., 2010, Provenance of the sandstone used in the construction of the Khmer monumentsin Thailand, Archaeometry, 52, 550–74.

Uchida, E., Cunin, O., Suda, C., Ueno, A., and Nakagawa, T., 2007, Consideration on the construction process and thesandstone quarries during the Angkor period based on the magnetic susceptibility, Journal of Archaeological Science,34, 927–35.

Wong, Wai Yee, 2010, A preliminary study of some economic activities of Khmer Empire: examining the relationshipbetween the Khmer and Guangdon ceramic industries during the 9th to 14th centuries, Unpublished PhD dissertation,Southeast Asian Studies Programme, National University of Singapore.

12 P. Grave et al.


Documents

Differentiating Khmer Stoneware Production: An NAA Pilot Study from Siem Reap Province, Cambodia