Introduction:

The Kamplong Site on the eastern side of the Mekong River near Vihear Sour Village, about 20 km from Phnom Penh was recently assessed and perhaps recently discovered. The site may appear as only a small mound on previous survey(s) if recorded at all. Several pottery bearing mounds extend approximately one kilometer in length and several hundred meters in width. Some of the mounds have evidence of brick pavements or architectural foundations. Pottery remains are dense and several meters thick. Stone tools and faunal remains are found in the deposits as well. The pottery is significantly similar to Funan and later sites in the region; particularly Angkor Borei, Phnom Borei, Cheung Ek and Sre Ampil. The lowermost exposed deposits (with the stone tools) contain a spectrum of pottery clearly placing it within the Funan period. The extent, size and significance of the site ranks it as highly important for research, preservation and heritage management. It is unlikely, however, that this site is ‘one of a kind’, although it is probably one of only a few of its kind. The potential and importance of the site due to its more than usual intact nature warrants further investigation as soon as possible. It also serves as example that many significant sites may be overlooked and possibly destroyed before the significance is known, research is conducted and preservation measures are taken. Sites such as Kamplong are highly valuable non-renewable cultural resources.

Background:

Over 4000 archaeological sites ranging from small middens to large complexes such as Angkor Wat have been recorded in Cambodia (BEFEO 2007). Most recorded site ages range from prehistoric “Neolithic” to Ankgorian, with less attention on post-Angkorian and historic sites. Work over the last several years conducted by BEFEO teams has included systematic checking of previous inventories, which mainly include recorded sites and site descriptions by early French archaeologists and historians such as Lunet De Lajonquier (1901, 1902-1911), Etien Aymonier (1900-1904), and many others. Besides descriptions and attention to the great monuments in Cambodia, early archaeologists also examined material culture, conducted surveys, visited sites, and occasionally oversaw site recordings and excavations during the colonial period, especially during the first half of the 20th century when Cambodia was a protectorate of France. Archaeological work, however, ground to a halt during the conflicts and wars from the late 1960s to early 1990s, with a reemergence only truly beginning in the early to mid 1990s.

Due to the prominence of architectural sites in Cambodia, most past archaeology has focused on Angkorian and pre-Angkorian (Chenla period) temples coupled with heavy attention to inscriptions statuary and diagnostic architecture. Currently, most ‘archaeology’ or ‘archaeological attention’ continues to focus on large architectural sites (and associated landscapes), architectural and art history, and epigraphy; almost exclusively restricted to the Angkorian and pre-Angkorian periods. This is not necessarily problematic (the temples do need vast amounts of attention for a variety of historic, cultural and economic reasons), except that it does create a disparity between non-monument sites and temples or temple complexes. Non-monument sites are just as important but receive comparatively little research attention, recording and analysis, and protection, despite being no less significant or important for history, heritage and research.

In the last two decades, many new archaeological sites inclusive of many site types and ages have been discovered either through exposure due to development and looting, systematic survey more readily achievable after mine clearance, and/or reassessment of previously known site areas. For example, a significant amount of recent work has been conducted at ‘Neolithic’ banteay kou circular earthwork sites1; ‘Iron and Bronze Age’ sites2; and ‘Funan’ period sites3 such as Angkor Borei (Bong 2003; Stark et al 1999) and Phnom Borei (Phon 2004).  The rate of ‘discovery and systematic inventory’ indicates, however, that a vast number of sites have yet to be discovered and/or properly recorded (see LOMAP project results). Currently, many sites are not unexpectedly being uncovered, discovered and often destroyed especially in the wake of Cambodia’s rapid development, road construction and expansion of farmland now that most mine clearing operations have been completed. Looting has become another major threat as well. Looters often keep site locations secret in addition to almost completing destroying any potential for useful archaeology and preservation.

The Kamplong Site:

Recently, Dr. D. Kyle Latinis (Associate Dean, University of Cambodia) noted an archaeological site near new road construction activities during a visit to Vihear Sour Village, Kandal Province. Vihear Sour is located a few kilometers away from the Mekong River’s eastern bank about 20 km  from Phnom Penh and is known for its annual buffalo races during the Pchum Ben Day festival. One of the pagodas in Vihear Sour also houses an early brick structure (possibly an early archaeological temple or stupa) as well as a few architectural pieces (including lintels), statuary pedestals, etc. from the Angkorian and pre-Angkorian periods.

The site that Latinis noticed, composed of several large mounds, is locally named Kamplong which is located in Sanlong Village, Sanlong Commune, Khsach Kandal District, Kandal Province about 4-5 km outside of Vihear Sour. Latinis had visited Vihear Sour about a decade ango, but had not recalled visiting the Kamplong mounds. After a walk through ground survey, Latinis confirmed that the mounds were anthropogenic with dense surface artifact scatters and material culture deposits more than several meters thick in exposed cuts from mound slopes and pond construction. Most of the remains are earthenware and stoneware pottery sherds including large pieces and some near complete vessels such as bowls.

It was noted that the lower deposit earthenware and fine paste ware pottery clearly has affinities with Funan period pottery from sites such as Angkor Borei (Bong Sovath 2003; Stark 2003; Stark and Bong Sovath 2001), Phnom Borei (Phon Kaseka 2004), Cheung Ek (Phon Kaseka 2002 and 2007; Phon and Latinis in review), Sre Ampil (Phon Kaseka 2006; Phon Kosal 2003; Phlong Phiseth 2006), Oc Eo (Vietnam; Latinis n.d., Tan 2003) and others in the region (e.g., Koh Thom-Phlong Phiseth, pers. comm.); while the stoneware pottery is also identical to that found at many sites in the region—particularly pottery recently analyzed from Cheung Ek and Sre Ampil (Latinis n.d.). A ground stone axe/adze fragment (cutting edge half; broken due to transverse fracture during use) was also recovered from an eroding lower deposit at a pond cut in the Kamplong Site. Numerous animal bones and shell remains (especially marine shell) were also recognized. A few mounds contained ancient brick remains generally associated with architectural features or pavements indicative of small temple remains.

A small sample collection was collected and Phon Kaseka was immediately contacted for consultation (senior researcher and archaeologist at the Royal Academy of Cambodia, director of the Khmer Archaeological Society). Phon Kaseka along with Latinis realized the significance of the site and arranged a small team to further assess the site that same week. A search of records revealed that the site may have only been noted as a ‘dot’ on a recent archaeological survey map (unclear), but remarkably, no information about the size, extent, and general nature of the site is available. Kamplong may simply be a new discovery.

The following pedestrian survey organized by Phon Kaseka revealed that the visible site is about 1 km in length and several hundred meters wide composed of several large mounds with virtually uninterrupted artifact surface scatters and deep deposits bearing material culture (artifacts and ecofacts) in all exposed areas. The mounds indicate past habitation due to the dense pottery remains as well as the possibility of temple mounds (perhaps moated) due to the ancient brick remains exposed in several mounds.

Some of the mounds have been recently used for Sino-Khmer burial tombs. Additionally, some of the mounds have been compromised due to soil excavation for pond construction, house mound reinforcement and possibly road construction activities. It is difficult to assess whether or not the site has been seriously looted, but there are some indicators of past looting activities. As water levels were at their peak during survey (November 2009), the possible total site area remains indeterminate. The site may extend to the inundated fields and small mounds in the immediate seasonal lake-like vicinity.

Presently, there are less than a dozen, small, primarily seasonally used, shelters/houses which serve local farmers during periodic agricultural and fishing activities. Most of the mound area is grassy with a few relatively young Borassus palm trees, vegetable gardens and paddy fields. The palm trees in the area outside the site in the flooded plain are much older indicating farmers have only used the site for agriculture and modern Sino-Khmer burials in the last decade or two. Brief farmer interviews were conducted. However, most farmers were gone or busy during the reconnaissance.

The mid to late Funan Period ceramics are abundant. The other ceramics are also equally interesting. Although there are some relatively recent Chinese ceramics (most likely associated with the Sino-Khmer tombs), some of the stonewares, glazed stonewares and porcelains may be non-local and range from the 12th-15th centuries. The possible temple foundations as evidenced by brick remains, as well as the dense habitation remains, are particularly interesting as well. One possibly ‘moated’ mound may also indicate water feature construction in relation to a possible temple. In accordance with much of Cambodia’s past related to large scale water control engineering, one would expect other water control features to be present in the area as well, perhaps currently masked by seasonal inundation.

Unlike Angkor Borei, Sre Ampil and Cheung Ek, Kamplong has not been as seriously compromised from development and looting. The apparent lack of highly visible architectural remains, statuary, etc. has probably kept the site from focused and intense looter attention. Thus, Kamplong has great potential for comparative archaeological work and great potential for answering the same questions posed at sites like Angkor Borei and its settlement region vis-a-vis LOMAP (Lower Mekong Archaeological Project) activities, Cheung Ek, Sre Ampil, Phnom Borei, etc. Due to its size, questions regarding major nodes from as early as the Funan period can be addressed at a comparative regional scale as well.

Endnotes:

1. See Albrecht et al (2001); Dega (2002); Heng (2002, 2004, 2005); Kojo and Pheng (1998); Thuy (2002). these works also include reassessment of sites excavated by Groslier (1966a, 1966b); see also Carbonell (1979) and Malleret (1959a, 1959b, 1960, 1962). The late Dr. Bert Davis also oversaw recent excavations at Chamkar Andong, a prehistoric site with early first millennium radiocarbon dates and material culture related to Funan-like material culture as well (unpublished reports on file with the Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts , Cambodia and the NAGA Research Group).

2. See O’Reilly (2004, 2006); Latinis (2006); Yasuda and Phoeurn (2007); see also Osteoarchaeology Research Group (ORG-originally based at the National University of Singapore) and EFEO regarding the Prei Khmeng Site; also Dr. Christophe Pottier and EFEO regarding recent Irona and Bronze Age sites in Siem Reap at the Koh Ta Meas and Prei Khmeng Sites; also current work at the Prohear Site in southeastern Cambodia which includes numerous gold artifacts and Dongson drums in association with metal age burials; also see re-excavations at notable prehistoric sites such as Laang Spean (Mourer 1977, 1988; Mourer and Mourer 1970) recently re-excavated (Heng Sophady pers. comm.) and Samrong Sen (Ly 2001; Mansuy 1902).

3. Most of the excavated Funan sites and many exposed Funan-esque sites in the lower Mekong floodplain area, particularly Angkor Borei and Phnom Borei, yield lower layer burials that are generally associated with the Iron and Bronze Ages; producing radiocarbon dates clustering around the third to fourth centuries BC. Either the Funan period has a developmental life history of several hundred years prior to the 1st century (the date agreed upon by most historians as the beginning of Funan) or there is a systematic metal age settlement not related to ‘Funan’ polities.

However, most of the earlier remains are located in/underneath Funan sites with no clear temporal division that suggests a period of abandonment or extreme abrupt and invasive cultural changes. Long distance trade items such as Dongson drums and Indo-Pacific (presumably Arikemedu-Indian) beads from the first few centuries BC are also common, as well as stone tools often associated with the Neolithic (particularly shouldered and unshouldered axes and adzes).

In fact, as with the Iron Age to Funan transition, extremely abrupt transitions from the Funan to pre-Angkor/Chenla periods are not clearly evident either (possibly absent, with the exception of temples, architectural and statuary styles and technology, and inscriptions), with the majority of pre-Angkorian inscriptions, statuary, and temples located in the south within or near Funan sites despite the largest concentrated cluster of pre-Angkor temples located at Sambor Prei Kuk in the woodlands near Kampong Thom Province just east of the Tonle Sap Lake near the Stung Sen River. This lack of abrupt transitions is somewhat evident moving into the Angkor period as well, but this will not be discussed further here.

A picture of massive settlement and expansion, land modifications (the Paris canals tested by LOMAP, see Sandersan et al 2007) indicate construction in the 1st millennium BC probably in relation to drainage, water control and transportation), ecological/environmental transformations (from changing landscapes, hydrology and ‘management, introduction and/or exclusion’, in other words, ‘overall manipulation’ of species-genera profiles), long-distance trade, and technological changes beginning in the first few centuries BC and continuing through all periods to the post-Angkor phases in the lower Mekong floodplain and other regions is emerging. Major changes occurred for sure, but seriously punctuated abandonment or decline seems to have not (see also Stark 2006a and 2006b for related discussions)(see also work around the Oc Eo area in Vietnam; e.g., Manguin and Vo 2000; Ha Van Tan 1986).

References:

• Albrecht, G., M. Haidle, Chhor Sivleng, Heng Leang Hong, Heng Sophady, Heng Than, Mao Someaphyvath, Sirik Kada, Som Sophal, Thuy Chanthourn, and Vin Laychour. 2001. “Circular Earthwork Krek 52/62: Recent Research on the Prehistory of Cambodia.” Asian Perspectives 39(1-2):20-46.

• Aymonier, E. 1900-1904. Le Cambodge. Paris: 3 vols. E. Leroux.

• Bong, Sovath. 2003. “The Ceramic Chronology of Angkor Borei, Takeo Province, Southern Cambodia.” Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Hawaii.

• Carbonell, J. P. 1979. Recent Data on the Cambodian Neolithic: The Problem of Cultural Continuity in Southern Indochina. In, R.B. Smith and W. Watson (eds.), Early Southeast Asia. Oxford University Press, New York. pp. 223-226.

• Dega, M. 2002. Prehistoric Circular Earthworks of Cambodia. BAR International Series 1041. Oxford: Archaeopress.

• Groslier, B. P. 1966a. Archaeologia Mundi: Indochina. Geneva: Nagel.

• Groslier, B. P. 1966b. “Decouvertes archeologiques recentes au Cambodge.” Kambuja 16:22-25.

• Ha Van Tan. 1986. “Oc Eo: Endogenous and exogenous settlements.” Vietnam Social Sciences 1-2(7-8): 91-101.

• Heng, Sophady. 2002. “The Memot Centre for Archaeology.” Bulletin of the Students of the Department of Archaeology 2:40-46.

• Heng, Sophady. 2004. “Recent Excavations at the Archaeological Site, Krek Village No. 18.”

• Bulletin of the Students of the Department of Archaeology 3:5-14.

• Heng, Sophady. 2005. “Village 10.8: Excavation Results of an Iron Age Cemetery in the Red Soil Region, Eastern Cambodia.” Report for the Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts, Cambodia; the Memot Centre for Archaeology; and the NAGA Research Group.

• Kojo, Y. and Pheng Sytha. 1998. “A Preliminary Investigation of a Circular Earthwork at Krek, Southeastern Cambodia.” Anthropological Science 106:229-244.

• Latinis, D. Kyle. n.d.    EDXRF (Energy Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence) Reports on Cambodian Pottery (on file with various Ministries, Universities and NGOs).

• Latinis, D. Kyle. 2006. “Preliminary Report for Archaeological Investigations in Thmar Puok (Kampong Vat/Wat Chas) and Proximate Sites in Thmar Puok District, Banteay Meanchey Province, Cambodia.” Report on file at the Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts, Cambodia; Heritage Watch, Cambodia.

• Lunet de Lajonquière, E. E. 1901. Atlas archéologique de l’Indo-Chine: Monuments du Champa et du Cambodge. Paris: Publications de l’École Française d’Extrême Orient.

• Lunet de Lajonquière, E. E. 1902-1911. Inventaire descriptif des monuments du Cambodge. 3 vols. Paris: Publications de l’École Française d’Extrême Orient vol. IV, VIII-IX.

• Ly, Vanna. 2001. “Somrong Sen: Early Workshop of Material Culture in the Flooded Area of the Tonle Sap River, Kampong Chhnang, Cambodia.” Journal of Southeast Asian Archaeology 21:47-81.

• Malleret, L. 1959a. “Ouverages Circulaires en Terre Dans l’ndonchine Meridionale.” Bulletin de l’Ecole Francaise d’Extreme Orient 49:409-434.

• Malleret, L. 1959b. L'Archéologie du Delta du Mékong, Part 1. L’Exploration Archéologique et Les Fouilles d’Oc-Èo. Paris: École Française d'Extrême-Orient.

• Malleret, L. 1960. L'Archéologie du Delta du Mékong, Part 2. La Civilisation Matérielle d’Oc-Èo. 2 vols. Paris: École Française d'Extrême-Orient.

• Malleret, L. 1962. L'Archéologie du Delta du Mékong, Part 3. La Culture du Fou-Nan, 2 vols.

• Paris: École Française d'Extrême-Orient.

• Manguin P. Y. and Vo S. K. 2000. Excavations at the Ba The/OcEocomplex (Viet Nam): a preliminary report on the 1998 campaign. See Lobo & Reimann 2000, pp. 107–21

• Mansuy, H. 1902. Stations Prehistoiques de Somrong Seng et de Longprao  (Cambodge).

• Editions F. H. Schneider, Hanoi.

• Mourer, R. 1977. “Laang Spean and the Prehistory of Cambodia.” Modern Quaternary Research in Southeast Asia 3:29-56.

• Mourer, R. 1988. “Prhistorie du Cambodge.” Decouvertes:40-52.

• Mourer, C. and R. Mourer. 1970. “The Prehistoric Industry of Laang Spean, Province of Battambang, Cambodia.” Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania Vol V(2):128-146.

• O’Reilly, D. 2004. “Excavations at Phum Snay, Cambodia.” Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 24(2):129-132.

• O’Reilly, D. 2006. Early Civilizations of Southeast Asia. Alta Mira Press, New York.

• Paris, P. 1931. “Anciene canaux reconnus sur photographies aeriennes dans les provinces de Ta-Kev et de Chau-Doc.” Bulletin de l'École Française d'Extrême Orient 31:221-224.

• Paris, P. 1941. Notes et mélanges: ancienes canaux reconnus sur photographies aeriennes et les provinces de Ta-Keo, Chau-Doc, Long Xuyen et Rach-Gia. Bulletin de l'École Française d'Extrême Orient 41:365-370.

• Phon, Kaseka. 2007. “Cheung Ek Circular Earthwork Archaeological and Cultural Resource Management Investigations.” Report on file at the Royal Academy of Cambodia Institute of Culture and Fine Arts and the Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts, Cambodia.

• Phon, Kaseka. 2006. “Sre Ampil Archaeological and Conservation Project.” Report on file with the Royal Academy of Cambodia, Phnom Penh; Center for Khmer Studies, Siem Reap; and the Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts, Cambodia.

• Phon, Kaseka. 2004. “Phnom Borei and Its Relationship to Angkor Borei.” Report on File with the Royal Academy of Cambodia and the Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts, Cambodia.

• Phon, Kaseka. 2002. “Ancient Kiln Site at Cheung Ek. Unpublished MA Thesis, Royal Academy of Cambodia, Phnom Penh.

• Phon (Chea) Kosal. 2003. “Sre Ampil Ancient Site.” Unpublished BA Thesis in Archaeology, Faculty of Archaeology, Royal University of Fine Arts, Phnom Penh.

• Phon and Latinis. 2009. “Kiln Fields at Cheung Ek: Recent Archaeological Investigations near Phnom Penh, Cambodia.” Paper in review by the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Bulletin.

• Phlong, Phiseth. 2006. “Archaeological Sites of Bassac River: Reflection on Economics, Religion with Cultural Heritage Management.” Paper presented at the Royal University of Fine Arts, Faculty of Archaeology (July, 2006).

• Phlong, Piseth. n.d. (work in progress-draft available upon request). “The Sre Ampil Site (containing contemporaneous elements with the Cheung Ek Site and located nearby the Cheung Ek Site).” Current draft report on file, Royal University of Fine Arts, Phnom Penh.

• Sanderson, David C.W., Paul Bishop, Miriam Stark, Sally Alexandera, and Dan Penny. 2007. “Luminescence dating of canal sediments from Angkor Borei, Mekong Delta, Southern Cambodia.” Quaternary Geochronology 2:322–329.

• Stark, Miriam T. 2006a. “From Funan to Angkor: Collapse and regeneration in ancient Cambodia.” In G. Schwartz and J. Nichols (eds.), After Collapse: The Regeneration of Complex Societies, pp. 144-167. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

• Stark, Miriam T. 2006b. “Pre-Angkorian settlement trends in Cambodia’s Mekong Delta and the Lower Mekong Archaeological Project.” Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Bulletin 26: 98-108.

• Stark, Miriam T. 2003. “The chronology, technology and contexts of earthenware ceramics in Cambodia.” In J. Miksic (ed.), Earthenware in Southeast Asia, pp. 208-229. Singapore.

• Stark, M. T. and Bong Sovath. 2001. “Recent research on the emergence of early historic states in Cambodia’s Lower Mekong.” Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 19, pp. 85-98.

• Stark, M.T., P. B. Griffin, Chuch Phoeurn, J. Ledgerwood, M. Dega, C. Mortland, Dowling, J.M. Bayman, Bong S., Tea V., Chhan C., and D. K. Latinis. 1999. “Results of the 1995-1996 field investigations at Angkor Borei, Cambodia.” Asian Perspectives 38 (1):7-36.

• Tan, Heidi. 2003. “Remarks on the Pottery of Oc Eo.” In, Art and Archaeology of Funan. Orchid Press, Bangkok.

• Thuy, Chanthourn. 2002. “Banteay Kou: Memotian Circular Earthworks.” Unpublished MA Thesis. Royal Academy of Cambodia, Phnom Penh.

• Yasuda, Yoshinori, and Chuch Phoeurn. 2007. “Preliminary Report for the Excavation in Phum Snay.” International Research Center for Japanese Studies.