Three similar inscriptions associated with small stela pavilions located to the south of the Yasodharatataka were translated by Cœd s,841 who classified the sites as asrama. Due to the religious purpose of the sanctuaries, dedicated to Brahma, Vishnu and Buddha, the term asrama is generally translated as “hermitage”, 842 a type of sanctuary associated with King Yasovarman (AD889-919). He is mentioned as the founder of a total of 100 asrama distributed over the whole Khmer kingdom. The inscriptions provide information about “the operation of each
çrama, their common rules, procedures and some of their differences.”843 Pottier, from aerial images, measured the extent of the visible earthen features that were associated with the stela buildings, regarded the temple of Pre Rup as possibly covering the area of one destroyed asrama, and identified a fifth one to the north of the baray.844 The asrama display several similarities. All asrama are orientated east to west and the average size is about 375 metres845
long and 100-120 metres wide. The enclosed space is divided into three sections,846 two squared areas of same size, and a third of half the size; the function of this arrangement is unknown.
Most asrama are made of irregular earthen mounds alternating with lower areas, which are today used as rice fields. The eastern partition houses in its geometrical centre a small laterite pavilion which originally sheltered the stela. In the case of Prasat Komnap, the stela K. 701 displays information about the use, the rules and religious procedures of the asrama. Some asrama have in addition to the stela pavilion a linear masonry building situated at its south-western side. In the case of Prasat Prei 720, the structure was cleared by Trouv who then wrote an architectural study of this asrama.847 To the east of the asrama a small trapeang completed the ensemble. The location of most of the asrama outside of Angkor remains unknown, but the recent detection of previously unidentified asrama has drawn new attention to them again.848 The region south of the East Baray was originally an even floodplain, and any raised areas indicated human built mounds. The archaeological sites that were surveyed, Prasat Komnap 747 (associated to stela K.747) and Prasat Oung Mong 349, are two of the five archaeological sites in vicinity to the Yasodharatataka that have been identified as asrama.849 The primary survey site Prasat Komnap 747 was only covered by shrubs; the stela pavilion had been excavated earlier on, but had not been reconstructed. The area of Prasat Oung Mong 349 in the vicinity to Sra Srang is in comparison relatively densely occupied, and buildings around the repaired stela building leave little space for a survey. Although not fully qualifying for the definition of an
“enclosure”, in the sense that asrama are not surrounded by a masonry wall the rectangular earthen embankment around the site encloses a clearly defined space. The distinct topography, with generally no visible structural and masonry elements, gave reason for a large scale GPR survey.
Prasat Komnap
The lower parts of Prasat Komnap (site register: MH747) as well as its surroundings have in recent times been used as rice fields and feeding ground for livestock, while the raised embankments and potential occupation mounds, are covered with a low vegetation of scrub and small trees. The actual survey area consists mainly of rice fields and bush land that had to be cleared before the survey. Since the aerial image was taken (Fig. [89], and subsequent figures), a fruit plantation had been planted in the south-eastern part of the asrama. Several wired fences close off this area. Around the collapsed and looted centre, where the remains of the stela pavilion are situated, several laterite blocks were moved to the side. From an earlier excavation the laterite roof top has been reconstructed to the west of the remains of the structure. From the aerial image and the archaeological mapping by Pottier850 there are obvious topographic differences between the three sections. The archaeological map, as displayed in Fig. [89] and Fig. [90], differed slightly from the topography encountered on the ground. This and the fact, that the archaeological map was shifted when transformed into a GIS environment, was the reason for choosing the precise JICA topographic and street data to newly orientate the aerial images and the archaeological map.
The goal of the survey at Prasat Komnap was to cover as many varying areas as possible of the asrama to get a full understanding of subsurface features. While part of the area was cleared from shrubs, grids were laid out at the same time in open areas. The twelve grids covered an area of about 2.7ha. Obstacles, such as modern buildings, the remains of the stela pavilion,
larger trees and termite mounts were mapped and later included into the map. While the trees at this archaeological site did not have a large impact on the survey due to small size, the number and density of the termite mounds have a heavy impact on data recording, which influenced the overall interpretation. Although the termite mounds were partly destroyed for the survey, the remains appear as dark blue areas especially in the deeper reflections (marked as brown dots in the images), which indicate that they are nearly impenetrable with the GPR.
FIG.[89]:SURVEY AREA OF PRASAT KOMNAP (BACKGROUND:POTTIER/FINNMAP).
Surveys in the central part of the eastern partition around the pavilion of the asrama were conducted to identify the connection of the eastern and the central partition. Southwest of the pavilion a masonry sub-surface structure was detected (APK1). Separated by two fence lines, only the combination of the grids revealed its complete outline. The total structure is about 34m long and 15m wide. Oriented east to west, its walls corresponded in size and location to the long laterite building found in a similar location at other asrama, e.g. Prasat Prei. While two 2-3m wide linear features possibly represented the outer wall, two narrower linear features were detected parallel to it, further south (APK2). There are several irregular, possibly masonry remains to the west of the structure which might not have a relation with the ensemble (APK3).
Another strong anomaly ran north to south about 40m to the west of the feature and is potentially a masonry enclosure wall. A similar anomaly was detected to the east of the pavilion (APK4) as well. Other areas of potential masonry were difficult to interpret due to the concentration of termite mounds. The area connecting the central and the eastern partition may have a high potential for additional laterite structures (AKP5). The largest grid, which covered the southern area of the central partition, a mound surrounded by rice fields, does not show any clearly identifiable anomalies. Since roof tiles were found in the area, it warrants further investigation. The rice fields, due to the saturated earth, dispersed the radar signal and returned
a chaotic image in the upper slices, displayed as a light red colour. Probably due to the scatter of the signal, parts of the rice fields are displayed deeper down as strong red anomalies. A survey to the east of the embankment, to identify possible connections between the small pond, the asrama and the causeway leading to the north to the baray, displayed the earthen embankment around the enclosure. Due to its low penetration depth it is displayed in dark blue colours.
Between the pond and asrama are two linear features (APK6) that appear modern because of their length and orientation. At 140-150cm depth there is a feature seen before at other locations, nearly rectangular and about 20m wide and long, which could indicate the remains of an enclosed living space, as discussed in Chapter (3) see Fig. [25].
FIG.[90]:GPR SURVEY AT PRASAT KOMNAP CP175(BACKGROUND:POTTIER,1999).
FIG.[91]:CENTRAL PART OF THE GPR SURVEY AT PRASAT KOMNAP. Prasat Oung Mong
After the discovery of the linear subsurface structure at Prasat Komnap a survey was conducted to test for the possible existence of a similar structure at Prasat Oung Mong. Since the area is densely occupied, only a small grid was conducted southwest of the stela pavilion. A strong anomaly of rectangular shape was mapped at the western side of the survey area. The results were initially not interpretable, because of the small area covered. However, when oriented correctly the mapped anomaly possibly indicated the western end of a masonry structure, in its location would resemble, the situation at the pavilion of Prasat Komnap, see Fig. [92]
FIG.[92]:AREA AND GPR SURVEY AT PRASAT OUNG MONG (BACKGROUND:POTTIER/FINNMAP).
C ONCLUSION
A variety of areas inside enclosures, from forest covered landscapes as at Chau Srei Vibol, the open spaces at Banteay Sra, through to the dense bush land as at the asrama, have revealed the possibilities and problems concerning the coverage of large areas by GPR grids at Angkor.
The linear features detected on the shallow mounds at Banteay Sra indicate a series of buildings inside the enclosures, which should be further investigated. The anomalies measured at Chau Srei Vibol show recent use of the enclosure, but display little evidence for additional masonry construction from the Angkorian period. The foundations to the south of the stela shrine at Prasat Komnap, and to some extent the anomalies measured at Prasat Oung Mong are analogous to known structures at other asrama.
All three targets contribute GPR-information from the subsurface for the interpretation of space at Angkor: empty areas searched for signs of earlier use, raised mounds and areas associated to known structures surveyed for additional structural remains by following Angkorian principles of construction alignment and use of space.