Similar to the monuments, the artificial landscape also displays to some degree, geometric patterns. Earthworks such as the large rectangular enclosures, linear canals, or even rice field patterns can be seen. Limited to ground survey, those features had been known locally from the beginning of research, e.g. Adolf Bastian mentioned the straight Angkorian roads;451 the
rectangular baray embankments were mapped to some extent by Aymonier452 and then fully by
Lunet de Lajonquière.453 The full extent of the network was discovered only when the study of
aerial images revealed a so far unmatched scale of archaeological features. The results have been presented in increasing detail in archaeological landscape plans since the 1930s.454
In Search of a Master Plan
Similar to the interpretation of the centres, the linear earthworks displayed on maps enhanced the idea of the existence of geometrical perfection in Angkorian structures and led to over- interpretation of the earthworks as well as a misjudgement of the architectural abilities of Angkor’s builders, trying to fit every structure into a bigger plan.455 The vast extent of artificial
earthworks related to the monuments led some to believe in a Khmer advanced cosmological understanding of the world. P. Paris456 brought up the argument of a master plan, by trying to
find evidence of an importance of the north-east direction. He connected Angkorian temples of very different construction periods and religion using angles; see Fig. [11]. He superimposed triangles on the Angkorian landscape, e. g. between the temples of Bakheng, Preah Khan and Banteay Kdei or Pre Rup, Ta Prom and Ta Som. This proposal lacked context and contravened historic evidence, as the monuments he connected are not contemporaneous. In this sense, besides their overall broad orientation on an East-West axis, the direction of the features and their relation to each other had to be interpreted in a different context.457
The idea of an initial master plan to urbanize the Angkorian landscape was however not followed up.458 Recently, Pottier has argued strongly against it: “Nobody really thought that a
“master plan” ever existed for Angkor, a site occupied at least during 6 centuries.” 459 To the
contrary, Angkor is more properly to be seen as a palimpsest, a landscape that has developed over centuries in which architectural features had been built and then demolished if the space was needed for other purposes. The arguments against a “master plan” however should not prevent a discussion on the geometrical relations of historic monuments and earthworks. Completely rejecting a reading of the landscape in its entirety risks putting too much emphasis on individual structures at the expense of the overall picture. The palimpsest landscape has to be untangled, by (digitally) removing monuments from following construction periods to gain information on changes in the configuration. There are actually several temples associated with
each other, and linear earthworks connecting them support this interpretation. Relation and influence of monuments has become an important part to map so far unknown buried features, and examples are given in Chapters (5-8).
FIG.[11]:PRESUMED CONNECTION OF MONUMENTS BY P.PARIS (SOURCE:PARIS,1941, PLAN XLIII)
A Palimpsest Landscape
Cataloguing and mapping the variety of archaeological features at Angkor was one task, understanding their relationships was another. The initial maps either displayed the known number of historic structures of Angkor, or were architectural plans of temples. The vastness of the floodplain region with its numerous monuments might have mislead investigators to conclude Angkor was a once continuously and evenly spread populated area. The impression of an urbanised landscape, depicted in modern archaeological maps460 could be misleading as it
only shows the millennium of construction on one level. Clearly separated from the rest of the system at Angkor is Hariharalaya, while most of the network was entangled over centuries of development. Those maps had to be separated into layers to untangle the landscape diachronically and display the development graphically. Henri Parmentier in 1916 sorted the Angkorian temples in Indochina into successive maps based on their association to rulers or dates mentioned on inscriptions.461
Victor Goloubew
Already in 1935 Victor Goloubew462 presented ideas of the chronological development of Angkor
in maps and how the construction of monuments influenced landscape and preceding structures, disentangling the palimpsest landscape of archaeological features at Angkor. His intention was though impaired by the search for “Goloupura,” the imagined 4km x 4km square
enclosure around Phnom Bakheng, whose display dominated the plans of the development of central Angkor, displayed in Fig. [6] in Chapter (1).
Lawrence Palmer Briggs
Lawrence Palmer Briggs, United States consul to Indochina, based his work on the historians of EFEO, especially of George Cœd s and George Groslier, and displayed within The Ancient Khmer
Empire a series of chronological maps on the geographical distribution of inscriptions, displayed
in Fig. [12], very possibly based on Victor Goloubew. He however included several avoidable flaws, as they had already been solved at that time, such as the construction of the Bayon preceding Angkor Wat.463 Nevertheless there is a reason for the successive densification of the
Angkorian floodplain.
FIG.[12]:DEVELOPMENT OF YASODHARAPURA BY L.P.BRIGGS (1951). Bernard Philippe Groslier
Groslier then summarized his interpretation of the development of the landscape in 1979, introducing the expression hydraulic city to explain the impact of the water management at Angkor.464With the aerial discovery of the extended channel system, B.P. Groslier intended to
present the so far most ambitious interpretation of the development of Angkor, to create a chronological overview of the development of Angkor:
“With this data [the results from the aerial images], and the known facts about this problem, we built up a preliminary interpretation of the space organization at Angkor, and formulated some working hypothesis on its possible implication for the evolution of Khmer society.”465
The results were finally published in 1979 within the discussed Cit Hydraulique,466 a set of five
maps displaying the area from pre-Angkorian times to the final foundations and constructions; see Fig. [13].
FIG.[13]:DEVELOPMENT OF ANGKOR BY B.P.GROSLIER (1997).
Since Groslier, few graphical interpretations mainly based on Groslier have been published to visualize the centres’ successive periods of construction and relocation, to mention is Jacques and Freeman’s attempt, to visualize the modifications of the landscape with the development of new centres, and the extent of settlements. 467
FIG.[14]:DEVELOPMENT OF THE WATER NETWORK OF ANGKOR AFTER FLETCHER ET AL.(2008).
Fletcher et al. have analysed and displayed the development of the water management network in a larger scale, which included the later mapped features, see Fig [14].468 Today the landscape
‘overwritten.’ Due to Angkor’s nonlinear development the landscape reveals a history of alternating construction and decay. The relocation of the centres within Angkor influenced the landscape significantly: while activity increased in one region, the preceding centre displayed a reduced activity.469