Re-imagining Aerial Digital Archaeology in Cambodia: An Implication from Actor-Network Theory

Authors

Keywords:

Actor-network Theory, Colonial of Science, Aerial Digital Archaeology, Archaeology, Local Engagement

Abstract

In this article, the complex relationship between archaeology and colonialism in Cambodia is examined, focussing on Angkor Wat. It will examine knowledge production, power dynamics in archaeology, and local narrative marginalisation in interpretation. It claims that traditional views of archaeology as preserving history are unidirectional and ignore sociopolitical and ethical issues. Modern archaeology uses archaeometry for precise analyses. Western nations often dominate knowledge production in this field, reinforcing their colonial legacies and unequal power structures. This power dynamic is examined through actor-network theory, focussing on technology, institutions, and local actors. The article will focus on aerial digital technology. In Actor-Network Theory, all entities, human and non-human (technology, institutions), are "actants". Foreign scholars and institutions dominated Cambodian academia, excluding local perspectives. Because revolutionary technologies like lidar are often controlled by foreign institutions, power imbalances persist, the article recommends a detailed paragraph or Cambodian-led and co-led lidar initiatives. Empowering Cambodian scholars and communities would balance the network. Cambodian-led research and collaboration with foreign scholars are needed. Co-creating projects, incorporating local knowledge, and data transparency are Actor-Network Theory recommendations. Cambodians should critically evaluate Lidar technology and collect and interpret data. Participation promotes local ownership, ethics, and accurate history. A more equitable Angkorian archaeology network is essential. Actor-Network Theory and collaboration can help us understand Angkor's past, empower Cambodians, and create a more inclusive narrative.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ananda, T., & Nahallage, C. (2021). Anthropological approach to archaeology. In Multidisciplinary Approach of Archaeology (pp. 83-117). Colombo, Sri Lanka: S. Godage & Brothers Publication.

Anderson, W. (2007). Commodifying culture: Ownership of Cambodia’s archaeological heritage. Limina: A Journal of Historical and Cultural Studies, 13, 103–112.

Baber, T. T. (2016). Ancient corpses as curiosities: Mummymania in the age of early travel. Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections, 8(1). doi: 10.2458/azu_jaei_v09i1_baber

Bialas, Z., Glinkowska, A., Kepczynska-Walczak, A., Szrajber, R., & Urbaniak, M. (2003). The ICT as a driving force in the field of archaeological research. Proceedings of the International Conference on Education and Research in Computer-aided Architectural Design in Europe, 397-402. doi: 10.52842/conf.ecaade.2003.397

Boisselier, J., & Griswold, A. B. (1972). Henri Marchal 1876-1970. Artibus Asiae, 34(1), 96-101.

Britton, K., & Richards, M. P. (2019). Introducing archaeological science. In M. P. Richards & K. Britton (Eds.), Archaeological Science: An Introduction (pp. 3–10). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Carter, A. K., Stark, M. T., Quintus, S., Zhuang, Y., Wang, H., Heng, P., & Chhay, R. (2019). Temple occupation and the tempo of collapse at Angkor Wat, Cambodia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(25), 12226-12231.

Chemburkar, S. (2021). Heritage, history and heterotopia at Angkor Wat. Journal of Art Historiography, (25), 1-21.

Chevance, J. B., Evans, D., Hofer, N., Sakhoeun, S., & Chhean, R. (2020). Mahendraparvata: An early Angkor-period capital defined through airborne laser scanning at Phnom Kulen. Antiquity, 94(376), 1123-1123.

Day, J. (2014). Thinking makes it so: Reflections on the ethics of displaying Egyptian mummies. Papers on Anthropology, 23(1), 29.

de Boer, C. (2017, September 27). The Angkor Code of Conduct for Research [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/angkor-code-conduct-7-steps-amazing-visit-christian-de-boer

Durepos, G., & Mills, A. J. (2012). Actor-network theory, ANTi-History and critical organizational historiography. Organization, 19(6), 703-721.

Elia, R. J. (1997). Looting, collecting, and the destruction of archaeological resources. Natural Resources Research, 6(2), 85-98.

Erb-Satullo, N. L. (2020). Archaeomaterials, innovation, and technological change. Advances in Archaeomaterials, 1(1), 36-50.

Evans, D. (2016). Airborne laser scanning as a method for exploring long-term socio-ecological dynamics in Cambodia. Journal of Archaeological Science, 74, 164-175.

Evans, D. H., Fletcher, R. J., Pottier, C., Chevance, J. B., Soutif, D., Tan, B. S., . . . Boornazian, G. (2013). Uncovering archaeological landscapes at Angkor using lidar. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(31), 12595-12600.

Fahlander, F. (2004). Archaeology and anthropology—Brothers in arms?. In Material Culture and Other Things: Post-disciplinary Studies in the 21st century (pp. 185-212).

Falser, M. (2013). The first plaster casts of Angkor for the French métropole: From the Mekong Mission 1866-1868. Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient, 99(May 2024), 49-92.

Glancey, J. (2017). The surprising discovery at Angkor Wat. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20170309-the-mystery-of-angkor-wat

Gruškovnjak, L. (2020). Archaeological remains in soil context. Proceedings from the 6th Scientific Conference Methodology and Archaeometry, 6, 9-36.

Heng, P., Phon, K., & Heng, S. (2020). De-exoticizing Cambodia’s archaeology through community engagement. Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage, 7(3), 198-214.

Horowitz, L. S. (2012). Translation alignment: Actor-network theory, resistance, and the power dynamics of alliance in New Caledonia. Antipode, 44(3), 806-827.

IPSOS. (2018). American perceptions of archaeology. Retrieved fromhttps://documents.saa.org/container/docs/default-source/doc-publicoutreach/ipsos2023_report.pdf

Karbaum, M. (2015). The dynamics of social change in Cambodia moving away from traditionalism?. Internationales Asienforum, 46(3–4), 229-259.

Law, J. (2007). Actor network theory and material semiotics. The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, (2008), 141-158.

Liritzis, I., Laskaris, N., Vafiadou, A., Karapanagiotis, I., Volonakis, P., Papageorgopoulou, C., & Bratitsi, M. (2020). Archaeometry: An overview. Scientific Culture, 6(1), 49-98.

Liritzis, I., & Korka, E. (2019). Archaeometry’s role in cultural heritage sustainability and development. Sustainability, 11(7), 1972.

Marchal, H. (1932). Archeological guide to Angkor, Angkor-Vat, Angkor-Thom and the monuments along the small and big circuits. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10524/52361

Moshenska, G. (2014). Unrolling Egyptian mummies in nineteenth-century Britain. British Journal for the History of Science, 47(3), 451-477.

Müller, M. (2015). Assemblages and actor-networks: Rethinking socio-material power, politics and space. Geography Compass, 9(1), 27-41.

Nomishan, T. S., Gubam, D. S., & Tubi, P. K. (2022). A discussion of the challenges confronting archaeology and its practice in Nigeria. Journal of African Studies and Sustainable Development, 4(3), 140-160.

Odeny, B., & Bosurgi, R. (2022). Time to end parachute science. PLoS Medicine, 19(9), 10-12.

Paksoy, N. (2023). Virchow and troy. International Journal of Surgical Pathology, 31(8), 1449-1457.

Pálsdóttir, A. H., Bläuer, A., Rannamäe, E., Boessenkool, S., & Hallsson, J. H. (2019). Not a limitless resource: Ethics and guidelines for destructive sampling of archaeofaunal remains. Royal Society Open Science, 6(10), 7-9.

Piphal, H., Sonetra, S., & Sotheavin, N. (2023). ‘Invisible Cambodians.’ The Angkorian World, (2), 42-63.

Pottier, C. (2000). The contribution of the ecole francaise d'extreme-orient with respect to the cultural heritage of Angkor during the past 100 years. The Journal of Sophia Asian Studies, 18, 253-262.

Robinson, A. (2014). Eight mummies, eight stories. The Lancet, 383(9935), 2115-2116.

Shiffer, M. B. (1972). Archaeological context and systemic context. American Antiquity, 37(2), 156-165.

Smekalova, T. N., Yatsishina, E. B., Garipov, A. S., Pasumanskii, A. E., Ketsko, R. S., & Chudin, A. V. (2016). Natural science methods in field archaeology, with the case study of Crimea. Crystallography Reports, 61(4), 533-542.

Stark, M. T. (2008). Contextualizing an archaeology of Asia. In Archaeology of Asia (pp. 3-13).

Stepnowska, J. (2019). The blood antiquities convention and Asian cultural property. A remedy or disappointment? The case of Cambodia. Gdańskie Studia Azji Wschodniej, 15, 133-140.

Stutz, L. N. (2022). Rewards, prestige, and power: Interdisciplinary archaeology in the era of the Neoliberal University. Forum Kritische Archäologie, 11, 41-52.

Uslu, G. (2018). A closer watch on Schliemann (1882-1885). In Homer, Troy and the Turks (pp. 113-136).

Van Wijngaarden, A., & Karali, L. (2020). Theory and method: Bridging the gap between history and archeology. Schole, 14(2), 456-469.

Downloads

Published

2025-02-20

How to Cite

Ros, S. (2025). Re-imagining Aerial Digital Archaeology in Cambodia: An Implication from Actor-Network Theory. Herança, 8(1), 63–75. Retrieved from https://www.revistaheranca.com/index.php/heranca/article/view/1092

Issue

Section

Articles (Regular Review EUR450)