Occupying substantial areas of land, the massive reservoirs, or barays, of Angkor have much debated purposes. One such debate paints the Khmer capital as a hydraulic city, in which the barays, along with other waterworks, were a part of an extensive, meticulously planned, and utilitarian water management network built primarily for the purpose of irrigation. Acker points to four roots of the hydraulic debate and the argument for rice agriculture in Angkor (1998:12-13). The first root is inspired by a Marxist viewpoint of the “Asiatic mode of production” (1998:12) and the perspective of “Asian states as despotic, rigidly centralized bureaucracies” (1998:12). This root sees extensive water management as a cause for these strict, despotic governments.
…show more content…
The critique begins with Van Liere’s identification of three phases of agricultural development in the lower Mekong basin: floodland farmers, bunded field farmers, and receding-flood farmers (1980:267-273). All of these techniques existed during the Angkorian period, as confirmed in Zhou Daguan’s account of Angkor during his visit in the twelfth century (1980:273). When analyzing the purpose of the barays, Van Liere concludes that the initial purpose may have been religious and cosmological. As evidence he points to the east-west orientation of each baray and of earthenworks such as dams (1980:247-277) and cites the lack of irrigation potential (1980:277-279) as reasons for a religious and cosmological intent. However, Van Liere does not claim to have a certain idea of what the purpose of the water and earthworks was; he instead acknowledges that their purpose is still ambiguous without further excavation of …show more content…
contributed the most compelling argument in the hydraulics debate: evaluations of water management at Angkor should consider that waterworks, such as the barays, had multiple functions through time and space and that a binary debate on the purpose of the barays impedes discussions of water management. Furthermore, Fletcher et al. had access to the most comprehensive maps of Angkor thus far, which gave their argument more detailed information compared to the aerial surveys and maps available for previous researchers, such as Groslier. Although both Groslier and Fletcher et al. acknowledge flaws in the water management network (1979:169, 2008:668), neither consider the debate covering the intended or original purpose of the network, particularly of the barays, and their actual use once they were built or modified. Overall, Angkor was not a hydraulic capital city that rose to power through baray-based irrigation, but one that implemented a varying water management system for a variety of reasons including flood control, religion and cosmology, water redistribution, and possibly
The critique begins with Van Liere’s identification of three phases of agricultural development in the lower Mekong basin: floodland farmers, bunded field farmers, and receding-flood farmers (1980:267-273). All of these techniques existed during the Angkorian period, as confirmed in Zhou Daguan’s account of Angkor during his visit in the twelfth century (1980:273). When analyzing the purpose of the barays, Van Liere concludes that the initial purpose may have been religious and cosmological. As evidence he points to the east-west orientation of each baray and of earthenworks such as dams (1980:247-277) and cites the lack of irrigation potential (1980:277-279) as reasons for a religious and cosmological intent. However, Van Liere does not claim to have a certain idea of what the purpose of the water and earthworks was; he instead acknowledges that their purpose is still ambiguous without further excavation of …show more content…
contributed the most compelling argument in the hydraulics debate: evaluations of water management at Angkor should consider that waterworks, such as the barays, had multiple functions through time and space and that a binary debate on the purpose of the barays impedes discussions of water management. Furthermore, Fletcher et al. had access to the most comprehensive maps of Angkor thus far, which gave their argument more detailed information compared to the aerial surveys and maps available for previous researchers, such as Groslier. Although both Groslier and Fletcher et al. acknowledge flaws in the water management network (1979:169, 2008:668), neither consider the debate covering the intended or original purpose of the network, particularly of the barays, and their actual use once they were built or modified. Overall, Angkor was not a hydraulic capital city that rose to power through baray-based irrigation, but one that implemented a varying water management system for a variety of reasons including flood control, religion and cosmology, water redistribution, and possibly