W. Christopher Carleton, Sarah Klassen, John T. Murphy, Patrick Roberts
{"title":"Comparative Spatial Analysis Reveals Important Structural Similarities Between Ancient Angkor and Late Anglo-Saxon Hampshire","authors":"W. Christopher Carleton, Sarah Klassen, John T. Murphy, Patrick Roberts","doi":"10.1007/s10816-026-09798-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Angkor (800–1435 <sc>CE</sc>) is considered the type site for “low-density agrarian urbanism”, a loosely defined archaeological label used to describe settlements with urban traits but dispersed spatial structure. Angkor’s abandonment from the fifteenth century has fueled concerns that low-density cities, now common globally, may be inherently unstable. The spatial distinctiveness of Angkor relative to other premodern rural–urban systems, however, has never been quantitatively tested. Using ChronoCluster, a Python package for novel spatiotemporal archaeological analysis, we compared Angkor’s spatial structure to that of Anglo-Saxon Hampshire as recorded in the Domesday survey (mid-eleventh century CE), a rural–urban system not described as low-density agrarian urbanism. Surprisingly, both cases showed similar multiscale spatial clustering. Despite their different appearances, they may reflect scaled variants of the same underlying urban–rural dynamics. This targeted comparison between the “low-density” type site and a non-low-density comparator challenges the idea that low-density cities like Angkor form a distinct type, raises questions about what drives variation in urban form across time and space, and opens new questions about the impact of spatial structure on urban sustainability.","PeriodicalId":47725,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-026-09798-w","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Angkor (800–1435 CE) is considered the type site for “low-density agrarian urbanism”, a loosely defined archaeological label used to describe settlements with urban traits but dispersed spatial structure. Angkor’s abandonment from the fifteenth century has fueled concerns that low-density cities, now common globally, may be inherently unstable. The spatial distinctiveness of Angkor relative to other premodern rural–urban systems, however, has never been quantitatively tested. Using ChronoCluster, a Python package for novel spatiotemporal archaeological analysis, we compared Angkor’s spatial structure to that of Anglo-Saxon Hampshire as recorded in the Domesday survey (mid-eleventh century CE), a rural–urban system not described as low-density agrarian urbanism. Surprisingly, both cases showed similar multiscale spatial clustering. Despite their different appearances, they may reflect scaled variants of the same underlying urban–rural dynamics. This targeted comparison between the “low-density” type site and a non-low-density comparator challenges the idea that low-density cities like Angkor form a distinct type, raises questions about what drives variation in urban form across time and space, and opens new questions about the impact of spatial structure on urban sustainability.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, the leading journal in its field, presents original articles that address method- or theory-focused issues of current archaeological interest and represent significant explorations on the cutting edge of the discipline. The journal also welcomes topical syntheses that critically assess and integrate research on a specific subject in archaeological method or theory, as well as examinations of the history of archaeology. Written by experts, the articles benefit an international audience of archaeologists, students of archaeology, and practitioners of closely related disciplines. Specific topics covered in recent issues include: the use of nitche construction theory in archaeology, new developments in the use of soil chemistry in archaeological interpretation, and a model for the prehistoric development of clothing. The Journal''s distinguished Editorial Board includes archaeologists with worldwide archaeological knowledge (the Americas, Asia and the Pacific, Europe, and Africa), and expertise in a wide range of methodological and theoretical issues. Rated ''A'' in the European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH) Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory is rated ''A'' in the ERIH, a new reference index that aims to help evenly access the scientific quality of Humanities research output. For more information visit: http://www.esf.org/research-areas/humanities/activities/research-infrastructures.html Rated ''A'' in the Australian Research Council Humanities and Creative Arts Journal List. For more information, visit: http://www.arc.gov.au/era/journal_list_dev.htm