Comparative Spatial Analysis Reveals Important Structural Similarities Between Ancient Angkor and Late Anglo-Saxon Hampshire

IF 2.7 1区 历史学 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY
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.
对比空间分析揭示了古代吴哥窟和晚期盎格鲁-撒克逊汉普郡之间重要的结构相似性
吴哥窟(公元800-1435年)被认为是“低密度农业城市化”的典型遗址,这是一个定义松散的考古标签,用于描述具有城市特征但空间结构分散的定居点。吴哥窟从15世纪开始被遗弃,这引发了人们的担忧,即如今在全球普遍存在的低密度城市,可能天生就不稳定。然而,吴哥窟相对于其他前现代城乡体系的空间独特性从未被定量测试过。使用ChronoCluster(一个用于新颖时空考古分析的Python软件包),我们将吴哥窟的空间结构与Domesday调查(公元11世纪中叶)中记录的盎格鲁-撒克逊汉普郡的空间结构进行了比较,后者是一个乡村-城市系统,并未被描述为低密度农业城市化。令人惊讶的是,这两种情况都表现出相似的多尺度空间聚类。尽管它们的外观不同,但它们可能反映了相同的潜在城乡动态的尺度变化。这种针对“低密度”类型和非低密度比较的比较挑战了像吴哥这样的低密度城市形成独特类型的观点,提出了关于是什么驱动了城市形态在时间和空间上的变化的问题,并提出了关于空间结构对城市可持续性影响的新问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
8.70%
发文量
43
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
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书