Khao Sam Kaeo (hereafter KSK) is a large archaeological site located near Chumphon on the eastern coast of the Malay Peninsula, southern Thailand. Looting activities at the site started in the 1960s and continue to the present. A first publication of non-local artefacts with origins across South and East Asia attracted experts’ attention to the site more than 20 years ago (Srisuchat Reference Srisuchat1993). Since 2002, the site has been investigated by a joint Thai-French team.
This final publication includes 23 papers by 25 authors from different countries. The excavations of the Thai-French Archaeological Mission have covered 136 test pits and 5 trenches. Thus, almost 600m2 from the total site area of 350000m2 have been investigated. A catalogue of the artefacts from the excavated pits is not provided. Rather, most papers focus on in-depth classification or analyses of ceramic sherds, stone, glass and metal objects. While this provides valuable information on the various artefact types, it remains impossible to recognise associated artefacts from different layers or test pits, and it is difficult to detect which artefacts came from looting, surveys or the excavated pits. Profile views are illustrated for 41 of the excavation pits/trenches, with occasional plan views. These illustrations show a quite complex stratigraphy with looting holes, disturbances and pits, but artefacts or radiocarbon- dating sample positions are not plotted and there are no field photographs. The site is interpreted as: “the earliest port-city identified so far in the South China Sea”, and an “enclosed settlement […] thrived from the 4th to the 1st century BC” (pp. 19–20). This timeframe, in some chapters even more limited to the fourth to second centuries, determines the authors’ concept of the cultural context of the site and its material, despite the fact that many artefacts are clearly younger.
In which period was KSK occupied—and why? In view of the great problems with radiocarbon dates in Southeast Asia over the last 45 years, it is surprising that only half a page is dedicated to the discussion of the 31 dates recovered from the excavations. In total, 23 radiocarbon dates correlate to the Iron Age ‘port-city’. Three of these cover the period from the first to the seventh centuries AD. The remaining 20 fall in the suggested period from the fourth to the second centuries—truly an impressive coincidence, but they cannot be related to the majority of artefacts as the provenance of the latter is unclear. 17 stone seals or intaglios, 7 seal-shaped beads and a gold seal are dated to between the third century BC and the sixth century AD, but none of them came from the excavated test pits. For the KSK team, the seals “prove that the site might have been sparsely inhabited in the early centuries AD, but this occupation was probably less active” (p. 206).
This leads to another issue: many of the later-dated objects—mirrors, seals or gold ornaments—are normally discovered in burials. Again, none of these artefacts came from the excavated test pits, but rather from the looter excavations. There is no chapter on burials, but some were excavated in test pits from across the site. Moreover, the villagers confirmed that they uncovered “Big pots […] with ashes and fine ornaments” (p. 199). This increases the impression that many exotic artefacts in the hands of looters and villagers were in fact offerings in burials and not ‘trade ware’. Furthermore, the KSK team concludes that the western part of hill 2 contained a looted jar burial cemetery, which would be a big surprise for this period on the Malay Peninsula, as the nearest contemporaneous jar burial sites are 800km to the east in the bay of Vung Tau. In addition, gold objects were discovered at the northern and southern slopes of hill 2 and indicate—according to the authors—disturbed inhumations (p. 507). Apparently, burials existed at every hill. This increases the impression that many exotic artefacts from KSK were in fact offerings in burials and not ‘trade ware’.
The interpretation of KSK as a ‘port-city’ and head of a trade route crossing the Isthmus, which “required the combination of […] porters, pack animals […] bullock carts, and other vehicles such as rafts and canoes” (pp. 31–32), is intriguing. If KSK was, however, really a prominent point in an east–west land bridge, then it would make more sense to locate this port at the west and not the east bank of the north--south flowing river. The interpretation of this site as a ‘port-city’ or “unusually cosmopolitan city” (p. 215) rests on the assumption of a “community of at least a few thousand people at its height, and perhaps [is] more […] suggested by the density of artefacts” (p. 214). An overview of the data of what was collected at KSK would have helped to support this claim.
The number of pottery sherds collected through survey and excavation at the site was 38080 (p. 235), a relatively modest amount for a ‘city’ with thousands of people. In a detailed study, Phaedra Bouvet presents the collection of the ceramics in four chapters. ‘Local and regional pottery’ contains about 80 per cent of all analysed sherds, but no indication of their dating. ‘Indian Fine Wares’ includes ‘rouletted decorated plates’, dated to the fourth to second centuries BC. The rather worn and tiny sherds of rouletted ware from KSK are, however, more similar to those in the well-dated layers of the first century BC or younger at Tissamaharama on Sri Lanka (Schenk Reference Schenk2006). This means the vessels circulated during the second century on the Malay Peninsula, but the sherds recovered from KSK are very probably younger. ‘Lustrous Black and Red Wares’ include very different non-local ceramic wares, among them vessels and bowls that are typical burial offerings on sites in the Mekong-Delta from the third to the last centuries BC and later. Bouvet also mentioned 127 sherds of a special ceramic that is known as ‘orange ware’ in southern Vietnam and Cambodia from the end of the second century BC and more numerous later from the first centuries AD. Altogether, 84 small sherds of Han ceramics were discovered in 22 test pits or from the surface, mainly at hill 3, and these are discussed by Peronnet and Srikanlaya. It would be useful to learn precisely where the Han Dynasty-period sherds were discovered—they could be as important as the radiocarbon dates.
Further chapters examine specific artefact groups. 435 stone ornaments were recovered from KSK, of which 195 came from test pits or surveys. Bellina suggests that this low concentration represents a local household-scale production system (p. 450). Hsiao-chun Hung and Yoshiyuki Iizuka discuss the nephrite ear ornaments, using mineral analyses of a range of similar ear pendants from across Southeast Asia to argue for the existence of two origin regions for the raw material in eastern Taiwan and central Vietnam (p. 466). Gold, iron and bronze artefacts are discussed by Pryce and colleagues. About 50 small gold ornaments and foil pieces recovered from looting activities are illustrated, but just one gold bead was excavated. Iron artefacts are rare, with two from archaeological contexts and 10 from the villagers, and there is no evidence for iron ore smelting at this site. Iron smithing is, however, attested, with slag recovered from 69 of the 136 test pits. 36 bronze artefacts (bowls, mirrors, drums, seals, bracelets) came from looted areas, and some technical ceramics and crucible slag are seen as proofs for local bronze production. 2551 glass objects include beads (90 per cent Indo-Pacific beads), manufacturing by-products and waste, of which about 1500 were found in just six test pits around hill 2, probably a glass-working area.
Finally, it is interesting to consider what has not been found at KSK. There is no evidence for ceramic production, gold-working or casting moulds for bronze objects. Spindle whorls and artefacts made of bone, wood, antlers or other organic materials are not mentioned in the report. An exemplary archaeobotanical study by Cristina Castillo, however, demonstrates that rice dominates the assemblage (Oryza sativa Japonica), while foxtail millet, mung bean, tree cotton and long pepper are also present. The chapter is superbly illustrated, the origin of the macro remains in test pits and layers is formally listed and the detailed description of the research steps may serve as a model for further work in archaeobotany, still a severely neglected field in Southeast Asia.
In summary, this is an important publication that places Khao Sam Kaeo, although heavily looted and partially excavated, among the best-recorded archaeological sites in Southeast Asia. It is to be hoped that the interpretation and chronology of the site remain under discussion.
