The Co-Evolution of Aerial Survey Technology and Epistemic Injustice: From Colonial Instruments to Digital Scanners in Cambodia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52152/heranca.v8i3.1178Palavras-chave:
Khmer Epistemologies, Epistemic Ineqality, Lidar, Aerial Digital Surveys, Data EthicsResumo
This article investigates the co-evolution of aerial survey technology and epistemic injustice in Cambodian archaeology, tracing developments from French colonial photogrammetry to contemporary LiDAR mapping. Using Science and Technology Studies (STS) approach grounded in Actor–Network Theory (ANT), it examines how human and non-human actors, colonial surveyors, satellites, algorithms, GIS systems, interact to shape heritage narratives and constrain Khmer epistemologies. The analysis is enhanced by four conceptual tools that aim to highlight the differences in meaning across epistemic systems, insider versus outsider interpretations, and its potential impact on the erasure of local knowledge systems. These frameworks reveal how aerial technologies embed asymmetrical power relations, privileging etic, external classifications over emic, local understandings, and reclassifying spiritual and living heritage as static data points. The article contributes to the ongoing decolonization of digital archaeology, particularly the shift from participation alone to network reconfiguration, and to propose an enforceable ethics architecture, instead of siloed efforts such as research permits, MoUs, data-deposit rules, and co-interpretation protocols, to secure data sovereignty, shared authorship, and community benefit. While LiDAR offers unprecedented mapping capabilities, its deployment without equitable access, co-interpretation, and community benefit risks reproducing colonial legacies. The article concludes with structural reform proposals such as data sovereignty clauses, dual interpretive layers, and capacity-building measures to reconfigure archaeological networks toward epistemic justice and ethical technological integration, ensuring Khmer heritage is understood and represented on its own terms.
Downloads
Referências
Arensen, L. (2022). Living with landmines: Inhabiting a war-altered landscape. Journal of Material Culture, 27(2), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183521997506
Bornet, P. (2019). From the emic to the etic and back again: Archaeology, Orientalism, and religion from colonial Sri Lanka to Switzerland. In S. Gorshenina, P. Bornet, M. E. Fuchs, & C. Rapin (Eds.), “Masters” and “natives”: Digging the others’ past (pp. 177–196). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110599466-009
Bowling, D. L., & Fitch, W. T. (2015). Do animal communication systems have phonemes? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(10), 555–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.08.011
Chandler, D. (2008). A history of Cambodia (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429495519
Chapman, W. (2018). Adjuncts to empire: The EFEO and the conservation of Champa antiquities. Bulletin of the History of Archaeology, 28(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.5334/bha-584
Chase, A. S. Z., Chase, D., & Chase, A. (2020). Ethics, new colonialism, and lidar data: A decade of lidar in Maya archaeology. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology, 3(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.5334/jcaa.43
Cohen, A. S., Fernandez-Diaz, J. C., & Meeks, A. (2022). Exploring the nature of authority over, and ownership of data generated by archaeological lidar projects in Latin America. Archaeologies, 18, 558–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-022-09464-z
Cohen, A., Klassen, S., & Evans, D. (2020). Ethics in archaeological lidar. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology, 3(1), 76–91. https://doi.org/10.5334/jcaa.48
Düring, B. S. (2025). Gatekeepers, geographies, and access in the archaeology of West Asia. Public Archaeology, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14655187.2024.2440284
Edwards, P. (2007). Cambodge: The cultivation of a nation, 1860–1945. University of Hawai‘i Press.
Evans, D., & Moylan, E. (2013). Pixels, ponds and people: Mapping archaeological landscapes in Cambodia using historical aerial and satellite imagery. In W. S. Hanson & I. A. Oltean (Eds.), Archaeology from historical aerial and satellite archives (pp. 291–313). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4505-0_17
Gefaell, J., & Saborido, C. (2022). Incommensurability and the extended evolutionary synthesis: Taking Kuhn seriously. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 12, 24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-022-00456-y
Falser, M. (2013). From colonial map to visitor’s parcours: Tourist guides and the spatiotemporal making of the archaeological park of Angkor. In M. Falser & M. Juneja (Eds.), ‘Archaeologizing’ heritage? Transcultural entanglements between local social practices and global virtual realities (pp. 81–106). Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35870-8_5
Heffron, Y., & Tütüncü Çağlar, F. (2024). A partnership of unequals: Historicising labour relations between local and foreign archaeologists in Türkiye through Ottoman comparanda. Bulletin of the History of Archaeology, 34(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.5334/bha-688
Heng, P., Phon, K., & Heng, S. (2020). De-exoticizing Cambodia’s archaeology through community engagement. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage, 7(3), 198–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/20518196.2020.1767381
Huggett, J. (2022). Data legacies, epistemic anxieties, and digital imaginaries in archaeology. Digital, 2(2), 267–295. https://doi.org/10.3390/digital2020016
Inayat, Z. (2021). What is the science involved in studying and building Angkor Wat? In D. Bhagentsang, K. Caperchione, I. Gusain, A. Hobart, Z. Inayat, C. MacDonald, J. Park, B. Tam, J. Wang, & S. C. Zhang, Angkor Wat: Exploring the art, science, and history behind one of the world’s greatest religious sites (pp. 55–62). Golden Meteorite Press. ISBN 9781773693965.
Inomata, T. (2024). Lidar, space, and time in archaeology: Promises and challenges. Annual Review of Anthropology, 53, 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-041222-093758
Jameson, J. H. (2020). Archaeologists at the table: From community to global. In J. H. Jameson & J. Eogan (Eds.), Training and practice for modern day archaeologists (pp. 3–18). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32038-9_1
Kemarau, R. A., Sakawi, Z., Suab, S. A., Eboy, O. V., Wan Mohd Jaafar, W. S., Abdul Maulud, K. N., & Md Nor, N. N. F. (2024). Global perspectives on unmanned aerial vehicles technology in social sciences: Applications, innovations, and future research directions. Geocarto International, 39(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2024.2413547
Kasiannan, S. (2006, October). Mapping traditional belief systems and establishing contemporary connections in a historical landscape. Paper presented at the XXI International CIPA Symposium, Athens, Greece.
Kogure, K., & Takasaki, Y. (2024). Conflict, institutions, and economic behavior: Legacies of the Cambodian genocide. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 228, 106790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2024.106790
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed., enlarged). University of Chicago Press.
Landauer, J., Klassen, S., Wijker, A. P., van der Kroon, J., Jaszkowski, A., & Verschoof-van der Vaart, W. B. (2025). Beyond the Greater Angkor Region: Automatic large-scale mapping of Angkorian-period reservoirs in satellite imagery using deep learning. PLOS ONE, 20(3), e0320452. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320452
Laver, J. (2017). Linguistic phonetics: The sounds of languages. In M. Aronoff & J. Rees-Miller (Eds.), The handbook of linguistics (2nd ed., pp. xxx–xxx). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119072256.ch9
Lekka-Kowalik, A. (2010). Why science cannot be value-free: Understanding the rationality and responsibility of science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9128-3
Lock, G., & Pouncett, J. (2017). Spatial thinking in archaeology: Is GIS the answer? Journal of Archaeological Science, 84, 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2017.06.002
Lozny, L. R. (2011). Archaeology in the age of globalization: Local meanings, global interest. In L. R. Lozny (Ed.), Comparative archaeologies (pp. 25–53). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8225-4_2
Malinowski, B. (2002). Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea (With a preface by Sir James Frazer). Routledge. (Original work published 1922)
Mlekuž, D. (2015). Airborne laser scanning and landscape archaeology. Opuscula Archaeologica, 39, 97–112. https://doi.org/10.17234/OA.39.7
Moullou, D., Vital, R., Sylaiou, S., & Ragia, L. (2024). Digital tools for data acquisition and heritage management in archaeology and their impact on archaeological practices. Heritage, 7(1), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7010005
Pike, K. L. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior (2nd rev. ed.). Mouton & Co.
Piphal, H., Sonetra, S., & Sotheavin, N. (2023). ‘Invisible Cambodians’: Knowledge production in the history of Angkorian archaeology. In M. L. Stark, D. Sanderson, & C. Pottier (Eds.), The Angkorian world (pp. 22–39). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351128940
Poehler, E. E. (2023). Digital technologies and the transformation of archaeological labor. Heritage, 6(5), 3985–3997. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6050209
Ros, S. (2024). Can archaeology be a form of colonialism? Exploring the implications of the Actor-Network Theory. Herança, 7(2), 152–161. https://doi.org/10.52152/heranca.v7i2.993
Ros, S. (2025). Re-imagining aerial digital archaeology in Cambodia: An implication from Actor-Network Theory. Herança, 8(1), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.52152/heranca.v8i1.1092
Shanks, M., & Tilley, C. (1987). Theory and method in archaeology: Theoretical archaeology—A preliminary and conventional outline. In Social theory and archaeology (pp. 1–28). University of New Mexico Press.
Simbolon, R. S., & Comer, A. (2023). Unveiling the past: LiDAR technology’s role in discovering hidden archaeological sites. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan dan Humaniora, 12(1), 14–30. Insan Akademika Publications. https://journals.ristek.or.id/index.php/jiph/index
Sotheavin, N. (2015). Factors that led to the change of the Khmer capitals from the 15th to 17th century. Renaissance Culturelle du Cambodge, 7, 1–18.
Sotheavin, N. (2018). A study of the names of monuments in Angkor (Cambodia). Renaissance Culturelle du Cambodge, 10(1), 13–68. Sophia Asia Center for Research and Human Development, Sophia University.
Sylaiou, S., Tsifodimou, Z.-E., Evangelidis, K., Stamou, A., Tavantzis, I., Skondras, A., & Stylianidis, E. (2025). Redefining archaeological research: Digital tools, challenges, and integration in advancing methods. Applied Sciences, 15(5), 2495. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15052495
Thun, T. (2020). The epistemological shift from palace chronicles to scholarly Khmer historiography under French colonial rule. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 51(1–2), 132–153. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022463420000235
Tynan, L. (2024). Data collection versus knowledge theft: Relational accountability and the research ethics of Indigenous knowledges. In H. Melber, U. Kothari, L. Camfield, & K. Biekart (Eds.), Challenging global development (pp. 145–160). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30308-1_8
Walker, T. (2020). Carved chants and sermons on stone: Epigraphic evidence for Buddhist literature in Middle Cambodia. Udaya: Journal of Khmer Studies, 15, 57–93.
Webb, D. (2013). Foucault’s archaeology: Science and transformation. Edinburgh University Press.
Webmoor, T. (2013). STS, symmetry, archaeology. In P. Graves-Brown, R. Harrison, & A. Piccini (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the archaeology of the contemporary world (pp. 147–161). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199602001.013.039
Wong, E., & Palá Gutiérrez, J. (2025). The politics of archaeological labour: Pandemic reflections on knowledge production, epistemic injustice, and the material turn in archaeology. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 35(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.2041-9015.1756
Wylie, A. (2011). Epistemic justice, ignorance, and procedural objectivity—Editor's introduction. Hypatia, 26(2), 233–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01179.x
York, N. D. L., Pritchard, R., Sauls, L. A., Enns, C., & Foster, T. (2023). Justice and ethics in conservation remote sensing: Current discourses and research needs. Biological Conservation, 287, 110319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110319
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Secção
Licença
Direitos de Autor (c) 2025 Herança - Revista de História, Património e Cultura
Este trabalho encontra-se publicado com a Licença Internacional Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0.
8.png)
