Basa - Relationship Between SE Asian And Indian Glass

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN E~Y SOUTHEAST ASIAN iNDIAN GLASS

Ian

INTRDDUCHON

In of beads Southeast (1965a:89) that

"It is rather ... that in the literature of Southeast Asian archaeology so little

attention ha:!! been paid to beads". More than two decades later the scene was not much

different. In the SPAFA Seminar on Prehistory of Southeast Asia, 12-25th January

it W@:l that

!!lost parts oif "''-""H''"'"''" Asia, bead~ of glass stone the earliest of contact with East, South and Southwest Asia. And yet thus far

we know relatively little about their dating, manufacture, possible sources, nor of the trade systems that brought them together 1987: 335) ..

comprehen:;ive of "'"'"'m""'u••u1._, ......

from AsiaCJ In this trade between India and "''"''~'"'"~''"''' from about 400 BC to about AD 500 wiH be discussed with attention to

morphological analytical studies of glass beads. In the discussion, the evidence

Ban Don Ta Phet is particularly important, because the numet:ous beads from

site dated and have contexts and the materia( associated

with at burial; archaeology Southeast Asia.

EARLY GLASS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

There is no evidence of beads· in Southeast Asia before the Iron Age, that is before 600-400 BC. In Vietnam the earliest is dated to the 4th-3rd century BC

Ki Thailand 400 BC

beads an radiocarbon dates mnging from the 5th century BC to the 2nd

1979:212-3). for only sites (Gilimanuk

and Pasir

Bail

Indo-Pacific Prehiswry Assn. Bulletin 1991:366-385 (P. Anthropology, Utkal University, Bhubaneswar 751004, India Institute of Archaeology, 31-34 Gordon Square, London OPY, United .Kingdom

of the

Research Lab. for Archaeology and the History of Art, 6 Kebie Road, Oxford OXI 3QJ, United Kingdom

10

26 ('\, ~ ~~

~~ it arl

lass

1 Non Ki Klang, 2 Sa 3 Ban Chiang, 4 Ban Na Di 5 Non Chai, 6 Phu Kibao

Pa

17 Vichayen' s House 18

20U~Thong

21 Ban Don Ta l'het 22 Prasat Muang Singh

Pra Pathom, 24 Khok

25 Ku Bua, 26 Kok Ra Ka 27 Khao Sam Kaeo, Wat 29Laem 30 Ko Kho Khao 31 KantNam

32 Khlong Thorn 33 Nakom Si Thammarat

34 ~~ ........ ,,.

FIGURE 1: SITES !IN THAILAND WITII FINDS OF EA~.L11' GiLASS

368 BASA, I. GLOVER AND J. HENDERSON

GLASS BEADS FROMBANDONTAPHET

The site of Ban Don Ta Phet lies on the southern name in Kanchanaburi of West Central Thailand

over three seasons, first the Fine Arts under Chin You-Di in and

of London and the FAD

basis of five consistent radiocarbon dates made on

of the It was

in five rather earlier than once such a date is not inconsistent with the age of similar etched carnelian and beads and historic India. The site is in the context of this paper because it has best corpus and widest range of beads of any site in Thailand

and indeed in the whole of Southeast Asia. A few and distinctive ear ornaments were also found.

Shapes Transhu::ent beads Opaque beads Colourless Honey Green Blue Violet 'Black' Orange Red Dark Grey Total

Spherical-elliptical 9 3 51 170 2 9 1 285 Barrel 54 1 452 135 2 3 509 3 11 59 Annular 28 8 9 2 312 446 Cylindrical 1 51 67 3 222 443 Cornerless cube 2 1 8 Bipyramidal/biconical 54 5 HI 20 137 Square prism 2 3 25 3 1 Hexagonal prism 3 26 55 84

9 9 4 51 38 37 4 77 2 1 1

Total 154 1 3 1 799 516 7 3 4 1116 83 2813

TABLE 1: GLASS BEADS FROM BAN DON TA PHET FROM ALL SEASONS, BY PlllNCIP AL

COLOURS AND SHAPES2

~ .. ·~~· ..... all the glass beads from Don Ta Phet are monochrome, there is a wide range of colours and tones which can be broadly grouped 1) into translucent and opaque

The former include colourless, honey, green, blue, grey-black and orange; the latter include red (both opaque browny red and opaque orange red) and a few dark grey specimens. The opaque red and opaque orange beads are of the often known as , an Indonesian term used by Rouffaer (1899) in his

of beads among the communities of Timor and Flores who them as of great value. Mutisalah beads constitute about forty percent of the glass bead collection at Ban Don Ta about the same proportion as in the collections from Kuala Selinsing

BC to lOth AD) and Pengkalan centuries m Peninsular Malaysia (Lamb 1965a:96). Many of the mutisalah beads show striations

to the hole and flat ends indicating that were drawn and cut from a

EARLY SOUTIIEAST ASIAN AND INDIAN GLASS 369

52 3 6 830

I {J

53 4 1

4248 6075

2cm

6242 6028

3839

2cm

FIGURE 2: SMALL AND MAINLY NON-PRISMATIC GLASS BEADS FROM BAN DON TA PHET

5236 barrel; 5341 tabular diamond; 830 spherical; 4248 elliptical; 6075 and 6028 annular; 6242 cylindrical; 3839 biconical; lower right is segmented.

98

1 4 7 1

;;; 2cm

FIGURE 3: LARGER AND PRISMATIC BEAliJI§ FROM BAN DON

3175 and square 4427long 929 and 3155 prisms; cornerless cube; 1272 bipyramidal

one fmm bubbli~s; trapped in the ©Xl;JIO!Iea when ~he dra\W tubes were cut These are d~li!lf manufacture (l~rancis 1990:8-15). MU4i!!alah belong

of "Indo-Pacific Mons:x:hrome Dr>RwrJ Glass Bead£" identified by Francis (1990:2)" 13-5) mentions t!tJ.at a number of the tra;:}~lu[~ent beadrc

Phet have cubic, bipyramidai, 1ilquare prismatic shapes and imitate the forms of natcual mineral famous

'-LV<>1A"'" of South India. Prism.atic noted only rarely in Southe;~Jst Asia, for instance at ]3\an (Malleret 1962:250).

diamond shaped tabular glass bead polished no. 5341) and resembRes a

Phet and elsewhere ire Southeast SalebabP (Benwood 1985:309,

FIGURE 4: UNIQUE COlriMA·SIIAPED mANSLUCENT U«;HTLY TINTED GLASS EARRING FROM

liMN DON TA PHET, 19754 SEASON

(max. diam. about 5 em)

GLOVER HENDERSON

Sorr.,c of the bracelets too, Glover 1990a do not resemble ones known from c:ontemporaxy sites.

EARLY GIASS IN INDl-\.ft~ 'IRE TRADE OF GLASS FROM INDI.A TO SOUTHEAST ASJA

have suL'!Im<uised the trade between and Asia. The traded

(especially the etched varieties), high-tin bronze

regional in trade. For Kumrahar and Chandrak.etugarh

a::dve in

evidence to show continued on,

and no lOl:tO!sesh~;;H, silk doth and silk yz.rn, well

vessels survive in som.e archaeological Monochrcr:>e beads of differs=:m: cdours

However, Ar-ikamedu (Wheeler et lat~;; BC and e·arly centuries

matm.Jifalctu.!in:?I. centres of the nmnochrome varieties (Francis 1982.a, 1982b, Stem 1987). In Thailand many Late Prehistoric sites such as Ban Chiang, Ban Na Di, Non Ban Tha

Ban Don Ta Prasat Muang and Kok Ra Ka (Basa n.d.). have also been found at Kampong Lang centuries BC the early centuries: AD) in Peninsular Malaysia, Sembiran in Bali (late centuries BC to the centuries AD; ,\.rdikZ~ and Bell'l:vood 1991 ).

The earliest evidence for manufacturing glass beads in Thailand comes from Khlong Thorn, dated to about the 4th century AD onwards (Bronson 1990; but remember our comment above on the presence of some locally shaped glass at Don Ta Pbet)~ In

EARLY INDIAN GLASS 373

Peninsular Malaysia the beads comes from

Selinsing, recently dated between 200 BC and 1000 (Shuhaimi 1991).

the glass-bead-yielding levels In Gilimanuk, a · 'Christian Era, is clz,imed to be

although Fnmcis

claims that glass beads

beads of trJ.nslucent d<:.rk blue Ta Phet.

One such blue bead has biC>en ~"'w'"'"''"'" burial near Tegurvvangi

Sumatra (Hoop from Taxila from Bhir

1941:27) and about the beginning the '"'''""'""~""'"" Era to AD (Ghosh 21 ). This shape is common

(Beck and r:c a.y be

import from there. Ban Ta 349 translucent beads

rarely reported in Southeast Asia; a few k11own as surface or uncontext:ed

finds from Ban Chiang and Oc Eo and one or two come from the :::tone cist graves at South Sumatra (Hoop Many of these an: form of hexagonal

u''·"~~,~·•u• barrels, square prisms and square barrels out earlier, mimic the beryl crystals of South India which popular in the Buddhist North India as the Roman world. These

who mentioned imitations were made in

tt.ND J. HEN1JERSON

f'uikamedu

no. r;f Graeco·Romafl of this - o?Ie from the surface

Glass beads of similar their

glass besds were rnanufactured

are :>:.urprisingly rare ~... South Asian recorded few such beac:i~f>c in surface

the last being dated

bead was also

1948:75, Plate

CHEl\HCA.L COMPOSI~.JNS OFL~TE PREHISTORIC sm.riJ:-IE.""ST ASIAN GLASS

ma.ny was c.\11 %. TI1e

'JClriOSCIJpe wfih a Link In Tabies 4 ami 5 a dash or a

sources consulted.

determined4;

Samples were

2-5 the

Electron

a 4 that the

ll:.ly their find numbers) were

arc:nc;.'"·'mo;D.C3:J COJ1telrts dating to the 4th century BC Those Sembiran (S2-6) were also archaeological :cmtexts and probably AD 1 and 200 (Ardika ami Bellwood 1991). 'Ihe Ban Chiang (BCl) was a surface find. Colours are by thus TCG means means t.ranslucent dark TCW means translucent of the colourless heads have intemai cracks which appear whitish due light reflecting off internal

"""'·""'"~> OER means opaque TP means translucent purplish and TOG meam: translucent olive green, The red colour is different frmn a much brighter

se1l!H:!!l',''llruC red found ancient technology; borne out in the

EARL Y'SOUTHEAST ASIAN AND INDIAN' GL.<\SS 375

m'nostructure~ :.nd chemical of the two kinds red. On

3957 6114

some

IS

(Hass

Bead type NrJ20 OBRtbarrel 10.4

11.1 11.8 11

08R!ob!atc 12.0 OBR/cyHnoer 6.1

1.1 1.4 1.5 1.7

beads can be grouped into tc:'o bread Sodium predomimltes in the• an'i

SPJ2 K20 ;8.6 5. i

S3.7 0.6 0.3 4.2 5.:) 66.9 0. 7 0.3 4, 7 'i C-\

6.7 62.9 0.6 0.3 :1A 2.6 6.2 GG.O

60.9 4.7

used seep. 374.

Tiij2 0.5 0.4 0.5

0.5 0.2

•nd (K20)

Fe2U:l Cu20 Total 2.3 2.5 101.6

2.0 93.6 2.2 2.4 99.1

:'.·::1 colour

e!it!t!l 15.5 1 5.3 te.s ~J .. ;c 1 0.30

2./ 2.5 101.4 16.9 2.0 10.8

though in

m:v;eathered s£,mples. ;;~:.48, 5234,

brovvn bead from B::an Don Tc: level above 0.8% would

from Ban

1.0%

al~hmEgh the final colon;: acbjeved would ''""~'"'"""- on a range other factors (Green and Hart oxide is ~m:senf in bead2 from Ban Don Ta Phet, ranging up

2;emd No. [\]:0120 Ai203 SHi:;~ I'205 S@2 C! K20 Cv:! Ti02 MnO Fe203 CQ.;_t:J Totm! '%,Jots! JlKall K201N•211

1293 1432

7171 8010

9142 82 S3

S6 BC1

()_2 0.6 72.g G.4 Nil Nil 16.6 5.7 NO Nil 0.3 g)_4 88.0

0.4 0.2 74 9 :-n 0.1 IIIJ 15.6 I'll) NO 0.2

TCG!hex.prism 0.7 0.6 G 2 74.5 NO NO 4.9 NO

TO<::' ·fragment 1.3 1.3 2.2 69.6 0.4 17'.4 3.9 NO LD l"2G/elliptical 0.5 NO L5 NO 02 15.0 L2 NO

TDGiob!ate ND 0.5 0.0 73.0 1\1) I 7.3 3.2. l~D NO 1.0

TBGJbarre! 3.C iLS 0.1 NO 2.4 0.1

TOWbarrel 1.4 0.5 1.9 G\:.5 NO 0.3 3.1 0.1

TBdraqment 0.2 0.2 C.B 68.1 NO 0.7 0.5 1 1.5 NO NO

TBifr-v· H91Ct 0.5 0. 77. i 0.6 h-!D 0.1 18.2 3. 7 ND NO

TOG/lr2\J:-c~")!l! 1.4 (l.4 1 70.3 NO I'D 18.2 ND NO 0.6

ND 0.2 :J.9 74.3 NO ND 16.5 3.8 NO N;)

-::.2 0.6 0.6 i\0 ND 16.6 ND NO 0.2

1.3 6S.0· ::.6 0.3 ND 'j 2.8 0.1 0.3 2.0

TDB/bcwrai 0.4 2.8 7!. { NO 0.4 NO 15.6 0.3 1.9 1.2 W• 1.0 74.1 0 3 0.3 I 6.3 1.1 NO 1.0

o.a 1.£ ::.:.6 70.1 1.0 0.1 17.3 3.0 NO 0.'

'i.2 NO 37 75.5 NO 'i 3.4 0.4 0.5

TMr~:~ ~- !?(J;'fASSl1 .•M-RI<::Zf FRC:MBANDON SEMBI RAN

OX!JlJES;.

the

g::.cup th.ere is no

and colour since S(rtl.:c: translucent U 2.4%. This can b~

d:ssolv'~d and in i_s, oxidised is present 1n a

"""''-"~•u-~ agent :;rhich would help copp~r and in these glasses

96.2 1!5.6 0.1 97.5 16.9 1.8 99.7 18.7 2.4 93.8 ~ 5.5 O.S 9-5.1 17.3 1.6 98.9 18.2 1.1 94.3 17.0 NO 98.4 17.6 NO 18.2

19.6 NO 95.8 16.5

100.6 16.8 1

1 Oi.S ND 98.8 \7.7 2.5 100.3 18.7

l!LS

CHIANG

is consistent to precipitate out

to those

eentury AD and la~er (Henderson used i: : corn positions are :)is tinct in other n.vo browr~.ish-red. mutisalah beads in the potassium and S6

ontain 2.5-3.1% copper present c~uprous oxide

TI'ilE COMPOSffiON SOUT.dEAST ASIAN GLASS AND ITS SOURCES

Brill (1987:4) mentions that mixed-alkali rather rare the but recently

n.o 23. i 13J' 30.0 87.0 3.8

11.1 87.0 91.0 1:"LO 82. c C:3.0

\1.0 1.!;

1.c 1.2

been from Broeze contexts of 11th-7th centuries BC in northern Italy, Switzerland and implying the of European source for this earlier

1988:84). to Hendenmn 81, 89), there were three main corn positional types silicate glass in before the 2nd AD. They 'were:

EARLY SOUTHEt\ST AS!AN AA"'D INDIAN GLASS

S03 14:20 c.o %Total

0.1 4.3 4.8 0.3 1.2 0.7 L3 100.1

75.9 0.2 3.9 1.8 0.2 2.6 1.5 100.0

64.5 3.9 5.0 0.3 0.2 LS 1.9 98.0 17.4

4.5 66.7 4.0 4.6 0.3 0.1 1.3 2. j iOO.O 18.3

61.2 4.6 0.2 0.0 0.2 100.1 19.6

6 .. 9 63.2 7.4 4.8 0.2 0.1 2.6 3.9 99.9 16.1

4.7 57.3 6.9 3.3 0.4 4.5 10.9 100.0 14A

5. 7 61.2 6.4 5.2 0.4 0.1 1.5 0.1 100.0 22.2

Sar Dheri 3.5 3.9 61.7 7.2 5.2 0.3 0.1 1.3 0.2 100.0 23.5

Sar Dheri 5.0 2.3 59.6 7.2 5.0 0.1 0.1 1.2 2.0 99.8 24.2

Sar Dheri 3.2 4.2 61.7 7.5 6.4 0.3 0.1 1.2 0.1 100.0 22.6

S<>r 4.5 60.0 6.3 6.4 0.2 0.4 1.5 0.1 100.1 23.0

4.0 5.7 5EL "l 4.8 8.9 0.2 1.7 100.2 21 .6

TaxHa 0.5 2.9 4.9 7.1 0.0 99.7 17.7

0.1

16.1 tr 3.1 72.9 11.4 2.4 0.9 3.7 76.3 14.4 2.0 0.8 76.9 12.9 1.8 0 2 0.8

2.1 74.0 16.1 1.2 0.2 L5 2.2 80.4 HL7 3.9 2.6 0.1

0.7 0.9 2.5 76.4 14.1 2.0 0.1 1.5 1.4 Hulaskhera 0.1 16.9 3.6 0.3 Udayagiri 4.1 2.0 3.4 59.6 19.0 7.6

TABLE S. POTASSIUM-.RICH GLASS IN SOUTH ASIA (Wf, % AS OXIDES),

vv"'"'·"""' < 1% are not not listed. codes used seep. 374.

is unusual 9th-7th centuries BC

have been found in earlier Bronze alkali

0.29

0.92

0.42

~.38

south from Sar Dheri and Kausambi in north India and TaxHa in Pakistan

:178 K. I. GLO"\'ER AND '-!ENDERSON

Tc

X X

POTASH GLASSES

X

Te ., To

xlSc x X

X X

u

• = Mixed-alkali glass from Do'' Phct Scmbirnll

X = Po!aSll glass Ban Doo Ta Phct, Sembimn,

Ban {.:;c,i;mg

EARLY SOUTHEAST ASIAN AND INDIAN GLASS 379

mixed,alkali glasses from BDTP and Sembinm group Kausambl and Sar glass. the same analytical

Fn::m the rJcq,c of liable be the most technically difficult to manufacture.

is very rare in the Middle E<lst and du'""''"'"'"' chf:mi::al Roman colourless

translucent blue from Stradonice, Bohemia of the 1st-4th cemuries indicate that the Roman containea 12-14% levels

in additioa Hulashkera and Hastinapura in northern India (Table from China to Ban Don Ta Phet in the 4th BC seems !;inc:e the forms of

Thai resemble oflndic there other e.vidence of 'Al'""'·"''"' material on the site.

Lal (1987:54) mentioned that some of the glass beads from Arikamedu have a four ox:ide-liJne·~siiica-alumina the in

into this, category, ""~''"""'"' contents.

An apparently "black" glass bead from Ban Don Ta Phet (5653) has a high iron oxide c;ontent This d&~rk green when examined transmitted light 1~he

is reduced it can with on!;; Arikamedu (Di.kshit 1969:151 ).

The Sembiran most from south India, from

"'~"""'"'"''''' ~he most C<'~ntre fm Indo"·Pacif:ic glass be;J\d.s which made both mixed-alkali and potassium glass. The recovery of the Rouletted ·ware

at Sembiran (Ardika and Bellwood 1991) strengthens the link bei"Neen Arikamedu and Bali. it does not follow that Edi the heads

in Southeas:t Asia were imported from P.rikamedu. <LA::rm:po:sttlonal

380 K. BASA, I. GLOVER AND J. HENDERSON

studies show that certain types of typical north Indian glass beads are also found in Southeast Asia and it is fair to assume that more than one centre in India exported them.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INDIA AND SOUTHEAST ASIA

During the period under study (400 BC-AD 500), India witnessed the emergence of mature states - the Mauryas, Kushanas and the Guptas in north India and the Satavabanas in the Deccan. During that period, south India had some powerful chiefdoms such as the Cberas, Cholas and the Pandyas, some of which emerged as urbanised states like that of the Pallavas who ruled over Tamilnadu during the 4th-6th centuries AD. Despite the political plurality, what· mattered for trade was the diversification of arts and crafts under some form of guild (srenz) system, and the issue of a wide range of coins by cities (nigama) and tribes (gana) in different areas. Trade based on profit is well descnbed in the Arthasastra. An elaborate bureaucracy developed, especially in the Mauryan state, and there was a considerable development of both overland and maritime trade routes. There were regional variations in organization of trade as Ray (this volume) makes clear. For example, in the north-western part of the Indian sub-continent, trade was controlled by a sahaya association. In Tamilnadu, the paratvar comprised inhabitants of the coastal tract who bad diversified from their traditional occupation of salt making and fiShing into long distance trade. Moreover, the term nikama, meaning nigama or exchange centre, is mentioned in the Tamil Brahmi imcriptions from the Madurai region on the river Vaigai. Inscriptions from Mathura and the Deccan also refer to the organization of guilds by traders in specified commodities. Guilds also acted as banks and places for investment.

Politically, India's interest in Southeast Asia was commercial and not imperialist or interventionist. The only evidence of the latter is the invasion by the Chola kingdom of south India of the Srivijaya kingdom in Sumatra in the 11th century AD. In Southeast Asia at this time the highest levels of political organisation were chiefly societies and at best some nascent states. Barter is likely to have been the only mode of exchange. Wisseman Christie (n.d.) bas argued for the emergence of three clusters of producer­trading states in Peninsular Malaysia during ~he late centuries BC; in the Perak-Bemam river valleys, in the lower courses of the Kelang and Langat rivers, and in the upper Pabang-Tembeling river valley in the mountainous interior. Nevertheless, the first issues of coinage in Southeast Asia, the so-called "Pyu coins", do not seem to predate the 7th or 8th centuries AD (Cnbb 1981) and seem to have bad a restricted circulation in the major river basins of modem Burma, Thailand, Cambodia and southern Vietnam.

With a lack of written records we ~annat analyse, in the same detail as is possible for India, the structure of exchange within Southeast Asia for the thousand years from the 5th century BC. Good archaeological documentation is still scarce and we depend on models based on analogies from more recent historical and ethnographic situations. For instance, Bronson (1977), Wheatley (1975), Wolters (1982), Miksic (1984) and Wisseman Christie (1982 and n.d.) have all proposed evolutionary or structural models for Southeast Asian exchange systems. Although useful, these are generalised and abstract and, for the most

EARL YSOUTI-IEAST ASIAN AND INDIAN GlASS 381

part, lack firm support from empirical data from the past. Elsewhere, Basa (1991) has explored in some detail the implications of these models, and also a modified "World Systems" approach, for achieving a higher-level understanding of the role of the glass

bead trade in the development of social elites in Southeast Asia. In this brief report we can sum up the position by emphasising that the westerly trade

of Southeast Asia during the period from about 400 BC to AD 500 was not a mere "trickle of trade", nor can it be described simply as the "drift" of a few exotic and precious items to

the east from India. Rather it operated on a considerable scale at pan-regional, regional, and local levels; it was developed as a commercial enterprise by Indian merchants; and

there is little doubt that Southeast Asian sailors and traders were also active in the exchanges. The trade stimulated the growth of chiefly societies in Southeast Asia and prepared the ground for the transformation to state-level organisations in the mid first

millennium of the Christian Era.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In the study and analysis of glass beads, Basa received considerable help from Dafydd Griffiths of the Institute of Archaeology and from Gerry McDonnell and Mike Heyworth of English Heritage. I Wayan Ardika and P~ter Bellwood provided samples of glass beads from Sembiran for comparative analysis. We thank all of them. However, we are

responsible for the interpretations put forward here.

F001NOTES

1 The Pasir Angin dates are 1050±160 bp (ANU 1110), 1280±170 bp (ANU 1112), 4370±1190 bp

(ANU 1109) and 2460±440 bp (ANU 1113).

2 Table 1 shows the glass beads from all the three excavation seasons at Ban Don Ta Phet. It has been compiled from Figures 5.8-5.10 in Basa (1991) where more typological distinctions are

indicated and the totals for the three seasons are separated.

3 This ornament was described as "crystal" when published by Chin You-di (1978: Colour Plate 5), but is described as "glass" in a fine postcard of the piece on sale at the National Museum, Bangkok. Mr Somchai Na Nakorn Phanom and Dr Warangkhana Rajpitak of the National Museum recently

examined the piece for us and confirm that it is indeed made of glass (pers. comm. 29.3.1991).

4 The analyses of glass from Don Ta Phet, Sembiran and Ban Chiang were done at the Ancient

Monuments Laboratory of English Heritage. Analyses of glass from other sites in Southeast Asia have been published by van der Hoop 1932:170; van Heekeren 1958:41; Malleret 1962:465-9;

Harrisson 1963:237, 1964:38, 1968:129-31; Lamb 1965a:100-8, 1965b:36, 1966:86-7; Lugay 1974:161-2; Indraningsih 1985:139; and McKinnon and Bri111987:9-12. Results of further analyses on beads from Don Ta Phet are awaited, and when these are available a more ambitious statistical analysis of Asian glass will be made. [Tables 2 to 5 have been printed as received from the authors;

subscript chemical numbers would have necessitated retyping- Ed.]

382 K. BASA, I. GLOVER AND J. HENDERSON

5 Table 4 is based on analyses published by Dikshit 1969:151; Lamb 1966: 87; and Brilll987:17.

More analyses of South Asian glass have been published by Sen and Chaudhuri 1985.

6 Table 5 is based on analyses published by Dikshit 1969:150; Lal1952a:25 and 1952b:56; Agrawal

et al. 1987:60; Brill 1987: 18-20; and in the Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India for

1922-23, p.l58.

REFERENCES

Agrawal, 0. P, Jain, K. K. and Singh, T. 1987. Analysis of glass from Hulaskhera. In Bhardwaj,

H. C. (ed.) 1987a, pp. 57-62.

An, Jiayao n.d. Ancient glass in southeast coast of China. Paper presented in International Seminar on Ancient Trade and Cultural Contacts in Southeast Asia, 21st-22nd January 1991,

Bangkok.

Ardika, I. Wayan and Bellwo~, P. 1991. Sembiran: the beginnings of Indian contact with Bali. Antiquity 65:221-32.

Basa, K. K. 1991. The Westero/ Thuie of Southeast Asia from c.400 BC to c.AD 500 with Special

Reference to Glass Beads. Ph. D. Thesis, University of London.

- n.d. Early glass beads in Thailand. To be published in M. Santoni (ed.), Southeast Asian

Archaeology 1988. Beck, H. C. 1941. Beads from TariJa. New Delhi: Memoir of the Archaeological Survey oflndia 65.

Begley, V. 1983. Arikamedu reconsidered. American Journal of Archaeology 87:461-81.

Bellwood, P. S. 1985 Prehistory of the Indo-MalaysianArchipelago. Sydney: Academic Press.

Bhardwaj, H. C. 1979. Aspects of Ancient Indian Technology. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

- ( ed.) 1987a. Archaeometry of Glass. Calcutta: Indian Ceramic Society.

-1987b. A review of archaeometric studies of Indian glasses. In Bhardwaj, H. C. (ed.) 1987a, pp.

64-75.

Brill, R H. 1987. Chemical analyses of some early Indian glasses. In Bhardwaj, H. C. (ed.) 1987a,

pp.l-25.

Bronson, B. 1977. Exchange at the upstream and downstream ends: notes towards a functional

model of the coastal state in Southeast Asia. In Mutterer, K. (ed.) Economic Exchange

and Social Interaction in Southeast Asia, pp. 39-52. Ann Arbor: Michigan Papers on

South and Southeast Asia, No.13.

- 1990. Glass and beads at Khuan Lukpad, Southern Thailan~. In Glover, I. C. and Glover, E.

(eds) 1990, pp. 213-29.

Bronson, B. and Glover, I. C. 1984. Archaeological mdiocarbon dates from Indonesia: a first list

Indonesia Circle 34:3744.

Bronson, B. and White, J. 1984. Radiocarbon and chronology in Southeast Asia. Unpublished

Roneo Report

Casson, L. ( ed) 1989. The Periplus Maris Erythraei. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Chin You-di 1978. Nothing is new. Muang Boran Joumal4( 4): 7-16. In Thai with English abstract

Cnob, J. 1981. The date of the symbolic coins of Burma and Thailand - a re--examination of the

evidence. Seaby Coin and Medal Bulletin 75:224-6.

to pre- and of

"""'"'·""· Bulletin of zhe Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 2:19-30.

·----1983. Excavations at Ban Don Ta Phet, Kanchanatmri Province, Thailand 1980-81. .:>uuut·£:,u:><

Uie 1984-85

India and ""u·"'"''"~..~.,, (2nd revised ed.). Centre for Souiheasi .A.sian Studies,

Hull: Occasional Papers No. 16.

Glover, I.C., Charoenwongsa, P., B.AR. and K 1984. The cemetery of Ban Don

Ta Phet, Thailand: results from the 1980-81 excavation season. In B.

South Asian 1981, 319-30. Cambridge: ... ,k. ..... w ... w1;~

Glover, C. and G!.over, (eds) 1990. Southeast Asian B.AR.

International Series S-561.

Green, L.R. and Hart, F.A 1987. Colour and chemical composition in ancient glass. Journal Archaeological Science 14: 271-82.

T. 1963. Translucent glass rings

-· 19&t Monochrome beads from and elsewhere.

-~-1968. New analyses of excavated prehistoric glass from Bomeo.Asian Perspectives XI:125-31.

Ha Van Tan 1986. 0<: Eo: endogenous and exogenous elements. Vretnam Social Sciences

Heekeren, H. R. van 195/t The Bronze-Iron Age of Indonesia. The Martin us

Hend<eJrr,,on, J. 1988. Electron probe

91.

of mixed-alkali glasses. Archaeometry 30(1):77-

~- 1991 Chemical characterisation of Roman vessels, enamels and tesserae. In P.B.

Vandiver, J. Druzik and E.S. Wheeler (eds), Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology

pp. 601-8. Pittsburgh: Materials Research Vol. 185.

Bo 1952a .. Examination ofscvme ancient IndE:;:m 8:17-Z'l.

--~-- 1952b. m Miedieval Indiarn <reramics; some and ar~efacs:~

BeThuy. Kolliapur, Maski, Nas~, Maheshwar.

lnstiew;te XIV(1):4 8-5&.

Glass technology in Ear~ ~ndia.ln Bbardwif~, 1965a. Some observatioliil!! on stone and

the Malaysian Branch

of the Deccal!l College Research

l?P· 44-56.

·-·- 1%5b. Some; glass beads from the Ma~ay Peninsula. M~llj LX'if;36-8.

---- 1966. A note on glass beads from the Studirz;g 8:80-94

J.R of the methods of manufacture of glass beads. In Procee.din,gs

the Fint Regional Seminar on Southet1~st /bicm emd Archaeology, Manila 1972,

pp.l48·,glL Manila: Nati<m!llli Museum. McKJ1mon, E.E. RR 1987. (:i;emical analyses of glasses from Sumatr:Bc.

H.C (ed.) 1987a,

Malleret,

F\l!li~~:n~~: 1987. Investigation OER some Chinese

tambs. In Bhardwaj, H. (ed.) pp. 15-20.

J. 1984. A comparison between some Ion~ C:istance w.stitutk>ns of the Ma!ace2 Western Pacffic. In Bayard, D. (ed.), Southreusi! Asian

£.he Science pp. 235-53. University

Prehistoric Anthropology Ui. Initial reseanch on glass making in Viem::;.m

Hoc 1983:7-54.

Vietnamesr:.} Khao Co

Peacock. B. A. V. 1979. The linter prehistory of the Malay Peninsula. In Smith, R B. and

W. (eds),Early South-East Asia, Oxforrtili: Oxford Universi1i:y Press. Ray, H P. 1989. Early maritime oontaCIS between South and S::mmeast Asia. Journal of Southeast.

Asian

groep oorspronkelijk vandaan? Bijdmgen tot de Land- en Volkenkunde van

Nedmandsch-lndie (deel L der reeks) 50:4();9-675.

§en S.N. and Chaudhuri, M. 1985. Anciens c:;lass tmd Inditll. Delhi: Indian National Science

Slnfll.a\jm2, Nik Hassan 1991. Recent research at Kua!m Pera!c. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific

Prehistory.Associo.tion.ll:141-1S2. Singh, R. N.1989 . .Ailu:ieF&t Indian Glass:Alrhaeologyand Technology. Demi: Parimal Fw,blications.

Solheim ll, W. G. 1981 Philippine prehistony. In Jose R.T., C'411siiio, E.S., Ellis, and Solhemdll, W.G. (eds), Tf/ge People and An of the PhiUppines, pp. 17-83. Ln§

Amie:e:les: Mmeum of Cultural History, University of California, Angeles.

EARLY SO UTI-lEAST ASIAN AND INDIAN GLASS 385

SPAFA 1987. Topics for further discussion. Appendix 8 in SPAFA Final Report of the Seminar in

Prehistory of Southeast Asia, 1W 11, Thailand, January 12-25th, 1987. Bangkok: SP AF A

Coordinating Committee.

Stern, E. M. 1987. On the glass industry of Arikamedu (Ancient Podouke). In Bhardwaj H. C. (ed.)

1987a, pp. 26-36.

Wheatley, P. 1975. Satyanrta in Suvarnadvipa: from reciprocity to redistribution in ancient

Southeast Asia. In Sabloff, J.A and Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. (eds), Ancient

Civilization and Trade, pp. 227-83. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Wheeler, R.E.M., Ghosh, A, Deva, K 1946. Arikamedu: an Indo-Roman trading station on the

east coast ofindia. Ancient India 2: 17-124.

Wisseman Christie, J. 1982. Patterns of Trade in Western Indonesia: Ninth through Thirteenth

Centuries A.D. Ph. D. Thesis. University of London.

---- n.d. Port settlement to trading empire: genesis and growth of coastal states in maritime

Southeast Asia.

Wolters, 0. W. 1982. History, Culture and Religion in Southeast Asian Perspectives. Singapore:

Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Zhang Fukang 1987. Origin and development of early Chinese glasses. In Bhardwaj, H.C. (ed.)

1987a, pp.25-8.