THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 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, 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""'uu1._, ......
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

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 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 trapped in the
Xl;JIO!Iea when dra\W tubes were cut These are
manufacture 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 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
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 COlriMASIIAPED 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 '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
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
BC and early 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; 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 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 GraecoRomafl
of this - o?Ie from the surface
Glass beads of similar
their
glass besds were rnanufactured
are :>:.urprisingly rare South Asian
recorded few such in surface
the last being dated
bead was also
1948:75, Plate
CHEl\HCA.L 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
:.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 (K
2
0)
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 .. ;c
1 0.30
2./ 2.5 101.4 16.9
2.0 10.8
though
in
m:v;eathered s,mples. 5234,
brovvn bead from B::an Don Tc:
level above 0.8% would
from Ban
1.0%
the final colon;: acbjeved would on a range other factors (Green and
Hart oxide is in bead2 from Ban Don Ta Phet, ranging up
2;emd No. [\]:0120 Ai203 I'205 S@2 C! K20 Cv:! Ti02 MnO Fe203 CQ.;_t:J Totm! '%,Jots! JlKall K201N211
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. 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
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


!?(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
and in i_s, oxidised
is present
1
n a
agent :;rhich would help
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 (Henderson
used i: : corn positions are :)is tinct in other
n.vo mutisalah beads in the potassium and S6
ontain 2.5-3.1% copper present 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
~ . 3 8
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
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 green when examined transmitted light
is reduced it can with on!;; Arikamedu
(Di.kshit 1969:151 ).
The Sembiran most from south India, from
most 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 producer-
trading states in Peninsular Malaysia during ~ h e 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 ~ a n n a t 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 ~ t e r 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 1050160 bp (ANU 1110), 1280170 bp (ANU 1112), 43701190 bp
(ANU 1109) and 2460440 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 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 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
(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 ...

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.
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
BeThuy. Kolliapur, Maski, Maheshwar.
lnstiew;te XIV(1):4 8-5&.
Glass technology in
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 Peninsula. 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 /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,
1987. Investigation OER some Chinese
tambs. In Bhardwaj, H. (ed.) pp. 15-20.
J. 1984. A comparison between some 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.