Doubts on Diffusion: Challenging the Assumed Indian Origin of Iron Age Agate

and Carnelian Beads in Southeast Asia

Robert Theunissen; Peter Grave; Grahame Bailey

World Archaeology, Vol. 32, No. 1, Archaeology in Southeast Asia. (Jun., 2000), pp. 84-105.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-8243%28200006%2932%3A1%3C84%3ADODCTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23

World Archaeology is currently published by Taylor & Francis, Ltd..

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/taylorfrancis.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
Fri Mar 21 08:17:09 2008
Doubts on diffusion: challenging the
assumed Indian origin of Iron Age
agate and carnelian beads in
Southeast Asia

Robert Theunissen, Peter Grave and Grahame Ba'iley

Iron Age agate and carnelian beads found in Southeast Asia havc long been assumed to be Indian
imports, often featuring in diffusion-orientated theories of Southeast Asian state developtnent t h a ~
cite Indian influence as a major causal factor. The origin of these beads is testcd here. through ;I
pioneering non-destructive geochemical sourcing study of carnelian hcads and potential source
material. Our results suggest that many of these beads do not derive from India. Instead, a coislplex
multi-source origin. involving some local Southeast Asian manufacture. appears likely. This finding
further erodes the already crumbling foundation of diffusion-based theories of Southeast Asian
state development. An alternative. regionally focused, approach to thr study of these beads is
recoislnsended using geochemical analysis to help trace their trade within Southeast Asia. This will
enable a better understanding of their role in, and impact upon. existing prestige goods exchange
networks within the region.

Keywords

Diffusion: Southeast Asia; state devzlopment: beads; sourcing; geochcmistl-y.

Introduction

Agate and ca~nelianbeads from Ilon Age (-500 n t to AII 500) contexts in Southeast Asla
have long been as\urned to be exotic prcstige goods (Glovcr 1990a, 1996 59; Ray 1996.
43) obtained, via long-distance exchange. iro111 lndla (Bellwoocl 1976: 276-7. Francis
1989 23; Glover 1990a, 1996: Ray 1996. 43, Lamb 1965 92-3 Wissernan Christle 1990
41). As a result, they have been interpreted as evidence of early Indian Influence in thc
region leadlng to the development oi the first historic Southeast Aslan states (Franc15
1996. 141, Mabbet 1977, May 1996) TI-11s assumed Indian oligin has nevei been testcci
uslng geochcmlcal chalacterization mcthods, partly because the destructive natule 01

World At t kcrrologv Vol. 32(1): 84- 105 Ardrurology [ r i Solilhecisl A 5rta

0 7 dylos & Francis X,td 2000 0043 M?n :
common geochemical techniques is considered inappropriate for such rare artefacts. In
thls study, non-destructive PIXEIPIGME geochemical analysis is applied, for the very
first time, to carnelian beads from two Iron Age sites in Thailand and to potential source
material in the form of carnelian chips taken from several production centres in India,
and Sri Lanka, together with samples of raw carnelian from a quarry source in central
Thailand.
The Thai beads are found to differ in colnposition from the Indian samplcs tested, while
closely corresponding to that of the raw carnelian obtained from central Thailand and to
a very few of the samples derived from Sri Lanka. Marked differences in chemical compo-
sition also exist between the samples from each of the two Thai sites, and there are differ-
ences in chemical composition between the potential source salnples frorn India, Sri
Lanka and Thailand. In addition, links between a distinctive bead type and a particular
chemical composition are observed, suggesting some types were the specialty of specific
bead-production centres using their own discrete source of saw material.
These results suggest that the Thai material did not all derive from India: rather, a
complex multi-source origin including some local manufacture appears likely. Tliis
conclusion suggests that the emphasis placed on Indian influence as a catalyst for South-
east Asian state development should be moderated with a greater consideration of
indigenous contributions. The geochemical results presented here also provide the means
through which this shift in focus can be achieved. Instead of viewing agate and carnelian
beads simply as indicators of exlernal Indian influence, we feel that they may be betler
studied from a more regional perspective, focusing on their impact on, and function
within, existing prestige goods-.exchange networks within Iron Age Southeast Asia
(Higham 1984: 250-4). Only by combining geochemical analysis with contextual, typo-
logical and technological analysis of the beads will we learn something of the origin, distri-
bution and direction of trade or exchange of these beads within Iron Age Southeast Asia.
This will aid our understanding of prestige goods exchange networks on a regional scale
during the Iron Age and their contribution to the growth of social complexity, and ulti-
mately state development, within Southeast Asia.

Background ancl aims

Stone beads fashioned from banded agate and mono-coloured orange-red carnelian (Fig.
1) first appeared in quantity in Southeast Asia from early in the Iron Age (-500 o c to AD
500) period. They are generally thought to have been exotic prestige goods (Glover 1990a,
1996: 59; Ray 1996: 43) imported, via long-distance exchange, from India (Bellwood 1976:
276-7; Francis 1989: 23; Glover 1990a, 1996; Ray 1996: 43; Lamb 1965: 92--3;Wisseman-
Christie 1990: 41). Because they are assumed to come lrom India, archaeologists have
interpreted the beads as early evidence of organized Indian trade contact (as opposed to
simply drift - see Glover 1996), accompanied by Indian political and religious influence
(Ray 1996), and as such they have featured in diffusionist-style interpretations of South-
east Asian state development (e.g. Francis 1996: 141; Mabbet 1977; Ray 1996).
Diffusion theories of Southeast Asian s1,ate development range from those, now more
or less defunct, which suggest these stales were formed directly by emigrant Indians or
86 Robert Thez~nissen,Peter Grave anrl Giaharne Bailey

figrue I Tjipical lron Age agate and carnelian beads fro111 Thailand.

through their agency (e.g. Chowdhury 1996: 96). to those more recent theories which
recognize these early states as predominantly ii-idigenous constructions which borrowed,
to a greater or lesser degree. political. cultural and religious institutions from India
(Higham and Thosarat 1997: Wisseman-Christie 1990: 39-41). The importance attached
to Indian influence in Southeast Asian state development is largely the result oC the
appearance in Southeast Asia of Indian religious icons and shrines, Indian architecture,
and lndian language and customs around the mid-first millennium AD (Mabbet 1977:
Chowdhury 1996: 95-6), coincident with the development of the first historic Southeast
Asian states; for example, the mid-first millennium ALI was marked by the zenith of the
Funan state in southern Cambodia and Vietnam (Hall 1985: 69; Ishizawa 1995), the
 Doubts on dif$~sion 87

emergence of Srivijaya on the Malay peninsular and Sumatra (Wisseman-Christie 1990:

44) and the Dvaravati kingdoms around the Gulf of Thailand (Mudar 1999).
In order to grasp just how important Indian influence was in Southeast Asian state
development it is necessary to consider the extent of Indian contact and influence during
the immediately preceding, Iron Age, period, for it is during this period that the complex
societies which gave birth to the first states arose (Higham and Thosarat 1997). However,
we find that the evidence for Indian contact and influence in Southeast Asia prior to the
mid-first millennium AD is very meagre indeed (Glover 1996: 58). In fact this evidence
consists almost entirely of beads made from agate and carnelian, glass, and, for the later
Iron Age, pottery sherds called Rouletted Ware identified with South India (Ardika and
Bellwood 1991; Wisseman-Christie 1990: 41). Given the paucity of evidence for Indian
contact with Southeast Asia during the Iron Age, and the large part which agate and
carnelian beads play in this evidence, the issue of whether agate and carnelian beads all
derived from India, as is commonly assumed, is clearly an important one which will affect
the degree of emphasis placed by researchers on Indian influence as a catalyst to South-
east Asian state development.
Evidence is already mounting that the belief all agate and carnelian beads found in
Southeast Asia are of Indian origin is, at best, an oversimplification. Certainly, by the
end of the Iron Age, manufacture o l agate and carnelian beads had indeed commenced
at coastal sites in peninsular Thailand (Fig. 2), such as Khuan Luk Pad (Veraprasert
1992) and Khao Sam Kaeo (Srisuchat 1996), and probably also at Oc E o in southern
Vietnam (Francis 1989), as evidenced by finds of half-finished beads and chips of agate
and carnelian produced during bead manufacture. Despite this evidence, an Indian
origin continues to be unquestioningly assumed for most agate and carnelian beads, even

Figure 2 Map of India and Southeast Asia showing sites discussed in the text.
88 Robert Theunusen, Peter f ~ r a v earzrl Grtrf~trrilcBn~1e1-

for areas where [he beads pre-dale other visible evidence of Indian corllacl --- siich a.s
Indian inscriptions and architectuie --- by ceritlrries (e.g. P o ~ i ~ b e j r1998),
a and also for
later hisloric periods when Southeast Asian bead production is a?lell-kriown ( e . ~I-?i .
shanchit 1996). The reason for this appears to rest wiLh our inability to identify the origin
of any particular bead or group of beads with any real certainly. Studies of thc distri-
bution of bead types alone for example. appear unable lo distinguish hetween local and
imported beads because the hardness o C agate anci carr~a:lian greatly limits the typcs
(shapes) possible, i&Xan?, like spheres and faceted bicones. have been produced ai
various locations around the globe for thousands (if years with litl.le delectable i?aria~iipti
(Mellwood 1976: 277; Francis 198%).In the absence of corrclusive proof o l local prod-?lc
lion in the form of unfinished beads or bead debris: researchers have therecore been
content to 'accept a more cons~entionalIndian origin' (Bellwood 1976:2'76). As a consc
quence of this acceptance, both the time cleplh oT sustairsa-:dIndian trade contact preccil-
ing early historic stale developments and the perception o l Southeast Asia as a passive
receptor in Lhis trade are, rightly or wrongly, I~ighlightcrl (Wissernan-Christie 1990:
41--2), and the importance of Indian inllucnr:~in Soulkueast Asian state development is
emphasized (e,g. Ray 1996).
What is needed therefore is a means ro determine, with somc degree of objei:tiviiy,
whether all agate anst carnelian beads in fact derived fro111 Tridiari sources. or. even better,
a means to dctermine where exactly specii'rc bcad:; originated. in this paper we p3:eser.lt
the preliminary results of a pioneering geochemical study contlucted to lncct this ncecl.
Our initial aim is to identify an appropria~cnon-destructive gcochemical riietfiod lor cha-c--
acteriaing this inatcrial, one which cotlld potentially disc~rin- ina ate material from dilfecent
geological sources, whilc our primary aini is to establish, within the constraints of tllc
melhod and limited sample s i ~ c if, , Iron Age carlicljan heads exsavalcd in Soulheasl Asia
are likely to have all bccn imported frorrr India.
'The issue of whcther or noL the beads all derive from Intlia is also rclcvant to theia status
as exotic prcstige goods. Certainly.. as rare items of personal adornrr-lent the beads arx:
assunieii to have functioned as prestige goods, been exshangecl to Cosler ilitcr-clitc alliances
and worn to symbolize the acquired or attributed slatus of thc individual (Higham ant1
Thosarat 1997), but were they all g7crccived as cxotic throughoui Southeast Asia and clid
they really function in organizcd exchange lictworks spanning ikic Bay of Bellgal (c.g.
Glovcr 1996: 80; Ray 1996: 4-31?Alid what about the rolc of agate and carnelian bead:; in
prcstige goods exchange within Soulheast Asia? This ha:; never lscen exg7loreci in any
depth (exccpt see Theunissen 1998) desi~itethe i'act it has Isccn rccogllized for some lime
that the introduction or' new j-irestigt: goods from external sourccs may cause resti.uctu-r
ing of cxisting prestige goods exchange and s~rbscqueniincreases in social cortrpirxity
(Higham 1984: 250-4). While geochcrilical analysis by itsell' rnay help resolve the issire oT
whether all agatc and carnelian beads shared an Indian origin, it wot~ldsccrn unlikely,
alone. to be able to rcveal much detail about prestige goods exchange on a11 intra-regioilal
scale. To this end a secondary aim oi' this study is 1.0 itleniiCy any links bctween a bead's
elerne~italcomposit.ion and other variables, such as ihcir "yre', date and location 01site
wherc found. which might help us 10 determine, with Inore confidc~~ce ~l-ranis possiblc
through geochemical analysis alone, their point of origin slid pail1 of trade witllirn Sor1ih.-
east Asia (as for glass 1)eads. c.g. Rrorison 1990: 21 4).
The geochemical analysis

Issues
Geocheniical studies of glass bcads havc already been successfully uscd to suggest the
Indian: Chincse or indigenous origin of glass beads in Southeast Asian sitcs (Glovcr and
Henderson 199S), but such techniques havc ncvcr bcen applied to source agate and
carnclian bcads. Theoretically, geocl-remical characterization of agate and carnelian ma-
terial should enable source discrimination because agateicarncliarl-bearing formations arc
often gcologically unique. Agatc and carnelian form, soinctiincs together, through the
action of silica in solution which pcrrneates through the earth, ;\cculnulating trace
elements from the surrounding rocks and evcntually depositing this concentrated, and
locationally distinctive, silica and trace clenlcnt cocktail in solid form around 1,he edges of
cavities in the parent rock, eventually forming nodules or sheets of raw agatc and
carnclian (Lucdtkc 1992: 33). Geochemical studies of agate-bcaring formations in Scot-
land have succcssfully identified raw agate from different regions on thc basis of their
unique elemental and isotopic composition (Fallick ct al. 1985). 11 is. of course, important
to recognize that geochemical characterization o l stone identifies the quarry source and
not necessarily the refinement or production centre. It is probably reasonable, however:
to assunic that most production ccntrcs for agate and carncliaii beads were located near
(on an international scale) to suitablc sources oC raw niaterial, given its relativc rarity and
thc importance of ensuring its supply -- certainly the better known pre-industrial produc-
tion centres, such as Canibay in India, were locatcd near to the sourcc oC the stone (Francis
1982).
There are also good reasons why a study to characteriac agatc and carnclian beads
geochemically ]la!; never before been attcmptcd: and thcsc nccd to be considered in
sclecting an appropriate nicthod and sa~iiplefor analysis. The elemental cornposition oC
mincralogically similar materials. such as clicrt, is known to varv greatly within a singlc
quarry site and sensitive nietliods that measure a wide rriiige of minor tracc eleincnts are
needed to discriminate between sources (Church 1995). Most such nicthods (e.g. ICP-MS
to characteriac turquoise - see Tykot and Young 1996: 121) are clestructi\ic and inappro-
priate for application to rare and historically significant artefacts. Proton Induced X-Kay
Analysis and Protoil Inducccl Gamma Ray Analysis (PIXEIPIGME) is an alternative
non-destructive chemical fingerprinting method used for a range of archaeological
materials including obsidian artefact:; (e.g. Summerhayes et al. 1993). ceramics (e.g. Grave
et al. 1996) and rock art pigments (e.g. liidges el al. in prep), and this method is equally
well suited for the non-destructive analysis of beads.
Another problcni is the large scale of the study area. Unlike most arc:haeological
characterizatiolr studies of chert. ~ r h i c hfocus on the smaller interaction spheres of
hunter-gatherer societies (Luedtke 1992), we are attempting to characterize artefacts
which may have originated from any nurn ber of outcrops and secondary riverine deposits
from Pakistan to the Philippines. Any geochemical study which hopes to discriminate
beads Iron1 different sources or production centres in this situation will also need to
consider and include additional varial-rles. such as location where found or excavated,
bead age, bead types (shapes and decoration) and manufacturing techniques. If there is
lound a coincidence between distincbive elemental cor-rrposition arid beads rcccrveri:d
i'rom a specific site, or between this composition and beads o f a cerbain age, type. oi tilose
fashioned in a particular way. il inust boost our confidence ihat these heads shared n
specific. and distinct, geographic origin --- an origin and sub:;cquea~itrade which rnighl. be
reflected in the spatial distribution of beads exhibiting this distinctive suite oC sl~arcal
traits.

Samples for this non-destructive geochemical anal! s ~ were s ~IIOSCIIwit17 the abob c aims
and issues in mind, although the diCiiculties of access, time and c o s ~were limiting faciors
for the nururber and source of samples analysed. Yn ordcr to avoid simply identifying
geocl-remical differences related to colour variation or other visually obvious physical
characteristics. we also concentrated our analysis on mono-.coiourecl carnelian alonc.
From Soutl-reast Asia we were fortunntc to oljtaaii Iron Asc casneiian heads from t ~ o
excavated sites nine beads from Ban Don l a Phi,! 111 central mixskc.rnJ:l-railaniland 1r111i~
from Noen U-Loke in noillleast 'Thailand (fol location5 sccXFigup? 2 ) Bar* Don 7;1 Phcr
is a cemetery site formed over a relativel~,brief period of iirnc-:, pcrhaps as little as n gemer--
ation or two. consisting predominantly of secondary burial:; and acr:or-rrpanying burial
offerings including agate and carnclian beads (Glover 1990b: 139---41).As the site d ~ i t e s
from the Iron Age, and contains arbefincts assumed to derive 11-01x1bndia. o~aeof the ixin
cipal excavators has claimed that Ban Don Ta Phet is " 7 ~ : : ; irlrportanl in [he conie:ri OC
the early stage of Indianization in Thailand' (Glovt:~1990h: 179). 'The beads recoveceii
from the site arc also among the oldest agate arid carnelian y:31 fo~.li~d in Southeast Asia,
dating to the fourth century uc', and include sol-ne oi- the rnosr convincing examples :)i
Indian origin in the form of 'etched" Ibcads and 'lion' beads (Glover 199Oa). 'The v c q carly
date and assumed Indian origin make the sai~iplesirorn Ban Don 'Pa Phet ideal speciii-~eni;
for geochei~iicalcon~parisonwith Brrdian sour-ce material. As :;<:.:era1 of the bead iyprr; (or
shapes) included are represented by inore than one exarxrple we naiglrt also bc ; ~ b i cio
identily bead types with a distinctive composition: possibly rcpst:senting the speciali~v06'
a particular bead-production centre using a distinct quarry source.
Noer~U-Loke is a large 'n~oal-ed'site located on the Khorai Plareau in northeasi 'L'hai.
land and is thought to be represcntarive of a trend towards ii~creasingsocial complexi~y
occurring in the area during the Iron Age, invol\7ing population growth, agricultural intcn-.
sification, increasing social stratification and expanded prestige goods-exchange network:.
The site is being excavated as part of a programme aimed at identifying the incligcnor~~s
roots of the later first rnillenniurn (11,Southeast Asian states (Higham and Thosarat j 99'J),
The main excavated area bas exposed a ccn-rctery in wbicll agate and carnelian beads have
been found. often irz situ. in the neck region of well-preserved burials, where tl-rey mieri:
presumably worn as necklace5 sometimes in c o ~ n b i ~ ~ awith i i o bead5
~ ~ ol glas\ ($heurir',\c*~
1997) Theye agate ancl carnelian brads are alated somewhdt later lban those l r o n ~l3dii
Don Ta Phet. spanning mostly the range lrorn th; first centui! AII through to the ioui ~h
century AII (Higham ancl Thosarat 1998 151 9) Whilc thc cdrrielian IjcadS 'lie all (exci~pt
for one ample) of thc same type which vnTcI-ravc called long-faceted barrel bead? thclc
do appear to bc two standards of yualit'~represented ii-r reims oi- thc symnnetry 01 the
beads, the technical mastery required to produce them and their general finish (Theunis-
sen 1997, 1998). The higher-quality exarnples are distinguished here by the name: very
long-faceted barrel beads. Comparing the chemical composition of high- and low-quality
beads may be informative: if this difference in quality is paralleled by a difference in
chemical composition, it would suggest the beads came lrom two different and geograph-
ically separated production centres, perhaps one emulating the work of the other
(Theunissen 1998), while, if their colnpositions overlap, we may simply attribute the beads
to a group of artisans of varying skill, such as might be expected of masters and appren-
tices, working within a single production centre (e.g. Roux et al. 1995).
Potential source material. for comparjson with the Thai material above, was obtained
from carnelian bead-production centres in India and Sri Lanka known to have operated
sometime during the period from 500 I<(: to ,\II 500 (or which used source material which
is known to have been exploited at that time), and from a carnelian quarry source of
unknown antiquity located near Lopburi in central Thailand. From India we sought
samples from prominent sites which traded over a wide area (sec Figure 2) in the expec-
tation that the most productive contemporary sources of raw material from the sub-conti-
nent might be represented. We included ten fragments of carnelian from the Indian site
of Arikemedu, a supposed Roman Emporia (Wheeler et al. 1946) and production site for
agate ancl carnelian beads during the Iron Age, thought by some to have been the source
of many of the stone and glass beads Cound in Southeast Asia (Francis 1989: Glover
1990a). The geological origin of the Arikemedu carnelian is unknown. although it has
been suggested that most of its raw mal.erial may have come from deposits in the river
valleys to the north of the site (pers. cornm. Peter Francis Jnr 1997). Another important
Indian source is the Gujarat district of northwest India where agate and carnelian has
been mined in large quantities from as far back as Harappan times to the present day
(Francis 1982). We have obtained five cacnelian beacl rough-outs Crom the site of Limodra
in this area for inclusion in our analysis. ?b supplement these Indian samples we also
obtained three carnelian beacl samples from a bead-production site located in Orissa,
northeast India (Mohanty and Mishra 1999). As the northeasi of India is geographically
the region closest to Southeast Asia, and readily contacted by overland trade (Chowd-
hury 1996), it must be considered a potential source for the Thai beads studied here.
Sri Lanka too apparently has a long history of maritime trade and cultural contact with
Southeast Asia dating back to at least .\I) 350 (Shaffer 1996: 29) and, given recent find-
ings of early carnelian bead manufacture there (pers. comm. Deraniyagala 1998), the
island should be considered as yet ariolher possible source for at least some of the
carnelian beads found in Southeast Asiil. While it has long been assumed that Sri Lanka
imported raw carnelian lrom India, what appear to be carnelian nodules have been found
there ancl it is possible that Sri Lankan carnelian was exploited in the ancient past (pers.
comm. Peter Francis Jnr 1999). At the site of Anuraclhapura in northern Sri Lanka, debris
lrom carnelian bead manufacture has been recovered from layers dated from the eighth
century R C through to, and beyond, thc: second century AD (pers. comm. Deraniyagala
1998). From this site we chose sixteen samples, mainly carnelian chips together with a few
half-finished carnelian beads, ranging across the full period of: the site's occupation.
Last of all we were fortunate to obtain two samples of raw carnelian rrom a quarry
source. of unknown antiquity, located near Lopburi in central Thailand. The source,
 Doubts OH diffusron 93

in parts per million (ppm or nrglkg) or 'X,. Because agate and carneliavn is remiirliably pure,
containing only low trace element qpantities (Luedtke 1992: 51), many elenients yielded
too low a collcelltration for. reliable measureinent. Measuremellls for elements with very
low concentrations or high standard deviations were excluded, leaving a total of nine
elements in the subsequellt analysis.
'The PIXEIPlCiME measureinents of element collcevntratioil in parts per rriillion (ppm)
for each of tlie nine elements chosen against the fifty-threc carnelian samples are
presented here ('-Table 1).The cornpositiorial similarity of the samples was then estab-
lished through principal components ai~alysis(PCA). The results of PCA are ideally
suited to graphic presentation in XIY dispersion plots (Fig. 3) - with X and Y corre-
sponding to first and second priricipal component respectively arrd where spatial proxim-
ity equates with compositional sinlilarity and distance with compositional difference
(Grave et al. 1996: 178).Samples with very different cornpositiolis can be assuined to come
from separate geological sources.
The first two principal componen1.s accounted for around 60 per cent of the geochem-
ical variation apparent in tlie samples analysed. To observe tliis variation, the results of
tlie PGA for all the samples are graphed here (Fig. 4) as a dispersion plot, with the X and
Y axis corresponding to the first and second principal components respectively.

Discussisnl of results

Given it was part of our initial aim to confirm that tlie method chosen could at least poten-
tially discriminate material from different geological sources, it is interesting to observe
on tliis graph (Fig. 4) the similarity in the elemental composition of carnelian samples
obtained from tlie same site, aind, in most cases, the differences in cornposi~ioi~
of sarnpjes
obtained from different sites, Some of tliese samples, for example those from the Lopbmi
Quarry site in Thailand and those obtained from the near-quarry Indian site of Limodra.
call be attributed t o specific, known, geological sources. The marked difference in elemen-
tal composition observed between sarnples f r o n ~these two sources, in particular, suggests
that carnelian beads from different geological sources, presumat~lywith differing clienni-
cal environments, can indeed be discriminated using non-destruciive PIXEIPIGNIE
analysis. Certainly it appears that the sarnples studied here, including those frorn the two
Tliai sites, were manufactured using material from several different geological sources.
More importa~itlyfor our primary aim. there is a clear compositional difference
between the Thai and Indian material. This difference becomes particularly obvious if tlie
visual clutter of tl-te Sri Larikan and 1,opburi Quarry samples is re~nioved(I'ig. 5). The
Indian sarrlples from Arikemedu anti 1.imodra form one compositiolial grouping at tlie
upper left of the graph while the tliree Orissan samplcs from northeast India form a
distinct group at right. The Thai samples form a third compositional grouping in the centre
of the graph; a group which, apart from one or two of tlie Noen IJ-Lolie samples, is well
separated, hence distinct in con~position,from the Indian sarnples studied here. 'These are
limited sample sizes and caution is needed, but the results do suggest that the vast major-
ity of the Tliai beads came from another. possibly non-Indian. source.
So what of the other potential sources included in the analysis? Returning to the original
 b>
i , :; .4.., " " r; -- rr: -" .

Vil
T3 C7 C:
T\! C.!
';
r.
^;
<\I
X'" -
.--,a
i'l ,-
T '
ec-4
!--

..."
i-

C!
T~ihle1 Continued
De~cr ~ p t l o l l F
m,y/kg
--

BDTP, Thailand, 4542 flattened-faceted blcone bead - 8

translucent orange

BDTP, 'rha~iand 6097 stnail lozeilge bead red - I0

BDTP, Thailand, 6664 b a r ~ e l l e l ~ p s obead

~ d - llght 01ange 9

B D IP, 1hailand, 801 1 half-hoi~ bead'? 01ange-plnk

- 8

BDTP, Thailand 9332 largc spherical bead - light 01ange 8

BDTP, 7!1a11211d, 9345 Izrge spherical bead ordngelred 9

BDTP Thailand, surface flattened-faceted blcone bead - 10

fllld recUtranslucei~torange

BD7 P Thailand, surface small s p h e ~ c abead l - orange 8

find
NLL, 7 halland, Cat 1684 spherical bcdd ledlorange

NUL, ThalIand, Cat1933 long-faceted barrel bead - orange

NLJL, Tha~land,Cat41 6 long-faceted barrel bead - llght

irrange some red band5

NUL, Thailand, Cat436 very long-faceted barrel bead -

deep I ed

NUL, Thailand, Cat454 very !ong-faceted harre! b e d

redlorange and rnottled

NUL, Thailand, Cat508 long-faceted barrel bead

-

redlorange

WUL, Thailaild, Cat664 long-laceted bar1 el bead -

redlorange and pink

NUL, Thailand, Cat708 long-faceted barrel bead - red

wlth plnk end

NUL, Thailand, Cat768 long-taceted cyilnder head -

bright orange

Orissa, India, nil sphe~ ical bead - orange

Orissa, India, nil etched cyliilder bead - light orange

Orissa, India, zil cy!~nderbead l ~ g h ot range

-
C r i 0 0 0 0 T \ I a r - - & - j r - O L r ' i ~ ~ r - - C i ~ ~
s rz g V-q
r- iS. T
I N
\I:
m
rri
>
CO
\
W
* -
E
l
.<;
-
m
M N
If.
O
--
V,
-
Q
:
 Do~lbtson diffusion 97

~ ~ ~ k ~ e
,ABan Don Ta Phet - Thailand
% -
'aNoen U-Loke Thailand /
I

- South lnd~a ,

Principal Component 1
Fii'g~lve4 PCA scattergram of PIXE/PIClUE results on all carnelian samples.

ABan Don Ta Phet -Thailand

rn Noen U-Loke - Thailand
Q r i s s a - NE lndia
OArikemedu - South lndia
-
Limodra NW lndia

Principal Component 1
Figure 5 PCA scattergram of PIXEIPIGME results on Indian and Thai carnelian alone.
98 Roher? Theur~zs~en,
Perer Grave arzd Grallrrine Errzley

graph (Fig. 4) we can sec that tlit: Sri l;,anl<anmaterial is also ciil'ferent in rorrlpositiori iion1
the Indian material. Sri Lanlian bead producers rnay indeed have 1ri;ed local carnc-,J.ian
rather than importing nodules from India. 'Tl~eSri Lankan samples it0 at least overlap wiilr
the Thai samples, and so we cannot rule out a Sri 1,ankaia o~iginSor a1 leasi sonlc oii the
Thai beads. The majority of the Sri Lanlian samples do. however, diTfcr somewh~ii i i
composition from tlie 'Thai samples and so the possibility of a local Southeast Asian sol.Lrcsi:
and manufacture for these lron Age Thai beads must also be considered. 'This possibility
is strengthened by the discovery here (Fig. 4) that 1.11~two samplr:s tsbtajned fioi~l111s:
carnelian quarry near Lopburi have a cotrlposition that lies f ~ l n l yvvii.hixl thi: col~lpositiorial
range encompassed by the Thai samples. Two samples are hardly adequate to charactcvizi:
the source, but, if this relationship is borne out by analysis of fi~rthersamples. it reprcsen1,s
perhaps the best evidence thus far that carnelian bcaals were being n-lanufactured in Soi.~fl~--
east Asia from early in the Iron Age and. given the use of' local raw material, that this rnanrl-.
facture was most likely under the control of Souti-least.Asian people,
Clearly we can no longer assert that all Iron Age carnelian beads found in Sonihcasi.
Asia originated from India, as lias long been assumed (Bellwood 1976: 7'16-7, F'rancjs
1989: 23; Glover 1990a, 1996: Ray 1996: 43; i,aii11:1 1965: 92--3;Wisseman-Christiti 1990:
41). As carnelian beads are such an important component of the eviclei-~ccfor Irrili;in
contact with, and influence in, Southeast Asia prior to tlie mid first niillena?ium .\I). tha:sc;
results suggest that the emphasis placed on external Indian influence as a caialy:;i i r i
Southeast Asian state development (Mal- bet 1979; Ray 1996; Glover 1996) shoulc! be
illoderated with a greater consideration of inc8igenous development (F-Sigham a-rid
Thosarat 1994: Junker 1990: 168: Wisseman-Christie 1990). Thr: cvidence presented 11c1.c
for a multi-source origin including at least somc local rnanufact~srcof carnelian beaid:; in
Iron Age Southeast Asia implies that, w11ert:ver the l-~eatdsfirst. originated. Souiilcasr
Asians did not long reillail1 passive recipients in the trade, rather tliey quickly acquired a
measure of control over access to the material througli alternative external somces andla~r.
local production.
These results do. liowever, suggest an alternative approach to the study of thesc bear-ir;
which should aid our understanding of the indigenous forces at work in So~ltheastAsian
state development. in particular, the role plaved by agate and carnelian I7eads in riigi:s~jal
prestige goods exchange within Southeast Asia. We liave already mentioned llie ii3ierpa-e
tation of the beads as exotic prestige gooc!s i'unctioning in organized long-clistailcc:
exchange networks between India and So~stlieastAsia (Glover 1990a, 1996: 59; Ray 1996:
43), though just how exotic they were is now placed in some doubt. but what aho~lttheji-
iillpact on, and role inside, existing prestige goods-exchange networlts opcrating mithin
Southeast Asia (Higham 1984: 250--4), Prestige goods exchange at the regional level iu
Southeast Asia generally involved the excliange of rare luxury goods, often personal orila.
ments such as beads, in order to cen~entintra-regional trade allianc~sbetween Glite:; living
in different resource zones, for example coastal anii forest hinterland areas. Recause
access to these prestige goods was restrictecl, they also assisted klite:; to rnohilize iesnilrces
for htra-regional trade, eitlier through their function as visible symbols valiclating Cliti:
status and power or through ilites selectively redistributing them lo loyal CoIlo~re~.~
(Junker 1990: 168). The introduction of a new and rare prestige good frorr~out:;iaSc !11c
systeill could cause a steep increase in social coniplexity, perhaps ullianately leading to st;i1t-
development, as well-placed 6lites with direct access to the new goods rose in tlre regional
hierarchy and as otlrer 6lites competed to obtain or usurp supply of the new goods or to
reproduce them locally (Higham 1984: 250-4: Junker 1990).
To investigate whether agate and carnelian beads functioned as just such a new type of
prestige good ill the above scenario we need to map the extent and geographic focus of
intra-regional exclrange networks involving agate and carnelian beads, and lo do this it is
necessary to pinpoint the origin of specific beads and to trace the extent and direction of
their trade witlrin Southeast Asia. The geochemical results presented lrere provide an
important source of data for this task which has not previously been available, but as
suggested earlier we do not expect tlrat these data alone will be sufficient to reconstruct
exclrange patterns at tlris regional scale. Instead. as a secondary aim of this project, we
have sought to identify any links between a bead's elemental cornposition and otlrer vari-
ables, such as their 'type', age and location of site where found, which miglrt help us to
determine. with more confidence tlran is possible tlrrouglr geoclreniical analysis alone,
their point of origin and path of trade within Southeast Asia. Our observations along these
lines presented below are not meant to provide concrete conclusions regarding the origin
or trade of these beads or 011 their possible impact on existing prestige goods exchange
systems: rather they simply point to possibilities along these lines which might be
addressed tlrrough further geochemical analysis coupled together with contextual data,
typological and teclrnical analysis.
As alluded to earlier. in tlre Thai samples alone there is an obvious difference in tlre
composition of most of tlre Noen U-Loke samples compared with that of tlre Ban Don Ta
Phet (Fig. 4). It js therefore unlikely that tlre saillples from these two Thai sites derive
from the same geological source. One explanation could be tlrat the two site:; belonged to
different prestige goods-exchange spheres in which carnelian from different local anclior
exotic sources circulated (e.g. Junker 1990: 180-2). The two sites are separated by tlrree
hundred kilometres and their respective geographic settings probably discouraged any
direct contact (Fig. 2). Tlre site of Noen U-Loke. for example, is located well inland on
the Klrorat Plateau and has natural links eastward via river systems to Cambodia, the11
southward to the Mekong Delta region and the contemporary Funanese port of Oc E o
(Tlreunissen 1997) -where local agate and carnelian bead manufacture is believed to have
occurred froin tlre close of tlre Iron Age (Francis 1989). Ban Do11 Ta Phet. on the other
hand, was a near-,coastal site (during the period of its habitation - see Mudar 1999) with
natural links soutlr to the Gulf of Siam and the adjacent Malay peninsular and west toward
tlre Bay of Bengal (Ray 1996).
Alternatively. it is possible that the carnelian beads froin the two Thai sites were part
of a single prestige goods-exchange sphere, but one in which the geological source. if not
also the production centreis. changed tlrrough time. Noen U-Loke was, after all, occupied
later and for a rnuclr greater time period that Ran Doll =I Phet and so it is possible that
this difference in composition between the Ban Don Ta Phet and Noen U-Loke samples.
and the greater geochemical variation within tlre Noen U-Loke samples. are tlre result of
changes through time in the source material used for carnelian beads. 111 fact. it seems that
just such a change did indeed occur at the Sri Lankan site of Anmadhapura. A natmal
break in the dates for the Sri Lankan samples applies around the first century nt., and, of
the four Sri Lankan samples which post-date the first century nc. (distinguished in Figure
4 as open rather tliar~closed diamoncisj, tbret: ai-p very ilistinci ir-I ihcir n:onipositio(i,
appearing well to the right oCibe right cluslc-r or earlier Sri.D;ixl.lcar!rn~i.ieri:il.'Tliissuggcsi:;
that. s o m e t i ~ r ~about
e the lilrrl of [hi: Cl~risbin~
i:i,a, i,h: S7.i 'd ,ai-lkan hoaci makers. :I! Least
those at Anuradhapura, either chose t c ~or wcer'e rors:rrl Ta, skari ohl.aining theit- J-;IM:
carnelian From another soilrcc. More iiltriguing still. Ll)i?se iiislii~ciivel a i e ~Sri . 1 an!cax!
sarmples lie within thar compositional ra.n-igi: o f only, tkosr T h a i sarnplcs Froin thr later oi
the two Thai sites, Noen U-Lokc-,,tlal.cd I-riainly t i l tEr first l'cmr rre~rt~lries ,Ar: ' r h e ~5arlii:i.
prc-first-centui-y nc., Sri Blankan sa~aplesare clearly rliFfi:rent I l r a:ornposi~ion i'rorrn itir
Woen U-LoBc sansples yet overlap in corn!~osiiioo i hi: sar-vples rr-or-I:Iil-ae eawljt:r (fciurifi-
century IK.) Thai site of Ban Don ?'a F'llct. bgizrhaps then I3:lr-i 131~11 'F'a Phef 2nd Noen I J
Loice did indeed belong 1-0 a corn:noil prestige gncxls-c?cr.hangpsphcrt:. bajt on(: in wkaicil
carnelian beads wcre acquired i'rorrs Sri L.anlta rather khan Tllciia --- ;Ire aiii'rerrnces Irl thc
composition of Thai beads resulting simply from :r change in the raw material i~-tilir.t>ri ovrr
time a.t the primary Sri Lanitan prod.uction centre. Hcmrevcr. giver1 ~ h sclrolig possibi iil y
of some local production using the L,opburi quarry source anit I l ~ esil-nilarity in composi
tion between the L,opburi quarry ca.sne1iai-nand thi: lalcr Sri IL.arnkan samples (Fig. 4). we
may also wish to consitler the possibility that Sri Yaxika actl,nally impo!-tcr'l its Ial.e~ post ~

While wc also sought to identify ri:lationships bi:tween samplc composition and olilcr
variablcs, such as bead Yype' and "ilality", the small sai-ilpls size arlrl limited range of' bead
types incluslcd hcrc rcstrict what car) bc pcr~:civr:d. Nc~,~ci-thi:li:sswe did cjbservr: i~ i'ew
such relationships svithin thc r h a l 5amples, further suppo, 1 Imp <i r o n ~ g ~ l rmullx soil1r c7
origin lor. and possibly localwecl intra leglollal trade in1 lr 011 Age rd~iirllanhediis 11s
Southcact Asia Fol i3xample, w ~ t hT-idn Don la Pie1 'k\kx lnc~udc6-/t\74(5 .;amplea ral d
conirnon bead type from the srte, called "Ildttened facetrt! !rirone3 Jheiie Iv!s can hi, sre11
(Fig 6) to sharc am alniost den tical chcm~calcompoi,ltion 711la la, ta~1taIi71nge v i d e ~ i r ~
that this bead type repressnts the sprclalty protlut t oi A par ~ i c ~ l l abead-n~ariuiacr
r 1~1111jr
centre using a chemically distinct geological quarry source. Confirmai-ion of this relation-
ship would require analysis of furlher Clatt.ened-faceted bia:one beads fr-orn Ban Don .]:7I'
Ph.et and other Sonthcast Asian sites to see if l-leads of this type do indecd sharc a diuc*.(etr
chemical cornposltlon. If this were confiirncil. t h ~ nwc'ci~ulcilrari! i ~ ~ i l rabout
li thc natrii t-
and direct~onof carnelian bedd trdde and exi.ha~ige6,rinply 'ri-iroughe.;.arninirig ~ h p \palla[
and tempolal d~strlbution of this hcarl ta7pr alonr
For the samples from Noen dJ olt-c,wr also r \ c ~ i , r ~ ca dpmstble relrltior~sl-nillI s c t w ~ ~ i ~
bead 'yuallty' and cn~npositlon(Fig 6) E ~ g h of t the Nocln I i 1 obr aamplrs bslorlp lo ;i
slngle type of bead called long-facilt?ti barrrl ?iedds l11e ivto extrr,rrrel> high-quall~y
examples or thls type - h ~ g hyual~tvm terms oi Iheir high length to th~sknes\ralio the11
~ r l by ti-r(l n a i n , 1 ery lor~glar~icci
sheet symmetry and fine finish - SF d ~ s i i n g u ~ s hhcre
barlel beads' Thcy appeal on the g~~ p (Fte h 6) to lip quitr c-losc io i'dr h olhcl and a,oxric-
t the Nor,%U 1- olt-e samples I hi -, m~ghibe n r.orrrt.~deoc~,
what apark tr om the r ~ s ot L+L(>

resu-lt of bead artisans selecting stone with particular chara.cic~~istics for their best worli,
or these very long-faceted barrel beads may represc.,rlt the specialty prodilct of a specific
bead-t~~anufacturing centre, Orie possibility w11ic.h wi: want lo pursue in our future airaly..
ses is that these high--qualitybeads wcrr cxotic irrrpiirt:; accl~liredthrough long-ilistanre
exchange. while the remainder wrle local rcy~roductionsrn:~nufxc:t~!rr,dusing locally
 A Ran Don Ta Phet - Tha~land
I -
m Noen U-Loke rha~land
zFL=z-=-- @ Qrlssa - NE lnd~a
--., _ - 2 rlAr~kemedu South lnd~a
-V-ery 60ng faceded barrel beads -
L~modra NW India
I1Lopburl Quarry - Thalland
A OSrl banka
- (After 1st cent -
- -- -
BC)
flattened faceted bicone beads - --

Figzlre 6 Bead 'types' with distinctivc cornpositions

quarried carnelian. On this conjecture it is interesting to note that the I,opburi quarry
carnelian is closer in composiilion to many of the lower-quality Noen U-L,oke beads. The
act of reproducing imported beads ant1 the way such rr:production beads are circulaled
in coillparison with imported beads are, we feel, important indicators of the degree of
'control' exerted on carnelian bead production and trade at the local level and the
perceived 'exoticness' and attributed 'value' of different beads in different locations
(Theunissen 1998). 'Fo do this issue j~lstice,however, and to gain tonfidence in our results,
we need to increase the nul~lberof samples analysecl from these ancl other sites. For now,
at least, these observations provide encouragcnient that much could Ire learnt about the
origin ancl trade of these beads through tile combinat.ion of geochemical characteriz-
ation, typological and technological analysis, together with data concerning the geo-
graphic and tenlporal context of bead finds.

Sulnxnarg and conclusions

To sumnlaI17e, t h ~ sp r e l ~ m ~ n a rgeochtmlc,d
y stud^ has confirnicd that non-destruct~ve
PTXEIPIGME analys~scan help d ~ s lirtlnnte c~ between carnellan lrom dlfferemt geological
sources. The chem~calcornpo\lt~onof carnel~anbcads from the 7 ha1 sntes of Ran Don Ta
Phet and Noen 1J Loke IS, for the m,ljorlty of sample\. qurte drfferent Crom the composi-
tion of carnellan c h l p ~rough-o~lts
, and bcads horn contemporary bead-production sites
located 111 the south, northwesl ant1 northeast of the l n d ~ a nqub-continent. In short, it
appears rhat the source of thc T ha1 rarrlellan bead$ wa5 d~ffersn?from that of the beads
quarried or otherwise obtained at tha; prominent Indian sites included in this analysis.
While the Sri Eanltan samples from the site oi' Anuradbapura are sufficiently sii-nilar in
composition to the Thai beads for that site to bc considered a possible sourca:, thc
discovcrp that raw carnelian from a ccntral Thai quarry matches thc chcmical composi-
tion of the Thai beads means that local Thai production cnust also be considered a strong
possibility. In fact, u.hen additional variables, such as age. bead type and quality are
considered, a complcx multi-sourcc origin for the Thai samples seems likely. A change in
the composition of carnelian used at the Sri L.,ankan site of Anuradhapura occurring
arouncl the first century ~ c suggcsts
. a change in the source of carnelian used at the site at
that time. This change is paralleled in the Thai beads with the older Ban Don F a Phet
bcads more closely matching the composition of the older Sri Lankan samplcs whilc the
younger Noen U-Lolte samples are more similar in composirion to the contemporaryl
post-first-century rtc', Sri Lanlcan bcads. Observaf.ions of a specific bead type with a
dis~inctivechemical composition from Ban Don 'I'a Phet suggest that sonre bead types
may have bccn the speciality or particular bead-production centres using their own
discrete carnelian source. while at Noen SJ--1Loltethe cliffcrcncc ohserved in the chemical
composition of high-quality beads coinparcd with low- anci average-quality heads oi' lhe
same type, may reflect local reproduction of imported beads,
Thcsc results and observations cast crippling doubt on thc unc~uestioningas sump ti or^
that all Iron Age agate and carnelian bcads carmi: from an Hnclian source ((3.9.Francis 19I<9:
23: Glover 1990a, 1996: Prishanchit 1996; Ray 1996: 163; Lamb 1965: 92-3; Wisser~nan-.
Christie 1990. 41). suggesting instead a complcx multi-source origin including some local
Southeast Asian manufacture. Because carneljan beads form a lcey. often solitam-p. p i e c e
of evidence for earl). Indian contact and influence. an importani implication of i,hcse
results is that the emphasis placed on exterinal Incliain inlluence as a catalyst in Sourheast
Asian state development (e.g. Mahbet 1977: Ray 1996: Glover 1996) should be modes.-
ated with a greater consideration of indigenous devclopmeat (e.g. Higham and 'T'hosarat
1997; Junker 1990: 148: %'isseman-Christie 1990). Rather than viewing agate ;and
carnelian beads simply as indicators of external influence or of long-distance presrigc
goods exchange, we feel that they may be better studied Prom a more regional perspec-.
tive, focusing on their impact on, and function within. existing prestige goods-exchangc
networks \\,ithin Iron Age Southeast Asia (Higham 1984: 25014). The consideration ol'
geochemical data together with the geographical and temporal context of the sample:;.
and including typological and teclinological analysis, as presented here, provides t a n k . .
lizing clues to the origin of particular beads and the extent and geographic focus oC pres--
tige goods-cxchange nefworlts in which agate anal carnelian circulated within Southcast
Asia - information crucial for undcrstaxldii-ig the indigenous contribution in the rise of
Southeast Asia's first historic states.

This I cc,earch hiis been made po\c,ible through Cunding obta~nedfrom an Aus tr allan
Rec,earch Councll grant, and an Auutra1iar-n iinstliute of Nuclca~Scicnce and Engineerrng
grant (No 98 06'7P) We \\auld like to paitrculaill ~hanltt l ~ cfollow~ngpeople for therr
assirtance with this mork, prov~dingsamples fol analyvrs and often s ~ i m u l a t ~ ndiscus~,ion
g
on the 5ubject of the origin of agatc and carnelian beads found In Southea5t Avla. Dl Ian
Glover formerly ot the Institute for Archaeology, University College London. D r Rachanie
Thosarat of the T h a ~Fine Artv Department, Phimai, Profes5or Charles FTigliam and Nigel
Chang from the Univels~tyof Otago, Drs S U Deran~yagalaand Anne-Syb~lleH a i l n ~bal-
Deraniyagala of the Depaltment of Archaeology in Colombo, Sri Lamka, Dl Namal
Kodithu\\akku. Archaeological Department. Anuradhapura, SII Lanka. Surapol Natap-
intu and Rasmi Shoocongdel. SilpaLorn University. Bangkok. Thailand: Berenice Bellina.
Solbonne Nouvelle, Par15 ZIT, D r Nguyen Kim Dung, Viet Nam Invtitute of Alchaeology;
and Peter Flancis Jnr of the Centre for Bead Rc5ealch in Lake Placid, New Yolk.

Robert T l ~ r ~ l n i s s eand
n Peter Grave
Scliool of f i l m a n anri E n ~ ~ r r o n m r n t St~ldies
al
Unz~lerszt)? of New England, Arnzzriale, NSW
E-mail: rohert tl~eunuse?~@hzgponrl.com
pgrave@met-. Llne.ed1l.a~~
(7rahatne Razlry
Ailstralzarl Nilclrar Scrence and Teclinology Organuatzon

References

Ardika, I. W. and Bellwood. P. 1991. Sembiran: the beginnings of Indian contact with Bali.
Ailtiquity, 65: 221-32.
Bellwood, P. 1976. Archaeological research in Minhasa and the Talaud Islands. northeastern
Indonesia. A.~ianPerspectives. 29(2): 240-88.
Bronson. B. 1990. Glass and beads at Khuan Lukpad, southern Tl-iailand. In So~ltlzenstAsirril
Archaeology 1986: Proceediilgs of tlze First Cnilference o f Sn~ttherrstAsinit Archaeologi.~t.~
iil Westerit
Ertrope (eds I. Glover and E. Glover). Oxford: BAR International Series 561. pp. 2 13-30.
Chowdhury, A. M. 1996. Bengal and Southeast Asia: trade and cult~~ral contact in the ancient
period. In Ancient Trrrdes and Culturrrl Contacts in Sozlthen.~tAsin (ed. A. Srisuchat). Bangkok: 'The
Office of the National Culture Commission. pp. 95-1 14..
Church, T. 1995. Conlment on 'Neutron Activation Analysis of Stone f1.0111the Chadron Formation
and a Clovis site on the Great Plains' by Hoard et a1 (1992). J o ~ t r ~ of
f d Arclzrreologicrrl Science.
22: 1-5.
Fallick. A. E., Jocelyn, J., Donnely, T., Guy. M. and Behan, C. 1985. Origin of agates in volcanic

rocks from Scotland. ~Vrrtltre.313: 672-4.

Francis. P. 1982. I ~ / d i aAgate

/ ~
Rerrds. Lake Placid, New York: Centre for Bead Research.
Francis, P. 1989. Berrd~ rrnd Bead Trrrde iil Sozltlzen.~tAsirr. Contrihutinn.~of the Centre for Berrd
Re.~errrch4. Lake Placid, New York: Centre for Bead Research.
Francis, P. 1996. Beads. the bead trade and state develop~nentin Southdast Asia. In Ailcient Trrrdes
Cniltncts iil Southeast Asia (ed. A. Srisuchat). Bangkok: The Office of the National
aild C~~ltltrrrl
Culture Commission. pp. 139--60.
Glover. I. C. 1990a. Early Trade het~:eenIndiir and So~~tlleast Asia: A Link iil the Developinent ( f a
World Trading S y . ~ t e n Occasinilnl
~. Papers 16. The liniversity of Hull, Centre for Southeast Asian
Studies.
104 Robert 7'12ecr11isse,a7,Peter C ~ , n vcrrltl
r G i n ! ~ a m cM(iilrj3

Glover. I. C. 1990b. Ban Don Ta Phel: Ihe 1?848!i citi:avat;o~~E i i S'c~ir!lreir.~~ iisirri7 / l i . ~ h ~ i f ~ ~ l o ! j i
1986: P m c e e d i n g . ~nf the I;ii:~tC o ~ l f e r e ~ zoc i~Soz/tJie(ist
, A cia:z A ri:i'iaeoli?/;isi,~iir ii'f,cic:-i? EI!i,c;pe ( (cil:;
I. Glover and E,Glo\/er). Oufo~~ci: BAR ?nterniitioiial Sc~-jcs 561 p11 1 Y(3 8':
~

Glover, 1, 1996. The southern Silk Road: archaeological evidrricp i'u?e;:rl?: trrrle 1 ~ werrl ~ 1 In(il;~:iiic I
Southeast Asia. In Arlcienr Trailes nncl C L I I I L I ~CL~I Ii ~ i / i ( : iii /';si/r (i'il. A . i;l.i~llr:/l:li).
i i . ,To~~rl/i~nsi
Bangkok: The Office of the National Cultiirc Gornn~issicix~. pp, ;'I--9;!.
Glover, I. and Henderson. J. 1995. Early glass ill Soutl-Iand So~ithcacrAsia 2nd I'hii~:>. Tit So~i!li~cir~
Asiu urzd Chilzu: Arr, Jnfei,acrioi? ilrzd C'on7nlerc.e (cds R . Scot1 ;IT!{{ T. C;11qr) "ollnrjc/iec o n A i i o ; i i i
Archaeology iii Asia. 17,
Gorelick, L.. Gwinnet. A. J. and Glover. 1. 1996. An cxnnr~iriatioi~i l T ilii: ~ririhoiisusce.l i o iiiakr ! l i -
semi-precious stone beads from Ban Don Ta Phct. Tbailaiir!. B ~ i c l shliltJ1. 7riis.f i'Jcivc.ir/rer, ?li: i:--i I
Grave, P., Pelts. D. 'T., Yassi. N..Keade. W. and Bailey CI. I ? 9 G . leirienial c~llal.ar'ri<ii:iaiioii( i f
Barbar ceramics from Tell Abraq. Ariri~iarlArchaeology irtiti 17pigr!1-p!i~.'7 I'i'l -3':.
Hall. K. R. l985. Maritirne Truile aizd Sfiitr I>ei.>f>lolirner7i
i l l /;'or!\' Coltfilei~stAsiii. iioilolrilii~
University of Hawaii Press.
Higham, C, 1984,.'The Ban Chiang culturc in widcr perspi:ciive. I"~o!~i~riiiiigs
o/'llir /iri,i.vlr /!i.l:,iPn/
69: 229-61.
Higham. C. and Thosarat. K. 1'197, Thc excavation of Nocn ! i .L.olirl: irnpli-aiioilc; for d c v ~ c I : ~ ~ : i r i ~
cultural complexity in Northeast Thailand. TJnpl~.blisheiJcxcnv:~tio!r r c p o r i liy i lie 1Jtriv';i::ity o f
Otago and the Fine Arts Depart~uent.Thiiilalld. detailing tllc 1996- 7 r::rikvai.io;i spasoil a1 ~ ~ I C I P I ! 1 I
Loke. Held at the Department of Antl~ropolngy.Univcrsit? or (3t:lp.:). P u i ~ ~ d i rNewr , T,caiai~r!,
Higham. C. and 'Thosarat, R. 1998. Prel~isfnrii.77ziiiland: fiorii ili!!iv :d~tileni~niill S'i!ko~iir;i

Bangkok: River Boolts.

Ishizawa. Yoshiaki. 1995. Cllinese chronicles of 1st-5th ceilrury .\~I, i.'rii>a~r. so~r'ih[~rr~

C;rl-ili_iociia i:r
Southeast Asin arzd Chirza: Arr, Inferacrio~zurld C ' O J ~ I I I Z P Y C(P1 ~ 1C
st. S r ; o i l alirl .I.L T L LC~
' O)I I.O ~ L I I C S( ' : I
A r t und Archireology in Asia. 17: I1 2 2 .
Junker, L. L. 1990. The orgailisatioir of intra-rcgio~ialand lo11g-iiista~rce~iraiieiil pr-chispanir P11ilil~;-
pine complex societies. Asian per spec ti^.^.^. 29(2): 16'7 209.
Lamb. A. 3965. Some observatioils on stone and glass bcads 111 carl~;Scrrltheast Asia .ior~r.~zai
o j ill?
!Malaysiar~Branch of'thc Royal Archtrcologicai Sociel);. 38:87- I%?

Luedtke. B. E.1992. A n ilr!;haeologisrs Guide io C'lierf atlcl I7i;ii1. /4rr~hn~oIogiicr/

Krsellich

Y boli 1
Institute of Archaeology. University of California.

Mabbet. I. W. 1977. The 'Indianizatiori~of Southeast Asia: refleclii>ns :,ii thc hisiorical sotir.c:~r

J(xrrna1 o f Sozrrhenst Asian St~lrlies,8(1): 143 - 6 1

Maskay. E.1933. Decornted carnelian heads jVJir17 i i i 3 I 13-f)

Mohanty, P. and Mishra. B. 1999. Beads from the arc1~;icologicaisites of Kalal-~ar~di

1-8isiric.i.Crixs:i
Beud Study Trusf Neu~slettcr.31.: 14 15,
Mvdar, M.1999. How many Dvaravati Mingdolns? Loc.i>tioi-tnl:irlplysis of iTrl.st rnillci~nialii: A ,6 :
18, ! 2,8,
moated settlements in Central Thailand, .T(jlii,~iaIo[;\nt/c!v!pcilor;iii(iI r?i~.iiiieoioq:!*,
Pombejra. Pajrapongs N A. 1998. Aspect.; of 1-rade auci social organisatioi~I ! c:eritr;il ' I 1railaxli.i r~.ori?
the Bronze-age to the Dvaravati Period. Ahsirircr in itldo. F'iiclfic- ,p~cl~isiol:i,, 'The .PdPitrksiI'(yi~i:. Voi
1 , Pre-Co~zgressIsscre (ed. P. Bellvvood). B11llefi17o f f l z e hrdo I'cic$c i'rehi,i.ror.?'A ~s;ociaiio,r,1 I : 61
Prishanchit.. S. 1996. Evidcnce fro111 ~rndcrwater.arch;~i.ologic:rl sites in 'ihc Giilf or Thailan4. I l i
Ancienf Truiles and C ~ ~ l r u r Conrircrs
al 33angliol-:: 'Tile Gatfiri. ti^
ilz So~ltheir.riAsin (eil, 14 Si,isi~r,)?at).
the National Culturr, Cornr~-~issior~, pp, 43-56.
Ray, H. P. 1996. Early trans-oceanic confacts lict!~lrf:nSoi.if11anrl Soi)ihv-sl A:;i;i. -11 /!i~<.iei-ii
?'i.uilc-s
and Glilt~irnlContncls in So~rthrastAsia (ed. A. Srisuchat). Bangkok, The Office of the National
Culture Commission, pp. 43-56.
Ridges. M., Grave, P,, Davidson, I.. and Bailey, G. In prep. Small s;~mplcPIXEIPICME: appli-
cations in archaeological paint and ochre cornpositional studies.
Roux. V., Bril. B. and Dietrich, G , 1995. Skills and leariling difiiculties involved in sione knapping:
the case of stone-bead kilapping in Khambhat. India. World Archaeology. 2'7(1): 63--87.
Shaffer. 6,. W. 1996. Mnritivne Southeast Asia to 1500. New York: M. E Shalpe
Srisuchat, A. 1996,Merchants, merchandise, markets: archaeological evidence in 'Thailand concern-
ing maritime trade interaction between Thailand and other countries before the 16th century Ar).
In Ancient Trades and C~iltlivnlContacts in So~rriienstAsia (etl. A. Sris~~chat).
Bangkok: The Office
of the National Culture Commission. p p 237-74.
Summerhayes, G. R., Gosclen, C.. Fullagar, M., Specht. J.. Terrence, M..Bird, J. R., Shahgholi, N.
and Katsaros, A. 1993. West New Britain obsidian: production and consumption patterns. In
Archneowletrv: C ~ l r r m Australasian
t Research (eds B. L. Fankhauser and .I. R. Bird). Occasional
Papers in Prehistory, 22. Department of Prehistory. Research School of Pacific Studies. The
Australian National University. Canberra. Australia.
Fheunissen. R. G. 1997. Agate and carneliai? ornaments from Noen TJ-Loke. an Iron Age settle-
ment in northeast Thailand. Bead S t ~ i d yTrust Newsletter. 30: 4-7.
Theunis~en.R G 1998 Agate nnd carnel~ariornaments from Noen U-I,oke, northea~tThailand
Tome thought5 on their social function nnd '18alue' Bead S t ~ ~ dTrust
y Ne~vsletter 32 8-11
Tykot. R. H. and Young. S. M. M. 1996. Archaeological applications of inductivcly cc~upledplasma
mass spectrometry. In Arcl?aeologicnl Chemistrv: Organic, Inorganic anil Biochen~icalAnalysis (ed.
M. V. Orna). Washington, DC: ACS Symposium Series 625.
Veraprasert. M. 1992. Ichlong Thom: an ancient bead manufacturing centre and an ancient entrepot.
In Early Merallztrgy, Tmile anil fiban Centres in Thailnnil nnil Soutlzrast ilsin (eds I. Glover., P.
Suchitta. and J. Villiers). Bangkok: White Lotus. pp. 149-61.
Wheeler, R. E. M.. Ghosh. A and Deva. I< 1946. A~ikemedu:an Indo-Roman tlading station on
thr east coast of India. Antrent Zndln, 2 17 -124
Wisseman-Christie, J. 1990. Trade and state formation in the Malay peninsular and Sumatra, 30013~
- ,.\11700. In The S o ~ ~ t h e aAsian
st Porr anil Po'o:iry:Rise and Demise (eds J. Katliirithan~by-Wellsand
.I. Villiers). Singapore: Singapore University F'ress, pp. 39--60.