Angkor Borei and Protohistoric Trade Networks: A View from 
the Glass and Stone Bead Assemblage 
Alison Kyra Carter, Laure Dussubieux, Miriam T. Stark, H. Albert Gilg
Asian Perspectives, Volume 60, Number 1, 2021, pp. 32-70 (Article)
Published by University of Hawai'i Press
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/asi.2020.0036
For additional information about this article
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/793770
[ Access provided at 3 Nov 2022 00:04 GMT from University of Oregon ]
Angkor Borei and Protohistoric Trade Networks: A
View from the Glass and Stone Bead Assemblage
Alison Kyra CARTER, Laure DUSSUBIEUX, Miriam T. STARK, and H. Albert GILGABSTRACT
Angkor Borei, Cambodia was an important urban center related to the early first
millennium C.E. polity known as Funan. Excavations in the protohistoric period Vat
Komnou Cemetery site uncovered over 1300 glass and stone beads, which are important
material indicators of trade. In this article, we review data from earlier studies and add
new previously unpublished data on glass and stone beads from this collection as well as
previously unpublished glass compositional analyses from the nearby site of Oc Eo,
Vietnam. Examinations of the glass beads highlight the presence of large quantities of
high alumina mineral soda glass associated with Sri Lankan or South Indian bead
production as well as smaller quantities of other glass types in circulation throughout
Southeast Asia. Compositional and morphological studies of agate/carnelian beads
show strong affinities with the Indian bead industry, while the garnet beads came from
raw material sources in southern India. Overall, Angkor Borei’s bead collection shows
strong contacts with different regions of South Asia. Comparison with the bead
assemblages of other contemporaneous sites demonstrate strong affinities with sites
farther inland, such as Phum Snay and Prei Khmeng, Cambodia and Ban Non Wat,
Thailand rather than other maritime coastal sites in Southeast Asia. We argue that the
stone and glass beads at Angkor Borei are related to intensified interaction with South
Asia and that elites at Angkor Borei used these exotic prestige goods to build alliances
with sites farther inland forming an intraregional exchange network we call the
Mekong Interaction Sphere. KEYWORDS: trade, stone beads, glass beads, Mekong
Interaction Sphere, Funan, Cambodia.INTRODUCTION: ANGKOR BOREI, THE MEKONG DELTA, AND “FUNAN”
In the third century C.E., two Chinese emissaries from the Wu kingdom traveled to
Southeast Asia to visit a kingdom they called Funan, located in the Mekong Delta
region of Cambodia and Vietnam (Coedès 1968; Ishizawa 1995). Chinese chronicles
described a king named Fanzhan, who had sailing vessels that enabled him to control a
large region of the Thai-Malay peninsula, perhaps as far up the coast as Myanmar.
Chinese chronicles also document a kingdom in this region that sent emissaries to
China and traded with India (Coedès 1968; Ishizawa 1995). Excavations at the 450 haAlison Kyra Carter is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Oregon. Laure
Dussubieux is a Research Scientist in the Elemental Analysis Facility in the Field Museum in
Chicago. Miriam T. Stark is a Professor of Anthropology at the University of Hawai‘i, Mānoa.
H. Albert Gilg is a Professor in the Department of Civil, Geo and Environmental Engineering at the
Technical University of Munich.
Asian Perspectives, Vol. 60, No. 1 © 2021 by the University of Hawai‘i Press.
CARTER ET AL. • ANGKOR BOREI AND PROTOHISTORIC TRADE NETWORKS 33walled and moated site of Oc Eo, Vietnam by French archaeologist Louis Malleret in
the 1940s uncovered a wide range of artifacts including stone and glass beads, silver and
gold jewelry, intaglios, coins, and ceramics, mostly from India, but some artifacts came
fromRome and the Sassanian empire (Malleret 1962) (Fig. 1). This varied collection of
objects demonstrated that the people of Oc Eowere involved in international trade and
Malleret argued that it was the site of a trading port for the Funan kingdom (Stark
1998).Fig. 1. Map of sites in Southeast Asia mentioned in the text. Dotted circle denotes proposed area of
Mekong Interaction Sphere.
34 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES • 2021 • 60(1)The Cambodian site of Angkor Borei, located just 70 km northeast of Oc Eo, is also
believed to have been an important center for Funan and several scholars have argued
that it might have been the capital of Funan (e.g., Aymonier 1903; Pelliot 1903;
Vickery 2003) (Fig. 1). The walled and moated site measures over 300 ha (Fig. 2).
Numerous artifacts testify to the Mekong Delta’s importance during the middle of the
first millennium C.E. The oldest dated Khmer language inscription (dated to C.E. 611)
was found at Angkor Borei and numerous other inscriptions have been found in the
Mekong Delta region describing the activities of local rulers and elites (Jacob 1979;
Vickery 1998). The French geographer Pierre Paris (1931) identified a series of canal
networks linking Angkor Borei with other sites in the region, including Oc Eo. Some
of the earliest examples of Khmer sculpture are at the site of Phnom Da, a small hill
located just a few kilometers south of Angkor Borei (Dowling 1999; Jacques and
Lafond 2007). Archaeological research at Angkor Borei has also identified numerous
collapsed brick structures within the city walls as well as a cemetery dating from
200 B.C.E. to C.E. 200 (Ikehara-Quebral et al. 2017; Stark 2001; Stark and Bong 2001;
Stark et al. 1999; Stark et al. 2006). Excavations have also determined that people wereFig. 2. Contour map of Angkor Borei showing location of Vat Komnou cemetery (AB 7) (adapted
from Bishop et al. 2003:361, fig. 3).
CARTER ET AL. • ANGKOR BOREI AND PROTOHISTORIC TRADE NETWORKS 35living at Angkor Borei perhaps as early as ca. 500–400 B.C.E., through the Angkorian
period, and into the present day (Stark 2004).
Historical and archaeological data support the interpretation that by the early
centuries C.E., the Mekong Delta region was home to a powerful polity that seems to
have grown as a result of international maritime trade (Manguin 2009a, 2019a; Stark
2004, 2006b). Historic documents record a decline in Funan’s power in the sixth or
seventh centuries C.E., likely due to the shifting of trade networks to Island Southeast
Asia (Manguin 2004; Stark 2006b). Chinese historic documents and pre-Angkorian
inscriptions also describe some internal competition between rulers as power centers
began to move further inland (Stark 2006b; Vickery 1998).
The importance of maritime trade in Funan’s emergence as an early state is now
conventional wisdom, but few scholars have explored the nature of this trade.We do so
here by posing two specific questions that examine Angkor Borei’s role in both inter-
and intra-regional exchange networks. First, does the archaeological bead data enable
us to identify specific regions of South Asia whose populations interacted with people
in the Mekong Delta? Scholars have noted that multiple regions in South Asia were
interacting with Southeast Asian communities during the late first millennium B.C.E.
(e.g., Bellina and Glover 2004; Dussubieux and Pryce 2016; Guy 2011; Ray 1989).
Second, could the bead assemblages of Angkor Borei (and Oc Eo to a lesser extent)
provide scholars with a deeper understanding of the social and economic networks in
which beads were circulating such that we could elucidate the importance and impact
of external (maritime) trade versus internal (overland) trade and connections.
This article uses previously unpublished and updated information from Angkor
Borei’s extensive bead assemblage to begin addressing these questions. In the following
section, we review several of the predominant theories regarding the role of trade in the
development of sociopolitical complexity and the development of a polity in the
Mekong Delta. We also include a discussion of who may have been involved in trade
and exchange. Following this, we examine the glass bead assemblage from Angkor
Borei by analyzing previously unpublished compositional data and comparing it with
similar data from other contemporary sites, including the nearby site of Oc Eo.
Discussion of sites with similar glass bead types can be used to consider broader regional
trading networks. We then review previous morphological and compositional studies
of agate and carnelian beads and add new data examining bead perforations to identify
the manufacturing tradition of these beads. Lastly, we review morphological and
compositional studies of garnet beads from Angkor Borei and update our earlier
interpretations with new compositional data from archaeological and geological
sources in southern India.
Our observations point toward strong connections with southern India and Sri
Lanka especially. We argue that these connections were taking place during a period of
intensified interaction with South Asia (Bellina and Glover 2004). This period saw the
circulation of higher quantities of imported glass and stone beads that appear to have
been mass-produced (Carter 2015). This was different from earlier phases of
interaction that saw less intense interaction with South Asia, but frequently with higher
quality products (Bellina and Glover 2004).
This novel analysis of Angkor Borei’s bead assemblage suggests that the settlement
had stronger ties to inland sites in the Lower Mekong Basin (Cambodia and Thailand)
than with contemporary coastal sites that fringed the South China Sea. This inland
system, which we call the Mekong Interaction Sphere (MIS), linked Angkor Borei
36 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES • 2021 • 60(1)with communities to the northwest (i.e., in northwestern Cambodia and northeastern
Thailand) through prestige goods exchange networks. Our study identifies promising
patterns suggesting that intensified interaction with South Asia (Bellina and Glover
2004) and the increased availability of imported objects such as mass-produced beads
facilitated the building of alliances and connections with these communities in the
MIS. We argue that this interaction facilitated the growth of Angkor Borei as a major
urban center for the Funan polity (Carter 2015).While the reasons for Funan’s growth as
an early complex polity were multifaceted, the bead assemblage data shows connections
to inland communities became increasingly important in subsequent periods.FUNAN AND MARITIME TRADE IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
Evidence for far-flung interactional networks linking Southeast Asia to neighboring
regions extends back more than a millennium before contact with South Asia (Hung et
al. 2007; Hung et al. 2013; Wu 2019). However, it is contact with South Asia that
brought communities in mainland Southeast Asia into a wider interaction network,
during what is sometimes called a period of proto-globalization (Bellina and Glover
2004; Carter and Kim 2017; Glover 1989). Current evidence suggests that interaction
between the two regions changed over time (Bellina and Glover 2004). During the
period Bellina and Glover (2004) call Phase 1 (ca. 400 B.C.E.–C.E. 100), exchange with
South Asia was less intense, with small quantities of diverse artifacts including pottery,
bronze containers, stone and glass beads, and coins and intaglios. These objects were
frequently found in “non-Indianized” contexts such as burials (Bellina and Glover
2004:73). During Phase 2 (ca. 100–300 C.E.), exchange increased dramatically, with
greater quantities of Indian objects found at sites in Southeast Asia (Bellina and Glover
2004). The types of objects were less diverse, however, and, in the case of stone beads,
lower quality (Bellina 2003). Angkor Borei, Oc Eo, and Funan seem to have developed
during the transition between these two phases, with clearer evidence for expansion
during Phase 2 (Reinecke 2012; Stark 2004).
Stone and glass beads were among those objects being imported from South Asia
during both phases (Bellina and Glover 2004), with increased quantities found at sites
during Phase 2 (Carter 2015). Because they were made from exotic materials (agate/
carnelian and garnet) or using a new technology (glass), beads are widely considered to
have been “status markers” (Bellina 2003:287; Francis 2002) or “prestige objects”
(Glover 1989:11; Ray 1996:43; Theunissen et al. 2000). Cross-culturally, numerous
scholars have observed the importance of prestige goods, specifically the control over
their production and exchange, as a key factor in the emergence of complex societies
(Bacus 2000; Blanton et al. 1996; Brumfiel and Earle 1987; D’Altroy and Earle 1985;
Junker 1999; Kipp and Schortmann 1989; Renfrew and Shennan 1982; Sabloff and
Lamberg-Karlovsky 1975; Schortman and Urban 1996, 2004; Wells 2006). During
Phase 1, and likely before contact with South Asia, numerous coastal communities
were connected to one another via the South China Sea and the exchange of prestige
objects such as locally produced nephrite ear ornaments (Hung and Bellwood 2010;
Hung et al. 2007; Hung et al. 2013) and Dongson bronze objects (Calo 2014). Several
Southeast Asian archaeologists have used such models to explain the growth of
sociopolitical complexity in coastal communities that ostensibly controlled the
exchange of prestige objects with inland populations (Bellina et al. 2019; Bronson
1977; Christie 1990, 1995; Junker 1994; Manguin 2002, 2009b).
CARTER ET AL. • ANGKOR BOREI AND PROTOHISTORIC TRADE NETWORKS 37The polity of Funan and especially its coastal settlement of Oc Eo was clearly
involved in international maritime trade, with both long-distance connections and
linkages to other coastal communities in Southeast Asia (Hall 1982, 1985; Malleret
1962; Manguin 2004, 2009a, 2019a). We argue that elites in the Mekong Delta were
also expanding their sociopolitical and economic alliances with inland communities
through the trade of exotic prestige objects, including stone and glass beads. As part of
the maritime trading state of Funan, Angkor Borei had access to new foreign goods.
These were perhaps initially traded into the more coastally oriented site of Oc Eo and
then moved to Angkor Borei via canal. We argue that as exchange with South Asia
intensified (Bellina and Glover 2004), the greater availability and quantity of objects
from South Asia, including beads, facilitated expanding social and economic networks
with these inland sites as part of the MIS network. These expanding connections
enabled the growth of elite power in Angkor Borei and Funan.
Who was Involved in Trade?
Identifying who exactly was involved in protohistoric maritime exchange networks is
difficult given the current limited archaeological record, however evidence suggests
long-standing, multidirectional, interactions between communities in South and
Southeast Asia across the Bay of Bengal (Gupta 2003). Southeast Asia was an important
source of raw materials such as gold, tin, spices, and precious wood; it is possible
ceramic production and shipbuilding techniques were also exported to South Asia
(Manguin 2019a; Selvakumar 2011; Smith 1999). Some scholars have argued that the
rapid transmission of new ideas and information across Southeast Asia might have been
due to local traders moving goods on Malay or Indonesian ships (Christie 1995:277;
Manguin 2019a).
During Phase 1, evidence from the Thai/Malay peninsula suggest that Indian
artisans were settling and perhaps travelling between Southeast Asian communities and
producing objects, including stone and glass beads, for local elites (Bellina 2014,
2018b). The period in which exchange was expanding with Southeast Asia is also one
of increasing urbanism in southern India (Smith 2006) and these expanding markets
might have helped the growth of southern Indian craft products such as glass beads
(Abraham 2016). Perhaps during Phase 2 and especially after C.E. 300, there was an
additional period of “intensified ideological contact” in which Hindu and Buddhist
ideology and the associated material culture (e.g., architecture, sculpture) appear across
mainland Southeast Asia (Stark 2006a:411). Buddhism and its favorable views towards
wealth accumulation and trade as an occupation may have had a major impact on the
expansion of trade into Southeast Asia. South Asian artifacts with ties to Buddhism at
sites in Southeast Asia were already well known (Glover 1989), although how these
artifacts were understood by Southeast Asians is not clear. Ray (1989) notes that the
expansion of Buddhism into southern India and the subsequent restructuring of the
economic base, which placed economic power in the hands of Buddhist monasteries,
might also have been taking place in parts of Southeast Asia.
Manguin (2010, 2019b) has also suggested that Vaishnavism played an important role
in the political, religious, and economic parts of life in Southeast Asia during the
second half of the first millennium C.E. In India, Vaishnavism was associated with
business and wealth accumulation and its exportation to Southeast Asia, likely via
Brahmans, merchants, and shipmasters, provided a mechanism for Southeast Asians to
38 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES • 2021 • 60(1)be integrated into this sociopolitical and economic network (Manguin 2019b).
Adoption of these Hindu religious practices would have created a shared community
and facilitated economic transactions (Manguin 2019b). Guy (2011) has argued that
Tamil merchants were key figures in the transmission of goods and Hindu-Buddhist
ideology in the first millennium C.E., and points towards southern India as a key area
interacting with communities in coastal mainland and Island Southeast Asia. However,
it should be noted that these particular developments took place several centuries after
the time period under discussion here.
It is likely that diverse groups of people were involved in maritime trade between
South and Southeast Asia and that the groups changed over time. Although the bead
assemblage from Angkor Borei does not yet fully clarify who these groups were, the
analyses discussed here do add some depth to understanding which particular regions
of South Asia may have been interacting with the Mekong Delta; we hope this can be
refined with future work.
The next section of this article provides further background on the stone and glass
beads from Angkor Borei and we review what is known about the bead assemblage
from the nearby site of Oc Eo. We then discuss the results of compositional and
morphological analyses of the Angkor Borei beads. Through this work, we begin to
identify connections to specific parts or “micro-regions” of South Asia (Ray 1989).We
also contextualize these results as part of the broader exchange of stone and glass beads
in the region, highlighting the connections between Angkor Borei and sites farther
inland in Cambodia and Thailand.THE VAT KOMNOU CEMETERY
The glass and stone beads from Angkor Borei came entirely from excavations at the Vat
Komnou cemetery, which is located in an elevated area approximately in the center of
the site near the Wat Komnou pagoda (Fig. 2). A 5
 2 m unit was excavated over the
course of two field seasons. The stratigraphy in this area was quite deep, with some
units extending almost 7 meters below the surface. Radiocarbon dates were taken from
organic materials above and below the burial layers and show the cemetery was in use
from 200 B.C.E. to C.E. 200 (Stark 2001). Unfortunately, the tightly packed cemetery,
occasionally with burials cutting into one another, prevents a more detailed seriation
within this four hundred year time span. A total of 111 burials were recovered; 33 of
these were primary inhumation burials (Ikehara-Quebral 2010; Ikehara-Quebral et al.
2017). Bioarchaeological work on the skeletal remains from Vat Komnou suggests the
population was relatively healthy (Ikehara-Quebral et al. 2017). Isotopic studies show
the presence of two populations, one with a local strontium isotope signature and those
with isotopic signatures from the wider region (Shewan et al. 2020).
Many beads, especially the glass beads, were found within the cemetery matrix and
not directly associated with a burial. Due to bioturbation and postdepositional
processes, the small size of the beads, as well as heavy use of the cemetery during which
burials were intercut with one another, the beads within the matrix were certainly not
in their primary context. Despite this, we do believe they date to the use of the
cemetery; the proportions of different glass bead types in the burials were similar to
those found in the cemetery matrix. Furthermore, glass beads were not found in layers
above or below the cemetery. A small number of beads were found in direct association
with skeletal material such as a skull, pelvis, or ribs. The contexts and more detailed
CARTER ET AL. • ANGKOR BOREI AND PROTOHISTORIC TRADE NETWORKS 39information on the beads found within the Vat Komnou cemetery are listed in
Appendix A (see also Carter 2020: Glass Contexts; Stone Contexts).STONE AND GLASS BEADS FROM OC EO
Louis Malleret (1962) reported many thousands of beads from Oc Eo, but less than a
thousand of them came from his excavations; the others were from looted contexts. He
found both monochromatic, drawn, Indo-Pacific beads (discussed further below), as
well as polychrome beads and glass beads in other sizes and shapes. He also identified a
variety of beads and pieces of jewelry made from stone, including amethyst, quartz,
garnet, carnelian, agate, jade or nephrite, zircon, topaz, beryl, or serpentine.
A persistent question is whether beads were not only imported to Oc Eo, but also
made on site. Malleret (1962:147–148) argued for local production of glass beads,
especially polychrome ones. He identified and described several objects that might be
related to the production of beads or working of glass at Oc Eo, including the discovery
of colorless and translucent blue teardrop shaped droplets, fragments of glass in a variety
of colors, glass rods, and chunks of melted and agglomerated beads (Malleret
1962:147–148, 243–246). Some of the glass fragments were concentrated in a specific
area, causing him to speculate that there may have been a workshop in that location
(Malleret 1962:245). Also of note was a ceramic vessel with a black glassy chunk
adhering to the surface, which may have been a crucible used in the glass industry
(Malleret 1960:137–138).
Although Malleret did not explicitly describe the production of Indo-Pacific glass
beads, Peter Francis Jr. (2002:31) was confident that Oc Eo was an Indo-Pacific bead
production center and argued that Malleret did not understand the glass by-products he
had recorded. Francis was able to view some of the Oc Eomaterials, now housed in the
National Museum in Ho Chi Minh City, which he believed were wasters from pulling
the Indo-Pacific tubes as well as some cut ends of tubes (Francis 2002:224). More
recent work at Oc Eo by a French-Vietnamese team has identified similar evidence for
possible glass production, including chunks of glass (Pierre-Yves Manguin, pers.
comm. 2015). Dussubieux has noted that craftsmen at Oc Eo could have had access to
sources of raw materials such as granite, sand, and soda (Dussubieux 2001:207).
Evidence for primary glass production has yet to be found at this site, however.
Some of the glass beads from Oc Eo have been studied previously, although none
were from secure contexts. Despite this, Oc Eo’s clear connections to Angkor Borei
make consideration of these data useful when trying to understand the role of Funan in
the exchange of beads during the protohistoric period. As part of her doctoral research,
Dussubieux analyzed 11 glass objects from Oc Eo provided by Pierre-Yves Manguin
(Fig. 3). Six were monochromatic drawn glass Indo-Pacific beads, identical to those
found at Angkor Borei. One additional drawn glass bead was black with opaque white
and red stripes, a less common variant of the drawn Indo-Pacific bead (Francis 1990a).
In addition to these finished beads, Dussubieux also analyzed five small chunks or
glass fragments. These objects came from insecure contexts dated to either C.E. 50–250
or C.E. 400–550 (Dussubieux 2001). We report on the results of these analyses here as
well as refer to published data from earlier studies.
To the best of our knowledge, none of the Oc Eo stone beads have been
comprehensively studied; we mention Malleret’s observations where relevant,
however. As with glass bead production, evidence for the manufacture of stone
Fig. 3. Glass beads and other objects analyzed as part of the current study: Oc Eo artifacts labeled GOE
(bottom right) (photographed by Laure Dussubieux); Angkor Borei artifacts labeled AKC
(photographed by Alison Carter).
CARTER ET AL. • ANGKOR BOREI AND PROTOHISTORIC TRADE NETWORKS 41beads at Oc Eo is unclear. Malleret argued that there was evidence for the drilling
and polishing of stone beads at the site, including flakes that he believed could have
derived from the drilling process (Malleret 1962:47). Most of the evidence for bead
manufacture appears to be of quartz and amethyst beads. He also recorded unfinished
and undrilled agate, carnelian, and garnet beads.
Although there is evidence suggesting stone and glass bead production at Oc Eo, we
believe it should be taken with caution. The site was heavily looted and possible
production areas were not carefully studied. Waste products and partially finished or
unfinished beads can move through the landscape to nonbead manufacturing sites
(Kanungo 2000). Therefore, to convincingly identify a glassmaking or bead production
site, one must find waste products, tools, and, in the case of glass beads, a furnace
(Kanungo 2000). A prior reviewof putative bead production sites across Southeast Asia
found that few of them had strong evidence for local production (Carter 2016b).METHODS
The glass and stone beads were examined using a variety of methods, details of which
have been summarized in previous publications (Carter 2010, 2016a; Carter and
Dussubieux 2016; Dussubieux et al. 2009). Both glass and stone beads underwent
compositional analysis using laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectro-
metry (LA-ICP-MS). Ninety-seven glass beads were analyzed in 2001 at the Centre
Ernest Babelon, IRAMAT, CNRS, Orléans, France. Descriptions of the LA-ICP-MS
instrumentation, analytical protocol, and data calibration method are reported in
Gratuze (1999). These results were first reported in Dussubieux’s (2001) doctoral
thesis. Fifteen glass beads (representing unusual bead types or colors that had not been
previously analyzed by Dussubieux) and all stone beads were analyzed in 2011 at the
Elemental Analysis Facility at the Field Museum (see Dussubieux et al. 2009 for more
detail on instrumentation). Results of these analyses first appeared in Carter’s (2013)
doctoral thesis. In 2019, 15 beads that had been previously analyzed by Dussubieux in
2001 were reanalyzed at the Elemental Analysis Facility. The compatibility of the
results obtained at the two laboratories has been demonstrated in the past (Dussubieux
et al. 2008); however, certain elements that are now recognized as diagnostic in the
study of ancient glass in Southeast Asia are missing from the elemental list measured at
the Centre Ernest Babelon. Stone beads were also carefully examined to determine
their bead shape and manufacturing methods (Carter 2015). Impressions were taken of
several of the bead perforations and examined using a Scanning Electron Microscope
(SEM) to determine the drilling method used to make the beads (Carter 2012;
Kenoyer 2017).GLASS BEADS FROM ANGKOR BOREI
Carter recorded 1320 glass beads from the Vat Komnou cemetery excavations. Of
these, 763 were associated with burials while the remaining 557 were from within
the general cemetery matrix (see Carter 2020: Glass and Stone Contexts; Glass
Composition). Glass beads were found in a greater number of burials than stone
beads (Appendix A). Nearly all glass beads were small, drawn, monochromatic, and
roughly spherical, a type which is frequently referred to as “Indo-Pacific” (Francis
2002) (Fig. 4). Drawn glass beads are made by pulling or drawing a hollow glass tube
42 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES • 2021 • 60(1)
Fig. 4. Glass beads from Angkor Borei: typical drawn “Indo-Pacific” beads (top); glass microbeads
(bottom left and right) (1 mm unit scale at left) (photos by Alison Carter).from a cone of molten glass. Beads are then sliced or cut from this tube and then
remelted to round their sharp edges (Francis 1990b).
The beads were found in a variety of colors including opaque red, yellow, orange,
green, white, and black and translucent blues, purple, and blue-greens. When
compared to other contemporaneous sites in Cambodia and Thailand, Angkor Borei
had a larger proportion of opaque green beads than elsewhere (Fig. 5). The reasons for
this disparity are unclear. It is possible that people at Angkor Borei preferred green
beads or that larger quantities of this bead type were available. Given that bead color
and style is significant for many ethnographically studied Southeast Asian peoples
(Francis 1992), it is worth pursuing this question in future studies. It should also be
noted that the bead colors recorded reflect what has been found in excavation and may
not be representative of the overall bead assemblage at each site.
CARTER ET AL. • ANGKOR BOREI AND PROTOHISTORIC TRADE NETWORKS 43
Fig. 5. Distribution of different glass bead colors at sites in Cambodia [C] and Thailand [T].There also appear to be some change in the sizes of the drawn monochromatic
beads over time. The majority of drawn beads from all periods ranged between 2 and
6 mm in width. However, during the early to middle of the first millennium C.E.,
smaller beads between approximately 1 and 2 mm in width began appearing at sites
such as Angkor Borei, Prei Khmeng, and Phum Snay in Cambodia and Phromthin
Tai (sometimes spelled Promtin Tai), Ban Non Wat, and Noen-U Loke in Thailand
(Fig. 4). These smaller beads are associated with the high alumina mineral soda glass
recipe (discussed below) and also occur during a period in which increased quantities
of this type of glass bead were found at sites across Cambodia and Thailand (Carter
2015). Smaller size beads are created as tubes of glass are drawn from a furnace with
thinner or smaller tubes being created as the glass is pulled more quickly (Kanungo
2000). The appearance of these smaller size beads may be related to the increased skill
of the glassworkers and seeming emphasis on mass production of glass beads.
Glass Bead Compositions
The period from ca. 500 B.C.E. to C.E. 500 was a period with a great diversity of glass
bead types in Southeast Asia. While many of the drawn beads look visually similar to
one another, compositional analysis of them has identified specific glass recipes
associated with particular sites, regions, and trade routes; thus helping us identify
connections between sites where these beads were traded (Carter 2015, 2016b;
Dussubieux and Bellina 2018; Dussubieux and Gratuze 2013; Dussubieux et al. 2012;
Dussubieux and Pryce 2016; Lankton and Dussubieux 2013). For example, lead glass
beads are associated with Chinese glass production, while high-alumina soda glass has
44 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES • 2021 • 60(1)strong connections with South Asian glass manufacturing, although specific recipes for
both glass types varied over time (Dussubieux and Gratuze 2013; Fuxi 2009).
Herewe discuss results from compositional analyses of beads fromAngkor Borei and
Oc Eo (Carter 2020 Glass Compositions dataset). Of the 15 beads analyzed by Carter,
three with low alkali were too weathered to properly classify and will not be discussed
further (i.e., AKC02593, AKC02594, and AKC02596 seen in Fig. 3). Dussubieux
analyzed a total of 96 beads from Angkor Borei and 11 glass beads and objects from Oc
Eo. Two beads with odd compositions were omitted from further discussion: AB08O,
which had high alumina, and AB063J. We discuss the compositions of the remaining
117 glass beads and objects and the four major glass compositions that were identified
in these two bead assemblages. We discuss these different compositions in light of the
most current knowledge about their possible manufacturing locations and where other
glass of this type has been found in order to situate these assemblages within regional
exchange networks.
Plant Ash Soda-Lime Glass (v-Na-Ca) — Seven glass beads and one glass chunk
contained a soda-rich composition, with magnesia levels over 1.5 weight percent and
higher lime than alumina; we classified beads with this composition as plant ash (or
vegetal) soda-lime glass (v-Na-Ca). From Angkor Borei, these included four dark blue
glass beads identified by Dussubieux and three dark blue beads, including one that has a
square barrel shape, identified by Carter (2020 Glass Compositions dataset). From Oc
Eo, Dussubieux identified this composition in a small transparent greenish glass chunk
(GOEI9).
Six of these beads were small drawn dark beads colored with cobalt (300–769 ppm).
This bead type seems to have been exchanged in South and Southeast Asia during the
late centuries B.C.E. and early centuries C.E., with drawn dark cobalt blue beads found at
contemporaneous sites in Sri Lanka such as Ridiyagama (ca. 400 B.C.E.–C.E. 0) and
Giribawa (ca. 300 B.C.E.–200 C.E.) (Dussubieux 2001) and in Southeast Asia at Khao
Sek, Thailand (400–200 B.C.E.) (Dussubieux and Bellina 2018), Khlong Thom,
Thailand (ca. C.E. 100–700) (Lankton and Dussubieux 2013), Phum Snay, Cambodia
(350 B.C.E.–C.E.200) (Carter 2010; Gratuze 2005; Vanna 2007), and Prei Khmeng,
Cambodia (ca. C.E. 0–600) (Carter 2010). The seventh bead (AKC02592) was a dark
blue or greenish blue broken square barrel with heavy weathering on the surface
(Fig. 3). This bead was colored with copper (1.9 wt%).
The glass chunk or fragment from Oc Eo is broadly similar in composition to a
transparent greenish blue waste glass (6440) and a blue transparent nugget or cullet
(6441) collected from Oc Eo and analyzed by Brill (1999a, 1999b). All three samples
are from surface collections and fewer elements were analyzed for them than for those
measured at the Elemental Analysis Facility, which makes further comparison and
interpretation of these samples difficult.
This v-Na-Ca composition is strongly associated with glass production from the
ancient Near East. In fact, the earliest glass ever produced was a soda plant ash glass,
with production centers in both Egypt (Rehren and Pusch 2005; Smirniou and
Rehren 2011; Smirniou et al. 2017; Tite and Shortland 2003) and Mesopotamia
(Degryse et al. 2010; Shortland et al. 2018) by the middle of the second millennium
B.C.E. Starting around the ninth or eighth century B.C.E., soda from mineral deposits
(e.g., natron) replaced soda plant ash in beads made in Egypt and the Syro-Palestinian
region. The natron composition lasted until the end of the first millennium C.E., when
CARTER ET AL. • ANGKOR BOREI AND PROTOHISTORIC TRADE NETWORKS 45the use of natron declined and a return to plant ash glass occurred (Shortland et al.
2006). However, the soda plant ash glass tradition may have continued uninterrupted
in Mesopotamia and Sasanian glassmakers produced this glass type from the third to the
seventh centuries C.E. (Mirti et al. 2009; Mirti et al. 2008). Specific colors of soda plant
ash might also have been produced in the Mediterranean in parallel with natron glass
(Jackson and Cottam 2015; Nenna and Gratuze 2009). At this point, it is not clear from
where the Angkor Borei and Oc Eo glass beads and objects came; however, the
K2O and MgO concentrations could point toward an Egyptian origin (Rosenow
and Rehren 2018). It is certain that they are imports, most likely from farther west
(i.e., Middle-East orMediterranean area), and for this reason their presence at the site is
evidence of long-distance exchange.
Lead Glass— Three glass beads with high concentrations of lead (45–69 wt% as PbO)
were identified by Dussubieux; no lead beads were identified in Carter’s analysis. These
beads were blue, yellow, and blue-green in color; the two blue beads were annular and
visually distinct from the drawn Indo-Pacific beads. The lead beads could be from
China where lead glass was common during C.E.200–700 (Fuxi 2009). Lead beads are
less common in Southeast Asian archaeological sites dating to the first millennium C.E.
and earlier, so a distinct trade network for them is difficult to identify. Lead glass beads
have been found at some coastal sites that are associated with a South China Sea
exchange network, including the Sa Huynh site of Lai Nghi in Vietnam (Karsten
Brabender, pers. comm. 2012) and the site of Prohear, Cambodia (Carter 2013).
However, they have also been found at the inland site of Ban Non Wat, Thailand
(Carter and Lankton 2012). Further work is needed to understand how lead glass beads
were being exchanged within Southeast Asia.
Mineral Soda Glass — The remaining beads had magnesia levels under 1.5 weight
percent and high concentrations of soda, classifying them as belonging to the mineral
soda glass group. Of these, there were two sub-groups: one with high concentrations of
alumina (m-Na-Al) and one with moderate concentrations of both alumina and lime
(m-Na-Ca-Al).
High alumina mineral soda glass (m-Na-Al) — Ninety-three glass beads and objects
analyzed from Angkor Borei and Oc Eo belong to the high alumina mineral soda glass
(m-Na-Al) group. This includes six beads from Carter’s analysis, 77 beads from
Dussubieux’s analysis of the Angkor Borei beads, and 10 glass beads and objects from
Oc Eo. This glass type included multiple colors including opaque red, yellow, orange,
green, and black, transparent blue, and some polychrome beads, either red-orange or
black, red, and white. Occasionally, some of the opaque red, orange, or black beads
have higher concentrations of MgO (>1.5 wt%), which is likely related to their
coloration (Dussubieux et al. 2011). Several purple beads were also classified as
belonging to this group; however, these beads are unusual and no other purple beads
have been reported for the m-Na-Al 1 sub-group (discussed further below). Based on
similarities in context, color, and association, we estimate that approximately 80
percent of the bead assemblage at Angkor Borei was made from this glass composition
(Carter 2020: Glass Compositions; Glass Contexts).
High alumina mineral soda glass was a wide-spread and long-lived glass recipe with
strong connections to South Asian glass production (Dussubieux and Gratuze 2013;
46 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES • 2021 • 60(1)Dussubieux et al. 2010). Multiple sub-groups have been identified that are associated
with different time periods and production locations (Carter et al. 2016; Dussubieux
et al. 2010). The Angkor Borei beads were compared to three potential sub-groups
used to make drawn glass beads in order to determine which glass bead types were
present at the site. The m-Na-Al 1 sub-group is distinguished by having low uranium
concentrations and high concentrations of barium and other trace elements
(Dussubieux et al. 2010). This glass was found in South and Southeast Asia from the
late centuries B.C.E. to the first millennium C.E. The m-Na-Al 2 sub-group is similar
to the m-Na-Al 1 sub-group, but has higher uranium and lower barium
concentrations. This glass was initially identified at sites dating from the late first
millennium C.E. to second millennium C.E. in western India and eastern Africa
(Dussubieux et al. 2010; Dussubieux et al. 2008). More recently, it has been identified
in jar burial sites in Cambodia’s Cardamom Mountain and sites around Angkor
(Carter et al. 2016; Carter et al. 2019). The m-Na-Al 4 glass has been found at
maritime sites in Southeast Asia and across the Indian Ocean dating to the second
millennium C.E.. Although sub-groups m-Na-Al 2 and m-Na-Al 4 were found at
sites dated later than the proposed time period under examination at Angkor Borei,
their presence could indicate mixing with later contexts, which would be useful in
determining the extent of bioturbation in the cemetery. Therefore, we have included
these two sub-groups in our discussion.
The different sub-groups of m-Na-Al glass can be distinguished using a principal
components analysis (PCA) of Ca, Mg, Ba, U, Sr, Cs, and Zr. The beads analyzed by
Dussubieux (2001) did not measure Cs, therefore this element was left out of our
analyses. Cs is most effective for distinguishing between m-Na-Al 2 and m-Na-Al 3
bead compositions (Dussubieux et al. 2010), but the latter sub-group (m-Na-Al 3) is
not under consideration here, so its omission does not affect our interpretations.
Fig. 6 displays a biplot of PCA components 1 and 2 (69 percent of the total variance)
for the Angkor Borei and Oc Eo glass objects as well as comparative datasets of beads
from the sites of Prei Khmeng, Cambodia (C.E.0–600), representing the m-Na-Al 1
group (Carter 2010); Chaul, India (ninth to nineteenth centuries C.E.), representing
the m-Na-Al 2 group (Dussubieux et al. 2008); and glass from the Wrecked Junk of
Brunei, representing the m-Na-Al 4 group (Gratuze 2001). It is clear from this PCA
that the beads from Angkor Borei and Oc Eo are compositionally analogous to the m-
Na-Al 1 group and do not overlap with the m-Na-Al 2 or m-Na-Al 4 sub-groups. It
should be noted that several opaque orange, red, and black beads plot somewhat away
from this group and are notable for having higher concentrations of magnesia (>1.5 wt
%), phosphorous, lime, iron, and lead, which is apparently related to their coloration
and manufacturing environment (Dussubieux et al. 2011). Previous studies of glass
beads from Oc Eo, including those found by Malleret (1962), also found them to be
made from high alumina mineral soda glass (Brill 1999b; Francis 2002; Kim et al. 2016).
A group of four translucent purple glass beads (AKC02584, AKC02585,
AKC02590, AKC02591) originally classified as garnet were found to be glass upon
analysis (Fig. 3). They fall into the m-Na-Al 1 category although three of the beads
(AKC02584, AKC02585, and AKC02590) have lower alumina levels (ca. 5 wt%) and
all have lower Sr (at 170–246 ppm). The beads do not appear to have been colored with
manganese, a common colorant used to make purple glass, as the concentrations of this
element are low. Visually similar dark red to purple glass beads have been found at the
south Indian port site of Arikamedu, India, although these beads had higher
CARTER ET AL. • ANGKOR BOREI AND PROTOHISTORIC TRADE NETWORKS 47
Fig. 6. Biplot of components 1 and 2 comparing beads from Angkor Borei to dataset of m-Na-Al
Type 1, Type 2, and Type 4 glasses.manganese than the samples from Angkor Borei (Schmetzer et al. 2017). It is not clear
if these Arikamedu beads belong to the m-Na-Al 1 category; this would be noteworthy
as few glass beads of this type have been reported from this site (Dussubieux and Gratuze
2013). Further work is needed on these beads to clearly determine their origin.
Mineral soda glass with moderate amounts of alumina and lime (m-Na-Ca-Al) — The
m-Na-Ca-Al type is found atmany sites dating fromca. 300 B.C.E.–C.E. 400. (Dussubieux
et al. 2012). It has been found at sites in northern and central Vietnam, peninsular
Thailand,Myanmar (Dussubieux andBellina 2018;Dussubieuxet al. 2012; Lankton and
Dussubieux 2013), and inland sites in Cambodia and Thailand (Carter 2016b; Lankton
and Dussubieux 2013). A possible production center for this glass type could be Khlong
Thom, where it has been found in high quantities (Lankton and Dussubieux 2013); this
type of glassmay also have beenworked at the site of PhuKhaoThong (Dussubieux et al.
2012).
This glass type is compositionally similar to the m-Na-Al glass type discussed
above, but can be distinguished through a principal component analysis (PCA)
using the elements Na, Al, Zr, Rb, La, Hf, and Th (Dussubieux and Gratuze 2010).
These elements were not all measured in Dussubieux’s initial analysis, so we are
unable to use this particular method to confidently separate these groups in the
current study. However, it was found that these glass beads can still be distinguished
from the other mineral soda glass beads using a PCA of Al, Ce, and Rb. Fig. 7
displays a biplot of components 1 and 2 of a PCA of these elements. The two
components account for 81 percent of the total variance. Dussubieux classified
seven opaque green and opaque yellow as m-Na-Ca glass in the original analysis,
but these were subsequently revised to be called the m-Na-Ca-Al type (Table 1).
Carter identified an additional three dark blue beads that belonged to this group
(Table 1). These beads are notable for having a mineral soda composition but are
colored with cobalt, a colorant that is not found in the m-Na-Al 1 glass type
(Dussubieux et al. 2010). Based on the PCA, it is possible to add AB004J and
AB0108V to this group, as well as AB009BC due to its coloration with cobalt, for a
total 13 beads in this compositional group.
Based on context, association, color, and visual similarity of beads, we estimate that
between 2 and 18 percent of the glass bead assemblage at Angkor Borei was made up of
m-Na-Ca-Al glass (Carter 2020: Glass Compositions). This wide variation is due to
the visual similarity between beads made up of this glass type and the m-Na-Al 1 and v-
Na-Ca glass. We observed that the identified opaque green and yellow m-Na-Ca-Al
glass beads were smaller (ca. 3 mm or less), while m-Na-Al 1 beads were generally
larger (ca. 3–5 mm). The translucent dark bluem-Na-Ca-Al beads were approximately
5–6 mm, similar to the v-Na-Ca glass beads. Further compositional work is needed to
more accurately determine the proportion of this glass type found at Angkor Borei.
Questions persist regarding how these beads were being traded to the site. Did the
green, yellow, and blue beads arrive together or were they the products of different
workshops or trade routes? If these beads are only a small proportion (2%) of the site
bead assemblage, then they may have been traveling in a down-the-line exchange
network, but larger proportions of this glass type could indicate more direct exchange.
For now, these questions remain unanswered.TABLE 1. LIST OF M-NA-CA-AL BEADS AND POTENTIAL M-NA-CA-AL BEADS
DATABASE ID BEAD COLOR NOTES SOURCE
AB004J Opaque yellow Possible m-Na-Ca-Al Dussubieux 2001
AB009BC Translucent dark blue High concentrations of cobalt Dussubieux 2001
AB085V Opaque green Formerly m-Na-Ca Dussubieux 2001
AB086J Opaque yellow Formerly m-Na-Ca Dussubieux 2001
AB097V Opaque green Formerly m-Na-Ca Dussubieux 2001
AB098J Opaque yellow Formerly m-Na-Ca Dussubieux 2001
AB099J Opaque yellow Formerly m-Na-Ca Dussubieux 2001
AB0108V Opaque green Possible m-Na-Ca-Al Dussubieux 2001
AB115V Opaque green Formerly m-Na-Ca Dussubieux 2001
AB116V Opaque green Formerly m-Na-Ca Dussubieux 2001
AKC02586 Translucent dark blue High concentrations of cobalt Carter 2013
AKC02587 Translucent dark blue High concentrations of cobalt Carter 2013
AKC02588 Translucent dark blue High concentrations of cobalt Carter 2013
CARTER ET AL. • ANGKOR BOREI AND PROTOHISTORIC TRADE NETWORKS 49
Fig. 7. Biplot of components 1 and 2 to distinguish m-Na-Ca-Al beads from m-Na-Al beads.Patterning in the Glass Beads
Earlier studies have identified m-Na-Al 1 glass as the dominant type in the glass beads
exchanged in Southeast Asia during the first millennium C.E. (Lankton and Dussubieux
2006). This glass type is strongly associated with South Asian production, with at least
one manufacturing location identified in Giribawa, Sri Lanka (Dussubieux 2001).
Similar drawn glass beads have been found in large quantities at other sites in southern
India, so that region may also represent other possible production locations, although
additional work is needed to clarify the glass recipes and chronology (Abraham 2016).
Angkor Borei and Oc Eo have disproportionately large quantities of the m-Na-Al 1
beads relative to other sites in mainland Southeast Asia from this time period
(Dussubieux 2001). This difference can clearly be seen in Fig. 8, which displays an
estimate of the proportions of major glass types found at several protohistoric sites in
mainland Southeast Asia.
Notably, both Angkor Borei and Oc Eo also lack potash glass beads, a glass bead type
that is found widely in Southeast Asia during the protohistoric period (Dussubieux
2001; Lankton and Dussubieux 2013). Lankton and Dussubieux (2006) have noted
50 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES • 2021 • 60(1)
Fig. 8. Glass types from some sites in Southeast Asia, using bead data from following contexts: Khao
Sam Kaeo (ca. 400–100 B.C.E.);Ban Don Ta Phet (ca. 400–200 B.C.E.);Village 10.8 (ca. 400 B.C.E.–C.E.
100);Phromthin Tai (ca. 400 B.C.E.–C.E. 500); Angkor Borei (200 B.C.E.–C.E. 200); Phnom Borei
(200 B.C.E.–C.E. 0); Prohear (200 B.C.E.–C.E. 200); Ban Non Wat Iron Age Period 2 (ca. 200 B.C.E.–C.E.
200); Phu Khao Thong (200 B.C.E.–C.E. 200); Phum Snay (350 B.C.E.–C.E. 200); Prei Khmeng
(C.E. 0–600); Oc Eo (C.E. 0–600) (data from Carter 2013, 2015; Lankton and Dussubieux 2013).that the lack of potash glass in the Angkor Borei cemetery could date the transition
from potash to high alumina soda glass across Southeast Asia. However, roughly
contemporaneous sites, including sites in southern Cambodia such as Phnom Borei
(200 B.C.E.–C.E. 0) and Prohear (second century B.C.E.–C.E. second century) contained
potash glass, therefore it appears that it was still in circulation during this period, but
that sites in the Mekong Delta were not major participants in this exchange network.
Elsewhere, Carter (2015) and Lankton and Dussubieux (2013) have argued that the
two glass types reflect different bead exchange networks, which slightly overlapped in
time. Potash glass circulated on a seemingly older South China Sea network, which
linked coastal localities to one another (Bellina 2018a; Hung et al. 2013). The current
evidence from Southeast Asia indicates that when m-Na-Al 1 beads were introduced
from South Asia, they were not being traded on the same networks for reasons that are
unclear. Perhaps high alumina mineral soda glass was being traded from a different
region or community in South Asia that did not have a preexisting relationship with
sites in the South China Sea Network. Indeed, previous work has suggested there are
likely multiple bead exchange networks across Southeast Asia from the late centuries
B.C.E. to middle of the first millennium C.E. (e.g., Bellina 2014; Carter 2012, 2015,
2016b; Dussubieux and Bellina 2018; Dussubieux and Pryce 2016; Lankton et al.
2008).
Earlier studies from Cambodia and Thailand demonstrate large numbers of high
alumina soda glass at sites in the Mekong Delta, as well as sites farther inland such as
CARTER ET AL. • ANGKOR BOREI AND PROTOHISTORIC TRADE NETWORKS 51Phum Snay and Prei Khmeng in northwest Cambodia and Ban Non Wat and
Phromthin Tai in Thailand (Carter 2015). We argue that the m-Na-Al 1 glass beads are
material indicators of the Phase 2 intensified interaction between South and Southeast
Asia (Bellina and Glover 2004) and that they were traded between the Mekong Delta
and sites farther inland as part of a Mekong Interaction Sphere exchange network
(discussed further below).STONE BEADS IN THE MEKONG DELTA
Earlier studies have shown that stone bead types changed over time, much like the glass
bead types (Bellina 2003, 2014; Carter 2015). For this reason, it is important to
consider the stone bead data in addition to glass bead data, as this information can
elucidate trade networks. Stone beads from Angkor Borei have been more
comprehensively studied than those from Oc Eo. As discussed above, Malleret
(1962) identified stone beads made from multiple materials at Oc Eo, but few of these
beads have been found outside Oc Eo. Most of the beads found at Angkor Borei were
carnelian, with only one agate and one quartz bead uncovered in excavation contexts
(Fig. 9). This pattern is consistent at other inland sites in Cambodia and Thailand that
are dominated by carnelian and, to a lesser extent, agate beads. A small number of
garnet beads have been found at Angkor Borei and sites in southwest Cambodia such as
Prohear, Bit Meas, and Village 10.8, however earlier studies suggest that the garnet
beads in southwest Cambodia were locally produced and distinct from those found in
the Mekong Delta (Carter 2012, 2016a). It is not clear why these other stone bead
types were not widely exchanged outside Oc Eo. They are certainly found in fewer
quantities than carnelian and agate beads; perhaps their rarity imparted a higher value
and elites at Oc Eo kept them for themselves. Unfortunately, the heavy looting at Oc
Eo limits the interpretations that can be made and further excavations of beads in
undisturbed contexts are needed. Despite this, analyses of the agate, carnelian, and
quartz beads and garnet beads from Angkor Borei’s excavations can at least begin toFig. 9. Stone beads from Angkor Borei: 10 carnelian (AKC03035–AKC03044); 1 agate (AKC03045);
1 quartz (AKC03046) (scale: 1 cm units).
52 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES • 2021 • 60(1)address questions regarding the nature of inter- and intra-regional exchange of these
objects. In this section we summarize previous studies and present new data
highlighting the connections to South Asian bead industries as well as arguing that
these stone beads were also part of an intra-regional Mekong Interaction Sphere.
Agate, Carnelian, and Quartz Beads
A total of 11 agate, carnelian, and quartz beads were identified in the Angkor Borei
excavations (Fig. 9). Of these, only two carnelian beads were directly associated with a
skeleton (Appendix A). The remaining agate and carnelian beads (n= 9) as well as one
quartz bead were found within the cemetery matrix, but not associated with a specific
burial.
Morphology of the Agate, Carnelian, and Quartz Beads — The morphology of stone
beads in Southeast Asia has been shown to be important for understanding
manufacturing and socioeconomic trade and interaction patterns (Bellina 2003; Carter
2015). Drawing on work by Bellina (2003), Carter (2015) previously identified two
different agate or carnelian bead types in circulation in Cambodia and parts of Thailand
that varied according to shape, craftwork, and temporal distribution. Type 1 stone
beads are generally made with higher-quality manufacturing techniques, including
using higher quality stones with few imperfections, putting a high polish on the beads,
and carving them into complex, time-consuming shapes (e.g., facets). Additionally,
these beads had small perforation sizes. Type 1 stone beads are generally found at sites
dating to the late centuries B.C.E. and early centuries C.E. Type 2 stone beads refer to
those produced in simpler shapes (e.g., spherical or barrel shapes) and using lower
quality manufacturing techniques, including low-luster polish, nicks or chips on the
surface, and using stones with imperfections. These beads also generally had larger
perforation sizes. The Type 2 stone beads are more frequently found at sites dating to
the early first millennium C.E. and appear to represent mass production of particular
stone bead types (Carter 2015).
Overall, most of the beads from the Angkor Borei bead assemblage were classified as
belonging to the Type 2 stone bead group (Carter 2020: Stone Contexts). Several other
sites dating to the early-mid first millennium C.E. were also dominated by Type 2 stone
beads, including Phum Snay in Cambodia and Ban Non Wat and Phromthin Tai in
Thailand (Carter 2015). These sites also had high quantities of high alumina mineral
soda glass beads.
Chemical Composition of Angkor Borei Agate, Carnelian, Quartz Beads — Early scholars
assumed that agate, carnelian, quartz, and other hard stone beads found in Southeast
Asia had been imported there from South Asia (Francis 1996; Glover 1989). However,
the presence of unfinished and unusual styles of beads led some scholars to later argue
that some of these objects might have been manufactured in Southeast Asia using
locally available raw materials (Theunissen et al. 2000). Excavations at the coastal Thai
peninsular sites of Khao Sam Kaeo (Bellina 2017b) and Khao Sek (Bellina 2018b) have
uncovered clear evidence of bead manufacturing, likely by South Asian craftspeople.
However, evidence for stone bead manufacturing at other sites in Southeast Asia,
including Oc Eo, is more problematic (see discussion in Carter 2016b).
Geochemical analysis of stone beads is an effective way to determine if South Asian
or Southeast Asian raw materials were being used (Carter and Dussubieux 2016;
CARTER ET AL. • ANGKOR BOREI AND PROTOHISTORIC TRADE NETWORKS 53
Fig. 10. Biplot of components 1 and 2 comparing agate, carnelian, and quartz beads from Angkor Borei
to four geologic sources from Central, South, and Southeast Asia.Theunissen et al. 2000). In an earlier study, Carter and Dussubieux (2016) undertook a
geochemical study of the agate, carnelian, and quartz beads from Angkor Borei using
LA-ICP-MS and compared the compositions to four geologic raw material sources
from Central, South, and Southeast Asia. The results of this preliminary analysis
demonstrated that the raw materials used to produce the Angkor Borei beads were
most compositionally consistent with the raw material sources from the Deccan Traps
in India (see full discussion and compositional data in Carter and Dussubieux 2016).
Figure 10 displays a biplot of components 1 and 2 (55% of total variance) from a PCA of
agate, carnelian, and quartz beads from Angkor Borei and four geologic sources from
Central, South, and Southeast Asia using the elements: Si, Na, Mg, Al, K, Ca, Fe, Pb,
B, Sc, Ti, Ni, Rb, Sr, Zr, Sb, Ba, La, Ce, Y, and U. Although this study does not include
all potential sources, it does suggest that beads found at Angkor Borei were made from
raw materials originally from western India.
Examination of Agate/Carnelian Bead Perforations — The connections to the western
Indian bead industry are reinforced when bead perforations are considered. The use of
a diamond-tipped drill to manufacture beads has been practiced in India since at least
600 B.C.E., with the west Indian bead industry being strongly associated with a double-
diamond tipped drilling technique (Kenoyer et al. 1991). Bead makers in other regions
of India did not always use a diamond-tipped drill. For example, stone bead makers at
54 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES • 2021 • 60(1)
Fig. 11. SEM images of perforation impressions from stone beads from Angkor Borei: carnelian
(AKC03035, AKC03034, AKC03037); agate (AKC03045); garnet (AB3333).sites in southern India would sometimes use a single-diamond tipped drill or rod and
abrasion method to perforate beads (Kelly 2016).
Perforations in the Angkor Borei beads were examined to determine the drilling
method used and, by extension, better understand the possible manufacturing location.
Impressions of the bead perforations from four beads were taken using dental
impression material and examined under an SEM. Figure 11 displays SEM images of
the perforations; all four beads have the regular, parallel, drilling striae typical of a
diamond-tipped drill, likely a double-diamond drill (Gorelick and Gwinnett 1988;
Kenoyer 2017).1 Moreover, the bead perforations are straight and cylindrical in shape,
typical of the use of a diamond-tipped drill (Kenoyer 2017; Kenoyer et al. 1991). The
other agate, carnelian, and quartz beads also have this straight cylindrical drill hole,
suggesting they too were drilled using a diamond-tipped drill.
Patterning in the Agate/Carnelian Beads — The manufacturing method and raw
material make western India a likely source of these objects. However, we cannot rule
out the possibility that the raw materials were transported to other locations and that
south Indian craftspeople or even local craftworkers trained in Indian drilling
techniques could have produced these beads. For example, stones from the Deccan
Traps were used in South Indian bead workshops (Francis 2000) and South Indian bead
workers also used double-diamond tipped drills (Francis 2000; Kelly 2016).
Additionally, evidence from the site of Khao Sam Kaeo, Thailand suggests that beads
could be manufactured in Southeast Asia using imported raw materials and South
Asian techniques (Bellina 2014), although evidence that this was happening in the
Mekong Delta is not clear.While we are not able to determine if beads at Angkor Borei
were imported as finished objects or produced in Southeast Asia following Indian bead
production methods, the raw materials and manufacturing methods reviewed above
show connections to South Asia. Lastly, as noted above, the similarities in the types of
beads found at Angkor Borei and those at inland sites show connections between this
site and communities further inland.
Garnet Beads
Garnet beads are relatively rare in Southeast Asia, although they were found in a variety
of shapes at Oc Eo (Malleret 1962:221–222). Additional sites where garnet beads have
CARTER ET AL. • ANGKOR BOREI AND PROTOHISTORIC TRADE NETWORKS 55
Fig. 12. Garnet beads from Angkor Borei (image reproduced with permission from Carter 2016a:241,
fig. 16.2).been reported include the coastal site of Giong Ca Vo, Vietnam (Nguyen 2001), the
southern Vietnamese site of GoOChua, Lai Nghi in central Vietnam, and sites such as
Khao Sam Kaeo and Phu Khao Thong in peninsular Thailand (Borell 2017; Carter
2013:364–366). Five spherical garnet beads were recorded from the Angkor Borei
bead collection. Three of these were associated with specific burials and the remaining
two in the cemetery matrix (Appendix A; Carter 2020: Stone Contexts). The garnet
beads from Angkor Borei are a deep reddish-purple, round or spherical in shape, and
approximately 3 to 4 mm in diameter, with one bead slightly larger at about 5 to 6 mm
in diameter (Fig. 12). This is similar to the two size categories of garnet beads identified
at the site of Arikamedu, India (Schmetzer et al. 2017).
Examination of Garnet Bead Perforations — As with the agate and carnelian beads,
similar questions persist regarding the manufacturing location and method of the
garnet beads. An earlier study examined impressions of bead perforations from two
(AKC03031 and AKC03033) of the five garnet beads from Angkor Borei using a SEM
(Carter 2012). An additional impression of garnet bead AB3333 was examined as part
of the current study (Fig. 11). The two previous impressions and the newly examined
impression demonstrate the regular, spiraling striae or grooves representative of the
double-diamond drilling technique (Gorelick and Gwinnett 1988; Kenoyer 2017).
This suggests that, like the agate/carnelian beads, the garnet beads were manufactured
in India or by craftspeople trained in Indian bead manufacturing methods. It should be
noted that this drilling method is different from that reported at Arikamedu. In their
study of garnet beads fromArikamedu, Schmetzer and colleagues (2017) noted that the
B3 and B4 spherical beads were drilled from one end with a tapered or conical drill
hole. However, the five spherical beads from Angkor Borei have straight cylindrical
56 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES • 2021 • 60(1)
Fig. 13. Biplot of components 1 and 2 comparing garnets from Angkor Borei with a variety of
South and Southeast Asian sources.bead perforations and some were drilled from both sides. This does not exclude the
possibility that garnet beads were produced in southern India, however. Kelly (2016)
notes that South Indian bead workshops often used multiple different drilling
techniques, including sometimes using two different techniques on a single bead.
Chemical Composition of the Angkor Borei Garnet Beads — As with the carnelian and
other stone beads, the garnet beads fromAngkor Borei underwent LA-ICP-MS analysis
to determine their chemical compositions and identify potential rawmaterial sources.An
earlier studywas limitedby thenumberof geological sources available for comparison and
unclear provenience information for some of the sources, however, the almandine-rich
garnets from Angkor Borei were found to be compositionally similar to a garnet bead
from the site of Porunthal, India (see discussion and compositional data inCarter 2016a).
The exact archaeological context of the Porunthal garnet bead is unknown, but a cultural
deposit containing thousands of glass beads and other materials has been tentatively dated
from ca. 100 B.C.E. to C.E. 300 (Rajan 2009).
A recent study of garnet beads from the site of Arikamedu showed that they were
compositionally analogous to garnets from the Garibpet source in Telangana State in
northeastern South India (Schmetzer et al. 2017). To determine whether the beads
from Angkor Borei were also compositionally similar to this potential source, they
were compared to the compositional data from the Arikamedu and Garibpet garnets
(Schmetzer et al. 2017) and a dataset of additional pyrope-poor almandine garnets from
other potential geologic raw material sources in South and Southeast Asia (see full
discussion of sources in Carter 2016a). A PCAwas undertaken using the elements Li, P,
Ca, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Zn, Y, and Zr. Figure 13 presents a biplot of the first two
components, accounting for 62 percent of the total variation. In this figure, it is clear
that the Angkor Borei garnets are geochemically similar to the beads from Arikamedu
and the Garibpet raw material source. The Porunthal bead also plots with this group.
Patterning in Garnet Beads — The compositional and bead perforation data strongly
indicate that the garnet beads were imported from India, with connections specifically
to southern India. It is possible the beads were produced at Arikamedu, which had
both a stone and glass bead production industry and was awell-known port site (Francis
1991). However, we cannot rule out other workshop sites. For example, there is
evidence for garnet bead manufacture in the region at sites such as Kodumanal (Kelly
2009) and the Early Historic period sites of Tissamaharama and Anuradhapura in Sri
Lanka (Coningham et al. 2006; Hannibal-Deraniyagala 2001, 2005). It is also possible
raw material was brought to Southeast Asia and crafted into beads locally.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: THE MEKONG INTERACTION SPHERE
The glass and stone bead collection from Angkor Borei provides a snapshot of the
broader inter- and intra-regional trade connections at the site (Table 2).We now return
to the questions proposed in our introduction.
Does Data from Stone and Glass Beads Point Towards Interaction
with Specific Regions of South Asia?
Based on morphological and compositional analyses of stone and glass beads, we argue
that we can see interaction in the Mekong Delta with specific parts of South Asia. Agate
and carnelian beads show affinities with the west Indian bead industry in their
geochemical composition and drilling method, although they could also have beenTABLE 2. SUMMARY OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF GLASS AND STONE BEADS FROM ANGKOR BOREI
AND THEIR PROVENIENCE
BEAD TYPE PROVENIENCE
Glass m-Na-Al 1 Known glass bead production site in Giribawa, Sri Lanka; connections with
Sri Lankan or South Indian production
Glass m-Na-Ca-Al Unknown manufacturing location, possibly manufactured in peninsular
Thailand
Glass v-Na-Ca Composition related to Western (near East or Mediterranean) glass production
Glass Lead Composition related to Chinese glass production
Stone Agate/carnelian Morphology and drilling method suggest South Asian bead production
(western or southern India); raw material source consistent with Deccan
Traps, western India
Stone Garnet Morphology and drilling method suggest South Asian bead production; raw
material source consistent with Garibpet deposit, Telangana, South India
58 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES • 2021 • 60(1)produced in southern India or even SoutheastAsia. The garnet beads are compositionally
tied to southern India, with a drilling method primarily associated with the west Indian
bead industry. Them-Na-Al 1 glass beads are linked to at least onemanufacturing center
in Sri Lanka or South India. The nature of interaction between these areas of South Asia
and the Mekong Delta is not clear, so further work is needed to understand who was
involved in the bead trade and how it was organized. The similar timing in the changes
between different glass and stone beads types suggest that the exchange of stone and glass
beads are linked together. Analyses of additional types of archaeological materials may
help clarify these issues. For example, pottery sherds that are visually similar to those from
Angkor Borei were recently identified at the site of Tissamaharama, Sri Lanka, which
dates to the fourth to fifth centuries C.E. (Schenk 2014).
What is the Importance and Impact of External Maritime
Trade Versus Internal Overland Trade?
As exotic objects, the stone and glass bead data confirm the importance of maritime
trade for communities in the Mekong Delta. The stone beads show strong connections
to South Asian bead traditions and the diversity of glass types suggest contacts with Sri
Lanka and/or South India (m-Na-Al 1), the Middle-East or Mediterranean area
(v-Na-Ca), and China (lead), as well as possible maritime glass bead manufacturing
centers in peninsular Southeast Asia (m-Na-Ca-Al). However, we note that it is not
clear that beads were directly traded from these locations to Angkor Borei. For
example, objects from the Middle East were likely traded via India (Bellina and Glover
2004; Borell et al. 2014).
When viewed regionally, however, the types of stone and glass beads from Angkor
Borei show strong similarities to the bead assemblages of sites farther inland in
Cambodia and Thailand than those from coastal sites such as Phu Khao Thong,
Thailand (Chaisuwan 2011; Dussubieux et al. 2012). As noted earlier, the bead
assemblages from Cambodia and Thailand reveal the presence of two different
exchange networks that seem to have slightly overlapped in time (Carter 2015). During
the late centuries B.C.E. through early centuries C.E., coastal sites and elites were linked
to one another through the exchange of locally produced prestige objects like Dong
SonDrums and nephrite ornaments (Bellina 2017a; Borell 2017; Calo 2014; Hung and
Bellwood 2010; Hung et al. 2007; Hung et al. 2013). During this period, glass beads
largely made from potash glass and high-quality Type 1 stone beads were also
exchanged on this network. This network also appears to include some specific inland
sites such as Prohear and Village 10.8 in southeast Cambodia, which have bead
assemblages that are more strongly associated with the South China Sea exchange
network (including a unique type of garnet bead) despite overlapping in time with
Angkor Borei (Carter 2012, 2015).
By the early centuries C.E., exchange with South Asia was intensifying with the
appearance of lower quality Type 2 stone beads and high quantities of beads made from
high alumina mineral soda glass (Bellina and Glover 2004). These bead types are not
found in large quantities at sites participating in the South China Sea network, but they
dominate the bead assemblages at sites like Angkor Borei and those farther inland such
as Phum Snay and Prei Khmeng in northwest Cambodia and Ban Non Wat and
Phromthin Tai in Northeast and central Thailand respectively (Carter 2015). The bead
assemblages at Angkor Borei and these inland sites differ from those that were
participating in the South China Sea exchange network: there are little to no potash
glass beads, Dong Son bronzes, or nephrite ornaments.
CARTER ET AL. • ANGKOR BOREI AND PROTOHISTORIC TRADE NETWORKS 59What does this mean about the nature of trade in the first millennium C.E. Mekong
Delta? Following the previously discussed models for trade and state development in
Southeast Asia, we argue that control over the exchange of exotic prestige goods, such
as stone and glass beads, was a key factor in the growth of the Mekong Delta as an early
complex polity. As exchange with South Asia intensified (Bellina and Glover 2004),
larger numbers of high alumina mineral soda glass beads were imported, as well as
lower-quality, simpler shaped, and likely mass-produced agate and carnelian beads. We
hypothesize that the greater availability of these objects could have facilitated the
growing power of emerging elites in the Mekong Delta who might have used these
beads to build alliances with inland communities, especially, through riverine
transportation routes (Bronson 1977). In this model, Angkor Borei in particular was
more strongly connected to these inland communities (than to South Asia) as part of
what we call the Mekong Interaction Sphere (MIS). To be sure, the exchange of beads
would have been just one strategy elites could have used to solidify their growing
power, but the widespread trade of beads across Cambodia and Thailand is an indicator
of their importance to communities during this period.
There are other preliminary lines of evidence showing movement of goods and
shared cultural transmission reflected in technological traditions within the MIS.
Studies of ceramics from Angkor Borei and contemporary protohistoric sites have
identified a “Reduced Ceramic Horizon” linking the Mekong Delta, northern
Cambodia, and northeast Thailand by a particular type of ceramic production
technique that was similar in color, surface treatment, and decoration (Stark and
Fehrenbach 2019). Evidence from mid-first millennium C.E. pre-Angkorian
inscriptions also shows the expansion of elite power and relationships between sites
in the Mekong Delta and elites at sites farther inland (Lustig 2009). We argue that the
stone and glass bead data are material indicators that these inland connections began by
at least the late first millennium B.C.E.
This does not preclude the participation in and importance of more outward facing
exchange networks in the emerging complexity of Funan and sites in the Mekong
Delta (Manguin 2019a). Indeed, there are notable similarities in artifacts demonstrating
connections between Oc Eo and sites elsewhere in Southeast Asia, including the Thai-
Malay peninsula (Manguin 2009a), Sumatra (Lucas et al. 1998), Pyu sites in Myanmar
(Bennett 2009), and possibly Dvaravati sites in Thailand (cf. Barram and Glover 2008;
Glover 2010). However, we argue that the bead data from Angkor Borei show
promising patterns and that relationships between communities within the MIS should
also be considered as part of the emerging sociopolitical complexity of this region.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank the Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts in Cambodia which
facilitated the study of the beads from Angkor Borei. Thanks also to Seth Quintus for
discussion of Bayesian modeling of the Vat Komnou cemetery dates and Mike Shand for
assistance with Figure 2. Thanks to Pierre-Yves Manguin for providing materials from
Oc Eo and information on his work at this site. Carter’s research was funded by the Henry
Luce Foundation/ACLS Grants in East and Southeast Asian Archaeology and Early
History Dissertation Fellowship, The Bead Society of Los Angeles, The Portland Bead
Society, The Bead Study Trust, Graduate Women in Science–Beta Chapter, and the
Geological Society of America. SEM was undertaken at the University of Wisconsin
Department of Animal Sciences Microscopy Laboratories and the University of Oregon
CAMCOR laboratory.
APPENDIX A. BURIALS WITH BEADS AT ANGKOR BOREI
a
BURIAL SEX (AGE IN YEARS) GLASS BEADS TOTAL NO.: NO. PER COLOR STONE BEADS NO. OTHER OTHER GRAVE GOODS
NUMBER TYPE ORNAMENTS
(DATABASE ID)
F1 M (YA); M (7–10) 5: 3 yellow, 1 orange, 1 red N/A N/A Ceramics
F2 F? (20–25); M (A); C (5.5–6.5) 1 yellow N/A N/A N/A
F3 F? (MA) 2:1 orange, 1 green N/A N/A Animal rib bone
F4 F (40–50); F? (16–20); F? (Unkn); M 8: 6 green, 1 orange; 1 white/cream N/A N/A Ceramics; pig
(YA); 4 M? (Unkn) remains
F5 F (19–21); M (A); Unkn (12–16) 45: 43 white/cream, 1 orange, 1 red N/A N/A Animal (pig?) bones
F8 M (19–25); F? (MA); C (1–1.5) 29: 13 orange, 7 red, 6 green, 1 blue, 2 N/A N/A N/A
black
F10 M (35–40); M? (A); F? (A); C (7–12) 9: 4 yellow, 3 orange, 2 green N/A N/A N/A
F16 F (25–30); M? (YA); Unkn (12–20) 8: 7 dark blue, 1 yellow 1 garnet N/A N/A
(AKC03030)
F17 2 F? (A); M (30–35); 2 M? (A) 1 opaque dark blue N/A N/A N/A
F20 F? (18–25); F? (10–12); C (9–10) 5 yellow N/A N/A Animal bones;
ceramics
F21 F (17–18); M (30–35); M? (30–50); N/A 1 garnet N/A N/A
Unkn (A) (AKC03032)
F22 F? (YA); C (6–8) 6: 5 orange, 1 red N/A N/A N/A
F25 M? (A); M? (9.5–11) 1 orange N/A N/A N/A
F26 Unkn 1 light green N/A N/A N/A
F27 M (YA) 32: 25 light green, 4 yellow, 1 black, 2 N/A N/A N/A
orange
F30 Part of Burial F35 1 yellow N/A N/A N/A
F31 F? (3–5); M? (25–35) 12: 10 yellow, 1 green, 1 black N/A 1 tooth pendant
F35b F? (17–20); C (3–5) 213: 132 green, 42 black, 19 orange, 15 N/A 4 gold beads
red, 5 yellow
(Continued )
APPENDIX A. (Continued )
a
BURIAL SEX (AGE IN YEARS) GLASS BEADS TOTAL NO.: NO. PER COLOR STONE BEADS NO. OTHER OTHER GRAVE GOODS
NUMBER TYPE ORNAMENTS
(DATABASE ID)
F36 (M 34–35); M? (MA) 218: 133 orange, 47 green, 27 black, 6 N/A 3 tooth pendants Ceramic anvil;
red, 4 purple, 1 white/cream animal bones
F37 M? (YA); M? (18–19) 8: 3 yellow, 1 green-yellow, 3 red, 1 N/A N/A N/A
black
F39 F (YA); M (YA or MA); M? (YA)c 12: 3 orange, 6 green, 1 blue-green, 1 N/A 2 gold beads
light blue, 1 yellow
F42 M? (A) 1 red N/A N/A Ceramics; pig
mandibles
F43 M (45–55+); M (35–45); M? (A?); C 2: 1 orange; 1 green N/A N/A
(7.5–9.5); I
F44 F (35–45); F? (YA) 82: 46 orange, 35 black, 1 dark green 1 carnelian 10 gold beads Animal bones
(AKC03036)
F48 F (30–35); M? (A) 60: 43 orange, 16 black, 1 white 1 garnet AKC03031 N/A
F51 F? (1.5–2) N/A 1 carnelian N/A Animal bones
(AKC03035), 7
opaque white
(not glass?)
F52 F? (MA); F? (6–8) 1 green N/A N/A Animal bones
a F = female, M =male, F? or M? = sex indeterminate; A = adult, YA = young adult, C = child, I = infant, MA=middle-aged; Unkn = unknown age or sex (skeletal data
from Ikehara-Quebral 2010).
b Includes disturbed remains from F30.
cMay be associated with F56.
62 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES • 2021 • 60(1)NOTE
1. AKC03035 was analyzed at the University of Wisconsin Department of Animal Sciences Microscopy
Laboratories; the remaining impressions were analyzed at the University of Oregon CAMCOR
laboratory.REFERENCES CITED
ABRAHAM, SHINU ANNA
2016 Glass beads and glass production in early South India: Contextualizing Indo-Pacific bead
manufacture. Archaeological Research in Asia 6:4–15.
AYMONIER, ETIENNE
1903 Le Fou-Nan [The Fou-Nan] Journal Asiatique 10(1):109–150.
BACUS, E. A.
2000 Political economy and interaction: Archaeological investigations of the Dumaguete polity in
the Central Philippine Islands. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 20:3–13.
BARRAM, ANDREW, AND IAN C. GLOVER
2008 Re-thinking Dvaravati, in From Homo Erectus to the Living Traditions: Choice of Papers from the
11th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists: 175–182,
ed. Jean-Pierre Pautreau, Anne-Sophie Coupey, Valery Zeitoun, and Emma Rambault.
Chiang Mai, Thailand: Siam Ratana.
BELLINA, BÉRÉNICE
2003 Beads, social change and interaction between India and South-east Asia. Antiquity 77
(296):285–297.
2014 Maritime Silk Roads’ ornament industries: Socio-political practices and cultural transfers in the
South China Sea. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 24(3):345–377.
2017a Was there a late prehistoric integrated Southeast Asian maritime space? Insight from settlements
and industries, in Spirits and Ships: 239–272, ed. Andrea Acri, Roger Blench, and Alexandra
Landmann. Singapore: ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.
2017b Khao Sam Kaeo. An Early Port-City between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea. Paris: École
française d’Extrême-Orient.
2018a Development of maritime trade polities and diffusion of the “South China Sea Sphere of
Interaction pan-regional culture”: The Khao Sek excavations and industries’ studies
contribution. Archaeological Research in Asia 13:1–12.
2018b The elaboration of political models in maritime Southeast Asia and of pan-regional culture:
Contribution from Khao Sek stone ornament craft system study. Archaeological Research in Asia
13:13–24.
BELLINA, BÉRÉNICE, AUDE FAVEREAU, AND LAURE DUSSUBIEUX
2019 Southeast Asian early Maritime Silk Road trading polities’ hinterland and the sea-nomads of
the Isthmus of Kra. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 54:102–120.
BELLINA, BÉRÉNICE, AND IAN GLOVER
2004 The archaeology of early contact with India and the Mediterranean world, from the fourth
century BC to the fourth century AD, in Southeast Asia: From Prehistory to History: 68–87, ed.
Ian Glover and Peter Bellwood. New York: RoutledgeCurzon.
BENNETT, ANNA T. N.
2009 Gold in early Southeast Asia. ArcheoSciences: Revue d’archéométrie (33):99–107.
BISHOP, PAUL, DAN PENNY, MIRIAM STARK, AND MARIAN SCOTT
2003 A 3.5 ka record of paleoenvironments and human occupation at Angkor Borei, Mekong Delta,
Southern Cambodia. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 18(3):359–393.
BLANTON, RICHARD E., GARY M. FEINMAN, STEPHAN A. KOWALEWSKI, AND PETER N. PEREGRINE
1996 A dual-processual theory for the evolution of Mesoamerican civilization. Current Anthropology
37(1):1–14.
CARTER ET AL. • ANGKOR BOREI AND PROTOHISTORIC TRADE NETWORKS 63BORELL, BRIGITTE
2017 Gemstones in Southeast Asia and beyond: Trade along the maritime networks, in Gemstones in
the First Millennium AD: Mines, Trade, Workshops and Symbolism: 21–44, ed. Alexandra Hilgner,
Susanne Greiff, and Dieter Quast. Mainz: Verlag des R€omisch-Germanischen Zentralmu-
seums.
BORELL, BRIGITTE, BERENICE BELLINA, AND BOONYARIT CHAISUWAN
2014 Contacts between the Upper Thai-Malay Peninsula and the Mediterranean world, in Before
Siam: Essays in Art and Archaeology, 99–117, ed. Nicholas Revire and Stephen Murphy.
Bangkok: River Books.
BRILL, ROBERT
1999a Chemical Analyses of Early Glasses, Volume 1: Catalogue of Samples. NewYork: CorningMuseum
of Glass.
1999b Chemical Analyses of Early Glasses, Volume 2: The Tables. NewYork: Corning Museum of Glass.
BRONSON, BENNET
1977 Exchange at the upstream and downstream ends: Notes toward a functional model of the
coastal state in Southeast Asia, in Economic Exchange and Social Interaction in Southeast Asia:
39–52, ed. Karl Hutterer. Ann Arbor: Michigan Southeast Asian Studies.
BRUMFIEL, ELIZABETH, AND TIMOTHY EARLE
1987 Specialization, exchange, and complex societies: An introduction, in Specialization, Exchange,
and Complex Societies: 1–9, ed. Elizabeth Brumfiel and Timothy Earle. Cambridge: Cambridge
Univeristy Press.
CALO, AMBRA
2014 Trails of Bronze Drums across Early Southeast Asia: Exchange Routes and Connected Cultural Spheres.
Singapore: ISEAS.
CARTER, ALISON KYRA
2010 Trade and exchange networks in Iron Age Cambodia: Preliminary results from a compositional
analysis of glass beads. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 30:178–188.
2012 Garnet beads in Southeast Asia: Evidence for local production? in Crossing Borders: Selected
Papers from the 13th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian
Archaeologists, Volume 1: 296–306, ed. Dominik Bonatz, Andreas Reinecke, and Mia Lin Tjoa-
Bonatz. Singapore: NUS.
2013 Trade, Exchange, and, Sociopolitical Development in Iron Age (500 BC–AD 500) Mainland
Southeast Asia: An Examination of Stone and Glass Beads from Cambodia and Thailand. Ph.D.
diss. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
2015 Beads, exchange networks and emerging complexity: A case study from Cambodia and
Thailand (500 B.C.E.–C.E. 500). Cambridge Archaeological Journal 25(4):733–757.
2016a Determining the provenience of garnet beads using LA-ICP-MS, in Recent Advances in Laser
Ablation ICP-MS for Archaeology: 235–266, ed. Laure Dussubieux, Mark Golitko, and Bernard
Gratuze. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
2016b The production and exchange of glass and stone beads in Southeast Asia from 500 B.C.E. to the
early second millennium C.E.: An assessment of the work of Peter Francis in light of recent
research. Archaeological Research in Asia 6:16–29.
2020 Angkor Borei bead dataset: Glass Contexts; Stone Contexts; Glass Compositions archived at
Scholars’ Bank: Data (University of Oregon), Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:CEq9JOn-
FRe9uOgiqXp1zhg== [fileUNF]. doi: 10.7910/DVN/CUYVI2.
CARTER, ALISON KYRA, AND LAURE DUSSUBIEUX
2016 Geologic provenience analysis of agate and carnelian beads using laser ablation-inductively
coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS): A case study from Iron Age Cambodia and
Thailand. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 6:321–331.
CARTER, ALISON KYRA, LAURE DUSSUBIEUX, AND NANCY BEAVAN
2016 Glass beads from 15th–17th century C.E. jar burial sites in Cambodia’s Cardamom Mountains.
Archaeometry 58(3):401–412.
CARTER, ALISON KYRA, LAURE DUSSUBIEUX, MARTIN POLKINGHORNE, AND CHRISTOPHE POTTIER
2019 Glass artifacts at Angkor: Evidence for exchange. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences
11(3):1013–1027.
64 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES • 2021 • 60(1)CARTER, ALISON KYRA, AND NAM C. KIM
2017 Globalization at the dawn of history: The emergence of global cultures in theMekong andRed
River Deltas, in The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization: 730–750, ed. Tamar
Hodos. New York: Routledge.
CARTER, ALISON KYRA, AND JAMES LANKTON
2012 Analysis and comparison of glass beads from Ban NonWat and Noen U-Loke, in The Origins of
Angkor, Volume 6: The Iron Age: Summary and Conclusions, 91–114, ed. Charles Higham and
Amphan Kijngam. Bangkok: Fine Arts Department of Thailand.
CHAISUWAN, BOONYARIT
2011 Early contacts between India and the Andaman Coast in Thailand from the second century B.C.
E. to eleventh century C.E., in Early Interactions Between South and Southeast Asia. Reflections on
Cross-Cultural Exchange: 83–112, ed. Pierre-Yves Manguin, A. Mani, and Geoff Wade.
Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.
CHRISTIE, JAN WISSEMAN
1990 Trade and state formation in the Malay Peninsula and Sumatra, 300 BC–AD 700, in The
Southeast Asian Port and Polity: Rise and Demise: 39–60, ed. J. Kathrithamby-Wells and J. Villiers.
Singapore: Singapore University Press.
1995 State formation in early maritime Southeast Asia: A consideration of the theories and the data.
Bigdragen Tot de Taal-, Land- En Volkenkunde 151:235–288.
COEDÈS, GEORGE
1968 The Indianized States of Southeast Asia. Honolulu: The University of Hawai‘i Press.
CONINGHAM, ROBIN, DANIELLA BURRONI, RANDOLPH DONAHUE, AND LOUISE FORD
2006 Stone objects, in Anuradhapura: The British-Sri Lankan Excavations at Anuradhapura Salgaha
Watta 2: 377–413, ed. Robin Coningham. Oxford: Archaeopress.
D’ALTROY, TERENCE, AND TIMOTHY EARLE
1985 Staple finance, wealth finance and storage in the Inka political economy. Current Anthropology
26(2):187–206.
DEGRYSE, P., A. BOYCE, N. ERB-SATULLO, K. EREMIN, S. KIRK, R. SCOTT, A. J. SHORTLAND, J. SCHNEIDER,
AND M. WALTON
2010 Isotopic discriminants between Late Bronze Age glasses from Egypt and the Near East.
Archaeometry 52(3):380–388.
DOWLING, NANCY H.
1999 A new date for the PhnomDa images and its implications for early Cambodia.Asian Perspectives
38(1):51–61.
DUSSUBIEUX, LAURE
2001 L’Apport de l’ablation laser couplée à l’ICP-MS à la caractérisation des verres: Application à
l’étude du verre de l’océan Indien [The Contribution of Laser Ablation Coupled with ICP-MS
to the Characterization of Glasses: Application from the Study of Glass from the Indian Ocean].
Ph.D. diss. Université d’Orléans.
DUSSUBIEUX, LAURE, AND BÉRÉNICE BELLINA
2018 Glass ornament production and trade polities in the Upper-Thai Peninsula during the Early
Iron Age. Archaeological Research in Asia March(13):25–36.
DUSSUBIEUX, LAURE, AND BERNARD GRATUZE
2010 Glass in Southeast Asia, in 50 Years of Archaeology in Southeast Asia. Essays in honour of Ian Glover:
247–260, ed. Berenice Bellina, Elisabeth A. Bacus, Thomas Oliver Pryce, and Jan Wisseman
Christie. Bangkok: River Books.
2013 Glass in South Asia, in Modern Methods for Analysing Archaeological and Historic Glass: 397–412,
ed. Koen Janssens. West Sussex: Wiley and Sons.
DUSSUBIEUX, LAURE, BERNARD GRATUZE, AND MARYSE BLET-LEMARQUAND
2010 Mineral soda alumina glass: Occurrence and meaning. Journal of Archaeological Science 37
(7):1646–1655.
DUSSUBIEUX, LAURE, BERNARD GRATUZE, AND MARYSE BLET-MAMARQUAND
2011 Innovation dans les techniques de coloration: les verres rouges et orange en Asie du Sud
[Innovation in coloring techniques: Red and orange glasses in South Asia], in Actes du deuxième
colloque international de l&association Verre & Histoire, Nancy 26–28 mars 2009 [Proceedings of the
CARTER ET AL. • ANGKOR BOREI AND PROTOHISTORIC TRADE NETWORKS 65Second International Colloquium of the Association Glass and History, Nancy 26–28 March
2009]: 11–20, ed. S. Lagabrielle and C. Maitte. Paris: Verre & Histoire.
DUSSUBIEUX, LAURE, C. M. KUSIMBA, V. GOGTE, S. B. KUSIMBA, B. GRATUZE, AND R. OKA
2008 The trading of ancient glass beads: New analytical data from South Asian and East African soda-
alumina glass beads. Archaeometry 50(5):797–821.
DUSSUBIEUX, LAURE, JAMES W. LANKTON, BELLINA-PRYCE BERENICE, AND BOONYARIT CHAISUWAN.
2012 Early glass trade in South and Southeast Asia: New insights from two coastal sites, Phu Khao
Thong in Thailand and Arikamedu in South India, in Crossing Borders: Selected Papers from the
13th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists, Volume 1:
307–328, ed. Mai-Lin Tjoa-Bonatz, Andreas Reinecke, and Dominik Bonatz. Singapore:
NUS Press.
DUSSUBIEUX, LAURE, AND THOMAS OLIVER PRYCE
2016 Myanmar’s role in Iron Age interaction networks linking Southeast Asia and India: Recent glass
and copper-base metal exchange research from the Mission Archéologique Française au
Myanmar. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 5:598–614.
DUSSUBIEUX, LAURE, PETER ROBERTSHAW, AND MICHEAL D. GLASCOCK
2009 LA-ICP-MS analysis of African glass beads: Laboratory inter-comparison with an emphasis on
the impact of corrosion on data interpretation. International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 284
(1):152–161.
FRANCIS JR., PETER
1990a “Children” of Indo-Pacific beads. Ornament 13(4):70–78.
1990b Glass beads in Asia: Part Two. Indo-Pacific beads. Asian Perspectives 29(1):1–23.
1991 Beadmaking at Arikamedu and beyond. World Archaeology 23(1):28–43.
1992 Heirlooms of the Hills (Southeast Asia). Lake Placid: Lapis Route Books.
1996 Beads, the bead trade, and state development in Southeast Asia, in Ancient Trades and Cultural
Contacts in Southeast Asia: 139–160, ed. Nandana Chutiwongs. Bangkok: The Office of the
National Culture Commission.
2000 The stone bead industry of southern India. Beads 12–13:49–62.
2002 Asia’s Maritime Bead Trade: 300 B.C. to the Present. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
FUXI, GAN
2009 Origin and evolution of ancient Chinese glass, in Ancient Glass Research Along the Silk Road:
1–40, ed. Gan Fuxi, Robert Brill, and Tian Shoutun. Singapore: World Scientific.
GLOVER, IAN C.
1989 Early Trade between India and Southeast Asia: A Link in the Development of a World Trading System.
Occasional Paper 16. Hull: Centre for South-East Asian Studies.
2010 The Dvaravati gap: Linking prehistory and history in early Thailand. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific
Prehistory Association 30:79–86.
GORELICK, LEONARD, AND A. JOHN GWINNETT
1988 Diamonds from India to Rome and beyond. American Journal of Archaeology 92(4):547–552.
GRATUZE, BERNARD
1999 Obsidian characterization by laser ablation ICP-MS and its application to prehistoric trade in
the Mediterranean and the Near East: Sources and distribution of obsidian within the Aegean
and Anatolia. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:869–881.
GRATUZE, BERNARD
2001 Study of Glass Objects from the Wrecked Junk of Brunei. Report on file at Institut de Recherche sur
les Archéomatériaux [IRAMAT]. Orléans: IRAMAT, Centre Ernest Babelon, Centre
National de la Recherche Scientifique.
2005 Etude d’Objects en Verre Provenant des sites Cambodgiens de Phum-Snay et Samrong-Sen [Study of
Glass Objects from the Cambodian sites of Phum Snay and Samrong Sen]. Report on file at
Institut de Recherche sur les Archéomatériaux [IRAMAT]. Orléans: IRAMAT, Centre Ernest
Babelon, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.
GUPTA, SUNIL
2003 From archaeology to art in the material record of Southeast Asia: The Indianization
phenomenon reviewed, in Fishbones and Glittering Emblems: Southeast Asian Archaeology 2002:
66 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES • 2021 • 60(1)391–404, ed. Anna Karlstrom and Anna Kallen. Stockholm: Museum of Far Eastern
Antiquities.
GUY, JOHN
2011 Tamil merchants and the Hindu-Buddhist diaspora in early Southeast Asia, in Early Interactions
between South and Southeast Asia: Reflections on Cross-Cultural Exchange: 243–262, ed. Pierre-
Yves Manguin, A. Mani, and Geoff Wade. Singapore: ISEAS, Yusof Ishak Institute.
HALL, KENNETH R.
1982 The “Indianization” of Funan: An economic history of Southeast Asia’s first state. Journal of
Southeast Asian Studies 13(1):81–106.
1985 Chapter 3. The “Indianization” of Funan, Southeast Asia’s first state, inMaritime Trade and State
Development in Early Southeast Asia: 48–77, Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
HANNIBAL-DERANIYAGALA, ANNE SIBYLLE
2001 Beads from Tissamaharama: A typology of Sri Lankan glass and semi-precious stone beads, in
Ancient Ruhuna: Sri Lankan-German Archaeological Project in the Southern Province, vol. 1: 203–226,
ed. H.-J. Weisshaar, H. Roth, and W. Wijeyapala. Mainz am Rhein: Von Zabern.
2005 Beads from Anuradhapura and Tissmaharama, Sri Lanka: Trade contacts in the early historic
period. Journal of Indian Ocean Archaeology 2:21–24.
HUNG, HSIAO-CHUN, AND PETER BELLWOOD
2010 Movement of raw materials and manufactured goods across the South China Sea after 500 B.C.
E.: From Taiwan to Thailand, and back, in 50 Years of Archaeology in Southeast Asia: Essays in
Honour of Ian Glover: 234–246, ed. Berenice Bellina, Elisabeth A. Bacus, Thomas Oliver Pryce,
and Jan Wisseman Christie. Bangkok: River Books.
HUNG, HSIAO-CHUN, YOSHIYUKI LIZUKA, PETER BELLWOOD, KIM DUNG NGUYEN, BERENICE BELLINA,
PRAON SILAPANTH, EUSEBIO DIZON, REY SANTIAGO, IPOI DATAN, AND JONATHAN MANTON
2007 Ancient Jades map 3000 years of prehistoric exchange in Southeast Asia. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 104(50):19745–19750.
HUNG, HSIAO-CHUN, KIM DUNG NGUYEN, PETER BELLWOOD, AND MIKE T. CARSON
2013 Coastal connectivity: Long-term trading networks across the South China Sea. Journal of Island
and Coastal Archaeology 8(3):384–404.
IKEHARA-QUEBRAL, RONA M.
2010 An Assessment of Health in Early Historic (200 BC to AD 200) Inhabitants of Vat Komnou,
Angkor Borei, Southern Cambodia: A Bioarchaeological Perspective. Ph.D. diss. University of
Hawai‘i at Mānoa.
IKEHARA-QUEBRAL, RONA M., MIRIAM T. STARK, WILLIAM BELCHER, VUTHY VOEUN, JOHN R. KRIGBAUM,
R. ALEXANDER BENTLEY, MICHELE TOOMAY DOUGLAS, AND MICHAEL PIETRUSEWSKY
2017 Biocultural practices during the transition to history at the Vat Komnou Cemetery, Angkor
Borei, Cambodia. Asian Perspectives 56(2):191–236.
ISHIZAWA, YOSHIAKI
1995 Chinese chronicles of 1st–5th century AD, Funan, Southern Cambodia, in South East Asia and
China: Art, Interaction and Commerce: 11–31, ed. Rosemary Scott and John Guy. London:
University of London, Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art.
JACKSON, CAROLINE M., AND SALLY COTTAM
2015 “A green thought in a green shade”: Compositional and typological observations concerning
the production of emerald green glass vessels in the 1st century A.D. Journal of Archaeological
Science 61:139–148.
JACOB, J. M.
1979 Pre-Angkor Cambodia: Evidence from the inscriptions concerning the common people and
their environment, in Early South East Asia: Essays in Archaeology, History, and Historical
Geography: 406–424, ed. R. B. Smith and W. Watson. New York: Oxford University Press.
JACQUES, CLAUDE, AND PHILIPPE LAFOND
2007 The Khmer Empire: Cities and Sanctuaries from the 5th to the 13th Century. Bangkok: River Books.
JUNKER, LAURA L.
1994 Trade competition, conflict, and political transformations in sixth- to sixteenth-century
Philippine chiefdoms. Asian Perspectives 33(2):230–260.
1999 Raiding, Trading, and Feasting: The Political Economy of Philippine Chiefdoms. Honolulu:
University of Hawai‘i Press.
CARTER ET AL. • ANGKOR BOREI AND PROTOHISTORIC TRADE NETWORKS 67KANUNGO, ALOK
2000 Glass beads in Indian archaeology: An ethnoarchaeological approach. Bulletin of the Deccan
College Research Institute 60(61):337–353.
KELLY, GWENDOLYN O.
2009 Craft production technology during the iron age to early historic transition at Kodumanal,
Tamil Nadu. Tamil Civilization 23:1–14.
2016 Heterodoxy, orthodoxy and communities of practice: Stone bead and ornament production in
early historic South India (c. 400 B.C.E.–400 C.E.). Archaeological Research in Asia 6:30–50.
KENOYER, JONATHAN MARK
2017 Using SEM to study stone bead technology, in Stone Beads of South and Southeast Asia:
Archaeology, Ethnography, and Global Connections: 409–437, ed. Alok Kanungo Kanungo. New
Delhi: Aryan Books International.
KENOYER, JONATHAN MARK, MASSIMO VIDALE, AND KULDEEP KUMAR BHAN
1991 Contemporary stone bead making in Khambhat India: Patterns of craft specialization and
organization of production as reflected in the archaeological record. World Archaeology
23(1):44–63.
KIM, GYU HO, JI HYEON YUN, OH YOUNG KWON, JUN YOUNG PARK, AND THI HA NGUYEN
2016 A study on the material and characteristics of glass beads from Oc Eo site, Vietnam.
MUNHWAJAE: Korean Journal of Cultural Heritage Studies 49(2):68–83.
KIPP, RICH, AND EDWARD SCHORTMANN
1989 The political impact of trade in chiefdoms. American Anthropologist 91(2):370–385.
LANKTON, JAMES, AND LAURE DUSSUBIEUX
2006 Early glass in Asian maritime trade: A review and an interpretation of compositional analysis.
Journal of Glass Studies 48:121–144.
2013 Early glass in Southeast Asia, in Modern Methods for Analysing Archaeological and Historic Glass:
415–457, ed. Koen Janssens. West Sussex: Wiley and Sons.
LANKTON, JAMES W., LAURE DUSSUBIEUX, AND THILO REHREN
2008 A study of mid-first millennium C.E. Southeast Asian specialized glass beadmaking traditions, in
Interpreting Southeast Asia’s Past: Monument, Image, and Text: 335–356, ed. Elisabeth Bacus, Ian
C. Glover, and Peter D. Sharrock. Singapore: NUS Press.
LUCAS, P. K., P.-Y. MANGUIN, AND M. P. SOEROSO
1998 Kota Kapur (Bangka, Indonesia): A pre-Sriwijiayan site reascertained, in Southeast Asian
Archaeology 1994: 147–159, ed. P.-Y. Manguin. Hull: University of Hull Centre for Southeast
Asian Studies.
LUSTIG, EILEEN
2009 Money doesn’t make the world go round: Angkor’s non-monetisation. Research in Economic
Anthropology 29:165–199.
MALLERET, LOUIS
1960 L’Archéologie du Delta du Mékong, Part 2: La Civilisation Matérielle d’Oc-Èo [The Archaeology of
the Mekong Delta, Part 2: The Material Civilization of Oc Eo]. Paris: École Française
d’Extrême-Orient.
1962 L’Archéologie du Delta du Mékong, Part 3: La Culture du Fou-Nan [The Archaeology of the
Mekong Delta, Part 3: The Culture of Fou-Nan]. Paris: École Française d’Extrême-Orient.
MANGUIN, PIERRE-YVES
2002 The amorphous nature of coastal polities in insular Southeast Asia: Restricted centres,
extended peripheries. Moussons (5):73–99.
2004 The early maritime polities of Southeasat Asia, in Southeast Asia: From Prehistory to History:
282–313, ed. Ian Glover and Peter Bellwood. New York and London: RoutledgeCurzon.
2009a The archaeology of Fu Nan in the Mekong River Delta: The Oc Eo Culture of Viet Nam, in
Arts of Ancient Viet Nam: From River Plain to Open Sea: 100–118, ed. Nancy Tingley. New
Haven: Yale Univeristy Press.
2009b Southeast Sumatra in Protohistoric and Srivijaya Times: Upstream-downstream relations and
the settlement of the Peneplain, in From Distant Tales: Archaeology and Ethnohistory in the
Highlands of Sumatra: 434–484, ed. Dominik Bonatz, JohnMiksic, J. David Neidel, andMai Lin
Tjoa-Bonatz. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
68 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES • 2021 • 60(1)2010 Pan-regional responses to South Asian inputs in early Southeast Asia, in 50 Years of Archaeology
in Southeast Asia: Essays in Honour of Ian Glover: 171–182, ed. Bérénice Bellina, Elisabeth Bacus,
Thomas Oliver Pryce, and Jan Wisseman Christie. Bangkok: River Books.
2019a Protohistoric and early historic exchange in the eastern Indian ocean: A re-evaluation of
current paradigms, in Early Global Interconnectivity Across the Indian Ocean World, Volume 1.
Commercial Structures and Exchanges: 99–120, ed. Angela Schottenhammer. Cham, Switzerland:
Palgrave Macmillan.
2019b The transmission of Vaisnavism across the Bay of Bengal: Trade networks and state formation
in early historic Southe_a_st Asia, in Early Global Interconnectivity across the Indian Ocean World,
Volume 2: Exchange of Ideas, Religions, and Technologies: 51–68, ed. Angela Schottenhammer.
Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
MIRTI, PIERO, MARCO PACE, MERY MALANDRINO, AND MARIAMADDALENA NEGRO PONZI
2009 Sasanian glass from Veh Ardasir: New evidences by ICP-MS analysis. Journal of Archaeological
Science 36:1061–1069.
MIRTI, PIERO, MARCO PACE, MARIAMADDALENA NEGRO PONZI, AND M. ACETO
2008 ICP-MS analysis of glass fragments of Parthian and Sasanian Epoch from Seleucia and Veh
Ardasir (Central Iraq). Archaeometry 50(3):429–450.
NENNA, MARIE-DOMINIQUE, AND BERNARD GRATUZE
2009 Etude diachronique des compositions de verres employés dans les vases mosaïqués antiques:
résultats préliminaires [Diachronic study of glass compositions used in antique mosaic vases:
Preliminary results], in Annales du 17e Congres de l’Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du
Verre [Annals of the 17th Congress of the International Association for the History of Glass]:
199–205, ed. K. Janssens, Patrick Degryse, P. Cosyns, J. Caen, and L. Van’t dack. Antwerp:
University Press Antwerp.
NGUYEN, KIM DUNG
2001 Jewellry from late prehistoric sites recently excavated in South Vietnam. Bulletin of the Indo-
Pacific Prehistory Association 21:107–113.
PARIS, PIERRE
1931 Anciens canaux reconnus sur photographies aériennes dans les provinces de Ta-Kev et de
Chau-Doc [Ancient canals recognized on aerial photographs in the provinces of Ta-Kev and
Chau-Doc]. Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient 31:221–224.
PELLIOT, PAUL
1903 Le Fou-Nan [The Fou-Nan]. Paris: Ecole Française d’Extrême-Orient.
RAJAN, K.
2009 Archaeological Excavations at Porunthal 2009. Pondicherry, India: Pondicherry University.
RAY, HIMANSHU PRAHBHA
1989 Early maritime contacts between South and Southeast Asia. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 20
(1):42–54.
1996 Early trans-oceanic contacts between South and Southeast Asia, in Ancient Trades and Cultural
Contacts in Southeast Asia: 43–94, ed. Nandana Chutiwongs. Bangkok: The Office of the
National Culture Commission.
REHREN, T., AND E. B. PUSCH
2005 Late Bronze Age glass production at Qantir-Piramesses, Egypt. Science 308(5729):1756–1758.
REINECKE, ANDREAS
2012 The prehistoric occupation and cultural characteristics of the Mekong Delta during the Pre-
Funan periods, in Crossing Borders: Selected Papers from the 13th International Conference of the
European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists, vol. 1: 239–256, ed. Mai Lin Tjoa-Bonatz,
Andreas Reinecke, and Dominik Bonatz. Singapore: NUS Press.
RENFREW, COLIN, AND STEPHAN SHENNAN, EDS.
1982 Ranking, Resource, and Exchange: Aspects of the Archaeology of Early European Society. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
ROSENOW, DANIELA, AND THILO REHREN
2018 A view from the South: Roman and Late Antique glass from Armant, Upper Egypt, in Things
that Travelled: Mediterranean Glass in the First Millennium AD: 283–323, ed. Daniela Rosenow,
Matt Phelps, Andrew Meek, and Ian Freestone. London: UCL Press.
CARTER ET AL. • ANGKOR BOREI AND PROTOHISTORIC TRADE NETWORKS 69SABLOFF, JEREMY A., AND C. C. LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY, EDS.
1975 Ancient Civilization and Trade. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
SCHENK, HEIDRUN
2014 Tissamaharama pottery sequence and the early historic Maritime Silk Route across the Indian
Ocean. Zeitschrift für Archäologie Außereuropäischer Kulturen 6:95–117.
SCHMETZER, KARL, H. ALBERT GILG, ULRICH SCHU€ SSLER, JAYSHREE PANJIKAR, THOMAS CALLIGARO, AND
PATRICK PÉRIN
2017 The linkage between garnets found in India at the Arikamedu archaeological site and their
source at the Garibpet deposit. Journal of Gemmology 35(7):598–627.
SCHORTMAN, EDWARD M., AND PATRICIA A. URBAN
1996 Actions at a distance, impacts at home: Prestige good theory and a Pre-Columbian polity in
southeastern Mesoamerica, in Pre-Columbian World Systems: 97–114, ed. Peter N. Peregrine
and Gary M. Feinman. Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.
2004 Modeling the roles of craft production in ancient political economies. Journal of Archaeological
Research 12(2):185–226.
SELVAKUMAR, V.
2011 Contacts between India and Southeast Asia in ceramic and boat building traditions, in Early
Interactions between South and Southeast Asia: Reflections on Cross-Cultural Exchange: 197–220, ed.
Pierre-Yves Manguin, A. Mani, and Geoff Wade. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian
Studies.
SHEWAN, LOUISE, RONA M. IKEHARA-QUEBRAL, MIRIAM T. STARK, RICHARDARMSTRONG, DOUGALD J. W.
O’REILLY, VOEUN VUTHY, TOOMAY DOUGLAS, AND MICHAEL PIETRUSEWSKY
2020 Resource utilisation and regional interaction in protohistoric Cambodia: The evidence from
Angkor Borei. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 31(12289):n.p. doi: 10.1016/j.
jasrep.2020.102289.
SHORTLAND, A. J., S. KIRK, K. EREMIN, P. DEGRYSE, AND M. WALTON
2018 The analysis of late Bronze Age glass fromNuzi and the question of the origin of glass-making.
Archaeometry 60(4):764–783.
SHORTLAND, A., L. SCHACHNER, I. FREESTONE, AND M. TITE
2006 Natron as a flux in the early vitreous materials industry: Sources, beginnings and reasons for
decline. Journal of Archaeological Science 33(4):521–530.
SMIRNIOU, M., AND T. REHREN
2011 Direct evidence of primary glass production in late Bronze Age Amarna, Egypt. Archaeometry
53(1):58–80.
SMIRNIOU, M., T. REHREN, AND B. GRATUZE
2017 Lisht as a New Kingdom glass-making site with its own chemical signature. Archaeometry 60
(3):502–516.
SMITH, MONICA L.
1999 “Indianization” from the Indian point of view: Trade and cultural contacts with Southeast Asia
in the early first millennium C.E. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 42
(1):1–26.
2006 The archaeology of South Asian cities. Journal of Archaeological Research 14(2):97–142.
STARK, MIRIAM T.
1998 The transition to history in the Mekong Delta: A view from Cambodia. International Journal of
Historical Archaeology 2(3):175–203.
2001 Some preliminary results of the 1999–2000 archaeological field investigations at Angkor Borei,
Takeo Province. Udaya. The Journal of Khmer Studies 2:19–35.
2004 Pre-Angkorian and Angkorian Cambodia, in Southeast Asia: From Prehistory to History: 89–119,
ed. Ian Glover and Peter Bellwood. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
2006a Early mainland Southeast Asian landscapes in the first millennium A.D. Annual Review in
Anthropology 35:407–432.
2006b From Funan to Angkor: Collapse and regeneration in ancient Cambodia, in After Collapse: The
Regeneration of Complex Societies: 144–167, ed. Glenn M Schwartz and John J Nichols. Tucson:
The University of Arizona Press.
70 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES • 2021 • 60(1)STARK, MIRIAM T., AND SOVATH BONG
2001 Recent research on emergent complexity in Cambodia’s Mekong. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific
Prehistory Association Bulletin 21:85–98.
STARK, MIRIAM T., AND SHAWN FEHRENBACH
2019 Earthenware Ceramic Technologies of Angkor Borei, Cambodia. Udaya, Journal of Khmer
Studies 19:109–135.
STARK, MIRIAM T., P. BION GRIFFIN, CHUCH PHOEURN, JUDY LEDGERWOOD, MICHAEL DEGA, CAROL
MORTLAND, NANCY DOWLING, JAMES BAYMAN, BONG SOVATH, TEA VAN, CHHAN CHAMROEUN, AND KYLE
LATANIS
1999 Results of the 1995–1996 archaeological field investigations at Angkor Borei, Cambodia.Asian
Perspectives 38(1):7–36.
STARK, MIRIAM T., DAVID SANDERSON, AND ROBERT G. BINGHAM
2006 Monumentality in the Mekong: Luminescence dating and implications. Bulletin of the Indo-
Pacific Prehistory Association 26:110–120.
THEUNISSEN, ROBERT GEORGE, PETER GRAVE, AND GRAHAME BAILEY
2000 Doubts on diffusion: Challenging the assumed Indian origin of Iron Age agate and carnelian
beads in Southeast Asia. World Archaeology 32(1):84–105.
TITE, M. S., AND A. J. SHORTLAND
2003 Production technology for copper- and cobalt-blue vitreous materials from the NewKingdom
site of Amarna: A reappraisal. Archaeometry 45(2):285–312.
VANNA, LY
2007 Chemical characterization of glass beads from the Iron Age site of Snay, northwestern
Cambodia, in Regional Diversity in Archaeology: Southeast Asia Region, 347–359, ed. Masako
Marui. Tokyo: Yuzankaku.
VICKERY, MICHAEL
1998 Society, Economics, and Politics in Pre-Angkor Cambodia: The 7th and 8th Centuries. Tokyo: The
Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies for Unesco.
2003 Funan reviewed: Deconstructing the ancients. Bulletin de l’Ecole Francaise d’Extrême-Orient
90–91:101–143.
WELLS, E. CHRISTIAN
2006 Recent trends in theorizing prehispanic Mesoamerican economies. Journal of Archaeological
Research 14(4):265–312.
WU, CHUNMING
2019 A synthetic analysis of the Neolithic origins of eastern and southeastern Asia’s Maritime Silk
Road, in Prehistoric Maritime Cultures and Seafaring in East Asia: 3–40, ed. Chunming Wu and
Barry Vladimir Rolett. Singapore: Springer