2017
DOI: 10.1007/s12520-017-0586-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Glass artifacts at Angkor: evidence for exchange

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is assumed that these glass artefacts were manufactured outside Africa and imported from regions that were known to have produced v-Na-Al glass. Possible sources are Central Asia, such as Kuva and Akhsiket in eastern Uzbekistan, suggested by Dussubieux and Kusimba [8], Then-Obluska and Dussubieux [41] and Carter et al [42]; India and southeast Asia have also previously been suggested as the possible production regions for v-Na-Al glass [4,8,24,29,43]. However, the lack of archaeological and archaeometric data on sub-Saharan African glass means that we cannot fully rule out the possibility that v-Na-Al glass could have been made and/or worked into glass vessels and beads in Africa, although this seems unlikely.…”
Section: Plos Onementioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is assumed that these glass artefacts were manufactured outside Africa and imported from regions that were known to have produced v-Na-Al glass. Possible sources are Central Asia, such as Kuva and Akhsiket in eastern Uzbekistan, suggested by Dussubieux and Kusimba [8], Then-Obluska and Dussubieux [41] and Carter et al [42]; India and southeast Asia have also previously been suggested as the possible production regions for v-Na-Al glass [4,8,24,29,43]. However, the lack of archaeological and archaeometric data on sub-Saharan African glass means that we cannot fully rule out the possibility that v-Na-Al glass could have been made and/or worked into glass vessels and beads in Africa, although this seems unlikely.…”
Section: Plos Onementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Methodological advances in the dating of archaeological materials over the past 70 years have greatly improved regional and site chronologies worldwide, resulting in more refined interpretations of past behavior (e.g., Kennett et al 2014; Manning et al 2018; Sanchez et al 2018; Waters and Stafford 2007; Yates et al 2015). Meanwhile, analytical techniques for identifying artifact composition to trace patterns of exchange and migration have become increasingly affordable and less invasive (e.g., Carter et al 2019; Hill 2012; Reslewic and Burton 2002; Tykot 2016). Although the value of excavating new sites need not be stated, curated archaeological assemblages can also provide new information about past lifeways when reevaluated with updated dating techniques (Lovis 1990; Sanchez et al 2018).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More recently, however, this glass type was identified in the form of red and orange beads found at Pulau Kampai, Malaysia, which dates to the 11th–14th centuries ce (Dussubieux and Soedewo 2018) and at Angkor Thom, Cambodia (12th–14th centuries ce ) (Carter et al . 2019). Hypotheses about the provenance of m‐Na‐Al 4 glass are based on the similarity of its composition to that of m‐Na‐Al 3 glass: both have significantly higher Cs and fairly high U concentrations compared with the other m‐Na‐Al glass types.…”
Section: Ancient Glass In South Asiamentioning
confidence: 99%